The Loyal Baptist, Part 2 · Section 4

The Loyal Baptist · Part 2 · Section 4

p. 8SECT. IV. Concerning Impoſing of Ceremonies.

1. ALL Divine Ceremonies ordained by Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, we reverence, and religiouſly obſerve and keep, as they were delivered.

2. That any Church ſince their days, hath juſt power to make and ordain Divine Ceremonies, to be any neceſſary parts of the Worſhip of God, we ſee no ground to believe; much leſs, that ſuch Ceremonies may lawfully be impoſed under pain of Excommunication, Baniſhment, Impriſonment, Loſs of Eſtate and Life. For tho it is certain, God has given power to the Rulers of the World, to make, change, or diſannual Laws in point of Civil Government; yet we believe all the Power on Earth cannot make one Inſtitute or Divine Ceremony in Religion. And therefore we cannot but think the Church of England erred from the Rule of Righteouſneſs, in decreeing Rites and Ceremonies which God has not commanded.

3. For when we ſee how ſharply fome were reprehended by St. Paul, for bringing the Chriſtian Churches in Galatia under ſome Legal Ceremonies, which once had a divine Original and Uſe in the Church of God, as Invaders of the Liberty wherewith Chriſt had made them free; averring alſo, That if they were ſubject to them, Chriſt ſhould profit them nothing. Gal. 5. 1, 2. We can ſee no ground to free the Proteſtants from Sin, who either p. 9take up Scriptureleſs Ceremonies from the Papiſts, or invent Ceremonies themſelves; but leaſt of all, when they force Men, will they, nill they, to conform to ſuch Ceremonies, or elſe to be ejected, and delivered up to Satan. And ſurely it was very unreaſonable for her Biſhops to conſent to a Law, that pious Men, only diſſenting in theſe things iiSee the 35th of Elizabeth.from the Church of England, ſhould be baniſhed, or elſe hanged as Felons, without Benefit of the Clergy. And we humbly deſire, that the Severity of that Law may be conſidered and mitigated.

4. But if it ſhall be ſaid, That the Ceremonies of the Church of England, (as the Sprinkling of Infants, the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, bowing to the Altar, to name no more at preſent) are not ſinful; then how ſhall we be ever able to reprove a Papiſt, for uſing holy Water, bowing to the Image of Chriſt? &c.

Certainly, if we muſt ſubmit to the Ceremonies of the Church of England, in her preſent Conſtitution, we muſt ſubmit to theirs too, where they have power on their ſide to enforce them. But he that ſhall impartially conſider what a learned Proteſtant hath ſaid of the Sinfulneſs of that one Ceremony of the Sign of the Croſs in Baptiſm, in his Book entituled, Againſt Symbolizing with Antichriſt in Ceremonies, will ſee great cauſe to avoid touching with any ſuch Inventions, however they may be ſuppoſed to have had an harmleſs Uſe among Chriſtians at the firſt.

But who ſees not, that when ſuch Ceremonies have got the Reputation of Religion upon them, and are forced on by humane Laws, what incredible Miſeries they have brought upon the Chriſtian World? How have they lorded it over Kings and Kingdoms, over the Eſtates, Liberties and Lives of Chriſtians? Who ſees not, that being thus ſet up, they are ſometimes more ſet by, than ſincere Faith, and an holy Life? as if all true Religion (and Loyalty too) were only to be judged of according to Mens Submiſſion to thoſe Humane Innovations. For it is notorious, even in this our Land, that let a Man but conform to all the Ceremonies, he ſhall live honourably, let his Life be never ſo debauched almoſt: But let a Man refuſe theſe Ceremonies, out of conſcience to God, becauſe they are not from Heaven, then he is Envy's Mark, let his Life be never ſo juſt and harmleſs. Such Effects ſhould lead us to conſider what the Cauſes are.

p. 10And becauſe we are ſpeaking of Ceremonies, we crave leave to enquire, What means the Ceremony of the Ring in Marriage? Why are we forced not only to uſe it, but to uſe it in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy-Ghoſt? The Church of England blames the Papiſts for ſaying Marriage is a Sacrament; but ſhall we then make a Sacrament of a Ring? Sure you make the Ring as ſacred in Marriage, as you make the Water in Baptiſm. Such Uſages as theſe, we fear, give the Papiſts too much cauſe to uſe this Speech, A Proteſtant is but a Papiſt ſcar'd out of his Wits.

It is not then any thing of Prejudice or Obſtinacy, which makes us to ſtand off from the Communion of the Church of England, but an unfeigned Deſire to ſerve God aright, and a godly Fear, leſt by touching with theſe unwritten Traditions, we ſhould bring our Souls under Guilt in the ſight of God. Howbeit, if any can convince us, that the Church of England is juſtifiable in theſe things here objected, we ſhall ſuſpect our ſelves to be miſtaken in other things, which we here mention not.

Now may it pleaſe the God of Heaven, to put it into the Hearts of the Guides of the Church of England, to conſider theſe things.

1. That none of theſe Ceremonies about which we differ from them, are required of Chriſtians in the Holy Scriptures. And that therefore,

2. To enforce them by Excommunication and Penal Laws upon the Conſciences of Men, is more than God requires of you, or any Body elſe.

And ſurely if the making theſe things neceſſary to our Communion were but removed, ſo that Things which are not delivered in the Word of God were left at liberty, we ſhould not ſtand at ſo great a diſtance from the Church of England, as now we do: For tho we are verily perſuaded, that theſe Things objected againſt by us are Errors, and therefore prudently to be amended; yet we believe the impoſing of them is a thouſand times more offenſive in the ſight of God, and more grievous to the Souls of Men, becauſe (as we conceive) God's Authority is then uſurped by Man, and Mens Fear towards him is then taught by the Precepts of Men.

And yet we know, and indeed muſt confeſs, that many Things, as to the more convenient performance of Religious Services in a Church-way, are left to the Prudence of the Church, guided p. 11therein by the general Rules in the Word of God; and ſome Things alſo (which are not of the Eſſence of Chriſtianity) will ſeem doubtful to ſome, and clear to others. And therefore there will be a continual Neceſſity of brotherly Forbearance one towards another, in ſome ſinleſs Ceremonies, as many Things may be ſo eſteemed, whilſt not made the Boundaries of Communion, and forced upon Chriſtians againſt their Conſciences. For Example: tho Sitting be the moſt ſafe Geſture at the Lord's Table, becauſe neareſt to Chriſt's Example; yet if any in Humility, and of Devotion to God, think it their Duty to receive kneeling, this ſurely cannot juſtly offend any Chriſtian. And thus alſo bowing at the Name of Jeſus, being left at liberty, when, where, and upon what occaſion the Conſcience of a Chriſtian may be moſt preſſed to do it, need not offend any, tho it is apparent ſuch bowing is not the meaning of the Text, Phil. 2. 10. And the ſame may be ſaid of well-compoſed Prayers; ſo that ſtill ſuch Forms be uſed as a matter of Chriſtian Liberty, and not impoſed by Law as neceſſary.

And could Things be managed with ſuch Moderation, (as certainly the State of the Inhabitants of this Land does much call for it) in a friendly and brotherly Spirit, 'tis hoped our Animoſities would abate, and Charity would endear all that are upright towards God one towards another, tho labouring under many Weakneſſes, or dark Circumſtances. But whilſt one Party ſtands up with a Sword in their hand, or with power to thruſt Men into Goal, and rifle their Eſtates, unleſs they will all ſubmit to their Will and Pleaſure, not only without, but perhaps in ſome things againſt the Word of God, (the pretended Rule to all Proteſtants in Matters of Religion) this lays a Neceſſity upon all that are of Noble and truly Chriſtian Spirits, to teſtify againſt ſuch Cruelty, and unmanly Proceedings, and to aſſert the true Chriſtian Doctrine and Liberty, and Chriſt's Sovereign Authority only, to make Laws for his Church, as ſuch, altho for ſo doing they ſuffe the Loſs of all Things which are dear to them in this World; and therewithal, to ſtand off from the Communion of ſuch unreaſonable Men, as have not learned to do to others, as they would have others to do to them under their differing Opinions, when in a ſtate of Subjection to thoſe who differ from them.

p. 12Thus much briefly of the Reaſons or Cauſes of our Separation. We will now conſider what Mr. N. Taylor brings to make good Poedobaptiſm. And the rather, becauſe he ſays he has defended Infant-Baptiſm both by Scripture and Reaſon.

Let us hear how he doth this.

Mr. NATHANIEL TAYLOR'S Fourteen Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm, conſidered and anſwered.

BEfore we anſwer his Arguments, we will take notice of ſome of his Conceſſions. And,

1. He ſaith, Baptiſm of Water is not abſolutely neceſſary to Salvation. pag. 2.

2. He tells us, St. Paul joins the Word of God with this Baptiſm, in order to the purifying Chriſt's Church, that acting on the Soul, and this terminating on the Body. And that St. Peter's Aſſertion is clear that it is not Water purifying the Fleſh, but the anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God that ſaveth. pag. 7.

3. He tells us alſo, That the premiſing the Word DISCIPLE (Matth. 28. 19.) implies none to be capable of Baptiſm, who are not Diſciples of Chriſt, and Members of the Church. pag. 10.

4. And further, That Chriſt would have his Ordinances performed by an external Adminiſtration, wherein the ſubject might be in the neareſt capacity of underſtanding. pag. 81, 82.

5. He grants, That Childrens Baptiſm, and Church-Memberſhip, are not mentioned in the New Teſtament. pag. 51.

From all which a Man may very fairly argue, and conclude againſt Infant-Baptiſm thus.

If Infants are undoubtedly ſaved without Baptiſm; and are Members of Chriſt's Church without Baptiſm, and that the Word of God muſt act upon the Soul in true Baptiſm, ſo as that the Subject of Baptiſm muſt have the anſwer of a good Conſcience: And p. 13if none be capable of Baptiſm, till they be Diſciples of Chriſt, according to Matth. 28. 19. and ought to be in the neareſt capacity of underſtanding what is done in the external adminiſtration of Baptiſm. And if Infant-Church-Memberſhip and Baptiſm be not mentioned in the New Teſtament; then Infants ought not to be baptized.

But all this is true, ſaith Mr. Taylor: Therefore I conclude Infants ought not to be baptized. And thus his Book (I will not ſay (as he) may be ſoon blown away; but it) may ſeem to be ſoon anſwered: And his learned Title very unſuitable. For how ſhall foreign be foreign, when it is not mention'd in the new Teſtament; can that be Orthodoxal Baptiſm which is not mentioned there? Sure this is incredible.

But let us hear his Arguments, by which he undertakes to vindicate Infant-Baptiſm both by Scripture and Reaſon.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 1.

If our Chriſtian Privileges be as great as the Jews were, then our Children are rightly baptized: But our Chriſtian Privileges are as great as the Jews were: Therefore our Children are rightly Baptized.

