.9 
 
 mm 
 
 > 
 
 
 r 
 1 
 
 ' > p 
 
 
 k.: , - 
 
 "mm 
 
 ) ' 
 
 
 
 
 1> 3 
 
 ^ii>: 
 
 ■?> V) 3 
 
 lj?^: 
 
 3AP 
 
 
 afe^ 
 
 [>0 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 »• ... 
 
 33 
 
 D 3J» 
 
 
ot ^^« ^^'^'Sic^t ^ 
 
 -f\v 
 
 ^. 
 
 '""It, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 % 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelplila, Pa. 
 
 Agnciv Coll. on Bapiisni, No. 
 
 
 M 
 
T HE 
 
 v^ A. 
 
 O F 
 
 In Five QUESTIONS. 
 
 I. Whether Infants are uncapable of Baptifm? 
 
 II. Whether Infants are excluded from Baptifm by 
 Chrirt> 
 
 III. Whether it is lawful to feperate from a Church, 
 which appointeth Infants to be Baptifed ? 
 
 IV. Whether it be the Duty of Chriftian Parents to 
 bring their Children unto Baptifm } 
 
 V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Belie- 
 vers, who were Baptized in their Infancy ? 
 
 ~ywi^ 
 
 LONDON, 
 
 Printed for Tho. Baffet^ at the George in Fket-flreet $ 
 Benj, Tooke^ at the Shi^ in St. Pauls Church-yard 5 
 and F. GW?>er, ^tthe White-Horfe in ^ 
 
 Ludgate-Jireet f 1683. 
 
C I ) 
 
 
 THE W- 'J* * • 
 
 v_/ A o rL 
 
 
 OF ^» 
 
 The Previous Difcourfe. 
 
 THE better to prepare the mind of my Rea- 
 der for what I (hall lay in this Difcourfe a- 
 bout Infant-Baptiljm, I think it requifite to 
 premifea ftiort Introduction. 
 Firft, Concerning the Original, And 
 Secondly, Concerning the Nature of the Jewijh 
 Church. 
 
 Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament into 
 it, and the Perfons that were capable of Initiation. 
 
 And Laftly? Concerning the alteration of it from 
 the Mofaic into the ChrifiUn Oecofiomy, or to exprefs 
 my felf more plainly in the"^ Scripture-phrafe, con-^Hebr.a; 
 cerning the alteration of the Houfe ofMofes into the ** ^* 
 ^'Houfe of Chrjji. 
 
 As for the Original of the jfeivi/^ Church, it is to be 
 referred unto Abraham the|| Father of the Faithfnll\\Km.il 
 purely confidered as a Church. But if it be confider- *'' 
 ed as a Common-wealth, or as a Church under (uch 
 a Political Regulation, then it is to be referred unto 
 Mofes^ who was called, even by Heathen Writers, 
 
 ' B the 
 
2 The Cafe 
 
 * Dionyf. the "^ Legijlator of the 'jews. Thefe two Gonfiderati- 
 ^°"^l"; ons of the 'jewifh Church, purely as a Churchy and as a 
 Sea. 7. Common-wealthy or as a Church under luch a mixture 
 
 with a Common-wealth ought heedfully to be diftiti- 
 
 guilhed. 
 
 1. Becaufe there is ground for fuch a diftinftion in 
 the nature of the thing. 
 
 2. Becaufe this diftindion is made by theApoflle, 
 who was of the Seed of Abraham^ an Hebrew of the 
 Hebrews^ and by coiifequence very well qualified to 
 underftand thv*? difference betwixt the 'jewip OeconO' 
 my as a Church, and as a Commonwealth. 
 
 Firft I (ay, there is a Ground for fuch a Diftindi- 
 on in the Nature of the thing, as is evident to any 
 man, who is capable of confidering the difference be- 
 twixt the Church-Chriftian before, and after its Uni- 
 on with the Empire. Before its Union with the Em- 
 pire, it fubfifted by it felf purely as a Church above 
 300 years, in a State of Perfecution, flom Chrifl: un- 
 to Conftantwe the Great^and juftfo the Jm-iil;/ Church 
 for above 400 years fubfifted by it felf in a State of 
 Peregrination and Captivity from Abraham unto Mo- 
 fis^ who brought them out of Egyp^ and gave them 
 the Law. 
 
 But Secondly, As there is ground for this diftindi- 
 on in the nature of the thing, fb is it in effed made 
 by the Apoftle Gal, 3. 17. This I fay, that the Cove- 
 nant that was before confirmed of God [with Abraham^ 
 in Chrifi^the Law which w^js 430 years after cannot difa' 
 ftull^ that it Jljonld mak^ the Promifs [to Abraham^ of 
 mne EffsB, Here is a plain difference made between 
 the CovemiLi or Promife whicli God made with A' 
 braham land his Seed, when he feparated him from 
 the World unto himfe'fi and that Political one , which 
 he afterwards made \%ith the J^ws^ when he gave 
 
 them 
 
Uj Injant'naptijm. 5 
 
 ^hera the Law : And this difference is alfo obferved, 
 Rom./{, 13. The Promife^ that he JJjould be the Heir of 
 the Worlds wat Tiot given to Abraham, or to his Seed 
 through the Law^ hut through the Righteoufiefs of Faith: 
 For if they which are of the Laiv he Heirs^ Faith is made 
 void-y and the Promfe is of no effe&. 
 
 From thefe words, which diftinguiCh £o plainly be- 
 tween the Covenant which God made with" Abraham^ 
 or the Promife, which he made unto him, and the 
 Lavo, it is evident that the beginning of the Jevpifi 
 Church purely confidered, as a Church, is to be da- 
 ted from the Covenant which God made with Abraham^ 
 and therefore in the fecond place, the way to find out 
 the nature oftheJ^rd/j^^/ic^/, or pure Jcwijl) Chwich, 
 is to confider the nature of the Covenant, or Promife 
 upon which it was founded 5 and if we examine the 
 Scriptures, we (hall find, that it was an Evangelical 
 Covenant: For fubftance the fame with that which is 
 fince made betwixt God and us through Chrift. This 
 will appear upon a Review of thofe Scriptures which 
 teach us. That Faith vpas the Condition of this Abraha- 
 mical Covenant':, that it was made with * Abraham,<«f^e 
 Father of the faithful, and in him mth all Believers,''JJ^^^J^' 
 with his Spiritual^ as well as Carnal Seed, proceeding from juftitiam, 
 him by fpiritual,as well as natural Generation 5 and that etillicefle 
 the Bkjfings or Promifes of this Covenant belonged ^f^tol^^'f^ 
 
 them upon the fame Account of their Faith. apud mb- 
 
 ' "^ baccue.]a* 
 
 nusautcm exfidcvlvet. InAc Abraham pater Gentium credldit. In G^w/. crcdldit 
 Abraham Deo, & dcputatum eft ci ad juftftlam. Item Paulus ad Galatas. Abrahm ere- 
 dldit Deo & dcputatSm eft el ad juftldatti. Cognofcids ergo qui ex fide fuat hi funt 
 fiUl Ahraha, providens autem Scriptura quia « fide, &c. Cjprmidyztf. J/^^Kj!^ 
 
 d^waDeorcceftiflc.^ fucccfliflc vero la eorum locum ^'^^^^^K^^^^^'^SL 
 
 promcrentes, & dc omnibus Gentibus, actoto orbc venicntes. Cnm\ adA**"^*** 
 
 6 2^ 
 
 To 
 
4 The Qaje 
 
 To this purpofe fpeaketh the Apoftle in the Fourth 
 Chapter of his Epiftle to the Romans^ from the 9th. 
 to the i5th.Verfe: Cometh then this Bleffednefs [of 
 "JHJiificatiofj by Faith'] upon the Circumcifion orl3^5or 
 upon the tincircumcilion alfo? For we fay,that Faith 
 was reckoned to Abraham for Righteoufnefs 5 how 
 was it then reckoned ? When he was in Circumcifion, 
 or in Uncircumcifion ? Not in Circumcifion, but in 
 llncircumcifion^ and he received the Sign of Circum- 
 cifion a Seal of Qthe Pror/nfes made to) the Righteouf^ 
 nefs of Faith, which he had being yet uncircumcifed 
 that [_fo believirig before} Circumcifion'] he might be the 
 Father(/'f?//>)ofall them that believe, tho' they be not 
 circumcifed, that righteoufnefs might be imputed unto 
 them alio (^as his Children) and the Father of Circum- 
 cifion to them, who are not of the Circumcifion on- 
 ly, but (^ivho) alio walk in the Steps oi that Faith of 
 our Father Abraham, which he bad, being yet un- 
 circumcifed 5 for., the Promife that he fhould be the 
 Heir of the World (/« his Poflerity) was not to Abra- 
 ham^ or his Seed, through (the Righteoufnefs of) the 
 Law 5 but through the Righteoufnefs (which cometh) 
 *Quoni- of Faith.* For if they [^«fy^ which are of the Law be 
 &ln*S tl^'^s» (J^^O ViAxh (^fo much celebrated) is made void, 
 hm^rx' and the Promife made (to it) of no efFed. S0G4/.5. 
 fig""^*- from the ph, to the 10^^. Ver(e: He therefore that 
 noftra, &minifl:reth unto you x\\q (extraordif7ary Gifts of the) 
 quonUm Spirit,and worketh Miracles among youjdoth he it by 
 ^JjfJ.^^*^^' the works of the Law,or by the Faith, which you have 
 d€i»«£ ve- heard preached, even as (// is written of) "^ Abraham^ 
 
 lut pro- 
 phet* fuit pleoiflfime Appftolus docuk in ca Epiftola, quje eft ad Galatas diccns, Qit^ 
 
 irga tribhit vobh S^iritum it operam xdrtntes in vobis Irenaus Lib. 4. cap. 58. 
 
 (he) believed God, and it was imputed unto him for 
 Righteoufuels 3 knovr ye therefore, that they which 
 
 are 
 
of Infant' Baptijm. 
 
 are (the^ Children) of Faith, the fame are the Children 
 of Abraham $ and God in the Scripture forefeeing that 
 he would juftifie the Heathen through Faith preached 
 before the Gofpel unto Abraham^ ^^yingj In thee fhall 
 all Nations be bleffed. So then they which be (the 
 Children) of Faith, are bleiled with faithful Abraham 
 who is the Father of them that believe. Afterwards in 
 Verie 26. Now to Abraham^ or his Seed, or Race 
 were the Promifts \j)fGod~] made.* He,(z. e. God, or 
 Mofes his Pen-man) faith, Not to Seeds, or Races^ 
 as if there were divers of them 5 but to thy Seed, 7. e. 
 to one of thy Seed, which is Chrift. And this I fay, 
 that the (Abrahamical)CovGU^nt that was before con- 
 firmed by God in Chrift, the Law, which was four 
 hundred and thirty years after cannot difanuij, that 
 it ihould make the Promi(e (made unto Abraham) of 
 none effed. 
 
 From all thefe Texts put together, it is plain, that 
 the Abrahamical Covenant , upon which the Jewifi 
 Church, as fuch, was founded, was of a Spiritual, E- 
 vangelical Nature, and perfedlly verified and fulfil- 
 led in Jefus Chrift, who was made of the Seed of A^ 
 braham^ and in whom all the Families of the Earth are 
 bleffed, and whofe Day Abraham himfelf faw, and re- 
 joyced. It is farther evident from them, that this Co- 
 venant was made with Abraham^ as the Father of Be- 
 lievers, and with his Pofterity, not as proceeding 
 from .him by natural, but by (piritual Generation, as 
 Heirs of his Faith, as is plain from Rom,/^. 16. There- 
 fore (the Promife) is of Faith, that fo alfo it might 
 be by Grace 5 to the end the Promife might be fure 
 to all the Seed (o£ Abraham) not to that only, which 
 is of the Law 5 but to that alfo which is of the Faith 
 o£ Abraham, yvho IS thQ Father of us all, both Jew and 
 Qmtik^ that belkhe^So Ghap, 9. 6. &c. not as tho* the 
 
 Word 
 
6 I pe uaje 
 
 Word or Promife of God to them had taken none 
 effed: For they are not all (the) Ifrael which are de- 
 fcended of i/r^f/ 5 neither becaufe they are the Seed of 
 Abraham, are they all Children (of God's Covenant) 
 but ('tis faid) in Jfaac (hall thy Seed be called 5 \jho' 
 Abraham had more Sons'] that is (all) they which are 
 the Children of the Flefh, thefe are not the Children 
 of God 5 but the Children of the Promife fonly as I- 
 faac was) are counted for the Seed. 
 .j'hll. 3.5. Hence faith the Apoftle in the name of the Chrifti- 
 ans, we are the Circumcifion, which worlhip God in 
 the Spirit, and have no Confidence in the Flefti , 
 and it is one God which (hall juftifie the Circumcifi- 
 on by Faith, and the Uncircumcifion through Faith 3 
 and if ye be Chrift's, then are ye Abraham's Seed,and 
 Heirs, according to the Promife, ivhkh God made hh' 
 if^ Abraham. 
 
 Furthermore, that this Covenant was Evangelical, 
 and made with the Pofterity of Abraham-^ not as his 
 natural, but as his Spiritual OfF-fpring, will appear in 
 * ^f?;y8.the third place from the initiatory Sacrament into it, 
 which was Circumcifion^ or cutting off the Fore-skin 
 of the Flefh^ as it is written. Ton Jhall circHmcife the 
 . , .^ , X ^. Fore-skin of your FMj, and it Jhall be a Si^n of the Co' 
 'jo'm—Ti'Troih'mUM-'^^^^*^^ betmxt me and jiOH, Hence the Covenant 01 
 r^mi'^ipnoiMiiiiiv 'mpt-whiich it was the Sign, is called by * St. Stephen^ the 
 yr!^rro.«^'ifjumn. Covenant of Circumcifion 5 and Circumcifion on the 
 Wart. Dial, cum Tryph. Other hand IS Called by St. Fauly the Seal of theRigh- 
 p.ado.aWTWTW-teoufnefs of Faith, Faith, or Faithful Obedience be* 
 ltfJTo*S ilJJ^'t^fJuI-ing the Condition of that Covenant which God re- 
 T/w/j/, h 'Bvax> 't'*' 0/ quired of the Children oi Abraham, and which they 
 TZ 'tf^liZll'ommto perform. It alfo %nified the Circumci- 
 ivTriv'^khu^om'^^^^'^on of the T Heart 3 as Mofesliaid unto the People 01 
 ^* ?^'! Ifiael, Circumcife the Foreskin of your Hearts, Deut. 
 
 .ID. 1 6. and in Dm. 30. 6. Tht Lord thy God mllOr' 
 
 cnmeifi 
 
 "1^ 
 
Oflnfant'Bapifm. j 
 
 cnmcife ihine heart, and the hearts of thy Seed, that tbou. 
 ^mayeji love the Lord thy God with all thine Hearty and 
 with all thy Soul, that thou mayefi lite. And agreeably 
 unto this Spiritual Signification of Circumcifion, St. 
 P^;// faith Rom.7,2^. He is not a Jeiv, which is one out- 
 wardly, neither is that Circumcifon, which is outwardly 
 in the Flefi, but he is a Jem, which is one inwardly '-^ and 
 Circumcifion is that of the Heart, in the Spirit, and not in 
 the Letter, whofe Praife is not of Men, but of God, 
 
 As to the Peifbns who were capable of initiation, 
 into the jfeir//7j Church by this Sacrament, we have a 
 very plain account at the inftitution of it in Gew.Chap. 
 27. Iwill (faith God unto ^/r^i:/)^/?/) efiabliJJ) my Co- 
 'venant between Me, and thee, and thy Seed after thee 
 for. an Everlajiing Covenant to be a God unto thee, and thy 
 
 Seed after thee Thou fjjalt keep my Covenant there' 
 
 fore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations ^ this 
 is QThe Token of] my Covenant, which ye JJjall k^ep 
 between Me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every Male 
 among you full be Circumcifed, And ye fiall Circumcife 
 the flejh of your ForeskifJ, and it fhall be a Token of the 
 Covenant betwixt me and you, and he that is eight days old 
 fhall be Circumcifed among you^ every Male in your Gene- 
 rations, he that is born in theHoufe, or bought with Mo- 
 ney of any Stranger, which is not of thy Seed, he that is 
 born in thy Houfe, and he that is bought with thy Money 
 muji needs be Circumcifed, and my Covenant full be in 
 your flefh for an everlajiing Covenant, 
 
 From this account of Pecfbns to be Circumcifed, it 
 is plain, 
 
 Firft, That Gentiles who were born of * Gentile 
 Parents in Abraham's Houfe, or bought with his Mo- ^3^ ^j, 
 - ney, as Servants then were, and Blacks are now a- 
 mong us, were to be initiated into the Covenant by 
 Circumcifionjfrora whence it appears^that the Spiritual 
 
 Race 
 
8 The Cafe 
 
 K^ce of AhrnhamwcvQ the Children of the Covenant^ 
 and that when God prorailed to be a God to him, and 
 his Seed after him, he meant the Children of his 
 Faith. Hence in all Ages of the Jewifi Church, if any 
 Ge«f7/e/ embraced the jferri//; Faith and Religion, they 
 were admitted into it by Circumcifion,and thereupon 
 reckoned among the Pofterity of Abraham, and the 
 peculiar People of God, although they were not the 
 Children of Abraham according to the Fle(h. There 
 were great numbers of Ge»^//e/ thus converted to the 
 Jevoijld Faith and Religion^ and grafted like wild Bran- 
 ches into the Olive-Tree, in all the Ages of the jFeir//7j 
 Church. Not to mention particular Petfbns, v/e read 
 that many of the Medes and Perfiatis became Jews in 
 "^sddendah^ time o£ AJhuarus^ EfterS.ij. ^ Likewise, in the 
 jure 1. 2. j.jjjjg Qf jjavid and Solomon, vaft numbers of the fieigh- 
 bouring Conntreys embraced Judaifm, and in the time of 
 Hyrcanus the whole Nation of the IdHm<£ans turned 
 jFew?/, and lived in their own C(?a«^r^ according to the 
 pwipd Rites. This ftiort account of the jfen?/^ Profe- 
 lytes may (atisfie any Man, who is not perverted be- 
 yond cure, that the Church of the Jen?j was not found- 
 ed upon, nor conftituted by natural Generation, but 
 by Spiritual Regeneration, as the Church Chriftian is, 
 and that thofe, who were then related unto God, as 
 Members of his Church were fo, becaule they were 
 » theSpiritual Seed o{ Abraham^ who then was and (till 
 is the Father of the Church, and Church Members, to 
 whom heis related notinhisNatural, but in his Reli- 
 gious Capacity, as he was a Believer, and the Father 
 of all thole that believe. 
 
 But Secondly, It is manifeft from this Scriptural ac 
 count of perfons to be Circumcifed, that Circumcifion 
 'W2iS2inOrdmanceof Latitude, comprehending Perfons 
 ;Qf all Ages, and that Children, and Minors not yet 
 
 arrived 
 
Of Infant'BaptiJm, ^ 
 
 arrived at years of Difcretion, who were incapacita- 
 ted, as to lomeends of Circumcifion, were notwiih- 
 ftanding to be fblemnly initiared by it,as well asgrown 
 Men, whowerecapabieof all. God was pleafed to call 
 them his ^ nay, they were his Property, as much as 
 their Parents of whom they defcended, helooked up- 
 on thera as holy and feparate, and as Candidates of 
 theCovenant, and he thought them fb well qualified 
 for admiffion into it, that he would not have it put off 
 beyond the eighth day. 
 
 He that is eight days old, or as it is in the Original, 
 a Son of eight days, ihall be circumcis'd among you. 
 God was (b far from excludingof them from Sacramen- 
 tal Initiation upon the account of natural mcapacity^ 
 thathe limited the time for the adminiftration of it, 
 beyond which he would not have it deferred. And 
 accordingly the Jews ever did moft religioufly obferve 
 it, from the time of-^^/'r^^^?/^ unto the timeofJ<j/)«the 
 Baptift^ and Chrift, who were both Circumcifed^he 
 ^eightday. Nay when any Ge;;f/7e turned jfen?, they 
 immediately Circumcifed his Children if hedefired it 5 ^p"^! ir 
 always underftanding that Children were called and 
 eleded by God in their Parents. Thus faith God un- 
 to Abraham, I mil ejiahlrfi my Covenant between thee 
 and me^ and thy Seed after thee for an everlajiing 
 Covenant^ to be a God unto thee, and thy Seed after 
 thee. 
 
 The great Goodnefsof God made him thus feparate 
 the Children with their Parents from the reft of the 
 World, and look upon them as part of his chofen pe- 
 culiar People, by which they became relatively Holy, 
 and of a religious Confideration, and differed from 
 the Children of Unbelievers, as much as their Parents 
 did from the Unbelievers themfelves. Since therefore 
 God was pleafed to be fo gracious as to choofe the 
 
 C Chii- 
 
10 The Cafe 
 
 Children with their Parents, and look upon them as 
 Holy upon their account, it is no wonder that he 
 Ihould oblige them to dedicate, and devote them be* 
 times unto him, by folemn initiation into his Church. 
 I fay, he called and elcded them in their Parents, and 
 with them leparated them unto himfelf from the 
 World, and, agreeably to the nature of this Gracious 
 Call, and feparation, he made it a fufficient qualificati- 
 on for their adual admiffion into the Church, by the 
 initiating Ordinance, which the Children as Heatl^ens 
 were not capable off, becaufe they were notfo called, 
 and chofen, and feparated of God. 
 
 This was gcound enough for their admiffion into the 
 Church, and for God to look upon them, as Believers, 
 though they could not make open Profeflion of their 
 Faith, as J/>r4/)^z^ did before he was Baptized, and it 
 s^ ^^/^^^^^ is certain, after the example o^ Abraham^ all ^ adult 
 SynduUi. Prolelytes did. But though Abraham profeffed his 
 '^•^* Faith before he was Circumcifed, Ijaac the next- Heir 
 of the Promile was Circumcifed before he profefled, or 
 could profefs his Faith, becauie if he lived he was as 
 fure to profe(sit by vertuei of hisCalling,and Eledion 
 as any adult Profelyte was to continue in the Profefli- 
 on of his. 
 In the mean time the Faith and Confent of the Fa- 
 iMnC' ther, or, if the Child had none, of the Sufceptor oi: 
 cha.b.2.3^6. God-father, and of the Cofjgregation under which 
 he was Circumcifed, was believed of old by 
 i Sced.de the Jtm to be t imputed to the Child, as his own; 
 i"!LdiSy- Faith and Confent. They had very good Ground in 
 nedr.ii.c^. the Scriptures for this Opinion, becaufe the Infidelity 
 and Difobedience of the Parents, in willfully negled- 
 ing, or defpifing Circumcifion, was imputed to the 
 Children, who were efteemed and puniflled as Brea- 
 ke;:.s.Qf the Covenant, when they were not circum- 
 '*'"-' fed. 
 
Oflnfant'Bapttfm. 1 1 
 
 cifed, as it is written, Every nncircumcifed Male^ rvhofe 
 Flejh of his Foreskjn is not circHMcifid, that Soul JJjall 
 be cut off from his People 5 he hath broken my Covenant , 
 and therefore if the Ad of Parents in negleding to 
 bring their Children to Circumcifion was reputed ^'^iT^^^*^^ 
 theirs, much more their Aft in bringing them to it ^injam,\, 
 might well be reputed as their Adt and Deed. Thus 732- 
 in Numb. 3. 28. we find the keeping of the Sandua- 
 ry imputed to the Males of the Cohathites of a month 
 old and upwards, becaufe their Fathers adbually kept 
 it, and they were to be trained up unto it 5 and in 
 Tieut, 29. 1I5 12. the little ones are exprefly faid to 
 enter into Covenant with God, becaufe the Men of 
 Israel did (05 and thus alfo our BlefTed Lord, who 
 took upon him the Seed of Abraham^ although he 'f- umh,^, 
 healed''^ grown Perfons for their own Faith, yet he 29. 
 healed \ Children upon the account of the Faith off Mark 9. 
 .their Parents , or others who befought him for them 5 ^^^^^ g 
 
 as it were imputing it to them for their own Faith. 1 3. John 
 
 4. 50. 
 
 vide Cafland. de Baptlfmo Infant, p. 729. Dr. Taylor 0/ Bapti\ini InfantSt Great 
 Exemplar. Part i. ScSt. 9. 
 
 Having now briefly difcourfed of the Original, and 
 Evangelical Nature of the Jemjh Church,and the Ini- 
 tiatory Sacrament of it, and the perfbns that were 
 initiated thereinto,! now proceed to make a few Ob- 
 fervations upon the Alteration of it, from the Mo- 
 faical into the Chriftian Oecommy 5 or from the Le- 
 gal State of it under the Old Teftament, into the E- 
 vangelical under the New. 
 
 For as it Was the fame for Subftance under the Law 
 that it was before it 3 (b it ftill remains the fame for 
 Subftance under the Gofpel, that it wasunder the Law. 
 The Foundation* is the fame, tho' the Superftrufture 
 and Falhion of the Houfe be very different ; For Abra- 
 
 G 2 ham 
 
12 The Cafe 
 
 ham is ftill the Father of the Faithful 5 ^nd we that 
 believe under the Go(pel, are as much his Seed, and 
 Children in God's prime Intention, and the true 
 meaning of the Word?, as thofe that were Believgiis 
 under the Law. 
 
 Hence it comes to pals, that the Church-Chriftian 
 iscalkd in the New Ttftament, the New and Super- 
 nal JerHJkkm 5 to let us know, that Chriftianity is 
 nothing but Spiritual 'juduifm^xht fame City new refbr- 
 med,conftituted upon a new Charter, blelied with more 
 .noble and ample Priviledges than formerly^ and e- 
 very way better built, and more Auguft than it was. 
 Thus in Rev. 5.12. UyHo him that over comet h (Taith 
 the Son of Man) I will write the name of my God,, and 
 the name of the city of my God, which is New. Jerufalem, 
 which is come down out of Heaven, from my God, that 
 is, I will acknowledge him that holds out to the end 
 for a perfon truly godly, and for a true Member of 
 the pure Catholick Chriftian-Church, which is the 
 Spiritual Jernfalem defcended from above. And (b 
 Chap. 21. 2. / faw the Holy City New Jerufalem 
 coming down from God^ down out of Heaven prepa- 
 red as a Bride, adorned for her Husband, meaning 
 Jefns Chrifl:. So in Galat. 4. Jerufalem which is from 
 above, or the Supernal Jerufalem is [jC] free ^City] 
 which is the Mother of us all. 
 
 Hence al(b it comes to pais, that St. Peter in his 
 firlt General Epiftle, calls the Chriftians by thofe pro- 
 per Titles and Appellations which God gave unto the 
 Jews, as unto his peculiar People, viz. a chofen Ge- 
 tteration, a Royal Priefihood, an Holy Nation, a pe- 
 culiar People 3 which muft needs imply,that the Chrifti- 
 an Church is fundamentally, and radically the fame 
 with the ancient Church of the Jews. Accordingly 
 St. Pauly tho' he was the Dodor of the Gentiles, yet 
 
 compa- 
 
Of Infant-Baptijhh 1 3 
 
 compared the calling of them to the engrafting of the ^ 
 
 wild Olive-Tree into the old Olive-Trees Stock, if _ «i 
 fome or the Branches (faith '^ he unto them) be btp-'^'^.g^ '^ 
 ken o^ljhroHgh Unbelief ~\ and thou being a wild Sfe O V <r> ^ 
 live Branch, was grafted in amongft them, and wilfc V) % ^ c 
 them partakeft of the Koot and Fatnefs of the [_Afi^^ p % O, " 
 e/7^^01ive-Tree,boaft not againft the Branches \_fo ckl^^j^^ 
 (T^^but ifthouboa(}[re/^ew/'er Mrf^]thoubeareft not 
 .the Root, but the tioot thee ^ and afterwards, if 
 thou wert cut off from the Olive-Tree, which is wild 
 by Nature, and wert grafted contrary to \jhj/ tviW] 
 Nature into a good 01ive-Tree,how much more fhall 
 thefe [jwbelievitjg Jews'] vj\{\q\\ be the natural Branch- 
 es, be re-grafted into their own Olive-Tree? From 
 this Compariibn it is plain, that the Jewifhand Chri- 
 ftian Church are the (ame in the Root and Stock .* 
 And from this radical Argument that is betwixt them, 
 it proceeds, that St. John in his Symbolical way of 
 Writing in the Apocalyps^ calls the Chriftians Jews : 
 * Behold I mil make them of the Synagogue of Satan which 
 fay they are Jews hut arenot-)Kev.^ 9.2.9. Indeed, as Ju- 
 daifm was nothing but my ftical Chriftianity^fo Ghriftia- 
 nityis nothing but reformed Judaifm^'^Yvich made our 
 Saviour, who was the Reformer ofit,fay unto the Jews^ . 
 Think not that I am come to deftroy the Law, and 
 the Prophets^ i am not come to deftroy, but to per- 
 fed: and fulfill. And unto his Dilciples, who under 
 him were to be Mafter-Builders of his Houfe, he (aid. 
 That a Scribe, or Doftor rightly intruded unto the 
 Kingdom of God, was like a Man that is an Houlhol- 
 der, who bringeth out of his Store-houfe things both 
 new and old. Thereby (hewing, as Iren^us ob(erveSjL ; c.21. 
 that he muft be a very skilful Scribe in the Old Te- & 43. 
 {lament, that was fit to make a Workman of the new.- 
 The old Teftament and legall Oeconomy was to be 
 
 his 
 
;i4 'The Cafe 
 
 his Magazine, and Storehoufe, out of which he was 
 to fetch many ferviceable pieces for the new Building 5 
 and accordingly our Saviour, tho* in reforming the 
 Houfeof Mojesj he was fain to pull it down, that it 
 might be enlarged, yet both he that began the Re- 
 formation, and his Apoftles, who finiffied it, like 
 Men that were Houfe-holders, uied much of the Old 
 Timber and Materials, and confoimed it too^ as much 
 ,- jj _ as they, could after the manner of the old. * They 
 mondofh' introduced as much of Judaifm into the Chriftian 
 fantsa^- Religion, as the nature of the Refornlation would 
 well bear, and adhered as much as they could to the 
 old, both in the Matter and Form of the new Oeco- 
 fiomy 5 and laid by few Jea'/y^ Rites and Cufl"oms,but 
 fuch as were fulfilled in Chrift and Chriftianityjas the 
 Antitype and Subftance of^them 5 or elfefuch as were 
 inconfiftent with the Nature of the Church-Chrifti- 
 an, as it was to be a manly, free, and univerfal 
 Church. 
 
 Thefe were the two reafons for which Chrift and 
 
 his Apoftles (b much altered the Face of the Church 
 
 from what it was under the Mofaical Oeconomy^ Fir ft, 
 
 becaufe very many of the Jevcijfj Rites and Ceremo- 
 
 {[Acprimo^i^s ^^^^ || fulfilled in Chrift and Chriftianity^ and 
 
 ita his Secondly, becaufe many of them were inconfiftent 
 
 in rebus ^j^|^ ^j^^ nature ef a manly, free and Qniverfal Church, 
 
 tur?Sf an- fuch as Chrift intended his (hould be. 
 
 titypus in 
 
 typl locum fucccdat, cumque adeo loco nsovcat, utfimul atque aotitypus adfit, oullus 
 deinceps typo locus, nullus ufus reperiatur. Outramus de Sacriiicii, Lib. 2. c. 16. 
 p. 204. 
 
 Firft,then, many of the Ecclefiaftical rites, and ufages 
 of the Jevps were laid afide, at the time of Reformation, 
 becaule they were fulfilled in Chrift, as the Antytipe, 
 and Subftance of them,as is plain from the words of the 
 Apoftle, 2 Coll.16. Let no man judge you in Meat, or in 
 drifik^ot in relped of an Holy day pi of the new Moons pt 
 
 of 
 
of Infant'BaptiJm. i ^ 
 
 of the Sabbath days, which are a Shadow of things 
 that are to come to pafs-^ but the Body is Chrift, 
 that is to fay, Let no man impofe upon you the Do- 
 ctrine ofMofakal Abftmetice^ox condemn you for eat- 
 ing and drinking things prohibited by the Jewijh Re- 
 ligion, or for not obferving their Fcafts, New Moons 
 and Sabbaths, which are but Types of Chriftianity, 
 and therefore ought to be laid afide. The hke he 
 doth (hew in his Epiftle to the Hebrews^ concerning 
 the Temple, Priefthood, Altar, Sacrifices, and the 
 whole Temple-Service 5 as is plain from many Para- 
 ges, v.'hercof I fhall recite fome. The Priefthood be- 
 ing changed, there is made alfo of neceffity a change 
 in the Law, chap. 7. 22. The Holy Ghoft , this (ig- 
 »//5'?»g thereby, that the way into the holieft of all, 
 was not yet made manifeft, while, as the firft Taber- 
 nacle was yet ftanding, which was but a Figure for 
 the time then prefent, in which were offered both 
 Gifts and Sacrifices 3 that could not make him that 
 did the Service perfed [_atjd ckatifecf] as pertainingto 
 the Confcience, which ftood, or confifted only in a 
 certain ufe of Meats and Drinks, and divers Wafti- 
 ings, and other carnal Ordinances impofed on them, 
 [_as Types~\ until the time^ of Reformation [by Chr/jiJ 
 chap. 9, 8, 9, lo. So ver. 24. Chrift [_with the Blood- ' 
 of his SacHjice"] is not entred into the Holy Places- 
 made with Hands, which are the Figures of the true/ 
 And after aJl, ch. 10. i. the Law having only a Sha- 
 dow of the good things to come, and not the S5lidif^o 
 ty of the things themfelves, can never with thofe [««?- 
 braticaf] Sacrifices, which they* offered year by year 
 continually make the Comers thereunto per^^ 
 
 It would make a Book of it felf^ to. recite aJIuthci 
 Types and Shadows of the Old Teftaraeflt, which ar^k 
 
 applied . 
 
t6 ^T^e Cafe 
 
 applied to Chrift and Chriftianity by the Writers un- 
 der the New, Befides what occurs in the Apoftles 
 Writings, there is much to the fame purpofe in the 
 Epiftlc of St. ^^r;;/?/'^, which is very ancient 5 the 
 Dialogue o^'juftin Marty ^ with Trypho the Jevp'-^ and 
 the Fourth Book of Ire^iiCm, who after in fifting up- 
 on many typical things, and pcrfons in the Old Te- 
 ftament, at laft concludes in the 38//;. Chapter, Mhil 
 ernmvacmim^ mhil jine figno -^ that almoft every thing 
 in it was typical, and had a myfticap Reference to 
 fomething under the New. 
 
 But Secondly, as many of the Ecclefiaftical Rites, 
 and Ufages o^ the Jewifl) Church were taken away, 
 becaufe they were fulfilled in Chrift and Chriftianity, 
 fo many others were annulled, as being inconfiftent 
 with theuatureoftheChurch-Chriftian,asit was to be 
 a mavly^free^ and nniverfal Church. 
 
 Firft, as it was to be a manly Church in oppofition 
 to the legal Pedagogy of the Jews^ as St. Patd called 
 it in laying, That the Law was hut a School-mafier to 
 bring them unto Chrifi QGal. 3. 24.] and that the jfen?/ 
 were under it as Children are under Tutors,and Gover- 
 nours, until the time appointed by the Father, the 
 Fulnefs of Time, when God fent forth his Son,Qch.4. 
 I J 2, 3, 4.] Hither we may refer abundance of thofe 
 Precepts which concerned their Wafhings, and Puri- 
 fications, or their Abftinence from menftruous Wo- 
 men, and unclean Creatures, which God impofed up- 
 on them in that State of Minority, chiefly to ledure 
 unto them moral Purity and Temperance .• For they 
 had childiih llnderftandings,and were, like Children, 
 to be inftru^ted by Symbols, and Symbolical LefTons, 
 as is plain from the Precept about their Phyladeries, 
 Nnmbers 15. 38. Sfeak^unto the Children of Jfrael, and 
 hid them that they make Fringes in the Borders of their 
 
 Garments 
 
Oflnfant'Baptifm. i 
 
 GarmeKts throughout their GeKeratio}7s, atjd that they put 
 uton the Frir7ges of their borders^ a, Ribband of Bhe, 
 and it pal/ be itriioyon for a Fringe^ that yon may lookjtp- 
 on 7/j and remember all the Commandments of the Lord 
 af'd do them, and that ye fee k^ not after your own hearty 
 and your own eyes ^- after which ye ttfe to go a Whoring, 
 
 But Secondly, as mviny ;9f jihtir Rires and Ceiemo- 
 nies were annulled at the Mme of Refoimation, ^^e- 
 caufe they were inconiiftent with the manly nature of 
 the Chriliian Religion, i^o others, were annulled, be- 
 caufe they were not confident with the free nature of 
 it, in oppofition to the Servile nature of the Jewifh 
 Church, which is excellenily fct forth by the Apoftle. 
 Gal. 4. 2 2, &c, Abraham had two Sons, the one by a 
 Bond-maid, the other by a Free- woman, but he that 
 was born of the Bond-maid was born according to the 
 Flefh, but he that was born of the Free-woman, was 
 born [by virtue of the~] Promife ivhich God made unto 
 Abraham ; Which things are an Allegory, for the(e 
 [jwoWomen"] are the two Covenants. The one the 
 Covenant which was made on Mount Sinai^ which 
 gendreth to Bondage, and this was Agar. For this 
 Agarh [^the figure oj^ lAo\^v\xSjtIa^\x^ Arabia, andan- 
 (wexQth to Jeru fa lem which now is, andis fy?;//] in 
 Bondage with her Children. But [Sarah 7S the jigure 
 of the Spiritual'] Jeiufalem, which is [come with Chrifi 
 from~] above, which is the Mother of us all. 
 
 Now this Ecclefiaftical Bondage, and Servitude of 
 the.jf^a'j, confifted in the vafl: numberof their Religi- 
 ous Rites and Obfervances, which if a Man confider 
 in retail as to the Days, Weeks, Months, and Years, 
 which they were bound to observe 5 the multitude of 
 Sacrifices of all forts, which they were bound to offer 5 
 the frequent Waftiings and Purifications they were 
 bound to undergo 3 the ftrid diltindion they were to 
 
 D make 
 
i8 The Cafe 
 
 make of clean from unclean Animals 5 the Rules and 
 Ceremonies they were bound to oblerve atBirths,Mar- 
 ^' • riages, Burials,at Bed and Board,at Home and Abroad, 
 -';j,' in Sicknefs and in Healthy nay^even in Plowing, Sow- 
 ing, and Reaping, he (liall find that they were left al- 
 molt in nothing to their own Freedom and Difcreti- 
 on, but that the Oblervances, to which they were 
 bound in almoft all their Actions, took up half of their 
 time. 
 
 Such a burdenfom and grievous Economy was that 
 under which the jfeH^j lived, but yet how fevere and 
 flavifti foever it was, it was fuitable to the flavifh tem- 
 per of that People, upon whom God impofedallthefe 
 Carnal Ordinances forthe hardnefsof their hearts, and 
 '^ Aid TO propenfion to Idolatry, as * Ji^ftrn Martyr often ob- 
 sxAMfo- ferves in his Dialogue with the Jew. 
 T£fmifv'- They were apt to forget God, and therefore he 
 xsfsf '^§oi loaded them with fo many Divine Rites andObiervati- 
 i/c/i« M- ons,thatat all times and places and in every a6tion,they 
 ctTfsw. j^-gj^^ j^g py^ jj^ mind of him, and this Ceremonial 
 Yoke was fo heavy upon them, that it was little lefs 
 then intolerable, according to St. Peter^ who faid, . 
 Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck^ofthe Dif- 
 cipks^whkh f7either we nor our Fathers were able to bear .<? 
 This he faid in the Council at Jerufalem, againft the be- 
 lieving Pharifees, who taught, that it was needful to • 
 Circumcife the Gentile Chriftians, and to command 
 them to keep the Mofaical Law, not yet rightly under- 
 ftanding, or believing, that it was one end of Chrift s 
 coming to fet them free from the Mofaic Obfervances, 
 as the Apoftles then declared, and as St. Paul after- 
 wards inftrufted the Galatians^ who were led away 
 into this error, faying, Stand faft therefore in the Liber- 
 ty, wherewith thrift hath made ud free, and be not entang- 
 led again with the tok$ of bondage. 
 
 Hither 
 
Oflnfint'Baptifm. ijr 
 
 Hither therefore we are torefer the annulling not (b 
 much of any particular fort ofjewijh Ceremonies as of 
 the whole Mafs of them, even the diflolution of the Jffi 
 whole Ceremonial La w,of which the Jem were grown |S 
 weary, and with which they had been for a long time ^^ 
 heavy ladenjWhen Chrifl: called them to take his Yoke ^ 
 and Burden upon them, which was to be Co eafie jand 
 
 But then in the laft place, as the obligatory force of 
 all the Jewijfj Elites and Ceremonies were taken away, 
 becaufe they were inconfiftent with the free nature of 
 the Chriftian Church : So fome more efpecialJy were 
 annulled, as being inconfiftent with the univerfality 
 of it, as it was to be a Catholick Church. 
 
 Hither we may refer all thofe which were fet up by 
 God as"^ Mounds and Hedges to keep the Jem from mix- ^ 
 ingand converfing with their Idolatrous Neighbours, „,v^j „iefe 
 and their Idolatrous Neighbours from being too fami- w^^«^^-;-3' 
 liar and well acquainted with them. Suchas thefe^* ^^* 
 were thole of not rounding the Corners of their Heads, 
 and of not (having of the Corners of their Beards, of 
 not letting their Cartel gender with divers kinds, of 
 not fowing their Fields with mingled Seed, nor their 
 Vineyards with divers Seeds ^ of not Plowing with an 
 Ox and an Afs together,and of not wearing a Garment 
 Linnen and Woolen. God injoined them thefe, and 
 other things in oppofition to the neighbouring Idola- 
 trous Nations, that there might be a mutual ftrangenefs 
 and hatred betwixt them, and that by thefe and other 
 Ceremonial Singularities, they might be diftinguifhed 
 from the reft of the World. But then Chrift coming to 
 break down the middle wall of Partition betwixt the 
 Jews sindGentiles, and to abolifh the Enmity of Ordi- 
 nances that was betwixt them, that he might make 
 Peace betwixt them, and reconcile them both into one 
 
 D 2 Body 
 
20 - The Cafe 
 
 Body ift^he Crofs, it was requiiite to this end, that he 
 fhould aboli(h_there,and all other diftinguiniing Cha- 
 raders betwixt them, which would have hindred the 
 Piogrcfs of the Cofpel, had it been clo^g'd with Jeiv- 
 'ijb Kites and Cei-eraonics, which were become fo odi- 
 ous, and ridiculous to all the Gentile World. 
 
 In particular. For this^ \^^{o\^ he was obliged to 
 
 change the Initiatory Sacrament, and tlie Seal of the 
 
 Covenantor Gvace, \vi\^^ViCncum&j\i9)i^ by which the 
 
 ;f7-/,^^^^^-.i^n?j- (txc;jpting a few^ Nations; V/ere diftinguiftied 
 
 m Etpii- from all the World. 
 
 ans, Ethio- Tlitv Were become (| odious and ridiculous to all 
 tiiuslcul Other People upon the account of it, and for this rea- 
 chisns. fbn it would have been a mighty bar to the Progrefs 
 II Jura of the Gofbel, had the Gentiles been to be initiated 
 
 Vcrpeper.L . 
 Anchia- "^"^rvDy. 
 
 lum. Mart. 
 
 Credat Judxa&Apelles. Horat. Ferro (ucciderit inguinis oram. Perron. Mox & pra?pu* 
 tia ponunc. Juvcn. i Cor. 7.18. Is uny Man called, bdng ciraimcUid-y lit him m b'. tin- 
 ciramcifed. le. Let him not ufe means to aun^ the Vrx^miam, rvhich the Jews did often tt 
 avoid Shame, and Perfecution in Gentile Gountrtys. 
 
 Furthermore, it alone was reckoned as a grievous 
 burden by reafbn of the painful and bloody nature of 
 it ■^, and for that Reafon alfo waslaid afide, as being in- 
 confiftent with the free and eafy nature of the Ghri- 
 ftian Religion 5 for \fZ/pporah was fb much offended 
 at Alofes, and called him a bloody Husband upon the 
 account of it, ; we may well prefume how much 
 the Gentiles would have been- offended at the 
 Apoftles, and at their Dodrine, upon the account 
 thereof 
 
 No Religious Rite could be more ungrateful to 
 Flefh and Blood, and therefore the Wifdom of our 
 Lord is to be admired in changing of it into the eafy 
 and praifticable Ceremony of Baptifm 5 which was of 
 
 more 
 
Of Infant-Ba^tifm. 1 1 
 
 more unlveifal fignificancy, and which* P^/^^^;;/ (as '|^^/-^|^<'' 
 Paganifm w.is nothing but Judaifm corrupted by the quoqneres 
 Devin pradifLd, as well as 'jews. s.:crainen- 
 
 ^ ^' -^ torum di- 
 
 ic!o'oru:n tryficriis amula'ur, /i.'^^f,' Siipfeqaordiir, uiique credearej, 2c fidclcs fuos 
 
 —csterumri Ninra fup.;rilitiones revoly:iTiii5 nonne tranifeftc diabolus 
 
 moroficatcinilbm Judaic kgis imitatus cfl / Tertull. de p'xfcrip. latrec. c.40. O 
 Rimiumfaciles .' Q^-i trillia crimins csdis tolll fluminea poffe pucads uqua. 
 
 Hitherto I have given the Reafons of a'tcring ihe 
 ^jevcifl) Economy^ and of reforming of it into the Chri- 
 Itian Church,, but then my undertaking obliges me to 
 prove what before I obfervcd, that 
 * Chrift and hi^ ApoftIes,who were '^ Vcrinirrum cnim eft, qnod vlr 
 
 theHerormersot it, did build with CanUcm notavk. Nultns a Chrl- 
 
 many of the old Materials, and con- (lo hiUtutos riia^novos, z^c, Geo- 
 formed their new l»uf.,as much as '^:^^-l-%P^}^^;: 
 they could, after the Platform of ti^iniofmjxms. 
 the old. This will appear fom 
 Baptifm it felf, which was a Cere- 
 mony by which || Froftlytes both j| sdd.de ml. 2. c. 2. Atsyndr 
 Men, Women,"and Children were ;-»-^- ?• Lightfootfta Hcbra-' 
 
 . . .' , . , c^ n ^\ 1 kse, p. 42. Hammond o?J .\iAtti>. i. 
 
 initjatea into the Je7r/p Church. ",. i. andof the Bip iziag ofin-- 
 
 Though it were but a mere hu- fanrs. /.t^I; ^/a/;^kj diHert. Phi- 
 
 mane Inltitut!on,or,as the diiient- ^ ^ 
 
 ing Parties ufually phrafeit, a mere 
 
 humane invention 5 yet (b much rtfpedhad ourbleP 
 
 fed Lord for the Antient Orders and Cuftomes of the 
 
 Jem;/; Chuvchj that being obliged to lay by Circum- 
 
 cidon for the reafons above mentioned, he confecrated 
 
 this inftead of it to be the Sacrament of initiation into 
 
 his Church, and a Seal of the Righteoufnefs of Faith. 
 
 So likewife the other Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 
 v^as certainly o^^jemjh Original, ashath been rfiew-=<^Mec!e 
 
 I book, 
 difc. $1. b.ii.Chriftian Sacrifice. Grot. Opufc. Tom. 3. p. $10. Dr. Ctidworth on the 
 Lord's -Supper. Tbr»^j^f of Religious AiTembly. cli, lo. Du Taylor's great Exemplar 
 p. I. difc, ofBipafm. Numb. II. 
 
 ed 
 
CJ2 The Cafe 
 
 ed by many Learned Men, and the Correfpondence 
 of the Bilhops, Presbyters, and Deacons, to the High- 
 Prieft, Priefts and Levites, doth (hew that the Subor- 
 dination of the Chriftian Hierarchy is taken from the 
 JewJ/l) Church, as St. Jerome obferves in his Epifkle to 
 Evagrius. Et tit fciamus tradit Jones Apoflolkas Jumptas 
 de veteri Teflamento^ quod Aaron^d^fi'li/ ejus^C^ Levit£ 
 in templo fueruKt, hoc fibi Epifcop^ &■ Presbyteri C^ dia^ 
 comvetjdicetJt in Ecclejia. What the High-Priefi^PrJefis^ 
 and Levites^ ivere in the Temple, that the Biflops^ Presby- 
 ters^ and Deacons, are in the Church according to Apojio- 
 licdl ConjiitHtion tal^en from the Old Tejiament. 
 
 Hither alfo is to be referred that wonderful Corre- 
 fpondence betwixt the Prieft-hood and Altar of the 
 Jevpifi and Chriftian Church, as it is moft excellent- 
 :^ ., ly difcourfed by the Learned, and Pious * Mr. 
 
 Difcourfe DodwelL 
 concern- 
 ing the one Altar, and the one Prieft-hood, &c. 
 
 To all which, I may add many otherlnftitutions, as 
 that of II Excommunication,and of the ritual perform- 
 lor his ^^ 2nce of Ordination, Confirmation, and Abfolution 
 great Ex- of Penitents by Impofition of hands, all which are of 
 Sif&c J^^'fi Orignal. 
 
 ofBap- 
 • tlfm. Numb. ii. Lightfoot on i Corinth. Chap. 5. Vcrf. 5. 
 
 Likewife, the Obfervation of the antient Love- 
 Feafts before the Holy-Eucharift, which for their 
 *concii. extream inconvenience, were taken away by the * 
 Sext-in Churches authority 3 theufeofFeftivalsandFafts^the 
 c. 24. Inftitution of the Lord*s day, which is nothing but the 
 Sabbath tranflated. In a word, the manifold and al- 
 moft entire Correfpondence of the Church in her pub- 
 lick AfTembliesj and Worfhip with the Synagogne^zs it 
 
 is 
 
of Infant-Bapijm. 2 3 
 
 js (et forth by Mr. Thorridike^ in his book^ of Religious 
 Ajfembljes^ even to the formal u(e of the Hebrew- 
 word, '^- Amen. * I Cor. 
 
 14. 16. 
 Rom. II. -^6. Eph. 3. 21. Phil. 4. 20. 3 Tim, 1.17. Hebr. 23. 27. i Pec. 4. ir. 
 Rev, I. \6. Rev. i, 7. Juft, Marc. Ap. 2. p. 97. Iren.!.2. c.io. Athan. Apol. adconft, 
 Iinper. p. 685. 
 
 Hitherto I have made a Hiort Previous Difcourie 
 concerning many ufeful Particulars. As 
 
 Firft, Concerning the beginning, or Original of the 
 JewiJIj Church. 
 
 Secondly, Ct)ncerning the Nature of it. 
 Thirdly, Concerning the initiatory Sacrament in- 
 to it, and the Perfons that were capable of Initia- 
 tion. 
 
 And Laftly, Concerning the alteration of it from 
 the Legal into the Evangelical Difpenfation 5 where- 
 in I have briefly (hewed the true grounds of that blef^ 
 fed Reformation, and how tender Chrift, and his A- 
 poftles were of Altering or rejeding, more then was 
 neceffary, or of receding more then was needful flom 
 the JewifJj Church. 
 
 All the(e things I thought neceffary to be dilcour- 
 fed Qas Pr£cogmta] to fit and prepare the Reader's 
 mind to underftand the State of the Controverfy a- 
 bout Infant-Baptifm, as it is propofed in theft; five 
 Comprehenfive Queftions. i. Whether Infants are ttn» 
 capable ofBaptifm ,<? 2. Whether they are excluded from 
 Baptifm byChrifi^ 3. Whether it is lawful to federate from 
 a Church which appoint eth Infants to be Baptized^ 4. Whe- 
 ther it be the duty ofChriflian Parents to bring their Chi!" 
 dr en unto Baptifm ^ 5. Whether it is lawful to Com mu- ? 
 
 nicate with believers^ who were baptized in their Infancy <? 
 The whole merit of the Controverfy about Infant- 
 Baptifm,Iies in thefe 5 Comprehenfive Queftions,and I 
 (hall prefently proceed to the ftating of them after I 
 
 havei 
 
24 The Cafe 
 
 have (hew'd, that Circumcifion wasa Sacrament of equal 
 SigrificaTJcy^Force^'^ud Perfe&ion with Eaptifrrijand that 
 Bantifmfucceededin the room of ir,notas ihsAf^tHjpe 
 fucceeded in the place of the 7}/?^, but as one pofitive 
 Inftitution fucceeds in the place of another,and this alfo 
 is necellary to be foreknown by the Rcader^becaufe the 
 Afiahnptifts endeavour to fhift off the force of many 
 good Arguments, which othei wife are not to be eva- 
 ded, by faying that Circumcifion under the Old Te- 
 ftamentgWas a Type of Baptifm under the New. 
 
 Now to fhew that Circumcifion was not a Type 
 
 but only the Fore-runner of Baptifm, we muft notc^ 
 
 that Ihiftly and properly fpeaking, there 'Wd^s the 
 
 fame difference betwixt the Tyre and the Antitype, 
 
 asbetwixt the Shadov/, and the Subftance, or betwixt 
 
 '^ Ddtide a Man and his Picture in a Glafs 5 "^ infbmuch, that 
 
 (quod ^ what was really, litterally, and properly in the Anti- 
 
 adverteh- type, and of perfed Efficacy and Power, was gene- 
 
 dum) id rally, but Symbolically and reprefentarively in the 
 
 t?typum Type, and figurative of fomething, which" did in a 
 
 & Typura more noble, perfeft, eminent, and efficacious manner 
 
 ^^uod'^^'usE b^^ong to the Antitype, then it did to it. 
 
 rcvtra in 
 
 Antitypovisin-eft, ca non nifi fpecic tenus, aut gradu longe exiliori inTypoextke- 
 rit. Eniravero quamvis Typus nonnunquam rem aliquamcum Anticypo fuo commu- 
 remhabuerh, ea ramcn res multo minus in Typo, quam in Antitypo femper valet 
 
 — ita uc vis rei adumbrantis vinutis in ad umbrata rcperra? nil nifi Symbolica 
 
 quxdam Species, aut ram exilis gradus fuerir, ut pro umbra quadam haberi pofTir. 
 Outramus de Sacrif 1. 2. c. 1 8. >_ 
 
 Thus the blood of the Legal Sacrifices were but 
 Shadows, and Reprefentations of the Blood of Ghrifl, 
 and the purging and clcanfing Virtue in their Blood, 
 ferving to the purifying of the Flefh, was alfb but a 
 faint and umbratical refcmblance of the more noble 
 and efficacious cleanfing Virtue of his Blood which 
 purges the Confcience from dead works. So the Bra- 
 zen 
 
Oflnfant'BaptiJm. ij 
 
 zen Serpent was but a Shadow or Symbol ofChrift 
 upon the Crofs, and the healing Virtue which,bdong- 
 ed to it, was but a figure, or (hadow of that more 
 eminent, and powerfully healing Virtue, which was 
 in Jefus Chrifl-. But the cafe is not fb betwixt Cir- 
 cumcifion, and Baptifm, becaufe Circumcifion hath no 
 Symbolical likenefs with Baptifm, nor any thing be- 
 longing to it common with Baptifra, which doth not as 
 literally, properly, fully, and eminently belong un- 
 to it, as unto Baptifra it felf. 
 
 For Firft, Is Bnpti(m a Sacrament of initiation into 
 the Covenant of Grace under theGofpel? So wasCir- 
 cumciiion before,and under the Law. Is Baptifm now 
 a Seal of theRighteoufneGot Faith ? So was Circum- 
 cifion then. Doth it properly, and efFedtually con- 
 firm and eftablifh the Covenant betwixt God and us 
 now? Sodid Circumcifion then, asit is written, you 
 fhall Circumcife the Flefh of your Fore-skin, and it 
 fhall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and 
 you. Baptifm doth nothing under the Gofpel, which 
 Circumcifion did not asproperIy,and efTeftually under 
 the Law. This was then as abfblute and real a Sacra- 
 ment, as that now is. This did then as really initiate 
 true Believers, as that now doth. It never was an 
 Umbratical Sacrament, or (hadow of another Sacra- 
 ment, it never did Umbratically initiate Believers, 
 or Umbratically, and in (hew and Similitude only 
 confirm the Covenant betwixt God, and the Seed of 
 Abraham 'j and therefore could not be a Type of Bap- 
 tifm, no more then the Broad Seal of England 300 
 Years ago was a Type of this. 
 
 Accordingly it is never mentioned in the New-Tefta- 
 ment as a Type of Baptifm, nor Baptifm, as the Anti- 
 type of it 5 but on the contrary, the only Typical 
 Adumbrations which are found of it in the Gofpe), 
 
 E are 
 
26 The Cafe 
 
 are fuch things, which have fome Symbolical likenefs 
 vv'ithit,and were fitted upon that account to be Types 
 thereof ♦ 
 
 The Fiift, is the Baptizing of the 7(r<^<?//7e/ih the 
 '<■ Marc -k [\^ed-Sca. I Cor. 10.2. Where the Red-Sea is a Type 
 b.^Sacr'a-oftheVVaterof Baptifm^their paffing through it, when 
 men- they were delivered from Pharoah and his HoftjaType 
 ^HF'^^^P-of our pafling through thst, and of our deliverance 
 deciarat thereby from the Devil, and his Angels,and their Cap- 
 * beatus tain and Deliverer Mofes.^ Type of o\xx Saviour ChrifL 
 
 Apofto-^ -» ^ y t J 
 
 lus, Di- ,,.,.,,, . ^ 
 
 cens nolo enim vos fgnorare. Et addidit, dicens nsecautcm omnia figurseno- 
 
 ■ iiix funt. Cjpian. Ep. 69. Ed. Ox. 
 
 The Second is the (aving of Noah and his Family in 
 the Ark, the like figure whereunto, (aith the Apoftle, 
 even Baptifm doth alfo faveus |] i Pet. 3. 21. Here it 
 FetruTip- IS plain, that the Waters of the Flood were a (hadow 
 fe quoque of the Waters of Baptifm, the Ark a Type of the 
 J'^J'n^"^,. Church, and that the paffing of the Ark through the 
 Cyprian. Waters did prefigure our pafling through the Waters 
 Ep. 74-ad of Baptifm in the Ark of the Church. 
 
 Pompel- A 
 
 urn contra 1 
 
 Eplft. Stsfhm, & in Vimilian Ep. contra eandcm Epift.ad Cy^rUn. Sc in Ep. tf 9. Quod 
 & Pffn^ oftehdensuntimEcclcfiam cfTc, eJ^f. 
 
 But as for Circumcifion it hath nothing in it Sym- 
 bolical of Baptifm, nor was it an Umbratical, but a re- 
 al Confignation of the Covenant of Grace, every way 
 as real, and fubftantial an Ordinance,as Baptifm now is, 
 and therefore fucceeded in the room of it, not as the 
 Antitype did in the place of the Type, but as one ab- 
 folute Ordinance or pofitive Inftitution doth in the 
 place of another, according to the ApoftJe, who (aith 
 
 unto 
 
Oflnfant'Bapifm. 57 
 
 unto the Collojpans. — —In vchum alfo ye are CircHwcifed^ 
 tt>iih the Circnmcifion made vpithout hands^ in putting off' 
 the Body of the Sins of the F-lefh by the Circumcifion of 
 Chriji, having been buried with him in Baptifm. Col- 
 loC 2. 1 1, 12. 
 
 But in thefecond place, if we confider the Original 
 of Baptifm, asa jfewy^ Inftitution, we (liall find it ve- 
 ry improbable, that Circumcifion fhould be a Type of 
 St, becaufeaType properly fpcaking is a "^ Symbol of 
 fomething future, or an Exemplar appointed under qu?Ss 
 the Old Teftament to prefigure (bmething under the voxifta 
 New. S™ 
 
 Thologi- 
 cum, ita definirl pofTe videtur, ut fit futuri alicujus Symbolum quoddam, auc cxcm- 
 plum ita a Deo com^aratom, ut ipfms plane ioftituto futurum illud prjefigurct. Quod 
 autcm lea prasfiguratur illud /intity}m did folct. Oucramus de Sacrificiis. 1. 1, cap. 1 8. 
 
 But, Baptifm was it (elf of jfen?///; Inftitution under 
 the Old Teftament j and by confequence could not 
 be Typified, and prefigured by Circumcifion, Vt^ith 
 which it was coexiftent, and ufed with it for ma- 
 ny years together in the Jewi/b Church. 
 
 The Jew//?) Church made it a Ceremony of initiating 
 Profelytes unto the Law, and our Saviour liking the 
 Inftitution, continued theufe of it, and made it the 
 only Ceremony of Initiating Profelytes unto the Go* 
 fpel, fuperadding unto it the compleat Nature of an 
 Initiatory Sacrament, or the full force of Circumcifion 
 as it was a Sign of the Covenant, and a Seal of the 
 Righteoufnefs of Faith. 
 
 Thefe things being premifed, let us proceed to the 
 ftating of the former Queftions. And firft of all, 
 
 Queft. I. Whether Infants are nncapabk of Bap' 
 tifm^ 
 
 E 2 Which 
 
28 The Cafe 
 
 WhichjConfidering what hath already been faid con* 
 cerning the Spiritual and Evangelical Nature of the 
 Covenant, which Godtnade with Abraham^ and the 
 initiation of young Children into it by God's efpecial 
 appointmenr,cannot without raOinefs be affirmed. Nor 
 thing can refledbmorediihonour upon the Wifdom of 
 God, and the pradifeof the Jeivifi Church then to aG 
 lert Infants to be lincapableot the fame privilege,which 
 God, and the jfen??^ Church granted unto them. For 
 God commanded themtobeCircumciled, andthejerr* 
 ip Church commanded them to be Baptized, as well ' 
 adult Prolelytes, and if they weie then capable both 
 of Circumcilion, and Baptifm, (urely they are capable 
 of Baptifmnow. 
 
 If they be not, from whence comes th^e difference? 
 Not from the Nature of the Covenants, for the Cove- 
 nant, which God made with Abrahunt^ and his Seed, 
 was, as I- ta have (hew*d the fame Covenant for fub- 
 ftarce, which he hath fince renew'd with us in Chrifl-.. 
 Nor from the Signs and Seals of the Covenant ^ for 
 Circumcifion was a Sign and Seal of the fame Grace, 
 or of the lame Righteoufnels of Faith under, the Old- 
 Teftament, that Baptifm is now under the New. 
 
 Wherefore, fince the Covenants were forfubftance 
 the fame, both Spiritual and Evangelical Covenants, 
 and the Grace of thole Covenants the very fame, and 
 only the Rites and Ceremonies which were Signs of 
 thofe Covenants, and Seals of that Grace being diffe- 
 rent 5 what -hinders in the nature of the thing, but 
 that Infants who were capable of theone, fliouldnot 
 alio be capable of the other ? Is Baptifm a more Spiri- 
 tual Ordinance then Circumcifion? That cannot be, 
 becaufe Ciicumcifion is a Gofpel-Ordinance^ I mean, 
 an Ordinance of the Gofpel which God preached before 
 unto Abraham, and if the Spirituality of outward Or- 
 dinances 
 
f Infant' Baptifm. 7< 
 
 dinances are to be meafured from the ends of their in- 
 ftitution, then Circumcifion was every way as Spiritu- 
 al as Baptifm, becaufe it really figned the fame Cove- 
 nant, and fealed the fame Grace, and was a Ceremony 
 of Initiation to the fame Spiritual Seed o^ Ahrahavf), 
 that Baptifm now is. 
 
