*art #* rf \\w &"<%Y«f 3 PRINCETON, N. J. %, Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnciv Coll. 011 Baptism, No. sec A VINDICATION O F Infant Baptifm, From the FOUR Chief OBJECTIONS Brought Againff it, Viz, : I. From the Natural Incapacity of Infants. II. From their not actually Believing. III. From the Want of an exprefs Command to Baptize them. IV. From the Want of Scripture-Precedents for it. In a LETTER to Mr. # # # *• By JOHN TVRNER, A. M. Lecturer of Christ-Church, London. LONDON: Pftnted for John W y a t, at the Rofe, in St. PauPs Church-yard. MDCXCIX. [ I ] VINDICATION O F nfant Ba Sir, IT is now fome confiderable Time fince you and I occafionally reviving fome former Difcourfe, that had pafs'd between us, about the Dif- ference in our Perfuafions : Youdefir'd to fee my Arguments, and to con- fider them at your Leifure. I have now comply'd with that Requeft, but faw it neceflary before I could do fo, to enlarge and illuftrate them a little, that they might come clofer to many of thofe Scruples which I found fometimes alledged in thefe Controverfies. If I give this as one Reafon of my not complying fooner with your Defire, though I had other Reafons for this Delay 5 yet you are fenfible how juft an Excufe I have, in the few Minutes I can fpare from the conflant Engagement of my da* ! « Bufinefs. You'll, perhaps, ask why I now fend you this in Print , which i once feem'd to be averfe to. But when I found you called in Mr. A— to anfwer my Argument from the 1 Cor. 7. 14. I apprehended the Debate might not continue between you and me alone ^ and there- fore thought it better to fubmit to the Cenfure of the World, than to part with my Papers into private Hands, where the Defign of them might be miftaken. I have carefully avoided all undue Reflections upon either Perfons or Parties , hoping thereby that I mould make no Man my Ene- my by a candid Defence of what I firmly believe to be agreeable to the Laws of God and Chrift -0 and being defirous whatever Difference there may be in our Perfuafions , to obferve ftri&ly all Rules of Chriftian Cha- rity, Love and Friendfhip. I'll detain you no longer in the Way of Pre- face, but beg you fairly to confider the following Arguments. A 2 CHAP. [ 1 ] CHAP. I; THE moll confiderable Objections that I have yet met with againft the Baptifm of Infants, are thefe Four : I. It is pleaded, that it is an unreafonable Pra&ice, in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant into which they are admitted by it. II. That it is contrary to the Inilitution of our Saviour, which, you fay, requiring Perfons to be firft Inftru&ed. before Baptized, thereby excludes Infants as incapable of that Antecedent Inftru&ion. III. That it is an unwarrantable, and unlawful Practice, in that there is no Precept, nor Command, nor Autority for it in all the Word of God. IV. and Lafily, That there is no mention at all made of fuch Practice in all the New Testament. Now if it be made appear, that none of thefe Objections have any juft Force in them, this, I think, will be fufficient to vindicate the Church of England, in retaining this Ancient and Pious Practice. i . The Firft Objection is, That it is an unreafonable Practice, in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant \ The Want of which Knowledge, and the Incapacity thereupon, is thought to make their Baptifm unreafonable and abfurd. But if all other Ob- jections have no more Force than this, they will admit of a very quick Difpatch. i. In that it is not at all difagreeable to the Reafon of Mankind for Infants to be bound in Covenants, to the future Performance of Condi- tions; which they at prefent know nothing at all of, nor can be capa- ble of performing, till they come to Age. This is common among Men, -and pra&ifed almofl every Day. Every Will, and every Condi- tional Settlement of an Eftate on Heirs, is a Covenant: And every Con*- tract that a Guardian makes for a Minor, is made in that Infant's Name, and he is bound by it, and really enjoy; :■ the Benefits of it, in Expectation of a future Performance of the Conditions by him. And Baptifm is only the Seal of a Covenant or Contract between God and Man : Why then mould it be thought ftrange, or incredible, that God ihould thus deal with us in a Difpenfation of Grace and Mercy ? 2. If C 3 ] 2. If the Incapacity of Infants were in the Nature of Things a necef- fary Bar, it muft be an llniverfal and Indifpenfable One, and mnfl ex- clude Infants from all Covenants with God whatever, whether of Works, or of Grace ^ whether by the Law, or by the Gofpel. For whatarifes abfolutely from the Nature of Things, muft needs be llni- verfal, and Perpetual , and muft have always the fame Influence. But that the Incapacity of Infants is not an llniverfal and Perpetual Bar to all Covenants, our Adverfaries themfelves, I hope, will grant ; in that Infants were admitted into a Covenant with God under the Law. If then God admits Infants into a Covenant under the Law ^ he may do fo under the Gofpel too, if he pleafes. And if God may do fo, it can be neither Improper nor Unreafonabie,nor in the Nature of Things Abfurd. The Difference in the Conditions or Subftance of the Covenant makes nothing in the Cafe -0 the one being Law, the other Gofpel, the one of Works and the other of Grace, is nothing to the Purpofe -0 becaufe In- fants are equally incapable of underftanding both. And where the whole Strefs lies in the Incapacity of the Subject, it muft have as much Force in the One as in the Other. If it be faid God may admit them but does not : This is running before-hand to a new Objection, that fhall be con- fidered in its proper place. The only Thing now in debate is, whether the Natural Incapacity of Infancy be in it felf a neceflary Bar j if it be, this muft be alledged as an univerfal Obftacle to all Covenants as well as to this ■) we plainly fee that it is not an univerfal Obftacle, becaufe God hath admitted them into Covenant with him, and bound them to the Performance of Conditions by that Covenant j Therefore this Objedion is of no Force, in that it does not necelfarily conclude. Mr KeMb This, indeed, fome of your Perfuafion feem to grant. If then the Incapacity of Infants is not in the Nature of Things a Ne~ ceffary and llniverfal Bar to all Covenants in general : I am to enquire whether there be any thing in the Chriftian Covenant peculiarly that ex- cludes them from thence. Vf* - Vj, t<> r* C H4A P. II. THE Second Objection is, That Infants as incapable of underftand- ing the Covenant, and believing and repenting \ are by our Savi- our's Inftitution Prohibited and Excluded from Baptifm -0 for, fay you, the Apoftleswere to make Difciples by Inftru&ion before they were to Baptize them. Matt. 28. 19. Go, teach all Nations, and then Baptize them*. . L 4 J them. And Mark \6. 15, \6. He that beleivtth and is baptized, jhallbe faved. This, lay you, is the great Charter of the Gofpel, which requiring Perfons that are to be baptized, to befirfi made Difciples by Infirutlion and Be- lieving : Does in fo doing, exclude all that cannot be taught and believe ? I anfwer, In this Commiffion Chrift had a more peculiar Regard to the Perfons to whom the Apoltles were firlt and more immediately fent ', who were, indeed, Men and Women ; and therefore he mentions fuch Qualifications antecedent to Baptifm, as in Reafon and the Nature of Things were indifpenfably neceflary, confidering the State of the World at that time. Men were almoft univerfally revolted into Idolatry, Igno- rance, Superltition, Profanenefs, and other great Iniquities. And with thefe Qualifications it was not fit they mould be admitted into a Covenant of Grace and Reconciliation with God. Thefe were there- fore firlt to be Converted and Reclaimed, and then Baptized. And this was the great Work to which the Apoltles are here Commiffioned. Now, if from hence yon argue, that none ought to be baptized but thofe only who are thus taught and made Difciples by aclual Belief: I mult beg leave to ask, how you reconcile your Belief of Infants Salvation with thefe Texts ? For they as much exclude Infants from Salvation, as from Bap- tifm. I do not ask how Infants fhall be faved ; for in anfwer to that, you will fay ; Secret Things belong to God. But I ask, how you who do believe and confefs that Infants may and fhall be faved, do reconcile that Opini- on with thefe Texts, and particularly with that of St. Mark, which does by the fame Confequence prove, that Infants cannot be faved as that In- fants ought not to be baptized. For obferve the Argument, Chrift fays, Matt. 28. 1 9. Go make Difciples of all Nations and baptize them. And Mark 1 6. 15, 16. Preach the Gofpel to every Creature, he that believeth and is baptized jliall be faved, and he that believeth not fhall be damned : From whence you argue thus -, None aje to be baptized but thofe who are firlt made Difciples by believing ; but Infants are not capable of believing ; therefore -they ought not to be Baptized. Now in the very fame Man- ner one may argue thus, That Infants fhall not be faved. He that belie- veth not jliall be damned -, Infants are not capable of Believing, Ergo, In- * fants mult all be damned. This is juft the fame Way of Arguing without any Difference at all. How will you anfwer this ? Will you fet up for this Peice of Cruelty, that all Infants are damned ? If not •, you mult lay here as we do concerning Baptifm : That thefe Texts are improperly and impertinently alledged in the Cafe of Infants 5 becaufe they were ne- ver intended to extend to them. Otherwife, they will as certainly con- clude againft the Salvation of Infants, as againft the Baptifm of them, in that Faiih and Repentance areas necelfary to the one, as to the other. The [5] The Matter then, in fhort, is this \ Men and Women were firft of all to be made Difciples by a Saving Faith \ the Cafe of Children was a diftindt Cafe to be coniidered afterwards j when their Parents had been firft con- verted : And tho' believing was necelfary in the Parents to be before their Baptifm, yet this does not prove that their Infants were to be ex- cluded from the Sacrament, becaufe they could not actually believe. But you'll reply, is not Faith then neceflarily required of Perfons to be baptized ? I anfwer j Where the Apoftles found Infidelity and Iniqui- ty, they were neceflarily to preach Faith and Repentance before they baptized. But the Scripture intimates, that the Innocence of harmlefs Babes (whofe original Guilt is done away by Chrift) and who never of- fended him by any a&ual Tranfgreflion, is as pleafing to God, and as a- greeable a Qualification for the Admiffion into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, and fealing that Covenant by the Sacrament of Baptifm j as either the Faith of the adual Believer, or the Repentance of the Penitent. Chrift hasfaid of us all, That unlefs we become at little Children, Mat. 1 8. 