ANSWER.

Becauſe Mr. Taylor ſays he offers his Reaſons for Infant-Baptiſm, in order to a compoſure of Differences, and I do believe he means as he ſays; I ſhall therefore endeavour to anſwer them with all Love and Sincerity, as becomes a Chriſtian. And, I ſay,

1. That upon a fair Diſtinction, both Propoſitions may be denied. For, if the Queſtion be of external Privileges only; then whether we reſpect outward Advantages in the World, or Rites and Ceremonies in the Church pertinent to Infants; the Minor is to be denied: for the Jews were under a ſure Promiſe of a fruitful Land, and external Peace and Glory, as a Nation, whilſt they did truly walk according to the Laws of God, of which Advantages their Children were partakers as well as others. But on the other ſide, the Chriſtian Church by how much ſhe is more faithful, p. 14by ſo much the more is ſhe ſubject to Perſecution: As may be ſeen in the differing eſtate of the faithful Church at Smyrna, Rev. 2. 8, 9. and the unfaithful Church at Laodicea, Rev. 3. 17. Or if we rereſpect Rites and Ceremonies, then 'tis certain, even in the Judgment of all Chriſtians, the Jews had more Ceremonies belonging to their Infants, than belongs to Luk. 2. 22, 23, 24. Exod. 13. 2. Lev. c. 12.Luke 2:22Luke 2:23Luke 2:24Exod 13:2Lev 12Chriſtian Infants. For beſides the Rite of Circumciſion, there was an Offering to be offered for them, and they were to be preſented in the Temple, and to partake of the Paſſover, Exod. 12. 47, 48. (and therefore Mr. Taylor does ill to deny it, pag. 92.) Whereas the Poedobaptiſts only contend for the external Rite of Baptiſm to belong to their Infants.

But if by the Word Privileges in the Argument be meant ſome higher thing than external Ceremonies, then the Minor is true: For as God was gracious to Infants in the Jewiſh Nation, as to the Buſineſs of Salvation: So is he ſuch to the Infants of every Chriſtian Nation in the World.

But if now you be diſpleaſed, becauſe I do not prefer, or at leaſt equalize Chriſtians Infants with Jewiſh Infants, in reſpect of external Ceremonies. Then let me freely tell you, that I do believe the Privileges of Chriſtians is greater than the Jews, even in this, that God accepts our Infants to his Grace, and to Glory, without impoſing the Burthen of any Ceremony at all upon them. For ſeeing he has by the Goſpel taken away that bloody Ceremony of Circumciſion, and by our Lord Chriſt declared Infants to have right to the Kingdom of Heaven, without impoſing any Ceremony upon them inſtead of Circumciſion, I ſay, herein our Privileges are greater than the Jews, and in this Senſe I confirm your Minor. But then I deny the Conſequence of your Major: For you may plainly ſee that our Chriſtian Privileges (when compared with the Jews) ſtand not in having external Ceremonies, but rather in being freed from them. Even as it cannot be doubted but that the Children of Seth, Henoch, and Noah, &c. had as great Privileges as the Jews, and yet it is certain [and plainly confeſſed by Auguſtine] that they had no Ceremony or ſign of Regeneration belonging to them that we read of. Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 15. cap. 16.

Thus your chief Fort being demoliſhed, what Reaſons you bring to defend it ſignifie nothing; however we ſhall meet with them in the following Arguments.

p. 15Mr. Taylor's Argument 2.

Thoſe who were Circumciſed under the Law, may be baptized under the Goſpel: But Children were Circumciſed under the Law: Therefore they may be baptized under the Goſpel.

ANSWER.

1. I anſwer to the Major. If by [Thoſe] you mean all thoſe that were Circumciſed under the Law: Then the Major is not true. For firſt, all Male-Servants which were bought with Money, muſt needs be Circumciſed, they might not elſe dwell in the Family: (Gen. 17. 12, 13, 14. Exod. 12. 44, 48, 49.) But no ſuch impoſition is laid upon Families under the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 7.

2. If by [Thoſe] you mean Infants, then I deny your Major: For tho Infants were Circumciſed under the Law, it does not follow that Infants may be Baptized under the Goſpel: Nor do your Arguments, brought to make it good, prove it at all. For,

1. Tho Baptiſm ſucceeds Circumciſion as the Sacrament of initiation, yet it does not follow, that the ſame Perſons, or Perſons no otherwiſe qualified than the Infants of the Jews, or Servants bought with Money, are to be admitted to Baptiſm; becauſe Circumciſion belonged to the natural Seed of Abraham as ſuch, whether in the Covenant or no (as in the caſe of Iſhmael,) and to his Servants as ſuch. But Baptiſm being the Sacrament or waſhing of Regeneration, belongs to thoſe who are born from above (as ſuch); Hence 'tis ſaid, Gal. 3. 28. We are Abraham's Seed, becauſe we are Chriſt's, ſo, as to have crucified the Fleſh with the Affections and Luſts: Gal. 4. 24. And not that they are Chriſt's, becauſe they are Abraham's Seed. This vaſt difference therefore between the Communicants of the Church Jewiſh, and the Church Chriſtian, ſhews a great difference between the carnal Ordinances of the Law, and the ſpiritual Ordinances of the Goſpel: ſo that it is no good arguing from Infants Right to the one, to their Right to the other.

2. You ſay our Children are as capable of being Baptized, as the Jews were of being Circumciſed. But this is denied: for the Jews had a Command to Circumciſe Infants, and that made them capable of that Ceremony; but without a Command none were capable p. 16of it: For ſome Infants might be as capable of Circumciſion in reſpect of Strength, on the ſeventh Day, as others on the eighth Day; but the Command not empowering any to circumciſe till the eighth Day, made all Children that died before the eighth Day uncapable of Circumciſion. Again, you will not ſay that any Man, as ſuch only, is capable of Baptiſm, becauſe you grant they muſt firſt be Diſciples, and, as ſuch, baptized. Nor will you ſay, that all Infants, as ſuch only, may be baptized, becauſe you do not think God has required the Infants of the Turks to be baptized. So then, unleſs you can ſhew that God has required our Infants to be baptized, they have no capacity for it. We conclude then, whatever may be urged as a Capacity for Baptiſm, yet without a Command from God, to baptize our Infants, is meer Will-Worſhip and Preſumption.

3. You ſay, That the Precept of receiving Parent and Child into Covenant ſtands unrepealed to this day. But if by receiving into Covenant, you mean a receiving to the Duties of the Covenant, what you ſay is not true; for the Covenant of Circumciſion is repealed. Gal. 5. 2. Behold, I Paul ſay unto you, If ye be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing. And there was never any Covenant, but the Covenant of Circumciſion, which obliged Parents to bring their Infants to the Ceremonies of Religion: So then Infants are not under the Burthen of any Ceremonies of Religion at this day. I marvel you ſhould here ſay, There is no Countermand of the ancient Jewiſh Practice of receiving Children to Circumciſion. Either the Printer has wrong'd you, or elſe you hold the Jews are yet bound to circumciſe their Infants.

4. You argue from Chriſt's being propoſed as Mediator of a better Covenant, that therefore this great Privilege (you mean, bringing Infants to Ceremonies of Religion) is not repealed. But the Truth is far otherwiſe; for the Covenant of Chriſt as Mediator, is therefore better than the Covenant of the Law, becauſe he has taken theſe Ceremonies out of the way, and accepts poor Infants without any other Ceremony inſtead of them; yea, the Covenant is therefore better to Believers themſelves, in that they are obliged but to a very few Ceremonies, whilſt the Jews laboured under a burthenſom Yoke of many Ceremonies. And if your way of arguing were good, it would prove, that the Goſpel is worſe to Believers, than the Law was to the adult Jews, becauſe they had abundance of Religious Privileges, to wit, Ceremonies, and p. 17Believers have but a very few. Now who would think, that wiſe and good Men ſhould thus grope at Noon-day?

5. You quote Acts 2. 38, 39. and ſay, that this Text expreſly avers your Concluſion. But it is certain, the Promiſe there, is not of bringing Infants to any Ceremonies, and ſo does not at all favour your Concluſion; for the Promiſe being of the pouring out of the Gifts of the Holy-Ghoſt, according to the Prophecy of Joel, concerns not Infants in Infancy, ſaith Dr. Jer. Taylor. And as for the Precept in the Text, [to wit, Repent, and be baptized every one of you,] 'tis as certain that concerns not Infants; for Infants are juſt Perſons, which need no Repentance, and conſequently as little need the Baptiſm of Repentance. I rather therefore adhere to Dr. Jer. Taylor, than to Mr. Nath. Taylor in this Caſe; and I find that Eraſmus and Diodate do expound this Text as we do.

6. Now, Sir, your great Strait ſeems to be this: You think the Children of Heathens have as great Privileges as we allow to the Infants of Chriſtians. Let me anſwer freely; I do believe, that through the Grace of Chriſt their Infants, dying ſuch, are in as ſure a capacity for Salvation as our Infants. And why ſhould this offend, that ſeeing Infants are equally concluded under Sin in the firſt Adam, God ſhould have equally Mercy upon them in the ſecond Adam. Nay, does not Mr. Taylor himſelf tell us, p. 4. That it's dreadful to believe, that all Infants which die unbaptized, are damned. And that any of them ſhall be damned, he cannot prove, ſeeing he ſays, He cannot implead them of Sin, in not being baptized, being not capable of deſiring it. Well, I thank him for this, and ſhall requite him by granting, Chriſtians Infants are more happy in ſome gracious reſpects, than the Infants of the Heathen, being the Seed of many Prayers, and piouſly devoted therein to Almighty God from the Womb, and have the Advantage of an early Education in the Chriſtian Religion, that they may be as timely baptized as may be: On the other ſide, the Infants of the Heathens are perhaps devoted to Idols, as the Jews did ſometimes devote theirs to Moloch. But yet, as we do not think that God ſent the Jews Infants to burn in Hell, becauſe their Parents burnt them to Moloch; ſo neither ought we to think, that he will puniſh the Infants of the Heathen with Devils, becauſe their Parents devoted them to Idols; for as for poor Infants, what have they done?

p. 187. You anſwer not our Objections, by ſaying, The Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. 10, 13. is permanent to the Worlds end, &c. For tho this were true, yet that the Ceremonies which there accompany that Covenant, were to continue to the World's End, and ſhould pertain to Infants to the World's End, you neither believe your ſelf, nor can any Man prove, that any Ceremonies by Order from Chriſt ſhould belong to Infants to the World's end, ſeeing it is granted, that Infant-Baptiſm is not mentioned in the New Teſtament. And if I yield you your five Conſiderations following, pag. 33. I do not ſee that you gain any thing as to the Point in queſtion; I therefore proceed.

