The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 1

The Rector Rectified · Treatise · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I.

Diſproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm, taken from Circumciſion. With ſeveral Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumciſion no Goſpel-Covenant. Confuting alſo the Arguments for Infant-Baptiſm, from the pretended Jewiſh-Baptiſm.

AS to you Six Propoſitions, I ſhall begin with the firſt, and ſo ſpeak to them in order.

Propoſition I.

Your firſt is this, viz. That Baptiſm by Water is a Sacrament of the New Teſtament, inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt, for the ſolemn admiſſion of the Party baptized into the viſible Church; and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace.

p. 2Anſw. You and I are thus far agreed; ſave only I deny that Baptiſm is any where in God's Word, called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; for if it was, then all Perſons baptized have all the Bleſſings of the Covenant of Grace made ſure to them. I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace, but the Holy Spirit; I mean, that ſeals thoſe Covenant-Bleſſings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls; ſee Epheſ. 1. 13, 14. Chap. 4.30.

Whereas you ſay, the Quakers who diſown any Baptiſm in Water, were once our Proſelytes; is not true of the greateſt part of them, tho ſome few of them might depart from that Faith and Profeſſion we are of: Many others of them (you cannot be ignorant) come from you, and ſome from the Presbyterians, &c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers, or ſuch who make a Profeſſion of Faith, midwive their evil and erroneous Principles into the World, as muſt be own'd … acknowledged by all. There's more cauſe to …ear…tis your practice of …tizing of Infants might lead them to diſown Water-Baptiſm, becauſe they can find no mention of any ſuch Practice in the Scripture. May not they be mi…ed to deny any Water-Baptiſm at all, ſince they ſee ſuch a multitude to aſſert that to be Chriſt's Ordinance, which the Scripture is …holly ſilent about?

But to proceed; in Pag. 2. you ſay, The great Controverſy between you and us, li… in your ſecond Propoſition, which is this, viz.

Prop. 2. That not only thoſe who do actually proſeſs Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, but the Infants of ſuch Profeſſors, may, and ought to be baptized.

Anſw. Reader, obſerve, that Mr. Burkitt does grant, that ſuch who do actually profeſs Faith, may, nay ought to be baptized. It appears, he …wns our practice of baptizing Adult Perſon, p. 3who actually profeſs-Faith in Jeſus Chriſt. But he ſays more, i. e. Not only ſuch Perſons may and ought to be baptized, but the Infants of ſuch who profeſs Faith also. And to prove this hold Aſſertion, he lays down this Hypoth…tical Syllogiſ…, viz.

If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ci…cumciſion,Arg. 1. the Infants of Chriſtians may and ought to partake of Baptiſm.

But the Jewiſh Infants were partakers of Circ…mciſion, therefore Chriſtian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptiſm.

Anſw. Sir, muſt we believe it is ſo, becauſe you ſpeak and write it? You give no proof of your … Propoſition, which is utterly denied.

Might not I ſtate another Argument as good as yours, nay, may be better, yet both prove nothing? I argue thus;

1. If the Jewiſh Infants had Right to the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan, the Infants of Chriſti…s have a Right to the Poſſeſſion of the Land of Canaan. But the former is true; Ergo. And if this were ſo, let us make another holy War, a…d take poſſeſſion of it for our Children.

2. Take a ſecond Argument of the like nature with yours, viz. If all the Sons of the Prieſts of God under the Law, had an undeniable Right to the Prieſthood, and many other external Priviledges; then the Sons of the Miniſters of Chriſt have a Right to the Miniſtry under the Goſpel, and many other external Priviledges. But the former is true; Ergo.

Ob. Your Logick will do you no good, if you Argue no better. I muſt tell you, that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumciſion, was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews, not becauſe their Infants we… in that leg…l Cove…ant with their Parents, but rather the expreſs and poſitive Command of God p. 4to Abraham; for evident it is, no Godly Mar… Children, before … days, had any Right to be Circumciſed: And had Abraham or the Jews Circumciſed their … Infants without ſuch a Commiſſion or Command from God, …hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worſhip … and in like m…nner, If God … required Chriſtians to … Infants, … be no Precept nor Examp…e … the Holy Bibl…, it muſt … worſhip in them ſo to …. But God … or required Chriſtians to Baptize their Infants, there is no … nor Example for any ſuch Practice … all the Holy Bible: Ergo, it is Will…worſhip in them ſo to do.

Arg. 2.I ſhall proceed to your ſecond …, viz. If Baptiſm ſuceeds in the room of C…rcu…ciſion then as the Jewiſh Infants were Circumciſed, ſo the Infants of Chriſtians may and ought to be Baptized. But Baptiſm ſucceeds in the room of Circumciſion; therefore … their Children were Circumciſed …, ſo may … be Baptized now.

Anſw. 1. I anſwer, There is no neceſſity that a Goſpel Ordinance muſt ſucceed in the … of a Legal or Jewiſh Ordinance; therefore I deny your M…r. What if … that no Ordinance ſucceeds in the room of Circumciſion? Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law, or Old Teſtament, beſides Circumciſion? And yet you cannot find, or once imagine, any Goſpel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them reſpectively, for that then it would follow, there would be as many Chriſtian Ri…es▪ Precepts and Ordinances, as there were Jewiſh Rites, Precepts and Ordinances, which as o… obſerves, were more than three hundred.

2. Beſides, as Dr., Taylor obſerves, If Baptiſm came in the room of Circumciſion, you … baptize your Children always on the eighth p. 5day: and you muſt not baptize your Female Infants at all, becauſe none but Male Infants were then circumciſed.

3. And whereas you ſay, Baptiſm ſignifies the ſame things that Circumciſion did: it is not true, as will appear to all underſtanding Men, if they conſider theſe Particulars following, which are ſo many Diſparities, viz.

(1.) Circumciſion was a Shadow of Chriſt to come: Baptiſm is a Sign he is already come, was dead and buried.

(2.) Circumciſion was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed: Baptiſm is a Sign of the peculiar ſpiritual Priviledges made to Saints, as ſuch, and no others.

(3.) Circumciſion was a Domeſtick Action, i.e. to be done in the Houſe: Baptiſm an Eccleſiaſtick, belonging to the Goſpel-Church.

(4.) Circumciſion was to be done by the Parents in that reſpect: Baptiſm is to be done only by Goſpel-Miniſters.

(5.) Circumciſion was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Fleſh, which drew Blood: Baptiſm is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood.

(6.) Circumciſion belonged to Male Children only: Baptiſm belongs to Males and Females alſo.

(7.) Circumciſion was to be done preciſely on the eighth day: Baptiſm is not limited to any preciſe day.

(8.) Circumciſion made a viſible Impreſſion on the Body, which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Underſtanding: Baptiſm leaves no Impreſſion on the Body.

(9.) Circumciſion belonged to Abraham's Houſe, to his Male Infants only, or ſuc… who were bought with his Money, and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days, unleſs they join themſelves to his Family. Baptiſm p. 6belongs to Believers in all Nation….

(10.) Circumciſion bound thoſe who came under that Rite, to keep the whole Law of Moſes: Baptiſm ſignifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage.

(11.) If Circumciſion ſignified the ſame things, and conſequently, particularly the ſealing the Covenant of Grace; then thoſe … were circumciſed, needed not to be baptized, becauſe ſealed before with the ſame ſeal of that which ſignified the ſame thing: but Chriſt and all his Apoſtles, and many others who were circumciſed, were nevertheless baptized.

