Skip to main content

Full text of "Anti-Paedo-Rantism defended : a reply to Mr. Samuel Finley's Vindication of the charitable plea for the speechless .."

See other formats 


I 


h 


' 

5^ 

nj 

1 

^ 

CL 

•J5r 

5 

^w 

•^ 

Ic 

« 

Q. 
0) 

J5 

tr      ^ 

15 

CL 

tj 

*g.      ^ 

O 

to 

5 

>■  J         „ 

0) 

^       s 

c 

<-*              o 

Csl) 

»i«             O 

<t 

©       w 

~aj 

!-  ' 

o 

3 

c 

o           15 

05 

^              H 

-^       Pi 

CO 

■|, 

2 

'S^ 

cq 

O 

>1 

5 

% 

Coll. 

% 

I/) 

2> 

« 

"ZCa 

6 

f\- 


^^ 


<^ 


C^fi^y^r  ^e^  ^ 


Anti-Pa^ ciG'JRantifm  Defe?2ded: 

R    E    P    L    Y 

Mr.   SAMUEL    FINLEY\ 

Vindication  of  the  Charitable  Plea 
for  the   SPEECHLESS. 

WHEREIN 

His  Repeated  Objections  againft  the  Baptism 
of  Believers  only,  and  the  Mode  of  it  by 
IMMERSION,  are  again  Examined  and 
Refuted. 


By     A*B  E  L  ^  M  O  R  G  A  N, 

At  Middletown,    in  Eafi-Jerjey. 

And  he  /aid  unto  ihefn.  Go  ye  into  all  the  World,  and  preach 
the  Gojpel  to  enjery  Creature.  He  that  helienjeih,  and  is  bap- 
tized, ^all  be  fanned.     Mark  xvi.    15,    16. 

Zuffer  me  a  Utile,  and  I  nvill  Jheiv  thee,  that  I  have  yet  ta 
/peak  on  God's  Behalf.     Job  xxxvi.  2. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

Printed  by   B.  Franklin,    and  D.  KalLj" 
in  Markit-Jtrest,     Mdcgl. 


It  . 


[     i"     ] 


t    H    E 


PREFACE. 


1^^^^^^^^^  HB  Piece  which  occafioned  the  followiffg 
Wr^^i.  A  %^Wm  Remarksy  gives  itfelf  out  in  Name,  to  be 
A  particular  Coniideration  and  Refu- 
tation of  the  Objediions  made  againfl 
Infant  Baptifm:  Let  theReader^  after  his 
Perufal  of  this  Reply,  judge  for  himfelf^ 
if  it  has  not  quite  failed  in  the  Under- 
taking, and  tvas  not  at  all  able  to  perform  what  it  freely 
prom  fed. 

Mr.  Finley  begins  his  Preface  hy  faying,  **  It  is  with 
Relu6l:3nce  that  he  is  again  innmerfed  in  this  watery  Con- 
troverfy,"  So  then,  after  all  his  RefieSiions  on  the  Ana- 
baptists, he  is  at  length,  tho'  with  Unwillingnefs,  become 
the  Anabaptift  in  this  Controverfy  ;  and,  for  my  Part,  he 
is  welcome  to  enjoy  all  the  Benefits  he  thinks  do  belong  to  the 
Name.  But  why  dipped  again  in  this  Controverfy  ?  "Tis 
like  he,  and  Mr.  *  Flavell  before  him,  do  imagine  this 
Phraje  beautifies  their  IntroduSiion  \  tho'  others  think  it  is 
Jpoken  ifi  Reference  to  Dipping  (the  fcriptural  Mode  of 
Baptifm)  by  way  of  Derifion:  Iffo,  it  cannot  add  any 
great  Lujire  to  their  Entrance^ 
to  divert  the  Readers. 

'    A   2 
*  Vindlclarum  Vindc^i^ 


tho  it  may  ferve  perhaps 
'Tii 


[     iv     ] 

"Us  no  great  Matter  in  which  of  the  folhwing  Ch[fes 
he  ranks  us  ;  whether  among  the  Slothful,  who  defpond  of 
ever  finding  Truth,  hecavfe  it  lies  deep  ;  or  the  Deceived, 
who  imagine  thiy  have  jound  it  on  the  Surface  ;  or  the  Per- 
verted, who  having  once  made  a  confident  Profejfion  of  Er- 
ror, guard  againji  Convi£iion,  and  offcti  InfaUihiliiy.  —  - 
Since  it  appears  that  Believers  Baptijm  is  a  divine  Truths 
found  in  holy  Scripture,  held  by  us  without  Wavering,  and 
not  to  be  furrenderd  to  any,  Tjohat  Name  foever  they  bear  ; 
whilji  he  is  bvftly  employed  in  fe eking  for  Infant  Sprinklings 
hut  cannot  find' it  to  be  the  Truth  of  God,  neither  in  thd 
Deep,  nor  on  the  Surface  \  and,  iy  this  time,  *■'  He  may 
well  be  ready  to  conclude,  agreeable  to  common  Senfe, 
that  it  is  to  be  found  no  wheie  in  Scripture,  tho',  being 
perverted  by  it,  and  having  made  a  confident  Profeflioii 
of  it,  the  Bent  of  his  Heart,  it  fcems,  m:ikes  him  ftand 
on  his  Guard  sgainfl  Conviction,  afFedting,  as  it  were, 
Infallibilitv  and  Unchangeablenefl." 

He  prejumesit  xvill appear  his  Charitable  Plea  is  not  re- 
futed: Let  other  s  judge,  when  they  have  read  the  following 
Pages,  if  that,  ar.d  his  V\nd\czi\ou  both,  be  not  f'fftcient- 
ly  anfwerd. 

Jphen  he  pretended  to  inform  his  Readers  how  Icr.g  I  was 
about  the  former  Treatife,  lefl  they  fl.ould  be  at  a  Lofs  to 
know  %vhy  his  Vindication  took  up  jo  jnuch  Time,  as  from 
OiSlober,  1747,  to  the  Spring  in  1749,  before  they  could 
get  Sight  of  it  ',  he  is  pleafed  to  itfortn  them,  that  he  was 
interrupted  by  his  Employ,  which  otherwife  is  abundant ;  as 
if  no  Body  elje  met  loiih  any  Evocations  but  himfelf,  tho' 
every  One  is  not  for  making  a  plaufible  Colour,  to  glofs  the 
P^ealify  of  Things  from  publick  Notice. 

With  a  Defgn  to  make  good  his  Charge,  'that  we  were 
the  Aggreffors  in  this  Controverfy,  he  fays,  I  introduced  it 
at  FhiJadclphia,  atid  refers  me  to  the  Baptifts  and  ethers 
there  for  Proof;  and  "  appeals  alfo  to  the  People  at 
Cape- May,  who  he  believes  can  ttflify,  that  fonie  Ana- 
baptiji  Minifters,  with  feme  of  their  unlearned  Candi- 
dates, introduced  the  Controverfy  there."  Reply.  What 
I  fa  id  at  Philadelphia,  was  no  more  than  what  was  done 
on  both  Sidesy  "  who  all  along,  more  or  ki^^  pleaded  for 

their 


[      V      ] 

their  Principles  and  Fradices,  as  Occafion  required." 
The  Account  from  Cape- May  turns  out  againji  him  :  In  a 
Letter  from  thence,  figned  in  Behalf  of  the  Churchy  there 
are  thefe  Words:  *'  In  the  Month  of  June,  in  the  Year 
I''4i,  Mr.  Finley  came  to  our  Shore,  without  any  Invi- 
tation from  the  Baptifrs,  who  neverthelefs  heard  him 
gladly,  while  he  preached  the  Dodrines  of  Free  grace, 
which  he  continued  to  do  for  about  three  Vifits,  which  < 
he  made  that  Year  ;  but  the  fecond  Summer,  in  the  Year 
3742,  he  preached  a  Sermon  at  Coldfpring,  in  our  Coun- 
ty, on  the  Foint  of  Piedobaptifm,  fome  confiderable 
time  before  any  of  our  Minifters,  or  their  unlearned 
Candidates  (he'fpeaks  of)  came  zmong  us."-- Jnd  the 
Letter  adds,  *'  From  the  aforefaid  Occafion  private  Dif- 
putes  were  continued  ;--for  the  P^o  baptijis  were  often 
reviving  the  Difcourfe  ;"  that  is,  about  Infant  Baptifm. 
Hence  it  appears  it  was  he  himfelf  introduced  the  Contra- 
verfy  at  Cape- May,  hoiv  willing  foever.  he  is  to  father  tty 
quite  unjujOy,  on  others.  i     -n  t    -      r 

I  find  he  does  not  contradicl  any  Ihing  of  the  Relation  J 
have  given  of  the  Affair  refpeSling  our  Dijpute  at  Cape- 
May  ;  he  fays,  *'  I  am  very  punaUious  in  my  Account, 
luhich  is  fo  far  an  Evidence  of  its  being  a  true  One.  Does 
he  call  it  a  preaching  on  the  Controverfy,  when  he  has  not 
proved  that  I  touched  any  Thing  in  the  leafl  about  Infant 
Baptifm  at  the  Time  referred  to  ;  but  opend  the  Nature 
and  Dep.gn  of  Baptifm,  for  the  Help  and  Benefit  of  ihofe 
Perfons  that  xvere  expeaed  to  fubfnit  to  tt  floortly  ?  If  he 
does,  he  may  call  all  Sermons  preaching  on  Controverfes', 
hccaufe  there  is  no  Truth,  hut  is  oppofed  by  fomebody  or  ano- 
ther. He  labours  to  jujlify  his  Conduct,  tn  propofing  tae 
faid  public k  Difpute,  by  pretending  he  had  a  Rtght  m  the 
People  of  C^^e-Mzv,  tffc.  which  Right  he  thinks  denv  d 
from  his  being  an  Injirument  to  awaken  a  Number  of  t hem: 
Suppofe  he  was ',  Does  that  give  him,  who  was  but  an 
itinerant,  or' tranftent  Preacher  among  them,  a  Right  to 
the  People  there,  particularly  to  the  Hapt.fts,  and  thcje 
v^ho  were  inclined  to  them?  Did  they  ever  put  themjelves 
ttnder  his  Government,  or  were  they  ever  related  to  h.m  vi 
evy  Church  Order  ?  Did  his  fuppofed  Right  to  them,  de- 
■  A3  r^'^'' 


[  vi  ] 
prive  them  of  their  proper  Right,  to  fend  for  a  Mlni/ier 
ef  their  own  Perfwajion  to  preach  the  Word  in  their  own 
Meeting -Houfes,  and  adminijler  the  Sacraments  among 
them?  What  would  he  be  at  ;  "  Did  his  looking  on 
them  as  his  People  in  a  very  peculiar  Manner,"  take 
away  their  Liberty  of  Confcience^  to  look  on  him  as  nat 
right  in  the  Point  ^Baptifm?  Jgain  ;  Was  it  a  f^iolatiou 
cf  his  pretended  Right,  for  any  Baptift  Mini/ier,  on  their 
Requefi,  to  pay  them  a  Vifit  ?  Was  it  any  breaking  in 
upon  his  Labours,  for  any  of  us  to  anfwer  their  Requeji  ? 
If  the  Peopli  there,  were  his  People,  and  dearly  related  to 
him,  that  he  was  careful,  le/l  they  fhould  be  turned  away 
from  him ;  liozv  came  he  to  be  fo  careUfs  of  them,  as  to 
turn  away  fro^n  them,  to  dejert  his  FUck,  and  fettle  elfe- 
-where?  Was  not  that  fuffering  them  to  be  fcattered  ?  Was 
his  Difpofition  fo  arrogant  and  felfjh,  that  he  would  not 
Jiay  at  the  Capes,  unlcfs  he  f})ould  have  all  far  his  own,, 
whether  they  could  in  Conjcience  join  with  him,  in  thf 
P««/ tf/ Infant  Baptifm,  or  7iot  ?  Truly,  I  fee  no  Re aj on. 
to  retract  any  thing  I  faid,  in  refpecf  af  his  prcpofing  the 
public k  Difpute. 

*Tis  obfervable  (fays  he)  how  rarely  our  Opponents 
vifited  Cape  May,  until  the  People  were  ftirrcd  up  to  fo- 
]emn  Concern  about  the  State  of  their  Souls,  then  they 
thought  was  a  fit  Seafon  for  them  to  put  in  for  a  Share  j 
then  their  Minifters,  with  their  unlearned  Candidates^ 
repair  thither  from  various  Parts."  Anf  Winn  the  Peo- 
ple at  the  Capes  Importuned  us  to  vifit  them,  it  tt^as  furely 
a  fit  Seafon  for  us  to  anfiver  their  Deflre  ;  tho''  it  feems 
neither  their  Requeft,  nor  our  Compliance,  tvas  pleafmg  to 
Mr.  F.  But  why  unlearned  Candidates  ?  Does  he  not  here- 
by labour  d.fignedly  to  reproach  us  ?  Why  elfe  does  he  go  out 
of  his  Way  to  ufe  this  Phrafe  ?  Is  it  any  Part  of  our  pre- 
fnt  Centroverfy^  whether  Learning  is  effential  to  a  Gofpel 
Minijier  ?  Or,  that  the  Wunt  of  fotne  certain  Degrees^ 
renders  a  Afan,  by  divine  Authority,  incapabfe  of  the  mini- 
flerial  Funaion  ?  Whatever  Learning  our  Candidates  lack, 
he  does  not  fcem  to  have  any  great  Stock  to  impart,  when  he 
gives  us  a  falfe  Conflruaion  of  Ads  ii.  39.  He  adds,  "  The 
Water  was  moved  and  n^uddy,  ao'd  bcfgre  it  would  fet- 
tle. 


[     vu     ] 

tie,  was  the  Nick  of  Time  to  fifh  for  Profelytes  to  their 
party."     Pray  what  made  it  muddy  ?    Bis  cajling  in  the 
'Ruhhijh  of  Infant  Sprinkling  into  the  Stream  ?   In  the  afore- 
faid  Letter^   there  is  a  ^ejlion  propofcd,  ''  Who  had  the 
inoft  FiOiers  for  Profelytes  at  Cape-May  ?    We,    whofe 
Minifters  and  Attendance  never  exceeded  the  Number  of 
three  at  one  Vifit  ;  or  they,  whofe  Minifters  and  Atten- 
dance fometimes  amounted  to  the  Number  of  Thirty  ?" 
'    Says  Mr.  F.  "  Nor  has  this  been  their  Conduft  in  one 
Place,  or  one  Age  only  j  I  find  it  to  be  the  Complaint 
Of  eminent  Divines  in  every   Age  {\nce  Anabaptifm  he- 
gan,    that  by  fuch  Condua  they  have  marred  the  Pro- 
grefs  of  Religion,  by  turning  the  Exercifes  of  awaken'd 
Souls  into  another  Channel ;    and  have  obfervedj    that 
from  among  thofe,    who  were  l?rought  under  fpiritual 
Concern  by  the  Labours  of  other  Minifters,    the  Jna^ 
haptijis  have  ordinarily  had  their  Harveft."       I  have  al- 
ready Jhewn  we  had  ajuji  Right  tovifit  Cape-May,  where 
there  were  two  Baptift  Meeting- houfes,  and  a  Churchy  jet- 
iled  for  many  Tears  pajl :  (Vho  then  can  ju/ily  fay,  we  had 
not  an  undoubted  Right  to  preach  to  our  own  People  at  their 
Requejl,    in  their  own  Meeting- houfes y    and  to  as  many  as 
/hould  thini  proper  to  come  and  hear  ?    Now,   if  the  Com- 
plaint of  Divines  againfi  the  Baptifts  in  dijiant  Places  and 
Jges,    is  as  groundlefs  or  unjiiji  as  Mr.  Finley'j,    'tis  no- 
thing elfe  in  the  one,  or  the  other,   but  prejudicing  the  World 
againfi  a  People,  whofe  Principles  and  Practices,  by  Argu^ 
menty  they  cannot  refute.  How  can  it  tend  to  mar  the  Pro- 
grefs  of  Religion,  when  People  (fuitably  qualified)  are  di- 
reatd  to  obey  the  Ordinances  of  Religion,  which  Chriji  hath 
appointed  ?    Did  Peter  mar  the  Progref  of  Religion,  or 
turn  the  Exercifes  of  awaken'd  Souls  into  another  Channel, 
when  he  fpake  to  awaken  d  Souls,    Repent,    and  be  bapti- 
zed. Ads  ii.    37.   38.     What  Religion  then  can  be  marr'd 
by  fuch  Condu£f,  urilef  it  be  the  Prefbyferian  One,  in  this 
Point  ?    It  feems  they  are  not  for  any  Difpute  about  thefe 
outward  (or  carnal)  Things,    becaufe  it  mars  the  Progrefs 
of  their  Religion  ;  but  the  fcriptural  Do^rine  of  Believers 
Baptifm  muji  he  advanced  in  its  Place,    come  of  their  Re- 
ligion what  will,   further,  IVhen  can  the  Crime  be,  if  one 
A  4  /^'"^^ 


[     viii     ] 
Jbouldfow,   end  another  reap,    now,    as  well  as  furmer^ 

L-mfelf  to  thofe  who  were  baptized  in  Infancv,  and  (35  I 
xvas  cred.bly  informed  by  thofe  that  heard  him)  he  per- 
fwaded  them,    on  pain  of  Damnation,  to  be  dipped,^  or 

^?n  n^'p  r^"'r''"5  '"  ^"^^  ^  Denounc.ation  '  Now. 
w.  1  ^ot  Reafon  fajs  that  it  was  necefTarv  for  me  to  dif! 
putethe  Cafe  with  h.m  before  the  People?"  Reply  Jf  this 
was  the  Reofon  of  his  propofir.,  the  pullick  Di/pJief  hola 

ZullJ  ""'  A  '"'''''''  \tmhisjorn.rPrence,  whuh 
-^pld  be  n,uch  rnore   to   h:s  Purpcfe  than  all  he  has  fend 

how  could  t,ts  makertneceffary  for  him  to  dijpute  the  Cafe 
before  the  People  ?  Why  aoes  his  Informer,  aid  my  Accufir, 
frji  pofmvely  charge  me  with  having  Jatd  >,  and  then  fall 
away  to  ^nyncertatnty,  hy  faying,  -  Or  ufed  Wc-^ds 
equivalent?"  rhn  J}.ws,  at  frjl  Sight,  the  Story  hangs 
oddly  together.  ^  Jgatn,  Why  are  thofe  Words,  which  are 
Jam  to  be  equivalent,  not  exprejfed  m  Print,  that  others 
^^fn^dge  whether  they  were  jo  or  not  ?  Who  is  'to  blame, 

7^^0'Jw  J'  ''  ^;;\if'-^^-^  I^idMr.  F.  hear  what 
thofe  Words  were  ?  If  he  did,  can  he  think  it  has  the  lea/} 
^hew  of  Jufhce  tn  it  to  keep  them  to  htmfelf  unextreflX 
M   he  pubUckly  Jiabs  One^s  CharaHeruLr  aprfvat, 

hVn  1       'f  '^S'  '''  ^'  '"'^'f"^  '«  ^y  ^'''  Mormer,    when  ' 
he  told  him  the  Story,  that  he  could  not  tell  him  what  thofe 
^guimlent  Words  zvereP  Iff,  what  Credit  could  be  given 
to  hts  Information?  Let  this  falfe  Report  lie  between  Mr. 
^  .nley  and  his  Informer,  as  becoming  their  Cavfe  and  Cha^ 

V    r  I        a"^    A  ^^''''^'  ""^'^^y  '    ^  «^^^^^  perfwadcdthe 
Paedo-bapt.fts  at  Cape-May  to  be  dipped,  on  pain  of  Dam^ 

nation;     neither  did  J  uf  Words  equivalent  I 0  fuch  a  De- 

r.ounciation:    And  in  Confirmation  of  what  I  fay,   I  fl^all 

fubjomthe  Teflimony  of  the  People  at  C^Y^^-Uty  from  un- 

der  thetr  Hands,    zvho  were  pre fnt  at  the  Time  referred 

r  r  T^^^'^f  ^^r.Finley,  in  his  Preface  to  the  J'indica- 
ttoH  of  his  Charitable  Plea,  Page  6.  hath  pretended,  as  a. 

Realon 


[  i^  1 

Rcafon  for  hh  Dirpute  about  Pa:do  baptifin,  that  he  wzi 
credibly  informed  that  Mr.  Morgan,  in  one  of  his  firlt 
Sermons  at  Cape-May,  in  the  Year  1743,  addrefilng 
himfelf  to  the  Pa:do  baptijls,  perfwaded  them  to  be 
dipped,  on  pain  of  Damnation,  or  ufed  Words  equiva- 
lent to  fuch  a  Denounciation  :  Concerning  which  Re^ 
port,  we  the  Baptijl  Society  at  Cape- May,  have  made 
Enquiry  among  the  moft  fubftantial  of  the  Prcfiytcrians 
in  the  County,  that  were  of  Mr.  Morgan's  Auditory  at 
the  Time  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Finley  ;  and  they,  with  one 
Confent,  declared  ttey  never  heard  of  it,  till  it  came 
out  in  Mr.  Finlefs  Book  :  And  fome  of  their  Elders  and 
Deacons  faid,  they  believed  Mr.  Morgan  never  faid  any 
fuch  Thing  ,  and  Jome  of  them  faid,  it  was  a  Pity  the 
faid  Informer  was  not  knov/n,  that  their  Society  might 
pot  he  under  the  Reproach  of  it. 

Nathaniel  Jenkins,  junior. 

WiL*^LiAM  Smith,  in  Benalf  of  the  Society.*' 

They  propofe  the  followmg  ^ery  en  the  Occafton  ;  "  Of 
•what  Weight  can  the  Credit  of  his  Informer  be,  when 
Mr.  Fs  own  People  do  not  believe  the  faid  Informer,  but 
think  him  a  Reproach  to  their  Society  V 

His  faying  that  feveral  Anabaptifts  have  leen  convinced 
by  their  Minijien,  does  not  reach  the  Obfervation.'--Can 
he  produce  any  Injiances  of  Baptifts  convinced  they  xvere 
wrong  by  hearing  their  oivn  Minijiers  treat  on  the  Ordi- 
nance  ? 

He  enquires,  *'  Whoever  yet  faw  the  Writings  of  an 
Anabaptijl  on  the  prefent  Controverfy,  without  the  Em- 
hellifliments  of  angry,  perfonal  Reflexions  ?  Or  without 
a  frequent  begging  the  Queftion,  and  pofitive  AfTertionS;, 
unfupported  by  Argument?"  JinJ,  The  moft  favourable 
ConJlru£iion  I  can  put  on  thefe  Words,  is,  that  he  is  not  ac- 
quainted with  the  JVritings  of  our  Authors  :  If  he  is,  he 
has  no  great  Regard  to  his  Words,  -ivhen  he  fays  thus  of 
them.  I  would  not  he  afraid  to  compare  the  Writings  of 
Baptifl  Authors,  either  as  to  Learning,  good  Language,  or  ' 
folid  Arguments,  with  any  he  can  produce  on  his  Side,  in 
this  Debate. 

1  lOiJS 


I 


[      X      ] 

/  was  aware  before,  when  he  would  have  his  Argument 
appear  in  their  own  Colour  without  Perverjion,  that  he  had 
prepared  a  Catholicon  againjl  all  Maladies  ,  now  J  find  by 
Experience  I  was  not  mijlaken  in  wy  ConjeUure^  zuhen  he 
makes  fuch  an  hideous  Noife  about  his  Arguments  being  con- 
Jiantly  perverted  or  evaded^  without  Jhewing  Grounds  for 
it,  as  he  went  along:  He  is  far  frorn  having  a  Specimen 
ef  it  in  my  Preface,  when  I  not  only  mentioned  fme  of  tht 
Reafons  of  his  former  Publication,  but  plainly  referred  ta 
all  the  reji,  by  faying,  "  Such  (or  like)  pretended  Rea- 
fons ;"--•  intimating  that  the  others  were  of  the  like  Weight 
with  thofe  cited.  -  •'■  =  os 

How  I  have  managed  ihe  Arguments  in  the  following 
Sheets,  the  Work  f jail  fp,ak  for  itfelf ;  and /hall  only  addy 
that  I  have,  according  to  my  f ma II  Advantage  and  Abilities^ 
endeavour  d  to  mninfain  an  Ordinance  of  Chriji,  as  it  is 
revealed  in  holy  Hct  ipture.  If  the  Lord  is  pleafed  to  fa- 
vour my  weak  /It tempts  with  his  Blejftng,-  it  will  fuffice  :■ 
Unto  him  be  Glory  in  the  Church,  by  Chriji  Jefus,  tbtough' 
out  all  Agesy  World  without  End,     Amen. 


A.  M. 


Anti' 


t  "  "i 


Antl-Pczdo-Rantifm  Defended^    &c. 

|^^^:p^  HE  Apoftle  7^^^  eichorts  us  to  fowi'^wi 
''"''""'""'"''"'^'  earnejily  for  the  Faith ^  woich  was  once  de- 
Uver'd  to  the  Saints^  Verfe  3.  of  his  Epi- 
ftie.  This  Exhortation  (in  my  Judg- 
ment) leads  us  to  obferve  thefe  following 
^^  ,  ^ Particulars,  I.  The  NeceiTiry  of  know- 
ing and  embracing  the  Truths  of  the  Gofpel,  as  they 
are  deliver'd  to  us  in  holy  Scriptures.  2.  There  will  not 
be  wanting  induftrious  Oppofers,  who  will  exert  their  ut- 
rnoft  Endeavours  to  force  away  this  rich  and  valuable 
"bepofitum  from  its  PolTeirors,  3.  'Tis  an  incumbeni 
E)uiy  on  thofe  who  have  received  the  Doctrines  of  the 
Gofpel,  in  Faichfulnefs  to  God,  and  Love  to  the  Truth, , 
^ealoufly,  firmly,  and  conftantly  to  defend  them. 

That  Point  of  Scripture-truth,  in  particular,  which, 
in  Compliance  with  this  divine  Exhortation,  the  Cir- 
cumftances  of  Things  making  it  neceflary  for  us  to  con- 
tend earneftly  for  at  prefent,  is  the  DofStrine  of  Believers 
Baptifm  ;  which  is  again  attacked  by  an  Undertaking  to 
vindicate  Infants  Right  to  this  New-Teilament  Ordi- 
cance. 

•  Therefore,  to  prevent  Objeflions,  let  it  be  obferved, 
that  we,  who,  in  our  Meafure,  do  endeavour  to  defend 
this  Part  of  divine  Truth  againft  renewed  Attempts,  de- 
figned  to  overthrow  it,  can't  juftly  be  charged  with  be- 
xm  the  Difturbers  of  the  Church's  Peace,    or  the  Au-  ■ 

thyrs. 


[       12      ] 

ihors  and  Promoters  of  Divifions  and  Faflions  therein; 
for  if  we  be,  there  is  no  Way  to  comply  with  this  apo- 
ilolical  Injundion,  and  be  innocent  at  the  fame  time. 
Undoubtedly  the  Guilt  of  Difcord  and  Divifions  in  the 
Church,  will  unavoidably  devolve  upon  the  Heads  of  the 
Broachers  and  Upholders  of  falfe  Doftrines,  and  errone- 
ous Pradices,  the  very  Source  of  Confufions  among 
Chriflians. 

And  tho'  Peace  amongft  all  owning  the  Name  of  Chrift 
be  a  very  valuable  Blefling,  and  truly  defirable  ;  yet  we 
muft  not  (according  to  the  Teftimony  of  a  *  late  Au- 
thor) give  up  Truth  and  Holinefs  for  its  Sake,  or  in 
order  to  obtain  it. 

The  Gofpel  Truth,    with  refpeft  to  the  Subjeds  of 
Baptifm,   which,  in  my  former  Treatife,  I  endeavoured 
to  maintain,    is  this,    **  7 hat  thofe  Per/on s  xuho  profrfs 
their  Faith  in  Chri/I,    and  Repentance  for  their  Sins,  are 
the  only  proper  SubjeSfs  of  Baptifm.'^     In  Confirmation 
hereot,    I  cited  feveral  Texts  ot  holy  Scripture,    which 
Mr.  Finhy  grants  do  prove,     that  fuch  as  were  taught, 
and  profefTed  their  Faith,    were  baptized  :    *'  He  allowi 
fuch  Believers   are  proper   Subje^s   of  this  Ordinance.'* 
£ut  then,    in  order  to  have  fome  Pretence  foV  his  Prac- 
tice, he  cavils  with  the  exclufive  Particle  only,  and  afk?. 
How  tvill  it  fcUsiv  therefore  none  elfe  were  baptized  f — 
jfnd  feems  to  wonder  how  we  can  he  Jo  confident  of  a  Con" 
duficn,    which  is  contained  in  no  Premijcs  we  have  ever 
found."     Reply.    Mr.  Finley  freely  acknowledges,    that 
profefiing  Believers  are  proper  Subje£ls  of  Baptifm  ;  now 
if  the  Scripture  fpeaks  of  any  other  meet  SubjecS^s  of  this 
Ordinance,    or  gives  any  Examples  of  any  others  bapti- 
zed, who  had  not,  or  were  not  required  to  have  the  pre- 
vious Qualifications  of  Faith  and  Repentance  j   why  has 
rot   this  Advocate  for  Infants  Right  to  Baptifm,    in  the 
Courfe  of  our  Debate,  favour'd  us  with  fome  Inflances 
of  fuch  a  Pradice  before  now  ?  Is  it  not  becaufe  he  ha^ 
none  to  give?    Undoubtedly  it  is  io.     Hence  then  it  is 
plain  enough,  that  profefTing  Believers  are  the  only  pro- 
per Subjedts  of  Baptifm  i    tho'  he  would  fain  arnufe  his 

Readeis 
*  Mr,  Tennenfi  Ircnicum  Ecdcfiaficum,  Page  34. 


[     13    1  ♦ 

Readers  with  a  groundlefs  Objedion  againft  what  we  af- 
fert,  and  charge  us  with  begging  the  Queftion  in  De- 
bate. Well,  Mr.  Finley  takes  it  for  granted,  that  Be- 
lievers Infants  were  baptized  in  apoftolick  Times,  but 
where  has  he  proved  it  ?  Truly  no  where  :  He  has  given 
no  Examples  of  Infants  baptized,  nor  produced  any 
Text;,  which  require  they  fliould,  who  have  not  the 
Pre-requifttes  the  Scripture  every  where  calls  for  in  the 
Subjeas  of  Baptifm  ;  notwithftanding  he  urges  on  Peo- 
ple his  Opinion,  unfupported  by  Scripture  as  it  is,  and 
ftems  difpleafed  it  Ihould  not  meet  with  univerfal  Wel- 
come ;  tho'  at  the  fame  time  he  difcovers  his  Caule  to  be 
indefenfible,  when  he  charges  us  with  begging  the 
Queftion,  becaufe  we  ftridly  adhere  to  exprefs  Scripture 
Dodrine  and  Teftimony,  in  the  Caft  before  us. 

Chrift  commanded  profeiTing  Believers  to  be  baptized, 
Mark  xvi.  15,  16.  And  it  adds  no  fmall  Confirmation 
to  the  Point  m  hand,  that  the  Apoftles  underftood  their 
Lord's  mind  to  be,  that  piofefling  Believers  only  were 
to  be  baptized,  when,  according  to  the  concurring  Te- 
Itimony  of  holy  Scriptures,  in  the  whqle  Courfe  of  their 
Miniflry,  they  baptized  only  fuch  as  we  have  an  Account 
of.  I  fiill  think,  had  it  been  the  Will  of  God,  that  In- 
fants fhould  be  baptized,  he  would  have  revealed  it  in 
bis  Word  ;  but  feeing  he  has  not,  the  Pradice  of  Infant 
Baptifm  depends  only  upon  the  Will  of  Mr.  F.  and  other 
mortal  Men,  like  hi'm.  No  Article  ought  to  be  received 
as  a  divine  Truth,  which  wants  a  divine  Revelation, 
and  fuch  is  Infant  Baptifm. 

'*  Let  them  try  (fays  he)  how  this  Mode  of  Reafonlng 
will  Juit  in  other  Cafes.  For  Injlance^  Rom.  x.  9.  He 
that  confelfeth  with  his  Mouth,—  - Jliall  be  faved  i-- there- 
fore all  dumb  People  are  excluded  from  Salvation  ;  with  the 
Mouth  confejfion  is  made  unto  Salvation  ;  therefore  only  fuch 
as  can  confejs  with  the  Mouth  are  capable  of  Salvation. — 
Thefe  are  evidently  falfe  Arguments,  but  they  are  as  good  as 
Mr.  M'j.  Ihey  who  profefs  their  Faith  are  to  be  bapti-zed, 
therefore  only  fuch."  Reply.  In  thefe  Words  of  the  Apo- 
ille,  Faith  m  Chrift,  and  Acknowledgment  of  him,  arc 
required,— And  the  Scripture  faith,  He  that  beliivcthnot, 
'  pall 


[     H     ] 
Jhdl  he  damned,  Mark  xvi.  i6.   And  he  that  den'ie'th  Chriji 
before  Men,  Jhall  he  denied  before  the  Angeh  of  God,  Luke 
xii.  9.      When  God  gives  Laws  and  Rules  to  his  Crea- 
tures, they  muft  obferve  them  ;  and  It  is  finful  to  go  out 
of,  or  beyond  thofe  Bounds  and  Reftriaions.     But  does 
he  hereby  bind  hirnfelf  ?  Is  he  not  fuvereign  and  free  not- 
ivithftanding  to  do  whatfoever  plieafeth  him,  even  to  fave 
the  Deaf  and    Dumb,    if  it  feem  him  good,    tho'  they 
never  confefled  Chrift  ?    But  will  thii  diflblve  the  fixed 
Obligation  his  Creatures  are  under  to  believe  in  Chrift, 
and  confefs  him,   in  ordtr  to  Salvation  ?  No,  in  no  wife. 
Pray   what   fort  of  an  Argument   Would   Mr.  F.  draw 
from  hence  ?  Is  it  becaufe  God  can  difpenfe  with  his  own 
Inftitutions,  Commands  and  Appointments ;  or  ad  with- 
out them,  or  above  them,  and  fave  one  who  cannot  con- 
fefs  Chrift  ;  therefore  Mr.  F.  may  difpenfe  with  the  Or- 
der and  Commands  of  God  too,  and  baptize  one  with- 
out  the   Pjofcffion  of  Faith  and    Repentance  ?     What 
would  the  Man  be  at  ?    Hath  he  forgot  the  infinite  Dif- 
proportion  between   him   and  God  ?    Will  he  fay  with 
the  proud  Kmg  ot  Babylon,  I  will  he  like  ibe  Mofi  High  ? 
\.tx.   him  fhew  v/hether  that  which  Gcd  does  in  a  fove- 
reign  Way,  upknown  to  us,  be  in  any  Part  the  Rule  of 
our  Obedience  ;  or  his  written  Word,  and  nothing  elfe, 
that  we  are  bound  to  adhere  to,  in  all  Matters  of  Faith 
and  Pra<f>ice  ? 

There  appears  nothing  to  the  contrary  in  this  Inftance, 
but  what  our  Mode  of  Reafoning  fuits  very  well  ;  for  as 
it  is  the  inftituted  Way  of  God  for  Sinfters  to  believe  in 
Chrift,  and  confefs  him,  in  order  to  Salvation,  and  on- 
ly fuch  fhall  be  faved,  according  to  his  ftated  Order,  and 
cxprefs  Inftitution,  Tvlark  xvi.  16.  John  iii.  36.  So 
aifo,  according  to  his  ftated  and  unvariable  Appoint- 
ment, revealed  in  holy  Scripture,  profefling  Believers, 
and  none  other,  are  the  only  proper  bubjeds  of  Baptifm, 
A£ii  viii  37.  xviii.  8.  Matthew  xxviii.  19.  We  readily 
own  God's  free  Sovereignty  to  do  as  he  pleafeth ;  but  at  the 
fame  time  utterly  deny  Mr.  /"s  Right  and  Prerogative 
to  bring  in  any  other  Subjeas  to  this  Ordinance,  befides 
thofe  the  Scripture  exprefly  mentions.    The  Reader  may 

obferve. 


[     15    ] 

obferve  the  more  our  Author  tries  to  vindicate  his  Caufe, 
the  more  he  involves  himfelf  in  Abfurdities. 

Says  he,  *'  The  Scriptures  ko  where  fay ^  that  only  fuch, 
(x.  e.  profejfmg  Believers)  and  nme  elfe,  are  fit  Subje^s  of 
this  Ordinance.  Anf,  But  the  tjcripturer,  fa),  that  pro- 
feffing  Believers  are  fit  Subjects  of  this  Oidinarce  ;  what 
divine  Authority  then  is  there  to  admit  any  others  ?  The 
Scripture  furely  does  not  prove  Contraries  to  be  both 
true,  if  it  undeniably  proves,  that  Repentance  and  Faith 
were  cohftantly  required  to  precede  the  Reception  of 
Baptifm,  ,in  all  the  Inftances  of  it  recorded  therein,  a- 
greeable  to  the  Words  of  Inflitution  :  But  that  it  does 
fo,  can't  be  gainfaid  ;  then  it  necefTarily  excludes  all  o- 
thers,  who  have  not  fuch  Qualifications  from  any  Right 
to  this  Ordinance.  The  Door  whe^by  Mr.  F.  uould 
bring  in  Believers  Infants  to  be  fit  Subjeils  of  Baptifm, 
will  admit  a  Number  of  other  Abfurdities  ;  and  he  muft 
have  fome  Skill,  beyond  what  is  common,  if  he  can,  by 
the  fame  Rule,  fhew  the  one  to  be  lawful,  and  the  other 
not.  For  Inftance  ;  The  Scriptures  no  where  fay,  that 
Bread  only  is  to  be  ufed  in  the  Supper  j  therefore  it  is 
lawful  to  adminifler  Flefh  alfo  therein.  Again  ;  The 
Scriptures  no  where  fay,  that  Wine  only  Is  to  be  ufed  in 
that  Ordinance ;  therefore  it  is  lawful  to  mix  Water 
therewith  in  that  Sacrament  (as  fome  of  the  Antients 
did)  or  ufe  any  other  Liquid,  as  Rum  or  Brandy,  with 
it,  or  inflead  of  it.  By  the  fame  Rule  he  may  ufe  the 
Sign  of  the  Crofs  in  Baptifm-'-Baptife  Bells--- Preach  to 
Beafts  and  Birds,  and  what  not  ?  Thefe,  and  a  thoufand 
more  fuperftitious  Fooleries,  are  equally  warranted  by 
Mr.  F's  Rule,  as  that  which  he  would  prove  thereby, 
viz.  That  Infants  are  fit  Subjeds  of  Baptifm.  Well, 
Men  may  pleafe  themfelves  with  tlieir  Fancy,  and  abufe 
Scripture  to  ferve  their  Purpofe  ;  but  God  will  not  be 
mocked.  This  Rule  of  Mr.'  i^'s,  had  it  been  good,  and 
would  have  bore  the  Tefl-,  would  have  been  worth  its 
Weight  in  Gold  ;  and  more  alfo  to  Nadab  and  Abihuy 
Lev.  X.  I,  2,  3.  who  offered  Jirange  Fire  before  the 
Lord,  which  he  commanded  them  not.  Does  the  Scripture 
any  where  fay,  they  fhould  oiFcf  Fire  from  Heaven  onfyy 

and 


t     i(S    ] 

and  none  elfe  ?  Therefore,  according  to  Mr.  fs  cclebra* 
ted  Dodrine,  and  efpoufed  Principle,  they  might  offer 
other  Fire :  But  their  doing  fo,  colt  them  very  dear  ; 
for  it  was  fo  difpleafing  to  God,  that  there  went  out  Fire 
from  him,  which  devoured  them  infiantly.  And  why 
is  this  recorded,  but  to  prevent  alJ  prcfumptuous  Pradi- 
ces  of  the  like  Nature  for  the  future  f  And  to  admonfh 
us  ail  in  fucceeding  Generations,  that  in  God's  Worflaip 
God's  Command,  not  Man's  Wit  or  Will,  muft  be  our 
Rule,  to  which  we  muft  adhere.  Where  the  Scripture 
hath  no  Mouth  to  fpeak,  we  fliould  have  no  Eats  to  hearj 
nor  V/ill  to  obey.  The  Reader  may  obferve  from  this 
Inftance  of  Nadab  and  Ji>ibu^  that  Mr.  F's  Argument 
here  for  his  Practice  of  Infant's  Baptifm,  is  built  on  a 
very  dangerous  and  God  provoking  Principle  ;  'tis  there- 
fore unfafe  for  any  once  to  prefume  to  be  concerned  in 
it. 

I  obferved,  that  under  the  Name  of  controverting  a- 
bout  Baptifm,  the  Debate  is  impertinently  and  ufelefly 
carried  off  to  another  Subjedt,  viz.  Abraham's  Cove- 
uant.  Mr.  F.  thinks  this  cafts  fevere  Rcfieaions  on  all 
the  learned  Divines,  who  have  defended  Infant  Baptifni 
from  Jhraham'a  Covenant.  As  for  his  Part,  he  is  fo  fure 
they  were  right  in  fo  doing,  that  he  would  rather  *  die, 
than  acknowledge  the  contrary  :  But  neither  their  Me- 
thod, nor  his  extreme  Confidence,  removes  the  Diffi- 
culty :  For  when  we  profeffedly  undertake  to  debate  a- 
bout  the  Doctrine,  and  proper  Subjeds  of  Baptifm,  to 
kave  that,  and  fall  on  another  Subjedi,  that  has  not  yec 
been  made  appear  to  have  any  particular  Relation  to  the 
Cafe  in  hand,  or  to  be  of  any  real  Service  to  them- 
felves,  is  impertinent,  and  quite  ufelefs.  This  Method 
indeed  ferves  to  amufe  Mankind,  and  to  continue  the 
unhappy  Controvcrfy  between  us  ;  but  hov/  fond  foever 
our  Opponents  may  be  of  the  Invention,  yet  their  Con- 
fequences  from  Abrahan'%  Covenant,  fo  long  before  the 
Inftitiition  of  Baptifm,  arc  too  far  fetched,  to  carry  in 
them  any  Evidence  to  prove  that  .there  are  fome  fit  Sub- 
jedls  of  this  Ordmance,    befides  thofg  who  are  cxprtily 

mentioned 
.      *    Page  73. 


[     17    ] 

iai^ntioned  in  the  New-Teflament  j  our  Author's  firong 
Copfidence,  on  the  Occafion,  does  but  expofe  his  Prin- 
ciples to  Contempt  and  Ridicule,  when  the  one  appears 
(p  very  ill  grounded,  and  the  other  maintained  by  fuch 
indirect,  inconclufive  Arguments,  which  hitherto  have 
failed  to  fliew  the  Pradice  of  baptizing  Infants  to  be  the 
Lord's  Appointment. 

.  **  However,  ('fays. he)  /  think  it  is  the  fafeji  Courfe 
ip  draw  Inferences  from  both  Tejiamenis^  compared  toge- 
ther J  nor  .dare  I  venture  to  rejeSl  a  'text  from  the  Old 
Xeftament,  as  impertinent  to  prove  a  New  Teftament 
DoSlrine,  for  therein  I  Jhoidd  impioujly  refleSf  on  Chri/i 
himfelf  and  his  blejcd  Jpojiles"  Reply.  Could  hf,  or 
zny  other,  but  once  make  appear,  that  Infant  Baptifm, 
is  a  Do'flrine  taught  in  the  New  Teftament^  how  in- 
vincible would  fuch  Reafonings  be  !  But  feeing  he  has 
not  hitherto  (hewn  that  this  Do(Srine  is  once  exprefTed, 
br  the  leaft  Hint  of  fuch  Pradlice  found  therein,  there 
is  nothing  in  thefe  Obfervations  which  will  ferve  his 
Purpofe :  And  inafmuch  as  this  New  Teftament  Ordi- 
nance was  not  inflituted  in  the  Old  Teftament  Times, 
nor  once  revealed  to  the  Saints  then,  'tis  quite  improba- 
ble, there  fhould  be  any  Texts  in  the  Old  Teftament 
pertinent  to  prove,  who  are  the  fit  Subjeils  of  it;  this  is 
Mr.  Fs  pre/Ting  Difficulty  ;  herewith  is  he  forely  pinch- 
ed, that  he  can't  fhew  us  the  Dodrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tifm,  to  be  taught  either  in  the  Old  or  New  Teftament; 
tho'  he  talks  as  if  it  was  plentifully  ejiprefs'd  in  both. 
And  tho'  at  one  Turn,  he  would  not,  yet  at  another, 
I  think  he  does  inipiouny  refle(St  on  Chrift  himfelf,  and 
his  bleffed  Apoftles,  when  he  infifts  that  Infant  Baptifm 
is  a  Gofpel  Ordinance,  which  Chrift  never  inftituted, 
and  his  Apoftles  never  taught  j  what  can  this  be,  but  an 
impious  Reflection,  either  on  the  Wifdom  of  Chrift, 
that  he  did  not  fee  meet  to  appoint  it,  or  elfe  on  the 
Faithfulnefs  of  the  Evangelifts  and  Apoftles,  that  they 
ciid  not  commit  all  Chrift's  Appointments  to  Writing, 
if  Infant  Baptifm  be  one  of  them  ?  But  as  the  Cafe 
now  ftands,  I  judge  'tis  the  fafeft  Courfe  to  reject  his 
Confequences  from  Abraha7n''i  Covenant,  in  Defence  of 

B  it, 


-    [     i8     ] 

it,  as  impertinent  and  ufelefs  ;  which  otherwife  migh^ 
perhaps  byafs  one  to  join  with  him  in  the  fame  impious 
Refledlon  on  Chrift,  and  his  bleffed  Apoftles. 

Our  chief  Difagreement  in  what  follows,  will  be  about 
the  Application  of  it.  "  To  take  Scriptures  out  of  their 
proper  Connexion  (fays  he)  is  the  ever  lofting  Method  of 
Errorijls.  There  is  doubtlefs  one  confiftent  Chain  from 
the  Beginning  of  Genefis,  to  the  End  of  Revelations." 
I  am  apt  to  think  it  is  fo ;  or  elfe  our  Opponents  would 
not  wrclt  any  Texts  out  of  their  proper  Connexion, 
■with  a  Defign  to  vindicate  their  Practice  of  Infant 
Baptifm  ;  which  Mr.  F.  knows  is  not  once  exprefled  in 
the  BihUy  from  the  Beginning  of  Genefs^  to  the  End  of 
Revelations  ;  or  attempt  to  break  the  Chain  of  Scripture 
Harmony  refpefting  that  of  Believers. 

I  need  not  enter  on  the  Debate  about  Jbrahani's  Co- 
venant, in  this  Place,  becaufe  that  will  come  in  Courfe 
hereafter ;  I  fliall  offer  a  Remark,  or  two,  and  pafs  on. 
He  argues,  "  That  Abraham  is  the  Prefident  of  our  Pri- 
viledges^  and  how  fiall  we  better  know  our  Priviltdges  and 
Bljfings,  than  by  looking  to  his?—  Can  the  Heir  know  his 
Patrimony^  and  not  know  what  his  Father  poffeffed  ?"  And 
fays,  *'  Thus  while  Air.  M.  corrects  our  Divines^  he  un- 
atvares  goes  about  to  correSi  the  Apojiles  :  If  we  are  herein 
impertinent^  fo  is  infpir^d  Pawl  ;  but  we  are  in  no  Doubt^ 
whether  vje  floall follow  Paul,  or  Mr.  M."  Reply.  Had  Mr. 
F.  made  appear,  that  I  oppofed  the  Apoftle  Paul  in 
that,  wherein  I  oppofe  him  ;  and  that  the  Apoftle  in- 
tends Infants  Church  memberfhip,  by  Abraham' sBkiTwgy 
and  referred  to  Abraham's  Covenant  for  Proof  of  it  s 
this  kind  of  Talk  migl  t  do;  but  feeing  he  has  not,  his 
Lines  here  are  of  no  more  Force,  than  if  he  had  filled 
them  up  with  A,  b,  c.  And  for  him  to  look  to  Abta- 
ham.,  or  the  former  Adminiftration  for  Infants  Right  to 
a  New-Teftament  Ordinance,  is  as  if  an  Heir  Ihould 
look  to  pofTefs  his  Father's  Clothes,  which  were  quite 
wore  out,  before  he  became  feized  of  his  Edate. 

I  obferved,  "  that  having  Recoznfe  to  Abraham's  Co- 
venant., fuppofes  that  Chrijl^  together  zvith  the  Injlituticn 
of  Baptijm^  has  not  given  us  full  and  fufficient  Informa- 

tion. 


[    19    ] 

iioj:,  who  are  the  Subje^s  of  it."  Ke  replies,  **  We 
fay  he  has  fully  informed  us,  but  where  ?  Is  it  not  in  the 
Scriptures  ?  Or  is  the  Old  Tefiament  no  longer  Scripture  ? 
JVas  it  written  only  for  the  Jews,  and  not  far  our  LearU' 
ing  ?"  Anf.  Here  are  a  Parcel  of  Queftions  propofed  ; 
but  how  they  ferve  to  remove  the  Abfurdity  I  charged 
on  my  Opponent's  Reafonings,  I  can't  devife  :  Nay, 
this  round-about  Way  feems  to  befpeak,  that  Chrift  has 
not-- -there  is  a  Defeil  in  the  Directions!  and  fo  the  Ab- 
surdity ftill  remains,  which  is,  that  Chrift  commanded 
his  Miniftcrs  to  baptize,  but  yet  did  not  fully  inform 
them  who ;  and  fo  left  them  at  an  Uncertainty :  He 
neither  told  them  they  fhould  baptize  Infants,  nor  re- 
ferred them  \o  Abrahams  Covenant  for  Direction  in  the 
Cafe  ;  and  yet  would  have  them  baptized  ;  a  Thing 
quite  unreafonable  to  be  credited  or  fuppofed.  And 
tho'  we  do  profeiTedly  acknowledge  the  Old  Teftament 
to  be  Scripture,  and  that  it  was  written  for  our  Lcarn<- 
Jng ;  yet  it  does  not  teach  us  who  are  the  Subjects  of 
Baptifm,  becaufe  this  Ordinance  is  not  at  all  revealed 
therein  :  Will  Mr.  F.  tell  us,  how  we  (hall  learn  that 
from  the  Old  Teftament,  which  it  never  taught  ?  One 
would  be  ready  to  think,  that  when  neither  Old  nor 
New  Teftament  teaches  that  Infants  are  fit  Subjedls  of 
this  Ordinance,  Mr.  F.  might  very  reafonably  join  with 
us  in  difowning  it  to  be  a  Scripture  Dodlrine  at  all. 

I  obferved,  that  the  Right  and  Title  of  any  to  Bap- 
tifm, is  of  no  older  Date  than  the  Inftitution  of  the 
Ordinance  itfelf-  He  anfwers,  "  Be  it  fo  ;  but  what 
■does  this  arguing  reprove  ?  We  don't  fay  any  had  a  Right 
to  be  baptized  before  Baptifn  was  injiituted.  ;  but  when  it 
was  infiituied,  we  fay  Believers  Infants  had  a  Right  to  it^ 
which  we  prove  from  the  Grant  God  has  made  of  their 
Church- memberfoip.  Sic."  Mr.  i^.  feems  to  allow,  that 
the  Right  of  any  to  Baptifm  is  of  no  older  Date  than 
the  Inftitution  of  the  Ordinance  ;  yet  he  will  have  it, 
that  fome  have  a  Right  to  it,  by  Virtue  of  a  former 
Grant,  long  before  the  Inftitution  of  Baptifm  ;  what  is 
the  Sum  of  his  Talk  here,  but  only  this,  that  thofe  who 
are  not  commanded  to  be  baotized,  in  the  Inftitution  of 

B^2  this 


[       20      ] 

this  Ordinance,  have  notwithftanding,  as  goo4  a  Rigf^t 
to  it,  as  fchofe  that  are,  Markxvi.  15,  16?  Is  there  any 
Need  of  Arguments  to  refute  fuch  abfurd  Reafoning, 
with  its  (hocking  Confcquences  ?  Which  natively  tends 
jto  lay  afide  the  Wifdom  and  Authority  of  God,  in  his 
Commands  ;  and  leads  People  todifregard  them,  by  fet" 
ting  up  an  Inftitution  of  their  own,  collateral  with,  or 
in  Oppofition  to  his.  Hence  it  appears,  my  Obfervation 
was  JLift  and  proper  ;  Mr.  F.  indeed  offers  no  Arguments 
here,  in  favour  of  what  he  fays,  only  refers  to  his  fol- 
lowing Pages :  But  when  he  intimates,  he  (hall  have 
Recourfe  to  Abrahatri%  Covenant,  where  there  is  no 
Mention  of  Baptifm,  no  Command  for  it,  no  Account 
who  are  the  Subjedls  of  it,  or  who  are  to  be  the,  Mem- 
bers of  the  New  Teftament  Church  ;  all  folid  Grounds 
of  Expe«Slation  to  find  any  hereafter,  are  alfo  entirely 
cut  off. .         .  ,         . 

He  fays,  I  am  puzzled  to  know  the  Ufe  of  his  Di- 
fiin<Siohs  of  a  twofold  being  in  the  Covenant,  and  two- 
fold Way  of  fealing  it.- --But  can  any  Anfwer  be  more 
pertinent,  than  what  I  urg'd  before  ?  That  confidering 
he  has  not  improved  the  faid  Diftindlions  to  his  prefent 
Purpofe,  by  giving,  us  fome  In  fiances  of  the  Apoftle's 
baptizing  the  Infant  Seed  of  Believers  on  the  Account 
of  their  being  vilibly  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.---But 
as  this  was  not  poffible  for  him  to  do,  his  Diftinction3 
are  ufelefs  in  this  prefent  Controverfy ;  efpecially  ob- 
ferving  that  our  Opponents  themfelves  don't  keep  to 
thefe  Di(tin<5tions,  when  they  aflert,  *  "  that  Infants  are 
Believers  in  Chri/i."  And  put  them  on  a  §  Par  with 
believing  Women,  without  any  Diftinci^ion  or  Limita- 
tion :  And  why  not  wi  h  believing  Men  too?  Tes^  fays 
Mr.  i^  f  *'.  IVe  ought  to  hope  equally  charitably  of  Be- 
lievers Infants,  as  of  aSiual  Profeffors."  Hence  it  appears 
thcfe  Diltindions  don't  ferve  even  fo  much  as  to  cut  off 
our  Obje<Stions  ;  much  lefs  to  prove  that  Infants  ought 
^o  be  baptized  ;  Nay,  our  Objections  are  ftrengthened 
by  them,  and  their  not  keeping  to  them  ;  for  if  Belie- 
vers  Infants  are  Believers   in   Chrift,    and    are  thus  in 

Covenant, 

*  Di'vine  Right,  Page  25.     §  Jb.  38.     f  Vind.  Page  23. 


[  2.1  ] 
Covenant,  they  are  in  it  hv'w^ly^  and  fJialJ  all  be  Taved,; 
iinlefs  they  will  fay  that  fome  who  are  *  united  to  Chrift 
by  Faith,  (hal!  perifh  notwithrtanding  ;  and  fince  tliey 
have  no  vifible  Signs  whereby  they  can  dillinguifh  their 
Infants,  which  is  a  Reliever,  and  which  not  ;  they  muft 
jieceflarily  hold  (according  to  thefe  AfTertions)  that  they 
are  all  Believers  in  Chrift,  and  united  to  him  by  Faith, 
and  fo  are  al!  favingly  in  the  Covenant,  which  contra- 
dicts the  Diftinctlon,  which  lays  they  are  not.  And 
till  thefe  Contradictions  are  reconciled,  Mr.  F.  may 
thank  himfelf  and  his  Brethren,  if  he  finds  J  pay  no 
Regard  to  his  Diftinctions,  which  appear  to  be  of  no 
Manner  of  Service,  but  to  fill  up  his  Pages,  and  blind 
his  Readers.  He  is  pleafed  to  cry  out  ''  En  Animum 
et  Mentetn  !  I  was,  (fays  he)  for  jhewing  my  Meaning 
in  fome  Phrafes^  which  I  had  frequent  Occafion  to  ufe^ 
hut  injlead  of  that^  I  mufi,  it  fcems^  give  li: fiances  of 
the  Apofile\  haptizirig  Infants.''  Reply.  He  might 
{hew  his  Meaning  in  thofe  Phrafes,  as  fully  as  he  thought 
proper:  I  did  not  requite  Inftances  instead  of  his 
Meaning  (as  he  very  unjuflly  infinuates)  but  aftfr, 
he  had  ftiewn  it  ;  which  is  plain  enough,  by  faying  he 
bad  not  improved  them  to  his  prefeni  Purpofe.  But 
when  he  full  well  kr\ew  that  he  could  not  readily  pro- 
duce any  Inftances  of  the  Apoftle's  baptizing  Believers 
Infants,  it  feems  he  is  now  under  a  NecefTity  to  give 
my  Reafoning  thi,s  Goby,  and  rather  mifreprefent  his 
Opponent,  than  his  Readers  fhould  think  his  Diftinctions 
ufelefs  in  this  Controverfy,  or  find  that  his  Stir  about 
them  is  but  an  empty  Amufement :  Would  it  not  be 
ingenuous  in  Mr.  E..  either  to  give  them  fome  Examples 
in  the  Cafe,  if  it  could  be  done  ;  or  elfe  forbear  to 
detain  them  any  longer  from  adhering  to  the  expiefs 
Scripture   Account  of   the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptifm  ? 

Mr.  F.  has  taken  Pains  to  fliew,  *'  That  I  deny  necef- 
fary  Confequences  from  Scripture  to  be  the  JVord  of  God  >" 
which  he  judges  to  be  **  Avery  corrupt  Principle^  and  of 
dangerous  Tendency  •"  and  afTures  us.  Page  78.  He  would, 
chufeDeath^  rather  than  fubfcribe  this  Article. ---Yon  muft 

B  3  know 

f  Divine  Right,  Page  33. 


t  22  ] 
Icnow  by  all  this  it  is  corrupt  indeed  !  May  we  not  expe£i 
then  to  find  the  Corruption  and  dangerous  Tendency  of 
it  plainly  open'd,  and  foundly  refuted  ?  But,  far  from 
that,  when  he  does  not  feem  to  dillinguifh  betwixt  Con- 
fequences  from  Scripture,  and  the  proper,  exprefs  Senfe 
of  the  Scripture,  fays  he,  "  It  has  hecn^  and  f. ill  is ^  th& 
known  Refuge  of  Se^arians  and  Errorifis  ;  yea,  hence  Er- 
rors ordinarily  rife,  by  catching  at  fame  Words  of  Scripture 
"without  the  Sefife  ;  and  it  is  too  plain,  that  all  contradi3ing 
SeSfs  plead  Scripture  as  patronizi?!g  their  various  inccnfjlcrit 
Dotages.^'  And  in  Page  32.  Itake  theSsnfe  and Mcanivg  of 
Scripture  to  be  God's  tVord^  and  not  the  Letters  and  Syllables^ 
^vithout  the  Confequence  and  Refultofthcm  in  their  Connexi-^ 
en."  Now  whatfoever  is  the  proper  Senfc,  and  expiels 
]\Ieaningof  Scripture,  cannot  be  a  Confcquencej  other, 
wife  there  is  nothing  but  Confequences,  which  cannot  be. 
Whoever  they  be  that  catch  at  Scripture  Words,  with- 
out the  Senfe,  I  am  perfwaded  the  Baptijh  are  clear  e- 
iiough  of  this  Charge,  in  the  Cafe  of  Believers  Baptifm  ; 
for  we  have  both  the  Words  and  Senfe  of  them,  through- 
out the  New-Teftament,'  in  one  unbroken  Chain,  in  our 
Favour ;  and  indeed  there  is  no  other  Water-  baptifm  men- 
tion'd  or  acknowledged  therein  :  And  if  Mr.  F,  and  o- 
ther  Sectarians  and  Errorifts,  do  catch  at  Words,  with- 
out the  Sen^e,  to  fejvc  their  Purpofe,  let  them  look  to  ir^ 
how  they  will  anfwer  for  fuch  an  Abufe  of  holy  Scrip- 
ture. Infant  Sprinkling,  I  judge,  may,  without  ai.y 
Breach  of  Charity,  be  reckon'd  for  one,  among  thofe 
various  inconfiflent  Dotages,  tho'  it  comes  much  (hort  of 
many  other  Errors,  in  refpe<ft  of  Scripture  Words,  with- 
out the  Senfe  to  patronize  it ;  but  is  obliged  to  hold  up  its 
Head,  only  by  leaning  on  neceflary  Confequcnces  to  be 
the  Word  of  God  :  W^hlch  Bufition  Mr.  F.  endeavours 
to  maintain,  come  of  Scripture-Sufficiency  what  will. 
It  feems  by  him,  there  are  but  very  few  Things  exprefly 
taught  and  commanded  in  holy  Scripture  :  The  Mind 
and  Will  of  God,  the  great  Teacher  and  Lawgiver  of 
his  Church,  for  the  mofl  part,  it  feems,  muft  be  learned 
and  proven  by  Confequences  :  It  is  like  he  thinks  this 
Reprefentation  of  Scripture  ferves  befl  to  exalt  the  Glo- 
ry 


[     23     ] 

ry  of  God's  WifJom  in  revealing  his  Mind  to  us  j^and 
alfo  fervea  the  beft  to  recommend  the  Sufnciency  of  God's 
"Word   to  thofe  who  difparage  it ;    at  leaft  this  Account 
fLiits  his  Purpofe  the  beft  to  couch  in  his  darling  Tenet 
of  Infant   Baptifm,    amongft  almoft  all  other  Thi^ngs, 
which,   according  to  him,  cannot  be  proved  but  by  Con  • 
fequences :   Accordingly,  he  proceeds  to  offer  feme  of  h|S 
Arguments  againft  the  faid   Principle  ;    and  herein  his 
/irft  Attempt  againft  the  Sufficiency  of  Scripture,  if  Con- 
fequences  be  rejected,  refpeds  the  Refutation  of  Errors  ; 
fays  he,  "  Jf  we  rejeSt  nece/far^  ConfcquenceSy  %ue /})aU  be 
greatly  pinched  to  refute  many  Herefies"  Say  you  (ol  And 
is  the  Scripture  then  lefs  fufficient  now  for  Reproof;  i.e. 
to  convince  and  confute  Hereticks,    and  repel  their  Er- 
rors, than  it  was  in  Paul's  Day,  2  Tim.  in.  i6,-  17.  Qr, 
are   not   the  found  Dodrines  contained   in  the  faithful 
Word  fufficient  to  make  one  able  to  convince  Gainfay- 
ers,    and  ftop  their  Mouths  now,  as  well  as  formerly  ? 
Yea,  faith  ihe  Holy  Ghofl,  without  referring  us  to  Con- 
fequences,    Tit.  i.  9,    1 1.     No,  fays  Mr.  F.  if  we  re- 
jea  necefTary  Confequences,  we  fhall  be  greatly  pinched 
to  *  refute  many  Herefies.     Give  an  Inftance  ;    Why, 
■"  Hoiu  Jhould  we  refute  ihe  DoSirine  of  Tranfubjianiia- 
tion^    if  neceffary  Confequences  he  rejeSled  f "     'Tis  more 
than  probable,  his  Confequences  would  be  as  ineffedual 
to  refute  the  Papifts,  as  this  Inftance  is  invalid  to  confirm 
his  Argument  :    Nay,     would  they  not  rather  rejoice  at 
this  favourable  Conceffion  ?    The  like  of  which  never, 
perhaps,  dropt  from  a  Proteftant  Pen  before  ;  and  inftead 
of  being   refuted,    be   further  eftablifhed   in  their  grofs 
Miftakes :  If  Air.  F.  thinks  otherwife,  let  him  make  the 
Experiment.     But  furely  our  Author  is  greatly  pinched 
B  4  fo"^ 

*  Melchior  Cams,  a  Popifli  Author,  writeth,  that  there  is 
more  EfScacy  for  Confutation  of  Hereticks,  in  Tradition, 
than  in  Scripture.  So  Mr.  F.  commends  the  EfHcacy  of  Con- 
fequences, to  refute  Hereticks,  for  if  Confequences  be  rejeft- 
ed,  the  Scripture  itfelf  will  leave  one  to  great  Pinches,  i.  e 
'tis  very  incfFeaaal  to  refute  Hereticks  :  Both  agree  in  difpa 
raging  the  Sufficiency  of  Scripture,  tho'  upon  fomcwhat  difFc 
rent  Grounds. 


e. 


[      24      ] 
for  Inftances,  when  he  is  obliged  to  go  along  fuch  a  blind 
Path  alone  to  feek  one  ;  contrary  to  the  Body  of  Prote-' 
ftant  Divines,    and-  whole  Churches,    beyond  Sea,    who 
unanimoufly  afTert  f  "  That  theDo6irine  of  Tran/ubjiar^. 
ttation  IS  repugnant  to   the  plain  PFords  of  Scripture  " 
Nay,    had   he  gone  no   further  than  Philadelphia,    an  J 
confulted  X  Mr.  Tenneni,  he  would  have  told  him,  "  That 
the  Apojile   Paul    calls  that  Bread  five  times  over,    which 
Ghnft  calls  his  Body."     Can  any  Thing  be  more  plain 
and  exprefs?  Could  he  pofHbly  have  fixed  on  any  Inftance 
more  remote  from  his  Purpofe  than  this  ?   But  feeing  th-'s 
erroneous  Tenet  is  refuted  \>y  plain  Words  of  Scripture^ 
ins  Inftance  leaves  his  firft  Argument  to  fland  upon  the 
bare  Authority  of  his  own  Word,    which  I  don't  think 
to   be  a   fubftantial   Evidence  againfl  the  Sufficiency  of" 
Scripture  for  Refutation   of   Herefies,     if  his   necelTary 
Confequences   be   not  allowed  to  be  the  Word  of  God. 
2.  H^s  next  Attempt,  which  bears  hard  upon  the  Suffici'* 
cncy  of  Scripture,    if  Confequences  be  rejeaed,  is  with 
refpea  to  Doariirss  and  Duties",  or  what  we  are  to  be'- 
Jjeve  and  pradife  :    His  Words  are  (hefe  :     "  Hcvo  f,vj 
Truths  and  Duties  could  we  prove  a^ainfl  Ophonents     if 
Confequences  are  denied  r'-    AuC    r.    InrUpe6t'of  doctr. 
nalTru'hs,   Chrift  aflured  the  Difciples,  John  xv.    I.^ 
^//  tha^t  I  have  heard  of  my  Father,  Ihave  made  knowH 
^■S^V^rf:   n   See  alfo  D^^,/.  xviih    i8.     And  was  not  the 
tioly  Ghoft  as  faithful  to  commit  all  to§  Writing  ?   Yc-<= 
verily  ;    feeing  tire  Scriprure  is  fo  fufEcient  in  refpect  of 
Doctrine,  ^c.   iTim.   iii.   i6,    ,7.   as  to  make  the  Man 
f)t  Crod  perfect,  throughly  furnifhtd  unto  all'sood  Works 
Is  not  proving  Truths  againft  Opponents  a  good  Work  i^' 
i^oubtlefs  It  is  J  and  here  the  Holy  Ghofl  teflifies  the  Sufi 

ficiency 

t   Morning  Exercife,  Page   201, 

X   Sermons  on  Sacranier.lai  Occafions,   Page    i  3  i 

f.1  J^n  A^"'^  ""'^T  "'^">'  ^^'^^^^  ^h^^ft  ^^'•o^ght  to  con- 
2  ..yet  all  the  Doe.nnes  he  received  topublilh  to  his  Church. 
xvhKh  were  fo  confirmed,  are  written.  To  the  fame  I'ur- 
pofe,  fee  Morning  Exercife,  Page  17- 


[     25     ] 
£ciency  of  Scripture  for  it,  without  fo  much  as  implying 
that  very  few  Points  of  Truths  could  be  proven,    unleis 
Recourfe  be  had  to  Confequences.  If  the  Cafe  be  as  Mr; 
F.  fays,    why   did  not  he  give  us  fome  Inftances  hereof, 
at  leaft  one  out  of  many  ?   What  makes  Errorifts  of  all 
Sorts,  and  in  ail  Ages,  decry  the  Sufficiency  of  Scripture 
in  fome  Shape  cr  other,    but  a  Deilgn  to  maintain  and 
propagate  fome  corrupt  Notion  ?  And  why  fhould  Mr.  /!, 
fymbolize  with  them  herein,  but  becaufe  he  has  the  Cafe 
©f  Infant  Sprinkling  in  hand,  which  obliges  him  to  dif- 
parage  the  Sufficiency  of  Scripture  Doctrine,  contrary  tu 
Scripture   Teftimony  ?    To   me  it  is  a  flrong  Evidence, 
that  that  Doctrine  is  not  of  God,   which  ^Or  its  Defence 
necefTarily  forces  its  Votaries  on  difparaging  tl">e  Word  of 
God  ;   as  tho'  it  was  fome  how  infufficient,  without  Re- 
courfe had,   either  to  oral  Traditions,  new  Revelations, 
or  fome  fuppofed   necellary   Confequences,    to  make  a 
compleat  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice.   Alas !  no  wonder 
if  our    Opponents  countenance  the  Introduction  of  un- 
fcriptural   Baptifm,    when    they   have  Foreheads  hard  e- 
nough  with   fuch   glaring   Injuftice  to  miireprefent  the 
Scripture  itfelf ;  as  tho'  of  all  Truths  and  Duties,  which 
we  are  to  prove,  there  are  but  very  few  exprefly  revealed 
therein  j    than  vvliich,    vihat  can   be  more  wicked  and 
falfe? 

'■  3.  In  refpect  of  Practice  he  fays,  "  How  few  Duties 
could  we  prove  againji  Opponents^  if  Confequences  are  de- 
tifd  ?  Reply.  But  hath  not  the  Lord  (hewed  in  his 
Word,  whatfoever  he  requires  of  Man  in  Point  of  Obe- 
dience? And  it  is  Man's  Duty  to  keep  his  Command- 
ments, and-  to  fay  unto  Opponents  as  the  Godly  of  old 
did  J  **  Thus  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us."  ASis  xiii. 
46.  Luke  xxiv.  47.  Mr.  F.  cannot  fay  to  his  Oppo- 
nents, in  favour  of  Infant  Baptifm,  "  Ihus  hath  the 
Lord  commanded  us.''*  He  gives  us  here  two  Examples, 
'*  JVomens  receiving  the  Supper,  and  Change  of  the  Sah- 
hath."  As  to  the  tirft,  I  have  before  cited  a  Scripture 
*  Kiftoiy  of  it:  It  may  fuffice  in  this  Place,  to  obferve, 
that  the  Word  Jnthropos,  uled  by  the  Apoflle,  i  Cor.  xi. 

2%. 
'^  Jnti.   Pa^e  81. 


C    26   ] 

28.  13  of  the  Co7nmune  Gender,  and  comprehends  both 
Sexes  ;  that  is,  *'  Let  a  Mandr  Woman,'*  &c.  which  js 
confiderably  more  exprefs  than  Mr.  F.  would  infinuate. 
As  to  the  latter  he  fays,  *'  Nor  is  it  near  Jo  eajy  to  •prove 
the  Change  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  feventh  to  the  firjl 
Day  by  Confequences,  as  to  prove  hifant  Baptijm  to  be 
light."  Anf.  This  is  not  fo  ;  for  there  are  apoflolical 
,  J^xamplcs  for  the  Obfervation  of  the  fiift  Day  of  the 
Week,  which  is  exprefly  called  The  Lord's  Day  ;  but 
there  are  none  for  Infant  Baptifm,  nor  is  it  any  where 
called  Ihe  Lord's  Ordinance. 

His  third  Argument,  defigned  for  the  Refutation  of 
faid  Principle,  is  thus  :  *'  '2"u  the  Command  of  Chrijiy 
in  John  v.  39.  that  xve  fearch  the  Scriptures  j  hut  if  we 
are  not  to  regard  neceffary  Confequences.,  it  is  quite  needlefs 
to  fearch  ;  for  alt  Things  lie  on  the  Surface."  Anf.  By 
Things  lying  on  the  Surface,  I  underftand  he  means 
Things  that  are  plainly  exprelTed.  But  to  regard  theho]y 
Scriptures  only  as  the  Word  of  God,  does  not  render 
our  Search  needltfs ;  for  Chrift  referred  the  unbelieving 
yews  to  them  :  And  becaufe  the  Scriptures  contained 
exprefs  Teftimonies  concerning  himfelf,  that  he  was  the 
Mejfiah,  therefore  he  commanded  the  Jews  to  fearch 
them  (1  hope  Mr.  F.  will  not  fay,  there  are  not  a  Multi- 
tude of  exprefs  Teftimonies  concerning  Chrift  in  the 
Prophets)  And. why  will  not  the  fame  Reafon  hold  good 
at  this  Day,  that  we  fliould  fearch  the  Scriptures,  to 
jcnow  and  believe  their  exprefs  Teftimony  concerninfT 
the  whole  Will  of  God  ?  Mr.  F.  brings  that  as  an  Ar- 
gument againft  fearching  the  Scriptures,  which  Chrifl 
brings  for  it.  Chrift  bids  us  fearch  them,  becaufe  they 
contain  exprefs  Teftimonies  concerning  himfelf  j  Mr.  F. 
teaches  it  is  quite  needlefs  to  fearch  the  Scriptures,  when 
Things  are  plainly  exprefled,  or  lie  on  the  Surface. 
When  his  Dodrine  ftands  in  Oppofition  to  Chrift's,  the' 
It  may  fuit  him  the  beft  to  uphold  an  anti-fcriptural 
Pradlice,  we  think  it  quite  needlefs  to  regard  it ;  and 
therefore  reje(5l  it  with  deferving  Abhorrence.  Hence  it 
appearr,  we  are  under  no  Neceflity  to  regard  Confequen- 
ces as  the  Word  of  God,    nor  yet  diminifh  ought  from 

our 


[     27     ] 
pur  Obedience  to  thjs  Command  of  fearching  the  Scrip* 

^^^T'  "  On  this  Plan  (fays  he)  'tis  an  Impertinence  far 
Minl/Iers  to  pretend  to  explain  Scripture  ;  for  the  DcSirmiS 
drawn  from  it,    by  vecefary  Confeauencc.    are  not  ia  oe  e. 
fteemedas  the  Mind  of  God"     Anf.   Having  vitwcu.ch.s 
Argument,    with   his   Defign  therein,    ^  ^^ferve  it  r.  la 
Ihortof  Stature,    and  has  fuch  a  downward  Calt  of  the 
Eve      that   it  will  not  look  towards  tiie  Point  m  ^.and, 
unlefs  Mr.  F.  or  fome  other,  will  undertake  to  give  it  a 
topping  Lift,  and  place  thole  Explanatioiis  and    >«^''f  ^ 
^rire^pon  the  high  Afcent  of  infali^bihry       Does^Mr. 
F.  call  the  Comments,  Explanations  or  Gloiresot.-UY 
f.€urs  Henry,  Flavcll,  Sydenham.^  the  Word  of  God.?-  il 
fo    why  does  not  he  cite  thtir  Words  in  this  LqntnM-ier- 
f/,  wherein  he  is  fo  pinchinoly  ftranenM  tor  divine  i.u. 
■   thority,  and  fay,  ",  Thus  fuV^  the  Lord^"    iN^aymorc, 
if  fo,    why   not  his  own  Gloffes,     his  Arguments,     U^ 
Charitable  Plea  and  Vindication,    all  to  be  the  Ward  of 
God,    without  Contradiction  f     If  not,  is  it  an  imper- 
tinence in  him  or  them  to  pretend  to  explain  Scriptuie 
according  to  their  Underftanding  ?  And  alter  all  to  lub- 
;   init  their  Explanations  and  Doctrines  to  the  Determina- 
'    tion  of  the  Supreme  Judge,    even  tlie  holy  Scriptures  i 
Bv  which  all  Doctrines  advanced  by  Men  aie  to  be  exa- 
mined,   and   religious  Controverfies  decided  ^    and   no 
Doctrines  are  to  be  efleemed  as  the  Mind  of  God,  which 
he  hath  not  fpokeri  in  his  Woid.     The  Doanneof   Be- 
lievers Baptifm  isexpreffed  in  his  Word,  ana  therefore  I 
can  very  confiftently  believe  it  to  be  the  Truth  of   God, 
and  at  the  fame  time  denv  any  others  to  be  fit  Subjects.- - 
I  think  there  is  a  large  Field  for  Minifters  to  labour  in, 
without  incurring  the  Chargeof  Impertinence  on  the  one 
Hand,    or  prefuming,    on   the  other,  to  put  their  unin- 
fnired  Comments  and  Explanations  on  an  Equality  with 
the  infpired  Writings,   and  then  call  ih^m.  The  h  or d  of 
God  ;  which  to  do,   would  be  the  highefl  Act  of  Treafon 
againft  the  King  of  Heaven,    and  thereby  cxpofe  them- 
fdves  to  the  moft  awful  Curfes  denounced  in  the  Booic 
of  God,  Diut,  iv.  2»  Prov,  xxx,  6.  Rev,  xxn.  i8.  And, 


[      28      ]        . 
m  my  Judgment,    'tis  Honour  fufficient  to  what  you  may 
call  neceirary  Confequences,    to  fet  them  on  an  Equalitv 
with    the    unmfpired    Comments  and    Explanations   of 
Men    without  attributing  to  them  the  Name  of  the  inr 

wit'h  thTm ''"^''    ""'  ^^'^""'"S  '^^^^  °f  ^q^al  Authority 

/?w  r  ^n  f'  ^^^  ^^^'"  ^^^  "^^  'nujijay,   Godwillnot 
-frf,      V  ^  '^''  '''''^^"■^  C.«^^^.„..,  ,/  hh  Wordr     Anf 
well,    If  we  fay  fo,  pray  what  Text  of  Scripture  (hall 
we  contradict  ?   Yea,  or  what  Scripture  Article  of  Faith 
Ihall  we  difannul,    or  make  void  ?    Says  he,    "   We  dare 
irujimne  of  them,   if  even  the  Jitongcfi  Confequences  are 
no  dtvtneAuthomyr     Anf.    By/ no  Means';    feeing  you 
have  nothmg  elffe,  when  yourftrongeft  Gonfequences  for 
inlant  Sprinkling  carry  you  to  practife  what  is  repugnant 
to  the   Scripture  Doctrine,   and  to  all  the  Scriptur?  Ex- 
amples of  Baptifm.      Further  he  fays,    -.  If  the  necejary 
^onfequenu  of  any  Text  can  foffibly  h  falfe,    the  Text  iL 
M  ts  faf  i  for  tt  IS  a  fef  evident  Maxim,   that  nothing 
but  Truth  can  natively  and  regularly  follow  from  Truths. 
Doubtlefs  every  Word  of  God  is  perfect  Truth  ;  but  the 
Uncertainty  is  in  refpect  of  the  Confequence ;    for  what 
)s  It  but  the  Judgment  of  fallible  Men,    that  this  or  that 
Js  natively  deducible,  or  not  deducible,  from  fuch  a  Text? 
J^or  Inftance,    in  the  Cafe  before  us,    what  one  Confe- 
quence,  which  our  Opponents  bring  for  Infant  Baptifm, 
JS  It  that  IS  natively  deduced  from  the  Texts  they  cite  ? 
And  yet  thefe  Mr.  K  will  have  to  be  the  Word  of  God 
Again;  obferve,   ''  That  God's  knowing  every  pofible  Con^ 
jequence   ofzvbat  he  Ims  revealed^    adds  no  Strength  to 
Air   i'  s  Obfervation,    neither  carries  any  Weight  in  it 
to  ferve  his   Purpofe;--.for  God  equally  knows  all  the 
corrupt  Glofles  which  would  be  made  on  his  Word,  and 
■^W   the  finfu!  Abufes  of  it ;    are  they  therefore  to  be  al- 
iowed  ;>    Jn  no  wife  :    So  neither  is  Mr.  Fs  Infinuation, 
that  Confequences  are  the  Mind  and  Will  of  God,    be- 
caufe  he  knows  them,  or  iox^{2,\v  them. 

Says  he,  "  Mr.  M.  is  obliged  either  'to  refute  thefe  Ar. 
iume?its  with  others  that  may  be  urged,  or  no  longer  Jay, 
^bat  we  have  no  divine  JVarrant  for  our  Pra^ice,   if  wc 

have 


[       29      ] 

have  it  by  necejfary  Conjequence"     Anf.  Whether  I  have 
ref'uted   thefe  Arguments,     the  Reader   may  judge  if  he 
pleafes  :  But  I  hope  to  be  exculed  for  not  refuting  his  o- 
ther  Arguments,  which  he  fays  might  be  urged,  or  fay 
with  Mr.  *  F.  they  are  nothing  to  the  Purpofe,  before  I 
fee   them.      Perhaps  they  contain  his  Proof,    which  he 
thought  beft  to   leave  to  the  f  Poftfcript :   However,    he 
is  fo  extremely  confident  that  the  Principle  he  oppofes  is 
corrupt,  that  when  he  hath  no  more  Arguments  to  offer, 
he  declares  he   would   J  die,   rather  than  fubfcribe  it  ; 
but  I  don't   know  that  our  Controverfy  is  to  be  deter- 
mined by  fuch  noify  Pretences,  and  vain  Declarations  ; 
which    is    the   vulgar    Pradice   of    profligate    Perfons, 
in    confirming    tfieir  AfTertions  j    neither    do  I    think 
that    his    dying    in    the  Cafe  would   be  any  Decifion 
of  the  controverted  Point,;    or  that  his  efi^ufed  Blood 
would  give  any    divine    Sandion  to  his  Opinion,     or 
refute  the  Contrary:    We  look  for  his  Arguments,  or 
Scripture  Authorities  ;    and  if   they  manifeflly  fail  him, 
he  may  keep  his  Declarations   about  Dying,  at  Home. 
Hence,  it  does  not  yet  appear,  that  I  am  under  anyNe- 
ceflity  of   owning   he  has  any  divine  Authority  for  his 
Pradice  :    The   Rule  §  of  Faith  ought  to  be    certain, 
clear  and  plain,  prefcnbed  by  God  alone  ;  received  and 
publick  :  But  are  Confequcnces  fo  ?   If  all  Confequences, 
however  oppofiteone  to  the  other,  that  Men  of  different 
and  contrary  Judgments  pretend  to  draw  from  Scripture 
as  neceflary  and  native,  mufl  be  all  effeemed  the  Word 
of  God  j  then  it  follows,  the  Word  of  God  is  contrary 
toitfelf:    But    if  only  fome  of  them.    Where  has  our 
Author  given  us  any  certain  Rule  to  know,  what  Con- 
fequences do  necelFarily  and  natively  follow  from  Scrip- 
ture ?   What  one  thinks  to  be  fo,  another  thinks  not  fo; 
?nd  is  there  any  Man,  or  Sett  of   Men,  deputed  by  an 
higher  Power,  and  placed  above  the  Rtfl,  to  draw  Con- 
fequences infallibly,  that  all  others  muft  fubmit  to  them, 
on  the  Peril  of  rejeding  the  Word  of  God  ?     If  there 
be,  we  would  know  who  they  are,  and  alfo  a  full  Proof 

of 

*  VinJ.  Page  112.        f  lb.  Page  56.         %  lb.  Page  78. 
§  Vid,  Mr.  T?nnint''%  T^'enty-three  Sermons,  Page  80,  &c. 


L    30    ] 

of  their  being  inverted  with  fuch  a  Truft :  But  if  not; 
then  we  may  as  juftly  draw  Confequences,  and  call  them 
native  and  tieceflary  ;  and  urge  them  on  our  Opponents, 
in  dire{Si:  Oppofition  to  their  Confequences,  to  be  re- 
ceived and  efteemed  as  the  Word  of  God,  as  they  do 
on  the  contrary  :  And  what  a  flrange  Piece  of  Work 
would  it  be,  for  every  differing  Sect,  to  have  the  Word 
of  God  by  Confequence  fully  on  their  Side,  and  "at  the 
fame  Time  fully  contrary  to  itfelf !  But  I  think  it  is  a 
very  furc  and  certain  Rule,  thofc  Confequences,  tho' 
they  be  called  neccffary  and  native,  are  not  fo,  nor  in 
the  leaft  to  be  efteemed  the  Word  of  God,  or  his  Mind, 
which  tend  to  introduce  any  Dodlrine  repugnant  to  the 
Dodirins  cxprefTed  by  Qod,  in  his  VVofd  j  and  fuch  is 
the  Dc6lrinc  of  Infant-Baptifm,  which  fliews  the  Con- 
fequences drawn  in  its  Favour,  are  not  genuine.  Again  ; 
A  neceflary  Confequence  (fo  called)  from  Scrpture 
to  be  the  Word  of  God,  feems  to  be  a  Contradiilion  irl 
Terms;  for  if  it  be  the  Word  of  God,  God  hach  fpo- 
kcn  it,  and  'tis  no  more  a  Confequence  j  it  is  either 
Scripture,  or  not  Scripture  ;  if  it  is  Scripture,  it  is  ex- 
prefs'd  by  God,  and  cannot  be  a  Confequence;  if  not 
Scripture,  it  is  not  the  Word  of  God.     But  further  ; 

Where  does  our  Author  find  the  pecuhar  diftinguifh- 
ing  Properties  of  God's  Word,  any  where  attributed  to 
Confequences  ?  As  i.  That  they  are  divinely  infpircd  : 
To  give  the  Name  of  the  infpired  Writings,  to  Confe- 
quences drawn  by  Men,  who  are  uninipired  ;  or  to  kt 
uninfpired  Confequences  on  a  Par  with  the  infpired 
Writing?,  muft  be  altogetl^er  unwarrantable;  'tis  to 
make  no  Diftinftion  where  there  is  the  greateft  Diffe- 
rence ;  'tis  to  fmk  the  proper  and  peculiar  Dignity  of 
Holy  Scripture :  The  Attempt  is  fu rely  bold,  and  the 
AiTertion  dingerous !  2.  The  Word  cf  God  is  certain 
and  infallible  ;  but  to  fay  that  Confequences  drawn  by 
Men  are  infallible,  is'to  fay,  that  uninfpired  Men  can- 
not be  miftaken.  Mr.  F.  indeed,- juft  mentions  that 
Chrift  proved  the  Refurre(5tioa  by  Confequence,  Page 
78.  but  it  feems,  the  Inftance  would  not  bear  Iniprove- 
ment  by  Application  to  the  Cafe  in  Hand  :  The  Doc- 

t'ine 


[    31     ] 

trine  of  the  Refurre^tion  is  abundantly  proved  by  expref? 
Scriptures,  which  Infant  Baptifm  is  not  :  What  Chrift 
faid,  was  the  Word  of  God  ;  he  was  infalhble,  and 
could  not  be  miflaken,  but  Mr.  F.  may ;  for  Men 
have  been  miftaken  in  their  Confequences  from  the  Word 
of  God,  and  there  is  no  Certainty  but  they  may  again. 

*  Auguftine^  one  of  the  Fathers,  inferred  the  Neceffi- 
ty  of  communicating  little  Children  from  Johnv'i.  53; 
and  took  his  Confequence  to  be  an  evident  Truth,  as 
our  Opponents  do  theirs ;  and  imagined  nothing  but  Ob  • 
ftinacy  would  refift  it.  Others  again,  have  inferred 
the  abfolute  Neceility  of  baptizing  Infants,  front 
yohn  iii.  5.^  Some  of  the  Difciples  concluded  from  the 
Words  of  the  Lord,  in  John  xxi.  2i,  22,  23.  that  the 
beloved  Difciple  flwuld  not  die  :  They  were  good  Men, 
gracious  and  Confcientious  Men ;  and  what  are  our  Op- 
ponents more  ?  It  appeared  to  them  to  be  a  necefiary 
Confequence,  native  and  regular,  from  the  Word  of  the 
Lord  ;  they  underflood  Chrift  fhould  have  faid,  the  be- 
loved Difciple  fhould  tarry  till  he  came- --thence  con- 
cluded, it  necefTarily  and  unavoidably  followed  that  he 
ftiould  not  die:  Will  it  be  faid,  they  mifapprehended 
the  Words  of  Chrift,  and  therefore  their  Confequence; 
was  wrong?  Pray  what  Evidence  can  our  Opponents 
give  us  that  theirs  is  not  the  fame  Cafe  ?  But  furely  they 
thought  they  did  not,  and  that  their  Confequence  was 
necefTary  and  regular,  or  elfe  it  would  never  have  paft 
fo  current  among  the  Brethren  for  Divine  Authority^  or 
the  Word  of  God,  that  the  beloved  Difciple  fhould  not 
die  :  And  what  can  our  Opponents  fay  more  .?  Why, 
indeed  the  Saying  is  gone  abroad  among  the  Brethren, 
that  Believers  Infants  ftiould  be  baptized  ;  but  as  ill- 
grounded  as  the  other  :  Nay,  in  this  their  Confequence 
exceeded  thofe  of  our  Opponents,  tho'  it  was  contrary 
to  Scripture  Teftimony  in  general,  which  inform'd  them, 
that  all  Men  muft  die,  Pf.  Ixxxix.  48.  yet  there  were 
two  Examples  to  fupport  it,  of  Men,  who  were  the 
fpecial  Favourites  of  Heaven,  that  did  not  fee  Death, 
to  wit,  Enoch  and  Elijah.      But  the  fuppofed  native  and 

necefiary 

*  Vid.  Monficur  La  Roque*i  HiHory  of  Eucharifi,  P.  128. 