8. I think you miſtake, where you write that we ſay, Thoſe that had Right to Circumciſion were a ſpiritual Seed; for we know that the Carnal Seed had Right to it: What therefore you would build upon this Miſtake falls of it ſelf. But whereas you would infer, that Baptiſm, as well as Circumciſion, belongs to the carnal Seed, it is certainly a great Error. It is true, ſome that are Hypocrites may come to Sacred Baptiſm, but then they profeſs (at leaſt) to be otherwiſe, and are not admitted as Hypocrites, nor as Men only, (as you ſeem to urge, Numb. 2, p. 34.) but as they declare themſelves Chriſtians, or ſpiritual. And therefore it is ſaid of the whole Church, Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus; for as many as have been baptized into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt. Gal. 3. 26, 27. And again, Col. 2. Ye are circumciſed with the Circumciſion made without hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt. [Therefore, Rom. 6.] we are buried with him in Baptiſm. And beſides this, your Church makes Baptiſm a viſible Sign of an inward or ſpiritual Grace; and does affirm of all whom ſhe admits to Baptiſm, that they are regenerate, and born anew: Which ſhews that in this Point we agree, that the inward Work of Grace ſhould be in all that are baptized.

9. I grant, that Jeremiah and John Baptiſt were ſanctified, or ſeparated to God from the Womb, the one to be a Prophet, the other to be the Fore-runner of our Lord Chriſt; yet I deny, that theſe extraordinary Caſes are to be made the Rules for us to baptize by. God knows what we will be from our Birth to our Death; but theſe Things are hid from us. Things revealed and commanded belong to us. We may not preſume to think either of Men or Infants above what is written; to ſay, this is ſanctified from the Womb, and that not; this is a Believer, and that p. 19not, &c. But ſhew us a Rule to baptize Infants, and we will diſpute no further.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 3.

Thoſe who are within the Covenant of Grace, may be baptized: But Children are within the Covenant of Grace: Therefore Children may be baptized.

ANSWER.

1. The Major being taken univerſally, for all that are in the Covenant of Grace, then it is to be denied; for God never made that the Rule of Baptizing. Nay, when Circumciſion was in the greateſt uſe, yet all that were in the Covenant of Grace were not to be circumciſed. Such were the many Thouſands of Male Infants, who died before they were eight days old; theſe were in Covenant, and their Salvation as ſure as if they had been circumciſed. The Females alſo were in Covenant, yet not to be circumciſed. If you ſay they were not capable, learned Authors tell you otherwiſe, and name ſome Nations who circumciſe both Sexes to this day. By this you ſee your Major runs upon a falſe Suppoſition.

2. And if by thoſe who are within the Covenant, you mean ſome of thoſe, then your Argument comes ſhort of the Queſtion, viz. Whether all that are in the Covenant of Grace may be baptized? But let us try your Minor. The Covenant of Grace hath two parts, 1. A Declaration of God's Mercy in Mans Redemption; in this reſpect I grant, Infants are within the Covenant of Grace. 2. A Declaration of Mans Duty in point of Faith and Obedience; in this Sence I deny Infants to be in the Covenant. Let us hear therefore how you confirm your Minor.

3. You ſay, It is verified, in that Baptiſm is the Seal of the Covenant now, as Circumciſion was under the Law, &c. And therefore thoſe who are under the participation of the Covenant, may be admitted to the Seal, &c.

4. But why do our Brethren of the Church of England ſpeak of the Seal in the Singular? They uſed to tell us, the Covenant has two Seals, to wit, Baptiſm, and the Table of the Lord. And p. 20I will abide by it, that the Lord's Table is as truly a Seal of the Covenant, as Baptiſm. Yet you deny Infants this Seal, tho you know when they firſt baptized Infants, they alſo brought them to the Lord's Table, and this cuſtom continued ſix hundred Years. But I deny your Conſequence; it follows not, that all that are in Covenant may have the Seal of Baptiſm. And you tell us, That God's Grace is univerſal, pag. 37. yet you will not ſay that Baptiſm is univerſal; it belongs but to thoſe who reſtipulate, and enter into Covenant upon the Terms of Faith and Repentance. Acts 8. 12. When they believed, &c. they were baptized, both Men and Women. And here the City of Samaria generally received the Goſpel, and yet not an Infant baptized.

5. But how ſhall I underſtand you, where you ſay, That Children never excluded themſelves from the Covenant of Grace, becauſe not actual Ʋnbelievers, and none but ſuch were ejected? And where you preſently ſay, They have the Covenant belonging to them with their believing Parents? Have Infants no benefit by the Covenant of Grace, unleſs their Parents believe? Alas! poor Infants! But ſure God does not exclude Infants from the Covenant of Grace, made for Mankind in Chriſt, becauſe their Parents believe not; No, I will hold to your firſt Saying, That none but actual Ʋnbelievers are rejected.

6. That the Holineſs mentioned, 1 Cor. 7. 14. is only Legitimacy, or Lawfulneſs of Birth, you would have to be only a Gloſs of the Anabaptiſts. But how can you fairly take it for any other, ſeeing it is taken immediately from the Sanctification of the unbelieving Husband, as the word [elſe] being rightly referred, makes evident. Upon which Conſideration, Eraſmus expounds this place expreſly as we do, yet he was a Poedobaptiſt. And Auſtin long before him ſaid, Whatever that Holineſs is, 1 Cor. 7. 14. it is certain it is not of Power to make Chriſtians, or remit Sins. Sir, if you conſider the Scope of the place, 1 Cor. 7. you will find, ſome in that Church were in doubt whether they might dwell with their unbelieving Yokefellows. St. Paul reſolves the Doubt in the Affirmative, and gives this Reaſon for it: The unbelieving Huſband is ſanctified to the believing Wife; and if he were not ſo, their Children were unclean, but he being ſanctified, their Children were clean; for Marriage is honourable among all, and the Marriage-Bed undefiled, Heb. 13. Therefore let not the Husband put away his Wife, nor the Wife depart from her Husband.

p. 217. What you ſay further to this Argument, being built upon a wrong Suppoſition, viz. That we deny Infants to be within the Covenant of Grace, falls of it ſelf. For we ſay with you, till they by actual Unbelief exclude themſelves, the Grace of God extends to them, as well as to others, in reſpect of their Salvation.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 4.

Thoſe who have right to the Bleſſings of the Covenant, have right to Baptiſm: But Children have right to the Bleſſings of the Covenant: Therefore they have right to Baptiſm.

ANSWER.

1. This Argument is upon the matter the ſame with the former, and therefore upon the former diſtinction the Major is denied: for tho Infants have right to all the Bleſſings of the Covenant which they have need of, yet they have no right to the Duties of the Covenant, which they have no need of, becauſe God requires no Duties of them.

2. And tho you ſay, that our Conceſſion (that Infants are within the Covenant of Grace) proves that Infants have right to all the Privileges of the Covenant; Yet this is contrary to your own Judgment, for you your ſelves deny them right to the Lord's Table, and indeed all other Privileges, as much as we do, except your Croſſing and Sprinkling them. What you ſay further here, is often repeated, and will be conſidered in the following Arguments; and if I repeat in my Anſwers, you have compelled me.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 5.

Thoſe who are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God, are capable of Baptiſm: But Children are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God: Therefore Children are capable of Baptiſm.

ANSWER.

1. This Argument, (as moſt of the reſt) may be retorted thus; p. 22They that are capable of being engaged in Covenant with God, are capable of the Lord's Table: But Infants are capable of being engaged in the Covenant, &c. Ergo, They are capable of the Lord's Table. Which ſufficiently ſhews the unſoundneſs of your Argument. But let us examine the proof of your Major.

2. To this purpoſe you tell us, That Infants are in the Power of their Parents, to diſpoſe of, as to Temporals and Spirituals. And your Reaſon is, becauſe Parents are obliged to take the greateſt care imaginable of their Childrens Souls, for their Education in the Fear of God. Well, now I ſee why you uſe not the word Infants, but Children, all along in your Arguments: you know that Infants, ſuch as you Sprinkle, are not capable of any Education at all. They cannot be taught the Fear of God. They then cannot be engaged in Covenant by the Means of Education, nor can they in that State be brought up in his Service, in reſpect of Religious Ordinances: So that inſtead of proving, you have loſt your Minor.

3. What you argue, from Deut. 29. 11, 12, 14. will never prove that Infants are capable of entering into Covenant with God in their own Perſons; but that their Parents did engage to bring them up in the Laws of God; and what this is to the purpoſe, I do not imagine. Is it therefore my Duty to baptize my Children, without a Command from God to do ſo, meerly becauſe by the Covenant of Grace, and Rules of Chriſtianity, I am to do my beſt to teach my Children the Fear of the Lord? This is very inconſequent, and will as much oblige me to bring my Infants to the Lord's Table, as I have ſhewed. This laſt you will not allow, becauſe God requires it not; and for the ſame Reaſon I refuſe to bring my Infants to Baptiſm, tho I believe it my Duty to do all that I can to engage them in Covenant with God, by Chriſtian Education in the Fear of God, that they may ſerve him in all his Commands and Ordinances blameleſs.

4. Wherefore in Anſwer to your Argument: If by Infants being capable of being engaged in Covenant with God, you mean the Parents engagement to educate them in the Fear of God, &c. Then I deny your Major, and ſay, Thoſe who are only capable thus to be engaged with God in Covenant, are not capable of Baptiſm. But if you mean, a perſonal and actual entring into Covenant with God, then I deny your Minor, and all the Experience of the World confutes you.

p. 235. You ſhall never be able to prove that Infants are capable of Faſting and … Duties, tho you ſeem to affirm it; and what … the Beaſts) and that Faſt was pleaſing to … ariſes to prove that either Infants, or the … any Duty to God, nor that they are therefore to be brought to the participation of Baptiſm, nor any other Religious Ordinance, without Order from God to do it. Yet if a Man were diſpoſed to Syllogize from hence after your manner, he might as ſtrongly plead for one Error, as you do for another.

6. The Capacity of Jewiſh Children for Circumciſion, or other Rites of the Law, depended chiefly on the Will of God to order it ſo. Prove that it is his Will to have Infants baptized, and we will not mention their Incapacity. If it be not his Will, wherefore is it done? Who has required it?

Mr. Taylor's Argument 6.

Thoſe who are Members of Chriſt's Church, ought to be baptized: But Children are Members of Chriſt's Church: Therefore Children ought to be baptized.

ANSWER.

If by the Church of Chriſt, you mean all that ſince the Death of Chriſt, ſhall be ſaved; then I deny the Major. For the Infants of the poor Indians may be ſaved, yet in your Judgment they ought not to be baptized. But if by the Church of Chriſt, you mean only ſuch as are in the actual Profeſſion of the Goſpel: Then I deny the Minor, and retort your Argument thus.