3. that is, for their lovely Innocence, we frail in no wife enter into the King- dom of God. I do not argue whether he fpake this with a particular Refpedt to the Baptifm of Infants or no. I urge not that : But I fpeak of the Qualifications that recommend us to God's Favour and Mercy : And. Chrift does here declare, That their Innocence is as grateful to him, as any Man's Faith and Repentance: And for this Reafon, they . ought not to be excluded. The Truth of what I now maintain, I think, is fufficiently prov'd from the very Nature of this Sacrament. Baptifm, as I underftand it, is a Seal for the Confirmation of that Covenant which. God has made with Mankind in Jefm Chrift ^ and that Covenant is on God's Part a free Promife, and Engagement to grant Mercy, and Salvation through the Blood of Chrift, to All, whofe adual Sins do not render them inca- pable of, and exclude them from it. From whence I argue thus j Thofe that are not in a State of adual Sin, are capable of being admitted into this Covenant, and thereby entitled to the Promifes ^ for nothing but S'l.ffiade us at firft obnoxious to Death, and nothing but the Guilt of Sin can exclude us from eternal Life : And thofe that are capable of be- ing admitted into the Covenant, and entitled to the Promifes, are capa- ble of that Sacrament which is the Seal of it. This, I think, is a good Conclufion. Infants therefore, tho' by Nature born in Sin, yet being reconcil'd to God, I don't fay by Baptifm, but by the Blood of Jefm Chrifl; are capable of Admiffion into the Covenant by Baptifm, which is the Seal of it, tho' they do not a&ually believe. For this Reafon it is, that... L 6 J that the Church of England\m fo judicioufly declar'd, That Infants bap' tiz.cd, and dying before they commit any aEhial Tranfgrejfion, are undoubt- edly faved. For, dying in a State of Reconciliation, and having the Promifes of God confirmed by this Seal ■: They are fare, having not by any actual Violation of the Covenant: forfeited the Claim. This I can- not but think a reafonable Way of Arguing from the Nature of this Sa- crament and Covenant: And if it be, thefe Texts do not exclude In- tuits, either directly, or by Confequence. And, methinks, it favours of Ralhnefs and Inconfideration, to think, that becaufe God has required Faith, and Repentance of Men in a State of Sin, and under the Power of abominable Lufts \ and confequently, altogether unfit to be admitted into Covenant till they abjure their Ido- latry, and abandon their Vices : That therefore innocent Babes who never offended fhall not be admitted through want of the fame Qualifi- cations. The different Circumftances, and Conditions of the Perfons, is a fufficient Proof that the fame Qualifications are not neceflarily re- quired in both. But I forefee fome Objections which I will briefly con- iider, and then proceed. i . It is pleaded, that Capacity gives no Right } you may have a ma- pacity to be a Juftice of Peace, but muff: have a Commiffion before you ought to ad as fuch. And tho' the Innocence of Babes be thus accepta- ble to God, and he does for Chrift's fake fave them, yet this will not at all countenance their being baptized j becaufe it is no where command- ed. I anfwer, That if this be all, then the Cafe is changed, and the Objection is not that Infants are excluded, but that their Baptifm is no -where commanded. I was only now to prove, that nothing in the Nature of this Sacrament does neceflarily exclude them. Infants being in a State of Reconciliation and Favour, does, I think, fuificiently prove that. How far a particular Command isneceflary to be added to this Capacity, is another Queftion that fhall be confider'd in its place. .2. I may poflibly be asked, how I reconcile this Doctrine to our Chmch-Catcchlfm, which teaches, that Faith and Repentance are re- ijiiired of Perfons to be Baptised ? Indeed, I think, the Afcfwjg is ealie •, for the Catechifm fpeaksfr^ indefinitely, without any refpea to Adults or Infants, as Chrift has done in Matt. 28. and declares what in general are the Conditions of the Covenant, and confequently not of this Sacrament only, but of our Salvation alio : And thefe are Faith, and Repentance, which every one that enters into this Covenant, when ithey come to Age, are obliged to. But it no where declares, that actual Faith, and actual Repentance are univerfally neceflary to all Per- fons fonS whatever, that ^^^t^ffiTir ^£ £, dares the Contrary ; that tho Infants ^« " ^p.jzed, not upon mm !«*"» thefe Conditions i Wt JW^F^1^ ixpeaation tW &£«,« «*, or-WW ^JfS'rwKSfll be taught and grounded on their Engagement, Art ..tte CluWren Ifta^ b Exhorted to perform them afterwards. And this, l tnpK, 6 to what 1 have here maintained. tW<TWHne be true, it will nants, and Privileges are repuicu 1 1 their Tuition its premised their Parents, and that ^^.^"S^LS,. And therefore, as they will have the fame Principles andPeilualion. * the Children of Unbelievers on this ; account .may ufa^« be to be Partakers of their Parents ^fm^y^. Other- brought up in it -For this Reafon j*ey are to«ereisfuffident wife they are capable, f d ™ay b"T'"??™ Ml be educated in the Satisfaftion given to the Church ; that .they item D d now Chriftian Religion. And the Reafo "^ *? "f^iSta™ to admit is only on this Account, becaufe '^^JS to be intended, Lntized I anfwer, I did not undertake to prove that the ! bapt m Inlnuwas abfolutely neceflary toteSjg^W^; ful and not at alldifcgreeabletoChnftsl^ hith j5t Caufe of the Separation from the Communion of our Church , win is all that I now contend for. , B CHAP. L ° J CHAP. in. Precept mr command, norZori, yfo,' I ^ ^T "> ^0U^ ™ And thisistheSheet-^chorwwhS.-W, avth ' T* °f C°d : when we can demonftrate by God's own a„7. v' Sreaieft Strefs- F°r thenaturallncapacityoflnfantshnoneceffin P» I' and,E?mPIe' th" the Seal of the Covenant ; you reply a t drtvKl°dethemfr™ was an exprefs and pofi ive Command &5 r 'Snoth,n5> becM^ there therms none at all for BaptizingThem and S"aunalu« Infants, bnt and Repentance are made as nec°eflarvVLh 3 We fgue that Faith tifm ; and confequently do no 2r/e\cludJ t fc .* ?ey are t0 ^P" mentthan from Salvation; yonXd tht , h "^tS from this ^l wtthmthe Covenant of Grx^Z^J*0^ ™ eapable and caufe ,t n not Commanded. l'n g r £&• t0- be ?aPtiz«i, be- out the exprefs Autority of God's Word Y S 'S t0 be done with- And here you load us with ii«m £[ ' tcnptural Ordinances, and do that whlh ,1 f f S'and ?« t0 keep Uji- "/England are guilty of addin it oth\%° , c ^^twe of the Chunk moment, of Men. this is a fevere Ch£ J Zf'^A £*** the &•»■ deed gmlty it ft be he^vv "f ' Wh,chlf we were in- And that we may be the b£er S^EL," V! H laft Grcat Da"- " tf T^sT t0 a',edSe iD «S2 kt " be COnMered 6iry. 4"^htto?odS^fon"K/Trfm°re ^o'^ry Force and ^ having commanded E^bT^^8 °r ^- the Sacrament, which was ordained 1°^^' and ftaled by [9 ] For his having given no exprefs Prohibition, goes a great way to vindi- cate the Law! :ulnefs of this Paactice ; in thatitfeems to (how his Plea- fure, that they fhould be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as they had had before. For if ever Prohibition was to be expected, to declare a Thing unlawful :, it was to the Aboliihing a Practice that had been fo long eftablifhed, and received ^ ! mean the admitting Infants into Covenant with him. 2. But Secondly, We have the Autority of God for this Practice in two Refpeds. i. The Autority of his own Example. 2. Of his Com- mand in his revealed Word and Laws. 1 . We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this Practice ; and as Mr. Keach, I remember, * confeffes, Page^%, 56, -that an Apoftolical Practice, or a Gofpel-Precedent is of equal Autority with a Gofpel-Precept : So, I hope, it will be allowed that a Divine Precedent, from the Example of God, is of the fame Autority alfo, when the Nature of Things, and the Gircumftances are alike. But before I explain this Argument, I cannot but obferve to you by that little I have feen in thefe Controverfies, that the naming of fuch an Argument will raife fome Mens Wonder, who being quicker to wrangle about Words than to weigh the Reafon of Things , will break out into Exclamations, and fay :, Prove Baptifm of Infants from the Ex Ample of God ! Did Chrift ever baptise an Infant ? Is there one Syllable of fuch a Practice in all Sacred Writ ? This muft be the Old Thred-bare Argument from the Analo- gy between Baptifm and Circumcifwn. Infants under the Law^ or before it were Circumcifed, Ergo, they may be Baptised, and what a ISfon-fequitur is this ? • But, Sir, after all that Raillery and Difdain with which this Argu- ment is treated, which has, indeed, been often urged, and as often laughed at , yet I mult confefs, I cannot defpife it, but am perfwaded that there is great Force in it, if it be ftated well, and fet in a true Light. I do not then infill that one was a Type of the other, nor argue from a bare Analogy, as to Jewifh Church Member-ihip, or the lifce, but my Argument is this ; Baptifm is now the Seal of the Covenant which was once fealed by Circumcifion ; Infants were by God's own Command ad- mitted then, 'Ergo, Infants may be admitted now : Or thus, God did ad- mit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation, thro' Jefus Chrift, and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made_ with Abraham, and confirmed by the Seal of Circumcifion ; Baptifm cr Infants does but admit them into the fame Covenant upon the fame Con- ditions, and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them : Ergo, in Bap- tizing Infants we act by God's own Authority and Example ; tor we do B 2 no no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Cir- cumcifing them. The Rite, indeed, is changed, it was Circumci ling ; it is now Baptifm : What then ? The life of both thefe Rites is flill the fame ; the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God, and fo is the Other a Seal of the fame Covenant. And fo after all the pretended Non-fcquiturs in this Argument from Circumciiion to Baptifm :, when the life or main De- fign of both thefe Rites, or Sacraments (hall appear to be the fame, the Argument will have Force, and the Change of the external Ordinances cannot lelfen it. In the Profecution therefore of this Argument, I have Two Things which you will challenge me to prove. i . That Circumciiion, when enyoyn&i Abraham, was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him. 2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the fame with ours, that is a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jefus Chriit, and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience. And if thefe Propofitions be found true, the Confequence, I think, will be fo clear as to want no Proof. Firfi, That Circumciiion, when enjoyned Abraham, was ordained to be the* Seal of that Covenant which God made with him. And this, I think, is very plain, both^om the Original Inftitution of Circurncifi- on in the Old Law, and the Explanations of it in the New : As to the Old Telia ment, God having made fome Trial of Abraham, by calling him out of his own Country, and having found him readily obfervant in all that he commanded him ; declares, Gen. 17. 