[    32     3 

receflary  Gonfequences  of  our  Opponents  for  Infant 
Sprinkling,  are  not  only  contrary  to  the  whole  Account 
of  Scripture,  in  the  Cafe  of  Baptifm  ;  but  have  no  Ex- 
ample at  all  therein  for  fuch  a  Pra(5tice  to  fupport  them. 
Now  if  Confequences  l;iave  fail'd  once,  they  are  not 
to  be  depended  upon  as  certain  and  infallible  j  they  are 
not  a  proper  Foundation  of  Faith  ;  for  furely,  that  can 
never  be  the  Ground  of  Faith,  which  in  its  Kind  hath 
failed  opce  :  And  if  good  and  gracious  Men  have  recei- 
ved Confequence  for  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  or  divine 
Authority,  which  was  not  fo,  let  us,  being  informed  of 
their  Error,  avoid  falling  into  the  like  Miftake  ;  let  us 
cleave  to  the  Scripture  only,  as  that  which  is  certain  and 
infallible,  2  Pet.  i.  19.  The  Evangeiift  obfefves,  "  Tet 
Jefus  [aid  not  unto  him^  he  fixtll  not  die-- -But ^  if  I 
will  that  he  tarry  till  I  conie^  So  the  Lord  faid  not  that 
the  Infant  Seed  of  Believers  are  vifibly  in  the  Covenant 
of  Grace-  — But,  that  the  Bleffing  of  Abraham  might 
come  on  the  Gentiles,  thro'  Jefus  Chrift,  &c.    Uc. 

On  this  Head,  pur  Author  talks  of  Commands  by 
Confequence-— of  Reading  by  unavoidable  Confequence, 
fomething  that  is  not  written,  or  exprefTed  in  the  Book 
which  he  reads.  Tho'  Mr.  F.  may  pleafe  himfelf  with 
the  Conceit,  that  the  People  he  oppoles,  are  a  Company 
of  mere  Ignaro's,  fit  to  be  entertained  with  any  Tale 
which  comes  to  his  Mind  ;  yet  one  might  think,  a  due 
Regard  to  his  judicious  Readers,  would  oblige  him  to 
treat  them  with  better  'i^n^t^  than  this  comes  to  ;  and 
in  Honour  to  his  Caufs  fhevv  them,  tb?t  he  has  furer 
Grounds  for  his  Principles,  than  unexpreffed  Proofs, 
and  flronger  Defence  againft  his  Opponents  than  unwrit- 
ten Texts!  Who  will  fay,  but  this  Art  of  Reading  in., 
Scripture,  what  is  not  written  in  Scripture,  is  a  rare 
Art,  much  in  Practice  among  thofe,  whofe  Principles 
require  a  large  Bible  to  fupport  them  ?  I  defire  to  be  in- 
formed, how  we  fliall  know,  whether  the  fubjed  Mat- 
ter thus  read,  be  the  Mind  of  the  Author,  or  only  the 
Imagination  of  the  Reader  I  i.  e.  Whether  Mr.  F.  here- 
by reads  the  Truths  of  God,  or  his  own  Dreams  ?  Jer, 
xxiii.  26,  28,    31.     It  feems  to  me,    this  Reading  of 

his 


[    33    ] 

his  (like  little  Childrens  reading  white  Paper)  is  not  di- 
feded  by  any  Words  of  the  Book  read,  but  by  the  arbi- 
trary Pleafure  of  the  Reader's  Mind,  under  the  fair  Pre- 
tence of  unavoidable  Confequence  :  If  ever  there  was 
an  Invention  found  out,  more  efFedtual,  to  make  the 
Scripture  a  leaden  Rule,  and  a  moveable  Dial  to  fuit  al! 
Mens  Meafures  and  Purpofes,  than  this,  l&t  the  Wife 
declare  ?  And  upon  this  I  would  afk  again,  did  the  My- 
ftery  of  Iniquity  at  any  time  ereft  a  more  advantageous 
Refuge  for  the  Safety  of  Error,  than  this  is  ?  For,  by 
readmg  in  Scripture  what  is  not  written  in  it,  or  by 
taking  up  that  out  of  it,  which  never  was  laid  down  iit 
it.  Men  have  found  out  Peter's,  and  his  SuccefTors  Pri- 
macy---the'real  Prefence-— the  Prieft's  Power  to  forgive 
Sins-- -voluntary  Poverty--- Pennance,  ISc.  if  *  Stories 
are  right.  And  by  this  fame  profitable  Invention  Mr, 
F.  reads,  "  That  Believers  Infants  are  vifihly  in  the  Co- 
venant of.  Grace  —A  divine  Command  for  baptizing  In- 
fants— Their  Right  to  a  New-Tejiament  Ordinance—^ 
And  that  Infants  were  Members  in  the  -primitive  Churches 
planted  by  the  Apr>Jiles"  And  who  can  tell,  but  Men  of 
long  Heads,  and  fharp  Eyes,  by  the  Help  of  this  fame 
Art,  will  read  in  Scripture  Ten  Thoufand  Things  more, 
which  were  never  exprefTcd  nor  contained  therein  ?  But 
if,  after  all  the  Cry  and  Confidence,  we  deny  Mr.  Fs 
Pofitions  to  be  true,  which  he  has  advanced  by  this  kind 
of  Reading,  how  will  he  help  himfelf  ?  He  can't  dire£t 
us  to  the  Scriptures,  and  f*y  of  each,  *'  It  is  written" 
No  ;  but  only  to  his  Confequences :  If  it  be  further  de- 
manded, whether  his  Confequences  may  be  depended 
upon  for  divine  Authority  ?  He  anfwers.  Yes ;  But  there 
is  no  divine  Word  produced  by  him,  to  prove  his  Afler- 
tion  :  So  then,  when  we  come  to  the  lafl  of  the  Matter, 
the  Sum  is  this.  Believers  Infants  are  vifibly  in  Cove- 
hant---have  a  Right  to  Baptifm---were  Members  of  the 
apoflolical  Churches— -and  commanded  to  be  baptized  5 
for  which,  inftead  of  Proof, .  you  have  Mr,  Fs  bare 
Word,    if  that  will  fatisfie  you  i   but  God's  Word  tells 

C  yovi 

*  Vid.  Cartvjrigbt,  on  the  New-Teftament,  Pa^c  220. 


[    34    ] 
ydti  ho  fuch  Thing,  therefore  let  your  Principles  be  no 
Jarger  than  your  Bibles. 

Mr.  R  comes  at  length  to  his  firft  Aflertion,  which 
is,  "  TJjot  the  Infant  Seed  of  Church  Members  were  once 
by  divine  Appointment  taken  into  Covenant  with  their  Pa- 
rents, had  the  then  Seal  of  it  apply^d  to  them^  and  fo  were 
Members  of  the  vifible  Church'*  In  my  former  Publica- 
tion, I  {hew'd  the  Weaknefs  and  Inconclufivenefs  of 
the  Argument  from  the  Covenant,  fuppofing  (but  not ' 
granting)  the  Cafe  to  be,  even  as  our  Opponents  urge, 
that  Believers  Infants  were  onee  taken  into  Covenant 
With  their  Parents}  and  to  difcover  the  Invalidity  of 
their  Argument  thence,  I  obferved,  "  That  there  were 
true  Believers  in  Abraham'^  Days,  viz.  Shem,  Melchi- 
zedeck  and  Lot,  yet  they  were  not  circumcifed  ;  and  if 
gracious  Men,  -who  lived  in  the  Days  of  Abraham  were 
not  circumcifed,  hecaufe  God  had  not  appointed  or  command- 
ed them  ;  jHuch  lefs  then  are  the  carnal  Seed  of  Believers 
now  to  he  baptized  without  his  Command  or  Appointment. 
Hence  we  learn,  it  was  not  a  being  in  the  Covenant y 
which  gave  any  one  a  Warrant  or  Title  to  Ordinances^  hut 
the  exprefs  Order  and  pofitive  Command  of  God."  Mr. 
/l  replies,  "  Here  are  a  Parcel  of  InJlru£lions  and 
Obfervations,  that  feem  to  make  for  Mr.  M'j  Caufe  (it 
is  well  he  grants  fo  rnuch)  but  fays,  we.muji  have  a  new 
Bible  to  warrant  our  receiving  them  J*  Anf.  1  readily 
acknowledge  our  Opponents  mull  have  a  new  Bible  to 
refute  them  ;  for  according  -to  our  Bible,  Lot  had  no 
Command  to  be  circumcifed,  and  for  him  to  be  cir- 
cumcifed without  God's  Command,  would  be  Will- 
worftiip,  as  *  before. 

Says  he,  "  May  we  not  htre  argue  a  fortiore  ;  if 
righteous  Lot,  Abraham'^  KinJ?nan,  -would  have  greatly 
fmned,  in  being  circumcifed,  much  more  Pagan  Profelytes.  '* 
Anf.  I  charg'd  my  Opponents  before,  with  making 
light  of  God's  exprefs  Order,  as  an  indifferent  Thing  ; 
here  h  further  Ground  for  the  fame  Charge,  and  tliere- 
fore  have  Occafion  again  to  remind  Mr.  F.  of  his  over- 
looking God's  Order  and  Commands :  'Twas  lawful  for 

an 
*  A/iti,   Page  20, 


t     35     ] 

an  Edomlte^  or  Egyptian^  who  renounced  his  Idolatry, 
to  be  circumcifed,  and  to  enter  into  the  Congregation  ; 
and  why  ?  Becaufe  the  Lord  ordered  fo,  Deut,  xxiii. 
But  will  this  prove  that  it  was  lawful  for  Lot^  without 
God's  Command,  to  be  circumcifed  ?  Very  far  from  it. 
Mr.  F.  Teems  to  have  taken  no  Notice  of  God's  Com- 
mand, which  makes  fo  great  Difference  in  the  Cafe,  or 
elfe  he  pays  fo  little  Regard  to  it,  that  whether  there  be  a 
Command  or  not,  the  Difference,  in  his  Judgment,  is 
not  worth  the  minding  :  The  Sum  total  of  the  Force  of 
his  Argument  a  fortiore,  juft  amounts  to  this;  that  it 
is  as  lawful  for  one  good  Man  to  do  that  without  God's 
Commands,  as  it  is  for  another  to  do  it  with  them  ;  if 
this  is  a  good  Argument,  let  him  inform  his  Readers 
the  next  time  what  is  not. 

*'  Circumcifton  ('fays  he)  was  a  Seal  of  the  Rights ouf- 
nefs  of  Faith ;  but  Lot  had  Faith^  therefore  it  was  lawful 
for  him  to  have  the  Seal  of  it."  Anf.  It  was  \o  to  Abra- 
ham j  but  the  Scriptures  inform  us  o^  no  other,  who 
received  Circumcifton,  a  Seal  of  the  Righteoufnefs  of 
Faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcifed,  befides  the 
Father  of  the  Faithful:  It  is  inconclufive  to  argue  from. 
'  a  Particular  to  a  General ;  let  Mr.  F.  prove,  that  all 
who  had  Faith,  had  a  Right  to  Circumcifion  ;  and  to 
do  this,  he  mufl:  fliew  God's  Command  to  circumcife 
all  Believers,  when  the  Scriptures  extend  it  no  furthet 
for  Hundreds  of  Years,  than  to  Abraham  and  his 
Houfhold  in  their  Generations,  Gen.  xvii.  And  if  the 
Lord  did  not  give  the  Covenant  of  Circumcifion  to  Lot 
(but  to  Abraham^  ASis  vii.  8.)  nor  commanded  him  to 
be  circumcifed,  it  will  follow,  that  it  was  not  lawful 
for  him  to  be  circumcifed,  tho'  he  had  Faith.  T^er« 
is  nothingi^re  which  helps  our  Opponent's  Caufe,  unlefs 
it  be  this  Maxim,  that  it  is  lawful  for  a  Believer  to  do 
that  which  God  commanded  him  not;  and  let  him 
make  the  beft  Advantage  he  can  hereof  in  Defence  of 
his  Principles. 

I  faid  God  had  not  commanded  Lot  to  be  circumcifed ; 

hereupon  Mr.  F.  afks,  "  But  how  is  this  evident  ?  TVs 

imU  read,  that  he   was  commanded  by  Name,,  neither  it 

C  2  Mr, 


[     3^     ] 

Mr.  M.  coinmanded  by  Na7ne  to  be  a  Chrijhanin  all  the  Bi- 
ble ;  is  it  therefore  Will  luorjhip  and  Prefumption  in  him  to 
he  one?"  Anf.  Not  at  all ;  and  I  wifh  1  was  abetter 
Chriftian  than  I  am  ;  but  I  think  this  to  be  no  parallel 
Cafe:  Compariions,  they  fay,  don't  run  upon  all-four-- 
ic  is  well  if  Mr.  F\  Comparifon  here  can  hop  a  little 
upon  one  :  Wherever  the  Gofpel  is  preached,  God  com- 
mands all  Perfons,  capable  of  hearing,  without  Di- 
ilin6tion,  to  be  Chriftians,  or  to  repent  and  believe  the 
Gofpel,  which  is  the  fame  Thing  ;  but  there  was  no 
Command  given  to  all  in  general  to  be  circumcifed  ; 
there  v/as  that  very  great  Man  Melchi-zedec^  King  of 
Salem^  and  Pri.yl  of  the  mojl  high  God,  Gen.  xiv.  i8. 
greater  than  Abraham^  Heb.  vii.  4,  7.  and  it  is  alfo  very 
reafonable  to  fuppofe  there  were  at  leaft  fome,  if  not 
■very  many  truly  gracious  Perfons  at  Salem.,  amoiigft 
Vv^hom  fo  excellent  a  Man  reigned  and  miniftered  in  his 
Prieftly  Office,  yet  the  Command  to  circumcife  was  not 
given  in  general  to  all  Believers  and  their  Seed  (which  if 
it  was,  it  would  indeed  have  included  holy  MelchizedeCy 
Lot.,  and  oihers,  even  ail  the  Godly  then  in  the  Worldj 
but  in  particular  to  Abraham.,  and  his  Seed,  in  their  Ge- 
nerations, to  thofe  born  in  his  Houfe,  and  bought  with  hism 
Money,  Gen.  xvii.  12,  13,  26,  27.  Lot  was  not  one 
in  Abraham's  Family,  Gen.  xiii.  14.  and  fo  coulS  not 
be  circumcifed  as  one  of  thetn  ;*and  Mr.  F.  fays  he- was 
not  commanded  by  Name  :  Nor  have  we  any  Account 
that  God  give  any  Orders  about  Profelytes,  till  Ifrael\ 
Return  oat  of  Egypt ;  hen'ce  it  appears"  on  all  Confide- 
rations,  that  Lot  was  not  commanded  to  be  circumcifed. 
"  But  fuppofe  ('fays  he)  what  Mr.  M.  fays,  were  true., 
how  will  the  ArguTTlent  ftand  ?  Not  circumcijed,  therefore 
not  in  Abraham'^  Covenant  j  juji  as  if  Circff^ifon  was 
the  Covenant,  and  the  Covenant  nothing  but  Circumcifion; 
whereas  i^e  are  in  Abraham'j  Covenant,  yet  we  are  not 
circumcifed."  Anf.  Well,  let  us  fuppofe  too,  that  it 
was  even  fo  that  there  were  godly  Perfons  in  Abraham'^ 
Covenant,  and  yet  not  circumcifed  ;  then  it  flill  follows, 
that  being  in  Covenant  does  not  entitle  Perfons  to  an 
Ordinance  j  elfe  why  were  not  thofe  godly  Men  circum- 
cifed t 


[    37    ] 

died  ?  Let  Mr.  F.  fpeak  out,  was  it  not  becaufe  they 
were  not  commanded  ?  And  if  our  Opponents  be  in  A- 
iraham's  Covenant,  yet  it  does  not  entitle  their  Infants 
to  Baptifm  without  a  Command,  as  hereafter  will  ap- 
pear. 

Having  gone  thus  far,  Mr.  F.  fays,  *'  Now  fince  his 
Foundation  is  rozV,  the  SuperftruBure  cannot  Ji and ^  he 
has  tio  Argument  now  left  to  prove,  that  being  in  Cove- 
nant gives  no  Title  to  Ordinances"  Anf.  But  that  is  a 
great  Miftalce  of  his  ;  iiotwithftanding  his  leveral  At- 
tempts made  againft  it,  my  Foundation  abides  unfhaken, 
which  is,  that  there  were  Perfons  in  Abraham's  Day  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  yet  were  not  circurncifed, 
becaufe  not  commanded  ;  and  my  Superftru£lure  is  well 
fixed  upon  the  Foundation,  that  being  in  Covenant  does 
not  therefoYe  entitle  Perfons  to  Ordinances:  Nor  is  thers 
any  Need  I  fhould  offer  further  Arguments  on  this  Head, 
till  what  I  have  advanced  be  overthrown. 

Page  9.  Mr.  F.  proceeds,  and  afks  feveral  Queflions, 
*'  TVill  he  ajfert  that  fealing  Ordinances  are  adminijiered 
cut  of  the  Covenant.  If  be  own  Baptifm  is  commanded  to. 
be  difpenfed  on  a  fpiritual  Account,  then  I  would  know 
whether  fpiritual  Favours  come  to  us,  otherwife  than  by. 
way  of  Covenant  ?' If  he  fay-— only  by  way  of  Covenant, 
the  Point  is  gaind  \  and  thence  it  will  follow,  that  being 
in  covenant  gives  a  Right  to  fealing  Ordinances,  and  no- 
thing beftdes  can  give  it."  Anf.  I  have  already  obferved 
the  Command  to  circumcife  was  not  given  in  general  to 
all  Believers  and  their  Seed  ;  now  the  Queftion  is,  whe- 
ther all  that  were  in  covenant,  had  a  Right  to  Ordi- 
nances without  God's  Command  ?  Pray,  did  fpiritual 
Favours  come  to  Lot,  and  the  reft,  otherwife  than  by- 
Covenant  ?  And  if  only  by  way  of  Covenant,  why  was 
not  Lot,  and  all  Believers,  and  their  Seed,  then  circurn- 
cifed ?  If  it  gives  a  Right  to  fealing  Ordinances  at  one 
Time  without  a  Command,  why  not  at  all  Times  ? 
Why  not  to  the  Behevers  of  old,  if  to  the  unbelieving 
Infants  now  ?  Nay,  on  Mr.  F's  Plan,  what  Need  is 
there  of  a  Command  at  all  ?  Our  Author  is  as  far  as 
ever  from  gaining  the  Point,  unlets  he  had  (hewn,  that 
G  3  beir^g 


[     38     ] 

being  in  Covenant,  entitles  all  Believers  to  Ordinances, 
without  God's  Command  :  But  he  has  not,  and,  I  pre- 
fume,  never  can  {hew,  that  it  ever  entitled  one  to  an 
Ordinance,  without  God's  exprefs  Order. 

'*  But  (fays  he)  what  tho'  Lot  had  neither  been  in 
Abraham'j  Covenant,  nor  yet  had  Right  to  Circunicifion  ? 
It  would  not  hurt  our  Caufe^  who  take  Abraham  for  the 
Prefident  of  our  Privileges^  and  not  Lot."  And  then 
with  fufficient  Warmth,  he  further  adds,  "  So  that  his 
Argument  would  have  been  equally  good^  had  he  /aid  Con- 
itantine  was  not  circumcifed,  therefore  Believers  Infants 
may  not  be  baptized'^  Anf.  If  Lot^  being  a  gracious  Man, 
and  yet  had  no  Right  to  Circumcifion,  then  being  in 
Covenant  does  not  entitle  Perfons  to  Ordinances,  yvhich 
hurts  their  Caufe  fo  much,  that  it  even  overturns  their 
very  Foundation  of  Infants  Baptifm  ;  which  is  built  up- 
on the  Notion  of  Believers  Infants  being  in  Covenant : 
For  if  it  once  appears,  as  I  think  it  does,  that  there 
were  any  of  pld  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  yet  not 
-entitled  to  the  Ordinance  then  being;  it  teaches  us  plain- 
ly, that  in  our  adminiftring  and  receiving  of  Ordinances, 
we  mufl:  have  God's  exprefs  Order,  and  pofitive  Com- 
mand, to  give  us  a  Warrant  or  Title  to  them  refpedively, 
and  nothing  elfe  can  give  it ;  otherwife  to  receive  Or- 
dinances, is  neither  a  Priviledge  nor  Duty.  And  tho'  our 
Opponents  take  Abraham  for  the  Prefident  of  their  Pri- 
viledges,  their  Difficulty  is  not  one  Whit  rernoved,  for 
reither  Abraham  himfelf,  nor  his  Infant  Seed,  had  any 
Right  to  Circumcifion,  till  he  received  the  Command  of 
God  for  it ;  and  as  our  Opponents  have  not  (hewn  any 
Command  of  God  to  baptize  their  Infants  (on  the.Sup- 
pofition  their  Seed  were  in  Covenant)  yet  without  the 
Order  of  God  they  have  no  more  Right  to  Baptifm, 
than  Lot  had  to  Circumcifion  ;  or  Abraham  before  hd 
was  commanded.  Mr.  i^'s  vaft  Stretch  in  putting  Con- 
Jlantine  on  a  Par  with  Lot  here,  muft  furely  be  the 
Fruit  of  fome  over-heated  Paffion,  and  not  the  Refult 
of  deliberate  Judgment :  For  that  old  purblind  Gentle- 
man Common  Sense,  to  whofe  Judgment  he  fubmits 
his  Performance,    will  foon  difcover  his  Error  in  this 

Cafe, 


[     39     ] 

Cafe,    viz.  That  Circumcifion    was  in  Force  in  Lst't 
Day,  but  in  the  Time  of  Conjiantine  it  was  abolifhed. 

Having  thus  followed  Mr.  F,  thro'  ail  he  offers  o\\ 
this  Head  with  any  Shew  of  Argument,  i-can't  but  ob- 
ferve  on  the  whole,  that  he  talks  like  one  much  at  a 
Lofs  what  to  fay,  and,  trying  to  make  good  his  Caufe, 
he  overlooks  God's  Commands,  and  fails  into  a  great 
Abfurdity  in  his  Argument,  in  preferring  the  good 
Qualifications  of  a  Man  as  a  better  Topick  to  difcourfe 
from,  than  divine  Appointments.  I  have  only  now  to 
add  his  Declaration,  Page  7&-.  "  T:hat  he  would  chufe 
Death  rather  than  fubjcrile  thefe  Points  ;"  viz.  That  Lot 
would  have  been  guilty  of  Will-v/orfbip,  had  he  been 
circumcifed  i  and  that  being  in  Covenant  gives  no  Ti- 
tle to  Ordinances.  This  Declaration  it  feems  is  intend- 
ed to  fupply  his  Want  of  Argument,  and  probably  it 
may  do  Wonders  among  thofe  who  implicitly  believe  all 
he  advances  by  his  reading  unwritten  Things :  But  with 
thofe,  who  are  for  feeing  with  their  own  Eyes  in  Mat- 
ters of  Religion,  and  are  *  not  willing  to  give  one  De- 
gree of  AfTent  to  any  Propofition  beyond  the  Evidence 
pf  its  Truth,  a  Declaration  of  this  Kind,  is  but  an  In- 
dication of  a  bad  Caufe. 

Thus  I  h^ve  fliewn  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  their  Ar- 
gument from  the  Covenant,  on  the  Suppofition  the  Cafe 
was,  as  they  urge  j  and  I  am  fo  far  from  being  obliged 
to  unfay,  what  I  h^ve  before  faid,  as  Mr.  R  fondly  ima- 
gines, that  the  Way  is  clear  for  me  to  fay  again,  **  That 
their  PraSiice  of  baptizing  In/ants  is  unwarrantable,  and 
an  Aa  of  Will-worjhip^  even  when  examined  on  tks 
Grounds,  whereby  they  would  fain  confirm  it." 

In  order  to  obviate  a  common  Objection  of  theirs, 
which  is,  "  That  Infants  were  formerly  circumcifed,  and 
they  ought  noiv  to  be  baptized r  I  argued,  "  Ihe  Cafes 
are  not  parallel ;  there  was  God's  Command  for  the  former  ^ 
but  not  fo  for  the  latter. -That  Mr.  F.  makes  light  of  God's 
pofitive  Commands  and  exprefs  Order,  as  an  indifferent 
Thing,  whetihe  afferts,  they  ham  as  good  Ground  to  bap- 
me  Infants,  as  Abraham  had  to  circumcife  them."     To 

C  4  wnicK 

*  Preface,  Page  4. 


[     40     ] 
which  he  brifkly  reph^es,   "  If  then  we  have  the  fame  Co- 
venant, have  we  not  the  fame  Grounds  P  Let  Common  Senfc 
witnefs   whether  this  be  a  making  Light  of  God's  tofitive 
Orders."     Anf.  All   the  fame  !    Mraham  had  the  (Jove'- 
nant,  at  Jeaft  Twenty-four  Years,  before   he   had  any 
Ground  to  circumcifc,  Gen.  xii.    2,  3,  4.     Heb.  xi.  8. 
compared  with  Gen.  xvii.   i,  7.     But   what  gave  him 
Ground   to  circumcife    was  God's  pofitivc  Command, 
jvbich  was  inftitutive  of  that  Ordinance  of  Circumci- 
fion,  Gen.  xvii.  9.   And  when  he,  and  all  his,  were  cir- 
cumcifed,   it  was  by  Virtue  of,  and  in  Compliance  with 
Gods  Command,  Gen.  xvii.  23.  Circumcifion  dep?nd- 
•ed  on  a  divme  Command  ;    upon  this  was  it  founded  ; 
ihis  gave  a  Being  to  that  Ordinance  ;  when  Abraham  re- 
ceived the  Command,   then  did   his  Right  to  Circumci- 
ion  commence;    and  by  Virtue  hereof  was  Circumci- 
!on  continued  ;  and  when  the  Command  was  revoked,  it 
reafed  :  Had  it  been  founded  on  the  Covenant,  or  hid 
"hat  exclufive  of,  or  antecedent  to,  a  Command,  beert 
rnltitutive   of  this  Ordinance,  or  given  a  Right  to  it, 
why  was  not  ^^r^A^/w  circumcifed  before  he  received  the - 
Command.?   Did   he  difobey  God  all  that  while   in  this 
Cafe  r  Did  he  Jive  for  fo  long  a  Time  in  the  Neglea  of 
his  rightful  Privilege?  Surely  No.     Now  if  cur  Oppo- 
nents have  the    fame  Covenant,  yet  having  no  pofitive 
inftitution   for  baptizing  Infants,  their  having  the  Co- 
venant will  give  them   no  more  Ground  to  baptize  In- 
fants,^ wi^thout  the  Inflitution  of  Infant-baptifm,  or  hav- 
ing God's  Command    for  it,  than  Abraha7n\  havino-  the 
Covenant    Twenty- four   Years,    gave  him   Ground  to 
circumcife  before  he  vi^as  commanded.  And,  ifour  Op- 
ponents don't   make  light   of    God's  Commands,  what 
makes  them  affert  they  fland  on  equal  Ground  with  A- 
braham?    Their  Argument   from  their  having  the  fame 
Covenant,  you   fee  is  altogether  groundlefs  and  invalid  • 
Abraham   had  the  Command   of  God  to  circumcifc  In- 
fants, and  that  only  which  gave  any  a  Right  to  Circum- 
cihon  ;  but  our  Opponents  have  none  to  baptize  them, 
and  yet  fay,  they  have  as  good  Ground  as  he:  To  what 
Jurpofc  thenfervcs  the  Command  of  God?    'Tis  evi- 

dentlj 


[     41     ] 

rientlyan  indifferent  Thing,  if  the  Cafe  be  To,  whether 
there  be  a  Command  or  not.  Their  Argument  come* 
juft  to  this,  that  the  Covenant  gives  them  as  good  Ground, 
•wfthout  any  Command,  to  adminifter  an  uninftituted 
Ceremony,  even  Infant-  fprinkling,  as  Abraham^  when 
commanded,  had,  to  adminifter  an  inftituted  Ordinance. 
Does  Mr.  F.  defign  his  Aflertion  here,  and  his  Talk 
about  it  to  be  in  Part,  that  plain  Demonftration,  he* 
fpeaks  of,  which  I  fhould  fubmit  to?  Truly,  fhould  I 
yield  to  fuch  groundlefs  Affertions,  and  Anti^fcriptural 
Pofitions,  I  might  indeed  be  juftly  charged  to  have  at 
once  quitted  my  Claim  to  Honefty  and  Common  Senfe. 

Says  he,  "  Is  the  Covenant  of  God  nothing  in  Mr  M'j 
Ejieem  ?"  Yes,  very  much  ;  nor  have  I  aflerted  any  thing 
to  the  contrary  :  Why  is  this  Qiieftion  afk'd,  but  becaufe 
I  oppos'd  his  prefumptuous  Abufe  of  the  Covenant,  to 
countenance  the  Practice  of  an  uncommanded  Ceremo~ 
ny  ?  He  adds,  "  Are  his  Commands  to  be  conjidered  as 
having  no  Relation  to  his  Covenant  f  Can  we  have  his  Co- 
venant^ and  not  his  Command?  Don't  Mr.  M,  knovj  that 
tue  are  fo  far  from  difregarding  God's  Command.,  that.,  on 
the  contrary.,  we  injiji  it  warrants  our  PraSiice  ?"  Anf* 
I  have  Ihewn  already,  that  Abraham  had  his  Covenant 
a  long  while  before  he  had  the  Command  to  circumcife  ; 
and  muft  Mr.  F.  be  told  again,  that  if  they  have  the 
fame  Covenant  now,  it  is  nothing  to  their  Purpofe  in 
Dilpute,  without  an  exprefs  Command,  And  if  Mr.  F. 
knows  of  any,  let  him  (hew  it ;  for  my  Part,  I  know 
of  no  divine  Command  they  have  to  infift  on,  which 
warrants  their  Pradice  of  Infant- baptifm  :  Their  infift- 
ing  that  the  abrogated  Command  to  circumcife  Infants,  is 
any  ways  in  Force  now  to  baptife  them,  involves  our 
Opponents  in  a  Labyrinth  of  inextricable  Dif?iculties » 
when  they  go  about  to  fhew,  how  a  Command,  which, 
when  it  was  in  Force,  never  required  any  to  be  baptized, 
but  now  being  wholly  difanull'd,  fhould  neverthelefs  be 
fufficiently  f  valid  to  warrant  their  Practice,  or  in  any 
way  authorize  their  baptizing  of  Infants,  is  fuch  a  labo- 
rious 

*  Preface^  Page  S.         f  Divine  Right,  Pa^e  20, 


[     42     ] 
rious  Tafk,  they  cannot  go  through  with,  at  leaft  they 
have  not  let  us  know  tHfey  can. 

Having  taken  a  Review  of  the  Ground  of  our  Au- 
thor's Pretences,  we  find  him  much  where  he  was,  re- 
peating his  Aflertion  unfupported  by  Scripture,  and  un- 
juftly  advancing  to  an  Equality  with  Abraham  :  I  fhall 
therefore  put  it  to  him  again,  as  a  Cafe  of  Confcience, 
Is  the  exprefs  Order  of  God  nothing  in  his  Efleem  ?  Does 
the  Command  of  God  make  no  difFerence  in  the  Cafe  in 
his  Account  ?  Has  he  as  good  Ground  to  proceed  with- 
out it,  as  Abraham  or  others  with  it  ?  Let  perpetual 
Darknefs  fully  his  prefumptuous  Lines  of  infatuated  Zeal— , 
I  am  ftill  quite  free  to  fay,  my  Opponent  can  never  make 
good  his  Aflertion,  for  there  is  an  eternal  Difference  be- 
twixt what  God  has  commanded,  and  what  he  has  not. 

Moreover,  in  refpedi  of  the  Covenant  mentioned  in 
his  firft  Affertion,  into  which  they  fay  Infants  were  ta- 
ken with  their  Parents,  I  obferved,  our  Opponents  run 
themfelves  far  out  of  the  way  of  Truth,  in  their  afTert- 
j'ng  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  be  made  with  Man,  on 
Behalf  of  others  :  .And  inafmuch  as  the  *  Author  of  the 
Whole  Duty  of  Man,  had  been  feverely  cenfured  by 
them,  as  being  very  corrupt  in  his  Notions  concerning 
the  Covenant,  I  judg'd  the  moft  probable  Way  to  con- 
vince them  of  their  Abfurdity,  and  to  correft  their  Ex- 
travagancy, would  be,  to  compare  their  Account  of  it  and 
his  together,  thereby  to  (hew  their  near  Agreement;  and 
therefore  obferved,  there  was  but  little  Odds  betwixt  that 
Author's  faying  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with 
Adam,  and  their  faying  it  was  made  with  Abraham  ;  his 
faying  it  was  made  with  us  in  Adam,  and  their  afferting  it 
was  made  on  Behalf  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  with  Abraham  ', 
his  requiring  Duties  on  our  Part,  and  their  faying,  that 
Degeneracy  breaks  Perfons  off  from  the  fame  Priviledges 
which  Abraham  enjoy'd  :  But  my  doing  fo,  fecms  to  have 
rouzed  Mr.  Fs  Refentment  to  a  very  high  Degree  ;  very 
probable  he  is  not  well  pleafed,  the  World  fliould  at  all 
be  informed  how  near  at  Times  their  own  Writings 
agree  with  an  Author,   which,  at  another  Turn,  they  To 

publickly 

*  Confideration  of  the  ^erijit,  Page  24,  &c. 


[  43  ] 
publickly  condemned  :  But  for  my  Part  I  don*t  fee  any 
Reafon  to  palliate  the  Unfoundnefs  of  their  Ddftrine, 
more  than  his.  Mr.  F.  fays,  "  He  may  ivell  know  we 
hold  no  fuch  Principle"  Anf.  I  well  know  they  fhould 
not ;  *  and  therefore  urged  th«m  to  reconcile  their  Af- 
fertion  in  this  Debate,  "  That  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
xuas  made  ivith  Abraham,  on  Behalf  of  hitnfelf  and  all 
his  Seed"  with  that  in  their  Larger  Cgtechifm,  "  That 
it  was  made  with  Chriji,  and  in  him^  with  all  the  Ele^, 
as  his  Seed"  Which  Mr.  F.  has  not  thought  proper  to 
attempt ;  for  I  am  apt  to  think  it  appeared  to  him,  as 
it  does  to  me,  to  be  an  irreconcilable  Contradidlion. 

Mr.   F.   is  pleafed  to  fay,  that   in  making  the  above 
Comparifon,  "  I  have  rent  off  his  iFords  from  their  Con- 
i^exion,   perverted  their  Meanings  and  violently   tortured  , 
them"  &c.   Thefe  high  Charges   require,  1  fhould  lay 
before  the  Readers,  the    PafTaire   referred    to,   at  large, 
which  runs  thus  ;  Charitable  Plea,  Page  45.   "  Abraham 
tuas  the  Root  from  whence  the  jews  fprang,  and  the  firft 
Fruits  of  the  Nation  to  God,     The  Prcmifes  of  the  Cove- 
nant adminlfiered  by  the  Ordinances  of  God's  Houfe,    were 
the  Fatnefs   of  which  he  partook,  and  which   nourijhed  his 
Soul,  as  the  Fatnefs  of  the  Ground  nourijhes  an  Olive-tree. 
Novjas  the  Branches  that  grow  upon  the  Root,    do  partake 
of  tie  fame  Juice  and  Fatnefs  of  which  the  Root  or  Stock 
partakes^  while  they  are  united,  and  not  lopped  off  ;  "  then 
come   in  the  Words  I   quoted,  '*  £w« /o,   Abraham's 
Poflerity  enjoy  d  the  fame  Priviledges,  Liberties  and   Jm  - 
triunities  in  the  Church  as  himfelf  did,  until  by  their  De- 
generacy fome  of  them  were  broken  off"     Let  the  Reader 
judge  if   thefe   Words,  I  cited,  as  they  are  ftridly  con- 
neded  with  what  goes  before,  without  any  Violence  or 
Torture,    do  not  plainly  aflert,  that  Abraham'^  Pofleri- 
ty enjoyed  the  fame  Soul-nourifhment  from  the  Promifes 
of  the  Covenant,  as  he  did,  until  by  their  Degeneracy 
fome  of  them  were  broken  ofF.     For  what  is  here  faid 
of  Abraham,  is  affirmed  of  his  Poflerity:  Was  he  in  the 
^Church  ?    So  were  they.     Did  he  partake  of  Soul-nou- 
rilhment  from  the  Promifes  of  the  Covenant  ?  So  did 

they 

*  Anti,  Pages  17,   18. 


I  44  J 
they  until  their  Degeneracy  ;  or  elfe  the  Connexion  is 
broken,  which  fays,  *'  Even  fo  they  enjoy' d  the  Jams 
Priviledges  in  the  Church  as  he  did."  If  Mr.  F.  in- 
tends no  more  hereby,  than  that  thofe  degenerate 
Branches  once  enjoy'd  Church  Ordinances,  without  any 
Soul-nourifliment,  then  he  breaks  the  Connexion  of 
his  own  Words  himfelf  j  fuch  a  Meaning  as  he  would 
affign  contradids  them ;  nor  can  his  Affertion  refpeding 
the  degenerate  Pofterity  of  Abraham  be  true,  neither  is 
there  any  Congruity  in  his  Comparifon,  of  the  Branches 
partaking  of  the  same  Juice  and  Fatnefs  of  which 
the  Root  partakes,  while  they  are  united,  and  not  lopp'd 
off,  if  this  be  defigned. 

Pray,  wherein  then  have  I  rent  the  Connexion,  or 
tortur'd  his  Words,  by  obrerving,  that,  for  not  doing 
their  Duty  on  their  Part,  they  forfeited  their  Right  in 
the  Covenant  ?  Does  he  affign  any  Thing  elfe,  as  a  Rea- 
fon,  why  they  were  deprived  of  the  fame  Priviledges 
which  Abraham  enjoy'd,  but  their  Degeneracv,  /.  e.  not 
doing  their  Duty?  And  if  he  now  diflikes  'the  abfurd 
Dodrine  his  Words  contain,  in  their  proper,  natural, 
and  unwrefted  Connexion,  who'  can  he  blame  but  him- 
felf for  writlng-fo?  For  him  to  make  a  Stir,  and  to 
call  me  an  uhc^ndid,  unfair  Opponent,  "^and  charge  me 
with  Antimmianifm^  will  not  remove  the  Difficulty  ;  his 
Bufinefs  is  to  make  good  his  Dodrine,'  and  fhew  that 
Works  are  the  Condition  of  ftanding  in  the  new  Cove- 
nant, and  for  want  of  them,  that  Perfons  who  were  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  do  forfeit  their  Right,  and  are 
excluded:  What  is  this  but.  Do  and  live?.  Is  there 
any  real  Difference  between  him,  and  the  Whole  Duty 
tf  Man,  in  this  Point  ?  Or  elfe  let  him  fay,  that  his 
Meaning  and  the  Words,  in  the  cited  Paragraph,  look 
contrary  Ways. 

On  this  Head,  he  refers  us  to  Charitable  Plea,  Page 
47.  •'  None,  (fays  he)  can  be  broken  off  from  true  inherent. 
HoUnefi\  nor  from  Elc£iion,  nor  from  the  invifihle  Church. 
But  how  does  this  help  him  ?  The  .Queflion  is,  are  there 
any  others  befides  the  Eka,  and  triily  Holy,  in  the  Co- 
venanl  of  Grace  ?    If  pot,    how  can  any  forfeit  their 

Right 


[  45  ] 
Right  in  the  Covenant,  when  none  can  be  broken  off 
from  true  Holinefs  ?  But  if  there  are  fome  in  the  Cove- 
nant without  true  inherent  Holinefs,  and  Soul,  nourifh- 
ment  from  the  Promifes  of  it,  then  fuch  don't  enjoy  th<j 
fame  Priviledges  in  the  Church,  until  their  Degenera- 
cy, as  jfbra ham  did  i  which  gainfays  his  Afiertion  :  But 
it  is  no  new  Thing,  for  one,  who  is  an  Advocate  for 
Error,  to  contradict  himfelf,  and  alfo  to  run  into  ma- 
ny more  in  Defence  of  it. 

Again,  I  obferved  in  the  Dialogue^  this  Pofition, 
"  That  it  was  truly  the  Covenant  of  Grace^  made  with 
Abraham,  on  Behalf  of  himfelf^  and  both  his  natural  and 
Jpiritual  Seed,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles."  Mr.  F.  would 
glofs  over  this  anti-fcriptural  Pofition,  and  excufe  the 
Author,  by  faying,  "  He  is  fatisfied  the  Author  meant  na 
more  than  he  does."  An  ingenious  Salvo  !  Pray,  does  the 
Author's  Meaning  point  South,  and  his  Words  due 
North  ?  What  a  Difficulty  is  it  to  deal  with  Men,  who 
fliift  frcun  the  exprefs  Meaning  of  their  Words,  to  a 
hidden,  or  unexprefs'd  Meaning  !  Why  does  Mr.  F,  con- 
demn the  *  Moravians,  for  (hifcing,  and  being  equivo- 
cal ?  When  he  flies  here  from  the  Author's  exprefs 
V/ords,  and  infmuatcs  I  miftake  his  Meaning  :  What 
is  this  but  to  fay,  that  if  Men's  Words  and  Aflertions 
be  ever  fo  corrupt,  yet '  their  Meaning  muft  be  account- 
ed good  and  found  ?  Why  then  was  the  f  Author  of 
the  Whole  Duty  of  Man  condemned,  as  no  Chrifiian  ? 
Might  not  he  as  well  be  excufed  in  the  fame  Manner  ? 
Is  it  becaufe  he  unhappily  pitched  on  Adam,  inftead  of 
Abraham,  to  be  a  publick  Head  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  I  Where  elfe  lies  the  Difference,  between  mak- 
ing the  Covenant  with  us  in  Adam,  and  making  it  on 
our  Behalf  with  Abraham?  But  till  Mr.  F.  tcJls  us  how 
we  (hall  judge  of  Peoples  Meaning,  but  by  their  Words, 
we  will  judge  according  to  the  latter :  Now  if  he,  and 
the  Author  of  the  Dialogue,  underftand  by  God's  efta- 
blifhing  a  Covenant    with  Abraham  and  his  Seed,  Gen. 

xvii. 

*  Vid.  his  Preface  to  Satan  firlpfd  of  his  angelick  Robe, 
Pages  9,   II. 

•f  Qonfideratiox  of  the  ^erijis.  Page  26. 


[    46    ] 

XV  ii.  7.  life,  that  Abraham  was  a  publick  Perfon  in  th6 
Covenant  of  Grace,  according  to  this  Aflertion,  I  don't 
fcruple  to  fay  that  both  their  Meanings  are  very  cor- 
rupt, as  well  as  their  Words  ;  but  if  nor,  their  Words 
in  this  Afiertion,  and  the  Mind  of  God  in  thofe  PlaceSj 
are  vaftly  different.  But  is  not  Mr.  F.  fatisfied  alio,  that 
my  Remarks  on  what  the  Author  of  the  Dialogue  fays, 
are  juft  and  proper,  when  he  has  not  offered  to  contra- 
di6l  them  ?  Now,  if  Mr.  F.  holds  no  fuch  Principle,  as 
is  afTerted  in  the  Dialogue,  where  is  his  Regard  for 
Truth  ?  His  Care  for  the  Good  of  Souls  ?  Or  his  pro- 
fefTed  Efleem  for  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  When  he 
hears  fuch  Dodlrine  advanced,  which  dire£lly  and  na- 
tively jufiles  Chriflout  of  his  mediatorial  Dignity  ?  Sinks 
the  Glory  of  the  new  Covena'nt ;  leads  People  away 
from  the  Truth,  and  difhonours  God  ;  without  protefl- 
ing  againfl  it,  or  fo  much  as  acknowledging  the  Au- 
thor's Words  were  very  corrupt,  let  his  unfeen  Mean- 
ing be  what  it  will  ?  Muft  a  fundamental  Error,.yea,  an 
Error  of  the  firfl  Magnitude,  if  it  be  found  in  an  inge- 
nious Dialogue  (as  he  unjuftly  calls  it)  if  it  feemingly 
make  for  his  Caufe,  or  in  his  Party-Fviend,  be  flily  paft 
over,  and  artfully  excufed  from  the  Notice  of  his  Read- 
ers ?  Efpecially  by  a  Man,  who  at  other  Times  pro- 
fefTes  he  would  chufe  Death,  rather  than  fubfcribe  that^ 
which  is  contray  to  his  Opinion  ?  Intolerable  Partiality 
and  Unfaithfulnefs  I  Is  Infant-baptifm  fo  delightful  to 
our  Opponents,  that  it  muil  be  maintained  at  any  Rate  ? 
Mufl  efTential  Truths  be  fupprelTed,  and  fundamental 
Errors  winked  at,  to  make  way  for  their  darling  Tenet  ? 
Is  not  this  theexacSl  Character  of  a  deluded  Confcience? 
Mr.  F.  afks,  "  Who  can  think  him  fo  ignorant  as  not 
to  know,  that  this  is  not  the  Matter  in  Difpute  between 
us  ?"  Anf.  Every  one,  that  knows  any  Thing  of  the 
Matter,  knows  that  we  are  led  by  our  Opponents  to 
difpute  about  the  Covenant,  into  which  they  plead  In- 
fants were  taken  ;  And  when  we  hear  them  fpeaking 
their  Minds  about  it,  and  afTerting  that  it  was  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  made  with  Abraham  on  Behalf  of  all 
his  Seed,  Jews  and  Gentiki :    Common  Senfe  (Mr.  F's 

Judge 


[    47    ] 

Judge  in  this  Controverfy)  teaches,  that  it  becomes  us. 
to  fpeak  to  the  very  Matter  in  Hand,  or  elfe  we  fliould 
be  chargeable  with  what  Mr.  F.  (o  unjuftly  charges  us, 
that  is,  evading  their  Arguments.  And  when  Jbraham  is 
reprefented  to  be  a  publick  Head  in  the  Covenant  if 
Grace,is  it  any  Wonder  at  all  that  it  ihould  furprize  cne7 
Did  I  give  fuch  a  Principle  any  other  Names  than  what 
it  deferved  ?  I  faid  it  was  an  abfurd  Pofition,  pregnant 
with  intolerable  Falfhoods ;  nor  do  I  fee  any  Caufe  as 
yet  to  alter  my  Sentiments:  And  had  not  I  good  Reafon 
to  father  it  upon  our  Opponents  ?  When  I  cited  their 
Book  and  Page  where  it  is  found,  which  Mr.  F.  has  not 
been  able  to  deny  ;  the'  he  feems  defirous  to  excufc  the 
Author,  if  poffible,  and  willing  enough  to  have  no  talk 
made  about  it,  by  his  objedling,  that  it  is  no  Part  of  our 
prefent  Controverfy  ;  And  I  think  I  had  juft  Ground  to 
reafon  laborioufly  againft  fuch  Anti-chriftian  Dodrine, 
wherever  it  occurr'd,  and  fo  fliould  Mr.  F.  too,  if  his 
efpoufed  Caufe  will  permit  him.  Now  if  he  will  deal 
fairly,  and  above-board,  with  his  Readers,  in  this  Point, 
he  will  either  vindicate,  that  Abraham  was  a  publick 
Head  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  fo  oblige  himfelf 
to  anfwer  my  Arguments  advanc'd  againft  it,  in  my  for- 
mer Treatife  ;  or  elfe  he  will  inform  them  to  the  con- 
trary, by  retracing  thofe  Paflages  (I  excepted  againft) 
which  tend  to  carry  them  off  from  the  Truth.  But  for 
him  to  fay,  they  hold  no  fuch  Principle,  when  fuch  a 
Principle  is  exprefs'd  in  their  Writing,  is  to  fay,  that 
they  don't  hold  what  they  write,  nor  mean  what  they 
fpeak,  which  is  a  great  Inconfiftency  in  Gentlemen  of 
Senfe. 

Our  Author  thinks  proper  further  to  fay,  "  Mr.  M.  has 
Jhuffied  in^  and  infi/ied  on  this  Argument ^  whether  hhx^- 
ham  be  Reprejentative  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ;  and  in 
Page  24.  calls  it  the  Foundation  of  our  whole  Stru£fure, 
whereas  it  does  not  fo  much  as  enter  into  the  Difpute  about 
Baptifm  at  all.'"  Reply  j  But  his  charging  me  herewith 
won't  be  believed  by  any,  where  the  Truth  is  known  : 
The  Author  of  the  Dialogue  introcluced  it,  before  I  put 
Pen  to  Paper,  and  induftrioufly  Jabout'd  to  poffefs  his 

Neighbour 


[    48     J 

Neighbour  with  the  Notion  ;  for,  after  he  had  reafoned 
about  the  Covenant  for  three  or  four  Pages,  he  thus 
winds  up  his  Argument,  *  "  /  hope,  by  this  1ime\  you 
are  convinced^  that  this  Covenant  contains  in  it  fomethir.g 
more  than  temporal  Mercies  ;  and  that  it  was  truly  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Abraham,  on  Behalf  of  hi??i~ 
felf  and  both  his  natural  and  fpiritual  Seedy  both  Jews 
and  GentiJer,."  Hence  it  plainly  appears,  the  Author 
endeavcuied  to  convince  his  Neighbour,  amongft  other- 
Things,  that  this  Covenant  of  Grace  he  had  been  fpeak- 
ingof,  w^as  made  with  Abraham^  on  Behalf  of  himfelf, 
and  all  his  Seed,  notwithflanding  Mr.  F.  has  the  Cou- 
rage to  charge  me  with  Shuffling  in  this  Argument !  Now 
fmce  our  Opponents  have  fhuffled  it  in,  let  them  make 
the  beft  of  it  they  can,  in  this  Difpute,  and  take  it  out 
again,  when  they  have  dojie  with  it.  What  .1  called 
the  Foundation  of  rheir  whole  Strudure,  in  Page  24. 
is  Abraham^  Covenant,  they  fpeak  fo  much  of  ;"and  if 
this  does  not  fo  much  as  enter  into  the  Difpute  about 
Baptifm  at  all,  why  do  oiir  Opponents  go  out  of  their 
Way  to  infiit  on  it .?  Their  Milbke  in  the  Foundation 
I  nlentioned,  is  their  reprefenting  Abraham  to  be  a  publick 
Head  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  the  Dialogue  ex- 
prefly  teaches. 

I  obferved,  "  That  the  Covtnant  of  Grace  zuas  madi 
iXjith  ChriJi-'-That  of  all  the  Seed  ^/Abraham,  the  Re- 
generate only  were  in  Covenant-— As  for  others  who  died 
in  their  natural  State^  that  they  were  no  further  impri- 
viledged  at  the  ?nofi,  but  only  to  partake  of  Ordinances  ap- 
pointed of  Gody  during  the  Continuance  of  thai  dark^  lie- 
gal,  and  typical  Difpenfation^  which  is  very  different  from 
their  being  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  To  which  Mr. 
F.  replies,  "  'Tts  different  from  being  in  it  favingly  :  But 
is  it  different  from  being  in  it  in  the  Sight  of  th3  viflble 
Church  ?  This  is  what  he  Jhould  have  affirmed,  if  he  de- 
figned  to  contradi£i  me."  Anf  \i  \  take  Mr.  F.  right 
in  this  Place,  he  grants  and  affirms,  that  partaking  of 
Ordinances  in  the  Church,  is  not  different  from  being 
rifibly  in  Covenant  j,  /.  e.   it  is  one  and  the  fame  i  then 

I  fay 
*  Divine  Right,  Page  16. 


[    49    1 

I  fay  Believers  Infants  were  taken  with  their  Parents 
into  the  Covenant  itfelf,  or  only  into  the  outward  Ad- 
miniftratiort  of  it  ?  If  into  the  Covenant  itfelf,  then 
there  is  a  great  deal  more  to  be  underftood  by  their  being 
vifibly  in  Covenant,  than  juft  partaking  of  Ordinances^ 
even  their  receiving  and  enjoying  fpiritual  Blefiings,  fronx 
Chrift  to  their  Souls;  and  fo  Mr.  F.  tnuft  recal  hi* 
Conce/Tion.  But  if  they  were  admitted  only  into  the 
outward  Adminiftration,  then  his  firft  Aflertion  is  falla- 
cious, which  afHrms,  they  were  taken  into  Covenant^ 
which  he  interprets  to  be  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace*. 
Why  is  the  protcfTiag  World  thus  impofed  on  by  their 
Doftrine  ?  For^,  according  to  our  Author  in  this  Place, 
Believers  Infants  were  only  admitted  into  the  outward 
Adminiftration  to  partake  of  Ordinances,  and  no  more? 
Why  is  not  the  Cafe  fet  forth  in  its  clear  and  proper 
Light,  that  People  might  not  be  led  out  of  the  Way  of 
Truth  ?  ^nd  what  fauftering  feizes  our  Opponent,  whem 
he  is  about  to  vindicate  his  Allertion,  that  he  fhould  drop 
through  his  high  ExprelTions  and  lofty  Terms  ufed  there- 
in ;  and  can  make  nothing  more  of  them,  than  what 
we  fay  !  And  tho'  Mr.  F.  feems  to  grant,  that  partak- 
ing of  Ordinances,  and  being  vifibly  in  Covenant, 
is  one  and  the  fame  Thing  ;  yet  by  his  following  Words, 
it  feems  as  if  he  intended  fom.ething  more  hereby  :  Says 
he,  *'  fFe  dont  pkad  for  the  Continuance  of  the  fame 
Adminijiration^  hut  of  the  fame  Covenant ;  and  the ^^le- 
flion  is  not  whether  thofe  typical  Ordinances  are  ahoUjhed  ? 
But^  whether  the  Covenant  is  aboUfied  too  f"  Reply. 
What  Covenant?  If  he  means  that  made  with  Chrift 
ffom  Everlafting,  who  ever  queftioned,  whether  that  is 
abolifhed?  ButTf  he  means  any  other,  let  him  explain 
himfelf.  And  what  is  it  to  his  prcfent  Purpofe,  if  that 
Covenant  of  Grace  continues  the  fame,  when  Infants 
were  never  taken,  together  with  their  beheving  Parents, 
into  the  Covenant  itfelf,  made  with  Chrift,  but  only 
formerly  into  the  outward  Adminiftration?  Truly,  no- 
thing at  all.  Or  does  Mr.  F.  take  the  Covenant  and  the 
Adminiftration  of  it,  to  be  one  and  the  fame  Thing  ?  If 
he  does,  how  could  the  Adminiftration  be  aboliihed,  and 

D  not 


,  L   50  ■  J 

not  the  Covenant  too  ?  Is  not  the  Goven?int  of  Grace  un- 
changeable ?  So  muft  the  Adminiftration  of  it  be  alfo,  if  it 
is  one  and  the  fame  Thing.  And  it  would  hence  further 
follow,  that  thofe  who  were  once  vifibly  in  it  (as  our 
Opponents  phrafe  it)  could  never  fall  away,  which  Mr. 
F.  dares  not  affirm.  But  he  fays,  "  They  don't  plead  for 
the  Continuance  of  the  fame  AdnuniftnQt'ton^  hut  of  the 
fame  Covenant'*  Therefore  the  Adminiftration  is  one 
Thing,  and  the  Covenant  another.     Hence, 

Mr.  Ps  Afiertion,  and  my  Refutation  ftand  thus: 
Affertion  ;  *'  Believers  Infants  were  once  by  divine  Ap- 
pointment taken  into  Covenant  with  their  Parents"  Refu- 
tation ;  Believers  Infants,  as  fuch,  were  never  taken 
into  Covenant  with  their  Parents,  but  only  under  the 
former  Adminiftration,  they  were  admitted  to  partake 
of  Ordinances  by  divine  Appointment.  And  unlefs  Mr. 
F.  will  prove  his  Aflertion,  pr  make  appear,  that  there 
is  more  in  being  vifibly  in  Covenant,  than  being  ad- 
mitted into  the  outward  Adminiftration ;  his  /^flertion, 
■whether  he  acknowledges  it,  or  not,  will  always  ftand  re- 
futed, as  now  it  does.  As  to  thofe  Texts  he  cited,  with 
a  Defign  to  prove  it,  I  obferved  they  refer  to  the  fpiritual 
Seed  only  :  Nor  has  Mr.  F.  been  able  to  (hew,  that 
thofe  Places  confirm  what  he  propofed  to  prove  by  them  9 
they  prove  indeed,  the  fpiritual  Seied  to  be  in  Covenant^ 
but  this  was  not  the  Thing  he  propofed.  Mr.  F.  has 
rot  (hewn  (and  I  believe  never  can  fhew)  that  the  Seed 
of  Believers  were  in  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace,  an- 
tecedent to  their  Vocation,  Juftification,  and  Participa- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghoft ;  then  what  a  mere  Amufement 
is  it  to  talk  of  their  being  in  Covenant,  when  all  that 
he  can  make  out,  is,  that  they  were  once  taken  into  the 
outward  Adminiftration  :  If  he  calls  this  the  Covenanto 
it  will  not  help  his  Caufe  in  the  leaft,  becaufe  the  for- 
mer Adminiftration  is  abolifhed. 

Further,  our  Concern  is  not  (o  much,  how  Abrahant 
was  to  underftand  the  Promife  :  Certainly  he  could  not 
iihderftand  that  all  his  Seed  were  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  or  any  of  them  befides  Ifaac^  Gen.  xvii.  19. 
?^xv»  2,  tho*,  scry  like,  he  might  be  as  unwilling  to  caft 

out 


[     51     ] 

OMt  his  Son  IJhma elf  Gen.  xx'i:  jo^  ir,  I2.  as  our  Oppo- 
nents now  are  to  acknowledge  their  Infants  not  to  be  ia 
Covenant ;  but  in  particular,  how  are  we  to  underftand 
it  ?  Now  Mr.  F.  hath  not  been  able  hitherto  to  (hew 
us,  that  any  other  but  the  Children  of  the  Promife  (/.  g, 
true  Believers)  are  counted  for  the  Seed,  Rom.  ix.  8. 

Upon  the  whole,  in  anfwer  to  Mr.  F'sJirA  Aflertion^ 
I  have  particularly  fliewn,  i.  The  Inconclufivenefs  of 
their  Argument  from  Jhrabam's  Covenant,  if  the  Cafe 
was  as  they  urge,  2.  The  effential  Difference  between 
their  Cafe,  and  Jhrabam's :  That  Jbraharn  had  the 
Command  of  God  for  Circumcifion,  but  they  have 
none  for  Infants  Baptifm  :  Moreover  I  have  fhewn  that 
the  Covenant  did  not  give  a  Being  to  Circumcifion,  but 
the  divine  Command,  becaufe  Abraham  had  the  Cove- 
nant fo  long  before  he  was  circumcifed.  3.  The  Abfur- 
dities  our  Opponents  fall  into,  by  pleadmg  for  Infants 
Right  to  Baptifm.  4.  That  Infants  were  never  taken  into 
Covenant  v/ith  their  believing  Parents,  unlefs  our  Op- 
ponents mean  the  outward  Adminiftration,  by  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  ;  and  if  fo,  yet  it  will  do  their  Caufe: 
no  Service.  Laft3y,  That  the  Scriptures  Mr.  F.  pro- 
duced, do  riot  ferve  his  Purpofe,  And  I  fball  now  leave 
it  freely  to  the  Determination  of  the  judicious  Reader^ 
■whether  I  have  not  only  argued  direcSlly  againft  his  Af-~ 
fertion,  but  alfo  really  undermined  and  overturned  the 
very  Foundation  of  Infant- baptifm  ?        , 

I  {hall  juft  detain  the  Reader  a  little,  while  I  ftep  back 
ts  catch  fome  of  Mr.  F%  commanding  Officers,  which 
he  has  commiflioned  out  againft  us,  no  doubt  with  a 
Defigri  to  be  the  chief  Engineers  in  this  Engagement; 
fuch  as  thefe,  **  Here.,  if  ever.,  Mr,  M.  Jhevoi  his  Ahili^ 
1y  in  Terglverfat'im—'Whilj}  he  makes  a  Shew  of  anfwer ' 
ing  my  Arguments.,  he  only  raifes  Duji— -Hides  himfelf 
among  an  Heap  oflthings  quite  foreign  to  the  Point---1hat 
vje  retain  not  the  fame  Idea  of  the  Covenant.,  is  Mr.  M'jr 
tzvn  FiSiion-'-He  foars  into  Bomhad- --Behold  the  Tergi" 
VirJation--lVbat  ReferveS'-Rubbip"  &c,  Thefe  Com- 
pliments, as  they  are  inconfiftent  with  the  Truth  of 
Things  on  this  Head,  fo  alfo  with  Mr.  i^'s  protefting 
D  2  againft 


t    5»    ] 

againft  angry,  perfonal  Reflcdions,  in  religious  Contro- 
verfies;  and  quite  contrary  to  his  Profeflion  of  being  an 
Advocate  for  Meeknefsand  Humility,  in  the  Search  after 
Truth.  Bat,  leaving  them  bound  and  difarmed  by  the 
Way,  I  pafs  on  to  his  fecond  Head  ;  which  is, 

**  Whether  {he  aforefald  Appointment  he  repealed  ?^^  I 
anfwer  again,  Yes.  For  Infants  Right  to  Circumcifiori 
flood  upon  the  Bafis  of  God's  exprefs  Command  ;  this 
is  that  vi'hich  gave  a  Being  to  that  Appointment  of  In- 
fant memberfhip,  and  Circumcifion,  in  the  yewijl? 
Church  ;  and  by  Virtue  of  the  fame  divine  Authority 
was  it  continued  in  fuccelfive  Ages,  till  the  Defign  of 
God  therein  was  fulfilled  ;  and  when  the  Command 
which  was  inftitutive  of  that  Ordinance,  was  difannull'd, 
the  Appointment  ceafed  with  it,  as  I  have  already  ob- 
kxvedy  or  elfe  an  Appointment  would  {land  without  its 
Foundation,  which  cannot  be.  Having  the  Covenant 
(as  we  have  feen)  did  not  give  a  Being  to  this  Appoint- 
ment, for  Abraham  had  the  Covenant  of  Promife  a  long 
Time  before  the  Being  of  Circumcifion,  or  any  Right 
to  it.  Nor  has  Mr.  F.  as  yet  (hewn  that  Infants  were 
taken  into  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  but  only  admitted 
formerly  to  the  outward  Adminiflration,  which  is  now 
aboliftied  j  fo  that  the  plain  State  of  the  Qi^ieftion  is, 
whether  Infants  are  to  partake  of  Baptifm,  under  the 
prefent  Adminiflration,  as  they  were  circumcifed  for- 
merly ?  If  they  are,  there  mufl:  be  the  like  Ground  for 
the  one,  as  there  was  for  the  other,  even  God's  exprefs 
Command,  but  this  can't  be  (hewn  ;  for  at  the  very 
Beginning  of  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation,  a  Profe/fion  of 
Faith  and  Repentance  was  always  required  by  yohn^  the 
Forerunner  of  Chrift,  in  order  to  Baptifm  ;  for  which 
I  cited  feveral  *  Texts  of  Holy  Writ  j  which  ftand  fair 
in  Defence  of  this  Truth,That  fuch,  and  none  elfe,  were 
baptized  according  to  the  Scripture.  Mr.  F.  will  have 
it,  that  yohn's  requiring  a  Profefiion  of  Faith  from 
grown  Perfons,  does  not  exclude  Infants :  But  the  Argu- 
ment he  pretends  to  frame  for  us,  fhould  be  mended 
thus  f  "  Ue  who  conjiantly  requirsi  a  Profejfion  of  Faith, 

♦  Afiti,  Page  z-j. 


L    53    ] 

tic.  from  all  that  come  to  his  Bapttfmy  baptizes  none  with' 
out  fuch  a  ProfeJJion :  But  John  con/lantly  reqtnred  Pro-^ 
fejjton  of  Faith ^  Sic.  from  all  that  came  to  his  Baptifm'i 
therefore  John  baptized  none  without  Juch  a  ProfeJJion." 
This  Argument  holds  good,  according  to  the  Account 
we  find  in  Scripture  of  "John's  Baptizing;  and  what 
Room  is  there  for  Mr.  F.  to  object,  unlefs  he  has  Re- 
courfe  to  his  Art  of  Reading  what  is  not  written  :  But 
this  he  *  profefTes  to  rejedl,  and  yet  has  he  any  other 
Ground  for  his  Conclufion,  **  That  there  is  no  Room  to 
doubt,  but  John  baptized  Believers  Infants  "  but  this  ? 
He  would  do  well  to  confider,  that  John  did  not  baptize 
Perfons  by  Virtue  of  the  Command  given  to  circumcife; 
for  that  was  not  inftitutive  of  Bapttfm;  and  if  not  by 
Virtue  of  it,  then  there  is  no  Colour  of  Reafon  to  con- 
clude, that  he  conformed  to  it,  inadminiftering  Baptifm, 
which  had  no  Dependance  on  it ;  but  was  fent  of  God 
immediately  with  divine  Authority  to  baptize,  John  i.  33, 
And  before  our  Author  can  have  any  Room  to  imagine 
that  John  bapti^/d  Infants,  he  muft  make  appear,  that 
4he  Order  which  God  gave  him,  required  him  to  bap- 
tize them,  which  1  believe  is  a  Tailc  too  heavy  for  Mr. 
F.  to  perform.  John's  baptizing  none  but  ProfelTors, 
according  to  the  Scripture  Account,  very  plainly  be- 
fpeaks  that  this  was  the  Order  he  received  immediately 
from  God,  Neither  did  Chrift  lay  any  Unfaithfulnefs 
to  his  Charge  j  nor,  indeed,  can  it  rationally  be  fup- 
pofed,  that  that  holy  and  excellent  Man,  did  not  a6l  in- 
variably, and  exadlly  according  to  the  divine  Dire^ions 
which  he  immediately  received  from  God. 

The  Confideration,  that  John  received  the  Command 
to  baptize  immediately  from  God,  futHciently  refutes  Mr. 
F's  "  Pretences  of  the  Right  of  Infants  to  Baptifm,  tho* 
grown  wicked  Perfons-  had  forfeited  their  Right,  and  were 
rejeifed.'*  Pray,  what  Right  had  Infants?  Or,  how 
came  they  by  it  ?  They  had  a  Plight  to  Circumcifion, 
becaufe  God  commanded  fo ;  if  it  were  allowed  they 
were  in  Covenant,  yet  that  would  not  do  without  a  Com- 
mand, as  we  have  already  feen.  How  does  their  Right 
D  3  to 

Find:,  Page  15, 


[    54    ] 

to  Baptlfm  appear,  unlefs  it  appeared,  that  God  com- 
inande<i5^«;^«  to  baptize  them  ?  Why,  in  no  wife.  And 
when  Mr.  F.  can  produce  the  Command  of  God  givea 
to  John  to  baptize  Infants,  we  promife  we  will  hear- 
ien  to  him  with  both  our  Ears,  pleading  their  Right  to 
Baptifm  :  But  till  he  does  that,  I  {hall  pay  no  other  Re- 
gard to  all  he  fays  on  this  Head,  than  what  falfe  Doc- 
trines and  unfcriptural  Principles  do  defer ve.  As  for 
any  Thing  he  has  faid  againft  my  Argument,  I  may 
venture  to  refume  it  ;  "  The  Cafe  is  ihts^  either  it  was 
the  Will  and  JppQintr.ifnt  of  God,  that  Johnjhould  baptize 
JSelievers  Infants.,  or  it  was  not  F  If  any  fay  it  was,  they 
make  that  holy  Alan  (who  received  hisMiffion  immediately 
from  God)  a  vile  Iranfgreffhr  of  the  divine  JVill  and  Ap- 
'poinXment :  But  fuch  an  horrid  Criine  vjas  never  charged 
an  him,  who  was  fa  highly  commended  by  Chrijl  him f elf : 
^Then  it  follows^  that  it  was  not  the  F/ilt  and  Appointment 
tf  God,  for  him  to  baptize  Infants.*'  Now,  unlefs  it 
could  be  made  appear,  that  Jchn  baptized  Infants  j  or  that 
he  (hould,  but  did  not;  neither  of  which  hath  ever  been 
proved,  it  remains  undeniably  evident,' maugre  all  Op* 
jjoC'ion,  and  Error  itfelf,  that  it  was  not  the  VViH,  iiid 
J^ppointment  of  God,   they  Ihould  be  baptized. 

Mr.  F,  fays,  "  ^his  Argmr,ent  -makes  a  Rumbling  like 
BaraliptonJ*  To  be  fure  I  You  fee  it  made  fuch  a 
Rumbling  in  his  Ears,  that  he  could  not  fland  to  refute 
it ;  but,  at  a  DiflanceofF,cries  out,  *'  'Tis  ridiculous--"Tis 
41  bare-fac'd  begging  the  ^uejiion  in  Difpute,*'  without 
Ihewing  wherein,  or  how  it  i^s  fo.  And  a(ks,  *'  Can  it 
he,  that  I  expeSied  a  ferious  Anfwer  to  this  Argument?'* 
Not  reafonably,  becaufe  1  might  readily  judge  he  had 
Hone  to  give.  However,  inftead  of  ferious  Anfwers,  he 
ixiufl  fay  fomething,  if  it  is  no  more  than  charging 
jne  with  begging  the  Queftion,  and  rehearfmg  his  for- 
mer Talk  :  But  he  may  know  I  am  by  this  Time  more 
us'd  to  the  Battle,  than  to  be  fcar'd  with  the  Sound  of 
his  Trumpet,  or  loud  Huzza's :  Are  Things  come  to 
that  Pafs  with  Mr.  F.  that  he  calls  my  Adherence  to 
exprefs  Scripture  Teflimony  in  the  Cafe  of  'John,  a 
barefac'd  begging  the  Queftign  \  'Tis  furcly  pinching 

Times 


I    S5    1 

Times  with  him  !  The  Point  I  obferved,  and  which  the 
Scriptures  formerly  quoted  do  prafe,  That  John  bap- 
tized none  upon  any  other  Confideration,  but  upon  Pro- 
feffion  of  Faith,  and  Confefiion  of  Sin,  makes  it  appear 
this  was  the  Order  he  received  from  God  ;  and  (hews 
that  Infants  were  not  baptized  fanlefs  our  Opponent 
could  fhew  from  Scripture,  that  he  baptized  fome  with- 
out thefe  Quahfications,  which  if  he  could,  doubtlefs  he 
would  before  now)  and  effectually  refutes  his  Plea,  that 
Infants  are  not  intended  in  thofe  Texts;  therefore 
they  were  baptized  upon  fome  other  Confideration,  let 
that  be  (hewn.  He  fays  (at  leaft  he  would  have  hisRea- 
ders  believe  fo)  that  John  baptized  Believers  Infants; 
Let  him  tell  us,  whether  this  does  not  more  juftly  deferve 
the  Name  of  barefac'd  begging  the  Queftion  inDifpute, 
which  has  no  Hint  in  Scripture  to  fupport  it?  But  the 
•Way  he  takes  to  efcape  the  Force  of  my  Obfervations, 
is  thus,  ^■^  There  is  no  Ground  to  believe  John  did  not  bap- 
tize Believers  Infants',  and  (fays  he)  this  is  enough  at 
prefent  until  I  come  to  advance  pofitive  Proof. ^'  Reply. 
Truly  then  this  muft  be, enough  always;  for  he  does  not 
come  to  advance  pofitive  Proof,  that  John  baptized  Be- 
lievers Infants  all  thro*'  his  Pamphlet;  I  do  therefore 
publickly  call  orf  him  to  produce  a  pofitivs  Proof  from 
Scripture,  x.\\d,tJohn  ever  baptized  one  Infant;  or  elfe 
forbear  to  prejudice  unwary-  Souls  j^ainft  Gofpel 
Truths :  Whatan  Impofition  muft  it  be  on  his  Pleaders, 
that  he  (hould  talk  at  this  Rate,  when  he  cannot  but 
know  at  the  fame  Time,  there  is  no  pofitive  Proof  for 
it  to  be  found  in  the  Word  of  God!  nor  even  fo  hiuch 
as  a  ]u&.  Confequence  to  fupport  the  Infinuation  ;  fincc 
yoZ'w  baptized  by  Virtue  of  the  Command  he  received 
immediately  from  God,  and  not  by  that  given  to  circum- 
cife.  Says  he,  "  The  Scriptures  don't  fay  that  John  did 
not  baptize  Infants  on  the  fame  Day  with  their  Parents'* 
And  again,  "  The  Scriptures  don't  fay  he  did  not  urge 
the  Parents  to  bring  their  Children  to  Baptijm."  Reply. 
The  Scriptures  don't  fay,  that  John  did  not  circumcife 
all  that  came  to  him  to  be  baptized.  Again,  The  Scrip- 
tures dbn't  fay,  he  did  not  fign  them  all  with  the  Sign 
D4  «^ 


[    56    ] 

of  the  Crofs,  whom  he  baptized  in  the  Name  of  him  that 
was  to  come  :  But  fiiall  we  believe  he  did,  becaufe  the 
Scriptures  don't  fajfthe  Contrary  ?  In  no  wife.  And  aie 
Mr.  F's  trifling  Obje(SHons,  in  favouT  of  his  Opinion, 
any  better,  or  in  the  leaft  to  be  regarded  ?  Not  at  all  ; 
neither  indeed  are  they  of  any  Ufe  to  his  Gaufe,  unlefs 
it  be  to  {hew  us  the  Wcaknefs  of  it,  and  the  Manner 
whereby  our  Opponents  labour  to  defend  it  !  After  he 
he  has  obferved,  the  Scriptures  don't  (ay  Ais,  nor  don't 
fay  that,  he  appeals  to  his  Reader's  Judgment  ;  *'  Read- 
er  (fays  he)  are  thefe  pertinent  Topicks  to  prove  a  Repeal 
of  Abraham's  Covenant  F"  Anf.  If  he  xnear.s  by  jib?  a ^ 
/^;«'s  Covenant,  that  Covenant  of  Grace" made  with 
Chrift  from  Everjafting,  in  which  all  true  Believers  are 
interefted,  thefe  Topicks  were  never  defigned  to  prove 
a  Repeal  of  it ;  nor  does  our  Caufe  require  us  to  attempt 
the  leaft  Thing  of  that  Kind  ;  for  Believers  Infants,  as 
fuch,  were  never  taken  into  it  with  their  Parents :  But 
if  he  means  hereby  the  outward  Adminiftration,  which 
obtain'd  under  the  Old  Teftament,  thefe  *  Obfervations 
are  pertinent  to  fhew  that  New  Teftament  Ordinances 
are  not  founded  on  former  Laws  and  Appointments  i 
when  the  Scripture  gives  us  no  Ground  to  believe  that 
yohn  baptized  any  without  the  previous  Qualifications 
of  Faith  and  Repentance,  in  all  the  Places  which  fpeak 
of  his  adminiftering  the  Ordinance. 

In  Page  i6.  Mr.  F.  after  his  wonted  Manner,  would 
make  his  Readers  believe,  that  his  Arguments  from  Heb. 
viii.  7,  8.  are  untouched,  and  thinks  his  Caufe  very 
fafe ;  and  feems  to  admire,  how  I  could  fatisfy  myfelf, 
without  anfwering  his  Argument ;  as  if  I  were  obliged 
to  prove  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Chrift  from 
Everlafting  to  be  repealed  ;  or  (hew,  that  it  is  not  the 
fame  for  ever  ;  or  that  it  was  not  revealed  to  Abraham  ; 
or  that  true  Believers  were  not  in  it  formerly  as  well  as 
now:  Are  thefe  Things  the  Points  in  Debate?  No. 
How  then  is  Mr.  Fs  Judgment  fo  beclouded  in  the  Mat- 
ter ?  Have  we  any  Difpute  at  all  about  the  fpiritual  Seed  ? 
My  proper  Bufmefs  was  to   refute  his  Flea   for  Infant- 

member- 
f  Anti,  Page  28.  ^ 


[    57    ] 

memberfhip,  and  their  Right  to  Ordinances  In  the  Chri- 
ftian  Church,    derived    from  a  former  Appointment? 
And  have  I  not  done  that  already,  beyond  any  jull  Ex- 
ception, by  {hewing  the  former  Adminiftration  to  be  abo- 
lilhed  ?   I  iliall  obferve,to  him  again.  That  that  whereby 
God  took  the  Jew'ijh  Nation  and  their  Seed,  as  fuch,  to 
be  his  vifible  Church,  and  was  an   Hulband  to  them, 
Jer.   xxxi.  32.   Let  Mr.  F.  call  it,   the  Ceremonial  IVor- 
fl)ip,  or  Abrahams  Covenant,    or  whatever  other  Name 
he  is  pleafed  to  give  it,  this  Paflage  of  Scripture,  in  Heb. 
viii.  undeniably   proves  it  to  be  abolifhed  :  However  I 
call  it  the  old  Adminillration,  v/ithout  *  "  Fear  of  any 
Oppofition^"  and  therefore  fay,  if  no'thing  ca'n  be  under- 
itood  or  proved,    by  Infants   being  vifibly  in  Covenant, 
further  than  that  they  were  formerly  taken    with  their 
Jbrents  into  the  outward  Adminiftration,    this  Place  of 
Scripture  is  full  to  our  Purpofe  ;  But  if  there  is,  let  Mr* 
F.  make  it  appear,  which  hitherto  he  has  not  done.   And 
when  did  that  Adrninillration  begin,  but  in  the  Days  of 
Abraham  ?  Then  was  Circumcifion  inftituted,  and  then 
began  the  JewiJ})  GEconomy,  which  "was  fully  fet  up  at 
Ijraers  Return  out  of  Ec:jpt :  Now  this  Place  evidently 
proves  a  Repeal,  or  difannulling  of  that  Adminiftration  : 
*'  He  hath  made  the  FirJ}  old,*'  Verfe  13.     Therefore  to 
iay,  that  the  aforefaid  Appointment  of  Infant-member- 
fhip,  and  their   Right  to  Ordinances,    is  not  repealed, 
when  that   fame  divine  Command  which  gave  a  Being 
to  it,  and  upon  which  it  was  founded,  is  now^  repealed, 
as  a  Part  of  that  old  Covenant,  or  former  Adminiftra- 
tion,  I  profefs,   is  fuch  a  Myftery  to  me,  which  I  have 
not  as  yet  feen    unfolded,  nor  don't  expeil  I  ever  fhall  : 
Neither  can  I  at  prefent  fee  but  two  Things,  which  our 
Opponents  gan  betake  themfelves  to,  on  this  Head;  and 
feach  hath  its  own  Perplexity  ;  either,  i..  To  prove,  that 
there  was  much  more  in  Believers  Infants  being  vifibly 
in  Covenant,  than  their  Admiffion  to  the  outward  Ad- 
miniftration  ;  that  is  to  fay,  that  they  were  all  taken 
into  the  Covenant  of    Grace  itfelf :  But  to  aflert  this, 
would  indeed  oblige  our  Opponents  to  encounter  with 

invinci- 
•  VirJ.  Page    18, 


[    58    ] 

invincible  Difficulties,  either  to  (hew,  that  there  Is  a 
falling  from  a  State  of  Grace  j  or  elfe  that  all  the.OfF- 
fpring  of  Believers,  how  wicked  foever,  (hall  notwith- 
ftanding  be  all  faved.  Or,  2.  To  {hew  a  divine  Com- 
mand for  this  Appointment,  under  the  new  Covenant, 
or  Gofpel  Adminiftration  :  But  this  Mr.  R  difclaims,  as 
none  of  his  Bufinefsi  It  feems  he  is  fo  afraid  to  mimick 
me  (as  his  phrafe  is)  that  he  would  not  concern  him- 
felf  with  tiaat  which  judicious  Readers  judge  to  have 
been  his  proper,  peculiar  Bufinefs,  on  this  Head,  had  he 
done  any  Thing  to  Purpofe  in  the  Debate  :  And,  for  my 
Part,  I  fee'no  Reafon  to  think  otherwifc ;  but  the  Dif- 
ficulty is,  no  fuch  Command  can  be  found.  In  a  Word, 
till  Mr.  F.  can  (hew  that  the  aforefaitj  Appointment 
•was  no  Fart  of  the  old  Covenant,  or  former  Admini- 
fcration,  or  elfe  that  the  new  is  according  to  it,  in 
this  Particular  j  this  Place  of  holy  Scripture,  whether 
he  owns  it,  or  not,  will  always  prove  that  Appoiatment 
to  be  repealed.  '       '  . ;;  -  ■    .. 

On  the  whole,  let  Mr.  F.  (hew  tjie  leaft  Ground, from 
myArgument,  for  his  Infinuatipn,  **  That  1  leave  the 
Scripture  in  Contradiction  to  itfelf**  When  I  affirm  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  to  be  made  with  Chrift,  and  by 
the  old  and  new  Covenam  in  Heb.  viii.  is  to  be  un- 
derftood  the  two  Adminiftrations  ;  the  one  dark,  legal, 
and  typical,  the  other  clear  and  evangelical  j  the  one 
faulty,  the  other  perfe<£l  5  the  former  took  the  Jewijh 
Nation  to  be  the  vifibie  Church,  the  latter  Profefibrs 
only,  out  of  all  Nations,  to  be  the  vifibie  Church ;  that 
abolifhed,  this  fully  eflablifhed  :  And  this  new  Covenant 
is  not  according  to  the  old  among  otherThings,  in  this 
Particular,  that  it  does  not  admit  Infants  to  a  Gofpel  Or- 
dinance, as  that  did  to  a  legal  and  typical  one;  Let  Mr.  F, 
deny  any  of  thefe  Particulars,  and  prove  the  contrary,-if 
he  can  J  'tis  what  we  have  long  looked  for,  but  hitherto 
in  vain.  I  argued  from  Rom.  '\x.  7,  8.  thus,  "  'Tis  evir 
dent  from  thefe  Words^  that  none^  whether  ^ews  or  Gentiles* 
are  counted  the  fpiritual  Seedy  but  true  Believers  only :  Now 
fnethinks,  all  will  grant  ^that  the  Infant  Seed  of  believingGen-^ 
iiksartinet  Abt&hzwJsJleJbly  Sud  j  andJldr,  F.  in  his  Di- 

Jiinilisns, 


[    59    ] 

JfinJiionSy  Joes  not  undertake  to  firdu,  that  they  are  his 
Jpiriiual  Seed :  Ihen  it  follows^  that  the  Infant  Seed  of 
Gentile  Believers^  as  fuch,  are  not  the  Seed  of  Abraham 
in  any  Refpe£i  at  all  \  the  Confequence  then  is  unavoidabUy 
that  they  are  not  ^  as  fuch^  the  SubjeSis  of  any  Promife  given 
to  the  Seed  of  Abraham,  becaufe  they  are  not  included  in 
it ;  fo  that  irijhad  of  abufing  this  Scripture^  our  Infe- 
rences are  natural  and  genuine^  and  mufl  continue  foy  un^ 
lefs  Mr.  F.  can  make  appear.^  that  the  Infants  of  Gen- 
tile Believers  are  Abraham'^  Seed^  in  either  of  the  tw» 
forementicned  RefpeSls.,  for  in  a  ^Ihird  they  canU  be.  Thus 
you  fee.,  that  if  hzfants  are  to  be  baptized.,  it  muji  he  bj 
fame  other  Grant.,  than  the  Charter  given  to  the  Seed  of 
Abraham,  for  that  does  not  reach  ihetn  5  and  we  find  ns 
In/litution  for  it  in  the  Gofpel :  Therefore  they  are  not 
the  Subje£is  of  Baptifm.''  Mr.  F.  here,  inftead  of  (hew- 
ing that  the  Seed  of  GentiU  Believers  are  the  Seed  of 
Abraham.,  in  either  of  the  two  Refpeits  mentioned,  lays 
hold  on  my  faying,  "  He  does  not  undertake  in  his  Di- 
flinSlions,'"  Sec.  and  fo  runs  quite  away  from  the  Point  in 
Hand  ;  which  was  to  fhev/,  that  the  Seed  of  believing 
Gentiles  are  in  either  Refpedl  the  Seed  of  Abraham. 

The  Blefliug  of  Abraham  was  not  to  ariy  Seed  but  his 
own,  either  after  the  Flelh  or  Spirit  ;  for  our  Opponents 
then,  to  take  it  for  granted,  Hand  over  Head,  that  the 
BleiTing  of  Abraham  is  come  on  their  Seed,  when  they 
don't  fnew  us,  that  they  are  Abraham^  Seed  in  any  Re- 
fpe<ft  at  all,  has  neither  Scripture  nor  Reafon  to  fupport 
it  :  Probably  the  Difficulty  which  Mr.  F.  faw  in  his 
Way  here  to  anfwer  my  Arguments  fairly,  made  him 
catch  at  fomething  to  make  his  Readers  believe  he  is  not 
put  to  Silence  ;  when  the  plain,  obvious  Senfe  of  my 
Words,  which  he  makes  fo  great  a  Noife  about,  is,  that 
the  natural  Offspring  of  Gentile  Believers,  as  fuch,  are 
not  Abraham's  fpiritual  Seed.  In  like  Manner,  he  makes 
a  Stir  about  my  not  overthrowing  his  Expofition  of  the 
Place  ;  but  is  there  any  Thing  therein,  which  proves 
the  Seed  of  Gentile  Believers,  as  fuch,  to  be  in  any  Re- 
fpe£l  the  Seed  of  Abraham  ?  Not  at  all.  Kow  then  can 
Mr,  F,  imagine  my  Caufe  required  a  Refutation  of  his 

Expo- 


[  eo  ] 

Expofition  ?  I  can't  readily  think  that,  "  Tf^at  the  Apa- 
file  fays  here^  was  applicable  to  the  Old  Te/tament  Churchy 
in  any  Period  of  it,  as  well  as  to  the  New."  For  the  Chil  - 
dren  of  the  FJefh,  mentioned  in  this  Text,  had  a  Rioht 
to,  and  accordingly  did,  under  the  former  Adminiftra- 
tion,  partake  of  the  Ordinances  then  being,  for  every 
Man-child  of  Ahraha7rC%  Seed  was  to  be  circumcifed  at 
eight  Days  old  :  IVIr.  F.  defires  to  know  on  what  Ac- 
count ?  Anf.  In  Obedience  to  God's  Command  :  A  very 
good  Reafon  too  ;  not  as  the  fpiritual  Seed,  but  as  natu- 
ral Defcendants  from  Abraham^  Gen.  xvii.  12.  The 
Scripture  informs  us  of  no  Qualification  required  to  re- 
ceive Circumcifion,  but  to  be  born  of  fewijh  Parents, 
or  a  Jineal  Defcent  from  Abraham:  Now  if  Mr.  F.  will 
ihew  us  from  Scripture,  that  a  lineal  Defcent,  or  being 
born  of  believing  Parents^  qualified  any  to  be  meet  Sub- 
je<Si:s  of  Baptifm,  or  that  any  were  ordered  by  God  to 
be  baptized  on  this  Account,  I  promife  to  give  him  as 
Jiumble  a  Bow,  as  he  can  defne,  and  Thanks  withal  ; 
but  in  the  mean  Time,  we  maintain,  that  a  Profeffion 
of  Faith  is  a  necelTary  Qualification,  abfolutely  required 
in  all  the  Subjects  of  this  Gofpel  Ordinance.  Our  Au- 
thor fays.  Page  20.  "  This  Place  does  not  fo  much  as 
hint  at  the  Grounds  on  which  Ordinances  are  adminifier-d.'* 
And  yet  he  makes  fome  faint  Ellays,  Page  21.  by  way 
of  Enquiry,  to  ftiew  that  Believers  Infants  are  the  fpi- 
ritual  Seed,  as  well  as  adlual  ProfeiTors :  And  for  what 
End  ?  Doubtlefs,  that  he  might  thence  infer,  agree- 
able to  the  *  Scope  of  his  Performance,  they  ought  to 
be  baptized  ,  as  well  as  to  have  Ground  of  Charity  for 
them.  It  feems  he  knows  how  to  improve  the  Place  to 
his  Purpofe,  tho'  he  can't  fee  how  we  can  to  ours.  He 
allcs,  *'  But  will  this  Scripture  prove,  that  all  vifible  cre^ 
dible  ProfeJJors  are  the  fpiritual  Seed,  and  none  but  fuch  f* 
Mr.  Fs  own  Words,  in  his  Expofition  of  this  Place, 
anfwer  the  Queflion,  "  Thefe  only  (f&ys he)  are  to  be. 
accounted  the  fpiritual  Seed,  and  the  Children  of  the  PrO' 
rnije,  who  have  the  real  Blefftngs  of  the  Covenant  in  their 
Hearts,  and  not  others,  who  have  not,  the'  they  bt  under 

thf 
•  Vind,  Page  40. 


