Light
broke
forth
in
WALES
,
Expelling
DARKNESS
;
OR
THE
Englishman's
Love
to
the
Antient
Britains
.
BEING
An
ANSWER
to
a
BOOK
,
Intituled
,
Children's
Baptism
from
Heaven
;
published
in
the
Welch
Tongue
,
by
Mr.
James
Owen
.
Wherein
his
Twelve
Arguments
,
for
the
baptizing
of
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
are
examined
and
confuted
,
and
Infant-Baptism
overthrown
.
Also
proving
that
Baptizing
is
Dipping
the
whole
Body
in
Water
,
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
&c.
And
that
Believers
are
only
the
Subjects
of
Baptism
.
In
which
the
Anti-pedo-baptists
are
cleared
from
all
those
unjust
Reproaches
and
Calumnies
,
cast
upon
them
by
the
said
Mr.
Owen
.
By
BENJAMIN
KEACH
.
Bernard
Serm.
66.
in
Cantica
.
Irrident
nos
quia
Baptizamus
infantes
,
quod
oramus
pro
mortuis
,
quòd
sanctorum
suffragia
postulamus
.
Mat.
3.
16.
Ende
Jesus
gedoopt
zijnde
,
is
terstont
opgeklomen
yit
hit
Water
.
Taken
out
of
the
Dutch
Testament
;
in
English
thus
,
And
when
Jesus
was
dipped
,
he
came
out
of
the
Water
.
London
,
Printed
,
and
sold
by
William
Marshal
at
the
Bible
in
Newgate-street
,
1696.
To
all
Godly
Christians
who
are
Pedobaptists
,
in
South
and
North-Wales
,
Grace
,
Mercy
,
and
Peace
from
God
the
Father
,
and
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
You
Worthy
Brethren
,
and
Antient
Britains
,
I
Kindly
salute
you
in
the
Bowels
of
Christian
Love
,
and
Sincere
Affections
;
I
cannot
but
love
all
who
have
the
Image
of
my
Heavenly
Father
stampt
upon
their
Souls
:
'T
is
not
your
Opinion
of
Pedo-Baptism
(
tho
an
Error
)
that
shall
alienate
my
Heart
from
you
,
nor
restrain
that
Catholick
Love
that
should
run
in
all
the
Veins
of
every
one
that
is
born
of
God
;
tho
I
am
an
Enemy
to
your
Opinion
and
Practice
,
in
that
case
,
yet
a
dear
Lover
of
your
Persons
,
and
precious
Souls
.
And
I
have
so
much
Charity
to
believe
,
that
't
is
through
Ignorance
you
err
in
that
Matter
,
and
that
God
hath
for
some
wise
ends
hid
the
truth
of
his
Holy
Ordinance
of
Gospel-Baptism
at
present
from
you
;
and
do
hope
,
did
you
see
otherwise
,
you
would
practise
otherwise
,
Charity
thinketh
no
evil
,
&c.
1
Cor.
13.
One
Reason
o●
my
writing
this
Epistle
to
you
is
to
answer
what
Mr.
James
Owen
in
his
Epistle
to
his
late
Treatise
hath
wrote
unto
you
,
in
which
there
are
several
Positions
and
●●sound
Notions
laid
down
and
asserted
by
him
,
which
I
am
persuaded
I
ought
to
detect
and
witness
against
,
as
well
as
answer
his
Book
,
which
are
not
only
contained
in
his
Epistle
to
you
,
but
that
also
to
the
Reverend
Mr.
Samuel
Jones
.
To
confirm
Infant-Baptism
upon
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
he
asserts
,
in
his
Epistle
to
Mr.
Jones
,
these
words
,
viz.
I
being
desired
and
importuned
by
you
to
maintain
this
present
Truth
which
se●teth
forth
Infants
Right
unto
the
Privileges
of
the
New
Covenant
,
a
Truth
builded
upon
the
Foundation
of
the
Apostles
and
Prophets
,
even
as
antient
as
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
was
made
with
Adam
and
his
Seed
,
&c.
Answ.
Doth
Mr.
Owen
think
that
we
deny
that
any
our
Children
have
right
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
God
forbid
;
the
Controversy
lies
not
there
:
for
all
our
Children
that
are
elected
,
are
decretively
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
also
vertually
by
the
Death
and
Merits
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
also
actually
they
are
and
shall
be
in
it
when
they
believe
,
or
when
they
have
Union
with
Christ
;
but
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
as
such
,
or
(
as
so
considered
)
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
we
do
utterly
deny
.
2.
If
the
Covenant
of
Grace
was
made
with
Adam
,
and
his
Natural
Seed
as
such
,
will
it
not
follow
that
he
owns
Universal
Salvation
?
Can
any
Perish
that
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
Is
not
that
an
everlasting
Covenant
,
well
ordered
in
all
things
and
●●re
?
2
Sam.
23.
5.
and
is
not
the
Promise
sure
to
all
the
seed
?
Rom.
4.
16.
it
being
not
only
confirmed
to
them
all
by
the
Promise
,
but
also
by
the
Oath
of
God
,
Heb.
6.
13
—
18.
17.
But
,
3.
Doth
not
the
Covenant
and
Promise
to
Adam
run
only
to
Christ
Jesus
,
or
referr
to
him
,
who
is
there
meant
by
the
Seed
of
the
Woman
?
True
,
we
will
allow
that
it
comprehendeth
also
all
the
Elect
of
God
,
in
a
large
sense
;
but
primarily
and
directly
to
Christ
personally
considered
.
But
can
any
think
this
Promise
is
limited
to
the
Carnal
Seed
of
Believers
or
runs
so
?
My
Brethren
,
There
are
two
Seeds
,
the
one
is
called
,
The
Seed
of
the
Woman
,
which
we
affirm
,
is
only
Christ
and
all
the
Elect
in
him
;
and
to
all
these
the
Covenant
of
Grace
doth
appertain
,
and
to
no
more
,
as
to
the
Special
Blessings
and
Privileges
thereof
.
The
other
are
called
,
The
Seed
of
the
Serpent
,
who
are
the
Ungodly
;
which
proceed
some
of
them
from
the
Loins
of
the
Faithful
,
as
well
as
from
the
Loins
of
the
Wicked
;
for
as
some
Unbelievers
Seed
are
in
the
Election
of
Grace
,
so
some
of
the
Seed
of
Believers
are
none
of
the
Elect.
But
to
proceed
,
saith
he
,
if
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
are
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
they
have
no
Hope
,
and
are
without
God
in
the
World
.
Answ.
We
,
and
all
our
Children
,
by
Nature
were
dead
in
Sins
and
Trespasses
,
and
Children
of
Wrath
,
as
others
;
and
so
without
Hope
and
without
God
in
the
World
,
Eph.
2.
13.
before
we
Believed
,
this
was
our
Condition
,
and
are
not
our
Children
naturally
in
this
state
?
But
,
what
tho
?
yet
when
God
calls
them
,
renews
them
,
and
translates
them
,
out
of
the
First-Adam
,
and
grafts
them
into
the
Second-Adam
,
they
have
the
same
Hope
,
and
the
same
God
to
be
their
God
,
as
we
have
,
Again
,
He
saith
,
Doubtless
,
the
First
Covenant
doth
condemn
them
because
of
Original
Sin
,
and
if
without
interest
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
the
Wrath
of
God
abideth
on
them
;
but
God
forbid
that
we
should
think
there
's
more
Vertue
in
the
First-Adam
to
Condemnation
,
than
there
is
in
the
Second
Adam
to
Save
.
Answ.
The
case
is
plain
,
the
First-Adam
,
and
all
his
,
as
so
considered
,
were
lost
,
being
Children
of
Wrath
and
of
Condemnation
:
And
the
Second-Adam
,
and
all
his
,
are
,
or
shall
be
saved
,
being
Children
of
the
Promise
,
and
of
Eternal
Salvation
.
But
doth
Mr.
Owen
think
,
that
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
are
the
Seed
or
Children
of
the
Second-Adam
?
I
say
again
,
Are
all
our
Children
in
the
Election
of
Grace
,
or
doth
Election
run
only
in
that
Line
?
If
the
First-Adam
had
stood
,
we
and
our
Children
would
have
stood
:
Doth
Faith
in
the
Second-Adam
,
make
the
Condition
of
our
Children
worser
than
it
should
be
through
the
Obedience
of
the
First
-
Adam
?
Answ.
Must
God
save
all
the
Children
of
the
First-Adam
by
the
Obedience
of
the
Second
,
because
,
if
Adam
had
stood
none
of
his
Children
had
fallen
?
What
Doctrine
is
this
?
You
out
do
all
the
Arminians
I
have
yet
met
with
,
but
O!
the
Riches
of
God's
Sovereign
Grace
,
to
any
of
the
lost
Seed
of
Rebellious
Mankind
.
If
this
you
intend
not
,
yet
is
every
Believer
a
like
common
or
publick
Head
to
his
natural
Off-spring
,
as
Adam
was
to
his
?
Christ
only
is
the
publick
Head
of
his
Seed
;
a
Believer's
Faith
objectively
justifies
and
saves
himself
only
,
not
his
Children
.
Could
Reverend
Mr.
Jones
find
no
better
a
Pen
to
defend
his
Cause
of
Pedo-Baptism
?
My
Faith
may
be
said
to
unite
me
to
Christ
;
but
doth
it
also
unite
my
Child
to
Christ
?
Whatsoever
good
Children
do
receive
from
their
believing
Parents
,
besure
the
Parent
's
Faith
doth
not
render
his
Child
a
Believer
,
but
however
my
Faith
doth
not
make
the
Condition
of
my
Child
worser
than
it
was
,
and
it
may
not
make
the
Condition
of
my
Child
better
;
for
all
the
good
Counsel
,
Education
,
good
Example
and
Prayers
;
some
Children
have
from
their
Godly
Parents
,
they
make
them
not
the
better
,
'T
is
not
in
him
that
willeth
,
nor
in
him
that
runneth
,
but
in
God
that
sheweth
Mercy
.
You
intimate
what
Cause
there
is
of
bitter
Sorrow
in
the
Churches
of
God
,
that
the
Major
part
of
their
Children
are
out
off
from
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
.
Answ.
Our
Doctrine
cuts
off
not
one
Child
of
any
Believer
that
is
in
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
;
if
God
hath
elected
the
major
part
of
the
Children
of
the
Faithfull
,
we
say
they
shall
be
saved
:
'T
is
impossible
for
any
to
cut
off
one
of
God's
Elect.
But
what
is
this
to
their
Children
,
as
such
,
or
to
the
positive
Right
any
of
our
Infants
have
to
Baptism
?
Do
you
cut
off
your
Infants
from
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
,
because
you
will
not
give
them
the
Blood
of
the
Covenant
(
I
mean
the
Lord's
Supper
)
?
Brethren
,
Both
the
Sacraments
are
Ordinances
that
are
of
meer
positive
Right
,
viz.
depending
(
as
to
the
Subjects
and
all
Matters
thereunto
belonging
)
upon
the
Sovereign
Will
and
Pleasure
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
the
great
Law-giver
;
and
as
they
that
come
to
one
Ordinance
are
to
examine
themselves
and
to
discern
the
Lord's
Body
:
So
all
they
that
come
to
the
other
are
to
believe
in
Christ
,
and
to
repent
from
dead
Works
.
You
mistake
,
't
is
not
the
Eternal
Covenant
of
Grace
that
you
say
you
stand
up
in
the
Gap
to
maintain
,
but
you
strive
to
introduce
,
in
Gospel-Times
,
an
external
relative
Covenant
according
to
the
Flesh
,
like
that
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
,
which
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
he
was
a
publick
Head
and
Father
of
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
or
of
the
National
,
Political
and
Typical
Church
of
the
Jews
:
Nay
,
you
would
fain
have
all
the
Seed
of
Believers
to
be
in
that
Covenant
,
that
peculiarly
and
absolutely
did
belong
to
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
,
and
none
else
.
Now
't
is
this
thing
which
we
deny
;
we
say
that
there
was
a
twofold
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
signified
by
Sarah
and
Agar
:
And
tho
there
was
Grace
and
Mercy
in
both
,
yet
the
Covenant
of
Grace
or
Free
Promise
was
not
made
to
Seeds
,
as
of
many
,
i.
e.
not
to
all
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
or
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
but
primarily
it
was
made
to
Christ
,
and
in
him
to
all
the
Elect
,
who
alone
are
in
the
Eternal
Covenant
of
Grace
:
That
the
Election
takes
hold
both
of
some
of
Believers
Seed
and
some
of
the
Seed
of
Unbelievers
is
evident
;
and
tho
God
may
comprehend
in
his
Eternal
Love
more
of
our
Seed
than
of
the
Seed
of
Unbelievers
,
yet
I
have
proved
in
this
Treatise
and
Reply
to
Mr.
Owen
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
and
the
Election
of
God
runs
nor
to
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
;
and
also
that
Believers
Seed
nor
Unbelievers
Seed
,
until
they
believe
in
Christ
,
ought
to
be
baptized
,
nor
taken
into
the
Visible
Church
;
because
't
is
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
considered
as
such
,
that
gives
any
Person
a
Right
to
Baptism
,
but
the
meer
positive
Command
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
;
whose
express
Command
and
Commission
injoins
none
to
be
baptized
but
such
who
are
Believers
,
or
such
who
are
discipled
by
preaching
the
Word
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
16.
John
4.
1.
Acts
2.
37.
Acts
8.
12
,
14.
Acts
8.
37.
Acts
10.
47.
Acts
16.
30
,
31.
Acts
18.
8.
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Mr.
Owen
tells
Mr.
Jones
,
who
he
says
hath
the
Tongue
of
the
Learned
,
that
his
desire
was
that
he
would
be
a
Disputant
for
those
Weaklings
who
are
not
able
to
dispute
for
themselves
.
Reply
.
He
tells
us
one
while
that
Mr.
Jones
desired
and
importuned
him
to
write
his
Treatise
,
and
at
another
time
he
says
his
Will
and
Desire
was
that
Mr.
Jones
should
do
it
.
As
touching
the
Reverend
Mr.
Samuel
Jones
,
I
have
had
such
an
account
of
him
,
by
a
Worthy
Minister
,
that
I
am
fully
satisfied
,
that
had
he
wrote
on
this
Subject
,
we
should
have
had
no
such
bitter
Reflections
or
ill
Treatment
as
we
meet
withal
from
this
Man
:
He
hath
dipped
his
Pen
into
Gall
and
Wormwood
,
and
hath
made
work
for
Repentance
;
besides
,
I
am
informed
that
Mr.
Jones
neither
put
him
upon
this
Work
nor
approves
of
it
,
tho
perhaps
when
he
saw
his
Forwardness
,
he
might
say
Go
on
and
do
it
.
Sirs
,
those
Weaklings
he
means
need
no
such
a
Disputant
,
he
hath
done
them
no
service
,
nor
the
Church
of
God
either
;
we
throw
none
of
them
out
of
that
Eternal
Covenant
of
which
he
speaks
,
nor
can
Men
nor
Angels
do
it
;
such
of
our
Infants
that
are
in
the
Eternal
Covenant
are
safe
enough
:
But
we
deny
that
our
Infants
are
in
that
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
which
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
natural
Seed
,
as
such
.
And
this
I
doubt
not
but
you
will
find
in
the
insuing
Answer
sufficiently
proved
.
Moreover
,
(
He
says
)
He
stands
up
in
the
gap
to
maintain
the
Eternal
Covenant
which
God
made
with
the
Faithful
and
their
Seed
.
—
Great
is
the
Truth
,
and
it
will
overcome
.
Reply
.
He
should
not
boast
before
he
puts
off
his
Armour
;
that
may
be
a
Truth
in
a
Man's
Opinion
,
which
is
a
gross
Error
in
it self
.
You
will
,
when
you
have
read
our
Answer
,
the
better
judg
whether
he
hath
prov'd
the
Baptism
of
Infants
to
be
from
Heaven
,
as
in
the
Title
of
his
Book
he
asserts
it
is
.
He
farther
says
,
We
are
Fathers
,
and
the
Law
of
Nature
teacheth
us
to
preserve
the
Inheritance
of
our
Children
.
Reply
.
Our
Affections
are
not
less
to
our
Children
than
his
;
we
are
Fathers
also
,
but
are
not
willing
to
give
an
Inheritance
to
our
Children
which
of
right
belongs
not
unto
them
.
Grace
,
nor
gracious
Privileges
,
in
the
New
Covenant
,
come
to
be
the
Inheritance
of
our
Children
,
in
a
Natural
way
,
as
they
are
our
Off-spring
;
tho
evident
it
is
in
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
,
the
Jews
and
their
Seed
,
as
such
,
had
an
Inheritance
given
them
by
the
Lord
,
i.
e.
many
Legal
and
External
Privileges
,
besides
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
which
Circumcision
was
a
Token
or
Sign
of
;
but
we
and
our
Children
have
no
right
to
that
Inheritance
:
They
had
the
Shadow
,
we
and
our
Children
that
believe
have
the
Substance
;
they
had
the
Shell
,
we
the
Kernel
:
The
true
Inheritance
is
by
Faith
,
that
it
might
appear
to
be
of
Grace
,
and
not
in
Circumcision
,
nor
in
Baptism
,
but
by
Faith
only
.
Therefore
when
our
Children
are
called
of
God
,
or
do
believe
in
Christ
,
they
have
right
to
the
Inheritance
which
Baptism
is
a
sign
of
;
and
what
signifies
the
sign
without
the
thing
signified
?
You
our
Brethren
the
Pedo-baptists
give
your
Children
the
Name
,
but
not
the
Nature
of
Christ
;
what
is
the
lofty
Title
of
Earl
,
or
Duke
,
and
no
Estate
suteable
to
that
fancy'd
Honour
?
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
We
are
Stewards
over
the
House
of
God
,
and
we
ought
to
protect
the
Feeble
and
Afflicted
;
we
are
Shepherds
,
and
our
duty
is
to
provide
for
the
Lambs
of
the
Flock
,
lest
any
cast
them
out
of
the
Fold
.
Reply
.
It
is
required
in
Stewards
that
they
be
Faithful
,
and
to
see
that
they
give
no
portion
of
their
Masters
Goods
to
any
,
but
to
such
he
hath
directed
and
commanded
them
so
to
do
:
Now
Christ
hath
commanded
his
Stewards
,
or
Ministers
,
no
more
to
give
Infants
the
Holy
Ordinance
of
Baptism
than
the
Lord's
Supper
.
He
therefore
that
doth
it
,
let
him
answer
it
when
our
Lord
comes
.
2.
Are
our
Infants
Lambs
in
Christ's
Fold
,
or
feeble
and
afflicted
Christians
in
Christ's
Spiritual
Family
?
Infants
are
committed
to
Ministers
care
,
who
are
Natural
Fathers
,
but
not
as
Ministers
;
God
never
made
his
Ministers
,
Stewards
to
take
care
of
,
and
to
be
Nurses
of
little
Infants
:
True
,
●ew
born
Babes
in
Christ
,
or
Babes
in
Grace
,
they
are
to
provide
for
,
and
take
the
care
of
;
those
Lambs
they
must
see
not
cast
out
of
Christ's
Fold
,
when
they
are
received
in
by
Baptism
,
&c.
We
are
Builders
,
saith
he
,
and
we
ought
to
build
the
Walls
of
Jerusalem
,
working
with
one
Hand
in
the
Work
,
and
with
the
other
holding
a
Weapon
,
Neh.
4.
17.
And
we
must
not
reject
those
small
or
little
Stones
,
which
the
Father
received
into
the
old
Building
,
whom
the
Son
received
into
the
new
Building
,
and
will
be
received
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
Mat.
19.
Luke
1.
44.
who
maketh
them
lively
Stones
of
Jerusalem
that
is
Above
,
and
these
Stones
by
some
are
cast
into
an
unclean
place
without
the
City
,
Levit.
14.
40.
God
doth
raise
up
Children
unto
Abraham
,
See
Mat.
3.
9.
Reply
.
Because
the
old
Jerusalem
,
by
God's
appointment
,
was
built
with
dead
Stones
which
was
a
Type
of
the
New
,
will
he
,
without
Christ's
Authority
,
build
his
New
and
Spiritual
Jerusalem
with
such
Materials
?
We
deny
not
but
that
God
did
receive
Infants
,
as
such
,
into
his
old
Building
:
But
doth
not
St.
Peter
tell
us
,
the
Gospel-Temple
is
built
up
with
Spiritual
Stones
,
lively
,
or
living
Stones
,
i.
e.
Men
and
Women
spiritually
quickned
by
Divine
Grace
,
or
renewed
by
the
Holy
Spirit
.
Let
him
prove
,
if
he
can
,
that
Christ
received
into
the
Gospel-Church
any
one
Infant
;
and
tho
we
deny
not
but
elect
Infants
that
die
may
be
lively
Stones
in
Jerusalem
Above
,
I
mean
Heaven
;
yet
it
follows
no
more
from
thence
that
Infants
ought
to
be
baptized
,
than
that
they
ought
to
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
.
Moreover
,
evident
it
is
,
that
John
in
Mat.
3.
9.
(
the
Text
Mr.
Owen
quotes
)
doth
deny
such
to
have
a
right
to
Baptism
that
were
the
Seed
or
Children
of
Abraham
according
to
the
Flesh
;
Think
not
to
say
within
your selves
,
we
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
.
The
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
,
tho
it
gave
right
to
his
Male-Infants
to
Circumcision
,
yet
it
gives
no
right
to
Gospel-Baptism
to
any
,
either
Young
or
Old
,
Male
nor
Female
.
God
can
raise
up
of
Stones
Children
to
Abraham
,
i.
e.
such
that
have
no
Descent
from
Abraham
:
So
that
it
appears
Fleshly
Descent
in
Gospel
Times
,
signifies
not
any
thing
as
to
Gospel-Church-Membership
.
Worthy
Britains
,
Search
the
Scriptures
,
and
be
not
mistaken
about
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
;
you
will
find
the
Covenant
of
Grace
was
one
and
the
same
from
the
beginning
,
and
it
was
always
held
forth
by
way
of
a
Free
Promise
,
first
to
Adam
,
and
so
to
Abraham
,
&c.
but
there
was
a
Covenant
made
with
Noah
,
and
tho
it
was
full
of
Mercy
to
him
and
all
Mankind
,
yet
that
was
not
simply
in
it self
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
So
also
there
was
a
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
which
we
call
a
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
,
or
,
which
peculiarly
did
appertain
to
his
Natural
Seed
or
Off-spring
;
to
which
Covenant
Circumcision
did
belong
,
which
was
distinct
to
the
Free
Promise
,
or
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
God
made
with
him
,
and
with
all
the
Elect
in
him
.
You
may
assure
your selves
that
that
Covenant
in
which
there
was
mutual
Restipulation
between
God
and
Abraham
and
his
Carnal
Seed
,
or
between
God
and
the
whole
House
of
Israel
(
and
upon
the
Condition
of
Obedience
thereunto
,
Life
,
length
of
Days
,
and
the
Earthly
Canaan
was
promised
,
and
upon
their
Disobedience
Temporal
Death
was
threatned
)
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
tho
it
might
be
given
in
subserviency
to
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
or
the
Covenant
of
Faith
:
And
so
it
was
as
a
School-master
to
bring
them
to
Christ
.
'T
is
only
the
Holy
Spirit
,
thro
Faith
,
that
actually
intiles
us
or
our
Children
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
We
must
believe
,
and
our
Children
must
believe
,
before
either
we
or
they
can
be
actually
in
this
Blessed
Covenant
,
so
as
to
have
right
to
Baptism
,
I
mean
such
of
them
that
live
,
&c.
Also
know
,
as
I
said
before
,
that
it
is
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
simply
considered
in
it self
that
gives
any
Person
a
right
to
Gospel-Baptism
,
but
the
meer
positive
and
express
Command
,
Will
and
Pleasure
of
Christ
the
only
Lawgiver
:
For
the
Covenant
of
Grace
gave
no
Godly
Man
or
his
Male-Children
,
in
Abraham's
Time
,
or
before
or
after
,
any
right
to
Circumcision
,
but
only
God's
Command
to
Abraham
,
which
ran
to
those
that
proceeded
from
Abraham's
Loins
,
or
were
bought
with
his
Money
.
Brethren
,
Can
any
think
that
Abraham
could
purchase
Men
with
Money
,
and
that
way
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
No
,
't
is
nothing
but
the
Purchase
of
Christ's
Blood
can
do
that
.
In
a
word
it
is
evident
,
that
should
we
grant
all
that
Mr.
Owen
and
other
Pedo-Baptists
say
,
That
all
the
Children
of
Believers
were
in
very
deed
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
yet
it
would
not
follow
from
thence
,
that
our
Infants
should
be
baptized
,
any
more
than
that
they
ought
to
have
the
Lord's
Supper
given
to
them
,
as
I
said
before
;
because
both
those
Ordinances
(
as
Circumcision
was
)
are
absolutely
of
meer
positive
Right
:
Therefore
we
must
know
that
't
is
the
Will
and
Command
of
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
that
Infants
ought
to
be
baptized
,
if
they
have
right
thereunto
;
but
since
there
is
not
the
least
Intimation
given
,
in
all
God's
Word
,
that
't
is
his
Pleasure
they
should
be
baptized
,
it
must
be
a
piece
of
Will-worship
to
do
it
.
Object
.
But
whereas
't
is
objected
,
it
may
be
gathered
from
Consequences
that
't
is
our
Duty
to
baptize
them
.
I
answer
,
In
point
of
instituted
Worship
,
or
for
any
meer
positive
Legal
or
Gospel
Ordinance
,
there
ought
to
be
an
express
Precept
;
tho
we
grant
that
many
Doctrinal
Truths
may
be
drawn
or
inferred
by
Consequences
from
many
Texts
of
Scripture
.
See
Reverend
Mr.
Greenhil
,
on
Ezek.
chap.
11.
Vol.
2.
p.
412.
What
is
clearly
held
out
unto
us
in
the
Gospel
(
saith
he
)
let
us
consent
in
,
and
walk
answerably
;
in
what
is
dark
and
doubtful
let
us
forbear
each
other
,
and
stay
till
God
reveals
more
.
If
we
cannot
unite
in
all
,
let
us
unite
in
what
is
clear
.
Things
Fundamental
are
clearest
laid
down
in
the
word
;
they
are
expresly
commanded
or
held
forth
in
Scripture
,
whether
they
are
Matters
of
Faith
or
Practice
,
they
are
not
drawn
out
by
remote
Consequences
,
and
strength
of
Men's
Parts
,
but
immediately
from
or
in
the
Word
.
Thus
Mr.
Greenhill
.
Now
we
all
agree
that
Baptism
,
tho
it
be
not
a
Fundamental
of
Salvation
,
yet
't
is
a
Fundamental
of
Church-Constitution
;
there
can
be
no
true
,
right
,
orderly
Gospel-Church
,
without
Baptism
.
Therefore
it
is
necessary
that
this
should
be
laid
down
plainly
in
the
Word
of
God
;
and
so
it
is
.
We
must
first
be
made
Disciples
,
and
then
be
baptized
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
John
4.
1.
first
believe
,
and
then
be
baptized
,
Mark
16.
16.
Repent
and
be
baptized
,
Acts
2.
37.
If
thou
believest
thou
mayest
,
Acts
8.
37.
Can
any
Man
forbid
Water
,
that
these
should
not
be
baptized
?
Acts
10.
47.
When
they
believed
Philip
,
preaching
the
things
concerning
the
Kingdom
of
Grd
,
and
the
Name
of
Jesus
Christ
,
they
were
baptized
both
Men
and
Women
,
Acts
8.
12.
So
Acts
16.
30
,
31.
Acts
18.
8.
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
And
as
touching
those
Consequences
that
Mr.
Owen
and
others
draw
from
some
Scriptures
,
to
prove
Infants
Baptism
,
you
will
find
in
the
ensuing
Answer
,
those
Consequences
do
not
arise
naturally
from
those
Texts
,
but
are
only
his
own
ungrounded
Suppositions
,
and
mistaken
Apprehensions
.
Mr.
Owen
,
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Courteous
Welshmen
,
saith
,
The
greatest
part
of
the
true
Church
judg
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
have
a
right
to
Baptism
,
because
they
are
in
the
Covenant
of
God
:
This
Opinion
is
agreeable
to
the
Scriptures
,
as
it
appears
,
saith
he
,
in
this
Book
.
Reply
.
What
Covenant
is
it
he
means
?
Our
Children
,
as
such
,
are
in
,
I
know
not
,
they
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
for
if
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
they
must
be
all
saved
:
This
I
have
in
this
Treatise
fully
proved
,
there
is
none
can
fall
finally
away
that
are
in
this
Covenant
.
Besides
,
if
they
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
why
must
they
have
Baptism
administred
to
them
from
this
foot
of
Account
,
and
not
the
Lord's
Supper
,
and
all
other
Privileges
of
the
Church
?
2.
They
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
or
with
the
whole
House
of
Israel
;
for
that
was
a
Typical
Covenant
,
and
is
taken
away
.
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
they
are
in
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Rep.
Let
him
prove
,
if
he
can
,
that
the
Children
of
Believers
have
more
Privileges
,
by
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
than
the
Children
of
Unbelievers
have
where
the
Gospel
is
preach'd
.
Those
who
lived
under
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Law
,
who
believed
in
Christ
to
come
,
or
were
elected
,
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
none
but
they
only
;
and
so
't
is
now
,
none
but
the
Elect
,
and
such
that
believe
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Will
Mr.
Owen
seal
all
New
Covenant-Blessings
to
all
his
Natural
Seed
,
whether
elected
or
not
elected
,
since
the
inward
and
Spiritual
Blessings
of
the
said
Covenant
,
by
his
own
words
,
belong
only
to
the
Elect
?
Mr.
Owen
bids
you
to
seek
for
a
meek
and
humble
,
and
self-denying
Spirit
.
Reply
.
This
Counsel
is
good
,
therefore
be
not
too
confident
you
are
in
the
Right
;
your
Teachers
are
but
Men
,
and
God
may
,
for
some
Reasons
best
known
to
himself
,
hide
Believers
Baptism
at
present
from
them
.
He
bids
you
also
to
beware
of
a
distemper'd
Zeal
,
that
is
not
after
Knowledg
;
it
is
(
saith
he
)
a
Wild-Fire
that
wasteth
Churches
and
Countries
,
&c.
Reply
.
Such
,
I
fear
,
hath
been
that
Zeal
he
and
others
have
shewed
for
Infant-Baptism
:
For
it
will
appear
,
I
hope
,
in
this
Treatise
,
that
his
Zeal
is
not
according
to
the
knowledg
of
God's
Word
.
Despise
not
(
saith
Mr.
Owen
)
thy
Faithful
Teachers
,
obey
them
,
and
submit
to
them
,
for
they
watch
for
thy
Soul
.
Reply
.
As
you
ought
not
to
despise
your
Teachers
,
but
to
submit
to
them
in
the
Lord
;
so
you
ought
not
to
Idolize
them
,
nor
follow
them
any
farther
than
they
follow
Christ
:
For
you
must
know
,
that
Men
,
tho
Ministers
,
are
not
your
Rule
of
Faith
and
Practice
,
but
God's
Word
.
Moreover
,
know
that
you
must
give
an
account
of
your selves
to
God
,
others
will
not
be
suffered
to
speak
for
you
at
the
Great
Day
.
He
bids
you
look
upon
little
Children
,
as
part
of
their
Natural
Parents
,
and
comprehended
in
the
Promise
made
unto
good
Parents
.
1.
Reply
.
This
he
hath
also
asserted
elsewhere
in
his
Book
,
which
you
will
find
answered
in
this
.
2.
Strange
!
Are
Children
part
of
their
Parents
,
so
that
when
the
Parents
believe
the
Children
believe
,
and
when
the
Parents
obey
God's
Command
the
Children
obey
it
also
,
and
when
the
Parents
have
a
Promise
of
Pardon
and
Peace
,
the
Children
have
right
to
the
same
Promise
?
What
strange
Doctrine
in
this
!
Are
not
we
and
our
Children
distinct
Persons
?
Shall
not
a
whole
Believer
be
saved
?
I
profess
I
cannot
well
see
that
it
can
be
so
,
if
any
of
our
Children
who
are
a
part
of
us
do
perish
for
ever
.
And
doth
it
follow
,
because
in
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
the
Parents
and
Children
were
comprehended
,
therefore
they
must
be
all
comprehended
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
also
,
and
made
Members
of
the
Gospel-Church
?
He
cites
Deut.
4.
37
,
40.
And
because
be
loved
thy
Fathers
,
therefore
he
chose
their
Seed
after
them
.
What
of
this
?
Mr.
Owen
can
never
prove
that
God
hath
chosen
any
one
Nation
,
both
Parents
and
Children
,
since
that
time
,
to
be
a
peculiar
People
in
a
Covenant-Relation
with
himself
,
as
he
chose
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
;
it
was
a
Typical
Church
,
and
figured
forth
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
or
true
Israel
of
God
:
Therefore
that
Church-State
ceased
at
the
Death
of
Christ
,
when
the
Partition-wall
was
broken
down
.
And
the
extent
of
the
Promise
now
,
and
Gospel
-
〈◊〉
●…es
,
only
runs
to
Believers
and
to
their
Children
〈…〉
,
or
who
do
believe
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
〈…〉
and
to
no
more
.
Unde●
〈…〉
Mr.
Owen
)
the
extent
of
God's
Cove●…●…ople
;
his
Covenant
is
with
them
and
their
〈…〉
was
the
Covenant
of
Grace
which
God
made
〈…〉
Gen.
3.
15.
and
4.
25.
And
the
Covenant
〈…〉
●ade
with
Noah
,
Gen.
9.
9.
with
Abraham
,
Gen.
17.
7.
〈◊〉
Isaac
,
Gen.
28.
4.
and
with
Jacob
,
Gen.
35.
12.
And
in
the
same
manner
was
his
Covenant
with
David
and
his
Seed
,
2
Sam.
7.
12.
and
22.
51.
in
this
Eternal
Covenant
he
rejoiced
on
his
Death-Bed
,
2
Sam.
23.
5.
Rep.
Here
are
a
heap
of
words
in
a
confused
manner
wrap'd
up
together
,
without
distinguishing
one
Covenant
from
another
,
and
without
distinguishing
between
Seed
and
Seed
.
2.
If
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Adam
,
was
also
to
all
his
Seed
,
How
happy
is
the
whole
World
?
All
are
Adam's
Natural
Seed
.
Be
sure
that
was
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
the
first
discovery
of
it
;
and
this
runs
only
to
Christ
,
the
Seed
of
the
Woman
,
and
to
all
the
Elect
in
him
;
not
to
the
Seed
of
the
Serpent
who
were
nevertheless
Adam's
Natural
Seed
,
as
I
shewed
you
before
.
3.
God's
Covenant
with
Noah
had
Grace
in
it
,
and
he
was
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
himself
;
but
that
Covenant
,
Gen.
9.
9.
was
also
made
with
all
the
World
,
and
with
the
Beasts
of
the
Field
,
and
Fowls
of
Heaven
,
even
with
every
Living
Creature
.
Yet
we
will
acknowledg
thus
much
,
i.
e.
that
all
Covenants
God
made
with
Man
since
the
Fall
,
originally
did
spring
from
his
special
Love
to
his
Elect
,
and
New
Covenant-Grace
designed
for
them
;
and
so
they
were
chiefly
for
their
Sakes
:
But
every
distinct
Covenant
we
read
of
was
not
material
,
and
formally
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
4.
The
Covenants
with
Abraham
and
his
Seed
,
I
have
proved
in
this
Answer
to
Mr.
Owen
,
was
Twofold
,
as
he
was
a
twofold
Father
,
Head
and
Representative
,
and
had
a
twofold
Seed
.
(
1.
)
The
Covenant
or
Free-Promise
of
Grace
God
made
with
him
,
the
Apostle
proves
was
not
made
to
Seeds
,
as
of
many
,
but
to
thy
Seed
,
that
is
Christ
,
Gal.
3.
16.
If
any
Man
be
in
Christ
,
he
is
one
of
Abraham
'
s
Seed
,
and
an
Heir
according
to
the
Promise
,
ver.
29.
(
2.
)
The
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Seed
,
we
deny
not
,
refers
to
all
his
Natur.
I
Seed
,
or
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
to
which
Circumcision
did
appertain
:
But
this
will
do
the
Pedo-Baptists
no
service
.
The
Covenant
God
made
with
David
runs
primarily
to
Christ
,
and
in
him
to
all
the
Elect
;
this
is
the
Eternal
Covenant
indeed
.
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
The
Evangelical
Prophet
foretelleth
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
should
be
of
the
same
extent
under
the
Gospel
,
even
as
it
was
from
the
Beginning
,
Isa.
66.
22.
For
as
the
new
Heavens
shall
remain
before
me
,
so
shall
your
Seed
remain
.
God's
Covenant
with
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
is
so
stedfast
as
the
new
Heavens
and
the
new
Earth
.
1.
Reply
.
This
all
Men
know
only
refers
to
the
Elect
Seed
,
and
not
to
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
.
2.
We
deny
not
but
the
Covenant
of
Grace
is
of
the
same
extent
in
the
Gospel-Days
as
it
was
from
the
Beginning
.
But
from
the
Beginning
none
were
truly
and
really
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
the
Elect
of
God
only
.
But
what
Mr.
Owen
,
in
the
close
of
his
second
Epistle
,
hath
said
,
may
open
the
Eyes
of
his
Reader
,
tho
his
own
be
shut
.
Take
his
words
.
Distinguish
between
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Covenant
and
the
inward
Dispensation
thereof
,
Rom.
9.
4
,
8.
All
the
Seed
of
Abraham
was
in
the
outward
Dispensation
,
and
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
belonged
unto
them
;
but
none
were
in
the
inward
Dispensation
,
save
the
Elect
only
.
Reply
.
Are
not
all
Men
in
the
World
,
especially
where
the
Gospel
is
preached
,
in
or
under
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
or
Covenant
of
Grace
?
Sure
none
can
deny
this
.
But
doth
Baptism
therefore
belong
to
them
all
?
All
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
we
acknowledg
were
in
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Law
,
or
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
him
;
and
had
great
external
Privileges
thereby
,
which
in
some
things
much
differed
from
the
Privileges
of
such
who
are
under
the
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
:
But
let
them
be
what
they
will
,
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
of
Grace
,
doth
belong
as
far
forth
to
Unbelievers
and
their
Children
,
as
to
the
Children
of
Believers
:
For
what
is
that
more
than
the
Privilege
of
reading
and
hearing
the
Gospel
preached
,
or
attending
on
the
Word
,
in
Christian
Assemblies
?
2.
I
ask
Mr.
Owen
how
he
can
prove
that
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
doth
belong
to
them
who
are
only
in
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
?
This
may
seem
strange
to
all
thinking
Men.
They
whom
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
belongeth
unto
,
are
assured
of
all
of
the
peculiar
Immunities
,
Blessings
,
and
Privileges
thereof
,
as
pardon
of
Sin
,
Justification
,
Adoption
,
and
Eternal
Life
.
3.
Tho
I
own
no
Seal
,
or
nothing
to
be
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
save
the
Holy
Spirit
;
Yet
,
was
Baptism
the
Seal
of
it
,
as
Mr.
Owen
supposeth
,
certainly
it
must
(
if
it
were
so
)
seal
to
the
Person
baptized
all
those
Spiritual
Blessings
or
inward
Graces
signified
thereby
;
or
otherwise
the
Seal
would
be
an
insignificant
thing
,
and
the
Party
sealed
would
but
be
cheated
or
deceived
:
He
may
think
he
hath
some
great
Matter
sealed
to
him
,
when
in
truth
he
hath
nothing
sealed
thereby
.
Pray
ask
this
Man
what
it
is
that
Baptism
seals
to
Infants
?
4.
But
is
it
so
indeed
,
Are
none
in
the
inward
part
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
in
the
inward
Dispensation
of
the
the
Gospel
,
but
the
Elect
;
then
I
infer
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
i.
e.
the
Spiritual
Blessings
or
Fatness
of
that
Covenant
doth
not
belong
to
them
,
as
such
,
but
only
to
such
of
them
as
are
elected
,
or
who
do
believe
,
or
are
brought
under
special
Vocation
by
the
Holy
Spirit
.
And
these
things
being
so
,
to
what
purpose
is
it
for
this
Man
,
and
other
Pedo-Baptists
,
to
make
such
a
Noise
about
the
Children
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
being
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
whereas
he
confesseth
none
are
indeed
in
it
but
the
Elect.
I
cannot
see
it
is
any
thing
he
and
others
contend
for
,
in
pleading
for
Infant-Baptism
,
but
only
a
Christian-Name
,
or
some
outward
thing
,
the
inward
Grace
not
belonging
to
any
but
to
the
Elect
only
;
and
who
they
are
cannot
be
known
till
each
Person
comes
to
Age
,
and
is
called
by
the
Lord
:
For
it
is
only
by
effectual
Calling
that
the
Election
of
Persons
is
known
to
themselves
or
others
.
But
to
conclude
,
Let
me
add
a
word
or
two
to
you
Pedo-Baptists
that
are
sound
in
the
Doctrine
of
Free
Grace
,
and
Free
Justification
by
Christ's
Righteousness
alone
.
First
,
May
it
not
be
worth
your
most
serious
Thoughts
,
to
consider
how
the
Doctrine
of
Pedo-Baptism
is
a
direct
Violation
of
that
Holy
Precept
of
our
Blessed
Saviour
,
Mar.
5.
33
,
34.
It
hath
been
said
of
them
of
old
Time
,
Thou
shalt
not
forswear
thy self
,
but
shall
perform
to
the
Lord
thine
Oaths
.
But
I
say
unto
you
,
swear
not
at
all
,
&c.
All
voluntary
and
promisary
Oaths
and
Vows
,
and
Religious
Covenants
,
(
as
well
as
vain
Swearing
)
is
directly
thereby
forbid
,
and
therefore
sinful
.
Now
tho
we
grant
that
the
true
Baptismal
Covenant
is
of
Divine
Institution
,
yet
since
that
only
obligeth
those
that
are
the
true
Subjects
thereof
,
viz.
Believers
:
It
followeth
that
that
Vow
or
Covenant
you
bring
your
poor
Babes
under
,
being
wholly
without
Divine
Authority
,
it
is
therefore
voluntary
,
and
so
forbid
,
and
sinful
.
Secondly
,
It
is
also
directly
repugnant
to
those
Precepts
,
Add
not
to
his
Word
,
lest
he
reprove
thee
,
&c.
Thirdly
,
Consider
that
Infants
Baptismal
Covenant
is
also
directly
repugnant
to
the
nature
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
rendring
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
be
of
the
same
nature
of
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
and
so
sutes
only
with
the
Baxterian
Errors
,
and
Mr.
William's
New
Scheme
,
which
renders
the
Covenant
of
Grace
conditional
,
according
to
the
Covenant
of
Works
.
Take
Mr.
Baxter's
words
,
viz.
The
Condition
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
by
which
we
have
right
to
the
Benefits
of
it
,
is
our
Faith
(
mark
it
)
or
Christianity
,
as
it
is
meant
by
Christ
in
the
Baptismal
Covenant
,
viz.
to
give
up
our selves
in
Covenant
,
believing
in
God
the
Father
,
Son
and
Holy
Ghost
,
renouncing
the
Contraries
;
and
that
through
this
consent
to
the
Christian
Covenant
(
called
Faith
alone
)
is
the
full
condition
of
our
first
right
to
the
Benefits
of
that
Covenant
(
of
which
Justification
)
is
one
.
Baxter's
Fourth
Proposit
.
in
his
Preface
to
Dr.
Tully
.
1.
From
hence
note
,
as
Mr.
Troughton
observes
,
Mr.
Baxter
doth
not
say
that
Christ's
Righteousness
,
apprehended
by
Faith
,
doth
justify
us
;
but
Faith
in
a
comprehensive
Sense
,
as
it
includeth
Obedience
to
God
,
according
to
this
Covenant
.
It
appears
that
the
Belief
and
Practice
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
upon
performance
of
their
Infant
Baptismal-Covenant
,
is
that
Righteousness
by
which
they
are
justified
,
as
the
purport
of
Mr.
Baxter's
Sense
.
2.
From
hence
also
,
it
appears
that
the
Spring
or
Rise
of
this
grand
Baxterian
Error
is
from
Infants-Baptismal
Covenant
;
therefore
,
Brethren
,
't
is
time
to
consider
the
danger
of
this
unwarrantable
Practice
and
evil
Innovation
.
D.
Williams
confirms
Mr.
Baxter's
Notion
:
Take
his
words
,
What
doth
the
Covenant
bind
thee
to
(
speaking
of
Infants
Baptismal-Covenant
)
?
His
Answer
is
,
To
be
the
Lord's
;
in
sincere
Care
,
to
know
,
love
,
believe
,
obey
,
worship
and
serve
him
all
my
days
,
and
to
depend
on
God
,
thro
Christ
,
for
all
Happiness
,
Rom.
6.
4.
Quest.
What
if
a
Child
,
thro
the
love
of
Sin
,
or
vanity
of
Mind
,
will
not
agree
to
this
Covenant
?
I
answer
,
(
saith
he
)
He
then
rejecteth
Christ
our
Saviour
,
and
renounceth
the
Blessings
of
the
Gospel
.
Quest.
Is
it
a
great
Sin
to
refuse
to
agree
to
the
Covenant
to
which
thy
Baptism
engaged
thee
?
He
answers
,
It
is
the
damning
Sin
,
and
the
Heart
of
all
Sin
,
Mr.
Williams's
Book
,
called
The
Vanity
of
Youth
,
pag.
131.
1
Reply
.
From
hence
it
appears
,
that
Mr.
Baxter
and
Mr.
Williams
plainly
declare
that
the
terms
and
condition
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
must
be
performed
by
such
that
would
be
justified
,
is
to
perform
this
Infant
Baptismal-Covenant
,
viz.
sincerely
to
love
,
believe
,
obey
,
worship
and
serve
the
Lord
;
not
Faith
only
whereby
we
receive
Christ
,
rely
on
Christ
,
but
the
whole
of
that
Obedience
to
which
they
were
obliged
by
their
Infant-Baptism
.
2.
Observe
also
,
that
it
appears
according
to
these
Men
,
that
Unbelief
is
not
the
condemning
Sin
,
but
the
non-performance
of
this
Baptismal-Covenant
.
3.
How
are
these
Men
left
of
God
,
to
darkness
of
their
own
Minds
,
not
only
to
affirm
the
Conditionality
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
rendering
it
no
better
than
a
new
Covenant
of
Works
,
but
also
to
make
this
devised
and
voluntary
Infant
Baptismal-Covenant
to
be
the
only
Condition
of
it
,
and
of
our
Justification
in
the
sight
of
God
?
4.
Moreover
,
They
bring
their
poor
Babes
(
without
any
Authority
from
Christ
)
under
a
Covenant
,
and
charge
them
with
Perjury
if
they
break
it
,
when
grown
up
;
(
it
they
perform
it
they
shall
be
pardoned
,
justified
and
saved
)
but
they
must
be
damn'd
if
they
answer
not
the
Rule
of
the
Promise
,
or
Baptismal-Covenant
,
which
is
to
repent
,
to
be
regenerated
,
and
so
answer
their
new
Law
of
Faith
and
sincere
Obedience
:
So
that
in
this
Covenant
lies
the
Conditionality
of
their
Covenant
of
Grace
.
For
no
other
formal
Covenant
is
proposed
by
them
to
the
People
,
unless
they
are
for
Mr.
Joseph
Allen's
voluntary
Covenant
,
contrived
out
of
his
own
Head
,
and
proposed
to
all
devout
Adult
Persons
to
enter
into
,
which
no
doubt
is
forbid
by
our
Saviour
as
sinful
:
(
he
was
a
well-meaning
Man
.
)
And
the
Truth
is
,
his
devised
Covenant
seems
more
plausible
and
reasonable
than
Infants
Baptismal-Covenant
,
because
he
would
have
none
but
such
enter
into
his
Covenant
who
are
Adult
Persons
;
besides
,
it
must
be
with
their
own
free
Consent
,
whereas
Children
are
brought
into
theirs
,
without
their
knowledg
or
consent
,
and
are
obliged
to
do
those
things
which
they
have
no
power
to
perform
:
And
as
it
is
not
required
by
the
Lord
,
so
God
hath
made
no
Promise
to
them
,
of
Grace
and
Assistance
,
to
discharge
the
Obligation
thereof
.
Fourthly
,
To
conclude
,
It
is
easy
to
gather
from
whence
their
Mistake
doth
arise
about
this
Baptismal-Covenant
,
which
evidently
appears
to
be
from
their
applying
it
to
false
Subjects
;
(
and
so
to
bind
such
to
perform
those
things
which
Christ
never
ordained
Baptism
to
do
,
)
viz.
such
that
are
in
their
Natural
State
,
or
who
when
baptized
believed
not
,
nor
were
capable
so
to
do
;
for
your
Brethren
the
Pedo-Baptists
tell
you
that
Baptism
obligeth
such
as
are
baptized
to
believe
,
and
to
become
new
Creatures
,
not
that
they
were
such
that
then
did
believe
,
&c.
And
from
hence
it
followeth
,
that
it
is
one
of
those
Works
or
Acts
of
Obedience
that
go
before
Faith
,
and
therefore
a
dead
Work
,
and
pleaseth
not
God
(
as
well
as
not
required
of
him
)
;
for
all
Works
before
Faith
,
or
Union
with
Christ
,
are
dead
Works
,
they
not
proceeding
from
a
Spiritual
Vital
Principle
.
It
therefore
appears
from
hence
,
that
Infant
's
Baptismal-Covenant
is
directly
also
repugnant
to
Christ's
true
Baptismal-Covenant
:
For
evident
it
is
,
that
Christ's
Baptism
only
belongs
to
Believers
who
are
renewed
,
regenerated
,
and
have
Union
with
Christ
,
and
so
in
a
justified
State
before
baptized
:
Our
Baptism
doth
not
oblige
us
to
believe
and
to
be
regenerated
,
or
to
die
to
Sin
,
as
such
that
were
not
dead
before
;
but
it
is
a
sign
of
that
Faith
and
Death
unto
Sin
we
had
when
we
were
baptized
,
or
to
shew
that
we
were
then
dead
to
Sin
,
&c.
How
shall
we
that
are
dead
to
Sin
,
live
any
longer
therein
?
Know
ye
not
that
so
many
of
us
as
were
baptized
into
Jesus
Christ
,
were
baptized
into
his
Death
?
Or
as
being
dead
with
him
,
Therefore
we
are
buried
with
him
into
Death
,
Rom.
6.
2
,
3
,
4.
Not
buried
alive
or
whilst
dead
in
Sin
:
No
,
but
as
being
dead
to
Sin
.
Not
to
oblige
us
to
be
regenerated
,
but
,
as
Persons
who
are
regenerated
before
,
buried
in
Baptism
.
And
the
Covenant
of
Baptism
is
,
to
walk
in
newness
of
Life
,
as
being
before
quickned
,
That
like
as
Christ
was
raised
from
the
dead
by
the
Glory
of
the
Father
,
so
we
should
walk
in
newness
of
Life
.
I
find
Mr.
Richard
Baxter
also
saith
,
Baptism
is
a
sign
of
present
Regeneration
,
not
future
.
Now
,
how
inconsistent
is
this
Infant
Baptismal-Covenant
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
also
to
the
nature
of
that
Baptismal-Covenant
,
Believers
,
or
true
justified
Persons
,
enter
into
when
baptized
,
according
to
Christ's
Institution
?
Nothing
can
be
more
clear
than
this
,
viz.
that
Infant
's
Baptismal-Covenant
is
of
the
same
nature
with
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
viz.
a
conditional
legal
Covenant
,
Do
this
,
and
thou
shalt
live
;
perform
the
Obligation
,
and
thou
shalt
be
justified
,
but
do
it
not
,
and
you
shall
be
damned
,
or
be
cut
off
:
So
that
Infant-Baptism
established
the
old
legal
conditional
Covenant
.
Let
such
who
hold
the
Doctrine
of
Free-Grace
consider
it
;
and
also
see
whether
it
doth
not
render
the
Covenant
of
Grace
different
in
its
nature
in
respect
had
to
Believers
themselves
,
and
to
their
Children
:
For
Believers
themselves
receive
Christ
as
Sinners
,
by
Faith
only
,
without
any
previous
Qualification
,
or
promissory
Covenant
,
that
Christ
hath
obliged
them
to
enter
into
:
But
their
Infants
are
put
upon
previous
conditional
Qualifications
,
which
must
be
performed
by
them
before
justified
.
Indeed
had
Christ
ordained
Baptism
to
oblige
us
to
believe
,
to
repent
,
to
die
to
Sin
,
to
be
regenerate
,
as
the
Pedo-Baptist
speak
of
their
Baptism
doth
do
,
it
was
something
to
their
purpose
,
but
the
contrary
plainly
appears
.
Were
these
things
carefully
considered
,
I
am
sure
Infant-Baptism
would
fall
to
the
ground
;
for
the
nature
of
their
pretended
Baptismal
Covenant
is
quite
repugnant
to
the
true
Baptismal
Covenant
Christ
instituted
,
therefore
pernicious
:
Besides
,
how
are
those
baptized
Infants
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
(
as
Mr.
Owen
and
others
say
)
and
yet
Baptism
(
as
to
the
main
Des●●n
and
End
of
it
in
their
cloudy
Conceits
and
Apprehensions
)
is
to
oblige
them
to
believe
,
&c.
that
they
may
actually
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
The
good
Lord
give
you
Understanding
in
all
things
,
and
bless
to
your
Profit
what
I
have
wrote
,
and
praise
God
for
that
Readiness
that
was
in
your
Brethren
and
Countrymen
to
be
at
the
great
Charge
of
the
Publication
of
this
Answer
to
Mr.
Owen
.
He
saith
,
in
the
Title
of
his
Book
,
Childrens
Baptism
is
from
Heaven
.
Strange
!
yet
no
where
instituted
,
nor
any
Authority
for
it
,
or
ever
owned
from
Heaven
;
certainly
you
will
find
it
is
of
Men
,
and
sprang
out
of
the
Antichristian
Apostacy
.
Search
the
Scripture
,
be
like
the
Noble
Bereans
,
Acts
16.
11.
Who
with
all
Readiness
of
Mind
received
the
Truth
,
and
searched
the
Scriptures
daily
,
whether
those
things
were
so
.
Brethren
,
I
shall
add
no
more
,
but
commit
you
to
God
,
and
intreat
you
to
read
this
Book
over
and
over
without
Prejudice
;
and
if
you
receive
any
Light
by
it
,
give
God
the
Glory
,
for
I
desire
to
be
nothing
;
yet
am
willing
still
to
serve
you
,
and
the
Interest
of
Christ
,
who
shall
subscribe
my self
your
Servant
for
Jesus
Sake
,
So●thwark
,
London
this
11th
of
the
11th
Month
1606
Benj.
Keach
.
To
all
Godly
Anti-pedo-baptists
,
especially
to
them
in
South
and
North-Wales
;
the
Author
of
this
Treatise
wishes
Grace
,
Mercy
and
Peace
from
God
the
Father
,
and
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
Beloved
in
our
dear
Redeemer
,
AT
your
desire
,
I
have
(
as
the
Lord
hath
helped
me
)
answered
Mr.
James
Owen'
s
Book
,
in
which
he
hath
cast
many
false
and
slanderous
Reflections
on
you
and
all
other
Anti-Pedo-Baptists
;
but
I
have
forborn
returning
Railing
for
Railing
,
tho
perhaps
some
of
my
Words
may
seem
a
little
too
sharp
,
but
his
way
of
Writing
called
for
it
:
I
hope
the
Translators
of
his
Book
first
out
of
Welch
into
Engiish
,
and
again
the
Translation
of
my
Answer
out
of
English
into
Welch
is
done
faithfully
,
if
it
be
according
to
the
true
Sense
and
Purport
of
his
Words
and
Meaning
;
the
different
placing
of
Words
he
can
have
no
ground
to
cavil
at
,
but
of
that
I
am
not
capable
to
judge
,
because
I
understand
not
the
Welch
Tongue
.
He
seems
to
reflect
very
severely
upon
some
of
your
Conversations
,
as
if
you
wanted
that
true
Piety
that
becomes
your
Holy
Profession
,
and
also
as
if
you
wanted
Charity
;
but
I
hope
it
is
his
own
uncharitable
Spirit
that
led
him
out
thus
to
write
,
and
that
you
are
People
who
rest
not
on
the
Form
of
Godliness
,
without
the
Power
,
and
that
you
also
love
all
in
whom
you
see
the
Image
of
Christ
:
The
Truth
is
,
he
of
all
Men
might
have
forborn
such
a
Charge
,
considering
how
short
himself
appears
in
that
respect
,
having
laboured
to
cast
you
and
all
Anti-Pedo-Baptists
out
of
the
Universal
Church
,
and
chargeth
us
who
dipp
believing
Men
and
Women
in
the
Name
,
&c.
with
Adultery
and
Murder
.
O
that
the
Lord
would
open
his
Eyes
and
give
him
true
Repentance
.
Brethren
,
this
Answer
hath
swelled
much
bigger
than
you
expected
,
which
I
am
my self
troubled
at
:
But
pray
pardon
me
in
this
case
.
Because
this
Controversy
was
never
before
printed
in
the
Welch
Tongue
,
as
I
am
informed
(
as
it
is
here
)
I
was
therefore
willing
the
Godly
in
Wales
,
or
any
of
the
Antient
Britains
that
desired
Information
herein
,
might
see
the
main
Arguments
that
other
Pedo-Baptists
have
brought
for
Infant-Baptism
fully
answered
:
The
Substance
therefore
of
Mr.
Burkitt'
s
late
Book
is
in
this
also
answered
,
and
divers
others
;
nay
,
there
is
scarcely
an
Argument
that
hath
been
brought
for
Infant-Baptism
formerly
,
or
of
late
,
but
't
is
here
answered
:
Also
,
I
have
,
in
following
Mr.
Owen
in
his
Repetitions
,
been
forced
to
repeat
some
things
often
which
may
add
to
the
Bulk
;
but
they
being
chiefly
some
of
the
main
Points
,
I
did
it
on
purpose
,
to
the
end
they
might
have
the
greater
Influence
upon
the
Reader
.
Moreover
,
I
have
shewed
that
most
of
Mr.
Owen'
s
Arguments
for
the
baptizing
of
Children
,
tend
every
way
as
forcibly
to
prove
they
ought
to
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
also
;
which
I
desire
may
be
carefully
weighed
and
considered
:
I
have
often
repeated
that
on
purpose
.
And
now
to
conclude
,
Let
me
desire
you
to
labour
to
adorn
the
Holy
Gospel
you
profess
,
with
a
sutable
and
becoming
Conversation
;
't
is
not
an
External
Ordinance
that
signifies
any
thing
,
without
true
Faith
and
a
Godly
Life
.
You
have
Lamps
,
but
O
see
you
have
Oyl
in
your
Vessels
;
not
that
I
blame
you
for
your
great
Zeal
for
this
precious
,
tho
despised
Truth
of
Christ
,
considering
what
a
Glorious
and
Illustrious
Institution
or
Blessed
Ordinance
it
is
,
as
appears
,
1.
By
the
Obedience
of
our
Blessed
Saviour
himself
unto
it
,
which
puts
a
great
Lustre
and
Glory
upon
it
.
2.
In
that
it
is
called
a
fulfilling
of
that
Righteousness
which
the
Holy
Gospel
calls
for
;
and
such
who
fail
herein
are
imperfect
touching
their
doing
the
whole
Will
of
God
.
3.
In
that
it
was
so
gloriously
owned
at
the
Baptism
of
our
Saviour
,
by
the
Father
,
nay
by
the
whole
Trinity
.
By
the
Father
,
by
a
Voice
from
Heaven
:
The
Son
by
his
actual
Obedience
to
it
as
our
Example
,
when
we
believe
:
The
Holy
Ghost
by
descending
like
a
Dove
,
in
a
visible
manner
,
and
resting
upon
our
Blessed
Lord
;
this
was
the
time
when
he
was
gloriously
sealed
,
Mat.
3.
16
,
17.
4.
In
that
hereby
all
baptized
Believers
do
signify
their
stedfast
Faith
in
the
Blessed
Trinity
,
and
do
devote
themselves
to
serve
and
worship
the
Three
Persons
in
the
Godhead
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
5.
Because
it
doth
so
clearly
bold
forth
and
confirm
us
in
the
stedfast
Belief
of
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
of
our
Resurrection
at
the
last
Day
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
6.
Also
considering
the
many
great
and
gracious
Promises
made
to
such
Believers
who
are
baptized
,
as
Mark
16.
16.
Acts
2.
37
,
38.
7.
Considering
what
a
significant
Ordinance
it
is
,
in
respect
had
to
that
Death
to
Sin
and
Vivification
to
a
new
Life
,
in
all
its
true
and
proper
Subjects
,
together
with
that
Obligation
it
lays
them
under
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Col.
2.
12
,
13.
8.
That
it
is
particularly
called
the
Counsel
of
God
,
and
such
who
refused
to
be
baptized
,
are
left
on
Sacred
Record
under
that
black
Odium
of
rejecting
the
Counsel
of
God
,
Luke
7.
30.
9.
'T
is
a
great
Ordinance
,
appears
in
that
it
is
an
Initiatory
Ordinance
into
the
Visible
Church
,
Acts
2.
41
,
42.
10.
In
that
those
who
were
baptized
with
the
Holy
Spirit
,
were
nevertheless
commanded
to
be
baptized
with
Water
,
Acts
10.
48.
The
highest
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
cannot
exempt
Persons
from
their
Obedience
hereunto
:
Moreover
,
we
have
herein
also
Fellowship
with
Christ
in
his
Death
and
Resurrection
.
Therefore
let
none
rob
you
of
Christ's
own
Baptism
;
be
not
cheated
with
a
listle
filthy
Dross
,
of
Christ's
pure
Gold
,
nor
endure
to
see
your
Lord's
Wine
mixt
with
filthy
Puddle-Water
:
Yet
carry
it
with
all
Christian
Charity
,
Love
and
Humility
towards
all
Godly
Christians
that
differ
in
this
Matter
from
you
,
and
strive
to
walk
as
you
are
obliged
by
your
Holy
Baptism
to
do
;
then
will
God
have
Glory
,
and
you
have
Peace
;
to
whose
Holy
Care
,
Blessing
,
and
Protection
,
I
shall
commit
you
;
and
remain
your
unworthy
Brother
,
in
the
Sacred
Bonds
of
the
Gospel
,
Benj.
Keach
.
A
TABLE
of
divers
Authors
cited
in
this
Treatise
in
each
Chapter
,
and
under
many
particular
Heads
.
-
First
,
THAT
Baptizing
is
to
dip
as
to
the
literal
,
proper
,
and
genuine
Signification
of
the
Greek
Word
;
and
asserted
so
to
be
by
these
Authors
following
,
as
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
Chap.
1.
chap.
2.
chap.
3.
chap.
4.
-
Casaubon
,
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Acts
,
Chap.
1.
ver.
5.
pag.
10
,
11.
cited
in
this
Treatise
.
Chap.
1.
p.
4.
-
O'ecumenius
on
Acts
2.
ver.
2.
quoted
also
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Acts
,
p.
11.
cited
in
this
Book
.
Chap.
1.
p.
4.
-
Scapula
and
Stephens
;
see
their
Lexicons
cited
in
this
Treatise
.
Chap.
3.
p.
12.
-
-
Grotius
,
-
Pasor
,
-
Vossius
,
quoted
by
Mr.
H.
D.
his
second
Edition
of
his
Treatise
,
p.
182.
-
Mincaeus
,
in
his
Dictionary
.
-
Dr.
Du
Veil
,
in
his
literal
Exposition
of
the
Acts
,
Chap.
1.
5.
and
his
Exposit.
on
Mat.
3.
5.
Leigh
,
in
his
Critica
Sacra
;
all
cited
in
this
Book
.
Chap.
3.
pag.
12.
-
-
Bullinger
,
-
Zanchy
,
-
Spanhemius
,
-
Erasmus
,
See
Mr.
Leigh
;
Critica
sacra
:
and
Dr.
Du
Veil
,
on
Acts.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
12.
-
Cajetan
upon
Mat.
3.
5.
cited
in
this
Book
.
Chap.
4.
p.
20.
-
Salmasius
in
his
Book
Deprim
,
p.
193.
see
his
Notes
upon
Sulpitius
Severus
,
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
Chap.
3.
p.
13.
lin.
1.
-
Beza
.
on
Matth.
3.
11.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
13.
-
Selden
,
De
Jure
Nat.
&c.
L.
2.
c.
2.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
13.
-
Ainsworth
upon
Levit.
Chap.
11.
32.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
13.
What
is
cited
p.
13
,
14.
of
Luther
the
German
,
and
John
Bugenhagius
,
is
taken
out
of
Dr.
Du
Veil
.
p
76.
-
Dan.
Rogers
in
his
Treatise
of
Sacraments
,
Part
1.
Chap.
8.
p.
177.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
13.
-
Synod
of
Celichyth
,
Anno
816.
as
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
the
Acts
Chap.
2.
p.
75
,
76
,
77.
cited
in
this
Book
,
Chap.
3.
p.
13.
-
Dan.
Rogers
Treatise
of
the
Sacraments
,
P.
1.
Chap.
5.
cited
here
,
p.
19.
-
Dr.
Jer.
Taylor
Ductor
Dubit
.
l.
3.
c.
4.
Numb
.
9.
Rule
of
Conscience
.
l.
3.
c.
4.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
13
,
14.
-
Zepper
,
quoted
by
the
same
Doctor
.
-
Sylvester
Squropulus
also
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Act.
2.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
13.
-
St.
Ambrose
,
Lib.
de
Initiandis
,
and
as
quoted
by
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul
in
his
Notes
Printed
at
Oxon
,
1677.
also
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Act.
2.
p.
78.
-
Musculus
on
Matth.
3.
5.
cited
here
,
p.
20.
-
Luther
,
Latin
Tom.
1.
Fol.
71.
cited
in
this
Book
,
Chap.
3.
p.
14.
-
John
Bugenhagius
Pomeranus
,
as
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
,
out
of
a
Book
Printed
in
the
German
Tongue
,
Printed
1542.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
14.
-
Mr.
Joseph
Mede
,
Diatrib
.
on
Titus
3.
2.
cited
here
Chap.
3.
p.
15.
-
Casaubon
on
Matth.
3.
11.
cited
here
in
p.
19.
-
Chamier
Pan.
Cathol.
Tom.
4.
l.
5.
c.
2.
Ser.
6.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
15.
-
Diodate
on
Matth.
3.
-
Dr.
Hammond
in
his
Annot.
on
Matth.
3.
10.
cited
here
,
p.
15.
-
Mr.
Pool's
Annot.
on
Mat.
3.
6.
Mat.
28.
2.
John
3.
23.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
16.
-
Mr.
Ball
in
his
Catechism
,
cited
here
,
p.
16.
-
Dutch
Testament
,
on
Mat.
3.
16.
cited
here
,
p.
16.
-
Secondly
,
That
Baptism
is
dipping
or
burying
of
the
whole
Body
in
Water
,
to
represent
the
Death
,
Burial
,
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
and
our
Death
to
Sin
and
Vivification
to
a
new
Life
.
Authors
that
assert
this
follow
.
-
Assembly
in
their
Annotations
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
-
Pool's
Annotations
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
here
cited
Chap.
5.
p.
29
,
30.
-
Tilenus
in
his
Disputation
,
p.
886
,
889
,
890.
all
cited
in
this
Book
,
Chap.
4
,
5.
p.
30
,
31.
-
Piscator
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
17.
-
Cajetan
upon
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
Chap.
5.
p.
29
,
30.
-
Keckerman
,
Syst.
Theol.
l.
3.
c.
8.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
31.
-
-
St.
Ambrose
,
-
Basil
the
Great
,
-
Basil
Seleucia
,
-
Chrysostom
,
-
Lactant.
-
Bernard
,
-
Justin
Martyn
,
All
quoted
by
Sir
Norton
Knatchbull
,
see
his
Book
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
35
,
36
,
37.
-
Ignatius
Epist.
ad
Tral
.
id
Epist.
ad
Philadelph
.
-
Dr.
Cave's
Primitive
Christianity
,
p.
320.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
22.
-
Dallie
on
the
Fathers
,
L.
2.
p.
148.
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
32.
-
Paraeus
upon
Ursin
,
p.
375.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
33.
-
Mr.
Perkins
on
Galat.
Vol.
2.
chap.
3.
p.
257.
Vol.
1.
chap.
33.
p.
74.
-
Dr.
Sharp
,
present
Archbishop
of
York
,
see
his
Sermon
on
Phil.
3.
10.
p.
9.
-
Dr.
Fowler
,
present
Lord
Bishop
of
Gloucester
,
in
his
Book
,
Design
of
Christianity
,
p.
90.
-
Dr.
Sherlock
,
Dean
of
Paul's
,
Charity
without
Usury
,
p.
1.
cited
here
,
p.
38
,
39.
-
Dr.
Tillotson
,
Late
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
,
in
his
Book
,
Sermons
on
several
Occasions
,
the
fifth
Edition
,
p.
188
,
189.
cited
here
,
p.
39.
-
Anonymous
French
Author
,
cited
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Acts
,
p.
292
,
293.
-
Calvin
,
L.
4.
c.
16.
cited
in
this
Book
,
Chap.
5.
p.
41.
-
Zanchy
on
Col.
2.
12.
cited
in
this
Book
,
Chap.
5.
p.
41.
-
Thirdly
,
Baptism
is
Dipping
,
according
to
the
purport
of
those
Typical
Baptisms
spoken
of
in
the
Scripture
.
Authors
that
assert
this
.
-
Sir
Norton
Knatchbull
,
see
the
quotations
before
cited
,
upon
this
account
,
in
this
Book
,
p.
43.
-
Pool's
Annotations
on
1
Cor.
10.
1
,
2
,
3.
-
Thomas
Aquinas
,
as
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
,
cited
here
,
p.
35.
-
Fourthly
,
Baptism
is
Dipping
of
the
whole
Body
in
Water
,
according
to
the
purport
of
those
Metaphorical
Baptisms
spoken
of
in
the
Scripture
.
Authors
that
assert
this
,
mentioned
in
this
Treatise
.
-
Casaubon
,
as
quoted
by
Dr.
Du
Veil
,
on
Act.
1.
5.
p.
10.
cited
in
this
Treatise
,
p.
44.
-
Oecumenius
on
Act.
2.
cited
here
,
p.
44.
-
Vossius
.
-
Pool's
Annotations
on
Matth.
20.
22.
both
cited
in
this
Book
,
p.
44.
-
In
Chapter
8.
concerning
Christ's
Commission
,
two
Authors
are
mentioned
,
p.
97
,
98.
-
Mr.
Perkins
on
Gal.
Vol.
2.
Chap.
3.
p.
25.
-
Mr.
Baxter's
Right
of
Baptism
,
p.
149
,
150.
-
In
Chap.
9.
p.
119
,
&c.
You
have
an
account
of
the
Authors
who
Assert
that
the
Holiness
mentioned
1
Cor.
7.
14.
is
Matrimonial
Holiness
.
-
Jerom.
-
Chameri
,
Sect.
50.
Sic
Ambrosius
.
Thomas
.
-
Anselmus
.
-
Suarez
.
-
Melancthon
in
his
Commentary
upon
this
place
of
Scripture
,
viz.
1.
Cor.
7.
14.
-
Camerarius
.
-
Musculus
,
in
his
Comment
on
1
Cor.
7.
14.
-
Camera
.
-
Erasmus
upon
the
place
,
viz.
1
Cor.
7.
14.
THE
TABLE
OF
THE
CHIEF
HEADS
.
-
CHAP.
I.
REmarks
on
Mr.
Owen's
first
Chapter
,
s●ewing
his
abuse
of
the
Text
Heb.
9.
19
opening
the
proper
Signification
of
the
Greek
word
Baptizo
Page
1.
to
5
-
CHAP.
II.
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
for
the
Continuation
of
Baptism
,
turned
against
his
Insant
Baptism
Page
5.
to
9
-
CHAP.
III.
Proving
Baptism
is
Immersion
,
or
Baptizing
is
Dipping
,
from
the
proper
signification
of
the
Greek
word
Page
9.
to
16
-
CHAP.
IV.
Proving
Baptizing
is
Dipping
,
from
the
Practice
of
John
Baptist
,
Christ
and
his
Apostles
Page
17.
to
20
-
CHAP.
V.
Proving
Baptizing
is
dipping
the
whole
Body
in
Water
,
from
the
signification
of
Baptism
Page
20
,
to
44
-
CHAP.
VI.
Mr
Owen's
Argument
for
Infant
Baptism
,
from
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
answered
Page
45.
to
79
-
CHAP.
VII
.
Mr.
Owen's
Arguments
to
prove
Infant
Baptism
from
Circumcision
,
answered
Page
80.
to
96
-
CHAP.
VIII
.
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
taken
from
Christ's
Commission
,
Matth.
28.
19
,
20.
answered
Page
96.
to
108
-
CHAP.
IX
.
Proving
the
holiness
spoken
1
Cor.
7.
14.
Else
were
your
children
unclean
;
but
now
they
are
holy
:
is
not
Federal
or
Spiritual
holiness
,
but
the
holiness
of
Legitimative
or
Matrimonial
holiness
Page
109.
to
125
-
CHAP.
X.
Opening
the
purport
of
that
Text
of
Christ's
Blessing
little
Children
,
in
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
taken
from
thence
for
Infant
Baptism
Page
125.
to
134
-
CHAP.
XI
.
Opening
the
nature
of
that
holiness
,
Rom.
11.
16.
If
the
root
be
holy
,
so
are
the
branches
,
and
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
for
Infant
Baptism
from
thence
,
answered
,
Page
134.
to
147
-
CHAP.
XII
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
10th
.
Chapter
and
his
Argument
,
that
Children
can
partake
of
those
things
prefigured
in
Baptism
,
Page
147.
to
154
-
CHAP.
XIII
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
Arguments
for
Infant
Baptism
,
from
those
Tipical
Baptisms
under
the
Law
or
Old
Testament
,
Page
154.
to
170
-
CHAP.
XIV
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
for
Infant
Baptism
,
from
John
Baptist's
Baptizing
(
all
the
people
of
the
Jews
as
he
asserteth
)
Page
171.
to
188
-
CHAP.
XVI
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
13th
.
Chap.
concerning
those
whole
housholds
said
to
be
Baptized
in
the
New
Testament
,
P.
189.
to
213
-
CHAP.
XVII
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
14th
.
Chapter
about
the
Baptism
of
Infants
in
the
first
Centuries
after
the
Apostles
,
proving
no
Infants
Baptized
in
the
two
first
Centuries
Page
214.
to
227
-
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Proving
Infant
Baptism
no
excellent
way
to
Plant
the
Christian
Religion
,
in
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
15th
.
Chapter
;
shewing
it
was
only
contrived
to
uphold
National
Churches
,
and
so
a
sinful
practice
Page
228.
to
239
-
CHAP.
XIX
.
In
which
those
Objections
Mr.
Owen
mentioned
against
Infant
Baptism
,
as
brought
by
us
,
are
considered
;
with
a
Reply
to
his
Answers
Page
234.
to
237
-
CHAP.
XX.
In
answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
Slanders
and
Reproaches
cast
upon
the
Antipedobaptists
,
proving
Dipping
Believers
in
Christ's
name
does
not
render
us
guilty
of
Murther
and
Adultery
:
and
Infant
Baptism
further
proved
a
very
sinful
practice
,
P.
238.
to
262
-
CHAP.
XXI
.
Shewing
that
there
is
no
Blessing
to
be
expected
in
Infant
Baptism
;
with
an
answer
to
Mr.
Burket
,
and
Mr.
Daniel
Williams
,
in
his
Book
called
Vanity
of
Youth
,
P.
263.
to
276
-
CHAP.
XXII
.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
18th
Chapter
,
wherein
he
sheweth
the
Duty
of
Parents
to
their
Children
,
proving
,
in
opposition
to
what
he
says
,
that
Parents
ought
not
to
consecrate
their
Infants
to
the
Lord
by
Baptism
.
Page
276
to
280
-
CHAP.
XXIII
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
19th
Chapter
,
wherein
he
gives
advice
to
Children
,
with
an
answer
to
his
Queries
,
that
he
would
have
the
Anti-pedobaptists
to
reply
unto
Page
280
to
293
-
CHAP.
XXIV
.
Containing
some
practical
Use
of
the
whole
Treatise
,
with
seasonable
Counsel
to
Parents
Page
293
to
298
-
CHAP.
XXV
.
Containing
several
Queries
for
Mr.
James
Owen
to
answer
Page
298
to
305
-
CHAP.
XXVI
.
Containing
divers
Arguments
to
disprove
Pedo-baptism
,
and
to
prove
the
Baptism
of
Believers
;
which
Mr.
Owen
is
desired
to
answer
when
he
writes
again
.
Page
305
to
the
end
.
By
reason
this
Treatise
was
printed
at
several
Presses
,
the
Author
could
not
attend
them
,
whereby
many
Faults
have
escaped
,
and
Mispointings
,
which
spoils
the
Sense
.
ERRATA
.
PAge
7.
Line
27.
add
,
in
all
that
live
.
P.
12.
l.
23.
for
of
way
,
read
way
of
.
P.
13.
l.
26.
for
pag.
5
,
6
,
7.
read
pag.
75
,
76
,
27.
being
Citations
out
of
Dr.
Du
Veil
.
P.
16.
l.
5.
for
John
read
Matthew
.
P.
34.
l.
10.
for
and
read
but.
P.
31.
l.
3.
for
almost
all
read
many
.
P.
45.
Chap.
5.
read
Chap.
6.
P
46.
l.
37.
read
his
Natural
Seed
.
P.
48.
l.
17.
add
as
such
,
i
e.
his
Spiritual
Seed
as
such
.
P.
5.
l.
2.
blot
out
all
.
P.
50.
l.
20.
for
many
read
any
.
P.
51.
l.
9.
and
15.
for
a
Covenant
read
the
Covenant
.
P.
51.
l.
11.
read
the
Infant-Seed
of
believing
Gentiles
as
such
.
P.
51.
l.
22.
for
a
Covenant
read
the
Covenant
.
P.
51.
l.
41.
for
1st
.
read
2d
.
P.
52.
l.
41.
for
a
Covenant
read
the
Covenant
.
P.
53.
l.
39.
read
Gospel-Church
and
Covenant
,
and
so
l.
40.
P.
54.
l.
16.
for
a
Covenant
read
the
Covenant
.
Note
,
If
in
any
other
place
you
find
a
Covenant
read
the
Covenant
.
P.
56.
l.
43
for
Preservation
read
Perseverance
.
P.
57.
l.
28.
blot
out
it
was
a
sign
of
.
for
pag.
56.
read
59.
P.
59.
l.
9.
for
Land
read
Law
.
P.
61.
l.
3.
blot
out
for
.
P.
62.
l.
37.
blot
out
now
.
P.
63.
for
this
is
read
is
this
.
P.
65.
l.
3.
blot
out
all
,
and
for
Churches
read
Church
.
P.
67.
l.
40.
for
and
read
but.
P.
68.
read
are
not
straiter
.
P.
73.
l.
33.
for
has
read
hath
.
P.
75.
l.
28.
for
theirs
read
the.
P.
75.
l.
29.
for
their
read
the.
P.
77.
l.
17.
(
i.
e.
as
such
)
should
be
in
a
Parenthesis
.
P.
84.
l.
3.
blot
out
any
.
P.
86.
in
the
Contents
of
Chap.
vii
.
for
first
read
fifth
.
P.
88.
l.
3.
blot
out
from
.
P.
99.
for
with
the
Gentiles
read
and
their
Children
.
P.
89.
l.
31.
for
same
read
thing
.
P.
105.
l.
37.
for
pai
read
pain
.
P.
112.
l.
28.
for
and
read
but.
P.
117.
l.
19.
for
with
read
without
.
P.
118.
l.
3.
for
Mat.
read
Mal.
P.
120.
l.
20.
blot
out
so
,
read
and
since
,
&c.
P.
201.
l.
40.
for
he
that
believes
shall
not
be
damned
,
read
he
that
believeth
not
shall
be
damned
.
P.
250.
l.
15.
for
vers.
34.
read
3
,
4.
P.
264.
l.
2.
for
born
in
Sin
,
read
born
again
.
P.
264.
l.
4.
blot
out
do
.
P.
266.
l.
40.
for
Christian
read
Children
.
P.
239.
l.
33.
for
Lord
read
Lords
.
P.
293.
l.
21.
read
an
external
Rite
.
CHAP.
I.
In
answer
to
what
Mr.
Owen
hath
said
in
his
first
Chapter
.
SIR
,
AS
to
what
you
say
about
the
Tree
of
Life
,
and
Tree
of
Knowledg
,
that
they
were
Seals
of
the
two
Covenants
,
viz.
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
,
and
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
free
Promise
of
God
,
it
is
far
fetch'd
and
very
doubtful
,
and
as
little
to
the
Purpose
for
which
you
mention
them
;
therefore
I
shall
pass
that
by
.
2dly
.
As
touching
Circumcision
being
a
dark
Shadow
of
the
Old
Covenant
under
the
Old
Dispensation
,
it
may
be
granted
;
but
that
it
was
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
(
which
you
affirm
elsewhere
in
your
Book
)
I
do
deny
,
it
being
only
a
Seal
of
Abraham's
Faith
,
even
of
that
Faith
he
had
,
being
yet
Uncircumcised
,
and
also
that
he
should
be
the
Father
of
all
that
should
believe
.
3dly
.
You
say
well
that
those
dark
Shadows
,
viz.
Circumcision
,
&c.
are
abolished
;
the
Substance
being
come
,
that
Yoke
of
Bondage
is
taken
away
:
which
proves
Circumcision
did
not
appertain
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
the
Seal
of
it
,
in
common
to
all
Believers
;
for
the
breaking
off
of
a
Seal
cancels
the
Covenant
to
which
it
was
prefixed
,
as
all
Men
know
:
So
that
nothing
can
be
more
clear
than
this
,
that
Circumcision
,
if
it
was
a
Seal
of
any
Covenant
,
(
as
you
conceive
it
was
)
it
was
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
,
which
neither
our
Fathers
nor
we
were
able
to
bear
,
in
regard
it
obliged
all
that
were
circumcised
to
keep
perfectly
the
whole
Law
,
Gal.
5.
3.
4thly
.
You
say
,
Christ
hath
ordained
in
the
Gospel
a
light
and
easy
Burden
,
viz.
Baptism
,
and
the
Lord's
Supper
.
These
two
are
the
only
.
Sacraments
,
you
say
,
of
the
Gospel
.
This
is
granted
and
owned
,
herein
we
do
not
differ
.
5thly
.
You
say
,
Baptism
signifieth
our
Spiritual
Birth
,
the
Lord's
Supper
our
Spiritual
Growth
and
Nourishment
.
This
we
grant
also
,
and
therefore
we
say
Baptism
cannot
belong
to
Infants
,
because
they
are
not
in
an
ordinary
way
capable
of
Regeneration
(
tho
we
deny
not
that
those
elect
Infants
that
die
,
are
renewed
quoad
illorum
naturas
,
but
we
know
not
which
they
are
;
if
we
did
,
yet
we
ought
not
to
baptize
them
,
because
we
have
no
Precept
or
Precedent
so
to
do
:
we
might
therefore
as
well
and
by
as
good
Authority
,
give
them
the
Lord's
Supper
as
B●ptism
,
which
the
antient
Fathers
,
when
first
Pedo-baptism
was
,
by
Human
Authority
,
introduced
into
the
Church
(
you
know
)
did
for
near
four
hundred
Years
,
till
the
latter
end
of
the
Sixth
Century
.
)
6thly
.
You
say
,
Baptism
,
according
to
the
Signification
of
the
Word
,
is
Washing
;
and
therefore
the
Apostle
saith
,
saved
us
by
the
washing
of
Regeneration
,
Tit.
3.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
rendered
,
in
Heb.
9.
10.
in
divers
Baptisms
,
those
were
not
only
by
dipping
under
Water
,
but
by
sprinkling
Water
on
those
baptized
,
as
the
Apostle
teacheth
Heb.
9.
19.
he
took
the
Blood
of
the
Calves
,
and
of
Goats
,
with
Water
,
and
sprinkled
the
Book
and
all
the
People
.
That
which
the
Apostle
(
you
say
)
called
Baptism
in
Ver.
10.
is
in
this
Verse
called
the
Sprinkling
of
Water
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
tho
the
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
a
remote
Sense
,
doth
take
in
Washing●
yet
I
challenge
you
and
all
that
know
(
or
pretend
to
know
)
the
Greek
Tongue
,
whether
in
every
place
in
the
New
Testament
where
the
Word
is
mentioned
,
or
any
Derivative
from
it
,
(
as
it
refers
to
Christ's
Ordinance
of
Baptism
)
it
doth
not
directly
and
properly
signify
Immersion
,
and
accordingly
rendred
by
Beza
in
his
Translation
.
2dly
.
You
greatly
wrong
that
Text
,
Heb.
9.
19.
where
the
Apostle
speaks
of
sprinkling
the
Blood
of
Calves
,
and
of
Goats
with
Water
,
&c.
by
saying
he
refers
to
Ver.
10.
where
the
Apostle
speaks
of
Divers
Washings
;
and
in
thus
doing
,
you
do
not
only
abuse
the
Sacred
Text
,
but
you
wrong
your
own
Soul
and
Conscience
,
and
the
People
also
.
Sir
,
do
you
find
the
Greek
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
which
is
in
ver.
10.
)
in
ver.
19.
where
sprinkling
is
mentioned
?
or
is
it
not
in
ver.
13
,
19.
as
also
1
Pet.
1.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
?
We
may
modestly
affirm
that
no
Greek
Author
,
whether
Heathenish
or
Christian
,
has
ever
put
Baptizing
for
Sprinkling
,
or
used
those
Words
promiscuously
;
for
as
in
these
Scriptures
you
have
cited
,
Heb.
9.
13
,
19
,
21.
't
is
always
translated
Sprinkling
,
so
there
is
not
one
place
in
Scripture
wherein
the
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
rendred
Baptism
,
nor
is
there
one
Scripture
where
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
rendred
Sprinkling
.
And
therefore
,
tho
sometimes
the
Greek
Word
doth
signify
in
a
remote
Sense
,
Washing
,
yet
't
is
primarily
such
a
washing
as
is
by
dipping
or
plunging
,
as
I
said
before
:
And
thus
Mr.
Wilson
,
in
his
Dictionary
,
renders
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
tingo
,
&c.
to
dip
or
plunge
into
the
Water
;
and
signifies
,
saith
he
,
primarily
such
a
washing
as
is
used
in
Bucks
,
where
Linen
is
plunged
or
dipped
;
tho
in
a
remote
Sense
,
he
hints
,
it
signifies
other
kind
of
washing
;
but
it
does
not
so
in
the
Holy
Scripture
where
the
Word
is
used
,
as
referring
to
Christ's
Ordinance
of
Baptizing
.
3dly
.
You
say
,
Water-Baptism
,
i.
e.
the
Washing
of
the
Flesh
,
signifies
the
Washing
of
the
Spirit
,
and
therefore
the
Apostle
Peter
saith
,
Even
Baptism
doth
now
save
us
,
not
the
putting
away
the
Filth
of
the
Flesh
,
but
the
answer
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
,
by
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
you
confound
Regeneration
with
Baptism
;
the
washing
of
Regeneration
is
not
the
washing
of
Baptism
:
Baptism
regenerates
no
Person
.
But
you
seem
to
follow
the
antient
erroneous
Fathers
who
concluded
no
Person
could
be
saved
unless
baptized
,
abusing
that
Text
Joh.
3.
5.
Unless
a
Man
be
born
again
of
Water
and
of
the
Spirit
he
cannot
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
;
taking
Water
there
for
Baptism
.
In
like
sort
they
abused
that
Text
John
6.
53.
Except
ye
eat
the
Flesh
of
the
Son
of
Man
,
and
drink
his
Blood
,
ye
have
no
Life
in
you
;
and
from
thence
they
gave
Infants
the
Lord's
Supper
also
.
But
suppose
that
Baptism
doth
signify
,
or
is
a
figure
of
the
washing
of
Regeneration
,
yet
sprinkling
is
no
form
of
washing
;
but
all
know
dipping
is
,
and
the
safest
way
of
washing
.
2dly
.
You
mention
Fier●
Baptism
,
or
the
Baptism
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
Fire
,
Mat.
3.
11.
This
Scripture
,
you
say
,
was
fulfilled
when
the
Holy
Ghost
came
upon
the
Disciples
in
the
appearance
of
Fiery
Tongues
,
Acts
2.
3.
This
Baptism
was
not
(
say
you
)
by
plunging
in
Fire
,
but
by
sprinkling
or
pouring
of
Fire
(
you
mean
the
Holy
Spirit
)
upon
them
,
which
sate
upon
each
of
them
;
which
is
a
Fiery
washing
which
purifieth
the
Soul
,
&c.
I
answer
,
Tho
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
was
by
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
,
yet
they
were
overwhelmed
,
or
immersed
with
it
;
like
as
Dust
may
be
poured
upon
a
dead
Corps
,
until
it
is
covered
all
over
,
or
quite
buried
therein
:
So
the
Baptism
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
at
the
Day
of
Pentecost
,
signifies
the
miraculous
Effusion
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
The
Greek
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
the
Learned
Casaubon
,
is
to
dip
,
pl●●ge
,
&c.
in
which
sense
,
saith
he
,
the
Apostles
might
be
truly
said
to
have
been
baptized
,
for
the
House
in
which
this
was
done
was
filled
with
the
Holy
Ghost
;
so
that
the
Apostles
might
seem
to
have
been
plunged
into
it
as
in
a
large
Fish-Pond
.
Sir
,
't
is
not
the
sprinkling
of
the
Spirit
that
is
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
,
for
they
had
doubtless
some
sprinklings
of
the
Spirit
before
they
were
baptized
with
it
.
Moreover
,
Oecumenius
on
Acts
2.
saith
,
A
Wind
filled
the
whole
House
that
it
seemed
like
a
Fish-pond
,
because
't
was
promised
to
the
Apostles
that
they
should
be
baptized
with
the
Holy
Spirit
.
Thus
you
may
see
,
that
this
no
ways
helps
you
to
make
Sprinkling
,
or
Rantizing
,
Baptism
.
3dly
.
You
mention
the
Baptism
of
Blood
,
or
Sufferings
:
I
will
repeat
your
Words
,
—
Baptism
of
Blood
;
of
this
Baptism
doth
Christ
ask
the
Children
of
Zebedee
,
Are
you
able
to
drink
of
the
Cup
that
I
drink
of
,
and
to
be
baptized
with
the
Baptism
that
I
am
baptized
with
?
Mat.
20.
22.
This
Cup
and
this
Baptism
are
the
same
,
viz.
the
Sufferings
of
Christ
,
of
which
his
Disciples
were
to
be
Partakers
.
You
intimate
that
Baptism
is
a
Witness
of
our
Spiritual
Resurrection
,
and
of
our
Resurrection
at
the
last
Day
;
you
mention
1
Cor.
15.
29
,
&c.
Answ.
Therefore
,
say
I
,
it
must
be
so
administred
,
as
it
may
represent
our
Rising
again
:
First
,
from
a
Death
in
Sin
to
a
Life
in
Grace
:
And
,
Secondly
,
from
the
Dead
,
or
out
of
our
Graves
in
the
Earth
,
at
the
last
Day
:
But
Sprinkling
do●h
not
this
,
cannot
do
this
.
In
sprinkling
a
little
Water
on
the
Face
,
there
is
no
resemblance
or
representation
of
rising
up
out
of
the
Grave
of
Sin
,
or
from
the
Dead
,
nor
out
of
the
Grave
a●
the
last
Day
;
the
Baptism
of
Sufferings
signifies
great
Afflictions
,
and
from
the
Literal
Signification
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
great
Afflictions
or
Troubles
are
taken
for
,
and
figurately
called
Baptism
,
as
Vossius
shews
:
Not
every
light
Affliction
is
the
Baptism
of
Afflictions
;
but
like
that
of
David
,
Psal.
32.
6.
He
drew
me
out
of
deep
Waters
.
Hence
great
Afflictions
are
called
Waves
,
Thy
Waves
and
thy
Billows
are
gone
over
me
,
Psal.
42.
7.
See
Pool's
Annotations
on
Mat.
20.
22.
To
be
baptized
is
,
saith
he
,
to
be
dipped
in
water
,
Metaphorically
to
be
plunged
in
Afflictions
.
So
that
neither
of
these
Metaphorical
Baptisms
will
do
you
any
Service
,
to
justify
your
Tradition
of
sprinkling
,
or
pouring
a
little
Water
,
but
contrariwise
quite
overthrows
your
pretended
Baptism
.
As
to
what
you
say
,
in
the
next
place
,
of
your
three
manner
of
ways
of
the
Administration
of
Baptism
in
your
first
Chapter
,
it
doth
not
concern
our
present
Purpose
;
't
is
true
,
John
the
Baptist
baptized
into
him
that
was
to
come
,
so
in
that
respect
it
differ'd
from
the
Administration
of
it
after
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
our
blessed
Lord
:
and
no
doubt
from
the
Commission
it
appears
Baptism
was
to
be
administred
to
the
end
of
the
World
into
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Spirit
,
and
no
other
ways
.
CHAP
II.
Containing
some
Remarks
upon
Mr.
Owen's
second
Chapter
.
AS
to
what
you
have
wrote
in
your
second
Chapter
,
about
the
Continuation
of
Water-Baptism
in
the
Church
until
Christ's
coming
the
second
time
,
or
to
the
end
of
the
World
;
I
approve
generally
of
your
Arguments
,
and
in
that
matter
we
are
of
your
mind
,
tho
much
more
might
be
added
to
confirm
that
great
Truth
:
but
pray
,
Sir
,
remember
,
't
is
Christ's
Baptism
of
Believers
,
which
he
only
instituted
,
that
doth
remain
,
not
Infants
Baptism
,
much
less
Infants
Rantism
,
which
was
neither
instituted
nor
allowed
by
our
blessed
Lord
.
And
because
some
of
your
Arguments
for
the
Continuation
of
Baptism
,
mentioned
in
your
second
Chapter
,
tend
to
overthrow
your
Infant
Baptism
,
I
shall
make
some
Remarks
upon
them
.
They
are
taken
from
your
4th
Proof
,
you
argue
thus
,
viz.
Water
Baptism
is
to
continue
in
the
Church
,
if
we
consider
the
Ends
of
it
.
1.
You
say
Christ
hath
ordained
Baptism
to
be
a
Sign
of
our
Repentance
,
and
therefore
't
is
called
the
Baptism
of
our
Repentance
,
Mark
1.
4.
Repentance
is
a
remaining
Duty
,
therefore
the
Baptism
of
Repentance
is
to
remain
.
Remark
.
If
Baptism
be
a
si●n
of
Repentance
to
the
Person
baptized
,
then
the
Person
baptized
ought
to
be
a
Person
capable
to
repent
,
and
when
baptized
,
to
have
what
is
signified
therein
:
but
Infants
as
such
have
not
the
Grace
of
Repentance
when
baptized
,
so
they
are
not
capable
to
repent
.
2dly
You
say
,
It
is
an
Evidence
of
our
Faith
in
Christ
,
Mark
16.
16.
Acts
8.
37
,
38.
and
therefore
it
is
to
remain
as
long
as
Faith
is
to
remain
on
the
Earth
.
Remark
.
If
Baptism
is
an
Evidence
of
our
Faith
in
Christ
,
then
it
must
only
belong
to
Believers
.
How
can
it
be
an
Evidence
of
Faith
in
Infants
who
are
not
capable
to
believe
?
they
know
not
the
Object
of
Faith
,
nor
can
they
exert
any
Act
of
Faith
.
It
must
be
an
Evidence
to
the
Subject
when
baptized
,
and
so
the
Scriptures
you
cite
hold
forth
:
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
16.
it
doth
not
say
,
he
that
is
baptized
and
believeth
.
If
thou
believest
with
all
thy
Heart
thou
mayst
:
Not
if
thou
shalt
believe
hereafter
,
but
if
thou
dost
believe
now
.
It
appertains
to
such
who
have
Faith
when
baptized
,
and
it
evidences
such
a
Faith
to
the
Person
;
nay
Faith
is
required
of
them
before
they
are
to
be
baptized
.
And
so
saith
the
Church
of
England
.
3dly
.
You
say
,
It
is
the
Bond
of
Holiness
,
1
Pet.
3.
21.
the
Apostle
exhorts
the
Christians
to
be
dead
unto
Sin
,
and
alive
unto
Righteousness
.
There
is
a
Virtue
in
the
Ordinances
of
God
answerable
to
the
End
for
which
they
are
ordained
,
&c.
Remark
.
Still
,
Reader
,
know
that
it
is
a
Bond
to
the
Adult
only
,
Infants
are
not
able
to
die
to
Sin
,
nor
live
unto
Holiness
:
They
cannot
answer
a
good
Conscience
by
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
from
the
dead
.
Ordinances
have
no
more
Virtue
in
them
to
an
Infant
,
than
if
you
should
water
a
dead
Tree
.
There
can
be
no
increase
in
Holiness
without
the
Grace
of
Holiness
in
the
Habit
be
first
infused
;
and
if
the
Seed
of
Holiness
be
[
first
]
infused
in
Infants
before
Baptism
,
or
in
Baptism
,
that
Seed
would
remain
in
them
,
and
appear
as
soon
as
they
come
to
Understanding
,
1
Joh.
3.
9.
But
that
any
such
Seed
or
vital
Principle
is
either
way
in
Infants
as
such
,
whether
Infants
of
Believers
,
or
others
,
appears
not
;
but
contrary-wise
,
nothing
appears
in
them
when
grown
up
,
but
the
cursed
Seed
of
Sin
,
and
so
it
will
until
their
Natures
be
changed
by
Divine
Grace
.
4thly
.
You
say
,
Baptism
is
a
sign
of
Union
with
Christ
,
we
were
baptized
into
him
:
For
as
many
of
you
as
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
have
put
on
Christ
;
Gal.
3.
27.
Again
,
the
Apostle
saith
,
We
are
all
baptized
into
one
Body
,
1
Cor.
12.
13.
Christ
is
the
Head
of
the
Body
,
the
Faithful
are
the
Members
,
those
that
are
in
everlasting
Union
with
him
,
which
is
signified
in
Baptism
:
Can
they
desire
to
be
in
one
Body
with
Christ
,
who
are
not
willing
to
be
baptized
into
this
Union
?
Remark
.
Have
Infants
,
as
such
,
Union
with
Christ
?
If
they
have
,
they
would
all
partake
of
the
Blessings
of
that
Union
,
and
be
all
saved
,
because
the
Branch
that
is
savingly
united
to
the
Vine
Christ
,
partakes
of
the
Virtue
that
is
in
him
;
and
it
is
an
indissolvable
Union
,
like
that
between
the
Father
and
the
Son
,
John
17.
21
,
23.
You
say
the
Union
is
everlasting
,
and
this
is
signified
in
Baptism
.
Now
what
is
the
Sign
without
the
Thing
signified
?
Sir
,
no
doubt
elect
Infants
that
die
have
Union
with
Christ
in
a
way
we
are
ignorant
of
,
but
what
is
this
to
the
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
?
I
will
appeal
to
your
own
Conscience
,
whether
you
believe
any
one
Infant
you
baptize
,
(
or
rather
rantize
,
or
sprinkle
)
that
lives
,
hath
spiritual
Union
with
Christ
,
before
,
or
in
Baptism
,
or
Rantism
;
for
if
they
had
,
they
do
not
after
they
are
grown
up
need
any
inspired
Habit
,
or
the
Seed
of
Grace
to
be
infused
into
them
,
in
order
to
such
Union
.
Without
Faith
there
is
no
Union
with
Christ
,
and
there
can
be
no
Faith
without
Knowledg
;
there
is
no
spiritual
Marriage
to
Christ
without
a
Consent
,
which
Infants
are
not
capable
of
.
Moreover
,
why
do
you
speak
of
Persons
being
not
willing
to
be
baptized
,
when
the
Subject
of
Baptism
you
contend
for
is
a
poor
ignorant
Babe
?
Can
Infants
be
willing
?
Sir
,
what
you
speak
has
weight
in
it
to
the
Adult
,
to
Believers
,
but
signifies
nothing
for
the
Continuation
of
Baptism
to
Infants
,
but
rather
that
it
ought
to
be
rejected
,
as
not
being
of
God
.
5thly
.
You
say
,
Baptism
signifies
Remission
of
Sins
,
Mark
1.
4.
Be
baptized
every
one
of
you
(
saith
Peter
)
in
the
Name
of
Jesus
Christ
for
the
Remission
of
Sins
.
So
Ananias
said
unto
Paul
,
Arise
,
and
be
baptized
,
and
wash
away
thy
Sins
,
calling
upon
the
Name
of
the
Lord
;
Acts
22.
16.
●nd
are
not
they
,
say
you
,
unthankful
to
the
Grace
of
G●…
which
offereth
them
a
Seal
of
Absolution
,
and
they
●…ll
not
receive
it
?
&c.
Remark
.
Baptism
is
a
sign
of
Remission
of
Sin
to
none
but
Believers
,
who
have
Repentance
:
and
therefore
Peter
exhorted
those
Jews
,
first
to
repent
;
Repent
,
and
be
baptized
every
one
of
you
in
the
Name
of
Jesus
Christ
,
for
the
Remission
of
Sins
.
Such
only
here
have
the
Promise
of
Remission
that
do
and
can
repent
,
and
to
such
only
ought
the
Sign
to
be
given
,
who
have
the
Thing
signified
,
which
are
not
Infants
but
Believers
.
Is
Absolution
and
the
Seal
of
it
offered
unto
Infants
,
and
do
they
refuse
to
receive
it
?
Sir
,
were
your
Eyes
open'd
you
would
soon
see
you
apply
all
you
say
to
the
wrong
Subjects
.
You
exhort
the
Subjects
of
Baptism
to
be
thankful
,
le●t
they
despise
the
Seal
of
Pardon
.
Now
take
from
your
Reasoning
this
following
Argument
,
viz.
Such
Persons
that
Baptism
belongs
unto
,
may
neglect
and
despise
the
Ordinance
and
Seal
of
Pardon
;
but
Infants
cannot
neglect
or
despise
the
Ordinance
and
Seal
of
Pardon
:
Ergo
,
Baptism
doth
not
belong
to
Infants
.
6thly
.
Baptism
is
,
you
say
,
a
Condition
of
the
Promise
of
Salvation
;
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
●…d
;
Mark
16.
16.
'T
is
true
,
say
you
,
the
Promise
is
not
only
to
Baptism
,
nor
is
it
also
to
Faith
only
,
but
to
Faith
and
Baptism
.
Dost
thou
not
desire
to
be
saved
?
Why
then
despisest
thou
one
of
the
Means
of
Salvation
?
Thou
sayst
,
if
I
believe
I
shall
be
saved
,
tho
not
baptized
with
Water
;
Christ
saith
otherwise
,
that
thou
must
believe
and
be
baptized
,
if
thou
wilt
be
saved
:
'T
is
true
,
the
Apostle
saith
to
the
Goaler
,
Believe
on
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
,
Acts
16.
31
,
32.
but
so
soon
as
he
believed
,
he
was
baptized
.
The
Unbelief
and
Haughtiness
of
thy
Heart
maketh
thee
to
reject
this
holy
Ordinance
,
&c.
Remark
.
How
can
you
make
Baptism
a
Condition
of
Salvation
to
Infants
who
are
no
ways
capable
to
answer
it
?
neither
Faith
nor
Baptism
is
required
of
them
,
nor
are
their
Parents
commanded
to
baptize
them
:
But
't
is
true
,
such
as
believe
,
are
required
to
be
baptized
;
and
such
as
reject
it
,
and
will
not
be
baptized
,
tho
the
proper
Subjects
,
do
reject
the
Counsel
of
God
,
and
may
endanger
their
Salvation
;
or
at
least
it
calls
into
question
(
if
convinced
of
it
,
i.
〈◊〉
.
that
it
is
their
Duty
)
the
truth
of
their
Grace
,
that
they
neither
unfeignedly
believe
in
,
nor
love
Jesus
Christ
:
therefore
(
Sir
)
so
soon
as
a
Child
is
grown
up
and
doth
believe
,
he
should
be
baptized
,
not
before
;
for
we
have
a
perfect
Rule
to
walk
by
.
Arg.
2.
Where
there
is
no
Law
,
there
is
no
Transgression
:
But
there
is
no
Law
to
baptize
Infants
:
Ergo
,
It
is
no
Transgression
not
to
baptize
them
.
Where
God
hath
no
Mouth
to
speak
,
we
should
have
no
Ear
to
hear
.
Arg.
3.
To
act
in
the
Service
of
God
without
Authority
from
his
Word
,
is
a
Sin
:
But
they
that
baptize
Infants
do
act
in
the
Service
of
God
without
Authority
from
his
Word
:
Ergo
,
It
is
a
Sin
to
baptize
Infants
.
Would
not
Abraham
have
sinned
if
he
had
circumcised
his
Females
,
or
to
have
circumcised
his
Males
on
the
7th
or
9th
day
,
because
the
express
.
Command
was
to
Males
,
and
on
the
eighth
day
?
so
the
express
Command
of
Christ
is
,
to
be
baptized
when
made
Disciples
,
if
we
believe
,
if
we
repent
,
or
when
we
believe
,
and
bring
forth
Fruits
meet
for
Repentance
.
You
add
,
That
they
that
despise
Water-Baptism
,
despise
not
John's
Baptism
,
but
the
Baptism
of
Christ
,
therefore
their
Sin
is
the
greater
.
Remark
.
But
they
that
despise
and
slight
the
Baptism
of
Infants
,
despise
neither
the
Baptism
of
John
nor
Christ
;
because
neither
John
nor
our
blessed
Saviour
commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
,
nor
did
they
ever
baptize
one
Child
as
we
read
of
;
if
you
can
prove
they
did
do
it
,
we
will
say
no
more
.
but
will
soon
baptize
our
Children
.
Thus
I
have
done
with
all
I
thought
necessary
to
remark
,
or
take
notice
of
that
is
contained
in
your
second
Chapter
.
CHAP.
III.
Shewing
Baptizing
is
Dipping
,
not
sprinkling
nor
pouring
a
little
Water
.
SIR
,
AS
to
what
is
contain'd
in
the
second
Chapter
of
your
Book
concerning
the
Continuation
of
Christ's
Baptism
of
Water
in
the
Church
,
I
shall
say
no
more
to
that
,
in
that
we
agree
,
and
are
one
:
but
we
differ
about
what
Baptism
of
Water
is
;
you
would
have
it
to
be
Sprinkling
,
which
indeed
is
not
Baptism
but
Rantism
,
for
that
you
know
is
the
Greek
Word
for
Sprinkling
.
2.
As
also
we
differ
about
the
true
and
proper
Subjects
of
it
,
according
to
our
Saviour's
Institution
;
and
since
you
begin
with
that
you
call
the
Manner
or
external
Form
of
Administration
of
Baptism
,
I
shall
follow
you
herein
,
and
shall
first
repeat
your
Words
,
and
then
reply
.
Thus
you
begin
,
viz.
Some
judg
that
the
whole
Body
ought
to
be
dipped
in
Water
,
and
all
other
ways
to
be
unlawful
.
Others
judg
(
say
you
)
the
sprinkling
of
Water
on
the
Face
of
him
that
is
baptiz'd
to
be
sufficient
,
especially
in
these
cold
Climates
;
for
even
as
in
the
other
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's
Supper
there
is
one
Mo●sel
of
Bread
,
and
one
Spoonful
of
Wine
sufficient
for
to
signify
the
Spiritual
Food
that
is
had
in
Christ
;
even
so
in
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
the
sprinkling
of
a
little
Water
on
him
that
is
baptized
,
signifies
the
Virtue
of
the
Blood
of
Christ
as
effectually
as
Rivers
of
Water
.
I
answer
;
Certainly
you
cannot
be
ignorant
of
what
many
learned
Pedo-baptists
have
said
in
Opposition
to
what
you
here
speak
;
for
tho
both
the
holy
Sacraments
are
very
significant
of
Christ's
Sufferings
,
and
of
those
spiritual
Benefits
we
receive
from
him
,
yet
they
are
of
different
Signification
.
First
;
The
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's-Supper
holds
forth
in
a
lively
Figure
,
the
breaking
of
Christ's
Body
,
and
the
pouring
forth
of
his
precious
Blood
;
and
this
indeed
may
as
well
he
represented
by
a
small
quantity
of
Bread
and
Wine
as
by
much
,
yet
a
little
Water
will
not
serve
in
Baptism
.
1.
Because
'●
is
positively
said
,
that
John
was
baptizing
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
(
John
3.
23.
)
because
there
was
much
Water
there
.
Certainly
the
Holy
Ghost
would
not
have
given
this
as
the
Reason
why
John
baptized
near
Enon
,
viz.
because
there
was
much
Water
in
that
place
,
if
a
little
Water
,
namely
a
Spoonful
or
two
,
would
have
been
sufficient
,
or
two
or
three
Quarts
:
It
seems
plainly
deducible
from
this
Text
,
it
cannot
be
administred
with
a
little
Water
,
but
contrariwise
it
doth
require
much
Water
.
Secondly
;
Pray
consider
,
that
as
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's-Supper
holds
forth
,
or
represents
(
symbolically
)
the
breaking
of
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
the
shedding
of
his
Blood
,
(
and
to
that
purpose
it
was
in
part
instituted
)
even
so
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
holds
forth
in
as
lively
Figure
,
that
our
blessed
Lord
was
dead
,
buried
,
and
rose
again
;
and
to
this
end
this
holy
Ordinance
was
also
instituted
,
as
also
to
shew
forth
our
Death
unto
Sin
,
and
Vivification
to
Newness
of
Life
,
as
by
and
by
shall
be
abundantly
proved
,
both
from
the
holy
Scriptures
,
and
a
multitude
of
learned
Men
that
hold
Infant-Baptism
:
therefore
since
a
little
Water
cannot
in
this
Ordinance
represent
Christ's
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
it
follows
directly
that
a
little
Water
will
not
serve
to
baptize
Persons
in
,
but
that
it
must
be
administred
in
Rivers
,
Ponds
,
or
places
where
there
is
much
Water
,
i.
e.
so
much
Water
as
that
the
Body
may
be
buried
or
covered
all
over
therein
.
But
to
proceed
,
you
say
,
Neither
is
dipping
or
sprinkling
essential
unto
this
Ordinance
,
but
washing
with
Water
,
or
putting
Water
on
the
Body
;
for
the
word
Baptism
signifies
in
the
Greek
washing
with
Water
,
as
we
cited
(
say
you
)
from
Heb.
9.
10.
Answ.
I
answer
,
now
you
have
given
away
your
Cause
at
once
(
or
I
am
mistaken
)
;
for
if
neither
dipping
nor
sprinkling
be
essential
unto
this
Ordinance
,
but
washing
,
what
is
become
of
your
Baptism
?
Sir
,
all
dipping
in
Water
is
washing
,
tho
all
washing
is
not
dipping
;
in
that
you
hurt
us
not
,
but
your
sprinkling
is
not
washing
.
If
a
Woman
should
sprinkle
her
foul
Linen
with
a
few
drops
of
Water
,
would
that
be
deem'd
a
washing
of
them
?
Again
,
if
Sprinkling
be
not
essential
to
Baptism
,
you
have
no
Baptism
at
all
;
take
away
the
Body
of
a
Tree
,
and
there
is
no
Tree
.
That
thing
can't
be
where
the
essential
part
of
it
is
wanting
.
And
now
that
the
Greek
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
doth
signify
dipping
,
and
such
a
washing
as
is
by
dipping
,
we
shall
plainly
shew
,
evince
,
and
demonstrate
,
and
confirm
it
by
such
Arguments
and
Authors
that
no
unprejudiced
sober
Person
can
any
longer
well
remain
doubtful
about
this
matter
,
and
then
we
will
examine
your
Objections
.
I
shall
prove
baptizing
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
not
sprinkling
,
nor
pouring
of
Water
upon
the
Body
,
but
dipping
or
plunging
the
Body
all
over
in
Water
:
and
that
,
1st
.
From
the
proper
,
literal
and
direct
Signification
of
the
Greek
Word
Baptizo
,
and
the
Testimonies
of
Learned
Men.
2dly
.
From
the
Practice
of
Primitive
Times
.
3dly
.
From
the
Consideration
of
what
is
signified
and
represented
in
Baptism
.
4thly
.
From
those
Typical
Baptisms
spoken
of
in
the
Scriptures
.
5thly
.
From
the
nature
of
those
Metaphorical
Baptisms
mentioned
,
viz.
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
,
and
that
of
Afflictions
.
To
proceed
to
prove
the
first
:
Scapula
and
Stephens
,
two
as
great
Masters
of
the
Greek
Tongue
as
most
we
have
,
do
tell
you
in
their
Lexicons
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
baptizo
,
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
bapto
,
signifies
mergo
,
immergo
,
item
tingo
quod
fit
immergendo
,
inficere
,
imbuere
,
viz.
to
dip
,
plunge
,
overwhelm
,
put
under
,
cover
over
,
to
dye
in
Colour
,
which
is
done
by
plunging
.
Grotius
says
it
signifies
to
dip
over
Head
and
Ears
.
Pasor
,
an
Immersion
,
dipping
or
Submersion
.
Vossius
says
it
implies
a
washing
the
whole
Body
.
Mincaeus
in
his
Dictionary
saith
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
à
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
in
the
Latin
Baptismus
,
in
Dutch
Doopsit
or
Doopen
,
Baptismus
or
Baptism
,
to
dive
or
duck
in
Water
,
and
the
same
with
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Tabal
,
which
the
Septuagint
,
or
Seventy
Interpreters
render
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
baptizo
,
to
dip
.
This
Casa●bon
saith
was
the
right
of
way
Baptizing
,
that
Persons
were
plunged
into
the
Water
,
which
the
very
word
Baptizo
sufficiently
demonstrates
,
which
as
it
does
not
extend
so
far
as
to
sink
down
to
the
bottom
to
the
hurt
of
the
Person
,
so
it
is
not
to
swim
upon
the
Superficies
of
the
Water
.
Baptism
ought
to
be
administred
by
plunging
the
whole
Body
into
the
Water
.
The
late
famous
,
and
most
learned
in
all
the
Oriental
Tongues
,
Dr.
Du-Veil
,
in
his
literal
Explanation
of
the
Acts
,
Chap.
1.
5.
saith
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
baptizo
,
is
to
dip
,
as
if
it
were
to
dye
Colours
;
and
any
Dyer
will
tell
you
if
there
is
any
small
bit
of
Cloth
not
dipped
,
it
is
not
dyed
.
Leigh
in
his
Critica
Sa●r●
,
saith
,
the
native
and
proper
Signification
of
the
word
is
to
dip
into
the
Water
,
or
plunge
under
Water
;
Mat.
3.
6.
Acts
8.
38.
for
which
also
he
quotes
Casa●bon
,
Bullinger
,
Zanchy
,
Spanhemius
:
he
saith
witha●…
that
some
would
have
it
signify
washing
,
which
Sense
〈◊〉
,
he
saith
,
opposed
,
affirming
that
it
was
not
otherwise
so
than
by
Consequence
;
for
the
proper
Signification
was
such
a
dipping
or
plunging
as
Dyers
use
for
dying
of
Cloth
.
Salmasius
saith
,
That
is
not
Baptism
which
they
give
to
Children
,
but
Rantism
.
Beza
on
Mat.
3.
11.
saith
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
baptizo
,
signifies
to
dye
by
dipping
or
washing
.
Selden
saith
that
the
Jews
took
that
Baptism
wherein
the
whole
Body
was
not
baptized
,
to
be
void
.
Ainsworth
speaks
to
the
same
purpose
,
as
I
shall
shew
you
.
Mr.
Daniel
Rogers
says
,
that
a
Minister
is
to
dip
in
Water
the
Party
baptized
,
as
the
meetest
Act
,
the
word
Baptizo
notes
it
;
for
,
saith
he
,
the
Greeks
wanted
not
words
to
express
any
other
Act
besides
dipping
,
if
the
Institution
could
bear
it
:
What
Resemblance
of
the
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
is
in
sprinkling
?
[
mark
that
!
]
all
Antiquity
and
Scripture
(
saith
he
)
confirms
that
it
was
dipping
.
If
you
would
,
saith
Dr.
Du-Veil
,
attend
to
the
proper
Signification
of
the
word
;
in
the
Synod
of
Caelichyth
,
Anno
816.
where
Wolfred
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
presided
:
Let
,
saith
he
,
the
Presbyters
beware
that
when
they
administer
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
they
do
not
pour
Water
upon
the
Heads
of
the
Infants
,
but
let
them
be
always
plunged
in
the
Font
according
to
the
Example
of
the
Son
of
God
himself
,
who
was
plunged
in
the
Waters
of
Jordan
.
Thus
must
the
Ceremony
be
performed
according
to
order
:
See
Dr.
Du-Veil
on
the
Acts
,
Chap.
2.
p.
5
,
6
,
7.
The
said
learned
Doctor
saith
in
the
same
place
,
The
constant
Practice
of
the
universal
Church
till
the
time
of
Clement
V.
who
was
crowned
Pope
Anno
1305
,
under
whom
,
first
of
all
,
the
second
Synod
of
Ravenna
approved
the
Abuse
brought
into
some
Churches
about
an
hundred
Years
before
,
that
Baptism
without
any
necessity
should
be
administred
by
Aspersion
.
Hence
it
came
to
pass
,
that
contrary
to
the
Analogy
,
or
intended
Mystical
Signification
of
this
Sacrament
,
all
the
West
,
for
the
most
part
,
has
in
this
Age
the
use
of
Rantism
,
that
is
Sprinkling
instead
of
Baptism
,
as
Zepper
speaks
,
to
the
great
Scandal
of
the
Greeks
and
Russians
,
who
to
this
day
plunge
into
the
Water
those
they
baptize
,
and
deny
any
one
to
be
rightly
baptized
,
who
is
not
plunged
into
the
Water
,
according
to
the
Precept
of
Christ
,
as
we
find
in
Sylvester
Squropulus
.
Dr.
Taylor
saith
,
The
Custom
of
the
Antient
Church
was
not
Sprinkling
,
but
Immersion
,
in
pursuance
of
the
Sense
of
the
word
Baptizing
,
and
the
Commandment
and
Example
of
our
blessed
Saviour
.
Salmasius
in
his
Notes
of
divers
upon
Sulpitius
Severus
,
saith
,
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
Immersion
,
not
Sprinkling
.
Nor
did
the
Antients
otherwise
baptize
than
by
single
or
treble
Immersion
,
as
in
the
Greek
Church
to
this
day
;
saith
he
,
the
Person
to
be
baptized
is
plunged
over
Head
and
Ears
.
The
same
thing
does
Peter
Avetabolis
testify
of
the
Asian
Christians
inhabiting
Iberia
and
Colchi
.
St.
Ambrose
saith
,
Water
is
that
wherein
the
Body
is
plunged
,
to
wash
all
Sin
away
,
there
all
Vice
is
buried
.
In
a
Book
inscribed
,
Reformation
of
Ecclesiastical
Laws
.
printed
at
London
,
1641.
't
is
expressed
in
these
words
:
While
we
are
plunged
in
the
Water
,
the
Death
and
Burial
of
Christ
is
recommended
to
us
,
that
we
openly
testify
that
Sin
lies
dead
and
buried
in
us
.
The
Raman
Order
,
published
by
the
Writers
concerning
Ecclesiastical
●eremoni●s
,
says
,
the
Presbyters
enter
into
the
Fountain
Within
unto
the
Water
,
and
the
Males
are
first
baptized
,
and
then
the
Femaies
.
Luther
saith
,
The
Name
of
Baptism
is
a
Greek
Word
,
it
may
be
termed
Dipping
when
we
dip
something
in
Water
,
that
it
may
be
wholly
covered
with
Water
;
and
altho
(
saith
he
)
that
Custom
is
now
altogether
abolished
among
the
most
part
,
for
neither
do
they
dip
the
whole
Children
,
but
only
sprinkle
them
with
a
little
Water
,
they
ought
nevertheless
to
be
dipp'd
,
and
presently
drawn
out
again
.
The
Germans
also
call
Baptism
Ta●ff
from
Deepness
,
which
they
call
Tieff
in
their
Tongue
;
as
if
it
were
meet
(
saith
our
Author
)
that
those
be
dipp'd
deeply
who
are
baptized
.
