LETTER I.

YOURS of the Third Instant has just now surpriz'd me, wherein at the very first dash of your Pen; you somewhat bluntly require, and charge me, as I will answer it at the dreadful Day of Judgment, when the Secrets of all Hearts shall be disclos'd, to tell you freely and plainly whether I do in my Conscience believe, That the way of Bap­tizing now used in the Church of England, namely by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water, is a good and justifiable way of Baptizing.

Good Sir, You have known me some hun­dreds of times Baptize after this manner, and I wou'd sain hope that I have not by any pra­ctice of mine, given you the least just Cause to suspect me of Hypocrisie. I don't say this with any intent to give the Go-by to your Request and Charge, but since you have put me to't, I do here solemnly protest, and wou'd enter the same Protestation tho' I was immediately to ap­pear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ, That I do in my Conscience believe, that the Mode of Baptizing now used in the Church of Eng­land, by Sprinkling, or Pouring on Water, is [Page 2] a good and justifiable way of Baptizing. And thus far I'm sure I am in the right, My Con­science bearing me Witness.

But, Sir, You next pretty flatly put it upon me, to inform you how this Mode of baptizing is to be defended and justified. Now in good Truth I cou'd be very well contented to save my self this Trouble, by referring you to those Books and Pages of Books wherein this Matter is industriously debated, and the Mode of bap­tizing (which you now seem to call in Questi­on) sufficiently defended and justified, so as not to be gainsay'd, but by the stiffest Obstinacy. But lest you should construe this as a giving up the Cause, I will here venture to say what you so earnestly desire to hear from me, namely upon what Grounds it is that I my self am per­swaded in my own Conscience, concerning the Validity and Lawfulness of this way of Bap­tizing.

I will be very brief, and yet go to the Bot­tom, and rise by such Steps and Degrees, as shall help to carry us over all difficulties, and shew us the truth of the Matter in some light.

And therefore I begin at our Catechism, in which we are well and truly taught, that in the Sacrament of Baptism, there's The outward Sign, and The Thing Signified.

The outward Sign is Water, wherein the Per­son is Baptized in the Name of the Father, &c. [Page 3] And Sir, I will not here spend either Ink or Paper in the Proof of this, presuming that we are still agreed thus far. But then,

The Inward part of this Sacrament, or the Thing Signified is the Holy Spirit, or the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit, such as these mention'd in our Catechism, A Death unto Sin, and a New Birth unto Righteousness, &c. for you must know that wheresoever we read in Scrip­ture of God's giving, or of Man's receiving the Holy Spirit, by the Holy Spirit must be meant, The Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit, and This I say is the Inward part, or Thing Signified by the Water in Baptism.

And this was represented by the Descending of the Holy Ghost upon our Saviour at his Bap­tism, Matth. 3.26. and there seems to be a plain Evidence of this in those Words of John the Baptist, I indeed Baptize you with water, but He (speaking of Christ) shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost. The Baptist, and (I add) all the Ministers of Christ do but baptize with Water, 'Tis Christ himself who does the Inward part, and baptizeth with the Spirit, and so says ours Saviour himself, A Man must be born of Wa­ter and of the Spirit. For as it is said of Cir­cumcision, That the outward Circumcision of the Flesh is as no Circumcision, without the Inward Circumcision of the Heart too, Rom. 2.28, 29. So to compleat the Sacrament of [Page 4] Baptism there must be the Inward part as well as the Outward, For except a Man be Born of Water and of the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John. 3.5.

And thus St. Paul, in his description of Bap­tism, not only speaks of the external Washing of Regeneration, but of the Internal Renewing of the Holy Ghost, Tit. 3.5. And so again putting some of his Corinthians in mind of their being baptiz'd, Ye are Washed and Sanctified says He; that is, not onely Washed with Water, but Sanctified with the Holy Ghost, 1. Cor. 6.11.

And to mention but one place more for all, Be Baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Ho­ly Ghost, says St. Peter. Act. 2.33. From whence 'tis very plain, That when the Ministers of Christ baptize with Water, Christ himself baptizeth with the Holy Ghost; which (as I have said before) is the Inward part or Thing Signified by the Water in Baptism.

And with great Reason therefore do we pray in the Office of baptism, Give, O Lord thy Ho­ly Spirit to this Infant, that He may be Born again; and also Wash him and Sanctifie him with the Ho­ly Ghost. For to clear this Matter to the most Vulgar Capacity.

As when we pray in the Communion-Service, Hear us, most merciful Father, we most humbly be­seech thee; and grant that we, receiving these [Page 5] thy Creatures of Bread and Wine, may be Partakers of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood. 'Tis as much as to pray that we may not only be Partakers of the outward Part of that Sacrament, the Bread and Wine, but also that we may be Partakers of the Inward part or thing Signified likewise, which is the Body and Blood of Christ: So when we pray for the Baptized, That He may have the Holy Spirit given him, and that he may be Sanctified with the Holy Ghost; 'tis as much as to pray, That he may not only be baptized with the outward part of Baptism, which is Water, but also that he may be baptized with the Inward part or thing Signified by Water, which is the Holy Spirit.

And hence it is likewise, that as the other Sacrament is sometimes express'd with allusion to the Outward part, when we speak of receiving the Bread and Wine, and sometimes with al­lusion to the thing Signified, when we speak of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ; so Baptism is sometimes express'd with allusion to its outward part, when we speak of baptizing with Water, and washing with Water, as the Apostle calls it, and sometimes with allusion to the Inward part or thing Signified, when he speaks of baptizing with the Holy Ghost, or baptizing with the Spirit; for so says the A­postle [Page 6] again, By one Spirit we are all Baptized, 1 Cor. 12.13.

I add, That it is no new thing for the Holy Spirit to be figur'd or represented by Water, for thus in the Prophet of Old, when God had said, I will pour Water on him that is Thirsty, He interprets himself immediately, I will pour my Spirit upon thy Seed, Isai. 44.3. and again, when he had said in Ezekiel, I will Sprinkle Clean Water upon you, he adds as the meaning of it, I will put my Spirit within you, Ezek. 36.25, 27. And again with allusion to Water is the pro­mise of the Spirit express'd by pouring out, I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh, Joel 2.28. and to clear this matter from all doubt, St. John quoting these Words of our Saviour, He that Believeth in me, out of his Belly shall flow Rivers of Living Water, This he spake, says that Evangelist, of the Spirit which they that believe in him should receive, John 7.38, 39. Sir, If you would see more and larger proofs of this, you may read Mr. Mede's Discourse up­on Titus 3.5.

Indeed I cou'd hardly have thought that there cou'd have been any difference among Ca­techetical Writers as to this matter, only I find in that same discourse of Mr. Mede, that some would have the Blood of Christ to be the thing signified by the Water in Baptism, as it is by the Wine in the other Sacrament. To which [Page 7] he replies, That the Blood of Christ is not once mention'd by the Fathers of the Primitive Church as the inward part of this Sacrament of Baptism, no more than it is in our Liturgy; and he further adds, That the Opinion is Novel, and That the Lutheran Divines make it peculiar and proper to the Followers of Calvin.

But now, Sir, give me leave to observe to you, That Calvin himself seems not to have been always of this Opinion; nay, but he plainly asserts, That the Holy Spirit is the Thing signify'd by the Baptismal Water; For, com­plaining of the Church of Rome, for feign­ing Confirmation to be a Sacrament, by which the Spirit of Regeneration is conferr'd, he adds, That they transferr'd to Confirmation what was proper to Baptism, meaning that they made the Spirit of Regeneration, which is the Inward part of Baptism, to be the Thing signifi'd by the laying on of hands in Confirmation. Calv. in Heb. 6.1, 2.

And here, Sir, if I was minded to enlarge, I could confirm this Matter with abundance of Testimonies out of the best Writers and Fathers of the Primitive Church; but I forbear, being pretty confident, that there is no great need of their Evidence in so plain a Case.

And now, my good Friend, are not your Eyes open? Don't you clearly see, from what I have said of the Inward part of Baptism, how rightly the Outward part may be administred, [Page 8] by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water? The Gift of the Holy Spirit, the thing signified in Baptism, is exprest by Sprinkling or Pouring on. And is there, or can there be any Reason given, why the Thing Signifi'd should be exceeded by the Sign? God himself thought it not necessary, but makes Sprinkling, or Pouring on Water sufficient to represent, and signifie his giving or pouring on the Spirit; for when He, I say, promises his Holy Spirit, he does not, no, not so much as once in the whole Bible, say, I will dip, or plunge into Water, but I will sprinkle or pour on Water, Isa. 44.3. and Ezek. 36.25.

Dr. Towerson, who had once said something which was a little too harsh (as himself con­fesses) against this way of Baptizing by Sprink­ling, (whose very words our Adversaries have catch'd hold of, and have boasted of him, as a brave Man on their side) yet when he came to enquire more narrowly into the Matter, he in­dustriously defends it, and amongst other Ar­guments uses this very Text, Ezek. 36.25. and proves from Maimonides, That the Words were spoken with reference to the Times of the Messiah; and affirms, That they cannot be bet­ter interpreted than of the Water of Baptism, ap­plying them (as I have here done) as very well expressing the Outward Sign of that Sacrament.

And shall Men be wiser than God? Or think it any Wit to mock at and deride his Words? [Page 9] And be at the pains of making a Greek word English, to make their mockery the plainer; Sprinkling, forsooth, out of Sport and Rallery, must be call'd Rantizing; and Baptism, when administer'd by Sprinkling or Pouring on Water, must be nicknam'd Rantism.

But let me tell you, Sir, and you may tell the Author of your little ^* Book you boast of; That when he so merrily calls our way of Baptizing, Rantizing, and our Baptism, Rantism; He makes a mock of the very Words of God himself; and according to his reproach­ful way of Speaking, when God promises to Sprinkle clean Water upon his People, he must not then promise to Baptize, but only to Rantize.

This puts me in mind how I had once the misfortune to hear a wild Wretch call the Lord's Supper. He seem'd to quarrel with my Friend for calling that Sacrament the Supper of our Lord; A Supper, said he, A Bite and a Sip, you mean. And he had as much to say for the Pro­fane expression, as any one can have, for cal­ling our Baptism, Rantism.

Why, Sir, He urg'd that a Supper ought to be a full Meal, that to Signifie our receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, we ought to eat a piece of Bread as big as his Body, and to drink as much Wine as he shed Blood. And [Page 10] is it not at a like Rate, that some plead against Baptizing by Sprinkling? You have heard the reason why That profane Wretch call'd our way of Receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, a Bite and a Sip; and is it not for a very like reason, that our way of Baptizing is by some call'd Rantizing?

I will not here say with the Psalmist, What shall be done to the false Tongue? but rather with our most charitable Lord, Father, forgive them, for surely they know not what they say or do.

But this 'tis to be so Zealous for Externals, when Men think that they can never have e­nough of the outward Signs of the Sacraments, when yet perhaps the thing Signified, which is the main and principal thing, is as much neg­lected.

But, Sir, When we receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, if we Spiritually eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood, which is the in­ward part of this Sacrament; as to the out­ward part, it will not matter much how little Bread we eat, or how little Wine we drink. So when any are baptized, if their Souls are purifi'd and cleans'd with the Holy Spirit, which is the Inward part of this Sacrament; as to the outward part, it will not matter much how little Water they are baptized with.

And if you, good Sir, resist not the Holy Spirit [Page 11] of God, nor receive his Grace in vain, but be thereby renew'd in the Spirit of your Mind, and cleansed from all filthiness both of Flesh and Spirit, My Soul for yours if you enter not into the Kingdom of God, tho' you was but sprinkled with Water, when you was bap­tized.

Whereas they whose hearts are not purified, whose Conversations are not cleansed, who wallow in foul Sins, I must and will pronounce them too unclean to enter into the Kingdom of God, tho' they were never so much Plung'd, or Dipt into Water never so deep, when they were baptized.

But I must remember my self that I am not now writing a Book, but only a Letter; and there­fore I shall only further tell you; that I design'd but in this to open the way to a fuller Vindicati­on of the thing in Question. And so I conclude at present with this promise, That you shall (God willing) very speedily hear again of this matter from,

LETTER II.

THO' I concluded my Last with a Pro­mise to let you hear from me again very speedily, about the Matter in Debate, viz. Concerning the Validity and Lawfulness of our way of Baptizing by Sprinkling, yet I had hard­ly time to breath, or to take a little Air, be­fore I was alarm'd with your second Letter, wherein you call out to me in great heat and haste, to let you hear what I have to say to such and such Objections.

And, dear Sir, I'll be your humble Servant here again, and attend your Motion; nor shall I be much out of my own intended way; for in answering the Objections which you say seem to wound our Cause, I doubt not but to blunt, or to turn their Edge so as to make them de­fend it, which is the very thing I aim at. But,

First, You say that the very Word ( [...]) Baptizing, always signifies Dipping; yes, and so they'll very confidently and perem­ptorily say too, who yet never understood one Syllable of Greek in their Lives, and above all the rest, the Author of the little Book you sent [Page 13] me, is almost perpetually saying so from one end of That book to the other.

But now to this I can give you a very short Answer; and such an Answer as, I believe, will to you be very satisfactory and convincing; For I know you dare depend upon Dr. Patrick, now Bishop of Ely, (whose Writings you so justly admire) for the signification of a Greek Word, and therefore I will observe to you what he has noted in the Margin of his most excellent Discourse, concerning Baptism; ‘Mr. Pocock, (says he) hath largely shewn, That ( [...]) to be Baptized, does not always signifie among the Jews the Washing of the whole Body;’ which is to be observed against those who now make it necessary. I may have occasion before I have done, to consult Mr. Po­cock himself, and then you shall hear more from him.

And, Sir, if I might be Sophistical, and play with Particles, as it is the manner of our Ad­versaries to do; I might here observe of our Pi­ous and Learned Translators, to whom we are obliged for our English Bibles, that they do not seem to understand Dipping by Baptizing; for in our English Bibles, which they have put into our hands, we usually read of Baptizing with Water.

But now, Good Sir, in all those places where we read of Baptizing with, I can hardly think that they would have us there, by Baptizing to under­stand [Page 14] Dipping, because Dipping with is not good Sence, to Dip in, or into Water, is good Sence, but to Dip with Water is not. And therefore I say I might be perswaded that it was not the mean­ing of those Translators, that we should always understand Dipping by Baptizing; or that we may read Dipping with Water (which is not good Sense) where they have Taught us to Read Baptizing with Water.

Yea to Baptize with Water, is the common Language of all English Authors, even of our Adversaries themselves; but that they mean to Dip with Water when they say to Baptize with Water, we may no more believe (I say) than we may believe Dipping with Water to be good Sence. But,

'Tis true we Read that there is but ( [...]) one Baptism, Ephes. 4.5. which is an un­answerable Argument indeed for the only once Administration of it, directly against Anabap­tism, but then we are also told that there are ( [...]) Diverse Baptizings, for so the Original word signifies, tho' translated Di­verse Washings, Heb. 9.10. which undeniably shews that the Ways and Modes of baptizing are various and different; Yea and by the Di­verse Baptizings here mention'd must certainly be meant among the rest, those Sprinklings which we read of Numb. 8.7. and Chap. 19.18, 19.

Again, 'Tis said of the Jews, that when they come from Market, they Eat not except they Wash, Mark, 7.4. The Original Words are, [...], They Eat not except they are Baptized; where, by Baptized, we are not necessarily to understand Dipped, for, as Mr. Pocock has abundantly prov'd, Lavantes à foro totum Corpus non Mersabant. The Jews at their return from the Market, did not always Wash or Dip the Whole body. Not. Miscel. c. 9. p. 390.

And again, Luke 11.38. where we read that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus that he did not Wash before Dinner, the Greek Words are, [...], That he was not first Baptized. But now by Baptized in this Text, we cannot possibly understand Dipped, for there was no such Custom among the Jews, as to dip themselves before their common Meals, no not so much as to dip their Hands into Water. For,

Even in the Case of washing their Hands, Non Lavant Manus nisi è vase (affusâ aquâ); They wash not their Hands by Dipping them into any Vessel of Water, but by having Water poured upon them, says Mr. Pocock from their best Au­thors, Not. Mis. c. 9. p. 365. and again p. 371. (Non Lavant Manus) says He, quoting Maimo­nides, &c.) They wash not their Hands but with Water poured upon them. And tho' some of their Authors allow of dipping their Hands [Page 16] into Water, yet 'tis only (urgente necessitate) in Cases of necessity, for to do so ordinarily they all forbid them.

And so in this Text where it is said that the Pharisee wonder'd at Jesus, that he was not first Baptized before Dinner, says Mr. Po­cock, tho' it be meant according to Grotius's Note, that the Pharisee wonder'd that Jesus did not first wash his Hands before Dinner, yet he disagrees with Grotius as to the reason of the expression, and adds, That if our Lord's Hands had but been Washed (aquâ affusâ) by having wa­ter poured upon them, there had been no cause for the Pharisee's wonder, because the Pharisees themselves did not otherwise wash their Hands, upon the like occasion. Idem, p. 398.

And the same Learned Author, after a very Nice and Critical Enquiry, into the various Modes of Washing and Baptizing used among the Jews, he concludes concerning the Word ( [...]) to be Baptized; namely, That it was very frequently and ordinarily made use of to signifie, That Washing which was performed by Pouring on Water; Quod forsan contra illos, qui vim verbi, ubi de Baptismi Sacramento dispu­tatur, morosius urgent, non inutile erit observare; And this, says he, may be observ'd with great Advantage against those, who when they dis­pute of the Mode of Baptizing, do with too much Stiffness and Obstinacy urge the Word, as if it [Page 17] did always signifie to dip into Water. Idem, p. 402.