1. Thoſe who are Members of the Church, ought to continue in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and in Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. But &c. Ergo, &c. The Major is proved, Acts 2. 41. 1 Cor. 10. They continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtle's Doctrine, and Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. We being many, are one Body and one Bread, for we are all partakers of that one Bread. Theſe things were ſpoken of the whole Church, which was in theſe Places engaged in the actual profeſſion of the Goſpel. Now ſee how you can defend your ſelf againſt my Minor, and p. 24therein you will eaſily ſee the infirmity of your own.

2. But to prove your Minor, you ſay, The Children of the Jews were with their Parents Church-Members under the Law, and that Law is not yet repealed. But if by their Church-memberſhip you mean, their Right to, and their Parents Act in bringing them to Ceremonies in Religion, the contrary is true. The Covenant of Circumciſion being repealed, as it was an Obligation to the Children of Iſrael, and never made with any Nation ſince; nor any other Covenant extant where ſuch things are impoſed upon Infants.

3. That the Children of converted Jews, loſt not their Privileges, is not true, if by Privileges you intend Ceremonies; but if by Privileges you mean a being delivered from the Law of Ceremonies, then I grant it. And it is certainly a greater Privilege that Children are under a declared Right to the Kingdom of God by Chriſt, and his gracious bleſſing a part of them, as a Pledg for the whole, than if he had ordained a Law to baptize them in order thereunto. And it is alſo certain, that the Jewiſh Churchſtate, being diſſolved upon the Death of Chriſt, and the Goſpel-Church, confirmed in the Gift of Tongues, &c. No Perſon could rightly ſtand a Member of the Jewiſh Church, which was the only Church that ever had command from God to bring their Infants to Rites of Religion.

4. You ſtill urge, that the Gentiles had equal Privileges with the Jews. And I grant they have greater Privileges, but not in Rites and Ceremonies, but rather in being accepted without them, as touching their Infants, and with a very few as touching themſelves. But you ſay further, That the Children of Parents who did not believe, were rejected; therefore the Children of believing Parents, or Gentiles, are Church-Members. And here, I confeſs, I know not how to reconcile you to your ſelf, where you ſay, None are excluded from the Covenant of Grace but actual Ʋnbelievers, pag. 26. Sure the Son ſhall not dye for the Sin of the Parents, ſo as to go to Hell with them. Shall not the Judg of all the Earth do Right?

5. You ſay, Children are either Members of the viſible Church of Chriſt, or elſe are viſibly of Satan's Kingdom, there is no Medium between theſe two.

Surely I did not think Mr. Taylor had been of this Opinion! No Papiſt can ſay worſe of poor Infants. Here you condemn many thouſands of Infants; God give you a better Underſtanding. Are Infants of Jews, Turks, and Indians all of the viſible Kingdom of p. 25Satan? No, I will believe my Saviour, who ſaith, It is not the will of his Heavenly Father that one of theſe little ones ſhould periſh, Mat. 18. 14. And ſure I am, that none are truly of Satan's Kingdom, but ſuch as are his Subjects. For he has no right over any by Creation, and Purchaſe, as God and Chriſt have. Now it being clear, that Infants are none of Satan's Subjects, it muſt needs be very injurious, to ſay they are viſibly of his Kingdom. But being Created by God, and Redeemed by Chriſt, and never offended in their own Perſons, it is rational to think they are in God's Favour, as it appears the Infants of the Ninevites were, Jonah 4. In his gracious Arms we ſhall therefore leave them, and proceed.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 7.

Thoſe who are Diſciples of Chriſt may be baptized: But Children are Diſciples of Chriſt: Therefore Children may be baptized.

ANSWER.

1. The Minor is denied. Infants are not Diſciples of Chriſt, neither does God and Chriſt own them for ſuch, as you affirm. But you bring Acts 15. 1, 2, 10. to prove it, and ſay, That the Yoak which the Jews would have laid upon the new converted Gentiles, was Circumciſion, which pertained to Children who were Circumciſed the eighth day, and yet it is laid too upon the Diſciples Necks. But Sir, do you think this to be rational, that becauſe the Jews would have laid the Yoak of Circumciſion on the Necks of the Diſciples, that therefore all were Diſciples upon whom they would have laid that Yoak? ſure this is a very unlawful Conſequence: No better than this; You would lay the Yoak of Croſſing and Sprinkling upon Infants, therefore all are Infants upon whom you would lay the Yoak of Croſſing and Sprinkling. Again, they that were preſerved in the Ark of Noah were Men and Women: Therefore all that were preſerved in the Ark of Noah were Men and Women. You may eaſily ſee theſe Conſequences are very untrue, and verily ſo is yours. For tho the falſe Apoſtles would have laid the Yoak of Circumciſion upon the Necks of the Diſciples, yet all were not Diſciples whom they would have Circumciſed: for 'tis ſaid, They taught the Brethren, except they were Circumciſed, &c. they could not p. 26be ſaved. But you cannot imagine that they taught Infants.

If Acts 15. be diligently read, it will expound it ſelf; for verſ. 19. the Diſciples are ſaid to be ſuch as from among the Gentiles were turned to God. And all that are called Diſciples, verſ. 10. are called Brethren, and as ſuch they are written unto by the Aſſembly, verſ. 23. And the Epiſtle is ſaid to be read to all the Multitude (meaning of the Diſciples,) who thereupon are ſaid to rejoice for the Conſolation: Sure theſe were no Infants.

2. But you ſay, They are Diſciples in that; tho Man cannot teach them, yet God can, and may. Well, I thank you for your Ingenuity. It is true (as you ſay) Man cannot teach, or make Infants Diſciples; and then to be ſure, they are not intended by our Saviour to be made Diſciples, by what he ſays in your Text, Mat. 28. 19. For all that are to be made Diſciples, by that Commiſſion, are to be made ſuch by Men: So that you are evidently beſides your Text, in all that you ſay to this Argument, and you are beſide your own Expoſition of your Text alſo, which I will here ſet down, as you give it, pag. 10. foreign, Going to Diſciple all Nations, inſtruct them in the Principles of my Religion; and then being Diſciples, baptize them: So that there is a Diſcipleſhip pre-exiſtent to Baptiſm; and indeed the premiſing the Word DISCIPLE, implies none to be capable of Baptiſm, who are not Diſciples of Chriſt, and Members of his Church. Theſe are your Words. 'Tis true, you ſay Infants will be proved to be Diſciples. But ſurely, not by ſaying as you do here, that God can make them Diſciples, or teach them: For it is no good arguing from what God can do, to ſay he has done it, or will do it. For God can, of the Stones in the Street, raiſe up Children unto Abraham, but I may not therefore ſay the Stones in the Srreet are the Children of Abraham. You ſay indeed, that God hath given ſeveral inſtances of his teaching ſeveral from the Womb, but you can neither name the Perſons, nor ſhew us what he taught them; however if you could, ſuch miraculous Operations are not given for general Rules. God once taught a dumb Aſs to ſpeak, and to reprove a Prophet; but it would be bad arguing from this inſtance, that Aſſes are Diſciples: And yet this is a clearer inſtance of God's teaching the Aſs, than you can give of his teaching any Infant.

3. But ſeeing you put Infants Diſcipleſhip upon the account of God's teaching them, you muſt have ſome competent ground to believe that he has miraculouſly taught them, before you baptize p. 27them; or elſe you deſtroy your Expoſition of the Text, which avers, That there is a Diſcipleſhip pre-exiſtent to Baptiſm. And when you ſhall ſhew me the Infant whom God hath taught, or made a Diſciple, I believe I ſhall not oppoſe your Baptizing that Infant, and this is as much as you can deſire.

4. But you ſay further, That God hath promiſed to teach Children. What, Sir, in their Infancy? Let us ſee your Proofs; Iſa. 54. 13. All thy Children ſhall be taught of the Lord, and great ſhall be the Peace of thy Children. John 6. 45. It is written in the Prophets, and they ſhall be all taught of God. Every Man therefore that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Certainly had you read thoſe Texts with their Coherence, and conſidered, that our Saviour himſelf in the latter expounds the former, you would never have imagined, that God here promiſes to teach any Infants, much leſs all the Infants in the Chriſtian Nations; for it is very apparent, they that are taught according to theſe Scriptures, have heard and learned of the Father, ſo as to come to Chriſt. And indeed the meaning is, that God ſpeaking to us by his Son, (who is very God, 1 John 5.) had now made good that gracious Promiſe, Iſa. 54. 13. All thy Children ſhall be taught of the Lord. But you have another Text, Acts 10. 47. Can any Man forbid Water, that theſe ſhould not be baptized, who have received the Holy-Ghoſt as well as we? Now he that reads this place, will eaſily ſee, that the Perſons here ſpoken of were only ſuch as were aſſembled to hear Peter, in whatſoever they ſhould be commanded of God; and that the Holy-Ghoſt fell on all that heard the Word. Which place therefore can with no ſhew of Reaſon be brought, to prove that Infants are taught of God. However, when you ſhall find an Infant, that has received the Holy-Ghoſt, as well as the Apoſtles; then for my part I ſhall not forbid Water, that you ſhould baptize him, provided you firſt be baptized your ſelf.

5. You will have Infants to be Diſciples, becauſe Chriſt (you ſay) commands the receiving of them in his Name; and you quote Luke 18. 16, 17. Mat. 19. 13. Luke 9. 47. I have carefully read all theſe places, but can find no Command to receive Infants in the Name of Chriſt, much leſs to receive them by Baptiſm. It is true, Chriſt called a little Child unto him, and ſaid, Whoſoever ſhall receive this Child in my Name, receiveth me. Now this Child was able to know what Chriſt ſaid, and is no fit Inſtance to prove an Infant of eight days old to be a Diſciple of Chriſt; neither does p. 28this Text call this Child a Diſciple, but the Diſciples are diſtinguiſhed from it. And yet it (and ſo any little Child) may be a good Precedent even to Diſciples, to learn Humility and Simplicity by; and ſo may a Lamb or a Dove ſerve to teach us to be humble and harmleſs, yet they are not therefore Diſciples. Neither can the receiving this Child, (or any other in like caſe) be underſtood of receiving them by Baptiſm; for then you may read the place thus, Whoſoever baytizeth a Child in my Name, baptizeth me; but this is both falſe and abſurd. And beſides, he that is baptized, may be rather ſaid to receive Chriſt, than he that baptizeth, in that Action. Or would you make our Saviour to ſay, He that baptizeth an Infant in my Name, receiveth me? If ſo, I would know by what Authority you take the word, receiveth, for baptizing in the firſt place, and in the ſecond for ſomething elſe. Surely, if to baptize an Infant in the Name of Chriſt, be a receiving of Chriſt, it's an eaſy thing to receive Chriſt, eſpecially for the Prieſt, who pretends to baptize Infants daily. But ſure it is as much the Duty of other Chriſtians to receive Children in the Name of Chriſt, as the Prieſts; for the Word is, Whoſoever ſhall receive this Child in my Name; and therefore it cannot be meant of baptizing them, and then theſe Scriptures prove not your Argument at all.

