THat God's Covenant with Abraham, in Gen. 17.7. was, and still is, the Covenant of Grace, dispensed in a Church way: None of the Orthodox ever did, (or do) deny, that I can find, That the ta­king that Covenant in this Sense, is the Foundation Principle, on which all sound Protestants, do maintain and justifie, the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism, is beyond contradiction.

When the Most High, and Soveraigne Lord God saw fit to make known his Will and Pleasure, to be; that his Covenant of Grace, (agreed on, between himself, and his Son Christ in Eternity) should be Dis­pensed in an Ecclesiastical (or Church) way, he singles out (above all other men) Abra­ham his Friend; on whom he Confers the Honourable Title, of the Father of the Faithful, Rom. 4.11. Not that Abraham did, or could (possibly) Beget a Believer (as such) or could convey into the Chil­dren he Begat (according to Fleshly Gene­ration) [Page 2] that Noble Grace of Faith, where­with God's Free-Gift had Blessed himself. But God opens and propounds his Ever­lasting Covenant of Grace and Salvation to him, as a Publick Person, who was to Personate all true Believers; who (in after Ages) were to be Members of his Visible Churches, to the second coming of Christ.

The Sum and Substance of that Cove­nant, is briefly comprehended in the Words of Gen. 17.7. I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee; in their Generations, for an Ever­lasting Covenant; to be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee.

This Covenant hath Two Essential Parts, as all Right Covenants have, (1.) God's part, held forth in the Words, I will be a God to thee, &c.

The meaning whereof (according to the Analogie of Faith,) must be thus un­derstood. Tho' thou Abraham, whom I now call, to become my Friend and Favo­right, and a Publick Head (or Representa­tive) of all believing Church Members, to the end of the World; be'st an undon and guilty sinner, polluted in thy Nature, and born under Adam's Covenant of Works; liable and obnoxious to its Curse, and to the Wrath to come; unable to recover or help thy self out of that deplorable Con­dition, [Page 3] into which thy natural Birth (as Adam's Child) hath put thee. And albe­it, thou be no way worthy of any Favour, yet I think fit, to let thee know, what thoughts and purposes of Mercy and Kind­ness, I have in store for thee, Abraham: And for the Rest of mine Elect, whom I have Chosen to my self in Christ, (the Promised Messiah,) of whom, that Son which I have Promised thee, is to be a Type: And in whose Person, all mine Elect, are to be Allegorically (or Typi­cally) Represented; and that, as thy Son is to be a Type of mine, in whom I have Elected and Chosen them.

I frankly and freely Pardon and For­give thee, all those Transgressions and Sins, wherewith, (as Adam's Child) thou standest Chargeable, for breaking that Co­venant of Works I made with Adam, thy (and all Mankinds) Natural and Faederal Head.

I Account thee perfectly Just and Righ­teous in my sight; not by, or for, that Principal of Inherent Holiness, which the Spirit of Grace (in effectual Calling) hath wrought in thee, (which Inherent Holi­ness is (ever) the fruit and effect of a Justified State; but never the Procuring (or Meriting) Cause. But I account and esteem thee, as Just and Righteous, as if [Page 4] thou hadst (in thy own Person) exactly performed that Legal Righteousness, which the Law Moral requires; on the alone account of my Sons righteousness, which (as the Mediator, and surety of this my Covenant of Grace; he is to perform in the behalf of thee, and all mine Elect) I most freely impute to thee.

I Sanctifie, and Renew, thy vitiated, and poluted Nature, by my Sanctifying Spirit, that thou maiest be capable of Communion and Fellowship, with me, both here, in my Church Militant: And here after, in my Church Triumphant.

I Adopt thee to be my Son, by Grace, and by virtue hereof, thou art restored to all the Blessings, Rights and Priviledges, which Adam (thy Natural and Federal Head) lost and forfeited, by his Apostacy and Defection: Hereby thou art Admitted (as a Free Denizon) into the Family and Houshold of God: from whence thou wast cast out (in Adam) when he was e­jected and cast out, for his Rebellion, wit­ness his expulsion out of Earthly Paradice a lively Type of the Heavenly. I Promise to Establish thee in Grace, so as thou shalt never (more) be in danger, of loosing thy self, or forfeiting my Love and Favour any more: For ever I will be a Sun, and a Shield, to furnish and supply thee with all necessary [Page 5] Accomodations for Life in this World; I will Protect and Defend thee, from all ad­verse Powers, Spiritually and Bodily, which shall contrive and seek thy Ruin. And (finally) I will receive thee into Heaven, when (by Death) thou goest hence; where thou shalt Live and Reign, with me, Eter­nally.

And the very same Mercy and Favour, which I have (now) expressed, and shewn to thee; I do oblige my self, by the promise of this my Covenant, that I will do to all mine Elect, who are to spring from thy Loyns. As also, to all mine Elect, who are to come of the Gentile Race; to the end of the World.

(2.) Man's Part; As for thee (Abra­ham) this thou must do, (on thy part) thou must walk Humbly and Uprightly be­fore me; thou must make the Moral Law (Engraven by the Finger of my Spirit) on the heart of Adam (thy Natural and Fede­ral Head) the standing Rule of thy Obedi­ence, both Negatively and Positively. In all the parts of thy Obedience, thou must look (exactly) to three things, (1.) To the Subject Matter of thy Obedience, let it be what I Command and Require, not what Creatures Devise or Enjoyn. (2.) To the manner, See that thou do it in Faith, keeping thine Eye on Christ (my [Page 6] Son) for Acceptance, and Acting all by Strength derived from him. (3.) To the end, See that my Glory be that thou aimest at, and designest, in all thou goest about. Thou shalt not do my Work and Service in a Mercenary way, as a Servant that Works for Wages; but thou must obey my Com­mand as a Son, with freedom of Spirit, and from a Principle of Love and Grati­tude, knowing and considering, that my Grace and Love hath made Provision of all that is needful, to make thee (every way Eternally happy, both here and here­after. The dreadful Curse, and Eternal Death, to which (by Sin) thou becamest obnoxious: My Son Christ (Typ'd out by the Ram) hath set thee for ever Free from it. And that by his being made a Curse, and undergoing Death for thee, (as being thy Sponsor or Surety) at his Hands I have Received, the full of that Debt, whereto thou becamest liable, by breaking my Law, there remains not the least Mite for thee to pay; so that (now) thou hast no cause to fear my Vindicative Justice; the many and sharp Afflictions, wherewith thou shalt meet, in thy way to Glory, shall be but the gentle Chastise­ments, of thy (dearly) Loving, and Recon­ciled Father; who (by them) will Purge out, the remains of thy indwelling Cor­ruption: [Page 7] and sweetly wean thee from the enticing Objects of the vain and be­witching World thou Livest in. That Perfect and Spotless Righteousness, which must Recommend thee to me, and present thee Blameless, before the Throne of my Glorious Holiness, in the Third Heaven, is (Subjectively) Inherent, in the Person of God-Man, thy Mediator and Surety; to this Mediatorial Righteousness of his, thou shalt add nothing, neither thy own Perso­nal qualifications; nor yet, the Holiness of Saints or Angels; (as if thereby) thou couldest be made more Acceptable, than that Righteousness of his doth make thee. Thou shalt keep my Covenant, both thou and all thy Ecclesiastical, (or Church) Seed, throughout your Generations, till my Son comes to Judge the World at the last day. Thou, and all thy Church Seed, (which Springs from thee by Fleshly Generation,) shall observe to have all your Males mark'd with Circumcision, the visible Token and Seal of this my Gracious Covenant, which I have (now) entred into, with thee; for thy self (a stipulating Father,) and for all thy Children; who are to be the Mem­bers of my Sons Mediatorial Kingdom; or Visible Church on the Earth.

And when Christ my Son shall come in the Flesh, and shall enter upon his Mediatorial [Page 8] Kingdom, whatever visible Token or Seal he shal appoint to Succed in the Room of Circumcision, thy Gentile Church Seed (as well as Jews,) who are to believe in him, shall (carefully) observe to be Sealed therewith, both they and their Infants: And that by Virtue of this my Covenant, I now make with thee, for thy self and them. And to the end, that neither thou, nor thy Children (in succeeding Ages) may Be Ignorant of what my Will and Pleasure is, concerning the Non-Elect, who are to come and spring from Believing and Holy Parents, in my visible Church or Churches. I notifie to thee, and thy Church Seed after thee, (throughout their Generations) that my Soveraign Will and Pleasure is, that all the Infants of my Believing, Professing Church Membrs, shall be markt with the Visible Token or Seal, of this my Covenant in the Church, whereof the Professing Parent (or Parents) are Members, and that without any regard had to the Elect, or Non-Elect. For, seeing that the Secrets of my Decrees and Counsels are known to my self alone, I Will, that thou, and thy Church Seed after thee, (to the end of the World) do, in the Judgm [...]nt of (rational) Charity, Judge all the Seed, and Infant Posterity of my Professing People, who have laid hold on my Covenant, (by an Eternal Visible [Page 9] Profession) to belong to the Election, and to own them for such, untill they (by open Apostacy, and final Impenitency) do ma­nifest the contrary. For albeit my Visible Churches do consist of Elect, and Non Elect, and the one as well as the other do partake of the Seal of my Covenant, and are par­takers of all Church Priviledges; yet none shall ever partake (internally and savingly) of the inward Grace and Mercy Signified, and Sealed by the Token and Seal of my Covenant, (in the Church Visible,) but the Elect only, whose Names are (particu­larly) Registred in the Lamb's Book of Life. And altho' the Non-Elect in my Church, do fall short of the saving Benefits of my Covenant of Grace; yet shall they find that I am no way behind with them; for, altho' I (the Absolute Soveraign of the World) be no way obliged to the Creature (especially fallen Rebels,) yet, seeing it is my Pleasure to Employ the Non-Elect in the Service of my Church, (while it is in a Militant State) that those common Gifts (of my Spirit) wherewith they are to be endowed, might be laid out and improved, for the good and wellfare of my Elect and Chosen; I will give them a Place in my Church, that they shall be called by my Name, and shall have an equal Right (with mine Elect) to the Seal of my Covenant, [Page 10] and all outward helps and means of Salva­tion, in the Church Visible; whereby it shall plainly appear (in the day of Judg­ment) that their missing Heaven, and fall­ing short of Eternal Life, was of their own Procurement. Notwithstanding, As is the Service wherein they are Employ'd in my Church, I will give them a plentiful Recompence (viz.) a Temperal Re­ward, in Lieu of a Temporal Service; Such as Bodily Health, Worldly Wealth, Pleasures and Honours, &c. which are (every way) more suitable to their Spirit, and are more sought and delighted in (by them) than are the things laid up for my Chosen: Plain Instances (hereof) I have seen fit to leave on Record, in the Persons of Ishmael and Isaac, both born of Abra­ham (according to the Flesh) the one a Reprobate the other Elect; both must be of the Church Visible, and Sealed with the Visible Token and Seal of Gods Cove­nant with Abraham. Of the same Nature is that of Esau and Jacob, both born of Isaac (according to Fleshly Generati­on) yet the one a Reprobate and the other Elect; both must be of the Visible Church, and Sealed with the Seal of the Covenant, and pass (currant) for Church Members, (before men) untill they (themselves) make the contrary to appear: As did Ish­mael, Esau, &c.

And thus, having as plainly and as briefly as I could, (for the information of those who are yet Ignorant of Abrahams Covenant) Explained and shewn the Sub­stance and Tenure of Gods Covenant with Abraham, for himself and all his Ecclesi­astical, or Church Seed, both Jews and Gentiles, to the end of the World.

I come now to lay down some Scriptural Arguments, to Prove, that Gods Cove­nant with Abraham, (as now Explained) is the Covenant of Grace; which God Propounded to Abraham, in Gen. 17.7. And not a Covenant of Works, as the Anabaptists Teach it is.

That it is the Covenant of Grace, and no other, will evidently appear to any, who look not asquint on the Arguments following.

Arg. 1. The first Argument is this, If God never yet made a Covenant of Works, with any (mee [...]) Man, but that which he made with sinless Adam (the Natural and Federal Head of all Mankind) in the State of Innocency, before the Fall: Then God's Covenant with Abraham, is the Covn ant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works. But God never (yet) made a Covenant of Works, with any meer Man, but that which he made with sinless Adam, (the Natural and Federal Head of all Man­kind) in the State of Innocency, before [Page 12] the Fall: Therefore, Gods Covenant with Abraham, in Gen. 17.7. is the Covenant of Grace, and no other. Plain it is, and none (without Lying against God) can deny it, that God made a Covenant of Works with Adam, and in him with all Mankind.

The Condition whereof was, do and Live; sin and Dye. And as plain it is, that Adam Fell, by Transgressing that Covenant, by which Fall he lost the Blessed Image of God to himself, and all his Poste­rity, whereby he and his Posterity became (utterly uncapable of Life and Salvation by that Covenant.

Now, Abraham being (by natural Birth) a Son of the first Adam, and (as such) born under the Curse of Adam's Covenant, and partaker of a sinful and polluted Nature; which rendred him as uncapable of per­forming any Work, which (as a conditi­on) can Answer the Laws demand; as a man naturally dead, is uncapable of raising or quickening himself; or as a Sparrow is uncapable to remove, or carry on its Back, the greatest Mountain in the World. To what end should the only Wise God make a Covenant of Works, with such a fallen sinner.

Arg. 2. If to hold and Teach, that God's Covenant with Abraham, (in Gen. [Page 13] 17.7.) is a Covenant of Works, and not a Covenant of Grace, be a high Reflection on God; and also destructive to the Souls of Men; then is God's Covenant with Abraham (in Gen. 17.7.) the Covenant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works. But to hold and Teach, that God's Covenant with Abraham, (in Gen. 17.7.) is a Covenant of Works, and not a Covenant of Grace, is a High Reflection on God; and destructive to the Souls of Men.

Therefore, God's Covenant with Abraham, (Gen. 17.7.) is the Cove­nant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works.

For rendring this Argument Unan­swerable, Two things want confirmation. First, That to hold and Teach, that God's Covenant with Abraham is a Covenant of Works, is a high Reflection on God. And Secondly, That the same is Destructive to the Soules of Men.

The First of these will evidently ap­pear, to the unprejudic'd and Impartial Rea­der, if he (seriously) consider, how In­consistent it is, with the Divine Attributes of God, to make a Covenant of Works, with a Lapsed, Polluted Sinner, whom he knows to be (altogether) Dead in Tres­passes and Sins, and (every way) as un­able to will, or do, any Work that is [Page 14] (Spiritually) good, as a Dead Man is able to quicken and raise himself.

For Illustration sake, let it be consider­ed, How unbecoming a Wise and Prudent Man it would be, to strike a Covenant (or Bargain) for ten, or twenty thousand Pounds, with an Insolvent Person, who is well known not to be worth ten Farthings in the World; and (which is yet worse) who hath neither Wit to contrive, nor Health or Limbs to Work to get a Penny towards paying such a vast Sum. I cannot so much as doubt of any (worldly Wise) Mans un­willingness to be guilty of such an oversight as this: And shall the (Unerringly) Wise God, be guilty of so great an Absurdity?

S [...]condly, As this Principle Reflects on God; so it is Destructive to the Souls of Men. This appears (beyond all contradicti­on,) in that it raseth the very Foundation of Men's Salvation: by denying that Co­venant to be a Covenant of Grace, which Abraham and Isaac, with Jacob, and all the Old-Testament Believers depended on for Eternal Salvation; and by which, we (Gentile Believers) hope to go to Hea­ven. For, most plain it is, that by this pernicious Principle, Abraham is lost, with all who died trusting to the Grace ex­hibited in that Covenant. And if Abra­ham (the Father of the Faithful) be, [Page 15] trusting to a Covenant of Works; I cannot see, how any of his Eccelsi­astical Church Seed can be Saved, any more than he is. For, by a Covenant of Works, no meer Man, ever was, or sh [...]ll be justified and Saved.