And again, The Apostle says of the Israelites that came out of Egypt, that they were all Bap­tized in the Cloud, and in the Sea; but they were not Dipt into the Cloud, or into the Sea, they were only Sprinkled or Dashed upon with the Waters of the Cloud, and of the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. I know 'tis said that this is but a Metapho­rical Expression; but still, I hope, that 'tis a per­tinent Metaphor, and shews the signification of the Word Baptizing, viz. That it does not al­ways signifie Dipping, which is all that I am Enquiring after at present.

Once more: Were not the Holy Apostles Baptized with the Holy Ghost? But how? The Holy Ghost was poured down upon their Heads in streaks of Fire like unto Cloven Tongues! The Holy Ghost did not descend like a River of Flame for the Apostles to be Dipt into, but was only poured upon their Heads in streaks of Fire; and yet 'tis said that they were Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

And tho' the Expression in 1 Cor. 10.2. be but Metaphorical, yet I hope that this Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is a real Baptism, 'tis I am sure the Chief, and Principal Baptism, and of which the Baptism with Water is but the Outward Sign.

And here give me leave to add, That the Primitive Fathers call'd Sprinkling with Water Baptizing with Water, as in the Case of Clinic Baptism, of which you shall hear more by and by; here I shall only tell you of the Clinics, that they were Baptized as they lay upon their Beds of Sickness; and 'tis well known that they were only sprinkled with Water, and yet were said to be [...] Baptized upon their Beds.

And now I hope 'tis pretty plain, as to the signification of the word, That Baptizing does not always signifie Dipping; nor consequently does it exclude all other Modes of Baptizing.

But notwithstanding all this, we, the Mini­sters of the Church of England it seems, amongst some Folks, must be great Dissemblers and Hy­pocrites: And why I pray? Why? Because when we Baptize by sprinkling, we dare not speak as we act, we dare not say, I sprinkle thee in the Name of the Father, &c. Alas for us, poor Men! that we are no such daring Blades as some others are. But is it so indeed? When they Baptize by Dipping, dare they say, I Dip thee in the Name of the Father, &c. I am sure we may with as good Reason and Authority say, I sprinkle thee, as they say, I dip thee.

Our Saviour's words are, Go, teach all Nations, Baptizing them. Our Adversaries ask us, Dare you Translate the words, Go, Teach all Nations [Page 19] Sprinkling them; and to be even with them, we think it enough to ask them again, Dare you Translate the words, Go, Teach all Nations Dipping them? But, Sir, I'll endeavour to strike more light into this matter by a parallel Case; Suppose then, that our Blessed Saviour had said to his Apostles, Go, Hire all Nations into my Vineyard, paying them such a Sum in my Name: And suppose further, that some of them had paid the Sum in Silver, and some in Gold, Can it be imagin'd that ever these different ways of paying the same Sum would have pro­ved a matter of Controversie? Truly according to the aforesaid way of Contending and Argu­ing, They who paid in Silver might have quarrell'd with the others for paying in Gold, and might have disputed their Quarrel after this manner; Our Saviour has said, Go, Hire all Na­tions into my Vineyard, paying them such a Sum in my Name; but dare you Translate the Words, Paying them so much Gold in my Name? How then dare you pay in Gold, when you dare not Speak as you Act?

Now to this Argument, might not the others have reply'd and disputed, on the other hand, a­gainst paying in Silver? Our Saviour has Com­manded us to Hire all Nations into his Vineyard, paying them such a Sum in his Name, but dare you Translate the words, Paying them so much Silver? If not, How dare you pay in Silver, [Page 20] when you dare not Speak as you Act?

This Case, I think, sufficiently shews the Folly of our Adversaries, in daring us to use the word Sprinkling for Baptizing.

Nay, and further, We may suppose, our Sa­viour giving this Command to his Apostles, to Hire all Nations into his Vineyard paying them such a Sum in his Name; we may farther sup­pose him, I say at the same time, to have been in the Indies, where Payments for the most p [...] are made all in Gold: And Consequently we may suppose that the Apostles hiring these India Nations into Christ's Vineyard did pay them all in Gold, according to the General usage of these Countries. Well, but then even upon this sup­position, that none of the Apostles had ever paid the aforesaid Sum in Silver, but had paid all in Gold, yet their practice in this Case would not have made a general Rule, or made it unlaw­full to pay the Sum in Silver; No, but their Successors, and other Ministers of Christ (not­withstanding this Apostolical Practice of Pay­ing the Indians in Gold) might yet in other places have paid the Sum in Silver; Yea, and woud have been constrain'd and oblig'd so to do, had they come to hire such Nations into Christ's Vineyard where Silver is the Current Coyn; and they could not have paid in Gold without great and manifold Difficulties and In­conveniencies.

And thus, when Christ Commanded his A­postles to Baptize all Nations in his Name, he was then in those Eastern-Countries, where, by reason of Excessive heat, Washings and Bathings were very frequent, and a Customary practice; and therefore when the Apostles Baptiz'd in these hot Nations, tho' we suppose them to have Bap­tiz'd there by Dipping, yet their Practice in those hot Countries cannot reasonably be urg'd as generally obliging us to the same way of Bap­tizing, or making it unlawful to Baptize any o­therwise; no, but their Successors and other Ministers of Christ may yet in other places Bap­tize by Sprinkling, yea, and are even Constrain'd and Oblig'd so to do, when they Baptize in Cold Countries, where they cannot Baptize by Dip­ping without great and manifest dangers and in­conveniencies.

In short, as in the aforesaid Case, had our Saviour Commanded such a Sum to be paid, it might certainly have been rightly and well paid in Silver, notwithstanding the Apostles had paid all the Indians in Gold; so considering the vari­ous significations of the Word Baptize, Baptism may well and rightly be Administred by Sprink­ling or Pouring on Water in Cold Countries, tho' it be suppos'd, and, if it may please our Adversaries, even granted, that the Apostles in Hot Nations Baptiz'd all by Dipping.

And indeed I must here observe, that our Bles­sed Saviour, using this Word Baptize in an il­limited signification, has thereby discover'd to us not only his great Wisdom, but his great Love and Tenderness to Mankind; for thus he has Accommodated the Ordinance of Baptism to all Ages, to all Sexes, to all Dispositions, and to all Climates. And truly the Apostles were to teach all Nations Baptizing them, as well the Coldest as the Hottest Countries.

But now shou'd an Apostle have Travell'd into the most Northern parts of the World, where the Climate is extreamly Cold, and should have Preach'd the Gospel, and Exhort­ed them all to take Christ's Yoke upon them, and should have told them for their Encouragement That his Yoke is easie, and his Burden light; And in Answer to their asking him how That Yoke was to be put on, shou'd have reply'd, Why, you must all be Dipp'd or Plung'd in some Pond or River. Certainly such a piece of hardship, in the extremity of their Cold Regions, cou'd not have been well thought on, nor wou'd they readily have believ'd that Yoke to be easie, which was not to be put on without endangering their Limbs, and their Lives with Cold.

And so again, Shou'd a Turk upon his Death-bed be converted to Christianity, and earnestly desire Baptism, How cou'd it be safely done, if there was no other way of Baptizing but by Dip­ping?

Nay, but the aforesaid Clinic-Baptism, which we hear so much of in the Primitive Writers, was most certainly receiv'd by Aspersion or Sprinkling; The Clinici were they who receiv'd Baptism upon their Sick-beds, and their Bap­tism by Sprinkling is sufficiently Vindicated by St. Cyprian, Ep. ad Mag. 76.

I know what some are bold to say, that God in such Cases is oblig'd to preserve us, and to look to't, whatever the danger of Dipping may seem to be, that no real harm shall come on't. But I Answer, That I never look'd upon Bap­tism as a Charm either against Colds or Disea­ses, nor wou'd I dare to Baptize a very sick Man by Dipping him in a Pond or River, upon this Presumption, that God will save him from all harm by it, by a Miracle: 'Tis not safe to trust to Miracles, or to tempt God out of the ordinary ways of his Preservation. I Love not harsh Expressions, but Mr. Baxter says, ‘This was the Devil's Trick, who wou'd have drawn Christ to have cast himself into danger of Death, by encouraging of him to trust to a Miraculous preservation.’

Well, but then, say some, if a state of In­firmity or a cold Season may make it a little dan­gerous to Baptize by Dipping, may not a more Convenient and less dangerous Opportunity be waited for?

And this indeed speaks the general practice of our Adversaries; you seldom hear of a sick Man Dipt, or of any Dipt by them in the Frost and Snow time of Winter.

But to such delay of Baptism upon any ac­count whatsoever, you may be pleas'd to hear what is said by the aforesaid Mr. Baxter, ‘'Tis (he says) quite contrary to the constant Rule and Example of Scripture, and so he proves that the 3000 were Baptized without delay, Act. 2. and the people of Samaria, Act. 8. and that the Eunuch was Baptized in his very Jour­ney, Act. 8. That Cornelius and his Friends were presently Baptized, Act. 11. and that so were they in Act. 19.5. and the Jaylor, Act. 16. and that so were the Corinthians, Act. 18.’ And said Ananias to Paul, why tarriest thou? Arise and be Baptized, Act. 22.16.

But Sir, If Baptism was not delay'd upon any account whatsoever; no, not tho' 3000 were Baptized at once, what think you of those who when they have a few Persons to be Bap­tized after their way, by Dipping, will (one wou'd be tempted to say, out of Vain Glory or Ostentation) make as long work of it as they can, and will hardly Dip above One or Two at a time; that by their more frequent Dippings they may make a greater Noise and Bustle in the World.

You, Sir, know what I mean, and therefore I will not rub any harder upon this Sore place, but will leave you at present to consider awhile of what I have said to your first and great Ob­jection rais'd from the signification of the Word ( [...]) Baptizing.

You shall not be long without an Answer to your other Objections from,

LETTER III.

YOUR First and great Objection, against the Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling, was Answer'd in my last; and this comes to assure you, that I have not been forgetful of your other Objections, but have thought on 'em again and again; and, considering the Men's Principles who have taught you the Objections, I find [Page 26] that they'll be Answer'd in a Few Words.

For the Objectors you know are upon all occasions very Loud and Clamorous for plain and positive Texts of Scripture, Deductions and Consequences will by no means down with them; and therefore their Objections will be sufficient­ly answer'd to them, if I shew that the Scrip­ture which they ground them upon, will not maintain them after their own positive man­ner. And, Good Sir, Let it be remember'd, that I do in this Letter argue upon our Adversaries own Principles and in their own way. For thus,

I need not tell you that their great Objection against Infant-Baptism is this, Where do you read in Scripture that any Infants were Bapti­zed, or Commanded to be Baptized? Which Objection, in its due time and place, shall have its full Answer; but here, Sir, you must pardon me if I make use of this their own Weapon a­gainst themselves, and ask them, Where did you read in Scripture of any that were Baptized by being Dipt, or Commanded to be only so Bap­tiz'd, and not otherwise?

'Tis true, you once indeed reply'd to this, that whether the Scripture was so or no, yet that Antiquity was clear for Dipping; and I shou'd be glad to hear the same kind word drop from the Mouths or Pens of our Learned Ad­versaries: I shou'd be glad, I mean, to hear them appealing to true Antiquity in any case [Page 27] whatsoever, and willing to submit to such good Authority; for then I shou'd hope that they wou'd have some regard to it in the Case of In­fant-Baptism; yes certainly, if they will plead Antiquity for Dipping, they must allow the Plea to be good when it is made for Infant-Baptism likewise.

And therefore to bring the Controversie be­fore Antiquity, I wou'd have them to know, that they do not read in Scripture of any that were Dipt, or Commanded to be so Baptiz'd, and not otherwise.

‘Yes, say they, Our Saviour himself was Dip­ped when he was Baptized of John in Jordan, for the very Original Words ( [...]) may be Transla­ted, He was dipped of John into Jordan, Mark 1.9.’

To this it has been rightly answer'd, that the Word [...], does not necessarily signifie, He was Dipped, as I have clearly shewn you in my last Letter; and then as for the Words, [...], which our Adversaries would fain translate into Jordan, they have been shewn from several the like Expressions in the New Testament, That they may as well be transla­ted at Jordan; ‘ [...], may be trans­lated at Jordan, says Mr. Horn, just as [...], is translated at Azotus, Acts 8.40. and just as [...], is translated at the City, Mat. [Page 28] 2.23. and just as [...] is translated at Capernaum, Mat. 4.13. and as the like In­stances may be seen in Acts 4.5. and 20.16. and 21.13. and 25.15. See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants Maintain'd, p. 70.’

But 'tis further Objected, That our Saviour, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, Matth. 3.16. and Mark 1.10. Sir, I wonder not that these Texts are urg'd by the Common People of our Adversaries, as an Ar­gument to prove our Lord's being Dipp'd; but that any Man who has Learning enough to inter­pret our English Bibles, (as they ought to be in­terpreted) so as to agree with the Original, that any such Learned Man should take an Advan­tage from the English Words, which he must needs know the Original will not bear; This to me indeed is very wondrous.

But who then can sufficiently wonder at the Author of your little Book for his wild Note upon Matth. 3.16. ‘Our Lord went down so far and deep into the River, says he, that, the Text is express, when he was baptized, he went up straightway out of the water: Mark, He went up Out of the Water is the Curious Penning of the Matter by the Holy Ghost, to shew the Considerable depth our Lord went into the Water to be dipt:’ Thus your Author. But, Sir, I will leave it to others to say, That his wrested Observation belyes the [Page 29] Holy Ghost, I will only tell you, That he ought to have look'd into the Original, before he had presum'd to make his Remarks upon what the Holy Ghost did Pen, for the Greek Words were the Curious Penning of the Holy Ghost. And I do affirm, That the Greek Words in both these Texts, Matt. 3.16. and Mark 1.10. only signi­fie, That our Lord went up From the Water, as every Man does who goes from the Water-side only.

And thus our Saviour's being in, or dipt into the Water, cannot be prov'd from these Texts, by any one who can consult the Original Words, which in Matth. 3.16. are, [...], He went up from the water; and in Mark 1.10. [...], Coming up from the wa­ter, which I say can never prove him to have been in, but only by the Water-side; for he who goes but from the Water-side, goes up from the Water, because I think that Rivers do always run in the lowest Ground.

But, granting that our Blessed Lord went in­to the River to be Baptiz'd, it will not yet fol­low that he was dipt. For, good Sir, I can­not here but observe, both of our Lord, and of the Eunuch (which is your next Objection) and of the many thousands we read of to have been Baptiz'd, that we never find the least hint of any of their Cloaths being put off. Cer­tainly if they were dipt Naked, as some say, [Page 30] (which I can hardly believe, because Men and Women were baptiz'd together) or if they put off but some of their uppermost Garments as others contend, we shou'd have heard some­thing of it, for we are told of our Lord's lay­ing aside his Garment upon a far less occasion, John 13.4.

And therefore I say that we never hearing one Syllable about their Cloaths, whether any part of them, or all, or none were put off, is a good Argument, ad hominem, that they were not dipt.

And now let me appeal to you, Sir, whe­ther we may not give a good Account of this Matter, by supposing them to have been baptized only by Sprinkling or Pouring on Wa­ter. Why, you very well know, That it was their Custom in those Countries, to go bare up to the Knees, only with Sandals upon their Feet, so that they might conveniently enough step in­to their shallow Rivers to be baptized, by ha­ving Water sprinkled or poured upon their Fa­ces, without putting off, or laying aside any part of their Garments; and therefore, I say, considering that we never read of any such thing, not one Tittle about putting off or alter­ing their Garments, 'tis as good an Argument against their being dipt, and as strong for their being sprinkled only, as we can desire against our Adversaries.

In short, That when they were Baptized, they were stript and dipt naked, I cannot believe for the aforesaid Reason, because Men and Wo­men were Baptized together; or supposing that they were Baptized distinctly and separately, the Men by themselves, and the Women by themselves; yet still they were Men who Bap­tized; and had this been put upon the Apostles to Baptize Women naked, what brave sport wou'd their Enemies have made of it? To be sure the Devil with the spightful Jews and Gen­tiles would have rais'd from such a practise as this, a whole Volume of Lewd stories, as the Learned know they did from the Celebration of the other Sacrament upon a far less Occasion.

But if the Baptized were dipped in their Gar­ments, then what becomes of their Objection which we hear of, from Heb. 10.22. where there is Mention made of our Bodies being wash'd with pure Water? For how our Bodies can be wash'd with our Cloaths on, I do not well understand. But, Sir, I shall here add by the by, that in that Text to the Hebrews there is no allusion to Baptism; No, but that it plain­ly alludes to the Washing of the High-Priest, men­tioned Levit. 16.4. is even demonstrated by Mr. Sydenham in his Exercitation on Infant-Baptism, Cap. 16.

And for a Conclusion of this whole matter, I will here set down some of the very Words of [Page 32] that Learned Author, ‘If, says he, The Per­son Baptized be not Naked, then this Baptism by Dipping is rather a Baptizing Mens Cloaths and upper Garments than their Bodies; but if he or she be Naked, how odious a Custom wou'd this be? I cannot but think that that part which is Baptized ought to be naked, that the Water may immediately fall upon that place, or else something else must be Baptized primarily, and the Flesh only secon­darily and by Consequence.’