[    6i     ] 

ihe  oUHvard D'tfpenfation^  and  have  a  vifthle  Right  to  the 
Promife."  Here  he  defcribes  the  fpiritual  Seed  pofitively 
and  negatively  ;  therefore  a  Profeflion  with  their  Mouths 
of  thofe  real  Bleilings  in  their  Hearts,  accompanied  with 
Fruits  of  Righteoufnefs  in  their  Lives,  gives  a  rational 
and  folid  Ground  to  judge  charitably,  that  fuch  are  the 
Spiritual  Seed,  and  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ;  fuch  are 
the  only  proper -Subjedts  of  Baptifm  :  The  Ends  and  De- 
fign  of  this  Ordinance  are  not  anfwered  in  any  at  their 
Reception  of  it,  but  in  fuch  ;  thefe  only  are  capable  to 
^nfwer  a  good  Confcience  towards  God,  when  they  fub- 
mic  to  the  Ordinance,  i  Pet.  iii.  2i.  And  to  give  up  them- 
felves  unto  him  therein,  to  live  and  walk  in  Newhefs 
of  Life  :  'Tis  to  them  that  Baptifm  is  a  Sign  of  their 
Fellowfnip  with  Chrift  in  his  Death  and  Refurre6lion  ; 
of  RemifHon  of  their  Sins,  Regeneration,  and  Adoption. 
According  to  Mr.  F.  here,  we  learn,  that  fuch  as  are 
under  the  indefinite  Promifes  of  Grace  and  Salvation, 
or  under  the  outward  Difpenfation,  are  not  therefore, 
or  merely  on  that  Confideration,  to  be  accounted  the 
fpiritual  Seed,  but  thofe  only  who  have  the  Bleflings  of 
the  Covenant  in  their  Hearts  ;  Pray,  what  are  their  In- 
fanti  at  the  moft,  but  under  the  outward  Difpenfation, 
according  to  his  own  Way  of  talking?  Now  when  none 
^re  to  be  accounted  the  fpiritual  Seed,  tho'  they  be  un- 
der the  outwatd  Difpenfation,  but  thofe  who  have  the 
real  BlelTmgs  of  the  Covenant  in  their  Hearts ;  and 
when  there  arc  no  more  Signs  of  thofe  Bleflings  to  be 
feen  in  their  Infants,  than  in  the  Infants  of  Infidels : 
What  Ground  have  they  to  judge,  that  they  are  the  fpi- 
ritual Seed,  and  fit  Subjedls  of  Baptifm  ?  None  at  all ! 
Neither  can  they  baptize  them  as  fit  Subjedls,  unlefs 
they  judge  that  carnal  Subjedis  are  fit  for  a  Gofpel  Ordi- 
nance !  Dead  Stones  proper  Materials  to  build  z  fpiritual 
Houfe,  I  Pet.  ii.  5.  And  fo  mingle  the  New-Teftament 
Church,  and  the  World  together,  which  Chrift  defigncd 
to  be  feparate. 

Formerly,  indeed,  Jbraham*^  natural  Offspring,  as 
fiich,  had  a  Right  to  partake  of  carnal  Ordinances,  and 
50  enter  into  a  worldly  San<auary  i  but  iince  Chrift  came 

to 


[      ^2      ] 

to  fet  up  his  New-Teftament  Church,  we  don't  find  he 
gave  Diredions  to  admit  any  into  it,  but  the  fpiritual 
Seed,  or  Beh'evers,  on  Profeflion  of  their  Faith  in  him  : 
Let  Mr.  F,  fee,  by  his  admitting  in  the  natural  Seed, 
whether  he  does  not  plainly,  deviate  from  the  Diredlions 
which  Chrift  has  given  him  in  the  Cafe  ?  The  Law 
which  gave  Ground  for  their  Admittance  into  the  yew* 
ifli  Church,  is  abolifhed,  as  a  Part  of  the  o'd  Covenant, 
as  already  obferved  :  Let  him  look  for  that  Word  of  di- 
vine Authority,  which  warrants  his  Admiffion  of  theni 
Jiow,  or  elfe  he  won't  be  able  to  fay,  when  he  gives  ufj 
his  Account,  "  Lnrd^  It  is  done  as  thou  hcji  commanded^* 
But  fuppofe  the  Word  of  God  bad  taken  EfFsiSt  in  feme 
of  their  Infants,  yet  when  there  are  no  Fruits  or  Signs 
of  it  rrianifeft,  it  requires  in  Mr.  F.  **  A  'Judgment^ 
not  only  of  Charityy  but  Infallibility ^  to  determine  who  of 
them  may  he  admitted  to  Baptifm^  and  who  not :"  Or  elfc 
he  mufl  baptize  them  all  as  the  fpiritual  Seed,  and  there* 
by  (hew  that  he  has  no  Ufe  for  his  Diftindfions,  *'  Of  a 
twofold  Way  of  being  in  Covenant  "  becaufe  in  the 
Sight  of  the  vjfiblc  Church  they  arb  all  the  fpiritual 
Seed,  if  em  is  fo,  and  favingly  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace ;  when  yet,  at  the  (lime  t^me,  there  is  no  Ground 
to  judge  rationally,  that  one  of  them  is  fo,  any  more 
than  the  Infants  of  Non-mecnuers ;  for  the  Rule  is, 
*'  None  are  to  be  accounted  thi  fpiritual  Secd^  tha^ 
ihey  be  under  the  cutvjard  Difpenfation^  but  fuch  only, 
who  have  the  real  Blefftngs  of  the  Covenant  in  their  Hearts, 
6r  in  whom  the  Word  of  God  has  had  its  Effi^^"  'Th 
like,  if  an  Anabaptifi  (houM  talk  at  the  Rate  our  Op- 
ponents do,  Mr.  F.  would  readily  call  it  *  religious  Gar- 
bage, and  Nonfenfe  ;  But  irf  the  Phrafe  does  not  pleafe 
him,  let  it  be  failed  unintelligible  Divinity  ! 

Mr.  F.  pleafes  himfelf  with  the  Fancy,  that  I  am  got 
into  fame  Box  with  him  ;  but  if  I  were,  I  (hould  find  an 
open  door  to  get  out,  and  fhut  him  in  where  he  is;  for 
he  has  no  manifeft  Evidence  of  the  Word  of  God  hav* 
ing  taken  EfFed  in  the  Hearts  of  any  Infants,  to  judge 
charitably  by,    that  they  are  fpiritual  Seed,  and  fhall  be 

faved, 

♦  Find,  Page  80. 


L    ^3    J 

,  faved,  as  I  have  in  credible  Profcflbrs :  Then  the  Reader 
may  fee  that  his  Judgment  is  without  any  rational  Evi- 
dence, and  his  Charity,  in  the  Cafe  of  their  Infants,  but 
felfifli  Fondnefs. 

In  treating  on  Gal.  iii.  i6.  Mr.  F.  very  confidently 
cafts  the  Heterodox  upon  me,  for  faying  the  Promifes 
were  made  primarily  to  Ghrift  perfonal :  And  indeed  if 
big  Words,  and  noify  Exclamations,  will  do  for  Proof, 
he  has  enough  of  them  at  hand  ;  but  one  good  Argu- 
ment would  be  worth  them  all,  either  to  convince  or 
refute  me  ;  tho'  among  thofe,  who  take  noify  Outcries 
for  Arguments,  they  may  pafs :  But  after  all,  if  this  is 
fuch  an  Heterodox  Principle,  why  did  not  he  (hew  the 
Promifes  were  not  firft  made  to  Chrift  perfonal  ?  And 
that  the  Promifes  of  God  were  not  firft  in  the  Perfon 
of  Chriftj  before  they  can  be  Yea  and  Amen  to  Be- 
hevers  ?  However,  to  obviate  Objedions,  I  (hall  add  the 
Expreffiqns  of  fome  learned  Divines,  which  are  expreffive 
of  the  Defign  of  my  Words;  Mr.  f  Erjkine  hysy  "  Not 
only  all  Necefaries  far  Redemption^  but  alfo  all  Ne- 
cejfaries  for  the  powerful  and  effectual  application  of  thai 
Redemption,  are  fir/i  promifed  in  the  Covenant  to  him 
(i,  e.  Ghrift)  and  then  to  us  in  him,  upon  his  fulfilling  the 
Csndition  of  perfect  Obedience.  Is  Jujlif  cation  promised  ? 
It  is  fir/t^  to  him,  and  then  to  us  in  him,  Ifai.  liii.  ii.  Is 
SanSfification  and  the  Spirit  promifed  ?  It  is  fir/i  to  him^ 
and  then  to  us  in  him,  Ifai.  xlii.  i.  Is  Glorification  pro- 
mifed? his  ftrjl  to  him,  and  then  to  us  in  him,  Rom. 

viii.  17. So  is  the  Confiitution  of  the  Covenant.,    the 

Promifes  are  all  made  to  him,  and  in  the  Application  of  it^ 
they  are  made  to  us  in  him  ;  primarily  and  mediately 
they  are  made  to  him,  fecondarily  and  immediately  to  us 
in  him.'* 

Says  Dr.  ♦  Goodwin,  "  Js  all  Promifes  are  made  in 
him,  fo  all  Promifes  were  fir fl  made  to  him,  and  to  us,  as 
»ne  with  him  ;  therefore  fays  the  ApoflU,  not  to  Seeds,  as 
tfmany,  but  to  Seed,  as  of  one,  which  is  Chriji:*  Our 
Author,  in  his  great  Hurry  and  Throng  of  Bufincfs,  has 

herQ 

f  Serm.  Vol.  I.  Pages  264.,  26 f. 

*  V©1.1IL  Part  S.Page  28,      ' 


[    6.4    ] 
here  forae  how  quite  miftaken  the  Matter,  and  imagin'd 
that  I  aflerted   the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with 
Chrift  perfonally  for  himfelf  only  ;  which  is  neither  ex- 
preffed  nor  implied  in  my  Words:    One  would  think  he 
might  readily  have  difcover'd  his  Miftakc  from  my  Re- 
ferences, Ant'i.  Page  33.  unlefs  he  were  prepofTeffed  with 
an  unkind  Defire  of  loading  his  Refpondent  with  ground- 
lefs  Clamours  and  Reproaches,    where  Arguments  failed 
him.     Now,    do  the  Promifes  of  the  Covenant,    made 
primarily  to   Chrift,    belong  to  any  but  Believers  ?    Or 
have  any  others  a  Right  to  them  ?    No  ;    for  as  already 
obferved.  The  Scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  Sin,  that 
the  Promife,    by  Faith  of  Jefus  ChrijU  rnight  ie  given  to 
them  that  believe^  Gal.  iii.  22.  *'  The  Promije  was  made  to 
Chriji,  as  Head  of  the  vlfible  Church  j  and  then  (fays  he) 
it  will  extend  to  Believers  in  him,    and  alfo  to  their  Seed." 
I  fay  again,  one  might  think  the  very  mentioning  of  this 
Argument  would  be  a  fufficient  Refutation  of  it  ;  for  the 
Promife  of  Juflification,  Adoption,  the  Gift  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft,  and  Salvation,  in  no  Age  of  the  Church,    ex- 
tended to  Believers  Seed  as  fuch  ;  /.  e.  That  they  were  in- 
titled  to,    and  interefted  in  thefe  Blefiings,    on  the  Ac- 
count of  their  Parents  Faith  :     But  if  Mr.  F.  can  make 
out,  that  the  Infants  born  of  Believers  are  on  that  Ac- 
count  Believers,    he  will  do  fomething  towards  proving 
them  to  be  in  Covenant,  or  that  the  Promife  extends  to 
them  alfo  ;  otherwife,  whether  he  will  or  no,  the  Scrip- 
tures have  concluded  them  all  under  Sin,  as  well  as  other 
Unbelievers :    And  to  be  under  Sin^    and  in  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  at  the  fame  time,  is  a  Contradiction  too 
great  to  be  reconciled.     Their  being  related  to  believing 
Parents  naturally,  does  not  unite  them  to  Chrifl  fpiritu- 
ally  ;    and  without  Union  with  him,   there  is  no  "Com- 
munion in  thefe  fpiritual  Bleflings,  or  the  Promife  does 
not  extend  to  them.     It  has  never  been  (hewn,  that  na- 
tural Relation  to  Believers  is  appointed  to  be  a  Conduit 
Pipe,    whereby  the  Promife  of  fpiritual  BlelTings  fhould 
be  conveyM  from  Chrift  to  their  Offspring.    People  may 
indeed  be  united  to  the  Church  of  Chrift,  and  at  the  fame 
time  have  no  Union  with  Chrift,    the  Head  of  the 

Church, 


t    65    j 

ibhurch,  for  want  of  Faith  j   then  they  have  no  Intereil 
in  the  Promifes  made  to  Chrift,  or  the  Benefits  prGmife4 
to  Believers.  The  Promife  of  thefe  fpiritual  Bleffings  did 
not  extend   to   the  Offspring   of   Abraham  himfelf  ac- 
cording to  the   FJefli,  in    that  Confideration,    Rom.  iv. 
J2,   13,   16,     And  how  is  it  po/Tible  it  can  extend  to 
the  Seed   of  Gentile  Believers  as  fuch  \     Wherein  then, 
was  it  amifs  to  obferve  that  Mr.    'P.  ufes  a  wild  Way  of 
'arguing  on  this  Head,  when   he   talks,  as   tho' Church 
xnemberfliip  entitled  Infants  to  the  Promife,  wiiich  was 
made  primarily  to   Chrift,  and  in  him  to  true  Believers 
only?     I  requir'd    him    to  fhew,  where  God  has  pro- 
mis'd  thefe  fpiritual  Bleffings  ftiould    be  entail'd  on  an/ 
fle(hlv    Line?     He  pretends   *'  nothing  is  eafier,**  and 
cites  Exod.  XX.  6.  with  that  Defign  •.—^''He  willjhevi 
Mercy  to  a  thoufand   Generations  of  them  that  love  him^ 
and  keep  his  Commandments  :"  And  then  vain  gloriouily 
afks,   "  Is  not  a  thoufand  Generations  a  long  Line  f  But 
will  Mr.   F.  {land    to  it,  that   thefe   fpiritual   Bleffings 
are   certainly  entail'd    on   Believers  Seed  to  a  thoufand 
Generations?     No,  "  He  does  not  conceive  that  all  the 
Seed  of  all  Believers  zbill  be  converted.''*     But  the  Quefti- 
bn  is,  if  the  Promife   of  Juftificatiori  and   Salvation  is 
entail'd,  why  not  to  one,    as  well  as  the  other  ?     Why 
not     all  converted,    as     well   ai     fome ;    when    it    is 
affirmed    that   the    Promife  is  entailed  on  all  Believers, 
and  their  flefhiy   Seed,  to  a  thoufand  Generations  ?  Fur- 
ther, will  our  Author  fay  that  the  Parents  Works  of  O7 
bedience  to  the  moral  Law  entails  the  Promife  on  their 
Seed,  when   the  Parents  theiiifelves  are  not  entitled    toi 
the   Promife  of  Juftification,  Adoption,    and  Salvation, 
by  all  the    Works  of  the  Law  they  Can  poffibly  do,  as 
the  Apoflje  teftifies,     Rom.  iv.   14.  '"'•  If  they  which  are 
of  the  Law  be   Heirs^  Faith  is  made  void.,  and  the  Pro* 
mife   of  none  EffeSf."     Hence  it  may  be  obferved  again, 
that   to  be  born  of   godly  Parents,  does  not  entitle  any 
to  thefe  fpiritual  Bleffings,  nor  bring  any  nearer  to  God 
in  a   fpiritual    Relation,  nor   have  fuch    any   thing   to 
boaft  of  above  others  on   this    Account :    If  any,     the 
Seed  oi  Abraham^  according  to   the  Flelh,     But  a  na- 

E  tural 


[    65    ] 

fural  Defcerit  from  Abraham  avails  nothing  in  th^s 
Cafe,  Rom.  ix.  7,  8.  Adoption  does  not  come  this 
Way:  Men  don't  commence  Children  of  God  by 
their  flefhly  Defcent,  they  are  not  born  of  Blood,- 
John  i.  13.  but  of  God,  who  are  the  Sons  of  God. 
None  are  Heirs  to  thefe  promifed  fpiritual  Bleffings 
but  Believers,  Gal.  iii.  29.  And  there  can't  be  an 
entail  of  the  Promife  on  their  natural  Offspring,  un- 
lefs  Mr.  F.  will  fliew  that  their  Infant  Seed  are  Be- 
lievers alfo,  which  he  has  not  yet  done  ;  or  (hew  that 
the  Promife  of  fpiritual  Bleflingi  is  entailed  by  virtue 
of,  and  connected  with  the  Works  of  the  Law,  and 
fo  make  Faith  void,  and  th?  Promife  of  none  Effect. 

Another  Scripture  Mr.  F.  cites  with  a  Defign  to 
prove  that  fpiritual  BlefTmgs  are  entailed  on  a  fiefhly 
Line,  is  Ifa.  59.  21.  God  will  give  his  Spirit  to  hrs 
People,  and  their  Seed,  and  Seeds  Seed,  from  henceforth, 
and  for  ever.  And  then  vauntingly  afks,  *'  /j  not  for ^ 
tver  a  long  Line  P  Let  Mr,  M.  /peak,  and  fay,  is  it  not 
very  long  f"  But  the  Words  ot  the  Text,  which  he 
quotes,  and  miferably  perverts,  are  thefe,  "  Js  for  me^ 
this  is  my  Covenant  with  them,  faith  the  Lord,  my  Spirit 
that  is  upon  thee,  and  my  Words,  which  I  have  put  in  thy 
Mouth,  flmll  not  depart  out  of  thy  Mouth,  nor  out  of  the 
.  Mouth  of  thy  Seed,  nor  out  of  the  Mouth  of  thy  Seed's 
'Seed,  faith  the  Lord,  from  henceforth,  and  for  ever"  Mr, 
F.  underftands  and  argues,  that  fpiritual  Bleffings  are 
here  promifed  to,  and  entailed  on  the  Church,  and  her 
Offspring,  according  to  the  FleOi  (as  fuch)  but  without 
the  Jeaft  Foundation  in  the  Text.  'Tis  no  unufual 
Thing  in  Scripture  to  call  Believers  the  Children  of 
Zion,  Ifa.  Ixvi,  8.  Pfal.  cxlix.  2.  And  that  by  Seed 
here  is  meant  Believers,  is  manifeft  from  the  Words* 
themfelves  :  'Tis  to  Believers,  this  Seed  of  Zion,  the 
Continuance  of  the  XVord  and  Spirit  of  God  is  promi- 
fed ;  with  the  fpiritual  Seed  (let  them  be  of  what  Nati- 
on foever)  do  thefe  fpiritual  Bleffings  abide,  in  all  fuc- 
ceeding  Ages  :  Not  as  Mr.  F.  dreams,  that  the  Word 
and  Spirit  of  God  are  with  the  Infant  Offspring  of 
Believers,    Is  the  Word  of  God  in  the  Mouth  of  all 

Infants, 


[    6?    ] 

Infants,    or  in   the  Mouth  of  any  one  of  them  ?    This 
abfolute   Promife    cannot    intend    any  other   Kind,   but 
that   Seed,   to  every  Individual,  whereof  it  is,  and   fhall 
be  infallibly   fulfilled,  which  is  true  only  refpedling   the 
fpiritual  Seed.     But  I  rather  think,  Chrift  is  mure  efpe- 
cial  intended,  and   not   the    Church,   by     the   Pronoun 
(thee)  in  the  Text,,  and  Co   'tis  to  be  underftood  of  the 
Promife  which  God    the    Father    made  to  Chrifl:  (who 
is  mentioned  in  the  former  Vcrfe)  and    hi^   Seed,    evert 
true  Believ'eis  in  general ;    Prophets,   Apoftles,  and  Mi - 
nifters   in   particular  ;   that  the  Spirit  he  received  with-, 
out  Meafure,   7i?^»  iii.   34.  •  And  the  Words  put  in  his 
Mouth,   John  xii.  49,    fhould ,  not  depart   from  himfelf 
and  Seed  for  ever,  Ifa.   Jiii.    10.  Pfal  Ixxii.    17.     But: 
whether  it  be   meant  of  Chrift,  or  the  Church,  it  leaves 
not  the  leaft  Ground  for    Mr.    F's    Pretence   to  prove 
from  this  Place  a  flefhly    Entail  of  the  Promife  j   when 
by  the  Seed  fucceffively,  can't    rationally  be    underftood 
any  other,    confillent  with  the  Text,  and  general  Scope 
of  holy  Scripture,   but  true   Believers  only   in  all  Ages, 
with  whpm  the  Word   and  Spirit  of  God  do  infeparably 
abide.     Now  it    remains  to  iie  obferved  again,  that  it  is 
really   marvellous  our  Opponents    will  wreft    Texts  of 
Scripture,  which  (peak  particularly,  and  only  of  the  fpi- 
ritual Seed  }  or  true  Believers  to  countenance  their  Fan-t 
cies  about  the    Right    of  their  Infant  Seed   to  Churc/l 
Mimberfhipand  Baptifm  1     If  they  do  thus  through  Ig- 
norance,   and   for  want    of  knowing   better,    they  &te 
much  to    be  pitied,  and  ought  to  be  timely  inftruded  t 
But  if  wilfully,  againft  Light    and  Knowledge,  to  ferve 
their  Turn,  they  muft  be   very    unfit   Men    to  handle 
the  Word  of  God,  2   Cor.    ii,    17.       jv.     2.    Hence  it 
appears,  .how    little  Reafon    Mr,  F.  has  to    put  Believ- 
ers Infants  on  a  Par  with  actual  Profeflors,  at  the  Clofe 
of  this  Paragraph  1     And  alfo  how  groundlefs  it  is  to  ad- 
minifter    Baptifm   to    Infants,    without  any   Autht)rity 
from  God,  on  a  vain    Suppofition   that   fpiritual   Blef- 
ijngs   are  entailed  on  a  flefhly  Line,  which  needs  Proof, 
before  it  can  be  received  for  Trutih !  .     , 

£  a  I  r«« 


[    6S     ] 

I  requfred  our  Opponents  to  (hew  us   from  Scfipture, 
that  Infants  were  taken    into  the  Gofpel  Church  :  But 
Mr.  F.  in  Page  23,   inftead  of  giving  us  ^any    New   Tc- 
ftanient  Proof  hetecf,  as   was  demariied,   recurs   to   the 
'Jeiinjh  Church,   and  fays  to  thi>  Purpofe  :   "   T^hey  were 
Memben  of  the  Jtwifh    Church-     now   if    it    was- •  the 
fame  inSuh/idnce  u,ith   the  Chrijliafl-   -it   ivill  foilav   that 
the  Materials  of   the  Church  ore  JUII    the  fame.      Hence  tf 
Infants  were  once  Alaie^ials  of  it,   they  arefo/iill."      Re- 
ply.     In    the  Jewrjh  vUible  Church,   Infant,   who  de- 
fcended    from    Abraham,    were   Materials  ;  tfie    natural 
Seed  had  a  Right   (founded  on  a  pofitive  Command)   ift 
that  Houfe,  which  continued  'till   the   End   of   the   for- 
mer   Adminiftration,    when   the   Jewifh  Church   State 
was  abohfhed  ;  and  the  Ri  ht  of    the    natural  Seed  end- 
ed with  it  :   And  when   the  Gofpel  Church    was  fet  up*, 
jirofefTing  Believers,  and  none  elfe,   were    the    Materials, 
of  it.     I  fhall  offer  an  Argument   or    two  in   Favour  of' 
•what  I  fay,  and  then   conlider   Mr.   Fs  on  '.he  contra- 
ry. 

1.  There  is  a  maiiifeft,  real  Difference,  between  thie 
Conftitution  of  one,  and  of  the  other  ;  the  Jewifh  vi- 
fible  Church  neither  was,  nor  could  be'  built  on  the 
Foundation  of  the  Apoftlts ;  /.  e.  the  Apoftles  Doc- 
trine of  Chrift  exhibited  in  the  Flcfii,  or  aheady  come, 
as  the  new  Teflament  Church  is,  Eph.  ii.  20.  But,  at 
the  moft,  only  on  the  Promife  of  Chrill  to  co#ie. 
Hence  it  appears,  that  was  not  the  fame  with  this  ; 
and  if  not  the  fame,  then  the  new  'leflament  Church 
is  a  new  conftituted  Church  ;  and  in  this  new  Formati- 
on we  find  no  other  Materials,  but  profcfling  Believers  ; 
nor  any  other  among  the  Multitudes  added  to  it,  but 
fuch,  Aas'u  15.     ii.  4ii  42-^  43'  44-  47- 

2.  That  Covenant  Adminiftration,  whereby  God 
took  the  Jewifh  Nation  to  be  his  vifible  Church,  is  abo- 
lifhed,  Deut.  xxvi.  16,17,  18,  19.  7^r.xxxi.  31,32. 
Heb.  viii.  8,  9,  lO,  13.  Therefore  their  viiible  Church 
State  ceafed  with  it.  "And  the  new  Covenant,  as  1  have 
obferved  ahead   ,  is  not  accoiding  to  that:   This  admits 

^  Rone  intq  a  vifible  Church  Suie  but  pi oleiring  Believers, 


[    69     ] 

fisall  the  Places  in  the  New  Teftament,  which  fpeafc 
of  the  Admiffion  of  Members  into  the  Gofpel  Churcn 
do  teltify,   J^ls.   iv.   4.      v.    13,    14.      But, 

I  proceed    to    confider    Mi.    F's    Arguments    for  the 
Samenefs     of    the     Church    under    both    Dfpenrations. 
I.    Sivs  he,    ''    //"  t/je  Jewifh  and  Chrt/iian  Church  be  dif- 
ferent in  Subjiance,   th^y  had  one  Way   to   Heaven^  arid  we 
another y      Anf.    Thib  Argument    ma\  do   fumtthing  to- 
wards proving   the   ^amenefs  of   the   invifible  Chuich  in 
all    Ages,    if    any  deny    it  ;    for  AbeU    Enochs  and  Noah^ 
had  the  fame  Way  to  Heaven,   before   the    Conftitution 
of     the     Gufpel    Church,   or   Jeivip)   either,  as   all    the 
Saved  fince,  have':      And    wht    ox    that?      But    how 
this  Inference  pjoves  the   vifiblc  Church  to   be    the  fame 
in  the  Senfe  we  fpeak  of,   does  not  yet  appear  !      2.   "  It 
would  follow,   that  Ab'aham  could  not  be   the  Father  both 
of  the  circumcifei^   and  uncircumcifed."      Anf.   Abraham 
was  a  Pattern  of   Faith  to  Believers,  •', hether  circumci- 
fed  or  uncircumcifvid  :    But  the    Queftion   is   not   about 
the   Exefcifesof   Faith.      3.   Says  he,   "   It  would  follow  ^ 
that  the   Jews  did  not  ^at   the  fame  fph  itual   Meat.,    nor 
drink  the  jame  fpiritual  Drink^  as  Chriflians  do."      Anf. 
Who   doubts   but    true  Bclieveis  among   the    'Jews    fed 
by   Faith   on  Chrift   promifed,  as  we  do  on  Chnft   ex- 
hibited,  which  was  typify 'd    unto  them    by   the    Manna 
from  Heaven,   and  Water  out  of  the  Rock  ?      But  what 
is  this  to  the  Point  in  Hand  ?     4.   "  It  would  follow,  that 
the  Jews  could  not  be  Exsmplss    and  Patterns  of  Faith  to 
Chrijiians.'*     Anf.   This  does    not    militate   againft   us, 
unlefs  we   faid,   there  were  no  Briievers  in   the  Jewijh 
Church,   which  we  never  did:      What  we  fay,  is,   that 
the  Jewifb  national  Church  State,  wherein  Infants  were 
Materials,   is   now  ab  )li(hefJ.      5.   Says   he,  "  .//  would 

follow,  that  the  Je  vs  and  Chriflians  are  not  made  one 
Church,  nor  the  middle  IVall  of  Partition  broken  down  for 
that  Purpofe."  Aif  Mr.  F.  *  "  Readily  Grants.,  fhat 
Chriflians  are  not  grafted  into  the   Jewifli    Church,  as  it 

flood  under  the  Laio."  How  then  ?  As  it  flood  under 
the  Gofpel.?      Why  then  it   was  a  number  of  Jews,  f 

F  3  pro- 

*  Vind.  Page  43.         f  Charit.  Plea  Page  65. 


C     7°    ] 

profelyted  to  Ciiriflia#iity  by  the  preaching  of  i^e  Go- 
fpel,  who  profefled  their  Faith  in  Chrift  crucified,  and 
thereupon  were  baptized  :  A  Church  gathered  and 
formed  from  among  thofe  .  other  jfezvs^  who  were  yet 
ignorant  of  Chriftianity  :  .This  is  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  vifible  Church  we  contend  for,  with  which  the 
believing  Gentiles  were  united  in  one  Body.  For  by 
one  Spirit  are  zve  all  baptized  into  one  Body,  vuhether  we 
^^  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and 
have  been  all  Tnade  to  drink  into  one  Spirit^  I  Cor.  xiiw 
13.  What  Church  is  that  wherein  Jeu/i  and  Gentiles 
^re  made  one  ?  The  'fewi/h  vifible  Church  ?  No  fure- 
]y  !  For  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  was  never  an  Ordi- 
nance gf  Entrance  into  the  y^w;/}^  Church,  properly  fo 
called  j  bit  into  the  New  Telfament  vifible  Church  :■ 
Here  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  made  one  Body,  and  the 
middle  Wall  of  Partition  broken  down  for  that  Pur-, 
pofe.  Now  let  Mr.  F.  Ihcw  that  this  Church,  thus  ga- 
thered and  formed  from  :<mono;ft  other  Jews,  be  (till  the 
fame  Church,  refpeding  its  Form  and  Conftitution, 
vith  that  under  the  Law  :  Let  him  run  the  Parallel, 
and  prove  it  if  he  can,  that  Infants  were  ever  the  Ma- 
terials of  this  vifible  Church,  whereinto  believing  y^ft:;; 
and  Gentiles  were  admitted  by  Baptifm  ;  this  would  end 
the  Difpute*    ' !  .; 

6.  Sa\'s  he,  "  Thg?:  the  Chrt/lian  Church  is  not  built. 
9n  the  Foundation  of  the  Prophets,  but  only  the  ApO' 
files."  Well,  Mr.  ,^.  judges  if  the  New  Tellament 
Church  was  built  on  the  Foundation  of  .the  Apoftles  on- 
ly, it  would  make  a  fubftantial  Difference  between  this 
and  that.  .Why  then  won't  the  Argument  hold  on  the 
other  Hand,  firxe  it  ismanifeft  the  Jewifo  Church  was 
built  on  the  Foundation  of  the  Prophets  only  ;  /.  e. 
the  Promifeof  Chrift  tocome?  (Certainly  it  does,  if 
M.  F's  Way  of  arguing  be  right  :  <  And  till  he  can 
imake  appear  that  the  Jewijh  vifible  Church  was  built 
qn  the  Foundation  of  the  Apoftles,:  Chrift  exhibited, 
in  the  Flefli,  as  well  as  promifed,  even  as  the  Nev/. 
Teftament  Church  is,  whether  he  will  own  it,  or  not, 
there  will  always  appear  fuch  a  DifFerence  between  that 

and 


[     7'     ] 

and  this,  that  it  cannot  be  the  fame,  in  the  Senfe  coij- 
troverted.  However,  it  hence  appears,  there  muft  at 
leaft  be  a  new  Conilitution  of  the  Church,  before  it 
can  be  faid  to  be  built  on  the  Foundation  of  the  Apoflles, 
as  already  explain'd  :  Neither  does  the  former  Confti- 
tution  enter,  much  lefs  continue  in  the  Gofpel  Church, 
but  is  wholly  aboliOied,  or  at  an  End  ;  for  it  is  no  Part 
of  theChriflian  Faith  in  the  New  Teflament  Church, 
to  believe  Chrift  yet  to  come  in  the  FleOi,  as  it  was 
an  Article  of  Faith  in  the  Jewijhy  before  hs  came  ; 
though  we  do  indeed  believe  the  Promifes  of  his  Exhi- 
bition in  the  Flefb,  fpoken  by  the  Prophets,  yet  now  no 
othervvife,  but  as  already  fulfilled.  Now  it  was  m  that 
Church  Infants  were  Members,  the  natural  Seed  Ma- 
terials ;  and  that  Church  State,  on  folid  Grounds,  we  fay 
is  at  an  End:  Then  it  unavoidably  follows,  that  Infants 
Church  memberfhip  in  the  Jew'ijh  Church  is  ended  alfo. 
Now  it  ftill  lies  at  the  Door  of  our  Opponents  to  ihew 
us  if  they  can,  that  Infants  were  taken  into  the  Gof- 
pel vifible  Church,  and  not  put  us  off  with  .what  was 
done  under  the  legal  Adminiftration  ;  for  the  Jewijh 
CEconomy  is  long^fince  aboliflied,  and  we  expert  New 
Teftament  Proof,  for  ;what  pertains  to  a  NewTefta- 
ment  vifible  Church.  But  if  they  can't,  their  Say-fo 
will  not  do.  ■ 

And  laftly,  fays  he,  "  If  the  Jewifli  and  Chnjitatz 
Church  be  differ ent  in  Suhjiance,  it  would  follow  that  it  is  a 
falfe  and  deceiving  Method  of  proceedings  to  exprefs  what 
pertains  to  the  New  Teftament  Church  and  TVorJhtp,  hy  the 
fame  Words  which  were  ufed  to  exprefs  what  pertained 
to  the  Church  and  Worjhip  of  the  Old  Tejiament."  Anf. 
To  be  fure  !  The  Church  is  the  fame  in  Subftance,  in 
the  Senfe  we  fpeak  of ;  /.  e.  that  Infants  are  Materials 
of  it  in  all  Ages  ;  becaufe  New  Teftament  Writers 
make  ufcof  the  fame  Words  whereby  the  Types  were 
called,  to  exprefs  the  Antitypes  !  To  ufe  fome  of  Mr. 
Fs  Language,  "  A  famous  Confequence  this  f  f  Had 
he  cafi  Lots  what  to  fay,  might  he  not  hit  the  Purpofe  full 
fswellf"     Why  does  not  he  alfg  fay,  the   Types  and 

E  4  Anti- 

■f  Vind.  Page  22. 


[    7^    ] 

Antitypes  are  materlaHy  the  fame  ?  And  (o  (I  dread  to 
ipeak  itj  Chrift  and  the  pafchal  Lamb  are  materially  the 
fame  ?  The  heavenly  San(^uary  and  earthly  the  fame  in 
Subftance,  &c.  as  well  as  the  Church  !  And  if  ufing 
the  fame  Words  don't  prove  the  Types  and  Antitypes  to 
be  materially  the  fame,  much  lefs  will  it  prove  the  vi- 
fible  Church,  under  both  Difpenfations,  to  be  fo.  I  muft 
think  Mr  F.  Jook'd  more  to  the  Number  of  his  Argu- 
ments here,  than  their  Solidity  :  But  what  could  he  do  ? 
The  Point  itfelf  is  unfcriptural,  then  his  Arguments  muft 
needs  be  ineflFeaual.  In  Page  25,  and  26^  Mr.  F.  dif- 
courfes  about  the  Pale  of  the  Church  :  He  imagines,  "  /. 
Jay  great  Strefs  on  the  Obfervation  ;  cvd  fugge/is,  that  I  am 
afraid  oftheJ*ower  of  the?  ale  :  But  he  is  fo  kind,  as  to 
ajfure  me,  he  had  no  Defignagainfi  me  by  that  Word"  Well, 
for  my  Part  he  is  welcome  to  ufe  it, if  he  has  amind,  by 
that  Note,  or  any  other,  to  diftinguifh  his  Church  from 
the  truly  Jewijh,  and  purely  Chriftian,  to  be  a  Third, 
compounded  of  both,  in  taking  Infant- memberfhip 
from  the  one,  and  nominal  Ordinances  from  the  other, 
furrounded  with  a  Pale  of  an  outlandifh  Form,  to  in- 
clude Infant  Semi- members  fome  how  dtftin<5l  both  from 
the  Church  and  the  World. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  F'i  repeated  AlTertion,  That  Abra- 
liam*$  BlefT-ng  is  come  on  believing  Gentiles^  and  their 
Seed,  I  obfbrve  again,  that  Abraham  was  a  Father  in 
a  two  fold  Refpedt  ;  accordingly  he  had  a  two  fold  Seed, 
fpiritual  and  natural,  John  viii.  37,  39.  The  Blefling 
of  Abraham,  which  the  Nfew  Teftament  afierts  to  have 
come  on  G^«///<r  Believers,  is  Juftification,  Rom.  iv.  ir. 
The  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  Gal.  iii.  14.  Adoption, 
&c.  Gal.  iii.  26.  This  Bkffing  did  not  come  on -^/Jra- 
ham^  Offspring,  as  his  natural  Seed,  or  becaufe  they 
fprang  from  him  by  natural  Generation  :  But  on  the 
Regenerate  among  them,  Rom.  iv.  12.  This  was  the 
Seed  the  Promife  definitely  refpeded,  Rom.  ix.  8. 
jv.  16.  Now  if  this  Bleffing  did  not  extgnd  to 
Abraham^  own  natural  Seed,  as  fuch,  fo  neither  does  it 
eJctend  to  the  believing  Gentiles,  and  their  natural  OfF- 
fpring,  as  fuch  ;    And  therefore,  unlefs  Mr.  F,  can  make 

appear. 


[   n  ] 

appear,  that  the  natural  Offspring  of  Gentile  Believers 
have  fomcihing  more  in  them  than  Nature,  they  are 
not  that  Seed  of  Abrahamtht  Prt  nuCe  referred  to.  How- 
ever, Mr.  F.  will  hive  it,  '*  That  Ahrah<«m'j  BlrJJing 
comes  on  Gentile  Believers^  and  on  their  Seed  inrtefinite- 
ly.*^  Reply,  But  was  it  fo  ro  Abraharnsowu  iiiinjt-diate 
Seed?  VJtxc  IJbmatl^  Zirrt'^am,  Jock/han  M<dan^  Mi" 
dian^  Jfhbak  and  Shuah^  Gen.  xxv.  2.  under  ^r^y  Tuch  in- 
definite FromiTc?  No  ,  tor  the  fromile  was  expicfl/ 
limited  to  Ifaac,  Gen.  xvii.  ig.  The  Lord  indeed 
promifed  to  blcfs  Ijhmael  with  earthly  Favours,  but 
makes  an  Exception  with  refpedt  to  the  Prumife  of  fpi- 
fitual  Bleflings,  Gen.  xvii.  21.  This  was  in  particular 
to  Ifaac^  who  is  faid  to  be  born  a'ter  tlie  Spific,  and  was 
a  Type  or  Figure  of  the  fpiritual  Seed,  whethc;r  Jews  or 
QentiUs,  under  the  Gofpel  Difpenfati  .n,  whom  the  Pro- 
mife  definitely  refpeded.  Now  if  Abrahams  own  im- 
mediate Seed  were  not  under  any  fuch  indefinite  pro- 
mifed Bleiflng,  as  our  Opponents  talk  of,  how  came 
theirs  to  be  fo  ?  And  thence  imagine  they  have  a 
Right  to'Baptifm,  when  Abraham's  were  not  fo,  nor 
were  circumcifed  on  that  Account.  For  Inftance,  IJh' 
mael,  whom  Abraham  could  not  but  know  before  he  cir- 
cumcifed him,  was  under  no  fuch  indefinite  Promife, 
Gen.  xvii.  19,- --23.  Therefore  he  mufl  have  been  cir- 
cumcifed on  fome other  Account,  and  that  was  in  Com- 
pliance with  God's  Command,  as  I  have  already  obferv- 
cd.  Hence  then  it  appears,  that  the  Blefling  of  Abra- 
ham^ which  the  Scriptures  fpeak  of,  cannot  confiflentiy 
come  indefinitely  on  all  the  Seed  of  Genlile  Believers, 
becaufe  it  was  not  fo  to  Abraham's  own  Seed  ;  nor  on  any 
of  them,  unlefs  they  be  the  Children  of  the  Promife,  as 
Ifaac  was  ;  and  if  they  be,  'tis  by  Grace,  not  by  Na- 
ture. How  then  my  Argument  proves  either  too  httle, 
or  too  much,  as  Mr.  F.  unjuflly  infinuates  ;  or  contra- 
dicts Scripture,  as  much  as  my  Opponents,  does  not  yet 
appear  :  Nay,  the  Guilt  of  falfe  Conclufions  lies  at  his 
own  Door,  when  he  infers,  contrary  to  Scripture,  that 
AbrahanC^  Bleffing  is  come  on  the  Seed  of  Gentile  Be- 
lievers, as  fuch,  indefinitely  3  when  the  Scripture  leaches 


[     74    ] 

It  was  to  Ifaacy  and  the  Children  of  the  Promife,  as  he 
was  definitely. 

But  for  him  to  imagine  that  Church  memberfhip  in 
the  fleOily  Line,  is  what  the  ApoftlCjGfl/.  iii.  intends  by 
Abraham  %  Bleffing,  in  Whole,  or  in  Part,  not  only  hath 
not  yet  been  fhewn,  but  it  is  inconfiftent  with  the  very 
Scope  of  his  Epiftle  and  Defign  therein,  which  was  to 
reclaim  the  Galat'iam  from  Judaifm  ;  and  in  doing  of 
this,  among  other  Things,  plainly  ftiews  what  Abra- 
hams Blefling  is,  and  who  are  his  Seed,  to  whom  the 
Promifes  pertained,  diftinft  froqi  the  other,  who  are 
faid  to  be  in  Bondage. 

**  Why  then  ffays  he,  Page  47)  it  feems  Church-mem' 
berjhtp  is  no  Blejfing  jjcw^  though  it  was  in  Abraham*ir 
Days  :  Was  it  a  temporal  Ihing,  or  xvas  it  a  Blejfing  to  be 
in  the  Jewifli  Churchy  and  is  it  a  Blejfing  to  he  out  of  the 
Chrijiian  ?  &c.  What  Paradoxes  are  thefe  f"  'Tis  not 
unknown,  that,  our  Opponents  have  Recourfe  to  this 
Argument,  as  one  of  their  main  Fortrefles,  in  favour* 
of  their  Principle,  and  urge  it  on  People  with  feeming 
great  Plaufibility.  To  which  I  anfwer,  we  afRrm  botH 
together,  that  Church-meniberfhip  was  a  Blefling,  and 
is  fo,  with  this  Limitation,  that  it  be  according  to  di- 
vine Inftitution  ;  otherwife,  for  any  to  be  Church- 
members,  is  not  a  Blefling  to  them,  nor  the  Way  to 
bring  a  Blefling  on  them,  but  a  CurTe.  People  can't 
reafcnably  expe£t  a  Blefling  but  in  God's  Way,  and  ac- 
cording to  his  Appointments  ;  and  for  any  to  partake 
t)f  that  which  does  not  belong  to  them,  is  no  Blefl^ing, 
It  was  no  Blefling  to  the  Men  of  Shechem  to  be  circum- 
cifed,  for  all  their  Hafl:e  and  Contrivance  to  make  a 
numerous  Church,  Gen.  xxxiv.  21  —  25.  though  it  wa^ 
to  the  Seed  of  Jacob ;  neither  was  it  juftifiable  in  the 
Sons  of  Jacob,  to  abufe  the  Ordinance  of  Circumci* 
fion,  Verfes  15,  16.  any  more  than  it  is  in  our  Oppo- 
nents to  adminifl:er  Baptifm,  not  according  to  God's  cx- 
prefs  Directions.  It  was  no  Blefling  to  the  Philijiines  to 
have  the  Ark  of  God  among  them,  i  Sam.  v.  6.  iJc, 
though  it  was  to  Ifrael.  Nor  was  it  any  Blefling  to  the 
Men  of  Beth-Jkcmejb,  or  to  U^za,  to  come  fo  near  the 

Ark, 


[    75    ] 

Ark,  I  Sam.  vi.  19.  i  Chro.  xiii.  9.  tho'  it  was  ta 
the  Priefts  and  Levites.  So  neither  is  it  any  Blefling  td 
Infants  to  be  Church- members  now,  whatever  it  wasoC 
©Id,  unlefs  there  be  God's  Inftitution  for  it  now,  as 
there  was  then  ;  which  we  have  often  defired  our  Op- 
ponents to  {hew,  but  in  vain  !  I  think  I  have  already 
proved  the  Jewijh  Church  State  itfelf  to  have  been 
temporal  ;  that  is,  it  continued  no  longer  than  till 
/Chrift  came  to  fet  up  the  Gofpel  Church  ;  then  it  ne- 
ccfTarily  follows,  that  Infants  Alemberfhip  in  the  "Jewish 
Church  (founded  on  a  divine  Command,  which  is  now 
abrogated)  was  temporal  alfo  ;  as  feveral  other  Things 
were,  1  formerly  *  mentioned,  which  were  peculiar  ta 
Abraham  and  his  Seed.  It  was  a  Bleffing  to  be  in  the 
yevjiffj  Church  j  but  it  is  a  greater  Biefling  that  the  JeW' 
i/h  CEcoromy  is  abolifhed,  and  the  Gofpel  Difpenfati- 
6n  eftablifhed  ;  as  much  as  the  Miniftration  of  the  Spi- 
rit an^  of  Righteoufnefs  excels  the  contrary,  2  Cor.  iii. 
6--  II.  Therefore,  the  Seed  or  05springof  Believers, 
enjoy  a  greater  Bleffing  now,  tho'  they  are  not  Mem- 
bers, in  having  the'  Advantage  to  behold  the  unvail'd 
GiOry  of  tlie  Lord  fliinning  full  upon  them,  by  the 
Beams  of  an  unma/k'd  Gofpel,  whereby  they  are  chang- 
ed into  the  fame  Image,  2  'Cor.  iii.  18.  and  fo  fitted 
ftjr  Communion  in  the  Gofpel  Church,  than  the  'Jew- 
;^  Offspring  had,  tho'  they  were  Members  of  that  na-_ 
tional  Church  ;  who  neverthelefs  were  all  their  Life- 
time under  a  Vail,  and  fubje<3:  to  an  intollerable  Yoke 
of  Bondage,  Gal.  v.  .1.  A£ls  xv.  lo.  This  View  of 
the  Care,'^fufficiently  unfolds  Mr.  i^'s  Riddles,  to  the 
full  Satisfadlion  of  an  unprejudiced  Mind  ;  tho'  perhaps 
he  may  (in  Defence  of  his  received  Principle)  think 
proper  to  keep  on  ftill,  in  drawing  his  Line  of  Parodox- 
es  J  and  alFerting,  contrary  to  Evidence,  that  I  have  no 
Medium  at  all  to  prove  the  forefaid  Appointment  to 
be  repeal'd.  In  Pages  28,  29.  Mr,  F.  treats  on  what 
he  calls  the  Devices  of  the  Anahaptijis^  to  prove  the 
Repeal  of  the  faid  Appointment  of  Infant- member-* 
(hip,  and  their  Right  to  Ordinances  :     But  for  my  Partj 

I  judge- 
*  Anti.  Page  36,  &c. 


[     7.6    ] 

2  judge  'tis  already  fufEciently  proved  to  be  repealed  j 
there  is  therefore  no  need  to  dwell  on  the  Devices  he 
mentions  at  all  :  Yet  I  may  make  a  remark  or  two, 
on  what  he  fays,  and  proceed.  He  endeavours  to  infet 
from  my  Words,  *'  T'bat  we  mufi  be  under  both  Cove^ 
nantSy  of  Works  and  Grace  at  once."  And  then  n(ks, 
*'  is  not  this  a  Depth  unfathomable  f"  Yes,  as  much  fo, 
as  to  find  the  Reafon  of  his  Inference  from  my  Obfer- 
vation,  when  I  fay,  "  The  Law  (as  a  rigorous  Covenant 
cf  IVorks)  is  fubfervient  to  the  Gcfpel^  by  convincing  Men 
cf  Sin^  and  condemning  for  Sin:"  That  is,  tbat  the  Law, 
without  the  leaft  Abatement,  on  pain  of  Damnation, 
lequires  an  exadi:,  full  and  conftant  Conformity,  to  all 
its  Precepts,  at  the  Hand  of  every  one  that  is  under  it. 
Gal.  hi.  10.  Which  when  the  Tranfgreflbr  is  convin- 
ced of  by  the  Law,  Rom.  iii.  2o.  Gal.  u.  19.  he  can 
have  no  Hope  left  to  be  juftified  by  it  ;  but  is  through 
Grace  brought  to  embrace  the  Righteoufnefs  of  ^hriil, 
which  the  Gofpel  propofes  ;  and  thus  delivered  from  the 
Curfeofthe  Law,  and  no  more  under  it,  as  a  Covenant 
cf  Works,  but  under  Grace  ;  though  'tis  to  the  Belie* 
ver  a  perfect  Rule  of  Holinefs.  Does  not'  this  fubfervc 
the  Gofpel  ?  But  how  this  tends  to  infer,  that  we  are 
under  both  Covenants  at  once,  when  I  exprefly  argue 
the  contrary,  1  can't  devife.  Does  Mr.  F.  mean  that 
Law  and  Grace  make  up  one  Covenant,  when  he 
fays,  by  way  of  Oppofition,  *'  The  Law  is  fubfervient 
to  the  Gofpel  F'  If  fo,  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace  he 
fpeaks  of,  is  a  mix'd  Covenant  with  a  Witnefs  1  He 
denies  the  Law  in  its  rigorous  Exaction,  or  as  a  Cove- 
nant of  Works,  to  be  fubfervient  to  the  Gofpel  :  How 
then  as  relax'd  and  lenify'd  to  the  Sinner  under  its 
Power  ?  Let  that  be  {hewn  confiftent  with  their  con- 
demning the  f  Author  of  the  whole  Duty  of  Man.  Or 
is  it  no  Subferviency  to  the  Gofpel,  that  the  Law  (hould 
convince  the  Sinner  of  his  Guiltinefs,  condemn  him 
without  Mercy,  and  kill  his  Hope  and  Expectation  of 
Life  and  Juflification  that  Way  he  once  look'd  for 
tliefe  Things  .? 

In 
•[  CQnfidcratlon  of  theQuerifts,  Page  27. 


[    77    ] 

in  r>eut.  iv.  13.  Exod.  xxxiv,  28.  the  Law  is  calW 
a  Covenant :  What  Covenant?  Of  Grace  or  Works  ? 
If  of  Grace,  how  then  does  the  Ap^ftle  fay,  that  ly 
the  Deeds  of  the  Law,  Jhall  no  Flejh  be  jujiified  ?  But  if 
a  Covenant  of  Works,  it  is  then  demanded,  whether  it 
was  fubfervient  to  the  Gofpel  or  not  ?  This  he  isdefired 
to  an fwer.  Says  he,  Page  29,  "  Had  it  been  a  Cove'- 
nant  of  IVorks^  it  could  not  have  led  to  Chrifi^  but  fromy 
him."  I  hen  it  muft  be  a  Covenant  of  Grace  ;  and  fo 
verily  Righteoufnefs  is  by  the  Law  !  Farewel  then  all 
Diftindtions  between  Law  and  Gofpel,  Works  and 
Grace  !  We  have  no  need  of  you  !  The  Law  is  a 
Covenant  of  Grace,  and  the  Gofpel  a  Covenant  of 
Grace  :  The  one  fully  condemns  all  that  are  undei  it, 
without  Favour  to  the  Offender  ;  and  the  other  fully 
juftifies  all  under  it,  without  Merit  in  the  Sinner  ;  and 
yet,  at  the  fjme  time,  both  one  and  the  fame  Covenant  of 
Grace  too  !  For,  fays  he,  *'  The  Sinai  Covenant  {and 
there  the  Law  was  given)  was  really  a  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  the  fame  in  Sub/lance  with  that  in  Heb.  viii.** 
According  to  Mr.  FlaveWs  and  Mr.  Finlefs  Ballance, 
what  anexa(5l  Poife  muft  we  then  be  in,  "  To  be  fully 
jujiified,  and  fully  condemned  at  the  fame  lime.  Sec''* 
Who  knows  but  thefe  areftimeof  Mr  F's  plain  Demon- 
ftra'iors  I  (hould  yield  to  ?  Well,  I  yield  to  him,  they 
are  plain  Demonftrations  that  his  Talk  on  this  Head  rs 
involved  in  much  Confufion.  I  obferv'd,  that  kis  Argu- 
ment feems  to  turn  out  thus,  That  the  Law  was  given 
to  be  a  Covenant  of  Grace.  He  anfwers,  /  think  the 
Caje  feems  to  turn  out  thus.  That  Mr.  M.  is  not  fufficient' 
ly  apprehenfive  of  the  Force  of  an  Argument,  to  undertake 
the  Refutation  of  my  Book."  'Tis  no  woiider  at  all,  if 
one  that  has  not  *  Senfe,  fhould  be  at  a  lofs  to  appre- 
hend the  invifible  Force  of  an  Argument  of  them  that 
have  !  But  'tis'  pleafant  to  fee  him  bring  out  the 
Force  of  his  own  Argument  thus,  *'  They  who  fought 
yujiification  by  the  Law,  thought  it  was  defigned  for  a 
Covenant  of  Works:  But  they  who  j  ought  J  ujlif cation 
hy  it^  mifhok  its  Defign^   therefore  it  was  not  given-  to  be 

if  €»" 
♦V,ind.  Page  52. 


■  [    7S    ] 

ii  Covenant  of  JVorks.''*  What  then  ?  to  be  a  Covenant 
of  Grace  ?  (for  the  Law  is  called  a  Covenant)  If  fo, 
they  virere  furely  in  the  right  to  feek  Juftification  by  it, 
tho*  as  many  as  are  of  the  Works  of  the  Law,  be  un- 
der the  Curfe.     A  forcible   Argument. 

In  the  following  Pages,  our  Author  having  feme  Lei- 
fure,  and  Freedom  from  his  *  abundant  Hurry,  and  hap- 
pening to  be  in  a  v6ry  good  Humour,'  *'  or  utmoU 
Colmnefs,"  diverts  himfelf  and  his  Readers  for  a  while,, 
with  an  imaginary  Profped  of"  rny  Shifting  and  ^uib- 
lling,  Dijhonejly  end  Secrecy,  Sculking  and  Hidings  Non- 
fenje  and  Heterodoxy.^*  Good  Evidences  of  a  calm  Tern-- 
per  I  But  as  long  as  the  Truth  is  fafe,  I  fhall  leave  him 
to  rejoice  in  his  fanciful  Entertainment,  ai^d  pafs  on  ; 
tho'  1  might  have  obfcrv'd  by  the  Way,  how  willing 
he  is  to  prefs  me  to  labour  in  his  Stead..  'Tis  himfelf 
that  argues  from  what  he  calls  Abrahafri%  Covenant  : 
And  if  he  does  not  like  the  Name,  or  is  at  a  lofs  tq,  know 
^.^  what  kind  of  Covenant  it  was,"  why  does  he  argue 
from  it  ?  Let  him  define  it,  if  he  thinks  proper  :  Let 
him  give  it  what  Name  fuits  him  ;  'tis  enough  for  mc 
to  call  it  by^  that  Name  which  he  gives  it,  whilft  I  am 
jliewing  that  his  Arguments  therefrom,  are  intirely  in- 
conclufive  in   the  Cafe  of  Infant  Baptifm.     • 

What  he  offers  in  Page  31,  has  been  fubftantialljr 
confidered  and  refuted  already.  We  have  exprefs  Scrip- 
ture in  our  Favour,  thzt  Ifrael  ^nd  Judah  on  their 
breaking  the  Covenant  were  difregarded,  and  the  Co- 
venant itfelf  made  old,  or  aboliihed,  Jer.  xxxi.  32. 
fleb.  viii.  9.  13.  Now  unlefs  he  could  produce  Scrip- 
ture which  foretels,  and  declares,  that  on  Peoples  coun- 
teracting their  baptifmal  Engagements,  the  Covenant 
they  are  now  under  is  aboli{hed,,and  that  another  fhall 
be  made  different  from  it,  his  Difcourfe  is  nothing  to 
the  Matter  :  My  Argument  proves  juft  enough,  that 
the  old  Covenant  is  aboliftied,  as  was  foretold,  becanfe 
they  continued  not  in  it  \  and  all  the  Appointments  un- 
der it  (not  excepting  Infant  memberfhip  in  that  national 
Church)  which  were  pecuhar  £o  it,  aieaboliihed  with  it» 

ta 
•  Preface,  Page  4, 


^    79    1  .      „^, 

In  Page  32.  fays  he,  "  Mr.  M.  often  requires  us  ii. 
give  exprefs  Proofs  in  fo  many  Words^  that  Infants  are 
Members  in  the  New  Teflament  Church ;  we  require  an  eX'. 
prefs  Repeal  of  their  Church-  inemberjijip.  Lei  us  fee  once 
for  all^  vjhich  df  us  have  befi  Reafon  for  our  rejpe£tive  De^, 
hands.  Methinks  it  is  a  felf-'cvident  Truth,  that  an 
Ordinance  onte  enjoined^  or  a  competent  Authority,  muji  needs- 
be  in  force,  until  it  be  repealed  by  the  fame  Authority," 
&c.  Anf.  I  am  not  unwilling  to  come  to  the  Trial  of 
our  refpeilive  Demands,  hoping  it  may  have  fome  good 
EfFe£t,  and  bring  Things  to  a  defirable  IfTue.  'Tis 
granted  on  both  Sides,  that  the  fame  Authority  which 
appoints,  can  difannul.-— Then  we'll  proceed:  The  Pro- 
inifes  made  to  Abraham,  Gen.  xii.  2,  3.  he  had  Twen* 
ty-four  Years  before  he  was  circumcifed  ;  hence  it  ap- 
pears, that  it  was  not  the  Promife,  but  the  exprefs  Com- 
inand  of  God,  that  was  inftitutive  of  that  Ordinance  of 
Circumcifion,  and  gave  him,  and  his  Seed,  a  Warrant 
Jo  be  circumcifed.  Now  that  Law,  which  gave  a  Being 
to  Infant-memberfliip  and  Circumcifion  is  abolifhed  by 
<iivine  Authority,  as  a  Part  of  the  former  Admiftiftra- 
tion  ;  this  muft  be  granted,  or  eife  Circumcifion  is  yet 
m  force.  Now  methinks  it  is  a  felf-evident  Truth, 
that  when  a  Law,  which  gives  Being  to  any  Ordinance 
or  Appointment,  is  abrogated,  that  Ordinance  or  Ap- 
pointment is  repealed.  Again,  that  very  Covenant  Ad- 
miniftration,  whereby  the  Jewi/h  Nation  was  taken  in- 
to  a  vifible  Church-ftate,  is  now  waxed  old,  and  vanifli- 
cd,  as  before  fhewn.  And  further,  That  Church-ftate, 
whereinto  Infants  were  admitted  as  Members  and  Mate 
rials,  is  now  abolifhed,  as  already  obferved  ;  fince  the 
Cafe  is  thus,  that  we  make  appear  from  Scripture,  that 
the  fame  divine  Authority,  v/hich  gave  a  Being  to  every 
Particular,  which  our  Opponents  infift  on  in  Defence  of 
their  Principles,  the  fame  divine  Authority  hath  nov7 
difannull'd  "every  of  them.  It  remains  therefore,  that 
we  have  jufl  Grounds  to  require  them  to  produce  us  ex- 
prefs Scriptures  to  prove  that  Infants  are  the  Subjeds  of 
JBaptifm,  and  Members  in  the  New  Teftament  Church; 
©therwife  they  have  no  Right  there,  by  Virtue  of  any 

former 


,     [    So    ] 

Ibririer  Appointmfnt.  But  this  has  never  been  done, 
Sind  I  prefume  never  will  ;  and  t'll  this  is  done,  the  Read^ 
er  may  fee  there  is  no  Reafon  I  {hould  renounce  my 
favourite  Principles,  as  Mr.  F.  calls  them  :  Seeing  they 
are  unmoveably  founded  on  Holy  Scripture,  even  that 
J)rofefring  Btlieveis  are  the  only  proper  Subjedts  of  Bap- 
tifm  ;  let  all  Men  therefore  jud^e  betwixt  us,  which  of 
us  have  the  befj    Reafon   for   our  refpe6l^ive  Demands. 

Mr.  F.  "  New  comes  to  his  t'.ird  AJfcrUon^  viz.  That 
God  has  aBually  renewed  and  confirmed  the  afore/aid  Ap~ 
fointmem  under  the  New  Te/Iament  D'ljpmjation  :  This^ 
(fays  he)  /■»  the  very  Propcfal,  Jheivs  the  Falfity  oj  Mr.  M'j 
Affertion^  that  I  bring  no  Scripture  to  prove  the  Right- of 
infants  to  Baptifm  j  or  that  thiy  are  vifibly  in  the  Co^ 
venant  of  Grace."  Reply.  If  AiTertions  propofed  will 
{hew  the  contrary  to  be  falfe,  I  grant  Mr.  F.  is  like  to 
do  fumething  in  this  Controverfy,  for  he  has  enough  of 
them.  If  the  Cafe  be  thus,  then  he,  who  can  pile  up  the 
greateft  Heap  of  Aflertions,  will  carry  the  Caufe  :  VV  hat 
Need  then  is  there  of  Argument  or  Proof  at  all  ^.  But 
how  his  AfTertion  in  the  very  Propofal  (hews  the  Falfity 
of  mine,  which  is,  that  they  bring  no  Scripture  to  prove 
the  Right  of  Infants  to  Bapfifm,  when  neither  in  the 
Propofal  itfelf,  nor  afterwards,  any  Scripture  Proofs  ara 
produced,  is  very  dark,  and  wants  fi/rther  Illuftration.  1 
have  already  traced  the  former  Appointment  from  the  Be- 
ginning to  the  End,  and  fhewn  that  tlie  Laws  whereupoA 
it  depended  is  abrogated,  and  the  Church  ftate  in  which  it 
was  in  Force,  is  ended  alfo.  Mr.  F's  proper  Province  is'i 
to  (hew  the  inftitution  of  Infantb  Baptifm,  or  elfe  we 
will  ftill  plead  that  none  hut  profefTing  BeHevers  are  to 
be  baptized  according  to  Chrift's  Inftitution,  and  always 
fay,  as  we  now  do,  that  he  has  not  the  leafl:  divine  Au- 
thority for  his  Piadlicc.  Our  Author  repeatedly  refers 
to  thofe  Scriptures,  which,  he  fays,  "  Prove  Abraham's 
Covenant  to  be  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace ^  and  therefore 
confequently  is  confirmed"  If  he  means  by  Abraham^  Co- 
venant, that  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Chrift  Jcfus, 
were  Believer's  Infants,  as  fuch,  ever  taken  with  their 
Parents  into  that  ?  Or  if  he  intends  the  Covenant  Pro- 

mifes 


:   :       .  [     8l      ] 

rtiifes  publiihed  to  Abraham^  which  he  embraced  by  FaitHi 
Infants  are  not   interefted  in   them  unlets  they  are  Be-- 
lievcrs,  and   fo  the  fpiritual  Seed  j    nor  was  the  Promife 
of  Grace  and  Salvation  indefinite  to  Ai^raham' sow  a  Sced^ 
as  we   have  already   feen.     All    that   Mr.  F.  has  as  yet 
made  appear   is,  that   Parents  and   Children   under  the 
former  Adminiftration  were  admitted  to  partake  of  Or- 
dinances j  and  what  is  that  to  his  Purpofc  ?     Truly  no* 
thing  at  all,    fince  that  Adminiftration  with  its  Appointr 
ments  are  long  fmce  abolifhed.   We  arc  now  looleing  for 
the  exprefs  Inftitution   of  Infants    Baptifm,.  and   i(  he- 
can't  produce  any,  let  him  no  longer  impofef  the  Prac* 
tice  of  it  on  the  World.    What  can  he  bring  from  Jhra* 
ham's   Covenant,    in  favour  of  his  Principle,   when  he 
pleads.    Page.  33,   **  The   NeceJ/ity  of  Faith  to  intereji:  ut 
a£luall\  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  j    and  that  God  requires 
our  Cqnfent  to  his   Terms,  and  confirms  the  Covenant  t» 
us  on  Condition  of  believing^  this  is  a  making  the  Covenant 
with  Many     Well,  then,  according  to  his  own  Way 
of  talking,  the  Terms  mufl  necefTarily  be  propofed  to 
each  in  particular,  and   their  Confent  obtained,  or  elfe 
they  are  not  adtually  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.    Hence 
it  follows,  that  Infants  are  not  adually  in  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  they  fpeak  of,  for  they  are  not  capable  of  con- 
fidering  the  Terms  propofed,  nor  of  giving  their  Confent 
to  them,  nor  of  believing  the  Faithfulnefs  of  him  who 
propofes  them:  Hence  it  will  further  follow,  that  Abra-^ 
ham's  Covenant  is  confirm'd  to  none  elle  but  Believers, 
which  is  ftill  far  from  the  iVIatter  in  Hand.     To  fay, 
that  Believers  Infants  are  in  Covenant  in  the  Sight  of 
the  vifible  Church,  when  yet,  at  the  fame  time,  they 
^e  actually  out  of  Covenant  in  the  Sight  of  the  vifible 
Church,  becaufe  they  have  never  confented  to  the  Terms 
propjfed,  is  another  Myftery  of  their  ProfefTion,  who 
arc  Advocates  for  Infants  Right  to  Baptifm.     But  if  he 
ays,  the  Confent  of   the  Parents  to  ihefe  Terms  brings 
''eir  Infant  Seed  alfo  with  them  into  Covenant  Rektion 
>  God,  then  it  gives  room  to  reply,  that  Mr,  F.  repre- 
nts  not  only  Abraham  to  be  a  publick  Head  in  the  Co- 
Ik  nant  of  Grace,  but  alfo  every  Head. of  a  Family  in  his 
F  Meafurc 


[       82       ] 

Meafure  to  be  fo ;  and  (o  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is 
znade  or  confirmed  with  an  infinite  Number  of  publick 
Heads,  on  behalf  of  their  Seed,  *  who  are  not  capable, 
perfonally  and  explicitly,  to  covenant  for  themftlves. 
Who  then  can  blame  the  Author  of  the  IVhole  Duty  of 
Jldan^  tor  his  Prudence  in  contriving  a  pi.blick  Head, 
as  early  as  the  Being  of  the  firft  Family  on  Earth  ? 
-  I  can't  fee,  that  it  is  any  Reproach  to  my  Judgment, 
flill  to  fay,  "  That  Gal.  iii,  8.  is  as  remote  from  his 
Buftnefsy  as  any  he  had  cited  before.'"  This  Text  (hews, 
the  Gofpel  was  preached  to  Abraham^  which  we  never 
gaiiifaid.  Abraham  was  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and 
io  are  all  his  (piritual  Seed,  whether  fevos  or  Gentiles^  in 
all  At'cs :  But  what  is  this  to  the  Cafe  in  Hand,  when  he 
lias  not  fhewn  that  Infants  were  taken  into  it  with  their  be- 
lieving Parents  ;  or  that  the  Covenant  was  ever  confirm- 
ed to  any  but  true  Believers,  as  the  Text  itfelf  (hews.  But 
fuppofmg  the  contrary,  it  would  not  do,  as  already  ap- 
pears, without  the  Inftitution  of  Infant^  Baptilm,  which 
^Nc  are  now  looking  for,   but  have  not  yet  Jpund  it. 

However,  if  his  Aflertion  is  not  proved,  it  is  not  for 
>vant  of  repeating  the  fame  groundiefs  Arguments  over 
and  over  ;  m  Page  34.  he  again  fays,  "  The  Bleffing  of 
Abraham  is  come  on  the  Gentiles,  and  their  Seed"  &c. 
This  has  been  confidcred  already.  "  He  wonders  hy 
what  Rule  we  are  to  judge  that  this  or  thtit  particular  In- 
fant is  not  the  Jpiritual  Seed,  feeing  the  Proviije  is  indefi' 
nite  3  zvere  Ahi^hzm's  Seed  excluded  from  the  Churchy  be- 
taufe  it  could  not  be  infallibly  known,  which  was  the  fpirt- 
tual  ^eedF  Anf.  By  his  own  Rule,  f^ind.  Page  19.  which 
is  thus  :  "  Thefe  only  are  to  be  accounted  the  fpiriiual  Seed 
and  Children  of  the  Prorhije,  who  have  the  real  Bliffings 
of  the  Covenant  in  their  tnearts^  and  not  others^  who  have 
not,  rho'  they  be  under  the  outward  Difpenjation,  and  have 
it  vifible  Right  to  the  Promije"  Here  is  the  Ruie  ;  where 
sire  his  diftin^uifhing  fvlaiks  whereby  tlie  fpiritual  Seed 
ihav  be  known  from  other  Inrants,  e'llher  oi  Chrijiians 
or  Pagans  P  Has  he  any  outward  Evidences  ot  the  real 
Bleiiin^s  of  the   Covenant  in  the  Hearts  of    Believers 

Intants  ? 
*  Divine  Right,  Page  39. 


I     ^3     ] 

thfsR  iT  '^""'^  'I'  ^P'^^'^"^^  S^^^'  according  to 
tha'.U  ^K  "°."'  'u^  '°  be  accounted  the  fpi?itual  S?ed,' 
;tno  they  be  under  the  outward  Difpenfation,  but  thofe 
only  who  have  the  real  «]effings   of  the   Covenant  in 

It  In  ri  p"^  ''^^  "°'  "j  '^'  ^P'^'^"^J  Seed,  then  not 
at , all    for  the  Promife  to  Mraham  and  his  Seed  does  not 

,0dude  them    when  they  are  not   the  Seed  oi  Abraham 
n  any  Refpecl.  ..  But   for  him  to  fay,  that  Behe vers  In- 
tent beed,  are  now  to   be   baptized,  as  Abraham's  were 

vncible  Difficulty  of  producing   the  exprefs  Command 

a  e  nf  n  ^''  r'  >"^  inconfequential  Confequences, 
dolJ  K  T"^.^''  ^'^'^  °"^>'  ^''^  'hem,  who^refo? 
doing  what  God  commanded  them  not.  Infants  were 
once  commanded  to  be  circumcifed  j   What  then?   That 

Ter  Th  K  a''^'"'"'^'  ^"^^^'''  Command,  and  ano- 
ther  Church  flate,  different  from  what  we  are  now  con- 
cerned  with  ;  and  therefore  no  Proof  can  be  brought 
trom  an  abrogated  Law,  and  abolifhed  Church-ftatc,  to 
Ihew  who  are  the  Subjeas  of  a  Gofpel  Ordinance,  and 
Members  of  a  New  Teftament  conftftuted  Church. 
TnfJn;  ^-    h^^/^gg^ft^'^  more  than  once,  that  I  called 

rZ.  t!fff'^  ?  V^"  y^"^'^  Church  an  infipid 
1  hing;  but  I  cfeny  the  Charge  ;  what  I  called  fo.  Page 
43.  IS  their  Infants  Church -memberfhip,  /.  e.  the  Mem- 
benh.p  of  our  Opponents  Infants  in  the  Prejlyterian 
Church  is  an  infipid  Thing.  To  ufe  Mr.  F\  Words. 
^  lis  no  more  to  be  relljhed  than  the  White  of  an  Egg  J* 
becaufe  it^has  no  divine  Inflitution  to  fupport  it:  Nor 
Will  my  Words  in  their  true  grammatical  Conflruaion, 
and  bcope,  bear  another  Senfe.  But  he  muft  fay  fome! 
tning,  m  order  to  charge  me  with  «  Wickednejs;'  that 
he  m.ght  make  his  Readers  believe,  «  I  boldly  LtradiSi 
f^prefs  Scripture,''  when  in  the  mean  while  it  is  not  fo. 
i  he  hrfi  1  ext  Mr.  F.  ch.efly  inf.fts  on,  is  J^s  ii.  30. 
IJ^el^romiJe  IS  to  you,  and  to  your  Children,  and  to  all 

\  ,f  ^^7  ''^'";^  ^-^^    ^'"^^  '^^  '"'^"y  ^'  ^^'  Lord  our  God /ball 
^^il.     in  anfww  to  his  Plea  for  Infants  Right  to  Baptifnx 

^  2  ffojn 


■       f     «4    ] 

from  this  Place,  I  obferved,  i.  "  Tloe  Promife  is'ihe 
fame  both  to  the  Parents  and  Children  ;  if  it  is  the  Promife 
of  Pardon  of  Sins  and  Gift  of  the  HolyGhofl  to  Parents^  Uts 

fo  to  the  Children :  'Tis  Jironze  that  Mr.  ¥.  who  charges 
us  with  curtailing  Abraham'5  Blcffvg^fjould  himielf  cut  tail 
this  Promife,  that  the  Parents  were  to  have  Remrffiorl  of 
Sins^  hut  all  that  is  pL-aded  for  their  Infants,  is  that  they 
were  to  enjoy  outzvard  Priviledges--  to  be. -baptized  -Does 
the  Apo file  make  any  fuch  Difference  ^'^  He  fays,  No,  nei- 
ther does  he  :  Does  not  he,   when  he  pleads,  that  Parents 

•  have  prefent  Forgivenefs  of  Sins,  a:.d  Children  but  out- 
ward Privrledees?  Thofe  have  the  Application  of  Chrift's 
Blood  by  Faith,  and  the  San£l:ification  of  the  Spirit; 
Thefe  not  :  Believing  Parents  have  the  prefent,  actual 
Efficacy  of  the  i-*romife  in  their  Hearts,  but  Infants  only 
a  prefent  Right :  Thofe  are  in  a  State  of  Peace  with 
God  :  T  htTe  Children  of  Wrath.  And  yet  he  makes  no 
Difference  f  *Tis  true,  the  Apoftle  makes  no  fuch  Di- 
itinition,  nor  h  there  any  Ground  for  it  in  the  Text ; 
tho'  our  Opponents  would  willingly  flrain  it  to  fer^ye  their 
favourite  Principle  of  Infant-baptifm,  and  curta  1  this 
Promife  to  Children,  and  fufpend  them  from  the  Bleffings 
of  the  Promife,  who,  they  lay,  have  a  Right  to  the  Pro- 
mifr,  without  the  leaft  Foundation  in  the  Words  to 
giatify  their  Defigns.  Sa\s  he,  '*'  What  we  fay  is  plain 
enough,  viz.  That  God  has  engd^ed  himf elf  by  Promife  to 
Believers  and  their  Seid  ;  hence  the  Parent's  Faith  is  the 
Condition  of  the  Childrens  Right  to  the  Promife,  for  the 
Seed  of  the  Righteous  .fkall  be  bleffed.  Reply;  Inlttad.df 
being  plain  enough,  this  makes  triC'Carc'llri'll  darker :  To 
fay  thar  tiie  Parent's  Faith  is  th^-  Conditron  oF  the  Chil- 
drens  Right  to  the  Fromife,  is  a  Point  of  Divitiny,  that 
needs  ftnther  Pi  oof  than  Mr.  /^s  bare  faying,  *'  It  Was 
good  in  Anrahani'x,  and  in  Petet'j  Day"  F(»r  it  is  Faith, 
and  not  naiur  li  Butnright,  that  is  appointed  to  interefl 
us  in  the  Promifci^  Heb.  xi  33  Have  the  Children  on 
this  Condition  a  Right  to  the  BlefTings  ot  the  Promife, 
or  only  to  die  Pnunife  without  the  Bleilings  oi  it?  If  to 
t-he  BifcfTings  pioniis'd,  then  kc  him  fhew,  that  the  Chil- 
<k-6ii  uf  Bclieveis^  as  fuch,  have  any  more  Right  to  the 

Pardon 


[     85    ] 

Pardon  of  Sin,  than  the  Children  of  Unbelievers,  Galf 
iii.  22.  Epb.  ii.  3.  Ezek.  xviii.  20.  unlefs  they  are  borij 
Belidveis  ;  other wify  to  fay,  that  Unbelievers  upon  any 
Condition  have  a  Right  to  Jullificaaon,  Adoption  and 
Salvation,  is  too  grofs  an  Error  in  Divinity  once  to  b? 
alloA-ed  ;  for  none  has,  nor  ever  had  any  Right  to  Hea- 
ven but  re2;enerate  Souls,  John  iii.  3.  It  does  not 
appear,  that  any  have  a  Right  to  thefe  promifed  Bkflings, 
tut  ih  )fc  who  by  Faith  do  lay  hold  on  the  Promife  :  I 
am  not  necefTitated  to  argue  againft  Abrahan^%  Covenant, 
as  he  fuggells,  when  I  argue  againft  his  Mifjeprefenta- 
tions  oi  it ;  for  none  of  the  Seed  of  Abraham  had  a 
Right  to  the  Pardon  of  Sin  and  Salvation,  becaufe  they 
were  the  Seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the  Fiefh,  as 
thefe  Scnptuies  teftify,  Rom.  iv.  i6  ix.  7,  8.  Gal.  iii-  7, 
9,  10.  Hut  if  Children,  on  the  Condition  of  their  Pa- 
rent's Faith,  have  only  a  Right  to  the  Promife,  and  no 
Intereft  m  the  Bleflinga  promifed,  where  is  there  any 
Ground  for  this  Diftindlion,  in  the  Text  under  Confi- 
deiation  ?  Let  it  be  made  appear,  that  any  have  an  Inte- 
xell:  ill  the  Promife  of  Pa. don  of  Sin,  Juftification  and 
eternal  Life,  who  have  not  at  the  fame  time,  the  Bene- 
fits promifed,  John  iii.  36.  Says  he,  "  The  Seed  of  the 
Righteous  Jhall  be  bUffed."  What  then?  Chrift  is  given 
for  a  Lighc  to  thcGcntiUs^  that  he  might  be  the  Lord's 
Salvation  unto  the  End  of  the  Earth  ;  and  fo  there  is  a 
Promife,  That  in  him  Jhall  all  Nations  be  hleffcd.  Let  us 
compare  both  together,  according  to  our  Opponents 
Way  of  arguing:  Are  Believers  Infants  vifibly  in  Cove- 
nant ?  So  are  all  the  unbelieving  Nations,  as  much  as  they. 
Shall  they  be  blelTed  .?  So  fhall  all  Nations,  Are  they 
under  indefinite  Promifes?  So  are  all  Nations  as  much. 
Has  God  declared  it  to  be  his  Pleafurc  to  give  Salvation, 
with  all  its  Pre-requifites,  to  Believers  Seed  ?  So  has  he 
alfo  to  all  Nations,  or  elfe  they  can't  be  blefTed,  A  good- 
ly Argument  to  prove  the  Inftitution  of  Infant  baptifm  ! 
You  fee  Mr.  F's  Proof  from  this  Text,  for  Infants  Right 
to  this  New  Teflament  Ordinance  is  full  ftrong,  whea 
•it  proves  fo  much,  that  all  Nations  may  be  baptized  by 
Virtue  of  the  Promife  to  them,  as  well  as  Infants !  For 
F  3  their 


[    86    ] 

their  unbelieving  Infants,  and  the  unbelieving  Nations, 
have  juft  a  like  vifible  Right  to  the  Promifes  ,  both  are 
deftitute  of  the  prefent  Efficacy  of  them :  And  if  one  Par- 
ty has  thereby  a  prefent  Right  to  Baptifm,  fo  has  the  other. ' 
But  the  Truth  is,  before  either  one  or  the  other  pofTefs 
any  Part  of  the  Eflate  (as  he  words  it)  or  enjoy  Church 
Priviledges,  they  muft,  in  the  firft  Place,  give  in  Evi- 
dence, according  to  Law,  of  their  being  proper  Heirs, 
even  a  ProfefTion  of  their  Faith  and  Repentance,  other- 
wife  their  PofTeffion  is  illegal,  according  to  the  New  Te- 
itamcnt  Laws.  Says  he,  *'  Js  the  Parents  were  baptized, 
lecaufe  the  Promife  belonged  to  them,  fo  alfo  the  Children." 
Does  he  mean  the  Children  were  alfo  baptized  ?  We  have 
only  Mr.  /"share  Word  for  this  :  The  divine  Hiftorian 
informs  us  of  no  fuch  Thing  ;  *tis  therefore  a  bold  Im- 
pofition  on  his  Readers,  to  affirm  they  were  :  f  judge, 
this  Article  of  his  Faith  needs  the  Confirmation  of  new 
Miracles,  before  it  can  be  received  as  one  of  the  Truths 
of  God,  who  hath  not  written  to  us,  that  any  Infants 
ever  were,  or  fhould  be  baptized  j  and  had  not  our  Au- 
thor been  ftrongly  biafi'd  with  Error,  he  would  not 
have  once  prefum'd  to  infinuate,  much  lefs  afTert,  the 
Children  were  baptized,  in  the  Manner  he  has  done. 

2.  To  (hew  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  his  Argument 
from  this  Text,  I  further  obferv'd,  *'  The  Go/pel  is  not 
preached  to  Infants,  neither  do  the  Precepts  of  it  enjoin 
Jlepentanee  on  Infants  as  a  Duty  in  that  Capacity  ;  and 
ftnce  Repentance  always  precedes  Baptifm.,  J  deftrd  him  ta 
Jhecv  the  fcriptural  Grsunds  of  his  Practice,  cr  even  the  reO' 
foHablenefs  of  his  Opinion,  that  Infants  are  capable  of 
giving  Obedience  to  God  in  Baptifm,  when  they  are  inca- 
pablt  to  repent  "  &c.  He  anfwers,  *'.  This  Argument  is 
to  be  Jpoken  to  afterwards  in  courfe."  And  again  refers 
Us  to  Circumcilion  ;  an  aboliflied  Rite,  and  an  abro- 
gated Command  it  feems  is  the  Ground  he  has  for  In- 
fant Baptifm  ;  But  when  he  fo  often  refers  to  that 
Cuftom,  'tis  reafonable  he  fhould  give  us  Scripture 
Authority,  which  requires  our  adminiflering  Baptifm, 
conformable  to  the  Law  and  Cuftom  of  Circumcifion, 
which  be  has  not  yet  done.    Sa^-s  he,  "  /;  would  have 

y.  :    .  '  dotJi 


[     87    ] 

4one  equal  Execution  among  Ahc^ham's  Infants^  whower$ 
as-   uncapable   to    believe    and  repent^   as    ours."     Repl^, 
There  was   the  exprefs  Command  of  God,    to  circum- 
cife  AbraharrC^   Infants  ;  and    by   that  Command,    thofe 
were  required    to  be  circumcifed,  who  at  the  time  v.ere 
incapable  to  repent.      But  Baptifm  is  another  Ordinance, 
founded  on  another  Command,    which  every  where  re- 
quires Repentance  to  precede  the  Reception  of  this  Ordi- 
nance,  in  hII    the  Subjects  uf   it  :      Let  him  ihew  us  the 
exprefs   Command   which  warrants  the  baptizing  of  In- 
fants,  who  are  incapable  to  repent,   and  it  will   end    the 
Difpute  ;   otherwife  this  Argument  will  do  Execution  in 
theprefent  Cafe,   and  not  touch  Abraham'^  Infants,    He 
a{ks,     "  Mujl    every    Thing   that   is    required    of  grown 
Perfons,   be  required  of  Infants  ?"      Anf.     No;    by  Rea- 
fon  of   their  Incapacit)^,  'tis  not  required  of  them  to  re- 
pent,  and. if  not  to   repent,   neither  is   it   required    they 
fhould  fubmit  to  BaptiTm  ;   for   that  Duty  is  always  re- 
quired toforegothis,  according  to  the  Scriptures  :  Unlefshe' 
ftill  reads  the  Scriptures  backward,  be  baptized,  and  repent. 
Says  our  Author,   "   I  fuppofe  he  thinks    it   much  to  his 
Purpofe^   to  obferve^   that  it  is  certain  a  Promife  can  never 
make  that  to  be  a  Duty,  which  is  not  commanded."      Anf. 
Yes,    very  much.      Ada/n,    Jbel,  Seth  and    Enochs    had 
the  Promife  :   But  the    Pron^ife  did  not  make  it  a  Duty 
to  them  to  be  circumcifed,  or   baptized,  as  we  have  an 
Account  of.      Abraham  h2Ld    the    Promife    Twenty- four 
^  Years,   before  it  was  his  Duty  to  be  circumcifed.   There* 
.fore  it  is  not  the  Promife  that- is  inflitutive  of  an  Ordi- 
nance, or  warrants  one  to  partake  of  it,    as  our  Oppo- 
nents fondly  imagine  ;  but  the  Command  of  God.   Now 
if  they  had  the  fame  Promife,   they  may  have   it   to  the 
End  of  Time,   before  it  will  give  them  Ground   to  bap- 
tize their  Infants,  without  the  Inftitution  of  Infant  Bap- 
tifm, or  having  the  exprefs  Command  of  God   for  it  : 
And  therefore  I  ftill  fay  for  them  to  urge   the   baptizing 
of  Infants   from  this  Place,  is  a  fad  Abufe  of  this  Pro- 
mife. 

3.  I  obferv'd,  that  by  [Children]  here  we  are  to  un- 

deriiand  not  Infants,  but  Children  grown  to  iuch  Years 

F  4  pf 


.    [     S8     ] 

of  Maturity,  as  to  be  capable  of  receiving  the  Holy 
Ghoft,  by  hearing  the  Gofpel  ;  and  for  this  Purpole,  f 
compared  this  39th  Verfe  with  the  17th  of  the  fame 
Chapter.  He  abfks,  *'  H'ho  told  me  that  the  fame  are 
fpoken  in  both  Places  f"  Anf.  If  no  Body  had  told  me, 
the  Truth  is  ftill  the  fame.  To  compare  Scripture  with 
itfelf,  Mr.  F.  allows  to  be  a  good  Way  todetccl  Errors  ; 
and  fo  by  looking  to  Verfe  17,  where  thoie,  who  are 
here  called  Children,  are  there  *'  Sons  and  Da'ttphterx 
frepbefying.^*  Confidering  alfo,  what  the  Promife  is,  we 
are  enabled  to  difcover  his  Error  in  this  Cafe;  when  he 
"Would  have  it,  that  Infants  arc  here  intended,  and  that 
the  Promife  was  to  them,  and  to  the  Infants  of  tbofe 
mentioned  in  Verfe  17.  But  the  Children  in  Verfe  the 
J7th,  to  whom  the  Promife  belonged,  were  grown  capable 
to  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft  by  hearing,  and  to  prophe- 
fy^  and  there  are  no  other  Children  mentioned  there  : 
Such  then  muft  be  underftood  by  Children  in  the  39th 
Verfe,  where  there  is  a  Reference  to  the  fame  Proniife. 
He  proceeds  with  a  View  to  prove  that  Infants  are 
meant  in  this  Text,  and  hopes  to  do  it  unanfwerably  ; 
accordingly  he  gees  about  to  fhape  fomething,  which  he 
calls  unanfwerable  Arguments.  The  firft  is  taken  from 
/the  Apoftle^s  changing  the  Perfons :  Says  he,  "  If  grown 
I^erfsns^  capable' ef  hearing  the  Werd^  he  meant ^  why 
does  the  yfpojile  change  the  Perjsns  ?  They  were  grown  Per- 
fons  he/poke  to  ;  that  is  granted  :  But  who  are  the  Perjons 
hefpskeef?  He  calk  them  Children  :  If  they  were  growKy 
capable  of  hearing,  why  does  he  not  /peak  to  them  F  Why 
net  fay,  the  Prrmife  is  to  you  Parents,  and  you  Children  j 
and  fa  make  them  o  different  Divifion  by  themj  elves?  hlav- 
ing  fs-id,  the  Pramife  li  to  you  ;  why  Jbould  he  fay,  and 
yoitr  Children,  unlefs  he  meant  theit  Infants  F"  Anf. 
The  Apofile  fpake  w^ith  Regard  to  the  Promife  in  Jsel 
ii.  28.  whofe  Wards  he  recites,  j£is  ii.  17.  jfnd  it  ft.alt 
(om»  to  pafs  in  the^  la^  Days  {faith  God)  I  will  pour  gut  of 
my  Spir  ii  upon  till  Fltjh^  and  your  Som,  and  your  Daugh- 
1(grs  Jball  p^ophefy,  and  your  youvg  men  fnall  Jse  fifiens^ 
4md  your  old  Men  fhall  dream  Dreami.  Now,  here  ob- 
fcrvcj  according  to  Mr.  /"s  own.  Rule,  and  by  the  Force 

of 


[     89    ] 

of  the  fame  Argument,  thefe  Si)ns  and  Daufrhfers,  young 
Men  and  old  Men,  are  all  Infan's,  becaul'e  they  ate 
fpoken  of,  and  not  fpoken  to  ;  for  why  Ihould  he  fay, 
and  your  Sons,  and  your  Daujirhters,  and  your  young 
Men,  and  vour  old  Men,  unltfs  hi-  triKant  their  infanta? 
This  is  one  of  Mr.  F's  unanfwcrable  Ai^umenis,  to 
prove  that  Infants  are  ineanr  in  this  Text,  l>v  the  VVord 
Children.  iA  goodly  one  indee-i  !  Is  it  po/Iibie  to  con- 
trive any  Thing  more  rrdiculous  an<i  incc'iu  tuSive  ?  And 
what  Dependance  is  to  be  made  on  his  Judjiment,  when 
he  looks  on  this  to  be  an  unanfvverabie  Argument,  is  foon 
difcerned.  He  muft  ntceHdrily  fav,  thefe  vtiung  Men, 
a'nd  old  Men,  are  all  Infants,  according  to  his  Way  of 
arguing,  or  elfe  own  (which  he  is  verv  unwilling  to  do^ 
that  the  Apoftle's  Words  are  agreeable  to  the  univerfal 
Form  of  fpeakmg  among  Men  ;  and  fo  are  very  intelli- 
gible, tho*  Iniants  are  not  to  be  undeiftood  by  this  Word 
Children.    • 

':-  2.  He  argues  from  the  Apoftle's  Defign  in  the  Words, 
which  '*  IVas  (fays  he)  to  encourage  ihe  Jews  to  embrace 
ChriRianity,"  <ije.  Anf.  That  the  Apoftie  hereby  de- 
j&gned  to  encourage  thofe  of  the  yezvs,  who  were  prick'd 
in  their  Hearty  to  look  unto  Ghrift,  for  Relief  from 
their  prefent.Diftrefs,  iis  granted  :  But  that  he  deligned 
hereby  to  inform  them  that  their  Infants  had  a  Right  to 
Baptifm,  is  deny'd,  for  it  does  not  appear  from  this 
Place,  or  eitewhera  ;  neither  could  the  y^tyj,  who  were 
imder  an  awakening  Seryfe  of  tlieir  Guilt,  be  fo  mifta- 
ken,  as  to  think  their  infants  had  a  Right  to  the  Pardon 
of  Sin  and  Salvation,  by  their  Faith  :  And  tho'  the  un- 
believing y^u*j  indeed,  were  very  tenacious  of  their  Birth 
Priviledges,  and  valu'd  themfeWes  highly  above  others, 
en  the  Account  of  their  being  the  Off; priBg  of  godly 
Anceftois  j  but  thefe  who  weve  under  fuch  folemn  Im- 
preiiions,  were  Perfons  of  a  different  Character.  Our 
Author  is  at  a  Lofs  to  know  how  thefe  fewi  did  at 
once  become  Jmi-p^diybapttjis',  but  why  is  not  he  at  \ 
greater  Lofs,  to  know  how  they  did  at  once  become 
ChriJIiam,  who  a  little  before  crucified  Chrift:  But  that 
frtflic  divine  Power  which  effedsd  ths  greatef^*was  f'ft- 

..  ,1    .        ...  cicat 


[    9°    ] 

clent  alfo  to  efFeft  the  lefler ;  /.  e.  to  inform  them  of  the 
Nature  and  Order  of  the  Gofpel  Church, 

3.  Says  he,  "  T.h'ts  Prc7nife  is  the  fame  in  Subjiance 
ruitb  Abraham's  Covenant;  but  his  Covenant  comprehended 
his  Infant  Seed ;  therefore  the  Infants  of  Believers  an  in- 
tended in  this  Promife."  Anf.  This  is  a  I'n  mife  of  the 
Outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  J£is  ii.  17.  And  in«in  ordinary 
Way,  theSpiritand  the  Word  go  together,  Ifai.  lix.  21. 
And  according  to  God's  flated  Order,  is  poured  out  bv  tHe 
Miniftry  of  the  Word,  j^^s  x.  44.  Therefore  this  Pro- 
mife intends  Children  capable  of  hearing  the  Word,  and 
iiot  in  their  Infant-ftate,  which  does  not  ferve  Mr.  F^* 
Purpofe,  if  he  means  by  Abraham's  Covenant,  the  for- 
mer Appointment  of  Infant  memberlhip  in  the  Jewijh 
Church,  for  that  is  Ihevvn  to  be  abolished  ;  and  it  yet 
remains  to  prove  it  was  ever  renewed  in  the  Gofpel- 
Church,  which  this  Promife  is  not  hkely  to  do  ;  not 
only  becaufe  it  does  not  appear  that  Infants  arc  intended 
in  it,  but  alfo,  becaufe  a  Promife  is  not  inflitutiveof  an 
Ordinance,  but  the  Command  of  God. 