Arg. 3 If the Scripture no where, (either directly or by consequence) calls God's Covenant with Abraham, (Gen. 17.7.) a Covenant of Works; then it is a Co­venant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works. But the Scripture no where (ei­ther directly or by consequence,) calls God's Covenant with Abraham, a Cove­nant of Works: Therefore the Covenant of God with Abraham, is the Covenant of Grace, and not a Covenant of Works.

If it cannot be Demonstrated from the written Word, or by Arguments Deduci­ble therefrom, that Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. is called, (or can be proved) a Covenant of Works; They who so hold and Teach, will be found ranked a­mong those who call good evil; and evil, good; and who put Light for Darkness, and Darkness for Light, Esa. 5.10. For Men to take on them, to term Abraham's Covenant a Covenant of Works, without any Warrant Divine, is (to me) an Argu­ment of an ignorant, rash and presumptuous Spirit: from which Charge, let such Men [Page 16] see how they can Acquit and free them­selves.

Arg. 4. If Abraham was Justified by Faith, and not by Works; then the Covenant which God made with him, is the Covenant of Grace, and not of Works. But Abra­ham was Justified by Faith, and not by Works; Therefore the Covenant which God made with him, is the Cove­nant of Grace, and not the Covenant of Works. That Abraham was Justified by Faith, and not by works, the Scripture is express, and clear, Rom. 4.2, 3, 4. Gal. 2.5, 6, 7.

Arg. 5. If God hath made no other Covenant of Grace with Abraham, di­stinct from that in Gen. 17.7. then, that Covenant in Gen. 17.7. is the Covenant of Grace: but God made no Covenant of Grace, with Abraham, distinct from that in Gen. 17.7. Therefore, that Covenant in Gen. 17.7. is the Covenant of Grace, and not the Covenant of Works.

That which will determin the Point in Controversie, is this, let those who (herein) oppose me, lay down a Scriptural definition of the Covenant of Grace; and that in such Terms, as best please themselves; and in Case, their own definition, do not agree (at least for Substance) with Gen. 17.7. if it be according to God's Word, then am I freely [Page 17] willing to own my self (herein) mistaken: If they refuse to comply with so fair a Pro­posal, let the Judicious and Impartial Reader Judge, who is at the Loss (herein,) they or I?

I conclude this Chapter with this Dilem­ma, (viz.) Abraham, (the Father of the Faithful) he is e [...]ther Sav'd, or else he is Damn'd; one of these two the Adversa­ries (I now oppose) must grant, for there is no middle State for Souls Departed.

If they say he is Damn'd, then is there no ground left us to hope, that any of A­dam's Posterity ever were or shall be Sav'd; for we have no other Covenant whereby to expect Salvation, but that of Abraham: And if he Perished under that Covenant, so must we.

If they grant, that Abraham is in a State of Salvation, (as they must, if they speak by the Spirit of Christ) then Abraham was Justified and Saved by a Covenant of Grace, and if by a Covenant of Grace, then that Covenant mention'd in Gen. 17.7. must needs be the Covenant of Grace; for be­sides that Covenant the Scriptures know no other.

Against what I have said, (and all Or­thodox Protestants constantly [...]old and af­f [...]m) conce [...]ning Abraham's Covenant be­ing a Covenant of pure and absolute Grace; this is Obj [...]cted by the Adversaries.

Object. The Land of Canaan was a Tem­poral Blessing, therefore such was the Cove­nant, of which Circumcision was a Tempora­ry Seal.

I Answer in two Particulars. First, The Promise of the Land of Canaan is no Essen­tial part of the Covenant of Abraham. Let the Words in the 7th Verse be Read with­out prejudice. The last Clause of the Verse doth fully comprehend the sum and sub­stance of the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham. The Promise of the Land of Canaan is only by way of Addition or O­verplus. No Essential part of the Cove­nant it self. The Covenant is briefly com­prehended in these Words; I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee: For in these Words God Engages himself (by free and absolute Promise) to Abraham and to his Elect Church-Seed, that he will be a God to him and them, to do all things for them, which are needful to compleat their Happiness, both here and hereafter.

Secondly, The Land of Canaan was pro­mised, not as it was any Essential part of the Covenant of Grace; or, as if real Bles­sedness consisted in the actual Enjoyment thereof: But as the same was a Tempora­ry Type of Heaven. And for want of un­derstanding and considering this very thing, many, who have thought themselves [Page 19] Wiser (in the Mysteries of the Gospel) than their Neighbours, have prov'd themselves short of true Wisdom; in this Particular at least.

To convince of this Mistake, let that of our Saviour (in Mat. 6.33. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and the righteousness there of, and all these things shall be added to you) be weighed in the Ballance of an unprejudiced Consideration; and to an Impartial Eye, that looks not Asquint at these two places of Ho­ly Scripture, Gen. 17.7. and Mat. 6.33. it will most plainly appear, that Temporal Blessings are held forth in one, as well as in the other. And if it must needs be granted, that because God made the Promise of the Land of Canaan to Abraham, &c. that therefore God's Covenant with him and his, was a Covenant of Works: It will (as necessarily follow, that Believers to whom Christ directs his Speech in Mat. 6.33. are now under a Covenant of Works, as well as Abraham was. And so, neither Abraham (the Father of the Faithful) nor any of his Seed, (the Elect I mean) either of the Jewish or Gentile Race, are like to be Saved or Enjoy God for their Portion. And by this way of Arguing, it will evi­dently appear to any seeing Man, (who shuts not his Eyes for fear of being con­vinced) that while the Adversaries (I now [Page 20] Oppose in this Controversy) were employ­ed in devising this Shift to prove God's Covenant (with Abraham) to be a Cove­nant of Works; and that (on purpose) to exclude poor Infants from that Covenant, and from Baptism (the now Seal thereof,) they have (insensibly) shut both Abraham and themselves too, out from being Saved: And what advantage will (hereby) accrew to their Cause, let it be improved to the utmost.

Object. 2. It is again Objected, If the Co­venant in Gen. 17.7. be a Covenant of pure Grace, and not a Covenant of Works, and that all Abraham's Children be alike Interested therein, then doth Grace come by natural Gene­ration, contrary both to Scripture and Reason.

Answ. The ground of the Objectors mi­stake, Lyes in two things: First, His not distinguishing or considering, that the Chil­dren of Believing Abraham, are said to be in Covenant two Ways, or in a twofold Respect: First, Internally, by Virtue of God's Election: And thus none are (or e­ver shall be) in Covenant, but Abraham's Seed, (viz) The Elect, who are in Scrip­ture (by way of distinction) styled, the Children of Promise, Typ'd out in the Per­son of Jsaac, Gal. 4 28.

These (and they alone) Partake in the saving benefits of the Covenant; and have [Page 21] also a right to the visible Sign or Seal of the Covenant in the visible Churches of Christ, under the Gospel Dispensation.

Secondly, Externally, by Virtue of the External Profession made in the Church: And thus the Non-Elect (as well as the E­lect) are said to be in Covenant with God, in his Churches Visible, (here on Earth.) These Albeit, they never partake in the saving Blessings of the Covenant; yet by Virtue of the External Profession made, they and their Infant-Seed, (though not Elect,) have an External Right (in the Church Vi­sible) to the Token (or Seal) of Abraham's Covenant; and to all other Priviledges and Ordinances in the Church, whereof they are capable, according to the Revealed Will of God: By Virtue hereof it is, that God calls such his People; and he will have his Church to call and own them for such too, until they manifest themselves to be otherwise; and that by a voluntary Defe­ction, and final Apostacy. Plain Instances hereof are (Graphically) set down in God's Word, in the Persons of Ishmael and Esau (in whose Persons the Reprobate Seed of Abraham were (Allegorically) typ'd out as the Elect Seed) were Allegorically and Ty­pically represented in the Persons of Isaac and Jacob: The former of these Sprang from the Flesh of Abraham, as well as the [Page 22] latter: And on this account, they had a place in the Visible Church, and were mark­ed with the Seal of God's Covenant, as well as the latter. They were esteemed and reckoned as God's Children, and true Members of the Church, until (by Defecti­on and Apostacy) they discovered them­selves to be otherwise. If this Distinction be not allowed, I cannot see how God can be (orderly) Worship't by any Visible Church on Earth.

This is the Summ and Substance of God's Covenant, made with Abraham in Gen. 17.7. and with his Elect Seed, &c. And by Virtue of this Promise, Abraham and (with him) all his Elect Seed would have been most Happy and eternally Blest, had no Promise been made of the Land of Canaan. So (in like manner) shall all true Believers (with their Elect Seed, be eternally Happy and Blest, being made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ, (intended in Mat. 6.33.) Albeit such Believers (and their E­lect Seed) should (with Lazarus) Die on a Dunghil, for want of those Temporal Bles­sings held forth by Christ, in the above­mentioned Promise, which plainly demon­strates, that the Promise which God made to Abraham, of giving to him and to his Seed, the Land of Canaan, was no more an Essential part of the Covenant made [Page 23] with him and his Seed, than the Promise held forth by Christ, in the place (above­named) proves, that Believers and their Elect Seed are (now) under a Covenant of Works. All the difference which I can find between these two places, is, that the Promise in Gen. 17.7. was Typical of the Kingdom of Heaven: The other is not so. Were this Covenant of God made with A­braham, (the Father of the Faithful) as he was a Stipulating and a Covenanting Re­presentative (in a Church Visible,) but rightly understood and believ'd with Ap­plication to Mens own Souls, I am per­swaded there would be neither Anabaptists nor Arminian in the World.

The Church of Rome Holds and Teaches that Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion: I am not ashamed to say, it is the Mother of all Errors in Religion. Neither am I afraid to affirm it to be both the Mother and Nurse of Anabaptism and Arminia­nism.

Arg. 1. EIther Circumcision was the ex­ternal Token (or Seal) of Abra­ham's [Page 24] Covenant (of Grace) mentioned, G. 1 [...] 7. Or else that Covenant had no Seal at all

The Adversary cannot avoid here, H must either Grant or Deny; if he gran [...] that Circumcision was the Seal of Abrahams Covenant, I have what I was to prove; if he deny it to be the Seal of that Covenant, then it lyes at his Door to demonstrate what was the Seal of that Covenant: If he say that that Covenant had no Seal at all, He will (thereby) not only gainsay the Word of God, but also speak against reason; for all Men know it is an essential property of a Covenant to have a Seal, to confirm the matter contained in the Covenant.

Arg. (2.) If Circumcision is (by God himself) called the Seal of the Covenant, then is it (beyond all Controversy) the Seal of the Covenant.

But Circumcision is (by God himself) cal­led the Seal of the Covenant.

Therefore Circumcision is (beyond all controversy) the Seal of the Covenant. For Proof of the Argument, compare Acts 7, 8, with Gen. 17, 10. To which I will only add, Rom. 4, 11, which will put the mat­ter (in Dispute) beyond the reach of all Dispute. The Words are plain and ex­press, in calling Circumcision the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; which plainly proves two things. First, That Circum­cision [Page 25] is a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham. Secondly, That the Covenant of which Circumcision was the Seal, was the Covenant of Grace, and no other.

Arg. 1. IF there be no other Initiato­ry Seal appointed by Christ [...]nder the Gospel but Water-Baptism, then is Water-Baptism come (or suceeeded) in the room of Circumcision, to be the initia­ting Seal under the Gospel: But there is no other initiatory Seal appointed by Christ under the Gospel, but Water-Baptism.

Therefore Water-Baptism is come or succeeded in the room of Circumcision, to be the initiatory Seal under the Gospel.

The truth and strength of this Argument will the more clearly appear, by duly consi­dering that Circumcision was (under the dark Dispensation of the Law) the initia­ting Seal of the Covenant, which will not, (cannot) be denyed, unless by Men who understand (or care) not what they say: That Water-Baptism is, (and must be) so [Page 26] now; must (of necessity) be acknowledged by all who own that the Lords Supper suc­ceeded, or came in the room of the Passeo­ver.

I humbly conceive no Wise Man will op­pose me, in saying that the Churches of the New-Testament have as great need of an initiating Seal of the Covenant of Grace, as had the Church of the Jews under the Old: And if Baptism be not that Seal, I know not what is; for that Circumcision is (now) abrogated and abolished under the Gospel, none can deny; and that some other visible sign must succeed (or come) in its room, must be granted by them who acknowledge that the Lords Supper succeeded (or came) in the room of the Passeover.

Arg. (2.) If the Adversaries themselves do (practically) own Baptism to be the ini­tiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant, then Baptism is the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant: But the Adversaries themselves do ( [...]ractically) own Baptism to be the ini­tiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant. There­fore Baptism is the initiating Seal of the Gospel Covenant.

Those I (here) dispute against, before they can overthrow this Argument, must abandon their own practice in making Bap­tism by Dipping, the Door of Entrance in­to their Churches; by which Practice they [Page 27] Unchurch all other Churches who are not of their own Perswasion. It is well known in London, and else where, where Anabaptism is practised, that they make Baptism (by Dipping) the form of a right Gospel Church; on which account it is they refuse Communion (in the Lords Supper) with the most Sanctified Believers, if they are not Dipt after their Mode.

'Tis true that some of that Perswasion would seem more moderate and charitable than others (of that way) while they make Saintship the (only) term of Church Com­munion: These seem not to lay such stress on Baptism as the rest of that Perswasion do; they will admit to the Lords Supper (with them) those of other Perswasions, though not Baptized in their way; but how such will be able to justify their practice in admitting Unbaptized Persons to the Lords Supper, I cannot understand; to me it is plain, that there is the same parity of reason for keeping back an Unbaptized Person from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back an Uncircumcised Person from the Pass­over of Old. The first of these (viz.) Baptism is the visible Badge of our Union (with Christ) in Regeneration, (as Circum­cision was to the Believing Jews) The other, (viz.) the Lords Supper, is the visible Badge of our Communion and Fellowship with [Page 28] Christ, as the Passover (of Old) was to the Believing Circumcised Jews: Now, as Communion is a fruit of Union, and follows after it, so no Person ought to be admitted to the second, that is, not (actually) a vi­sible Partaker of the first. It is not to be doubted, that these who (in Charity) invite us to the Lords Table (with them) do ac­count us as Unbaptized Persons, while they reckon our Baptism (received in Infancy, and by Sprinkling) but a meer nullity, that is, no Baptism at all.

Arg. 3. If Water Baptism have the same end and use assigned it by God, as Circumcision had of old, (viz.) to signifie and Seal to Believers and their Infants E­lect, the truth of their Regeneration, &c Then Water Baptism hath Succeeded in the room of Circumcision. But Water Baptism hath the same end and use Assign'd it by God, as Circumcision had of old, (viz.) to signifie, and Seal to Believers (and their Elect Infants,) the truth of their Regene­ration, &c. Therefore, Water Baptism hath Succeeded, in the room of Circumci­sion.

This Argument depends on the Right and Genuine Explication, of that Text, in Colos. 2.11. In whom also ye are Circum­cised, with the Circumcision made without Hands; in puting off the Body of the sins of [Page 29] the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ,

Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also, you are Risen with him, through the Faith of the Operation of God, who hath raised him from the Dead.

I shall not here meddle with Explaining this, because, I shall have occasion to speak to it when I come to Answer the Objecti­ons brought against Baptism being come in the room of Circumcision: whereto I re­fer my Reader.

Against what hath been said, concerning Circumcision being the Seal of the Cove­nant of Grace, &c. it is Objected, thus,

Object. Circumcision was only a Seal of a Temporal, Carnal Covenant, Sealing only Earthly and Temporal Blessings, to the Carnal Church of the Jews.