‘And this, says he, is the Reason why we only pour Water on the Face, because it is the most Principal part, wherein the Image of God most appears, and the Soul shines forth most Eminently; on which all the workings of Mens humours and affections leave the most visible impression and symptoms; and it's Ob­servable that the same word in Greek ( [...]) signifies both the Face and the Person, because the whole Person is represented by the Face; and thus we Baptize the Person in Bap­tizing his Face, which we can look on and wash Naked, and not be ashamed.’ So that worthy Author Concludes his 15 Chapter of the abovemention'd Book.

And now, Sir, I come to your Last and Grand Argument, with which you make so much Noise and Cry, and in which you do really Boast and Triumph; with what Heat and Bra­very [Page 33] do you repeat it to be Demonstration, per­fect Demonstration, that John Baptiz'd by Dip­ping, and why, Sir, I pray? Why, say you, don't we read that John was Baptizing in Enon, near Salem, because there was much Water there? Well, and what then? You add that the much Water there, does certainly imply, that all that John Baptized in that Water were certainly Dipp'd; Very good; and before I Answer you as to this, I must here rejoyce with you a little, that your Stomach still serves to swallow Consequences, yea, and very lusty ones too.

But now, Good Sir, This your high and mighty Argument, so Confidently and Hotly propos'd, is by no means to be Faintly and Cold­ly Answer'd, but I must e'en force my self to put on a little warmth too, and be bold to Chal­lenge all our Learned Adversaries to contradict me whilst I say that the Original words in that Text Signifie, That John was Baptizing in Enon near Salem because there were many Waters there. So that we must understand the much Water in our English Bibles in no other Sense than as it may be understood by the Many Waters, ( [...]) which are the Original words.

And now you, Sir, who have not always liv'd within the smell of your own Chimney, you know that in some Hill-Countries there are Multitudes of Springs, and we may therefore say many Waters, and yet not Water enough [Page 34] in any one of these Springs for a Man to be Dipt in.

And the Truth of this business seems to be this, John was The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness, and he might have been in many parts of the Wilderness; where, had he want­ed but a drop of Water, he must have travel­led above Ten or Twenty Miles before he cou'd have found it: but he would not continue in any such place because of the Multitudes that daily throng'd to him to be Baptized of him; No, but He stay'd near Salem where there were wany Springs or Waters, because so long as he was therea­bouts he had always Water at hand to Baptize the People that flockt to him for that End, For there were ( [...]) many Waters there.

And this (I say) may seem to be the True Account of this Passage: and now if you can find any thing in it to prove that John Baptized by Dipping, pray let me hear it in your next Letter, and you shall then know more of my mind.

In the mean time, having thus given you my Answers to all your Objections which I have as yet heard from you, I shall here take leave to rest awhile, till you may be pleas'd to shape out some more work for,

LETTER IV.

AT the very first sight of yours, I presently conjectur'd what sort of Task you were setting me; and I am very glad to find that you are grown a little cooler, and that your heat a­gainst our Mode of Baptizing is somewhat a­bated; for you say very well, that if we can prove Infant-Baptism, the very Weakness and Tenderness of the poor Babes themselves will be some Plea for Mercy, rather than Sacrifice; Nay, and you say that Infant-Baptism once prov'd would put an end to the whole Controversie, and there would be no further need of Quarel­ling about Dipping or Sprinkling, because you are well assur'd that we will not even in the Case of Infant-Baptism refuse to Baptize by Dip­ping, if it be required, and certified that the Child may well endure it.

And therefore you are pleased to say, that you are sorry for your beginning at the wrong end of the Controversie, or rather where there is no occasion for any Controversie at all: And now you ask leave (which Good Sir, you may freely take) to call upon me for my Proofs of Infant-Baptism; and for my Answers to your Objecti­ons, [Page 36] which you have been taught to make a­gainst it.

Dear Sir, I doubt not but you have Read at least some of the many Books which have been Written upon this Subject, by the very Learn­ed Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Featly, Dr. Towerson, The Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism, Mr. Walker, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Horn, Mr. Sydenham, and others; and I cannot forbear telling you that 'tis an Argument of something which I will not Name, that our Adversaries Objections shou'd be so often Printed and Re­printed, as if there had never been one Syllable said in Answer to them; whereas I will here venture to say unto you, that no one can shew you any one Objection in any of our Adversaries Books against Infant-Baptism, but I will under­take to shew you enough to Answer it in some One or more of the Books which I can produce in the Defence of it.

And you must not, Sir, expect any new Dis­coveries in this Case from me; all that I can aim at is but to speak plainer than some others have done, and this indeed is all that you seem to desire from me; for you want a little light, you say, being something in the dark as to this matter, because of the silence of the Scriptures, in which you can no where find, either that a­ny Infants were Baptiz'd, or Commanded to be Baptiz'd.

Sir, In very few words, you have open'd a wide Field of Discourse, and I think that the Case of Infant-Baptism may be pretty throughly Scann'd and Canvas'd by Considering your Ob­jection, which I shall divide into these two Parts.

First, You find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptiz'd.

Secondly, Neither do you there find that any Infants were Commanded to be Baptiz'd.

To both which Parts of your Objection I shall endeavour to return you a very plain and full Answer.

First, You Object and say, That you find not in Scripture that any Infants were Baptized.

And here you take occasion to tell me what a Triumphant noise the Forty Texts in your lit-Book have made; 'Tis the Common Boast a­mong some Folk, you say, that there is not One Text in Scripture to Countenance Infant-Bap­tism, but Forty that are Point-Blank against it; I suppose they mean if the Author of your little Book speaks the Truth in this Matter.

But whether he has done so or no, I shall have occasion before I have done, still farther to Consider: For as fast as any of his Forty Texts come in my way, I shall not be afraid to enquire into the meaning of them.

Nay, but the greatest Strength of that Book is spent against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprink­ling. [Page 38] Your Author has a Throw at this where­ever he meets with the Word Baptize, and takes it for granted all along, That to Baptize signifies always to Dip, which I think has been sufficiently disprov'd; and therefore if all that he has said and repeated again and again to this purpose in his little Book was taken out, his For­ty Texts wou'd dwindle into a far less number, and there wou'd not be many of them left stand­ing against Infant-Baptism.

Well, but in Answer to the first part of your Objection, That you no where find in Scripture, that any Infants were Baptized.

First, I'll make an Impartial Enquiry, what I can find in Scripture to have been done in this Case of Baptizing by Christ, and by his Disci­ples in his Life-time. And,

Secondly, What I can find to have been done by his Apostles after his Ascension into Heaven.

I. We have no very large account in the New Testament of Christ's or of his Disciples Bapti­zing in his Life-time; not one word more than what you may see in these few Texts, John 3.22, 26. John 4.1.2.

The First of which Texts says, that Jesus Baptized, but says not whom; not a Syllable to exclude Infants, John 3.22.

The Second Text says, that Jesus Baptized, and all Men came to him. John 3.26. But here, Sir, that our English Translation may not lead you into a mistake, I must inform you, that there is no particular word in the Original that sig­nifies Men only; but the Greek word is [...], Jesus Baptized, and ( [...]) all came to him: All without Exception.

And here I will do so much Right to the Au­thor of your little Book, as to suppose he had observ'd this to be the sense of the Original words in this Text, and therefore he passes it o­ver, as rather making for than against Infant-Baptism; He does not, I say, mention this amongst the Forty Texts in his Book, because he knew the Greek Word here Translated All Men signi­fies as well All Children, even all without Excep­tion, All of all Ages.

I proce [...]d therefore to the Third and Last Text, which says, That Jesus made and Baptized more Disciples than John, (tho' Jesus himself Baptized not, but his Disciples) John 4.1, 2. And here the Author of your little Book wou'd fain ga­ther from the word Disciples, that no Children were Baptiz'd, but all that he say's is ground­ed upon a Gross Mistake, which supposes them to have been Disciples before Baptism, whereas the Text says plainly, That they were made and Baptized Disciples: That is, they were by Bap­tism made Disciples, and accordingly that Baptism [Page 40] is the only ordinary way of making Disciples, I shall take occasion hereafter very largely to prove to you.

And thus I have particularly and Impartial­ly Consider'd those few Texts (which yet are all we find in Scripture) which speak of Christ's or of his Disciples Baptizing during his Life-time; and the Sum of them is this, That Jesus's Dis­ciples Baptized, and made by Baptizing them, more Disciples than John. The Words are not They were Baptized all that Believed, or all that Repented; Nay, nor all Men only, but all in general, not a Child of Man excepted: And now, Sir, whether the Scripture be thus far a­gainst, or for Infant-Baptism, judge you.

And here I will add one thing more, which wou'd be a great Satisfaction to my own mind in this Case of Baptizing Infants, tho' there was nothing more to be said for it.

Know then, Sir, and I tell it you from un­doubted Authority, that Children were Bapti­zed as well as Circumcised in the Jewish Church long before our Saviour's Coming in the Flesh.

‘The Jews report, says Dr. Taylor, That the World took up the Doctrine of Baptisms in Re­membrance that the Iniquity of the Old World was purged by Water. Great Exemp. P. 175.’

And indeed Noah and his Families being sa­ved by passing through the Waters of the Flood [Page 41] in the Ark, did Typifie and Pre-figure our being saved by passing thro' the Waters of Baptism in the Ark of the Church, for so St. Peter, In the Ark (says he) were Eight Souls saved by Water. The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us. 1 Pet. 3.20, 21.

And as for that Infant-Baptism which was pra­ctised of Old in the Jewish Church, 'tis by their own best Writers made as Ancient as Moses, and ‘deduc'd by them (says Dr. Towerson) from that Command of God whereby Moses was Enjoyn­ed to Sanctifie the Israelites, and cause them to wash their Cloaths against that time that God declared from Mount Sinai, That Legal Cove­nant which they were then to enter into.’ Dr. Towerson of the Sacrament of Bapt. Pag. 13.

And the Apostle himself, tells us, of these Isra­elites, That they were all Baptized into Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. They were all, Men, Women, and Children, so Baptized.

And you know, Good Sir, that when God did safely lead these Children of Israel, thro' the Red-Sea, he thereby figured his Holy Baptism.

‘And therefore as they, Men, Women and Children, were Baptized into Moses by the Cloud above, and the Sea beneath, so (says Dr. Taylor) are all Persons now, Men, Wo­men and Children to be Baptized into Christ by the Spirit from above, and the Water be­low; and the same Excellent Author most [Page 42] truly adds, That it was the design of the A­postle in that Discourse, 1 Cor. 10. To repre­sent that the Fathers and We were equal as to the Privileges of the Covenant, and that as we do not exceed them, so neither do they exceed us, nor their Children ours.’ Great Exemp. Pag. 176.

And in short, When our Saviour first In­stituted his Baptism amongst that very People who had then such an Ancient Custom to Bap­tize Infants, had he made any Exception a­gainst that their Custom; had he excluded such Babes from his Baptism as they admitted to theirs, we should certainly have heard some­thing of it.

I am sure that their Infant-Circumcision was not laid aside without great Noise and Struggle, and therefore that their Infant-Baptism should be so easily quitted without so much as one word said either for or against it, is what, I profess to you, I cannot easily believe.

Nay, but I am hereby very much con­firm'd in my Belief that Infants were as well admitted to our Lord's Baptism when he Bap­tized in Judea, as they then were and for a long time before had been Baptized in the Jew­ish-Church.

And thus, Sir, I have Briefly shewn you what was done by our Lord and by his Disci­ples in his Life-time, in this Case of Baptizing. And,

[Page 43]II. I will (God willing) enquire again what we find in Scripture to have been done in this Case by the Apostles after our Lord's Ascensi­on.

But of this in my next, which shall be hasten­ed from,

LETTER V.

I Proceed to enquire what I can find in Scri­pture to have been done in the Case of Baptizing by our Lord's Apostles after his As­cension into Heaven.

Now the first that we read of to have been Bap­tiz'd by them were the Three thousand Converts, Acts 2.41. But that none of these were Children is most confidently affirm'd, because 'tis there said of them that they gladly receiv'd the Word, [Page 44] &c. which indeed is a very plausible way of Arguing; but yet 'tis a very ill way, and not to be allow'd of in our Interpretations of such Scripture-Passages.

For there is nothing more common than for the Scripture to speak of Children together with adult Persons, and yet to add such things as the Children will not be thought capable of: As for Example.

St. Paul speaks of Infants as well as of Men and Women, when he assures us, that We must all appear before the Judgment-Seat of Christ, and every one of us receive for the good or evil done in our bodies; I say, St. Paul speaks of Infants a­mong the rest, tho' one half of what he there speaks, cannot be understood of them, namely, That they shall receive for the good or evil done in their bodies, who never liv'd in their Bodies to do either Good or Evil.

Sir, you argue, that none of the Three thou­sand baptiz'd, Acts 2. were Children, because 'tis said of them, That they gladly received the word, and continued stedfastly in the Apostles do­ctrine, which are things that Children could not do.

And just at the same rate it may be argu'd, That no Infants shall appear at the last Day before the Judgment-Seat of Christ, because 'tis said of them that shall then and there appear, that they must receive for the good or evil done in their bo­dies; [Page 45] which are things that Infants could not do.

And again, I have not the least doubt but there will be Children and Infants at the Last Day, placed among the Blessed Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge, and yet I know what the Judge will then say to those on his Right-hand, I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat, &c.

But now, as you are pleas'd to reason the Case, That there were no Children among the Three thousand baptized, Acts 2. because such things are immediately added to have been done by them, as no Children could possibly do, viz. That they continu'd stedfastly in the Apo­stles Doctrine, &c. just after the same manner it may be reason'd, That there shall be no In­fants among the Saints at the Right-hand of the Judge at the Last Day, because such things will immediately be added to have been done by them as no Infants could possibly do, viz. I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat, &c.

But, good Sir, Infants will certainly make up a great part of the Blessed Train at the Right-hand of the Judge, though the Judge cannot say to them, I was an hungred, and ye gave me Meat: And so there might be many Infants among the Three thousand that were baptized, tho' it cannot be said of them that they conti­nued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine.

For so you plainly see that Infants may be spoken of together with adult Persons, though some things may be added which the Infant-part of the Company are no ways capable of.

And accordingly that there were Infants or Children among the Three thousand baptized, as aforesaid, we have yet this further Reason to convince us; because when they were there perswaded to be baptized with this Promise of having the Holy Ghost given them, 'tis expresly added, The promise is to you and to your Children, Acts 2.38, 39. But of this more largely before I have done

I proceed therefore to the next that we read of to have been baptized; and They were the Samaritans, baptized by St. Philip, Acts 8.12. and there indeed it is said, that They were bapti­zed both Men and Women; and therefore surely, say you, had any Children been then baptized, it would have been added, That they were baptized Men, Women, and Children. No, Dear Sir, there was no need of any such Addi­tion; for consider, I beseech you, the Scripture-way of speaking; Even all Ages of both Sexes, Children and Infants together with the Elder Sort are express'd in Scripture by Men and Wo­men, as Mr. Horn has particularly noted in Jo­shua 8.25, 26. and Judges 9.49, 51. which Texts you may consult at your Leisure, and I will take leave to go on.

The next we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles, to have been baptized, was the Eu­nuch, baptized by St. Philip, Acts 8.38. and from their going down to the Water, is there a great Objection rais'd against our Mode of Baptizing by Sprinkling, or Pouring on Water; but this I have already answer'd.

In the next Chapter was St. Paul baptized by Ananias, and I think he was baptized in the House of Judas; and you will not, I hope, from hence conclude that he also was Dipt.

In the next Chapter again we find St. Peter commanding Cornelius and them that were with him to be baptized; but pray, Sir, Ob­serve the Reason, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts 10.47, 48. And may it not as well be argu'd, Can any man forbid Water that Children shou'd not be Baptized, who receive the Holy Ghost as well as we? But of this more hereafter.

In the next place we read that Lydia was Bap­tized and her Houshold, Acts, 16.14, 15. Where I observe, that whatever qualifications are men­tion'd to have given Lydia a right to Baptism, yet we read not any thing of any of her Houshold, but that they were Baptized; Nay, and after their Baptism says Lydia to the Apo­stles, If ye have Judged Me faithful to the Lord, &c. She says not, if ye have Judged Us faithfull, [Page 48] but only ME which implies (according to our Adversaries best way of reasoning) That only Lydia, and that none of the rest were Believers. So that thus far I am sure here is nothing against Infants being a part of her Family. But,

Sir, I must admire the Author of your little Book, and the profound discoveries he has made in his Notes upon this Text to convince us, that Lydia had no Husband, and Consequently no Children. But this wou'd not follow, unless he cou'd prove her to have been no Widow neither; and therefore by dint of mighty Argu­ment he'll make us farther know that she was no Widow. And I must not conceal his All-con­vincing Reason, which is this, She cou'd be no Widow, because she is called a Woman, where­as Widows in Scripture are called Widows, as the Widow of Sarepta, &c. A most wonderful Ar­gument indeed! But, Sir, When I think on't a­gain, The wonder ceases, because I find the very Widow of Sarepta call'd a Woman, 1 King. 17.17, 24. Yea, I find in Scripture one call'd a Woman, who had been seven times a Widow; for after she had Buried no fewer than Seven Hus­bands, 'tis expresly said, That last of all Died the Woman also. Sir, I should have despis'd to take notice of such Childish Reasonings as these, had I not observ'd with what confidence they are written to impose upon Vulgar Understandings.