To  obviate  a  Cavil  of  theirs,  which  is,  that  ^^^e  caft 
away  Infants  utterly  j  I  obferved,  we  are  not  fpeaking 
of  what  God  does  with  Infants,  but  of  his  Order  in  the 
Gofpel  with  thofe  come  to  Years  of  Underftanding. 
Mr.  F.  in  Page  39.  thinks  this  to  be  a  fufficient  Ground 
for  the  Charge  j  **  Jnd  if  we  a5i  according  to  our  Prin- 
ciples (fays  he)  we  never' plead  for  the  Salvation  of  a  dy- 
ing Child:'  Anf.  Why  ail  this  Noife  ?  Mr.  F.  their 
Advocate,  who  charitably  pleads  the  Infant  Caufe,  has 
not  made  appear,  they  ever  were  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace;  'twill  be  time  enough  to  charge  us  with  carting 
them  out,  when  he  makes  good  his  Afiertion  :  And  as 
to  our  praying  for  them,  I  fhall  make  bold  to  afk  him 
a  Queftion  on  this  Occafion,  Vv^hat  does  he  make  of  the 
Apoftles  Words,  "  I  exhort,  that  Prayers  be  made  far 
all  Alenf*  Does  Mr.  F.  pray  for  all  Men,  or  not?  If 
for  all  Men,  what  Ground  has  he  to  go  upon,  when 
he  pieads  there  is  no  Promife  to  thofe  who  are  out 
of  Covena*nt  ?  Are  all  Men  vifibly  in  the  Cove- 
rant  v^    But  if  he  prays-  only  for  fomc  Men,  how  does 


L    9'    ] 

he  obey  this  Precept  ?  Were  there  any  Kings  In  the 
viflble  Church  in  Paul's  Time  ?  And  if  we  are  not  to 
pray  for  any  out  of  the  viable  Church,  how  came  Paul 
to  be  fo  miftaken,  as  to  exhort  Timothy  to  pray  for  thofe 
out  of  the  viflble  Church,  if  the  Cafe  be  as  Mr.  F. 
teaches  ?  Nay,  how  came  Paul  to  forget  himfclf,  when 
he  pray'd  for  King  Jgrippa  and  Fe/ius,  and  the  reft  of 
them,  JSfs  xxvi.  29,  xxv.  23.  were  they  vifibly  in  the 
Covenant  ^  If  not,  how  came  Paul  to  defire  they  might 
fhare  the  fame  fpiritua!  Bleflings  with  himfclf?  Did 
Paul  know  of  any  fuch  Covenant  as  our  Opponents  talk 
of?  Or  did  he  then  pray  without  a  Promife  ?  Again, 
does  Mr.  F.  ever  pray  for  the  Heathen^  that  God  would 
give  them  Salvation,  with  all  its  Pre-requ«fitcs  ?  Jf  he 
does,  what  Ground  has  he  to  pray  for  thofe  who  are 
out  of  Covenant,  and.to  whom  there  is  no  Promife  ac- 
cording to  his  *  Principles  ?  If  not,  then  he  never  fays 
the  LordU  Prayer.  More  might  be  added,  but  this  fuf- 
fices  to  detedt  the  Folly  of  his  V/ay  of  talking  on  this 
Head,  when  his  own  Principles  involve  him  in  the  fame 
Inconfiftency  which  he  endeavours  fo  faften  on  us. 

4.  I  obferved,  '*  That  the  Promife  runs  exactly  the 
fame  to  the  unconverted  Gentiles,  in  the  Prefent  Tenfe^  as 
it  does  to  toe  Children^  and  if  Children  were  in  Covenant^ 
in  the  Manner  our  Opponents  plead  for,  by  Virtue  of  this 
Promife^  fo  were  the  unconverted  Gentiles."  Mr.  F.  an- 
fwers,  ''^  He  may^  with  equal  Power  of  Logick,  fay,  if 
the  unconverted  Gentiles  had  no  Right  in  this  Promife^ 
neither  had  the  Parents.--  -Thus  he  has  found  out  a  Way 
to  prove,  that  the  Promife  was  at  prefent  either  to  ally  or' 
to  none  at  all.'*  Reply  j  '  Tis  true,  I  have  found*  out  a 
Way  to  fhew  the  Invalidity  of  his  Argument  from  this 
Text,  in  Favour  of  his  Pradlice.  But  he  might  have 
known,  had  he  pleas'd,  that  I  deny'd  either  Parents, 
Children  or  Gentiles,  to  have  any  Right  in  this  Promife, 
but  according  to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel,  A^s  xx.  21, 
And  tho'  the  Promife  is  exprefled  in  the  Prefent  Tenfe, 
yet  that  does  not  prove  the  prefent  Right  of  any  to  it, 
but  thofe  who  do  by  Faith  embrace  it  3  whether  they  ht 

Parents, 
*  Vind.  Page  -^6. 


I    9^    ] 

Parents,  Children,  or  Gentiles.  Where  then  can  the 
gVeat  Abfurdity  be?  Truly  it  lies  on  his  Side,  in  fjying 
the  Promife  fhall  be  to  the  Gentiles,  contrary  to  the 
grammatical  Confl:ru£^ion  of  the  Words.  '*  New,  fays 
he,  let  him  try,  whether  he  can  avoid,  either  to  Jay,  the 
laji  Claufe  of  the  Verfe  limits  the  former,  or  elfe  to  own,  that 
tny  Conftru£iion  is  jujl  and  grammatical?  Or  laflly,*  fay, 
that  the  unconverted  Gentiles  had  a  Right  in  the  Promife  ?" 
Anf.  'Tis  true,  he  fays,  I  quit  the  old  Refuge  of  ih? 
Jnabapti/ls,  "  That  the  laji  Claufe  of  this  Verfe  is  a  Li- 
mitation of  the  former."  He  (hews  \xi,  he  is  veiy  wil- 
ling to  receive  ;  furely  my  faying  that  it  i3  not  our 
main  Strength,  does  not  infer  it  is  none  at  all.  I  '■'•  pro- 
fefs  every  where  to  deny'*  that  any  have  a  Right  to,  or 
Jntereft  in,  the  Promife,  but  called  Ones,  or  thofe  who 
do  by  Faith  embrace  it,  and  vet  at  the  h^me  time  fav, 
the  Promife  is  exprefs'd  in  the  Prefent  Terfe  to'the  Gen^ 
tiles :  And  if  this  is  a  plain  Contradiction,  as  hc.fuggefts, 
"tis  fucha  Contradidibn  which  iMr.  F.  himfelf  ^muil  fall 
into  ;  or  elfe,  let  him  do  his  pofTibles,  yea,  tho'  he  fay 
he  will  *  rather  die  than  own  the  Conclufion,  he  can't 
avoid  it,  which  is,  that  the  unconverted  Gentiles  have 
as  much  Right  in  the  Promife,  as  uriconverted  Chil- 
dren ;  for  the  Promife  is  exprefs'd  in  the  Prefent  Tenfe^ 
and  runs  exactly  the  fame  to  one,  full  as  much  as  the 
other:  For  him  to  fay,  *'  f  //  is  to  the  Gentiles  when- 
ever they  fkall  le.  called,"  does  but  give  us  Room  to  fay, 
it  is  to  the  Children,  whenever  they  fhall  be  called. 
But  if  Children  have  a  vifible  Right  in  the  Promife,  and 
are  therefore  to  be  baptized,- b^caufe  it  is  to  them  at 
prefent;  the  fame  AgUment  with  equal  Force  does 
prove  fhe  Gentiles  have  a  vifible  Right  in  the  Promife, 
iind  muft  therefore  be  baptized,  becaufe  it  is  to  them  at 
prefent  alfo  :  And  if  thofe  afar  off  are  not  uader  the 
Call  of  the  Gofpel,  neither  are  Infants.  Mr.  Fi  Aigu- 
ment  from  this  Text,  unhappily  proves  a  great  deal  too 
much  for  him,  and  therefore  nothing  at  all  to  his  hurpofe. 
How  well  he  underftands  Grammar,  I  am  not  concerned ; 

but 

•  Vind.  Page  78.  f  Charitable  Pica,  Page  43.  • 


[    93    ] 

but  he  is  far  from  obliging  me  to  acknowledge  his  Cow-' 
ftrucSlion  of   the  Words  to  be  juft  and  grammatical. 

5.    And  laftly,   *'  That  which  fully  overthrows  all  thai ^ 
our  Opponents  have  rois'd  from  this  Scripture  in  Favour  of 
their  Practice,  and  which  will  fur  ever  render  all  thAr  fw 
ture  Endeavours  ufelefs   and  invalid  on  this  Head^   ts  the 
Jc.ount  which  the  Scripture  gives  us  of  this  /Affair,  AOis  ii. 
41,   42.   Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  Word  were  bap~ 
iized  ;   and  the  fame  Day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
Three  Thoujand  Souls.      And  they  continued  Jiedfajily  in  the 
Jpofiles  DoSfrine  and  Fellowjhip.,  and  in  breaking  of  Breads 
and  in  Prayers.      Here  is  no  Mention  of  any  baptized.,  but 
thofe  who   received  the  Gcfpel  gladly  :  Not  a  Word  of  any 
Infants  baptized"  Sec  In  anfwer,   Mr.  F.  fays,   "  Here- 
en  he  breaks  out  into  a  Catara^  of  Pity  for  us---We  would 
have  the  Matter  proven.,   not  taken  for  granted---!  would 
ofk.,   were    they  not    baptized  who  had  an   Interefl  in  the 
Promife  ?  Yes  doubtlefs.,   for  the  Promife  is  mentioned  as 
the  Ground  of  their  Engagement  to  be  baptized."     Reply  ; 
The  Matter  is  proven  already,    beyond  any  juft  Excep- 
tion, when  the  Scripture  mentions  none  that  were  bap- 
tized, but  thofe  who  received   the  Word   gladly.     Our 
Opponent  certainly  forgets  himfelf,  when  he  requires  us 
to  prove  that  Infants   were  not   baptized :    He  affirms 
they  were  ;  we  deny  ;  'tis    his   Place  to  prove  what  he 
affiims:  But  where  is  his  Proof  ?    What  Scripture  fays 
they  were?   None  at  all  :  Yet  he  concludes  confidently, 
*tis "  Yes.,  doubtlefs"  with  him,  without  the  leaft  Scrip- 
ture Hiftory   to   teftify  in  favour  of  it.     He  does  not 
know  there  was  one  Infant  baptized  for  all  his  Confi- 
dence, much  lefs  hath  he   proven  from  Scripture  there 
were.   *'  His  Principles  feems  to  admit  of  no  Probabilities,'* 
tho'  attended  with  the  utmoft  Uncertainty.    He  can  tell 
his  Readers  of  dying,  and  what  not,  rather  than  owning 
the  contrary  ;  all  Confidence,  and  no  Proof.  This  Place 
laft  cited,   very  evidently  (hews  who  they  were,  which 
had  an   Inteieft  in  the   Promife,  even  thofe  who  gladly 
receiyed  it.    Here  is  not  a  Word  that  the  Infants  had  ara 
Interefl  in  the  Promife,  on  the  Account  of  their  Parents 
F*iith ;  According  to  thefe  Vcrfes,  that  Intereft  in  the 

Promifea 


:        ;  ,[     94     ] 

Promife,  which  qualified  any  for  Baptifm,  was  obtained 
by  receiving  the  Word  of  Promife  publlflied,  which  In- 
fants were  incapable  of,  therefore  they  were  not  bap- 
tized. It  is  Mr.  Ps  own  *  Rule,  and  it  is  a  colden  One 
too,  the  bcft  I  find  in  his  Book,  "  J^haf  God  hath  not 
Jaid,  he  don't  require  us  to  believe."  God  hath  not  faid 
that  the  Jnfant.s  of  the  Thiee  Thoufand  wcie  baptized 
or  that  any  others  fliould  ;  thercfoi-e  he  doth  not  require 
us  to  beheve  it :  And  how  Mr.  F.  dares '  to  impofe  it 
on  the  World,  as  ati  Article  of  Faith,  X^hen  God  dbfs 
not  require  it  ftiould  be  believed,  he  wdUlfl^  do  well  to 
confider.  r.nVr    j.  »■ , 

There  is  nothing  now  in  the  Way  to  hinder^'my  ob'- 
ferving  again,  that  our  Opponents  may  as  well  fay,  and 
with  as  much  Truth,  that  Infants  received  the  Lord'* 
Supper,  as  to  fay  they  were  baptized  j  for  the  Scripture 
does  not  give  the  leali  Ground  to  believe  the  one,  more 
than  the  other.  'Tis  a  pitiful  Cafe,  that  he  fliould  be 
confident,  even  unto  Death,  of  a  Point  for  which  he 
hath  not  (hewn  us  one  Command,  Example,  or  Hint 
in  the  Word  of   Gi.d.  ^    '  •  •' 

In  Page  40,   Mr.  F.  comes  to  treat  on  Rom.  xi.   i6' 
17.   which  he  reckons  clear  to  his   Purpofe,  and   unan^ 
fwerable:  And  hence  infifts,  that  the  loederal  Holinefsof 
Believers  Children  is  here  afTerted,  and  that  the  grafting 
Jn,   is  juft  anfwerable  to  the  breaking  off.   I  have  already 
Ihewn  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  his  Arguments,  for  Infant- 
memberfhip,  and  their  Right  to  Baplifm  from  this  Text 
He  imagines  *'   I amfenfehly  perplexed  b^  thU  Place,  when 
all  my  Force  confijh  in  begging  the  ^uejVton-  That  my  IVords 
are  like   the  I'l/ords  of  one   who    would  fay  Jonuthmg,  but 
knows  not  ivhat  ;"   wiih  a  deal  mure  oi  fucli  neediefs,   as 
well   as   groundlefs    Chmours.      I  obfcrv'd    the   Gentiles  ' 
were  not  grafted  into  the  Jm^/;  Church,  as  it  ftuod  un- 
der the  Law,    which  Mr.  F  readilv   grants.      Then  they 
muft  have  been  grafted  into  the  Ne'vv  Feitament  Church  - 
A  vifible  Church, quite  different  in  its  Ccnftitution  froni 
thcjewtjh  :  A  Church  made-  up  of  profefling  Believers, 
and  none  clie,  that  we  can  find  :     Tho'  Mr.>.  inccnll- 

derately 
*  Vinda    Page  76, 


t    9S    J 

derately  affirms,  "  That  the  Jewsjood  no  more  (i.  c.  in 
the  former  Church)  by  fosderal  Hol'tnefi^  and <vithout  Faith 
in  the  Mejfiah,  than  Chri/iians  do."  For  which  Furpofe, 
he  cites  three  Places  of  Scripture,  Exod.  xii.  15.  xxii. 
20.  xxiii.  20,  21.  and  ttlls  us,  he  might  quote  Three 
Hundred  to  prove  it,  I  do  not  know  of  any  Body  that 
quellioiis  but  he  might,  and  all  as  far  from  the  Purpofe, 
as  the  three  he  cites.  I  did  not  argue  in  Oppofition  to 
thefe  Quotations,  that  fcederal  Holinefs  would  fecure  Per- 
fons  from  utter  Deftrudion,  who  were  found  guilty  of  fla- 
gitious Crimes,  or  open  Violation  of  God's  Commands, 
any  more  than  a  bare  ProfefTion  of  Faith  will  now  ;  but 
that  the  Terms  of  ftanding  in  the  Jiwijh  and  Chriftian 
Church,  are  different.  Thofe  who  were  Defcendents 
from  Abraham,  had  a  Right  to  be  in  the  Jewljh  Church, 
and  partake  ot  its  Priviledges,  according  to,  and  by  vir- 
tue of,  divine  Appointment ;  even  tho'  they  had  no 
Faith  in  the  Mefliah.  This  methinks  Mr.  F.  himfeif 
can't  deny  ;  for  it  will  be  hard  for  him  to  fhew,  either, 
I.  That  the  Millions  of  Infants  of  Abraham's  Line,  at 
eight  Days  old,  had  Faith  in  Chrift,  or  that  it  was*  re- 
quired they  fhould  :  Or,  2.  That  they  had  no  Right 
to  ftand  iH  the  Jewijh  Church.  This  is  the  Cafe,  let  him 
take  his  Choice,  and  as  he  fayselfewhere,  anfwer  for  it. 
Again,  when  Chrift  was  upon  Earth,  and  whilft  the 
Jewijh  Church  State  was  not  yetabolifhed,  grown  wick- 
ed People,  who,  I  believe  Mr.  F.  himfeif  wiU  hardly 
fay,  they  had  any  Faith  in  Chrift,  when  they  affirmed 
that  Chrift  was  poireffed  with  the  Devil,  John  vii.  20. 
Yet^thofe  very  People  had  a  Right  to  ftand  in  the  Jew', 
ijh  Church,  and  to  hkve  their  Children  circumcifed,  ac- 
cording to  the  Law  of  God,  Verfes  22,  23.  andean 
Mr.  F.  affign  any  other  Reafon  for  their  ftanding  there, 
bu:  becaufe  they  were  Abraham's  Seed,  or  as  he  words 
it,  fcederally  Holy?  (Could  he  once  {hew,  that  Infants 
had  a  Standing  in  the  Gofpel  Church,  it  would  end  the 
Difputq)  And  thus  it  continued,  till  the  Time  fully 
came,  ^when  the  Jewijh  Nation  was  broken  ofF  from 
their  Church  Relation  to  God  :  The  Charter,  or  Co- 
venant Adminiftraaon,  whereby  he  took  that  Nation  in- 

t« 


.         ■  ■      I    96    1 

JO  a  vifible  Cluirch  Sfate,    and    was  an    Hufband  un(6 
them,    he  himfelf  hath  made  old,  and  regards    them  no 
more  as  h<s  Church,    on  ihe  Account  of  it,    Jer.  j^xxi. 
32.      Heh.  viii.  9  --IS"      Then  the  old  Koufe  was  demo- 
JUhed,   Circumcifion,  Infant- niemberfhip,  and  what  cur 
Opponents  call  foederal  Hdinefs,  ended  wi'hit,    as  to  any 
1  »fing  that  yet  appears  to  the  contrary.     Then  ti  e  new 
Covenant  tobk  Place,   ?.nd  the  New  Teflament  Church 
was  gloriouily  eftabliflied.      And    thofe   jfews  who  were 
admitted   into  it,  were   not  admitte'd  on  the  Terms  of 
their  ftanding,  in  the  former  Church  j  i.e.   becaufc  they 
were  the  Chiltjren  of  j^brahaniy  wliich  is  intimated  at  tlie 
very  Dawn  c)f  ihe  Golpel  Difpefifation,   Mat.   iii.   8.   9. 
but  on  the  Ter.ftis  of   the  New  Teftament  Church  ;  /.  e, 
receiving    the  Word  of   Promife  gladly,  even    believing 
in  Chnft  exhibited   ancl   crucified,   A^s   ii.   41.    But  we 
have  no  Mention  made  here,  nor  elfewhere,  that  their  In- 
fants were  admitted   with  theni  into  the  Gofpel  Church, 
on  the  Account  of  any    foederal  Holinefs.  This  is  a  Point 
which  highly  concerns  Mr.  F.    to   proye,   if  it  could.be 
done  J  or  elfe  throw  up  his  d^vhng  TcneC  of  Ihta,ht  Bap- 
tifm,  which  he  is  very  unwilling  to  do  ;     But  inftead  ov 
proving  it,  he  takes  it  for  granted,  and  it  is  fo  clear  to 
him,   that  he  thinics  it  is  mere  Obfiinacv  in  us  not  to  fee 
it  ;  "  JVe  fljut  our  Eyes^  and  it  is  hard  for  hi?n  to  give  Uf 
Light."      What   is   the   Light   he  has   to  give  ?  .VV^hy, 
^'   The  believing  Jews  zoere  not  broken  cff.   and  confequent- 
ly  were  continued  in  the  Pojfrjjion  of  their  former  Priv'ilcdgeit 
which  extended aljo  to  their  Children."   hut  did  tliey  con- 
tinue in  the  former  Church  ?   No,  they  were    added  to 
the  New  Teftament  vifibie  Church,   Jt^s  W.  41.   which 
was  made  up  at  firft  of  a  Number    of  'Jews  profelyted 
to  Chiiftianity.     Now.  unlefs  Mr.    R   could  (liew,  that 
their  Infants  were  added  with  them,  he  is  but  jurt  where 
he  was  ;  and  as  ciofe  as  he  imagines  our  Eyes  to  be,  we 
can  fee  well  enough    that  he  tries  to  build  up  his  Princi- 
ple, without  any  real  Foundation   in  Scripture, 

And  as  inconclufive  is  his  Reafoning,  from  the  Man- 
ner of  conveying  ftederal  Holinefs,  and  niakiiig  as  ma- 
ny RoQt*  as  Branches.     This  lays  him  under  t,he  DifK- 

culty 


culty  of  ftiewing,  that  any  Infants  were  ^ver  takenr  witfa 
their  Parents  into  the  Gofpel  Church.  The  old  Co- 
venant, which  took  the  Jewijh  Nation  into  a  vifible 
Church,  as  we  have  feen,  is  abolifhed  :  And  the  new  Co- 
venant is  not  according  to  it.  Let  Mr.  F.  fhew,  that 
any  now  are  taken  into  a  vifiblc  Church,  but  Believ- 
ers, out  of  all  Nations  }  this  would  finifh  our  Contro- 
Verfy. 

Our  Author  indeed  fays,'  "  That  the  Grafting  in,  zOat 
anfwerable  to  the  Breaking  off  \^'  i.  e:  that  as  Unbelievers 
and   their  Seed  were  broken  oiF;  fo  Believers  and  their 
Seed  were  grafted  in.       This  he  looks  on  to  be  **  an  e- 
vident  Truth  ;"  but  fo  far  otherwifc,  that  it  feems  to  be- 
tiothing    but  a  Conjedlure "  of  his  own,   fram'd  to  give 
fame  agreeable  Colour  to  his    Prz6li.ce,    which  can   no 
wife  be  admitted  for  Truth  ;    becaufe  it   is  inconfiftent 
vl^ith    the  Scripture    Account  of.the  Nev?'    Teftament 
Church  :  Neither  indeed  is  it  reafonable  to  fuCpofe,  that 
tjie  Infants  of  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  New  Tefta- 
rhent    Church,  together    with  their    believing  Parents, 
when  the  Jewijh   Infants  were  not,    as  hath  ever  yet 
been  made  appear.     If  the  Cafe  be  thus,  Mr.  F.  thinks 
**   Abraham    is  no  Prejident  of  our  Previle^ges,  but  ijue 
mufi  feek  for  another  Father."     Truly,   Lcan't   fay,   but 
if  our  Opponents  fought  lefs  to  Abrahani,  and  more    to 
Chrift,  they  would  fee  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel  Church 
much  better  than  they  do.     But  why  all  this  ?  Is  Abra- 
ham  no  Prefident  of  our   Priviledges,    if  Infant-mem- 
berfliip  be  abolifhed  ?    How  does  this  ftrange  Confequenc« 
follow?     Let  it,  be  confidered    in  what   Circumftances 
Abraham  is  propofed  as  the   Prefident  of   our  Priviled- 
ges, and  it  will  appear  it  was  before  the  Conftitutionof  the. 
Jewijh  Church,  or  the  Inftitution  of  Infant-memberfhip 
therein  j  even  whilft  he  was   in  Uncircumcifion,  Rom. 
iv.  9,   fo   II.  Gen.  xv.  6/.      Therefore,  nothing  hind- 
ers but  he  may  be  the  Prefident  of  our  Priviledges  after 
t"he  Jewijh  Church   is  at  an  End,  and  Infant-member- 
fhip  abolifhed,  as    he  was  propofed   before  the  Being  of 
either.     I  may  here  argue  again  by  Suppofition,  as  I  did 
before  :  Now  fuppofe  the  Cafe  was  as  he  urges  ;    yet 
G  tiii 


[    98    ] 

his  Argument  would  be  ftill  inconclufive  :  For  it  is  not 
foederal  Holinefs,  but  the  Command  of  God,  that  is 
inftitutive  of  an  Ordinance.  Abraham  was  foederally  Ho- 
ly Twenty-four  Years  before  he  had  any  Right  to  Cir- 
cumcifion.  Had  Foederal  Holinefs  been  inftitutive  of 
Circumcifion,  or  given  y^/rrt^^/n  a  Right  to  it,  without 
God's  exprefs  Command,  why  was  he  not  circumcifed 
all  that  While?  And  if  our  Opponents  Infants  were 
fcsderally  holy,  yet  that  is  not  inftitutive  of  their  Bap- 
tifm,  without  the  exprefs  Command  of  God  to  baptize 
them  y  this  is  the  great  Thing  neceflary  for  our  Oppo- 
nents in  the  Controverfy,  but  it  can't  be  met  with, 
that  Infants  Baptifm  is  God's  Ordinance,  founded  on  his 
Command  j  therefore,  at  the  beft,  they  are  doing  that 
which  God  has  not  commanded  them  :  Tfcey  may  call 
this  what  they  pleafe,  but  I  make  free  to  call  it  Will- 
•worfhip.  I  fee  no  Reafon  as  yet  to  correct  my  former 
Conclufion,  *'  Ihat  Infant  7nemberflnpy  under  the  New 
Tejiament  Difpenfation,  is  an  AJfertion  without  Proofs 
not  worth  any  one's  Notice  or  Regard.  The  Sum  is  juji 
ihist  That  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  were  united  toge- 
ther in  one  Body,  in  the  New  Tejlamcnt  Church  ;  and  fo 
were  Partakers  together  of  the  precious  and  nourifhing  Be- 
nefits of  the  GofpelofChriJir 

The  Reverend.  Mr  f  Gill  expounds  the  Text  contro- 
verted thus,  *'  For  if  the  fir/l  Fruits  be  holy,  he- By  them 
are  intended  the  firfl  Converts  among  the  Jews,  under  the 
.Gofpel  Difpenfation  ',  it  being  ufual  ivith  the  Jpojile  to  call 
ihofe  Perfons  that  were  fir/i  converted  in  any  Place,  the 
fir  ft  Fruits  of  it :  See  Rom.  xvi  5.  I  Cor.  xvi,  15. 
Thefe  were  they,  who  received  the  fir  ft  Fruits  of  the  Spi- 
rit in  Judea  ;  and  who  firjl  among  the  Jews  hoped  and  be- 
lieved  in  Chrift  ',  thefe  were  but  few  in  Number,  as  the 
firfi  Fruit  is  but  fmall  in  Cornparifon  of  the  Lump,  and 
mean,  abjeif,  and  dejpicable,  as  the  Root  under,  and  in  a 
dry  Ground,  is  ;  but  yet  were  Pledges  and  Prefages  of  a 
larger  Number  of  Souls  among  that  People,  to  be  converted 
in  the  latter  Day.  Now  the  ApoJiW s  Argument  is,  if  the 
firji  Fruit  be   holy,  the  Lump  is  alfo  holy^  and  if  the  Root 

bt 

.  f  Expofition  of  the  New  Tcftament. 


I    99    1 

be  holy,  Jo  are   the  Branches  ;  that  is,  that  whereas  ihofe 
Per  Jons  who  were  converted  among  the  Jews,  however  few 
in  Number^  and  defpicahle  in    appearance   they    might  he ^ 
yet  were  truly  fan£iified  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  as  they 
were^  Jo  Jhould  the  whole  Body  of  that  People  be  in  the  laji 
Days^  when  Holinefs  fhall  be  upon  the  Horfes  Bellsy  and  eve- 
ry Pot  in  Judea,  and  Jeiu(akm,Jhall  be  Holinefs  unto  ths 
Lord  of  Ho/is y  Zech.  xiv.  20,  21.     By  which  metapho- 
rical Expreffions   is  meant ^   that  Holinefs  Jhould  be  common 
to  the  whole  Nation^  and  all  the  Inhabitants  of  it^  of  which 
the  Call  of  fame  few  among  them^   was  a  Pledge  and  Pre^ 
fage.     The  Allufion  in  the  former  Claufe,    is  to  the  holy  of- 
fering of  the  firji  Fruits  to  the  Lordy  the  two  wave  Loaves^ 
Lev.  xxiii.   14,   17.  whereby  the  whole  Lump  wasfanSii-^ 
fed  for  after  Ufe,  throughout  the  Tear  following  ;  ii>nd  that 
in  the  latter  Claufe,  to  the  Holinefs  of  Trees  j  that  is^  to 
Trees  devoted  to  facredUfe,  or  that  were  planted  in  a  Field 
appropriated  thereunto." 

Verfe  17.  "  Jnd  if  fome  of  the  Branches  be  broken  of^ 
Sec.  This  is  to  be  underjiood^  not  of  the  Exclufion  of  the 
Jews,  from  their  national  Church  j  for  the  Perfons  defign- 
ed  by  the  Branches ^  were  the  principle  Members  of  it,  as 
the  Civil  and  Ecclefiajiical  Rulers,  the  Priejls,  Scribes  and 
P  bar  i fees,  and  the  far  greater  Part  of  the  People  :  And  on. 
the  other  Hand,  the  Apoftles  and  Followers  of  Chriji,  were 
■put  out  of  their  Synagogues,  and  deemed  by  them  Hereticks 
and  Apojlates :  Nor  of  the  DeJlruSlion  of  the  Jewilh  Na- 
tion, City^  and  Temple  j  for  as  yet  they  exifled  as  m  NatU 
on,  their  City  <?/"  Jerufalcm  was  in  Being,  and  their  Tem- 
ple /landing :  But  of  their  being  left  out  of  the  Gofpel 
Church,  gathered  among  them^  they  not  believing  in  the  Mef- 
ftahy  but  rejeSfsd  and  crucified  him  ;  and  tho'  afterwards 
the  Gofpel  was  preached  to  them,  they  defpifed,  contradi^- 
ed,  and  blafphemed  it  ;  fo  that  it  pleafed  God  to  take  it 
wholly  away  from  them,  when  they  might  be  truly  faid  i9 
be  as  Branches  broken  off :-~- And  with  thempartakeji  of  the 
Root  and  Fatnefs  of  the  Olive  Tree  ;  the  Gofpel  Church 
is  fo  called,  for  its  Excellency.— -Now  /-6<' Gentiles  being 
grafted  into  a  Gofpel  Church  State  with  the  believing  Jews, 
partook  of  the  fame  Root  and  Fatnejs,  ai  they  did."  &c. 

G  2  Sayi 


[       100      ]  . 

Says  Mr.  F!  in  Page  43,  "  He feemi  defirom  to  dim't- 
fiijh  the  E(leem  ofexternalOrdtnances^  and  qua  ics  what  Fat- 
vrfs  is  there  in  external  Privi  ledges /imply  conftdered  ?  Anf. 
Their  Hearts  have  Reafonto  meditateTerror,  who  never  find 
ih'etr  Souls  filled  with  Marrow  and  Fatnefs^  while  they 
vuait  upon  God  in  the  Way  of  his  Ordinances."  Reply. 
And  have  not  their  Hearts  as  much,  if  not  more  Reafori 
to  meditateTerror,  who  abufe  God's  facred  Ordinance, 
bv  pretending  to  adminifter  it  to  Infants,  who  were  ne- 
ver appointed  by  God  to  be  the  Subjects  of  it,  as  they 
can  {hew  ;  and  who  are  utterly  incapable  to  wait  on  him 
therein,  and  therefore  can  receive  no  Soul  Nourifhment 
thereby  ;  unlefs  Mr.  F,  means,  that  the  bare  outward 
/ia" confers  Grace  ;  or  expels  a  BlciTing  without  any 
Promife,  for  there  is  none  annexed  to  Infants  Baptifm. 
I  will  not  fay,  that  Obedience  to  God's  Order  is  a 
mighty  Nothing  ;  but  I- will  fay  again,  that  Infant  Bap- 
tifm is  a  mighty  Nothing;  becaufe  it  is  not  God's  Or- 
der :  And  Obedience  thereto,  is.b-Jt  Obedience  to  Man's 
Order,  as  for  any  Thing  Mr.  F.  has  yet  difcovered  to 
the  contrary. 

In  Page  44,  He  undertakes  to  (hew  us,  the  Good  and 
Benefit  there  is  in  Infants  Baptifm  ;  and  fays,  '*  there  is 
as  much  Profit  every  IVay  of  Infant  Baptifm,  as  of  In- 
fant Ctrcumcifion."  Had  Mr.  F.  produced  a  Command 
of  God  for  the  one,  as  there  was  for  the  other,  he  might 
fay  this  with  the  better  Grace  :  Or  had  he  {hewn  thar 
it  fervestoas  good  Purpofes,  and  that  it  is  as  lawful  for 
him  to  adminifter  Baptifm  to  Infants  without  a  Coni- 
inand,  as  it  was  to  Abraham  to  circumcife  them,  when 
commanded,  it  would  alter  the  Cafe  :  But  as  he  has  done 
neither,  he  hath  left  us  Room  to  fay,  that  ht  fets  up  art 
Appointment  of  Man,  or  a  mere  human  Invention,  on 
an  Equality  with  the  Ordinance  of  God  ;  and  cites  a' 
Number  of  Scriptures,  which  fpeak  nothing  to  the  Point 
in  Hand  ;  for  in  none  of  them  is  there  the  leaft  Men- 
tion of  any  Advantage  or  Benefit  in  Baptifm  to  Infants; 
and  yet  he  pretends  to  tell  us  feveral,  which  is  jufl  as 
forcible,  as  to  hear  a  Papijl  telling  the  Advantage  and 
Benefit  of  k  s  CrolTes,  Mafl'es,  of  any  other  fuperftitiou* 

Foolery  i 


J.    J^.^     ] 

Foolery  ;  jpr.as  to  any  Thing  that  has  yet  appesre^J,  la- 
/ant  Baptifm  is  as  Scripturelef's  as  any  of  them' :  If  I  may 
iife  Mr.  F's  Words,  without  offending  my  Readers  Chi- 
ftity,  I  would  fay,  f  '*  Had  he  retairid fome  Tendetnefs  of 
£onfcience,  and  had  his  Judgment  ndt  been  debauched  with 
Error y'^  he  would  not  have  once  dar'd  to  fet  a  mere  In- 
vention of  Man,  on  a  Level  with  God's  Inftitution.  And 
.further,  in  his  polifhed  Language  (for  probably  he  under- 
flands  that  beft)  J  "  Jlas  !  what  horrendous  Precipices 
are  in  the  JVays  of  Error  !  And  what  a  lamentable  Caufe  is 
■.it  that  requires  fuch  Defences  I  What  (hoc king  and  defperat? 
things  will  fame  Perfons  fay-,  in  Defence  of  a  Party  Prin- 
ciple /"  In  a  Word,  I  deny  that  Iijfant  Baptifm  ferve? 
'for  any  of  thefc  Purpofes  he  has  rnentiojied  :  Let  him 
therefore  prove  that  there  is  any  more  Grace,  any  more 
Relation  to  Qod,  any  more  Promifes  of  Mercy,  any 
more  Motives  or  Encouragements  to  fofake  Sin,  any  more 
Hope  of  Salvation,  any  more  Caufe  of  Joy  and  Wonder, 
any  more  Ground  of  Thankfulnefs,  &c.  in  Infant  Bap- 
tifm, than  without  it  ;  when  it  doth  not  appear  that 
God  hath  inftituted  it.  Let  Mr.  F.  fhew  the  Inftituti- 
on  of  Infants  Baptifm  in  Scripture,  or  no  longer  urge  the 
Advantage  and  Benefit  of  it. 

In  Page  45.  he  comes  to  the  third  Scripture  he  ad.- 
vanced,  i  Cor,  vii,  14.  f^r  the  unbelieving  Hujband'i$ 
fanSfifed  }>y  the  IVife.,  and  the  unbelieving  Wife  is  faniii- 
fied  by  the  Hnftand^  elfs  luere  your  Children  unclean^  but 
now  are  they  holy.  Here  I  obferved,  "  That  all  that  Mr. 
F.  advances  from  this  Scripture.,  tq  ferve  his  Purpofe.,  is 
eafily  refuted.,  by  obferving  the  Occafion  of  the  Words,  and 
Scope  of  the  Apojile  in  them.,  which  was  to  rejolve  the  Co- 
rinthians in  a  Cafe  of  Conscience,  refpeSiing  Divorcement^ 
Verfes  1 2,  13.  For  if  the  Jews  of  old  were  firiSily  for^ 
bid  to  marry  with  other  Nations.,  t)eut.  vii.  3,  4.  and 
'  thofe  who  did,  were  feverely  punijhedy  Neh.  xiii.  23,  25. 
and  were  taught  by  Ezra,  what  was  the  Will  of  God  in 
that  Cafy  Separate  yourf elves  from  the  People  of  the 
Land,  and  from  the  Jlrange  Wives,  Ezra  x.  10,  il.  / 
<}bferved,  'tis  not  improbable,  the  Scruple  of  the  Corlnthi- 
G  3  ana 

t  Vind.  Page  78.  %  lb.  Page  51,  ' 


[       102       ] 

ans  arofe  upon  the  Covftderation  of  GoeTs  former  Appoint  * 
went  among  the  Jews,  and  fo  thought  them/elves  polluted  By 
dwelling  with  Infidels^  and  that  it  was  difpleaftng  to  God. 
Hence  their  ^uefiion  feeni'd  to  be  whether  their  Marriage 
vjas  dijfolved  on  one^s  e?nbracing  Chrijlianity,  and  the  other 
net— 'Or  whether  on  this  Account  the  unbelieving  Party 
was  to  be  put  away  ?  The  Apojlle  refolves  the  Cafe,  That 
the  unbelieving  Party  is  by  no  Means  to  be  put  away  by  the 
Believing— -Tour  Marriage  is  not  dlJfolvcd— -The  conjugal 
Soci?ty  of  the  Unbelieving  is  fanciified  [i.  e.  fays  Mr.  Cra- 
dock,  made  lawful  and  allowed)  to  the  believing  Party.  I 
rather  think  {fays  Poolej  it  (\.  e.  ths  Word fan£iifiid)  fig- 
fiifies,  hrought  into  fuch  a  State.;  that  the  Believer^ 
without  Offence  to  the  Law  of  God,  may  continue  in  a 
married  State  with  fuch  a  Yoke-fellow  ;  and  the  State  of 
Marriage  is  an  holy  State^  notwithjianding  the  Difpariiy 
with  Reference  to  Religion;*'  elfe  were  your  Children' 
unclean,  that  is,  illegitimate  j  but  now  are  they  holy,  born 
in  lawful  Wedlock,  or  legitimate  Children.  This  ap- 
pears to  be  the  genuine  Senfe  of  the  Place.  In  Oppoli- 
tion  to  what  we  urge,  Mr.  F.  fays,  "  That  unclean  is  the 
ufual  Scripture  Chara6ier  of  thofe  ivho  live  without  the 
Pale  of  the  vifible  Church,  A£ls  x.  14,  i^.--And  they 
who  are  Church  members,  are  called  holy^  Anf.  That 
Uncleanenefs  fpokeri  of  in  Ails  x.  is  ceremonial ;  Peter^ 
who  was  a  few,  had  hitherto  obferved  the  ceremonial 
Law  i  he  had  never  eaten  any  Thing  that  is  common  or 
unclean  :  He  had  not  a(iied  contrary  to  the  ceremonial 
Law,  Lev.  xi.  whis;h  is  now  abolifhed  by  Chrifl:  God 
here  teaches  him,  that  there  was  an  End  put  to  it  ; 
Diftindlions  of  fewszwA  Gentiles  on  that  Account  were 
now  laid  afide ;  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation  was  now  taking 
Place;  What  God  hath  cleanfed,  that  call  not  thou  common. 
And  forour  Opponents  to  bring  mjudaifm  into  the  Gofpel 
Difpenfation,  under  any  Colour,  or  in  any  Shape  what- 
foevei-,  is  diredly  contrary  to  its  Defign  ;  as  they  do 
when  they  labour  to  uphold  a  Diftindion  between  the 
Infant  Offspring  of  Church-members,  and  Children  of 
Non-members,  as  if  thcfe  were  born  within  the  Church, 
clean  or  holy,  and  the  other  without,  unclean  :  But  our 

Opponents 


[     103    3 

Opponents  would  do  welf  to  prove  that  this  ceremoniai 
Diftindion  remains  in  Gofpel  Times,  before  they  urge 
it  (o  confidently  as  an  Article  of  the  Ghriftian  Faith. 
Another  Objection  is,  *'  T^at  holy  in  Scripture^  always 
denotes  the  Separation  of  a  Per/on  or  Thing  to  God,  —either 
immediately,  or  fecondarily  :  Believers  and  their  Seed,  are 
immediately  fepar  at  ed  unto  him-*  Reply  j  That  Believers 
are  feparated  to  God,  I  grant,  becauie  they  are  called 
out  of  the  World  by  his  Grace  ;  but  that  their  Infant 
Offspring  are  on  that  Account  holy  (in  Mr.  F%  Senfe  of 
the  Place)  that  is,  Members  of  the  New-Teftament 
Church,  and  the  Subjects  of  Baptifm,  I  deny  ;  becaufe 
fuch  a  Principle  appears  to  have  no  Foundation  in  the 
Text,  nor  any  wife  confiftent  with  the  Scope  of  the 
Apoftle  in  this  Place,  nor  acknowledged  by  the  Gofpel 
Difpenfation.  If  Mr.  F's  *  Teftimony  be  right,  'tis  the 
Way  of  Errorifts  to  catch  at  fome  Words  of  Scripture, 
without  the  Senfe,  to  countenance  their  Opinions  ; 
what  Ground  is  there  to  imagine,  that  Infants  are  holy 
to  God  immediately,  any  more  than  the  Infidel  Party, 
which  is  faid  to  be  fandified  ?  Is  not  the  Holinefs  of 
one,  and  of  the  other,  of  the  fame  kind  ?  yet  he  does 
noc  pretend  that  fuch  are  immediatly  feparated  to  God, 
Members  of  the  Church,  and  Subje£ls  of  Baptifm  ;  we 
have  therefore  a  Right  to  demand  fome  convincing  Proof, 
why  one  is  to  be  baptized  any  more  than  the  other,  e- 
fpecially  confidering  there  is  no  Ground  for,  nor  Exam- 
ple of,  baptizing  Believers  Infants,  any  more  than  In- 
fidels. But,  we  may  look  unto  other  Places  of  Scripture, 
which  help  to  confirm  the  Senfe  given  of  this  Text  be- 
fore us,  in  I  T^hef.  iv.  -^,  4.  San£lification  fignifies  Cha- 
ftity,  contrary  to  Uncleannefs,  and  fo  fandified  here 
fignifies,  that  fuch  Perfons  did  not  live  in  Uncleannefs, 
but  in  Chaftity  ;  and  therefore  their  Children  were  not 
the  Produdl  of  an  unclean,  but  chafte  Bed,  that  is,  not 
bafe,  but  born  of  lawful  Marriage.  In  i  Tim.  iv.  3,  4, 
5.  The  Apoftle  reprehends  Seducers,  who  forbad  lawful 
Marriage,  and  made  Diftindion  of  Meats ;  which  Di- 
ilin(5tion  of  Meats  the  Apoftle  utterly  difapprwes,  and 
G  4  ftiews 

•  yind.  Page  6, 


[     I04     ] 

ftiews  there  is  no  Prohibition  of  any  now  under  this 
evangelical  Difpenfation  ;  fo  that  every  Creature  of  God 
is  good,  and  nothing  to  be  refufed,  but  all  kind  of  Meat 
fandified  ;  that  is,  may  be  lawfully  ufed,  or  eaten  \^y 
believing  Chriftians.  The  Word  Unclean  is  alfo  pu,t 
for  Whoredoms,  in  feveral  other  Scriptures,  as  Rom.  i. 
24.  vi.  19.  £pij.  V.  3.  Cg/.  iii.  5.  Thus  we  may  difcern 
the  trueSenfe  and  Meaning  of  thefe  VVords,  Sandified, 
Unclean,  and  Holy,  in  the  Text  before  us.  Says  he,  in 
favour  of  his  Argument,  "  Out  of  the  Church  nothing  is 
holy."  Then  let  the  Qiicftion  be,  whether  the  Infidel 
Hufband,  or  Wife,  who  is  faid  to  be  fandified,  or  mads 
holy,  be  in  the  Chuicb,  or  not?  -If  in  the  G.h"-rchi 
then  they  are  the-Subje^s  of  Baptifmj  according  to  his 
own  *  Way  of  talking  ;  if  not,  then  there  is  fomething 
out  of  the  Church  fanaified-,  or  made  holy.  But  fur- 
ther, will  our  Author  fay,  that  grown  Perfons,  v. ho 
were  never  Church  members,  are  not  holy,  when  renews. 
«d  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  before  they  are  received  into 
Church  Feliowfliip?  Does  he  not  expe£l  f  Signs  anji 
Pruits  of  Holinefs  in  fuch,  before  he  would  willingly  re- 
ceive them  into  the  vifibie  Church  ?  Then  this  Rule  ojc 
his  needs  Amendment ;  as  Things  appear  at  prefent,  ic 
will  not  in  any.  w-ife  hinder  my  faying  confiftently,  That 
Infants  are  holy,  in  the  Senfe  of  this  Text,  and  yet  at 
tiie  Tame  Time  out  of  the  Church,  and  if  out  of  the 
Church,  Baptii'm  is  not  to  be  adminiflered  to  them,  tiU 
they  profefs  ibeir  Faith  in  Chrift,  and  Obedience  to. 
him,  which  is  what  we  plead  for.         .        , 

Says  he,  "  How.  can  zve  think  that  God  has  given  up 
his  Right  in  his  People's  Offspring  f  He  ufed  formerly  tp 
call  them  his  Children^  Eztk.  xvi.  21."  Mr.  /'.  may  fuU 
as  well  afk,  how  can  we  think  he  has  given  up  his  Right 
in  his  People  Ifrael  and  Judahf  He  ufed  formerly  to  cal.l 
them  his  People.  It  fcepis  our  .Author  is  dcfjrous  to  fr^mc 
a  Gofpel  Church,  after  the  Pattern  of  the,  J ezvijh  r.^r 
tional  Church  ;  Here  is  the  Difference  between  us  ;  he 
is  for  a  Gofpel  Church,  after  xhejetvifo  Model,  and  fo 
^ar  gives  into  Judaifm  -,  I  am  for  a  Gofpel  Church,  \U 
\ti  the  Ncw-Teflament  Model,  and  fhall  pay  no  Regard 

to 
•  Charitable  Plea,  Vn^fi  ^6.        f  Ibid,  Pages  64,  65, 


[     105    ] 

to  his  Plan,  till  he  makes  appear  the  Jew'ijl]  QEconomy 
is  not  yet  abolifhed,  or  (hews,  that  Infants  were  Mem- 
bers in  the  Apoftolical  Church,  which  laft  he  has  not 
yet  done,  and  very  probable  never  can.  Poole  obferves 
on  the  Place,  "  My  Children  ('Heb.  Sons)  fays  he^  Sons 
here  are  firji  horny  which  peculiarly  were  devoted  to  God, 
he  referved  a  fpecial  Right  in  thefe"  Hence  Mr.  F.  may 
as  w^;ll  aflc,  hath  God  giver,  up  his  fpecial  Right  in  the 
Firft-born?  But  of  this  enough,  feeing  it  proves  nothing 
who  are  Members  of  the  New  Teftament  Church,  and 
the  fit  Subjedsof  Baptifm  ;  or,  in  other  Words,  it  doeij 
not  prove  the  Inftitution  of  Infant-baptifm. 
•  Says  he,  according  to  us,  *'  It  will  follow ^  that  the 
unbelieving  IVife  is  fanRified  by  the  unbelieving  Hufband^ 
es  well  as  by  the   Believing^  which  is  dire£fly  oppofite  it 

the  Apoflle\s    Scope    in    this   Place and  to   the   Ufage 

df  Scripture A  Thing    muji    he    lawful^    before    it 

uin  be  fanSiified"  Anf.  VVhat  is  the  manifeft  Scope  of 
the  Apoftle  here  but  this?  To  inform  the  Corinthians, 
that  Marriages  already  contradled  in  Unbelief,  were  not 
difannuil'd,  tho'  one  of  the  Parties  afterwards  embraced 
Chri/iianity  ;  the  Chrijlian  Law  did  not  oblige  to  pui 
away  the  other,  who  did  not  believe,  whatever  the 
Jewi/I)  Order  of  old  recjuired  :  Therefore  he  exhorts  the 
believing  Party,  not  to  put  away,  or  depart  from  the 
Unbeliever.  Mr.  F.  might  have  alfo  obferved,  that  i^ 
i:j  contrary  to  the  Ufage  of  Scripture  to  afcribe  the 
Sanctifying  of  an  Unbeliever  to  a  Wornan,  which  is 
ufually  afcnbed  to  God  j  therefore  this  Word  here  mufl 
needs  be  underftood  in  fome  other  Senfe,  than  what  it 
generally  is,  as  Mr.  Poole  on  the  Place  obferves,  "  San^i- 
fying  in  holy  Writings  generally  ftgnifieth  the  Separation^ 
er  Jetting  apart  of  a  P  erf  on  or  Ihing^  from  a  common  ^  to^ 
and  for y  an  holy  Ufe^  whether  it  be  by  fome  external  Rites 
and  Ceremonies,  or  by  the  infufmg  of  fome  inward  jpiri" 
tuol  Habits.  In  this  Place  it  feems  to  have  a  different 
Senfe  from^  what  it  ufually  hath  in  holy  Writ  j  for  it  can 
neither  fignify  the  SanSlification  of  the  Perfon^  by  infufed 
Habits  of  Grace ;  for  neither  is  the  unbelieving  Hufband,^ 
thus  fan£tified  by  the  bdisving  JViffy  ndtbfr  is  the  unht" 
•  '     \  lievi'ng 


[     io6    ] 

lieving  TVife  thus  fanaifitd  by  the  believhrg  Hufband.  Nor 
are  either  of  them  thus  fet  apart  for  the  Service  of  God, 
fy  any  legal  Rites,  which  hath  made  a  great  Difference 
in  ike  Notions  of  Interpreters,  how  the  unbelieving  Huf- 
band is  fanaified  by  the  believing  Wife,  or  the  unbelieving 
Wife  by  the  believing  Hufband."  Now  if  fanaified  in 
this  Place,  has  a  different  Senfe  from  what  it  ufually 
hath  in  Scripture,  let  Mr.  F.  fhew  that  it  means  fomc- 
thing  more  in  this  Text,  than  the  Meaning  we  affign, 
before  he  urge  his  Conclufions,  or  fay  that  the  Children 
of  Unbelievers  are  Baftards,  when  no  body  queflions  the 
Validity  of   their  Marriages. 

He  feems  apprehenfive,  that  I   will  urge  he  ftated  the 
Queftfon    the   fame  Way  himfelf;    but   to  prevent  any 
Advantage  that  Way,  he  charges  me   with  perverting 
hisSenfe—However,  now  he  gives  us  his  Meaning  (which 
could  not  readily  be  difcerned  before^  "  That  he  did  not 
vnderjiand  Lawful  /«  Oppofition  to  Fornication,  but  to  Irre- 
ligion  and  Impiety  — And  fays,    if  our  Glofs  be  true^  the 
Jpofile  does  not  refolve  their  Scruple  ;  they  queried  whether 
their  continued  Cohabitation  was  ftnful?  He  anfwers,  it  is 
mi  Fornication  ;  but  they  might  urge,   iho'  it  be  not  Forni- 
cation,  may   it  not   be   irreligious  and  difpleafing  to  God? 
May  it  not  provoke  him  to  withhold   his  Blefftng  from  us  f 
And  Jhall  not   our  Children   be  reckoned  unclean,  and  ex- 
cluded from  the  Church  ?    Can  we  expeSi   the  Priviledges 
'of  thofe  who  are  married  to  Believers  ?'*    Reply  j    When 
Mr.  F.  talks  at  this  Rate,  it  is  very  obfervable,  that  he 
takes  it  for  granted,    that   the  Children,  whofe  Parents 
were  both  Believers,  were   Church- members :    Had  he 
any  where  proven  this  Point,  he  might  go  on  better  with 
thefe  fuppofititious  Queries,  in  favour  of  his  Notion,  that 
the  Children   who  h^d   but  one   believing  Parent  were 
Members :  Or  is  he  fo  taken  up  in  charging  his  Oppo- 
rients  with  begging  the  Queftion,  that  he  has  no  Time 
to  prove  his  Part  ?  'Tis  furely  enough,  if  the  Apoftle  re- 
loWes  the  Queftion  propofed;    muft  our  Glofs  be  falfe, 
becaufc  he  does  not  refolve  all  the  invented  Scruples  and 
Cpnjed^ures  oi  the  Padobapti/ls,  in  favour  of  their  Prin- 
ciples, which  were  never  propofed  by  the  Corinthians  to 

the 


[  107  J 
the  Apoftle  ?  Had  the  Apoftles,  and  firft  Planters  Sf 
Chrijlianity,  conftantly  taught,  that  the  Infants  of  be- 
lieving Parents  were  to  be  baptized,  and  that  the  In- 
fants of  Parents,  when  one  Party  only  was  a  BeHever, 
were  foederally  holy,  and  the  Subjects  of  Baptilm,  as 
well  as  when  both  were  Believers ;  and  had  it  al- 
ways been  a  Cuftom  from  the  Beginning  of  Chrijiianity, 
to  baptize  fuch  Infants,  there  does  not  appear  the  leaft 
Ground  for  this  Scruple  to  rife  at  all  j  whether  it  was 
lawful  for  a  Believer  and  Unbeliever  to  dwell  toge- 
ther, in  the  Light  Mr.  F.  reprefents  it  ?  Could  they 
forget  what  they  heard  ?  If  the  Cafe  were  fo,  might 
they  not  know,  that  their  Infants  were  not  excluded, 
if  they  were  baptized  along  with  the  believing  Parent  I 
Did,  they  not  dailv  fee  that  their  Children  enjoyed  the 
fame  Priviledges  as  others,  and  therefore  had  no  Reafon  to 
imagine  their  Cohabitation  was  irreligious,  and  dif- 
pleafing  to  God  ?  On  this  Suppofition,  pray  where  coulcS, 
their  Doubt  proceed  from  ?  What  Colour  of  Reafon  can 
be  fuppofed  for  the  Rife  of  their  Scruple  ?  In  a  Word, 
our  Author  muft  needs  own,  there  were  no  Infants  bap- 
tized at  the  firft  Plantation  of  Chrijiianity  in  Cbrinth\ 
or  elfe  allow  the  Scruples  he  mentions,  are  but  ground* 
lefs  Conje£lures  of  his  own,  and  not  thofe  which  can  be 
rationally  thought  to  have  been  propofed  by  the  Corin" 
thian  Church.  He  would  argue  from  the  Word  Holy^ 
that  Infants  are  Church -members  ;  beffdes  the  Argu-' 
ments  formerly  us'd,  which  ftiew  the  Abfurdity  of  hi? 
Reafoning,  I  may  add.  Church-members  are  faid  to  be" 
fanilified  ;  fome  Infidels  are  faid  to  be  fandlified,  there- 
fore fome  Infidels  are  Church -members.  This  Argu- 
ment is  as  good  as  Mr.  F'Sy  to  prove  Infants  to  be 
Church -members,  becaufe  they  are  called  holy. 

His  having  Recourfe  to  the  former  Difpenfation,  is  no 
Refutation  of  my  Arguments,  to  prove  that  Infants  are 
not  Members  of  the  Gofpel  Church  j  unlefs  he  had  {hewn 
that  the  New-Teftament  Church  is  not  a  new  confti-- 
tuted  Church,  or  that  Infants  were  ever  in  it  by  divine 
Appointment.  He  need  not  infinuate  that  I  cannot,  or  will, 
not  underftand  what  foed«ral  Holinefs  is  j  I  think  I  un- 

dcrftand 


,[     io8    J 

derftand  it  (o  well,  that  I  obferve  he  is  altogether  a,t  pi 
Xofs,  to  find  any  Ground  for  it  in  the  New-Teftament 
Times. 

He  imagines,  if  the  Cafe  be  as  I  fay,  *'  7^^  Generali- 
ty of  the  Pagans  may  be  called  an  holy  People— -But  this  is 
contrary  to  Scripture---Such  a  Senfe  cannot  obtain  amon^ 
Mankind^  no  not  among  the  Anabaptifts,"  Anf.  The 
Baptijis  are  not  alone  m  their  Judgment  of  the  Place; 
as  Mr.  Gill  obferves,  the  Sen fe  they  give,"  *' «  agreea- 
ble to  the  Mind  of  fever al  Interpreters^  ancient  and  mO' 
dern^  as  Jerom,  Ambrofe,  Erafmus,  Camerarlus,'"Muf- 
culus,  ^V.  which  laji  Writer,  niakes  this  ingenuous  Con- 
fcjjion  ;  Formerly,  Jays  he,  I  have  abufed  this  Place  againji 
'the  Anabaptifts,  thinking  the  Meaning  was,  that  the  Chil- 
dren were  holy  for  the  Parents  Faith,  which,  tho*  true,  the 
'pre/ent  Place  makes  nothing  for  the  Purpoje."  Hence  then 
it  feems,  others  are  under  the  like  NecefTity  of  calling 
the  Pagans  an  holy  People,  befides  the  Baptijfs,  if  this 
Interpretation  of  the  Text  lays  any  under  that  Neceffi- 
'ty.  Marriage  being  God's  Ordinance,  is  honourable  in 
all,  'tis  not  contiary  to  the  whole  Scripture,  to  diftiri- 
^uifh  between  thofe  who  live  and  a6l  according  to  his 
*Ojdinance,  and  thofe  who  do  not. 

Now  after  all  that  hath  been  faid,  it  may  be  juftly  ob- 
ferved,  that  Mr.  F.  hath  not  produced  any  Inftitution  of 
TJnfant-baptifm  :  His  Conclufion  therefore,  "  That  adu(/ 
"Baptifm  evidently  depends  upon  the  Perverjion  of  Scripture^ 
'end  Contradifiion  to  Common  Senfe,"  is  like  the  Principle 
^he  contends  for,  without  Proof.  I  don't  know  of  one 
"of  our  Number,  "  TVho  afferts,  that  our  Opponents  do  not 
'advance  Scripture."  I  think,  what  is  generally  faid,'  is, 
•  ihat  the  Scriptures  advanced  by  them,  don't  prove  what 
"they  bring  them  for,  and  in  the  Way  he  goes  on,  he  is 
pot  likely  to  hinder  our  faying  fo. 

In'  Page  48.  Mr.  F.  comes  to  the  laft  Scripture,  which 
jie  advanced  with  a  Defign,  to  prove  Infants  Memberfliip, 
'and  their  Right  to  Baptifm,  Mark  x.,i3,  14.  Tho' I 
"have  before  fufficiently  (hewn  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  his 
"Arguments  from  this  Text,  in  favour  of  his  Practice, 
'by  obfcrving  that  thpfe  Infants  brought  to  Chrift  were 
' '      '  -      ~  not 


not  baptized,  nor  brought  to  him  with  that  I^efign,  &c. 
yet  he  makes  a  Stir,  as  tho'  I  had  mifs'd  the  Point, 
overlook'd  his  Arguments,  or  chofe  to  miftalce  them. 
Error  it  feems,  is  attended  with  Ncife,  and  defended  by 
Clamour.  He  now  tells  us  what  he  fixed  on,  as  follows;. 
*'  Suffer  little  Children  to  come  unto  me^  and  forbid  thnn 
not  \  and  the  Reafon  he  gives  is  fuch  as  will  hold  good  at 
this  Dayy  as  well  as  that ;  for  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven  j  now  whether  we  underjland  by  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven^  the  Kingdom  of  Grace ^  or  the  Kingdom  of  Glory, 
it  makes  all  one  to  our  prefent  Purpofe,  for  vifibly  to  belong 
to  the  Kingdom  of  Glory,  is  nothing  mere  than  to  be  a  visi- 
ble Member  of  the  Kingdom  of  Grace  ;  fo  then  our  Lord's 
own  Words  do  Jl:ew  that  he  would  have  Believers  Infants 
io  be  received  as  Members  of  the  vifible  Church.'^  Reply  ; 
This  Mr,  Z".  calls  his  only  Argument  from  the  Text, 
and  truly  it  is  nothing  at  all  to  his  Purpofe.  He  pleads 
thefe  were  the  Children  of  believing  Parents;  this  needs 
Proof i  but  fuppofe  they  were.  What  of  that?  His  Ar- 
gument for  Infants  Baptifm  is  flill  inconclufive,  when' 
thofe  very  Children  brought  to  Ghrift  were  not  baptized, 
not  by  Chrift  himfelf,  for  he  baptized  none  ;  not  by 
"John,  for  he  does  not  think  it  worth  his  While,  to  dif- 
pute  the  Point  with  me,  that  they  were  baptized  by  him, 
nor  do  we  find  that  Chrift  commanded  his  Difciples  to 
baptize  them.  What  (hall  we  then  conclude,  but  this  ? 
That  thofe  young  Children  brought  to  Chrift  were  not 
baptized  ;  and  if  fo,  then  the  Difficulty  is,  if  fome 
Believers  Children  are  to  be  baptized,  why  not  all  of 
them  ?  Why  not  thofe  brought  to  Chrift,  as  well  as  the 
Infants  of  cur  Opponents  ?  If  Chrift  did  not  fee  mee^ 
to  order  them  little  Children  to  be  baptifed,  how  comes 
it  to  pafs  that  Mr.  F.  without  his  Command,  or  Exam- 
ple, Orders  they  (hould  be  now  ?  Is  the  Servant  vvifeil 
than  the  Mafter  ?  And  if  Chrift  did  not  require  thofe  lit- 
tle Ones  to  be  received  as  Members  of  the  vtfible  Church, 
by  ordering  Baptifm  to  be  adminiftred  to  them,  how  cati 
his  Words  be  rationally  underftood,  to  intend  that  others 
fhould  be  thus  received  ?  Not  at  all-  Could  Mr.  F.  give 
as  an  Account  that  the  little  Ones  brought  to  Chrift 


[     no     ] 

were  baptized,  his  Argument  might  do;  but  till  this  be 
done,  his  ConciufiOn  is  of  no  Force  in  the  prefent  Con- 
troverfy.  Let  us  fuppofe  again,  the  Cafe  to  be  as  our 
Opponents  urge  j  yet  the  Argument  concludes  not,  f  for 
Abraham  vifibly  belonged  to  the  Kingdom  of  Glory 
Twenty-four  YeaVs  before  he  had  any  Right  to  Cir- 
cumcifion.  Had  his  vifibie  Relation  to  the  Kingdom  of 
Glory  exclufive  of,  or  antecedent  to  a  Command,  been 
inftitutive  of  Circy/ncifion,  why  was  not  Abraham  cir- 
cumcifed  ail  that  While  ?  And  if  Believers  Infants  do 
vifibly  belong  to  the  Kingdom  of  Glory,  yet  that  is  not 
inftitutive  of  Infant  Baptifm,  without  the  exprefs  Corii- 
jnand  of  God  to  baptize  them,  which  is  the  great  Thing 
wanting,  but  it  can  be  no  where  found  :  For  the  Law 
of  Circumcifion  is  aboliftied  j  and  Chrift's  Commiffion 
requires  none  to  be  baptized,  but  thofe  it  requires  to  be 
firft  taught,  as  ever  yet  appeared.  Hence  we  are  ftill 
kft  to  conclude,  that  Infants  have  no  Right  to  Baptifm, 
btcaufe  Infant  Baptifm  is  not  yet  inftituted  :  But  fup- 
pofing  further,  that  Infants  areto  be  received  as  Members 
of  thevi/ible  Church  ;  how  blame-worthy  then  muft 
our  Opponents  be,  in  withholdmg  them  from  the  Pri- 
viledge:-  of  Church- members  ?  I  mean,  from  the  Lord's 
Supper  !  Has  Chrift  any  where  debarred  a  great  Num- 
ber of  Church- members  from  his  holy  Supper?  Or  has 
he  any  where  faid,  that  fuch  only,  who  can  examine 
themfelves,  and  none  elfe,  are  to  receive  this  Sacrament  ? 
If  not,  then  our  Opponents  ought  certainly  to  admit 
them  to  it,  on  the  fame  Pica,  as  th'ey  do  to  Saptifm,  when 
they  aflert  it  to  be  the  Lord's  Will  theyfhould  be  receiv- 
ed as  Members  of  his  vilible  Church  ;  or  eifefhew  us,  that 
fome  by  divine  Appointment,  are  fit  to  be  received  as 
Members  of  the  Gofpel  Church  ;  who,  at  the  fame  time, 
are  not  fit  to  enjoy  the  Priviledges  of  the  Church. 

Our   Author   will   have  it,   that   we   are    fome   how- 
chargeable  with    forbidding  Children  to  come  to  Chrifl. 
I  obferv'd    he    intimated,     that    thofe    Children     were 
brought  to  Chrifl  with  a  Defign   to  have  their  baptized, 
"when  he  tells  us,   "  The  Dijciplci  forbad  the  Children  to  he 

brought 
■\  Heb.  xi.   8.     Gen.  .xii,  4.     xvll.   i. 


[in    3 

brought  to  ChrtJ},  as  the  Anabaptifts  now  do."  Anc^  a- 
gain,  "  The  Anabaptijis  cannot  prove  that  thofe  Children 
were  not  baptized  before  by  John."  But  inftead  of  an- 
fwering  what  I  remark'd,  he  labours  to  faften  an  Incon- 
fiftency  on  my  Words,  though  he  has  not  (hewn  where- 
in :  Pray  is  it  the  leaft  Inconfiftency,  to  fay  that  he  in- 
timates that  one  while,  which  he  does  not  at  another 
turn  urge  or  dwell  upon  ?  But  he  muft  fay  fomething, 
if  it  could  be,  to  evade  the  Force  of  my  Arguments  ;  and 
as  groundlefs  is  the  Charge,  when  he  fays,  **  I  put  a  Gl^fi 
en  his  Words.,  contrary  to  the  Words  themselves  ;"  what 
are  his  Words  but  thefe  ?  *'  The  Anabaptifts  ffay^  he^ 
cannot  prove  that  thofe  Children  were  not  baptised  before., 
by  John  the  Bapti/i^  which  feems  the  more  probable.,  in  thai 
Chriji  laid  his  Hands  on  them,  which  was  an  extraordina^ 
ry  Ordinance  then  in  ufe,  and  always  adminiflred  after 
Baptifm."  What  Glofs  did  I  put  on  his  Words,  but  on- 
ly this  natural  One  ?  "  That  if  thofe  Children  were  bap- 
tized before  by  John  (as  Mr.  F.  thinks  it  to  be  the  more 
probable  Opinion)  certainly  then  they  were  not  brought  t9 
Chri/i  with  any  View  to  have  them  baptized,  unlefs  their 
Parents  (or  whoever  brought  them)  were  for  having  their 
Children  twice  baptized,  which  is  not  very  likely."  Can 
any  One,  exerciftng  Common  Senfe,  fee  this  Glofs  to  be 
contrary  to  the  Words  themfelves  ?  He  tells  us,  "  We 
are  chargeable  with  a  ftmilar  Crime  to  that  of  the  Dif- 
ciples."  I  would  fain  know  wherein  ?  For  if  it  feems 
the  more  probable  that  thofe  Children  were  baptized  be- 
fore by  John,  it  is  nof»likely  they  were  brought  to  Chrift 
with  any  Defign  to  have  them  baptized ;  there  can't  there- 
fore be  any  Refemblance  between  the  Difciples  and  us  in 
this  Cafe  ;  and  Mr.  F.  does  not  plead  they  have  any 
Right  to  that  extraordinary  Ordinance-  -Can  we  then 
be  faid  to  forbid  them  to  come,  which  no  body  offers  to 
bring  ?  In  no  wife  :  He  calls  this  '*  a  trifling  Evafion  /" 
Why  fo  ?  Is  it  becaufe  it  ferves  in  its  Place  to  difcover 
his  Charge  to  be  groundlefs,  which  he  is  unwilling  to 
have  in  any  Meafure  difcovered  ?  "  But  (fays  he)  the 
Anabaptifts  miijl  be  told,  that  they  are  chargeable  with 
forbidding  Children  to  be  brought  to  Chriji^  when  they  for- 
bid 


hid  them  to  he  admitted  into  the  Churchy  and  csfl  them  out 
as  unclean"  Wei),  here  is  the  Charge  ;  but  before  it 
can  be  made  good,  Mr.  F.  \%  obliged  to  ftiew  that  thofe 
Children  were  brought  to  Chrift  with  a  View  to  be  ad-; 
mitted  into  the  Church,  and  that  the  Difciples  forbad 
them  that  brought  them  on  that  Account :  Were  not 
they  jeivi/h  Children  ?  If  fo,  they  were  in  that  national 
Church  before;  and  alfo,  he  is  to  fhew  it  to  be  the 
Will  of  Chrift,  that  Infants  fhould  be  admitted  into  the 
Church  by  Baptifm,  otherwife  his  charging  us  with  a 
Cmilar  Crime  to  that  of  the  Difciples,  falls,  to  the 
Ground  of  itfelf,  and  all  his. Noife  about  it,  whereby 
he  would  amufe  the  World,  dies  with  it. 

He  proceeds,  and  heaps  up  a  deal  of  his.  clamorous 
Expreflions,  becaufe  I  obfervcd,  *'  //  feems  here  is  a 
new  modelld  Argument^  which. Mr.  F,  would  frame  from 
thtfe  Words ^  viz..  Chrijl  laid  his  Hands  on  them  Children 
as  baptized  Perfons.,  iherefore  Children  are  to  be  baptized." 
J^ow  follows  his  fcurrilous  Language,  "  .This  Condu£l 
(fays  he)  ynay  fuit  Mr.  M'j  Caufe^  but  I  heartily  blefs  my- 
f elf  from  Juch  a  Caufe^  as  not  only  drives  one.,  in  Defence 
of  it.,  to  the  manifold  Perverfion  of  Scripture.,  but  aljo  ta 
ihe  Jhamelcfs  falfifying  if  his  Opponent's  Arguments.,  and 
endeavouring  to  imfoje  on  Common  Senfe.  I  deny  there  is 
any  fuch  Argument  as  the  abovefaid  in  all  my  Bo$k,  and 
Mr.  M .  is  obliged  io  Jhew  it.,  or  elfe  lie  under  the  Scandal 
ifbafe  ConduSi.,  to  fay  no  worfe.--But  he,  without  Truth ^ 
fays.,  I  affirm  it.,  and  argiie  from  it ;  and  js  his  Confidence 
is  flrengthencd."  Reply  ;  But  what  can  be  the  Reafon' 
of  all  this  Uproar,  which  Mr.  F.  mc:kes .?  The'  Truth 
Xieeds  not  the  Defence  of  corrupt  and  fenfelefs  Paffions,' 
yet  it  feems  Error  does,'  why  clfe  is  it  thus  defended  ?' 
He  faid,  *'  The  Anabaptifts  cannot  prove  that  thofe  Chil- 
dren were  not  baptized  before  by  Js  hn  the  Baptifi.,  which 
'  feems  the  more  probable,  ih  that  Chrift  laid  his  Hands  on 
them,  which  was  an  extraordinary  Ordinance  then  in  Vfe., 
and  always  adminijiercd  after  Baptifm."  Hence  1  faid, 
ft  feems  here  is  a  new  modell'd  Argument,  which  Mr. 
F.  would  frame  from  thefe  Words.-- Obfcrve,  I  did  not 
fay,  he  had  framed  it,  and  that  he  argued  from  it,  a« 

he 


lie  unjuftly  affirms.  ^  What  is  more  common  In  Writing, 
than  to  obviate  Obje£tjons  which  feem  to  arife?  Whcd 
he  thinks  proper  to  difcover  fo  much  of  his  uncurb'd 
Temper,  he  is  unavoidably  obliged  to  fliew  any  other 
Argument  he  can  model  from  thefe  Words  of  his, 
which  will  ferve  his  prcfent  Purpofe  ;  this  would  be 
much  more  convincing,  than  his  hearty  Bleffing  him- 
felf,  -prophane  like,  or  all  his  empty  PufFs  befides.  Now 
if  Mr.  F,  would  not  have  it  believed  thofe  Children 
ivere  baptized  by  Jehn,  why  does  he  fay  it  is  probable.^ 
And  if  he  would  not  have  it  received  as  a  Truth,  that 
Chrift  laid  his  Hands  upon  them  as  baptized  Perfonsj 
■why  does  he  mention  Impofition  of  Hands  as  an  Ordi- 
nance then  in  Ufe^  and  always  adrtiiniflered  after  Bap- 
tifm?  Again,  if  he  did  not  defign  hereby,  at  leaft  ia 
Part,  to  infer  the  Lawfulnefs  of  Infant- baptifm,  why- 
did  he  mention  any  thing  about  this  at  all?  The  Reader 
will  fee,  I  did  neither  exceed  the  Bounds  of  Truth,  nor 
have  charged  him  wrongfully  ;  and  if  for  fome  Reafons, 
beft  known  to  himfelf,  he  does  not  like  to  fee  his  own 
Words  made  ufe  of,  let  him  blame  himfelf,  and  not 
^ifgorge  his  Gall  and  Bitternefs  on  one  without  Gaufe, 
in  the  Manner  he  has  done. 

In  anfwer  to  a  Citation  out  of  BKhop  Taylor y  which 
^ews  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  his  Argument,  from 'this 
Text,  Mr.  F.  fays,  *'.  He  needs  not  urge  Bijhop  Tay- 
lor'j  Judgment^  for  1  am  taught  not  to  call  any  Man 
Majier^  if  the  Cafe  depends  on  Argument"  Reply  ;  Me- 
thinks  one  that  is  careful  not  to  call  any  Man  Mafter, 
fhould  be  as  careful  to  cut  off  all  Occafion  of  being  fo 
called  by  others.  Is  it  not  full  enoitgh  for  the  Servant 
to  require  and  expedt  A/Tent  to  the  Dodrines  he  brings, 
when  he  fhews  the  Seal  of  his  Lord  to  them?  Now  if 
Mr.  F.  does  not  defire  to  be  called  Mafter  by  others, 
the*  he  is  not  willing  to  call  another  fo,  why  does  he 
fet  his  human  Confcquences  on  a  Par  with  the  infpircd 
VVritmgs  ?  Did  not  the  Pharifees  fo,  with  their  corrupt 
Glcffes  on  Scripture  '  Why  (hould  he  fay.  Page  36. 
That  the  Children  of  the  Three  Thoufand  were  bap- 
fiz«d,  which  the  Lord  has  no  where  faid  ?  Further,  if 

H  he 


lis  13  not  for  being  called  Mailer,  how  came  he,  in  Ps^ge 
44.  to  fct  a  Tradition  of  Men,  on  a  Level  with  God's 
Inftitution  ;  as  did  the  Pharifees  of  old,  which  Chrift 
condemned,  Mark  vii.  7---13.  If  Mr.  F's  Pradlice  is 
jiot  contrary  to  Chrilt's  Charge  in  Matt,  xxiii.  8.  I 
would  willingly  know  what  is  ? 

I  think,  I  have  already  fhewn  his  Argument  from  this 
Place  in  favour  of  Infant- baptifm,  to  be  invalid,  there 
is  therefore  no  Neceflity  of  writing  the  fame  Things 
over  agahi,  to  manifeft  the  Inconclufivenefs  of  his  Con- 
iequence,  n\  Oppolition  to  Bifhop  'Taylor's  jufl;  Obfer- 
vaiions. 

In  Page  50.  fays  Mr.  F.  *'  His  Reafonings  abcut  Im» 
fofttion  of  Hands  1  /hall  not  tr$uhle  myfelf  ivith  at  prefent, 
as  being  impertinent  to  our  Bvfmejs  ;  otherwife  it  were 
eofy  to  Jhew  their  Fanity  :  In  particular.,  what  can  be  more 
unjcriptural  than  his  Obfervation^  that  the  Scripture  Ac^ 
count  of  Impofition  of  Hands  does  not  well  fuit  with  lay- 
ing on  of  Hands  on  Officers  in  the  Church  ?  Let  fober 
Chri/iians  judge y  whether  fuch  Pofitions  are  more  to  be  la^ 
merited^  condemned,  or  fobcrly  reafoned  againji.'*  Anf. 
If  this  Point  is  impertinent  to  our  Bufinefs,  who  intro- 
duced it,  but  he  himfcJI?  Who  affirmed  that  Impofrtion 
of  Hands  waj  an  extraordinary  Ordinance,  and  always 
adminill:ered  after  Baptifm  in  the  primitive  Times  .^ 
Was  it  not  Mr.  F?  And  to  prove  that  it  was  fo,  he  cited 
jtSIs  xVk.  5,  6.  And  fince  he  has  brought  it  into  the  Con- 
troverfy,  he  ftiould  firfl  have  try'd  to  refute  my  Reafon- 
ings for  the  Continuance  of  laying  on  of  Hands  on  bap- 
tized Perfons  in  the  Church,  before  he  publifhed  his  vain 
Afiertion,  that  it  were  eafy  to  (hew  their  Vanity.  Let 
Mr.  F.  Ihew  any  fuch  Obfervation  in  my  Book,  which 
be  is  pleafcd  to  charge  me  with,  viz.  That  the  Scripture 
Account  of  Impofition  of  Hands,  does  not  well  fuit  with 
laying  on  of  Hands  on  Officers  in  the  Church  :  Where 
do  I  deny  the  Ordination  of  Officers  \  Or  the  Impofition 
of  Hands  on  them  to  be  fcriptural  ?  What  I  faid,  is,  that 
the  Account  we  have  of  this  Ordinance  in  A^s  xix.  5. 
6.  viii.  14-- 17.  and  Heb.  vi.  2.  does  not  well  fuit  with 
lading  on  of  Hands  gn  Officers,  becaufe  it  was  admini- 

ilere4 


t     "5    ] 

ftered  to  baptized  Believers  as  fuch.  Men  and  Women, 
'Tis   not  a   Jittle   ftrange  and    furf^rifing,     that  Mr.  F. 
abo-.'c  any  Man,  whofe  Tongue  and  Pen   is  fo  full  of 
Clamours  againft  others,    fhould    himfelf  be  guilty  of 
(uch    open    Falfification,    and    manifert    Perverfion    of 
Words  fo  plain  and  innocent,  which  notwithftanding  h* 
himfelf  muft  necefTarily  own  to  be  true,  or  elfe  pray  for 
what  Reafon  did  he  quote  A^s  xix.  5,  6  ?   Was   it   to 
prove  the  Ordination  of  Officers?  Is  that  an  extraordi- 
nary Ordinance  ?  Is  not  that  afed  now  as  well  as  then  ? 
Were    all  thofe  Officers   in     the  Church,    to    whom 
this  extraordinary  Ordinance  was  always  adminiftered 
after  Baptifm  ?   Let  him  anfwer  us.      But  it  is  very  plain 
he  did  not  intend  that,  but  Impofition  of  Hands  on  bap- 
tized Perfons ;  an   Ordinance  which   he  calls  extraordi- 
nary, and  proved  it  to  be  formerly  ufed  ;  which  we  plead 
is  yet  in  Force,  and  ought  now  to  be  always  adminiftered 
after  Baptifm,  as  it  was  in  apoftolic  Times :  How   un- 
fair then  has  he  aded,  in  mifreprefenting  the  Cafe  !     Is 
a  fcriptural  Point  unfcriptural,  becaufe  it  is  not  intended 
in  every  Scripture  ?    Should  I   fay  that  the  Account  we 
have  of  the  Dead  rifing  In   John  v.  25.    Col  iii.  I  — -3. 
does  not  well  fuit  with  the  Doftrine  of  the  Refurreaicii 
of  dead  Bodies,  according  to  Mr.  /"s  Charge,  I  {hould 
deny    the  Refurreftion  of  the   Dead   to  be   fcriptural ; 
•when,  at  the  fame  time,    I  had  faid   nothing  agamft  it. 
What  a  manifeft  Piece  of  Injuftice  muft  it  be  in  him, 
firft   to  charge  me  falfly,  and    then  gravely   fubmit  his 
forged  Pofiticns  to  the  Judgment  of  fober  Chriftians  ? 
What  could  his  Drift  be  in  fuch  Sophiftry,  whether  he 
calls  it  thick  or  *  thin  ?    Unlefs  he  defigned   hereby  to 
blind  the  Eyes  of  his  Readers  from   obferving  that  the 
Prejbyterians  have  loft  the  Order  and  Beauty  of  the  Go- 
fpel  Church,  among  the  Rubbifli  of  Error  :  For  this  Or- 
dinance (which  Mr.  F.  fays  was  then  in  Ufe,  and  always 
adminiftered  after  Baptifm)  is  quite  loft  among  them,  and 
Baptifm,  for  the  moft  Part,  is  gone  to  the  very  Name. 

But  to  return:    He  charges  us  with    holding  thofe 
Children  were  only  propofed  as  Emblems  of  Humility, 
H  2  But 

*  Vind,  Page  12, 


[    ir6    J 

Bat  as  he  has  cited  no  Ba*uji  Author  who  argues  in  the 
Klanner  he  talks,  I  may  with  very  good  Face,  and  have 
'1  ruth  on  my  Side,  Hill  fay,  thofeofour  Authors  I  had 
confulted  on  the  Place,  do  not  argue  fo  ;  where  he  got  this 
from,  I  am  not  concerned  :  His  Reafonings  are  (hewn 
to  be  inconclufive  without  the  Help  of  this  Argument ; 
rievertherlefs  it  may  ftill  be  obferved,  that  fome  of  the 
Fcsdobapt'ijh  themfelvesdo  not  difcountenance  this  Argu- 
ment, as  appears  by  the  Paflagcs  I  quoted. 

in  Page  51.  he  endeavours  to  fllew  the  Promifes  are 
to  Believers,  and  their  Seed,  "  Tmt  there  ari  no  Promifes 
in  the  Bible  to  Infidels^  and  their  Seed^  whilji  fuch^  he. 
Anf.  Mr.  F.  fhould  have  remembered,  there  is  a  Pro- 
Biife  to  them  afar  off,  ^^s  ii,  39..  And  were  not  they 
Infidels,  when  that  Promife  was  given  ?  A  Promife  that 
in  thee  J}:all  all  Nations  be  bleffed.  Gal.  iii.  And  were 
not  the  greateft  Part  of  all  Nations  Infidels,  when  that 
Promife  was  fpoken  ?  A  Promife  of  Light  to  the  blind 
Gentiles,  Jjci,  xlix.  6.  xlii.  6.  I  think  it  were  dif- 
ficult to  diftingulfli  between  blind  Gentiles  and 
Infidels;  what  are  Infidels  but  blind  GentiUi  ?  Yet 
here  is  a  Promife  of  Salvation  with  all  its  Pre-re- 
quifites  to  them  :  But  it  feems,  what  Mr.  F.  would- 
be  at  (or  at  leaft  {hould  be  at)  is  to  (hew  that  Unbe- 
lievers, whilft  fuch,  have  not  an  adual  Jntereft  in  the' 
Promife,  becaufe  they  have  not  received  it  ;  which  we 
do  not  gainfay  ;  but  this  is  a  quite  different  Point  ;  for 
the  Promulgation  of  the  Promife  is  one  Thing,  and  the 
Keception,  or  Application  of  it,  another.'  And  fo  I  flill 
fay,  their  unbelieving  Children,  and  the  unbelieving  Gen- 
tiles, arejuft  on  a  Par  :  Mr.  F.  may  have  equal  Ground" 
of  Charity  for  one,  as  well  as  the  other,  till  the  vifible 
Fruits  of  the  Promife  taking  hold  of  one,  diftinguilhes 
him  from  another.  Further,  in  anfvver  to  what  he  would 
urge  from  his  Quotations,  Who  denies  that  the  Promifes' 
were  made  to  Chrif},  and  to  the  Eled  in  him,  fcattercd 
abroad  among  all  Nationsof  the  World  .?  Thefe  are  they 
Jo  whom  he  will  give  Life  eternal  )  who  were  purchafed 
with  his  own  Blood,  whom  in  Time  he  wafliesand  fanc- 
ftifirs,  and  will  at  laft  prefent  without  Spot  or  Wrin- 
hk  ;  Bui  who  they  are  in  particular,  is  a  Secret  hid  in- 

God. 


[     i'7    3 

iGod.  When  he  fays,  that  *'  The  Promifes  of  Salvation 
are  rejiri5ied  to  the  Church  ;  "  if  he  means  Jiereby  the  vi- 
sible Church,  what  is  it  but  to  fay,  that  Church  Coni- 
fnunion  is  eflential  to  Salvation  ?  That  if  any  of  the  fi- 
le*!^ are  converted,  and  die  before  they  are  joined  to  the 
vilible  Church,  yet  there  are  no  Promifes  of  Salvation 
to  them  ;  and  confeqaently  cannot  be  faved  !  What 
vaft  Abfurdities  are  thefe  I  Again,  if  the  Cafe  be  fo, 
that  there  are  no  Promifes  '*  to  anywho  are  out  of  the 
(vifible)  Church  "  how  is  it  pofiible,  that  any  out  of  the 
Church  fhould  believe,  if  there  is  no  Promiie  to  them 
to  lay  hold  on  ?  Or  does  Mr.  F.  defign  that  thofe  v.'ho 
are  grown  up,  out  of  the  vifible  Church,  muft  be  adfnit- 
ted  into  it  in  the  State  of  Unbelief  ?  Why  then  is  a  Pro- 
feilion  of  Faith  always  required  from  fuch,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  before  they  may  be  admitted  ?  It  does 
not  in  the  leafl  furprife  me,  whether  he  accounts  me 
"  fit  to  he  difputed  with  as  a  Chrijitan,'"  or  not,  becaufe 
I  oppofehis  abfurd  Notions  ;  nor  do  I  think  his  bring- 
ing in  Believers  Infants  into  the  Church,  ^without  God's 
Order,  gives  any  more  Ground  to  hope  the  better  of 
their  Salvation,  or  that  Chrift  receives  them  only,  and 
none  others,  than  without  it  ;  unlefs  it  could  be  thought 
that  Will-worfhip  pleafes  God,  or  that  the  Performance 
of  an  uncommanded  Ceremony  furthers  the  Salvation  cf 
dying  Infants. 