Ans. To this Objection, I Answer in three Particulars.

1. I have already proved, that God's Covenant with Abraham, of which Cir­cumcision was the Seal) was (and still is) the Covenant of Grace, and not a Co­venant of Works; as some Ignorant and Injudicious Teachers would fain have it to be: And that (meerly) on the account of keeping Poor Infants from Baptism, which they know could never be Justified, (by God's Word) should they Judiciously acknowledge, that Abraham's Covenant [Page 30] is the Covenant of Grace; and that Cir­cumcision, was the Seal thereof: and that Water Baptism, is (now) come in the room thereof.

2. In that some have reflected on that Covenant, calling it a carnal Covenant of Works, and the Church which was to Ob­serve and Practice Circumcision (the Seal thereof) a carnal Church: all I need to say (by way of Reply) is, to bewail the car­nallity of their Uncircumcised Hearts and Lips; who have no better or higher Ap­prehensions of God's Holy Covenant, (the Grace whereof must bring them to Heaven if ever they come thither,) and of his so highly Honoured Friends, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with all the rest of the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets and Godly Believers of that Day; than to call it a carnal Cove­nant, and them a carnal Church.

3. If Abraham's Covenant, was a Co­venant of Works, to him and his Chil­dren, then it must (needs) he so to us Gentile Believers, and to our Children now.

And if so, let the Adversary De­monstrate (if he can) how Abraham, or any of that carnal Church (as they falsely term it) can be supposed, to be (now) in a Saved State: Or, what ground of hope, we Gentile Believers (and our Children) [Page 31] have, that we or any of ours shall go to Heaven when we Die, seeing that we are still under the very same Covenant with Abraham; which Covenant, if it be a Co­venant of Works, and not of Grace, no Salvation, can be expected; and if the Be­lievers (under that dark Dispensation) were Carnal, and not Spiritual, how comes the unerring Wisdom of God to Propound them to Believers under the Gospel, for Ex­amples and Patterns of Faith, Patience, &c. Heb. 11. Heb. 12.1. Ja. 5.10. Let it be farther considered, that, Albeit, the Seal of Circumcision Sealed no saving Blessings to the Non-Elect; it doth not hence fol­low, that it Sealed no other than Tempo­ral Blessings to the Elect, seeing, that (to them) the Heavenly were (Typically) in­cluded in the Earthly.

As touching the Earthly Blessings, which Circumcision Sealed to the Non-Elect, they were greater and better than God was (a­ny way) obliged to give them. I am sure than they (savingly) improved.

Object. We utterly deny, that Water-Bap­tism did succeed and come in the room of Cir­cumcision.

Answ. For confirmation of the Affirma­tive, let the three Arguments already laid down under this Head be seriously (and without prejudice) considered: To which [Page 32] I will only add the Explication of Colos. 2.11, 12. whereon I have grounded a fourth Argument, to prove, that Water-Baptism succeeded and came in the room of Circum­cision. In the place above quoted, the A­postle plainly sets forth to the believing Colossians (and in them to all believing Gen­tiles, to the Worlds end) two things, (ne­cessary to be known and believed by all true Believers.)

First, That they, who (by a true lively Faith) have Embrac'd the Lord Jesus Christ, (as held forth in the Gospel,) evi­dencing their Faith by the Truth of Gospel-Sanctification. They (and none else) who are Adult, are made actual Partakers of the true and saving Circumcision, effected in the Soul by the Spirit of Christ. And which was (Externally) signified by the out­ward Circumcision.

These Believers having (now) obtained the Spiritual Circumcision, are not at all to be Concerned or Troubled, that they are not outwardly Circumcised with the Circumcision made with Man's Hands. Forasmuch as that which was (Externally) Signified and Sea [...]ed to the believing Jews, by the outward Circumcision, is (now In­ternally and Powerfully) wrought in their Hearts by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, The Apostle sets forth in this place, that Water-Baptism is Instituted and Appointed by Christ (under the Gos­pel Dispensation) to be (to believing Gen­tiles) the same that Circumcision was to the Jews, (viz.) A Visible Sign and Seal of Abraham's Covenant to all his Ecclesia­stical Church-Seed among the Gentiles, (viz.) All of that Race, who (on God's calling them) Believe in and Obey the Lord Jesus Christ. To these and their In­fant-Seed (and none else among the Gen­tiles) Baptism doth (now under the Gos­pel) Signify and Seal the very same Spiritu­al Blessings and Church-Priviledges, which Circumcision (of old) did Signify and Seal to the believing Jews and their Infant-Seed.

This I take to be the Sense and Meaning of the Apostle, in that so much controvert­ed place. In this Sense, I hope, I shall Die satisfied. And herein (I humbly conceive) none of the Orthodox will differ from me, which Sense being granted, it is beyond the reach of all Scriptural contradiction, that Water-Baptism was Instituted and Appointed (by Christ) on purpose to suc­ceed in the room of Circumcision.

Arg. 1. THE first Argument is thus fram'd: If God (himself) did, by absolute Soveraign Grace, comprehend Abraham's Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham, (their Stipulating and Covenanting Father) and never since Repeal'd that Gracious Act of his: Then the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interested in the Co­venant of Grace, and have as great Right to, and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever.

But God (himself) did by absolute So­veraign Grace, comprehend Abraham's [Page 35] Church-Seed in the Covenant of Grace he made with believing Abraham, (their Stipulating and Covenanting Father) which Gracious Act of his was never since Re­pealed.

Therefore the Infants of Abraham's Church-Seed are still Interessed in the Co­venant of Grace, and have as great a Right to, and are as capable of the Grace and Seal of that Covenant as ever.

I cannot see how this Argument can (possibly) be overthrown, but by proving, that God did alter and change that Cove­nant he made with Abraham (his Friend,) for himself and for his Church-Seed: The which, when the Adversary doth by Evi­dence of Scripture, (not abused and per­verted,) I shall then yield the Cause, and bewail my Mistake. But two things cause in me an unshaken Confidence, that this can never be done. First, The Immutabi­lity and Unchangableness of God, on which very account he is styled a Covenant-keep­ing God, who never yet cast off any poor Sinner, until that Sinner did first actually cast God off; the which (I think) the Ad­versary dares not deny. Secondly, The Impossibility of poor Infants actually casting God off, and that because of their Incapa­city in respect of Age.

Arg. 2. If Infants be at all Saved, they are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant made with Abraham; which Covenant, and the External Seal thereof, (in the Visible Church) must belong to them also.

But Infants are Saved by the Grace of God's Covenant, (made with Abraham) and in no other way.

Therefore the Covenant of God's Grace (by which they are Saved) and the Seal thereof, (in the Visible Church) must be­long to them also.

This Argument hath been constantly maintained (by the Orthodox) against the Enemies of Infant-Baptism, with such suc­cess, that I never yet heard the Man's Name, who was able to answer or over­throw the same by sound or solid Argu­ment.

To deny Salvation to Infants is a Prin­ciple so monstrously Cruel and Uncharita­ble, (exposing to the Judgment of God, and to the deserved Frowns of all Tender-hearted Parents) that some, who account it a point of great Skill and Wisdom, (in the Mystery of the Gospel) to Decry and Witness against Infant-Baptism, have de­clared themselves strongly inclin'd to be­lieve, that all Infants are Saved, and that without distinguishing between Elect and Reprobate, or between the Seed of Pro­fessing [Page 37] Godly Believers, and that of Maho­metans, &c. a Principle (altogether) as silly and groundless as that of denying the Right of Believers Infant-Seed to the Co­venant of Grace, and the Visible Token or Seal thereof in the Church. And at what Door this (Heterodox) Dream should en­ter, or from what Root or Principle it should spring, I know not, unless from that Popish Arminian Principle of general Re­demption and universal Grace. Here, by the Concession (or Grant) of the very Ad­versaries, Infants are Saved; but how, or in what way? whether by a Covenant or without a Covenant. Here they are (pro­foundly) silent, not daring to mention any Covenant at all, fearing an Advantage may be (thereby) given, to discover or prove the Right of Infants to the Covenant. It is sufficient (such Dreamers Judge) to leave poor Infants to the general Mercy and Grace of God, as those do, who Dream and Conceit, that the very Damned in Hell shall (at length) be delivered from the Torments of that Place. For which Chy­merical Whym, there is as much to be said (from the Word of God.) As there is to prove, that God will extend the Grace of his Covenant to all Infants Dy­ing so.

The Adversary (I dispute against) knows (very well,) that should it be granted (in Terminis) in plain Terms, that Infants are Saved by the Grace of the Covenant, it can no way be avoided, but that Infants must be in that Covenant, and must have an Indisputable Right (in foro Ecclesiae) to the outward Seal thereof.

But this must be deny'd, and its contra­ry asserted, (for the most Glorious Gospel-Truth,) (viz.) That Believers only (ex­cluding their Infants) are Interested in the Covenant, and have a Right to the Seal thereof; and that in the Right of the Pro­fession they make before Men.

Now, how absurd and contrary to the very Tenure and Design of God's Covenant with Christ (in the behalf of the Elect) this Principle of Anabaptism is? I leave to eve­ry Unprejudiced Reader (who understands any thing in Religion) to Judge. And whether to restrain the Promise of God's Covenant (which equally extends to all the Elect) to that part of the Elect, which are Adult and Grown up, to make a Professi­on, and to extend the Grace of God be­yond the bounds of his own Covenant, be not equally to Rase the Foundation of Gos­pel-Truth, and to Usurp the Throne of God (or to Invade his Prerogative) in the Church; I leave to Wise Men to deter­mine.

If thus to do falls not under that dread­ful Commination (or Woe threatned) in Rev. 22.18. I am greatly mistaken.

Arg. 3. If Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant as the A­dult do, and be (every way) as capable thereof as the Adult are, then must they (of necessity) be allow'd the Seal thereof in the Church.

But Infants do stand in as real need of the Grace of God's Covenant, and are (every way) as capable thereof as the Adult are.

Therefore the Seal of God's Covenant in the Church must (of necessity) be allow'd them.

That Infants are Partakers of Adam's Guilt, and also of that Pravity and Pollu­tion of Nature, which came by Adam's Fall, I am confident will be deny'd by none (un­less by downright Dreamers) now to own this.

And at the same time to Teach and Hold, that Infants are (because not Grown up to the use of Reason and actual Faith) unca­pable of Regeneration, is to deny Salvation to all Infants, who Die Infants: And how well this Principle accords with all Infants being Saved, (who Die Infants) is not dif­ficult to understand. If this be not Contra­dictio in Terminis, (viz.) A Contradiction in plain Terms, I know not what a Contra­diction means.

The Lord Christ (who can neither lye nor be deceived in what he saith) assures us, that except one be Born again, he cannot (possibly) see the Kingdom of God. Jo. 3.8. wherein the absolute need of Regeneration is discovered and asserted; and the Subject of which, this is predicated (in that Text) being indefinitely and universally exprest; we are taught that neither Adult nor Infant, shall ever enter Heaven, till that work of Regeneration pass on the guilty polluted Soul: And to say that an Adult (or grown) Person (by reason of his Age) is capable of this great Change, but that an Infant (be­cause he wants the use of reason, &c.) is uncapable of it. What is this but (inter­pretatively) to hold and say that the Crea­tures own will and reason must concurr to the producing the New Creature in a Dead Soul.

And how advantageous this Principle is to Papists, Arminians, Pelagians and Soci­nians; the Learned and Orthodox well know.

The Enemies themselves do (with us) acknowledge that Water-Baptism is a Pas­sive Ordinance; and strange it is, that those (of that Party) who are concerned to deck and adorn the Frontispiece of their Books (against Infant-Baptism) with such Ornate Florishes of Greek, Hebrew, and [Page 41] Latin Sentences, do not (in their way of arguing about this matter) give us to under­stand that they understand and know the meaning and proper signification of the word Passive, better than it appears they do; certain it is, and the Learned know it) that the term Passive signifies and im­ports a Non-agency in the Subject, when a change is passing on it, or a work producing in it; to the effecting of which change (or work) the Subject Recipient neither wills nor acts any thing towards the producti­on of such a change.

If I understand any thing of Gods Mind (revealed in the Sacred Scripture) or was ever (experimentally) acquainted with the Spirits method in passing that great change on a Sinner, in effectual Calling. The work consists of two parts. First, Gods Gracious Acts, in freely Pardoning all the Rebels Sins and Transgressions committed against the Law, imputing to him that spot­less Righteousness of Christ his Son (the Sinners Sponsor or Surety) as truly and really as if that spotless Righteousness had been acted performed by the Sinner himself (Personally.) This is the first part wherein that great change lyes or consists, which (in Divinity) is called Justification.

The Second is, Go [...]s quickening and re­newing the inward Powers and Faculties of [Page 42] the Soul, by communicating a principle of Spiritual Life to the Sinner, in every of the Souls faculties within: I do not mean (or intend) that in this work of Regenerating the Sinner, the Natural faculties (concrea­ted with the Nature of Adam) are destroy­ed or annihilated, but that the Predomi­nancy of those vitious qualities (inhering in the Souls faculties) is overpowered by the Sanctification of the Spirit; and a con­trary Principle of saving (and unloosable) Grace is communicated to every of these faculties in the Soul, whereby the new Prin­ciple communicated, maintains its own Being in those respective Faculties, (and this through the continual supply of the Spi­rit which produced the change) and making continual resistance against that Vice and Corruption (as yet) remaining in the same Faculties where the new Creature is ap­pointed to War and Combat, until that Sinless Perfection (promised in the Cove­nant of Grace) supersede and dispossess that indwelling Corruption (in the Soul) under which the new Creature continues to groan, until a perfect release come.

This is called Sanctification; and when the set time (prefixt in Gods Decree) for calling an Elect Sinner, is come; what pro­duceth this great change?

I will suppose the Sinner to be come to the Years of Manhood, capable of acting or exercising his natural Faculties; doth his will or his reason help the Almighty in producing so miraculous a change? can the Eye of this Sinners blind reason (and under­standing) see into or comprehend the hid­den Mystery of that Wisdom manifested and set forth in that stupendious and asto­nishing contrivance of Gods justifying and reconciling to himself an Apostate, Rebel, Sinner, by the imputed Righteousness of another? can the Eye of blind reason be ca­pable of this? can the Will of this dead Sinner incline or move it self towards the Sinners own Conversion, to be a Coadjutor or Fellow-helper, to forward or help the Almighty in effecting this strange and mi­raculous change? can it (possibly) be that Spiritual (or Corporal) Blindness can cure it self, or that Enmity and Rebellion can change its own Nature?

Let the experience of every (rightly) as­sured Believer speak to this.

If then nothing in the poor dead Sinner, neither the use of his natural reason, nor yet any activity in his unrenewed Will doth contribute any help to produce so wonder­ful a change; the work must needs be (en­tirely) Gods own work. From which I ar­gue in the behalf of poor Infants, if God [Page 44] can, and doth freely pardon and blot out the Millions of actual Sins (added to the original guilt) of an adult Sinner; if he can and doth freely and most graciously impute the Righteousness of his Son; and by thus doing, justifies an adult Sinner: If God can (and doth) by the irresistable efficacy of his own Holy Spirit, renew the faculties of the Soul of an adult Sinner, which is (as I may say) steeped (and even soaked) in Vitiosity and actual Pollution; cannot the same Al­mighty, Just, Wise and Gracious God do and effect the like change in and upon a poor helpless Infant, though that Infant understand not what is done to it, neither is capable of contributing any help towards so great a change?