(12.) Circumciſion ſignified the taking away the Sins of the Fleſh, or the Circumciſion of the Heart: but Baptiſm ſignifies the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which Circumciſion did not.

(13.) Circumciſion was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile; but Baptiſm teſtifieth that Jew and Gentile, Male and Female; Barbarian and Scythian, Bond and Fr…e, are all one in Chriſt Jeſus. Therefore there are invers Diſparities and different Significations between Circumciſion and Baptiſm.

…. And what tho we deny not but that Circumciſion was then the in…lating Ordinance, and Baptiſm is ſo now in Goſpel-times, i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation; yet Circumciſion initiated none into the Jewiſh Church, but ſuch who were by the expreſs and poſitive Command of God to be circumciſed, who were only Male Infants, (for the Females were initiated without it) even ſo Baptiſm, tho it be an initiating Ordinance, yet none are to be initiated thereby, not only thoſe who by the expreſs Command of God are required to be baptized; and they are only ſuch who believe, or make a Profeſſion of their Faith. Sir, Precepts that are merely poſitive, p. 7greatly differ (you know well enough) from Precepts that are purely moral in their own nature. Laws that are of meer poſitive Right, wholly depend upon the abſolute Will and Pleaſure of the great Legiſlator; and in all Caſes and Circumſtances we muſt keep to the expreſs words of the Inſtitution; we muſt venture to do no more nor no leſs, nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded, as appears in Nadab and Ab…hu, and Ʋzzah's caſe; the firſt for offering of ſtrange Fire, which thing God commanded them not, (tho God in expreſs words no where forbid them ſo to do) were cut off, Levit. 10. 1, 2.

When God commanded Abraham to circumciſe on the eighth day, did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the ſeventh or ninth day? Therefore this ſort of reaſoning of yours is meer ſophiſtical, and you do but darken Counſel with words without Knowl…dg. You ſay in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants ſhould be excluded. You mean, he has no where forbid in expreſs words the baptizing of Infants; no more, ſay I, has he forbid Hony, Wine, Oil, Salt and Spittle to be uſed in Baptiſm; the former was uſed by ſome of the ancient Fathers, and the latter is ſtill in the Romiſh Church. Where are we forbid to baptize Bells, and conſecrate Water, as the Papiſts do to make it holy Water? Alſo where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table? If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worſhip, which you ſuppoſe is not forbid, and bears alſo ſome proportion in Signification with Jewiſh Rites; all Popiſh Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the ſame Door: for the Pope, Miter, Popiſh Veſtures, Candle and Candleſticks, &c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Prieſt under the Law, with the Prieſt's p. 8Veſtures, and other Ceremonies among the Jews. Whither will this lead you? 'tis dangerous to be led by ſuch a Guide.

But to proceed; we will come to that grand Proof of yours for Infant Baptiſm in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all diſpute; namely, That Baptiſm doth come in the room of Circumciſion, which is Col. 2. 11, 12. In whom alſo ye are circumciſed, with the Circumciſion made without Hands, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; buried with him in Baptiſm. You ſay, The Deſign of the Apoſtle here is to take the Coloſſians off from the old Sacrament of Circumciſion. He informs them that there was no reaſon why they ſhould be fond of it, becauſe they were compleat without it, Chriſt having ſubſtituted new Circumciſion in the room of it, namely, Baptiſm: and accordingly Chriſtians may now be ſaid, by Baptiſm, to be ſpiritually circumciſed, as the Jews were ſaid to be ſpiritually baptized.

Anſw. Your Expoſition of this Text, there is no ground to admit of; the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Power or Virtue of Chriſt's Circumciſion. His deſign is to ſhew we are compleat in Chriſt without Circumciſion, or Jewiſh Ordinances: and to ſhew how we are compleat in Chriſt, and have put him on, he mentions Faith as well as Baptiſm, or ſuch a Faith that ſhould always attend Baptiſm; and therefore Infant-Baptiſm from hence cannot be proved or inferred, nor the leaſt ground for your bold Concluſion from hence, viz. That Baptiſm came in the room of Circumciſion.

1. For firſt, the Apoſtle 'tis true excludes Circumciſion, but 'tis upon another account, viz. by ſhewing Circumciſion was a Figure of the Circumciſion of the Heart, as Rom. 2. 28, 29. Phil. 3.3. and ſince they had the thing ſignified p. 9thereby, the Rite or Sign ceaſed. And as I have lately replied to ſome of your Brethren in anſwer to this Text, ſo I muſt ſay to you, all that can well be aſſerted from this Scripture, where the Apoſtle brings in Baptiſm, is no more than this, viz. That where Baptiſm is rightly adminiſtred upon a proper Subject, it repreſents the ſpiritual and myſtical Circumciſion of the Heart, i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin, or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh by the Circumciſion of Chriſt; which may refer to the Power of his Death in the bleſſed Effects thereof, by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart. And as being dead to Sin, we are buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, both in ſign and token of Chriſt's Burial, i. e. covered all over in the Water, which is a clear Symbol of his Burial; alſo in Signification, i. e. that we being dead and buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, ſo are to riſe with him, by the Faith of the Operation of God; and both theſe are held forth in true Baptiſm. The Apoſtle doth not mention Baptiſm to come in the room of Circumciſion, but to ſhew that theſe believing Coloſſians had through Chriſt by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof, or thing figured out in the Circumciſion of the Fleſh; which Baptiſm did clearly repreſent. But ſince this is ſo ſtrenuouſly urged by you afreſh, tho ſo often anſwered, I will be at the trouble to tranſcribe once more what Dr. Taylor, late Biſhop of Down, hath ſaid to this Argument of yours, and others before you, about Circumciſion, viz. That Baptiſm is the Antitype of it, or that it came in the room thereof.

The Argument (ſaith he) from Circumciſion is invalid upon infinite Conſiderations, Figures and Types prove nothing, unleſs a Command go along with them, or ſome Expreſs p. 10to ſignify ſuch to be their purpoſe. For the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptiſm, ſaith Peter. If therefore the Circumſtances of the one be drawn to the other, we ſhall make Baptiſm a Prodigy rather than a Rite; The Paſchal Lamb was a Figure of the Euchariſt, which ſucceeds the other, as Baptiſm doth Circumciſion: But becauſe there was in the Mandu…ation of the Paſchal Lamb …o Preſcription of Sacramental Drink, ſhall we conclude from hence, the Euchariſt is to be adminiſtered in one kind? To which let me add, Becauſe Children, Servants, and all in the Houſe **Exod. 12.3, 4. They were to take to them a Lamb, according to the number of Souls in the Houſe.Exod 12:3Exod 12:4might eat of the Paſſeover, muſt our Children and all in our Houſes eat of the Euchariſt, or Supper of the Lord? But, ſaith the Doctor, and in this very Inſtance of this Argument, ſuppoſe a Correſpondency of the Analogy between Circumciſion and Baptiſm, yet there is no Correſpondency of Identity; for though it be granted, that both of them did conſign the Covenant of Faith, yet there is nothing in the Circumſtances of Children being circumciſed, that ſo concerns that Myſtery, but that it might well be given to Men of Reaſon, becauſe Circumciſion left a Character in the Fleſh, which being imprinted upon the Infant, did its work to them when they came to Age; and ſuch a Character was neceſſary, becauſe there was no word added to the Sign: But Baptiſm imprints nothing that remains on the Body; and if it leaves a Character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which the Word is added, which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it ſelf: for both which Reaſons it is requiſite, that the Party baptized ſhould be capable of Reaſon, that they may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament, and the impreſs upon the p. 11Spirit. Since therefore the Reaſon of the Parity does wholly fail, there is nothing left to infer a neceſſity of complying in the Circumſtance of Age, any more than in the other Annexes of Types. The Infant muſt alſo preciſely be baptized upon the eighth day, and Females muſt not be baptized at all, becauſe not circumciſed. But it were more proper, if we would underſtand it aright, to proſecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype, by the way of Letter, and Spirit, and Signification, and as Circumciſion figures Baptiſm, ſo alſo the Adjuncts of the Circumciſed ſhall ſignify ſomething ſpiritual in the Adherents of Baptiſm: and therefore as Infants were circumciſed, ſo ſpiritual Infants ſhould be baptized, which is ſpiritual Circumciſion; for therefore Babes had the Miniſtry of the Type, to ſignify that we muſt, when we give our Names to Chriſt, become Children in Malice, and then the Type is made compleat.