His  AlTertion,  that  Chrifl  gave  Orders  to  treat  the 
Children  of  Believers  as  Members  of  his  Church,  hath 
been  confidered  already.  Says  he,  *' /f  Mr.  M./i  devot" 
ed  to  Words  of  Scripture^  as  not  to  take  the  Anions  of  Chrijf 
for  Proof  without  them  r"'  Anf  Yes  ;  for  many  of  the 
AiSlions  of  Chrift  arc  not  recorded  for  our  Imitation, 
(^.  g.)  his  anointing  the  Eyes  of  the  Blind  w  th  Clay— t 
raifing  the  Dead---walking  on  the  Sea  --But  for  the 
Confirmation  of  the  Principles  of  the  Gofpel,  which  wc 
are  to  believe  and  pra6lice  ;  and  according  to  f  Cart- 
^iright  already  cited,  the  Adlions  of  Chrift  refpe£ting  the 
Children  brought  to  him,  were  peculiar  to  himfclf,  and 
H  3  were 

f  Anti.  Page  62, 


[     ii8     ] 

xvcre  not  imitated  by  his  Difciples  or  Apoflles,  before  or 
after  his  Afcenfion. 

I  obferv'd,  that  it  is  a  bold  Encroachment  on  Chrift's 
kinp^ly  Prerogative,  to  enjoin  the  baptizing  of  Infants, 
which  the  Lord  Jefus  hath  no  where  commanded  :  And 
cited  a  PafTage  from  the  Apology  of  the  Brunfwick  Pref- 
bytery,  againft  making  new  religious  Laws  in  the 
Church  ;  And  argued,  that  no  Law  given  by  Ghrilf  for 
baptizing  Infants,  can  be  found  any  where  Vegiflred  in 
the  Rolls  of  divine  Laws  ;  therefore  it  muft  be  done 
without  Law,  or  elfe  by  a  Law  of  Mens  making,  which 
is  attended  with  all  the  dreadiul  Confequences  of  fuch  a 
Pradfice,  as  expre{r<;d  in  the  cited  Paragraph.  In  Anfwer 
hereto,  the  Fruits  of  Mr.  Fs  good  Temper  plentifully 
appear  again  :  He  fays,  "  Does  he  not  .know  that  we  at 
Icaji  pretend  to  warrant  our  Pra£lice  from  Chriji's  own 
Laws  already  made  P  Hew  ridiculous  is  it,  thus  to  beg  the 
^UfJIion,  and  triumph  ?  Any  Man  of  Senfe  would  be  ajtatn- 
ed  to  do  fo  :  Hs  is  Jo  big  with  Confidence,  as  to  tell  us  ve- 
7y  often,  that  Chriji  has  given  no  Law  for  Infant  Baptifm.'* 
Keply.  What  is  the  Matter  with  Mr./"  ?  Is  he  con- 
fcicus  tohimfelf,  that  there  is  no  divine  Law  for  it,  when 
i)c  fcemsfo  much  difturbed  in  the  AfFar?  By  this  Time 
I  judge  we  have  a  pretty  good  Proof,  that  no  Law  for  In- 
fant Baptifm  canatallbe  found  in  the  Rolls  of  divineLaws  j 
therefore  it  cannot  be  any  longer  call'd  a  beggi-ng  the 
Queflion  ;  for  if  there  were,  it  is  highly  probable,  the 
Straits  and  Pinches  Mr.  F.  is  preffed  with,  in  defending 
his  Opinion,  would  have,  long  before  now,  obliged  him 
to  diredus  the  Flacc,  and  fay  j  ''  Thus  it  is  written:* 
One  would  be  apt  to  think,  that  when  he  pretends  to 
warrant  his  Pradice  by  divine  Laws  already  made,  and 
jet  can  never  produce  thole  Laws  fo  much  talked  of, 
in  favour  of  his  Pradice,  he  might  indeed  well  be  afham- 
edofhis  Pietences,  and  forbear  giving  that  Honour  or 
Regard  to  his  fallible  Confequences,  which  is  due  to 
Chi  ift's  Laws  alone  ;  left  he  be  found  commencing  King 
in  his  Kingdom,  or  rather  fetting  up  a  Kingdom  of  his 
o^vn,  in  Oppolition  to  his. 

Mr. 


[     "9     ] 

Mr.  F.  pretends  hinifcif  ignorant  of  any  inconfiflicuf 
cy,  in  his  arguing  that  Baptifm  is  an  initiating  Ordi- 
nance, whereby  Perfons  are  received  into  the  Church; 
and  again,  that  *  Church-members  ought  to  be  baptized. 
Let  the  Reader  judge,  if  both  can  be  affirmed  together, 
for  if  any  are  Church-members  before  Baptifm,  then 
Baptifm  is  not  an  initiating  Ordiisance  :  But  if  Baptifm 
be  an  initiating  Ordinance,  then  none  are  Church  Mem- 
bers before  they  are  baptized  ;  and  fo  I  am  not  obliged  to 
ftiew  that  there  are  fomc  Church-members  who  ought  not 
to  be  baptized  :  Says  he,  "  Believers  Infants,  or  adult 
Pro/cJJorSy  are  virtually  Church-members  before  Baptifm." 
Reply  J  virtually,  but  not  fvifibly  Members!  'Tis  hard 
to  find  whereabouts  their  Infants  are  fituated  !  By  Mr. 
i^'s  Way  of  Talking,  it  feems  Infants  are  a<Stually  Non- 
members  ;  and  if  (o^  let  him  (hew  that  any,  who  are 
out  of  the  vifible  Church,  are  to  be  admitted  without  % 
Profe/Tion  of  Faith,  confiftent  with  the  Affembly's  Ca- 
techifm.  His  Comparifon  here,  is  of  little  Weight  : 
What  though  an  Heir  to  the  Crown  be  a  King  when 
proclaimed  ?  But  their  Infants  have  not  been  proclaim- 
ed to  have  a  Right  to  Church- memberfhip  ;  they  are 
therefore  not  (o  much  as  virtually  Members  of  the  New 
Teftament  vifible  Church. 

In  Page  53.  Mr.  F.  is  furpriz'd,  .that  I  fhould  give 
the  World  a  Tafle  of  the  Manner  how  Infant  Baptifm 
is  fupported  :  The  Account  is  not  pleafing  to  him  ;  and 
no  wonder,  for  Error  loves  not  the  Light.  He  calls  my 
juft  Obfervations  "  pajftonate  InveSiives^  prooflefs  Ajfer- 
tions,  and  falfe  Defamations"  'Tis  very  obfervable, 
that  Glamours,  and  the  Charge  of  begging  the  Queftion, 
gre  two  of  Mr.  Fs  main  Helps  in  this  Controverfy  ;  to 
thefe  he  frequently  betakes  himfelf  in  pinching  Dif- 
ficulties. Did  I  fay  the  Minifler  declares  he  is  fatisfied 
Infant  Baptifm  is  right  ?  This  I  had  from  Mr.  F.  §  him- 
felf. And  if  this  is  not  improved  in  various  Shapes,  to  bear 
down  the  poor  Enquirer,  why  did  the  Author  of  the  Di- 
alogue infifl  on  it,  in  Defence  of  Infant  Baptifm  ?  Page 
H  4  '      5.  "  -C^* 

*  Charit.  Plea,  Page  56.     f  Divine  Right,  Page  30. 

^  Charit.  Plea,  Page  57. 


[       120      ] 

f   "r^'i  ^^"  ^^"^^  *^^  Minljier  is  in  the  wrong  ?  Is  he  un- 
bapttfed?  Not  in  Covenant  tvith    God  P     No    Minifttr? 
No  v'.jible  ChrijUan  r  With  much  more  of  the  like  Na^ 
-ture       Again,  in  Pages  6,  7.--thereare  fumm'd  up  the 
Conrequence.of  rejea.ng  Infant  Baptifm  :  'Tis,  fays  the 
Author,        To  rejea  all puhlick  Ordinances— Tg  cali  Con^ 
iempt  on  Chriji  -.To   of  end  againji   God' s  Children— To 
reprejentthe  whole  Church  Jor  Hundreds  of  Tears,  to  be  in 
^J^tate  of  Heathemfm-.-'Tis  to  provoke  God,  and  offer  In^ 
dtgmy  to  the  ble/Jld  Spirit,  &c."  If  thefc  artful  inlinuati- 
onsana  detcftable  Methods  do  not  furprize    and   perplex 
the  hnqu.rer,  inftead  of  fhewing  him  a  divine  Inflituti- 
onfor  Infant    liaptifm,     let    the    Dialogue    relohe  the 
Jj^ueltion.       The  Author  informs  us,    what  EfFed    thefe 
i  iiings  had  on  his  Neighbour  ;  his  Words  are  thefe,  Page 
y  ■    ;     •  ^'  ^^^  ^^^^  Converfation  ferves  but  to  iticreafe  my 
r^rplextty,  and  to  thy  ow  new  Difficulties  in  my  Way,  but 
in  no  wife  releajes  my  Mind  and  Confcience  from  the  DUirefi 
liuas  under  Hefore-.-lhis  does  not Jhew  m(  a  divine  Injlitu^ 
pon  J  or  hfant  Baptifm:'     This  Account  comes  up  full/ 
lo  what  1  fa,d.      Nuw  unlefs  Mr.   F.  will  prove  the  Au- 
thor  s  ^arratlve  to  be  falfe,  and  not  at  all  to  be  credited, 
h^  cann-ot  with  any  Judice  charge  me  with  proofiefs  Af- 
icrt.ons,  and  fa  fe Defamations  :   U  it  be  faid  the  Dialoaue 
isonfy  afie,gned  Difourfe,   this    helps  not    the  Matter; 
tor  then  the.  Author    mull    forefee  the  native  Tendency 
i?'s  Arguments  had  to  perplex  and  confound,   but   not  to 
Satisfy  tender  Enquirers.     Jv^or  is    there   any  Reafon   to 
qucfhon,   but  oun  Opponents  pradife  what  the  Dialogue 
teaches;  and    thus  with   their   Noife  about    Antiq-^ity, 
i>ucceirion,  In/ailibihty,   Univerfality,  &c.     Popijh  hke, 
t^ey  keep  the  People  jn  Awe,  and    terrify  thofe  among 
them     who  at  any  time   queilions  the  Vahdityof  Infant 
iJaptiim  ;  and  hereby  keep  them  in  perpetual  Fetters  of 
human  Invention,  put  on  them  whilit  Infants,  fiom  giv- 
ing due  Obedience  to  the  Lord  Jefus,   according    to    his 
Appointment  :  This  well  known  Pradiceof  theirs  can- 
jnot  be  deny'd,  unlefs  Mr.    F,    will   refute  the  Dialogue, 
>yh!ch  is  a  flanding  Evidence  to  vindicate   the  Truth  of 
What   I  have  faid  j  he  will   prpbabJy  underhand  what 

*'  Litira 


[  121  1 

f*  Litera  Scripta  manet"  fignifies.  I  defired  Proof,  that 
rejtdiing  Infant  Baptifm  is  attended  with  allthefe  frightful 
Confequences.  Says  our  Author,  '*  If  he  wants  Proof  that 
the  aforefaid  Confequences  follow,  after  reading  the  Dia- 
logue, I  judge  himincapalle  of  receiving  ANY  ;  for  it  is  e- 
vident  they  do  follow,  and  mufl  we  have  Light  to  fee  the 
Sun  f"  No  ;  we  can  fee  the  Sun  by  its  own  Light  ;  but 
we  want  Light  to  fee  the  Juftnefs  of  thefe  Confequences, 
v/hich  we  are  not  hke  to  get  from  Mr.  F.  All  that  he 
is  pleafed  to  favour  us  with,  is  his  ""^  pojitive  Affertiony 
unfupported  by  Argument  ;"  'tis  evident,  ^c.  and  hi» 
Refledlion  on  my  Capacity.  But  in  Oppofition  to  him, 
I  fay.  It  is  not  evident,  nor  ever  will  be  fo,  that  thefc 
Confequences  follow  the  rejedling  of  Infant  Baptifm  ; 
iinlefs  he  could  fliew,  that  it  was  Chrift's  Inftitution, 
which  he  is  far  enough  from  doing  as  yet.  Let  our  Op- 
ponents foberly  cnnfider,  whether  thofe  who  Counte- 
nance an  Abufe  of  Chrifl's  Ordinance,  and  continue  in 
it,  both  in  refpe(5t  of  the  Subjeds  and  Mode  ;  or  thofe 
who  reje£t  the  Abufe,  and  fubmit  to  it,  according  to  hia 
Inftitution,  be  moft  Blame- worthy  ?  "Mufl  People  bred 
up  in  Error,  always  continue  in  it  ?  Why  then  was  there 
any  Reformation  ever  attempted,  fince  the  Tntrodudtion 
of  Error  into  the  Church  ?  Chrifl:  has  undoubtedly 
made  good  his  Promifes  to  his  People  in  all  Ages,  whe- 
ther miny  or  few  in  Number,  and  whether  more  or  lefs 
vifible.         •■' 

'  In  Page  53,  Mr.  i\  comes  to  his  fourth  Aflertion, 
which  is,  that  Infants  are  capable  Subjects  of  Baptifm  ; 
tind  in  Page  54.  he  fays,  '*  'Tis  his  Bufinefs  here  to  Jhew 
their  Incapacity^  if  he  would  difpute  again/i  me,  but  far 
from  that,  he  offers  not  one  Argument  againji  what  I maiti' 
tain,  yet  pretends  to  be  refuting  me."  Anf.  I  offered  an 
Argument  againfl  what  he  maintains,  which  fhcws  his 
Argument  proves  a  great  deal  too  much  for  him  ;  and  fo 
nothing  at  ^11  to  his  Purpofe,  "jiz.  ''^  If  a  Capacity  t» 
receive  an  Ordinance  be  fufficitnt  te  entitle  Perfons  to  the 
Reception  of  it,  it  would folloiv,  that  all  the  Male  Infants 
qf  the  Heathen  Nations,  had  as  good  a  Right  to  be  circum^ 
sifid^  as  the  Sad  ^Abraham  had ;  for  §nc  was  ms  capable 


to  he  theSuhje^  .of  Circumcifton  as  the  other.    If  he  fays  they 
had  not,    hecaufe  there  was  no  Command  of  God  for  it  ;  fo 
fay  we,  there  is  none  for  baptizing  any  Infants."    This  Ar- 
gument Mr /^  has  not  refuted.   And  further,   heconfef- 
fes,   *•  That  one  Infant  is  not  naturally  tnore  capable  of  the 
Things  i fald  to  be)  ftgnlfied  by  Baptlfm  than  another-:'  Not 
naturally;   Queftion,    How  then  ?     The  anfwer  to  this 
Qlieftion  in  Mr.  Fs  Book,  is  a  Blank.    He  afc,  "  What 
tuouldl have  more  /"'  Anf,  Da,  mces  etto.  'Tis  pretty  well 
Mr.  F.  is  forc'd  to  confefs  fo  much  ;    But  I  would  have 
this  more,  a  fpeedy  Retradion  of  his  Aflertion,   '*   That 
be  hath  given  up  nothing  he  faid.'*     Again,  I  would    have 
an  ingenuous  Acknowledgment,  that  no  Argument  can 
he  formed  from  the  Capacity  of  fome  Infants  more  than 
others,   to  prove  their  Right  to  Baptifm.    And  further,  I 
would  have  Mr.  F.  confefs,  that  he  is  guilty  of  crimi- 
nal Partiahty,  in  not  baptizmg  the  Infants  of  Non-mem- 
bers, feeing  they  are  capable  of  every  great  Thing  figni- 
fied  by  Baptifm,  as  much  as  the  Infants  of  Church  mem- 
bers ;  fince  his  Argument  equally  proves  the  Right  of 
both  to  the  Ordinance  alike,     efpccially  when  there  is  no 
Scripture  Warrant  for  doing  of  either.     But  he  fays,  I 
miftock  him  ;  for  "  He  intended  to  obviate  Objections  from 
their  Incapacity,  and  not  to  prove  their  Title  from  their  Ca^ 
pacity."  Yes,  to  befure,  when  he  pjopofed  this  4th  Head 
to  fhew  the  Truth  of  his  firfl  general   AfTertion,  which 
is,  that  Believers  Infants  have  a  Right  to  the  Ordinance 
of  Baptifm:  Now  if  this  4th  Particular  was  not  intend- 
ed to  fhew  Infants  Right    to  Baptifm,  why  was  it  pro- 
pofed  amongft  the  reft  for  that  Erid  ?   And  if  he  did  not 
intend^  by  obviating  Objedtions,  to  prove  Infants  Right 
to  Baptifm,  it  was  entirely  ufelefs  for  him  to  argue  they 
were  capable  of  fpiritual  BleiTmgs,  in  order  to  fhew  they 
ought  to  be  baptized.     What  Soldier, '  us'd   to  the  War, 
is  there,  who  cannot  diftindly  tell  the  firing  of  a  routed 
Enemy  ?   When  Mr.  F.  thus  fhifts  and  declines,  it  fiiews 
us  this  Argument  of  his,  with  all  his  Stir  about  it,  is  now 
fufEciently  baffled.     I  likewife  obferved,  that  Infants  are 
mcapable  of  profefling  their  Aflentto  the  Dodrinesof  the 
Gofjpel  i  incapable  of  Repentance,  and  faith,  and  of  an- 

fwering 


[     "3     ]     ■ 

fwcring  a  good  Confcience,  which  are  neceflary  Qiialifi- 
cations  in  all  the  Subjeds  of  Kaptifm,  Heb.  xi.  6.  Mark 
xvi.  1 6-  I  Pet.  iii.  21.  Yet  he  fays  I  have  not  offer- 
ed one  Argument  againfl  Infants  Capacity  ;  who  can 
help  his  faying  fo,  if  he  has  no  better  to  fay  ?  (But  he 
(hould  have  looked  in  Cat.  iii.  9.  firftj  and  no  other  Re- 
fuge to  fly  to,  but  faying,  I  beg  the  Queftion  ?  Begging 
the  Q^ieftiorj,  in  JV'Ir.  F's  Language,  leems  to  imply,  in 
plain  Engiifh,  an  Imperfection  or  Shortnefs  in  the  Scrip- 
ture Account  of  the  Affair;  as  much  as  to  fay,  there 
were  Infants  baptized  on  the  Account  of  their  Parents 
Faith,  and  by  their  Parents  were  dedicated  to  God 
tliercby,  tho'  the  Scripture  does  not  mention  it.  He  may, 
if  he  thinks  proper,  call  my  Adherence  to  Scripture^ 
a  begging  the  Queftion  ;  yet  his  doing  fo,  is  far  from 
proving  that  Parents  can  dedicate  their  Children  to  God 
bv  Baptifm,  with  Acceptance  ;  or  *'  That  Circum- 
afton  required  Faith  in  the  Subjiii,  as  much  as  Baptifm^" 
when  the  Law  of  Circumcifion  required  Infants  to  be 
circumcifed  at  eight  Days  old  :  But  the  Inftitution  of 
Baptifm  requires  none  to  be  baptized  before  they  arc  firft 
taught,  Mark  xvi.  16.  I  obferved  alfo,  the  Sinfulnefj 
there  is  in  the  PraiSlice  of  Infant  Baptifm,  which  re- 
mains unanfwer'd. 

In  Page  54.  Mr.  F.  advances  feveral  Arguments,  with 
a  Defign  to  fhew,  that  the  Blood  of  Chrift  is  fignified 
by  Baptifm  ;  but  his  Arguments  amount  no  higher  than 
the  Conclufion  I  cited  from  Mr.  Mede^  which  is,  *'  T^hat 
the  Blood  of  Ckriji  concurs  in  the  Myjiery  of  Baptifm^  b} 
Way  of  Efficacy  and  Merits  but  not  as  the  Thing  there 
figured^  which  the  Scripture  tells  us  not  to  be  the  Blood  of 
ChriJ}^  but  the  Spirit" 

He  pretends,  "  It  is  eafy  to  manifefl  the  Tnconclw 
Jtvenefs  of  my  Reafonings  againji  the  Dialogue  in  this  Place^ 
but  he  promifes  that  will  be  fubfiantially  done^  when  he 
comes  to  his  laft  Jffertion."  But  he  does  neither  in  this 
Place,  nor  there,  vindicate  the  Dialogue  refpe(5ling  the 
grofs  Expofition  of  Mat.  xviii.  4,  5,  6.  which  the  Au- 
thor is  guilty  of,  with  a  Defign  to  (hew  that  Infants  are 
^Jievers  in  Chrift,  and  fit  Subjects  of  Baptifro  5  t^ia 

Mr, 


[  124  ] 
Mr.  F.  fhould  have  done,  were  it  pofTible,  before  he 
^nt  his  79th  Page;  or  elfe  it  will  ftill  follow,  the  faid 
Author  IS  ju%  chargeable  with  horrid  Impieties  in  a- 
Jbuhng  Scripture  (o  wretchedly,  in  order  to  impofe  hij 
i^rrors  on  the  World,  under  the  CoJour  of  Scripture 
txpreflions.  ^ 

He  endeavours  to  fhew,  that  Infants  are  capable,  and 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  Baptifm,  but  not  to  the  Supper, 
and  fays,  the  one-  Sacrament  is  an  initiating,  the  other 
a  confirming  Seal  of  the  Covenant.  Reply  ;  Baptifm  is 
properly  admmiftered  to  thofe  who  profefs  their  Faith  in 

't^a  [vn.^"'^  *°  ""Z"^  ""^^^'^     ^"^  't^e  Supper  for  their 
Jiftabhfhment  «n  Faith  ;  the  one  is  rightly  adminiftered 
.to  profefljng  D.fciples,    the  other  to  baptized  Difcip'es- 
.Says  he,   **   The  Scripture  does  not  fay  Difdple  ^  and  z'lvt 
them  the  Supperr     Anf.  Neither  does  the  Scriprure  (ay, 
difciple  all  Nations,  baptizing  them,  and  withhold  them 
from  the  Lord's  Supper.     All  thofe  who  were  baptized, 
received  the  Sacrament,  A^s  ii.  42.  7he  Prejhyteriam 
have  no  Precedent  in  Scripture  for  their  Pradice  of  keeping 
back  any  meet  Subjeds  of  'Baptifm,  when  baptized,"  from 
the  Lord's  Table,   whofe  Lives  are  unftained  with  adual 
bins.     Their  adminiftring  the  one  Sacrament  (in  Pre^ 
tence)  to  Subjeds  unfit  for  the  other,  is  Man's  Device,  not 
the  Lord's  Appo/ntment.     Says  he,   ''  The  firfl^  hfanis 
ars  naturally  capable  of,  for  they  can  be  wajhed."  So  they 
are  as    much    naturally  capable  of    the  other,   for   they 
can  fwallow,  or  elfe  how  did  Cyprian  and  Augujline  give 
^hem  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper  I    «'  In  the  fir Ji,  fays 
he,  Perfons  are  pajfive  Recipients,    in  the  other  Agents  " 
Anf.   Perfons  are  aglive  in  the  iirft,  as  in  repenting,  be- 
Jieving,   profefTing,    anfwering  a  good  Confcience,  com- 
ing to,  be  baptized,  and  going  down  into  the  Water,  b'f. 
as  well  as  in  the  Supper,  in  examining,  commemorating, 
eatmg  and  drinking  :  Hence  it  ftill  follows  unavoidably, 
that  if  Infants  are  capable,  and  ought  to  be  admitted  tci 
Baptifm,  they  ought  alfo   to   be  admitted  to  the  Sacra-- 
ment  of  the  Supper  :  Nor  is  there  any  more  Scripture  to 
Ihew  that  "  the  Supper  is  refiriaed  to   thofe  only  who 
tan  examine  themjehcs;*    than  that  Baptifm  is  to  thofg 

who 


[       125      ] 

^ho  do  aftually  believe  and  repent ;  for  the  Scripture 
does  not  fay  ONLY  thofe  who  examine  themfelves,  arc 
to  communicate,  and  none  elfe  ;  therefore  according  tor 
Mr.  *  F's  own  Rule  in  the  Cafe  of  Baptifm,  there  is  as 
much  Room  to  admit  Infants  to  the  Lord's  Table,  as  to' 
Baptifm,  fince  the  exclufivc  Particle  only  is  not  found 
in  all  thofe  Texts,  which  fpeak  of  the  Subje£ts  of  this 
Sacrament  of  the  Supper.  But  as  there  is  no  Command 
jior  example  for  the  one,  neither  is  there  for  the  other. 
Our  Opponents  indeed,  are  funk  fo  deep  in  the  Notioa 
and  Cuftom  of  baptizing  Infants,  that  they  cannot  tell 
how  to  lay  it  afide,  tho'  it  be  every  Way  as  unfcriptural 
as  to  admit  them  to  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 

As  an  Anfwer  to  my  Obfervation,  that  all  the  Mem- 
bers in  the  apoftolical  Churches  were  taught  before  they 
were  admitted,  he  fays,  "  If  Difciples  are  Church- 
members^  and  if  Infants  were  accounted  Difciples  in  the 
Apoflles  Days^  it  will  follow^  that  they  were,  and  Jlill 
tught  to  be  Church  members  \  but  Infants  were  accounted 
Difciples  by  the  Apojiles  (that  is  a  grand  Miflakej  and 
therefore  ought  to  be  admitted  into  Chriffs  School;  the  Ali- 
nor  is  proven  from  A6ts  xv.  lo.  Why  tempt  ye  God  to  pit 
a  Yoke  on  the  Necks  of  the  Difciples  ?  This  Take  was  Cir- 
cumcifon."  Anf.  Thofe  who  were  accounted  Difciples, 
and  fo  called  by  the  Apoftle,  were  fuch  as  were  capable 
of  being  taught  by  the  judaizing  Teachers,  as  is  plain, 
ASIs  XV.  I.  They  were  fuch  who  might  be  fubverted  with 
falfe  DoiSlrine,  Verfe  24.  They  were  fuch  who  were 
capable  of  rejoicing  for  the  Confolation,  Verfe  31.  which 
Chara<Sters  do  not  a^ree  to  Infants  ;  therefore  Infants  are 
not  intended  by  Difciples  in  the  Text.  In  the  Words  of 
an  ingenious  f  Author,  1  fay,  "  It  is  a  great  DifJoonour 
and  Differ  vice  to  Religion,  that  any  who  are  Teachers  of 
it,  and  appointed  to  guide  the  People,  foould  endeavour  to 
fupport  their  Fancies  and  Opinions  by  a  Fallacy.  Nothing 
I  think  can  bemore  difingenuoufly  urged,  or  be  a  more  palpa' 
hie  Affront  t$  the  common  Senje  of  Mankind,  than  to  affirm 
Mathetees  may  be  applied  to  Infants  and  Perfons  not  capa^ 
Ue  of  being  taught  i   for   every   Body  conjiantly  ufes    the 

Wsrdt 
*  Vind.  Page  2,  f  Dr,  Gale  ;Let.  8. 


L         125         j 

tP^ard^  and  always  under/lands  it  to  mean  one  that  is  taught 
0r  learns.  John  ix.  27.   Says  the  Man  who  was  born  blind, 
wherefore  would  you  hear  it  again  P    Will  ye  alfo  be  his 
Difciples?    i.e.  IP  ill  ye  oljo  believe  in  him,  and  fuhmit 
yourjelves  to   his  Injlruaions^  and  bemne    his  Followers  ? 
Again,  Aas  xviii.  23.   He  went  over  all  the  Country  of 
Galatia   and  Phrygia    in  order,  Jlrengthening   all    the 
Dijciples :  Douhtlefs  all  the  Difciples  then  were  capable  of 
ieing  confirmed  in  the  Faith,   they  had  all  received;  for  it 
IS  plain,   no  other  are  acknowledged  for  Difciples,  but  fuch 
as  believed,  for  all  the  Difciples  were  fir  engthened"  Luke 
Xiv.  27.   IFhsfoever  doth  not  hear  his  Crofs,  and  cofne  after, 
me,  cannot  be  7ny  Difciple.  Therefore  on  the  Whole,  In- 
fants are  not  Chrift's  Difciples  j    they  are  not  capable  of 
fo  much,    as  to  be  entered  in  the  Church,  in  order  to 
Jearn  ;  when  none  but  Proficients  are  to  be  entered  into 
the  Church,  and  when  all  the  Members  in  the  apoflolic 
Churches  were  taught  before  they  were  admitted,  which 
he  has  not  refuted,   by  giving  Inftances  of  the  contrary, 
therefore  my  Obfervation    does  fully  reach  the  Point  in 
Hand.^    Lev.    xxv.  41,  42.  does  not  appear   "  Parallel 
hereto."     He  fhould  have  explained  in    what  Senfe   the 
Children  there  are  called  God's  Servants.    Let  him  {hew 
that  the  Term  [Servants  of  God]  is  always  equipollent 
to  [a  Difciple  of  ChriftJ  before   he  tells  \x^  "  We  may 
call  thofe  Difciples,  who  are  not  taught,"  or  capable  of 
being  taught,  as  their  Infants  are. 

Mr.  F.  in  the  Preface  to  his  Charitable  Plea,  charged 
us  with  arguing  fomething  they  never  faid,  inftead  of 
anfwering  their  Arguments,  and  Infianccs,  in  the  Cafe 
o^f  fcederal  Holinefs.  To  difcover  the  Falfity  of  his 
Charge,  I  fhewed  him  we  do  not  ;  for  the  Dialogue 
afierts  over  and  over,  that  Infants  are  Believers  in  Chrift, 
and  if  fo,  they  are  really  holy,  and  fets  them  on  a  Par 
with  believing  Women,  without  any  Diftin^ion  or  Li- 
mitation: Therefore  I  obferved,  if  Church  members  and 
their  Seed,  are  thus  in  Covenant,  they  {hall  all  ba  faved. 
Now  Mr.  F.  fhould  either  have  reconciled  their  Incon- 
fiflencics,  or  elfe  retraced  his  Charge  againfl  us  in  his 
former  Preface  i    but  inllead  of  that,  he  endeavours  to 

hide 


[      127      ] 

hide  their  own  Confufion  and  jarring  AfTertlons,  by  ac- 
cufing  mc  falfly,  "  That  1  regard  not  the  Scope  of  thi 
Argument  in  the  Diahgue.'*  Having  foJongAccjuain- 
tance  with  our  Author's  Condu6t,  had  I  wrong'd  the 
Dialogue,  1  have  no  Rcafon  to  think,  but  he  would 
foon  make  Noife  enough  about  it  j  my  Judgment,  Grace, 
and  Good  Manners,  would  all  have  been  called  in  Que- 
ftion.  I  have  now  in  Juftice  a  Right  to  demand  he 
fhould  reconcile  thofe  Contradictions  I  mentioned,  yfntt. 
Pages  78,  79.  or  elfe  publickly  acknowledge,  he  has 
charged  us  wrongfully.  In  anfwer  to  what  he  further 
urges.  Page  57.  I  fay  the  Infants  of  Unbelievers  are  as 
capable  of  being  fandified  in  the  Womb,  as  the  Infants 
of  Believers ;  and  one  is  as  capable  of  the  Habits  of 
Faith,  they  fpeak  of,  let  it  be  what  it  will,  as  the  other. 
I  am  at  no  Lofs  at  all,  to  fay  what  Infants  are  Unbe- 
lievers, as  he  fuggefts,  when  Mr.  F.  himfelf  teaches, 
that  none  are  to  be  accounted  the  fpiritual  Seed,  but 
thofe  only  in  whofe  Hearts  the  Word  of  God  has  taken 
EfFe£t.  Now  unlefs  out  Opponents  mean  fome  other 
Word,  befides  the  Gofpel,  and  fome  other  kind  of 
Faith,  befides  that  which  the  Gofpel  preached  does  pro- 
duce;  I  do  not  fcruple  to  fay,  that  all  their  Infants  are 
vifible  Unbelievers,  Children  of  Wrath  by  Nature,  even 
as  others ;  and  none  of  them  fit  SubjeC^o  of  Baptifm, 
But  if  they  do  mean  any  other,  they  fhould  tell  us  what 
kind  of  Faith  it  is  ?  And  how  Infants  come  by  it  ?  And 
by  what  Rule  they  know  them  Infants  from  others  ?  Mr. 
F.  difclaims  *'  Their  baptizing  Infants  on  the  Account  of 
knowing  their  Faith,  and  ajferts,  that  I  argue  againji  what 
they  do  not  fey,  in/iead  of  anfujcring  their  Arguments.^* 
Reply;  Why  then  do  our  Opponents  argue  that  Believers 
Infants  have  a  Right  to  Baptifm,  on  the  Account  of 
their  Faith  ?  As  the  *  Author  of  the  Dialogue  exprefly 
does.  Says  he,  "  If  Infants  have  (tho  but)  the  Princi- 
ples and  Habits  of  Faith,  they  have  a  Right  to  the  Seal  of 
the  Righteoufnefs  of  Faith."  That  Author  pleads  that 
the  Infants  of  believing  Parents,  are  Believers  in  Chriff, 
and.  therefore  have  a  "  righteous  Claim  to  Baptifm."     So 

then, 
*  Divine  Right,  Pages  33,  34.     See  alfo  Pages  25,  26. 


f     i2S     ] 

then,  according  to  Mr.  F.  our  Opponents  do  not  baptize 
Infants,   as  knowing   they   are  Believers   in  Chrift,  an<i 
therefore  have  a  Right  to  Baptifm  ;  but  yet  according  to 
^  the  Dialogue  they  know  they  are  Believers  in  Chrift,  and 
have  a  Right   to  Baptifm,  therefore  they  baptize  them. 
"When  the  Matter   is   thus  Yea  and  Nay   among  them- 
felves,  hovif   fliall  we   know  what   they   fix  on,  as  the 
Foundation  of  their  fcripturelefs   Practice  ?    This  Talk 
of  theirs,   war,  it  rendered  in  Mr.  F's  Language,  would 
properly  be  called,   "  §  Religious  Garbage  and  Nonfenfe.'" 
But  Difficulties  increafing,  and   coming  hard    upon  Mr. 
F.   he  feems  willing  to  quit  the  Author  of  the  Dialogue, 
and  to  leave  him   to  (hift  for  himfelf,  according  to   the 
Proverb,   Evet^y  Man  fcr  kiinfelf;   and  thu>  fays°  "  But 
en  Suppofttion   that  the  Author  of  the    Dialogue  meant  as 
Mr.  M.  fays.,  how  does  it  follow  that    I  am  inconfijlent  in. 
my  Di/iin£iion  of  a  two-fold  being  in  the  Covenant  ^  Muft  I 
needs  be  inconfijlent  with  fnyfelf  becaufe  1  am  fo  with  ano- 
ther Man  f"  An{.  I  think  I  have  already  fufficiently  {hewn 
his  Inconfircency,  when  he  publickly  undertook  to  charge 
U3   with'  arguing  againft  what    they  (Plurally,  not  on- 
ly he  Singularlyj  never  faid ;   but   now    he  cannot  make 
good  his  Charge,  when  the  Dialogue  pleads  that  Infants 
are  Believers  in  Chrift;  if  fo,  they  muft  be  really  holy, 
and  favingly  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 

As  to  the  Inconfiftency  he  would  charge  on  me,  Pages 
57,  58.  I  muft  needs  fay,  I  do  not  underftand  what  he 
would  be  at,  nor  fee  nothing  in  what  he  fays  to  the 
Purpofe. 

,  -^"J^^g^  58-  i^'^r.  F.  enters  upon  his  5th  AfTertion,  which 
is.  That  Baptifm  fucceeds  in  the  Room  of  Circumcifion, 
and  cites  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  with  a  Defign  to  prove  it.  The 
Words  arc,  '*  In  whom  aifo  ye  are  circumcifed  with  the 
Circumcifion  made  without  Hands.,  in  putting  off  the  Bo- 
dy of  the  Sins  of  the  Fh/h^  by  the  Circumcifion  of  Chrifi^ 
buried  with  him  in  Baptifm."  I  obferved,  this  Text  does 
not  prove  what  it  is  brought  for  ;  "  Becaufe  it  is  fnani- 
fefi.,  iheApofile  means  by  [Circumcifion  ot  Chrift]  the 
Renovation  of  the  Soul,  fpiritual  Operation  en  the  Hearty 

iii 
J  Vind.  Page  So. 


/>?  mrtifying  the  Body  of  Sin,  and  implanting  in  the  Soul  A 
Principle  of  divine  Life--faid  therefore  to  be  done  without 
Hands,  in  Oppofition  to  Circurhcifton  in  the  Fle/h,  done  by 
Hands :"  And  not  as  Mr.  *  F.  aflerts,  that  Baptifm  is 
here  called  by  the  Apoftle,  the  Circumcifion  of  Chrift; 
for  if  fo,  then  i.  It  would  follov/,  that  Baptifm  is  ab- 
folutely  necefTary  to  Salvation  ;  for  fo  is  the  Circumcifion 
here  mentioned.  2.  That  Baptifm  takes  away  Sins,  or 
at  leafl,  that  there  is  fome  Virtue  in  it  co-operating  with 
the  Grace  of  the  Spirit,  in  putting  off  the  Body  of  Sin  : 
Hence  we  fee,  the  Apoftle  does  not  intend  Baptifm  by 
the  Circumcifion  of  Chrift.  Why  has  not  Mr.  F.  vin- 
dicated his  Affertion,  and  fhewn,  that  thefe  Obfervations 
are  not  natively  deduced  from  it  ?  But  as  they  are,  what 
greater  Corruption,  in  the  Cafe  of  Baptifm,  has  ever 
been  vented  from  Rome,  than  what  is  included  in  this 
Affertion  of  his? 

Says  he,  "  Syntsephentes,  a  Participle  of  the  firfl  Aorifi 
(rfthe  fecond  Aou^  pajfive)  refers  directly  to   the  fame 
Perfons,  zuho  are  faid  to  be  cir'cumcifed  \  and  fo  the  Words 
will  run  thus.  Being  buried  with  Chriji  in  Baptifm,  ye  are 
therein  circumcifed  with  the  Ciraoncifton  of  Chrijl.--Tbe 
'Apoftle  mentions  Circumcifion  without  Hands,  and  the  Cir- 
cumcifion of  Chrifl  alfo. "     Anf.    What  of  that  ?    Is  the 
Circumcifion  without  Hands,  and  Baptifm,  one  and  the 
fame?    If  fo,  then  it  ftill  follows,  that  Baptifm  takes 
away  Sins,  and  is  abfolutely  neccflary  to  Salvation,  but 
as  thefe.  Confequences  are  Abfurdities  too  great  to  be  al-^.. 
lowed,  it    is  evident  that  Baptifm,  and  the  Circum- 
cifion without  Hands,  is  not  one  and  the  fame  Thing : 
Nor  does  the  Apoftle  here  call  Baptifm  the  Circumcifion 
of  Chrift,    as  Mr.  F.  has  injudicioufly  affirmed.     The 
Conftrudlion  of   the  Words,  according  to  him,  leads  to 
unfufferable  Inconfifteneies,  in  afcribing  that  to  Baptifm, 
or  affirming  that  to  be  done  therein,  which  the  Apoftle 
docs  not.    The  Circumcifion  without  Hands,  which  the 
Colojftan  Believers  were  Partakers  of,  preceded  their  Re- 
ception of  Baptifm,  and  was  neither  done  therein,  nor 
any  Part  of  it ;  f  Mr.  F,  himfelf  does  allow  that  a  Pro- 

I  feiHo^ 

^  Char.  Plea,  Pa|^  61.  ■\  Ibid,  Page  67. 


[     I30     j 

I'eilion  of  Faith  is  neceflarily  required  from  adult  Per- 
fons,  brought  up  in  SuperlHtioa  and  Heathenifm,  as 
thofe  Coloffians  were,  before  they  be  admitted  to  Baptifm  : 
Then  if  thofe  Colojfians  were  Believers  in  Ghrifl:,  and  had 
received  Chrift,  Col.  ii.  6.  and  were, in  him,  Verfe  ii, 
and  made  a  Profeflion  thereof  too,  before,  they  were  bap- 
tized, it  follows  they  were  circumcifed  with  the  Cir- 
cumcifion  without  Hands  beforfe  they  were  baptized  ;  it 
is  therefore  quite  unintelligible  to  tell  them,  they  were 
therein  (t.  e.  in  B:>-ptifm)  circumcifed  with  the  Circum- 
cifion  of  Chrift,  which  they  had  received,  and  made  a 
Profeflion  of  alfo,  before  they  were  baptized  :  Now  fince 
Mr.  F%  Connexion  is  broken,  or  rather  hereby  is  fhewn 
tiierc  is  no  fuch  Connexion  at  all,  as  he  would  infmuatCj. 
it  appears,  the  Apoftle  does  not  affert  the  Coloffians  were 
in  iiStCt  circumcifed,  becaufe  baptized,  as  our  Author 
urges ;  nor  indeed  is  it  evident  from  this  Text,  that  the 
Apoftle  afTerts  the  Identity  of  Circumcifion  and  Eaptifm, 
or  that  the  latter  fucceeds  the  former  in  the  Manner  ont 
Opponents  plead  for,  when  the  judaizing  Teachers  were 
fufficiently  refuted,  without  aflerting  any  fuch  Thing, 
as  I  have  in  my  former  Treatife  unanfwerably  fhewn.- 
Mr.  F.  wil!  have  it,  *'  That  the  Sign  is  here  put  for  the 
Thing  fignifu'd  ;"  I  fee  no  Reafon  to  grant  this ;  but  if  fo,- 
it  wcuid  not  ferve  his  prefent  Purpofe,  becaufe  the  Sign 
was  not  adminiftred  to  any,  but  to  thofe  who  profe/Ved 
thieir  dying  to  Sin,  and  were  capable  of  exercifing 
(fijFaith,  in  rifing  with  Chrift  to  Newnefs  of  Life,  when: 
l)aptized,  Verfe  I2.  which  we  all  know  Infants  are  in- 
capable of ;  and  therefore  what  Agreement  foever  may 
be  fijppofed  by  our  Opponents,  to  be  between  Circum- 
cifion and  Baptifm  in  their  Nature,  Ufe  and  End, 
yet  their  Argument  therefrom  for  the  Adminiftration 
of  the  latter  to  Infants,  is  quite  inconclufive,  when 
the  Apoftle  mentions  none  other  who  were  bap- 
tized, but  thofe  who  were  renewed  by  Grace,  and 
believed  in  Chrift,  by  hearing  the  Gofpel,  Col.  ii. 
21,  12.  i.  23.  And  as  Infants  cannot  believe  in  Chrift, 
by  hearing  the  Gofpel,  there  does  not  appear  any  War- 
rant nor  Example  to  baptize  them,  according  to   the 

Order 


[     13'     1 
Order   of  God   refpeding  this  Ncw-Tefiament  Ordi- 
nance. 

I  obferved,  thofe  legal  Teachers  v/ere  as  clofely  at- 
tached to  other  Alofaic  Ceremonies,  as  th^y  were  (or 
could  bej  to  Circumcifion,  and  (according  to  our 
Opponent's  Talk)  could  not  be  refuted,  unlefs  the  Apo- 
ftle  had  (hewn  there  were  fome  Ordinances  which  an- 
fwered  to  each  of  them, -and  fucceeded  them.  Mr.  F. 
afks,  "  Have  tue  not  Chrlji,  and  New  Tcjlament  Worjln^, 
anjuoertng  to  the  Types^  and  Temple-Services,  zvhich  zvere 
cnly  the  Patterns  of  heavenly  Things  f"  Anf.  That  the 
formerTypes  pre- figured  Chrifr,  and  were  fulfilled  in  him, 
is  granted  ;  but  if  wc  have  Ordinances  now  anfwering 
diftindly  to  each  of  the  jezviJJy  OfFerings,  Sacrifices,  Pu- 
rifications, &c,  and  fuccced  them  in  the  fame  Manner 
as  Baptifm  is  faid  to  anfwfr  and  fucceed  Circumclfion, 
and  to  be  performed  by  Virtue  of,  or  at  leafl,  in  Con- 
formity to^  the  abrogated  Laws,  which  required  th-? 
Obfervance  of  thofe  yeihifn  Ordinances,  without  anj 
Command  for  them  in  Gofpel  Times,  v.'hich  is  the  very- 
Cafe  of  our  Opponents  in  urging  Jnfant-baptifm  from 
the  Pradicc  of  Circumcifionj  Mr.  F.  is  flrongly  obliged 
to  tell  us  what  thofe  Ordinances  are,  and  likewife  fliew 
us  that  the  yezvifh  abrogated  Laws  are  yet  in  Force,  and 
bind  us  to  the  Obfervance  of  any  thing  as  a  Part  of 
New  Tcftament  Worfliip,  which  is  not  inftituted  in 
New  Teftament  Times :  But  as  this  cannot  be  done, 
however  willing  he  is  to  countenance  his  received  arul 
darling  Tenetof  Infant  Baptifm,  he  is  at  a  Lofs  to  prefcribe 
any  other  Refutation  of  thejudaizing  Teachers,  than 
what  I  mentioned ;  viz.  To  (hew  them  that  all  the  yeiv^ 
ijh  Ordinances,  Circumcifion  not  excepted,  were  whol- 
ly abolifhed  fince  the  Antitype  is  exhibited,  and  thereby- 
leading  them  to  Chrift,  and  to  the  Obfervance  of  New 
Teftament  Ordinances,  which  depend  not  on  any  abro- 
gated Laws,  but  on  new  Commands  and  Inftitutions, 
particularly  Baptifm,  which  was  to  be  adminiflred  to 
none  other,  but  to  thofe  who  profefTed  their  Faith  in 
Chrift,  and  to  have  put  oft  the  Body  of  the  Sins  of  th« 
Flefli,   as  this  Place  under  Cgnfiderarion  tciiifies. 

la  I  fur- 


[  132  1 
I  further  argued  againft  his  Notion,  from  ASis  xr* 
and  could  his  Opinion  be  found  any  where,  that  Bap- 
tifm  anfwers  to  Circumcifion,  andfucceedsit  in  the  Man- 
lier he  pleads  for,  this  Place  is  the  moft  likely,  where 
PW and  other  Apoftles,  withtheElders,  Were  conveen'd 
in  Council  on  the  Occafion,  purpofely  to  withftand  and 
refute  the  judaizing  Teachers,  who  earneflly  endeavour- 
ed to  introduce  Circumcifion  into  the  Chriftian  Churches 
among  the  Gentiles^  and  fo  vehemently  urg'd  the  Necef- 
iity  ofit :- Had  there  been  fuch  a  Thing  then  known,  how 
fairvvas  the  Opportunity  to  obferve.  That  Circumcifi- 
on is  indeed  abolifhed  ;  but  we  have  another  Ordinance, 
even  Baptifm,  which  every  Way  ai>fwers  to  Circumci- 
fion, and  fucceeds  it.— Nay,  if  the  judaizing  Teachers 
could  not  be  refuted  without  aflerting  it,  as  our  Oppo- 
nents fuggeft,  there  appears  the  greater  Neceflity  they 
Ihould  embrace  the  Opportunity  fo  to  do ;  but  of  this 
there  is  not  a  Word  mentioned  in  tl>c  Conclufions  fent 
to  the  Churches  perplexed  with  thofe  judaizing  Teach- 
ers. Infant  Baptifm  was  not  then  known,  and  there- 
fore thofe  Inventions,  contrived  fince  to  countenance  it, 
were  then  unknown  alfo.  And  happy  would  it  be  for 
the  Church,  if  this  grufs  Abufe  of  a  Gofpel  Ordinanc* 
had  been  always  unknown.  Mr.  F.  is  fo  much  at  a  Lofs 
to  anfwer  my  Arguments  from  this  Place,  that  he  fpends 
much  Labour  in  cavilling  with  my  ExpreiTions ;  the 
common  Path  of  a  baffled  Adverfary.  He  fays,  I  fpeak 
as  if  I  knew  all  they  faid,  and  all  they  thought  i  that  the 
Point  is  clear  to  me,  whether  it  be  written  or  not, 
wiih  much  more  of  fuch  like  :  Then  fubmits  his 
groundlefs  Cavils  to  the  Judgment  of  his  Readers,  and 
fays,  "  How  firmly  hejiands  to  the  Scriptures,  let  others 
judge."  To  be  fure  very  fi/mly,  when  h«  has  not  given 
his  Readers  the  leaft  Proof  of  my  fwerVing  from  the 
Scriptures  I  But  he  muft  make  a  Sound  to  divert  h\s 
headers,  left  they  ftiould  obferve  I  had  proven  the  Point 
ixom  that  which  is  written,  far  beyond  his  Power  to 
refute.  At  length,  he  fays  thus,  *'  //  is  not  aferted  in 
Ads  XV.  therefore  it  is  abfurd  to  fuppofe  that  it  is  a/ferted 
*n  Qq\,  ii,    A  faiJiQiis  Argument !    Hereby  one  may  prove 


[     133     3 

eny  Thing  j  e.  g,  Jujiijicatioa  by  Faith  is  not  afferted  in 
Gen.  i.  I.  therefore  not  in  Rom.  iv.  See  how  con/iantly 
they  run  into  Abfurdities^  who  Reafon  againji  the  truth.'^ 
Anf.  Not  fo  faft  j  Juftification  by  Faith  is  not  treated 
of  in  Gen.  i.  as  Circumcifion  is  purpofely  and  defign- 
edly  in  AHs  xv.  That  Eaptifm  anfwers  to  Circumcifion, 
and  fucceeds  it  in  the  Manner  they  fay,  is  not  afferted 
in  Col.  ii.  as  Juftification  is  in  Rom.  iv.  The  Cafes  arc 
not  parallel  ;  therefore  without  running  into  any  Abfur- 
<3ities,  I  may  ftill  argue  for  the  Truth  in  my  former 
Words,  from  ASfs  xv.  "  Can  any  Reafon  be  thought  of, 
tuhy  the  Apojiles  and  Elders  made  no  Mention  of  any  fuch 
Things  as  our  Opponents  urge^  neither  in  their  Debates  in 
this  Council^  nor  in  their  Letters  fent  to  the  Churches,  but 
only  this,  that  they  received  no  fuch  DoSfrine  from  Chriji  i 
and  therefore  tranfmitted  no  fuch  Cujiom  to  be  obferved  by 
the  Churches  of  Chriji  P  And  how  any  Man  can  think 
ctherwife,  and  not  reflet  great  Imprudence  and  Unfaithful-  * 
nefs  upon  the  ApojU.es  (if  the  Cafe  he  as  our  Opponents  fay) 
1  cannot  imagine.'^  Mr  F.  has  not  attempted  to  remove 
this  Difficulty  out  of  his  Way,  the'  his  Gaufe  much  re- 
quired it. 

He  pleafes  himfelf  with  the  Fancy  of  my  being  en- 
gaged in  the  Difpute  with  the  judaizing  Teachers.— 
Well,  had  I  been  in  the  Apoflles  Gafe,  I  fhould  have 
argued  jufl  as  they  did,  and  if  Mr.  F.  cannot  make  good 
his  Principles  from  the  Apoflles  Argument,  neither  could 
he  from  mine,  had  I  been  in  their  Gafc. 

Says  he  "  Whatever  Difference  there  is  between  Baptifm 
end  Circumcifion,  they  are  allowed  to  agree  in  this,  that 
both  are  Ordinances  of  Initiation."  Are  they  fo  .?  Then 
?iccording  to  Mr.  /'s  Opinion  of  the  vifible  Church's 
being  the  fame  in  all  Ages,  it  follows,  that  Time  hath 
been,  the  vifible  Church  had  two  initiating  Ordinances 
in  Force  at  the  fame  time  ;  when  fohn  and  Ghrifl  bap- 
tized, fohn  iii.  22,  23.  Circumcifion  was  in  Force, 
"John  vii.  22  23.  and  an  Ordinance  of  Initiation  to 
the  Jewijh  Ghurch,  as  much  as  ever  it  was  ;  and  how 
Baptifm  was  then  aifo  an  initiating  Ordinance  into  the 
fewifh  Church  unto  them,  who  were  vifibly  and 
jiftually  in  the  Jewip  Church  before,  is  left  to  Mr.  F.  tq 

T     »>  iinfnin    • 


[     ^34    ] 

ttnfold  :  However  this  ferves  further  to  fliew  the  Invalidi- 
ty of  our  Opponents  Plea,  that  Baptifm  fucceeds  Cir- 
cumcifion  in  tlie  Manner  they  plead  for,  when  both  wers 
in  Force  at  the  fame  time.  o 

'  _  But  the  Sum  of  the  Whole,  which  Mr.  F.  feems  to 
aim  at,  is  to  introduce  this  Argument  of  his,  namely^ 
'-'Infants  were  circuincifed,  Bapttfm  comes  in  the  Room  of 
Circumcifion  ;  there  fere  Infants  are  to  be  baptised.'"  Thi$ 
Confequence  is  flill  to  be  rejeded,  becaufe  it  is  not  con^ 
firmed  with  "  Thus  faith  the  Lord."  Nor  is  it  a  jufl 
Confequence  from  his  Word  ;  for  as  the  Lord's  Supper 
does  not  come  in  the  Room  of  the  PalTover,  as  d  e- 
PENDING  on  the  fame  Inflitution  ;  fo  neither  does 
Eaptifmcomeia  the  Room  of  Circumcifion  as  depend- 
ing on  the  famelnftitutioH,  but  is  founded  on  the  ex- 
prefs  Command  of  God  in  the  New  Teflament,  which 
is  inftitutive  of  it  j  and  therefore  to  be  adminiflred  to  nd 
ether  Subjeds,  but  according  to  the  Order  of  the  Infli- 
tution :  Tho'  Mr.  F.  without  any  Authority  from 
Chrift,  and  without  due  Regard  had  to  the  different  Dif- 
penlations.  Laws  and  Order  of  God  refpeding  each  of 
thefe  Ordinances,  of  his  own  Head  concludes°  that  W 
fants  are  to  be  baptized.  Says  he,  «'  Baptifn  depends  on 
ihe  fame  Inf'ittitvM^  and  is  to  be  adminiflred  to  the  f ami 
Bubjeds  in  kind.,  that  Circumcifon  was  adminijired  to.'* 
Anf.  Mr.  F.  tells  us,' That  *'  Any  one  can  foftively 
iiffcrt  a  Thing  ;  but  it  is  the  Property  of  a  manly  ^  and  fair 
Difputant,  to  prove  vjhat  he  fays.".  ^Doubtlefs  it  is  fo, 
for  he  has  not  cited  any  Text  to  prove  this  AfTertion  ; 
neither  can  he,  for  it  is  indeed  prooflefs ;  nay,  it  is  fuch 
an  Impofuion  on  common  Senfe,  and  luch  a  bold  con- 
fronting of  div:ne  Truih,  that  Error  itfelf  might  well 
biufh  to  affirm  it.  .  , 

The  Inflitution  of  Circumcifion  W8  find  in  Gen.  xvli. 
which  was  in  Force  during  the  Continuance  of  the  le- 
gal Adminiflraticn,  and  was  abolifhed  with  it.  The  In- 
flitution of  Baptifm  in  y<;/;/2  i.  33.  Mat.  xxviii.  Now 
keing  the  Cafe  is  thus,  Mr.  F.  may  know  the  Reafon 
^h^^  I  take  fo  little  Notice  of  his  Argument  from  their 
funpofed  Agreement    'ii\  feme  Things  ;  for  it  concludes 

not 


[    135    ] 

not,  as  long  as  thefe  two  Ordinances  depend  on  t5^q 
diftinil  Commands,  and  Diredions  given  who  are  the 
proper  Subjects  of  each.  His  arguing  from  an  abrogate^ 
Law,  to  prove  that  any  are  the  Subjeas  of  Baptifm  (which 
docs'  not  depend  in  Whole,  or  in  Part,  on  that  Law)  who 
are  not  mentioned  in  the  Inftitution  of  Baptifm,  does 
not  carry  in  it  the  leaft  Convidion,  nor  any  Shew  of 
Reafon  with  it.  Could  he  fhew  us  one  Gofpel  Precept 
for,  or  Example  of,  fuchkind  of  Baptifm  as  he  pleads 
for,  it  were  fomething  he  fliould  make  fuch  a  Stir  about 
it  J  but  as  he  has  not,  can  he  imagine  we  will  receive 
the  Doarine  he  brings,  which  God  does  no  where  re- 
quire us  to  believe  ? 

I  obferved  from  Mr.  Hutchinfon^  that  were  the  Cafe 
as  they  urge,  yet  the  Countermand  to  circumcife  Infants, 
is  a  confequential  and  virtual  Countermand  to  baptize 
them.  Mr.  F.  fays,  "  I  cofifefs  he  has  other  fort  of  Lo- 
g'lck  than  /,  who  can  fee  this  to  be  an  Argument  ad  Ho- 
minem,  unhfs  he  could  aljo  prove^  that  zfje  owned  Infants 
Church -memberpnp  to  be  aboli/hed  with  Circumcifion  ;  but 
this  we  never  did:*  It  is  obfervable,  he  has  not  refuted 
Mr.  Hutchinjon's  Argument ;  then  if  their  Infants  be  as 
they  plead,  yet  there  is  not  fo  much  as  a  confequential 
Command  to  baptize  them  :  "  For  if  Infant  Baptifm 
was  commanded  in  the  Command  for  Circumcifion  of  Infants  y 
then  by  Analogy  {for  Contrariorum,  Contraria  eft  ratio^ 
Jnfant  Baptifm  mufi  needs  be  abrogated  and  remanded^  in 
the  Abrogation  and  Remanding  of  Circumcifion"  Mr, 
Hutchinfon  further  juftly  obferves,  that  Infants  Church- 
memberflbip  is  repealed,  becaufe  the  fame  Law  that  gave 
Being  to  it,  is  repealed.  The  Sum  of  the  Whole  is,  our 
Opponents  fancy  (without  Scripture  Evidence)  that 
their  Infants  are  Church-members,  and  then  with- 
out any  Command  from  the  Law  or  Gofpel  (as  they 
have  yet  fhewn)  proceed  to  baptize  them  :  Thus  one 
Error  of  theirs  is  produdive  of  many  more.  May  the 
Time  be  haftened,  wherein  they  fhall  be  freed  from  the 
Fetters  of  Tradition,  to  embrace  the  Gofpel  Truthg 
they  now  vehemently  oppofe  and  rejedl. 

Here  I  would  a(k  Mr.  F.  why   he  did  not  juftify  the 

Author  ©f  the  Diilogue,  according  t9  bis  Promife.  Page 

I  4  55' 


t     i3»    ] 

55.  from  the  Abfurdity  I  charged  on  his  Argumpnt* 
1  hat  th6  fame  Medium,  whereby  that  Author  would 
prove  the  Baptifm  of  Infants,  ferves  to  as  good  Purpofb 
to  prove  the  Communion  of  Infants  ^Ifo. 

I  obferved,  among  other  Particulars,  that  Infants  are 
no  ways  capable  of  Baptifm,  as  they  were  of  Circum- 
cihon^j  that  left  a  Sign  in  the  FJefh,  this  does  not.  He 
Jays,  «'  This  Argument  Socinus  ufed  long  ago."— But  ii 
Jt  is  a  good  Argument,  it  may  not  be  rejeaed  becaufe 
Aocwus  ufed  It  :  Had  it  been  otherwife,  probably  Mr,  F 
vrould^have  fomething  better  to  objcd,  than  his  Quefti- 
tion,  "  Jre  Infants  more  capable  to  be  cut  with  a  Knift. 
than  wajhedwith  Water  f"  A  Cut  with  a  Knife,  left  a 
b.gn  in  the  Flefh,  which  is  the  Thing  affirmed  ;  but 
Water  does  not :- -Therefore,  he  that  is  wafhed  in  hi* 
infancy  knows  nothing  of  it,  but  by  Hear- fay,  and  that' 
Js  uncertam,  and  cannot  ia  Faith  in  the  adorable  Tri- 
^'^^  which  is  conftantly  required  in  all  the  Subjefls  of 
this  Ordinance,  at  their  Reception  of  it  :  But  in  the 
former  it  was  not.      ~      '  - 

We  have  now  followed  him  to  the  End  of  the  Argu- 
ments he  propofed  :  Then  he  proceeds  to  make  feveral 
^Attempts,  but  in    vain,  to  anfwer  ours    for  Believers 
liaptifm,   deduced  from  thofe  Places  of  Scripture  which 
defignedly  fpeakof  the  Ordinance,     i.  Says  he,  ''Our 
Opponents  themfehes  mujiown  that  thofe  Scriptures  (name- 
ly Matt.  111.  6.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Mark  xvi.    16.  &c  ) 
they  fo  much  urge,  are  addrefed  only  to  grown  Perfons,  and 
not  to  hfantsr     I  anfwered,  this  we  do  own,  and  there- 
^re  obferved,    that  that  Baptifm  which  does  not  require 
laith  and  Repentance  to  precede  it,  is  not  a  fcriptural 
i^aptifm  ;  and   fuch  is  theirs.     I  further  enquired  what 
IS  It  that  bhnds   their  Eyes,  that  they  fhould  think  In'- 
fant  Baptifm  to  be  right,    when    they  themfelves  can't 
find  any  fuch   kind  of  Baptifm  in   the  whole  Word  of 
God  ?  Again  I  obferved,  That  Mr.  F.  according  to  his 
own  Way  of  Reafoning,  has  no  Authority  from  Chrifl' 
to  baptize  Infants  ;  for  in  the  Commiffion  Teaching   is 
/et  before  Baptizing,  and  this  is  one  of  the  Places  he 
pleads  refers  to  grown  Perfons,  and  not  to  Infants.  Who 

thejn 


[    ^Vl    ] 

^ben  can  forbear  pitying  them,  who  endeavour  to  vinr 
dicate  fuch  a  Caufe,  which  pleads  Scripture  Authority  in 
|ts  Favour,  and  yet  no  Precept  nor  Example  can  be 
whence  produced  to  juftify  it :  My  Obfervations  here 
feem'd  not  at  all  pleafing  to  Mr.  F,  and  fince  he  could 
|iot  refute  them,  he  turns  himfelf  about,  and  fays,  "  Ihat 
1  have  urged  his  Repetition  of  this  ObjeSiioriy  as  a  ConceJJion 
in  our  Favour  J"  Anf.  Had  he  but  that  Meafure  of  Can- 
dour ahd  Judgment,  which  he  is  willing  his  Readers  * 
fhould  believe  he  has,  he  would  not  once  infinuate, 
much  lefs  affirm  this,  fo  contrary  to  Truth,  in  Vindica- 
tion of  his  former  Anfwers  ;  and  then  as  invidiouflyas 
groundlefly  infmaate,  that  in  this  my  prefent  Anfwer,  I 
will  prove  he  hath  yielded  the  Caufe,  from  his  repeating 
my  A/Tertions  in  his  Vindication.  Now  the  Reafon  of 
all  this  is,  becaufe  I  urg'dhis  answer  to  our  Objection 
(which  he  would  have  us  own)  as  a  Conceffion  in  our 
Favour.  Can  any  thing  be  more  unfairly  and  unjuftly 
reprefented,  than  he  does  the  Cafe  here  ?  His  own 
Words  are  quite  apt  on  this  Occafion  ;  *'  It  is  a  fad 
EvidencBy  that  Humour fways  one  more  than  Confcience  or 
Judgment,  when  he  grows  peevif)  becaufe  the  Reafoning  is 
unanfwerable."  And  further,  in  his  own  Words,  fuitably 
improved,  ''  IVe  have  Right  to  demand  —that  he  would  ei- 
ther give  up  his  Caufe,  or  folidly  refute  the  Arguments  offer- 
id  againji  it.— But  if  he  fiill  intends  to  carry  the  Point  by 
Clamour,  perfonal  RefieSiions,  and  magijlerial  JJfertions, 
I  then  befeech  Chrijlians,  both  Prefbyterians  and  others,  by 
oil  that  Love  they  profefs  to  God,  and  to  his  holy  Word^ 
that  they  reje£l  fuch  fcripturelefs,  and  therefore  indefenfi^ 
tie  Principles,  with  Detejiation"  Let  them  fearch  for 
Truth,  and  receive  it  in  the  Love  thereof,  as  it  is  re- 
vealed in  the  Gofpel. 

I  reply 'd  to  the  fecond  Branch  of  his  Anfwer,  that 
thofe  Scriptures  {Mat.  iii.  3-—)  contained  an  Addrefs  to 
the  Pharifees  and  Sadducees,  who  were  then  in  Abraham^ 
Covenant,  and  had  a  Right  to  have  their  Children  cir- 
cumcifed  ;  and  obferved  the  ill  Teridency  of  our  Oppo- 
nents Opinion  :  Mr.  F.  fays,  all  this  is  becaufe  I  do  not 
Knderftand  the  Ufe  of  }iis  Diftin6ijon— of  a  two-fol4 

kcin^ 


[     138    ] 

being  in  the  Covenant.  But  can  it  be  of  any  Ufe  to 
him,  had  I  put  in  the  Word  Vifihle  P  and  fay,  thofe 
grown  wicked  Perforis  were  vifibiy  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  yet  at  the  fame  Time  vifibJy  Unbelievers ; 
for  he  fays  they  were  not  Chriliians^  and  ranks  them 
with  PaganSy  which  he  every  where  fays,  are  out  of  the 
Covenant  of  Grace:  Ho\y  little  does  he  mend  the  Mat- 
ter by  this  Obfervation  f    '   ' 

In  my  Reply  to  the  thircj  Part  of  his  Anfwer,  I  (hew- 
ed what  it  is  to  gather  a  Gofpel  vifible  Church,  and 
who  are  Members  of  it,  even  thofe  who  are  inftru£ted 
by  the  Minjftry  of  the  Word,  and  are  baptized  on  Pro- 
feffion  of  their  Faith,  ^c.  in  Proof  hereof,  I  cited  fe-* 
vera!  Scriptures,  and  gave  divers  Reafons  why  Infants 
cannot  be  Members  in  the  Gofpel  Church  :    Mr.  F.  af- 
ter his  ufual  Manner,  inftead  of  refuting  my  Remarks, 
charges  me   with  begging  the  Queftion  :"  When  I  meet 
with  this   Charge  fo  often, '  I  look   upon  it  only  as  a 
mean  Shift  he  makes  ufe  of,  to  evade  the  Force  of  my 
Arguments,  and  a  Sign  they  are  unanfwerable ;  How- 
ever, fince  I  have  fhewn  the  New-Teftament  Church 
was  made  up  of  profeffing  Believers,  and  none  elfe  that 
we  can  find,  it  becomes  him,    in  Vindication    of  his 
Pradice,  to  fliew  that  there  were  Infants  baptized,  and 
admitted  Members  of  the  apoftolical  Churches,  and  fo 
oblige   himfelf  to  anfwer  my  Remarks  j  or  elfe  let  him 
ceafe  from  making  an  empty  Noife  to  evade  the  Force 
of  our  Arguments ;  for  here,  once  for  all,  I  declare  my 
felf  not  offended  with  keen  argumentative  Reafonings, 
but  with  groundlefs  Charges,  mean  Shifts,  and  clamo- 
rous Outcries,  wherewith  his  Performance  does  beyond 
Meafure   abound  ;    I  expecSl  fomething  more    than  his 
bare  Aflertion,  that  the  Jewl/h  Church  was  every  Way 
parallel  to  the  Defcription  I  have  given  of  the  Chrijiian 
Church,  before  I  {hail  think  it  worth  while  to  confute 
fuch  a  felf  evident  Abfurdity, 

In  reply  to  the  fourth  Part  of  his  Anfwer,  which  was, 
**  That  there  is  a  I^fference  between  the  fir  ft  Inftitution 
tf  an  Ordinance^  and  the  continued  Adminijiration  of  it 
afttrvMrds'*     He  inftances  in   the  Cafe   of  Circum- 

cifion 


L       ^39      1 

cifion---!  obfervcd,    "  That  this  is  not  a  ■parallel  Cafi, 
'for  the  Circumcifton  of  Infants  was  exprefly  commanded  ai 
the    firjl   InjJitution    of  that   Ordinance^    and  agreeable 
thereto^  Abraham   and  all   his  HoiiJJiold  were  circurncifed 
the  f elf 'fame   Day^  according  to  God's  Order :    But  there 
%va%  no  fuch  Things  either    in  the  firjl  Injirtution  of  Bap- 
tifmy  or  in  the  continued  Jdmiyiiji ration  of  it  aftenvards.'* 
He  pretends,    "  He  is  not  looking  for  an  Injlitution   of 
Infant- Baptifm  here  "    and   tells   us,    "  He  has  Jhewn 
that  already."     But  I  am  very   free  to  fay,  he  has  not 
fhewn  it  in  any  Part  of  his  Writings,  which  I  have  feen, 
nor  direded  us  to  any  Place  of   Scripture  where  it  may 
be  found  ;  it  is  therefore  an  unwarrantable  Impofition  oii 
his  Readers,  for  him   to  affirm  it  j    and  an  infufFerablc 
Abufe  of  holy  Scripture,  to  father  his  Opinion  of  Infant- 
baptifm  upon  it,  which  it  does  no  where  own,  nor  in  any 
Place  (hew  a  divine  Inflitution  for  it.     Says  he,  **  JVIH 
it  follow^  that  this  is  a  good  Argument,  viz.  Parents  mujf 
firfl  be  initiated^  therefore   their  Children  are  excluded  ?'* 
Anf.   We  do  not  fay,  that  the  Initiation  of  the  Parents 
is  the  Caufe    of   their  Childrens  Exclufion  :•  --But  we 
fay,  Abraham's  Children  were  circumcifed  by  Virtue  of 
(jod's  Commandj  and  had   there  been  no  Command  for 
it,  they  would  not  have  been  circumcifed,  tho'  Abraham 
tvas  initiated,  unlefs  it  could  be  fuppofed,  that  Abraham 
paid  fo  little  Regard  to  God's  Commands,  that  he  would 
do  what  was  right  in  his  own  Eyes,  whether  he  was 
commanded  or   not.     And  as  there  is  no  Command  of 
God,  for  baptizing  Infants,  they  are  not  to  be  baptized, 
tho'  their  Parents  be,  until  they  grow  up,  and  are  capa- 
ble of  profcifing  their  Faith  alfo  ;    unlefs  we  fhould  a<5t 
without  any  divine  Order,  and  plead  in  our  own  De- 
fence, that  we  have  as  good  Ground,  without  a  Com- 
mand, to  baptize  them,  as  Abraham^  when  commanded, 
had  to  circumcife  them.     But  fince  Circumcifton  and 
Baptifm   do  not  depend  on  the  fame  Command,  as  al- 
ready obferved,    this  Argument  then,  and  not  Mr.  F's, 
concludes  univerfally,  that   in  religious  Worfhip,  Man- 
kind at  all  Times,  and  on  all  Occafions,  are  to  obferve 
and  follow  God's  Order  and  Cotnniands,  and  not  their 


[    140    ] 
own  Appointments ;  for  nothing  pleafes  him,  but  what 
he  hath  commaaded  in  his  Woid.     His  groundlefs  In- 
finuation  at  the  End  of  this  Paragraph,  I  rank  among 
nis  frequent  Shifts  to  help  on  his  Caufe. 

He  proceeds  to  his  Argument,  to  which  he  fays  thefe 
foregoing  Obfervations  were  preparatory  j    and   it  runs 
thus,  Page  64.   "  Now  it  is  a  plain  Way  of  Reajonin^, 
that  which  would  be  the  mojl proper  Addrefs,  even  tho'  In- 
fants were  defigned  to  he  included,     cannot  pojjibly  prove 
ihemto  be  excluded-,  but  to  require  Profejfton  of  Faith  from 
the  Parents  in  order  to  Baptifm,  was  the  moji  proper,   even 
tho   their  Infants  were  defigned  to  be  included,  therefore;' 
&c      in  order  to  (hew  tl>e  Invalidity  of  this  Argument, 
lobferved,  it  does  with  greater  Force  of   Reafon  and 
Scripture  turn    in  our  Favour,  fince  it  cannot  be  made 
appear,  that  another  Kind  of  Addrefs  could  have  been 
more  properly  ufed,  than  that  which  was  ufed  when  In- 
fants were  defigned  to  be  excluded   from  Baptifm,  and 
chiefly  infifted   on  the  CommifTion  :  Hence  I  required 
him  to  fhew,  that  the  Order  of  the  CdmmifTion,  where- 
in Teaching  is  fet  before  Baptizing,  is  to  be  obferved  only 
Xi^ith  regard  to  unchriftianiz'd  Jews^nA  Pagans?  Which 
he  has  not  done.     Pray,  is   there  one  Commiffion  for 
baptizing  the   adult  Jews  and  Pagans,  and  another  for 
baptizing  Infants?    I  urged  him  to  fliew,  what  Ground 
he  has  to  lay  afide  the  Order  of  the  CommifTion,  when 
he  is  concerned  with  adminiflring  Baptifm  to  the  nu- 
merous Offspring  of  Believers  ?  But  I  have  received  no- 
thing like  an  Anfwer :    I  infifled,  that  the  CommifTion 
IS  the  flated  unvariable  Rule  to  Miniflers  in  the  Execu- 
tion of  their  Truft,  throughout  all  Ages  -,  which  he  has 
not  refuted,  and  yet  pretends  his  Argument  is  very  forci- 
ble and  unanfwerable ;  and  charges  me,  after  his  ufual 
Civility  and  Candour,  with  Nonfenfe  and  Contradidion, 
Shifting  and  Sculking :  But  if  I  do  fhift  and  fculk,     it 
jn"''^^?.""'^^''  ^^^  Covert   of   Truth,  which  feems  to 
dilturb  him  pretty  much,  becaufe  he  cannot  readily   get 
at  me ;  by  fhewing  that  the  CommifTion  requires  fome 
to  be  baptized,  before  they  are  firfl  taughf,  or  capable 
pi  being  taught:   Now,    unlefs  he  could  do  this,    his 

Areu- 


[     HI     ] 

Argument  falls  to  Pieces  with  its  own  Weight.  Hovr> 
ever  at  length  he  comes  to  his  ufual  Way  of  Refutation, 
and  charges  me  with  begging  the  Quedion  j  his  Ex- 
preflions  are  thefe,  *'  PFhat  he  fays  en  Mat.  xxviii.  ig. 
wh;re  Teaching  is  fet  before  Baptizing^  is  only  a  begging 
the  ^ejiion  in  Debate:  I  could  argue  for  Infant- baptifm 
from  the  fame  Text^  but  he  has  not  anfwered  zvhat  is  offer  ^ 
edfrom  ity  in  the  Dialogue.,  which  he  pretends  to  refute** 
To  this  I  reply,  when  Mr.  F.  charges  me  here  with 
begging  the  Queftion,  he  is  certainly  obliged  to  make 
appear  that  the  Commiffion  requires  fome  to  be  baptized 
who  are  not  iirft  taught  the  Dodrines  of  the  Gofpel, 
ilor  capable  of  being  taught,  which  he  has  not  yet  done, 
or  elfe  my  Adherence  to  the  Order  of  the  Commiffion 
refpecling  all  the  Subjedls  of  Baptifm,  cannot  in  Juftice 
be  called  a  begging  the  Queftion.  He  tells  us  indeed  he 
can  argue  for  infant- baptifm  from  this  Text  :  Very  like 
he  can,  for  he  does  not  feem  fo  much  at  a  Lofs  to  raife 
Arguments,  as  he  is  to  find  a  good  one  ;  all  that  I  have 
yet  feen  of  them  in  favour  of  his  Pradice,  prove  either 
too  much  or  too  little,  and  fo  nothing  to  his  Purpofe : 
But  he  ought  to  remember  *  he  would  have  us  own,  that 
Mat,  xxviii.  19,  20.  refers  to  grown  Perfons,  and  not 
to  Infants ;  it  is  therefore  not  very  probable,  he  can  ar- 
gue from  the  Commiffion  in  favour  of  his  Pradice,  con- 
fiftent  with  what  he  has  urged  before  ;  however  when  he 
does,  we  (hall  fee  whether  his  Arguments  will  be  an/ 
better  than  the  fenfelefs  Affertions  in  the  f  Dialogue, 
that  the  Word  Matheteufate  does  not  fignify  to  teach.— 
"  This  Commijfton  Jhould  be  underjfood,  as  requiring  the 
Minijlers  of  the  Gofpel  to  make  all  Nations  Difciples,  by 
baptizing  thefn'*  But  how  any  One  can  be  a  Difciple  of 
Chrift,  who  is  not  capable  of  being  inflruded  by  the 
Doarines  of  Chrift  3  or,  that  Baptifm  is  the  Mean 
Ivhereby  all  Nations,  whether  unbelieving  Jews  or  Pa- 
gans,  without  previous  Inftru£lions,  are  to  be  made  the 
Difciples  of  Chrift,  neither  the  Author  of  the  Dialogue, 
nor  Mr.  F.  hath  as  yet  made  appear.  Indeed  if  the  Cafe 

*  Charit.  Plea,  Page  64,  &c; 
t  Divine  Right,  Pages  29,  jo. 


,     L     142    J 

lic  thus,  there  is  no  Need  to  teach  or  difciple  any  uy 
the  Miniftry  of  the  Gofpel,  before  Baptifni  at  all  >  nay, 
it  were  wrong  to  do  it ;    cur  Opponents   may  go  forth- 
with, and  baptize  all  the  Pagans  they  can  find  :    If  they 
lay  there  is,  I  afk,   Why  fo  ?   When  that  Author  affirms, 
the  Word  Mathetetifate ,  does  not  fignify  to  teach  ;  and 
that  the  Commiffion  requires  all  Nations  to  be  difcipled 
by  Baptifm.     But  if  the   Canimiffion  requires  fome  to 
be   taught   previous  to.Baptifm,    as  Mr.  F.   at  Times 
fcems  to  grant,  why  not  ail  ?    Is  there  any  fuch  Diffe- 
rence in  the  Words  of  the  Commiffion  ?  Is  it   a  mere 
leaden  Rule,  and  a  moveable  Dial,  that  may  be  bent  and 
turn'd  which  Way  they  pleafe  ?     Does  the  Commiffion 
fay.  Teach   the  Pleathens  before  they  are  baptized,  but, 
baptize  Infants  before  they  are  taught?  There  is  no  fuch 
Difference  therein,'  ,•  But  as  it  prefcribss  teaching  before 
baptizing,  or  to  difciple  by   teaching;    the   Argurnent 
therefore  corxludes  fully,  5?,1I  that  the  Commiffion  re- 
quires to  be  baptized/  it  requires  them  to  be  firll  taught, 
Mark  xvi.  15,  16.  Seeing  it  is  the  ftated  invariable  Rule 
given  by  Chrift   to  his  MInifters,    in  the  Execution  of 
their  Office  throughout  all  Ages  5  which  Mr.  F.  has  not 
deny'd,  and    yet   pretends,  to  be  adminiflring  Baptifni, 
contrary   to    the  Order  of  this   flated  unvariable  Rule. 
He  is  therefore  obliged  to  (hew  his  divine  Authority  iot 
laying  afide  the  Order  of  this  Cpmmiffion  in  the  Cafe 
of  Infant- baptifm  ;  or  eife  produce  another  from  Chrifl 
for  his  Pradice :     But  if  he   does  neither^'   I  Ihall  fiill 
affirm,  the  Commiffion  is  fitted   for  every  Age  of  the 
Church,  to  the  End  of  Time,   and    the  Order  therein 
defigned  by  our  Lord  to  be  obfcrved   in  Refjpeft'   of  Be- 
lievers Offi;pring,  as  much  as  in  gathering  Churches  froni! 
amongftunchriitianiz'd  Jews  zw^Fagans;  and  further,  un-- 
lefs  he  does  one  of  thefe,  I  fliall  not  fcruple  always  to  calf 
this  aforefaid  Argument  of  his,  a  mere  Jingle  of  Words;, 
nor  fhall  have  any  Reafon  to  alter  my  prefent  Sentiment,' 
that  he  has  no  Authority  from  God  to  baptize  Believer* 
Infants ;  and  for  him  to  abufea  Gofpel  Ordinance,  is  a 
Crime    not  to   be    winked   at;  efpecially   when  there- 
by he  ufech   the   facred  Name  of  the   glorious  Trini- 
ty, 


t    143    ] 

ty,  in  a  Way  not  appointed  in  the  Word  of  God,  which 
can  be  nothing  ftiort  of  taking  his  holy  Name  in  vain. 

In  Page  65.  he  charges  my  Argument  to  be  fallaci- 
ous ;  bt:t  llnce  he  has  already  urged,  that  thofe  Places 
of  Scripture  which  require  a  Profeffion  of  Repentance 
and  Faith,  are  addrefs'd  to  grown  Perfons,  and  not  to 
Infai^s  ;  and  feeing  he  has  not  given  us  any  Inflances  of 
Perfons  baptized  without  thefe  Qualifications,  or  flievvn 
from  Scripture  that  any  fhould  ;  he  cannot  juftly  fay  my 
Argument  is  but  the  old  Fallacy,  a  dl&o  fecundum  quid, 
ad  diJium  fimpliciter  ;  nor  cite  Scripture  with  that 
Defign.  It  is  not  faid  in  2  Thef.  iii.  10.  he  that  cannot, 
but  if  any  ivould  not  wori^  neither  JJ)ould  he  eat,  which 
is  nothing  to  his  Purpofe,  Rom.  x,  9.  hath  been  conii* 
dered  already,  and  turned  againft  him.  '    " 

Mr.  F.  imagines,  *'  He  can  preach  all  the  fame  Doc- 
trines the  Apoftlei  preached^  when  gathering  Churches^  per- 
fectly confifimt  with  his  Principle  of  Infant  Baptijm  ;"  i.  e. 

*  were   he  to   preach   among   the   Pagans But    the 

Queftion  is,  can  he  preach  all  the  fame  Dodrines  the  A- 
portles  did,  perfedlly  confiftent  with  his  Principle  of  In- 
fant Baptifm  among  the  Offspring  of  Churches  gather- 
ed ?  Can  he  fay  to  the  Offspring  of  his  Church-mem- 
bers, Repent,  and  be  baptized  ?  &c.  If  not,  i  defire  to 
know,  had  the  Apoftles  two  Sorts  of  Do£lrine,  and  two 
different  Commii^ions,  refpedting  the  Subjects  of  Bap- 
Jifm  ?  One  to  fuit  the  gathering  of  Churches,  and  tba 
other  to  fuit  the  Infant  Offspring  of  Churches  gathered  : 
The  one  for  baptizing  converted  Gentiles  on  Profeffion 
6f  Faith,  the  other  for  baptizing  Infants  without  any 
J)revious  Qualification  ?  For  my  Part,  I  know  of  no 
?uch  Diverlity  of  Dodlrinesand  CommilBons  once  men- 
tioned in  holy  Scripture.  'Tis  beyond  Doubt,  there  is 
t\o  Confiftency  between  his  Principle  and  the  Do6lrine 
of  the  Apoftles :  Their  Doilrine  conftantly  requires 
Previous  Qualifications  in  all  the  Subjefis  of  Baptifm. 
His  Principle  requires  many  to  be  baptized  without  thofe 
Qualifications.  Hence  it  is  very  plain,  that  the  apofto- 
.hcal  Baptifm,  and  the  Pre/bytsrian  Baptifm,  do  effentialiy 

differ 

*  Charit.  Plea,  Page  69, 


[     144    ] 

fl.ffer.     Now  fince  his  Employ  (as  to  the  Adminiftrati- 
en  of  the  Ordinance)  is  chiefly  among   the  Offspring  of 
ProfefTors,  he  is  obhged  to  produce  this  unknown  Com- 
m./Tion  for  his  Pradice  j  or  no  longer  put  us  ofF  with 
this  mean  Shift  of  his,  -  7hat  were  hi  to  preach  among  the 
pagans,  he  does  not  fee  how  he  could  amid  [peaking  to  them 
in  the  Strain  of  the  above  quoted  Scriptures  j"    as  if  the 
fame  Dodrine  and  Com miffion  were  calculated   and  fit- 
ted only   for  the  gathering  ofChurches  from  among  the 
pagans  ;  but  muft  be  inverted,   and    differently  under- 
Itood,  to  anfwer  the  Circumftanccs  of  Believers  Offspring 
r>u  '  n     '^/^'''^ently  appears,  the  fame  were  defigned  by 
Chrift  to  fland   invariably  in  Force   in  all  Ages,  and  on 
aJl  Lonfiderations  ;  and  thofe  Principles  which  lead  to  a 
^radtice  inconfiflent  with  the  Order  of  his  CommifTion 
do  certainly  deviate  from  the  Gofpel  of  Chrif!.     Such 
kind  of  Resfoning  which  Mr.   F.  ufes  here,  does  not  de- 
ferve  the  leaft  Remark  by  way  of  Refutation  ;  I  fliould 
therefore  have  pafTed  it  by  with  the  fame  Difregard  as  be- 
fore, had  he   not  triumphed  in  it   as  an    unanfwerable 
Argument. 

^  It    is  fcarcely    worth   while  I  fhould  flay  to  deaf 
"  the  Honour  of  my  UnderJJanding,"  from  the  trifling  A f- 
perfion  Mr.  F.  endeavours  to  cafl  upon    it  in   the  next 
Paragraph,  "  Ihat  it  cannot  dijiinguijl)  between  an  Objc£tioh 
and  a  Medium,  to  prove  an  Argument  :"  What  I  called  an 
Objeaion,  was  in  Imitation  of  Mr.   F.  who  very  like 
can  readily  diftinguifh    the  one  from  the  other.     But  had 
It  Anted  him,  he  might  find  fomething  in  this  fame  Pa- 
ragraph which  more  particularly  called  for  his  Attention 
than  what  he  noticed,  which  is  as  follows  ;  "  //  may  bi 
ebferyed,  that  it  is  not  unfafe  nor  dijhonourable  to    imitate 
Chrijl,  the  great  Captain  of  our  Salvation,  viz.   That  one 
come  to  years  of  Vnderflandingjhould  be  the  SubjeSi  of  this 
facred  Ordinance,  which  accords  very  well  with  his  Ex- 
ample,  and  is  petfeiJly  agreeable  to  his  revealed  Mind  and 
^^ili:'     I  can't  make  any  thing  of  his  infinuating  it  to 
be  a  Maxim  of  mine,    *'  Throw   a  great  deal  of  Dirt 
endfo7ne  of  it  will  flick  ,"  but  that  be  is  a  doing  by  this! 
the  }fery  Thing  he  would  expgfe. 

I  biv? 


.     f  145  1 

.  I  have  followed  him  again  to  the  End,  of  the/e  Argu- 
ments, which  he  pretends  to  deduce  from  Scripture,  in 
Oppofition  to  ours,  to  favour  his  Practice,  and  think  I 
may  venture  \ery  freely  to  fay,  they  do  not  conclude  for 
him  :  Nor  has  he  in  the  whole  Gourfe  of  this  Debate, 
produced  any  Inftitution  of  Infant-baptifm  ;  therefore  it 
is  but  juft  whgre  it  was;  a  Principle  not  fhewn  to  be 
founded  on  divine  Authority,  and,  as  fuch,  not  worthy 
of  any  Regard. 

He  next  proceeds  to  Antiquity,  and  profefles  himfelf 
to  be  very  ignorant  of  the  Reafon  why  I  remark'd,  that 
\yhilrf  our  Opponents  endeavour  to  (hun  one  Extream, 
they  fall  into  another  :  But  it  requires  no  profound  Pe- 
netration to  obferve,  that  whilft,  on  the  one  Hand,  they 
would  avoid  building  Matters  of  Faith  on  the  Tefii- 
mony  of  the  Fathers,  they  run,  on  the  other,  to  father 
their  Opinions  on  the  Scripture,  which  it  does  not 
own. .  •    ''y.-  ,...•   '    ,,   .  .        _  .    .,. 