From what hath been (here) offered to consideration, to me it is evident and plain, that when Men cry out and say, Infants, (while Infants) are uncapable of Regenera­tion, because they want the use of rea­son, &c. they speak most injuriously and ignorantly against God himself, as if he could not (or would not) effect that in and for an Elect Infant which he doth for an a­dult Sinner; as the justifying and renewing an adult Sinner hath no dependence on the reason, will or speech of a grown Sinner, even so the want of actual reason, activity of Will or Speech in an Infant, cannot (pos­sibly) [Page 45] hinder God from effecting this great and gracious work in and upon an Elect In­fant, though the poor Infant can do nothing towards so great a change. The Subject Recipient of this work of Regeneration, is (every way) Passive, the adult as well as the Infant.

Agreeable to this Act of Gods in chang­ing a Sinner, is that Ordinance of Water-Baptism, whose principal use is twofold. First, to signifie and represent his own gra­cious dealing with the Sinner (Baptized) in Pardoning all his Sins, for Christs sake; whose Blood represented by the Water in Baptism) was shed for the Remission of the Sins of all, comprehended in that Covenant of Grace, whereof Baptism is a Seal. And Secondly, that it may be a Seal to confirm to the Baptized (if Elect) all the gracious Promises of the same Covenant of Grace; as Gods work (upon the Soul of a true Con­vert) is (in respect of the Sinner) wholly Passive, so Baptism (the outward Sign and Seal of Gods Covenant of Grace) is altoge­ther Passive: And as the Wisdom of Christ saw fit to appoint the Element of material Water to be used in Baptism, as (above all the other Elements) most suited to the de­sign of that Ordinance, because of the Ana­logie and resemblance which is between Water and the Blood of Christ; so no [Page 46] mode or way of administring this Water-Baptism doth so exactly and to the life, set forth the freeness of Gods Grace and Mer­cy (exhibited) in the Covenant of Grace, then the act of Sprinkling or pouring out the Water on the Party Baptized. By this way of Sprinkling (under the Gospel) there is a sweet and orderly Harmony kept be­tween the Pen-men of Gods Word, both under the Old and New-Testament Dispen­sation, with whom, whoever studys to agree (in applying the Water of Holy Bap­tism) they will be (at length) found to be in the right; how many and black Censures soever are heapt on them by injudicious Spirits: The Spirit of God (in the work of Regeneration) applys the Spiritual Bap­tism by Sprinkling or pouring out of his Graces on the Soul. There must be an A­nalogie kept between the thing signified and the outward Sign.

Against what hath been laid down to prove Infants right to Baptism, (the Seal of Gods Covenant) many things are object­ed. I will (for brevity sake) contract the Objections (with my Answers) to as few particulars as (possibly) I can.

Object. 1. In the Words of the Grand Commission, there is not one word concerning Infants. Mat. 28.19. Go ye and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name, &c.

This seems too weak, (though well mean­ing) Minds to be unanswerable: But in the strength of him who gave out this Grand Commission, I hope to shew how wretched­ly the Objector is mistaken herein.

In order whereto, let two things be se­riously (and warily) considered.

First, that albeit Christ the Lord doth not mention Infants (in particular) yet he includes them in the Words of the general Commission [...] Go Teach all Nations, Bapti­zing them, &c. Here the Lord commands (expresly) that all such as belong to Gods Covenant (with Abraham) Gen. 7.7. shall be Baptized; Namely, all who shall embrace the Son of God by Faith, and their Infant-Seed (if any they have) That this is the true sense and meaning of Christ in that place, is clear to any who do not (wilfully) shut their Eyes; for evident it is, and none can deny that he (there) commands to Bap­tize all Nations, not excepting against or forbidding the Disciples to Baptize little Infants: He knew that he spake to Men, who (after the sending of the Holy Ghost) should know and consider that Abrahams Covenant (with Believers and their Infant-Seed) was to remain and continue the same to the end of the World. And this, (to­gether with the sharp rebuke he gave to his Apostles, for offering to hinder Little Ones [Page 48] being brought to him; and his laying be­fore them such a convincing reason where­fore such should not be kept from coming to him. Mar. 10.14. was the principal, (if not the only reason) wherefore his infinite Wisdom saw it not needful to mention In­fants in particular, they being (most cer­tainly) included in the general term all Na­tions: All Men (who know any thing of Learning) understand that Omne majus continet in se minus, (every greater includes (or contains in it the lesser) is a sure and standing Rule both in Logick and Divinity.

Agreeing with this sense (I have given off the Grand Commission) is that of Peter, Acts 2.39. For the Promise is to you and to your Children, &c. which affords an invin­cible Argument to prove that there is (now under the Gospel) no change of Abrahams Covenant, (any other than in the external administration of it) The Covenant (in its substance) abides the same for ever: By the Grace thereof all Gods Elect (both of the Jewish and Gentile Race) are to be Sa­ved. Rom. 3.29. What I have said will yet receive farther confirmation by what is laid down by Paul in Gal. 3.14. That the Blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, &c. The places now quoted out of Acts 2.39. and Gal. 3.14. presuppose a command to all, [Page 49] (whether Jew or Gentile) who (by Faith) receives Jesus Christ for a Saviour) that they shall be Signed with the Seal of Abra­hams Covenant, according to Gen. 17.9. For if the Gentiles (who believe in Abra­hams Saviour) do expect that they and their Infants should be made actual Partakers of the Blessings of Abrahams Covenant; they must be sure to observe and keep Gods Co­venant with Abraham throughout their Generations.

Secondly, seeing that Christ (himself) words the Commission so in general terms, (which (undoubtedly) includes the parti­cular) not excepting against Infants: It must (necessarily) follow, that if Infants be a part of those Nations which the Apostles, &c. are commanded to Baptize; that Christ commands them to Baptize Infants as well as any others. Reader, observe the Words of the Commission, Go and Teach all Nations, &c. Here is no more mention of grown Persons, Men or Wo­men, than there is of Infants. If then A­nabaptists cannot deny that Infants are a part of Nations, and that they can no way prove how Abrahams Blessing can come on the Gentiles (through Christ Jesus) any o­ther way than by and through the Cove­nant of Abraham. It will (unavoidably) follow, (all the Wit in Man cannot oppose [Page 50] it with success) that Infants as well as adult Persons are (as the proper Subjects of Bap­tism) intended (by Christ) in the Grand Commission.

Object. 2. None are the proper Subjects of Baptism, but such as are first taught Go and Teach, &c. Infants are not capable of Mans Teaching, therefore they are not the proper Subjects of Baptism.

Answ. This, with the Objection already spoken to, seems (to weak and injudicious People) to be unanswerable, (for excluding Infants from Baptism) but he that looks into it with a Spiritual Eye, will find no­thing in it against Infants.

In order to discover the weakness and mistake of the Objector, let it be observed (with care) that the Word Teach, is twice mentioned in the Words of the Commission; Go and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them; &c. And in Ver. 20, Teaching them to ob­serve, &c.

The first Teach is (in the Original) Ma­theteusate; and the other is Didaskontes; which I choose to set down in the English (rather than in the Greek) Character, to the end the Unlearned may Read them; and (in Reading) observe the great diffe­rence which is between the two Words, and that both in the Letters and Sound of the Words; if this be taken notice of, it [Page 51] will afford to the Unlearned (who would not be impos'd upon) ground to suspect, not only the Skill (in Tongues,) but also the Honesty and Faithfulness of those Guides, whom they Judge come nearer to Infalibi­lity in what they Teach, than do the other eminent Servants of Christ, who differ from them; and at whose Labours the a­blest Preachers of that Party, are glad to Light their Candles.

As these two Words differ in Letters and Sound, as the Unlearned themselves will find, (if they be but Faithful to them­selves,) so they differ also in their Sense and Signification, as the Orthodox and Learned well know. I begin with the first, (viz.) Matheteusate, which signifies (properly) to Disciple, or to make Disciples in all Na­tions, where the Gospel shall be (gladly) received.

How is this to be done? Answ. Even as God Taught Abraham, when he Instru­cted him in the great Mystery of the Cove­nant: The which, when Abraham Em­brac'd for himself and his Infant-Seed, he received (gladly) the Visible Token or Seal of that Covenant of Grace, (viz.) Circum­cision, and marks out his Infant-Seed, by putting the same Seal of the Covenant on them, and that in compliance with God's Command.

It is but Rational to suppose and grant, that the first Subjects of an Ordinance should be Persons Adult, and Grown up to the use of Reason, that they may be capa­ble of Acting for not only themselves, but for their Off spring and Posterity also, who are not (while Infants) capable of Acting for themselves.

This was God's Way and Method with Abraham (his Friend) he Propounds his Covenant of Grace to him and (in him) to his Seed, as their Stipulating and Cove­nanting Head and Representative. In In­structing Abraham, God (in Abraham's Person) Instructs his Infants, so as by that Instruction, his Infant-Seed became Disci­ples, and were (accordingly) Sign'd with the Seal of their Stipulating Father's Co­venant.

This (undoubtedly) was the Method which the Apostles went in, when they were sent forth to make Disciples (to Christ) in every Nation. They Instructed Adult and Grown Persons in the Mystery of God's Grace (by Christ;) and when such laid hold on Christ (in the Covenant) by an External Profession of Faith, (in him) they were Baptized with their Infants, (if any they had.) Hence we Read of the Jay­lor in Acts 16.33. who (on his Believing) was Baptized, he and all that were of him, [Page 53] (viz.) His own Personal Off-spring, so the Greek Word signifies. Hence also we Read of whole Families, who were Baptized (by the Apostles) on the Faith of such as were the Heads of such Families. It was no more necessary, that Infants should be made men­tion of, (as being in such Families when Baptized) than it was, that they should be nam'd in the Grand Commission; the Spi­rit which gave out the Grand Commission, was in, and with the Apostles, when they Baptized; and it is (to me) convincing, that Infants are intended in both, seeing they are excepted against, in neither, which the Adversary must (needs) be convinc'd of, unless he be able to prove, that Infants are neither a part of Nations or of Fami­lies.

The other Word Teach in the Commis­sion is, Didaskontes, which (properly) sig­nifies a Teaching or Instructing (Doctri­nally) those, who are (already) made Di­sciples by the former way of Teaching. Nei­ther can it (without Lying) be said to be Nonsense and folly, to term Infants (who are by the first Teaching made Disciples) Schollars or Disciples, seeing, that Infants (in Age) are (by the Spirit of Truth) so styl'd, witness Acts 15.10. where such are called Disciples, who were made so by the Initiating Ordinance of Circumcision, [Page 54] who afterwards (when grown up) were taught (Doctrinally) what they were to know and practice; neither is this (any whit) repugnant to the Method God took with Abraham, but rather agreeing with it; as appears by Gen. 18.19. and even a­mong Men nothing more common and fre­quent, than to call our little Children Schollars or Disciples, and that from the very first day of their being entred into a School: And as in Mens Schools there are sundry Ranks or Classes of Schollars, some lower and some higher; so in the School of Christ (the great Prophet of his Church) there are several Ranks or Degrees of Church Members. It is well known how ignorant (in the Mysteries of the Gospel) the very Apostles themselves were, when they first entred into Christs School; yet Christ calls them his Disciples for all that. The Apostle Paul could not write or speak unto the Corinthians, but as unto Babes, as unto Carnal Men; yet they were Church Members for all that. These things duly considered, forces me to conclude those Men profoundly ignorant in the Mystery of Gods Holy Covenant; who (because In­fants are uncapable of being taught and in­structed (Doctrinally) as adult and grown Men are) peremptorily deny that Infants are capable of being made Disciples (to [Page 55] Christ) by the Ministry of Men. This Principle came (no doubt) from the same Spirit which teaches that Infants, (while Infants) are uncapable of Regeneration; which are both (manifestly) false, because contrary to Gods revealed Will.

Object. 3. Baptism is a Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, to which none have a right, but he or she who is a real true Believer.

Answ. I answer in three particulars. First, If Baptism be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, then must it needs succeed and come in the room of Circumcision: And so the truth is (here) granted, which else where is denied, that Circumcision is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; is most plain from Rom. 4.11. Now if Baptism be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, (as the Ob­jector grants, and as I believe and affirm it is) then Baptism did (undeniably) come in the room of Circumcision, that the same might be to Believing Gentiles (under the Gospel) what Circumcision was (of Old) to Abra­ham, (viz.) a Seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, If none but actual Believers have a Right to that Righteousness of w [...]ich Baptism is a Seal, then must it follow (un­avoidably) that all Infants (who Dye in In­fancy) are Eternally lost: And how (cruel this Doctrine is, and how inconsist [...]nt with [Page 56] the Doctrine which teacheth that all Infants (Dying Infants) are saved, all Men may see.

Thirdly, If none but real true Believers have a Right to Baptism, I would gladly see how those (I Dispute against) can justify their own practices, in admitting so many poor ignorant Folk to that Ordinance (in their way) who (with some who admit them) are as ignorant of the Mystery of Regeneration and of Baptism, (the exter­nal Seal thereof) as was Nicodemus. Can they (without a Divine Revelation) know that those whom they admit to Baptism are (infallibly) real true Believers?

Object. 4. To apply Baptism, (the Seal of the Covenant) to an unintelligent Subject, who neither knows what is done to him, nor yields consent thereto: It is all one as to present a Picture to a Blind Man, which to do is most absurd and ridiculous.

Answ. To this I shall reply in four par­ticulars. And first, I say (with a Learned Man) this is (at best) but a blind Compa­rison; and (which is far worse) a high and fancy Reflection on the infinite Wisdom and uncontroulable Soveraignty of the most high God; for most certain it is, that nothing can be offered as an Argument to keep Infants from Baptism, (meerly) on the account of their being unintelligent Sub­jects, [Page 57] and uncapable of yielding their con­sent to what is done to them in Baptism) But what will be of as great force to keep them back from Circumcision? And so the Objector may see (plainly) how (herein) he arraigns the Wisdom and Soveraignty of God at the Bar of a shallow and corrupt Creatures Reason, which demonstrates him to be more Brutish; (I am sure more proud end wicked) than those Non-intelligent Subjects which the Objection is levelled against.

This will appear by considering Gods dealing with Abraham, in that he command­ed him to Mark (or Seal) his Son Isaac with the Seal of Circumcision at Eight Days old. Had Isaac the use of reason at that Age? Had he actual Faith or Speech to express his consent to what was (then) done to him? No sure; what then must God be charged with weakness or unreasonableness for applying the Seal of his Covenant to an unintelligent Subject? By these kind of Ob­jectors, Gods Act (herein) stands charged with weakness and folly, but I conclude with Paul, Rom. 3.4. Yea, let God be true, but every Man a Lyar. God commands nothing in vain, and the reason is, because his Ordinance hath no kind of dependence on the Creature, to give it power, or to make it effectual to accomplish what he hath [Page 58] appointed it to, but on his own free Spirit, which works most powerfully, yea, irre­sistably where he himself hath purposed to confer the Spiritual Good, signified by the outward Ordinance.

Object. 5. The Promise of Gods Covenant is made to the Elect, and none but they have a Right to the Seal: No Man can affirm that an Infant brought to Baptism is Elect.