2. that he will now eftablifh a Covenant with him : / will make my Covenant between me and thee, and thou pall be a Father of many Nations, Ver. 4. And again, Ver. 7. I will cfiablijl) my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations, for an everlafling Covenant, to be a God. unto thee, and, to thy Seed after thee. And as every Contract among Men mull have its Sanct ion, and Eflablifhment •, fo here, God declares after what Manner this Covenant mould be confirmed, V'er, 10. This is my Covenant which ye jh,-<l keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee ; every Alan-Child, among you pall be Circumcifed :. Which Words do not make Circumcifion the Subflance of the Covenant, but only the Manner of Eflablifhing, and Confirming it} as appears from the following Verfe: And yejhatf cir- cumcife the Flep of your Fo.re-skwg and it pall be a Token, or Sign of Cover nant between m and you. In i again, far. 13. My Covenant pall be in your Flep, jor an e yerlafking Ox snant, that is, a Token or Pledge in .your rtefti of an everiailing Covenant : For, as a Reverend 1 "' ^' u Father of our own fays, ' It was not ameer Mark where- <by [ II ] c by they ihould be known to be Abraham's Seed, and diftingmfli- c ed from other Nations •, but they were hereby made the Chil- c dren of the Covenant, and intitled to the Bleffings of it •, and Cir- c cumciilou was the Seal of it. And this is farther evident from the New Teflament \ for St. Paul in his Controveriie with the Jews, about Juftification, inltances in Abraham, whom he declares to be juftified not for his being circumcifed, but for the Faith he had before it \ Rom.*.. 1 1 . He received the Sign of Circumcifion, a Seal, or Pledge of the Rigbtc- oufnefs of that Faith which he had yet being unclrcumcifed ; a Seal of that Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith. And thus St. Peter, Aits 7. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumcifion, that is, he gave him the Covenant which he fealed, and confirmed by Cir- cumcifion ; which fe both a ufual, and very intelligible way of fpeak- ing: So alfo St. Paul, Gal. 3. 15. Brethren, I [peak after the Manner of Men, if it be but a Maris Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no Man difan- nulleth, or addeth thereto. And again, Ver. 17. he fpeaks of the Covenant that was confirmed before of Cod in Chrifi, plainly alluding to this Cove- nant with Abraham, which was Sealed, and had its Confirmation by Circumcifion. 2. The Second Obfervation was, that this Covenant with Abraham, of wliich Circumcifion was the Seal, is the farme Covenant with that which we Chriftians are now admitted into with God, by Chrift. Mr. Keach, I remember, difowns this 5 and contrary . to what I now maintain, offers this Argument, p. 47. That Covenant that was made xo feparate the natural Seed of. Abraham from all other Nations of the. World, and made Jure unto them the Earthly Promife of the Land of Canaan •, could not be a Covenant of Grace 'which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gofpel. % He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic, fhould take fpe- ciai Cave of his own : Here was one little, but material Word omitted m this rkft.Propofition : It fhould have run thus, That Covenant which was made only to. feparate, &c. The want of that only Spoils the Confe- quence. It might be made thus to feparate Abrahams Seed, and it might be m%de to other Ends too : And fo it might be a Covenant of Grace* notwithftandingGod intended by it that Diftinction of his Peo- ple alfo. -; . • To prove then that the Covenant,' befides the Promifes it contained of a Land of Canaan, and a numerous Seed, was alfo a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, and Salvation in Jefm ChriFt, and confequently the fame Covenant with ours : Bepleafed, Sir, to confider, 1 . That the Covenant was made on .the fame general Conditions. 2. That it contained the fame general Promiies. 3. That [ » 3 3. That both were founded on the fame Confideration, and had re- gard to the fame Mediator Jefes Christ. i . That this Covenant which God made with Abraham was founded on the very fame Conditions, on which that is eftablilhed, which we Chriftians make with God in Chrifl ; the Sum of what theGofpel of Chrift requires, in order to the Salvation of our Souls, is only a firm Faith and iincere Obedience : And if this be fo, the Agreement in this refpect is very exact ; God having required Faith and Obedience by the Covenant which he made with Abraham, as ftri&ly, and as indifpen- fably, as he lias done by Chrift. As to Faith, the Cafe is fo very plain, and Co univerfally acknow- ledged on all fides, that I fhall need to fay but little upon it : The Faith of Abraham was fo eminently renown'd, and fo illuftrious a Pattern to all fucceeding Ages, that to the everlafting Memory of it, he is diftin- guimed by that iignal Charader, the Father of the Faithful ; and all Chriftians in the World are called his Children, as we walk in the Steps of that Faith, Rom. 4. 1 2. And that this Faith was the Condition of Abraham's being received into Covenant, is evident not only from the Old Teftament, which fays, Gen. 15. 6. That he believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him for Right eoufnefs ; but alio from the New, in which St. Paul convinces the ^7p//&Convertsy;that the Works of the Law were not the Conditions of Juftification and Salvation •, becaufe Abraham himfelf was jufiified by Faith, Rom. 4. 2, ton. And that his Pofterity were bound to this general Faith, is plain in St. Paul's Vindi- cation of his Orthodoxy, on the very Account of his Believing all that a written in the Law, and in the Prophets, Ads 24. 14. And as Faith was one part of Abraham's Covenant, fo Obedience was another : And this appears plainly by that Injunction which God gave him at the very fame time that he was eftablifhing his Covenant with him, Gen. 17. 12. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and faid unto him, I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfetl : Which Words the Jews them- felves look upon to be fo much a Command of Univerfal Obedience, as from thence to conclude, that in Circumcifion they all covenanted to have no other Gcd but him. [See Bifhop Patrick.] 2. As Abraham's Covenant is the fame with ours in its Conditions, fo it is in its Promifes too. The Two great BlelTings of ihe Gofpel are Juftification here, and eternal Life hereafter : As to the firft of thefe, that Abraham was Jufiified by his Faith, and that confequently Juftifica- tion is one of the great Benefits and Bleffings of the Covenant God made with him, is fo plainly and expreily aflerted in the Gofpel, that it is npedlefs to go about to prove it. And L M J . < '«, i- «te Wnrld to come was promifed to Abra- And that eternal Life i «* War Id to co jf ars from ham and his Poftenty by Chr ift, a «j « been looked Qn as a hence, that the Land of Cm*". M fe thefe Utter Type'andKgnreof ^^ffi^st.U himfelf, «*. 3- |i Ages of the World, but » km u» New Teftament gives of the Spi- And from the *«^^tl£*te*G0A&^*^*m, ritual Meaning and Defignot tne ui, ^ ^ d t That fee iwW *' »"^f«j ^1 ;n' ' nded hereby to reward their Faith and Jacob, Gen. 28. 1 3 \ Tha; he intend ed _hera>y ^ Words obedience with the Kingdomo* He ven ^ ^ g ft_ of Chrifti wh°fromtheftPrrho'k was controverted, Afe.22.31, tnre State to the 7™'uT C Xl^S the Patriarchs expefted 32. And St. Pad tells us, that,^*fX "hole Temporal Promifes, Fuch a Recompense to be couched undergo JS^^ff^ jai.u-.13. wheiehelays, '»'.£* ings promifed, while they were on rived the Promifes, that is, the BlelUDgspro "> > , (fc w fm_ Earth ; te ^ fZr^d7*™£%£ *»* *&** W foW f«w», ^ c<f/feJ t (,S C»*f>-v;thatistofay, an heavenly. 4*«*jW, or looked ^'^'M was a Covenant of Grace, And what can be a ^ ^°°f tha tta promifed by God ^SSS^SS^tiR onthevery Conditionsof qually have refpeft to the 61 w sMedwt or Je 9tfU*u God w fcWtion of this, we all £%£* 33*33 ./ «■ AM *• "#«"* ^«fc«», faying, /» 'fcy &<<M * '*? i hs Cm-iit. And as the Holy are truly and rea|Ily fulfilled °^ in fc^M .it ^^ Spirit of God has taught us this, foChriit tells us t ^ tmderftood it fo: For difcourfing .^ ^^tt/-MBgf b«y, *»J fee/aw >>, «»* tm^W, 0. • e^eJS a' d he did underftand them to be ftand the Subftance of thefe Promifes and bea a intended of me, and was d hghted m the L^ J ^ But whether all that mcceeaea u u» r Purpofe : Tis Communication of this grea . Myfteiy, * ncrf at ah to 0 ^1. w£r£ fufficient that the ^MffiM %«>>** were with-Re- thus graciouHy promifed in this ggJgSrg^ to come : And this ferenceto, and for the Sakeof jrfa sChn ttth at^w ^^ ^ ^ St. /W has exprefly affirmed. Gal 3. is, ,y ' f ht as of One, SteJ mre the Promiles made, befoul not, to beeas as 0} ^ <«»d to thy Setd which UChtM. So he goes on , fc- rr , , ^h,ch wM confirmed before of Gedi„ S° «on ,'^Ifiy that the Covenant that r have here been proving IT r£ AfflrnM8, w Ihort, all the Confirmation of that ver/co^ which ""'f °« waS.the Seal for in Chnft Four Hundred and TOrty Tears be£, ,h ,made mth Ahr«h™ that ^;-,fcw had not onl the Se CovenanTwi Se **? WaS Siven- s° Gofpel that is preached to us, waTpreachea tn f °l' bM,?e "«**» The Scripture fore-leeino (Up!i u .J °,A*B al*0, Gal. , 8 r<^$^dWb%^^z%t £rhr th;-K'h ^ certainly the Gofpel oYchrifr through „h™ ,1 fpd Wasit ' It: «as W, h thee fl,all all the Nat 'on sofl tp H fe," W«tt^, tainly at theTime when he SX&ri f£ r *** And * *** eer- ed ofGodin Chrift. And U The Seedof 3* p°~which was confitm- were bound to wor/hip the true r ^ P Air"1 that were Mcumcifed ofa^#^. as we Sans are to be it, Tl^ Seneial P'omifes particularly'revealed by CI ri^ Fro™ h, - y the GofP^more at Eight Days old ^xLjTan^Z^ *&* M™* with God, by his own Appointment anH admtted lnto this Covenant a good Authority for the ItaSJhLn, 0mma,ndA thi* Command is ofAdmifiion intc I the fame Covenant ' whichlsbuta new Way ^^Sft^»iSJ^^* Covenant, but Things elfe are to coSeJsfh^w re^^^f ^^ a!1 wife by a new Law • But when CaTa C Vod (ha11 orda"> other- iion to Baptifm, he did notly any e^efi .T $*?& f"?m Cira™«- mitted : Therefore by Virtue ot'rtfc » LawforDld Infants to be ad- God made this CoveLnt wf.h J,^L K°r!