John
Bugenhagius
Pomeranus
(
both
a
Fellow
and
Successor
in
the
Ministry
of
Luther
at
Wittenburgh
,
whom
Thuanus
and
Zanchias
witness
to
have
been
a
very
moderate
,
godly
and
learned
Man
)
affirms
,
that
he
was
desired
to
be
a
Witness
at
Hamburgh
in
the
Year
1529.
that
when
he
had
seen
the
Minister
only
sprinkle
the
Infant
wrapt
in
Swadling-Clothes
on
the
top
of
the
Head
,
he
was
amazed
,
because
he
neither
had
heard
or
seen
,
or
saw
any
such
thing
,
nor
yet
read
in
any
History
,
except
in
case
of
necessity
in
Bed-rid
Persons
.
Hence
in
a
General
Assembly
therefore
of
all
the
Ministers
that
were
convened
,
he
did
ask
of
a
certain
Minister
(
John
Frize
by
Name
,
who
was
sometimes
Minister
of
Lubec
)
how
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
was
administred
at
Lubec
?
who
for
his
Piety
and
Candor
,
did
answer
,
that
Infants
were
baptized
naked
at
Lubec
,
after
the
same
fashion
altogether
as
in
Germany
;
but
from
whence
and
how
that
peculiar
manner
of
baptizing
had
crept
into
Hamburgh
he
was
ignorant
.
At
length
they
did
agree
among
themselves
that
the
Judgment
of
Luther
and
of
the
Divines
at
Wittenburg
should
be
demanded
about
this
Point
;
which
thing
being
done
,
Luther
wrote
back
to
Hamburgh
,
that
the
Sprinkling
was
an
Abuse
they
ought
to
remove
.
Thus
plunging
was
restored
at
Hamburgh
,
yet
is
that
Climate
cooler
than
onrs
.
Mr.
Jos.
Mede
saith
there
was
no
such
thing
as
Sprinkling
or
Rantism
[
mark
!
]
used
in
Baptism
in
the
Apostles
days
,
nor
many
Ages
after
.
He
had
spoken
more
properly
if
he
had
said
,
there
was
no
Rantism
used
in
the
Apostles
days
,
but
Baptism
,
than
to
say
no
Rantism
used
in
Baptism
,
since
he
well
knew
they
are
two
distinct
and
different
Acts
:
It
cannot
be
Baptism
at
all
,
if
it
be
only
Rantism
or
Sprinkling
,
Immersion
or
Dipping
being
the
very
thing
,
not
an
Accident
,
as
I
hinted
,
but
an
Essential
so
absolutly
necessary
,
that
it
cannot
be
the
Act
or
Ordinance
without
it
.
If
I
command
my
Maid
to
dip
my
Handkerchief
into
the
Water
,
and
she
only
takes
a
little
Water
in
her
Hand
and
sprinkles
a
few
drops
upon
it
,
doth
she
do
what
I
command
her
?
was
that
the
thing
,
or
is
it
not
another
Act
?
Even
so
't
is
here
,
you
do
not
the
thing
,
you
rantise
and
baptize
none
unless
you
dip
them
into
the
Water
.
Chamier
also
faith
,
the
antient
use
of
Baptism
was
to
dip
the
whole
Body
into
the
Element
,
therefore
did
John
baptize
in
a
River
.
Dr.
Hammond
in
his
Annotations
upon
John
13.
10.
saith
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
an
Immersion
,
or
washing
the
whole
Body
,
and
which
answereth
to
the
Hebrew
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
used
for
dipping
in
the
Old
Testament
,
and
therefore
tells
us
upon
Mat.
3.
that
John
baptized
in
a
River
,
viz.
in
Jordan
,
Mark
1.
5.
in
a
Confluence
of
Water
,
John
3.
23.
because
't
is
said
there
was
much
Water
,
which
the
Greeks
called
the
Lakes
where
they
used
to
wash
:
Also
,
saith
he
,
the
Antients
called
their
Baptisterions
,
or
the
Vessels
containing
their
Baptismal
Water
,
Columbethras
,
viz.
swimming
or
diving
places
,
being
very
large
,
with
Partitions
for
Men
and
Women
.
The
Learned
Mr.
Pool
(
or
those
Learned
and
Reverend
Divines
concerned
in
perfecting
his
most
excellent
Annotations
on
the
holy
Bible
)
says
,
a
great
part
of
those
who
went
out
to
hear
John
,
were
baptized
,
that
is
,
dipped
in
Jordan
,
on
John
3.
6.
and
on
Mat.
28.
20.
say
they
,
the
first
Baptism
of
which
we
read
in
Holy
Writ
,
was
dipping
the
Person
baptized
.
The
Dutch
Translation
according
to
their
Language
reads
it
dipping
.
Mat.
3.
16.
Ende
Jesus
Gedoopt
zijn
de
is
terstont
Opgeklomen
vit
hit
w●er
.
And
when
Jesus
was
dipp'd
,
he
came
out
of
the
Water
.
And
Ver.
6.
Ende
wierden
van
hemge
doopt
in
de
Jordan
.
And
were
dipped
of
him
in
Jordan
.
Hence
they
called
John
the
Baptist
John
the
Dipper
.
In
Verse
1.
Ende
in
die
dayen
quam
Jonnes
de
dooper
predikenn
in
de
woeffijue
van
Judea
.
In
English
thus
:
In
those
days
came
John
the
Dipper
preaching
in
the
Wilderness
of
Judea
.
Had
our
Translators
translated
the
Greek
word
into
our
English
Tongue
as
the
Dutch
have
done
it
into
theirs
,
it
would
have
been
read
in
our
Bible
John
the
Dipper
;
and
,
for
baptizing
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
&c.
it
would
have
been
read
dipping
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
then
the
People
would
not
have
been
deceived
;
but
they
have
not
translated
the
Greek
word
at
all
,
but
left
it
in
its
Original
Language
:
What
difference
is
there
between
Baptism
and
the
Greek
word
Baptisma
?
Mr.
Ball
in
his
Catechism
doth
not
only
say
Faith
was
required
of
such
who
did
desire
Baptism
,
but
also
that
the
Party
baptized
was
washed
by
dipping
,
&c.
But
to
close
with
this
,
I
argue
thus
,
viz.
Since
our
Saviour
sent
his
Disciples
(
to
teach
and
baptize
,
or
dip
in
the
Name
,
&c.
)
into
all
Nations
,
viz.
into
cold
Countries
as
well
as
hot
;
and
seeing
Infants
tender
Bodies
cannot
bear
dipping
,
without
palpable
danger
of
their
Lives
,
it
follows
clearly
that
they
are
none
of
the
Subjects
Christ
commanded
to
be
dipp'd
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
To
conclude
with
this
,
take
one
Argument
,
viz.
If
the
proper
,
literal
and
genuine
Signification
of
the
Greek
word
baptizo
is
dipping
,
or
to
dip
,
then
sprinkling
is
not
baptizing
:
But
the
proper
,
literal
and
genuine
Signification
of
the
Greek
word
baptizo
is
dipping
,
or
to
dip
:
Ergo
,
Sprinkling
is
not
Baptizing
.
CHAP.
IV.
Proving
Baptism
is
Dipping
,
by
the
Practice
of
John
Baptist
,
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
2dly
.
FRom
the
Practice
of
the
Primitive
Times
.
I
have
already
shewed
,
that
John
Baptist
baptized
in
the
River
Jordan
,
who
was
the
first
that
received
Commission
to
baptize
.
And
Diodate
on
Mat.
3.
says
he
plunged
them
in
Water
.
Piscator
also
saith
,
the
antient
manner
of
baptizing
was
,
that
the
whole
Body
was
dipp'd
into
the
Water
.
So
saith
the
Assembly
in
their
Annotations
.
Nav
,
say
I
,
it
had
been
a
vain
and
needless
thing
for
them
to
go
to
Rivers
to
baptize
,
if
it
had
been
only
to
sprinkle
a
little
Water
on
the
Face
;
for
a
Quart
of
Water
might
have
served
to
have
rantized
a
great
number
.
And
had
Sprinkling
or
Rantizing
been
the
Ordinance
,
there
is
no
Reason
left
to
conceive
why
they
should
go
to
Rivers
;
nor
would
the
Spirit
of
God
have
given
that
as
the
Reason
why
John
baptized
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
viz.
because
there
was
much
Water
,
John
3.
23.
But
some
strive
to
contradict
the
Holy
Ghost
,
by
making
People
believe
there
was
not
much
Water
in
that
place
.
Because
the
Original
reads
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
much
Water
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
many
Waters
;
that
is
(
say
they
)
many
S●…ms
or
Rivolets
.
Answer
.
What
difference
is
there
between
much
Water
,
and
many
Waters
?
If
they
were
Streams
and
Rivolets
,
tho
not
deep
,
yet
if
they
were
but
a
little
while
stopped
with
a
Dam
,
they
would
soon
rise
to
be
deep
enough
to
swim
in
,
as
Experience
shews
:
But
't
is
enough
,
there
he
baptized
,
saith
the
Holy
Spirit
,
for
there
was
much
Water
,
or
many
Waters
;
there
[
for
,
or
because
]
intimating
plainly
,
that
the
Ordinance
could
not
be
administred
with
a
little
Water
,
but
that
it
required
many
Waters
,
or
much
Water
,
a
great
deal
more
than
a
Bason
could
hold
,
or
you
hold
in
your
Hand
.
2.
But
't
is
objected
,
Sandy's
Travels
tell
us
that
they
were
so
shallow
,
as
not
to
reach
above
the
Ankles
.
Answ.
1.
Must
we
believe
God's
Word
,
or
a
lying
Traveller
?
the
Scripture
saith
there
was
much
Water
,
or
many
Waters
,
and
he
says
there
was
but
a
little
.
2.
In
some
shallow
Rivolets
we
daily
see
,
that
in
some
places
the
Water
is
deep
,
and
might
it
not
be
so
in
that
?
and
this
Traveller
might
not
so
curiously
search
or
examine
the
matter
.
3.
Or
might
there
not
be
a
great
Confluence
of
Water
then
,
(
as
Dr.
Hammond
words
it
)
and
yet
but
little
or
shallow
Water
now
,
or
when
Sandys
was
there
?
Time
alters
Rivers
as
well
,
as
other
things
.
But
if
any
seek
after
this
manner
to
contradict
the
sacred
Text
,
to
defend
their
Childish
Practice
of
Rantism
,
they
deserve
greatly
to
be
blamed
.
Take
this
Argument
.
If
the
Holy
Ghost
gives
it
as
the
Reason
why
John
baptized
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
viz.
because
there
was
much
Water
;
then
a
little
Water
will
not
serve
to
baptize
in
.
But
the
Holy
Ghost
gives
this
as
the
Reason
why
John
baptized
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
viz.
because
there
was
much
Water
:
Ergo
,
a
little
Water
will
not
serve
to
baptize
in
.
2dly
.
But
to
proceed
;
Mark
1.
9.
't
is
said
Jesus
was
baptized
of
John
in
Jordan
.
Now
saith
a
Learned
Man
on
the
place
,
It
had
been
Nonsense
for
St.
Mark
to
say
,
that
Jesus
was
baptized
in
Jordan
,
if
he
had
been
sprinkled
,
because
the
Greek
reads
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
into
Jordan
:
Could
Jesus
be
said
to
be
sprinkled
into
the
River
Jordan
?
't
is
proper
to
say
he
was
dipped
into
Jordan
,
and
that
is
and
was
the
Act
,
and
nothing
else
besure
.
3dly
.
They
went
down
both
into
the
Water
,
both
Philip
and
the
Eunuch
,
Acts
8.
What
need
had
there
been
for
them
so
to
have
done
,
had
Baptism
been
sprinkling
?
Sure
Philip
would
not
have
put
that
Noble
Person
(
who
was
a
Man
of
great
Authority
under
Ca●dace
Queen
of
the
Ethiopians
)
to
that
great
trouble
to
come
out
of
his
Chariot
,
(
if
to
sprinkle
a
little
Water
on
his
Face
might
have
done
)
and
to
go
down
into
the
Water
and
dip
him
:
Sure
Philip
would
on
this
occasion
have
dispensed
with
Immersion
,
and
let
Aspersion
or
Rantism
have
served
,
considering
he
was
a
great
Person
,
and
on
a
journey
;
he
might
have
fetch'd
a
little
Water
in
his
Hand
or
otherwise
,
and
have
sprinkled
him
in
his
Chariot
,
as
some
Ministers
do
now
in
their
publick
Places
of
Worship
;
and
thus
Men
make
void
the
Command
of
Christ
by
their
Traditions
to
the
abuse
of
Christian
Baptism
,
and
Reproach
of
us
that
keep
to
his
sacred
Institution
.
Mr.
Daniel
Rogers
,
a
most
worthy
Writer
,
says
in
a
Treatise
of
his
,
It
ought
to
be
the
Church's
part
to
cleave
to
the
Institution
,
which
is
dipping
,
especially
it
being
not
lest
Arbitrary
by
our
Church
to
the
Discretion
of
the
Minister
,
but
required
to
dip
or
dive
.
And
further
saith
,
That
he
betrays
the
Church
,
whose
Minister
he
is
,
to
a
disordered
Error
,
if
he
cleave
not
to
the
Institution
.
O
,
what
abundance
of
Betrayers
of
the
Truth
and
of
Churches
too
,
have
we
in
these
as
well
as
in
former
days
!
How
little
is
the
Institution
of
Christ
,
or
Practice
of
the
Primitive
Churches
minded
by
many
good
Men
?
Where
is
the
Spirit
of
Reformation
?
And
doubtless
that
famous
Author
,
and
Learned
Critick
in
the
Greek
Tongue
,
Casanbon
.
was
in
the
right
:
Take
his
words
.
I
doubt
not
(
saith
he
)
but
,
contrary
to
our
Church's
Intention
,
this
Error
having
once
crept
in
,
is
maintain'd
still
,
by
the
carnal
Ease
of
such
,
as
looking
more
at
themselves
than
at
God
,
stretch
the
Liberty
of
the
Church
in
this
case
,
deeper
and
further
than
either
the
Church
her self
would
,
or
the
Solemness
of
this
Sacrament
may
well
and
safely
admit
.
Afterwards
he
saith
,
I
consess
my self
unconvinced
by
Demonstrations
of
Scripture
for
Infants
sprinkling
.
The
truth
is
,
the
Church
gave
too
great
Liberty
;
she
had
no
Power
to
alter
in
the
least
matter
,
but
to
have
kept
exactly
to
the
Institution
.
She
says
dipping
[
or
sprinkling
]
that
spoils
all
,
that
Addition
gives
Encouragement
:
Who
will
dip
the
Person
,
that
can
believe
the
Church
that
sprinkling
may
serve
?
And
O!
how
hard
is
it
to
retract
an
Error
which
hath
been
so
long
,
and
so
generally
received
,
especially
when
Carnal
Ease
and
Profit
attends
the
keeping
of
it
up
!
and
also
when
the
true
way
of
baptizing
is
reproached
,
and
look'd
upon
to
be
so
contemptible
a
Practice
,
and
those
who
own
it
,
and
dare
not
act
otherwise
,
vilified
and
reproached
(
by
many
)
with
the
scurrilous
Name
of
Anabaptists
,
&c.
altho
we
are
as
much
against
rebaptizing
as
any
People
in
the
World
can
be
.
The
Learned
Cajetan
upon
Mat.
3.
5.
saith
,
Christ
ascended
out
of
the
Water
,
therefore
Christ
was
baptized
by
John
,
not
by
sprinkling
or
pouring
Water
upon
him
,
but
by
Immersion
,
that
is
,
by
dipping
or
Plunging
into
the
Water
.
Moreover
,
Musculus
on
Mat.
3.
calls
Baptism
dipping
,
and
says
the
Parties
baptized
were
dipped
,
not
sprinkled
.
To
close
with
this
,
take
one
Argument
.
If
the
Baptizer
and
the
Baptized
in
the
days
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
went
both
down
into
the
Water
,
and
the
Person
baptized
was
dipped
,
then
is
Baptism
not
Sprinkling
but
Dipping
.
But
the
Baptizer
and
the
Baptized
in
the
days
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
went
both
down
into
the
Water
,
and
the
Person
baptized
was
dipped
.
Ergo
,
Baptism
is
not
Sprinkling
but
Dipping
.
CHAP.
V.
Proving
that
Baptism
is
plunging
or
burying
in
Water
the
whole
Body
,
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
:
Wherein
Mr.
Owen's
Arguments
for
sprinkling
,
and
his
Objections
against
Immersion
or
Dipping
,
are
fully
answered
.
REader
,
thou
mayst
see
that
tho
the
remote
Sense
of
the
common
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
may
refer
to
pouring
of
Water
,
yet
the
proper
and
genuine
Sense
of
that
word
is
dipping
,
or
such
a
washing
as
is
by
dipping
,
which
is
abundantly
proved
,
as
you
have
heard
,
both
by
the
Scriptures
and
Consent
of
a
great
Cloud
of
Witnesses
amongst
the
Learned
,
both
An●…nt
and
Modern
:
Therefore
what
〈◊〉
.
〈◊〉
saith
in
the
beginning
of
his
third
Chapter
,
viz.
That
it
is
uncertain
,
whether
in
the
New
Testament
,
the
Apostles
baptized
by
dipping
or
sprinkling
,
is
not
true
,
it
being
evident
it
was
by
dipping
and
no
other
way
.
For
where-ever
the
word
Baptism
is
used
(
I
say
again
)
in
the
New
Testament
,
as
it
refers
to
Christ's
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
it
signifies
dipping
or
plunging
into
the
Water
;
nor
can
he
prove
the
Jews
washed
their
Hands
and
Cups
only
by
pouring
Water
on
them
:
tho
Elijah
might
have
Water
poured
on
his
Hand
,
we
commonly
wash
our
Hands
and
Cups
by
dipping
them
into
the
Water
.
And
so
did
the
Jews
as
Mr.
Ainsworth
affirms
.
2dly
.
Sir
,
what
you
say
concerning
that
Typical
Baptism
in
the
Cloud
and
Sea
,
you
have
heard
also
fully
answered
,
and
that
makes
not
for
sprinkling
nor
pouring
.
But
more
to
that
hereafter
.
3dly
.
What
you
say
concerning
the
Signification
of
Baptism
,
that
it
holds
forth
two
things
,
1.
The
Blood
of
Christ
;
2.
The
Spirit
of
Christ
,
is
far
fetch'd
:
for
the
Lord's
Supper
holds
forth
the
Blood
of
Christ
;
and
we
have
no
Ordinance
ordain'd
by
Christ
to
hold
forth
in
a
Figure
the
sprinkling
or
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
;
if
Man
has
invented
such
a
thing
,
so
be
it
.
The
Papists
found
out
seven
Sacraments
with
their
significant
Signs
,
as
they
tell
you
,
and
they
have
the
same
Parity
of
Reason
to
maintain
their
Sacraments
without
any
Warrant
from
God's
Word
,
as
our
Pedobaptists
have
for
their
baptizing
,
or
rather
rantizing
or
sprinkling
of
Babes
.
True
,
the
Apostle
speaks
of
sprinkling
of
the
Blood
of
Jesus
,
but
Baptism
is
no
Figure
of
that
,
as
you
have
heard
,
but
primarily
of
the
Death
,
●urial
and
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
.
Sir
,
you
say
,
Sprinkling
is
lawful
,
because
it
is
very
probable
that
the
Apostles
themselves
did
baptize
by
pouring
or
sprinkling
Water
.
Acts
2.
41.
Then
they
that
gladly
received
the
word
,
were
baptized
;
and
the
same
day
there
were
added
unto
them
three
thousand
Souls
.
It
is
not
,
you
say
,
very
probable
that
these
three
thousand
were
plunged
over
Head
and
Ears
in
Water
;
How
could
Peter
,
and
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
,
even
twelve
Men
,
baptize
three
thousand
in
one
day
,
yea
in
one
half
day
?
how
could
they
change
their
Apparel
?
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
wonder
no
more
how
three
thousand
Persons
shou'd
be
baptized
,
i.
e.
dipped
,
in
that
short
time
;
't
is
sufficient
for
any
Christian
to
believe
it
,
because
the
Holy
Ghost
hast
said
it
.
2.
But
whereas
you
say
there
were
but
twelve
Men
to
administer
it
,
that
is
not
true
,
there
were
the
seventy
Disciples
no
doubt
with
them
,
who
were
Ministers
,
and
there
might
very
probably
be
many
more
.
3.
However
,
since
Baptism
is
Immersion
,
i.
e.
dipping
,
and
the
Text
says
they
were
baptized
,
it
follows
they
were
dipped
into
the
Water
.
What
you
say
about
Ananias
baptizing
Paul
,
and
of
Paul's
baptizing
the
Jaylor
,
proves
nothing
,
't
is
meer
stuff
that
deserves
no
Answer
.
You
say
Paul
was
baptized
in
his
Lodging
when
he
was
sick
.
Answ.
It
is
not
said
he
was
sick
,
nor
that
he
was
baptized
in
his
Lodging
,
read
the
Text
again
;
true
,
't
is
said
after
he
was
baptized
he
received
Strength
.
I
have
known
multitudes
of
weak
Persons
baptized
by
dipping
in
frosty
Weather
,
in
our
cold
Climate
,
and
never
took
any
harm
thereby
.
We
say
Baptism
is
Dipping
,
and
among
many
other
Reasons
,
we
argue
it
must
needs
be
so
administred
,
because
John
the
Baptist
baptized
in
Jordan
,
and
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
because
there
was
much
Water
there
;
Mat.
3.
13.
John
3.
23.
You
answer
,
If
some
were
baptized
by
dipping
,
others
were
baptized
by
pouring
Water
on
them
,
as
we
proved
(
say
you
)
before
,
therefore
both
ways
are
lawful
.
I
answer
;
1.
'T
is
well
our
way
of
dipping
is
owned
by
you
as
lawful
and
a
right
way
;
then
do
you
and
all
others
take
heed
how
you
speak
against
us
,
who
so
administer
the
holy
Ordinance
of
Baptism
;
it
appears
we
err
not
in
so
doing
by
your
own
Confesson
.
2.
But
whereas
you
say
you
have
proved
,
that
some
were
in
the
Primitive
Time
baptized
by
pouring
Water
on
them
,
we
have
shewed
your
Proofs
to
be
too
short
and
invalid
.
3.
The
way
of
the
Administration
of
Christ's
sacred
Ordinance
was
but
one
and
the
same
in
all
the
Churches
of
the
Saints
;
and
if
some
were
baptized
by
dipping
,
and
others
by
sprinkling
,
or
pouring
Water
upon
them
,
then
the
Ordinance
must
have
different
Significations
,
which
could
not
be
answered
on
some
Persons
,
unless
〈◊〉
they
were
both
dipped
and
sprinkled
,
and
had
water
poured
upon
them
,
which
is
preposterous
to
imagine
:
for
such
that
were
dipped
or
buried
under
the
Water
,
were
thereby
made
in
Sign
and
Signification
conformable
to
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
which
we
have
so
fully
proved
to
be
one
great
End
of
Baptism
,
that
it
cannot
be
den●ed
;
and
such
who
were
only
sprinkled
,
they
were
taught
thereby
the
sprinkling
of
Christ's
Blood
,
and
of
the
Spirit
,
as
you
would
have
the
Ordinance
to
signify
,
without
any
ground
from
God's
Word
.
Now
how
unlikely
it
is
that
both
these
ways
were
used
,
this
being
considered
,
I
shall
leave
to
all
wise
and
considerate
Persons
to
think
upon
.
You
say
in
the
next
place
,
That
the
Scripture
doth
not
say
in
any
place
,
when
they
were
baptized
they
were
dipped
:
If
(
say
you
)
those
that
are
against
sprinkling
,
say
that
they
gather
so
much
by
Consequence
from
the
fore-cited
Scriptures
,
they
ought
to
remember
their
rejecting
Scriptural
Consequences
when
they
are
used
by
us
for
proving
Infant-Baptism
,
&c.
Answ.
If
I
had
not
a
Learned
Man
to
deal
with
,
I
should
not
marvel
.
Sir
,
Is
not
Baptisin
a
Greek
Word
?
What
difference
between
Baptism
and
Baptisma
?
Is
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
à
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Greek
?
and
is
it
not
in
English
to
dip
?
What
need
of
Consequences
here
?
Had
our
Translators
truly
translated
that
word
,
they
must
have
render'd
it
as
the
Dutch
have
,
as
I
mentioned
before
,
viz.
Ende
Jesus
gedoopt
zijnde
,
is
ter-stont
opgeklomen
vit
hit
wter
:
and
when
Jesus
was
dipp'd
,
he
came
out
of
the
Water
;
Mat.
3.
16.
and
ver.
6.
Ende
wierden
van
hemge
doopt
in
de
Jordan
;
And
were
dipped
of
him
in
Jordan
:
Hence
the
Dutch
call
John
the
Baptist
,
John
the
Dooper
,
John
the
Dipper
.
As
to
your
Consequences
,
we
always
deny
that
they
are
genuine
,
or
naturally
drawn
from
those
Scriptures
to
which
you
refer
.
But
whereas
you
say
we
have
nothing
for
dipping
which
is
of
the
Essence
of
Baptism
,
as
we
do
affirm
it
is
,
but
Consequences
,
it
is
too
bold
an
Assertion
,
not
being
true
,
as
by
this
time
my
honest
Country
men
may
see
,
if
they
are
impartial
Persons
.
They
think
(
say
you
)
that
John
baptized
by
dipping
,
because
he
baptized
in
Jordan
;
they
can
never
prove
that
was
the
Cause
,
for
the
Scripture
doth
not
say
what
was
the
occasion
why
he
baptized
in
Jordon
.
Answ.
Sir
,
look
into
your
Greek
Testament
once
again
,
and
read
Mark
1.
9.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
into
Jordan
;
Would
it
be
proper
to
say
he
sprinkled
them
,
or
poured
Water
on
them
into
Jordan
?
It
is
proper
to
say
he
dipped
them
into
Jordan
,
and
that
is
Baptism
,
and
nothing
else
,
as
it
refers
to
Christ's
Ordinance
,
viz.
a
washing
by
dipping
or
plunging
into
Jordan
,
or
into
the
Water
.
2.
Tho
the
Scripture
doth
not
say
in
so
many
words
,
that
that
was
the
occasion
of
John's
baptizing
into
Jordan
:
Yet
,
Sir
,
remember
and
tremble
at
that
Text
,
John
3.
23.
for
there
it
is
by
the
Holy
Ghost
given
as
the
Reason
why
John
baptized
in
Enon
near
Salim
,
viz.
because
there
was
much
Water
there
;
plainly
denoting
that
a
little
Water
will
not
serve
to
administer
holy
Baptism
,
but
so
much
as
will
cover
or
bury
the
whole
Body
.
You
add
,
It
being
very
doubtful
whether
those
People
that
came
unto
him
were
dipped
or
plunged
;
for
there
went
out
unto
him
Jerusalem
and
all
Judea
,
and
all
the
Regions
round
about
Jordan
,
and
were
baptized
by
him
:
We
cannot
judg
(
you
say
)
that
he
baptized
less
than
an
hundred
thousand
Men
and
Women
,
&c.
there
were
(
you
say
)
much
more
People
in
those
Countries
;
but
it
being
impossible
for
him
to
dip
or
plunge
so
many
Men
in
so
short
time
of
his
Ministry
,
which
continued
but
three
Years
,
and
of
these
three
Years
he
lay
in
Prison
half
a
Year
,
so
that
he
did
neither
preach
or
baptize
but
for
two
Years
and
a
half
.
Vid.
Lightf
.
vol.
I.
p.
234.
If
he
had
baptized
fifty
every
day
on
these
two
Years
and
a
half
,
which
is
not
probable
he
could
do
,
the
whole
you
say
is
but
forty
five
thousand
six
hundred
and
twenty
five
,
but
he
baptized
much
more
,
which
could
not
be
done
by
dipping
or
plunging
;
therefore
it
is
reasonable
for
us
(
you
say
)
to
judg
that
he
sprinkled
or
poured
Water
on
them
,
&c.
Answ.
As
to
what
you
say
here
,
it
seems
very
strange
to
me
,
that
you
should
once
imagine
that
John
baptized
all
the
People
universally
in
Jerusalem
and
Judea
,
without
Exception
:
Why
did
not
you
put
in
all
the
Infants
too
as
well
as
Men
and
Women
?
I
had
lately
to
do
with
one
Mr.
Exel
,
who
asserted
that
in
a
Treatise
of
his
,
which
,
with
Shame
enough
to
him
,
I
gave
an
Answer
unto
.
I
am
sorry
you
have
no
better
Skill
in
Scripture-Rhetorick
,
where
frequently
,
per
Synecdochen
vel
totius
,
vel
partis
,
a
part
is
put
for
the
whole
,
or
the
whole
for
the
part
,
as
't
is
said
,
God
would
have
all
Men
to
be
saved
,
i.
e.
some
of
all
sorts
and
degrees
,
as
Kings
,
Noble-Men
,
Old
,
Young
,
Rich
,
Poor
,
&c.
So
't
is
said
Christ
,
when
he
was
lifted
up
he
would
draw
all
Men
unto
him
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Joh.
12.
32.
Doth
he
mean
every
individual
Person
,
or
some
of
all
sorts
,
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
?
So
Paul
saith
,
All
seek
their
own
,
&c.
Vid.
Glassi
Illerici
Philolog
.
Sacr.
and
also
our
late
Annotators
,
the
word
or
term
[
All
]
(
they
tell
you
)
is
here
twice
repeated
,
Mat.
3.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&c.
it
is
enough
to
let
us
know
that
in
Scripture
't
is
signisicative
no
farther
than
many
;
for
,
say
they
,
it
cannot
be
imagined
that
every
individual
Person
in
Jerusalem
,
and
all
the
Regions
round
about
Jordan
went
to
hear
John
the
Baptist
.
2.
You
forget
that
Text
,
John
3.
26.
Behold
him
that
thou
bearest
witness
of
,
&c.
the
same
baptizeth
,
and
All
Men
come
unto
him
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
i.
e.
to
Jesus
Christ
.
Also
't
is
said
,
John
4.
1
,
2.
That
Jesus
made
and
baptized
more
Disciples
than
John
.
If
John
baptized
them
all
,
and
Jesus
baptized
them
all
,
then
they
were
all
twice
baptized
,
or
all
re-baptized
,
and
if
so
,
were
indeed
properly
all
Ana-baptists
.
Sir
,
in
both
places
it
intends
but
some
.
You
worthy
and
beloved
Britains
,
take
heed
how
you
are
led
by
a
Man
that
argues
so
preposterously
;
I
doubt
not
but
he
may
be
a
good
Man
,
but
under
a
Cloud
of
Darkness
.
3.
Sir
,
how
Dr.
Lightfoot
or
you
can
prove
,
that
John
preached
but
two
Years
and
a
half
,
I
see
not
;
but
had
he
every
day
baptized
an
hundred
,
he
might
with
much
Ease
have
done
it
in
the
space
of
four
hours
time
,
or
thereabouts
:
But
alas
!
neither
he
nor
our
Saviour
had
so
many
Disciples
as
you
imagine
;
the
Number
of
the
Disciples
after
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
as
we
read
,
Acts
1.
were
but
an
hundred
and
twenty
that
were
together
,
perhaps
there
might
be
some
few
more
in
some
other
parts
.
4.
But
you
,
I
perceive
,
contradict
the
Holy
Ghost
in
saying
,
that
John
sprinkled
them
,
i.
e.
rantized
them
;
for
Ran●izing
in
the
Original
(
as
I
presume
you
know
)
is
sprinkling
in
English
.
Sir
,
I
appeal
to
your
Conscience
,
whether
it
be
not
so
:
Sprinkling
and
pouring
is
one
thing
,
and
baptizing
another
,
and
a
quite
different
Act.
I
affirm
Sprinkling
is
not
Baptizing
,
say
what
you
will
.
You
in
the
next
place
,
mention
that
which
we
object
concerning
Philip
and
the
Eunuch
,
who
went
both
down
into
the
Water
when
the
Eunuch
was
baptized
.
To
this
you
answer
and
say
,
How
doth
that
follow
?
Could
they
not
go
into
the
Water
without
plunging
in
it
?
We
read
in
Gen.
24.
45.
(
say
you
)
that
Rebecca
went
down
into
the
Well
,
Does
it
follow
that
she
was
plunged
in
it
?
You
will
say
of
your
Maid-Servant
,
when
she
goes
to
draw
Water
,
she
went
down
into
the
River
,
your
meaning
is
not
that
she
was
plunged
there
.
I
answer
,
Rebecca
might
properly
be
said
to
go
down
into
the
Well
,
because
in
some
Wells
there
are
several
Steps
or
Stairs
before
we
come
to
the
Water
;
't
is
not
said
she
went
into
the
Water
.
Also
who
of
us
could
say
when
our
Servant-Maid
went
to
draw
Water
,
or
fetch
Water
from
a
River
,
she
went
into
the
River
?
if
any
do
say
so
,
they
speak
not
truly
,
but
indeed
do
lie
.
Sir
,
take
heed
what
you
say
,
the
Holy
Ghost
doth
not
say
they
went
down
to
the
Water
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
both
went
down
into
the
Water
,
and
he
baptized
him
,
i.
e.
dipp'd
him
,
not
rantiz'd
him
.
You
bring
in
our
Objection
against
your
Sprinkling
taken
from
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Col.
2.
12
,
13.
viz.
we
are
said
to
be
buried
with
Christ
in
Baptism
into
Death
.
To
this
you
say
,
We
bury
by
casting
Earth
on
the
Body
,
and
the
pouring
of
Water
,
you
say
,
doth
represent
it
;
it
cannot
be
said
one
was
buried
that
was
fallen
under
Water
or
Earth
,
unless
he
remains
there
for
a
time
:
he
that
descendeth
into
a
Coal-pit
is
under
the
Earth
,
but
is
not
buried
by
reason
he
cometh
out
from
thence
immediately
;
dipping
therefore
doth
not
signify
a
Burial
,
unless
he
that
is
dipped
remains
for
a
time
under
the
Water
.
I
answer
;
'T
is
true
,
we
do
bury
by
casting
Earth
on
the
dead
Body
,
but
't
is
so
much
Earth
as
covers
the
Corps
all
over
,
or
else
't
is
not
buried
.
So
if
you
pour
Water
on
a
Child
until
it
is
covered
all
over
in
Water
,
it
may
truly
be
said
that
Child
was
buried
in
the
Water
,
altho
the
burying
in
Baptism
is
not
by
pouring
Water
in
great
abundance
until
it
is
covered
,
but
by
going
into
the
Water
and
there
to
be
dipped
,
or
plunged
all
over
,
so
that
all
may
see
the
Body
is
buried
under
Water
,
as
truly
,
symbolically
,
and
as
properly
as
if
it
had
been
buried
in
the
Water
.
Or
,
2.
Tho
a
Person
be
laid
in
the
Grave
,
and
covered
all
over
with
Earth
,
tho
it
be
but
two
Minutes
,
he
may
as
truly
and
properly
be
said
to
be
buried
,
as
he
that
lies
there
three
Days
,
or
a
thousand
Years
.
But
you
would
have
Baptism
to
be
no
proper
Representation
of
a
Burial
,
unless
the
Person
baptized
lies
so
long
till
he
be
drowned
.
Sir
,
Baptism
doth
represent
the
Death
of
Christ
,
and
of
the
old
Man
,
or
Body
of
Sin
,
which
is
as
sufficiently
held
forth
by
a
Minute
or
two
,
as
by
many
Days
.
3.
And
now
,
utterly
to
put
to
silence
your
vain
Objections
,
I
shall
give
the
Sense
of
a
whole
Cloud
of
Witnesses
,
as
to
the
proper
Exposition
of
those
Texts
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Col.
2.
12
,
13.
by
and
by
;
but
if
my
honest
Country-men
do
think
you
have
given
a
better
Sense
of
the
Words
than
all
those
Learned
Men
,
I
will
say
no
more
.
You
say
,
the
Resemblance
then
between
Baptism
doth
not
stand
in
the
dipping
of
the
Body
so
much
as
in
the
End
of
the
Ordinance
,
in
making
us
Partakers
of
Christ's
Death
,
of
his
Life
,
and
of
his
Ascension
,
and
of
his
sitting
on
the
Right
hand
of
God
.
Baptism
makes
us
to
be
planted
together
in
the
Likeness
of
his
Death
;
yet
there
are
none
,
you
say
,
that
plants
Bodies
in
Water
by
baptizing
them
,
Rom.
6.
5.
Answ.
We
shall
in
our
next
Chapter
finally
determine
this
great
Point
,
and
plainly
shew
you
by
manifest
Arguments
,
together
with
the
joint
Consent
and
Agreement
of
a
multitude
of
Learned
Men
,
that
were
and
are
Pedo-baptists
,
that
the
Resemblance
between
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
and
Baptism
,
doth
stand
in
the
outward
Sign
of
Dipping
,
as
well
as
in
our
partaking
of
the
Blessing
of
Christ's
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
.
All
know
in
the
Ordinance
of
the
Lord's-Supper
the
Signs
are
significant
,
and
no
true
Protestant
will
admit
of
such
an
Administration
of
it
,
in
which
the
breaking
of
Christ's
Body
,
and
the
shedding
of
his
Blood
is
not
clearly
represented
to
the
sight
of
our
Eyes
.
Why
is
the
Popish
way
of
the
Administration
rejected
,
who
deny
the
Laity
the
Cup
,
if
there
ought
not
to
be
an
exact
keeping
to
the
direct
Signs
,
as
well
as
to
bear
in
Mind
the
Thing
signified
thereby
?
Nay
,
Sir
,
I
find
you
in
your
third
Chapter
to
justify
your
sprinkling
stifly
,
by
arguing
for
an
Agreement
between
the
Sign
and
the
Thing
signined
,
and
that
Baptism
was
not
ordained
to
be
a
Sign
or
Symbol
of
the
sprinkling
Christ's
Blood
,
but
of
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
:
It
shall
(
God
assisting
)
be
further
demonstrated
.
Now
let
this
be
considered
,
That
as
in
the
Lord's-Supper
it
is
such
a
quantity
of
Bread
and
Wine
that
is
to
be
used
,
that
may
represent
his
Body
broken
,
and
his
Blood
shed
;
and
as
that
Sacrament
was
appointed
to
that
very
end
and
purpose
,
so
in
like
manner
we
also
say
,
so
much
Water
must
be
used
as
may
represent
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
our
blessed
Saviour
.
But
one
Mr.
Burkitt
,
a
Pedo-baptist
,
saith
in
his
Treatise
of
Infant-Baptism
,
That
in
the
Sacraments
it
is
not
the
quantity
of
Elements
,
but
the
Significancy
of
them
that
ought
to
be
attended
to
;
in
Circumcision
(
saith
he
)
it
was
not
the
quantity
of
Flesh
cut
off
,
so
much
as
the
Signification
of
it
,
&c.
and
you
seem
to
express
your self
to
the
same
purpose
.
Answ.
To
which
I
returned
him
this
Answer
,
viz.
There
must
be
so
much
Bread
and
Wine
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's-Supper
,
that
may
represent
Christ's
Body
broken
,
and
so
much
Wine
as
may
in
Sign
as
well
as
Signification
held
forth
the
pouring
forth
of
Christ's
precious
Blood
,
or
else
the
End
of
Christ
is
not
answered
in
that
Sacrament
;
and
so
likewise
must
the
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
be
in
Sign
,
as
well
as
our
Death
to
Sin
and
rising
again
to
Newness
of
Life
is
represented
in
holy
Baptism
.
Should
the
People
of
Israel
in
Circumcision
only
have
cut
off
a
little
bit
of
the
Fore-skin
of
the
Flesh
,
and
not
round
quite
off
,
or
only
have
paired
off
the
Nails
of
their
Childrens
Fingers
with
a
little
Skin
with
it
,
would
that
have
answered
the
Mind
of
God
in
that
Rite
,
or
they
have
been
born
with
in
pleading
it
might
as
well
answer
Circumcision
in
Signification
?
But
the
Vanity
and
Sinfulness
of
this
Assertion
of
Mr.
Burkitt's
and
yours
will
yet
be
now
further
laid
open
in
this
Chapter
;
only
there
is
one
thing
before
I
proceed
on
that
I
shall
add
a
word
or
two
unto
,
as
touching
what
you
say
concerning
those
Washings
that
were
used
under
the
Law
,
which
are
called
Baptisms
,
which
you
say
were
done
by
sprinkling
,
which
is
not
true
;
we
utterly
deny
any
of
those
Washings
which
are
called
Baptisms
were
either
sprinkling
or
pouring
of
Water
on
them
,
but
total
dipping
of
their
whole
Body
.
And
so
the
Reverend
Mr.
Ainsworth
,
a
Man
very
Learned
in
all
Jewish
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
affirms
,
on
Levit.
11.
31.
see
his
Annotat.
on
that
Text
,
these
are
his
words
,
viz.
All
that
are
unclean
,
whether
Men
or
Vessels
,
are
not
cleansed
but
by
dipping
or
baptizing
in
Water
;
and
wheresoever
the
Law
speaketh
of
washing
a
Man's
Flesh
,
or
washing
of
Clothes
for
Uncleanness
,
it
is
not
but
by
dipping
the
whole
Body
therein
.
And
whether
they
be
Men
or
Vessels
,
there
may
not
be
any
thing
between
them
and
the
Water
to
keep
them
asunder
,
as
Clay
,
Pitch
,
or
the
like
that
cleaveth
to
the
Body
or
Vessel
;
if
there
be
,
then
,
saith
he
,
they
are
unclean
,
and
their
washing
profiteth
them
not
.
He
cites
for
this
Maim
Mikvaoeh
,
c.
1.
§.
12.
Sir
,
what
is
become
of
your
sprinkling
of
Cups
,
Pots
and
Brazen
Vessels
among
the
Jews
,
when
't
is
said
they
washed
or
baptized
them
?
it
appears
their
way
in
washing
was
total
dipping
,
or
else
they
were
not
clean
.
And
now
to
proceed
to
prove
Christ's
Baptism
in
Water
is
by
Immersion
,
by
Dipping
,
to
represent
in
Sign
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
and
in
Signification
to
hold
forth
our
Death
unto
Sin
and
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
who
are
baptized
,
I
shall
add
it
in
this
place
,
First
,
From
the
Scripture
.
Secondly
,
By
the
Consent
;
Agreement
and
Arguments
of
a
Cloud
of
Witnesses
,
both
Antient
Fathers
and
Modern
Divines
,
and
worthy
Protestant
Writers
.
1.
The
first
Scripture
is
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
Therefore
we
are
buried
with
him
in
Baptism
,
&c.
The
Saints
or
whole
Church
of
the
Romans
were
to
reckon
themselves
dead
to
Sin
,
and
bound
to
live
no
longer
therein
,
and
that
because
by
Baptism
(
as
in
a
lively
Figure
)
they
held
forth
the
same
thing
;
so
that
it
appears
Baptism
hath
a
twofold
Signification
.
(
1.
)
There
is
in
it
,
when
truly
and
rightly
administred
,
not
only
a
Representation
of
Christ's
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
but
,
(
2.
)
Also
it
signifies
our
Death
unto
Sin
,
and
our
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
;
and
indeed
the
Apostle
makes
use
of
this
as
an
Argument
to
press
Newness
of
Life
(
the
thing
signified
in
Baptism
)
upon
them
all
,
as
if
he
should
say
,
As
many
of
us
as
are
baptized
must
know
this
,
that
we
are
baptized
into
Christ's
Death
,
and
therefore
must
die
to
Sin
and
live
a
new
Life
:
But
we
have
all
been
baptized
,
or
buried
with
him
in
Baptism
,
therefore
must
all
of
us
die
to
Sin
and
live
a
new
Life
.
Our
late
Annotators
on
the
place
say
thus
,
He
seems
to
allude
to
the
manner
of
baptizing
in
those
warm
Countries
,
which
was
,
say
they
,
to
dip
or
plunge
the
Party
baptized
,
and
as
it
were
to
bury
him
for
a
while
under
Water
.
Cajetan
upon
the
same
Text
says
,
We
are
buried
with
Christ
by
Baptism
unto
Death
;
by
our
burying
he
declares
our
Death
by
the
Ceremony
of
Baptism
,
because
he
(
that
is
,
the
Party
baptized
)
is
put
under
Water
;
and
by
this
carries
a
Similitude
of
him
that
was
buried
,
who
was
put
under
the
Earth
.
Now
because
none
are
buried
but
dead
Men
,
from
this
very
thing
that
we
are
buried
in
Baptism
,
we
are
assimilated
to
Christ
buried
,
or
when
he
was
buried
.
The
Assembly
〈◊〉
their
Annotations
on
this
Text
of
Scripture
,
say
likewise
thus
,
viz.
In
this
Phrase
the
Apostle
s●…s
to
allude
to
the
antient
manner
of
baptizing
,
which
〈◊〉
to
dip
the
Party
baptized
,
and
as
it
were
to
bury
them
under
Water
for
a
while
,
and
then
raise
them
up
again
out
of
it
,
to
represent
the
Burial
of
the
old-Man
,
and
the
Resurrection
to
Newness
of
Life
.
The
same
saith
Diodate
.
Tilenus
,
a
great
Protestant
Writer
,
speaks
fully
in
this
case
:
Baptism
,
saith
he
,
is
the
first
Sacrament
of
the
New
Testament
instituted
by
Christ
,
in
which
there
is
an
exact
Analogy
between
the
Sign
and
the
Thing
signified
.
The
outward
Rite
in
Baptism
is
threefold
.
-
1.
Immersion
into
the
Water
.
-
2.
Aciding
under
the
Water
.
-
3.
A
Resurrection
out
of
the
Water
.
The
Form
of
Baptism
,
viz.
External
and
Essential
,
is
no
other
than
an
Analogical
Proportion
,
which
the
Signs
keep
with
the
Thing
signified
thereby
:
For
the
Property
of
the
Water
washing
away
the
Defilements
of
the
Body
,
does
in
a
most
sutable
Similitude
,
set
forth
the
Efficacy
of
Christ's
Blood
in
blotting
out
of
Sin
;
so
dipping
into
the
Water
,
in
a
most
lively
Similitude
sets
forth
the
Mortification
of
the
old
Man
,
and
rising
out
of
the
Water
the
Vivification
of
the
new
Man
:
The
same
plunging
into
the
Water
,
saith
he
,
holds
forth
to
us
that
horrible
Gulph
of
Divine
Justice
,
in
which
Christ
,
for
our
sakes
,
for
a
while
was
in
a
manner
swallowed
up
;
abiding
under
the
Water
,
(
how
little
time
soever
)
denotes
his
Descent
into
Hell
,
even
the
very
deepest
of
Lifelesness
,
lying
in
the
sealed
or
guarded
Sepulchre
,
where
he
was
accounted
as
one
dead
.
Rising
out
of
the
Water
,
holds
forth
to
us
a
lively
Similitude
of
that
Conquest
which
this
dead
Man
got
over
Death
.
In
like
manner
,
saith
he
,
't
is
therefore
meet
that
we
being
baptized
into
his
Death
,
and
buried
with
him
,
should
rise
also
with
him
,
to
go
on
in
a
new
Life
.
Thus
far
And
let
all
thinking
and
serious
Christians
carefully
consider
,
since
this
sacred
Ordinance
was
appointed
to
be
thus
significant
,
as
this
and
other
Learned
Men
observe
,
what
a
sad
and
lamentable
thing
it
is
,
that
the
true
Baptism
should
be
changed
from
dipping
into
sprinkling
,
which
neither
doth
nor
can
hold
forth
these
great
Mysteries
,
for
which
purpose
our
Saviour
ordained
it
:
For
't
is
evident
Rantism
or
Sprinkling
doth
not
bear
any
Proportion
to
these
Mysteries
,
nor
can
they
be
signified
thereby
.
What
Figure
of
a
Burial
of
Christ
,
or
of
the
old
Man
is
there
in
sprinkling
a
few
drops
of
Water
on
a
Person
's
Face
?
Or
what
Representation
is
there
in
that
Act
of
a
Resurrection
?
O
,
how
is
Christ's
holy
Baptism
abused
by
this
devised
Rantism
,
and
the
Signification
thereof
destroyed
!
the
Lord
open
your
Eyes
,
or
the
Eyes
of
my
godly
and
impartial
Reader
.
This
shews
you
clearly
what
Christ's
true
Baptism
is
,
as
also
the
true
Subject
.
But
to
proceed
.
St.
Ambrose
saith
,
Water
is
that
wherein
the
Body
is
plunged
,
to
wash
away
all
Sins
;
there
all
Sins
,
saith
he
,
are
buried
.
We
suppose
he
means
't
is
a
Sign
of
this
,
i.
e.
that
all
Sin
is
buried
.
Moreover
Chrysostom
saith
,
that
the
Old
Man
is
buried
and
drown'd
in
the
Immersion
under
Water
;
and
when
the
baptized
Person
is
afterwards
raised
up
out
of
the
Water
,
it
represents
the
Resurrection
of
the
New
Man
to
Newness
of
Life
;
and
therefore
concludes
the
contrary
Custom
,
being
not
only
against
Ecclesiastical
Law
,
but
against
the
Analogy
and
Mystical
Signification
of
the
Sacrament
,
is
not
to
be
complied
with
.
It
has
been
too
long
,
as
I
have
formerly
noted
,
God
grant
Men
more
Light
to
see
their
Error
,
and
abhor
to
do
so
any
more
.
Kecker
says
,
That
Immersion
,
not
Aspersion
,
was
the
first
Institution
of
Baptism
,
as
it
doth
,
saith
he
,
plainly
appear
from
Rom.
6.
3.
And
say
I
,
Where
hath
Christ
since
the
first
Institution
,
instituted
Aspersion
,
or
Sprinkling
in
the
stead
or
room
of
Immersion
or
Dipping
;
or
given
Orders
to
change
that
significant
Sign
into
the
insignificant
Foppery
of
Sprinkling
?
Ought
not
we
to
keep
the
Ordinances
as
they
were
first
instituted
and
given
to
the
Saints
?
Is
not
God's
Word
to
be
our
Rule
in
all
Points
of
Faith
and
Practice
to
the
End
of
the
World
?
Has
Christ
given
any
Men
or
Church
a
Dispensation
to
change
his
Laws
and
Ordinances
,
or
make
them
void
by
these
Traditions
,
or
set
up
their
Post
by
his
Post
?
How
doth
God
complain
by
the
Prophets
against
his
People
of
old
,
for
presuming
to
change
his
Laws
,
Deut.
12.
13
?
God
gave
particular
Command
to
make
an
Altar
of
Gold
to
offer
Incense
,
Exod.
40.
5.
and
he
commanded
,
Exod.
20.
24
,
25.
that
his
Altar
should
be
made
of
Earth
or
rough
Stone
:
but
in
Isa.
65.
3.
he
reproves
their
horrid
Transgressions
and
Disobedience
,
in
acting
contrary
to
his
express
Institution
.
A
People
(
saith
God
)
that
provoketh
me
to
Anger
continually
to
my
Face
,
that
sacrificeth
in
Gardens
,
and
burneth
Incense
upon
Altars
of
Brick
.
You
may
think
that
was
no
great
Error
,
instead
of
Gold
or
Stone
,
to
make
Altars
of
Brick
:
but
what
saith
God
?
they
for
this
,
&c.
provoke
me
continually
to
my
Face
.
O
tremble
ye
who
adventure
to
transgress
God's
Precept
in
as
bad
or
worse
a
manner
!
Who
commanded
you
to
baptize
or
dip
Believers
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
&c.
and
you
rantize
or
sprinkle
Infants
?
A●as
,
you
know
not
how
you
hereby
provoke
God!
altho
he
is
yet
silent
,
and
doth
not
manifest
his
Displeasure
,
yet
know
he
is
a
jealous
God
and
hath
the
like
Zeal
for
his
Gospel-Institutions
,
as
ever
he
had
of
those
under
the
Law
,
and
may
manifest
it
too
in
his
own
time
.
But
to
proceed
,
and
call
in
for
more
Witnesses
against
your
Practice
.
Daill●
on
the
Fathers
saith
,
that
it
was
a
Custom
heretofore
in
the
antient
Church
to
plunge
those
they
baptized
over
Head
and
E●…s
in
the
Water
:
And
,
saith
he
,
Tertullian
in
his
third
Book
de
〈◊〉
.
Mil.
Cyprian
in
his
seventieth
Epistle
,
p.
211
,
&c.
and
others
testify
it
.
Dr.
Cave
saith
,
that
the
Party
baptized
was
wholly
immerged
,
or
put
under
the
Water
,
which
was
the
almost
constant
and
universal
Custom
of
those
Times
,
whereby
they
did
most
notably
and
significantly
express
the
great
Ends
and
Effects
of
Baptism
:
For
as
in
immerging
there
are
in
a
manner
three
several
Acts
;
the
putting
the
Person
into
the
Water
,
his
abiuing
under
the
Water
,
and
his
rising
up
again
,
thereby
representing
Christ's
Death
,
Burial
,
and
Resurrection
,
and
in
our
Conformity
thereupto
,
our
dying
to
Sin
,
the
Destruction
of
its
Power
,
and
our
Resurrection
to
a
new
course
of
Life
;
So
by
the
Person
's
being
put
into
the
Water
,
was
lively
represented
the
putting
off
the
Body
of
the
Sins
of
the
Flesh
,
&c.
by
his
being
under
it
(
which
is
a
kind
of
Burial
into
the
Water
)
his
entering
into
a
State
of
Death
or
Mortification
,
like
as
Christ
remained
for
sometime
under
the
State
or
Power
of
Death
:
therefore
't
is
said
,
As
many
as
are
baptized
into
Christ
,
are
baptized
into
his
Death
,
&c.
And
then
by
Immersion
,
or
rising
up
out
of
the
Water
,
is
signified
his
entering
upon
a
new
course
of
Life
;
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
up
by
the
Glory
of
the
Father
,
so
we
should
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
.
Thus
Dr.
Cave
.
We
are
said
,
saith
Pāraeus
,
to
die
,
and
to
be
buried
with
Christ
in
Baptism
.
And
further
shews
,
that
the
external
Act
of
being
buried
in
Water
is
a
lively
Emblem
of
the
internal
Work
of
Regeneration
.
St.
Bernard
saith
,
Immersion
is
a
Representation
of
Christ's
Death
and
Burial
.
Against
all
these
Testimonies
and
multitudes
more
of
the
best
and
most
Learned
Writers
,
Mr.
Burkitt
objects
as
follows
,
and
you
seem
to
argue
after
the
same
manner
;
these
are
his
words
,
viz.
If
Baptism
administred
by
pouring
Water
on
the
Face
(
representing
the
whole
Person
)
doth
answer
the
Use
and
End
of
Baptism
,
as
well
as
when
administred
by
aipping
or
pl●nging
,
then
dipping
is
not
essentially
and
absolutely
necessary
in
the
Act
of
baptizing
:
but
the
one
answereth
the
Use
and
End
of
baptizing
as
well
as
the
other
,
therefore
the
one
cannot
be
more
essential
than
the
other
.
What
is
the
End
and
Use
of
Baptism
,
but
to
represent
to
our
Minds
〈◊〉
Effusion
of
Christ's
Blood
for
to
take
away
the
Guilt
of
Sin
,
and
the
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
for
the
purging
away
the
Filth
of
it
?
Now
(
says
he
,
and
you
to
the
same
purpose
)
the
sprinkling
of
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
and
the
pouring
forth
of
the
holy
Spirit
upon
the
Infant
,
are
more
fully
and
plainly
represented
by
Baptism
as
administred
by
sprinkling
than
by
dipping
.
He
says
further
,
That
if
the
inward
and
spiritual
Grace
signified
by
Baptism
be
more
lively
represented
by
sprinkling
than
by
dipping
,
then
surely
sprinkling
is
not
only
lawful
,
but
more
expedient
than
dipping
:
but
the
inward
and
spiritual
Grace
signified
by
Baptism
,
to
wit
,
the
cleansing
the
Soul
by
the
Grace
and
Spirit
of
Christ
,
is
more
lively
represented
by
sprinkling
than
by
dipping
;
therefore
more
expedient
,
and
accordingly
we
find
Almighty
God
himself
often
expressing
the
Mercy
of
Sanctification
by
this
Action
;
Ezek.
36
,
25
Theu
will
I
sprinkle
clean
Water
upon
you
,
and
ye
shall
be
clean
,
&c.
Ansew
.
1.
To
this
I
answer
,
where
the
Thing
signified
is
not
,
the
Sign
is
a
nullity
;
but
your
Thing
signified
in
sprinkling
Water
on
the
Face
of
an
Infant
,
viz.
the
holy
Spirit
and
Graces
of
it
,
does
not
appear
in
those
Infants
you
so
sprinkle
:
Ergo
,
Your
Sign
is
a
nullity
.
If
Grace
was
in
them
so
much
as
in
the
Habit
of
it
,
when
they
are
grown
up
the
Act
and
Fruits
of
the
Spirit
and
Faith
would
shew
themselves
;
for
Grace
is
an
active
and
lively
Principle
where-ever
it
is
infused
.
2.
And
I
positively
deny
that
the
End
and
Use
of
Baptism
is
or
can
be
represented
by
sprinkling
or
pouring
of
Water
;
but
by
what
I
have
said
and
produced
,
by
the
Testimony
of
the
Scripture
,
and
almost
all
Learned
Men
,
both
Antient
Fathers
,
and
Modern
Divines
,
I
have
fully
shewed
the
contrary
.
3.
I
thought
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's-Supper
had
been
instituted
by
Christ
,
to
signify
the
Effusion
,
or
pouring
forth
his
precious
Blood
,
and
not
Baptism
.
Will
you
confound
the
Use
and
End
of
one
Sacrament
with
the
other
,
to
maintain
your
own
Innovation
and
Abuse
of
Christ's
holy
Baptism
?
4.
Might
not
the
Jews
,
who
instead
of
making
Altars
of
Gold
or
Stone
,
made
them
Altars
of
Brick
,
say
,
that
Altars
of
Brick
might
serve
as
well
to
answer
the
Use
and
End
of
burning
Incense
?
Nay
,
may
be
they
might
say
,
they
had
not
the
other
to
do
it
,
and
therefore
built
their
Altars
of
Brick
:
But
would
this
Pretence
do
?
No
,
no
,
what
saith
the
Almighty
God
?
They
provoke
me
continually
to
my
Face
.
Also
might
not
others
argue
thus
about
the
Sacrament
of
the
Supper
,
viz.
What
need
we
have
Wine
?
If
we
use
Mum
or
some
other
Red
Liquor
,
instead
of
the
Fruit
of
the
Grape
,
it
will
answer
the
Use
and
End
of
that
Sacrament
as
well
as
Wine
.
O
,
whither
would
this
lead
us
!
5.
We
utterly
deny
that
Baptism
was
ordain'd
or
instituted
by
Christ
to
signify
either
the
pouring
forth
of
his
Blood
,
or
the
pouring
forth
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
and
must
tell
you
,
that
you
affirm
what
you
please
,
without
any
Proof
from
God's
Word
.
But
by
the
way
,
let
the
Reader
observe
how
you
go
from
sprinkling
to
pouring
Water
on
the
Face
of
Infants
.
I
question
whether
you
ever
do
so
or
not
;
but
if
you
should
,
that
would
be
no
more
Christ's
Baptism
than
sprinkling
.
You
are
not
to
devise
new
Signs
or
Symbols
of
Spiritual
Mysteries
,
of
which
God
speaks
nothing
in
his
Word
,
nor
ever
instituted
to
such
Ends.
I
affirm
he
has
appointed
no
Rite
or
Ordinance
in
the
Gospel
to
represent
the
sprinkling
or
pouring
forth
of
the
holy
Spirit
.
The
Papists
have
(
you
know
)
seven
Sacraments
,
and
they
tell
us
of
the
Use
and
End
of
them
,
and
how
wonderfully
significant
they
are
,
and
yet
all
the
Use
and
Signification
of
them
were
the
Contrivances
of
their
own
wicked
Hearts
:
And
I
must
tell
you
that
they
prove
what
they
do
and
say
for
their
Sacraments
as
well
as
you
do
.
As
to
what
you
speak
of
pouring
or
sprinkling
,
take
what
Tho.
Aquinas
most
excellently
hath
said
on
this
account
.
It
belongs
to
the
Signifier
(
says
he
)
to
determine
what
Sign
is
to
be
used
for
the
Signification
:
But
God
it
is
,
who
by
things
sensible
,
signifies
spiritual
things
in
the
Sacrament
.
Christ
hath
ordained
Baptism
to
be
a
Sign
,
Symbol
,
or
lively
Representation
of
his
own
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
as
I
have
proved
and
confirmed
by
a
Cloud
of
Witnesses
.
Will
God
endure
or
suffer
Men
(
think
you
)
to
invent
out
of
their
own
Brains
,
new
Signs
and
Symbols
of
Divine
Gospel-Mysteries
,
and
then
father
them
upon
him
,
and
call
them
his
Ordinances
?
Nay
,
more
,
be
so
bold
as
to
say
,
these
are
more
useful
,
and
answer
better
the
End
of
God
,
than
those
which
he
himself
instituted
?
For
thus
you
and
other
Pedo-baptists
speak
of
Sprinkling
,
viz.
't
is
not
only
lawful
,
but
more
expedient
than
Dipping
.
And
hereby
you
seem
to
teach
God
Wisdom
,
or
to
magnify
yours
above
his
.
Be
astonished
,
O
Heavens
!
Be
thou
horribly
amazed
,
O
Earth
!
Were
ever
any
Men
thus
bold
before
?
First
,
You
contrive
a
new
Rite
,
and
new
Significations
of
it
,
which
God
never
appointed
to
represent
such
things
,
and
then
say
,
't
is
more
expedient
than
Christ's
Ordinance
of
dipping
,
which
was
instituted
by
him
for
other
Ends
and
Significations
;
whereas
the
whole
Body
of
all
learned
Men
and
Christians
,
witness
to
and
testify
the
contrary
.
Pray
take
what
Sir
Norton
K●atchbul
hath
wrote
,
in
direct
opposition
to
what
you
affirm
.
Saith
he
,
Baptism
,
which
now
saves
us
by
Water
(
speaking
of
the
Text
,
in
1
Pet.
3.
21.
)
that
is
,
by
the
assistance
of
Water
,
and
is
antitypical
of
the
Ark
of
Noah
,
does
not
signify
the
laying
down
the
Filth
of
the
Flesh
,
but
the
Covenant
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
,
while
we
are
plunged
in
the
Water
,
which
is
to
testify
our
Belief
of
the
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
;
so
that
there
is
a
manifest
Antithesis
between
these
words
,
by
Water
,
and
by
the
Resurrection
.
Nor
is
(
saith
he
)
the
Elegancy
of
it
displeasing
.
As
if
he
should
say
,
the
Ark
of
Noah
,
not
the
Flood
,
was
a
Type
of
Baptism
,
and
Baptism
was
an
Antitype
of
the
Ark
:
Not
as
if
Baptism
is
a
washing
away
of
the
Filth
of
the
Flesh
by
Water
,
wherein
it
answers
not
at
all
to
the
Ark
;
but
as
it
is
the
Covenant
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
by
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
in
the
belief
of
which
Resurrection
we
are
saved
,
as
they
were
saved
by
the
Ark
of
Noah
;
for
the
Ark
and
Baptism
were
both
a
Type
and
Figure
of
the
Resurrection
:
so
that
the
proper
End
[
mark
]
of
Baptism
ought
not
to
be
understood
as
if
it
were
a
Sign
of
the
wishing
away
of
Sin
,
(
although
it
be
thus
oftentimes
taken
Metonymially
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
by
the
Fathers
)
but
a
particular
Signal
of
the
Resurrection
,
by
Faith
in
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
of
which
Baptism
is
a
lively
and
emphatical
Figure
,
as
also
was
the
Ark
,
out
of
which
No●h
returned
as
from
a
Sepulchre
,
to
a
new
Life
;
and
therefore
not
unaptly
called
by
Philo
,
the
Captain
of
the
new
Creation
;
and
the
Whale's
Belly
,
out
of
which
Jonas
,
after
a
Burial
of
three
days
,
was
set
at
liberty
;
and
the
Cloud
,
and
the
Red
Sea
,
in
which
the
People
of
Israel
are
said
to
have
been
baptized
,
i.
e.
not
washed
[
mark
]
but
buried
:
for
they
were
all
Types
of
the
same
thing
as
Baptism
,
viz.
not
the
washing
away
of
Sin
,
but
of
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
and
our
own
;
to
which
the
Apostles
,
the
Fathers
,
the
Scholasticks
,
[
mark
]
and
all
Interpreters
agree
.
The
thing
(
saith
he
)
is
so
apparent
,
as
not
to
need
any
Testimonies
;
but
because
there
are
not
a
few
who
do
not
vulgarly
teach
this
Doctrine
,
it
will
not
be
superfluous
to
produce
some
of
those
innumerable
Testimonies
,
that
I
may
(
saith
he
)
not
seem
to
speak
without
Book
.
And
,
First
,
Let
us
begin
with
St.
Paul
,
Rom.
6.
3.
Know
ye
not
,
that
so
many
of
you
that
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
were
baptized
into
his
Death
?
Therefore
we
are
buried
with
him
in
Baptism
into
his
Death
,
&c.
Else
what
shall
they
do
that
are
baptized
for
the
Dead
,
if
the
Dead
rise
not
?
As
if
he
had
said
,
If
there
be
no
Resurrection
,
why
are
we
baptized
?
In
vain
does
the
Church
use
the
Symbol
of
Baptism
,
if
there
be
no
Resurrection
.
The
like
Testimonies
frequently
occur
among
the
Fathers
(
saith
he
)
.
Ignatius
saith
,
That
believing
in
his
Death
,
we
may
be
made
Partakers
of
his
Resurrection
by
Baptism
.
Baptism
was
given
in
Memory
of
the
Death
of
our
Lord
,
we
perform
the
Symbols
of
his
Death
[
mark
]
not
of
pouring
forth
his
Blood
,
or
holy
Spirit
,
or
sprinkling
the
Spirit
on
us
,
or
the
Blood
of
Christ
:
No
,
no
,
this
,
that
Author
says
,
is
not
signified
in
Baptism
,
but
the
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
which
sprinkling
no
manner
of
ways
can
represent
.
Justin
Martyr
saith
,
We
know
but
one
saving
Baptism
,
in
regard
there
is
but
one
Resurrection
from
the
dead
,
of
which
Baptism
is
an
Image
.
And
from
hence
,
say
I
,
we
know
not
Infants
Rantism
or
Sprinkling
,
for
this
is
none
of
Christ's
true
Baptism
.
Christ's
Baptism
is
but
one
,
and
't
is
that
of
Believers
,
and
't
is
not
sprinkling
but
dipping
,
to
signify
Christ's
Burial
and
Resurrection
.
He
goes
on
and
cites
other
Authors
.
Hear
Paul
exclaiming
,
They
past
through
the
Sea
,
and
were
all
baptized
in
the
Cloud
and
in
the
Sea
.
He
calls
Baptism
the
Passage
of
the
Sea
,
for
it
was
a
flight
of
Death
caused
by
Water
.
To
be
baptized
,
and
so
plunged
,
and
to
return
up
and
rise
out
of
the
Water
,
is
a
Symbol
of
the
Descent
into
the
Grave
,
and
returning
from
thence
.
Baptism
is
a
Pledg
and
Representation
of
the
Resurrection
:
Baptism
is
an
Earnest
of
the
Resurrection
:
Immersion
is
a
Representation
of
Death
and
Burial
.
Innumerable
are
the
Testimonies
(
saith
Sir
Norton
)
which
might
be
added
,
but
these
I
think
sufficient
to
prove
,
that
Baptism
is
an
Image
of
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
(
from
whence
we
acknowledg
the
Mystery
of
our
Religion
,
saith
he
,
Christ's
Deity
and
Humanity
)
and
of
the
Faithful
,
who
are
baptized
in
his
Faith
,
from
Death
in
Sin
to
Newness
of
Life
,
which
if
they
lead
in
this
World
,
they
have
a
most
assured
Hope
,
that
being
dead
,
they
shall
hereafter
rise
to
Glory
with
Christ
.
Thus
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul
,
a
worthy
Knight
.
Mr.
Perkins
saith
,
The
dipping
of
the
Body
signifies
Mortification
,
or
Fellowship
with
Christ
in
his
Death
;
the
staying
under
the
Water
signifies
the
Burial
of
Sin
,
and
coming
out
of
the
Water
,
the
Resurrection
from
Sin
to
Newness
of
Life
.
In
another
Treatise
of
his
,
he
saith
,
the
antient
Custom
of
baptizing
,
was
to
dip
,
as
it
were
to
dive
all
the
Body
of
the
baptized
in
Water
;
Rom.
6.
Council
of
Laodicea
and
Neocesarea
.
And
here
let
me
add
what
Reverend
Dr.
Sharp
(
the
present
Archbishop
of
York
)
hath
lately
delivered
in
a
Sermon
preached
before
the
Queen's
Majesty
on
Easter-day
,
March
the
27th
,
1692.
And
this
in
antient
Times
was
taught
every
Christian
(
saith
he
)
in
and
by
his
Baptism
:
Whenever
a
Person
was
baptized
,
he
was
not
only
to
profess
his
Faith
in
Christ's
Death
and
Resurrection
,
but
he
was
also
to
look
upon
himself
as
obliged
in
Correspondence
therewith
,
to
mortify
his
former
carnal
Affections
,
and
to
enter
upon
a
new
State
of
Life
.
And
the
very
form
of
Baptism
(
saith
he
)
did
lively
represent
this
Obligation
to
them
:
For
what
did
their
being
plung'd
under
Water
signify
,
but
their
undertaking
in
Imitation
of
Christ's
Death
and
Burial
,
to
forsake
all
their
former
evil
Courses
?
as
their
ascending
out
of
the
Water
did
their
Engagement
to
lead
a
holy
,
spiritual
Life
.
This
our
Apostle
doth
more
than
once
declare
to
us
:
thus
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
We
are
buried
(
saith
he
)
with
Christ
by
Baptism
unto
Death
,
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
up
by
the
Glory
of
the
Father
,
so
we
should
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
.
Thus
far
Dr.
Sharp
,
his
Sermon
on
Phil.
3.
10.
pag.
9.
Dr.
Fowler
(
now
Lord
Bishop
of
Glocester
)
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
saith
,
Christians
being
plunged
into
the
Water
,
signifies
their
undertaking
and
obliging
themselves
in
a
spiritual
Sense
,
to
be
buried
with
Jesus
Christ
in
an
utter
renouncing
and
forsaking
all
their
Sins
,
that
so
answering
to
his
Resurrection
,
they
may
live
a
holy
and
a
godly
Life
.
Design
of
Christianity
,
p.
90.
Also
Dr.
Sherlock
(
Dean
of
St.
Paul's
)
on
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
saith
,
Our
Conformity
to
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
our
Saviour
consists
in
dying
to
Sin
,
and
walking
in
Newness
of
Life
:
Which
,
saith
he
,
St.
Paul
tells
us
,
is
represented
by
the
external
Ceremony
of
Baptism
,
and
rising
out
of
his
watery
Grave
,
a
new
born
Creature
.
Charity
without
Usury
,
p.
1.
And
unto
these
,
let
me
add
what
the
Pious
and
Reverend
Dr.
Tillotson
(
late
Archbishop
of
Canterbury
)
hath
wrote
;
speaking
of
the
same
Text
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Antiently
,
saith
he
,
those
who
were
baptized
put
off
their
Garments
,
which
signified
their
putting
off
the
Body
of
Sin
,
and
were
immersed
and
buried
in
the
Water
,
to
represent
the
Death
of
Sin
;
and
then
did
rise
up
again
out
of
the
Water
to
signify
their
Entrance
upon
a
new
Life
.
And
to
these
Customs
the
Apostle
alludes
,
when
he
says
,
How
shall
we
that
are
dead
to
Sin
,
live
any
longer
therein
?
Know
ye
not
that
so
many
of
us
as
were
baptized
into
Jesus
Christ
,
were
baptized
into
his
Death
?
&c.
1.
'T
is
a
hard
case
,
you
neither
will
believe
the
holy
Scripture
,
the
Antient
Fathers
and
Modern
Divines
,
nor
other
learned
Prelates
of
the
Church
of
England
,
who
are
yet
living
;
but
,
contrary
to
the
nature
and
tendency
of
holy
Baptism
,
plead
for
Sprinkling
and
condemn
Dipping
,
and
cast
Reproach
upon
it
,
and
say
also
,
that
the
Thing
signified
thereby
,
is
the
pouring
forth
of
Christ's
Blood
,
or
the
sprinkling
and
pouring
out
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
notwithstanding
we
prove
from
the
Scripture
,
and
with
the
Testimony
of
all
these
great
Men
,
that
Baptism
signifies
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
not
any
of
those
things
you
affirm
as
your
own
Conceit
,
without
the
Testimony
of
any
learned
or
approved
Author
.
Therefore
,
Sir
,
that
Baptism
is
any
thing
else
than
dipping
,
plunging
or
washing
,
which
is
done
by
dipping
,
we
do
utterly
deny
:
For
as
the
cutting
off
a
little
bit
of
the
Foreskin
of
the
Flesh
,
or
not
the
twentieth
part
round
,
is
not
Circumcision
;
so
sprinkling
a
little
Water
on
the
Face
is
not
Baptism
.
True
,
you
call
it
Baptism
,
and
will
do
so
,
tho
't
is
nothing
less
nor
more
than
Rantism
,
't
is
,
not
the
Thing
,
nor
does
it
answer
in
Signification
.
I
may
tell
you
again
,
that
the
Jews
instead
of
circumcising
the
Foreskin
of
their
Childrens
Flesh
,
might
have
as
well
presumed
to
dispense
with
that
,
and
only
have
paired
off
the
Nails
of
the
Fingers
of
their
Male
Infants
,
and
have
called
that
Circumcision
,
as
you
may
call
sprinkling
or
pouring
a
little
Water
,
Baptism
.
But
may
be
you
'l
say
,
in
Circumcision
they
we●●
to
draw
Blood
,
so
say
I
,
they
might
in
cutting
the
Nails
of
their
Childrens
Fingers
;
nay
,
and
they
might
better
plead
,
that
the
Things
signified
in
Circumcision
,
might
be
as
well
answered
in
that
new
Device
(
the
Nails
being
a
sort
of
Excrement
they
might
say
signified
the
taking
away
the
Filth
of
Sin
,
or
Corruption
of
Nature
)
as
the
great
Mysteries
signified
by
Baptism
or
Dipping
,
can
be
represented
by
sprinkling
or
pouring
.
Furthermore
,
they
might
possibly
plead
the
same
Pretences
you
do
,
viz.
The
cutting
off
the
Foreskin
of
the
Flesh
put
the
Infants
to
great
Pain
;
nay
,
may
be
they
might
fancy
it
would
cost
them
their
Lives
;
nay
,
call
it
Murder
,
and
therefore
let
pairing
of
their
Nails
serve
:
As
you
it
seems
fear
dipping
would
endanger
the
Lives
of
Infants
,
and
therefore
make
sprinkling
to
serve
instead
thereof
.
But
to
proceed
.
2.
I
am
in
amaze
to
see
these
Men
speak
so
fully
and
clearly
to
this
glorious
Truth
,
(
i.
e.
that
the
great
thing
Christ
ordained
Baptism
to
represent
,
is
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
together
with
the
baptized
Person
's
Death
to
Sin
,
and
his
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
)
and
yet
both
those
shameful
Abuses
amongst
you
and
other
Churches
are
not
rectified
,
viz.
1.
That
Sprinkling
,
which
doth
not
,
cannot
answer
or
represent
those
Gospel-Mysteries
,
should
not
be
rejected
.
2.
That
Infants
should
be
once
deem'd
the
proper
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
since
nothing
of
a
Death
to
Sin
,
nor
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
,
can
appear
in
them
.
For
,
as
the
Learned
observe
,
Baptism
is
a
Symbol
of
present
,
not
future
Regeneration
:
'T
is
an
outward
Sign
of
that
inward
Death
unto
Sin
,
which
the
Party
baptized
passed
under
then
,
or
ought
to
have
done
,
when
(
or
before
)
he
is
baptized
.
They
then
professed
themselves
to
be
dead
to
Sin
,
i.
e.
even
when
they
were
buried
with
Christ
in
their
Baptism
;
for
the
Argument
of
the
Apostle
lies
in
that
respect
:
How
shall
we
that
are
dead
unto
Sin
,
live
any
longer
〈◊〉
?
Knowing
that
so
many
of
〈◊〉
who
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
were
baptized
into
his
Death
,
both
in
Sign
and
Signification
:
And
therefore
,
as
Dr.
Sherlock
says
,
rising
out
of
that
watery
Grave
a
new
born
Creature
,
denotes
not
only
what
they
should
be
hereafter
,
but
what
they
were
actually
at
that
time
.
So
that
as
this
Text
,
and
Arguments
drawn
therefrom
,
utterly
condemn
Sprinkling
as
not
being
Christ's
Baptism
,
so
it
excludes
Infants
from
being
the
Subjects
thereof
,
because
in
them
appears
no
such
Death
to
Sin
,
nor
can
they
be
said
to
come
out
of
that
watery
Grave
as
new
born
Creatures
.
To
these
Testimonies
I
shall
only
add
one
or
two
more
.
See
that
most
learned
Anonymous
French
Writer
,
in
his
Answer
to
the
famous
Bishop
of
Meaux
;
'T
is
most
certain
(
saith
he
)
that
Baptism
hath
not
hitherto
been
administred
otherwise
than
by
sprinkling
,
by
the
most
of
Protestants
;
but
truly
this
sprinkling
is
an
Abuse
.
This
Custom
,
which
,
without
an
accurate
Examination
they
have
retained
from
the
Romish
Church
,
in
like
manner
as
many
other
things
,
makes
their
Baptism
very
defective
.
It
corrupteth
its
Institution
and
antient
Use
,
and
that
Nearness
of
Similitude
which
is
needful
should
be
betwixt
it
and
Faith
,
Repentance
and
Regeneration
.
This
Reflection
of
Mr.
Bossuet
deserveth
to
be
seriously
considered
,
to
wit
(
saith
he
)
that
this
use
of
plunging
hath
continued
for
the
space
of
a
whole
thousand
and
three
hundred
Years
:
Hence
we
may
understand
that
we
did
not
carefully
,
as
it
was
meet
,
examine
things
which
we
have
received
from
the
Roman
Church
.
Calvin
saith
,
That
Baptism
is
a
form
or
way
of
Burial
;
and
none
but
such
as
are
already
dead
to
Sin
,
or
have
repented
from
dead
Works
,
are
to
be
buried
.
From
these
words
I
note
;
1.
That
Sprinkling
is
not
the
form
of
Baptism
,
because
not
the
form
of
a
Burial
.
2.
That
Infants
are
not
the
true
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
because
not
such
as
are
already
dead
to
Sin
,
or
have
repented
from
dead
Works
;
and
indeed
as
they
are
not
able
,
they
are
not
required
so
to
do
by
Christ
.
The
last
Author
I
shall
quote
is
learned
Zanchy
,
There
are
two
Parts
,
saith
he
,
in
Regeneration
,
Mortification
and
Vi●ification
;
that
is
called
a
Burial
with
Christ
,
this
(
is
called
)
a
Resurrection
with
Christ
.
The
Sacrament
of
both
these
is
Baptism
in
which
we
are
overwhelmed
,
or
buried
,
and
after
that
do
come
forth
and
rise
again
.
It
may
not
be
said
truly
,
but
sacramentally
of
all
that
are
baptized
,
that
they
are
buried
with
Christ
,
and
raised
with
him
,
but
only
of
such
as
have
true
Faith
.
Now
we
may
appeal
to
all
the
World
,
whether
Zanchy
and
all
the
rest
do
not
clearly
and
evidently
testify
the
same
thing
that
we
assert
,
viz.
That
Baptism
is
and
can
be
no
other
Act
than
Immersion
or
Dipping
,
since
Sprinkling
,
all
must
confess
,
doth
not
represent
in
a
lively
Figure
,
the
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
nor
our
dying
or
being
dead
to
Sin
,
and
Vivification
to
Newness
of
Life
,
saith
he
,
Sacramentally
,
i.
e.
Analogically
,
in
respect
of
the
near
Resemblance
between
Baptism
,
and
a
Death
and
Resurrection
.
And
this
,
I
say
,
cannot
be
said
of
them
that
are
sprinkled
only
;
for
if
,
in
respect
of
Mortification
and
Vivification
,
they
may
be
denominated
buried
and
raised
with
Christ
,
(
which
cannot
be
said
of
Infants
)
yet
that
outward
Rite
or
Sign
cannot
denominate
them
so
much
as
Sacramentally
buried
and
raised
with
Christ
:
for
there
is
not
so
much
as
any
likeness
of
such
things
in
it
;
but
in
true
Baptism
,
viz.
total
dipping
the
Body
in
Water
,
and
raising
it
again
,
there
is
a
lively
Figure
held
forth
to
our
very
sight
.
And
as
Zanchy
saith
,
It
cannot
be
said
of
all
,
nor
indeed
of
any
,
that
they
are
thus
sacramentally
dead
,
buried
and
risen
with
Christ
,
but
only
of
such
as
have
true
Faith
.
Therefore
Infants
are
excluded
by
his
own
Argument
.
What
you
say
,
that
none
plant
Bodies
in
Water
by
baptizing
them
,
seems
strange
,
and
not
the
words
of
a
learned
Man
;
because
dipping
is
a
Figure
of
planting
us
into
Christ
spiritually
,
and
of
Christ's
Death
and
Resurrection
,
must
the
Body
of
a
Man
be
a
Tree
?
None
graft
Bodies
into
a
Vine
,
yet
the
grafting
of
a
Person
into
Christ
is
represented
by
that
Allusion
,
or
Metaphorical
Expression
:
Must
the
Sign
and
the
Thing
signified
be
all
one
and
the
same
thing
?
Thus
we
see
,
in
opposition
to
what
you
say
,
in
the
close
of
your
third
Chapter
,
that
it
is
very
plain
and
manifest
,
that
dipping
is
absolutely
necessary
,
and
of
the
Essence
of
Baptism
,
it
's
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Alas
,
Sir
,
in
all
the
New
Testament
where
we
read
of
sprinkling
,
the
Greek
(
as
I
said
before
)
renders
it
rantizing
,
not
baptizing
:
〈◊〉
Christ
has
ordained
Rantism
,
to
represent
the
sprinkling
of
his
Blood
,
or
the
sprinkling
of
his
Spirit
,
prove
it
;
we
deny
it
,
and
have
sufficiently
proved
he
has
appointed
Baptism
to
represent
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
and
that
sprinkling
is
not
baptizing
.
But
for
a
farther
Satisfaction
of
the
impartial
Reader
take
a
few
Syllogistical
Arguments
.
Arg.
1.
If
Baptism
was
ordained
to
represent
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
in
a
lively
Figure
;
then
Sprinkling
cannot
be
Christ's
true
Baptism
:
But
Baptism
was
ordained
to
represent
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
in
a
lively
Figure
;
therefore
Sprinkling
cannot
be
Christ's
true
Baptism
.
This
Argument
we
have
proved
to
be
true
in
every
part
of
it
.
Arg.
2.
If
Baptism
was
appointed
to
hold
forth
or
represent
in
a
lively
Figure
the
Person
's
Death
to
Sin
who
is
baptized
,
or
his
present
Regeneration
,
not
future
,
and
his
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
;
then
Infants
cannot
be
the
Subjects
thereof
.
But
Baptism
was
appointed
to
hold
forth
,
or
represent
in
a
lively
Figure
the
Person
's
Death
to
Sin
who
is
baptized
,
or
his
present
Regeneration
,
not
future
,
and
his
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
:
Therefore
Infants
are
not
the
Subjects
thereof
.
4.
There
is
yet
one
Proof
further
to
make
it
yet
clearer
,
that
Baptism
is
dipping
or
plunging
,
and
nothing
else
,
and
that
is
taken
from
those
Typical
Baptisms
spoken
of
in
the
holy
Scripture
.
(
1.
)
That
of
the
Red
Sea
,
wherein
the
Fathers
were
buried
as
it
were
unto
Moses
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
.
See
Pool's
Annotations
on
the
Place
.
Others
,
says
he
,
(
more
properly
)
think
the
Apostle
uses
this
Term
in
regard
of
the
great
Analogy
betwixt
Baptism
(
as
it
was
used
)
the
Person
going
down
into
the
Waters
,
and
being
dipped
in
them
,
and
the
Israelites
going
down
into
the
Sea
,
the
great
Receptable
of
Water
;
tho
the
Water
at
that
time
was
gathered
on
heaps
on
the
other
side
of
them
,
yet
they
seemed
buried
in
the
Water
,
as
Persons
seem'd
buried
in
the
Water
were
in
that
Age
when
they
were
baptized
.
(
2.
)
The
second
Typical
Baptism
was
that
of
Noah's
Ark
:
See
Sir
Norton
Knatchbull
,
whom
I
quoted
before
,
saith
he
,
Noah's
Ark
and
Baptism
were
both
a
Type
and
Figure
of
the
Resurrection
,
not
a
Sign
of
the
washing
away
of
Sin
,
tho
so
taken
metonymically
,
but
a
particular
Signal
of
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
.
Of
this
again
,
saith
he
,
is
Baptism
a
lively
and
emphatical
Figure
,
as
also
was
the
Ark
of
Noah
,
out
of
which
he
returned
,
as
from
a
Sepulchre
.
From
hence
I
infer
this
Argument
following
.
Arg.
3.
If
those
Typical
Baptisms
spoken
of
in
the
Scriptures
,
signified
Immersion
,
or
an
Overwhelming
,
or
a
Burial
;
then
is
Sprinkling
no
true
Baptism
:
But
those
Typical
Baptisms
,
&c.
did
signify
Immersion
,
or
an
Overwhelming
,
or
a
Burial
;
Therefore
Sprinkling
is
no
true
Baptism
.
Again
,
that
Baptism
is
dipping
or
plunging
,
or
a
being
buried
in
the
Water
,
appears
by
those
Metaphorical
Baptisms
we
read
of
,
which
are
twofold
.
1st
.
The
Baptism
of
the
Holy
Spirit
.
2dly
.
The
Baptism
of
Afflictions
.
1st
.
Saith
John
the
Baptist
,
I
indeed
baptize
you
with
Water
,
but
he
shall
baptize
you
with
the
holy
Spirit
and
Fire
.
Now
't
is
not
the
sanctifying
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
which
every
Godly
Person
receives
,
that
is
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
;
but
,
as
the
Learned
observe
,
the
miraculous
Effusions
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
like
that
at
Pentecost
,
Acts
1.
4
,
5.
shall
be
baptized
.
The
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
Casaubon
,
is
to
dip
or
plunge
,
&c.
in
which
Sense
,
saith
he
,
the
Apostles
might
be
truly
said
to
have
been
baptized
;
for
the
House
in
which
this
was
done
was
filled
with
the
Holy
Ghost
.
So
that
the
Apostles
might
seem
to
have
been
plunged
into
it
,
as
in
a
large
Fish-pond
.
'T
is
not
a
sprinkling
of
the
Spirit
that
is
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
:
for
so
doubtless
the
Apostles
had
the
Spirit
before
they
were
said
to
be
baptized
with
it
.
Oecumenius
on
Acts
2.
saith
,
A
Wind
filled
the
whole
House
that
it
seem'd
like
a
Fish-pond
,
because
it
was
promised
to
the
Apostles
,
that
they
should
be
baptized
with
the
Holy
Ghost
.
2dly
.
We
read
of
the
Baptism
of
Afflictions
.
I
have
a
Baptism
to
be
baptized
with
,
and
how
am
I
strai●ned
till
it
be
accomplished
!
From
the
literal
Signification
of
the
word
baptiz●
,
immergo
,
as
I
shewed
before
,
to
plunge
under
,
overwhelm
,
great
Afflictions
come
to
be
called
Baptism
,
and
signifies
,
as
Vossius
shews
,
not
every
light
Affliction
,
but
like
that
of
David
,
Psal.
32.
6.
he
drew
me
out
of
the
deep
Waters
.
Hence
great
Afflictions
are
called
Waves
;
Thy
Wazes
and
thy
Billows
are
gone
over
me
,
Psal.
42.
7.
'T
is
spoken
of
Christ's
Sufferings
,
who
was
as
it
were
drowned
,
drenched
,
or
overwhelmed
in
Afflictions
and
Sufferings
:
Every
small
Affliction
is
not
the
Baptism
of
Afflictions
,
but
great
and
deep
Afflictions
,
suffering
even
unto
Blood
and
Death
.
Pool's
Annotations
say
,
to
be
baptized
is
to
be
dipped
in
Water
,
metaphorically
to
be
plunged
in
Afflictions
.
I
shall
close
this
also
with
another
Argument
.
Arg.
4.
If
those
Metaphorical
Baptisms
which
we
read
of
in
God's
Word
(
as
the
Baptism
of
the
Spirit
,
and
of
Afflictions
and
Sufferings
)
are
taken
from
the
literal
and
genuine
Signification
of
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
immergo
,
which
signifies
to
dip
;
then
sprinkling
is
not
baptizing
:
but
the
former
is
true
;
Ergo
,
sprinkling
is
not
baptizing
.
CHAP.
V.
Wherein
Mr.
Owen's
Argument
for
Infant-Baptism
,
taken
from
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
is
examined
,
and
totally
confuted
.
SIR
,
YOu
in
your
fourth
Chapter
come
to
consider
and
enquire
who
are
the
proper
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
or
who
they
are
that
ought
to
be
baptiz'd
.
And
first
,
you
say
,
that
Baptism
doth
not
belong
to
all
Men
,
but
to
the
Faithful
and
their
Seed
:
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
;
Mark
16.
16.
When
the
Eunuch
ask'd
Philip
,
See
,
here
is
Water
,
what
doth
hinder
me
to
be
baptized
?
He
answered
,
If
thou
believest
with
all
thy
Heart
,
thou
mayst
;
Acts
8.
It
is
plain
,
say
you
,
that
Baptism
belongeth
to
them
that
believe
:
but
say
you
,
how
doth
it
appear
that
Baptism
doth
belong
to
the
Seed
of
such
?
that
will
appear
,
you
say
,
-
1.
From
God's
Covenant
.
-
2.
From
Circumcision
under
the
Law
.
-
3.
From
Christ's
Command
to
baptize
all
Nations
.
-
4.
Because
they
are
holy
.
-
5.
Because
Christ
blessed
them
.
-
6.
Because
the
Gentiles
were
ingrafted
into
the
Privileges
of
the
Jews
.
-
7.
Because
they
can
partake
of
that
which
is
signified
by
Baptism
.
-
8.
From
the
form
of
Baptism
under
the
Law
.
-
9.
Because
John
baptized
Infants
according
to
the
Practice
of
the
Jewish
Church
.
-
10.
Because
the
Apostles
baptized
whole
Houses
.
-
11.
Because
the
Christian
Church
baptized
Infants
in
every
Age.
-
12.
Because
't
is
a
vertuous
means
to
plant
the
Christian
Religion
.
Sir
,
I
shall
examine
all
your
Grounds
,
and
answer
each
of
your
Argumenrs
in
order
:
And
first
of
all
,
that
of
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
.
You
argue
thus
,
viz.
Abraham
and
his
Seed
were
under
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
we
the
Gentiles
are
a
Seed
to
Abraham
,
and
the
Covenant
of
Grace
belongeth
as
extensively
unto
us
as
it
did
to
Abraham
,
even
to
us
and
to
our
Children
;
and
if
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
can
any
Man
forbid
them
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
,
viz.
Baptism
?
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
't
is
well
,
you
cannot
deny
that
Baptism
belongs
to
the
Faithful
,
viz.
to
Believers
;
we
then
are
right
who
baptize
such
:
and
if
Faith
both
in
order
of
Words
,
and
in
order
of
Practice
in
the
Apostolical
Days
,
preceded
Baptism
,
then
none
but
Believers
ought
to
be
baptized
;
but
,
by
your
own
Confession
,
Faith
both
in
order
of
Words
and
Practice
in
the
Apostolical
Days
did
precede
Baptism
;
't
is
not
he
that
is
baptized
,
and
afterwards
believes
,
but
contrary
ways
,
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
.
Faith
is
required
as
prerequisite
to
Baptism
,
in
all
that
Christ
enjoins
Baptism
upon
,
which
Infants
are
not
capable
of
.
2.
As
to
your
first
Argument
for
Believers
Seed
to
be
baptized
,
from
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
I
shall
shew
it
is
invalid
,
and
will
do
you
no
Service
.
First
,
Because
there
was
a
twofold
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
one
with
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
the
other
with
his
true
Spiritual
,
as
such
:
So
that
what
you
say
that
Abraham
and
his
Seed
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
viz.
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
is
not
denied
by
us
;
but
that
all
his
Natural
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
the
Apostle
denies
,
and
shews
the
contrary
,
Rom.
9.
6
,
7
,
8.
Now
if
I
prove
there
were
two
Covenants
made
with
Abraham
,
what
is
become
of
all
you
have
said
in
respect
of
this
matter
?
And
that
it
is
so
,
let
what
followeth
be
considered
.
1.
We
affirm
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
and
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
made
with
Abraham
is
not
the
same
or
one
intire
Covenant
.
2.
We
shall
consider
whether
there
be
the
same
reason
of
Circumcision
and
of
Baptism
.
1st
.
We
say
there
was
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
all
Believers
in
him
,
or
all
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
.
2dly
.
But
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
or
that
Covenant
God
made
with
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
was
a
distinct
Covenant
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
these
two
Covenants
were
signified
to
Abraham
by
Sarah
and
Hagar
,
as
the
Apostle
shews
in
plain
words
,
Gal.
4.
24.
Which
things
are
an
Allegory
;
for
these
are
the
two
Covenants
,
&c.
And
now
fully
and
plainly
to
prove
this
great
Truth
,
viz.
that
there
were
two
Covenants
made
with
Abraham
,
take
this
Argument
.
Arg.
If
the
Covenants
take
their
Denomination
from
the
Promises
,
and
the
Promises
are
distinct
,
viz.
some
Evangelical
,
belonging
to
those
that
the
Gospel
belongs
unto
;
and
others
Domestick
or
Civil
Promises
,
especially
and
absolutely
respecting
the
House
,
and
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
and
Policy
of
Israel
;
then
there
were
two
Covenants
made
with
Abraham
:
but
this
is
so
;
Ergo
,
&c.
To
make
it
clear
,
and
prove
it
,
it
is
evident
that
that
Promise
was
Evangelical
,
belonging
to
the
Gospel-Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
Gen.
17.
5.
I
have
made
thee
a
Father
of
many
Nations
:
And
so
is
that
Promise
,
Gen.
15.
5.
So
shall
thy
Seed
be
:
in
which
it
is
promised
that
there
shall
be
of
the
Nations
many
,
or
a
great
number
,
that
shall
be
Abraham's
Spiritual
Children
by
believing
,
Rom.
4.
17
,
18.
Also
it
was
Evangelical
,
which
we
find
in
Gen.
12.
3.
And
in
thy
Seed
shall
all
the
Kindreds
of
the
Earth
be
blessed
.
These
't
is
evident
respect
all
Gospel-Believers
,
who
are
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
:
See
Gal.
3.
8.
And
the
Scripture
foreseeing
that
God
would
justify
the
Heathen
through
Faith
,
preached
the
Gospel
to
Abraham
,
saying
,
In
thee
shall
All
the
Nations
of
the
Earth
be
blessed
.
And
more
directly
to
Christ
,
who
is
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
Gal.
3.
16.
Now
to
Abraham
and
his
Seed
were
the
Promises
made
:
He
saith
not
,
And
to
Seeds
,
as
of
many
,
but
as
of
one
,
and
to
thy
Seed
,
which
is
Christ
;
that
is
,
to
Christ
as
the
Head
and
Surety
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
and
so
primarily
and
directly
to
him
,
and
then
in
him
to
all
who
are
his
,
according
to
that
Gal.
3.
29.
And
if
you
be
Christ's
,
then
are
ye
Abraham's
Seed
,
and
Heirs
according
to
the
Promise
.
See
also
Acts
2.
25.
2.
Moreover
,
that
the
Domestick
and
Civil
Promises
were
many
,
is
plain
:
As
,
1.
Of
multiplying
the
Seed
of
Abraham
.
2.
The
Birth
of
Isaac
.
3.
Of
the
Continuation
of
the
Covenant
with
Isaac
.
4.
Of
the
coming
of
Christ
out
of
Isaac
.
5.
The
Bondage
of
the
Israelites
in
Egypt
,
and
their
Deliverance
out
from
thence
,
and
of
their
possessing
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
Gen
15.
18.
Gen.
17.
8.
And
I
will
give
unto
thee
,
and
to
●●y
Seed
after
thee
,
the
Land
wherein
thou
art
a
Stranger
,
〈◊〉
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
for
an
everlasting
Possession
;
and
I
will
be
their
God
.
So
Gen.
15.
18.
In
that
same
day
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
saying
;
Unto
thy
Seed
have
I
given
this
Land
,
from
the
River
of
Egypt
unto
the
great
River
Eup●rates
.
Can
you
be
so
ignorant
as
to
affirm
,
this
Covenant-Contract
made
with
Abraham
,
was
made
with
the
Natural
Seed
of
believing
Gentiles
?
Nay
,
or
that
it
was
made
to
Abraham's
Spiritual
Seed
?
Compare
these
Scriptures
with
Acts
7.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8.
and
thus
it
appears
,
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
is
a
mixt
Covenant
,
or
a
twofold
Covenant
,
one
made
with
his
Natural
Seed
,
the
other
with
his
Spiritual
●eed
:
and
this
is
fully
signified
by
Sarah
and
Hagar
,
the
Free
Woman
and
Bond
Woman
,
and
their
S●ns
Isaac
and
Ishmael
,
Gal
4.
22.
Secondly
;
The
Seed
of
Abraham
is
many
ways
so
called
,
-
1.
Christ
is
called
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
I
said
before
,
Gal.
3.
16.
by
way
of
Emmency
,
as
he
is
the
Head
,
and
Surety
of
the
Gospel-Covenant
.
-
2.
All
the
Elect
,
Rom.
9.
7.
all
Believers
,
Rom.
4.
11
,
12
,
16
,
17
,
18.
Gal
3.
29.
If
ye
be
in
Christ
,
then
are
ye
Abraham's
Seed
,
and
Heirs
according
to
the
Promise
.
-
3.
There
was
a
Natura
Seed
of
Abraham
,
to
whom
the
Inheritance
did
accure
,
this
was
Isaac
,
Gen.
21.
22.
-
4.
We
read
or
another
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
to
whom
the
Inheritance
,
it
is
positively
said
,
did
not
belong
,
as
Ishmael
and
the
Sons
of
Keturah
,
Gen.
15.
5.
But
now
can
the
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
be
said
to
be
the
Seed
of
Abraham
in
any
of
these
four
respects
?
Add
if
you
can
a
fifth
.
(
1.
)
As
the
Promise
refers
to
Christ
(
so
they
cannot
be
〈◊〉
)
who
is
Abraham's
in
a
special
manner
,
to
whom
God
promised
he
would
be
a
God
to
,
and
impart
all
Blessings
of
the
Covenant
unto
,
according
to
that
glorious
Compact
or
Covenant
of
Redemption
made
between
him
and
the
Father
before
the
World
began
,
upon
the
account
of
his
blessed
Undertaking
as
a
Mediator
and
Surety
,
that
so
he
might
impart
all
those
purchased
Blessings
and
Privileges
to
all
who
believe
in
him
,
or
were
given
to
him
by
the
Father
.
(
2.
)
As
the
Promise
refers
to
the
Elect
Seed
,
as
such
,
who
had
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
〈◊〉
in
his
Steps
,
it
cannot
include
the
Infant-Seed
o●
believing
Gentiles
,
as
such
.
(
3.
)
As
the
Promise
refers
to
Isaac
,
who
was
Abraham's
own
natural
Son
according
to
the
Flesh
,
as
well
as
according
to
the
Promise
,
they
are
not
the
Seed
of
Abraham
.
(
4.
)
As
Ishmael
and
the
Sons
of
Keturah
were
the
Seed
of
Abraham
;
so
the
Infant-Seed
of
believing
Gentiles
are
not
the
Seed
of
Abraham
.
If
you
can
●dd
a
fifth
sort
of
Abraham's
Seed
(
I
mean
such
who
are
so
called
)
from
the
Scripture
,
pray
do
when
you
write
again
.
Arg.
From
hence
I
thus
argue
:
I●
the
Children
of
believing
Gentiles
,
as
such
,
are
not
the
Natural
Seed
,
nor
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
then
they
can
have
no
right
to
Baptism
or
Church-membership
,
●…y
virtue
of
any
Covenant-Transaction
God
made
with
Abraham
.
But
the
Children
of
●…eving
Gentiles
,
a●
such
,
are
not
the
Natural
Seed
,
nor
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
:
Ergo
,
They
can
have
no
right
to
Bapti●●
nor
Church-Membership
,
●…y
virtue
of
any
Covenant
Transaction
God
made
with
Abraham
.
It
is
affirmed
by
some
,
that
the
Children
of
Believers
are
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
till
they
by
actual
Sin
,
unrepented
of
,
are
otherwise
.
Answ.
1.
T●…
which
I
answer
.
Then
some
of
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
may
perish
eternally
,
and
the
Promise
is
not
sure
●o
all
his
Spiritual
Seed
;
it
is
directly
contrary
to
w●●t
S.
Paul
affirms
in
Rom.
4.
16.
Therefore
it
is
of
Faith
that
it
might
be
by
Grace
;
to
the
end
the
Promise
might
be
●●re
to
all
the
Seed
not
to
that
only
which
is
of
the
Law
,
but
to
that
also
which
is
of
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
who
is
the
Father
of
〈◊〉
.
From
w●ence
I
argue
:
Arg.
2.
All
they
that
are
in
that
Gospel
Covenant
which
God
made
with
Abraham
,
or
who
are
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
,
have
the
Promise
of
Everlasting
Life
made
sure
to
them
:
But
all
the
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
have
not
the
Promise
of
Everlasting
Life
made
sure
to
them
;
Ergo
,
The
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
not
in
that
Gospel-Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
nor
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
.
Take
another
.
Arg.
3.
If
all
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
walk
in
the
steps
of
Abraham
,
even
that
Faith
Abraham
had
before
he
was
circumcised
;
then
the
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
not
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
.
But
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
walk
in
the
steps
of
Abraham
,
even
that
Faith
Abraham
had
before
he
was
circumcised
:
Ergo
,
The
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
not
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
.
As
to
the
Major
,
see
Rom.
4.
11
,
12.
The
Minor
cannot
be
denied
:
No
Man
in
his
right
Wits
will
affirm
,
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
have
the
Faith
Abraham
had
before
he
was
circumcised
;
nor
do
many
of
them
;
nor
can
they
walk
in
the
steps
of
Abraham
,
having
not
his
Faith
.
If
any
object
and
say
,
If
Infants
of
Believers
are
not
included
in
that
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
how
can
any
of
them
who
die
in
their
Infancy
be
saved
?
I
answer
,
1.
Cannot
God
save
dying
Infants
unless
they
were
included
in
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
?
How
then
could
the
dying
Infants
of
the
Godly
,
who
lived
before
that
Covenant
was
made
with
Abraham
,
be
saved
?
God
has
many
ways
,
through
Christ's
Undertakings
,
to
save
dying
Infants
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
notes
,
which
we
know
not
of
:
Secret
things
belong
to
God
,
and
revealed
things
to
us
.
2.
Were
they
in
any
sense
included
in
that
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
tho
not
accounted
for
his
Natural
or
Spiritual
Seed
,
yet
it
would
not
follow
from
thence
that
they
ought
to
be
baptized
;
because
the
Females
who
were
truly
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
and
some
of
them
might
be
his
Spiritual
Seed
too
,
yet
were
not
circumcised
,
no
more
than
the
Male
Children
of
the
Godly
were
before
Abraham's
time
,
&c.
3.
Were
they
in
Covenant
as
they
are
the
Natural
Seed
of
Believers
?
Then
Baptism
however
does
not
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
;
and
if
so
,
their
State
is
good
,
whether
baptized
or
no
:
And
if
Baptism
brings
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
makes
the
Covenant
sure
unto
them
,
then
it
would
follow
that
't
is
in
the
Power
of
Men
,
either
to
bring
their
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
keep
them
out
;
and
that
it
is
in
effect
to
say
,
Parents
have
Power
to
save
or
destroy
their
Children
:
and
how
absurd
that
is
,
I
will
leave
to
all
impartial
Men
to
judg
.
I
shall
,
in
the
next
place
,
prove
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Faith
,
and
therefore
doth
not
concern
the
Infant-Seed
of
believing
Gentiles
.
1.
I
argue
thus
:
That
Covenant
that
was
made
to
separate
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
from
all
other
Nations
of
the
World
,
and
made
sure
unto
them
the
Earthly
Promise
of
the
Possession
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
could
not
be
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
concerns
the
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
under
the
Gospel
.
But
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
made
to
separate
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
from
all
other
Nations
of
the
World
,
and
made
sure
unto
them
the
Earthly
Promise
of
the
Possession
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
:
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
could
not
be
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
concerns
the
Infants
of
Believers
under
the
Gospel
.
The
Major
cannot
be
denied
,
because
the
Gospel
,
or
second
Covenant
is
establish'd
upon
no
such
Earthly
Promises
as
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
,
not
that
we
should
have
an
Earthly
Kingdom
,
or
possess
the
Land
of
Canaan
;
but
it
is
established
on
better
Promises
than
these
,
as
Heb.
8.
6.
Also
if
that
Covenant
concern'd
us
,
or
our
Children
,
who
are
Gentiles
,
then
the
Gentiles
had
equal
Right
to
that
Earthly
Inheritance
;
and
then
were
not
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
separated
from
all
other
People
upon
the
account
of
that
Earthly
Blessing
as
their
Possession
only
.
As
to
the
Minor
,
see
Gen.
17.
I
will
establish
my
Covenant
between
me
and
thee
,
ver.
7.
And
I
will
give
unto
thee
,
and
thy
Seed
after
thee
,
the
Land
wherein
thou
art
a
Stranger
,
all
the
Land
of
Canaan
for
an
everlasting
Possession
;
and
I
will
be
thy
God
,
ver.
8.
This
is
my
Covenant
,
which
ye
shall
keep
between
me
and
you
,
and
thy
Seed
after
thee
;
every
Man-Child
among
you
shall
be
circumcised
,
ver.
10.
1st
.
There
were
some
who
were
circumcised
,
to
whom
the
Promise
of
the
Gospel-Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
did
not
belong
,
as
Ishmael
,
Esau
,
&c.
God
expresly
said
,
that
his
Covenant
(
i.
e.
the
Covenant
of
Grace
)
was
not
establish'd
with
Ishmael
,
but
with
Isaac
,
and
yet
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
belonged
to
Ishmael
as
well
as
to
Isaac
.
See
Gen.
17.
20
,
21.
As
for
Ishmael
,
I
have
heard
thee
:
behold
.
I
have
blessed
him
,
&c.
But
my
Covenant
will
I
establish
with
Isaac
,
whom
Sarah
shall
bear
unto
thee
,
&c.
Compare
this
with
Rom.
7.
8
,
9.
Not
because
they
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
are
they
all
Children
:
that
is
,
Children
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
the
Children
of
God
;
but
the
Children
of
the
Promise
are
co●…d
for
thy
Seed
:
See
Gal
4.
29
,
30.
Nay
,
all
that
were
in
Abraham's
House
,
whether
born
there
or
Strangers
,
or
such
who
were
bought
with
his
Money
,
were
circumcited
:
But
will
you
say
,
all
these
were
in
the
Gospel-Covenant
God
made
with
him
?
Moreover
,
there
were
other
Persons
in
Abraham's
House
,
who
no
doubt
might
some
of
them
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
had
the
Promises
belonging
to
them
,
who
were
nevertheless
not
circumcised
,
namely
,
the
Females
;
also
Male-Infants
dying
before
the
eighth
day
coming
from
Abraham
.
Moreover
,
other
Godly
Men
who
were
not
of
Abraham's
Family
,
yet
lived
in
his
time
,
as
Melchisedec
,
Lot
,
Job
&c.
none
of
these
had
right
to
be
circumcised
.
But
if
any
object
,
and
say
,
the
Females
were
circumcised
in
the
Males
:
I
answer
with
Mr.
Tombs
,
it
is
without
Proof
;
and
by
like
,
nay
perhaps
greater
Reason
it
may
be
said
,
that
the
Children
of
Believers
are
baptized
in
the
Persons
of
their
Parents
,
and
therefore
are
not
to
be
baptized
in
their
own
Persons
.
Also
't
is
apparent
that
the
Jews
comprehended
in
that
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
circumcised
accordingly
,
were
nevertheless
not
admitted
to
Baptism
upon
that
root
of
account
;
which
,
had
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
been
a
Gospel-Covenant
,
i.
e.
of
the
same
nature
,
I
see
no
Reason
why
●ohn
Baptist
should
deny
their
Argument
,
i.
e.
We
are
Abraham's
Seed
,
&c.
Hence
it
plainly
appears
,
that
the
right
Evangelical
Promises
were
not
the
adequate
〈◊〉
o●
Circumcision
;
but
,
as
I
have
before
said
,
〈◊〉
Precept
or
express
command
of
God
to
Abraham
And
from
hence
I
shall
infer
this
third
Argument
.
A●g
.
3.
That
Covenant
that
was
made
with
,
or
did
belou
,
unto
the
Fleshly
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
ungodly
ones
as
well
as
the
godly
,
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
But
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
made
with
,
or
did
belong
to
the
Fleshly
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
Ishmael
,
Esau
,
and
all
the
Lineal
Seed
of
Abraham
,
who
were
ungodly
,
as
well
as
to
the
godly
:
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Cirumcision
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
Arg.
4
If
all
who
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
,
do
know
the
Lord
from
the
greatest
to
the
least
of
them
;
then
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
could
not
be
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
But
all
who
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
,
do
know
the
Lord
from
the
greatest
to
the
least
of
them
:
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
This
Argument
is
fully
proved
by
that
in
Jer.
31.
32
;
33
,
34
speaking
of
the
new
Covenant
which
God
would
make
with
the
House
of
Israel
,
which
should
not
be
according
to
the
old
,
he
goes
on
and
tells
us
what
God
would
do
in
the
Gospel-day
.
That
he
would
put
his
Law
into
their
inward
Parts
,
and
write
it
in
their
Hearts
.
And
they
shall
teach
no
more
every
Man
his
Neighbour
,
and
every
Man
his
Brother
,
saying
,
Know
the
Lord
;
for
they
shall
all
know
me
,
from
the
least
of
them
unto
the
greatest
of
them
,
saith
the
Lord
,
&c.
And
indeed
in
this
very
respect
the
Gospel-Covenant
is
not
according
to
the
old
,
as
the
Lord
said
it
should
not
be
,
as
well
as
in
divers
other
cases
:
For
many
of
those
who
were
in
the
old
Covenant
(
to
which
Circumcision
did
appertain
)
were
Infants
,
though
all
of
them
were
not
taken
in
by
Circumcision
;
for
Female
Infants
were
received
into
that
old
Covenant
without
it
.
Now
these
Children
who
were
taken
into
Covenant
,
did
not
know
the
Lord
:
Infants
having
no
Understanding
,
know
not
their
Right-hand
from
their
Left
,
it
is
therefore
impossible
they
should
know
the
Lord
;
and
therefore
there
was
a
necessity
,
after
they
were
in
that
Covenant
,
that
they
should
be
taught
to
know
the
Lord
:
First
,
That
God
is
,
and
what
a
God
he
is
,
and
so
to
know
him
as
to
fear
him
,
and
serve
him
in
Sincerity
.
But
in
the
Gospel-Covenant
God
promised
it
should
be
otherwise
,
all
who
were
received
into
that
Covenant
should
be
Adult
Persons
,
or
such
who
did
know
the
Lord
:
which
plainly
implies
no
ignorant
Infant
should
be
taken
into
that
Covenant
,
and
be
a
Member
of
that
Church-State
;
for
it
so
,
then
it
would
follow
,
such
would
have
the
like
need
to
be
taught
to
know
the
Lord
,
as
they
had
in
the
old
Covenant
Church
State
.
And
remarkable
it
is
,
that
this
Text
doth
clearly
intimate
,
that
all
who
should
be
taken
into
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
or
Gospel-Church
,
should
be
discipled
or
taught
,
first
to
know
God
;
for
to
be
taught
or
discipled
is
all
one
and
the
same
thing
,
which
agrees
with
Christ's
great
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
where
he
gave
Direction
:
who
,
or
what
kind
of
Persons
they
were
to
be
that
he
would
have
his
Apostles
receive
into
his
Gospel-Church
;
and
that
they
should
be
all
of
them
,
first
taught
,
or
made
Disciples
,
and
,
as
such
,
be
baptized
,
is
clearly
declared
.
Now
that
this
Text
in
Jer.
31.
refers
to
the
Gospel-Covenant
is
evident
.
see
Heb.
8.
7
,
8
,
9
,
10.
Arg.
5.
That
Covenant
that
was
a
part
or
branch
of
the
old
Covenant
,
or
Covenant
of
Works
,
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
But
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
a
part
or
branch
of
the
old
Covenant
,
or
Covenant
of
Works
;
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
The
Major
cannot
be
denied
.
The
Minor
is
easily
proved
.
That
which
bound
or
obliged
all
those
who
were
under
it
,
or
did
it
,
to
keep
the
whole
Law
,
and
was
also
abrogated
,
or
taken
away
by
Christ
,
with
all
the
other
Rites
and
Shadows
of
the
old
Covenant
,
was
a
part
or
branch
of
the
said
old
Covenant
.
But
Circumcision
bound
or
obliged
all
who
were
circumcised
to
keep
the
whole
Law
,
and
also
the
same
Rite
of
Circumcision
was
abrogated
,
with
all
other
Rites
and
Shadows
of
the
old
Covenant
by
Christ
:
Ergo
,
Circumcision
was
a
part
or
branch
of
the
old
Covenant
;
see
Gal.
5.
3.
I
testify
to
every
Man
that
is
circumcised
,
that
he
is
a
Debtor
to
keep
the
whole
Law
.
Arg.
6.
The
Covenant
which
was
in
its
nature
and
quality
as
much
a
Covenant
of
Works
,
as
that
made
with
Adam
,
or
the
Sinai-Covenant
,
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
,
whereof
Christ
is
the
Mediator
.
But
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
in
its
nature
and
quality
as
much
a
Covenant
of
Works
,
as
that
Covenant
made
with
Adam
,
or
the
Sinai-Covenant
:
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
.
Read
Reverend
Mr.
Philip
Cary's
Defence
and
Proof
of
the
Substance
of
this
Argument
,
in
his
just
Reply
to
Mr.
John
Flavel
,
p.
59
,
60.
Thus
he
says
(
and
doubtless
speaks
the
Truth
)
viz.
That
Adam's
Covenant
was
a
Covenant
of
Works
,
cannot
rationally
be
denied
;
for
as
much
as
Life
was
implicitly
promised
to
him
on
his
Obedience
,
and
Death
was
explicitly
threatned
in
case
of
Disobedience
;
upon
these
Terms
he
was
to
stand
or
fall
.
And
that
the
Sinai-Covenant
was
of
the
same
nature
,
he
hath
in
the
said
Treatise
clearly
proved
,
both
of
them
requiring
perfect
Obedience
,
and
neither
of
them
admitting
of
Faith
in
a
Redeemer
.
The
Sinai
Covenant
commanded
perfect
Obedience
under
the
pain
of
a
Curse
;
Cursed
is
every
one
that
continueth
not
in
all
things
that
are
written
in
the
Book
of
the
Law
,
to
do
them
;
Gal.
3.
10.
It
accepted
(
as
he
shews
)
of
no
short
Endeavours
,
nor
gave
any
Strength
,
and
is
called
a
Ministration
of
Death
and
of
Condemnation
,
2
Cor.
3.
And
moreover
't
is
called
in
express
Terms
,
the
old
Covenant
which
God
made
with
the
Children
of
Israel
when
he
brought
them
up
out
of
the
Land
of
Egypt
,
Heb.
8.
9.
Also
the
new
Covenant
is
said
to
be
directly
contrary
unto
it
,
or
not
according
to
it
,
but
opposed
thereto
,
and
that
there
was
no
Righteousness
by
it
,
nor
Life
:
for
,
as
the
Apostle
shews
,
if
there
had
,
Christ
is
dead
in
vain
;
and
besides
,
the
Apostle
says
't
is
done
away
.
Now
all
these
things
being
considered
,
Mr.
Flavel
't
is
evident
doth
but
beat
the
Air
,
and
darken
Counsel
;
and
all
that
he
hath
said
in
his
last
Book
in
Answer
to
that
worthy
Gentleman
Mr.
Cary
,
deserves
no
farther
Answer
.
Now
,
saith
he
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
is
of
the
same
stamp
,
is
evident
:
for
tho
God
promised
to
be
a
God
to
Abraham
and
to
his
Seed
,
Gen.
17.
7
,
8.
as
he
did
also
in
the
Sinai-Covenant
to
the
same
People
in
the
Wilderness
;
yet
still
it
was
on
condition
of
Obedience
,
with
an
answerable
Threatning
in
case
of
Disobedience
;
Ver.
9
,
10.
Thou
shalt
keep
my
Covenant
therefore
,
thou
,
and
thy
Seed
after
thee
,
in
their
Generations
.
This
is
my
Covenant
,
which
ye
shall
keep
between
me
and
you
,
and
thy
Seed
after
thee
:
Every
Man-Child
shall
be
circumcised
.
Ver.
14.
The
uncircumcised
Male
Child
,
whose
Flesh
of
his
Foreskin
is
not
circumcised
,
that
Soul
shall
be
cut
off
from
his
People
:
he
hath
broken
my
Covenant
.
The
same
Terms
,
saith
he
,
with
the
former
.
Besides
,
't
is
evident
that
Circumcision
indispensably
oblig'd
all
that
were
under
it
to
a
perfect
universal
Obedience
to
the
whole
revealed
Will
o●
God
,
a
●…ed
before
,
Gal.
5.
3.
And
as
the
Term
were
the
same
,
so
were
the
Promises
;
that
which
was
the
great
Promise
of
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
was
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
and
God
to
be
their
God
,
in
fulfilling
that
Earthly
Promise
to
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
upon
the
Condition
of
keeping
that
Covenant
on
their
parts
.
That
which
Mr.
Flavel
hath
said
in
his
last
Reply
(
in
his
Book
,
called
,
A
succinct
and
seasonable
Discourse
)
to
Mr.
Cary
,
is
mainly
to
prove
that
there
is
but
one
Covenant
of
Works
p
217
,
218
,
&c.
To
which
I
answer
by
way
of
Concession
;
yet
you
must
say
,
that
Covenant
had
several
Ministrations
,
and
Additions
,
as
had
also
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
because
the
Covenant
of
Works
was
made
with
Adam
,
by
which
he
stood
in
the
time
of
his
innocency
justified
and
accepted
by
virtue
thereof
.
Could
not
God
give
such
a
second
Ministration
or
Transcript
of
his
righteous
and
holy
Law
,
tho
not
to
Justification
,
yet
to
aggravate
his
Sin
,
and
to
his
just
Condemnation
?
And
doth
not
St.
Paul
assert
the
same
thing
?
Rom.
3
1●
,
20
,
compared
with
Rom.
7.
13.
That
Sin
by
the
Commandment
(
or
Law
)
might
become
exceeding
sinful
:
So
Gal.
3.
19.
Nay
,
I
will
〈◊〉
always
when
the
Scriptures
of
the
New
Testament
speak
of
the
old
Covenant
,
or
first
Covenant
,
or
Covenant
of
Works
,
it
passes
by
in
silence
the
Covenant
made
with
Adam
,
and
more
immediately
and
directly
applies
to
the
Sinai
Covenant
,
and
to
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
as
all
careful
Readers
,
who
read
the
Epistles
to
the
Romans
,
Galatians
,
and
to
the
Hebrews
,
may
clearly
find
.
But
to
proceed
;
Tho
we
say
there
is
but
one
Covenant
of
Grace
,
yet
it
is
evident
there
were
several
distinct
Ministrations
of
it
,
or
Additions
to
it
;
and
we
say
,
the
Promise
of
the
Gospel
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
,
was
the
same
in
all
Ages
,
in
respect
of
things
promised
,
with
the
nature
and
quality
thereof
,
which
is
a
●…ree
and
absolute
Covenant
,
without
Works
,
or
any
Conditions
or
foreseen
A●●s
of
Righteousness
,
or
any
thing
to
be
done
by
the
Creature
,
Rom.
4.
5.
The
Substance
and
Essential
Part
of
this
Covenant
is
Christ
Faith
,
a
new
Heart
,
Regeneration
,
Remission
of
Sins
,
Sanctification
,
Preservation
,
and
Everlasting
Life
.