6. You urge, that Infants are Members of Earthly Kingdoms, and I grant it; and alſo I grant, that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, and ſo are of the Univerſal Church: But this proves not that they are Diſciples at all; for the Infants of Heathens are Members of Kingdoms, and may go to Heaven, and yet you think they are no Diſciples for all that. And if Infants may in ſome Sence be ſaid to be God's Servants, Pſal. 119. 91. yet this proves not that they are Diſciples; for all Creatures, as well ſenſitive, vegetative, as rational, are ſaid to be his Servants, yet all Creatures are not Chriſt's Diſciples.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 8.

To whom Chriſt grants Impoſition of Hands, to them belongs Baptiſm: But to Children Chriſt grants Impoſition of Hands: Therefore to them belongs Baptiſm.

p. 29ANSWER.

1. If the major Propoſition be taken univerſally, that to whomſoever Chriſt granted impoſition of Hands (or touching) in any caſe, that to them belongs Baptiſm, then the Major is not true; for he touched or put his hand upon the dead, yet Baptiſm belongs not to the dead, Luke 7. 14. If it be ſaid, Chriſt touched the Bier, not the Dead; I anſwer: He touched the Childrens Cloaths, when he took them in his Arms; but he took the dead Damſel by the hand, and ſaid, Talitha, cumi, Damſel, I ſay unto thee, Ariſe. Mark 5. 41. Thus much to the Major; now to the Minor.

2. If by laying on of hands, you underſtand that which by Chriſt's Doctrine, Heb. 6. 2. is made a ſtanding Ordinance in his Church, and in order next to Baptiſm, as is evident you do; then I deny your Minor: For that Ordinance was not yet inſtituted, nor uſeful, becauſe the End of it was not yet to be received; for the Spirit of Promiſe was not yet given, nor as yet to be given, becauſe Jeſus was not yet glorified, John 7. Wherefore your Miſinterpretation of Mat. 19. 13, 14, 15. is injurious to Truth, and would prefer theſe Infants to the Apoſtles, in the reception of the Firſt-fruits of the Spirit, unleſs you think Chriſt laid hands on the Children, without obtaining the End or Eſſect of the Service. So then it's clear, that this laying on of hands, or touching Infants, (for ſo it is expreſſed both by St. Mark and St. Luke) cannot with any fairneſs be underſtood of that laying on of hands which follows Baptiſm, and therefore is no Proof at all for your Minor.

3. The Church of England does not believe that Infants are fit Subjects for laying on of hands, and therefore does not underſtand this Text, Mat. 19. of that laying on of hands which follows Baptiſm; neither does Mr. Taylor himſelf believe that Confirmation belongs to Infants: If otherwiſe, they are very unfaithful, in that they were never known to lay hands upon any one Infant for confirmation, as I can hear of. But how comes it to paſs that Mr. Taylor will baptize Infants, when yet he confeſſes their Baptiſm is not mentioned in the New Teſtament, and yet not plead for their Confirmation, till they be capable to own their Covenant made in Baptiſm, when yet he pretends, (tho I dare ſay he p. 30believes it not) that Text, Mat. 19. 13, &c. is expreſs for that laying on of hands which follows Baptiſm, to be granted to Chriſt to Infants? pag. 56.

4. Mr. Taylor ſays, That Chriſt confirmed, or laid hands on the Baptized. I ſhall entreat him to make this plain, for I would gladly ſee it well proved; however, I am ſure his Doctrine orders it to be done, and that's ſufficient. What you ſay further here, is either what we oppoſe not, or what is anſwered elſewhere, ſave only your laſt Particular, which now we ſhall conſider.

5. Their coming to Chriſt (ſay you) is their becoming his Diſciples or Proſelites: Suffer them, foreign to be Proſelites to me. If to this I ſhould anſwer, with Tertullian, Veniant ergo dum adoleſcunt, &c. Let them come therefore when they are grown up; it will be thought too little, tho God knows (how haſty ſoever Men are to get them ſprinkled) they are ſlow enough to bring them to Chriſt, when they are capable to be taught; I will therefore anſwer further: Do you think that when Infants are brought to a Prieſt to be ſprinkled and croſſed, that then they are brought to Chriſt? Or can Chriſtians no other way bring their Infants to Chriſt? Or do no Infants belong to Chriſt, but thoſe who are ſo brought? Theſe Things will not be aſſerted, I think, yet let us go as far as we can by the Light of the Text. By this Example of Chriſt, I think the Miniſters of Chriſt may lawfully pray for a Bleſſing in behalf of all the Infants of thoſe that ſhall deſire it; and that it is well done in thoſe Parents that do deſire the Prayers of the Church, or her Miniſters, for their Infants. And this is as much as can be fairly urged from this Text, as imitable for us. For the touching by our Saviour's hands, may be a Point too high for us, unleſs we will alſo touch the Dead, &c. which (I hope) is not written for our Example. But now if the Miniſter will needs baptize my Child, becauſe I bring it into the Congregation, and deſire Prayer to be made to God for his Bleſſing upon it, he herein goes beyond the Example of Chriſt, and beyond the Text, and therefore there I muſt leave him, his foreign notwithſtanding. For foreign ex verbo foreign, quod eſt advenio quoniam veniebant, eſt Ethnicis ad Judaiſmum, ſaith the Learned, and I think Infants cannot change their Religion, nor was it fit to call an Infant of a Jew, a Proſelite when it was brought to Circumciſion; and conſequently as improper to call the Child of a Chriſtian a Proſelite. However, all that can lawfully be done p. 31to proſelite an Infant (if you will needs have that Term uſed) is but to devote them to Chriſt by Prayers for his Bleſſing, but not a Syllable for baptizing them.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 5.

If the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant, then it entitles them to Baptiſm: But the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant: Therefore the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to Baptiſm.

ANSWER.

1. The Conſequence of the Major may well be denied: for tho it ſhould be ſome ways true, that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant, yet it follows not, that it entitles them to the performance of, or ſubmiſſion to the Things which they underſtand not, nor are able to perform. And whither would ſuch a Conſequence lead us, if we ſhould follow it? What Duty ſhould not Infants be entitled to, as well as to Baptiſm? But let us ſee whether the Minor be well proved; you quote Acts. 2. and think it a clear place to prove that the Faith of the Parents entitles the Children to the Covenant. But this Text ſays not a word to that purpoſe; for Peter derives the Title both of Parents and Children from the Promiſe of God: and builds the Title of all the Called of the Lord, and of them that were afar off alſo, upon the Promiſe of God, and not upon the Faith of Abraham himſelf. Beſides, the Promiſe here is of the Gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, and therefore not pertinent to Infants, as I have ſhewed: Here is therefore no proof at all of your Minor. I think it were better to ſay, that by Faith a Chriſtian knows his Child has an intereſt in the Covenant of Grace, than that his Faith entitles his Child to it. I fear this Minor is a very dangerous Aſſertion, and that partly becauſe the Conſequence of ſuch an Opinion is to ſhut out all Infants from the Covenant of Grace, who have not faithful Parents to entitle them to it: And in truth it ſeems to ſwell with too much boldneſs, and carnal preſumption; but I ſpare you.

2. The Faith of the Jews and Proſelites did not entitle their Children to the Covenant of Grace; but they themſelves being incorporate into that Church-State, their Children, by expreſs Command from God, had a Title to legal Priviledges: but the Covenant of Grace (for that's it we diſpute, tho you leave out the Word Grace in your Argument) extended to Infants by God's free Redemption, which he purpoſed for them, in Chriſt, from the Foundation of the World; or elſe what ſhall become of the many thouſands of Infants of Unbelievers?

3. You can never prove, that the Faith of the Jaylor, or Lydia either, did entitle their Infants to the Covenant, for you cannot prove they had any Children. And it is ſo exceeding plain, that all that were baptized in theſe two Families were Believers, that I wonder much that you ſhould ſay, that on the believing of the Jaylor and Lydia, the whole Families were baptized. Pray read Acts 16. 32. to the end, and you will find that they that were baptized, were actual Believers, and capable of being conſolated by the Apoſtles.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 10.

Thoſe who are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven, are capable of Baptiſm: But Children are capable of the Kingdom of Heaven: Therefore Children are capable of Baptiſm.

ANSWER.

1. The Major being taken univerſally, for all that may go to Heaven, it may very well be denied; for Mr. Taylor dare not deny a Capacity of Salvation to ſome of the Infants of the Jews, and yet Mr. Taylor himſelf does not think they are capable of Baptiſm; for he makes the Faith of the Parents neceſſary to the entitling them to Baptiſm, which in this Caſe is wanting.

2. That the greater includes the leſs, is not univerſally true; for Women have a capacity to go to Heaven, yet they have no capacity to be Biſhops, which is leſs than going to Heaven. Infants are not capable of the Lord's Table, which is leſs than to go to Heaven. Indeed, this Argument being admitted to be good, would bring Infants to all Privileges in the Church-Militant, as well as to Baptiſm; for thus a Man might argue: Thoſe who are capable of all the Privileges of the Church Triumphant, are p. 33capable of all the Privileges of the Church Militant, (for the greater includes the leſs): But Infants are capable of all Privileges in the Church Triumphant; Ergo, &c. And if it be unreaſonable (as you ſay it is) to deny the external Sign, to thoſe to whom Chriſt hath granted the internal Grace; pray, why are you ſo unreaſonable, as to deny your Infants the Sign of the Lord's Table, ſeeing you affirm they are regenerate, and born of Water and the Spirit? But if you were put to prove, that Infants, whom you ſprinkle, have the inward Grace which entitles to Baptiſm, you would never be able to make demonſtration to your own, or any wiſe Man's Satisfaction; for is not the inward and ſpiritual Grace, Repentance, whereby Sin is forſaken, and Faith, whereby the Promiſes of God are ſtedfaſtly believed? And what Infant did you ever know thus qualified for Baptiſm?

Mr. Taylor's Argument 11.

All who are Believers, ought to be baptized: But Children are Believers: Therefore Children ought to be baptized.

ANSWER.

1. The Minor Propoſition, that Infants are Believers, is not true. And I anſwer in the Words of Dr. Hammond, who ſaith, (Letter of Reſolut. p. 297.) I ſhall profeſs to be none of thoſe that are concerned in the Queſtion, Whether Infants have Faith? I freely confeſs to believe, that Faith is ſo neceſſarily founded in Ʋnderſtanding, that they that have not Ʋnderſtanding, cannot have Faith, whether actual or habitual. And Dr. Jer. Taylor tells us expreſly, Whether Infants have Faith? is a Queſtion to be diſputed by Perſons, that care not how much they ſay, and how little they prove. Thus theſe two Pillars of the Church of England explode your Argument, as an egregious Error.