-  Our  Author  fays,  "  His  Vnhappinefs  in   dealing  xmth 
me^    isy    that   he   cannot    have   all  his  Arguments  every 
ivhere."     This  1  dilTent  from,  and  think  his  Unhappi- 
iiefs  is,  that  he  cannot   have  bis  Arguments  pertinent  to 
the   Matter    in   difpute   any  .where.     Says  he.  Page  66. 
*f   If  the   Church  immediately  after  the  ApojUes  baptized 
InfantSy  I  think.it  amounts  to  Proofs  that  they  learned  it 
from  the.  Apofiles.  ,,A  general  Defeliion  never   came   ia 
piifs  at  once."  .  Anf.  Suppofe   the  Church  immediately 
after  the  Apofcles   had  done  fo,  yet  it  would    be  but  a 
very  flender  Proof,  that  the  Dodrine  of  Infant  baptifm. 
was  learjned    from    theApoftles;    efpecially  confidering 
what  Mr.  F.  himfelf  affirms.  Find.    Page  ico,  which  ia 
very  argumentative,    and    full    to  the  prefent  Purpofe^ 
viz.   *'  That  there  were  many  Abominations  in  the  primi^ 
tive  Church,     notwithjldinding    their  Opportunity  to   knozu 
the   ApclUes  Do5irine  and  Praaice."*      This    Charader 
which  he  gives  of  the  primitive  Church,  befpeaks,  that 
in  many  Cafes,  the  Dodrine  and  Practice  of  the  Apo- 
itles   were  not  enquired  after,  or  if  tney  were  known, 
yet  they  were  not  received  and  pradifed  :    Now  if  this 
Account  b?  true,  it  follows,  the  Pradice  of  the  primi- 

K  tive 


L  i4f>  J 
tive  Church  is  not  to  be  depended  on  In  any  Vartlciiht 
as  apoflolical,  unlefs  that  Particular  be  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  which  Infant- baptifm  we  find  is  not;  we  are 
therefore  laid  under  a  Neceflity  of  ranking  Infant- bap- 
tifm fon  the  Suppofition  they  held  itj  among  other  Abo- 
minations of  thofe  early  Times,  according  to  our  Au- 
thor's own  Way  of  Talking,  nothwithftanding  the  Op- 
portunity they  had  to  know  the  Apoftles  Do^rine  and 
fraftice  of  Believers  Baptifm.  But  pafTing  this  Suppo- 
fition, it  is  obfervable,  from  the  ConcefTions  of  the  Pa- 
dobaptijis  thtmfelves,  that  there  are  no  Footfteps  of  In- 
fant-baptifm  to  be  found  in  the  two  firft  Centuries  after 
Chrifl ;  this  Mr..  *  Baxter  himfelf,  who  was,  in  his  Day, 
t  warm  Defender  of  Infant -baptifm,  it  feems,  could  not 
gainfay.  ,  Inflead  of  many  more  Searches  into  Antiquity 
that  might  be  mentioned,  I  fhall  cite  the  Words  of  Cur- 
eellaus^  a  French  Proteftant  Divine ;  Says  he,  f  "  The 
Baptifm  of  Infants  was  hot  known  in  the  World  the  tW9 
firjl  Ages  after  Chriji  j  in  the  third  and  fourth^  it  wat 
approved  by  a  ftw\  at  length  in  the  fifth ^  and  following 
Jiges^  it  began  to  obtain  in  divers  Places  \  and  therefore 
tue  obferve  this  Rite  indeed  as  an  ancient  Cujiom,  hut  not 
as  an  apoflflical  Tradition.^'  And  further,  as  this  learned 
Author  quotes  him,  *'  That  the  Cuflom  of  baptizing  In- 
fants did  not "  begin  before  the  third  Age  after  ChriJl^  and 
that  there  appears  not  the  lea  ft  Footjlef  of  it  in  the  two 
firfl  Centuries."  But  Mr.  F.  makes  ufe  of  a  rare  In,- 
vcntion  to  obviate  the  Force  of  this  Argument,  which 
is.  That  the  Silence  of  the  firft  Centuries,  is  a  Proof 
that  Tnfant-baptifm  was  not  then  fo  much  as  queftioned, 
but  taken  for  granted.  But  how  does  he  know  it  was 
then  in  Being,  when  there  is  no  Mention  made  of  it  in 
Scripture,  nor  in  the  Hiftory  of  the  Church  of  the 
firft  Centuries.^  This  is  a  fingular  Kind  of  Proof  indeed! 
By  this  fame  Rule  he  may  prove  any  fuperftitious  Practice 
in  after  Ages  to  be  apoftolical ;  for  inftance.  Infants 
Communion  ;  for  if  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  firft  Cen- 
turies, it  follows,  according  to  him,  it  was  then  in  Be- 
ing 

*  Anti.  Page  loo. 

f  Se^  Mr.  Stennet's  Anfwer  to  RulTen,  Page  Sy. 


■  [     147    ] 
ing,  and  not  fo  much  as  queftioned  :  Is  this  the  Rcafoa 
why   he  does  fo  often,  in   the   Courfe  of   our  Debate, 
charge  me  with  begging  the  Queftion  ?  He  well  knows 
that  I  deny  there  were  any  Infants  baptized  in  the  Apo- 
ftles  Days,  or  for  a  confiderable  Time  afterwards :  He 
ought  therefore,  in  favour  of  his  Pradice^  to  have  fhewn 
there  were ;    or  elfe   this    kind  of  Talk   of  his  will  be 
judged   to   be,  as  indeed  it  is,  a  begging  the  Queftion  ; 
and  will  belook'd  on  by  judicious,  impartial  Readers,  a 
very  plain  Evidence,  -that  his  Principles  are  indefenfible. 
Says  he,    '■^  A  general   DefeSfion,  never  came   to  pafs   at 
ence.''*     I  do  not  know  that  I  have  any  where  faid,  that 
a  Defe6t ion  from  the  apoftolical  Baptifm  did  generally 
obtain  at  once ;  but  fuppofe  it  had,  we  know  from  Scrip- 
ture, that  a  very  general  Defeilion  from  the  Truth  hath 
happened  in  lefs  than  Two  or  Three  Hundred  Years » 
witnefs  the  Cafe  of  Jlraelyfudg.n.   lo-- 13.    The  fi- 
ling Generation  after  '/o/?;?^^,  and  the   Elders  of  Ifrael„ 
iorfook  the  Lord,  and  ferved  Baal  and  AflHaroth.    This 
is  a  fad  Inftance  of  a  very  general  and  fudden  Defection* 
Yea,  more,,  we  have  another  Inftance  of  a  general  De- 
feftion  in  much  (horter  TimC;,  and  more  furprizing  than 
the  former,   which  came  to  pafs  in  the  Congregation  of 
JfraeU  within  the  Compafs  of  Forty  Days ;  where  event 
Aaron  himfelf,  that  holy  Man,  was  perfonally  prefent, 
and  active  therein  alfo,  Exod.  xxiv.  18.  xxxii.  2-— 5.— - 
And  what  are,  Forty  Days,  in  Comparifon  of  Hundreds 
<bf  Years  ?  Now.  if  fo  general  n  DefetSlion  overfpread  the 
Church,  of  IfrasU  who  had  the  Promife  of  God  to   be 
with  them,'  Gen,  xlvi.  3,  4.  is  it  impoflible  or  unlikely, 
that    in  the  Space  of  Two  or   Three  Hundred  Years, 
Menfliould  deviate  from  the  original  Inftitution  of  Bap- 
tifm,  or  that  the  Innovation  of  Infant  baptifm   fhould 
creep  into  the   Church  ?    Not  at  all.     Again,  I   might 
inftance    another    Defe£lion    which     happened    in    the 
Churches   of  Galatia,    even  in  PauVs  Time;  that  he 
marvels  they  were  fo  foon  removed   from  him,  that  cal- 
led them  into  the  Grace  of  Chrift,  unto  another  Go- 
fpel :  Therefore  the  Promife  of  Chrift,  that  he  will  be 
"W'ith  his  Peopk  always,    cannot  be  uoderftood,  as  in- 
K  2  sending 


[  143  ] 
lending  the  Security  of  Profeffors  from  every  Defe(SioTi  ; 
for  iffo,  then  the  Galatian  Churches  would  not  have  fal- 
len }  much  lefs  does  this  Promife  ferve  our  Opponents  to 
prove  that  Infant  Baptifm  is  an  Ordinance  of  Chrift  ; 
or  elfe  he  muft  be  impeached  by  them  of  Unfaithfulnefs, 
in  not  being  as  good  as  his  Promife  :.  But  dare  any  one 
fay,  that  his  Prefence  is  promifed  to  his  Minilters  or  Peo- 
ple, any  further  than  they  adt  according  to  his  Com- 
mand j*  Now  fmce  Infant  Baptifm  is  not  yet  (hewn  to  be 
commanded  hy  him,  he  fulfils  his  Promife  without  pro- 
ving it  to  be  right.  Thd  Manner  of  arguing  from  this 
Promife,  Mat.  xxviii.  2o.  which  our  Opponents  make 
ufeof,  to  prove  Infant  Baptifm,  is  the  fame  that  f  Papijis 
ufe,  in  favour  of  their  Church,  to  be  the  only  true,  in- 
fallible, and  apoftolical  Church, 

,  ^  And  as  we  have  fo  many  Jnftances  of  fudden  and  ge- 
neral Defections  from  the  Truth,  it  appears  there  is  no 
Weight  at  all  in  Mr.  jPs  Argument :  For  in  the  Space 
of  Hundreds  of  Years,  a  very  great  Defedion  from  the 
Apoftolical  Pra<Slice,  in  adminiiiring  Baptifm,  might  ob- 
tain, unlefs  Mr.  F.  will  fhew  the  Church  was  vefted 
with  Infallibility.  "  Thi  Faithful  and  fVife,"  (as  he 
words  it)  are  not  to  be  imitated  in  that,  wherein  it  is 
manifeft  thev  don't  follow  Chrift:  King  Joftah  was  far 
from  following  Solomon,  tho*  ever  fo  wife,  when  he  de- 
filed the  high  Places  that  were  before  yerufaUm^  which 
Solomon  had  built,  2  Kings  xxrii.  13.  Nor  is  the  Con- 
fcnt  of  a  Number  of  liiem,  a  good  prefumptive  Proof, 
that  our  Opponents  underftand  the  Sciiptuies  aright  in 
the  Cafe  before  us,  when  it  does  not  appear  from  facred 
Truth  that  they  muft  be  fo  underftood.  or  that  the  a- 
poftoiical  Churches  pra6)-ifed  Infaiit  Baptifm. 

In  Page  71.  he  thin  ics,  we  "  are  jorely  ftr  aliened  for 
Argument^  when  wefuppofe  the  whole  Church  to  he  ajleep 
for  Hundreds  of  Tears  "  What  we  fay,  is  plain  enough,  ac- 
cordiiig  to  rhe  Scripture,  That  Errors  are  generally  intro- 
duced mto  tJje  Church  privily  under  a  Cloak  of  feign- 
ed Words  :  The  Enemv  takes  the  Advantage  to  fow 
his  Tares,  while  Men  fleep,  2  Pet.   ii.   i,  2,  3.   Mat. 

xiii, 

t  Vt.  WbUii  Reply  to  Fifitrt  Page  94,  &c. 


C    149   1 

xiii.  25.  Will  Mr.  F.  have  it,  That  the  primitive 
Church  embraced  ''^  many  /Abominations  "  by  Day  lightp 
with  their  Eyes  open  ?  1  his  would  be  a  ftrange  Turn  ot 
Thought  indeed,  to  imagine  they  received  Errors  when 
they  knew  them  to  be  fo  !  I  judge  our  Way  of  account- 
ing for  the  Introdudion  of  Errors,  is  the  moft  agree- 
able to  Truth  ;  tho'  he  is  willing  to  contradift,  where 
there  does  not  feem  the  leaft  Room  for  it.  And  when 
Errors  are  once  brought  in,  it  is  not  eafy  to  get  thenu 
out,  tho'  many  in  the  Church  fhouldbe  ever  fo  mucha- 
"wake  ;  for  if  nothing  elfe  can  jbe  pleaocd  in  their  De- 
fence, Antiquity,  and  the  Cuftom  of  the  Faithful  and 
Wife  in  preceding  Ages,  will  at  length  ht  brought  in 
their  Favour. 

Says  he,  Page  66-  "  In  fame  Cafes  the  Cujlom  of  the 
Church  will  afford  an  Argument^  I  Cor  xi.  16."  Will 
it  fo  ?  But  there  are  two  Queftions  which  do  hence  na- 
turally arife,  i.  What  Church  ?  And,  2.  In  what 
Cafes?  which  call  on  Mr  F.  for  Solution.  If  even  the 
Cuftom  of  the  primitive  Church  (wherein,  as  he  fays, 
there  were  many  Abominations)  affords  an  Argument 
to  warrant  the  Reception  of  any  Article  or  Pradlice  in 
Religion,  which  is  not  taught  in  Scripture;  then,  O 
brave  Papijis  I  they  are  certainly  in  the  right,  to  cry 
up  the  Cuftom  of  the  Church,  and  urge  the  necefTary 
Qbfervation  of  their  unwritten  Traditions;  and  it  a.ull 
be  Self- willed nefs  or  Obftinacy  in  Mr.  F.  to  withftand 
them,  if  the  Cafe  be  thus:  If  not,  then  the  Cuftom. 
of  Infant  Baptifm  muft  be  rejeded  alfo,  on  the  fame 
Ground  whereon' other  unfcriptu^al  Cuftomsare  rejedted. 

He  refers  us  to  Epiji.  ad  Ro?n.  and  the  14th  Homi- 
ly on  Luke,  for  Proof  of  his  Aftertion,  thzt  Ireneus  fays, 
'*  The  Church  learned  from  the  Apodles  te  baptize  Chil* 
dren.'*'  But  this  does  notanfwer  what  was  demanded  ;  the 
Queftion  yet  remains,  are  thefe  Pieces  reputed  genuine  I 
He  has  not  (hewn  they  are  ;  nor  removed  thofe  juft 
Grounds  which  give  Room  to  conclude,  that  Ireneus  \% 
abufed  ;  for  had  there  been  fuch  PafTages,  Mr.  WaU 
would  not  have  neglefled  them,  "  in  his  ColleSiion  of. 
A.Lhfuch  Parages  in  the  Writers  of  the  four  firji  Cen- 
K  3  turi^Ss 


[     15^     ] 
turies,  as  do  make  for  Infant  Baptlfm:*  which  would   hav« 
•been  much  more  to  his  Purpofe  than  any  Thing  he    ha? 
c.ted  from  Ireneu^,     But   fince  he  has,  if  ther?  be  any 

Wn?t     .S  ^"^'"  \^V-^d,  let   Mr.  iT.  produce  fuch 
l:^ht±'''''l  !     ^^  ""'.  °^  ^ny  .Writers  that 


im-.!^^  ft/r     .•         r    I  '  ■'^  •  '•"'■c's  tnat  ever 

make  Mention  of  them  or  have  ever  cited  any  Paffa^e 
froni  them,  but  himfelf ;  and  not  give  us  what  is  found 
in  Ongen,  ^a  Jater  Writer,  Com.  on  Rom.  Ghap. 
Fnl  ?;  ^'  F  u  '7?-  ?"^  ^"  the  14th  Homily  on  Luke, 
¥o\  100.  for  Proof  of  ^his  abovefaid  AfTertion,  inftead 
or  Ireneus,ij>\i'iy- -.i  ■  -  .•! ;    ,• 

That  Citation  out  of*  /ri«mr  which  ?Jr.>.  fays  is 
plain  to  his  Purpofe,  appears  nothing  fo  ;  not  only  be- 
came the  Part  oi  the  Chapter  whence  it  is  taken,  h 
judged  t  fpunous  ;  but  becaufe  it  is  only  a  Suppofition 
that  Baptum  is  meant  by  Regeneration  in  the  PJace  re- 
Jerred  to,^wh.chis  far  from  being  an  Evidence  that  In- 
fants were  then,  bapdzed.u  But  in  order,  to  make  this 
S^uppofition  pafs  with  better  Face,  he  fays,  ''  The  tri, 
mttve  Fathers  by  Regeneration  ufually  mean  Baptlfmr 
Dr.  G^/.obferves  on  the  hkeOccafion,  ♦'  'Tis,  I  think, 
one  of  the  mojl  groundlefs  Ajfertiom  lever  met  wi;h  j  for\ 
on  the  contrary,  ^  mihhg^^  is  more  common  than  to  take  this 
fHrd  (regenerate)  -in  a  quite  different  Senfe,  and  I  don't 
believe  It  ts  ever  fa  much  as  once  ufed  in  the  antieniejl  Ttmes 
JorBapfm,  at  leaji  not  till  their  Zeal  for  Infant  Bap. 
trr'^,''^  /;,,,  a.at  Abfrdity,  which  was  not  near 
thu  Time  of  St.  Ireneus."  ~  .,  %    »•   . 

Jtl^fTT  '^  ^^''   Citations,  he  fays,  "  Bylraditi- 
ontheAnUents  meant  the   Word  of  God  itfef -/fa  the  A- 
tojtle  calls  It.   2  Thef  ii     tc  "      R..^  ..,\.     j       l 
hv  ir  ?    Tc  .1.  I.  ^-        ^"t  what  does  he  mean 

by  It  ?    Is  there  a  Part  ef  the  Word  of  God  unwrit- 
ten    concerning  any  Article  of  Faith,  or  Point  of  O- 

Sl  "to  'r'r.'^"'^  '^  ^^""'^  ''  ^^-^'^  ^--  the  A. 
poftcstothe   Church    to  be  obferved  in  after    Ages? 

Will  he,  ,n  Favour  of  Infant  Baptifm,  gratify  the  pL/ls 

[^e'ef;  "rf  ^'"^  ^"^'1'"^  ^'"'^    thisVext',  as  t^^f; 
t^^ere  is  ?     If  not,  to  what  Purpofe  does  he  tell  us  how 

*  Lib.  2.  Chap  39.  a-  D,.  Ga/e.Ut.   12.  ^  ^ 


[     '5'    ] 

the  Antients  called  itj  if  they  meant  no  other  by  Tra- 
dition than  the  written  Word,  when  the  Point  in  Con- 
troverfy  cannot  be  found  m  the  apoftoHcal  Writings,  nor 
any  where  elfe  in  the  written  Word  of  God  ?  Muft  h? 
be  told  again,  Jhat  we  pay  little  Regard  to  any  Praaice 
handed  down  ^under  the  fpecious  Title  of  Tradition  A- 
poflolical,  which  is  not  mentioned  or  exprefTed  in  holy 
Scripture  ?  And  for  this  Reafon'  W5  difregard  Infant 
Baptifm,  whatever  elfe  may  be  pretended  in  its  Favour. 

He  cites  PafTages  out  of  Cyprian  and  Jugujiine  :— 
But  it  muft  be  obfervcd,  that  it  very  mu^h  leffens  the 
£fteem  of  their  Teftimonies  in  Favour  of  Infant  Bap- 
tifm, when  it  is  confidered,  they  were  alfo  for  f  Infants 
Communion,  and  accordingly  admitted  Infants  to  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Supper.  Nay,  Jugujiine -drgned  thzi 
Infants  could  not  have  Salvation  without  it,  abufing 
John  vi.  35.  to  that  Purpofe.  And  according  to  Biftio^ 
■f  Taylor,  "  Call' d  the  communicating  of  Infants^  an  apo* 
Jiolical  Tradition."  Pray  what  Credit  is  to  be  given  to 
the  Teftimony  of  fuch  Men,  or  what  Dependance  cari 
we  make  on  their  Judgment,  "  WIjo  held  many  fuch  ri- 
diculous Opinions,  zvhichasMr.^  Dickinfon/^yx,  would 
no%v  expofe  a  Man  to  tht  Contempt  and  Scorn  of  the  World^ 
ifhejhould  make  a  Prefejfmi  of  them  f"  If  our  Opponents 
are  for  aguing  from  the  Teftimony  of  the  Fathers  in  the 
one  Cafe,  why  not  in  the  other?  Why  don't  they  be- 
lieve them  to  have  been  right  in  communicating  Infants, 
as  well  as  in  baptizing  them  ?  Or  can  it  be  fuppofed, 
they  were  not  as  well  acquainted  with  Church  Hiftory 
in  refpedof  one  Sacrament,  as  of  the  other  ?  Methinks 
it  might  be  a  fufHcient  Reafon  to  raife  Sufpicion  in  our 
Opponents  themfelves,  that  the  Fathers  might  be  wrong 
With  refpedl  of  Infant  Baptifm,  when  they  can't  be 
dear'd  of  countenancing  the  Introdudlion  of  fuch  aa 
erroneous  Praftice,  refpeding  the  Sacrament  of  the  Sup- 
per. Further,  why  has  not  Mr.  F.  freed  his  Argument 
from  the  Abfurdity  I  charged  on  it.  That  by  the  fame 
K4  Rule, 

*Monf.  LaRoque's  Hift.  of  theEuchariit,Pagcs  X27,  J2S<: 

•f  Lib  of  Prophefy,  Page    119. 

§  Doftiine  of  Keffcn,  Vind.  Page  56; 


[    152    Jl 

Rule,  jvhereby  he  would  prove  Infant  Baptifm   dl4  nqt 

lln.r"  '  ^P°«^^\^-y^'  one  migh?as  well  prove 
Infants  Communion  to  be  a  Relift  of  Chr.ft.anity  too, 
as  old  as  the  Apoftles  ?  -  For  [in  his  o^n  Words)  Vadt 
begun  ftnce.jtuh  a  grand  Innovation  and  Schifm  would  cer. 
tajnly  l^ve  been  taken  notice  of,  and  the  Htjlories  of  that 
Jge  wherein  tt  began,   would   have   been  full  of  it  •     We 

ttif  T'  r^^^/J-'-  ^^^^«  it  h-fpened  would  have 
h.entn  our  chronological  Tables-:  We  would  have  had  th, 
nectftons  of  Councils  again/lit,  and  might  have  readVo^- 
iumesofDijpute  upon  it."  But  we  have  fuffic.ent  Ground 
^  udge,  that  Infants  Baptifm,  and  their  Communion,  are 
both  wrong  whe,.  there  are  no  Foot-fteps  of  either  to 
be  found  tnfacredH.ftory;   therefore  the/n.uft  h  ve  b  ! 

ieem   to  have   been  born  much  about  the  -fame  Tiaie  5 

Iho  one  happens  to  be  longer  liv'd  than  the  other.  . 

*..  r'  ^;?  ^^P  '''  ",  *^'^'^>*  P'^'^'^P^'  ^^thers  could 
not  be  mijlaken  about  the  Prance  of  the  Church  for  .n 
l^undred  and  fifty  Years  before  them,  which  will  reach  t. 
the  immediate  Succeffors  of  the  Jpo/iles."     An{      What- 

toThfp'ir  r^l  the  Praaice'of  the  Church,  is  Ik  le 
to  the  Purpofe  unlefs  he  could  fhew  they  d.d  .nvariably 
follow  the  Praa,ce  of  the  Church  in  the  precedin<.  A<>es  • 
for  he  himfelf  allows,   there  were  manv  A  Ur  mi  • 

♦fif.  r^r.-nr,;..-      /^u       '      ^^  ^^^'^^  *^3ny  Abommations  in 
r,;^/        I    '^^r^'   notwithftandine  their  Opportu- 
J.ty   to    know    the    Apoftks,  Dodrine   and    P.-adlice 
Moreover,  he  quotes  Or;:^.«   with,  a  Defign.    fo'  prove 
i We      ;  """  ^^- baptized  5  but  I  thm\  to  no  grm 

the  ^Latm  Tranflations  of  Qrigen  are  very  -  corrupt  ; 
therefore  no  A r(T„m^r.^  o.„    k„  A       ,    ,         •'1    .   ..  PI  ' 


adcl.s,        TheJameOnoen,  ,„  Comment,   on  Matt,    xvi.i 
oVThtn.I    n     '^' ^"Sels  begin    their  Guardian/kip 
iZn-^^  ^Z'    ""    '^'''  ^'^'f'^    <"■    Baptifm?'' 

infants  m  Age,   by  lutle  Ones,  but  Men  of  humble  Dif- 


[     153    ] 

pofition?,  or  fuch  as  believe  in  Chilft.  The  QiieftioA 
^  as  Mr.  f  Wall  renders  itj  is  thus  ;  **  Then  again,  one 
may  enquire  when  it  is^  that  the  Angels  here  fpoken  of^  are 
Jet  over  thofe  little  Ones^  foewed  by  our  Saviour  ?  IVheihet 
they  take  the  Care  and  Management  of  them,  from  the  Time 
when  they  by  the  Wajhing  of  Regeneration,  whereby  they 
were  netu  born^  doy  as  new  born  Babes,  defire  the  fmcere 
Milk  of  the  Word,  and  are  no  longer  fubjcii  to  any  evil 
Power  ?  Or  from  their  Birth,  according  to  the  Fore  know ^ 
ledge  of  God,  td'c."  Can  any  one  imagine  from  hence, 
that  Origen  intended  Infants,  by  little  Ones  ?  Are 
they,  when  a  Week  or  a  Month  old,  capable  of  defiring 
the  fincere  Milk  of  the  Word  ?  Is  it  jufi:  then  in  Mr. 
■F.  to  force  an  Author  to  fpeak  costrary  to  his  Meaning  ? 
Should  a  Baptijl  do  fo,  no  Appellation  would  be  too  bad 
for  him  j.-he  would  readily  be  called  a  miferable  Pcrverter 
of  Authors,  a  Forger  of  Quotations,  and  what  not  ; 
yet  perhaps  thofe,  who  are  willing  to  (hew  the  leaft  Fa- 
vour to  others,  do  yet  expecEi  the  moft  themfelvec.  ■  I 
bbferve  Mr.  i^.  prefTeth  in  Tertullian  alfo  into  his  Service, 
as  holding  Infant  Baptifm  ;  and  fays,  he  reafoned  for 
the  Detay  oi .  Baptifm  very  weakly.  But  not  fo  weakl/ 
as  Mr.  K  ,  would  infinuate,  when  he  excepts  againft 
baptizing  of  Infants,  becaufe  they  are  not  capable  of  In- 
ftruftions  previous  to  Baptifm,  nor  of  knowing  Chrifl, 
and  defiring  Salvation.  Says  he,  "  Let  them  come  when 
they  are  grown  up  ;  let  them  come  when  they  underjland  ; 
when  they  are  inJlruSied  whither  it  is  that  they  come  ;  let 
them  be  made  Chrijiians,  when  they  can  know  Chri/lJ'* 
Why  may  not  Mr.  i^.  as  well  fay,  that  I  deny  not  the 
Lawfulnefsof  Infant  Baptifm,  when  I  require  previous 
Qiialifications  in  the  Subjedls  of  this  Ordinance,  as  to 
fay,  that  Tertullian  A\A  not  ?  Neither  is  it  reafonable  to 
to  fuppofe  that  Tertullian  was  for  Infant  Baptifm,  when 
he  cxprefly  argues,  that  Infants  (hould  be  grown  up,  and 
inftrud^ed,  betore  they  are  baptized.  Dr.  Gale  did  not 
fay,  that  Infant  Baptifm  began  at  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage, as  Mr.  F.  infinuates;  nor  does  my  Quotation  from 
the  Doftor,  give  any  Ground  for  this  Remark,  to  pre- 
judice 
I  Ilifl.  of  Inf.  Bapt.  Page  33, 


r  154  J 

judice  his  Readers  againft  that  learned  Authpr.  His 
WorcJsare  thefe,  *  -Thefirji  Memlon  we  have  of  Infant 
Bapujm,  IS  from  thefe  Cznh'^a;,n\^n  Fathers,  which  makes 
U  very  probable  that  it  began  firj}  at  Carthage  ;  it  was 
attempted  tn  Tertullur.'.  Ttme,  and  he  oppojed  it  Jirenu, 
i>ufy.  But  notwithfianding,  it  took  Footing  there  fiorth 
^fter  andwasvery  common  in  St.  CyprianV  Time',  and 
^/.  Auftin  thought  It  an  apofiolical  Ir  adit  ion  " 

In  Page  70.  Mr.  R  feems  difpleafed,  that  I  fliould  en- 

praaned   before  Popery,  and  tells  us,  a  very  moderate 
Judgment  might  difcern  his  Meaning.     But  I  think  a  ve- 
ry moderate  Judgment  may  fee,  that  he  was  at  a  Lofs  to 
anfwer  my  Remark,  which  is,  "  If  he  means  before  ?o^^. 
jy    began   to  work,  it  is  falfe,  for  the  M^fery  of  Iniquity 
began  to  work  in    Paul'.  7;;^.,   ^  Jhef/ii.  7.    And  nol 
<an  pretend  to  fhew  any  hjances   of  Infants   baptized  in 
raui  s  lime.  But  if  he  means  it  was  praSiifed  before  Pope- 
^y  came   to    its  Height,  fo   were  many  other  Errors  alfo  ', 
er  elje  howjhould  Popery  come  to  its  Height  n--4nd  what 
o  great  Step     towards     the  advancing  of  Popery  in  tht 
fVorld,   wastt,   to  hold,   that  to  fuff^er  the  hfani  to  die  un^ 
baptized    was  to  endar.ger  its  Salvation.'^'  ^Any'ond  may 
ice    why  he  IS  fo   out  of   Humour  j   for  fhould  he  fay, 
infants  Baptifm  was  pradifed  before  the  Myftefy  of  Ini 
quity  began  to  work,  he  was  obliged  to  (hew  Inftances 
of  Infants  baptized  in  PauPs  Day,  which    he  knew  he 
could  not  do  :   But  if  it  was  pradifed  before  Popery  came 
to  Its  Height,  it  would  not  fuit  his  Purpofe,  nor  free  the 

fw  k7'  \'T  "^  '^"^^"^  ^"'^"g  ^^he*-  Corruptions 
that  helped  Popery  to  its  Height  Therefore,  without  any 
i>htvi;  oi  Reafon,  when  he  could  not  turn  himfelf  to  any 
Advantage,  he  unjufiJy  charges  me,  with  "  a  Defire  of 
turning  his  IP  or  ds;"  becaufe  he  could  make  nothing  of 
them  to  h.s  Purpofe.  Afrer  all,  there  is  Room  to  infer, 
that  I^ifant  Baptifm  is  a  Relid  of  Popery,  and  the  chief 
L.mb  of  that  Man  of  Sin,  that  is  retained  among  Pro- 
teltants  -,  which  loudly  calls  for  a  Reformation. 

m.  r  Again, 

*  Letter  ik.  *'     ^ 


! 


'[     155    ] 

Again,  he  feems  not  at  all  pleafed,  that  we  derive  ouf 
Onginal  from  Scripture,  and  deny  them  the  Beginning 
iof  their  Pradice  therefrom— But  as  long  as  he  has  not 
-ihewn,  that  we  deviate  from  the  Do6trineand  Practice 
'■of  the  Apoftles  in  the  Cafe  before  us  ;  we  have  juft 
-Ground  to  claim  it  as  our  Right,  to  be  efteemed  the 
proper  SuccefTors  of  the  Apoftles,  who  hold  the  fame 
X)o(Slrine  as  they  did, '  and  pra6tife  accordingly. 
«  He  is  welcome  to  prove  the  Prejbyterian  Sedl  began 
before  the  15th  Century,  if  he  thinks  proper. 

He  concludes,  that  no  Society  in  the  Church  deny'd 
Infant  Baptifm,  until  within  thefe  lift  Thiee  Hundred 
"Years.  But  he  did  not  think  proper  to  anfwer  what  was 
obferved  in  the  Appendix,  *'  That  we  have  an  undoubted 
Account  ef  Debate  made  about  Infant  Baptifm  in  the  Tear 
1025.  by  Gundulphus  and  his  Followers  in  Italy,  tffc, 
•which  was  at  leaft  Thres  Hundred  Tears  before  the  Infuv 
region  of  Munfter."      ;  ■ 

1  I  might  add,  *^  The  Tejlimony  of  Chaflanion,  in  his 
Hi/lory  of  the  Albigeois,  as  he  is  iranfated  and  cited^  by 
the  learned  and  worthy  *  Mr.  Stennet."  Says  the  Author, 
-.— "  The  Truth  is^  they  (the  Albegeois)  didnot  reje£i  this 
Sacrament^  or  fay  it  was  ufelefs  ;  but  only  counted  it  un~ 
neceffary  to  Infant s,  hecauje  they  are  not  of  Age  to  believe^ 
or  capable  of  giving  Evidence  of  their  Faith.  -  That  which 
induced  them  (as  I  fuppofe)  to  entertain  this  Opinion,  is 
what  our  Lordfayst  Thatheikd^X.  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
fhall  be  faved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  fhall  be  dam- 
ned." Mr.  f  5,'^««(?/ obfervcs,- *  Whoever  will  take  the 
Fains  to  perufe  the  learned  Dr.  Allix,  his  Remarks  on  the 
anticnt  Church  /j/Piedmont^  vjill  find  divers  Paffages  that 
may  confirm  what  has  been  faid,  and  make  appear  that  In' 
font  J^aptifn  was  oppofcd  by  perhaps  the  pureji  Churches 
that  were  then  in  the  IVorld^  fome  Hundreds  of  Tears  before 
the  Time  Mr.  R,  (or  Mr.  Finley  either)  ajfignsfor  thefirji 
Rife  of  the  A.i\2ih2igi\iis.  § 

Hence 

*  Anfwer  to  Rujen,  Pages  81,  82.       f  lb.  Page   84. 

^  Whoever  has  a  mind  to  fee  this  Argument  handled  at 
large,  let  him  read  Mr,  Stennet's  Anfwer  to  Rujfen  ;  Mr 
Du'vye's  Baptifm  of  adult  Believers   vindicated  ;     and  Ur- 


I    ^56   ] 

•    K^""^^^'5,^eryobrervablehow]ittIe  Force  there  h 
-  Mr  Fs  Defiance,  -  To^w  any  Perfins^    UTZJd 

damned  by  the  Church."     How  fmall  a   Matter  is  it  to  be 

trom    fcnptural  Bapt.fm  crept  into  the  Church  :  when 

cul  "r"h'^  '".'  r''^'"'  ^°^-^'  wh.ch  always  re" 

quire.  F.,th    and    Repentance   in   Perfons,  in    order  to 

Bapt.fm,  does,  from  the  Beginning,  reali;  and  aaJal  v 

.  °PPf  and  exclude  the  concfarv  Doarine,^which Teach! 

es  that  Perfons  may  be  baptized,  who  do  neither    epcnt 

nor  beheve,  as  m  the  Cafe  of  Infants.  ^  ^ 

Heimagmej,  '\That  I  amunavoidally  reduced  to  ac 

knowledge    either  that  Chriji  had  no  vifihl  Church  at  all 

Lfp    A  (""  T'  '^^"'^  "^^"^^f'^d  Years,  or    elf   ol 

m  de^ufe^ofT^^'^r'^^^'r  ^^^^^^^^^  than    he  has 

Tetalksof    T  n 'V'7  •''^"'■^'^  ^"  ^°  ^^'^  '  Choice  as 
fte  talks  of.     t  Dr.  Goodwm  .n  the  Place  already  referred 

to,  fpeak.ng  of  the  Gofpel's  being  hid   from   Les   and 
9^''''''^%  «bferves.    -  This  Do^nne  Tf  thfhoZ^ 
r«  thegreateji  Glory ^  and  the  Riches  oftheSereuTt 
tvas  objcured  for  more  than  a  Thou/and  Tears        a    fom 
the  very    Apojlles  Ttme.     a  Myjlery  cf  InZiyhUnZ 

JVorld''  ^^^'^'':'\^^l[^ £^^^^brtjtianifm  overfpread  the 
fcur'd'for  f^r  ^^!^^"^-"^^of  the  Gofpel  wereob- 
Icur  d  for  fo  long  a  7  ,me,  who  can  doubt   but   the  Or- 

tTT""1."Y  ^""^^'^  werecorupted  alfo,  during  the 
tyrannical  Ufurpat.on  of  Antichriftianity,  ;hen  all  he' 
World  wondered  after  the  Beaft.^    And  I  think  it    is  far 

Exa^.nr^f^HT""""'"  '"  ^''  ^''  Caufe,  to  plead  the 
±.xampleof  thufe  corrupt  T.mes  in  favour  of  a  Praaice 
wh.chdefpa.rs  of  scripture  Teft.mony  to  fupport  ;  or 
^  .mpofe  on  the  Credulous,  by  urging  the  p'rom-fes*  of 
ehr.lt,  to  prove  either  he  had   no  vifiblc  Church  on^     4 

Prat'  "'^''  '^''  '^^^   ^'^"^^^^  -^-^^    Doarine  and     1 
true  vmbirrrP  K^"'"^  1°  ^'^  Inftitutions,  was  the  only 
true  viiible  Church,  and  her  Praaice  warrantable.    But 

t  Ami.  Page  6^.  "* 


[  ^S1  ] 
M  that  dark  Time  Chrift  had  his  Witnefles,  tho*  few,  and 
clothed  in  Sackcloth,  Rev.  xi.  3.  1  fee  no  Reafon  as 
yet  to  wifh  my  Phrafes  on  this  Head  had  been  more  mo- 
deft,  as  Mr.  F-  infinuates  ;  but  muft  needs  thmk,  that  the 
Body  of  the  Proteftant  World,  who  plead  for  Infant  Bap- 
tifm,  are  ftrangely  infatuated  with  it,  when  they  profefs 
to  take  the  Scripture  for  their  Guide  in  all  Matters  of 
Faith  and  Obedience  ;  and  yet  embrace  Infant  Baptifm, 
which  is  not  once  mentioned,  nor  fhewn  to  be  intended 
iny  where  therein.  Now  fuppofe  we  knew  of  none,  in 
the  preceding  Ages,  who  withftood  the  Corruption  of 
the  Times  in  which  they  liv'd,  which  cannot  be  granted, 
for  I  have  given  Inftanccs  of  the  contrary  already,  and 
more  might  be  produced)  it  would  not  follow,  that  Chrift 
did  not  make  good  his  Promifes  ;  but  had  a  Church  oa 
Earth,  and  was  prefent  with  his  People,  tho'  they  were 
ever  fo  obfcure,  hid  in  Caves,  i  Kings  xviii.  13.  or  fled 
into  the  Wildernefs,  Rev.  xii.  14.  and  unobferved  by 
the  World  :  And  tho'  we  knew  no  more  of  them,  nor 
their  Names,  than  Elijah  did  of  the  Seven  Thoufand  in 
Jfrael,  who  had  not  bowed  their  Knee  to  Baal^  I  Kings 
xix.  14.  Yet  it  no  wife  injures  the  Truth  we  profefs, 
fmce  it  is  undeniably  revealed  in  holy  Scripture  ;  any 
more  than  Elijah's  Unacquaintance  with  the  Seven 
Thoufand,  proved  Baal's  Worftiippers  to  be  right,  or 
elfe  God's  Promifes  had  failed  to  Ifrael.  So  that  I  may 
Hill  fay,  that  our  reje<Sting  Infant  Baptifm,  as  a  Corrup- 
tion of  the  facred  Ordinance  of  Jefus  Chrift,  does  not 
afford  Mr  F.  thofe  Abfurdities  he  would  throw  upon  us ; 
but  only  befpeaks,  that  we  believe  the^  Communities 
of  our  Opponents  to  be  far  lefs  pure,  and  unlike  the  a- 
poftolick  Churches,  than  our  own  ;  which  none  can 
juftly  blame  us  for,  until  they  rationally  convince  us  of 
the  contrary, 

Mr,  F.  m  his  Charitable  Plea^  would  have  it,  that  the 
Body  of  eminent  Chriftians,  Minifters,  Reformers  and 
Martyrs,  are  on  hib  bide  of  the  Queftion.  But  I  obferv- 
ed,  that  a  Truth  is  not  to  be  decided  by  Votes  ;  and  {hew- 
ed him,  that  we  are  before  Hand  with  our  Opponents  in 
the  Cafe  of  Maxtyrs  (if  there  is  any  1  hing  in  that  to  the 

prefent 


L    15S    ] 

refent  Purpofej  they  can  fhew  none  who  fuffered 
Death  for  holding  Infant  Baptifm,  as  we  can  for  denvintr 
Jt.  Mr._  FsNoife  about  this  (like  other  Things)  comet 
to  nothing  j  and  does  as  good  as  telJ  us,  he  can  give  no 
Inftances  iq  the  Cafe  ;  but  fays,  «  //  h  not  Death,  but 
theCauje  of  Death,  that  makes  a  Martyr,''  which  he 
would  have  uiobferve.  .  Well,  this  we  have  obferved  ; 
and  when  he  cannot  ihcw  any  one  who  fufFered  Death 
for  the  Caufe  of  Infant  Baptifm,  after  all  his  Vaunts  a- 
bout  his  couragious  Martyrs,  he  has  not  one  Martyr  on 
his  Side  of  the  Queftion  in  Difpute  •,  whatever  they 
profefTed  who  were  martyr'd,  yet  this  was  no  Caufe  of 
their  Martyrdom.—Hence  By  the  Way  it  •  appears, 
whatever  elfe  may  be  laid  to  the  Charge  of  the  Anahap- 
tijis,  the  PadobaptiJIs  cannot  charge  them  with  ufing 
the  forcible  Arguments  of  Fire  and  Sword  to  convince 
them,  as  their  Oppofers,  on  the  other  Hand,  have  done 
with  them. 

Mr.  F.  is  yet  very  unwilling  to  give  up  the  Charge,' 
That  the  Anabaptifts  wert  the  wotjl  Dregs  of  the  Re- 
farmation,  the  greatejl  Reproach  of  it,  and  Impediment  to 
Its  Progrefs  ;  and  that  not  only  in  fome,  but  every  Place 
where  they  got   Footing:'     Reply.    One  might  think   I 
had  cited  fufficient  Evidence  to  (hew  the  Falfity  of  this 
Charge  before  :  For  what  if  fome  called  by  that  Name 
were  guilty  of  grofs  Enormities,  whum  I  don't  pretend 
to  vindicate  ;  yet  it  is  unjufl  to  condemn  the  Innocent 
with  the  Guilty :     The   whole  Body  ought  not  to  be 
charged  with  the  Faults  of  fomc.     I  obferved    out  of  a 
faithful   Hiftorian    cited  by   Mr.   Rees,  Five    Hundred 
and   Seventy  odd    Perfons  (all    Anahaptijls)  who    were 
put  to  Death  merely  on  the  Account  of  Religion,  ex- 
clufive  of,  and  in  Contradiftinflion  to,  any  who  fuffer- 
ed  as  chargeable  with  Treafon,  Rebelhon,  Sedition,  &c. 
Alfo  the  barbarous  and  inhuman  Treatment  Falix  Mans 
met  with  from  Zuinglius,  a  profefs'd  Proteftant  Minifter, 
for  denying  Infant  Baptifm  ;  and  the  cruel  Edids  pub- 
Jilhed  againfl  them.     Likewife  I  obferved  the  Conflan- 
cy   of   Mind,  Traces   of  a  good  Spirit,  divine  Tranf- 
ports,  and  foJid  AfTurances,  which  attended  their  Suffer- 

ing9. 


I    ^59    i 

ings.  Neverthelefs,  with  Might  and  Main,  in  the  Face 
of  fuch  inconteftible  Evidence,  Mr.  F.  condemns  all 
the  foreign  Jnabaptijis  in  the  Lump  ;  being,  it  feems, 
as  unwiHing  todo  Jurtice  to  the  Memory  of  the  inno- 
cent Dead,  as  their  Perfecutors  were  cruel  in  putting 
them  to  Death  ;  and  cites  PafTages  out  of  Melchior  Ada- 
mus,  BuUinger  and  Calvin^  with  a  View  to  make  good 
his  AfTertion  :  But  it  muft  be  obferved,  the  heavy  Charges 
brought  againft  them,  come  originally  from  the  Pens 
of  their  profefled  Adverfaries :  And  if  Mr.  Finley\  Te- 
ftimony  be  true,  f  "  Ihat  the  greatejl  Reformers^  the 
moft  learned  and  holy  Divines,  were  Ji ill  the  principal  Hands 
ihat  fuppre [fed them"  it  fmks  the  Credit  of  their Te- 
ftimony  againft  the  Anahabaptijls  very  much  ;  for  if 
thofc  Reformers  and  holy  Divines  were  no  better  prin- 
cipled than  to  fupprefs  thofe  who  differed  from  them  in 
Judgment,  with  the  cruel  Inftruments  of  Death,  on  the 
Account  of  Religion,  it  is  very  rational  to  fuppofc,  they 
would  aggravate  the  real,  or  imaginary  Crimes,  alledg- 
ed  againft  the  Sufferers,  to  that  Degree,  which  might 
give  fome  plaufible  Colour  to  their  unlawful  Proceedings. 
How  little  Dependance  is  to  be  made  on  incenfed  Ad- 
verfaries in  relating  Matters  of  Fa6l,  Mr.  F.  himfdf 
is  a  ftanding  and  fufEcient  Inftance,  who  charges  me 
with  perfwading  the  Ftsdohapttjls  (in  my  Sermons  at 
Cape-May)  to  be  dipt  on  Pain  of  Damnation  ;  which  is 
entirely  falfe  ;  yet  this  Charge  of  his,  may  be  tranfmit- 
ted  to  future  Ages,  and  received  by  them  as  an  undoubt- 
ed Truth,  efpecialiy  coming  attefted  by  the  great  Name 
of  a  good  Man,  and  a  Gofpel  Minifter  too  ;  and  yet  at 
the  fame  time  void  of  Truth,  as  very  probable  many  of 
the  Charges  handed  down  to  us,  by  great  Names,  from 
former  Ages,  be.  (The  Authority  is  equal  J  And  who 
knows,  but  in  the  next  Reply  from  my  Opponent,  this 
my  neceflary  andjuft  Vindication,  will  be  charged  back 
on  me,  *'  tVith  Lying  and  Foaming  againji  my  Antago- 
fiijls,  ivith  Blafphemies  and  Reproaches  "  with  the  like 
Truth,  as  I  am  at  prefent  charged  by  Mr.  F.  as  the 
foreign  Anahaptijh   were  bv  thcii;'  Adverfaries, 

The 
f  Vind.  Page  74, 


[      1^0      ] 

The  Expreffions  of  Mr.  *  Cotton  Mather  are  pertine  it 
here  ;   «  All  the  World  knows  (fay i  he)  that  the  mofi  emi- 
nent Reformers  writing    againji  the  Anabaptifts,  have  not 
been  able  to  forbear  making  their  Treafifes  like  what  Je-'-m' 
fays  ^/'TertullianV  polemical  Ireatifes,  Quot  Verba,  t6t 
Fulmtna  ;"  /.  e.  every  Word  a  Thunder-bolt  :  With 
which,  the  Quotatims  Mr.  F.  brings  agree  very  well  j 
there  is  fuch  an  Appearance  of  Heat   and  Prejudice   in 
them,  as  plainly  befpeaks  no  Good-will  intended  to  the 
Anabaptifls  ;  and  juilly  renders  them  very  fufpicious    of. 
having   aegravated  Things,    far  beyond   what  they   m 
Keahty  were  ;  that  it  is  no  Wonder  Ruffen  fhould  fay  of 
one  o^  thefe  Authors   Mr.    F.   cites,  even  Bullinger  (^to 
his  Commendation  as  he  thought)  that  he  wrote  bitter- 
ly  againft  the  Anabapti(h.     But  to  take  off  the  Edge  of^ 
Mr.   F^  Citations,  and  to  fet  the  Cafe  in  a  truer  Lif^ht 
than  he  reprefents  it,  1  fhall  tranfcr/be  a  Paffage  from 
f  Mr.  Brandt,  as  follows  ;  fays  he,"  Thus  inthe apprehend-, 
tng  and  condemning  the  People  of  this  Sc£i,   there  was  little 
Notice ^  taken,   whether  thofe  whom  they  put  to  Death  were  ill 
any  wife  guilty  of  the  above  mentioned  Riots  and  Mutinies  .' 
But  the  Severity  of  the  Govermnent  -was  extended  againji  alt, 
tfloem,  without  making  any  Dijiinaion  hardly  between  the 
mofi  Simple  and  Innocent,  and  the  mojl  Criminal   7hus  the 
Jr.iJiory  cfthe  kn^b-A^ui\  Martyrs  relates,  that  they  beheaded 
at  Amiic'.lam,  one  Peter,  a  Sexton  of  Sardam,  as  guilty 
of  the  late  hfur region,   tho'  he    being  a  Teacher  among  a 
better  Sort  of  iXuaba^uHi,  had  ufedhis  utmofi  Endeavours 
to  hinder  it." 

Moreover,  I  think  it  is  no  Credit,  in  the  leaft,  to  the 
Reformers,  if  they  were  guilty  of  perfecuting  thofe  who 
differed  from  them,  and  were  flill  the  principal  Hands 
ihat  fupprdied  the  Anabaptijis,  as  Mr.  F.  teftifies,  which 
wasnoiefs  than  by  Death,  feeing  we  have  not  the  leaft' 
Hint  in  Scripture,  that  Chrift  v.  ill  have  his  holy  ReJigi- 
on  propagated  by  Blood  (hed  and  Death  :  Nay,  his  Pre- 
cepts teach  us  quite  the  reverfe,   who  rebuked  his  Difci> 

pies 

•  See  Mr.  Crofbf%  Hift.  of  Englifh  Bapt  Vol.  I.  Page  112. 

t  tjee  Mr.  /?f.'/s  Infant  Baptifm  no  Inllitution  of  Chrift,    - 
Page  204.  * 


[    i6i    ] 

pies  fo  fharply,  for  the  very  Motion  that  "Wzy.     f  Luli 
ix.   54,  55.   "  li  is  not   the  ff^i/l  of  God  (faith  Poole  oh 
.    she  Place)  that  we  fiou Id  approve  of  any  con- upt  Worfhipy 
ayvl  join  with  thofe  that  ufe  it  ;  hut  neither  is  it  his  Will 
ihat  we  Jhould  hy  Fire  and  Sword  go  about  tofupprefs  Ity  and 
bring  Men  off  from  it."     'Tis  a  difmal  Brand  fet  on  the 
Whore  of  Bcbylon^  that  fhe  hath  (hed  the  Blood  of  Saints. 
*Tis   lamentable,    Mr,  F.   fliould   once   imagine,    thaC 
mentioning  the  fhedding  of  Blood  on  a  religious  Account 
(witnefs  Zwinglius,  pronouncing  Sentence  againft  Fceiix 
Mans)  would  tend  to  add  any  Luftre  to  the  Charaders 
of  the  wife  Reformers  ;  which   is  juftly  accounted  the 
eternal  Shame   and  Reproach  of  the  Papal  Church  and 
her  Sons  :  And  a  Pity  that  he  (hould  give  the  World  any 
Reafon  to  fufpedt  that  he  who  juftifies    that  in  another, 
would  be  guilty  of  it  himfelf,  if  Opportunity   offered. 
Again,  on  the  other  Hand,  he  feems  equally  -  mifla- 
hen  in  his  Inference,  when  he  concludes,  that  it  fullies 
theGhara£ler  and  Credit  of  the  Sufferers,  becaufethey 
^ere  principally  fupprefled  by  the  Hands  of  holy  Divines. 
They  might  be  innocent,  and  their  Gaufe  good,  for  ai! 
that.     Vv^ill  Mr.    F.  think  it  is  far  from  being   credi- 
L  table 

f  Excellently  M.  Tennentthus;  "  Retnmber  the  jujl  Re- 
puke  vjhich  the  meek  and  lo<vuig  Jefus  ga've  to  his  Difciples 
James  ««i/ John,  for  their  fiery  furious  Zeal  againft  the  Sama- 
rhans,  for  treating  their  Maftir  ill  :  Te  knozv  not,  faith  Chrift, 
fwhat  manner  of  Spirit  ye  are  of ;  as  if  he  had  pzid,  yen  are  not 
fenfible  ivhat  Wickednsfs  is  in  your  Diffofition  and  Temper ^ 
hjiv  much  Pridet  Peevipnefs,  Pajjjon,  Prejudice,  and,  ferfonal 
Revenge y  is  covered  under,  and  mixed  =with  your  real  hcneft  Zeal 
for  your  Ma  ft.  er'' s  Honour  I  The  Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to  de- 
fray Mens  Lives,  but  to  fave  them  :  My  Religion  is  to  be  pro- 
pagated by  Leve  and  Condefcenflon,  by  Gentlenefs  and  Sv^eetnefs^ 
and  all  the  amiable  Methods  cf  Endearment-,  not  by  Force  and 
Bilternejsi,  by  Fire,  Fury,  and  Blood;  I  came  to  flay  all 
Enmities  of  every  Kind  and  Form,  not  to  animate  and  encreafe 
them  under  an^  Pretext  'Lvhatfocver.''''      Iren,   Ecclef.  Page  85, 

Let  Mr.  F.  confider  this,  and  fee  if  he  can  juiiify  the  Re- 
ftJrmers  in  fuppreffing  the  Jnabaptifls,  according  ^0  his  own 
Tcilimor.y,  in  the  Manner  they  did. 


[       l62       ] 

fable  to  Vt:taht  becaufe  holy  David  was  the  principal 
Hand  that  fupp relied  him  ?     But, 

If  therewas  aNumber  of  the  foreigny^nabapti/Is^thafwerc 
a  peaceable,  gcodj  andharmlefs  People,  free  from  Luxury 
and  Debauchery,  vho  fuffered  Death  for  their  rehgious 
Principles,  and  not  for  Treafon,  Rebellion,  or  Sedition, 
as  Gerrard  Brandt  and  the  Authors  cited  by  f  Mr. 
Stennet  do  teftify  :  What  intolerable  Supercilioufnefs 
jrxuft  it  then  be  in  Mr  F.  to  pour  out  his  Contempt  with 
fuch  an  Air  of  Difdain  upon  Mr.  Rees  hisjuftCommen- 
datian  of  their  Charafters,  who  fuffered  Death  for  the 
fake  of  Religion  ?  Is  it  not  becaufe  the  Account  does  not 
ferve  his  prefent  Purpofe  of  defaming  all  the  foreign  A' 
nabaptijis  in  the  Lump  ;  and  confequently,  all  others^ 
who  are  called  by  that  Name  ?  He  is  therefore  very 
unwilling  to  hear  any  Good  fpoken  of  any  of  them  ; 
but  rather  inclined  the  World  fliould,  without  queftion, 
believe,  they  were  all  guilty  of  whatever  their  Adverfa- 
ries  are,  or  were  ple^fed  to  lay  to  their  Charge.  Yet 
his  Argument  here  is  no  better,  than  that  of  the  Pa- 
gans of  Old  ;  'ui%.  becaufe  the  Gnojiicks  affumed  the 
Name  of  Chrifiians,  the  Infidels  imputed  unto  the 
whole  Chriflian  Church  thofe  horrible  impieties  the 
Gnojiicks  were  guilty  of. 

"  He  thinks  I  would  do  beji  not  to  mention  my  Anabap- 
tifl  Martyrs^  nor  engage  in  their  Caufe  any  further ."  Why 
fo  ?  when  they  were  good  Men,  and  fuffered  for  Chrifl's 
Sake,  as  for  any  thing  he  has  fliewn  to  the  contrary. 
And  I  muft  needs  tell  him,  I  think  he  would  do  bell  not 
to  mention  his  great  Reformers  and  holy  Divines,  nor 
engage  in  their  Caufe  any  further,  if  he  has  nothing  bet- 
ter to  fpeak  in  their  Commendation,  than  that  they  were 
the  principal  Hands  that  fupprefled  Chrifiians,  by  Fury, 
Eloodfl^ied  and  Death  ;  which  Proceedings  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  the  Laws  of  Chrift,  or  with  the  Nature 
of  true  Chriftiaraty.  One  would  be  willing  to  find  the 
renowned  RefcJrmers  to  have  been  Men  of  a  different 
Chara^er,  from  what  Mr.    F.  here  reprefents  them,, 

But  leaving  thofe  foreign  Lands,  let  us  follow  Mr.-  Fu  ■ 

over 

t  Anf.  to  Tiujen^  Chap.    1 1 , 


[     1^3    ] 
over  to  E^glandy  where  he  labours  to  rake  together  what 
Filth  he  could  find,  to  caft  on  the   fcandaious  Rout  (as 
he  calls  his  Opponents)  and  fixes  on  the  Proceedings  of 
one  "  Mr.  Copipe  and  Company;"  but  left  this  Inlfance 
ftiould  notanfwcr  his  Defign,  he  carefully  conceals  from 
his  Readers,  that  this  Coppe  fell  away  from  the  Bapti/is 
into  the  Errors  and  vile  Practices  of  the  Ranters^  and 
how  the  Baptifts  were  grieved    for   his  Sins,  proceeded 
againft  him  according  to  Gofpel  Order  and  Difciplin/e, 
and  took  Occafion  therefrom,  ferioufiy  to  warn  others  of 
Danger,    &c.     With     what  Injuftice    then    does   Mr. 
F.  infert  this  Story,    doubtlefs  to  Prejudice  his  Readers 
againft  a  Caufe,  which  by  Arguments  he  cannot  refute? 
Are  the  Englijh  Baptifts  chargeable  with  tiie  Faults  of 
Apoftates,  whufe  Principles  and  Praitices  they  'teftify  a- 
gainft,  and  fuitably  deal  with  Delinquents  ?  Or  can  they 
be  charged  with  the  Ways  of  the  Ranters,  or  with  the; 
Vices  of  any  that  turned  to  them  ?    ^Does  Mr.  F.  think 
that    the  Sins  of  Backfliders  are  to  be   charged  on  the 
Truth  they  once  profefled  to  embrace,  as   the  Caufe  of 
them  ?  If  fo,  he  will  be  put  to  it  to  clear  the  Dodrines 
of  the   Gofpel  from    being  produdive  of  vicious  Pradi- 
ces  J  as  in  the  QziQoi  Hymen eus  and  Phtletus^  with  ma- 
ny others.     Is   it  a  new  Thing   for  ProfefTurs  to  depart 
from  the  Truth  ?  Or  would  he  hereby  prove,  that  the 
Promifes  of  Chrift,  and  the  Secrets  of  the  Lord,  do  not 
belong  to,   nor  can  be  found   with  the  Englijh  Baptiji;^ 
becaufe  he  can  mention  one  or  more,  who  turned  from 
them  to  a  Courfe  of  Sin  ?    Or  does  this  Inftance  prove 
his  Principles  about  Infant  Baptifm  to  be  right,   and  ours 
wrong  ?    Whatever    he  defigns  hereby,  he  might  well 
know,  were  I  difpofed  to  carry  en  a  Commerce'^of   this 
Kind,  I  could  eaiily  ballance  Accounts  with  him,  and  go 
no  further  than   his  ov/n  Party    neither  :    How  readiljr 
might  I  bring  Mr.  7.  Crofs,  a  Prejlyterian  MhuCter  %t 
Bafkim-idge^  in  the  Jerfeys^  for  an  Inftance  ;  f  who,  not 
many  Years  ago,  was  efteemed  a  very  eminent  andfuc- 
cefsful  Minifter  among  them  :  But  afterwards  was  found 

L  2  guilty 

f  Mr.  WhUefir'^-^  ^'.-.  .;   Vol  II.  Page  139^ 


[     ,^4    ] 

guilty  t)f  f  abominable  Lewdnefs,  and  aftonifhlng  per- 
verfe  Doings,  after  all  his  vaunting  Boafts  of  Sandtity, 
hishafdCenfuresof  others,  and  the  high  Encomiutps 
given  him  by  Men  of  Renown,  and  accordingly  was 
dgfervedly  filenced.  Now  would  Mr.  F.  think  it  a  juft 
Confequence,  (bould  I  hence  infer,  that  he,  and  all  his 
/llTociates,  are  wrong,  becaufe  of  the  abominable  Pradices 
of  their  Brother  ?  Would  they  take  it  well  to  be  called 
a  fcandalous  Rout,  becaufe  one'of  their  Number  turned 
out  to  be  a  fcandalous  Inftance  of  Immorality  ?  Or  that 
the  Secrets  of  the  Lord  are  not  therefore  with  them  ? 
I  believe  not:  And  why  (hould  Mr.  F.  imagine  that  In- 
itances  of  this  Nature  militate  againft  us,  any  more 
than  againft  them  ?  If  mentioning  of  this  will  difpleafe 
Jiim,  who  can  be  blame  but  himfelf  ?  Who  gave  the 
Occafion  ?  Who  began  to  «  blend  CharaSiers  with  the 
Controverfy;'  but  himfelf,  when  he  led  us  away  to  Ger- 
many  to  hear  our  Rife  and  Charaaer  ?  He  may  therefore' 
thank  himlelf  for  any  Return  of  this  Kind,  and  may 
know  1  fliould  not  have  cited  this  Paffage,  were  it  not 
to  fhew  the  Unjuftnefs  of  his  Inferences.  For  my  Part, 
I  think  God  fufK;rs  fuch  lamentable  Inftances  to  happen, 
for  the  humbling  of  fume,  and  probably  for  the  harden- 
ing of  others  :  But  it  is  quite  inconclufive,  to  make  u(b 
Of  thofe  Inftances  as  Mediums,  in  order  to  prove  any 
Number  of  Chrifiians  to  be  wrong,  whofe  .profeflfed 
Principles  difallowall  immoral  Praftices. 

Is  it  any  Difficulty  to  difcover  Mr.  Fs  Defign  in  tra- 
telJing  over  Ger?nany  and  England,  to  heap  up  Filth  on 
us  ?  Would  he  not  by  fo  doing  prejudice  his  Readers  a- 
gamfi  our  Principles,  and  perfwade  them  to  believe  that 
we  are  indeed,  what  he  reprefentsVus  to  be,  fprung  up 
but-Yefferday  from  a  bafe  Extra^ion,  when  his  Argu- 
ments fail  him  to  overthrow  our  Claim  to  a  noble  Ori- 
ginal   and  to  Principles  contained  in  the  Word  of  God  ? 

Direaiy  upan  this,  he  profeflesa  Deal  of  Rei^ard  for 
t's,  and  thinks  'tis  a  full   Proof  of  my  Bitternefs,  to  re- 

quire 

T  Examination  of  Mr.  Tennent's  Remarks,  Page  lo,  by 
J-'me  of  the  Members  of  the  Synod  at  Philadelphia,  per 
Order. 


[  '%  ] 

quire  greater  Evidences  of  it,  than  has  yet  apprarM  h} 
his  Writings :  Ke  would  have  us,  it  feems,  to  be  of  J. 
tnaja's  Difpofition  and  Condu^,  who  believed  all  the 
Prufeflions  of  Regard  and  Efteem,  exprefTed  to  him  by 
Joab^  to  be  fincere,  without  any  further  Evidence,  or 
taking  any  Heed  to  the  bloody  Inihument  of  Death  in 
his  Hand,  2  Sam.  xx.  9.  10.  Mr,  F.  furely  could  not 
rcafonably  expe^  any  other  Reply  on  the  Occafion,  but 
fomething  of  that  Krnd,  efpecially  when  he  was  about  tq 
wound  our  Charaders  to  Death,  if  poffible  :  But  when 
his  ProfeiTion  of  Regard  comes  well  attefted  with  cor- 
refponding  Evidences,  he  may  introduce  his  Compliments 
with  Accept  ince  ;  'til  then,  we  are  willing  to  keep  our 
proper  Diltance  from  KilTcs,  which  may  be  deceitful 
now,  as  well    as   formerly. 

He  thinks  «'  /  oddly  ouinm  myfelf,''  in  faying,  it  h 
but  Three  or  Four  Years  ago,  there  was  a  mighty  Noife 
of  Peoples  being  carnal,  if  they  contended  about  thefe 
outward  Things  3'  which  was  occafioned  by  his  faying. 
That  Infant  Baptifm  was  worthy  to  be  contended  for. 
Where  is  the  Contradiaion  ?  when  by  this  Phrafe  Iplain- 
ly  referred  to  the*  amicable  Times  he  fpake  oi^  wnere- 
in  this  Artifice,  as  is  well  known,  was  much  in  Ufe  a- 
inong  them  ;  defigned  it  feems  to  lull  People  afleep  m 
their  received  Opinion  of  Infant  Bapjtifm  :  f  A  Contro^ , 
vcrfy^  introduced  about  Baptifm,  this  facred  Ordinance 
of  Chrift,  is -very  grievous  to  them,  for  it  tends  tn  turn 
People  awajfrom  them  ;  tho'  not  from  the  Truth. 

What  follows,  is  what  he  pretends  to  deduce  from 
our  Principles:  But  fince  his  Arguments  are  fulHciently 
ihewn  to  be  inconclufive,  there  is  no  Need  to  write  the 
fame  Things  over  again  in  this  Place  ;  his  Ar^iJnient 
from  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  being  difpenfed  by  Old  Te- 
ftament  Ordinances,  is  already  fhewn  to  be  infignificant, 
and  little  to  his  Purpofe,  when  that  Adminiftracion  is  a- 
bolifhed,  and  he  has  not  {hewn  that  Infants  of  Believers, 
^^s  fuch,  were  ever  taken  with  their  Parents  into  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  :    Our  Caufe  furely  is  not  given  up  as 

L  3  y?tj 

*  Preface  to  Charit.  Plea,  Page  3 , 
t  Preface  to  Find,  Page  c. 


[     i66    ] 

yet,  how  willing  foever  he  may  be  to  take  Poffeffion  of 
it. 

I  have  already  jfhewn  to  whom  the  Promifes  belong  : 
He  hath  given  us  no  Inftances  to  prove  his  Charge,  which 
he  groundlefly  repeats,  that  we  repeal  a  great  Part  of 
God's  Word  which  he  hath  not  repealedj  and  yet  fays,  he 
can  agree  with  us  in  Eflenti^ls :  Now,  with  a  View  to 
help  himfelf  out  of  this  Inconfiftency,  he  recurs  for 
Relief  to  an  old  Popijh  Calumny,  «  That  Luther  reje^- 
^^/^^  Epiftle  of  James.'*  But  is  it  not  a  great  eflential 
Part  of  Religion,  to  beheve  and  retain  the  Scripture 
intire  ?  And  can  he  agree  with  us  in  Efientials,  whom 
he  accufes  of  diminifliing  therefrom,  without  contra- 
il iding  himfelf  ?  Here  he  reprefents  the  Scripture  fo  full 
and  fufficient,  that  if  a  great  Psrt  of  it  be  diminiflied 
or  rejeded,  the  Eflentials  of  Religion  are  to  be  found 
in  the  other  Scriptures  :  Yet  on  another  Occafion  he 
would  have  the  whole  Scripture  fo  infufficient,  that  few 
7  ruths  could  be  proved  thereby,  without  the  Help  of 
Confequences  :  His  Defign,  it  feems,  is  not  fo  much  to 
give  us  a  juft  Account  of  the  Scripture,  as  to  fupport 
his  darling  Oppinion. 

He  tries  to  extricate  himfelf  out  of  an  Abfurdity  I 
charged  on  his  Pra6tice  of  Infant  Baptifm,  by  faying, 
"  I  baptize  fame  vifible  improper  Subjeils  of  Baptifm." 
Grantmg  that  fome  grown  Perfons  when  baptized  are 
Hypocrites ;  yet  when  their  Hypocrify  at  the  Time  is 
covered  over  with  a  Mafk  of  Religion  from  the  Eyes  of 
^11  Mortals,  they  are  not  vifible  improper  Subjects,  the' 
they  be  fo  invifibly,  or  in  their  Hearts.  Here  Mr.  ^; 
fiiot  quite  befide  the  Mark:  How  any  one  grown  Perfon 
can  be  a  whitcd  Sepulchre,  and  at  the  fame  time  a  Sepul- 
chre without  any  White  ;  a  deceitful  Hypocrite,  and  yet 
fo  well  known,  that  none  are  deceived  in  him,  is  a  My- 
f^cry  of  Contradiaicns  ;  and  unlefs  this  could  be  recon- 
ciled, *tis  nothing  to  his  Purpofe,  whofe  conftant  Prac- 
tice (in  f'retencej  is  to  baptize  vifible  improper  Subjcif^S' 
of  Baptifm.  And  till  he  can  fliew,  that  to  be  vilibly 
under  ^in,  is  lefs  than  to  be  vihbly  in  aStateof  Damnati- 
on i  to  be  vifibly  Enemies  to  God,  is  far  fbort  of  vifiblv 

belon^ini 


[     i<57    3 

belonging  to  the  Devil  :  What  do  we  fay  hnt  what 
the  Scripture  fays,  that  zve  are  by  Nature  Children  of 
Wratby  U'c.     Further, 

Agreeable  to  the  reft  of  his  Condu£l,  he  fays,  "  /pro- 
ceed in  a  Parcel  of  random  Strokes  to  reproach  his  JJncha- 
ritablenefs  to  the  Infants  of  Nan  fnembers,  andfalfly  Jay^  he 
afferts  the  Impoffibility  of  their  Salvation"  Page  76.  Anf, 
Yet  he  fays  in  the  following  Lines,  and  elfewhere,  that 
they  are  out  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace--- that  there  is  no 
Promife  to  theni,---that  he  muft  fufpend  his  Belief  of 
their  Salvation, --Nor  has  he  any  Ground  to  believe  thev 
are  faved,  for  God  has  told  him  nothing  of  it— And 
that  it  is  already  proved  from  many  Scriptures,  Out  of  the 
Church  is  no  Salvation.  Is  it  then  any  Reproach  to  his 
Charity,  or  any  falfe  Charge,  to  affert  that  his  own 
Words  affirm  the  impoffibility  of  Salvation  to  the  Infants 
of  Non- members,  dying  in  their  Infancy  ?  Not  at  ail. 
If  the  Cafe  be  thus,  I  have  yet  more  to  fay,  than  calling 
this  a  new  Edition  of  the  old  Story  j  that  is,  that  he 
holds  Church- memberfhip  abfolutely  and  eflentially  ne- 
ceflary  to  Salvation,  contrary  to  Scripture  and  f  Prote- 
ftani  Doftrine ;  for  if  fo,  v/hat  then  became  of  Mel- 
chizedecy  Shem^  Lot,  Job,  and  others,  when  it  cannot 
be  (hewn,  that  they  ever  were  Members  in  the  Jeivi/J) 
Church.:  Nay  I  have  Room  again  to  turn  the  J  Key- 
on  him,  "  They  could  neither  bejujlified  nor  condemned 
in  this  Life"  he. 

Notwithftanding  what"  has  been  already  obferv*d,  he 
fays  our  Principles  derogate  from  Chrift  when  he  was  an 
Infant.  Reply.  Not  to  remark  on  all  exceptionable 
Expreffions,  obferve  whatever  we  fay  of  the  Promifes 
to  Infants,  of  Circumcifion,  and  the  Jewijl)  Church, 
our  Principles  exprefly  teach,  that  all  the  Promises  of 
the  Covenant  were  made  to  Chrift  :  *Tis  therefore 
ftrange  our  Principles  Ihould  exprefs  this,  and  the  con- 
\  L  4  trary 

f  Says  the  Affembly  of  Divines,  <'  Tho'   the  Pofterit/ 
of  Abraham  were  God's    vifible    Church,  there  were  feme 
without  it,  who  were  not  without  the  Knowledge  and  Wor- 
.  Ihip  of  the  true  God/'     Annot.  Gen.  xiv.  18. 
X  Anti.  Page  i8.     ' 


[     1^8     3 

ferarytOQ  Buthe  muft  fayfomething  to  blacken  us, 
tiio  ever  fo  Icnfelefs  in  itfelf,  • 

^  As  for  his  accufing  us  of  wrefting  Scriptures  Iri 
Defence  of  our  Principles,  this  appears  to  have  no 
I-oundation  to  ftand  en,  unlefs  it  be  in  his  Judgment, 
when  yet  he  cannot  make  it  appear  by  Argument  ; 
therefore  worthy  of  no  Regard.  Indeed  by  all  that  has 
yet  appeared,  he  is  deeply  guilty  of  the  Crime,  whereof 
he  aecufetn  us,  when  there  is  not  one  Place  of  Scripture 
that   teacheth  his  Dodrine  of  Infant   Baptifm. 

The  78th  and  following  Pages,  are  cramm'd  up  with 
the  fruits  c^f  his  Indignation,  which    in  Page  79  th   he 
calls  juft      Verily,  had  his  Writing  in    the  foregoing 
Sheets    afforded  as  evident  Proofs  of  his  Principles,  a1 
thefe  Pages  do,  of  his  Indignation,  or   angry  Refent- 
jnents,  no  Body  would  have  any  Room  to  queftion  the 
1  ruth  and  Reality  of  the  one,  more  than  of  the  other. 
Had  he  fliewn  my  Pofitions,  Tenets  and  GIo/Tes,  as  they  are 
m  my  Book,  to  have  been  Anti-fcriptural    and    abfurd, 
he  might  with  better  Appearance  have  warned  his  Read- 
ers  of  their    Danger,  ?,nd    profefTed  his   WiHingnefs  to 
die,  rather  than  fubfcribe  them  :    But  fince  it  is  quite 
totherwife,  I  fee  no  Reafon  to  retradi  my  Phrafes  (which 
he  calls  modeft)  nor  am  inclined  to  confirm  any  Gofpel 
Iruth   by  fwearingto  it,  as  he  groundlelly   infinuates  ; 
tho    1  am    for    the  Liberty  to  affirra  it  modeftlv,  and 
would  have  it  received,  when  it  is  proven  clearly/    Had 
he  freed  himfelf  from   the  Gharge  of  making  light  of 
Godspofitive   Commands,  and  cleared  the  Dialogue  of 
holding  Abraham   to  be  a  publick  Head  in  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  how  much  better  could  he  fay,  that  I  pervert- 
ed his  Arguments,  and   bore  falfe  Witnefs  againft   my 
Ne^hbour.     Had   he  difcovered   that  my   Inlmuations. 
Rt^eclion.    and  Epithets,  in  the  Places,  and  on  the  Oc- 
cahcns  1  ufcd  them,  were  not  juft  and  proper,  he    might 
reject  them  as  mvidiouj  and  indecent.    Had  he  in   the 
UJurle  of  this  Debate  made  appear,  tiwtl  had  been  guilty 
ofaconftantLvafionofhis  Arguments,  he  mi^ht  well 
enomre  how  fuch  a  Praaice  can  be  reconciled  with  Ho- 
^Etty.     Had  his  Spirit  been  unbeclouded  in  this  Contro- 

vcifj'i 


C     1^9    ] 

verfy,  he  might  have  more  clearly  difcerned  the  conftant 
Gloom  which  covers  his  Performance.  Had  he  duly 
r.oticed  my  Book,  he  would  have  no  juft  Ground  to  fajr 
that  all  is  Certainty  with  me  without  Evidence,  that  I 
am  confident  without  Argument,  and  convinced  v/ith- 
out  Demonftration  ;  or,  that  I  de4l  much  in  Superla- 
tives, when  there  is  fcarcely  an  Inftance  to  be  found, 
where  I  have  made  ufe  of  the  fuperlative  Degree  in  my 
Aflertions.  Had  his  Mind  been  fuitably  impre/Ted  with 
a  Senfe  of  Religion,  he  would  have  guarded  againft 
Pailion,  which  fo  plentifully  appears  through  his  Per- 
formance, particularly  in  thefe  Pages.  And  had  his 
abundant  Hurry  permitted  him  to  review  his  Vindicati^ 
on  impartially,  he  might  readily  have  (ttn  a  much  near- 
er Refem^Iance  of  the  Popijh  Difputants,  than  my  Jn- 
iifadorantifm  :  Therein  he  might  have  fcen  the  fuifici- 
ency  of  the  Scripture  difparaged  :  A  Principle  of  Religi- 
on aflerted,  and  pleaded  for,  which  is  not  taught  in  ho- 
ly Scripture  :  Antiqyiity,  even  Apoftolical,  PopiJ/j-hke, 
urg'd  ill  Favour  of  that,  which  hath  not  apofl:olical 
Teftimony  to  fupport  it :  The  Promifes  of  Chrift  in- 
fifted  on  for  its  Defence,  in  the  fame  Manner  as  Popijb 
Difputants  do  in  Behalf  of  their  Church  and  Principles: 
The  Baptijh  reprefented  to  be  a  new  Upftart  Seft,  juft 
as  the  r.api/is  deal  with  the  Proteftants,  notwitftand- 
ing  our  Principles  are  undeniably  proven  to  be  Scriptu- 
ral, he.   &c. 

But  fince  he  failed  in  each  of  the  abovefaid  Particu- 
lars, thefe  Pages  juft  ferve  to  (hev/  his  Wiilingncfs  to 
carry  the  Caufe  by  Clamour,  which  he  was  not  able  to 
do  by  Arguments. 

In  Page  79.  he  propofes  a  Query,  "  If  he  is  con* 
vinced,  how  is  it  that  he  dares  mi  P  Does  not  this  fay,  that 
he  is  convinced,  and  yet  not  convinced,  at  the  fame  time?'* 
Anf.  No  :  It  lays  no  fuch  Thing.  I  told  him  the  Rea- 
fon  before;  "  y/ Prefbyterian,  ivho  is  convinced  by  Scrip- 
ture that  his  Infant  jpr  inkling  is  wrong,  hut  dares  not  for' 
fake  it,  hecaufe  of  the  Firebrands  and  Death  caji  in  his 
Way."  Had  he  refuted  the  Reafon  given,  which  is 
grounded  on  the  Places  referred  to,  inftead  of  propofing 

this 


[    lyo    ] 

this  groundlefs  Query,  he  would  have  a£led  much  more 
Difputant-like.  Is  it  any  Difficulty  to  account  why 
he  dares  not  ?  That  is,  becaufe  he  13  deterr'd  *  by  the 
frightful  Difcouragements,  that  fuch  as  the  Author  of 
the  Dialogue,  and  others  do  caft  in  iiis  Way,  from  pro- 
ceeding according  to  Light  received  ;  when  he  is  told, 
t  that  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  Millftone  were  hang- 
ed about  his  Neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in  the 
Depth  of  the  Sea,  than  he  fhould  deny  Infants  Right  to 
Baptifm,  or  rejea  his  Infant- baptifm.  Thefe,  and  fuch 
like  thundering  Threats,  they  know,  take  great  Im~ 
preflion  on  a  tender  Confcience,  who  at  the  fame  time 
cannot  find  any  Inftitution  of  Infant- baptifm,  nor  can 
they  fhew  him  any,  and  yet  he  dares  not  forfake'ir,  be- 
caufe of  thefe  Obftruaions  he  meets  with  from  them. 

On  the  whole,  the  Reader  may  obferve,  that  Mr.  F^ 
Charitable  Plea,  is  fully  refuted,  and  his  Objcaions  in 
his  /^indication  fufficiently  enervated :  The  Gofpel 
Truth,  which  teaches  profeiEng  Believers  to  be  the  only 
proper  Subjeds  of  Baptifm,  ftill  fhines  in  its  divine 
Beauty,  far  beyond  the  unfuccefsful  Attempts  made  to 
obfcure  it :  Therefore  let  all  the  Lovers  of  Truth  walk 
in  the  Light  thereof. 

^  Divine  Right,  Pages  6,  7.  f  Ibid.  Page  28. 


IN 


[    17'     ] 

*^    *4»    't*    ti*    *^    tji    ti«    »-i*    ij*    -f*  ^s'  .       -  >i    '12*    it^  »$»    tjT 

IN  Page  8 1.  Mr.  F.  proceeds  to  the  Vindication  of 
his  fecond  general  AfTertion,  "  That  Bapiifm  is 
rightly  admini/ired  by  fprinkling  or  pouring  of  PVater  on 
the  Perfon  baptized."  Which  he  endeavours  to  prove, 
I,  *'  By  Jhewirtg  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Word  of 
God  contraditiory ,  to  it  j  or  that  the  Anabapti^s  ArgU' 
ments  againjl  it,  do  not  overthrow  it." 

Before  he  comes  to  his  Arguments,  he  makes  his  Re- 
marks on  what  I  faid,  and  feems  offended  with  me, 
and  charges  me  with  Evafion,  becaufe  I  have  not  allcrt- 
^d  as  much  as  he  would  have  me  afl'ert:  Well,  would 
it  not  have  difturbed  him  as  much,  if  not  more,  had  I 
faid,  *'  Cbri/i  has  no  vifble  Church  on  Earth  but  our-- 
felves  ?  Doubtiefs  it  would.  But  if  I  can  pleafc  him,  I 
fhall  now  make  free  to  tell  him,  that  I  look  on  th^ 
Prejhyterian  Church  not  to  be  fram'd  and  regulated  ac- 
cording to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel,  becaufe  it  does  not 
adminifter  Baptifm  according  to  Chrift's  Inftitution, 
when  Infants  are  fprinkled  therein.  Let  him  draw  as 
many  Confequences  from  this,  as  he  thinks  proper,  the 
Cafe  will  be  the  fatpe,  without  he  could  fhew  a  divine 
Command  for  Iwant  fpfinkling. 

I  argued,  that  fmall  Communities  have  had  the  Truth 
on  their  Side  before  now,  when  the  Crouds  embrac'd 
Error.  This  Mr.  F.  has  not  refuted,  but  argues,  as  tho* 
I  had  made  it  a  general  Rule,  without  any  Exceptions; 
when  all  my  Caufe  required,  was  to  fhew  it  is  no  Evi- 
dence that  we  are  in  the  Wrong,  tho'  we  were  a  very 
fmall  Community,  but  rather  for  us,  efpecially  when 
the  Declarations  of  God's  Will,  and  Scripture  Exam- 
ples, appear  on  our  Side  ;  therefore  he  can  get  no  Argu- 
ment from  it  againft  us,  tho'  he  would  bear  the  Read- 
er in  Hand,  as  if  a  great  Number  was  an  evident  Proof 
for  him,  and  againfl  us  j  and  an  infeparable  Mark  that 

Pado- 


[      172      ] 

Padohapujis  are  right,  and  we  In  the  Wron?.     If  the 
Multitude  be  a  Note  of  the  true  Church,  or  of  theTruth 
then  the  Pap'tjis   bid   very  fair  to  be  in  the  Right,  and 
^e  hke  to  carry  away  this  Mark  from  iMr.  F.  himfelf  ^ 

I  ho  It  may  be  obferv'd,  that  he  does  not  do  us,  nor  the 
Iruth  Juftice,  when  he  fays,  *'  //  appears  to  ihi  Qe^ 
ncralify,  that  the  Anabaptifts  are  in  theJVtongr  For 
the  Generality  of  Writers,  confefs  Dipping  to  have  been 
the  ancient  Mode  of  Baptizing,  and  of  them  a  Num- 
Der  of  the  Prejbyterians  themfelves;  witnefs,  the  Mem- 
bly  of  Divines,  on   Rom.  ^^\.  ^.     ««   The  Apojlle  feems  to 

II  *V  '  "'''"''*  Manner  of  Baptifm,  which  was,  to 
dtp  the  Parties  baptized,"  &c.  By  the  Way,  I  wouJd 
tain  know,  by  what  Authority  that  ancient  Manner  i$ 
changed  into  Sprinkling?  He  afks,  '^  m^o  can  more  ve- 
hemently  reproach  and  feoff  the  Protiflant  Churches  than 
the  Anabaptifts  have  done,  and  JiiU  do  ?''  Anf  What 
becaufe  they  all  along  teftify  that  Infant-fprinkling  is  un' 
icrjptural?  Does  he  call  this  vehement  Repioachin^  and 
hcoffing?  If  fo,  he  muft  e'en  put  up  with  it;  iZx  we 
mult  fay  fo,  or  betray  the  Truth  :  But  what  is  that  tg 
the  Reproaches,  Barbarities,  and  Death,  the  Baptifls 
have  endured  from  others,  in  the  Caufe  of  God  and 
iiis  I  ruth  ? 

In  anfwer  to  his  Suggeftion,  that  we  unchurch  all  the 
Proteftant  World,  I  obferved,  "  //  it  be  the  Truth 
which  we  hold,  and  if  it  is  by  praSiiftng  ii^e  unchurch  all 
the  Frotejlant  World,  no  Matter  how  foonJt  is  unchurched 

o'^^f''  II  "  "'^  P'-ff"^^'  ^^  -^^^""^^  <^o  it—unlefs  the 
Protejiant  World  unchurch  itfelf  by  embracing  our  Pr in- 
ciples  He  anfwers,  "  Whatever  Principle  unchurches 
the  .  roieffant  World,  cannot  be  true  according  to  the  Pro- 
nnfe  of  God."  Reply  :  Well,  if  a  Number  of  the  Pro- 
teftant World  are  excluded  from  the  Church,  it  is  the 
Principle  of  Infant-fprinkling,  and  not  we,  that  ex-. 
dudes  them  :  For  if  there  is  Exclufion  at  all  in  the 
Matter,  that  is  the  Caufe  of  it  in  Faft  j  we  can  do  it 
only  doafinally,  according  to  Mr.  Fs  own  Way  of 
argumg:  How  dreadfully  evil  then  muft  that  Principle 
9t  iDfant-fprijikling  be,    that  it  fhould  tend  to  exclude 

Peopl(j 


[      '73      ] 

People  from  the  Prefence  of  God  on  Earth  I  Surely  that 
Principle  canaot  be  true,  which,  in  FaiS,  has  fuch  ill 
Nature  and  Tendency  ! 

I  (hall  now  take  a  View  of  what  he  has  to  fay  in  Op- 
pofition  to  the  Arguments  made  ufe  of,  from  the  Ety- 
mology of  the  Word  Baptizo^  Scripture  Examples,  and 
Scriptare  Allufions,  in  Vindication  of  Immerfion,  to  be 
the  only  feripturai  Mode  of  Baptifm. 

I  have  *  already  (he 'A'n,  from  Leigh's  Crltica  Sacra^ 
that  the  native  and  proper  Signification  of  the  Word 
Baptizo^  is  to  dip  into  Water,  or  to  plunge  under  Wa- 
ter, John  iii.  22,  23.  Mat.  iii.  16.  J£fs  viii.  38. 
which  is  confirmed  by  the  concurring  Teftimony  of  a 
.great  Number  of  Padobaptijis  themfelves:  This  Mr.  F. 
has  not  difprov'd,  nor  given  us  any  convincing  Reafons 
why  we  muft  not  underftand  the  Word  in  the  feveral 
Places  of  Scripture,  which  fpeak  of  the  Ordinance,  ac- 
cording to  the  allowed  native  and  proper  Signification  of 
it.  In  Charitable  Plea^  Pages  81,  82.  he  does  not  de- 
ny the  Word  fignifies  Dipping,  tbo' not  only,  and  al- 
ways fo  ;  and  tells  us,  thzt  Schrevelius  tranflates  Baptizo, 
Lavo  (to  wafh)  as  well  as  Tingo^  which  fignifies  to  dip  ; 
and  intimates,  that  there  are  Inftances  of  Authors  who 
render  Baptixo^  Immergo^  Ini'ingo^  Submergo,  Obruo^  to 
overwhelm,  dip,  or  plunge  ;  or  elle  he  would  not  fup- 
pofe  we  could  produce  them  :  But  in  his  Vindication^ 
Page  87.  he  feems  to  deny  it,  and  pretends  he  has  re- 
futed, that  Bapti%o  fignifies  to  dip:  One  while,  left  he 
Ihould  be  under  a  NeceiTity  of  afi'erting  Baptifm  to  be  a 
Nullity,  if  not  performed  by  Pouring  or  Sprinkling,  he 
won't  deny  the  Word  fignifies  Dipping;  but  then  again, 
left  his  general  Afl'ertion  fhould  be  overthrown,  he 
would  have  us  believe,  he  has  already  refuted,  that  Baptizo 
fignifies  to  dip  or  plunge,  it  feems  he  has  ftudied  more 
how  to  oppofc  us,  than  to  be  confiftent  with  himfelf. 

Mr.  F.  thinks,  I  go  too  faft,  to  fay,  that  we  are  on 
a  Par  with  him  in  this  Point,  on  the  very  firft  Onfet, 
becaufe  he  allows  Baptifm  is  not  a  Nullity,  if  perform'd 
by  Dippiilg  J  but  what  is  that  to  the  Cafe  in  Hand  ?  For 

if 
*  Jnti^  Page   1 1 6. 


[  ^74  3 
if  Baptlzo  fignifies  XVafhing,  and  if  that  may  be  done 
by  Dipping,  our  Mode  is  certainly  right,  according  to 
his  own  Way  of  Reafoning  :  We  have  as  much  Gro'und 
to  fay,  that  Baptifm  is  rightly  adininiftred  by  Dipping,  as 
he  hath  to  the  contrary  j  uniefs  he  will  fay,  that  WaOi- 
ing  cannot  be  done  by  Dipping  :  Hence  then,  he  cart 
get  no  certain  and  infallible  Argument  from  the  Mean- 
ing  of  the  Word,  in  favour  of  his  Opinion  and  Pradice  j 
confequently  the  very  Foundation  of  his  Afiertion  for 
Principle)  is  as  effedtually  raz'd  hereby  on  the  one  Hand, 
as  he  imagines  ours  to  be  on  the  other.     But, 

I  obferved,     **  IVhen  we  come  to  the  Pujh,    Mr.  F. 
fails   in   the  Undertakings   for  he  has  not  cited  us  one  In- 
Jiance  from  Lexico-graphers,  xbhere  the  Word  is  render'd^ 
or  fignifies  to  pour  or  fprinkle— ^«/  labours  to  fupply  his  vuide 
Defect— by  a  frc'd  Confequence^     He  replies.   Page  83. 
If  Baptize  fignify   to  wajh.—and  if  WafJAng  can  be 
performed  by  pomi7}g  on  of  Water ^   then  Baptizing  can  be 
perform' d    by   Pouring  or  Sprinkling.      There    is   no  ima- 
ginable Way  to  prove  this'Confequence  for/d^  but  by  tr»v- 
ing  that  Pouring  is  no  Mode  of  Wajhing.**     And  in  Page 
85.   "  Is  it  not  plain.,  fays  he,   that  Lavo,   Abluo,  com- 
prehendPeriiindo,   Afpergo  ;  as  the  General  comprehends 
every  particular  Species,  or  Sort  ?   Anfc   The  Queftion  is 
not  which  Way,  or  how  many  Ways  Wafhing  may  be 
performed;     but    what  is   the  proper   Meaning  of  the 
Word  Baptizof  Whether   it  means  every  different  Sort 
or  Kind  of  Wafliing  ?    Which  f  Lexicograpl:ers  unani- 
moufly  render  by  Mergo,  Immergo.  to  plunge  or  dip  into; 
whereby  is  intended,  a  particular  Mod*  or  Sort  of  Wafh- 
ing, viz.  ^bv  Dipping.   For  Mr.  F.  therefore  to  infer,  that 
the  fame  Word  which  primarily  and  properly  fignifies  one 
particular  Mode  or  Sort  of  Waflimg,  does  alfo.  fignify  a- 
nother.particular  different  Mode  of  Wafliing,  is  fo  plainly 
a  forc'd  Confequcnce,  as  can  be  mentioned,  and  the  At- 
tempt very   unreafon^ble.      Words  certainly  have  pro- 
per determinate  Notions  annexed  to  them.     Suppofe  the 
Word  had  been   rendered   by  Perfundo,  ^fpergo.,  Lavo., 
would  Mr.  F.  judge  it  a  naiive  Confequence,  or  proper 

Reafon- 
,  \  Anti.  Pa?e  117. 


[    '75    ] 

Reafoning  for  us  to  favi  therefore  it  fignifies  Dipping, 
becaufe  Wafhing  can  be  done  by  Dipping  ?  I  believe 
not.  His  Argument,  which  he  was  fo  willing  to  fubr 
mit  to  Trial,  is  caft  ;  and  it  may  juftly  be  objefled  a- 
gainft,  *'  IVithout  guarding  againjl  Commtn  Senfe,  or 
proving  our  Caufe  to  be  defperate^*  as  he  infinuates. 