Yet
this
Evangelical
Covenant
had
divers
Forms
or
Transcripts
of
it
,
which
●…ified
those
things
,
and
various
Sanctions
by
which
it
was
given
forth
and
confirmed
.
To
Adam
the
Promise
was
made
,
under
the
Name
of
the
Seed
of
the
Women
bruising
the
Head
of
the
Serpent
;
to
Enoch
,
Noah
,
&c.
in
other
Forms
;
to
Abraham
,
under
the
Name
of
his
Seed
,
in
whom
all
the
Nations
of
the
Earth
should
be
blessed
;
to
Moses
;
by
the
Name
of
a
great
Prophet
of
his
Brethren
like
unto
him
;
and
it
was
also
signified
to
him
under
dark
Shadows
and
Sacrifices
:
unto
David
under
the
Name
of
a
Successor
in
his
Kingdom
:
In
the
New
Testament
in
plain
words
,
We
all
,
with
open
face
,
beholding
as
in
a
Glass
the
Glory
of
the
Lord
;
2
Cor.
3.
18.
But
now
,
because
there
were
so
many
Additions
of
the
Gospel-Promise
and
new
Covenant
,
are
there
so
many
new
Covenants
?
This
being
so
,
Mr.
Flavel
hath
done
nothing
to
remove
Mr.
Cary's
Arguments
,
but
they
stand
as
a
Rock
.
Take
another
of
them
.
Arg.
7.
That
Covenant
in
which
Faith
was
not
reckoned
to
Abraham
or
Righteousness
,
could
not
be
a
Gospel-Covenant
,
or
a
Covenant
of
Grace
:
But
the
Scripture
is
express
,
that
Faith
was
not
reckoned
to
Abraham
for
Righteousness
when
he
was
circumcised
,
but
in
Uncircumcision
,
Rom.
4.
9
,
10.
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Gospel-Covenant
,
or
a
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Arg.
8
That
Law
or
Covenant
which
is
contradistinguished
,
or
opposed
to
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
could
not
be
a
Covenant
of
Faith
,
or
a
Gospel-Covenant
.
But
the
Law
or
Covenant
of
Circumcision
is
by
the
Apostle
plainly
opposed
to
,
or
contradistinguished
unto
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
Rom.
4.
13.
Ergo
,
The
Law
or
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Gospel-Covenant
.
And
from
hence
Mr.
Cary
argues
thus
,
By
the
way
,
saith
he
,
let
it
be
observed
,
in
reference
to
the
two
foregoing
Arguments
which
I
have
already
proved
,
that
that
Covenant
that
is
not
of
Faith
,
must
be
a
Covenant
of
Works
,
there
being
no
Medium
betwixt
them
,
and
consequently
must
be
the
same
for
Substance
with
that
made
with
Adam
,
and
that
on
Mount
Sinai
with
the
Children
of
Israel
.
Arg.
9.
That
Covenant
that
is
plainly
represented
to
us
in
Scripture
as
a
Bondage-Covenant
,
in
and
by
which
there
was
imposed
such
a
Yoke
upon
the
Necks
of
the
Jews
,
which
neither
those
in
the
Apostles
time
,
nor
their
Fathers
were
able
to
bear
,
could
be
no
other
than
a
Covenant
of
Works
,
and
not
of
Grace
.
But
the
Scriptures
do
plainly
represent
such
was
the
nature
of
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
,
Acts
15.
10.
Gal.
5.
1
,
2
,
3.
Ergo
,
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Gospel-Covenant
,
but
a
Covenant
of
Works
.
Thus
Mr.
Cary
argues
also
:
And
thus
we
have
proved
from
God's
Word
,
and
sound
Arguments
,
that
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
not
a
Gospel-Covenant
.
Object
.
But
lest
any
should
think
that
we
shut
out
all
dying
Infants
from
having
any
Benefit
by
Christ
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
I
doubt
not
but
God
might
comprehend
them
in-that
glorious
Covenant
or
Compact
made
between
him
and
,
our
Surety
in
the
Covenant
of
Redemption
:
But
,
as
I
said
before
,
secret
things
belong
to
God
.
But
let
me
here
add
one
word
or
two
further
,
i.
e.
Circumcision
,
you
say
,
was
a
Privilege
:
so
we
say
too
,
but
not
such
a
Privilege
as
you
do
imagine
.
1.
It
doth
profit
as
a
Privilege
,
because
it
was
given
as
a
Token
or
a
Sign
to
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
that
they
should
have
the
Land
of
Canaan
for
an
everlasting
Possession
.
2.
As
a
Token
or
Sign
to
them
of
the
giving
forth
of
the
Law
on
Mount
Sinai
.
He
dealt
his
Laws
and
Statutes
to
Israel
,
he
did
not
so
to
any
other
Nation
;
this
Rite
could
not
therefore
be
a
Gospel-Rite
,
nor
the
Covenant
it
was
a
Sign
of
a
Gospel-Covenant
,
in
which
the
Gentile
Christians
are
concern'd
.
And
thus
Paul
argues
,
Rom.
31.
What
Advantage
then
hath
the
Jew
?
or
what
Profit
is
there
in
Circumcision
?
Ver.
2.
Much
every
way
;
chiefly
,
because
unto
them
were
committed
the
Oracles
of
God
.
You
may
soon
know
the
nature
of
that
Covenant
made
with
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
and
of
Circumcision
which
was
a
Sign
of
it
;
the
chiefest
Privilege
which
attended
it
,
was
the
giving
to
them
,
i.
e.
the
People
of
Israel
,
the
Law
of
the
Ten
Commandments
.
3.
Circumcision
,
by
the
Doctrine
of
St.
Paul
,
was
a
Privilege
if
they
kep
:
the
Law
:
For
Circumcision
verily
profiteth
,
if
thou
keepest
the
Law
;
but
if
thou
be
a
Breaker
of
the
Law
,
thy
Circumcision
is
made
Uncircumcision
,
or
a
Nullity
,
and
profiteth
thee
nothing
;
that
is
,
if
thou
keep
not
the
Law
perfectly
.
And
thus
speak
our
late
Annotators
on
the
place
,
If
thou
[
Jew
]
keep
the
Law
perfectly
,
to
which
Circumcision
obligeth
,
Gal.
5.
3.
If
otherwise
thou
transgressest
the
Law
,
thy
Circumcision
availeth
thee
nothing
,
it
gives
thee
no
Privilege
above
the
uncircumcised
.
What
is
now
become
(
this
being
so
)
of
that
mighty
Privilege
Abraham's
Seed
(
as
such
)
had
by
Circumcision
,
if
the
chief
Profit
or
Privilege
was
,
because
unto
them
the
Land
should
be
given
,
which
could
not
give
Life
,
but
was
a
Covenant
of
Works
?
then
the
chiefest
Profit
lay
not
in
it
,
as
it
was
an
Ordinance
of
Initiation
into
the
Church
:
sure
,
had
Paul
been
of
the
Judgment
of
Pedo-baptists
,
he
would
have
rather
past
by
that
Privilege
,
when
he
spoke
of
Circumcision
,
which
he
calls
the
chief
,
and
have
said
,
chiefly
in
that
it
was
a
Seal
of
Church-Membership
.
But
since
he
speaks
the
quite
contrary
,
who
shall
we
believe
,
you
,
or
the
great
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
?
And
evident
it
is
,
he
confirms
the
same
Doctrine
,
Gal.
5.
3.
For
I
testify
to
every
Man
that
is
circumcised
,
that
he
is
a
Debtor
to
keep
the
whole
Law
.
And
hence
't
is
said
to
be
a
Yoke
of
Bondage
which
neither
they
nor
their
Fathers
could
bear
,
Acts
15.
because
it
obliged
them
to
universal
O●edience
,
or
to
keep
the
Law
perfectly
,
and
brought
them
under
a
Curse
if
they
did
not
,
Gal.
3.
10.
These
things
considered
,
fully
shew
of
what
stamp
and
nature
Circumcition
was
,
together
with
that
Covenant
to
which
it
did
appertain
.
You
sav
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
did
include
Spiritual
Blessings
.
And
I
grant
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
principally
included
Spiritual
Blessings
;
but
the
Covenant
with
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
did
not
include
Spiritual
Blessings
:
All
Spiritual
Blessings
are
made
in
Christ
,
and
to
none
but
to
the
Elect
in
him
.
Moreover
,
we
deny
not
but
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
was
made
as
well
with
Abraham's
Spiritual
Seed
that
sprang
from
his
Loins
,
as
unto
his
Carnal
Seed
;
and
so
Circumcision
and
the
Land
of
Canaan
were
of
use
to
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
as
the
one
typified
the
Circumcision
of
the
Heart
,
and
the
other
the
Celestial
Rest
.
You
say
that
Infants
were
always
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
and
to
proveit
,
you
mention
Act.
2
38
,
39.
Repent
,
and
be
baptized
every
one
os
you
,
&c.
For
the
Promise
is
to
you
,
and
to
your
Children
,
&c.
Answ.
Do
we
deny
that
the
Promise
of
Pardon
and
of
the
holy
Spirit
doth
belong
to
our
Children
or
Off-spring
that
●o
believe
,
or
are
called
by
the
Lord
?
We
grant
it
readily
,
but
we
do
deny
that
this
Promise
here
refers
to
our
Seed
as
such
.
Dr.
Taylor
,
late
Bishop
of
Down
,
on
this
Text
says
,
And
to
your
Children
,
that
is
,
to
you
and
to
your
Posterity
,
to
you
and
to
your
Children
,
when
they
are
of
the
same
Capacity
in
which
you
are
,
effectually
receptive
of
the
Promise
;
but
(
saith
he
)
if
whenever
the
word
[
Children
]
is
used
in
Scripture
,
we
should
by
Children
understand
Infants
,
we
must
believe
that
in
all
Israel
there
were
no
Men
,
but
all
●ere
Infants
;
and
if
that
had
been
true
,
it
had
been
the
greater
Wonder
they
should
overcome
the
Anakims
,
and
beat
the
King
of
Moab
,
and
march
so
far
,
and
discourse
so
well
,
for
they
were
all
called
the
Children
of
Israel
The
Promise
appertains
not
to
Infants
in
that
Capacity
and
Consistence
,
but
only
by
the
Title
of
their
being
Reasonable
Creatures
,
and
when
they
come
to
act
Faith
,
of
which
by
Nature
they
have
the
Faculty
.
If
it
did
,
yet
Baptism
(
saith
he
)
is
not
the
Means
of
conveying
the
Holy
Ghost
;
for
when
Peter
says
,
Repent
and
be
baptized
,
and
ye
shall
receive
the
holy
Spirit
,
it
signifies
no
more
than
this
;
First
,
Be
baptized
,
and
then
by
Imposition
of
Hands
,
&c.
which
was
another
Mystery
and
Rite
,
ye
shall
receive
the
Promise
of
the
Father
,
&c.
But
then
,
saith
he
,
from
hence
to
argue
,
that
where-ever
there
is
a
Capacity
of
receiving
the
same
Grace
,
there
also
the
same
Sign
is
to
be
administred
,
and
from
hence
to
inser
Pedo-baptism
,
is
an
argument
very
fall●cious
,
upon
several
Grounds
.
1.
Because
Baptism
is
not
the
Sign
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
but
by
another
Mystery
,
it
was
conveyed
ordinarily
and
extraordinarily
,
(
that
is
,
by
laying
on
of
Hands
,
as
the
Doctor
mentioned
before
)
.
2.
If
the
Supposition
were
true
,
the
Proposition
built
upon
it
is
false
;
for
,
saith
he
,
they
that
were
capable
of
the
same
Grace
,
are
not
always
capable
of
the
same
Sign
;
for
Women
under
the
Law
of
Moses
,
altho
they
were
capable
of
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
yet
they
were
not
capable
of
the
Sign
of
Circumcision
;
for
God
doth
not
always
convey
his
Grace
in
the
same
manner
.
Thus
far
Reverend
Dr.
Jer.
Taylor
,
Lib.
of
Proph.
p.
234
,
235.
For
what
the
Bishop
hath
said
answers
all
you
affirm
on
this
Text
for
Infants
Baptism
.
The
Promise
of
the
Spirit
we
grant
runs
to
Believers
,
and
to
all
their
believing
Seed
and
Off-spring
,
be
they
Jews
or
Gentiles
;
and
this
Text
proves
nothing
more
.
It
did
not
belong
to
the
Jews
Seed
,
as
such
,
but
only
to
their
Children
that
did
believe
,
and
so
it
doth
to
the
Gentiles
,
that
were
sometimes
afar
off
,
that
believe
,
and
to
their
Children
that
God
shall
also
call
,
as
he
doth
call
their
Parents
.
That
which
you
seem
to
affirm
from
this
Text
is
this
,
viz.
that
there
is
such
a
Covenant
made
with
Gentile
Believers
,
and
with
every
particular
Believer
,
and
his
Carnal
Seed
,
as
God
made
with
Abraham
,
which
is
strange
Divinity
.
We
have
proved
that
there
was
a
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
to
which
Circumcision
did
belong
,
and
by
virtue
of
that
Covenant
,
as
appertaining
to
the
Flesh
.
There
was
under
the
Law
a
knowing
of
Men
,
the
Jews
in
that
Legal
and
External
Covenant
had
the
Preference
above
the
Gentiles
;
but
that
Covenant
is
taken
away
,
and
that
Partition
Wall
is
pulled
do●n
,
and
now
the
Jews
have
no
Advantage
upon
that
account
above
the
Gentiles
,
or
the
Gentiles
above
the
Jews
,
old
things
being
passed
away
,
and
old
Church
State
and
Church-Membership
gone
;
so
that
all
you
say
upon
this
Scripture
and
Argument
signifies
nothing
.
And
remarkable
't
is
that
Peter
spake
these
words
to
the
Jews
,
The
Promise
is
to
you
and
your
Children
,
&c.
But
to
say
,
the
Promise
runs
to
them
and
to
their
Infants
,
as
to
Baptism
and
Church-Membership
under
the
Gospel
,
as
Circumcision
and
Legal
Church-Membership
did
under
the
Law
,
is
notoriously
faise
;
none
of
the
Jews
Children
were
allowed
Baptism
,
or
received
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
but
only
such
that
did
believe
,
nor
of
the
Gentiles
neither
;
when
their
Children
believe
,
or
are
called
,
then
they
may
be
baptized
,
and
they
have
right
to
the
Promise
of
the
holy
Spirit
.
The
Promise
and
Blessing
of
Abraham
,
you
say
,
comes
on
the
Gentiles
through
Christ
,
and
by
Faith
,
therefore
,
say
I
,
not
in
a
fleshly
Line
,
and
by
Birth-Privilege
You
say
,
Abraham's
Blessing
was
not
Personal
unto
him
and
unto
his
Seed
,
this
Blessing
came
upon
the
believing
Gentiles
,
therefore
,
say
you
,
it
must
come
on
the
Faithful
,
and
on
their
Seed
;
for
it
cannot
be
termed
Abraham's
Blessing
if
it
come
not
upon
the
Gentiles
in
an
essential
form
to
Abraham's
Covenant
;
that
is
,
I
will
be
a
God
unto
thee
,
and
to
thy
Seed
,
unless
this
Blessing
come
upon
the
Gentiles
in
the
same
manner
,
and
in
the
same
Enlargement
,
it
being
not
Abraham's
Blessing
,
but
a
part
of
it
,
being
cut
in
the
middle
.
I
will
be
a
God
to
you
Gentiles
,
but
not
to
your
Seed
;
is
this
Abraham's
Blessing
,
how
unlike
to
it
?
there
is
a
great
difference
between
an
Estate
settled
on
a
real
Man
,
and
that
being
also
settled
on
his
Children
.
Answ.
1.
You
talk
●s
if
you
were
ignorant
what
Abraham's
Blessing
w●s
,
the
Blessing
of
Abraham
was
not
the
External
Privileges
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
(
which
it
seems
is
all
you
plead
f●r
about
your
Infant
Seed
)
but
the
spiritu●l
Part
an●
Blessing
of
the
Covenant
,
namely
,
Justification
,
Pardon
of
Sin
,
Adoption
,
and
Eternal
Life
.
2
▪
As
to
Abraham's
Seed
,
doth
not
the
Apostle
tell
you
,
that
,
To
Ab●aham
and
to
his
Seed
the
Promise
was
made
:
He
saith
not
,
to
Seeds
,
as
of
many
,
but
to
thy
Seed
,
which
is
Christ
;
Gal
3
16
Now
you
contend
for
Seeds
,
as
of
many
,
even
to
all
the
fleshly
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
fleshly
Seed
of
all
Believers
Sir
,
no
Gentiles
but
such
as
are
Christ's
,
〈◊〉
●braham's
Seed
;
none
but
such
that
believe
,
and
h●ve
Abraham's
Faith
.
The
●nheri●ance
,
which
is
God
to
be
our
God
by
way
of
special
Interest
,
〈◊〉
settled
upon
all
Believers
,
and
their
Children
that
have
the
same
Faith
,
not
their
Carnal
Seed
as
such
,
but
only
God's
Elect
Ones
.
3.
I
have
proved
(
it
is
true
)
that
there
was
a
Legal
and
External
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
his
Fleshly
Seed
,
in
which
Covenant
God
was
said
to
be
the
God
of
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
and
was
bound
to
them
;
but
that
Covenant
is
abolished
and
the
new
Covenant
is
not
according
to
that
,
but
quite
different
,
the
Fleshly
Seed
are
not
in
a
Relative
External
Covenant
:
〈◊〉
Christ's
Gospel-Church
is
not
National
.
This
being
considered
,
it
appears
,
that
wh●t
you
say
concerning
Abraham
being
the
Father
of
the
Gentiles
,
signifies
nothing
for
your
purpose
;
for
he
was
not
the
Father
of
any
Gentiles
,
but
of
such
that
believe
in
Christ
,
or
Elect
Ones
;
and
this
you
seem
to
acknowledg
in
these
words
,
viz.
the
believing
Gentiles
are
a
Seed
to
Abraham
,
Gal.
3.
29.
But
,
Sir
,
what
's
this
to
the
Business
?
prove
if
you
can
,
that
the
▪
fleshly
Seed
of
Gentile
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
a
Seed
to
Abraham
,
for
't
is
that
which
we
utterly
deny
,
and
on
that
foot
of
account
the
whole
Controversy
depends
.
You
say
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
are
not
accounted
to
be
the
Children
of
God
,
when
they
break
their
Covenant
with
God
;
and
John
Baptist
calleth
such
a
Generation
of
Vipers
.
Answ.
1.
This
is
the
sense
of
the
Apostle
,
strange
!
Can
those
that
are
the
Children
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
cease
to
be
such
?
May
the
Children
of
God
degenerate
into
Dogs
,
Wolves
,
and
Vipers
?
I
thought
that
such
as
are
God's
Children
,
or
Heirs
according
to
the
promised
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
can
never
cease
being
the
Children
of
God
;
how
else
is
the
Promise
sure
to
all
Abraham's
Spiritual
Seed
?
Do
not
all
the
Children
of
God
partake
of
God's
Divine
Nature
,
and
are
not
they
all
Heirs
of
God
?
Are
you
an
Arminian
?
Do
you
plead
for
final
falling
out
of
God's
Covenant
,
or
from
a
State
of
t●ue
Grace
?
that
must
follow
what
you
say
here
,
or
your
Argument
is
gone
and
lost
for
ever
.
2.
Reader
,
't
is
plain
that
Ishmael
,
Esau
,
&c.
and
many
more
of
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
nay
all
,
as
such
,
or
●s
so
simply
considered
,
were
not
accounted
for
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
or
the
Children
of
God
,
but
only
such
that
are
God's
Elect
Ones
,
or
such
as
believe
in
Christ
:
and
't
is
plain
that
none
of
the
true
Children
of
God
can
degenerate
so
as
to
cease
being
his
Children
;
I
mean
,
they
cannot
fall
totally
and
finally
from
a
State
of
Grace
,
and
become
Vipers
,
&c.
as
Mr.
Owen
acknowledges
some
of
Abraham's
Seed
did
,
which
clearly
shews
that
those
Jews
never
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
;
But
,
say
you
,
they
were
nevertheless
in
the
outward
Dispensation
of
God's
Covenant
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
True
,
the
Privileges
of
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
were
great
,
as
to
outward
Rites
and
Prerogatives
;
the
Covenant
did
appertain
to
them
[
mark
it
!
]
(
Covenants
)
there
were
two
Covenants
,
't
is
not
said
Covenant
.
1.
They
had
right
to
all
the
External
Privileges
of
the
Legal
Covenant
;
and
the
outward
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
and
Adoption
by
Faith
was
first
to
be
offered
unto
them
,
but
neither
they
nor
their
Children
,
as
such
,
had
right
to
Justification
,
Adoption
,
&c.
or
any
outward
Rite
or
Sacrament
of
the
Gospel
;
no
,
not
until
they
did
believe
,
and
had
the
things
signified
in
the
Sacrament
.
But
,
2
That
Covenant
that
gave
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
a
Prerogative
above
the
Gentiles
,
was
that
Partition-Wall
that
is
now
broken
down
,
(
〈◊〉
antea
)
i.
e.
that
Covenant
is
abolished
,
and
Jews
and
Gentiles
stand
now
upon
equal
ground
;
here
are
not
fleshly
Privileges
now
that
one
hath
above
the
other
;
no
knowing
of
Men
nor
things
after
the
Flesh
,
or
by
Birth
in
a
fleshly
way
,
through
or
by
reason
of
an
Externa
Covenant
,
as
under
the
Law
.
You
argue
as
many
〈◊〉
have
done
before
you
,
Children
of
Believers
were
once
in
Covenant
,
who
dares
be
so
bold
as
to
say
they
are
cast
out
?
Answ.
1
〈◊〉
being
once
Members
of
the
Jewish
Church
both
not
prove
they
were
ever
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
:
The
Male
Infants
of
God's
Priests
under
the
old
●ov●●an
,
when
grown
up
,
had
other
Privileges
,
if
we
must
●all
●…umcision
〈◊〉
Privilege
,
which
the
Sons
of
Christs
Ministers
have
no
right
to
under
the
Gospel
,
and
yet
no
where
in
express
words
in
the
New
Testament
excluded
from
that
Privilege
.
2.
But
I
have
proved
the
Covenant
for
Infants
Incovenanting
under
the
Law
,
was
no
Gospel-Covenant
and
so
concern
not
〈◊〉
Infant
.
3.
According
to
that
Maxim
,
Omnis
privatio
intimat
habitum
;
you
know
that
every
Dispossession
implieth
a
Possession
:
Infants
therefore
cannot
〈◊〉
cast
out
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
〈◊〉
one
they
can
be
proved
they
were
admitted
.
If
you
or
an●
Man
living
can
tell
us
in
what
visible
Administration
h●…
were
admitted
hurch
Members
before
Abraham's
days
,
which
was
above
2000
Years
,
you
say
somewhat
:
you
〈◊〉
they
were
always
in
Covenant
.
Mr.
〈◊〉
makes
mention
of
a
two●…
Covenant
.
1.
In
relation
to
El●…ion
.
2.
To
〈◊〉
in
Covenant
in
fa●ie
visibilis
Ecclesiae
.
To
this
I
answer
;
The
Covenant
of
Circumcision
belonged
to
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
to
Ihmael
,
and
Esau
,
as
well
as
〈◊〉
,
who
were
not
in
the
Election
of
Grace
:
therefore
all
those
who
were
circum●ised
were
not
so
in
Covenant
.
Children
of
Unbelievers
may
be
in
that
sense
in
Covenant
as
well
as
Children
of
Believers
,
as
many
of
them
afterwards
prove
to
be
,
nay
may
be
more
of
them
than
of
the
Children
of
Believers
.
2.
As
touching
Infants
being
in
Covenant
in
facie
visibilis
Ecclesiae
,
in
the
face
of
a
visible
Church
.
I
answer
;
Tho
they
were
so
in
all
the
Jewish
Churches
under
the
old
Covenant
,
some
with
Circumcision
were
brought
in
,
and
some
without
it
;
yet
that
Covenant
and
Covenant-Seed
are
(
as
I
have
and
shall
yet
prove
)
cast
out
,
which
will
be
a
final
Answer
.
Thus
I
argue
;
If
the
Covenant
for
incovenanting
of
Infants
was
the
old
Covenant
signified
by
Hagar
,
and
that
Covenant-Seed
signified
by
Ishmael
are
cast
out
;
then
the
Natural
or
Fleshly
Seed
of
Believers
are
cast
out
,
or
not
to
be
admitted
into
the
Gospel-Church
.
But
the
Covenant
for
incovenanting
of
Infants
was
the
old
Covenant
signified
by
Hagar
,
and
that
Covenant-Seed
signified
by
Ishmael
are
cast
out
.
Ergo
,
The
Natural
or
Fleshly
Seed
of
Believers
are
cast
out
,
or
not
to
be
admitted
into
the
Gospel-Church
.
See
Gal.
4.
22
,
23
,
24
,
25
,
26.
For
it
is
written
that
Abraham
had
two
Sons
,
the
one
by
a
Bond-woman
,
the
other
by
a
Free-woman
.
Ver.
24.
Which
things
are
an
Allegory
;
for
these
are
the
two
Covenants
;
the
one
from
Mount
Sinai
,
which
gendereth
to
Bondage
,
which
is
Hagar
,
&c.
Ver.
30.
Nevertheless
,
what
saith
the
Scripture
?
Cast
out
the
Bond-woman
and
her
Son
▪
for
the
Son
of
the
Bond-woman
shall
not
be
Heir
with
the
Son
of
the
Free-woman
.
1.
By
Hagar
is
meant
,
all
agree
,
the
old
Covenant
;
and
by
casting
her
out
,
is
held
forth
the
abolishing
,
or
taking
away
of
the
old
Covenant
.
He
took
away
the
first
,
that
he
might
establish
the
second
;
Heb.
10.
9.
2.
By
Ishmael
is
meant
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
so
the
Natural
Seed
of
all
Godly
Men
of
his
Race
that
succeeded
him
,
who
were
Members
of
that
Church
.
And
as
the
late
Annotators
note
,
by
this
place
is
signified
the
total
Destruction
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
which
consisted
of
Parents
and
their
Children
,
or
the
whole
Nation
of
Israel
.
This
Church
and
Church-Seed
,
and
manner
of
Church-Membership
is
cast
out
and
gone
for
ever
.
We
say
that
Children
were
once
admitted
Members
of
the
Jewish
Church
;
but
evident
it
is
,
that
God
hath
now
quite
pulled
down
,
and
razed
that
House
to
the
Foundation
thereof
,
I
mean
that
National
Church
of
the
Jews
,
and
broke
up
House-keeping
,
and
turned
the
Bond-woman
and
her
Son
,
i.
e.
the
Fleshly
Seed
or
Natural
Off-spring
of
Abraham
,
out
of
Doors
;
the
natural
Branches
are
broken
off
,
and
God
hath
now
built
him
a
new
and
more
glorious
,
and
Spiritual
House
under
the
Gospel
,
into
which
he
admitted
none
as
his
Houshold
Servants
,
to
dwell
in
this
his
Spiritual
Family
,
or
Gospel
Church
,
but
Believers
only
,
or
such
as
profess
themselves
so
to
be
.
Ye
,
saith
St.
Peter
,
as
lively
Stones
are
built
up
a
spiritual
House
,
&c.
and
that
the
old
House
,
the
Jewish
Church-state
,
with
all
the
Appurtenances
,
Rites
and
Privileges
of
it
are
abolished
,
or
pulled
down
,
and
a
new
own
built
and
set
up
,
into
which
Infants
are
not
to
be
admitted
,
is
very
evident
:
Heb.
7.
12.
For
the
Priesthood
being
changed
,
there
is
made
of
necessity
a
Change
also
of
the
whole
Law
,
which
must
needs
include
Circumcision
,
with
all
Appurtenances
and
Privileges
belonging
to
it
.
And
therefore
as
Infant
Church-Membership
came
in
with
the
Law
of
Circumcision
,
and
as
a
direct
part
of
the
old
Covenant
or
old
Law
;
so
likewise
plain
it
is
that
it
went
out
,
and
was
disannulled
with
it
.
Take
again
my
former
Simily
,
viz.
What
Privileges
soever
are
given
to
any
Person
by
an
Act
of
Parliament
,
which
said
Law
was
to
continue
so
long
in
force
and
no
longer
,
than
when
that
time
was
expired
;
and
another
Parliament
makes
a
new
Law
,
where
many
things
are
contained
that
were
in
the
last
Law
,
but
those
divers
Privileges
given
to
those
Persons
in
the
former
Law
are
left
out
in
this
latter
Act
:
would
it
not
be
a
piece
of
Folly
for
any
of
them
to
plead
those
Privileges
by
virtue
of
a
Law
that
is
gone
,
and
now
not
in
any
force
?
But
to
come
a
little
nearer
the
case
in
a
more
apt
Simily
:
Suppose
a
Man
should
have
a
Legacy
bequeathed
to
him
by
the
Will
and
Testament
of
his
Friend
,
and
yet
afterwards
his
Friend
sees
good
to
make
another
Will
,
which
is
his
last
Will
and
Testament
,
and
in
this
last
Will
and
Testament
he
leaves
him
quite
out
,
not
mentioning
his
Name
,
bequeathing
no
such
Legacy
to
him
;
would
it
not
be
Folly
in
him
to
sue
for
that
Legacy
left
him
in
the
first
Will
and
Testament
?
Sir
,
the
Case
is
thus
in
hand
,
we
read
of
two
Covenants
or
Testaments
,
an
old
and
a
new
,
a
first
and
a
second
.
Now
in
the
old
Will
or
old
Testament
,
Infants
were
admitted
to
this
Privilege
of
Church-Membership
in
that
Legal
or
National
Church
of
the
Jews
;
and
National
Church-Privileges
are
now
made
null
and
void
by
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
which
is
Christ's
last
Will
and
Testament
,
in
which
Infant
Church-Membership
is
quite
left
out
,
their
Names
not
being
mentioned
,
as
having
right
to
any
Gospel-Ordinance
,
as
Baptism
,
the
Lord's-Supper
,
&c.
If
we
would
know
the
Mind
of
God
herein
,
we
must
of
necessity
have
recourse
to
Christ's
last
Will
and
Testament
.
Since
the
Gospel
is
so
called
,
and
that
the
first
or
old
one
is
taken
away
,
and
there
is
no
Man
can
prove
any
one
old
Rite
that
did
appertain
to
the
Natural
Off-spring
of
Abraham
,
or
Believers
,
remains
to
them
,
which
is
not
mentioned
in
the
new
of
last
Will
or
Testament
of
Jesus
Christ
;
't
is
plain
they
had
(
or
leastwise
some
of
them
)
other
external
Privileges
besides
that
of
Circumcision
,
and
yet
I
see
no
Man
contend
for
any
one
Rite
,
but
only
this
they
call
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
.
Why
might
not
Ministers
plead
for
all
their
Sons
to
have
right
to
the
Ministry
,
since
that
Privilege
was
given
them
in
the
Old
Testament
;
and
that
all
Male-Children
that
open
the
Womb
to
be
holy
to
the
Lord
,
which
Blessings
belonged
to
them
under
the
Law
,
and
also
plead
for
the
Tenths
and
First-fruits
?
&c.
I
desire
you
and
all
Pedo-baptists
carefully
to
consider
and
weigh
what
I
have
said
;
I
have
shew'd
you
and
them
how
Infants
,
who
were
once
in
Covenant
,
i.
e.
in
the
Jewish
or
old
Covenant
,
are
cast
out
,
or
left
out
;
for
indeed
they
were
never
admitted
into
the
New
Testament-Church
;
but
since
they
are
not
put
in
,
and
the
old
Covenant
,
and
old
Church-Membership
are
cast
out
and
gone
,
in
vain
it
is
for
any
to
plead
their
Right
by
an
abrogated
Law
.
Besides
,
You
say
,
Circumcision
was
the
Seal
of
that
Covenant
,
by
virtue
of
which
Infants
had
Right
to
Church
Membership
:
if
so
,
't
is
evident
that
Covenant
is
gone
,
because
't
is
cancelled
;
for
the
tearing
off
,
or
breaking
off
the
Seal
,
we
all
look
upon
as
cancelling
a
Covenant
.
That
Circumcision
(
the
Seal
as
you
call
it
)
is
broken
off
,
I
am
sure
you
cannot
deny
;
Sir
,
what
is
then
become
of
your
Covenant
for
incovenanting
Children
?
Object
.
But
may
be
you
will
object
and
say
,
that
you
do
not
contend
for
that
particular
Rite
or
Institution
of
a
visible
Church-Membership
of
Infants
,
perpetual
in
all
Ages
,
and
an
indefinite
Seal
.
Reply
1.
How
doth
it
appear
the
Infants
of
the
Godly
before
Abraham's
time
,
had
any
Right
to
visible
Church-Membership
,
or
what
Seal
had
they
?
2.
Such
a
Right
is
a
meer
Figment-like
Idea
Platonica
.
All
Institutions
meerly
positive
are
of
such
Rite
in
particular
,
and
an
initial
Seal
is
meerly
positive
,
as
Signs
that
are
not
natural
,
but
by
the
Will
of
the
Appointer
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
initial
Seal
indefinite
.
Sir
,
now
you
have
no
way
left
,
but
to
see
since
the
old
Covenant
is
cancelled
,
whether
you
can
find
the
Baptism
of
Infants
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
there
taught
,
laid
down
and
prefix'd
to
it
,
as
Circumcision
was
to
the
Old
?
Do
that
and
you
do
all
;
do
not
that
,
and
all
you
do
is
just
nothing
.
You
with
others
seem
to
say
that
the
Privileges
of
the
Gospel
are
straiter
and
narrower
than
those
of
the
Law
.
Answ.
If
you
once
imagine
,
that
the
outward
or
external
Privileges
of
the
Gospel
are
larger
,
or
so
large
as
those
were
under
the
Law
,
you
are
greatly
mistaken
.
The
Jews
and
Jewish
Teachers
or
Priests
had
many
external
Privileges
,
which
Christians
and
Ministers
under
the
Gospel
have
not
;
they
had
a
lovely
Country
promised
to
them
,
a
Land
that
flowed
with
Milk
and
Honey
:
outward
Peace
,
Riches
,
and
gathering
of
Wealth
,
where
Privileges
belonged
to
them
;
but
we
under
the
Gospel
have
no
such
Privileges
,
but
are
to
expect
Persecution
,
and
what
not
?
Yet
our
Privileges
are
better
and
greater
,
tho
more
spiritual
;
't
is
a
Covenant
established
upon
better
Promises
:
Our
Children
,
when
grown
up
,
sit
under
the
clear
and
glorious
Light
of
the
Gospel
,
which
they
and
theirs
then
held
forth
but
in
dark
Shadows
.
Moreover
,
then
the
Church-state
was
confined
to
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
&c.
but
now
all
in
all
Nations
who
repent
and
believe
the
Gospel
;
the
poor
Gentiles
are
now
become
fellow-Heirs
indeed
.
Our
spiritual
Privileges
do
infinitely
excel
theirs
,
but
not
in
Externals
;
now
are
greater
Infusions
of
the
Holy
Spirit
.
O
,
Sir
,
what
Privileges
had
the
Gentiles
or
their
Children
then
!
is
not
the
case
mended
with
us
?
Again
,
't
is
objected
by
some
Pedo-baptists
,
If
it
were
the
Will
of
God
,
Infants
under
the
Gospel
should
be
reckoned
as
out
of
his
Covenant
who
were
in
Covenant
,
then
it
follows
,
say
they
,
that
our
Saviour
was
unfaithful
,
or
forgetful
to
his
Church
,
in
that
he
never
acquainted
her
with
this
Alteration
;
but
not
one
word
by
way
of
Prohibition
do
we
find
in
all
the
New
Testament
:
from
whence
we
may
conclude
,
that
Christ's
not
repealing
the
Practice
of
initiating
Infants
,
nor
forbidding
their
Admission
into
the
Church
by
Baptism
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
Had
it
been
the
Will
of
God
that
Infants
should
under
the
Gospel
be
admitted
into
the
Church
by
Baptism
,
Christ
,
you
might
rather
say
,
had
been
forgetful
or
unfaithful
in
not
giving
the
least
Intimation
of
his
Mind
and
Pleasure
therein
,
who
declared
all
things
plainly
from
the
Father
,
and
was
faithful
as
a
Son
over
his
own
House
.
2.
That
which
is
not
contained
in
his
last
Will
and
Testament
in
this
and
other
matters
,
is
sufficient
to
declare
his
Mind
and
Will
in
the
Negative
.
And
so
you
know
't
is
in
all
last
Wills
and
Testaments
among
Men
,
if
it
be
not
expressed
in
the
Affirmative
,
it
needs
not
be
expressed
in
the
Negative
;
and
if
not
,
because
't
is
not
forbidden
it
may
be
done
,
so
may
an
hundred
things
more
;
nay
many
Jewish
Rites
,
and
Popish
Innovations
too
,
for
where
are
they
forbid
?
The
Sum
therefore
of
my
Answer
is
this
:
The
Privileges
,
which
are
●ites
,
Ordinances
,
or
Sacraments
,
are
not
so
many
as
you
would
have
,
or
so
many
as
the
Jews
of
old
had
;
nor
are
they
to
be
administred
according
as
they
fancy
or
approve
of
,
or
according
to
their
Reasonings
,
but
according
to
God's
express
Appointment
.
Rightly
doth
Mr.
Ball
in
his
—
Book
speak
,
Posit
.
3
,
4.
pag.
38.
But
in
whatsoever
Circumcision
and
Baptism
do
agree
or
differ
,
we
must
look
to
the
Institution
,
and
neither
stretch
it
wider
,
nor
draw
it
narrower
than
the
Lord
had
made
it
:
for
he
is
the
Instituter
of
the
Sacraments
according
to
his
good
Pleasure
;
and
it
is
our
part
to
learn
of
him
,
both
to
whom
,
how
,
and
to
what
end
the
Sacraments
are
to
be
administred
,
how
they
agree
and
wherein
they
differ
:
In
all
which
we
must
affirm
nothing
but
what
God
hath
taught
us
,
and
as
he
hath
taught
us
.
Were
it
not
thus
,
how
could
we
deny
or
oppose
the
Papists
seven
Sacraments
?
or
condemn
Salt
,
Oil
,
Spittle
to
be
used
in
Baptism
,
which
they
use
in
it
,
seeing
these
are
not
forbid
?
But
well
saith
Tertullian
,
Is
it
lawful
because
't
is
not
forbidden
?
't
is
therefore
unlawful
because
't
is
not
commanded
.
'T
is
further
suggested
by
the
Pedo-baptists
by
way
of
Objection
,
viz.
That
it
lays
a
mighty
Stumbling-block
(
I
mean
the
Baptist
Principle
)
in
the
way
of
the
Jews
Conversion
to
Christianity
:
Will
this
,
say
they
,
encourage
a
Jew's
Conversion
to
embrace
the
Religion
of
Jesus
,
to
tell
him
of
the
high
and
glorious
Privileges
that
he
shall
be
interested
in
himself
upon
his
believing
on
him
,
but
for
his
Children
they
are
c●st
out
?
Answ.
Did
this
stumble
them
in
the
Apostolical
Days
,
who
were
told
that
Circumcision
availed
nothing
,
nor
Uncircumcision
?
The
truth
is
,
if
Circumcision
availed
nothing
,
but
was
a
Yoke
of
Bondage
,
then
why
should
that
stumble
them
?
It
might
be
a
greater
Stumbling-block
in
their
way
,
to
tell
them
their
Church-state
,
and
all
their
Privileges
are
now
gone
,
and
now
they
must
not
look
upon
themselves
better
than
the
Gentiles
;
no
more
Scepter
in
Judah
,
no
Land
of
Canaan
,
no
Temple
,
no
High-Priest
,
the
Levites
Sons
,
as
such
,
now
no
more
Ministers
,
no
Succession
of
Priesthood
:
What
of
all
this
,
when
they
hear
of
better
Privileges
for
them
?
and
that
their
Infants
who
die
may
go
to
Heaven
,
tho
not
circumcised
,
nor
baptized
?
And
if
they
live
to
be
Men
and
Women
,
and
do
believe
,
(
or
God
please
to
call
them
)
the
Promise
of
Pardon
of
Sin
,
and
of
the
Holy
Spirit
is
to
them
,
and
that
they
shall
be
saved
Act.
2.
39.
Are
not
they
and
all
others
told
,
that
old
things
are
passed
away
,
and
all
things
are
become
new
?
&c.
2
Cor.
5.
16.
Wherefore
henceforth
we
know
no
Man
after
the
Flesh
.
It
seems
then
that
heretofore
there
had
been
a
knowledg
of
Persons
after
the
Flesh
,
and
't
is
plain
there
was
,
because
the
Jews
were
of
the
Natural
or
Fleshly
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
were
therefore
all
of
them
admitted
to
the
Privilege
of
external
Church-Membership
,
while
others
were
exempted
:
But
we
see
the
Apostle
resolves
henceforth
to
disclaim
any
such
Value
,
Esteem
,
Preference
,
or
Knowledg
of
them
,
or
any
others
upon
the
account
of
meer
fleshly
Descent
:
And
to
this
very
purpose
immediately
subjoins
in
the
following
Verse
,
Therefore
if
any
Man
b●
in
Christ
,
he
is
a
new
Creature
:
old
things
now
are
past
away
,
and
all
things
are
become
new
:
the
old
Church
and
old
Church-Membership
,
Privileges
,
Rites
and
Ordinances
;
and
a
new
Church-state
,
new
Ordinances
,
new
Rites
,
a
new
Seed
,
and
a
new
way
of
Introduction
unto
the
Participation
of
Gospel-Privileges
and
Church-Membership
;
and
if
this
should
stumble
them
,
who
can
help
it
?
we
know
they
have
stumbled
upon
as
bad
a
Rock
as
this
.
Moreover
,
denying
Infants
any
Right
to
Gospel-Ordinances
,
cannot
fill
the
Mouths
of
Jewish
Children
with
clamorous
and
passionate
Complaints
against
Christianity
,
because
they
could
not
see
Jewish
Children
had
such
benefit
by
Circumcision
as
you
intimate
:
No
,
no
,
they
must
yield
to
the
Sovereign
Will
of
the
great
Lord
,
and
plead
for
no
more
Privileges
,
nor
any
otherwise
than
he
seems
good
to
ordain
and
appoint
.
I
am
sure
if
what
you
and
other
Pedo-baptists
say
was
true
,
it
is
enough
to
fill
the
Mouths
of
poor
Unbelievers
Children
among
us
who
are
Gentiles
,
with
clamorous
Complaints
against
their
Parents
,
if
they
did
regard
what
you
say
;
and
doubtless
there
are
more
of
them
,
I
mean
,
more
Children
born
of
Ungodly
Parents
,
than
such
born
of
Godly
Parents
:
And
what
may
they
say
,
and
how
may
they
expostulate
their
own
Condition
?
Alas
!
alas
!
sad
is
our
State
,
our
Parents
were
wicked
and
ungodly
People
,
and
we
are
by
that
means
left
of
God
;
to
us
belongs
no
Covenant
,
no
Sacraments
,
nor
hopes
of
Mercy
;
God
hath
taken
none
but
the
Children
of
godly
Persons
into
Covenant
!
We
are
baptized
,
alas
!
but
had
no
right
to
it
;
our
Condition
is
as
bad
as
the
State
of
the
Children
of
Pagans
and
Turks
!
Sir
,
if
People
did
consider
well
the
Purport
of
this
Doctrine
,
they
must
needs
have
their
Hearts
rise
against
all
the
Broachers
of
it
:
Nay
,
all
or
most
Children
may
be
in
doubt
,
whether
their
Parents
were
truly
Godly
,
and
so
in
Covenant
or
not
;
for
if
not
,
you
must
fly
to
some
other
Argument
to
prove
their
Baptism
and
Church-Privileges
,
than
that
of
their
Parents
being
in
Covenant
.
True
,
the
case
under
the
Law
was
another
thing
;
for
if
their
Parents
were
Jews
,
or
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
whether
Godly
or
not
,
yet
they
knew
they
had
right
to
those
external
Privileges
.
I
have
seen
some
Arguments
fram'd
by
a
Pedo-baptist
,
in
order
to
the
proving
that
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
was
a
Covenant
of
Grace
;
and
he
endeavours
to
prove
the
same
,
1.
From
the
Language
and
Expression
of
it
.
2.
From
the
Duration
of
it
.
3.
From
the
Blessings
by
it
.
1.
The
Language
and
Expression
of
it
,
Gen.
17.
7.
I
will
be
a
God
unto
thee
,
and
to
thy
Seed
after
thee
.
Now
(
say
they
)
is
not
this
a
pure
Gospel-Phrase
,
and
shews
it
to
be
a
Covenant
with
Abraham
in
Christ
?
I
pray
how
comes
the
Almighty
God
(
who
,
upon
the
breach
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
made
with
us
in
Adam
,
became
our
enraged
Enemy
)
to
be
a
God
unto
fallen
Man
,
any
other
ways
than
by
a
Mediator
?
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
have
proved
that
there
was
a
twofold
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
I
deny
not
but
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
in
Christ
was
promised
to
Abraham
,
which
takes
in
only
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
,
and
to
all
those
God
is
in
a
special
manner
become
a
God
unto
.
2.
Evident
it
is
,
all
manner
of
God's
covenanting
Transactions
since
the
Fall
,
of
what
nature
soever
,
have
been
no
other
ways
than
through
the
Interposition
of
a
Mediator
,
as
that
with
Noah
about
the
Flood
,
&c.
Gen.
9.
8
,
9.
in
that
God
shewed
himself
to
be
the
God
of
the
whole
World
,
and
so
he
is
by
Creation
and
Providence
;
yet
it
doth
not
follow
that
Covenant
was
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
or
that
God
hath
received
them
into
special
Favour
with
himself
.
So
when
God
gave
out
that
fiery
Law
on
Mount
Sinai
,
he
told
them
,
Exod.
20.
2.
I
am
the
Lord
your
God
,
&c.
this
was
the
very
Introduction
to
that
part
of
the
Law
which
was
written
in
Stone
;
but
nevertheless
the
Apostle
expresly
calls
it
,
a
Ministration
of
Death
and
Condemnation
,
2
Cor.
3.
7
,
8.
and
that
it
killed
and
could
not
give
Life
.
Now
must
this
be
a
Covenant
of
Faith
or
Grace
?
How
is
it
then
that
the
Apostle
Paul
says
,
the
Law
is
not
of
Faith
;
also
the
Covenant
of
Grace
giveth
Life
?
But
I
argue
thus
,
The
Law
could
not
give
Life
;
Ergo
,
The
Law
was
not
a
Covenant
of
Grace
.
So
much
for
the
first
Note
or
Observation
.
2.
The
second
Observation
is
,
The
Duration
or
Continuance
of
this
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
the
Lord
calls
●t
an
Everlasting
Covenant
,
&c.
Answ.
This
might
have
been
left
out
,
only
it
adds
to
the
Number
:
this
is
answered
by
the
Objector
himself
(
be
he
who
he
will
)
in
saying
the
Hebrew
word
for
Everlasting
,
sometimes
signifies
no
more
than
a
long
Continuance
of
Time
:
We
know
it
very
well
;
and
those
Mosaical
Rites
that
ended
in
Christ
,
are
said
to
be
for
everlasting
.
But
when
the
Lord
saith
he
will
be
a
Person
's
God
for
ever
and
ever
,
or
everlastingly
,
it
denotes
his
being
so
to
all
Eternity
:
But
God
never
said
he
would
be
the
God
everlastingly
,
or
to
all
Eternity
,
to
all
who
were
concern'd
in
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
;
nor
was
he
Ishmael's
God
so
,
tho
circumcised
;
and
has
he
not
cast
off
that
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
with
whom
he
made
that
Covenant
?
and
is
not
so
their
God
now
,
tho
he
is
,
I
confess
,
to
all
Eternity
,
or
everlastingly
,
the
God
of
all
Abraham's
Spiritual
Seed
;
viz.
all
true
Believers
in
Christ
.
3.
The
third
and
last
Argument
or
Note
to
prove
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
a
Covenant
of
Grace
,
is
taken
from
the
Benefits
and
Blessings
conveyed
by
it
.
To
be
a
God
unto
him
,
and
to
his
Seed
,
and
that
everlastingly
,
is
a
most
comprehensive
Gospel-Blessing
;
for
hereby
(
say
they
)
God
gives
a
Person
an
Interest
in
all
that
he
is
,
and
in
all
that
he
has
,
so
far
as
can
be
communicated
to
a
Creature
.
This
Blessing
promised
to
Abraham
comprehends
Christ
,
Grace
,
Holiness
here
,
and
Glory
and
Happiness
hereafter
.
And
accordingly
we
find
the
Apostle
,
Heb.
8.
uses
the
same
Expression
with
this
of
God's
to
Abraham
,
I
will
be
to
them
a
God
,
and
they
shall
be
to
me
a
People
.
Answ.
This
is
idem
,
&
bis
idem
culpandum
est
,
the
same
again
which
is
already
answered
.
Is
God
everlastingly
a
God
to
Abraham
and
to
all
his
Fleshly
Seed
,
and
to
Believers
,
who
are
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
to
all
their
Fleshly
Seed
;
I
say
,
is
this
so
?
Does
God
give
himself
,
all
he
is
,
and
all
he
has
,
to
every
Believer
,
and
to
all
his
Fleshly
Seed
?
Have
all
their
Children
,
or
every
one
of
them
,
Christ
,
Grace
,
Holiness
here
,
and
Glory
and
eternal
Happiness
hereafter
?
Or
,
are
they
not
to
be
justly
blamed
who
jumble
things
so
confusedly
together
?
'T
is
true
,
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
,
and
all
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
(
who
are
the
Elect
)
have
Interest
in
all
God
is
,
and
has
,
so
far
as
it
can
be
communicated
to
Creatures
;
and
we
know
they
have
Christ
(
as
well
as
are
Christ's
,
as
Paul
notes
,
Gal.
4.
)
and
Grace
here
,
and
shall
have
Glory
hereafter
.
But
a
multitude
of
Abraham's
Natural
Off-spring
,
and
the
Natural
Off-spring
of
Believers
has
neither
Christ
nor
Grace
,
nor
shall
be
saved
,
but
perish
eternally
.
Therefore
this
may
serve
for
an
Answer
,
with
what
I
have
proved
before
,
touching
the
nature
of
that
twofold
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
.
Let
us
come
to
what
is
further
asserted
:
If
the
Covenant
which
God
made
with
Abraham
be
one
and
the
same
with
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
then
our
Infant-Seed
have
right
to
Baptism
.
Answ.
This
has
been
urged
before
,
and
I
have
already
answered
it
,
only
I
shall
add
a
Passage
or
two
of
Martin
Luther's
.
Paul
therefore
concludeth
with
this
Sentence
(
saith
he
)
They
which
are
of
Faith
,
are
the
Children
of
Abraham
:
That
Corporal
Birth
,
or
Carnal
Seed
makes
not
the
Children
of
Abraham
before
God
.
As
if
he
would
say
,
there
is
none
before
God
accounted
as
the
Child
of
this
Abraham
(
who
is
the
Servant
of
God
,
whom
God
hath
chosen
and
made
righteous
by
Faith
)
through
Carnal
Generation
,
but
such
Children
must
be
given
before
God
as
he
was
a
Father
,
but
he
was
a
Father
of
Faith
,
was
justified
and
pleased
God
;
not
because
he
could
beget
Children
after
the
Flesh
,
not
because
he
had
Circumcision
under
the
Law
,
but
because
he
believed
in
God
.
He
therefore
that
will
be
a
Child
of
the
believing
Abraham
,
must
also
himself
believe
,
or
else
he
is
not
a
Child
of
the
Elect
,
the
believing
and
the
justified
Abraham
,
but
only
the
begetting
Abraham
,
which
is
nothing
else
but
a
Man
,
conceived
,
born
and
wrapt
in
Sin
,
without
the
Forgiveness
of
Sin
,
without
Faith
,
without
the
Holy
Ghost
,
as
another
Man
is
,
and
therefore
condemned
:
such
also
are
the
Children
carnally
begotten
of
him
,
having
nothing
in
them
like
unto
their
Father
,
but
Flesh
and
Blood
,
Sin
and
Death
;
therefore
these
are
all
damned
.
This
glorious
boasting
then
we
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
is
to
no
purpose
.
Thus
far
,
and
much
more
to
the
same
purpose
he
excellently
debates
upon
.
Mr.
Perkins
on
the
Galatians
,
concerning
the
Covenant
m●de
with
Abraham
:
The
Seed
of
Abraham
(
saith
he
)
is
the
Seed
not
of
the
Flesh
,
but
of
the
Promise
:
And
this
Seed
is
first
Christ
,
and
then
all
that
believe
in
Christ
;
for
all
these
are
given
to
Abraham
by
Promise
and
Election
of
God
.
Moreover
,
this
Seed
is
not
many
,
(
as
Paul
observeth
)
but
one
.
It
is
objected
,
that
the
word
Seed
is
a
Name
collective
,
and
signifies
the
whole
Posterity
of
Abraham
.
Answ
.
It
doth
sometimes
(
saith
he
)
but
not
always
;
for
Eve
saith
of
S●th
,
God
hath
given
me
another
Seed
.
Again
(
he
saith
)
this
one
particular
Seed
of
Abraham
,
is
Christ
Jesus
,
here
call'd
by
the
Name
Christ
,
first
and
principally
the
Mediator
;
and
then
,
secondarily
,
all
Jews
and
Gentiles
believing
that
are
fit
and
grafted
into
Christ
by
Faith
.
St.
Paul
saith
,
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God
;
but
the
Children
of
the
Promise
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
Rom.
9.
8.
Now
this
Covenant
we
grant
thus
made
with
Abraham
,
is
one
and
the
same
with
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
but
what
does
this
signify
to
the
Infants
,
or
Fleshly
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
?
And
thus
I
shall
pass
to
your
next
Argument
.
You
say
,
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
in
God's
Covenant
,
because
Christ
is
the
Mediator
of
a
better
Covenant
,
which
was
established
upon
better
Promises
,
Heb.
8.
6
,
&c.
But
,
say
you
,
if
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
excluded
from
the
Covenant
,
then
the
Covenant
is
worse
,
and
not
a
better
Covenant
?
It
was
a
great
Prerogative
of
Children
being
in
Covenant
,
Rom.
9.
4.
for
the
Promises
of
God
belonged
to
them
;
but
if
the
Covenant
be
shortened
in
Privileges
,
how
is
it
a
better
Covenant
?
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
It
is
granted
by
us
that
the
Children
of
the
Jews
,
whether
they
were
believing
Jews
,
or
unbelieving
Jews
,
godly
Persons
or
ungodly
Persons
,
they
were
in
that
external
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
or
with
the
whole
House
of
Israel
under
the
Old
Testament
,
or
old
Covenant
:
But
the
Promises
and
that
Covenant
then
ran
not
to
the
Seed
of
believing
Jews
only
,
but
if
they
were
Abraham's
Seed
,
I
mean
his
Natural
Seed
,
whether
Believers
or
Unbelievers
.
Circumcision
belonged
to
the
Male-Infants
,
as
such
,
and
all
other
external
Privileges
,
but
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
ran
only
then
as
it
runs
now
,
viz.
to
all
the
Elect
only
,
not
to
their
Carnal
Seed
,
as
such
,
but
to
their
Spiritual
Seed
.
If
you
are
a
Believer
,
you
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
and
if
your
Child
in
Infancy
be
one
of
God's
Elect
,
that
decretively
is
in
the
same
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
not
actually
until
it
doth
believe
,
and
has
actual
Union
with
Christ
by
Faith
,
and
partakes
of
the
holy
Spirit
,
which
is
the
Bond
of
that
Union
,
and
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
No
external
Rite
can
be
the
Seal
of
the
Spiritual
Covenant
.
If
therefore
Circumcision
was
a
Seal
of
any
Covenant
,
it
was
the
External
and
Legal
Covenant
:
tho
Abraham
,
't
is
true
,
received
it
as
the
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
Faith
,
even
of
that
Faith
he
had
being
uncircumcised
;
and
in
that
sense
it
could
be
a
Seal
to
no
other
Person
but
to
Abraham
only
:
for
who
besides
him
had
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
before
they
were
circumcised
,
and
that
they
should
be
Fathers
to
all
that
believed
,
not
only
of
believing
Jews
,
but
believing
Gentiles
also
?
for
so
ran
the
Covenant
of
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
God
made
with
Abraham
.
And
has
God
made
such
a
Covenant
with
you
,
or
with
any
Believer
now
?
Or
,
is
there
any
such
Covenant-Head
under
the
Gospel
,
save
Jesus
Christ
alone
?
Abraham
was
but
a
Typical
Father
;
the
Covenant
made
with
him
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
typified
Christ
,
and
all
his
Spiritual
Seed
.
2.
We
have
proved
in
the
Legal
or
Old
Covenant
,
there
were
many
other
external
Privileges
besides
Circumcision
,
and
external
visible
Church-Membership
,
several
of
which
we
have
mentioned
;
to
which
we
may
add
,
they
had
a
right
to
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
and
to
a
Civil
Government
and
Governours
among
themselves
,
or
a
Political
Common-wealth
,
as
also
a
right
to
a
glorious
external
Temple
.
But
,
Sir
,
is
the
Gospel
Covenant
worse
than
that
Legal
Covenant
,
because
we
and
our
Children
have
not
such
Promises
and
external
Privileges
?
Certainly
if
God
pleases
to
open
your
Eyes
,
you
will
soon
see
and
confess
your
Mistake
.
Besides
,
the
Apostle
calling
it
a
better
Covenant
,
and
better
Promises
,
clearly
shews
they
are
not
external
Privileges
,
but
spiritual
:
and
so
in
that
sense
I
have
proved
the
Privileges
and
Promises
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
do
far
exceed
the
Privileges
the
Jews
had
then
;
and
our
Childrens
Privileges
are
greater
also
,
tho
not
to
be
received
as
Members
into
the
Gospel-Church
till
they
do
believe
.
You
say
,
the
Covenant
of
Grace
that
God
made
with
Abraham
was
an
immutable
Covenant
,
it
was
confirmed
by
an
Oath
,
Heb.
6.
13
,
17
,
&c.
therefore
if
the
Children
are
excluded
the
Covenant
(
you
say
)
it
is
mutable
;
and
if
so
,
what
is
become
of
the
Oath
and
the
Promises
of
God
?
Where
is
the
strong
Consolation
?
Where
is
the
Immutability
of
God's
Counsel
?
Therefore
(
say
you
)
those
that
do
cast
out
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
●rom
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
&c.
weaken
their
Consolation
,
and
nullify
the
eternal
Covenant
,
and
make
God
a
Liar
,
1
John
5.
10.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
Here
you
charge
us
home
,
and
lay
horrid
Evil
at
our
Doors
,
that
do
deny
the
Children
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
to
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
:
but
how
unjustly
and
unrighteously
we
are
charged
by
you
,
I
shall
,
God
assisting
,
make
appear
.
2.
Sir
,
Are
all
Believers
Children
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
I
affirm
,
and
will
stand
by
it
,
if
so
,
they
shall
all
be
saved
,
because
all
and
every
Soul
that
was
,
or
is
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
,
shall
be
saved
,
because
it
is
an
immutable
Covenant
,
and
God's
Promise
and
Oath
are
passed
to
secure
them
of
Eternal
Life
.
Sir
,
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
,
never
had
any
ground
of
strong
Consolation
;
God
never
made
a
Promise
,
and
bound
it
with
an
Oath
,
that
they
should
all
be
saved
;
I
speak
of
Abraham's
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
so
considered
,
or
as
such
;
for
if
he
had
made
such
an
immutable
Covenant
with
them
,
and
confirm'd
it
by
his
Oath
,
What
is
become
of
his
Promises
and
Oath
,
since
he
hath
cast
off
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
?
O
how
preposterously
you
argue
!
See
Rom.
9.
6.
Not
as
tho
the
Word
of
God
hath
taken
none
Effect
:
For
they
are
not
all
Israel
which
are
of
Israel
:
Neither
because
they
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
are
they
all
Children
;
but
in
Isaac
shall
thy
Seed
be
called
,
i.
e.
They
that
are
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
i.
e.
as
such
,
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God
;
but
the
Children
of
the
Promise
are
counted
for
the
Seed
.
Sir
,
this
Text
says
as
much
as
we
do
affirm
.
The
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
viz.
all
the
Elect
of
God
,
or
Believers
only
,
are
in
the
immutable
Covenant
,
and
have
strong
Consolation
;
but
who
can
tell
or
know
who
they
are
that
are
God's
Elect
Ones
until
they
believe
,
or
are
under
effectual
Vocation
?
and
that
Election
runs
only
to
Believers
Seed
,
as
such
,
you
will
not
say
:
For
many
Children
of
Unbelievers
we
se●
daily
are
in
God's
eternal
Election
by
their
special
Vocation
,
and
many
Children
of
Believers
are
not
elected
,
because
never
called
..
2.
Were
it
the
immutable
Counsel
of
God
,
that
all
Believers
Children
should
be
called
,
adopted
,
justified
and
eternally
saved
,
you
had
said
something
,
and
then
all
their
Natural
Seed
might
have
strong
Consolation
indeed
.
But
alas
,
alas
,
how
many
Godly
Mens
Children
prove
wicked
and
ungodly
,
and
so
live
and
die
!
Were
these
such
,
think
you
,
that
ever
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
ma●e
with
Abraham
?
Had
they
ever
any
ground
of
strong
Consolation
?
3.
Come
,
Sir
,
the
Odium
falls
on
your self
.
I
argue
thus
:
If
all
the
Children
of
Believers
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
yet
many
of
them
eternally
perish
,
what
then
is
become
of
the
immutable
and
everlasting
Covenant
of
Grace
?
nay
of
the
Promises
and
Oath
of
God
?
and
also
of
the
Doctrine
of
final
Perseverance
?
O
what
Shame
do
you
Pedo-baptists
bring
upon
your selves
,
by
arguing
after
this
blind
manner
for
your
Babes
Baptism
!
4.
But
perhaps
you
will
say
,
you
argue
for
the
external
Privileges
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
belong
to
your
Children
,
as
such
,
and
not
the
spiritual
and
special
Blessings
of
it
.
Answ.
If
so
,
the
case
is
still
worse
:
for
then
it
will
follow
,
that
God
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
hath
by
his
Promise
and
Oath
,
and
Immutability
of
his
Counsel
,
given
to
all
Persons
ground
of
strong
Consolation
,
that
only
have
a
share
in
the
outward
Rites
and
external
Parts
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Sir
,
deliver
your self
as
well
as
you
can
from
being
ground
to
pieces
between
these
two
Mill-stones
.
But
why
must
your
Children
only
have
but
part
of
the
external
Privileges
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
who
only
partake
of
Baptism
,
and
not
of
the
Lord's-Supper
?
Is
not
Faith
required
of
all
such
that
ought
to
be
baptized
,
as
well
as
it
i●
required
in
all
that
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
to
examine
themselves
?
neither
of
which
Infants
are
capable
to
do
.
It
i●
manifest
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
;
but
that
there
was
a
twofold
Covenant
made
with
him
,
and
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
only
appertains
to
the
Elect
of
God
,
whether
they
be
Children
of
Believers
or
Children
of
Unbeliever●
,
which
is
not
known
to
us
until
they
are
grown
up
,
and
are
brought
by
the
Spirit
of
God
under
special
Vocation
and
Regeneration
;
and
that
they
are
the
Adult
only
,
viz.
such
as
believe
,
that
have
right
to
Baptism
,
but
that
not
by
virtue
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
by
virtue
of
the
positive
Command
of
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
.
Sir
,
you
mistake
again
,
it
was
not
by
virtue
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
that
Persons
had
right
to
Circumcision
;
for
if
so
,
then
Lot
,
and
Melchisedec
,
and
Abraham's
Males
as
soon
as
they
were
born
had
a
right
to
it
,
as
also
his
Females
;
nothing
gave
right
to
Abraham's
Male-Infan●s
to
Circumcision
but
the
meer
positive
Command
of
God
to
him
,
which
extended
only
to
those
Males
in
his
own
House
,
or
bought
with
his
Money
,
and
not
till
the
eighth
day
:
for
such
that
died
before
the
eighth
day
,
tho
Males
,
had
no
right
to
be
circumcised
,
nor
had
his
Females
any
right
thereto
;
so
none
but
Believers
,
when
they
can
give
an
account
of
their
Faith
,
by
virtue
of
Christ's
express
and
positive
Command
,
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Pray
remember
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
such
,
gives
no
right
to
Baptism
;
for
if
it
did
,
all
Believers
or
Elect
Persons
had
right
to
it
from
the
first
Introduction
or
Declaration
of
it
to
Adam
upon
the
Fall
.
No
,
no
,
it
is
a
pure
Gospel-Ordinance
,
and
meerly
positive
,
and
only
depends
upon
the
Will
and
Pleasure
of
the
Law-giver
,
Jesus
Christ
.
Honoured
Britains
,
who
inhabit
North
and
South
Wales
,
let
me
intreat
you
to
consider
how
false
the
Conclusion
is
that
Mr.
Owen
draws
,
concerning
the
Right
the
Infants
of
the
Faithful
have
to
Baptism
;
namely
,
that
if
they
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
then
they
ought
to
be
baptized
:
For
as
he
,
nor
no
Man
else
can
prove
,
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
so
it
would
not
follow
,
were
that
granted
,
that
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
it
being
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
the
express
and
positive
Command
of
Christ
that
gives
Persons
just
Right
thereunto
.
Suppose
Christ
had
not
commanded
Believers
to
be
baptized
,
would
any
Man
have
adventured
to
baptize
them
,
or
conclude
it
was
their
Duty
because
they
were
in
Covenant
with
God
?
Or
would
Abraham
have
been
circumcised
himself
,
because
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
had
he
not
received
a
positive
Command
so
to
be
?
Certainly
he
was
long
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
before
he
was
circumcised
,
and
did
not
sin
thereby
,
because
God
had
not
given
that
Precept
to
him
until
he
was
old
.
Moreover
,
it
was
the
express
Command
of
God
that
gave
right
to
his
Male-Infants
to
be
circumcised
,
and
not
only
those
of
his
Seed
that
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
Ishmael
,
and
others
who
were
not
Children
of
the
Promise
,
or
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
were
circumcised
,
and
also
it
was
not
Lot's
Duty
,
tho
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
to
be
circumcised
,
because
not
one
that
dwelt
in
Abraham's
Family
,
or
his
Natural
Seed
,
nor
commanded
by
the
Lord
to
be
circumcised
,
or
to
circumcise
his
Infants
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Proving
Infant-Baptism
is
not
lawful
,
because
Circumcision
under
the
Law
belonged
unto
the
Male-Infants
of
the
Jews
,
containing
an
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
first
Chapter
.
IF
,
say
you
,
Circumcision
under
the
Law
belonged
unto
Infants
,
then
Baptism
under
the
Gospel
belongeth
unto
them
;
for
even
as
Circumcision
was
,
so
Baptism
is
the
Seal
of
the
same
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
signifieth
the
same
things
.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
If
Circumcision
did
not
belong
to
Infants
under
the
Law
,
any
otherwise
than
by
express
and
positive
Command
of
God
,
which
gave
them
right
thereto
;
then
if
God
hath
not
commanded
Believers
to
baptize
their
Infants
,
it
is
not
their
Duty
to
baptize
them
,
but
their
Sin
if
they
do
it
.
But
I
have
proved
it
was
the
express
Command
of
God
only
that
gave
Male-Infants
proceeding
from
Abraham's
Lo●●s
Authority
to
be
circumcised
;
and
God
hath
given
no
such
Command
to
Believers
to
baptize
their
Infants
;
therefore
Baptism
doth
not
belong
to
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
under
the
Gospel
,
as
Circumcision
did
belong
to
Male-Infants
under
the
Law
.
2.
I
have
proved
Circumcision
was
not
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
tho
it
was
a
Seal
to
Abraham
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
own
Faith
,
yea
of
that
Faith
he
had
being
not
circumcised
.
A
Seal
I
have
shewed
gives
an
undoubted
Right
of
all
those
Blessings
and
Privileges
to
those
Persons
to
whom
the
said
Covenant
is
sealed
,
and
so
it
did
to
Abraham
:
but
it
was
no
Seal
of
the
Blessings
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
Ishmael
,
Esau
,
and
many
thousands
more
who
were
commanded
to
be
circumcised
.
Were
this
therefore
true
that
Mr.
Owen
asserts
,
That
Circumcision
was
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
all
that
were
circumcised
in
Infancy
,
then
they
were
all
saved
,
even
all
the
Males
that
proceeded
from
Abraham's
Loins
,
many
of
which
proved
as
vile
and
wicked
Men
as
most
that
ever
lived
in
the
World
.
Nor
,
Reader
,
is
Baptism
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
under
the
Gospel
;
for
if
so
,
it
would
seal
all
Gospel-Blessings
to
all
Persons
that
are
baptized
:
who
then
(
were
it
so
)
but
would
be
baptized
,
and
baptize
his
Children
?
Brethren
,
the
holy
Spirit
only
is
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
Gospel-Covenant
,
vid.
Ephes.
1
:
13
,
14.
cap.
4.
10.
You
proceed
,
to
shew
in
several
respects
,
that
Circumcision
and
Baptism
signify
the
same
things
.
-
1.
You
say
,
because
Original
Corruption
cometh
by
Natural
Generation
.
-
2.
Because
we
are
born
in
Uncleanness
,
we
must
be
washed
in
our
Infancy
.
Answ.
1.
Supposing
that
Circumcision
did
,
and
Baptism
doth
signify
the
Corruption
or
Filthiness
of
Original
Sin
,
or
Uncleanness
;
must
we
therefore
baptize
our
Infants
without
any
Authority
,
Command
or
Example
in
God's
Word
?
2.
Doth
Baptism
wash
away
Original
Corruption
?
I
know
the
Papists
assert
it
doth
do
this
,
but
how
do
they
or
you
prove
it
?
Baptism
,
St.
Peter
saith
,
doth
not
wash
away
the
Filthiness
of
the
Flesh
,
or
Corruption
of
Natural
Pollution
,
1
Pet.
3.
21.
3.
Your
Reverend
Brother
Mr.
Stephen
Charnock
fully
proves
that
Baptism
is
not
Regeneration
,
that
can't
cleanse
from
Sin
.
Answer
his
Arguments
in
his
Book
of
Regeneration
.
What
tho
those
Baptists
in
Germany
you
speak
of
,
understood
that
the
antient
erring
Fathers
that
introduced
Infant-Baptism
,
did
bring
it
in
to
wash
away
Original
Sin
;
Cannot
Christ
cleanse
Elect
dying
Infants
from
Original
Sin
by
virtue
of
his
Blood
,
in
a
way
unknown
unto
us
?
Must
we
deny
Original
Sin
,
or
own
Infant-Baptism
does
cleanse
from
it
?
Strange
Divinity
!
you
prove
nothing
.
4.
You
say
,
all
were
not
regenerated
in
Circumcision
,
but
God
blessed
his
own
Ordinance
in
his
own
time
,
for
the
Regeneration
of
his
Elect
,
&c.
So
say
you
,
not
that
all
are
regenerated
in
Baptism
,
but
because
Baptism
sheweth
the
necessity
of
Regeneration
,
and
being
effectual
in
time
unto
all
those
that
are
elected
,
for
working
Regeneration
in
them
.
Answ.
1.
You
say
,
all
were
not
regenerated
in
Circumcision
,
and
so
,
not
that
all
are
,
say
you
,
regenerated
in
Baptism
,
&c.
Sir
,
take
heed
you
do
not
deceive
the
Souls
of
People
.
I
deny
that
ever
any
one
Soul
was
regenerated
in
Infancy
,
either
in
Circumcision
or
Baptism
;
nor
did
God
ever
ordain
either
of
those
external
Ordinances
to
regenerate
young
or
old
.
2.
I
know
the
Scripture
,
and
worthy
Divines
hold
forth
that
Baptism
is
a
Sign
of
present
Regeneration
;
they
that
ought
to
be
baptized
,
i.
e.
Believers
,
do
rise
out
of
the
watery
Grave
,
as
Dr.
Sherlock
asserts
,
new
born
Creatures
;
but
thus
do
not
Infants
whom
you
baptize
,
or
rather
rantize
.
3.
Prove
,
if
you
can
,
that
God
ever
blessed
Circumcision
or
Baptism
to
the
Regeneration
of
any
Elect
Infants
when
grown
up
:
But
if
none
but
Elect
Infants
are
the
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
why
do
you
baptize
,
as
you
call
it
,
all
the
Infants
of
Believers
?
Are
all
their
Children
elected
,
and
none
but
theirs
?
Are
not
many
Children
of
Unbelievers
elected
?
Why
then
are
such
not
to
be
baptized
,
as
well
as
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
?
Sir
,
we
know
not
who
are
elected
till
called
,
and
Baptism
belongs
to
none
but
such
who
can
make
a
Profession
of
their
Faith
,
and
give
Evidence
of
effectual
Calling
,
and
present
Regeneration
.
You
write
but
your
own
Phantasie
,
not
God's
unerring
and
certain
Truth
.
4.
You
say
,
Abraham's
Heart
was
circumcised
,
before
the
Flesh
of
his
Fore-skin
;
but
you
intimate
his
Childrens
Flesh
was
circumcised
before
their
Hearts
were
circumcised
.
In
the
same
manner
,
you
say
,
our
Ancestors
the
Gentiles
,
were
first
Fruits
unto
Christ
,
and
were
regenerated
before
baptized
;
but
their
Seed
are
baptized
before
they
are
regenerated
.
To
Abraham
,
you
say
,
it
was
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
he
had
,
and
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
Faith
before
circumcised
;
but
to
his
Seed
it
was
a
Sign
of
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
they
were
bound
to
receive
for
Justification
,
after
they
were
circumcised
:
and
so
you
speak
of
Believers
Seed
in
respect
of
Baptism
.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
Abraham
only
received
Circumcision
as
a
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
Faith
,
&c.
But
prove
that
Circumcision
did
bind
all
his
Children
to
receive
by
Faith
Justification
:
't
is
a
bold
Assertion
.
I
have
proved
,
that
Circumcision
did
not
appertain
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
to
the
external
or
fleshly
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
,
and
in
him
with
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
:
and
therefore
't
is
positively
affirmed
by
the
Apostle
,
That
such
that
were
circumcised
were
bound
to
keep
the
whole
Law
,
Gal.
5.
3.
not
to
receive
by
Faith
Justification
.
Your
Parallel
between
Circumcision
and
Baptism
(
't
is
true
)
well
futes
with
the
Human
Contrivance
of
those
that
first
invented
Infant-Baptism
,
who
would
thereby
fain
make
the
Gospel-Church
National
,
as
the
Jewish
Church
was
,
and
confirm
the
old
Church-Right
and
Church-Membership
,
which
is
taken
away
,
and
a
new
Church-state
erected
,
which
doth
not
consist
of
Believers
,
and
their
Carnal
Seed
,
as
such
,
but
only
of
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
who
are
Believers
or
living
Stones
,
who
are
built
up
a
Spiritual
House
,
1
Pet.
2.
5
,
6.
The
Gospel-Church
is
not
National
but
Congregational
,
say
what
you
please
to
the
contrary
.
2.
Therefore
as
the
Faithful
at
first
among
the
Gentiles
and
Jews
too
,
received
Baptism
as
Believers
,
being
regenerated
before
baptized
,
so
must
we
unless
you
have
a
new
Gospel
,
or
fresh
Authority
to
change
the
Administration
of
Gospel-Ordinances
,
and
the
Gospel-Church
.
I
thought
the
Water
as
it
just
came
forth
of
the
Fountain
was
most
pure
,
you
do
but
plead
for
the
muddy
Water
that
has
run
through
the
Popish
Stream
.
You
say
,
Circumcision
was
a
Sign
of
Admission
into
the
Church
of
God
,
every
Male
did
come
in
through
that
Door
;
the
uncircumcised
had
no
right
to
the
Privileges
of
the
visible
Church
.
So
you
would
have
Baptism
to
run
.
Answ.
1.
'T
is
not
true
what
you
say
,
Circumcision
was
not
the
Door
into
the
Jewish
Church
,
they
were
all
born
Members
of
that
National
Church
,
and
therefore
their
Females
were
as
truly
Members
(
that
were
not
required
to
be
circumcised
)
as
their
Males
.
2.
Tho
we
grant
Baptism
is
the
initiating
Ordinance
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
yet
it
admits
of
no
Members
but
Believers
only
;
if
any
others
upon
a
false
Faith
get
into
it
,
they
have
no
just
Right
thereto
,
and
,
when
discovered
,
are
to
be
put
out
.
3.
Sir
,
tremble
at
the
Thoughts
of
what
you
say
!
It
is
not
we
,
but
Christ
in
his
Blessed
Gospel
,
that
excludes
Infants
,
or
the
Natural
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
from
being
Members
of
the
Gospel-Church
;
he
hath
shut
up
that
Door
,
viz.
by
Generation
,
i.
e.
being
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
or
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
and
hath
opened
the
Door
of
Regeneration
:
'T
is
we
that
believe
,
and
our
Children
that
the
Lord
our
God
shall
call
,
and
none
else
.
4.
Sir
,
Circumcision
was
so
far
from
being
any
such
a
Privilege
as
you
intimate
,
that
the
Apostle
calls
it
such
a
Yoke
of
Bondage
,
that
neither
they
nor
their
Fathers
were
able
to
bear
,
Act.
15.
And
in
Answer
to
what
you
say
,
p.
It
was
not
for
their
Sin
,
nor
the
Sin
of
their
Parents
that
Infants
are
excluded
,
or
not
received
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
but
because
it
was
the
good
Pleasure
of
God
to
erect
another
,
and
more
spiritual
Church-state
,
and
to
remove
the
old
Way
,
and
Typical
Church-state
of
Israel
.
5.
Therefore
for
you
to
intimate
as
if
we
were
so
unnatural
,
as
to
cast
our
Children
out
of
God's
House
,
is
not
to
be
indured
;
it
doth
but
reflect
on
the
Wisdom
of
God
:
we
are
more
faithful
to
our
Children
(
and
not
like
the
Ostritch
)
than
you
,
for
we
would
not
allow
them
that
Right
which
God
hath
not
;
nor
make
them
think
in
Baptism
they
were
regenerated
and
made
Members
of
God's
Church
,
and
so
deceive
,
and
put
them
upon
a
Temptation
not
to
seek
out
for
any
other
Regeneration
,
and
Gospel-Right
to
Church-Membership
.
You
say
,
Circumcision
was
an
Obligation
to
put
off
the
Body
of
the
Sins
of
the
Flesh
,
and
,
say
you
,
Baptism
putteth
us
under
the
same
Obligation
,
&c.
Answ.
Baptism
can
oblige
none
to
put
off
the
Body
of
Sin
,
but
such
that
are
the
true
Subjects
of
it
,
by
virtue
of
Christ's
holy
Institution
,
which
are
only
Believers
,
such
who
before
baptized
have
received
the
Spirit
of
God
so
to
do
:
But
you
,
without
any
Warrant
from
Christ
,
would
put
this
hard
Obligation
on
your
poor
Infants
,
whereas
you
know
nor
whether
ever
God
will
give
them
his
Spirit
or
Grace
,
to
enable
them
so
to
do
:
And
as
one
Pedo-baptist
lately
saith
,
If
they
do
not
discharge
this
Obligation
,
viz.
their
Baptismal
Covenant
,
they
are
guilty
of
Perjury
,
and
't
is
the
damning
Sin
.
O
cruel
Parents
!
you
list
your
Infants
into
the
Spiritual
War
by
your
pretended
Baptism
,
and
arm
them
not
.
The
Graces
of
the
Spirit
are
the
Believers
Spiritual
Armour
and
Weapons
,
these
they
have
when
listed
,
I
mean
baptized
;
but
Infants
,
as
such
,
have
not
this
Armour
on
when
baptized
:
Alas
!
poor
Babes
they
have
too
much
Guilt
upon
them
naturally
!
O
the
Weight
that
lies
upon
them
!
but
you
Pedo-baptists
add
to
it
by
your
Tradition
of
a
Baptismal
Covenant
,
that
God
never
appointed
them
to
come
under
.
Therefore
you
object
,
How
can
Children
be
bound
to
that
which
they
are
ignorant
of
?
You
answer
,
They
were
ignorant
of
the
Bond
of
Circumcision
,
and
yet
were
bound
over
to
the
Law
to
take
him
to
be
their
God
,
and
to
depart
from
the
ways
of
Sin
,
&c.
Answ.
Because
God
obliged
and
bound
over
the
Jews
by
Circumcision
in
their
Infancy
in
that
Legal
Covenant
,
to
love
the
Lord
their
God
with
all
their
Hearts
,
to
take
him
to
be
their
God
,
and
to
depart
from
all
the
ways
of
Sin
,
nay
to
keep
the
Law
perfectly
,
(
which
shewed
the
necessity
of
Christ's
Righteousness
and
Merits
)
which
was
nevertheless
upon
this
respect
a
Yoke
of
Bondage
,
which
Yoke
by
Christ
we
and
our
Children
are
delivered
from
:
Will
you
adventure
to
bring
your
poor
Children
under
another
like
Yoke
of
Bondage
?
Christ's
Yoke
is
easy
,
and
his
Burden
is
light
,
because
he
gives
all
that
are
to
be
baptized
his
Spirit
,
and
a
changed
Heart
to
love
God
,
and
cleave
to
him
,
and
serve
him
;
but
you
make
his
Yoke
as
hard
as
the
Yoke
of
Circumcision
,
by
putting
Baptism
on
your
poor
Infants
,
to
oblige
them
thereby
to
be
regenerated
and
love
God
with
all
their
Hearts
,
before
Grace
in
the
Habit
of
it
is
infused
into
them
,
and
all
this
without
the
least
Authority
from
Christ
or
the
Gospel
.
O
cruel
Parents
!
Sirs
,
who
hath
required
this
at
your
Hands
?
You
shall
hear
more
of
this
hereafter
.
You
do
intimate
,
that
't
is
true
Circumcision
did
oblige
to
keep
the
Law
perfectly
since
the
Law
,
but
from
the
beginning
it
was
not
so
;
for
,
say
you
,
Circumcision
was
not
of
Moses
,
but
of
the
Fathers
,
Joh.
7.
22.
Answ.
Was
not
the
Moral
Law
from
the
beginning
?
and
were
not
those
that
were
circumcised
bound
to
keep
the
Moral
as
well
as
the
Ceremonial
Law
?
How
then
dare
you
say
,
and
prove
it
not
,
that
from
the
beginning
it
was
not
so
,
i.
e.
It
did
not
bind
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
exactly
to
keep
the
Moral
Law
,
that
is
,
to
love
God
with
all
their
Hearts
,
and
their
Neighbours
as
themselves
,
yea
to
leave
and
loath
all
Sin
?
Circumcision
I
have
proved
was
no
Seal
nor
part
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
of
,
and
part
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
;
so
that
you
run
into
a
dangerous
S●are
,
and
deceive
the
People
unwarily
by
your
Ignorance
of
the
two
Covenants
made
with
Abraham
,
and
not
distinguishing
Circumcision
from
being
a
Seal
to
Abraham's
Faith
,
and
not
a
Seal
in
common
to
all
his
Children
.
It
was
a
Sign
to
them
in
their
Flesh
,
but
no
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
You
further
run
a
Parallel
between
Circumcision
and
Baptism
,
as
some
others
before
you
have
done
:
Pray
take
my
former
Answers
to
all
you
say
here
which
I
have
given
to
other
Pedo-baptists
upon
this
foot
of
account
.
-
1.
Others
formerly
have
(
as
well
as
you
do
now
)
affirmed
,
That
Baptism
comes
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
.
-
2.
They
run
a
Parallel
between
Circumcision
and
Baptism
,
and
would
have
them
both
signify
the
same
thing
in
an
exact
Analogy
.
〈…〉
:
〈◊〉
Say
they
,
which
you
seem
to
affirm
also
,
If
Baptism
succeeds
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
,
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
as
their
Children
were
circumcised
then
,
so
may
ours
be
baptized
now
.
Answ.
1.
There
is
no
necessity
that
a
Gospel-Ordinance
must
succeed
in
the
room
of
a
Legal
or
Jewish
Ordinance
.
What
if
I
affirm
,
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
Rites
,
Precepts
and
Ordinances
,
as
there
were
Jewish
Rites
,
Precepts
and
Ordinances
,
which
,
as
one
observes
,
were
more
than
three
hundred
.
2.
Besides
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
observes
,
If
Baptism
came
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
,
you
must
baptize
your
Children
always
on
the
eighth
day
,
and
you
must
not
baptize
your
Females
at
all
,
because
none
but
Male
Infants
were
then
circumcised
.
3
And
whereas
you
say
that
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
Privileges
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
Foreskin
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
such
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
belongs
to
Believers
in
all
Nations
.
(
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
that
were
circumcised
needed
not
to
be
baptized
,
because
sealed
before
with
the
same
Seal
,
or
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
Seythian
,
Bond
and
Free
,
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
.
Therefore
there
are
divers
Disparities
and
different
Significations
between
Circumcision
and
Baptism
.
4.
And
what
tho
we
should
grant
that
Circumcision
was
then
the
initiating
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
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
,
but
only
those
who
by
the
express
Command
are
required
to
be
baptized
,
and
they
are
only
such
who
believe
,
or
make
Profession
of
their
Faith
.
Sir
,
Precepts
that
are
meerly
positive
,
greatly
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
Legistator
;
and
in
all
Cases
and
Circumstances
we
must
keep
to
the
express
words
of
the
Institution
,
we
must
venture
to
do
no
more
,
nor
less
nor
do
any
thing
in
any
other
manner
than
God
hath
commanded
,
as
appears
in
Nadab
and
Abihu
and
Uzzah's
Cases
;
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
meerly
sophistical
,
and
you
do
but
darken
Counsel
with
Words
without
Knowledg
.
Again
,
't
is
affirmed
by
you
and
other
Pedo-baptists
,
That
God
hath
no
where
declared
that
Infants
should
be
excluded
;
you
mean
,
he
hath
no
where
forbid
in
express
words
the
baptizing
of
Infants
:
No
more
,
say
I
,
has
he
forbid
Honey
,
Wine
,
Oil
,
Salt
,
and
Spittle
to
be
used
in
Baptism
;
the
former
was
used
by
some
of
the
Antient
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
Vestures
,
and
other
Ceremonies
among
the
Jews
.
Whither
will
this
lead
you
?
't
is
dangerous
to
be
led
by
such
a
Guide
.
But
to
proceed
,
we
will
come
to
that
grand
Proof
for
Infant-Baptism
you
mention
,
i.
e.
That
Baptism
doth
come
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
,
which
is
in
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
,
&c.
It
is
affirmed
,
That
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
a
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.
This
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
,
and
have
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
such
a
bold
Conclusion
from
hence
,
viz.
That
Baptism
came
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
.
1.
For
first
,
the
Apostle
't
is
true
excludes
Circumcision
,
but
't
is
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
same
signified
thereby
,
the
Rite
or
Sign
ceased
.
And
as
I
have
formerly
replied
in
Answer
to
this
Text
,
so
I
must
say
to
you
,
all
that
can
well
be
asserted
from
this
Scriptare
,
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
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
thing
express
to
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
Manducation
of
the
Paschal
Lamb
no
Prescription
of
Sacramental
Drink
,
shall
we
conclude
from
hence
the
Eucharist
is
to
be
administred
in
one
kind
?
To
which
let
me
add
,
Because
Children
,
Servants
,
and
all
in
the
House
might
ear
of
the
Passover
,
must
our
Children
and
all
in
our
House
eat
of
the
Eucharist
,
or
Supper
of
the
Lord
?
But
saith
the
Doctor
,
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
tho
it
be
granted
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
Infants
,
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
any
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
he
may
be
capable
both
of
the
Word
and
of
the
Sacrament
,
and
the
Impress
upon
the
Spirit
.
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
Antitype
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
Antitype
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
his
Disciples
baptize
many
Persons
,
nay
more
Disciples
than
John
?
as
it
is
said
John
4.
1
,
2.
and
was
not
Circumcision
then
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
the
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
,
according
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
.
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
take
here
as
followeth
.
The
Argument
runs
thus
,
viz.
To
them
to
whom
Circumcision
did
agree
,
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
in
the
room
and
place
of
Circumcision
,
then
Baptism
belongs
to
them
that
Circumcision
belonged
to
:
but
the
Antecedent
is
true
,
therefore
the
Consequent
.
The
Minor
he
says
is
proved
from
Col.
2.
12.
't
is
said
the
Colossians
were
circumcised
because
baptized
.
Answ.
This
Argument
supposeth
Baptism
to
succeed
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
,
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
Acts
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
,
Joh.
4.
1
,
2.
before
Circumcision
of
right
ceased
.
3.
It
may
be
understood
as
if
Baptism
did
succeed
in
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
all
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
Circumcision
,
but
of
Christ
;
because
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
are
also
risen
together
,
through
the
Faith
of
the
Operation
of
God
that
raised
him
from
the
Dead
.
In
some
things
Baptism
doth
not
succeed
in
the
place
of
Circumcision
,
in
respect
of
Signification
.
For
,
1.
Circumcision
did
signify
Christ
to
come
of
Isaac
according
to
the
Flesh
,
Gen.
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
,
it
no
more
follows
thence
,
but
that
Baptism
and
Circumcision
in
some
things
hold
forth
the
same
,
which
is
more
plainly
said
of
Noah's
Ark
,
1
Pet.
3.
21.
and
of
the
Red
Sea
and
Cloud
,
1
Cor.
10.
2.
and
yet
we
say
not
that
Baptism
succeeded
in
their
place
,
much
less
do
we
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
Right
(
viz.
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
Tithes
to
be
paid
,
and
many
other
things
in
the
Writings
of
Divines
are
asserted
by
this
kind
of
Argument
,
beside
the
Rule
of
the
Lord's
Precepts
,
and
the
Apostles
Examples
.
3.
Thereby
will
the
Opinion
of
the
Papists
be
confirmed
,
who
affirm
the
Sacraments
of
the
Jews
to
be
Types
of
the
Sacraments
of
Christians
,
which
is
rejected
by
those
Divines
that
dispute
against
Bellarmine
.
4.
This
manner
of
arguing
will
countenance
the
Arguments
of
the
Papists
for
an
universal
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
,
&c.
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
hinders
but
we
may
give
Children
the
Lord's-Supper
,
if
we
argue
this
way
,
since
Samuel
,
Jesus
Christ
,
&c.
under
Age
,
were
Partakers
of
the
Passover
?
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
Passover
:
and
it
shall
be
afterwards
shewed
,
1
Cor.
11.
28.
the
place
will
not
avoid
this
Inconvenience
,
if
the
Text
,
Mat.
28.
29.
may
be
shifted
off
,
as
Pedo-baptists
use
to
do
.
Lest
any
M●n
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.
cap.
3.
p.
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
the
Care
lies
on
them
,
who
by
Prayer
,
Sermons
,
Writings
,
Covenants
and
Oaths
,
do
deter
Christians
from
Human
Inventions
in
God's
Worship
,
diligently
,
and
it
is
to
be
hoped
sincerely
.
We
further
object
,
That
there
was
a
Command
for
Circumcision
of
Infants
,
but
there
is
no
Command
for
the
baptizing
of
them
.
You
answer
,
The
New
Testament
mentions
but
little
of
Infants
,
because
so
much
mention
is
made
of
them
in
the
Old
Testament
,
which
saith
plainly
,
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
in
God's
Covenant
,
and
that
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
belongeth
unto
them
.
Neither
the
Old
Testament
only
,
nor
the
New
Testament
only
(
say
you
)
but
both
together
,
comprehend
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Obedience
.
The
Jews
deny
the
New
Testament
,
and
some
Christians
among
us
(
say
you
)
deny
the
Old
Testament
in
respect
of
Infant-Privileges
.
Answ.
1.
You
seem
here
to
deny
Infant-Baptism
to
be
found
in
the
New
Testament
,
therefore
would
have
us
go
to
Gen.
17.
for
it
:
Strange
case
!
that
a
pure
Gospel-Ordinance
that
is
of
meer
positive
Right
can
be
found
in
the
Old
Testament
.
2.
Sir
,
tho
the
Old
Testament
and
New
together
is
a
Rule
of
Faith
and
Obedience
in
many
things
,
especially
in
pure
Moral
Precepts
;
yet
,
Sir
,
in
Precepts
meerly
positive
,
I
deny
the
Old
Testament
is
any
Rule
to
us
:
we
are
not
obliged
to
Circumcision
,
the
Passover
and
Sacrifices
,
&c.
by
virtue
of
the
Old
Testament
,
because
they
only
belong
to
the
Old
Covenant-Time
;
and
as
to
Baptism
and
the
Lord's-Supper
,
they
that
lived
under
the
Old
Testament
were
not
oblig'd
to
them
,
because
these
are
pure
Gospel-Precepts
;
and
the
New
Testament
only
is
our
Rule
,
and
a
perfect
Rule
too
upon
this
account
.
If
therefore
you
cannot
find
Infants
Baptism
in
the
New
Testament
,
you
and
your
Childish
Baptism
is
gone
for
ever
.
3.
The
Old
Testament
doth
not
say
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
were
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
tho
they
were
in
the
Legal
Covenant
;
but
we
have
proved
if
they
were
,
yet
that
doth
not
prove
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
because
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
as
such
,
gives
no
right
to
Baptism
,
but
Christ's
positive
Command
.
Now
these
things
being
considered
,
what
signifies
all
Mr.
Owen
hath
said
concerning
Circumcision
,
tho
it
signified
some
things
that
Baptism
also
doth
signify
,
if
they
differ
in
so
many
respects
,
and
there
is
no
Institution
of
Christ
for
Infant-Baptism
,
as
there
was
for
the
Male
Children
of
the
Jews
to
be
circucmised
;
Circumcision
or
Baptism
being
neither
of
them
moral
,
but
meer
positive
Precepts
?
But
since
Mr.
Owen
saith
in
his
next
Chapter
,
he
shall
shew
that
there
is
a
Command
for
baptizing
Infants
;
we
will
see
how
he
proves
that
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Proving
that
Jesus
Christ
hath
not
commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
;
in
Answer
to
what
Mr.
Owen
affirms
in
the
sixth
Chapter
of
his
Book
,
concerning
Christ's
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
YOU
begin
with
the
words
of
Christ's
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
thinking
that
he
hath
there
commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
.
We
will
read
the
words
of
the
Commission
,
viz.
Go
ye
therefore
,
and
teach
all
Nations
,
baptizing
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
:
Teaching
them
to
observe
all
things
that
I
have
commanded
you
,
&c.
In
these
words
,
you
say
,
Christ
commandeth
,
1.
To
teach
the
Nations
.
2.
To
baptize
them
.
3.
To
teach
them
.
Here
is
;
say
you
,
a
twofold
Teaching
,
one
before
Baptism
,
the
other
after
Baptism
,
unto
the
Adult
among
the
unbelieving
Gentiles
:
Teaching
precedes
Baptism
,
but
to
the
Children
of
such
Baptism
preceded
Teaching
;
in
the
same
manner
as
Abraham
,
being
the
Father
of
the
Gentiles
,
was
taught
before
circumcised
,
but
his
Children
were
circumcised
before
they
were
taught
.
This
yousay
is
the
Signification
of
the
word
,
as
appeareth
.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
you
would
have
the
form
of
the
Commission
to
run
according
to
your
Scriptureless
Practice
of
baptizing
of
Infants
,
as
you
call
Sprinkling
;
but
that
the
Commission
is
wrested
and
abused
by
you
to
serve
your
turn
,
will
appear
,
1.
They
that
are
the
only
Subjects
of
Baptism
according
to
the
Commission
,
are
,
first
to
be
taught
,
or
,
as
the
Greek
word
is
,
discipled
,
or
made
Disciples
,
and
then
baptized
:
and
I
will
appeal
to
your
Conscience
,
whether
they
are
not
the
same
Persons
that
were
to
be
taught
before
baptized
,
that
our
Lord
commands
to
be
taught
afterwards
all
other
things
that
he
hath
commanded
baptized
Believers
to
observe
and
keep
.
You
would
have
the
Parents
converted
from
Heathenism
to
be
taught
before
baptized
,
but
the
Teaching
afterwards
not
to
refer
to
them
,
but
to
their
Children
baptized
before
taught
,
or
in
their
Infancy
.
O
what
abominable
Abuse
is
this
of
the
great
Commission
of
our
blessed
Saviour
!
-
1.
The
Commission
runs
,
Teach
them
in
all
Nations
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
.
-
2.
Baptizing
them
that
are
taught
,
or
made
Disciples
by
teaching
.
-
3.
Teaching
them
,
i.
e.
the
same
them
that
were
Disciples
,
baptized
.
Dare
you
invert
,
nay
subvert
the
sacred
Commission
,
and
so
make
void
the
Command
of
God
to
uphold
your
own
Tradition
?
Sir
,
tremble
at
the
thoughts
of
it
!
Answ.
2.
That
this
which
we
say
is
the
true
Purport
of
the
Commission
,
is
acknowledged
by
Mr.
Perkins
,
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
other
Pedo-baptists
.
Take
Mr.
Perkins's
own
words
,
First
of
all
,
saith
he
,
't
is
said
,
Teach
them
,
that
is
,
make
them
Disciples
by
teaching
them
to
believe
and
repent
:
here
,
saith
he
,
we
are
to
consider
the
Order
which
God
observes
in
making
a
Covenant
with
Men
in
Baptism
.
First
of
all
,
he
calls
them
by
his
Word
and
Spirit
to
believe
and
repent
;
then
in
the
second
place
,
he
makes
a
Promise
of
Mercy
and
Forgiveness
,
and
thereby
he
seals
his
Promise
by
Baptism
:
They
,
says
he
,
that
know
not
,
nor
consider
this
Order
which
God
used
in
covenanting
with
them
in
Baptism
,
deal
preposterously
,
overslipping
the
Commandment
of
repenting
and
believing
,
which
is
the
cause
of
so
much
Profaneness
in
the
World
.
Doubtless
he
said
right
;
for
you
who
baptize
Infants
that
are
not
capable
to
repent
nor
believe
,
make
a
multitude
of
profane
Christians
in
the
World
,
as
they
are
called
:
Who
knows
which
of
the
Infants
you
baptize
God
will
call
,
and
savingly
work
Grace
in
,
which
should
indeed
be
wrought
in
all
,
before
they
are
,
according
to
the
direct
Order
or
From
of
the
Commission
,
or
ought
to
be
baptized
?
O
what
profane
Wretches
doth
your
Practice
bring
into
your
Church
,
if
all
you
baptize
you
make
Members
thereof
in
their
Infancy
!
Mr.
Perkins
doubtless
did
not
foresee
how
by
his
honest
Exposition
of
the
Commission
he
overthrew
his
Infant-Baptism
and
Church-Membership
.
Moreover
,
take
Mr.
Richard
Baxter's
words
,
speaking
of
the
Commission
Christ
gave
to
his
Disciples
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20
,
viz.
Their
first
Task
(
saith
he
)
is
to
make
Disciples
of
them
,
which
are
by
Mark
called
Believers
.
The
second
work
is
to
baptize
them
,
whereto
is
annexed
the
Promise
of
Salvation
.
The
third
work
is
to
teach
them
(
that
are
baptized
Believers
)
all
other
things
which
are
after
to
be
learned
in
the
School
of
Christ
.
To
contemn
this
Order
(
saith
he
)
is
to
contemn
the
Rules
of
Order
;
for
where
can
we
find
it
if
not
here
?
See
Mr.
Baxter's
Right
of
Baptism
,
pag.
144
,
150.
This
Man
,
tho
a
Pedo-baptist
,
yet
durst
not
be
so
bold
as
to
invert
the
Order
of
the
Commission
,
nor
do
as
you
do
,
viz.
affirm
the
Teaching
mentioned
after
Baptism
,
refers
not
to
Believers
baptized
after
they
are
made
Disciples
,
but
to
their
Infants
baptized
,
of
which
the
Commission
speaks
not
one
word
,
nor
can
it
by
any
colour
of
Reason
or
Consequences
be
drawn
therefrom
.
But
to
prove
your
false
Exposition
of
the
Text
,
you
proceed
to
do
it
,
First
from
God's
Promise
to
Abraham
,
Isaac
and
Jacob
,
that
in
their
Seed
should
all
the
Nations
of
the
Earth
be
blessed
,
Gen.
18.
18.
&
22.
18.
Christ
came
,
say
you
,
to
confirm
the
Promise
unto
the
Fathers
,
that
the
Gentiles
might
glorify
God
for
his
Mercy
,
Rom.
15.
8
,
9.
If
God
is
not
a
God
to
the
Gentiles
and
their
Seed
,
according
to
the
Promises
made
to
the
Fathers
,
then
,
say
you
;
Christ
weakeneth
and
not
confirmeth
the
Promises
:
God
forbid
we
should
think
so
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
God
forbid
that
you
should
rest
always
under
such
dark
and
cloudy
Conceptions
of
the
Covenant
and
Promises
made
to
the
Fathers
touching
the
Gentiles
;
for
the
Covenant
and
Promises
made
to
Abraham
,
Isaac
and
Jacob
were
,
that
the
Gentiles
,
through
Faith
in
Christ
,
should
be
Fellow-heirs
with
the
Jews
that
believed
in
him
,
and
with
the
●…s
that
b●…ed
also
.
And
thus
runs
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
Abraham
,
&c.
and
thus
it
runs
to
believing
Gentiles
,
that
all
of
them
,
and
their
Children
that
believe
,
or
are
in
the
Election
of
Grace
,
shall
be
saved
:
And
't
is
thus
that
all
the
Nations
of
the
Earth
are
blessed
in
Christ
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
i.
e.
all
such
in
all
Nations
that
believe
,
and
are
called
by
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
.
2.
But
because
Christ's
Church
does
not
now
in
Gospel-days
take
in
whole
Nations
and
whole
Families
,
as
the
Jewish
Church
under
the
Law
did
take
in
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
and
all
their
Families
,
doth
Christ
weaken
the
Promises
?
Sir
,
that
external
Legal
Covenant
erected
a
Typical
Church
,
which
Church
ceased
at
the
Establishment
of
the
Spiritual
Church
,
which
is
only
Congregational
under
the
Gospel
,
as
I
fully
proved
before
.
But
furthermore
;
You
say
,
the
Apostles
understood
Christ's
Command
unto
them
in
this
sense
,
and
therefore
they
have
preached
Salvation
to
those
that
believed
,
and
all
theirs
,
&c.
Answ.
The
Apostles
understood
Christ's
Command
and
Commission
no
doubt
,
but
it
appears
you
understand
it
not
.
Did
they
preach
Salvation
to
Believers
,
and
to
all
their
Children
,
as
such
,
whether
elected
or
not
,
called
by
the
Word
or
Spirit
,
or
not
?
For
this
you
must
prove
,
or
you
say
nothing
;
and
how
absurd
would
that
be
should
you
affirm
any
such
thing
?
Peter
speaks
of
no
Promise
made
to
Jews
nor
Gentiles
,
and
to
their
Children
,
but
to
such
of
them
that
the
Lord
our
God
shall
call
.
And
't
is
directly
said
that
the
Goaler
and
all
his
believed
;
therefore
if
you
will
still
affirm
,
that
the
Apostles
apply'd
,
as
you
intimate
,
Abraham's
Covenant
among
the
Gentiles
unto
the
Seed
,
the
fleshly
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
you
do
assert
an
Untruth
,
and
cast
a
Lie
upon
the
Apostles
through
your
Ignorance
.
Prove
,
if
you
can
,
they
were
to
baptize
any
Person
,
Adult
or
others
,
that
believed
not
,
or
made
not
a
Confession
of
their
Faith
.
Children
,
you
say
,
are
part
of
the
Nations
;
for
if
the
Apostles
were
to
baptize
all
Nations
,
then
they
were
to
baptize
Infants
also
,
for
Children
are
a
great
part
of
the
Nations
,
near
one
half
.
Answ.
1.
'T
is
evident
that
our
Saviour
in
his
great
Commission
,
enjoineth
no
more
to
be
baptized
but
such
who
are
first
taught
,
or
made
Disciples
,
and
this
agrees
with
his
own
Practice
;
John
4.
1.
He
made
and
baptized
more
Disciples
than
John
:
he
first
made
them
Disciples
,
and
then
baptized
them
;
nor
were
there
any
in
the
New
Testament
baptized
,
but
such
who
first
made
a
Profession
of
Faith
in
Christ
.
Do
you
read
that
those
Jews
,
Acts
2.
that
believed
and
were
baptized
,
were
commanded
to
baptize
their
Infants
,
or
that
any
other
baptized
Believers
among
either
Jews
or
Gentiles
were
commanded
so
to
do
?
or
have
we
no
perfect
Rule
left
us
in
the
Gospel
?
for
so
it
will
follow
if
the
Infants
of
Believers
ought
to
be
baptized
.
2.
If
the
Commission
be
so
extensive
as
you
affirm
,
then
all
the
Heathens
and
Pagans
in
all
Nations
that
believe
not
,
are
to
be
baptized
,
and
all
their
Children
too
,
and
all
Unbelievers
Children
in
Christian
Nations
.
Sir
,
are
not
these
part
of
the
Nations
?
Noble
Britains
!
see
the
nature
of
the
Pedo-baptists
Consequences
and
Inferences
for
baptizing
Infants
.
This
Inference
proves
that
all
People
and
Nations
in
the
whole
World
ought
to
be
baptized
from
the
Commission
:
But
I
will
,
as
I
once
did
to
another
Minister
,
appeal
to
Mr.
Owen's
Conscience
,
as
he
will
answer
it
at
Christ's
Tribunal
,
Whether
he
believes
the
Commission
authorizeth
Christ's
Disciples
to
baptize
any
but
such
who
are
first
taught
,
and
made
Disciples
,
whom
St.
Mark
calls
Believers
,
repeating
the
words
of
the
same
Commission
,
Mark
1●
.
16.
3.
Sir
,
are
the
Infants
of
Believers
near
one
half
part
of
the
Nations
?
I
am
afraid
you
are
mistaken
,
this
is
the
way
to
make
Christ's
Flock
a
great
Flock
;
but
the
truth
is
,
you
have
as
much
Reason
to
assert
all
the
Infants
of
Heathens
,
Pagans
and
Unbelievers
are
to
be
baptized
from
the
Commissions
,
as
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
and
then
it
may
be
as
you
say
,
viz.
they
may
be
near
one
half
of
all
Nations
.
But
to
proceed
.
Sir
,
you
say
,
When
God
threatens
to
cut
off
the
Nations
from
before
the
Israelites
,
the
Children
were
included
;
for
the
Children
were
not
spared
any
more
than
the
Fathers
.
On
the
other
side
,
say
you
,
when
Christ
commandeth
to
baptize
the
Nations
for
their
Salvation
,
he
meaneth
the
Children
as
well
as
their
Parents
.
If
a
Man
would
command
a
Shepherd
to
shear
all
his
Sheep
,
and
to
set
on
them
an
Ear-mark
to
know
them
from
other
Sheep
;
altho
the
Shepherd
had
sheared
the
Sheep
and
marked
them
,
if
he
leaves
out
the
Lambs
without
marking
of
them
,
he
performeth
not
his
Duty
:
If
he
says
to
the
Master
,
the
Lambs
were
too
young
for
shearing
,
true
saith
the
Master
,
but
they
were
not
too
young
for
marking
,
you
ought
to
mark
them
,
for
they
are
a
great
part
of
my
Flock
.
If
little
Children
,
say
you
,
cannot
receive
Instruction
,
they
can
receive
Christ's
Mark
,
even
Baptism
,
by
which
Christ's
Sheep
are
divided
from
the
Goats
of
the
Devil
:
The
Church
of
Christ
is
his
Flock
,
is
there
no
Lambs
in
this
Flock
?
Christ
is
the
good
and
faithful
Shepherd
,
who
giveth
his
Life
for
his
Flock
,
John
.
10.
11.
and
will
he
not
care
for
his
Lambs
and
Weaklings
of
his
Flock
?
yea
certainly
he
shall
gather
the
Lambs
with
his
Arms
,
and
carry
them
in
his
Bosom
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
't
is
a
bold
Assertion
from
your
Inference
and
absurd
Consequence
,
drawn
from
the
Commission
(
as
I
have
shewed
)
to
affirm
,
when
Christ
commandeth
to
baptize
the
Nations
,
that
he
meaneth
Children
,
viz.
because
they
are
part
of
the
Nations
,
but
I
have
answered
that
already
;
when
Children
do
believe
,
they
ought
from
the
Commission
to
be
baptized
,
but
not
till
then
.
2.
As
to
your
Similitude
,
't
is
much
the
same
with
that
Mr.
Burkit
,
a
Pedo-baptist
,
hath
in
his
Book
which
I
lately
answered
.
I
will
recite
my
Answer
to
him
,
which
fully
answers
you
both
,
and
all
others
who
talk
after
this
ra●e
;
he
argues
from
the
Commission
as
you
do
.
Take
his
Words
and
my
Answer
in
order
,
viz.
The
true
Reason
,
saith
he
,
why
Christ
bid
his
Disciples
first
teach
and
then
baptize
,
was
because
he
was
sending
his
Apostles
forth
among
the
Heathens
to
convert
them
to
Christianity
;
in
which
work
we
all
know
,
that
preaching
of
the
Word
must
go
before
the
Administration
of
the
Sacraments
.
Should
,
saith
he
,
the
King
of
England
send
his
Ministers
into
Foreign
Plantations
to
convert
the
Indians
to
Christianity
,
they
ought
not
to
be
baptized
before
they
are
taught
and
instructed
;
but
when
the
Parents
are
proselyted
,
and
make
a
visible
Profession
of
their
Faith
,
their
Children
may
be
baptized
,
and
afterwards
instructed
;
as
the
Children
of
the
Jewish
Proselytes
were
first
circumcised
,
and
then
taught
:
For
tho
Abraham
was
first
taught
and
then
circumcised
,
yet
Isaac
was
first
circumcised
and
then
taught
:
so
that
the
sense
of
our
Saviour
is
this
,
Teach
such
as
are
capable
of
teaching
,
and
baptize
such
as
are
capable
of
Baptism
.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
first
,
how
inconsistent
is
this
with
the
words
of
the
Commission
?
By
virtue
of
the
Commission
none
ought
to
be
baptized
but
such
that
are
first
taught
,
or
do
believe
;
and
therefore
some
Pedo-baptists
pretend
that
Infants
have
Habitual
Faith
,
Faith
in
semine
,
&c.
but
you
plead
they
may
be
capable
of
Baptism
without
Faith
,
and
also
contradict
the
Order
of
Words
in
the
Commission
.
Do
you
not
confess
by
the
Order
of
the
Words
in
the
Commission
,
Teaching
ought
to
go
before
Baptizing
?
Sirs
,
't
is
a
sign
of
a
very
bad
Cause
that
puts
you
thus
to
try
your
Wits
,
and
after
all
confound
your selves
.
2.
I
ask
you
how
Abraham
(
whom
God
commanded
to
be
circumcised
,
as
a
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
that
Faith
HE
had
before
circumcised
)
could
know
he
ought
to
circumcise
his
Son
Isaac
,
&c.
who
had
no
such
Faith
,
had
not
God
given
him
an
express
Command
to
do
it
?
Besure
if
he
had
,
he
had
sinned
in
doing
that
which
God
commanded
him
not
.
So
,
and
in
like
manner
,
since
our
Lord
Jesus
expresly
in
his
Commission
,
commanded
none
to
be
baptized
,
but
such
who
are
first
taught
,
unless
he
had
added
,
as
in
Abraham's
case
,
viz.
when
an
Heathen
is
converted
to
the
Christian
Faith
and
baptized
,
you
may
baptize
his
Infants
also
;
How
dare
you
make
such
Additions
to
Christ's
Commission
without
his
Authority
,
and
so
make
the
World
believe
,
if
you
could
,
our
blessed
Saviour
gave
forth
an
imperfect
Commission
to
his
Disciples
,
which
all
Men
must
confess
is
the
only
Warrant
and
Rule
of
all
Ministers
to
act
by
in
the
case
of
baptizing
to
the
End
of
the
World
?
And
doth
he
not
say
,
Add
thou
not
to
his
Word
,
lest
he
reprove
thee
,
and
thou
art
sound
to
be
a
Liar
;
by
fathering
that
on
Christ
which
he
never
said
nor
intended
?
When
a
King
,
say
you
,
by
his
Charter
or
publick
Writing
sets
at
liberty
the
Inhabitants
of
some
Town
,
are
not
the
Children
Partakers
of
the
Charter
altho
their
Names
be
not
particularly
in
it
?
So
,
it
is
here
,
the
King
of
Heaven
is
through
the
Charter
of
the
Gospel
,
making
of
us
,
that
were
Strangers
and
Foreigners
,
to
become
Fellow-Citizens
with
the
Saints
,
Eph.
2.
19.
and
to
that
end
commanding
to
receive
all
Nations
through
Baptism
into
the
Liberty
and
Privileges
of
the
City
of
God
;
and
will
he
not
receive
the
Children
into
the
Privileges
of
their
Parents
?
Answ.
I
answer
,
if
it
be
so
,
as
you
say
,
in
all
National
States
,
Governments
and
Constitutions
,
and
Civil
Societies
,
what
doth
this
prove
touching
the
case
in
hand
,
unless
you
dare
undertake
to
affirm
,
the
Gospel-Church
is
National
and
not
Congregational
?
Doth
the
Constitution
of
the
Spiritual
Gospel-Church
run
as
in
Human
and
National
Constitutions
?
Prove
it
,
for
I
utterly
deny
it
.
Besides
,
if
your
Infants
,
as
such
,
are
Fellow-Citizens
with
the
Saints
,
and
are
to
partake
of
all
the
Privileges
of
the
City
of
God
,
why
do
you
deny
them
the
Lord's-Supper
?
your
Similitude
proves
no
more
their
right
to
Baptism
,
to
one
Privilege
than
another
.
I
never
yet
could
understand
what
Spiritual
or
Temporal
Privileges
any
Infant
receives
in
Baptism
:
What
good
doth
that
do
them
that
have
not
the
Things
signified
in
Baptism
?
There
are
great
Benefits
received
in
such
a
Grant
you
speak
of
in
an
external
Charter
;
but
as
God
hath
not
commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
,
so
not
any
Benefits
can
be
proved
they
receive
thereby
.
In
this
you
argue
as
Mr.
Burkit
hath
done
before
you
.
Reader
,
take
his
Similitude
,
viz.
I
demand
,
saith
he
,
whether
,
according
to
the
Mind
of
God
gathered
from
the
words
of
the
Commission
,
the
Remedy
prescribed
should
be
administred
only
to
grown
Persons
,
because
they
only
are
capable
of
understanding
and
believing
the
Virtue
and
Efficacy
of
it
?
Sure
every
Rational
Man
among
you
would
conclude
his
Child
capable
of
the
Remedy
as
well
as
himself
,
altho
ignorant
of
the
Virtue
that
is
in
it
,
and
only
passive
in
the
Administration
of
it
;
and
that
it
would
be
Cruelty
,
yea
Murder
in
the
Parent
to
deny
the
Application
of
it
to
all
his
Children
.
Reply
.
I
stand
amazed
at
such
Ignorance
and
Folly
!
Does
it
follow
,
because
Children
are
capable
to
receive
a
Medicine
against
the
Plague
,
or
Bodily
Distemper
,
are
they
therefore
capable
of
Baptism
and
the
Lord's
Supper
?
If
capable
of
one
,
say
I
,
of
the
other
also
:
For
as
a
Man
is
required
to
examine
himself
,
and
to
discern
the
Lord's
Body
in
the
Lord's
Supper
,
so
he
is
required
to
repent
and
to
believe
in
Christ
that
comes
to
Baptism
.
I
would
know
how
they
prove
Baptism
to
be
the
Medicine
appointed
to
cure
the
Soul
of
the
Plague
of
Sin
(
or
,
as
Mr.
Owen
says
,
for
their
Salvation
)
?
Is
not
this
to
blind
the
Eyes
of
the
poor
People
,
and
make
them
think
that
an
external
Ordinance
saves
the
Soul
?
if
not
thus
,
how
can
it
be
Cruelty
,
yea
Murder
in
Parents
to
deny
the
Application
of
Baptism
to
their
Children
(
as
Mr.
Burkit
says
)
?
The
Antient
Fathers
from
that
in
John
6.
53.
Unless
a
Man
eat
the
Flesh
of
the
Son
of
Man
,
and
drink
his
Blood
,
he
hath
no
Life
in
him
,
gave
Infants
the
Lord's
Supper
,
thinking
our
Saviour
(
like
as
the
Papists
do
)
meant
that
Sacrament
,
when
indeed
he
meant
only
of
seeding
by
Faith
on
Christ
crucified
.
But
however
,
their
Argument
for
giving
Infants
one
Sacrament
,
was
as
good
as
yours
for
giving
them
the
other
.
But
when
they
are
as
capable
to
repent
and
believe
,
and
are
helped
so
to
do
,
as
they
are
,
and
do
eat
Bread
,
or
receive
a
Medicine
for
a
Bodily
Distemper
,
let
them
have
both
Baptism
and
the
Lord's-Supper
;
and
till
then
,
if
God's
Word
be
the
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Practice
,
(
and
not
our
own
Fancies
)
they
ought
to
have
neither
:
yet
the
Remedy
or
Medicine
,
which
is
Christ's
Blood
,
we
deny
not
but
dying
Infants
may
be
capable
of
,
tho
the
way
of
its
Application
we
know
not
as
to
them
,
that
is
a
Secret
as
to
us
.
You
know
the
Church
of
England
positively
affirms
,
Repentance
,
whereby
a
Person
for
sakes
Sin
;
and
Faith
,
whereby
he
stedsastly
believes
the
Promise
of
God
made
to
him
in
that
Sacrament
,
are
required
of
those
that
are
to
be
baptized
,
nay
and
of
little
Babes
too
;
therefore
the
Sureties
answer
for
them
,
that
they
do
believe
and
repent
,
or
forsake
the
Devil
and
all
his
Works
,
&c.
the
Child
answers
by
Proxy
.
The
Church
of
England
baptizes
no
Child
but
as
a
Believer
,
and
a
true
Penitent
Person
.
All
that
are
proper
Subjects
of
Baptism
are
comprehended
in
the
Commission
,
and
must
be
as
such
,
whether
Adult
or
Infants
,
who
profess
Faith
and
Repentance
.
But
you
,
it
may
be
,
foresaw
the
Snake
in
the
Grass
,
viz.
That
Godfathers
and
Godmothers
is
a
Tradition
,
and
none
of
God's
Appointment
;
nor
are
they
able
to
perform
those
things
for
the
Child
which
they
promise
for
him
,
and
in
his
Name
:
And
therefore
make
use
of
another
Argument
,
and
would
have
them
baptized
without
Faith
,
or
upon
their
Parents
Faith
,
of
which
the
Church
of
England
speaks
nothing
.
As
to
your
Comparison
it
is
not
worth
mentioning
:
Baptism
,
as
I
have
told
you
,
doth
not
cure
the
Soul
of
Sin
,
or
save
any
Person
,
but
it
's
the
Blood
of
Christ
applied
by
Faith
.
Not
that
we
say
no
Child
can
have
the
Benefit
of
that
Soveraign
Remedy
,
because
not
capable
to
believe
,
by
reason
Men
and
Women
must
receive
it
by
Faith
,
or
perish
.
God
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
observes
,
may
have
many
ways
to
magnify
his
Grace
,
through
Jesus
Christ
,
to
them
,
which
we
know
not
of
,
who
die
in
their
Infancy
;
yet
have
we
no
Authority
to
baptize
them
any
more
than
to
give
them
the
Lord's-Supper
.
Pedo-baptists
talk
at
a
strange
rate
,
as
if
they
regarded
not
what
they
say
or
affirm
,
while
they
bring
Similitudes
to
teach
People
to
believe
Baptism
is
the
Balm
to
cure
the
Contagion
of
Sin
,
and
as
if
the
Application
of
it
saved
a
little
Babe
from
Hell
,
and
they
guilty
of
murdering
the
Souls
of
their
Children
who
deny
to
baptize
them
.
I
had
thought
they
would
not
have
laid
greater
Stress
upon
Childrens
Baptism
,
than
on
Childrens
Circumcision
,
since
they
would
fain
have
them
run
Parallel-wise
.
Pray
,
what
became
of
the
Jews
Female
Infants
,
were
they
damned
?
and
what
became
of
their
Male
Infants
,
who
died
before
eight
days
old
?
for
they
broke
God's
Law
if
they
circumcised
them
(
tho
sick
and
like
to
die
)
if
they
were
not
full
eight
days
old
.
Let
such
blush
for
the
sake
of
their
precious
Souls
,
and
take
more
care
for
the
time
to
come
,
to
what
they
write
and
preach
.