§mal Il,ffitutio" "MS manded Infants to be adm tS w hat A f Clrcuffic!'io"> a"d corn- by Baptilm. For where th Covenant and n,°r? t0admit themnow the Reafon alfomuft be of the fame • Forre f , Cafaclties ar« the fame, found it objected Fo1 ce' Eut t0 8* Argument I have teaSSKSSftS S^^S 7as in t^ Minority of wehaveclearLight, audi hat refn^ ^ "^T611' but now> that there is not the Ian e t^S^^S^^^^^k then. AUthe Force of thi . OW? i- °? Infailts' whlch th«e was Revelation, thathave bee madeto T 5* W ' £ dlff"ereilt De?tees of h acknowledge for a g?e at Truth tIT' rt^i and «*«»&- Covcnaat with Abraham wash, Jr ,whlch,God int^ded in that and the Particulars both of Fa™ and P,VV 7' f Va general fa forth, H,ppiue,aremorefoily aJ^^a„^^^ [ i5 3 When therefore I aifert^ that our Covenant is the fame with that made with Abraham and his Seed, I fpeak of Generals, not of Particu- lars } and my Meaning is, that Faith and Obedience were required in ^Abrahams Covenant, as well as they are from us. Not but that the particular Articles of that Faith, and the particular Duties of that O- bedience too, are now more fully difcovered, and fet in a clearer Light. But I cannot fee how this makes any Difference, either as to the Capaci- • ty, or the Right of AdmilTion to this Sacrament , becaufe Children be- ing equally infenlible of both, cannot be lefs capable of the one than of the other. 2. It is objected, that there was an exprefs Command for the Cir- cumciiion of Infants, but there is none for baptizing them. To this I anfwer •, There was not the fame Neceffity for it : There was an abfolute Ne- ceflity for commanding Infants exprefly to be circumcifed \ becaufe there was nothing Antecedent to that Inftitution, that could give Light or Knowledge todircd to it. But there was no fuch Neceility for an ex- prefs Precept for Baptizing Infants \ becaufe this might be learnt from the Autority of God in the Antecedent Inititution under Abraham •, For they were certainly as fit Subjects of the one as of the other } becaufe the Conditions were the fame , and ifas fit Subjects of the Covenant, equal- ly to be received by the Seal of it. This I am inclined to believe was the firlt Ground of Baptizing In- fants among Chriftians. When the Apoftles firlt began to preach the Gofpel, -and efpecially to the Jews ; the Subftance of their Preaching was, that what God had long before declared by Abraham and the Pro- phets, he had now fulfilled and accomplifhed by Jefus Chrift. From whence they were to learn, that this Gofpel was no new Thing, but what had been long declared, and prophefied in old Time : The Covenant was the fame, the Religion was the fame, only brought into a clearer Light by a more perfect Revelation. This was the Sum of St. Pe/rr's Sermon, Acts 3. 18. Thofe Things that God before had jhevced by the Mouth of all his Prophet s, that Chrift (Imtld fuffer, he hath fo fulfilled. And Alts n. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, faying unto Abraham, and in thy Seed ft) all all Nations of the Earth be blefjed. And for this Caufe St. Paul fays, Rom. 15.8. That Chrift jejus was a Adlnifter of the Circumcifion, for the Truth of God, to confirm the Promifes made unto the lathers. And as this was the common Subjed of the Apoiiies Preaching, fo thofe who were hereby convinced, and prevailed on to believe, were immediately admitted in- to the. Ch rift ian Covenant by Baptifm. C 1 (ere [ i6] Here is, indeed, no exprefs mention -in4Qt of Infants, becaufe there was no Occafion for it : Their own Reafon and Underftanding were fuf- ficient to convince them, that what God had authorized and commanded from the Beginning, was a very good Example for them to imitate. And cofii'equently, that when Circumcilion was abolifhed from being any longer the Seal of God's Covenant, and Baptifm was inftituted in its ftead, there was the fame Reafon for baptizing Infants, that there had been for circumciilug them : God's having commanded the One, was an Evidence of the Lawfulnefs of the Other. And what they were fuffici- ently mftrncted in by the Autority of a Divine Precept and Command, in the Old Teitament, was not abfolutely neceflary to be repeated in the New ; For to what purpofe ihould there be a particular Revelation to difcover that which Men might be fufficiently convinc'd of without one ? And yet again, 2. The Baptifm of Infants is founded on God's Word, in that, tho' there be no fuch Precept, or Command of baptizing, in which Infants are totidem verbis exprefTed ; yet there is fuch a Precept and Command, in which Infants are certainly included : And this I fhall prove thus ; i. From St. Peter's Words, Atts 2. 39. Repent, and be baptised, that your Sins may be blotted out, for the Pronuje is to you and your Children. In "which Words Children are fairly intimated, at leaft, to be entitled both to the Promifes of the Covenant, and to the Sacrament that confirms it. I am not ignorant, that fome laugh at this Argument, with a great deal of Scorn, and Derifion, and think it ridiculous to mention it ; becaufe Men and Women are often call'd Children in Scripture \ as the Children of Jfrael are often fpoken of when Infants are not all intended, but only Men of the Pofterity of Jfrael. I grant it, and yetVhen they have laugh- ed their fill, I cannot think this Argument fo ridiculous, nor fo much to be defpifed :• For, tho' its true, the Word Children, if that were all, might import no more than the Pofterity : Yet the Promife here fpoken of, is that very Covenant int"> which Children, I mean Infants, were commanded to be admitted. So that if the Promife which God made with Abraham, and his Children included Infants j this Promife made to Chriftians, and their Children, will by the fame Autority, include Infants alfo ; for the Promife is Hill the fame. 2. The Precept for Baptizing is general, and does not exclude any that are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chrift -, lafents are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chrift, therefore the Precept does and mult include them : The firft is evident from the very Words of St. Matt. 28. Go make JDifciples of all Nati- ons, and baptise them ; which being given in general , and unlimited Terms, L *7 J Terms, and ordained by Almighty God as one of the ordinary Means of Salvation, ought to be extended to all Perfons whatfoever, that are ca- pable of Admiflion into the Covenant. Infants are capable of being admit- ted into the Covenant, and then Infants are alfo included in this Precept or Command. The Latter I have in great meafure prov'd already in my Anfwer to the Two firft Obje&ions. I (hall only add here, that it feems ft range to me, whenfo many of your Perfwafion allow Infants to be in the Covenant, and believe that they fhall be faved, which they cannot be, but by the Merits of Chrift ; that yet none of them mould think In- fants intitled to this Sacrament. For why ihould not the Covenant be confirmed to all thofe, to whom the Promifes of it belong ? If indeed all Infants were faid and prov'd to be in a State of Sin and inevitable Damnation, this would be a real Argument againft us \ for then, we fnould be charged with confirming the Covenant to thofe to whom the Promifes of it do not at all belong* And this would be a Crime indeed. But if Infants may be faved by Chrift, nothing of this can be alledged. But you fay, that we baptize Infants that know nothing of it, and that is almoit as bad ; Why fo ? We only by this Seal confirm the Covenant to thofe to whom God haspromifed the Bleffingsofit. And where is the Impropriety of that ? Or why is it more abfurd to baptize thofe in the Name of Chrift that know nothing at all of him, than to Redeem and Save thofe by Chrift that know nothing at all of him ? In fhort, if no good Reafon of Difference can be alledged from the Nature of Things, let Men wrangle never fo long, it muft follow, that if Infants are in the Covenant of Chrift, they are alfo fit Subjects of Chriftian Baptifm \ and if they are fit Subje&s of Chriftian Baptifm, then the general Precept includes them ; and 10 the Baptim of Infants is as much founded on the Autority of God's Word, as the Baptifm of Men and Women. But I am fenfible, Sir, you will not acquiefce in this: No, Baptifm is a Sacrament, a Fundamental in Religion, that gives Being to a Church ; in which yon muft have a Command, mentioning Infants exprejly, totidem ver- bis, or it will not do ; Inferences and Deductions here are not of fuffcient Force. But by the Way ; What is your Second Objection, but a De- duction, that Infants not being capable of Faith, are not capable of Baptifm ? This is unreafonable, and very hard, when you your felf muft argue by Deductions and Inferences againft the Baptifm of Infants, not to allow us to do fo for it ; I appeal whether this be fair. How- ever, fore-feeing that this my Argument would be thus withftood, I proceed to fliow, C 2 1. That ^. [ i8 J t. That clear and evident Dedu&ions from the Word of God are of equal Force with the exprefs Word of it -7 and that in Fundamental, as well as in other Principles of Religion.: For, can we fuppofe, that in the Manifeftation of allthofe Divine Truths, which are revealed in the Gofpel, God would have us fuperfedeall life of our own ULdeiitand- ingsin theConclufions to be drawn, and the Confequeii-cs that follow Irom fuch Doctrines ? And yet we mult do this, if the Inferences and Deductions from them he not acknowledg'd of fufficieht Autority to determine our Judgment, and guide our Practife. It was ceiuuiily no part of God's Delign to undermine our Recfon by Revelation ^ but to En- lighten and Improve it ; to fupply its Defects,by teaching us thofe Things which of our felves we were not able to find out} and to clear fome Principles of Religion that to the Light of Reafon only feem'd difputable and doubtful. But where that Light mines bright, and clear of it felt, it is a Divine Lamp held forth from Heaven to direct us, and its Autori- ty is not to be defpifed. Thus for Inftance, in the Inftitution of a Sacrament, we mult expect a particular Revelation. For this being no part of natural Religion, but a Politive Ordinance, and depending on the fole Pleafure and Will of God \ we can know nothing but what he fhall be pleafed to reveal. For tho' baptizing was in ufe among the Jews, as a Rite in admitting Pro- felytes, and by our Saviour receiv'd from them :, yet it mult be his Po- litive Decrjee and Command, that rnuft make it a Sacrament to us. Had it therefore been the Autority of the Inftitintion it felf that had been in difpute: You had argu'd well,that an exprefs Precept was to be expected. But as to the Subjects of Baptifm, or the Perfons to be baptized, the Cafe is riot the fame, nor is there the fame Reafon to look for a Command mentioning Infants in exprefs Words : For, tho' the Sacrament be nQW, the Covenant is ltill the fame. And therefore, we may here argue, and be particularly inftructed by Parity of Reafon, viz.. that thofe who were admitted to the Old Covenant may be admitted to the New •, be- caufe the Conditions, and the Promifes are the fame in both. And here Deductions and Inferences from God's Word are of fuificient Force to determine