 Wherefore, if the relative nature of Circumcifion, 
 confideredasa Sacrament, was the fame under the 
 Law, that Ba-ptifm is under Gofpel, it muft needs fol- 
 low, that Children under the Gofpel, are as capable 
 of thisffuppofing no new Command to exclude them) 
 as under the Law, they were of that ^ if Infant Church- 
 Memberlhip, or the Initiation of Infants was then no 
 ablurdity , furely it; can be none now.* • If God 
 under the Old Teftament voachfafed it as a gpscious 
 P-riviledge unto Children to be incorporated with 
 aftual Believers, and withihem to be made Members 
 of his Church , without a Prohibition to thecontrary, 
 they muft needs be capable of the fame Priviledge ftill. 
 Nay, iflnfantswereadmittedinta.the Church', when 
 the entrance into itwas more grievous, and not with- 
 out blood, how unreafonable is it to affert, ' that they 
 are now uncapableof admidion into it, when the en- 
 tranceinto it is made moreeafy, and more agreeable 
 to the natural weaknefs of a young and tender Child ? 
 Certainly if the JemJIj Infants were Circuracifed with 
 the mo(t painful and bloody Circumcifion made with 
 hands, Chriftian Infants, without a Special Counter- 
 mand from God, muft be deemed capable of the Cir- 
 cumcifion made without hands, I mean of Baptifm, 
 which is the Circumcifion of Chrift. What God hath 
 SaEiadified, and Adopted, and made a Member of his 
 Church, let no Man prefume to think it uncapable of 
 Sandlification, Adoption, and Church-Memberftiip, 
 but yet (b ra(h and extravagant have the profefs*d Ad- 
 
 E 3 verfaries 
 
^o The Cafe 
 
 ver Caries of Infant- Baptirmbeen,as to pronounce little 
 Infants as uncapable of Baptilbjas the young ones of un- 
 reafbnable Creatures, and thatit isasvain tocallupon 
 God to i-cvA his Holy Spirit upon them, as to pray 
 hkn to illuminate a Stone or a Tree. 
 
 Nay, upon this very Prefumption, that Infants are 
 uncapable of Baptifm, they aflert Infant-Baptifm to be 
 a ScandalousabuieoftheOrdinanceof Baptirm,a meer 
 Nullity. and infignificant performance, andfcornfully 
 cal\ it E a kj' Baptifm, forgetting all this while that Cir- 
 cumcilion of Infants was no fcandalous abufe of the 
 Ordinance of Circumcifion, but a valid and fignificant 
 Performance, and that in their Phrafe there vf2i.$Baby- 
 Circumcijion, and Baby- Bapttjy inthejewifi Church. 
 
 ; The'reafon why they conclude Infants uncapable of 
 B'aptifin, is taken from the conlideration of their inca- 
 pacity, as to (bme ends and ufes of Baptifm, which 
 cannot beanfwered ((ay they) but by the Baptifm of 
 grown Perfons, 'who are capable of underftihding the 
 Gclpel', andof profeliing their Faithiand Repfentancie, 
 and of fubmitting unto Baptifm, and of having their 
 Faith and Hope further ftrengthned in the ufe of it 5 
 but Infants being utterly incapable of underftanding 
 the Gofpel, or of profeffing their Faith, and Repen- 
 tance, and of fubmitting unto Baptifin in which they 
 are meerly paffive, or of having their Faith ftrength- 
 ned in the u(e of it, they ought to be deemed uncapa- 
 ble of Bapti(m,who(eendsarefb much fruftratedjWhen 
 it is applyed unto them. 
 
 But this way of arguing how plaufible foever it 
 may (eem at firft hearing, is weak and fallacious, and 
 Wghly refleding upon the Council, and Wifdora of 
 God. 
 
 Firft, 
 
of Infant-Bapifm. 5 
 
 Firfb, it is weak and fallacious, becaufe it makes no 
 diftindlion betwixt a [Iri^ wfiitHtion^ vvliich is in- 
 ftituted by God for one, or a fiw ends, and precisely 
 for Perfons of one (x^rt, and an iNJiitntion of Lati^ 
 tude^ which is inflituted by him for (everal ends, and 
 for different forts of Perlbns differently qualified for 
 thofe feveral ends. Of the firft fort, was the Ordi- 
 tjiincz of Fringes above mentioned, which could only 
 concern grown Perlbns, becaufe they only were capa- 
 ble of anfwering the end, for which it wasinn:ituted, 
 viz. To look, ^fpoft them and remember the Command-' 
 merits of the Lordy and of the latter fort is the Holy- 
 Ordinance of Marriage, which was appointed by God 
 forfeveral ends, and for Peribns differently qualified, 
 and capacitated for thofe feveral ends, infomuch, that 
 Perfons, who are incapacitated as to fome ends of 
 Marriage may yethoneftly Miirry,becjiufe they are ca- 
 pable of the reft. All the ends and ufcs,for which it was 
 appointed can only be anfwered by the Marrying of 
 Perfons who are capacited for procreation ofChildren^ 
 notwithftanding fuperannuated Perfons, who are 
 paft that capacity, are not incapable Subjcds of Mar- 
 riage, nor is theMarriageoffuch invalid, or an abufe 
 of the Holy Ordinance of Marriage, becaufethey are 
 capableof anfvveiingoneend, for which Marriage was 
 ordained. 
 
 This fhows how fallacious the Anabaptifts argue a- 
 gainftBaptizingof Infants, becaufe of their incapacity 
 as to fome ends and ufes for which Baptifm was ordain- 
 ed 5 they ought firft to have proved, what they take 
 for granted, that it was a Divine Inftitution of the 
 fitft fort, which I call ajiri& Injiitntion, and then their 
 Argument had been good, but this they will never be 
 able to prove, becaufe Baptifm fiicceeded in the room 
 of Gircumcifion, which was a Divine Inftttution ^of 
 
 the 
 
2 2 The Cafe 
 
 the latter fort, and becaule our Saviour wasBaptifed, 
 in whom there* was a greater incapacity, astotheends 
 ofBaptifm, then poffibly can be in Infants, even as 
 he was in a greater incapacity as to anfwering the ends 
 ot Circunicifion, then ordinary Jem f j InfuKts 'were* 
 John verily did Baptize with the Baptifm of Repen- 
 tance,and thereby (ealed unto the People theRemiffion 
 ot their Sins, and therefoie underftanding very well 
 that our Lord was not capable of this, and other ends 
 of his Baptilim, he forbad him, telling him, that he was 
 fitter to be the Baptitt, then to be Baptized of him 3 
 but yetas (bonas our Lord gave him one gentral rea- 
 fon wh\ he ought to be Baptized, viz, Bpcayje it be^ 
 came himtofufil all Rrghteoftjhefs^ht fufftred him,which 
 Jhcw!^ that B/ptilmisa Uvvm^ Injhtution of Latitude^ 
 and J hat in (iich /»/?7/«^/V7»jtheirfcapacity of a Peilbn, 
 as to fbme eiids,doch not incapacitate him for it, when 
 he is capable of the reft. 
 
 But Secondly, This way of arguing from the inca- 
 pacity of Infants^ as tofome ends ofBaptifm is highly 
 rtfleding upon the Wifdom of God 3 who command- 
 ed youi.g Babes to be Circumcifed, although all the 
 ends of Ciicumcifion could not be anfvvered, but by 
 theCircumcifion of adult Perfbns, who only were ca- 
 pable of underftanding the nature of the InfiitHtion^ 
 and the nature of the Cozenafit^ into which they were 
 to enter, of profeffing their Faith and Repentance, and 
 of fubmitting unto the bloody Sacrament, in wich 
 Children were merely Paffive, and of having their 
 Faith and Hope further ftrengthned upon (ealing unto 
 them the Remiffion of their Sins. 
 
 Wherefore, the fill force of this Objeftion rifes up 
 againft Infant'Cirenwcifiofty as well as Infant- Baptifm^ 
 becaufe CircHMcifion was inftituted for the fame ends, 
 that Bapti(m now is, ^ndaccordingly when Men were 
 
 initi- 
 
Oflnfant'Baptifm. j'f 
 
 initiated by Circumcifion they were to profefs their 
 Faith, and Repentance, and fhortly after at their Bap- 
 tifm folemnly to renounce Idolatry, and all idolatrous 
 Manners and Worlhip, and their idolatrous Kindred 
 and Relations 5 and yet upon the defire of fuch Pro- 
 (elytes, their Children were initiated both by Cir- 
 cumcifion, and Baptifm, though they were altoge- 
 ther uncapable of under ftandingjOf doing thofe things 
 which their Fathers did. 
 
 Wherefore, thole men who argue againft Infant- 
 Baptifm^ becaufe it doth not anfwer all the ends oi^ Bap- 
 tifm, reproach the Divine Wifdom, and the Wifdom 
 of the Jevpijh Church, not confidering, that Circum- 
 cifion was, and Baptifm is an Inftitution o^ great Lati- 
 tude and compafs, defigned on purpofe by God for 
 Children, in Whom there is a capacity for fome, nay, 
 for the ^cheif endsof Baptifin, as well as for Men and *Rcm 
 Women,, in whom thereis a capacity for all. ^ Prxdpn. 
 
 . - . , . -, tifmo non 
 
 attcndunt, hoceftteflificationctndivinajbeiicvoleotix in foeJus S tutelam fuam fufci- 
 pientis fe gratiam conferentls, &c. nam in Baptifmo prxcipua res eft divioa gratia,qu2E 
 confiftit in rcmiffionc peccatorum, regeneratione, adoptionc, hxrcditatc Vits astcrnJE, 
 cu;us fane gratis Infantes & Indgicntcs & capaces funt. Caffand. de Bapt. Infant. 
 
 They are capable of all the ends of it, as it is infli- 
 tuted for a Sign from God towards us,toaflure us of his 
 Gracious favour, and to confign unto us the benefits 
 of the Covenant of Grace. For their Child-hood 
 doth not hinder, but that they may be made Members 
 of the Church, as of a Family, Tribe, Colledge, or 
 any other Society, nor doth it incapacitate thf m any 
 morefrom being adopted the Children of God, then 
 the Children of any other Perfon, nor of becoming 
 Heirs of Eternal Life by virtue of that Adoption, then 
 by virtue of any other Civil- Adoption; the Heirs to 
 fuch a Temporal Eftate. For Children are capable of 
 
 F "^ all 
 
^'^ The Cafe 
 
 all adsof Favour and Honour from God and Men, and 
 of being inflated in all the Privileges of any Society, 
 though they cannot as yet perform the Duties of it,, 
 nor underftand any thing thereof. Since therefore. 
 Children are as capable, and (land as much in need of 
 almoft all the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, and 
 the Privileges of ChurchMemberlhip asMen,is itnot as 
 fit that the Confirmatory Sign of thofe Benefit szud Pri- 
 vi!eges?[io\x\<ii be applied unto them as well as unto thefe? 
 (hould a Prince Adopt a Beggars Child, and incorpo- 
 rate him into the Royal Family, and fettle a part of his 
 Dominions upon him, and to folemnize and confirm 
 all this, (hould cut off a bit of his Flefh, or command 
 him to be wafhed with* Water,who would count this an 
 infignificant Solemnity, or (ay, that the Child ws^s not 
 capable of the Sign, when he was capable of the chief; 
 Things fignified thereby? or to make a Compari(bn, 
 which hath a nearer (emblance with the Cafe of Infant" 
 Baptifm. Suppo(e a Prince (hould (end for an attaint- 
 ed Tray tots Child, and in the Pre(ence of (everal Per- 
 fbns affembled for that purpofe, (hould frty. Ton kpom 
 the Blood of this Child is attainted by his Fathers Treafon^ 
 by Law he hath forfeited all Right to his Ancejiorj Eftate, 
 and Titles^ and is quite undone^ though he be notfenfible 
 of his wretched Condition. My Bowels of Compajflon 
 yern upon hi My and here Irejiorehimtohis Blood and Ih' 
 heritahce, to which henceforward he Jhall have as much 
 right, as if the Family had net er been attainted. Ijufli* 
 fie him freely, and declare my felf reconciled unto him^ 
 and that nofpot or imputation may hereafter lay uponhim^ 
 I here before you all wajl) him with pure water, to fignify 
 that heisckanfed from his Original Attain dure and Cor* 
 ruption of J^lood, and that he is as fully refiored to 
 his Birth-right^ as if he. had never been Attaint, 
 
 Now 
 
Oflnfmt'Bapifm. y^ 
 
 Now fuppole this were done for a poor attainted 
 Infant, could any Man fay that the adion was infigni- 
 ficant, and invalid, becaufe the Child knew nothing 
 of it, or that he was incapable of the Sign, when he 
 was capable of being wafhed from the Attaindure,and 
 of being thereby reltored to his blood,and Birth-right, 
 which was the chief thing fignified thereby? 
 
 The(e things (hould be well confidered by the De- 
 fpifers of Infant- Bapt if m, againft whom I may urge for 
 Precedents the Circumcifion, and Baptifm of the Jevp- 
 ijh Church, both thefe, as I muft often oblerve, were 
 applyed urtto Infants as well as adult,and adual Belie- 
 vers under the Old Teftament, and accordingly, tho' 
 Abraham believed, and (blemnly profefTed his Faith 
 before he was Circumcifed, yet I hope they will not 
 fay that God aded fool iOily, in commanding Ifaac^&c, 
 to be Circumcifed before he underftood the ends of 
 -Circumcifion, or could believe, much lefs make pro- 
 fefjion of his Belief. He was entered Sacramentally 
 into Covenant with God before he was able to re- 
 contradjor underfland what the condition of the Co- 
 venant was, but yet I prefumethey wtU not fay he 
 was Circumcifed in vain, although he was under the 
 very fame incapacity as to the ends of Circumcifion, 
 that Infants are of Baptifm now. 
 
 The befl way,that I know,they have of evading the 
 force of this Argument, is by laying, that Circumci- 
 fion was more proper for Infants then Baptifm, becaufe 
 it left afignificant Mark, and Character in their Flefh, 
 whereas Baptifm isatranfeunt Sign, and leaves no fig- 
 nificantjmpreflion behind it, whereby to inftrudMen 
 and Women what was done unto them in their Infancy. 
 But this is a meer fhift. 
 
 Ea; Firfl, 
 
56 The Cafe 
 
 Firft, Becaufe the Mark^and Charader, which Cir- 
 cumcifion left in the Flefh of the Child, wasasinfigni- 
 ficant to himduring the time of his Non-age, as Bap- 
 tifm is to Chrifimn hfants, neither afterwards could 
 he tell, but by the inftruftion of others, what the 
 meaning of that Character was, and for what ends rt 
 was imprinted in his Fklb. And therefore, according 
 to their way of reafoning againft Infant- Baptifoi^ it 
 ought to have been deferred till the full years of di- 
 fcretion, when the Circumcifed Perfbn might haveun- 
 derftood the Spiritual Signification thereof. 
 
 Furthermore, in anfwer to this Objtftion, I muft re- 
 mind them, that the Mark and Character which Cir- 
 cumcifion left behind it, was of no force, orfignifica- 
 "* E-^ahz. tiori, unle(s it did appear from the* Regifters of the 
 62. Nehm. fribes, that the Perfon circumcifed was a Jen^. 
 
 ' 1 fay,the Chara&er which Circumcifian left behind it, 
 was merely of it (elfof no force nor fignification with- 
 out the RegifterSjOr written Genealogies, beciaufe with- 
 out them neither the circumcifed Perfon himfelfjnor the 
 Church could know in many CircHmfiatices whether he 
 were a true Son o£ Abraham-, or an Egyptian^ Ifmaelite^ or 
 Samaritan, who were dWCircnmcifed as well as the Jews, 
 li Baptifmx.h.QVih^ a TranJtent,Circumci(ion was an E^Ht- 
 z-ocalS'igUy and therefore thefe pretended circuthftan- 
 tial Differences fignify nothing,nor make any fubff an- 
 tial difference betwixt Circum^ifion and Baptifm, as to 
 the capacity of Infants unto bath. They are capable 
 of c6ntra(9:ing a SfHritiial Relation unto God by this, 
 iis for m«"ly^ they were by that 5 they are capable of 
 having their Spiritual attaindure remov'd $*they are 
 capable of receiving the Bleffingsof the Comn ant, tho* 
 they cannot perform the duties of it, and God may 
 folemnly bindhimfelf unto them, tho* they cannot as 
 yet perfonally bind thenilelves unto him. 
 
 But 
 
of Infant'Bapifin. 37 
 
 But Secondly, Allowing that Circumcifion was 
 more proper for Infants, then Baptiftn, yet this diffe- 
 rently is wholly avoided by referring the Praftice of 
 Infant.Baptifm not only unto Infant-Circumcifion, 
 but unto the Original Pradice of Infant-Baptifm in the 
 JewiJI) Church ^ which underftood very well, that it 
 was butatranfient rite,andleft no Charafter upon the 
 perfon, who was initiated thereby. Thofe therefore 
 who take upon them to argue againft Infant-Baptifm 
 from this or any other pretended reafon, take upon 
 them to cenfure, and condemn the JemJIj Church, 
 Vv'hich for many Ages Baptifed Infants, and Minor Pro- 
 felytesinto the Covenant, as well as aftual Believers, 
 and yet were never cenfured, or reproved for it by 
 any Prophet, which we may prefume they would 
 have been, had Baptifmal Initiation of Infants into 
 the Covenant been lo abfurd, infignificant, and abu- 
 (ive a pradice, as the Profeflors againft Infant-Baptifm 
 vainly pretend it is. 
 
 Having now, I hope, fufficiently proved, that In- 
 fants are not uncapable Subjeds of Baptifm. Let us 
 proceed to ftate the next Queftion, which is this. 
 
 Queft. II. Whether Infants are excluded from Bap' 
 tifmbyChrijl ^ 
 
 Where, in the firft place, I muft obferve, that the 
 Queftionf ought to be propofed in thefe Terms, and 
 not Whether Chrrji hath commanded Infants to be Bapti- 
 zed^ For as a good^Author obfervesof the KwtxNile^ '^Hcrodor^ 
 that we ought not to ask the reafon, Why Nile over- ^^^* 2. 
 flows Jo many days about theSummer-foljike} But rather 
 Why it doth Kot overflorv all the Tear long .<? So in the 
 Controverfy about Infant-Baptifm, the enquiry ought 
 not to be, whether Chrifl hath commanded Infants to 
 be Baptifed / But whether he hath excluded them from 
 Baptifm .^ Becaufe, confidering the pradlife of the 
 
 Jewijf) 
 
'^ The 'Cafe 
 
 'jemjij Church as to Infant-Circumcinon and Infant- 
 Baptifm too, it muft needs be granted, that a Com- 
 mand from Chrifl, to initiate Profelytesoutof all Na- 
 tions into the Chriftian Religion, muft without an 
 exception to the contrary, be underftood to compre- 
 hend Infants, as well as Men. 
 
 As for Example, fuppofe our Saviour had not 
 changed the Seal of the Covenant, butinftead of Bap- 
 Vr.stU-- iiZ'7fJg, had fatd unto the Apoftles, Goj and make all 
 Ungflnts^ J^atioKs my Difciples^ Circumcifing them in the Name of 
 on^ofthe ^^^ Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghofi, I ap- 
 W.cp.ioo.peal to any Impartial Man's judgment, whether the 
 Apoftles receiving fuch a Commiffion to CircumciKe 
 Profelytes of all Nations, would not have prefumed 
 without direftions to the contrary, that it wasChrift's 
 Intention that the Infants of adult Profelytes (hould 
 be Circumcifed as well as Profelytes themfelves, ac- 
 cording to the Commandment of God under the Old 
 Teftament, and the Pradice of the Jevpijh Church. 
 
 And it a command to Profelyte and Circumcife all 
 Nations would, without an exception, have compre- 
 hended Infants, as well as Men, why (hould it be ima- 
 gined that thecommand to Profelyte and Baptize all 
 Nations (hould notlikewife comprehend them, feeing 
 that Infant- Baptifm, as well as Infant* Cir-cumcifion 
 had been the immemorial Pradice of the Jevpifl 
 Church . 
 
 This is fb true, that fuppofing our Saviour had in- 
 tended the gathering of Churches among the Gentiles 
 according to the Old Teftament, and the Cuftom of 
 the 'jevpip Church, he need not have expreffed his 
 meaning in any other manner, then by faying unto 
 the Apoftles, Go Profelyte all Nations Circumcifing 
 and Baptifing of them, &c. Nay he could fcarce have 
 exprefled his Intentions in a more emphatical or in- 
 telligible 
 
Of Infant'Bapifm. 3 9 
 
 ttlligible manner unto them, who being Jews muft 
 needs have the fame Apprehenfions as to the Subjeds 
 of Initiation, and Church- Memberlhip und.r the Go- 
 fpel, that they had under the Law. They had lived 
 under a Difpenfation, where Infants were initiated 
 both by Circumcifion and Baptilm into the Church, 
 and without they had been inftruded to the contra- 
 ry, they muft naturally have underftood their Conj- 
 miffion of Baptizing to have extended unto Infants, as 
 well as adiual Believers ^ as if, for infiance, God fliould 
 now extraordinarily call twelve Men of any Chriftian 
 Nation, where Infant-Baptifm had been a conftant 
 and univerfal Pradice, and bid them go^ and Profeljie 
 the Indians, baptizing then/, &c. None o^hefe Men 
 could poffibly imagine, that Infants were excepted 
 out of their CommiHion^ but common fenfe, on the 
 contrary, would oblige them to undcrftandit accord- 
 ing to the ufage of their own Church. 
 
 Befides, abftrading at prefent from the Controver- 
 fy, Whether Chrift did, or did not exclude Infants 
 from Baptifm } What reafon can any Man give why 
 he who fetched fo many of his Inftitutions fromJevo/JJj 
 ufages, (hould exclude them from it, and recede in this 
 Point from the Jenpifl) Church. 
 
 They are every way as capable of the viiible Signs 
 of God's invifible favour, and of the Benefits of the 
 Abrahamical Covenant under the New Teftament, as 
 they were under the Old, they are as fit Subjeds of 
 Baptifmnow, as they were of Circumcifion and Bap- 
 tifm then, their initiation into both Churches feems to 
 be equally rational, becaufe, though the fign of the 
 Covenant be altered, yet the Covenant ftill remains 
 the (ame. In a word, there lay no Obligation upon 
 oxitBleJJed Lord, to lay afide the pradice of Infant- 
 Baptifm, as being inconfiftent either with the Free, . 
 
 or 
 
2JO The Cafe 
 
 •*or the Mavly^ or ZJ/z/t'erp/ nature of the Chriftran 
 Church. 
 
 Th j.; much I have faid to (hew, why the Queftion 
 betwjxt us and the Diffenters upon theaccount of /«- 
 fant'Baptifm (hould be, Whether Chrifi hath excluded 
 Infants fro^ ^aptifm^ And not Jfhether he hath com- 
 manded Infants to be Baptized^ And certainly, the 
 Premifcs being confidered, there is far more rea(bn to 
 conclude, that Chriftfhould have prohibited Infants 
 from Baptifm, if it had been his intention not to have 
 them Baptized, then that he (hould have commanded 
 them to be Baptized, if it had been his intention to 
 continue the pradice of fnfant-Baptifm. For he need 
 not have ciopmanded his Apoftles to do that, which 
 they would naturally have done of themfelves with- 
 out a prohibition, and that he did not prohibit them 
 to Baptize Infants, is now the thing to be proved, in 
 (hewing, that he did not exclude Infants from Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 For if he excluded them from Baptifm, he either 
 excluded them from it direftly by an express prohibi- 
 tion not to Bapti{e them, or confequentially by fo li- 
 miting, and determining theSubjed of Baptifm, as to 
 make it unapplicable unto them. 
 
 That he never excluded them by any exprefs prohi- 
 bition the Anabaptifls themfelves do grant, becaufe 
 there is no fuch prohibition to be found in the New 
 Teftament, but then they preterid, that it was Chrift's 
 intention that grown Perfbns (hould be the onlySub- 
 Je<3:s of Baptifm, becaufe the Gofpel requires, that 
 Perfons to be Baptized (hould firft be Taught ^ Believe, 
 and Repent. 
 
 Firft, The Gofpel requires ,■ that they (hould be 
 Taught, as inMatth. 283 29. Go and teach all Nations 
 Baptizing them^ &c. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
of Infant'BaptiJm. 41 
 
 Secondly, That they fhould believe, as in Mar^ 
 16, 15. Go ye into all the Worlds and Preach theGof- 
 pel to every Creature^ Caymg, He that Belkveth, and is 
 Baptized Jhall be faved. 
 
 Thirdly, Repentance, as in A&s 2.38. Repent, and 
 he Baptized every one of you in the Name (?/ Jefus. 
 
 But now, fay they, thele three Qualifications be- 
 fore Baptifm, can belong to none but grown Perfons, 
 to Men and Women, at years of dilcretion, and there- 
 fore none but fuch ought to be Baptized. And ac- 
 cordingly, we find that Baptifm was pradifed up- 
 on the(e terms throughout the Hiftory of the A^s^ 
 and in Hebr. 6. i. 2. Repentance and Faith are menti- 
 oned as prerequifite qualifications to Baptifin in thefe 
 Words, Not laying again the Foundation of Repentance 
 from deadly works ^and of Faith towards Gody of the Do^ 
 &rine of Baptifmes. 
 
 Thefe are the Arguments, by which the Adverlaries 
 oi Infant-Baptifm endeavour to prove, that Chrift fo 
 limited the fub)e(^ of Baptifm, as to exclude Infants 
 from it. But in this they are grievoufly miftaken,be- 
 caufe thefe,and the like Texts do of themfelves no more 
 prove, that grown perfbns are the only Subjeds of 
 Baptifm, then the words of the Apoftle 2 Thejf, 5. 10, 
 prove that grown Per(bns only are to eat. The Apo- 
 ftles words are thefe : When vpe were with you this we 
 commanded yoH^ that if any would not work^^ neither Jhould 
 he eat. From whence in their fophiftical way it may 
 
 beargUedthuS. -.i ^yny^ ^1■.r]yr\r^. ^.a* r:^>^t 
 
 It belongs only to grown Perfons to eat, becauf^ 
 the Apoftle requires, that Perfons who eat, fhould 
 fkflWork^ but now this Apoftolical qualification of 
 working can belong to none but grown Perfons, and 
 therefore none but fuch ought to eat. 
 
 G I have 
 
42 The Cafe 
 
 I have made ufe of this Parallel inftance to (hew how 
 inconclufivethe former way of arguing agatnftlnfant- 
 Baptifm is in it (elf, and how impoflible it is to prove 
 from the Texts above-mentioned, or any other like 
 them, that Baptifm i« reftrained to grown Perfbns, 
 becaufe none but grown Perfons can be Taught, Be- 
 lieve, and Repent. And I will further difcover the 
 weaknefs and fallacy of this Argument from a familiar 
 Comparifon, which any common Capacity may un- 
 derftand. 
 
 Siippofe then there were a great Plague in any 
 Country, and God fhould miraculoufly call eleven, or 
 twelve Men, and Communicate unto them a certain 
 Medicine againft this Plague, andfay unto them. Go 
 into fnch a CoHtitrey^ and call the People of it together^ 
 and teach them the Virtues of this Medicine^ and ajfure 
 them^ that he that believeth, and taketh it from you flull 
 Live^ but he that believeth not^fhallDye. 
 
 Upon this Suppofition I demand of thefe DiflTenters, 
 if the words of fuch a Commiflion would be fufficient 
 for the Miffioners that received it, or any others to 
 conclude, that it was God's intention, that they (hould 
 adminifter his revealed Medicine to none, but grown 
 Perfons, Becaufe they only could be called together^ and 
 taught the Virtues of it ^ and believe or disbelieve them who 
 brought it. ^ No certainly, this way of arguing would 
 not be admitted by any rational Man, becaufe the 
 Children would be as capable of the Medicine,as the 
 Men, though they were ignorant of the benefits of 
 it, and merely paffive in the Adminiftration thereof 
 
 Wherefore feeing Children, as I have fhewed, are 
 capable of the benefits of Baptifm, and feeing the A- 
 poflles who received a Comcniflion to go and Teach, 
 and Baptize all Nations, Or, as it is in the words of St. 
 Mar^^ to Preach the Gofpel to every Creature, faying. 
 
 He 
 
Oflnfant'BaptiJhf. 45 
 
 He that Believeth and is Baptized fiall be faved. I fay, 
 feeing Children are capable of the benefits of Bap- 
 tifm, and the Apoftles, who received this Commiffi- 
 on, knew them to be capable of it, and to have had 
 both Circumcifion, and Baptifm adminiftred to them 
 in the Jeir//? Church, how (liould they, or any others 
 imagine from the tenure of fuch a Commiflion, which 
 was given unto them, as Planters of Churches, but 
 that it was Chrift's intention that Children, as well as 
 grown Peribns were to be Baptized? 
 
 Should God in the days o£ David, or Solowon^ have 
 called eleven or twelve Prophets, and given them 
 the fame Commiffion, which [Mutatis Mntandisl 
 Chrift gave to his Apoftles, bidding them go and teach 
 all Nations the Law, Circumcifing, and Baptizing of 
 them in the name of the God of Abrabamy and teaching 
 them to do whatfoever he had commanded them, I lay, 
 (hould he havefent them out to preach the Law to eve- 
 ry Crcature,{aying,He that believeth^andisCircHmcifedy 
 and baptized^ fijallbefaved^but he that believeth not Jhall be 
 damned, would a Commiffion fo worded have been of 
 it felf a fufficient ground for them to think, that it 
 was God's intention to reftrain Circumcifion and Bap- 
 tilmto adult Peribns, contrary to the pradife of the 
 JewiJI) Church > Or, if in a ftiort Hiftory of their Mif- 
 Bon, and Undertaking, we fliould have read, that 
 they Circumcifed, and Baptized as many Prolelytes, as 
 gladly received their word, would this have been an 
 Argument that they did not alfo Circumci(e and Bap- 
 tize the Infants of thofe believing Profelytes, accord- 
 ing to the Laws,and Ufages of their Mother Church ? 
 No certainly,ruch a Commiffion toProfelyte Strangers 
 tQ the Jewijh R^eligion, codld not in reafon have been 
 ftrained to prejudice the cuftomary right of Infants to 
 Circumcifion, and Baptifin, and therefore in parity of 
 
 G 2 reafon. 
 
44 The Cafe 
 
 reafon, neither could the Apoftles (bunderftand their 
 Cbmmiffion without other Notices, as to exclude In- 
 fants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church. 
 
 The plain truth is, their Commiffion was a diredion- 
 how they (hould profelyte Strangers to Chriftianity, 
 according to the nature of propagating a new Religion 
 in ftrangeCountreys, as it is (et forth by the Apoftle, 
 Rom. 20. 14. Horv then/hall they call on him^ in vohoni 
 fhey hate not believed^ And hovp fjall they believe in him 
 of whom they have rot heard ^ And hew fiall they hear 
 without a Preacher ^ And how fiall they Preach unlefe 
 they be fent ^ Accordingly they were fent out to^ 
 Preach, or to Dilciple Mtn,and Women by Preaching, 
 and to Baptize as many of them, as (hould upon their 
 Preaching Believe,and Repent. But though the Or- 
 der of Nature required that they fhould proceed in 
 this Method with grown Perfons, as the "jews were 
 wonttodo with ProfclytestotheLaw, yet it did not 
 hinder, that they who had been born,and bred Jews^ 
 fhould initiate the Infants of fuch Profelyted Perfons, 
 according to the ufage of the JewiJJj Church. What 
 need Chrift have (aid more unto them, when he (ent 
 them out, then to bid them G^, and teach all Nations, 
 Baptizing them i7i the Name of the Father, ^c. Or, ta 
 Preachthe Gofpel toevery Creature, znd tell them^thathe 
 that would believe the Gofpel^ and be Baptized.fiould befa- 
 ved. But then the refpedive fence of the(e words could 
 only concern adult Perfons, and their qualification for 
 Baptifm, but could in no reafon be conftrued by them, 
 to exclude InfantSjbut only unbelievingMen,and Wo- 
 men, whereof none were to be admitted into the 
 Church by Bapti(m, before they were taught ChrifVia- 
 nity,and had confefled theif Faith andSins.ShouldGod, 
 as 1 faid before, call twelve Men^of any ChurcbjWhere 
 Infant-Baptifin had been the conftant and undoubted 
 
 pradice. 
 
Oflnfant-Baptifm. 45 
 
 pra(^ice, and bid them go, and Preach the Gofpel in 
 the Indies toevery creature, and to fay, He that belie- 
 veth the DoBrifie which we Preachy and k baptized with 
 the haptifmwhichwe Adf/iimJier^Jljall be Saved:! appeal to 
 any Diflenter upon the account of Infant- Baptifm, 
 whether he thinks that thefe Men, bred up to thepra* 
 dice of Infant-Baptifm, could in probability ib inter- 
 pret thh Commjjioff^ as to think, that it was God's in- 
 tention, that they fhould exclude the Infants of believ- 
 ing/ Profelytes from Baptifmal admiffion into the 
 Chfirch. 
 
 The Pirofeflbrs againft Infant-Baptifm, put the grca- 
 teft ftrefs upon thefe words of our Saviour .• He that 
 believeth') and is baptized^ JImU be Saved : But if they 
 would well confider the next words, they would find, 
 that Infants are not at all concerned in them, becaufe 
 it follows, but he that believeth not (Imll be Dawned, The 
 fame want of Faith,which here excludes from Baptifm, 
 excludes alfo fi-om Salvation, and therefore it cannot 
 be underflood of Infants, unlefs they will fay with the 
 ^^Original Anabaptifts, that the fame incapacity of^jij^p^, 
 believing which excludes them from Baptifm, excludes trobufians. 
 them from Salvation too. Wherefore, it is plain, that fj^^^^^' 
 the believing^ and not believing in that Text, isonly prxfat.ad 
 tobeunderftood of fuch as-are in capacity of hearing, ^^l^- J"^* 
 and believing the Gofpel, that is, of grown Perfons, ^t^^P^^f. 
 juftasthe words in 'joh. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Anabapti- 
 Son of God hath Ever/ajiing Life^ and he that believeth not ^^^' 
 jloall not fee Life, but the Wrath of God abide th on him. 
 
 Thus far have I proceeded to fhew, how incon* 
 chfively and abfardly the Anabaptifts go about to 
 prove, that Infants ought to be excluded from Bap- 
 tifm from the fore-mentioned Texts, which fpeak of 
 the order of, and their Qualifications for Baptifm Pro-N 
 felyting grown Perfons 5 and as little fuccefs have they 
 
 with 
 
4^ The Cafe 
 
 with fome others, which they bring to fhew how m- 
 pYoftable Baptifm is for Infants, as that in i Pet. 3.21. 
 Where the Apoftle tells us,that exetrnal Baptifm ^/"f/zN 
 titig away the filth of the FlefJo^ of which Infants are on- 
 ly capable, fignifies nothing, but ihe anfrver of a good 
 Cof7fckf7ce tovpards God, of which, (ay they. Infants are 
 altogether uncapable ^ to which the anfwer is very ea- 
 fy, that another Apoftle tellsiis, x\\2iX. external Cir cum- 
 cifton of which Infants were only capable, profited tjo- 
 thwg without keeping the Lavp^ which Infants could not 
 ■keep, nay, that the (?;//n?<ir(s/Cir^»«/f;J?(0», of which In- 
 fants were only capable, was nothing, but that the in- 
 ward Circumcifion of the heart, and in thefpirit was the 
 true Circnmci{ion, and yet Infants remaining Infants 
 ., were utterly uncapable of that 5 lb that their way 
 of arguing from this and fuch like Texts, proves no- 
 thing, becaufe it proves too much, and ftretches the 
 words of the Apoftles unto undue conlequences, be- 
 yond their juft Meaning, which was only to let 
 both "jews and Chriftians know, that there was nore- 
 fting in external Circumcifion, or Baptifm, but not that 
 their Infants were unprotitably Circumciled, and Bap- 
 tized. 
 
 So weak,andunconcludingare all the Arguments,by 
 which the Anabaptijis endeavour from Scripture, to 
 prove, that Chrift hath limited the Subjeft of Baptifm 
 unto grown Perlbns^ put them all together they do 
 not amount to any tolerable degree of probability, 
 much his unto a prefumption,e(pecially if they be put 
 in the ballanceagainftthe early anduniverfal pradice 
 of the Catholick Church. Had not the Church been 
 always in pofleffion of this praftice, or could any 
 time be (hewed on this fide the Apoftles, when it be- 
 gan. Nay, could it be proved, that any one Church 
 in the World did not Baptize Infants, or that any con- 
 
 fidera- 
 
Oflnfant'Baptifhi. 47' 
 
 fiderable number of Men othervvi(e Orthodox, did 
 decline the Baptizing oF them upon the fame Princi- 
 ples, that thefe Men do now, then I ftiould fufpedt 
 that their Arguments are better then really they arc, 
 and that Infant-Baptifm might poffibly be n deviation 
 from the rule of Chrift. But fince it is (b univei fal^and 
 ancient a pradice,that no body knows when,or where 
 it began, or how from not being it came to be the pra- 
 ctice of the Church, fince there was never an^' Ciiurch 
 Antientor Modern, which did not pradice it, it muft 
 argue a ftrange partiality to think, that it could be any 
 thing leftjthen an Apoftolical Pradlice, and Tradition 5 
 or theOriginal ufe of Baptifm in its full Latitude under 
 the Gofpel, which it had under the Law. Had ike 
 "^Churches erred they woidd haze varied(Qi\th Tertullian) "^ EcquiJ 
 but what is one and the fameamongji them a 11^ proceeds not c^'^J-ofac^ 
 from error hkt Tradition. Or, as St. || A7ignfline faith tanta? in 
 upon this Subied, That which ike UfjiverfalQhurch doth ^}^^^ ^' 
 hold, and was never jnjtitutea by Lovncns^ but was at- vcrint.? 
 ways retained in the Churchy we moft rightly believe to have NuUusin- 
 defcended from nothing lefs then Apojiolical Tradition. evcatus^°* 
 
 unus eft. 
 Exltus variifTe debuerat error doftrinx Ecclcfiarum.Quod autemapus! itiuJtos unum in- 
 venjcur, non eft erratum, fed tradicum. TertulLdeprsefcriptloBe Hxret. c. 28. 
 jl De Baptifmo contra Donat. 1. 4. c. 24. 
 
 * Menno^ one of the moft learned of the Anabaptifls "^ CafTand. 
 about the time of the Pveformation, was foprefTed with Aoabapc. 
 this way of arguing, that he acknowledged Infant- p. 675. 
 Baptifm to be as old, as the time of the Apoftles, but 
 then he faid, it proceeded from fal(e-Apoftles, and 
 falfe-Teachers in the Apoftles times. But if it came 
 firft from falfe Apoftles, and fal(e-Teachers,inthe time 
 of the Apoftles,how came it to pafs that we heard no- 
 thing of that Innovation in the Writingsof the Apoftles 
 oc of their Companions and Contemporaries, fuch as 
 
 St. 
 
48 The Cafe 
 
 St. Clemefsi^ St. Igmtim-^ St. Poljicarp^ 8cc } How came 
 St. John who furvived unto the latter end of the firft 
 Century to pafs it over in filence, orhoWcame the Spi- 
 rit in the Revelations, which by his Pen reproved To 
 many abufcs in the Churches, not to cenfure this.> It is 
 very ftrange, that none of the Pen-men of the Holy- 
 GhoO, nor none of their Affiftants, and Companions 
 fhould animadvert upon (bfcandalous an abufe of the 
 Holy-Ordinance of Baptilm, which in a (hort time 
 would fill the Church with ftiam Chriftians, and de- 
 ftroy the Effence thereof In like manner, if it came 
 in by falfe Teachers, in the next Age to the Apoftles, 
 how came it to pais that none of the famous Saints and 
 Marty rs,whoflouri{hed thenjoppofed it as a dangerous 
 Innovation, nor gave us any account thereof? They 
 wrote againft the Herefies ofSmoK, Menatider^ Sa- 
 turm/s, Cori/ithus, Ehioft^ Vakntinus^ Baftlides^ Mar- 
 ciofT, &c. but we find nothing in them againft Infant- 
 Baptifm, though v/e are fure from * Iren^tfs^ and || 
 enfrrTv" ^^''^^^^''^^j thatit was pradifcd 10 that Age. 
 
 iiir[Chri- 
 
 ftusj per fcmet ipfum falvare, omnes, inquam, qui per eum rmafcuntur ad deum,infan< 
 tes, &,parvu!os, &pueros, fejuvenes, & Senlores. i.e. Chrificare to fave all by himfelf, 
 alii Ifiyt W'/?o by him are born again to God, Infants, and little OneSy and Bop, and young 
 mi Old. In the Ancient Writers Baptifm is called Regenerationy and Baptized Pcr- 
 foDS are faid to be Regenerate, or born again, according to the Scripture, which calls it 
 A«Tpof <^ct\iyyiVi3-ia.i the vvafhing of Regeneration, lit* 9. §. Hence faith juft.Marr. 
 Apol. 2. ''ETe/76« ayovTAi vp' r\ijm 'iv^a. t/</l<yf 2r/» ;4a/ t^'o'ttov dvayivvrtaitaf, ov kai 
 Dy.iti dvrel civiysuv>)d-niJ.zv, ctvayivvcovreti.So hath Phavorinm obfervcd, 'TrctKiyytvityiA 
 70 aym '^■XTrri^iJ.ct hkyireth Holy Baptijm is called Regeneration, and thofe who would 
 fee more proofs of ir,may confult Suictriis in the words' Acce^evj'Hir/f and Tethtyyinrla. 
 Dr. Ham. on Matth. 19. 28. John 3. $. Selden de jure I. 2. c. 4. But if after all this-evi- 
 dencc any Anabaptift will fay, that renafcuntur \a this place of Irenteusy doth not fignifie 
 Baptised, or born again of PVater, then it inuft fignlfy Regeneratid, or born again of tbt Spi- 
 rit; and if Infants, and little Ones can be born again of the Spirit, then they arecapa- 
 blc of being born again of }f>at£r, or of being Baptized, as FoffiM argues difp, de Bap- 
 tifmo. p. 181. 
 
 II De Ba^tifmo. Where what he fpcaks about deferring the Baptifm of Infants, fhews 
 that it was the practice of the Chriftians in that Age, ?ro cujufque perfona eonditione, ac 
 difpofitione etiatn^tate , cm^latio Baptifmi utilior efty pracipue tamen circa parvulos. Qidi 
 tuimmcejfi eji^ (fnoitm mcefft, fponforts psricHlo ingeri i- ^ 'fli^ij fejiinatjnmms atas 
 
 'ad 
 
of Infant-Baptijm. 4^ 
 
 ai rmlffiomiH peUaUMm ? But this Opinion of his that it was more convenient to de- 
 fer the Baptifm of Infants , was his own fmgular opinion, as much as that was of defer- 
 ring the Baptifm of Virgins and Widows, till they were Married, which follows in the 
 next words. No« minor e ds caufa. innnptl procraflinandl, &c. And he fhews the fame caufe 
 why he would have the Baptifm of Children, and un-married Women deferred, for, 
 fear they fhould be tempted to renounce Chrlfl after Biptifm. Siq/d pondus ktiUiiant 
 Maptifmi, magis timebunt; confecutionm, quam dilationm : fd^s Integra fecura (ft de faints. 
 But then how abfolutely neccfTary he thought Baptifm for Infants in cafe of extream 
 danger is evident from other Paffages, asC^p. 13. Qimm vtro pr^fcribitur nmini fine 
 Baptifm compettre falutm, and Cap. 17. Sii^mt fcilicitinmceifttatibi44 utaru^ ficuh'h ant 
 lociy aiit temjtoris, tut perfena conditio compdlit. Tunc mm condmtia fuccurtintis cxcipitury 
 quonkm rem erit perditi homkisy fi juperfsderitpr^eftarsy quod libere potuit. Solikewifein 
 
 his Book de anima. Cih. ^9. Adeo nulla fer.me Nativitas Munda eft Ethnicorum ^ 
 
 AlioquioMemineratdomimcaEdefinltionis,nifi quisnafcatur ex aqua,& Spiritu nonibit 
 in regnum Dei, i. e. Non erit SanUm. Ita omnis aoima eoufque in Adum cenretur,doncc 
 in Chrifto reccnfcatur, turn diu imraundaj quam dieu recenfcatur. 
 
 Jgnatm^ Polycarp, Papras^ who were all the || Scho- 
 lars of St. Johr?, as likewfe Jujiin Martyr, Athenagoras, II ^^• 
 and Hegepppus^ were all contemporary with Irefi<eus ig^^l 
 who was* the Di(ciple of Ptf/yf<ir/?,(andwho as he tells 
 us in (everal places of his Works, converfed with fe- "^ Ep, ire- 
 veral Antient t Presbyters-^ that had lived in the Apo- J^nu^,^°" 
 ftles times, of whom he had enquired after the Apo- Adverf. 
 ftles PradifesJ and yet this inquifitive Father fays no- Hxrefs. 
 thing againft Infant- Baptifm though we are fure from chap^g. 
 him and his contempory Tertullian^ that it was then Lib. 5. 
 of general pradtice in the Church. ^^^P' ^^' 
 
 t Epift. 
 ad Floririum. Adverf. Ha?fcs. Lib. 2. Chap. 39. 
 
 What meaned all thefe Men to let fuch a peftilent 
 praftifc pafs uncondemned, which in a (hort time, 
 would leave none in the Church h\xt Mock^ChriJliatis^ 
 and fo prevail againft the Catholick Church, which 
 our Lord promifed the Gates of Hell (hould not pre* 
 vail againft } What, would not the Holy-Ghoft pre- 
 ferve {o much as one Church among fo many, from 
 fuch a dangerous error, -but fuffer them all to embrace • 
 
 T-^ H it 
 
5a The Cafe 
 
 it without Oppofition? * Would he fufferthera all fo 
 *Nunc fbon to Apoftatize, and topradile, and believe other- 
 EcdcL ^^^^' ^^^" Chrift had taught, and the Apoftles preach- 
 errave- cd. No ! It isimpoflible. that they (hould all confent 
 rint, de- jp fyc^ a dattgeious error, or that they fhould all peace- 
 & Apofto- 3^)1 y, and tamely fubmit to it without oppofition, or 
 lus de Tc- that (uch an alteration fhould be made without Obler- 
 redden-^ vaiion no body can tell how, or when. 
 
 do Nu!- 
 
 1am refpexerit Spirkus Saoftus, uti cam in vc ritatcm deduccret, ad hoc miflus a Chri- 
 fto, adhocpoftulatusde patre, ut cfiet doftor verkatis. Neglcxerit Officium dei bil- 
 licus, Chrifti Vicarius, Sincns Ecckfias alirer interim intcliigere, aliter credere, quara 
 ipfc per Apoflolas praedicabat. Ecquid verifimile efl toe ac tanta^ in uaam fidem eftii« 
 yerint. Ttrtull. de prsefcript. Hxreticoram.ciS. 
 
 Wherefore thefe Diflenters areveryunreafbnablein 
 charging the Church univerlal with apofiacji (xom Chrift 
 upon theaccountof Infant-Baptifm, andin ft riving to 
 throw her out of the poffeffion of fuch an ancient,and 
 general pradtife merely by (uch indirect and con(e- 
 quential Arguments from the Scriptures, SLSthQAffci- 
 ent Fathers never drew from them^ nor we can admit 
 againft their general pradice diud confetti. Certainly 
 Neque thofeplacesofthe^NewTeftamentj which requiresa 
 «LiSerunt P^ofefflott of Faith, attd Repentance^ in grown Perfons 
 Ecciefix, before Baptifm,were underftood by the Ancient Fathers^ 
 Ecciefix ^^^y undoubtedly had well read and confidered the 
 patiibus Hiftory of Baptifcn in the Ads of the Apoftles, but yet 
 Evangeii- they never drew this abfurd Confequence from them, 
 ftoWcx^ that becaule Faith^ and Repentance were to go before 
 Scripture Baptifm, which is an Inftitution of Latitude, in Adult 
 J^^*° .P^r/3«/, that therefore Baptifm was not to go before 
 
 nitentia, 
 
 Sic fides un^ cum Baptifmo requiri videntur* Scicbant enim probe hzc xd aduhos 
 
 Ca{[ivii> Prafat* Adyerf. AMbapt, 
 
 * 
 
 Faith; 
 
Oflnfmt'Bapifm. t^i 
 
 Faith,and Repentance in Children and Minors, as both 
 Circumcifion,and Baptilm in the like cafe were wont 
 to go before them in the JeroiP) Church. They knew 
 the difference betwixt the admiflion of adual and po- 
 tential Believers, and alfo knew it was a very great £f* ^''- ^ 
 inconfequence to argue from the Qualifications, which Bapti\kJ 
 the Gofpel requires in thofe, to theexclufion of thele. /«/^»^i 
 I freely acknowledge to them, that no Arguments aref^'^rf* 
 equal to the Scriptures, when the Interpretations ofseft.9. 
 them are not doubtful, yet when they are fo, I ap-P""* 
 peal to any fober Diffenter of this, or any other per- 
 fwafion, whether the harmonious pradtice of the anci- 
 ent Churches, and the undivided confent of Apoftoli- 
 cal Fathers be not the moft fure and authentical Inter- 
 preters, that can be betwixt Men, and Men. They 
 thought Infant-Baptifm lawful, and valid, and no a- 
 bufe of the Ordinance of Baptilm, and let any modeft 
 and moderate Man judge, whether fomaay Famous * 
 Saints and Martyrs, fo neerthe Apoftles times, (hould fip^ere ^' 
 fall into fuch a delufion, as to conlpire in the pra- pracJrita 
 dtice of Mock Baptifm, and of making fo many Milli- [ofJ^-Jii!" 
 onof Mock-Chriftians, and Mock-Churches, or that bus par?u- 
 a little SeQ:, which muft have feparated from all the ^of""^ P«f 
 Ancient, as well as Modern Churches, that were ever J^'aSpilus 
 yetdifcovered, (hould be in a great,and grievous error annos uiu- 
 
 tribuerenc 
 & \ Chrifti temporibus ufquc ad vos, non vcros ci Chrif1:!anos, fed Phantajiicos crca- 
 rent ? Siccinc cscatus eft orbis terrarum, tantaquc hue ufquc caliglne involutus, ut ad 
 aperiendos occulos fuos, 8c ad tarn diuturnam nodcm illuftrandam poft toe pacres Mar-> 
 tyres, pontificcs, & univerfarum Ecclcfiarum principes vos taoidiu cxpedaric ? Ji^riu 
 Abbot Clmiacens, apud Caffandr. 
 
 Having now (hew'd Firft, That Infants are not 
 uncapable of Baptifm. 
 
 Secondly , that they are not excluded from it by Chriji-^ 
 but that on the contrary, we have very convince- 
 
 H 2 ing 
 
^2 The Cafe 
 
 ing Reafons to prefume, that the Baptifin of Infants, 
 as well as of grown Perfons, was intended by him. 
 Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial en- 
 quiry upon the Third Qaeftion. 
 
 Queft. 1 1 L Whether it is lawful to feperate from a. 
 Chttrch^ which appoint eth Infants to be Baptized .-? 
 
 And this, confidering what I have faid upon the 
 formerQueftion?,miift be determined in the Negative, 
 Whether we confider Infant- Baptifm only(K a thing law- 
 ffffj and allovpabky or, as a thing highly requifite^ or 
 neceffary to be done. 
 
 I know very well, that my Ad verfaries, in this Con- 
 troverfy, will be apt to deny this diflindion betwixt 
 lawful and neceffary , as acknowledging nothing in 
 Religious matters to be lawful, but what is neceffary, 
 according to that common Principle imbibed by all 
 forts of Diffenters^ That nothing is to be appointed in 
 Religious matters, but what is commanded byfome Pre- 
 cept, or dire&ed unto by fome fpecial example in the Word 
 of God. 
 
 Hence they ordinarily (ay. Can you fhew us any 
 Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New 
 Teftament,if youcan,wewill grant, that the appoint- 
 ment of it is lawful, but if you cannot, we diffallow 
 it as unlawful, nay as an ZJfarpation, and will never 
 be of a Church, which (b Ufurpeth it over the Confci* 
 ences of Men. 
 
 This way of arguing isplaufible to the Vulgar, and 
 would be very good, were there fuch a Principle in 
 the Scripture, as this, from whence they argue, viz. 
 That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters, but 
 what is warranted by Precept, or Example in the Word of 
 God. Wherefore, as the Men with whom I have to 
 deal in ibis Controverfy, are generally Perfons oi 
 good nataial Vnderfia» dings ; 
 
 So 
 
Oflnfant'Bapifm. ^j 
 
 So in the Firft place, I beg them to confider,that 
 there isnofuchRuIe in the Scripture,as this,and there- 
 fore thofe, who teach it for a Scripture-rule, or Pre- 
 cept, do themfelves impofe upon Mens Co f^fckfices^ as 
 bad as Papijis^ and, like them and the Pharijees of 
 old,teach the Traditions of Men for Dodrinesof God. 
 On the contrary, the Cofpel tells us, that Sin is the 
 Traufgrejjion of a Law, and that vphere there is no Lam, 
 there is no Tranfgrejjion, and according to this plain, 
 and intelligible Rule, though the Baptizing of //^f^/^/i" 
 were not commanded in the Scriptures,yet the Church 
 would have Power and Authority to appoint it,upon 
 fuppofition that it is not forbid. 
 
 Secondly, Idefire them to confiderthe absurdity of 
 this pretended Scripture-rule, in that it takes away 
 the diftindion betwixt barely laxfful, or allowabIe,and 
 neceffary, and leaves no Negative meane betwixt ne* 
 ajjary and /»////, but makes things forbiddert, and 
 things not commanded to be the very fame. 
 
 Thirdly, I defire them to confider, what a flavi(h 
 Principle this is, and how ihconfifient it is with the 
 free, and manly nature of the Chrijiian Religion^ under 
 which we (hoiild be in a far more fervile, and Childifh 
 condition, then the Jews were under the Law, which 
 as it is evident from the Feaft of Purim, sndfrom the 
 InfiitHtion of Baptifm among the ]ews^ allowed private 
 Perfons to praftice, and the Church to appoint things 
 of a Religious nature, which God had not command- 
 ed to be done. j^Ahii^' e' ; y ;?; . 
 
 Laftly, I entreat them to confider, how utterly im- 
 prafticable this pretended Principle is, as might be 
 proved from thecontrary praftice of all thofe, who ad- 
 vance it againft Ecclefiaftical Authority^ and pattihi- 
 larly from their own pradl:ice,in Baptizing grown Pdr- 
 Tons, who were bred up from Infants in thte Chriflian 
 
 Religion^ 
 
54 The Cafe 
 
 Religiotf, and in admitting Women to the Lords-Sup' 
 /" jper, who were not admitted /f?/^e Pajfeover, mr Paf- 
 chd'CHp 0fBleJJ]f2g, without any Precept, or Precedent 
 for fo doing in the Word of God. 
 
 This little well confidered,is enough to obviate all 
 Objedlions againftmy firft Affertion, viz. That it is not 
 lavpful id feperate from a Church which appointeth Infants 
 to be B^/j/i&e^sfjUponfuppofition, that Infant-Baptifm »" 
 barely lawful^ and ai/onoable, but if any man defire fur- 
 ther fatisMion, as to this point, he may have it abun- 
 dantly in the cafe of indifferent things^ to which I refer 
 him, it being more my bufinefs to (hew here that 7«- 
 fant'Baptifm is at leaft, a lawful, and allowable thing. 
 
 To prove this, I need but defire the Reader to re- 
 fled upon the State of the two firft Queftions ; For if 
 Infants be as capable of Baptifm under the Gofpel, as 
 they were of Circumcifion under the Law, and if 
 Chrift have not excluded them from it nether diredly, 
 nor confequentially.- Otherwife, ifBapti(mbean/«- 
 Jiitution of as great Latitude in its felf, as Circuwcifion 
 its Fore-runner was, and Chrift hath not determined the 
 adminiftration of it to one Age, more then one Sex : 
 Once more, if Children may be taken into the Cove' 
 «j»^ of Grace, under the Gofpel, as well as under the 
 Law, and Chrift never faid, nor did anything which 
 can in reafonbe interpreted to forbid them to be taken 
 in. In a Word, If they are capable of all the Ends of 
 Baptifm now, that they were of Circumcifion then, 
 and of having the Privileges of Church-Memberlhip, 
 and theBleflingsofthe C(?z^e»<i»/configned unto them, 
 and Chrift neither by himfelf, nor by his Apoftles did 
 forbid the Church to fatisfy and fulfil this their capa* 
 city : Or laft of all. If Chrift hath only appointed 
 Baptifm inftead oi Circumcifion^ but faid nothing to de- 
 termine the Subjed of it, then it muft needs follow, 
 
 that 
 
Oflnfant'BaptiJm. 55 
 
 that Iftfant-'Baptifm muft at leaft be lawful, and allow- 
 able, becaufeit is an indifferent, and nota forbidden, 
 or finful thing. But upon this fuppofition, that it 
 were left undetermined, and indifferent by Chrift, it 
 might like other indifferent things be lawfully ap- 
 pointed by any Church, from which it would be a Sin 
 to feperate upon that account.For in this cafejChurches 
 might fafely differ in their pradice about hfant-hap- 
 ttfmy2s they do now in the Ceremonies of Baptifm 3 and 
 thofe who lived in a Church which did pra^ife it,ought 
 no more to (eperatefrom her for appointing of it, then 
 thoie who lived in another Church, which did not 
 pradife it, ought to feperate from her, for not ap- 
 pointing thereof.. 
 
 Thus much I have (aid, I hope with fufficient mo- 
 deration, upon fuppofition, that all I have written 
 upon former Queftions, doth but fa tisfaftorily prove, 
 that /»/4»^B4p^//«i is only lawful, and not highly re- 
 quifiteand neceffary --, but then if it be not only law- 
 ful, but highly requifite and neceffary, fothat it ought 
 to be appointed, then it mu(t needs be much more 
 finful to feperate from a Church,which appointeth I»- 
 fants to be Baptized. 
 
 Now, as to the requifite neceflity of Infant-^aptifm^ 
 fuppofing that my Reader bears in memory, that I 
 have faid upon the laft Queftion, (to make it appear 
 with the higheft degree of credibility, that Chrift in* 
 ftituted Baptifmfor Infants, as well as grown Perfbn&, 
 and that the Apoftles, and their Companions pra^ifed 
 Infant'haptifm) I muft here entreat him further to 
 obferve, that there is a two-fold neceffity in matters 
 of Chrifiian Faith and pradice, one which proceeds 
 from plain didates of natural rea(ba,or from plain and 
 exprep words <?/^^eG^e/, where the fence is fo obvious 
 and clear, that no fober Man can miftake it, or doubt 
 
 of 
 
^6 The Cap 
 
 of it, and another which proceeds from the general 
 Scope and Tenor of the Gofpel, or from doubt fid places in 
 it fo^ or fo ynderfiood and interpreted by the ynanimom 
 voice^ and pra&ice oftheantient Catholick Church. 
 
 The fiift degree of neceffity is founded on oftenfive 
 certainty,and demonftration, wherein there is no room 
 left for Objedion. 
 
 And the Second is founded upon violent prefump- 
 tion, where the Objeftions on one hand are in(uffici- 
 ent to move, or at leaft to turn the Ballance, if put 
 in the Scale againft the other, jwhichis weighed down 
 \lMoIe tmiverfatis Ecclefi£\ with the authority of the 
 Univei fal Church. And becaufe this Rule, like others, 
 is not fb intelligible without an Example, I will add 
 fome Injiances of things, which areneceflary to be be- 
 lieved, and pradifed by every good Chriftian under 
 both thefe Notions of neceffity, that they may be 
 better underftood. 
 
 According to the Firft Notion of itjitis neceflary to 
 believe, that Jefus Chrifi is the Meffias, and the Son of 
 God^ becaufe it is delivered in exprels words of Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 And according to the Second Notion of it, iti'sne- 
 ceffary to believe, that he if of the fame fubfiance with 
 the Father^ and equal unto him^ and that there are three 
 difiinB^and coequal Perfons in the God-head, which are all 
 but oneGod, becaufe thefe Dodrines, though they are 
 not to be found in exprefs words in the Gofpel, yet 
 they are to be colleded from feveral places of it, 
 which were always fb interpreted by that antient Ca- 
 tholick Church. ;* . 
 
 Again, according to the Firfl Notion of neceffity, 
 it isneceiffary for all Men to believethe Word of God, 
 whether fpoken or written, becaufe aatufaJ xeafon 
 ieacheth aa£ (b ro ydo. . , -h zi-\i .: .. :^ 
 
 And 
 
of Infant'BaptiJm. 5 7 
 
 And according to the Second Notion of it, it is ne- 
 ceffary to believe the Books contained in the New Te- 
 ftament, to be the Word of God, and no other Chow 
 Divine, and Orthodox, and Antient (bever they 
 may be) becaufe they, and they only have been re- 
 ceived fer fuch by the antient Catholick Church. 
 
 Inlikemanner as to matter of pradice, by the Firfi: 
 fort of Neceffity, it is neceffary for Chriftians to aflem- 
 ble together to Worftiip God, becaufe Reafon, and 
 Scripture plainly teach them fo to do. 
 
 And by the Second (brt it is neceffary, that they 
 (hould aflemble themfelves periodically toWorftiip 
 Godonevery firftdayof theWeek, becaufe theOb- 
 (ervation of the Lords Daji, appears to be a Duty from 
 feveral places of the New Teftament, as they are in- 
 terpreted tothislence by the univerfal Pradtice of the 
 antient Catholick Church. 
 
 To proceed, according to the Firft Notion of Ne- 
 ceffity, Church-Government is neceffary, becauleitis 
 enjoined by the Didates of Common reafbn, and 
 moft exprefi places of Scripture. 
 
 And according to the Second Notion of it, it is ne- 
 ceffary, that the Church (hould be governed by Bi- 
 (hops (where they can be had) diftinS from, andSu- 
 periour to Presbyters^ btcsLufethisGover^ffient appears 
 to be inftituted by Chrift from feveral Paffages of the 
 NewTeflament^ as they are explained by the uniform 
 praftice of the Primitive Catholick Church. 
 
 Furthermore, according to the firft fort of neceffity, 
 it is neceffary to a^minifter the Lords Supper^ becaufe 
 our Saviour hath commanded it in exprefs words. 
 
 And according to the Second, which is alfo an in- 
 difpenfable degree of Neccflity, it is neceffary to admini" 
 fter it to Wof^en, though they never were admitted to 
 the Paffeover, or Pafchal Poftcanium^ which anfwered 
 
 I unto 
 
58 The Cafe 
 
 e 
 
 unto it, becaufe we can prove from (bme probabi e pla- 
 ces of theNewTeftamentjthat thejr were admitted unto 
 it, as thofe places are in equity to be interpreted by the 
 univerfal pradice of the Antient Primitive Church. 
 
 To conclude, according to the former Nption of 
 Neceffity, it is necedary to Baptize, becaufe our Lord 
 hath commanded it in exprefs words. 
 
 And according to the Second, It is in likemanner ne- 
 ceflary to Baptife Infants, becaufe We can prove their 
 Baptifm from the Scope,and Tenor of the Gofpel, and 
 from manyPaffages of it,asthey are interpreted accord- 
 to the pradice of the Antient Primitive Church. 
 
 Firrt, From the Scope and Tenor of the Gofpel, 
 which it is reafbnable to prefume, would extend the 
 Subjedof Baptifm,as far as the jF^n?///; Church extended 
 theSubjed both of Circumcifion,and Baptifm. 
 
 And Secondly, from many Paflages in the Gofpel, 
 whereof I fhall recite feme. Except a Man be Born 
 again of Water^ and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the 
 Kingdom of God. John 5. 5. Suffer the little Children to 
 come unto me^ and forbid them not^ for of fuch is the 
 Kingdom of God. Mark ro. 14. The three noted places^, 
 which inform u^^ that the Apojiles baptized whole Hohfe' 
 holds., ^^/Stephanas iCor.i:'i6. %dia A&s 1^.15. 
 and the Jayler Adts 1 6.5 3. The Unbelieving Husband k" 
 SanUifiedbythe IBELIEFING'] Wife, and the Unbe- 
 lieving Wife is Sanaified by the [BELIEVING^ Hus^ 
 band^ elfe, were your Children [Common, t>r] tin- 
 clean, but now they are Holy,, i Corinth. 7. 14. 
 And were aH Baptized' unto MdJes'iW the Cloud, and 
 intheSfca. i Corinth. 10. 2. 
 