I
am
grieved
to
see
my
blessed
Master's
great
Commission
thus
inverted
and
abused
.
Suppose
the
King
should
send
you
with
a
Commission
into
a
remote
Plantation
,
and
command
you
to
act
and
do
exactly
according
to
the
express
words
of
the
Commission
,
not
to
add
to
it
nor
diminish
from
it
,
on
pa●
of
being
cast
out
of
his
Favour
,
and
incuring
his
Wrath
and
Curse
,
durst
you
do
otherwise
in
any
thing
,
under
pretence
it
was
his
meaning
;
whereas
he
plainly
and
fully
in
his
Commission
expressed
in
the
Affirmative
,
how
and
what
you
should
do
in
all
Matters
and
Things
,
and
forbad
you
to
add
thereto
?
Read
Rev.
22.
18.
For
I
testify
unto
every
Man
that
heareth
the
words
of
the
Prophecy
of
this
Book
,
If
any
Man
shall
add
unto
these
things
,
God
shall
add
unto
him
all
the
Plagues
that
are
written
in
this
Book
.
Who
told
you
what
you
say
is
the
sense
of
our
Saviour
?
Can
any
Man
once
think
,
since
the
Commission
of
Christ
is
a
pure
Gospel-Commission
,
and
contains
meer
positive
Laws
and
Rules
,
no
ways
referring
to
,
nor
depending
on
the
Law
or
Command
God
gave
to
Abraham
,
that
what
you
say
can
be
true
,
and
the
Conclusion
safe
,
certain
and
warrantable
?
May
not
another
say
,
with
as
good
Authority
,
that
our
Saviour
commands
his
Disciples
to
baptize
all
Nations
both
Parents
and
Children
too
,
whether
they
will
or
not
,
whether
they
believe
or
not
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
Turks
or
Pagans
?
I
wonder
you
are
not
afraid
who
take
liberty
after
this
sort
,
to
sport
(
as
it
were
)
and
play
with
,
invert
,
alter
and
add
unto
the
sacred
Commission
of
the
jealous
God
,
and
great
King
of
Heaven
and
Earth
!
1.
You
confess
Christ's
Sheep
came
up
from
the
washing
,
whereof
every
one
bear
Twins
,
and
there
is
none
barren
among
them
;
Cant.
6.
6.
Let
therefore
the
Lambs
,
say
you
,
be
washed
,
as
they
are
a
great
part
of
the
Flock
.
I
answer
;
Infants
,
as
such
,
by
your
own
words
cannot
be
Christ's
Sheep
,
nor
Lambs
;
for
all
his
Sheep
and
Lambs
that
are
washed
are
fruitful
,
and
none
are
barren
among
them
.
Are
Infants
fruitful
to
Christ
?
Can
they
bring
forth
Twins
?
Sir
,
Metaphors
go
not
on
all
four
,
(
as
we
used
to
say
)
;
the
Lambs
of
Christ
,
viz.
weak
and
young
Christians
,
may
be
as
fruitful
in
Holiness
as
Sheep
,
viz.
old
experienced
Christians
.
But
how
can
you
prove
Baptism
washes
your
Infants
from
Sin
?
actual
Sin
they
have
none
:
Doth
it
wash
away
Original
Sin
?
dare
you
say
that
?
The
antient
erring
Fathers
that
brought
it
in
,
affirmed
that
Baptism
did
wash
away
Original
Sin
in
Infants
;
but
do
you
believe
that
they
spoke
Truth
in
so
saying
?
Christ's
Lambs
,
you
say
,
are
capable
to
be
fed
by
the
Word
and
Sacrament
.
Are
Infants
capable
to
hear
the
Word
,
and
partake
of
the
Sacraments
?
If
of
one
,
of
both
.
Sir
,
Christ's
Lambs
are
new
born
Babes
,
not
new
born
by
Natural
Generation
,
but
by
Regeneration
,
as
I
have
shewed
.
You
say
,
that
the
Gentile
Church
should
not
come
short
of
the
Privileges
of
the
old
Jerusalem
,
or
Jewish
Church
;
and
that
the
desolate
hath
more
Children
than
she
that
hath
an
Husband
,
Gal.
4.
27.
and
hence
affirm
,
if
Children
of
the
Christian
Church
enjoy
not
the
Privilege
of
their
Fathers
,
she
hath
many
less
Children
than
the
old
Jerusalem-Church
had
.
Answ.
I
answer
;
the
Gentile
Church
according
to
God's
gracious
Promise
may
be
more
than
the
Jewish
was
,
when
the
Fulness
of
the
Gentiles
are
come
in
,
and
yet
no
Infants
Members
of
it
.
Nay
,
there
is
ground
to
believe
in
the
Primitive
Times
there
were
more
converted
among
the
Gentiles
,
than
were
amongst
the
Jews
;
but
still
I
find
you
harp
on
the
old
String
,
i.
e.
that
if
the
Gospel-Church
be
not
National
,
and
enjoy
as
many
outward
and
external
Privileges
as
the
Jewish
did
,
her
Privileges
are
less
:
but
you
consider
not
the
Nature
,
Quality
and
Glory
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
and
wherein
her
Privileges
excel
the
Legal
Church
of
old
Jerusalem
.
You
say
,
when
Christ
commandeth
to
teach
all
Nations
before
baptized
,
and
after
that
their
baptizing
,
his
meaning
is
,
teach
and
baptize
to
plant
the
Church
,
and
baptize
and
teach
to
continue
the
Church
planted
among
the
Gentiles
.
Answ.
1.
I
am
grieved
to
think
how
bold
you
are
in
asserting
that
to
be
Christ's
meaning
which
you
affirm
,
which
can
no
ways
be
gathered
from
his
Commission
,
but
't
is
directly
contrary
to
the
express
words
thereof
,
and
also
to
the
Nature
of
the
Gospel-Church's
Constitution
.
But
you
affirm
what
you
please
,
and
prove
nothing
.
2.
It
appears
by
your
words
,
the
Gospel-Church
in
its
first
Constitution
,
or
first
planting
,
was
by
Regeneration
,
consisting
only
of
believing
Men
and
Women
,
baptized
on
the
Profession
of
their
Faith
,
or
after
they
were
made
Disciples
;
but
after
its
first
Constitution
,
or
first
Plantation
,
it
was
to
consist
of
the
Fleshly
or
Carnal
Seed
,
and
so
made
National
,
yea
and
to
be
made
up
of
whole
Nations
.
Pray
,
Sir
,
since
the
great
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
proves
nothing
of
this
,
nor
hath
the
Lord
Jesus
given
out
another
Commission
to
nullify
his
first
;
What
ground
have
you
to
affirm
so
presumptuously
any
such
thing
?
Dare
you
add
and
diminish
to
God's
Word
,
nay
alter
Christ's
last
Will
and
Testament
in
his
grand
Commission
?
Tremble
at
the
thoughts
of
what
you
endeavour
to
do
!
Sir
,
the
New
Testament
about
Church-Constitution
,
&c.
is
a
perfect
Rule
to
the
End
of
the
World
;
and
as
the
first
Gospel-Church
after
Christ's
Ascension
at
Jerusalem
,
was
constituted
,
so
ought
all
Churches
to
be
constituted
,
and
so
to
continue
unto
the
second
coming
of
Christ
.
The
Ordinances
are
to
be
kept
,
as
to
the
Subject
and
Mode
of
Administration
,
as
they
were
first
delivered
to
the
Saints
:
See
1
Cor.
11.
2.
Now
I
praise
you
,
Brethren
,
that
you
remember
me
in
all
things
,
and
keep
the
Ordinances
as
I
delivered
them
to
you
.
Therefore
in
direct
Opposition
to
what
you
say
in
the
close
of
your
sixth
Chapter
,
I
affirm
from
the
Authority
of
Christ's
Commission
,
and
from
the
nature
of
the
Constitution
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
that
as
Teaching
went
before
Baptizing
for
the
planting
of
the
Church
in
the
Primitive
Time
,
so
Teaching
is
to
go
before
Baptizing
in
planting
and
continuing
of
the
Church
unto
the
End
of
the
World
;
and
that
the
Teaching
that
is
mentioned
in
order
of
Words
in
the
Commission
after
Baptizing
,
doth
not
refer
to
Infants
of
Believers
,
or
any
other
Infants
;
but
,
as
Mr
Baxter
observes
,
to
such
baptized
Believers
,
who
,
after
they
were
baptized
,
ought
to
be
taught
all
other
things
in
the
School
of
Christ
,
which
he
commanded
his
Disciples
to
observe
,
and
to
which
,
if
they
thus
act
,
he
subjoined
his
gracious
Promise
,
Lo
,
I
am
with
you
always
,
to
the
End
of
the
World
;
Mat.
28.
20.
CHAP.
IX
.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
seventh
Chapter
:
proving
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
ought
not
to
be
baptized
,
because
they
are
said
to
be
holy
;
wherein
1
Cor.
7.
14.
is
examined
,
and
clearly
explained
,
with
the
sense
of
many
learned
Men
,
both
Pedo-baptists
and
others
,
on
the
said
Text.
MR.
James
Owen
thus
begins
in
his
seventh
Chapter
,
viz.
If
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
holy
,
then
Baptism
appertaineth
unto
them
;
for
all
confess
that
Holiness
gives
Right
to
Baptism
,
if
they
allow
that
Faith
gives
Right
,
which
is
the
Root
of
Holiness
in
the
Adult
.
Answ.
We
do
deny
that
Holiness
(
I
mean
true
Gospel-Holiness
)
simply
in
it self
,
without
Christ's
Command
,
gives
right
to
Baptism
.
No
,
Sir
,
you
go
too
fast
;
Holiness
did
not
give
right
to
Circumcision
,
but
the
meer
positive
Command
of
God
to
Abraham
:
for
if
it
did
,
Lot
,
Job
,
&c.
had
as
much
right
to
Circumcision
,
and
their
Male
Infants
,
as
Abraham
and
his
Male
Infants
;
but
that
Holiness
gave
no
right
to
Circumcision
,
simply
considered
in
it self
,
appears
,
because
,
as
I
have
before
shewed
,
all
the
Male
Infants
of
those
wicked
Persons
that
sprang
from
Abraham's
Loins
by
Natural
Generation
,
had
as
undoubted
right
to
Circumcision
,
by
virtue
of
God's
Command
to
Abraham
,
as
had
those
holy
Mens
Male
Children
that
were
of
his
Natural
Seed
.
Moreover
,
't
is
neither
Faith
,
the
Seed
,
nor
Holiness
the
Fruit
,
that
gives
right
to
Baptism
,
simply
considered
,
but
the
positive
Command
of
Jesus
Christ
,
which
,
I
affirm
,
indeed
runs
to
such
who
have
Faith
,
Repentance
,
and
true
actual
Holiness
,
but
not
a
Civil
or
Matrimonial
Holiness
,
as
this
is
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
as
will
appear
by
and
by
;
Else
were
your
Children
unclean
,
but
now
are
they
holy
.
But
how
will
it
appear
that
they
(
i.
e.
that
Children
)
are
holy
,
say
you
?
the
Holy
Ghost
saith
so
in
1
Cor.
7.
14.
Else
were
your
Children
unclean
,
but
now
are
they
holy
.
The
Apostle
in
these
words
,
say
you
,
answereth
a
Question
proposed
by
the
believing
Corinthians
,
Whether
it
was
lawful
for
them
to
live
in
the
State
of
Matrimony
with
those
that
were
Infidels
?
they
questioned
this
not
without
Cause
,
because
Ezra
commanded
both
the
Idolatrous
Wives
and
Children
to
be
cast
off
,
Ezra
9.
1
,
2
,
3
,
4.
Paul
,
say
you
,
answereth
,
that
they
ought
not
to
do
the
like
;
because
the
unbelieving
Husband
is
sanctified
by
the
believing
Wife
,
and
the
unbelieving
Wife
is
sanctified
by
the
believing
Husband
.
2.
You
say
that
Children
born
in
such
a
State
are
holy
,
as
if
both
were
believing
;
and
this
you
deny
to
be
Legitimation
,
or
not
being
Bastards
,
but
that
it
is
a
Federal
or
Covenant-Holiness
.
Such
that
were
not
in
God's
Covenant
you
intimate
were
unclean
,
Isa.
52.
1.
Answ.
1.
Prove
your
Infants
,
as
such
,
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
We
deny
not
but
all
Elect
Infants
are
decretively
in
that
Covenant
;
but
are
your
Infants
,
or
Infants
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
If
not
,
they
are
not
in
this
sense
holy
.
2.
Are
there
not
many
Children
of
Unbelievers
elected
?
If
so
,
are
they
not
holy
also
?
and
if
so
,
why
not
baptized
as
well
as
your
Infants
,
by
your
Argument
from
hence
?
3.
Prove
,
when
you
write
again
,
if
you
can
,
that
there
is
any
External
,
Relative
,
Federal
Holiness
of
Persons
or
of
Things
in
the
times
of
the
Gospel
,
as
there
was
under
the
Law
;
we
deny
it
.
I
affirm
all
External
,
Relative
and
Federal
Holiness
was
but
a
Ceremonial
Typical
Holiness
;
and
will
you
bring
in
Ceremonial
Relative
Holiness
into
the
Gospel
Church
?
The
Gentiles
and
their
Children
being
not
circumcised
under
the
Law
,
we
grant
,
were
in
that
sense
unclean
:
But
will
you
call
all
Unbelievers
Children
unclean
now
;
for
the
Unbelievers
Children
you
deny
to
be
Subjects
of
Baptism
.
You
say
they
are
unclean
that
are
excluded
from
the
Privileges
of
the
Church
of
God
,
it
was
not
for
any
unclean
Person
to
come
into
the
Congregation
,
altho
,
say
you
,
their
Uncleanness
was
but
Ceremonial
.
Answ.
Sir
,
God
shewed
Peter
that
Jews
and
Gentiles
are
now
all
one
in
Gospel-times
:
Circumcision
nor
Uncircumcision
renders
Persons
clean
or
unclean
.
None
now
are
cleansed
or
accounted
clean
,
but
such
who
believe
,
or
have
Faith
in
Christ
.
All
that
you
say
about
unclean
Persons
,
and
things
under
the
Law
,
signifies
nothing
to
the
purpose
in
hand
,
because
the
Holiness
under
the
Law
was
either
Ceremonial
or
Typical
,
which
none
can
or
dare
plead
for
under
the
Gospel-Dispensation
,
seeing
the
Substance
and
Antitype
is
now
come
.
1.
Now
in
Gospel-times
there
is
no
Ceremonial
Uncleanness
of
Persons
;
and
therefore
in
that
respect
no
Holiness
of
Persons
.
The
Leper
was
unclean
,
and
he
that
touch'd
a
dead
Corps
was
unclean
,
&c.
Swines
Flesh
was
unclean
,
and
many
other
Beasts
,
that
are
not
so
now
.
The
First-born
was
holy
then
,
but
not
so
now
.
2.
There
was
Pollution
or
Uncleanness
of
Places
;
the
House
of
a
Leper
was
unclean
,
and
his
Garments
unclean
.
So
there
was
Holiness
of
Places
,
the
Sanctuary
was
holy
,
the
Temple
was
holy
,
which
were
either
by
external
Consecration
,
or
typically
so
:
But
now
there
is
no
Place
so
unclean
nor
holy
.
In
Gospel-times
there
's
no
such
Consecration
of
Places
,
Persons
or
Things
.
3.
Vessels
were
unclean
,
and
Vessels
were
holy
,
but
not
so
under
this
Dispensation
.
4.
All
the
whole
House
of
Israel
was
holy
by
way
of
Legal
Separation
,
or
Consecration
to
the
Lord
,
tho
they
were
wicked
Persons
in
respect
of
Spiritual
Sanctification
;
but
no
Member
of
the
Gospel-Church
that
is
a
false
Professor
,
is
accounted
holy
,
or
called
holy
by
the
Lord
,
holy
now
,
because
not
allowed
by
the
Gospel
to
be
a
Member
.
They
are
not
consecrated
to
the
Lord
,
or
set
apart
as
Members
of
a
Congregational
Church
under
the
Gospel
,
tho
such
were
,
if
Israelites
,
and
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
called
holy
by
the
Lord
.
Then
these
things
being
so
,
as
indeed
and
in
truth
it
is
acknowledged
to
be
,
and
that
by
our
Godly
Brethren
,
whether
Presbyterians
or
Independants
,
what
is
become
of
your
Exposition
of
this
Text
?
You
say
,
little
Children
are
unclean
by
reason
of
natural
Corruption
,
but
by
God's
Covenant
and
washing
with
Water
,
&c.
they
shall
be
clean
.
Answ.
1.
True
,
all
that
are
born
of
Women
are
spiritually
polluted
;
and
no
doubt
but
such
Infants
that
die
,
who
are
saved
,
God
doth
,
through
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
sanctify
them
in
some
mysterious
way
not
known
to
us
,
but
not
by
Baptism
.
Prove
that
Baptism
washes
away
Sin
either
in
old
or
young
if
you
can
;
Who
dares
to
affirm
that
,
when
Peter
saith
Baptism
washeth
not
away
Sin
,
or
the
spiritual
Filthiness
of
the
Flesh
?
1
Pet.
3.
21.
2.
If
God
in
a
Covenant-way
by
Baptism
washeth
away
the
Uncleanness
of
your
Infants
,
then
they
were
not
holy
or
clean
by
being
born
of
believing
Parents
;
and
if
holy
because
they
are
their
Seed
,
then
no
need
of
Baptism
to
wash
them
.
3.
And
how
come
they
to
lose
that
Holiness
afterwards
,
or
is
it
only
the
Defilement
or
Uncleanness
of
Actual
Sin
that
lies
upon
your
Children
who
are
polluted
,
when
grown
up
?
for
if
Baptism
washes
away
any
Corruption
of
Sin
in
your
Infants
,
't
is
Original
Corruption
;
and
doth
that
return
again
to
them
afterwards
,
so
as
to
be
charged
upon
them
?
All
Sin
in
true
sanctified
Persons
by
Faith
in
Christ's
Blood
is
washed
away
,
and
pardoned
,
as
touching
the
Guilt
and
Filth
thereof
,
and
shall
never
so
return
as
to
be
charged
upon
them
to
their
Condemnation
.
Is
it
thus
with
your
baptized
Infants
in
respect
of
Original
Sin
?
Speak
,
Sir
,
your
Mind
freely
the
next
time
;
for
,
God
willing
,
I
shall
be
ready
for
you
.
O
when
will
you
cease
to
corrupt
the
Word
of
God
by
your
Tradition
!
You
say
,
Mr.
Tombs
saith
,
If
Children
are
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
they
ought
to
be
baptized
.
I
do
not
remember
Mr.
Tombs
saith
so
,
and
if
they
are
Members
of
the
visible
Church
before
baptized
,
they
cannot
be
made
Members
by
Baptism
.
'T
is
absurd
to
say
to
a
Man
,
Come
into
this
House
;
or
to
say
,
Bring
such
a
Child
into
the
House
,
that
is
in
it
before
.
For
Baptism
,
say
you
,
is
the
Door
through
which
we
come
into
the
Church
of
God
:
Those
that
say
they
are
not
Members
of
the
Church
of
God
,
ought
,
you
say
,
to
shew
us
a
plain
Scripture
for
their
casting
out
,
if
they
can
,
of
one
Church
since
Adam
until
this
latter
Age
,
of
which
little
Children
were
Members
,
&c.
And
again
,
you
say
,
if
they
were
cast
out
,
how
comes
it
to
pass
that
there
is
not
one
word
in
Scripture
mentioned
of
it
?
call
for
a
Scripture
from
those
that
would
shake
your
Faith
concerning
this
Prerogative
.
Answ.
1.
I
have
answered
this
already
.
We
say
and
prove
that
Infants
were
never
received
at
all
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
therefore
cannot
be
said
to
be
cast
out
of
it
.
2.
We
deny
what
you
affirm
without
any
Proof
,
viz.
That
Infants
were
always
Members
of
the
Visible
Church
since
Adam
:
Prove
,
if
you
can
,
they
were
received
as
Members
before
that
Typical
Church-state
which
was
constituted
in
Abraham's
Family
.
3.
The
First-born
of
Israel
were
holy
,
the
Priests
Sons
had
a
right
to
the
Ministery
,
or
Priesthood
;
shew
when
they
were
cast
out
,
and
lost
both
those
Prerogatives
:
and
that
very
way
you
must
take
to
answer
will
serve
to
answer
your self
in
respect
of
Infants
Church-Membership
:
The
Answer
must
be
this
,
the
National
Church
,
and
Church-Membership
,
and
Priesthood
of
the
Jews
are
dissolved
,
and
taken
away
,
and
thereby
all
those
external
Rites
and
Prerogatives
the
Jewish
Children
had
,
are
gone
.
4.
These
were
as
Legacies
left
in
the
old
Will
,
in
the
old
Testament
:
but
there
is
a
new
Will
made
,
or
Christ
hath
made
his
last
Will
and
Testament
,
and
in
this
his
last
Will
and
Testament
,
none
of
these
external
Rites
or
Prerogatives
(
as
you
call
them
)
are
left
to
Infants
.
Sir
,
there
is
no
need
in
a
new
Will
,
in
the
last
Will
and
Testament
,
to
mention
Negatives
,
that
is
not
usual
;
not
what
is
not
left
,
but
only
in
the
Affirmative
,
what
is
left
:
therefore
in
vain
is
this
Flourish
,
it
will
do
your
People
,
who
are
shaken
in
their
Belief
of
your
Tradition
,
no
good
.
5.
You
bid
them
call
for
a
Scripture
from
those
that
oppose
their
Practice
in
the
Negative
,
i.
e.
that
forbid
Infants
Church-Membership
,
or
speak
where
they
were
cast
out
.
O
how
dangerous
is
your
Doctrine
!
May
not
the
Papists
say
to
them
also
,
Where
do
you
read
holy
Water
and
holy
Garments
are
forbid
?
Moses
commanded
the
People
to
be
sprinkled
with
Water
,
and
many
other
Rites
that
were
among
the
Jews
.
We
say
the
Papists
call
for
Scripture
where
those
things
are
forbid
which
they
have
among
them
,
or
when
God
cast
them
out
of
the
Church
?
What
Human
Tradition
may
not
be
let
into
the
Church
at
this
Door
?
You
say
,
the
unbelieving
Jews
would
have
stumbled
if
Paul
had
cast
out
their
Children
from
the
Church
,
and
put
them
in
the
same
Condition
as
the
Children
of
Infidels
.
Answ.
'T
is
your
mistake
,
he
told
them
plainly
,
that
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
were
not
the
Children
of
God
,
i.
e.
of
the
Promise
,
or
of
the
true
Gospel-Church
,
as
such
,
Rom.
9.
5
,
6
,
7.
yet
they
stumbled
not
;
nay
,
shewed
them
they
and
their
Children
had
no
external
Privileges
above
the
Gentiles
,
and
that
Circumcision
availed
them
nothing
;
and
yet
the
believing
Jews
stumbled
not
at
his
Doctrine
.
Sir
,
no
doubt
when
the
Jews
are
called
they
will
not
be
of
your
mind
,
to
plead
the
old
Covenant-right
of
their
Children
,
being
Members
,
as
such
.
You
say
,
That
we
judg
the
Adult
holy
,
because
they
are
separated
unto
the
Lord
in
a
Profession
of
Holiness
,
altho
it
be
too
often
an
Hypocritical
Profession
,
and
shall
we
not
(
say
you
)
judg
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
to
be
holy
whom
God
so
called
?
&c.
Answ.
1.
God
called
the
whole
House
of
Israel
holy
,
because
he
separated
them
to
himself
,
both
Parents
and
Children
,
in
a
legal
Church-state
,
whether
the
Parents
were
Believers
,
or
faithful
Persons
,
or
real
Saints
,
or
not
;
but
God
in
the
Gospel
hath
separated
none
to
be
Members
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
but
such
that
are
Adult
Persons
,
Believers
in
●ued
with
real
Holiness
.
There
is
,
I
tell
you
again
,
no
Fleshly
Relative
Federal
Holiness
under
the
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
spoken
of
,
disprove
it
if
you
can
.
2.
As
to
the
Holiness
of
Infants
born
in
lawful
Wedlock
,
they
are
by
the
Lord
called
holy
,
or
a
Godly
Seed
,
Mal.
2.
15.
And
did
he
make
one
?
(
i.
e.
one
Wife
)
yet
he
had
the
residue
of
the
Spirit
;
and
wherefore
one
?
that
he
might
seek
a
Godly
Seed
,
that
is
,
a
godly
or
holy
Seed
by
Legitimation
;
whether
the
Man
or
the
Woman
joined
together
in
holy
Matrimony
,
are
Believers
or
Unbelievers
,
their
Seed
is
a
godly
or
holy
Seed
in
this
respect
;
and
not
only
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
as
you
intimate
,
but
the
Seed
of
Unbelievers
also
,
and
so
not
a
Federal
or
Spiritual
Holiness
,
as
you
would
have
it
.
The
Seed
born
to
the
Faithful
,
say
you
,
in
lawful
Wedlock
are
a
godly
and
holy
Seed
;
God
calleth
such
his
Children
that
were
born
to
them
,
Ezek.
16.
20
,
21.
As
it
was
formerly
,
even
so
it
is
under
the
New
Testament
,
those
that
are
separated
unto
the
Lord
by
Baptism
are
called
a
holy
Nation
.
Answ.
It
follows
then
by
your
Argument
that
the
Children
of
Unbelievers
born
in
lawful
Wedlock
are
not
a
holy
Seed
,
that
is
,
they
are
Bastards
or
Cast-aways
;
but
you
must
first
prove
their
Marriage
unlawful
,
and
the
Holiness
here
mentioned
such
you
speak
of
,
before
you
carry
this
Point
.
2.
All
the
Children
of
the
whole
House
of
Israel
were
typically
and
federally
holy
then
in
that
National
Church
:
you
confound
typical
federal
Holiness
,
and
Matrimonial
Holiness
together
,
which
are
quite
remote
in
their
nature
.
3.
We
say
all
Believers
baptized
under
the
Gospel
are
spiritually
holy
,
and
are
called
,
1
Pet.
2.
7.
a
holy
Nation
,
a
Royal
Priesthood
;
but
this
holy
Nation
consisteth
of
none
but
Adult
Persons
that
believe
,
who
are
called
lively
Stones
building
up
a
spiritual
House
,
1
Pet.
2.
5
,
6.
not
a
National
Church
consisting
of
Parents
and
their
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
as
under
the
Law
.
But
if
for
Argument-sake
we
should
grant
all
that
were
in
the
Gospel-times
received
as
Members
in
the
visible
Church
,
should
be
called
holy
in
Charity
from
that
Profession
they
made
,
yet
this
will
do
you
no
good
,
until
by
God's
Ordination
you
can
prove
that
the
Infants
of
Believers
were
received
as
Members
into
the
Church
in
Gospel-times
,
as
they
were
into
the
National
Church
of
the
Jews
under
the
Law
.
You
say
,
that
Paul
calleth
the
Christians
in
his
Epistles
to
the
Churches
of
the
Gentiles
,
Saints
,
Rom.
1.
7.
a
Cor.
1.
1.
because
they
were
separated
by
Covenant
,
and
the
Obligation
of
Baptism
to
be
the
Lord's
;
and
not
only
the
believing
Parents
,
but
the
Children
also
are
Saints
:
and
for
this
you
cite
this
Text
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
But
now
are
they
holy
.
Answ.
Prove
that
the
Infants
of
Believers
were
comprehended
amongst
the
Saints
Paul
wrote
unto
,
and
that
they
were
Church-Members
;
we
utterly
deny
it
,
and
must
People
believe
it
on
your
bare
Testimony
?
In
whose
Authority
and
Power
then
must
stand
their
Faith
in
this
matter
?
Sir
,
you
bring
the
Text
in
Controversy
only
to
prove
your
Assertion
.
Is
this
to
act
like
a
wise
and
learned
Man
?
If
the
Holiness
in
the
Text
renders
Infants
to
be
Saints
,
prove
your
Exposition
from
some
other
Scripture
,
which
if
you
cannot
do
,
give
up
the
Point
,
and
confess
your
Mistake
and
Ignorance
;
for
no
Scripture
is
of
any
private
Interpretation
,
i.
e.
but
that
it
may
be
confirmed
by
some
other
place
or
places
of
sacred
Scripture
.
And
now
because
Mr.
Burkitt
,
a
learned
Pedo-baptist
,
in
his
late
Book
for
Infant-Baptism
,
argues
from
this
Text
as
you
do
,
and
I
have
fully
in
answering
him
answered
you
both
,
I
shall
here
repeat
his
Arguments
,
and
my
Reply
:
he
says
,
Paul
in
these
words
answers
the
Corinthians
Scruple
;
you
say
the
Apostle
in
these
words
answers
a
Question
proposed
by
the
believing
Corinthians
,
viz.
Whether
such
as
had
Heathen
and
Infidel
Wives
ought
to
put
them
away
with
their
Children
,
as
in
the
days
of
Ezra
?
The
Apostle
resolves
them
that
they
ought
not
:
For
,
saith
he
,
the
unbelieving
Wife
is
sanctified
by
the
believing
Husband
.
How
sanctified
?
Not
in
her
Name
,
but
in
her
Use
,
says
Mr.
Burkitt
,
so
as
that
they
might
lawfully
cohabit
and
converse
together
.
And
for
your
Children
they
are
holy
,
not
with
an
Inherent
,
Internal
,
Personal
Holiness
;
for
the
holiest
Man-child
is
born
in
Sin
,
and
by
Nature
a
Child
of
Wrath
;
but
with
an
External
,
Relative
,
Federal
Holiness
,
they
are
not
common
and
unclean
,
like
the
Children
of
Infidels
,
but
fit
to
be
partakers
of
the
Privileges
of
the
Church
,
which
the
Children
of
Infidels
are
not
.
Thus
Mr.
Barkitt
.
Now
I
answer
,
as
I
have
answered
him
,
you
can't
be
ignorant
,
but
that
you
know
well
enough
this
Text
hath
been
fully
opened
by
divers
learned
Men
as
well
Pedobaptists
as
Anti-pedobaptists
,
who
prove
the
Holiness
here
spoken
of
,
is
no
such
External
Relative
Federal
Holiness
you
dream
of
.
In
the
first
place
,
you
speak
right
,
it
was
about
that
very
matter
that
the
Corinthians
wrote
to
St.
Paul
,
viz.
Whether
the
believing
Husband
might
live
or
cohabit
with
the
unbelieving
Wife
?
&c.
So
that
the
Scope
and
Coherence
of
the
Text
opens
the
matter
,
and
shews
what
Holiness
't
is
the
Apostle
intends
,
viz.
a
Matrimonial
Holiness
;
for
should
he
make
their
Marriage
void
,
their
Children
would
be
unclean
or
illegitimate
,
i.
e.
Bastards
:
for
tho
〈◊〉
true
,
the
case
was
not
as
Mr.
Burkitt
says
concerning
Men
and
Whores
,
but
about
Husbands
and
Wives
,
yet
he
honestly
says
it
was
about
the
Lawfulness
of
their
Marriage
,
as
in
Ezra's
time
,
when
some
were
commanded
to
put
their
Wives
away
,
because
their
Marriage
was
unlawful
.
Now
such
,
say
we
,
as
is
the
Sanctification
or
Holiness
of
the
unbelieving
Wife
or
Husband
,
is
the
Sanctification
or
Holiness
of
the
〈◊〉
,
and
that
Mr.
Burkitt
grants
to
be
a
Matrimonial
Sanctification
,
so
as
that
they
might
lawfully
cohabit
together
a
Man
and
Wife
.
And
indeed
if
the
Children
had
from
hence
an
External
Relative
Federal
Holiness
,
it
would
follow
also
that
the
unbelieving
Husband
and
Wife
had
such
an
External
Relative
Federal
Holiness
likewise
,
and
that
would
open
the
same
Door
to
baptize
the
unbelieving
Husband
or
Wife
.
For
may
not
another
Person
argue
thus
,
The
unbelieving
Husband
is
holy
or
sanctified
by
the
believing
Wife
,
and
therefore
by
virtue
of
her
Faith
may
and
ought
to
be
baptized
?
Mr.
Burkitt
reads
[
to
]
the
believing
Husband
,
and
indeed
I
find
the
Greek
word
is
elsewhere
so
rendred
.
Let
us
consider
how
the
Apostle
speaks
,
viz.
with
respect
to
a
thing
present
or
past
,
therefore
he
useth
the
Preterperfect
Tense
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hath
been
sanctified
:
Yea
in
probability
he
speaks
of
Sanctification
even
when
both
were
Unbelievers
,
or
Infidels
,
for
he
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
thrice
in
the
Preterperfect
Tense
,
and
he
mentions
the
Unbeliever
distinctly
,
but
the
Believer
without
the
Expression
of
his
Faith
,
under
the
Title
of
Husband
or
Wife
,
and
saith
your
Children
in
Discrimination
,
with
Difference
,
as
well
those
they
had
before
one
was
a
Believer
,
as
since
;
and
if
so
,
then
the
Children
born
to
them
whilst
both
were
Unbelievers
,
were
as
holy
as
such
born
after
one
became
a
Believer
,
and
what
Holiness
was
in
the
Children
then
think
you
?
even
no
other
than
what
is
in
all
Children
born
in
lawful
Wedlock
,
whether
their
Parents
are
Believers
or
Unbelievers
.
And
this
sense
is
the
more
confirmed
in
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Sanctification
is
the
same
with
Chastity
,
1
Thess.
4.
7.
so
that
the
sense
is
,
the
unbelieving
Husband
is
sanctified
to
his
Wife
,
that
is
lawfully
or
chastly
used
as
a
Husband
,
without
Fornication
in
respect
of
his
own
Wife
,
whether
Believer
or
Unbeliever
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
refused
.
And
this
sense
only
serves
for
the
Apostle's
purpose
.
The
Words
are
a
Reason
why
they
might
lawfully
live
together
;
the
Reason
must
be
taken
from
that
which
was
not
contingent
but
certain
.
Therefore
let
them
live
together
,
for
tho
one
be
an
Unbeliever
,
yet
Marriage
continues
still
,
they
are
Husband
and
Wife
,
and
sanctified
to
each
other
in
respect
of
their
chast
Enjoyment
of
each
other
,
and
it
is
no
Sin
in
them
to
company
together
,
notwithstanding
the
Unbelief
of
one
Party
:
for
Marriage
is
honourable
among
all
,
even
Unbelievers
,
and
the
Bed
undefiled
,
Heb.
13.
4.
and
Holiness
and
Honour
are
Terms
(
as
one
observes
)
of
like
sense
in
this
matter
,
1
Thess.
4
7.
Now
this
being
granted
,
which
indeed
must
of
necessity
,
then
the
Uncleanness
must
be
understood
of
Bastardy
,
and
the
Holiness
of
Legitimation
,
as
Mat.
2.
15.
for
no
other
Holiness
necessarily
follows
to
their
Children
,
in
that
their
Parents
Marriage
is
lawful
:
See
the
Apostle's
Conclusion
,
Else
were
your
Children
unclean
;
you
leave
out
[
Else
]
for
you
mention
Children
as
another
Doubt
which
was
in
the
Corinthians
about
them
,
which
cannot
be
gathered
from
the
Text
nor
Scope
of
it
;
but
[
else
]
were
your
Children
unclean
,
is
brought
in
a
an
Argument
to
prove
that
which
he
saith
last
,
as
the
Particle
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
shews
;
for
the
terms
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
elsewhere
are
Argumentative
as
much
as
Quoniam
,
because
th●n
used
.
So
1
Cor.
15.
14.
29.
Rom.
11.
16.
to
prove
that
which
went
before
;
and
here
the
Argument
is
ab
absurdo
,
from
an
Absurdity
which
would
follow
if
the
thing
to
be
proved
were
not
granted
;
and
the
Speech
must
needs
be
Elliptick
,
and
somewhat
is
to
be
repeated
to
make
the
Speech
full
;
as
when
't
is
said
,
Rom.
11.
6.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
make
up
the
sense
,
you
must
add
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
because
of
Work
;
and
so
here
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
for
if
the
unbelieving
Husband
hath
not
been
sanctified
to
his
Wife
,
your
Children
,
&c.
So
that
this
Argument
of
the
Apostle
is
entire
,
viz.
If
the
unbelieving
Husband
were
not
sanctified
by
the
Wife
,
then
were
your
Children
unclean
;
but
they
are
not
unclean
;
Ergo
,
the
unbelieving
Husband
is
sanctified
to
the
Wise
.
Now
the
Major
of
the
Syllogism
is
a
Contradiction
,
the
Sequel
of
it
were
not
true
if
this
Proposition
were
not
true
:
All
the
Children
of
those
,
whereof
the
one
is
not
sanctified
to
the
other
,
are
unclean
.
Now
if
the
Sanctification
be
here
meant
of
a
Matrimonial
Sanctification
,
as
I
have
proved
it
must
,
and
the
Uncleanness
be
meant
of
Federal
Uncleanness
,
so
as
to
exclude
them
out
of
the
Covenant
,
whether
of
saving
Grace
,
or
Church-Privileges
,
the
Proposition
were
most
false
,
since
the
Children
of
Parents
,
whereof
one
was
not
Matrimonially
sanctified
to
the
other
,
but
came
together
unchastly
,
as
Pharez
and
Sarah
,
Judah
and
Tamar
,
Jepthah
of
Gilead
,
and
many
others
were
within
the
Covenant
of
saving
Grace
and
Church-Privileges
:
Therefore
to
make
the
Proposition
true
(
without
which
,
the
Apostle
speaks
that
which
is
most
false
)
it
must
be
understood
of
Uncleanness
by
Bastardy
;
for
it
's
true
of
no
other
Uncleanness
;
that
all
Children
of
those
Parents
,
whereof
the
one
is
not
sanctified
to
the
other
,
are
unclean
,
but
now
are
they
holy
:
The
Particle
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
now
,
is
not
an
Adverb
of
Time
here
,
as
Beza
rightly
speaks
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
elsewhere
:
So
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
[
now
]
is
a
Particle
of
Reasoning
used
in
the
Assumption
of
Arguments
,
which
shews
it
is
the
Assumption
of
the
Apostle's
Argument
,
and
therefore
it
must
be
understood
of
Holiness
opposite
to
the
Uncleanness
mentioned
;
but
that
being
no
other
than
Bastardy
,
the
Holiness
can
be
meant
of
no
other
than
Legitimation
.
Nor
is
this
any
more
an
unlikely
Sense
,
sith
Bastards
were
reckoned
among
unclean
Persons
,
Deut.
23.
2.
and
the
Apostle's
Expression
is
allusive
to
the
Jewish
Speaking
and
Estimation
,
and
why
it
should
be
thought
strange
that
Holy
should
signify
Legitimation
I
know
not
,
whenas
Mal.
2.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
Seed
of
God
,
is
rendered
by
some
Pedo-baptists
a
Holy
Seed
,
which
were
such
Children
(
you
can't
deny
)
born
in
lawful
Marriage
.
And
that
we
are
not
alone
touching
this
sense
of
the
Words
and
Matter
,
pray
take
the
Testimony
of
divers
Learned
Men
,
who
yet
held
Infant-Baptism
,
but
found
this
Text
remote
to
the
business
of
proving
it
.
Jerom
,
as
I
find
him
quoted
by
a
Learned
Man
,
saith
,
because
of
God's
Appointment
Marriage
is
holy
.
See
Chamier
,
who
says
,
Sic
Ambrosium
,
Thomam
,
Anselmum
exposuisse
,
&
tum
Suarez
appellat
literalem
sensum
That
Ambrose
,
Thomas
,
Anselm
so
expounded
it
,
and
this
Suarez
calls
the
literal
sense
.
Melancthon
in
his
Commentary
upon
this
place
saith
thus
,
Therefore
Paul
answers
,
that
the
Marriages
are
not
to
be
pulled
asunder
for
their
unlike
Opinions
of
God
.
The
impious
Person
does
not
cast
away
the
other
:
And
for
Comfort
,
he
adds
as
a
Reason
,
the
unbelieving
Husband
is
sanctified
by
the
believing
Wife
.
Meat
is
sanctified
;
for
that
which
is
holy
in
use
,
is
granted
to
Believers
by
God
:
things
prohibited
under
the
Law
,
as
Swines
Flesh
,
and
a
Woman
in
her
Pollution
,
were
called
unclean
.
The
Connexion
of
the
Argument
is
this
,
If
the
use
of
Marriage
should
not
please
God
,
your
Children
would
be
Bastards
,
and
so
unclean
;
but
your
Children
are
not
Bastards
,
therefore
the
use
of
Marriage
pleaseth
God
:
and
how
Bastards
were
unclean
in
a
peculiar
matter
,
the
Law
shews
,
Deut.
—
.
Thus
far
Melancthon
gives
the
same
sense
,
as
Chamier
observes
.
Musculus
in
his
Comment
on
the
place
,
confesseth
that
he
had
formerly
abused
this
place
against
the
Anabaptists
.
Camera
on
the
place
saith
,
[
For
the
unbelieving
Husband
hath
been
sanctified
]
an
unusual
change
of
the
Tense
,
that
is
,
sanctified
in
the
lawful
use
of
Marriage
:
for
without
this
,
saith
he
,
it
would
be
that
their
Children
should
be
unclean
,
that
is
,
infamous
,
and
not
legitimate
;
whoso
are
holy
(
that
is
,
during
the
Marriage
)
are
without
all
Blot
or
Ignominy
.
Erasmus
upon
the
place
saith
thus
,
Infants
born
of
such
Parents
,
as
one
being
a
Christian
,
the
other
not
,
are
legitimately
holy
;
for
the
Conversion
of
either
Husband
or
Wife
doth
not
dissolve
the
Marriage
which
was
made
when
both
were
in
Unbelief
.
Nay
,
I
find
a
very
learned
Divine
to
affirm
,
that
the
Antients
expounded
this
place
no
otherwise
.
None
,
saith
he
,
that
ever
I
met
with
expounded
it
of
Federal
Holiness
,
till
the
Controversy
of
the
Anabaptists
in
Germany
arose
.
And
since
Mr.
Burkitt
is
so
ingenuous
as
to
confess
,
that
the
unbelieving
Husband
is
sanctified
in
respect
of
Conjugal
Relation
to
the
Wife
in
a
way
of
Marriage
,
in
which
so
far
he
agrees
with
those
Learned
Men
;
this
being
so
,
how
comes
he
to
assert
't
is
Federal
Holiness
that
is
said
to
be
in
the
Children
?
And
by
what
we
say
,
it
appears
,
it
is
not
a
racking
of
the
Scripture
o
maintain
a
private
Opinion
;
and
tho
the
word
[
holy
]
refers
here
to
what
we
affirm
with
others
,
yet
the
Apostle
speaks
truly
;
tho
it
is
granted
the
Children
of
Heathens
born
in
lawful
Wedlock
,
are
no
more
Bastards
than
the
Children
of
Christians
For
if
the
Marriage
were
made
voi●
,
it
would
render
their
Children
to
be
unclean
,
or
base
born
.
And
what
tho
the
Greek
word
does
signify
in
so
many
places
,
as
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
,
spiritual
Sanctification
and
Separation
to
God
;
yet
shew
us
,
say
I
,
where
it
signifies
External
,
Relative
,
Federal
Holiness
in
the
New
Testament
:
yet
as
one
observes
,
the
word
is
not
bound
up
to
that
sense
as
he
seems
to
intimate
;
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
used
for
Castimoni●m
ser●●
,
as
Stephanus
in
his
Thesaurus
observes
out
of
Demosthenes
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
where
a
Priest
of
Bacchus
speaks
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
I
am
holy
and
pure
from
the
Company
of
Man
:
and
the
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
chast
,
to
be
chast
,
to
make
chast
,
Chastity
,
coming
from
the
same
Root
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
whether
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
reverence
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
admire
,
as
Grammarians
conceive
,
are
used
for
Holiness
very
frequently
,
both
in
Scripture
and
in
all
sorts
of
Greek
Writers
:
So
that
what
he
says
as
to
the
Signification
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
holy
,
that
it
cannot
be
taken
for
[
legitimate
]
is
fully
cleared
,
and
we
justified
from
the
Pedo-baptists
unjust
Accusation
,
viz.
that
we
wrested
the
word
to
favour
our
private
Opinion
.
And
now
to
conclude
;
But
if
it
doth
signify
Holy
,
as
you
and
your
Brethren
say
,
why
might
not
the
Children
of
such
as
the
Apostle
speaks
of
,
be
said
to
be
holy
,
as
well
as
the
Infidel
or
unbelieving
Wife
is
said
to
be
sanctified
?
What
is
the
difference
between
holy
and
sanctified
?
Mr.
Owen
says
,
If
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
not
Members
of
the
Church
of
God
,
then
they
are
Members
of
the
Kingdom
of
Satan
,
who
is
the
Prince
of
this
World
:
If
they
are
without
the
Church
,
what
hopes
of
Salvation
have
they
?
there
is
no
Salvation
out
of
the
Church
,
Rom.
9.
4.
Answ.
1.
I
hope
my
Antagonist
is
a
Protestant
;
but
I
must
assure
my
Reader
,
he
here
maintains
a
Popish
Doctrine
,
which
all
our
worthy
Protestant
Divines
have
protested
against
.
How
!
is
there
no
Salvation
out
of
the
Visible
Church
?
God
forbid
.
I
doubt
not
but
there
are
many
gracious
Persons
who
shall
be
certainly
saved
,
and
who
do
truly
believe
in
Christ
,
that
are
not
Members
of
any
true
Gospel
Church
.
Will
you
exclude
all
from
Salvation
that
are
not
Members
of
your
Church
?
I
cannot
think
you
own
the
Church
of
England
to
be
a
true
Gospel-Church
,
and
will
you
exclude
all
that
are
of
that
Communion
from
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
?
2.
But
as
to
Infants
,
they
are
born
Children
of
Wrath
,
and
actually
in
Satan's
Kingdom
,
till
God
is
pleased
to
sanctify
them
;
and
those
who
die
in
Infancy
that
are
saved
,
no
doubt
he
doth
sanctify
their
unclean
Nature
,
but
not
such
as
live
and
remain
in
Satan's
Kingdom
,
until
they
are
regenerated
by
the
Word
and
Spirit
of
God
,
after
they
are
grown
up
to
Understanding
.
3.
Therefore
some
Infants
may
be
Members
of
the
Invisiole
Church
,
or
Mystical
Body
of
Christ
,
(
tho
not
Members
of
the
Visible
Church
)
and
of
this
sort
there
may
be
among
the
Children
of
Unbelievers
,
as
well
as
among
the
Children
of
Believers
;
for
the
Election
of
Grace
runs
not
only
to
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
say
what
you
please
,
as
I
said
before
.
4.
Therefore
you
do
not
well
to
call
Children
Dogs
,
if
they
are
not
in
the
Pale
of
the
Visible
Church
.
You
say
,
the
Promises
are
the
Inheritance
of
the
Church
,
not
to
those
that
are
without
;
and
therefore
,
say
you
,
if
the
Children
be
without
,
they
are
among
Dogs
,
and
what
Promise
belongs
to
them
?
Rev.
22.
15.
and
where
there
is
no
Promise
,
there
is
no
hope
of
Salvation
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
,
the
Promise
runs
to
Christ
,
and
all
that
the
Father
hath
given
him
,
but
we
do
not
know
who
they
are
until
they
believe
.
2.
The
Promises
are
not
the
Inheritance
of
all
that
are
Members
of
the
Visible
Church
,
for
they
may
not
belong
to
some
that
are
in
it
,
and
they
may
belong
to
some
others
that
are
not
in
it
.
You
darken
Counsel
with
Words
without
Knowledg
.
For
,
(
1.
)
You
distinguish
not
between
the
Visible
and
Invisible
Church
.
(
2.
)
Also
you
distinguish
not
between
who
are
the
Lord
's
decretively
,
and
who
are
his
actually
.
(
3.
)
Moreover
,
you
distinguish
not
between
external
Privileges
,
and
true
internal
spiritual
Privileges
.
No
external
Privileges
,
or
outward
Church-Membership
gives
any
Man
a
Right
to
Salvation
,
nor
puts
him
under
the
Promise
thereof
.
3.
There
is
hope
and
ground
of
hope
touching
the
Salvation
of
dying
Infants
,
tho
they
are
not
in
Gospel-times
of
the
Visible
Church
;
because
Christ
saith
,
of
such
belongs
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
But
pray
,
Sir
,
take
heed
of
what
you
say
:
You
cannot
prove
that
our
blessed
Saviour
spake
those
words
only
with
reference
to
the
Children
of
Believers
.
I
know
no
cause
why
unbelieving
Parents
should
doubt
of
the
Salvation
of
their
dying
Infants
.
They
may
(
so
far
as
I
see
)
have
as
much
ground
to
hope
God's
Election
may
reach
their
dying
Infants
,
as
any
Believer
can
have
it
may
reach
to
theirs
.
What
if
I
should
exercise
so
much
Charity
as
to
hope
that
God
hath
comprehended
in
his
electing
Love
all
the
dying
Infants
both
of
Believers
and
Unbelievers
,
and
that
through
the
Blood
and
Merits
of
Christ
they
are
sanctified
,
and
shall
be
all
saved
?
My
Opinion
,
were
it
so
,
could
not
justly
be
condemned
by
any
;
but
I
say
secret
things
belong
to
God
,
and
I
shall
forbear
to
pass
any
Judgment
in
the
case
,
but
leave
it
to
God
;
but
I
am
sure
no
Child
shall
be
damned
for
the
Parent
's
Fault
.
Can
Parents
by
baptizing
their
Infants
save
them
?
Or
are
they
Dogs
,
and
must
be
damned
if
their
Parents
baptize
them
not
,
and
dare
not
do
it
because
Christ
hath
not
commanded
them
to
baptize
them
?
4.
Sir
,
what
if
a
Man
and
his
Wife
when
they
were
both
vile
and
ungodly
People
,
as
bad
as
any
that
live
on
Earth
,
should
beget
many
Children
,
and
afterwards
they
both
believe
and
become
good
Christians
,
is
the
State
of
those
Children
begotten
when
they
believed
good
,
and
they
holy
?
and
are
the
Children
they
had
when
they
were
vile
and
wicked
Persons
,
bad
,
nay
so
bad
as
they
are
to
be
counted
Dogs
?
O
that
God
would
open
your
Eves
!
Nay
,
if
it
were
as
you
intimate
,
it
may
be
queried
,
Whether
it
be
not
a
sinful
,
a
wicked
,
and
an
unlawful
thing
for
two
ungodly
,
unbelieving
,
unfaithful
Persons
to
marry
,
since
they
can
beget
no
Children
but
such
as
you
call
Dogs
;
for
you
will
not
say
their
Children
are
holy
,
or
ought
to
be
baptized
,
nor
are
in
the
Pale
of
the
Church
.
But
to
conclude
with
this
Chapter
;
let
me
speak
a
word
to
you
that
are
Believers
,
and
also
a
word
to
you
that
are
Unbelievers
,
and
I
shall
pass
to
the
next
Argument
.
1.
To
you
that
are
Believers
and
have
Children
;
if
they
are
holy
and
Heirs
of
Heaven
,
as
they
are
begotten
and
born
of
your
Bodies
,
as
Mr.
Owen
,
and
other
Pedobaptists
assert
,
then
you
need
not
trouble
your
Thoughts
about
your
dying
Infants
,
tho
they
are
not
baptized
;
for
't
is
not
Baptism
makes
them
holy
,
by
Mr.
Owen's
Concession
,
but
because
they
are
your
Children
;
't
is
by
your
Faith
they
are
holy
,
as
he
blindly
supposes
.
2.
And
since
Baptism
doth
not
belong
to
them
,
Christ
no
where
having
commanded
you
to
baptize
them
,
nor
can
it
add
any
thing
to
their
Salvation
;
I
charge
you
in
the
Fear
of
God
baptize
them
not
.
3.
But
do
not
believe
Mr.
Owen
,
nor
any
other
Man
in
what
he
says
,
unless
he
can
prove
it
from
God's
Word
.
I
tell
you
from
Christ's
own
Words
you
have
ground
of
hope
touching
the
State
of
your
dying
Infants
,
but
not
because
they
are
your
Children
,
but
because
of
such
belongs
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
they
may
be
in
God's
eternal
Election
of
Grace
:
For
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
saith
,
and
I
mentioned
before
,
God
may
have
many
ways
to
apply
the
Blood
of
Christ
to
save
and
sanctify
dying
Infants
,
which
we
know
not
of
;
but
we
are
not
any
more
required
to
haptize
them
,
or
to
give
them
one
Sacrament
,
than
we
are
required
to
give
them
the
other
,
viz.
the
Lord's-Supper
;
and
this
he
will
one
day
know
to
be
a
Truth
,
tho
now
he
sees
it
not
.
O!
saith
Mr.
Owen
,
cast
them
not
out
from
the
Church
of
God
,
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
;
they
are
your
dear
Children
,
Children
of
your
Bodies
,
of
your
Vows
.
O
,
shew
them
the
Mercy
of
God!
the
Church
of
God
is
willing
to
receive
them
:
O
rent
them
not
from
the
Mystical
Body
,
of
which
they
are
Members
.
See
pag.
—
Answ.
You
Godly
Parents
take
heed
what
Doctrine
you
receive
,
you
cannot
cast
your
Infants
out
of
the
Invisible
and
Mystical
Body
of
Christ
,
if
they
are
in
it
,
nor
cast
them
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
:
No
,
no
,
that
's
not
in
the
Power
of
Mortals
:
We
cannot
receive
them
or
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
,
nor
make
them
Members
of
Christ's
Invisible
and
Mystical
Body
.
None
can
do
that
but
God
himself
,
Christ
himself
;
't
is
preposterous
Stuff
,
strange
Doctrine
this
poor
Man
troubles
you
with
.
Good
Men
may
in
some
things
be
blinded
and
misled
:
Try
his
Doctrine
,
search
the
Scriptures
,
take
nothing
upon
trust
without
trial
.
As
to
your
bringing
of
your
Children
into
the
Visible
Church
,
so
as
to
be
Members
thereof
,
and
to
have
right
to
the
holy
Sacraments
,
they
must
come
in
at
the
Door
of
Regeneration
,
not
by
Generation
;
even
at
the
same
Door
you
came
in
at
if
you
are
true
Members
thereof
:
and
O
therefore
pray
for
your
Children
,
they
are
dear
to
you
,
bring
them
up
in
the
Fear
of
God
,
command
them
to
seek
after
the
Knowledg
of
their
Natural
State
,
and
to
know
and
believe
in
Jesus
Christ
,
and
set
them
a
good
Example
.
I
know
not
what
better
Counsel
to
give
you
concerning
your
Children
.
Secondly
,
To
you
that
are
Unbelievers
who
have
Children
.
Do
not
fear
the
State
of
those
dear
Babes
of
yours
that
die
in
Infancy
,
you
have
no
cause
to
doubt
of
their
Happiness
,
but
your
Children
may
be
saved
that
die
in
their
Infancy
,
as
well
as
the
Infants
of
faithful
and
godly
Parents
.
Also
the
Infants
of
Godly
People
are
no
more
holy
than
yours
,
if
your
Marriage
was
good
and
lawful
;
for
Marriage
is
honourable
in
all
;
it
belongs
to
Unbelievers
,
and
is
God's
holy
Ordinance
to
them
as
well
as
't
is
to
Believers
.
But
O
let
it
be
your
Care
and
chief
Business
to
get
true
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
;
for
Matrimonial
Sanctification
in
your selves
,
or
the
Holiness
of
Legitimation
in
your
Children
will
add
nothing
to
yours
or
their
Salvation
;
but
till
you
and
your
Off-spring
do
believe
and
are
spiritually
holy
,
and
sanctified
by
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
through
Faith
of
the
Operation
of
God
,
neither
you
nor
they
have
any
right
to
the
Sign
,
which
is
Baptism
:
for
as
we
deny
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
have
any
right
to
Baptism
,
so
be
sure
your
Children
have
no
right
thereto
;
yet
the
Promise
is
to
you
and
your
Children
,
or
Off-spring
,
whenever
the
Lord
is
pleased
to
call
either
you
or
your
Children
by
the
preaching
of
the
Word
,
&c.
CHAP.
X.
Proving
,
in
Opposition
to
what
Mr.
James
Owen
saith
,
that
Children
have
no
right
to
be
baptized
,
altho
Christ
blessed
them
.
MR.
Owen
quotes
Mark
10.
13
,
14
,
15
,
16.
And
〈◊〉
brought
little
Children
to
him
,
that
he
should
touch
them
,
that
he
would
put
his
Hand
upon
them
,
and
pray
.
Mat.
19.
13.
And
his
Disciples
rebuked
those
that
brought
them
;
but
when
Jesus
saw
it
,
he
was
displeased
,
and
said
,
Suffer
little
Children
to
come
unto
me
,
and
forbid
them
not
,
for
of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
&c.
Saith
Mr.
Owen
,
Let
us
consider
in
this
remarkable
Scripture
who
were
those
that
were
brought
to
the
Lord
Jesus
;
the
Text
says
they
were
little
Children
,
such
as
were
taken
up
in
Arms
,
as
we
translate
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
therefore
,
saith
he
,
it
being
evident
that
those
Children
brought
,
as
it
is
probable
,
by
the
Godly
Parents
unto
Christ
,
were
very
little
,
they
themselves
were
not
of
Age
to
come
unto
him
,
nor
profess
Faith
in
him
.
2.
Why
were
they
brought
to
Christ
?
that
he
should
put
his
Hands
on
them
and
pray
.
They
that
brought
them
to
Christ
did
believe
they
could
receive
a
Blessing
by
laying
of
Hands
,
and
Prayers
of
Christ
;
altho
the
little
Children
understood
not
at
present
what
Christ
had
done
to
them
.
As
,
saith
he
,
Parents
brought
their
Children
to
●hrist
to
bless
them
,
so
do
we
bring
them
to
Christ
by
Baptism
to
receive
a
Blessing
.
Why
cannot
they
receive
a
Blessing
from
him
now
,
as
in
the
days
of
his
Flesh
?
Are
his
Bowels
straitned
towards
them
?
Answ.
What
doth
this
prove
touching
the
Lawfulness
of
Infant-Baptism
?
we
acknowledg
and
readily
grant
that
they
were
little
Children
that
were
brought
to
Christ
,
and
that
he
〈◊〉
his
Hands
upon
them
,
and
blessed
them
;
but
is
this
a
Warrant
for
us
to
Baptize
our
little
Children
?
You
say
As
those
Parents
brought
their
Children
to
Christ
to
bless
them
,
so
do
you
bring
them
to
Christ
by
Baptism
.
Answ.
And
with
shame
you
may
speak
it
,
unless
you
had
Authority
to
Christ
so
to
do
:
Who
hath
required
this
thing
〈◊〉
our
Hands
?
May
you
not
,
as
the
Ancient
Fathers
did
,
by
the
s●me
Argument
bring
little
Children
to
the
Lord
Je●us
by
bringing
them
to
the
holy
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's
●upper
?
Also
you
have
as
much
ground
from
God's
Word
to
do
that
,
as
to
bring
them
to
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
No
doubt
they
were
brought
to
Christ
to
be
healed
of
some
Bodily
Distemper
,
for
the
Lord
blessed
and
healed
Diseases
by
laying
his
Hand
on
the
Sick
;
and
we
all
know
that
they
are
capable
of
that
Blessing
,
〈◊〉
not
of
the
holy
Sacraments
,
which
al●ne
belong
to
Adult
Persons
that
believe
,
and
are
able
to
examine
themselves
.
True
,
Christ's
Bowels
are
not
straitn●d
now
he
is
in
Heavan
to
young
or
old
,
but
what
o●
th●…
Wisdom
did
not
lead
him
to
baptize
little
Children
,
,
and
he
knows
how
to
let
out
his
Bowels
towards
them
without
your
reaching
him
.
Will
you
direct
the
Almighty
,
or
have
Christ
to
bless
an
Human
Invention
?
Were
i●
his
Appointment
he
would
no
doubt
bless
it
to
little
Children
,
but
that
you
will
never
be
able
to
prove
;
and
it
argues
you
have
a
bad
Ca●se
in
hand
,
in
that
you
make
use
of
such
Childish
Arguments
to
prove
it
;
and
bring
Texts
so
remote
from
the
Business
.
You
say
,
Christ
prayed
for
them
whom
the
Father
had
given
him
,
John
17.
9.
and
if
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
not
of
the
World
,
but
are
Christ's
,
we
should
suffer
them
to
come
to
him
,
and
receive
his
Mark
which
is
Baptism
.
Answ.
1.
Are
all
the
Infants
of
Believers
given
unto
Christ
,
and
so
not
of
this
World
?
Do
you
believe
it
?
Sir
,
all
that
the
Father
hath
given
to
Christ
,
shall
come
unto
him
,
and
every
Soul
of
them
shall
be
saved
.
Now
do
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
come
to
Christ
,
and
shall
they
all
be
saved
?
or
are
you
not
to
be
rebuked
and
sharply
reproved
for
what
you
write
,
to
blind
the
Eyes
,
and
deceive
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
to
make
them
think
their
State
is
good
and
safe
,
when
perhaps
they
are
in
the
Gall
of
Bitterness
,
and
Bond
of
Iniquity
?
Had
not
Abraham
an
Ishmael
,
Isaac
an
Esau
,
and
David
an
Absalom
?
O
,
and
what
ungodly
Persons
do
daily
still
proceed
from
the
Loins
of
Godly
Parents
!
And
how
gracious
do
many
Children
of
wicked
Parents
prove
when
grown
up
!
2.
You
know
not
whether
these
little
Children
were
the
Children
of
Godly
Parents
or
not
,
nor
who
they
were
that
brought
them
to
Christ
;
their
Parents
might
be
ungodly
as
far
as
we
know
,
and
yet
some
of
their
Relations
,
Kindred
,
or
Neighbours
might
believe
that
Christ
would
bless
them
,
and
heal
them
;
therefore
they
might
bring
them
to
Christ
.
3.
You
say
Baptism
is
Christ's
Mark
;
but
I
have
shewed
the
foolishness
of
that
Assertion
:
Baptism
is
not
distinguishing
Mark
that
God's
Children
have
on
them
,
but
his
Mark
and
Seal
is
his
holy
Spirit
,
and
his
holy
Nature
or
Image
stampt
upon
the
Soul
.
4.
You
say
,
that
Christ
was
very
angry
with
his
Disciples
for
forbidding
little
Children
to
come
unto
him
.
Reply
.
From
hence
we
may
gather
,
it
was
not
the
Command
of
their
Master
that
they
should
be
baptized
,
or
come
that
way
unto
him
;
for
if
it
had
,
besure
the
faithful
Disciples
of
our
Lord
would
not
have
once
attempted
to
forbid
them
to
be
brought
to
Christ
.
Moreover
,
it
is
thought
the
Reason
why
the
Disciples
forbid
them
to
bring
little
Children
to
our
blessed
Lord
,
might
be
,
left
by
their
crying
they
might
disturb
him
,
for
that
we
see
little
Children
in
a
Croud
of
People
are
subject
to
do
.
But
you
insist
to
shew
what
great
Bowels
Christ
manifested
to
these
little
Children
,
and
fain
would
have
it
,
because
he
knew
they
were
in
God's
Covenant
,
&c.
Answ.
By
this
you
seem
to
intimate
,
that
all
Infants
are
in
Covenant
with
God
;
for
,
I
say
again
,
you
cannot
prove
that
these
little
Children
were
Children
of
faithful
and
holy
Persons
.
However
I
will
add
here
what
I
have
said
in
Answer
to
Mr.
Burkitt
on
this
Argument
,
to
which
,
or
any
other
of
my
Answers
he
hath
not
attempted
to
give
any
Reply
;
but
,
as
I
am
inform'd
,
is
resolved
to
let
it
rest
in
silence
,
and
write
no
more
on
the
Subject
.
Take
his
Argument
from
this
Text
,
which
is
in
substance
the
same
that
you
further
insist
on
about
Christ's
Bowels
and
Love
to
those
little
Children
.
If
Infants
,
saith
he
,
be
capable
of
Christ's
Blessing
on
Earth
,
and
of
his
Presence
in
Heaven
;
if
they
be
Subjects
of
his
Kingdom
of
Grace
,
and
Heirs
of
his
Kingdom
of
Glory
;
then
they
have
an
undoubted
right
to
the
Privilege
of
Subjects
,
among
which
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
is
not
the
least
.
Answ.
1.
We
answer
,
and
argue
thus
to
the
first
part
of
the
Proposition
,
viz.
In
many
of
the
Jews
and
others
who
were
ungodly
Persons
,
were
capable
of
Christ's
Blessings
,
i.
e.
of
being
healed
of
their
Bodily
Diseases
,
they
were
Subjects
of
Baptism
:
Is
this
sound
arguing
?
What
farther
Blessing
Christ
vouchsafed
to
Infants
,
when
he
laid
his
Hands
upon
them
,
we
know
not
,
for
that
was
the
way
Christ
took
oftentimes
in
the
healing
the
Sick
,
and
so
blessed
many
Persons
that
never
were
baptized
,
as
we
read
of
.
2.
We
(
as
I
have
before
told
you
)
do
deny
Infants
are
Subjects
of
the
Visible
Church
;
therefore
if
by
the
Kingdom
of
Grace
any
intend
not
that
,
they
beat
the
Air
:
Alas
!
such
●o
arguing
beg
,
and
prove
not
;
besides
,
it
doth
not
follow
,
I
say
again
,
tho
Infants
may
be
Heirs
of
the
Kingdom
of
Glory
therefore
they
have
an
undoubted
right
to
the
Privileges
of
the
Subjects
of
God's
Church
;
for
then
it
would
follow
they
have
right
to
one
Privilege
as
well
as
to
another
,
and
are
to
have
Fellowship
with
the
Saints
and
Houshold
of
God
,
as
well
as
Baptism
.
Mr.
Burkitt
argues
further
thus
,
viz.
Those
whom
Christ
invites
to
him
,
and
are
received
by
him
,
his
Ministers
may
not
refuse
,
nor
put
from
them
:
But
Infant
●re
by
Christ
invited
to
him
,
and
were
received
by
him
,
therefore
the
Ministers
of
Christ
may
not
,
ought
not
,
durst
not
refuse
them
into
Communion
with
them
.
Take
my
Answer
.
Answ.
1.
Christ
invited
Multitudes
to
come
unto
him
,
and
he
received
them
so
far
as
to
feed
them
with
Barley-Loaves
and
Fishes
,
and
to
the
Blessing
of
healing
them
of
their
Bodily
Distempers
:
But
may
his
Ministers
therefore
receive
all
such
into
their
Communion
?
2.
In
the
days
of
Christ
when
he
was
upon
Earth
,
there
were
many
who
are
said
to
come
unto
him
,
whom
he
might
receive
into
his
Presence
and
Company
,
yet
his
Ministers
might
not
baptize
them
,
nor
receive
them
into
their
spiritual
Communion
;
nor
indeed
you
dare
not
so
receive
infants
,
I
mean
into
your
Communion
of
the
Lord's-Supper
.
We
read
of
some
Pharisees
and
Lawyers
that
came
to
Christ
,
and
he
received
them
into
his
Company
,
who
,
it
appears
,
came
to
tempt
him
.
Also
the
Sadduces
are
said
to
come
unto
him
,
who
said
there
was
no
Resurrection
;
may
Christ's
Ministers
baptize
such
,
and
receive
them
into
their
Communion
?
Therefore
in
Opposition
to
what
Mr.
Burkitt
says
in
his
Book
,
I
affirm
,
there
were
then
other
ordinary
ways
of
coming
to
Christ
than
by
Admission
into
his
Church
:
Christ
invited
the
worst
of
Sinners
unto
him
,
who
nevertheless
did
not
receive
him
.
Therefore
there
are
some
who
must
be
excluded
whom
Jesus
Christ
graciously
inviteth
.
Mr.
Burkitt's
Appeal
for
Proof
of
this
Argument
to
St.
Mark
10.
3.
Suffer
little
Children
to
come
unto
me
,
for
of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
doth
not
his
Business
;
they
do
not
belong
to
the
Kingdom
of
Grace
,
i.
e.
the
Church
;
for
if
they
did
belong
to
that
,
or
were
of
the
Visible
Church
,
as
such
,
then
he
need
not
by
Baptism
make
them
belong
to
it
.
If
Christ
owns
them
Subjects
or
Members
of
his
Visible
Church
,
then
Pedo-baptists
need
not
add
them
thereto
by
Baptism
:
For
if
,
as
they
are
the
Seed
of
Believers
,
they
are
already
(
fide
foederis
)
not
only
in
Covenant
with
God
,
but
also
belong
unto
his
Kingdom
or
Church
upon
Earth
,
all
the
World
may
see
that
Mr.
Burkitt
goes
about
to
give
them
that
very
Right
or
Privilege
which
they
had
before
and
without
Baptism
.
Doth
Christ
(
saith
he
)
take
Children
into
his
Arms
,
and
shall
his
Church
cast
them
out
of
her
Imbraces
?
Answ.
May
I
not
argue
thus
,
i.
e.
Doth
Christ
receive
all
Persons
into
his
Arms
of
Mercy
,
to
heal
their
Bodily
Distempers
,
of
which
perhaps
some
were
wicked
and
ungodly
?
And
shall
the
Church
refuse
to
receive
all
such
into
her
Imbraces
?
Besides
,
all
those
pretended
Consequences
make
no
more
for
Infants
to
be
baptized
,
than
for
their
receiving
the
Lord's-Supper
,
and
all
other
Privileges
that
belong
as
well
as
Baptism
to
Adult
Persons
who
believe
or
are
Disciples
.
Does
Christ
,
says
he
,
own
them
for
Subjects
in
his
Kingdom
,
and
shall
we
allow
them
no
better
standing
than
in
the
Devil's
Kingdom
?
Answ.
Does
Christ
own
Infants
to
be
Subjects
of
his
Kingdom
,
and
yet
did
not
baptize
them
?
(
for
that
he
did
not
)
and
shall
we
attempt
to
baptize
them
,
as
if
we
were
wiser
than
he
?
I
must
again
turn
the
Edg
of
the
Sword
upon
this
Man
:
If
little
Children
were
brought
to
Christ
and
he
did
not
baptize
them
,
then
we
must
not
;
But
little
Children
were
brought
to
Christ
and
he
did
not
baptize
them
,
therefore
we
must
not
.
Here
is
both
Truth
and
Reason
in
this
Argument
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
confesseth
,
but
none
of
either
in
his
.
It
is
confessed
by
Mr.
Burkitt
himself
,
That
Christ
did
not
baptize
those
Infants
that
came
to
him
,
and
whom
he
took
in
his
Arms
and
blessed
,
because
with
his
own
Hands
he
baptized
none
at
all
,
John
4.
1
,
2.
Therefore
since
Christ
who
was
God
,
foresaw
what
Contention
would
arise
about
the
baptizing
of
Infants
,
had
it
been
his
Will
they
should
be
baptized
,
would
he
not
at
this
time
put
the
Matter
out
of
doubt
,
and
have
baptized
them
,
or
have
given
Command
to
his
Disciples
so
to
have
done
?
If
therefore
Infants
be
in
so
good
a
Condition
as
he
says
,
i.
e.
Subjects
of
Christ's
Kingdom
of
Grace
,
let
us
let
them
alone
,
for
we
cannot
by
baptizing
them
put
them
into
a
better
State
than
they
are
,
without
any
Warrant
from
Christ
;
and
by
baptizing
them
not
,
we
cannot
put
them
into
any
worser
State
or
Standing
than
they
are
in
without
it
.
Many
Pedo-baptists
are
angry
with
us
,
because
we
say
we
know
not
but
that
the
Children
of
.
Unbelievers
and
Infidels
may
be
in
a
good
Condition
as
well
as
Children
of
Believers
,
tho
we
deny
not
but
that
the
Children
of
Believers
have
a
greater
Advantage
than
the
Children
of
Unbelievers
namely
,
by
the
Prayers
,
good
Education
,
and
the
good
Example
of
their
Parents
,
&c.
But
saith
Mr.
Burkitt
,
Can
any
wise
or
good
Man
believe
,
that
our
Saviour
would
speak
such
favourable
words
of
Infants
,
and
his
outward
Gesture
manifest
so
much
good
Will
towards
them
,
only
with
an
Intent
to
ensnare
and
deceive
us
?
doubtless
it
was
to
encourage
his
Ministers
to
perform
all
charitable
Offices
towards
them
.
Answ.
1.
He
mistakes
,
our
Saviour
speaks
very
little
concerning
Infants
,
and
that
which
is
said
of
them
was
accidentally
spoken
,
being
occasioned
by
those
who
brought
little
Children
to
him
,
which
the
Disciples
forbad
,
and
from
hence
he
spoke
what
he
did
.
Moreover
,
the
cause
why
our
Saviour
spoke
those
words
,
might
be
more
for
the
sake
of
Parents
,
that
they
might
not
be
afraid
touching
the
Condition
of
their
dying
Babes
,
than
to
shew
any
Ordinance
belonged
to
them
;
for
had
it
been
so
,
doubtless
the
Disciples
would
not
have
for
bad
those
People
to
bring
little
Children
to
Christ
.
'T
is
therefore
an
Argument
against
Infant-Baptism
,
and
not
for
it
,
because
the
Disciples
were
appointed
by
their
Master
to
be
the
Administrators
of
that
Ordinance
on
such
to
whom
it
did
of
right
belong
;
and
had
Infants
been
the
Subjects
,
would
they
have
forbid
People
to
bring
Infants
to
him
?
2.
We
therefore
may
rather
conclude
,
had
they
been
the
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
Christ
,
by
not
hinting
any
such
thing
in
the
least
on
this
occasion
,
might
rather
have
left
us
in
a
Snare
,
in
speaking
nothing
of
it
neither
here
nor
at
any
other
time
.
3.
Therefore
Christ
speaking
so
favourably
of
Infants
,
and
yet
baptizing
them
not
,
may
teach
us
to
judg
favourably
of
them
,
and
do
any
charitable
Office
towards
them
,
but
not
to
presume
to
give
them
holy
Baptism
without
Christ's
Warrant
no
more
than
any
other
Gospel-Ordinance
.
'T
is
no
matter
what
Calvin
spoke
,
't
is
no
Sin
to
keep
such
out
of
Christ's
(
visible
)
Fold
,
whom
he
has
given
no
Authority
to
take
in
:
Nor
have
any
People
a
more
charitable
Opinion
of
the
State
of
dying
Infants
than
those
stil'd
Anabaptists
.
4.
Those
who
are
capable
of
some
kind
of
Blessings
of
Christ
,
we
have
shewed
,
are
notwithstanding
not
capable
of
Baptism
.
We
read
not
the
Disciples
baptized
these
little
Children
,
nor
any
else
.
Object
.
To
this
he
,
as
you
do
,
answer
,
Perhaps
they
were
baptized
before
:
But
,
says
Mr.
Burkitt
,
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
the
Apostles
did
not
baptize
those
Children
,
because
no
mention
of
it
:
The
Scripture
no
where
tells
us
that
the
Apostles
themselves
were
baptized
;
shall
we
conclude
therefore
they
were
never
baptized
?
Answ.
'T
is
no
matter
whether
we
read
or
read
not
,
that
the
Apostles
were
baptized
,
since
we
find
it
was
Christ's
Precept
and
Practice
to
baptize
Disciples
,
or
such
who
did
believe
in
him
:
We
read
of
multitudes
of
Disciples
,
that
were
baptized
,
and
we
know
the
way
of
Christ
was
one
and
the
same
;
that
which
was
the
Duty
of
one
Disciple
,
as
a
Disciple
,
was
the
Duty
of
every
Disciple
.
We
read
but
of
two
or
three
Churches
who
broke
Bread
,
or
celebrated
the
Lord's-Supper
.
Could
any
Pedo-baptist
but
shew
us
a
Precept
for
Infant-Baptism
,
or
but
one
Example
or
Precedent
where
one
Infant
was
baptized
,
we
would
not
doubt
but
those
little
Children
might
be
also
,
but
this
they
cannot
do
.
And
whereas
Mr.
Barkitt
and
you
say
,
That
there
is
not
the
same
Reason
why
Infants
should
be
admitted
to
eat
the
Lord's-Supper
,
as
there
is
for
them
to
be
admitted
to
Baptism
.
I
answer
;
We
deny
it
utterly
.
What
tho
the
one
be
a
Sacrament
of
Initiation
,
and
the
other
of
Confirmation
?
Yet
pray
observe
,
that
Repentance
and
Faith
is
required
of
them
that
are
to
be
baptized
,
even
actual
Faith
and
Repentance
,
as
well
as
actual
Grace
and
Examination
,
&c.
to
discern
the
Lord's-Body
,
in
those
who
are
to
receive
the
Lord's-Supper
.
If
all
that
were
to
be
circumcised
,
had
been
required
to
repent
and
believe
as
in
the
case
of
Admission
to
Baptism
,
something
had
been
said
,
but
the
contrary
appears
.
Male-Infants
,
as
such
,
had
a
right
to
that
,
but
have
no
such
right
to
this
.
You
say
,
Christ
did
not
lay
his
Hands
upon
little
Children
to
heal
them
of
Sickness
,
because
the
Apostles
would
not
have
been
so
cruel
as
to
hinder
them
to
come
to
Christ
to
heal
their
Distempers
,
&c.
Answ.
Is
it
then
greater
Cruelty
to
hinder
little
Children
of
the
Blessing
of
being
healed
of
Bodily
Diseases
,
than
to
hinder
them
of
Convenant-Blessings
,
Spiritual
Blessings
?
How
absurdly
do
you
argue
!
You
add
also
,
Christ
baptized
them
not
at
that
time
;
for
,
say
you
,
they
were
baptized
before
by
John
the
Baptist
,
and
Christ
laid
his
Hands
upon
them
to
bless
them
;
say
you
,
laying
on
of
Hands
followed
Baptism
,
Acts
8.
17.
Heb.
6.
2.
many
of
the
Anti-pedo
baptists
own
it
,
for
they
lay
their
Hands
on
those
they
baptize
,
you
say
rebaptize
.
Answ.
We
rebaptize
none
:
Rantism
is
not
Baptism
,
&c.
but
you
should
first
prove
John
the
Baptist
did
baptize
any
Infants
,
for
that
you
have
not
done
,
nor
ever
can
do
.
We
shall
see
what
Proof
you
have
for
what
you
say
by
and
by
.
As
to
laying
Hands
on
baptized
Believers
,
the
Scriptures
you
mention
prove
that
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
but
not
upon
Infants
;
the
Apostles
never
taught
or
practised
any
such
thing
,
tho
't
is
true
't
is
a
Popish
Rite
:
for
as
the
Baptism
of
Believers
is
corrupted
and
changed
to
Infants
,
so
laying
on
of
Hands
on
baptized
Believers
is
corrupted
and
changed
by
the
false
Church
to
Infants
also
.
You
say
,
The
Kingdom
of
God
under
the
Gospel
is
made
up
of
Children
,
and
of
such
that
are
like
to
them
.
Answ.
If
by
the
Kingdom
of
God
you
mean
the
visible
Church
,
't
is
utterly
denied
;
when
you
write
again
prove
it
,
that
the
visible
Church
under
the
Gospel
is
made
up
of
Infants
,
tho
we
deny
not
that
the
Gospel
Church
is
made
up
of
such
,
who
like
little
Infants
are
meek
,
humble
and
harmless
Persons
;
in
Malice
all
Believers
should
be
as
little
Children
.
CHAP.
XI
.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
9th
Chapter
and
sixth
Argument
;
proving
,
that
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
,
although
the
Gentiles
were
grafted
into
the
true
Olive
,
when
the
Jews
were
broken
off
;
containing
a
true
Exposition
of
Rom.
11.
15
,
16
,
&c.
ROM.
11.
15
,
16
,
17.
For
if
the
first
Fruit
be
holy
,
the
Lump
is
also
holy
:
and
if
the
Root
be
holy
,
so
are
the
Branches
.
And
if
some
of
the
Branches
be
broken
off
,
and
thou
being
a
wild
Olive
Tree
,
wert
graffed
in
amongst
them
,
and
with
them
partakest
of
the
Root
and
Fatness
of
the
Olive-Tree
,
&c.
In
this
remarkable
Scripture
the
Apostle
,
you
say
,
sheweth
,
1.
That
the
Jews
,
while
they
were
God's
visible
Church
,
were
a
holy
Nation
;
not
only
the
Parents
,
but
the
Children
also
,
all
the
Branches
were
holy
,
because
the
Root
was
holy
;
the
Root
was
Abraham
,
and
others
of
the
Fathers
,
Rom.
11.
28.
Isa.
51.
1
,
2.
because
they
were
in
Abraham's
Covenant
,
the
Parents
and
the
Children
were
holy
,
being
separated
a
peculiar
People
unto
God
:
In
this
sense
they
were
holy
;
because
the
first
Fruit
,
even
Abraham
,
was
holy
,
the
whole
Lump
also
was
holy
.
Abraham
believed
and
received
God's
Covenant
to
him
and
his
Seed
,
being
the
first
Fruit
of
the
Jews
:
even
as
the
first
Fruits
offered
to
the
Lord
,
Levit.
2.
3
,
9
,
10
,
17.
so
did
the
Faith
of
the
first
Parents
sanctify
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
not
with
true
Holiness
in
the
Heart
,
for
many
of
them
were
wicked
,
but
with
a
federal
Holiness
,
because
they
and
their
Seed
were
separated
to
the
Lord
in
an
external
Covenant
.
2.
You
say
;
They
that
received
the
Gospel
continued
to
be
holy
Branches
upon
the
same
holy
Root
;
they
and
their
Seed
were
in
Abraham's
Covenant
,
even
as
before
,
nor
one
Branch
was
cut
off
,
neither
small
or
great
,
until
they
refused
the
Lord
Jesus
,
they
that
were
broken
off
were
cut
off
by
reason
of
Unbelief
,
Rom.
11.
20.
Because
of
their
Unbelief
they
were
broken
off
;
therefore
they
that
believed
in
Christ
were
not
cut
off
,
and
if
they
were
not
cut
off
,
then
they
were
in
Union
with
the
Root
,
as
being
Partakers
of
the
Fatness
of
the
Root
,
as
before
they
and
their
Children
were
Partakers
of
their
old
Privileges
,
being
holy
Branches
not
broken
off
.
The
Anti-pedo-baptists
do
cut
off
the
Branches
whom
God
never
cut
off
,
viz.
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
;
they
lop
off
the
fruitful
Tree
in
the
Vineyard
,
and
lay
the
Ax
upon
the
Root
,
and
upon
the
Branches
thereof
in
a
presumptuous
manner
.
3.
You
say
the
Jews
refused
the
Grace
of
God
in
the
Gospel
;
God
refused
that
Nation
,
not
only
the
Parents
but
the
Children
also
.
God
spared
not
the
Natural
Branches
,
but
hath
broken
them
off
,
Rom.
11.
17.
not
from
the
invisible
Church
,
of
which
the
unbelieving
were
not
Members
.
None
are
Members
of
the
invisible
Church
saving
the
Elect.
God
refused
none
of
the
Parents
,
Rom.
11.
2.
2
Tim.
2.
9.
God
hath
not
cast
away
his
People
which
he
foreknew
;
the
Foundation
of
God
standeth
sure
:
therefore
they
were
cut
off
through
Unbelief
from
being
the
visible
Church
,
of
the
which
they
and
their
Children
were
Members
.
The
Gentiles
,
were
graffed
in
their
room
,
Rom.
11.
17.
they
and
their
Children
were
broken
off
,
and
the
Gentiles
and
their
Children
shall
be
graffed
in
,
for
they
were
received
into
the
same
Privileges
which
the
Jews
had
—
the
same
Privileges
belong
unto
them
in
the
same
Latitude
,
for
they
were
graffed
into
that
Root
from
which
the
Jews
were
cut
off
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
you
had
need
be
a
good
Expositor
of
a
Metaphorical
Place
of
Scripture
,
that
ground
so
great
an
Argument
upon
it
;
we
used
to
say
Metaphors
serve
for
Illustration
,
but
are
not
Argumentative
,
they
do
not
prove
a
Truth
,
tho
they
may
illustrate
it
;
therefore
't
is
strange
you
build
an
Institution
,
an
Ordinance
,
nay
a
Sacrament
,
as
it
is
called
,
upon
a
Metaphorical
place
of
Scripture
.
2.
Many
things
in
Metaphorical
and
Parabolical
Scripture
run
not
parallel
with
that
they
are
brought
to
illustrate
,
therefore
run
not
on
all
four
,
as
Divines
observe
.
3.
We
will
however
examine
your
pretended
Argument
from
this
mysterious
place
of
Scripture
.
It
was
well
if
you
had
minded
what
St.
Paul
speaks
in
the
25th
Verse
,
For
I
would
not
,
Brethren
,
that
you
should
be
ignorant
of
this
great
Mystery
,
lest
ye
should
be
wise
in
your
own
Conceits
,
&c.
But
that
you
are
ignorant
of
this
mysterious
Text
,
and
Matter
contained
in
it
,
I
doubt
not
but
to
make
appear
,
and
it
is
to
be
feared
from
thence
you
are
wise
in
your
own
Apprehension
.
But
to
proceed
,
if
all
the
Branches
,
viz.
the
Children
of
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
were
holy
,
then
the
Children
of
the
unbelieving
Jews
were
holy
also
,
who
were
of
that
Lump
you
speak
of
;
and
if
so
,
why
do
you
argue
from
hence
for
the
federal
Holiness
of
the
Children
of
Believers
?
Sir
,
under
the
Law
there
was
a
Federal
and
Typical
Holiness
,
but
the
Children
of
Godly
Parents
now
,
or
the
whole
Lump
,
you
say
,
is
holy
,
by
reason
of
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
;
tho
not
spiritually
holy
,
yet
federally
holy
,
because
all
that
were
in
that
external
Covenant
and
Church-state
of
the
Jews
were
holy
.
If
by
Federal
Holiness
,
which
was
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
you
mean
no
more
than
external
Church-Membership
,
not
spiritual
Holiness
and
spiritual
Privileges
,
then
their
Loss
by
being
cut
off
is
not
so
great
as
the
Apostle
intimates
,
nor
is
the
Fatness
of
Abraham's
Covenant
and
true
Olive
so
sweet
as
you
elsewhere
affirm
,
nor
is
it
so
great
a
Blessing
for
the
Gentiles
to
be
graffed
into
such
a
Root
or
Olive-Tree
that
affords
no
better
Oil.
What
signifies
Federal
External
Holiness
without
true
Spiritual
Holiness
?
it
will
do
us
nor
our
Children
no
more
good
than
the
same
External
,
Federal
or
Covenant
Holiness
did
do
to
the
wicked
Jews
and
their
Children
under
the
Law
,
no
nor
so
much
neither
;
for
they
had
by
that
external
Covenant
many
Earthly
or
External
Blessings
,
as
they
were
possessed
by
that
Covenant
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
and
Common-wealth
of
the
Jews
,
as
a
National
Church
;
which
external
Privileges
believing
nor
unbelieving
Gentiles
and
their
Seed
have
not
under
the
Gospel
,
therefore
that
is
not
true
which
you
affirm
,
viz.
The
same
Privileges
belonging
to
the
Gentiles
and
their
Children
,
in
the
same
Latitude
,
for
they
were
graffed
into
the
same
Root
.
Sir
,
have
we
Gentiles
a
Worldly
Sanctuary
,
a
holy
external
Temple
,
a
Land
flowing
with
Milk
and
Honey
,
a
Political
Government
and
Governours
from
among
our selves
as
we
are
a
Gospel-Church
by
God's
Ordination
,
as
the
Jews
had
?
Are
we
under
the
Promises
of
heaping
up
Gold
and
Silver
,
and
if
we
are
obedient
to
live
in
Peace
,
and
to
be
saved
from
our
external
Enemies
,
for
many
such
like
Privileges
and
Promises
the
Jews
and
their
Children
had
under
the
Law
?
The
truth
is
,
your
External
,
Federal
Holiness
,
Root
and
Olive-Tree
will-afford
but
little
Fatness
either
to
our selves
or
Children
,
considered
distinct
and
apart
from
Spiritual
Blessings
and
Holiness
.
What
is
a
simple
external
Profession
good
for
,
without
true
Grace
and
a
saving
Interest
in
Christ
,
and
Assurance
of
Eternal
Life
?
What
more
doth
it
serve
to
do
than
to
blind
and
deceive
the
Souls
of
such
external
and
carnal
Professors
?
What
is
an
Ordinance
without
the
God
of
the
Ordinance
?
What
is
the
Sign
without
the
Thing
signified
?
What
is
the
Lamp
without
Oil
,
or
a
Cabinet
without
the
Jewel
,
or
a
Shell
without
a
Kernel
,
or
the
Name
of
a
Christian
without
the
true
Nature
of
a
Christian
?
You
say
,
The
first
Parents
sanctified
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
not
with
true
Holiness
in
the
Heart
,
for
many
of
them
were
wicked
,
but
with
a
Federal
Holiness
,
because
they
and
their
Seed
were
separated
to
the
Lord
in
an
External
Covenant
.
I
am
glad
to
see
you
open
the
Eyes
of
your
People
,
now
they
may
see
what
little
good
that
federal
Holiness
,
and
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
can
do
to
their
Infants
,
't
is
but
only
to
give
them
a
Name
that
they
may
be
called
Christians
.
Is
this
the
Promise
that
belongs
to
the
Faithful
and
their
Children
?
Is
this
the
Blessing
of
Abraham
that
is
come
upon
the
Gentiles
?
Are
they
not
Spiritual
Blessings
?
Is
it
not
Spiritual
and
Heart-Holiness
?
Is
it
only
to
be
in
an
external
manner
,
by
an
external
Covenant
,
and
visible
Profession
,
separated
to
be
the
Lord's
,
and
called
his
,
when
indeed
and
in
truth
,
spiritually
and
savingly
they
are
not
so
?
Is
this
that
Covenant
confirm'd
by
the
Oath
of
God
,
that
gives
you
such
strong
Consolation
touching
your
Infants
,
as
such
,
as
before
you
pleaded
for
?
4.
Moreover
,
do
you
not
own
by
what
you
here
affirm
,
that
there
were
two
Covenants
made
with
Abraham
,
since
that
Covenant
which
was
made
with
the
whole
Lump
,
or
whole
House
of
Israel
,
was
,
as
you
positively
assert
,
not
a
spiritual
but
an
external
Covenant
?
Sure
I
am
you
do
believe
there
was
a
spiritual
and
an
eternal
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
and
all
his
true
spiritual
Seed
,
and
that
he
was
a
Root
spiritually
holy
,
by
virtue
of
that
spiritual
and
true
Gospel-Covenant
God
made
with
him
;
and
as
the
whole
Lump
were
all
federally
holy
in
a
Spiritual
Sense
,
as
himself
was
,
and
as
he
had
first
Fruits
given
to
him
,
who
were
spiritually
and
truly
holy
also
,
so
there
are
many
Branches
still
that
daily
spring
out
of
that
Spiritual
Root
and
Spiritual
Covenant
,
that
are
federally
and
spiritually
holy
as
the
Root
was
holy
.
Sure
there
was
a
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
,
and
of
which
he
is
considered
as
a
common
Root
,
or
common
Head
,
and
from
which
Root
and
Olive-Tree
it
is
impossible
any
one
of
his
Spiritual
Seed
can
be
cut
off
;
for
if
not
so
,
How
is
the
Promise
sure
to
all
the
Seed
?
Rom.
4.
16.
and
how
is
that
Covenant
a
ground
of
strong
Consolation
to
all
the
Heirs
of
the
Promise
?
as
Heb.
6.
17
,
18
,
19.
5.
But
the
truth
is
,
the
purport
of
your
Exposition
of
this
dark
Text
,
all
may
see
is
to
prove
the
Gospel-Church
to
be
as
extensive
,
wide
and
large
,
or
every
way
of
the
same
Nature
and
Latitude
with
the
National
Church
of
the
Jews
;
and
therefore
you
plead
for
the
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
to
be
received
as
Members
thereof
.
Sir
,
I
know
you
not
,
but
I
thought
you
had
held
for
the
Congregational
Way
;
but
the
truth
is
,
Infants
Church-Membership
is
only
calculated
for
a
National
Church
,
and
therefore
best
sutes
with
Presbyterism
and
Episcopacy
.
You
say
,
the
Jews
and
their
Children
were
broke
off
,
and
the
Gentiles
and
their
Children
were
received
into
the
same
Privileges
which
the
Jews
had
,
&c.
Answer
1.
If
you
would
prove
that
the
Gospel-Church
is
National
,
consisting
of
whole
Parishes
,
Families
and
Kingdoms
,
you
must
bring
Proof
for
this
Constitution
from
the
New
Testament
:
Show
,
where
Christ
instituted
or
ordained
such
a
Church-state
,
or
what
whole
Gentile
Nations
,
consisting
of
Believers
and
their
Children
,
and
Unbelievers
or
ungodly
Persons
professing
Christianity
,
and
their
Children
,
were
constituted
by
the
Apostles
a
Gospel-Church
;
for
evident
it
is
,
all
believing
or
godly
Jews
and
their
Children
,
and
all
ungodly
Jews
who
owned
the
Jewish
Religion
,
and
their
Children
,
were
Members
of
the
National
Church
of
Israel
under
the
Law
.
2.
Also
prove
,
that
if
such
a
Gospel-Church
Constitution
can
be
proved
out
of
the
New
Testament
,
that
therefore
all
the
external
Privileges
and
Rites
of
the
Jews
,
must
belong
unto
such
a
Gentile
Nation
,
and
Gospel-Church
,
that
did
belong
to
the
National
Church
of
the
Jews
.
Must
they
have
the
same
Rites
and
Privileges
,
and
yet
not
the
same
?
Is
Baptism
Circumcision
?
3.
If
it
came
,
as
you
dream
,
in
the
room
of
it
,
then
it
would
follow
that
Baptism
belongs
only
to
Male-Infants
;
if
not
so
,
't
is
not
the
same
Privilege
,
but
differs
greatly
:
you
must
have
therefore
some
word
of
Institution
,
or
some
good
Authority
from
Christ
to
enlarge
this
Privilege
,
so
far
as
to
allow
it
to
Females
also
.
4.
And
why
this
Privilege
only
?
had
not
the
Jews
and
their
Children
many
other
external
Privileges
besides
Circumcision
?
Why
must
not
the
Gentiles
and
their
Children
that
are
grafted
in
,
as
you
suppose
,
in
their
room
,
receive
all
the
Privileges
as
well
as
one
or
two
?
You
have
done
your
Work
by
halves
.
5.
Besides
,
what
you
say
,
that
the
first
Parents
sanctified
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
is
false
.
It
was
not
they
that
separated
or
sanctified
them
but
God
himself
,
i.
e.
by
his
absolute
Command
and
holy
Institution
;
therefore
you
must
prove
the
like
Command
and
Institution
for
such
a
National
Church
under
the
Gospel
as
was
under
the
Law
.
Sir
,
I
desire
no
better
Task
than
to
prove
the
Gospel-Church
consists
of
none
,
by
Christ's
Appointment
and
Institution
,
but
only
Adult
Persons
believing
and
professing
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
,
incorporated
together
in
a
holy
Covenant
.
And
when
you
write
again
,
lay
down
your
Arguments
to
confute
what
I
here
say
,
and
I
shall
,
God
sparing
my
Life
,
be
ready
,
through
his
Assistance
,
to
give
you
an
Answer
,
which
will
utterly
throw
away
your
Infant
Church-Membership
.
And
since
the
old
Covenant
,
and
old
Covenant
Church-state
is
taken
away
and
dissolved
,
by
the
establishing
of
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
and
Gospel-Church
,
you
must
bring
your
Arguments
and
Proof
from
Christ's
last
Will
and
Testament
,
or
all
you
do
will
signify
nothing
.
Now
,
Reader
,
having
shewed
thee
that
the
Exposition
Mr.
Owen
hath
given
of
this
Metaphorical
Scripture
,
is
false
,
and
inconsistent
with
the
Truth
as
it
is
in
Jesus
,
I
shall
give
thee
my
Thoughts
of
the
true
Purport
of
it
;
and
in
regard
I
have
once
done
it
already
in
my
answering
of
Mr.
Burkitt
,
I
shall
proceed
to
lay
down
his
Argument
and
my
Answer
,
and
that
will
bring
me
to
the
Business
directly
.
The
Argument
which
Mr.
Burkitt
,
and
with
him
other
Pedo-baptists
,
raises
to
maintain
their
Scriptureless
Practice
of
Babes-Baptism
from
this
Text
,
is
this
,
viz.
If
(
saith
he
)
the
Infants
of
Christian
Parents
are
federally
holy
,
then
they
are
Subjects
qualified
for
Baptism
:
But
the
Scripture
pronounces
such
Children
federally
holy
;
therefore
they
are
qualified
for
Baptism
,
and
may
be
admitted
,
Rom.
11.
16.
If
the
Root
be
holy
,
the
Branches
are
also
holy
,
&c.
Where
by
the
Root
,
saith
he
,
we
are
to
understand
Abraham
,
Isaac
and
Jacob
,
and
by
the
Branches
,
their
Posterity
,
the
People
of
the
Jews
.
Now
forasmuch
(
saith
he
)
as
the
Jews
,
the
Natural
Branches
,
are
for
their
Unbelief
broken
off
,
and
the
believing
Gentiles
are
graffed
in
their
stead
,
and
succeed
in
their
Privileges
,
in
the
sense
that
they
were
holy
,
not
with
an
internal
and
inherent
Holiness
,
passing
by
Natural
Generation
from
Parent
to
Child
,
but
with
an
external
Relative
Covenant-Holiness
,
grounded
on
the
Promise
made
to
the
Faithful
and
their
Seed
.
Answ.
1.
I
deny
the
Major
,
and
say
,
If
Children
of
Believers
were
federally
holy
under
the
Gospel
,
yet
they
are
not
qualified
for
Baptism
,
because
't
is
not
that
which
gives
them
right
thereto
,
or
qualifies
them
for
it
,
but
what
Christ
hath
ordained
and
appointed
,
as
the
alone
proper
and
meet
Qualification
,
which
is
not
that
External
,
Relative
Covenant-Holiness
he
talks
of
,
which
the
New
Testament
speaks
nothing
of
,
as
I
shall
shew
by
and
by
,
but
actual
Faith
,
Regeneration
,
or
inherent
Holiness
,
which
is
the
Thing
signified
by
Baptism
;
therefore
a
thousand
such
Arguments
will
do
no
good
,
since
Baptism
is
of
meer
Positive
Right
.
'T
is
Christ's
own
Law
must
decide
the
Controversy
,
viz.
What
Qualifications
are
required
of
such
,
who
by
his
Authority
and
Law
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Let
any
Pedo-baptist
prove
,
if
he
can
,
that
such
an
External
Federal
Holiness
qualifies
any
Person
for
Gospel-Baptism
;
for
if
such
Federal
and
External
Holiness
qualifies
Persons
for
Baptism
,
then
the
Jews
,
before
cast
off
,
might
have
been
admitted
to
Baptism
,
since
they
had
then
such
a
kind
of
Federal
Holiness
,
which
kind
of
Holiness
none
can
prove
Believers
Children
are
said
to
have
under
the
Gospel
;
but
if
it
qualified
them
not
for
Baptism
,
it
cannot
qualify
our
Children
for
Baptism
:
And
that
it
did
not
qualify
them
,
is
evident
,
see
Mat.
3.
9.
where
some
of
the
Branches
of
this
Root
came
to
John
Baptist
to
be
baptized
,
and
he
refused
to
admit
them
,
with
these
words
,
i.
e.
Think
not
to
say
within
your selves
,
We
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
:
For
I
say
,
God
is
able
of
these
Stones
to
raise
up
Children
to
Abraham
.
Ver.
10.
And
now
also
is
the
Ax
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Tree
.
From
whence
it
plainly
appears
,
that
that
External
Relative
Holiness
,
which
qualified
under
the
Old
Testament
Persons
for
Circumcision
,
and
Jewish
Church-Membership
,
will
not
qualify
Old
nor
Young
under
the
New
Testament
for
Baptism
,
and
Gospel-Church-Membership
.
2.
I
also
deny
his
Minor
,
and
say
,
the
Scripture
of
the
New
Testament
doth
not
pronounce
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
federally
holy
:
The
Text
Rom.
11.
16.
speaks
not
one
word
of
Infants
,
nor
one
word
of
such
a
kind
of
federal
Holiness
.
Dr.
Thomas
Goodwin
,
who
was
a
very
Learned
Man
,
urging
that
Text
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
(
tho
a
Pedo-baptist
)
In
the
New
Testament
(
saith
he
)
there
is
no
other
Holiness
spoken
of
,
but
Personal
or
Real
by
Regeneration
;
about
which
he
challenged
all
the
World
to
shew
to
the
contrary
.
And
Sir
,
with
your
favour
,
if
you
cannot
from
any
place
of
the
New
Testament
prove
there
is
any
such
Holiness
spoken
of
,
you
are
to
be
blamed
for
bringing
in
a
private
and
an
unwarrantable
Interpretation
of
that
Text.
I
find
there
are
various
Interpretations
of
what
is
meant
by
the
Root
in
that
place
.
-
1.
Some
understand
it
of
the
Covenant
.
-
2.
Some
of
Christ
.
-
3.
Some
of
Abraham
,
Isaac
and
Jacob.
-
4.
Some
of
Abraham
only
.
What
if
I
agree
with
the
last
,
and
say
Abraham
is
the
Root
?
But
what
Root
?
why
,
the
Root
of
all
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
:
And
if
so
,
the
Holiness
of
the
Branches
was
real
in
word
and
spiritual
;
for
such
Holiness
as
is
in
the
Root
,
is
in
the
Branches
:
and
indeed
for
want
of
Faith
,
or
of
that
Real
and
Spiritual
Holiness
in
many
of
his
Natural
Branches
(
for
he
was
a
twofold
Root
,
or
Father
,
as
I
have
before
proved
)
they
were
rejected
or
broken
off
for
their
Unbelief
,
and
the
Gentiles
by
Faith
were
graffed
in
,
they
having
obtained
the
Fatness
of
the
Root
,
or
the
Faith
and
Righteousness
of
their
Father
Abraham
,
who
was
the
Root
or
Father
of
all
that
believe
.
The
truth
is
,
as
Mr.
Tombs
observes
,
The
Holiness
here
meant
is
,
first
,
in
respect
of
God's
Election
,
Holiness
personal
and
inherent
in
God's
Intention
,
Ephes.
1.
4.
Secondly
;
It
is
also
Holiness
derivative
,
not
from
any
Ancestors
,
but
Abraham
,
not
as
a
Natural
Father
,
but
as
a
Spiritual
Father
,
or
Father
of
the
Faithful
;
and
so
derived
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
.
And
thus
it
appears
you
have
darkened
this
illustrious
Scripture
,
thinking
to
prove
a
Holiness
that
the
New
Testament
knows
nothing
of
,
applying
the
Holiness
in
the
Text
to
Federal
Relative
,
&c.
Holiness
in
respect
to
outward
Dispensation
only
in
the
visible
Church
,
which
is
meant
of
saving
Graces
,
into
the
invisible
,
and
make
every
believing
Parent
alike
Head
or
Root
to
his
Posterity
with
Abraham
to
his
Seed
,
which
we
deny
.
But
let
the
Jews
Covenant
and
Standing
before
they
were
broken
off
be
what
it
would
,
I
am
sure
no
Gentile
is
graffed
into
Christ
,
but
by
actual
Faith
;
nor
can
any
be
graffed
into
the
Gospel
Church
without
the
Profession
of
such
Faith
,
therefore
you
do
but
beat
the
Air.
The
Jews
,
't
is
true
,
were
broken
off
by
their
Unbelief
,
and
were
also
no
more
a
Church
;
nor
is
there
any
such
kind
of
Church
constituted
under
the
Gospel
as
theirs
was
,
viz.
a
National
Church
;
for
they
amongst
the
Jews
,
who
were
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
receiving
Christ
by
Faith
,
were
planted
into
the
Gospel
Church
,
and
between
them
and
Gentile
Believers
:
Now
there
is
no
difference
,
Jew
and
Gentile
stand
in
the
Church
now
by
Faith
,
not
by
external
Covenant
,
Privilege
,
Right
or
Holiness
.
Thou
standest
by
Faith
,
O
Believer
,
Mark
!
not
by
Birth-Privilege
,
but
by
Faith
(
saith
one
)
yet
not
thy
Seed
by
thy
Faith
,
but
thou
thy self
by
thine
,
and
they
by
their
own
:
Faith
is
that
by
which
thou
standing
(
and
not
thy
Seed
)
hast
right
to
stand
in
the
Church
,
and
not
they
:
But
if
thy
Seed
have
Faith
,
and
thou
hast
none
,
then
they
have
right
in
the
Church
,
and
thou
shalt
be
excluded
.
And
tho
under
the
Law
we
deny
not
,
but
that
the
Natural
Seed
or
Progeny
of
Abraham
were
all
holy
,
with
an
External
,
Ceremonial
or
Typical
Holiness
;
and
consequently
they
were
admitted
to
an
external
Participation
of
Church-Privileges
;
yet
now
't
is
otherwise
,
old
things
are
past
away
:
now
we
know
no
Man
after
the
Flesh
,
2
Cor.
5.
16.
That
Church-state
is
dissolved
,
and
manner
of
Admission
into
it
,
by
external
Birth-Privilege
,
and
that
this
Text
doth
not
help
you
.
I
shall
further
open
this
place
of
Scripture
.
1.
'T
is
evident
the
Apostle
is
in
the
9th
and
10th
Chapters
to
the
Romans
treating
of
the
Election
of
Grace
,
and
of
that
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
;
these
were
his
People
which
he
had
not
cast
away
,
Chap.
10.
1.
and
of
this
sort
God
had
7000
in
Eliah's
days
,
ver.
4.
Even
so
,
saith
he
,
at
this
present
time
also
there
is
a
Remnant
according
to
the
Election
of
Grace
,
ver.
5.
Hence
he
says
,
What
then
?
Israel
hath
not
obtained
,
&c.
but
the
Election
hath
,
&c.
ver.
7.
He
further
shews
,
that
abundance
of
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
were
broken
off
.
How
are
they
broken
off
?
Why
by
their
Unbelief
,
they
not
receiving
Christ
,
but
rejecting
the
Gospel
and
new
Church-state
,
were
broken
off
.
But
that
the
Gentiles
might
not
boast
over
them
,
the
Apostle
shews
there
is
ground
left
to
believe
all
those
that
belong
to
the
:
Election
of
Grace
,
shall
in
God's
due
time
be
brought
in
,
and
so
partake
of
the
Blessings
of
the
Gospel-Covenant
,
or
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
;
and
to
prove
this
,
in
ver.
16.
he
lays
down
an
Argument
,
For
if
the
first
Fruit
be
holy
,
the
Lump
is
also
holy
;
and
if
the
Root
be
holy
,
so
are
the
Branches
,
ver.
16.
by
the
Root
I
understand
is
meant
Abraham
,
Root
and
Father
signifying
here
the
same
thing
,
Abraham
being
the
Root
or
Father
,
as
God
represents
him
,
of
all
the
Elect
,
or
of
such
who
believe
,
or
the
Root
of
all
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
.
2.
By
the
first
Fruits
may
be
meant
Isaac
,
Jacob
,
and
the
Holy
and
Elect
Patriarchs
,
for
they
were
given
as
the
first
Fruits
to
Abraham
of
that
Covenant
and
free
Promise
of
God
,
and
these
were
holy
,
with
a
true
Spiritual
and
Internal
New-Covenant
Holiness
.
3.
By
the
Lump
he
may
mean
the
whole
Body
of
the
Elect
,
or
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
from
the
time
the
first
Fruits
were
given
him
,
until
the
Gospel-day
,
or
whole
Body
of
the
true
Israel
of
God
,
who
were
holy
,
as
the
Root
and
first
Fruits
were
holy
.
4.
By
the
Branches
,
may
be
meant
the
true
Elect
Seed
that
were
living
then
in
that
present
time
,
as
ver.
5.
and
these
were
holy
too
,
even
as
all
the
rest
,
both
as
the
Root
,
First-fruits
and
whole
Lump
or
Body
were
holy
:
That
is
,
all
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
were
like
himself
,
viz.
holy
in
a
spiritual
sense
.
And
now
observe
,
he
speaks
of
some
Branches
that
were
broken
off
;
these
seemed
to
be
Branches
,
or
the
Children
of
Abraham
,
and
so
they
were
according
to
the
Flesh
,
but
were
like
those
Branches
in
Christ
who
bear
no
Fruit
,
and
therefore
taken
away
,
John
15.
2
,
3
,
4.
he
alludes
to
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
to
whom
he
stood
not
as
a
Spiritual
Father
,
or
Root
,
but
as
a
Natural
and
Legal
Father
,
as
they
were
a
National
Church
,
and
sprung
from
him
;
and
these
Branches
were
all
broken
off
,
viz.
for
rejecting
Christ
.
(
1.
)
Not
broken
off
from
the
Election
of
Grace
,
for
to
that
they
did
not
belong
.
(
2.
)
Nor
were
they
broken
off
from
the
Gospel-Church
,
for
they
were
never
graffed
into
that
.
But
,
(
3.
)
broken
off
from
being
any
more
a
Church
or
People
in
Covenant
with
God
,
the
whole
old
State
and
Constitution
being
gone
;
and
they
not
closing
in
with
Christ
in
the
Gospel
Dispensation
,
Grace
and
Church-state
,
are
said
to
be
broken
off
as
a
lost
People
,
because
not
replanted
or
implanted
into
Christ
,
and
the
true
Gospel-Covenant
;
the
old
being
gone
,
quite
removed
and
taken
away
,
they
have
now
no
Root
to
stand
upon
,
having
lost
their
Legal
Privileges
as
Abraham
was
their
Father
,
upon
that
foot
of
Account
,
and
they
not
appearing
to
be
the
true
Branches
or
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
he
was
the
Father
of
all
the
Elect
Seed
,
or
of
all
that
believe
in
Jesus
Christ
,
they
must
of
necessity
from
hence
be
broken
off
from
being
the
People
of
God
,
or
belonging
to
any
Head
or
Root
,
in
any
Covenant-Relation
to
God
at
all
,
the
Dispensation
being
changed
,
Old
things
being
gone
,
and
all
things
being
now
become
new
.
But
these
new
State-Blessings
,
Rights
,
Church
and
Church-Privileges
are
rejected
;
and
thus
were
some
of
the
Natural
Branches
broken
off
,
and
the
Gentiles
,
who
were
wild
by
Nature
,
i.
e.
never
were
in
any
visible
Church
state
with
God
,
nor
in
any
sense
related
to
Abraham
,
as
a
Root
,
were
graffed
into
the
true
Olive
Jesus
Christ
,
and
into
the
true
Gospel-Church
,
and
so
Partakers
of
the
Sap
and
Fatness
of
the
Root
,
and
of
the
Olive
,
that
is
,
of
the
Spiritual
Blessings
and
Privileges
of
Abraham
,
and
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
him
,
and
of
the
sweet
Blessings
and
Privileges
of
the
Gospel
Church
;
and
this
they
receive
and
partake
of
,
as
being
first
graffed
by
saving
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
so
united
to
his
Mystical
Body
.
But
since
there
are
a
greater
Number
of
the
old
Natural
Branches
that
are
beloved
for
their
Father's
sake
,
that
is
,
for
the
sake
of
Abraham
,
as
the
Roo●
and
Father
of
all
the
Elect
Seed
,
they
shall
in
due
time
be
graffed
in
again
,
and
so
become
a
People
visibly
owned
of
God
,
and
in
Covenant
with
him
,
as
all
the
true
Seed
now
are
,
and
formerly
were
.
And
if
this
be
considered
,
what
doth
this
Text
do
to
prove
the
Natural
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
in
the
Gospel-Covenant
?
for
if
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
can
lay
no
Claim
,
not
have
any
right
to
Gospel-Privileges
,
but
are
gone
or
broken
off
,
what
ground
is
there
for
us
to
think
that
on
Natural
Off-spring
,
(
as
such
)
should
be
taken
in
?
The
Apostle
speaks
not
of
such
Br●…s
,
or
of
being
holy
with
an
excernal
federal
Holiness
,
but
of
such
a
Holiness
as
was
in
the
Roo●
,
viz
Abraham
,
who
believed
in
God
;
and
thus
all
his
true
spiritual
Seed
(
who
are
actually
Branches
and
in
Goven●…
,
being
grafted
into
Christ
by
Faith
)
are
holy
;
and
also
all
the
Elect
●eed
of
Abraham
,
not
yet
called
,
are
decretively
,
of
in
God's
sight
so
,
who
calls
things
that
are
not
,
as
if
they
were
;
they
are
all
holy
and
beloved
for
their
Father
Abraham's
sake
,
with
whom
the
Covenant
of
Grace
was
for
himself
,
and
all
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
.
And
't
is
from
this
Argument
the
Apostle
argues
for
the
calling
of
the
Jews
,
and
the
graffing
of
them
in
again
,
who
belong
to
the
Election
of
Grace
;
they
therefore
who
would
make
every
believing
Parent
to
be
the
Root
to
his
Natural
Off-spring
,
as
Abraham
was
to
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
or
Off-spring
,
or
a
common
Head
or
Root
of
their
Natural
Off-spring
,
as
he
was
to
his
,
know
not
what
they
say
or
affirm
;
for
then
there
would
be
so
many
common
Roots
and
Fathers
,
like
as
Abraham
was
called
a
Root
and
Father
;
and
then
also
there
would
be
a
Knowledg●
still
of
Men
after
the
Flesh
,
which
the
Apostle
Paul
disclaims
,
2
Cor.
5.
17.
Moreover
,
the
Jews
who
were
broken
off
,
are
still
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
;
and
if
therefore
this
Holiness
was
an
External
Relative
,
Federal
Holiness
,
they
are
in
that
sense
holy
as
much
as
any
Children
of
a
believing
Gentile
can
be
said
to
be
;
but
this
,
't
is
evident
,
is
not
that
Holiness
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
,
nor
is
there
any
such
Holiness
under
the
Gospel-Dispensation
spoken
of
.
Thus
,
Reader
,
I
have
examined
Mr.
Owen's
Exposition
of
this
Text
,
and
have
found
it
to
be
a
false
Exposition
,
and
a
palpable
Abuse
of
the
sacred
Text
,
and
have
opened
the
Text
,
I
hope
,
truly
.
It
therefore
follows
from
what
I
have
said
in
Opposition
to
what
Mr.
Owen
saith
in
the
Close
of
the
ninth
Chapter
,
as
here
followeth
:
1.
That
by
the
Natural
Branches
that
receive
Virtue
and
Fatness
from
the
Root
before
Christ
came
,
were
not
meant
the
Natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
as
such
,
because
no
ungodly
Person
did
,
or
doth
,
or
can
receive
the
Virtue
and
Fatness
of
the
true
Olive-Tree
,
or
saving
Blessings
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
.
What
Virtue
or
Fatness
is
in
a
simple
,
external
,
federal
Profession
or
Holiness
,
either
in
the
Jewish
or
Christian
Religion
,
as
it
respects
only
a
Separation
to
visible
Church-Membership
?
2.
It
appears
also
that
the
Jews
that
believed
in
Christ
,
tho
they
were
not
broken
off
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
,
yet
they
and
their
Children
stood
no
longer
in
that
Legal
and
External
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
which
God
made
with
Abraham
and
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
but
that
that
old
Covenant
is
dissolved
.
3.
That
those
Jews
that
believed
not
,
and
their
Children
,
are
broken
off
from
being
any
more
in
any
Covenant-Relation
to
God
as
his
People
,
and
that
for
their
Unbelief
.
4.
It
also
appears
that
none
of
the
Gentiles
are
received
or
graffed
into
Christ
,
and
into
the
true
Olive
,
or
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
,
but
only
such
that
believe
;
not
them
and
their
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
but
they
themselves
and
their
Children
also
that
do
believe
,
even
none
but
such
who
by
Faith
partake
of
the
Fatness
;
that
is
,
the
best
of
Blessings
that
appertains
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
not
external
Blessings
and
Privileges
only
:
no
,
no
,
they
are
not
the
Fatness
,
i.
e.
the
best
and
the
choicest
of
Covenant-Blessings
,
but
Union
with
Christ
,
Justification
,
Pardon
of
Sin
,
Adoption
and
Eternal
Life
;
in
these
things
consists
the
Fatness
of
the
true
Olive
,
which
Believers
Seed
,
as
such
,
partake
not
of
,
nor
any
but
the
Elect
and
called
ones
of
God
,
according
to
his
Eternal
Purpose
only
.
5.
It
also
appears
,
that
those
Jews
that
shall
be
called
and
graffed
in
again
into
their
own
Olive-Tree
,
shall
be
none
but
the
Elect
,
and
that
their
own
Olive-Tree
doth
not
refer
to
the
external
Privileges
of
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
but
shall
receive
of
the
Fatness
of
their
own
Olive-Tree
,
which
is
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
for
that
primarily
was
made
with
Abraham's
Natural
Seed
,
that
believe
,
and
belongs
to
all
God's
Elect
also
as
their
own
and
proper
Olive
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
.
So
that
when
the
Jews
are
called
,
we
may
be
sure
they
will
plead
no
external
Privileges
of
their
old
dissolved
Covenant
,
but
come
in
upon
the
Terms
of
the
Gospel
,
with
their
Children
that
believe
and
none
else
:
And
if
the
Controversy
of
Infants
right
to
Baptism
and
Church-Membership
ceaseth
not
till
they
shall
be
called
and
come
in
,
who
will
then
renounce
the
old
Federal
Right
,
and
all
Old
Testament
external
Privileges
,
be
sure
it
will
cease
then
.
CHAP.
XII
.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
10th
Chapter
and
7th
Argument
viz.
that
the
Infants
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
ought
to
be
baptized
,
because
they
can
partake
of
those
things
prefigured
in
Baptism
.
TAke
Mr.
Owen's
7th
Argument
which
runs
thus
,
viz.
If
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
can
partake
of
the
Blessings
figured
in
Baptism
,
they
ought
to
be
Partakers
of
Baptism
also
;
if
the
invisible
Grace
belongeth
unto
them
,
the
visible
Sign
cannot
be
denied
unto
them
,
&c.
Answ.
If
we
should
grant
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
can
and
do
partake
of
the
Blessings
figured
in
Baptism
;
yet
it
doth
not
follow
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
because
there
is
no
Precept
or
Example
for
it
in
the
New
Testament
.
For
may
not
I
argue
thus
,
viz.
If
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
can
partake
of
the
Blessing
prefigured
in
the
Lord's-Supper
they
ought
to
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
;
if
the
invisible
Grace
belongs
to
them
,
the
visible
Sign
cannot
be
denied
unto
them
?
This
Argument
is
therefore
as
forcible
to
bring
our
Children
to
the
Lord's
Table
as
it
is
to
Baptism
.
Baptism
signifies
three
things
,
which
(
you
say
)
little
Children
can
partake
of
.
1st
.
(
You
say
)
it
signifies
Remission
of
Sins
through
the
Virtue
of
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
Mark
1.
4.
Acts
2.
3
,
8.
This
you
say
belongs
to
little
Children
in
two
manner
of
ways
.
-
1.
They
have
need
of
pardoning
Grace
.
-
2.
Many
of
them
receive
Remission
of
Sin
,
for
many
of
them
that
die
go
to
Heaven
.
Answ.
1.
Your
first
Argument
hath
as
much
in
it
for
the
baptizing
of
Infidels
and
their
Children
,
as
for
the
Children
of
Believers
,
for
do
not
they
need
pardoning
Grace
?
2.
As
to
your
second
Reason
,
Do
all
the
Children
of
Believers
that
die
go
to
Heaven
?
and
do
none
of
the
Children
of
Unbelievers
go
thither
?
Dare
you
affirm
,
that
all
Unbelievers
Children
that
die
are
damned
?
if
not
,
why
may
they
not
be
baptized
as
well
as
the
Children
of
Believers
.
3.
But
do
you
baptize
no
Children
of
Believers
but
such
that
die
?
do
not
many
of
them
live
and
prove
ungodly
when
grown
up
,
that
you
baptize
?
Two
things
you
must
prove
,
if
you
say
any
thing
here
to
the
purpose
.
1.
That
all
dying
Infants
of
Believers
are
elected
,
and
so
shall
〈◊〉
saved
.
2.
That
all
they
that
go
to
Heaven
,
or
shall
be
saved
,
●ay
,
nay
ought
to
have
both
Baptism
and
the
Lord's-Supper
administred
to
them
:
Nay
,
and
it
follows
also
,
that
you
ought
only
to
baptize
those
Children
of
Believers
that
died
,
or
such
that
you
have
ground
to
believe
are
elected
to
Salvation
,
according
to
your
own
Argument
.