Answ. I Answer to this in two things. First, I grant that none shall ever reap any saving Benefit by the Covenant, but the E­lect; (and that in the right of Election) yet doth it not hence follow, that none but they have a right to the Seal of the Cove­nant in the Church Visible, seeing that by the very Constitution of Gods Covenant (with Abraham the Ecclesiastical Father, and pub ick Visible Head of all the Seed of Be­lieving Church-Members) God commands that the Seal of his Covenant shall be equal­ly apply'd to all the Male-Seed of the Be­liever; and that without any regard to the Election, which is a Secret known (only) to God; about which he would not have us to trouble our Spirits, any farther than to give all (becoming) diligence to make our own (Pe sonal) Election sure to our s [...]lves. As touchi [...]g the Infants of Church Memb [...]rs, (about whom all the Dispute is) We are not ( [...]nxiously) to be concerned a­bout [Page 59] them, whether they be in the Electi­on of God, yea or no. It is ground suf­ficient for us to Bless and thank God for his dealing so Graciously with our Infants, in that they (with us) are taken into the same Covenant, and Sealed with the Seal there­of; for by Gods dealing thus with Belie­vers Infant-Seed, Believers have a good foundation laid, whereon to bottom their Hope and Comfort, (with reference to thei [...] Dying or Deceased Infants) and also of wrestling with God in Prayer for their Conversion and Eternal Welfare; the which the Enemies to Infant-Baptism, do (by denying that Infants belong to the Co­ven [...]nt, or have any right to the Promis [...]s thereof, till they themselves B [...]lieve) de­prive, and (insensibly) s [...]oil themselves of. This is most evidently true, as will appear if it be s [...]riously consi [...]ered, tha [...] all right Prayer is a Pl [...]i [...]g the Promises of Gods Covenant, in the Name and Merit of Christ his own So [...], in and through whom, the said Promis [...]s are intail'd on all the Children of Promise: Now if my In­fant be Sick or Ailing? If he be going on in Sin, &c. how can I (by the Anabaptist Principle put up a Prayer to God for him, seeing there is no promise of Gods Cove­nant belongs to him? Or how can I comfort my sorrowful Spirit (with reference to my [Page 60] Deceased Children) if I must look on my dear Babes as Strangers and Enemies to God, (the which they are by Nature; and must remain so for ever) in case they be not Partakers of the Grace of Gods Covenant?

Secondly, If none but the Elect have right to Baptism, this Objection will fall like a Mill-stone on them who Baptize whole droves of Men and Women; of whose Election (to Eternal Life) neither Baptizer nor Baptized, know any more than they know how many Stars in the Firma­ment; so that by thus arguing against poor Tongue-ty'd Infants, they may see how they deny Salvation to their own (as w [...]ll as others) Infants, and render themselves un­capable of discharging a good Conscience to their poor Children, in putting up (dai­ly) Petitions to God for them.

Object. 6. We have an open Profession from those we Baptize, and that warrants our Bap­tizing such as offer themselves to join to the Churches. You have not the like from Infants.

Answ. I Answer hereto in three parti­culars. First, it were well for both Bapti­zers and Baptized, if both the one and the other were better acquainted with the Na­ture of right Conversion than they are, and that they were better grounded in the sound (and experimental) knowledge of the Co­venant of Grace; the which if they were, [Page 61] I dare (boldly) say, they would not be so precipitant and rash in condemning and de­spising those poor Infants, who are set forth (by the Wisdom of God) as Patterns and Examples, by which grown Persons are to be moulded and sitted for Heaven: Nei­ther would they be so forward to offer themselves to Baptism on such slight and evanid Motions, as falls short (in too ma­ny) of common Convictions.

Secondly, poor Infants never (yet) broke or transgressed the Moral Law, (Personal­ly) and that is one great reason why an actual confession of Faith and Repentance is not required of them, to qualifie them for Baptism: As the Sin of Infants lyes in the imputation of Adams Disobedience, and the Pollution of Nature, derived by fleshly Generation; so their help and remedy lyes in the imputation of Christs Spotless Righteousness to their Persons; and his Spirits renewing their inward Faculties in Regenerating them. And this twofold work of the Spirit in Justifying and Sancti­fying the Elect Infant, is (plainly) signifi [...]d and Sealed in that Ordinance of Baptism, to the Infant, as well as to a grown [...]eliever.

Thirdly, albeit Infants be not able to spe [...]k for themselves, and to claim that right to the Seal of Gods Covenant which the Covenant it self hath entail'd on them, [Page 62] (as they are the Church Seed of Believing Parents) yet there is one who speaks for them, whose Judgment and Testimony of them is more sure and infallible than all o­ther Testimonies of Men and Angels; the Lord Jesus (I mean) who (with his Father, and God the Holy Ghost) contrived and made the Covenant of Grace, wherein they are comprehended. I will lay down in six Particulars what is the Judgment of Christ concerning Infants, (as they are concern­ed in the Covenant) First, he propounds them as Patterns, by which grown Persons must be moulded and fitted for Heaven, Mat. 18.3. Secondly, declares their right to the Kingdom of God, Mar 10.14. For of such is the Kingdom of God. Thirdly, re­bukes (most severely) his Disciples for hin­dering Infants being brought to him, Mar. 10.14. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, &c. In the Greek it is Eganak­tese, which signifies to have the Bowels (in­wardly) moved, or affected with Grief, to be filled with Indignation; (as Beza ren­ders it, Indignatus est, to be Stomackt at a Person, or a thing which is greatly or highly displeasing: A Word which judici­ous Sydenham observes, was never used by Christ in any case, or on any occasion, be­sides this of poor Infants, to instruct and teach Men: (No doubt) how greatly he [Page 63] was concerned for helpless Infants, and how displeased he was at the hardness of his Disciples Hearts against them: Oh! that the consideration of this might melt the hard Hearts of such, into a Christ like tenderness towards poor Infants. Fourth­ly, commands Infants to be brought to him, Mar. 10.14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, &c. Fifthly, pronounces them Holy, Rom. 11.16. 1. Cor. 7.14. Sixthly, Blesseth them, Mar. 10.16. And he took them up in his Arms, laid his Hands upon them and Blessed them. These six Particulars laid together, and weighed in the Ballance of Gods Sanctuary, I leave it to any Man of Sense (in Spiritual matters) to judge whe­ther is safer to credit this infallible Testi­mony of the Son of God, concerning In­fants, than to rely on the bare Testimony of a meer Man, concerning himself; who may (in all he pretends to) be but a Paint­ed Sepulchre.

Object. 7. If Infants must needs have a right to Baptism, because it is a Seal of the Covenant, then (of necessity) they must have a right to the Lords Supper also; for that is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as well as Baptism. The Wine in the Supper might as well be poured down the Infants mouth with a Spoon, as to sprinkle Water on his face.

Answ. This Objection better becomes [Page 64] a Superannuated Man, who borders on perfect Dotage, than one who pretends to be a Teacher of ignorant and misguided Souls; and not only so, but who takes on him to Usurp the Seat of Judgment, in pas­sing Sentence on all the Holy, Learned and Orthodox Divines, and Protestant Martyrs and Churches, who are gone to Glory in the unshaken Belief that the Infants of Be­lieving Parents have an unquestionable right to Baptism, and that they are as capable of the Seal of Baptism as they are of the Grace of Gods Covenant, signified thereby.

But that the Lords Supper belongs to none but to Adult and actual Believers, who are capable of those qualifications required in a worthy Communicant; such as Self-examination, (with reference to his State Godward) his faith in Christ, his progress in a Holy Life, his discerning the Lords Body, his keeping up a lively Communion with Father, Son and Spirit in that Ordi­nance, and judging ones self in case of short coming in Holy Duties.

These are the qualifications required to be in one who comes to the Lords Supper; of which, any (not in a Dream) may judge an Infant cannot be capable, (while an In­fant.) I humbly hope no judicious Christi­an will censure me (as rash and uncharitable) if I judge those Preachers fitter for a Shop­board [Page 65] than a Pulpit, who are not able or willing to discern or distinguish between Milk and strong Meat; and who will deny to Infants the Milk of Holy Baptism, (whereof they are capable, and whereto (by Gods Covenant) they have right, be­cause they are uncapable of receiving and digesting the strong Meat of the Lords Supper.

Object. 8. If Infant-Baptism were God's Ordinance, and were accompanied with his Blessing, to the Infant, how comes it to pass, that so many Baptized, (in Infancy) prove so Carnal and loose in their Lives and Con­versations?

Answ. Hereto I reply in three Particu­lars, wherewith I shall shut up the present Dispute.

First, It is with many Believers Infants now (under the Gospel) as it was with A­braham and his Infants of old. Some are their Children by fleshly Generation only, who (Ishmael-like) prove Mockers and Scoffers at Holiness, and Haters of God and good Men: These, (notwithstanding the Relation they stand in to the Church, by Virtue of their Baptismal Vow and the External Profession they make in the Visi­ble Church for a time) being left to the darkness and folly lodged in their cor­rupted Nature, they give themselves over [Page 66] to all kind of Looseness. Baptism (now) is no more to be faulted on this account, than Circumcision was formerly.

When the Children of believing Gen­tiles do (actually) violate God's Covenant, and depart from him; then will God do with them, as he did with Abraham's Car­nal Seed, &c.

Secondly, As some of the Children of be­lieving Parents, who were Baptiz'd in In­fant State, prove loose and vain, so (Bles­sed be God) a great many prove Holy and Upright Walkers with God, manifesting in their Lives and Conversations, the live­ly Coppy of that Spiritual Circumcision wrought (by the Spirit) in their Hearts when Converted, which was Signified and Sealed by that Baptism, which they were made Partakers of when Infants.

Thirdly and lastly, If from the vain and sinful Practise of some (Baptiz'd in Infancy) Infant-Baptism, must be disallow'd, (as no Institution of God,) how strong an Argument will this prove, to overthrow the Baptizing grown Professors? For (if I mistake not) the Opposers of Infant-Bap­tism must own, (will they nill they) that many of those Baptiz'd (in their way) have (notwithstanding their shining Profession, and their high Pretensions to the Work of the Spirit within) fallen most foully, and never recover'd again.

And thus I have (according to the Wis­dom given from above) endeavoured to clear up, (from God's Word) that Abra­ham's Covenant, Gen. 17.7. is (most cer­tainly) the Covenant of Grace. I have al­so prov'd (from the same Word,) that Cir­cumcision was the Seal of that Covenant: And that Baptism (under the Gospel) is now succeeded (or come in the room) thereof. I have endeavoured to prove, that the Infants of believing Gentiles have as real a Right to Baptism as Abraham's Seed had to Circumcision, under that dark Dispensation. And whether the Answers I have given to the most material Objecti­ons, I find brought against Infant-Baptism, be pertinent and convincing, I leave to the Judicious and Unprejudic'd to Judge.

AMong all the Rash and Presumptuous Assertors of Dipping the whole Body under Water, being the only right Mode or Manner of Baptizing, none hath made a greater noise (or a fairer shew) of being (herein) Infalible, than one William Russel, who styles himself Medicinae Doctor, Ac­cademiae Cantabrigiensis.

This Author, with a more than ordina­ry [Page 68] Confidence, hath boldly asserted; that Dipping, &c. is the only right Mode of Baptizing, commanded by Christ in the New Testament, and practised by John the Baptist, and all the Apostles and Primitive Christians.

This crude (or raw) Assertion of his, he labours to support and make good by a fourfold Medium: First, The Etymologie of the Greek word the Holy Ghost useth to express Dipping by.

Secondly, Those Metaphors used in Ho­ly Scriptures, to represent it to our Under­standing.

Thirdly, The Practise of the first Bap­tizers.

Fourthly, The words of the Grand Commission given by our Saviour in Mat. 28.19.

To demonstrate the falseness of his As­sertion, and to discover to Weak and In­judicious People the great Mistakes, where­on he bottoms his Assertion, is the design of my present Undertaking. But before I attack this Goliah, in examining what he can get from the four Particulars (above mentioned,) which may cause Simple and empty Brains to think and conceit this Accademical Doctor Invincible and Unan­swerable in what he hath (so Peremptori­ly) asserted for the Truth of God. I will [Page 69] lay down two things, (by way of Premise) whereof I desire the Reader (who is unwil­ling to be deceiv'd) to take notice.

The first is, That not so much the bare Letter of Scripture, as the sense and meaning of the Spirit, (therein) is the Word of God; by which Truth and Er­ror are to be Try'd and Judg'd. I have often said, (and I am very bold in affirming, that) that Sense or Interpretation, which any Man or Men give of any Text of God's Word, which thwarts and contradicts the Analogie of Faith, that Sense or Interpre­tation is from the Spirit of Satan; not from God, be the same never so plausible and pleasing to the Sons of Men; and be the Authors never so highly esteem'd of, for both their Piety and Learning. There is a sweet and an harmonious Concord and Agreement between all the parts of God's Revealed Religion, though but few (Com­paratively) can see it to be so. The Do­ctrine and Institutions of God in all the par­ticulars of his Instituted Worship, are plain, easy and obvious to the Eye, which the Spirit of Christ hath Anointed: But to such Men and Women, who are Desti­tute of the Spirit of Christ, nothing in Religion appears to them, but Nonsense and seeming Contradictions, which is the Reason why so many thousands in Eng­land, [Page 70] &c. Stagger and Reel (with a Spiri­tual Vertigo) in the Principles of the Pro­testant Religion, wherein both they and their Ancestors were Initiated (by Water-Baptism;) and in maintaining of which, they seemed (for many years) very Zea­lous.

The second thing I shall Premise, is this, (viz.) That Heterodox and Corrupt Underminers of the Gospel are then to be most of all lookt after and watcht against, when they lay about them, to advance the Fame and Credit of the Devil's Ministers, by Ecclipsing and Darkening the Credit and deserved Fame of Christ's Worthys, whom Christ hath Honoured with, being the chief Combatants in the Lord's Battels against the Powers of Darkness in this World.

My design in this, is to discover to the unwary Reader, this Doctor's Design of Blackening that Renowned and Incompa­rable Servant of Christ, Mr. John Calvin, than whom, I verily believe, the World hath not (since the Apostles left the Earth) seen a Greater Divine. A Man, who (for his high and excellent Endowments in all manner of Learning, especially his Eagle-eyedness, in penetrating into the Sense of Scriptures) was more like a Prophet, or an Apostle, than an ordinary Preacher.

This Doctor, that he might put a Lu­stre on Michael Servetus his Name, draws the Pencil of horrid and black Reproach a­cross the Name and Reputation of Holy, and (as I said) Incomparable Calvin. The Devil (in his Ministers) being deeply sen­sible how the famous and elaborate Works of that one Man stand in the way, to pre­vent and hinder the Devil growing Ram­pant, in advancing his Kingdom of Dark­ness among the Sons of Men.

Calvin is (by the Dr.) represented as an ambitious, Self seeking Man; and (which is far worse) a bloody Persecuter, while his Servetus is deckt and adorned wi [...]h the Robes of a Glorious Martyrdom. The Drs. Words will shew whether I be mistaken in what I say of him, see Page 4 of the Drs. Epistle, where he saith, (with a Spirit of virulency) and at last I concluded it must certainly proceed from the very Spirit and Principle of the first founder of your Sect, (meaning the Presbyterians) Master John Calvin, who burnt the Books of Servetus, a Learned Baptist, and afterwards perswa­ded the Magistrates of Geneva to Burn him alive; which Sentence was executed upon him, (as Castellio testifies, (who was a contemporary with him) In these words Michael Servetus was burnt alive for his O­pinion, at Geneva, 1553, upon the 27th [...]ay of October.

Besides this, The Dr. tells his Reader, (with an ungodly design, to lessen and blacken the Famous Calvin; and to Extol his Servetus,) that one well observes, that Mr. Calvin did acknowledge of Servetus, that he was a Learned Charitable Man; notwithstanding which, he wrote a Book to Justifie Servetus being put to Death.

When I See and Rea [...] these things, from a better, and more Impartial Testi­mony than Castellio was, I shall then say somewhat to it. But (indeed) I must In­geniously assure the Dr. that I shall neither believe him, nor his Castellio, in the Re­ports they spread abroad of Calvin, and others (of Christ's Worthys) who Detect and Decry their Heretical Doctrines.

Not him, because sad Experience Teaches, that those of his Judgement are pretty well Skilled, in Misrepresenting and Belying the most Holy, Orothodox, and most Learned of Divines; on purpose to gain Ground among the less Intelligent, whom they know to be strangers to Au­thors; and who will be easily drawn to Credit those Reports, which they are not able to contradict: Especially when Re­presented to them, by the Mouth and Pen, of such, as they take to be good Men.