 The requifite neceflrty of Infant- Baptifm, may be 
 fairly concluded from thefe Texts. 
 
 Foi' 
 
Oflnfint-Bapijm, 5^ 
 
 For the Firft feems to make Purgation by Water, '^Aiioquin 
 
 and the Spirit equally necellary for all; euviA.ri^9, ^m-^J^Zmu 
 
 lefs otje he horn again^ ; &c, n jc« dcfi- 
 
 nitionisni- 
 
 fi quis naf- 
 
 catur ex Aqua &Spiritu non introibitio Regnum Dei, id eft, non crk Sacftus, itaom- 
 
 ois anlina ufque co in Adam cenfetur, donee in Chrifto receufeatur, tamdiu immunda, 
 
 quaradiu recenfeatur. Te:tulL de ArdmL cap. 39, 40. Pro iioc & Eccldia traditionem 
 
 fufcepit ab Apoftolis etiam parvulis Baptifnium dare- quia efient in omnibus ge- 
 
 DuiosB fordcs peccati, quae per aquam & fpiritum ablui deberenr. On^.inEp. zARom.l^. 
 W\n Luc. Horn. 14- Prcpierea Baptizantur & parvuli, nifi enim quis renatus, &c. 
 Omnes venit [Chripis'] per femetipfum falvare, omnis inquam, qui per cum rmajcu^- 
 tur in Deum Infantes par vulos & pucros, & juvenes, & feoiores. irtnteus I. 2. c. 39. 
 
 From the * Second, it is rerffonable to conclude, "^TmuHin 
 that little Children are capable of Profeljtifw, or en- aicquXm 
 tring into theCovenant after the Jervifi manner, wheti dominus, 
 they are brought unto it by others. hiber?ir 
 
 los ad me 
 venire. This he faith by way of Objedion, which fhews, that this Text was in his 
 time undctftood for Infant-Baptifm, but then bcczufc it was his prefent Opinion, that 
 Cunftatio Baptifmi prxcipue circa parvulos w^j- utillor, he anftversj Veniant dum ado- 
 lefcunr, veniant domdifcunt, dum quo veniant docentur. 
 
 Firft, Becaule they are declared * capable of the '^c'.7/r^«^r. 
 Kingdom of God. f,^Z 
 
 And Secondly, Becaufe || the Original wordsfanr./'73o. 
 fAoSr/V 7rei5,are the fame with '7repov?^^'i'vfiom whence II J^';^-^^- 
 the Word Projelyte doth come. Bjpdfm. 
 
 From the Third, itisreafonable to conclude. That Seft. 22. 
 they Baptized the Children upon the Converfion *^* 
 of the Parents, after the Cuftome of the JewiJJj 
 Church. 
 
 t From the Fourth, it is reafonable to believe. That 
 the Foederal Holinefs of Believers Children makes f Tertuii. 
 
 de anima. 
 r. 59. Hinc enim & Apoftolus txSar.ftificatoalterutro fesu Sar.ftos procreari ait, tarn 
 ei feminis prxrogativa, quam ex inftitutionis difciplica. Caterum^ inquit, immundi 
 rafcermtury quafi defignatos tamen fanftitatls, & per hoc etiam falutis intclligi volens n- 
 delium filios, ut hujus fpeipignora, Matrimoniis, qux retinenda cenfucrat, patroci- 
 narctur. Alioqui meminerat.^ . 
 
 I 2 them 
 
6o The Cafe 
 
 them Candidates for Baptifm, and gives them a right 
 untoit. 
 
 And the Fifth makes it reafbnableto concIude,from 
 the Type to the Antitype, that if the Jews with their 
 Children were umbratically Baptized unto Mofes in 
 the one, that Chriftians and their Infants (hould be 
 really Baptized in the other. 
 *R6nt.$, To all which may be added * other Texts, which 
 PP/.51.5. have been alledged by the Antients both|| before and 
 24! /ol*}. after the Pelagian Controveriyy to prove the Baptifm 
 $,6.2cor. of Infants neceflary, rtowalh away their Original Sin,. 
 icir.^iA. which makes them obnoxious to Eternal Death. 
 
 i^/fob. ' 
 
 14. 4' Vid voff.hift. Pelag. lib. 2. part 2*- 
 
 !lVolT.hift.Pdag.p.i.Thc(;(5. 
 
 I; (ay, the requifite neceffity of Infant-Bapiifm;, 
 might be fairly concluded from thefe Texts, without 
 the Tradition of the Antient Church, though with- 
 out it I confe(s,it could not be demonft rated from them, 
 as the Doftrines of the Trinity, and theDeity of the 
 Holy Ghoft may be fairly ,and fufficiently proved from 
 thofe Texts, which the Orthodox bring for them, with- 
 out Antient Tradition, though without it, they could 
 not be demortftrated from them, becaufe they do not 
 afTert it in exprefs words. 
 
 But then,as thofe Texts in Conjunftion with Tradi- 
 tion, do. put thofe Doctrines out of all reafonable 
 doubt .* So do the other, which I have cited in Conjun-* 
 dion with the pradiceof the Antient Church, put the 
 requifite neceffity of Infant- Baptifm out of Queftion, 
 becaufethe Church in the next Age unto the ApoftJes 
 pradiifed Infant-Baptifm, as an Apoftolical Tradition, 
 * and by confequence, as an Inftitution of Chrift. 
 
 In 
 
Oflnfant'Baptifm. 6t 
 
 In Iik€ manner, as the Intrinfecal Arguments taken 
 from the Style, Sanftity, Dignity, and Efficacy of 
 the Holy Scriptures, and the perpetual Analogy, and 
 Conformity of the (everal Books contained in them, 
 are by themlelves but probable, and no demonftra- 
 tive realbnsjthat all the Books contained in the Canon, 
 and noother,are the Word of God, but inconjundi- 
 on with the Teftimony,and Authority of the Antient 
 Catholick Church, amount to a Demonftration: So, 
 though the Texts, which I have cited, are of themlelves 
 but probable Arguments for the requifite neceffity 
 of Infant-Baptifti, yet in concurrence with fuch a 
 Comment upon them, as the practice of the next Age 
 unto the Apoftles, and all Ages fince, from one Gene- 
 ration toanother,they amount to fuch a demonftration, 
 as is called in Logick^Demovfiratio ducens ad abfardum^ 
 and are a violent Prefumption, that Children ought 
 to be Baptized. I might run on the Parallel,as to the 
 other Inftances of Epilcopal Government, the admit- 
 ting of Women to the Communion, and the Obfer- 
 vation of the Lord's day 5 and therefore let the Adver- 
 fariesof Infant-Baptifm confider well with themlelves. 
 Whether rejedfcing of it after a Concurrence of luch 
 Texts, and fuch a Tradition to eftablifh ir, they do 
 not teach others, elpecially y4/^e//^/, pureDe//?/, and 
 Sahbatizers 5 to which I may add Sceptics^ SocinianSy 
 and ^akersy a way to deny all the reft. 
 
 Thus much I have faid concerning the requifite fte- 
 f-e//?/; of Infant-Baptifm, to (hew that it is not lawful 
 to feperate from a Church for appointing of Infants to 
 be Baptized, when there are fuch cogent realbnsarile- 
 ing from the concurrence of Scripture, and Antiqui- 
 ty to prefume, that Infant- Baptilm was an Apoftoli- 
 cal Tradition^and an Inftitution of Chrift. And I have 
 defignedly called it a reqmfite^ to diftinguilh it from an 
 
 abfolnH^ 
 
62 The Cafe 
 
 abfolute nece(rity,left the Pveader fhould think,! v/ereof 
 St. Aiigupns Opinion, who thought Baptifm indifpen- 
 bly neceflary to the Salvation of Infants, fb that a 
 Child dying unbaptized, through the careleffnefs, or 
 Snperftition of the Parents, or through theirmiftaken 
 
 ^f Potcft Belief of the unlawfulnefs of Infant- Baptifm, were "^ 
 
 V^T^^. infallibly damned. 
 
 parvulos 
 
 fine Baptifmo de corpore exeuntes in damnadone omnium mitiffima futures. Multum 
 
 autem fallk, & fallitur, qui eos in damnatipne pra?dic4C non futures, dicentc Apoftolo 
 
 Judicium ex unodclifto ^//^/</?.de peccat meric. & rcmifTcomra Pdag.l.i.c.i5. 
 
 Vid. & contra ]ulknttm Pelag. 1. 5. c. 8. 
 
 N05 I intended no fuch fevere Conclufion, fbe- 
 caiife we ought nottotye God to the fame means, to 
 which he hath tyed us) but only to fhewthat the Bap- 
 tifm of Young Children is antecedently neceffary, 
 \^R r^" and || in any wile to be retained in the Church, as be- 
 en, ^Anic. ing moft agreeable withtheHoly Scriptiire, theApo- 
 »?• ftolical Practice, and the Inftitution of Chrift, And 
 to fet this way of arguing more home upon the Con- 
 fciencesof thofe, who Diflent from the Church upon 
 the account of Infant-Baptifm, I appeal unto them, 
 Whether Scripture, and Antiquity, {landing againft 
 Infant-Baptifm in the fame pofture of evidence, that 
 they now fland for it, it would notbeunjuftifiablefor 
 any fort of Men to feparate from the Church, for not 
 Baptizing Infants, as they do now for Baptizing of 
 them . 
 
 Let usfuppofe, for Example, Thatthe Difc'iplesof 
 Chrifl, inftead of rebuking thofe, that brought little 
 Children unto him, had brought them to him them- 
 felves^ and he had been muchdifpleafcdatthemforit, 
 and fa id, Ifuff^ernot Little Children- to come Ufjtome, for 
 the ILif^dom of God is not of fuch i Let us put the cafe, 
 Th^t two Evangelifts had recorded this fuppofed Story, 
 
 and 
 
Oflnfam-Baptifm. 6^ 
 
 and accordingly we had been affured, by the Writers 
 of the two next Ages to the Apoftles, that then there 
 was no Baptizing of Infants, and that the Apoftles 
 Baptized them not, and that there never was any 
 Church in after Ages which did pradice Infant-Bap- 
 tifm ; Upon this Suppofition, I appeal unto them, 
 Whether it would not be highly unreafonable tofepa- 
 rate from all the Churches in the World, for not al- 
 lowing of Infant-Baptifm againft the Concurrence of 
 fuchaText, to the contrary, and the fence and pra- 
 ftiee of the Catholick Church. 
 
 The cafe, which I fuppofe one way, is the real ca(e 
 the other, only with this difference, that the fuppo- 
 fed' cafe would have but the benefit of one Text, 
 whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Con jun- 
 ction with Tradition, and therefore, feeing there are 
 fo many Texts, andfucha Cloud of Witneffes for In- 
 fant- Baptifm,; Why ftiould it not be looked upon a» 
 one of the common Notions^ of Chrirtianity, like the 
 ParaUdDo&rines above-mentioned; thowgh it be' rrot 
 commanded (efpecially when, as I have fhewedthere^ 
 was no need of commanding of it) in exprefs 
 Words. 
 -ii knmrthe T^fiemtf-s of KrfPite^ a^d ef^cifrally 
 thofe, for whole fake I am now writing, are bred Up 
 in great prejudice, and finifter Sufpitions againft 
 Tradition^ declaiming againft it, as very uncertain, 
 and againft'the ufe of it as very derogatory totheliiffi- 
 ctcncy of the Word of Gad. Biit astb the firft p^t, 
 of tfeeir Gbje^ioit agairift the eertatnty of Traditioir, 
 I defirethera to take riotice, that there i^ a certain,, as 
 well as an uncertain 5 an undG'abted, as welf as a 
 doubted, a true, as well, as a pretended Tradition, 
 as there are true, certain, and trnddubted, asvi^ellas 
 pretended, and uriBcit^in Seriptti^resj and that there 
 
 are 
 
. 64 The Cafe 
 
 are (u re ways whereby ingenious, and inquifitive Men, 
 
 may (atisfie themlelves, which is one, and which is the 
 
 other. 
 
 The way then to find out true and undoubted Tra- 
 ^ Adverr. djtion, as '^ Vincefttius Lirinenfis teacheth, is to try it 
 H^'^-c.3.|^y thele three Tefts. Vniverfality^ Antiqmty^ and 
 
 Cofifent, 
 
 Flrfl by Umverfality^ if all the Churches, where- 
 (beverdifperfed, or how different foever in their Lan- 
 guages, and Cuftomsdo believe, or pradice (uch a 
 Do&rine. 
 
 Secondly, Antiquity^ If what all the Churches all 
 the World over doth fo believe or prac^ife, was no 
 innovation but Believed, and pradiifed in the Ages 
 next to the Apoftles, when fuch Fathers governed 
 the Churches, or fuch Famous Men lived in them, as 
 knew the Apoftles, and converled with them, or lived 
 near untothofe, or with thofe Apoftolical Men, who 
 foknew them, or converfed with them, or lived near 
 u-nto them. 
 
 Thirdly, Confeftt^ If it appear that (uch a Dodrine 
 was the confentient belief or pradtifeof all the Fathers 
 in thofe Ages, or of all except a very few, who had no 
 proportion to the reft. 
 
 To which I will add, Firft, That this Tradition 
 muft be written, and not OralL And * 
 
 Secondly, that it muft be proved in every Age from 
 Books that were written in it, and whole Authors, 
 whether under their own, or under borrowed Names, 
 had no intereft to write (b. 
 
 And therefore, though the Teftimonies for Infant- 
 Baptifoi in the ConftUutiom^ going under the name 
 
 of 
 
of Infant' Bapifm. 6 5 
 
 TS 
 VUcvV 
 
 of '^ Clemens Romanus^ and the book of Ecclefiaftical "^^'^^ 
 Hierarchy, bearing the name of || D/^/y//^ the Ac/^?- ^fj^^ 
 pagjte^ are of no authority as to the firft Century, ra i/wV/se. 
 when St, Clement^ and St. De/?/j lived ^ yet they are ~^/^i„^^ 
 mod: excellent authorities for the third, and fourth fams, and 
 Century,when they were vviiitenjbecaufethey hadno ^^"caw 
 interelt to write for Infant- Baptifm. The like, I may Ihe^Difc^ 
 (ay, of the Teftimony which the |||] Ancient and Ju- p'ine, and 
 dicious Author of the Anfrvers to the Orthodox corjcernwQ ^^"l^"j~ 
 jof»e ^efljotis^ gives or Intant-Baptifm, it is oinoau- forfaith 
 thorityasfor the fecond Century, when Juflin Mar- ^^^^^^f* 
 tp\ whole name it bears, flourilhed, butbeingadif- Jie(5iii/* 
 intereffed writer, it is of excellent authority for the <iren to 
 third, when it was written. m?Vnd^ 
 
 forbid 
 them not. 
 II C. 7. Where arguing (or lafant-Baptifm he faith, of this we fay the fame thingf, 
 which our Divine Minifters of Holy things inftrufted by Divine Tradition brought 
 down to us. 
 
 nil Quxft. & rcfpoi]f. <,6. where he faith, that thereis this difference betwixt Bap- 
 tized, and unbaptized Infants, that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptifm, 
 which thofe, that are not Baptized do not enjoy, and that they enjoy tlicm by tlic 
 Faith of thofe,who offer tliem to Baptifm. 
 
 So much for the Teji whereby to try certain,and un- 
 doubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition, and 
 happy had it been for the Church of God, if all Wri- 
 ters at the beginning of the Reformation, had made 
 thisdiftindion, and not written fo, as many of them 
 have done, againft all Tradition without any di(crimi- 
 nation j whereas Tradition, as I have here ftated it, is 
 not only an harmlefs thing,but in many cafes very ufeful 
 and neceffary for the Church. It was by Tradition in 
 thislence, that the Catholicks, or Orthodox defended 
 themfelves in the fourth Century againft the Ariatts^ 
 and the Church of i^/r/V^ againft the Dofjatifls^ and 
 the Protefiatjts defend themfelveSj as totheSciipture- 
 
 K Canon 
 
66 The Cape 
 
 Canon,and' many other things againftthe Innovations 
 o{ the Pa pijis. And therefore, in anfwer to the Se- 
 cond part of their Objedion againft Tradition, asde- 
 tradting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures, Imuft 
 remind them, that the Scriptures, whole fufficiency 
 we admire,as well as they, cannot be proved to be the 
 Word of God without Tradition, and that though 
 they are fufficient, where they are underftood to de- 
 termine any Controverfy, yet to the right under- 
 ftanding, and interpretation of them in many points, 
 *Lex Cut- Tradition is as requifite,as the * pradiiceof the Courts 
 Traxi *^ ^° underftand the Books of the Law. 
 
 This is fo true, that the ^///z^^/'/t/?/ themfelves can- 
 not defend the Baptizing of fuch grown Perfons, as 
 were born, and bred in the Church merely from the 
 Scriptures, in which the very Inftitution of Baptifm 
 hath a fpecial regard unto Profely tes, who from ^udor 
 ifm^ or Gentilifm^ would come over unto the Chri- 
 fiian Faith. Accordingly they cannot produce one 
 Precept,or Example for Baptizing of fuch as were born 
 of Chriftian Parentsin all the New Teftament, butall 
 the Baptized Perfons we read of in it, were jevps^ or 
 Gentiles-^ and therefore they cannot defend themfelves 
 againft the ^akeri,[y\\o for this, and other Reafons, 
 have quite laid afide Baptifm] without the Tradition, 
 and Praftice of the Church. 
 
 Queft. IV. Whether it he a Duty wcumbettt upon 
 Chrijiian Parents^ to brifjg their Children unto Bap* 
 tifm^ 
 
 To flate thisQueftion aright, Imuft proceed inthe 
 fame order, that I did upon the laft. 
 
 FirfV, in arguing from the bare lawfulnefs, and al- 
 lowablenefi of Infant-Baptifm. 
 
 And Secondly, From the "neceffity thereof^ 
 
 As 
 
OflnfanuBapifm. 6f 
 
 As to the lawfulnefsof it, I have already (hewn up- 
 on the laft Queftion, That there is no neceffity of ha- 
 ving a CommandjOr Example for to juftify the pradice 
 of Infant-Initiation 5 but it is fufficient, thatitis not 
 forbidden to make it lawful^and allowable under the 
 Gofpel. Nay, I have (hewed upon the Second Que- 
 ftion, that of the two, there is more reafon that Chri- 
 ftians (hould have had an exprefs command to leave 
 oflF, or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation, be- 
 caufe it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumci- 
 (ion, and approved by him in Infant-Baptifm ("which 
 ♦he Jervijlj Church added to Infant-Circumcifion) un- 
 der the Legal State. Commands are ufually given 
 for the beginning ofthepradice of (braething, which 
 was never in praftice before f but to juftifie the con- 
 tinuation of an anciently inftituted, or anciently re- 
 ceived practice, it is fufficicpt, that the Power, which 
 inftituted, or approved it, do not countermand, or 
 forbid it : and this, as Ifhave ftiewn, being the ca(e 
 of Infants-Initiation, the Initiation of tliem by Bap- 
 tifm under the Gofpel, muft at leaft belawful and al- 
 lowable, and if it be (b, then Parents, and Pro-pa- 
 rents are bound in Conlcience to bring them unto 
 Baptifm in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church. 
 For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant 
 with God, and in this Society, as in all others there 
 are Superiors, and Inferiors, fbme that muft order, 
 and (bme that muft obfcrve Orders, fome that mufi 
 Command, andfome that muft Obey 5 and therefore, 
 if the Catholick Church, or any Member of it com- 
 mands her Children toobferveany lawful thing, they 
 are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government, 
 and by the Precepts intheGofpel, which regard Ec- 
 clefiaftical Order and Difcipline, toobferve her Com- ^ 
 raands. Obe^ them (iaiththe* Apoftle) who have the ij, 
 
 K 2 Rule 
 
^8 The Cafe 
 
 Rule over yoH^ and fnbmt your jehes utito ihem^ for they 
 * A^. i6. vpdtchfor your Souls. Accordingly we read that St.^ 
 4- Paul^ as he went through the Grecian Cities delive- 
 
 red the Chriftians the Decrees, which the Apoftles had 
 made at Jerufalem, to keep , but I think, I need not 
 fpend more time in the Proof of a thing, which all 
 i){//e»ferj willgrantme, for though they differ from 
 us, astotheSubjeft of pureEcclefiaftical Power, yet 
 they all agree, that there is fucha Power, and that all 
 lawful Commands proceeding from it, ought to be 
 Obey'd. 
 
 Wherefore, if Infants are not uncapable of Baptif^ 
 mal Initiation, as is proved under the firft Queftion, 
 nor excluded from it by Chrift, as is proved under the 
 Second 5 but on the contrary, there are very good 
 Reafons to prefume, that Chrift at leaft allowed them 
 the benefit and honour of Baptifm, as well as grown 
 Perfons; then the Ordinance of any Church to Bap- 
 tize them muft needs lay an Obligation of Obedience 
 upon the Confciences of Parents, and Pro-parents, 
 who live within the Pale of it, becaufe the matter of 
 that Ordinance is a thing not forbidden, but at leaftj 
 allowed by Jefus Chrift. 
 
 But becaufe People, when they are once fatisfied 
 with the lawfulnefs, are wont, efpecially in Church* 
 matters, to enquire into the expediency of their Su- 
 periors Commands, and to obey them with moft 
 Chearfulnefs, and Satisfaftion, when they know they 
 have good reafbns for what they ordain 5 therefore, 
 leaft any one whom perhaps I may have convinced of 
 the bare lawfulnefs of infant-Baptifm, ftiou Id doubt of 
 the expediency, of it, and upon that account beJefs 
 ready to comply,! will here proceed to juftifieihepra- 
 ^ice of the Church in this Particular 3 by (hewing . 
 
 Firft, 
 
Of Infant'Bapifm. 69 
 
 Firft, That Baptifmal-Initiation is very beneficial 
 and profitable for Infants. 
 
 And Secondly, That the Baptizing of themcondu- 
 ceth very much to the well-being and edification of 
 the' Church. 
 
 Firft then, Baptifmal-Initiation is very benefici.il 
 and profitable for Infants, becau(e they are capable of 
 the Benefits, and Priviledges of Baptifm. 
 
 This I ftiewed in general before, under the firfk 
 Queftion, and now I will (hew it in a more particular 
 manner of Induction, by infifting upon the leveral 
 Endsjfor which Baptifm was ordained. 
 
 Firft then Baptifin was ordained, That the Baptized 
 Perfbn might be thereby folemnly confecrated unto 
 God, and dedicated to his Service, and I hope I need 
 not prove, that Children are capable of this benefit 3 
 fince JeiviJI} Infants were Confecrated to God by Cir- 
 cumcifion 3 and the Scripture tells us, that "^ Sampfon h-.^h^^i^ 
 was a Nazarite from the Womb, zndxhatSaifjuel from 13- «5' 
 the time of his Weaning, was dedicated unto the 
 Lord. 
 
 Secondly Baptifm was ordained, That the Baptized 
 Perfbn might be made a Menjber of Chrift's Myftical 
 Body, which is the Holy Catholick Church. This is 
 a great, and honourable Priviledge, and no Man can 
 deny, b\it Infants ave as capable of it under the New, 
 as they were under the Old Teftament. Nay, fo far 
 are they from being under any Natural Incapacity, as 
 to Church-Memberftlip, that they ar^ ordinarily born , , 
 free of Kingdoms, Cities, and Companies 5 and there- 
 fore, why any Man fhould think it not fo proper for 
 the Church-Chriftian to be as indulgent to them, as 
 ikQjemfh Church was, and Civil iSocieti^s uiually are, ^ ^^«'i' ^J' 
 lofoftfel cannot te^.;,^;/'•'/\i,^^ "^^^ ' 1 
 
 Thirdly, 
 
yo The Cafe 
 
 Thirdly it wasordained, That the Baptized Perfon 
 might by that Solemnity pafs from a State of Nature, 
 wherein he was a Child of Wrath, into a State of A- 
 doption or Grace, wherein he becomes a Child of 
 God. 
 
 For by our Firft Biith we are all Children of 
 Wrath. 
 
 But by our Second Birth in Baptifm, we are made 
 Children of God: And why it (hould be (b improper 
 for a Child to pafs inthisfblemn manner from one Spi- 
 ritual, as well, as from one Temporal State to ano- 
 ther^ or be Solemnly Adopted by God, as well as 
 Man, or 
 
 Laftly, Why a Child may not be Adopted un- 
 der the Gofpel, as well, as under the Law? I am 
 confident, thofe who are willing to defer the Baptifin 
 of Infants, would be puzzled to give any rational ac- 
 v'"V' count. 
 
 In the Fourth place, Baptifm was inftituted for a 
 Sign to Seal unto Baptized Perfbnsthe pardon of their 
 Sins, and to confer upon them a Right of Inheritance 
 unto Everlafting Life , but Baptifm hath this effed 
 upon Infants, as well as upon adult Perfons, for it 
 wafhes them clean from "^ Original, as it doth Men, 
 ctiaro^oL ^"^ Women both from Adtual and Original Sin. I lay, 
 
 vid dixilTe 
 
 crcdcnduseftillud, qui hpiccato eonctpit me mater mea^ pro hoc & Ecclefni ab Apofto- 
 ]fs traditioncm fufcepit, etiam parvnlis Bapdfitium dare. Scicbant cnim i'li, quibus 
 myftcriorum fecreta commifia funt divinorum, qnia cflent In omnibus genuinas fordes 
 peccati, qine per aquam & fplritutn ablui debeftnt. OrigtnAtt Ep. ad Lous. /..j. » ape; 
 78 Ac/UV- "<"*'>' '^civifov £ri' Contra Cclfura 1. 4. Quant o twagis prohlberi non debet 
 Infans, qui rccens narus RJhjl peccavit, nifi quod fecundum Adam carnalitcr natus 
 contagiujn mortis antiqua? prima Nativitate contraxit. Cypr'un. in Ep. ad Fidumt 
 Thofc tliat would fee more TcftimoBiesout of the Ancients about OrigiQal Sin, before 
 the time of \\»Ptlagim Comrovcrfy, tnaywnfult Jrimus I.4. cap. ^. ' 1.5^. >cap. i6. 
 f. 5. cap. 20. 1. 5. cap. 14. 17. 21. and many more cic^d omc ef ' J«,^^drr. iti 
 Dial. camTryph. tatUnm his Scholar, Athanafttts^ &c. by Vojfm in his Hilt. Pelag. I. a; 
 part I. Th.6. Vid, Cm. Condi. Carthag. 112. 
 
 it 
 
Ofhfant-Bapifm. fr. 
 
 it waflies them clean from Original Sin, and feals the 
 Pardon of it, and the affurance of God's favour unto 
 them,and being deanfed by the waftiing of Regenerati- 
 on from the guilt of that natural vitiofity which they 
 derived from Adam^ and which made them obnoxious 
 to the difpleafureof God, they become reconciled un- 
 to him, and acquire as certain a Right to Eternal Life, 
 upon their juftification, as any atftual Believer in the 
 Word. I cannot deny, but they may be faved 
 without Baptifm, by the extraordinary, anduncove- 
 nanted Mercies of God, and (b may adual Believers, 
 who die unbaptized,if they did not contemn Baptifm 5 
 but then the hopes which we ought to have of 
 Gods Mercy, in extraordinary Cafes, ought not to 
 make us le(s regardful of his fure, ordinary, and cove- 
 nanted Mercies, and the appointed means, unto 
 which they are annexed. 
 
 But in the Fifth place,Baptinn was ordained, That 
 being admitted into the Covenant, and ingrafted tn- 
 to Chrift's Body, we might acquire a preSnt Right 
 unco all thePromifes of the Gofpel, and particularly 
 unto the promi^s of the Spirit, which is fo ready to 
 affifl: Initiated Perfons, that it will defcend in its in- 
 fluences upon them at the time of their Initiation in 
 fiach a manner, and meafure, as they are capable *v 
 thereof.' 
 
 This the Primitive Ghriftians found by experience 
 to be (btrue, that they called Baptifm, 
 by the names o(' * lllHminationfjrace^^i r\A * Hebr. 5. 4. ylakhtm «nS 
 •UMon; and we need not doubt, but ]S! Vu^rtj^tT^- 
 they talked, as they fek 5 and for this a^^^ov kak^^hv, x*P"^/^ 
 reafon, they Baptized Infants, becaufe ^^^'^'<^t*=^^ '^''^'^Nazianz* 
 they knew that they acquired a Right om.*4o. ^^^' 
 untothe fame Spirit by Baptifm, who Hvid. Cyprfaai Ep. i. 
 wuld be fure to prefide, and watch »^^^°«"^- 
 
 over 
 
y2 - The Cafe ^ 
 
 over them, and ad upon their Souls according to the 
 meafure of their capacity, and prevent them in their 
 very firft doings with his Gracious Helps. 
 
 Wherefore, though it (hould be granted, that the 
 Holy-Ghoft cannot beadually conferred upon Infants 
 in-Baptifm, by reafon of their natural incapacity ^as 
 Afiahaptifis raftily aflert) yet the Baptizing of them is 
 not fruftraneous, as to this great End of Baptifm, be- 
 caufethey thereby acquireanadtual Antecedent Right 
 to the Affiftances, and Illuminations of the Holy Spi- 
 rit, which they (hall receive, as foon, and as faft, as 
 their natural incapacity removes. 
 
 This diftindion betwixt having the Spirit, and ha- 
 ving a Right unto the Spirit, holds not on ly in Infant- 
 Baptifin, but in the Baptifin of Hypocrites, and Se- 
 cret Sinners, who by fubmitting unto the Ordinance 
 of Bapti(m acquire an adual Antecedent Right unto 
 the Spirit, although they are in a moral incapacity of 
 receiving the Graces of it, till their Hypocrify is re- 
 moved. Neverthelefs, their Baptifm is not ineffedual 
 as to this End, but is a means of conferring the Holy- 
 Ghofl upon them without re-Baptization, becaule 
 though they cannot receive it at the moment of their 
 
 i Baptifrn,by reafon of their Hypocrifie, as fincere Peni- 
 
 tents do, in whom there is no fuch Moral Impedimentj 
 yet by virtue of it, they will be (ure to receive it af- 
 terwards, as fbon, as they (hall in any degree become 
 capable thereof. 
 
 ; Thofe are the Blefiings, and Benefits, confequent 
 
 upon Baptifm by God's appointment,of which Infants 
 areas capable, as adual Believers, and let any Impar- 
 
 tV '-^Vtial Man judge, Whether it is more for their benefit, 
 that this manifold capacity in them (hould be adually 
 
 \; , .. j.anfwered by the timely Adminiftration of Baptifm, or 
 that it fhould lay void and unfatisfied, till they came 
 
 to 
 
of InfanuB^ttfm. 7^ 
 
 to 5'ears of Diferetion .«? Which is beftfora Child that 
 hath the Evil^ to be Touched for it, while he is a 
 Child, or to wait till he isoffufficient Age tobe(enfi- 
 ble of the Benefit ? Or to make one Comparifon more,, 
 which would be beft for a Traytors Child, to be pre- 
 (ently reftored to his Blood,andEftate,and his Princes 
 Favour, or to be kept in a meer capacity of being re- 
 ftored till he was a Man? 
 
 But befides the(e Benefits which are confequent 
 upon Baptifm by God's appointment, there is another 
 no lefs profitable to young Children, which will ju- 
 ftifie the pradtice of Injant-imtiatiot?, and that is to 
 have fuch an early pre-engagement laid upon them, 
 which without the higheft Bafenefs and Ingratitude, 
 they cannot afterwards retrad. No Perfon of common 
 Ingenuity, who hath any fence of honour, or any to- 
 lerable degree of Conlcience within him^ can with- 
 out {hame and horrour break tho(e Sacred Bonds a- 
 funder, by which he was bound to God, in his Infan- 
 cy, when he comes to Years of underftandingj but 
 on the contrary, will think himlelf in Honour, and 
 Gratitude, bound to own, and ftand to the Obliga- 
 tion, which he then contraded, when he was graci- 
 oufly admitted to fb many Bleffings and Privileges, 
 before he could do any thing himfelf towards the ob- 
 taining of them, or underftand his own good. It 
 would argue a Perfon to be of a very ill nature, and 
 untoward Difpofition to break fiich (blemn Foederal 
 Vows, and therefore, we (ee that Children gene- 
 rally do readily take upon themfelves their Bap- 
 tifinal Obligations, when they come to the u(eof rea- 
 fon, whereas were they left alone, to their own Free- 
 dom, when they would be Baptized, they would be 
 apt to put it off from time to time, through the averf- 
 nefs that the corrupt nature of Man hath to luch ftrid, 
 
 L and 
 
74 7'i&^ Cafe 
 
 and Spiritual Engagements, and in fuch a State of Li- 
 berty, as this, Men would need, as many, and as ear- 
 ned Exhortations unto Baptifm, as unto the Lord's 
 Supper 5 and in luch an Age, as ours is at leaft, reludl: 
 as much to come unto that, as v»^e fee by experience 
 they do unto this. Wherefore, upon Suppofition that 
 Chrift doth but allow Children to be brought unto 
 him in Baptifm, The Wifdom of the Church is highly 
 to be applauded for bringing them under fuch an ear- 
 ly, and beneficial pre-engagement, and not leaving 
 them to their own liberty at fuch years, when Flefb, 
 and Blood, would be apt to find out fo many Shifts, 
 andExcu(es, andmakethem regret to be Baptized. 
 
 ,And therefore in the Second place, as the Baptifm 
 oftnfantsisvery Beneficial, and profitable unto them: 
 Soitconduceth very much to the well-being, and edi- 
 fication of theChurchjin preventing thole Scandalous 
 and Shameful delays of Baptifm, which grown Perfbns 
 otherwife would be apt to make, putting of it offtill 
 the time of fome great ficknels, as many were wont 
 to do in the third and fourth Century, when being not 
 Baptized in their Infancy, they did ordinarily receive 
 Baptifm, asPapifis now receive extreamZ^/;^7tf»,when 
 they were ready to expire. 
 
 For, as it is ufual now for Perfbns to defer the re- 
 ceiving of the Lord's Supper, for fear of Damnation, 
 miftaking the Apoftle , where he faith. He that Eat" 
 eth and Drink^th unworthily^ Eateth^ and Drinketb 
 Jbamnation to himfelf : So in thole ages it was ufual for 
 ^ Perfons to defer their own, and their Childrens Bap- 
 
 Prim.clri- ^^^"^ ^^^ of a * kind of Novatian Principle, for fear 
 
 (liin.^zn i.ch.io. ahfJicpofin S'tA'p^ei^ni 70 ^a^to-jj^a' — Grcg.Nazianz. Orat4o.p.^47, 
 &549. Scd mundusrurfus dclinquir, quo male comparetur dilnvb, it^que ignidtftl- 
 natur^ ficur&honio, qui port Baptifmumdellftareftaurat.r.rr*//. dcBtptifmo. 'A\?\ti 
 
 cT 'iJ^OtKA pmi TO THf (puffitDf Y\l/.UV ilf ttl/M^TlctV iVKOhOV KoH S'M TWT« IT/XJ; 70 P(<*f <l' '^<6* 
 
 hiyytmia.i 0ie(,^tJi/u> Greg.Nyflcn dc Bapclfmo. 
 
 that 
 
 o 
 
Uj lnjant'X>a^tiJm. 75 
 
 that if they fell into Sin after Baptilm there would be 
 no place for Repentance, miftaking that place of the 
 Apoftle, where *tis faid, that if theji^ rt>ho were ofjce en- 
 //g^/«e^ [i.e. Baptized] fall away ^ it is impojjible to re- 
 nevp them again unto Repentance. 
 
 Now the Baptizing of Children being deferred by 
 their Parents out of this Superftitious fear, they, when 
 they came to be Men and Women, put the doing of 
 it off for (everal Reafons, and Pretences, which we 
 learn out of the Writers of thole times. 
 
 Some deferred it out of Worldly Love, and a Car- 
 nal loathnefs to renounce their finful Pleafures, and 
 take upon them the Yoke of Ghrift. Some put it off 
 pretending want of leifure through multitude of world- 
 ly bufinefs 3 others out of lazinefs, and carelefs negli- 
 gence. Others were wont to plead the infufficiency 
 of their knowledge, others the inconveniency of the 
 prefent time^ others would not be Baptized, but at i^^^*"*, 
 fuchatime, or in fucha place, asfucha City, 01: inch. ExceilLt 
 2l River, or by (uch a Perfon, or in (uch a Company. Preface to^ 
 Some would put it off upon a pretence of not having ^^S^^^^f* 
 Hich, or fuch Relations prefent, others would decline Bapifm, 
 it upon the account of fbme (mall Expences, that at- 
 tended it, others becaufe they relufted to confefs 
 their Sins, others becaufe they favoured not the Do- 
 ftrine of the Holy-Trinity, or to comply with the 
 Arians 5 fbme becaufe they would imitate the Exam- 
 ple of Chrift, who was not Baptized till the ^oth. 
 Year of his Age, and fbme out of fear of Perfecu- 
 tioD. 
 
 This happened formerly to the great (hame, and 
 difhonour, of the Chriftian Religion, though the ^"f-Gugor. 
 Fathers (harply and vehemently Wrote, and Preached ^J^^^^SV 
 againft it 5 and therefore, upon fuppofition of the bare apTst. 
 lawfulnefs, or indifierency of Infant- Baptilm, I can- ^4^^ 
 
 L 2 not 
 
76 ihe €ajs V) 
 
 not but approve the Wifdom, and Prudence of thofe 
 GhurcheSjWhich appoint it, becaufe the pradiceof it 
 doth prevent fuch (hameful^and fcandalous Neglefts of 
 Baptifm, which to the great prejudice of Chriftianity, 
 as Experience hath taught us, would otherwife arife 
 in the Church. 
 
 Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulnefs, and 
 expediency of Infant-Baptifm,to (hew Chriftian Parents 
 what an indifpenfable Obligation lies upon their Con- 
 Iciences to bring their Children to be Baptized in Obe- 
 dience to the Church, which hath appointed Infant- 
 Baptifm 5 but then if Infant-Baptifm be not only ne- 
 ceffary becaufe the Church hath appointed it, but 
 the Church hath appointed it becaufe it is neceflaryi 
 and in any wife to be retained, then this antecedent 
 (brt of neceffity doth yet lay a ftronger Obligation 
 upon theConfciences of Parents to initiate their Chil- 
 dren as being moft agreeable to the pradice of the Af 
 poftles, and the Intention, and Will of Chrifl:.i 1 
 
 Firft, As being moft agreeable to the pradice ol 
 the Apoftles, who it is highly to be prefumed, autho- 
 rized the pradtice of Infant-Baptifm, becaufe^. it was 
 pradlifed in the next Ageunto them. .. odi .v 
 
 And Secondly, As being moft agreeable to the In- 
 tention, and Will of Chrift, who it is to be prefumed, 
 would have forbidden^ and countermanded the Jevoifh 
 pradice of initiating Infants, if he had not had a mind 
 they (hould be Baptized. 
 * Nam Wherefore "^ his very not repealing of that pradrce 
 *^"T ^T *^ ^ fufficient Demonftration, that it was his pleafure 
 musinEc-^^ fhould be Continued 5 it was the prafticeof the Jew- 
 ckfiak- 7/j Church before he came, and the pradice of the 
 admfffiooe ''^^ C/)rz/?74» not long after he departed^ and we 
 Profeiyto- find the pradiceof itin the one harmonioufly anfwer^ 
 rum ka ^ng tothe pradiGcof it in the othcr^and therefore what 
 
 fuit notus, or ^ 
 
 ' was 
 
Uj ihjant'baj^ttjm. 7 7 
 
 was before, and what was after his time, we may well «fiwtus, & 
 prefume, was continued in the interim during the time u7n?hiTfc- 
 pfthe Apoftles, as his prefumed Will and Intention, re nodus, 
 whenever did, or fpoke any thing, that can reafona- ^^"""^^ 
 bly be interpreted, that he would have the Jewifi cu- us^*^non"'. 
 ftom of admitting Infants into the Church, laid afide, pus erat, 
 and therefore, hisfilence, andthefilenceof the Scrip- pr^^cemo 
 tares, are fo far from being Arguments againft Infant- roborare- 
 Baftifm^ that confidering. the Antecedent ufage of it, ch ft^'™ 
 they are very ftrong Prefumptions for it, as theLearned Baptif- 
 Author in theMargent doth excellently prove. "^"^ in 
 
 maousfuas 
 atque in 
 ufum Evaogclicum fufcepit,qualem invenit,hoc foliltn addito, qUod ad digniorem fincrh 
 atque larglorcm ufum promoveric. Novit fatis gens univcrfa parvolos folitos Baptizarf ; 
 Illud przccpro opus non habuit, quod Comtnuni ufu Temper invaluerat. ' Si prodirct 
 jam ediftum regale in haec verba; Rccipiac fe unufquifque diedominico ad publici)m 
 convcntum in Ecclcfia, infaniet certe ilJe, quicunque dim hinc argueret non ccle- 
 brandas ede die dominlco in publicis conventibus prcces, concioncs, Pfalmodias, eo 
 quod nulla inediAo dciis mcntio. Nam cavit ediftum de cclebratione diei dominicx 
 in publicrs, conventibus in generc, de panicularibus autem divini cultus fpecicbus 
 ibidem cclebrandis non opus erat, ut elTet mentio, cum iftae ante datum ediftum, & 
 cutti daretur, fempcr fe ubique notae eflent, & in ufu alfiduo. Ipfiffimo hoc modo res 
 fe habuit cum Baptifmo, Chriflus cum ioftituitin Sacramentum Evangelicum, quoin 
 profeffionem Evangelil omnes admitterentur, ut oHm in Profelytifmum ad Religionetn 
 Judaicum. Pattlcularis eo fpeftantia modus fcilicet Baptizandi xtas Bapti^anda, fex- 
 us Baptizaodus &c. regula & definhioncopus non Habuerunr, eo qaod hj?(i vel lippis 
 & tenforibus notacrant excommuni ufu, E contPa ergo plana & aperta prohibitione 
 opus erat, ut Infantes & parvuli non Baptizarentur, fi eos Baptizmdos nollet fervator 
 <— Si abolcri iftam confuetuditieni vellet Chrifius ^perte prohibuiflet. Silientium ergr 
 ejus 8e Scrlpturae pafdorbaptifmum firmat, & propagat. , Lightfoot Hora mbraiu I'- 
 Matth. 3.^' 
 
 To this purpoie aliOj navel aiIcoiirieaapove,'?up- 
 on the Second and Third Queftions 5 and tteefore if 
 Chrift in the Reformation of the Church, from the Law 
 into the Gofpel," did not repeal the Antient pra(5ice 
 of Infant- Baptjjm, hut l^ft Baptffi^ to bq adminiftred 
 in the (ariie Latitucle, ag before Jhis time, thenit mijft 
 Bef d^bjE^ coiidSaed, th^t there lies the iame Obligati- 
 ^fi upqn.Parenfe:Xabfti:a<3^^^ from the Commands of 
 ''' ^ ■' ' ' ' ' the 
 
78 The Cafe 
 
 the ChurchJ to defire Baptifin for their Children, as 
 for grown Profelytes to defire it for themfelves. 
 
 For what authority foever enafts any thing concern- 
 ing Children, or Perfons under the years of difcreti- 
 on, doih lay at leaft an implicite Obligation upon 
 Parents, and Pro-parents to fee that ad be performed. 
 As if for Example, an Ad of Parliament should be 
 made, that all Perfons, whatfoever. Men, Women, 
 ' and Children, (hould pay (b much an Head unto the 
 King, the Ad, by the nature of it, would oblige Pa- 
 rents, and Pro-parents, to pay for their Children, 
 and the Minors in their cuftody, as well, as for them- 
 felves. Or, if in the time of a general Contagion, 
 the Sup ream Power (hould command, that all Men, 
 Women, and Children, (hould every Morning take 
 fuch an Antidote, that Command would oblige Pa- 
 rents to give it unto their Children, as well, as to take 
 it themfelves. Juft fo the Ordinance of Baptifm be- 
 ing intended, or inftituted by our Saviour in its anci- 
 ent Latitude for Children, as well, as grown Perfons, 
 it mu(t needs lay an Obligation upon Parents, and Pro- 
 parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrament, other- 
 wife the Divine In(titution would in part be made 
 void, and fru(trated of the Ends for which it was in- 
 ftituted, as if it did not alfo lay an Obligation upon 
 Adult Per(bns to offer themfelves unto the Holy Sa- 
 crament, it would be of no force at all. 
 
 To fura up all in (hort. When our Lord firft ap- 
 pointed Baptifm, and afterwards (aid. Go, and Pro- 
 feljite all Nations Baptizing them^ &c. either he intend- 
 ed that Children (hould be Baptized,as well as Grown 
 Profelytes, or he did not 5 if he did qot intend they 
 (hould be Baptized, Why did he not plainly difcover 
 that Intention } Nay, Why did he not plainly forbid 
 them to be Baptized, as they were wont to be, but if 
 
 he 
 
OfJnfint-BaptiJhi. y^ 
 
 he intended they fhould be Baptized according to the 
 ancient cuftom, thfen, according to the ancient cuftom 
 in the Jemfi Church, Parents are ^s much bound to 
 offer them unto Baptifm, as Adult Believers, Men 
 and Women, are bound to ofF^r themfelves. 
 • What I have here faid about the Obligation,which 
 lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Bap- 
 tifm, concerns all Pro-parents to whole care Children- 
 are committed, as Guardians^ Tutors, and Church- 
 Wardens 5 and left any (hould ask, as (bme Sceptically 
 do, at What time they are bound to bring them unto Bap' 
 tifm ^ As foon^ as they are born, or the next day after, or 
 vphen^ I anfwer, byfhewingtheimpertinencyof that 
 C^eftion, in reference to Grown Believers thus : 
 When muft a Believing Man, or Woman be Baptized ^ 
 As jhon m he Believes, or the next day after, or when ^ 
 And truly the Anfwer is the fatjie to both Queftions, 
 M^my time, the Gofpel indulging a difcretional Lati- 
 tude in both Cafes, and only forbidding the wilful 
 negleft of the Ordinance, and all unreafonable, and 
 needlefi delays thereof. 
 
 Queft. V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with 
 Believers, who were only Baptized in- their In' 
 fancy .<? 
 
 The ftating of this, depends upon what I havefaid 
 upon the Second, and Third Queftions, to prove. 
 That Infants are capable SubjeBs of Baptifm, and that it 
 is lawpl to Baptize them 3 and if I have not erred, as I 
 hope I have not, inthofe two Determinations, then 
 the Baptifm of Infants is lawful, and valid, and if the 
 Baptifm of them be lawful, and valid 5 then it cannot 
 be unlawful to Communicate with them, when they 
 coEne to beMen, and Womenr 
 
 Accordinglyj 
 
8o .v^feHTi^^oi^ :: 
 
 Accordingly, it never entered into the Heart of 
 any of the ancient Chriftians to refufe Communion 
 with Grown Believers, who had been Baptized in their 
 Infancy, whether they were Baptized in pei^eft 
 health, as Children jnoft commonly were^ or only in 
 danger of Death, as the Children of thofe Novatian 
 kind of Parents above mentioned always were, who 
 were (b far from thinking hfavt-Baptifm a Nullity, or 
 Corruption of Baptifm, that they thought it neceffa- 
 ry for them in ca(e of apparent danger, and durft not 
 let them die un-baptized. 
 
 Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Chil- 
 dren, becaufethey thought them too weak to endure 
 the Severities of the Trine immerfion,and others, per^ 
 f- Dc Bap- hzips^ according to the private Opinion of* Tertullian^ 
 Ah^°qul-^ and ^Nazianzett^ thought it more convenient todelay 
 dem do- the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being 
 Sior' Catechized between Three, and Four years old, but 
 prohibcre ftiil thisdelay of Baptifm fuppofed their continuing.in 
 ad me ve- health, but in cafe of danger they thought it t necef- 
 niant «g6 ^^ry to Baptize them, and if they furvived the danger, 
 dum ado- looked Upon them as lawfully, and ,validly. Bap- 
 
 lefcum, x'xreA '.' w^ 
 
 dum dif- 
 
 cunc, dum, quo veniant, docentur. 
 
 II rigg/t U TMv oi?\Xm ^SttifM Tvuf/MV rvv rpisllccv dvaiAeivocvfccs, 
 scg/Vg.^/ m)va,rov^ ^ kj iJtA mjVLSVTCb ^eXicasy ccAA' vv TUTrvfJUivct) 
 <7?co5. Orat. 40. 
 
 ^pc(,.i, Tid'mh^'iv do-(p^yi9X'i j^aTFAgsw. 
 
 Thefe 
 
of Infant-Bapujm. 8i 
 
 Thefe were all the Pleas we read of for deferring 
 the Baptifm of Ipfaqts among the Ancients, who ne- 
 ver urged' this for one, that Infant-Baptifm was uii- 
 la\yfil,r QTibyaW. "No, They never argued againft 
 itfromthe want of tho(e pre-requifite Conditions in 
 Children, which ChriO:, and the Apoftles required in 
 Adult Profely ties, nor from the Want of Precepr, and 
 Example for it in the New Teftament, but Co under- 
 ftood the Scriptures, as to think itas lawul, and war- 
 rautal^le as the Baptifm of Grown Believers, and ne* 
 ceiTary in cafe of danger 5 and juft fo did thole, who 
 deferred their Baptifm/or fear of finning after it,think 
 the Baptifm .of Mea apd . W^men only neceflary at the 
 laft extP^ibkyihap|)aErei1t danger of Death. 
 
 But then if the ordinary pra(3:iceof Infant-Baptifm 
 be not only lawful, and valid, but alfo necefTary, as 
 appearing mod agreeable to the prefumed Will of 
 Chrift, who did not countermand the practice of it, 
 and moft conformable to the pradice of the Apoftles, 
 as can be proved from the praftice of the very next 
 Age unto them 5 then it muft not only be lawful to 
 Communicate with Believers, who were Baptized in 
 their Infancy, but an exceeding great Sin, and Pre- 
 fumption to refufe Communion with them upon that 
 account. 
 
 In a word, If InfanuBaptifm be not only lawful, 
 but neceffary, what a grievous, and provoking Sin, 
 muft it needs be, to difown thofe for Members of 
 Chrift's Body, whom he owns to be fuch> but if it be 
 neither, as Anabaptifis vanely pretend, then there hath 
 not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth, 
 for Eleven hundred Years, nor a Church, for above 
 Fifteen hundred, with which a true Chriftian could 
 Communicate without Sin. 
 
 M This 
 
82 '-"'fM 
 
 ' This is a very abfurd, and dreadful confequence, 
 
 aild fficoMent whh' th-e fHrity of, the Apoftolical 
 
 Ages, while the Church w^sfofxift of Saints^ Matt^'/s^ 
 
 ^ See Dr. and Miracles, and reprefented as "^ Symmetral by ^he 
 
 lore's A- Spjj-it of God under the Symbol of Meafuring the 
 
 ^Am Pn- Temple of God, and the Altar. Rwel 11,1,2., ; . 
 
 Andonthe • : JDj VA 3. 'lOi 3lqttIBXa 
 
 mJuofthe .^.-jiutni:'.?. "sHj fcoo:-! 
 
 I I 1 1 I -.11., 1 f— . . , 
 
 ; hj Hi ''^'iiiiiJJ 
 
 The c6'^&tmimsti 
 
 '.''re* " 
 Although in the managemeint ©I this Goptrovqrfy 
 againft the Anah<^tijis, I haveemdeaV^uredib tof^ate 
 the Cafe o^ hfafjt'BaptJfm, ii% to Qbvinte^ or anfwer 
 all the Confiderable Pleas, and Material Objedions, 
 which they are wont to make againft it ^, , yet there are 
 two of their Obje^ions, of which 1 have yet taken 
 no notice, thinking it better,, that I might avoid tedi- 
 oufnels, and confufion in determining upon the pre- 
 ceding Queftions, to Propofe, and Anfwer them 
 apart by themifel ves. : , , 
 
 The Firft of thefe two, is the ancient Cuftom of 
 givifig the Commumon unto Infants^ which they en- 
 deavour with all their Art, and Skill to run Parallel 
 with the praftice of hifant-Baptifm ^ although iher^ 
 is. not the like Evidence^ nor the like Realbn-forthe 
 pra^ice ot that, as there is for the pradtce of 
 this. 
 
 IT" 
 
 Firft, 
 
Oflnfant'Baptifm. 83 
 
 Firfl", There is not the like Evidence for the pra- 
 dice of it, St. * Cyprian being the firft Author, which * ^^n^^ 
 they can produce for it, and after him the || Author ofquidde- 
 the Book of the Ecclepaftkal Hierarchy^ and t 0/'^^^/climinfs 
 Jerufalem, are the next, who mak^ mention of it to- cumuium 
 wards the latter end of the Fourth Century, and then in^^ntcs 
 St,^'^ Anguftin in the Fifth 5 who indeed (peaks fre- Jemum^'^' 
 quently of it, as of the pradice of the Church in that manibus 
 
 ^ vcl impo- 
 
 ^g^' M, vel 
 
 attrsfti : 
 amiferunt parvult, quod in primo ftatim Nativitatis Exordio fucrunt confecuri. Non- 
 ne Uli cum judicii dies venerir,dlcent : Nos nihil fecimus, nee dmll^o cibo^ ac poculo 
 domlni ad profana contagiafpontc properavimus. Afterwards he tells a Story of a lit- 
 tle Girl, who having been caiTied to the Idol- Feafts, was afterwards brought by her 
 Mother, who knew nothing of it, to the Communion, when he adminiftred it, and 
 when the Deacon brought the Cup to her, fhc turned away her Face from it, but the 
 Deacon pouring fomc of the Wine into her Mouth, flie fell Into Convulfions, and 
 Vomitings, which the Holy Father looking upon, as a Miracle, did thereupon difco- 
 ver, that (he had been polluted at the Idol-Feafts. Vid. & Augu^, ad Bonijacim Epif- 
 cop. Ep. 23. vol. 2. 
 
 11 Cap. 7. Contcmplat. 5. p. 5^0, ^62. 
 
 f Carcchcfis 3. illuminat. Hierofolym. 
 
 "^"f" De verbis domlni In Evang. Johan. Epift. 23. io(5, 107. Lib. 1. depeccatorum 
 merit. & remifT. cap. 20. lib. i. Contra Julianum c. 1 1. Contrii duas Epiftolas Pelag. 
 Lib. 2 .cap. 22. lib.4. cap. 14. 
 
 Thefe arc all the Authorities for Infant-Commufiiony 
 that 1 know of, till St. J/(g»^/Vs time, whereas befides / 
 the authority of St. Cypria»^ which is the firft they 
 have for Communicating /w^w^/, we have the autho- 
 rity of a whole Council of Fathers, in which he prefi- 
 ded, and of Or7^e», TertuUian^ zudlret7£us, who was '^ See 
 the Scholar of St. Poljcarp, and the Grand-Scholar of jJ^'^^JJ 
 St. Johfi, large in 
 
 And then, whereas among the Writers of the 4th. Y^«!^'^ 
 Century, there are but the two above-cited, who infant-^ 
 make mention of Infatit'Communion^ we have St. '*^ Baptifm, 
 Hkrom^ St. Ambrofe^ St. Chryfoftonte^ St. Atkaffafiuf.^'J^f' 
 
 M 2 Gregory 
 
 275" 
 
84 The Cafe 
 
 Gregory NazJaf!zeff\-2indthe third Councit of Carthage ^ 
 who all (peak of Infant-BaptifM^ as of a thing gene- 
 rally praftiled, andmoft of them, asof a thing, which, 
 ought to be pradifed in the Church. r 
 
 Furthermore, none of the four Teftimomes'fdr 
 Infant-Co wmuniorj, (peak of it, as of an Apojiolical 
 Tradition^ as Origen doth of Infant- Baptifm^ not to 
 mention that the Pelagians^ never owned the neceflity 
 of Infant Commnnion^ as they did of Infant- Baptifm : 
 All which things confidered, {hew that there is no- 
 thing neer the like Evidence in Antiquity for the pra- 
 ^ife of the one, as there is for that of the other. 
 
 And as there is not the like evidence for the conftant, 
 fucceffive, and general pradice of infant-ComMnnion^ 
 that there is for Infant- Bapifm: So there is not the 
 like Reafon for the pradice of it. 
 
 Firft, becaufe Baptifm is the Sacrament, oxMyftery 
 of IniiJatJon^ of which Perfons of all Ages are capable, 
 it being inftituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to fo- 
 lemnizethe admiflion of the Baptized Perfon into the 
 Church, and to Seal all the Bleffings of the Gofpel 
 unto him, as a Member of Chrift. This is the Sub- 
 ftance, or Chief end of Baptifm 5 v/hich, as I have 
 fliewed upon the Second, and Fourth Queftions, is 
 equally anfwered in the Baptifm of Children, as well 
 as of profeffing Believers 5 Confeffion of Faith, as 
 well as Confeffion of Sins, being but accidental Cir- 
 cumftantials, which are nccelTary with refpedt to the 
 State of the Perfon to be Baptized,, but not to Bap- 
 tifm it felf. But on the contrary, the Holy Eucharift, 
 or Communion, is the Sacrament of Perfeffjoff, and 
 Gonfummation in the ChrilVian Religion, being pri- 
 marily, and chiefly inftituted for a Sacrificial Feaft in 
 remembrance of Chrift 's Death, and Paffionj which 
 
 being 
 
Ofltfant'B^tifm. 85 
 
 being an ad of great Knowledge and Piety, Children 
 are not capable to perform. * 
 
 But Secondly, There is not the like Reafbn for^-^- ' 
 Baptizing, and Communicating Infants, becaufe that 
 is grounded upon the authority of many Texts of 
 Scripture, which without the Concurrence of Tradi- 
 tion are fairly, and genuinely interpretable for it 5 but 
 this is grounded only upon one Text [John 6. 55. 
 Except je eat the Flefi of the Son of Man, and drink^his 
 Blood jie have no life in pu^ which it is doubtful whe- 
 ther it is to be underftood of the Holy Eucharift, or 
 no,becaufe it cannot be underftood of it but in apro^ 
 leptical fence, the Lord's. Supper having not been yet 
 inftituted by him 5 or if it be to be fo underftood, yet 
 the fence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end 
 ofits/«y?//////^« contained in thofe words of our blef- 
 fed Saviour, do this in rcwewhrar/cc of me, and this do 
 ye, as oft, as- ye dtink^ it in remen/hrance ofn/e, V\^ere- 
 fore though this Text were literally to be underftood 
 of the Holy Eucharift, as St. Ai^guftin^vd interpretsit, 
 yet it ought not to be ftrained to Infant -Commumon^ 
 becaufe Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet 
 in remembrance of Chriji, And therefore though thfe 
 Qw^omo^ ContmHnicating //t/^/j?// prevailed by Degrees 
 in (bme Agesof the Church, yet the Weftern Churches 
 difcerning the miftake upon which it was grounded, 
 have long fince laid it afide, though they (till conti- 
 nue the pradice of Infant- Baptifm, as fully anfvvering . 
 the Chief end of Baptifm, and as being founded upon 
 more, and clearer Texts of Scriptures, and a much 
 more noble Tradition, then Infant- Communion is. 
 
 But Thirdly, There is not the like reafbn for Bap- 
 tizing, andCommunicating Infants^ becaufe the Cor- 
 refpondent practice of the Jewijh Chnrch in Infant- 
 Circnmcifion^ and Infant- Baptifm^ anfwered as a Pat- 
 tern 
 
S6 Th C4e : 
 
 tern unto that under the Law, but there was nothing 
 of a Pattern under it, which anfweied fb to Infant- 
 *Exod.\i,C^^^f^^^^^'i becaufe a Child never pertook of the* 
 a^, 2 7- Pafleover, before he was old enough to take his Fa- 
 ther by the hand, and to go up from the Gates of jfen/- 
 falcm urto the Mount of the Temple, and to enquire 
 abput the meaningof the Service, and wascapable of 
 undeulanding the nature of it, as it was done in re- 
 membrance of their Deliverance onto(E^^pt. 
 
 And in like manner when the Children of Chriftt- 
 ans are old enough to be inftrufted in the nature ofihe 
 Holy Communion, and to underftand that, then they 
 may partake of it, be it as foon, as it will, if they 
 are Baptized and Confirmed 5 though it is true, that 
 Chriftian Children are ufually much older, then the 
 Jewifi were,before they Communicate, which ismerely 
 accidental, becaufe it requires a riper reafon to under- 
 hand the My ftery of the Holy Eucharift, which is done 
 in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the 
 Sacrifice of Chrift, both God and Man, upon the 
 Crofs, then to undeiftand the plain and eafie mean- 
 ing of the Pafleover, which was annually kept in 
 remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the 
 Jews, 
 
 But to (peak yet more fully of Infant'Communion^ 
 ^Thcodo. jj^g praftice of it is (b far from prejudicing the Caufe 
 ^ut. "* o^ Infant'Baptifnt, that it mightily confirms it, becaufe 
 Serm. 2. none were, or could be admitted to pertake of the 
 ^I^ht^M- ^^^y Communion, till they were validly * Baptized, 
 «v fxvs-i- and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a 
 f'*'" «>'«- moft emphatical Declaration, that all the Churches, 
 Jas in the wherein it ever was, or || (till is praftiled, were of 
 Gmky Ruf- Opinion that the Baptifm of Infants was as lawful, and 
 ^JbjffiT^ valid, as that of profefling Believers can be. 
 
 Churches, and among the ChriAians of St. Thomas in the Indifs. 
 
 As 
 
Of Infant-Baj^tifm. %j 
 
 ' A5 for the OrigtrMi of this euftom it, is not known 
 when it begai?, probably it came in by degrees from 
 the ancient, afidH-udable cuftom of adminiftring th^ 
 Lord*i> Supper to grown Ptrfons prcfently after riieit 
 Baptifm^-and if (b many of the ancient Churches 
 were fo tender towards //Tp/;//, as to bring them to 
 the ComntHmon^ rather then deprive them of the leaft 
 fhadow of right, what (hall be faid in excufe of 
 thofe uncharitable Men, who will rather deftroy all 
 l^he Churches in the World, then bring their Children 
 unto Baptifm, of which they are capable, and to 
 which they have a Right (b highly probable, if not 
 ceroainj, ^nd infallible, as-I^ have proved above > " '^ 
 
 The "Second Ob f^diori agai nfl 7a//^w/- haptifM^ which 
 I tooK no notice of, but referved for this place, is 
 taken jfr^ Pheir j/jcapji^ty to engage ihenifd'ves in Cove- 
 tiifpt ufjto God. For, fay thefe Men, all who enter 
 into Ct>^'fW^, and receive the Seal of the Covefiant^ 
 muft contra^Hr, andftipulatefor their parts, as well as 
 God doth for his, and therefore Sx.. Pf/er faith. That 
 theSapifwTvbfch Javeth Uf^ mitfl hive the a^firer, or re- i£p.j,2u 
 flipttlation of a goi^Confciaice torvard's God. But how 
 can Infants reftipulate, or what Confcietjce can be in 
 them, who have not the u(e of realbn, nor are ca- 
 pable of knowing what the Cf'ii?//4/;^ means J^ 
 
 To this Objeftion, I anfwer as formerly. That it is 
 as ftrong againft Infafit'Circuvicifion^ a5 Ififant-hap- 
 lifm 5 for the Infants of the Jews v/ere admitted asef- 
 fedually into the Covenant^ and had it as really (ealed 
 unto them, and were as ftrongtytyed to perform the 
 Conditions of it, when they came to years of undW' 
 Jlandifig^ as if they had been Circumcifed then, and at 
 thfiir Circumcifion hadpeifonally, and exprefly /We//- 
 ^^.witbGod. Wherefore 
 
88 .V The Cafe '^ 
 
 Wherefore the fame anfvver, which will ferve to ju- 
 ftifie Iftfaxt-CircuMcijlon will juftifie Ififaftt-Baptifm^ 
 which fucceeds in the place of it, and it is this .* That 
 God of his goodneft towards Infants y/2iS plea/ed td 
 feal the Covenant of Grace unto Infants upon ah iiSBi^ 
 pl/cite, and imputatize fort of Stipulation, which at 
 years of underltanding they were bound to own by 
 openly profefiing the Jemfi Religion^ or .if they then? 
 ftnounced it, thereupon they became , Strangers t<t>i 
 the Covenant^ which in fuch cafesf was as void, as if 
 it had never been made. An implicit Stipulation was 
 fufficient for the Children of Believers, though .an 
 open Prpfeflion, and Stip|Lilatipn ;>vas .required: lof 
 Grown Profelytes, which fhews, that Circumcjjion'wzs 
 an inftitution o^ Latitude^ and that perfonal, and ex- 
 preft Reftipulation was not a general pre-requifite 
 condition to Circumcifion, but only, to fome Perfons 
 - to be Circumcifed. ; • . i. . 
 