Thus, as I have formerly ſaid; the worthy Doctor hath given you a full Anſwer to all you have ſaid concerning your Arguments for Baptiſm coming in the room of, or being a Figure of Circumciſion. But to proceed.

5. If Baptiſm and Circumciſion were both in full force together for ſome time; then Baptiſm is not the Type of, nor came in the room of Circumciſion.

But Baptiſm and Circumciſion were both in full force together for ſome time: Therefore Baptiſm is no Type of, nor came in the room of Circumciſion.

The Minor is undeniable. Was not Baptiſm in full force from the time that John received it from Heaven, and adminiſtred it on the People? and did not Chriſt, by the hands of his Diſciples, p. 12baptize many Perſons? nay, more Diſciples than John? as it is ſaid, Joh. 4.1, 2. And was not Circumciſion them in full force too, and ſo abode till Chriſt took it away by nailing it, with all other Jewiſh Rites, to his Croſs?

And as to the ſequel of th… Major, that cannot be denied; for if one thing cannot come in the room and, place of another, till the other is actually and legally removed and took out of the way, which is plain; then ſince theſe two Rites had a Being together, the Major is undeniable. A Type can abide no longer than till the Antitype is come; therefore Baptiſm is not the Antitype of Circumciſion, or came not in the room and place thereof; the Antitype of which, or that which came in the room of the Circumciſion of the Fleſh, is the Circumciſion of the Heart, not in the Fleſh; but in the Spirit, whoſe Praiſe is not of Men, but of God.

6. And indeed how one thing that was a Figure or Shadow ſhould come in the room, or be the Antitype of another thing, which is a Figure or Shadow, no wiſe Man can ſee reaſon to believe. And thus your great Text, Col. 2.11, 12. is plainly and honeſtly opened, …ccording to the ſcope and main drift of the Spirit of God therein, and your great Pillar for your Scriptureleſs Practice of Babes Baptiſm, razed and utterly overthrown.

Since I wrote this Anſwer to what you have ſaid touching Circumciſion,See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptiſm. I have met with an Anſwer given to the like pretended Proof for Pedo-Baptiſm, written by a moſt Learned and Reverend Author: The Argument and Anſwer I have been at the pains to tranſcribe, which tak… as here followeth.

The Argument runs thus, viz.

p. 13To them to whom Circumciſion did agree,The Pedo-Baptiſts Argument. to them Baptiſm doth agree: But Circumciſion did agree to Infants, therefore alſo Baptiſm, &c.

The Major he endeavours thus to prove, i. e. If the Baptiſm of Chriſt ſucceeds into the place and room of Circumciſion, then Baptiſm belongs to them that Circumciſion belonged to: but the Antecedent is true, therefore the Conſequence. The Minor, he ſays, is proved from Col. 2.12. 'tis ſaid, the Coloſſians were Circumciſed, becauſe Baptized.

Anſw. This Argument ſuppoſeth Baptiſm to ſucceed in the place of Circumciſion;Mr Tomb's Anſwer. which may be underſtood many ways.

1. So as that the ſenſe be, that thoſe Perſons may be Baptized, which heretofore, by God's Appointment, were to be Circumciſed. And in this ſenſe the Argument muſt proceed, if it conclude to the purpoſe: But in this ſenſe it is falſe, for Females were not Circumciſed, which yet were Baptized, as Act. 8.12, 13, 14. & 16.14, 15. and Believers out of Abraham's Houſe, as Lot, Melchiſedec, Joh, were not to be Circumciſed: but believing Gentiles are univerſally to be Baptized.

2. It may be ſo underſtood as if the Rite of Baptiſm then began, when the Rite of Circumciſion did or was to end. But this is not to be ſaid; for John Baptiſt and Chriſt's Diſciples baptized, John 4.1, 2. before Circumciſion of right ceaſed.

3. It may be underſtood, as if Baptiſm did ſucceed into the place of Circumciſion, in reſpect of its ſignification; which is true in ſome things, but not in others. Firſt, both might ſignify the Sanctification of the Heart; and this is … may be concluded out of that place alledged, Col. 2.11, 12. To which I think meet to add, that if that Text be looked into, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not of any Circumciſion, but of Chriſt, p. 14becauſe in him we are compleat, and by whoſe Circumciſion we are ſaid to put off the Body of the Sins of the Fleſh: nor doth the Text ſay we are Circumciſed, becauſe we are Baptized; but that we are compleat in Chriſt, becauſe we are Circumciſed in him, and buried with him in Baptiſm, (in which) or in whom ye and alſo riſen together, through the Faith of the Operation of God that raiſed him from the Dead.

In ſome things Baptiſm doth not ſucceed into the place of Circumciſion, in reſpect of ſignification.

For, 1. Circumciſion did ſignify Chriſt to come of Iſaac according to the Fleſh, Gen. 17.10, 11. but Baptiſm doth not ſignify this, but points at his Incarnation, Death and Reſurrection.

2. Circumciſion was a Sign, that the Iſraelites were a People ſeparated from all Nations, Rom. 3.1. but Baptiſm ſignifies, that all that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, are one in Chriſt, Gal. 3.28.

3. Circumciſion ſignified, that Moſes his Law was to be obſerved, Gal. 5.3. but Baptiſm doth ſignify, that Moſes his Law is aboliſhed, and the Doctrine of Chriſt eſtabliſhed.

4. Circumciſion ſignified the Promiſe of the Land of Canaan: but Baptiſm Eternal Life by Chriſt.

And indeed, ſaith he, if this Argument be not warily and reſtrainedly underſtood, an Egg is laid, out of which manifeſt Judaiſm may be hatched; but if it be taken reſtrainedly, … no more follows thence, but that Baptiſm and Circumciſion, in ſome things, hold forth the same; which is more plainly ſaid of … Ark, 1 Pet. 3.21. and of the Red Sea, and Cloud, 1 Cor. 10.2. And yet we ſay not that Baptiſm ſucceeded into their place, much leſs do p. 15we infer any Rite to be inſtituted in their ſtead, reſpecting the ſame Perſons; yea verily, it is to be ſeriouſly thought on,

1. That by ſuch Arguments drawn from Analogies, not conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, but drawn out of our Wit, a new kind of inſtituting Rites (to wit, from Analogies) is brought in, beſides our Lord's Precepts, and the Apoſtles Examples.