Not his Castellio, because I look on him every way as unfit to be a Witness [Page 73] against so Orthodox and great a Propugna­tor of Gospel Verities, as Calvin is known to be; And that, on the Account of the Testimonies given of Castellio; by good and Learned Men, who better knew what Castellio was than Dr. Russel doth.

The Great and Learned Scaliger charges Castellio, with holding many corrupt Opi­nions of the Anabaptists.

And the Learned Hoffman Accused him for being one of the first Sowers of the Seed of Arminianism.

Tar. Faber, another Great and Learned Author, Charged him with saying that the Song of Solomon was a Wicked Book. And he held that Paul Taught a more Mysterious Divinity to some perfect Disci­ples, than he left in Wri ing, this is to be seen in his Book, on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Now if the Impartial Reader, seriously weighs the Account given of Calvin and Castellio, by the Orthodox and Learned, he will soon conclude (with me,) That had the Parts and Learning of Servetus and Castellio both Concenter'd in one Head, Calvin's Orthodoxy in the Faith, and his Excellency in all manner of Learning, had never been in danger of Suffering an Eclipse: Nor yet his Books of receiving a Solid Answer (much less a Confutation) by [Page 74] such Men as Servetus and Castellio, whate­ver Dr. Russel and his Bigotted Proselites think or believe to the Contrary.

That Eagle Eyed Calvin, soared too High (in Penetrating into the Arcana Imperii of Heaven) for such Glow-worms to reach his Sense, or to understand the Spirit by which he Speaks and Writes. Wisdom is Justified of none but her own Legitimate Off-spring. Mat. 11.19.

And here I desire the wary Reader, to take notice of the fraudulent design of Dr. Russel, which is, to I [...]pose on his Reader, a believing that Servetus (who dy'd at Ge­neva for his Opinion) did Dye for b [...]ing an Anabaptist: which inded is a notorious Piece of Fals [...]ood, as the Learned and Godly (who look into Antiquity) well know, who give that Account of Servetus, that he was Executed at Geneva for his Blasphemy ag [...]inst the Holy Trinity, he Denying the God-Head of Christ, and the Personality of the Holy Ghost.

This the Dr. well knew would have spoil­ed his design, had he (honestly) told his Reader, what an Heterodox and Blasphe­mous Wretch, his Servetus, that Learned Baptist (who Dy'd at Geneva for his Opi­nion) was.

And truly, (to be plain,) had Servetus Dy'd for being an Anabaptist (which I ut­terly [Page 75] deny he did,) yet, I am far from thinking the better of Anabaptism therefore: Or, Judging Servetus, (or any others who on that Account loose their Lives) to be true Martyrs of Je­sus.

That saying of Cyprian will ever be true, that Causa, non Mors, facit Martirem, The Cause, not Death, makes a Martyr. As the Blessed Jesus hath his Witnesses, who Seal the Word of his Patience, with their dearest Blood.

So the Devil hath his Witnesses, (yea, many more than Christ hath,) who Seal their Infernal Heresies, and Damnable Doctrines, with their Hearts Blood; yet I am far from Believing that such Martyrs, will ever be owned by Christ, at their going off the Stage: Or, that such Sufferings will make better the horrid Lyes and Blas­phemies Men Suffer for, be their Con­stancy, seeming Zeal, and Courage what it will.

Having Premised these things, I now proceed, to Examine the Four Particulars, whereon his Fabrick of Anabaptism seems to be Founded.

The Dr. and (with him all Anabaptists) Hold, (and with great Confidence) Assert: that Dipping and [...]lungeing the whole Body under Water, is the Only Right [Page 76] manner of Baptism, which all Believers are to practise under the Gospel.

This he labours, (though in vain) to make good by the Etymologie of the word, which the Spirit uses to express Baptism by.

The word (in the Greek) is [...], which (saith the Dr.) is derived from [...] to Dip or Plunge a thing under water. This signification of the Primitive word [...], he confirms by Human Testimo­ny; he begins with Learned Mr. Leigh, to whose Critica Sacra he refers his Read­er, in Quoting whom, he deals with his Reader as he did in Quoting Servetus; he saith that Servetus Dy'd at Geneva for his Opinion, but hides from his Reader the horrid Blasphemies for which he Dyed: So here the Dr. (designed­ly) Curtails the Observations of Mr. Leigh on the word [...], telling his Reader so much out of Mr. Leigh as he thinks makes for his Cause, but leaving out what of Mr. Leigh he knows makes full against him; which (I must needs say) is the trick of a Deceiver: And by these kind of shifts he and the most Crafty of his Party, do endeavour to underprop their sinking Cause, bearing poor simple folk in hand, that the Eminently Learned and Godly Men (whom they Quote) were of the Anabaptists Perswasion.

Now to let his unfairness appear herein, I here set down what of Leigh he quotes, and what of him he omits.

The word [...] (saith Mr. Leigh, is derived from the word [...], Tingo, to Dip or Plunge into the Water; and signi­fieth (primarily) such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks, where Linnen is plunged and dipt. Thus far the Dr. Quotes Leigh, and who would not think by reading so much of Leigh, and looking no further, (as the Dr. no doubt would have his Read­er) but that Leigh in his Critica Sacra was of the Drs. judgment herein.

Now follows the Learned Leighs Obser­vations on the signification of the word [...]. yet (saith he) it is taken more largely (meaning Baptizo) for any kind of washing, rinsing or cleansing, even where there is no Dipping at all; for which he Quotes Mat. 3.11. I indeed Baptize you with Water, &c. Mat. 20.22. Are ye able to be Baptized with, &c. Mar. 7.4. And when they come from the Market, except they wash they eat not. Luke 3.16. Acts 1.5. Acts 11.16. and 1. Cor. 10.2. In all which Scriptures Mr. Leigh doth acknow­ledge that [...] (the Derivative) is of a larger signification then [...] its Prima­tive, and intends such a washing as is done [Page 78] without Dipping; and why should this be concealed from the Reader?

As for Zeppeorus, Alstedius, Plutarch and Nazianzen, (on whom the Dr. lays no small stress) I hope he will allow us the same liberty he takes to himself, (viz.) to Quote such Testimonies as make for us.

The Learned Dr. featly (Quoted by Mr. Leigh) tells us that Christ no where requi­reth Dipping, but only Baptizing; which word (saith he) Hesychius, Stephanus, Sca­pula and Budeus, the great Masters of the Greek Tongue) make good by very many Instances and Allegations out of Classick Writers, that the word importeth no more then Ablution or Washing, [...] (say they) in their Lexicons and Commentaries) Lavo [...] Lavatio, Ablutio, which may be done without Dipping.

As touching the Greek Lexicon, Publisht, and recommended by.

• Joseph Caryl,
• George Cokayne,
• Ralph Venning,
• William Dell,
• Matthew Barker,
• William Adderly,
• Matthew Mead,
• Henry Jessey.

All that I shall (or need to) say, is this, (viz.) that albeit I own my self bound to Reverence and Honour the hoary Head, when found in the way of Truth and Righteousness, yet it must still be with the reservation of the honour and respect which [Page 79] I owe to God, (that Ancient of Days) their Father and mine, who alone and not the Learning and Wisdom of Men, (though the Greatest and Holiest) is the Father of their Faith and mine. I am not insensible that some Learned and good Men have granted, that the word [...] doth indif­ferently signifie, any kind of Washing by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon, or, by Dipping or Plunging into the Water; and this they have grounded on the native Signification of the Primitive word [...]. But with becoming modesty and due vene­ration to their Reverend Names, I must crave leave in telling the World, that for a World I cannot be of their Opinion (here­in) until I receive greater and clearer light from the Spirit and Word of God, concern­ing this matter; and that for the reasons here following. First, the apparent differ­ence I find between the two Words, [...] and [...], in Letters and Syllables, let the words be observed, in [...] (the Pri­mitive) I can find but 2 Syllables, [...], Bap-to, but in the Derivative [...] I find three, [...], Baptizo, and as in the Active, (so also in the Passive) Voice, [...], Bap-to-mai hath three Syllables, where­as [...] which is the Passive of [...], hath four Syllables, [...] Bap-ti-zo-mai. Now that the 2 words should both [Page 80] in Active and Passive Voice so apparently differ in Letters, Syllables, and sound of the words; and yet, that both the words should signifie and import the very same thing, is to me such a Riddle, that indeed I cannot see how the same can be unfolded, unless by the elucidating Art, and skill of Dr. Russel. The Learned know (very well) that in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues, the change of a Letter or a Syllable doth great­ly alter the Sense and Import of Words; and why it should not be so here, I cannot see any solid reason to the contrary, only it is the Will and Pleasure of our Dr. (and his Adherents in this Cause) that it must and shall be so, right or wrong; as appears by his Arminian Confidence almost in every Page where he mentions the Word Bap­tize; where he (peremptorily) beggs the Question, taking for granted, that which will never be granted by any, (unless by Brainless Heads or wilful underminers of the Gospel, (viz.) that the Derivative [...] doth always (in the Gospel) signifie and import the very same thing with Bapto, (viz.) to Dip or Plunge the whole Body under Water.

But that which will farther clear the mat­ter, and put the Truth (I here contend for) out of the reach of all Scriptural Contradi­ction, is the Practice of the Holy Ghost, [Page 81] who is better Etymologist than our Dr. and then all the Arminian (and other Here­tical) Criticks, who (in pretence of giving the Native and Genuine sense of Words in the Scripture) have forc't a wrong sense from the Original, on purpose to lay a firm foundation, on which they may build their Heterodox, and Soul deluding Do­ctrines.

I find that when the Holy Ghost would express the Act of Dipping or Plunging in­to, he doth it only by the Primitive [...], never by the Derivative [...] that I can find: For Proof whereof, let those Scrip­tures (Quoted by the Dr. himself in Page 11.) be without prejudice lookt into, and seriously weighed. Rev. 19.13. He had his Vesture dipt in Blood. Mat. 26.23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the Dish. Luke 16.24. That he may dip the tip of his finger in Water. And in John 13.26. it is (saith the Dr.) twice used, [...] Dipped, [...], and when he had Dipped: Here in these places the Holy Ghost expresseth the A [...]t Dip or Plunge into by the Primitive [...], but never by [...], Baptizo the Derivative.

Secondly, again (on the contrary) when the Holy Ghost expresseth Baptism by washing, he doth it by the Derivative [...], but never by the Primitive [...], Bap­to. [Page 82] For Proof hereof, let the places of Scripture already quoted (out of Leigh's Critica Sacra) be consulted, in all which places the Spirit speaks of Baptism, but not a word of Dipping; and that by the Deri­vative word [...], Baptizo; never by the Primitive Bapto.

Seeing then it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to express Dipping or Plunging into by the word [...], but never by the word [...], Baptizo; and that he hath expres­sed Baptism by the word [...], but never by the word [...]. I think none but Fools or mad Men will blame me for resolving to believe the Holy Ghost (in this matter) be­fore I believe Dr. Russel, and all the human Testimonies he hath quoted to make good his Cause; though he were able to quote a Million of Authors as Witty and Learned as his so much admired Servetus and Castel­lio.

The Premisses considered, I hope the Dr. will not be displeased for making this fair and generous offer to him, and all who espouse his Unscriptural Cause, (viz.) that if he (or they) can shew such a solid and convincing reason (as doth not contradict the Analogie of Faith) why (or wherefore) the Holy Ghost should not in any of those Scriptures (where he expresseth Dipping) express Dipping by [...] the Derivative, [Page 83] but only by [...] the Primitive; and why he should not express Baptism in any of the places of Scripture above quoted, by the Primitive [...], Bapto, but always by Bap­tizo, in case both [...] the Primitive, and [...] its Derivative do signifie the very same thing, (viz.) to Dip or Plunge under the Water: And I do faithfully promise him to own my self mistaken, and him to be (herein) in the right.

If he cannot, I then hope his misguided Proselytes as well as himself, will ingeni­ously own themselves mistaken, and persist no longer in fighting against the truth of God.

From the difference between the two words in Letters, Syllables and Sound; as also from the Practice of the Holy Ghost, in using both the words in the N. T

I thus Argue, Major. If the words [...] and [...] do apparently differ in Letters, Syllables and Sound, and if the Holy Ghost do always express the Act of Dipping and Plunging by Bapto, never by Baptizo; and Baptism by Baptizo, never by Bapto; then the word Bapto must signifie to Dip and Plunge, but never to Baptize; and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize, but never to Dip or Plunge under Water.

Assump. But the words Bapto and Bapti­zo do apparently differ in Le [...]ters, Syllables [Page 84] and Sound; and the Holy Ghost doth always express the Act of Dipping or Plunging by Bapto, never by Baptizo; and Baptism by Baptizo, never by Bapto.

Conclusion, Ergo the word Bapto must signifie to Dip or Plunge, but never to Bap­tize; and the word Baptizo must signifie to Baptize, but never to Dip or Plunge un­der Water.

Besides this Argument, others shall be laid down to confirm this when I come to speak to his third, (viz.) the Practice of the first Baptizers.

In the 2d place, our Dr. will have Bap­tizing to be only by Dipping or Plunging the whole Body under Water: The Proof he gives (to make good his Assertion here­in) are those Metaphors used in Holy Scrip­ture: To represent it to our understand­ing, he Instances in two, in Page 8, (viz) Burial and Resurrection.

He tells his Reader there, that our Lord Jesus hath not burdened us under the Gos­pel with a multitude of Ceremonies, as it was in the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dispensation, but only with some few; and those very Significant, this being a more Spiritual Dispensation. Before I meddle in speaking to his Metaphors, I [...]ill take liberty to tell the World, that al­ [...]eit Christ doth not burden us with a mul­titude [Page 85] of Ceremonies now, as under the Oeconomy of the Jews under the Legal Dis­pensation; yet this one Ceremonie (of Baptism) will prove a heavier Yoke to Be­lievers now then Circumcision with all the whole Body of Ceremonies appertaining to that Legal Dispensation, in case it must be Administred by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water, as Anabaptists say it must.

I come now to his Metaphors, the first whereof (he saith) is that of a Burial: For this, he and all of his Perswasion quote Rom. 6.4. and Colos. 2.12. Buried with him in Baptism unto Death. From this Metaphor of a Burial the Dr. and all his Party, do hold and teach (for an infallible truth) that the Scope and Design of the Apostle in the two places (now quoted) is to teach and set forth the mode and manner how Christ was Bu­ried, to the end Believers should (in Bap­tism) imitate the same: This (if I mistake them not, as I am very confident I do not) is the sense and meaning wherein he and all Anabap [...]ists take those Scriptures.

In Answer to whom, I affirm that this their sense of those places is senseless, and meerly forc't to serve their own turn, in proving that Dipping and Plunging (in Baptism) is the only true and right Baptism.

Now to discover their Mistake and Error [Page 86] herein, I shall offer but two things to con­sideration.

The first is, to shew the Scope and De­sign of the Apostle in those places, which is not (as they fondly and injudiciously ima­gine) to shew that Christ was Baptized by dipping, or that Believers are to be so Baptized.

But the Scope and Design of the Apostle in those places, is to set forth and prove that Suretyship Union, which is between Christ (the Mediatorial Head) and all the Members of his Body Mystical; there be­ing no one Act of Obedience, either Active or Passive, which Christ (the Mediator) performed in the assumed Nature, but all his Members are said to do and perform the same; and all the Effects and Saving Benefits thereof do undoubtedly redound to all the Elect: and all this is Signified and Sealed in Baptism to every Elected Sinner, whether Infant or Adult. And I cannot but reckon it a strange Infatuation on those who lay such stress on the Dutch Translators, in the point of John the Dooper, (wherein silly and weak People do not a little Glory and Brag) that they should put such Sleights and Contempt on the Dutch Annotators, those great Lights of the World, in matter of Infants right to Baptism, of Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of absolute Grace, of Circumcision being the Initial [Page 87] Seal thereof, and Baptism succeeding in the room thereof; with sundry other material points in Gospel Religion, wherein they are Sound and Orthodox: Yet, in nothing must our Dr. and his Adherents make use of the Dutch, only John the Dooper, John the Dooper: And in this Commission, de Salve Dopende, Dipping them.