 In like manner Baptifm being an inftitution of Lati- 
 tude^ ordained for Perfons under, as well as at the 
 years of difcretion, perfonal and exprefs Stipulation 
 is only required of the former 5 and therefore St. Pe- 
 ier in the Text above cited likely had refpedt not to all 
 Baptifm, or Baptifm in general, but only to the Bap* 
 .^ ^tifm of Adult Profelytes, whom the Minfifter ufed to 
 
 Tertuiiiati * interrogate at the time of Baptifm, much after the 
 deBaptii-fame manner, as we interrogate Adult Profelytes 
 
 mo calls ^f^^ 
 
 Sponfio- 
 
 non Saluiis. /tnd in St. Cyprian we often read oftheiniirroiation ia Baptifm. 
 
 Wherefore, this Objeftion like the reft which the 
 Anahaptijis make, runs upon this prefumption, that 
 Baptifm is a ftrid inftitution, and that perfonal and 
 exprefs anfwering or Reflipulation is a pre-requifite 
 
 coftditwn 
 
of Jnfant'BaptiJm. 89 
 
 " condition to all Baptifm, whereas it is only a perfonal 
 qualification required of Majors, or Adult Perlbns, 
 when they come to be Baptized. 
 
 But as for Children, Baptifin may be adminiftred 
 unto them upon an implicite, and imputative fort of 
 Reflipulation, asCiicumcifion was to the Jerri/h, and 
 Baptifm now is to agonizing Chri/iian Ifffants^ or elitit 
 may be adminiftred unto them as Baptifm formerly 
 was among the Jews to the Infants^ and Minors of 
 Profelytes upon a vicarious Reftipulation by their 
 Sponfors^ which (eems to have been tranflated toge- 
 ther with the u(e of Baptifm from the Jewifi Church. 
 It is certain, that * Tertullian makes mention of Spott' » pe Bap- 
 fors^ or Sureties for Children at Baptiiiii, and very"f*»io «?• 
 probable, that the Apoffcles made P^rt»/j, and Af^j^r Jnj"j^'Jg. 
 «/o«?£?j ftipulate in the name of their (| Minors^ when cede eft 
 they Baptized them, as the jfen?/ were wont to do 5 ^P^"^^''" 
 and upon this Suppofition St. Peter in the Text above rkuio in- 
 citedjmight alfo probably allude to all Baptiftn,becau(t geri ? 
 Grown Profelytes to the Chnftian Religion did anfwer [^%imr"' 
 for xhtwCkildren^ as well as for themfelves at Baptifm, juridic*, 
 according to the Cuftom of the Jemjlj Church. tlfmo^^^" 
 
 tut profi- 
 tebatur Profelytus ipfc Majorennis (Mafculus qui annum dccimum tertium, fseminsi 
 qusE duodecim fuperavcrat) legem Mofaicam fe fervarurum. Minorum vcro nomine 
 idemipfum'profitebatur prasfeftura ipfa, utiln Chriftianifmo fufceptores minorenni- 
 um, feu parvuloruin, faltem fi ncc parentes adeflent, qui idem pra?ftare poflcnt. Sel- 
 dende Synedriis. Lib. i. c.3. And what is here jaidof the CONSISTORY amng ?fcf Jews, 
 concerning the Baptifm of Injints, and Minors^ St. Auguftine faith of the Church among 
 Chriftiansy accprnmodat illis mater Eccleiia aliorum pedes ut veniaBt, aliorum cor, ut 
 credant, iliorumlinguam uc fateantur. 
 
 Nay, there is little reafon to doubt, but that the 
 jfen??//j being the Pattern of the Chrifiian Baptijh^ the 
 Apof^ks, and their Affiftants who were Jews^ or Hel-\ 
 lenifts, did oblerve this Cuftom of Vicarious Stipn- 
 lation at the Baptifm of Infants^ and Minors^ as well 
 
 N as 
 
 \ 
 
^o The Cafe 
 
 as all the other Particulars, in which they referable 
 one another, as the Pifture doth the Face, whole 
 Pid^ureit is. 
 
 As for Example, the Jewijh Baptifm was adminiftred 
 to Women, as well as Men, and foistheChriftian. 
 
 Secondly, It was never reiterated nor repeated, no 
 more is the Chriftian. 
 
 Thirdly, It was called Regeneration, and a New 
 Birth, and Baptized Perfons were (aid to be born a- 
 gain and Regenerated, which alfo holds in Chriftian 
 Baptifm. 
 
 Fourthly, Baptized Prolelytes among the Jews 
 were bound to leave their neareft Relations, if it 
 were neceflary, and adhere to the Church, and fo 
 are Baptized Chriftian Prolelytes bound to do the 
 (ame. 
 
 Fifthly, The Infants of Prolelytes were Baptized 
 among the Jervs^ as well as the Prolelytes themfelves, 
 and (b have I proved, that Infants have been always 
 Baptized among the Chriftians. 
 
 And therefore in the Laft place. Since the jfen?//&. 
 Church Baptized Infants upon Vicarious SUpHUtiott^ 
 why (hould not we think it fufficient for their en- 
 trance into the Covenant^ and that the Apoftles did 
 (o too ? 
 
 Thele things, and whatlbever elfeis written in this 
 little Traft, I hope will be fairly, and candidly con- 
 sidered by the Diflenters among us upon the account 
 oilnfant-^aptifm, I lay, the truth in Chrift, I lye 
 not, my Cottfiience2\{b bearing me Witnefs in the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft^ who is the Searcher of Hearts, that I have 
 great heavinels, and alraoft continual forrow in my 
 heart for them, and that to reconcile them to the 
 
 Church, 
 
Oflnfant'BaptiJm. ^l 
 
 Church, I could wifli in the Apoftles Sence, that I 
 my felf were an Anathenm from Chrift. And be- 
 caufe it 15 a Di(ea(e too common among Diffenters, 
 and moreefpecially among thofe, with whom I have 
 been a dealing, to have minds full of Prejudice, Pre- 
 poffeffion, and (inifter Sufpitions againft what we 
 Speak, or Preach, or Write, I have here fubjoined a 
 Letter oi that Famous Pvlartyr of Jtliis Chrift Mr. John 
 Philpot-i concerning InfatJi-Bapifm^ which I ferioufly 
 recommend to their hnpartial, and diligent perufal, 
 hoping that the fame Arguments, which may per- 
 haps have lefs efFed upon them as they come from me, 
 may be better received, and make deeper impreffion 
 upon their Souls as they come from him, who like the 
 Primitive Martyrs, was Bleded with Heavenly Vifi- 
 ons, and chearfully fuffered for his Redeemer, who 
 had fuffered for him, and thanked God when the time 
 was come, that he v/as to feal the truth of the Prote- 
 ft4f/t Religion with his Blood. 
 
 N 2 A 
 
^2 The Cafe 
 
 A Letter of Mr. Philpot, to a Friend 
 of his ^rifoner the fame time in New- 
 gate : Wherein is debated and difcujfed 
 the matter or quefiion of Infants to be 
 Baptized. 
 
 TH E God of all Light and llnderftanding light- 
 ^" y^^'^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^'^ ^^^^ Knowledge of his 
 '^~voL p. Word, and make you perfed to the day of our Lord 
 6o5. Col. jefus ChrifV, whereunto you are now called, through 
 don. ' the mighty operation of his Holy Spirit, ^^f;!/. 
 i54 1. I received Yeftcrnight from you, (Dear Brother S. 
 
 and Fellow-Pri(bnerfor the truth forChrift's Gofpel) 
 a Letter, wherein you gently require my Judgment, 
 concerning theBaptifmof Infants^ which is the effed 
 thereof. And before I do [hew you what I have learn- 
 ed out of God's Word,and of his true Infallible Church, 
 touching the lame, I think it not out of the matter, 
 firft to. declare what Vifion I had the fame Night whilft 
 mufing on your Letter I fell afleep, knowing that 
 God doth not without caufe reveal to -his People who 
 have their Minds fixed on him, Special and Spiritual 
 Revelations to their Comfort, asataft of their Joy and 
 Kingdom to come, which FleQi and Blood cannot 
 comprehend. 
 
 Being 
 
mjantTpaj^tijm. 95 
 
 Being in the midft of my fweerreft, it (eemed to 
 f^t to fee a great beautiful City all of the colour of 
 Azure, and white,,fourfquareina imrvellous beauti- 
 ful; com^ofitioi^ • in the midft of the Skie, the fight 
 whereof fo inwardly comforted:me, that I am not able 
 tbexprefs the confolation I had thereof^ yea, the re- 
 membrance thereof cau(eth my Heart as yet to leap for 
 Joy; And as, Charity is no, Chqric, [)ut would others 
 tQ,,be^,^a^takei? of his- d,elight^ fp-m^t hough t I cal- 
 jliid'|p|rQthers,,(l canriot^ tell VJ(hpmJ,.apd whilft the^y 
 'came and we together beheld the lame, by and. by to 
 iny great Grief it vaded away. 
 S; This pj^eam^Ithink not to nave come of theillufion 
 'o;r the Senfts,. becaufejit brought, vi^ith it fo much Spi» 
 riVuai Joy, and Itajie it to be of the,vvorking of God's 
 Spirit for the contentation of your Requeft, as he 
 wrought in Peter tolatisfie Corfielius. Therefore 1 In- 
 texp.cet this^eautiful City to be the Glorious Church of 
 , CbriQ-j and the appearance of it in the Skie, (ignifieth 
 the Heavenly State thereof, whofe Converfaiion is in 
 Heaven, and that according to the Primitive Chuich, 
 . -Whiphv is now in Heaven, Men ought to meafure and 
 judge, the .Church ofChrift no v*^ in. Earth , for as the 
 l^rophet DavjcI faith , The Foundationf thereof be in the 
 Holy Hill s^andglorio Hi things he jpken of the City of God. 
 And the marvellous quadrature of the fame, I take to 
 fignifie the univerfal agreement in the fame, and that 
 all the Church here Militant ought to confent to the 
 Primitive Church throughout the four Parts of the 
 World, as the Prophet affirmeth, faying 5 Godmaketh 
 ^ifi to d^ell after one manner in one Honfe. And that I 
 r conceived fo wonderful Joy at the Contemplation 
 thereofj lunderftand the unfpeakable Joy wh;ch they 
 have that be at Unity with Chri(f*s Primitive Chuich; 
 For there is Joy in the Holy Ghoft, and Peace, which 
 
 pafTcth 
 
^4 The Cafe .^o 
 
 pafTethall UnderftancliDg,as it is Written in thePfalms 5 
 As of joyful Perfotjs is the cfmllwg of W them that be in 
 thee. And that I called others to the fruition of thb 
 Vifion, and to behold this wonderful City, Icotiftrue 
 it by the Will of God this Vifion to have come iipon 
 roe, mufing on your Lettef, to the end, that under 
 this Figure I might have occafion to move you with 
 manv others, to behojd the Primitive Church in all 
 your Opinions concerning Faith, and to conform 
 -your (elf in all points to the fame,which is thePillar and 
 £(tabhftiment of truth, and teacheth the true ufeof the 
 Sacraments, and having with a greater fulnefs than 
 we have now, the firft fruits of the Holy Ghoft, did 
 declare the true Interpretation of the Scriptures accor- 
 ding to all verity, even as our Saviour promiled to 
 fend them another Comforter, which fhould teach 
 them all truth. 
 
 And fince all truth was taught and revealed to the 
 Primitive Church, which is our Mothtr, let us all that 
 be obedient Children of God, fubmit our felvesto the 
 judgtnentof the Church for the better underftanding 
 of the Articles of our Faith, and of the doubtful Sen- 
 tences of the Scripture. Let us not go about to (hew 
 in us, by following any private Man's Interpretation 
 upon the Word, another Spirit than they of the Pri- 
 mitive Church had, left we deceive our felves. For 
 there is but one Faith and one Spirit, which is not con- 
 trary to himfelf^ neither otherwile now teacheth us 
 than he did them. Therefore let us believe as they 
 have taught us of the Scriptures, and beat peace with 
 them, according as the true Catholick Church is at this 
 day .* And the God of Peace afluredly will be with 
 us, and deliver us out of all our Worldly Troubles 
 and Miferies^ and make us Partakers of their Joy and 
 Blils, through our Obedience to Faith with them. 
 
 Therefore 
 
Ofjnfant-Bapifm. 9 5 
 
 Therefore God commandcth us in Job^ to ask of 
 the- Elder Generation, and to (earch diligently the 
 memory of the Fathers. For we are but Yefterdaysjob.8. 
 Children, and be ignorant, and our days are like a 
 Shadow, and they (hall teach thee (faith the Lord) 
 andfpeak to thee, and fhall utter words fiom their 
 Hearts. And by Salomon we are commanded, not toP'O^-^- 
 rejed the diredion of our Mother. The Lord grant 
 you to dired your fteps in al^ things after her, and to 
 abhor contention with her. For as St. Paul writeth ^ 
 If any Man be content Jot0, neither we-^ neither the Church 
 
 ^^r^ 11 I r 1 n iCor. u. 
 
 ofyjod hath any juch cujtonf. 
 
 Hitherto I have (hewed you (good Brother 5.) my 
 Judgment generally of that you ftand in doubt and d\C' 
 fent from others, to the which I wi(byouasmine own 
 Heart to be conformable, and then doubtlefs you can- 
 not err, but boldly may be glad in your Troubles, and . 
 Triumph at the hour of your Death, that you (hall 
 die in the Church of God a Faithful Martyr, and re- 
 ceive the Crown of Eternal Glory. And thus much 
 have I written upon the occafion of a Vi(ion before 
 God unfeigned. But that you may not think that I 
 go about to (atisfie you with uncertain Vifions only, 
 and not after God's Word, I will take the ground of 
 your Letter, and fpecially anfwer to the fame by the 
 Scripturesand by infallible reafons deduced out of the 
 fame, and prove the Baptifm of Infants to be lawful, 
 commendable, and neceffary, whereof you feem to 
 (land in doubt. 
 
 Indeed if you look upon the Papiftical Synagogue 
 only, which hath corrupted God's Word by falfe Inter- 
 pretations, and hath perverted the true ufeof Chrift's 
 Sacraments, you might (eem to have good handfaftof 
 your Opinion againit the Baptifm of Infants. But 
 forafmuch asitis of more Antiquity, and hath his be- 
 ginning 
 
96 
 
 Gen. 17. 
 
 TheCaji 
 
 ginning from God's Word, and from the ufe of the 
 Primitive Churchj it muft notin refpedcf the abufe 
 in the Popifi Church be negledted, or'thought not ex- 
 pedient to be ufed in Chrift's Church. Auxentius 6r\^ 
 of the A/4/7/ Sed, with his AdherentSj was one of 
 the firft thatdenied the Baptifm of Children, and next 
 after him PeUgiusxht Heretick, and fome other there 
 were in St. Bernard's time, as it doth appear by his 
 Writings, and in our days the Anahaptijis^ and Inor-' 
 dinite kind of Men ftirred up by the Devil, to the de- 
 ibudion of the Gofpel. But the Catholick truth de- 
 livered unto us by the Scriptures, plainly determinethj 
 that all fuch are to be Baptized, as whom God ac- 
 knowledgeth for his People, and vouchfafeth them 
 worthy of Sanftification or Remiffion of their Sins. 
 Therefore (ince that Infants be in the number or fcroU 
 of God's People, and be Partakers of the Promife by 
 their Purification in Chrift, it muft needs follow there- 
 by, that they ought to be Baptized as well as thofe 
 that can Profcfs their Faith. For we judge the Peo- 
 ple of G O D as well by the free and liberal Promife of 
 God, 39 by the Confeffion of Faith. For to whom- 
 foever God promifeth himielf to be their God, and 
 whom he acknowledgeth for his, thofe no Man with- 
 out great Impiety may exclude from the number of the 
 Faithful. But God promiieth, that he will not only 
 be the God of (uch as do profefs him, but alfo of In- 
 fants, promiling them his Grace and Remiffion of Sins, 
 as it appeareth by the words of the Covenant madeun- 
 xo Abraham. I vAl/ fet my Coven atit hetrvee/i thee and 
 me ((aith the Lord) and between thy Seed ajterthee in 
 their Generations^ with An everlajiingCovenant^ to be thy 
 God^ nndtheGod of thy Seed after thee. To the which 
 Covenant Circumcifion was added to be a fign of San- 
 ftification as well in Children as in Men 5 and no Man 
 
 may 
 
of Infant-B^tijm. ^ 
 
 may think that thisPromifeis abrogated with Circum- 
 cifion and other Ceremonial Laws. For Chrift came Matth. $. 
 to fulfil the PromifeSjand not to diffol ve them. There- 
 fore in the Gofpel he faith of Infatits^ that is, of fiich 
 as yet believed not 5 Let the little Ones come ufjto «?e, Matth. jo. 
 and forbid them not^ forof fnch is the K.ingdom of Hea- 
 ven. Again, It is not the Will of your Father which is 7» Matth. 19. 
 Heaven, that anj of thefe little Ones do perifi, A\Co,He^ 
 that receiveth one fach little Child in my Name, receiveth 
 me. Take heed therefore that ye defpife not one of thefe ' 
 Eabes^ for I tell yon, their Angels do continually fee in 
 Heaven my Fathers Face. And what may be (aid more 
 plainer than this 5 It is not the Will of the Heavenly 
 Father, that the Infants (hould peri(h> Whereby we 
 may gather that he receiveth them freely unto his 
 Grace, although as yet they confefs not their Faith. 
 Since then that the Word of the Promi(e,which is con- 
 tained in Baptifm, pertaineth as welltoChildrenastp' 
 Men, why (hould the (ign of the Promi(e, which is 
 Baptifm in Water, be withdrawn from Children, when' 
 Chri(t himfelf commandeth them to be received of us, 
 and promi(eth the Reward of a Prophet to thofe that 
 receive fuch a little Infant, as he for an Example did 
 put before his Difciples ? " ; r':\ '. 
 
 Now will I prove ''with raahifeft Arguments, j^^^^g 
 that Children ought to be Baptized, and that the Apo- 
 ftles of Chri(t did Baptize Children. The Lord com- 
 manded his Apoftles to Baptize all Nations 5 therefore ; 
 alfb Children ought to be Baptized, for they are com^ ' 
 prehended under this Word, All Nations. 
 
 Further, whom God doth account among the faith- - :> ■• 
 ful, they are faithful, for it was faid to Peter, That'^&i id 
 thing which God hath purified, thoufhalt not fay to be ^ 
 common or uncl^Un i But GOD dptii repute Chil'dren;" 
 among the FaitHfiff t\ ErgoY.ihif be faithful, ekcept^^ . 
 
98 •■ ' The Cafe 
 
 we had rather to refift God, and (eem ftronger and 
 
 wiierthanhe. 
 
 1 Cor. I. And without all doubt the Apoftles Baptized thofe 
 which Chrift commanded .• But he commanded the 
 Faithful to be Baptized, among the which Infants be 
 reckoned: The Apoftles then Baptized Infants. 
 
 The Gofpel is more than Baptifm, for Pahl faid^^ 
 
 1 Cor. I. ffj^ Lordfentme to Preach the Gofpel^ and not to Eap- 
 tize : Not that he denied abfolutely that he was lent 
 to Baptize, but that he preferred Dodrir.e before 
 Baptifm, for the Lord commanded both to the Apo- 
 ftles; but Children be received by the Dodrine of 
 theGofpd of God, and not refufed : Therefore what 
 Perfon being of reafon may deny them Baptifm, which 
 is a thing le&r than the Gofpel ? For in the Sacra- 
 ments be two things to be confidered, the thing figni- 
 fied, and the Sign^ and thing (ignified is greater than 
 the Sign, and from the thing fignified in Baptifm^r 
 Children are not excluded $ who therefore may deny? 
 them the Sign, which is Baptifm in Water ? 
 
 St. Peter could not deny them to be Baptized in 
 Water,.to whom he fa w the Holy Ghoft given, which 
 is thecertain Sign of God's People : For he faith in thq^ ^ 
 
 Afts, 10. -^^^-i May any body forbid' them to be haptiz^d in Water\ '- 
 Tvho have received the Holy Ghoft as well as we .<? There- 
 fore St. Peter denied not Baptifm to Infants, for he 
 knew certainly both by the Dodrine of Chrift, and 
 by the Covenant which is everlafting, that the Kingq 
 dom of Heaven pertained to Infants* ',,, 
 
 Rom. 8. None be received into the kingdom of Heaven^ '' 
 but fuch as God loveth, and which are endued with 
 his Spirit; For whofb hath not the Spirit of God, he 
 is.none of his. But Infants; be beloved of God, and 
 tlierefore want not the Spirit of Cod: Wherefore if 
 they have the Spirit of (?od aswellas Menj if they be 
 
 numbred 
 
OfJttfant'BaptiJm. ^p 
 
 numbredamong the People of God as well as we that 
 be of Age, who (I pray you) may well withftand 
 Children to be; Baptised with Water, in the Name of 
 the Lord? 
 
 The Apoftles in times paft being yet nbt; fufficiently 
 inftrufted, did murmur againft thofe which brought 
 their Children unto the Lord, but the Lord rebuked 
 thepi, and faid^ Let the Bahes comemto me. Why Matth.io. 
 then do not thefe Rebellious Anabaptijis obey the 
 Commandement of the Lord } For what dp they now 
 a-days ehe that bring their Children to Baptifin, than 
 that'they did in times paft, which brought their Chil- 
 dren to the Lord, and our Lord received them, and 
 puttipg his hands on them, Blefledthera, ancibothby 
 Words and by Gentle Behaviour towards them, de- ^^^ 
 clared manifeftly that Children be the People of God, 
 and entirely beloved of GOD? But (bme will fay. 
 Why then did not Chrift Baptize them > Becaufe 
 it is Written, Jefus himfelf Baptized not, buthisDif- 
 ciples. 
 
 Moreover, Circumcifion in the old Law was mini- 
 ftred to Infants j therefore Baptifm ought to be mini- John4. 
 ftred in the new Law unto Children. For Baptifin is 
 come in the ftead of Circumcifion, asSt.P<f»/ witnef- 
 feth, faying to the Colojfians 5 By Chrift ye are Circum- Colof.a. 
 cifed with a Circumcision which is without hands ^ when ye 
 put off the body ojfin of the Flejh^ by the Circumcifion of 
 Chriji^ being buried together with him through Baptifm, 
 Behold, Paul calleth Baptifm the Circumcifion of a 
 Chriftian Man, which is done without hands, not that 
 Water may be miniftred without hands, but that with 
 hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcifed, 
 ^ilbeit theMyftery of Circumcifion do fbll remain in / 
 f(^«hfoiPeopI|B._ 
 
 O 2 To 
 
loo ^ \tm''ium 
 
 To this I may add. That the Servants of God were 
 always ready to minifter the Sacraments to them, for 
 whom they were inftitutcd. As fOr an Example, we 
 may behold "jofita^ who,nioft diligently procured the 
 Jof. 5. People of IfratPto Be Gircumeifed before they entred 
 into the Land of Proraife 5 but fince the Apoftles 
 were the Preachers of the Word, and the very Faith- 
 ful Servants of J^fus Chrift, who may hereafter doubt 
 that they Biptiz^d Infants^' fince Ikptifm is in place ol 
 Circiimciflon ?''''' "^^^^^ *"• ^^^'^ srl^io inarDsirnGmmcD 
 ' Item, The A'poftlesdiaattemperateall' their doings 
 to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Teftament ,* 
 Therefore it is certain that tfhey did attetnperate Bap*- 
 tifm aiJxb.dingly' to^Girtiim'dXiionj' and Baptized C^^^^ 
 dren becaafefhey'Wer^ tinder tfie Figure of Baptifni'', 
 for the People of Ifrael palled through the Red Sea, 
 and the bottom of the Water oijordatt^ with their 
 Children. 'And although the Children be-not always 
 txprelled, neither the Women in the tloly Scriptures, 
 yet they are comprehended and underftood in the 
 fime. ^7' *^^*^^^^-, 
 
 Alfo the Scripture evidently telleth us,- That the 
 Apoftles baptized whole Families or'Houftiolds : But 
 the Children be comprehended in a Family or Hou{^ 
 - ' •^' holdj as the chiefcftand deareft part thereof: There- 
 fore we may conclude, that the Apoftles did baptize 
 Infants or Children, and not only Men of lawful age. 
 And that the Houfe or Houfhold is taken for Man, 
 • Woman, and Child, it is manifeft in the 1 7. of Gew/Tx, 
 and alfo in that 'jofeph doth call Jacob with all his 
 Houie, to come out of the Land of Canaan intp 
 Egypt, ^ ,' V'j^^iioi .'•{nis n^i^i on ai.a^n 
 
 Finally, ' I can'declkfe oiit di ^'SncTent VC^riter?; that 
 the Baptifmof Infants hath continued from the Apo- 
 ftles time unto ours, neither that it was inftituted by 
 
 £ (^ any 
 
OflffanuBoj^tifm. loi 
 
 any Councels,' neither of the Pope, norofotherMen, 
 
 but commended from the Scripture by the Apoftles 
 
 themfelves. Origm xipon the Declaration of St. Paurs 
 
 Epiftle to the Romans^ expounding the fixth Chapter, 
 
 ■ (aith, That the Church of Chrift received the Baptijfhi of 
 
 hffants from the lerj^Apoflles. St. Hierome maketh 
 
 .mention of the Baptiimof Infants, in the third book 
 
 againft the PeUgiaf^s, and in his Epiftle to Leta. St. 
 
 , Augiifihe reciteih for this purpofe, a place out of "^^"'' *'* 
 
 jf^'/)/?, Biihop o^Cofjftantinople-^ in his fii ft book againft 
 
 jyljatt^ Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome 
 
 . Epill. 28. faith, ThatSair/tQ'y^ximvot making any fiex^ 
 
 ... Decree, but firmly obferving the Faith of the sChurch^ 
 
 . jhdged with his fellow Bjpjops, that as foon ^ one was 
 
 j borv^ he might be lawfully baptized. The place of Cy- 
 
 J^rian is to be (eenin his Epiftle to Fidus, 
 
 r: A\(o St. AMgHjii^e : m wiiting againft the Dofia- 
 
 Jifis in the fourth Book Chap. 25. and 24. faith. That 
 
 the Baptjfm of Infants was not derived from the authori- 
 
 -tjiofMan, neither of Councels^ bnt^from the Tradition 
 
 or Do&rine of the Apoftles. 
 
 Qrf/upon Leviticus Chapter 8. approveth the Bap-' -'^^ * 
 
 tifiri of Children, and condemneth the iteration of 
 
 , Baptifm. Thefe Authorities of Men I do alledge, 
 
 ;.not to tie the Baptifm of Children unto the Teftimo- 
 
 nies of Men, but to fliew how Mens Teftimonies do 
 
 agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Ami- 
 
 ^^^uity is on our fide, and that the Anabapt if s have 
 
 nothing but Lies for them, and new Imaginations, 
 
 which feign the Baptifm of Children to be the Pope's 
 
 -Xommandement. 
 
 c^ J After this will I anfwer to th^ fum of your Argu- 
 ments for the contrary^ The firft, which includeth 
 all the reft, is, It is Written, Go ye into all the World, 
 and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures, He that 
 k:. believeth 
 
I02 716^ Cafe 
 
 belteveih aftdts Baptized, pal/ be Saved : But he thatbc' 
 lie vet h not Jhall he Damned, &c. 
 
 To this I anfwer, That nothing is added to Godfs 
 Word by Baptifm of Children, as you pretend, but 
 that is done which the fame Word doth require, for 
 that Children are accounted of Chritt in the Gofpel 
 among the number of fuch as believe, as it appeareth 
 by thefe words , He that offendeth one of thefe little 
 
 Mjt. 18. £^yg^ which believe in me, it were better for him to have 
 a Miljione tyed about his Necl^, and to be caji into the bot' 
 torn of the Sea. Where plainly Chrift calleth fuch as 
 be not able to confefs their Faith, Believers 5 be- 
 caufe of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Belie- 
 vers. And this is no Wonder fo to be taken, fince 
 God imputeth Faith for Righteoufnels unto Men 
 that be of riper Age : For both in Men and Chil- 
 dren, Righteoufneli, Acceptation, or Sanftification, 
 is of mere Grace and by Imputation, that the Glory 
 of God's Grace might be praifed. 
 
 And that the Children of Faithful Parents are San- 
 dified, and among (uch as do believe, is apparent 
 
 I Cor. 7. jj^ jj^g J ^^^^ j^ ^^^ whereas you do gather by the 
 
 order of the words in the faid Commandement of 
 Chrift, that Children ought to be taught before they 
 be Baptized, and to this end you alledge many pla- 
 ces out of the Ai^s, proving that fuch as Confeffed 
 their Faith firft, were Baptized after .* I anfwer. 
 That if the order of words might weigh any thing 
 to this Caufe, we have the Scripture that maketh 
 » Mark i. 2s Well for us. For in * Saint Mark^ we read, that 
 John did Baptize in the Delart, Preaching the Bap- 
 tifm of Repentance. In the which place we foe 
 Baptizing go before, and Preaching to follow 
 after. 
 
 And 
 
Oflnfant-Bapifm. io^^ 
 
 And alfo I will declare this place of Maft hew exaft- 
 ly confidered, to make for the u(e of Baptifm in 
 Children, fot Saint Matthew hath it written in this 
 \Vi(e 5 AU Pdvoer k given me (faith the Lord} in Hea- 
 ven and in Earthy therefore going forth iJ^^'maa,Te^ ^*^* ^^' 
 that is, Difciple^e, (as I may exprefs the fignification 
 -of the Word 5 J that is, make or gather to me Difci- 
 ples of all Nations. And following, hedeclareththe 
 way how they (hould gather to him Difciples out of 
 all Nations, baptizing them and teaching 5 by bapti- 
 zing and teaching ye (hall procure a Church to me. 
 And both thefe aptly and briefly feverally he fetteth 
 forth, faying, Baptizing them in the A/ame of the Fa* 
 ther, andoftheSon^ and the HolyGhofi^ teaching them. 
 to ohfet'z'e all things whatfoefer I have commanded you. 
 Now then Baptifm goeth before Dof^rine. 
 
 But hereby I do not gather , that the Gentiles 
 which never heard any thing before of God, and of 
 the Son of God, and of the Holy Ghoft, ought to 
 be Baptized, neither they would permit themlelves 
 to be Baptized before they knew to what end. But 
 this I have declared to (hew you upon how feeble 
 Foundation the Anabaptifts be grounded. And plain- 
 ly it is not true which they imagine of this Text^ 
 that the Lord did only Command fuch to be Baptized, 
 whom the Apoftles had firft of all taught. Neither 
 here verily is fignified who only be to be Baptized, 
 but he fpeaketh of fuch as be of perfeft age, and of 
 the firft Foundations of Faith, and of the Church to 
 be planted among the Gentiles, which were as yet 
 rude and ignorant of Religion. 
 
 Such as be of Age may hear, believe, and confefs, 
 that which is Preached and taught, but fo cannot In- 
 fants 3 therefore we may juftly colleiS^, that he fpeak- 
 
I04 ,\x[(,jheCaj^ -0 
 
 eth here nothing of Infants or Children. But for all 
 this they be not to be excluded from Baptifm. 
 
 It is a general rule , He that doth mt Labour^ tuuft 
 not Eat. But who is fo barbarous that might think 
 hereby, that Children (hould be Familhed > 
 
 The Lord fent his Apoftles at the beginning of the 
 fetting up his true Religion unto all Nations, unto 
 fuch as were both ignorant of God, and were out of 
 the Covenant of God ^ and truly fuch Perfonsit be- 
 hoved not firft to be Baptized, and afterward taught 5 
 but firft to be taught, and after baptized. If at this 
 day we (hould go to the Turks to Convert them to 
 the Faith of Chrift, verily firft we ought to teachi 
 them, and afterward Baptize fuch as would yield to- 
 be the Servants of Chrift. Likewi(e the Lord him* 
 felf in times paft did,when firft he renewed the Cove- 
 nant with Abraham, and ordained Circumcifion to be 
 a Seal of the Covenant after that Abraham was Cir- 
 cumciled. But he, when he perceived the Infants 
 alfo to pertain to the Covenant, and that Circumci"-! 
 fion was the fealtng up of the Covenant, did not 
 only Circumcife Ifmael his Son that was 15. years of 
 Age, but all other Infants that were born in his 
 houfe, among whom we reckon Ifaac, ^on r. 
 
 Even fo Faithful People which were Converted 
 from Heathen Idolatry by the Preaching of the 
 Gofpel, and Confcffing the Faith, were Baptized 5 
 when they underftood their Children to be count- 
 ed among the People of GOD, and that Baptifm' 
 was the Token of the People of God, they procu-^j 
 red alfb their Children to be baptized. Therefore 
 as it is written 5 Abraham Circumcifed all the Male 
 Children of his Houfe. Semblably we read in the 
 Ads and Writings of the Apoftles, that after cbe Ma- 
 tter of the Houfe was turned to the Faith, all the 
 
 whole 
 
Oflnfant-Baptijm. 105 
 
 whole Houfe was baptized. And as concerning thole 
 which of old time were compelled to Con feft their 
 Faith before they received Baptifm, which were cul- 
 led Catechrmem^ they were (uch as with our Fore-Fa- 
 thers came from the Gentiles to the Church, who be- 
 ing yet rude of Faith, they did inftrud in the Princi- 
 ples of their Belief, aind afterward they did Baptize 
 them 5 but the fame Ancient Fathers notwithftanding 
 did Baptize the Children of Faithful Men, as I have al- 
 ready partly declared. 
 
 And becaule you do require ahafty anfwer of your 
 Letter of one that is but a dull Writer, I am here en- 
 forced to ceale particularly to go through your Let- 
 ter in anfwering thereto, knowingthat I have fully an- 
 fwered every part thereof, in that I have already writ- 
 ten, although not in fuch order as it had been meet, 
 and as I purpofed. But forafmuch as I underftand 
 that you will be no Contentious Man, neither in this 
 ntatter, neither in any other, contrary to the judg- 
 ment of Chrift's Primitive Church, which is the Bo- 
 dy and fulneft* of Chrift, I defire you in the intire 
 love of him, or rather Chriftdefirethyou by me ("that 
 your joy may be perfedir, whereto you are now cal- 
 led j tb'fubmit 'your Judgment to that Church, and 
 to bleat Peaceand Unity with the fame 5 that the Coat 
 6f Chrift which ought to be without Seam, but now 
 alas, moft miferably is torn in pieces by many dange- 
 rous Sedsand Damnable Opinions, may appear by you 
 in i}^. pa U to -have been rent, neither that any giddy 
 head inihefe Dog-days, might take an enfample by 
 you to diflent from Chrift's true Church : I befeech 
 thee -Dear Brother in the Golpel^ follow the fteps of 
 the Faith of the Glorious Martyrs in the Primitive 
 Church, and of (uch a§ atrthis^ay folio v/ the fame 5 
 decline from them neither 4o the Right hand nor to 
 
 P the 
 
io6 The Cafe^ &c. 
 
 the Left. Then (hall Death, belt never (b bitter, be 
 more Tweeter than this Life 5 then (hallChrift with all 
 the Heavenly Hiernfakm triumphantly imbrace your 
 Spirit with unfpeakable Gladnefs and Exahation, 
 who in this Earth was content to joyn your Spirit 
 with their Spirits, according as it is commanded by 
 the Word, That the Spirit of Prophets (hould be 
 fubjed: to the Prophets. One thing aik with Da'^id 
 ere you depart, and require the fame, that you may 
 dwell with a full accord in his Houie, for there is 
 Glory and Worlhip : And Co with Siweon in the Tem- 
 ple embracing Chrift, depart in Peace : To the which 
 ] CoM4.p^g^^ Chrift bring both you and me, and all our lo- 
 ving Brethren that love GOD in the Unity of Faith, 
 by fuch ways as (hall pleafe him, to his Glory. Let 
 the bitter Paflion of Chrift which he fufFered for 
 your (ake, and the Horrible Torments which the 
 Godly Martyrs of Chrift have endured before u?, and 
 al(b the ineftimable Reward of your Life to coipf, 
 which is hidden yet a little while from you wkh 
 Chrift, ftrengthen, comfort, and encourage you to 
 the end of that Qlorious Race which you are in.. 
 
 Tour Xok§-fillovp in Captivity for the 
 Verity of Chrifi's Gojfel, to lip^ 
 avd die with you in the Unit^ 
 of Faiths 
 
 John Philpot 
 
 FINIS. 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 Proving The 
 
 Divine Inftitution 
 
 o F 
 
 wherein The 
 
 Quaker- Arguments 
 
 Againfl it, Are 
 
 COLLECTEDandCONFUTED. 
 
 With as much as is Needful concerning 
 
 By the Author o£> Tbe Snake in theGpqfs. - 
 
 7/^^e Loi/c me, keep my ^Commandments, Joh. xiv. i^. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for.C. Brome, at the G«% at the Weft^ndo^ St. Pmls, 
 W, Kjhlervhite, at xht White Swim^ in St,Pah^s Church-Tard, 
 And H Hmdmarfh, at the Golden Ball, o^r-againft the 
 Royal Exchange, InCornhilL M.DC-XC.VII. \ 
 
4 '^ 
 
 (^yu/Zi^i./^^^ 
 
 ^>^; 
 

 THE 
 
 P R E F A C E 
 
 CONTAINS. 
 
 I. 1% Short Froof for Infant Ba|Hifin. 
 
 II. '^ "*■ The feverd forts of Coiitem:ners (f Baptifin 
 
 III, The Presbyterians i» Scotland* 
 
 IV. 1ft Ireland. ^ ■ 
 y. If$ England. 
 
 yl. Too tnnny of the Communioit of the Church of England. 
 yil. Whence this Dlfcomfe ufeful to others kfides Quakers* 
 yill. The Particular Occapon of Writing this Difcourfe* 
 
 fmmmmtar—mi'^ 
 
The Contents of This Difcourfe. 
 
 Se^, 1. TpHat Matth. xxviii. 19. was meant of Pf^ater^ 
 
 1 Baptifm. Page i. 
 
 //. That Chrift did Praftife Water-Baptifm, 2. That the 
 
 Apoftlts did it after Him, 3. That the Catholkk 
 
 C^/^rr/» have done it after T^ew. ^. ^. 
 
 J//. That Baptifm muftbe Outward and Vifible, becaufe it is 
 
 an Ordinance appointed whereby to Imtiat Men into an 
 
 Outward and Pifble Society ^ which is the Church, p. y. 
 
 The Arguments of the Qjuakers agAinft the Outward-Baptifmr* 
 
 Jr. I. IhsitthQ Baptifm Commanded iWk//^. xxviii, 19. was 
 only the L^ward, or Spiritual Baptifm. p, n, 
 
 r. 2. That Water-Baptifm is "Johns Baptifin, and therefore 
 Ceafed. p. 12, 
 
 Vl ^. That Chrip and the Apofttes did Baptize with 
 ^ohn^ Baptifm. />. 14. 
 
 VU, 4. ThatPW was not fcnt to Baptize, i CorAA\.\'-j.p,2i, 
 
 VIII. 5. That B^/?^//?» is not the putting away the Filth of the 
 
 Fle^h ; but the Anfwer of a Good Confcitnce^\ Pet. iii. 
 2 1. Therefore that it is not the Outward but the Im^ard 
 Baptifm, which thQApoftlesPr (cached. p, ^j. 
 
 IX. 6. That there is but 0/^e B^^^///??, ^z*^. iv. 5. theretbrenot 
 
 both Outward and Inward. p. jr. 
 
 X. 7. That the Outward Baptifm is to be left behind, and we to 
 
 get beyond it, He^. vi. I. p. j8. 
 
 XJ. 8. That there are no sS"/^;?/ under the G^tf/, ^. 4^. 
 
 jJA The Comluften. Shewing the Ntcejfity of Water- 
 
 I'aptife. /*• 59« 
 
 Erratuin, P. 5. 1. 14. r. AU. x. 47. 
 
 There will foon be Publifhed a Difcourfe^ by the fame 
 'Author^ (hewing whom Chri(t hath Ordained to Adminifter the 
 Sacraments in His Church. And another, wherein it is provM, 
 That the Chief of the Qjiaher-H^refies were Broached, and Co;^^ 
 demned, in the Daysof the-<^/'^/?/f/, and in the f^rft 150 Years 
 
 afffii' CJiriG-. 
 
APREFACE. 
 
 AS Baptlfm ti putting on Chx\% giving up our Ndmes to Him ; bt 
 Admitted as His Difciples ; Ard a> Publick Profeffion of His I 
 £lrin : So the Kenotmcing of our Baptifm, is as Publick a Difb\^ : 
 ing of Him ; and a Formal A'po^d.iy from His Religion. !.. 
 
 Therefore the Devil has been moft bufte in all ages -{hut has j 
 fv ailed mofi, in our Utter Corrupt times') to Prejudice Men^ by many f 
 Pretences, againft this Divine Infiitution. Having been able toperfvadef^i 
 ^uite to throw it off^ as Pernicious and Hurtful: Others to think it 
 ly Lawful /<? .^e done^ but to lay no great firefs upon it, and fo ufe it ^ voh 
 it is Enjoined, as a thing Indifferent. Others deny it to Infants, u^ 
 this only Ground^ That they are not fuppos dCap able of being Admitted i 
 the Covenant «j/God, which He has made with Men : For, if they are Ca 
 Me of being admitted into the Covenant, there can be no Reafon to d 
 them the outward Seal of it. 
 
 But this being Foreign to my pre Cent Undertaking ^ which is to \ 
 monfirate to the Quakers /^^eA^f^re^^^'i?/ ^;; Outward c'r Water-Baptii 
 in the General (for as to Ptrfons capable of it^ rve have no Control 
 fte jvith thofe who deny it to All) therefore, I have not digrefs'^d into A 
 ther SubjeB, which is^ that ^/ Infant Baptifm, /;5! /•/;e/^//^n'/;;^ Difcou| 
 
 I. Tet thmrymchlmll fay of it ^in this place, T/*^/- Infants are Capable, 
 being admrtftd into the Covenant, and therefore that they cannot be Exclu 
 from the outward Sc-al of it. TheConfequence the Baptifts cannot deny, j 
 that they are Capable^ I thus trove. They were Capable under the Law, , 
 before the Law, of being admittted as Members of the Covenant in Chrifl 
 come, made with Abraham, by the Seal <?/Circumcifion, at the Age of^\\ 
 Days : And therefore there can be no Reafon to F^xclude them from theft ' 
 Privilege^ to the fame Covenant, now that Chrift is come ; unlefs Chrift /' 
 debar r''.d them from it : The l^^w fandingfiill, as it was^ where He has 
 Alter'd, or Fulfilfd it. Rut He has not debarrdthem. Nay, on the contrary, 
 has yet further confrrrid their being within the Covenant. He called a\\ 
 tie Child, (Mat. xviii. 2, 3, 5.) andfethim in the midft of His Apoftles ; !'! 
 Propofed him as a Pattern ^oThem, and to all Adult Chriflians.And faidfl 
 none jhould enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except thofe who fho 
 becptiie as little Children . And that whoever did Receive a Little Child 
 Wv&^'AXXiQy did Receive Qhn^t Himfelf. And (ver 10.^ in Heaven, tl: 
 Angels (faith Chrifi) do always behold the Face of my Father which i 
 HQd.ven. And therefore He bids m Take heed thatwe defpife not one of thj 
 Little Ones ; hj which term tho Adult Perfons are fometimes meant .^yet in 
 . Texts before quoted^it is exprefly applfd to Little Chi Id ren . And what grec. 
 Defpifing of them can be^han to Re]ecl them as no Members c/Chrift'^ Bp 
 md conftcfuently unworthy of the outward Seal ofHk^Cc'^ v.enani.i -X'bj 
 
.A Preface'.- 
 
 ■ jChnrt n'/f2r difpleafed with HU Difciples (Mar. x. 14.)/^^ hmdring young 
 I .lildrcn to he brought unto Him. And will He be pleaied rt>ithhhe f aptifts 
 Uthefme thing r* He took the little Children up in His Arms, put His 
 : nds upon them, and blelTcd them. Did He Bleis th$fe who were not Capa- 
 .b of king xvithinHis Covenant ^ Hefaidy Of fuch is the Kingdom of God, 
 1 mch is a term our Saviour us^d, to Exprefs the Covenant of the Gofpcl) 
 ! \e they not then within the Covenant of the Gofpel ? The Apoftle/^^x, that 
 '\ere either of the Parents is aChrtJliatfy (i Cor.vii. 14.) the Children ^re 
 1 ply : That is^ within the Covenant^/ Chrift. Andfurfumt to this^when Any 
 I tn was Converted^ his Children vrtre Baptized with himfelf. This is the mea- 
 hg of what we readfo often in The Ads, th At fuch a Man was Baptized with 
 I r Hor.fliold. And it was the Cuflom before with the Jews, that when they ad^ 
 ittted any ?nan as a Profefyte to their Religion, /.^ej' Baptized /w Children 
 • fh himfelf Let this fijfce for the prefent . And Proceed. 
 I II. M^/;e^^ Rebellion had fully ccmpleated it felf in the Murthcr of the 
 : yng, 1 648 . It foonffawnd a nmltifariom Schifm of '^o or 40 different Reli- 
 1 bns in England,^/ the fame tifne, of which Catalogues were thenPrintedytnoffi 
 \ \dl theft threw away Baptifm : And threatened an immediate andtotalOver* 
 row of the Chrifcian R^iligion^ in this Ifland.Z?//^, by the great Mercy of God, 
 I \e Reib.uration of the Cliurch, %vith the King, 1660. has extinguished the 
 ' 'iry >James and Memory ofthefe, all hut ^ or ly of the Principal Se6ls. The 
 resby terians, {Mother of all the refl) Independents, Ana-baptifts, (Quakers, 
 f^Muggletonians. 1 am toldoffome Sweet- fingers, got up of late. But 
 \ey are yet i n con fder able. Thiy may Jncreafe^^and allthe refiRevive,if warmed by 
 fpknitude c/ Indulgence. T/^eSocinians, (?r Unitarians, are already got 
 \ry high, who make nothing (?//■/;£ Sacraments, but as In-efteQual Forms. 
 ? think the Del Its, who pretend to higher Quality than thefe. And the Lati- 
 idinarians w/Z^/^^/re/ with none of thefe. All Deifts are Latitudinarians ; 
 id, tho they def fife Baptifm, andall^^^t^Xdi Inflitutions^^etthey canfuhmtt 
 \ them, hecaufe they are Eltabliflied by Law, as they would to any thin^ elfe, rd- 
 fer than lofe a Pen ny , or their Eafe. But the Quakers and MuggTetonians 
 ^ive (niore fincerely') /xp/Vtf/ei Baptifm, as not allowable, btcaufe they think fo. 
 \ III. Ihe Presbyterians, Independents, &c. do indeed ufe Baptifm ; but as 
 thing fo indifferent, that many of them willfuffer a Child to dye without it, ra^ 
 '^er than B/tptize it Privately, ^Jr^^?/ upon ^ Sermon <:?y htCtmC'dayyOr before 
 ermon, rather than after it ; And an In/lance can be given, fince this late Eftd' 
 \ij}:n7ent o/Presbytery inScothnd^ofa Child who dyed in the Church, inSer^ 
 ion-time ; hut the Minijlcr fufered that, and the repeated Requefis oftheV^." 
 snts, rather than go out of his wonted method of Baptizing after Sermon; he 
 )nii'rhi^^^^^t^^nfo little material \ 
 
A Preface. 
 
 But the Ptopk behg iisdto a gr enter veneration ^/Baptifin, under the £f. 
 pal Jdminiftrationi and taking the Presbyterian contempt ofitfomewhat uj 
 hy the Presbyterian Minifiers there, to infru^ them httter^ hadpuhlick Pn 
 pfents, all over theNation^tojhew the no Necejjity of the Outward or Watcr- 
 tifm. 1 mil not fay Me En c l i s h Presbyterians^^ /^/^r ; they are one D« 
 further from the\ut^^t& Covenant. / hear thai they do now Adminifter] 
 tifin pR I V A T E L^ ^in and ahuthondonM^hich the Independents doftillRe^ 
 (J have it from feme ofthtmfelves)let the cafe be never fo urgent ^even tho' the C 
 fhonld dye without it, before one oft heir Sermon or'L^tkuxQ'di2iys,Asforthe t 
 Sacrament oftheLord's Supper yl hear that fome Independent Congregatio, 
 London are come toufe it Monthly .And the Presbytevisins more freqrftntly 
 they us'*dfo do ; 6r than they do in other places. 1 he frequency o/Communi( 
 the Epifcopal Chwches^in fonfemanner forcing them to it ^t hat their people n 
 not think themfelves more negleBedby them^ than others aye. But their own I 
 Ti2ition,andthe Value they have far this Sacrament will better appear bytheii 
 haviour while they had the Power in their orvn hands ; and could Di£lat to ot, 
 inflead e?/lFoIlowing (jr Complying nvith them. And during their Go\ernme 
 the Ute Revolution,f/'(?'/^9' did not down-right (^as the Cluakers) declare 
 dgainft it, & Extrlpate ;>at once ^yet they plainly ftem'd to have had a def\ 
 have Inch'd it by Degrees out of the world^asfar as it was in their power ^ by ie 
 it fall into DifTuetudCj^/'.^f fo it might be forgotten, c^ Dye. And they had a. 
 Effected it^among thofe Unhappy People that n^ere led by them. For from the 1 
 of their Covenant, A. D. 1 6 ^S. they had not this Sacrament in many Parifh 
 Scothnd, fome for i o,fomefor 1 2, fume for i t^years \ which was almofi their \ 
 f^^ign. And inthe\nd\Ag^d ^WConniv'd at Parifies to the Tear i6S'^.man) 
 fons (who were notDebarr'dfor any Exception againjl them)fome ofi{ 0,60,7c 
 Soyears of Age, never receiv^dthis Sacrament ance in their lives : This I 
 from certain Information, And fince their prefentEflahlifljment in thisKevolvk 
 their negle6i of this Sacrament is likewifeNotorious .Four Tears after which ^V. 
 the year 1 69 3 . /> had not been Admini fired in Edenbrugh; & but onceayear^ a 
 mofl, fince. \Ve may imagine then how it has been obferved in the Country Par^ 
 
 iV. T/»e Presbyterians in Me Norths?/ Ireland, are 4 Sprig of the Sc 
 Covenant Tranfplanted thither : Which in that change of Soile^ his i 
 deep Root, andfpread Intolerably. And the Bifhop o/Derry, in his late CleOi 
 Rational Difcourfe concerning the Inventions of Men in the Worfhip of} 
 And Two following Admonitions,/^^j made it fully appear y[ hat not One in 
 of them do ever Receive this Sacrament /« the whole Courfe of their Lives : 
 the re ft very rarely, even now fince this lafi Revolution. And in the Forme 
 vohttionof^^iy he gives Vndeny able Infiances, that in fever al Churches, ev 
 VP'bllnf aftjr the tnrm^g out of the Bpiicopal Minifiers, Me Lordy Su 
 
J ' A Pretace. 
 
 ' 40t betft Mminiflred till the Refianration^ 1660, that is^ infome Churches /or Ten, in 
 ffor Twelve Ttars together. . .. ^ 
 
 n. Thefe Presbyterians in L)ublin> and in the South atid Weft farts o/Ireland, were fait 
 p En^hndjaNd had learfn^theComempt of this Sacraffk^fit there- Where^ evtn /« Ok- 
 IK^tt was not Adminiftred in the whole Univerfity, from -the Eje^ion of the Epifcopaf 
 Vxg'^^in the Tear 1648. to the Reft aur at ion in 1660, as is obferved in rk AntiqViv^ 
 bon. So that tht Qu^kcis have only taken that out of the way, which the Presbyteric^ll^ 
 \^^ worn int Dif nfe . 
 
 [J\, ^nd from all thtfe Enemies ^ and the juhtle Ji'ifwHatioiis which they have broached in 
 jiidice of Chriif s Hcly Inftif ut ion of Bapii^ah andlikfwife of the Lords Supper (for 
 '1 arefio^htedby the fame Perfons^ and upon the fame Groan ds") it is to he feared^ thatjeve- 
 ^ even of the Church of Enghndy have hecfj wrought^ t ho* not into a Dif-ufe, or downright 
 ^ht, yet into a lefs Efteem? and greater Indifferency as to thtfe Holy Sacraments t%an 
 y ought ; and confeqaently receive lefs Benefit by them -, much lefs than if their Knowledge, 
 '^^' their Faith werebetter rooted^ and more fublin-e, ^^y-, there is not any Degree Oy'^indif- 
 ''YlCY-, bat what is Culpable J in this Cafe -^ and may bring a Qm^twith it^ inftead of a 
 '; fling : for^ whatfoever, cfpecially in Religious Worjhip^ is not of Faith, is fin. uind 
 prding to our Faith, it is to «/, in all our Performances of Religion. — 
 
 l/ll. for all thcfe Reafons^tho* this Difconrfe was wrote wholly on Behalf of the QuakerS- 
 f I hope, it will not he m-Hfefid to many others^ to fee the ftrong Foundation? Great Ne- 
 Ijpity, and In-eftimable Benefits o/Baptifm and the Lord'j Supper, vphen Duly Admini^ 
 -^^W, and Received with Full Faith and AITurance in the Power and Love of God, that 
 jviU not fail to ajfift His own Inflitutions, when we approach unto them^ with fwicere Re- 
 tSincef and mi doubting Dependar.ce upon Hts Promifes. And ma-ny of the Qhfeflions 
 f after anfwered^ thd* nfed by the Quakers, to Invalidate BAPTISM? t^-re likewife infifted 
 '^^fcveral of the ^tCts^ which I have named above, to Leflen and DifparageVr. " In which 
 tk, the following Difcoptrfe^ tko"* it refpeCls the QUAKERS Cbiefiy? yet not them Only, 
 ^t contains the joint A'^guments of all the feveraifiz.es of the Oppofers, or Contemners 
 ^ptifm. 
 
 Jl III. Bnt as to the immediate Oc€ a f on ^ which engaged mc /» this Work.^ ^^ ^as upon the 
 
 pnnt of a particular Ptrfon, who had been Educated fc^^m his Childhood in the. Quaker 
 
 ; X'ples^ and Communion. And the Oi'y^ions which are here confdired againft Baptifm, 
 
 ^^hefe whichj at feyeral conferences with other Quakers, to whom that Perfun brought me ^ 
 
 i^infjftcd upon^ At length^after more thanTwelve Months chnfidcration of this /ingle 
 ity and diligently Reading over^ and weighing every particular^ which Rob. Barclay had 
 jf, in his Apology, againfl the Outward, or Water Baptifm, it pleafed Godfo to open 
 ^ f.'^es^ and perfwade the Heart of thts Ge^tlcman^ that-, having /nformcd hirnfclfin the 
 '!, Principles of the Chriftian Religion, as ccntained in our ChurCh Catechifm ', he has 
 y Tvith great jjyfulncjs ^ and fatisfattion^ Received the Baptifm o/Chrift? as Admini- 
 I in the Church of England. And it was his Defire^ that this Difcourfe {tho* wrote for 
 ^-nvat Vfo might be made Publick^ tn hopes, that it may have the like Effe^s upon others^ 
 has had upon himfelf, by the great Mercy of God, ^ A'>d 1 knowing feveral others who 
 of late been Convinced and Baptifed, tn the fame m^nier^ as this Gentleman •, / have 
 t^effted his invitation to contribute my Mite towards the Recovery of fo many Thoufand 
 L' as now for 46 ycars^ have thrown cffthe Sacraments 0/ Chrift's Inftitution : and there- 
 ■ fs one main Caufe^ have kft the Siibftance^ even Faith in the Blood of Cbrift, outwardly 
 iff or our Salvation, as I have elfe-whereji^ewn. The Lord accept my mean Endeavonrs ^ 
 '"■ kthetn Indrumental to His Glory, <«?;«'?/;:' Salvation of" Soujs- Amen* 
 
-•-■■■ill . V i ■ ■ ■ I I I .. I nil I ■ . I I . 
 
 'discourse 
 
 PROVING 
 
 The DIVINE INSTITUTION 
 
 F 
 
 WATER-BAPTISM. 
 
 .__ , - ■ - » ■ ■ ■ » ■ ■ 
 
 S E G T. L 
 
 That Matth.xxvlii. 19. xpas meant of W^tGr-Baptiiim. 
 
 TH E Words of the Text arc thefe : Go ye, therefore, aftd 
 Teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son^ and of the Holy GhoFK 
 The Quakers will not own that the Baptifm here mentioned 
 was the Outmard, or JVater-haptifm : Which I will endeavour to 
 make very plain, that it was ; and that in the firfl place, 
 From t\\tSignif cation znA Etymology of the word Baptize. 
 
 I. The word is a Greek word, and only made Englifflj by our 
 conftant ufage of it : It fignifies to Wafh, and is applyM to this 
 Sacrament of Baptifm, becaule that is an outward JVaJhing, 
 ■ .To M^afb and to Baptize are the very fanje ; and if the word 
 Baptize had been rendred into Englijb, inflead of, GoandBx-^ 
 pTizE, it mufl: have been faid, Go atidV^Ksii Men, inihe. 
 Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy GhofK So that 
 die outward Baptifm, with Water, is as much here command- 
 ed, as if it had been expreffed in Englilb words, or as we can 
 ijow exprefs it, ^ B But 
 
.^[.o._^ ^ 
 
 CUj b^^wft:tEe< WQi^cj 'Sap/ize was grown a x ecnnical Term, 
 in other Languages, whereby to exprefs the Holy Sacrament of 
 Baptifm^Xong before our EngUflj Traniktion,therefore our Tran- 
 l^ators did rightly retain the word Baptize in this 1 ext, Matth^ 
 xxviii, i^. attd~ in other Texts which (pe^k o^ xXidXHoly^SacrA- 
 mefit^, ' / ; ' ' ' il (i^ I 
 
 Butriri other pkce* they ttanfl^te the word Baptize,' qs Mark' 
 vii. ^.When they come from the Market Ixv fjiit l^ccTrJiacayrcti) except 
 tliey are Baptized^ which we hterally tranflate except they M^afh, 
 4nd in the fame Verfe, Bocwlicrfivs Tromej^cavy S^c. The Baptijms 
 arCups md Pots^^^.c. which we tranllate the H'^yZ^i'^^ of C«/>V 
 :ind Pots. A'nd ii^^. ix. lo. fpeaking of thefe Legal Inftituti- 
 ons, Tphich flood only in Meats And t)rinks^ and divers IVajjjirigs, . 
 and carnaL Ordinances, &c. the word wliich we here tranflate 
 lUajhings, is, in the. Original, Ba7r7ia-/M.o?5, Baptifms : In Meats 
 andDrtyiksy and divers Baptijms, And in the Vulgar Latin, the 
 Greek word is retained in both thefe Te5«;s, Mark vii. 4. Av/i 
 Baptizentur , non Comedunt. . Except they are Baptized, i. e. 
 Wajjj their Hands, they eat not. • And Baptifmata Calicum, &:c. 
 The Baptijms of Cups, 8cc. And Heh. ix. 10. In Cibis & Potibusf. 
 & variis Baptifmatibifs ', i.e. In Meats and Drinks, and divers- 
 Baptifms, So that it is plain that the word Baptifrn, and thie 
 \voi d Wapjing, thoVnbt the fame word, have yet the felf-fame 
 meaning. 
 
 2. It is trneytiiat the word Baptifrn is often taken in a F/^«r4- 
 five and Allegorical Senfc, to mean the Inward Baptism, die 
 Wajhing, or Cleanfng of the Heart : But fo is the word Wafljing 
 alfo, as often, as Jer,\v\j 4, &c. And there is 'fcarce a Word in the 
 Workl but is capable of many Figurative ^.ndjtUegoricalM.td.nr-- 
 ings. Thus Circtimcifion'is very often us'd for the hward Oir- 
 cumcfwn or Purity of the Heart, And Fire is taken to exprcfs 
 Love, and*iikewil^u^;?^fr, and many other things. 
 ' Btrt it is a reCeiv'd Rule for the Interpretation of Scripture, ^ 
 and indeed of all other Writings and Pi^ords, that the plam li- 
 ter^ Meaning is ahvays tb be taken, where there is no manifefl 
 Contradiction Qv Jbfurdity in it ;• as wlien a Man is fa id to have ^ 
 1 fuVf burning mhxsBre'aH, it cannot be meant of the Literal 
 lyp :- fo when '^^^e are commanded to }VaJb or Circurncife our- 
 
 "" Heart fiy. 
 
[?] 
 
 H^^m, and the like. But, on the other hand, if any Man wifl 
 take upon him to underftand Words in a Figurative Senfe^ at his 
 own will and pleafure, without an apparent Neceflity from the 
 Sco^£ "^VidrQoherence^ he fets up to Banter^ and leaves no Cenain- 
 ty m any Words or Ex^rejjions in the World. Therefore I v/iM 
 conclude this Point of the natural Sigmfication and Etymology of 
 the word i^/j/>/-/^e ; And, unlefs the jQ^/«/^fr.f can fliew an appa- 
 rent Contradicl^ion or Abfurdity to take it in the Literal Sigmfica- 
 tiorty in this Text, A/^/f^. xxviii. 19. then it mufl: be meant of 
 the Outward Washing or Baptism, becaufe that is the only 
 2V«?, and Proper, and Literal Signification of the Word. 
 
 And it will be further Demonfbrated in the next Secliofty that 
 there can be no Contradiction or Abfurdity to take it in 2i Jitter al 
 Senfe , becaufe the Jpo/lles, and Others thereunto Covfrni/fto^ia- 
 ted by them, did Pramfe it, in the LiteralSQnCe. 
 
 S E C T. II. 
 L That CHRIST did Praaife Water-Baptifm. 
 II. That the Apofllcs did it after Uim. III. That 
 the Catholkk Church have done if after Them. 
 
 I. ' I "^Hat Chrilt did Prad ife Water-Baptifm, It is written, 
 J^ Johpi iii. 26, And they came unto John, and faid unta 
 him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou 
 baresl witnej^, Behold, the fame Baptizeth, and all Men come tfi 
 Him. 
 