2. This being once ſaid, by a like parity of Reaſon and Arguing, it will be lawful to bring into the Chriſtian Church, under other Names and Forms, the whole Burden of Jewiſh Rites; yea, almoſt out of what you will, to conclude what you will. For who ſhall put a Bound to Mens feigning Analogies, when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts, and the Apoſtles Examples? It is well known, that the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid, and many other things in the Writings of Divines, are aſſerted by this kind of Argument, beſides the Rule of the Lord's Precept, and the Apoſtles Example.

3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papiſts be confirmed; who affirm, from 1 Cor. 10.11. the Sacraments of the Jews, to be Types of the Sacraments of Chriſtians; which is rejected by Divines that diſpute againſt Bellarmine.

4. This manner of arguing, will countenance the Arguments of the Papiſts for an Ʋniverſal Biſhop, becauſe the Jews had ſuch; and juſtify a Linen Garment at Maſs, becauſe there was ſuch among the Jews; and for Holy Water, Purification of Women, Eaſter, Pentecoſt, and many more ſuch Ceremonies; for which the Papiſts do in like manner argue, as appears out of Durandus's Rationals, and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papiſts. Yea, what hindereth, but we may give Children the Lord's Supper, if we argue this way, ſince Samuel, Jeſus Chriſt under p. 16Age, were partakers of the Paſſeover? And of right, all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord, and therefore it is certain they did eat the Paſſeover: and it ſhall be afterwards ſhewed, that the place, 1 Cor. 11.28. will not avoid this Inconvenience, if the Text, Mat. 28.19. may be ſhifted off, as Pedo-Baptiſts uſe to do. Leſt any Man take this for a light Suggeſtion, I will add, that grave, godly, and learned Men, have often warned, that we are to take heed, that we do not raſhly frame Arguments from Analogy; among others, in their late Writings in the Engliſh Tongue, John Paget, in his Defence of Church-Government, Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8, and elſewhere. John Ball, in his Reply to the Anſwer of the New-England Elders unto the Nine Poſitions, Poſit, 2. p. 14.

Laſtly, It is to be conſidered, again and again, how by theſe Argumentations, the Conſciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-Worſhip, and polluting ſo remarkable an Ordinance of Chriſt as Baptiſm is; eſpecially this Care lies on them, who by Prayer, Sermons, Writings, Covenants and Oaths, do deter Chriſtians from Humane Inventions in God's Worſhip diligently, and it is to be hoped ſincerely.

Thus far that Reverend Divine, who though I knew not what he had ſaid till after I had wrote as before in anſwer to you; yet finding him ſo fully to ſtrengthen what I have ſaid, I thought good to add his Excellent Lines.

In the cloſe of your 4th Page, you recite an Objection brought by us, viz.

That there was an expreſs Command in ſo many Words for Circumciſion, but there is no ſuch Command for Infant-Baptiſm. Gen. 17.9, requires Infants to be Circumciſed; ſhew us but ſuch a Text in all the New Teſtament, that ſays, … Infants be Baptized. Thus you have ſtated p. 17our Objection, to which you give a threefold Anſwer.

I acknowledg (ſay you) that in the New-Teſtament, though it be not wholly ſilent, yet it ſpeaks very little touching the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm; and that for two Reaſons, 1. Becauſe the Old-Teſtament ſpeaks ſo much in their Caſe, therefore the New-Teſtament ſpeaks ſo little—The Old-Teſtament plainly informs us, that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Viſible Church. Now what need is there that the ſame thing be repeated over again in the New-Teſtament? for it is not the Old-Teſtament alone, nor the New-Teſtament alone, but both together, that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice, &c.

Anſw. 1. You ſpeak an Untruth, for the New-Teſtament ſpeaks nothing at all touching Infant-Baptiſm; if a Man read it over a thouſand times, he ſhall not find one Word, or the leaſt Hint given of it: therefore the New-Teſtament, contrary to what you boldly affirm, is wholly ſilent in the Caſe of Infant-Baptiſm and Church-Memberſhip. 'Tis a ſhame for a Man, who calls himſelf a Miniſter, to ſpeak falſly, but much more to publiſh Falſhoods to the World. In this, Mr. Rector, you muſt be corrected. If you fly to your pretended Conſequences, you ſhall find, by and by, God aſſiſting, that that Refuge will fail you in the Caſe; for Conſequences in many Caſes, drawn naturally from the Premiſes to which they refer, we readily admit of, though not in the Caſe of meer poſitive Precepts.

2. As to your firſt Reaſon, why the New-Teſtament ſpeaks no more in the Caſe of Infants; which is, as you conceive, becauſe the Old-Teſtament ſpeaks ſo much, that the Infant-Seed of Believers ſhould be owned as Covenant Servants, as Deut. 29.10, 12. and were admitted p. 18Members of that Viſible Church. I muſt tell you, Sir, by way of Anſwer, this will do you no good, for the Reaſons following.

1. Becauſe Baptiſm is (as I have told you already) a meer poſitive Precept; and the Rite thereof, as well as Circumciſion, cannot be known but by the expreſs Declaration or Manifeſtation of the Will and Mind … God in his written Word. Abraham knew not that it was his Duty, he ought to Circumciſe his Children, till God gave him his poſitive and expreſs Command to do it; and then alſo it was none but his Male Children; and God gave Directions to him, when and wherefore he ſhould Circumciſe them: And therefore there is the ſame parity of Reaſon, why the Great God ſhould give us under the Goſpel the like poſitive Law for baptizing our Children under the Goſpel; together with the Time when, and the Reaſon wherefore, as he did to them in the caſe of Circumciſion, had it been his Pleaſure we ſhould Baptize our Children: but ſince he hath not required any thing of this Nature of us under the Goſpel, his requiring them to Circumciſe their Male Children, will not juſtify us, nor free us in ſo doing, from palpable Will-Worſhip. Were there none among the Gentiles, think you, in the Old-Teſtament-time, that were Believers and Godly Perſons? And if there were ſuch, I ask you, whether they were to Circumciſe their Children, notwithſtanding they abode without the Gate or Pale of the Jewiſh Church? Nay, I affirm, that it was not the Duty of Melchiſedec, Lot, nor Job, (becauſe not Abraham's natural Off-ſpring, nor bought with his Money, had they never ſo many Sons) to Circumciſe one of them, becauſe they had no Command ſo to do. Read Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. and you will find the expreſs Command of God was to him, and to every Male-Child of his; or p. 19that was born in his Houſe, or bought with Money, ver. 11, 12.

2. Becauſe the Church-State of the Jews, or that under the Old-Teſtament, quite differs from the Goſpel-Church State; the Jewiſh-Church-Conſtitution was National, the whole Nation of the Jews; and every individual Perſon that proceeded from Abraham's Loins, were admitted as Members of that Church under the Law, or in Times of the Old-Teſtament, and therefore his Infant-Seed were and might be admitted Members thereof. But in the Times of the Goſpel, the Church is not National, but Congregational, Shew us what whole Nation or People, none excepted, were by Chriſt's Appointmen… conſtituted as a Goſpel-Church, as the People of Iſrael or Jewiſh Nation were, and you will gain a great Point. Is it not evident, all along in the Acts of the Apoſtles, which gives an Account of the Nature and Manner of the Gatherings and Conſtitutions of the Goſpel-Churches, that they conſiſted of none but of ſuch who profeſſed Faith and Regeneration, and ſo were either gathered out of the Jewiſh People, or elſe out of the Nations of the Gentiles, and conſiſted of no other but ſuch who were called, or did profeſs Faith in Jeſus Chriſt? Which if conſidered, utterly overthrows, not only what you ſpeak here, but all you ſpeak afterwards about Children being once in Covenant under the Law.