In the 33d verse of the same Chapter we read of the Jaylor that he was Baptized and all his, The Original words are [...], and signifie all that were of him, or in other words his Off-spring. But 'tis objected that they were not Children, because 'tis imply'd in the next verse that they were all Believers and rejoyced, The Jaylor re­joyced, believing in God with all his House. To which Mr. Horn has answer'd that the Original words may be interpreted as speaking of none but the Jaylor himself, and may signifie Word for Word that he rejoyced House-wholly ( [...]) he ha­ving believed in God. He rejoyced House-wholly that is, upon the Account of his whole House that all were Baptized as well as himself. And certainly his thus rejoycing upon the account of his House may perswade us that there were some in it that were very near and dear to him, and These undoubtedly were (the [...]) his Off-spring or Children Baptized with himself. See Mr. Horn's Cause of Infants, &c. p. 58.

Again, Acts, 18.8. We find some Corinthi­ans Baptized, and Acts 19.3, 5. 'Tis said of some who had been Baptized unto John's Bap­tisms, that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And these last indeed were about Twelve Men, but that all the Corinthians were Men and no Children will not so easily be prov'd: 'Tis true 'tis said that they heard and believed, and yet there might be Children among them for all [Page 50] that, as I have just now shewn, there will be In­fants in the happy number at the Right-hand of the Judge when it shall be said to them, I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat. Tho' Infants, I say, cou'd not do this, yet this will be said of the whole Blessed number whereof Infants will be a part.

And so the Scripture very frequently ascribes such things to Companies, as are not within the power of Children to do, and yet those very Companies may consist of Children as well as of Elder People.

All Judah stood before the Lord with their little Ones, their Wives and their Children, when Jahaziel said to them that they shou'd do, yea and 'tis also said that they did much greater things than cou'd be affirm'd of Children, 2 Chron. 20.13, 14, 15, 16, &c.

And thus, I say again, that Children may be in a Company even tho' such things are said to be done by that Company as the Children in it are not capable of doing.

Lastly, St. Paul tells his Corinthians that he Baptized none of them but Crispus and Gaius and the Houshold of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.14, 16.

And here I will observe that of all the House­holds that we find to have been Baptiz'd, there is not the least exception as to Infants or Babes, nor can I believe them to have been all Barren and Childless Families, because there's not the [Page 51] least Syllable or Circumstance denoting any such thing.

I know 'tis said, that there were no Children in this Houshold Baptized by St. Paul, because no Children are mention'd; and may not I as well say, that here was no Faith, no Repentance, nor any such thing as some contend for to qua­lifie for Baptism? viz. Because here is no menti­on made of any such thing; and again, for the same reason that some deny there were Children, another may deny that there were Servants, and another, that there were any Relations, and all by the same Rule, and for the same reason still, and so at length, at this rate of Denying any Children to have been in it, may the Houshold of Stephanas be deny'd into an Houshold of mere No-Bodies.

And this, Sir, is all that I find in the New Te­stament to have been practis'd by the Apostles in this Case of Baptizing after our Lord's Ascensi­on into Heaven; and in so short an account as this is, we have as clear hints of their Baptizing Children as can well be expected. For,

You, Sir, may venture to assure your self, that the Scripture has acquainted us but with little, very little in Comparison of what was really done by the Apostles in this Case, even by those very Apostles who had receiv'd the Command to Bap­tize all Nations; Nay, but as St. John tells us, that over and above the Scripture-accounts there [Page 52] are many other things that Jesus did, so I will add that there were many other things which his Apostles did, which if they should be writ­ten every one, I suppose that even the World it self could not contain the Books that should be written, John 21, 25.

As in this particular case of Baptizing, we do not in all the New Testament find the Hun­dredth part of what the Apostles did; so that if we must believe no more in this matter, than what the Scriptures tell us of the Acts of the A­postles, we must believe but very little, and not a word of above two thirds of these Apostles; not a syllable of St. Andrew, or St. Thomas, or St. Simon, or St. Jude, or St. James, or St. Bar­tholomew, or St. Matthias, or St. Matthew, for of their, or of any of their going out into the world to Baptize we must not speak a word, if we must say nothing but what we can quote Chapter and Verse for.

And yet, Sir, Notwithstanding this profound Silence of Scripture, I verily believe that no Man who has read Books can doubt but a credible account has been, and may be given of the Tra­vels of these Apostles, and of the Nations Dis­cipl'd and Baptized by them. The ancient Wri­ters have some of them been pretty punctual in these matters, and in the Histories of all Coun­treys 'tis seldom or never omitted by what Apo­stle, or by whom the Christian Religion was first planted among them.

And unless all these Historians who agree in these matters can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together (tho' as far distant from one another as the East is from the West) yet, I say, unless they can be suppos'd to have laid their Heads together, to Cheat and Impose upon the World, we have no reason to disbelieve their reports; But then, Sir, I add, that we have no reason to disbelieve Infant-Baptism, for we have the very same Hi­stories, and the very same Authors bearing wit­ness to this, who bear witness to the other mat­ters.

For Instance, 'tis generally agreed among Writers, that Christianity was first planted in the Eastern Indies by St. Thomas, and 'tis very well known that the Christians there are to this day call'd St. Thomas-Christians, and 'tis altoge­ther as well known that they do (as they have always done) practise Infant-Baptism.

I cou'd trace the other Apostles into the ma­ny Cities and Nations, whither they severally went Discipling and Baptizing, and every-where find Infant-Baptism receiv'd and continu'd as an Apostolical practice. But I'll not lead you too far into these Historical accounts, which yet we must be oblig'd to, or else we shall know but very little of the Acts of the greatest part of the Apostles, for what they did, into what Ci­ties and Nations they Travel'd, what Disciples [Page 54] they made, whom they Baptiz'd is not written in Scripture.

But now, Sir, suppose some wild Theist or Atheist, in pursuance of their Mischievous design to discredit the Apostles, should come and tell you, that the greatest part of them, were a pack of Lazy Drones; who, though they were under the obligation of a Command to Disciple and Bap­tize all Nations, yet never mov'd a Foot upon that great Errand, did not the least Hand's-turn in all that weighty Business; pray, Good Sir, what Answer would you make? How would you vin­dicate the Apostles from so black a charge? I am sure that all Scripture-Evidence would here fail you; you could not quote Scripture in the de­fence of one half of them; but how then would you stop the Mouths of their Accusers? Why, Sir, You must be beholden to just the evidence we have for Infant-Baptism's being practis'd by the Apostles; for by all the Authority whereby you could silence their Accusers, and prove to 'em the Apostles Travels, and the Conversions that they every where made all the wide World over, even by all that Authority, I say, do we prove Infants to have been Baptized by them.

And further, suppose an Atheist should fly in the face of our Blessed Saviour himself, and Blasphemously tell you that he was a false Pro­phet, who pretended to foretell such things con­cerning the Destruction of the Jewish Church [Page 55] and State as never came to pass, though he posi­tively prophesy'd that That very Generation should not pass away till all these should be fulfill'd. Sup­pose, I say, an Atheist should say thus, Good Sir, I must beseech you to tell me what you would an­swer, or how you would clear our blessed Lord and Saviour from the foul Aspersion, you could not in this case have any help from Scripture; No, but you would be forc'd to appeal to the Historians of that and of the following Ages, and particular­ly to that most admirable Historian, Josephus, to shew how these Predictions and Prophecies of our Saviour were accomplish'd, and most won­derfully and punctually fulfill'd about forty Years after our Saviour's Crucifixion. Well, Sir, and we have altogether as good evidence in the first Writers of the Christian Church for Infant-Bap­tism, as we have for the Accomplishment of our Saviour's Prophecies; and as you must prove our Saviour to have been a true Prophet in that Case, even so do we prove Infants to have been Bapti­zed in the Apostolical Ages.

Once more, some deny that the Apostles Bap­tiz'd any Infants, and suppose a Quaker (who is against all Water-Baptism) should deny that they Baptiz'd either Men or Women, I know you would say that we have sufficient Proof of this in the Acts of the Apostles. Oh, but, Sir, You need not be told that these Quakers (many of them) are a sort of unmannerly fellows, that [Page 56] disrespect and disparage the very Scriptures themselves, and perhaps they'll ask you, Who writ that Book in the New Testament call'd The Acts of the Apostles? Of what Authority is it? Was the Author of it an Inspir'd Writer? and what can you say, why we are bound to be­lieve what we find Written therein more than in any other Old Book? And now, pray, Sir, should a morose Quaker thus put you to't to prove the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles, how wou'd you do it? Truly you must answer, that we have the whole Primitive Church bea­ring witness to it, that it was written by an In­spired Author, viz. by St. Luke, and that it has ever been receiv'd as Canonical Scripture through­out the Universal Church of Christ, dispersed over the face of the whole Earth. And this indeed is sufficient evidence to a Wise-Man. But then we have the very same evidence for In­fant-Baptism's being an Apostolical practice; we have the Universal Church of Christ bearing witness thereto in all places, yea, and at all times, for the first fifteen Hundred Years after Christ, without exception.

Sir, That Infant-Baptism was the Universal Practice of the Holy Catholick Church, and that no time can be shewed on this side the Apostles when it began, is so manifestly and clearly prov'd from the best and most Authentick Wri­ters of all Ages, that some of our learned'st Ad­versaries [Page 57] have had more Conscience than to de­ny it.

Menno, One of the most Learned of the Anabaptists, (as the Author of the Case of In­fant-Baptism tells us from Cassander) acknow­ledg'd Infant-Baptism to be as Old as the Times of the Apostles, and therefore he was forc'd in the defence of his cause to invent the Story, That though Infant-Baptism was first taught in the Apostles Times, yet that it was then taught by false Apostles, and false Teachers; which proof-less Story is Learnedly and largely answer'd by the said Author of the Case of Infant-Baptism, pag. 47, 48, 49, 50.

And our excellent Dr. Falkner has these Words ‘The Christian Church, in the first A­ges thereof, and in a Continued Succession from thence to this time, hath admitted In­fants to be Baptized, and thought it self bound so to do.’ And this he proves by several plain Testimonies out of St. Austin, St. Cyprian, Origen, and from the famous African Council, and con­cludes that divers other Fathers and Councils might be added, ‘to manifest the Universal Reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church. But this, saith he, having been clear­ly and sufficiently evidenc'd by the Historical Theses of Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobap­tism, I shall refer him thither who wou'd have more large and ample Proof hereof.’ Treatise [Page 58] concerning Reproaching, &c. pages 285.286.

And now, Good Sir, have patience with me till I shall briefly summ up what I have said in this long Letter, and I will conclude.

I have shewn you how little we read in Scrip­ture of what The Apostles did in this Case of Baptizing, after they had receiv'd the Command to Baptize all Nations, and likewise what clear hints we have even in that little of their Bapti­zing Infants; but then I have added, that as we find larger accounts of the Apostles Travels and of the Nations Converted by them in the primi­mitive Writers, so, that from the same Wri­ters we are more fully assur'd that Infant-Bap­tism was an Apostolical Practice.

And you, Sir, I hope will not be so vain as to despise this Evidence, without which you can never prove that the greatest part of the Apostles Baptiz'd either Man, Woman, or Child. Without which you cannot prove to an Atheist that our Saviour was a True Prophet. Without which you cannot prove to a Sullen Quaker the Authority of that very Book (in which we have so may Proofs against them of Baptism in general,) viz. The Acts of the Apostles.

And thus I have enquired into the Apo­stolical practice in this Case of Baptizing In­fants, and, I thank God, that the more I have [Page 59] enquir'd, I have found the more and greater Satisfaction in the Case.

In the next place I am to enquire what Au­thority they had for this practice of theirs, that is, I am to enquire whether I can find in all the New Testament that Infant-Baptism was any where Taught or Commanded. But I presume you'll be Content to trust me for this, till I may have a farther Opportunity, and in the mean while I am,

LETTER VI.

THE Second part of your great Objecti­on against Infant-Baptism is this, You find not in Scripture that any Infants were COMMAND­ED to be Baptized.

Now to this I cou'd give you this short An­swer: When the Disciples of Christ made and Baptized more Disciples than John, John 4.1, 2. Let any Man living tell me where the Com­mand is written in Scripture, which gave these Disciples of our Lord Authority to Baptize at that time; and I will undertake to shew you, that the very same Command oblig'd them to Baptize Infants: This I do affirm, that they had then as much Command to Baptize Infants, as they had to Baptize either Men or Women: And do you, Sir, make the tryal if you please. Go and learn from Scripture where these Disciples had any Command then to Baptize the Elder sort, and if you do not find the same Command obliging them to Baptize Children also, I do here freely tell you that I dare yield you the Cause.

But to give a more particular Answer to this (as I have done to the former) part of your Ob­jection.

First, I will enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time.

Secondly, Whether it was Taught or Com­manded by him after his Death and Resurre­ction, before he Ascended into Heaven. And,

Thirdly, Whether it was taught by any of his Apostles after his Ascension.

(1.) I will make it my business at this time to Enquire from Scripture whether Infant-Baptism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time.

Sir, The Sadducees cou'd not find in all the five Books of Moses so much as one single Text which taught the Doctrin of a Resurrection, and therefore they Confidently deny'd the thing, and warmly disputed it with our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself. And you may be pleas'd to see how our Lord confuted and convinc'd them by a Text of Scripture which they had overlook'd, Mark 12.26.

Have you not read, said he, in the Book of Mo­ses, how God spake unto him, Saying, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja­cob? to which he added; But God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. And this was our Saviour's Scripture-Proof of a Resur­rection, and from these very words by just Rea­sonings and Consequences did he make the Truth of that great Doctrin appear to those very [Page 62] Sadducees themselves, who had so long and so stiffly oppos'd it.

It must indeed be acknowledg'd, that it re­quir'd a Piercing Eye to find out a Resurrecti­on in these words, I am the God of Abraham, &c. And yet so it was: The Resurrection was a Consequence that our Lord Himself then drew from them, and the Consequence was acknow­ledged to be good Scripture-Proof, and the Sad­ducees were wiser than to Object against it.

This I have observ'd to let you see, that there may be Scripture-Proof of a thing, tho' every Eye cannot discern it; and that tho' we cannot al­ways produce plain and express words of Scrip­ture in the defence of a Doctrin, yet if we can prove it by right and genuine Consequence, we do as much as our Saviour himself did in the Case of a Resurrection; and I hope that in good Man­ners and Civility to our Great Lord, you will allow such Proof as he made use of to be good and sufficient. But further,

There were a sort of Hereticks of Old call'd Macedonians, (and a spawn of them we have still amongst us) who deny'd the Divinity of the Ho­ly Ghost, and their great Cry was; Where do you read in Scripture that the Holy Ghost is God? And I do assure you, Sir, that it was tru­ly Confess'd that there is no such Scripture-Text, no such express words in the whole Bible; it is not expresly asserted (in terminis) either in the [Page 63] Old or New Testament, that the Holy Ghost is God; But what then? There are in Scripture such things said of the Holy Ghost, as by un­doubted Consequence prove him to be God; as to give you but one Instance of an Hundred: The Holy Ghost is said to be Omnipresent, Psal. 139.7. and from hence it necessarily follows as a very plain Consequence, that he must needs be God, because God only is Omnipresent.

And now, Sir, with a like manner of Proof I will fall upon the matter in hand. Tho' we find not in Scripture any such express Com­mand as this, That Infants shall be Baptized; yet we find such things given in Charge concerning them, as necessarily Imply, that they ought to be Baptized; that is to say, we find in Scripture that Children ought to be admitted into the Church of Christ, and we there likewise find that there is no other ordinary way of admit­ting into that Church but by Baptism.

And to give you full satisfaction in this mat­ter, I will here undertake briefly to prove, That our Blessed Lord and Saviour did in his Life-time teach, both that Children are to be admitted in­to his Church, and that they are to be admitted by Baptism.

That Children were admitted into God's Church of old, is as well known as that they were then Circumcis'd. And what, I pray, is the Christian-Church but that old Church Reform'd? [Page 64] The Root and Stock are still the same, tho' as for the Branches, some, viz. the Jews, were lop­ped off, and others, viz. the Gentiles, are graffed in, as you may read at large, Rom. 11.16, 17, 18.

‘Christianity indeed (as one speaks very well) is Judaism explain'd into its Spiritual sense and meaning, and hence it is that the Christians in the New Testament are called Jews; that is, Re­form'd Jews, Rev. 2.9. and sometimes the Is­rael of God, Gal. 6.16. and sometimes the Children of Abraham, Gal. 3.7. And hence it is that the Christian-Church is called the New-Jerusalem, because it is the Old Jerusalem (or Jewish Church) renew'd and enlarg'd. Rev. 3.12.’

But now, Good Sir, suppose that our Church should be taken down to the very Foundation, and built again a great deal larger and more Glorious than now it is; What think you? Might we not then take our Children along with us to our Church as well as we do now? Cer­tainly the Re-building and Beautifying it wou'd take away no one's privilege of entring into it.

In a resembling manner, there was in­deed a great Reformation made by our Savi­our in the Church of God, a great deal ta­ken away, and a great deal added, and almost the whole every ways alter'd for the better; but what is all this to any ones privilege of enter­ing into it? Nay, but certainly as Children were [Page 65] admitted into the Church before that Reforma­tion, so are they to be admitted still, unless it be a part of the Reformation to exclude them.

And thus, upon the whole matter, 'tis very plain, that unless our Blessed Saviour has FOR­BIDDEN Infants to be admitted into his Church, they are still to be admitted whether he has COMMANDED their Admission or no.