In  anfwer  to  Dr.  Gale,  who  challenges  any  Man,  to' 
fhew  a  fingle  Inftance,  wherein  the  Word  Baptize ^  fig- 
mfies  to  pour  or  fprinkle,  or  any  thing  lefs  than  Dipping, 
except  in  fome  ecclefiaftical  Writers  of  the  latter  cor- 
rupt Times  ;  Mr.  F.  undertakes  to  cite  fome  Inftances, 
but  yet  fails  to  anfwer  the  Dod:or's  Dernand  :  His  firft 
is  out  of  Plutarch^  in  Vita  Thefei,  who  recites  a  Verfe, 
that  Sybilla  gave  out  over  the  City  of  Athensy  *'  AJkosy 
haptizee  dunai  de  toi  ou  themis  tjli :  Which  Mr.  F.  renr 
ders.  Baptize  or  tuajl)  him  as  a  Bottle,  but  do  not  over- 
whelm him."  But  more  llgnificantly  thus.  Baptize,  or 
plunge  it  {viz.  th?  City  of  Athens,  in  Wars  and  Per- 
plexities) as  a  Bottle,  but  it  is  not  lawful  to  fink,  or  de- 
itroy  it ;  agreeaWe  to  the  Anfwer  brought  to  Thefeus,  at 
the  Beginning  or  the  Fate  of  this  City,  from  the  Oracle 
of  Apollo.  *  The  Words  of  Cafaubon,  in  his  Note  on 
Mat.  iii.  6.  arc  very  exprefe  and  pertinent  here ;  "  For 
the  Manner  of  baptizing  ffays  he)  was  to  plunge  or  dip 
them  into  the  Water,  as  even  tht  Word  Baptizein  itfelf 
plainly  enough  /hews  ;  which  as  it  does  not  jignify  Dunein, 
to  Jink  down  and  peri/h^  neither  certainly  does  it  Jignify  Epi- 
polazein,  tofivim  or  float  atop  ;  thefe  three  Words^  Epipo- 
lazein,  Baptizein,  Dunein,  being  very  different."  Hence 
then  Baptizo^  to  dip  or  plunge,  may  very  properly  be 
diftinguiflicd  from  f  Duno,  to  go  under,  fink  down — 
without  any  Neceflity  to  conclude,  or  acknowledge  Mr. 
F's  Inference  to  be  juft,  *'  That  to  baptize,  is  not  to 
plunge." 

Hit 

*  Cited  by  Dr.  Gale,  Let.  4. 

f  cPu:«.  Jjfy,  vcl  J^i/'//;,  Subeo,  ingredior,  occido,  induo. 
Schrevel.   Lex. 

Beza,  on  Mat.  iii.  13.  obferves,  "  Significat  autem  to  hap- 
iizein  tingere,  ^uum  para  to  baptein  dicatur,  et  quum  tingtndtx. 

mergantur. 


t  175  ] 

His  next  Inftance  out  of  Plutarch  ;    "  Of  a  Romaii 
General,  who  wrote  an  Infcription  before  he  died^    Bapti- 
zas,  having  baptized  his  Hand  with   Blood,  viz.  which 
fprung  from  his    IVcund.      Hence  his   Hand  could  only  he 
baptized  by  Effufion,   the  Blood  gujhing  out  upon  it."  Re- 
ply ;  The  Hilbrian  does   not    i\\v  the  Blood  guflied  out 
upon  his  Hand,    but,  Kai  eis  to  aima  teen  cheira  baptifaSy 
—  haying  dipp'd   his  Hand   in  Blood,  he  wrote  this  In- 
fcription.—Another  Inftance  Mr.  F.  brings  out  of  Ho- 
mer., **  'Ebapteto  d'amati  limnee  porphur^eon^    i.  e.   The 
Lake  zuas  flained  or  fprinkUd  with  purple  Blood.  '  Bui 
to  fay,  the  Lake  was  plung'd  or  dipp'd  in  Blood,  Jhocks  all 
eommon  Senfe :  Nor  can  there  be  any  Allufton  here  to   dip- 
ping  Things  in  Dye  ;  for  what  Parity  is  there  bettveen  fuch 
Dipping,    and  Blood  running  into  a  Lake  ?  Now  if  Bap- 
too,   the  Primitive,  is  ufed  to  fignify  lifs  than  Plunging^ 
much  more  the  Derivative^  Baptizo."     Dr.  GW^   uhich 
Mr.  F  pretends  to  be  refuting,  has  largely  anfwered  the 
Ubjeaion  here;  I  {hall  cite  a  PaiTage  from  his  learned 
Letters.      Says  he,   *  "   ^4}e  Phrafe,  wt^muji  confider,  is 
borrowed  from  the    Dyers,  who   colour  Thirgs  by  dipping 
them  in  their  Dye  ;  and  to  this  the  Poet  plainly  alludes,  not 
that  the  Lake  was  adually  dipfd  in  Blood,   but  fo  deeply 
Jiatn'd,   that  to  heighten  our  Idea,  he  exprejfes  it,  with  the 
ujual  Liberty  of  Poets,    by  a  Word,  which  fignifles  more 
than  what  is  flri£ily  true,    which   is  the  Nature    of  all 
Hyperboles.     Thus  the  literal  Senfe  is,  the  Lake  was  dip- 

ped 
• 
fnerganttir,  madefacere  et  mergere ;  et  a  njerho  dunai  differt ' 
quod  profundum  fetere  et  fubmergere,  dedarat,  ut  ex  lllo  I'e- 
tens  oraculi  -verftculo  conjiet  ;  afkos  baptixie,  dunai  de  tot  m 
themis  eftt,  tn  quo,  h^c  duo  cpponuntuf-r  Which  is  thus  ren- 
dered by  a  learned  Author  ;  the  Word  Baptize  fignifies  to 
tinge  or  dye,  fince  it  comes  from  Bapto,  and  feeing  Things 
that  are  to  be  dyed,  are  dipped,  it  fignifies  to  maiie  wet.  and 
plunge,  and  differs  from^the  Word  Dunai,  which  firrufies  to 
go  unto  the  Bottom,  and  fink,  as  is  plain  from  th.t  Ve-fe  of 
the  old  Oracle,  Let  the  Bottle  be  dipped,  but  it  is  not  i awful" 
to  fink  It;  in  which  thefe  two  V/ords  are  opro'cd  t..>-,,M! 
another.  '■^ 

*  Letter  3.  * 


[    '77    ] 

pi^d  in  Bloody  but  the  Figure  only  meanst  it  was  colouv'd 
Ms  highly  as  ar.y  Thing  that  is  dipped  in  Blood."  At 
]eni£th  he  obferves,  ''  That  the  Senfe  of  B:'.pto,  eve^ 
tn  this  Place y   is  to  dip,  and  nothing   elfe.'" 

His  laJl  Inftance  is  out  of  Ecclefiafiicus  xxxiv.  2g; 
Baptizomeiiosi  l^c.  And  fays,  **  The  Baptifm  here  refer- 
red  t9^  is  defer ibed  at  large  in  Num.  xix.  which  was  en- 
tirely  by  Sprinkling."  Dr.  Gale  has  alfo  examined  thi« 
InfLnce,  and  Ihewn  the  Invalidity  of  it.  Among  other 
Remarks  upon  it,  hath  the  following  Words,  which  are 
a  pertinent  Reply  to  Mr.  F.  who  argues,  "  That  it  was 
not  the  Perfon  who  was  unclean  by  touching  the  Deady  who 
was  thus  to  wafh  and  bathe,  hut  the  clean  Perfon,  who 
fprinkled  the  JVater  on  him  \  who  by  that  very  Sprinkling 
of  the  other,  had  contrasted  Uncleannefs."  Savs  the  Doc- 
tor, *'  Some  indeed  are  plea  fed  to  fancy,  the  Words  zvhicb 
command  Bathings  are  not  fpoken  of  th?  unclean  Perfon^ 
who  had  touched  the  Dead,  iut  of  the  Prieji  officiatir.g  i 
and  they  fortify  this  Surmize  by ,  the  yh  and  %th  Verfcs 
preceding,  wher0he  Priefi  is  exprefly  commanded  to  wap> 
his  Clothes,  and  bathe  himfelf  in  Water  :  But  it  does  not 
follow^  becaufe  this  Place  relates  to  the  Priefi,  that  the  c- 
ther  (viz.  Verfe  ig.)  does  fo  too;  nay,  rather  it  is  abfurd 
it  fhould,  for,  it  interrupts  and  confounds  the  Senfe  of 
the  Place  :  Beftdes  in  the  very  next  Verfe  but  ene^  viz, 
21.  Uis  ordered,  .that  he  who  fpr inkles  the  Water  of  Sepa-_ 
ration,  f})all  wafh  his  Clothes^  l^c.  plainly  intimating,  that 
was  not  the  Defign  of  the  Words  almoji  immediately  forego  ' 
Ing.  BefideSy  ii  cannot  be  t  eafonably  imagined,  that  the 
priefi,  by  barely  purifying  the  Unclean,  fhould  need  fo  much 
greater  a  Wafhing  and  Purification  than  the  Unclean  him,' 
felf."  And  in  another  Place,  the  DoiSlor  remarks,^ 
V  T!:e  d filed  Perfon  was  to  be  fprinkled  with  the  holy 
iVater  on  the  third,  and  on  the  Jeventh  Day,  only  as  pre- 
paratory to  the  great  Purification,  ivbich  was  to  be  by  Wafo- 
ing  tbr  Body  and  Clothes  on  the feventh  Day,  with  which 
the  Unchanmfi  ended."  And  alter  much  more  Reafoning 
I  uon  it,  too  long  to  be  here  tranfcribed,  he  infers,  "  'Tis 
'isry  plain,  Syracides,  by  Baptizomenos,  in  that  Place^ 
means  batlfd^  dipfd^  and  waflid  j  for  you  fee  the  Law  re- 
M  quired 


[    '78    1 

quired  no  hfs,  and  no  left  was  praSiifed  ly  the  ]tws^  in 
Cafe  offuch  Pollution  by  the  Dead."  On  the  W  hole  that 
Mr.  F.  has  prcductd,  v.hatever  he  niay  have  in  Storey 
it  does  not  appear  ftrange  Dr.  Gale  never  found  Baptizo  to 
iignifv  lefs  than  Dipping. 

What  Mr. /:  cites  cut  of  Leigh's  Ciitica  Sacra,  and- 
he  from  Dr.  Featly  againft   tlic  Jnabapti/ls,  That  Bapti- 
to  is  taken  for  Wafhing,  where   there    is  no    Dipping  : 
On  this  Occafion  I  already  obferved,   f    "  That  as  it^ is 
TiOt  true  in  itfdf,  fo  neither  does  it  agree   vAth  what  is  ac- 
hmvledged  itJ  the  Critica  Sacra,  juji  before"  even  by  Dr. 
Featly  himfelf  ;  which  is,  '*  Ihoi  Baprizo  is  derived  from 
Bapto,   Tingo,   to  dip  or  plunge  into  the  Watery  and fgni- 
fieth  primarily  fuch  a  kind  of  IVaflAng  as  is  ufed  in  Bucks,' 
where  Linntn  is  flung  d  and  dipt."     New   what   fignifies 
it  for    Mr.  F.  co  repeat  ihe  fame  Thing  over  and  oter, 
lincc  he  has  not  removed  the  Inconhiiencv  I  chaiged  oa 
his  AfTertion,  unlefs  he  thinks  his  fiequent  Repetition, 
will  at  Length    pafs  into  an  ui.doubicd  Aurhority  ?   He 
may  know,   that  we  pav  no  more  Regard  ro  Dr.  Featly's 
bold  Aflcj  tions,  in  his  Warmth  agaiiift  the  Bapti/ls,  than 
we  do  to  h  Assayings,  unfuppoited  by  Authority.   I  think 
EfquireX^^:^  gives    it   as    his  o-wn  Judgment,  *^7hat 
ihe  native  and  proper  Signification  of  Baptizo,  //  to  dip 
into  Water  ^  or   to  plunge  under  Water"     To  the    fame 
Purpofe  j)e  cites  Cafaubon,   Buchanus,  BuU>7ger,  and  Zart- 
£hius.     Now    unlef*  Mr.  F.h^.d  refuted  thii  aljowed  na- 
tive and  proper  Signification  of  the  Word,  there  is  no 
Room  for  him   to  impofe  a  Tafk   on  me  which  is  done 
already  :  But  ir  highly  concerns  him  to  fiiew  the  Word 
fignifies  to  pour  or  fprinkJe,  or  elfe  his  Fradf  ice  will  al- 
ways appear  un  war  rar,  table.     Ihe  Obfervarions  of   the 
the  Reverend  Mr.  Gill,  and    Mr.    Rees,  appear    to  be 
juft,  viz.  that  Baptizo  fj;ininc£  to  w^fh    onlv  by  Con- 
fequencei  (but  fo  iikewife  it  does  to  wet,  colour,    dye, 
diown--  )  becaufe  there  cannot  be  dipping   in  fair  Wa- 
ter without  wafhing  ;   which   the  Jnibnces  produced  b^ 
Mr.   F.irr.m  Homer ^    Plutarch^  Sec.  do  not  oveithiow. 
Says  be.  Page  85.  "  Otig  may  dip  his  Foot  in  Mud,  and 

ya 
t  Aati.  P.-^ge  11 6c 


y:t  net  he  ovirtuhelmtd  either  Foot  or  B^Jy."  Bat  if  the 
Foot  be  dipt  m  Mud,  it  is  certainly  diptsc  which  is  the 
Thing  A4r.  Refs  aflerted,  that  Baptize  iigmBe<i  to  dip  in- 
to any  Matter  absolutely,  without  regarding  Water,  or 
ary  other  Liquid.  I  fee  nothing  of  Argument  in  what 
Mr.  F.  fays  about  Mr.  Rees  his  Obfcrvations  on  Dr, 
Owen's  pofthumous  Works,  uniefs  what  he  caJls  pka- 
fanr  Wittictfms  (hould  be  thought  of  fomc  Forces 
%vhich  may  perhap»  divert  bis  Readers  whilft  the  Paint 
which  needed  handling  is  pafled  by,  that  is,  to  fliew  tha€ 
Baptizt  iignifiesto  wafli  fimply,  without  having reg:ard  tot 
Dipping.  But  inftead  hereof,  his  Charader  muft  be  re- 
pn-ached  by  a  groundiefs  infinuation,  in  the  following 
Wyrdb,  "  ^uery.  Does  Mr.  Recs,  in  theje  odd  Ohfava- 
,  i^pns^  [peak  like  an  boneji  Man,  who  vnderjiandt  the  Greek 
Tongue?'' 

here  I  would  afk  Mr.  F.  why  he  did  not  Vindicate  fais 
Quotation  from  the  Affcmbly  of  Divines,  whofe  Autho- 
rity he  made  fuch  a  Stir  about  in  his  former  Piece  fas 
that  they  were  Men  of  Learning,  and  under  foleraa 
Obligation  to  declare  fsnccrcly  their  Judgments^  al  being 
in  h«s  Favour  {  Is  it  becaufe  their  ConceiTions  in  their 
Annotations  invalidate  what  they  fay  in  their  Cace- 
chiims  ? 

Says  be.  Page  86,  *'  tfecondly  proved  our  Senfe  of  ibi 
t'Vord  to  f)e  jufij  from  the  life  of  it  in  the  New  Te/lament  j 
herg  I  alkdged  M&rk.  vii.  4,  When  they  come  from  ths 
Market,  except  they  wajh  they  eat  not  ;  in  tht  Greeks 
txcen  thty  be  haptixfA  j  now  can  we  imagine  the  Jewis 
plunged  their  zvhole  Body  in  Water ^  every  time  they  cam6 
from  Market^  and  every  time  they  eat?  No,  for  Verfe  Ja 
tciXi  m  they  only  wajhed  their  Hands.  To  this  Mr.  M.  op- 
pjjes  Btza  himfelf.,  Mr.  Leigh,  and  Mr.  Q,\\\,  Mr, 
f.eighpy,?i-&-j  the  different  Criticifms  of  Authors.  The 
■hers  I  look  en  to  be  mijlaken.^^     Anf.   I  grant,  this  is  ast 

y  and  {bort  Way  of  Refutation,  if    it    willdojbufe 

^■•re  we  can  allow  thofe  gr.^at  Men  to  have  been  mi- 

•n,   Mr.  F.   should  have  (hewn  they  were  fo  ;  Bezx 

"liger  ftiou'd  h3%'e  been  refuted  j  he  fliould   have 

-  efcat  imjiie*fion  of  the  whole  Body  w2s  not   ifi 

M2  f!-f.:w«;t 


[     i8o    J 

frequent  Ufe  among  the  Jnus  ;  arid  that  Nipfontal  m 
Verfe   3,  and  Ba'ptlfontai  in  Vcrfe    4,  are  of   ihe    fame 
Import,  andCignify  one,  and  ihe  fame  A  a,  or  kind    of 
Wafhing  :   But  fince  he  has  done  neither  of  thefe  i'arti- 
culars,  and  feeing  the  Phrale  is  changed  as  he  ackn.w- 
Udgts,  it  gives  Ground  to  our  Argument,   that  the   for- 
mer IS  particularly  to  be  underftnod    of  the    waftiing   of 
Hands,   but  the  latter  *'   Ximplieth    the  waJJ/ing  (or  im- 
merfing)  of  their  whole  Body."      Befides,   to    underlbnd 
n  thus,  better  cxprefTcs  the  outward   affcded  San^ity  of 
the  more  fuperftitious  Part  of  the  People,   as   Mr    Gill 
had  obferved  :     This  Mr  F.  fhould    have  refuted  befo.e 
he  fo  uncivilly  charged   Mr.   Gill  with  rontradiding  the 
Scripture.     If  the  Evangelift  does  not  fpeak  of  the  more 
fuperftitious  Part  in  this  Place,   I  would    a(k,   who  d.es 
he  fpeak  of?   Who  were  fo  tenacious   of  the  Traditions 
of  the  Elders,   if  not  the  more  Superftitiuus  ?   'Tis  plain 
enough  from  Scripture,   that  there    was    a  Part  or  Scft 
among  the  Jeivs  more  fuperftitious  than  others  :     The 
Pharifees  were  a  Sed  i>f  precife,  vain-glorious  Separatilis, 
that  defpifed  others,  Luke  xviii.   full  of  Self  conceit  of 
their  own  Holinefs,  and  lo(ked  upon  the  ccmmon  Peo- 
ple, or  thofe  who  did  not  join  with  them,  to  be  accurfed, 
John  !x.  who  when  they  came  from  Market,  or  from 
any  Court  of  Judicature,   immerfed  themfdves  all  over 
in  Water.    §  Mr.  Gill  proves  from  the  Je-Mijh  Writers, 
that  if  the  Pnarifees  touched  but  the  Garments  of   the 
common  People,  they  were  defiled    all   one   as    if    they 
had  touched  a  prcfluvious  Perfon,  and  needed  Immcifi- 
on,  and  were  Oblged  to  it.     Hence,  Luke  xi.    ^8.   may 
properly  b^..unds^ritood,   to  intend   this    total    Abiution, 
or  Immerfion  of  the  whole  Body  ;  for   Chrift  had  been 
in  a  Croud  of  People  that  Dav,   V ^r'iz  29.   And  accord- 
ing to  the  Pharifees  N-.tion  needed  Imme.fion  :  T^i^xf:^ 
fore  there  is  nothinir  appears   as    yet  from   rhefe  Words 
to    favour     Mr.   F\    Opmion  ;     for    tr-e    Jetvs     v. ere 
not    faid     to    be    baptized,     .Afien     their     Hands     only 
were  waflicd,  or  waf.i:ng  of  Hands  is   not  heie  called 

X  Leigh.         §  Expof.  Mark  vii.  4. 


(     i8i     ) 

baptizing  them.     His  Conclufion  then  is  truly  and  jufi- 
ly  rejVded,  as  having  no  Foundation  in  the  Text. 

As  to  what  he  urges  from  the  Inftance  of  Chrifl's 
Wa(hing  his  Difciples  Feet,  John  xiti.  it  is  not  worth 
a:u'  Notice:  He  may  as  well  argue,  that  the  myftical 
U^atcr  of  Baptifm  (as  he  calls  it)  is  abfolutely  necefla- 
ry  t.)  Salvation,  becaufe  that  myftical  Wafhing  (fa 
called)  WIS  (o,  *'  If  I  xvafh  thee  not,  thou  hafl  no  Part 
in  me''  If  he  thinks  this  i^ulLgc  affords  him  a  Rule  of 
Diredlmn  huw  Baptifm  ought  to  be  adniiniflred,  he 
Ihouid  wafh  the  Feet,  and  nnt  thg  Face,  of  thofc  he  pre- 
tends to  baprjze  j  and  (hould  alfo  have  Lme  total  Ablu- 
tion to  precede  his  Sprinkling,  in  order  to  have  fom« 
Colour     tor   his     Pradice     anfwerabje    to     the   Text, 

He  that  is  %ijajhedy  ncedeih  noty  fave  only  to  ivafh  his 
Feet  ;"  which  is  expreiiive  of  wfsat  I  faid,  without  any 
Glofs  on  It  at  all  :  B.iides  Chrirt  was  not  here  about 
to  inltitute  tJie  Oidinanceof  Baptifm,  or  to  inform  his 
Difciples  in  what  Manner  it  ought  to  be  adminiilred. 
Nothing  but  extream  Scarcity  of  Argument  could  pof- 
fiblv  force  Mr.  F.  to  urge  this  Place  in  Favour  of  his 
Pr^dice,  which  hath  iro  Manner  of  Relation  to  the 
Pomt  in  Hand  ;  nor  has  he  fliewn  us  »ny  divine  Rule, 
which  direds  turn  to  fprinkle  the  Face,  more  than  any 
othc;r  Part  ;  bat  ,onIy  his  own  Fancy  leads  him  to  this 
Device,  to  p^ur  W^ter  on  the  Face,  "  Becaufe  his 
the  principal  Part  of  Man's  Body.-  Nut  that  Chr;fl  or- 
dcred  h  m  to  dufo,  or  that  he  has  any  Example  of  ths 
Admin. ftration  of  Bapiifm  in  this  Manner,  in  the 
Word  of  God  ;  but  of  this  enough,  unlefs  it  had  been 
to  the  Matter  in  Hand. 

Inanfvver  to  his  fuller  Argument  from  Mark  vii.  4. 
I  obferved,  *'  JVlmt  may  be  the  prefent  Cujiom  of  wajliing 
Tables  {or  Beds)  is  nothing  to  the  Purpofe  ;  he  ought  to 
havefbewn  how  the  Jews  wajhid  them^  before  his  Argu- 
ment will  be  of  any  Force  in  this  Centroverfy."  He  thinks 
there  is  no  Difficulty  in  this  at  all,  unkf*  it  be  fuppofcd 
the  Jews  were  fume  diftra£Ved  fort  of  Perfons  j  and 
imagines  I  might  '*  as  xvell  require  him  is  prove,  that 
ihf  Jews  walked  en  thdr  Feet,  and  did  ntt  creep  on  all 

M  3  Feur:\ 


(      IS2      ) 
^^«r."— And  fays,  «*  Mr.  KttsJhouIJ  have  Jhewn  that 
the  TradtUom  (cfiht  Elders)  required  Plmrghg,"      Well 
then,  if  it  can  he  fliewn,  that  thofe  Traditions  did  re- 
quire the  Immcrfion  or  Dipping   of  Tables  or  Beds    it 
wtUfufHcientiy  er^ervate  Mr.    Fs  Argument,   and   fulJy 
ftievv  theEvar^gdift  u(^d  the  Word  Baptijmos  in  its  pro- 
per s)rd  native  Senfe,   which  we  contend  for :     And  to 
this  Purpofe,   take   an    Inftance  or   two  out  of  in^ny 
ivhich  Mr.  Gill  has   cited  in  his   learned  Expofitioft  on 
the  Place  ;  after  he  hath  fhcwn  the  Traditions  ot  the  Eld- 
ers   required  the  Immerrion  of  Cups,   Pots  and  brazen 
VeiTeis,    obferves,  from  the  Jevjiih  VV,  itings,   "   That 
fviry  yejfel  of  Wood  that  is  divided  into  two  Parts  is  clean, 
(xcepttng  a  double  Table,  &c.   i.  e.  a  7 able  which  covji/i/d 
cf  various  Parts,  and  were  folded  together -when  it  ivas\e- 
Tncvtd  i  and  thefe  were  wafied  by  covering  them  in  Water, 
£r,d very  nice   they  ivere  in  wajlnng  them,  that' the  Water 
Tnight  reach  evtry  Part,  and  that  they  might  be  covered  all 
ever  J  that  there  might  be  nothing  which  might  fepar ate  be- 
tween them,    and  the  Water,   and  hinder     its  coming    t9 
them*'     Again,  v.  hen  he  has  mentioned  the  divers  Ways 
whereby   Beds  were   defiled,  obferves,     "  Ihe   Jcwilh 
Canons  run  thus,  a  Bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips  it 
Fart  by  Pari,   it  is  purer     Again,  -  If  he  dtps  the  Bed 
tn  it  (the  Pool  of  Water)  although  its  Feet  are  plunged  in- 
/J  the  UHck  Clay  [at  the  Bottom  of  the  Pool)   it  is  clean  " 
Further,  '^  APilloiv,  or  a  Bolfier  of  Skin,  when  a  Man 
:-fis  tip    the   Ends,  ^  or    Mouths  of  them  out  cf  the  Wa- 
Ur,^  the  Water  which  is  within  them  will  be  drawn,  what 
pall  he  dor  Hemufi  dip  them,  and  lift  them  i,p    by  theit 
Fringes,"- In f]?ort,  it  is  a  Rule  with  the  Jews,  that  ivhere- 
foevcr  tn^  the  Law  waflAng  of  the  Fujh  or  if  Clothes  is  mtn- 
Honed,  -tt  means  nothing  elfe  than  the  dipping  of  the  Whole 
in  Water;-- far  if  any  Manwafhhimfdfallover,  except 
ne  Top  cfhis  little  Finger,   he  is Jlill  in   his  Uncleannefs. 
bo  toat  the  Evangelifi  ufes  the  Words  Rjpdzo  and  Bapia'- 
mo%mofi  propel  ly,  without  dcpartirg  from  their  primary 
and  literal  Senfe  ;   nor  could  he  have  ufed  Words  more  ap- 
pcftte  and  fit.      Hence  it  appears,   with  what  little  Shew 
e/Reafin,  and  what  a  vaf»  Furptft  this  Paffage  is  fo  often 

(ippeaUd  ■ 


(     iS3     ) 

^ippeahd  t»^  to  hjfen  the  Senfe  of  the  TVord  Baptizo  ;  as  If 
it  did  not  f.gnify  to  dip^  but  a  jort  of  Wafinngjhort  of  Dip^ 
ping  i  tho"  what  that  (Vajhing  is,  is  not  eafy  to  Jay^  ftnce 
Veffih  and  Clothes  are  in  csmtmn  zvajhed  i>y  putti-g  them 
itiro  fVater,  ortd  covering  them  with  it.  This  Paffage 
therefore  is  of  no  Service  to  thoje  who  plead  for  fprinklingy 
cr  pc.-ing  l^'^uin-  in  Baptifttty  in  Oppofiiion  to  hnmerfion  ; 
nor  of  any  Dijfervice^  but  of  real  Uje  to  thoje  who  prac- 
life  bn  tiler fi'fi^  and  muji  confirm  them  in  it"  On  the 
Wh.iit:,  t'.t  Reader  m^iy  fee,  Mr.  F.  had  no  jufc  Ground 
to  fav,  that  I  might  as  v/ell  require  him  to  prove  the 
yews  vaiked  on  their  Feet,  as  how  they  wa/hed 
th:  ir  Tables  or  Beds  ;  nor  to  fugg'.^fl,  that  iVIr.  Reeszmi 
I  a(e  iiithoncft  and  unfaithful  to  the  C^aufe  of  Truth  : 
I  would  knowofh^m,  what  were  the  Traditions  of  the 
Elders  originally,  but  the  ab'ifing  of  fomc  Precept,  or 
«not.')er,  before  he  fays,  "  He  has  (ut  the  Sinews  of 
cf  our  laborious  Shift  J* 

In  Page  89.  he  proceeds  to  Heb.  ix.  10.  and  fays, 
**  The  ApolVie  here  refers  to  all  the  ceremonial  Purifi- 
cations without  Limitation  ;  and  tells  uSy  in  Verfe  igth,  he 
calls  forne  of  thefe  Baptijtm  Sor inklings."  But  Mr  F.  well 
r  knew  that  f  deny'd  his  aboveiaid  Aflertion  :  It  therefore 
■  highlv  became  him  to  (hew,  that  all  the  ceremcnial  Puri- 
fications were  included  in  this  Term,  Divers  Wafftngs  j 
before  he  talks,  *■■  That  we  are  fadly  at  a  Lnfs  for  Jrgu^ 
ments  ;  and  that  tve  bring  Kothinjr  but  lamentable  StuJ^ 
in  Oppofition  to  his."  The  Sprinkling  mentioned  iti 
Veife  iQfh,  feems  much  rather  to  be  included  in  the  A- 
poftlc's  Phrafe,  *'  Carnal  Ordinances"  than  the  forego- 
ing, "  Divers  IVnJhings.''*  *'  Carnal  Ordinances  (fays 
the  A-ffemhly  of  Divines  or  Jujifications  of  the  Flejhy  bt- 
caufe  they  didfon^lify  only  to  the  purifying  of  the  Hejh,  Perfe 
13."  -f  Cradu'i  notes,  "  Dikaioomata,  Jujiificatieni  i 
hecanfe  they  reprefentcd  the  Way  of  obtaining  Jufiification.'* 
And  for  this  Lnd  the  Apoftle  mcniions  the  Sprinkling 
©f  Blood  in  the  following  Verfes ;  as  being  typical  of 
the  Blood  of  Chrili,  whereby  a  Sinner  is  juftified  and 
clcanfid  from  the  Guilt  or  Sin.     Now  if  the  Qz^Q  be 

M  4  thus, 

I  Apefi.  Hift.  Page  480, 


(     i84    ) 
thus,  as  nothing  appears  to  the  contrary  ;  Sprinkling  in 
t3'J-  "''^  comprehended  under  the  Expreffion,  Di~ 
vers  JVaMp  ;  nor  does    there  appear    anv   Room  for 
thcConclufion  he  would  hence  infer,  «'  That  fome  of 
ihefeBapufrm  are  Sprinkling,:-    This  may  alfo    ferve  to 
leilen  h,s  Aniazement,  by  {hewing  that  the  J-ift-ficationi 
or  R.ghteoufneiTes,  in  the  fcveral  Scriptures  he  has  cited, 
are  referable  to  carnal  Ordinances,  and  none  of  them 
intended  by  Divers  IVaftAngs;  and  fo  there  appears  not 
the  Jeaft  Contradidion  t©  Scripture,  in  faying  the  cere- 
mon.al  Wafhingsthe  ApoHle  had  in  Viev.,  ftJod   not  in 
^P'Vj ''"2''  ^'t'^er  generally  or  particularly  ;  efpecially 

the  VVord  Ranttfe  made  ufe  of  j  M'hich  does  not  fignify 
to  wafh,  tho  he  fecms  willing  to  force  it,  contrary  to 
Its  Meaning,  to  do  fo,  when  he  without  any  Evidence 
lays,  the  Apollle  calls  icme  of  thefe  Baptifms  Sprink- 
Jings,  which  yet  the  Apoftle  does  not,  tho'  indeed  he,  by 

u  r  '  ^''''"^'^  ^^'"  "'^^^  ^^'"^  ^Pea^  ^^-  '  Further,  en 
the  ame  miftaken  Suppofition  of  the  Apoflle's  referring 
to  all  the  cereir.onial  Purifications  without  Limitation? 
1)=  goes  on  to  fay.  That  wecxprefly  contradia  the  Apo- 
IJe,  and  Scnptuie,  when   we  fay,  the  f    Apoftle  calls 

1^  K  1^'^."^""'^^^^^"''°"^  (which  were  always  perform- 
ed by  bathmg  or  d.pping  in  Water)  divers,  or  different 
beca^fe  of  the  different  Perfons  or  l^hings.  theifubjeas 
thereof.  "^  et  it  io  gbfervable,  at  the  fame  time  he  would 
make  his  Glofs  pafs  for  Truth,  the  ApoPJe  does  not  fav, 
as  he  would  have  it,  that  thofe  Wafhings  were  divers, 
as  to  tne  Mode  of  their  Adminiftrations  j.  as  fom«  by  dip- 
P^nglome  by  pouring,  and  ethers  by  putting  on  with 
thei-jngcri  nor  indeed  is  it  reafonable    to  fuppofe  the 

..  t  ^r''7''  ^^0"^  a'i  allow  to  be  a  Man  of  Learning,  notesf 
"'^rias  Lotiones  nominal,  quia  lotio  alia  erat  Sacerdotufn, 
iixod.  xxix.  4.  alia  Lefitarum,  Num.  viii.  7.  alia  Ifraeli- 
tarumpcji  irr.puritaUm  aliquam  contradam.  Lev.  xv.  8,  16. 
i  /7'A^^i';  ^5-  ^'xii-  6.  Num.  xix.  19."  That  is, 
*e  (the  Apcitie)  fpeaks  of  divers  Wafnings,  becaufc  there  was 
one  W  afhing  of  the  PrieHs,  another  of  the  Levites,  and  ano- 
<r\  the  lOaelites,  after  foms  Defilement  contraded.  To 
fhs  fame  Purpofe  EJlius  alfo  gpmmei^ts  on  the  Place, 


(  185  ) 
Apoftle  intended  all  the  ceremonial  Purifications  herebf, 
v.'hen  he  immediately  fubjoins,  "  And  carnal  Ordi' 
nances  ;"  under  which,  fo  great  a  Part  of  tlie  ceremoni- 
al Worfliip  is  included.  Hence  it  does  not  appear,  there 
is  any  Thing  in  this  Place  which  favours  hii  Sprinkling, 
or  gives  any  Umbrage  to  his  Pradice  ;  or  any  Ground 
for  his   noify  Exclamations  againft  us. 

In  Page  90.  Mr,  F.  again  lays,  the  Word  Baptize  d^ni' 
fiestofprinkle,  not  to  dip,  inMaft.  iii.  ir.  M^rk  i  S.Lfh 
iii.  16.  He  fhall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghoft^  and  with 
Fire.  In  f  Charitable  Plea^  he  undertook  to  tell  us, 
**  What  it  is  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Gho/i,  and  how 
^erforfned :'*  And  fays,  *'  The  Scripura  every  where  ex' 
'^refs  this^  by  pouring  forth  hi^  Injltunces.'^  I  dtiired  him 
to  try  how  the  Verfion  would  run,  to  fay,  he  (hall  pour 
you  with  (or  in)  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  whether  this  would 
not  be  as  (hocking  to  him,  as  that  which  he  rejedls  ? 
But  this  he  has  paiTcd  over  in  Silence.  Any  one  may  fee, 
that  the  Expreffions  whereby  the  Spirit's  Influences  are 
fet  forth,  are  very  infufHcient  to  fix  and  determine  the 
Senfe  o.f  the  Word  Baptize^  becaufe  we  read  of  fendmg 
the  Spirit,  and  giving  the  Spirit,  as  I  already  rbferved. 
I  noticed,  **  The  Places,  wherein  the  IFord  Baprizo  // 
tifed  in  a  proper  and  literal  Senfe^  conjlantly  make  for  us:  — 
But  in  thefe  Texts  {and  fame  others)  it  is  manifedh  ufed 
in  a  figurative  Senfe  ;  and  therefore  to  infer  from  the  me- 
taphorical Ufe  of  the  Jf'ord,  a  Meaning  different  from  its 
allowed  native  and  proper  Signification^  is  unreafonable, 
and  a  falfelVay  of  arguing.'^  Now  what  Ground  he  has 
to  Imagine  he  oppofes  me  on  this  Head,  I  cannot  devife  ; 
for  if  any  one,  it  is  he  himfelf  (and  not  I)  who  infinu- 
ates  a  Metaphor  to  be  without  a  Refcmblance  :  I  hinted 
nothing  that  Way,  when  I  faid,  that  the  native  Signifi- 
cation of  the  Word  is  to  dip,  plunge,  or  overwhelm  ; 
and  therefore  argued  to  this  Purpofe,  that  the  metaphorical 
Ufe  of  Baptize  inthcfe  Texts  before  us  (after  I  had  fhewn 
from  Asis  ii.  2.  that  the  Difciples  were  furrounded, 
overwhelmed,  and  covered  with  the  Holy  Ghofl  on  the 
pay  oiPentecoft)  carries  in  it  a  beautiful  (Refemblancc^ 


(     i86    ) 

Of)  Allufion  to  the  Admiiilftrarion  of  BaptiYm  by  Ini- 
inerfion  only,  and  no  orher  Wav.  Byt  according  to 
hitii:)  there  isno  Refcaiblance  atajl  in  the  Cafe,  unlefs  he 
had  fhewn  that  Baptize  iiat)veiy  Signifies  to  pour  or 
fprinkle,  or  that  Baptifm  was  fo  adminiilred  in  the  pri« 
fnitive  Times,  which  he  has  not  done  ;  and  yet  would 
fain  perfwade  his  Readers  to  believe,  without  the  leaft 
Ground  for  it,  that  I  anj  guilty  of  all  that  I-norance, 
and  Contradictions  he  is  pltafcd  to  charge  me  with.  I 
Wjfhhe  would  look  more  to  the  univcrfally  acknowledg- 
ed t  Laws  of  Difputation,  he  is  fo  very  willing  other* 
fhould  follow,  or  e!fe  not  pretend  to  difpute  at  all. 

Further,  he  thinks  it  overthrows  my  Argument,  that 
this  extraordinary  Donation,  is  exprefled  by  Pouring   in 
yfJisii.    17,   18,  33.     Anf.   Not  at  all ;   for  therein  the 
Apoflle   recites  the  Prophefy  long  before,  or   fpeaks    in 
Relation  to  it,  wherein  the  VVord  pour  is  exprefled  :     But 
when  the  Prophecy  was  near  accomphCbing,  as    in  thefc 
Texts  under  Coniideration,  it  is   not  ftrange    another 
Word  fhould  be  ufed,  as  being   more  expreinve   of  the 
Glory  and   Gicatnefs  of  that  Difpenfatiim  ;  beiides  the 
Accomplifbment  of  it  to  the  Difc'iples,  JjJs  ii.   2.  wjiere 
ivehave  an  Account  in  what  Manner   they  were  bapti- 
zed, with  the  Holy  Qhoff,  fufficiently  refutes  Mr.    Fs 
FUa,  that  Baptifm  is  rightly  performed   by   Pouring  :  I 
may  therefore  again obferve.  to  baptize  in  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
does  not  fecm  fo  very  ftrange  and    difagreeable,  for  the 
Difciples  were  aa  if  they  had  been  dipped  or  plunged  all 
over  therein.    .He  fay^,  **  Tbefe   Exprejfiom  Jhock   hinty 
however  gratrful  ihey  are  to  Plungers.^'     But   why    is  he 
jiot   fhockcd  likewife  with  other  Scripture  Exprcffions, 
of  being  in  theSpirjt,  i^^z;.   i.    jo.   Living  and  Walkmg 
in  the  Spirit,  Cal,  v.  25  ?     But   it  ktms   Expreffions, 
much  of  the  fame  Import,  hav;;  not  been  very  unpleaf/ng 
to  fome  Sprinklers  J  for    Inftance   Cafauhon,'^^  %  AUha* 
{Joys  he)    I  do  not  d'lfapprove  of  the  Wcrd   B.iptizare  being 
retained  here,   that  the  Amithefis    inay  befulh  yet  I  am  of 
Opimon.,   that  R.tgard  is  had  in  this  Place  to  its  proper  S'tg-* 
nijicaticn^  for  Baptizsin  is   to   immerfcy  fo  as  to  tinge  or 

dip, 
+  Preface  to  his  Find.  Page  7.     %  Antient  M«df,  Page  *2„ 


[     iS7    ] 

dip,  and  In  this  Sen  ft  ihe  ApoJlUi  are  truly  f aid  to  he  haf- 
tizedi  for  ihe  Houfe  in  winch  this  was  done,  was  filhd  with 
the  Holy  Ghojl,  fo  that  the  Apa files  feemed  to  bt  plungtd  in-- 
to  it,  as  into  a  Fijh-pool.'*  Now  it  may  be  yiiWy  obferv- 
ed,  our  Author  has  not  made  appear  from  theie  Texts, 
that  Baptizo  fignifies  to  Sprinkle. 

The  iiext  PJace  of  Scripture,  which  he  cites  as  full 
to  his  Purpofe,  is  i  Cor.  x.  1,  *'  The  Ihztihcs  were  all 
iaptized  iwtoMofcfy  in  the  Cloud.,  and  in  the  Sea  :  And 
fays,  we  are  told  hozv  this  Baptijm  %vas  performed  in  Pfalm 
Ixviii.  7,  8,  9.  Now  (fays  he)  if  Baptizing  here  fgnifies 
Plunging,  we  miiji  underjfand,  that  the  Ifraelifes  were  lift- 
id  up^  and  doufed  down  into  the  Cloud,  and  the  Sea,  which 
is  dire£ilj  contrary  to  Scripture.  The  Rain  was  poured 
iipon  them  from  the  Cloud,  and  thereby  they  were  baptized.'* 
Anf,  If  we  underftand  Baptizing  to  fignify  Plunging, 
I  cannot  fee  the  ftrong  Neceffity  to  conclude  that  the  If- 
raelites  were  lifted  up,  and  doufed  down  into  the  Cloud 
and  Sea  ;  for  we  may  readily  apprehend  the  Apoftlc 
(peaks  thus,  with  Rtgtjrd  to  the  very  great  Rtfemblance 
between  that  Pafiage  of  theirs  through  the  Sea,  and 
Baptifm,  when  performed  hy  Immeriion,  without  fup- 
pofing  them  to  be  doufed  into  the  VVaters  of  the  Sea. 
But  why  are  thefe  Phrafes,  *'  Li/ting  up,  and  douftng 
down  into  the  Cloud  and  Sea,  made  ufe  of>  but  with  Al- 
iufion  to  Kaptifm  when  adminiitied  by  Immerfion, 
thereby  to  render  it  contemptible,  and  the  Subjedt  (i 
Plverfion  to  his  Readers  ?  When  as  for  any  Thmg  Mr. 
F.  has  fliewn,  it  was  by  Immcriion  Chrift  himfelf  was 
baptized  ;  and  however  free  he  may  make  with  us,  it  fure- 
ly  does  not  become  him,  as  a  profeflcd  Minilier  of  Chrift, 
to  banter  his  facred  inftjtution  with  his  comical  Phrafes, 
in  Alluiion  to  that  Mode,  which  he  cannot  difprove  to 
be  the  only  fcriptural  and  proper  One.  But  I  think 
this  Place  in  the  68th  Pfalm  is  fo  far  from  fliewing  hovf 
the  Baptifm  of  the  Ifraeliies  was  performed,  that  it  has 
no  Relation  at  all  to  it  ;  for  there  is  no  Mention  of -^ 
r^/r/'s  Journeying  through  the  Red  Sea  in  the  whole  Paf- 
iage  ;  but  of  their  Matching  through  the  Wildernefs.— 
B&iides,  to  imagine  there  was  a  pkntiful   Rain  poured 

down 


down  on  the  Camp  of  Jfrad  in   the  Time   when    they 
went  thro'  the  Sdo,  does  not  agree  with  what  the  cJivine 
Hiftorian  tells    us,   in  Exvd.   X'v.   29.   But   the  Children 
of\Uzt\xoalkedu^on   dy  Land   in  the  viidft    cf  the  Sea^ 
and  the  IVaters  were  a  IFall  unto  the^i  on  t.^eir  right  Hand 
pndcn  their  Left.   Mr.  F.  will  hardly  fay,   that  he-  wa.'kj 
on  dry  Land  m  a  Day  of  plentiful  Rain.      Anv  one  may 
fee  how  much  he  is  at  a  Lofs,   to  prove  that    Bapt\%o  fig- 
nifies   to  fprinkle,   when    he   refers    to  this  Hace  with 
that  Defign,  which   fpeaks  nothing  about  it  ;  nor    cari 
he,  altera!.!,  fl:dw  from  Scripture,  that  one  Drop  of  Rain 
from  the  Cloud,  was  poyred  on  the  Armies  of  Ifrael,  or 
the  lead  Spray  of  the  Sea  fprjnkled  them,  all  the  While 
they  were  paffing  thro'  it.     Surely  we  are  in   no  D^^nger 
of  lofing  our  Argument,    by  fuch  trill, ng,    infigmficant 
Keafonings,  as  thtfe.     I   fhall  fubjoin  the   Judgment    of 
fome  learned    Divines,   and     pafs  on.      ^i  he  Continu- 
cr.s  of   Pcclti  Annotations    on     the  Place,   having    men- 
tioned divers  Opinions,  obferve,    "  Others  mcjl  trohably 
think,   that   the  Apojiie  ufrth  this   Term,   in  Regard  of  the 
great  Analogy  betwixt  Baptifm  (as  it  was    then  ufcd)  the 
Perfons  going  doW7}    into   the   Waters,    and  being  dipped  in 
them  ;  and  the    Ifraehte.?  going    down  into    the    Sea,   the 
great  Receptacle   of  Waters,    though  the  Waters   at  that 
lime  were  gathefTd  on  Heaps,  on  either  Side  of  them  j  yit 
thgyfeemed  buried  in    the   Waters,   as  Perfons  in  that  Age 
were,  when  they  were  baptized:'     Here  it  is  very  obfer- 
vable,    that  thcfe  learned  Divines  ^o  freely  acknowledge 
Dipping  in  Water,  and  Burying  therein,  to  have  been 
the  primitive  Praaice  of  Baptizing;   which   is  a  great 
Deal  from   them  who  praaifed  Sprinkling,    Thev  after- 
wards fay,  «'  There  is  a  great  Probability  that  the  Cloud  did 
fiower  down  Rain."  But  that  which  is  brought  to  fupport 
ir,  out  oiPfalm  ixviii.  is  already  {}iewn  to  b'e  infufficicnt. 
Hence,  the    Reader  may  fee   this    Place,  which   A4r.  F, 
imagines  is   full  to  hisPurpofe,  is  not  at  all  fo.     On  the 
Whole  it  may  be  obferved,  our  Author  fails  to  produce 
cne  Indance,  where  the  V/ord  Baptizo  prrp;rly  fignifies, 
oris  rendered  to  pour   or    fp?  inkle  :     Therefore  there 
needs  no  long  Remarks  on  the  following  Part  of  his 
Vindication  j    particularly   ths    Examples    of    Baptifm 


i 


[     i89    ] 

tiwhich  he  comes  next  to  confiderj  recorded  in  holy 
Sciipture,  are  veiy  fui!  and  plain  in  our  Favour.  Thero 
we  iind,  that  Chrift  was  baptized  (dipt)  of  John  in  Jor- 
dan, Mark.  i.  9.  10.  7'hat  Multitudes  were  baptized 
(  :.pt)  in  the  Rivtr  of  Jordan,  confefling  their  ims, 
Mark  i.  5.  See  alfo  John  i.  23.  Ails  viii.  38. 
To  die  Example:,  we  bring  from  Scripture  in  favour  of 
I  nmerlion,  he  oppofcs  the  Meaning  of  the  Word  Bap- 
tizo  ;  tho'  many  Padobaptijis  allow  it  natively  fignifies 
to  dipor  plunge  ;  yet  he  would  have  me  confider,  "  Ideal 
with  one,  who  grants  no  fuch  Thing."  Well,  I  krsow  I 
have  to  deal  with  fuch  an  One,  and  therefore  I  bring 
the  ConcefTions  of  Padobaptijis  againfl  him  j  who  can- 
rot  be  fufpeded  of  Partiality  in  the  Cafe,  for  no  doubt 
they  were  as  tenacious  of  Sprinkling  as  he  j  and  (I  fup- 
pole  he  will  not  deny)  were  by  far  his  Superiors  in  Learn- 
ing, and  Judgment  ;  fo  that  in  refuting  us,  he  muft 
refute  his  learned  Brethren.  But  he^  fays,  "  He  is  not 
ivillhig  jurare  in  verba  Magijlri"  Very  like  j  but  cart 
he  imagine  we'll  pin  our  Belief  on  his  Slee/e,  when  he 
has  given  us  no  Proof  that  thofe  great  Men  were  mifta- 
Jcen,  only  his  Supp.  fition  they  were  fo  ;  and,  "  Thai  their 
Mijlake  proceeded  from  their  confounding  Bjpto  w///j  Bap- 
tizo  ;  ana  not  obferving  how  conjlantly  the  Holy  Gboji  has 
dijiinguij])ed  them  in  the  New  Tejiament:'  Here  the  learn- 
cd  World  may  fee  the  Original  of  their  Grey-headed 
Miftake  !  But  can  Mr.  F.  pofTibly  imagine  there  is  any 
Weight  at  all  in  thefe  Obfervations  ?  Or  that  he  has 
made  any  new  Difcoveries  in  the  Cafe  ?  Further,  the 
Holy  Ghofl  may  make ufe  of  what  Words  hepleafes  with- 
out dettroying  the  Senfeof  any.  The  conflantUie  of  the 
Word  Baptizo,  wherever  the  Adminiftation  of  the  Or- 
dinance is  mentioned  in  Scripture,  makes  for  us  ;  which 
(hews  it  was  adminiftred  alwavs  in  the  fame  Manner,- 
Does  Mr.  F.  not  fee,  that  his  Talk  here  m-kes  much 
more  a.^ainft  himfelf,  than  againft  uj  ?  For  Inftance, 
^.Raptizo  <3«r/ Rantizo  *ztvr^  Terms  fymnimous,  they 
Would  both  have  been  njed  indifferently  to  exprefs  the  Or- 
dinance of  Baptifm.  But  contrariwifc,  Baptizo  /;  always 
ujcdxvhen  Menxion  is  made  of f aid  Ordinance,  andV^znxx^ 
10  not  fa  much  at  once.     Hence   it  follows  ^    if  Ran  tizo' 

nativelj 


f     '90    ] 

natively  Jignifies  to  Sprtnkle,  Baptizo  daes  nat  ftgntfy 
the  fame  ;  far  I  hope  Mr.  F.  w'lU  not  venture  to  affirm^ 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  JiudiouJJy  and  conjlnntly  keeps  up  a 
i>i/lin£iion  without  a  Difference  ;  and  if  not.,  then  to 
baptize  is  not  tt  fprinkU^  in  StriSfnefs  of  Speech.''  The 
fame  may  be  faid  of  Pouring.  Mr.  F.  may  fee  this  Ar- 
gument of  his.  Page  91,  as  it  now  ftands,  is  of  no  Ad- 
vantage to  his  Caufe. 

He  thinks  the  Examples  of  John'i  Baptizing  in  Jar- 
dan  ^nd  /Enon  are  no  Evidence  that  he  dipt  the  People  ; 
unlefs  we  had  fliewn,  that  none  could  baptize  where 
there  is  much  Water,  any  other  Way  than  by  Plunging. 
Anf.  If  Baptizo  natively  fignifies  to  d;p  or  plunge,  as  I 
have  ihewn,  there  needs  no  further  Evidence,  that  John 
dipt  thofe  whom  he  dipt  in  Jordan. 

Another  of  Mr.  Ps  Reafons  f  if  it  may  be  called  foj* 
againft  what  we  urge,  is  <*  The  Multitudes  John  baptized^ 
required  a  large  ^antity^  tho*  he  had  ufed  but  a  litle  to  each 
Perfc:i."     Reply  ;  not  fo  large,  as  it  fliould  need  to    be 
called  much  Water:      Everyone  knoAS   a   very   fmall 
Quantity  of  Water  would  go  a  great  Ways,   by   Drops 
fprinkled  from  his  Fingers-ends,  or  at  the  mufl,  what 
he  could  take  up  in  his  Hand.     Another  of  Mr.  Fs  De- 
vices, whereby    he  would   fain  pe^fv^'ade  the  World    to 
believe,  why  John  baptized  where  there  was  much  Wa- 
ter, is,  "  that  the  People  ajid  their  Horfes  might   drink:* 
When  our  Author  is  fo  carefully  employed  in  his  Ima- 
gination to  accommodate  Man  and  Beai!t    with   Drink, 
how  is  it  he  forgets  to  make  fome  Provifjon  for  them  to 
eat   too  ?    and  (b  inform  the  World,  that  John  had  need 
to  make  Choice  of  fuch  Places,  where  theie  wa*  good 
Store  of  Viduals  and   Provender  for  Men  and  HoSes  : 
'Tis  a  pitiful  Caufe,  that    forces  our  Opponents,  who 
ire   otherwife  Men    of    Learning  and   judgment,     to 
make  fuch  trifling  Conjeaures.      John  was   not  fent  to 
water  Peoples  Horfes    and  Camels  ;    nor  do  we  find 
any  Ground  in   Scripture  to  "think  he  made  Choice  of 
much  Water  with  the  Deftgn  to  accommodate  Man  and 
Beaft  with  Drink  ;  bis  Concern  was  to  admfnifrer  Bap- 
tifm,  and  therefore  chofe  PLices  where  there   was  much 
Water,  as  being  convenient  for  that  Purpof-.     I  i>ial! 


liV 


[    «9i    J 

hf  before  him  again,  what  he  has  not  refuted,  which 
is  as  follows  :  '*  It  is  worthy  to  be  obfervedj  that  the  Holy 
Ghdji  gives  us  the  Ilea f on  why  John  baptized  in  ffLnon^ 
viz.  becauje  there  -was  much  Water  there  ;  novj  it  is  plain 
that  the  lUodc  of  Bap'ixing  by  Itnmerjion  is  the  only  Mode 
which  requires  much  iTatery  in  the  Adminijtration  of  this 
Ordinance  i  all  other  pretended  Modes  by  Pouring  and  Sprink- 
ling require  but  very  little  j  a  Bafon  full  carried  into  a 
Meeting  houfe^  or  elfewhen,  would  go  a  great  If  ays.  If 
it  bt  fuppojed  that  Relation  is  herein  had  to  fome thing  elfe, 
and  not  to  juch  a  Mode  of  Baptifm^  which  requires  much 
f Pater  tn  the  Adminijiratlon  of  //,  the  Rcajon  here  giveit 
by  the  Holy  Ghojl  would  not  at  all  be  expreffive  or  illufira- 
tive,  why  John  baptized  where  there  was  much  IVater^ 
any  more  than  elfnuhere."  Further,  Mr.  F.  cannot 
puH-e  there  was  one  Horfe  there,  where  yo/^-i  baptifed, 
only  by  aSuppofitlon  of  his,  he  would  fain  elude  the 
Senfe  of  the  Words  by  his  ridiculous  G)ofs  on  the  Text  ; 
and  as  trifling  is  his  Remark  on  my  Anfwer  to  h.m  when 
he  afks,  *^^  Would  a  Eajon  full  go  a  great  Ways  to  fupply 
many  thoufand  People  and  Horfes  with  Drink"  when  he 
knew  1  fpalce  about  the  Adminiftration  of  Baptifm,  if  it 
were  done  by  Sprinkling,  and  not  about  Watering  of 
Horfes  ?  Surely  fuch  ShuiHmgand  Evafion,  is  no  Credit 
to  his  Cdufe. 

Another  Imagtriaticn  of  Mr.  F\  why  John  bap- 
tized where  there  was  much  VVa^:^^,  becaufe  it  wouH 
be  ofFenrive  to  the  Jews,  to  uft  Uie  fame  Water  twice  ; 
1  think  one  muft  have  a  very  piercing  Eye,  to  fee  any- 
thing in  this  to  his  Purpofej  for  every  one  knows  if  the 
Ofdinance  was  perform'd  by  Pouring  or  Sprinkling,  16 
was  not  poffibie  to  ufe  the  wqie  Water  twice,  for  tiiac 
xvhich  was  poured  or  fprmklea,  ccu!d  not  be  gathered 
up  again  ;  and  if  they  thought  John's  Hdnd  polimed  it, 
by  taking  it  up,  it  would  do  it  the  firft  Time,  as  well 
as  the  fccond.  Hence  jt  M\  follows,  a  fmail  (^iantity 
of  Water  would  be  fuiScient  to  fprinkle  many  Thou- 
fand Pefjple. 

But  Mr.  Ps  grand  Objeaion  agatnfl  Inimcrfion  h^ 
*'  Conjidering  how  immodefi  it  would  have  been  for  Malet 
and  Fimales  to  Jlrip  before  Juch  Crouds  ;  tuhgre  had  the^ 
iigitrt* 


[       192       ] 

Retirements,  in  which  to  drefs  or  undrejs?  And  in  Page 
94.  he  is  (()  perplex'd  about  this  Matter,  that  he  cannot 
divine,  how  Males  and  Females  could  itrip  before  a 
Multitude,  and  yet  prcferve  the  Rules  of  Decency  and[ 
Modcftv.  Anf.  Seeing  this  affords  fo  much  Uneafinefs 
to  his  labouring  Mind,  he  may  be  pleas'd  to  confider, 
there  were  in  the  VVildernefs  of  Judea,  fix  Cities, 
with  their  Villages,  in  the  Days  of  Jo/hua,  Chap  xv. 
61.  which  {hews  us  the  Place  was  habitable,  and  if  fo, 
it  might  be  inhabited  in  the  Days  of  John  too,  which 
Suppofition  is  not  unlikely  to  be  true,  for  Jchn 
preached  in  the  Wjldernefs  of  Judta^  Mat.  iii.  I.  Luke 
iii.  3.  /.  e.  to  the  Inhabitants  there,  it  feems  before  o- 
thers  came  to  hear  him  from  diftant  Parts,  Mat.  iii.  5. 
Mark  i.  4,  5.  1  hope  Mr.  F.  won't  fay,  that  John 
preach'd  in  the  Wildernefs  to  Trees,  and  wild  Beafts, 
as  he  infmuates,  he  made  Choice  of  Places  to  adminifter 
Baptifm  in,  where  Water  was  plentyi  to  accommodate 
tame  Jleafts,  /.  e.  Horfes.  Now  if  the  VVildernefs  of 
Judea  had  been  inhabited  with  Cities  and  Villages  for- 
merly, and  probably  was  fo  in  John's  Time,  where  he 
iirft  entred  on  his  publick  Miniury  ;  who  knows  but 
this  Confideration  may,  in  fome  Meafure,  relieve  Mr,  F. 
from  his  perpleKing  Difficulty,  how  the  People  might 
^refs  or  undrefs,  and  yet  prcferve  the  Rules  of  Decen- 
cy and  Mcdefty:  But  if  it  does  not,  the  Mode  of  Im- 
nierfion  is  not  difprov'd,  becaufe  the  Objection  itfelf  is 
but -a  mere  Cavjj,  and  hath  no  more  Weight  in  it  to 
overthrow  the  Truth  of  Scripture,  thaii  if  fome  other 
Caviller  fhould  objed  againft  ibe  Truth  of  the  Hiftory 
of  Sa?npfons  catching  1  hree  Hundred  Foxes,  becaufe  he 
could  not  divine.,  how  it  might Idc  done. 

Deut.  viii,  7.  without  any  Glofs  on  it,  exprefly 
fliews,  there  was  no  fiich  Scaicity  of  V\''ater  in  the  Land 
of  Canaan,  a's  our  Opponents  vainly  fuggeft.  VViat 
Scriptures  I  fet  together  by  the  Ears,  as  he  miinuates,  I 
know  not,  nor  has  he  fhewn  them  j  tho'  he,  to  preju- 
dice his  Readers  againft  the  Truth,  unjufiiy  fays,  it  is 
my  ^Vay  :    Surely  it  is  not  to  leave  Sciipiures  in  Con- 

tiadi<3;iort 


[     I9S    ] 
tradi(?tIon,  when  I  cite  exprefs  Scripture  to  contradi5fc 
his  Glofles. 

I  have  given  *  Inftances  that  the  Phrafe  Hudata  Polla^ 
fignifies  much  Water,  or  abundance  of  Water,  which 
Mr.  F.  has  not  been  able  to  refute,  and  inflead  of  pro- 
ducing Inflances,  that  many  Springs,  Rivulets,  or  fe- 
veral  fmall  Streams,  are  hereby  intended,  he  falls  a 
tranflating  of  the  Words  Palia,  and  Hudata^  and  tells 
us  they  Hgnify  many  Waters :  Who  of  us  ever  queftion- 
cd  that  ?  But  we  fay,  they  do  not  fignify  little  Streams 
or  Rivulets,  which  he  fhould  have  fhewn,  had  he  made 
good  his  Aflertion,  or  refuted  us.  He  does  not  deny 
that  rquch  Water  is  meant  by  this  Phrafe  elfewhere  in 
Scripture  ;  there  is  therefore  no  need  to  doubt  but  it  fig- 
nifies  much  Water,  mjohnm.  23.  as  well  as  elfewhere, 
fufficient  for  Johjz  to  immerfe  the  People  in,  who  cam© 
to  him  to  be  baptized.  The  Teftimony  of  Travellers 
Cwhich  he  fpeaks  of,  but  has  not  yet  produced  any  in 
his  Favour)  is  no  Proof  againfl  exprefs  Scripture  Tefti- 
mony. 

We  argue  from  the  Examples  of  ChrifPs  Baptifm, 
and  the  £unuch's,  Mat.  iii.  16.  J^s  viii.  38,  39.  that 
Baptifm  was,  and  ought  to  be,  adminiftred  by  Immer- 
fton.  Mr.  F.  imagines  the  Strength  of  our  Argument 
depends  on  the  Prepofitions  ?«/o,  and  out  of:  "  They 
went  into,  and  put  of  the  Water,  therefore  they  were 
plung' d  under  it."  I  defired  him  to  produce  the  Baptiji 
Author,  that  argues  after  the  Manner  he  talks,  which  he 
has  not  done,  but  thinks  I  argue  fo :  Suppofe  i  did,  yet  my 
Antipado7-antifm,  which  he  had  not  feen,  when  he  wrote 
hii  Charitable  Plea,  could  not  afford  him  Ground  for  his 
Surmife  :  But  had  he  done  Juftice  to  my  Words,  when 
he  pretended  to  put  them  in  Form,  his  Defign  to  make 
good  hisabovefaid  Aflertion  would  be  entirely  fruftrated. 
Now  if  it  be  fo  as  he  fays,  "  That  I  will  not  venture  mf 
Caufe  on  this  Argiimenl"  How  is  it,  "  that  the  whole 
Force  of  my  Argument  depends  on  the  Prepofitions  into, 
and  out  of,  to  prove  the7n  to  have  been  dipt  ?  He  feems  wil- 
ling to  rcprefcnt  me  as  inconfiftent  with  myfelf,  as  his 
N  Writing 

*  Anti.  Page  129. 


.    ,  t  194  ] 

tVriting  is  :  One  While  this  muft  be  the  wliole  Force,' 
and  vet  not  mv  w  hole  Force  !  Says  he,  '*  Ihe  Matter^ 
is  thus^  thefe  hoajied  Clrcumjiances  will  do  nothing  of  them- 
felves,  but  prove  they  were  in  the  IVater."  Pray  who 
ever  required  them  to  do  any  more?  Is  not  this  enough 
to  prove,  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down  both 
into  the  Water,  the  one  in  order  to  adminifter  the  Or- 
dinance by  Dipping  (as  the  Word  natively  ftgnifies)  and 
the  other  to  fubmit  to  it  ;  and  when  the  Ordinance  was 
thus  adminiftred,  they  came  up  out  of  the  Water  ;  So 
that  inftead  of  having  nothing  left  us,  as  he  fuppofes, 
we  have  the  apoftolical  Example  in  its  full  Luftre  lefd 
lis,  to  warrant  our  P/a6}iceof  Imtncrfion,  as  ^r  any 
thing  he  has  faid  agatnft  it. 

I  afk'd,  for  whit  Reafon  did  the  Holy  Ghoft  pen  the 
Account  io  particular,  if  not  for  our  Learning  and  \m\f 
tation  ?  Which  M.i.  F.  has  nut  thought  proper  to  an- 
fwer. 

JBecaufe  I /aid  he  miv  go  into  the  Water,  and  come 
out  of  it  an  Hundied  Times,  without  being  plung'd  un- 
der it—-*'  He  leatns,  that  going  into  the  TVater^  does  not 
Jlgnify  to  go  under  in  general-,  but  only  whin  a  Perfon  is 
to  be  baptized.  And  thus  it  is  a  full  and  accomplijl^ed  beg- 
ging of  the  ^uejtion  in  Debate."  But  where  have  i  taught 
him,  or  given  him  the  leaft  Occafion,  to  fay  it  fignlfies 
going  under  it  with  their  whole  Bodies,  either  in  gene-/ 
ral  or  particdlur  ?  I  know  not.  What  I  fay,  ia  plain 
enough,  that  when  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  were  both  in 
the  Water,  as  thefe  Ciicumftances  prove  that  he  im- 
liierfed  the  Eunuch  in  that- Water,  according  to  the  na-« 
tive  Senfe  of  the  Word  Baptize.,  which  I  don't  leave 
behind,  as  he  fuggtfts,  but  carry  along  with  me,  in  the 
Courfe  of  this  Debate.  He  indeed  muft  fay  fomething 
againft  thefe  Scripture  Examples  of  Immerilon,  in  Fa- 
vour of  his  Sprinkling,  if  it  is  but  his  ufual  charging 
ttie  with  beggm?  the  Qiieftion, 

He  fays,  *'  ]\/Jy  Reply  (to  his  Remark  on  Pfalm  cvii. 
23J  is  calculated  for  a  Storm,  and  wJll  be  of  r,o  Service 
to  wy  Caufe  in  a  Calm.''  But  he  flluuld  have  obferved, 
tiie  PafTage  itfelf  is  calculated  for  a  Storm  i  therefore  the 

iSea 


Sea  niuft  be  free  from  Storms,  muft  ceafe  from  Its  work- 
ino-,  and  be  at  reft,  before  this  Inftance  will  fuit  hifi 
Caufe. 

,  "  1/  the  Pbrafes  (fays  he,  Page  96)  xvili  not  prove 
that  Phihp  ivas  plungd^  neither  -will  they  prove  that  the 
Eanuch  xvas"  But  the  Phrafes  pfrove  what  we  urge^ 
that  both  PhlUp  and  the  Eunuch  were  in  the  Water,  and 
the  Text  aflures  us,  that  jP/?/7/]^  baptized  him  there.  Dr: 
Ridgl/s  is  an  odd  Notion,  for  when  one  is  raifed  upon 
his  Feet,  he  hath  the  perfcdt  U^c  of  his  Underftanding 
to  go  up  out  of  the  Water,  as  Mr.  Recs  has  pertinent: 
\y  obferved.  .         , 

.  Mr.  F,  brings  in  Jerom  and  Eufehius^  with  a  Dcfign 
to  prove  it  "  was  ohly  a  Spring  of  IVater^  where  the  Eu- 
nuch was  baptized^  and  the  diminutive  Expreffion^  a  cer- 
tain Water ^  feems  to  intimate  fo  much."  And  he  adds, 
**  This  Mr.  M.  has  thought  fit  to  pafs  ever.'*  Anf,  It  is 
true,  I  did  fo;  bccaufe  I  look'd  on  it  fo  infignificant, 
as,  not  worthy  of  any  Remark,  as  I  have  done,  and  do 
up.on  fomc  other  Obfervations  in  his  Writings- --But 
now  he  lays  it  before  me  again,  therefore  it  muft  be 
9onfidered,  for  v/ho  knows  but  this  is  one  Particular, 
included  in  tliat  Charge,  *  that  I  ncglecfted  the  ftrongeft 
of  his  Arguments,  and  was  forced  to  pafs  over  them  in 
Silence.  Certain  Water  then,  it  feems,  fignifies  little 
Water,  or  fomie  fmall  Quantity  of  Water,  for  he  calls 
it  a  diminutive  Expreflion:  By  this  Way  of  interpret- 
ing Scripture,  we  muft  fay  a  certain  City,  Luke  v.  12. 
was  {oiv.Q  very  fmall  City:  A  certain  Pharifee,  Luke  xi, 
37.  was  fom.e  little  Body,  that  fcarcely  deferved  to  be 
called  a  Man:  A  certain  Sedition,  Luke  xxiii.  19.  was 
but  fome  fmall  Difcord  or  Variance,  when  yet  the  Text 
and  Context  -fliew  the  contrary.  Who  would  not  fee 
fuch  Gloftes  as  thefe  to  be  ridiculous,  as  Mr.  Finley\ 
Glofs  on  the  Place  under  Confideration  is?  I  dcfire  to 
know  bv  what  Rule  he  calls  a  certain  Water,  a  dimi- 
nutive Expreffion?  Mr.  Gill  obferves  Uom  BorcharduSy 
*'  That  it  zvas  a  River,  in  which  Philip  baptized  the  Eu- 
nuch of  ^leen  Candace,  not  far  from  Sicelech." 

N  2  Anothei: 

*  Find.  Page  79, 


I    i§6    ] 

Another  of  his  Arguments,  that  Immerfioh  was  no* 
tbe  iVlode  of  Baptifm,  is,  that  the  Apoftles  had  not  Con- 
venience every  where  to  plunge  their  Converts  ;  this  he 
accounts  a  felf-evident  Aflertion.  Reply  ;  But  we  do 
not  find  they  were  at  any  Lofs  about  Convcniencies  for 
this  Puipofe,  nor  has  Mr.  F.  (hewn  us  they  were: — 
Only  he  is  pleafed  to  entertain  us  with  his  Suppohtions, 
as  if  he  thought  we  paid  the  fame  Regard  to  them,  zi 
he  does  himfelf.  As  to  the  reft  of  his  Exceptions  aL^ainft 
the  Mode  of  Immerfiun,  fuch  as,  that  the  Publican* 
and  Harlots  were  fcant  of  Raiment,  and  the  hke,  I 
mufl  needs  fay,  they  are  fuch,  that,  to  (peak  after  his 
Mariner,  I  may  venture  the  Reader  to  remark  on 
them. 

*'  Bui  if  our  Tranjlation  (fays  hfe,  Page  97)  provei 
them  to  have  bten  in  the  IVater^  the  Greek  FropoJitionI 
ivili  not  prove  even  that  much."  No  ;  Why  then  has 
Mr.  F.  not  refuted  me,  in  defending  Matt,  iii,  16.  a- 
gainft  his  bold  Charge,  of  its  being  a  corrupt  Tranfla- 
tion  ?  I  gave  him  *  feveral  Inftances,  where  the  Prepo- 
fition  JpOy  does  ftridlly  and  properly  fignify  out  of^ 
which  he  has  not  been  able  to  deny,  and  obferved,  it 
fignifies  fo  in  Matt.  iii.  i6.  becaufe  Chriff  was  not  bap- 
tized on  the  Banks  of  the  River,  but  in  Jordan^  Mark 
i.  9,  then  all  know  he  muft  come  up  out  of  the  Waters 
of  Jordan.  What  is  now  become  of  Mr.  /^'s  toweringf 
Confidence,  that  our  Tranflation  is  corrupt  in  this  Par- 
ticular---his  appealing  to  the  Learned  on  the  Occafion, 
and  what'  not?  Why,  it  is  fufficiently  baffled,  and  the 
high  Swell  of  empty  Say- foes,  is  fallen  almoft  to  Low- 
Water  Mark  j  for  inftead  of  Jiri£ily  and  properly.^  wc 
hear  him  now  faying,  "  That ,  Apo  commonly  fignifies 
from."  Which  may,  perhaps,  admit  of  further  A- 
jnendment ;  for  I  have  notic'd,  in  the  Gofpel  of  Luke 
only,  by  curH^ry  Obfervation,  §  Seventeen  Places  where 
Apo  is  tranflated  out  of.,  which  plainly  (hews  how  ill-read^ 
and  poorly  vers'd  Mr.  F,  was  in  the  Affair,    when  he 

undertook 

*  Anti.  Vage  133.  f  Charitable  Plea,  Page  96. 

%  Luke  IV.  35,  41.  Chap.  V.  2,  36.  Chap.  vi.  17. 
Oiap.  viii.  46,  &c. 


r  197  1 

undertook  to  write  his  Charitable  Plea,  that  he  did  nqi 
remember  one  Piace  in  all  the  Bihle  (o  rendered,  (ave 
MaM.  iii.  i6.  However  I  think,  I  have  clearly  made 
appear,  that  the  Noife  of  our  Opponents  about  this  Pre- 
pofition  is  groundlefs  and  empty. 

Our  Author  feems  quite  difturbcd,  that  I  fhould 
prove  Eh  and  Ek,  fignify  into,  and  out  of,  from  his 
own  Obfervation,  and  aflcs,  '*  Is  this  Mr.  M  ?"  I  an- 
fwer.  Yes:  It  is  the  fame;  and  I  would  know  of  him, 
Vv^as  what  he  obferved  from  our  Tranflation,  Charitable 
Plea,  Page  93.  *'  contrary  to  the  Tenour  of  his  Reafon- 
ing  r'  If  fo,  let  him  blame  himfelf  for  being  incon- 
fiilent;  and  not  me,  for  advancing  what  be  obferved  in 
one  Place  to  Icffen  the  Force  of  his  AlTerticn  in  another.' 
But  he  may  be  convinced,  that  I  am  not  at  fach  a 
Lofs  for  Argument  to  prove  that  faid  Prepofitions  figni- 
fy into  and  out  of,  in  the  controverted  Place,  as  he 
imagines ;  for  in  J^s  viii.  36.  we  read,  Js  ?h\\>p  and 
the  Eunuch  went  on  their  JVay,  they  came  Epi  ti  hudor, 
unto  a  certain  IVater,  and  m  Veiie  38.  they  both  went 
down,  Eis  to  hudor,  into  the  IVater,  which  muft  necefla- 
rily  mean  fomething  mj.e  than  their  coming  to  it; 
which  further  confirms  what  we  plead  for,  over  and 
above  the  Confirmation  it  received  from  Mr.  Fs  Ob. 
feryations.  '  Hence  nothing  appears  to  the  contrary,  but 
Chrift  and  the  Eunuch  were  in  the  Water,  when  the 
one  was  baptized  by  John  in  Jordan,  and  the  other  by 
Philip  in  a 'certain  Water.  But  of  this  enough  ;  pro- 
ceed we  to  Scripture  Allufions,  which  Mr.  F.  calls 
pur  third  Topick,  or  Head  of  Difcourfe. 
*  I  obferved  from  i?(?w.  vi.  3,  4,  5-  and  C;?/.  ii.  12. 
That  Baptifm  reprcfents  the  Death,  Burial  and  Refurrec- 
tion  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  our  dying  to  Sin,  and  riling 
to  walk  in  Ne.'.nefs  of  Life  ;  and  cited  the  ConcefTions 
of  feveral  PaMapiiJls  in  our  Favour,  that  the  Apoftle 
alludes  to  the  Mode  of  Immerfion  in  thefe  Phrafes,  being 
buried  with  him  by  Baptifm,  &c.  He  labours  to  leffcn 
the  Foice  of  what  I  quoted  from  the  Affembly's  Notes 
on  Rom.  vi.  Says  he,  "  Thefe  IVords,  In  the  Likenefs  of 
his  Death,  are  not  yet  explained  in  this  Note.**  But  had 
N  3  h» 


[     198     ] 

Jie  cited  their  Note  wholly  xvhich  I  f  quoted,  inftcad  of 
laying,^  "  What folktvs  in  the  Quotation  is  to  thefan\e 
Purpofe^"  he  would  have  no  Room  for  his  Cavil  :  Be- 
fides  what  I  cited  from  the  AfTjmbly,  m^nti.  Page  138, 
was  not  to  explain,  "  InthelikcmfsofhisDeath,"  but 
this  Phrafe,  «'  Buried  with  him  in  Baptifm";  whs r eon 
they  aiHrm,  theantient  Manner  of  Bapi.Tm,  was  to  dip 
the  Parties  bapcized,  and  that  the  Apoltle  in  this  Phrafe 
feems  to  allude  to  it  ;  hereby  to  fhew,  how  much  their 
Telhmony  was  in  our  Favour,  and  againft  our  Op- 
ponent. .  ..      ,      . 

»  But  how  Difingenunus  is  it  in  Mr.  F  to  leave  out  that 
very  Part  of  the  A/Tembly's  Note,  which  was  pertinent 
to  the  Matter  for  which  1  cited  it,  Jnti.  Page  143,  even 
to  refute  his  Sneers,  when  he  afks---*'  Afi^l  we  be  fixed 
en  a  Crofs  when  baptized,  that  Jo  there  may  be  a  natural 
Refemblance  r^  The  Aflembly  fay,—"  And  we  alfo, 
•when  we  are  baptized,  are  buried  as  it  were  in  fVnter  for  a 
Time,  but  after,  are  raijed  up  to  Ncvmefs  of  Life  :"  Here- 
by they  aptly  explain  the  Phrafe,  "  Planted  together  in 
the  Likenefs  of  his  Death  -;[  of  which  Baptifm  is  a  live- 
Jy  Reprelentation,  when  performed  by  Jmmerfion,  or  being 
buned  in  Water,  as  they  exprefs  ^t  ;  wherein  the  Be- 
Jicver  ads  Faith  on  a  crucified  Chrifl,  partakes  of  the 
Benefits  of  his  Death,  and  profeifeth  to  di;:  to  Sin,  and 
to  rife  with  Chriftto  Newncfs  of  Life.      ' 

My  next  Citation  is  from  Poc!eOi\  Rom.  vi.  4.  Mr. 
F.  nettled  to  be  at  this  Place  "a  good  VVhile  ago,  and 
could  not  forbear  aHcing  in  Page  79,  "  IVculdhe  have  me 
to  believe,  that  hisjudg/nent  and  CcnJ'cience  led  him  to  give 
us  a  fa  If e  Quotation  from  Pooled  Annotations  r"^  And 
here,  jn  ^Piige  99,'he  hys,  '' '  I  miferably  pervert  Mr. 
Poole'j  Notes,  by  quoting  only  an  Opinion  which  is  re- 
jected;--- and  ajks^  what  will  not  Mr.  M  dare  for  his 
Caufe,  when  he  can  venture  to  forge  a  flotation  ;  can  tell 
us,  the  Continucrs  of  Poole'j  Notes  affert  the  very  Thing 
they  contradia  f"  I  anfwer,  here  are  dreadful  Charges 
indeed  \  How  blark  muftmy  Charadter  appear  to  thofe, 
who  take  all  for  granted  to  be  true  vvliich  he  fays,  with- 

out 
f  Jntl,  Page   1/3. 


[     199    3 

«ut  further  Enquiry  !  Yea,  how    willing  does   Mr.  R 
fcem  to   be  I  fhould  be  accounted  daring  enough  to  at- 
tenipt  any  Thing,    tho'  ever  fo  defperate,   in  Defence  of 
piy   Caufc.     But  is  he  fure,  I  am  guihy  of  all  this  ?     I 
think  it  is  now  high  Time  that  Innocence  fnould  appear  in 
its  proper  Coloms  ;  I  do  hereby  therefore  pubhckly  deny 
the  Whole  of  Mr.  Fs  Charge  on  this  Head  ;  and  pofi- 
tively   aifirm,  if  I  can  believe  mine  own  Eyes,  or  fhall 
be  believed   in  what  I  fay,   That  the   Paflage   in  Poole's 
Jnnotationsy  in  thatEdition  which  I  made  ufe  of,  is  as  I 
quoted  it,  and  not  as  Mr.  F.  alledges  ;  there  are  no  fuch 
ExprefTions  [fame    thuik---hut  othei s    think  iv'uh  greater 
Reafou]  in    the  Notes  on  the  Text.'    How  then  Mr.  F, 
came  to  charge   me  fo  wrongfully,  I  cannot  readily   de- 
vife  :    I  would  fain  force  m}  f^lf  to  believe,   he  is  better 
principled  than   to  do   it    wilfully  and    defignedly  ;   but 
how  he  came  to  be  miftaken  I  cannot  imigine,  unlefs  it 
be  he  made  ufe  of  fome  other  Edition  of  Poole's  Annotati- 
ons^   and  that   (hould    differ  from  the  one  !  have,  which 
v/as    printed   at  London  1688.    wherein  tlie   Words  are 
as  I  cited  them  :     And  if  any  fcruple  it,  let  them  con- 
fult  that  Edition,  and  fatisfy  diemfelves,  that  I  have  not 
perverted  Mr.  Poole's  Words,   which  are  pertinent  to  our 
Purpufe.     But  which  Way  foever   Mr.   F.    came    to  be 
miftaken,  I  do   hereby  call  upon  him  the  next  Time  he 
writes,  to  acquit. me  publickly  of   thefe  unjult  Charges, 
and  acknowledge  that  by  fome  Means  or  other,  he  has 
wronged  me  beforct  he  World  :  And  this  he  will  alfo  do, 
if  he'll  follow  the  golden  Precept,  of  doing  unto  others, 
as  he  vC'ould  be  done  bv. 

Says  Mr.  F.  "  His  next!  ejiimony  is  from  Dr.  Tower- 
fon,  who  only  offers  the  fame  Anabaptijiical  Arguments^ 
which  J  have  been,  and  am  refuting."  Anf.  Very  well  ; 
this  is  what  I  cited  the  Dodor  for,  to  (hew  that  his  Te- 
flimony  is  in  our  Favour:  Thisfhews  the  Anabaptiili- 
cal  Arguments  are  very  found  and  good,  when  great 
Men,  and  1-arned  Divines,  of  a  contrary  Praftice  infift 
on  them,  and  allow  that  Immcrfion  is  the  on.y  legiti- 
mate Rite  of  Baptifm  j  becaufe  the  only  one  that  can 
anfwer  the  Ends  of  its  Iriftitution,  and  thofe  Things 
N  ^  which 


[      200      ] 

^hich  were  to  be  fignified  by  it,  which  cannot  be  repre- 
fehted  by  Pouring  or  Sprinkhng,  or  at  leaft,  but  vetV 
miperfeaiy— as  Dr.  Tower/on  obferves  :  Which  Modd 
of  Immerfion  Mr.  F.  is  far  enough  as  yet  from  refuting- 
tho    IvviII  grant,   he  oppoferh  it  ftrenuouflv.   '    ••  : 

In  Page  loo.  He  undertakes  to  oppofe  'Dr.  lVhitby\ 
laying  that  Immerfion  was  religioufly  obferved  by  all 
i^hn(tians  for  Thirteen  Centuries::  But  it  can't  b^ 
thought  the  Dr.  had  not  read  what  Mr.  F.  ureesagainft 
him,  when  he  wrote  his  Commentary  on  the  New  Te- 
Itament ;  and  muft  have  looked  on  what  Mr~  F,  calls 
indubitable  Tejiimor.y,  quite  infignificant,  or '  el'fe  he 
^ould  not  have   intimated,  that  Chriftiaas  in  general 

!l  o'^''""'^'^"  ^^^  ^'^  ^°"g  a  Time  ;  nor  wiflied  that 
this  Cuftom  might  be  again  of  general  Ufe,  and  Afper* 
Jion  only  permitted  as  of  Old,  m  Cafe  Of  the  C//Wa. 
or  in  prefent  Danger  of  Death,  The  Inftance  Mr  K 
cues  from  ^-^//^^i^'j,  of  a  young  Man  feemingly  bap- 
tized  with  Tears,'  which  he  thinks  to  be  a  very  evident 
Proof,  that-Baptifm  in  the  earlv  Age  of  the  Church 
Vjas  performed  by  Sprinkling  J  I  confcfs,  is  to  me  a  very- 
plain  Evidence  of  his  want  of  Proof  in  th-  Cafe  li 
he  relates  the  PafTage  exadly,  how  natural  is  it  to  un." 
derftand,  by  this  iixpreffion  ^baptized  wici/Tears)--- 
the  Condition  the  young  Man  was  in,  even  as  we  ufu- 
alJy  fay,  in  a  Flood   of  Tears.   '     •  ' 

His  next  indubiiable  Tejiimony  is  from  Cyprian's  Let> 
tcr  to  Magnus.  'But  thvs  Infhnce  carries  its  full  Flefu- 
tation  in  its  own  Bofom  :  Forif  Puuring  or  Sprinkling 
had  been  the  received,  ccmmon,'  and  proper  Mode  of 
admimftr.ng  Baptifm  in  Cyprians  Day  j  it  cannot  rea-- 
fonably  be  fuppofed,  that  f  Magnus  would  have  quefti- 
oned  the  Lawtulnefs  of  it,  or  fcrupled,  *'  Whether  they 
are  to  be  accounted  right  Chrijiians  who  had  not  been 
waJJoed  with  the  faluttferous  Water,  but  only  have  had  it 
'•'■     ■■  '■    '  ••    •  .  poured 

t  ^t'^Mi  etiamf rater  charijme  qiadmihi  de  illis  -videatur, 

qui  tn  tnjirmitate  et  languore  gratiam  Dei  confequuntur,  an  ha^ 

bendtfuni  legitimi  Chriftiani  eo  quod  aqua  falutari  non  hti  fint-, 

>//tf//*//.?i:yp.  Epill.   adMag.  ■  ^      , 


[      201      ] 

poured  upon  them  ?"  And  Cyprian's  Anfwer  to  A:fyg- 
Kus,  alfo  very  clearly  (Lews,  that  Sprinkling  was  not  iH« 
Mode,  whereby  Baptifm  was  commonly  adminiftred, 
or  clfe  he  would  never  have  anfwered  in  the  Manner  he 
did,  that  his  §  Modelty  would  not  allow  him  to  pre- 
poflcfs  the  Minds  of  others  with  his  Sentiments  j  and 
fay,  *'  Let  every  one  rather  think  and  judge  as  he  pleafcSy 
and  a£i  accordingly"  Are  thefe  like  the  Words  of  one, 
that  believed  Ferfufion  to  be  the  only  warrantable  and 
■  proper  Mode  of  Baptifm,  commanded  by  Chrift,  prac- 
tifed  by  his  Apoftles,  and  known  to  be  received  in  the 
Church  ?  Certainly  very  far  from  it.  Nay,  Cyprian 
docs  not  undertake  to  (hew  Sprinkling  or  Perfufion  to  be 
the  proper  Mode  of  adminiftring  Baptifm,  but  excufeth 
it,  by  the  Plea,  ^''*  of  urgent  Necejftty,  and  God  granting 
his  Indulgence."  Which  very  ExprelTions  carry  m  them 
an  Evidence,  that  Perfufion  was  not  then  accounted  the 
inftituted  Mode  of  Baptifm  ;  for  if  it  were,  what  Need 
of  thefe  Excufes?  And  when  he  endeavours  to  make  the 
Afperfion  of  CUnicks  [i.  e.  Bed- ridden  Perfons)  pafs  for 
Baptifm,  he  does  not  in  the  leaft  pretend  that  this  Mode 
Was  pradifed  by  the  Apoftles ;  but  mentions  the  Sprink- 
ling of  Water  on  fome  Occafions  under  the  ceremonial 
Law,  a-nd  that  metaphorical  Sprinkling  fpoken  of  by  the 
Prophet,  £'z^i/V/ xxxvi.    ' 

And  it  may  be  further  obferved,  that  in  the  Qiieftion 
propofed  by  Magnus^  and  alfo  towards  the  f  Ciofe  of 
this  Letter,  Pouring  of  Water  is  fct  in  Oppofition  to, 
or  diftingiiifhed  from,  Wafliing:  So  that  it  feems  in 
Cyprian's  I  ime,  it  was  thought  a  Perfon  could  not  be 
faid  to  be  washed  in  the  baptifmal  Water,  unlcfs  he  were 
immerfed  in  it.     On  the  v/holej  it  appears,  how  little 

to 

4  ^a  in  parte  nemini  'verecundia  et  modejiia  nojlra  praju- 
dicat,  qua  minus,  unufquifque  quod  'vAuerit,  fentiat,  et  quod 
fen/erity  faciat.      Ibid. 

*  In  facramentis  falutarihus  necejjitate  cogente,  et  Deo  in- 
didgentiam  fuam  largictite  totum  oedentibus  confer unt  divinx. 
compendia.      Ibid. 

t  -- — Utrumni  loti  fint^  an  perfuf.     Ibid. 


(      202      ) 

to  the  Purpofe,  our  Opponents  cite  Cyprian^  as  an  in- 
dubitable Teftimony  in  their  Favour,  which  makes  fp 
much  againft  them. 