3. Whereas you ſay, It is not the Old-Teſtament alone, nor the New-Teſtament, but both together, that contains the Rule of our Faith and Practice.

I anſwer, That though in part what you ſay here is true, yet your Trumpet gives an uncertain Sound: for in reſpect of Practice, were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews, which no ways in the leaſt concern p. 20us, or God's Spiritual Iſrael under the Goſpel? If you explain your ſelf no better, you may ſoon ſubvert the People, and carry them away to Judaiſm with a witneſs: nay, and inſtead of Baptizing Children upon ſuch a childiſh and erroneous Foot of Account, make them think they ought to Circumciſe them, as ſome of late here in England were deluded to do. Therefore we ſay as to all Precepts of the Goſpel that are meer poſitive Laws, the New-Teſtament is our only Rule without the help of the Old: Chriſt alone is our Law-giver, and him, and not Moſes, we are only to hear and hearken unto; though as to matter of Faith, the Old-Teſtament may be uſeful … us in many reſpects, and alſo all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature. The Old-Teſtament is a Rule to us as well as the New, which I might ſhew in many reſpects, not only touching the Law of the Decalogue, but alſo of Prayer, ſinging God's Praiſes, Faſting Days, &c. But for you to intimate in the caſe of Circumciſion, that the Old-Teſtament is a Rule of Practice, or in reſpect of Jewiſh Church-Memberſhip, you ſtrangely betray your Ignorance, as will further appear hereafter. For that Circumciſion was a meer Legal or Jewiſh Rite, I ſhall evidently anon fully prove. But ſo much as to your firſt Reaſon, your Second ſhall be now examined.

2. So little is ſaid (ſay you) in the New-Teſtament about Baptizing Infants, becauſe the cuſtom of Baptizing them was common, and the practice conſtant in the Jewiſh Church, at and before our Saviour's Time. Whilſt Circumciſion was the Covenanting Sign, Baptiſm was the Purifying Ceremony among the Jews; for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewiſh Church, both Parents and Children were firſt Circumciſed, and then Waſh'd, in token p. 21of cleanſing them from the filth of their Heatheniſm: So that Baptiſm among the Jews conſtantly went along with Circumciſion till our Saviour's Time.

Anſw. 1. 'Tis a ſign of a bad Cauſe, when Men are forc'd to try their Wits after ſuch a ridiculous manner, to make out what they have to prove. Pray, was that Cuſtom among the Jews, of Baptizing Infants, when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewiſh Church, commanded of God? Had God given the Jews any ſuch Law or Precept? or was it not one of their own Traditions, who in their own Wiſdom, without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver, deviſed that Ceremony, poſſibly to waſh away the Filth of Heatheniſm, as your Predeceſſors in like manner, without any Command or Warrant of Jeſus Chriſt, deviſed the Baptizing of Infants, to waſh away the Filth of Original Sin? Doth not our bleſſed Saviour ſay, that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions? I do affirm, it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the Great God, nor do you attempt once to prove any ſuch thing; for there is not the leaſt ſhadow of any ſuch thing in all the Old-Teſtament; therefore it was a meer humane Tradition.

2. Can any wiſe Man, who would do nothing in God's Service without a ſufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God, think this a good Argument for Infant-Baptiſm? I muſt tell you, (as I have ſome of your Brethren, called, The Athenian Society) That a Popiſh Tradition is every way as good as a Jewiſh one. You were better plead thus, The Romiſh Church, without any Warrant from God's Word, received Infant-Baptiſm as an unwritten Apoſtolical Tradition, and in ſome Councils early.Milevit. Conc. Quicun que parvulos recentes ab uteris Matrum Baptizandos eſſe negat, p. 22Anathema eſto. Milev. Can. 2. and Anathematized or curſed all who ſhould deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized; why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewiſh Rabbins for your Childiſh Baptiſm, ſince you have the Teſtimony of ſo many Romiſh Doctors, and General Councils, who poſitively affirm you ought to baptize your Children? Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former.

3. But is it ſo indeed, did our Saviour ſay nothing of Infant-Baptiſm? or, as you hint, leave ſo little of it in the New Teſtament, becauſe it was the conſtant Cuſtom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church? What Dr. Hammond, Taylor and Lightfoot have ſaid upon that account, is to their Shame and Reproach, rather than to their Honour; tho I know it was their laſt Refuge, when they ſaw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Chriſt. O how are we beholden to the Jewiſh Talmud, and Jewiſh Rabbins for our Infant-Baptiſm! Nay, which is worſt of all, how is Chriſt beholden to them for that rare Invention, that had ſaid ſo much for it, and made it ſo common a Practice among them, that it ſaved him the Pains to give the leaſt Directions about it? But is not this next to Blaſphemy? Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jeſus ſhould confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews? or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptiſm from the ſuperſtitious, fabulous and erronious Cuſtom of their Doctors and Rabbins? Beſides, was Baptiſm to be preached or practiſed by none but the Jewiſh People? doth it not belong to the Gentiles too? Did not our Saviour command his Diſciples to go into all Nations, and make Diſciples and baptize them? &c. Was it his Mind that Infants ſhould be baptized, and p. 23yet ſay nothing of it, becauſe it was a common Cuſtom and Practice among the Jews? But, Sir, what muſt the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty? (I mean thoſe Gentiles who received the Chriſtian Faith) viz. that they ought to baptize their Children, who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewiſh Cuſtom? Or, dare you ſay, our New Teſtament is not authentick, or ſufficient to teach us the whole of Goſpel-Duties and Obedience, without the Jewiſh Talmud? You ſhould not ('tis plain) only have ſaid the New Teſtament is not, without the Old, the Rule of our Practice; but alſo that the New Teſtament and the Old, without the Jewiſh Talmud, is not ſufficient, and then you had done your buſineſs at once. Are you not aſhamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People?

Is not the whole Mind of Jeſus Chriſt, even all his Laws and Precepts, or his whole Counſel plainly contained in his bleſſed Word? But would you have People be wiſe above what is written, and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulneſs of the bleſſed Jeſus, in leaving out of the ſacred Bible one great Truth of God, and leave us to find it out by going to ſearch the Jewiſh Traditions?

4. If it was a Cuſtom among the Jews, it muſt be a ſacred Cuſtom, I mean a Cuſtom that God appointed and commanded them to obſerve, or elſe a human Tradition or vain Cuſtom: If it had been a Moſaical Rite given by God himſelf to the Jews, Chriſt beſure aboliſhed it, and nailed it to his Croſs, with all its fellows, and 'tis gone for ever ſince he hath not given it out a new.

Take this Argument.

That Cuſtom among the Jews that God never commanded, nor is any where given by Moſes p. 24unto them, who was faithful in all his Houſe, was no Ordinance of God, but a meer human Tradition. But the Cuſtom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children, who were admitted into their Church, was never commanded of God, nor any where given unto them by Moſes, who was faithful in all his Houſe. Ergo, That Cuſtom was no Ordinance of God, but a meer human Tradition.