And here I might fix the Controversie, and justifie their Admission, till you can prove that our Lord has Forbidden it, which I dare ven­ture to say you will never be able to do; Nay, but our Lord has not only not forbidden their Admission into the Church, but he has expresly Taught and Commanded it. For,

First, That Children ought to be admitted in­to his Church, he has expresly taught in that Celebrated Text, Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Which Text was spoken by way of Repri­mand to his Disciples, who wou'd have kept Children from him; and therefore when he re­prov'd them and said, Suffer little Children to come unto me, he must needs mean such Children as they wou'd have kept from him; but these were such as were brought unto him, and such as he took up in his Arms, and were therefore little Children in a literal Sense.

The words indeed are, Suffer little Children to come unto me; and therefore say some, let them stay then till they can come: But if this was our Saviour's meaning, might not his Dis­ciples very readily have answered? Lord, we have not hinder'd any such from coming that cou'd come, all that we have done was only to Rebuke those that brought their Children.

And thus if Children might not be brought to Christ, but if they were to be kept back till they themselves cou'd come to him, I cannot see what the Disciples had here done for our Lord to be displeased at; and yet the Text says positively, That he was much displeased, and said, suffer little Children to come unto me, Mark 10.14. And therefore unless we have no more Grace or Wit than to say, that he was displeas'd at no­thing; we must allow, that the Children whom he wou'd have suffer'd to come to him, were such as his Disciples would have kept from him, and these were such as were brought unto him, and such as he took up in his Arms.

But perhaps you'll say, What then is the meaning of the words TO COME UNTO ME? Suffer little Children to come unto me: Sir, I find an Answer made to this by Mr. Walker, viz. ‘That to come unto Christ, signifies, to be­come a Disciple of Christ; for so when our Saviour saith, Come unto me all ye that Labour, his meaning is, become Disciples to me, Mat. [Page 67] 11.28. And again, when it is said, Behold Je­sus Baptizeth, and all Men come to him; The meaning is, that they all become his Dis­ciples, John 3.26. And again, Ye will not come to me, said our Lord, That is, ye will not become my Disciples, John 5.4.’

The same excellent Author has observ'd from Dr. Hammond, that we may read the word Pro­selyte in the very Original Text, Mat. 19.14. For there the Original words are [...], which turn'd into English do even Compose and make up the word Proselyte; and so in St. Matthew, I say the Original words are, Suffer little Chil­dren ( [...], that is,) to be Proselytes to me, or to be my Disciples: For to be a Proselyte, and to be a Disciple is the same thing. As when our Lord said to the Scribes and Pharisees that they had Compass'd Sea and Land to make one Proselyte; the meaning is, that they had com­pass'd Sea and Land to make one Disciple.

And thus has our Lord very plainly taught us that little Children must be suffer'd to become his Disciples; yea, and he farther adds, that they are not to be forbidden, and then gives such a Reason for it, as may put the matter beyond all Dispute, For of such is the Kingdom of God: That is, little Children are not to be forbidden becoming his Disciples; because of such, even of such as were brought unto him is the King­dom of God; both the Kingdom of Grace, which [Page 68] is the Church Militant here on Earth, and the Kingdom of Glory, which is the Church Tri­umphant in Heaven.

And thus we have a plain Scripture Text, wherein our Blessed Lord has very clearly taught us, that little Children are to be suffer'd, and not to be forbidden being admitted into his Church.

And this is according to that ancient Prophe­cy, foretelling the Conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity. Thus saith the Lord God, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the People, and they shall bring thy Sons in their Arms, and thy Daughters shall be carryed upon their shoulders, Isa. 49.22.

And this is no more than what our Lord himself did fortell, when he so plainly intima­ted, that there should be Lambs in his Flock, as well as Sheep, John 21.15.

But, Sir, if you wou'd see more, and larger Proof of this matter, you may consult Mr. Bax­ter's Book called Plain Scripture-proof of Infants Church-Membership and Baptism, wherein he has proved that Children ought to be admitted into Christ's Church by no fewer than Six and twen­ty distinct Arguments.

Well: But then the next Question is, How are they to be admitted? I Answer by Baptism, for ordinarily there is no other way of Admis­sion, as I shall prove by and by.

But here I will take notice of an Objection that I find has been often started upon this oc­casion; If little Children are to be admitted into Christ's Church, and if there be no other way of admitting them but by Baptism, Why then did not our Lord Baptize those Children that were brought unto him? I answer, Because our Lord never Baptized any with Water. But then it may be ask'd again, Why did he not Command his Disciples to Baptize them? I An­swer again, Because his Hour was not yet come; for he never, that we read of, Commanded his Disciples to Baptize any, or any to be Baptized by them till after his Death and Resurrection.

But, Sir, Give me leave briefly to remind you of what I have observ'd in my first Letter con­cerning the outward and the inward part of Baptism, for I therein shewed you that the Mini­sters of Christ do but Baptize with Water, which is the outward part of that Sacrament; 'Tis Christ himself who Baptizeth with the Holy Ghost, or with the Spirit, which is the inward part: And here I will farther observe, that our Lord has not so ty'd up himself to the use of out­ward means, but he can if he pleases, and will for just and wise Reasons perform the inward part without them.

For thus, should an Infidel or a Jew be Con­verted to Christianity, and earnestly desire Bap­tism, and should the Ministers of Christ, to whom [Page 70] he has the opportunity of applying himself for that purpose, be all so unfaithful as to refuse to Baptize him, yea tho' he sought and begg'd of them so to do with Tears; In such a Case as this where the outward Baptism with Water was so far from being slighted, that it was earnestly de­sir'd, and yet cou'd not be had upon any terms whatsoever; In such a Case as this (I say,) I cannot think that the unfaithfulness of Christ's Ministers in dispensing the outward part of the Sacrament would hinder our Lord from doing the inward part, which is to Baptize with the Spirit.

And this seems to have been the Case of the little Children brought unto him; His Disciples rebuked those that brought them, and wou'd not by any means have had them come unto Christ, or become his Disciples: And for this our Lord ( [...]) was very much displeased.

And in this great displeasure he seems to have intimated thus much to them; That tho' they or any other of his Ministers should at any time refuse to admit such for Disciples, whom he would have admitted, and should therefore re­fuse to do the outward solemn part of Admission as they ought to do, yet this wou'd be no rea­son with him that he should refuse to do that in­ward part which he does himself perform.

And accordingly he took up those very Chil­dren in his Arms and blessed them, viz. with [Page 71] Spiritual Blessings, and may therefore in some Sense be said to have Baptized them; I mean, to have Baptized them with the Spirit, which is the inward part of Baptism, and the only part that Christ ever did or does. But,

(2.) As our Lord himself Received and Com­manded Children to be receiv'd into his Church, so likewise has he plainly taught us that they are to be admitted by Baptism; yea, and that ordinarily they cannot otherwise be admitted, For except a Man be born of Water and of the Spi­rit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.5.

In which Text, By the Kingdom of God, ta­ken in its lowest Sense, must be meant the Chri­stian Church, for so is the Christian Church very frequently call'd in the New Testament, The King­dom of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven: And this is that Kingdom of God, viz. The Church of Christ, into which there is no entrance (or­dinarily) but through the Gate of Baptism.

The Text makes no exception, for tho' the English words are, Ʋnless a Man be born again, yet by Man must be understood Mankind, no Sex or Age excluded; for the Original word, Translated Man, signifies any one; ( [...]) except any one be Born again, &c. Whosoever, or of what Age soever they be, except they be Born again of Water and of the Spirit, that is, except they be Baptized, they cannot enter into [Page 72] that Kingdom of God which is the Christian Church.

And so says the Apostle very expresly, Name­ly; That we are all Baptized into that one Body of Christ, which is his Church, 1 Cor. 12.13. And so again, we read of being Baptized into Christ, that is into Christ's Body, his Church, Gal. 3.27. Yea, it is there said, that so many as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, that is, are incorporated into that Body whereof Christ is the Head. And accordingly I have observ'd that there is nothing more usual in Antiquity, than for Baptism to be called Ecclesiae janua, the Gate of the Church.

‘ Baptism, says our very Learned Bishop, is the Door whereby we enter into the Church, the Gate that lets us into Christ's Fold, and the first step to Fellowship with God, and with his People; and hence it was that the Font was used to be placed at the Door or entrance of the Church, to signifie that by this we come into the Congregation of Christ's Disciples, Aqua Genitalis, p. 447.’

But I'll say no more of this, both because it is so plain, and because that it is not, that I know of, deny'd by our Adversaries; Mr. Tombs wou'd not deny it in all that Controversie between him and Mr. Baxter; Nay, but in his Apology, p. 58. ‘I grant, says he, that Baptism is the way and manner of Solemn Admission into the Church; [Page 73] and says Mr. Grantham in his Friendly Epistle, Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ, necessary to the Admission of all Men to the privileges of his Church, p. 31.’ And the Author of your little Book notes upon 1 Cor. 12.13. ‘that we are by Baptism added to the Bride the Lamb's Wife, as he there calls the Christian Church;’ And again in his Note upon Heb. 6.1, 2. He says, that ‘ Baptism is an Ordinance for the So­lemnization of the Soul's visible Marriage-U­nion with Christ; that is, we are united and wedded to Christ by Baptism, as we are there­by incorporated into, and United to that Church which is his Spouse.’

But now it being so very plain (our Adver­saries themselves not denying it) That there is no other visible way of Admitting into Christ's Church but by Baptism, it necessarily follows, that if Children ought (as I have before prov'd) to be admitted into that Church, then they must be Baptized into it.

Sir, Should the King Command you to car­ry your pretty little Child into his Presence-Chamber, you wou'd not I think once ask or question, whether you must carry him in at the door, you wou'd not I am sure be thought over-wise, shou'd you say, My Lord, O King! Your Royal Command is that I shall bring my Son into your Presence-Chamber, but pray does your Ma­jesty mean that I shall bring him in at the Door?

Just so, Our Lord having Commanded that Children shall be received into his Church, shou'd any one question whether they must be received in at the Door (which is acknowleg'd to be Baptism) what Answer could he reasona­bly expect but to be laugh'd at?

And thus, Sir, wonder not that there is no such express Command in Scripture as this, That Infants shall be Baptized; For Christ's Command to receive them into the Church is sufficient; and there was no need of any such second Command to receive them in at the door, or to Baptize them. In short,

Our Lord has plainly taught us, that little Children must be admitted into his Church, Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God, Mark 10.14. And he has plainly taught us, that there is no other way of being admitted into his Church, but by Baptism, Except any one be born of Water and of the Spirit, he can­not enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.5. And from hence I frame this Argument,

There is no other way of Admission into Christ's Church but by Baptism; But little Chil­dren must be admitted into Christ's Church; Therefore they must be Baptized.

And this I am perswaded is very good Proof, because 'tis such Proof as our Lord made use of against the Pharisees, to convince them of a [Page 75] Resurrection; and such Proof as the Learned Defenders of our Faith are forc'd to make use of against the Macedonians, to convince them that the Holy Ghost is God.

And thus I have enquir'd how Infant-Bap­tism was taught by our Saviour in his Life-time.

I should now in the Second Place Enquire, whether Infant-Baptism was taught by him after his Death and Resurrection, before he Ascended into Heaven.

But this shall be the Subject-matter of my Next, which you may expect by the next op­portunity from,

LETTER VII.

I Go on (as I engag'd my self in my Last) to enquire,

Secondly, Whether Infant-Baptism was Taught or Commanded by our Saviour after his Death and Resurrection, before he Ascended into Hea­ven.

And all that he Taught or Commanded con­cerning Baptizing with Water, at that time may be readily found in these two Texts, Mat. 28.19. and Mark, 16.15, 16. Both which it is my design at this time very particularly to Consider.

Now the Words of the first of these Texts are these in our English Bibles. Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. But, Sir, Be pleas'd to know, that the Word Transla­ted Teach, expresly signifies Disciple; Go ye therefore Disciple all Nations, &c. For [...] and [...] are the same thing, and are rightly render'd to make Disciples John. 4.1.

For the understanding of which, you must know that our Lord (as himself has told us) was not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel, Mat. 15.24. His first endeavours were [Page 77] to Disciple the Jews, and accordingly it was on­ly in Judea, that any were Discipl'd and Bap­tiz'd by him or by his Disciples during his Life-time, as you may see by Comparing, John 3.22. with John 4.1.

Well: But now that he was a leaving the World, Now that the Partition-Wall was to be broken down, he enlarges his Commission to his Disciples, and they were not for the fu­ture to Disciple and Baptize in the Land of Ju­dea only, but they were now to Disciple and Baptize all Nations, even the whole Gentile World, Go ye therefore ( [...]) Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them, &c.

Which Command and Commission was first given to those Eleven Apostles, Mat. 28.16. who were all by Nation Jews or (as St. Paul ex­presses it) Israelites according to the Flesh, Rom. 9.3, 4. But, pray now, good Sir, Let us here Consider, what then was, and had always been the way of Discipling or Proselyting these Gen­tiles to the Jewish Church.

Truly 'tis most certain that when any of these Gentile Nations were converted to Judaism, that not only themselves but their Children, to­gether with themselves, were also Circumcis'd and receiv'd into that Ancient Church, when the Door was open'd to take in the converted Parents, not the least of their Infants (being but Eight Days old) was excluded; Nay, but [Page 78] no sooner was the Gentile Proselyte Circum­cis'd, and made a Member of the Jewish Church, but by the very Law of Circumcision were all his Male-Children at eight Days Old to be Circumcis'd and made Members likewise.

Thus stood the Case between the Jews and Gentiles; then the Gentile-Children together with their Parents were Discipl'd and Receiv'd into that Church of Old.

But then certainly, the Apostles who had so lately been of that very Church, and knew no other way of Discipling the Gentile Nations, but this of Discipling their Children together with their Fathers; Certainly, I say, these Apo­stles could not otherwise understand the Com­mand to Disciple and Baptize all Nations, than as obliging them to Disciple and Baptize the Children as well as the Fathers.

For, here was no exception to exclude them; The Command was general, Go, Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. All Nations with­out exception, and Children are a part of the Nations, Yea, and a very great part too, and therefore why they should not be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd as well as any others, for my part, I can see no Reason.

Nay, but certainly, unless it was the will of our Lord that Children should be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd with the rest of the Nations, he would have said something to except them; he would [Page 79] have told his Apostles that they must not Disciple or Receive such Infants into the Christian Church, as were Receiv'd and Discipl'd into their Jewish Church. No, he would have said, you must not mistake me, tho' I have commanded you to Disci­ple and Baptize all Nations, yet I hardly mean one half of the Nations; for I do not mean so much as one Child or Infant belonging to them. And thus Indeed must our Lord be supposed to have Interpreted his Command to his Apostles, had he excluded Infants out of the Command.

And then again, had they been thus taught to Disciple and Baptize no Infants, not one of all the Nations but the Adult and grown Persons, methinks some Charitable Body or o­ther in the Name of the Poor Children should thus have lamented and condol'd their Case.

‘And is it the Christian Church that is now the true Church of God? Time was, when the Jewish Church was only so, and then was the the happy time for us Poor Babes and Children! For had our Gentile Fathers been then Converted, Circumcis'd and Receiv'd in­to that old Church of God, We their little In­fants must not have been left behind: No, but the Door into which our Fathers must have enter'd then, would likewise have stood open for us their Children too. But now, in the Christian Church, it seems, 'tis other­wise; Alas, the Door is now close shut, and [Page 80] barr'd to keep us poor Infants out; There is no place for us in this New Church of God; No, but tho' our Fathers are Baptiz'd and Grafted into the good Olive-Tree, (as the Christian Church is call'd) Yet We, God help us, We must remain Branches of the Wild Olive still, (as the Heathen World is term'd.)’

And thus when the Apostles Discipl'd and Baptiz'd the Gentile Nations into the Church of Christ, had they excluded such Infants and Children as with their Parents were receiv'd into the Jewish Church of Old, the Case of these Infants and Children might justly have been thus Condol'd.

But our Lord, who was once an Infant himself, and as such receiv'd into the Jewish Church, he has not indeed forbidden Infants now to be receiv'd into his; No, he has given no such oc­casion of Complaint against him, for the Com­mand is Plain and Clear for the Discipling and Baptizing all Nations, not an Infant excepted that I can find.

But Sir, The grand Objection follows in the next Verse, Teaching them to observe all things Whatsoever I have commanded you, Mat. 28.20. And from hence our Adversaries very confidently argue, That none are to be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, but such as are Capable of being taught too, which Infants and Children they boldly say are not.

But to this I answer; First, 'Tis said of our Lord, That he preached Peace to them that were a far off, and to them that were nigh, Ephes. 2.17. But how did he preach Peace to these Ephesians that were a far off? Why he preached Peace to them, by Teaching and Commanding his Apo­stles to Preach to them.

And thus did the Apostles teach Infants and Children, by Teaching and Commanding the Parents to teach them, and thus only it was, that they were to Teach all Nations when they Discipl'd and Baptiz'd them, viz. they were themselves immediately to Teach the elder sort, and they were to teach Children by Teaching their Parents, and others to teach them, as our Lord preached Peace to those afar off, by Teach­ing others to Preach to them.

And, Dear Sir, I'll look the Objection once over again, The whole Command and Com­mission given to the Apostles was this, Go, Dis­ciple all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoe­ver I have Commanded you. From which last words is the Objection rais'd, that none are to be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, but such as may be taught.