But
let
me
tell
you
,
if
you
knew
what
Children
of
Believers
or
Unbelievers
are
elected
,
yet
you
ought
no
more
to
baptize
them
,
than
to
give
the
Lord's-Supper
.
'T
is
not
Election
,
I
tell
you
again
,
that
gives
any
a
right
to
Baptism
,
but
the
positive
Command
of
Christ
:
Might
not
M●lchisedec
or
Job
have
said
,
our
Children
do
need
what
was
prefigured
in
Circumcision
,
therefore
we
will
circumcise
them
?
would
that
have
justified
them
if
they
had
presumed
to
have
done
it
without
God's
Command
?
for
the
Command
and
meer
positive
Precept
to
circumcise
was
only
given
to
Abraham
,
and
it
only
extended
to
himself
,
and
his
Male
Children
,
or
such
that
were
in
his
House
or
Family
,
or
bought
with
his
Money
.
Therefore
all
this
arguing
of
yours
is
weak
and
groundless
.
In
vain
therefore
is
that
which
you
say
to
sinful
Parents
,
that
delivered
Corruption
to
their
Children
,
that
they
should
administer
Medicines
unto
them
,
and
so
give
them
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
which
Christ
hath
appointed
for
that
end
,
that
they
might
not
fall
into
the
bottomless
Pi●
.
Answ.
1.
You
must
prove
Christ
hath
appointed
Baptism
for
Children
,
do
that
and
your
Work
is
done
.
2.
Prove
that
Baptism
is
the
Medicine
to
cure
the
Disease
of
Original
Sin
,
and
to
save
Children
(
or
Adult
Persons
either
)
from
falling
into
the
bottomless
Pi●
.
You
seem
to
frighten
Parents
into
the
Belief
of
your
Tradition
:
Can
any
thing
save
either
young
or
old
from
Hell
,
but
the
Blood
and
Merits
of
Christ
through
the
Sanctification
of
the
Spirit
?
which
Baptism
can
be
but
a
Figure
of
,
(
't
is
not
the
Medicine
)
nor
is
it
appointed
to
any
to
be
a
Figure
of
that
,
&c.
but
to
Believers
only
,
who
certainly
have
the
things
signified
.
2dly
.
Baptism
(
you
say
)
signifies
the
pouring
forth
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
Acts
2.
38.
Tit.
3.
5.
and
't
is
certain
that
little
Children
can
receive
the
Holy
Ghost
from
their
Mothers
Womb
,
Luke
1.
15.
Answ.
We
deny
that
Baptism
signifies
the
pouring
of
the
Holy
Spirit
,
the
Scriptures
you
cite
prove
no
such
thing
.
It
signifies
,
as
I
have
shewed
,
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
with
our
Death
unto
Sin
,
or
Mortification
of
Sin
,
and
rising
again
to
a
new
Life
.
What
tho
the
Promise
is
made
to
Christ
and
his
Seed
in
Isa.
44.
3.
&
59.
11.
Are
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
the
Seed
of
Christ
,
and
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
The
Promise
of
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
is
only
made
to
Believers
,
and
to
such
of
their
Seed
that
believe
,
or
to
all
the
Elect
of
God
:
Prove
that
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
in
the
Gospel-days
received
the
Holy
Spirit
;
God
can
,
't
is
true
,
give
his
Spirit
to
a
Babe
in
the
Womb
,
and
may
be
to
one
or
two
Babes
he
might
do
it
;
so
he
once
also
opened
the
Mouth
of
an
Ass
,
must
all
Asses
therefore
speak
with
Man's
Voice
?
You
say
,
3dly
.
Baptism
signifies
Regeneration
;
and
't
is
possible
(
say
you
)
that
Children
may
be
regenerated
:
What
can
hinder
the
unspeakable
Grace
of
God's
working
upon
their
Hearts
?
Jeremiah
was
sanctified
in
his
Mother
's
Womb.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Pagans
and
Infidels
may
be
regenerated
't
is
possible
,
what
can
hinder
God's
working
upon
their
Hearts
?
Nay
,
and
't
is
probable
too
God
will
do
it
when
he
affords
the
Gospel
to
them
,
and
when
they
are
regenerated
let
them
be
baptized
;
when
they
have
the
thing
signified
,
let
them
have
the
Sign
also
.
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Baptism
is
a
〈◊〉
of
present
,
not
future
Regeneration
;
Baptism
was
not
appointed
of
Christ
to
be
a
Sign
of
that
which
might
,
or
might
not
be
in
the
true
Subject
of
it
hereafter
,
but
of
that
Regeneration
that
was
certainly
wrought
in
the
Person
before
baptized
:
If
thou
believest
(
if
thou
hast
true
Faith
,
or
art
a
converted
Man
)
thou
●…st
,
Acts
8.
not
if
that
hereafter
thou
mayst
be
a
Believer
,
●ut
if
thou
art
now
one
that
dost
believe
.
(
You
say
)
God
can
easily
give
holy
Qualities
to
the
Souls
of
Children
:
Cannot
God
restore
his
own
Image
to
little
Children
?
I
do
not
say
,
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
receive
the
Grace
of
Regeneration
in
their
Infancy
,
it
is
evident
to
the
contrary
,
many
of
them
being
wicked
;
but
on
the
other
hand
,
the
Work
of
Grace
appeareth
very
early
day
by
day
in
others
of
them
.
Answ.
If
this
he
so
,
your
Cause
is
gone
:
How
?
Are
not
all
the
infants
of
Believers
regenerated
,
and
in
Covenant
with
God
?
Why
then
do
you
baptize
all
,
even
such
that
have
not
the
thing
signified
when
baptized
,
nor
ever
after
till
they
die
?
Worthy
Britains
!
see
here
Mr.
Owen
does
acknowledg
that
the
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
are
not
in
Covenant
,
for
all
that
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
and
have
a
right
to
the
Seal
of
it
are
regenerated
;
alas
,
what
is
the
Seal
but
a
Seal
of
Regeneration
,
and
so
of
eternal
Salvation
!
Ephes.
1.
13
,
14.
Chap.
4.
30.
But
(
you
say
)
In
others
Regeneration
appears
very
early
,
day
by
day
,
that
is
in
some
little
Children
.
Answ.
2.
But
are
not
some
Children
of
ungodly
Parents
as
early
wrought
upon
and
born
again
as
the
Children
of
the
godly
,
why
then
may
not
their
Children
also
be
baptized
?
You
say
Mr.
Eliot
in
his
Book
called
,
Tears
of
Repentance
,
speaks
of
two
Indian
Children
who
were
converted
before
three
Years
old
:
Sir
,
these
were
not
the
Children
of
Godly
Parents
.
3.
Admit
that
to
be
true
,
and
that
God
sometimes
doth
regenerate
Children
at
three
or
four
Years
of
Age.
Such
Children
I
can
baptize
by
the
Authority
of
Christ's
Commission
,
or
by
Virtue
of
his
holy
Precept
,
and
none
but
such
Children
that
do
believe
have
any
right
thereunto
.
You
say
Solomon
was
very
young
when
the
Lord
loved
him
.
Answ.
No
doubt
but
the
Lord
loved
his
Elect
before
they
were
born
,
even
from
Everlasting
,
but
what
of
this
?
yet
when
they
are
called
and
regenerated
,
and
not
till
then
,
they
ought
to
be
baptized
.
In
a
word
,
that
which
renders
Persons
capable
of
Baptism
are
the
Prerequisites
of
Baptism
,
or
those
things
that
are
required
by
Christ
to
be
in
the
true
Subjects
thereof
,
which
are
Faith
and
the
Profession
of
it
,
or
Faith
and
Repentance
.
You
may
be
capable
of
being
made
a
Justice
of
Peace
,
but
you
must
not
exercise
that
Office
without
a
lawful
Commission
:
So
let
our
Children
be
capable
of
what
they
will
or
may
,
yet
without
a
Warrant
from
God's
Word
they
ought
not
to
be
admitted
to
Baptism
,
the
Lord's
Supper
,
nor
to
any
other
Gospel-Ordinance
.
God
can
give
sacred
Habits
and
Qualities
to
a
Child
we
deny
not
,
but
till
he
doth
it
you
are
not
to
give
them
the
Signs
of
those
gracious
Qualities
;
and
if
there
be
no
visible
Signs
or
Demonstrations
of
those
sacred
Qualities
in
such
Infants
you
baptize
that
render
them
Believers
,
't
is
at
best
but
a
mock
Baptism
.
Object
.
If
we
knew
that
little
children
are
regenerated
,
we
would
baptize
them
This
is
your
Objection
against
your self
,
as
if
we
argued
thus
.
Answ.
No
,
Sir
,
you
mistake
us
;
if
we
did
know
little
Infants
were
regenerate
,
which
is
impossible
for
us
to
know
〈◊〉
I
doubt
not
but
that
those
Infants
that
go
to
Heaven
are
made
holy
in
some
secret
way
unknown
to
us
,
because
no
unclean
●…ng
can
enter
into
Heaven
)
yet
we
durst
not
baptize
them
,
because
we
want
Authority
to
do
it
.
Put
to
come
to
your
Answer
.
That
(
say
you
)
cannot
be
certainly
known
of
the
Adult
,
therefore
by
this
Objection
none
can
be
baptized
.
'T
is
sufficient
in
this
case
,
that
the
Promise
of
God
belongs
to
the
Infant●…
of
the
Faithful
:
They
are
Members
of
the
visible
Church
through
which
the
Line
of
G●…
Election
runneth
,
Rom.
9.
4
,
5.
&
Chap.
11.
7.
Answ.
1.
〈◊〉
answer
,
tho
we
cannot
,
as
the
apostles
could
not
,
certainly
or
in●…
know
who
were
truly
regenerated
,
or
are
true
Believers
,
yet
they
baptized
none
but
such
in
whom
they
saw
such
Signs
of
Grace
,
that
made
them
in
Charity
to
believe
,
or
hope
they
were
Believers
;
they
made
a
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
ession
of
their
Faith
:
but
in
little
●…bes
there
appear
no
Signs
of
Grace
,
nor
can
they
make
any
Confession
of
their
Faith
;
where
there
is
no
Knowledg
,
there
can
be
no
F●…
2.
And
whereas
you
say
they
are
Members
of
the
visible
Church
under
the
Gospel
,
it
is
false
,
the
Gospel-Church
doth
〈◊〉
consist
of
whole
Nations
and
Families
,
as
did
the
Jewish
Church
under
the
Law
in
a
natural
way
.
The
Gospel
Church
is
a
Spiritual
House
,
not
consisting
of
Babes
in
a
way
of
Generation
,
〈◊〉
of
Spiritual
Babes
in
a
way
of
R●…
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
2.
5
,
6.
3.
Nor
doth
the
Promise
run
to
any
but
to
them
whom
the
●ord
shall
cal
,
Acts
2
39
,
even
to
Jews
and
their
〈◊〉
that
are
called
,
and
so
to
the
〈◊〉
that
sometimes
were
a●ar
off
;
Ephes.
2.
4.
As
touching
Election
,
't
is
strange
to
me
that
you
should
affirm
,
that
that
runneth
in
the
Fleshly
Line
of
Believers
and
their
Seed
,
as
such
,
and
cite
that
Text
to
prove
it
,
Rom.
9.
4
,
5.
in
which
St.
Paul
proves
directly
the
contrary
,
〈◊〉
.
e.
Not
as
tho
the
Word
of
God
hath
taken
none
Effect
;
for
they
are
not
all
Israel
that
are
of
Israel
;
ver.
6.
Neither
because
they
are
the
Seed
of
Abraham
are
they
Children
:
but
in
Isaac
shall
thy
Seed
be
called
;
ver.
7.
That
is
,
they
which
are
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God
:
but
the
Children
of
the
Promise
are
counted
for
the
Seed
;
ver.
8.
Sir
,
tho
the
Covenants
and
Promises
did
belong
to
the
Israelires
,
yet
you
may
see
how
the
Apostle
doth
explain
it
,
even
to
none
but
to
the
Elect
,
or
only
to
such
that
God
by
his
Spirit
,
through
the
Power
and
Virtue
of
the
Promise
,
should
regenerate
and
cell
by
his
Grace
.
Therefore
in
Opposition
to
what
you
say
,
none
were
accounted
Abraham's
Seed
and
Children
of
the
Promise
,
but
such
that
were
in
Christ
,
Gal.
3.
●lt
.
(
You
say
)
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
under
the
Promise
,
but
God
administreth
the
Grace
of
the
Promises
to
the
Elect
only
,
and
to
many
of
them
in
their
Infancy
.
But
because
we
know
not
upon
whom
the
Election
falleth
,
it
is
the
Will
of
God
that
we
should
baptize
all
that
are
under
the
Promise
.
Answ.
1.
If
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
under
the
Promise
,
they
are
all
elected
,
because
the
Promise
,
to
whomsoever
't
is
made
,
is
sure
to
all
the
Seed
;
see
Rom.
4.
16.
If
it
be
the
natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
't
is
sure
to
all
them
,
and
not
one
of
the
Seed
of
Believers
shall
perish
;
but
if
it
be
meant
only
of
the
true
spiritual
Seed
,
then
't
is
sure
only
to
them
;
for
those
to
whom
the
promise
is
made
't
is
confirmed
unto
by
the
Word
and
Oath
of
God
,
that
so
the
Heirs
of
the
Promise
might
have
strong
Consolation
;
Heb.
6.
18.
Therefore
those
to
whom
the
Promise
belongs
,
the
Grace
therefore
or
Blessing
of
that
Promise
God
will
bestow
upon
,
or
else
his
Promise
is
made
void
and
of
none
Effect
.
Prove
that
there
are
any
who
are
under
the
Promise
,
or
are
Children
of
the
Promise
,
and
yet
God
doth
not
administer
the
Grace
of
the
Promise
unto
them
;
are
any
the
Children
of
the
Promise
and
not
elected
?
2.
But
whereas
you
say
the
Grace
of
the
Promise
is
given
to
some
in
Insancy
,
we
deny
it
,
except
to
such
that
die
in
Infancy
;
and
do
you
disprove
us
if
you
can
.
But
,
3.
The
worst
of
all
comes
at
last
.
Sir
,
where
is
it
written
what
you
so
boldly
affirm
,
viz.
Because
you
know
not
upon
when
the
Election
falleth
,
it
is
the
Will
of
God
that
you
should
baptize
all
that
are
under
the
Promise
?
And
you
affirm
that
all
the
Children
of
Believers
are
under
the
Promise
.
I
argue
thus
,
If
it
be
God's
Will
that
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
should
be
baptized
,
it
is
revealed
in
his
Word
;
but
this
is
not
revealed
in
his
Word
,
no
nor
that
any
one
of
them
whilst
Infants
ought
to
be
baptized
,
therefore
't
is
not
his
Will
they
should
.
4.
May
not
we
by
your
Argument
baptize
Unbelievers
in
whom
no
Grace
appears
,
because
we
do
not
know
how
the
Election
runs
?
they
may
be
under
the
Promise
and
in
the
Election
as
far
as
we
know
.
What
a
preposterous
way
of
arguing
is
this
of
yours
?
But
no
more
to
your
10th
Chapter
,
and
7th
Argument
for
your
Childrens
Baptism
.
CHAP
XIII
.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
11th
Chapter
and
6th
Argument
,
concerning
those
Baptisms
that
were
under
the
Law
;
proving
that
Christ's
Ordinance
of
Baptism
is
a
pure
Gospel-Institution
,
and
that
it
was
not
in
being
tell
he
appointed
it
in
the
Gospel-days
.
〈◊〉
,
what
you
have
said
in
your
11th
Chapter
,
which
contains
your
8th
Argument
,
tho
it
may
seem
new
to
some
,
I
shall
shew
it
is
nothing
at
all
to
the
purpose
.
You
say
,
the
Form
of
Baptism
was
before
the
Law
,
and
under
the
Law
;
and
from
thence
infer
that
Children
ought
to
be
baptized
under
the
Gospel
.
Answ.
1.
You
may
infer
from
the
same
Ground
and
Argument
,
that
Clothes
,
Pots
,
Tables
and
Vessels
ought
to
be
baptized
under
the
Gospel
,
as
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
because
they
were
dipped
,
washed
or
baptized
before
and
under
the
Law
.
2.
Moreover
,
you
may
infer
as
well
that
Unbelievers
,
yea
the
worst
of
Men
and
Cattle
also
,
ought
to
be
baptized
under
the
Gospel
,
because
Noah
and
his
Children
were
baptized
in
the
Ark
,
among
which
was
cursed
Chan
:
you
intimate
that
Cham
was
baptized
upon
his
Father's
Faith
;
so
that
it
appears
the
Father's
Faith
will
not
only
save
the
Infant-Seed
of
Believers
,
but
save
them
when
they
are
Adult
Persons
also
.
But
were
not
the
Beasts
and
the
Fowls
baptized
and
saved
by
the
Ark
as
well
as
Noah
and
his
Children
,
and
his
Son
Cham
?
But
as
touching
that
Text
1
Pet.
3.
10.
how
the
Ark
of
Noah
might
be
a
Figure
of
Baptism
,
I
shall
speak
to
that
more
fully
by
and
by
.
3.
Because
all
sorts
of
Washings
or
Dippings
are
in
the
Greek
Tongue
Baptizing
,
doth
it
therefore
follow
that
all
sorts
of
Baptisms
,
Dippings
,
or
Washings
,
are
formally
Christ's
Ordinance
of
Baptism
?
Mr.
Burkitt
,
a
great
Pedo-baptist
,
and
all
other
learned
Men
,
assert
,
that
to
the
true
Form
and
Requisites
of
Gospel-Baptism
these
several
things
are
necessary
.
-
1.
The
Person
baptizing
,
or
the
Administrator
ought
to
be
a
lawful
Minister
,
one
authorized
and
commissionated
by
Christ
so
to
do
.
-
2.
The
Party
baptized
must
be
a
Subject
fitly
qualified
for
Baptism
.
-
3.
The
Element
in
which
the
Party
is
baptized
must
be
Water
.
-
4.
True
Gospel-Baptism
must
be
administred
in
the
Name
,
or
into
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
,
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
Now
,
Sir
,
was
there
any
Person
either
young
or
old
,
before
the
Law
or
under
the
Law
,
thus
baptized
?
(
You
say
)
that
Jacob
received
little
Children
into
God's
Covenant
by
Baptism
,
because
he
said
unto
his
Houshold
,
Put
away
the
strange
Gods
that
are
among
you
,
and
be
ye
clean
,
and
change
your
Garments
?
Gen.
35.
2.
Answ.
1.
Was
this
Command
given
to
his
little
Children
,
or
had
they
corrupted
themselves
with
Idolatry
,
or
by
worshipping
strange
Gods
,
or
who
did
he
appoint
to
baptize
his
Babes
?
2.
What
tho
the
Hebrew
word
signifies
cleansing
or
washing
with
Water
,
was
it
therefore
formally
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
?
Did
ever
any
Man
argue
after
this
manner
before
?
't
is
a
sign
you
want
Proofs
for
your
Childish
Baptism
in
the
New
Testament
that
you
go
to
Genesis
for
it
,
and
to
such
,
a
remote
Text
that
includes
nothing
of
the
Controversy
.
But
(
you
say
)
Circumcision
was
abominable
in
the
sight
of
the
Gentiles
,
because
the
Children
of
Jacob
made
it
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
Mortality
unto
the
Sichemites
,
Gen.
34.
and
the
greatest
part
of
Jacob's
Houshold
were
Gentiles
,
therefore
Jacob
received
their
Wives
and
Children
into
God's
Covenant
through
washing
of
Water
,
or
Baptism
;
and
according
to
the
Example
of
Jacob
they
used
to
baptize
all
the
Gentiles
that
received
Circumcision
;
for
their
wise
Men
sp●…
thus
,
None
are
Proselytes
until
circumcised
and
baptized
.
Light●
.
vol
1.
p.
210.
And
they
baptized
the
Children
with
the
Parents
;
little
ones
are
to
be
baptized
according
to
the
Ordinance
of
the
Counsel
.
M●●n
.
in
Light
.
Answ.
1.
If
this
be
so
,
that
the
Baptism
of
Children
was
among
the
Jews
,
or
in
the
Jewish
Church
from
the
beginning
,
why
do
you
plead
for
Baptism
to
come
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
?
it
appears
your
Infant-Baptism
is
near
or
altogether
as
old
as
Circumcision
it self
,
therefore
it
could
not
come
in
the
room
of
that
.
2.
I
have
read
,
I
must
confess
,
in
some
Authors
,
that
the
Jews
did
receive
their
Proselytes
both
by
Circumcision
and
Baptism
;
but
you
seem
to
intimate
that
old
Jacob
was
so
wise
to
dismiss
Circumcision
to
his
Gentile
Proselvtes
.
(
because
Sim●on
and
Levi
made
it
so
odious
)
and
did
contrive
or
institute
Baptism
in
its
room
,
as
the
only
Rite
to
receive
them
into
God's
Covenant
.
I
must
confess
Jacob
had
many
Failings
,
but
I
never
heard
him
thus
charged
,
and
rendered
guilty
of
such
an
Abomination
before
.
How
,
Sir
!
could
he
lay
aside
God's
holy
Ordinance
of
Circumcision
at
his
Will
and
Pleasure
,
and
that
too
because
his
Sons
had
brought
a
Reproach
upon
it
;
and
did
he
devise
a
new
Ordinance
,
namely
Baptism
,
in
its
room
?
What
an
abominable
Innovation
had
he
been
guilty
of
should
he
have
done
this
thing
,
which
you
seem
posicively
to
affirm
?
3.
Nay
,
and
this
is
not
the
worst
of
Jacob's
Sins
neither
;
for
it
appears
by
your
plain
words
,
that
you
suppose
that
the
Jews
from
this
Example
of
Jacob
,
used
to
baptize
all
the
Gentiles
that
received
Circumcision
,
tho
it
appears
the
Jews
did
not
follow
the
Example
of
Jacob
in
throwing
Circumcision
away
,
and
exchange
it
for
Baptism
,
yet
by
Jacob's
Example
did
baptize
all
their
Gentile
Proselytes
,
whether
Men
,
Women
and
children
;
so
that
he
caused
them
to
set
up
,
or
add
a
Tradition
of
his
own
devising
to
God's
Institution
:
For
I
challenge
you
or
any
Man
under
Heaven
,
to
prove
that
God
commanded
Jacob
or
any
Patriarch
,
or
Jewish
Rabbies
,
to
baptize
any
Proselyte
either
young
or
old
when
received
into
their
Church
.
4.
Behold
,
you
Pedo-baptists
,
the
Rise
and
Foundation
of
your
Infant-Baptism
according
to
Mr.
Owen's
Conceit
!
Why
?
where
have
we
it
,
even
in
Noah's
Ark
,
wherein
the
whole
World
were
baptized
!
For
let
me
thus
argue
,
If
all
the
World
in
Noah's
Ark
both
rational
and
irrational
Creatures
were
baptized
,
then
Infants
may
be
baptized
.
nay
and
all
Unbelievers
,
and
Cattel
also
;
but
the
former
is
true
,
Ergo.
But
if
we
have
not
the
Rise
of
it
here
.
we
have
in
Gen.
35.
2.
Then
said
Jacob
unto
his
Houshold
,
and
unto
all
that
were
with
him
,
Put
away
the
strange
Gods
that
are
among
you
,
and
be
you
clean
,
and
change
your
Garments
.
5.
Now
from
Jacob's
bidding
them
to
be
clean
,
Mr.
C●…
infers
,
he
commands
them
all
to
be
baptized
(
but
without
any
Authority
or
Command
of
God
)
even
all
his
Houshold
,
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
Men
,
Women
and
Children
,
Believers
and
Unbelievers
.
Pray
take
the
Consequence
or
Inference
from
hence
(
't
is
better
perhaps
to
prove
Infant-Baptism
,
than
from
those
whole
●ousholds
said
to
be
baptized
in
the
New
Testament
.
)
Jacob
commanded
all
his
Houshold
,
and
all
that
were
with
him
to
be
baptized
,
among
which
were
Gentiles
and
their
Children
,
therefore
we
Gentiles
and
our
Children
may
be
baptized
.
Yea
,
and
our
Men-Servants
and
Maid
Servants
,
tho
they
be
Negro's
,
whether
they
believe
or
not
;
for
Jacob
perhaps
had
some
gross
Idolaters
in
his
Houshold
,
therefore
the
worst
of
Men
as
well
as
little
Children
may
be
baptized
.
Honoured
Britains
!
you
have
seen
but
little
of
this
Controversy
in
your
Language
:
But
Mr.
Owen
,
seeing
the
old
Argument
;
which
the
Asserters
of
Infant-Baptism
have
brought
,
to
be
too
weak
to
establish
it
to
be
of
God
,
and
from
Heaven
,
out
of
the
New
Testament
;
he
hath
found
out
new
ones
never
heard
of
by
me
before
,
I
mean
this
of
Jacob's
commanding
his
whole
Houshold
,
and
all
that
were
with
him
,
to
be
clean
,
that
is
,
saith
he
,
to
be
baptized
all
of
them
.
So
that
Infant-Baptism
hath
its
Rise
not
from
the
Command
of
Christ
,
but
from
the
Command
of
Jacob
,
and
that
not
from
Circumcision
,
for
Jacob
laid
that
aside
because
his
two
Sons
had
caused
Circumcision
to
be
odious
and
hateful
to
the
Gentiles
,
he
therefore
contrived
Baptism
in
its
stead
.
O
when
will
this
Man
cease
to
pervert
the
holy
and
righteous
way
of
God
in
his
Institution
of
Believers
Baptism
!
6.
I
find
also
that
Mr.
James
Owen
hath
found
out
the
first
Rise
or
Original
of
that
human
Tradition
of
the
Jews
in
baptizing
their
Gentile
Proselytes
,
both
Men
,
Women
and
Children
.
But
I
am
very
sorry
it
is
fathered
upon
holy
Jacob
Mr.
Burkitt
I
must
confess
makes
that
Custom
that
was
among
the
Jews
a
grand
Argument
for
Infant-Baptism
;
and
,
as
if
the
New
Testament
without
the
Old
was
not
a
sufficient
Rule
for
the
Practice
of
Gospel-Baptism
,
but
that
we
must
have
recourse
to
the
Old
Testament
as
well
as
the
New
.
To
which
I
answer
;
That
tho
in
some
Points
of
Faith
and
Practice
the
Old
Testament
and
the
New
together
is
the
Rule
by
which
we
ought
to
walk
,
yet
his
Trumpet
and
yours
in
this
case
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
concerns
us
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
;
●…y
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
Old
.
Christ
alone
is
our
Law-giver
,
and
him
and
not
Moses
we
are
only
to
hear
and
hearken
unto
;
tho
as
to
matter
of
Faith
the
Old
Testament
may
be
useful
to
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
about
days
of
Prayer
,
singing
God's
Praises
,
Fasting-days
,
&c.
But
for
any
to
intimate
in
the
Case
of
Baptism
,
that
the
Old
Testament
is
a
Rule
of
Practice
,
or
in
respect
of
Jewish
Church-Membership
,
such
strangely
betray
their
Ignorance
,
as
will
further
appear
hereafter
.
For
that
Circumcision
was
a
meer
Legal
or
Jewish
Rite
,
I
shall
evidently
anon
fully
prove
.
You
and
Mr.
Burkitt
,
with
other
Pedo-baptists
,
affirm
,
that
so
little
is
said
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
washed
in
token
of
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.
'T
is
a
sign
of
a
bad
Cause
when
Men
are
forced
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
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
Human
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
already
told
the
Athenian
,
Society
,
with
whom
I
had
to
do
in
this
matter
)
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
Ap●stolical
Tradition
,
and
in
some
Councils
early
:
Qui●…que
parvulos
re●ens
ab
uteris
Matrum
baptizandos
esse
〈◊〉
,
A●…ma
esto
.
Milev
.
Can
2.
and
anathemized
or
cursed
all
who
should
deny
that
new-born
Infants
were
to
be
baptized
,
therefore
we
may
baptize
Infants
.
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
J●wish
Rabbins
for
our
Infant-Baptism
!
Nay
,
which
is
worst
of
all
,
how
is
Christ
beholden
to
them
for
that
rare
Invention
,
who
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
Tradition
and
Innovation
of
the
Jews
?
Or
take
his
great
Ordinance
of
Baptism
from
the
Superstitious
,
Fabulous
and
Erroneous
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
in
his
Mind
that
Infants
should
be
baptized
,
and
yet
say
nothing
of
it
,
because
it
was
a
common
Custom
and
Practice
among
the
Jews
?
But
,
pray
,
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
(
't
is
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
.
Why
are
not
Men
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
Tradition
?
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
:
And
if
it
had
been
a
Mosaical
Rite
,
given
by
God
himself
to
the
Jews
,
Christ
then
be
sure
abolished
it
,
and
nailed
it
to
his
Cross
,
with
all
its
Fellows
,
and
't
is
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
unto
them
,
who
was
faithful
in
all
his
House
,
was
no
Ordinance
of
God
,
but
a
meer
Human
Tradition
:
But
the
Custom
●…ng
the
Jews
of
baptizing
the
Heathen
and
their
Children
〈◊〉
were
admitted
into
their
Church
,
was
never
Comm●…
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
.
Lastly
,
Take
what
a
Worthy
and
Learned
Author
hath
said
in
Confutation
of
this
foolish
and
absurd
Argument
for
Pedo
b●ptism
,
't
is
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul
,
Kt.
and
Baronet
.
The
Thing
,
saith
he
,
is
uncertain
,
that
it
cannot
be
said
of
the
R●bbins
,
that
there
were
not
several
among
them
who
differed
very
much
about
this
matter
;
for
Rabbi
Eli●zar
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
Ra●bi
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
a●…ms
what
is
no
where
to
be
found
in
Scripture
?
But
the
Rabbins
upheld
Joshua'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
he●…ate
a
little
:
For
whence
was
the
Talmud
sent
,
as
they
are
the
Words
of
Buxtors
,
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
a
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
make
no
mention
of
Baptism
among
the
Jews
.
Besides
,
if
Baptism
,
in
the
Modern
Sense
,
were
in
use
among
the
Jews
in
Antient
Times
,
why
did
the
Pharisees
ask
John
Baptist
,
Why
dost
thou
baptize
if
thou
art
not
Christ
,
nor
Elias
,
nor
that
Prophet
?
Do
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
Sir
Norton
Knatchbull
,
in
his
Notes
printed
at
Oxford
,
Anno
Dom.
1677.
with
the
Licence
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
was
not
need
that
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
.
You
say
,
The
Israelites
and
their
Children
were
baptized
in
the
Cloud
,
and
in
the
Sea
,
1
Cor.
10.
2
,
3.
That
Israel
going
under
the
Cloud
,
and
through
the
Sea
;
that
was
,
say
you
,
a
Baptism
unto
them
:
The
Cloud
rained
upon
them
,
and
the
Sea
dropped
upon
them
,
which
was
as
a
High
Wall
round
about
them
.
2.
This
Baptism
under
the
Cloud
,
and
in
the
Sea
,
signifyeth
,
in
its
Essence
,
the
same
thing
with
the
Baptism
of
the
Gospel
,
viz.
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
and
his
Blessings
:
The
Spiritual
Washings
in
the
Sea
,
and
the
Spiritual
Drink
from
the
Rock
,
signified
the
same
thing
;
even
Christ
he
was
the
Substance
of
all
the
Types
under
the
Law
.
The
Pillar
of
Cloud
,
and
the
Pillar
of
Fire
,
did
foreshew
the
Baptism
of
Water
,
and
the
Baptism
of
Fire
,
or
of
the
Holy
Spirit
;
the
falling
of
the
Water
from
the
Cloud
,
signified
the
pouring
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
3.
The
Children
were
baptized
with
their
Parents
,
with
the
Baptism
of
Moses
,
they
were
all
baptized
unto
Moses
,
&c.
Answer
.
Two
Things
are
to
be
done
to
disprove
what
you
say
here
.
-
1.
That
the
Rain
falling
from
the
Cloud
,
was
not
that
which
was
the
Figure
of
Baptism
.
-
2.
That
this
Text
doth
not
prove
Infants
to
be
the
Subject
of
Baptism
.
First
,
If
Persons
may
be
said
to
be
baptized
when
it
rains
upon
them
,
How
many
times
have
you
and
I
been
so
baptized
?
Besides
,
Do
you
think
it
never
rained
upon
the
●…ites
before
they
passed
through
the
Sea
?
And
Secondly
,
Prove
if
you
can
it
did
then
either
rain
upon
them
from
the
Cloud
,
or
that
the
Sea
dropped
upon
them
;
't
is
but
your
own
ungrounded
Supposition
.
Thirdly
,
Prove
that
Rain
falling
upon
them
,
can
in
any
Sense
be
called
a
Washing
or
Baptism
.
Therefore
let
the
Reader
consider
well
what
our
Annotators
speak
on
this
Place
;
see
Mr.
Pool's
Annotations
on
〈◊〉
Cor.
10.
2
,
3.
Others
,
saith
he
,
more
probably
think
that
the
Apostle
useth
this
Term
,
in
regard
of
the
great
Analogy
betwixt
Baptism
,
(
as
it
was
then
used
)
the
Persons
baptized
going
down
into
the
Waters
,
and
being
dipped
in
them
,
and
the
Israelites
going
down
into
the
Sea
,
that
great
Receptacle
of
Water
;
though
the
Water
at
that
time
was
gathered
on
Heaps
on
either
side
of
them
,
yet
they
seemed
buried
in
the
Water
,
as
Persons
in
that
Age
were
when
baptized
.
Thus
spake
your
Brethren
who
compleated
Mr.
Pool's
Annotations
.
They
tell
you
in
what
Sense
the
Fathers
were
said
to
be
baptized
unto
Moses
,
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
.
Here
is
nothing
of
sprinkling
,
pouring
,
or
raining
on
them
;
but
they
were
,
as
it
were
,
buried
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
;
and
so
it
represents
Immersion
or
Dipping
,
which
is
Christ's
true
Baptism
.
We
are
buried
(
not
sprinkled
)
with
Christ
in
Baptism
,
both
in
the
Sign
and
also
in
Signification
;
to
shew
he
was
dead
,
buried
,
and
rose
again
for
us
,
and
that
we
are
dead
to
Sin
and
ought
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
.
But
do
not
mistake
,
the
Fathers
being
said
to
be
baptized
to
Moses
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
,
was
no
real
,
but
Typical
Baptism
.
2.
This
Place
proves
not
that
Infants
are
the
Subjects
of
Gospel
Baptism
.
1.
'T
is
said
all
our
Fathers
were
baptized
,
but
't
is
nor
said
their
Children
were
baptized
unto
Moses
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
.
2.
But
you
intimate
,
there
were
many
Children
with
them
as
they
passed
through
the
Sea
.
To
which
I
answer
,
so
there
were
many
wicked
Men
also
;
all
the
Israelites
were
not
godly
Persons
,
but
many
among
them
were
prophane
and
ungodly
People
:
Besides
,
there
was
a
mixt
People
passed
through
the
Sea
with
the
Fathers
also
,
may
be
some
of
the
Egyptians
,
and
others
of
other
Nations
,
and
much
Cattle
also
;
and
these
were
all
baptized
as
truly
as
were
the
little
Children
.
May
we
baptize
such
therefore
?
we
have
as
much
ground
from
hence
to
baptize
such
,
as
you
have
to
baptize
your
Babes
,
nay
more
ground
,
if
the
Rain
falling
upon
the
Israelites
was
that
which
baptized
them
;
't
is
a
Question
whether
any
Rain
might
fall
on
little
Babes
,
if
it
fell
on
their
Parents
,
for
the
Parents
might
cover
them
by
holding
some
thing
over
their
Heads
and
Bodies
,
&c.
3.
The
same
Persons
which
the
Apostle
saith
were
baptized
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
,
are
also
said
to
eat
the
same
Spiritual
Meat
,
and
to
drink
the
same
Spiritual
Drink
.
Now
did
not
the
Children
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
I
mean
that
Typical
Lord's
Supper
?
This
Text
therefore
proves
as
strongly
that
you
may
give
them
the
Lord's
Supper
as
Baptism
,
because
they
ate
of
the
Manna
that
fell
from
Heaven
,
and
drank
of
the
Water
that
came
from
the
Rock
.
4.
The
design
of
the
Apostle
here
is
,
to
forewarn
the
Saints
at
Corinth
to
take
heed
lest
they
fell
as
the
Fathers
fell
in
the
Wilderness
;
and
to
caution
them
the
more
effectually
,
he
shews
them
that
the
Fathers
who
fell
(
not
the
Children
)
in
the
Wilderness
,
had
like
great
Privileges
with
them
,
viz.
a
Typical
Baptism
,
and
also
a
Typical
Lord's
Supper
.
Therefore
nothing
of
this
matter
concerned
their
little
Babes
,
nor
ours
neither
.
As
to
what
you
say
of
whole
Housholds
being
baptized
in
the
New
Testament
in
this
Chapter
,
I
shall
refer
my
Answer
to
that
Chapter
of
yours
where
you
particularly
insist
upon
that
weak
Argument
.
You
say
,
the
Parents
and
their
Children
were
baptized
,
by
giving
of
the
Law
upon
Mount
Sinai
,
Exod.
19.
10.
Go
to
the
People
,
and
sanctify
them
,
and
let
them
wash
their
Clothes
.
Now
the
washing
of
their
Clothes
and
the
washing
of
the
Flesh
went
together
,
Lev.
15.
5
,
6.
wash
his
Clothes
,
and
wash
himself
in
Water
.
Being
thus
washed
,
the
Apostle
saith
,
that
all
the
People
entred
into
God's
Covenant
by
Baptism
,
Heb.
9.
19.
For
when
Moses
had
spoken
every
Precept
to
the
People
according
to
the
Law
,
he
took
the
Blood
of
Calves
and
of
Goats
,
with
Water
,
and
sprinkled
both
the
Book
and
the
People
.
The
Apostle
calls
this
Sprinkling
,
Baptism
,
Heb.
9.
10.
divers
Baptisms
,
&c.
Answ
I
answer
,
you
have
once
already
to
your
great
Reproach
,
and
I
fear
contrary
to
the
Light
of
your
own
Conscience
,
asserted
that
which
is
false
;
I
appeal
to
you
,
and
all
that
can
read
the
Greek
,
whether
that
word
in
Heb.
9.
10.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
divers
washings
,
which
I
deny
not
may
be
read
divers
baptisms
,
is
the
same
word
in
Heb.
9.
19.
viz.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
sprinkling
the
Book
and
all
the
People
,
is
it
there
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
?
Speak
and
confess
your
Ignorance
,
or
else
acknowledg
your
Sin
in
going
about
to
deceive
the
People
,
by
making
them
believe
that
sprinkling
is
in
Greek
Baptism
or
baptizing
:
For
tho
washing
in
Heb.
9.
10.
is
Baptism
or
baptizing
,
yet
in
Heb.
9.
19.
sprinkling
both
the
Book
and
People
,
you
must
needs
know
is
in
the
Greek
rantizing
.
2.
And
what
tho
these
divers
washings
are
called
Baptisms
,
I
have
shew'd
once
already
from
a
Faithful
and
Learned
Author
,
namely
Mr.
Henry
Ainsworth
,
that
all
those
Legal
Washings
were
by
total
dipping
of
the
whole
Body
.
Take
his
Words
again
on
Levit.
11.
32.
All
that
are
unclean
,
whether
Men
or
Vessels
,
are
not
cleansed
but
by
dipping
or
baptizing
in
Water
;
and
wheresoever
the
Law
speaketh
of
washing
a
Man's
Flesh
,
or
washing
of
Clothes
for
Uncleanness
,
it
is
by
dipping
the
whole
Body
therein
:
and
whether
they
be
Men
or
Vessels
,
there
may
not
be
any
thing
between
them
and
the
Water
,
to
keep
them
asunder
,
as
Clay
,
Pitch
,
or
the
like
,
that
cleaveth
to
the
Body
or
Vessel
;
if
there
be
,
then
they
are
,
saith
he
,
unclean
,
and
their
washing
profiteth
them
not
.
Maim
Mikvaoth
,
chap.
1.
§
12
,
21.
Take
heed
what
you
affirm
for
the
future
:
This
Man
,
you
and
all
know
,
was
well
acquainted
with
Jewish
Rites
and
Ceremonies
;
and
what
can
be
a
more
full
Confutation
of
what
you
affirm
of
Jewish
Washings
or
Baptisms
?
But
where
we
read
of
sprinkling
of
Blood
and
Water
,
't
is
not
baptizing
,
unless
baptizing
and
rantizing
be
both
one
and
the
same
Word
,
and
Thing
,
which
we
utterly
deny
.
3.
What
tho
the
People
were
washed
,
even
all
the
whole
Congregation
,
Was
not
that
a
Typical
Church
,
and
did
it
not
typify
that
all
true
Believers
must
be
washed
in
the
Blood
of
Christ
in
Justification
,
and
also
washed
by
the
Holy
Spirit
in
Sanctification
?
These
Things
were
held
forth
thereby
,
and
not
Baptism
.
You
would
make
one
thing
that
is
a
Figure
or
Shadow
,
a
Type
of
another
thing
that
is
also
it self
but
a
Shadow
or
Figure
;
for
Baptism
signifies
Christ's
Death
,
Burial
,
and
Resurrection
,
and
our
Death
unto
Sin
,
and
Vi●ification
to
a
new
Life
.
But
those
Types
were
Shadows
of
good
things
to
come
,
even
of
Christ
,
he
was
the
Substance
of
them
all
;
they
must
I
say
prefigure
a
Substance
,
not
a
Shadow
.
4.
In
a
word
,
all
your
labour
is
here
lost
about
those
divers
Legal
Baptisms
and
Rites
under
the
Old
Testament
,
and
of
Children
being
in
that
Covenant
,
because
they
were
all
Types
;
even
that
all
the
Elect
,
or
all
that
believe
in
Christ
,
should
be
washed
in
Christ's
Blood
,
or
have
his
Blood
sprinkled
upon
them
,
and
be
sanctified
by
his
Spirit
:
Also
it
was
a
legal
external
and
Typical
Covenant
,
and
an
external
Typical
Church
,
holding
forth
the
true
Spiritual
Gospel-Church
;
and
that
,
like
as
Circumcision
and
those
divers
washings
,
did
belong
to
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
whether
Godly
or
not
.
So
all
the
true
Israel
,
under
the
Gospel
Dispensation
,
should
have
the
Substance
and
Anti-type
of
them
;
and
when
any
have
attained
to
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
have
what
is
signified
in
Baptism
,
then
and
not
till
then
they
ought
to
be
baptized
:
but
this
not
simply
because
they
are
in
Covenant
,
or
have
the
thing
signified
in
Baptism
,
but
because
of
the
express
and
positive
Command
of
Christ
.
I
say
again
,
nothing
can
give
being
to
an
Ordinance
that
wholly
depends
on
a
meer
positive
Rite
,
but
the
express
Will
and
Command
of
the
Law-giver
.
To
conclude
with
this
,
I
infer
,
1.
From
the
whole
,
in
Opposition
to
what
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
it
plainly
appears
that
the
sprinkling
of
Water
is
not
Baptism
.
2.
That
God
receives
all
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
and
Gospel
Church
,
through
the
Spiritual
washing
of
Regeneration
and
Sanctification
of
the
Spirit
;
and
that
such
only
by
Christ's
positive
Command
ought
to
be
baptized
.
3.
That
there
was
no
Gospel-Baptism
,
no
Baptism
of
Christ
under
the
Law
,
but
that
't
is
a
pure
positive
Command
and
Institution
of
our
Lord
Jesus
in
the
Gospel
.
4.
That
God
received
none
of
his
People
under
the
Law
into
Covenant
,
through
Baptism
,
or
through
sprinkling
of
Water
and
Blood
:
And
that
the
sprinkling
of
Blood
was
a
Figure
of
the
Atonement
of
Christ's
bloody
Sacrifice
,
and
the
sprinkling
of
Water
of
the
sanctifying
Virtue
of
the
Spirit
in
Sanctification
,
and
not
that
Gospel-Baptism
was
signified
thereby
.
5.
That
't
is
only
the
meer
positive
Command
of
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
that
gives
being
,
and
a
just
Right
,
to
Gospel-Baptism
.
6.
That
tho
the
Children
with
their
Parents
were
taken
into
the
Legal
or
Typical
Jewish
Church
,
by
God's
positive
Command
,
that
being
a
National
and
Typical
Church
,
yet
no
Children
or
Parents
are
by
the
positive
Command
of
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
to
be
received
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
but
only
those
of
them
that
believe
and
are
washed
in
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
and
sanctified
by
the
Sacred
Water
of
the
Holy
Ghost
;
sith
the
Church
of
God
now
is
not
National
,
but
Congregational
,
not
consisting
of
the
Fleshly
,
as
such
,
but
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
.
And
since
there
being
no
Precept
nor
Precedent
in
all
the
New
Testament
,
that
any
one
Infant
was
baptized
or
taken
into
the
Gospel-Church
,
it
follows
't
is
an
Human
Tradition
.
7.
That
the
Covenant
on
Sinai
,
and
the
Ceremonial
Law
,
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
tho
given
in
subserviency
thereunto
,
and
the
latter
a
clear
Figure
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
held
it
forth
to
all
such
who
by
Faith
could
see
beyond
those
Sacrifices
to
the
Anti-type
of
them
.
Lastly
,
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
If
Children
were
baptized
formerly
into
Covenant
,
ought
they
not
to
be
baptized
into
his
Covenant
now
,
especially
because
the
Grace
of
the
Covenant
being
enlarged
under
the
Dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
and
the
Privileges
being
more
extensive
?
I
answer
,
He
doth
but
beg
the
Question
,
asserting
that
which
he
proves
not
,
nor
is
ever
able
to
prove
,
viz.
(
1.
)
That
Children
were
baptized
into
the
Covenant
under
the
Law
;
What
Pedo-baptist
ever
asserted
this
before
?
And
in
vain
doth
he
affirm
it
now
,
especially
since
he
cannot
prove
sprinkling
is
Baptism
.
(
2.
)
That
all
Infants
were
received
into
Covenant
with
God
by
Legal
sprinkling
,
and
not
till
then
;
but
certainly
all
the
Infants
of
the
Jews
were
born
Members
of
that
National
Church
,
therefore
not
received
into
that
Church
and
Covenant
by
Circumcision
(
which
most
of
the
Assertors
of
Childrens
Baptism
do
affirm
)
;
much
less
not
by
sprinkling
Blood
and
Water
upon
them
:
Yet
that
sprinkling
of
Blood
and
Water
might
,
I
deny
not
,
be
a
Sign
that
they
,
and
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
were
God's
Legal
Covenant
People
;
and
so
the
Type
of
the
whole
Spiritual
Israel
,
who
should
be
washed
in
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
or
Blood
of
the
New
Covenant
,
and
sanctified
by
his
Spirit
,
as
is
said
before
.
2.
Moreover
evident
it
is
,
that
tho
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
in
the
Dispensation
of
it
under
the
Gospel
,
is
enlarged
,
and
the
Spiritual
Privileges
more
extensive
than
were
the
Privileges
of
the
Legal
Covenant
and
Legal
Church
;
yet
the
external
Privileges
are
less
and
not
so
extensive
now
as
was
theirs
:
How
many
outward
and
earthly
Privileges
had
the
Jews
and
Ministers
of
God
under
the
Law
more
than
the
Saints
and
Ministers
of
Christ
have
now
?
Many
of
which
I
have
reckoned
up
in
the
beginning
of
this
Treatise
.
Thus
I
close
with
your
Eighth
Argument
.
CHAP
XIV
.
Proving
that
Children
have
no
Right
to
Baptism
,
from
John
the
Baptist's
Administration
of
Baptism
;
in
Opposition
to
what
Mr.
James
Owen
saith
,
in
his
12th
Chapter
:
That
John
baptized
no
Infants
,
neither
according
to
the
Practice
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
nor
by
virtue
of
any
Commission
he
had
from
God
that
sent
him
.
Containing
an
Answer
to
Mr.
Owen's
9th
Argument
for
Pedo-Baptism
.
MR.
Owen
saith
,
If
John
baptized
Infants
,
Baptism
doth
always
belong
unto
them
;
for
the
Baptism
of
John
and
the
Baptism
of
the
Apostles
were
the
same
in
the
Substance
of
it
:
He
baptized
in
the
Name
of
Christ
to
come
,
and
they
baptized
in
the
Name
of
Christ
that
was
come
.
Answ.
If
you
can
prove
John
baptized
Infants
,
you
do
your
Business
indifferent
well
.
Now
say
you
,
What
we
are
to
prove
in
this
Chapter
,
is
,
that
John
baptized
Infants
;
to
manifest
this
,
let
it
be
considered
,
1.
John
the
Baptist
came
not
to
nullify
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
,
but
rather
to
fulfil
it
;
and
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
was
,
that
God
would
be
a
God
to
his
People
,
and
to
their
Seed
;
all
the
Visible
Church
of
the
Jews
were
in
this
Covenant
:
John
warneth
them
that
they
trusted
not
in
the
Privileges
of
this
Covenant
,
by
living
ungodly
Lives
;
he
doth
not
in
any
Place
make
void
this
Covenant
,
but
rather
confirms
it
,
saying
,
God
will
raise
other
Children
to
Abraham
,
if
the
Jews
brought
not
forth
Fruit
meet
for
Repentance
;
he
came
to
baptize
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
which
were
all
of
them
in
the
Covenant
of
God
,
not
only
the
Parents
but
the
Children
also
:
Therefore
their
Children
had
the
same
right
to
Baptism
as
their
Parents
had
.
Answ.
1.
I
deny
not
but
the
whole
House
of
Israel
were
in
Covenant
with
God
,
both
Parents
and
Children
,
and
so
abode
till
the
old
Covenant
and
old
Covenant-Seed
were
cast
out
;
but
What
saith
the
Scripture
?
Cast
out
the
Bond-woman
and
her
Son
,
Gal.
4.
30.
Now
the
Apostle
tells
you
,
by
the
Bond-woman
is
meant
the
Sinai
Covenant
,
and
by
her
Son
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
as
such
,
Gal.
4.
22
,
23
,
24
,
25.
2.
This
Grant
of
yours
proves
that
the
Jewish
Covenant
,
which
took
in
all
the
People
both
Parents
and
Children
,
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
because
but
a
finall
number
of
the
Jews
were
in
God's
Election
,
and
so
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
See
Dr.
Owen
on
the
Hebrews
,
3d
Vol.
Pag.
256.
The
Covenant
of
Grace
in
Christ
is
made
only
with
the
Israel
of
God
,
the
Church
of
the
Elect.
Pag.
291.
The
new
Covenant
is
made
with
all
,
who
effectively
and
eventually
are
made
Partakers
of
it
;
and
if
they
are
not
so
with
whom
the
New
Covenant
is
made
,
it
comes
short
of
the
Old
in
Efficacy
,
who
were
actual
Partakers
of
the
benefit
of
that
,
that
is
,
of
those
external
Benefits
.
3.
Nor
doth
that
which
you
mention
help
you
,
viz.
that
in
that
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
and
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
't
is
said
God
would
be
their
God
,
or
a
God
to
Abraham
and
to
his
Seed
in
their
Generations
.
For
,
First
,
God
may
be
said
to
be
the
God
of
a
People
divers
manner
of
ways
,
as
Dr.
Bates
observes
.
1.
Upon
the
account
of
Creation
,
thus
he
is
our
God
and
Father
;
O
Lord
thou
art
our
Father
,
we
are
the
Clay
,
and
thou
art
our
Potter
,
and
we
are
all
the
works
of
thy
Hands
,
Isa.
64.
8.
2.
Saith
he
,
By
external
Calling
and
Profession
,
there
is
an
intercurrent
Relation
of
the
Father
and
Son
between
God
and
his
People
:
Thus
the
Posterity
of
Seth
are
called
the
Sons
of
God
,
Gen.
6.
and
the
entire
Nation
of
the
Jews
are
so
called
;
When
Israel
was
young
,
I
called
my
Son
from
Egypt
,
Hos.
11.
Dr.
Batesin
his
Sermon
on
Mr.
Baxter's
Funeral
.
Secondly
,
God
may
be
said
to
be
the
God
of
a
People
by
way
of
special
Interest
,
by
Election
,
Regeneration
and
Adoption
;
thus
he
was
not
a
God
to
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
both
to
Parents
and
Children
without
exception
:
Yet
we
grant
God
was
their
God
by
entring
into
a
visible
and
external
Covenant
with
them
;
and
as
so
considered
he
was
said
to
be
their
God
,
and
an
Husband
to
them
.
Jer.
31.
32.
Which
Covenant
they
broke
,
altho
I
was
an
Husband
to
them
,
saith
the
Lord
.
But
pray
observe
,
the
New
Covenant
is
said
not
to
be
according
to
that
Covenant
which
God
made
with
this
People
,
when
he
took
them
by
the
Hand
and
brought
them
out
of
the
Land
of
Egypt
.
Thirdly
,
Now
if
that
Covenant
,
in
which
God
is
said
to
be
their
God
,
was
the
Old
Covenant
,
or
the
Legal
Covenant
which
God
hath
took
away
,
to
establish
the
Second
,
What
doth
that
signify
which
you
affirm
here
?
Certainly
,
John
would
not
go
about
to
establish
that
Covenant
which
he
knew
his
Master
was
ready
to
take
away
,
viz.
the
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
such
.
We
deny
not
,
but
the
free
Promise
that
God
made
with
Abraham
is
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
but
that
belongs
not
to
Believers
Seed
,
as
such
:
For
some
of
Unbelievers
Seed
may
be
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
some
of
Believers
Seed
may
not
,
i.
e.
the
Children
of
the
Promise
,
or
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
the
Elect
of
God
may
lie
amongst
the
Unbelievers
Children
,
as
well
as
amongst
Believers
Children
:
Tho
I
doubt
not
but
more
of
Believers
Seed
are
called
than
of
others
,
and
have
greater
Privileges
,
i.
e.
by
the
Instruction
,
Prayers
,
and
good
Example
of
their
Parents
,
&c.
Fourthly
,
Tho
John
did
not
nullify
the
external
Covenant
,
yet
he
,
being
to
prepare
Christ's
way
,
gave
the
Jews
a
clear
Intimation
of
the
repealing
of
it
,
or
the
period
thereof
,
and
that
now
it
would
stand
them
in
no
stead
;
they
indeed
made
this
which
you
say
an
Argument
to
come
to
his
Baptism
,
namely
because
of
that
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
or
their
being
his
Children
:
But
what
did
John
say
?
Think
not
to
say
within
your selves
,
we
have
●braham
to
〈◊〉
Father
.
As
much
as
if
he
should
say
,
your
being
the
Seed
of
believing
Abraham
,
according
to
the
Flesh
,
will
give
you
no
Right
to
Gospel-Baptism
nor
other
Gospel
Ordinances
and
Privileges
,
tho
it
gave
you
right
to
Circumcision
and
Legal
Privileges
.
You
say
,
He
doth
not
make
void
the
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
but
rather
confirms
it
;
saying
,
God
could
raise
other
Children
to
Abraham
,
if
the
Jews
brought
not
forth
Fruit
meet
for
Repentance
.
Answ.
Tho
he
did
not
make
void
that
Legal
Covenant
,
yet
he
explained
the
nature
thereof
to
the
Jews
,
and
shewed
them
their
great
Error
and
Mistake
about
it
,
clearly
intimating
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
and
with
his
Spiritual
Seed
did
differ
,
and
was
of
another
Nature
with
that
Covenant
which
God
made
with
him
and
his
Natural
Seed
,
as
●u●h
;
(
for
saith
he
,
God
is
able
to
raise
up
of
these
Stones
C●…
to
Abraham
,
meaning
the
Gentiles
,
as
Expositors
give
it
)
If
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
ran
only
to
his
Fleshly
Seed
,
as
such
,
Why
did
John
say
God
could
raise
up
others
to
be
his
Children
?
even
such
that
were
not
of
his
Natural
Seed
.
And
also
,
Why
did
he
refuse
them
,
who
were
his
Natural
Seed
,
That
did
not
bring
forth
Fruit
meet
for
〈◊〉
,
or
did
not
believe
,
and
so
shewed
themselves
not
to
be
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
?
Fifthly
,
From
hence
therefore
it
follows
,
in
opposition
to
what
you
say
,
That
Gospel-Baptism
is
not
of
the
same
extent
with
Circumcision
.
As
the
whole
Countrey
,
say
you
,
were
under
Circumcision
,
so
doth
John
receive
them
to
his
Baptism
,
he
refused
none
that
came
to
his
Baptism
,
but
received
Publicans
,
Sadduces
,
Pharisees
,
viz.
the
Generations
of
●ipers
,
Matth.
3.
7
,
8.
And
can
it
be
thought
he
refused
little
Children
?
Answ.
I
wonder
you
should
affirm
that
John
received
all
the
Countrey
to
his
Baptism
,
and
refused
none
,
no
not
the
Generation
of
Vipers
:
This
I
deny
,
and
you
have
no
shadow
of
Reason
to
assert
it
,
since
he
rebuked
them
when
he
saw
them
coming
to
his
Baptism
,
and
bid
them
bring
forth
Fruit
meet
for
Repentance
.
Prove
,
if
you
can
,
that
he
baptized
one
Soul
but
such
only
that
were
penitent
,
and
demonstrated
the
truth
of
their
Repentance
by
bringing
forth
of
the
Fruits
thereof
.
'T
is
very
strange
to
me
that
any
Man
should
assert
that
John
the
Baptist
(
whose
Doctrine
and
Ministry
by
all
Divines
is
look'd
upon
to
be
very
severe
and
sharp
)
should
baptize
all
,
even
the
worst
of
Men
,
yea
such
whom
he
called
a
Viprous
Generation
.
But
what
is
the
purport
of
this
Argument
of
yours
for
Infant-Baptism
?
Certainly
all
may
easily
see
it
:
Doth
it
not
tend
to
prove
that
all
ungodly
and
unbelieving
Men
and
Women
are
to
be
baptized
as
well
as
Infants
?
Let
me
but
justly
infer
upon
you
,
and
from
what
you
say
here
,
after
this
manner
,
viz.
If
John
Baptist
baptized
all
that
came
to
him
,
even
all
the
ungodly
Jews
,
as
Publicans
,
Sadduces
,
Pharisees
,
yea
those
Generations
of
Vipers
;
then
Unbelievers
,
yea
the
worst
and
vilest
of
Men
,
are
as
true
Subjects
of
Baptism
as
Believers
.
'T
is
no
matter
whether
they
believe
or
not
,
repent
or
not
,
or
at
present
bring
forth
Fruit
meet
for
Repentance
or
not
;
John
took
their
Word
,
their
Promise
that
they
would
do
those
things
afterwards
.
What
Notions
do
you
impose
upon
your
unwary
Readers
?
I
thought
all
Adult
Persons
(
according
to
the
avowed
Principle
of
the
Pedo-baptists
,
as
well
as
Anti-pedobaptists
)
must
believe
,
and
manifest
true
Repentance
before
they
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Reader
,
see
Mr.
Baxter's
Book
,
Confirmation
and
Restoration
,
printed
1658.
He
affirms
,
viz.
That
a
personal
believing
is
the
Condition
of
the
Title
of
them
at
Age
,
is
far
past
doubt
.
Pag.
16.
1.
Saith
he
,
The
Promise
it self
doth
expresly
require
Faith
of
our
own
,
of
all
the
Adult
.
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
16.
What
doth
hinder
me
to
be
baptized
?
And
Philip
said
,
if
thou
believest
with
all
thine
Heart
,
thou
mayst
.
These
two
Scriptures
and
many
more
Mr.
Baxter
quotes
.
His
2d
Argument
is
this
,
If
a
Profession
of
Faith
were
not
necessary
,
coram
Ecclesia
,
to
Mens
Church-Membership
and
Privileges
,
then
Infidels
and
Heathens
would
have
Right
.
His
3d
Argument
runs
thus
,
viz.
It
is
a
granted
Case
among
all
Christians
,
that
a
Profession
is
thus
necessary
;
the
Apostles
and
Antient
Church
admitted
none
without
it
.
Pag.
17
,
21.
Again
he
says
,
Pag.
24.
We
find
when
John
Baptist
set
up
his
Ministry
,
he
caused
the
People
to
confess
their
Sins
:
—
And
whereas
some
say
that
John
baptized
them
that
he
calleth
a
Generation
of
Vipers
;
I
answer
,
saith
he
,
we
will
believe
that
when
they
prove
it
:
It
seems
rather
that
he
put
them
back
,
as
to
those
Acts
2.
37.
Saith
he
,
It
is
plain
that
they
made
an
open
Profession
,
if
you
consider
,
1.
That
they
were
openly
told
the
Doctrine
which
they
must
be
baptized
into
,
if
they
did
consent
.
2.
It
is
said
they
that
received
the
Word
were
baptized
.
3.
It
is
as
certain
therefore
,
that
they
first
testified
their
glad
reception
of
the
Word
.
4.
We
may
not
imagine
that
Peter
was
God
,
or
knew
the
Hearts
of
those
thousands
,
and
therefore
he
must
know
it
by
their
Profession
,
that
they
gladly
received
the
Word
.
5.
Their
own
Mouths
cry
out
for
advice
in
order
to
their
Salvation
.
6.
It
had
been
absurd
for
the
Apostles
to
attempt
to
baptize
Men
that
had
not
first
professed
their
Consent
.
7.
The
Scripture
(
saith
he
)
gives
us
not
the
full
Historical
Narration
of
all
that
was
said
in
such
Cases
,
but
of
so
much
as
was
necessary
.
8.
The
Institution
and
Nature
of
the
Ordinance
tells
us
,
that
Baptism
could
not
be
adminisired
,
without
a
Profession
,
to
the
Adult
;
for
they
were
to
be
baptized
into
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
:
Therefore
were
to
profess
that
they
believed
in
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
Pag.
25.
9.
The
constant
practice
of
the
universal
Church
,
hath
given
us
by
infallible
Tradition
,
as
full
assurance
of
the
order
of
Baptism
,
and
in
particular
of
an
express
Profession
and
Covenant
then
made
,
as
of
any
Point
that
by
the
Hand
of
the
Church
can
be
received
.
Pag.
26.
10.
And
it
was
in
those
days
a
more
notorious
Profession
to
be
so
Baptized
,
and
to
joyn
in
the
Holy
Assemblies
then
now
it
is
,
when
the
Profession
of
Christianity
did
hazard
Mens
Liberties
,
Estates
and
Lives
,
to
be
openly
then
Baptized
,
upon
covenanting
with
God
the
Father
,
Son
and
Holy
Ghost
,
&c.
Moreover
saith
he
,
it
is
said
of
all
that
were
Baptized
,
(
being
then
at
Age
)
that
they
first
believed
,
and
how
could
the
Baptizers
know
that
they
believed
,
but
by
their
Profession
,
pag.
26.
Yea
,
't
is
said
of
Simon
Magus
,
that
he
believed
,
and
was
baptized
,
which
though
he
might
really
have
some
historical
Faith
;
yet
implyeth
,
that
he
openly
professed
more
then
he
indeed
had
,
or
else
he
had
scarce
been
baptized
,
which
hath
caused
Interpreters
to
judge
,
that
by
Faith
,
is
meant
a
profession
of
Faith
.
And
if
so
,
then
sure
a
profession
of
Faith
is
still
necessary
.
p.
27.
Yea
(
saith
he
)
Christ
in
his
Commission
,
directeth
his
Apostles
to
make
Disciples
,
and
then
baptize
them
;
promising
,
that
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
,
shall
be
saved
.
And
who
can
tell
whether
a
Man
be
a
Disciple
,
a
Believer
,
or
an
Infidel
,
but
by
his
Profession
.
How
was
it
known
but
by
their
Profession
,
that
the
Samaritans
believed
Phillip
,
preaching
the
things
concerning
the
Kingdom
of
God
and
the
name
of
Jesus
Christ
,
before
they
were
baptized
,
Acts
8
,
12.
Phillip
caused
the
Eunuch
to
profess
,
before
he
would
baptize
him
,
that
he
believed
that
Jesus
Christ
was
the
Son
of
God
,
&c.
Saul
had
more
then
a
bare
Profession
before
baptized
,
Acts
9.
15
,
17.
Also
Cornelius
and
his
Company
had
more
then
a
Profession
,
for
they
had
the
Holy
Ghost
poured
on
them
,
speaking
with
Tongues
.
And
it
was
such
a
Gift
of
the
Spirit
,
that
caused
the
Apostle
to
conclude
,
that
God
had
granted
the
Gentiles
Repentance
unto
Life
,
Acts
11.
8.
The
Converted
Gentiles
,
Acts
13.
48.
shewed
their
belief
and
gladness
.
p.
27.
Gods
Order
is
(
to
the
Adult
saith
he
,
)
first
to
send
Preachers
to
proclaim
the
Gospel
,
and
when
by
that
Men
are
brought
so
far
as
to
profess
or
manifest
their
Eyes
are
opened
,
and
that
they
are
turned
from
darkness
to
light
,
and
from
the
power
of
Satan
unto
God
,
then
they
must
be
baptized
for
the
remission
of
Sins
.
As
their
Sins
are
not
forgiven
them
till
they
are
converted
,
Mark
4.
12.
so
they
must
not
be
baptized
till
they
profess
themselves
converted
,
seeing
to
the
Church
,
none
esse
,
and
none
apparere
,
is
all
one
;
Repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
is
the
summ
of
that
preaching
that
makes
Disciples
,
Acts
20.
21.
and
therefore
both
these
must
by
profession
seem
to
be
received
before
any
at
Age
are
baptized
,
p.
30.
31.
If
as
many
as
are
baptized
,
are
baptized
into
his
death
,
and
are
buried
with
him
by
baptism
into
his
Death
;
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
from
the
Dead
,
then
we
should
walk
in
newness
of
Life
.
Then
no
doubt
,
but
such
as
were
baptized
did
first
profess
this
Mortification
,
and
consent
to
be
buried
,
and
revived
with
Christ
,
and
to
live
to
him
in
newness
of
Life
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4
,
5
,
6.
For
Paul
was
never
so
much
for
Opus
Operatum
above
the
Papists
,
as
to
think
that
the
baptizing
of
an
Infidel
might
effect
these
high
and
excellent
things
,
and
he
that
professeth
not
Faith
,
nor
never
did
,
is
to
the
Church
an
Infidel
.
In
our
baptism
,
we
put
off
the
Body
of
the
Sins
of
the
Flesh
,
by
the
Circumcision
of
Christ
,
being
buried
with
him
,
and
rising
with
him
through
Faith
,
quickned
with
him
,
and
having
all
our
Trespasses
forgiven
,
Col.
3.
11
,
12
,
13.
And
will
any
Man
,
(
saith
he
,
)
yea
will
Paul
,
ascribe
all
this
to
those
that
did
not
profess
the
things
signified
,
or
the
necessary
Condition
?
Will
baptism
in
the
Judgment
of
a
wise
Man
,
do
all
this
for
an
Infidel
,
(
let
me
add
,
or
to
an
Infant
)
or
one
(
saith
he
,
)
that
professeth
not
to
be
a
Christian
.
Baptism
is
said
to
save
us
,
1
Pet.
3
,
21.
and
therefore
they
that
will
be
baptized
,
must
profess
the
qualifications
necessary
to
the
saved
,
p.
32.
The
Keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
are
put
into
the
Churches
Hands
,
and
they
that
are
loosed
on
Earth
,
are
loosed
in
Heaven
;
(
if
the
Keys
do
not
err
)
;
and
therefore
pastors
of
the
Church
must
absolve
none
by
Baptism
,
that
do
not
by
profession
seem
absolvable
in
Heaven
,
they
must
profess
to
have
the
old
Man
Crucified
with
Christ
,
that
the
Bodie
of
Sin
be
destroyed
,
that
henceforth
they
might
not
serve
Sin
,
Rom.
6.
5
,
6
,
7
,
8.
As
many
as
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
(
saith
he
,
)
have
put
on
Christ
Jesus
,
and
are
Abrahams
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
the
Promise
,
Gal.
3.
27
,
28.
This
speaks
the
Apostle
of
the
probability
grounded
on
a
credible
Profession
,
and
therefore
it
is
clear
,
that
the
profession
was
presupposed
that
might
support
this
charitable
Judgment
.
Our
baptism
is
the
solemnizing
of
our
Marriage
with
Christ
.
And
it
s
a
new
and
strang
kind
of
Marriage
,
where
there
is
no
profession
of
Consent
.
[
†
](A47591-e43450-b)
†
Worthy
Britains
,
see
how
Mr.
Richard
Baxter
,
hath
out
down
Infant
Baptism
with
his
own
Sword
;
can
Infants
shew
their
consent
to
be
married
to
Christ
,
or
profess
Faith
in
him
.
The
baptized
are
in
Scripture
,
called
Men
washed
,
Sanctifyed
,
Justifyed
.
They
are
all
called
Saints
,
and
Churches
of
Saints
,
all
Christians
are
called
sanctifyed
ones
,
or
Saints
,
therefore
it
is
certain
,
that
they
professed
themselves
such
.
Thus
far
Mr.
Richard
Baxter
.
Sir
,
I
thought
fit
to
confute
you
in
your
bold
Assertion
,
viz.
that
John
the
Baptist
baptized
all
that
came
to
him
,
even
those
Pharisees
,
that
he
called
a
Generation
of
Vipers
,
by
making
use
of
the
Sword
of
Goliah
;
Reader
,
how
this
Pedo-Baptists
,
Mr.
Baxter
,
hath
not
only
overthrown
Mr.
Owen's
argument
here
for
Infant
Baptism
,
but
utterly
hath
overthrown
Infant
Baptism
it self
.
1.
For
(
he
saith
)
the
Commission
directeth
Christ's
Apostles
to
make
Disciples
,
and
then
baptize
them
,
p.
27.
2.
(
He
saith
,
)
the
summ
of
that
preaching
that
maketh
Disciples
,
is
repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
p.
30
,
31.
Where
then
is
the
Commission
to
baptize
Infants
,
Baptism
can't
make
them
Disciples
,
nor
their
Parents
Faith
neither
;
no
,
't
is
the
preaching
of
the
word
,
he
that
has
not
Faith
in
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
is
no
Disciple
of
Christs
.
You
must
have
a
new
Commission
to
baptize
unbelievers
or
Infants
either
,
before
ye
ought
to
do
it
.
6.
You
say
John
came
to
prepare
the
way
of
the
Lord
,
the
end
of
his
baptism
was
to
bind
all
the
People
to
believe
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
which
was
to
come
.
Faith
was
not
the
condition
of
John's
Baptism
,
but
the
end
thereof
;
his
Baptism
laid
a
particular
obligation
on
all
the
Seed
of
Abraham
to
receive
Christ
,
Childred
as
well
as
others
,
were
bound
to
receive
him
when
they
came
to
Age
,
because
Baptism
was
a
sign
of
that
obligation
,
&c.
Answer
.
Could
you
prove
what
you
say
,
it
was
something
to
your
Business
,
viz.
that
John
baptized
all
,
even
ungodly
Parents
as
well
as
Children
,
which
Mr.
Baxter
from
God's
word
hath
fully
confuted
.
2.
Also
then
it
must
follow
,
that
the
baptism
of
John
,
and
that
baptism
administred
by
the
Apostles
,
differed
in
an
essential
part
,
which
you
your self
but
a
little
before
,
do
utterly
deny
,
and
affirm
that
they
were
both
essentially
,
one
and
the
same
baptism
,
only
one
unto
him
that
was
to
come
,
and
the
other
into
him
that
was
come
,
Dead
,
and
Risen
again
:
Now
,
was
not
Faith
and
Repentance
the
condition
of
that
Baptism
administred
by
the
Apostles
;
did
not
they
require
Faith
,
and
a
profession
of
Faith
of
all
they
admitted
to
Baptism
;
the
Scriptures
,
Mr.
Baxter
cites
in
the
aforementioned
Book
of
his
,
fully
proves
they
did
,
and
that
those
things
were
prerequisites
of
it
,
therefore
Baptism
as
administred
by
John
,
and
by
the
Disciples
of
Christ
,
was
not
only
to
the
end
,
they
should
be
obliged
to
believe
and
repent
,
but
Faith
and
Repentance
was
the
condition
or
qualification
of
all
they
baptized
.
For
John
(
nor
the
Apostles
neither
)
would
take
a
bare
verbal
profession
of
Repentance
of
those
that
came
to
Baptism
;
John
commanded
them
to
produce
the
Fruits
of
Repentance
,
or
to
bring
forth
Fruit
meet
for
Repentance
,
and
this
was
his
way
to
prepare
the
way
of
the
Lord
,
or
to
prepare
a
People
for
the
Lord
's
Spiritual
Building
;
he
preached
,
Repent
,
for
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
is
at
hand
.
That
Vow
or
Promise
in
Baptism
that
you
dream
of
,
prepares
no
Man
for
Christ
,
nor
fits
any
for
his
Church
;
no.
no
,
it
must
be
Conversion
,
Faith
,
and
Regeneration
it self
.
7.
You
say
little
Children
were
Members
of
the
Church
of
God
in
the
time
of
John
,
none
can
deny
that
,
because
Circumsion
,
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
,
was
upon
them
,
all
the
Seed
of
Abraham
were
at
that
time
God's
visible
Church
,
and
they
were
his
only
Church
upon
Earth
;
they
were
not
out
of
the
Church
before
they
were
baptized
,
neither
were
they
received
into
the
Church
of
God
through
Baptism
,
as
those
that
were
out
of
it
before
,
but
the
whole
Nation
were
baptized
,
because
they
were
Members
of
God's
visible
Church
;
and
because
little
Children
were
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
the
Baptism
of
John
appertained
unto
them
.
1.
Answer
,
I
answer
,
we
deny
not
but
the
Jewish
Infants
were
Members
of
God's
legal
Church
;
but
I
ask
you
whether
John's
Baptism
was
a
legal
Ordinance
,
or
a
pure
Gospel
Ordinance
,
as
Circumcision
was
,
prove
it
;
we
deny
it
,
and
say
it
was
Evangelical
,
and
did
not
appertain
to
the
Jews
,
or
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
according
to
the
Flesh
as
such
.
2.
If
you
should
prove
it
was
a
legal
Ordinance
,
yet
it
doth
not
follow
,
Infants
of
the
Jews
ought
to
be
baptized
as
their
Males
were
to
be
Circumcised
,
because
there
was
a
clear
politive
command
to
circumcise
them
,
but
none
to
baptize
them
.
3.
If
you
argue
from
the
right
of
Circumcision
,
then
it
follows
,
that
none
but
their
male
Infants
ought
to
be
baptized
.
What
authority
had
John
to
baptize
females
,
whether
the
adult
or
Infants
,
as
I
said
refore
.
4.
I
am
troubled
to
see
how
you
confound
your
Peoples
understanding
,
was
the
Jewish
Church
or
the
Visible
Church
of
God
under
the
Law
,
and
the
visible
Gospel
Church
,
formally
and
materially
one
and
the
same
.
Had
the
Jews
a
right
to
all
Gospel
Ordinances
and
Privileges
,
because
they
abode
his
legal
visible
Church
till
the
Death
of
Christ
;
we
grant
the
invisible
Church
of
God
under
Law
and
Gospel
,
is
but
one
and
the
same
;
but
doth
not
the
Gospel
Church
in
its
Ordinances
,
Administrations
,
Rights
and
Piviledges
,
vastly
differ
from
the
legal
,
was
not
the
visible
Church
of
God
under
the
Law
,
a
National
Church
made
up
of
the
Jewish
People
only
,
and
is
the
Gospel
Church
not
congregational
,
consisting
of
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
that
believe
,
or
are
born
of
the
Spirit
.
5.
What
,
though
John
did
not
make
void
the
Covenant
of
peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
,
yet
he
laid
the
Ax
at
the
Root
;
and
being
to
prepare
matter
for
a
new
Church
State
,
and
his
Ministry
being
Gospel
,
and
the
Ordinance
he
administred
a
Gospel
Institution
,
he
told
the
Jews
and
Pharisees
,
that
their
being
Abraham's
Seed
,
or
having
Abraham
to
their
Father
now
,
was
no
good
Plea
or
Argument
for
them
to
plead
,
as
a
right
to
this
new
Administration
.
John's
Doctrine
did
in
part
,
finish
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
,
or
old
covenant
Dispensation
,
though
the
full
period
of
it
was
not
come
till
the
death
of
Christ
.
Hence
our
Saviour
saith
,
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
were
untill
John
,
and
from
that
time
,
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
began
to
suffer
Violence
,
and
Men
strove
to
press
into
it
,
though
its
full
and
perfect
beginning
was
not
till
our
Lord
had
broken
down
the
middle
wall
of
Partition
,
and
nail'd
the
legal
Rites
and
carnal
Ordinances
to
his
Cross
,
and
removed
that
enmity
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
making
both
one
new
Man
,
and
so
a
new
Gospel
Church
;
pray
take
what
one
of
your
own
Brethren
,
a
Pedo-Baptist
saith
,
of
John's
Ministration
,
it
is
Reverend
Cotton
of
New-England
.
Who
speaking
of
this
Text
,
Mat.
3.
10.
Now
also
the
Ax
is
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Trees
.
The
first
(
saith
he
)
is
the
Root
of
Abraham's
Covenant
,
which
these
People
trusted
upon
,
and
of
that
it
is
which
John
the
Baptist
speaketh
,
now
is
the
Ax
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Trees
;
think
not
to
say
within
your Selves
,
we
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
,
so
that
all
their
Confidence
that
they
had
in
Abraham's
Covenant
,
Temple
and
Tabernacle
and
such
things
,
are
burnt
up
,
and
so
they
have
no
Root
left
them
to
stand
upon
,
and
this
is
one
thing
intended
by
the
Root
.
Again
he
saith
,
the
Lord
hath
cut
us
off
from
hope
,
in
the
righteousness
of
our
Parents
,
and
from
boasting
of
Ordinances
;
again
saith
he
,
this
we
read
of
,
Mal.
4.
1.
it
is
spoken
of
the
ministry
of
John
the
Baptist
,
which
did
burn
as
an
Oven
against
all
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
and
left
them
neither
the
Root
of
Abraham's
Covenant
,
nor
the
branch
of
their
own
good
Works
,
he
cutteth
them
off
from
Abraham's
Covenant
,
&c.
and
by
cutting
them
off
from
the
Root
,
he
leaveth
them
no
Ground
to
trust
on
,
Cotton
on
the
Covenant
,
pag.
177
,
and
p.
21
,
22.
How
direct
is
this
to
the
purpose
,
and
it
as
fully
othroweth
all
that
you
speak
in
this
Argument
;
this
Reverend
Author
Concludes
,
that
Abraham's
Covenant
made
with
his
natural
Seed
as
such
,
was
cut
down
by
John
,
though
the
Tree
was
not
yet
removed
,
nor
the
Chaff
blown
or
fanned
away
;
but
you
would
make
the
People
believe
,
John
confirmed
that
old
Covenant
right
,
and
baptized
all
the
Jews
upon
the
Authority
of
Abraham's
Covenant
;
as
if
instead
of
cutting
the
Tree
down
at
the
Root
,
he
was
about
to
plant
it
afresh
,
or
uphold
its
standing
,
which
had
it
been
so
,
he
would
have
rather
said
,
think
to
say
within
your selves
,
we
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
,
for
upon
that
foot
of
Account
,
I
am
to
baptize
you
all
,
you
being
all
in
God's
Covenant
,
though
you
be
a
Generation
of
Vipers
.
But
how
directly
contrary
to
this
Doctrine
of
yours
did
John
preach
to
them
'
,
and
clearly
took
them
off
of
any
such
a
pretended
right
to
Baptism
,
viz.
because
they
were
in
Covenant
with
Abraham
.
You
say
John
did
not
cut
down
one
Branch
of
that
Covenant
.
Mr.
Cotton
says
,
he
cut
down
the
Tree
at
the
Root
;
you
say
,
he
baptized
Infants
upon
that
foot
of
account
,
but
since
,
God's
Word
speaks
not
one
word
of
any
such
thing
,
'T
is
plain
,
you
assert
your
own
Fancies
,
or
groundless
suppositions
.
There
is
no
doubt
,
say
you
,
but
that
Parents
brought
their
Children
with
them
to
the
Baptism
of
John
,
for
God
commanded
them
to
bring
their
Children
with
them
into
the
Congregation
,
Deut.
29.
10
,
11
,
12
,
&c.
their
Zeal
was
great
for
their
Children
,
Acts
15.
12.
and
21.
20.
therefore
say
you
,
if
John
refused
their
Children
,
they
would
not
so
willingly
have
come
to
his
Baptism
.
They
brought
their
Children
to
Christ
;
therefore
they
brought
their
Children
to
the
Baptism
of
John
.
Ans.
I
answer
,
you
say
no
doubt
but
they
brought
their
Chldren
to
John's
Baptism
,
but
without
doubt
they
did
not
,
say
I
;
because
if
they
had
,
it
would
without
doubt
have
been
written
,
but
since
it
is
no
where
written
that
they
did
do
it
;
nor
of
John's
baptizing
one
Infant
,
there
is
no
doubt
but
we
are
in
the
right
,
viz.
John
baptized
no
Infants
,
nor
any
but
penitent
Persons
,
because
he
required
Repentance
,
and
the
Fruits
of
it
in
all
that
came
to
his
Baptism
.
Moreover
,
2.
Because
all
Israel
,
their
little
ones
,
their
Wives
and
Strangers
,
the
hewer
of
Wood
,
and
drawer
of
Water
,
entered
into
that
legal
Covenant
with
God
,
Deut.
29.
10.
11.
12.
doth
it
follow
;
that
we
in
the
Gospel
times
must
bring
all
our
Children
and
Servants
to
Baptism
and
the
Lord's
Supper
;
they
had
a
command
from
God
to
do
what
they
did
,
and
that
old
Covenant
Church
state
required
them
so
to
do
;
but
God
hath
no
more
required
us
to
bring
our
Infants
to
Baptism
,
then
he
hath
required
us
to
Circumcise
them
,
or
give
our
first
born
to
the
Lord
,
which
was
God's
command
to
them
under
the
Law
.
Baptism
,
I
tell
you
again
,
being
of
meer
positive
Right
,
you
can
draw
no
such
Conclusions
for
what
you
plead
for
,
't
is
only
their
Duty
to
be
baptized
,
that
Christ
commanded
to
be
baptized
,
and
that
is
those
that
are
made
Disciples
by
the
word
preached
,
or
those
that
believe
in
Christ
,
or
that
profess
Faith
in
him
;
and
't
is
the
New
Testament
only
,
must
inform
us
who
are
the
subjects
of
Gospel
Ordinances
that
depend
only
upon
Laws
meerly
positive
,
according
to
the
Sovereign
Pleasure
of
the
institutor
of
them
,
or
holy
Law-giver
Jesus
Christ
.
You
say
they
brought
their
Children
to
Christ
,
therefore
they
brought
them
to
John's
Baptism
.
Answer
,
If
John
had
wrought
Miracles
and
healed
the
Sick
,
I
doubt
not
,
but
they
would
have
brought
their
Children
to
him
to
have
them
healed
,
as
well
as
they
brought
them
to
Christ
,
but
John
wrought
no
Miracles
;
also
our
Saviour
was
a
healing
the
Sick
when
they
brought
Children
to
him
;
and
it
may
fairly
be
inferred
,
they
brought
little
Children
that
were
distemper'd
to
him
,
to
have
him
lay
his
Hands
upon
them
,
which
was
his
way
in
healing
the
Sick
,
as
I
have
said
before
.
You
say
Infant
Baptism
was
an
usual
thing
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
several
hundred
years
before
the
time
of
John
,
and
tell
us
a
story
of
Moses
Ben
Maimon
,
who
colected
the
Rites
of
the
ancient
Jewish
Church
.
Answer
,
I
have
answered
that
already
,
you
having
urged
that
argument
before
.
'T
is
evident
it
was
no
other
but
a
Jewish
hamane
Tradition
,
if
it
be
as
you
say
;
for
God
never
commanded
the
Jews
to
baptize
Infants
,
though
you
before
would
make
your
unwary
Reader
think
that
Jacob
invented
it
.
I
am
sorry
to
see
such
stuff
from
a
Man
of
Learning
.
What
credit
is
to
be
given
to
the
Jewish
Talmud
,
what
one
Jewish
Rabbi
affirms
,
concerning
this
matter
,
I
have
shewed
,
another
seems
to
deny
,
Rabbi
Joshua
confesseth
that
the
Jews
baptized
Infants
,
after
the
order
of
the
Counsel
,
not
by
any
Authority
from
God
by
Moses
,
or
any
of
his
Holy
Prophets
,
but
shall
we
think
John
Baptized
Infants
by
vertue
of
any
human
Tradition
that
was
among
the
Jews
.
Sir
,
a
popish
Tradition
is
of
as
good
authority
,
as
a
Jewish
one
;
you
may
affirm
,
the
Papists
for
many
hundred
years
baptized
Infants
,
but
where
is
it
written
in
God's
Word
,
that
God
commanded
the
Jews
to
baptize
their
Proselites
,
or
that
Christians
ought
to
baptize
their
Infants
:
to
the
Law
and
Testament
,
the
sacred
Scripture
is
a
perfect
Rule
.
You
say
John
baptized
little
Children
,
for
he
baptized
the
whole
Nation
in
general
,
whereof
Children
were
a
great
part
;
he
refused
none
that
came
,
or
were
brought
to
him
,
Mat.
3.
5
,
6.
then
went
out
to
him
Jerusalem
and
all
Judea
,
and
all
the
Regions
round
about
Jordan
,
and
were
baptized
of
him
in
Jordan
.
Now
say
you
,
if
John
baptized
all
Jerusalem
and
all
Judea
,
and
all
the
Regions
round
about
Jordan
,
and
all
the
People
;
it
is
certain
he
baptized
Infants
,
unless
we
think
there
were
no
Children
in
Jerusalem
,
&c.
Answer
,
I
answer
,
now
you
think
you
have
done
your
Business
;
but
Sir
,
doth
not
this
Argument
of
yours
as
strongly
prove
,
that
all
wicked
and
ungodly
people
may
be
baptized
also
,
ye
Swearers
,
Whoremongers
,
Murderers
,
yea
the
worst
of
Men
,
for
can
we
think
there
were
none
such
in
Jerusalem
,
Iudah
,
nor
in
all
the
Regions
round
about
,
yea
that
we
may
baptize
Pagans
and
Infidels
,
for
no
doubt
,
but
there
were
some
of
all
Nations
at
Jerusalem
.
2.
You
affirm
that
John
baptized
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
even
every
Man
,
Woman
and
Child
,
or
else
I
mistake
you
;
now
if
this
were
so
,
how
it
is
said
,
that
Christ
made
and
baptized
more
Disciples
then
John
,
John
4.
1.
John
3.
26.
't
is
said
that
Jesus
baptized
,
and
all
Men
came
to
him
.
How
did
John
baptize
all
,
and
Christ
baptize
more
of
the
People
then
John
;
what
think
you
,
were
they
rebaptized
;
certainly
,
you
will
make
them
all
proper
Anabaptists
;
besides
,
if
John
baptized
all
the
Jews
,
where
were
those
three
thousand
that
St.
Peter
and
the
other
Disciples
baptized
,
Acts
2.
40
,
41
,
42.
were
they
not
dwellers
at
Jerusalem
,
and
notwithstanding
Christ
baptized
more
Disciples
then
John
;
yet
't
is
said
,
Acts
1.
13.
that
the
number
of
the
Disciples
that
were
at
Jerusalem
were
but
about
one
Hundred
and
Twenty
.
3.
I
have
shewed
,
that
according
to
Scripture
Rhetorick
frequently
by
a
Synecdoche
a
part
is
put
for
the
whole
,
and
sometimes
the
far
lesser
part
also
.
'T
is
said
,
All
the
Cattel
in
Egypt
died
,
Exod.
9.
6.
that
is
,
all
that
were
in
the
Field
:
Also
Christ
saith
,
When
he
was
lifted
up
he
would
draw
all
men
unto
him
,
Joh.
12.
32.
Doth
that
intend
all
universally
?
So
Paul
saith
,
All
seek
their
own
:
And
Christ
saith
,
Ye
shall
be
hated
of
all
men
for
my
name
sake
.
See
these
Scriptures
,
Exod.
32.
3
,
26.
Jer.
6.
3.
1
Cor.
10.
7.
Isa.
2.
2
,
3.
Acts
2.
5.
See
Glassius
Illiricus
,
and
other
Tropical
Writers
:
Also
read
Philologiae
Sacra
,
and
our
last
Annotators
on
the
Holy
Bible
,
called
Pool's
Annotations
,
on
this
Text.
The
Term
All
,
say
they
,
here
twice
repeated
,
is
enough
to
let
us
know
,
that
't
is
often
in
Scripture
significative
no
farther
than
Many
—
For
it
cannot
be
imagined
,
that
every
individual
Person
in
Jerusalem
,
and
the
Regions
round
about
Jordan
,
went
to
hear
John
the
Baptist
,
but
a
great
many
.
From
hence
it
appears
,
That
it
is
no
ground
for
Mr.
Owen
to
affirm
,
that
by
all
Jerusalem
,
and
all
Judea
,
&c.
must
be
intended
every
individual
Person
,
both
Men
,
Women
,
and
Children
;
but
rather
,
some
of
all
Sorts
,
Degrees
,
Sexes
,
&c.
It
shews
,
that
Multitudes
went
to
hear
him
,
and
many
were
baptized
by
him
in
Jordan
,
confessing
their
Sins
with
unfeigned
Repentance
.
But
(
you
say
)
the
Text
doth
not
tell
us
what
manner
of
Confession
this
was
,
whether
in
Words
or
Works
:
Their
submission
to
Baptism
,
was
an
actual
Confession
of
their
Uncleanness
,
and
that
they
stood
in
need
of
Washing
,
it
cannot
be
thought
that
it
was
a
Confession
in
Words
;
because
one
Man
could
not
receive
a
particular
Confession
from
the
whole
Country
if
they
made
a
Confession
in
Words
:
It
is
like
one
made
it
in
the
Names
of
others
,
even
as
the
Priests
did
in
the
Names
of
all
the
People
,
Levit.
16.
21.
Thus
the
Parents
might
confess
their
Sins
for
themselves
and
their
Children
,
&c.
1.
Ans.
Let
Mr.
Baxter's
Arguments
serve
to
confute
you
here
;
he
tells
you
,
That
from
Scripture
and
the
universal
Practice
of
the
ancient
Church
,
That
Faith
,
and
a
Confession
of
Faith
,
yea
a
verbal
Confession
,
was
requirad
oi
all
that
were
baptized
;
With
the
heart
man
believeth
,
and
with
the
mouth
confession
is
made
to
salvation
,
Rom.
10.
10.
2.
Certainly
you
are
strangely
left
to
blindness
of
Mind
about
this
Matter
:
Did
ever
any
Man
,
except
your self
,
and
one
Mr.
Excel
,
whom
I
answered
lately
,
affirm
,
That
all
ungodly
and
unbelieving
Men
and
Women
,
that
were
willing
to
be
baptized
,
were
proper
and
fit
Subjects
of
Sacred
Baptism
?
For
all
Men
may
see
,
that
this
Argument
of
yours
is
for
their
Baptism
,
and
as
forcible
to
prove
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
as
't
is
to
prove
the
Baptism
of
Infants
:
For
,
if
John
baptized
all
the
whole
Country
,
even
every
individual
Person
,
then
Ministers
now
may
baptise
all
in
all
Nations
,
even
all
the
World
,
let
them
be
what
they
will
,
Turks
,
Pagans
,
Infidels
,
Swearers
,
Drunkards
,
and
Idolaters
,
Thieves
,
Murtherers
,
if
they
will
but
promise
to
turn
from
their
Sins
and
repent
,
whether
they
do
it
or
no
,
yet
,
if
your
Argument
be
good
,
they
ought
to
be
baptized
:
But
how
contrary
to
this
is
that
which
all
your
Brethren
generally
assert
?
viz.
That
in
the
Primitive
Times
,
when
the
Gospel
was
first
preached
and
?
Churches
planted
,
all
that
were
first
baptized
were
Believers
,
Saints
,
and
godly
Persons
,
and
upon
their
Faith
their
Children
were
(
as
they
say
)
baptitized
also
,
which
is
that
we
deny
;
tho'
they
are
right
as
to
what
theyspeak
in
respect
of
Believers
themselves
;
but
,
siuce
we
have
so
fully
refuted
what
you
say
of
Baptizing
adult
Persons
that
are
Unbelievers
,
I
will
say
no
more
of
that
in
this
place
.
3.
'T
is
evident
what
you
affirm
is
false
,
viz.
That
John
baptized
the
whole
Country
,
even
every
individual
Person
,
and
that
by
a
plain
Instance
:
Is
it
not
said
,
That
the
Pharisees
and
Lawyers
rejected
the
counsel
of
God
against
themselves
,
being
not
baptized
of
him
,
Luke
7.
30.
That
is
,
faith
our
Annotators
,
not
receiving
John's
Doctrine
of
Repentance
,
for
the
remission
of
Sins
and
bringing
forth
Fruits
worthy
of
amendment
of
Life
,
not
submitting
to
Baptism
,
as
a
Testimony
of
such
a
Repentance
.
For
John's
Baptism
signifieth
his
whole
Administration
.
See
Pool's
Annotations
on
that
Place
.
All
may
see
what
a
kind
of
Confession
it
was
,
John's
Baptism
required
;
it
was
more
than
a
verbal
Confession
of
Sin
,
even
the
Fruits
of
a
changed
Heart
,
and
a
new
Life
:
And
where
this
Doctrine
of
his
was
not
received
,
and
these
Fruits
appeared
not
,
John
would
not
baptize
them
.
And
now
to
conclude
with
this
Chapter
,
in
opposition
to
what
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
from
the
whole
it
clearly
doth
follow
,
That
John
Baptist
did
not
baptize
the
whole
Country
,
nor
any
one
Infant
,
no
not
any
one
Person
,
but
such
who
believed
and
seemed
at
the
least
to
bring
forth
Fruits
meet
for
Repentance
:
And
,
as
he
says
,
John's
Baptism
was
the
beginning
of
the
Gospel
of
Jesus
Christ
,
it
followeth
,
that
no
Infant
ought
to
be
baptized
,
and
that
the
external
Privileges
of
the
Gospel
are
restrained
and
not
so
large
as
were
the
outward
Rites
and
Privileges
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
tho'
the
Spiritual
Privileges
of
the
Gospel
are
larger
and
more
extensive
than
those
of
the
Law
were
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
In
which
it
is
proved
,
That
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
as
such
,
ought
not
to
be
baptized
,
because
't
is
said
whole
Housholds
were
baptized
:
Being
an
Answer
to
what
Mr.
James
Owen
hath
said
in
his
13th
Chapter
,
and
so
a
Confutation
of
his
Tenth
Argument
for
Infant
Baptism
.
MR.
Owen
saith
,
it
was
God's
way
from
the
beginning
of
the
World
,
to
receive
whole
Housholds
into
Covenant
,
the
Children
were
received
in
with
their
Parents
;
even
so
Noah
and
his
Family
were
in
the
same
Covenant
,
for
his
sake
his
Family
was
received
with
him
into
the
Ark
,
and
were
baptized
with
him
in
the
Waters
of
the
Flood
:
Abraham
believed
,
and
his
whole
Family
was
received
into
God's
Covenant
with
him
,
Gen.
17.
Heb.
11.
7.
1
Pet.
3.
20
,
21.
Not
himself
and
his
Seed
,
but
his
Men-Servants
and
Maid-Servants
,
and
of
the
Gentiles
,
that
were
willing
to
receive
the
true
Religion
,
and
their
Seed
,
Gen.
17.
23.
Exod.
12.
40.
And
so
God's
Covenant
continued
in
the
Families
of
the
Faithful
,
until
the
coming
of
Christ
,
for
near
four
thousand
Years
.
If
any
say
,
that
the
Dispensation
is
altered
,
and
the
Members
rent
from
the
Head
of
Families
,
let
them
shew
a
plain
Scripture
for
it
.
1.
Ans.
I
answer
;
As
touching
that
Covenant
God
made
with
Noah
and
his
Family
,
it
was
not
only
made
with
him
and
his
Family
,
but
with
all
the
World
,
for
they
were
the
Representatives
of
all
that
should
live
on
the
Earth
;
nay
,
and
not
only
Mankind
,
but
with
Fowls
of
the
Air
and
Beasts
of
the
Field
.
See
Gen.
9.
8
,
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
And
God
spake
unto
Noah
,
and
to
his
sons
,
Verse
8.
And
I
,
behold
I
will
establish
my
covenant
with
you
,
and
your
Seed
after
you
,
Verse
9.
And
with
every
living
creature
that
is
with
you
,
of
the
fowl
,
of
the
cattel
,
and
of
every
beast
of
the
earth
with
you
,
from
all
that
go
out
of
the
ark
,
to
every
beast
of
the
earth
,
Ver.
10.
And
I
will
establish
my
covenant
with
you
,
neither
shall
all
flesh
be
cut
off
any
more
by
the
waters
of
a
flood
:
neither
shall
there
any
more
be
a
flood
to
destroy
the
earth
,
Verse
11.
Now
to
what
purpose
do
you
mention
this
Covenant
,
or
the
temporal
Salvation
of
Noah's
Family
in
the
Ark
?
May
be
Noah's
Family
,
or
some
of
them
,
were
saved
with
that
external
Salvation
for
his
sake
;
yet
this
proves
not
that
his
Faith
extended
to
the
Spiritual
Salvation
of
the
Souls
of
his
Children
,
for
he
had
a
cursed
Cham
to
one
of
his
Sons
,
his
Faith
could
not
save
him
.
2.
As
to
the
Ark
being
a
Type
of
Baptism
,
or
that
his
Family
were
baptized
in
the
Ark
,
this
,
as
I
have
once
before
told
you
,
doth
as
much
tend
to
prove
that
all
the
World
may
be
baptized
,
even
the
good
,
and
bad
,
and
Cattle
also
,
as
any
in
particular
;
for
all
,
in
the
Ark
,
were
as
truly
baptized
,
as
any
that
were
in
it
.
3.
Had
you
said
Noah's
Family
was
a
Type
of
the
Gospel-Church
,
you
had
spoken
something
to
the
purpose
;
for
so
Expositors
intimate
,
and
not
without
good
Reason
.
And
,
1.
As
all
his
Familily
were
received
into
the
Ark
,
so
all
the
Members
of
the
Gospel-Church
were
by
Faith
to
be
received
into
Christ
,
the
Anti-Type
of
the
Ark.
2.
As
Noah
built
the
Ark
according
to
the
Commandment
of
God
,
so
Christ
built
his
Church
,
and
did
every
thing
according
to
the
Commandment
of
his
Father
.
3.
Noah
took
many
Trees
well
hewen
and
fitted
to
build
the
Ark
;
so
Christ
takes
many
Believers
,
who
are
Spiritually
well
hewed
and
fitted
by
the
Word
and
Spirit
,
to
build
his
Church
,
who
are
called
trees
of
righteousness
,
chosen
People
,
as
Noah
built
the
Ark
of
such
Trees
or
Wood
,
God
himself
chose
.
4.
As
some
clean
and
unclean
Beasts
were
received
into
the
Ark
,
yea
and
a
Cham
who
was
an
ungodly
Person
,
so
this
might
figure
forth
,
that
some
unsanctified
Persons
(
tho'
not
by
God's
appointment
)
would
get
into
,
or
be
received
into
the
Gospel-Church
.
And
,
5.
As
all
that
were
not
received
into
the
Ark
perished
,
so
all
who
get
not
Spiritually
into
Christ
by
Faith
,
or
are
not
Members
of
the
visible
or
invisible
Church
,
shall
be
damned
and
perish
eternally
.
6.
As
Noah's
Ark
was
sometimes
,
(
no
doubt
,
)
overwhelmed
or
covered
with
Waves
,
and
those
that
were
in
it
;
so
all
true
Believers
,
that
are
Members
of
the
true
Gospel-Church
,
ought
to
be
dipped
,
baptized
,
or
overwhelmed
in
Water
.
And
,
as
Sir
Norton
Knatchbal
observes
,
The
Ark
was
a
Figure
of
the
Resurrection
.
(
Speaking
of
that
Text
)
Mr.
Owen
cites
1
Pet.
3.
20.
(
saith
he
,
)
Baptism
which
now
saves
us
by
Water
,
that
is
,
by
the
assistance
of
Water
,
is
Antipical
of
the
Ark
of
Noah
,
and
it
doth
not
signifie
the
laying
down
of
the
filth
of
the
Flesh
,
but
the
Covenant
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
,
while
we
are
plunged
in
the
Water
,
which
is
to
testifie
our
belief
of
the
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
;
so
that
there
is
a
manifest
Antithesis
between
these
words
by
Water
,
and
by
the
Resurrection
:
Nor
is
the
Elegancy
of
it
displeasing
.
The
Ark
of
Noah
,
not
the
Flood
,
was
a
Type
of
Baptism
;
and
Baptism
was
the
Anti-type
of
the
Ark
,
not
as
if
Baptism
is
a
washing
away
of
the
Filth
of
the
Flesh
by
Water
,
wherein
it
answers
not
all
to
the
Ark
;
but
,
as
it
is
the
Covenant
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
by
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
in
the
belief
of
which
Resurrection
we
are
saved
,
as
they
were
saved
by
the
Ark
of
Noah
;
for
the
Ark
and
Baptism
were
both
a
Type
and
Figure
of
the
Resurrection
,
so
that
the
proper
End
of
Baptism
ought
not
to
be
understood
as
if
it
were
a
Sign
of
the
washing
away
of
Sin
,
altho'
it
be
thus
oftentimes
taken
Metonymically
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
by
the
Fathers
,
but
a
particular
Signal
of
the
Resurrection
by
Faith
in
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
;
of
which
Baptism
is
a
lively
and
emphatical
Figure
;
as
also
was
the
Ark
out
of
which
Noah
returned
as
from
the
Sepulchre
to
a
new
Life
.
Thus
far
Sir
Norton
Knatchbal
in
his
Notes
printed
at
Oxford
,
1677
,
who
though
a
great
Pedo-Baptists
,
yet
denyed
sprinkling
or
pouring
to
be
Baptism
.
Now
this
hath
teaching
in
it
,
and
shews
the
Sente
of
the
Apostle
Peter's
Words
very
fully
no
doubt
.
ut
to
tell
the
World
,
because
God
saved
,
and
covenanted
with
Noah's
Family
;
therefore
God
takes
whole
Families
in
Gospel
times
into
Covenant
,
argues
great
darkness
.
2.
As
to
Abraham's
Family
,
we
deny
not
but
his
Family
was
taken
into
Covenant
with
God
,
even
his
natural
Seed
as
such
,
but
it
was
a
covenant
of
peculiarity
;
for
simply
considered
,
as
a
Family
they
were
not
taken
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
because
there
where
some
godly
Families
that
had
no
lot
or
part
in
that
Covenant
,
but
we
having
fully
opened
the
twofold
Covenant
God
made
with
Abraham
at
the
beginning
;
I
shall
not
renew
the
Argument
again
.
But
worthy
Brittains
,
let
this
be
well
considered
by
you
,
that
as
Noah's
Family
and
Abraham's
Family
were
taken
into
Covenant
with
God
and
other
,
whole
Housholds
under
the
Law
,
and
the
whole
House
and
Nation
of
Israel
,
so
they
were
Types
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
even
as
the
whole
House
or
Family
of
Abraham
,
(
or
whole
House
and
Family
of
Israel
were
typically
relatively
and
federally
holy
;
)
it
did
prefigure
that
true
spiritual
Holiness
,
that
in
Gospel
times
should
be
in
all
the
members
of
the
true
Gospel
Church
,
and
not
of
God's
taking
under
the
Gospel
whole
Families
into
Covenant
with
himself
,
either
into
an
outward
external
Covenant
,
or
into
a
spiritual
or
new
Covenant
relation
with
himself
.
'T
is
true
,
God
perhaps
hath
sometimes
called
whole
Families
,
both
Parents
,
Children
and
Servants
,
and
converted
them
all
;
but
alass
,
how
many
Families
are
there
,
where
may
be
,
but
one
is
called
,
and
in
sacred
Covenant
with
God
,
may
be
the
Husband
and
not
the
Wife
,
the
Wife
and
not
the
Husband
,
the
Child
,
and
not
either
of
the
Parents
are
so
called
and
taken
into
Covenant
with
God
.
Pray
worthy
Brittains
,
consider
well
what
God
speaks
of
his
Promise
under
the
Gospel
.
I
will
take
one
of
a
City
,
and
two
of
a
Family
,
and
will
bring
you
to
Zion
.
Jer.
3.
14.
Not
in
Gospel
times
whole
Families
,
no
no
,
this
God
may
do
,
but
't
is
more
then
he
hath
promised
;
or
as
to
matter
of
Fact
is
so
;
he
doth
frequently
speak
in
another
I
may
speak
here
as
the
Apostles
speaks
in
another
Case
,
you
see
your
calling
Brethren
,
how
not
many
whole
Families
are
called
.
3.
Because
God
made
a
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
and
his
natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
as
a
Covenant
of
peculiarality
,
and
also
with
him
made
or
renewed
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
setting
him
up
as
a
covenanting
Head
on
a
double
respect
;
doth
it
follow
,
that
every
believing
Man
is
set
or
placed
by
the
Lord
,
as
a
like
Covenant
head
to
all
his
natural
Off-spring
:
Till
Mr.
Owen
hath
proved
this
,
he
saith
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
In
the
Covenant
of
Circumcision
that
appertained
to
all
Abraham's
natural
Seed
,
were
many
external
Priviledges
and
Promises
made
,
of
which
Circumsion
was
given
as
a
Sign
or
Token
,
as
particularly
the
Land
of
Canaan
,
&c.
But
what
Priviledges
and
Promises
hath
God
granted
to
Believers
Children
,
as
such
,
in
Gospel
times
which
Baptism
gives
them
an
assurance
of
;
the
sign
is
nothing
without
the
substance
or
thing
signified
;
Believers
have
the
substance
or
the
things
signified
in
Baptism
,
so
have
not
Infants
in
their
pretended
Baptism
,
nor
many
of
them
ever
after
.
4.
Whereas
you
call
for
a
plain
Scripture
to
prove
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
are
rent
from
the
Head
of
the
Family
;
you
mistake
the
Business
;
you
must
prove
that
in
the
Gospel
Dispensation
,
Children
and
Servants
,
or
whole
Housholds
are
taken
with
the
Heads
of
those
Housholds
into
Covenant
with
God
:
What
whole
Nation
is
taken
into
Covenant
with
God
,
as
the
whole
House
or
Nation
of
Israel
was
under
the
Law
;
prove
,
that
there
is
such
a
Nation
,
and
we
will
grant
,
that
all
the
Families
in
that
Nation
,
are
also
in
Covenant
,
for
in
that
universal
Family
all
particular
Families
must
needs
be
comprehended
.
You
proceed
to
the
Gospel
times
,
and
mention
Zacheus
,
who
as
soon
as
converted
,
the
Lord
Jesus
said
,
this
day
is
Salvation
comé
to
this
House
,
for
as
much
as
he
also
is
a
Son
of
Abraham
,
Luke
,
19.
9
10.
1.
Ans.
I
answer
,
you
do
your
Business
effectually
,
if
you
can
prove
,
that
so
soon
as
the
Father
believes
,
Salvation
comes
to
belong
to
all
that
are
in
his
House
;
I
thought
you
argued
for
some
external
Priviledge
,
only
for
the
Children
upon
their
Parents
Faith
;
but
it
appears
,
't
is
no
less
then
Salvation
it self
,
even
eternal
Salvation
;
for
it
was
such
a
Salvation
that
came
to
Zacheus
that
day
.
O
happy
Children
of
Believers
if
this
were
true
!
For
then
it
follows
,
that
all
the
Children
of
the
faithful
must
of
necessity
be
saved
,
whether
they
in
their
own
Persons
believe
or
not
;
nay
,
and
happy
Servants
too
,
for
they
must
all
be
saved
,
because
part
of
the
Family
;
but
what
credit
is
there
to
be
given
to
a
Man
that
talks
after
the
manner
as
you
do
,
is
this
true
or
false
?
for
what
do
you
mean
less
then
what
I
say
and
doth
;
Eternal
Salvation
come
to
all
in
that
Family
or
House
,
when
the
Head
of
it
doth
believe
,
you
ought
to
repent
for
spreading
such
grand
errors
among
the
People
.
Christ
you
say
,
explaineth
Abraham's
Covenant
,
in
Gen.
19.
which
God
made
with
him
and
his
Family
,
or
his
Seed
,
because
he
was
a
Son
to
Abraham
;
as
if
he
should
say
,
though
this
Man
hath
been
a
great
Sinner
,
and
though
he
hath
been
chief
Publican
,
yet
because
he
did
repent
,
and
receive
the
mediator
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
Abraham's
Covenant
,
and
the
Priviledges
thereof
do
belong
unto
him
,
and
to
his
Houshold
.
He
is
a
Son
of
Abraham
,
therefore
Abraham's
Covenant
belongs
to
him
,
in
the
same
Latitude
to
him
and
his
Seed
;
many
judge
that
Zacheus
was
one
of
the
Gentiles
,
for
usually
such
were
Publicans
,
and
this
they
gather
from
these
words
of
Christ
,
〈◊〉
so
much
as
he
also
is
a
Son
of
Abraham
;
he
also
,
though
he
is
not
a
natural
Seed
to
Abraham
,
yet
he
is
one
of
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
and
therefore
Abraham's
Covenant
belongs
unto
him
and
his
Houshold
,
&c.
Ans.
I
answer
,
your
own
explanation
of
this
Text
overthrows
all
you
strive
to
prove
,
were
it
but
considered
.
1.
For
you
grant
he
was
not
one
of
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
;
now
we
say
,
that
all
that
do
believe
are
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
so
such
to
whom
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
God
made
with
Abraham
,
(
and
consequently
eternal
Life
)
doth
belong
;
for
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
cannot
miss
of
eternal
Salvation
,
the
promise
is
sure
to
all
the
Seed
,
Rom.
4.
16.
Now
then
if
your
Eyes
were
opened
,
you
might
quickly
see
that
Abraham
was
a
two-fold
Father
,
and
that
he
had
a
two-fold
Seed
;
you
know
that
all
Abrahams
natural
Seed
,
and
the
natural
Seed
of
Believers
,
are
not
the
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
nor
have
the
promise
of
Salvation
sure
to
them
.
2.
From
hence
it
appears
,
Salvation
could
not
come
to
Zacheus
Children
,
(
if
he
had
any
)
unless
they
as
well
as
himself
did
believe
,
and
receive
by
Faith
the
Blessing
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
;
because
none
are
Abraham's
Sons
or
Spiritual
Seed
,
but
Believers
only
,
whether
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
if
you
be
Christs
,
then
you
are
Abraham's
Seed
.
3.
Therefore
if
Salvation
came
to
every
individual
Person
in
Zacheus
Family
,
they
all
did
believe
as
well
as
himself
,
though
it
be
not
expressed
.
But
,
4.
Salvation
might
be
said
to
come
to
his
House
,
because
the
Saviour
and
means
of
Salvation
was
that
day
come
to
his
House
.
5.
Salvation
might
be
said
to
come
to
his
House
that
day
,
though
it
came
only
to
Zacheus
himself
,
it
coming
to
the
head
of
the
Family
,
it
may
be
said
to
come
to
his
House
,
and
yet
not
to
every
particular
Person
in
that
House
,
but
you
bring
in
this
Objection
,
viz.
but
what
is
this
to
Baptism
.
You
answer
,
if
Salvation
came
to
his
House
or
Family
,
then
Baptism
belonged
unto
them
.
2.
It
is
probable
,
that
Zacheus
and
his
Houshold
were
baptized
before
by
John
,
for
the
Publicans
came
to
be
baptized
of
him
,
Luke
3.
12.
and
7.
29.
1.
Ans.
I
answer
,
you
may
be
sure
when
Zacheus
believed
in
Christ
,
he
was
a
proper
Subject
of
Gospel
Baptism
,
so
were
all
that
believed
who
were
in
his
House
;
but
the
Text
doth
not
say
,
that
every
particular
Person
that
were
in
his
House
believed
,
or
that
Salvation
came
so
to
his
House
,
but
if
it
did
,
no
doubt
they
were
all
upon
their
believing
baptized
.
2.
But
you
may
well
say
,
what
is
this
to
Baptism
,
since
he
and
all
his
House
were
baptized
before
,
even
when
he
was
in
his
Sins
,
and
a
notorious
Sinner
,
the
chief
of
the
Publicans
;
it
is
probable
say
you
,
sure
Sir
,
't
is
more
then
probable
,
it
was
impossible
,
that
Zacheus
and
his
Family
should
escape
Baptism
,
when
John
had
baptized
all
the
whole
Country
before
,
all
,
yea
every
individual
Person
that
dwelt
in
Jerusalem
,
Judea
,
and
all
the
Regions
round
about
:
The
truth
is
,
this
is
very
impertinently
brought
in
to
prove
Infant
Baptism
;
what
doth
it
signifie
,
that
Salvation
was
come
to
Zacheus
that
day
,
and
not
until
then
,
seeing
John's
Commission
was
to
baptize
all
,
whether
Godly
or
Ungodly
,
Believers
or
Unbelievers
,
whether
Salvation
was
come
to
them
or
not
;
let
the
Reader
observe
,
what
darkness
and
ignorance
this
Man
shews
.
Peter
,
(
say
you
)
when
he
first
planted
the
Christian
Religion
among
the
Jews
,
exhorted
them
saying
,
be
baptized
every
one
of
you
,
for
the
promise
is
to
you
,
and
to
your
Children
.
Ans.
This
of
the
promise
being
unto
them
and
to
their
Children
,
we
have
fully
already
answered
;
but
why
doth
Peter
command
these
Jews
(
who
doubtless
dwelt
at
Jerusalem
)
to
be
baptized
,
seeing
John
Baptist
had
baptized
them
and
their
Children
before
,
as
you
have
positively
asserted
;
what
must
they
be
all
rebaptized
,
what
inconsistency
is
there
in
your
arguing
?
2.
The
latitude
of
this
Command
,
be
baptized
every
one
of
you
,
is
no
further
then
to
all
them
that
he
commands
to
repent
,
nor
is
the
promise
to
any
of
their
Children
,
but
such
that
the
Lord
our
God
shall
all
the
Parents
right
and
interest
to
the
promise
of
the
Holy
Spirit
,
Remission
of
Sins
,
and
eternal
Life
,
spring
from
their
Interest
in
Christ
by
Faith
,
and
at
that
Door
comes
in
the
right
and
interest
of
all
their
Children
or
Off-spring
that
are
called
by
the
effectual
operations
of
the
word
and
spirit
of
God
,
't
is
the
promise
made
to
all
the
true
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
but
are
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
,
and
the
natural
Seed
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
or
as
so
considered
the
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
?
3.
the
promise
here
meant
,
and
the
duty
of
being
baptized
are
as
you
say
of
the
same
Latitude
;
thus
you
argue
,
viz.
be
baptized
you
and
your
Children
,
for
the
promise
is
unto
you
and
to
your
Children
,
we
so
are
to
understand
the
Words
;
the
Promise
,
and
the
Duty
,
being
of
the
same
Latitude
,
if
the
Promise
belongeth
unto
them
and
their
Children
,
then
bap●●●●●
Ans.
I
answer
,
what
is
the
promise
but
the
Holy-Ghost
and
eternal
Life
,
and
such
that
receive
this
Promise
,
viz.
the
holy
Spirit
as
an
earnest
of
eternal
Life
,
we
deny
not
are
to
be
baptized
,
and
if
no
Child
hath
any
other
right
to
the
Duty
,
but
such
who
have
received
the
same
Promise
through
Faith
,
ziz
.
remission
of
Sin
,
and
of
the
Holy
Spirit
,
then
no
Children
but
such
that
repent
and
believe
ought
to
be
baptized
,
seeing
the
Promise
and
Duty
runs
to
the
Children
or
Off-spring
as
it
runs
to
the
Parents
.
In
the
same
manner
,
you
say
,
when
Peter
planted
the
first
Church
among
the
Gentiles
,
as
might
be
gathered
from
the
words
of
the
Angel
to
Cornelius
,
being
the
first
Fruits
of
the
Church
of
the
Gentiles
,
Acts
11.
13.
send
Men
to
Joppa
and
call
for
Simon
,
whose
Sir-name
is
Peter
,
who
shall
tell
thee
words
whereby
thou
and
all
thy
House
shall
be
saved
;
the
Gospel
bringeth
Salvation
to
him
and
to
all
his
House
;
Cornelius
well
knew
the
meaning
of
the
Words
,
for
he
being
a
proselite
to
the
true
Religion
before
that
time
,
though
uncircumcised
,
yet
received
the
severe
Commandment
of
Noah
,
the
substance
of
which
might
be
seen
,
Gen.
9.
1.
God's
Covenant
was
with
Noah
and
his
Seed
,
&c.
1.
Ans.
I
answer
,
't
is
said
Peter
should
tell
Cornelius
words
,
whereby
he
and
all
his
House
shall
be
saved
,
but
it
must
be
such
of
his
House
that
could
hear
and
understand
those
Words
Peter
should
tell
them
;
he
shall
tell
thee
,
and
tell
all
thy
House
Words
whereby
you
shall
be
saved
,
but
not
unless
he
and
they
of
his
House
believed
;
and
pray
observe
,
is
it
not
said
he
was
a
devout
Man
,
and
one
that
feared
God
with
all
his
House
,
Acts
10.
2.
all
his
House
,
the
Holy-Ghost
here
intends
,
were
such
who
were
of
understanding
,
and
did
fear
God
as
well
as
himself
,
also
Cornelius
said
to
Peter
,
now
we
are
all
here
to
hear
what
things
are
commanded
thee
of
God
,
all
his
House
were
capable
to
hear
,
&c.
Moreover
,
is
it
not
said
,
while
Peter
yet
spake
these
words
,
the
Holy
Ghost
fell
on
them
,
which
heard
the
word
Verse
44.
and
all
these
were
commanded
to
be
baptized
,
viz.
that
had
received
the
Holy-Ghost
for
their
reception
of
the
Holy-Ghost
,
is
that
argument
the
Apostle
uses
to
command
them
to
be
baptized
,
Verse
47
can
any
Man
forbid
water
,
that
those
should
not
be
baptized
which
have
received
the
Holy-Ghost
as
well
as
we
,
and
he
commanded
them
to
be
baptized
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
Verse
48
,
them
that
did
believe
?
them
that
had
received
the
Holy-Ghost
them
that
spake
with
Tongues
and
magnified
God
;
and
if
it
was
every
individual
Person
in
his
House
,
let
it
be
so
,
the
greater
Grace
of
God
was
manifested
,
but
here
are
no
Children
mentioned
in
Infancy
that
were
baptized
.
2.
Besides
,
I
wonder
at
you
,
't
is
said
Peter
should
tell
Cornelius
words
,
whereby
he
and
all
his
House
should
be
〈◊〉
,
sure
you
do
not
believe
what
you
seem
to
plead
for
;
pray
answer
,
when
the
Parent
believes
,
and
is
saved
,
or
assured
of
Salvation
,
are
all
his
Children
and
whole
Family
by
his
Faith
brought
into
the
like
stars
of
Salvation
,
shall
they
all
be
saved
also
Through
his
Faith
?
the
external
Priviledges
of
the
Covenant
that
your
Brethren
talk
of
(
that
is
something
,
but
I
know
not
what
)
by
virtue
of
their
Parents
Faith
,
it
is
not
however
that
which
you
plead
for
;
you
tell
us
when
Cornelius
heard
words
whereby
he
came
to
be
saved
,
all
his
Family
through
his
Faith
were
saved
also
,
if
you
do
not
this
,
I
profess
I
know
not
what
you
mean
,
by
what
you
have
written
;
but
if
this
be
your
meaning
,
I
hope
no
Body
will
believe
you
,
because
all
know
it
is
utterly
false
.
3.