5. Laſtly, take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath ſaid in Confutation of this fooliſh and abſurd Argument for Pedo-baptiſm, 'tis Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet. The thing, ſaith he, is uncertain, that it cannot be ſaid of the Rabbins, that there were not ſeveral among them who differed very much about this matter; for Rabbi Eliezar expreſly contradicts Rabbi Joſhua, who was the firſt that I know of who aſſerted this ſort of Baptiſm among the Jews; for Rabbi Eliezar, who was contemporary with Rabbi Joſhua, if he did not live before him, aſſerts that a Proſelyte circumciſed, and not baptized, was a true Proſelyte; for ſo we read of the Patriarchs Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob, that they were circumciſed, but not baptized. But Rabbi Joſhua affirms, that he who was baptized, not he that was circumciſed, was a true Proſelyte. To whom ſhall I give Credit, to Eliezar, who aſſerts what the Scripture confirms; or to Joſhua, who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture? But the Rabbins upheld Joſhuah's ſide, and what wonder was it? for it made for their buſineſs; that is, for the Honour of the Jewiſh Religion, that the Chriſtians ſhould borrow their Ceremonies from them. But when I ſee Men of great Learning in theſe times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins, I cannot but heſitate a little: p. 25For whence was the Talmud ſent us, they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica, that we ſhould give Credit thereto, that from thence we ſhould believe that the Law of Moſes either can or ought to be underſtood? much leſs the Goſpel, to which they were profeſs'd Enemies. For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors, and the Foundation of Jewiſh Fables; it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Chriſt: therefore it is unreaſonable to reſt upon the Teſtimony of it. And that which moves me moſt, Joſephus (to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finiſhed) who was a Jew, and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar, who alſo wrote in particular of the Rites, Cuſtoms and Acts of the Jews, is altogether ſilent in this matter. So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonſtration, that two ſuch eminent Perſons, both Jews, and living at the ſame time, the one ſhould poſitively deny, and the other makes mention of Baptiſm among the Jews. Beſides, if Baptiſm in the modern ſenſe were in uſe among the Jews in ancient Times, why did the Phariſees ask John Baptiſt, Why doeſt thou baptize, if thou art not Chriſt, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Joh. 1.25.John 1:25do they not plainly intimate that Baptiſm was not in uſe before, and that it was a received Opinion among them, that there ſhould be no Baptiſm till either Chriſt, or Elias, or that Prophet came? So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull, in his Notes printed at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1677. with the Licenſe of the Vice-Chancellor, a very learned Man, and a Son of the Church of England. Sir, what think you now of your Jewiſh Cuſtom, of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church? Do you think there is not need p. 26that Infant-Baptiſm ſhould be mentioned in the holy Scripture, had it been a Truth? Is this uncertain Story of the Jewiſh Cuſtom ſufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon, when the Truth of the Story, as to matter of Fact, may juſtly be doubted? but if it was true, it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Chriſt upon, viz. a vile, profane and human Tradition of the Jewiſh Rabbins.

I have been the larger on this matter, becauſe the Men you mention, as Dr. Hammond, Taylor and Lightfoot, ſome People have in ſuch Veneration, who were the Perſons (you need not doubt) the learned Sir Norton confuted; and alſo becauſe your Brethren the Athenian Society **The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume., notwithſtanding I have lately ſo fully anſwered all they have urged upon this account, ſtill inſiſt upon this ridiculous Argument, as appears by their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume. And what I have now ſaid, may ſerve for a further Anſwer to them as well as to you; but if we hear any more of this, we ſhall further expoſe you and them than yet we have done.

In Pag. 6. you ſeem to anſwer a Queſtion, viz. Why our Saviour did not particularly name Infants when he inſtituted Baptiſm in the room of Circumciſion?

Your Anſwer is, becauſe there was no occaſion for it; What need, ſay you, our Saviour declare that Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them, when it was never denied them? it had been highly requiſite that our Saviour ſhould have particularly named them now: but being all ways included before, if our Saviour had intended their Excluſion now, he would moſt certainly have declared it, &c.

p. 27Anſw. 1. I anſwer, you ſay the Seal of the Covenant was never denied Infants, and therefore what need our Saviour particularly name Infants when he inſtituted Baptiſm? Sir, but did not our Saviour know there would be juſt ground for us to deny Infant-Baptiſm, ſince he commanded none in the great Commiſſion to be baptized, but ſuch who were made Diſciples by being firſt taught? And he being God as well as Man, did know from hence it would be denied, as it has been by ſome godly Chriſtians from the firſt time it was, as an human Device, introduced into God's Worſhip (as hereafter we ſhall prove): ſure this being ſo, there was all the reaſon imaginable that he ſhould ſpeak of their Baptiſm in his great Commiſſion, had it been his Will they ſhould be baptized.

2. And why ſhould the baptizing of Believers be ſo clearly and ſo often ſpoken of in the New Teſtament, if a being in the Covenant was a ſufficient ground to baptize them, without a poſitive Precept, or expreſs Command to baptize them? ſince they were always from the beginning of the World look'd upon and known beyond doubt to be in Covenant: and ſo you cannot ſay of Infants, (tho you ſay the Seal was never denied them) for there is no mention of their being in Covenant, as to have any Sign or Rite aſſigned them of it till Abraham's days; and that that Covenant then, viz. of Circumciſion, was not a Covenant of Grace, we ſhall hereafter, God aſſiſting, clearly prove. Therefore, ſay you what you pleaſe, there was more need for our Saviour to have Infants Baptiſm, and Church-Memberſhip particularly mentioned, than that of Believers, had it been the Mind of Chriſt they ought to be baptized and made Members of the Goſpel-Church.

p. 283. Beſides, the Diſpenſation of the Goſpel requires it, ſince it differs in Nature, Rites and Priviledges from that of the Law, or under the Old Teſtament. The Church-State of the Jews being National, and that of the Goſpel Congregational, had Chriſt only confirmed old Covenant-Rites and manner of Priviledges, Memberſhip and Initiations, &c. there might be ſomething in what you ſay; but evident it is, that the Matter and Form, Rites and Priviledges of the Goſpel-Church, according to the Conſtitution, Laws and Ordinances of Chriſt,Here the Athenian Society may ſee their firſt Query fully anſwered, of Infants being once in Covenant, and never caſt out, are in ſtill. quite differ, and are of another ſort to thoſe of the Law. Think not to ſay within your ſelves, We have Abraham to our Father, &c. Now the Axe is laid to the Root of the Trees, Mat. 3.9, 10. [Now] as if he ſhould ſay, the caſe is altered; your being the fleſhly Seed of Abraham would do then, or give you a right to Circumciſion; but this will not do now, this will give you no right to Goſpel-Baptiſm, the Diſpenſation is changed; actual Faith, and Fruits meet for Repentance, are required of all who have a right to Baptiſm.

4. Moreover, 'tis evident that Chriſt in bringing in and eſtabliſhing of the ſecond Covenant and Goſpel-Church-State, diſſolved, and for ever took away the old Covenant, and Church-State of the Jews, with all their Rites, initiating Ordinances and Priviledges whatſoever.

Suppoſe a Man ſhould make his Will, and bequeath ſuch or ſuch Legacies to ſuch and ſuch Perſons; and yet afterwards he abrogates that Will, and makes another, which is his laſt Will and Teſtament, in which he leaves out the Names of thoſe Perſons, and doth not bequeath thoſe Legacies to them; Can they recover thoſe Legacies by virtue of the old abrogated Will? The caſe is the ſame here; If Infants have right to Baptiſm and viſible Church-Memberſhip, it p. 29muſt be found in Chriſt's Goſpel, which is his laſt Will and Teſtament, or they have no ſuch Right you may be ſure, nor ought to be baptized; He took away the firſt, that he might eſtabliſh the ſecond, Heb. 10.2.