 That this was Water-Baptifm there can be no Doubt, be- 
 caufe, 
 
 I. The Baptifm with the HolyGhoH was not yet given : For 
 that was not given till tlie Day of PentecoH, fifty Days after the 
 RefurrecJion of ChriB, as it is Recorded in tlie Second of the 
 Ail^, This Spiritual Baptifm was promifed,, John xiy. 16, 26. 
 xv.'26. xvi. 7. And the i?/><?/?/fi- were commanded to tarry in 
 the City ofjerufalem till it fhould come upon them, Luke xxiv^ 
 49. 2. The ^4/^fr^ allow that J(?^^ did Baptize withW^^^^^i 
 and there is no other ibrt of Baptifm here mentioned , with 
 
 B 2 which 
 
"which Chrifi did Baptize;- and therefore, thefe iaptifms being 
 fpoke of both together, there can be no Reafon to interpret the 
 one to be with JVater^ and the other not. It is (Iiid Jd/j;^ iv; i.^ 
 The Pharifees heard that Je/f^' made and baptiz^ed more Difciples 
 than John, How couM the Pharifees hear of it, if it was not an 
 Vtittpard^nd Vifible Baptijm I For, as befort isfaid; the outward 
 and miraculous Ef^efts of the Baptifm with the Holy GhoH were 
 not then given. And fince it Was an Outward^ it mud: be the 
 Water-baptifr/tj for there was then no other. 
 • Obj. But the Quakers ftart an Objeohan here, That it-is faid' 
 Johr/iv. 2. Jefmhimfelf baptized not^ but hisDifciples-. 
 
 1 . A»f. Tho Jefus himfelf baptized not ^yQ,t it is faid in the Verfe 
 foregoing, that He made and baptized^ i. e. thofe whom His^ 
 Difciplesy by His OvAtv, Baptized.. For, if it had not been done 
 bj His Order y it cou'd not be faid. that he hsid Baptized thofe 
 whom his Dilciples Baptized. But becaufe, He that doeth a thino 
 hy Another^ is faid to do it Hi?nfelf^ tlierefore ChriH himfelf is 
 laid to have Baptized thofe, whom his Difciples, by his Order 
 didBaptize, 
 
 2. Jnfw. That JB/^;>/-/^,/>^whidiC/;r/// is laid to have AdmiT 
 niihcd himfelf y Jok^ 111.26, might have been at another 7 me 
 than that which is mentioned in the 4th Chapter : And then the 
 conlequence will only be this, That, at fome Ti^nes^ Chr/fl did 
 Baptife Himfelf; and at other Times, he left it to his Difctples. 
 Tho, astoour Argurnent, it is the fame thing, whether he did 
 it Himfelf or commanded his Difciples to do it. For, either 
 way, it is his Baptif77k,hisOmlj ; his D/fciplesdid but Adminifler 
 "what he commanded. 
 
 11. As ChriH himfelf did Baptize with Water, and his Difci- 
 fies, by. Iiis Commandment, while he was with them upon 
 Earth ; fo did his Afoflles, and Others, thereunto by them com- 
 miffionated, after his Death ^ and RefurreBion; by vertue of his 
 Command' to them, Matth.yty.v'm. 19. after he was Rife n from 
 the Bead. 
 
 What is faid above of the Etymology and " true Signification of 
 tlie word Baptize, is, of itlelf, fuificient to prove,that by Baptifm 
 in this Ttxt,x\\Q outward Baptifm with Water is meant ; cfpecially 
 till.the Quakerj>Q-Aw fhew sny Ccmtradiflion or Abfirdity in ha*^ 
 vingtlis word t^kcn in die proper '2irA literal fhnih, in this, arrcf 
 ihe.odier.JWj-whiclifpcci^ ®fit. And^ 
 
[5 3 
 
 And this will be very hard to do, fmce, as'it js^Juftnowpro* 
 ved, that ChriFi did Baptize with JVater^ as well as Joh». And> 
 what Abfurdity^ or ContradiHion can be alledged, that his Apo-- 
 fiJes Giou'd Adminixkr theianie fort O? BaptiJmy2i^tQ\' his-Dea^h^ 
 as he had Praciifed and Commanded during his Life ? Na.y 
 rather, what Reafon-can be given, why they lliou'd not be the 
 lame^ fince the fame rvord, i. e. Baptize ^ is us'd in Both, and no 
 new Se^fe or Acceptation of the word is fb much as hinted ? And 
 therefore to put any new fenfeov acoeptation of the r^ord^ mud 
 h&wlwViy Arbitrary and Precarious. 
 
 Buty as I promis'd, I will Demonflrate yet more fully and? 
 plainly, that the Apofiles did Pra^ife the Outward^ 1. e. Water* 
 Eaptifm SiftQT CnKisT:''s death, 
 
 'Ads X. ^7. Can any Ma»forbid^2i^Vy that thejejh&u^d mP- 
 he Baptized f , 
 
 Adtsviii. 36. As they {VluYi^ arid the IBxmviQli) mnt an their ^ 
 T^ay^ they.came to a certain Water, and the Eunuch [aid^ See here is • 
 Water, what doth hinder me to he Baptized f — And ( Verle 38.) 
 they Tvsnt^ both dawn into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch^ 
 mdhe Baptized him': And when ^t hey were comeup.out of the Wal- 
 ter, d'r. 
 
 A^s xxii. 16. And now why tarrieH thou ? Arife and be Bapti^^ 
 JS^-d, andv/Siih away thy Jins, 
 
 And, to-fave more QuotationSj the Quakers do own that the 
 Baptifm^of the Corinthians, mentioned i Ccr. i. 14& 17, was 
 Water-baptifm, 
 
 Therefore I will conclude this Point, as undeniable ,• That- 
 the Afojiles did praftife Water-baptifm, 
 
 And the Argument from thence wilMie thus : The Apofiles 
 did pra<^ife that Baptifm which ChriH commanded i^^/. xxviii,- 
 19. Butthe^/(3//ejdid pr^ikik Water-baptifm; therefore IVa^^ 
 ter 'baptifm was that Baptifm- -which ChrtH commanded Matth^^ 
 xxviii..i9. 
 
 III. And, 2LS the PracVfe of^th&Jpoftiejisa.;mo&ruvQKu]e' 
 whereby to underftand the meaning of that C(?w»^;?;?^which^ 
 they put m- execution ; fb tl\Q Pracfife of thofe who immediate--' 
 Jy mcceeded the ^/)^//^?^ who were Cot^mporades with therap - 
 ami leann'd the Faith from their Mouths^ is as certain a Rule to ^ 
 laiowwhat .thQ.Pr^/fefd.nd what- the ^e»fe of th^ Jpcjilep* 
 
were. And dius the PraSfife of the prefect ^^, ia the Adminl- 
 ftration of Wnter-haptifm, is an undeniable Evidence, that tliis 
 was the Pra^ife of the lafi Age ; the fame Perfbns being, many 
 of them, aUve in both the Uli; and the prefent Jge, For one Age 
 ■ does not go off the World all at once, and another fucceed all of 
 perfect Age together ; -but there are old Men of the UH Age^ and 
 young Men Q.nd Children growing up to another Age all ahvc up- 
 on Earth the fame time ; and Mankind being difperfed into far 
 diftant Countries and Climaes, who know not of one another, 
 nor hold any Correfpondence: It is, bythefe means, morally 
 impoilible for zny Man or Men^ to deceive us in what has been 
 the Vniverfal and Receiv'd Praotife of the laB Age, to which 
 the prefent Age is fo hnked, that it is even a part of it : I ^y it is 
 impofTible for all the Fathers of the World, to be fuf)pos'd rviU 
 ling, or if they were, to be capable of impofing upon all younger 
 than themlelves, namely, That they had been all Baptized, and 
 that this was an univerlally receiv'd Cuftom ; and of which Regj^ 
 fiers were always kept, in every Parifh, of all who had been, from 
 time to time, Baptiz,ed; and that fuch Regifierswtve publicky asd 
 to be recurr'd to by all that had a mind to it: Every Man's rea- 
 fbn .will tell him that it is utterly impofTible for fuch a thing to 
 pafs upon Mankind. 
 
 And as certainly as the prefent Age is thus alTur'd of the Pra- 
 
 , clife of the lasl Age, in a Thing of \opuhlick and univerfalz na- 
 
 >ture; -fb certainly, and by the fame Rules, mufl the lasl Age 
 
 know the PraBije of the Age before that ; and fb backward all 
 
 the way to the frsi Infiitution, to the Age of Christ, and the ^- 
 
 poflles. 
 
 The pubiick nature of this Water-haptifm, as now pradifed^ 
 being 2in outward matter of Fa5t, of which Mens outward Senfes, 
 their Eyes and Ears are 'Judges ; not like Matters of Opinion, 
 which fort of Tares may be privately fbwn, and long time propa- 
 gated^ without any remarkable Difcovery ; And to tliis fopub- 
 <iick mztttv of Fact, 2.dding'the univerfal Tt2,Q:icc oi' it, through 
 all the far diffant Nations of Chriftianity : I fay thefe two Marks 
 make it impolTible for the World to be impos'd upon, nor was 
 it ever, or ever can be impos'd upon, in any fuch pubiick Matter 
 of Fa^, fb univerfally pra£liled. All this makes it undeniably 
 plain, That the Ust Age^.^\d practif^ the fame outward Water-ba- 
 ' • ptifm 
 
..17 ] 
 
 pijm \vhichispra(Ris*din/te^^^; and that the fame was, as 
 certainly, praftis'd in the Jge before the U^i Jge^ and by the 
 fame Rule, in the Jgehdoxo. that ; and fb onward, as abovefaid, 
 ;to the Jge of the AjJojiUs, I have made more Words of this 
 ■Ithan needed, but I wouM render it exceeding plain, confidering 
 with whom I have to do. And I beleechthem to conlider, 
 That all the Authority which they liave to Over-ballance all 
 thefe Demonftratious, is the mad Enthufufm of a Lay- Jpo file ^ 
 George Fox, a Mechanick fo Illiterate, that he was hardly Mailer 
 of common Senfe, nor cou'd write Englijb, or any other Lan- 
 guage-; and ftarted up amongll us in the Year 1650, (the Age 
 of Schifm and Rebellion) and Damn'd, as Jpojlates, vdUg^s fince 
 thQ Jpofiles. 
 
 In all of which no One cou'd be found (before G. Fox) to 
 bear their Teftimony againft this M^ater-baptijm, tho' it was con- 
 Jlantl/tind univerfallj pradiled ', and that Cbrifiims were then 
 ib Zs^^om as to contend againft the leafl^Variation or Corrupti* 
 on Qith& Faith, even unto Death, and the moft cruel Ibrt of M^r^ 
 tyrdom. 
 
 Can any Man imagin, that if JVarer'haptifmwQrQa.Human 
 Invention, or Superfiitioujly either Continued or Obtruded upon the 
 Chnrch, no One Ihou'd be found, for 16 50 Years, to open his 
 Mouth againfl it ; M^hen Thoufands facrific'd their Lives, for 
 Matters of much lefs Importance? 
 
 But I have over-labour'd this Point, to any Man who will 
 give himfelf leave to make ufe of his Realbn, Therefore I will 
 proceed to the next Se^ion, 
 
 ' '; :,: (.:■: : .^^v > ' ■ " -^ <- ■ .• 
 
 S E C T. HI, 
 
 That Baptlfm mu§l id? Outward and Vifible, becaufe 
 it Is an Ordinance appointed whereby to Initiate Me^ 
 
 \4nto ^?2 Outward <^n^VifibleSociejty^»?&y^ k the 
 Church. 
 
 T Here goes no more towards the proving of this, thantO' 
 fhew, lA, That the Church is an Outward and Fijtble S(h 
 cietj, 2 diy , That Baptifm was appoktedi attd w^'d for Jmiaffng 
 or Admitting Men into the Qhnrdh jft>- 
 
I ft, That tht Church is an outward and viftble Society. ''Our 
 : Sdviour calls it, A City that Ufeto»a, Hill, (Matth. v. 14.) The 
 . Quakers themfelves are an outward and vijlile Society ; and Co are 
 . all thofe who bear the Name of Churches upon Earth. They 
 ;COu'd not otherwife be Churches. For that implies a Society of 
 Feople ; and every 6flc/Wj' in the World, is ,^n outward and vijt- 
 Me Thing. 
 
 And, as it is fb, has an outward and vifrhle Form of Admitting 
 Men into it : For otherwife it woii'd not be known who are 
 Members of it. Every Society isExclufive of all others who are 
 f$iot of that Society ; otherwife it cou'd not he a Society : for that 
 fupppfes the Men of that Society^ to be thereby diftinguifhed 
 from other Men : And that fuppofes as much that there muft be 
 Some outward and vifihle Form whereby to Initiate Men, and in- 
 -title them to be Membh-s of fiich ^Society : otherwife it cou'd not 
 .be known who were Mw/^^r/ of it, and who were not; and it 
 -wou'd thereby ipfo facfo ceafe to be a Society ; for it cou'd not 
 then be diftinguillied from th^ reft of Mankind : as a River is 
 lofl in tlie Sea, becaufe it is no longer diftinguifli'd from it, but 
 .goes to make up a part of it. 
 
 From hence it appears, that the Church , being an outward and 
 .*vijible Society, mufl have fbme outward and z'ifible Form to ini- 
 ■tJate^. Men, and make them Members of that Society. 
 
 2dly, That Baptifm was that outward Form. All the fevera.I 
 Baptijms that were before ChrifPs, were all meant for Initiating 
 Forms. The Jews had a Cuftom long before ChriH, to initiate 
 the JProfelites or Converts to their ReUgion, not only by Circum- 
 ^ ctfion, "but hy Baptizing, or Waging them with Water, The 
 lame was the meaning bf J^^;?'s Baptifm, to make Men his £)/- 
 fciples. And tlie fame was the meaning of Chrisfs Baptifm, to 
 initiate yiew into th^ Chrijiian Religion, and make tliem Difci- 
 fles of Chri^h 1 v.^ ' ^' - • r\ ..■..• \\V 
 , > HpnceBap(izfing Men, and rnakingjthem Vifciples, mean the 
 lame thing. Thus Johniv. i. it is faid, That Jeftu- made and 
 haptized more Difciples than John, Tiiat is, be baptized them 
 pifciples^ v^Jiich w^ the Form o( Making them fiidi. If any 
 ivill lay, that he baptifced tliem to be Difciples to John, that will 
 h$- ^nlw?r;d S0., VI. , JBut as to the prefen^ Point, it is the fame 
 '2u ^^^^ 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 thing whofe Difciples they were made ; for we are now only to 
 fhew that Bapttfrn, in the general, was an ImtUt'mg form, ■ 
 
 And when QhriB praSifed it, as well as "^ohn^ as this Text 
 does exprefly declare, no Reafbn can be given that he did not 
 ufe it as an Initiating Form^ as well as 'John ; efpecially when 
 the Text does exprefs that he did make them Difciples^ by bxpti^ 
 z,ingoi them, as above is fhewn. 
 , And purfhant to this, when ChriH ient his Jpofiles to convert 
 /ill Nations, his CommilTion oi Baptizing was as large as that of 
 Teachings Matth. xxviii, 19. (Jo T each 'all Nations ^ Baptizing 
 themy &c. /. e. Baptizing all who fliall receive your word. And 
 accordingly it is laid, jicJs'iu 41. Thej that recei'ved the jvord 
 were baptized. Furfuant to what the Jpojlie had preached to 
 them Verfe 28. Repent and be baptized. 
 
 And accordingly we find it t!ie coniiant Cuftom to baptize all 
 that were converted to tlie Faith. Thus Paul^ tho miracdoufly 
 converted from Heaven^ was commanded to be baptized^ A£ls 
 xxii. 16. And he baptized Lydia^ and thcjajlor, and their Houfe- 
 holds, as fbon as he had converted them, Jcls xvi. 15, 3 ^. And 
 the Corinthians, Afts-xviii. 8. And the Difciples of John, who 
 had not yet been made Chrijlians, A£ls xix. 5. Philip did ba- 
 ptize the Eunuch, as fbon as he believed in Chri-H, AQ:s viii. 37, 
 38. And Peter, immediately upon the Converfion of Qomelim, 
 and thofe with him, faid, Can any Man forbid Water ^ that theje 
 jhou'^d not be baptized ? Afts X. 47. 
 
 It wou'd be endlefs to enumerate all the like Inflancesof Ba- 
 ptij}^, in the New Tefiament, And it was always us'd as an 
 Initiating Form: 
 
 ^dly, Baptifm was not only an Initiating Form : But it ferv'd 
 for nothing elfe. For it was never to be repeated. As a iMan can 
 be born but once into this World, fo he can be but once regenera^ 
 tedyOv born into tliQ Church; which is therefore, in Scripture, cal^ 
 led the New Birth. 
 
 It is faid of the other Sacrament (of the Lord's Supper) as of- 
 ten as ye eat this Bread, Sec. I Cor. xi. 26. This was to be often 
 repeated. 
 
 Baptifm is our Admiffion, Initiation, or Birth into the Society of 
 the Church ; and accordingly once only to be adminiilred. The 
 
 C hordes 
 
Lord^s Supper is our Nourijhmem and Daily Food in it ; and there- 
 fore to be often repeated . 
 
 And as of our Saviour\ fb of other Baptifms, o^Johnhy and 
 the ytwj-5 they being Only Imtming Forms, they were not re- 
 peated. The Jews did not haptizje their Profelites more than 
 ome. And yohn did not haptizje his Difciples more than o/^^-f. So 
 neither were Men ^ii^/V^ haptiz,ed into tlie QhrifiUn Faith, more 
 than tliey wcvq twice Circumcifedj or Admitted'mto the Churchy be- 
 fore ChriHi 
 
 Tims having proved, ifl-, That thtCharch is an c?/^/^«?^/^ and 
 ^'///^^/V Society. 2dly, That Baptifm was the Initiati?7g Form of 
 Admitting Men into that Society, ^dly, That it was only an 
 Initiating Form. I think the Confequence is undeniable, that 
 this Baptijm nvdix be an outward and i;///i'/e F^jr/7i? .- Becaufe other- 
 wife it cou'd be no Sign or Badge of an AdmifTion into an outward 
 and vifible Society ; Tor fuch a Badge mufl: be as outward as the 
 Society. 
 
 Again, A£ls of inward Faith are, and ought to be often repeat- 
 cd : Tiierefore this Baptifm, which cou'd not be repeated, cou'd 
 noc be the inward^ but the outward Baptifm. 
 
 And thus having prov'd that Baptifm commanded Matth. 
 xxviii. 19. to bt the outward, th^t is, IVater-i^aptifm : i{\, FronV 
 the true and proper Etymology and Signification of the Word, 
 '2^My, From the Praciijeo't Christ, and his Jpoftks, and tine, 
 whole C/?///?/'^/^ C/;//rir/y after tliem. And, ^dly, From the Na- 
 ture of the Thing, Baptifm being an Ordinance appointed only ior 
 Initiating Men into 2.noutward and vifible Societj\ and therefore 
 never to he repeated: Having thus prov'd our Conclulion from 
 iiich plain, eaiie, and certain Topicks ; I will now proceed to 
 thofe Objiidions (fucli as the-y are) which the Quakers do fet 
 u.p againft all thefe clear Dcmonftrations. And fhall according- 
 ly, inthefirft place, take notice o^ theiv groundle/i Pretence in 
 making that Baptism commanded in the Holy Go/pel, and pro- 
 ved an Ordinance external cmd 'vifille, to be underfl-ood only 
 or the Inward and Spiritual Baptis^i, not with Water, but the 
 Holy Ghost„ 
 
 S E C T. 
 
C II ] 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Quakers fay^ ift., That the Baptism commanded 
 Matth. xxviii. 19. 7Pas only meant of the Inwzr A 
 and Spiritual Baptifm^ with the Holy Ghoft, 
 
 ^T^Hey fay this ; and that is all. They neither pretend to 
 j^ anfwer the Arguments brought againft them, fuch as thefe 
 before-mentioned ; nor give any Froof for their own Ajfertion. 
 Only thtyfajfo ; and they ivill believe it y and there is an End 
 of it 
 
 And truly there fhou'd be an End of it, if only DiJputMhfiy or 
 ViBory were my Deiign : For to what non flm can any Ad^ 
 verfary bd'reduc'd beyond that of nQ\th.QV A-afwering^ no^a Pro- 
 
 
 But becaufe the Pains I have taken is only in Charity for their 
 Souls, I will over-teolt all their Impertinency, and deal with 
 them as with weyward Children, humour them,and follow them 
 thro' all their Windings and Turnings _; and ftibmit to over --prove, 
 what is abundantly proved already. Therefore, fince they can 
 give no Reafbn why that Baptifen commanded Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 ihou'd be meant only of the Baptifm with the Holy GhoH ; and 
 wou'd be content that we fliou'd leave them there, as obllinate 
 Men, and pu' fue them no further ; but let them perf\vade thole 
 whom they can perfwade : "^y which Method (unhappily yield- 
 ed to them) they have gain'd and fecur'd moft of their Frofe- 
 lites^ by keeping them from Difputing or Reajoning ; and by per* 
 fwading them to hearken only to their own Light withtn : To 
 Reicue them out of this Snare, I will be content to undertake 
 the Negative (though againft the Rules of Argument,) and to 
 prove, that the Baptifm commanded Matth. xxviii. i^. was not 
 the Baptifm with the Holy Ghost For, 
 
 I ft, To baptize with the HolyGhoIfis peculiar to ChriFl a* 
 lone. . For none can baptize with the Holy GhoB^ but who can 
 fend and befiow the Holy GhoH, Which is Blajphemy to afcribe 
 to any Creature. C 2 ChriB 
 
ChriH has indeed committed the Adminiflration of the out- 
 TMrd Baptifm with Water to his Afoflles ^ and to Others by 
 them thereunto oydained', and has promifed the inw.tr d Baptifm 
 of the Holy GhoH to thofe.who fliall duly receive the outward Ba- 
 ftijm. 
 
 But this cannot give the Jpoftles, or any other Minifiers of 
 QhriU^ the Title of hapiz^mg with the Holy GhoU \ though the 
 Holy GhoH may be given by their Minifiration, For tliey are ■ 
 not the Givers^ that is Blajphemy. 
 
 And puriiiaiit to this, it is oblervable, that none is ever faid 
 in th& Scripture^, to hapiz^e with the Holy GhoH but ChriH alone : 
 The fame is he who baftiz£th with the Holy GhoH^ John i. 22. 
 
 And therefore, if that Baptifm commanded Matth. xxviii. 19. 
 was the Baptifm with the Holy GhoH^ it w^ou'd follow that the- 
 Jpofiles^ cou'd baptize with the Holy GhoH, which is Blajphe- 
 mytoaffcvt. . 
 
 2dly, It is written, John Iv. 2. That Jefi^ himfelf haptized- 
 not^ hut his Difci^les. If this was not meant of Water-laptifm 
 but of the Baptifm with the Holy GhoH ; then it will follow 
 That-C^^/V7 did not baptize with the Holy GhoH^ but that his- 
 LUfciples did. 
 
 This, in fhort, may fuffice in return to a meer Pretence^ and ' 
 proceed we next to confider, if their main Argument alio prove, 
 as unfupported and precarious. ~ 
 
 SECT, V, 
 
 The great Argument^ of the Quakers agamU Wz- 
 ter-Baptilm i^ thk : Johns Baptifm i6 ceaied : 
 But John'j Baptifm was- Water-Baptifm : There'- 
 fore Water-Baptifmi6 ceafed. ThU their Learn- 
 ed Barclay makes ufeof. But, 
 
 lil-, XT is fb txtrQMnljChildifh, that if it were not His, no Ria- 
 JL der wouM Pardon me for Anfwering to it. Yet fince ' 
 ijieydo.infift uponit,^ let them t^kethis eafie Anfwer: That 
 
 JohiurS- 
 
[ '? ] 
 
 John^ Water-baptifm is ceafed ; but not ChrilPs JVater-hptifm\ 
 All OHtivard Baptifms were Water-baptifms^ as the word Baptifm 
 fignifies, (See Sed. I.) The Jews Baptifm w^s Water-baptifmy 
 as well as John's. And by this Argument of BarcUfs^ the Jews 
 and JohrPs may be prov'd to be the fame. Thus. The Jews- 
 Bapttfm was WAter-baptifm : but Johri's Baptifm was Water-ba.- 
 pttfm : therefore John's Baptifm was the Jews Baptifm, 
 
 And thusy ChrisPs Baptifm was J,ohn\ and John's was tlie-' 
 'Jews^ . and the y^n^j was Chrilfs ; and they were .1// one and tlie^ 
 lelf-fame Baptif'-t^ becaufe they were all Water-bsptifms. 
 
 So without all Foundation is this great Rock of the Qjhtkersj 
 upon which, they build their m.ain Battery againft fVater-ba- 
 jjfmi . . . 
 
 2/y, It wilVbe proper here to let them fee (if they be not-wil-. 
 fully ignorant) What it is which makes the Difference of E^-^ 
 ptifms : not the outward Matter in which they are adminiiired 
 (for that may be the fame in many Baptifms^ asis fliewn.) But . 
 Baptifms do differ, i. In tlic'iv. Jut hors. 2. In the different 
 Form, in vvdiich they are adminiftred. ^. In the different Ends ^ 
 for which they were inftituted. 
 
 And in all thefe the J5.^/?/-//^ of Chrisi- does diff^er vaffly from 
 the Baptifms both of John and the Jews , 1 . As to the Author .1 
 The Baptifm of- the Jews was an Addition of their own to the 
 Law ; and had no higher Author that we know of But John 
 was fent by Godi, to baptize^ John i. 3 ^. And it was ChriB the.-- 
 Lord who was the Author of the Chrifiian Baptifm. 2. As to' 
 the Form : Perfbns were baptized unto thofe whole Difciples diey 
 were admitted by their Baptifm. Thus the Profelites to the 
 J.ewijh Religion^ were baptized unto Mofes. And Men were ' 
 ma.dQ Dijcipks to John, by his Baptifm. But the Chrijfian Ba- 
 ptifm cdoiiQ is 2.dm'mi{kvQd in the. name.of the Father, and of the' 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost This is the Form^ of the Chrifiian • 
 Baptifm, and which does diftinguifh it from all other Baptifms . 
 whatever. . ^. The End of the ChriJHan Baptifm is as highly di- 
 ft ant and different from the Ends of other Baufms, as their Au"^-. 
 thors diff^er.: Ths,End ofthQjewi/h Baptifm was to givethe Ba~ 
 ptized a.TitlQ to the Privtledges of the L^w otMafes. And .te> 
 End of John'^s Baptifm was to point to. Him who was co come ; 
 . and to prepare Men, by Repentance,, for the Keception or' the.G^- - 
 
[h] 
 
 j}eL But the EW of Christ'/ Bdptifm was to Inflate Us into 
 aM the Unconceivable Glories^ and High Eternal Prerogatives 
 which belong to the Members of his Body, of his Fle[h^ and of his 
 Bones ^ Eph. v. Jo. That rve might receive the Adoption of Sons ^ 
 Gal. iv. 5. Henceforth no more Serva^^-ts, but Sons of God ! and 
 Heirs of Heaven! Thefe ^re Ends ib far tranfcendent above the 
 Ends of all former Baptifms^ that, in comparifbn, other Baptifms 
 ii'Q, riot only lefi^ but none at all\ like the Glory of the Stars^ 'w\ 
 prefence of the Sun ; they not only are a leffer Light, but when 
 he appears, they become altogether //;'z/i//^/(?. 
 
 And as .a Pledge or Fore-tafie of thefe Future and Boundle^ 
 Joys, The Gift of the Holy GhoH is given upon Earth \ and i^ 
 promis'd as an Effe^- of the Baptifm oiChriB, As Peter preach- 
 ed, ^^^j" ii, ^8. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 name ofjefm Chrilf, for the remijjion of fins, and ye jhali receive 
 the gift of the Holy Gho!L And Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as 
 have been baptiz-ed into Chrisi^ have put on Christ. 
 
 This of the Gift of the Holy GhoH was not added to any Ba- 
 ptif?n before ChriJCs : and does rem.arkably diifinguifli it from 
 all others. 
 
 SEC T. VL 
 
 :3rhat Chrifi: and the Apoftles did not Baptize 'mih 
 John'i Bapt'ifm. 
 
 ^¥~^His is a Pretence of the Quakers when they find themfelves 
 J^ diftreiled with the clear Proofs of Chr/sl and the Apoftles 
 having adminiifred Water -baptifm. They fay that this was 
 Johns Baptifrn, becaule it was Water -baptifm. And, as before 
 obferv'd Secf.iy, they only ^% this, but can bring no Proof. 
 But they put us, here again, upon tliQ Negative, to prove it was 
 not. 
 
 As to their Pretence that it was John's Baptifm, becaufe it was 
 Water-bttptifm, that is anfwered in the laft Section. 
 
 And noM^ to gratifie them in this (chough unreafbnable) De- 
 mand, I will give thele following Reafons why the Baptifm 
 
 which 
 
[15] 
 
 which C^r/'/i^ and his Jfofiles did praftife, was not John'^s 84- 
 
 pfifm : 
 
 I ft, If ChriH did baptize. With Joh^^sBaptifm; then he made 
 t>ifciples to 'John^ and not to himlelf. For it is before Iliewn 
 6>^/. III. A''«w. ii C^ iii. That Baptifm Wd.s an Initiating Form , 
 and nothing elfc, whereby Men were admitted to be Difciples 
 to him unto whom they were baptized. Thus the Jews who 
 were baptized unto Mofes faid, We are Mofes'^s Difciples. John 
 ix. 28. And tliofe whom 'John baptized, were called the Difci- 
 ples of John. And there needs no more to fliew that Chrisl did 
 aiot baptize with the Baptifm of John, than to fliew that tlie Di- 
 fciples of Christ and of John were not the fame, which is made 
 evident from John i. ^5, 37. where it is told tliat two ofjohn'^s 
 Difciples left him, ^nd followad J effi-s. And Matrh,xi. 2. John 
 feiit two of his Difciples to Jef^s. And tlie DfcipleyofChriH 11- 
 vtd under a difkrQnt Oeconomy, and other K^^/fj than either the 
 Difciples of Jahn^ov of tlitP har fees yto fliew that they were under 
 another Majler. And the Difciples of 3''<5/;/i were Icandaliz'd at 
 it, Matth.iy,^ 14. Then came to htm (JESiis) the Difciples of John, 
 faying, Why do we^ and the Pharifees fasl ofty but thy Dijciples faH 
 not ? ' 
 
 Therefore tlie Difciples of Chr/fl" and of John were not the 
 fame : and therefore ChriH did baptize Men to be his own Difci- 
 ples, and not to he the Difciples of John : and therefore the Ba- 
 ptifm of Christ was not the Baptifn of John. 
 
 id\y. If Christ did baptize wiih John\ Baptifm^ the ;%J^r^ lie ^4- 
 pt^zedj it was the more to the Honour and Reputation of tiie r>'4- 
 ^r//?/? of ycJ/^/2 .• But Chrilfs baptizing was urg'd, by the Dfci- 
 ples of John, as a leiTning of John, John iii. 26. Therefore the 
 B.'iptijm with which C/?r//? did baptize cou'd not hQthiiBaptil'm of 
 ,John, 'I "hough it be (aid John iv. 2. That j^/^^' himjelf bapti- 
 zed not,l'dt his Dif ivies : (For fb the Jpoflles. and otherM/^/y-i?// 
 of Chrifi have bapj:ized movo, into the f^/i/; of Chri ft, than C/^/-/yf 
 himjelf \ms done :.) Yet here is no ground of Jealaujie or Rivaijbsp 
 to C/;r//?5 becaufe the Adminifrratian ofChrijPs Baptif?^, is alhp 
 the Hor^our and G/<;rj of Chrift : Alid therefore C/?r//fj baptising 
 »i?(?rf Difciples tranjohn, cou'd be no Leffmng of y<?,^;2, bpt ra- 
 ther a Magnfying of him ib much the more, ifi^hri/thv'' '' - •'-':'^'--'/ 
 with 3'(9/?/^s Baptiim.. . -i iVfJor' ■ '. 'C'J ^v^-. . V i.lj \' 
 
T >6 ] 
 
 July,' When ^ohn\ Difcipies h^d told him of Chrift's out ri- 
 valling him, by baptizing more than he, "John anfwer'd, He muft 
 . ificreafe, but I muft decreafe, John iiL 5 o. But if Christ did ha- 
 , pnze with the Baptifm of John, than Johr^ ftill increafed, and 
 ...Christ decreafed. For, 
 
 .. 4thly^ He is greater who inftitutes ^Baptifin, than thofe who 
 ^ only admimfter a Baptifm of another's appointment; Therefore 
 .if Chrift' did baptize with the Baptifm o^John, it ai-gncs 5^.-:'A;2 to 
 .be^rt-^rtT than Ghrift, and C/'r/// to be but a Minifter ofjok^. 
 
 5thly, All theJ^TW who had bt^cn baptized with t\\Q Baptifm 
 .o^Joh'a, did not turn Chriftiai^s; tiierefore J oh n*s Baptifm \v2ls 
 not the Chriftidn Baptifm. 
 
 6thJy, Thole of y(?/;;2'sDifcipies, who turned Qhriftians^ were 
 . /^^/'r/'-sif^ over again, in the Name Q^Chrift\ of which there is a 
 remarkable Inihnce, . ^6"?-^ xix. to 1^. 7. But the /i;;?^^ Baptifm 
 was never repeated (as is fhewn above, ^Sc"^?. III. AWt>. iii.) 
 therefore the -B^p///;^/ which the Apoftles did admimfter^ -was not 
 John\ Baptfm. 
 
 ythly, The .jFi?/*;^^ of the Baptifm \v\nc\\ Chrift com.mandal 
 M'?/-.xxviii. 1 9. was, Z<? the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^and 
 of the Holy Gho(i : But that was not the Form of fohn^s Baptifm : 
 'Therefore that w as. not 'Joh:^\ Baptijm, S^e what is before (aid 
 'Secf, y. N'um. ii. .of the Difference o£ Baptifms, as to the Author^ 
 the Form^ and the.£W of each Baptifm: And, in all thefe Re- 
 lpeQ:s, it is made apparent that the B*tptfm which was pra- 
 .fiisM by Chrift and the Apoftles^ was not the Baptifm of fohn. 
 
 To ail thele clear Arguments the Quakers, without anfwer- 
 ing to any of them, do ftill infift, That the Water- baptifm 
 Vv'hich tlie Apoftlesdid adminilfer, was no other tlian John'^5 Ba- 
 ptifm. That they had no Command for it ; only did it in Com- 
 pliance with the JetvSj as Paul circumcis'd Timothy, (Acts xvi, 
 |.) And purifyM himfeif in the Temple, (Actsym. 21, to 27.) 
 But this is all Gratis Diciitm ; here is not one word of Proof: 
 And they might as well fay. That the Apoftles Preaching v/as 
 only in Compliance with the fems^ and that it wa> the fame with 
 John's Preaching ; for their CommifTions to Teach, and to Ba- 
 ptize were both given in the fame Breath, Matth. xxviii. 1 9. Go 
 ye- Tbach all Nations, Baptizii^g them, &rc. 
 
 Now why tliQTeaching here fhou'd be Chrifs, ^nd Baptizing 
 
 only 
 
L ^7 J 
 only J0h»% the Qmkers arei^fir'd to give fomc otiicr Reaibn 
 htMts their own Arbitrary Interpretations ; before which no 
 Text mthcBihle^ or any- other Writing can ftand. 
 
 Bcfides, I woii'd inform them^ That the Gr^^iC' word (tca3')j- 
 TguVaTg, in this Text, which, we Tran date Tf^^/;, fignifies to 
 make D/fciples ; fbthat tht literal^ and more /^r^j^^r reading of 
 that Text is, Goy and Difciplevz/7 NAtions., o^ make Difcifles oi 
 them, haptizingthem^ he. 
 
 . If it be ask'd, Why we fliouM Tranflate the Word /xaS'ii- 
 Ti\j(j<£{s,Matt. xxviii. 19. by the Word Teach, if it means to 
 Difciple a Man, or ma ice him a Difciple ?■ 
 
 I Anfwer : That Teaching was the Method whereby to Per- 
 ftvad€ a Mao,, to Convert \\my (b as to make a Difciple of him. 
 But the Form of Admitting him into the Church, and a8:uaily to 
 make him a Difciple, to give him the Priviledges and Benefts of 
 a Difciple, was by Baptijm. ■ 
 
 Now the Jpojiles being lent to Teach Men, in order to make 
 them Difciple s ; therefore inttead of Go, Difciple M.Qn,\VQ Trac- 
 ilate it, Go, Teach, as being a more Familiar Word, and better 
 under/food in Englijh. 
 
 Tho' if both the Greek words |ua3'«Tguo-a7g, and BocTrfi^oiles, 
 in this Text, were Tranflated Literally, it would obviate thefe 
 QMaker-Ob]Qd:iOns more plainly ; For then the Words wou'd 
 run thus ; Go and Admit all Nations to he my Difciples,by Wajhing 
 tliem with Water, in the Name of the Father, and of .the Son, and 
 of the Holy Gho^'l. Ai^oia-ytoyla, Teaching them to obferve all 
 things tvhatfoever I have commanded you. 
 
 Here the Word AiS'oia-Kopfesy i. e. Teaching, is plainly di- 
 ftinguiflied from f/Loc^msvcccIe, to Difciple .them ; tho' our En- 
 gliJJj renders them both by the Word Teaching, and makes a 
 Tautology : Go Teach all Nations Teaching them. 
 
 But, as a Child is Admitted into a School before it be Taught : 
 So Children may be Admitted into the Pale of the Church, and be 
 made Difciples, by Baptifm, before they are Taught. \J^hich 
 fliews the meaning of thefe two Words, /'. e. Difcipling, and 
 Teaching, to be different. Becaufe, tho' in Peribns Adult, Teach- 
 iffg muft go before Difcipling ; yet in Children (who are within 
 the Covenant, asoftheL^iv, to be Admitted 2il eight Days old, 
 by Circumcifwn ; fb under the Gojpel^ by Baptifm) Difcipling 
 
 ' D goes 
 
goes before TeacUm^: AvA that Difc idling is only by B<t- 
 ftijm. 
 
 But to return. The Quakers 2ii'Q fo hard put to it, when 
 they are prefs'd with that Text, Acisy,, 47. Cm any forbid Wa-^ 
 ter^ &-C? That they are forced to make a Supp'ofe^ (without any 
 ground or appearance of Truth) That thefe Words were an 
 Anfwer to a Queftion. And that the Queftion was, Whether 
 tJiey might not be Baptized with Johfz's Baptifrn ? And that this 
 proceeded from a Fondnefs the Jews had to John^s Baptifrn. 
 And that the Apoftle Peter only Comply'd with them out of 
 Condelcention, as Paul CircumcisM Timothy. 
 
 A/if, I. Cornelim^ and thofe whom Peter Baptized, ABs x. 
 were Gentiles and not Jews : They were Romans y2ivA therefore 
 cannot befuppofed to have had any Longing after John'^s Ba- 
 ptiftn ; none of them having ever own'dit, or having been 
 Baptiz'd with it. 
 
 2; The Gentile Converts to Cfjrijlianity, refus'd to fubmit to 
 die Jewijb Circumcifton^ or ar^y of their Law (Acts xv.) And 
 therefore it is not to be imagin'd, that they wou'd be fond of any 
 of the Baptifms whicli were us'd among the Jews. 
 
 J. Evenalltheyfjpj-themfelves, no not the C^/>/ and Pr/>- 
 £/ pal of them, nekhtr tht Phar /fees nor Lawyers did fiibmit to 
 John's BaptifiTi, Luke vii. ^o. 
 
 4. The Ethiopian Eunuch requefted Baptifrn from Philips 
 (A^s viii.) And it cannot be fuppos'd, that, the Ethiopians had 
 more knowledge of John^s Baptifrn, or regard for it, than tha 
 Romans, or great part of the yirn;/ themfelves. 
 
 5. There is no ground to fuppofe that St. Peter^s words, Can 
 my Man forbid Water ^ 8fc ? were an Anfwer to any Queftion 
 that was asked him. The moft fdixible Affirmation being often 
 exprcfs'd by way of Queftion, 
 
 Can any Ma4 forbid Water ? That, is, No Man can forbid it. 
 
 And for the faying, Then Anfvered Peter. There is nothing 
 
 more familiar in the New Teftam^nt, than that Expreffion when 
 
 no^9^/(?;^atall wasask^d. SeeM^/^/. xi. 25. xii. 38. xvii.4.. 
 
 xxii. I. Marky^i. 14. xii. 55. xiv, 48, iL^^^vii. 40. xiv. ?, 4, 5». 
 
 icxii. 51. Johnv. 17, 19^ 
 
 •J 
 
 6. Grant- 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 6. Granting a Queflionwas ask'd,and that Corneliui^ as well as 
 the Ethiopian J had ddir'd Baptifm, why mufl: this be conftru'd 
 of Joh/^'^s Baptifm ? Efpecially eonfidenng, that Pefer, in that 
 :iame Sermon which Converted Cormlim (Act. x. 37.) told them 
 that the GoJ^^l which he Preached unto them, was that which 
 W2iS puklijbedy after the Baptifm which John Preached, What 
 Argument was this for Cormltus to return back again to John^s 
 Baptifm ^ Or, if he had defir'd it, why fhou'd we think that 
 Peter wou'd have Qomplfd. with him ; and not rather have re- 
 prov^d him, and carry'd him beyond it, to the Baptijm of ChriH : 
 as Paul did {Acts xix.) to thofe who had before receiv'd the 
 Baptfm of Joh/i P 
 
 7. But as to the Comply ame which the Quakers wou'd have to 
 Joh/7^s Baptifm ^ and which they compare to Paalh Gomplyance 
 in Circumcifmg Timothy : I willfliew the great Difparity. 
 
 Firfl, The Law was more univerlally receiv'd than John^s 
 IBaptifm : For many and the Chief of the Jeiw did not receive 
 "Johris Baptifm^ as above-obferv'd. 
 
 Secondly, The Taw was of much longer ftanding: John's 
 Baptifm was like a Flafb of Lightning, like the Day-Star , which 
 ulher'd in the »SV<;2 of Righteoufnefi^ and then diiappear'd : But 
 the Law continu'd during the long Night of Types and Shadows^ 
 many hundreds of Tears, 
 
 Thirdly, John did no Miracle fjohn^, 41.) But the Law 
 was delivered, and propagated by many Jges of Miracles, 'Twas 
 enjoyn'd under Penalty of Deathy to them and their Pofterities ; 
 whereas y^/'/^'sB^/'/^i/i^lafled not one Age, was intended only 
 for the Men then prefent, to point out to them the Meffiah^ then 
 already come,and ready to appear: And no outward Penalties 
 were annexed to John's Law ; People were only Invited, not 
 Compelled to come unto his Baptifm : But to negled: Circum- 
 ■cifion, was Death, Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. iV..24. 
 
 The Preaching of John was only a Warning ; let thofe take 
 notice to it that wou'd : 
 
 Whereas the Law was pronounced by the Mouth of God 
 Himlelf, in Thunder and Light ning,^ and out of the midfl: of the 
 Tire, upon Mount Simi, in the Audience of all the People : 
 And fo terrible rva^s the Sight j that Mofes faidy I exceedingly fear 
 
 D 2 and 
 
, [ ->3 ] 
 
 and qtmke^ Heb.xii. 21. Vov from Goci^s Right Hand mat a Fire 
 of'Larv for them, DQUt.y.xy.m, 2. 
 
 From all tliefe Reafbns, \vc muft fuppofe the Jews to be 
 much more Tenacious of the Law, than o^JohrPs Baptifm , and 
 tobc.brouglit offwith greater difficulty- from their Urcumcifion^ 
 whicii had defcended dov/n to themi^U the way from Akraham, 
 430 Years before the Law, /Gal. iii. 17.) than from John\ Ba- 
 ptifm, which was but of Yeflerday ; and never received by the 
 Chief of tlie Jews, And therefore there was much m.ore reafbn 
 for PanP's Complying with the Jews in tlic Cafe of QtrtHmeifion, 
 than in that of Johnh Baptifmy as the Qiiakers^h^^^oik, 
 
 WhenChrisr came to fulfil the L^ii^, he did it with all regard 
 to theL^jv, (Matth. v. 17, 18,19.) ii^deftrofd it not with Fio- 
 lence^ all at once.j hut ftlfi IP d it leafurely and by degreesr Vt cum, 
 honor e Mater Synagoga fepeliretur.. The Synagogue was the Mo- 
 ther o^ tl:e Church ', and therefore it was fitting that fhe fliou'd 
 be Burfd with all Decency and Honour. ' 
 
 This was the Reafo^i of all thofe Complyances with the Jewsy 
 at the beginning, to wear them ofl"^ by- degrees, from their Su- 
 ■perpition to the Law. 
 
 Tho' in thiafbme might Comply too far : And there want not 
 thole who think that PWs Circumcifing of Timothy, (Adis 
 5?vi. ^.j was ^s faulty a Complyance, as that -which he blam'd in 
 Peter, (G2.\. ii.) For that of PauPs is not Commended, in the 
 l?lace where it is mentioned. 
 
 And now I appeal to the Realbn of Mankind, whether Ob- 
 jections thus pick'd up froni fuch obfcure and uncertain Paflages^ 
 ought to overballance plain and pofittve Commands, which are 
 both back'd and:explain'd by the Pr-if/z/ifof the Jpo files, and 
 the Vniver fat Church after, -tliem.? All whicli I have before De- 
 mon ftrated of Baptifm. . ; „ 
 
 S. But h.ow^ever the ^rfi^r j^.may ai'gue from PauPs Comply- 
 ance with the Jews, . the Reader ,\\2iS .xfs&in to complain of my 
 Camplyance whhThem ; Ij'oiV. after "all that has been iaid, there 
 is not one fingle Word in any Text of the iV. T. that does ib 
 much as hint at any fuch thing, as tlrat Pi'ttr^s Baptizing of Cor- 
 neliiis, orP/y/7//?'s.Baptizing^of tlie Eumch, was in any Ibrt of 
 Comflyance unto Jchn^s Baptifm^ h This is a perfe6l Figment, out 
 of the Quaker'' s own Brain, without .any Ground or Foundatioia 
 
 in 
 
L 21 ] 
 
 intlie World : And therefore there was no need of AnfWeriijg it 
 at all, otherwife than to bid the Quakers prove their Jjferuo;r., 
 That theie Baptifms were in Complyance with John's^ v/hich 
 they cou'd never have done. 
 
 Whereas it is plain from the Words of the Text, (Acts xvi.^.j 
 that PauPs Circumcifiag Z/V-^f^^, was in Complyance with the 
 Jews : It is exprefly fb faid, and the Reaiou of it given, becaule, 
 rho' His Mother was a Jewefi^ yet his Father was a Greek ; and 
 therefore, bccanje of the ]q\ys which were in thofe Quarters ffays 
 the TextJ he Circumciied Timothy^ that thefc Jews might Hear 
 and Receive him, which, otherwife, they wouM not have done. 
 Now let the Q^.kers fhew the like Authority, that the Baptifms 
 of Cornelias, of the Etmuch^ and of the Corinthians^ Ad:s xviii.8. 
 (^For that too they acknowledge to have been Water-Baptifm^ as 
 I will fhew prefentlyj let the Quakers fhew the hke Authority, 
 as I have given for the Circimicifion of Timothy being in (lom^ 
 flyance with the Jews^lQt them Hiew the iike,Ifay,that the forefaid 
 Baptifms wxrc in Complyance v/lthjohn^s^ and then they ■ will 
 have fbmething to fay. But till then, this ExcuJ'e, or Put Ojf of 
 theirs, is nothing elfe but a hopclefs Shift of a dej}erate Caufe, to 
 fiippofe, againfb all fenfe, that thefe Gentiles\ (Romans^ Ethio- 
 pians, 3.nd Corinthians) dQfn-'^dJohn'^s Baptifm, who re jelled all 
 the Laws and Cufioms of the Jews, 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 The Quakers AlaJler-ObjeSion from i Cor. i. 14. 
 / thank GOD that I Baptized noneofyou^ hut Cri-. 
 fpus and Ga ius. And Ver. 1 7 . For Chrifl fent me 
 not to Baptize,^ but to Preach the GoJ^el 
 
 FROM this PaiTage they argue. That Water-Baptifm was 
 not commanded byC^r/;/,becaufe here St. Paul fays,That 
 he was not fent to Baptize; and that he thanks God, tjiat he 
 l^.?/^/V^fb few ofthem. But, 
 
 In 
 
•[ ^^ I 
 
 In Ailfwer to this, I will lirfl: of all premife, That a bare 0^- 
 je5fiony without fbme Pr<y(?/ on the Other fide, does neither ju- 
 .ftifie their Caufe, nor overthrow ours : For when a thing is Pro- 
 ved Affirmatively^ it cannot be overthrown by Negative Diffi- 
 culties which may be Objefted. 
 
 You muft dilTolve the Proofs which are brought to fupport it; 
 Nothing elfe will do. 
 
 For what Truth is there fb evident in the World, agalnft " 
 •which no Objeftion can be rais'd ? 
 
 Even the Being of a G<?^ has been difputed againfl: by thefe 
 Ibrt of Arguments ; that is, by raifing ObjeBions^ and ilarting 
 Difficulties J which may not eafily be AnfwerM : But while thofe 
 Demonftrative Arguments, which -Prove a God^ remain unflia- 
 Icen, a thoufand Difficulties are no Dijfroof. 
 
 And lb, while the Command of Christy and tlie Pracfife of 
 his Jpoftles, and of all thtChrifii^n fVorld, m purfuance of that 
 •Command, are clearly Prov'^d, no Difficulty from an obfcure 
 Text, can fliake fuch a Foundation. 
 
 But I lay down this, only as a General Rule j becaule this 
 
 . Method is fb much made ule of by the Quakers fand others j who 
 
 never think of Anfwering plain Proofs ; but by raifing a great 
 
 DuH o^ObjeclionSy wou'u bury and hide what they cannot Dif- 
 
 frove. 
 
 I fay, that I only mind them at prefent, of this fallacious 
 Artifice ; for I have no ufe for it as to thefe Texts obje(3:ed, to 
 which a very plain and eafie Anfwer can be given. And, 
 
 Firfl, I would obferve, how the Quakers can underftand the 
 Word Baptize to mean Water-Baptijm^ or ko Water-Baptifm^ 
 •jufl as the Texts feem to favour their caufe, or other wife. 
 
 For there is no mention of Water in either of the Texts obje- 
 £led, only the fingle word Baptize. And why then mufl they 
 -conflrue thefe two Texts only, of all the refl in the New Tefia- 
 ■ment^ to mean Water-Baptifm ? Why ? but only to ftrain an 
 Objeftion out of them againfi: JVater-Baptifm ? 
 
 But will they let the Word Baptize fignifie JVater'-Baptifm, in 
 -other places, as well as in thefe r 
 
 / They 
 
[ ^? J 
 
 They cannot refufe it with any fhew or colour of Realon; . 
 They muft not refufe it in ^c7/xviii. 8. where the JS/?:/?/^/;:^/>g of; 
 Crij}tis (mention'd in the firft of the Texts objefted) is record- 
 ed. And there, it is not only faid of Crijp^j that he was bapti- 
 zed, but that mmy of the Corinthians hearings believed, and were 
 baptized. By which, t\\Q Quakers cannot deny JV^tter-Baptifm 
 to be meant, fince they conftrue it fb, i Cor. i. 14. 
 
 Secondly, We may further obferve,that in theText,^/?/ xviii.8. - 
 CriJ}us is only (aid tohsLve. believed, which was thought- fliffici- 
 ent to infer, that he was baptized ; which cou'd not be, unlefs 
 all that believed, were baptized : Which, no doubt, was the 
 Cafe, as it is written, Jcis, xni. 48. Js many as were ordained to 
 eternal Life, believed. And (Ch. ii. 41.) They that received 
 the Word, Were baptized.^ And (V. 47.) The Lord added to the 
 Church daily juch as fljou^d be Javed. 
 
 So that this is the Climax or Scale of Religion, As many as 
 are ordained to eternal Life d© believe : And they that believe, 
 are baptized : And tliey that are baptized, are added to the 
 Churchi 
 
 And to fhew this received Notion, That whoever did believe 
 was baptized, when Paul met fbme Difciples who had not heard" 
 of the Holy GhoU, Acts xix. 5. he did not ask them whether they 
 had been baptized, or not? He took that for granted, fincc 
 they believed. But he asks, Vnto what were ye baptized ? Suppo- 
 fing that they had been baptized. 
 
 Thirdly, Here then this Objection of the Quakers, has turn'd 
 into an invincible Argument againft them. 
 
 They have, by this, yielded the whole Caufe: For if the 
 Baptifm, i Cor. i. 14. be Water-Baptifm, then that Baptifm, 
 Aits xviii. 8. muft be the fame : And confequently all the other 
 Baptifms, mention'd in the Acts, are, as thefe, Water-Bap^ 
 tifms alfb. 
 
 But, befides the Quakers Gonfeffion (for they areunconftant, 
 and may change their Minds) the thing fhews it felf, that the 
 Baptifm mention'd, i Cor. i. 14. was Water-Baptifm ; becaufe 
 Paul there thanks God, that he baptized none of them but Crifpus 
 mdQ2^m. Wou'd the Apofik thajiijk God th^t be had baptized 
 
 • id 
 
[Hi 
 
 fofeWf with the HolyGhoH? Or wouM he repent of baptizing 
 'wlxlnh^ Holy GhoHf Therefore itmuft be the Water'BAptifm 
 which was here (poke of 
 
 Fourthly, But now, what is the Reafbn, that he was glad he 
 Jiad baptized fb few with IV-ater-^Bapifm ? And he gives tlie 
 Reafbn, in the veiy next words. (V. 15.) LeB any Jbou'^dfaj, 
 that I had baptized in mine own Name. What was the occafion 
 of this Fear, r It is told from K 10. 7'hat there were great D/- 
 I'ifions and Contentions among thefc Corinthians , and that thefe 
 were grounded upon the ^Emulation that arole among them, in 
 behalf of their feveral Teachers. One was for Faul.^ .another for 
 , Jpollos^ others for Cephas., and otliers for ChriH. 
 
 This wou'd feem, as if the Chriflian Religion had been con- 
 tradiQorytoitfelf; 
 
 As if ChriB^ and Cephas ^ and Faul^ and Apollos had fet up 
 , againfl one another ; 
 
 As if they had not all taught the fame Doftrine : 
 
 As if each had preachM u^himfelf and notChriH : 
 
 And had ^^/>^/^6'<5i( Difciples, each in his own Name., and not in 
 .ChrijPs\ and had begot Followers to himfelf, and not to 
 .Chrtjh 
 
 To remove this fb horrible a Scandal, St. Paul argues with 
 great zeal, (V. 13.) Is ChriH divided? (fays he) Was Paul 
 Crucified for you? Or wtre ye baptized in the Name of Paul? / 
 thank God, that I baptized none of you but Crifpus and Gains \ lefi 
 any fhould fay. That I had baptized tn mine own Name. 
 ' There needs no Application of this, the Words of the Jj?oJIle 
 are themielves fb plain. 
 
 He did not thank God, that they had not been baptized, but 
 that He Imd not done it. 
 
 And this, not for any flight to Water-Baptifm ; but to obviate 
 .the Obje6:ion of his baptizing in his own Name, 
 
 Fifthly, By the w^y, this is a flrong Argument for TVater- 
 .Baptifm : Becaufe the Inward Baptifm of the Spirit., cometh nor 
 with Obfervation and <S/;fn^, but is within usy Luk.xvn. 20., 2 j, 
 .Nor is it done in any Body's Name, it is ^ntnward Operation up- 
 »on tlie Heart, 
 
 But 
 
•[^5] 
 
 But the outward Bapnfm is always done in fbme Name 
 or other ; in his Name whofe Dijciple you are thereby made 
 and Admitted. 
 
 Therefore it muft, of necefTity, be the outward Baptlfm, of 
 which St. Paul here ipeaks ; becaule it was outwardly Admini- 
 ftred, 'mXuch.3.n outward Name, And he makes this an Argu* 
 ment that he had not made Difciples to himfelf^ but to ChriB ; 
 becaule he did not Baptize them in his own Name^ but ia 
 QhriB's. 
 
 Now this had been no Argument^ but perfe61: Banter^ if there 
 had been no outward Baptijm^ that the People cou'd have both 
 feen and heard. How. otherwile cou'd they tell in what Name^ 
 or no Name they were baptiz^ed^ if all was Inward and Invi- 
 pie ? 
 
 But I need not prove what the Qiutkers grant and contend for, 
 that all this was meant of H'Wer-Bapnfm ; bccapfe . other wife 
 their whole Objection, from this place, does tall. • 
 
 VJ. But they wou'd infer as if no great ftrefs were laid 
 upon it *, becaufe that few were fb baptiz>ed. 
 
 I Anfwer. That there is nothing in the Text which doss in- 
 fer, that few of thele Corinthians were haptiz.ed, 
 
 St. P^/// only thanks God, that he himfelf had not done it, 
 except to 3. few J for the Reafbns before given : But Acfs xviii. 8. 
 it is laid. That befides Cr;jpusy whom Paul himihii baptized^ 
 M AN y <?/ the Corinthians were baptized, ,.,c-^ •? > j g oiri/'iifipi^ 
 
 Nay, they were all baptized, as many as betieve% as before 
 is prov'd. And, in this very place, St. Paul taking it for grant- 
 ed,, that all who believed, were baptized, which I have already 
 pbferv'd from his Quefbion to f ^rf 4/;^ Difeiples, Ads xix. ^. not 
 whether they were ^/i/'^/^e^. but unto what ^ i.e. In what Name y 
 ihey liad been baptized ? So here i Cer,\, 13, He does not make 
 the Queflion, whether they had been ^/j:^/-/^?^ ? That he takes 
 for granted. ' But in what Name, mere ye baptized f* Which fup- 
 poles, not only that 4// were ^:i/^/-i^^.i, but like wile that all who 
 were haptized, were baptized in ^om^ outward Name j and there- 
 fpre-tlikj^it ?was the 0/^^^^ W^f^er^-^aptifm, ^ ., .^q 
 
[ 26 ]■ 
 
 'VII. But the iecond Text obje£lcd, V.ij. h yet to Be ac- 
 dounted. for ; where St. Paul fays, Christ fern me not to Bap^ 
 tiz.e^ but to Preach the Qoj^el. This he laid in iuftificatbri^'of 
 iiimfelf for having'^^/?f/iV lb/f?r in tliat place; for which he 
 blellesGod, becaiffe, as.it, happened, it pro y'd a great j unifica- 
 tion of his not baptizing in his own Name, 
 
 But then, on the other liand, here wou'd feem to be a Neg- 
 left'in him of his Duty : ^Fo^ if it was his Duty*to-'hiive bap- 
 tiz'd them &IL and he baptiz'd but a/^«^, liere_wa.s a great 
 
 In Anfwer to' this, we * find, that there wa^ tio . Negle6t 
 in not baptizing them, for that, not a few but many of the Co- 
 rinthians vjqxq baptized^ ^i^j xviii. 8. that is, as many as ^f-- 
 lieyedy as before is fliewn. ~ '^'^. 
 
 But then v/ho was k tbat baptized thofe many ? For St, Pad 
 baptized huts, ferv, ■ 
 
 / Jnfiver, The Apofile employ'd Others, under hfm, to Bap^ 
 tize. 
 
 i\nd he vindicates this, hy faying. That he was not fent to 
 Baptize^ i. e. ^principaltf2,\\d. chiefly, that was not the chief p^irt 
 ^f liis Commiflion : But the greater and more difficult part was 
 that 0^ Preachings to Dijpute with, P erf made and Convert the 
 Heathen World. To this, great Parts, and Courage, and Mira- 
 culom Gifts were necefTary : But to Adminifter the outward Form 
 QiBaptifm to thofe who were Convert ed,h3.d no Difficulty in it ; 
 required no great Parts^V)!' E'ndbtvm^ntSy Only a //iwful Commif 
 f on to Execute it /- y'^[^ '■[ <^;; '^**".'; 'C," '[ V' " Jr\'',, ,• 
 
 And it wou'd havfetalcerr up¥^6 rfiudf bf tlie^ A^oftles- tifef, \i 
 was impolTible for them to have baptized, v/ith their own Hands, 
 thofe vaft Multitudes whom they Converted. Chriflianit^ had 
 reach'd toallQuartieWoF thethen known Wor^, as faralmof]-, 
 as at 'this-Day, before the jipb^lcs ipft' the'' Woi^ld ; - A^d cou'd 
 l:^:t\vtls/t^tiBapti'ze tUc'ivh'cth Worldi " Tli'di". Progn^ \V&s not 
 the leaff'oy'^tlieir My^^/^. r^Tlie :^^^ 
 
 in their Drftfibutionro^ itythatrthc,Z.^4^'fi• by our S a v i o u rV 
 Breaking of them. St. Peter Converted abopt three Thoiifand'zt 
 one Sermon, ^^y ii.4'iV'Aild at 'another 'drire about fiveThou- 
 fand^ Ch. iv. 4. Multitudes bo^lj of Men and Women. Ch. v. 14. 
 Klahy more than the Jpoftl^covi^d have counted ; much more 
 
 than 
 
■I ?1 ] 
 
 than they cou'd have hptijzed ; for which if tliex^ Iiad ftay'd, 
 ^ they had niacje ileiider ftogrefs. ~ No. The Apofrlss were lent, 
 as hudlieratilds yto proclaim to all the Earth, to runfwiftly, and 
 gather much People ; and not to flay (they cou'd not ftay) for 
 the baptizing with their own Hands, all that they Converted 4 
 They left that to others, whom they had ordain'd to Adminifter 
 it. ^ Yqt not lo, as to exclude themlelves ; but they themtelyes 
 did \Ba;ptize,, where' they faw occafion, as St. Paul here did 
 ■ Baptize Crifiu^ and Gaim^ and the Houfe of Stephanas^ fbme 
 of the Principal of the Corinthians, Not that he was oblig'd 
 tohaye done it himfelf, having others to whom he flight hav^ 
 left it:.-', For he was not y^;^/^, that is, put under the Nec^ffity to 
 Bapii^i with Iiis own Hands, but to Preach, to Convert others, 
 that was his /'r/^^//^/ Province, and which he was nottoneg- 
 Ie6f , upon the account of baptizifig^ which others could do as 
 well as he. 
 
 JBut if you will fb underhand the Words of his not beingy^;^^, 
 \^^ that it was not within his Commiffion^ that he was not ii^- 
 porveydhj ChriBy to Baptize^ thtn it wou'd have been cLSin, 
 and gVQ2it Prefumption inhim^ to ImvQ baptized any body. 
 