To which I farther answer, That if None are to be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, but such as are also taught, then none are to be Discipl'd and [Page 82] Baptiz'd but such as are also taught to observe all things whatsoever our Lord Commanded, for so says the Text expresly, not only Teaching them, but Teaching them to observe all things what­soever I have Commanded.

But I verily believe that our Adversaries themselves Baptize those to whom they have not taught all things whatsoever our Lord com­manded. Yea, I may venture to affirm, that the Eunuch was Baptiz'd by Philip, and that the Jaylor and his Houshold were Baptiz'd by Paul and Silas, before they had been Taught the Twentieth part of what our Lord Commmand­ed.

And hence 'tis very plain that the Apostles Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, those to whom they did not then Teach all things whatsoever our Lord had Commanded, so that though these words, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoe­ver I have Commanded you, are added to the Command of Discipling and Baptizing; Yet it is not necessary that all should be so taught who are Discipl'd and Baptiz'd.

But still farther to invalidate this mighty Ob­jection, I'll here put a plain and familiar Case to You. Sir,

Suppose You should Command your Shepherd, saying, Go, Take care to preserve my whole Flock, Driving them from off the Starving Commons [Page 83] into a better Pasture; and providing to have them well and carefully Clipt.

And then should your Shepherd thus reason with Himself, and say, my Master's Com­mand is to have his whole Flock preserv'd, and driven into a better Pasture, and well Clipt; that is he means that none are to be Preserv'd and better Pastur'd but those that are also to be Clipt; and therefore the Lambs that are not to be Clipt, must all be left upon the starving Commons still, nor am I to take any Care to preserve them.

Sir, should your Shepherd thus foolishly ar­gue, I hope you see that his Argument in this Case against taking any care to preserve the Lambs, would be the very same with our Ad­versaries Argument against Discipling and Bap­tizing Infants. For,

May it please you, Sir, to have them set to­gether: Our Lord commanded his Apostles, Go, Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

And in like manner, You are suppos'd to Command your Shepherd, Go, take care and preserve my whole Flock, driving them from off the starving Commons into a better Pasture, and providing that they be well and carefully Clipt.

And then, as our Adversaries argue, from our Lord's Command, against the Infants of all Nations, that they are not to be Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, because not to be taught; even so is your Shepherd suppos'd to argue from your com­mand against the Lambs of your Flock, that they are not to be preserv'd or driven from off the Starving Commons into a better Pasture, because they are not to be Clipt. For thus, in one Word,

Our Lord's Command is, say our Adversaries, to have all Nations Discipl'd, Baptiz'd, and Taught; And therefore None are to be Disci­pl'd and Baptiz'd, but such as are to be Taught too, and consequently no Infants. And just so, Your Shepherd may be suppos'd to say, my Master's Command is to have all his Flock Pre­serv'd, better Pastur'd, and well Clipt, and therefore none of his Flock are to be preserv'd and better Pastur'd, but such as are to be Clipt too, and Consequently no Lambs.

And thus, This way of Arguing being so mightily insisted upon by our Adversaries (this in­deed being their great and most common Ob­jection) I have therefore taken leave by this ve­ry plain and easie Comparison to shew you the Vanity and Folly of it.

And I am persuaded that you will not coun­tenance or justifie this way of Arguing, left deluded by the like way of Reasoning, your [Page 85] Shepherd should really play you the Scurvy trick which I have onely now suppos'd.

Again, This way of Arguing may be very injurious to the Poor and Needy likewise, as I will here demonstrate to you by another very plain Case.

Suppose, Good, Sir, that you in your great Charity, should Command me saying, Go, Feed and Cloath all the Poor of the Parish, at My Cost and Charge, Teaching them the Duties of Poor People.

Now according to our Adversary's way of Arguing, tho' you should thus Command me to Feed and Cloath all the Poor without ex­ception, yet I ought not to Feed or Cloath so much as one Poor Child in the whole Parish, because Children are not to be taught the Du­ties of Poor People.

But really, Sir, I should not so narrowly in­terpret your Command, nor so much as once doubt but your will was, that the poor Children should all be Fed and Cloath'd as well as their Parents, tho' they could not then be so well taught their Duties.

And in short, You, Sir, may try me with the Command if you please, and I will certainly Feed and Cloath all the Poor of the Parish, e­ven the small and great together: Yea, and I will not only Teach all that are then to be Taught the Duties of Poor People, but I [Page 86] will Teach them in due time to Teach their Children the same, and so in Effect I shall Teach, as well as Feed and Cloath all the Poor of the Parish, so as to fulfill your Command in the se­veral parts of it.

And this is so very plain that you must needs see, how the Apostles in like manner were to fulfill our Lord's Command, to Disciple, Baptize, and teach all Nations, just as I have now shew'd you I should fulfill your Command, To Feed and Cloath, and Teach all the Poor of the Parish without any exception, as to Chil­dren or Infants.

I will add one very plain Case more out of Scripture, which I have already taken notice of upon another Occasion. 'Tis said Mat. 25.32. That all Nations shall be gathered before the great Judge, at the last Day, and it follows, That some shall be set on the Right, and some on the Left-hand of the Judge, and that he will say to those on his Right-hand I was an Hungred and ye gave me Meat, and to those on his Left, I was an hun­gred and ye gave me no meat, &c.

Now because none of this can be said to In­fants, must I conclude that they are no part of the Nations which shall be gathered before the Judge at the last Day? Truly with as much Reason and Truth may Children be excepted against, as not meant by the Nations to be ga­thered before the Judge, as they can be excepted [Page 87] against, as not meant by the Nations to be Di­scipl'd and Baptiz'd.

For thus, Our Adversaries will not have In­fants to be meant by the Nations to be Bap­tiz'd, Because these Nations are to be taught too, which Infants cannot be. And so it may be argu'd that Infants are not to be meant by the Nations to be gathered before the Judge; Because it must be said to these Nations, When I was an Hungred, You gave me Meat, Or ye gave me no Meat; Which to Infants cannot be said.

But most certain it is that Infants are meant by all the Nations to be gathered before the Judge, Mat. 25.32. and why they should not be meant by all the Nations to be Discipl'd and Bap­tiz'd, I must say again that I can see no reason.

The Command is plain enough and large e­nough to reach Infants as well as others, Go, ye, Disciple all Nations, Baptizing them. For if all Nations are to be Baptiz'd, then are In­fants and Children to be Baptiz'd among the rest, unless you can shew me that they are here excepted, which I am well assur'd you cannot, for, That the following words (Teaching them to observe all things &c.) are no exception to their be­ing Discipl'd and Baptiz'd, I hope that I have abundantly clear'd to you after a very plain and undeniable manner.

And thus, I am Heartily perswaded that I find Infant-Baptism here taught by our Saviour, after his Death and Resurrection, before he [Page 88] Ascended into Heaven. Go ye, Disciple all Nati­ons (Infants not excepted) Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, &c. But then,

At the same time, between his Resurrecti­on and Ascension, we find that he also Com­manded his Apostles, to go into all the World, and to Preach the Gospel to every Creature. He that Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved; but he that Believeth not shall be Damned, Mark 16.15, 16.

And here, Sir, we have another very terri­ble Objection to be Answer'd, for from these words, He who believeth and is Baptized, our Adversaries are very Hot and Noisy in their As­sertion, That none but Believers are to be Baptized, and therefore no Infants. But to this I Answer,

First, That Infants either have Faith accord­ing to the Sense of this Text, or they have not; if they have such Faith, then they may be Bap­tized, as our Adversaries themselves will grant: But if they have not Faith according to the meaning of this Text, what shall I say then? E'en the Lord have Mercy upon them, that they may not Die in that Faithless Infant-state, for the Text says positively, That he who Belie­veth not shall be Damned.

Nothing can be plainer than that this Text speaks of Faith, in such a sense as makes the want of it Damning; but that Infants want Faith, so as to be Damned for the want of it, May my Tongue cleave to the Roof of my Mouth, ra­ther than say so.

Secondly, It might truly be said, that he who Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved, and yet it wou'd not thence follow, that Men ought first to Repent before they Believe, for that is im­possible to be done: 'Tis Impossible that any Man should Repent and turn unto God, but he must first believe that there is a God.

And thus, As it could not be true, That Men ought first to Repent, and then to Believe, tho' it should be said, That he who Repenteth and Belie­veth shall be saved; So neither is it necessarily true, That we ought first to Believe, and then to be Baptized; because it is said, That he who Belie­veth and is Baptized, shall be saved.

Thirdly, I dare say, That he who serveth God faithfully all the days of his Life, and is Bapti­zed, shall be saved.

But what then? You will not I hope from hence Conclude, That none are to be Baptized till they have served God faithfully all the days of their Lives, or till they are just a Dying. Even so, when it is said, He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved, you ought not from hence to Conclude, that none are to be Bapti­zed, till they have Believed.

'Tis indeed the very same Case. If none but Believers are to be Baptized, because it is said, He who believeth and is Baptized shall be saved; Then none but dying Persons are to be Bapti­zed, because it may as truly be said, That he [Page 90] who serveth God truly all the days of his whole Life, and is Baptized, shall be saved.

Lastly, Tho' you and I were Baptized in our Infancy, yet at the day of Judgment, that great day of Salvation, when the Judge shall ask what we have done to be saved? I doubt not, Dear Sir, but we may then chearfully Answer, that we have Believed and were Baptized. And assure your self, that the Merciful Judge will not then reply; But did you first Believe, before you were Baptized? For, Good Sir, there is no such Condition of Salvation in the whole Bible. It is not written in Scripture, That except you Be­lieve, you shall not be Baptized; or he who believeth not, shall not be Baptized; or let a Man first Be­lieve, and then let him be Baptized. No, there are no such Texts.

Indeed, there is a Text which says, Except ye become as little Children, ye cannot enter into the (Church, or) Kingdom of God; But it is no where said, That little Children must first become Men, before they shall enter into the (Church, or) King­dom of God.

And now Sir, I presume that I may have your good leave to Conclude for this time.

Having sufficiently Consider'd the Texts, wherein we find all that our Saviour Taught from his Resurrection to his Ascension, concern­ing Baptizing with Water; and I am perswaded that in the two Texts put together, there is [Page 91] not one Syllable against Infant-Baptism, but clear Proof for it in the first Text: yea, and the se­cond Text does so far plead for the Baptizing of Infants, as it makes Baptism generally Necessary, in order to Salvation. He who Believeth and is Baptized, shall be saved.

And now in the Third and Last Place; I am further to enquire, whether Infant-Baptism was taught or Commanded by the Apostles of our Lord after his Ascension into Heaven.

But this shall be my business in one Letter more, which I design upon this Subject, and which you may expect by the next return of this Bearer from,

LETTER VIII.

I Am now to enquire in the Third and Last Place, whether Infant-Baptism was taught or Commanded by the Apostles of our Lord af­ter his Ascension into Heaven.

And here the very first time that they taught and practised Baptism, what great Reason we have to believe that they then practised Infant-Baptism, I have formerly shew'd you, and now again, by the good help of God, I will endea­vour still farther to shew you, that Infant-Bap­tism was taught and Commanded by them, at the same time likewise. See Acts 2.38.

Repent and be Baptized every one of you, said St. Peter there, to such an Assembly as can never be supposed to have been without Children; for it was a Throng which was occasion'd by a sudden Report of a very wonderful and surprizing thing. ‘'T was such a mixt Crowd as is wont to flock to­gether when a Fire happens, or any Fray is Fought, or Game is Play'd, or Show is Seen;’ as Mr. Walker has represented that sudden As­sembly.

And this indeed is not much or very heartily deny'd: But our Adversaries Object and say, [Page 93] That tho' St. Peter spoke to such an Assembly, and bid them be Baptized every one of them, yet He cannot be supposed to have spoken to the Infant-part of the Assembly, because he bid them first Repent. Repent and be Baptized, every one of you. To which I might Answer,

First, That he may very well be supposed to have spoken to Infants and Children, even when he said Repent; for I find in Scripture that Children have been concern'd in the Exercises of Repentance, as in that great Fast-day proclaim'd by Jehosaphat, When all Judah gather'd themselves together to ask help of the Lord, you may meet with their little Ones, and their Children among the rest, 2 Chron. 20.13. Yea, and when the Prophet Joel Exhorted to a general Repentance, even to Sanctifie a Fast, and to call a Solemn Assembly; he not only directed that the Elders should be As­sembled, but even that Children and such as suck'd the Breast should be so too, Joel. 2.16. But,

Secondly, Tho' it was true, that Children could not be concern'd in St. Peter's Exhortation to Re­pent, yet this would be no just Cause or Impedi­ment why they might not be concern'd in the following Words, Be Baptized every one of you.

For pray, Dear Sir, Had the Apostle then said, Sell your Estates and give to the Poor, and be Baptized every one of you; Would you from thence have concluded, that none but Landed Men ought to have been Baptized; none but such [Page 94] as had Estates to sell? or would the Poor Man have been excluded from Baptism, for want of Lands and Tenements to dispose of? No cer­tainly. But had the Apostle so said, Sell your Estates and give to the Poor, and be Baptized every one of you: he could only have meant, that the Rich Men should Sell their Estates and give to the Poor, but that they should be Baptized every one of them, Rich and Poor together, and as well they who had no Estates, as they who had.

And just so, When he said, Repent and be Baptized every one of you, he could only mean, that they should first Repent who stood in need of Repentance; but that they should be Bap­tized every one of them, not only the Penitent, but they who needed not Repentance likewise.

Or suppose again, that the Apostle had said, Forgive your Enemies and be Baptized every one of you, What think you, Sir, might not the hap­py Men who had no Enemies have been Bap­tized, because they could not first forgive their Enemies? Yes surely, tho' they could forgive no Enemies, who had no Enemies to be forgiven by them; yet nevertheless they might have been Baptized as well as they, who having E­nemies did first forgive them.

For upon this supposition, that the Apostle had really said, Forgive your Enemies and be Bap­tized every one of you, he could only have meant [Page 95] that Persons qualified for Baptism ought not to be in a state of Enmity; and hence it wou'd have follow'd that they who were not at Enmi­ty with any, were the very Persons so qualify'd and fit to be Baptiz'd, without any more ado. But they who were in a State of Enmity, they indeed were first to get out of that State by for­giving their Enemies, before they could be fit for Baptism.

And thus, as he has said, Repent and be Bap­tized every one of you; he can only mean that Persons qualifi'd for Baptism ought not to be in an impenitent State. And hence it follows, that they who are not in an Impenitent State (as Children are not) are the very Persons qua­lify'd and fit for Baptism without any more a­do; but they who are in an Impenitent State, they indeed are first to get out of that State by Repenting, before they can be fit for Bap­tism.

And now, Good Sir, excuse the Repetition, whilst I briefly set these things together.

Suppose St. Peter had said, sell your Estates and be Baptiz'd every one of you, he must needs have meant that all should be Baptiz'd, as well they who had no Estates as they who had, and only that they who had Estates should first be obliged to sell them. Or,

Suppose he had said, forgive your Enemies and be Baptiz'd every one of you, he must [Page 96] needs have been understood as exhorting them all to be Baptiz'd; as well them who had no E­nemies, as them who had, and only that they who had Enemies should first be oblig'd to forgive them.

And so, As he has said, Repent and be Bap­tiz'd every one of you, he must needs mean that every one of them should be Baptiz'd, as well the happy Part of the Company who needed no Repentance, as the Part that did; and only that they who needed Repentance should first be o­blig'd to Repent. And accordingly our Blessed Lord and Saviour himself, who needed no Re­pentance, and therefore did not first Repent, was yet Baptiz'd, as well as they who did first Repent, because they needed Repentance.

And thus, the way so far thus clear'd, I will now venture on to the Promise annext to this Ex­hortation of St. Peter, whereby it will still more evidently appear that he has here taught the Baptism of Children.

For to perswade them to be Baptiz'd every one of them, Be Baptiz'd, said he, and ye shall receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and least they should mistake him as not meaning their Children together with themselves, he expressly adds, For the Promise is to you and to your Chil­dren.

The Promise was the same to them and to their Children, and they were to receive it by [Page 97] the same means, viz. by Baptism; for if the pro­mise might have been receiv'd without Baptism, in vain did the Apostles urge it as an argument to perswade them to be Baptiz'd.

So that 'tis very plain that Baptism was the Means whereby the promise of the Holy Ghost was to be receiv'd, and therefore as their Chil­dren were to receive it as well as themselves, it follows, that their Children as well as them­selves were to be Baptiz'd, that they might re­ceive it. And so says the Apostle, Be bap­tiz'd every one of you, and ye shall receive, &c.

But here perhaps you may be ready to ask, whether Baptism be necessary to our Receiving the Holy Ghost, or whether none else do receive it but they who are Baptiz'd.

To which I answer that Baptism is as neces­sary to our receiving the Holy Ghost, as a dili­gent Hand is necessary to make one Rich. The Diligent hand maketh Rich, says Solomon.

And therefore as Riches do sometimes in­deed by God's over-ruling Providence fall to the share, even of the Lazy and the Slothful, So by God's extraordinary Mercy is the Holy Ghost sometimes indeed given, even to the Ʋn­baptiz'd. But what then? shall a Man hope to be Rich without Diligence, because the Lazy are sometimes so? In like manner, shall any one hope for the Spirit without Baptism, because the Unbaptiz'd do sometimes receive it?