the Argument, and ought to be received in all fuch Cafes. And the chief Thing to be reflected, is not whether the Matter be Fun- damental or no :, but the Certainty of it, and the clear Evidence of its Tru:h. A certain, and evident Truth ought to be received in Things Fundamental as well as not Fundamental, let the Way of attaining the Knowledge be what it will -0 whether from the Light of Reafon, or Re- velation •, or Deduction, and Inferences from it. 2. But L 19 J 2. But to make this more plain I (hall further mow from St. Peter's own Example, in being determined by fuch Arguments in a Cafee- qually Fundamental, that this Autority ought to be fubmitted to in the_ Cafe now before us. The Cafe I fhall inftance in, is, the AdmiiTIon ot the Gentiles into the Church of Chriil, and baptizing them : And there, the Queftion once was much as it is now, viz.. about the fit Sub;eds of Eaptifm. For fome then did as firmly believe, that the Gentiles as pol- luted and unclean, were as unfit to be admitted into the Covenant with God, as others now-a-days would have Infants excluded for their In- capacities. And I would beg thefe Men to obferv*e, what Methods the Holy Ghofl ufed for the Convi&ion of St. Peter ; and how he directs him by fuch a Train of general Inftru&ions, as all along required the iincere and impartial life of his Reafon in the Application of them. And at lair, there was no particular Command for baptizing them ; all that the Holy Ghoff difcovered, amounted to no more than to mow that the Gentiles were not by Almighty God excluded from the Cove- nant: Froi^whence St. Peter\ own Reafon convinced him, that therer ^^bre they were to be baptized. * St. Peter had a Villon from Heaven, wherein there appeared, Alls 1 o. li. A certain Vcffel defcending unto him as it had been a great Sheet knit at the four Corners, and let down, to the Earth: Wherein were all manner of four-footed Beafts. of the Earth? and wild Beafls, and creeping Things, and Fouls of the Air. And there cayne a Voice to him, Rife Peter, kill and eat. And when Peter faid, not fo, Lord, for I have never eaten any Thing common or unclean : The Voice fpake the fecond time, what God hath cleanjed, that call not thou common. And this was done thrice, and the Vejfcl was received up again rnto Heaven. Here is nothing in exprefs Words about the Gentiles, nor did St. Peter yet apprehend that they were concerned in the Vilion : For it is faid, Ver. 1 7. That Peter doubted in himfelf what the ' Vifwn which he had feen fliould mean. But when the Holy Spirit gave him Warning of Three Men coming to him, and ordered him to go along with them, doi.hing noth'mg, and the MefTengers prefently came from Cornelius the. Centurion, who was a Gentile; then he understood by Dedu&ions of his own Reafon, that the Vilion referred to the Gentiles, and that God had lignify'd thereby, that they, notwithstanding their reputed Uncleannefs might be admitted into the Church of Chriil:. Ver. 31. Of a Truth I perceive that God is no Re~ fpeller of Perfons, but in every Nation he that fear eth God,. &C. Here was in all this no exprefs Command for admitting the Gentiles, but a Vifion, from which this was to be learned by way of Inference and Deduction. And St, Peter convinced by this, preached Jeftts Chriil- unto them ; and as L 20 j as lie was Preaching, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the Word-, and they fpake with Tongues, and magnified God, Vei*. 44, 46. Here was all this while no Precept, or exprefs Command to baptize them ; but St. Peter being convinced, both by the Vifion, and by the Defcent of the Koly Ghoft upon them, that the Covenant belonged to them : From thence concludes by way of Inference, that they therefore ought to be Baptized. Ver. 47, 48. Can any Man forbid Water that thefe fhould be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And. he command- ed them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. I hope it will not be difputed, but that the Admiflion of the Gentiles, is a very Fundamental Doctrine in. Chriftianity. From this inftance therefore I obferve, 1 • That the Inference from a Divine Revelation had with St. Peter, the Force and Authority of a Divine Law, as much as tho' it had been faid totidem verbis, ye mail admit the Gentiles into the Chriftian Church. And therefore it was that he told his Brethren, Alls 11. 17. that his not complying had been withftanding the Autority of God. Forafmuch then as God gave them the fame Gift, that he did unto us, that believed in the Lord Jefm : What was I, that I could withftand God f 2. That when we are fufficiently afiiired, that any Perfons are capable of Admiflion into the Chriftian Covenant ; this is a fufficient Autority to baptize them, without any particular exprefs Command. The Holy Ghoft in this Villon gave no Command for baptizing Cornelius, but only taught St. Peter, that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the Covenant ; and from thence he himfelf could fufficiently determine, that it was God's Will, that they fhould be baptized. Who can forbid Water that thefe fhould be baptized? And to bring this home to our Cafe, it is jufl thus that we argue for Infant Baptifm. God has from the Be- ginning with Abraham taught us, that Infants are not excluded from the Covenant of Chris! : And from thence we conclude as St. Peter did, that thofe who are not excluded from the Covenant, are included in the general Precept of admitting them by Baptifm. And how ftrange is the Power of Prejudice not to be fatisfy'd with that Way and Method of ConvicYion, 'which the Holy GhoB himfelf ufed to the great Apoftle of our Saviour. - To this I have found obje&ed ; that there was exprefs Law for Bap- tifing of the Gentiles. Matt. 18. Go teach and baptize all Nations, &c. To this I anfwer, 1 . That tho' we, who are allured, that it was God's Purpofe to call the Gentiles, do very well to interpret that Command for Converting and Baptizing them ; yet the Apoftles before this Vifion of St.' Pe- ter did not apprehend this to be the Meani»§;of it. And a Law can have [« ] have no Force, nor be any warrant, farther than the Purpofe and Mean- ing of it can be underitood. 2. The Words themfelves did not neceilarily and lite- rally imply any fuch Meaning, that the Gentiles were to be admitted : For, as Dr. Hammond has truly obferv'd, the Word Uw did not then in common life import the Gem-lies, always excluflve of the Jews, but is oft ufed for the Jews, in their federal Nations, and Countries. And, indeed, had that Word in common Acceptation fignify'd the Gentiles, I do not fee how St. Peter, and the other Affiles could have been igno- rant of that Do&rine. And it is pofiible, that on this Account God might think fit to make further Difcoveries of the Calling in of the Gen- tiles, the better to inftruct them what was his Purpofe, and Intention in thofe former Words. But, in fhort, what was it that moved St. Peter to baptize Comelim ? Did he do it upon the Autority of the Precept mentioned ? Matt. 28. Its plain he did not -, He did not then fo underiland thofe Words. And its obfervable, that in all that Affair there was not the lean: mention made of that fore-mention'd Precept, but it was the Viiion that Convin- ced, and Rectify'd St. Peter's Judgment by the rational Inferences which he was to draw from it. And I may add that what convinced him, con- vinced all his Brethren too. ABs 11. 18. When they heard thofe Things, they held their peace, and glorified God, faying ; then hath God alfo to the Gentiles granted Repentance unto Life. And thus it ftill remains good, that an Argument by Deduction from Scripture or Revelation is fuiici- ent to convince us, who are the fit Subjects of Chriftian Baptifm ; and by fuch an Argument we do prove, thai the Baptifm of infants is found- ed on the Autority of God's holy Word. CHAP. III. THE fourth and laft Obje&ion is, That there is no mention made of any fuch Practice among the Apoftles, or the molt Primitive Times. I mull here obferve that the State of the Quefti- on is now chang'd, from Matter of Law to Matter of Fact ; and we are now only to enquire what Difcoveries we can find of fuch a Pra- ctice in the Beginning of Chriltianity. As to this Objection therefore I anfwer, /. 1. That [ « ] i . That tho' it were true, that there is no mention made in Scripture of fuch a Practice, yet this would not at all prove, that there was no fuch Thing in ufe \ and efpecially, when it is found not contrary to the Laws of God. For we are no more to expect an exprefs, clear, anddiftinct Account of all Apoftolical Practices from the New Teftament, than we are to expect a perfect Hiftory of the firft Ages of the World from the Six jirft Chapters oiGenefis. It was fufficient for the Apoftles to acquaint us with all neceflary Laws and Commands of God -7 and with the Pra- ctices only occalionally as it ferved either to illuftrate or confirm thofe Laws when called in Queftion. Otherwife they were in many Particulars iilent. 2. I do not affirm, that it was the conftant and univerfal Practice from the Beginning of the Apoftles Preaching to baptize Infants. For I know very well that God did not think fit to make a compleat Efta- blilhment of all Things at once, but brought Things to ^aa?/of^Lc '" Perfe&i°n by degrees. As a Reverend Bifhop hasob- $•'%.» fC' ferved to us 5 there was a Time when the Chriftian Church confifted only of Jewijh Converts, and we know when the Gentiles were firll admitted : And there wTas a Time when Cir- cumcilion was thought neceflary to be obferved, and it was fome Years before this was laid afide. So the Apoftles according to Chrift's Com- mifflon, being chiefly intent on the Converlion of thofe Perfons that were polluted with Infidelity and Immorality } had not as yet taken the State of Infants into their Confideration. But when afterwards many Families were converted, their Condition came alfo to be coniidered. And I conjeiture, ^hat this might firft be when Circumcilion came to be rejected. For it is very likely, that when the Jewijh Converts who efteem- e:l their Infants to be admitted into Covenant by Circumcilion found the Apoftles declare, that Circumcilion was not neceflary} they then began to ftart the Cafe of Infants, who by Circumcilion had that Privi- ledge iigned to them, which by the Abolition of it would feem to have been loft. But this I mention only as a Conjecture which you may take or leave, as you fee fj ■:. 3. Tho' we have no Declaration in exprefs Words, that Infants were baptized in the Apoftles Times -7 yet from one Expreflion of St. Vaul, fuch a Practice may reafonably be concluded. He fpeaks fo of the Holi- r:efs of Children, as feemsnotto admit of any rational Interpretation, and agreeable to the Cafe and Context, but by fuppoling that thofe In- fants were admitted to Baptifm. It is 1 Cor. 7. 