 Nay more. This Text, thus underflood, is flatly contradi^ 
 £lory to Matt, xxviii. 19. which fays,« Goj Baptize : And tliis 
 fkys, I am not fent to Baptize,, ,, ,', ,\, ■\;.\v ■ . ' = -"i 
 
 Thefe are contradidory, if by, lam^^fe^y^^Q underftpod^ 
 I have not Power or Commiffion to Bapiiz^V S ,:,\.^ t, 
 
 Butbv, lam not fent, no more is meant in tliis Text, than 
 that Baptizing is not the chief or principal part of my Commiffi- 
 on. As if a General Were accufed for Mufiering and Lifiing Meij 
 "in hu own Name y and npt in die IQng^s^ and he.; fliou'd fay, ii? 
 Vindiclation of himfelf, that: hehad,r,ever lifi^^ any^- except fiick 
 2indix\Qh Officers ; for that he was not 7^;^/- to Muftery or Drill 
 Men, or to Exercife Tro*?/?/ or Regtments^ but to Command the 
 Jrmy : Wou'd it follow from hence, that he ha,d not Power, tp 
 Exercifi a Trf^op or a R^gime^nt.^ !w tfiat it >|^a§ not withifl- his 
 Cvmmffhn? '' Ox^^^ of ,^^j/j^^^,fliouIdTay>, That it; wa-s 
 
 ilotKfefert foo')^^ makeup Drugs (that 
 
 \i^^':> the ^^(?&c^rys Bufinefs) but to givQ Prefcriptions ; wou'd 
 aiiy Min iiVfer from this^ that he might not Compound his own 
 
 ^ . E 2 Or 
 
[a8] 
 
 Or if (to come nearer) a Profeffor of Dlvimty^ or a Bijhop^ 
 fhou'd fay, That he was not fent to Teach School \ this wou'd 
 not imply that he might not Kjef School \ nay, he ought, if 
 there were no others to do it : So the Jpofile of the Gentiles was 
 ■woeifentto fpend his Time in Baptizing^ Vifttwg the Sick, or 
 other Parts of his Duty, (which others might perform) fb 
 as to hinder his great Work in Converting of the Gentiles: 
 All of whom he couM not Baptize, nor Vtfit all their Sick :■ 
 Yet both thefe were within his Commi//ion, and he might 
 and did Execute them where he faw occafion. As if all the 
 Sick in London fhou'd expeO: to be Vifited by the Bifliop of 
 London ; and all the Children fhou'd be brought to be baptized 
 by him ; he might well fay, That he was not fent to Baptizs, 
 or to Fijit their Sick, but to look after his Ep if copal Function : 
 And fend them for thefe Offices, to others, under him : And yet • 
 this woii'd no ways imply, that thele Offices were not within 
 the Epifcopal Commiffion ; or that he was not fent both to Bap- 
 tize, and to Vifit the Sick : But only that he was not \knX princi- 
 pally and chiefly to Baptize, or to Viftt the Sick, 
 
 And as to thatPhraleof being fent; we find it us'd in this 
 fame fenfc, to mean only being chiefly and principally fent. 
 Thus, Gen. xlv. 8. Jofe'ph faid to his Brethren, It rvas not you 
 that fent me hither ^ but God, It was certainly his Brethren who 
 fent him, for they fold him into Egypt : But it was not They, 
 principally and chiefly, but God^ who had other and extraordi- 
 nary Ends in it, 
 
 Ad^m mas not deceived (fays the Apoftle, i Tim,u. 14.) but 
 . the Woman being deceived, rvas in the Tranfgrefjton, Adam was 
 deceived, and/ff//as well as the Woman j but the meaning is, he 
 was not flrft, or principally deceived. 
 
 Again. As for you who flick fb clofe to the Letter (when it 
 fcemeth to ferve your turn) Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I 
 WILL HAVE Mercy, and not Sacrifice, ik/^/^/.ix. 15. 
 
 By which it cannot be underflood, that God did not require 
 Sacrifice ; for he commanded it upon Pain of Death. Yet he fays, 
 (Jer^. vii. 22.) I Jpake not unto yaur Father s^y nor commanded, them 
 •— *• concerning Burnt-Offerings, or Sacrifices : But this thing Com^ 
 manded- 1 them, faying. Obey my Voice, Sec. according as it is 
 written, (i Sam xv.22.) To Obey is better than Sacrifice. 
 
 ■ By 
 
[ =9 ] 
 
 By all which eannot be meant,that God did not Command the 
 Jews concerning Burnt-Offer ings and Sacrijices (for we know 
 how particularly they were commanded) but that the aatrvard 
 Sacrifice was not the chief 2ind prwcipal part of the Command ; 
 which refpefted chkfij the inward Sacrifice and Circumcifion of 
 the^^^r^. 
 
 Which when they negleQ:ed, and lean'd wholly to the Out- 
 jvard, then God detefts their Oblations; Ifa. i. 14. Tour new 
 Moons, and your appointed Feaffs my Soul hateth, I am tveary to 
 bear them. And he fays, V. 12. Who hath repaired this at your 
 Hand? . --..^v-i^ ...:;. ^ 
 
 It was certainly God who had required all thefe things at tfifeir 
 hands ; but thefe outward Performances^ (tho** the Neglect or A- 
 hufeoi them w^as punifhed with Death) yet they were not the 
 chfef 2iX\<\ principal ■^d.n of the Command, being intended 
 chiefly for the fake of the Inward and Spiritual Part : From which 
 when they were feparated, they were (like the Body, when the 
 Soul -is gone) a dead and a loath fome Carcass of Religion : 
 And which G(?^ is therefore faid, not to have commanded, be- 
 caufe he did not Command them without the other : As he made 
 not the Body without the Soul \ yet he made the Body as well as 
 the SouL 
 
 VIII. And as there is Soul and Body in -Man, fb (while 
 Man is in the Body) there mufl: be a Saul and Body of Religion ; 
 that is, an outward and an inward Worship, with our Bodies 
 as well as ouy Souls, 
 
 And as the Separation of Sout and Body in Man, is called 
 Tkath ; fb is the Separation of the outward and the inward Part 
 of Religion, the Death SLadDeJlra lion of Religion, 
 
 The outward is the Cask, and the inward is theWine. The 
 Cask is no Part of the Wine ; but if you break the Cask, you 
 lofii the Wine. And as certainly, "whoever deftroy the outward 
 Inftitutions of Religion, lofe the inward Parts of it too. 
 
 As is fadly experienc'd in the (fakers, who, having thro wit 
 off the outward Bdptifm, and the other Sacrament ot Chrifl^^s 
 Death, have, thereby, loft the inward thnig fignify'd, which' 
 is, the P E R s o N A L QhriB^ as Exifting without all other Men, 
 and having fo Suffer'' d^ Rofe^ Jfcmdsdy and now, and for ever, 
 
 Sm^th 
 
C 30 ] 
 
 ^i^/jcM i^a .H'4^^^^ lijsprue prpper Humari Nature ^ Without 
 AH'oth'er Xi&n. ft^\^t]\^Qil^keYA vvill not own, (except Ibme jpf 
 the New Separation) and this they have loft, by their Negled 
 of thofe outward Sacraments^ which Christ appointed for this 
 very End (arnong others) that is, as Remembrances of his 
 Death : For it had been morally impofTible for Men, who had 
 confiantly and with due Reverence jB.ttQndtd thefeholy Sacraments 
 pf Baptifm and the Lord'*s Supper, ever to have forgot his Death, 
 fb lively reprefented before their Eyes, and into which they 
 were bapti>z.ed ; or to have turn'd all into a meer Allegory, per- 
 form'd within every Man's BreaU, as thefe Quakers have 
 
 . y But xh^. Enemy has pervaded them to break, the C^/',and de- 
 flroy the Body of Religion ) whereby the iVme is. fpilt, and the 
 Soul of Religion is fled from them : And by negleding the out- 
 ward P^rt, they have loft the whole inward, and Truth of Religi-^ 
 on ; wiich is a true Faith in the Out war d Chrisi, and in the 
 SatisfaUioh made for our Sins, by his Blood Outwardly 
 ih,ed -J and in \m Interceffion, in our Nature, as our High-Priesl, 
 at his Father'' s Right Hand, now, in Heaven \ into whicii Holy of 
 Holies, He has carry'd his own Blood of Expiation, once ofter'd 
 upon the Cr^yf, 2ii-\di prefects it, for ever, as the Atonement and 
 full fatisfaBion for the Sins of the whole World ; but apply'd 
 oi)ly by true F^/>/?.and.Rc/'^jri^^^/^^^, thereby^.becomes fully Effe- 
 cluai to die SalvAti'on of every Faithftd Penitent. 
 
 This is the only true Qhrijlian Faith : And from this the Qua- 
 kers have totally fallen ; and that chielly, by their Mad throw* 
 ing. off.the QjUl^,\^:K^Tt\.Qu^ds-, Prejervatives, Fences, Sacra- 
 mnts, and Ple4ges,Qt R^Ugiojf.- Andthofe O u T.w a r d Means 
 of Grace, whxd\L,hriXl hascomma^ided, and given 11s as*;the only 
 QuTwAK^p Grounds for Qur Hope of 'Glory. -For how can that 
 Man get to Heaven, Aviio will iiot go the. wjayj that ChriFf has 
 %ppo\nted ; who came down from Heaven, on purpole to Jl:ferv 
 and lead ys ti^ way t;hith§f ; jet W£ will be wifer tha>n he,. ^id 
 %4^>vkh:his.:i(;?/?j(!>///fi(?;i?jr^ a-s^iiigtoo tnucliupon' thcQtaivIid : 
 and^t^iijfe ^li^t ^^ gan awf^ipay SpirMu4iz<€'%^^rifi»e]r\2ii^id)iA^i^ 
 ^Wf^yJ?^^''^^'' than he has. done ' ■■''■. 
 
[in, - :. 
 
 IX. But to retiu'n,^..if the Quakers cpu'd find fuoli IKv/^ 
 concerning jB/^/i^j/^, as I have fliewQ above .ponqermiji; 6'l^rr//^'-- 
 ces^ as if it were laid, 'Fhat G^i di.d,i?^rfP^W^^^^ th|it 
 
 liQ hafed it, and was weary io bek^ ifythTit he would ^oP. 'have Jt^ &-Q» 
 If Rich Te:>:ts cou'd be found, How w'ou'dthe Qiutkers triumph ! 
 WhowouMbe able to jl;and, befor<^. diem! And yet, if. fuch 
 were found, they wou'd prove, no'' ij^ore againft/the outward 
 B A p T IS M, than they did againil the'p#m^r,i ,ISa <c r. i f i.^e sj 
 /. e. That if any regarded "nothing elfe in B^^.ptifm, than tlie 
 outivard Wajbing, it wouM be as hateful to God, as the Jeivs/b 
 Sacrifices, when they regarded notliing more in them but thq 
 
 Outward.- ■.,_ ^fy^d^'pijpp\noohru)^M^?ih. 
 
 ■ . And It may Detrtiry laid, Thar(>od aia not Command .either 
 filch Sacrifices, or fuch a Baptifm ', becayfe he ,c,ommanded not 
 the outward alone, but with relpedunto, 2iX\A' chiefly for the fake 
 oi th&Imvard. .. . ._i^ .^^_| ..,,, r',: f ' 
 
 And, therefore, as allthefe, and otiiertlie like .Exjwellions 
 in the Old Teftament did not at all. tgnd to the^ Ahalitiqn^. pnly tQ 
 the Kecttflcation of the \js^'g^Sacriflc^sj^^%'xt^^ 
 fingle Expreili on, i Cor. i.'iy. of P<?//rs faying (upon theOcca- 
 fion,and in the lenfe above nicntron'd)that hew^vs not fent to Bap- 
 ' tize, hut to Preach ; much lefs can this infer the ^^o//>iW^ o^ Bap- 
 tifm ; beirig as pofitively zc^mapdedy as Sacrifices were under 
 theL^m,^ and as certainly /7r^/VVb^_d,ii^^£^yf^^^^ a$i,the^,«Si^f^ 
 fees were by the Levitical Pr;^^i.' .^."/'t. ':';,' V - J :..- • • - ' 
 
 X. Now fuppofe that I fhould deny, that Outward 
 Sacrifices v^^^xt^v^x commanded:, or, that the' j^^jv^ did ever/^r^- 
 ^//^them": And fhou'd I^T^ter^fet aU thatis faid oi Sacrifices,. 
 only oii\it Inward, as the 5^^^^^^o of Baptifm ; and I fhoU'd 
 produce the Texts ^bpye quoted, to prove that God did not com- 
 mand <Si^rr/jf;7w, \yhicli arenducjiniore pofitive than that fingle 
 one which is flrain'd againft Baptifm, : I fay /Lippofe that I fhou'd 
 be fb Extravagant as to fet up.ftich a Notion^ what Method (ex- 
 cept that of Bedlam, W\}yz]\ym :t|i^t Cafe, wou-'dl be moil pro- 
 per) coifd be takeri*^o convince me ? And fuppote I fhou-d gain 
 as many Profelytes as G. Fox has done : And we Ihou'd boa ft 
 
 our 
 
C 3^ ] 
 
 our Numbers^ and Light within^ &c. wou'd not this following 
 Method be taken with us ? 
 
 I ft. To fee how Sacrifices are aQ:iially iis'd mtv in thofe Parts 
 of the World where they do Sacrifice, And being convinc'd that 
 thefe do ufe outtvard Sacrifices^ and underftand the firft Com- 
 mand to Sacrifice^ in that fenfe, to inquire ^ 
 
 2dly, Whether they did not receive this from their FatherSy 
 fo upward, to the fir ft InfHtution ? And is not this the fureft 
 jRule to find out the meaning of the first Command? viz. How 
 it was underftood 2indi practis'^d by thofe to whom the Command 
 was/rf/ given ; and from them, through all Ages fince. Upon 
 all which Topicks, the prefent Water-Baptijm^ now us'd, may 
 be as much demonftrated to be the fame which was praclii^d by 
 thQjpoJiles, and confequently, which wa.scomm.mded by Chrift^ 
 as the outtvard Sacrifices can be fliewn to have been, at firft, com- 
 manded to th& Jews ^ Rnd pra^is^d by them. 
 
 XI. And as for that precarious Plea, before confuted, 
 of the Baptifih which the ApofrLs pra£lis'd, being only a Com- 
 plyance with the 3''^rv/; there is more Prr/^e'/^iT^to fay, that the 
 Jewijh Sacrifices WQre in Complyance with the Hathe^ Sacrif^ 
 ceSj which were long before the Leviticai Law, 
 
 I fay, there is more Pretence for this, but not more Truth. 
 "More pretence^ becaufe it has been advanced of late, by 
 Men of greater Figure than Quakrs^ That the Le%'ttic^%l 
 Sacrifices were commanded by God, m Complyaiice with -die 
 Gentile Sacrifices^ wKiohwtvthdovQViihd. 
 
 But this is aSubjed by it felf. I now only fhew the Qna^ 
 kers, that there is more ground to fftritualize away Sacrifices 
 from the Letter, than Baptifm ; mov^ pretence ioYit from Texts 
 K)f Scripture^ and,frpni ^omz odd Opmions gf Jome j^ri)e4 
 
 ■'."'Aiid if the Denial of O a T'^' A kp' sacrifices wou'd be poun- 
 ted (as the like of B/z/'/^/y^ was. When ^rfi^ ftarted) to beno» 
 thing fhort of Madnefi) the continuance of that DifiroBton for 
 
 'iFJv 
 
 2nob 'm\ vicpl .0 esi-^X^v, ^ 
 
r 3? 1 
 
 XII. I believe the Reader, by this time, cannot but think 
 that I have taken too much needlefs Pains, in Anfwer to that 
 Obje£lion ot St. PauPs faying that he was not fent to Baptiz,e^ 
 but to Preach : But I fpeakto a fort of Men, who are us'd to 
 Repetitions^ and will not take a Hint (unlefs it be on their fide) 
 and therefore I enlarge more than I wou'd do, if I were writing 
 to any others. But I think I have faid enough, even to them, 
 to fliew, that the Meani'^g of the Jpoftle m this Text^ was on- 
 ly to prefer the Oi5:ce of Preaching, before that of Baptizing, 
 But I muft withal defirc them to take notice, that the Preach- 
 ingy that is, Publijhing of the Gofpel^ at firlt to Heathens^ w^as 
 a very diflrerent thing, and of much greater NecelTity, thanthofe 
 {ht DifcourfeSy which \VQ now cdW Preaching in Qhrifiian Audi- 
 tories. 
 
 XIII. Let nle (to conclude) add one Argument more, from 
 this Text, i Cor, i, 17. why that Baptifm , mention'd Matt, 
 xxviii. 19. cannot be meant of the Baptifrn with the Holy GhoH, 
 Becaufe if wh^nChrisi fent his Apoftles to- Baptize^ the meaning 
 was (as the Quakers wou'd have it) to Baptize with the Holy 
 GhoH; then the Apoflle Paid faid in this Text, i Cor. i. 17. 
 That he was not fent to Baptize with the Holy GhoH, Wiiicli 
 fenfe, fince the Quakers will not own, they cannot reconcile 
 thefe Texts, without confefFing, that that Text, Matt, xxviii. 1 9. 
 was not meant of the Baptifrn with tlie Holy GhoHy and then it 
 muft be meant of the Water-Baptifm. 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 
 ObjeBion from i Pet. iii. ai. 
 
 THE Words of the Text are thefe. The like Tigure where- 
 unto (i, e. the Ark) even Baptifrn^ doth alfo now fave m^ 
 (not the patting away of the Filth of the Fle/b, but tht Aafwer of a. 
 Good Confcience towards God)- by the Refurre^kn- of Jefus 
 ChriFK 
 
 F From 
 
[3+] 
 
 From whence the Quakers argue thus : That Bdptifm doth 
 not confift in the outrvard IVaJhmg^ but the imvard. 
 
 And fb far they argue right, That the imvard is the chief and 
 principal ^diXt J and therefore, that if any regard only t\\Q out^ 
 rvard H^ajhing of the Skin, in Baptifm, they are indeed fru- 
 ftrated of the whole Benefit of it, which is altogether Sfi^ 
 ritual. 
 
 And it has been obferv'd SefL VII. latter part of Numb, vii». 
 That if only the <?«nj7W Part of the Sacrifices, or Circumcifio/^y 
 and other Infiitutions under the L^jv, were regarded, they were 
 hateful to Gody and he rejected them ; tho', at the fame time, he 
 commanded the Performance of them, under the Penalty of 
 Death. 
 
 Thus it is in the Inflitutions of the Gofpel. The Imvard and 
 Spiritual Part is the chiefs and for the fake of which only, the 
 Outrvard is commanded : But this makes the Outward neceifary, 
 inflead of throwing it off ; becaufe (as it was under the Law) 
 the Outwardwas ordained as a Means whereby we are made Par- 
 takers of the Inward : And therefore, if we negle^: and defpife 
 the Outward, when we may have it, we have no Promife in the 
 Gofpel to Intitle us to the Imvard : As Ife that neglefts the Means^, 
 has no Reafbn to exped the End, It is true, a Miracle may do 
 it; hut it is Prefumpt ion y smd Tempting of Qod, to negled the 
 Outward Means of God*s Appointment, in expeQ:ation of his ik//- 
 r^r/z/c);^ Interpofition, againft the Method which he has com- 
 manded. As if provoking of God, did Intitle us the more to 
 his Protection! Or, as if we were Wifer than He, to mend 
 zndalterhxs Infiitutions, SLnddifpenfe with them, at our Plea- 
 fure I 
 
 Hero let it be minded, that the Jrk is put only as a Type of 
 Baptifm : Therefore Baptifm is the more worthy j and more necef 
 faryo And to negleft ^^/rz/w?, is toy mime fwimmingin ths. De- 
 luge^ vjith.0Mtih& Ark, 
 
 i« I li Dirin I I i^TMi-i" I 1-ti. 
 
 SECT. 
 
[ 35 ] 
 
 SEC T. IX. 
 
 The Quaker "Objedion jrom^ Eph, br. 5. 
 
 I. nr^HE Words of the Text are thefe. One Lord, one Faith^ 
 JL one Baptifm ; whence the Quakers argue thus. That 
 Water-Bapfifm is one Bapnfm, and the Baptifm with the Holy 
 GhoFi; is another Baptipn ', becaufe the one is the Outward, and 
 the other the Inward Baptifm ; and outward and inward are two 
 Things : Therefore that thefe muft be two Baptifms : which, 
 they lay, is contrary to this Text, that fays, the Chrifiians have 
 but One Baptifm, as they have but One Lord, and One 
 Faith, 
 
 II. I Anf\ver. Outward and Inward are Two things ; but yet 
 they hinder not the l-^/^/rj of t^fat which is composed of Both. 
 Thus Soul and Body are Two things, and of Natures the moft 
 different of any Two things in the World ; yet they hinder 
 not the Vnity of the Man, who is compos'd of Both, Nay, 
 it is the Compofttion of thefe Two that makes up the One 
 Man; infomuch, that when thefe Two are Divided, the Man 
 is no more ; for it is nothing elfe which we call Death, but 
 the Separation of Soul and Body, 
 
 And (as before fliewn, Se^. VII. Num, VIII. j while there 
 is Soul and Body in Man, there mufl be a Soul and Bo^ of i?^-- 
 ligi^n, that is, an Outward and an Inward Part of Religion : 
 And if we deflroy the Outward, we fhall lofe the Inward', be- 
 caufe the Outward was defign'd for the Safety and Prefervati- 
 on of the I«iv4r<5?. 
 
 It is true, that the Inward is the Chief and Frincipal Part, 
 as of 3/4^2, fb of his Religion : But this does not infer, that 
 the Outward is not likewife necellary. We are commanded, 
 Rom.yiiui, to Prefent our BodiQS a living Sacrifice, and this is 
 calPd our Reafonable Service, For, is it not Reafbnable, that, 
 fince our Bodies are God\ Creatures, as well as our Souls, He 
 fliould have tho-Jdoration ^nd Service of our Bt?<^V/, as well as 
 of our Souls ^ w - jf'(»s /- -^ ^ There 
 
[36] 
 
 There is no Outward or Fublick Worship but by our Bo- 
 dies ; we cannot otherrvife exprefs the Inward Devotion and 
 Adoration of our Minds, 
 
 And this is fb Natural^ that whosver has a due Reverence 
 and Awe of the Divine Majefy, cannot help to Exprefs it Out- 
 ward/)/, by the Adoration of his Bodj, in his Approaches to 
 Gody even tho' in Private. As our Blejfed Saviour y in His 
 Agony, fell frojlrate upon ///> F^,c? to the Earth. 
 
 And whoever deny the Outward JVorfhip to God, or perform 
 it Jiovcnly, and careleflj,^ it is a full Demonftration that they 
 have no True and Reat Devotion^ or 'Jufi Apprehenfion of tlie 
 Almighty. 
 
 7'lierefore the Outward Part of Religion muft, by no means, 
 be let go, becaufe the Inward certainly dies, when the Out^ 
 ward is gone. 
 
 But the Outward and the Inward Worshi p of God .are 
 not Two Worfhips, but only Two Parts of the fame Wor- 
 iliip. As Soul and Body are not Two Men^ but Two Parts of the 
 fame Man \ fb the Adoration (5f this 0/?^ Man, Outwardly in his 
 B^^, and Inwardly in his *S^^z/, is not Two JVorJbipSj but 
 T vv o P^r/-/ of the Same Worjhi^, 
 
 III. There is hut one Faith, yet this F/i/V/' confifls of feve- 
 ral Parts. Tliere is a F-«/>/' in God^ of which the Heathens do 
 partake : There is a Faith in Chrifi, which denominates Men 
 Chrijlians : Yet thefe are not Two Faiths in a Chriftian, but 
 Two P^r/-^ of the Same P^/>^. There is hkewife a F^//^ 
 in the Promifes of th^GoJfel \ and that what is therein Com- 
 rnandedy is from G(?^ •• And there are Degrees of this Faith, of 
 which one Chriftian does partake more than another. And 
 yet to Chrijiians there is but One Faith. 
 
 The Belief of a GW, and of Chrifl, are Two Faiihs or 
 Beliefs, becaufe many da Believe a God, who do not Believe in 
 Chriji : Yet, in a Chrijlian they are not T w o Faiths , but 
 One Faith ; becaufe the one, that is, the Faith in Chr/fl, does 
 iiippofe the other, that is, the Belief of a Gt^ ; it only y^dds to 
 it, and Builds upon it. And this makes them no more Tw o 
 Faiihs, than building an Roufe a «Src>r)/ higher makes it Two 
 Houfes. 
 
 ' - ... '^. IV. There 
 
[ 37 ] 
 
 IV. There is but One Lord, that is Chrifl ; yet He confifts 
 of an Outward and an Imvard Part, of Body and Soul. Nay 
 more, of both the Divine and Human Natures. I might urge 
 the different Perjons in the One Divine Nature ; but this will be 
 no Argument to the Quaker s, wlioDeny it. But they Deny not 
 (feemingly at leaft) the Divinity of ChrijI; and therefore, as 
 this Lord is but One, tho' confifting of feveral Natures', and 
 His ¥aith and IVorfijip but One, tho' confifting of leveral Parts ; 
 why may not His Baptifm be likewile One, tho' confifting of 
 an Outward and an Imvard Part ? 
 
 V. There was an Outward and an Inward Circumcision, 
 as well as an Outward and Inward Baptism ; yet no Man will 
 fay, that there were Two Circumciftons under the Law, As 
 little Reafbn is there to fay. That there are Two Baptifms 
 under the GoJpeL See what is before (aid, Self, VII, A'um. X, 
 & XI, of the Wronger Prefumptions to deny the Outward Sacri- 
 fices under the Lawy than tile Outward Baptism under the 
 Gopl, 
 
 VI. Let me add, that Circumcijion was difcontinuM 40 Years 
 in tlie Wildernefs (]fojh, v. 5.J yet this was made no Argument 
 againft tlie Reviving and Continuance of it afterwards. 
 
 But Baprifm has not been difcontinuM one Tear, nor at all is' 
 thtChrifiianChurch, fince its firft Inftitution by Christ 
 
 If the Quakers cou'd find flich a Difcontinuance of Baptifm, 
 as there wasofCircu/ncifionj they wou'd make great Advantage 
 of it ', tho' it cou'd be no more an Argument in the one cafe, than 
 in the other. 
 
 But fince they have not even this fmall Pretence againft it, the 
 Confiant and Vninterrupted Practice of Baptijm in all Chrijiian' 
 Churches, t\\Tow^\ all Ages, is an Irrefragable Ai.:ument againfl 
 them ; and fliews them to be DilTonant from the v'hole Church 
 of Christ. 
 
 S JC» G X a 
 
[.38] 
 
 SECT. X. 
 
 An ObjeSlion Jrom Heb. vi. i. 
 
 I. T" Cou'd not have imagin'd that this fhou'd have been made 
 J^ an Obje^ion^ if I had not feen it urg'd as fuch, in a Book 
 printed this Year, 1696. Intituled, Jo^;? BaptiJPs Decreafmg^ &:c. 
 By John Graton, Where he urges mightily this Text, as a 
 plain Prohibition to the further Qontinumce of Baptifm. He lays 
 great ftrefs upon the Word Leaving, Therefore Leaving the 
 Principles of the DoUrine of ChriHj let m go on unto Perfeciion^ 
 Leaving (faith he, P, 45.) Mark^ Leaving the Principles^ ^-c. 
 And Baptifm being nam'd in the ^cond Verfe, he infers, That 
 the Apofile here Commands to leave off the Pradice of Baptifm^ 
 which, he fays, had been Indulg'd to the firfl: Converts to Chri^ 
 fiianity,'Wita other Jervifh Ceremonies, As to the fiippofed //;- 
 dulging of Baptifm^ on account of its being a Jervijb Ceremony^ it 
 is anfwer'd before , Sedl. VL Pag. 19, 20, 21. But now 
 as to this Inference from Heb, vi. i. John Gratton fays, P. 47, 
 That this word Leaving feems to entail the foregoing words in 
 the Chapter before, where he (the Apoflle) had, been telling thern 
 of their Childifljnef^ (he mentions the DoUrine of Baptifm^ which 
 ' cannot prove the Impoftng of Water- Baptifrn, any mare than all 
 the reft) and rvas now for bringing them on to a further State, where 
 
 th^y^ight know Perfection And it feems clear to me, that 
 
 there wa^ fome need for thoje things , they had fo long lain like Chil- 
 dren weak^ and Babes in, to be left. Therefore leaving thefe, let 
 «s go on to Perfection ; md faith further ; This will we do, x^ 
 <jod permit : But if they had been commanded by ChriH, to have 
 h*en u fed to the Worlds s End, then why fhou'd Paul have beenfo ear- 
 fwH at that Day, which was foon after Chriffs Ajcenfion, to have 
 had them then to leave them ^ Thefe are his words, and a great 
 deal more to the fame purpofe. And in the fame Page, he 
 ranks Baptifm with Circnmcifiony Pajfover, and other Jewifi 
 BJtes. 
 
 n. But 
 
•[ ^9 ] 
 
 II. But it is very wondeiful, how any Man coirdiluit his 
 Eyes fb hard, as tooverfeenot only the whole Scope^ but the 
 very Words of this Text, Can fuch a Blindnefs be other than 
 wihul ? ThQJpofrie was reproving fbme of tlie Hebrews for their 
 flender Proficiency in the Knowledge of the Gojpl. And that 
 he cou'd not lead them to the Higher Myfteries^ tJiey hardly yet 
 being well fixed in the very Rudiments and Fundamentals of 
 Chrifiimity: As if one fliou'cl fay, That he would make an ill 
 Dodor of Divinity y who had not yet learned his Catechijm^ . 
 
 For the Jpoflie in the former Chapter having treated of the 
 Myfterious Parallel 'twixt Chrifl and Me/chifedec,hQ flops fliort, 
 VeV. II, upon the account of their Incapacity, of%vh@m (that 
 is, of Cbrijl and Melchijedec) we have many things to fay ^ and hard 
 to be tittered^ J^^i^g J^ ^^^ dull of hearing : For rvhen for the time 
 ye ought to he Teachers^ ye have need that one teach you again^ which 
 be the frft Principles of the Oracles of God. Then he goes on to 
 provoke them to a ^uxthtv Prof ciency in the words of theText we 
 are now confidering. Therefore (fays he) leaving the Principtes 
 of the Do5lrin of Chrifi^ let m go on unto Perfect ion^ not laying 
 again the Foundation of Repentance from dead Works y and of Faith 
 towards God^ of the Do^rin ofBaptifms, and of laying o^p of Hands ^ 
 and of the P^efurreciion of the Dead^^and of Eternal Judgment ^ 
 And this will we do., if God permit. 
 
 Here is the Doftrine of Baptifm placed in the very Hearts 
 of the Fundamentals of Chrijlianity ; yet the Quakers would 
 filch it out from amongft all the reft, and refer it alone to 
 the Ceremonials of the Law fpoken of in the former Chapter. 
 This was drop'd at a venture ; for the former Chapter treats on- 
 ly of the Melchifedecal Priefthood, which was no Part of the , 
 Law ; and there are none of the Legal Types or Ceremonies fb- 
 much as mentioned in it. Yet Baptifm in the nQXtJChapterm^^ 
 refer to them ! 
 
 There cannot beagreater Ctf;;?/^jjK?;^ to Baptifm than thisr Oh" 
 jetton of the Quakers ; nor a flronger Proof for the Necef^ty 
 of it, than to fee it rankM with thefe moft-acknowjcdg'd 
 foundations di Chriftian Rehgionjj^ and call'd oneof thef ^/# 
 Principles of the Oracles of God. 
 
 |II.An4 
 
[ 40 } 
 
 III. And as to the word Leaving, upon wliich this Author 
 lays fb great a ftrefs , in this Text^ as if it meant Forjakwg 
 and Abando^ifig, it is ftrange that he iliould bring in the Apo- 
 file Exhorting to Leave ojfy and Forfake the FrimipUs of the 
 DoEirine of Chrifl; I But Leaving there is very plainly meant 
 of leaving or intermitting (as the Vulgar renders it) to treat 
 further at that time of thcfe Principles^ whicli the Jpofile is 
 fo far from forjakin^^ that he fixes them as the Foundation ; 
 which he fays he will not lay again^ as fijppofing it laid alrea- 
 
 .dy ; but build further upon it, improve and carry up the 6V 
 ferflrucfure. So that this Leavings is only leaving or ceajing to 
 Dtjcourfe further upon thefe Principles^ Intermittentes Ser',7ionem^ 
 intermitting or breaking ojfthQ Debate, Which is hterally,accord- 
 ing to thQ Greek ci(p€y% Koyov, leaving that Word or Sub jecF o? 
 wijich Jie then Ipoke, he went on to diicourfe of other 
 things. 
 
 The Reader could not forgive this Trifling in me, to prove 
 things which are felf-evident, if he did not lee that I am forc'd 
 to it. 
 
 However, this Advantage is gainM by it, to fee tlie very 
 flender Foundations upon which the Quakers build tlieir Objc- 
 6i:ions againfl: Baptifm ; which they muft either grant to be one 
 of die Principles of Chrijlianity^ or that Faith and Repentance ' 
 are not. 
 
 IV. But indeed ( it is frightful to fay it, I pray God they 
 may ferioufly confider of it) they have, together with Baptifm^ 
 thrown off all the other Principles of the DoBrin of Chrifiy 
 
 which are mention'd in this Text, i. Repen- 
 in fhe S^rf "f /? ^^^^^* Againfl: this they have fet up a Sinlefi 
 Part or Preface, Perfe^ion^ wliich needeth no Repentance, They 
 /7. 3i'3, 314. 2d never beg Pardon for *S/;?, Hippofing they have 
 Part^ /».40, 41, none ; and mock at us for laying, Lord have 
 ^' '^' Mercy upon m ; and upbraid our Liturgy for ha- 
 
 ving a ConfeJJion Q^ Sin in it. Edward Burroughs p. 32. of his 
 Works," printed 1672, lays, That God doth not accept of any ^ 
 where there is any failings or rvho doth not fulfill the LatVy and doth 
 »cff Anfwer every Demand of^ujlice, 2. Faith towards God. 
 
 This 
 
[ 41 ] 
 
 This IS thQ ChriftianVdkh ; or Faith in God through C^r//. 
 But the Quakers fay. That they can come to God 
 Immediately, without the Mediation oi Chrifi, ahd ^^^^-PSSOj 
 therefore they do not Pray to Chrifi, whom they 
 -utterly deny to be that Perfbn who fuflPer'd for them upon the 
 -Crofs ; as Mr. Penn'm his Series Jfology, p. 146. 
 
 They make 0)risi to be nothing elle than what they call 
 The Light within ; wliich, they fay, is fufficient of itfeif, with- 
 out any thing elle, to bring us to God; and that whoever fol- 
 lows it, needs naother Help. 
 
 Now they fay, That all the Heathen , every Man that is born 
 into the World, has this Light within, that is, ChriH ; and, that 
 this Light jvithin is fuificient for his Salvation, without any 
 thing elfe: Whereby they take away anyNeceflity of an Out- 
 ward Christ to dye for our Sins^ and make the Heathen Faith as 
 good as the Chrifiian : And therefore they have taken away that 
 Chrifiian Faith towards God, which is the Second of the Princi* 
 pies mention'd in thisText. The Third is Baptifm,which they 
 openly difclaim. The Fourth is, the ^djing on of Hands ^ that 
 is, the Ordination, Confirmation, zxAAhfolution of the Churchy 
 which are all perform'd by hying on of Hands. And hoM/ 
 much foever the Quakers and others do defpife them, yet the 
 Apoflle here reckons them among the fundamentals : For the 
 Government and Difcipline of the Church are EJJential to it, as it 
 is a Society, it could not otherwife be a Society. The Sin of 
 Kj}rah was nothing but concQvn'mgC hurch-Government. 
 And Aaron*s Ro^ that Budded, in confirmation of his i^"'"i?' 
 Priefthood, was ordained to be kept for ever in the 
 Jrk, for a Token againft the Rebels \ fo are they calPd , who 
 RehePd againfi: that Priefihood which God had then appointed' 
 by Mofes ; and the Sin cannot be lefs to Rekl againfi: that 
 Priefihood which Chrifi himielf appointed. Which is lliewii 
 more at large in the Dtfcourfe mention'd in the Jdvertifement, 
 
 Now [^Aaron's Rod, that is, Church'Government, was one of 
 the Three facred Depofitams which were ordain'd to be kept in 
 the Ark, why (hould we wonder to fee it here placed among 
 the Fundamentals of Chrijlianity ? 
 
 The Pot of Manna-y Aaron^s Rod, and the Tables of Heb.ix. 4. ■ 
 the Covenant^ were all that was kept in the 4rk. 
 
[ 4^ } 
 
 Which fhQWsChunh'Govemme^t to be Neceffary next to our 
 MunnA^ the very Support of ourL//e; and the befl: Guard to. 
 preferve the De§alogue, i. e. our Duty to God and Man, 
 
 V. And tho' the Quakers cry down Church- Authority in others, 
 yet they magnifie it as much in themfelves as any Church what- 
 fbever. 
 
 The Ingenious W, P. in his 'Judas and the Jews^ writing 
 againft fbme Dijfenters amongik the Quakers, aflerts the Jutho* 
 rity of the C/'/zrf^ very high, ^nd the Ponder of the Elders in the 
 Churchy P'l?- and prefTes that Text, Matth, xviii. 17. Te/i it; 
 unto the Churchy to extend to Matters of faith and Worjhi^y 
 as well as to Private Injuries or Offences amongft Chrifii^ 
 ms, That Chrifi (fays he) a^ weil gave His Church Power to Re- 
 ject as to Try Sprits, u not hard to ^rove. That notable Pajfage, 
 Go, tell the Church, does it to our hand : For if in cafe of pri- 
 vate Off'ence betwixt Brethren, the Church is made Abfolute Jud^e^ . 
 from whom there is no Appeal in this World \ how much more in any 
 the leaH cafe that concerns the Nature,Being, Faith, and 
 Worship of the Church her f elf ? 
 
 But the Cafe was quite alter'd when he came to Anfwer that 
 fameTfoc/-, as urged againfl: the Quakers by the Church ; which 
 he does in his Addrefto Proteftants, p. 1 52, 1 5 ^, & 1 54. of the 
 Second Edition in Oolavo, printed 1692. And then that Text 
 does not relate at all to Faith or Worfhip, but only to private 
 Injuries. For having deny'd the Authority of the Church m 
 Matters of Faith, he puts the Objedlion thus againft him (elf ; 
 But what then can be the meaning of Chrilfs Words, Go, tell the 
 Church ? Very well. I Anfwer (fays he,/?. 15^.) ''Tis not about 
 Faith, but\n]m'y, that Chrisijpeaks ; and the place explains it (elf 
 which is this\ Moreover, if thy Brother flia 11 Trespass againft 
 Thee, go and tell him his- fault^ between thee and him a]one„ 
 Here is Wrong, /2<?^ Religion ', Injuilice, nn Faith or Confcience 
 concerned ) as fome would have it, to maintain their Church Power, 
 
 The words Trespass and Fault pro've abundantly, tha He 
 
 only meant Private and Perfbnal Injuries ; and that not cnly jrom 
 .the common and an deniable fgnif cation and ufe of the ivords 
 Trespass and Fault, but from the way ChriU- dire^h and com- 
 mands for Accommodationy viz. That the Perfon wronged J}eak 
 
;[43 ] 
 
 to him thM commits the Injury^ done ; // that rviS. fjot do, that hi 
 take one or two with hi?n : But no mun can think^ that if it re- 
 Uted to Faith or Worship, I ought to Receive the "Judgment of 
 
 one, or two, or three, for a fufficient Rule, Therefore it can- 
 
 ■not Relate to Matters of Faith, and Scruples of Conscience, 
 hut Personal and Private Injuries. 
 
 Tims he. But the' the Judgment of one, two, or three, is not 
 of itfelf ^ fufficient Rule, fnone ever faid it was) yet may not 
 one, two, or three Admonish one another, even in Matters of 
 Faith and JVorfhip, as wdl as of Private Injuries, and, in cafe 
 of Refra5iorinej^ and OhftinAcy, bring the Cauie before the 
 Church ? Thou (halt in any wife Rebuke thy Neigh- ^ . 
 
 hour, and not fuffer Sin upon him. Yet vi^as not the ' 
 
 2'udgment of every Man 2ifuffi(ient Rule to his Neigh- 
 our. And our Saviourh commanding to bring the Caiafe fi- 
 nally before the Church, fhews plainly, that the Judgment of 
 the one, two, or three, was not meant for a fufficient Rule, that 
 is, the ultimate Decifion. 
 
 But in Anfwer to Mr. Penn^s Argument , That this Text, 
 Tell it unto the Church, was meant only of Private Injuries, I fhalj 
 repeat but his own words before quoted, and grant, that as it 
 was meant of Private Injuries, fb, as Mr. Penn very well in- 
 fers, How much more in any the leaf Cafe that concerns the Na- 
 ture, Being, Faith, and Worlhip of the Church herfelf? 
 
 VT. But, to return. The fifth Article in that Enumeration 
 of Fundamentals, Heb. vi, i,&:2. is. The Refurreclion of the 
 Dead ; which the Quakers do likewife deny ; as it is fully 
 prov'd in The Snake in the Graf, Par. 2. SeQ:. ij. 
 
 The laft is that of Eternal "Judgment, which depends upon 
 the former, and may be made one with it ; and is likewife 
 <Jeny'd by the Quakers, that is, turn'd into Hymenem and Phi- 
 letm*^ Senfe, of an Inward only and Spiritual RefurreBion, or 
 Judgment performed within us. I have frequently heard Qua- 
 kers fay, that they expe£^ed no other RefurrecHon or future 
 Judgment, than what they had attained already, that is, the 
 Refurreclion of Chrift, or the Light ; and the Judgment or 
 Condemnation of Sin, in their Hearts, 
 
; C 44 ] 
 
 George Whitehead^ in bis Book call'd - The Nature of Chrlfiia^ 
 mjjkc, printed J. 67 1, p. 29, thus ridicules it : DoH thou ({kys 
 he to bis Opponent) look for ChriHy as the Son of Mary, to Af- 
 vear outwardly^ in a Bodily Exijlence^ to fave thee f If thou dosi^ 
 thou n-htyjl look until thy Eyes drop out, before thou mlt fee fuch 
 An Appear Ance of him. 
 
 And now what Wonder is it, that thefe fliould throw off 
 Baptifm^ who have hkewife thrown off all the other Funda- 
 mentals, which are reckon'd with it in this Text ? 
 
 VIL But let us hence obferve, and bewa4:'e of Neglecling or 
 Dejfifing the Outtvard Inffitutions of God', becaufe thefe de- 
 pending upon the Authority of God, no lefs than the Inward 
 and Spiritual, rejecting of the one overthrows the Obligation 
 znd.San^ion of the whole, and is a reieQ:ing of God the 
 InHitfitor ) who, in His jufl Judgment, fuffers thofe to lofe 
 the one, that think themfelv^too good for the other. 
 
 Men were made Partakers of Chrifl: to come, by the Sa- 
 crifices which, were appointed, as Tj/'f^ of Him, under the 
 Law: So now are wc Partakers of Him, who is came, by the 
 Sacraments, which He has appointed in Remembrance of Him, 
 under the Gcj^f/, 
 
 And as thofe who negleiied or defj^is'^dtlit Sacrifices, when. 
 they might be had, from the £^^^/ PW^f//, according to God's 
 Iniritution, were made liable to Death, and did forfeit their Ti- 
 tle to tlie Participation cSChriH the Archt-Type : So thofe who 
 mgleci or dejpife the Sacraments wliich He has commanded as 
 the Means of Grace, and of our Inward Participation of Him, 
 under the Gofpel, do thereby jufirly forfeit tlieir Title to fucli 
 Participation. 
 
 For, if we will not take Gad's Way, we have no Promife 
 nor R^afcn to jfecure us in the following of our own Inven- 
 
 tlOES. 
 
 SECT. 
 
[ f 5 } 
 
 SECT. XI. 
 
 The Qacik^r-ObjecliGn^ That there are no Signs un^ 
 
 der the Gofpel. 
 
 I; 'HF^HE ^^^'^^''•^ throw ofF all Outward Inftitutions, as not ^ 
 
 j^ only Vfelefij but Murtful to the Chriftim Religion ; 
 which, they pretend, confifts not only chiefly (which is granted - 
 to them) hut folely in the Imvard asid Spiritual Va-Vt. Thev" 
 fay, That all Figures and Signs are Shadows ; and that when 
 ChrHty who is the Subfiance^ is come, the others ceafe of courfe. - 
 That they have attain'd to ChriH the Subfiance ; and therefore • 
 thefe Shadows are of no ufe to them. That Baptifm and the . 
 Lor d''s Supper are fbmeofthele.S/'^^mri; and thefe were Indul- • 
 gedto the Early and Weak Chriftians, but that the Quakars, who 
 have flronger Participations of the Spirit^ are got beyond thefe - 
 Beggarly Elements^ &;c. 
 
 11. This is fettPd as a Foundation-Principle, a Key, &c, by ^ 
 That /?(? Figures, or Signs, are perpetual \ or of W. P. i'nnted, 
 Inflitution^under theGojpel-Adminiflration^when- ^^94- C. \o. ot 
 ChriH, who is the Subftance, is come \ though their :^cf ^j^e ^Supper' 
 Ufe might have been Indulged to young Converts P. 24. ' 
 
 in Primitive Times. 
 
 Anf. I. To fay they were not. Pfr/??/^//^/, is one thing; but to 
 fay, That they were not fo much as of In [v it ut ton under the Go- 
 Jpel, feems a flrange AiTertion, when Christ gave the Inflitution 
 outof liisownMouth, i^//«/^/-.xxviii. 19. Go Baptize, And of 
 his Supper, (aid, This do, Luk. xxii. 19. 
 
 2. The Reafonwhy this fhouM not be Perpetual, is very Pre- 
 carious, to fuppofe that the HoUnefo^ any Perfon fLou'd exempt 
 liim from obferving t\\Q Inftitut ions oi God; whereas ChriH.' 
 himfelf fubmitted to them, and faid, That it became 
 himto fulfil all Righteoufnef, i.e. all the Righteous Mit. in. i^. 
 Inftitutions of God, This is the Reafon which QhrtM 
 
 \i . - ,> , gave »: 
 
[46 ] 
 
 gave for his Baptifm ; yet i^q Quakers think that their Holinep 
 will excufe them from Baptifm, ChriH fubmitted to John's 
 Baptifm, faying, That we ought to fulfil all God's Inftitutions : 
 Yet the Quakers will not fubmit to Chri.i''s Baptifm^ laying, Tiiat 
 they are got beyond it. All were required tofubmit toj^h-f'-. 
 Baptifm, during his M;?//^r)', becaufe hewasfent from <3« 
 Baptize; therefore ChriH dXib fubmitted unto it ; ano 
 ceivehis own Commiffion to Baptize, by the vihble D 
 •the i/^/y G^(?//, upon his receiving the J54/7//,/>» pf Jc? 
 
 are yet more exprelly commanded to receive the 
 Mat.K%Ym,ig. Baptifm of Christ Go, Bapnzr All Natioks. 
 Mar.\vi.i<i. Go ye into All the World, and Preach ."-he Gj>- 
 Jfel to Every Creature : He that Believeph^ and is 
 Baptized, Jhall he faved. But the Quakers and Muggletonians 
 excufe themfelvcs, as being too Good for it , They truly feuling iri 
 themjelves (as it is exprelTed in the Kjy before quoted, p. 26.) 
 ^the very Thing, which outward Water, Bread and Wine dojignijie, 
 they leave them off. But were they as Holy as they pretend, yet 
 wou'd not this excule them from obferving the Injlitutions of 
 Chrifi ; nay, the greatefl: Sign of Holinej\\ and true Humility, 
 is, not to think our felves above his Injlitutions, but obediently 
 toobfervethem, aftierthe Bieffed Example of CAm? our L^r 5. 
 And it is the greatefl: Inftance of Spiritual Pride, and the mofl 
 Fatal Deception in the World, thus to over-value our lelves ; it 
 betrays the groi^^Q^ Ignorance of Spiritual things : For the more 
 aManknowsof ^/;;//f//^, andofGt?^, the moie he difcovers of 
 his own Weaknef and Vnrvorthinefi\ he appears lef in his own 
 fight, and frames himfelf the more Obfequioufly, with the mofl 
 profound Hmnility and Refignation^ Dutifully and Z^alGufly to ob»- 
 lerve every the leaU Command ot God. They are Novices m 
 the Knowledge of God, who are lifted up ivith Pride ; and thefc 
 fall into the Condemnation of the Devil, i Tim. iii. 6. 
 
 And what can be greater Pride, than to think our felves in 
 an higher Condition of Pf^/e^fT/ziJ^^, than the Holy Apoftles, and 
 allthofe Glorious 6'/t/>/-j and Martyrs, who were the Firll-frHits 
 ■of t\iQ Gofhel, called(inthe/C.9'^hove(!|uoted) by tliQ LeJJening 
 Stile of Toung Converts, in Primitive Times? 
 
 St. Paul, though Immediately Converted, SLudEnlightned 
 Miraculously from Heaven, was commanded to go to Jna- 
 
[ 47 ] ' 
 
 nias to be BAptix.ed, But our Qtukers pais him off as a Toum 
 Convert, they have got beyond him^ and think themfeJves more 
 Highly Enlightned than he was : And, for that Reafbn only, 
 not to need that Ba^tifmj which was thought neceflary for 
 him. 
 
 And all the other Chrifiians, from QhriH to George Fox^ were 
 Toung Converts ! Then it was that a greater Ligh was given 
 than ever was known in the Church of Chriff before, to ma^ke 
 the Outward Baptifm ceafC) as of no longer ufe to thofe who 
 had attainM the Suhfiance ! Or otherwife none of the Primitive 
 Chrijiims knew their own Holinefs \ or were fb Humble as not 
 to own it, to that Degree as to place themfelves above all f?»^— 
 ward Ordinances ! 
 
 Thefe are the Grounds and Reafbns of the Quakers^ whf 
 Baptifm, and the Lord's Supper were not Perpetual I 
 
 Which, in the mildell word that I cou'd Irame, I have calPd 
 Precarious'. And they muft appear to be fuch, till the Qmkers ■ 
 can give feme other Proof befides their own faying fo, either; 
 that thtj Holinejs of any Perfbn can excufe him from the Qbier- - 
 vanceof ChriH'^s InjHtution : Or, that they have a greater De- 
 gree of Hb/i/^^y} than all others fince ChriJl, who have been . 
 Baptized, 
 
 ^, But the Perpetuity of Baptifm^ and the Lord'^s Supper ^ are 
 fully exprelTed in the Words of the Scripture, When ChriB . 
 ga^/e Comraiffion to his Difciples to Baptize ^ he promifed to be 
 with them, in the Execution of that Commiffica, even unto the 
 E»d of the World, Matt, xxviii. 20. which fhews, that the Com-- 
 miffion was to defcend after the Death of the ^/'^//(fj to whom 
 it was given. Apd it tells how long ; Jltvay, even unto the End 
 of the World. The like Perpetuity is annexed to the Infittmion 
 of the hordes Supper, i Cor. xi. 26. Till ChriU come again. It 
 was Inftrtuted in Remembrance of him ; and therefore to be con- 
 tinu'd till his Coming again, 
 
 III. I know the Quakers do Interpret this, not of Chrik^s 
 Outward and Perfonal coming at the Refurreclion, which (after 
 Hymenens and Phi let m, 2 Tim. ii. 18.) they fay is />/2/2^ already^ 
 that is j Pnwardly perform'' d^ by the Spiritual Refurre8:ion of 
 ChriBy Qvxh& Light in their Jff 4m. And they fay, That the 
 
 Inftitution 
 
[48] 
 
 Inftltwtion of the Loy^s Supfer was only to contkme till that Ih- 
 tvard Coming, or forming of C/^r/// in our Hearts ; which they 
 having obtain'd, (as they prefume) therefore they throfp off the 
 ■ Outward Supper. 
 
 But \v2iS not ChriH formed in the Hearts of the Jpoftks^ to 
 whom ChriH gave his //<3/y Supper, as much as in the Hearts of 
 - the ;^4i^f r/ now ? Was he not C^^/^e Spiritually to Paul, af- 
 ter his Converfion ? And before his Command,above quoted, of 
 continuing thePradice of the Lord^s Supper, till his Commg ?. 
 
 If they fay, That this was only to have it continu'd to thofe 
 ^weaker Chrift-ians, who had not Chriil thoroughly formed in their 
 Hearts. 
 
 Firfl, Who can fay. That Chrift is thoroughly formed in his 
 'Heart ? May there not be greater and greater Degrees of the In- 
 (piration of Chrift in our Hearts? And can we ever come to the 
 '^End of it, fb as to need no further Infpiration, or Commg of 
 •Chvi^ within m? Therefore Chrift's //^rr^ri Coming is always 
 to be expected. His further ^nd, further Coming and Injfi- 
 -ratiop. 
 
 But if that Coming, which the Quakers wou'd make to be the 
 ::Determination of the 0^</^«?^r^ Infiitution oi the hordes Supper 
 be the Lea^ Degree of his Coming, then every Chrifiiau, nay, ac- 
 cording to the 'Quakers^ every Man in the World, not only is, 
 ■but always was exempted from the Obfervation of that Inftitw 
 tion ; becaufe the Quakers do own. That every Man in tlie 
 World has, and ever had the Light within, which they make to 
 -be C/'r///, at leaft, an Influence and Infpiration from ChriH ; and 
 ibto be a Coming, om Prefence of his in the Heart : And there- 
 fore, by this Rule, Chrift is Come to every Man, in fbme Degree 
 or other : And, if there be not fbme ffinting, ovafcertaining of 
 -this Digree, then ChriH was always ^o Come to ^//,as to make the 
 ■Infiitution of the horti^s Supper ufelefs, at all Times, to AIL Nay, 
 it was ended, before it began. For, if his Inward Coming does 
 end it, it cou'd never begin, becaufe he was always fo Inwardly 
 'C^me. 
 
 But if there are fbme Degrees of his CoiQiing fb weak as to need 
 •the Help of the Outward In ft it ut ion, to Vv'hich God has annexed 
 •the Promife of his Grace, when duly Jdminiftred, and Receiv^dy 
 tlicn thefe De^raes mufl be known, elfe thofe may be depriv'd 
 
 of 
 
[49] 
 of the Benefit of it, who have mofl need of it : And thofe are 
 they who tliink that they need it lea ft. 
 
 Secondly, The Quakers do not always pretend, all of them, 
 to the fame Degrees oiPerfeBion (if there be Degrees in Perfecii- 
 on) they muft be fenfible fbmetimes (at leaft others are) of 
 the many WeaknefTes of fbme of their Number : Why then do 
 they not allow the \j>r^s Suffer to thole WeAker ones ? Elfe they 
 muft fay, That it was no^ intended for the Weak more than for 
 the Strong. And ^o^ that the Infiitution and PraSfifeo^ it, by 
 ChriH and his Jpofiles^ was wholly ufek/, and to no purpofe. 
 And that all thofe high Things laid of it, Thatit is the Comwu- 
 nion of the P^ody and Bkodo^ChrL^f, i Cor. x. i6. And ChriJ^s 
 own Words, This is my Body : And therefore, that the receiv- 
 ing it unworthily, is being Guilty of the Body And Blood of the 
 Lord : That therefore we Ihou'd approach to it, with the great- 
 ell Reverence and Preparation^to Examine our fe Ives ferioufly and 
 diligently, that we may receive it with pure Hearts and Minds : 
 And the Dreadful Judgments which do attend the Negk^i^ or 
 Ahufe of it, vsytom^j fundry Difcajes^ and divers kinds of De^//;/, 
 hut Damnation^ i Cor. xi. from Yer. 27. I (ay all thefe were 
 Words thrown into the Air, of no Meaning, nor Import at all, 
 if tlie Quaker Interpretation be true, which makes nothing at 
 all oithe Lord^s Supper, but renders it wholly Precarious and In- 
 fignif canty even at the time of its Jnftitution ; and now to be 
 hurtful and perniciom, as drawing Men from the Subjlance^ to 
 meer Shadows ; for they make of it m more I 
 
 IV. But I wou'd befeech them to confider how much more 
 highly God does value it ; and how Material a part of his Re- 
 ligion he does make it : For when St. Pad was taught the Faith 
 immediately from Heaven, and not from thofc who were Apo- 
 files before him (as he tells us, Gal. i. 16, 17.) Chri'H took care 
 to inftruft him as to this Q^the Lord's Supper particularly. And 
 he prefTes it upon the Corinthians,* as having received it from 
 God. For I have received of the Lord (fays lie, i Cor. xi. 2 ^.) 
 that which alfo I delivered unto you, that the Lord^eftis, the fame 
 Night in which he Wits Betrayed, took Bread, &ic. and fo goes on 
 to relate the whok Injlitution ottliQ Lord''s Supper ,2.nd the mig!> 
 ty Confequences, the Benefits and Advantages of it ; the Exa- 
 
[ 50 ] 
 
 mi nation preparatory to it ; and the Vengeance both Temporal and 
 Eternal^ which was due to the Contemp of it. 
 
 TJiis (hews, that ChriH did not Inftitiite this Holy Sacrament 
 by Chance. It was the lafl Aft of his Life ; and his Dying Be- 
 ^uesl to iiis Church ; filPd with all his Bleffings, and carrying with 
 it, to the Worthy Receivers, the whole Merits^ and Pur chafe of 
 his Death and Fafjion^ the Remiffion of our «S/>j, and full Title 
 ^ to Heaven! Brethren^IJpeak after the Manner of Men ; 
 ' ^' tho"* It he but a Man's Teftament^ yet, if it be confirmedy 
 no Man difannn'lethj or addeth thereto. How much lefs then 
 can any Man take upon him to difannul this la.t Will and Tefla- 
 mento^ChrijPs, which he has left to his Church \ and Bsqueath- 
 ed it to her with His Dying Breath ! 
 
 This w^as the Reafbn tliat it was not only fb particularly Re- 
 corded by the feveral Evangelijls in the Gojpels ; but when 
 St, Paul was taught Immediately from Heaven,this moft Mate- 
 rial 7/?/?/>//^/(3/; was not forgot,but Chrisl Himfelfinflruded him 
 in it; to flxw the ^reat Streisand Value which He laid upon it. 
 And let this fuffice, to have faid in this place, concerning this 
 other Sacrament of the Lord^s Supper. Its Inflitution is as Pkiii 
 and Exprefsas tliat of Baptifm. And the Praciife of it, in the 
 Days of the ^/^^//f^, and all Ages fince has been as Vniverfal. 
 And what has been laid of Baptifm, is of Equal Force as to this ; 
 And the Quaker Arguments againfl: this, are upon the fame 
 Foundation as tliole againfl: Baptifm ; only they have not fo ma- 
 ny ObjeQions again ft this : Therefore I have made Baptifm the 
 chief Subjeft of this Dilcourle ; yet lb, as likewile to Include 
 the Sacrament of the Lord^s Supper. Therefore we will go on to 
 conlider what remains of the prelent Objedionv (which Mili- 
 tates equally againft both) that there are no Signs under the 
 Gojfel. 
 
 V. And here let me obferve. 
 
 Fir si, Thatthele6/^^j arvd F/^rej v/hich the fakers muke 
 Incompatible to the GojfelSt^tQ, ought only to be underftood of 
 tlie Signs and Figures m the Laiv, which were ordain'd as Types 
 of ChriH. And of theleit is truly argu'd, That when Christy 
 who is the Subfance, is com.c,they muft ceale of courie ; wliich 
 Argument the Quakers brii^ againft the Signs and Figures 
 
 which 
 
/ [ 51 J 
 
 which ChriH did Inftitiite under the Gofpel. But how foreign 
 this is from their purpofe, let any one judge. For thole Stgrjs 
 and Figures which were appointed by ChriB^ couM not be Types 
 of Chrisi ; becauie a Type is what goes before a Thing,and Ihews 
 it to come. And therefore, when that which it forejbews is come, 
 it ceafes. But, as there were Types under the Law to forefljex^ 
 Chrift's coming in the Fleflj^ and his Sacrifice upon the Crof^ 
 which therefore are ceafed ; fb ChriH has appointed other Types 
 to forefhew bis [econd coming to Judge the World ; and which 
 therefore mufl laft till he fhallfbcom.c, as the Types of his frH 
 coming did laft, till he did fb come. The Sacrifices under the 
 Law^ did prefigure the Death of ChriH ; but the Sacraments mu.- 
 ilQrthQ Gojpel, \v Qreln{\'itutQd in Remembrance of it ; as w^ell as 
 for Types of our future Union with him in Heaven. Therefore 
 the fame Reafbn which makes the Legal Types to ceafe^ does in- 
 fer, That the EvangelicalTypes muft not ceafe, till they likewife 
 fliall be fulfilled \ which will not be till we arrive at Heaven. 
 Thus, as they are T)/'?/. And then, 
 
 Secondly^ As they are Remembrances of what is pall, they are 
 to laft as long as the Remembrance of that which they Reprefent 
 ouglit to laft with us. ChriH did not Inftitute his Supper^ that 
 we^fhouM diereby Remember his Death ^ a Day^ or a Tear^ but till 
 his Coming again. His Death took his Perfonal Prelence from 
 us ; and therefore till that Return, we muft continue the Re- 
 membrance, that is, of his Abfence, till the Glorious Return of 
 his Vifible Body, which was leparated from us by his Death. 
 
 Thus no advantage can be brought to the Quaker Pretences 
 againft the Chriftian Sacraments, from the Sacrifices and other 
 ^/g^/^j or F/g^/?'^^ under the L^jv. 
 
 VI. We come now to Examine, what they let up againft a- 
 ny Signs or Figures under the Gojpel, from another Topick ; 
 and that is, That the Gofpel is all Subfiance, and therefore that, 
 there muft be no Sign or Figure at all in it. 
 
 Jnfjv. By Subfiance here they mean that which is Inrvard^ or 
 Spiritual, that every tiling in the Gofpel is Spiritual. 
 
 But this will over throw all outward, or Bodily Worfhip. For 
 that is diftinguilhed from Spiritual, or Inward Worilaip. 
 
And, inoncfenfe, all Bc?^/7y Worfhip is a Sign ov Figure of 
 the Inward^ or Si)iritud ; which is the Principal 2inA Subfiantid 
 Worfliip. Thus Bowing thtf^ne'^^ or Uncovering the, Head at 
 Prajer, are Signs or Figures of the Im^ard Reverence and Devoti- 
 on of the Heart. 
 
 And this tlie ;5^^.(Tr.f pradife ; therefore, by their own Ar- 
 gument, they have Signs and Ftgures as well as others ; only 
 they throw off thole of ChrisPs Inftitution, and make new ones 
 of their own. 
 
 It is impofTible to be without Signs and Figures, For this 
 whole World is a Figure of that which is to come. We our 
 felves are Figures of God^ being Images of him ; And what is an 
 Image but theFigure or Sign of a Thing ? Chriji is ^Figure of God, 
 being the Expref Image of his Perfon^Heb.'w^, And we now have 
 the Knowledge of God in the Face ofjefm Christ. God is a Light 
 Jnacceflible to Angels ^z% well as unto A/^;;,without (bme Medium : 
 His Ejfence cannot be fecn or known Immediately, by any but 
 HimJelf.AW Creatures partake of him in Signs 3.nd JFigures of^him ; 
 each in their feveral Degrees ; there are Higher and more Nol?le 
 Figures ; but all are Figures, And God has, in all Ages, through 
 the World, Difpenfed himlelf to Mankind in Signs and Figures ; 
 we cou'd not otherwiie apprehend Him. Chriii is the moft No- 
 hie and Lively Figure of God : Therefore his Difpenfation is far 
 beyond all others that went before him. Yet even now, M^e 
 fee through a GUJ^ darkly^ i Cor. xiii. 1 2. or, in a Riddle ; as our 
 Margent reads it, h dtv'iy!M/.Ti, in a Figure. 
 
 What is the Bible that we read, what are Words but the Sig- 
 natures, the Signs or Figures of Things f We can fee the Ejfeme 
 of no one thing in the World, more than of God. And what 
 arc all thole Accidents of Colour.^ Quantity and Quality, by which 
 we diftinguifh Things, but lb many Figures, or Signs of 
 them ? 
 
 So very wild is that Notion, that there muft be no Signs or 
 Figures under the Gofpel I 
 
 It would be much Truer, if they had laid, That there are no- 
 thing elfe but Signs and Figures : There is nothing elfe without 
 a Figure but God t For all Creatures are Figures of Him^ ChrtHy 
 
 th? Htgheft. 
 