In  Pag:e  98.  Mr.  F.  "  utterly  denies ^  and  that  with 
the  Conjent  of  all  the  learned  Men  he  ever  read^  tha^ 
there  is  always  a  Refcmblance  between  the  Signs  and  the 
^hing  fignified.'*  What  learned  Authors  he  reads,  I  can- 
not iay  ;  he  has  not  favour'd  us  with  the  Judgment  of 
any  on  the  Point.  But  not  to  go  far  about,  1  think  he 
bimfelf  comes  pretty  nigh  to  allow  v,'hat  I  faid,  when 
he  *  tells  us,  "  The  Water  ufed  in  Baptifm  reprefents  the 
Blood  of  Chriji,  whereby  the  Guilt  of  Sin  is  removed — 
4ind  aljo  the  gracious  Influences  of  the  Holy  Ghefiy  ivhere-f 
by  the  Soul  is  fan^ifed."  What  DifFercnce  is  there  be- 
tween the  Senfe  of  the  Word,  reprefent,  as  he  ufes  it, 
and  the  Word  repmble,  in  the  Senfe  I  ufed  it  ?  h  not 
the  fame  Thing  intended  by  one,  and  the  other  I 
Wherein  does  the  Water  ufed  in  Baptifm  reprefent  the 
Blood  of  Chrift,  and  the  Grace  of  the  Spirit,  according 
to  him,  if  not  in  this ;  that  as  there  is  a  purifying  Pro- 
perty and  Virtu-r  in  Water,  to  cleanfe  away  Filth,  fo 
the  Blood  of  Chrift,  and  the  Grace  of  the  Spirit,  are 
efficacious  to  cleanfe  the  Soul  from  the  Guilt  and  Pollu- 
tion of  Sin,  and  therefore  reprefented  by  the  Water 
ufed  in  Baptifm?  If  Mr.  F.  intends  otherwife  by  thefe 
faid  Expreflions,  let  him  explain  himfejf.  Truly  f  he 
ieems  to  be  io  much  for  a  Refcmblance  between  the  Sign 
and  the  Thing  fignified,  that  he  makes  an  Argument  of 
it  in  Favour  of  his  Mode  of  Baptifm,  to  be  moft 
fuitable  and  ilgnificant,  and  afc  us,  *'  Cannot  Sprinkling 
reprefent  Sprinkling  f  And  cannot  pouring  Water  fignipy 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit's  Irfluences  /"'  Hence  con- 
cludes, "  His  Mode  is  moji  fgnificant,  and  mofi  agree' 
able  to  the  Nature  and  InJlruSlivenefs  of  the  0)dinance.''\ 
But  here  he  feems  willing  to  keep  all  the  Refcmblance  to 
himfelr,  by  utterly  denying  me  any  Share  therein  to 
favour  my  Argument  ;  and  cannot  endure  to  hear 
us  arguing  that  our  Mode  of  Baptifm,  by  Immerfion, 
beft  reprefents   the  Things  defigned  thereby  :   Witnefs, 

his 

*  Charit able  Plea,  Page  58.  \  Ibid.  Pages  107,   loi. 


I     2P3     1 

his  fnecring  Taunt,  on  the  Occafion  ;  *  "  Chrljt  died. 
hanging  on  the  Crofs^  muj}  we  therefore  be  fixed  to  a  Crofs 
tohen  baptized^"  Sec.  whicli  does  not  very  well  becom^ 
aCientleman,  who  affixes   an  V.  D.  M.   to  his  Name. 

But  it  feems  harder  at  Times,  to  find  whereabouts 
Mr.  F.  is,  than  to  give  him  Battle :  I  cannot  but  ac- 
knowledge I  am  again  at  a  Lofs,  to  know  the  Ground 
of  his  (Dbfervation,  at  the  Clofe  of  this  Paragraph  ; 
"  //  is  (fays  he)  hard  to  difpute  with  one  who  knows  not 
the  Meaning  of  IVords  in  common  Uft  "  when  he 
has  not  given  his  Reader  the  leaft  Evidence  of  my  being 
fuch,  unlcfs  his  doubled  Repetition  of  my  Words  be  in- 
tended for  this  Purpofe,  without  the  leaft  Difcovery 
which  Word  it  was,  1  knew  not  the  Meaning  of.-  — 
Bur  I  look  on  him,  as  vindicating  a  baffled  Caufe,  and 
can  therefore  more  patiently  bear  with  his  groundlef? 
Infinuations. 

*  In  the  Courfe  of  this  Debate,  Mr.  F.  has  often  (and 
I  think  quite  unjuftly)  charged  me  with  begging  the 
^uejiion  ;'  fomctimes,  it  is  a  barefacd  beggings  foroe- 
times  Jhamefui  begging.,  other  times,  a  full  and  accom- 
plijhed  begging  :  But  in  Page  loi.  1  am  charged  with 
poor  begging  the  ^le/Jim^  becaufe  I  endeavoured  to  refcue 
the  Mode  of  Immerfion  from  his  cruel  Attempt  to  hnfc 
it  down  on  a  Level  with  the  O'yniiick  Games.  Now  he 
thinks,'  "  It  is  ea'Jy  to  retort"  and  afks,  *'  Was  Jmnur- 
fion  ordained  of  God  V  Anf.  Moft  certainly,  or  elfc 
ffohn  would  not  have  baptized  {i.  e.  dippedj  the  Multi- 
tudes in  the  River  of  Jordan^  Mark  i.  5.  Savs  he, 
♦'  Did  Chriji  authorife  it?''  Yes,  both  by  his  Word, 
and  Example  ;  when  he  himfelf  was  baptized  in  Jordan 
(or  as  it  may  be  rendered,  dipped  into  Jordan)  Mark  i.  9. 
and  afterwards  commanded  his  Difciples  to  baptize  [i.  <f. 
dip)  Believers,  Matt,  xxviii,  19.  He  afks,  "  Does  the 
Apofile  fayy  that  himjelf  and  other  Chrifiians  were 
plunged?"  Anf.  The  Apoftle  lays,  that  he,  and  other 
Chriftians  were  buried  with  Chrift,  in,  or  by  Baptifm, 
Rom.  vi.  4.  Col.  ii.  12.  Mr.  F.  himfelf  is  obliged  to 
•wn  that  Water  Baptifm  is  intended  in  CoL  ii,   12.  be- 

caufa 

•  Find.    Page  93. 


C    204    ) 

eaufe  he  brings  it  to  prove  that   Baptifm  Aiccecds  Gr- 
Gumcihon. '    But  how  \.hQ  Colojftans   could  be   buried   in 
VVater  Bciptifm,   without  being  dipt,  or  plunged  in  the 
Water,  when    baptized,  does  not   jet  appear.     Again, 
he  afks,    "  Was   Plunging  deftgned   to    reprefent  a  Death 
to  SinP    &c.      Ani:   Bapti<m,   in  the  Reception  where- 
of the  Roman  znA  Coloffian  Believers  were  buried,   is  dc- 
iign'd  to  reprefent  a  Death  to  Sin,  &c.  becaufe  the  Apo- 
iVle  argues  from  it   to  that  ?nx^ok,  Rom.  vi.   Indeed,  I 
Jcnow  of  no  other  Mode   of  Baptifm,   that  will  afford 
fuch  an  Argument  for   the   Mo;  tification    of  bin,    and 
Obiigation  to  live  in   Newnefs  ot  Life,  as  Immerfion 
does:  I  am  well  perfuaded    Pouring  or  Sprinkling  does 
not,  for  it  has  not  been  as  j^et  made  appear,  that  it  ever 
-was  ordained  of  G.>d   to    be  ufed  in  adminifiring  this 
holy  Ordinance  :    Nay,  even  Mr.  F,   himfelt,  does  not 
pretend  to  fay  it  was,  when  he  *  afTcrtd   that  a  peculiar 
Mode  is  not  eilential  to  the  Ordinance,  and  charges  us 
with  Fondnefs,  for  imagining  the  contrary.     " 

In  Charitable  Plea^   Page    10 ?.   he  affirmed,   '*  That 
the  PraSlice   of  Dipping  is   as  much   without    ProoJ\  as 
fixing   to  a  Crofs  in   Baptijrn"     He  now  puns   on  my 
Remarks  on   hii  AfTtrtion,     thus,  *'  J  hn   baptized  in 
Jordan,  therefore  the  Apajile  in  Rom.  vi.  alludes  to  Plung- 
ing.    Our  Bibles  are  very  fignifcant  to  usy  therefore  Rom, 
vi.  alludes  to  Plunging.    H^^uzo  ftgrjfies  to  plUnge^   there- 
fore Plunging  is  alluded  io  in  Rom.  vi.  famous  Arguments 
thefe !  and    unanfwerable  to  he  fare  I  '   Reply;  Can  Mr. 
F.  imagine  he  has  made  gpod  his  abovefaid  Aflcrtion  in 
Charitable  Plea,   by  all  this?   Has  he  produced  any  Gir- 
cumftances  of  Baptifm,   recorded    in  Scripture,    which 
afford,  even   if  it    were   no  more  than   a  prefumptive 
Proof,  that  People  were  faftened   to  a  Crofs  when  bap- 
tized, as  I  have  given,  that  they  w^ere  dipped  ?   No,  he 
knows  of  none  :    Huw   then   can  t*he  "  one  Pra£iice  be 
without  Proof  as  jnuch  as  the  other.,'"    as  he   in  a  warm 
Fit  of  Oppofition,    ijijudicioufly  alSrmed  ;     certainly  it 
is  not :    Thefe   Mediums  I  made  ufe  of,   ferve  to  iljev<r 
the  Falfenefs  of  his  abovefaid  AlTertion.     Now  when 

hi 
*  Charitable  Pica,  Page  i  o5. 


t   205  ] 

he  could  no  ways  vindicate  it,  he  thinks  proper  t6  api- 
plv  thcfc;  Mediums  10  that,  which  they  weie  not  defign* 
ed  ror  ;  that  whilft  he  endeavours  to  render  my  Reafon- 
ings  ridiculous,  he  might  at  the  fame  time  diveit  hi» 
Readers  from  obferving  that  he  cannot,  in  any  wife 
make  good  his  daring  Aflertion.  This  is  the  Author 
that  has  i>  much  to  fay  about  Evafions  and  Perverfions  I 
As  for  any  thmg  that  has  as  yet  appeared  to  the  con- 
trary, the  Apoftle  has  a  Regard  to  the  Mode  of  Bap- 
tifm,  when  he  fays  of  himfelf  and  others,  that  they 
were  buried  therein  j  tho'  Mr.  F.  can  neither  own  it, 
nor  refute  it. 

If  the  Cafe  be,  as  he  aflerts,  I  queried,  **  How  cami 
fuch  a  great  Body  of  eminent  Divines  to  be  fo  miftaken  in  this 
A^atter  ?  Reafon  tells  us,  that  there  muji  be  not  only  a 
mere  Probability,  but  fame  very  great  Certainty  in  the 
Cafe,  before  thofe  uiho  pra£lifed  Sprinkling,  would  cenfefs 
that  Dipping  was  the  ancient  Mode  of  Baptizing,  contra- 
ry to  their  own  Pra^ice"  He  anfwers,  **  /  will  tell 
him,  when  he  tells  me,  how  they  came  to  be  mijlaken  [in 
his  fudgment)  about  his  Principle."  But  he  need  not 
to  have  made  this  Excufe,  for  I  had  told  him  ;  by* 
obferving  to  him  '*  the  Prevalency  of  Education  or  Cu- 
Jlom."  But  it  cannot  be  fuppofcd  this  ftiould  be  the 
Reafon  of  their  Conceffions  in  our  Favour,  contrary  to 
their  own  Pra6lice.  The  fufpending  Condition  being 
removed,  his  Anfwcr  is  expe<Sted,  according  to  his 
Fromife. 

Our  Author  informed  us.  Charitable  Plea,  Page  io2. 
how  he  could  account  for  thefe  figurative  Expreffions  u- 
fed  by  the  Apoftle,  without  fuppofing  any  Allufion  to 
the  Mode  of  Baptifm.  And  now  {Find.  Page  102.)  he 
feems  to  declare  himfelf  difappointed  in  his  Expeftation, 
that  *'  Injlead  of  refuting  his  Argument,  I  go  on  with 
trine  own  Story."  I  add,  very  juftly  too,  when  it  is 
moft  agreeable  to  Truth,  and  ferves  to  fliew  his  Me- 
thod of  accounting  for  the  Apoftle's  Expreffions,  to  be 
not  right.  If  he  would  have  us  believe  tHe  Apoftle  al- 
ludes to  the  Death,  Burial  and  Refurreclion  of  Chrift, 

in 
•  Juti.  Page  94; 


C    206   ) 

in  thefe  Phrafes,  without  any  Reference  to  Baptifitri^ 
■why  dees  he  own  that  Water-Bsptifm  is  intended  in 
thefe  Places  at  all  ?  As  he  does,  by  infifling  on  Coi.  ii. 
12.  elfewhcre  to  this  Purpofe  ;  confequently  the  paral- 
lel Text,  Rom.  vi.  4.  intend  Water Baptifm  alfo. 
Then  if  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  be  here  meant,  it 
will  follow,  that  the  Nature,  Ufe  and  End  of  it,  ai'c 
here  cxprefled  ;  it  is  a  Burial,  manifeftly  referring  to  the 
Adminiftration  of  it,  in  particular  to  the  Roman  and 
Colcjfian  Believers,  whom  the  Apoftle  puts  in  Mind, 
were  buried  therein,  which  cannot  be  done  but  by  Im- 
merfion.  ,  'Tis  a  Burial  with  Chrift,  reprefenting  hit 
Death  and  Burial ;  and  a  .  Token  of  our  Death  to  Sin, 
reprefenting  his  Refurre(5^ion  from  the  Dead,  and  our 
rifing  to  walk  in  Newncfs  of  Life,  which  is  much  more 
agreeable  to  thefe  Texts,  than  the  Way  whereby  Mr. 
i^  would  account  for  thefe  Phrafes :  According  to  him, 
the  Senfe  muft  run  thus,  We  are  buried  with  Chrift  re- 
prefentatively  in  the  Grave,  and  rifen  reprefcntatively 
therefrom  3  which  GlofTes  are  inconfiftent  with  the  ex^ 
prefs  Words  sf  the  Apoftle,  that  we  are  buried  with 
him,  in  or  by  Baptifm  :  It  feems,  by  all  that  be  can 
contrive,  he  cannot  evade  the  Force  of  thefe  Words 
of  the  Apoftle,  which  hold  forth  a  baptifmal  Burial  and 
baptifmal  Rifing,.  which  Cannot  be  done  witham^  im- 
merfing  or  covering  the  Body  in  Water.,  But  he  thinks 
our  Glofs  makes  the  Apoftle's  Argument  weak  and  tri- 
fling. Anf.  Why  fo?  When  the  Apoftle  urges  Chri' 
-ftians  to  be  holy,  from  the  very  Confideration  of  their 
baptifmal  Burial  and  Rifing,  whereby  is  fo  clearly  re- 
prefented  the  Burial  and  Rcfurreilion  of  Chrift,  and 
which  affords  fuch  flrong  and  powerful  Motives  to  ad- 
vance in  Conformity  to  him;  that  as  a  Perfon  when 
dead  and  buried,  has  finifhcd  his  former  Courfe  of  liv- 
ing, fo  they,  who  were  dead  to  Sin  (at  leaft  by  ProfefH- 
6n)  and  in  Token  thereof,  buried  with  Chrift  by  Bap- 
tifm into  Death,  fhould  now  live  a  new  Life,  upon 
which  they  had  entred,  fignifled  by  their  rifing  out  of 
the  baptifmal  Water  ;  therefore  it  is  moft  abfurd  and 
Anreafonable  they  (hould  live  any  longer  in  Sin.— The 

Argu- 


[      207      ] 

Argument  is  ftrong  and  convincing,  and  leads  them  tft 
make  a  proper  Ufe  of  their  B-tptifin  at  an  Excitement 
to  a  becoming  Progrefs  in  HoliMef;,  for  whicfi  End  the 
Apoftle  tells  them,  they  were  buried  with  Chr'tjl  by  Bap- 
ttfm^  &c.  Now  for  Mr.  F.  to  call  it  weak  an.d  trifling, 
docs  not  make  it  foj'nor  does  his  faying,  "  The  Apo/ile 
argues  not  from  the  Mode  of  Baptifm,  but  from  Baptifm 
itfelf"  overthrow  our  Argument  ;  when  the  Apoitle 
argues  from  Baptifm,  wherein  the  Chriflians  were  bu- 
ried, which  cann#t  be  faid  of  any  other  Mode,  but  Im- 
merfion,  in  which  the  Party  baptized  is  put  in  the  Wa- 
ter, covered  with  it,  and  raifed  out  again,  which  may 
be  aptly  exprefled  by  burying  ;  and  by  all  that  yet  ap- 
pears, this  is  the  only  Mode  which  can  lay  any  Claim 
to  a  divine  Original  in  Defence  of  it,  which  Mr.  i^.  hi- 
therto, we  find,  has  not  been  able  to  refute. 

In  Page  103.  we  come  to  Mr.  Fs  fecond  Aflertion, 
**  That  the  Scriptures  afford  clearer  Grounds  to  us  in  fa- 
vour of  our  Modiy  than  to  our  Opponents  againji  it.'*  And, 
fays  he,  *'  i.  //  feems  to  be  prophefyd  of  in  Ifai.  lii.  15. 
he  /hall  fprinkle  many  Nations"  I  oblerve,  the  Chief 
Mr.  F.  has  to  fay  on  this  Head,  is  a  Rehearfal  of  whac 
lie  writ  before  r  I  argued,  this  Place  has  no  Relation  to 
the  Mode  of  Baptifm,  which  he  has^  not  refuted,  by 
fhewing  that  the  Mode  of  Baptifm  n  intended  in  this 
Place.  I  intimafed,  the  Text  does  not  carry  in  it  any 
Evidence,  that  Sprinkling  is  the  proper  Mode  of  Bap- 
tifm, and  that  none  will  think  fo,  unlefs  they  be  fully 
prepofTefs'd  with  theOpmion,  and  are  willing  to  believe 
any  thing,  if  they  think  it  favours  their  received  Opi- 
nion, tho'  ever  fo  groundlefs.  Our  Author  furely  muft 
be  very  fond  of  his  Sentiments,  when  he  would  croud 
them  on  his  Readers,  unfupported  by  Evidence,  as  cer- 
tainly this  Text  afFords  him  none,  in  the  Cafe  he  cites 
ir  for.  He  charges  me  with  Railing  and  unmannerly 
Language:  What  is  the  Reafon  ?  Why,  becaufe  I  en- 
deavoured to  deteft  his  Folly,  in  abufing  Scripture  to 
mifguide  the  common  People,  and  fays,  ""  /  bring  in 
Mr.  Gill;  without  Argument,"  But  it  is  not  fo ;  far 
Mr.  Gill  argued,  that  iuch  Proofs  as  thefe,  fetch'd  out 


^<» 


•f  the  Old  Te lament,  are  not  demonftrative  of  the 
true  Mode  of  baptizing  under  the  New  ;  which  Mr.  F* 
has  not  refuted.  Sa)S  he,  "  This  Prcphefy  feems  evident^ 
ly  to  have  had  its  Accomplipment  in  the  Apcjlles  Execution 
tf  their  Commijfton,  Alatt.  xxvWx.  Anf.  Before  he  in- 
sinuates it  was  by  Sprinkling,  he  (hould  do  two  Things, 

1.  Prove  that  the  Mode  of  Baptifm  is  intended  in  the 
faid  Prophefy,  otherwife  the  Prophefy  may  have  had  its 
Accomphfhment  then,  and  fincej  but  not  in  the  leaft  Part 
by  Sprinkling  the  Nations  with  Wat&r,  in  Baptifm,  as 
he  would  perfwade  the  Credulous  to  oelieve.  And,  2. 
fhew  that  the  Apoftles  adminiftred  Baptifm  by  Sprink- 
ling ;  or  elfe  it  will  be  only  to  take  for  granted,  what 
(hould  be  proven.  At  length  he  fays,  "  Now  while 
Baptifm  is  adminijlred  by  Sprinklrng^  among  fo  man) 
Chrijiian  Nations^  he    need  not  ajk  where  this  Prophefy  ii 

fulfilled."  No,  to  be  fu re  the  Matter  is  cut  of  Doubt! 
But  have  the  Chriftian  Nations  God's  Word  to  warrant 
their  Mode  ?  This  Mr.  F.  has  not  yet  fhew.n.  I  may 
therefore  as  well,  if  not  better,  reply,  when  the  Sub- 
jedl  and  Mode  of  Baptifm  are  changed  from  the  firll 
Inftitution,  among  fo  many  Chriftian  Nations,  he  need 
not  afk,  where  the  Prophefy  of  the  Purpofe  to  change  * 
Divine  Laws,  is  fulfilled  ?  We  fee  his  firft  Teftimony 
whereby  he  wouTd  prove  his  Aflertfon  is  altogether  bc- 
fides  the  Matter.  Let  us  now  look  to  his  fecond,  which 
he  calls  Examples,  namely,  the  Three  Thoufand,  yf^i 
ii.  41.  Cornelius  and  his  Company,  J£is  x.  47.  Paul^ 
ASis  ix.  18,  19.  The  Goaler  and  his  Houfe,  A£is  xvi. 
33.  For  two  Reafons,  I  need  not  dwell  long  on  his  Ex- 
amples,  I.   Becaufe  he  argues  only  from  Circumftanccs. 

2.  His  free  Conceflion,  **  //  is  true^  we  are  not  exprejly 
told,  that  thefe  Per  Jons  were  baptized  by  Pouring  or  Sprink- 
ling." As  to.  his  firft  Inftance  of  the  Three  Thoufand,  the 
chief  Objedion  infifted  on,  in  his  former  Piece,  againft 
their  being  immerfed,  was  the  fuppofed  Fewnefs  of  Ad- 
miniftrators  :  But  I  obferved,  for  any  thing  that  ap- 
pears, the  Seventy  Difciples  were  together  with  the  Apo- 
ftles  i  fo  that  Cavil  feems  removed  :  Now  the  Queftion 

.  *  '*' 

*  Daniel  vii.  25, 


C  2b()    ) 

il.  Where  ha^  they  all  Convenie.ncj'es  to  plunge  ?  Wei?, 
if  this  be  anfwered,  who  can  teli  what  the  next  will  be  t 
It  fufficiently  rcfolves  this  imaginary  Difficulty,  thai 
there  was  at  (or  in)  'Jerufalem,  a  Pool  (a  *  Wafliing  or 
Swimming  Place)  by  the  Sheep  Market,  John  v.  2.  be- 
(rdes  other  Waters  and  plentiful  f  Conveniencies  for 
Bathing.'  • 

'  He  makes  Dependance  on  th^  Words  of  Peter, 
**  PFho  can  forbid  lVater?"—~to  afford  hini  a  good  Ar- 
gument, *'  That  JVater  was  to  be  brought,'"  &c.  But  I 
think  the  Intent  of  the  Words  is,  who  can  forbid 
thefe  Perfons  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,  or  deny  the 
Adminiftration  of  it  to  them?  Here  is  no  Intimation, 
that  VVater  was  to  be  brought,  and  feme  body  was  about 
to  forbid  it,  according  to  his  own  Way  of  Reafoning  : 
1  may  as  well  argue,  who  can  forbid  the  Ufe  of  his  Ri- 
ver, or  Bath',  or  any  other  Goftveniencies  he  might  < 
have  for  baptizing  ? 

Mr.  F.  obferved,  "  That  all  Circumjlances  concur 
to  Jheiv,  that  Paul  ivas  not  plunged.^'  I  fhewed  him  the 
contrary,  for  he  arofe  and  was  baptized.  He  fays-,  *'  / 
lay  the  Strefs  on  his  rifmg,  to  prove  that  he  itas  plunged.''* 
Which  is  very  falfe;  I  laid  the  Strefs  on  his  riling,  to 
refute  his  Affertion,  that  all  Gircumftarices  concurred 
in  his  Favour.  Why  has  he  not  fhewn,  the  Neceflity 
of  Paul's  rifing  or  moving  from  the  Place  where  he  was, 
if  Sprinkling  would  have  done  ?  I  laid  the  Strefs  of  my 
Argument  on  Paul's  own  Words,  who  puts  himfelf  in 
with  others,  who  are  butiedzvith  Chrijl  by  Baptifm,  Rom, 
vi.  4.  v/hich  Mr.  F.  has  thought  prfper  to  overlook. 
Xb  which  I  m'ay  add  the  Words  of  Ananias,  J£fs  xxii, 
16.  Arijcy  and  be  baptized,  and  wa/h  aiuay  thy  Sins. 
Now  if  the  Word  Baptize,  be  rendered,  Pour  or  Sprin- 
kle, how  ddd,  and  indeed  fenlelefs,  would  the  Verfion 
h'i—'Arife,  and  be  poured  or  fprinkled,  and  zva/lo  away 
thy  5i«i.---But  quite  fmoorh  and  fignlficant,  to  fay^ 
Arife,  and  be  d\p[>(:(\,  avd  zva/h  away  thy  Sins. 

In  refpe^Il  of   the  Jaylor  and  his  Houftiold,  he    fays, 

'   The  Cafe    may    be  rightly    apprehended  thuSy  he  firji 

O  brought 

*  Pool  in  John  v.  2. 

t  See  Mr,  Qill\  Expof  on  Aiis  ii.  41. 


t      2IO      ] 

brought  them  out  of  the  inner  Prifon,  er  Dungeon,  into  a 
more  comfortable  Room,  where  he  and  his  Family  being 
gathered,  were  baptized.  Afterwards  he  brought  them  into 
his  own  Houfe,  his  Dining  room,  and  fet  Meat  before  them^ 
Verfe  34."  Anf.  1  judge  this  Reprefentation  of  the  Cafe 
does  not  near  fo  well  agree  with  the  Hiftory,  as  what  I 
have  obferved.  It  feems  much,  more  natural  to  under- 
fland,  the  Jaylor  brought  Paul  and  Silas  out  of  Prifon, 
and  took  them  with  him  into  his  H^ufe,  when  it  is  faid^ 
They  f pake  unto  him  the  Word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all 
that  were  in  his  Houfey  Adts  xvi.  30,  32.  than  to  ima- 
gine he  only  brought  them  out  of  the  Dungeon  to  fome 
better  Apartment  in  the  Prifon  j--- and  that  his  Fami- 
ly were  gathered  together  ii^  the  Prifon  :  If  fo,  thert 
the  Senfe  mufl:  be,  they  fpake  the  Word  to  him,  and 
to  all  of  his  Family,  that  were  gathered  with  him  in  the 
Prifon  ;  which  is  an  obvious  Departure  from  the  Letter 
of  the  Hiftory.  Further,  when  the  Jaylor  and  his  Houf- 
hold  were  inftruded,  'tis  reafonable  to  underftand  they 
went  out  either  to  the  River  not  far  off,  A£fs  xvi.  13.  or 
to  feme  other  Receptacle  of  Water,  and  were  baptized 
by  Paul,  or  Silas,  for  afterwards  it  is  exprefly  faid. 
He  brought  them  into  his  Houfe,  Verfe  ^4.  But  we  have 
done  with  Mr  F\  Proofs,  which  he  brings  from  Circum- 
ftances,  to  make  good  his  Aflertion.  Now  if  thefe  Cir- 
fcumftances  be  compared  with  thofe  I  brought  for  Im- 
nierfion,  viz.  going  down  into  the  Water,  being  in  it, 
and  coming  up  out  of  it,  b^c.  which  attended  the  Admi- 
hiftration  of  the  Ordinance  ;  I  judge  it  will  appear  to 
all,  we  Xiave  by  far  the  beft  Proof,  from  Circumilances ; 
cfpecially  confidering  there  is  nothing  in  what  Mr,  F» 
offers,  that  turns  outagainft  us.  I  (hould  indeed  be  quite 
at  a  Lofs  to  imagine  how  Mr.  i^.  could  fay,  "  That  the 
Scriptures  afford  clearer  Grounds  to  him  in  favour  of  his 
Jldode,  than  to  us  againft  him  ;  and  thai  he  outdoes  us  in 
Scripture  Examples :"  were  it  nut  he  now  tells  me,  f 
He  can  find  SatisfaSiion,  where  one  of  my  Principles 
iannot"  1  am  very  apt  to  think  it  is  fo  ;  or  elfe 
certamly  he  would  be  very  uncafy  about  his  Mode,  when 

he 
-f  Find.  Page  52. 


t      211      ] 

lie  has  neither  Command,  nor  Example,  nor  fo  much  at 
a  good  Circumftance,  to  favour  it  :    Nay,  indeed  thefe 
very  Examples  he  has  cited,  in  his  own  Judgment,  fcem 
To  infufRcient  to  determine    the  Ccntroverfy,  that  he 
himfelf  is  not  certain  the  Perfons  referred  to,  were  fpr ink- 
led  ;  only,  *'  //  is  much  more  probable  they  were  fpr  inkled^ 
than  dipped*'     But  I  muft  needs  fay,  I  fee  not  the   leaft 
Ground   for   this  Conclufion,  as  already  obferved.     He 
feems  pretty  much  difturbed  on  this  Occafion,  and  aflcs^ 
Page  105,   "  Did  I  fay  ^  that  if  thefe  Circumjlances  make 
It  not  certain^  I  can  prove  it  by  no  other  Argument  ?" — 
Does  he  think  lam  overcome^  if  I  do  not  draw  certain  Con- 
cluftons  from  probable  Premifes  ?      Or  are  his  Argument t 
ionvincing,  hecaufe  he  is  abfolutely  confident  of  their  Truth  ? 
'-'Did  he  not  flinch  from  his   Confidence  in  thefe  Injiances, 
when  he  was  oblig'd  direiily  to  confront  my  Arguments  ?** 
Reply  J   what  his  other  Arguments  may  do,  does  not  as 
yet  appear  :  'Tis  fufficient  in  this  Place  to  obferve,  that 
the  Scripture  Examples  of  Baptifm  do    not  make  good 
his  AfTertion,  nor  afford  him  a  certain  Ground  for  his 
Pradice  j  then  it  follows,  he  cinnot  urge   the   Obfer- 
yance  of  Sprinkling  on  others,  as  afcripturalTruth,  for  he 
is  not  certain  that  any  Inftance  of  Baptifm  in  Scripture 
will  bear  him  out  in  it.     So  far  mcthinks  he  cannot  but 
acknowledge  he  is  overcome  in  this  Controvtrfy.     My 
Arguments  are  fo  far  convincing,  that  I  am  not  fufpici- 
ous  of  their  Truth  myfelf  ;  and  therefore  cart  more  con- 
fiftently  propofe  them  to  others,  than    if  I  were  uncer- 
tain of  their  Truth,  and  yet  urge  them  as  a   Certainty 
on  others.     Neither  can  I  be  juflly  charged  with  "  Stri- 
ving to  carry  the  Point  by  tlamour"  when  I  ftedfaftly  con- 
front   his  Arguments  with  folid   Reafonings,  from  the 
allowed  Senfe  of  the  Word  Baptizo,  the  Scripture  Ex- 
amples of  Baptifm,  and  concurring  Circumftances  j  all 
which  harmonize  in  favour  of   Immerfion,    tho*    eve- 
ry now  and  then  he  calls  them  baffled  Arguments  j  here- 
by he  manifefls  his  WilJingnefs  they  fhould   be  thought 
fo,  whilft  his  Ability  it  feems  is  infufficient  to  (hew  them 
to  be  fo. 

O  2  In 


C 


[      212      ] 

In  Page  103,  Mr.  F.  gives  us  his  Judgment  of  the 
Mode  ot  Haptifm,  and  the  Reafon  of  his  vindicating 
SprinkHng.  Says  he,  1/  the  Scripture  /peaks  le/s  exprejly 
ef  this  Pointy  it  is  to  teach  us,  that  a  peculiar  Mode  is 
hot  effential  to  the  Ordinance.''*  1  hen  it  natively  follows, 
according  to  Mr.  i^'s  Principles,  that  Pourirfg  or  Sprink- 
ling is  not  appointed  of  God,  elfe  it  would  be  effenti- 
al to  the  Ordinance  :  Then  to  what  little  Purpofe  is  it, 
for  him  to  contend  for  a  mere  human  Invention,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  Affertion.  Could  he  fay  but  fo 
much  (whether  he  was  able  to  prove  it  or  not)  that  he 
believed  it  was  of  divine  Inftitution,  and  the  only  Mode 
of  adminiftring  Baptifm  appointed  of  God  ;  his  zea- 
lous P'indication  of  it  would  carry  a  much  better  Face 
with  it,  than  now  it  does.  Could  I  once  be  perfvvaded 
there  was  no  peculiar  Mode  effejitial  to  Baptifm,  I 
would  immediately  lay  down  my  Pen,  and  let  every  one 
do  that  which  feemeth  him  beft  in  his  own  Eyes  in  the 
Cafe,  without  the  leafl  Controvcrfy  about  it.  I  would 
no  more  objc£t  againft  Mr.  F's  Sprinkling,  than  I  would 
againft  what  fafljion'd  Coat  lie  wore  j  with  the  provifo 
he  would  allow  me  the  like  Liberty,  to  do  as  I  ftiould 
think  heft  :  But  as  I  firmly  believe  otherwife,  I  muft 
yet  fpeak  in  Vindication  of  what  I  believe  to  be  a  divine 
Truth  ;  and  therefore  fiiy,  That  Water  cannot  be  ufed 
in  Baptifm,  without  fotne  Mode  of  Adminiftration, 
then  it  follows  there  muft  be  feme  Mode  effential  to  the 
Ordir  ance.  Further,  I  cannot  think  there  are  two  or 
more  difTerenf,  contrary  Modes  of  adminiftring  one 
and  the  fame  Ordinance  ;  this  would  beabfurd  in  itfelf ; 
befides  it  would  be  repugnant  (^  the  very  Intent  of  the 
whole  Adminiftration  of  the  Gofpel,  which  is  to  bring 
all  God's  People  together  in  Unity  :  'Tis  therefore 
quite  unreafonab'e  to  f  ppofe  that  any  Part  of  the  Gof- 
pel Adminiftration  fliould  have  a  Tendency  to  fruftratc 
the  Defign  of  the  Whole,  by  dividing  his  People  in  this 
Cafe,  inflead  of  uniting  them.  And  as  far  am  J  from 
thinking  that  God  inftituted  an  Ordinance,  and  left 
it  wholl;/  at  our  Di^'pofdi  to  chufe  in  what  Manner  it 
faould  be  performed,  as  one  91:  th'e  other  might  happen 

to 


[  213  0 
to  think  beft.  This  is  a  Thought  altogether  unworthy 
of  God,  and  his  Service  j  and  is  indeed  attended  with 
vaft  Abfurdities,  fome  of  which  I  mentioned  before,  • 
which  Mr.  F.  has  not  thought  proper  to  remove  out  of 
his  Way,  tho'  his Caufe  extremely  needed  hefhould,  had 
it  been  pofTible  ;  I  fl:iall  therefore  lay  them  before  him 
again:  For  if  fo,  then  i.  It  would  follow,  thit  God 
inftituted  Baptifmto  be  adminillred,  without  informing 
u&  in  what  Manner  he  would  have  it  adminiftred. 

2.  It  would  follow  that  Mens  changeable  Fancies 
and  different  Notions,  muft  be  the  Rule  of  Dire<Sti- 
bn,  in  the  Adminiftration  of  this  Part  of  Divine  VVor- 
(hip. 

3.  This  would  natively  tend  to  open  a  Door  to  end- 
lefs  Difcords  arid  Gonfufions  among  God's  People. 

4.  Having  no  divine  Rule,  or  Standard  to  go  to,  as 
their  Controveifies  would  be  unavoidable,  io  their  Dif- 
ferences would  be  remedilefs. 

•  5.  God  is  not  ihn  Author  of  Confujion,  hut  of  Peace,  as 
in  a/l  the  Churches  af  the  Saints,  1  Cor.  xiv.  33.  But 
this  Principle  natively  tends  to  make  him  the  Author  of 
Confufion  in  all  the  Churches,  in  that  he  has  command- 
ed an  Ordinance  to  be  adminiftred,  but  appointed  not 
the  Mode  how  it  fhoald  be  adminiftred,  if  this  Doc- 
trine of  Mr.  Finlefs  be  right :  But  as  this  Principle  car- 
ries in  its  Bofom  fuch  monftrous  Abfurdities,  it  undeni- 
ably follows,  on  the  Whole,  that  fome  peculiar  Mode  is  « 
efTential  to  Baptifm  5  and  by  all  that  hath  asyet  appeared, 
that  Mode  is  Immerfion,  or  burying  the  Party  bapti- 
zed in  Water.  Again,  Mr.  F.  gives  us  the  Reafonsof 
his  Pradlice,  that  "  If  a  peculiar  Mode  is  not  effentlaU 
then  is  Sprinkling  as  good  as  any  ether."  Reply  :  His 
imbibing  this  abfurd  Principle,  we  fee  is  the  very  Ground 
of  perfifting  in  the  Praftice  of  Afperfion  :  But  I  judge 
it  will  appear,  I  have  fhewn  fome  peculiar  Mode  is  ef- 
fential  to  Baptifm,  and  muft  continue  in  my  prefent 
Way  of  thinking,  till  I  fee  theabovefaid  Remarks  fair- 
ly anfwered.  Therefore  Sprinkling  is  not  as  good  as  any 
other,  nor  at  all  to  be  praftifed,  unlefs  h^  can  make  it 
appear  to  be  the  only  Mode  inftituted  by  Chrift.     Fui> 

O  3  ther-r 

.  .   ..  V..£t-"'' 


[      214      ] 

ther,  be  tells  us  the  Reafons  why  he  vindicates  it,  vi%. 
it  fhfkfM^'  Anabaptifts  oppofe  it ;  andbecaufc  he  judges 
tj  the  beJifFay    Page   losr     Reply:    Not    becaufe  he 

Z  °"k','°  ^^  ^  ^^''  ^^  '"«'^"^^'l  Worftiip  ;  for  he 
tioes  not  believe  any  peculiar  Mode  efTential  to  the  Ordi- 

,,c"vf  :  r^^^'r.  ^"fonabiyexpeaany  thing  elfe  from 
^'aI  xxP^^.""  ^"  ^^^t  which  is  introduced  into 
Ood  s  Worfh.p,  that  by  his  own  Way  of  talking,  is  not 
God  s  Appointment  f  Well,  according  to  his  Principles, 
i^nn^/^K     ^uH'^S^^^bert  Way,  and  I  judge  Immer- 

iZ  ?  t""  u'^'  ""^  ''  '^'  Difference  :  Now  can 
itbefupposd  by  any  thinking  Being,  that  the  all-wife 
and  fore-knowing  God  hath  not  provided  a  certain  Rule. 
Whereby  our  refpeftive  Judgments  fhould  be  try'd,  in 
fw  l  'u '^"'°''^  ^^^  Difference?  Well  affmed  lam 
Wat  he  has  ;  and  our  Difference  does  not  arife,  becaufe 

InTf  11  "°^^  ^^^'^  ^"^^'  ^"'  ^^^^^^^^  "  's  not  obferved 
and  followed  j  nor  is  it  likely  it  will  be,  as  long  as  Mr. 
/'.entertains  this  Opinion,  "  That  a  peculiar  Mode  is 
^°t  eJerit:aI.'\..His  Judgment  muft  be  theRuleof  his 
practice  J  and  he  will  always  prefer  his  received  Way 
(which  he  himfelf  cannot  find  fealed  with  a  divine  Im- 
pre^)  before  the  Lord's  Way,  which  at  prefent  he  fees 
nojjeauty  in.  4    r 

He  would  fain  excufe  his  bafe  Infinuations,  that  Im- 
roerlion  is  immodeft,  indecent,  and  tends  to  Murder  and 
Adultery,  by  telling  us  '«  Be  did  mt  call  it  (i.e.  which 
i^ay  Baptrfrn  ts  adminijred)  fo  very  indifferent."— "Bnt. 
1  tnink  fhJl,  according  to  his  Principles,  ,t  is  an  ind.ffe- 
rent  1  hing,  which  Way  the  Ordinance  is  adminiftred. 
It  there  IS  no  Mode  appointed  of  God  :  Therefore  he 
Has  no  Caufe  to  caft  his  Refleaions  on  us.  Now,  fhould 
we  leave  the  Mode  of  Immerfion,  and  embrace  his 
^prinkiing,  we  fhould  according  to  him  in  this  Place, 
JJUt  exchange  one  human  Invention  for  another  j  and 
would  he   or  we  be  the  better  for  that  ?   He  informs  us, 

ibe  mo (i  favourable  Judgment  he  has  ever  formed  of 
iiaptijrn  by  Immerfton,  is,  that  it  is  not  a  Nullity,'*  and 
that  the  Anabaptiji^  are  baptized  Perfons.  Favourable 
Judgment  !  and  y^hy  fo?  Becaufe  he  can't  help  himfelf: . 

His 


t   215  ] 

His  own  Principles  force  him  to  acknowledge  Immerfi- 
on  to  be  Baptifm  ;  we  are  not  therefore  in  the  leaft  obli- 
ged to  him  for  this  Kindnefs,  as  he  calls  it.  Indeed  it 
would  be  a  ftrange  Thing,  if  the  Anabapiijis  (hould  not 
be  baptized  Perfons ;  when  the  Name  he  gives  us  fug- 
gefts,  that  we  are  twice  baptized.  But  he  fays,  '*  He 
is  convh:ced  we  err  in  the  Made:'  This  is  a  furprizing 
Thing  !  Pray,  by  what  Rule  is  he  convinced  of  that, 
when  no  peculiar  Mode  is  eflential  to  the  Ordinance? 
How  can  we  err  in  the  Mode,  if  there  is  no  Mode  in- 
ilituted  ?  What  we  judge  to  be  the  beft,  is  fo  to  us, 
as  what  he  judges  beft  is  to  him,  if  the  Cafe  be  as  he  fays. 
Would  he  have  his  Judgment  to  be  a  certain  Rule  or 
Standard,  to  try  and  determine  the  Cafes  of  others  by? 
And  if  their  Praftices  differ  from  his  Judgment,  he  is 
convinced  they  err.  But  let  him  firft  (hew  from  Scrip- 
ture, that  Chrift  ordained  Sprinkling  to  be  the  only 
Mode  of  3aptifm,  before  he  talks,  that  he  is  convinced 
we  err  about  it  ;  or  charges  us  with  unwarrantable 
Additions  in  the  Mode  ;  or  with  intermixing  Error  with 
Truth,  and  fuch  like  rumbling  StufF.  Nay,  accord m§ 
to  his  Principle,  there  cannot  poffihly  beany  Certainty 
which  is  the  right  Way  of  adminiftring  the  Ordinance  ; 
therefore  he  has  not  the  leaft  Ground  to  charge  my  Ob- 
fcrvation  with  invidious  Falfliood,  when  I  fay  he  infmu- 
ates  the  Cafe  to  be  doubtful  :  Can  any  Body  fee,  there 
is  a  Certainty  in  the  Cafe,  when  Mr.  F.  himfelf  affirms, 
there  is  no  peculiar  Mode  eflential  to  Baptifm  ?  No 
furely.  He  fuggefted  f  a  proper  Subjed  is  cfTential  to 
Baptifm,  whereon  I  afked,  why  (hould  it  be  urged  that 
7^  proper  Subjedl  is  eflential  to  Baptifm,  but  a  proper,  pe- 
culiar Mode,  not  eflential  ?  He  anfwers,  "  It  is  a 
fufficient  Reply,  that  a  proper  Subje£i  is  not  ejfential  to  the 
Mode  :  For  the  SubjeSi  is  one  Thing,  and  the  Mode  ano- 
ther." How  Mr.  F.  thinks  this  to  be  a  fufficient  Reply, 
which  is  no  Reply  at  all,  I  can't  imagine.  Did  I  afk 
whether  a  proper  Subjed  is  eflential  to  the  Mode  ?  No,  I 
aflc'd,  Why  is  not  a  proper  peculiar  Modeeflential  to  Bap- 
tifm, as  well  as  a  proper  Subjcdl  I  The  Ttuth  is,  this 
O  4  Reply 

f  Charit.  Plta,  Page  107 


£    2i5    '•} 

?.epiy  of  his  does  no  more  anfwer  the  QiieiliDfi,  than 
if  he  had  wrote  by  *  Chance.  The  Queihon  is  yet  ai- 
togethcr  unanfwered. 

_    In  Pase  io6,  he  comes  to  his   third  AfTertion,  uhich 
Js,     '   Tlat  our    Mode  arfwers  the  Ends  of'Baptifm,  and, 
t^mojl fuitable  and  fignificant.     On  this  Head,   he  wcnild 
iam  make  his  Readers  beiieve,  that  "   lamjenfihle  he  has 
proven  this  Jjferuon  --for  I  turn  my  Back  on  his  Argu- 
7nenis-.-can7iotfiand  before  them  --and  beg  the  9ite/iion." 
^ut  wherhcr  the  Cafe   be  thus,  muit  be  conlldeied  :   He 
fays,   "  Ifijatever  is  mojl  fuitable^  w?  are  fur e  is  order- 
ed of  God."     {   fuppole   this  is  one  f  of  his  Confidera- 
Jions,   whereby  he  would  prove  the  aforeiaid  Inflances  of 
iiaptifm,   were   bv    Pouring    or  SprinlcHng.      His  Argu- 
ment may  be  gathered  thus ;  That  Mode   which  is  mwft 
iuitabJe,     he   is  fure   is  ordered  of  "God  ;    Pouring   or 
^prmkhng  IS  moft  fuitable,,  therefore  he  is  fure   it  is  or. 
rfered  of   God..    But   is  he   fure   that  God  hath  ordered 
and  §  appointed   this   Mode,  and   yet  affirms  there  is  no 
peculiar  Mode  efTentiai  to  Baptifm  ?   Hath  God  appoint^ 
ed  It,  and  yet   it  is   not   effenrial  ?;  VVhijt  then  fignifies 
God's  Appointments  ?   By  .the  fame   Rule,    he  may  fay, 
God  hath  appointed  who  are  the  proper  Subj'as  of  Bap- 
tifm, and  yet   a   proper  Subjed   is.  not    efential.  to  it.' 
VVater  is  appointed  to  be  uied,  and  yet  it  is  not  elTential 
to  the  Ordinance  to  ufe  it..     If  divine  Aopointments  arc 
rot  eilential  to.an  Ordinance^  I  would  ^willingly  know 
^vhat  IS?   How  fliall  we  take  him  here?  h\  Sprinkling  is 
appointed  of  God,     to  be  the   Mode  of  Baptifm,   then 
fome  peculiar  Mode  is  efTentiai  to  the  Ordinance,   and 
none  are    baptized,,  but   thofe  who   are.  fprinkled  ;  for 
any  Tradi.tion  put- in  the  Room  of  God's  Appointments 
IS  a  making  h^s  Word  of  none  EfFc^,  and'layinP    afidc 
his  Commandment,   Mark  vii.  8,   13.   then  the  Batti/is 
are  unbaptized  Perfons,.  and  he  is  ob'heed  to  free  himfelf 
from  the  confequent    Abfurdities.  .  Bu"t  if,  on  the  other 
Hand,  no  peculiar  Mode  is  efTentiai  to  the  Ordinance,  thei^" 
God  has  not   ordered  and   appointed  Pouri.og  or  Sprink- 

*  ^/W.  Page  2S.  f  Ibid,  Page  105. 

5   Charitable  ?ha,  Page  109. 


[       2.7      ] 
ling ;  and  fo  he  cannot  be  fure  this  Mode  is  right.  Buf 
leavin<r  Mr.  F.  in  a  Labyrinth   of  Confufion,  warmly 
engaged    in  oppofing  himfelf,    let    us  proceed  to   whaf 
follows  ;  **  Baptifm,   (fays  he)  fignifies  the  Dedtcation  of 
the  baptized  P  erf  on  to  Gad ;    and  does  not  a  little  Water 
mfiver  this  End,  as  well  as  an  Ocean   of  it?  -It  fignt- 
fies  the  Soul's   Jujiification   h;  Chrlji's.  Blood,  and  Sanflt- 
fication  by  his  Spirit :    Jnd  are  hot  theje  Benefits  Jtgnified 
by  pouring  a   little  Water  on   the  Perfon  F-.-J^nd  cannot 
Sprinkling  reprefent    Sprinkling?"  &c.       Anf.    You  fee 
Mr.  F.  is  for  arguing  from  the  Refemblance  betwixt  the 
Sign,  and  the  Thing  (fuppofed  to  be)  fignified,  tho'  clfe- 
where  he  utterly  denies  there   is  a  Refemblance  between 
them.     1  think  I  have  already  {hewn    Immerfion  to  be 
the  fcriptural  Mode  of  Baptifm,  therefore  none  can  de- 
dicate themfelves  therein   by  any   other  Mode ;  unlefs  it 
had  been   fhewn,  that  another  Mode   was  appointed  of 
God,  which  Mr.  F.  is  far  enough  from  doing,  when  he 
brings  no  Texts   with   this   Defign,  but  one   from  the 
Old  Teftament,  which  has   no   Relation    to   the   Cafe, 
and  argues  from  Circumftances,  which  he  himfelf   ac- 
knowledges are  not  exprefs  in  his  Favour.     'Tis  not  be- 
caufc    we  think   the  true  Properties  of  Water   are   not  ' 
to  be  found  in  a  Drop,  or  Handful,  as  well  as  in  a  Ri- 
ver  or  Ocean,  that   we  objcdt   againft  Sprinkling  ;  but 
becaufe  we   do  not  find   this  Mode  appointed   of  God  ; 
and  therefore  to  ufe  it    under  the  Pretence  that  it   will 
do,  or  it  may  ferve  to  anfwer   the  Ends  of  Baptifm,  is 
fully  refuted,  by  the  Inftance  of  Uzza,   i  Chron.  xv.  13. 
which  (liews  the  dreadful  Confequences  of  a  Departure 
from,  or  Non-obfervance  of,  the  due  Order,  and  pro- 
per  Mode,  God   will   have  us  regard   and  keep,   in  our 
Obedience  to  his  Commandments.   I  judge  enough   was 
faid,  not  only  to  (atisfy  my  Admirers  (\i  there  be  any 
fuch)  but  his  alfo,  that  his  Pradice  of  Sprinkling  is  not 
to  be  countenanced,  unlefs  he  had'  (hewn  them,  that  it 
is  the  only  Mode  appointed  of  God,  whereby  he  would 
have  Baptifm  adminiftred  ;     which   Mr.  F.  could   not 
do  without    contradiaing  himfelf,  as  before  obferved  : 
For  him  therefore  to  argue,  that  Sprinkling  anfwers  the 

Ends 


(      2l8      )  ] 

Ends  of  Baptifm;  is  juft  as  forcible,  as  if  they  of  old 
Ihould  have  argued  in  their  Favour,  when   they  carried 
the  Ark  on  a  Cart,  that  it  anfwered  the  End  as  well 
s»s  to  bring  It  on  the  Shoulders  of  the  Priefts  and  Lc- 


vites. 


His  next  Plea    m  Favour  of  the  Mode,  «'  ^e  Judges 
heft.      and   agamft  Ifnmerfion,  is,  that  his   SprinkJins 
can  be  pramfed  without  Danger   of  Health,     in  any 
Tme  of  the  Tear,"  &c.  and  fuggefts  that  Immerfion  is 
dangerous,  immodeft  and  indecent.  I  urged  him  to  pro- 
duce  Inftances   of  Perfons,  whofe  Healths  had  been  in- 
jured by  it      Heanfwers,  '*  There  may  have  been  Hun- 
dreds who  have  contraaed  deadly  Diforders  by  it,    tho'  I 
*now  them  not:  Tea,  many  have  been  hurt  thereby,  who  did 
not  look  upon  that  as  the  Caufe.**     Reply  j  It  is  very  re- 
inarkable  here,    how  willing  Mr,  F.  is,  the  Mode  of 
Immerfion  fhould  be  evil  thought  of:    He  judges  it  is 
fturttui,  but  he  cannot  give  one  Inftance  of  any  One's 
being  hurt  thereby  j    this  I  was  perfwaded   of  before 
and  am  now  confirmed  in  my  former  Perfwafion  •  Yet 
he  infinuates,  there  may  have  been  Hundreds  hurt  there- 
by, tho'   he  does  not  know  them.      Let    us    try  the 
Strength  of  his  Reafoning  here,  applied  to  other  Cafes  - 
1  here  may  have   been  Hundreds,  by  following  Hufban- 
dry  and  Handicrafts,  who  have  contraded  deadly  Dif- 
orders,    therefore,   according  to  his  Way    of  talking, 
Hufbandry  and  Handicrafts  mufl   be  laid  afide  ;    where 
then  will  Mr.  F.  get  his  Bread  and  his  Clothes  ?  Again, 
there   may  have  been  Hundreds  of  Miniflers,  who  by 
their  Studymg  or    Preaching,  have  contraded    deadly 
Wprd?rs,  tho'  they  did  not  look  upon  that  as  the  Caufe, 
what  follows  ?  Is  Studying  and  Preaching  not  of  God's  Ap- 
pomtment^  Further,  there  may  have  been  Hundreds  of 
Hearers,  by  being  thoroughly  wet  in  coming  to,  or  going 
from  Divine  Service,  or  fitting  in  the  Pl^ce  of  Worftiip 
an  Hour  or  two  in  cold    Winter  Weather,  who  have 
contraaed  deadly  Diforders,  tho'  they  did  not  look  up- 
on that  as   the  Caufe:  What   then?    Does  Mr.  F.  dif- 
fwade  People  from  Divine  Service  in  wet  or  cold  Wea- 
ther, and    IS  he  for  Publick  Worfhip,    only  when  it  is 

fair 


[  2^9  ] 
fair  and  warm  ?  I  might  add  Inftances  in  abundance,  to 
expofe  his  fenfelefsj  inconclufive  Talk  in  thefe  Infinua- 
tions.  But  will  he  fay  thefe  aforefaid  Exercifes  have  no 
fuch  Tendency  :  I  anfwer,  as  much  as  Immerfion  hath  j 
and  if  his  Iniinuation  does  not  (hew  thefe  Exercifes  not 
to  be  appointed  of  God,  neither  does  it  prove,  that 
Immerfion  is  not  appointed  of  him. 

Whatever  Tendency  bathing  in  cold  Water  may  have 
to  hurt  Perfons  in  the  Bloody  Flux,  the  Adminiftratiou 
of  Baptifm  by  Immerfion  has  no  fuch  Tendency,  when 
of  the  many  Thoufands  that  have  been  immerfed,  and 
fome  of  them  aged,  fome  weak  and  feeble,  yet  out  Op- 
ponents are  not  able  to  produce  an  Inftance  of  one,  that 
hath  been  hurt  thereby,  tho'  they  are  fo  very  willing  to 
do  it,  were  it  Roflible.  Methinks  there  is  therefore 
JTufficient  Evidence,  that  their  Inftnuations  are  ground- 
lefs  :  Had  there  been  as  many  Inftances  of  baching  in 
cold  Water,  when  in  the  bloody  Flux,  without  any 
Difadvantage,  as  there  are  of  Perfons  immers'd  without 
any  Hurt,  that  could  not  be  fuppofed  injurious,  any  more 
than  this.  God  hath  been  pleafed  at  all  Times  to  guard 
the  Adminiftration  of  his  own  Ordinance,  that  thofe 
who  have  waited  for  an  Occafion  of  Reproach,  have 
been  always  difappointed,  and  have  nothing  to  obje<a, 
only  the  vain  Imaginations  of  their  own  Brain,  and  invi- 
dious Inftnuations  of  their  prejudiced  Minds".  BlefTed  be 
his  Name,  that  he  honours  his  own  Truths  before  the 
Faces  of  Oppofers.  Says  he,  "  What  he  quotes— from 
Sir  John  Floyer,  about' the  Benefit  and  Healthfulnefs  of 
cold  Baths,  is  nothing  to  the  Purpofe."  But  it  is  quite  to 
the  Purpofe,  for  if  cold  Bathing  is  ufeful  to  the  Sick  in 
various  Difeafes ;  Immerfion  is  not  hurtful  to  thofe  who 
are  able  to  walk  abroad,  and  come  to  be  baptized,  John 
iii.  23. 

He  tells  us,  "  'Tis  fuch  a  Blunder  to  fay  that  the  Jf- 
femhly  of  Divines  fir  ft  introduc'd  Sprinkling  in  1643, 
as  Ignorance  itfelf  can  hardly  excufe,  being  direSlly  a- 
gainft  the  Credit  of  all  Hijiory,  as  we  have  feen  already'* 
But  Mr.  F.  has  cited  us  no  Hiflory  to  (hew  the  contra- 
ry, but  what  Sprinkling  was  introduced  in  England  by 

the 


1 


[  220  ] 
fhe  AjfemUy  of  Divines ^  fn  1643,  by  a  Vote  of  25  i- 
gainft  24,  and  cftablifhed  by  an- Ordinance  of  Parlia-^ 
jnent  in  1644,  tho'  he  is  very  unwilling  his  Readers 
ftiould  think  his  Praaice  of  Sprinkling  obtained  in 
general  but  of  late  in  the  Englijh  Nation,  left  they 
^ould  fufpea  its  being,  as  indeed  it  is,  an  human  In- 
vention,   and  a  grand  Innovation.  '  j 

Mr.  Wall  *  obferves,  that  *'  England,  which  is  one  of 
the  coldeji  (Climates)  was  one  of  the  lateft  that  admitted 
this  Alteration  of  the  ordinary  Way."  i.  e.  Sprinkling  in 
Jlead  of  Dipping.     It  will  be  time  enough  for  us  to  ac- 
knowledge Ignorance    and  Blunder,  when  he  fliews  us 
from  approved   Hiftory,  that  Sprinkling  was  eftabli{he4 
by  Authority,  in  England,  earlier  than  the  Date  aflign- 
ed  for   it  by  Sir  John   Floyer.     Our  Author's  Pretences 
to  Hiftory  have  been    examined   already,  and    the  Cafe 
turned  againft  him  ;   it  will   not  prove  Perfufion  to  have 
been  the  Praaice  of  the  Church   in  Cyprian's  Day,   be- 
caufe  he   endeavoured   to  make    it   pafs  for  Baptifm,  in 
the  Cafe  of  languifhing.  Bed-ridden  Perfons. 
_  We  are  now  come  (Page  108)  to  Mr.  P^  laft  AfTer- 
tion,  which  is,  «'  That  the  Mode  which   our  Opponenti 
contend  for,    is  loaded  with  Inconveniencies,  and  charge* 
able  with  Abfurdities."     I  muft  dcfire  my  chafte  Readers 
not  to  be  offended,  when  Neceflity  obliges  me  on  this 
Head,  inVindication  of  an  Ordinance  of  Chrift,  to  trouble 
them  with  a  Recital  of  fome  of  Mr.  Fs  Balderdafti,  in  or- 
der to  refute  it,  which  otherwifelfhould  not  have  burden- 
ed them  with  ;  but  fhould  have  left  it  wrapp'd  up  in  the 
Sheets  of  Shame,  with  its  invidious  Author. 

I  obferv'd,  that  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  is  perform- 
ed v/ith  all  Modefty  and  Decency  becoming  the  So- 
lemnity, and  urged  him  to  prove  the  contrary  ;  but  in- 
flead  of  Proofs,  he  entertains  us  with  his  Sentiments, 
I  miijl  alter  my  Judgment  (fays  he)  of  Female  Mode- 
Jly^  if  it  is  modeji  for  a  Maid  or  Matron  to  allow  her- 
filf  to  be  handled  by  a  Man,  either  naked,  or  in  a  tran- 
Jfarent  Garment,  before  a  mixed  Affembly  of  both  Sexes- - 
And  I  appeal   to  every  impartial  Perfon^    whether   'it  is 

not. 
*  Hill.  /»/.  Bap.  Page  467. 


[      221       ] 

\kfit  more  defiling  to   aSi  itnmodejily,    than  to  /peak  with 
ijbhorrence  of  immodeji  ASiions  ?"  To  this  Heap  of  Stuff, 
I  reply,  if  Mr.  F.  knows  of  any  Perfon  or  Sett  of  Peo- 
ple, who  are   guilty  of  what  be  here  fuggefts,  let  him 
name  them,    and    inform    the  World  who,  and   where 
they  be,  that  they  may  be   defervedly  treated  accord mg 
to  their  Demerit  ;  but   if  he  means  to  make  the  Appli- 
cation to  the  Baptijis,  I  deny  them   to  be  guilty  of  the 
Crimes  here  fuggefted,  when  celebrating  the  Ordinance 
of  Baptifm  ;  and   challenge  him  to  produce  an  Inftance 
of  a  Maid  or  Matron  handled  naked,  or  in  tranfparent 
Garments,  amongft  us,  at   the  Adminiftration  of  faid 
Ordinance,  or  of  any   immodeft  Ad  committed  on  the 
Occafion  ;    which  I  am  fully    perfuaded    he  cannot  do, 
betaufe  his  Manner  of  Writing  fhews  his  Willingnefs  to 
have  done  it  already,  if  it  could  be  done.     Now  when 
i/h.   F.   defignedly  labours    to  ftander   and   reproach  a 
Number  of  Chriftians   by  his  mean  Infinuations  on  the 
Account  of  a  Mode,  which  for  any  thing  he  has  made 
appear   to  the   contrary,    is  the  very  Mode  that  Chrift 
fubmitted  to,  and  appointed  :   He  would  do  well  to  con- 
fidcr  whether  this  bis  Conduct  merits  any  Honour  to  his 
Performance  now,  or  will  yield  him  a  pleafing  Reflec- 
tion, when  he  fobcrly  thinks  of  giving  up  his  Account 
to  him  that  is  ready  to  judge  the  Quick  and  the  Dead. 

Further,  he  holds,  that  ''  the  Water  of  Baptifm  ought 
to  be  dire£lly  apply  d  to  the  Body,  and  not  firjl  to  the 
Clothes  i"  and  adds  his  Reafon,  *'  Baptifm,  fays  he, 
fignifies  our  being  purged  and  cleanfed  ;  and  is  it  the  bejl 
Way  of  cleanfing  a  folid  Body,  jirjl  to  cover,  and  then 
apply  Water  to  it?  Anf.  I  think  his  Opinion  and  Rea- 
fon may  well  go  together,  as  for  any  Weight  there  is 
in  either,  in  the  prefent  Cafe  :  The  Defign  of  Bapttfm 
is  not  to  wafli  and  cleanfe  the  Body  of  the  Party  bap- 
tized ;  if  it  is,  our  Opponents  are  quite  out  of  the  Way 
in  not  ufing  more  Water,  than  a  few  Drops,  or  an 
Handful,  on  the  Occafion  j  none  furely  can  think 
Sprinkling  the  l^ft  Way  of  cleanfing  a  folid  Body.  But 
if  it  fignifies  the  Purging  of  the  Soul,  that  can  be  fig- 
'riiiicantly  done  by  immcrfing  the.  Body,   tho'  cloth'd, 

unlcu 


t      222      ] 

unlefs  Mr.  P.  is  fo  much  for  a  Refemblarice  hetweti 
the  Sign,  and  the  Thing  fignified,  that  it  muft  not  on 
ly  regard  the  material  Part,  but  muft  alfo  reach  to  ever 
minute  Circumftance,  fo  that  there  may  be  a  full  Re 
femblance  between  them,  tho'  elfewhere  his  Humou 
leads  him  to  deny  the  whole  utterly.  Now,  I  mui 
needs  tell  him  again  (tho'  it  may  be  fomewha 
grating  to  his  Mind,  to  fee  fo  little  Regard  paid  to  thu 
Product  of  his  fertile  Invention)  that  we  do  not  in  the 
leaft  feel  the  Force  of  his  fuppofed  Inconveniency  or  Ab- 
furdity  pinching  us. 

^  In  Page  109,  Mr.  P.  alks,  "  Hoiu  does  he  Hoiv  that 
Philip  dipp'd  the  Eunuch  wholly  ?"  Anf.  By  the  Scripture, 
^vhich  tells  me,  that  Philip  and  the  Eunnch  went  down 
both  into  the  Water,  and  that  he  baptized  him  there  ; 
and  if  he  baptized  him,  I  know  he  dipp'd  him  wholly, 
becaufe  nothing  lefs  than  a  total  Immerfion  can  be  a 
baptifmal  Burial,  which  was  the  Way  the  Ordinance 
was  anciently  adminiftrcd,  and  no  other,  as  we  read 
of :  This  Inftance  therefore  fufficiently  turns  afide  the 
fuppofed  Tendency  of  his  Argument  to  ftiew  the  con- 
trary j  and  ferves  to  quell  his  Noife  about  a  Race  of 
Giants  to  be  Minifters,  and  what  not  ? 

His  third.  Inconvenience  is  to  this  Purpofe,  that  if 
Baptifm  is  deny'd  to  a  fick  Perfon,  who  makes  a  fatis- 
faaory  Profeffion,  God  is  difobey'd  ;  if  he  be  plung'd, 
he  will  be  killed.  On  this  Head,  I  infifled  to  know, 
why  one  Sacrament  is  more  neceflary  to  fick  Perfons, 
than  the  other.?  This  Mr.  F.  has  not  anfwered,  and  left 
me  to  conclude  that  there  is  no  more  Neceffity  of  ad- 
miniftring  Baptifm  to  a  fick  Perfon,  who  defires  it,  than 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Our  Author  fays,  he  hath  proven 
that  Baptifm  ought  not  to  be  delay'd— There  is  a  Pre- 
cept and  Example  for  the  one,  and  neither  for  the 
other.  He  may  know,  that  I  am  not  for  the  Delay  of 
Baptifm  to  a  proper- Subjed,  when  with  Conveniency  it 
may  be  enjoyed  :  But  what  I  plead  is,  that  deferring  of 
Baptifm  in  thofe  Circumftances  (he  metitions)  is  neither  , 
Difobedience  to  God,  nor  injurious  to  the  fick  Perfon  ; 
this  is  what  he  has  not  refuted  j  for  he  has  not  cited  op.e 

Precept     j 


L    223    ] 

Precept  nor  Example,  that  Baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftred 
to  fick  Perfons  on  their  Beds,  any  more  than  to  Babes 
in  the  Cradle  :  He  can  bring  Proofs  for  what  I  allow^ 
but  what  I  denyi  he  is  at  a  Lofs  to  prove :  Hence 
I  ftill  fay  in  my  former  Words,  if  one  Sacrament  may 
be  deferred  till  convenient  Time,  fo  may  the  other. 
The  Service  of  God  is  a  reafonable  Service,  and  he  that 
commanded  Immerfion,  hath  not  (hewn  that  he  requires 
Perfons  fick  a-bed  in  the  Pleurify,  Flux,  or  Small  Pox, 
to  be  baptized  -,  much  lefs  hath  he  any  where  in  his 
Word  fliewn  us,  there  is  any  Liberty  for  ua  to  alter  his 
Appointment,  under  the  Pretence  of  fome  fuppofed  ur- 
gent Neceffity  of  adminiftring  the  Ordinance  to  the 
Weak  and  Infirm,  on  their  Beds.  What  can  it  be  but 
a  Spirit  of  Delufion,  which  *  hurries  Perfons  on  irra- 
tionally, and  pleads  the  Neceffity  of  obeying  a  Gofpel 
Precept,  when  Perfons  thro*  Infirmity  are  incapable  of 
fubmitting  to  it  confiftent  with  Scripture  or  Reafon  ; 
or  elfe  charges  the  Precept  itfelf  with  Inconveniency, 
as  our  Author  in  the  Cafe  before  us?  He  feems  much 
difturbed  that  Popery  fhould  here  be  infinuated  :  The  Pa-- 
pijis  we  know,  hold  Baptifm  abfolutely  neceflary  to  Salva- 
tion; and  he  queries,  "  ff^hat  if  the ftck  Per/on  recovers  not? 
Here  is  no  Provijion  made  for  him.  He  may  die  without 
the  Ordinance"  Reply  j  What  if  he  does,  will  his  be- 
ing unbaptiz'd  hinder  his  Salvation  ?  Let  him  fpeak 
out,  and  not  mince  the  Matter  :  Does  he  not  look  up- 
on all  §T*>Ton  members  to  be  Aliens  from  the  Covenant 
of  Grace,  and  fufpends  his  Belief  of  their  Salvation  ? 
He  would  do  well  to  clear  himfelf  in  this  Cafe,  before! 
he  charges  me  with  Rancour,  Outrage,  Impatience  and 
Tergiverfation  j  when  his  own  Words  give  Ground  of 
Sufpicion,  that  his  Judgment  is  not  clear  in  the  Point* 
Now  fince  there  is  no  Command  nor  Example  to  ad-» 
minifter  the  Ordinance  to  Perfons  in  thofe  aforefaid 
Circumftances  j  nor  any  Neceffity  requiring  one  Sacra- 
ment to  be  adminiftred  to  the  Sick,  more  than  the  o- 
ther  i  it  evidently  appears,  there   is  nothing  in  Mr.  F's 

Stir 

*  See  Mr.  Finlefs  Satun  Jiritfd^  Page  10. 

i  Vind,  Page  -j^i. 


[       274      J 

^tlr  on  this  Mead,    that   ftiews  Immerfion    not  to  be 
the  only  fcriptural  Mode  of   Baptifm. 

All  that  he  fays  to  my  Reply  to  his  4th  Cha/ge  of 
Abfurdities  is,  **  Mr.  M's  Anjvjer  to  this,  is  only  a  Re- 
petition of  his  pofitive  AffertionSy  which  have  been  alreu' 
dy  refuted"  But  as  he  is  far  from  refuting  my  AfTer- 
tions,  as  we  have  fecn,  they  flaod  in  Force  againft  his 
Charge   of  Abfurdities.    .  - 

■  His  laft  Head  of  Inconveniencing  and  Abfurdities,   is, 
**  It  feems  to  me,  fays  he,  no  fmall  Abfurdity,  to  exclude 
and  unchrijlian  oil  the  other  Prote/iant   Churches    on  Ac- 
count'of  this  Mode." ---AnA  now  fays,  "  Mr^   M.  an- 
fwers  this  with  a  Parcel  of  Eva/ions,  and  fame  Readers 
will,  perhaps,    call  fome    of   them  filly  Ones."     Reply  ; 
Are  not  filly  Evafions  as  good  Return,  as  a  hlly  Charge  of 
Abfurdities  can  look  for,  or  deferve  ?  As  that  Weunchri- 
ftian  all  the  Proteftant  Churches,  &c.  when  weprofefled- 
\y  require  Signs  of  Chriftianity  in  all  the  Subjects  of  Bap« 
tifm,  which  fhews,  we  look  on  Perfons  to  be  Chriftians, 
before  they  are  baptized- --Indeed  if  all   the  Chriflianity 
of  the   other    Proteftant   Churches,    confifts  in  Infant- 
Sprinkling,  no    Wonder   he  charges   us   at   this   Rate. 
But  if   Infant  Sprinkling  be  no   Part  of  the  Chriftian 
Religion,  as  I  think   I  have  fuiliciently   fhewn,  how  is 
it  poifible  wc  (hould  unchriftian  the  Proieflant  Churches, 
when  we  are  for  removing  only  that  away  which  is  no 
Part  of    Chnftianity  ?    It   is   not   therefore  very^,  likely 
he  can  eveh  by  Confequence  itfelf,   prove  that   I  fhould 
have  faid,  there  are  no  Chriftians  in  other  Denomina- 
tions. 

He  confcfTes,  that  we  do  Hot  exclude  other  Churches 
by  pleading  for,  and  ufing  this  Mode  of  Immetfion  ; 
why  then  is  he  (o  difturbed  ?  If  the  Scripture  proves 
his  Mode  of  Sprinkling  to  be  valid,  he  is  fafe  : 
But  if  not,  it  is  a  Nullity  in  itfelf;  not  becaufe  I  fay 
{o,  but  becaufe  it  wants  Scripture  Authority:  When 
he  was  about  it,  why  did  not  he  fhew  it  was  fcriptural, 
if  fuch  a  Thing  could  be  done  I  Or  is  he  confcious  to 
himfelf,  of  its  being  a  Nullity,  and  therefore  unwil- 
ling to  hear  it  mentioned,   left  others  (hou'd  fufpe«5l  ft 

toor 


[  225  ] 
ioo?  Will  he  have  us  follow  the  Cuftom  of  other 
Churches  implicitly,  without  any  Evidence  that  it  is 
warranted  by  divine  Authority  ?  Let  him  firft  prove  the 
Cuftom.of  Sprinkling  fcriptural,  before  he  charges  us 
with  Schifm,  Uncharitablencfs  and  Biggotry,  in  order 
to  make  it  pafs  for  Baptifm  in  the  World,  the  more 
Current  and  unfufpe<Sled.  He  runs  a  Parallel  between 
the  Prejbyterians  and  Anabaptijis^  and  obferves,  **  Ihe 
Prefbyterians  do  not  count  all  Adm'inijlrations  null 
and  void ^  that  are  different  from  their  own  Mode,  if  the 
Subjiance is  retained."  Anf.  No  Thanks  to  them  for 
that,  when  they  have  imbibed  fuch  an  abfurd  Principle, 
'*  That  a  peculiar  Mode  is  not  effentialto  the  Ordinance," 
if  they  be  all  of  Mr.  Fs  Mind  ;  and  that  "  f  It  is 
enough,  that  it  be  done  with  Water  to  a  proper  Subje£f,  in 
the  Name  of  the  Trinity,  by  a  lawful  MinifierJ*  Then  if 
Water  is  ufed  at  all,  in  the  aforefaid  Manner,  tho'  it 
ihould  be  apply*d  by  Sprinkling  on  the  Hands,  Back,  or 
Feet,  according  tp  them  the  Subftance  is  retained  ;  they 
have  therefore  no  jufl  Room  to  objedl  againft  Immerfion. 
Here  is  their  great  Charity  they  boaft  fo  much  of  ;  and 
whence  does  it  fpring,  but  from  this  Principle,  that 
there  is  no  inflituted  Mode  of  Baptifm  ?  Says  he,  '*  The 
FTeibytcnzns  e/ieem pveral  Societies  with  whom  they  can- 
not hold  Communion  in  Ordinances,  to  be  never thelejs 
Churches  of  Chriji  :  Ihe  Anabaptifts  do  not!'  Anf.  If 
ih^ Prejbyterians  do  not  unchriftian  thofe  with  whom  they 
cannot  hold  Qommunionj  becaufe  they  look  upon  themi 
to  be  in  grievous  Errors  j  no  more  do  we  unchrifliati 
thofe,  with  whom  we  cannot  hold  Communion,  be- 
caufe we  look  on   their  Pradices  erroneous. 

He  charged  us  with  "  impofmg  Terms  of  CommuntoH^ 
not  of  Chriji' s  making;*-'-v/h\ch  I  deny'd  ;  and  infiff 
on  him  again  to  prove  his  Charge.  To  admit  none  in- 
to our  Conimunion,  but  thofe  who  are  regularly  bap- 
tized according  to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel,  is  not  mak- 
ing new  Terms  of  Communion.  This  he  (hould  haVe 
refuted,  was  it  poflible  to  do.  He  fays.  That  "  /  only 
play  on  ihe  IVord  im^oic— That  I  denounce  Terrors  to  thofe^ 
p  who 

t  Chatits  PUa,  Page  107. 


(      226      ) 
who  comply  not  with  my  Notions.  -  .That  as  far  as  my  Powir 
reaches,  1  do  oinder  others  from  CommunUn  in  their  refpec- 
tive  Socielus."     But  he  fhouJd   firft   have  anfwered   mv 
Queftion,  which  is,  *'   Have  we  attempted  any  Thing  in 
any  Way,  but  what  the  Scripture  direSls  and  allows,   viz 
lo  convince  them  that  differ  from  us,   hy  fcriptural  Argu^ 
ments  f       Now  fincehe  has  not  anfwered  it,  by  {hew- 
ing we  have  aded   contrary    to  Scripture  Diredion,  it 
gives  Ground  to    conclude  we  have  not  j  and  is  urging 
of  fcriptural  Arguments  any  Impofition  on  others  ?  Does 
this  make  the  Apoftle's  *  Words    Nonfenfe  ?    Is   this  a 
denouncing  of  Terrors  ?    Is  this  an  hindering  of  others 
trom   Communion  in  their    refpeaive  Societies  ?    What 
Wd  he  be  at  ?  L  he  for    the  Community  of  Goods  ? 
Does  he  want  the  Key  of  his  own  Door  and  ours  too  ? 
Have  not  we  the  undoubted  Command  of  our  Doors, 
to  fhut  them  againft  thofe  we  judge  not  proper  to  ad- 
jnit  5  and  can  this  be   an  OfFence  to  any,  unlefs  they  be 
fome  impudent  Intruders,  whofe  finifter  Ends  are  here- 
by fru'ftrated  ?    And  as  we  are  for  keeping  the    Key   of 
our  own  Door,  fo  we  plead  it  is  the  f  undoubted  Pri- 
yiledge  of  others,   to  have  the  full  Command  of  theirs  ; 
tho'  he  invidioufly  infinuates  the  contrary.  Mr.   P.    fur- 
ther fays,   "  You  have  far  exceeded  what  the. generality  of 
/.  f  yl*'J^''''^'Pk'  ^kht,  who  allow  that  other  Societies, 
iho    differing   in   Circumjlantials,  are  a  Part  ofChrifl's 
vifible  Church:'     Anf.    We  are  not  here  fpeakin^  what 
one  thinks  of   another  3  but   of  the    Terms    of  Com- 
iftiunion,  and  the  Right  of  each  in  Admiffion  of  Mem- 
bers to  their   refpedive  Societies  j  and   wherein  have  we 
exceeded  the  Bounds  of  what  ispradical  in  other  Socie- 
ties on  this  Account  does  notyej  appear:    He   has  not 
fhewn  that   we  make  any  new  Ferms  of  Communion  ; 
now  to  infift,  that  thofe  who  have  a  mind  to  be  admitted 
to  our  Church,  muft  come  up  to  the  Terms  which  Chrifl 
hath  already  made,  is  cur  proper   and    bounden   Duty  ; 
and  if  any  quarrel  with  thofe  Terms,    Jet  them  ftay  out 
of  Doors,  or  keep  in  iheirown   Houfes  peaceably,    and 
not  berate   us    with   the  opprobious  Names   of  Schif- 

^■^'S-^  #v      Mc  maticks, 

^  1.,^    '  Viz.  A€i  XV.  10.        f  Anti.  Page  159. 


[  227  ]. 
inaticks,  Bigots,  and  what  not,  without  any  juft  Caufe, 
as  Mr.  F.  does  ;  Yea,  when  he  has  not  been  able  to 
Ihew,  that  we  deviate  from  the  Order  and  Appoint- 
ments of  the  King  of  Zion,  either  in  Refpe<Sl  of  the 
Mode,  or  Subjeft  of  B  ptifm. 

I  obferved,  hf.w  unfit  a  Perfon  Mr.  F.  is  to  charge  us 
with  Schifm,  when  1t#,  and  his  Aflbciates,  hold  the 
famef  ConfefTion  of  Faith,  Catechifms  and  Diredlory,  as 
the  Synod  does,  and  yet  maintain  feparate  Communion 
from  their  Brethren  of  the  fame  Faith  and  Pra6lice  ;  I 
defired  to  know  what  that  is  but  Schifm  ?  Mr.  F.  in- 
ftead  of  clearmg  up  the  Point,  exprefles  a  deal  of  Dii- 
pleafure  on  the  Occafmn  ;  it  is  like  he  thought  he  might 
call  us  bv  any  Name,  tho'  ever  fo  unjuft,  but  when 
the  Cafe  becomes  his  own,  it  feems  the  Property  is  al- 
tered. He  fanties  in  fome  of  his  Dreams,  my  Defign 
herein  wa?,  *'  To  tell  how  many  Sorts  of  Prejbyterians  there 
i^re--  and  to  infmuate  that  the  new  Synod  is  the  worjl  Sort 
of  Prcfb/lerians,  and  he  hlmjelf  the  worji  of  the  new  Syr 
nod."  '  L('t  that  be  as  it  will,  my  mahiteft  Defign  was  to 
obtain  a  Difcbarge  from  himfelf,  who  had  accufed  us  of 
Schifm,  or  eifc  oblige  him  to  expofe  his  Partiality 
in  the  AfFtir,  when  he  would  not  allow  us  the  fame  Li- 
berty he  takes  himfelf:  For  if  he,  and  his  Brethren, 
have  fufficient  Grounds,  in  their  Apprehehfion,  tojuftify 
themfelves  in  their  prefent  Situation,  without  being 
chargeable  with  Schifm  ;  what  is  the  Matter  he  \\\\\  not 
allow  us  the  like  Liberty  without  the  Charge  of  Schifm, 
when  we  j  idi^e  we  have  as  juft  Grounds  to  maintain  fe- 
parate Communion,  as  he  judges  they  have. "  Mr.  F. 
h  fo  raifed  pn  the  Occafion,  that  he  puts  me  on  the  Proof 
of  faid  Charge,  or  elfe  be  juflly  efteem'd  a  Slanderer  ; 
but  there  is  no  need  of  Proof,  for  he  has  not  deny'd  the 
Matter  of  Fad  :  Befides,  'tis  fo  well  nkown,  that  all  the 
Country  knows  it  ;  and  Meeting-houfe  hard  by  Meet- 
ing-houfe,  is  a  ftanding  Evidence  of  Schifm  among 
them,  unlefs  they  have  been  taken  down  very  late.  But 
then  he  requires  me  *'  to  prove  that  he  and  his  Jffociates 
P   2  are 

f  Mr.   B/air''s  Akimad'vcrftons    on  Mr.   Craighead'%    Re- 
ceding,  &c.  Page  13. 


[      228      ] 

are  the  Maker i  of  it."  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  that  ; 
Jet  him  look  to  the  §  Synod's  Writings :  My  Bufinefs  is 
to  follow  him  up  on  this  Point.  He  fecms  to  infmuate 
the  Synod  was  in  Fault  j  that  he,  and  his  Aflbciates  had 
juft  Reafons  to  withdraw  from  it  ;  therefore  he  is  not 
guilty  of  Schifm,  tho'  he  and  they  maintain  feparate 
Communion  from  it,  when,  a{  the  fame  time,  both 
they  and  the  Synod  are  of  the  fame  Faith  and  Praftice. 
Weil,  we  look  on  other  Churches  to  be  in  Fault  in 
theGafe  before  us,  in  not  ading  uprightly  according  to 
Chrift's  Inftitution,  in  refpcd  both  of  the  Mode  and 
Subjefls  of  Baptifm  ;  therefore  whilft  they  cannot  fee  as 
Ive  do,  nor  we  as  they,  we  maintain  feparate  Communi- 
on from  them.  And  if  We  are  chargeable  with  Schifm 
in  fo  doin|,  fo  is  Mr.  F.  and  if  he  is  not,  neither 
are  we  :  And  if  he,  and  his  Affociatesarc  not  the  Ma- 
kers of  Schifm  in  their  Cafe,  neither  are  we,  in  ours. 
Hence  it  flill  follows,  that  it  was  intolerable  Partiality 
and  Injuftice  in  him,  to  call  us  Schifmaticks. 

He  fays,^^'  I  am  deeply  in  the  Darky  refpeSfing  the  Na- 
ture of  Schifm."  Let  that  be  as  it  will,  it  is  very  pleafant  to 
hear  him  define  it  in  the  following  Words,  "  Ihert 
may  be  feparate  Communion  without  Schi/m,  and  Schifm 
among  thofe  who  meet  together."  I  fuppofe  he  intends  the 
Benefit  of  this  Obfervatio/i  chiefly  for  himfelf  and  Aflb- 
ciates :  But  the  Benefits  of  it  are  fo  diffufive,  that  we 
can  take  up  our  Share  of  them  too  ;  for  if  when  be  and 
the  Synod  are  difunitcd,  he  can,  notwichftanding,  main- 
tain feparate  Communion  from  it  without  Schifm  ;  by 
the  fame  Rule  when  we,  and  other  Churches,  don't  fee 
alike,  we  can  hold  our  Communion  feparate  from  them 
without  Schifm  alfo. 

Says  our  Author,  "  He  mufi  be  told  that  it  is  a  more 
aggravated  Crime  to  exclude  and  unchrifiian  all  the  Prote- 
ftant  Worldy  than  to  deny  communicating  with  a  particular 
Church."  ^y  his  ufing  the  comparative  Degree,  it 
feems  he  looks  on  denying  to  communicate  with  a  par- 
ticular Church  to  be  an  aggravated  Crime  :     Then  let 

him 

§  Examination  and  Refutation  of  Mr.  Gilbert  Ttnvent'% 
Remark!,  Page  48.     Alfo  the  ^erijis,  fart  3, 


;[     229    1 

him  not  perfift  in  his  feparate  Communion  any  longer : 
But  if  he  cannot  unite  with  a  particular  Church  till  the 
Obftrudlions  are  removed;  neither  can  we  throw  up 
facred  Truths,  for  the  Sake  of  Communion  with  thofc 
who  differ  from  us,  tho'  we  fhould  always  bear  his  un- 
juft  Reproaches  on  the  Account,  as  we  now  do» 

Says  our  Author,  *■  /  have  now  at  length  got  to  the 
End  of  Mr.  M'j  Performance^  and  I  prefume  he  will 
CWM  I  have  not  negleSfed  his  principal  Argument s.'*  Well, 
I  keep  Pace  with  him,  and  am  got  within  Sight  of  his 
Finis  too  ;  and  can  freely  own,  that  Mr.  F.  hath  made 
Noife  enough  about  my  Arguments:  But  muft  needs 
tell  him,  whatever  he  prefumes,  they  remain  yet  in  full 
Force,  as  to  any  Thing  he  hath  (hewn  to  the  contrary: 
My  Confidence  is  ilill  further  ftrengthened,  that  there 
is  no  Inftitut^on  of  Infant  Sprinkling  to  be  found  in 
holy  Scripture,  when  Mr.  F.  has  gone  twice  profefledly 
in  Search  of  it,  but  cannot  find  it  j  and  tho'  he  has 
dug  *  deep  after  it,  he  brings  nothing  up,  but  the  Rub- 
bifh  of  human  Confequence,  which  he  falfly  calls  the 
Word  of  God,  yet  would  fain  make  the  World  believe 
it  is  good  Ore :  But  when  it  comes  to  be  weighed  in  the 
Ballance  of  the  Sanctuary,  it  is  found  lighter  than  a  An- 
gle Grain  of  Truth.  Thus  we  are  left  to  conclude  the 
Doctrine  of  Infant  Sprinkling  is  nothing  elfe  but  a  mere 
human  Invention,  crept  into  the  Church,  without  the 
leafl  Print  of  a  divine  Seal  to  be  found  upon  it.  It  is 
therefore  juftly  to  be  rejected  as  an  horrid  Abufe  of 
Chrifl's  facred  Inftitution. 

He  informs  his  Readers,  from  what  he  .faw  in  the 
Gazette^  that  he  expefts  a.  Reply  ;  but  does  not  think 
proper  to  tell  them,  that  fhortly  after  the  Publication  of 
my  former  Treatife,  he  advertifed  his  Purpofe  of  an 
Anfwer,  before  he  wrote  it,  inflead  of  publifhing  an 
Anfwer,  which  gave  Occafion  of  a  publick  Remark  on 
his  faid  publifh'd  Purpofe.  He  fuggefts,  my  Honour 
(not  the  Love  of  Truth,  or  Honour  of  Chrift)  will  be 
the  Motive  of  writing  an  Anfwer,  and  when  done,  it 
will  be   nothing  to   the   Purpofe.     This  indeed   is   an 

artful 

*  Preface  to  Vind.  Page  3. 


r  230  1 

ertftjl  Way  te  prepoffefs  the  Credulous  betimes,  that  our 
Arguments  iarc  nothing  to  the  Purpofe,  when  in  the 
mean  Time  he  cannot  refute  them  ;  witnefs  my  former 
Treatlfe.  He  obferves  alfo,  the  Number  of  Pages  and 
Aflertions  my  Book  contains ;  and  that  I  was  more 
than  a  Year  about  it :  But  this  Miftake  I  impute  to 
fome  Mif-infoAnation  he  got  fomewhere :  He  feems 
very  unhappy  in  being  fo  impofed  on  by  ill  Informers. 
At  length,  he  hopes  to  be  excufed  for  not  anfwering  me 
every  time  I  deny'd  his  Principle,  and  afferted  mine, 
becaufe  it  would  have  been  an  infupportable  Toil.  No 
doubt,  any  judicious  Reader  would  have  readily  excufed 
him,  had  he  refuted  me  but  once,  where  I  aflerted  my 
Principle,  and  deny'd  his.  But  as  the  Cafe  now  ftands, 
the  Reader  need  to  have  a  vaft  Stock  of  Charity  and 
Candour,  to  excufe  all  his  Clamour  aijd  Defamation, 
ufed  inftead  of  fober  Refutation  and  folid  Argument. 

Mr.  F.  comes  to  the  Clofe,  and  wifhes  for  the  Time, 
**  lf7}en  Truth  may  he  fpolen  without  Oppofttion.'*  I  can 
freely  join  with  him  in  the  fame  Defife  ;  but  do  not  ex- 
ped  that  wifli'd-for  Time  will  ever  come,  as  long  as 
Infant  Sprinkling  is  embraced  and  maintained,  which 
is  diredly  oppofite  to  the  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Belie- 
vers Baptifm  ;  and  as  long  as  the  Bible  is  in  being,  (o 
long  will  there  be  an  Oppofition  made  to  his  darling 
Opinion  and  Praflice  j  till  that,  as  well  as  all  other  Er- 
rors, fhall  be  purged  away  by  Him,  whofe  Fan  is  in  his 
Hand^  and  who  will  one  Day  throughly  purge  his  Floor. 
In  the  mean  Time,  we  fhall  endeavour  to  vindicate  the 
Faith  once  delivered  to  thp  Saints :  Come  War,  come 
Peace,  I  fhall  for  the  prefent  take  my  Leave  of  him 
in  the.  Words  of  holy  Job-,  Teach  me  ^  and  1  will  hold 
7ny  Tongue^  and  make  me  to  underjiand,  wherein  1  have 
erred:  How  forcible  are  right  Words,  but  what  doth  your 
arguing  reprove  ? 


?i        J        S. 


-1 


% 


.*>»■ 


¥    .  .- 


#  ■ 


*'.<.   ■  ."    ■^': 


T^ 


^s 


d  iii 


tu. 


ii^^.•1 


.  t 


u^"^.'