But
the
greater
wonder
comes
at
last
,
viz.
it
appears
Cornelius
and
his
Houshold
because
a
Gentile
,
had
right
to
Baptism
by
the
Covenant
and
Commandment
of
God
to
Noah
,
not
by
virtue
of
Abraham's
Covenant
;
the
Truth
is
,
one
is
as
good
an
Argument
for
Baptism
as
the
other
,
but
was
the
Covenant
God
made
with
Noah
the
Covenant
of
Grace
;
if
it
was
,
all
the
World
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
not
Mankind
only
,
but
the
Fowls
of
the
Air
,
and
Beasts
of
the
Field
,
and
it
had
a
Sign
or
Seal
also
to
confirm
it
to
all
,
viz.
the
Rainbow
,
now
your
argument
from
hence
must
be
this
because
the
Sign
or
Seal
of
the
Rainbow
belonged
to
Noah
and
his
Sons
,
to
confirm
the
Covenant
Blessings
,
therefore
Baptism
belongs
to
all
Gods
Noahs
,
and
their
Sons
and
Daughters
;
and
you
may
extend
the
inference
further
if
you
please
,
but
perhaps
't
is
rather
the
command
of
God
to
Noah
;
you
cite
Gen.
the
ninth
Chapter
and
first
Verse
,
and
that
was
given
to
Noah
and
his
three
Sons
,
Shem
,
Ham
and
Japheth
,
and
in
them
to
all
the
World
;
well
but
what
is
this
Command
,
take
the
words
,
and
God
blessed
Noah
and
his
Sons
,
and
said
unto
them
be
fruitful
and
multiply
and
replenish
the
Earth
;
I
know
not
what
this
is
brought
for
,
nor
what
Cornelius
could
draw
from
thence
,
unless
it
was
to
stir
up
his
Sons
and
Daughters
to
marry
and
beget
Children
,
which
certainly
is
one
thing
if
not
all
that
God
commands
,
Gen.
9.
1.
to
Noah
and
his
Sons
,
that
so
the
World
might
be
a
fresh
increased
and
multiplyed
with
People
after
the
Flood
.
2.
You
say
,
he
could
no
less
then
know
the
rest
of
the
Proselytes
who
received
Circumcision
,
that
they
and
their
Children
were
in
Abraham's
Covenant
,
and
also
he
at
this
time
by
his
receiving
the
Gospel
,
should
come
into
the
same
Covenant
,
so
that
he
and
his
whole
House
should
be
the
first
Fruits
of
the
Gentiles
.
Thus
Peter
founded
the
Christian
Church
of
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
in
Housholds
,
according
to
the
ancient
practice
from
the
beginning
of
the
World
.
Ans.
I
answer
,
't
is
a
great
abuse
of
the
sacred
History
,
to
say
Peter
founded
the
Christian
Churches
in
particular
Housholds
,
for
the
first
Church
consisted
of
Three
Thousand
,
and
there
is
no
mention
made
of
any
particular
Houshold
;
but
perhaps
two
of
a
City
,
and
one
of
a
Family
,
as
God
promised
,
were
at
that
time
brought
into
God's
Gospel
Sion
;
also
here
were
many
gathered
together
at
Cornelius's
House
,
as
appears
Verse
33.
2.
Why
,
do
you
not
distinguish
between
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham's
natural
Seed
,
as
such
,
and
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
him
,
&c.
you
think
that
those
blind
and
unbelieving
circumcised
Proselytes
were
as
truly
in
the
covenant
of
Grace
,
even
in
the
same
covenant
God
made
with
Abraham's
spiritual
Seed
,
as
Cornelius
was
after
he
believed
in
God
and
Jesus
Christ
;
why
then
doth
Paul
say
,
and
if
you
be
Christs
,
then
are
you
Abrahams
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
,
Gal.
3.
29.
besides
the
Covenant
of
peculiarality
made
with
Abraham's
natural
Seed
,
as
such
did
not
intitle
the
Proselyte
stranger
to
the
inheritance
of
the
Land
of
Canaar
.
Oh!
that
the
Lord
would
take
this
Vail
from
off
your
Eyes
,
every
Soul
must
reckon
from
Christ
,
not
from
being
Abraham's
natural
Seed
,
that
would
be
one
of
Abraham's
spiritual
Seed
,
and
an
Heir
according
to
the
Promise
.
Paul
you
say
,
planted
or
founded
Churches
among
the
Gentiles
,
even
in
the
same
manner
as
Peter
did
,
when
the
head
of
the
Families
believed
he
did
baptize
the
whole
Family
,
1.
You
say
,
he
planted
the
Church
of
the
Philippians
in
Housholds
,
Acts
16.
14
,
15.
a
certain
Woman
named
Lydia
which
worshipped
God
,
heard
us
,
whose
Heart
the
Lord
opened
,
that
she
attended
unto
the
things
that
were
spoken
off
by
Paul
,
and
when
she
believed
,
she
was
baptized
and
all
her
Houshold
.
You
note
on
this
Text
three
things
;
first
,
that
Lydia
was
a
Proselyte
before
to
the
Jewish
Religion
,
and
the
Proselytes
of
the
Gentiles
and
their
Children
,
were
in
God's
Covenant
through
Baptism
and
Circumcision
;
and
here
you
tell
us
the
story
over
again
of
Moses
the
Son
of
Maimon
,
about
baptizing
Proselytes
,
that
they
baptized
Proselytes
among
the
Jews
,
by
command
of
the
Council
,
&c.
Ans.
I
answer
,
you
will
have
I
see
all
these
to
be
re-baptized
also
;
I
cannot
see
but
you
are
truly
a
grand
Anabaptists
in
your
Judgment
,
and
such
an
one
that
I
never
met
with
before
;
first
you
intimate
they
were
baptized
by
a
Jewish
humane
Invention
,
and
the
second
time
baptized
by
virtue
of
Christ's
command
,
let
who
will
be
your
Proselyte
,
I
will
not
;
who
thus
contend
for
,
and
mix
the
Traditions
of
Men
with
Christ
sacred
Institutions
.
2.
Had
Lydia
and
her
Family
a
right
to
Baptism
because
a
Proselyte
?
I
thought
your
Brethren
always
asserted
her
Childrens
right
thereunto
by
virtue
of
her
Faith
.
Secondly
,
you
note
as
soon
as
she
believed
,
she
and
her
Houshold
were
baptized
.
—
according
to
the
order
of
Gods
covenant
to
receive
the
faithful
and
their
Seed
,
&c.
1.
Ans.
I
answer
,
then
Baptism
it
appears
is
no
mear
positive
command
of
Christ
,
but
wholly
depends
upon
Gods
Covenant
with
Noah
,
or
else
his
Covenant
with
Abraham
.
2.
You
ought
first
to
prove
she
had
any
Seed
,
either
Sons
or
Daughters
,
and
if
she
had
,
whether
any
of
them
were
Infants
.
3.
Prove
,
that
because
her
Houshold
is
said
to
be
baptized
,
every
individual
person
in
her
House
was
baptized
,
seeing
we
read
of
a
whole
House
went
up
to
offer
unto
the
Lord
,
but
not
all
,
two
of
the
House
went
not
up
,
1
Sam.
1.
21.
22.
4.
Prove
that
Paul
planted
a
Church
in
her
House
,
if
he
did
,
I
shall
make
it
appear
,
that
they
were
all
adult
Persons
,
and
such
that
did
believe
in
Christ
;
and
as
to
your
argument
,
that
in
the
New
Testament
whole
Families
received
the
Gospel
,
't
is
not
denyed
,
but
some
whole
Housholds
then
did
believe
,
or
the
major
part
of
them
,
and
so
now
adays
,
but
not
many
such
,
but
would
you
therefore
have
Churches
to
consist
only
of
private
Families
.
This
a
is
new
way
to
prove
national
Churches
.
You
say
after
the
same
manner
,
the
Apostle
offered
Salvation
to
the
keeper
of
the
Prison
and
his
Household
,
if
he
only
believed
,
Acts
16.
30
,
31.
and
he
said
,
believe
on
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
and
thy
House
.
Paul
explaineth
unto
him
the
Covenant
of
God
to
the
Faithful
and
their
Seed
,
saying
unto
him
,
believe
,
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
and
thy
House
,
he
doth
not
say
,
thou
shalt
be
saved
and
thy
House
if
ye
believe
,
but
believe
thou
,
and
thy
House
shall
be
saved
with
thee
,
the
promise
of
Salvation
belongeth
to
the
Houshold
,
if
he
believed
who
was
the
head
of
the
Family
,
&c.
Ans.
Sir
,
I
positively
charge
you
for
writing
and
publishing
false
Doctrine
,
and
acquit
your self
of
it
as
well
as
you
can
;
I
appeale
to
the
Consciences
of
your
Brethren
,
and
to
all
understanding
Men
,
whether
this
be
a
truth
or
not
,
viz.
that
when
the
head
of
a
Family
doth
believe
in
Christ
,
that
all
the
whole
Family
shall
be
saved
;
I
must
confess
that
this
is
a
new
and
easie
way
for
all
in
such
Families
to
be
saved
,
but
doth
not
Christ
say
,
he
that
believes
shall
not
be
damn'd
,
Mark
16.
16.
let
them
dwell
in
what
Family
they
will
,
you
do
not
speak
of
any
external
Covenant
right
to
Baptism
,
but
of
Salvation
it self
.
2.
You
do
not
speak
of
Infants
as
such
,
but
of
all
in
the
Family
or
Houshold
,
viz.
comprehending
adult
Sons
and
Daughters
,
Men
Servants
or
Maid
Servants
;
adult
persons
it
appears
from
hence
,
in
the
primitive
times
were
baptized
,
by
virtue
of
the
Parents
Faith
as
well
as
Babes
;
nay
,
and
were
saved
also
by
the
Faith
of
the
head
of
the
Family
.
3.
Doth
it
not
also
follow
,
that
your
ignorance
of
God's
Covenant
with
Abraham
is
very
great
,
for
if
it
be
as
you
say
,
then
all
Abraham's
Seed
according
to
the
Flesh
must
be
saved
,
because
he
as
the
Head
of
his
Family
believed
;
but
doth
not
the
Scripture
say
in
opposition
to
this
,
that
though
the
number
of
the
Children
of
Israel
be
as
the
Sand
of
the
Sea
,
yet
but
a
Remnant
shall
be
saved
.
4.
May
not
this
Doctrine
of
yours
also
corrupt
and
tend
to
ruine
many
poor
Souls
,
both
Children
and
Servants
,
who
live
in
Families
where
the
Heads
of
those
Families
do
believe
,
and
are
Godly
;
may
not
they
say
we
shall
be
saved
,
though
we
believe
not
,
because
we
dwell
in
a
Family
where
the
Head
,
viz.
our
Father
,
our
Master
doth
believe
;
Mr.
Owen
assures
us
,
we
shall
all
be
saved
,
because
our
Father
or
Master
believes
,
be
astonish'd
,
Oh
ye
Heavens
!
is
this
your
proof
for
Infant
Baptism
.
Worthy
Brittains
,
this
may
sufficiently
shew
you
that
the
Covenant
that
God
made
with
Abraham
,
namely
,
the
Covenant
of
Circumsion
,
which
was
made
with
him
and
his
natural
Seed
as
such
,
was
no
Covenant
of
Salvation
,
and
so
not
the
Covenent
of
Grace
;
't
is
so
plain
you
need
not
doubt
of
it
,
because
multitudes
that
were
in
that
Covenant
perished
,
though
Circumcision
was
a
Seal
of
Abrahams
Faith
,
yet
not
a
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
his
Seed
,
as
such
,
because
if
it
were
it
would
have
Sealed
to
them
all
,
the
righteousness
of
Faith
and
eternal
Life
,
which
we
know
it
never
did
to
multitudes
of
them
.
But
very
remarkable
't
is
,
to
see
how
Mr.
Owen
doth
in
the
very
next
place
both
conhimself
,
and
overthrow
his
Argument
,
as
to
the
purport
of
it
,
he
brings
in
this
Objection
,
Object
.
All
his
Family
believed
,
vers.
34.
Take
his
Answer
.
Ans.
I
answer
,
(
saith
he
)
so
were
the
adult
;
the
whole
House
sometimes
signifies
those
of
the
adult
in
a
Family
,
it
is
said
of
Sampson
,
that
all
his
Fathers
House
buried
him
,
that
is
(
saith
he
)
those
that
were
of
age
in
his
Fathers
House
,
for
the
little
Children
could
not
go
into
the
Land
of
the
Philistines
to
bury
his
Body
,
&c.
It
is
said
(
saith
he
)
of
Cornelius
that
he
was
a
devout
Man
,
fearing
God
with
all
his
House
,
that
is
,
all
the
adult
in
his
Houshold
,
so
the
Goaler
believed
with
all
his
Houshold
,
viz.
all
that
were
of
age
to
believe
.
2.
And
we
are
not
to
think
(
saith
Mr.
Owen
)
all
these
Housholds
to
be
barren
,
which
were
baptized
by
the
Apostles
;
there
were
not
many
Housholds
in
those
Ages
,
without
Children
in
them
,
for
the
greatest
part
of
their
Riches
was
their
Bond
Servants
,
and
the
Children
born
of
them
,
and
those
Children
were
in
God's
Covenant
,
even
as
free-born
Children
,
Gen.
17.
13
,
23.
so
are
they
also
under
the
Gospel
,
they
are
Abraham's
Seed
through
the
Faith
of
their
Parents
and
Heirs
as
before
,
Col.
1.
12.
Gal.
3.
29.
Ans.
1.
I
need
give
no
further
Answer
touching
this
argument
,
concerning
what
you
say
of
whole
Housholds
,
you
have
effectually
answered
your self
;
you
affirm
that
by
whole
Housholds
or
Families
in
the
Scripture
,
sometimes
none
but
the
adult
are
comprehended
or
meant
,
and
that
Instance
of
Sampson
doth
sufficiently
prove
it
,
little
Children
could
not
go
to
bury
his
dead
Body
;
though
't
is
said
all
his
Fathers
House
buried
him
.
So
say
we
by
whole
Houses
that
were
said
to
be
baptized
,
none
are
meant
but
those
adult
Persons
who
believed
.
2.
You
say
and
confess
,
that
Cornelius
and
all
his
House
feared
God
,
and
that
the
Goaler
and
all
his
House
believed
,
that
is
all
the
adult
(
say
you
)
believed
,
or
that
were
at
age
to
believe
;
this
may
serve
to
clear
up
the
matter
touching
all
the
other
whole
Housholds
that
were
said
to
be
baptized
,
God
constrains
you
to
speak
the
Truth
here
,
though
it
be
to
overthrow
your
whole
Argument
.
2.
But
what
you
speak
in
the
next
place
is
not
true
,
viz.
that
Parents
and
their
Children
,
and
Bond
Servants
,
and
their
Children
,
were
under
the
Law
,
and
under
the
Gospel
times
;
also
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
through
the
Faith
of
their
Parents
:
For
notwithstanding
the
Bond-men
and
their
Male
Children
were
commanded
to
be
Circumcised
that
were
in
Abraham's
Family
,
and
that
were
as
Proselytes
received
into
other
Families
of
the
Jews
under
the
Law
,
yet
they
were
not
Heirs
of
the
Land
of
Canaan
;
none
but
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
could
haue
any
possession
therein
,
according
to
that
Covenant
of
peculiarality
God
made
with
the
fleshy
Seed
of
Abraham
as
such
,
which
typified
forth
that
none
but
Believers
,
or
the
elect
of
God
,
who
are
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
were
the
true
Heirs
of
the
Promise
,
and
of
the
Heavenly
Canaan
;
will
you
say
that
all
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
and
Bond-Men
and
their
Children
as
such
,
and
also
all
the
natural
Seed
of
Believers
as
such
,
are
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
;
sure
God
will
take
of
this
Vail
from
your
Eyes
,
and
open
your
understanding
if
you
look
to
him
by
Prayer
,
and
search
the
Scripture
with
a
canded
desire
after
the
knowledge
of
this
matter
.
3.
You
will
find
a
great
difference
between
the
Covenant
that
peculiarly
did
appertain
to
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
as
such
,
and
the
Covenant
of
Grace
made
with
Abraham
and
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
as
such
.
4.
I
have
proved
that
neither
Abraham's
Faith
nor
the
Parents
Faith
intitles
any
of
their
natural
Seed
as
such
,
to
the
inheritance
or
blessings
purchased
by
Jesus
Christ
,
viz.
Justification
,
Adoption
,
Pardon
of
Sin
,
and
eternal
Life
,
no
,
no
,
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
(
as
such
)
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God
,
but
the
Children
of
the
promise
are
counted
for
the
Seed
,
viz.
those
that
are
the
elect
of
God
only
,
Rom.
9.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
are
the
Children
of
the
premise
,
and
Heirs
of
Glory
;
the
promise
runs
Gal.
3.
16.
not
to
Seeds
as
of
many
,
but
to
thy
Seed
which
is
Christ
,
i.
e.
Christ
personally
considered
primarily
,
and
then
to
Christ
mystically
considered
,
that
is
all
that
are
spiritually
united
to
him
;
therefore
the
Apostle
saith
,
Verse
29.
if
ye
be
Christs
,
then
are
you
Abraham's
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
,
or
according
to
the
Covenant
of
Grace
God
made
with
Abraham
.
5.
This
must
be
so
,
because
the
Covenant
of
Grace
is
well
ordered
in
all
things
and
sure
;
see
once
again
,
Rom.
4.
14.
for
if
they
which
are
of
the
Law
be
Heirs
,
Faith
is
made
void
,
and
the
promise
of
no
effect
,
no
need
of
Faith
,
if
the
legal
Covenant
can
save
any
Man
;
but
if
a
personal
Obedience
to
the
Law
could
not
save
the
Parent
,
besure
the
Faith
and
Obedience
of
the
Parent
cannot
save
the
Child
.
But
observe
,
vers.
16.
therefore
it
is
of
Faith
,
that
it
might
be
by
Grace
to
the
end
,
the
promise
might
be
sure
to
all
the
Seed
.
Now
consider
well
the
promise
is
eternal
Life
,
this
all
understand
here
,
and
this
saith
Paul
is
sure
to
all
the
Seed
;
't
is
confirmed
not
only
by
the
word
of
God
,
but
by
the
Oath
of
God
also
,
Heb.
6.
13
for
when
God
made
promise
to
Abraham
because
he
could
swear
by
no
greater
,
he
swore
by
himself
;
to
shew
the
Heirs
of
the
Promise
,
the
immutability
of
his
Counsel
,
he
confirmed
it
by
an
Oath
—
that
so
the
Heirs
of
the
promise
might
have
strong
Consolation
,
vers.
17.
18.
all
that
are
the
true
Heirs
or
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
must
be
saved
,
for
't
is
impossible
for
God
to
lye
,
or
fail
in
his
Promise
,
to
any
one
of
rhe
true
Seed
of
Abraham
;
therefore
if
all
the
natural
Seed
of
Abraham
were
in
this
Covenant
,
and
all
the
natural
Seed
of
Believers
,
't
is
impossible
that
any
one
of
them
should
perish
eternally
,
or
miss
of
eternal
Life
.
They
are
all
born
of
God
,
and
Heirs
as
Isaac
was
,
they
are
all
chosen
from
Everlasting
to
Salvation
,
they
are
all
given
to
Christ
,
and
all
Members
of
his
mystical
Body
,
or
are
but
one
mystical
Christ
,
and
are
even
Flesh
of
his
Flesh
,
and
Bone
of
his
Bone
,
and
therefore
this
Covenant
and
free
promise
of
God
,
cannot
appertain
to
Abraham's
natural
Seed
as
such
,
nor
to
the
natural
Seed
of
Believers
as
such
,
for
alass
!
how
many
of
them
do
perish
eternally
?
For
though
the
number
of
the
Children
of
Israel
be
as
the
Sands
of
the
Sea
,
yet
but
a
remnant
of
them
shall
be
saved
,
as
was
hinted
before
.
But
say
you
,
if
the
keeper
of
the
Prison
had
no
Children
,
or
if
they
were
the
adult
,
it
is
the
same
thing
,
the
Apostle
offereth
Salvation
to
him
and
to
his
Houshold
,
even
to
little
Children
,
if
there
were
such
with
him
,
and
that
is
sufficient
to
confirm
the
present
matter
,
i.
e.
that
by
this
Houshold
,
we
are
to
understand
principally
his
Children
,
as
the
word
frequently
is
taken
in
Scripture
,
Gen.
30.
30.
and
45.
19.
Num.
3.
15.
1
Tim.
5.
8.
Ans.
It
appears
,
you
question
whether
the
Goaler
had
any
Children
or
not
,
beside
you
tell
us
,
that
whole
Housholds
comprehend
the
Adult
only
some
times
;
from
whence
I
infer
according
to
the
Scripture
,
whole
Housholds
may
be
said
to
be
baptized
,
when
none
but
the
Adult
in
those
Housholds
are
baptized
.
2.
If
the
Apostles
offering
Salvation
to
People
,
gives
them
a
right
to
Baptism
,
then
all
the
World
may
be
baptized
,
because
all
the
World
ought
to
have
Salvation
offered
to
them
,
go
into
all
the
World
and
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
Creature
,
Mark
16.
15.
but
this
offer
gives
none
a
right
to
Baptism
simply
in
it self
;
no
none
but
such
that
believe
as
the
next
Words
prove
,
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
verse
16.
they
must
first
believe
or
be
made
Disciples
,
and
then
be
baptized
,
the
Parents
must
believe
,
and
the
Children
must
first
believe
,
not
the
Parents
for
the
Children
,
but
the
Children
must
believe
for
themselves
,
before
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
according
to
the
Commission
,
and
the
nature
of
the
Administration
of
Gospel
Baptism
.
3.
'T
is
strange
the
Apostles
should
preach
to
little
Children
,
o●…er
Christ
to
them
,
what
preach
Christ
to
the
Infant
in
the
Cradle
?
that
knows
not
its
right
Hand
from
it
,
●…t
.
But
say
you
,
the
Children
are
the
chief
part
of
every
Houshold
;
therefore
when
Paul
saith
to
the
Keeper
of
the
Prison
,
believe
on
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
thou
shalt
〈◊〉
saved
and
thy
House
;
it
is
as
much
as
if
he
should
say
,
if
thou
wilt
believe
in
Christ
,
the
Covenant
o●
Span●d
and
the
Seal
of
Baptism
,
appertaineth
to
thee
a●…
Children
,
&c.
Ans.
〈◊〉
Children
,
I
grant
,
are
part
of
those
〈◊〉
there
are
Children
,
but
not
of
every
〈◊〉
because
there
are
many
Housholds
wherein
〈◊〉
no
Children
in
non-age
,
and
they
cannot
be
part
of
those
Housholds
,
in
which
there
is
no
Infant
.
2.
Believe
on
the
Lord
Jesus
and
thou
shalt
be
saved
;
that
is
,
do
thou
believe
,
and
thy
whole
House
that
are
capable
to
believe
,
let
them
believe
also
,
and
you
shall
all
be
saved
;
no
more
is
intended
,
for
according
to
your
own
argument
,
the
Servants
and
Adult
Children
were
under
the
same
promise
with
his
Infants
,
if
he
had
any
;
now
will
you
say
that
his
Servants
and
Adult
Children
could
be
saved
by
his
Faith
,
I
tell
you
again
,
the
Covenant
of
peculiarality
God
made
with
Abraham's
natural
Seed
as
such
,
was
gone
and
abolished
when
Paul
preached
to
the
Goaler
,
and
the
Covenant
of
Grace
or
Covenant
of
Salvation
God
made
with
Abraham
,
I
have
proved
appertained
to
none
but
the
elect
only
,
or
his
true
Spiritual
Seed
.
3.
Besides
if
the
Parents
believing
brings
the
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
;
then
it
will
follow
,
that
the
Parents
non-believing
keeps
the
Children
out
of
the
Covenant
,
and
so
hinders
them
of
Salvation
,
and
if
so
,
the
Children
may
be
damn'd
for
their
Parents
Sin
in
not
believing
.
You
proceed
and
say
,
the
Apostle
planted
the
Church
of
the
Corinthians
by
baptizing
whole
Housholds
,
1
Cor.
1.
16
,
17.
as
the
House
of
Stephanas
and
Crispus
,
and
the
Jews
with
one
accord
rose
up
against
Paul
at
Corinth
,
and
accused
him
that
he
perswaded
Men
to
worship
God
contrary
to
the
Law
,
verse
13.
by
how
much
the
more
would
they
have
accused
him
,
then
(
say
you
)
for
casting
out
their
Children
from
the
Covenant
of
Abraham
if
he
had
so
done
,
&c.
Ans.
I
answer
,
how
do
you
know
but
that
might
be
one
thing
which
they
charged
upon
him
,
no
doubt
Paul
according
as
John
Baptist
did
,
did
declare
,
that
their
being
the
Children
of
Abraham
according
to
the
Flesh
as
such
,
now
availed
them
nothing
;
he
't
is
plain
denyed
their
Childrens
right
to
Circumcision
,
to
give
them
a
right
to
Baptism
;
he
received
none
of
them
to
Baptism
who
professed
not
their
Faith
in
Christ
,
the
Covenant
of
peculiarality
with
Abraham's
natural
Seed
as
such
being
abolished
.
Moreover
Paul
told
these
Corinthians
,
all
things
were
now
become
anew
;
a
new
Church
,
and
a
new
Church
Membership
,
and
a
new
right
to
that
Church
Membership
,
and
now
there
is
no
knowing
of
Men
after
the
Flesh
,
this
Doctrine
he
preached
to
these
Corinthians
,
2
Cor.
5.
16.
17.
and
you
force
me
to
urge
this
matter
often
,
wherefore
henceforth
know
we
no
Man
after
the
Flesh
,
yea
,
though
we
have
known
Christ
after
the
Flesh
,
yet
now
henceforth
know
him
no
more
,
what
doth
the
Apostle
intend
here
by
these
words
but
this
.
viz.
now
henceforth
or
from
the
establishment
of
the
dispensation
of
the
Gospel
,
we
know
no
Man
after
the
Flesh
;
know
,
to
know
here
,
is
to
prefer
or
to
esteem
no
Man
above
others
,
upon
the
account
of
their
fleshly
descent
from
Abraham
in
a
lineal
way
by
Generation
,
or
in
respect
had
to
any
Covenant
God
made
with
him
or
his
fleshly
Seed
as
such
,
that
Covenant
and
Covenant
right
being
taken
away
,
he
took
away
the
first
that
he
might
establish
the
second
,
Heb.
10.
9.
for
the
Priest-hood
being
charged
,
there
is
made
of
necessity
a
change
also
of
the
Law
,
Heb.
7.
12.
there
is
therefore
now
no
knowing
or
esteeming
of
Persons
after
that
old
Covenant
manner
,
the
new
Covenant
being
quite
different
,
or
not
according
to
the
old
,
which
run
to
Abraham's
Fleshly
Seed
as
such
;
they
must
now
believe
,
and
their
Children
must
believe
,
before
admitted
as
Members
into
the
Gospel
Church
,
therefore
if
any
Man
be
in
Christ
,
he
is
a
new
Creature
,
old
things
are
passed
away
and
all
things
are
become
new
,
2
Cor.
5.
17.
if
any
Person
be
grafted
into
Christ
,
or
into
the
Gospel
Church
,
he
must
have
Faith
and
be
a
new
Creature
,
or
be
of
the
New
Creation
as
the
Greek
word
holds
forth
;
●ay
,
(
saith
he
)
though
we
have
known
Christ
after
the
Flesh
,
that
is
a
Son
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
or
esteemed
him
upon
that
account
,
Yet
henceforth
we
know
him
,
or
prefer
him
in
that
respect
no
more
;
this
was
that
Doctrine
〈◊〉
preached
,
and
't
is
very
probable
it
was
as
much
from
hence
that
they
charged
him
,
for
perswading
Men
contrary
to
the
Law
,
as
upon
any
other
Consideration
whatsoever
;
therefore
all
your
flourish
on
this
respect
is
vain
,
but
since
you
make
so
great
a
stir
about
the
baptizing
of
whole
Housholds
;
I
shall
add
something
farther
to
clear
up
this
Matter
,
and
I
argue
thus
,
viz.
1.
If
there
were
no
Families
or
Housholds
,
but
in
which
there
are
some
Infants
,
you
might
have
some
pretence
for
what
you
infer
from
hence
;
but
how
palpable
is
it
,
that
there
are
every
where
many
whole
Families
,
in
which
there
is
no
Infant
or
Child
in
nonage
,
and
this
being
so
,
what
certain
Conclusion
or
Consequence
can
he
drawn
from
hence
?
2.
Besides
you
know
by
a
Synecdecha
,
a
part
is
put
for
the
whole
,
as
Isa.
7.
2
,
5
,
8
,
9.
the
Tribe
of
Ephraim
is
put
for
all
Israel
:
't
is
said
,
all
Jerusalem
and
Judah
went
out
to
be
baptized
by
John
in
Jordan
.
In
1
Sam.
1
,
21.
22.
the
Text
saith
,
The
Man
Elkanah
,
and
all
his
House
went
up
to
offer
unto
the
Lord
,
yet
in
the
next
Verse
't
is
said
expresly
,
That
Hannah
and
her
Child
Samuel
went
not
up
;
nay
you
have
shewed
us
a
Family
or
whole
House
that
were
said
to
bury
the
Body
of
Sampson
,
and
yet
you
tell
us
the
little
Children
were
not
included
in
that
Expression
,
all
his
House
.
3.
As
touching
the
Goalers
House
,
't
is
positively
said
,
Paul
preached
to
him
,
and
to
all
that
were
in
his
House
,
do
you
think
he
preached
to
his
Infants
(
if
he
had
any
?
)
but
to
put
the
matter
out
of
doubt
,
't
is
said
he
rejoyced
,
believing
in
God
with
all
his
House
,
as
well
as
't
is
said
,
he
was
baptized
and
all
his
.
4.
Touching
Lydia
,
we
say
't
is
uncertain
whether
she
was
a
Maid
,
Widow
or
Wife
,
but
if
she
was
Married
and
had
Children
;
't
is
very
unlikely
(
if
Babes
)
that
they
were
at
that
time
with
her
,
because
she
was
far
from
her
proper
dwelling
,
nay
many
Miles
from
it
,
for
she
was
of
the
City
of
Thiatira
,
verse
14.
but
when
Paul
preached
to
her
,
she
was
at
Philippi
,
where
she
was
Merchandizing
,
being
a
seller
of
Purple
.
Can
we
suppose
she
carried
her
little
Babes
so
far
to
Market
?
Besides
those
of
her
House
were
called
Brethren
,
who
were
baptized
with
her
,
therefore
sure
Children
cannot
be
here
meant
;
will
you
build
your
Practice
of
baptizing
little
Babes
from
such
uncertain
Conclusions
,
when
't
is
doubtful
whether
she
had
any
Children
or
no
?
Or
if
she
had
,
whether
they
were
with
her
at
that
time
or
not
;
our
denying
of
it
is
as
good
as
your
affirming
of
it
,
yet
't
is
plain
she
had
Servants
,
or
some
who
are
called
her
Houshold
,
therefore
what
you
say
is
impertinent
upon
this
account
.
And
thus
it
appears
to
all
impartial
Persons
,
that
there
is
nothing
in
this
argument
touching
the
practice
of
the
Gospel
Church
;
hears
no
mention
made
in
baptizing
whole
Housholds
of
one
Infant
baptized
,
nor
the
least
color
of
reason
to
conclude
there
were
.
Mr.
Burkit
is
so
unreasonable
as
to
put
us
upon
searching
the
Scripture
to
prove
a
Negative
,
i.
e.
that
there
were
none
baptized
in
Infancy
;
we
might
as
well
have
desired
him
to
give
proof
that
there
never
was
any
Infant
ordained
an
Elder
,
or
Pastor
of
a
Church
;
or
how
can
we
prove
they
did
not
make
use
of
Honey
or
Oil
in
Baptism
,
which
some
of
the
ancient
Fathers
used
,
as
Mr.
Perkins
Notes
,
or
Salt
or
Spittle
,
which
practice
is
still
in
the
Romish
Church
?
Where
is
the
extream
●unction
forbid
,
or
auricular
Confession
,
or
the
use
of
Beads
in
Prayer
,
and
a
hundred
more
such
Romish
Fopperies
?
May
these
things
be
therefore
done
,
because
we
read
not
that
they
are
forbid
,
I
thought
adding
to
God's
Word
was
forbidden
,
Rev.
22.
But
says
Mr.
Burkit
,
search
the
Scripture
,
and
produce
me
any
one
instance
if
you
can
from
the
time
of
St.
John
the
Baptist
,
to
the
time
of
St.
John
the
Evangelist
,
which
was
more
than
threescore
Years
,
during
which
time
many
Thousands
of
Infants
were
grown
up
to
maturity
,
and
make
it
appear
there
were
not
any
baptized
in
their
Infancy
,
or
that
their
Baptism
was
deferred
till
riper
years
,
or
that
there
is
any
divine
Command
for
the
delaying
the
baptism
of
Children
of
Christian
Parents
,
until
they
are
grown
up
,
and
I
will
frankly
yield
the
Cause
.
Bravely
spoken
.
Ans.
I
must
retort
this
argument
back
again
on
him
,
and
must
say
,
it
is
a
great
argument
against
Infant
Baptism
,
and
not
for
it
;
for
,
say
I
,
let
it
be
considered
,
that
since
there
was
such
a
long
space
of
time
as
60
Years
and
more
,
between
John
Baptist
and
the
Death
of
John
the
beloved
Disciple
,
or
John
the
Evangelist
,
during
which
time
many
Thousand
,
of
Infants
were
born
of
baptized
Believers
,
both
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
yet
we
read
not
of
one
Infant
of
them
that
was
baptized
.
Reader
,
observe
Mr.
Burkit
,
says
in
the
Gospel
day
,
and
when
our
Saviour
sent
his
Disciples
first
to
preach
,
they
were
to
teach
or
make
Disciples
of
those
they
baptized
;
but
upon
the
Parents
believing
and
being
baptized
,
he
says
,
their
Children
were
admitted
to
Baptism
also
.
Now
say
I
,
since
many
Parents
thus
taught
and
baptized
,
had
multitudes
of
Infants
born
to
them
;
how
comes
it
about
that
we
read
not
of
one
of
their
Infants
that
were
baptized
,
no
not
from
the
time
of
John
Baptist
,
to
the
Death
of
John
the
Evangelist
?
Can
any
Man
think
,
had
any
Infants
been
baptized
,
that
God
would
not
have
left
some
account
of
it
,
to
put
the
matter
out
of
doubt
,
especially
since
it
was
never
taught
Doctrinally
nor
Commanded
?
Certainly
,
it
could
not
stand
consistent
with
the
Care
,
Wisdom
and
Faithfulness
of
Jesus
Christ
,
to
have
hid
and
concealed
such
a
Practice
,
had
there
been
one
Infant
by
his
Authority
or
Allowance
baptized
.
But
since
the
Scripture
is
silent
in
it
,
we
may
assure
our Selves
't
is
not
the
will
of
God
,
Infants
should
be
be
baptized
.
Also
if
those
who
were
to
be
baptized
were
first
to
be
taught
,
were
first
to
repent
and
believe
,
Then
it
follows
clearly
,
that
Baptism
must
be
deferred
till
Children
were
ofripe
Years
,
and
able
so
to
do
,
and
did
not
Mary
delay
the
baptizing
of
the
Holy
Child
Jesus
-
As
to
the
House
of
Crispus
,
you
your self
acknowledge
,
they
all
believed
,
these
are
your
words
,
viz.
it
is
true
,
all
the
House
of
Crispus
were
Believers
,
viz.
Adult
Persons
,
but
say
you
,
were
all
the
Housholds
of
the
Faithful
Barren
,
&c.
Ans.
No
doubt
but
in
some
of
those
Housholds
were
Children
,
they
might
not
be
all
Barren
without
Children
,
yet
their
Children
might
be
grown
up
to
maturity
;
but
you
your self
have
proved
that
whole
Houses
may
be
said
to
be
baptized
,
and
yet
none
but
the
Adult
in
those
Housholds
might
be
baptized
,
seeing
the
Scripture
you
quoted
,
saith
,
that
Sampson
was
buried
by
all
his
Fathers
House
,
yet
none
of
the
little
Children
in
that
House
could
be
concerned
in
that
matter
.
As
to
the
House
of
Stephanas
you
say
well
,
they
are
called
the
first
Fruits
of
Achaia
.
I
beseech
you
Brethren
,
ye
know
the
Houshold
of
Stephanas
,
that
is
the
first
Fruits
of
Achaia
,
and
that
they
have
addicted
themselves
to
the
ministry
of
the
Saints
,
1
Cor.
16.
15.
that
you
submit
your selves
to
such
,
vers.
16.
Ans.
They
,
that
is
the
whole
Houshold
gave
themselves
up
to
administer
to
the
Saints
,
but
besure
little
Babes
could
not
do
that
,
nor
ought
the
Adult
to
submit
themselves
to
little
Children
,
or
esteem
and
reverence
them
for
acts
of
Charity
.
You
bring
in
this
Objection
,
viz.
we
do
not
read
of
any
Infant
that
were
in
those
Housholds
,
to
which
you
answer
,
if
the
Housholds
of
the
Corinthians
when
the
Apostle
baptized
them
were
so
barren
,
what
need
had
the
Apostle
to
write
unto
them
that
their
Children
were
holy
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
it
is
more
than
probable
,
that
Children
were
in
every
Houshold
that
was
baptized
.
Ans.
Now
you
go
over
again
with
your
former
argument
,
and
repeat
the
same
things
which
I
have
again
and
again
answer'd
,
about
the
Childs
being
in
Covenant
,
after
the
Head
of
the
Family
or
the
Parents
do
believe
.
2.
I
say
,
't
is
very
probable
there
might
be
no
Children
in
non-age
in
those
Housholds
,
because
't
is
said
,
the
whole
House
had
believed
.
3.
If
there
were
yet
by
your
own
grant
,
all
the
House
might
be
said
to
be
baptized
,
and
yet
no
little
Children
baptized
that
might
be
in
those
Housholds
,
because
all
is
often
taken
but
for
a
part
.
4.
But
will
you
said
I
build
an
Ordinance
upon
a
probability
and
on
uncertain
Consequences
;
nay
one
of
the
sacred
Institutions
of
the
Gospel
,
called
one
of
the
two
great
Sacraments
thereof
;
that
Text
,
1
Cor.
7.
14.
we
have
already
answered
.
Now
from
the
whole
,
we
shall
draw
Conclusions
in
opposition
to
yours
.
1.
That
the
Covenant
that
God
made
with
Noah
and
his
Family
,
was
a
Covenant
made
with
all
the
World
,
and
so
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
though
there
was
Mercy
and
Grace
contained
in
it
to
all
Mankind
,
and
to
the
Fowls
of
the
Air
,
and
Beasts
of
the
Field
also
.
2.
That
God's
taking
all
Abraham's
Family
or
Household
into
Covenant
as
such
,
it
was
only
a
Covenant
that
peculiarly
appertained
to
his
natural
Seed
,
and
it
had
many
Temporal
Blessings
and
Priviledges
attending
it
,
which
no
Houshold
under
the
Gospel
can
pretend
unto
,
and
of
this
Covenant
Circumcision
was
a
sign
,
and
that
Circumsion
was
only
given
to
be
a
Seal
of
the
righteousness
of
Faith
to
Abraham
only
,
and
not
to
little
Children
.
3.
That
the
whole
House
of
Israel
as
such
,
or
the
whole
Nation
of
the
Jews
,
under
the
Law
were
all
as
so
considered
then
,
the
Church
of
God
,
and
that
the
Gospel
Church
consisteth
not
of
whole
Housholds
or
any
one
whole
Nation
,
it
being
not
of
an
National
Constitution
,
but
Congregational
only
,
consisting
of
none
but
of
believers
,
baptized
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
who
are
called
the
Houshold
of
Faith
.
4.
That
the
whole
House
of
Israel
was
a
typical
Church
,
who
were
holy
with
a
Ceremonial
and
Typical
Holiness
,
signifiing
that
all
the
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
should
be
spiritually
and
savingly
Holy
.
5.
That
God
in
the
Gospel
times
,
(
though
now
and
then
he
is
pleased
to
call
by
his
Grace
,
all
or
the
greatest
part
of
whole
Families
,
yet
contrary
to
the
old
Covenant
)
he
usually
now
takes
but
two
of
a
City
and
one
of
a
Family
,
and
brings
them
into
his
true
Gospel
Sion
.
6.
That
the
first
Churches
were
only
planted
of
such
that
believed
,
some
out
of
one
Family
,
and
some
out
of
other
Families
,
and
that
out
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
such
that
were
called
of
the
Gentile
Nations
.
7.
That
the
Parents
Faith
saves
none
of
his
Household
,
either
Children
or
Servants
,
nor
gives
them
any
right
to
Gospel
Baptism
.
8.
Lastly
,
one
would
think
these
things
to
be
clear
enough
to
give
Satisfaction
to
all
that
desire
Satisfaction
about
Infant
Baptism
,
and
that
there
is
not
the
least
shadow
of
proof
for
it
from
what
our
Brethren
argue
,
from
whole
Families
who
were
said
to
be
baptized
,
if
we
compare
Scripture
with
Scripture
,
for
as
we
find
,
no
Precept
nor
Example
for
Infant
Baptism
,
so
not
any
Consequence
for
it
,
that
is
naturally
drawn
from
any
Text
of
Holy
Scripture
,
to
which
the
Pedo-Baptists
do
refer
,
CHAP.
XVII
.
Proving
that
Children
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
,
because
they
were
baptized
in
divers
Centuries
or
Ages
under
the
Apostacy
of
the
Church
,
when
most
of
Christs
Institutions
were
corrupted
;
wherein
it
is
also
proved
,
that
for
the
two
first
Hundred
Years
after
Christ
,
no
Infants
were
baptized
,
containing
an
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
14
Chapter
and
11
Argument
,
to
prove
Infant
Baptism
.
THus
Mr.
Owen
begins
in
his
14th
Chapter
of
his
Book
,
viz.
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
were
baptized
in
every
Age
of
the
Church
of
God
since
the
Apostles
time
until
this
latter
Age
,
as
I
can
prove
at
large
if
it
were
profitable
for
the
unlearned
Reader
,
I
shall
set
down
some
Examples
.
Ans.
8.
Your
argument
is
,
that
Children
ought
to
be
baptized
,
because
they
were
baptized
in
every
age
of
the
Church
since
the
Apostles
time
.
Ans.
1.
Give
one
Instance
if
you
can
,
out
of
approved
History
,
of
one
Infant
baptized
in
the
first
or
second
Century
,
but
pass
by
Two
or
Three
Hundred
Years
after
Christ
,
and
many
errors
besides
this
of
Infant
Baptism
crept
amain
into
the
Churches
.
But
pray
remember
,
now
you
are
without
Book
,
you
are
forced
to
quit
the
Holy
Bible
,
the
Sacred
History
,
and
great
Charter
of
the
Church
;
and
therefore
all
your
proof
out
of
Humane
History
,
which
may
be
true
,
or
may
not
be
true
,
signifies
nothing
.
But
you
had
best
take
heed
,
lest
we
carry
the
cause
against
you
here
too
,
i.
e.
for
the
first
Centuries
;
we
will
examine
your
Authors
and
humane
Testimonies
.
The
first
is
Calvin
a
latter
Writer
,
I
know
not
but
Ireneus
and
Cyprian
might
be
both
had
out
of
him
:
I
do
confess
,
Ireneus
lived
not
above
Two
Hundred
Years
after
Christ
;
or
in
the
second
Century
,
thus
he
and
many
others
cite
him
,
viz.
Omnes
venit
Christus
per
semet
ipsum
salvare
,
omnes
qui
per
eum
renascuntur
ad
Deum
Infantes
,
&
parvulos
Juniores
&
Seniores
.
In
English
thus
:
Christ
Jesus
came
to
save
all
by
himself
,
all
who
by
him
are
born
again
unto
God
,
Infants
and
little
ones
,
Young
and
Old
.
Ans.
Reader
,
pray
observe
,
here
is
not
a
word
of
one
Infant
baptized
;
but
this
Man
infers
it
from
his
Words
,
so
that
we
have
nothing
but
Consequences
,
neither
from
God's
Word
,
nor
the
words
of
Man
.
Christ
,
no
doubt
,
came
to
save
some
of
all
sorts
of
Men
,
and
who
doubts
but
he
came
to
save
Infants
,
and
little
ones
,
Young
and
Old
?
But
why
must
these
Words
[
who
are
born
again
]
be
applyed
to
Infant
Baptism
.
The
scope
of
Ireneas
in
that
Chapter
,
is
to
refute
the
Gnosticks
,
who
said
that
Christ
did
not
exceed
One
and
Thirty
Years
of
age
;
against
whom
Ireneus
alledged
that
Christ
lived
in
every
age
,
i.
e.
of
Infancy
,
Youth
,
and
old
Age
,
that
by
his
Age
and
Example
he
might
sanctifie
every
age
.
So
that
here
Ireneus
speaks
not
of
being
born
again
in
Baptism
;
for
he
saith
,
Omnes
inquam
,
qui
per
eum
renascuntur
in
Deum
;
i.
e.
I
say
,
all
which
are
born
again
by
him
to
God
,
i.
e.
by
Christ
,
not
as
if
he
had
baptized
Infants
,
but
because
he
(
i.
e.
Christ
)
was
an
Infant
,
that
by
the
example
or
virtue
of
his
Age
,
he
might
sanctifie
Infants
,
as
the
whole
Discourse
in
Latin
plainly
shews
,
viz.
Magister
ergo
existens
,
Magistri
quoque
habebat
atatem
,
non
reprobans
,
nec
super
grediens
hominem
,
neque
solvens
suam
legem
in
se
humani
generis
,
sed
omnem
etatem
sanctificans
per
illam
,
&c.
2.
As
to
Cyprian
,
he
lived
as
I
find
it
in
History
,
about
248
or
300
Years
after
Christ
;
and
should
I
tell
the
Reader
what
Corruptions
and
Errors
were
let
in
about
that
time
,
he
would
not
wonder
to
hear
Infants
were
allowed
Baptism
:
Yet
we
have
Cyprian
against
Cyprian
.
It
is
true
,
as
far
as
I
can
gather
in
his
time
,
Infant
Baptism
was
first
introduced
,
without
any
Ground
or
Warrant
from
Christ
;
and
it
was
as
strongly
opposed
,
which
appears
by
the
Debates
and
Doubts
about
it
.
3.
The
third
humane
Authority
that
is
brought
by
Mr.
Burkit
,
is
that
cursed
decree
of
the
Milevetan
Council
,
that
all
who
denyed
Infant
Baptism
should
be
Anathema
,
accursed
.
If
he
comes
but
a
little
lower
,
he
hath
proof
enough
in
the
Popish
Councils
,
Decrees
and
Canors
.
But
't
is
to
be
observed
,
that
those
Fathers
pleaded
for
Infant
Baptism
,
as
that
which
took
away
Original
Sin
,
and
gave
Children
the
Eucharist
too
,
in
the
first
Sacrament
abusing
that
Text
,
John
3.
5.
and
in
the
other
,
that
in
John
6.
53.
These
are
all
the
humane
Proofs
from
the
Churches
,
after
the
primitive
Apostolical
days
which
Mr.
Burkit
brought
,
and
I
doubt
not
but
to
give
better
and
more
Authentick
Authors
of
the
ancient
Fathers
against
Infant
Baptism
,
than
hath
been
brought
for
it
,
and
some
of
them
nearer
the
Apostles
days
too
.
The
first
is
Justin
Martyr
;
though
I
have
him
not
,
yet
take
his
Words
,
as
they
are
cited
by
Mr.
Richard
Baxters
Saints
Rest
,
Chap.
8.
Sect.
5.
I
will
declare
unto
you
,
how
we
offer
up
our selves
unto
God
,
after
that
we
are
renewed
through
Christ
,
those
amongst
us
that
are
instructed
in
the
Faith
,
and
believe
that
which
we
teach
them
is
true
,
being
willing
to
live
according
to
the
same
,
We
do
admonish
them
to
fast
and
pray
for
forgiveness
of
Sinns
,
and
we
also
pray
with
them
,
and
when
they
are
brought
by
us
into
the
Water
,
and
there
as
we
were
new
born
,
are
they
also
by
the
new
Birth
received
,
and
then
in
calling
upon
God
the
Father
,
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
they
are
washed
in
Water
,
&c.
the
Food
we
call
the
Euchrist
,
to
which
no
Man
is
admitted
,
but
only
he
that
believeth
the
Truth
of
the
Doctrine
,
being
washed
in
the
laver
of
Regeneration
for
Remission
of
Sinns
,
and
so
liveth
as
Christ
hath
taught
,
this
you
see
,
saith
Mr.
Baxter
,
is
no
new
way
.
4.
You
cite
Origen
,
who
was
you
say
famous
in
the
year
230
,
who
saith
,
in
Hom.
8
in
Levit.
de
Infantibus
baptizandis
Ecclesia
traditionem
accepit
ab
Apostolis
,
theChurch
received
infant
Baptism
by
Tradition
from
the
Apostles
,
we
have
proved
you
say
,
before
this
was
a
Scripture
Tradition
,
for
the
Apostles
baptized
little
Children
.
Ans.
We
may
cite
Origen
against
Origen
,
so
little
credit
is
to
be
given
to
History
in
this
case
about
him
,
and
some
other
of
the
Fathers
,
for
I
find
Origen
saith
,
viz.
they
that
are
rightly
baptized
are
washed
unto
Salvation
,
but
so
was
not
Simon
Magus
,
he
that
is
baptized
unto
Salvation
,
receives
the
Water
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
which
Simon
did
not
but
Water
only
,
Hom.
6.
upon
Ezek.
●…1
.
6.
v.
4.
Mountanus
,
p.
36.
37.
and
in
his
Commentary
upon
Rom.
6.
saith
the
same
Origen
,
such
Baptism
that
was
accompanied
with
crucifying
the
Flesh
,
and
rising
again
to
newness
of
Life
,
was
the
approved
Baptism
;
I
must
confess
that
Dr.
Taylor
saith
,
that
Origen
and
Austin
are
the
only
Witnesses
that
asserted
Infant
Baptism
to
be
an
Apostolical
Tradition
;
but
it
appears
by
Erasmus
,
that
Origen's
writings
were
greatly
corrupted
by
Russinus
,
and
made
to
speak
sometimes
for
Infant
Baptism
.
See
Jacob
Merci●gus
,
p.
283.
291.
and
Montanus
p.
29.
to
35
,
42
,
43.
Sir
,
had
you
proved
Infant
Baptism
from
the
Scripture
,
and
that
the
Apostles
baptized
Infants
,
you
need
not
go
to
Humane
History
that
is
so
uncertain
,
and
no
Rule
for
us
.
5.
Gregory
of
Nazianzum
,
who
you
say
was
famous
about
the
year
370
,
beareth
witness
for
Infant
Baptism
;
saith
he
,
omni
aetati
Baptisma
convenit
,
Baptism
is
answerable
unto
every
Age.
And
again
,
da
infantis
custodiam
,
give
Infants
the
Baptism
of
the
Trinity
,
and
that
will
be
a
great
and
excellent
Guard
unto
them
.
Ans.
I
find
a
worthy
Author
that
quotes
this
Gregory
speaking
quite
the
contrary
thing
;
in
his
third
Oration
,
(
saith
he
)
the
baptized
used
in
the
first
place
to
confess
their
Sins
,
and
to
renounce
the
Devil
and
all
his
Works
before
many
Witnesses
,
and
that
none
were
baptized
of
old
,
but
they
that
did
confess
their
Sins
,
and
how
dangerous
it
was
headlong
,
and
without
due
Preparation
to
partake
thereof
.
He
therefore
adviseth
,
that
the
Baptism
of
Infants
be
deferred
till
they
did
not
only
make
Confession
of
their
Faith
,
but
were
to
desire
the
same
,
see
Dr.
Taylor
,
p.
239.
Now
worthy
Britains
,
what
signifyeth
the
citing
of
such
Fathers
,
when
we
cannot
be
certain
that
we
have
their
true
writings
;
God
hath
preserved
his
sacred
Word
from
Corruption
,
but
not
the
Humane
History
of
the
Fathers
.
2.
But
should
this
Father
and
St.
Austine
,
and
others
that
followed
them
,
be
for
Infant
Baptism
,
what
will
this
avail
the
asserters
of
Infant
Baptism
,
seeing
the
Church
was
before
their
times
so
greatly
corrupted
,
and
many
grand
Errors
brought
in
;
the
Tradition
of
God
Fathers
and
God
Mothers
,
one
of
the
Church
of
England
hath
lately
shewed
to
be
near
as
early
in
the
Church
as
Infant
baptism
,
which
Mr.
Owen
will
not
therefore
receive
to
be
an
Apostolical
Tradition
.
3.
We
readily
grant
,
that
Infant
baptism
is
of
great
Antiquity
,
of
more
then
Thirteen
Hundred
years
standing
,
so
are
many
other
abominable
Errors
,
Practices
and
corrupt
Ceremonies
;
but
from
the
beginning
it
was
not
so
,
viz.
't
is
not
to
be
found
in
Holy
Scripture
,
it
is
none
of
Christs
Institution
;
therefore
an
Human
Invention
;
nor
was
it
practised
in
the
Two
first
hundred
years
after
Christ
,
as
I
shall
now
prove
out
of
as
good
Authors
,
as
any
Mr.
Owen
hath
or
can
produce
.
1.
'T
is
said
Justin
Martyr
was
Converted
about
30
years
after
the
Apostle
John
;
and
by
the
Order
then
used
in
the
Church
,
It
appears
there
was
no
Infant
baptism
thought
of
.
Walafrid
Strabo
,
as
I
find
him
cited
by
a
great
Historian
,
says
,
that
there
was
no
Children
,
but
aged
and
understanding
Persons
Baptized
in
this
Age
;
that
is
to
say
in
the
Second
Century
.
Wal.
Strabo
.
Eccl.
Hist.
cap.
26.
Vicecom.
l.
1.
c
,
30.
Tertullian
in
his
Book
of
Baptism
speaking
of
that
Text
:
Suffer
little
Children
to
come
unto
me
,
saith
he
,
Indeed
the
Lord
said
,
do
not
hinder
them
to
come
unto
me
.
Let
them
come
therefore
while
they
grow
to
Years
,
and
while
come
,
let
them
be
Taught
;
let
them
become
Christians
when
they
are
able
to
know
Christ
.
Why
doth
Innocent
Age
hasten
to
the
Remission
of
Sins
?
Men
will
deal
more
warily
in
Worldly
affairs
:
So
that
they
who
are
not
trusted
with
an
Earthly
Inheritance
,
are
trusted
with
an
Heavenly
one
:
Let
them
ask
for
Salvation
,
that
thou
mayest
appear
to
have
given
it
to
them
.
Dr.
Taylor
saith
,
that
the
Truth
of
the
business
is
,
as
there
is
no
Command
of
Scripture
to
oblige
Children
to
the
susception
of
it
;
so
the
necessity
of
Pedo-Baptism
was
not
determined
in
the
Church
,
till
the
Canons
that
was
made
in
the
Milevitan
Council
,
a
provincial
in
Africa
,
never
till
then
.
I
grant
,
(
saith
he
)
it
was
practised
in
Africa
before
that
time
,
and
they
,
or
some
of
them
thought
well
of
it
.
And
though
that
is
no
argument
for
us
to
think
so
,
yet
none
of
them
ever
pretended
it
to
be
necessary
,
nor
to
have
been
a
precept
of
the
Gospel
.
St.
Austin
was
the
first
that
ever
preached
it
to
be
necessary
,
and
it
was
in
his
Heat
and
Anger
against
Pelagius
.
Thus
Dr.
Taylor
.
Ignatius
in
his
Discourse
about
Baptism
asserts
,
that
it
ought
to
be
accompanyed
with
Faith
,
Love
,
and
Patience
after
Preaching
.
H.
Montanus
p.
45.
and
Jacob
Dubois
,
p.
16.
to
22.
and
Dutch
Martyrology
,
where
Ignatius's
Letters
are
mentioned
to
Polycarp
,
Tralensis
to
them
of
Philadelphia
.
Dr.
Taylor
saith
in
his
Disswasive
against
Popery
,
p.
118.
printed
1667
,
one
of
his
last
pieces
,
Thus
,
viz.
That
there
is
a
Tradition
to
baptize
Infants
,
relies
but
upon
two
Witnesses
,
Origen
and
Austin
,
and
the
latter
having
it
from
the
former
,
it
lies
upon
a
single
Testimony
,
which
(
saith
he
)
is
a
pittiful
argument
to
prove
a
Tradition
Apostolical
.
He
is
the
first
that
spoke
of
it
;
but
Tertullian
,
that
was
before
him
,
seems
to
speak
against
it
,
which
he
would
not
have
done
,
if
it
had
been
an
Apostolical
Tradition
;
and
that
it
was
not
so
,
is
but
too
certain
,
if
there
be
any
Truth
in
the
Words
of
Ludovicus
Vives
,
who
says
,
that
anciently
none
were
baptized
,
but
Persons
of
ripe
Age.
Great
Bazil
in
his
Book
of
the
Holy
Spirit
,
Cap.
12.
saith
.
Faith
and
Baptism
are
the
two
means
of
Salvation
inseparably
cleaving
together
,
for
Faith
is
not
perfected
by
Baptism
,
but
Baptism
is
founded
by
Faith
,
and
by
the
same
Name
both
things
are
fulfilled
;
for
as
we
believe
in
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Spirit
,
so
also
we
are
baptized
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Spirit
;
and
indeed
there
goeth
before
a
Confession
,
leading
us
to
Salvation
;
but
Baptism
followeth
,
sealing
our
Confession
and
Covenant
.
The
same
Churches
Teacher
(
saith
the
learned
Dr.
Du-Veil
)
in
his
Third
Book
against
Eunomius
,
speaketh
thus
,
viz.
Baptism
is
the
Seal
of
Faith
,
Faith
is
the
Confession
of
the
Godhead
;
it
is
necessary
we
should
first
Believe
,
and
then
be
sealed
in
Baptism
.
Du
veilon
,
Acts
,
c.
8.
p.
278.
Zonaras
saith
,
the
Babe
will
then
need
Baptism
when
it
can
chuse
it
.
Gregory
Nazianzen
in
his
Fourth
Oration
,
saith
Dr.
Du-Veil
,
Of
those
who
dye
without
Baptism
,
gives
us
an
Instance
in
those
to
whom
Baptism
was
not
administred
by
reason
of
Infancy
.
And
the
same
Nazianzen
,
though
he
was
a
Bishops
Son
,
being
a
long
time
bred
up
under
his
Fathers
care
,
was
not
,
saith
the
said
Dr
,
baptized
till
he
came
to
Man's
Age.
In
like
manner
(
saith
he
)
Basil
the
Great
that
was
born
of
devout
Parents
,
and
instructed
from
his
Childhood
,
was
not
baptized
until
a
Man
,
p.
280.
Also
,
saith
he
,
John
of
Antioch
,
called
afterwards
Chrysostom
,
was
born
of
Christian
Parents
,
as
the
truer
Opinion
is
,
tutored
by
the
famous
Bishop
Miletius
,
was
not
yet
baptized
,
till
he
was
One
and
Twenty
Years
of
Age.
Hierom
,
also
Ambrose
and
Austin
,
who
were
born
of
Christian
Parents
,
and
consecrated
to
Christian
Discipline
,
even
from
their
Childhood
,
were
not
baptized
before
thirty
years
of
age
,
as
Dr.
Taylor
Bishop
of
Down
asserts
in
his
Twelfth
Section
of
the
Life
of
Christ
.
Now
,
Sir
here
are
Examples
enough
that
do
prove
in
the
primitive
times
,
Children
of
baptized
Believers
were
not
baptized
,
but
had
their
Baptism
delayed
till
they
themselves
believed
,
and
gave
an
account
of
their
Faith
.
Had
it
been
the
constant
custom
of
the
Godly
to
baptize
Infants
,
would
not
these
,
think
you
,
have
been
in
their
Infancy
baptized
?
Grotius
,
as
I
find
him
quoted
by
Dr.
Du-Veil
,
saith
,
The
Primitive
Churches
did
not
baptize
Infants
,
see
Grotius's
Notes
on
the
Gospel
.
Nay
,
(
saith
the
same
great
and
learned
Author
,
)
it
doth
most
plainly
appear
by
the
right
of
baptizing
in
the
Romish
Church
,
for
baptism
is
to
be
asked
before
the
Person
to
be
baptized
do
enter
into
the
Church
,
which
the
surety
does
in
the
Infants
Name
,
a
clear
distinct
confession
of
Faith
is
required
,
which
the
same
surety
rehearseth
in
the
Infants
Name
,
i.
e.
a
Renouncing
of
the
World
,
its
Pomps
,
the
Flesh
,
and
the
Devil
.
We
may
by
this
perceive
from
whence
the
Original
of
our
old
Church
Catechism
came
.
But
this
is
a
clear
Argument
,
saith
the
Dr.
to
prove
of
old
,
the
Persons
who
were
to
be
baptized
,
themselves
asked
Baptism
in
their
own
Name
,
and
of
their
own
choice
,
and
professed
their
own
Faith
.
In
the
Neo-Cesarean
Council
it
was
framed
thus
.
As
to
those
who
are
big
with
Child
,
they
ought
to
be
baptized
when
they
will
,
for
in
this
Secrament
there
is
nothing
common
to
her
that
brings
forth
,
and
that
which
shall
be
brought
forth
from
her
Womb
,
because
in
that
Confession
,
the
Liberty
of
every
ones
Choice
is
declared
.
Whence
we
may
infer
,
1.
That
in
that
age
,
there
seemed
to
be
that
aversness
from
baptizing
Children
,
that
they
were
not
willing
to
admit
Women
great
with
Child
to
Baptism
,
lest
it
should
be
thought
that
the
Child
was
baptized
with
them
.
2.
That
in
those
times
in
the
Confession
of
Faith
,
in
the
Death
,
Burial
,
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
which
was
done
in
a
Publick
and
Solemn
manner
in
their
Baptism
,
a
liberty
of
Choice
and
Consent
was
required
as
preparatory
to
it
;
for
the
incapacity
of
the
Infant
in
the
Womb
,
to
declare
this
Choice
and
Consent
,
is
the
reason
why
they
conclude
that
the
Infant
was
not
baptized
with
the
Mother
.
3.
That
it
was
then
judg'd
necessary
to
have
the
Consent
and
Choice
of
those
who
were
to
be
baptized
.
Dr.
Du-Veil
,
citing
the
same
Synod
on
this
passage
(
viz.
that
concerning
the
Baptism
of
a
Woman
with
Child
,
that
her
Baptism
concerns
not
her
Child
,
for
every
one
is
to
give
a
demonstration
of
his
own
Faith
and
Confession
)
saith
,
however
the
interpreters
draw
it
to
another
purpose
;
it
does
appear
that
the
Question
was
made
of
a
Woman
big
with
Child
,
because
it
did
seem
that
the
Child
was
baptized
together
with
the
Mother
,
which
notwitstanding
ought
not
to
be
used
,
nor
to
be
baptized
,
except
of
its
own
proper
Election
and
Profession
.
Dr.
Barlow
,
Late
Bishop
of
Lincoln
,
in
his
Letter
to
Mr.
T.
saith
,
I
believe
there
is
neither
Precept
nor
Example
in
the
Scripture
for
Pedo-Baptism
,
nor
any
just
Evidence
for
it
,
for
above
200
Years
after
Christ
.
Tertullian
condemns
it
as
an
unwarrantable
Custom
,
and
Naziarzen
a
good
while
after
dislikes
it
:
Sure
I
am
,
(
saith
he
)
that
in
the
primitive
times
they
were
Cat●cum●ni
,
then
Illuminati
or
Baptizati
,
and
that
not
only
Pagans
,
and
Children
of
Pagans
Converted
,
but
Children
of
Christian
Parents
.
The
Truth
is
,
I
do
believe
Pedo-Baptism
,
how
or
by
whom
I
know
not
,
came
into
the
World
in
the
second
Century
,
and
in
the
third
and
fourth
began
to
be
practised
,
though
not
generally
,
and
was
defended
as
lawful
from
the
Text
,
John
3.
〈◊〉
.
grosly
misunderstanding
it
,
upon
the
like
〈◊〉
.
〈◊〉
6.
53
,
they
did
for
many
Centuries
both
in
the
Greek
and
Latin
Church
Communicate
Infants
,
and
gave
them
the
Lord's
Supper
;
and
I
confess
,
they
might
do
both
as
well
as
either
,
&c.
Thus
Bishop
Barlow
.
〈◊〉
saith
,
Pedo-Baptismus
duobus
primis
a
Christo
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fuit
incognitus
,
&c.
Pedo
Baptism
was
unknown
in
the
two
first
Ages
after
Christ
,
but
in
the
third
and
fourth
it
was
approved
of
by
a
few
;
in
the
fifth
and
following
Ages
it
began
to
be
generally
received
.
And
therefore
(
as
afterwards
he
saith
)
the
right
in
indeed
observed
by
us
as
an
ancient
Custom
,
but
〈◊〉
an
Apostolical
Tradition
.
The
same
learned
Author
,
saith
,
De
peccato
Orig.
Numb
.
〈◊〉
.
saith
Morem
Infantes
Baptizandi
non
capisse
〈…〉
Seculum
,
&c.
That
the
custom
of
〈◊〉
infants
,
did
not
begin
till
the
Third
Age
〈◊〉
Christ
,
but
in
the
two
former
no
footsteps
of
it
appear
.
And
afterwards
saith
Sine
ipsius
[
Christi
]
〈…〉
;
it
was
introduced
without
the
command
of
Christ
.
Athanasius
in
sermone
3
contra
Arianos
,
saith
,
our
Saviour
did
not
slightly
command
to
baptize
,
but
first
of
all
said
,
Teach
and
then
Baptize
,
that
true
Faith
might
come
by
teaching
,
and
Baptism
be
perfected
by
Faith
.
Haimo
in
Postilla
upon
the
Text
,
Go
teach
all
Nations
,
Fol.
278.
In
this
place
,
(
saith
he
)
is
set
down
a
Rule
rightly
how
to
baptize
,
that
is
,
that
Teaching
should
go
before
Baptism
;
for
he
saith
,
teach
all
Nations
,
and
then
he
saith
,
and
baptize
them
,
for
he
that
is
to
be
baptized
,
must
be
before
instructed
;
that
he
first
learn
to
believe
that
which
in
Baptism
he
shall
receive
;
for
as
Faith
without
works
is
Dead
,
so
Works
when
they
are
not
of
Faith
,
are
nothing
worth
.
Idem
in
Annatationibus
in
mar
.
The
Apostles
were
commanded
first
to
Teach
and
then
to
baptize
:
The
Jews
were
brought
by
Ceremonies
to
the
Knowledge
of
the
Truth
,
but
Christians
must
learn
to
know
them
first
.
Beda
saith
,
all
those
that
came
to
the
Apostles
to
be
baptized
,
were
instructed
and
taught
concerning
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
then
they
received
the
Holy
Administration
thereof
.
Rabanus
,
the
Catechi
,
which
is
the
Doctrine
of
Faith
,
must
go
before
Baptism
,
to
the
intent
that
he
that
is
to
be
baptized
,
(
i.
e.
Catechamenus
)
may
first
learn
the
Mysteries
of
Faith
.
Arnobius
,
Thou
art
not
first
(
saith
he
)
baptized
,
and
then
beginnest
to
effect
and
embrace
the
Faith
;
but
when
thou
art
to
be
baptized
,
thou
signifie
unto
the
Priest
what
thy
desire
is
,
and
makest
thy
Confession
with
thy
Mouth
.
Jerom
upon
Matt.
saith
,
The
Lord
commandeth
his
Apostles
that
they
should
first
instruct
and
teach
all
Nations
,
and
afterwards
should
baptize
those
that
were
instructed
into
the
Mysteries
of
the
Faith
;
for
it
cannot
be
,
(
saith
he
)
that
the
Body
should
receive
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
till
the
Soul
have
received
the
true
Faith
.
Sir
,
What
think
you
now
of
the
Testimony
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
and
of
the
practice
of
the
Churches
after
the
Apostles
days
?
Sure
the
Reader
must
needs
conclude
,
we
have
the
advantage
here
too
,
and
you
must
yield
whether
you
will
or
no
,
and
give
up
the
Controversie
.
But
to
proceed
,
Your
first
Demonstration
to
prove
Infant
Baptism
in
the
days
after
the
Apostles
is
this
,
viz.
because
that
Children
had
Hands
laid
upon
them
in
their
Minority
.
Ans.
This
signifies
nothing
,
for
as
the
Fathers
changed
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
from
believing
Men
and
Women
to
ignorant
Babes
,
so
they
changed
imposition
of
Hands
(
which
I
own
to
be
a
principle
of
Christ's
Doctrine
,
Heb.
6.
12
)
to
such
young
People
,
who
in
their
Minority
had
learned
the
Articles
of
the
Christian
Faith
.
But
clear
it
is
,
in
the
primitive
Apostolical
times
,
none
but
baptized
Believers
were
admitted
to
that
Ordinance
of
laying
on
of
Hands
,
as
Acts
8.
14.
and
19.
6.
But
your
Brother
Mr.
Burkit
acknowledgeth
,
that
formerly
there
were
such
called
Catechumeni
,
Persons
taught
or
instructed
,
and
afterwards
baptized
.
He
saith
further
,
that
there
were
two
sorts
,
the
last
he
brings
for
his
purpose
,
but
I
know
not
where
he
hath
his
Testimony
,
and
therefore
pass
it
by
.
So
much
to
your
first
Demonstration
from
the
Fathers
.
Your
second
Demonstration
to
prove
Infant
Baptism
is
this
,
viz.
because
in
the
primitive
times
Infants
were
admitted
to
the
Lord's
Supper
,
therefore
you
conclude
they
were
admitted
to
Baptism
.
Ans.
And
they
had
(
say
I
)
as
much
Ground
for
the
one
as
for
the
other
,
and
there
is
the
same
parity
of
reason
to
conclude
,
as
they
erred
in
one
,
so
they
did
in
the
other
.
Why
doth
you
not
from
hence
give
Infants
also
the
Lord's
Supper
?
The
Reason
you
give
I
have
before
proved
insignificant
.
As
to
his
third
Demonstration
,
it
is
not
denyed
but
that
Infant
Baptism
was
received
in
the
Church
in
the
third
and
fourth
Century
,
with
many
other
Fopperies
,
but
that
doth
him
no
kindness
;
the
Church
was
adulterated
from
the
true
Apostolical
Faith
and
Practice
,
in
many
Respects
in
those
and
after
times
downwards
.
His
fourth
Demonstration
is
this
,
viz.
If
it
was
a
gross
Error
in
the
Primitive
Fathers
to
admit
Infants
to
Baptism
,
then
they
in
suffering
such
an
Error
to
pass
uncensured
and
uncondemned
,
were
guilty
of
the
greatest
Impiety
,
&c.
Answ.
What
then
?
I
ask
him
and
you
,
or
any
other
of
our
Opposers
,
whether
ye
do
not
believe
for
several
Centuries
those
Fathers
who
admitted
Infants
to
the
Lord's
Supper
without
censuring
or
condemning
it
,
were
not
guilty
also
of
as
great
Impurity
?
Besides
,
did
not
the
same
Fathers
hold
other
Errors
?
See
Mr.
Perkins
Demonst.
of
the
Problem
,
pag.
488.
These
are
his
Words
,
viz.
And
whereas
some
Fathers
,
viz.
Ireneus
,
Justin
,
Clement
,
Tertullian
,
held
that
the
Law
of
Nature
had
power
to
save
the
Gentiles
without
Christ
.
And
again
he
saith
,
The
Fathers
have
Errors
,
yea
and
sometimes
gross
ones
.
Doth
not
History
tell
us
the
Fathers
used
other
Rites
also
,
and
that
in
Baptism
?
See
Perkins
,
p.
549.
The
Fathers
,
saith
he
,
used
some
other
Rites
and
Ceremonies
which
are
now
omitted
,
as
Kissing
of
the
Child
,
which
was
baptized
,
in
Cyprian
,
l.
3.
ep.
8.
use
of
Milk
and
Honey
,
use
of
Milk
and
Wine
,
Hierom
in
Is
.
c.
55.
It
was
an
use
for
the
Baptizer
to
blow
in
the
Face
of
the
Baptized
;
and
the
Party
baptized
used
to
Exuffiate
the
Devil
,
whom
he
renounced
.
What
Credit
is
to
be
given
to
such
Fathers
?
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
That
Infant-Baptism
was
so
generally
in
the
Church
of
God
,
that
the
Pelagians
could
not
deny
it
,
tho
they
denied
Original
Sin
,
against
the
which
it
was
a
Medicine
.
And
that
Bernard
,
who
lived
between
the
Year
1091
,
and
the
Year
1153
,
declareth
it
was
the
Practice
of
the
Church
in
those
Ages
.
Answ.
We
deny
not
,
but
readily
grant
,
that
the
Baptism
of
Infants
was
in
the
Church
long
before
that
time
:
And
remarkable
't
is
,
that
about
1091
or
1100
,
Popish
Darkness
was
at
its
greatest
height
.
And
was
it
any
wonder
those
Fathers
gave
Baptism
to
Infants
when
it
was
the
Practice
of
those
times
before
Bernard
,
to
give
Infants
the
Lord's
Supper
also
,
as
well
as
Baptism
?
Which
Mr.
Owen
knows
well
enough
,
if
he
hath
read
any
thing
of
History
.
2.
Bernard
,
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
Censur'd
those
who
opposed
Infant-Baptism
,
&c.
1.
From
whence
it
appears
there
were
some
Christians
who
opposed
Infant-Baptism
even
in
the
darkest
time
of
Popery
.
2.
What
Wonder
is
it
to
hear
that
such
in
those
corrupt
times
,
who
deny'd
Infant-Baptism
,
were
censured
,
when
we
who
do
deny
it
now
,
are
so
unrighteously
censured
by
you
and
your
Brethren
,
notwithstanding
such
clear
Light
in
these
days
is
broken
forth
?
Mr.
Owen
also
endeavoureth
to
prove
,
that
the
Waldenses
were
for
Infant-Baptism
.
And
he
seems
to
charge
Mr.
Tombs
and
Mr.
Danvers
for
asserting
the
contrary
.
Answ.
To
which
I
answer
,
I
see
no
reason
why
he
should
condemn
Mr.
Tombs
or
Mr.
Danvers
in
this
matter
;
for
according
to
some
Histories
it
appears
,
that
the
Antient
Waldenses
and
Albigenses
,
as
also
the
Antient
Britains
,
were
for
the
Baptizing
of
Believers
:
see
D.
Balthazar
Lidius
,
in
his
History
of
the
Church
,
p.
2.
col.
2.
out
of
Renarius
,
and
G.
Bildas
in
his
Book
called
De
Historia
Aurelii
Ambrosii
.
And
the
Learned
Usher
,
in
his
Book
of
the
State
of
the
Christian
Church
,
as
Mr.
Danvers
observes
,
p.
237.
shews
,
that
they
desended
Believers-Baptism
in
opposition
to
that
of
Infants
:
see
Moreland
,
Book
1.
c.
4.
p.
67.
yet
no
doubt
but
some
of
the
Waldenses
might
be
for
Infant-Baptism
.
Yet
Mr.
Owen
confesseth
that
Bernard
acknowledgeth
that
History
doth
speak
of
the
Waldenses
denying
Infant-Baptism
,
tho
he
would
fain
have
it
from
what
the
said
Bernard
saith
,
to
be
a
Slander
cast
upon
them
by
their
Enemies
the
Papists
.
Let
it
be
how
it
will
concerning
them
,
know
,
Noble
Britains
,
that
we
build
not
our
Faith
about
Baptism
upon
the
Practice
and
Custom
of
Men
,
Fathers
,
General
Councils
,
Protestant
Reformers
or
Churches
;
but
upon
the
Word
of
God
.
To
conclude
with
this
Argument
:
From
hence
we
infer
,
that
the
practice
of
the
Church
under
the
Romish
Apostacy
of
Infant-Baptism
,
in
every
Age
,
since
the
first
Centuries
unto
these
Times
,
is
no
good
Proof
for
it
.
What
tho
Calvis
and
Luther
,
two
famous
Protestant
Reformers
,
and
many
other
Modern
Divines
were
,
and
many
Godly
and
Learned
Men
are
now
for
this
Tradition
;
Must
it
be
therefore
a
Truth
?
Must
our
Faith
stand
in
the
Wisdom
of
Men
in
this
matter
,
or
in
the
Power
of
God
,
and
in
the
Authority
of
his
Sacred
Word
?
Our
first
Protestant
Reformers
were
raised
up
to
restore
those
Grand
Fundamentals
of
Faith
,
more
than
to
reform
Matters
of
Discipline
,
and
about
this
Rite
of
Infant-Baptism
and
some
other
Ceremonies
.
The
Path
of
the
Just
is
as
a
shining
Light
,
that
shines
more
and
more
to
the
perfect
Day
,
Prov.
4.
18.
You
Hint
,
that
not
one
questioned
the
Privilege
of
Children
to
Baptism
,
until
the
Adversary
came
while
Men
slept
,
and
sowed
Tares
among
the
Wheat
.
Answ.
Sir
,
you
mistake
,
it
was
while
Men
slept
that
the
Enemy
first
sowed
the
evil
Seed
of
Babes-Baptism
in
the
Church
.
Moreover
,
the
Baptism
of
Believers
,
in
opposition
to
Infant-Baptism
,
I
have
proved
is
no
part
of
those
Tares
the
Adversary
hath
sowed
,
but
it
is
Seed
which
Jesus
Christ
himself
sowed
,
or
't
is
(
I
mean
)
his
own
holy
Institution
.
You
tell
us
a
Story
of
one
John
Smith
,
a
Minister
of
the
Church
of
England
,
who
went
into
Holland
,
and
united
with
the
Church
of
one
Mr.
Ainsworth
,
and
in
the
end
being
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
he
baptized
himself
,
and
the●
rebaptized
others
.
Answ.
I
could
tell
you
of
many
evil
and
foul
things
and
practices
done
by
some
Presbyterians
,
but
should
I
brand
the
whole
Brotherhood
from
thence
?
Do
you
not
shew
an
evil
and
detracting
Tongue
,
by
casting
such
Odiums
upon
the
whole
Body
of
gracious
Christians
,
falsly
called
Anabaptists
:
For
we
are
not
for
Rebaptizing
,
or
Baptizing
again
such
who
have
been
truly
and
rightly
Baptized
,
that
were
the
proper
Subjects
of
that
holy
Ordinance
.
2.
But
may
be
this
may
be
a
false
Story
too
,
and
wrote
in
prejudice
by
such
who
loved
not
the
practice
of
baptizing
of
Believers
,
nor
the
People
who
so
practise
.
For
what
need
had
he
to
baptize
himself
,
were
there
none
called
Anabaptists
in
Holland
nor
Germany
before
that
time
?
't
is
much
we
have
not
the
Munster
Story
of
John
of
Leydon
.
I
perceive
you
have
malice
enough
against
us
,
the
Lord
give
you
Repentance
if
it
be
his
Will.
CHAP.
XVIII
.
Shewing
that
Infant
Baptism
is
no
excellent
way
or
means
to
plant
the
Christian
Religion
,
but
a
sinful
thing
;
and
therefore
in
opposition
to
what
Mr.
James
Owen
saith
,
They
ought
not
to
be
baptized
:
being
an
Answer
to
what
he
hath
wrote
in
his
15th
Chapter
,
and
twelfth
and
last
Argument
.
YOU
say
,
Infant
Baptism
is
an
excellent
means
which
God
hath
ordained
for
to
plant
and
continue
the
Church
of
God
:
Christ
thus
commanded
his
Apostles
to
gather
Churches
among
the
Gentiles
,
by
teaching
and
baptizing
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
&c.
Mat.
28.
29.
Answ.
I
answer
:
The
way
it
appears
that
Christ
commanded
his
Apostles
to
gather
Churches
among
the
Gentiles
,
is
first
to
teach
them
,
and
then
baptize
them
;
you
say
right
whilst
you
repeat
the
Text
,
but
God
hath
not
commanded
to
baptize
Infants
,
and
that
way
to
plant
his
Church
.
You
add
,
It
is
an
excellent
means
for
this
end
,
making
Children
to
be
Disciples
of
Christ
;
let
none
marvel
at
this
,
because
Infants
are
of
the
number
of
Disciples
:
Acts
15.
11.
Why
tempt
ye
God
,
to
put
a
yoke
on
the
necks
of
the
Disciples
?
Those
Disciples
were
,
say
you
,
the
Faithful
and
their
Seed
.
Answ.
This
is
not
true
:
The
Disciples
,
in
the
Text
you
cite
,
refer
only
to
Believers
among
the
Gentiles
;
those
false
Teachers
would
have
the
Brethren
be
circumcised
,
and
they
were
they
only
that
are
called
Disciples
.
These
Brethren
being
Gentiles
,
were
never
circumcised
;
and
therefore
these
false
Teachers
taught
them
so
to
be
,
see
Acts
15.
1.
2.
Sir
,
I
will
appeal
to
your
Conscience
in
this
matter
,
Is
not
a
Disciple
one
that
is
taught
or
instructed
,
and
can
Infants
be
called
Disciples
,
who
are
not
capable
of
being
taught
?
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Such
that
are
made
Disciples
by
teaching
,
are
the
Subjects
of
Baptism
according
to
the
Commission
;
and
he
is
in
the
right
.
3.
Doth
the
baptizing
of
Infants
make
them
Disciples
?
Doth
Christ
say
baptize
,
and
so
make
them
Disciples
?
Or
is
it
not
,
make
Disciples
,
and
baptize
them
?
Mathetusate
,
disciplize
,
and
then
it
follows
,
baptize
them
.
You
say
,
Christ
knoweth
how
to
administer
a
secret
Doctrine
to
Infants
,
according
to
his
promise
,
Thy
Children
shall
be
all
taught
of
the
Lord
.
Answ.
1.
No
doubt
but
Christ
is
able
to
do
it
:
But
doth
he
in
a
secret
way
administer
Instruction
to
Infants
?
prove
it
,
and
also
how
you
come
to
know
it
;
for
they
must
be
known
Disciples
,
visible
Disciples
that
are
to
be
baptized
.
2.
Are
they
little
Infants
that
Promise
refers
to
,
i.
e.
Thy
Children
shall
be
all
taught
of
God
?
They
are
Sion's
Children
,
or
such
that
are
born
of
God
that
are
under
that
Promise
,
not
Infants
,
or
our
Children
as
such
;
for
are
all
Believers
natural
Offspring
taught
of
God
when
Babes
,
(
or
adult
either
?
)
O
abominable
abuse
of
the
holy
Text
!
Baptism
(
say
you
)
setteth
little
Children
under
a
particular
obligation
to
be
the
Lord's
;
doubtless
they
can
receive
such
an
obligation
now
as
formerly
they
did
,
Deut.
29.
11
,
12.
And
it
is
as
certain
that
this
Bond
is
a
great
advantage
to
make
them
willing
when
they
come
to
age
,
God
hath
presented
them
by
the
Grace
of
his
Covenant
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
'T
is
you
pretend
to
lay
them
under
an
obligation
,
but
not
by
Christ's
authority
,
prove
he
hath
commanded
you
so
to
do
.
2.
Doth
Baptism
confer
Grace
?
you
seem
to
assert
this
,
for
else
how
hath
God
by
Baptism
prevented
them
?
Your
sprinkling
them
with
water
doth
not
,
cannot
prevent
them
.
I
affirm
therefore
't
is
an
obligation
of
man's
devising
,
for
you
cannot
prove
it
is
of
God's
appointment
;
therefore
to
refuse
to
bring
them
under
such
an
obligation
is
no
fantastick
thing
,
as
you
intimate
it
is
.
You
say
the
mark
of
the
Spirit
is
upon
them
.
Answ.
Baptism
is
no
mark
of
the
Spirit
to
any
but
to
such
who
have
the
Spirit
;
and
what
a
Mock-Baptism
is
it
to
give
the
Sign
,
where
appears
no
demonstration
of
the
thing
thereby
signified
?
(
You
say
)
on
the
other
side
,
Satan
hath
not
such
an
advantage
against
those
that
are
baptized
in
their
Infancy
.
Answ.
How
doth
it
appear
that
Satan
hath
not
such
an
advantage
against
your
Children
(
as
he
hath
against
ours
that
were
never
baptized
,
as
you
call
Rantism
)
I
am
sure
our
Children
generally
are
as
sober
,
and
helped
to
escape
Satan's
snares
as
far
forth
as
yours
generally
are
.
Will
God
own
or
bless
an
humane
Tradition
?
The
Woman
that
Luther
mentioned
,
no
doubt
might
think
she
was
obliged
to
fear
God
by
that
sort
of
Baptism
she
had
when
she
was
an
Infant
,
yet
God
never
obliged
her
to
come
under
that
obligation
,
but
may
be
she
was
baptized
when
a
Believer
.
However
the
Papists
may
argue
for
their
voluntary
Vows
after
the
same
manner
,
viz.
it
is
a
great
help
and
an
advantage
to
them
to
preserve
them
from
sin
,
and
temptations
of
the
Devil
.
Infant-Baptism
is
an
excellent
means
(
you
say
)
to
plant
the
true
Religion
,
and
to
continue
the
Church
,
by
giving
an
advantage
for
the
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
to
reason
with
such
when
they
come
to
age
,
far
better
than
they
can
with
those
that
are
not
baptized
,
that
they
might
call
them
to
remembrance
of
their
baptismal
Vow
,
&c.
Answ.
This
is
certainly
a
grand
mistake
;
for
instead
of
its
being
an
advantage
to
Ministers
to
reason
with
such
that
were
baptized
in
their
Infancy
,
to
remember
their
baptismal
Vow
,
and
so
to
believe
and
turn
to
God
,
't
is
apparent
it
may
●inder
them
;
for
if
those
persons
when
grown
up
,
do
call
to
remembrance
what
you
Pedobaptists
have
taught
and
told
them
,
touching
those
Blessings
and
Privileges
they
then
received
,
it
may
rather
take
them
off
from
seeking
after
either
Faith
or
Repentance
.
1.
For
you
tell
them
when
their
Parents
believed
,
and
were
saved
,
they
were
made
partakers
of
the
same
Privilege
and
Blessing
also
;
if
so
,
what
need
they
concern
themselves
about
getting
personal
Faith
?
you
believe
and
teach
them
the
Doctrine
of
final
Perseverance
;
no
doubt
such
who
are
in
a
state
of
Grace
,
can
never
finally
fall
out
of
it
.
2.
The
Obligation
and
Vow
that
lies
upon
baptized
persons
according
to
the
Scripture
,
is
not
that
they
seek
after
Regeneration
,
no
,
for
it
necessarily
supposeth
that
they
had
that
before
baptized
;
but
it
doth
bind
or
oblige
them
to
persevere
in
Holiness
,
that
as
they
have
been
buried
in
Baptism
,
as
persons
dead
to
sin
,
so
they
should
walk
in
newness
of
life
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
Now
you
would
have
your
Baptism
to
oblige
your
baptized
Children
to
become
dead
to
sin
,
they
were
not
it
appears
dead
when
buried
with
Christ
in
Baptism
,
but
you
bury
them
alive
,
(
if
you
baptized
them
.
)
To
shew
them
they
must
die
,
Sir
,
God
never
ordained
Baptism
to
such
an
end
,
or
to
oblige
persons
thus
to
do
,
see
Rom.
6.
3.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8.
Col.
1.
12
,
13.
3.
The
Church
of
England
saith
,
That
the
Child
which
they
baptize
is
thereby
(
that
is
in
Baptism
)
regenerated
,
and
made
a
Child
of
God
,
a
Member
of
Christ
,
and
an
Inheritor
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
And
what
you
say
implies
as
much
;
for
it
must
needs
be
thus
,
if
when
the
Parents
believe
and
are
regenerated
and
saved
,
the
Child
partakes
of
the
same
privilege
,
then
the
Child
believed
and
was
regenerated
,
and
saved
also
.
Now
if
this
be
so
,
what
advantage
can
Ministers
have
from
the
Consideration
of
Infants
Baptism
to
press
Regeneration
,
or
the
Performance
of
Repentance
upon
them
when
they
come
to
age
,
above
what
we
have
to
press
these
great
Duties
upon
our
Children
,
when
grown
up
that
never
were
baptized
?
What
need
is
there
to
press
that
on
the
Consciences
of
your
Children
when
they
come
to
age
,
which
they
had
wrought
in
them
when
they
were
in
their
Infancy
?
No
,
your
Work
is
rather
to
press
them
as
Saints
and
renewed
Persons
,
to
live
holy
Lives
,
and
improve
those
Divine
Habits
which
they
received
when
their
Parents
believed
,
or
those
inspired
Habits
that
were
plauted
in
their
Souls
,
when
in
Infancy
they
were
baptized
and
regenerated
.
4.
Certainly
your
Children
when
they
come
to
age
may
think
that
they
received
some
mighty
Privilege
in
their
Infancy
,
by
being
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
with
their
Parents
,
and
so
in
a
State
safe
enough
;
for
you
tell
them
there
is
no
final
Falling
from
a
State
of
true
Grace
.
We
and
you
too
know
that
,
and
declare
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
is
sure
to
all
the
true
Seed
or
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
:
of
which
Seed
you
declare
all
your
natural
Off-spring
as
such
are
a
part
.
This
being
so
,
it
is
evident
that
Ministers
have
no
Advantages
;
but
the
contrary
,
in
pressing
the
necessity
of
Repentance
and
Conversion
on
your
Children
when
at
age
,
we
have
the
greater
advantage
far
in
preaching
to
our
Sons
and
Daughters
,
who
tell
them
that
our
Faith
did
not
,
cannot
profit
them
,
or
save
them
,
no
,
but
that
they
were
born
in
sin
,
and
were
Children
of
Wrath
by
Nature
,
and
so
remain
till
true
actual
Faith
and
Regeneration
do
pass
upon
them
,
or
they
do
believe
in
Christ
.
5.
Besides
,
the
Baptismal
Vow
you
brought
them
under
being
not
by
God's
Appointment
,
what
Blessing
can
you
expect
from
thence
?
Will
God
own
and
bless
a
voluntary
Vow
,
or
approve
of
an
Humane
Tradition
?
6.
The
Papists
(
as
I
hinted
before
)
may
expect
as
well
,
and
from
as
good
Ground
and
Authority
,
as
great
advantage
to
press
Holiness
and
Chastity
upon
those
that
they
bring
under
their
voluntary
Vows
and
Covenants
in
their
Nunneries
and
Fryaries
.
7.
Besides
,
your
Children
entred
not
into
that
Baptismal-Covenant
you
talk
of
by
their
own
consent
;
they
knew
nothing
of
it
,
and
can
find
no
Authority
from
God's
Word
you
had
to
bring
them
under
it
;
and
therefore
what
power
is
that
like
to
have
upon
their
Consciences
?
Had
you
not
better
bring
them
under
a
solemn
Vow
to
become
good
,
and
to
repent
as
soon
as
they
come
to
age
;
nay
,
bring
them
under
an
Oath
,
or
cause
them
to
enter
into
a
solemn
Covenant
so
to
do
,
and
set
their
Hands
unto
it
?
But
you
will
say
,
you
have
no
Command
nor
Warrant
from
God's
Word
to
do
that
;
no
more
,
say
we
,
have
you
any
Command
or
Warrant
from
the
Word
of
God
to
bring
them
under
any
such
Baptismal
Vow
,
●o
forsake
Sin
,
the
Devil
,
and
all
his
Works
,
&c.
in
their
Infancy
.
Infant-Baptism
is
so
effectual
to
continue
the
true
Religion
,
and
the
Encrease
of
the
Church
of
God
at
this
time
,
as
Circumcision
formerly
had
been
:
It
pleased
God
to
continue
true
Religion
among
the
Jews
by
bringing
their
Children
under
the
Bond
of
the
Covenant
:
He
left
them
not
to
their
own
liberty
,
&c.
and
let
none
take
upon
them
to
be
wiser
than
God
by
leaving
Children
at
this
time
to
follow
their
own
Fancies
,
to
choose
their
own
Religion
,
without
having
God's
Covenant
upon
them
,
for
Humane
Nature
is
as
corruptible
at
this
time
as
formercy
,
&c.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
Circumcision
was
God's
absolute
and
positive
Command
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
which
was
national
;
but
God
hath
not
commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
into
the
Gospel-Church
which
is
not
National
,
but
Congregational
:
if
therefore
there
was
the
like
Authority
from
God
for
the
one
as
there
was
for
the
other
,
we
would
contend
with
you
no
longer
.
2.
'T
is
you
that
would
seem
wiser
than
God
,
whose
Wisdom
hath
not
led
him
to
erect
his
Gospel
Church
of
such
Materials
,
or
of
such
Matter
,
and
in
such
Form
now
,
as
it
was
his
Wisdom
to
build
the
Jewish
or
Legal
Church
:
Must
the
fleshly
Seed
as
such
be
taken
into
the
Gospel-Church
by
Baptism
,
because
the
Male-Infants
were
circumcised
under
the
Law
?
Who
tells
you
so
?
where
is
it
written
?
Will
you
be
wiser
than
God
?
Did
not
John
Baptist
say
,
Think
not
to
say
within
your selves
we
have
Abraham
to
our
Father
?
Now
the
Ax
is
laid
to
the
Root
of
the
Tree
.
Now
the
case
is
altered
,
as
if
he
should
say
;
Now
we
know
no
Man
after
the
Flesh
,
2
Cor.
5.
17
,
18.
3.
Hath
not
God
freely
left
us
and
our
Children
to
choose
to
be
his
Servants
,
or
to
choose
our
Religion
?
Are
not
the
Saints
to
be
all
Volunteers
?
Will
Christ
accept
of
Prest-Souldiers
into
his
Service
?
Or
have
you
any
power
to
force
,
or
compel
your
Children
to
be
of
what
Perswasion
in
Religion
you
please
?
God
,
it
is
true
,
hath
no
more
left
Children
now
than
formerly
,
to
follow
their
own
Fancies
;
no
,
God
forbid
:
But
he
hath
commanded
them
to
believe
and
be
baptized
;
and
not
to
follow
the
Fancies
of
their
Parents
any
more
than
to
follow
their
own
Fancies
,
nor
Ministers
who
teach
them
contrary
Doctrine
to
that
which
the
Word
of
God
doth
.
4.
As
to
the
Corruption
of
our
Nature
,
't
is
true
that
is
as
bad
as
ever
;
but
your
Sprinkling
your
Children
in
Infancy
hath
no
Virtue
or
Power
in
it
to
change
or
purge
out
that
Corruption
;
your
Children
receive
no
benefit
by
that
you
call
Baptism
:
Say
what
you
will
,
I
am
sure
you
cannot
prove
they
receive
any
profit
thereby
.
5.
I
affirm
God
hath
not
commanded
us
to
bring
our
Children
into
the
Bond
of
the
Covenant
by
Baptism
until
they
believe
,
and
you
can
never
disprove
us
while
you
live
from
God's
Word
.
You
say
,
the
Lord
hath
blessed
the
Baptism
of
Infants
to
be
a
Means
for
the
continuing
of
the
true
Religion
,
and
of
the
Christian
Church
:
From
the
days
of
the
Apostles
even
to
this
very
day
,
the
Lord
bestoweth
his
particular
Blessings
but
upon
his
own
Ordinance
;
he
imprinteth
not
the
Seal
of
Heaven
upon
earthly
Inventions
;
none
can
deny
but
that
there
are
thousands
baptized
in
their
Infancy
that
feel
in
themselves
the
Virtue
of
their
Baptism
.
Answ.
1.
I
answer
;
You
cannot
prove
that
God
hath
any
manner
of
ways
owned
or
blessed
Infant-Baptism
:
for
because
God
hath
continued
a
Seed
to
serve
him
in
every
Age
since
the
Apostles
time
,
will
you
attribute
that
to
Infant-Baptism
,
which
is
only
to
be
ascribed
to
the
rich
and
soveraign
Grace
of
God
,
and
Power
of
his
Spirit
?
2.
As
to
the
true
Church
,
for
many
years
she
was
hid
,
and
in
the
Wilderness
she
fled
from
the
face
of
the
Romish
Beast
and
cruel
Dragon
,
Rev.
12.
I
must
confess
Infant-Baptism
hath
in
part
been
a
means
to
keep
up
the
name
of
the
Christian
Religion
in
the
Church
ever
since
the
Apostacy
;
and
it
was
contrived
no
doubt
to
make
the
Church
great
and
large
,
i.
e.
to
make
whole
Families
,
Parishes
,
and
Nations
the
Church
,
this
is
evident
;
and
if
this
be
the
way
to
continue
and
enlarge
the
Church
,
the
Lord
deliver
the
true
Church
from
such
a
Practice
and
Invention
of
Men.
I
look
upon
Infant-Baptism
to
be
one
of
the
chief
Pillars
of
the
Romish
Church
,
and
of
all
National
Churches
and
Constitutions
in
the
European
World
;
this
is
that
Christendom
that
is
so
cried
up
,
and
the
way
of
making
and
continuing
the
pretended
Christian-Name
;
in
the
Anti-christian
Church
,
and
World
,
all
are
made
Christians
in
their
Infant-Baptism
:
And
thus
the
Inhabitants
of
the
Earth
are
cheated
,
and
deluded
with
a
Shadow
and
empty
Name
that
signifies
nothing
,
and
certain
I
am
,
until
Christendom
(
as
it
is
called
)
is
Unchristianed
of
this
pretended
Rite
,
or
Christendom
,
and
the
Inhabitants
of
the
Earth
become
new
Christianed
,
there
will
never
be
a
thorough
Reformation
:
I
mean
until
they
see
that
Christianity
,
or
Christian-Name
,
which
they
received
by
their
Infant-Baptism
,
signifies
nothing
,
but
throw
it
away
as
an
Human
Innovation
,
and
labour
after
true
Regeneration
,
or
a
likeness
to
Christ
,
and
so
believe
and
are
baptized
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
,
according
as
in
the
Apostolical
Primitive
Church
:
'T
is
Infant-Baptism
that
tends
to
uphold
all
National
Churches
,
and
deceives
poor
People
who
think
they
were
thereby
made
Christians
.
3.
Doth
it
follow
,
because
many
Thousands
that
were
baptized
(
as
you
call
it
)
when
Infants
,
were
after
they
come
to
Age
truly
converted
?
That
that
blessed
work
of
Grace
upon
their
Hearts
was
by
virtue
of
their
Infant-Baptism
,
or
from
any
Motive
that
arose
from
thence
?
Or
was
it
not
wholly
done
by
the
Power
of
God's
Word
preached
to
them
,
through
the
mighty
Power
and
Operations
of
the
Holy
Ghost
upon
their
Souls
?
God
hath
shewed
his
Mercy
,
I
grant
,
to
such
Christians
who
were
Rantized
or
Sprinkled
,
in
Infancy
,
in
a
gracious
manner
:
But
this
is
not
to
be
ascribed
to
his
owning
and
blessing
that
Invention
of
Pedo-Baptism
;
be
sure
God
will
never
own
as
you
well
say
,
an
Earthly
Invention
;
and
I
have
clearly
proved
that
Infant-Baptism
is
nothing
less
or
more
than
an
Earthly
or
Human
Invention
,
therefore
God
never
blessed
that
.
O
how
few
are
converted
or
truly
regenerated
that
have
in
their
Infancy
been
(
as
you
say
)
baptized
,
nay
of
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
!
What
a
Multitude
remain
ungodly
,
and
so
live
and
die
,
notwithstanding
their
Parents
Faith
,
and
their
Reception
of
their
Infant-Baptism
!
The
Lord
open
the
Eyes
of
you
Worthy
and
Noble
Britains
,
and
send
true
Light
among
you
as
to
this
matter
.
Infant-Baptism
prevents
(
Mr.
Owea
saith
)
the
shameful
Neglect
of
Baptism
:
if
Children
had
been
left
unbaptized
,
it
would
be
so
difficult
to
persuade
many
good
People
to
receive
Baptism
,
as
at
this
Time
't
is
to
persuade
them
to
receive
the
Lord's
Supper
.
The
Nature
of
Man
is
very
unwilling
to
undergo
narrow
and
spiritual
Obligation
:
We
read
in
the
History
of
the
Primitive
Church
that
several
good
Men
,
that
turned
from
Paganism
,
delayed
their
Baptism
until
their
Latter
Days
.
Constantine
being
very
Aged
before
he
was
Baptised
,
and
fallen
into
a
Disease
of
which
he
died
.
Theodosius
was
not
baptized
until
he
was
fallen
sick
,
as
Socrates
,
p.
5.
6.
And
we
are
not
to
think
(
say
you
)
that
People
would
be
more
ready
to
receive
Baptism
in
these
Days
,
than
they
had
been
in
those
that
are
past
.
1
Answ.
I
Answer
;
it
is
a
shameful
thing
indeed
to
see
how
many
good
People
do
neglect
Christ's
Holy
Ordinance
of
Baptism
;
and
to
see
how
difficult
't
is
to
persuade
them
,
tho'
they
do
truly
believe
,
to
be
baptised
,
and
so
orderly
come
to
the
Lord's
Table
:
But
what
is
the
reason
of
it
?
is
it
not
because
you
,
and
such
as
you
,
have
strove
to
deceive
them
,
and
blind
their
Eyes
,
by
telling
them
that
Sprinkling
or
Rantism
,
is
Baptism
or
Baptizing
,
and
that
they
were
baptized
in
their
Infancy
?
they
are
,
alas
,
too
ready
to
build
their
Faith
herein
upon
their
Teachers
;
The
Teachers
of
my
People
(
saith
the
Lord
)
cause
them
to
err
:
And
(
say
they
)
such
a
learned
Man
,
such
a
worthy
Doctor
and
Minister
is
for
Infant-Baptism
;
Can
they
be
mistaken
?
Sure
,
if
it
were
an
Error
,
they
must
needs
know
it
.
2.
'T
is
not
very
hard
to
persuade
our
Children
,
when
God
converts
them
,
to
be
baptized
;
they
readily
submit
to
it
;
and
,
until
then
,
they
have
no
more
right
to
Baptism
than
they
have
to
the
Lord's
Supper
.
3.
Will
you
to
anticipate
your
Children
,
in
fear
they
will
not
be
baptized
when
they
come
to
Age
,
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
,
baptize
them
when
in
their
Infancy
?
I
must
tell
you
by
the
same
parity
of
Reason
,
since
some
of
them
you
find
are
so
hard
to
be
persuaded
to
receive
the
Lord's
Supper
,
you
may
(
as
the
Antient
Fathers
did
)
give
them
the
Lord's
Supper
in
their
Infancy
also
;
you
have
as
much
Authority
for
to
do
the
one
as
the
other
.
4.
Do
you
not
implicitly
on
this
Occasion
grant
and
confess
,
that
Baptism
of
Right
belongs
to
the
Adult
;
but
that
politically
it
hath
been
contrived
to
baptize
Infants
,
for
fear
they
should
not
be
persuaded
to
be
baptized
when
they
come
to
Age
?
And
you
are
willing
to
continue
the
Practice
,
because
it
is
in
these
Days
by
you
and
your
Brethren
rendered
to
be
a
very
odious
thing
to
be
dipped
or
baptized
when
they
come
to
Age
and
do
believe
.
The
Truth
is
,
this
Ordinance
calls
for
great
Abasement
,
and
much
Self-denial
;
't
is
a
hard
thing
to
come
under
the
Baptismal
Covenant
and
Obligation
,
in
Adult
Persons
,
when
we
are
rendered
as
bad
as
Adulterers
and
Murderers
who
baptize
Men
and
Women
according
to
Christ's
Commission
that
are
Disciples
.
And
't
is
hard
also
when
the
baptized
Person
knows
(
he
being
come
to
Understanding
)
what
he
is
bound
and
obliged
to
do
by
his
Baptismal
Covenant
,
viz.
to
mortify
the
Remainders
of
Sin
,
and
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
,
Rom
6.
3
,
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
Therefore
since
you
fear
they
will
not
freely
and
voluntarily
list
themselves
under
Christ's
Banner
,
or
become
his
Spiritual
Souldiers
when
they
come
to
Age
;
you
will
,
and
that
unknown
to
them
,
force
them
into
these
Wars
in
their
Infancy
without
Christ's
Authority
or
their
Consent
,
under
this
specious
Pretence
,
viz.
you
fear
they
will
not
do
it
when
they
are
grown
up
.
5.
What
you
speak
concerning
those
Christians
,
who
in
the
Primitive
Times
delayed
their
Baptism
until
the
latter
part
of
their
Lives
,
makes
directly
against
you
;
for
those
Christians
who
were
converted
from
Paganism
to
Christianity
,
did
not
only
delay
their
Baptism
,
but
many
Godly
Christian
Parents
,
I
have
shewed
,
in
the
last
Chapter
,
did
delay
the
baptizing
of
their
Children
until
they
came
to
Age
and
did
believe
:
And
the
Error
of
that
long
Delay
arose
from
that
great
Mistake
that
Baptism
washed
away
Sin
;
therefore
some
delayed
Baptism
until
such
time
they
thought
they
were
ready
to
go
out
of
the
World
.
6.
But
what
of
this
?
Because
some
have
erred
,
in
staying
too
long
before
they
were
baptized
,
Will
you
make
too
great
haste
,
and
bring
in
little
Babes
to
be
baptized
,
without
any
Ground
or
Authority
from
the
Word
of
God
?
So
much
shall
suffice
to
your
Twelfth
and
Last
Argument
.
Now
,
Sir
,
we
have
heard
all
your
Proofs
for
the
baptizing
of
Infants
;
you
have
,
it
seems
,
impannell'd
for
your
Jury
,
to
Sit
,
Hear
and
Determine
this
Grand
Cause
,
Just
Twelve
;
and
if
they
could
speak
,
they
would
(
being
all
agreed
,
the
Cause
being
also
fully
opened
)
give
their
Verdict
on
our
Side
,
and
against
your
Infant-Baptism
;
but
let
them
rather
be
so
many
Witnesses
of
your
summoning
the
Statute
Book
,
and
great
Charter
of
the
Church
,
viz.
God's
Word
,
having
been
opened
,
Antient
and
Noble
Britains
,
to
make
Judgment
for
themselves
:
For
in
matters
of
Faith
,
and
Things
that
concern
our
Souls
,
every
Christian
is
to
judg
for
himself
.
Impartial
Reader
,
weigh
well
the
matter
:
Consider
this
,
we
must
all
be
judged
by
the
Word
of
God
:
If
you
can
find
you
are
commanded
to
baptize
your
Children
by
Jesus
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
or
can
find
any
Precept
or
Precedent
for
it
,
you
may
do
it
:
Or
if
what
Mr.
Owen
hath
said
hath
convinced
you
,
that
Baptism
doth
not
belong
to
Believers
,
by
good
Authority
he
hath
shewed
from
the
Holy
Scriptures
,
but
that
Infants
are
the
only
Subjects
thereof
;
and
that
Baptism
is
nor
dipping
or
burying
the
Body
in
Water
,
but
only
sprinkling
or
pouring
a
few
Drops
of
Water
on
the
Person
's
Face
;
then
continue
in
your
former
Practice
till
God
shall
open
your
Eyes
.
But
if
you
are
otherwise
perswaded
,
that
Mr.
Owen
is
in
an
Error
,
then
I
exhort
you
that
believe
in
Christ
,
to
arise
and
be
baptized
:
But
lest
Mr.
Owen
should
say
't
is
too
soon
for
you
to
make
Judgment
yet
,
pray
stay
till
we
have
heard
his
Answers
to
our
Objections
,
and
also
all
what
he
hath
further
to
say
.
CHAP.
XIX
.
Containing
an
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
16th
Chapter
,
proving
that
our
Objections
against
Infant-Baptism
are
very
weighty
,
and
his
Answers
to
them
very
impertinent
and
defective
.
MR.
Owen
begins
with
his
Sixteenth
Chapter
after
this
manner
,
viz.
Thus
have
we
proved
by
the
Scripture
(
saith
he
)
and
by
several
Scriptural
Arguments
,
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
ought
to
be
baptized
:
if
we
look
upon
this
Truth
in
the
Light
of
the
Scriptures
Above
,
the
Objections
of
themselves
will
vanish
away
;
yet
for
the
sake
of
the
Weak
,
I
shall
lay
down
the
strongest
of
them
.
1.
Object
.
There
is
neither
a
Command
nor
Example
in
the
Scripture
for
the
baptizing
of
Infants
.
To
this
Mr.
Owen
answereth
,
viz.
There
is
not
one
particular
Command
,
totidem
verbis
,
naming
Infant-Baptism
,
and
that
is
not
necessary
;
but
there
is
an
Universal
Command
to
baptize
all
Nations
,
of
which
Children
are
a
great
part
.
If
there
is
a
Command
for
the
baptizing
of
the
Parents
,
then
there
is
a
Command
for
the
baptizing
of
Infants
;
for
the
Children
are
included
in
the
Parents
,
even
as
Parts
of
them
,
being
Partakers
of
the
Privileges
of
good
Parents
,
and
of
the
Judgments
of
the
wicked
Parents
.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Whether
you
have
or
have
not
proved
,
by
the
Holy
Scriptures
and
Arguments
,
that
Infants
ought
to
be
baptized
,
is
now
upon
a
fair
Trial
committed
to
the
Judgment
of
the
Impartial
Reader
.
2.
We
do
not
require
you
to
bring
a
Command
,
in
totidem
verbis
,
or
in
so
many
Words
,
Let
Infants
be
baptized
:
But
your
Inferences
are
not
good
;
for
,
as
you
have
no
Precept
,
no
Command
,
or
any
Precedent
to
baptize
them
,
so
you
can
draw
no
fair
and
good
Consequences
for
it
from
any
Text
of
Scripture
.
You
bring
the
Words
of
the
Great
Commission
,
Matth.
28.
19
,
20.
Go
baptize
all
Nations
.
Sir
,
Why
dare
you
leave
out
part
of
the
Words
?
Is
it
not
Go
therefore
,
teach
all
Nations
,
baptizing
them
,
&
c.
?
We
have
shewed
in
our
Answer
to
you
already
,
that
the
Commission
requires
none
to
be
baptized
but
such
who
are
first
taught
or
made
Disciples
;
which
Disciples
St.
Mark
calls
Believers
,
He
that
believes
and
is
baptized
,
Mark
16.
16.
They
are
,
Reader
,
the
Words
of
the
same
Commission
,
tho
differently
expressed
by
these
two
Great
Evangelists
,
and
hold
forth
the
same
thing
,
viz.
That
the
Gospel
is
to
be
preached
in
all
Nations
,
or
to
all
the
World
,
and
that
those
that
are
discipled
by
preaching
,
or
that
do
believe
,
ought
to
be
baptized
,
and
none
else
.
3.
Whereas
you
say
that
Children
are
a
great
part
of
the
Nations
,
and
may
therefore
be
baptized
;
this
is
a
fallacious
or
deceitful
Consequence
:
For
may
not
I
(
as
before
)
argue
thus
?
Unbelievers
,
i.
e.
Turks
,
Infidels
,
Pagans
and
their
Children
,
are
a
great
part
of
all
Nations
,
therefore
may
be
baptized
.
Sir
,
I
appeal
to
your
Conscience
,
Whether
this
Inference
is
not
as
good
and
true
,
from
the
Premises
,
as
yours
.
3.
But
you
ask
whether
there
is
a
command
for
the
baptizing
of
Parents
,
no
doubt
of
this
,
we
and
you
agree
,
that
there
is
a
command
to
baptize
Parents
,
that
believe
in
Christ
,
and
to
baptize
Children
too
that
believe
in
Christ
;
;
but
say
you
then
,
there
is
a
command
to
baptize
Infants
,
because
they
are
included
in
the
Parents
,
even
as
parts
of
them
;
now
this
is
utterly
false
,
and
also
very
ridiculous
,
't
is
for
any
Man
to
assert
it
.
1.
For
if
this
was
so
,
it
follows
,
whatsoever
God
commands
the
Parent
,
he
commands
the
Child
,
then
when
God
commanded
Abraham
to
offer
up
,
or
slay
his
Son
,
he
commanded
the
Son
to
slay
himself
;
it
would
also
follow
,
That
2.
When
God
commands
the
believing
Parent
to
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
he
also
commands
all
his
Children
to
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
because
they
are
all
included
in
their
Parents
.
3.
If
Children
are
thus
a
part
of
their
Parents
,
then
certainly
,
if
the
Parents
go
to
Heaven
,
all
their
Children
must
go
to
Heaven
likewise
;
for
the
whole
of
Believers
shall
be
saved
,
and
not
a
part
of
them
only
.
4.
Also
if
the
Children
are
included
in
their
Parents
,
and
are
a
part
of
them
;
why
may
not
the
Parents
Baptism
serve
for
the
Child
,
and
then
it
would
also
follow
,
that
no
Man
is
a
compleat
and
perfect
Man
without
his
Children
;
was
ever
such
Stuff
by
a
Man
of
Parts
and
Learning
,
published
to
the
World
?
5.
Sir
,
will
your
Feeding
,
or
eating
your
Food
,
feed
your
Children
;
besure
,
as
much
as
your
believing
and
being
baptized
will
feed
the
Souls
of
your
Children
.
6.
Moreover
,
why
do
you
say
the
Judgments
of
wicked
Parents
fall
on
their
Children
,
did
not
God
say
that
Proverb
should
be
used
no
more
in
Israel
,
but
the
Soul
that
Sins
shall
die
:
If
Children
partake
of
the
punishment
of
their
Parents
,
't
is
when
they
are
alike
wicked
,
and
walk
in
the
same
steps
their
ungodly
Parents
walked
in
.
But
you
proceed
and
say
,
that
there
is
no
particular
command
for
the
baptizing
of
Women
.
Answ.
Male
and
Female
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
Women
are
called
Disciples
,
and
so
are
not
Infants
.
2.
We
have
plain
presidents
,
that
Women
were
baptized
,
which
is
all
one
with
a
Command
,
Acts
8.
12.
When
they
believed
Philip
Preaching
the
things
concerning
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
and
Name
of
Jesus
Christ
,
they
were
baptized
both
Men
and
Women
;
And
also
that
Lyd
a
was
baptized
,
Acts
16.
Do
but
shew
us
one
like
president
where
any
Infant
was
baptized
,
and
we
will
say
no
more
.
You
say
we
have
not
a
particular
Command
for
keeping
the
first
day
of
the
Week
as
an
Holy
Sabbath
to
the
Lord
.
Answ.
We
have
a
command
to
keep
the
Seventh
part
of
time
,
as
a
Sabbath
to
the
Lord
,
Exod.
20.
and
plain
presidents
in
the
New
Testament
,
That
on
the
first
day
the
Saints
did
meet
to
Worship
God
,
Acts
20.
7.
1
Cor.
16.
1.
The
first
day
of
the
Week
,
as
the
Christian
Sabbath
was
also
confirmed
by
the
first
miraculous
appearance
of
Christ
after
his
Ascension
into
Heaven
,
which
was
the
day
of
Pentecost
,
Acts
2.
1
,
2.
give
like
proofs
for
your
Infant
Baptism
.
You
would
have
us
to
shew
what
Scripture
we
have
for
re-baptizing
.
Answ.
I
shall
answer
,
that
by
and
by
,
when
I
come
to
your
next
Chapter
,
where
we
have
it
again
,
we
do
not
own
it
Lawful
to
baptize
them
Again
,
who
have
been
once
rightly
baptized
,
but
Rantism
is
not
Baptism
,
nor
are
Infants
the
true
Subjects
of
it
.
You
say
you
have
shewed
already
,
That
there
are
many
examples
in
the
Scripture
for
Infant
Baptism
,
which
are
plain
unto
them
that
understand
the
agreement
,
and
the
consequences
of
Scripture
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
let
the
Reader
judge
in
this
case
,
now
we
have
examined
all
those
Texts
you
draw
your
examples
from
,
whether
your
consequences
are
clear
and
plain
,
or
not
.
Obj.
The
Scripture
calleth
upon
some
to
believe
before
they
are
baptized
,
He
that
believeth
and
is
Baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
16.
and
according
to
that
Rule
the
Apostles
did
not
baptize
any
untill
they
believed
,
Acts
2.
38.
This
is
the
Second
Objection
Mr.
Owen
brings
,
against
what
he
hath
wrote
,
take
his
Answer
,
viz.
(
Saith
he
)
when
the
Scriptures
saith
that
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
.
1.
It
mentioneth
Adult
Persons
,
viz.
the
unbelieving
,
Gentiles
unto
whom
Christ
sent
his
Disciples
,
Mark
16.
15.
Mat.
28.
19.
and
not
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
;
Christ
sending
them
into
all
the
World
to
preach
the
Gospel
into
Pagan
Nations
,
and
saying
,
He
that
believeth
and
is
Baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
shews
that
neither
Baptism
nor
Salvation
belongeth
unto
them
,
until
they
believe
in
the
Lord
Jesus
,
if
we
were
to
preach
unto
such
,
we
should
baptize
none
until
they
would
believe
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
of
whom
Christ
mentioneth
not
.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Reader
observe
,
that
here
Mr.
Omen
hath
given
away
his
cause
for
ever
,
for
he
saith
Christ
speaks
not
of
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
,
but
of
the
Adult
:
Now
consider
,
that
these
two
Texts
which
he
here
Quotes
,
viz.
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
does
contain
the
great
and
only
Commission
and
Warranty
given
by
the
Lord
Jesus
,
the
only
Law-giver
about
Baptizing
;
and
if
Infants
are
not
mentioned
nor
intended
here
,
there
is
no
Warrant
at
all
to
Baptize
them
;
for
if
by
virtue
of
the
great
Commission
,
all
persons
must
first
believe
before
they
are
baptized
,
farewell
for
ever
to
Infant
Baptism
.
2.
The
Objection
well
saith
,
That
according
to
this
Rule
or
Commission
,
the
Apostles
did
not
baptize
any
until
they
believed
which
is
true
and
he
cannot
refute
it
.
3.
Consider
that
the
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
did
not
only
authorize
the
Apostles
to
go
and
make
Disciples
among
the
Gentile
or
Pagan
World
,
but
also
among
the
Jews
,
that
were
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
nay
they
were
commanded
first
to
begin
(
or
open
their
Commission
)
to
preach
to
them
at
Jerusalem
,
moreover
the
words
of
this
Commission
is
all
the
Commission
and
Warrant
,
the
Disciples
and
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
have
to
administer
Baptism
to
all
the
Christian
Nations
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
There
are
not
two
Commissions
given
by
Christ
about
baptizing
,
one
to
go
to
the
Pagan
or
Gentile
World
,
and
another
to
be
believing
Christian
World
,
or
to
believers
and
their
Seed
.
Now
there
is
but
one
Commission
,
and
only
Rule
we
have
to
baptize
,
therefore
Mr.
Baxter
saith
well
,
i.
e.
Christ
in
his
Commission
directeth
his
Apostles
to
make
Disciples
,
and
then
baptize
them
,
promising
,
that
he
that
believeth
and
is
Baptized
,
shall
be
saved
,
Baxt.
Confirm
.
p.
27.
And
in
another
place
,
he
saith
,
speaking
of
this
only
Warrant
or
Commission
of
Baptizing
,
if
we
have
it
not
here
,
where
have
we
it
.
Shall
any
one
think
Christ's
Commission
short
and
defective
.
4.
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
if
we
were
to
preach
unto
such
that
is
to
unbelievers
or
Heathens
,
we
should
baptize
none
until
they
believed
.
Now
pray
consider
that
this
is
his
Commission
to
baptize
,
if
he
be
a
true
Minister
of
Christ
,
let
him
preach
to
whom
he
will
,
or
come
where
he
will
,
he
must
do
all
things
according
to
this
Commission
,
as
't
is
here
given
,
neither
baptize
Young
nor
Old
,
neither
Jew
nor
Gentile
,
Parent
nor
Child
,
until
they
believe
,
or
profess
their
Faith
in
Jesus
Christ
;
if
he
doth
,
he
Violates
and
acts
directly
contrary
to
his
only
Commission
,
and
therefore
if
he
doth
,
he
sins
,
Should
any
Commissioner
of
an
Earthly
King
,
act
contrary
to
the
very
express
words
,
and
purport
of
his
Commission
,
he
certainly
would
be
condemned
,
as
a
false
and
unfaithful
Servant
,
and
be
turned
out
of
his
Masters
Service
.
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
That
the
Seed
of
the
faithful
,
Christ
mentioneth
not
,
that
is
in
his
great
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
therefore
such
he
must
not
Baptize
,
unless
he
hath
from
Christ
received
a
new
,
or
any
other
Commission
that
doth
authorize
him
so
to
do
.
5.
And
observable
it
is
to
see
how
Mr.
Owen
contradicts
himself
here
,
in
respect
of
what
he
said
before
,
when
he
mention'd
the
same
Texts
and
Commission
of
Christ
,
he
told
us
that
Children
are
part
of
the
Nations
that
Christ
commanded
to
be
Baptized
,
but
now
he
saith
,
The
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
Christ
mentioneth
not
,
and
besure
now
,
at
this
turn
he
speaks
the
Truth
:
and
if
none
of
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
ought
to
be
Baptized
by
vertue
of
Christs
Commission
,
but
such
only
of
them
that
do
believe
,
then
no
Infant
;
for
Teaching
is
making
of
Disciples
,
so
that
they
are
to
be
taught
so
as
to
believe
before
they
are
to
be
Baptized
,
and
that
in
all
Nations
,
whether
Heathens
or
Christians
,
and
that
also
to
the
end
of
the
World
,
teaching
them
to
observe
all
things
whatsoever
I
have
commanded
you
,
and
lo
I
am
with
you
all
ways
to
the
end
of
the
Word
.