14. where giving his judgment concerning thofe Chriftians who were married to Unbelievers, he L i] J he pcrfwades their Cohabitation in that Conjugal State, if it may be per- mitted, by this Argument. For the unbelleveing Hpabandis fantllfed by the Wife (i. e.) (he being a Believer } and the unbelieving Wife is fantllfied by the Husband \ elfe were your Children unclean, but novo are they holy. In which Words the Apoftle plainly founds his Determination on this known and received Opinion, that the Children of Chriftian Parents, and fo alfo if but one Parent was Chriftian, are holy -0 Elfe were your Children unclean, but novo are they holy. That Infant Children are here intended, is plain in that he fpeaks of fuch whofe Holinefs depended on the Sanctin" cation of the believing Pa- rent, which mult refpect Infants only, becaufe the Holinefs of adult Per- ons mult be from their own actual Faith. Now the Queftion is, what St. Paul means here by Holinefs: He fpeaks of the Holinefs of fuch Children, one of whofe Parents only weie Chriftian, and yet of fuch Holinefs of inch Children, as from thence to prove the Lawfulnefs of the Cohabitation of fuch Parents. To this End the Holinefs of fuch Children muft be evident and indifputable, or otherwife the Argument would not have Force. Now, tho' the Chil- dren both whofe Parents were Chriftians, may be reckoned an holy Seed or OfF-fpring,by Defignatiom, yet it might juftly be doubted whether the Children, one of w7hofe Parents only were Chriftian, were thus holy, when the Lawfulnefs of their Cohabitation was difputed. I ask then, how it fhould come to pafs, that when the Lawfulnefs of the Cohabitation of a Chriftian and an Infidel was difputed \ yet it fhould remain a known and indifputable Doctrine, that their Children were not unclean, but holy ? For this the Apoftle ailerts, And I am perfwaded, that the only proper Anfwer to this Queftion muft be, That there was fome known Privilege according to the Practice of the Church, at leaftofthat Church at that time belonging to fuch Children •, by which the Churches Opinion of their Holinefs, became unqueftionable. Had not this been fo, St. Paulh Argument, inftead of proving what he intended by it, might rather have brought the Opinion of their Holinefs into Queftion. But that it feems wa^S cej^aia^ fo well known, fo unqueftionable, that he might fafelygroumt' ^vient upon it. And yet, methinks, there was the fame Reafon t^Mprrc one as well as the other, had not fome cuftomary Privilege made the Difference, and what that Privilege was, the true Notion of Holinefs will difcover. The beft Notion of Holinefs in general that I have yet met with, is from the Learned and Judicious Mr. Mede, Difc. 2. who makes it to con- ijft in Religious Separation and Dijcrimination from other Things ; which in Oppofition thereto, are called Common. I would ask then by what D other" l n j other Means or Privilege the Infants of Chriftian Parents can be emi- nently difcriminated from the Children of Infidel Parents ; fo as in the Language of the Church to be called Holy^ but by being baptized? In this Interpretation, the Coherence and Purport of the Apoftle's Argu- ment is ealie and plain, which other wife is unintelligible. The Chil- dren of Gentile Parents are common and unclean, in St. Peter?$ Seufe, mentioned above, AtU 10. 14, 15. (/. e.) not yet to be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant, but the Infants of Believers are holy and maybe baptized. And thus alfothe unbelieving Husband is fandified by the believing Wife, in that he who is an Unbeliever has his Child baptized becaufe of the Faith of the Mother, as much as tho' both Parents were Chriftian. And this is a good Argument of the Innocence of their Cohabitation : For if the Church admits the Child of an unbelieving Husband to Bapr tifm, becaufe the Mother is a Believer, the Cohabitation of thofe Pa- rents of whom fuch a Child is born, cannot be thought unlawful, upon the Account of their Religion. Thus every Thing in the Words is In- telligible and Plain , and if this be a true Interpretation, here is Proof that the Baptifm of Infants was in ufe in the Apoftles Time. But you, Sir, have fent me fome Objections, and another Interpreta- tion of this Place : Both which mail be. confiderecl I mall begin with the Objedions. Objeh. 1 . It is objeded, That there is ?io other Holinefs here attributed to the Children, than what is afcritfd to the unbelieving Parent ', for, a/ the Children are [aid to be holy, fo it is f aid of the unbelieving Hmband, or Wife, that he, orflie is fandified, or made holy ; and therefore as much ought to he baptised. Anfiv. But where's the Force of this Conclufion? You feem from hence to infer, that there is the fame Holinefs in both : But, why fo ? Are there not feveral Degrees or Kinds of Holinefs, or Religious Dif- crimination ? Are not all Chriftians holy by their Profeffion ? In which Senfe St. Paul calls them d!yoi, the Saints or holy Ones by way of Diftindi- on from other Men : And are not all true ChriftianskiUby/n^eal Sandi- fication of God's Spirit ? And yet thefe are not tly*^ *$nn, Are not all that minifter at the Altar, holy in a third \$0*+-JJ their Office? There is then an internal, and there is an external Holinefs ; there is a real, adual Holinefs, conlifting in Faith and Obedience, by the Sandifi- cation of the Spirit ; and there is a relative Holinefs, conlifting in Se- paration by Profeflion, or Privilege, or Office. Here then are diffe- rent Degrees of Holinefs afcrib'd to different Perfon^ according to their feveral Circumftances. The Holinefs of the Believer is of one Kind ; that [*5] that of the Unbeliever of another ; that of their Children of a third : And fo this Obje&ion can be of no Force in that its founded on this grofs Miftake \ That the Holinefs is the fame in all ! Objeft. 2. It is objected, That the Holinefs, or Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apoftle as The Caufe of the Chil- drens Holinefs : Otherwife, (i. e.) were it not that the Unbeliever was thus lanctified, your Children were unclean, but novo are they holy. Confe- quently, fay you, there is a ftronger Argument in this Text for bapti- zing the unbelieving Parent, than the Children \ Even as The Caufe is more noble than the Effect. Anfw. I anfwer^ If it had been faid One Caufe of the Childrens Holi- nefs it had founded better \ becaufe the Caufe looks as tho' it were the chief or only Caufe, in which Senfe the AiTertion is not true : For, the Logicians have juftly taught us to diftinguifti that there is a principal Caufe, and a lefs principal Caufe. The Holinefs of the unbelieving Pa- rent is at moft but a lefs principal Caufe of the Holinefs of the Chil- dren, or a Caufe fine qua non \ otherwife were the Children unclean, but novo are they holy. And if this be St. Paul's Meaning ; yet then in this Senfe, the Conclufion will fail. For, whereas it is alledged, that on this Ac- count, the Words are a ftronger Argument for Baptizing the unbelieving Parents, than their Children, even as the Caufe is more noble than the Effect : Here lies the Weaknefs of this Objection j which is, indeed, a down- right Fallacy ; for it is not the lefs principal, but the Principal Caufe on- ly that is nobler than the Effect. 'Tis one of the Maxims of Logic,that the lefs principal Caufe, Semper eft deterior ejfeclufuo, is always lefs noble than the Effect. There can then be no Force in this Concluiion, unlefs Men will aflert, that the Holinefs of the unbelieving Parent, is the Principal Caufe of the Holinefs of the Children, which is more than St. Paul ever faid. Objett. 3. It is objected, That aFcederal Holinefs cannot be intend- ed here, unlefs it be fuppofed, that the unbelieving Husband or Wife is in the QMenant of Grace. Anfw. BM w* "^^J have already mown, that their Holinefs is not the fame ; the d.»„ >«55Wefore may be a Foederal Holinefs, and the other not ; and, fo this is a falfe Deduction. Object.^. Another Objection is, That if here he meant a Fcedefal Holi- nefs, whereby Infants are fet apart from the reft of the World, as Mem- bers of Chriirs Church, they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Sup- per alfo} which Ordinance is no lefs a Duty, and Privilege of every Member of Chrift's Church than Baptifm. And therefore fays Mr. A — It is well known that among the Ancients, Infants were for a time admitted L> 2 tO C ^6 ] to this Sacrament, as well as to the former : Bat feeing 71 one now to the Laf tcr, why to the Former ? He who makes this Objection, has furnifn'd me with an Anfwer to it, and fays, That Self-examination is urged as a Bar in this. But if this be all, I mail not thank him for the Invention. There is another, and lam peifwaded, a better Argument drawn from the dif- ferent Nature and Delign of thefe Two Sacraments. For Baptifm is a Sacrament of Initiation-, the other of Confirmation. And, iho'God may, and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant -r yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Suppofition of our Frailty ;, who, more or lefs, do 511 tranfgrefs the Conditions of our Baptifmal Vow, and impair our Hope. The Lord's Supper thereiore was intended, the ftronger to oblige Men to actual Faith aj I Repen- tance, after the Violation of their firft Vow, and to adraimfter Com- fort in our Penitential Sorrows, in the Commemoration of Qur Savi- our's Paffion. This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always fuppofes a&ual Faith and Repentance, which Baptifm does not. Aclual Faith and Repentance are not univerfally neceilary to Baptifm, as I have proved above, but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before. For he that has never linn'd, has nothing to repent of. And the Innocence of the Per- fon then is a fufficient Qualification for Baptifm, where there is a ra- tional Flope, that he fhall afterwards believe and obey the Gofpel. But the Lord's Supper, which was defign'd for the Renewing, and Con- firmation of our Vow, fuppofes both that Vow to have been broken, acid that Breach to have been repented of. There is not therefore the fame Reafon for admitting Infants to the Lord's Supper as to Baptifm \ becaufe the different Nature and End of each Sacrament (hows the One to be proper, and the other not. For which Caufe that Cuftom is now left ofK I think then Mr.^— 's Objections againft my Interpretation of this Text appear to have very little or no Force. I dedre now that my Reafons againft his Interpretation of/"" ' Plaft may be as fairly confidered, and as impartial a Ju£grn „ pafs'd upon them : Which is molt agreeable to the Context, and the Force of the Apoftle s Argument and Delign. His Interpretation is this ; The Scope of the Apoftle determines the Sanfhification or Holme fs of the un- belle-j'rr.Q- Husband or Wife to be no other than Matrimonial Holinefs, or Chajtity ; in Oppojition to Vncleannef, or Fornication, (in which Senfe it is taken, I ThefT. 