2. And for that place, Mat. 18. 5, 6. by which you would prove Infants Believers, the Learned of your own Church expound it to a contrary Sence, and take the little Child that believeth, to be a true Chriſtian, that hath laid aſide all worldly Pride, whereby he is become abject in the ſight of the World. I ſhall not contend with you about the proper ſignification of foreign, (profeſſing p. 34my ſelf no Scholar) tho Ludovicus Vives uſeth foreign for an Houſhold-Servant. But it is ſufficient to my purpoſe, that you dare not ſay Infants are actual Believers; (nay, you confeſs, they have not actual Faith: And for imputative Faith, (if there be any ſuch thing) yet it can be no Rule for the baptizing any Body, ſeeing it is not revealed to whom Faith is imputed; and whilſt you ſay, God may eſteem Infants as Believers, another may as well ſay, he may eſteem them as baptized alſo); I ſay, your granting Infants have not actual Faith, you can take the word, believeth, Mat. 18. 6. only by the Figure called Proſopopoeia, if you will needs have the Child an Infant of Days. And if it be good arguing from hence to the Baptiſm of Infants, then you may argue as ſtrongly for baptizing the whole Creation, (if you can tell how) for it is ſaid to groan, expect, and wait for the manifeſtation of the Sons of God, and to be delivered from the Bondage of Corruption. Rom. 8. 19. We conclude then, that it is not a figurative Faith, but an actual Faith, (at leaſt by profeſſion) that entitles to the reception of Baptiſm.

3. We do not ſay, that God will impute Unbelief to Infants, but only to thoſe that refuſe to believe; and tho we know Infants are not Believers, yet we do not ſay or think they are Unbelievers, they being not capable to ſin againſt God in that caſe, or any elſe. And Unbelief preſuppoſes a capacity in the Subject, and means ſufficient, to believe, and yet the Creature refuſes to believe. The Sin of Unbelief therefore being no way chargeable upon any Infant, it follows by neceſſary Conſequence, that they have no capacity for Faith. Neither do we pretend to judg Mens Hearts; for tho God has ordered Faith to be a Pre-requiſite to Baptiſm, yet we are only to judg of the Profeſſion of Faith, not of the Sincerity of it. And as it is true, as you ſay, that Infants cannot play the Hypocrite; ſo it's true, they cannot play the Chriſtian, and therefore not fit for the Duties of Chriſtians, of which Baptiſm is one.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 12.

They who are capable of the Ends of Baptiſm, may be baptized: But Children are capable of the Ends of Baptiſm: Therefore they may be baptized.

p. 35ANSWER.

1. If by the Ends of Baptiſm, you mean the Things which concern God's Mercy in the Redemption of Man only, then the Major is denied; but if by the Ends of Baptiſm, you mean the Things required on Mans part, then the Minor is not true; for Mortification and Vivification are the Ends of Baptiſm on Man's part, of which Infants are not capable; for they cannot put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh, nor have they any need ſo to do, neither can they riſe to Newneſs of Life. And tho I grant, (and have often ſaid it) that we ought to devote our Children to God in the beſt manner we can; yet to go beyond the Word of the Lord under that pretence, will neither profit us, nor our Children.

2. What you ſay here, of Baptiſm being a Seal to Infants, &c. is anſwered before. And ſurely the word Heathen, (ſo often uſed by you) as it imports ſometimes an Enemy to God, (yet being of it ſelf of no ill ſignification) Infants are not ſo to be accounted Heathens; nor doth the word, Chriſtian, as it imports a Follower of Chriſt, belong to Infants. So that this is only a Noiſe of Words, to talk that our Infants are not diſtinguiſhed from the Infants of Heathens, tho I have ſhewed a difference between them.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 13.

Whom the Church of Chriſt ever received to Baptiſm, may ſtill be baptized: But the Church of Chriſt hath ever received Children to Baptiſm: Therefore they may be baptized.

ANSWER.

1. The Minor Propoſition is not true, and therefore I do deny, that the Church hath always received Infants to Baptiſm. And indeed you do not ſo much as pretend any thing from the Scriptures to prove it, but, before, do honeſtly confeſs, That Infant-Baptiſm is not mentioned in the New Teſtament; and therefore certainly it will be impoſſible to prove, that the Church did always receive p. 36Infants to Baptiſm. And it is alſo very obſervable, that Euſebius, who wrote the Hiſtory of the Church for four hundred Years after Chriſt, does not ſo much as mention Infant-Baptiſm at all.

2. But how then does Mr. Taylor prove his Minor? Why, his chief Author to that purpoſe is Mr. Walker, in his Book called, A modeſt Plea for Infant-Baptiſm; which Book in that part has been anſwered by Mr. De-Laune, to which I refer the Reader. The Sum of which Anſwer is to prove, that all Mr. Walker's Teſtimonies from Antiquity for Infant-Baptiſm, for the firſt 300 Years after Chriſt, are either invalid, or taken out of forged and ſpurious Books. And it is more than ſufficient to ballance Mr. Walker's and Mr. Taylor's bold Aſſertion, That the Catholick Church hath always received Infants to Baptiſm, by the contrary Teſtimonies of Ludovicus Vives, and Dr. Barlow; the firſt expreſly ſaying, In old Time none was brought to Baptiſm, but he was of ſufficient Years to know what that myſtical Water meant, and to require his Baptiſm, and that ſundry times. The other tells us, There is neither Precept nor Practice in Scripture for Infant-Baptiſm, nor any juſt Evidence for it for about 200 Years after Chriſt.

2. You ſay, That for many hundreds of Years the Queſtion [about Infant-Baptiſm] was not moved. But this is a great Miſtake; for Tertullian did queſtion it, as an unwarrantable Practice, in the beginning of the third Century; as is ſhewed by Mr. Tombes, and others, who have diligently enquired into the ancient Cuſtoms of the Church.

3. The firſt Inſtance which you bring for the Practice of Infant-Baptiſm in our Nation, is that in King Ina's time, about the Year 692; but we can prove it was oppoſed by the Britain Biſhops two hundred Years before this. See Fabian's Chron. part 1. fol. 107.

4. You ſay, The deferring of Baptiſm among the Ancients, was not for their queſtioning Infant-Baptiſm. But ſure, if they did think themſelves too young to be baptized, at twenty or thirty Years of Age, they could with no reaſon think their Children old enough for Baptiſm at ſeven or eight days old. Extremes have undone all; they were too ſlow, and you are as much too quick. But the proper time for Baptiſm is, when Men attain to the new Birth; Baptiſm is therefore rightly call'd the Waſhing of Regeneration.

5. You ſeem to hold, That Infant-Baptiſm was lawfully practiſed by God's People before Chriſt, and even from the Apoſtles Time ſince Chriſt: But I wonder by what Law; you give us none but Mr. Walker's Book, which is very well anſwered by Mr. De-Laune, p. 37in his Book entitled, Truth defended. And I am ſure, the beſt Antiquity ſays nothing for you.

Mr. Taylor's Argument 14.

That Doctrine which introduceth many Ʋnchriſtian Conſequences, is erroneous: But the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptiſts Introduceth many Ʋnchriſtian Conſequences: Therefore the Doctrine of the Antipoedobaptiſts is erroneous.

ANSWER.

1. The Minor Propoſition is not true; for our Doctrine in the Caſe of Baptiſm is true, and Truth does not introduce any erronious Conſequences. Now that our Doctrine is true, appears thus: Becauſe it fully agrees with your Text, Mat. 28. 19. even as it is expounded by your ſelf, in theſe Words, foreign, Going to diſciple all Nations, inſtruct them in the Principles of my Religion; and then, being Diſciples, baptize them. This you ſay, and this we ſay; the only difference is, We do as we ſay, but You ſay and do not: You therefore muſt needs be in the Error in this caſe.

2. But let us hear what you have againſt our Doctrine. Firſt, you ſay, It oppoſeth the whole Current of Scripture, nullifies many Scripture-Promiſes and Privileges, and deſtroys the Covenant of Grace, as the premiſed Pages manifeſt. But I hope the premiſed Anſwers do manifeſt the Charge which you bring againſt our Doctrine to be very unjuſt. And ſeeing you are the Men, and not we, that have changed the Ordinance of Baptiſm, you may juſtly fear the Cenſure of the Prophet, Iſa. 24. 5. for breaking the everlaſting Covenant. See the Place, and conſider it ſeriouſly.

3. You ſay, Our Doctrine introduceth the World into Gentiliſm or Heatheniſm, and makes Chriſt's Church always gathering, and never gathered. But how can you ſay this, ſeeing we are for the teaching or diſcipling all Nations, and every Perſon in the Nations, as they are capable, and God gives his Miniſters opportunity; and we take the ſame way to do this which the Apoſtles uſed; according to our Ability; i. e. to preach the Goſpel to every one that will hear us, and to bring up our Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord? And what tho the Church be thus always gathering, does not Mat. 28. 19, 20. warrant this Practice p. 38to the end of the World? and if you do not thus gather your Children to Chriſt, they will never be Chriſtians by your Croſſing and Sprinkling them.

4. Your talk of excluding Infants from the Covenant, is anſwered before, and proved untrue; what you add, of our introducing of deſpair of the Salvation of Infants, ſhews your Self-contradiction. For now you ſeem to make Infant-Baptiſm ſo neceſſary to Salvation, that if they be not baptized, we muſt deſpair of their Salvation: Than which what can be a more erronious Conſequence of your Doctrine of Poedo-baptiſm?

5. It is apparent that our Doctrine makes the Covenant eſtabliſhed by Chriſt better than yours (whatever you ſay here to the contrary); not only becauſe we aſſert the Grace of God in the Buſineſs of Salvation to extend to Infants more generally than you do: But alſo for that it ſhews, God has not impoſed any Ceremonies upon them, as he did upon the Jewiſh Male Infants of eight days old. Whilſt your Doctrine makes your Croſſing and Sprinkling them of ſuch importance, as that if it be denied them, deſpair of the Salvation of Infants is genuinely introduced, pag. 74. As if God had tyed the Salvation of all the Infants in the World to a Ceremony. Thus does your Doctrine make the Covenant eſtabliſhed by Chriſt, worſe than the Law of Moſes; for under it the greater part of the Infants of the Jews were ſaved, without being Circumciſed, to wit, all the Females, and all the Males under eight days old: But you have no hope for Infants Male or Female, tho but of a day old, if it be not ſealed with your pretended Baptiſm. Lord, whither will Men go when they forſake thy Word! They will make Chriſt an Impoſtor, if Infants be not capable of Baptiſm: See Mr. Taylor's Book, pag. 72. n. 5.