Mat.
28.
20.
It
is
certain
,
saith
Mr.
Owen
,
that
this
Scripture
mentioneth
not
of
Children
,
if
it
doth
they
must
needs
be
damned
,
for
want
of
Faith
which
cannot
be
actually
in
them
.
Ans.
I
answer
,
't
is
very
true
,
that
Christ
in
his
Commission
neither
meaneth
nor
mentioneth
Infants
;
he
hath
given
no
Commission
to
baptize
Infants
,
because
the
words
of
the
Commission
runneth
to
such
who
are
capable
to
be
taught
,
to
be
made
Disciples
by
Teaching
and
so
to
Believe
,
which
Infants
Mr.
Owen
saith
,
cannot
actually
do
.
But
he
adds
,
the
Apostle
saith
in
2
Thes.
3.
10.
saith
he
,
if
any
would
not
work
,
neither
should
he
eat
would
not
that
Father
be
unnatural
,
who
would
take
an
occasion
from
this
Scripture
to
starve
his
little
Children
,
because
they
cannot
work
;
so
when
Christ
saith
,
he
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
;
it
doth
not
follow
,
that
none
ought
to
be
baptized
untill
they
believe
.
Answer
.
1.
I
answer
,
this
seems
strange
,
when
Christ
in
the
Affirmative
declares
,
who
he
would
have
baptized
;
doth
it
not
follow
that
in
the
Negative
,
none
else
ought
to
be
baptized
.
In
other
cases
you
would
not
argue
thus
,
as
for
Example
,
when
God
commanded
Abraham
to
Circumcise
his
Male
Infants
,
doth
he
not
implicitly
forbid
the
Circumcising
of
his
Female
Children
,
and
when
he
commanded
him
to
Circumcise
his
Male
Infants
on
the
eighth
day
,
doth
he
not
implictly
forbid
him
to
circumcise
them
on
the
seventh
or
ninth
day
,
and
when
Paul
saith
,
let
a
Man
examine
himself
,
and
so
let
him
eat
,
doth
he
not
forbid
Infants
to
partake
thereof
,
and
all
to
come
to
the
Lord's
Supper
,
that
do
not
so
examine
themselves
,
or
who
do
not
discern
the
Lord's
Body
.
Moreover
,
2.
Are
not
all
those
Persons
that
a
testator
in
his
last
Will
and
Testament
leaveth
out
,
or
expresseth
not
,
excluded
from
having
any
Legacy
in
the
said
Will
;
now
the
great
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
Mark
16.
is
also
Christs
last
Will
and
Testament
,
about
the
right
of
Baptism
,
viz.
who
are
right
subjects
,
and
they
are
expressed
by
their
qualifications
,
viz.
Disciples
,
or
Persons
Taught
,
or
such
that
believe
,
are
not
therefore
all
unbelievers
,
all
Pagans
,
and
ungodly
persons
,
and
ignorant
Babes
,
that
are
not
capable
to
believe
,
excluded
from
Baptism
,
according
to
Christ
last
Will
and
Testament
;
it
signifies
nothing
to
find
Infants
right
to
Circumcision
under
the
Law
,
nor
other
the
external
priviledges
of
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
then
,
for
that
was
a
Legacy
given
in
the
Old
Will
and
Testament
,
which
is
abolished
by
Christ
,
making
his
New
and
last
Will
and
Testament
;
in
which
the
Infant
Seed
of
Believers
,
are
left
out
as
touching
any
right
they
have
now
in
Gospel
times
to
be
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
or
to
Bapt●sm
,
&c.
3.
As
to
that
Text
you
mention
,
2
Thess.
3.
10.
If
〈◊〉
will
no●
work
,
neither
let
him
eat
.
I
answer
,
Mr.
Bur●…
in
that
Treatise
of
his
for
Infant
Baptism
,
which
I
answered
,
and
he
hath
made
no
reply
since
,
brings
in
the
very
same
Text
upon
the
like
account
;
take
his
words
,
and
my
answer
.
Must
Children
be
starved
because
they
cannot
work
,
thus
(
says
he
)
Children
lie
under
a
Natural
inc●pacity
of
professing
actual
Faith
,
therefore
the
first
Text
(
that
is
Mark
16.
16.
)
doth
not
concern
them
any
more
then
the
latter
,
2
Thess.
3.
10.
now
take
our
answer
,
viz.
You
have
given
away
,
say
we
,
your
Cause
for
ever
,
for
if
this
Text
,
Mark
16.
16.
does
no
more
concern
Infants
then
that
in
2
Thess.
3.
10.
then
be
sure
they
have
nothing
to
do
with
Baptism
.
You
and
Mr.
Burkitt
say
,
that
in
Mark
16.
16.
the
Adult
only
,
are
intended
,
we
say
so
too
,
whether
then
shall
we
go
for
your
Infant
Baptism
,
we
can
prove
from
many
Texts
,
that
Infants
ought
to
Eat
though
they
cannot
Work
;
but
how
will
you
prove
that
Infants
ought
to
be
Baptized
by
any
other
Scripture
,
if
it
be
not
in
the
Commission
,
tho'
they
do
not
believe
,
or
have
actual
Faith
.
Mr.
Burki●
saith
,
Children
have
Mortal
Bodies
,
therefore
they
must
be
Fed
at
their
Parents
Table
,
and
they
have
Immortal
Souls
,
and
from
●hence
he
argues
they
ought
to
be
Baptized
,
to
which
I
answered
:
As
Infants
have
mortal
Bodies
,
and
must
therefore
be
Fed
at
their
Parents
Table
,
tho'
they
can't
Work
,
so
because
they
have
Immortal
Souls
(
he
might
as
well
have
said
)
they
ought
to
be
Fed
at
the
Lord's
Table
tho'
they
cannot
believe
,
nor
discern
the
Lord's
Body
.
The
Apostle
saith
,
Let
a
Man
examine
himself
,
and
so
let
him
eat
,
&c.
but
this
say
I
,
is
spoken
of
the
Adult
;
but
Infants
,
who
are
capable
to
receive
Spiritual
Benefits
by
Christ's
Death
,
must
have
the
Ordinance
that
figureth
it
out
,
namely
the
Lords
Supper
.
There
is
the
same
ground
and
reason
therefore
to
conclude
Infants
are
included
,
in
1
Cor.
11.
22
,
23.
about
receiving
the
Lord's
Supper
,
as
there
is
to
conclude
,
that
they
are
included
,
in
Matth.
21.
19.
Mark
16.
15
,
16.
In
the
Commission
to
Baptize
,
the
one
saith
,
Let
a
Man
examine
himself
,
the
other
saith
,
He
that
Believeth
,
&c.
You
say
you
have
proved
,
That
the
Apostles
Baptized
not
only
the
Adult
,
when
they
believed
,
but
the
Children
of
such
also
.
Answ.
I
have
I
hope
to
the
satisfaction
of
all
that
are
willing
to
be
informed
disproved
what
you
say
,
and
proved
that
the
Apostles
Baptized
no
one
Infant
by
far
better
Arguments
than
you
have
brought
to
prove
they
did
.
Obj.
Infants
do
not
understand
what
is
done
,
and
therefore
what
profiteth
Baptism
unto
them
;
this
Objection
;
Mr.
Owen
answereth
as
followeth
.
This
Objection
,
saith
he
,
is
not
only
against
Baptism
,
but
against
Circumcision
also
;
yet
the
Ordinance
was
profitable
unto
them
.
A
little
Child
may
receive
a
great
gift
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
Circumcision
was
God's
Command
,
Infants
had
aright
to
it
,
but
God
has
not
Commanded
Infants
to
be
Baptized
,
God's
Ordinance
shall
have
that
effect
on
its
proper
subject
,
which
he
designed
by
it
,
no
doubt
had
it
been
the
Will
of
Christ
to
have
given
Command
to
Baptize
Infants
,
but
it
should
some
ways
or
another
been
profitable
to
them
;
but
since
he
hath
not
Commanded
it
,
it
can
no
way
profit
them
.
2.
A
little
Child
may
receive
a
great
Gift
no
doubt
,
but
they
must
not
have
that
given
to
them
,
that
God
never
appointed
for
them
.
When
God
gave
out
the
Commission
of
Circumcision
,
he
Commanded
Abraham
as
an
Adult
Person
to
be
Circumcised
;
and
also
at
the
same
time
Commanded
him
to
Circumcise
his
Male
Children
;
that
was
by
a
positive
Law
,
a
gift
given
to
all
the
Male
Children
of
Abraham
,
and
to
all
the
Male
Children
by
Isaac
in
their
Generation
,
whether
their
Parents
were
godly
or
wicked
;
but
Baptism
in
Christs
Commission
,
is
only
given
to
Believers
and
to
all
that
Believe
,
and
therefore
no
Gift
given
to
Infants
,
we
must
not
be
Wiser
then
God
,
nor
add
to
his
word
.
4.
Obj.
Mr.
Owen
adds
another
Objection
against
his
Doctrine
,
viz.
Christ
was
about
Thirty
years
of
Age
when
he
was
Baptized
,
Luke
3.
23.
1.
His
answer
is
,
though
he
was
not
Baptized
until
he
was
Thirty
years
of
Age
,
yet
he
was
Circumcised
when
he
was
eight
days
Old
,
Luke
2.
21.
2.
He
delayed
not
his
Baptism
,
because
not
fit
to
receive
it
,
for
he
was
perfectly
Holy
from
the
Womb
,
and
therefore
if
we
are
bound
to
imitate
his
example
in
this
thing
,
none
of
those
that
do
believe
ought
to
be
Baptized
,
until
they
be
Thirty
years
of
Age
,
but
the
Antipedobaptists
walk
not
according
to
this
Rule
,
and
therefore
they
do
think
this
example
bindeth
them
not
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
no
doubt
,
if
any
Babe
was
a
fit
Subject
of
Baptism
,
it
was
the
Holy
Child
Jesus
,
if
purity
and
inherent
Holiness
,
gave
to
the
Subjects
thereof
the
proper
right
,
but
't
is
not
Holiness
primarily
and
simply
consider'd
in
it self
,
that
gives
any
person
a
right
to
Baptism
,
but
the
meer
positive
Command
of
God
,
and
the
positive
Command
of
God
,
only
runs
to
such
Persons
that
believe
,
and
therefore
not
to
Infants
,
tho'
we
grant
the
positive
Command
of
Circumcision
,
required
Male
Infants
to
be
Circumcised
under
the
Law
,
which
Law
Christ
came
to
fulfil
,
and
obey
in
every
thing
,
therefore
Christ
when
an
Infant
was
Circumcised
according
to
the
Tenor
of
the
Law
,
and
Order
thereof
;
and
he
was
Baptized
also
when
an
Adult
Person
,
according
to
the
Tenor
and
Rule
of
the
Gospel
:
No
doubt
had
it
been
the
mind
and
will
of
God
,
That
Infants
should
have
been
Baptized
,
Jesus
Christ
as
an
example
to
others
would
have
been
Baptized
in
his
Infancy
.
2.
But
say
you
,
if
we
are
to
imitate
our
Saviour
in
his
Baptism
,
we
must
not
be
baptized
until
we
are
Thirty
years
of
age
.
Answer
,
This
is
an
absur'd
and
an
idle
Dream
,
because
the
Holy
Ghost
by
mentioning
the
time
of
Christs
Age
when
he
was
Baptized
,
and
that
he
was
about
Thirty
years
Old
,
holds
forth
no
doubt
not
less
then
this
,
That
all
persons
ought
to
come
to
a
mature
age
,
or
to
ripeness
of
understanding
,
before
,
they
be
Baptized
,
for
the
Jews
looked
upon
that
Age
to
be
a
perfect
and
mature
age
.
The
Priests
did
not
till
about
that
Age
enter
into
the
exercise
of
their
Office
;
and
therefore
in
opposition
to
what
you
say
the
Antipaedobaptists
do
walk
according
to
Christs
Rule
,
i.e.
the
example
of
Christ
in
the
point
and
time
of
Baptism
,
viz.
That
all
persons
must
delay
their
Baptism
,
untill
they
come
to
such
ripeness
of
Age
,
as
to
be
grown
up
to
maturity
so
as
to
understand
what
baptism
signifies
,
and
to
be
capable
to
believe
in
Jesus
Christ
,
which
some
arrive
unto
sooner
then
others
;
for
some
have
the
understanding
of
Men
when
very
Young
,
may
be
,
have
more
wisdom
at
Twelve
years
of
Age
,
then
some
others
have
at
Thirty
,
but
they
that
arrive
not
to
understanding
by
the
Thirtieth
year
of
their
Age
certainly
never
will
attain
to
the
wisdom
and
knowledge
of
Men
of
understanding
.
2.
Besides
't
is
evident
,
that
our
Saviour
did
not
enter
upon
his
Ministry
until
he
was
baptized
,
to
shew
that
no
Gospel
Minister
should
undertake
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
or
become
a
pastor
of
a
Church
,
that
is
,
an
unbaptized
Person
;
and
the
Holy
Ghost
mentioning
the
Age
of
our
Saviour
when
he
was
baptized
,
doth
no
doubt
shew
us
,
that
the
proper
Subjects
of
Baptism
,
are
only
adult
Persons
,
so
far
't
is
our
rule
as
an
Example
.
But
say
you
,
many
Actions
of
Christ
are
for
our
instruction
,
which
are
not
to
be
imitated
,
and
such
was
his
Baptism
,
when
he
was
thirty
Years
of
Age
,
he
being
willing
to
bear
Witness
to
the
Ministry
of
John
,
who
began
to
baptize
a
little
before
,
as
his
Example
of
taking
the
Ministry
upon
him
,
when
he
was
thirty
years
of
Age
,
and
not
before
,
bindeth
not
all
others
to
follow
him
,
so
is
his
Example
of
being
baptized
in
the
same
Year
,
no
rule
to
all
others
.
Ans.
I
answer
,
though
we
grant
that
many
Actions
of
Christ
are
for
our
instruction
,
which
are
not
to
be
imitated
by
us
,
yet
we
say
in
contradiction
to
you
,
in
this
we
are
so
far
to
imitate
him
,
as
not
to
admit
any
to
Baptism
,
until
they
come
to
a
competent
degree
of
understanding
;
for
had
not
Christ
designed
so
far
as
to
leave
us
an
Example
in
this
matter
,
no
doubt
,
his
Age
when
baptized
,
had
not
been
left
upon
Record
;
nay
,
and
had
Infants
been
the
proper
subjects
of
Gospel
Baptism
,
we
may
be
sure
Christ
(
as
I
said
before
)
had
been
Baptized
as
well
as
he
was
Circumcised
,
when
an
Infant
;
but
he
being
God
as
well
as
Man
,
foreseeing
how
this
Ordinance
in
after
times
would
be
corrupted
,
and
the
proper
subjects
thereof
changed
,
even
from
Believers
,
or
adult
Persons
to
Infants
,
thought
it
necessary
no
doubt
to
leave
upon
record
the
very
time
of
his
Age
,
when
baptized
,
to
all
Generations
,
to
put
an
end
to
this
Controversie
.
For
this
is
said
,
by
the
pedobaptists
,
viz.
in
the
first
age
of
the
Church
,
or
when
baptism
was
first
given
forth
Believers
were
Baptized
,
but
where
do
you
find
,
say
they
,
that
any
Believer
in
all
the
New
Testament
that
was
baptized
,
did
delay
to
Baptize
his
or
her
Child
,
untill
they
come
to
a
ripe
Age.
We
answer
,
That
we
do
find
such
an
Instance
in
respect
of
our
Saviours
Baptism
,
for
all
must
confess
,
that
the
Blessed
Virgin
,
or
Mother
of
Jesus
,
and
Joseph
his
supposed
Father
,
were
both
eminent
Believers
,
and
Baptized
too
,
(
none
doubt
of
that
)
and
yet
they
delayed
or
referred
the
Baptizing
of
the
Holy
Jesus
until
he
became
an
Adult
Person
.
Obj.
But
if
any
should
Object
that
John
,
who
was
the
firsh
that
received
a
Commission
to
Baptize
,
was
but
a
little
Older
then
our
Saviour
;
and
therefore
was
not
capable
to
Baptize
Jesus
Christ
when
he
was
a
Babe
.
I
answer
,
tho'
this
be
true
,
yet
God
being
a
free
Agent
,
and
not
tyed
to
one
Man
more
than
to
another
,
could
not
he
have
given
Commission
to
any
other
person
to
have
Baptized
the
Blessed
Child
Jesus
,
or
have
sent
John
sooner
into
the
World
;
what
is
his
pleasure
to
have
done
,
he
wanted
not
Instruments
or
Ministers
to
do
;
therefore
it
follows
plainly
it
was
not
his
Pleasure
or
Will
,
that
Christ
should
be
Baptized
,
when
an
Infant
;
to
convince
us
that
Infants
are
not
the
proper
Subjects
of
Gospel
Baptism
.
4.
This
shews
also
in
opposition
to
what
Mr.
Owen
said
before
that
Baptism
by
Gods
Command
,
was
not
in
the
Jewish
Church
before
John
received
Commission
from
Heaven
to
Baptize
.
5.
As
to
that
you
speak
,
of
Christs
not
entring
uppon
his
Ministry
till
Thirty
years
of
Age
,
that
that
is
no
example
for
others
.
I
answer
that
he
was
oblidged
to
fulfill
both
the
Precepts
of
the
Law
and
the
Gospel
;
and
therefore
in
compliance
to
the
Law
,
(
that
the
Jews
might
not
Quarrel
with
him
)
he
entred
not
on
his
Ministry
untill
that
time
of
his
Age
,
which
the
Priests
and
Ministers
under
the
Law
did
,
for
he
was
made
under
the
Law
,
and
was
to
be
subject
to
all
the
Laws
and
precepts
thereof
;
and
in
that
he
is
,
't
is
true
,
no
example
to
Gospel
Ministers
,
but
Baptism
being
a
pure
Gospel
precept
,
in
that
he
was
by
us
to
be
Imitated
so
far
,
as
we
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
,
untill
we
become
Adult
Persons
,
and
do
believe
in
him
,
he
hath
left
us
an
Example
how
we
should
follow
his
steps
.
Mr.
Owen
brings
in
his
Fifth
Objection
against
his
Doctrine
and
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
,
viz.
If
Infant
Baptism
belongs
to
Infants
,
why
do
not
you
give
them
the
Lords
Supper
.
Take
his
answer
,
Because
,
saith
he
,
the
Apostle
Commands
those
that
receive
the
Lords
Supper
to
examine
themselves
,
and
to
discern
the
Body
of
the
Lord
,
which
little
Children
cannot
do
.
Answ.
I
answer
:
And
as
the
Apostle
Commands
all
that
receive
the
Lords
Supper
to
examine
themselves
,
and
to
discern
the
Lords
Body
,
so
likewise
John
Baptist
,
the
Lord
Jesus
and
his
Apostles
too
,
Commanded
all
that
received
baptism
to
believe
and
repent
,
and
to
bring
forth
Fruits
meet
for
Repentance
,
which
little
Babes
cannot
do
.
Repent
and
be
Baptized
every
one
of
you
,
Acts
2.
37.
If
thou
believest
with
all
thy
Heart
thou
mayest
,
Acts
8.
37.
that
is
,
be
baptized
.
2.
You
say
,
Baptism
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
Regeneration
,
and
of
our
Admission
into
the
Church
of
God
;
the
Lord's
Supper
is
a
Sacrament
of
our
Growth
and
Spiritual
Food
.
1.
I
answer
,
this
quite
overthrows
your
Infant
Baptism
,
unless
you
Presbyterians
do
believe
as
the
Church
of
England
doth
,
or
at
leastwise
,
what
they
affirm
,
viz.
that
Baptism
doth
regenerate
the
Child
,
is
Baptism
an
Ordinance
or
Sacrament
of
Regeneration
,
i.
e.
to
regenerate
Persons
,
or
to
hold
forth
that
regeneration
,
or
the
New
Birth
is
wrought
in
such
that
are
baptized
,
why
then
do
you
baptize
Infants
,
who
are
not
the
Subjects
of
Regeneration
?
Can
they
die
to
Sin
,
and
are
they
raised
up
out
of
the
Water
new
Born
Creatures
,
to
walk
in
newness
of
Life
.
2.
If
your
Infants
are
new
born
,
or
born
again
by
Baptism
,
no
doubt
the
Food
of
the
new
Creature
,
viz.
the
Lord's
Supper
ought
to
be
given
to
them
.
The
first
Sacrament
holds
forth
,
't
is
clear
,
a
Person
born
again
,
or
a
Babe
of
Grace
;
the
other
is
Food
,
fit
and
proper
for
that
New
born
or
Regenerated
Person
,
that
he
may
grow
thereby
,
therefore
they
belong
both
to
one
and
the
same
Subjects
,
and
neither
of
them
it
appears
from
hence
do
belong
to
Infants
,
but
3.
Are
all
the
Infants
that
you
baptize
,
let
in
as
Members
of
your
Church
,
are
they
absolutely
Members
of
your
Congregations
,
as
having
the
Ordinance
of
Admission
,
is
the
Door
of
God's
House
opened
to
them
?
How
can
you
then
(
say
I
)
deny
them
the
priviledge
of
true
and
lawful
Members
,
shall
your
little
Members
,
your
Lambs
in
Christ's
Fold
being
New
Born
be
starved
,
what
shall
the
regenerated
Babe
not
be
fed
with
the
Food
of
their
Fathers
House
?
4.
But
if
thus
,
what
number
of
Members
have
you
in
your
Churches
,
that
have
not
their
Names
in
your
Church-book
,
nor
perhaps
,
never
looked
after
when
grown
up
,
nor
cast
out
,
though
prophane
and
Wicked
?
for
do
you
cast
out
or
exclude
all
such
Children
you
baptized
,
when
grown
up
,
if
not
,
what
polluted
Churches
are
yours
.
Infant
Baptism
was
doubtless
contrived
to
encrease
National
Churches
,
or
to
make
national
Churches
,
and
it
doth
tend
indeed
,
to
increase
and
continue
that
Christian
Religion
that
is
in
Name
only
,
and
not
in
Power
;
you
have
,
its
true
in
England
,
by
meer
necessity
lost
your
National
Constitution
,
and
are
become
Congregational
,
whether
you
will
or
no
,
but
Infant
Baptism
will
not
accord
with
a
congregation
Constitution
,
nor
do
such
Churches
so
constituted
that
are
for
Infant
Baptism
,
own
their
Babes
to
be
proper
and
true
Members
of
their
Churches
so
far
as
I
can
learn
,
what
then
signifies
your
Sacrament
of
Admission
,
if
they
are
not
in
truth
admitted
and
owned
as
Members
,
and
allowed
the
Food
and
Priviledges
of
such
.
3.
You
say
it
was
formerly
,
though
Circumcision
belonged
to
Infants
,
yet
the
Paschal
Lamb
belonged
not
but
to
the
Adult
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
this
is
denyed
,
prove
if
you
can
,
that
the
little
Children
in
the
Jewish
Church
were
not
admitted
to
eat
of
the
Passover
,
it
is
positively
said
,
Exod.
12.
34.
That
the
whole
House
were
to
eat
thereof
,
even
a
Lamb
for
an
House
,
and
I
find
a
great
Writer
asserting
the
same
thing
,
that
little
Children
did
eat
thereof
,
they
were
to
bring
their
Children
once
or
twice
a
Year
before
the
Lord
;
and
I
see
no
ground
you
have
to
say
that
none
but
Adult
Persons
did
eat
thereof
.
2.
But
let
that
be
as
it
will
,
that
which
was
or
might
be
the
right
of
Jewish
Church-Members
or
not
their
right
,
is
no
rule
for
us
in
the
Gospel
Church
,
as
I
have
sufficiently
prov'd
;
and
besure
all
baptized
Persons
who
are
regular
Members
of
a
Gospel
Church
,
cannot
be
denyed
the
Lord's
Supper
without
Sin
.
So
much
to
your
Answers
to
our
Objections
,
you
might
might
have
brought
twice
as
many
more
.
CHAP.
XX.
In
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
17
Chapter
,
wherein
the
Antipedo
Baptists
are
cleared
of
those
foul
Charges
he
hath
cast
upon
them
;
and
't
is
proved
,
that
to
deny
Infant
Baptism
is
no
Sin
,
nor
are
those
guilty
of
Murther
nor
Adultery
that
baptize
or
dip
Men
and
Women
in
Water
,
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Spirit
;
(
as
Mr.
Owen
charges
them
)
but
contrariwise
it
is
proved
,
that
to
Baptize
or
Rantize
Infants
,
is
an
unlawful
Practise
and
very
Sinful
.
YOU
say
,
you
shall
demonstrate
in
this
Chapter
,
how
great
the
Sin
is
of
those
that
are
tempted
to
deny
the
Baptism
which
they
receive
in
their
Infancy
,
and
that
suffer
themselves
to
be
baptized
again
;
there
are
many
People
that
know
not
the
nature
of
their
first
Baptism
,
and
are
perverted
to
renounce
it
,
thinking
that
they
do
please
God
in
so
doing
,
but
they
fall
into
Temptation
and
the
Snares
of
the
Devil
,
who
is
the
Author
of
Errors
and
Father
of
falshood
.
Answ.
I
hope
by
this
time
,
the
Reader
may
discern
how
great
an
error
't
is
to
call
Rantism
or
Sprinkling
Baptizing
,
and
that
Infant
Baptism
is
also
an
error
,
being
a
meer
human
innovation
,
this
I
have
prov'd
,
and
theresore
't
is
so
far
from
being
a
Sin
to
disown
it
and
cast
it
away
,
that
it
is
every
good
Christians
Duty
so
to
do
,
that
would
in
all
things
walk
by
the
rule
of
God's
Word
.
And
for
Mr.
Owen
to
charge
our
People
after
this
manner
,
as
if
we
were
perverted
and
insnared
by
the
Devil
,
in
denying
our
Infants
Baptism
,
is
just
as
the
Papists
used
to
charge
the
Protestants
that
disowned
the
human
Traditions
,
and
the
vain
Fopperies
of
their
rotten
Church
,
and
thunder'd
out
their
Bulls
against
them
.
1
You
say
they
are
guilty
of
great
Sin
,
insomuch
that
they
neglect
to
make
a
right
use
of
their
first
Baptism
,
Infant
Baptism
putteth
them
under
continual
Vow
to
the
Lord
,
and
they
are
bound
to
renew
their
Vows
,
to
take
the
Lord
to
be
a
God
unto
them
,
as
soon
as
they
come
to
age
.
Answ.
'T
is
true
,
you
brought
them
under
an
Obligation
or
a
Vow
,
to
take
the
Lord
to
be
their
God
in
their
Infancy
,
but
why
did
you
do
it
,
unless
you
had
any
Warrant
or
Authority
from
God
;
for
to
do
such
a
thing
in
his
Name
without
his
Authority
,
is
Sinful
.
2.
You
might
better
have
stayed
till
they
came
to
Age
of
understanding
,
and
if
you
would
bring
them
under
a
Vow
,
have
caused
them
then
to
have
entered
into
a
Covenant
to
take
the
Lord
to
be
their
God
,
and
no
doubt
your
Children
might
more
dread
to
break
such
a
Vow
they
consented
to
and
freely
made
,
then
a
Covenant
or
Vow
you
caused
them
to
enter
into
in
their
Infancy
,
to
which
they
never
consented
;
but
perhaps
you
will
say
,
you
have
no
Ground
nor
Authority
from
Gods
word
to
do
that
,
as
much
every
way
as
you
have
in
Infancy
to
baptize
them
,
which
we
say
is
no
Baptism
at
all
,
much
less
Christ's
true
Baptism
,
therefore
God
thereby
oblieged
them
not
to
do
what
you
speak
,
but
it
is
their
Duty
when
grown
up
,
if
God
gives
them
Faith
to
cast
it
away
as
an
humane
Tradition
,
and
to
enter
into
God's
Holy
Baptismal
Covenant
as
Believers
,
according
to
Christ's
great
Commission
.
3.
Christs
Baptism
,
or
the
Baptism
of
Believers
was
not
ordained
to
oblige
Persons
who
are
in
their
natural
State
(
whether
young
or
old
)
to
be
come
the
Lord
,
or
to
be
regenerated
,
or
to
die
to
Sin
,
&c.
but
as
being
his
,
or
regenerated
before
baptized
,
their
baptismal
Covenant
obligeth
them
to
walk
as
the
Lord's
People
in
newness
of
Life
;
so
that
it
appears
,
that
Infants
baptismal
Covenant
,
is
directly
repugnant
in
the
end
and
design
of
Christ's
true
Baptismal
Covenant
,
(
as
I
have
more
fully
e●ence●
in
the
Epistle
to
this
Book
,
Dedicated
to
all
Godly
Pedo-Baptists
)
to
which
I
refer
the
Reader
.
You
say
you
see
the
greatest
part
of
Children
when
they
come
to
Age
,
be
either
ignorant
,
or
inconsiderate
of
their
Baptismal
Vows
,
&c.
for
which
you
blame
Ministers
and
Housholders
in
not
Catechising
and
Teaching
them
,
and
thus
say
you
,
Satan
tempts
them
to
cast
the
Blame
upon
their
Baptism
,
&c.
Ans.
You
may
see
what
a
vain
thing
an
human
invention
is
,
what
impression
can
that
make
on
the
Conscience
of
Persons
when
Grown
up
,
that
God
never
Commanded
nor
promised
to
bless
.
2.
But
take
heed
you
do
not
father
that
upon
the
Devil
which
is
done
by
Jesus
Christ
,
't
is
not
Satan
that
tempts
us
to
cast
a
slight
on
Infant
Baptism
,
or
makes
us
loo●
upon
it
as
an
insignificant
thing
,
but
't
is
through
Christ's
gracious
influences
,
by
opening
our
Eyes
to
see
't
is
a
meer
humane
rite
,
and
invention
of
Man
's
own
Brain
,
therefore
we
threw
it
away
,
and
entered
into
a
new
and
true
Baptismal
Covenant
,
and
many
others
also
do
day
by
day
.
You
(
say
you
)
appeal
to
the
Consciences
of
those
that
are
rebaptized
,
is
not
the
thing
thus
?
Let
their
Consciences
dictate
and
reprove
them
,
say
you
,
of
this
sinful
Carelesness
,
that
they
never
made
a
right
use
of
their
first
Baptism
,
if
they
had
received
profit
from
the
first
,
they
would
not
have
at
all
renounced
it
.
Ans.
1.
I
will
take
this
appeal
to
be
made
to
me
,
though
never
re-baptized
,
even
to
my
Conscience
;
and
I
do
solemnly
declare
,
I
doubt
not
but
all
my
Brethren
can
speak
the
same
thing
,
that
the
reason
why
we
cast
off
our
Infant
Baptism
or
rather
Rantism
,
was
because
we
were
fully
convinced
it
was
no
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
knew
it
could
be
of
no
〈◊〉
to
us
.
2
You
mistake
it
seems
,
as
if
you
dreamed
,
that
the
most
of
those
that
cast
off
Infant
Baptism
were
People
of
〈◊〉
,
and
also
seem
to
intimate
,
as
if
such
of
your
People
when
grown
up
that
are
pious
,
who
do
choose
the
Lord
to
be
their
God
,
do
it
by
virtue
of
their
Baptismal
Vow
;
no
no
,
that
had
no
such
effect
upon
them
,
't
is
only
the
Grace
of
God
in
them
,
't
is
by
vertue
of
his
Spirit
,
and
evident
't
is
,
that
the
persons
generally
that
first
doubt
about
the
truth
of
Infant
Baptism
,
are
persons
of
Religion
and
Piety
therefore
't
is
not
for
want
of
Religion
or
Zeal
for
God
,
they
throw
away
Infant
Baptism
,
but
it
is
from
their
Religion
and
Love
to
God
,
and
Zeal
to
his
Name
,
that
so
they
may
not
be
guilty
of
adding
to
his
Word
,
or
taking
that
for
Christ's
true
Baptism
,
which
is
none
of
it
.
Is
it
a
Sin
to
cast
off
Mens
inventions
?
2.
They
are
guilty
;
you
say
,
of
great
Sin
,
by
prophaning
the
Ordinance
of
Christ
;
is
it
a
small
thing
to
prophane
Sacred
Things
,
although
some
do
so
through
ignorance
,
Baptism
is
a
sacred
thing
which
ought
to
be
received
but
once
,
one
Lord
,
one
Faith
,
one
Baptism
;
Eph.
4.
4.
therefore
those
that
renew
their
Baptism
,
take
,
the
name
of
God
in
Vain
,
&c.
Answ.
I
answer
,
is
it
not
a
great
Sin
to
change
the
Holy
Ordinance
of
Christ
from
Baptism
to
Rantism
;
or
in
English
,
from
dipping
the
whole
Body
in
Water
,
to
the
sprinkling
a
little
Water
on
the
Face
,
and
to
change
the
true
Subject
from
a
Believer
to
an
Infant
;
is
not
this
to
prophane
a
most
holy
Ordinance
and
a
sacred
Thing
?
and
't
is
no
doubt
a
great
Evil
,
though
done
ignorantly
,
because
you
sprinkle
them
into
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy-Ghost
,
without
his
Authority
,
God
never
commanded
it
at
your
Hands
;
is
not
this
to
prophane
his
most
Holy
and
Sacred
Name
,
and
since
it
appears
there
is
but
one
Baptism
in
Water
;
and
you
cannot
deny
,
but
do
own
Believers
Baptism
was
at
first
instituted
and
appointed
of
Christ
;
it
plainly
then
follows
,
that
Infant
Baptism
is
none
of
Christs
Institution
,
't
is
no
Baptism
of
Christ
,
't
is
not
that
one
Baptism
he
appointed
and
ordained
,
we
own
but
one
Baptism
,
and
that
is
the
Baptism
of
Believers
;
if
you
have
got
another
,
look
you
to
that
,
for
there
is
but
one
Lord
,
one
Faith
,
and
one
Baptism
,
Eph.
4.
4.
3.
They
are
(
you
say
)
guilty
of
unbelief
,
unless
God
telleth
them
in
totidem
verbis
,
baptize
your
Children
,
they
will
believe
not
,
Faith
looketh
upon
every
beck
of
the
Lord
,
the
least
appearance
of
his
Will
,
the
Woman
which
had
the
bloody
Issue
believed
,
if
she
could
but
touch
the
Garment
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
she
should
be
whole
,
though
she
had
neither
a
Promise
,
nor
Command
,
nor
a
particular
Example
provoking
her
in
so
doing
,
&c.
Ans.
I
answer
,
will
you
charge
us
with
unbelief
,
because
we
cannot
believe
that
to
be
a
Truth
,
for
which
we
have
neither
Command
nor
Example
,
nor
for
which
there
can
be
no
good
Consequence
nor
Inference
drawn
from
any
Text
of
Scripture
,
nor
in
doing
of
which
we
have
no
promise
,
nor
are
they
which
do
it
under
any
threatning
in
all
the
book
of
God
?
this
seems
very
strange
,
must
we
believe
Infant
Baptism
,
because
you
and
others
say
it
is
a
Truth
,
by
the
same
argument
we
must
or
may
believe
all
Popish
Rites
,
divised
Fables
and
Ceremonies
,
what
innovations
may
not
your
Faith
take
hold
of
according
to
what
you
speak
here
,
is
there
no
difference
in
believing
in
Christ
in
things
respecting
matters
of
Faith
,
which
directly
lie
under
his
Promise
,
and
believing
things
which
are
matter
of
Practice
,
which
depends
wholly
upon
Christ's
mere
positive
Command
?
we
must
have
some
Ground
or
Foundation
from
God's
Word
to
believe
't
is
a
Truth
,
which
you
blame
us
for
not
believing
;
and
we
declare
that
we
see
we
have
no
Ground
,
no
Foundation
to
build
our
Faith
nor
Practice
upon
,
in
the
case
of
Infant
Baptism
,
and
are
we
guilty
of
unbelief
from
hence
,
what
Divinity
is
this
you
preach
and
publish
to
the
World
,
you
would
have
us
act
upon
an
implicite
Faith
,
or
believe
as
the
Church
believes
,
do
you
not
talk
like
a
Son
of
the
Church
of
Rome
?
2.
Find
the
Woman
that
had
the
Issue
of
Blood
no
Command
no
Example
,
nor
no
Promise
to
believe
Christ
would
●…er
?
Do
you
believe
what
you
seem
to
affirm
did
the
never
see
nor
hear
of
any
Person
that
Christ
had
cured
,
sure
you
cannot
imagine
any
such
thing
;
the
could
not
have
believed
unless
she
had
some
good
Ground
,
did
she
not
know
the
power
of
Christ
was
great
,
if
we
had
but
heard
of
one
Infant
baptized
by
Christ
or
his
Apostles
upon
the
Faith
of
their
Parents
,
as
we
find
some
Children
were
healed
by
the
Faith
of
their
Parents
,
we
should
not
be
such
unbelievers
as
we
now
are
about
Infant
Baptism
.
You
say
the
Woman
of
Canaan
comes
boldly
with
her
Child
unto
Christ
for
to
receive
benefit
,
though
she
was
not
invisible
Covenant
with
God
,
and
Christ
commended
her
Faith
,
and
received
her
Daughter
,
her
Faith
breaks
through
all
impediments
,
Mar.
15.
22.
28.
Her
Faith
was
great
,
who
against
Hope
believed
in
Hope
;
is
not
thy
unbelief
great
,
who
destroyest
the
foundation
of
Hope
touching
thy
Children
.
O
question
not
the
promise
of
God
through
unbelief
,
but
be
strong
in
Faith
giving
Glory
to
God
.
1.
Answ.
Must
we
boldly
bring
our
Children
to
Baptism
without
any
authority
from
Christ
,
because
the
Woman
of
Canaan
come
bodily
to
him
,
to
have
her
Daughter
healed
of
her
Boldly
Disease
,
she
had
ground
for
her
Faith
,
but
we
have
none
for
such
a
Practice
.
2.
Do
we
destroy
the
foundation
of
our
Hope
,
about
the
State
of
our
Infants
,
because
we
dare
not
baptize
them
without
a
word
from
Christ
,
or
without
Authority
from
him
?
No
Sir
,
we
have
ground
to
hope
our
Children
that
Die
are
as
happy
as
yours
,
tho'
never
Baptised
;
and
that
from
Gods
word
.
Hath
not
Christ
said
,
Of
such
are
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
no
doubt
God
hath
comprehended
Infants
in
his
eternal
electing
Love
that
Die
,
for
whom
he
also
gave
his
Son
,
and
in
some
secret
way
doth
Sanctifie
them
,
or
makes
them
meet
for
glory
above
;
and
we
have
as
much
ground
to
hope
,
that
God
will
give
Grace
to
those
Children
of
ours
that
live
,
as
you
have
to
hope
he
will
give
Grace
to
yours
.
Doth
your
Baptism
save
your
Infants
?
Will
you
say
with
the
Old
Erroneous
Fathers
,
and
Blind
Papists
,
that
Baptism
washes
away
Original
Sin
?
Your
expressions
look
that
way
,
I
am
afraid
of
you
.
Ought
we
not
to
believe
(
say
you
)
for
our
Children
,
that
Christ
will
receive
them
?
Is
he
more
unready
to
administer
Spiritual
Blessings
,
than
he
was
in
administring
Temporal
Blessings
to
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
?
Answ
;
Let
Christ
receive
whom
he
pleases
,
He
will
have
mercy
upon
whom
he
will
have
mercy
,
And
receive
and
Bless
,
whom
he
will
receive
and
Bless
;
no
doubt
his
Sovereign
Grace
is
extended
to
many
of
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
now
as
formerly
,
but
what
of
this
,
because
he
healed
some
little
Children
in
the
days
of
his
Flesh
,
of
their
Bodily
Distempers
,
Will
you
therefore
baptize
them
without
any
Authority
received
from
him
,
you
may
if
you
please
as
well
argue
thus
,
viz.
Jesus
Christ
Fed
many
little
Children
with
Temporal
Food
,
when
he
Fed
the
multitude
,
therefore
they
must
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
be
fed
with
Spiritual
Food
:
Is
this
to
argue
like
a
Man
of
Wisdom
and
Learning
.
3.
They
are
guilty
(
you
say
)
of
Pride
,
thus
you
charge
those
that
deny
Infant
Baptism
.
The
humble
submitteth
to
every
Revelation
of
the
Will
of
God
;
(
say
you
)
God
hath
left
divers
things
obscure
in
the
Scripture
,
that
we
might
search
them
,
and
judge
humbly
of
our Selves
,
who
know
things
only
in
part
,
seeing
through
a
Glass
,
in
a
parable
;
Is
it
not
great
pride
,
that
a
simple
Man
should
take
upon
him
to
teach
God
,
how
to
speak
in
his
Word
,
let
the
Lord
speak
his
Mind
clearer
about
Childrens
Baptism
,
or
else
we
will
note
believe
him
,
say
some
,
is
not
this
a
proud
reasoning
of
the
Heart
of
Man
?
The
humble
Heart
searcheth
the
Scriptures
,
and
considereth
the
agreement
of
one
Scripture
with
another
,
believing
the
consistency
of
the
Old
Testament
with
the
new
,
and
fearing
every
untrodden
Path
,
there
be
great
Truths
as
secret
Treasure
in
the
field
of
the
Scripture
,
which
the
Humble
searcheth
and
findeth
,
but
the
Proud
despiseth
and
comes
short
thereof
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Is
it
Pride
in
us
not
to
believe
that
to
be
a
truth
,
that
is
no
where
revealed
in
Scripture
,
or
is
it
not
folly
in
you
to
believe
such
a
thing
to
be
of
God's
appointment
;
and
yet
upon
the
most
diligent
Search
that
can
be
made
into
God's
Word
,
nothing
can
be
found
therein
to
prove
it
so
to
be
.
2.
Because
some
things
that
are
matter
of
Faith
(
I
say
again
)
or
some
Truths
of
the
Gospel
do
lie
obscure
,
and
in
dark
parables
in
the
sacred
Scripture
,
doth
it
follow
that
one
of
Christs
great
Gospel
Institutions
,
nay
one
of
the
great
Sacraments
(
as
they
are
called
)
doth
lie
so
dark
and
obscure
therein
also
?
this
is
strange
,
Moses
who
gave
out
the
Laws
of
the
Old
Testament
from
God
as
a
Servant
,
made
every
thing
plain
,
that
is
,
he
shewed
them
plainly
what
the
command
and
precept
was
,
so
that
he
that
run
might
read
it
,
and
will
any
Man
think
that
our
Lord
Jesus
who
was
as
faithful
as
a
Son
over
his
whole
House
,
would
be
less
faithful
,
and
leave
an
Ordinance
so
dark
and
obscure
,
that
there
is
not
any
Precept
nor
Example
in
all
the
New
Testament
for
any
such
thing
,
did
Christ
ever
give
forth
Gospel
Precepts
in
dark
Parables
,
Wonder
O
Heavens
.
8.
We
say
Infant
Baptism
is
not
layd
down
in
the
Scripture
obscurely
or
darkly
,
but
do
affirm
in
the
holy
fear
of
God
,
that
it
is
not
at
all
to
be
found
therein
;
and
it
may
appear
to
all
that
you
cannot
prove
that
it
is
,
if
God
never
so
darkly
had
declared
it
,
we
would
receive
it
,
but
because
he
hath
neither
plainly
nor
obscurely
revealed
,
That
't
is
his
Institution
,
we
do
reject
it
,
and
we
shall
not
be
charged
with
Pride
in
so
doing
;
't
is
I
fear
too
evident
that
you
are
left
in
this
Case
by
the
Lord
to
believe
a
lie
,
and
may
be
because
you
will
not
believe
nor
receive
the
plain
Revelation
of
the
baptism
of
Believers
,
tho'
no
one
Truth
lies
more
clear
and
plain
in
God's
Sacred
Word
.
4.
Is
it
pride
in
you
,
because
you
will
not
own
the
Common-Prayer
,
and
the
Rite
of
crossing
in
Baptism
,
and
God-fathers
and
God-mothers
,
these
things
(
you
may
be
)
believe
not
,
but
not
because
they
are
left
darkly
in
the
Scripture
,
but
because
they
are
merely
human
inventions
,
or
not
at
all
to
be
found
in
the
Scripture
.
You
say
we
will
not
believe
,
unless
you
shew
us
some
Command
or
some
clear
example
for
Infant
Baptism
,
that
it
is
of
God
,
but
if
there
had
not
been
any
Command
or
Example
(
although
both
be
for
Infant
Baptism
)
if
there
be
Scripture
Consequences
,
shewing
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
That
is
sufficient
to
satisfie
the
humble
searcher
,
did
not
Christ
shut
the
Mouths
of
the
Sadducees
about
the
Resurrection
by
Scriptural
Consequence
?
Mat
,
22.
32.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
,
are
we
not
to
be
commended
for
not
believing
that
to
be
a
Truth
,
for
which
there
is
neither
Command
nor
example
?
Why
do
you
not
use
Crossing
in
Baptism
,
nor
Oyl
nor
Honey
as
the
Papists
do
?
Is
〈◊〉
not
because
you
find
no
Command
nor
Example
for
any
such
things
.
2.
It
seems
strange
you
have
both
Command
and
example
for
Infant
Baptism
in
the
Holy
Scripture
;
and
you
cannot
find
either
,
or
else
none
can
find
them
,
but
your selves
.
3.
But
could
you
produce
as
fair
Consequences
from
any
Text
for
it
,
as
our
Saviour
did
to
prove
the
Resurrection
we
would
receive
it
readily
:
But
I
have
shewed
all
your
Consequences
are
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
but
if
you
〈◊〉
Truth
,
you
need
not
fly
to
far-●etch'd
Consequenced
4.
These
Antipedo
baptists
,
say
you
,
which
receive
rebaptization
,
are
guilty
of
great
uncharity
:
Charity
is
the
fulfulfilling
of
the
〈◊〉
,
1
Tim.
1.
5.
and
love
also
is
the
fulfilling
of
the
Gospel
;
and
therefore
we
ought
to
be
jealous
of
every
Opinion
that
destroys
Charity
;
God
is
Love
,
and
those
Truths
that
are
of
God
,
are
agreeable
to
Charity
,
but
this
Opinion
which
denyeth
Infant
Baptism
,
is
a
very
uncharitable
Opinion
which
casteth
our
Children
from
the
Houshold
of
God
,
of
which
they
were
Members
for
some
Thousand
of
Years
,
is
it
not
an
uncharitable
opinion
which
excommunicates
them
out
of
the
Church
of
God
.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
could
you
prove
Infant
Baptism
to
be
a
Truth
of
God
,
you
had
cause
to
charge
us
,
but
that
the
Reader
may
see
,
you
cannot
do
.
2.
Nor
can
you
prove
Infants
were
ever
received
as
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
therefore
it
is
a
false
Charge
to
say
our
Opinion
casteth
them
out
or
Excommunicates
them
out
of
that
.
3.
Take
heed
least
it
be
found
one
day
that
you
are
a
Man
that
wants
Charity
towards
Christ
himself
,
who
is
the
only
builder
of
his
Gospel
Temple
,
and
who
did
not
in
his
Wisdom
think
good
to
take
in
the
fleshly
Seed
into
the
Gospel
Church
as
they
were
received
into
the
Typical
and
legal
Church
of
the
Jews
.
You
intimate
that
we
have
Excommunicated
them
,
and
that
without
a
Cause
,
before
they
had
done
any
thing
for
to
merit
this
hard
Judgment
,
is
not
this
(
say
you
)
an
uncharitable
Opinion
which
denyeth
them
the
same
place
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
under
the
Gospel
,
as
they
had
under
the
Law
,
is
not
that
an
uncharitable
Opinion
which
maketh
their
condition
worser
,
since
the
coming
of
Christ
then
it
was
before
?
in
short
,
is
it
not
(
say
you
)
an
uncharitable
Judgment
,
which
denie
s
them
a
share
in
the
promise
,
Acts
2.
39.
is
not
God
a
God
unto
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
,
what
,
hope
then
can
we
have
of
their
Salvation
.
1.
Answ.
It
was
not
for
the
sin
or
demerits
of
Infants
that
God
hath
not
received
them
as
Members
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
only
it
was
his
own
Sovereign
Will
and
Pleasure
not
so
to
do
,
nor
can
you
prove
that
this
is
any
spiritual
loss
unto
our
Infants
.
2.
God
hath
as
much
cast
out
the
Sons
of
his
Gospel
Ministers
(
as
such
)
from
having
any
part
in
the
Ministry
,
which
you
know
they
had
under
the
Law
:
For
every
Son
of
a
Priest
,
when
grown
up
,
was
of
the
Priesthood
,
and
this
is
denyed
to
our
Sons
as
such
.
Another
may
say
,
what
Sin
have
our
Sons
committed
,
that
this
great
priviledge
is
denyed
them
,
since
Christ
came
?
Also
,
why
should
not
our
Children
have
the
promise
of
an
External
Canaan
,
as
the
Jewish
Children
had
under
the
Law
,
what
have
they
done
to
procure
this
loss
.
3.
We
do
not
deny
Infants
the
same
priviledges
and
place
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
they
ever
had
,
no
God
forbid
;
our
Children
have
every
way
(
no
doubt
)
like
place
in
that
Covenant
which
the
Children
of
the
faithful
had
under
the
Law
,
even
them
and
all
them
of
our
Children
,
that
have
the
saving
blessings
of
Christ
Merits
,
and
of
the
said
unchangeable
and
eternal
Covenant
,
but
we
say
they
are
not
in
the
Covenant
of
peculiarity
God
made
with
Abrahams
Natural
Seed
as
such
;
and
so
partake
not
of
the
external
Rites
and
Priviledges
of
the
Gospel
Church
,
or
New
Creation
,
until
they
do
believe
or
are
called
by
the
Lord
according
to
that
promise
you
cite
,
Acts
2.
39.
4.
What
a
noise
do
you
make
about
your
Infants
great
loss
by
our
Opinion
;
alas
you
cannot
prove
or
make
it
appear
they
have
any
real
Spiritual
loss
,
hereby
,
our
Children
have
the
same
spiritual
blessings
now
as
ever
,
and
God
is
as
much
the
God
of
our
Seed
in
a
spiritual
sense
,
as
ever
he
was
to
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
;
all
that
we
say
is
this
,
that
our
Infants
have
no
right
to
the
external
Ordinance
of
Baptism
nor
any
but
believers
only
;
and
pray
what
wrong
is
this
to
them
?
Is
there
no
hope
therefore
left
us
of
the
Salvation
of
our
dying
Infants
?
what
is
it
to
give
our
Infants
as
such
,
the
sign
,
who
have
not
the
thing
signified
thereby
,
you
would
have
them
have
the
Shell
that
have
not
the
Kernel
,
and
because
we
will
not
give
them
the
one
,
till
God
gives
them
the
other
,
we
are
censured
as
uncharitable
,
What
good
did
Simon
magus
his
Baptism
do
him
?
Will
Baptism
save
your
Infants
?
and
if
all
the
Seed
of
the
Faithful
are
(
as
you
say
)
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
they
are
safe
enough
whether
they
are
baptized
or
not
,
we
cannot
bring
them
into
that
Covenant
,
nor
cast
them
out
of
it
.
5.
And
now
Sir
,
pray
do
you
attempt
for
once
to
do
more
then
all
your
brethren
have
done
before
you
,
viz.
prove
what
Spiritual
or
Temporal
benefits
your
Children
do
receive
by
their
pretended
Baptism
,
Mr.
Burkitt
made
assay
to
do
this
,
but
he
is
answered
,
and
says
no
more
,
and
I
purpose
for
the
sake
of
the
Ancient
Britains
,
for
whom
I
have
always
had
great
love
,
and
an
honourable
esteem
of
,
to
take
a
little
pains
to
transcribe
Mr.
Burkitts
arguments
in
this
respect
,
and
my
answers
by
and
by
.
6.
'T
is
evident
that
baptism
doth
not
infuse
Grace
into
them
,
nor
the
habits
thereof
,
it
does
not
change
their
Hearts
;
it
doth
not
take
away
Original
Sin
.
God
can
do
it
,
't
is
true
,
nay
,
and
God
doth
no
doubt
,
change
the
Hearts
of
such
dying
Infants
that
are
saved
;
but
prove
if
you
can
,
their
baptism
doth
this
,
and
then
.
2.
what
external
priviledges
of
the
Church
do
your
Infants
(
as
such
)
receive
,
that
are
as
,
you
say
,
baptized
,
you
will
not
own
them
for
Brethren
and
Sisters
,
until
they
are
Converted
,
you
will
not
give
them
the
Lords
Supper
until
they
are
converted
,
they
are
not
by
the
Lord's
appointment
brought
under
any
Obligation
by
being
baptized
;
and
then
as
few
of
your
Children
,
't
is
plain
,
become
godly
as
of
ours
,
pray
shew
us
when
you
write
again
,
what
blessings
or
priviledges
your
Infants
do
receive
by
their
Rantism
,
or
Baptism
as
you
call
it
?
What
uncharitableness
is
it
then
in
us
to
deny
our
Infants
that
thing
,
which
you
cannot
prove
if
they
had
it
,
would
do
them
any
manner
of
good
.
Nay
Sir
,
I
shall
prove
before
I
have
done
with
you
that
it
may
do
them
much
hurt
.
5.
Those
that
are
against
Infant
Baptism
;
and
for
renewing
of
it
(
you
say
)
are
guilty
of
a
great
ingratitude
towards
God
,
we
know
that
ingratitude
is
a
great
Sin
against
the
Lord
:
Unthankfulness
for
Temporal
blessings
provokes
him
to
Anger
,
Rom.
1.
21.
Luke
17.
17
,
18.
how
much
more
for
Spiritual
blessings
and
priviledges
.
—
Is
it
not
great
ingratitude
in
us
to
despise
our
birth-right
?
The
Scripture
puts
a
reproachful
Character
upon
Esau
,
&c.
Answ.
All
this
is
to
no
purpose
,
't
is
but
begging
the
Question
,
viz.
That
Infant
Baptism
is
God's
Ordinance
,
and
a
birthright
priviledge
which
we
utterly
deny
,
for
tho'
Baptism
be
a
priviledge
by
Christs
positive
Command
,
it
only
belonging
to
the
Second
Birth
,
not
to
the
First
.
Thou
art
guilty
of
a
great
Sin
(
say
you
)
by
making
a
division
in
the
Body
of
Jesus
Christ
,
there
is
one
Body
and
one
Baptism
,
Eph.
4.
4
,
〈◊〉
And
they
cannot
be
divided
,
whereas
by
denying
of
the
first
Baptism
thou
breakest
the
Unity
of
that
Body
,
to
the
which
Christ
is
Head
,
thou
breakest
thy self
off
from
the
Vine
,
and
witherest
as
an
unfruitful
Branch
,
which
will
not
be
better
although
it
be
Watered
again
;
thou
breakest
thy self
off
not
from
this
Congregation
or
another
only
;
but
from
the
Universal
Catholick
Church
in
every
Age
and
Countrey
upon
the
Face
of
the
Earth
,
which
is
cleansed
with
the
washing
of
Water
through
the
Word
,
Eph.
5.
26.
and
continuing
in
the
Union
of
Baptism
.
Canst
thou
think
this
to
be
a
small
sin
for
thee
to
rent
thy self
from
the
Body
of
Christ
,
though
stolen
Water
be
sweet
at
this
time
,
and
Bread
eaten
in
secret
be
pleasant
.
Know
and
see
that
it
will
be
evil
and
bitter
in
the
end
,
for
thee
to
cast
thy self
out
of
the
Church
of
the
Living
God
,
the
Pillar
and
ground
of
Truth
.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
untill
I
came
hither
in
your
Book
,
I
did
not
fully
perceive
your
bitter
Spirit
.
O
that
God
would
appear
and
give
you
a
better
temper
of
Heart
:
Who
is
uncharitable
now
,
if
Charity
be
the
Bond
of
perfectness
?
How
imperfect
is
my
Brother
Owen
?
Must
we
all
who
deny
Infant
Baptism
,
be
Condemned
as
utter
cast
aways
,
and
not
be
lookt
upon
so
much
as
Members
of
the
Universal
Church
?
'T
is
well
,
it
is
not
in
your
power
to
reprobate
us
and
our
Children
.
2.
But
stay
a
little
,
are
all
that
own
Infant
Baptism
,
or
have
been
baptized
in
every
Age
and
Nation
of
the
Earth
,
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
Church
of
the
living
God
?
Do
you
indeed
own
the
Popish
Church
,
or
is
not
the
Church
of
Rome
in
your
Judgment
,
however
part
of
the
Body
of
Christ
?
And
are
not
you
in
Union
with
that
Church
,
and
all
Churches
that
own
Infant
Baptism
in
the
World
?
it
followeth
it
must
be
so
.
I
think
't
is
time
for
you
,
most
Worthy
Britains
,
to
have
a
Jealous
Eye
towards
this
Man
,
for
if
he
be
not
in
actual
Communion
with
the
Church
of
Rome
,
yet
his
principles
lead
him
out
so
to
be
;
for
he
seems
to
own
all
the
Churches
to
be
the
Body
of
Christ
,
who
were
and
are
baptized
in
Infancy
,
nay
,
and
that
those
Churches
,
and
none
but
them
to
make
up
the
whole
Mystical
Universal
Church
of
God
.
He
seems
to
reprobate
all
those
Christians
that
deny
Infant
Baptism
,
or
are
disjoyned
from
his
Universal
Catholick
Church
of
baptized
Infants
.
I
know
his
Reverend
Brethren
in
London
,
are
Men
of
more
Charity
,
and
abhor
such
positions
as
he
now
lays
down
.
I
cannot
think
that
his
principles
allow
Salvation
to
any
that
are
not
in
Union
with
the
visible
Universal
Church
that
own
Infant
baptism
,
't
is
time
to
thr●w
this
Idol
away
.
3.
Is
it
a
sin
to
divide
from
the
Church
of
Rome
,
or
from
the
Church
of
England
,
or
not
to
continue
of
their
Communion
?
Are
not
you
one
that
have
separated
your self
from
both
,
and
more
immediately
from
the
last
:
But
I
suppose
you
own
them
both
to
be
true
Churches
,
tho
you
have
separated
your self
,
but
if
so
,
how
can
you
clear
your self
of
abominable
Schism
,
for
you
have
made
a
division
in
that
Body
,
which
you
declare
is
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
Church
of
the
living
God
?
Can
those
things
for
which
you
have
made
this
division
,
justifie
your
Sel●●m
?
Sir
,
tho
we
believe
there
are
many
Holy
and
Gracious
Christians
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
that
they
are
Members
of
the
Invisible
Universal
Church
,
yet
we
do
not
believe
the
Church
of
England
,
nor
any
National
Church
,
is
an
orderly
true
Constituted
Visible
Church
of
Jesus
Christ
and
therefore
we
separated
from
them
,
but
this
it
appears
is
not
your
belief
.
4.
Your
Judgment
is
,
it
appears
,
that
no
Person
can
be
a
Member
of
the
Universal
Catholick
Church
,
that
was
not
baptized
,
and
so
United
to
her
in
Infancy
,
or
Sprinkled
when
an
Adult
Person
,
i.
e.
he
must
own
Infant
Baptism
.
Sir
I
never
met
with
a
Man
like
your self
,
as
I
can
remember
of
less
Charity
;
and
yet
you
cry
our
against
us
for
want
of
Charity
.
5.
I
do
affirm
that
,
that
one
Baptism
that
Unites
to
the
Visible
Church
(
not
to
the
Universal
Church
)
is
the
Baptism
of
Believers
,
and
not
that
of
Infants
;
And
to
prove
it
,
take
this
argument
.
If
that
Baptism
the
Apostles
administred
,
and
on
which
they
received
all
Persons
into
the
Visible
Church
,
was
the
Baptism
of
the
Adult
,
or
that
of
Believers
only
;
then
the
baptism
of
the
Adult
,
or
that
of
Believers
only
,
is
that
one
and
first
Baptism
;
but
the
baptism
which
the
Apostles
administred
,
and
on
which
they
received
all
Persons
into
the
Visible
Church
,
was
the
baptism
of
the
Adult
,
or
that
of
Believers
only
.
Ergo
,
The
Baptism
of
the
Adult
,
or
that
of
Believers
,
is
that
one
or
only
Baptism
of
Christs
Visible
Church
;
for
those
Members
of
the
visible
Church
in
the
Primitive
times
,
that
were
washed
in
Baptismal
Water
,
professed
themselves
washed
also
in
Christs
Blood
,
and
they
that
were
sincere
had
the
thing
signified
,
as
well
as
the
Sign
when
they
were
baptized
,
but
Infants
never
made
any
such
profession
,
therefore
Infant
Baptism
was
not
the
first
and
one
Baptism
that
Christ
left
in
his
Church
.
6.
It
is
true
that
those
that
deny
Infant
baptism
,
deny
the
Communion
of
the
National
Church
,
of
which
perhaps
they
were
once
Members
,
but
this
is
not
to
make
a
division
in
the
Mistical
Body
of
Christ
;
nor
in
a
true
Constituted
Gospel
Church
.
'T
is
a
duty
to
come
out
from
every
false
Church
,
Come
out
of
her●
my
People
,
Rev.
18.
4.
7.
If
baptism
be
that
Ordinance
that
Unites
us
into
the
true
Visible
Church
,
and
Christs
baptism
be
that
of
Believers
,
then
Mr.
Owen
in
denying
of
believers
baptism
,
(
which
I
have
proved
is
that
one
baptism
)
is
as
much
guilty
of
Sin
in
hindring
that
Union
(
by
obstructing
as
much
as
in
him
lieth
,
Believers
to
be
baptized
,
and
so
Unite
them
to
the
said
true
Visible
Church
of
Christ
)
as
those
that
divide
from
it
;
and
is
this
a
small
sin
,
but
Believers
baptism
is
that
Uniting
Ordinance
,
without
baptism
upon
profession
of
Faith
,
no
Person
according
to
the
rule
of
the
Gospel
can
be
United
to
a
true
Visible
Church
of
Christ
,
It
is
a
dangerous
thing
to
hinder
persons
from
Joyning
with
a
true
Church
,
as
renting
from
it
,
but
so
it
is
not
for
leaving
of
a
false
Church
.
8.
From
hence
also
it
appears
that
our
separation
from
those
Churches
that
are
Constituted
upon
Infant
Baptism
,
do
but
divide
from
such
Churches
that
are
not
orderly
gathered
or
Constituted
according
to
the
rule
of
the
Gospel
and
Institution
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
therefore
no
sin
so
to
do
.
9.
Nay
,
and
evident
it
is
that
the
greatest
Body
of
Mr.
Owens
Universal
Catholick
Church
,
is
Antichristian
:
For
I
think
none
question
but
the
Popish
Church
,
which
is
founded
on
Infant
baptism
,
is
for
Number
more
then
the
Protestant
Churches
;
however
the
Roman
Church
must
be
by
what
he
intimates
one
great
part
of
the
Catholick
Church
,
or
Church
of
the
living
God
.
10.
And
lastly
,
Mr.
Owen
mistakes
,
the
Waters
we
drink
of
,
who
maintain
Believers
Baptism
,
are
not
Stolen
Waters
,
but
Waters
lawfully
come
at
,
being
taken
out
of
the
Fountain
of
Gods
Word
,
and
are
part
of
the
Waters
of
God's
Sanctuary
;
and
therefore
they
are
sweet
to
our
Souls
,
and
our
Bread
is
from
our
Fathers
Table
,
being
no
other
than
what
all
the
Children
of
God
did
feed
upon
in
the
Apostolical
Primitive
times
:
and
his
Stolen
Water
of
Infant
Baptism
may
prove
bitter
at
the
end
,
notwithstanding
his
vain
boasts
,
but
let
him
see
to
that
,
may
be
God
may
open
his
Eyes
,
and
cause
him
to
Vomit
it
up
by
Repentance
,
which
I
shall
rejoyce
to
hear
.
you
say
,
this
division
is
very
much
alike
unto
that
of
the
Antient
Donatists
,
who
were
for
rebaptizing
because
they
accounted
them
sinners
that
first
baptized
them
,
&c.
A●sw
.
We
are
,
I
tell
you
again
,
as
much
against
rebaptizing
as
you
can
be
,
but
you
want
the
essentials
of
Baptism
,
both
in
respect
to
the
form
of
baptism
,
and
the
subjects
thereof
.
Sprinkling
is
not
baptizing
,
and
Infants
are
not
the
true
Subjects
of
Christ's
baptism
,
but
Believers
only
.
You
proceed
to
give
out
of
History
the
opinion
of
the
Ancient
Fathers
about
rebaptizing
.
Thus
saith
(
say
you
)
.
Optatus
.
Et
quid
vobis
visum
est
non
post
nos
sed
post
trinitatem
baptisma
geminare
?
Why
do
you
rebaptize
not
only
after
us
,
but
after
the
Trinity
.
Opt.
Lib.
5.
p.
51.
Opt.
Lib.
5.
page
61.
Quicunque
a
vobis
se
rebaptizari
,
&c.
Whoever
consenteth
to
be
rebaptized
by
you
,
he
ariseth
up
certainly
but
naked
,
because
he
hath
permitted
you
to
deprive
him
of
his
Wedding
Garment
.
Austin
saith
,
Revera
enim
fieri
potest
ut
sceleratior
sit
Rebaptizator
totius
hominis
quam
solius
corporis
interemptor
Aug.
ad
Eleusium
Ep.
163.
It
being
possible
for
him
who
baptizeth
the
whole
Man
to
be
worser
then
him
,
who
killeth
the
Body
only
.
Again
,
Rebaptizare
haereticum
hominem
omnino
peccatum
est
immanissimum
.
It
is
a
sin
to
rebaptize
an
Heretick
,
but
to
rebaptize
a
Catholick
,
or
one
in
Unity
with
the
Universal
Church
,
is
a
dreadful
Sin
.
Aug.
de
unico
Bapt.
cap.
13.
If
any
(
say
you
)
judge
these
are
words
too
harsh
,
let
them
consider
that
they
are
Austin's
words
and
not
mine
,
I
set
them
down
for
to
shew
the
Judgment
of
the
Old
Primitive
Church
about
rebaptization
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
these
Instances
hurt
not
us
,
for
it
appears
in
both
these
Quotations
,
that
the
Persons
rebaptized
were
Dipped
first
when
baptized
,
and
might
be
Believers
also
,
for
in
the
first
,
that
word
implyeth
no
less
,
viz.
riseth
up
,
denoting
he
was
buried
in
the
Water
.
Your
Infants
when
baptized
(
as
you
call
it
)
cannot
be
said
to
rise
up
;
and
Austins
words
imply
plainly
the
baptizing
the
whole
Body
,
who
baptizeth
,
saith
he
,
the
whole
Man
,
but
you
only
Sprinkle
,
and
not
the
whole
Body
,
but
the
Face
only
.
These
Instances
make
against
your
Rantism
or
Sprinkling
,
but
since
you
make
such
a
stir
in
charging
us
with
rebaptization
,
and
fain
would
have
us
be
what
we
are
branded
with
,
viz.
Anabaptists
.
I
shall
now
shew
you
the
opinion
also
of
some
of
the
Ancient
Fathers
and
Modern
Divines
,
about
reiterating
of
baptism
.
Gregory
saith
l.
1.
Ep.
7.
That
that
is
not
said
to
be
reiterated
,
which
is
not
certainly
demonstrated
to
have
been
rightly
and
duely
done
,
and
in
another
place
saith
,
if
there
be
an
offence
taken
at
the
Truth
,
it
is
much
better
that
offence
be
taken
than
that
the
Truth
should
be
deserted
,
the
Custom
of
the
Churches
ought
to
submit
to
the
words
of
Christ
,
not
the
words
of
Christ
to
be
wrested
to
the
Custom
of
the
Church
,
in
regard
the
words
of
Christ
,
are
the
foundation
upon
which
all
Customs
are
to
be
build
.
hom.
7.
in
Ezechiel
.
Cyprian
saith
,
It
being
more
proper
for
the
wise
,
and
and
those
that
fear
God
to
obey
the
manifest
and
open
Truth
,
freely
,
and
without
delay
,
then
obstinately
,
and
pertinaciously
to
resist
it
.
Cyprian
Epist
ad
Jubian
.
See
Dr.
du
Veil
on
Act.
cap.
2.
Scotus
saith
,
(
Dr.
du
Veil
)
having
alledg'd
the
Judgment
of
Alexander
the
Third
,
touching
the
baptizing
of
those
of
whom
it
was
doubted
whether
they
were
baptized
or
no
,
takes
an
occasion
to
recommend
three
Maxims
,
the
First
,
is
where
there
is
a
possibility
,
the
safest
way
is
to
be
chosen
,
Secondly
,
Where
there
is
no
possibility
,
the
next
,
to
the
safest
way
is
to
be
made
use
of
.
Thirdly
,
When
Impossibility
ceases
,
every
thing
is
to
be
supplied
,
which
Impossibility
would
not
admit
.
These
Maxims
are
so
agreeable
to
reason
,
(
saith
the
Learned
Dr.
Du
Veil
)
whoever
intends
to
follow
,
will
never
question
,
but
that
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
if
they
have
not
received
that
baptism
Ordained
by
Christ
,
but
only
Rhantism
that
is
,
the
Sprinkling
substitued
(
saith
he
)
in
its
room
by
a
vulgar
use
,
or
rather
abuse
,
as
Luther
calls
it
.
thus
Dr.
Duveil
in
Historical
expost
,
of
Acts.
cap.
2.
page
86.
That
famous
Divine
John
Forbes
saith
,
Nor
is
it
to
be
doubted
but
that
they
again
ought
to
be
baptized
,
who
before
have
only
received
a
Vain
Washing
,
and
not
the
true
Sacrament
of
Baptism
:
And
though
it
be
not
so
great
as
the
Papists
imagine
,
yet
the
necessity
of
this
Sacament
is
very
great
,
and
the
profit
and
advantage
very
considerable
.
See
Dr.
du
Veil
Act.
2.
page
87.
Tertullian
saith
,
Whatsoever
savours
contrary
to
Truth
is
heresy
though
it
be
an
Ancient
Custom
.
Thus
you
see
the
Learned
,
though
they
own
not
rebaptization
,
where
baptism
at
first
was
duly
administred
,
yet
such
who
at
first
received
only
a
pretended
baptism
,
ought
to
be
truly
baptized
;
to
baptize
a
Believer
again
,
is
sinful
and
very
unlawful
thing
,
but
since
yours
is
no
Baptism
but
only
Rhantism
,
our
practice
is
no
rebaptization
,
for
as
you
do
not
the
Act
,
so
't
is
not
done
on
the
proper
subject
.
7.
They
are
guilty
,
say
you
,
(
that
is
;
such
as
deny
Infant
Baptism
)
of
a
great
sin
,
by
giving
offence
to
many
that
were
baptized
in
their
Infancy
,
tempting
them
to
think
that
they
are
not
under
any
vows
unto
God
,
and
that
their
baptism
bindeth
them
not
to
a
new
course
of
Life
,
if
People
judge
themselves
free
from
their
baptismal
Obligation
.
O!
How
naked
come
they
to
Satans
Temptations
,
&c.
Answ.
I
answer
,
if
you
take
an
offence
at
us
,
because
we
cast
away
an
humane
Tradition
,
we
cannot
help
that
,
ought
we
to
obey
Man
rather
then
God
,
Judge
ye
.
2.
'T
is
the
force
of
Scripture
arguments
,
or
the
power
of
Gods
Word
,
that
provoked
us
,
and
many
Thousands
more
to
throw
off
the
Innovation
and
sinful
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
;
and
dare
you
say
it
was
Satan
that
tempted
us
,
no
I
fear
't
is
Satan
or
worldly
profit
,
or
to
free
themselves
from
reproach
,
that
tempts
some
of
the
pedobaptists
to
continue
the
practice
of
that
devised
Custom
.
'T
is
not
Satans
use
,
nor
interest
to
tempt
Men
to
own
Christs
blessed
Institutions
,
and
cast
off
Mens
Inventions
,
but
endeavour
to
keep
them
Ignorant
of
the
first
,
and
to
hold
up
the
second
,
which
was
let
in
us
in
the
time
of
the
Apostacy
of
the
Church
,
which
't
is
evident
is
a
Pillar
to
uphold
National
Churches
,
and
not
only
Popish
,
but
some
Protestant
Constitutions
also
.
3.
We
are
not
tempted
by
Satan
,
but
perswaded
by
the
Lord
,
and
through
the
Power
and
Authority
of
his
Word
,
to
believe
that
God
brought
us
not
under
that
Vow
or
Obligation
in
Infancy
,
tho'
you
't
is
true
do
it
,
and
so
do
the
Papists
,
bring
People
under
Vows
and
Obligations
to
live
a
single
Life
,
and
do
other
things
,
all
tending
to
Piety
and
Holyness
,
(
as
they
tell
you
,
)
but
God
never
brought
them
under
any
such
Vows
or
Obligations
.
And
tho'
an
human
Obligation
may
have
some
force
on
the
Conscience
,
especially
when
People
think
't
is
Gods
Covenant
,
yet
ought
not
the
blind
People
among
the
Papists
to
be
told
that
those
Covenants
are
Human
,
and
not
Covenants
God
brought
them
under
?
Hath
not
God
ways
enough
,
and
such
that
are
sufficient
to
Oblidge
our
Children
to
die
to
Sin
,
and
live
a
new
Life
?
but
doth
he
need
Man's
Supplements
,
shall
man
teach
God
?
and
will
you
Father
your
Baptismal
Obligation
on
God
,
as
that
which
he
requires
Infants
to
come
under
without
the
least
Shaddow
of
proof
from
his
blessed
Word
.
I
must
tell
you
all
voluntary
Vows
are
by
Christ
in
the
times
of
the
Gospel
forbid
,
Mat.
5.
33
,
34.
You
ought
not
to
bring
your selves
nor
Children
under
any
such
voluntary
and
promisory
Oaths
,
Vows
,
or
Obligations
;
you
must
see
you
are
Commanded
to
do
it
,
or
have
clear
Authority
from
the
Lord
to
do
this
thing
before
you
do
it
.
God
doth
require
Believers
and
their
Children
when
they
believe
,
to
come
under
a
baptismal
Vow
or
Obligation
,
but
not
till
then
.
But
do
not
think
the
purport
of
our
Doctrine
herein
,
is
to
open
a
Door
for
young
People
to
Sin
,
God
forbid
;
the
Obligations
which
God
in
his
Word
,
and
godly
Parents
,
and
Ministers
by
the
authority
of
God's
Word
lay
upon
them
are
sufficient
,
when
the
Lord
works
with
them
to
oblige
them
to
repent
,
believe
,
and
lead
a
new
Life
,
without
your
volunrary
and
unwarrantable
Obligation
laid
upon
them
in
Infancy
,
that
you
have
no
ground
to
believe
God
will
ever
bless
,
to
the
end
you
design
it
,
unless
he
had
commanded
it
;
will
you
do
Evil
that
Good
may
come
on
it
.
8.
Baptizing
by
dipping
the
whole
Body
into
cold
Water
(
as
you
say
)
in
these
cold
Climates
,
is
a
breach
of
the
sixth
Commandment
.
Thou
shalt
not
kill
,
for
it
is
certain
,
that
many
tender
and
sickly
Bodies
cannot
suffer
to
be
dipped
in
cold
Water
in
the
time
of
Winter
,
without
being
pernicious
to
their
Lives
,
especially
when
it
is
Snow
and
Frost
;
we
are
not
to
tempt
the
Lord
,
thinking
that
God
will
do
Miracles
for
the
saving
of
our
Lives
,
he
worketh
ordinarily
through
appointed
means
,
in
such
an
occasion
as
this
.
Mr.
Cradock
judged
,
that
the
chief
Magistrate
should
hinder
People
to
be
dipped
,
least
it
should
be
pernicious
to
the
Subjects
.
Lib.
page
108.
Ans.
I
answer
,
this
is
a
high
charge
,
you
accuse
us
of
Murther
directly
,
in
breaking
the
Sixth
Commandment
,
but
you
forget
how
hereby
you
positively
break
the
Ninth
Commandment
,
Thou
shalt
not
bear
fase
witness
against
thy
Neighbour
,
Exod.
20.
16.
prove
what
you
say
,
or
else
with
deep
sorrow
confess
your
abominable
and
false
accusation
;
Do
you
know
for
certain
that
any
one
Person
,
either
Man
or
Woman
,
was
ever
killed
,
or
came
to
any
hurt
,
that
was
baptized
,
that
is
dipped
,
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
and
Holy
Spirit
,
in
cold
winterly
weather
?
you
must
produce
your
witnesses
,
or
you
are
horribly
guilty
in
the
sight
of
God
and
Man
;
you
say
,
'T
is
certain
that
many
tender
and
sickly
Bodies
cannot
suffer
to
be
Dipped
in
cold
Water
,
without
being
pernicious
to
their
Lives
,
&c.
Sir
,
I
have
my self
baptized
many
hundreds
of
Men
and
Women
,
and
some
at
all
times
of
the
year
,
yea
in
times
of
bitter
Frost
and
Snow
,
when
the
Ice
was
first
broken
,
and
Persons
that
were
of
a
weak
sickly
Constitution
,
and
Women
big
with
Child
,
and
others
near
Seventy
years
Old
,
yea
some
near
Eighty
years
Old
,
and
I
never
knew
any
to
suffer
the
least
harm
thereby
,
but
many
have
found
their
Health
better
afterward
:
Yea
I
heard
a
Reverend
Minister
very
lately
say
,
that
he
knew
an
Ancient
Woman
in
Kent
that
was
Bed-ridden
for
some
time
,
who
could
not
be
satisfied
until
she
was
baptized
,
and
baptized
she
was
,
and
upon
it
grew
strong
and
went
about
,
and
lived
some
years
after
in
Health
and
Strength
according
to
her
age
;
also
for
the
space
of
forty
years
,
I
have
heard
of
,
or
known
some
Thousands
baptized
at
all
Seasons
of
the
year
,
of
both
Sex
,
and
never
heard
of
any
that
received
the
least
prejudice
to
their
Health
thereby
,
much
less
that
it
cost
them
their
Lives
:
Therefore
palpable
it
is
you
are
guilty
of
slander
,
back-biting
,
and
abominable
calumny
,
bearing
false
Witness
against
your
Innocent
Neighbours
,
and
't
is
well
if
it
be
not
out
of
malice
,
and
that
not
only
to
us
,
but
also
to
Christ's
Holy
Ordinance
of
Dipping
Believers
in
his
Name
.
2.
But
the
worst
is
behind
,
who
is
it
you
cast
this
reproach
upon
?
Is
it
upon
us
?
Or
is
it
not
upon
Christ
himself
?
Did
not
our
Lord
Jesus
Institute
this
Ordinance
of
Baptizing
,
i.
e.
of
dipping
the
Bodies
of
Men
and
Women
in
water
?
Sir
were
not
those
Men
and
Women
that
were
Baptized
in
the
Apostolical
times
Dipped
?
Do
you
descent
from
all
the
Ancient
and
Modern
Divines
;
I
have
Quoted
a
multitude
of
them
in
this
Treatise
,
who
positively
assert
this
matter
,
to
which
Chapter
I
refer
my
Reader
.
Ambrose
saith
,
water
is
that
wherein
the
Body
is
plunged
.
Chrysostom
saith
,
That
the
Body
baptized
is
burried
in
the
Water
.
Basil
the
Great
,
and
Dr.
du
Veil
saythe
same
.
Bernard
saith
,
Immersion
is
a
representation
of
Death
and
Burial
.
The
Assembly
in
their
Annotations
say
,
That
the
Ancient
manner
of
Baptizing
was
,
to
Dip
the
Party
baptized
,
and
as
it
were
,
bury
them
under
the
Water
.
See
Pools
Annotat.
On
Mat.
3.
6.
and
were
baptized
of
him
in
Jordan
,
that
is
(
saith
he
)
Dipped
in
Jordan
,
and
on
Rom.
6.
34.
he
says
,
The
Ancient
manner
of
baptizing
in
those
warm
Countreys
was
to
Dip
or
plunge
the
party
baptized
.
Cajetan
,
Daille
On
the
Fathers
,
Tilenus
,
Luther
,
Calvin
,
Perkins
,
Zanchy
,
Paraeus
,
Dr.
Cave
,
Dr.
Sharp
.
Dr.
Fowler
,
Dr.
Sherlock
,
the
Three
last
are
yet
living
,
and
many
more
I
have
Quoted
,
do
all
say
Baptizing
is
Dipping
.
Dr.
Tillotson
late
Bishop
of
Canterbury
saith
,
That
anciently
those
who
were
baptized
put
off
their
Cloaths
,
and
were
immersed
and
buryed
in
the
Water
.
[
*
](A47591-e62480-b)
*
Read
the
Table
of
the
Authors
at
the
beginning
of
this
Book
.
Now
Sir
,
if
to
baptize
by
Dipping
be
Murther
,
do
not
you
charge
the
occasion
of
this
Murther
upon
Christ
,
who
Ordained
baptism
or
dipping
Men
and
Women
in
Water
what
work
have
you
made
for
Repentance
?
Obj.
May
be
you
will
object
,
and
s●y
that
you
own
that
baptism
was
dipping
in
those
warm
Climates
.
1.
Answ.
Did
not
our
Saviour
send
his
Disciples
into
all
the
World
,
or
to
Teach
all
Nations
,
baptizing
them
,
that
is
Dipping
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
and
of
the
Son
and
of
the
Holy
Ghost
.
2.
Did
he
send
them
with
this
Commission
only
into
warm
Climates
or
Countreys
,
and
not
into
cold
Countreys
,
God
forbid
,
for
there
is
no
other
Commission
given
by
Christ
to
make
Disciples
by
Teaching
them
,
and
then
to
baptize
them
,
but
this
only
,
doth
not
this
Commission
reach
England
,
were
all
cold
Countreys
excluded
?
3.
Did
Christ
give
out
two
Commissions
,
one
for
warm
Climates
,
and
to
Dip
them
,
&c.
and
another
for
cold
Countreys
to
Teach
and
Sprinkle
them
,
or
rather
Sprinkle
them
,
and
then
Teach
them
;
for
so
your
practice
inverts
the
Order
of
Christ's
great
Commission
;
did
Christ
say
go
into
Hot
Countreys
,
and
Teach
and
Baptize
Disciples
,
and
go
into
Cold
Countreys
and
Teach
and
Rantize
them
?
What
an
imperfect
Commission
doth
your
practice
render
the
Commission
of
Christ
to
be
.
4.
Who
gave
Men
power
to
change
his
Commission
,
Baptizing
into
Rantizing
or
Sprinkling
?
What
an
account
can
you
give
to
him
of
this
at
the
great
Day
?
Or
hath
the
Church
or
Ministers
,
power
to
alter
Christ's
great
Commission
?
and
so
alter
,
or
add
too
,
and
diminish
from
the
words
of
his
Book
;
Sir
,
tremble
at
the
thoughts
of
these
things
,
See
Rev.
22.
18.
As
to
Mr.
Cradock
it
seems
,
if
he
hath
wrote
as
you
intimate
,
that
he
was
under
great
temptation
;
but
't
is
no
marvel
,
we
can
tell
you
of
some
Men
;
and
of
as
great
a
Name
as
he
that
would
have
the
Anabaptists
;
and
Independants
too
,
to
have
no
liberty
to
meet
together
,
to
Preach
nor
write
Books
,
and
would
have
the
chief
Magistrate
to
Imprison
and
Banish
them
,
&c.
Obj.
Where
as
you
bring
in
this
as
your
Objection
,
they
may
tarry
until
Summer
.
-
1.
We
answer
,
there
is
no
need
of
that
,
because
what
you
speak
of
the
danger
of
baptizing
in
Winter
is
absolutely
false
.
-
2.
I
know
not
,
but
there
may
be
as
many
or
more
baptized
in
the
Winter
than
in
the
Summer
.
You
say
,
as
soon
as
they
are
made
Disciples
,
they
are
commanded
to
be
baptized
,
Acts
24.
41.
and
ch.
8.
38.
Answ.
This
is
our
practice
,
but
why
do
not
you
stay
till
then
,
i.
e.
untill
your
Children
are
Disciples
,
it
is
evil
to
stay
longer
then
the
time
,
and
no
evil
to
do
it
sooner
then
the
time
Christ
▪
hath
appointed
.
9.
This
form
of
Baptizing
by
Dipping
of
the
People
naked
,
or
near
naked
,
you
say
,
is
a
breach
of
the
Seventh
.
Commandment
,
Thou
shalt
not
commit
adultery
,
Mat.
5.
28.
This
Commandment
prohibiteth
not
only
the
Act
of
Adultery
,
but
every
occasion
and
provocation
thereto
;
every
immodest
and
unreverend
Action
,
is
a
degree
of
Adultery
,
the
Heart
of
Man
is
deceitful
and
desperately
wicked
,
Jer.
17.
9.
therefore
we
ought
to
take
heed
of
every
occasion
of
Sin
.
David
fell
into
Adultery
by
beholding
Bathsheba
washing
,
&c.
2
Sam.
11.
2.
Thus
we
see
that
God
would
not
have
his
People
be
naked
in
the
Congregation
,
or
half
naked
,
for
there
is
but
little
difference
between
both
,
Exod
,
20.
26.
and
ch.
28.
42.
but
they
that
rebaptize
by
Dipping
the
People
in
publick
,
put
off
the
greatest
part
of
their
Cloaths
;
the
re-baptizer
,
and
He
or
She
that
is
baptized
is
near
naked
,
which
might
be
a
temptation
to
him
that
is
the
Baptizer
,
and
to
the
Spectators
,
if
the
temptation
will
not
take
hold
on
the
Minister
,
who
is
but
Flesh
and
Blood
as
others
are
,
such
a
behaviour
before
a
mixt
Congregation
,
brings
him
under
a
reproach
,
and
maketh
the
worship
of
God
contemptible
.
1.
Answ.
I
answer
,
I
am
grieved
that
a
Minister
,
and
I
hope
a
godly
Man
,
should
be
thus
left
to
himself
,
or
be
under
no
better
conduct
about
this
matter
,
but
thus
to
add
sin
to
sin
,
whilst
he
writes
about
divine
things
.
2.
Pray
Mr.
Owen
,
what
is
the
purport
of
your
Charge
now
in
recriminating
and
vilifying
the
Sacred
Ordinance
of
Dipping
or
Baptizing
of
Believers
,
this
Odium
must
fall
as
well
on
the
Primitive
Churches
and
Holy
Apostles
as
upon
us
,
you
see
all
your
Brethren
generally
as
one
Man
,
nay
the
whole
assembly
of
Divines
affirm
that
in
the
Primitive
times
the
manner
of
baptizing
,
was
by
dipping
of
the
Body
all
over
in
Water
,
tho'
they
would
restrain
it
to
those
Hot
Countreys
.
Will
you
charge
the
Holy
Apostles
,
and
all
the
Ministers
of
the
Primitive
Churches
with
Adultery
?
Or
do
you
think
we
in
these
Cold
Climates
have
not
convenient
Cloaths
to
put
on
People
that
are
to
be
baptized
,
as
they
had
in
those
Warm
Countreys
.
3.
But
if
this
was
all
,
it
were
not
so
sad
altogether
;
for
it
was
our
Lord
Jesus
,
worthy
Britains
,
who
Ordained
and
appointed
Men
and
Women
,
who
are
Believers
to
be
Dipped
in
the
Water
in
his
Name
;
and
't
is
a
hard
case
there
is
no
way
to
answer
this
holy
Command
and
Ordinance
,
but
the
People
that
do
it
must
be
guilty
of
Adultery
;
must
we
go
into
the
water
naked
or
half
naked
?
Is
their
a
necessity
for
it
?
Are
there
no
Cloaths
to
be
had
,
or
no
modest
Garments
for
Men
and
Women
to
be
provided
to
cover
all
their
nakedness
,
even
Hands
and
Feet
also
if
it
be
needful
?
sure
Sir
,
you
must
suppose
somewhat
of
this
kind
,
or
there
is
no
room
left
for
you
to
cast
contempt
and
reproach
upon
the
Ordinance
it self
,
but
to
blame
the
people
they
do
not
provide
convenient
Garments
on
purpose
,
that
so
they
may
not
commit
Adultery
when
they
come
to
be
Baptized
.
4.
Sir
had
you
seen
our
People
baptized
you
,
had
not
been
guilty
of
bearing
false
witness
the
Second
time
.
Reader
pray
take
notice
that
we
provide
comely
Cloaths
for
the
Administer
,
both
from
Head
to
Foot
;
and
our
Men
also
that
are
baptized
have
Cloaths
provided
for
them
;
and
for
the
Women
,
Gowns
and
Petty-coats
are
made
on
purpose
,
and
they
go
into
the
water
drest
more
decently
perhaps
,
then
many
Women
come
into
Christian
assemblies
;
therefore
this
is
a
most
unworthy
Charge
Mr.
Owen
casts
upon
us
,
tho'
he
doth
but
follow
the
steps
of
Dr.
Featly
and
Mr.
B.
but
't
is
worse
in
him
at
this
time
of
the
Day
,
then
in
them
then
,
because
our
use
and
practice
here
,
is
now
more
generally
known
:
And
these
things
being
so
,
how
can
we
in
Dipping
or
Baptizing
of
Women
be
guilty
of
Adultery
or
any
of
the
Spectators
?
Can't
you
take
a
Woman
dressed
in
modest
and
decent
Cloaths
by
the
Hand
,
without
having
an
unclean
thought
in
your
Heart
?
you
may
as
well
charge
some
Tradesmen
in
the
Exercise
of
their
Trades
with
Adultery
;
indeed
did
we
as
Mr.
B.
—
once
falsly
said
,
baptize
Women
naked
,
or
as
you
say
,
near
or
half
naked
(
which
are
both
notorious
untruths
)
there
might
have
been
some
colour
for
what
you
say
;
but
if
there
be
need
to
Dip
the
whole
Body
(
say
you
)
as
they
say
there
is
,
what
rule
have
they
in
the
Scripture
to
baptize
the
Cloaths
with
the
Body
,
the
few
Cloaths
they
have
about
them
are
dipped
before
the
Body
is
dipped
.
1.
Answ.
All
Men
may
perceive
of
what
a
contentious
,
contradicting
quarelsome
Spirit
you
are
of
,
one
while
you
strive
to
expose
Christ's
Sacred
Ordinance
to
reproach
,
and
us
with
it
,
as
if
we
baptized
Persons
naked
,
and
then
presently
seem
to
allow
that
we
do
not
so
,
but
that
they
whom
we
baptize
have
Cloaths
on
,
but
now
the
Cloaths
are
baptized
,
and
then
ask
what
Scripture
we
have
for
this
.
2.
'T
is
enough
Christ
Commanded
Dipping
in
his
Name
,
and
we
are
required
to
do
all
things
decently
.
'T
is
no
matter
,
so
that
the
Body
is
buried
in
the
Water
't
is
not
the
Cloaths
that
we
say
we
baptize
,
but
the
Person
.
Christs
Ordinance
of
Baptism
in
one
essential
part
lies
in
the
words
of
Administration
,
Do
you
never
Sprinkle
some
drops
of
Water
on
the
Childs
Fine
dresses
,
if
you
should
,
what
doth
that
signifie
?
you
have
wrote
hard
words
,
and
Christ
is
coming
to
convince
all
of
their
ungodly
deeds
,
and
of
all
their
hard
Speeches
spoken
against
him
,
Jude
15.
I
pray
God
this
Sin
be
not
laid
to
your
Charge
.
Thus
I
have
been
helped
to
take
off
that
reproach
and
vile
slanders
cast
upon
the
baptizing
Believers
,
and
have
proved
it
is
not
re-baptization
;
therefore
let
Mr.
Owen
cast
of
his
slanderous
clamarous
Pen
,
and
Infants
Rhantism
,
and
repent
and
return
to
the
Baptism
,
which
Christ
Instituted
,
and
left
in
his
Church
to
the
end
of
the
World
;
and
now
to
make
appear
the
evil
and
sinfulness
of
Infant
Baptism
,
take
what
follows
,
which
I
have
transcribed
out
of
my
answer
to
Mr.
Burkitt's
Book
that
he
wrote
for
the
Baptizing
of
Children
two
or
three
years
since
.
CHAP.
XXI
.
Shewing
that
there
is
no
Blessing
to
be
expected
in
Baptizing
Infants
,
but
rather
the
displeasure
of
the
Jealous
God
,
demonstrating
contrarywise
to
what
Mr.
James
Owen
hath
said
(
also
Mr.
Burkit
and
Mr.
Daniel
Williams
,
and
all
other
pedobaptists
,
)
that
it
is
avery
sinful
and
an
unlawful
practice
.
AS
Mr.
Owen
hath
laboured
in
vain
to
shew
the
usefulness
of
Infant
Baptism
,
so
Mr.
Burkit
a
Learned
Minister
of
the
Church
of
England
,
who
in
his
late
Treatise
for
Infant
Baptism
also
did
,
see
page
35
,
36
,
37
,
38.
of
his
Book
.
1.
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
Children
are
hereby
Interested
in
all
the
prayers
of
the
Church
.
1.
Answ.
If
you
pray
for
them
as
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
what
ground
have
you
so
to
do
from
Gods
word
,
since
God
in
the
Gospel
times
had
not
made
them
Members
thereof
.
2.
Can't
we
pray
for
our
Children
,
tho'
as
yet
they
are
not
Members
,
that
they
may
become
Members
thereof
.
2.
He
saith
,
by
vertue
of
this
admission
,
they
have
interest
in
the
special
providence
of
God
.
Answ.
No
doubt
but
God
doth
exercise
his
special
Care
and
Providence
over
all
Elect
Infants
,
but
not
the
more
for
your
baptizing
them
without
his
authority
,
or
Command
,
much
less
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
.
3.
He
says
,
Hereby
the
Church
stands
nearer
to
them
then
to
the
rest
of
mankind
,
&c.
mentioning
that
Text
,
Ifa
.
54.
13.
Thy
Children
shall
be
all
taught
of
God
.
1.
Answ.
Neither
you
nor
Mr.
Burkitt
nor
any
pedobaptists
in
the
World
can
bring
Infants
nearer
to
God
,
nor
his
Church
by
any
act
done
by
you
without
any
rule
left
by
Christ
.
2.
Does
that
Text
,
Isa.
54.
13.
refer
to
Infants
of
Believers
as
such
,
or
to
those
godly
and
new
re-born
Children
,
who
being
born
in
sin
,
are
indeed
her
Spiritual
Children
.
4.
He
saith
,
Irfant
Baptism
,
is
an
act
of
Dedication
,
&c.
Answ.
Who
commanded
you
this
way
to
Dedicate
your
Children
to
the
Lord
?
Will
you
Teach
the
Almighty
,
or
are
you
wiser
than
he
?
Doth
he
in
his
word
require
you
so
to
do
.
2.
May
not
the
Papists
say
as
well
,
that
those
Persons
they
bring
under
their
voluntary
Vows
,
are
thereby
Dedicated
unto
God
?
5.
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
,
'T
is
great
advantage
to
Infants
,
as
't
is
an
Act
of
restipulation
,
that
is
,
saith
he
,
a
Child
at
baptism
enters
into
Covenant
with
God
.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Poor
Babes
,
't
is
without
their
knowledge
and
consent
,
or
God's
appointment
,
which
is
worst
of
all
,
or
they
being
able
to
perform
it
then
,
nor
many
of
them
ever
after
,
God
never
giving
them
his
Grace
so
to
do
.
But
wo
to
them
if
they
do
not
perform
this
Covenant
,
if
Mr.
Burkitt
and
Mr.
Daniel
Williams
say
true
;
he
Daniel
Williams
in
his
Book
called
the
vanity
of
youth
.
page
131.
says
in
his
Catechism
as
followeth
,
That
those
Children
who
perform
not
their
Baptismal
Covenant
do
.
1.
They
reject
Christ
.
2d
.
They
renounce
the
Blessings
of
the
Gospel
.
3dly
.
that
't
is
Rebellion
against
their
Maker
.
4thly
.
That
't
is
ingratitude
and
perjury
against
their
Redeemer
.
5thly
.
Gross
injustice
to
their
Parents
.
6thly
.
That
't
is
self-killing
Cruelty
to
their
own
Souls
.
7thly
.
'T
is
(
he
saith
)
a
damning
Sin
,
nay
it
s
the
heart
of
all
Sin
.
Is
this
indeed
the
love
you
Pedo-baptists
have
to
your
poor
Infants
.
What
bring
them
into
such
a
Covenant
,
without
their
knowledge
and
consent
,
or
God's
appointment
,
and
then
threaten
them
if
they
break
it
,
with
Hell
and
Damnation
,
and
what
not
?
Do
you
know
they
are
all
Elect
Persons
,
and
so
such
that
God
will
in
time
call
,
give
grace
to
,
and
so
change
their
evil
and
depraved
Natures
?
if
not
,
do
you
not
heap
up
a
multitude
of
evils
upon
them
,
and
hereby
make
their
condition
worse
,
or
aggravate
their
Sin
and
misery
for
ever
.
I
know
not
whether
you
be
of
this
Pedo-baptists
mind
,
or
not
,
but
I
think
But
truly
Mr.
Williams's
Doctrine
afflicts
my
Mind
:
Strange
!
is
this
Sin
the
damning
Sin
?
I
thought
the
damning
Sin
(
by
way
of
eminency
)
had
been
the
Sin
of
unbelief
.
Suppose
your
own
Child
should
not
believe
,
he
is
bound
by
vertue
of
that
Baptismal
Covenant
you
brought
him
into
,
but
when
grown
up
,
disowns
that
(
you
call
)
Baptism
,
&c.
for
his
not
believing
't
is
a
Truth
of
Christ
,
must
he
be
damned
?
But
to
proceed
;
Mr.
Burkitt
having
shewed
the
advantages
of
Infant
Baptism
,
without
giving
one
Scripture
Text
to
prove
what
he
says
is
true
;
he
in
Page
38.
comes
to
shew
,
that
Baptism
is
more
useful
and
beneficial
to
a
Child
in
Infancy
,
then
to
omit
it
till
riper
Age
;
because
no
Infant
Membership
is
capable
of
Hypocrisy
,
which
Persons
grown
up
are
.
1.
Answ.
Then
give
them
the
Lords
Supper
also
,
for
doubtless
if
they
receive
it
,
they
will
not
eat
and
drink
their
own
damnation
,
as
may
be
some
that
have
it
given
to
them
,
do
.
I
tremble
at
what
you
dare
to
say
and
write
,
in
which
you
seem
to
arraign
the
Wisdom
of
the
ever
blessed
Jesus
who
he
hath
appointed
believers
or
Adult
persons
,
who
are
gracious
to
be
Baptized
,
and
none
else
;
and
do
you
say
,
the
Ordinance
better
suites
with
the
Ignorant
Babes
?
should
you
dictate
to
your
Earthly
Prince
,
would
he
allow
it
?
much
less
to
contradict
or
Correct
him
,
as
if
your
Wisdom
were
more
then
his
.
2.
Mr.
Burkitt
sayth
,
't
is
more
advantageous
to
Infants
,
than
those
of
riper
years
;
as
it
is
a
pre-engagement
upon
them
to
resist
Temptations
.
Answ.
He
may
after
this
rate
bring
them
under
an
hundred
Engagements
and
Covenants
,
which
may
be
more
plausible
ones
too
:
may
you
not
when
they
know
what
they
do
,
make
them
take
a
Solemn
Oath
?
or
enter
into
Bonds
upon
pain
of
severe
Punishment
,
that
they
shall
not
yield
to
Temptations
,
and
pretend
't
is
God's
Law
they
should
do
so
,
which
if
you
can
deceive
their
Judgments
,
they
will
dread
as
much
,
(
nay
it
may
be
more
)
the
breaking
those
Oaths
and
Covenants
,
then
this
you
bring
them
into
,
without
any
authority
from
Jesus
Christ
.
3.
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
,
Baptism
in
Infancy
is
more
advantageous
then
at
riper
years
,
as
it
is
an
early
remedy
against
the
malady
of
Original
sin
.
Answ.
Speak
,
Doth
Baptism
take
away
Original
sin
,
or
free
them
from
that
Malady
or
not
?
you
know
some
of
the
Antient
Fathers
were
carryed
away
with
such
a
dream
;
how
comes
it
to
pass
then
,
that
this
contagion
appears
so
soon
,
and
to
be
as
strong
in
your
Children
as
in
ours
,
who
never
were
Baptized
at
all
?
But
does
not
St.
Peter
tell
you
(
1.
Pet.
3.
20.
)
Baptism
washes
not
away
the
filth
of
the
Flesh
;
Or
is
not
Original
Pollution
a
filth
of
the
Flesh
?
What
stuff
is
this
you
would
force
upon
us
and
the
World
?
we
affirm
Infants
are
no
more
capable
of
this
Ordinance
then
any
other
.
Why
do
you
say
of
no
Right
but
this
?
we
challenge
all
the
World
by
God's
Word
,
to
prove
that
they
are
capable
of
Baptism
,
any
more
then
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
4.
He
says
Baptism
Administred
to
Infants
has
this
advantage
,
it
puts
the
Christian
upon
more
bitter
mourning
for
actual
Sin
,
from
that
consideration
of
that
shameful
Perjury
and
wilful
Apostacy
that
is
found
in
such
Persons
sins
.
Answ.
He
is
I
find
one
of
Mr.
Wiliams's
Brethren
,
i.
e.
he
is
of
his
belief
2.
Is
it
not
sad
,
that
Men
should
give
cause
to
their
Children
to
think
they
are
guilty
of
Perjury
?
when
in
truth
they
never
were
,
nor
of
Apostacy
from
God
upon
that
account
.
Our
first
Apostacy
was
bad
enough
,
you
need
not
go
about
to
make
them
guilty
of
another
.
Alas
!
their
pretended
baptism
never
brought
them
one
step
nearer
to
God
,
then
those
Children
are
,
who
were
never
Baptized
in
their
Infancy
at
all
,
where
then
is
the
Apostacy
he
speaks
of
.
3.
You
hereby
bring
them
under
necessity
of
committing
the
Sin
of
Perjury
,
and
of
Apostacy
,
at
leastwise
in
your
own
conceit
,
and
in
others
too
,
if
they
can
believe
what
this
Man
says
,
and
so
to
cause
them
to
mourn
for
that
,
or
those
sins
most
,
which
may
be
(
if
all
things
were
rightly
con●…'d
)
are
no
sins
at
all
.
I
do
not
mean
that
any
of
t●…
actual
transgressions
may
not
be
sin
;
but
that
they
are
not
guilty
of
Perjury
and
Apostacy
,
by
breaking
that
you
call
their
Baptismal
Covenant
:
For
if
God
brought
them
not
into
that
Covenant
,
nor
into
any
Covenant
relation
with
himself
thereby
,
I
cannot
see
how
there
should
be
such
a
sting
in
the
Tayl
of
it
,
as
he
affirms
,
and
indeed
,
had
they
themselves
,
of
their
own
accord
and
consent
,
entered
into
an
unlawful
or
an
unwarrantable
Covenant
which
they
were
no
ways
able
to
perform
,
it
may
be
doubted
whether
it
would
be
Perjury
in
them
if
they
kept
it
not
,
besides
,
I
hope
they
have
not
forsworn
themselves
,
how
then
is
it
Perjury
?
4.
Moreover
,
I
desire
all
those
Parents
who
baptize
their
Children
,
and
you
also
,
to
consider
in
the
fear
of
God
,
the
natural
tendency
and
Consequences
of
your
bringing
poor
Babes
into
such
a
Covenant
.
1.
That
you
force
them
to
enter
into
this
Covenant
without
any
Authority
or
Command
from
God
;
for
I
challenge
you
and
all
pedobaptists
in
the
World
to
prove
God
hath
any
where
directly
or
indirectly
,
required
any
such
thing
at
your
Hands
.
2.
Consider
that
't
is
not
only
a
reformation
of
Life
,
or
a
bare
refraining
from
the
gross
acts
of
sin
,
that
you
assert
,
is
comprehended
in
this
Baptismal
Covenant
,
you
cause
Infants
to
enter
into
;
but
it
is
Regeneration
it self
,
i.
e.
a
change
of
Heart
,
and
savingly
to
believe
in
Christ
;
this
you
oblige
your
poor
Babes
to
perform
.
Now
what
Arminianism
is
here
fomented
,
if
once
you
say
or
think
,
they
are
capable
to
perform
this
Obligation
?
but
if
they
do
not
do
it
,
wo
be
to
them
.
Moreover
what
guilt
do
those
of
the
Church
of
England
bring
their
poor
Sureties
under
,
unless
they
stand
obliged
no
longer
then
the
Child
abides
in
Infancy
;
and
if
so
,
what
need
of
their
Obligation
at
all
,
if
they
intend
no
more
.
3.
Consider
,
you
brought
them
into
this
Covenant
without
their
knowledge
and
conse●t
,
they
never
subscribed
to
it
,
nor
knew
any
thing
of
it
,
nor
were
they
capable
so
to
do
.
4.
Consider
,
that
whatsoever
you
think
,
that
such
is
the
pravity
of
their
natures
,
by
means
of
our
first
Apostacy
from
God
,
or
Original
〈◊〉
that
they
do
and
must
of
necessity
break
it
,
as
I
〈◊〉
before
,
unless
God
should
by
supernatural
Grace
,
change
their
Hearts
and
Nature
,
and
remove
the
vicious
habits
thereof
,
which
you
had
not
the
least
ground
to
believe
he
would
do
,
or
leastwise
to
all
or
the
greatest
part
of
them
,
God
having
made
no
such
promise
;
and
by
woful
experience
,
we
daily
see
many
,
or
most
of
those
Children
,
are
never
converted
,
but
from
the
Womb
go
astray
,
and
are
guilty
of
almost
all
manner
of
abominable
sins
,
and
so
live
and
dye
.
As
to
the
Adult
.
1.
Consider
as
I
said
before
,
1.
That
all
Believers
,
God
himself
doth
require
or
Command
in
his
Word
to
enter
into
this
Baptismal
Covenant
.
2.
And
they
before
they
enter
into
it
,
have
a
principle
of
divine
life
infused
into
their
Soul
,
or
Grace
implanted
in
their
Hearts
,
having
passed
under
the
work
of
Regeneration
,
being
dead
to
Si●
(
of
which
Baptism
is
a
lively
Symboll
)
or
is
as
your
Church
says
,
an
outward
sign
of
an
inward
spiritual
Grace
.
Not
as
Mr.
Baxter
observes
,
a
Sign
or
Simbol
of
future
,
but
of
present
Regeneration
,
which
is
confirmed
by
what
St.
Paul
Teaches
,
Rom.
6.
3
,
4.
2.
How
shall
we
that
are
dead
to
sin
live
any
longer
therein
?
not
may
be
dead
,
but
are
dead
,
and
so
Buried
with
Christ
in
Baptism
,
verse
3.
4.
If
you
say
all
Adult
Persons
Baptized
are
not
Converted
,
I
answer
,
they
appear
so
to
be
,
and
as
such
voluntarily
enter
into
this
Covenant
:
Besides
God
does
not
require
them
without
Faith
to
do
it
.
Baptism
doth
not
only
represent
the
Death
and
Burial
of
Christ
,
but
also
signifies
our
Death
to
Sin
,
or
that
Blessed
work
of
Mortification
or
the
remainder
of
the
Body
of
Sin
and
Death
,
by
which
means
Believers
who
enter
into
this
Baptismal
Covenant
are
putinto
a
Gracious
and
Meet
Capacity
to
perform
that
Sacred
Obligation
;
but
so
are
not
Infants
.
3.
That
every
true
believer
baptized
,
considers
,
ponders
upon
,
and
weighs
with
all
seriousness
and
deliberation
Imaginable
,
the
nature
of
this
Covenant
before
he
Signs
it
.
And
4.
That
he
doth
it
freely
and
voluntarily
,
and
with
his
full
liking
,
approbation
and
Consent
,
neither
of
which
do
,
nor
can
do
those
poor
Infants
you
force
to
enter
into
this
Covenant
.
These
things
consider'd
,
it
appears
,
as
it
is
a
sinful
Act
in
you
to
bring
them
into
this
Covenant
(
since
't
is
done
without
Command
or
Authority
from
God
)
so
't
is
cruelty
also
towards
your
own
Babes
,
by
making
them
to
become
guilty
of
Perjury
,
and
thereby
damning
(
as
Mr.
Williams
says
)
their
own
Souls
.
5.
Consider
every
true
Believer
that
is
listed
under
Christ's
Banner
,
by
entring
into
this
Baptismal
Covenant
,
is
by
Christ
compleatly
armed
,
i.
e.
he
hath
the
Christian
Armour
put
upon
him
,
Ephes.
6.
He
hath
the
Brest-plate
of
Righteousness
,
the
Shield
of
Faith
,
and
for
a
Helmet
,
the
hope
of
Salvation
;
and
the
Word
of
God
,
like
a
Sword
in
his
Hand
,
to
cut
down
all
his
Enemies
.
Thus
by
the
help
of
these
Sacred
Graces
of
the
Spirit
,
he
is
enabled
to
fight
against
Sin
,
the
World
,
the
Flesh
,
and
the
Devil
.
But
alas
!
you
list
your
poor
Babes
into
this
War
,
and
make
them
Covenant
and
Vow
to
forsake
the
Devil
and
all
his
Works
,
the
Pomps
and
Vanities
of
this
wicked
World
,
and
all
the
sinful
lusts
of
the
Flesh
,
but
Arm
them
not
.
Did
Baptism
confer
Grace
and
Arm
their
Souls
,
it
was
something
,
but
who
dares
assert
that
?
Or
if
he
does
,
who
will
or
can
believe
him
.
6.
God
hath
also
promised
to
assist
,
stand
by
,
help
and
enable
all
Believers
Baptized
,
with
farther
supplies
of
Grace
,
nay
,
they
being
actually
United
to
Christ
,
have
his
blessed
influencies
flowing
to
them
,
besides
the
promises
of
God
,
the
Death
,
Resurrection
and
Intercession
of
Christ
,
and
the
everlasting
Covenant
of
Grace
,
which
is
ordered
in
all
things
,
and
sure
,
firmly
secures
all
their
Souls
.
But
thus
it
is
not
with
those
poor
Babes
you
bring
into
this
Covenant
:
You
are
like
Pharoabs
Task-masters
,
Command
the
making
Bricks
,
but
allow
them
no
Straw
.
4.
Again
consider
,
how
hereby
great
part
of
the
Nations
are
perjur'd
.
I
will
appeal
to
the
Consciences
of
all
thinking
and
understanding
People
,
whether
according
to
your
principle
and
practice
,
it
is
not
so
.
Mourn
O
England
and
lament
,
sad
is
thy
Case
?
If
these
Men
speak
right
or
truly
,
what
a
multitude
in
thee
have
been
made
to
enter
into
this
Covenant
,
who
never
performed
it
.
O
Perjur'd
Nation
,
Perjur'd
People
,
and
Perjur'd
Pastors
,
for
so
are
all
thy
Debauched
,
Drunken
,
Swearing
and
unclean
Teachers
,
are
not
these
Perjur'd
also
?
Have
they
kept
their
Vow
and
Covenant
?
Alas
!
instead
of
Mourning
for
this
Sin
,
we
may
conclude
they
never
thought
of
it
.
But
let
them
break
off
their
sins
by
Righteousness
,
I
mean
repent
,
and
leave
those
gross
acts
of
Wickedness
,
of
which
many
,
both
Priests
and
People
are
guilty
,
and
get
renewing
Grace
,
and
never
let
them
fear
this
new
devised
sin
of
Perjury
:
For
if
God's
Word
convinces
of
all
Sins
,
and
doth
not
convince
of
this
sort
of
Perjury
,
this
is
no
Perjury
;
(
I
mean
the
simple
breaking
of
that
Covenant
)
tho'
those
sins
by
which
they
are
said
to
break
it
,
are
horrid
Treason
and
Rebellion
against
the
God
of
Heaven
,
and
provoke
him
to
wrath
every
day
.
But
God's
word
doth
convince
of
all
Sin
,
but
doth
not
convince
of
this
sort
of
Perjury
,
as
is
affirmed
.
'T
is
not
this
which
is
the
Self
killing
Murther
,
the
damnable
Sin
;
No
no
,
but
't
is
their
unbelief
,
and
contempt
of
God's
Grace
,
or
neglecting
the
great
Salvation
offer'd
unto
us
by
Christ
in
the
Gospel
.
5.
Baptism
administred
in
Infancy
,
hath
,
saith
Mr.
Burkitt
,
this
singular
advantage
above
that
which
is
administred
at
riper
Age
,
in
that
it
gives
the
pious
Parent
a
good
Ground
and
Hope
that
his
Children
dying
in
Infancy
,
are
certainly
saved
,
it
makes
(
say
you
)
that
Ordinance
a
Channel
of
Grace
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
This
is
like
to
the
rest
.
But
Sir
,
by
what
Authority
do
you
assert
all
these
things
?
You
know
what
wonderful
Vertue
the
Papists
say
,
is
in
many
of
their
Popish
Rites
,
Ceremonies
and
Reliques
,
i.
e.
in
their
crossing
of
themselves
,
and
in
their
Holy-water
,
especially
in
their
Agnns
Dei
.
But
how
do
they
prove
it
?
Even
as
well
as
you
do
,
what
you
speak
here
upon
this
account
,
and
we
have
the
same
reason
to
believe
them
,
as
to
believe
you
in
what
you
speak
,
without
Proof
or
Authority
from
God's
word
.
2.
Pious
Parents
!
But
alas
,
how
few
are
there
of
that
sort
?
but
what
hope
have
the
Impious
,
Prophane
,
and
ungodly
Parent
of
the
Salvation
of
his
dying
Children
?
But
Sir
,
I
thought
all
the
Pious
and
Believing
or
Godly
Parents
Children
,
were
born
in
Covenant
with
God
,
that
their
Parents
Faith
would
have
secured
them
,
whether
Baptized
or
not
,
were
not
the
Jews
Female
Children
saved
?
they
were
not
Circumcised
;
And
were
not
their
Male
Infants
saved
,
who
dyed
before
the
Eighth
Day
?
3.
From
what
Scripture
is
it
,
these
Pious
,
though
Ignorant
and
deceiv'd
Parents
,
may
have
hope
that
their
Children
that
dye
in
their
Infancy
shall
be
saved
,
and
none
but
theirs
that
are
Baptized
,
or
rather
Rantised
.
4.
Will
Pedo-Baptists
make
Baptism
their
Saviour
?
Can
Baptism
save
them
,
And
is
it
so
indeed
?
Is
it
in
the
power
of
Parents
to
save
or
damn
their
Children
?
And
how
came
Baptism
to
have
such
power
in
it
?
or
who
made
that
a
Channel
of
Grace
to
dying
Infants
?
Do
you
not
place
that
Virtue
in
an
external
Rite
,
that
only
belongs
to
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
and
sanctifying
Grace
of
God's
Spirit
?
Mr.
Perkins
[
*
](A47591-e64430-b)
*
Perkins
on
Gal.
c.
3.
p.
256.
saith
,
That
Baptism
indeed
saveth
,
but
saith
he
,
that
is
not
the
Baptism
of
Water
,
but
the
stipulation
of
a
good
Conscience
by
the
Resurrection
.
Again
he
saith
,
the
outward
Baptism
without
the
inward
,
is
no
mark
of
God's
Child
,
but
the
mark
of
a
Fool
,
that
makes
a
Vow
,
and
afterwards
breaks
it
.
5.
May
not
this
Doctrine
of
theirs
,
clearly
tend
to
scare
and
affright
poor
Parents
with
fear
,
that
all
their
Babes
that
dye
in
their
Mothers
Womb
,
or
before
baptized
,
are
damned
?
And
Oh
,
in
what
a
sad
Condition
are
all
the
Children
of
the
ungodly
and
impious
Persons
,
whose
little
Babes
you
dare
not
,
cannot
Baptise
,
if
you
are
true
to
your
own
Principles
?
But
that
Text
may
give
us
better
ground
of
Hopes
a
Thousand
times
,
concerning
the
well
being
of
our
dying
Infants
,
where
our
Saviour
saith
,
for
of
such
are
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
;
and
that
also
which
you
mention
,
I
shall
go
to
him
,
he
shall
not
return
to
me
;
together
with
the
infinite
Mercy
of
God
,
through
the
virtue
of
Christ's
Blood
,
who
can
convey
help
and
healing
to
dying
Infants
and
Ideots
,
in
ways
we
know
not
of
,
nor
are
we
to
trouble
our Selves
about
such
secret
things
that
are
not
revealed
.
6.
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
,
the
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
appears
most
beneficial
,
because
it
prevents
such
shameful
and
scandalous
neglects
of
Baptism
,
to
the
blemish
of
Christianity
.
Ans.
Is
it
then
a
shameful
scandal
to
neglect
a
Tradition
of
Man
?
(
For
so
I
have
proved
Infant
Baptism
to
be
)
Where
is
the
shame
that
ought
to
be
in
Christians
,
that
Christs
Laws
and
Precepts
are
neglected
,
and
his
precious
Ordinance
of
Baptism
exposed
to
Contempt
and
Shame
,
as
it
is
by
you
and
Thousands
more
,
whilst
the
Statutes
of
Omri
are
zealously
kept
and
observed
,
as
the
Prophet
of
old
complained
;
I
mean
humane
Rites
and
Traditions
or
Statutes
,
(
like
those
of
Omri
;
instituted
by
him
and
Jeroboam
)
which
the
Wisdom
of
your
Church
,
and
many
corrupt
Churches
have
been
zealous
for
to
this
day
;
and
thus
I
have
run
through
and
examined
Mr.
Burkitts
Six
particulars
,
which
he
brought
to
prove
the
usefulness
of
Infant
Baptism
,
above
the
baptism
of
Believers
,
which
our
Blessed
Saviour
Instituted
;
and
now
shall
shew
you
further
that
Infant
Baptism
is
so
far
from
being
more
useful
then
that
of
the
Adult
,
that
it
is
a
palpable
error
,
and
therefore
of
no
use
at
all
,
but
the
contrary
,
viz.
a
very
sinful
thing
.
Reader
,
can
that
be
useful
,
or
any
ways
beneficial
which
Christ
never
Commanded
or
required
to
be
done
in
his
Name
,
but
is
unrighteously
Fathered
upon
him
,
to
the
utter
making
void
his
own
Ordinance
of
baptizing
Believers
?
2.
Can
that
have
any
usefulness
in
it
,
that
brings
guilt
upon
the
Parents
in
doing
it
,
making
them
guilty
of
Will
,
Worship
,
or
of
a
humane
Tradition
?
3.
Can
that
be
useful
that
brings
Babes
into
such
a
Covenant
,
which
Christ
never
Ordained
them
to
enter
into
,
and
to
which
they
directly
nor
indirectly
consented
nor
approved
of
;
and
which
they
are
utterly
unable
to
keep
;
and
which
giveth
them
no
strength
to
perform
;
nor
is
there
one
promise
of
God
made
to
assist
or
help
them
to
do
it
,
and
yet
for
not
keeping
of
it
,
they
are
charged
with
Perjury
,
with
self
Murder
,
nay
,
with
Hell
and
Damnation
?
4.
Can
that
be
of
use
to
Infants
that
may
basely
beguile
and
deceive
them
,
causing
them
when
grown
up
,
to
think
they
were
thereby
made
Christians
,
and
become
the
Children
of
God
,
Members
of
Christ
,
and
Inhabitants
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
nay
,
Regenerated
;
and
from
hence
never
look
after
any
other
work
of
Grace
nor
Regeneration
,
but
conclude
all
is
well
with
them
?
5.
Can
that
be
an
usual
thing
,
which
the
doing
of
it
is
a
palpable
alteration
of
the
words
of
Christ's
Commission
,
and
so
inverts
that
Holy
Order
left
by
him
for
baptizing
,
who
requires
none
to
be
baptized
before
they
be
first
Taught
and
made
Disciples
?
6.
Can
that
be
of
any
use
to
an
Infant
which
you
,
nor
no
Man
else
can
prove
from
Gods
Word
,
to
have
any
use
and
Blessing
in
it
to
them
?
7.
Can
an
humane
Rite
or
Tradition
,
think
you
,
save
poor
Children
,
or
a
little
Water
sprinkled
on
the
Face
,
wash
away
Original
Sin
?
Or
will
God
bless
a
Tradition
of
Man
.
8.