Your ſecond Anſwer to this Objection, viz. That Infants are no where commanded to be baptized, is this, viz. Altho they are not, ſay you, particularly named, yet are they neceſſarily included in the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19, 20. Infants being a very conſiderable part of all Nations; ſurely the univerſal (all Nations) does include the Individuals, tho our Saviour does not particularly name them. To clear this, you make uſe of a Similitude. Suppoſe, ſay you, the King ſhould grant his Royal Charter to make this your Market-Town a Corporation, and all the Inhabitants of it Free-Men, would any be ſo idle as to ſuppoſe that this Royal Grant doth not include your Children, becauſe it doth not particularly name them? Is not the Son of a Free-man a Free-man as well as his Father? Thus in the Sacred Charter and Royal Patent of the Covenant of Grace, which is ſealed by Baptiſm; all the Priviledges and Promiſes of that Covenant granted to Believers, concern their Children as well as themſelves, Acts 2.38. The Promiſe is to you and to your Children; the Promiſe of the Covenant belongs to you and to yours. The Infants then of Believers are included together with themſelves, tho not particularly named.

Anſw. 1. I reply, that you argue not only ſophiſtically, but alſo very weakly; for are not Pagans, Turks and Infidels, with the profane and ungodly Men and Women, and their Children,All Nations takes in Pagans, &c. and their Children. a very conſiderable part of all Nations? nay, the far greateſt part of all Nations; for Chriſt's Flock comparatively is but a little Flock: And p. 30are theſe included in the Commiſſion, tho not named? You muſt ſay they be, or elſe confeſs there is nothing in what you ſay in the leaſt upon this account.

2. If that Univerſal does include every Individual in all Nations, all theſe are included as well as Infants of Believers. Sir, you muſt be corrected here for your bold and daring Abuſe of the Sacred Commiſſion of our Bleſſed Lord; for I appeal to your Conſcience, or to the Conſciences of all impartial Men, whether, by virtue of the Commiſſion, any one Perſon ought to be Baptized, but ſuch who is firſt Taught? 'tis not ſaid, Go, Baptize all Nations; mark, but go ye therefore, teach all Nations, foreign; that is, diſciple, make Diſciples in all Nations, baptizing them, that is, ſuch who are ſo taught or made Diſciples. And this is according to Chriſt's own Practice, Jeſus made and baptized more Diſciples than John, &c. John 4.1. firſt he made them Diſciples, and then Baptized them, and thus runs his Commiſſion. Therefore ſince none are expreſſed, as required in all Nations to be Baptized, but ſuch as are firſt taught and diſcipled; Infants of Believers, as well as Pagans, and Unbelievers and their Children, are excluded. As when God commanded the Male Children to be Circumciſed, he thereby excluded all Female Children: Or when he commanded Abraham to Circumciſe on the eighth Day, he virtually forbad him to Circumciſe on the ſeventh or ninth day, as I ſaid before; or as when he commanded the Ark to be carried on the Prieſts Shoulders, he forbad them to carry it on a Cart; and for their preſumption ſo to do, it provoked God, and coſt Ʋzzah his Life: So and in like manner, all that are not expreſſed, as injoined or required to be Baptized by the Authority of the Commiſſion, are excluded.

p. 313. And as to your Simile, there's nothing in it; for you ſhould firſt prove, that the Nature of the Sacred Charter of the Church about the Royal Grant of that Spiritual Corporation, runs Parallel-wiſe with the King's Charter of making a Civil Corporation: make that appear, and you do your Buſineſs. But, alas, Sir, you beg, and inſtead of arguing, take that for granted which is utterly denied. 'Tis not the firſt Birth that brings us into the Covenant of Grace, but the Second; not Generation, but Regeneration; not being born of Believers, but by our being born of God: See John 1.12, 13. To as many as received him, to them gave be Power (Gr. Priviledg) to become the Sons of God: Which were not born of Blood, nor of the Will of the Fleſh, nor of the Will of Man, but of God. If ye be Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham 's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promiſe, Gal. 3.29. The Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God, Rom. 9.8. Thus the Royal Charter of the Goſpel, or Spiritual Corporation of the Covenant and Goſpel-Church-State runs; i. e. You muſt be a Believer, you muſt be born again, be a new Creature, and ſo muſt your Children, before you or they either can be free-Men and Women of this Corporation, or be Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and Houſhold of God, Epheſ. 2.19. And indeed the Covenant of Grace ran thus, as it was made with Abraham; though he was in it, yet all his Children were not included, though Circumciſed. Was the Royal Grant made ſo, that it included Iſhmael and Eſau? Were the Promiſes and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace belonging to them? doth not the Apoſtle poſitively deny it, in Rom. 9.7? Neither becauſe they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children; but in Iſaac ſhall thy Seed be called: that is, they which are the Children of the Fleſh, theſe are not the Children of God; p. 32but the Children of the Promiſe are counted for the Seed, Ver. 9.

4. If all the Priviledges and Promiſes granted to Believers, ſo concern all their Children, they muſt all be ſaved, for that is the Promiſe and bleſſed Priviledg of all Believers; He that heareth my Words, and believeth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting Life, and ſhall not come into Condemnation, John 5.24. If this were true Doctrine that you teach the deceived and blind World, the Priviledges of Believers Seed were great indeed, and their State happy: but alas 'tis no ſuch thing, they are, as born, and as they come into the World from the Loins of their Parents, in the same woful condition, and alike polluted as the Children of Unbelievers; and many of the beſt of God's People have now-adays, as well as formerly, wicked Children; and many die in Sin, and periſh eternally, which they could not do, had they the ſame Promiſes and Priviledges their believing Parents have; therefore you teach falſe Doctrine, and ought to be rectified and ſharply corrected.

5. If they have the ſame Priviledges their believing Parents have, and that by the Royal Grant and Charter of Chriſt given to his Church, Why do you not, as the ancient erroneous Fathers did, give them the Euchariſt? I affirm, they have as much right to that Sacrament, (as they have to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, as I ſhall prove in its place) by your Arguing and Argument.

6. And laſtly, As to that Text cited by you, to prove what you ſay in Acts 2.38. For the Promiſe is to you and to your Children, doth not refer to their Children quatenus as Children, but to ſuch of their Children, or Off-ſpring, God by his Word and Spirit ſhould call, (as the Sequel of the Verſe clearly ſhews) for the Promiſe is to p. 33you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even to ſo many (mark) as the Lord our God ſhall call. To you Jews, and not only to you, but to the Gentiles alſo, which were ſaid to be afar off, as the Apoſtle ſpeaks, Epheſ. 2.17. And came and preached Peace to you that were afar off. But then 'tis with this Reſtriction or Limitation, even to ſo many of you, and your Children, and them afar off, which the Lord our God ſhall call: and when Children are, by the Grace of God effectually called, we deny not but that you may Baptize them.

In pag. 7. upon the Popular Objection, as you call it, againſt Infant-Baptiſm, from the Silence of the Scripture in that Caſe, you argue thus, viz.