4. 3, 4, 7. and confequently by the FJolinefs of the Chil- dren flowing from it, we may under ft and no other than Legitimacy, in which Senfe [ *7 1 Strife we read of a godly or holy Seed, Mai. 2. I 5. So that St. Paul here brings Two Arguments to prove the Marriage to be good. 1 . Becaufe the Vnbe- liever (j\yU<&i) hath been fanftified, not by, but to, or unto the Believer by beinv joyned in holy Matrimony ; end confequently a Divorce would be con- trary to the Law of Chrifi, unlefs for the Caufe of Fornication. 2. (Abab- furdo) from the Abfurdity that would follow Jhould they feparate upon the Account of Religion, thereby difowning their Marriage, and confeqitently ba- fiard.iz.inff their Children ; which the Apofile, fuppofing them unwilling to do,, advifes them to continue with their unbelieving Husband or Wife, notwith- fiandinq their Differences in Religion. Thm this Text Mr. A — fays is ex- pounded by Melan&hon, Camerarius, and Mufculus, who alfo cites St. Je- rome and Ambrofe for it ; acknowledging, that he had formerly abufed it against the Anabaptifts. So that it feems in this, we mull conlidei\both the Interpretation, and the Autorities produced to confirm it. As to the Argument 1 have thefe Things to offer : 1 . That fuch a Senfe is put upon thefe Words, as fome of them are never found to have in all the Holy Scripture. For, tho' it is true, that Holinefs is fometimes ufed for Chaftity, and particularly, 1 Thejf.3. 3, 4,7. inOppofition to Fornication } yet Uncleannefs is never taken for Illegitimacy or Baflardy in a litteral Senfe, as it is here rendred by IVir. A—- As to what is alleged concerning a godly or holy Seed, Mai. 2. 15. which Mr. A— by the Autority of Calvin, and other Learned Interpreters, would underitand to be Legitimacy, let thofe learned In- terpreters be who they will ; it is very plain, that they mult take Le- gitimacy there not in a Litteral Senfe, but Figurative, according to the ufual Language of the Prophets, who often exprefs Idolatry by Whore- dom and Fornication, and call the Revolting into it the Marrying aftrange God ', and going a whoring after Idols, Ezek. 6. 9. St. Jerome and and the Chaldee Paraphrafe by the holy Seed, underitand the Pofterity of Abraham in Oppolition to the Gentiles ; and the former fays, The Prophets Purpofe here was to reprove the Jews for Marrying Wives of the Idolatrous Nations, and he grounds this Interpretation on Ezsa 9. 2. And if this be g^ri, tne h°fy See^ IS tne People under Covenant with God in Diltinithjk?rrom the Gentiles. And therefore I fay again, that tho' Uncleannefs is ufed in the New Teltament for Fornication and Senfuality ; yet not once for Baflardy, nor Holinefs for Legitimacy. But, I think, I may fay, that whenever thefe Words are ufed, and efpecially when they are fet in Oppolition one to another -0 Uncleannefs denotes fomething of the vile Pollutions that were common among the Idolatrous Heathens ; and Holinefs, when attributed to Perfons, always includes fomething of Diitinction and Dif- [**■] Difcrimination from the Heathens, either by way of Perfonal Excel- lence, or of Privilege. And therefore, 2. It is eafie to mew, that as thefe Words are not ufed for Bafiardy and Legitimacy in any other place of the New Teftament, fo that they rannot have any fuch Signification here. Mr. A — fays, That St. Paul here [peaks of Matrimonial Chaftity in Oppoftion to Fornication ; and that his Defign was toJJiew, that the Marriage was good notwithjtanding their Dif- ference in Religion ; and that they were therefore under no Obligation to fe- parate on that Account ', which feems plainly to be one of the'Scruples about which the Apofile wrote. The Chriftians, indeed, had Scruples about their Cohabitation with Infidels ; But how does it appear that the Scru- ple was, that after their Conversion to Chriftiai.liy, their Marriage was no longer valid or good ? How does this appear? Their Scruple was, I confefs, whether or no they were to feparate on Account of their Dif- ference in Religion : But the Ground of that Scruple was not any Fear that their Marriage-Contrail: was invalid, and their Cohabitation to be deenid Fornication ; but a Tendernefs upon Account of the Unbelievers being an Infidel and Idolater ; left by fo near an Alliance to fuch an one, they mould feem either to run into Danger, or to partake of the Pollution and Guilt of Idolatry and Unbelief: This is agreeable to the Appre- henfions which we find that the Primitive Chriftians had. An Inftance of which Jufiin Martyr gives an Account of: Of a Woman, who upon her Converiion to Chriftianity finding that fhe could not reclaim her Husband from the abominable Lewdnefs of his Heathen Life, would be divorced from him, and tho' at the Importunity of her Friends, fhe continued with him fomewhat longer:, yet finding he grew worfe, 'fatai y-n Koivcovbf tuv ctfliwy.clT&iy >y a.<ji$\\u.<LTuv yivurm y.ivzou. \v r« o'v^vyla.. &C left fiiefliould be Partaker of his Iniquities and Impieties by cohabiting with him, and being Partner with his Table and Bed, fie gave him a Bill of Di- vorce, x) \yj>^i<xh, and was parted from him. This remarkable Inftance fhews what the Apprehenlions of the Primitive Chriftians, as to this Matter were, and gives no fmall Light to the Debate now in hand. j*t And that fuch as this was, in Truth, the Cafe upui which St. Paul there treats, is farther evident from the Coherence of the Text with what goes before. The Queftions upon which St. Paul wrote were feveral : Firft, Whe- ther Chriftians mould then Marry, which he rather diifuades as that which would mQj;e engage them in the Affairs of the World, and make them lefs willing to fufFer Perfecution. This he mentions both in the beginning and End of the Chapter -, but then with this Reftriction, that they L 29 j they Ihould rather marry, than be fubjed to impulfes of burning Lhjfr, Ver. 9. Next to the Married, he declares, that they are bound by the Law of God, not to feparate, if they can avoid it. To the Married I com- mand, yet not 1, but the Lord ; La not, &c. - Ver. 10, 1 1 . Then comes the Cafe now in hand concerning thofe who were Married, but not both Parties as yet converted to Chriftianity \ and among them it was aQuc- ftion whether their Difference in Religion was a juft Caufe of Separati- on. Now, I fay, had the Ground of this Scruple been an Opinion, or Fear, that . their Continuance in that married State had been equal to Fornication or Uncleannefs : St. Paul who knew very well that their Difference in Religion made no fuch Alteration in the Cafe, would ne- ver have ufher'd in his Determination with, thx-sfpeak J, not the Lord, but thus, not I, but the Lord, as V. 10. It is not credible, or morally poflible, that He, who was immediately influenced by the Holy Ghoft in the Execution of his Apoftolic Office, Ihould only give his Conjectural Judgment, or meerly Prudential Determination, in a Queftion: In which both he and they were afore determined by the exprefs LaW, and Infti- tution of God •, and in which he knew himfelf to be fo determined. To the Afarried command I, and yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the Wife de- fart from her Husband, Ver. 1 o. Efpecially, if the Confequence of their Separation would prove fo pernicious, as to Baftardize their Children, (as Mr.-/* — fuppofes :) He was the more oblig'd to determine them by the Autority of God's Inftitution, or Law. It is, I fay, incredible, that he Ihould ufher in the Determination of fo important a Qiiellion, only by a Conjectural Order, that could not determine their Conference ^ For, feeing it was but St. Paul's Order, and not God's Command, it could not determine the Good or Evil of the-Thing. Had therefore the Queftion been, what Mr. A— fuppofes it, St. Paul mull have determi- ned it by God's Autority, and not by his own only ^ fo that the very Manner of the Exprefiion plainly proves, that the Queftion was only about the Banger of Cohabiting with an Infidel, and an Idolater : And if this be the Cafe, Mr. A — 's Interpretation of Holinefs by Legitimacy cannot be good. Sor Divorce in this Cafe can never baftardize the Chil- dren, that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage- Contrad. And fo far is St. Paul from aflerting what Mr. A— affirms, that Divorce would be unlawful," that he, if the Unbeliever will not cohabit^ leaves the Chriftian at liberty to feparate ; which he would rather have diiTuaded, if a Separation had been agaihft. the Law of Chrift, and made their Children Baftards. . - ^> As L 3°. J As to the Autority offome Commentators, AfeUficlhon, Camerarim, and Mufculns, who are alledged to Countenance this Conftrudtion ; What does it fignifie, when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the •life of the Phrafe, and the Coherence of the Place ? And that it does fo, will be more plain, if we obferve, 3. That Mr. A — 's Interpretation deftroys the Force of St. PauPs Argument, which our Notion of Holinefs cofirms. Mr. A— fays, St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments : Firft, Becaufe the Unbeliever y\yU</]Ai, hath been fantlified to, or unto the Believer (*••?.) joyned in holy Matrimony. If he means that, becaufe Matrimony is an holy State, therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithftandinfe the one Party is not Chriftian, I can go along with him : But when he makes St. Paid to argue, Secondly, Ab abfurdo, that if their Marriage and Cohabitation be lawful, therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law ofChrifi, and bafiardiz.es their Children : Here I doubt he perverts St.Pattfis Senfe in many refpe&s ; for, as I have hinted above. 1 . St. Paul does not fay in this Cafe, that a Seperation would be contrary to the Law 'of Christ. So far from it, that he does not determine it by • pod's Law, but by his own Opinion. V. 1 2. But to the reft fpeak I, but * not the Lord, If any Brother hath a Wife that believcth not, &c 2. He is fo far from declaring tljeir Seperation to be a Sin, and fuch a Sin as Bafiardiz.es the Children, that he only gives his Advice in cafe both Parties agree to Cohabit. Iffiebepleafed to dwell with him, V. 12. and if he be pleajed to dwell with her, let her not leave him, V. 13. But if they difagree about Religion, they may part, If the Vnbelievlng depart, let him depart. A Brother or Sifier is not in Bondage in fuch Cafes , V. 15. 3. 