6. You ſay, Our Doctrine equals the Children of Chriſtians with the Children of Turks, &c. But we have ſhewed the advantage to be on the part of the Children of Chriſtians. And what if God, willing to magnify his Mercy and Goodneſs, has provided a Saviour for the innocent Babes (dying in Infancy) throughout the World? What need this trouble any Body? muſt our Eye be Evil, becauſe his is thus Bountiful? We know that he hath concluded all under Sin, that he might have Mercy upon all. And if God hath not Mercy on poor dying Infants, ſo as to ſave them all by Chriſt, pray ſhew what Mercy he hath upon them? Sure it had been a Mercy they had never been born, but not one Iota of Mercy to be born, p. 39only to cry, dye, and go to Hell. Can you think that ſuch Doctrine befriends the Covenant of Grace? I think not.

7. To what you ſay (or have ſaid) about the Form of Baptiſm, you much miſtake us if you think we do not baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. The Article of our Faith, which you point to, was not written (as I conceive) to teach any to diſpenſe Baptiſm in different Forms of Words, but to ſhew that the Name of Son is to be taken, as he is our Lord and Saviour. Yet let me tell you, that I can ſhew it under the Hand of ſome now in your Miniſtry, that ſays Matth. 28. 19. does not impower any to uſe that Form of Words in Baptiſm, and ſhews alſo that the Learned are not agreed in that Matter. However, I am one with you, as to the uſe of the Form there ſet down, and no other.

Of the manner of uſing Baptiſmal Water.

1. Mr. Taylor grants, the Mode of Baptizing is laid down by our Saviour, and expreſſed in the Word Baptizontes, baptizing them, Mat. 28. 19.

Now this is very well, and I am glad he has done this Holy Ordinance ſo much right, as to acknowledg Chriſt to lay down (in his Commiſſion Mat. 28. 19.) the Manner or Mode in which it ought to be performed. But then, I am ſorry to ſee my good Friend ſo ſoon forget himſelf, as in the very next Page to tell us, that the Mode of Baptizing is an indifferent thing; left to the Prudence of the Church, whether to dip or ſprinkle. Neither of them being commanded, nor either of them abſolutely forbidden by the Precept of Baptizing. What ſhall I ſay to this? If Baptizontes be the Precept for Baptizing, and yet commands nothing, neither to dip nor to ſprinkle, nor abſolutely forbids either, ſure then we keep no Command in doing either, nor do we break any in omitting both. Pity it is, that Men to uphold their own Tradition, ſhould thus fight againſt both Scripture and Reaſon. For, if our Saviour, by the Words baptizing them, command nothing, then its beſt to do nothing; if he command both dipping and ſprinkling, then both muſt be done; if he command but one of theſe, then but one of them muſt be done: Let him chuſe which he will, he muſt chuſe but one. But yet he tells us otherwiſe, pag. 76. for ſaith he, The Word foreign equally admits of both Significations, as is granted by the p. 40beſt Criticks: And quotes chiefly Mr. Walker's Doct. of Bapt. p. 60. to p. 64. For anſwer, I ſay, if the word foreign do equally ſignify dip and ſprinkle, then unleſs we will be unequal we muſt do both; or elſe ſhew which of them may lawfully be omitted.

As for Mr. Walker's Book, I have ſeen it, and obſerved that he plays with the Word foreign, till he makes their Signification altogether uncertain, and ſets the Learned together by the Ears about the meaning of theſe Greek Words. And indeed, according to Mr. Walker, no Man can certainly know when he hits right upon the thing to be done in Obedience to this Precept, Baptizing them. As if our Lord ſhould leave his Apoſtles, and they leave us to gueſs at his meaning; in a Paſſage wherein he commands nothing certainly. And yet to go round again, however we uſe Water in the Name, &c. we can hardly go beſides the meaning of Chriſt: For if we dip the Subject in the Element of Water, we are right; if we ſprinkle it upon any part of the Body, (for you can aſſign no one part more than the other) we are right ſtill; if we dip the Head only, or only the Foot, we are right; if the Head, or Breaſt, or Hand only be ſprinkled, ſtill we are right. Now who can think, that our Saviour ſhould uſe an ambiguous Word, which is to guide us in matter of Fact? Do not Men that thus deal with the Word Baptize, make him the Author of all our Conteſts in this Caſe? And aſſuredly Mr. Walker has run many a one into a maze, about the meaning of foreign, and I am ſorry to ſee Mr. Taylor to follow him. But ſith he refers me alſo to Mr. Leigh's Crit. Sac. He ſhall do well to mark what he ſaith (even as quoted by Mr. Walker, p. 36.) the reaſon (ſays he) why foreign is put pro Lotione & mundatione, is, becauſe ſuch as are immerſed (that is, dipped) come out of the WATER waſhed or cleanſed.

So then, to Baptize, is to dip the Subject in the Element in the Name, &c. and that which is no ſmall, but a moſt importent Confirmation of that Mode (and only that) is the Baptiſm of Chriſt's own Perſon; for Mr. Walker cannot deny, that the Greek in Mark 1. 9. being rightly rendred in Engliſh, is thus read; Jeſus came—and was baptized of John INTO JORDAN, and therefore he may be confident he was not ſprinkled, for it would be nonſence to ſay he was ſprinkled into Jordan; but good ſence and plain truth too, to ſay he was dipped into Jordan. And yet for all this, Mr. Walker fights ſtoutly both againſt Truth and Reaſon, leaning p. 41only upon the ſingle Authority of Bernard, and will have Sprinkling to be meant or ſignified by the Word Baptize, as well as Dipping. And Mr. Taylor ſays the ſame, tho many learned Writers contradict them both.

But it ſhall ſuffice here to ſet down two, both equal in Learning and Vertue to theſe our preſent Oppoſites. The firſt ſhall be that truly Famous Man, Dr. Jer. Taylor, in his Rule of Conſcience, l. 3. c. 4. If you would attend to the ſignification of the Word, BAPTISM ſignifies plunging in Water, or dipping with waſhing. And ſaith Keckerman, Immerſion not Aſperſion (that is, dipping not ſprinkling) was the firſt inſtitution of Baptiſm, as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. Syſt. Theol.

But for all this, Mr. Walker pretends Antiquity for Sprinkling, and it is ſtrange to ſee what learned Men will ſay, when they are ſet to defend Error. We will but touch two of his moſt ancient Inſtances, that you may ſee the bottom of the buſineſs.

1. He goes as high as the ſecond Century, and takes an inſtance of ſprinkling from the ſervice of the Daemons (that is, Devil-Gods) but why ſo? Becauſe he ſuppoſes the Heathen uſed ſprinkling in the Service of their Daemons, in imitation of the Chriſtians Practice. But the truth is, it's more to be feared, that unwary Chriſtians did fall to imitate the Heathens; for we are told ſo in effect, even by a learned Popiſh Author, which for the plainneſs of the Teſtimony, I will here faithfully tranſcribe. He ſaith, —This chief Chair of the Church being tranſlated from Antioch to Rome: He [Peter] and his Succeſſors, were very careful and vigilent to reduce the Chriſtian Religion (being as yet indigeſted, unpoliſhed, and little practiſed) and the Profeſſors thereof, into better Order and Ʋniformity, out of the Law of Moſes (which Chriſt came not to aboliſh, but to fulfil) out of the Civil and Politick Government of Romans, Greeks and Egyptians, and out of both ſacred and prophane Rites, Laws, and Ceremonies of other Nations, but moſt eſpecially by the wholſom Doctrine and Direction of Chriſt Jeſus, and the inſpiration of the Holy Spirit. See a Book called, The Manners, Laws and Cuſtoms of all Nations, pag. 151. Behold here the Springs of Human Inventions and Ceremonies.

Mr. Walker's ſecond Inſtance, is a Story of one ſprinkled with Sand, inſtead of Water (the Water being ſcarce, and the Party like to dye): but alas they could not dip the Sick into the Sand, and however their Zeal may be commended, their Action is not p. 42to be commended at all: It ſhews their Folly, for it's better to be without a Ceremony, when we cannot poſſibly have it in God's way, than to ſet up our own Devices in the ſtead, and place, and uſe of it. For I will (ſaith God) have Mercy and not Sacrifice.

And thus we ſhall leave Mr. Walker to conſider his Sandy Foundation for his ſprinkling Infants.

2. Mr. Taylor ſays, Sprinkling cannot nullify Baptiſm, and therefore our diſſenting Brethren are to blame, to make our Baptiſm to be eſſentially corrupted, and not to be accounted Baptiſm, becauſe not performed by Dipping.

To this I anſwer; When our Saviour commanded to baptize, he commanded but one, not divers kinds of Actions; and to do that, which is not only contrary to his own bleſſed Example in this very thing, but alſo ſuch an Act as cannot with any equity of Speech, or good Sence, be called Baptiſm, is to err eſſentially in the performance of it. And ſo great is the difference between Dipping and Sprinkling, that ſuch as ſprinkle Infants dare not ſpeak as they act, when they pretend to baptize: No, they dare not ſay, I ſprinkle thee in the Name of the Father, &c. which they might well ſay, if the word Baptize does equally ſignify dipping and ſprinkling.

We are not therefore to blame, to labour to have this Ordinance kept as it was delivered, for ſure if it be our Duty to keep God's Ordinances, it's our Duty to keep them as they were obſerved by Chriſt, and the Primitive Churches. And ſo far as the manner of doing this command of Chriſt is eſſential to the Ordinance, dipping is of the eſſence of it, without which it cannot be called Baptiſm.

Again, All the Scriptures which command to baptize, do expreſly command to dip the Party to be baptized, and therefore Mr. Taylor is to blame, to ſay, There is not one place of Scripture which in expreſs Words commands Dipping, pag. 59. Yea, Sir, your Text, Matth. 28. 19. commands Dipping: For were foreign tranſlated into plain Engliſh, it muſt be rendred by dipping. And I pray Sir, conſider, whether you could not with a good Conſcience tranſlate it ſo? And on the other ſide, Whether your Conſcience would not accuſe you, ſhould you tranſlate the Text, Teach all Nations, ſprinkling them? I dare ſay no Man dare thus read the Text. Why then do they thus act? Shall we ſpeak one thing, and do another? So ſpeak ye, and ſo do ye, as they that ſhall be judged by the Law of Liberty; to wit, the Goſpel.

p. 433. What you urge from the Legal Waſhings, has been anſwered by the Learned of our way, and particularly by Mr. Danvers, who ſays, I have carefully examined all the Places in the Old Teſtament, where the word Dipping or Baptizing is mentioned, and do find it is expreſſed by the Hebrew Word, foreign, as Minceus and Dr. Hammond obſerve. The Septuagint do render the Word Tabal in the Hebrew, by foreign, and with all the Tranſlators, both the Latin, Dutch, Italian, French, and Engliſh, do tranſlate to dip; the Word rendred Waſhing, being another Word, as the following Scriptures inform you, Gen. 37. 31. Exod. 12. 22. Lev. 4. 6. & 17. 14. & 6. 16, 51. Levit. 9. 9. Deut. 33. 24. John 3. 5. Numb. 16. 18. 2 Kings 5. 14. I cannot think therefore, that you can conſcionably parallel Rom. 6. 3, 4. Col. 2. 11. with the Jewiſh Waſhings, which are expreſſed by the word foreign, not the word foreign (as Mr. Danvers further ſhews.) And ſure I am, that Rom. 6. and Col. 2. is ſo very clear for our way of baptizing, that the Learned of your way do grant theſe Places allude to the ancient way of baptizing, which (ſay they) was by dipping the Party into the Water.