Can
Water
beget
Children
to
Christ
,
or
can
that
be
useful
to
them
,
which
they
have
only
the
bare
sign
of
,
and
not
the
thing
signified
,
viz.
the
Sign
of
Regeneration
,
but
not
Regeneration
it self
,
a
sign
of
Grace
,
but
not
Grace
it self
?
you
give
them
the
Shell
,
but
no
Kernel
;
the
name
of
a
Christian
,
but
no
nature
of
a
Christian
,
making
that
you
call
Christ's
Baptism
,
(
as
Dr.
Taylorsaith
,
)
a
sign
without
effect
,
and
like
the
Fig-tree
in
the
Gospel
,
full
of
Leaves
,
but
no
Fruit.
9.
Can
that
be
useful
that
tends
to
make
the
Gospel
Church
National
,
(
and
confounds
the
Church
and
the
World
together
)
which
ought
to
be
Congregational
,
a
holy
and
separate
People
,
like
a
Garden
enclosed
?
10.
Can
Baptism
be
more
useful
to
Infants
then
adult
Believers
,
notwithstanding
the
Scripture
saith
,
that
the
Person
baptized
,
doth
not
only
believe
,
but
call
upon
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
Acts
22.
16.
Can
Infants
do
that
?
11.
Can
Infant
Baptism
be
more
useful
then
that
of
Believers
,
and
yet
Baptism
an
Ordinance
of
the
Souls
Marriage
with
Christ
?
and
is
not
that
(
as
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
)
a
strange
Marriage
,
where
there
is
nothing
signified
of
consent
?
and
are
Infants
able
so
to
do
?
12.
Can
Infant
Baptism
be
more
useful
then
that
of
Believers
,
and
yet
Baptism
call'd
the
Answer
of
a
good
Conscience
?
Can
a
little
Babe
answer
a
good
Conscience
by
being
baptized
in
Obedience
to
Christ
,
and
to
shew
forth
his
Death
and
Resurrection
?
13.
Can
Infant
Baptism
be
more
useful
then
that
of
Believers
?
Whereas
the
first
has
no
promise
of
God
made
unto
it
,
and
yet
the
other
hath
many
,
as
Acts
2.
36
,
37
,
38.
Mark
.
16.
16.
14.
Can
that
be
an
useful
thing
that
frustrates
the
Sacred
and
Spiritual
ends
of
Baptism
?
which
we
have
shewed
are
many
,
but
as
administred
to
poor
Babes
,
't
is
rendred
wholly
of
none
effect
,
and
an
insignificant
thing
.
Mr.
Perkins
hints
that
Baptism
signifies
two
things
,
(1)
our
Union
with
Christ
,
(2)
our
Communion
with
him
,
now
how
does
this
appear
in
Infants
as
such
,
as
it
does
in
Believers
;
Perkins
on
Gal.
p.
265.
16.
Is
not
that
an
absurd
Doctrine
and
Practice
that
renders
the
fruitful
Womb
of
a
godly
Woman
,
more
advantageous
to
increase
,
the
Church
of
Christ
,
then
a
fruitful
Gospel
.
17.
Is
it
not
a
very
absurd
thing
to
say
,
that
Abraham
could
by
his
Money
,
purchase
and
bring
Strangers
and
proselyted
Gentiles
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
if
Abraham
could
buy
them
and
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
with
Silver
and
Gold
,
what
need
was
there
of
Jesus
Christ
to
buy
or
purchase
them
with
his
own
Blood
?
18.
Is
not
that
an
absurd
Doctrine
and
Practice
that
holds
forth
,
that
godly
Parents
have
power
to
bring
in
their
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
keep
them
out
of
it
?
for
if
you
by
baptizing
them
do
not
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
you
do
believe
they
were
in
the
said
Covenant
by
being
born
of
Believers
,
by
being
begotten
by
you
according
to
the
Flesh
,
then
it
will
follow
,
if
we
are
Believers
,
our
Children
are
in
as
good
a
Condition
as
yours
,
though
they
were
never
baptized
.
CHAP.
XXII
.
Answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen's
18th
.
Chapter
,
wherein
be
sheweth
the
Duty
of
Parents
to
their
Children
,
proving
in
opposition
to
what
he
says
,
that
Parents
ought
not
to
consecrate
their
Infants
to
the
Lord
by
Baptism
.
YOu
say
,
if
Parents
would
perform
their
Duties
towards
their
Children
,
and
how
to
make
a
right
use
of
their
Baptism
,
there
would
be
more
Godliness
and
Sobriety
in
the
Country
,
and
few
would
be
the
number
of
them
that
deny
their
Baptism
,
&c.
Answ.
If
Parents
did
generally
take
more
care
of
their
Childrens
Souls
,
and
instruct
them
in
the
Principles
of
the
Christian
Religion
then
they
do
,
no
doubt
Sobriety
and
Godliness
would
more
abound
then
now
it
doth
every
where
.
2.
But
as
to
the
right
use
of
their
Baptism
,
you
your Selves
cannot
tell
what
use
that
can
be
to
them
,
because
't
is
not
appointed
of
God
.
3.
Did
Parents
instruct
their
Children
according
to
the
word
of
God
,
viz.
to
believe
and
get
Union
with
Christ
,
and
not
baptize
them
till
they
desired
it
,
according
to
the
Scripture
,
Infant
Baptism
would
soon
vanquish
.
(
1.
)
You
say
look
to
your
own
right
in
the
Covenant
of
God
,
if
God
is
not
a
God
to
you
,
he
is
not
a
God
to
your
Seed
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
Suppose
then
that
some
of
those
Parents
whose
Children
you
baptize
,
should
not
be
in
Covenant
with
God
,
what
right
had
their
Children
to
Baptism
,
is
not
that
Baptism
a
nullity
;
it
was
not
thus
in
the
case
of
Circumcision
,
if
the
Parents
were
Abraham's
natural
Seed
,
whether
Godly
or
wicked
,
they
were
to
Circumcise
their
Male
Children
.
2.
Though
't
is
true
,
an
adult
Person
hath
no
right
to
Baptism
that
is
not
a
true
believer
,
yet
if
he
profess
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
a
Minister
not
knowing
his
Heart
;
but
sees
no
cause
to
doubt
of
the
reality
or
truth
of
his
Faith
,
he
may
baptize
such
;
but
you
have
no
Warrant
to
baptize
a
Child
upon
the
profession
of
its
Parents
Faith
,
tho'
his
Faith
be
sincere
.
2.
When
they
are
Born
prepare
to
Present
and
Consecrate
them
(
say
you
)
to
the
Lord
through
the
Sacred
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
there
are
many
that
baptize
all
their
Children
as
matter
of
Ceremony
,
and
meer
Custom
without
looking
to
the
Lord
,
&c.
Answ.
By
whose
Authority
must
they
thus
do
,
viz.
As
soon
as
their
Children
are
Born
,
Consecrate
them
to
the
Lord
.
'T
is
not
by
the
Authority
of
God's
Word
,
therefore
a
piece
of
Will
Worship
.
Parents
would
do
well
to
pray
over
their
Babes
,
as
soon
as
they
are
Born
,
but
unless
required
by
Christ
to
baptize
them
,
they
must
not
do
that
.
2.
Whoever
therefore
Baptize
their
Infants
,
do
it
only
as
a
Ceremony
divised
by
Man
tho'
not
in
their
intention
,
their
Consciences
being
missed
.
You
ought
(
say
you
)
to
be
serious
about
their
Baptism
,
as
we
should
be
about
our
own
baptism
;
that
which
the
Child
ought
to
do
,
if
he
had
been
at
Age
and
Understanding
,
must
be
done
by
you
for
them
,
even
as
Mothers
when
their
Children
be
Sick
,
take
Physick
themselves
,
which
the
Children
ought
to
take
,
so
that
the
Child
may
have
the
Medicine
in
his
Mothers
Milk
,
even
so
do
ye
that
which
the
Child
ought
to
do
,
if
he
had
been
of
Age
before
Baptised
.
1.
Answ.
Some
of
the
Papists
are
very
serious
about
their
divised
Ceremonies
,
but
this
makes
it
in
no
wise
the
more
acceptable
to
God
.
But
2.
Do
you
not
here
seemingly
acknowledge
't
is
the
Duty
of
the
Child
when
't
is
at
Age
to
be
baptized
,
but
you
would
have
its
Parents
do
it
for
the
Child
;
but
how
do
you
prove
that
God
will
accept
that
at
the
Hands
of
the
Parent
which
the
Child
ought
to
do
when
at
Age.
I
have
shewed
you
that
in
an
early
Council
they
would
not
allow
a
Woman
big
with
Child
to
be
Baptized
least
it
should
be
thought
the
Child
was
baptized
with
the
Mother
.
3.
Doth
the
Mothers
Faith
and
Holiness
avail
and
profit
their
Childs
Soul
,
as
her
Milk
may
avail
and
profit
the
Body
of
her
Child
,
what
kind
of
Doctrine
is
this
?
but
it
may
be
so
if
what
you
said
before
be
true
,
i.
e.
that
the
Child
is
part
of
the
Patent
.
3.
Bless
the
Lord
for
the
Covenant
of
Grace
(
say
you
)
and
for
Christ
the
Mediator
of
the
Covenant
,
and
for
Baptism
the
Seal
of
that
Covenant
;
Is
the
extent
of
the
Covenant
,
a
small
thing
in
thy
sight
,
that
the
living
God
bindeth
himself
to
thee
and
thy
sinful
Seed
?
Is
it
a
small
thing
that
he
should
pitty
them
when
they
were
polluted
in
their
blood
,
that
he
washed
them
and
entred
into
a
Covenant
with
them
,
Ezek.
16.
5.
6.
1.
Answ.
We
have
all
cause
to
bless
the
Lord
for
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
for
Christ
the
Mediator
,
both
in
respect
of
our selves
,
and
for
our
Children
,
but
you
affirm'
that
which
you
cannot
prove
,
viz.
that
baptism
is
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
for
hath
the
Covenant
of
Grace
any
other
Seal
,
that
Seals
to
us
all
the
Blessings
of
that
Covenant
,
save
the
Holy
Spirit
only
,
the
Spirit
of
God
is
called
a
Seal
,
Eph.
1.
13
,
14.
Chap.
4.
30.
but
so
is
not
baptism
called
any
where
.
2.
If
all
your
Children
have
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
all
the
blessings
thereof
,
sealed
up
to
them
,
shall
they
not
be
all
saved
?
all
know
a
Seal
confirms
and
gives
an
assurance
of
all
the
Priviledges
,
Blessings
,
and
Profits
,
that
are
contained
in
that
Covenant
,
to
which
it
is
prefix'd
.
3.
You
falsly
also
apply
that
Text
in
Ezek.
16.
5
,
6
,
7.
that
is
not
applicable
to
our
Infants
as
such
,
but
to
God's
Israel
or
Believers
,
who
were
once
like
that
wretched
Infant
cast
out
in
its
Blood
,
but
God
entered
into
Covenant
with
us
,
and
washed
us
,
&c.
But
are
all
believers
Children
washed
in
the
Blood
of
Christ
,
no
doubt
they
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
that
go
to
Heaven
,
that
die
in
Infancy
;
but
the
rest
remain
polluted
,
in
their
Original
,
and
actual
pollution
until
they
believe
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
are
negenerated
by
Divine
Grace
,
tho'
they
are
baptized
,
for
that
washeth
them
not
.
4.
Set
time
a
part
(
say
you
)
for
earnest
praying
,
praying
to
the
Lord
for
to
forgive
the
Sins
of
your
Child
to
Sanctifie
his
Nature
,
and
bless
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
unto
him
,
&c.
Answ.
Prayer
is
good
,
and
a
great
Duty
't
is
to
pray
for
our
Children
,
but
take
heed
how
you
pray
their
baptism
may
be
blessed
,
since
Christ
did
not
appoint
any
Baptism
for
them
in
Infancy
;
hath
he
promised
any
blessing
to
that
,
or
will
he
bless
an
Invention
of
Men
?
5.
When
the
Minister
doth
baptize
thy
Child
,
do
thou
act
Faith
in
God's
Covenant
,
for
thy self
and
thy
Child
,
&c.
Ans.
How
can
you
act
Faith
in
doing
that
which
God
hath
made
no
promise
unto
you
,
or
to
your
Children
believers
that
are
baptized
may
act
Faith
indeed
.
1.
Because
Christ
commandeth
them
to
be
baptized
,
Mat.
28.
19
,
20.
Acts
2.
37.
2.
Because
he
hath
promised
unto
them
great
blessings
in
Baptism
,
Mark
.
16.
16.
Acts
2.
37
,
38.
but
there
is
neither
a
precept
for
nor
promise
made
unto
Infants
Baptized
.
1.
Speedily
do
it
,
stay
not
as
Moses
did
to
Circumcise
his
Child
,
Exod.
4.
24.
the
which
had
like
to
cost
him
his
life
,
it
is
true
God
bindeth
us
not
at
this
time
to
the
Eighth
day
as
he
did
the
Jews
,
yet
we
ought
not
to
delay
.
Vid.
Cypr.
Fidem
Ep.
59.
Answ.
Make
not
more
speedy
hast
then
good
speed
,
or
more
hast
then
God
directeth
you
,
why
not
delay
,
since
God
no
where
saith
on
the
Eighth
Day
,
nor
at
a
year
Old
nor
three
years
Old
,
but
when
they
believe
,
then
they
ought
to
rise
indeed
and
not
tarry
,
and
be
baptized
,
but
since
you
have
no
Scripture
for
this
advise
,
you
Quote
Cyprian
,
who
would
not
have
the
Adult
delay
if
he
speaks
it
of
Infants
,
he
is
no
rule
for
us
,
the
Ordinance
was
corrupted
in
his
time
,
where
is
it
written
in
Gods
Word
,
Moses
had
a
command
to
Circumcise
his
Son
on
the
Eighth
Day
,
therefore
he
ought
not
to
delay
longer
,
but
what
is
this
to
your
case
.
2.
Cheerfully
as
one
Marrieth
his
Child
with
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
.
Answ.
Cheerfully
do
it
,
no
do
it
not
at
all
on
your
peril
.
For
't
is
as
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
a
strange
Marriage
where
there
is
nothing
of
consent
.
3.
Publickly
(
say
you
)
before
the
Congregation
.
Answ.
And
yet
not
ashamed
,
shew
your
authority
first
.
Your
other
advice
seems
tolerable
good
,
save
what
you
speak
concerning
your
Infant
Baptism
,
in
Teaching
your
Children
,
the
knowledge
of
the
Holy
Scriptures
,
and
giving
them
good
examples
;
and
in
putting
them
into
godly
Families
;
in
doing
thus
you
may
expect
a
blessing
from
God
,
but
none
of
these
things
will
add
any
vertue
to
their
Infant
Baptism
,
to
make
that
any
ways
effectual
to
them
,
so
much
only
shall
suffice
as
toy
our
18th
.
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XXIII
.
In
answer
to
Mr.
James
Owens
19th
Chapter
wherein
he
gives
advice
to
Children
,
with
an
answer
to
his
Queries
,
that
he
would
have
the
Antipedobaptists
to
reply
unto
.
CHildren
,
bless
the
Lord
for
the
priviledges
of
your
Baptism
,
God
hath
taken
you
into
Covenant
(
say
you
)
with
your
Parents
,
he
hath
prevented
you
with
the
blessings
of
goodness
,
and
made
you
nigh
,
who
being
by
Nature
a
far
off
,
ye
are
no
more
Strangers
and
Foreigners
,
but
fellow
Citizens
with
the
Saints
and
the
Houshold
of
God
,
Eph.
2.
19.
1.
Answ.
Must
they
bless
God
that
their
Parents
deceived
them
with
false
hopes
of
priviledges
,
which
neither
they
nor
your selves
know
what
they
are
,
or
for
putting
a
cheat
upon
them
to
make
them
think
their
State
is
better
thereby
,
and
yet
cannot
prove
it
from
Gods
Word
so
to
be
.
How
doth
God
prevent
them
with
blessings
of
Goodness
,
by
your
Rantizing
them
?
doth
your
pretended
baptism
infuse
grace
or
gracious
habits
unto
them
,
or
what
to
〈◊〉
,
or
is
●t
the
blessings
of
that
Vow
you
brought
them
under
voluntarily
,
without
any
authority
from
God
.
2.
Are
you
not
afraid
to
affirm
that
Children
by
their
baptism
are
by
the
Lord
made
neer
unto
him
,
and
made
thereby
Children
of
God
,
who
were
by
Nature
Children
of
Wrath
,
and
no
more
Strangers
and
Foreigners
,
&c.
If
this
was
so
,
shall
they
not
be
all
Saved
?
Can
any
thing
bring
Children
near
to
God
,
and
make
them
fellow-Heirs
and
Citizens
with
the
Saints
,
but
a
Sacred
Work
of
God's
Spirit
upon
their
Souls
,
and
doth
your
Baptism
do
this
.
2.
Can
such
that
are
no
more
Strangers
to
God
,
&c.
ever
perish
?
Is
there
a
possibility
of
Final
falling
from
a
State
of
true
Grace
;
and
if
it
be
thus
ought
not
your
Children
to
have
all
the
priviledges
of
the
Houshold
of
God
,
the
Lords
Supper
,
&c.
3.
Will
you
attribute
those
High
and
Sublime
Priviledges
that
belong
to
believers
,
who
are
only
born
of
the
Spirit
,
to
your
poor
Babes
that
yet
remain
Children
of
Wrath
and
unrenewed
by
the
Grace
of
God
,
is
not
this
a
ready
way
to
blind
the
Eyes
of
your
Children
,
and
ruine
their
Souls
if
they
should
believe
you
herein
.
You
are
under
that
Gracious
Providence
(
say
you
)
which
watcheth
over
the
Church
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
You
must
first
prove
them
Members
of
the
Church
;
and
not
only
Members
,
but
all
of
them
elected
Persons
,
for
they
are
such
Members
,
that
the
special
Providence
of
God
is
over
.
2.
You
say
they
have
a
share
in
the
daily
prayers
that
are
put
up
for
the
Church
of
God
.
Psalm
72.
15.
Prayers
shall
be
made
for
him
,
and
daily
shall
he
be
praised
.
Psalm
51.
13.
Do
good
in
thy
good
pleasure
to
Zion
and
build
the
Walls
of
Jerusalem
Gal.
6.
16.
As
many
as
walk
according
to
this
rule
,
peace
on
them
,
and
mercy
on
the
Israel
of
God
.
If
you
had
been
without
baptism
,
you
should
have
been
without
,
and
so
without
any
share
in
these
prayers
.
Answ.
I
have
put
some
of
the
Texts
of
Scripture
down
at
large
that
you
cite
,
and
doth
that
Text
in
Psalm
72.
13.
not
relate
to
Jesus
Christ
personally
considered
,
if
not
only
so
,
yet
Christ
mistical
,
viz.
the
elect
Seed
,
and
not
to
all
the
Members
of
the
visible
Church
as
such
,
and
so
also
in
the
other
Scriptures
,
and
dare
you
thus
abuse
the
Sacred
Scriptures
,
applying
these
prayers
and
promises
to
all
your
Infants
.
2.
Do
your
Children
as
such
,
walk
according
to
that
Rule
Gal.
6.
16.
are
they
all
new
Creatures
,
read
the
Context
or
do
you
not
falsly
apply
and
interpret
these
Scriptures
.
3.
And
if
all
unbaptized
Persons
be
without
any
share
in
those
prayers
,
you
your self
are
without
them
,
for
you
was
only
Rantized
.
But
what
stress
do
you
lay
upon
Baptism
?
Are
none
Membes
of
Gods
Mystical
and
Spiritual
Sion
,
but
such
who
are
baptized
.
4.
Also
how
do
you
go
about
to
blind
,
and
deceive
the
Souls
of
your
Children
in
causing
them
to
believe
they
are
Members
of
Gods
Sion
,
and
have
part
in
those
prayers
,
when
it
may
be
't
is
false
,
or
no
such
thing
,
they
being
(
some
of
them
when
grown
up
,
)
wicked
or
ungodly
.
3.
(
Say
you
)
as
you
are
Members
of
the
Church
of
God
,
you
have
a
particular
right
unto
the
promises
,
the
inheritance
of
the
Church
are
the
promises
,
they
belong
unto
her
,
and
not
to
others
,
as
formerly
the
promises
belonged
to
the
Visible
Church
of
the
Jews
,
so
now
to
the
Visible
Church
of
the
Gentiles
,
Rom.
9.
4.
Gal.
4.
23.
1.
Answ.
I
have
proved
that
our
Children
as
such
,
are
not
Members
of
the
visible
Church
;
no
,
nor
ought
any
of
the
Children
of
Believers
to
be
taken
into
it
,
but
such
that
believe
that
repent
,
or
that
are
born
again
.
2.
If
any
others
,
viz.
such
that
are
not
regenerated
are
taken
into
the
visible
Church
,
whether
Infants
or
Adult
Persons
,
't
is
not
by
God's
appointment
,
and
therefore
such
have
no
right
to
the
Special
and
Spiritual
promises
of
God
,
which
are
the
peculiar
inheritance
of
the
elect
of
God
.
3.
The
visible
Church
of
the
Jews
as
so
considered
,
had
many
external
promises
belonging
to
them
,
that
is
not
deny'd
,
which
the
Gentile
Church
hath
no
right
unto
;
but
the
whole
Jewish
Church
,
or
all
her
visible
Members
had
not
a
right
to
the
Spiritual
Promises
of
God
,
They
are
not
all
Israel
that
are
of
Israel
,
Rom.
9.
6.
neither
because
they
are
Seed
of
Abraham
,
are
they
all
Children
,
vers.
7.
that
is
they
are
the
Children
of
the
Flesh
,
these
are
not
the
Children
of
God
,
but
the
Children
of
the
Promise
are
counted
for
the
Seed
,
vers.
8.
You
mention
the
4
Verse
,
but
mention
not
the
Verses
I
have
cited
,
which
open
the
4th
verse
,
and
thus
you
go
about
to
give
a
false
Exposition
of
the
Scripture
,
and
deceive
the
understanding
of
your
poor
Children
,
and
others
also
.
But
say
you
,
though
the
whole
Members
of
the
visible
Church
,
be
not
partakers
of
the
Grace
of
the
Promises
,
Heb.
4.
1.
which
are
given
to
the
elect
only
,
yet
all
the
Members
of
the
visible
Church
have
more
right
to
this
Grace
then
others
that
are
without
,
it
being
their
own
Fault
if
they
refuse
it
.
Answ.
You
in
the
first
place
speak
right
here
,
but
what
you
speak
in
your
next
Words
are
utterly
false
.
1.
You
say
the
whole
Members
or
all
the
Members
of
the
Visible
Church
be
not
partakers
of
the
grace
of
the
promises
;
this
is
right
,
but
why
do
you
say
that
all
the
Members
of
the
Visible
Church
have
more
right
to
the
promises
then
those
poor
Souls
who
are
enquiring
the
way
into
the
Visible
Church
in
all
sincerity
of
Heart
.
'T
is
I
fear
dangerous
for
people
to
set
under
such
a
Teacher
.
I
affirm
that
the
State
of
such
that
are
let
into
the
Visible
Church
,
who
are
unsound
or
carnal
Persons
,
is
worse
then
the
State
of
others
:
neither
are
they
under
the
promises
of
grace
above
others
:
for
1.
First
,
they
conclude
perhaps
all
is
well
with
them
and
that
they
are
converted
,
because
the
pastor
of
the
Church
,
nay
,
and
the
Church
her self
so
judgeth
of
them
,
and
from
hence
they
look
not
after
regeneration
or
true
Convertion
,
but
look
upon
themselves
to
be
Holy
,
or
Saints
of
God
;
now
the
promises
of
Grace
do
not
run
to
these
,
as
they
do
to
those
,
that
see
themselves
lost
and
undone
Sinners
,
being
far
from
God
,
and
out
of
the
pail
of
the
visible
Church
,
therefore
you
do
your
Children
great
Mischief
and
hurt
,
in
taking
them
into
your
Churches
,
unless
they
are
Converted
and
truly
gracious
,
't
is
no
blessing
nor
benefit
to
be
false
Members
of
the
visible
Church
?
but
what
do
you
mean
by
the
last
Clause
,
is
it
the
Sinners
sault
if
he
is
not
elected
,
or
can
Men
obtain
Grace
if
they
will
.
True
,
they
ought
not
to
refuse
God's
Call
.
(
Say
you
)
your
baptized
Children
seek
a
clear
understanding
of
that
Obligation
,
and
the
Vow
of
your
baptism
,
Learn
of
your
Parents
and
Ministers
to
know
the
signification
,
and
need
of
your
Baptism
,
ye
are
given
unto
Christ
,
and
are
not
your
own
,
ye
are
bound
to
renounce
the
Devil
and
all
his
Works
,
to
renounce
the
pomps
and
vanity
of
this
wicked
World
,
to
renounce
the
pleasure
,
and
lusts
of
the
Flesh
,
you
are
bound
to
take
God
the
Father
to
be
your
God
and
chief
end
,
taking
the
Son
to
be
your
Lord
and
Saviour
unto
you
,
and
God
the
Holy
Ghost
to
be
your
Sanctifier
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
Those
that
are
baptized
should
understand
the
Nature
of
that
Obligation
before
they
enter
into
that
Covenant
.
2.
The
end
of
Baptism
was
Ordained
by
Christ
to
shew
that
the
Person
baptized
is
born
again
,
is
dead
to
sin
,
not
that
he
ought
,
or
is
bound
afterwards
to
be
Born
again
;
no
no
,
but
after
he
is
baptized
he
is
obliged
thereby
to
walk
in
newness
of
life
.
You
by
baptizing
Infants
invert
the
design
and
end
of
Baptism
;
how
should
your
Children
understand
this
Obligation
,
when
their
Parents
and
Ministers
are
so
ignorant
about
the
nature
of
that
Obligation
themselves
?
3.
Believers
do
thus
take
God
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
in
baptism
,
to
be
their
God
,
but
so
do
not
Infants
by
any
appointment
of
God
.
4.
It
appears
that
you
approve
of
the
Church
of
Englands
Catechism
,
if
so
all
your
Baptized
Infants
are
according
to
your
Doctrin
in
Baptism
regenerated
and
have
thereby
renounced
the
Devil
and
all
his
Works
,
&c.
3.
As
soon
as
ye
come
to
Age
and
Understanding
renew
your
Covenant
with
God
,
the
Lord
hath
received
in
his
Covenant
the
Faith
of
your
Parents
for
you
in
your
Infancy
,
but
now
ye
are
of
Years
,
if
ye
your selves
will
not
believe
and
repent
,
and
take
God
to
be
a
God
unto
you
,
your
baptism
will
not
longer
benefit
you
,
&c.
Answ.
I
answer
if
it
be
thus
your
Children
are
not
much
beholding
to
their
Parents
Faith
,
nor
to
Covenant
Grace
,
you
tell
them
when
their
Parents
believed
and
were
saved
,
all
their
Children
were
saved
,
and
in
covenant
with
them
;
but
it
appears
now
this
only
served
for
their
Infant
State
,
they
may
fall
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
be
damned
,
notwithstanding
their
being
once
in
the
covenant
of
Grace
,
and
saved
with
their
Parents
;
unless
they
do
actually
believe
,
&c.
2.
But
if
they
had
dyed
in
their
Infancy
,
perhaps
they
would
have
perished
,
had
not
their
Parents
believed
,
is
this
your
meaning
;
certainly
if
they
are
such
that
are
Elected
they
shall
be
Saved
,
tho'
they
had
dyed
in
Infancy
,
tho'
their
Parents
believed
or
not
believed
,
doth
the
Parents
believing
procure
their
Salvation
,
and
the
Parents
not
believing
obstruct
their
Childrens
Salvation
,
and
so
bring
on
them
Damnation
,
if
so
the
Salvation
and
Damnation
of
their
Children
in
Infancy
,
is
put
into
the
hands
or
Faith
of
their
Parents
.
3.
And
if
this
be
so
,
wo
to
the
poor
Babes
of
unbelievers
,
must
they
be
all
Damned
?
Can
't
Christ
save
such
Children
by
his
Merits
and
Righteousness
,
nor
Sanctifie
them
that
die
in
their
Infancy
,
unless
their
Parents
do
believe
,
and
baptize
them
;
and
dare
you
say
he
will
not
,
what
strange
Doctrine
is
this
;
and
by
what
authority
do
you
assert
those
things
which
your
Doctrine
leads
you
out
to
do
.
4.
True
,
all
our
Children
are
Obliged
by
the
Lord
,
when
they
come
to
Years
of
understanding
,
to
remember
their
Creator
,
and
to
Fear
,
Love
,
Believe
and
Serve
him
,
by
the
Authority
and
Command
of
his
Blessed
Word
,
but
not
by
virtue
of
any
Baptismal
Vow
he
hath
appointed
for
them
in
Infancy
,
to
come
under
,
or
enter
into
,
the
State
of
Children
in
Infancy
,
may
through
Christs
Merits
be
fast
enough
,
if
they
Die
then
,
whether
their
Parents
believe
or
not
,
and
it
apppears
the
Priviledges
and
Blessings
of
their
Parents
Faith
doth
them
no
good
any
longer
,
but
only
whilst
they
continue
in
Infancy
.
4.
You
bid
your
Children
that
are
grown
up
to
live
answerable
to
their
Covenant
.
5.
Say
you
,
give
not
place
to
Temptation
,
in
denying
your
First
Baptism
.
Answ.
Let
your
Children
take
heed
that
they
are
not
blinded
by
your
pretended
baptismal
priviledge
,
so
as
to
think
they
are
any
ways
the
better
for
that
.
Young
Men
and
Women
,
't
is
not
your
Patents
Faith
will
interest
you
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
there
is
a
twofold
being
in
that
Covenant
.
1.
Decretively
.
2.
Actualy
all
Gods
Elect
ones
are
Decretively
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
but
no
one
Soul
,
either
Man
or
Woman
,
is
actually
in
it
,
untill
they
have
by
Faith
Union
with
Christ
.
O!
labour
after
this
Union
,
you
are
all
the
Children
of
Wrath
by
Nature
,
and
your
Infant
Baptism
alters
not
your
State
,
nor
had
you
any
right
to
baptism
when
you
were
Infants
,
but
if
you
do
believe
you
may
and
ought
to
be
Baptized
by
vertue
of
Christ's
Commission
or
Authority
of
God's
Word
.
Let
not
your
Faith
stand
in
this
matter
in
the
Wisdom
of
Men
,
but
in
the
Power
and
Authority
of
the
Word
of
God
;
to
walk
according
to
the
Rule
of
the
Holy
Scripture
herein
,
is
not
to
give
way
to
Temptation
;
but
to
the
dictates
of
God's
Spirit
,
let
Mr.
Owen
say
what
he
will
.
You
bid
your
Children
to
ask
such
,
who
deny
Infant
baptism
these
following
questions
.
1.
Say
you
,
ask
them
,
Can
they
prove
from
the
Scripture
that
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
were
cast
out
from
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
Let
them
shew
us
a
plain
Scripture
for
that
:
for
if
they
are
not
cast
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
then
baptism
,
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
belongeth
unto
them
.
1.
Answ.
Young
Men
and
Women
,
pray
ask
Mr.
Owen
,
whether
all
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
(
or
their
Children
as
such
)
were
,
and
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
.
2.
If
he
says
they
all
were
,
and
still
are
in
that
Couenant
,
ask
him
whether
then
it
doth
not
follow
that
they
shall
all
be
saved
,
because
the
Everlasting
Covenant
of
Grace
is
well
ordered
in
all
things
and
sure
,
2.
Sam.
23.
5.
and
the
promise
of
the
eternal
.
Life
sure
to
all
the
true
Seed
of
Abraham
,
Rom.
4.
16.
confirmed
by
the
Promise
and
Oath
of
God
.
Heb.
6.
13.
to
the
19th
.
verse
.
3.
Ask
him
,
whether
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
are
not
all
Elected
to
Salvation
,
or
the
Elect
of
God
.
4.
Ask
him
whether
there
is
any
final
falling
away
out
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
or
possibility
for
one
of
God's
Elect
,
eternally
to
perish
.
5.
Ask
him
if
God
did
not
make
a
Covenant
with
Abraham's
fleshly
Seed
as
such
,
that
peculiarly
appertained
to
them
,
in
which
the
whole
House
of
Israel
were
taken
into
an
External
,
Legal
,
and
Typical
Church
State
,
and
so
was
a
National
Church
,
and
had
many
External
Priviledges
,
which
our
Children
have
not
.
6.
Ask
him
whether
the
whole
House
of
Israel
,
both
Parents
and
Children
,
were
all
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
so
God's
People
by
way
of
Special
Love
and
Eternal
Election
.
7.
Ask
him
whether
the
Carnal
Seed
of
believers
as
such
,
are
to
be
taken
into
the
Visible
Church
in
the
times
of
the
Gospel
,
as
they
were
under
the
Law
.
If
so
,
ask
him
why
John
the
Baptist
did
refuse
them
.
8.
Ask
him
how
he
can
prove
that
the
fleshly
Seed
of
believers
as
such
,
are
the
true
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
.
Tell
him
that
Mr.
Airsworth
,
a
Man
that
he
Quotes
,
and
a
Man
of
great
Learning
,
and
tho'
a
a
peao-baptist
,
saith
,
on
Gen.
12.
7.
(
thy
Seed
)
That
is
all
the
Children
of
the
promise
,
the
Elect
,
who
only
are
accounted
Abraham's
Seed
,
Rom
,
9.
7
,
8.
And
in
Christ
,
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
,
Gal.
3.
29.
And
tell
him
that
Dr.
Owen
in
his
Book
called
,
The
Doctrin
of
the
Saints
perseverance
.
cap.
4.
saith
that
the
effectual
Dispensation
of
the
grace
of
the
Covenant
,
is
peculiar
to
them
only
,
who
are
the
Children
of
promise
,
the
Remnant
of
Abraham
,
according
to
Election
,
with
all
,
that
in
all
Nations
,
were
to
be
blessed
with
him
,
and
in
his
Seed
,
i.
e.
Jesus
Christ
,
Ishmael
tho
Circumcised
was
cast
out
.
Thus
Dr.
Owen
,
and
say
I
,
as
Ishmael
was
cast
out
tho'
Circumcised
,
so
Paul
saith
the
bond-woman
and
her
Son
is
now
cast
out
,
that
is
,
the
Old
Covenant
and
Carnal
Seed
of
Abraham
as
such
,
See
Gal.
4.
30.
Tell
him
that
Amelius
de
spraedest
.
chap.
8.
Serm
6.
A
Learned
Man
saith
,
There
are
many
of
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
to
whom
the
word
of
promise
did
not
belong
then
,
the
rejection
of
many
Jews
,
who
are
of
the
Seed
of
Abraham
doth
not
make
void
the
word
of
promise
;
from
whence
,
may
we
not
safely
conclude
,
That
if
the
Natural
posterity
of
Abraham
were
not
within
the
Covenant
of
Grace
by
Vertue
of
the
promise
,
Gen.
17.
2.
then
much
less
are
our
Natural
Posterity
,
but
the
former
is
true
,
therefore
the
latter
.
9.
Ask
him
whether
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
simply
in
its
self
gave
right
to
Circumcision
,
if
so
why
was
not
Lot
and
Melchisedec
Circumcised
,
were
they
not
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
?
This
being
so
,
ask
him
if
he
can
prove
that
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
simply
considered
in
its
self
gives
any
a
right
to
baptism
,
since
't
is
a
meer
positive
Command
of
Christ
.
10.
Ask
him
whether
ungodly
Parents
that
spring
from
Abraham's
Loyns
by
Isaac-in
their
Generations
,
were
not
as
much
obliged
by
God's
positive
Command
to
Abraham
to
Circumcise
their
Male
Children
,
as
the
Faithful
and
Godly
Parents
were
obliged
to
Circumcise
theirs
,
this
being
so
;
11.
Ask
him
why
all
ungodly
persons
and
unbelievers
ought
not
now
to
Baptize
their
Children
,
as
well
as
believers
,
should
baptize
theirs
.
2.
You
bid
your
Children
ask
such
that
deny
Infant
Baptism
,
can
they
prove
from
Scripture
that
Christ
came
in
to
the
World
to
make
the
condition
of
Children
worser
then
it
was
before
.
Ans.
Tell
Mr.
Owen
he
hath
had
this
Question
answered
in
this
Treatise
,
over
and
over
,
viz.
Tell
him
,
the
Spiritual
Priviledges
of
Children
now
are
more
then
theirs
were
under
the
Law
:
So
that
our
Children
lose
no
Divine
and
Spiritual
blessings
or
priviledges
,
which
the
Children
of
the
Faithful
once
had
.
God
hath
the
same
love
to
,
and
care
of
our
Children
under
the
Gospel
,
as
he
had
to
theirs
under
the
Law
;
but
the
Temporal
blessings
of
the
Jewish
Children
,
and
their
External
or
Earthly
priviledges
,
then
were
more
then
our
Children
have
in
Gospel
times
,
the
Gospel
Church
being
established
upon
better
promises
,
theirs
were
under
the
promise
of
heaping
up
Gold
and
Silver
,
and
possessing
outward
peace
,
and
to
enjoy
a
Land
that
flowed
with
Milk
and
Honey
.
True
the
external
or
outward
dispensation
of
the
Gospel
Covenant
,
which
our
Children
are
under
,
far
exceeds
theirs
for
the
clearness
of
Light
and
Revelation
of
Christ
,
and
for
other
Spiritual
priviledges
ours
excells
:
Besides
no
doubt
,
but
the
Children
of
believers
under
the
Gospel
far
exceed
the
priviledges
of
unbelievers
by
the
blessings
of
a
Godly
Education
and
the
like
.
But
we
say
it
was
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
that
gave
right
to
Circumcision
under
the
Law
,
but
the
positive
Law
and
Command
of
God
,
so
't
is
not
the
Covenant
of
Grace
that
gives
right
to
baptism
,
but
Christs
positive
Command
,
which
runs
not
unto
our
Children
untill
they
do
believe
;
and
bid
Mr.
Owen
prove
that
Infant
baptism
doth
make
the
condition
of
Children
,
any
ways
better
then
the
condition
of
our
Children
,
who
never
were
baptized
.
3.
Were
not
little
Children
(
say
you
)
the
first
Martyrs
that
lost
their
Lives
for
the
sake
of
Christ
,
Mat.
2.
16.
If
God
Honoured
them
to
be
the
first
Witnesses
for
Christ
,
being
baptized
in
Blood
,
will
he
deny
them
water
Baptism
.
1.
Answ.
Were
they
only
the
Children
of
Believers
that
Herod
Murthered
,
how
will
you
prove
that
?
but
suppose
it
was
so
,
doth
it
follow
from
thence
,
that
we
ought
to
baptize
them
without
a
Command
;
why
do
you
not
say
,
and
will
not
Christ
allow
our
Children
the
Ordinance
that
holds
forth
the
Shedding
of
his
Blood
,
as
well
as
Baptism
,
that
holds
forth
he
was
Buried
,
&c.
4.
If
the
Baptism
of
Infants
be
evil
,
why
doth
the
Devil
(
say
you
)
Tempt
Witches
or
Sorcerers
to
deny
that
Baptism
?
And
what
is
the
reason
that
Satan
cannot
have
any
power
over
them
,
until
they
renounce
their
Baptism
,
and
after
that
they
have
not
any
strength
to
resist
him
any
longer
,
as
several
of
them
confessed
.
Park
.
of
Witches
Vol.
3.
page
640.
1.
Answ.
Ask
Mr.
Owen
,
why
the
Devil
doth
not
love
,
nor
can't
endure
Popish
Holy-water
,
or
is
such
a
fearful
enemy
to
that
as
the
Papists
say
it
hath
often
been
manifest
?
is
the
Consecration
of
Water
therefore
of
God's
appointment
.
Why
may
we
not
give
credit
to
the
Papists
,
as
well
as
unto
Witches
and
Sorcerers
?
2.
Because
he
cannot
prove
Infant
Baptism
from
Arguments
from
Heaven
will
he
go
for
Arguments
to
prove
it
to
be
Christs
Ordinance
taken
from
Hell
?
3.
The
Devil
is
a
crafty
and
subtle
Adversary
,
doth
not
he
do
this
to
make
People
love
and
approve
of
their
Infant
Baptism
,
which
no
doubt
Christ
never
appointed
.
4.
However
this
Testimony
is
given
only
by
Witches
and
Sorcerers
,
and
what
ground
have
we
to
believe
them
?
5.
Ask
them
will
they
give
you
assurance
that
you
will
be
better
Christians
,
by
receiving
of
their
baptism
,
if
they
say
you
will
be
the
better
,
answer
them
,
that
you
see
several
of
them
growing
worse
after
their
re-baptization
.
1.
Answ.
Ask
Mr.
Owen
,
whether
there
are
not
more
People
that
were
Baptized
,
or
rather
Rantized
in
Infancy
,
that
prove
vile
and
ungodly
,
then
among
them
that
were
baptized
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
.
2.
What
assurance
can
he
give
to
Infants
,
or
to
their
Parents
that
the
Children
they
baptize
shall
be
better
Christians
thereby
?
Also
how
will
he
prove
that
the
Children
of
believers
who
were
baptized
in
Infancy
,
prove
generally
better
Christians
then
the
Children
of
those
Believers
that
did
not
baptise
them
in
their
Infancy
.
3.
Ask
him
if
the
baptism
of
believers
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
(
as
Christ
commanded
)
be
the
worse
because
some
,
like
Simon
Magus
,
take
it
up
,
and
prove
ill
Members
and
scandalous
in
their
Lives
.
1.
Say
you
,
tho'
they
are
Members
of
a
Congregation
,
walking
by
the
Rule
of
the
Gospel
,
before
they
had
their
re-baptization
,
they
after
break
the
Unity
of
the
Body
they
were
Members
of
,
by
separating
themselves
,
Baptism
is
an
Ordinance
of
Unity
,
but
re-baptization
is
the
breaking
off
the
Unity
of
Churches
.
1.
Answ.
Why
do
you
use
such
Tautologies
and
needless
repetitions
,
you
had
this
before
,
and
I
have
answered
it
,
we
deny
our
baptism
to
be
re-baptization
,
and
have
proyed
your
Rantism
is
no
Baptism
at
all
.
2.
Infant
Rantism
,
't
is
true
,
Unites
National
Churches
,
and
Churches
Built
upon
that
,
or
the
like
Constitution
,
and
so
it
Unites
many
false
and
Anti-christian
Churches
I
must
confess
,
as
the
Church
of
Rome
,
and
some
others
in
the
World
,
much
of
the
same
nature
;
but
't
is
the
baptism
of
Christ
,
viz.
that
of
believers
that
Unites
together
,
according
to
the
order
of
the
Gospel
,
all
the
Members
of
a
true
Gospel
Church
;
and
the
denying
of
Infant
baptism
,
and
being
baptized
upon
a
profession
of
Faith
,
does
but
break
the
Union
of
Churches
of
the
Saints
,
that
are
formarly
true
and
orderly
gathered
,
according
to
the
Institution
of
Christ
,
and
the
rule
of
the
Gospel
:
For
was
not
the
first
Gospel
Church
at
Jerusalem
,
gathered
out
of
the
National
Church
of
the
Jews
,
of
Persons
that
repented
,
believed
,
and
upon
the
profession
of
that
Faith
Baptized
,
that
is
Dipped
in
Water
,
in
the
Name
of
the
Father
,
Son
and
Holy
Ghost
;
also
the
Church
in
Samaria
,
Acts
8.
and
that
in
Acts
10.
and
that
at
Corinth
,
Acts
16.
and
that
at
Ephesus
,
Acts
19.
and
ought
not
all
Churches
so
to
be
gathered
to
the
end
of
the
World
?
ought
we
not
to
separate
from
such
Churches
,
that
do
not
hold
the
Ordinances
that
appertain
to
Church
Constitution
,
as
they
were
first
delivered
to
the
Saints
,
and
from
such
who
are
guilty
also
of
an
Human
Innovation
,
ought
we
to
partake
of
other
Mens
Sins
,
or
ought
we
not
to
keep
our selves
pure
,
Touch
not
,
Tast
not
,
Handle
not
,
which
all
are
to
perish
with
the
using
after
the
Commandments
and
Doctrines
of
Men
,
Col.
2.
21
,
22.
2.
You
say
,
before
they
had
their
re-baptization
they
we
more
Charitable
in
their
Judgment
,
but
afterwards
they
are
usuall●
of
a
strict
and
narrow
Judgment
,
Judging
hard
and
uncharitably
of
them
that
are
not
of
their
perswasion
;
therefore
this
Opinion
that
quencheth
Love
,
is
not
of
God
,
1
Cor.
13.
I
do
not
say
of
them
all
,
that
their
Love
to
the
Brethren
waxeth
colder
,
when
they
are
baptized
,
but
of
the
greatest
part
of
them
,
the
virtue
of
the
Grace
of
God
,
overcometh
the
vertue
of
this
Opinion
,
and
keepeth
them
from
falling
into
the
same
Temptation
of
uncharitableness
with
others
.
1.
Answ.
None
of
us
were
ever
re-baptized
,
pray
cease
your
hard
and
uncharitable
Pen
and
Tongue
.
2.
Our
Charily
is
greater
far
then
that
Mans
,
whose
Opinion
about
Infant
Baptism
,
leads
him
to
cast
all
out
of
the
Holy
Catholick
Church
,
who
disown
Infant
Baptism
,
and
are
baptized
as
Believers
.
3.
We
have
so
much
Charity
to
all
godly
Christians
that
are
pedo-baptists
,
that
we
own
them
to
be
our
Brethren
and
Members
of
the
Mystical
Body
of
Christ
,
and
have
the
like
Love
to
them
as
to
those
who
are
of
our
own
perswasion
in
the
point
of
Baptism
,
even
to
all
where
we
see
the
Image
of
God
.
4.
If
any
among
us
are
too
uncharitable
,
yet
assure
your self
it
is
not
this
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
which
they
own
that
naturally
leads
them
forth
so
to
be
,
but
't
is
from
the
corruption
of
their
own
hearts
,
therefore
you
do
very
ill
to
Father
it
on
their
Opinion
.
5.
But
as
to
Communion
at
the
Lord's
Table
,
we
believe
we
are
limited
and
bounded
therein
by
the
rule
of
God's
Word
,
and
't
is
not
for
want
of
Charity
to
your
Churches
we
cannot
have
Church
Communion
with
you`
(
tho'
all
other
Communion
of
Saints
we
can
have
with
you
)
but
't
is
because
we
would
walk
orderly
as
God
directeth
us
in
the
Gospel
,
and
I
should
be
sorry
to
hear
any
of
my
Brethren
to
be
of
another
mind
,
I
am
for
Catholick
Communion
,
and
Charity
with
all
Saints
,
tho'
not
for
Church
Communion
with
any
that
are
unbaptized
,
as
I
believe
you
all
are
that
have
only
had
Infants
Rantism
.
3.
There
are
others
since
their
re-baptization
,
(
say
you
)
go
further
,
and
have
fallen
from
one
delusion
into
another
,
some
set
up
free
will
,
others
denying
the
Christian
Sabbath
,
others
against
Catechizing
of
Children
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
'T
is
very
uncharitable
in
you
to
reflect
upon
the
whole
party
of
Baptized
Believers
from
the
errours
of
some
that
are
of
our
Opinion
in
respect
of
Baptism
.
2.
You
may
see
a
Confession
of
our
Faith
,
and
a
late
Narrative
of
the
result
of
a
General
Assembly
of
Pastors
,
Ministers
and
Messengers
of
107
Churches
,
in
which
we
Testifie
against
free-will
,
and
do
abhor
that
Notion
,
and
own
the
Christian
Sab●…
,
viz.
the
first
day
of
the
Week
,
and
vindicate
the
Catechising
of
Children
,
have
also
published
a
Catechism
to
that
end
,
and
do
bewail
the
neglect
of
that
great
Duty
where
ever
it
is
found
to
be
neglected
,
either
among
us
,
or
others
.
2.
But
are
there
no
free-willers
nor
Baxterians
among
you
,
whose
principles
are
much
the
same
,
if
not
something
worse
,
why
then
do
you
thus
reflect
on
us
?
Require
plain
Answers
(
say
you
)
from
them
unto
these
Questions
,
and
cause
them
to
prove
all
from
the
Holy
Scriptures
,
the
God
of
all
Grace
settle
you
in
the
present
Truth
,
that
ye
might
bring
forth
Fruits
meet
to
your
Baptism
.
Thus
you
end
your
Book
.
Answ.
You
have
had
plain
Answers
unto
all
your
Questions
,
and
many
other
Questions
for
you
to
Answer
,
and
we
have
proved
all
we
say
from
the
Scriptures
,
from
whence
you
will
never
prove
your
Practice
of
Infant
Baptism
whilst
the
World
standeth
.
And
now
the
good
Lord
open
your
eyes
;
and
the
eyes
of
your
Sons
and
Daughters
,
to
see
their
Error
,
and
shew
you
the
Ancient
Footsteps
of
the
Flock
,
that
you
and
they
may
feed
besides
the
Shepherds
Tents
,
and
increase
Love
and
Charity
among
us
all
,
which
is
too
much
wanting
.
O
where
is
the
power
of
godliness
.
Many
can
spy
the
Mote
in
their
Brothers
Eye
.
CHAP.
XXIV
.
Containing
some
brief
practical
use
of
the
whole
precedent
Treatise
,
with
seasonable
Counsel
to
Parents
,
&c.
NOw
Reader
,
from
what
thou
hast
heard
or
read
,
in
this
Treatise
,
and
answer
to
Mr.
James
Owen
,
1.
I
may
infer
that
all
those
who
have
only
been
Sprinkled
or
Rantized
,
who
are
afterwards
Baptized
when
they
Believed
,
are
not
re-baptized
,
as
Mr.
Owen
doth
affirm
,
nor
do
they
renounce
their
Baptism
,
tho'
they
do
renounce
the
practice
and
Human
Tradition
of
Sprinkling
of
Infants
or
Adult
Persons
.
2.
We
may
also
infer
that
't
is
a
hard
thing
to
restore
a
lost
Ordinance
,
or
to
reform
about
a
long
standing
Custom
and
Tradition
of
Men.
1.
Do
all
you
Pious
Parents
bless
God
for
Christ
and
the
Gospel
,
and
for
all
those
priviledges
he
hath
bestowed
upon
you
,
and
upon
your
Children
,
who
when
they
are
grown
up
,
set
under
the
precious
and
clear
Preaching
of
Christ
Crucified
.
Be
sure
,
improve
these
blessings
and
take
heed
that
you
walk
in
all
things
according
to
the
rule
of
God's
Word
,
and
do
not
follow
a
Multitude
to
do
evil
,
(
tho'
some
of
them
are
good
Men.
)
O
tremble
to
do
any
thing
in
God's
Worship
without
lawful
authority
from
him
,
I
mean
precept
or
example
from
his
Word
,
do
not
adventure
to
Baptize
,
much
less
to
Rantize
your
Children
any
more
,
whatever
Mr.
Owen
(
or
any
Man
on
Earth
saith
)
unless
you
can
find
it
written
in
your
Bibles
.
God
hath
not
commanded
you
to
bring
them
into
a
baptismal
Covenant
in
their
Infancy
,
nor
made
any
promise
of
blessing
to
assist
them
in
performing
that
Covenant
,
if
you
do
bring
them
into
it
of
your
own
Head
voiuntarily
.
If
you
do
,
and
will
do
this
thing
,
notwithstanding
you
have
no
authority
from
God's
Word
to
do
it
;
Pray
consider
what
I
have
said
in
this
Treatise
about
this
devised
and
unwarrantable
Covenant
,
by
which
you
may
heap
up
much
guilt
upon
your selves
,
and
lay
such
a
Load
and
Burden
upon
your
Children
,
that
you
are
not
aware
of
:
Mr.
Williams's
frightnes
them
with
the
Sin
of
Perjury
,
who
violate
this
Covenant
,
may
not
this
tend
to
drive
them
into
despair
,
and
God
will
never
charge
them
with
Perjury
,
since
he
never
commanded
them
to
enter
into
any
such
Covenant
:
Your
Children
who
when
grown
up
if
wicked
and
ungodly
have
too
much
guilt
,
both
Original
sin
,
and
Actual
sin
,
lying
upon
them
,
there
is
little
need
to
add
to
their
Burden
;
for
their
want
of
Light
,
and
by
Reading
of
such
Mens
Books
,
they
may
perhaps
thus
charge
themselves
.
Mr.
Dan.
Williams
says
,
't
is
the
damning
sin
:
no
no
,
the
Damning
sin
is
the
breach
of
God's
Law
,
and
particularly
the
sin
of
unbelief
.
Nay
,
and
doth
not
his
words
Imply
that
when
your
Children
are
grown
up
,
and
they
by
Light
received
from
God's
word
,
should
be
couvinced
they
were
never
baptized
at
all
,
and
so
cast
off
and
renounce
their
Infants
Rautism
,
that
they
hereby
become
guilty
of
Perjury
,
and
must
be
Damned
,
for
he
speaks
not
of
those
sins
forbidden
in
God's
Word
,
but
the
violation
of
this
baptismal
Covenant
,
which
he
saith
is
Perjury
,
and
the
Damning
Sin
,
and
Root
of
all
Sin
.
O!
what
want
of
Charity
is
here
in
these
Men
,
and
what
New
and
strange
Doctrine
do
they
Teach
!
2.
Train
up
your
Children
in
the
fear
of
God
,
and
set
them
a
good
example
,
and
pray
for
them
,
and
over
them
and
give
them
good
Instruction
,
godly
Counsel
and
Admonition
:
And
see
that
you
neglect
not
to
Catechise
them
daily
,
that
so
they
may
understand
early
,
the
main
Grounds
and
Principles
of
Religion
;
but
dread
to
Baptize
them
in
Infancy
,
or
before
they
believe
and
have
the
inward
and
Spiritual
Grace
signified
in
true
Baptism
.
You
have
had
it
proved
from
God's
Word
,
that
there
is
no
Ground
nor
Authority
from
thence
to
baptize
Infants
,
and
know
't
is
not
in
the
power
of
Man
by
external
Rite
,
to
bring
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
nor
to
make
them
Members
of
his
Visible
Church
:
neither
Baptism
nor
the
Lords
Supper
are
Bread
for
Infants
;
but
for
Christ's
New
Born
Babes
,
1
Pet.
2.
1
,
2
,
3
,
5.
not
for
your
Children
as
such
,
but
such
only
that
are
the
true
Children
of
God
,
who
are
born
of
the
Spirit
.
3.
Do
not
go
about
directly
nor
indirectly
to
deceive
your
Children
,
by
making
them
believe
they
are
in
a
good
condition
,
by
reason
they
are
the
Seed
of
believing
Parents
,
and
Baptized
as
these
Men
call
Sprinkling
,
and
so
that
way
made
Christians
,
and
so
from
hence
perhaps
look
for
no
further
or
other
work
of
Grace
,
or
regeneration
;
but
think
they
by
this
pretended
baptism
are
the
Children
of
God
,
Members
of
Christ
,
and
Inheritors
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
;
when
't
is
in
Truth
no
such
thing
,
nor
have
you
any
cause
to
doubt
but
that
your
Infants
,
who
die
tho'
not
baptized
are
happy
,
as
appears
from
what
we
have
said
,
neither
be
you
so
ignorant
to
believe
that
baptism
can
save
your
Infants
,
or
the
Adult
either
;
nor
let
poor
Children
cry
out
against
their
ungodly
Parents
,
as
some
of
these
pedo-baptists
intimate
they
may
do
.
Pray
see
what
Mr.
Burkitt
saith
in
his
Book
.
page
62.
Before
your
Children
are
born
,
make
sure
as
much
as
in
you
lieth
,
that
they
may
be
born
within
the
Covenant
,
and
under
the
promise
,
by
your
being
in
Covenant
with
God
Your selves
;
see
that
the
Lord
be
your
God
in
Covenant
with
you
,
and
then
you
may
comfortably
hope
he
will
be
the
God
of
your
Seed
.
Answ.
This
Doctrine
implys
,
that
't
is
in
the
power
of
Men
and
Women
to
bring
their
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
as
also
it
denotes
that
the
Children
of
believers
are
not
Born
Children
of
Wrath
by
Nature
,
for
are
those
that
are
born
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
born
Children
of
Wrath
?
O
ye
Parents
,
know
that
you
may
be
in
Covenant
,
and
your
Children
never
in
it
whilst
they
live
,
nay
die
out
of
Covenant
,
as
doubtless
many
Children
of
the
Faithful
do
.
Nor
hath
God
made
any
such
Covenant
with
any
believer
,
and
their
Natural
Seed
as
such
,
as
he
made
with
Abraham
,
who
was
the
Father
of
all
that
believe
,
but
so
are
not
you
nor
I
,
tho'
we
are
believers
and
in
Covenant
with
God
,
and
walk
in
Abrahams
Steps
.
Those
that
are
in
the
Electiof
Grace
of
your
Seed
,
never
fear
,
but
God
will
in
due
time
bring
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
give
all
the
Covenant
Blessings
and
Priviledges
,
but
if
any
of
them
are
not
comprehended
in
the
Election
of
Grace
,
their
being
born
of
your
Loyns
,
will
not
,
cannot
bring
them
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
nor
give
them
a
right
to
the
Seal
thereof
,
viz.
the
holy
Spirit
;
nor
can
baptism
bring
any
into
it
,
which
is
only
an
outward
Sign
of
our
being
in
that
Covenant
,
or
of
that
divine
and
spiritual
Grace
we
received
,
before
we
were
baptized
as
I
have
proved
.
Your
business
and
your
Childrens
also
,
is
to
make
your
own
Election
sure
,
by
special
and
effectual
calling
.
'T
is
not
the
first
birth
,
but
the
second
that
brings
either
you
or
your
Children
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
so
that
we
and
they
may
have
God
to
be
our
God
by
way
of
special
Interest
.
But
mark
Mr.
Burkitts
next
words
,
page
62.
O!
were
but
Infants
capable
of
knowledge
,
how
much
would
they
dread
being
born
of
wicked
Parents
?
make
it
your
endeavour
before
your
Children
are
born
to
sanctifie
your
poor
Children
,
this
is
done
by
prayer
,
&c.
1.
Answ.
This
is
enough
to
set
the
Children
against
their
ungodly
Parents
,
nay
to
hate
them
in
their
Hearts
:
Alas
!
the
Children
of
wicked
Parents
,
I
see
not
,
but
they
may
be
in
as
good
a
Condition
as
many
Children
of
believers
(
tho'
I
doubt
not
but
God
doth
let
out
his
infinite
Grace
generally
more
to
the
seed
of
the
Faithful
when
grown
up
then
to
others
)
but
God
will
not
certainly
destroy
poor
Children
for
the
fault
and
unbelief
of
their
Parents
.
Therefore
as
your
begetting
them
in
the
first
birth
,
tho'
gracious
cannot
save
them
,
so
your
begetting
them
,
tho'
wicked
cannot
damn
or
destroy
them
.
There
is
no
reason
saith
Mr.
Perkins
,
that
the
wickedness
of
the
Parents
should
prejudice
the
Children
in
things
pertaining
to
eternal
Life
.
Perkins
on
Gal.
3.
p.
264.
2.
However
if
it
be
as
Mr.
Burkitt
and
Mr.
Owen
say
,
that
when
believers
are
in
Covenant
their
Children
are
in
Covenant
also
;
Doubtless
they
are
in
a
safe
condition
,
whether
baptized
or
not
,
that
doth
not
bring
them
into
Covenant
.
3.
But
may
not
this
Doctrine
of
theirs
,
put
a
just
rebuke
upon
unbelievers
or
ungoly
persons
,
for
once
attempting
to
Marry
and
beget
Childre
that
are
in
such
a
sad
condition
,
by
reason
their
Parents
were
not
in
Covenant
with
God
,
ought
they
,
nay
may
they
lawfully
Marry
,
this
being
consider'd
,
and
such
dreadful
effects
following
,
upon
their
poor
Babes
;
besides
,
how
far
doth
this
Covenant
blessing
and
priviledge
extend
?
If
my
Grand
Father
,
was
in
Covenant
,
tho'
my
Father
and
I
too
,
are
wicked
and
ungodly
Persons
,
are
not
we
still
in
Covenant
with
God
.
The
Covenant
of
Peculiarity
God
made
with
Abraham
,
viz.
that
of
Circumcision
,
extended
not
only
to
his
immediate
Seed
or
Off-Spring
;
but
to
all
his
Natural
Seed
successively
in
their
Generations
,
untill
Christ
came
and
put
an
end
to
that
external
Covenant
,
and
Covenant
Right
.
CHAP.
XXV
.
Containing
several
Queries
for
Mr.
Owen
to
answer
,
since
the
Athenian
Society
have
not
done
it
,
who
some
time
since
did
attempt
it
.
Sir
,
I
Having
wrote
a
few
Queries
lately
about
Infant
Baptism
,
for
the
Athenian
Society
,
to
answer
upon
their
bold
Challenge
;
and
since
they
are
too
hard
for
them
to
do
it
,
having
said
nothing
at
all
to
the
purpose
;
I
shall
expect
to
see
them
answered
by
you
,
when
you
answer
this
reply
to
your
Book
,
I
shall
not
trouble
you
with
all
,
but
only
with
a
few
of
them
.
Query
,
1.
Whether
the
being
the
Children
of
Abraham
,
as
such
,
gave
them
a
right
to
Circumcision
,
or
rather
the
meer
positive
Command
of
God
to
Abraham
?
To
this
they
gave
no
Answer
.
Query
2.
Whether
Circumcision
could
be
said
to
be
a
Seal
of
any
Mans
Faith
,
save
Abraham's
only
,
seeing
't
is
only
called
the
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
Faith
,
and
also
of
the
Faith
which
he
had
,
being
yet
uncircumcised
?
To
this
the
Athenian
Society
answer
,
amongst
the
Ancient
Hereticks
,
they
never
met
with
such
a
strange
position
as
this
,
viz.
that
the
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
was
the
priviledge
of
Abraham
only
.
Is
this
an
answer
?
Besides
they
mistake
,
it
is
not
a
Position
,
but
a
Question
.
Furthermore
't
is
said
that
Abraham
received
the
sign
of
Circumcision
,
not
only
as
a
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
that
Faith
he
had
,
being
yet
uncircumcised
,
but
also
(
Mark
)
that
he
might
be
the
Father
of
all
that
believe
.
Was
this
the
priviledge
of
any
save
Abraham
only
?
Query
3.
What
do
you
conceive
Circumcision
did
,
or
Baptism
doth
seal
,
or
doth
make
sure
to
Infants
,
since
a
Seal
usually
makes
firm
all
the
blessings
and
priviledges
contained
in
that
Covenant
't
is
affixed
to
?
The
Athenians
answer
.
It
Seals
and
did
seal
to
all
that
did
belong
to
Christ
,
Life
and
Salvation
,
but
to
such
as
do
not
,
it
Seals
nothing
at
all
.
To
which
I
reply
.
How
dare
any
Man
Seal
the
Covenant
of
Salvation
to
such
,
who
have
not
that
Faith
Abraham
had
,
before
he
received
that
Seal
?
It
was
not
a
Seal
of
that
Faith
he
might
have
,
or
might
not
have
afterwards
,
but
of
that
Faith
he
had
before
he
received
it
.
Secondly
I
affirm
Baptism
is
no
Seal
at
all
of
Salvation
,
for
if
it
was
,
and
of
God's
appointment
,
all
that
are
Sealed
would
be
saved
;
even
Simon
Magus
,
but
many
who
are
Baptized
,
may
perish
eternally
,
and
do
no
doubt
.
Query
4.
I
demand
to
know
what
those
external
priviledges
are
,
Infants
partake
of
in
Baptism
,
seeing
they
are
denyed
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
and
all
other
external
Rites
whatsoever
?
If
you
say
when
they
believe
,
they
shall
partake
of
those
priviledges
and
blessings
;
so
say
I
shall
the
Children
of
unbelievers
,
Turks
and
Pagans
as
well
as
they
.
The
Athenian
Society
answer
.
We
insist
not
upon
external
priviledges
;
't
is
forrein
to
the
Matter
.
1.
Ans.
If
you
insist
not
on
internal
priviledges
nor
on
external
priviledges
,
that
are
Sealed
to
Infants
that
are
Baptized
,
what
does
their
Baptism
signifie
?
Just
nothing
;
but
which
is
worse
;
't
is
a
prophanation
of
Christ's
Holy
significant
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
and
this
indeed
is
worst
of
all
.
Query
5.
If
the
fleshly
Seed
,
or
Children
of
believing
Gentiles
,
as
such
,
are
to
be
counted
the
Seed
of
Abraham
;
I
Query
whither
they
are
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
or
his
Natural
Seed
?
if
not
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
nor
his
Natural
Seed
,
what
right
can
they
have
to
Baptism
or
Church
Membership
,
from
any
Covenant
Transaction
God
made
with
Abraham
?
The
Athenians
answer
.
They
are
his
Spiritual
Seed
Visible
,
for
so
far
only
belongs
to
us
to
Judge
;
and
therefore
they
have
a
right
to
the
Seal
of
that
Covenant
.
Reply
,
What
they
say
cannot
be
true
,
because
the
Scripture
positively
saith
,
that
such
who
are
the
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
walk
in
the
Steps
of
Abraham
,
and
are
Christ's
,
Gal.
3.
ult
.
But
Infants
of
Believers
,
as
such
,
cannot
be
said
to
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
nor
to
walk
in
Abrahams
Steps
,
&c.
2.
Such
who
are
Abrahams
Spiritual
Seed
,
are
in
the
Election
of
Grace
,
and
are
always
his
Seed
,
not
for
so
long
,
but
for
ever
,
we
can
judge
none
to
be
Abraham's
Spiritual
Seed
,
but
such
only
in
whom
these
Signs
appear
before
mentioned
;
but
none
of
those
Signs
appear
,
nor
can
appear
in
Infants
;
therefore
we
cannot
judge
they
are
his
Spiritual
Seed
,
to
whom
the
Seal
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
of
right
does
belong
.
Query
6.
Whither
the
Children
of
Believers
are
in
the
Covenant
of
Grace
absolutely
,
or
but
conditionally
,
if
only
conditionally
,
what
further
priviledge
have
they
above
the
Children
of
unbelievers
.
Query
7.
Whither
those
different
Grounds
upon
which
the
right
of
Infant
Baptism
,
is
pretended
by
the
Ancient
Fathers
of
Old
,
and
the
Modern
Divines
,
doth
well
agree
,
with
an
Institution
,
that
is
a
meer
positive
right
,
wholly
depending
on
the
Sovereign
will
of
the
Legislator
,
and
whether
this
doth
not
give
just
cause
to
all
to
question
its
authority
?
1.
Some
Pedo-baptists
asserted
,
it
took
away
Original
Sin
;
and
such
who
denyed
it
were
Anathematized
.
2.
Some
affirm
that
Children
are
in
Covenant
,
and
being
the
Seed
of
Believers
are
Faederally
Holy
,
therefore
to
be
Baptized
.
3.
Another
sort
of
Pedo-baptists
,
say
they
ought
to
be
baptized
by
vertue
of
their
Parents
Faith
.
4.
Another
sort
Baptize
them
upon
the
Faith
of
their
Sureties
.
5.
Others
say
by
the
Faith
of
the
Church
,
as
Austin
,
Bernard
,
&c.
6.
Others
say
they
have
Faith
themselves
,
i.
e.
Habitual
Faith
;
and
therefore
must
be
baptized
.
7.
Some
say
it
is
only
an
Apostolical
unwritten
Tradition
,
But
others
deny
that
,
and
say
it
may
be
proved
from
the
Scripture
.
8.
Others
say
't
is
a
Regenerating
Ordinance
,
and
Infants
are
thereby
put
into
a
savable
State
:
Others
say
,
the
Infants
of
Believers
are
born
therefore
safe
before
in
Covenant
with
their
Parents
.
To
this
Query
they
say
nothing
,
pretending
they
had
answer'd
it
before
.
Query
8.
Whither
that
can
be
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
for
which
there
is
neither
precept
nor
example
,
nor
plain
and
undeniable
Consequences
for
it
in
all
God's
Word
,
nor
promise
made
to
such
who
do
it
,
nor
threats
pronounced
on
such
as
neglect
it
?
Their
answer
is
there
,
About
Womens
Receiving
the
Sacrament
,
&c.
Query
9.
Whether
in
matter
of
meer
positive
Right
,
such
as
Baptism
is
,
we
ought
not
to
keep
expresly
and
punctually
to
the
Revelation
of
the
Will
of
the
Law-giver
?
They
answer
,
yes
.
Reply
.
Then
your
Cause
is
lost
,
for
God's
Word
expresly
directs
us
to
Baptize
only
such
who
are
first
Taught
,
or
made
Disciples
by
Teaching
,
or
who
make
a
profession
of
their
Faith
;
and
Dipping
is
the
express
Act
of
Baptizing
,
as
practised
in
the
New
Testament
,
which
a
great
Clound
of
Witnesses
testifie
.
Query
10.
Whether
the
Baptism
of
Infants
be
not
a
dangerous
Error
,
since
it
tends
to
deceive
poor
Ignorant
People
,
who
think
they
are
thereby
made
Christians
and
Regenerated
,
and
so
never
look
after
any
other
Regeneration
or
Baptism
,
that
represents
or
or
holds
forth
the
inward
work
of
God's
Grace
?
They
answer
,
They
never
tell
them
they
are
made
Christians
throughly
,
&c.
Then
I
Appeal
to
all
Men
,
who
have
Read
the
Old
Church
Catechism
.
—
In
my
Baptism
,
wherein
I
was
made
a
Child
of
God
,
a
Member
of
Christ
and
an
Inheritor
of
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
11.
Since
we
read
but
of
one
Baptism
in
Water
,
and
that
one
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Adult
,
i.
e.
such
who
profess
Faith
,
&c.
How
can
Infant
Baptism
or
rather
Rantism
be
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
.
12.
Whether
there
is
any
Covenant
appointed
by
Christ
for
Infants
to
enter
into
,
unto
which
no
promise
is
made
of
assistance
to
perform
it
,
nor
Blessing
promised
if
it
be
kept
,
nor
one
threatning
if
cast
off
and
disowned
?
13.
What
should
be
the
reason
that
our
Translators
of
the
Holy
Bible
should
leave
the
Greek
word
Baptism
,
or
Baptisma
,
untranslated
:
seeing
the
Dutch
have
not
done
so
;
but
contrarywise
Translate
for
John
Baptist
John
the
Dipper
,
and
for
he
Baptized
them
,
he
Dipped
them
.
The
Athenian
Society
answer
,
They
are
the
best
Judges
themselves
,
and
if
we
can
understand
them
't
is
enough
.
Reply
.
No
,
tho'
the
Learned
in
the
Greek
do
know
what
the
word
Baptizo
and
Baptisma
is
,
yet
the
unlearned
in
that
Tongue
do
not
know
that
it
is
to
Dip
or
Immersion
,
●…refore
't
is
not
enough
.
14.
Whither
such
who
have
been
Sprinkled
,
ought
not
to
be
deemed
unbaptized
Persons
,
since
asperson
is
not
Immersion
,
or
Rantizing
not
Baptizing
,
seeing
the
Greek
word
signifies
to
Dip
;
and
tho'
sometimes
to
Wash
;
yet
such
a
Washing
as
is
by
Dipping
,
as
the
Learned
confess
.
To
this
they
say
,
Those
that
doubt
may
be
of
the
surer
side
.
15.
Whither
the
Ancient
Church
,
who
gave
the
Lords
Supper
to
Infants
as
well
as
baptism
might
not
be
allowed
to
do
the
one
as
the
other
;
since
Faith
and
Holy
Habits
,
yea
to
believe
with
all
the
Heart
,
is
required
of
them
that
are
to
be
Baptized
,
as
Faith
,
Examination
,
and
to
discern
the
Lord's
Body
,
is
required
of
them
that
partake
of
the
Lord's
Supper
,
and
since
also
all
that
were
baptized
into
the
Apostolick
Church
,
were
immeditely
admitted
to
the
Lord's
Supper
;
and
also
seeing
the
arguments
taken
from
the
Covenant
,
and
because
Children
are
said
to
be
Holy
,
and
belong
to
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
are
as
strong
for
their
being
admitted
to
both
the
Sacraments
as
one
,
and
there
being
no
Command
nor
example
for
either
,
and
Human
Tradition
carrying
it
equally
for
both
for
several
Centuries
.
16.
Whither
Nadab
,
Abihu
and
Uzzah's
Transgressions
were
not
as
much
Circumstantials
;
and
so
as
small
Errors
,
as
it
is
to
alter
Dipping
into
Sprinkling
,
and
from
an
understanding
believer
,
to
an
Infant
that
understands
not
its
Right
Hand
from
its
Left
;
and
whether
to
allow
the
Church
a
power
to
make
such
alterations
be
not
dangerous
,
it
being
an
adding
and
diminishing
from
God's
Word
,
see
Rev.
22.
18.
and
doth
not
this
open
likewise
a
Door
to
any
other
like
innovation
?
17.
Whither
there
is
any
just
cause
for
Men
to
vilifie
and
reproach
the
Baptists
with
the
Name
of
Anabaptists
,
for
their
Baptizing
Believers
,
seeing
aspersion
is
not
baptizing
,
and
in
regard
also
,
that
they
have
the
direct
and
positive
Word
and
Command
of
Christ
so
to
do
,
and
not
only
the
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
Mark
16.
but
also
the
constant
use
of
the
Apostles
,
and
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
,
all
along
in
the
New
Testament
,
who
baptized
none
but
such
who
made
a
profession
of
their
Faith
in
the
Gospel
time
;
observable
't
is
also
,
that
the
Church
of
England
also
saith
,
that
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
such
who
are
to
be
baptized
.
18.
Whither
if
our
Translators
had
Translated
the
Greek
Word
Baptizo
,
from
●●pto
,
they
must
not
have
Translated
it
,
Dipping
or
to
Dip
from
the
Native
and
Genuine
signification
of
the
word
,
and
whether
they
have
done
well
to
leave
those
words
in
the
Original
Tongue
,
without
giving
the
plain
meaning
in
the
English
?
19.
Seeing
the
Greek
Church
uses
Immersion
to
this
Day
,
and
not
aspersion
or
Sprinkling
,
may
not
it
be
a
great
argument
against
Sprinkling
,
seeing
also
that
they
disown
the
Baptism
of
the
Latin
Church
,
because
they
do
not
Dip
:
For
doubtless
the
Greeks
best
know
the
genuine
,
literal
and
proper
signification
of
that
Word
,
that
Tongue
being
their
own
Natural
Language
,
in
which
the
New
Testament
was
Originally
written
.
20.
What
reason
can
be
given
why
Nazianzen
an
Eminent
Greek
Father
should
Counsel
the
deferring
the
Baptism
of
Infants
untill
the
third
or
fourth
year
of
their
Age
(
except
in
danger
of
Death
)
if
it
were
in
Nazianzen's
time
,
as
some
suppose
it
was
,
the
Opinion
of
the
whole
Church
,
as
also
his
own
,
that
Infants
by
an
Apostolical
Tradition
,
were
to
be
baptized
as
such
,
that
is
as
soon
as
born
.
21.
Whither
all
the
Fathers
of
the
Third
and
Fourth
Century
,
both
of
the
Greek
and
Latin
Church
,
who
have
wrote
any
thing
about
Infant
Baptism
,
do
not
unanimously
give
this
as
the
reason
why
Infants
should
be
baptized
,
viz.
for
to
wash
away
Original
Sin
,
or
the
putting
them
into
a
capacity
of
Salvation
;
and
some
of
them
,
particularly
St.
Austin
sentencing
Infants
to
Damnation
if
not
Baptized
.
22.
If
so
,
whether
the
Fathers
might
not
be
mistaken
in
the
Right
of
Infant
Baptifm
,
as
well
as
in
the
Judgment
of
most
Protestants
they
,
were
touching
the
reason
why
they
should
be
baptized
.
23.
Whither
God
hath
allowed
or
enjoyned
Parents
to
bring
their
little
Babes
of
Two
or
Ten
days
Old
into
a
Covenant
with
him
by
Baptism
,
since
't
is
not
to
be
found
in
the
Holy
Scripture
,
that
he
either
hath
allowed
or
injoyned
them
so
to
do
,
there
being
neither
Command
nor
Example
nor
the
least
intimation
given
for
them
to
do
it
?
24.
If
it
cannot
be
proved
he
hath
required
any
such
thing
at
their
Hands
,
whether
that
Covenant
can
be
said
to
bind
their
Conscience
when
they
come
to
Age
,
especially
since
they
gave
no
consent
to
do
it
,
nor
were
capable
so
to
do
?
25.
And
if
this
pretended
Covenant
was
not
of
God's
appointment
,
I
Query
how
those
Children
who
refuse
to
agree
to
the
said
Covenant
,
when
they
come
to
Age
,
can
be
guilty
(
as
Mr.
Daniel
Williams
says
)
1.
of
rejecting
Christ
.
2.
Of
renouncing
the
blessings
of
the
Gospel
.
3.
And
that
't
is
Rebellion
continued
against
their
Parents
.
4.
That
it
is
Ingratitude
and
Perjury
to
their
Redeemer
.
5.
Gross
injustice
to
their
Parents
.
6.
That
it
is
self-killing
Cruelty
to
their
own
Souls
.
7.
The
damning
Sin
.
I
Query
whether
this
is
good
Divinity
or
not
,
or
rather
is
it
not
a
strange
Doctrin
,
and
whether
those
unwarrantable
Articles
of
Faith
taken
out
of
the
Jewish
Talmud
or
Turkish
Alcoran
,
may
not
be
of
as
good
Authority
or
whether
it
be
fit
to
put
such
positions
into
a
Christian
Catechism
,
as
these
are
.
Pray
be
pleased
to
Answer
these
plain
Queries
when
you
write
again
,
or
Reply
to
this
answer
of
your
Book
.
CHAP.
XXVI
.
Containing
Divers
Arguments
to
disprove
Pedo-Baptism
,
and
to
prove
the
Baptism
of
Believers
,
which
Mr.
Owen
is
desir'd
to
Answer
when
he
writes
again
.
Arg.
1.
IF
none
are
to
be
Baptized
by
the
Authority
of
the
Great
Commission
of
our
blessed
Saviour
,
Mat.
28.
but
such
who
are
first
Taught
or
made
Disciples
by
Teaching
,
then
Infants
who
are
not
capable
to
be
taught
,
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
But
none
are
to
be
baptized
by
the
Authority
of
the
great
Commission
of
our
Blessed
Saviour
,
but
such
who
are
first
Taught
or
made
Disciples
by
Teaching
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
.
Arg.
2.
If
Infant
Baptism
was
never
Instituted
,
Commanded
,
or
Appointed
of
God
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
.
But
Infant
baptism
was
never
Instituted
,
Commanded
or
Appointed
of
God
;
Ergo
they
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
As
to
the
Major
;
if
one
thing
may
be
practised
as
an
Ordinance
without
an
Institution
,
or
Command
of
God
,
another
thing
may
also
;
and
so
any
Innovation
may
be
let
into
the
Church
.
As
to
the
Minor
;
If
there
is
an
Institution
for
it
,
&c.
'T
is
either
contained
in
the
great
Commission
,
Mat.
28.
Mark
16.
or
somewhere
else
.
But
't
is
not
contained
in
the
great
Commission
,
nor
any
where
else
,
Ergo
,
&c.
The
Major
none
will
deny
.
The
Minor
I
prove
thus
.
None
are
to
be
baptized
by
virtue
of
the
Commission
,
but
such
who
are
Discipled
by
the
Word
,
as
I
said
before
,
and
so
the
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
.
If
any
should
say
Christ
Commanded
his
Disciples
to
Baptize
all
Nations
,
and
Infants
are
part
of
Nations
,
therefore
ought
to
be
baptized
,
I
answer
,
Arg.
3.
If
all
Nations
or
any
in
the
Nations
ought
to
be
Baptized
before
Discipled
;
then
Turks
,
Pagans
,
unbelievers
and
their
Children
may
be
Baptized
,
because
they
are
a
great
part
of
the
Nations
,
but
Turks
,
Pagans
and
unbelievers
,
and
their
Children
ought
not
to
be
baptized
,
Ergo
,
&c.
Besides
,
That
Teaching
(
by
the
Authority
of
the
Commission
)
must
go
before
baptizing
,
we
have
proved
;
which
generally
all
Learned
Men
do
assert
:
If
the
Institution
is
to
be
found
any
where
else
,
they
must
shew
the
place
.
Arg.
4.
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
that
ought
to
be
baptized
;
but
Infants
are
not
required
to
Believe
and
Repent
,
nor
are
they
capable
so
to
do
,
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
The
Major
is
clear
,
Acts
2.
8.
10.
16.
Chapters
,
and
it
s
also
asserted
by
the
Church
of
Ergland
.
What
is
required
of
Persons
to
be
baptized
?
that
's
the
Question
.
the
Answer
is
,
Repentance
,
whereby
they
forsake
Sin
;
and
Faith
,
whereby
they
stedfastly
believe
the
promise
of
God
made
to
them
in
that
Sacrament
.
The
Minor
cannot
be
denyed
.
Arg.
5.
That
practice
that
tends
not
to
the
Glory
of
God
,
nor
the
profit
of
the
Child
,
when
done
,
nor
in
aftertimes
when
grown
up
,
but
may
prove
hurtful
,
and
of
a
dangerous
Nature
to
him
,
cannot
be
a
Truth
of
God
,
but
the
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
tends
not
to
the
Glory
of
God
,
nor
〈◊〉
profit
of
the
Child
,
when
Baptized
,
nor
in
aftertimes
when
grown
up
,
but
may
be
hurtful
and
of
a
dangerous
Nature
to
him
,
Ergo
,
See
Levit.
10.
1
,
2.
Where
Moses
told
Aaron
,
Because
his
Sons
had
done
that
which
God
the
Lord
Commanded
them
not
,
That
God
would
be
Sanctified
by
all
that
drew
near
unto
him
;
intimating
that
such
who
did
that
which
God
Commanded
them
not
,
did
not
Sanctifie
or
Glorifie
God
therein
.
Can
God
be
glorified
by
Man's
Disobedience
,
or
by
adding
to
his
Word
;
by
doing
that
which
God
hath
not
required
?
Mat.
16.
9.
In
vain
do
you
Worship
me
,
Teaching
for
Doctrine
the
Commandments
of
Men.
And
that
that
practice
doth
profit
the
Child
,
none
can
prove
from
God's
Word
.
And
in
after
times
when
grown
up
,
it
may
cause
the
Person
to
think
he
was
thereby
made
a
Christian
,
&c.
and
brought
into
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
and
had
it
sealed
to
him
,
nay
thereby
regenerated
,
for
so
the
Athenian
Society
in
their
Mercury
,
December
26.
plainly
intimate
,
and
that
Infants
are
thereby
ingrafted
also
into
Christs
Church
.
Sure
all
understanding
Men
know
the
Baptism
of
Believers
is
not
called
Regeneration
,
but
only
Metonymically
,
it
being
a
Figure
of
Regeneration
.
But
they
Ignorantly
affirm
also
,
that
Infants
then
have
a
Federal
Holiness
,
as
if
this
imagined
Holiness
comes
in
by
the
Parents
Faith
,
or
by
the
Childs
Covenant
in
Baptism
,
which
may
prove
hurtful
&
dangerous
to
them
,
and
cause
them
to
think
Baptism
confers
Grace
,
which
is
a
great
error
.
How
can
water
(
saith
Mr.
Charnock
)
an
external
thing
,
work
upon
the
Soul
Physically
?
nor
can
it
(
saith
he
)
be
proved
that
ever
the
Spirit
of
God
is
tied
by
any
promise
to
apply
himself
to
the
Soul
in
a
gracious
operation
,
when
Water
is
applyed
to
the
Body
.
If
it
were
so
,
then
all
that
were
baptized
should
be
saved
,
or
else
the
Doctrine
of
Perseverance
falls
to
the
Ground
.
Some
indeed
(
says
he
)
say
,
that
Regeneration
is
conferred
in
Baptism
upon
the
Elect
,
and
exerts
its
self
afterwards
in
Conversion
.
But
how
so
active
a
Principle
as
Spiritual
Life
,
should
lye
dead
and
a
sleep
so
many
years
,
&c.
is
not
easily
conceived
.
On
Regen
.
page
75.
Arg.
6.
If
the
Church
of
England
says
,
that
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
that
ought
to
be
baptized
,
and
in
so
saying
,
speaks
truly
,
and
yet
Infants
can't
perform
those
things
;
then
Infants
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
.
But
the
Church
of
England
says
that
Faith
and
Repentance
are
required
of
all
such
,
&c.
and
speak
truly
,
and
yet
Infants
cannot
perform
these
things
,
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Obj.
If
it
be
objected
,
That
they
affirm
they
do
perform
by
their
Sureties
.
Ans.
If
Suretiship
for
Children
in
Baptism
is
not
required
of
God
,
and
the
Sureties
do
not
,
yea
cannot
perform
those
things
for
the
Child
,
then
Suretyship
is
not
of
God
,
and
so
signifies
nothing
,
but
is
an
unlawful
,
and
sinful
undertaking
;
but
Suretiship
in
Childrens
Baptism
is
not
required
of
God
,
and
they
do
not
,
cannot
perform
what
they
promise
,
Ergo
,
&c.
Do
they
,
or
can
they
cause
the
Child
to
forsake
the
Devil
and
all
his
works
,
the
Pomps
and
Vanities
of
this
wicked
World
,
and
all
the
sinful
Lusts
of
the
Flesh
?
In
a
word
,
can
they
make
the
Child
,
or
Children
,
to
repent
and
truly
believe
in
Jesus
Christ
?
for
these
are
the
things
they
promise
for
them
and
in
their
Name
.
Alas
!
they
want
power
to
do
it
for
themselves
,
and
how
then
should
they
do
it
for
others
?
Besides
,
we
see
they
never
mind
nor
regard
their
Covenant
in
the
case
;
and
will
not
God
one
day
say
,
who
has
required
these
things
at
your
hands
?
Arg.
7.
If
there
be
no
president
in
the
Scripture
,
(
as
there
is
no
precept
)
that
any
Infant
was
baptized
,
then
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
;
But
there
is
no
president
that
any
Infant
was
baptized
in
the
Scripture
,
Ergo.
If
there
is
any
precedent
or
example
in
Scripture
,
that
any
Infant
was
baptized
,
let
them
shew
us
where
we
may
find
it
.
Erasmus
saith
,
'T
is
no
where
expressed
in
the
Apostolical
writings
,
that
they
baptized
Children
.
Union
of
the
Church
,
and
on
Rom.
6.
Calvin
saith
,
't
is
no
where
expressed
by
the
Evangelists
;
that
any
one
Infant
was
baptized
by
the
Apostles
.
Instit.
cap.
16.
lib.
4.
Ludovicus
Vives
saith
,
None
of
Old
were
wont
to
be
baptized
but
in
grown
Age
,
and
who
desired
and
understood
what
it
was
.
Vide
Lud.
The
Magdeburgenses
say
,
That
concerning
the
bap●…ing
the
Adult
,
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
we
have
sufficient
proof
,
Acts.
2.
8
,
10.
16.
Chap.
but
as
to
the
baptizing
of
Infants
,
they
can
meet
with
no
example
in
Scripture
.
Magdeb.
Cant.
l.
2.
page
.
469.
Dr.
Taylor
saith
,
It
is
against
the
perpetual
Analogie
of
Christs
Doctrine
to
baptize
Infants
:
For
besides
that
Christ
never
gave
any
precept
to
baptize
them
,
nor
ever
himself
nor
his
Apostles
(
that
appears
)
did
baptize
any
of
them
;
so
all
that
either
he
or
his
Apostles
said
concerning
it
,
requires
such
previous
dispositions
of
baptism
,
of
which
Infants
are
not
capable
,
viz.
Faith
and
Repentance
.
Lib.
proph.
page
239.
Arg.
8.
If
whatsoever
is
necessary
to
Faith
and
practice
is
left
in
the
Holy
Scripture
,
that
being
a
compleat
and
perfect
Rule
,
and
yet
Infant
Baptism
is
not
contained
,
or
to
be
found
therein
,
then
Infant
Baptism
is
not
of
God
;
but
whatever
is
necessary
to
Faith
and
Practice
is
contained
in
the
Holy
Scriptures
,
&c.
but
Infant
baptism
is
not
to
be
found
therein
,
Ergo.
That
the
Scripture
is
a
perfect
Rule
,
&c.
we
have
the
consent
of
all
the
Ancient
Fathers
,
and
Modern
Divines
.
Athanasins
saith
,
The
Holy
Scriptures
being
Inspirations
of
God
,
are
sufficient
to
all
Instructions
of
Truth
.
Athan.
against
the
Gentiles
.
Crysostom
saith
,
All
things
be
plain
and
clear
in
the
Scripture
;
and
whatsoever
are
needful
,
are
manifest
there
.
Chrysost.
on
2
Thess.
and
2
Tim.
2.
Basil
saith
,
That
it
would
be
an
Argument
of
Infidelity
,
and
a
most
certain
Sign
of
Pride
,
if
any
Man
should
reject
any
thing
written
,
and
should
Introduce
things
not
written
.
Basil
in
his
Sermon
de
fide
.
Augustin
saith
,
In
the
Scriptures
are
found
all
things
which
contain
Faith
,
manner
of
Living
,
Hope
,
Love
,
&c.
Let
us
,
(
saith
he
)
seek
no
farther
then
what
is
written
of
God
our
Saviour
,
l●st
a
Man
would
know
more
that
the
Scriptures
witness
.
Augustin
in
his
198
Epistles
to
Fortunatus
.
Theophilact
saith
,
It
is
part
of
a
Diabolical
Spirit
to
think
any
thing
Divine
without
the
Authority
of
the
Holy
Scripture
.
Lib.
2.
pasch
.
Isychius
saith
,
Let
us
who
will
have
any
thing
observed
of
God
,
search
no
more
but
that
which
the
Gospel
doth
give
unto
us
.
Lib.
5.
cap.
16.
on
Levit.
Bellarmin
saith
,
That
though
the
Arguments
of
the
Anabaptists
,
from
the
defect
of
Command
or
Example
,
have
a
great
use
against
the
Lutherans
,
for
as
much
as
they
use
that
Rite
every
where
,
and
having
no
Command
or
Example
;
theirs
is
to
be
rejected
;
yet
is
it
of
no
force
against
Catholicks
,
who
conclude
that
an
Apostolical
Tradition
is
of
no
less
authority
with
us
than
the
Scripture
,
&c.
This
of
baptizing
of
Infants
is
an
Apostolical
Tradition
.
Bell.
Lib.
de
Bapt.
1.
cap.
8.
Mr.
Ball
saith
,
We
must
for
every
Ordinance
look
for
the
Institution
,
and
never
stretch
it
wider
,
nor
draw
it
narrower
than
the
Lord
hath
made
it
,
for
he
is
the
Institutor
of
the
Sacraments
,
according
to
his
own
pleasure
;
and
't
is
our
part
to
Learn
of
him
,
both
to
whom
,
how
,
and
for
what
end
the
Sacraments
are
to
be
administred
.
Ball
in
his
answer
of
the
New-England
Elders
page
38
,
39.
And
as
to
the
Minor
't
is
acknowledged
by
our
Adversaries
,
it
is
not
to
be
found
in
the
Letter
of
the
Scripture
And
as
to
the
Consequences
drawn
therefrom
,
(
we
have
proved
,
)
they
are
not
Natural
from
the
premises
;
and
tho'
we
will
admit
of
Consequences
and
Inferences
if
Genuine
,
yet
not
in
the
case
of
an
Institution
respecting
a
practical
Ordinance
that
is
of
meer
positive
Right
.
Arg.
9.
If
Infant
Baptism
was
an
Institution
of
Christ
,
the
Pedo-baptists
could
not
be
at
a
loss
about
the
Grounds
of
the
Right
Infants
have
to
Baptism
:
but
the
Pedo-baptists
are
at
a
great
loss
,
and
differ
exceedingly
about
the
Grounds
of
the
Right
Infants
have
to
Baptism
,
Ergo
't
is
no
Institution
of
Christ
.
As
touching
the
Major
,
I
argue
thus
;
that
which
is
an
Institution
of
Christ
,
the
Holy
Scripture
doth
shew
,
as
well
the
end
,
and
ground
of
the
Ordinance
,
as
the
subject
and
manner
of
it
;
but
the
Scripture
speaks
nothing
of
the
end
and
ground
of
Pedo-baptism
,
or
for
what
reason
they
ought
to
be
baptized
,
Ergo
,
It
is
no
Institution
of
Christ
.
The
Minor
is
undeniable
;
some
affirm
as
we
have
already
shew'd
,
that
it
was
to
take
away
Original
Sin
;
others
say
it
is
,
theirs
right
by
the
Covenant
,
they
being
the
Seed
of
Believers
;
others
say
,
Infants
have
Faith
,
and
therefore
have
a
Right
;
others
say
,
they
have
a
Right
by
the
Faith
of
their
Surety
.
Some
ground
their
Right
from
Apostolical
Tradition
;
others
upon
the
authority
of
Scripture
:
Some
say
,
all
Children
of
professed
Christians
ought
to
be
baptized
,
others
say
none
but
the
Children
of
true
believers
have
a
Right
to
it
,
sure
if
it
was
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
his
word
would
soon
end
this
Controversie
.
Arg.
10.
If
the
Children
of
believing
Gentiles
,
as
such
,
are
not
the
Natural
nor
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
they
can
have
no
Right
to
Baptism
,
or
Church
Membership
,
by
virtue
of
any
Covenant
Transaction
God
made
with
Abraham
;
but
the
Children
of
Believing
Parents
,
as
such
,
are
not
the
Natural
,
nor
Spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
Ergo.
Arg.
11.
If
no
Man
can
prove
from
Scripture
that
any
Spiritual
benefit
redounds
to
Infants
in
their
Baptism
,
't
is
no
Ordinance
of
Christ
;
But
no
Man
can
prove
from
Scripture
,
that
any
spiritual
benefit
redounds
to
Infants
in
their
Baptism
,
Ergo.
Arg.
12.
That
cannot
be
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
for
which
there
is
neither
Command
,
nor
Example
in
all
God's
Word
,
nor
promise
to
such
who
do
it
,
nor
threatning
to
such
who
neglect
it
.
But
there
is
no
Command
or
Example
in
all
the
Word
of
God
for
the
Baptizing
of
little
Babes
,
nor
promise
made
to
such
who
are
Baptized
,
nor
threatnings
to
such
who
are
not
,
Ergo.
That
the
Child
lies
under
a
Promise
who
is
Baptized
,
or
the
Child
under
any
Threatning
or
Danger
who
is
not
Baptized
,
let
them
prove
it
,
since
it
is
denyed
.
Arg.
13.
If
no
Parents
at
any
time
,
or
times
,
have
been
by
God
the
Father
,
Jesus
Christ
,
or
his
Apostles
,
either
Commended
for
Baptizing
their
Children
,
or
Reproved
for
neglecting
to
Baptize
them
,
then
Infant
Baptism
is
no
Ordinance
of
God
;
But
no
Parents
at
any
time
or
times
have
been
by
God
Commended
for
baptizing
of
their
Children
,
nor
reprov'd
for
neglecting
to
baptize
them
&c.
Ergo
Infant
Baptism
is
no
Ordinance
of
God
.
This
Argument
will
stand
unanswerable
,
unless
any
can
shew
who
they
were
that
were
ever
Commended
for
Baptizing
their
Children
,
or
Reproved
for
neglecting
it
,
or
unless
they
can
shew
a
Parallel
case
.
Arg.
14.
If
Men
were
not
to
presume
to
alter
any
thing
in
the
Worship
of
God
under
the
Law
,
neither
to
add
thereto
,
nor
diminish
therefrom
,
and
God
is
as
strict
and
jealous
of
his
Worship
under
the
Gospel
,
then
nothing
ought
to
be
altered
in
God's
Worship
under
the
Gospel
;
but
under
the
Law
Men
were
not
to
presume
so
to
do
,
and
God
is
as
strict
and
jealous
under
the
Gospel
,
Ergo.
The
Major
cannot
be
denyed
.
The
Minor
is
clear
from
Exod.
25.
40.
See
thou
make
all
things
according
to
the
Pattern
shewed
thee
in
the
Mount
.
and
Lev.
10.
1
,
2.
See
how
Nadab
and
Abihu
,
sped
for
presuming
to
vary
from
the
Command
of
God
,
and
Uzzah
,
tho'
but
in
small
Circumstances
,
(
as
they
may
seem
to
us
.
)
How
dare
Men
adventure
,
this
being
so
,
to
change
Baptism
from
Dipping
into
Sprinkling
;
and
the
Subject
,
from
an
Adult
Believer
,
to
an
Ignorant
Babe
?
Add
thou
not
unto
his
word
,
&c.
Arg.
15.
Whatever
practice
opens
a
Door
to
any
Human
Traditions
in
God's
Worship
,
is
a
great
Evil
,
and
to
be
avoided
;
But
the
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
opens
a
Door
to
any
Human
Traditions
in
God's
Worship
,
Ergo
,
to
Sprinkle
or
Baptize
Infants
is
a
great
Evil
,
and
ought
to
be
avoided
.
The
Major
will
not
be
denied
.
The
Minor
is
clear
,
because
there
is
no
Scripture
ground
for
it
,
no
Command
or
Example
for
such
a
Practice
in
God's
Word
,
and
if
without
Scripture
Authority
,
the
Church
hath
power
to
do
one
thing
,
she
may
do
another
,
and
so
ad
infinitum
.
Arg.
16
,
Whatsoever
practice
reflects
upon
the
Honour
,
Wisdom
and
Care
of
Jesus
Christ
,
or
renders
him
less
faithful
than
Moses
and
the
New
Testament
in
one
of
its
great
Ordinances
,
nay
Sacraments
,
to
lie
more
obscure
in
God's
Word
,
than
any
Law
or
Precept
under
the
Old
Testament
,
cannot
be
of
God
;
But
the
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
reflects
on
the
Honour
,
Care
and
Faithfulness
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
renders
him
less
faithful
than
Moses
and
a
great
Ordinance
,
nay
Sacrament
,
of
the
New
Testament
,
to
lie
more
dark
and
obscure
than
any
Precept
under
the
Old
Testament
,
Ergo
,
Infant
Baptism
cannot
be
of
God
.
The
Major
cannot
be
denyed
.
The
Minor
is
easily
proved
:
For
he
is
bold
indeed
,
who
shall
affirm
Infant
Baptism
doth
not
lie
obscure
in
God's
Word
.
One
great
Party
who
assert
it
,
say
,
it
s
not
to
be
found
in
the
Scripture
at
all
,
but
't
is
an
unwritten
Apostolical
Tradition
:
Others
say
,
it
lies
not
the
Letter
of
the
Scripture
,
but
may
be
proved
by
Consequences
;
and
yet
some
great
asserters
of
it
,
as
Dr.
Hammond
and
others
say
,
those
Consequences
commonly
drawn
from
divers
Texts
for
it
,
are
without
demonstration
and
prove
nothing
.
I
am
sure
a
Man
may
Read
the
Scripture
a
Hundred
times
over
and
never
be
thereby
convinced
,
he
ought
to
baptize
his
Children
,
though
it
is
powerful
to
convince
Men
of
all
Christian
Duties
.
Now
can
this
be
a
Truth
,
since
Christ
was
more
Faithful
than
Moses
;
and
delivered
every
thing
plainly
from
the
Father
?
Moses
left
nothing
dark
as
to
matters
of
Duty
,
tho'
the
Precept
and
Eternal
Rites
of
his
Law
were
numerous
,
even
two
or
three
hundred
Precepts
;
yet
none
were
at
a
loss
,
or
had
need
to
say
,
is
this
a
Truth
or
an
Ordinance
,
or
not
?
for
he
that
Runs
may
Read
it
.
And
shall
one
positive
precept
given
forth
by
Christ
,
who
appointed
so
few
in
the
New
Testament
,
be
so
obscure
;
as
also
the
Ground
and
End
of
it
,
that
Men
should
be
confounded
about
the
Proofs
of
it
,
together
with
the
End
and
Grounds
thereof
?
See
Heb.
3.
5
,
6.
Arg.
17.
That
Custom
or
Law
which
Moses
never
delivered
to
the
Jews
,
nor
is
any
where
written
in
the
Old
Testament
was
no
Truth
of
God
,
or
of
Divine
Authority
.
But
that
Custom
or
Law
to
baptize
Proselytes
,
either
Men
,
Women
or
Children
,
was
never
given
to
the
Jews
by
Moses
,
nor
is
it
any
where
written
in
the
Old
Testament
,
Ergo
,
it
was
no
Truth
of
God
,
or
of
Divine
Authority
;
and
evident
it
is
,
according
to
that
Forementioned
and
Worthy
Author
Sir
.
Norton
Knatchbal
,
that
the
Jewish
Rabbins
differed
among
themselves
about
it
;
for
,
saith
he
,
to
Cite
his
very
words
again
,
Rabbi
Eleaezer
expresly
contradicts
Rabbi
Joshua
,
who
was
the
first
I
know
of
,
who
asserted
this
sort
of
Baptism
among
the
Jews
;
for
Eleazer
,
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
.
Arg.
18.
If
Baptism
is
of
Meer
positive
Right
,
wholly
depending
on
the
Will
and
Sovereign
Pleasure
of
Jesus
Christ
,
the
great
Legislator
,
and
he
hath
not
Requi
red
or
Commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
;
then
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
;
but
Baptism
is
of
meer
positive
right
,
wholly
depending
on
the
Will
and
Sovereign
pleasure
of
Jesus
Christ
,
the
great
Legislator
,
and
he
hath
not
required
or
Commanded
Infants
to
be
baptized
,
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
This
Argument
tends
to
cut
off
all
the
pretended
proofs
of
Pedo-baptism
,
taken
from
the
Covenant
made
with
Abraham
;
and
because
Children
are
said
to
belong
to
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
it
was
not
the
Right
of
Abraham's
Male
Children
to
be
Circumcised
,
because
they
were
begotten
,
and
born
of
the
Fruit
of
his
Loyns
,
till
he
received
Commandment
from
God
to
Circumcise
them
.
Had
he
done
it
before
,
or
without
Command
from
God
,
it
would
have
been
Will-worship
in
him
to
have
done
it
;
Moreover
,
this
further
appear●
to
be
so
,
because
no
godly
Mans
Children
,
nor
others
in
Abraham's
days
,
nor
since
,
had
any
Right
thereto
,
but
only
his
Children
,
(
or
such
who
were
bought
with
his
Money
,
or
were
proselyted
to
the
Jewish
Religion
)
because
they
had
no
Command
from
God
so
to
do
,
as
Abraham
had
.
This
being
true
,
it
follows
,
that
if
we
should
grant
Infants
of
believing
Gentiles
,
as
such
,
were
the
Seed
of
Abraham
,
which
we
deny
,
yet
unless
God
had
Commanded
them
to
baptize
their
Children
,
they
ought
not
to
do
it
;
and
if
they
do
it
without
a
Command
or
Authority
from
Christ
,
It
will
be
found
an
Act
of
Will-worship
in
them
.
Arg.
19.
All
that
were
baptized
in
the
Apostolical
Primitive
times
,
were
baptized
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
,
were
baptized
into
Christ
,
and
thereby
put
on
Christ
,
and
were
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
were
Abraham's
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
.
But
Infants
,
as
such
,
who
are
baptized
,
were
not
baptized
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
,
nor
did
they
put
on
Christ
thereby
,
nor
are
they
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
also
are
not
Abrahams
Seed
and
Heirs
,
according
to
Promise
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
Mr.
Baxter
confirms
the
substance
of
the
Major
,
these
are
his
words
,
i.
e.
As
many
as
have
been
baptized
have
put
on
Christ
,
and
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
are
Abrahams
Seed
,
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
,
Gal.
3.
27
,
28
,
29.
This
speaks
the
Apostle
,
saith
he
,
of
the
probability
grounded
on
a
credible
profession
,
&c.
Baxters
Confirm
Reconcil
.
page
32.
The
Minor
will
stand
firm
till
any
can
prove
Infants
by
a
visible
profession
have
put
on
Christ
,
are
all
one
in
Christ
Jesus
,
are
Abrahams
Seed
and
Heirs
according
to
the
promise
.
Evident
it
is
,
none
are
the
spiritual
Seed
of
Abraham
,
but
such
who
have
the
Faith
of
Abraham
,
and
are
truly
grafted
into
Christ
,
by
a
saving
Faith
.
If
any
object
,
we
read
of
some
who
were
baptized
,
who
had
no
saving
Faith
but
were
Hypocrites
,
I
answer
,
had
they
appeared
to
be
such
,
they
had
not
been
baptized
,
nor
had
they
a
true
Right
thereto
.
Arg.
20.
Baptism
is
the
Solemnizing
of
the
Souls
Marriage
Union
with
Christ
,
which
Marriage-contract
absolutely
requires
an
actual
profession
of
consent
;
but
Infants
are
not
capable
to
enter
into
Marriage
Union
with
Christ
,
nor
to
make
a
profession
of
an
actual
consent
.
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
The
Major
our
opposites
generally
grant
,
particularly
see
what
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Our
Baptism
is
our
solemnizing
of
our
Marriage
with
Christ
.
These
are
his
very
words
.
page
32.
The
Minor
none
can
deny
,
no
Man
,
sure
in
his
right
mind
will
assert
,
that
little
Babes
are
capable
to
enter
into
a
Marriage
Relation
with
Christ
;
and
to
make
profession
of
a
consent
;
and
the
truth
is
,
he
in
the
next
words
gives
away
his
Cause
,
viz.
and
't
is
(
saith
he
)
A
a
new
and
strange
kind
of
Marriage
where
there
is
no
profession
of
consent
.
page
32.
How
unhappy
was
this
Man
to
plead
for
such
a
New
and
strange
kind
of
Marriage
,
did
he
find
any
little
Babe
he
ever
Baptized
(
or
rather
Rantized
)
to
make
a
profession
of
consent
to
be
Married
to
Jesus
Christ
.
If
any
should
object
he
speaks
of
the
Baptism
of
the
Adult
;
I
answer
his
words
are
these
,
Our
Baptism
is
,
&c.
Besides
will
any
Pedo-baptist
say
,
That
the
Baptism
of
the
Adult
is
the
solemnizing
of
the
Souls
Marriage
with
Christ
,
and
not
the
Baptism
of
Infants
.
Reader
,
observe
how
our
opposites
are
forced
sometimes
to
speak
the
Truth
,
tho'
it
overthrows
their
own
practice
of
Pedo-baptism
.
Arg.
21.
If
the
Sins
of
no
persons
are
forgiven
them
till
they
are
Converted
,
then
they
must
not
be
baptized
for
the
forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
profess
themselves
to
be
Converted
;
but
the
Sins
of
no
Persons
till
they
are
Converted
are
forgiven
;
Ergo
,
no
Person
ought
to
be
Baptized
for
the
forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
profess
they
are
Converted
.
Mr.
Baxter
in
the
said
Treatise
,
lays
down
the
substance
of
this
Argument
also
,
take
his
own
words
,
i.
e.
As
their
sins
are
not
forgiven
them
till
they
are
Converted
,
Mark
4.
12.
So
they
must
not
be
baptized
for
the
forgiveness
of
them
,
till
they
profess
themselves
Converted
,
seeing
to
the
Church
non
esse
and
non
apparere
is
all
one
.
Repentance
towards
God
,
and
Faith
towards
our
Lord
Jesus
,
is
the
Sum
of
that
Preaching
that
makes
Disciples
,
Acts
20.
21.
Therefore
,
saith
he
,
both
those
must
by
a
Profession
seem
to
be
received
,
before
any
at
Age
are
baptized
.
page
30
,
31.
and
evident
it
is
,
say
I
,
from
hence
that
none
but
such
at
Age
ought
to
be
baptized
.
Philip
caused
the
Eunuch
to
profess
before
he
would
Baptize
him
,
That
he
believed
that
Jesus
Christ
was
the
Son
of
God
.
Saul
had
also
,
saith
he
,
more
than
a
bare
profession
before
Baptism
,
Acts
9.
5
,
15
,
17.
page
28.
The
Promise
it self
,
saith
he
,
doth
expresly
require
a
Faith
of
our
own
,
of
all
the
Adult
,
that
will
have
part
in
the
Priviledges
;
therefore
there
is
a
Faith
of
our
own
,
that
is
the
Condition
of
our
Title
,
Mark
16.
16.
page
16.
He
might
have
added
by
the
force
of
his
Argument
;
therefore
Infants
should
not
have
the
priviledges
:
For
I
argue
thus
,
viz.
Arg.
22.
If
there
is
but
one
Baptism
of
Water
left
by
Jesus
Christ
in
the
New
Jerusalem
,
or
but
one
condition
or
manner
of
Right
thereto
;
and
that
one
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Adult
;
then
Infant
Baptism
is
no
Baptism
of
Christ
;
but
there
is
but
one
Baptism
in
Water
left
by
Christ
in
the
New
Testament
,
and
but
one
Condition
and
manner
of
Right
thereto
,
and
that
one
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Adult
.
Ergo
,
Infant
Baptism
is
no
Baptism
of
Christ
.
Mr.
Baxter
saith
,
Faith
and
Repentance
is
the
condition
of
the
Adult
,
and
as
to
any
other
condition
,
I
am
sure
the
Scripture
is
silent
,
The
way
of
the
Lord
is
one
,
one
Lord
,
one
Faith
,
one
Baptism
,
Eph.
4.
4.
If
profession
of
Faith
were
not
necessary
,
saith
Mr.
Baxter
,
Coram
Ecclesia
,
to
Church
Membership
and
Priviledges
,
then
Infidels
and
Heathens
would
have
Right
,
also
,
saith
he
the
Church
and
the
World
would
be
confounded
.
He
might
have
added
,
but
Infidels
and
Heathens
have
no
Right
to
Church
Membership
,
&c.
Ergo.
'T
is
a
granted
case
among
all
Christians
,
saith
he
,
that
profession
is
thus
necessary
,
the
Apostles
,
and
Antient
Church
admitted
none
without
it
.
page
21.
And
if
so
,
why
dare
any
now
a
days
admit
of
Infants
,
who
are
uncapable
to
make
profession
?
He
adds
,
Yea
Christ
in
his
Commission
directeth
his
Apostles
to
make
Disciples
and
then
Baptize
them
,
promising
,
He
that
believeth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
,
Mark
16.
16.
page
27.
Furthermore
he
saith
,
If
as
many
as
are
baptized
into
Christ
,
are
baptized
into
his
Death
,
and
are
Buried
with
him
by
baptism
into
Death
,
that
like
as
Christ
was
raised
from
the
Dead
,
so
we
also
should
walk
in
newness
of
Life
,
&c.
Then
no
doubt
,
saith
he
,
but
such
as
were
to
be
baptized
did
first
profess
this
mortification
,
and
a
consent
to
be
buried
,
&c.
In
our
Baptism
we
put
off
the
Body
of
the
Sins
of
the
Flesh
,
by
the
Circumcision
of
Christ
,
being
buried
with
him
and
raised
with
him
through
Faith
,
quickened
with
him
,
and
haveing
all
our
Trespasses
forgiven
,
Coll.
2.
11
,
12
,
13.
and
will
any
Man
,
says
he
,
yea
will
Paul
ascribe
all
this
to
those
that
did
not
so
much
as
profess
the
things
signified
?
Will
Baptism
in
the
Judgment
of
a
wise
Man
,
do
all
this
for
an
Infidel
,
(
or
,
say
I
,
for
an
Infant
)
that
cannot
make
a
profession
that
he
is
a
Christian
.
page
31
,
32.
he
proceeds
.
Arg.
23.
The
baptized
are
in
Scripture
called
Men
Washed
,
Sanctified
,
Justified
;
they
are
called
Saints
,
and
Churches
of
Saints
.
1
Cor.
1.
2.
all
Christians
are
Sanctified
ones
,
page
33.
now
let
me
add
the
Minor
.
But
Infants
are
not
in
Scripture
called
Men
Washed
,
Sanctified
,
Justified
;
they
are
not
called
Saints
,
Churches
of
Saints
,
Christians
,
nor
Sanctified
ones
,
Ergo
,
Infants
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
If
any
should
say
why
did
you
not
cite
these
assertions
of
Mr.
Baxters
whilst
he
was
living
?
I
answer
,
more
then
Eighteen
years
ago
,
I
did
recite
and
Print
these
assertions
,
and
many
other
Arguments
of
his
to
the
same
purpose
,
to
which
he
gave
no
answer
.
Arg.
24.
If
there
is
but
one
way
for
all
,
both
Parents
and
Children
to
be
admitted
in
the
Gospel
Church
,
to
the
end
of
the
World
,
and
that
it
is
upon
profession
of
Faith
to
be
baptized
;
then
both
Parents
and
Children
must
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
be
baptized
,
and
so
admitted
,
&c.
But
there
is
but
one
way
for
all
,
both
Parents
and
Children
to
be
admitted
into
the
Gospel-Church
to
the
end
of
the
World
,
and
that
is
upon
the
profession
of
their
Faith
to
be
Baptized
,
Ergo.
Arg.
25.
That
cannot
be
Christ's
,
true
baptism
wherein
there
is
not
,
cannot
be
a
lively
Representation
of
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Jesus
Christ
,
together
with
our
Death
unto
Sin
,
and
vivification
to
a
New
Life
;
but
in
the
Rantizing
or
Sprinkling
of
an
Infant
there
is
not
,
cannot
be
a
lively
Representation
of
Christ's
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
&c.
Arg.
26.
That
pretended
Baptism
that
pretends
to
frustrate
the
glorious
end
and
design
of
Christ
in
his
Instituting
of
Gospel
Baptism
,
or
cannot
answer
it
,
is
none
of
Christ's
Baptism
;
but
the
pretended
baptism
of
Infants
tends
to
frustrate
the
glorious
end
and
design
of
Christ
in
Instituting
of
Gospel
Baptism
,
Ergo.
The
Major
will
not
be
denied
.
As
to
the
Minor
,
all
generally
confess
the
end
and
design
of
Christ
in
Instituting
the
Ordinance
of
Baptism
,
was
in
a
lively
Figure
to
represent
his
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrecton
;
with
the
Persons
Death
unto
Sin
,
and
his
rising
again
to
walk
in
newness
of
Life
,
that
is
baptized
;
as
the
Sacrament
of
the
Supper
was
ordained
to
represent
his
Body
was
broke
,
and
his
blood
was
shed
.
But
that
a
lively
Figure
of
Christs
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
,
appears
in
Sprinkling
a
little
Water
on
the
Face
,
I
see
not
,
(
and
as
done
to
an
Infant
)
there
can
no
Death
to
sin
,
and
rising
again
to
walk
in
Newness
of
Life
be
signified
;
and
therefore
Christs
design
and
end
therein
is
frustrated
.
Arg.
27.
If
Baptism
be
Immersion
,
as
to
the
proper
and
genuine
Signification
of
the
word
Baptizo
as
also
of
those
Typical
and
Metaphorical
Baptisms
,
and
the
Spiritual
Signification
thereof
;
then
Sprinkling
cannot
be
Christs
true
Baptism
.
But
Immersion
is
the
proper
and
genuine
signification
of
the
word
Baptizo
,
and
also
of
those
Typical
and
Metaphorical
Baptisms
spoken
of
,
and
the
spiritual
signification
thereof
,
Ergo
,
Sprinkling
is
not
Christ's
true
Baptism
.
1.
That
the
proper
and
genuine
signification
of
the
word
Baptizo
is
Immersion
,
or
to
Dip
,
&c.
We
have
fully
proved
,
which
is
also
confessed
by
all
Learned
in
that
Language
.
2.
That
the
Typical
Baptism
,
viz.
that
of
the
Red
Sea
,
wherein
the
Fathers
were
buried
,
as
it
were
unto
Moses
in
the
Sea
,
and
under
the
Cloud
,
appears
from
Pools
Annotations
.
1
Cor.
10.
2.
Others
,
(
saith
he
)
more
probably
think
that
the
Apostle
useth
this
Term
,
in
regard
of
the
great
Analogy
betwix●
Baptism
(
as
it
was
then
used
)
the
Persons
going
down
into
the
Waters
,
and
being
Dipp●d
;
and
the
Israelites
going
down
into
the
Sea
,
the
great
receptacle
of
water
,
tho'
the
water
at
that
time
was
gathered
on
heaps
on
either
side
of
them
;
yet
they
seemed
buried
in
the
water
,
as
Persons
in
that
Age
were
when
they
were
baptized
,
&c.
The
second
was
that
of
Noahs
Ark
;
See
Sir
Norton
Knatchbul
,
who
I
before
Quoted
,
and
shall
here
again
recite
his
words
.
The
Ark
of
Noah
,
and
Baptism
,
(
saith
he
)
were
both
a
Type
and
Figure
of
the
Resurrection
,
not
the
Sign
of
the
washing
away
of
Sin
,
tho'
so
taken
Metonymically
,
but
a
particular
signal
of
the
Resurrection
of
Christ
.
Of
this
,
Baptism
is
a
Lively
and
Emphatical
Figure
,
as
also
was
the
Ark
of
Noah
,
out
of
which
he
returned
as
from
a
Sepulchre
,
to
a
New
Life
.
3.
Metaphorical
Baptism
is
that
of
the
Spirit
,
and
of
affliction
:
The
first
signifies
not
a
Sprinkling
of
the
Spirit
,
but
the
great
Effusion
of
the
Spirit
,
like
that
at
Pentecost
,
Acts
1.
4
,
5.
Shall
be
Baptized
,
&c
,
On
which
words
Causabon
speaks
thus
:
See
Dr.
Du
Veil
on
Acts
2.
The
Greek
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
to
Dip
or
Plung●
,
as
it
were
to
die
Colours
,
in
which
sense
,
(
saith
he
)
the
the
Apostles
might
be
truly
said
to
have
been
baptized
,
for
the
House
in
which
this
was
done
,
was
filled
with
the
Holy
Ghost
;
so
that
the
Apostles
might
seem
to
have
been
plunged
into
it
,
as
into
a
large
Fish-Pond
.
Also
Decumentus
on
Acts
2.
saith
,
A
wind
filled
the
whole
House
,
that
it
seemed
like
a
●i●h-Pond
,
because
it
was
promised
to
the
Apostles
,
that
they
should
be
baptized
with
the
Holy
Ghost
.
And
the
Baptism
of
afflictions
are
those
great
depths
or
overwhelmings
of
afflictions
,
like
that
of
our
Saviours
(
magnis
componere
parva
)
no
part
free
,
Mat.
20.
22.
where
you
have
the
same
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
like
that
of
David
,
who
saith
,
God
drew
him
out
of
deep
waters
.
4.
The
spiritual
signification
thereof
is
the
Death
,
Burial
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
,
and
of
our
Death
to
sin
,
and
vivification
to
a
New
Life
.
This
being
so
,
it
follows
undeniably
that
Sprinkling
cannot
be
Christs
true
baptism
;
it
must
be
Immersion
and
nothing
else
.
And
in
the
last
place
,
finally
,
to
confirm
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
to
Dip
,
both
from
the
●…teral
and
spiritual
signification
thereof
,
as
also
from
those
Typical
and
Metaphorical
Baptisms
mentioned
in
the
Scripture
.
I
might
add
further
that
this
evidently
appears
from
the
practice
of
John
Baptis●
,
and
the
Apostles
of
Christ
,
who
baptized
in
Rivers
,
and
where
there
was
much
water
;
and
also
because
the
Baptizer
and
Baptized
,
are
said
to
go
down
into
the
water
(
not
down
to
the
water
)
and
came
up
out
of
the
water
.
John
Baptist
is
said
to
baptize
them
into
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
●ordan
as
the
Greek
renders
it
,
which
shews
it
Dipping
and
not
Sprinkling
.
Would
it
be
proper
to
say
,
he
Sprinkled
them
into
Jordan
.
The
Lord
open
the
Eyes
of
those
who
see
not
,
to
consider
these
things
.
Sir
,
I
expect
your
answer
to
these
Arguments
particularly
if
you
make
any
reply
to
what
I
have
said
in
confutation
of
your
Treatise
,
and
see
you
do
your
business
better
the
next
time
,
for
as
yet
you
have
not
proved
Infant
Baptism
to
be
,
from
Heaven
,
as
I
hope
the
unprejudiced
Reader
will
conclude
:
I
shall
say
no
more
at
present
;
but
leave
all
I
have
said
to
the
blessing
of
God
,
hoping
in
a
little
time
he
will
vanquish
by
the
light
of
his
sacred
word
,
your
Scripture
less
practice
of
Infant
Baptism
out
of
the
World
clear
up
the
Truth
of
his
own
despised
Ordinance
,
That
Wisdom
may
〈…〉
of
her
Children
,
and
God
may
be
Honoured
,
to
whom
be
Glory
now
and
for
ever
more
.
Amen
.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A47591-e41370
Notes for div A47591-e55120
Notes for div A47591-e59350
Notes for div A47591-e63200