'As I have prov'd, that the Queftion was not about the Validity of Marriage, but of the Lawfulnefs and Expedience of their Cohabitation : So Mr. A — 's Legitimacy puts fuch a Confequence on St. Pattfs AiTerti- on, as does by no means follow , for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage that Baitardizes the Children, but Divorce alone does not. In a Word, Mr. A— 's Senfe of St. Pout's Words makes St. Pad to contradict himfelf ; for it makes him to declare fuch a Seperation con- trary to God's Law, and injurious to the Children»»in the 14th Verfe, which it is plain, that in the 1 5th he confents to ; and which in the 1 2th he fays, he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws, but only by his own Autority. But taking the Holinefs of Children in our Senfe,. for admitting them to Baptifm, it make^ the Apoftle's Argument flrong and clear : For the Holinefs of Children born in fuch a State, is a very good Proof, that their Cohabitation was Lawful and Innocent. Tis as much as if St. Paul had C 31 1 had faid , As to the Cafe of thofe married to Vnblievers, the Practice of the Church in the Admiffion of the Children of fuch to Baptijm, as well as the Children of thofe Parents who are both Chrifiians fljor, 'vhat our Opinion is of their Cohabitation : The "V'nbcliever is Sanctified in this refpecl by the Believer ; elfe were the Children offuch common and unclean, like the Children of In f dels; but now are they holy, or in Malachis Phrafe, an holy Seed, and admitted into the Covenant of God in Ghrift by Baptifm j as well as the Children of thofe Parents who are both Believers. I profefs with Sincerity, that I cannot find out any other Senfe of the Place that will agree with the Apoftle's Scope and Deiign. And when it thus appears, that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Teiti- mony of this Place, their Objections are of no Force, nor can any other Conftru&ion be devifed, that will well agree with the Scripture-Phrafe, and be confident with the Scope and Defign of St. Pad's Determination in this Cafe: Methinks it adds very great Autorityto my Argument, makes the Force of it much more confiderable •, and mult be admitted as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Ws Time. But the Thing now in Debate, being whether it was the Apoftles Pra- ctice to baptize Infants : I think it will be very proper to (how what early Difcoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Father For let Men that are Confcious of the Teftimony of Antiquity againit them never fo much decry the Autority of the Fathers, and the Primitive Church ; and tell US, that the My fiery of Iniquity began to work in it very early ; nothing of that mould derogate from their juft Eiteem. The My- ftery of Iniquity began to work in St. Pad's Time, and yet, I hope, that does not leffen his Autority. So neither do all the Herelies, and Hetero- dox Opinions of the firft Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers, in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church ; and were oppofed by the Fathers, with that Vigor, Conftancy, and Zeal ; which makes their Teftimony, both in Do&rines and Pradice, highly to be valued. For this Reafon, I fay, it is remarkable how early we find plain, and undeniable Evidence of the Baptifm of Infants. From the Death of St. John for fome Years we have no Chriitian Writings extant, except a few fhort Epiftles. In which we can no more exped a particular Account of all Apoftolical Practices ; than, as I faid before, we can hope for a particular Hiftory of the firft Ages of the World in the firft Five Chap- ters of Gene/is. But one of the firft of the Fathers that wrote in any confiderable Bulk, was Iren^m, and his Evidence is very exprefs in this Cafe : For he has thefe Words ; Omnesenim venit (viz. Chrifim)per femet ipfumjalvare : Om- E nes. nes inauam, qui Per eum rcnafcuntur in Deum, Infantes, & Parvulosy & Tucr os & Jwvcnes. & Senior es. Ideo per omnem venit £tatem, & lnfanti~ bits f alius Infans, fa-:Bifcans Infantes, in Parvulis Parvidm, Sft, lificans banc iffam habemes aiatem, Adv. Haer. lib. 2. c. 39. The Defign of the Father in this Place, was to lay open the Fantaftic Conceits of the J^a- lentinians, who pretended that their o£ons were prefigured by the Years of Chrift's Life before his Baptifm , and that what they dreamt of the Paflion of the Twelfth <t^£on, was fignified by Chrift's Suffering the Twelfth Month ; to fupport which Notion, they alTerted that Chrift Preached but one Year after his Baptifm. Thefe were the Heretic's Fantaftic Dreams \ to confute which, Iren&m firft mows that drift was at Jerufalem Three feveral Paflibvers after his Baptifm \ and confequeatly muft have Preach'd above one Year, in that he began it upon his Baptifm, and continued it to his Death. Then he (hows, that Chrift patted thro' the feveral Stages of Humane Life • Omnem atatemfanllificans per illam qiu ad if [am erat fimilitudinem, that he might fanllifie every Age by his own Likenefs thereto : For, fays he, he came to fave all by himfelf;, all I mean that are regenerated by him to Cod • Infant sy Little Ones, Children, Young Men, and Old. For this Rea- fon he pafs'd thro' every Age, and to the Infants he became an Infant, fan- clifyinq the Infants ; and to the Little Ones, a Little One that he might fan- llifie thofe of that Age. Which Words were purpofely defigned to de- clare, that the Salvation purchafed by Chrift belongs to all Ages or Years whatever, whether Infants or Old Men, who are Members of Chrift's Church. Omnes qui per eum renafcuntur in Deum , all that are Regenerate, or born again to God by him : Which is the T*. 3. 5- See Jllfl- very ExprefTion that St. Paul, and the Ancients after S.vT12' P* 9+" hiiii, ufe for Baptifm. And it appears here to be add- ed, to put a Limitation to the Aflertion , that what he fays he means peculiarly of Chriftians, that have been by Baptifm ad- mitted into the Covenant. All that are born again unto Cod by him , In- fants, Babes, Children, &c. nor are Infants capable of being born again unto God by Chrift, any other way, that I know of, but by Baptifm. So that I do not fee how it can be evaded, but that this fingle Evi- dence muft be acknowledg'd a fufficient Proof, that the baptizing In- fants was a Thing in Practice when Iren&m wrote this Book : For other- wife this Aflertion could be neither pertinent, nor proper. It may not therefore be amifs to fnow how early this was, and how very improbable it is, that fuch a Cuftom fhould fo foon prevail ; un- lefs it had been received by a certain Tradition from the Apoftles them- [33 3 themfelves. Iren&w wrote this Book about A. D. CLXXX, which was but about Fourfcore Years from the Death of Jj^J £2"™' St. John, who died in the Third Year of Trajan (i. e.) about dii". 2. c. 14. A. D. too. And fren&m was fo far Cotemporary with Po- lycarp, who was a Difciple of the Apoflles, and convers'd with Iren- l- ^ c" 3< many of thofe who hadfeen Chrift, and by them was made Bi- Jhop of Smyrna, in Alia : That he fays, he had feen him, b t» v^tj vi\j.m HA/xi'rt, when he himfelf was but a young Man. He mull write this Book then in the very next Age after one that had been Contempo- rary with the Apoflles. And this I think is very early. It can hardly be fuppofed that any corrupt Pra&ice mould be intro- duced, but Poly carp ; who was Inftrutted by the Apoflles, and taught what he had learnt oj the Apoflles, and what the Church had delivered to him, and what alone- was true, as Ire- Llh- ?• &P'$- n&us fpeaks of him : Would zealoufly have oppofed it, and have had Autority to rejeil it. There is no Probability that any great Innovation mould be introduc'd while a Cotemporary and Difci- ple of the Apoflles was yet alive. There is then only from the Death of Poly carp to Jren<&m\ writing this Book, for the introducing this Practice, if it was introduced. And that, at molt, is but about Thirty Two, or Thirty Three Years. For Biihop Pearfon, who places the Martyrdom of Polycarp earlier than other Men, SR 5XT* alTerts, that it was A. D. CXLVII. And can it be thought that any great Innovation mould be made in lren<zm\ own Time, and he either not know it, or not reprove it ? Can thofe who think the baptizing Infants fucha Corruption, fuch a Violation ofChrijPs Inftitution as, they con- ceit, to deftroy the true Being of a Church ; to deprive the Mini flers of God of all ju ft Power of Mini firing in holy Things^ and to make Communion with w, in our Sacraments, unlawful : Can they,I fay,imagine that thofe Fathers whole Glo- ry it was to do all Things according to the InftruUions of the Apoflles ; mould fufFer fuch an heinous Innovation to come in among them, and be received , and never make any Complaint, nor any Oppoiition to it ? Would not Polycarp,who was JnflruBed of the Apoflles themfelves, have op- pofed it, had it been in his Time ? And would not Iremus, who fays, that only thofe Things are true, which the Church from the Apoflles delivered ; would not he, I fay, zealoufly have oppos'd it, had it been in his Time '. When therefore we find him fpeaking of it as a known Practice, I ap- peal to all impartial Men, whether it is not Rational to believe that the Fathers, and the Primitive Church receiv'd it from the Apoflles them- felves. You [34] You ought then, &V, to be very tender in Charging all Chriftians from the Apoilles Times for Fifteen Hundred Years together ij wither being a lawful Churchy nor fuch0 with whom one may Lawfully hold-Communion in the Sacraments. This mould not be done without very good Proof. Other Errors and Corruptions that have been found fault' with, 'and wanted Reformation -7 we know when, and how they were intooduced. And before this is fo Pofitively affirmed to be a corrupt Innovation, you ought to mow us, about what Time, and by what Means' it cariie to prevail ; rather than decry the Autority of the Fathers that bear Wit- neis to this as an Apoftolical Practice. I might confirm this from the Teitimony of others, and particularly of Tertullian in the next Place ^ whoaltho' he feems not, 1 confefs, to ap- prove it, as he was in many Things particular in his Judgment j yet even in his Diflike he undeniably attelts that it was then in life. But the Teftimony of Antiquity has been fufficiently infilled on by others. I (hall therefore add no more, but leave it to your felf to coniider, and to the World to judge j whether your feparating from our Commu- nion upont.the Account of a Practice fo agreeable to Chrift's Inftitu- tioii, and the Ancient Ufage of the Church, be not more owing to the Prejudice of Education, than to the Force ofReafon, or the juft Merits oftfteCaufe. lam Sir, your Humble Servant. I N I S. Jt$~ ^ ERRATA. PAg. 2. 1. 30. read enjoys, p. 6. 1. 19. x.Capacity. 1. 34. dele///?, p. 13. 1. 28. r. really, p. 15. 1. 1. r. ajfert. p. 16. 1. 26. r. at all. p. 17. 1. 15. dele 7 p. 24. 1. 10. after Wijet add, {i.e.) the Sanctimony of the Conjugal State U attefted. ADVERTISEMENT. A Discourse of Fornication: Shewing the Greatnefs of i V that Skfc, and Examining the Excufes pleaded for it from the Ex- amples of Ancient Times. To which is added, an Appendix, concern- ing Concubinage :, As alio a Remark on Mr. Butlers Explication ofJ-Ieb. 13.4. in his late Book on that Subject. By John Turner, M. A. -Printed for John IVyat, at the Kofe, in St. Paul's Church-yard.