That which by a juſt and neceſſary Conſequence is deduced from Scripture, is as much the Mind of Chriſt, as what is contained in the expreſs words of Scripture. To confirm this, you bring in the Arians, who rejected Conſequential Proofs, &c. And (ſay you) if you of the Anabaptiſt Perſwaſion do the ſame, know, that if you deny evident and neceſſary Conſequences from Scripture, then, firſt, you deny your Saviour's way of Arguing; and, ſecondly, you condemn your own Practice, &c.

Anſw. 1. You baſely miſrepreſent thoſe you call Anabaptiſts; for we do not deny, nor never did, neceſſary Conſequences deduced from the Scripture, or ſuch Conſequences which naturally and genuinely follow from thoſe Texts they refer to, or are drawn therefrom.

Though, Sir, I muſt tell you, Conſequences that are genuine, or are naturally deduced from the Scripture, to prove and demonſtrate Matter of Faith, (as in the caſe of the Reſurrection, or about the Deity of the Son of God, or any thing of like nature, are one thing) and Conſequences p. 34brought to prove a Poſitive Law or Inſtitutions, are another thing. Pray, did God by Moſes give forth any Law, or poſitive Rite or Precept ſo darkly, that it could not be proved but by Conſequences? for that is the caſe here between you and us. Moſes delivered every Law, Statute and Ordinanance ſo plainly to the People of Iſrael, that he that ran might read it. And ſhall any Man think that our bleſſed Saviour, who declared all things plainly from his Father, and was faithful as a Son over his own Houſe, would leave any poſitive Law or Precept of the Goſpel ſo dark, that there is no way to underſtand it but by Conſequences?

2. But ſecondly, our main Objection lies againſt your pretended Conſequences; for we poſitively deny that any of your Inferences or Conſequences which you bring to prove Infant-Baptiſm, do naturally follow from the Scripture-Texts, to which you refer, or from whence you draw them: and blame us not, ſince your own Brethren (ſuch too as Dr. Hammond, Dr. Taylor Biſhop of Down, &c.) do affirm, that thoſe Scriptures from whence▪ you draw your Conſequences for this Practice, are not naturally drawn therefrom, but are very uncertain and doubtful: if you know not this, it will appear you have read but little of them.

3. As touching Prayer, that is a Branch of Natural Religion, or a Moral Duty, and therefore quite different from this the Controverſy is about; yet that it is poſitively enjoined and commanded in the Goſpel alſo,1 Theſſ. 5.17, 18.1 Thess 5:171 Thess 5:18 we deny not; Pray always, pray without ceaſing, and for every thing give Thanks. What can be more plain? Beſides, we ſin not if we pray thrice a day, or ſeven times a day; therefore Prayer is unadviſedly and improperly mentioned by you upon this account.

p. 354. As touching Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper, that is proved more than by Conſequences: Let a Man examine himſelf, i. e. Man or Woman, for ſo the word foreign in the Greek, and Adam in the Hebrew ſignify. There is one Mediator between God and Man. Is not the Woman comprehended as clearly as the Man? Are not Male and Female all one in Chriſt Jeſus? Gal. 3.28. And, as we have lately told your caviling Brethren the Athenian Society, did you never read of the Figure Sylepſis or Conceptio, that comprehends the leſs worthy under the more worthy, indignioris ſub digniore? As for Example, Quid tu & ſoror facitis; ego & mater miſeri perimus; tu & uxor qui adfuiſtis teſtes eſtete; and is no leſs true in Divinity: See that full Text, 1 Cor. 6.16. foreign, they two ſhall be one Fleſh. Mary the Mother of Jeſus, and the other good Women who were Chriſt's Diſciples, were of the number of the hundred and twenty Diſciples who brake Bread with the three thouſand that were added to them, Acts 2. 'Tis ſaid Acts 8.12. They were baptized both Men and Women. Now ſuch a Conſequence as this we deny not, viz. Women were Diſciples, Women were baptized, and therefore broke Bread: for all who were true Diſciples of Chriſt and baptized, had an undoubted Right to the Lord's-Supper. Bring us ſuch Grounds and Conſequences for your Infant-Baptiſm and Church-Memberſhip, and we will contend with you no more. But to ſatisfy the Reader more fully as to this, I deſire him to ſee Mr. Danvers Anſwer to Mr. Blindman.

5. As to the firſt day of the Week, being the day appointed for Chriſtians to obſerve under the Goſpel in the Worſhip and Service of God, we have Proof enough without Conſequences. Sir, we always affirm an Apoſtolical Practice, or a Goſpel-Precedent, is of like nature and of p. 36equal Authority with a Goſpel Precept. Do we not read, Acts 2.1, 2. that when the day of Pentecoſt was fully come, the Diſciples were all gathered together with one accord in one place; which was the firſt Day of the Week? And was not this their aſſembling on that day, as the day of the Chriſtian Sabbath, ratified and confirmed from Heaven, by that wonderful Effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit? And is it not ſaid, Acts 20.7. the Church came together on the firſt Day of the Week to break Bread? And doth not the Apoſtle exhort the Church at Corinth, 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. upon the firſt Day of the Week to make Collections, or to gather and lay in ſtore for the Poor, as he had given Orders to the Churches of Galatia? this they could not do, if they met not on that Day. And what tho we cannot prove without Conſequences, that he who was the Lord of the Sabbath did change the Day, &c ſeeing we have ſuch plain and expreſs Examples or Precedents for the Obſervation of the firſt Day of Week, and none but that in the times of the Goſpel? Therefore now we ſay,

6. Could you give us but one Example, one Precedent in all the New Teſtament, that any one Infant was baptized, we would give up the Cauſe: but as you can give us none, ſo you cannot give us any Conſequences, that without the abuſe of the Scripture naturally flow from the Texts to which you refer; therefore all this ſtir in mentioning theſe particular Caſes, are remote to your Buſineſs, and prove nothing, they being not like parallel Caſes to yours.

But to come to your Argument for Infant-Baptiſm, which you would have to run parallel with that, for Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper: I will repeat them both, and then reply to the laſt.

p. 37All Chriſt's Diſciples ought to partake of his Supper: Women are Diſciples, therefore to partake of his Supper.

You proceed; All Chriſt's Diſciples ought to be baptized; but ſome Children are his Diſciples, therefore to be baptized.

1. I deny your Minor; you ſay ſome Children are Diſciples, the Scripture you bring to prove it, is Acts 15.1, 8, 10. Anſw. That Scripture proves no ſuch thing: the Yoke that was laid on the Neck of thoſe Diſciples were Men, or Adult Perſons, or Gentile Saints; they were ſuch Diſciples thoſe falſe Brethten would have laid the Yoke of Circumciſion upon.

2. A Diſciple is one taught or inſtructed, as the genuine and proper Signification of that word holds forth; but Infants have no Underſtanding,foreign and therefore are not able to be made Diſciples by teaching.

Your ſecond Proof, is their Parents Dedication of them to Chriſt.

I anſwer; Parents have no Warrant from God's Word to dedicate their Children to Chriſt by Baptiſm, nor doth that Dedication infuſe any Divine Habits into them, or the leaſt Light, Knowledg, or Underſtanding; therefore that Dedication cannot render them to be Diſciples.

Your third Proof is Chriſt's gracious Acceptation of them at their hands.

Anſw. I anſwer, Chriſt only laid his Hands upon ſome Children who were brought to him, and bleſſed them; but this doth not prove they are Diſciples, or that he baptized any Infant. But more of this hereafter. I proceed to your ſecond grand Argument, Pag. 8.