It would not be wisely argued should a Man thus dispute; Solomon tells us indeed that a Diligent hand maketh Rich, well and it may be so, but let them be ty'd up to his Rule that will; for my part I shall hold my self excus'd, hoping that Riches may be had in an easier way, e­ven as I sometimes see the Slothful have them.

And yet just such is his Argument who thus disputes. 'Tis the Apostles rule indeed, Be baptiz'd and ye shall receive the gift of the Ho­ly Ghost; well and it may be so, but let them be ty'd up to his Rule that will; for my part I shall hold my self excus'd, hoping for the Holy Spirit without any such Condition, even as I sometimes see that the Unbaptized receive it.

But still further: 'Tis objected on the other hand, that if the promise of the Holy Ghost was so annext to Baptism; methinks we should see more and better Fruits of it in those that are Baptiz'd.

To which I answer, That tho' it be very true that a diligent Hand maketh Rich, yet it is not every diligent Man that becomes Rich, for want of a good Use and wise Improvement, of what his diligent hand acquires and gives him a just Title to. So tho' Baptism has the promise of the Holy Ghost made to it, yet the Baptiz'd do not all bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit, for want of a good Use of that Spiritual [Page 99] grace and Influence, which their Baptism ac­quires, and gives them a Right and Title to.

But tho' the Diligent do not all become Rich for the aforesaid Reason, yet Diligence is still to be Exhorted to, as a great and necessary means of becoming Rich; and so, tho' the Bap­tized do not all bring forth the fruits of the Spi­rit, for the like Reason aforesaid, yet Baptism is still to be Exhorted to, as a great and necessary means of receiving the Spirit: Be baptized, says St. Peter, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And this indeed seems to have been the great and standing Argument of this Apostle; It was his usual way to Argue from the Inward part of this Sacrament to the Outward. For,

When the Holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius and them that were with him, Can any Man forbid Water, said our Apostle, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act. 10.47. So here in this Text, The promise of the Holy Ghost, says he, is to you and to your Children, and therefore be Baptized every one of you that you may receive it.

But Sir, Here is one Difficulty more to be Encounter'd still, for here it is that our Adver­saries have started an Objection, to which they Boastingly say, that we can give them no An­swer; but truly, Sir, the Reason is, because they will receive no Answer, and we cannot help that.

And therefore to deal fairly both with you and them, you shall first hear their Objection in its full force, and then our Answer, and you shall Judge between us.

Their Objection is this, That Children are not capable of Receiving the Holy Ghost, and that therefore 'tis all folly to Baptize them upon that ac­count. And farther, St. Peter's saying to that great Assembly, Act. 2.38. Be baptized every one of you, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, makes it very plain that he Exhorted none to be Baptized but such as were capable of receiv­ing the Holy Ghost; but of this the little Chil­dren were not Capable, and therefore were not to be Baptized.

This, Sir, is their mighty Objection, and I am pretty Confident they will acknowledge that I have not minc'd the matter, but have set it before you with all its strength.

And now then, to give a satisfactory Answer to it: I shall make it my business to prove to you that even Infants and Children are capable of re­ceiving the Holy Ghost, and this I shall endea­vour to do with all the plainness, and brevity, and closeness that I can. And therefore,

First, we hear it very often from our Adver­saries in a Challenging and Triumphant way, that if we could but shew in all the New Testa­ment any one Infant to have been Baptized, they would no longer dispute that Case with us. [Page 101] But, Sir, we can shew them an Infant in the Old Testament; yea, and an Infant in the New Testament too, that receiv'd the Holy Ghost: And why then will they dispute this any lon­ger?

We know that it is the Holy Ghost that San­ctifies us, and yet we read in the Old Testament that the Prophet Jeremy was Sanctified even before he came out of the Womb, Jer. 1.5. And if we will take an Angel's word for it, we are assur'd, in the New Testament, that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his Mother's Womb, Luke 1.15.

And here I will add, what I before observ'd, of the little Children who were brought unto Christ, and whom he took up in his Arms, viz. That he blessed them with Spiritual Blessings, and therefore 'tis evident that even these little Chil­dren did then receive the Holy Spirit; for we must mean nothing else by receiving the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, but receiving the Graces and Blessings of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, The Holy Job has most truly taught us, That a Clean thing is not to be brought out of an Ʋnclean, Job 14.4. No, but all are concei­ved and born in Sin, as well as he who said, Behold I was shapen in Iniquity, and in Sin did my Mother conceive me, Psal. 51.5. But then if all our Children are so conceived and born, and can­not be brought clean out of an unclean thing, I [Page 102] am ready to tremble at the thought, what would become of them if they were not capable of some Spiritual Cleansing! certainly, Dear Sir, they are, or else 'tis most certain that no unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God.

Again, Our Lord has told us, That that which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, (sinful Flesh of sinful Flesh) John 3.6. and there he also teaches us, that what is only so born cannot see the King­dom of God, for says he ( [...]) except one be born again, that is, born again of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. And this therefore would be another hard saying for our Children, if they were not capable of being born again of the Spirit.

And further, If Children are Holy, they must be made so by the Holy Ghost; For it is that Ho­ly Spirit which Sanctifies or makes Holy, and there­fore must the Children needs be so Sanctified who are said to be Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. And indeed, unless they are so, tho' their Angels may behold the Face of God; yet how shall they themselves ever come to see that Blessed Sight? Since we are expresly told, that without Holiness no one ( [...] is the Original word, and signifies no one, be it who it will, Man or Child, With­out Holiness no one) shall see the Lord, Heb. 12.14.

Thirdly, Dr. Fuller has observed, ‘That the great cause of Men's mistakes in this matter [Page 103] is this, They make the Body the Standard of the Soul, and are apt to think that the Soul grows bigger as the Body does; even as if our Souls were very little things when we are In­fants, in comparison of what they are when we become Men:’ Which is a very gross mi­stake indeed; for our Souls are not capable of any such growth, but as to that, are the very same when first infused into our Bodies, that they are ever after; the same in our Infancy, that they are in our Old Age; and therefore why our Souls, which as to their Substance are the same in every period of our Life, why they should at any time be incapable of receiving the Holy Ghost, or of being Sanctified thereby, Let them give you a Reason, who can find out a Reason to give, for I can find none.

But some there are, who will not yet believe the Spirit of Sanctification to be in Infants; no, not in Baptized Infants, because they can see no Sign or Expression of it.

To which I farther Answer, with the admir'd Bishop Taylor, "That it is no good Argument "to say, Here is no Seed in the bowels of the Earth, because there is nothing green upon the face of it. Nor is it a good Argument to say, That an Heir so long as he is a Child, is no Heir, because so long as he is a Child he differeth nothing from a Servant, or we see no sign of his being Heir, and Lord of all; as the Apostle speaks.

Nay, and further, When a Branch is En­grafted into the good Olive-Tree, it receives from it a kind of new Life and Nourishment, tho' we do not immediately see any fruits of its doing so. Even so when Infants are grafted into Christ by Baptism, and made Members of that True Vine (as he calls himself, John 15.1.) they are there­by made Partakers of a new Spiritual Life and Nourishment; tho' we do not presently see the good fruits of their being so.

Again, Christ's Body is his Church, and the Soul of that Body is the Holy Spirit; and when Infants are Baptized and Incorporated into that Body, they are thereby put under the Commu­nications and Influences of the Spirit, as every the least Part or Cubit added to our Statures, is thereby put under the Influences of our Souls.

For thus, ‘ Baptism, says Dr. Sherlock, is our Regeneration or New Birth, the Begin­nings of a New Life, because it Incorporates us into Christ's Mystical Body, which puts us under the Influences and Communications of his Life and Spirit; as when a Branch is En­grafted into a Stock, it receives nourishment and life from it.’ Discourse concerning the Na­ture of Ʋnity, &c. p. 24.

And says Dr. Scott (another of your justly Ad­mired Authors) ‘It is by his Blessed Spirit that Christ hath promised to be with us to the end of the World, Mat. 28.20. And Christ him­self [Page 105] hath assur'd us that upon his Ascension into Heaven, He would pray his Father, and he should give us another Comforter, meaning this Holy Ghost, that he might abide with us for ever, Joh. 14.16. And accordingly the Holy Ghost is vi­tally united to the Church of Christ, even as Souls are united to their Bodies; For as there is one Body or Church, so there is one Spirit which animates that Body, Eph. 4.4. So that when by Baptism we are once Incorporated in­to this Body, we are Entituled to, and do at least, de Jure, participate of the vital Influence of the Holy Ghost, who is the Soul of it.’ Chri­stian Life, Part 2. Vol. 2. Chap. 7. p. 76, 77.

Indeed we know not how every particle of Flesh that grows to our Bodies is immediately enliven'd by our Souls, and yet so it is: And just so, tho' we know not how, every Mem­ber that's added to the Body of Christ, is quick­ned by that Holy Spirit, which, as the Soul of that Body, Communicates all its Spiritual Life to it.

And, Lastly, That the Holy Spirit may be where we see no signs or expressions of it, is plainly taught by our Saviour himself, The wind bloweth where it lifteth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit, John 3.8. And so is every Infant that is born of the Spirit: The Spirit comes upon it [Page 106] though thou canst not tell how nor whence.

And all this I hope is very sufficient Proof, that even Infants and Children are capable of re­ceiving the Holy Spirit, and then according to St. Peter's Argument, who can forbid Water that they should not be Baptized, who can receive the Ho­ly Ghost as well as we? Act. 10 47.

And in short, Our Adversaries great Obje­ction is this, when St. Peter said, Be baptized eve­ry one of you, and ye shall receive the gift of the Ho­ly Ghost; he plainly taught that none are to be Baptized, but such as are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost. But of this (say they) little Children are not capable, and therefore are not to be Baptized.

To which I will now Answer, That when St. Peter said, Be Baptized every one of you, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; he plainly taught, that all are to be Baptized who are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost: But of this I have now prov'd little Children to be capable, and therefore they are to be Baptized.

And thus I am perswaded that the Baptism of Children is most certainly taught by St. Pe­ter, in this very Text, Repent and be Baptized every one of you for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the Pro­mise is to you and to your Children. The plain sense of which Text is this, The promise of the Holy Ghost is to you and to your Children, and [Page 107] therefore be Baptized every one of you, you and your Children, that you may receive it.

And thus I have finished the Task which you set me, and I hope you need not be remember'd that I have thus far been Answering your Grand Objection, That you no where find in Scripture, either that any Infants were Baptized, or Command­ed to be Baptized. And therefore it must be con­sider'd, that I could not fairly insist upon any other Arguments in the Defence of the poor Chil­drens Right to Baptism, but such as fell in the way, wherein your Objection has been my Guide to lead me; and yet I have some hopes that not­withstanding our Adversaries great pretences to Scripture, I have said enough to satisfie you, that there is not one Syllable in the Texts which they alledge against Infant-Baptism, but a great deal for it.

But, now then, Sir, I should hugely wrong the Cause, should I not here admonish you that there are Twenty and Twenty more Argu­ments still for the Baptism of Infants, which I have not so much as once touch'd or hinted at; for they came not within the Compass of my undertaking: So that if you'd be furnish'd with all the Plentiful variety of Arguments in this Case, you must consult the many excel­lent Writers upon this Subject, and particular­ly those very Learned Authors mention'd in my Fourth Letter. I am not willing to take their Ar­guments [Page 108] out of their hands, for I am not so vain as to think my self able to mend them. And therefore I will here conclude, unless it may please you to lay some further Command upon,

LETTER IX.

I Am very willing to take that One step more which you speak of, and at your request to set before you, so far as I am able, a true Notion of Baptism as to the Necessity of it, (which as you truly imagine) may give considerable Light to some difficulties relating to this Sacrament.

And here I will lay down this as a Funda­mental Rule; Namely, That when we have done all, we are unprofitable Servants, we can never me­rit at the hands of God the least of all his Mer­cies; but from whence then are all our hopes of his greatest, but from his own gracious promises?

Well: But 'tis every where plain in Scrip­ture that all his Promises are Conditional, made to us by way of Covenant or Contract, upon Condition that we do so and so, as he com­mands and requires us to do in his Holy Word

And thus the New Testement, which teaches us our whole Christian Duty, is called in the O­riginal, [...], the New Covenant; that is, 'Tis the Writing which contains the Sum of all God's Promises to us, and of our Engage­ments to him, which we are obliged to perform that we may obtain those Promises: And so his Promises on the one hand, and our Engage­ments on the other, make up that New Covenant which is the Sum and Substance of our Christian Religion.

And 'tis this New Covenant which gives us our great hopes of Salvation, of Heaven, and Eternal Happiness; For tho' we can do nothing to Me­rit or Deserve such infinite Blessings, yet as God has been pleased to Promise them upon such and such Conditions, our performance of these Con­ditions may give us a good Claim and Title to them.

For thus, Sir, should you Contract and Co­venant with me, to let me have and hold your Estate upon this Condition, That I shall year­ly Pay you for it one Pepper-Corn, tho' such a Payment would come vastly short of the worth of your Estate, yet by Virtue of the said Con­tract [Page 110] and Covenant, it would give me a just Claim and Title to it.

In like manner, God contracts and covenants with us to give us Heaven and Happiness, upon the Terms of our Faith and Repentance; and so tho' our Faith and Repentance come infi­nitely more short of the worth of Heaven and Happiness, than a Pepper-corn does of your E­state, yet by Virtue of the Covenant which God makes with us, to give us Heaven and Happiness upon these conditions of Faith and Repentance, Our performance of these Condi­tions gives us a good title to all That Heaven and Happiness, which are so graciously promis'd to us upon these Terms.

In short we cannot by our Faith and Repen­tance deserve and merit Salvation, no more than I could pretend to merit your Estate by paying a Pepper-Corn for it: No; but as all the title which my Punctual payment of a Pepper-Corn could give me to your Estate would be but a Covenant-Title; so 'tis no other but a­like Covenant-Title which our Faith and Re­pentance give us to Salvation; that is to say, they entitle us to Salvation only as they are the Terms and Conditions upon which God, in the New Covenant, has promised to save us.

And now, Sir, You very well know that no Covenant is of any force or Binding, till it [Page 111] is first sign'd and and Seal'd, till that Solemni­ty be first over we have no legal Title to the things Covenanted for; No, but be the contract never so advantageous, it must be first Seal'd and Sign'd, before we can claim the Benefit of it.

And thus has it pleas'd God after the man­ner of Men to ratifie his Covenants with Man­kind (as it were) with Sign and Seal, for so was Circumcision a Sign whereby the Covenant between God and the Jews was Seal'd and Confirm'd, Rom. 4.11. and till the Covenant was so Sign'd and Seal'd, it was of no force; there was no bene­fit to be claim'd by it, No, but the uncircum­cis'd Man-Child was to be cut off from God's People, that is, He was not to be reckon'd with those People who were in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.14

And as Circumcision was Then, So is Bap­tism Now, viz. A Visible Sign whereby the New Covenant between God and Us, is Seal'd and Confirm'd; and consequently till we are first Baptiz'd, we are no more in Covenant with God, than was the Uncircumcis'd Man-Child.

And now, Sir, I hope you see the Necessity of Baptism, as it is the Sign and Seal of that New Covenant which gives us all our hopes of Salvation. For,

As Faith and Repentance are necessary to our Salvation, as the Conditions of the New Cove­nant; [Page 112] So is Baptism necessary, as the Sign and Seal of that Covenant, to make it of force, and to give us a legal claim to the Blessings promi­sed on God's part, upon our performance of the Conditions promised on ours.

And thus it is, that to obtain Remission of Sins and Salvation, we are exhorted in the New Testament, as well to Seal the Covenant by be­ing Baptized, as to perform the Conditions of it, by Believing and Repenting, for so, He who Believeth and is Baptized shall be saved, says our Saviour, Mark, 16.16. And repent and be Bap­tized for the remission of Sins, says St. Peter, Acts 2.38.

But it may be ask'd; Will not the Conditi­ons save us without the Seal? Or will not Faith and Repentance save us without Baptism.

To which I answer, First, That in some ex­traordinary Case, the want of Baptism, (as the want of Circumcision was in the Wilderness) may be dispens'd with, when by reason of Im­possibilities or insufferable Inconveniences, the hearty desire and will to be Baptized may be accepted of for the Deed.

And because I would not be misunderstood, I will here take leave to clear to you my mean­ing after this plain manner.

Should a Gracious Prince covenant with his People to give them large Possessions, great Freedoms and Privileges upon some very easie [Page 113] Conditions, which he might therefore require that they should be severally oblig'd to the per­formance of under their own Hands and Seals.

Now should any of his Subjects be any ways hindred from Setting their Hands and Seals to such an advantageous Covenant, tho' they very much desir'd and endeavour'd so to do; I cannot think but a gracious Prince would in such a Case excuse and dispense with their not Sea­ling, and would by no means deprive them of the benefits of the Covenant for an unwilling Omission which they could no ways help.

But then, should any of them refuse to set their Hands and Seals to the Covenant out of meer Wil­fulness and Stubbornness, this sure would be inter­preted to be perfect contempt, and a down-right rejecting of the Covenant it self; and it is not to be imagin'd that the most gracious Prince in the World would bestow the benefits of such a Co­venant upon such wretched Despisers of it.

And this is our Case; The most Gracious King of Heaven covenants to give us all the Richest Blessings both of this World and the next, up­on very easie Conditions; which he therefore requires that we should be oblig'd to the per­formance of by our Baptismal Engagements.