 But 
 
t 53 ] 
 
 But have the Qmkers no Figures ? G. Fox in his SauPs Er- 
 raffd, p. 14. fays, That Chriffs ?lefh is a Figure. They call the 
 Body of Christ generally, a Figure^ a ^4/7, a Garment. Then 
 either they have none of it, or they have Figures. 
 Richard Hubberthorn wrote, That ChrijPs com- Snake in the 
 ing in the Flefh was but a Figure : He meant of ^/'"'f Jg ^ ^^'^' 
 the Inrvard coming ofChrisJ, or the Light in the ^ 
 
 Heart, which they call the Subfiance and the My fiery ; of which 
 ChriHh Outward coming in the Flejh^ they fay, was but a Shadow^ 
 or the Hifiory (to ufe their own words.) G. Fox made a great 
 My fiery y or Figure of his Marriage^ which, he faid, 
 ]Vas above the State of the fir t Adam, in his In- 2d Part, p. 43. 
 nocency ; in the State of the fecond Adam that ne- 
 ver fell. He wrote, in one of his General Ep files to the Churches ^ 
 (which were read, and vala'd by the Quaker s^ more than 
 St. PauPs,') That his Marriage was x Figure of the Church com- 
 ingout of the Wilder nefi. This, Mi deny'd, I can Vouch unde- 
 niably, but it will not bedeny'd, tho' it be not Printed with the 
 reft of hisEpiilles, but I have it from fome that read it often. 
 But why was it not Printed ? That was a fad Story. But take 
 it thus. He Marry'd one MargaVet Fell, a Widdow, of about 
 Threefcore Years of AgQ \ and this Figure of the Church muft 
 notbQ Barren; therefore, tho' fhe was pall Child-bearing, it 
 was expected, that, as Sarah^ ^m: fhou'd miracuJoully Conceive,* 
 and brmg forth an Ifaac ; which G. Fox promis'd and boafted ' 
 of, and Ibme that I know have heard him do it, more than 
 once. ShewascalPd, The Lamb'' s Wife. And it was laid a- 
 mongft the ^^^^ri. That the Lamb had now taken his Wife, 
 and (he wou'd bring forth an Holy Seed. And Big fhe grew, 
 and all things were provided for tlie Lying in ; and , he , 
 being perfwaded of it, gave notice to the Churches, as above 
 obferv'd. But, after long waiting, alf^ov'd Abort ive^ and 
 tliQ Figure wasfpoiPd. And now you may guefs the Realon, 
 why that Eviflle which mention'd this FigureyWH'j not Printed. 
 
 I wou'd have brought nothing into this Difcourle that looks 
 like a Jeft ; but they have compelled me. And it may be of 
 ule to them, to fhew them, that while they throw off the <S'-^- 
 craments of ChriHh Inlf itution, upon the Pretence that there 
 muft be no Signs or Figures under the Gofpel, they, at the fame 
 
 tim,e 
 
[ 54 ] , 
 
 time, make Ridiculous Sigfis a.nd Figures o? d Fox, and his 
 Fa.nt-s.i\lc^lMarr/age ; and of fevers 1 other things ; every thing 
 a huoft among them, is a Sig^ or Figure of fomething to come 
 upon the World. How manj^ of their Lyiftg Prophets have 
 call'd thiemfelves Sip^s to the Men of their Generation, as the 
 Holy Prophets were in their Day ? 
 
 VII. There have been Outrvard Signs , in all the Inftjtutions 
 of Rehgion, fnite the beginning of the World ; as well kfore, 
 as ufider tlie Law, and no\'v' under the Gofpel. Only they have 
 been 'v.xrfd^ or Ended according to what they prsefigur'd. Thus" 
 thofc Signs whiclj had no further Tendency, than to point out 
 what Chrisi did orfiiffer'd upon Earthy are fulfilVd and there- 
 fore Ended, 
 
 But there were fbme Signs, which, though they pointed to 
 ChriH upon Earth, had yet a further Tendency : For Signs may 
 be appomted to more Ends than one. Thus the Inftitution of 
 the Sabbath was appointed for the Commemoration of God's 
 ReH from the Works of the Creation, GenAW^, and Exod,x\.ii. 
 and likewife the reft of the Children of Ifrael (who were the 
 Type of the Church) from their Captivity and Slavery in Egypt y 
 Deut, V. 1 5. (which exprelTes the Servitude of Sin and Hell J and 
 ihm finul Re fl'mCanaan (the TyipQ of Heaven) after their for- 
 ty Years wandering in the Wildernef, (which reprelent the La- 
 bours of this Life.) But this was not the Ultimate ReH, or Sab- 
 bath, Heb. iv. 18. F^r;/Jofhua had given them Rejl, then 
 n>ou*d he not afterward have jpoken of another Day ; there remain- 
 eth therefore ortp^Hctn^fMi, the keeping of a Sabbath (which fignifies 
 ReH) to the People of God, For he that is entred into his Rejl, he 
 alfo hath ceafedfrom his own Works, as God did from his. Thus 
 ChriH,2i^ he fuftered the 6th Day of the Week,the fame Day that 
 Man was created, aod fell', fb, on the fame Day on which God 
 Refted from his Work oi Creation, viz,, the 7th Day, did ChriH 
 Reft in his Grave,from his Work of Redemption, And there is yet 
 a farther Reft or Sabbath beyond this ; and that is, the Eternal 
 Refi in Heaven, Heb.iv. 11. Let us labour therefore to ente. into 
 that Reft, 
 
 Now, though ieveral Significations of the Sabbath are alrea- 
 dy paft, as the Deliverance out of Egypt ', the Entrance into 
 
 Canaa/f ; 
 
[55.3. 
 
 Canaan ; and the Reft of Chrift, in his Gra've : Yet there being 
 one behind, that is the Sabbath oi; Heave n^ therefore do we ilili 
 keep the Sabbath as a Type of it. 
 
 But there is another Reafbn for the Continuance of the Sab- 
 bath ; and that is, That it was not only ordained as a Type of 
 Things to come ; but as a Commemoratiofi of what was paft, 
 ziiz.. Of God's Reft from his Works of Creation. And, by the 
 Alteration of the Day of the Sabbath^ it ferves likewile to us 
 Chriftians , as a Commemoration of the Refurreciion of Chrifty 
 and his Conqueft over the Powers of Death and Hell. It was 
 the frft Day in which Light was created ; and Chrifl (who is 
 our True Light ^ of which the Vifible Light is but a Shadow^ and 
 was ordain'd as a Type) Aroje from the Dead^ the fame Day ; 
 and gave Light to thofe who fat in Darkneft, and the Shadow of 
 Death y by the Joyful Tidings of o«r Redemption from Hell y and 
 Eternal Bli^'m Heaven ! 
 
 Now fb long as the Works of our Creation and Redemption 
 are to be kept in Memory, fo long is the Sabbath to continue, as 
 a Commemoration ofthefe Inellimable Benefits. 
 
 And, by the fame Reafon, fb long as we ought to comme- 
 morate the Death and Pafflon of our Lord ; fb long ought the 
 Sacrament of it to continue ; which he InfHtuted in Remem- 
 brance of it ; and commanded it to be continu'd till his Coming 
 again. 
 
 Thus you fee that there are Signs under the Gojpel ; not only 
 the two Sacraments of the Church (which flowed dilfiniSlly out 
 of C/'r/y/'s Side, after his Death, upon the CV^^/fj but that the. 
 G'ftel does ftill vti^imtht Srgns of Commemoration^ which have 
 defcended down to us all the way from tlie Creation: And like- 
 wile fuch Signs or Types as have yet a Frofpecl forv/ard, and 
 are not wholly fulfill'd. 
 
 And ^i/v, T\\Q Signs of F reft fit Signification^ as thQOutn-ard 
 Adis of Worfljip : To which we are as much, nay more fbridV 
 iy obligees under the Goj}el^ than they were under the Laiv. As 
 St. /k^;!z^^.)' cirgues, (adverf Haref. 1. 4. c. ^^4.) Tliat the man- 
 ner of HV/Z?//', as of Sacrifices^ is changed: but not the IVor- 
 jhip abolifhed'. Non Genm obiacionis Reprobatum c//, obitt tones 
 enim & illic, oblationes autem & hie : Sacrificia in Fopulo, Sa- 
 crifcia & in Ecclepa ; fed Species Immiitata est tantnvi, i. e. The- 
 
[ 56 ] 
 
 Fiind on N Mure of the Offering is not AboUjhed ; for there were 
 Offerings under the Larv, and there are Offerings alfo under the 
 Gofpel : there were Sacrifices among the People of the Jem. 
 There are Sacrifices likewiie in the Church : but the Species or 
 Manner of them only is changed, viz.. That fbme Sacrifices 
 under the Law were Bloody , as Praefiguring the Death ofChriff : 
 and therefore that Sort or Manner <yi Sacrificing is ceafed^ becaufe 
 Fulfi/Pd in the Death of ChriB : But their Vn-Uoody Sacrifices, 
 zndOhlationSy as ofTythes, and other Offerings Remain flill a- 
 mong Chriftians : and are Signs, as much as they were under 
 the Law, The outward Worfhif of God mufl: be by Adiionspro' 
 .,., per and ficnificant. Nihil' enim Otiofum. nee fine Si^no^ 
 nec fine Argument afud eum. i.e. tor there is nothing 
 Empty ^ nor without a Sign^ nor tvithout Signification in the Wor- 
 (hip of God, And, in the v^ery next words, he apphes this to 
 
 Tythes, Et propter hoc illi quidem Decimas And for this 
 
 reafon the Jews paid Tythes, viz. as a Sign of their Dependence 
 upon God, and having Receiv'd All from Him : And m Hopes 
 
 of their Receiving More from Him. Sednos omnia Rut 
 
 thQ Chriftians, inftead of a 7 m/? Part, which the J^b;/ gave, 
 Give Jll that they have, becaufe (fays he) they have a Better 
 Hope, And, ch,2j. fhewing how Chrisl did Heighten the Law, 
 as, inff ead of Adultery^ to forbid LuH \ inftead of Murder, to 
 forbid Anger \ and, inftead of giving the Tythe, commanding 
 to fell All: And this, fays he, is not a Diffohtng of the Law, 
 but Enlarging it. So that no Part of the Law is 
 Matth.v..7,i^. 2),/r(?/^ ; and All is not FulfiM'd', and fince AH 
 mufl: be Fulfilled, it follows, that what is not yet Fulfiird, mufl: 
 yet Remain : And Many of the Signs in the Law not being 
 FulfilPd in ChriFPs Dea.'h, nor ever to be Fulfilled while we Live 
 upon this Earth, confequently do Remain, and muft fb Remain 
 to the End of the World. So that the Goffel has Signs as well 
 as the Law ; and, in Great Part, the fame Signs ; with other 
 Sacramental Signs added by ChriH, which are thole of which 
 we now Treat, Baptifm, and The Supper of The Lord, 
 
 VIII. And let us Refle£f, that ever fince God made outward 
 Things, and gave us this Body, as the 6Vw/does ad by the Me- 
 diation of the Body ; fb has God ordain'd, that his Gifts and 
 
 Graces 
 
f 57 ] 
 
 -Erne's {hsiW be 'coiiVQyM-tb us by Outward ^(^fgm^^nA MeM), 
 
 Chrift us'd outwArd Signs ^iWiS. Mtms for his MirMuldki G'uY?s\ 
 to fliew, that tho' the Vtrtue did not come from tlie Means; yA 
 that they \vere of Ufc, and riot to be Defpifed. . oia.. : .' ; 
 
 But why do we fay, that the Fertue does not come frorii'tfie 
 Means ? We lay fo, wliea we cannot tell the Reafcm and Man- 
 ner how the Means work their Effe^, and can we tell it, in thofe 
 wiiich we call iV^/-«y^/ Means? No furely, we know only l^r 
 Qkfervaiion, and E-xperience ; and what often comes to pa Is, we 
 call it NatMYxl^ as being the common Courle of Things; not 
 that we know the Reafon of it, more than of thofe Occurrences 
 which w<i call iV//>^f«/o/^ and Extraordinary. 
 
 Man doth not live by Bread alone ^ but hj ^•very Word'' thai prO" 
 ceedeth oat of the Mouth ofGod^ 
 
 . ^ Bread has no Vertue of its mvn to nourijh :, but only what it 
 receives from God : And if he give his Vertue (for it is His only) 
 to a Stone ; or any thing elfe, it will ^ nourijh : And Bread will, 
 and does c\:^{qxo nourijby wlienhe withdraws" his B/(?^;/^'froni 
 ■}X^^^^■■ . ■;:> jvLlM'.'xi //:^li';slii// v:;Lq;i''t.iu uiPC>-'i ^.^ 
 
 i' TWefore the.%>^^f"Of .Cte/\'^ Ghy)^\t\ii Waters of 
 
 ^iloam^y^ Bethejda, and the Brazen-Serpent had as gi^at Ver* 
 tiie to Cure, when theyiwere Appointed by Go^, as Bread has to 
 nouri/b ; and the Vertue came as much fi'ova Them j as it does 
 from the Bread, in our Daily Food. . 
 
 Now, if the Braz,en-Serpenty which was but a Type of Chriff, 
 Iiad Vertue to Cure the Body ; fhall we deny that the Breads 
 which ChriFl bleiled, for ^^i\^ Remijjlon- of Sin, has Vertue to 
 work that Effed? 
 
 He wliofe fingle Fiat made the Worlds, and whofe Influence 
 gives Power to ail Things, and makes them what they are ; he 
 ilnd of that Bleffed Bread, This is my Body. And liis Holy 
 Apoftle faid of it, The Bread which we break., is if not the Commu' 
 nion of the Body of Chrift 'f And do w:e doubt, how it works 
 thisEfte£l ? Dare we Rejed it, becaufe it feems flrange to us, 
 how it fliouM work this Efl-eft, who know as little how our 
 Daily Bread does nourilli our Bodies ? Do we objeft our Igno- 
 rance how a Man can be Born of Water and the Spirit., wlio can 
 give as (hort an A^ccount how we are formed, of a drop of /f V 
 ter^ in the Womb j and by what Ligaments fuch diiTerent Na- 
 
[58] 
 
 fares as Soul and Body^ are compared and linked together ? How- 
 can we pretend to have Faith in Chrtfiy and yet not believe his 
 Words y becaufe of the feeming difficulty to our Underftandings 
 (who know nothing) of theiW^^Wand Manner y how He can 
 bring them to pafs? 
 
 According to our Faith it will be unto us. Therefore let us 
 Humble our Souls greatly, and imitate the Holy Angels (far 
 ^ore Enlightnedth3.n we are) who vail their Faces before God \ 
 and prcfwme not to diipute his Commands ; or pretend to un» 
 derftand all the Methods of his Fower and Wijdom unfearchable 1 
 but defire to look into thofe Things, i Pet. i. 12. thofe Glorious 
 Myfleries of the Gof^el, which the Quakers defpile, as below the 
 Meafure to which they have attain'd ! And the Principalities and 
 F oncers in Heavenly f laces, do flibmit to learn the Manifold Wif- 
 dpm of God, Ephef. iii. i o. from that Church, which the Quakers 
 do vilife and trample under their feet ; as thinking it uncapable 
 to teach them any thing, or to adminifter to them the Sacra-' 
 wf//// which C/&r//? has commanded. 
 
 But becaufe the Difpute will arife which that Church is, in the 
 milcrable Divifions of Chrifiendom, and amongft the various 
 forts of the Pretenders to it, I have in the Dilcourfe rii^ntion'd 
 in the Jdvertifement, I hope, given a plain and fure Rule to 
 guide all Honefi and Difmterefied Enquirers, in tliat moft necef- 
 Jary and fundamental Point. 
 
 The 
 
[59] 
 
 The Conclufion. 
 
 Sherphg the Neceffity ojf Water-Baptifm. 
 
 TH E Sum of what lias been faid, concludes in the great 
 Neceffity there is of Water-Baptifm. 
 
 But before I fay more of it, I will obviate an Objeftion, 
 which may arife from the word Neceffary, 
 
 If it be Abfolutelff Neceflary, then none can be [tived. without 
 it : Which fort of Neceffity I do not plead for. This is plainly 
 diftinguifhed in the Catechifm of our Church, where thu, and 
 t\)& other Sacramem (pi thQ Lord^s Sttpferj are faid to be G^»^- 
 r/illy necelTary to Salvation. Generally^ that is, in the Gerjerd 
 and Common Methods which are prefcribed in the Gofpel, For 
 no Body will pretend to Limit God ; as if He cou'd not [Ave by 
 what MeA/is and Methods He pleafes. But we are ty'd up to 
 thofe Rules which He has Prefcribed to Vs : Yet M^e mufl not 
 Tie Him up to thofe Rules, to which He has Ty'd Vs, 
 
 But who are they who have Reafon to exped God's Extrair^ 
 dinary Mercies, out of the Common Methods of Salvation ; and 
 to be made Partakers of the /;;)rW, without the Outward B^l^- 
 tifm ? 
 
 I. Thofe who being confcientioufly concern'd for the Out- 
 ward, yet cannot obtain it, through the Want of a A/m/^r of 
 Chrlsl, Lawfully Ordain' d to Adminifter it ; as in Turkey, 
 Jfrica, S^c. *^ 
 
 ThQfe 2Lre under an Invincible Nece/^ty : And their Earneft 
 De/m(I(Ioubtnot) will be accepted by God; and the Spiri- 
 tual Baptifm be confer'd upon them, without the Outward, 
 
 II. Thofe who hB.vehQQn Baptifed by Perfons, not lawfully 
 Or dam' d, and confequently they havereceiv'd no Baptifm, ha- 
 ving receiv'd it from thofe who had no Commiffion to Admini- 
 
 Jh 
 
[ 6o ]• 
 
 flerk; but who were Guilty of the HigheftS^^rW/^^^, inUfurp^ 
 io^ fuch a Sacred CommifTion, . not Lawfully Deriv'd to tliem 
 by ZiSucceffiveOrdwatwn from tliQ Jpoftles : Bi:*:yet, through a 
 General Corruption of the TinieSy luch Baprt/msavQ fuffer'd to 
 pafs, whereby the Perfons fb Bapfizedy fwiming down the 
 Stream, do think their Baptifm to be valid, and therefore leek 
 not for a -Re^Baptizmon from thofe who are truly Empowred to . 
 Admiilifter it» I fay, Where no fuch Re-Bapfizafio^ is taught 
 and thereby the People know nothing of it ; in fuch Cafe, their 
 ^^orame isy. 'ma. MsLnntVy I/^vimiiley And thdrSi^'ferUj %nd 
 Devotion in Receiving No ^acramenfSy yet thinking them True 
 Sacraments, m2iy ho. Accepted by G(?^, and the Inward Grace 
 confer'd, and the Defeots in the Qtitwark and ■> FJfihk Signs may 
 
 But neither of thefe Cafes does reach thbfe, who mgleB the 
 
 , Outward Mems^ upon Pretence of Inward Ferfe^iton without 
 
 them.. Thefe DeJpifethQ Ordinance oiChriHy and make themi- 
 
 ielves Wifer than://;? ; as if He had appointed Means either ^i;;s?- 
 
 neceffarjy or InfffeMuif,l t(^ ^be J^/?^/ ip;-. >vtu<i;ji,: (hey wer£ ant 
 
 ■ tended!::', ,.,:>.!] H'-; :<;'■)• ■;"';,' ^^'-iV- : ■ -i : - 
 
 ( .' And I defire tUeie;,to confider the; Great Necejjlty there is for 
 
 Water 'Baptifm^ ;as before 'Explain'd.,.i; »] { yi] // vvuv.H j; ♦ 
 
 / , Becauie it is ordain'd as the- Means-, whereby-rthe J/fwarJ 
 baptifm of the Holy^GhoH is grvea^^ :as< jl before quoted , Acts 
 n, ^8. Be B4PT17s^0,andye jhallReceiroe. tkp Gifl^ of the MOLT 
 G HOST 4 V By Thi^^ Baptifmy cou'd not be • meant the B^ptijm 
 with the Holy GhoH, becaufe This Baptifm is Here propoled as 
 the Means whereby to Receive the Imvard Baptifm of the Holy 
 
 Ghost,, . .OffODvf! 
 
 Again ^ Ephef.y,26.That.He (Chrift) might Sanclifie and 
 Cka/(/e it (the Church) mth the Waflnng of Water, by the J4'ord, 
 Here the Wajhing ofWateris the Means, tho' t\\Q^peration^nd 
 /^^tf/^^e is. from the Wgrd : Ax\d%\\^d(yrQthQ'OmvardWafljin(^ 
 ox Baptizing (which means the, fame, as before told, Sed, i.^ 
 cannot be the lame with the HW^ in this r^.v/^^. 
 
 ,2. Chrifl having appointed this as the Means, you fee wliat 
 Strefs He Jay s -jgppn . it,^ , and h.QW; ^/VeujfaryMQ ,maies. it J 
 
 Joh/;i iii,r5. p^xcept aManh;Born,of, Water and the Spirit, hf 
 r.annot Ent^r into.-the J(Jngdc.m\ pf God, Here the Water 2ind 
 
. c 6^ ] 
 
 tlk 'Sfirit ai*e plainly Diftinguifhed , and Both mB.d^NeceJfarj 
 to S'alvatkn , th© . Outward as well as the I/ttvard : As it is writ- 
 ten , Rom.^* ic*:^ Fof rtith the Heart Md» Belie^eth , unto Righ- 
 teoufmfs ; And with the Month QonfefflonU made unto Salvation, 
 The Belief of the Heart is I^eceffary unto Righteoujhefs, f,e. to 
 make Us Righteous bdoreGod:- But the Ontrvard Confefficn o^ 
 the Mouth is likewile as Akcejfarfto our Salvation, As C/;r/7/ faid'^ 
 (Matt'.x.'^2,') Whofoeverjhall £onfefs me hefore Men^hc. We muft 
 Outwardly ^-^Lud he fore Men^y Confefs-to Chrift, by the Due 
 Performance of His Outward Ordinanses; without which our 
 Imvar d. Belie f m Him will not be fufficient to om Salvation-, 
 Baptifm is an Outward Badge of Chriftianity^ by being the Out-^ 
 ward Form, appointed to admit Men as Members of th.^ Church 
 ofChriH j and whereby they own them felves to be fuch, hefcfre 
 MeM.r. But thofe who will flot wear this BJDGE, as 3i Lon^ 
 fejfion to Chrifi^ before Men ', Chrift will not Confefs them, be- 
 fore His Father^ in Heaven, 
 
 Mark xvi. 1 6. He that Believethand is Baptized^ {hall hefaved: 
 Here both the 0^^/»'.?ri/ and the Inward are joinM together, and 
 both mide Necejfary ; For, by Baptifm, Here, cannot be meant 
 the Inward Beliefs that wou'd makb a Tautology of the Texp^ 
 and mean thus, He that Believeth and Believeth ^^-^ Thus it 
 my ft be, if by Baptifm, in this- Text, the Inward Baptifm, or 
 Belief of the Heart be meant. But this being plainly meant of 
 the Outward Baptifm , the Confequeuce from this Text is plain- 
 ly this, That h£ who doth not Believe, and is not Baptized, fljall 
 not be Saved. Of which I adjure the Qmkers to Confider moft 
 ierioufly : For tho' they had the Inward Baptifm as much as they 
 Pretend to it, yet were the O/z/n^rfr^ necelTary. Peter thought 
 W'&ter necelfary to give Outward Baptifm to thofe who had al- 
 ready Received the Inward Baptifm .of the Holy G holly -A^s 
 x^47, ■ . 
 
 And the Doctrine of Baptijm is reckon'd among the Princi- 
 ples d.nd Foundations of Chrifiianity, together with Vaith and 
 Repentance, . kc. Heb, YL 1,2. 
 
 ,. :But the/jQf/^/'e//, hke Naaman,- flout at the Means j?is too 
 eafis to h'^ effectual ', and call Baptifm, in contempt, Water- 
 sprinkling,. And I will anfwer them with Naaman's Servants, 
 (2 KJngiN-* 13.) If Qhrifi had bid thee dofome great thing j 
 
 wouldfL 
 
[60 
 
 wr>Mfi thou mt hav^e done it ? How mtich rather then when He 
 fdlth to the€y Wafh and be Clean ? And as neteffan as the JVa- 
 ters of Jordan were to the Cleanjingof Naama»y (o neceffary are 
 the Waters of Baptifm to the Cleanfing of our So///s, None dare 
 iky, tliat GOD cou'd not have Cleanfed Naaman otherwile : 
 But GOD having, by his Prophet, appointed that Means, if 
 Naaman had negle£ied it , he had not otherwife been Cured. 
 How much more, when GOD has appointed the Means 
 of Baptifm , by his Son , if we Neglect it , ihall we be 
 '^v*d without it ? He that Dejpis'd MblesV Law, dyed without 
 Mercy : Of how much forer Pnnijhment , fuppofe ye , fiaU he he 
 ihought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Inftitution of 
 the ^on of GO Dy and counted it an unholy thing, doing De^ 
 flight to it. Inventing Contemptible Names for it, and Kidicu* 
 ling the Adminiftration of it ? But as the Spirit of God 'moved,2X 
 firft, upon the face of the Waters (Gen, i. 2.) to Impregnate 
 them, and make them Yru^tifte ; and gave a Miraculous Vertue 
 to the Waters of Jordan, of Siloam, and Bethefda, for Heahng 
 of the Vle/h ; Why fhou'd we Doubt that the fame Spirit can 
 and will Sanchfe the Waters of Baptifm to the Myfiical Wafbing 
 away of Sin^ having the Pofitive Inftitution and Promije of 
 Chrift for it? ABsW. ^8. Repent and be Baptized, everyone 
 of you , in the Name of Jefm Chrift , for the Kemijjion of Sins, 
 and ye jhall Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghoft, 
 
 This was not the Extraordinary Gift of Miracles, which is 
 here Promifed,(and which all Baptized Perfbns did not Receive 
 ov Expe^) hut the Remiffion of Sins, And let me add. That 
 the Ordinary Saving Graces of the Spirit, which work filently, 
 \vithout Objervation or Show, are much Preferable, and more 
 Defirable, than the Extraordinary Gift of Miracles, M^iich, for 
 a time, were Neceflary, at the hrft Propagation of the Gofpel ; 
 and held Men's Eyes in Great Admiration : But were of Dan- 
 gerous Confequence to the PoflelTors, and a Temptation often to 
 Vanity ; which had almofl: over-fet the Great Apoftle, 2 Cor. 
 Xii. 7, 8, 9. and threw others into the Pit of Deflrudion, Matth. 
 vii. 22, 2:;. I Cor, xiii. 2. and therefore were not to be Prayed 
 ibr, or Dtfir^d : We muft be totally Paijive in this Cafe ; and 
 when lent, being for the Convi^lion of others, to Receive fuch 
 an Extraordinary Gift, with Pear and Trembling, left it Hurt 
 
 our 
 
[63 ] 
 
 our weak Minds^ not capable, but by as Extraordinary an Afli- 
 flance of Dhme Grace^ to Bear liich mighty Revelations^ and 
 not to let m with it a lecret Pride in our felves ; which fpreads 
 our Sails fo wide, that without a Proportionable Ballaft of deep 
 Humility^ we fhall be driven from our Comfafi. The Enemy 
 throws in this f^rongTemptation, with thok Miraculous Gifts; 
 which vain Men do Ignorantly Covet , and fbme falfly Pretend 
 to, to their own Defiruclion, But much more Valuable are 
 thole Saving Graces^ which we are commanded Daily to Pray 
 for, and Daily to Endeavour : Much more Available to us, and 
 Precious in the fight of God, than all Miraculous Gifts^ is that 
 Gift of The Holy G ho ^i, the Remijjion of Sins ^ which is Pro- 
 mis'd to the Due Reception of Baptijm^ and enrolls our Names 
 in Heaven. Behold (laid Christ to his Difciples^ 
 who Boafiedy th^iteven the Devils were fubjecl to Luk.x. 17,18, 
 thenty through His Name) I give unto you Power ' 
 to tread on Serpents and Scorpions ^ and over ali the Power of the 
 Enemy \ and nothing fl?ally by any means ^ hurt you', notwithfiand' 
 ing in this Rejoice nopy that the Spirits arefubjefl unto you ; But 
 rather Rejoice, becaufeyour Names are written in Heaven. 
 
 To he added to the End ofSe[i, VIII. p. J4. 
 
 But R.Barclay argues in \\v?> Apology , That the Baptifm, of 
 wliich the Ark was a Type, cou'd not be the Out war d^ or Water^ 
 Baptifmy becaule that it lelf is a Type, viz. Of the Inward or 
 Spiritual Baptifm. And he lupports this Notion by a Criticifm 
 upon the Word "Aylirv-mv in this Text, which he fays is not 
 rightly Tranflated in our Englifb by The like Figure. Becaule, 
 he fays, the Word 'Ai'7iw^^ fignifies the thing Typiffdy and 
 not the Type. 
 
 But, by his leave, it fignifies the quite contrary. Htbs*.. 24. 
 not the thing Typiffd, but only the Type : For there the Holy 
 Places made with Hands are call'd the 'apt/ti/^, the Figures or 
 Types of the True. And that Word is not to be found, except 
 in thele two Texts, in the whole New Teflament. And there- 
 
[ 6+ J _ 
 fore if one of thefe Texts muft explain the other, the Word 
 Mj/7i7i;^©-, or Anti'Tyfey i Pe/-. 111.-2 1." muft be taken, in tlife 
 .fameSenfe, in which it is ufed, Heb, ix. 24. 'becaUfe ther^ k 
 .cannot poflibly be taken to mean the thing Tniffd, or the 
 .Jrdi'Tjpe ; therefore neither ought it to be fo ftrain'd, as Bar- 
 '■c/ay does, to mean the quite contrary, in the prefent Text. 
 '-And our Trariflation is Juftify'd^ which renders 'Ar-ziTt/isr©- 'the 
 like Figure^ as does the Vulgar^ ^imilis formjs. For both the Wa- 
 . ters of the Ark^ and of Bapufm, are the ^utward and ^uifible 
 ^ig^s, but not the tlnugftgnify'^d, which is th^SahaHon of the 
 Soul, by the Re-generation and Wajhing of the Spirit., And 
 they are hke Vigures^ both fignifying the famething, in a man- 
 . ner very like to one another. That as Noah, 8^c. were (av*d in 
 the Ark by Water Irom Corporal. Death, ^o are the Xme Be- 
 lievers iavM by tlip Water of Baptifm^ from the Death of Sin 
 and Hell, In wh't h Senfe the Ark v/as a Type of the outward or 
 Water'Baptifmy the both were T)/>?/, but one nearer than the 
 other. And becaufe the Baptifm mentioned in this Text, i Pet, 
 iii. 21. is. an 'Ac^fTv^r©:, a Type or Figure ; therefore ifmufi: be 
 the Outward and Wat^^Baptifm, which is here meant. For the 
 Inward and Spiritual j^aptifm is not the Type or F/^/zr^, but the 
 thing figni/y^d. And thus R(?^. Barclafs Argument and Critic 
 xtfm has turnM into a full Demonftration of the dired: contrary 
 of that for which he brought it: And has thoroughly Efta- 
 blifhed the Divine Infiitut ion of tlie Outward or Water-Baptifm, 
 
 ,..,Jj^iyii- - 
 
 ■ 1 696. 
 
 ■A\ 
 
 FIN I 
 
VINDICATION 
 
 O F 
 
 Infant Baptifm, 
 
 Fromfhe FOUR Cliief 
 
 OBJECTIONS 
 
 Brought Againft it, Viz : 
 
 I. From the Natural Incapacity of Infants. 
 II. From their not adually Believing. 
 
 III. From the Want of an exprefs Command to 
 Baptize them. 
 
 IV. From the Want of Scripture-Precedents for it. 
 
 In a LETTER to Mr. 
 
 * ^ 7<e *• 
 
 By J H N "^T V R N E R, A. M. 
 
 Lecturer of Christ-Church, London. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for John Wy at, at the Rofe^ in St. PauPs 
 Church-yard. MDCXCIX. 
 
[ I ] 
 
 -•»►■ 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 F 
 
 nfantBa 
 
 3 I R, 
 
 IT is now fome confiderable Time fince you and I occafionally reviving 
 fome former Difcourfe, that had pafs'd between us, about the Dif- 
 ference in our Perfuafions : Youdelir'd to fee my Arguments, and to con- 
 fider them at your Leifure. I have now comply'd with that Requcil, 
 but faw it neceflary before I could do fo, to enlarge and illuflrate them 
 a little, that they might come clofer to many of thofe Scruples which I 
 found fometimes alledged in thefe Controverlles. If I give this as one 
 Reafon of my not complying fooner with your Defire, though I had 
 other Reafons for this Delay ^ yet you are fenfible how juit an Excufe I 
 have, in the few Minutes I can fpare from the conftant Engagement of 
 my daily Bufinefs. You'll, perhaps, ask why I no w fend you this in Print y 
 which I once feem'd to be averfe to. But when I found you called in 
 Mr. u4 — to anfwer ray Argument from the i Cor, 7. 14. I apprehended 
 the Debate might not continue between you and me alone ^ and there- 
 fore thought it better to fubmit to the Cenfure of the World, than to 
 part witli my Papers into private Hands, where the Defign of them might 
 be miflaken. I have carefully avoided all undue Refiedtions upon either 
 Perfons or Parties ^ hoping thereby that I fhould make no Man my Ene- 
 my by a candid Defence of what I firmly believe to be agreeable to the 
 Laws of God and CI rift ^ and being defirous whatever Difference there 
 may be in our Perfuafions ^ to obferve ftridly all Rules of Chriftian Cha- 
 rity, Love and Friendfhip. I'll detain you no longer in the Way of Pre- 
 face, but beg you fairly to confider the followiug Arguments. 
 
 A 2 CHAP. 
 
[ 2 ] 
 
 CHAP. I. * 
 
 TH E molt confiderable Objef^ions that I have yet met with 
 againft the Baptifm of Infants, are thefe Four : 
 I. It is pleaded, that it is an unreafonable Pradice, in that 
 Infonts are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant 
 into which they are admitted by it. 
 
 II. That it IS contrary to the Inftitution of our Saviour, which, you 
 fay, requiring Perfons to be firil Inflruded before Baptized, thereby 
 excludes Infants as incapable of that Antecedent Inftruftion. 
 
 III. That it is an unwarrantable, and unlawful Pradicc, in that there 
 is no Precept, nor Command, nor Autority for it in all the Word of 
 God. 
 
 IV. a^d Lafily^ That there is no mention at all made of fuch Practice 
 in all the N e w T e s t a m e n t. 
 
 Now if it be made appear, that none of thefe Obje^ions have any 
 juft Force in them, this, 1 think, will be fufRcient to vindicate the Church 
 oi England^ in retaining this Ancient and Pious Pradice. 
 
 I . The Firft Objedion is. That it is an unreafonable Pradice, in that 
 Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant ^ The- 
 Want of which Knowle4ge, and the Incapacity thereupon, is thought 
 to make their Baptifm unreafonable and abfurd. But if all other Ob- 
 jedionshave no more Force than this, they will admit of a very quick 
 Difpatch. 
 
 I. In that it is not at all difagreeable to the Reafon of Mankind for- 
 Infants to be bound in Covenants, to the future Performance of Condi- 
 tions ^ which they at prefent know nothing at all of, nor can be capa- 
 ])le of performing, till they come to Age. This is common among 
 Men, and piadifed almoll every Day. Every Will, and every Condi- 
 tional Settlement of an Eflate on Heirs, is a Covenant : And every Con- 
 trad that a Guardian makes for a Minor, is made in that Infant's Name, 
 and he is bound by it, and really enjoynsthe Benefits of it, in Expedation 
 of a future Performance of the Conditions by him. And Baptifm is 
 only the Seal of a Covenant or Contrad between God and Man : Why 
 then fhould it be thought ftrange, or incredible, that God fliould thus 
 dea^ with us in a Difpenfation of Grace and Mercy ? 
 
 2. If 
 
[ 3 ] 
 
 2. If the iii^^city of Infants were in the Nature of Things a necef- 
 iary Bar, it wK^^ ^n llniverfal and Indifpenfable One, and mull ex- 
 clude Infanta^Bti all Covenants with God whatever, whether of 
 Works, or o^Srace ^ whether by the Law, or by the Gofpel. For 
 whatarifes abfbluteiy from the Nature of Things, mufl needs beUni- 
 verfal, and Perpetual ^ and mull have always the fame Influence. 
 
 But that the Incapacity of Infants is not an llniverfal and Perpetual 
 Bar to all Covenants, our Adverfaries themfelves, I hope, will grant ; 
 in that Infants were admitted into a Covenant with God under the Law. 
 If then God admits Infants into a Covenant under the Law -^ he may do 
 fo under the Gofpel too, if he pleafes. And if God may do fo, it can be 
 neither Improper nor Unreafonable,nor in the Nature of Things Abfurd. 
 The Difference in the Conditions or Subftance of the Covenant makes 
 nothing in the Cafe ^ the one being Law, the other Gofpel, the one of 
 Works and the other of Grace, is nothing to the Purpofe ^ becaufe In- 
 fants are equally incapable of underllanding both. And where the whole 
 Strefs lies in the Incapacity of the- Subjed, it mull have as much Force 
 in the One as in the Other. If it be faid God may admit them but does 
 not : This is rnnaing before-hand to a new Objeftion, that (hall be con- 
 lidered in its proper place. The only Thing now in debate is, whether 
 the Natural Incapacity of Infancy be in it felf a neceflary Bar ^ if it be,, 
 this mull be alledged as an univerfal Obllacle to all Covenants as well as 
 to this •, we plainly fee that it is not an univerfal Obllacle, becaufe God 
 hath admitted them into Covenant with him, and bound them to the 
 Performance of Conditions by that Covenant •, Therefore this Objedion. 
 is of no Force, in that it does not necelfarily conclude. ^^ Keflcyt- 8 
 This, indeed, fome of your Perfuafion feem to grant. ^' ^"'^ '^' ^' 
 
 If then the Incapacity of Infants is not in the Nature of Things a Ne- 
 ceflary and Univerfal Bar to all Covenants in general : I am to enquire 
 whether there be any thing in the Chriflian Covenant peculiarly that ex- 
 cludes them from thence. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 THE Second Objeftion is, That Infants as incapable of underltand- 
 ing the Covenant, and believing and repenting ^ are by our Savi- 
 our's Inltitution Prohibited and Excluded from Baptifm ^ for, fay you, 
 the Apofbies were to make Difciples by Inftrudion before they were to 
 Baptize- them. Matt. 28. ip. 6'c, te-ach all Natio}js^ ar/d ili^n Baptize 
 
 them.. 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 them. And Mark l5. 15, \6. He that beleiveth and ishaptiz.ed^ (hall be 
 faved. This, fay you, is XhQ great Charter of the Gojjj^/jmiich remirinf 
 Perfons that are to be baptized^ to befirfi made Difcifles byf^Mi:dion and Be- 
 lieving : Docs in fo doings exclude all that cannot be taughtlffi believe ? 
 
 I anfwer, In this Commiflion Chrifb had a more peculiar Regard to 
 the Perfons to whom the Apoftles were firll and more immediately fent • 
 who were, indeed, Men and Women ^ and therefore he mentions fuch 
 Qualifications antecedent to Baptifm, as in Reafon and the Nature of 
 Things were indifpenfably necellary, confidering the State of the World 
 at that time. Men were almoil univerfally revolted into Idolatry, Igno- 
 lance, Superftition, Profanenefs, and other great Iniquities. And 
 v/ith thefe Qiialifications it was not fit they fhould be admitted into a 
 Covenant of Grace and Reconciliation with God. Thefe were there- 
 fore firit to be Converted and Reclaimed, and then Baptized. And this 
 was the great Work to which the Apoftles are here Commiflioned. Now 
 if from hence yon argue, that none ought to be baptized but thofe only 
 who are thus taught and made Difciples by adual Belief: I muft beg leave 
 to ask, how you reconcile your Belief of Infants Salvation with thefe 
 Texts ? For they as much exclude Infants from Salvation, as from Bap- 
 tifm. 1 do not ask how Infants Ihallbe faved •, for in anfwer to that, you 
 will fay ^ Secret Things belongto Cod. But I ask, how you who do believe 
 and confefs that Infants may and Ihall be faved, do reconcile that Opini- 
 on with thefe Texts, and particularly with that of St. Marky which does 
 by the fame Confequence prove, that Infants cannot be faved as that In- 
 fants ought not to be baptized. For obferve the Argument, Chrift fays 
 Matt. 28. I 9. Go make Difciples of all Nations and baptiz.e them. And 
 Mark \6. 15, 16. Preach the Gofpcl to every Creature^ he that believeth and 
 is baptiz.ed jlmll be faved^ and he that believeth not jhall be damned : From 
 whence you argue tlius ^ None are to be baptized but thofe who are firit 
 made Difciples by believing ^ but Infants are not capable of believing ^ 
 therefore they ought not to be Baptized. Now in the very fame Man- 
 ner one may argue tluis, That Infants fhall not be faved. He that belie- 
 veth not pall be damned ^ Infants are not capable of Believing, Ergo^ In- 
 fants muft all be damned. This is juft the fame Way of Arguing without 
 any Diilerence at all. How will you anfwer this ? Will you let up tor 
 this Peice of Cruelty, that all Infants are damned ? If not ^ you muft hy 
 here as we do concerning Baptifm : That thefe Texts are improperly 
 and impertinently allcdged in the Cafe or Infants^ becaufe they were ne- 
 ver intended to extend to them. Otherwife, they will as certahily con- 
 clude againft the Salvation of Infants, asagainft the Baptifm of thern, 'm 
 that Faidi and Repentance are as necellary to the one, as to the other. 
 
 The 
 
[5 ] 
 
 The Matter then, in fhort, is this ^ Men and Women werefiril of all to 
 be made Difciples by a Saving Faith ^ the Cafe of Children was a diftindt 
 Cafe to be conlidered afterwards ^ when their Parents had been firll con- 
 verted : And tho' believing was neceflary in the Parents to be before 
 their Baptifm, yet this does not prove that their Infants were to be ex- 
 cluded from the Sacrament, becaufe they could not adually believe. 
 
 But you'll reply, is not Faith then neceHarily'required of Perfons to 
 be baptized ? I anfwer j Where the Apoftles found Infidelity and Iniqui- 
 ty, they were neceiTarily to preach Faith and Repentance before they 
 baptized. But the Scripture intimates, that the Innocence of harmlefs 
 Babes (whofe original Guilt is done away by Chrift) and who never of- 
 fended him by any adual Tranfgrefllon, is as pleafing to God, and as a-, 
 greeable a Qualification for the AdmifTion into a Covenant of Grace and 
 Mercy, and fealing that Covenant by the Sacrament of Baptifm ^ as either 
 the Faith of the adual Believer, or the Repentance of the Penitent. 
 Chrifl hasfaid of us all. That nnlefs we become 04 little Children^ Mat. 18.3. 
 that is, for their lovely Innocence, ivejhall In no wife enter into the King- 
 dom of God,. I do not argue whether he fpake this with a particular 
 Refped to the Baptifm of Infants or no. 1 urge not that : But I fpeak 
 of the Qualifications that recommend us to God's Favour and Mercy : 
 And Chrift does here declare, That their Innocence is as grateful to 
 him, as any Man's Faith and Repentance : And for this Reafon, they 
 ought not to be excluded. 
 
 "The Truth of v;hat I now maintain, I think, is fufficiently prov'd 
 from the very Nature of this Sacrament. Baptifm, as I underftand it, 
 is a Seal for the Confirmation of that Covenant which God has made 
 with Mankind in Jefm Chrifi ^ and that Covenant is on God's Part a 
 free Promife, and Engagement to grant Mercy, and Salvation through 
 the Blood of Chrift, to All, whofe adual Sins do not render them inca- 
 pable of, and exclude them from it. From whence I argue thus ; Thofe 
 that are not in a State of adual Sin, are capable of being admitted into 
 this Covenant, and thereby entitled to the Promifes ^ for nothing but 
 Sin made us at firft obnoxious to Death, and nothing but the Guilt of 
 Sin can exclude us from eternal Life : And thofe that are capable of be- 
 ing admitted into the Covenant, and entitled to the Promifes, are capa- 
 ble of that Sacrament which is the Seal of it. This, I think, is a good 
 Conclufion. Infants therefore, tho' by Nature born in Sin, yet being 
 reconcil'd to ' God, I don't fay by Baptifm, but by the Blood of Jefm 
 ChriH^ are capable of Admifllon into the Covenant by Baptifm, which 
 is the Seal of it, tho' they do not adually believe. For this Reafon it is, 
 
 that 
 
[6] 
 
 that the Church of England has fo judicioully declar'd, That Infants bap' 
 tiz,edj and dying before they commit any aEiual Tranjgrejfion, are undoubt' 
 cdly faved. For, dying in a State or Reconciliation, and having the 
 Promifes of God confirmed by this Seal : They are fafe, having not by 
 any adual Violation of the Covenant forfeited the Claim. This \ can- 
 not but think a reafonable Way of Arguing from the Nature of this Sa- 
 crament and Covenant : And if it be, thefe Texts do not exclude In- 
 fants, either diredly, or by Confequence. 
 
 And, methinks, it favours of Rafnnefs and Inconfideration, to think, 
 thatbecaufe God has required Faith, and Repentance of Men in a State 
 of Sin, and under the Power of abominable Lults ^ and coiifequently, 
 altogether unfit to be admitted into Covenant till they abjure their Ido- 
 latry, and abandon their Vices : That therefore innocent Babes who 
 never offended fhall not be admitted through want of the fame Qiialifi- 
 cations. The different Circumlfances, and Conditions of tlie Perfons, 
 is a fufficient Proof that the fame Qiialifications are not neceilarily re- 
 quired in both. But I forefee fonie Objedions which I will briefly con- 
 sider, and then proceed. 
 
 1 , It is pleaded, that Capacity gives no Right ^ you juay have a ma- 
 pacity to be a Jullice of Peace, but muft have a Commiffion before you 
 ought to ad as fuch. And tho' the Innocence of Babes be thus accepta- 
 ble to God, and he does for Chrift's fake fave them, yet this will not at 
 all countenance their being baptized j becaufe it is no where command- 
 ed. I anfwer, That if this be all, then the Cafe is changed, and the 
 Obiection is not that Infants are excluded, but that their Baptifm is no 
 where commanded. I was only now to prove, that nothing in the 
 Nature of this Sacrament does neceilarily exclude them. Infants being 
 in a State of Reconciliation and Favour, does, I think, fuificiently prove 
 that. How far a particular Command is necellary to be added to this 
 Capacity, is another Queftion that Ihall be conlider'd in its place. 
 
 2. 1 may poflibly be asked, how I reconcile this Dodrine to our 
 Chnrch-Catechifm^ which teaches, that Faith and Repentance are re- 
 cjHired of Perfons to be Baptiz,ed ? Indeed, I think, the Anfwer is 
 eafie ^ for the Catechifm fpeaks firft indefinitely, without any refped 
 to Adults or Infants, as Chrift has done mMatt. 28. and declares what 
 in general are the Conditions of the Covenant, and confequently not of 
 this Sacrament only, but of our Salvation alfo : And thefe are Faith, 
 and Repentance, which every one that enters into this Covenant, when 
 they come to Age, are obliged to. But it no where declares, that 
 actual Faith, and adual Repentance are univerfally necellary toallPer- 
 
 » fons 
 
[ 7] 
 
 Tons whatever, that Ihall be admitted to this Sacrament. No, it de- 
 clares the Contrary ; that tho' Infants, h reafon of their tender Jae, 
 cannot perform thefe Conditions ; yet they paq baptized, not upon 
 their Sureties Faith, or believing by Proxy : Bul upon the Expedation 
 grounded on their Engagement, that the Children fnall be tau^,ht and 
 exhorted to perform them afterwards. And this, I think, is agreeable 
 to what I have here maintained. 
 
 3. It may poffibly be objeded. That if this Dodrine be true, it will 
 from hence follow, that the Infant-Children of Turks, Jeivs^ and Tc^gans 
 may be as capable cf Eaptifm, as the Children of BeHevers ^ becaufe 
 they are innocent as well as others, and have their original Guilt as 
 well expiated by the Blood of Chrill. I an{\ver, Infants as to Cove- 
 nants, and Privileges are reputed in the fame Eilate, and Right with 
 their Parents, and that becaufe being under their Tuition its preiuined. 
 they will have the fame Principles and PeiTualion. And therefore, as 
 the Children of Unbelievers on this account may in fom.e Senfe be faid 
 to be Partakers of their Parent:; Infidelity ; as they are like to be 
 -brought up in it : For this Reafon they are denied Baptifm. Other- 
 wife they arc capable, and maybe admitted wherever there is fufficient 
 Satisfaction given to the Church ; that they fhall be educated in. the 
 Chriftian Religion. And the Reafon why they are not admitted now, 
 is only on this Account, becaufe it would be prepolterous to admit 
 Children into a Religion which they w^ere nevec likely to be inftructed, 
 and educated in afterwards. But, 1 fay, could the Church be aflur'd, 
 that they would be inftruded, and educated in that Faith j they alfo 
 might be baptized, and nothing in our Saviour's Commiifion neceflarily 
 excludes them. 
 
 4. and Lafily, If it be objeded, That this Dodrine makes the Eap- 
 tifm of Infants unneceflary, in that if they were in a State of Reconci- 
 liation and Favour before Baptifra , they can profit nothing by being 
 baptized. I anfwer, I did not undertake to prove that the Baptifm of 
 Infants was abfolutely necellary to their Salvation ; but that it is law- 
 ful, and not at all difagreeable to Chrilt's Infbitution ; and therefore no 
 juft Caufe of the Separation from the Communion of our Church ; which 
 is all that I now contend for. 
 
 B CHAP. 
 
[8] 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 TH E Third Objedion is, That it is an Unwarrantable, and Un- 
 lawful Pradice to baptize Infants, becaufe there is, you fay, no 
 Treceft^ nor Command^ nor Antorhy for it in all the Word of God : 
 And this is the Sheet- Anchor on which you lay the greatell Strefs. For 
 when we can demonftrate by God's own Autority, and Example, that 
 the natural Incapacity of Infants is no rieceilary Bar to exclude them from 
 the Seal of the Covenant ^ you reply, all tliis is nothing, becaufe there 
 was an exprefs and pofitive Command for Circumcifmg Infants, but 
 there is none at all for Baptizing them ^ and when we argue that Faith 
 and Repentance are made as necellary to Salvation as they are to Bap- 
 tifm \ and confequently do no more exclude Infants from this Sacra- 
 ment than from Salvation ^ you plead, that tho' they are capable and 
 within the Covenant of Grace, yet they ought not to be Baptized, be- 
 caufe it is not Commanded. In Chriftianity nothing is to be done with- 
 out the exprefs Autority of God's Word. 
 
 And here you load us with heavy Charges of pretending to take the 
 Word of God for our only Rule of Faith and Manners,and yet to keep Un- 
 fcriptural Ordinances, and do that which the whole Word of God fpeaks 
 not one Word of from the Beginning to the End. So that ree of the Church 
 <>/England are guilty of adding to the Divine Lavps of God in the mofi weighty 
 Afatters of Chriftianity without his Autority : Teaching for DoB:rine the Com- 
 mmdments of Men. This'is a fevere Charge, of which if we were in- 
 deed guilty, it muft needs be heavy upon us at the lall Great Day. 
 And that we may be the better prepared then, let it be confidered fair- 
 ly what we have to alledge in our Defence now. 
 
 F/>/, This Argument may eafily be turned upon you \ the Baptifm 
 of Infants, you fay, is no Gofpel-Ordinance ^ 'tis not Commanded, and 
 therefore it is unlawful. I reply, 'tis no where forbidden, and therefore 
 it is not unlav/ful. 
 
 And this Argument of no Prohibition is of more than ordinary Force 
 here j in that God all along in both the former Covenants of Abraham 
 and Aiofes having commanded Infants to be admitted, and fealed by 
 the Sacrament , which was ordained for the Confirmation thereof : 
 When he changed the Ordinance, and inftituted Baptifm to be the Seal 
 of his Covenant, it was then proper to have declared, if Infants that 
 were fit Subjeds to receive the Seal of it before, fhould now be excluded. 
 
 For 
 
[9] 
 
 For his having given no exprefs Prohibition, goes a great way to vindi- 
 cate the Lawfulnefsof thisPaadice^ in thatitfeeins to fnow his Plea- 
 fure, that they fiioiild be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as 
 they had had before. For if ever Prohibition was to be expeded, to 
 declare a Thing unlawful ^ it was to the Abolilhing a Pradlice that had 
 been fo long eftablifhed, and received ^ I mean the admitting Infants 
 into Covenant with him. 
 
 2. But Semidly^ We have the Autority of God for this Practice in 
 twoRefpeds. i. The Autority of his ow^n Example. 2. Of his Com- 
 mand in his revealed Word and Laws. 
 
 I . We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this 
 Pradice ^ and as Mr. iO^c/?, I remember, confcfTes, jP.?g-«'35, 36, that 
 an Apoltolical Pradice, or a Gofpel-Precedent is of equal Autority 
 with a Gofpel-Precept : So, I hope, it will be allowed that a Divine 
 Precedent, from the Example of God, is of the fame Autority alfo, 
 when the Nature of Things, and the Circumftances are alike. 
 
 But before I explain this Argument, I cannot but obferve to you by 
 that little 1 have feen in thefe Controverfies, that the naming of fuch an 
 Argument will raife fome Mens Wonder, who being quicker to wrangle 
 about Words than to weigh the Reafon of Things j will break out into 
 Exclamations, and fay ^ Frove Baptifm of hfamsfrom the Example of God ! 
 Did Chrifi ever baftiz.e an Infant ? Is there one Syllable of fuch a Praftice in 
 all Sacred Writ ? This miifi be the Old Thred-bare Arirmnent from the Analo- 
 gy between Baptifm and Circumcifion. Infants under the Law^ or before it 
 were Circnmcifed^ Ergo, they may be Baptiz.ed^ and what a Non-fequitur 
 is this ? 
 
 But, 5/V, after all that Raillery and.Difdain with which this Argu- 
 ment is treated, which has, indeed, been often urged, and as often 
 laughed at ^ yet I mull confefs, I cannot defpife it, but am perfwaded 
 that there is great Force in it, if it be Hated well, and fet in a true Light. 
 
 I do not then infift that one w as a Type of the other, nor argue from 
 a bare Analogy, as to Jewilh Church Member-lliip, or the like, but my 
 Argument is this ^ Baptifm is now the Seal of the Covenant which was 
 once fealed by Circumcifion j Infants were by God's own Command ad- 
 mitted then, Ergo^ Infants m.ay be admitted now : Or thus, God did ad- 
 mit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation, thro' Jefus Chriil\ 
 and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made 
 with Abraham^ and confirmed by the Seal of Circumcifion ;, Baptifm of 
 Infants does but admit them into the fame Covenant upon the fame Con- 
 ditions, and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them : Ergo^ in Bap- 
 tizing Infants we ad by God's own Authority and Example :, tor we do 
 
 B 2 HO 
 
[ lo] 
 
 no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Gir- 
 cumcifing them. The Rite, indeed, is changed, it wasCircumcifing ^ it is 
 now Baptifm : What then ? The Life of both tiiefe Rites is ftill the fame y 
 the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God, and fo is the Other a Seal of 
 the fame Covenant. And fo after all the pretended Non-feqiiiturs in this 
 Argument from Circnmciiion to Baptifm ^ when the Ufe or main De- 
 lign of both thefc Rites, or Sacraments (hall appear to be the fame, the 
 Argument will have Force, and the Change of the external Ordinances 
 cannot IclTen it. 
 
 In the Profecution therefore of this Argument, I iiave Two Things 
 which you v;ill challenge me to prove. 
 
 1 . That Circnmciiion, when ^irpyntiX^hraham^ was ordained to be the 
 Seal of that Covenant which God made with him. 
 
 2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the fame with ours, that is 
 a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jefus Ghrift,. and upon tlie 
 Conditions of Faith and Obedience. 
 
 And if thefe Propofitions be found true, the Confequence, I think, 
 will be fo clear as to want no Proof. 
 
 Fir ft ^ That Circumcifion, when enjoy ned Abraham, was ordained 
 to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him. And this, 
 I think, is very plain, both from ther Original Inftitution of Circumcifi- 
 on in th? Old Law, and the Explanations of it in the New : As to the 
 Old Teitament, God having made fome Trial of Abraham, by calling 
 him. out of his own Country, and having found him readily obfervant 
 in all that he commanded him ; declares, Ge?!. 17. 2. that he will now 
 eftablifh a Covenant with him : / will male my Covenant between me and 
 thee^ and thou Jha/l be a Father of many Nations, V»er. 4.. And again, P^er. 7. 
 I will eftabliO) my Covenant between me and thee, a/id thy Seed after thee, in 
 their Generations, for an everlafting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to 
 thy Seed after thee. And as every Contract among Men muft have its 
 Sanation, and Eflablilhment ; fo here, God declares after what Manner 
 this Covenant Ihould be confirmed, Fer. 10. This is my Covenant which ye 
 fhall keep between me and yon, and thy Seed after thee ; every Mati-Child 
 amoiw joiifnallbe CircHmc'ifed : Which Words do not make Circumcifion 
 the S^ibflance of the Covenant, but only the Manner ot Eftablifhing, and 
 Confirming it ; as appears from the following Verfe : And yQJhall cir- 
 citmcife the flejh of yonr Fore-skin, and itjhall be a Token, or Sign of Cove- 
 n.vit between me ar:d yon. And again, F'er. 13. Mv Covenant Jliail be in 
 yonr Fief:, for an everlafting Covcuani, that is, aToke.i or Pledge in your 
 , . Flelh of an evenafciiig Covciiant : For, as a Reverend 
 Bw'hop Tatric-^, in jr^j-j^gj, ^f q^j- QY>m fays, . ' It was not a meer Mark where- 
 
 ^ by 
 
^ by they ihould be known to be Abrahnmh Seed, and diftinguifli- 
 ' ed from other Nations ^ but they were hereby made the Ghil- 
 ' dren of the Covenant, and intitled to the Bleffings of it -, and Cir- 
 *■ cumcilion was the Seal of it. And this is farther evident from the 
 New Teftament •, for St. Paul in his Controverfie with the Jevps^ about 
 Jultification, inftances in Ahmham^ whom he declares to be jiifliiied 
 not for his being circumcifed, but for the Faith he had before it j Rom.^, 
 1 1 . He received the Sign of ClrcHmciJlon^ a Seal^ or Pledge of the Kio-htc- 
 oiifnefs of that Faith which he had yet bei?jg uncircumcifed j a Seal of that 
 Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith. And 
 thus St. Pff ^r, Adls7.8. He gave him the Covenant of Circiimcifion^ that 
 is, he gave him the Covenant which he fealed, and confirmed by Cir- 
 cumcifion ^ which is both a ufual, and very intelligible way of fpeak- 
 ing : So alfo St.Pauly Gal. 3. 15. Brethren^ I fpeak after the Adanner of 
 Aien^ if it he hut a Aiar^s Covenant^ yet if it he confirmed^ no Man difan- 
 nidleth^ or addcth thereto. And again, Fer. 17. he fpeaks of the Covenant^ 
 that was confirmed before of God in Chrifi^ plainly alluding to this Cove- 
 nant with Abraham.^ which was Sealed, and had its Confirmation by 
 Circumcifion. 
 
 2. The Second Obfervation was, that this Covenant with Abraham^ 
 of which Circumcilion was the Seal, is the fame Covenant with that 
 which we Chriilians are now admitted into wiih God, by Chrift. . 
 Mr. Keachj I remember, difowns this ^ and contrary to what I now 
 maintain, offers this Argument, p. 47. That Covenant that wa-s made to 
 feparate the natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the Wcrld^ 
 and made fure unto them the Earthly Fromife of the Land of Canaan j could 
 not be a Covenant of Grace 'which concerns the Jnfant-Seed of Believers under 
 the Gofpel. 
 
 He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic, fhonld take fpe- 
 cial Care of his own : Here was one little, but material Word omitted 
 in this firft Propofition : It fnould have run thus. That Covenant which 
 TPos made only to feparate.^ &c. The want of that only fpoils the Confe- 
 quence. It might be made thus to feparate Abraham's Seed, and it 
 might be made to other Ends too : And fo it might be a Covenant of 
 Grace, notwithftanding God intended by it that Diftindtion of his Peo- 
 ple alio. 
 
 To prove then that the Covenant, beHdes the Promifes it contained 
 of a Land of Canaan^ and a numerous Seed, was alfo a Covenant of 
 Grace and Mercy, and Salvation in Jefiu Chrifl-., and confequentiy the 
 fame Covenant with ours : Be pleafed, 5/>, to confider, 
 
 1 . That the Covenant was made on the fame general Conditions. 
 
 2, That it contained the fame general Promifes, 3. That : 
 
[ I^^ ] 
 
 3. That both were founded on the fame G)nfideration, and had re- 
 gard to the fame Mediator Jefm ChriB. 
 
 I. That this Covenant which God made with Ahr.-iham was founded 
 on the very fame Conditions, on which that is eUablifned, which we 
 Chriflians make with God in Chrifl ^ the Sura of what the Gofpel of 
 Chrift requires, in order to the Salvation of our Souls, is only a firm 
 Faith and lincere Obedience : And if this be fo, the Agreement in this 
 refpect is very exad ^ God having required Faith and Obedience by the 
 Covenant which he made v/ith Abraham^ as ftridly, and as indifpen- 
 fably, as he has done by Chrill. 
 
 As to Faith, the Cafe is fo very plain, and fo univerfally acknow- 
 ledged oh all lides, that 1 fhall need to fay but little upon it : The Faith 
 of Abraham was fo eminently renown'd, andfo illuftrious a Pattern to 
 all fucceeding Ages, that to the everlalling Memory of it, heisdiftin- 
 guiihed by that fignal Character, the Father of the Faithful •, and all 
 Chriilians in the World are called his Children, as rve walk in the Steps 
 ofthatFaith^ Rom. 4. i2. And that this Faith was the Condition of 
 Abraham's being received into Covenant, is evident not only from the 
 Old Teftament, which fays, GeM.i'^.6. That he believed in the Lord^ 
 and it was accounted to him for Righteoufnefs ^ but alfo from the New, in 
 which St. Vaiil convinces the Jevoif) Converts, that the Works of the 
 Law v/ere not the Conditions of Juftification and Salvation ;, becaufe 
 Abraham himfelf was jnftified by Faith^ Rom .4. 2, to 1 1 . And that his 
 Pollerity v;ere bound to this general Faith, is plain in St. Fauts Vindi- 
 cation of his Orthodoxy, on the very Account of his Believing all that 
 15 written in the Law^ and in the Prof hets^ Ads 24. 14. And as Faith 
 was one part of Abraham^ Covenant, fo Obedience was another : And 
 this appears plainly by that Injunction which God gave him at the very 
 fame time that he was eftablilhing his Covenant with liim. Gen. 17. 12. , 
 The Lord appeared nnto Abraham, and faid unto him, I am the Almighty 
 God^ walk before me, and be thou ferfeH : Which Words the Jews them- 
 felves look upon to be fo much a Command of Univerfal Obedience, 
 as from thence to conclude, that in Circumcifion they all covenanted to 
 have no other God but him. [^See Bijlwp Patrick.] 
 