And what ground hath our Dr. to con­clude, that had our English Translators turned the words (about Baptism) into Dipping, as the Dutch Translators have done? (If it be as he saith) that therefore it must (necessarily) be so in the Original, or how will he prove the Dutch Translators nearer to Infallibility than our English Tran­slators were? or that our English Transla­tors would have been more Infallible than they were, in case they had Translated John the Baptist Johannes de Dooper; and in the Commission Baptizing them, de Salve Dopende Dipping them.

Secondly, if to imitate and set forth Christs Burial, be the design of the Apo­stle, then must it (necessarily) follow that it is Mens duty to imitate it in all the Cir­cumstances of a Burial, as well as in some.

Christ when he was Buried, he was whol­ly Passive; he did not go into the Grave himself, but was laid in by others; so must Persons be in Baptism, they must be wholly [Page 88] Passive, they must not go into the Water [...]hemselves, but must be laid under the Wa­ter by the Administrator of Baptism: Christ when Buried was left in the Grave, so must the Person in Baptism; he must be left un­der the Water as long as Christ continued in the Grave, which was three Days and three Nights.

If any shall say it is absurd and ridiculous to think or say, that these Circumstances should be attended or imitated by Believers in Water-Baptism, I say so too; ad do farther say and affirm, that it is (altoge­ther) as absurd and ridiculous for any to affirm and teach, that for Believers to set forth and imitate Christs Burial is the Apo­stles design in the above-mentioned Scrip­tures: If Anabaptists will be peremptory in asserting and teaching that to set forth and imitate Christs Burial in those places, is the scope and design of the Apostle, they must give me leave to be as peremptory as they in affirming, that unless they imitate Christs Burial in the Circumstances now mentioned, their Baptism (about which so great and confused a noise is made in the World) is but a meer ludicrous (or mock) Baptism, for that they do not imitate Christ in their Baptism in those Circumstances which are so essentially necessary to s [...]t [Page 89] forth and represent his Death and Burial, in case it be as they hold it is.

To which I add, that our Baptizing by pouring out or sprinkling Water on the Subject, doth (every way) more exactly represent and set forth a Burial, than that of Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water.

The truth of this will appear, if the Par­ticulars following be seriously and without prejudice considered.

First, In Dipping and Plunging into the Water, the Party Baptized, is Active, in going himself into the Water, which (in­deed) ought not to be the Ordinance of Water-Baptism, being (in all respects) a Passive Ordinance, wherein the Subject is to be wholly Passive, as the Soul is in the Work of Regeneration.

The Work of Conversion or Regenera­tion is the Inward and Spiritual Baptism Administred by Christ. In this wonderful Work, the Dead Sinner hath no hand in effecting or producing the same, it is whol­ly done by Christ, the Administrator there­of. So in the outward Ordinance of Wa­ter-Baptism, (which is no more than the outward Sign or Seal of the Inward) the Minister of the Gospel (in Administring Baptism) must only be Active, the Subject must put forth no Act at all. The Party [Page 90] going himself into the Water, doth not represent and set forth a Dead Man, in Pouring out or Sprinkling Water on the Subject, the Party is wholly Passive, as is a Dead Man when Buried. Again, in Dip­ping and Plunging the Party Baptized, is applyed to the Water, not the Water to the Party, which is contrary to the man­ner of Burials, which all Men know is to lay the Corps on its Back in the Grave, and to Pour out or Sprinkle the Earth on it.

In Baptizing by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water, the Party is laid on his Back, and the Water poured out or sprinkled on him.

The Party Dead is never thrust into the Earth, but the Earth or Mould is poured out on him.

Now, whether of these two ways of Baptizing by Dipping and Plunging, or that of Pouring out or Sprinkling Water up­on, do more lively and exactly set forth and represent a Burial, let any (who have not lost their Senses) Judge.

As to the second Metaphor, (viz.) A Resurrection, I humbly conceive, that what here follows may suffice to shew, that as Anabaptists do not (at all) hold forth or [...]epresent the Death and Burial of Christ in [...]eir going into the Water (in their way) [Page 91] so, neither do they set forth and represent his Resurrection, as they fancy they do.

First, It is most certain, that when the time (determined by God's Decree) for Christ's remaining in a State of Death was accomplisht, (according to the Holy Scrip­tures,) he raised up himself from the Grave. No Hand of Men or Angels helpt to raise him. So that plain it is, if the Scriptures they alledge for this, be to be taken in a literal Sense, then must it needs follow, that as he that Administers Bap­tism (by Dipping or Burying the whole Body under Water,) doth Administer Bap­tism in that way of Burying under the Wa­ter, to the end the Party so Baptized might lively set forth the Death and Burial of Christ; so he must leave the Party Buri­ed in the Water, to raise up himself, that so he might represent Christ in his raising up himself from the Grave. If this were practised, it would not be hard to guess, how many Proselites they would get to join with them in this their Fantastical new Mode of Baptizing. And truly, for my part, I cannot see how they can be excused from doing the one as well as the other, seeing that the Metaphor must be Prose­cuted in all its parts, as well as in some. And thus they may see what they are like [Page 92] to get, by building their Confidence on misunderstood and wrested Metaphors.

I come now to the Doctor's third Medi­um, whereby he labours to prove, that the right way of Baptizing under the Gospel, is (and must be) by Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Water, (viz.) The Practice of the first Baptizers. In this he is as full of Confidence as he was in the o­ther two; I have now dismist, and I hope in the Goodness of God it will plainly be demonstrated, that (in this also) he and his Adherents do pervert the Scriptures, which gives us the account of the first Bap­tizers, as they (most certainly) do the o­ther Scriptures, which they bring to justi­fie and make good their Soul deluding Dreams.

He begins with John the Baptist, Page 10. where he tells his Reader, that it doth ap­pear that Dipping is the right way of Bap­tizing from the first Baptizers: The first mention (saith he) of this Ordinance of Ho­ly Baptism, we have in Mat. 3.1. where John the Dipper is mentioned; and so he goes on in a strange kind of Rapsody, warbling out his so much affected Note, Dipping and Plunging. I shall not be con­cerned to follow the Dr. (Pedetentim) step by step in his Pedantick way, least I should be found guilty of the same empty Tauto­logies [Page 93] wherewith his so much admired E­pistle abounds.

The ground of his mistake herein, is the wrong Etymology he gives of the word [...], which he and his mistaken Testi­monies take to signifie and mean Dipping and Plunging the whole Body under Wa­ter.

This Etymologie of his I have over­thrown, as the Reader may see, if he look back to the first Head of the Dispute, (viz.) the Etymologie of the word [...]. I shall not repeat but go on to confirm the truth of the Etymologie I have given of the word [...], from the word of God, and the best Greek Authors, by such Arguments as (I hope in Christ) will prove irrefragable.

The first shall be grounded on the neces­sity of John Baptist, his Harmonizing with the Pen-men of the Old-Testament in all the parts of his Ministry, if the Dr. will grant (as he must) if he speak truth that his John the Dooper was a true and faithful Prophet of God, he must of necessity grant that John did run parallel with Moses and the other Prophets.

This the Dr. must either grant or deny, if he grant that John did run exactly paral­lel with Moses and the other Prophets, then is it beyond all contradiction that John administred Baptism by pouring out [Page 94] or sprinkling Water on the Persons he Baptized; for most certain it is, that Moses (under the Ceremonial Dispensation) did apply all the Legal Washings and Purifica­tions by Water, (which all had a Typical relation to Christ to come, as John's Bap­tism also had) by pouring out or sprinkling the Water: The Prophets also, (witness those two great Prophets Esa. and Ezek.) they foretold of the manner how God would apply to his People the two great Benefits accrewing by his Sons Mediatorial Sacrifice, (viz.) Justification and Sanctification, which was to be by Sprinkling, as will evidently appear by Esa. 52.15. Then shall he Sprinkle many Nations, &c. and Ezek. 36.25. Then will I Sprinkle clean Water upon you, &c. In these places the Spirit of Christ (in his Prophets) had an Eye to the Baptismal Washings of the New-Testament Dispensa­tion. Now if John Baptist did (in all the parts of his Ministry) Harmonize with Moses and the other Prophets, he did (un­doubtedly) Baptize by pouring out or sprinkling Water on those he Baptized; for most certain it is, (as hath been already observed) pouring out or sprinkling was the mode or way of application of all the Ceremonial Washings which were used be­fore John's Baptism.

If the Dr. and his Adherents deny that [Page 95] John did run (exactly) parallel with Moses and the other Pen-men of Holy Scriptures, then is John the Dooper (by them) made a false Prophet; and all who (from John) take up and practise the mode of Dipping the whole Body under Water, (as the only right Baptism) are Self-condemned in that they do (herein) follow one who contra­dicted the Spirit of God in the other Pro­phets.

And so (hereby) it appears how much John the Baptist is obliged to the Dippers of our Age, who, (rather than they will lose their silly Opinion) will have the Spi­rit of Truth to speak Nonsense, (yea, con­tradict himself) and John the greatest of all the other Prophets, (because the immedi­ate fore-runner of Christ) to be a false Pro­phet.

This Stain they will never be able to wash off their Name, any other way than by honestly acknowledging that John did (in all the parts of his Ministry) Harmo­nize with Moses and the other Prophets, the which if they once grant, (as they must if they speak by the Holy Ghost) then is their Cause lost, and John no more to be Stiled John the Dooper, but John the Bap­tizer.

From what hath been said, I argue thus, if John Baptist did (in all the parts of his [Page 96] Ministry) Harmonize and agree with Mo­ses and the other Prophets, then did he administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon those he Baptized: But John Baptist did (in all the parts of his Ministry) Harmonize and agree with Moses and the other Prophets.

Therefore John Baptist did administer Baptism by pouring out or sprinkling Wa­ter on those he Baptized.

A second Argument shall be grounded on impossibility, thus, that way of Baptizing which is impossible to be practised (without a miraculous strength of Body) was never commanded by Christ, nor practised by John; but to Baptize the many Multitudes which came to John's Baptism, by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was a thing altogether impossible, seeing John had no miraculous strength of Body to render him capable of such an arduous and difficult Ad­ministration.

Therefore that way of Baptizing, by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was never commanded by Christ, nor practised by John.

The major Proposition will not be deny­ed, the Assumption will readily be subscri­bed, (as an unquestionable truth) if Men who plead for that way of Dipping will be but ingenious in doing two things. First, [Page 97] in lifting up in their Arms (cleverly from the Earth) the many Corpulent-Bodies which offer themselves to Baptism, lay them under the Water, and there hold them until the Administrator pronounce the words of Institution, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Secondly, in sincerely acknowledging what experience teaches them concerning this Practice; these two Particulars comply'd in, will (I doubt not) put the matter now in Debate out of all Question, that to Baptize in that way of taking up in the Arms, and laying under Water the most Corpulent Bodies who of­fer to Baptism, and to hold them under the Water till the words of Institution be pronounced; is a thing altogether impos­sible, not only in respect of the Admini­strator, whose Bodily Strength must (in an ordinary way) sink and fail in lifting and holding up (so long) such massy, ponde­rous weights: And also in respect of the Subject, who must (undoubtedly) be in great fear and in apparent danger of be­ing let fall, if not of being Suffocated or Smothered in the Water.

And strange it is to me, that Arminians, who plead so much for the universal Love and Mercy of God to Mankind (in gene­ral,) should not see how full of Reflection [Page 98] on God, this Principle of theirs is, which makes the God of Love and Mercy, the Au­thor of such a Mode or Way of Baptizing, which is not possible to be practised, with­out apparent Danger, both to Health and Life, of both the Subject and the Admini­strator too.

I conclude this Argument with the Say­ing of Judicious Sydenham, (viz) That if Baptism be to be Administred in that way of Dipping only, Happy are those who live in hot Climates, or who have Bodies of Brass.

A third Argument may be grounded on Scandal, thus; That Mode or Way of Bap­tizing, which is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal De­sires in Men and Women, cannot be com­manded by Christ; neither was the same ever practised by John. But that way of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body un­der Water, is both Immodest and tends to Excite Lustful Motions and Carnal Desires in Men and Women.

Therefore that Mode of Baptizing by Dipping the whole Body under Water, was never commanded by Christ, neither was the same ever practised by John.

He who commands all Matters (relating to Divine Worship) to be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. and who com­mands Believers to abstain from all ap­pearance [Page 99] of Evil, 1 Thes. 5.22. can never be the Author of such Disorderly Practises, as thwart and contradict his own general Rules. Now, whether it be not an Im­modest and unseemly Sight, to see a mixt Company of Men and Women stand in Gar­ments, (to use Mr. Sydenham's Expression) next to Nakedness it self: Let any (not be­reav'd of common Modesty) Judge: And whether the Administrator can (possibly) handle the Female Sex, as he doth (when actually Dipping them,) and not feel the risings and motions of Concupiscence in his Nature; I leave to Thinking Persons to Determine and Judge.

Again, in the fourth place, (to add no more) let the last Argument be grounded on the Analogie, which is (and must be) between the Baptism of John and that of Christ. The Argument is thus framed.

If Christ's way and manner of Admini­string the Inward Spiritual Baptism (where­of that of John was but the Outward Visi­ble Sign) be by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon: Then John did (certainly) Baptize by Sprinkling or Powering out the Water on those he Baptized:

But Christ's way and manner of Admini­string the Inward Spiritual Baptism, is by Sprinkling or Pouring out upon.

Therefore John did (certainly) Baptize by Sprinkling or Pouring out Water on those he Baptized.

If there was a necessity that John should Harmonize with Moses, the Ceremonial Law and the Prophets, I cannot see any reason why he should not be as greatly con­cern'd to Harmonize with Christ himself: And seeing that the manner of Christ's Administring the Inward and Spiritual Baptism, is by Pouring out and Sprink­ling the Graces of the Spirit upon the Souls of the Elect in the Work of Regene­ration, why John (the forerunner of Christ) should Administer his Baptism (which was but an External Sign or Christ's) by Dip­ping or Plunging the whole Body into the Water, can never be demonstrated by all the Wit and conceited Skill in our Do­ctor, though he were as well Verst in all the Roots and Heemantique Nouns of the He­brew Tongue, as his so much admired Ro­bertson was: And if the Doctor will not be offended, I am very desirous to know if his so highly commended and admired Ro­bertson was (by his so great Excellency in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues) more In­fallibly acquainted with the Mind of the Holy Ghost than other Men; and that Mr. Robertson did certainly believe, that the [Page 101] Etymology, which he gave of the word Bap­tizo, was Infalible as he said. How came it to pass, that the Learned Robertson did not Renounce that Baptism, which he re­ceived in Infancy and by Sprinkling?

I think I knew Master William Robertson as well as Dr. Russel; and during the time of my Acquaintance with him, I am sure, he was far enough from Anabaptism. All the Skill he had in the Tongues, with his Acquaintance in the Arts, did not convince him, that the Baptism he received in In­fancy, and by Sprinkling, was a Nullity, as the Doctor holds it is.

But to return to John the Dooper, I think fit to assure the Doctor, that I own my self bound to believe John himself, ra­ther than Doctor Russel, or any of those Learned Men he so greatly Brags of. The words of John are so plain, that I can see no need of a Commentator, to explain their Sense; he tells us in Mar. 1.8. and in Mat. 3.11. that he did Baptize with Water; but that Christ should Baptize with the Holy Ghost: [...] and [...], do both intend and signify the very same way and manner of Administration: All the difference between John and Christ, in both their Baptisms, is in the Subject Mat­ter, (viz.) In the outward Water and the inward Grace: John he did Administer [Page 102] Water, the outward Sign; but Christ he did Administer the Spiritual Grace: But as touching the manner, it was (most cer­tainly) the very same in both.