But now, when it so happens that Baptism is not to be had, tho' it be never so much de­sir'd or sought for, I doubt not but our gra­cious God will hold us excus'd in such a Case; nor will he deprive us of the Benefits of the [Page 114] New Covenant, for want of that Baptism (which is the Seal of it) when we can no ways have it.

But then, should we Willfully and Stubborn­ly refuse so to Seal, or to come under any Bap­tismal Engagements; This certainly wou'd be look'd upon as holding the Covenant it self in despight, nor cou'd it be expected that our Gracious God, shou'd bestow the benefits of such an advantageous Covenant upon them, who shou'd so dare to despise it.

And therefore, Secondly, They who are so Confident that Faith and Repentance will or­dinarily and always save us without Baptism: They seem to me either to have too high thoughts of their Faith and Repentance, or too low thoughts of Salvation.

'Tis indeed a popular Argument to say, that sure God will never deny Salvation to a poor peni­tent Believer, tho' he shou'd refuse to be Baptized. But Sir, I may as well say, that sure you will not deny your Estate to any One who shall yearly pay you a Pepper-corn for it, tho' he refuse to Seal any Contract to that purpose.

For, as a Pepper-corn, without a Contract, or by it's own pure worth and merit can never be thought a valuable Consideration for your Estate, so Faith and Repentance without a Covenant, or by their own pure worth and merit can never be sufficient to purchase our Sal­vation. For pray, Dear Sir, what is our Faith and Repentance worth in comparison with Sal­vation? [Page 115] Truly not so much (as I said before) as a Pepper-Corn is worth in comparison with your Estate.

And therefore, as it is necessary that there should be a Contract to that purpose, and that That Contract should be first Seal'd, before your Estate can be laid claim to upon the poor Terms of paying a Pepper-Corn for it; so it is necessary, that there be a Covenant to That purpose, and that That Covenant be first Seal'd before Salvation can be laid claim to upon the poor Conditions of our Faith and Repentance.

And yet 'tis true, I do not for all this, abso­lutely deny Salvation to a good Man, for be­ing Unbaptized, even when he might have been so; for God's Mercies are Infinite, and he may do more than he has promis'd, and save even them, whom he is not oblig'd by any Covenant to save. Just, Good Sir, as you may dispose of your Estate to whom you please, tho' you be under no obligation of promise or covenant so to do. But who can wisely or with any good assurance expect this at your Hands? Such an uncontracted, uncovenanted bounty is more than can be reasonably hop'd for.

And certainly 'tis much a wiser Course to secure to our selves an Inheritance by a Covenant-right and Title to it, than to depend for it upon a­ny Man's unknown Will and Pleasure. And so 'tis certainly much safer to have a Covenant-title to the Kingdom of Heaven, than wholly [Page 116] to rely upon an uncertain extraordinary kind­ness, and to depend for it upon God's unknown and uncovenanted Mercies.

In short, the Summ of what I have now said is this; God will in some Cases save us without Baptism; viz. when Baptism is not to be had tho' it be desir'd and sought for; Yea, and for ought we know to the contrary, by his extra­ordinary uncovenanted Mercies he may save some who might be baptized but are not. But this is a great Uncertainty, such an Uncertain­ty as no wise Man will rely upon, or venture his Salvation upon such a perillous hazard; nay, but without the Covenant it would be Pride and Presumption in the best Man upon Earth to pretend to an ASSURANCE of Salvation, or to claim any Right to be saved, meerly upon the account of his own worthless Performances.

But then, on the other hand, when the New Covenant has been seal'd in Baptism, God is even then oblig'd to fulfil his Promises made in that Covenant to them who perform the Condi­tions of it: And as he is faithful in all his Pro­mises, and just in all his Dealings, he cannot, will not do otherwise. No, but tho' our best Performances come infinitely short of Salvation in Worth and Merit; Yet as God has covenan­ted to save us upon such worthless Conditions, we are hence ASSURED that he will do so.

But now, Sir, let me ask, First, Who can dis­pose of your Estate upon any Conditions, much [Page 117] less upon very mean Conditions, and seal Covenants to such purpose in your Name? Who, I say, can do thus, unless you do your self impower and commission him so to do; that is, unless it be some prime Servant or Steward, whom you have your self first Authoriz'd in that behalf?

But then, Who is it that in the Name of God may Contract and Covenant with us to give us his Heaven and Happiness upon any such worth­less Conditions as we are Capable of performing? Who, I say, dares take this power upon him, un­less it be given him from above; that is, unless he be a Lawful Minister of Christ, and a Steward of the Mysteries of God? 1 Cor. 4.1.

In a word, When we baptize we do in God's stead and in his Name Contract and Covenant with the Baptized Persons, and so we take upon us to oblige God himself to make good the Promises of that Covenant whensoever the Conditions of it are perform'd. But certainly then, when we take thus much upon us, even to bring God himself into Bonds, and under Obligations, it infinitely Con­cerns us to be throughly satisfy'd by what Autho­rity we do this, and who gave us this Authority.

‘You must needs understand this (says an excellent Author) that they who shall pre­tend to act in any Office by the King's Au­thority without a true Commission; The King will be so far from reckoning himself oblig'd to confirm what they shall act in his Name, that he will punish the presumption [Page 118] of such Officers, and those that adhere to them;’ and, Dear Sir, I will leave it to you to make the Application.

But then, Secondly, Let me ask again, Are there any more New Covenants than one? Or are not we and our Children to be saved by the same Covenant? And why then may not our Children together with our selves be ad­mitted to a Partnership in it? It was their Ancient Privilege to be admitted with their Parents in to Covenant with God, as you may plainly see, (and pray, Sir, take your Bible and look the place) Deut. 29.10, 11, 12.

And it is no strange thing for Children to be bound in Covenants as Copartners with their Parents, ‘For may not a Parent (says Mr. Bax­ter) take a Lease for Himself and his Child? Yea (says he) it is a plain natural Duty of Pa­rents to Covenant for their Children, when it is for their Good. And he asks the Questi­on, Were it not a Sin in that Parent who would refuse to engage his Child in an ad­vantageous Covenant, when else the Child would lose the benefit of it?’ And says our very Learned Bishop of Ely ‘A Parent may Contract with God on his Child's behalf, as a Guardian does in behalf of a Minor, or one under age;’ which passage with more of the same Nature is in That his admirable Discourse call'd Aqua Genitalis.

And now, Good Sir, That I may clear and [Page 119] conclude this whole matter very briefly, I will only farther ask leave to exercise your Patience with this very plain Case.

Should some great Person make the kind offer, to lease out his Estate to his Tenants and to their Children upon Condition, that they shall be bound (as oft as they shall be required) to do some little Suit and Service to him.

Should you then ask me, What is requir'd of such Persons as are to have these Leases Seal'd to them?

I could answer, That they are to promise and do some little Suit and Service to their Landlord, whensoever they shall be required so to do.

And should you ask again, But why then are Children bound in such Leases, when by reason of their tender Age they can neither pro­mise nor perform that Suit and Service?

Now to this I could likewise answer, Be­cause their Parents or Guardians promise and en­gage for them, (which is a very usual thing) which Promise and Engagement, when they come to age themselves are bound to perform.

And should you ask again, But how can Parents or Guardians promise truly for their Chil­dren, that they shall do such Suit and Service, when perhaps they may not live to do it; or else when they come to age, they may prove Undutiful and Stubborn, and may refuse to do it.

Even to this I could likewise answer, First, That if they do not live till they are capable of [Page 120] performing the Promises made for them; then 'tis most certain that they do not live till they are capable of Breaking them; and so far there­fore all's well enough, I hope. And Secondly, If when they come at age they prove Stubborn and Disobedient, and will not be perswaded to do the Suit and Service which their Parents or Guardians promis'd in their Names; Well, Sir, even in this Case of the Childrens disobe­dience, their Parents are still blameless, nor do their Promises made for their Children become Lyes and Falshoods, as some foolishly speak, for they were Covenant-promises, and all the meaning of them was, that their Children should perform them, or else forfeit their Lea­ses; So that if their Children do not perform them, they must e'en forfeit accordingly, and there's an end of that matter.

And thus, In the New Covenant, whereof Christ Jesus is the Mediator, Heb. 8.6. and which was the purchase of his Blood, as is intimated in that saying wherein his Blood is called the Blood of the New Covenant, that is, the Blood whereby the New Covenant was purchas'd Mat. 26.28. In this New Covenant I say which God, through the Merits and Mediation of Jesus Christ makes with all that will enter into it, He obliges himself on the one hand to bestow Hea­ven and Happiness upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance, and they who enter into this Covenant do on the other hand Promise and En­gage [Page 121] to perform these Conditions. And now Sir, If you ask, What is required of Persons to be Bapti­zed into this Covenant?

You have an Answer in our Catechism; Repen­tance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the Promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.

And if you ask again, Why then are Infants Baptiz'd, when by reason of their tender age they can­not perform them?

The Answer follows in the same Catechism, Because (as in the aforesaid Case) they Promise them by their Sureties, which Promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform.

And if you ask again, How can Sureties truly promise for such Infants that they shall perform these Conditions, when perhaps they may not live to per­form them; or else if they live to't, they may prove Stubborn and undutiful, and refuse to perform them?

To which I Answer as before, First, That if they do not live to perform, then neither do they live to break them, nor consequently is there a­ny breach of promise thus far to be accounted for. And, Secondly, If when they come at Age, they prove Stubborn and Disobedient, and will not be perswaded to perform what their Sureties promised for them: Well Sir, Their Sureties may be still blameless, nor do their promises be­come Lyes and Falshoods, as some Ignorant Peo­ples are apt to speak; for it is here to be noted that they are perfect Covenant-promises, and the [Page 122] meaning of them is, that the Children shall per­form the Conditions of the Covenant, or else for­feit and loose the Benefits of it.

And thus doubt not, Good Sir, but their Sure­ties may safely Promise for our Children, That they shall serve God truly all the days of their Lives, for the Enjoyment of Heaven and Happiness at the end of them.

And let us not say, that we dare not so Pro­mise for them, lest they should not perform, and so we become Liars; Oh let us not deprive them of the Benefits of the New Covenant out of any such vain and foolish fear, for thus runs the Co­venant whereof Baptism is the Seal: God promi­ses Heaven upon such and such Conditions, and their Sureties promise for our Children that they shall perform these Conditions for that Heaven; that is, they promise for our Children that they shall perform these Conditions, or else forfeit that Heaven which is not otherwise to be had or hop'd for but upon these Conditions.

And this is the true nature and meaning of those Promises which are made by Parents and Sureties in the Names of Baptized Infants, and you now plainly see, I hope, that there is no such danger in them as some poor silly people (whom you know and have heard) will be talking of.

And the danger wou'd be less still, did but all Sureties strictly observe what they are most excellently taught in the Exhortation made to them at the Conclusion of the Office for the Pub­lick [Page 123] Baptism of Infants in our Common Prayer-Books. And indeed,

When you have made an Advantageous Co­venant for your Children, as you desire that they should reap the Benefit of it, you must be sure to take care, that ( as soon as they shall be able to learn) they may be instructed in the Nature of it, and be taught the Conditions required of them; to­gether with the Advantages which will accrue to them by their performance of these Conditi­ons, as also the great Damages which they shall sustain by their wilful neglect of them.

Even so, it is not enough for their Sureties to engage Infants and Children in Covenant with God, but they must be sure to take care (especi­ally in case of the Parents Death or neglect) that the Children be taught (as soon as they shall be able to learn) what they are bound by that Covenant to perform; and what infinite Gainers they shall cer­tainly be by a Conscientious observance of the Conditions required of them, and what infinite Losers by their wilful and continued failure in the performance of these Conditions.

‘Those for whom you stand as Sureties, you ought (says the Pious Author of the Christian Monitor) to do your utmost towards their good Education in the knowledge of God and Reli­gion, according to the Charge given you, Es­pecially if the Parents Die, or prove negligent.’ Pag. 37.

And Dear, Sir, In case of the Parents Death, [Page 124] the State has provided that Children shall not want Guardians to take care of their Temporal Inheritances, and shall any blame the Church for taking as good care of their Souls, as the State has done of their Lands and Possessions?

Or why may not, why should not the Church require that in case of the Parents Death, their Children should have Sureties oblig'd to take care of their Eternal Affairs, as well as the State requires that they shall have Guardians oblig'd to take care of their Temporal?

Certainly, were we but as mindful and con­cern'd what may become of our Childrens Souls after our Decease, as we are concern'd, what may become of the Estates which we leave them; we should then be as willing and careful to pro­vide good Sureties for them, who are oblig'd to look after their Souls, as now we are careful to appoint them good Guardians, who are oblig'd to look after their Estates.

And, Sir, Let the Ill-advised World say what they please, there is as much Popery in the State for requiring Guardians, as there is in the Church for requiring Sureties for Children; unless the same care may not without Popery be taken of their Souls, which may without Popery be ta­ken of their Estates.

But perhaps you will say, That Sureties very seldom take this care of the Children's Souls, which I am speaking of.

I Answer, That neither are all Guardians [Page 125] Faithful and Just as they ought to be; so that you cannot still blame the Church for requiring Sure­ties, because of that general neglect of their Du­ties which you observe among them; but you must also blame the State for requiring Guardi­ans, because of that too general unfaithfulness, which among them likewise is both observ'd and lamented in this Age.

And then again, in case of the Parents negligence. As it is at the Request of those Parents that we be­come Sureties for their Children, we do thereby ac­quire some kind of Authority over those very Pa­rents themselves, as well as over their Children; and we may roundly reprove even those very Pa­rents, if they bring not up their Children in the Practice of those Christian Duties, which them­selves desired and procured us to Promise in their Children's Names; and much more may we Re­prove and Rebuke their Children being grown to years of discretion if then they neglect those duties.

And thus, if Sureties are bound thus to give such Reproof and Christian Admonition to those Parents and Children for whom they have un­dertaken to the Church, it is but a very necessa­ry Duty that they are thus bound to, and which all Christians are oblig'd to perform towards one another, as there is occasion. Those very Du­ties which we are oblig'd in General to perform towards one another, we are but more Particu­larly oblig'd to perform them towards those Children for whom we become Sureties.

And therefore, They who shun the Charita­ble work of becoming Sureties for Children, be­cause they are thereby oblig'd to Advise, Coun­sel, Exhort, and Reprove them as they find occa­sion; they may e'en as well refuse to become Christians, because by their very Christianity they are oblig'd (if there be a like occasion) to Advise, Counsel, Exhort, or Reprove all their Fellow-Christians.

And further, If some wou'd have all Sureties at Baptism to be laid aside, Because there are but few such Sureties that Conscientiously perform what they undertake; might not the same reason perswade others to lay Baptism it self aside, viz. Because there are but few who are Baptized that Conscientiously perform their Baptismal Engage­ments?

For thus, Here comes a bold Man, and makes a Noise, and quarrels with the Church, for Requi­ring that Children shall have Sureties to under­take for their Instruction and Education in the Christian Religion; and all the Reason that he can give against the use of such Sureties, is, because so few of them do as they say, or perform what they promise. And, Dear Sir, May not another bold Fellow be thus Encouraged to quarrel with the Church, for putting it upon all Persons to Renounce the Devil, the World and the Flesh at their Baptism, viz. Because but few who are Baptized do so Re­nounce these Spiritual Enemies in their Lives and Practices, as by their Baptismal-Engagements they are oblig'd to do.

Surely, if the general neglect of Sureties, as to the Obligations laid upon them, be a good Rea­son why there should be no Sureties at all; then the like general neglect of Baptized Persons, as to the Obligations laid upon them too, may be thought a good Reason why there should be none Baptized at all.

But, Sir, When People have nothing to say against the use of Sureties, but that the Duties which they take upon themselves are seldom re­garded; These very People may soon help to remove the Objection, Namely, by their under­taking for, and performing these Duties towards Children; whereby the usefulness and advantage of having such Sureties would be seen and felt, and the good and Charitable meaning of the Church would be understood and applauded where she requires, that there shall be for every Male-Child to be Baptized, two God-Fathers and one God-Mother, and for every Female, one God-Father and two God-mothers.

Upon the whole matter, Let us take care that our Children as well as our selves be admitted into the New Covenant by Baptism; For 'tis the one and onely Covenant by which both we and our Children are to be saved; and let us remem­ber how heavily God complain'd by his Prophet of some, who took away his Glory for ever from little Children, Micah 2.9.

'Tis true, When our New-born Infants die Unbaptized before we can possibly bring them [Page 128] to that Holy Sacrament, we may reasonably hope that in such a Case the want of Baptism will nei­ther be required of them nor us.

But when we refuse, or neglect to have them Baptiz'd, when we neither want time nor oppor­tunity so to do; then ‘whatever happens to the Innocents (says the Seraphick Bishop Taylor) we may well fear lest God should require their Souls at our hands. We know indeed (says he) that God is good, infinitely good, but we know that it is not at all good to tempt his Goodness; and yet he tempts God's Goodness, who ex­pects to meet his Children in Heaven, when himself shuts the Door (which is Baptism) a­gainst them;’ which, for ought he knows, is the only Door that stands open.

And now, Sir, As you put it upon me to be­gin these Letters with a very Solemn Protesta­tion, so I will here take leave to Conclude them with one too, and therefore in the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 1.23. I call God for a Record upon my Soul, that I would not for all the World have any Child of mine die unbaptized through my fault or negligence: Dear Sir, I say the Truth in Christ, I lye not, as the same Apostle protests again. And you may assure your self that I speak the Truth likewise, when I tell you that I am,