4. What you ſay of your Sprinkling to be as ſignificant as Dipping, is not true; for indeed unleſs it be commanded to ſignify the Death, Burial, Reſurrection of Chriſt, and our Mortification and Vivification, it can ſignify none of theſe things. Otherwiſe every time you waſh your hands, might ſignify what is ſignified in your Baptiſm; yet you will not ſay it doth ſo. And the ſame Anſwer may ſerve to what you ſay, of Sprinkling and Dipping, being equally obliging; for unleſs God hath given them to oblige, they have no obliging Nature or Virtue in them.

5. What you ſay of the Searcity of Water, can be no Plea for you that have no want of it, whatever it may be for them that have it not. But ſure, where God gives not Straw, he will require no Brick. He does not make Baptiſm ſo neceſſary, that we ſhall periſh if we cannot, but rather if we will not obey him therein.

6. Your Surmiſe, that Dipping ſeems an indecent thing, is indecently ſaid, both by Mr. Walker, and your ſelf, ſeeing it may be done as decently as your Sprinkling; for your Talk of tranſparent Garments, ſhews your unacquaintedneſs with the right way of Baptizing. And know this, your ruffling Ladies in their gorgeous Apparel, may work upon your pravity of Heart ſooner, than to behold and humble penitent Sinner, cloathed in comely, tho mean Garments, to be buried with Chriſt by Baptiſm.

p. 447. To your Objection about the Coldneſs of the Climate, you need but put on the Garment of Love to God and his Truth, and act from a Principle of Faith, and you need fear no Ill, tho this Path may ſeem to you as the Valley of the Shadow of Death. Yet if any Perſon be really weak of Body, and cannot be ſatisfied to delay, (as I confeſs that may be dangerous) there may ſuch care be taken, as in the Eye of Reaſon no Inconvenience need be feared. And if the Water be frozen, (as you object) ſurely he that will allow us to thaw that for our natural, will not blame us, if we do ſo for our ſpiritual uſe.

8. Does plunging or dipping take away the Underſtanding? Why, not more now than in Chriſt's Time. And is it ſo neceſſary that the Underſtanding act in the Duty? I marvel then why you baptize Perſons (as you call it) when they are aſleep.

9. What you ſay of the great Labour of dipping, and the Impoſſibility for one Man to baptize 3000 in one day, and that it is therefore unreaſonable to think the Apoſtles did dip all that they baptized, &c. I anſwer; Firſt, you grant then, that they dipped ſome that they baptized; prove now that they ſprinkled ſo much as one, and the Diſpute is at an end. Secondly, But Sir, what need was there for one Man only to baptize the three thouſand? Acts 2. 40. Does not Mr. Walker himſelf ſuppoſe, that there were of the hundred and twenty Diſciples, eighty two in a Miniſterial Capacity, to wit, the Seventy two, beſides the Apoſtles? Surely they might eaſily baptize three thouſand in a few hours.

But you will now prove the Lawfulneſs and Reaſonableneſs of Sprinkling; let us hear what you ſay.

1. You now make Sprinkling not only equally ſignified in the word, foreign, but to be more congruous with its genuine Signification; your reaſon is, foreign being a Derivative, can admit of no larger Signification than its Primitive foreign, which we find (ſay you) in the Hiſtory of Nebuchadnezzar, when like a Beaſt, foreign, he was wet with the Dew of Heaven.

But for Anſwer; 1. I ſay, this Place in Dan. 4. will never prove, that Sprinkling is more congruous to the genuine Signification of foreign, than Dipping: For Nebuchadnezzar being ſeven Years to live with Beaſts, out of Habitation or Houſe, was ſufficiently waſhed, eſpecially being probably naked too; ſo that this kind of wetting holds ſome reſemblance with plunging in p. 45Water, there being no part free from the Water thus rained upon Nebuchadnezzar: In which reſpect, it ſeems, the Septuagint renders or expreſſes his lying open to the Snow, Hail, Rain, or Dew, ſo long a time, by the word, foreign. And, 2. My Anſwer is, That the Greek here is Hyperbolical, and not properly to be underſtood; and our Tranſlators knowing this, did not (as I ſuppoſe) tranſlate the Word according to its proper Signification, our Language not well bearing it in that caſe, but according to the thing which was to befall Nebuchadnezzar. And it ſeems very diſingenuous, for you to conclude from this Hyperbole, that Sprinkling is more congruous to the ſignification of foreign, than Dipping, tho in ſo ſaying you contradict moſt of the Learned that have interpreted the word, foreign. And I am ſure, (and you know it much better than I can tell you, for my Learning is nothing, when compared with yours,) that our Lexicons, Dictionaries, and Grammars, do make the prime Signification of foreign to be a dipping, as they do who dye Colours; and Scapula does not make foreign, nor foreign, to ſignify Sprinkling at all.

2. What you ſay in your 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th. Particulars, is anſwered before; but here you ſay, The Church was never confined to that Mode of Dipping, but had ſeveral Ways of baptizing, dipping, or ſprinkling, &c.

I anſwer: What Uſages the Church has had, is not the Queſtion; but the Ground of her doings is the matter of our Enquiry: But yet I will venture to ſay, ſhe was always confined to dip, if ſhe kept that Ordinance according to Chriſt's own Example, which I think is a better Expoſitor of the word foreign, than any Lexicon in the World.

2. The Alteration of the manner of this Ordinance, has not only occaſioned us to ſay, You that only croſs and ſprinkle are not baptized; but the Muſcovites declare the Latin Church to be unbaptized for the ſame reaſon. For this you may read Daille on the Fathers, lib. 2. p. 148. where he tells us; The Cuſtom of the Ancient Church was to plunge thoſe they baptized over Head and Ears in Water, as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Epiphanius teſtify. And this is ſtill the Practice of the Greek and Ruſſian Cnurch at this day, as Caſſander de Baptiſmo, pag. 193. And yet notwithſtanding this Cuſtom is now aboliſhed by the Church of Rome; and this is the reaſon why the Muſcovites ſay that the Latines are not rightly and duly baptized. Thus he. Nor is this the only p. 46Cauſe why we think your pretended Baptiſm a Nullity, for your Error about the Subject is more than the other.

3. What you ſay further is, to make us believe that Chriſt did not go into the Water; that the Eunuch went to the Water only, becauſe the Prepoſition foreign ſignifies ad, to. But your Conſcience will tell you, it ſignifies into, as well as to; and indeed you grant it: and then to what putpoſe do you quarrel our Tranſlation? However, we have proved that Chriſt was baptized in the River: and 'tis expreſly ſaid of the many Thouſands which came to Jordan, that they were all baptized in the River, confeſſing their Sins. Now, Sir, here foreign, cannot be rendred to the River, nor with the River, (without egregious Folly) and then 'tis very plain, that they were all dipped in the River; for it had been abſolute Folly to go into the River to ſprinkle the Face, Hand, or any other part of the Body. Seeing then they went into the River to baptize, it ſhews it cannot rightly be done without going into the Water: and therefore of neceſſity we muſt underſtand, Dipping is the only true Mode of Baptizing.

4. I marvel how any wiſe Man can look upon that Text, John 3. 23. John baptized in Enon, —becauſe there was much Water there, and ſo much as think Sprinkling to be a lawful way of baptizing. If he will uſe any of his Wit, he cannot but infer, Baptiſm could not be rightly done with a few drops of Water, ſeein John choſe Enon, becauſe there was much Water there. And what tho foreign ſignify many Waters? yet it does not ſignify many Rivers; but by the Noiſe of many Waters, is often meant the Noiſe of much Water in one Source or Channel. However, you ſay, the Greek ſignifies the Confluence of theſe two Springs, Jordan and Jaboc; but yet you are unwilling that they ſhould yield ſo much Water as might ſuffice to dip in. And yet the Scripture tells you elſewhere, that Jordan overflows all her Banks at certain times; and Lithgow, that was at it, will give you an account, that it is a River ſufficient to dip a bigger Man than your ſelf in.

But here, you ſay, is no mention of dipping. Yes, Sir, but there is; for when you hear, that John was baptizing in Enon, he was either dipping or ſprinkling. The latter would make the Speech abſurd and nonſenſical; the former therefore was his Buſineſs, for he was dipping in Enon, near Salem, becauſe there was much Water there.

Your Church therefore is very much to blame, in leaving the p. 47Way of Truth, and following her own Tradition, and is therefore the cauſe of our preſent diſunion, and will be till ſhe turn to the Truth, both in the Subject and Manner of Baptiſm, or at leaſt forbear to impoſe upon us without Authority from Heaven.

What you add, by way of anſwer to ſome of our Objections againſt Infant Baptiſm, is anſwered in my Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet, and Mr. J. Barret, which is bound up with my Book of Primitive Chriſtianity, and to that I will refer you. What you add about Sureties or God-Fathers, &c. I ſhall not take notice of at this time, and indeed the uſage is ſo odd, that Dr. Jer. Taylor well ſaid, if it had been God's will to have had them, It is to be ſuppoſed he would have given them Commiſſion to have tranſacted the Solemnity with better Circumſtances, and given Anſwers with more Truth; for if the God Fathers anſwer in the Name of the Child (I do believe) it is notorious, they ſpeak falſe and ridiculouſly. And this is even enough to ſay to ſuch an Innovation: But what abſurdity is it, which being once made a Cannon by learned Men, will not find ſome to daub it up with untempered Mortar? Could Men but remember Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10. they would fear to add to, or take from the Ordinances of Chriſt, under what pretence of Piety or Prudence ſoever.

Thus Sir, I have briefly anſwered your Arguments, and hope I have not miſtaken your Sence in any Paſſage I except againſt. And for a Concluſion, I crave leave to ſay, That the way to obtain that Unity which is ſo deſirable, between the Baptized Believers and the Church of England, is not to fall to it by Diſputation, but by propoſing what Abatements may be made about ſuch things as are not mentioned in the Scripture, (as this of Poedo-Baptiſm) is not) or at leaſt what mitigation may be hoped for, as to the impoſition of ſuch things: And on the other ſide, I truſt in the Lord that you ſhall call for nothing from us, wherein we may ſubmit without ſinning againſt God, but we ſhall gladly hearken to you.

In the mean time, conſtant Prayer to God for the Bleſſing of Truth and Peace, and friendly conference between the leading Men on both parts, may do much to further ſo good a Work, ſpecially if his Majeſty would be graciouſly pleaſed to permit ſuch friendly Treaties. But of writing many Books there is no end.