Now, if the Doctor grant, (as he must if he speak Truth) that Christ doth Admi­nister the Inward and Spiritual Baptism, by Pouring out or Sprinkling the Graces of the Holy Ghost, he will find it (altoge­ther) Incongruous, and no way agreeing with the Analogie of Faith, to hold or as­sert, that John did Administer the out­ward Sign in such a manner as was directly contrary to Christ. There must be (neces­sarily) an Harmonious Agreement between the Sign and the Thing signified thereby, which can never be, in case Christ Baptizes by or with, Pouring out or Sprinkling; and John should Baptize by Dipping or Plunging into.

As Christ applies the Graces of the Spi­rit to the Soul in Conversion, not the Soul to the Spirit; so in the outward Baptism John he apply'd the Water (the outward Sign) to the Person, not the Person to the Water.

For making the Thing or Point (now in Debate) obvious and plain to the meanest Capacity, let it be seriously considered, how plain and express the Scriptures are in affirming, that Christ's way or manner in [Page 103] Administring the Spiritual Baptism, is by Pouring out and Sprinkling the Holy Spi­rit on the Souls, which he Regenerates, but never by applying the Souls to the Ho­ly Spirit, Read (without prejudice) Tit. 3.5, 6. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he hath saved us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

[...], hath powered on us, the very same word is made use of in Acts 2.17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, (saith God) I will power out my Spirit on all flesh, [...]. Both which places are the fulfilling of those Gracious Promises in Esa. 44.3. and Joel 2.28. where the Lord promised, that he will pour Water on him that is thir­sty, &c. and his Spirit on the Churches Seed. The Hebrew word in Esa. is [...], Etzek Ruchi; and in Joel the word used to express the same thing by, is, [...], Eshpoch Eth Ruchi: in neither of which places will our Doctor's [...] Vetabe lu Otham: And Dip ye them, be found. The Doctor, the better to help his limping Proselites over the Stile of Heresy and Error, tells his Reader, that the Evangelist Matthew wrote his Gospel [Page 104] in the Hebrew Tongue; for Proof where­ [...]f, he sets down his own Opinion, that so it is; and this Opinion of his he confirms (as infallible) by the Testimony of Jerom, and (he thinks) the Opinion of the most Learned Men: But the Dr. was so wary in this point, that he resolved the Reader should not (easily) find him out in his quo­tations, the which the Dr. knew would easily be done, had he (fairly) directed his Reader to the Book and Page in Jerom; where his judgment concerning this matter is exprest, and by Naming the Learned Men, who were one with him and Jerom in this Opinion: His neglect herein forces me to charge him with unfairness, (to say no worse) if that be a true rule in Logick, Dolus latet in Ʋniversalibus, that Deceit lyes hid in Universals; I am sure the Dr. (as well as the rest of his Fraternity, (who frequently walk in this Path) must fall un­der this Lash; the Drs. lothness to Name the Learned Men, who were of his Opini­on in this, causes me to suspect that he means such as his Learned Baptist Servetus, and his famous Castellio, with those other Arminian and Popish Authors, whose Names are in his Book.

It were worth while for the Reader to observe what shifts the poor Man is put to, to prove and make good (from Gods word) [Page 105] his new, (though falsly pretended ancient) Mode of Baptizing, by Dipping and Plun­ging the whole Body into the Water.

He tells his Reader that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew; the Drs. design being (no doubt) to make way for his He­brew words, [...] and Dip ye them. The root (saith he) is Tabal, which is the third Person Singular of the Preter­perfect Tense, and signifies he Dipped: He Instances in Naaman the Syrian, 2. Kings 5.14. Then went he down and Dipped himself seven times in Jordan, &c. From Naaman the Syrian the Dr. comes (per Saltum) by a long leap to John B [...]ptizing in Jordan; in Mat. 3.6. you have (saith he) the same Words again in the Passive Voice, which must be rendred in English, And were Dip­ped of him in Jordan: And in Ver. 16. you have the same root again as it is applied to our Saviour, And Jesus when he was Dipped went up straight way out of the Water.

The Dr. takes for granted, that because Tabal signifies he Dipped, and that because Naaman (in the place above quoted Dip­ped himself in Jordan; that therefore in Matthew it must needs be Vetabelu Otham, and Dip ye them; and that John did Dip all he Baptized, over Head and Ears in Jor­dan.

Am I bound to believe that Matthew did write his Gospel in Hebrew, because the Dr. is of the Opinion he did?

Or, must I therefore grant it because Jerom is of his Opinion? though neither Jerom nor he gives any solid reasons for that their Opinion.

Two things convince me that both Jerom, the Dr. and his pretended Learned Men, were all mistaken in this their Opinion.

First, I find (by Reading) that the Gos­pel which Matthew is supposed to have writ­ten in Hebrew, was never yet seen by any Author, and therefore I must mind him of the Maxim, as true and applicable in the present case, De non apparentibus, et non ex­istentibus eadem est Ratio, of things not ap­pearing, and of things not existing, there is the same Reason to be given.

Secondly, if Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew, he would not have translated into Greek the word Emmanuel, in Mat. 1.23. and those whole Sentences, Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani, in Mat. 27.46.

But suppose I should (for Argument sake) grant (which I utterly deny, and challenge the Dr. to make good) that Matthew had Written his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue, doth it therefore follow (necessarily) that the Holy Ghost, (who is so exact and pre­cise [Page 107] in choosing the most apt and fit words, whereby to express his Mind) should use the Hebrew word [...] Tabal, which signi­fies to Dip, and not the word [...] Rachatz, which signifies to Wash, or [...] Kibbem, which signifies the same: I have already demonstrated from the word of God, that in all the places of the New-Testament where the Holy Ghost makes mention of Baptism, he doth it by the Derivative [...], which signifies to Wash, by pouring out or sprinkling Water upon, but never by the Primitive [...], Bapto, which signifies to Dip or Plunge into: And when the Holy Ghost expresseth the Act of Dipping or Plunging into, he doth it by the Primitive [...], which signifies to Dip into, but ne­ver by the Derivative [...], which signi­fies to wash with; by which it plainly ap­pears (to me at least) that rather than the Dr. will loose his Credit and suffer his rot­ten Cause to be lost, he will rather open door to the old Babel confusion of Tongues, resolving (Jesuit like) to set the Pen-men of Holy Scripture together by the Ears, and impose on his credulous Reader a real Belief, that what the Holy Ghost hath laid down (and plainly exprest) in Greek, he hath gainsaid and contradicted in Hebrew; which Contradiction can never befall the Pen-men of the Holy Scripture, nor (with­out [Page 108] Blasphemy) be charged on that Holy Spirit, by which they were Acted and in­fallibly Inspired.

The reason which Jierom gives why Matthew writ his Gospel in Hebrew, (viz.) for the Sake of those Jews which Believed, is no reason at all; for had it been the Will of God it should be so, I know no reason why Peter, James and Paul, (who all three wrote to the Jews, which Believed) should write in Greek, not in Hebrew; witness the two Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of James, and that of Paul to the Hebrews.

The Dr. pleaseth himself in telling his Reader, that in Mr. William Robertson's Hebrew New-Testament, he finds these words between the 18th and 19th Verses (of Mat. 28 he means) And as my Father hath sent me, even so also I send you. Go ye therefore, &c.

These words he sets down in the Hebrew Character, telling his Reader that he finds them not in any Greek Copy.

An Argument (thinks he) that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew! a meer Non-sequitur: What though those words be not in Matthew, I hope he will not deny that they are in Jo. 20.21. there the Spirit of God hath recorded them; and why the Dr. should look to find them in Matthew I know no reason, or wherefore his Learned [Page 109] Friend Mr. Robertson should take on him to place the Words recorded by John, be­tween the 18th and 19th of Mat. 28. I can­not conceive: But whatever moved Robert­son to so presumptuous an Act, in taking on him to alter things of this Nature, (as if by his Skill (in the Hebrew Tongue) he thought himself able to rectifie the Order, in which the Holy Ghost hath set down his own Mind in Writing) I doubt not but the Dr. was well pleased with so Palpable an Aberration; and all for the love and liking he hath to his [...] Tabal, he Dipped, and [...] Velammddu, Disciple ye. By what I have said, it is easie to judge, that could the Dr. but have his will in two things. First, that the word [...], Baptizo, doth alway signifie the very same thing with its Primitive [...].

And Secondly, that Matthew did write his Gospel in the Hebrew Tongue, and that the words [...] Vetabelu otham, and Dip ye them, were the very words of Matthew. All the Art in Men and Angels could never hinder but that Dip­ping the whole Body under the Water, must needs be the only right way of admini­string the outward Baptism.

But both these (on which he erects his tottering structure of Anabaptism) I utterly deny, and do fairly offer, and sin­cerely [Page 110] promise him, that if he can confute (by Gods Word) the Arguments laid down, to prove him mistaken in both, I will forth­with) renounce my Baptism received in In­fancy and by Sprinkling, as a meer Nullity; and not only so, but I will in Pulpit and Print too, Declare (to the World) that I am fully convinced that Dipping the whole Body (under Water) is the only right way of administring Water-Baptism under the New-Testament Dispensation.

And this, (I hope with the offer made him, in clearing up the Etymology of the word Baptizo) will prove as generous an offer as he made to Master James.

As touching what is (usually) Objected from Mat. 3.16. concerning Christ's co­ming up out of the Water. And from Acts 8.38, 39. concerning Philip and the Eunuch going down into, and coming up again out of the Water; I need say but two things.

First, For any to affirm (possitively) what the Word of God affirms not, is (to me) a sure Argument of an Ignorant, Rash and Presumptuous Spirit. Reader, mark the words: And Jesus, when he was Bap­tized, went up straightway out of (Greek [...], not [...], from not out of) the water. The Text doth not say, (in downright Terms) that Christ was Dipt under the [Page 111] Water; neither doth it appear from Acts [...].38, 39. that the Eunuch was Dipt, on­ [...] the Doctor (and his Adherents) will [...]ve it to be so, right or wrong.

Secondly, There is nothing more certain than that a Person may be said (properly enough) to go down into the Water, though he go not in above Shooe (or An­cle) deep, which (I doubt not) was pra­ctised by both John and by Philip, in the places above-mentioned; and that for the better conveniency of catching hold of the Water with their Hands, in order to Sprin­kle or Pour out the same on those they Baptized.

And that which may convince any Man, (not prepossest with Prejudice against the Truth I here contend for) that this was the Practise of John, and all the first Baptizers, (so much brag'd of by the Dr.) is the Im­possibility of the Spirit's being the Author of any (though the least) Contradiction in any part of God's Worship.

Hence I argue. That which can no way be prov'd or made good by express Testi­mony of God's Word, or deduced there­from by sound (and necessary) Consequence, is an Invention in God's Worship, which God will Reject and Abominate as not ap­pointed by him.

But Dipping the whole Body under Wa­ter [Page 112] in Baptism, can no way be prov [...] made good by express Testimony of Go [...], Word, nor yet by sound (or necessar [...] Consequence deduced therefrom.

Therefore Dipping the whole Body u [...] der Water (in Baptism) is an Invention in God's Worship, which God will Reject and Abominate, because not appointed by him.

The major Proposition will not be de­nied. That which secures the Minor, and proves the Conclusion to be the Truth, (which all the Wit of the Adversary will never be able to prevail against) is the Scriptures silence, in that it no where gives an express Witness (or Testimony) heret [...] And the Impossibility of that being prov' [...] a sound Consequence (from God's Word,) which makes God the Author of Self-Con­tradiction.

The Word of God no where commands Dipping in Baptism, neither doth it say (in express terms,) that either John or any of the Apostles did Baptize by Dipping under the Water. Reader! Keep the Ad­versary close to this, where doth the word Dip appear, either in the command of Christ, (when speaking of Baptizing) or in any Instance of Persons Baptized by Jo [...] or the Apostles? If thou keep close to this, the Enemy will retreat and fly to Conse­quence [Page] [...] the which, if he doth, (as no doubt he will) [...] pursue him with a Holy Courage, be not a­ [...] [...] of his daring Brags. How do yo prove, that [...] sound and Scriptural Consequence, which [...] the Holy Spirit of God the Author of Self- [...]adiction?

[...]hat thus it is, will (evidently) appear, the Ad­ [...]sary can no way avoid it. If thou urge, (with an Holy Zeal for Truth) what is (Graphically) set down in God's own Word, concerning the manner of Ap­plication of the Blood of the Sacrifices, and the Wa­ters of Purifications, both which had a Typical Rela­tion to the Spiritual Baptism, Administred by the Spirit of Christ. These were applied under the Ce­remonial Administration, by Sprinkling, not by Dipping, (as hath been before observed.) The Pro­phets, who foretold of Christ, and the great Bene­fits which should come by him to Believers under the Gospel. They set it forth by Sprinkling, witness [...]sa. 52.15. and Ezek. 36.25. and in the Gospel [...]e are assured, that the Spirit of Christ doth apply [...]he inward Spiritual Baptism, by Sprinkling or Pour­ing out the Graces of his Spirit on the Soul in the Work of Regeneration, see Tit. 3.6.

Now to affirm, that Christ either commands Dip­ping, or that he (himself) was Dipp'd in Baptism, what is it, but to affirm, that Christ's Spirit doth con­tradict himself? What is pretended (for Dipping) from John 3.23. hath nothing in it to help their Cause, but what empty Conceit and Unscriptural Con­fidence supply. John (saith the Adversary) was Bap­tizing in Aenon, because there was much Water there: Therefore he Baptized by Dipping the whole Body under the Water.

The stress (or weight) of the Argument is laid on a fond Conceit, that much Water (there) signifies and [...]ports Greatness and Depth of Water, which (plain­ly) appears to be otherwise, witness the Greek, [...] [Page 114] [...]. Many Waters denoting ra [...] [...] Rivulets or Springs of Water, wherewith tha [...] abounded, than that the Waters of that place deep. And it was (I doubt not) for Convenienc [...] that John left Bethabarah, (a place of deeper V [...] because Aenon was (every way) more convenien [...] commodious for the multitudes o People, which o [...] daily to his Baptism.

Piscator's Note upon the place, may not (here) [...] either improper or impertinent to the Purpose i [...] hand, Videntur significari plures Rivi, non autem unu [...] Magnum Flumen. Many Rivulets, not one gr [...] Flo [...] or Water, seems (here) to be signified, saith that Lear [...] ed Author; with whom agrees the best Geographe [...] who give the Description of that place.

I conclude my Treatise (against Dipping in Ba [...] tism) with that Saying of Godly) and Judicious) S [...] denham: If (saith he) there be any absolute need of Di [...] ping, it is to cool the heat of those Mens Spirits, who de [...] Baptism to be true (or right) Baptism, because not A [...] ministred by Plunging or Dipping.

Reader! Observe, that as in the Sacrament of th [...] Lord's Supper, it is not so much the Quantity of th [...] Wine drunk in that Ordinance, (by a Believer) [...] the Quality, which signifies and represents the Bloo [...] of Christ.

Christ doth not tye a Believer up to such or suc [...] a quantity of Win [...] to be drunk in remembrance o [...] his Blood-shed, but (only) commands Wine to [...] drunk, leaving to the Discretion of the Believ [...] what quantity to drink.

So in Water-Baptism it is not the depth or qu [...] tity of Water which is necessary to right Baptism, real Water; it matters not how small the quant [...] be, so there be but a Sprinkling (or Pouring out) Water on the Subject, to represent the Sprinkli [...] (or Pouring out) of the Graces of God's Spirit on t [...] Elect Soul in Effectual Calling.