 2. As Abraham's Covenant is the fame with ours in its Conditions, 
 fo it is in its Promifes too. The Two great Blelfings of the Gofpel are 
 Juflification here, and eternal Life hereafter : As to the firll of thefe, 
 thzt Abrdharn wsisjajf ified by his Faith, and that confequently jultifica- 
 tion is one of the great Benefits and Blefllngs of the Covenant God made 
 with him., is fo plainly and exprefly afFerted in the Gofpel, that it is 
 needlefs to go about to prove it. ' 
 
 And 
 
Cm ] 
 
 And that eternal Life in the World to come was proniifed to Ahr^.- 
 ham and his Pofterity by Ghriit, as well as it is to us, appears from 
 hence, that the Land of Canaan has always been looked on as a 
 Type and Figure of Heaven ^ and that not only by us in thefe latter 
 Ages of the World, but is fo elteemed bySt.P^/// hirafelf, Heb.i, i. 
 And from the Account which the New Teilament gives of the Spi- 
 ritual Meaning and Defign of tne Old, when God declares to Abraham^ 
 That he -would be his God^ Gen. 17. 7. and to If aac^ Gen. 26. 3. and to 
 Jacobs Gen. 28. 13 ^ That he intended hereby to reward their Faith and 
 Obedience with the Kingdom of Heaven, is evident from the Words 
 of Chrilt ^ who from thefe Proraifes proves the Certainty of fuch a fu- 
 ture State to the Jews^ among whom it was controverted, A'fat. 11. 31, 
 32. And St. Pad tells us, that Abraham and the Patriarchs expeded 
 fuch a Recompence to be couched under thofe Temporal Promifes,. 
 Heb. II. 13. where he fays, Thefe all died in Falth^ not having actually re- 
 ceived the Promifes., that is, the Blefllngs promifed, while they were on 
 Earth •, but having feen them afar of., and rvere perfivaded of them., and em- 
 braced them., and confeffed that they were Strangers and Pilgrims on Earthy 
 anddefired., or looked for a better Comitry:, that is to fay, an heavenly. 
 And what can be a better Proof that this was a Covenant of Grace, 
 than to find the chief BlelTings of the Gofpel here promifed by God, 
 and believed and expeded by the Patriarchs, on the very Conditions of 
 the Gofpel ? But, 
 
 3. Lafily., Both thefe are founded on the fame Conlideration, ande- 
 qually have refped to the fame Mediator Jefus Chrilt. And for the Con- 
 firmation of this, we all know, that the Promifes which God made to 
 Abraham., faying, Pn thy SeedJJjall all the Nations of the Earth be blejfed:, 
 are truly and readily fulfilled only in Jefus Chrift. And as the Holy 
 Spirit of God has taught us this, fo Chrift tells us, that Abraham himfelf 
 underftood it fo : For difcourfing with the Jews., about him, he faid, 
 John 8.56. Tour Father Abraham rejoyced^ and defired to fee my Day., and 
 hefaw it, and was glad, (i. e.) he was follicitous more perfedly to under- 
 itand the Subftance of thefe Promifes, and he did underltand them to be 
 intended of me, and was delighted in the Contemplation. 
 
 But whether all that fucc ceded this Patriarch had the fame particular 
 t^ommunication of this great Myftery, is not at all to our Purpofe : 'Tis 
 fufficient that the New Teltament declares, that what BlelTings were 
 thus gracioully promifed in this Covenant with Abrahatn were with Re- 
 ference to, and for the Sake of Jefus Chrift that was to come : And this 
 St. Paul hsLS exprelly affirmed, Gal. 3. id, 17. Now to Abraham and Ins 
 Seed were the Promifes made.^ he faid mt., to Seeds as of many., hm m of One., 
 
 and 
 
. . t H 1 
 
 and to thy Seed which u Chrifl. So he goes Oil, this I fay that the Covenant 
 nhichrra^confirniedhefore of God in Chrifl^ &C. Affirming, in fhort, all 
 that I have here been proving, vIt^. that Ciraimcifion vi^asthe Seal for 
 the Confirmation of that very Covenant which God made "wilh Abraham 
 in Ghrift Four Hundred and Thirty Years before the Law was given. So 
 that Ahrahiim had not only the fame Covenant with us, but the very fame 
 Gofpel that is preached to us, was preached to Abraham alfo. Gal. 3. 8. 
 The Scripture fore-feeing that Ged would jiifiife the Heathen through Faith ^ 
 f reached before the Gofpel unto Abraham. What Gofpel was it .'' It was 
 ^-certainly the Gofpel of Chrift, through whom alone it was faid to Abra- 
 ham^ In thee jhall all the Nations of the Earth be blejfed. And it was cer- 
 tainly at theTirae when he eflablifhed that Covenant which was confirm- 
 ed of God in Chrill. And all the Seed oi Abraham that were circumcifed 
 were bound to worfnip the true God, and believe the general Promifes 
 ofaAfeJfiah ^ as we Chriftians are to believe and obey the Gofpel more 
 particularly revealed by Chrift. From hence I conclude, feeing Infants 
 at Eight Days old were circumcifed and adirwtted into this Covenant 
 with God, by his own Appointment and Command j this Command is 
 a good Authority for the Baptizing of Intants, which is but a hqw Way 
 of Adniiffion into the fame Covenant. 
 
 For white there is no Alteration of the Subilance of the Covenant, but 
 only of the external Ceremony of AdmilTion, which is the Seal of it ^ all 
 Things elfe are to continue as they were, till God fhall ordain other- 
 -vvife by a new Law : But w^ien he did change the Seal from Circumci- 
 fion to Baptifm, he did not by any exprefs Law forbid Infants to be ad- 
 mitted : Therefore by Virtue of the firil Original Inftitution when 
 God made this Covenant with Abraham by Circumcifion, and com- 
 manded Infants to be admitted, we have Autority to admit them now 
 by Baptifm. For where the Covenant, and the Capacities are the fame, 
 the Reafon alfo mufl be of the fame Force. But to this Argument I have 
 found it objeded 
 
 I. That what was done in Abraham^ Time, was in the Minority of 
 the Church, when Things were obfcurely reprefented, but now, that 
 we have clear Light, and in that refpedt are under a better Dilpenfation, 
 there is not the fame Reafon for admitting Infants, which there was 
 then. All the Force of this Objection lies in the different Degrees of 
 Revelation, that have been made to Abraham ^ and to us ^ and this 1 readi- 
 ly acknowledge for a great Truth: That which God intended in that 
 Covenant vv ith Abraham, was but obfcurely, and in general fet forth, 
 and the Particulars both of Faith and Practice, and alfo of cur Reward and 
 H;-;ppincf- are more fully and clearly brought to Light by Jefus Chrift. 
 
 When 
 
[ 15 ]- 
 
 When therefore I aiTerted, that our Covenant is the fame with that 
 made with Abraham and his Seed, I fpeak of Generals, not of Particu- 
 lars ^ and my Meaning is, that Faith and Obedience were required in 
 Abraham's Covenant , as well as they are from us. Not but that the 
 particular Articles of that Faith, and the particular Duties of that O- 
 bedience too, are now more fully difcovered, and fet in a clearer Light. 
 But 1 cannot fee how this makes any Difference, either as to the Capaci- 
 ty, or the Right of Admilfion to this Sacrament ;, becaufe Children be- 
 ing equally infenfible of both, cannot be lefs capable of the one than of 
 the other. 
 
 2. It is objeclsd, that there was an exprefs Command for the Cir- 
 curacifion of Infants, but there is none for baptizing them. To this I 
 anfvver ^ 
 
 There was not the fame Neceffity for it : There was an abfolute Ne- 
 ceflity for conmianding Infants expreHy to be circunicifed ;, becaufe 
 there was nothing Antecedent to that Inltitution, that could give Light 
 or Knowledge to direct to it. But there was no fuch Neceffity for an ex- 
 prefs Precept for Baptizing Infants ^ becaufe this might be learnt from 
 the Autority of God in the Antecedent Inftitution under Abraham j For 
 they were certainly as fit Subjeds of the one as of the other j becaufe the 
 Conditions were the fame ^ and if as fitSubjeflsof the Covenant, equal- 
 ly to be received by the Seal of it. 
 
 This I am inclined to believe was the firft Ground of Baptizing In- 
 fants among Chriftians. When the Apoftles firft began to preach the 
 Gofpel,' and efpecially to the 'Jews -^ the Subftance of their Preaching 
 was, that what God had long before declared by Abraham and the Pro- 
 phets, he had now fulfilled and accomplifiied by Jefus Chrift. From 
 whence they were to learn, that this Gofpel was no new Thing, but 
 what had been long declared, and prophefied in old Time : The 
 Covenant was the fame, the Religion was the fame, only brought into 
 a clearer Light by a more perfeil Revelation. This was the Sum of St. 
 Pff^r's Sermon, Acts 3. 18. Thofe Thwgs that Godbeforehadjhewedbythe 
 Month of all his Pro^hcts^ that Chrift flioHldfnjfer^ he hath fa fulfilled. Ar.d 
 A^ts 11.25. Te are the Children of the Prophets^ and of the Covenant which 
 God made with our Pathers^ faying unto Abraham, and in thy Seed (Jjall 
 all Nations of the Earth be blejjed. And for this Caufe St. Paul fays, Rom. 
 •15.8. That Chrift- Jefus was a Adlnifter of the Circumcifion.^ for theTruth of 
 Cod^ to cofjfirm the Promifes made unto the Fathers. And as this was the 
 common Subject of the Apoftles Preaching, fo thofe who were hereby 
 convinced, and prevailed on to believe, were immediately admitted in- 
 to the Chrilliaa Covenant by Baptifra. 
 
 G Here 
 
[ i6 1 ■ 
 
 Here i>, indeed, no exprefs mention made of Infants, becaufe there 
 was no Occalion for it : Their own Reafon and Underflanding vv'ere fnf- 
 fideat to convince them, that what God had authorized and commanded 
 from the Beginning, was a very good Example for them to imitate. 
 And confequently, that when Circumcifion was abolifned from being 
 any longer the Seal of God's Covenant, and Baptifm vv-as inftituted in its 
 Head, tliere v/as the lame Reafon for baptizing Infants, that there had 
 been for circumciling them : God's having commanded the One, was an 
 Evidence of the Lawfalnefs of the Other. And what they were fuliici- 
 ently inilrnded ia by the Autority of a Divine Precept and Command, 
 in the Old Teftamerit, was not abfolutely neceilary to be repeated in 
 the New ;, For to what piirpofe fhould there be a particular Revelation 
 todifcover that which Men might be fufficiently convinc'd of without 
 one ? And yet again, 
 
 2. The 13aptiirn of Infants is founded on God's Word, in that, tho' 
 there be no fuch Precept, or Command of baptizing, in which Infants 
 are totidcm verbis expreded ^ yet there is fuch a Precept and Command, 
 in which Infants are certainly included : And this I fhall prove thus ^ 
 
 1. From St.Peter\ Words, AEhs i. 39. Re^ent^ a^d be baptlz.eJ^ that 
 your Sins may be blotted out, for the Promife is to yoit and your Children. In 
 
 which Words Children are fairly intimated, at kail, to be entitled both 
 to the Promifes of the Covenant, and to the Sacrament that confirms it. 
 I am not ignorant, that fome laugh at this Argument, with a great deal 
 of Scorn, and Derifion, and think it ridiculous to mention it ^ becaufe 
 Men and Women are often call'd Children in Scripture ^ as the Children 
 of Ifrael are often fpoken of when Infants are not all intended, but only 
 Men of the Pofierity of Ifrael. I grant it, and yet when they have laugh- 
 ed their fill, I cannot think this Argument fo ridiculous, nor fo much 
 to be defpifed : For, tho' its true, the Word Children, if that were all, 
 might import no more than the Pofterity : Yet the Promife here fpoken 
 of, is that very Covenant into which Children, I mean Infants, were 
 conmianded to be admitted. So that if the Promife which God made 
 with Abraham^ and his Children included Infants •, this Promife made 
 to Chriflians, and their Children, will by the fame Autority, include 
 Infants alfo ^ for the Promife is ftill the fame. 
 
 2. The Precept for Baptizing is general, and does not exclude any 
 that are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chrifl^ 
 Infants are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chrift, 
 therefore the Precept does and mull include them : The firll is evident 
 from the very Words of St-Mr-tt. 28. Go make .Difcifles of all Nati- 
 ons^ and baptise them-j which being given in general, and unlimited 
 
 Terms, 
 
[ I?] 
 
 Terms, and ordained by Almighty God as one of the owiinary Means of 
 Salvation, ought to be extended to ail Perfons whatfoever, tliat are ca- 
 pable of Admiflion into the Covenant. Infants are capable of being admit- 
 ted into the Covenant, and then Infants are alfo included in this Precept 
 or Command. The Latter I have in great meafure prov'd already in my 
 Anfvirer to the Two firft Objections, i Qiall only add here, that it feems 
 ftrange to me, when fo many of your Perfwailon allow Infants to be in 
 the Covenant, and believe that they fhall be faved, which they cannot 
 be, but by the Merits of Chrill ^ that yet none of them (hould think In- 
 fants intitled to this Sacrament. For why ihould not the Covenant be 
 confirmed to all thofe, to whom the Promifes of it belong ? If indeed 
 all Infants were faid and prov'd to be in a State of Sin and inevitable 
 Damnation, this would be a real Argument againll us ^ for then, we 
 fhould be charged with confirming the Covenant to thofe to whom the 
 Promifes of it do not at all belong ? And this would be a Crime indeed. 
 But if Infants may be faved by Chriit, nothing of this can be alledged. 
 But you fay, that we baptize Infants that know nothing of it, and that 
 is almoft as bad ^ Why fo ? We only by this Seal confirm the Covenant 
 to thofe to whom God has promifed the Bleflings of it. And where is 
 the Impropriety of that ? Or why is it more abfurd to baptize thofe in 
 the Name of Chrift that know nothing at all of him, than to Redeem and 
 Save thofe by Chrift that know nothing at all of him ? 
 
 In fhort, if no good Reafon of Difference can be alledged from the 
 Nature of Things, let Men wrangle never fo long, it muft follow, that 
 if Infants are in the Covenant of Ghriil, they are alfo fit Subjeds of 
 Chriltian Baptifm ^ and if they are fit Subjects of Chriftian Baptifm, then 
 the general Precept includes them ^ and fo the Baptim. of Infants is as 
 much founded on the Autority of God's Word, as the Baptifm of Men 
 and Women. 
 
 But I am fenfible, 5/>, you will not acquiefce in this: No, Baptifm Is 
 a Sacrament^ a Fimdamajtal in Religion^ that gives Being to a Church. ^ in 
 which you muft have aCommofid^ mentioning Infants exprefy^ totidem ver- 
 bis, or it mil not do ^ Inferences and DeduBlons here are not of fnjfclent 
 Force, But by the Way j What is your Second Objedion, but a De- 
 dudion, that Infants not being capable of Faith, are not capable of 
 Baptifm ? This is unreafonable, and very hard, when you your felf 
 muft argue by Deductions and Inferences againft the Baptifm of Infants, 
 not to allow us to do fo for it , I, appeal whether this be fair. How- 
 ever, fore-feeing that this my Argument would be thus withftood, I 
 proceed to fhow, 
 
 C 2 I. That 
 
[ i8] 
 
 I . That dear and evident Eedudions from the Word of God are of 
 equal Force with the exprefs Word of it; and that in Fundamental, as 
 well as in other Principles of Religion: For, can we fuppofe, that in 
 the Manifeftation of all thofe Divine Truths, which are revealed in the 
 Gofpel, God would have us fuperfede all life of ourown Underfland- 
 ings in the Conclufions to be drawn, and the Confequences that follow 
 from fuch Doctrines ? And yet we muft do this, if the Inferences and 
 Deductions from them be not acknowledg'd of fufficient Autority to 
 determine our Judgment, and guide our Pradife. It was certainly no 
 part of God's Defign to undermine our Reafon by Revelation •, but to En- 
 lighten and Improve it ; to fupply its Defedt:s,by teaching us thofe 1 hings 
 which of our felves we were not able to find out; and to clear fome 
 Principles of Religion that to the Light of Reafon only feem'd difputable 
 and doubtful. But where that Light fliines bright, and clear of it feif, 
 it is a Divine Lamp held forth from Heaven to dired us, and its Autori- 
 ty is not to bedefpifed. 
 
 Thus for Inltance, in the Inflitution of a Sacrament, we mull exped 
 a particular Revelation. For this being no part of natural Religion, but 
 a Politive Ordinance, and depending on the fole Pleafure and Will of 
 God \ we can know nothing but what he ihall be p leafed to reveal. For 
 tho' baptizing was in ufe among the Jeros^ as a Rite in admitting Pro- 
 felytes, and by our Saviour received from them ; yet it mult be his Po- 
 iitive Decree and Command, that muit make it a Sacrament to us. Had 
 it therefore been the Autority of the Inflitiuiion it felf that had been in 
 difpute: You had argu'd well,that an exprefs Precept was to be expected. 
 But as to the Subjeds of Baptifm, or the Perfons to be baptized, the Cafe 
 is not the fame, nor is there the fame Reafon to look for a Command 
 mentioning Infants in exprefs Words : For, tho' the Sacrament be new, 
 the Covenant is ftill the fame. And therefore, we may here argue, and 
 be particularly inftruded by Parity of Reafon, viz.. that thofe who 
 were admitted to the Old Covenant may be admitted to the New ; be- 
 caufe the Conditions, and the Promifes are the fame in both. And here 
 Deductions and Inferences from God's Word are of fufficient Force to 
 decCrmiae the Argument, and ought to be received in all fuch Cafes. 
 And the chief Thing to berefpeded, is not whether the Matter be Fun- 
 damental or no \ but the Certainty of it, and the clear Evidence of its 
 Truth. A certain, and evident Truth ought to be received in Things 
 Fundamental as well as not Fundamental, let the W ay of attaining the 
 Knowledge be what it will \ whether from the Light of Reafon, or Re- 
 velation ; or Deduction, and Inferences from it. 
 
 2. But 
 
[ 19 3 
 
 2. But to make this' more plain I fhall further fhow from St. Pcter^s 
 own Example, in being determined by fuch Arguments in a Cafe e- 
 qually Fundamental, that this Autority ought to be fubmitted to in the 
 Cafe now before us. The Cafe I fhall inftance in, is, the Admiflion oi 
 the Gentiles into the Church of Chriil, and baptizing them : And there, 
 the Qijeftion once was much as it is now, ^'/;^L. about the fit Subjects of 
 Bvaptifm. For fome then did as firmly believe, that the Gentiles as pol- 
 luted and unclean, were as unfit to be admitted into the Covenant with 
 God, as others now-a-days would have Infants excluded for their In- 
 capacities. And I would beg thefe Men to obferve, what Methods the 
 Holy Gholl ufed for the Convidion of St. Veter -^ and how he direds 
 him by fuch a Train of general Infbrudions, as all along required the 
 fincere and impartial life of his Reafon in the Application of them. 
 And at laft, there was no particular Command for baptizing them \ all 
 that the Holy Gholl difcovered, amounted to no more than to Ihow 
 that the Ge-ritiles were not by Almighty God excluded from the Cove- 
 nant : From whence St. Peterh own Reafon convinced him, that there- 
 fore they were to be baptized. 
 
 St. Peter had a Villon from Heaven, wherein there appeared, Alls lo. 
 \l, A certain P^ejfel defcendin(r unto him as it had been a great Sheet h;it at 
 the four Corners^ and let down to the Earth : Wherein rrere all manner of. 
 four-footed Beafis of the Earthy and wild Beafls^ and creeping Things^ and 
 Fouls of the Air. And there came a Voice to him. Rife Peter, kill and eat. 
 And when Feterfaid, not fo, Lord^ for I have never eaten any Thing common 
 or unclean : The Voice ffakc the fee on d time^ what God hath cleanjed, that 
 call not thou com.mon. And this w>a6 done thrice, and the Vcjjcl was received 
 uf again into Heaven. Here is nothing in exprefs Words about the 
 Gentiles, nor did St. Peter ^tt apprehend that they were concerned in 
 the Vifion : For it is faid, Ver. 1 7. That Peter doubted in himfelf what the 
 Vifion which he hadfeenjhould mean. 
 
 But when the Holy Spirit gave him Warning of Three Men coming . 
 to him, and ordered hira to go along with them, doi.bting nothing, and 
 the Meflengers prefently came from Cornelius the Centurion, who was a 
 Gentile; then he underftood by Deductions of his own Reafon, that the 
 Vifion referr'd to the Gentiles, and that God had fignity'd thereby, that 
 they, notwithftanding their reputed Uncleannefs might be admitted into 
 the Church of Chrift. Ver. 31. Of a Truth I perceive that God is no Re- 
 fpe^ler of Perfons, but in every Nation he that feareth God, (5cc. Here was 
 in ail this no exprefs Command for admitting the Gentiles, but a Vifion^ 
 from which this was to be learned by way of Inference and Dedudion. 
 And St. Peter convinced by this, preached Jefm Chrisi unto them -, and 
 
 as • 
 
[lo] 
 
 as he was Preaching, the Holy G host fell on all them that heard the Word', 
 ^,nd they fpzke with Tongues^ and magnified God^ Ver. 44, 46". Here was 
 all this" while no Precept, orexprefs Command to baptize them ^ but 
 St. Peter being convinced, both by the Vifion, and by the Defcent of 
 the Holy Gholl: upon them, that the Covenant belonged to them : From 
 thence concludes by way ot Inference, that they therefore ought to be 
 Baptized. Ver- 47, 4.8. Can any Man forbid Water that thefe fjonld be 
 baptiz.edj who have received the Holy GhoB Oi well as we ? And he command- 
 ed them to be baptiz^ed in the Name of the Lord. 
 
 I hope it will not be difputed, but that the Admifllon of the Gentiles^ 
 is a very Fundamental Dodrine in Chriftianity. From this inflance 
 therefore I obfcrve, i . That the Inference from a Divine Revelation 
 had with St. Peter^ the Force and Authority of a Divine Law, as much 
 as tho' it had been faid totidem verbis^ ye fhall admit the Gentiles into the 
 Chriftian Church. And therefore it was that he told his Brethren, AHs 
 II. 17. that his not complying had been withflanding the Autority of 
 God. Forafmnch then as God gave them the fame Gift^ that he did unto m^ 
 that believed in the Lord Jefm : What was /, that I could withfiand God ? 
 1. That when we are fufficiently aOTured, that any Perfons are capable 
 of AdmilTion into the Chriftian Covenant ^ this is a fufficient Autority 
 to baptize them, without any particular exprefs Command. The Holy 
 Ghofi in this Viiion gave no Command for baptizing CorncUt-a^ but only 
 taught St. Pf-fifr, that the Ccw/Zw were not to be excluded from the 
 Covenant ^ and from thence he himfelf could fufficiently determine, 
 that it was God's Will, that they fhould be baptized. Who can forbid 
 Water that thefe ft^onld be baptiz.ed ? And to bring this home to our Cafe, 
 it is juft thus that we argue for Infant Baptifm. God has from the Be- 
 giining with Abraham taught us, that Infants are not excluded from 
 the Covenant of ChriB : And from thence we conclude as St. Peter did, 
 that thofe who are not excluded from the Covenant, are included in 
 the general Precept of admitting them by Baptifm. And how ftrange 
 is the Power of Prejudice not to be fatisfy'd with that Way and Method 
 of Conviction, which the Holy GhoB himfelf ufed to the great Apoille 
 of our Saviour. 
 
 To this I have found objeded j that there was exprefs Law for Bap- 
 tifing of the Gentiles. Matt. 18. Co teach and baptiz.e all Nations^ &:c. 
 Tothislanfv/er, 
 
 I. That tho' we, who are alllired, that it was God's Purpofe to call 
 the Gentiles^ do very well to interpret that Command for Converting 
 and Baptizing them •, yet the Apoftles before this Vifion of St. Pe- 
 ter did not apprehend this to be the Meaning of it. And a Law can 
 
 have 
 
[ ^I ] 
 
 Iiave no Force, nor be any warrant, farther than the Purpofe and Mean- 
 ing of it can be underftood. 
 
 2. The Words thernfelves did not necellarily and lite- 
 a':,.\. 7. ^^ijy imply any fuch Meaning, that t\\QGcmiles were to be 
 admitted : For, as Dr. Hammond has truly obferv'd, the Word Ih-f^ did" 
 not then in common life import the G'^ayZ/Vj, always exclufive of the ^'^eip.?^ 
 but is oft ufed for the Jcn>s^ in their [ever d Nations^ and Countries. And, 
 indeed, had that Word in common Acceptation fignify'd the .Gentiles^ I 
 do not fee how St. feter^ and the other A^ojlles could have been igno- 
 rant of that Dodrine. And it is poilible, that on this Account God 
 might think fit to make further Difcoveries of the Calling in of the Gen- 
 tiles^ the better to inllrud them what was his Purpofe, and Intention in 
 thofe former Words. 
 
 But, in fnort, what was it that moved St. Peter to baptize Cornelim ? 
 Did he do it upon the Autorityof the Precept mentioned.? Matt. 28. 
 Its plain he did not ^ He did not then fo underftand thofe Words. And^ 
 its obfervable, that in all that Affair there was not the leafl; mention 
 made of that fore-mention'd Precept, but it was the Viiion that Convin- 
 ced, and Redify'd St. Pete/s Judgmejit by the rational Inferences which 
 he was to draw from it. And I may add that what convinced him, con- 
 vinced all his Brethren too. ^[fs 11. 18. M'^hcn they heard tboje Things^ 
 they held their peace^ and glorified God^ 7^J'^{^ '-> ^^^^ hath God alfo to the 
 Gentiles ^/-^;7?f^ Repentance mito Life, And thus it ftill remains good, 
 that an Argument by Deduclion from Scripture or Revelation is fuffici- 
 cnt to convince us, who are the fit Subjedfs of Chriltian Baptifm \ and 
 by fuch an Argument we do prove, that the Baptifra of infants is found- 
 ed on the Autority of God's holy Word. 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 THE fourth and lafl Objedion is. That there is no mention 
 made of any fuch Pradice among the Apoftles, or the molt 
 Primitive Times. I mull here obferve that the State of the Quefti- 
 on is now chang'd, from Matter of Law to Matter of Fact •, and we 
 are now only to enquire what Difcoveries we can find of fuch a Pra- 
 dice in the Beginning of Chriftianity. As to this Objection thevefore I 
 anfwer, 
 
 1. That 
 
[ ^^^1 
 
 1 . That tlio' it were true, that there is no mention made in Scripture 
 of fuch aPradice, yet this would notatall prove, that there was no fuch 
 Thing in nit^ ^ and efpccially, when it is found not contrary to the Laws 
 of God. For we are no more to expeft an exprefs, clear, and diftind: 
 Account of all Apoftolical Pradlices from the New Teftament, than we 
 are to expect a perfed Hiflory of the firft Ages of the World from the Six 
 firft Chapters oiGenefis. It was fufficient for the Apoftles to acquaint us 
 with all neceilary Laws and Commands of God -^ and with the Pra- 
 ctices only occafionally as it ferved either to illuftratc or confirm thofe 
 Laws when called in Queflion. Otherwife they were in many Particulars 
 jilent. 
 
 2. I do not affirm, that it was the conftant and univerfal Practice 
 from the Beginning of the Apoftles Preaching to baptize Infants. For 
 J know very well that God did not think fit to make a compleat Efta- 
 
 bliOiment of all Things at once, but brought Things to 
 ^i«'°^/rt"' '" Perfedion by degrees. As a Reverend Bilhop hasob- 
 ^ 15. ierved to us-, there was a Time v/hen the Chriluian 
 
 Church corifiifed only of j^'^n'//?? Converts, and we know 
 5ivhen the Gentiles vv'ere full admitted : And there was a Time when Cir- 
 cumcifion was thought neceilary to be ob ferved, and it was fome Years 
 before this vv'as laid afide. So the Apoftles according to Chrifl's Com- 
 milTion, being chiefly intent on the Converfion of thofe Perfons that were 
 polluted with Infidelity and Immorality^ had not as yet taken the 
 State of Infants into their Confideration. But when afterwards many 
 Families wefe converted, their Condition came alfo to be confidered. 
 And I conjeilure, that this might firft be when Circumcifion came to be 
 rejeded. For it is very likely, that when the Jewi^) Converts who eft eem- 
 ei their Infants to be admitted into Covenant by Circumcifion found 
 the Apoftles declare, that Circumcifion was not necelTary ^ they then 
 began to ftart the Cafe of Infants, who by Circumcifion had that Privi- 
 ledge figned to them, which by the Abolition of it would feem to have 
 been loft. But this I mention only as a Conjedure which you may take 
 or leave, as you fee fit. 
 
 3. I'ho' we have no Declaration in exprefs Words, that Infants were 
 baptized in the Apoftles Times ^ yet from one Expreffion of St. Faul^ 
 fuch a Pradice may reafonably be concluded. He fpeaks fo of the hioli- 
 nefs of Children, as feems not to admit of any rational Interpretation, 
 and agi eeable to the Cafe and Context, but by fuppofing that thofe In- 
 fants v/ere admitted to Baptifm. It is i Cor.q. 14. vvherc giving his 
 Judgment concerning thofe Chriftians who were married to Unbelievers, 
 
 he 
 
he perfwades their Cohabitation in that Conjugal State, if it may be per- 
 mitted, by this Argument. For the Hnbdievelrig HMsband^^- fanElified by the 
 Wife (\. e.) Ihe being a Believer; and the imbelieving Wife is fan^Hfied 
 by the Hmband \ elfe were yom- Children imclenn^ hut new r.rc they holy. In 
 which Words the Apoflle plainly founds his Determination on this 
 known and received Opinion, that the Children of Chi-iflian Parents, and 
 fo alfo if but one Parent was Chrillian, are holy •, Elfe were yeitr Children 
 unclean^ b»t ?20W are they holy. 
 
 That Infant Children are here intended, is plain in that he fpeaks of 
 fuch whofe Holinefs depended on the Sanctification of the believing Pa- 
 rent, which mull refpect Infants only, becaufe the Holinefs of adult Per- 
 ons mull be from their own victual Faith. 
 
 . Now the Qiieftion is, what St. Pad means here by Holinefs: He 
 fpeaks of the Holinefs of fuch Children, one of whofe Parents only were 
 Chrillian, and yet of fuch Holinefs of fuch Children, as from thence to 
 prove the Lawfulnefs of the Cohabitation of fuch Parents. To this End 
 the Holinefs of fuch Children mull be evident and indifputable, or 
 otherwife the Argument would not have Force. Now, tho' the Chil- 
 dren both whofe Parents were Chriflians, may be reckoned an holy Seed 
 or OfF-fpring,by Defignation; yet it might juflly be doubted whether the 
 Children, one of whofe Parents only were Chrillian, were thus holy,when 
 the Lawfulnefs of their Cohabitation was difputed. I ask then, how it 
 fhould come to pafs, that when the Lawfulnefs of the Cohabitation of a 
 Chrillian and an Infidel was difputed \ yet it fhould remain a known and 
 indifputable Doctrine, that their Children were not unclean, but holy ? 
 For this the Apoflle aflerts. And I am perfwaded, that the only proper 
 Anfwer to this Qiiellion mufl be, That there was fome known Privilege 
 according to the Practice of the Church, at leaftof that Church at that 
 time belonging to fuch Children j by which the Churches Opinion of 
 their Holinefs, became unquellionable. Had not this been lb, St. Paul's, 
 Argument, inflead of proving what he intended by it, might rather 
 have brought the Opinion of their Holinefs into Qiieition. But that it 
 feems was fo certain, fo well known, fo unquellionable, that he might 
 fafely. ground his Argument upon it. And yet, raethinks, there was the 
 fame Reafon to difpute one as well as the other, had not fome cuftomary 
 Privilege made the Difference, and what that Privilege was, the true 
 Notion of Holinefs will difcover. 
 
 The bell Notion of Holinefs in general that I have yet met with, is 
 from the Learned and Judicious Mr. Mede^ Difc. 2. who makes it to cour 
 iiH in V\.€ligio\xsii€faration and Difcrimination from other Things ; which 
 in Oppofition thereto, ar« called Common. I would ask then bv what 
 
 D ' other 
 
C H 1 
 
 Other Means or Privilege the Infants of Chriflian Parents can be emi- 
 nently difcriminated from the Children of Infidel Parents; fo as in the 
 Language of the Church to be called Holy; but by being baptized ? In 
 this Interpretation, the Coherence and Purport of the Aporfle's Argu- 
 ment is ealie and plain, which otherwife is uninteUigible. The Chil- 
 dren of Gentile Parents are comymn and unclean^ in St. Pete/s Senfe, 
 mentioned above, yi^ts lo. 14, 15. (/. e.) not yet to be admitted to the 
 Seal of the Covenant, but the Infants of Believers are holy and maybe 
 baptized. And thus alfothe unbelieving Husband is fandified by the 
 belreving Wife, in that he who is an Unbeliever has his Child baptized 
 becaufeofthe Faith of the Mother, as much astho' both Parents were 
 Chriftian. 
 
 And this isagood Argument of the Innocence of their Cohabitation : 
 For if the Church admits the Child of an unbelieving Husband to Bap- 
 tifra, becaufe the Mother is a Believer, the Cohabitation of thofe Pa- 
 rents of whom fuch a Child is born, cannot be thought unlawful, upon 
 the Account of their Religion. Thus every Thing in the Words is In- 
 telligible and Plain , and if this be a true Interpretation, here is Proof 
 that the Baptifm of Infants was in ufe in the Apoftles Time. 
 
 But you, 5/>, have fent me fome Objedions, and another Interpreta- 
 tion of this Place : Both which fhall be confidered. I fhall begin with 
 the Objedions. 
 
 Ohjeh. I . It is objeded. That there i$ no other Holinefs here attributed to 
 the Children^ than what is afcriyd to the unbelieving Parent *, /or, a^ the 
 Children are faid to be holy^ fo it is [aid of the unbelieving Hmband^ or Wife^ 
 that he ^ oyj/j^^y fandified, or made holy ; and therefore as much ought to 
 he baptiz^ed. 
 
 Anfxv. But Where's the Force of this Conclufion ? You leem from 
 hence to infer, that there is the fame Holinefs in both : But, why fo ? 
 Are there not feveral Degrees or Kinds of Holinefs, or Religious Dif- 
 crimination ? Are not all Chrillians holy by their Profeffion ? In which 
 Senfe St. Paul calls them d'^ot^ the Saints or holy Ones by way of Diilindi- 
 on from other Men : And arc not all true Chriftians holy by a real Sandi- 
 fication of God's Spirit ? And yet thefe are not the fame. Again, Are not 
 all that minifter at the Altar, holy in a third Senfe by their OfHce ? 
 There is then an internal, and there is an external Holinefs ; there is a 
 real, adual Holinefs, confifting in Faith and Obedience, by the Sandifi- 
 cation of the Spirit ; and there is a relative Holinefs, conlifting in Se- 
 paration by Profeffion, or Privilege, or Office. Here then are diffe- 
 rent Degrees of Holinefs afcrib'd to different Perfons, according to their 
 ifivcral Circumltances. The Holinefs of the Believer is of one Kind; 
 
 that 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 that of the Unbeliever of another j that of their Children of a third : 
 And fo this Objedion can be of no Force in that its founded on this 
 grofs Miftake j That the Holinefs is the fame in all ! 
 
 Obje^ir. 2. It is objefted, That the Holinefs, or Sanctification of the 
 unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apoltle as TheCaiife of theChil- 
 drens Holinefs : Otherwife^ (i. e.) were it not that the Unbeliever v>'as 
 thus fanctified, your Children were unclean^ but novo are they holy. Confe- 
 quently, fay you, there is a Itronger Argument in this Text for bapti- 
 zing the unbelieving Parent, than the Children ^ Even (u The Cnufe 'is 
 more noble than the EJfeB. 
 
 Anfw. I anfwer ^ If it had been faid One Caufe of the Ghildrens Holi- 
 nefs it had founded better ^ becaufe the Caufe looks as tho' it were the 
 chief or only Caufe, in which Senfe the Affertion is not true : For, the 
 Logicians have juflly taught us to diftinguiih that there is a principal 
 Caufe, and a lefs principal Caufe. The Holinefs of the unbelieving Pa- 
 rent is at moll but a lefs principal Caufe of the Holinefs of the Chil- 
 dren, or a Caufe fine qua non \ otherrvife were the Children unclean^ but now 
 are they holy. And if this be St. FauCs Meaning \ yet then in this Senfe, 
 the Conclufion will fail. For, whereas it is alledged, that on this Ac- 
 count, the Words are a ftronger Argument for Bapiz^ing the unbelieving 
 Parents^ than their Children^ even as the Caufe is more noble than the Effett : 
 Here lies the Weaknefs of this Objection ^ which is, indeed, a down- 
 right Fallacy ^ for it is not the lefs principal^ but the Principal Caufe on- 
 ly that is nobler than the Effect. 'Tis one of the Maxims of Logic,that the 
 lefs principal Caufe, Semper eji deter ior effe^ufuo^ is always lefs noble than 
 the Effect. There can then be no Force in this Conclullon, unlefs Men 
 will aflert, that the Holinefs of the unbelieving Parent, is the Principal 
 Caufe of the Holinefs of the Children, which is more than St. Paid 
 ever laid. 
 
 ObjeB. 3. It isobjeded, That aFcederal Holinefs cannot be intend- 
 ed here, unlefs it be fuppofed, that the unbelieving Husband or Wife 
 is in the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Anfw. But why fo ? I Jrave already fhown, that their Holinefs is not 
 the fame •, the one thei'erore may be a Fosderal Holinefs, and the other 
 not -J and, fo this is a falfe Dedudion. 
 
 Objeft.^. Another Objedion is. That if here he meant a Foederal Holi- 
 nefs, whereby Infants are fet apart from the reft of the World, as Mem- 
 .bers of Chrift's Church, they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Sup- 
 per alfo ;, which Ordinance is no lefs a Duty, and Privilege of every 
 Member of Chrift's Church than Baptifm. And therefore fays Mr. A — 
 It is wfll known that among the Ancients^ Infahts were for a time admitted 
 
 ^ D 2 to 
 
[ a6 ] 
 
 to this Sacrament^ m well a^ to the for77ter : Bat feeing 7wne novo to the Laf 
 tcr^ why to the Tormcr ? 
 
 He who makes tliis Objedion, has furnifn'd me with an Anfwer to 
 it, and fays, That Self-ex amination is urge A 04 a Bar in this. 
 
 But if this be all, I fhall not thank him for the Invention. There is 
 another, and lam peifvvaded, a better Argument drawn from the dif- 
 ferent >s'ature and Deiign of thefe Tvvo Sacraments. For Baptiiltn is a 
 Sacrament of Initiation^ the other of Confirmation. And, tho'God 
 may, and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant ^ 
 yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Suppolition of our 
 Frailty ;, who, more or lefs, do all tranfgrei's the Conditions of our 
 Baptifmal Vow, and impair our Hope. The Lord's Supper therefore 
 was intended, the itronger to oblige Men to actual Faith and Repen- 
 tance, after the Violation of their firfl Vow, and to adminifter Cora- 
 fort in our Penitential Sorrows, ia the Commemoration of our Savi- 
 our's PafTion. 
 
 This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always fuppofes 
 aftual Faith and Repentance, which Baptifm does not. Adual Faith and 
 Repentance are not univerfally necellary to Baptifm, as I have proved 
 above, but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before. For he that has 
 never finn'd, has nothing to repent of. And the Innocence of the Per- 
 fon then is a fufficient Qiialification for Baptifm, whei'e there is a ra- 
 tional Hope, that he fhall afterwards believe and obey the Gofpel. 
 But the Lord's Supper, which was defign'd for the Renewing, and Con- 
 firmation of our Vow, fuppofes both that Vow to have been broken, 
 and that Breach to have been repented of. 
 
 There is not therefore the fame Reafon for admitting Infants to the. 
 Loi'd's Supper as to Baptifm ^ becaufe the different Nature and End of 
 each Sacrament ihows the One to be proper, and the other not. For 
 which Caufe that Cuftom is now left off. 
 
 I think then Mr.>4— 's Objeftions againit my Interpretation of 
 this Text appear to have very little or no Force. 1 delire now 
 that my Reafons againfl; his Interpretation ^of the Place may be 
 as fairly confidered, and as impartial, a Judgment pafs'd upon 
 them : Which is moll agreeable to the Context, and the Force 
 of the Apoftle's Argument and Defign. His Interpretation is this ^ 
 The Scope of the ^poftlc determines the San^ification or Hohnefs of the un- 
 believing Hmhand or Wife to he ?io other than Matrimonial Holinefs^ 
 or Chajtity ^ in Oppofition to Vncleannef^ or Fornication^ (in which Senfeitr- 
 ts takcn^ I Their. 4. 3, 4, 7. and confeqacntly by the Holinefs of the Chil- 
 dren flowing from it ^ we may imderfiand rio other than Legitimacy^ in which 
 
 Senfe 
 
[ ^7 3 
 
 Senfe -eve read of a godly or holy Seed, Mai. 2. i 5. So that St. Paul here brings 
 Two Ar(Tuments to f rove the Aiarriage to he good. i. BecaufetheVnhe- 
 liever {ky\a.^i) hath been fanHijied^ not hy^ hit to, or unto the Believer by 
 being joyned in holy Matrimony ^ and conjecjuently a Divorce wo/dd be con- 
 trary to the Lavo ofChrifi.^ imlefs for the Caitfe of Fornication. 2. (Abab- 
 furdo) from the Abfm-dity that would follow pioidd they feparate upon the 
 Account of Religion, thereby difowning their Marriage, and confequemly ba- 
 fiardiz^ing- their Children', which the Apofle, /''PP^fi'^g them unwilling to do, 
 advifes them to continue with their unbelieving Hpuband or Wife, nstwith- 
 fianding- their Differences in Religion. Thm this Text Mr. A — fays is ex^ 
 pounded by Melancthon, Camerarius, andMvi^cxAws, who alfo cites St. Je- 
 rome and Ambrofe for it j acknowledging, that he had formerly abufed it 
 againH- the Anabaptifis. So that it feems in this, we mull confider both 
 the Interpretation, and the Autorities produced to confirm it. As to . 
 the Argument I have thefe Things to offer : 
 
 I. That fuch a Senfe is put upon thefe Words, as fome of them are 
 never found to have in all the Holy Scripture. For, tho' it is true, that 
 Holinefs is fometimes ufed for Chnflity, and particularly, i Theff. j. 3, . 
 4, 7. in Oppofition to Fornication ;, yet Vndeannefs is never taken for 
 Jileaitimacy or Baftardy in a litteral Senfe, as it is here rendred by 
 ^\y. A—. As to what is alleged concerning a godly or holy Seed, Mai. 
 2. 15. which Mr.A—hy the Autority of Calvin, and other Learned 
 Interpreters, wouldunderftand tobeLf^/V/w2/«9'^ let thofe learned In- 
 terpreters be who they will ; it is very plain, that they mufl take Le- 
 gitimacy there not in a Litteral Senfe, but Figurative, according to the 
 ufual Language of the Piiophets, who often exprefs Idolatry by Whore- 
 dom and Fornication, and call the Revolting into it the Marrying aftrange 
 God ', and going a whoring after Idolsy Ezek. 6. 9. St. Jerome and 
 and the Chaldee Paraphrafe by the holy Seed, underfland the Pollerity 
 of Ahraha.n in Oppofition to the Gentiles ^ and the former fays. The 
 Prophets Purpofe here was to reprove the Jews for Marrying Wives of 
 the Idolatrous Nations, and he grounds this Interpretation on Ez,ra 9. 2. 
 And if this be good, the holy Seed is the People under Covenant with 
 God in Diflinclion from the Gentiles. 
 
 And therefore I lay again, that tho' Uncleannefs is ufed in the New 
 Teftament for Fornication and Senfuality •, yet not once for Baftardy^ 
 nor Holinefs for Legitimacy. But, I think, 1 may fay, that whenever 
 thefe Words are ufed, and efpecially when they are let in Oppofition 
 one to another ; Uncleannefs denotes fomething of the vile Pollutions 
 that were common among the Idolatrous Heathens ; and Holinefs, when 
 attributed to Perfons, always includes fomething of Diltindion and 
 
 Dif- 
 
[a8] 
 
 Difcrimination from the Heathens, either by way of Perfonal Excel- 
 lence, or of Privilege. And therefore, 
 
 2. It is eafie to fhew, that as thefe Words are not ufed for Bafiardy 
 and Legitimacy in any other place of the New Teltament, fo that they 
 cannot have any fuch Signification here. Mr. A — fays. That St. Paul 
 here freaks of Matrimonial Chafiity in Oppo/ition to Fornication ^ and that 
 ■his Deftgn was tojliew^ that the Aiarriage woi good notwithfianding their Dif- 
 ference in Religion ^ and that they were therefoYe under no Obligation ^o fe- 
 parate on that ylcconnt ^ which feems plainly to be one of the Scruples about 
 which the Apoftle wrote. The Chriftians, indeed, had Scruples about 
 their Cohabitation with Infidels •, But how does it appear that the Scru- 
 ple was, that after their Converfion toChriftianity, their Marriage was 
 no longer W/^ or good ? How does this appear? Their Scruple was, I 
 confefs, whether or no they were to feparate on Account of their Dif- 
 ference in Religion : But the Ground of that Scruple was not any Fear 
 that their Marriage-Contrail was invalid^ and their Cohabitation to be deemed 
 Fornication ^ but a Tendernefs upon Account of the Unbelievers being 
 .an Infidel and Idolater^ left by fo near an Alliance to fuch an one, they 
 fliould feem either to run into Danger, or to partake of the Pollution 
 and Guilt of Idolatry and Unbelief: This is agreeable to the Appre- 
 henfions which we find that the Primitive Chriftians had. An Inllance 
 of which Jnftin Martyr gives an Account of: Of a Woman, who upon 
 -her Converfion to Chriftianity finding that fhe could not reclaim her 
 Husband from the abominable Lewdnefs of his Heathen Life, would be 
 divorced from him, and tho' at the Importunity of her Friends, Ihe 
 continued with him fomewhat longer j yet finding he grew worfe, 
 
 ovmi y-n koivcovU tuv a.J)imyLATcov ;^ ct<r0iiiJ.circov yivHTAi y.ivv'm \v t« a-v^vyicty &C. 
 lejl jJieJhould be Partaker of his Iniquities and Impieties by cohabiting with 
 him J and being Partner with his Table and Bed^ jlje gave him a Bill of Di" 
 vorce, )^ ixio^'KrQftj and was parted from him. This remarkable Inllance 
 Ihews what the Apprehenfions of the Primitive Chriftians, as to this 
 Matter were, and gives no fmall Light to the Debate now in 
 hand. 
 
 And that fuch as this was, in Truth, the Cafe upon which St. Paul 
 there treats, is farther evident from the Coherence of the Text with 
 what goes before. 
 
 The Qiieftions upon which St. Paul wrote were feveral : Firft, Whe- 
 ther Chiiltians fliould then Marry, which he rather difTuades as that 
 which would more engage them in the Aflairs of the World, and make 
 them lefs willing to fuffer Perfecution. This he mentions both in the 
 Ee^inning and End of the Chapter ^. but then with this Reftridion, that 
 
 they 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 they fhould rather marry, than be fubjea to impulfes of bnrmtjg Lufts^ 
 Ver. 9. 
 
 Next to the Married, he declares, that they are bound by the Law 
 of God, not to feparate, if they can avoid it. To the Married J com- 
 mand^ yet not /, but the Lordj Let not, &C. F'er. 10, 11. Then comes the 
 Cafe now in hand concerning thofe who were Married, but not both 
 Parties as yet converted to Chriflianity ^ and among them it was a Que- 
 ftion whether their Difference in Religion was a juflCaufeof Separati- 
 on. Now, i fay, had the Ground of this Sa*uple been an Opinion, or 
 Fear, that their Continuance in that married State had been equal to 
 Fornication or Uncleannefs : St- PW who knew very well that their 
 Difference in Religion made no fuch Alteration in the Cafe, would ne- 
 ver have ufher'd in his Determination with, thwfieak /, not the Lord^ but 
 thus, not /, bnt the Lord, as F. i o. It is not credible, or morally poffible, 
 that He, who was immediately influenced by the Holy Ghoft in the 
 Execution of his ApoHolic OiEce, fhould only give his Conjedural 
 Judgment, or meerly Prudential Determination, in a Quelbion: In which 
 both he and they were afore determined by the exprefs Law, and Infti- 
 tution of God -^ and in which he knew himfelf to be fo determined. To 
 the Married command I^ and yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the Wife de- 
 fart from her Husband^ Ver. i o, Efpecially, if the Confequence of their 
 Separation would prove fo pernicious, as to Baftardize their Children, 
 (as Mr.u4 - fuppofes :) He was the more oblig'd to determine them by 
 the Autority of God's Inftitution, or Law. It is, I fay, incredible, that 
 he (hould ufher in the Determination of fo important a Queftion, only 
 by a Conjeilural Order, that could not determine their Confcience : 
 For, feeing it was but St. Pad's Order, and not God's Command, it 
 could not determine the Good or Evil of the Thing. Had therefore the 
 Qiieltion been, what Mr. ^ — fuppofes it, St. Paid muft have determi- 
 ned it by God's Autority, and not by his own only ^ fo that the very 
 Manner of the ExprefTion plainly proves, that the Queftion was only 
 about the Danger of Cohabiting with an Infidel, and an Idolater : And 
 if this be the Cafe, Mr. ^ — 's Interpretation of HoUnefs by Legitimacy 
 cannot be good. For Divorce in this Cafe can never baftardize the Chil- 
 dren, that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage- 
 Contrad. And fo far is St. Paid from afferting what Mr. A— affirms, 
 that Divorce wodd be unlawful^ that he, if the Unbeliever will not cohabit^ 
 leaves the Chriftian at liberty to fefarate ^ which he would rather have 
 diffuaded, if a Separation had been againft the Law of Chrift, and 
 made their Children Baftards. 
 
 As 
 
1 30 1 
 
 Asto the Autority offome Commentators, MeUn^lhon^ Camerariaij 
 and Mufcuipu^ who are al^edged to Countenance this Conflrudion^ 
 What does it fignifie, when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the 
 life of the Phrafe, and the Coherence of the Place ? And that it does fo, 
 will be more plain, if we obferve, 
 
 3. That Mr. A—h Interpretation deftroys the Force of St. PWs 
 Argument, which our Notion of Holinefs cofirms. I\Ir. A — fays, 
 •St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments : Firfb, Becaufe 
 the Unbeliever nyU/l-n^ hath been fanhified to^ or unto the Believer (/. f .) 
 joyned in holy Matrimony. If he means that, becaufe Matrimony is an 
 holy State, therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithftanding 
 the one Party is not Chriilian, I can go along with him : But when he 
 makes St. Tml to argue, Secondly, Ah abfiirdo^ that if their Marriage 
 and Cohabitation he lawful^ therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law 
 ofChrifi^ and hafiardiz^es their Children : Here I doubt he perverts St.PauFs 
 Senfe in many refpeds j for, as I have hinted above. 
 
 1 . St. Paul does not fay in this Cafe, that a Seperation would he contrary 
 to the Law of Christ. So far from it, that he does not determine it by 
 God's Law, bijt by his own Opinion, F. 1 2. But to the reft fpeak /, but 
 not the Lord J If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not^ &c. 
 
 2. He is fo far from declaring their Seperation to be a Sin, and fueh 
 a Sin 04 Baftardiz.es the Children, that he only gives his Advice in cafe 
 both Parties agree to Cohabit. Jfflje be f leafed to dwell with him, V. 12. 
 and if he he pleafed to dwell with her, let her not leave him, V. 13. But if 
 they difagree about Religion, they may part. If the Unbelieving depart, 
 let him depart. A Brother or Sifter is not in Bondage in fuch Cafes y V. 15. 
 
 .3. As 1 have prov'd, that the Queftion was not about the Validity of 
 Marriage, but of the Lawfulnefs and Expedience of their Cohabitation : 
 So Mr. A—\ Lsgitimacy puts fuch a Confequence on St. Paulh Alferti- 
 on, as does by no means follow ; for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage 
 that Baftardizes the Children, but Divorce alone does not. 
 
 In a Word, Mr. ./^— 's Senle of St. P^^;/'s Words makes St. Paul to 
 contradict himfelf •, for it makes him to declare fuch a Seperation con- 
 trary to God's Law, and injurious to the Children, in the 14th Verfe, 
 which it is plain, that in the 1 5 th he confents to -, and which in the 12th 
 .he fays, he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws, but only 
 by his own Autority. 
 
 But taking the Holinefs of Children in our Senfe, for admitting them 
 to Baptifm, it make:3 the Apoltle s Argufneat llrong and clear : For tlic 
 Holinefs of Children born in fuch a State, is a very good Proot^ that 
 their Cohabitation v*'as Lawful and Innocent. 'Lis as much as if St. Pad 
 
 had 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 had faid ; As to the Cafe of thofe married to Vnhlievers^ the PraEhice of 
 the Church in the Adrtiilfion of the Children offuch to Ba^tifm^ as well as the 
 Children of thofe Parents who are both Chrifiians fl)ow what our Opinion is of 
 their Cohabitation : The ZJ'nbelievcr is SanHrified in this refpeB by the Believer \ 
 elfe were the Children offnch common and unclean^ like the Children of Infidels -^ 
 bat now are they holy^ or in Aialachis Phrafe, an holy Seed^ and admitted 
 into the Covenant of God in Chrift by Baptifm ^ as well as the Children 
 of thofe Parents who are both Believers. 
 
 I profefs with Sincerity, that I cannot find out any other Senfe of the 
 Place that will agree with the Apoftle's Scope and Delign. And when it 
 thus appears, that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Telti- 
 mony of this Place, their Objedions are of no Force, nor can any other 
 Conitrudion be devifed, that will well agree with the Scripture-Phrafe, 
 and be confident with the Scope and Defign of St. Paids Determination 
 in this Cafe: Methinks it adds very great Autorityto my Argument, 
 makes the Force of it much more coniiderable •, and mull be admitted 
 as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Panfs, Time. 
 
 But the Thing now in Debate, being whether it was the Apoilles Pra- 
 dice to baptize Infants : I think it will be very proper to Ihovv what 
 early Difcoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Fathers. 
 For let iMen that are Confcious of the Teftimony of Antiquity againft 
 them never fo much decry the Autority of the Fathers, and the Primitive 
 Church ^ and tell us, that the Myftery of Inicjuity began to work in it very 
 early j nothing of that fhould derogate from their juft Efteem. The My- 
 ftery of Iniquity began to work in St. jP^/.'/'s Time, and yet, I hope, that 
 does not lelTen his Autority. So neither do all the Hereiies, and Hsetero- 
 dox Opinions of the firll Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers, 
 in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church j 
 and were oppofed by the Fathers, with that Vigor, Conftancy, and Zeal j 
 which makes their Teftimony, both in Dodrines and Pradice, highly 
 te be valued. 
 
 For this Reafon, I fay, it is remarkable how early we find plain, and 
 undeniable Evidence of the Baptifm of Infants. From the Death of 
 St. John for fome Years we have no Chriftian Writings extant, except a 
 few fhort Epiftles. In which we can no more exped a particular Account 
 of all Apoftolical Pradices ^ than, as I faid before, we can hope for a 
 particular Hiftory of the firll Ages of the World in the firft Five Chap- 
 ters of Genefis, 
 
 But one of the firft of the Fathers that wrote in any confiderable Bulk, 
 was IreriAHi^ and his Evidence is very exprefs in this Cafe : For he has 
 thefe Words , Omnesenim venit (viz. Chrifim ) per fcmet ipfitmjalvare : Om- 
 
 E nes^ 
 
7ies inqHrim^ c[iii fer eum renafciintur in Deum^ Infantes^ & Parvuks^ & 
 Vueros &Jiivenes^ & Seniores. Ideo f,cr 07nnem -ue^ht Atatem^ & Infar.ti- 
 hm faUus Infans^ j'anBificann hifames^ in Varvulis VArvidm^ Sr.nd:ific uns 
 banc iffam hahentes ^^tatemy Adv. Hser. lib. 2. C. 39. The Delign of the 
 Father in this Place, was to lay open the Fantaftic Conceits of the Fa- 
 Icntinians^ who pretended that their ^y^ons were prefigured by the Years 
 of Chrifb's Life before his Baptifm ^ and that what they dreamt of the 
 Pallion of the Twelfth z^on^ was fignified by Chrifl's Suffering the 
 Twelfth Month •, to fupport which Notion, they aHerted that Chrift 
 Preached but one Year after his Baptifm. _ . 
 
 Thefe were the Heretic's Fantallic Dreams ^ to confute whicH, hcmtm 
 firft fliows that Chrifl was at Jerufdem Three feveral PairoverS" after his 
 Baptifm ^ and confeque.itly mufl have Preach'd above one Year, in that 
 he begun it upon his Baptifni, and continued it to his Death. 
 
 Then he Ihows, that Chrift pafled thro' the feveral Stages of Humane 
 Life \ Omnem Matemfan^ificans per ilUm qnx ad if [am erat JimilitHdinemy 
 that he might 'fanBifie every Age by his own Likenefs thereto : For^ fays he, 
 he came to fave all by himfelf-^ all I mear} that are regenerated by him to 
 God ; Infants^ Little Ones^ Children^ Toitng Mcn^ and Old. For this Rea- 
 fan he faRd thro' every Age^ and to the Fnfants he became an Infant^ fan- 
 Hif\ln<r the Infant i ^ and to the Little Ones^ a Little One that he might fan^ 
 B-ifie ttofe of that Age. Which Words were purpofely deiigued to de- 
 clare, that the Salvation purchafed by Chrift belongs to all Ages or 
 Years whatever, whether Infants or Old Men, who are Members of 
 Chrift's Church. Omnes qui per cnm renafcuntitr in Deum *, all that are 
 Reaenerate^ or born again to Cod by him : Which is the. 
 Tin 3. 5. seejufi. very Expreflion that St. Paul, and the Ancients after 
 iik:Af'^' ^' '*■ bim, ufe for Baptifm. And it appears here to be add- 
 ed, to put a Limitation to the Aflertion , that what he 
 fays he means peculiarly of Chriftians, that have been by Baptifm ad- 
 mitted into the Covenant. All that are born again unto God by him ^ In- 
 fants, Babes^ Children^ &c. nor are Infants capable of being born again 
 unto God by Chrift, any other way, that I know of, but by Baptifm. 
 
 So that I do not fee how it can be evaded, but that this (ingle Evi- 
 dence muft be acknowledg'd a fufficient Proof, that the baptizing In- 
 fants was a Thing in Practice when Frenxpu wrote this Book : For other- 
 wife this Alfertion could be neither pertinent, nor proper. 
 
 It -may not therefore be amifs to fnow how early this was, and how 
 very improbable it is, that fucha Cuftom fhould fo foon prevail ^ un- 
 Icfs it had been received by a certain Tradition from the Apoftles 
 
 them- 
 
C 33 ] 
 
 themfelves. Irenms wrote this Book about X D. CLXXX, 
 which was but about Fourfcore Years from the Death of f^\j^ll''J^f^ 
 St. Joh?7, who died iii the Third Year oiTrajan (i. e.) about pfi; 2. \. if' 
 A. T>. 100. And Irenizm was fo far Cotemporary with Fo- 
 l^arp^ who was a Difciple of the Afofiles^ and conversd with ^''^"- ^- 3- '^- 3- 
 ma^jy of thofe who hadfcen Chrift^ and by them was mad.e Bl- 
 jk^o/ Smyrna, in Afia : That he fays, he had feen him, h t« -arf^'rii 
 if^ \]KiKici.y when he himfelf was hut a yoimg Man. He mult write this 
 Book tlien in the very next Age after oiiC that had been Contempo- 
 rary v/lih the Apoflles. And this I think is very early. 
 
 It can hardly be fuppofed that any corrupt Pradice fhould be intro- 
 duced, bl^ Folycarp j who was Jnfiii:Bed by the Apojiles, and taught 
 what he had Learnt oj the Apojfles^ and what the Church 
 had delivered to him^ and what alone was true^ as Ire- ^'^- 3- ^^P- 3- 
 nxHs fpeaks of him : Would zealoufly have oppofed it, 
 and have had Autority torejedlit. There is no Probability that any 
 great Innovation fnould be introduc'd while a Cotemporary and Difci- 
 ple of the Apoflles was yet alive. 1 here is then" only from the Death 
 of Folycarp to Irenmis'-, writing this Book, for the introducing this 
 Pradice, if it was introduced. And that, at molt, is but about Thirty 
 Two, or Thirty Three Years. For Bifhop Fearfon^ who 
 places the Martyrdom of Folycarp earlier than other Men, g^ffj c.lo!""''* 
 aflerts, that it was A. D. CXLVII. And can it be thought 
 that any great Innovation fhould be made in h-en<zm\ own Time, and he 
 either not knov^ it, or not reprove it ? Can thofe who think the baptizing 
 Infants fucha Corruption^ fuch a Violation ofChriJi's Infiitiition as^ they con- 
 ceit, to defiroy the true Being of a Church ^ to deprive theMiniflers of God of all 
 jn ft Power of Miniflrirg in holy Things., and to make Communion with m^ in our 
 Sacraments^ unlawful : Can they,I fay,imagine that thofe Fathers whofe Glo- 
 ry it was to do all Things according to the Fnfiru^iions of the Apoflles ^ 
 fliould fufFer fuch an heinous Innovation to come in among them, and be 
 received ^ and never make any Complaint, nor any Oppofition to it ? 
 Would not Folycarp^Vi\iO was JnflruHed of the Apoflles themfelves^ have op- 
 pofed it, had it been in his Time ? And would wot Iren^sm^ wjio fays, that 
 only thoje Things are true^ which the Church from the Apoftles delivered ^ 
 would not he, I fay, zealoufly have oppos'd it, had it been in his Time t 
 When therefore we find him fpeaking of it as a known Pradice, I ap- 
 peal to all impartial Men, whether it is not Rational to believe that the 
 Fathers, and the Primitive Church receiv'd it from the Apoflles them- 
 felves. 
 
 ■ ^ 
 
 ♦ You 
 
You ought thea, 5/r, to be very tenderin Charging all Chriftians 
 from the Apoftles Times for Fifteen Hundred Years together j withmt 
 bein^ a lawful Churchy nor fich^ with whom one may Lavpfitlly hold CommHnion 
 in the Sacraments. This fnould not be done without very good Proqf. 
 Other Errors and Corruptions that have been found fault with, and 
 wanted Reformation ; we know when, and how they vvere introduced. 
 And before this is fo Pofitively affirmed to be a corrupt Innovation, (Mu 
 ought to (how us, about what Time, and by what Means it came il 
 prevail \ rather than decry the Autority of the Fathers that bear Wit- 
 nefs to this as an Apollolical Pradice. ^ 
 
 I might confirm this from the Teftimony of others, and parj^iilarly of 
 Tertiillian in the next Place ^ who altho' he feems not, I contSTs, to ap- 
 prove it, as he was in many Things particular in his Judgment ^ yet 
 even in his Diflike he undeniably attefts that it was then in life. But 
 the Teftimony of Antiquity has been fufficiently infifted on by others. 
 I fliall therefore add no more, but leave it to your felf to confider, and 
 to the World to judge j whether your feparating from our Commu- 
 nion upon the Account of a Praftice fo agreeable to Chrift's Inftitu- 
 tion, and the Ancient Ufage of the Church,^ be not more owing to the 
 Prejudice of Education, than to the Force of Reafon, or the juft Merits 
 oftheCaufe. lam 
 
 Sir, your Humble Servant, 
 
 FIN I S. 
 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAg. 2. 1. 30. read enjoys, p. 6. 1. 19. v. Capacity. I. 34. Aelefirft. p. 13. 1. 28. 
 V. really, p. 15. 1. 1. r. ^j(|erf. t^. 16. \. 26. v. ar aU. p. 17. 1. iij. dele ? p. 24. 
 1. 10. after IVifCj add, (/. e.) the SanBimony of the Conjugal State is attefled. 
 
 A ;D V E R T I S E M E N T. 
 
 A Discourse of Fornication: Shewing the Greatnefs of 
 that Sin •, and Examining the Excufes pleaded for it from the Ex- 
 amples of Ancient Times. To which is added, an Appiendix, concern- 
 ing Conc^ihinage\ As alfo a Remark on Mr. Bittler\ Explication of Heb, 
 1 3. 4. in his late Book on that Subjed. By John Turner .^ M. A, Printed 
 for John Wyat., at the Rofe.^ in St. ?ml\ ChuiWi-yard. 
 

 
 
 ". ace 
 
 CccuC 
 
 CMC ' 
 
 ccae 
 
 '.( c< 
 
 
 t|^' 
 
 ..•CQLC. Cc 
 
 JKCcV 
 CC oc^ 
 
 CCCCC 
 
 ccg:c 1 
 :ca:c c 
 
 c 1 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 A'- 
 
 CC 
 
 m.^ 
 
 CL.(C 
 CCC 
 
 IT' 
 
 CI"