A vindication of infant baptism from the four chief objections brought against it ... : in a letter to Mr. **** / by John Turner ... Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50. 1699 Approx. 100 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 19 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A63924 Wing T3321 ESTC R1870 12242500 ocm 12242500 56827

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A63924) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 56827) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 901:18) A vindication of infant baptism from the four chief objections brought against it ... : in a letter to Mr. **** / by John Turner ... Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50. [2], 34 p. Printed for John Wyatt ..., London : 1699. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. Errata: p. 34. Advertisement: p. 34.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Infant baptism. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-11 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-11 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2011-12 Sampled and proofread 2011-12 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptiſm, From the FOUR Chief OBJECTIONS Brought Againſt it, Viz:

I. From the Natural Incapacity of Infants. II. From their not actually Believing. III. From the Want of an expreſs Command to Baptize them. IV. From the Want of Scripture-Precedents for it.

In a LETTER to Mr. ****.

By JOHN TƲRNER, A. M. LECTURER of CHRIST-CHURCH, LONDON.

LONDON: Printed for JOHN WYAT, at the Roſe, in St. Paul's Church-yard. M DC XCIX.

A VINDICATION OF Infant Baptiſm, &c. SIR,

IT is now ſome conſiderable Time ſince you and I occaſionally reviving ſome former Diſcourſe, that had paſs'd between us, about the Difference in our Perſuaſions: You deſir'd to ſee my Arguments, and to conſider them at your Leiſure. I have now comply'd with that Requeſt, but ſaw it neceſſary before I could do ſo, to enlarge and illuſtrate them a little, that they might come cloſer to many of thoſe Scruples which I found ſometimes alledged in theſe Controverſies. If I give this as one Reaſon of my not complying ſooner with your Deſire, though I had other Reaſons for this Delay; yet you are ſenſible how juſt an Excuſe I have, in the few Minutes I can ſpare from the conſtant Engagement of my daily Buſineſs. You'll, perhaps, ask why I now ſend you this in Print, which I once ſeem'd to be averſe to. But when I found you called in Mr. A— to anſwer my Argument from the 1 Cor. 7. 14. I apprehended the Debate might not continue between you and me alone; and therefore thought it better to ſubmit to the Cenſure of the World, than to part with my Papers into private Hands, where the Deſign of them might be miſtaken. I have carefully avoided all undue Reflections upon either Perſons or Parties; hoping thereby that I ſhould make no Man my Enemy by a candid Defence of what I firmly believe to be agreeable to the Laws of God and Chriſt; and being deſirous whatever Difference there may be in our Perſuaſions; to obſerve ſtrictly all Rules of Chriſtian Charity, Love and Friendſhip. I'll detain you no longer in the Way of Preface, but beg you fairly to conſider the following Arguments.

CHAP. I.

THE moſt conſiderable Objections that I have yet met with againſt the Baptiſm of Infants, are theſe Four:

I. It is pleaded, that it is an unreaſonable Practice, in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant into which they are admitted by it.

II. That it is contrary to the Inſtitution of our Saviour, which, you ſay, requiring Perſons to be firſt Inſtructed before Baptized, thereby excludes Infants as incapable of that Antecedent Inſtruction.

III. That it is an unwarrantable, and unlawful Practice, in that there is no Precept, nor Command, nor Autority for it in all the Word of GOD.

IV. and Laſtly, That there is no mention at all made of ſuch Practice in all the NEW TESTAMENT.

Now if it be made appear, that none of theſe Objections have any juſt Force in them, this, I think, will be ſufficient to vindicate the Church of England, in retaining this Ancient and Pious Practice.

1. The Firſt Objection is, That it is an unreaſonable Practice, in that Infants are not capable of knowing any Thing of the Covenant; The Want of which Knowledge, and the Incapacity thereupon, is thought to make their Baptiſm unreaſonable and abſurd. But if all other Objections have no more Force than this, they will admit of a very quick Diſpatch.

1. In that it is not at all diſagreeable to the Reaſon of Mankind for Infants to be bound in Covenants, to the future Performance of Conditions; which they at preſent know nothing at all of, nor can be capable of performing, till they come to Age. This is common among Men, and practiſed almoſt every Day. Every Will, and every Conditional Settlement of an Eſtate on Heirs, is a Covenant: And every Contract that a Guardian makes for a Minor, is made in that Infant's Name, and he is bound by it, and really enjoyns the Benefits of it, in Expectation of a future Performance of the Conditions by him. And Baptiſm is only the Seal of a Covenant or Contract between God and Man: Why then ſhould it be thought ſtrange, or incredible, that God ſhould thus deal with us in a Diſpenſation of Grace and Mercy?

2. If the Incapacity of Infants were in the Nature of Things a neceſſary Bar, it muſt be an Univerſal and Indiſpenſable One, and muſt exclude Infants from all Covenants with God whatever, whether of Works, or of Grace; whether by the Law, or by the Goſpel. For what ariſes abſolutely from the Nature of Things, muſt needs be Univerſal, and Perpetual; and muſt have always the ſame Influence.

But that the Incapacity of Infants is not an Univerſal and Perpetual Bar to all Covenants, our Adverſaries themſelves, I hope, will grant; in that Infants were admitted into a Covenant with God under the Law. If then God admits Infants into a Covenant under the Law; he may do ſo under the Goſpel too, if he pleaſes. And if God may do ſo, it can be neither Improper nor Unreaſonable, nor in the Nature of Things Abſurd. The Difference in the Conditions or Subſtance of the Covenant makes nothing in the Caſe; the one being Law, the other Goſpel, the one of Works and the other of Grace, is nothing to the Purpoſe; becauſe Infants are equally incapable of underſtanding both. And where the whole Streſs lies in the Incapacity of the Subject, it muſt have as much Force in the One as in the Other. If it be ſaid God may admit them but does not: This is running before-hand to a new Objection, that ſhall be conſidered in its proper place. The only Thing now in debate is, whether the Natural Incapacity of Infancy be in it ſelf a neceſſary Bar; if it be, this muſt be alledged as an univerſal Obſtacle to all Covenants as well as to this; we plainly ſee that it is not an univerſal Obſtacle, becauſe God hath admitted them into Covenant with him, and bound them to the Performance of Conditions by that Covenant; Therefore this Objection is of no Force, in that it does not neceſſarily conclude. Mr. Keach, p. 85. This, indeed, ſome of your Perſuaſion ſeem to grant.

If then the Incapacity of Infants is not in the Nature of Things a Neceſſary and Univerſal Bar to all Covenants in general: I am to enquire whether there be any thing in the Chriſtian Covenant peculiarly that excludes them from thence.

CHAP. II.

THE Second Objection is, That Infants as incapable of underſtanding the Covenant, and believing and repenting; are by our Saviour's Inſtitution Prohibited and Excluded from Baptiſm; for, ſay you, the Apoſtles were to make Diſciples by Inſtruction before they were to Baptize them. Matt. 28. 19. Go, teach all Nations, and then Baptize them. And Mark 16. 15, 16. He that beleiveth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved. This, ſay you, is the great Charter of the Goſpel, which requiring Perſons that are to be baptized, to be firſt made Diſciples by Inſtruction and Believing: Does in ſo doing, exclude all that cannot be taught and believe?

I anſwer, In this Commiſſion Chriſt had a more peculiar Regard to the Perſons to whom the Apoſtles were firſt and more immediately ſent; who were, indeed, Men and Women; and therefore he mentions ſuch Qualifications antecedent to Baptiſm, as in Reaſon and the Nature of Things were indiſpenſably neceſſary, conſidering the State of the World at that time. Men were almoſt univerſally revolted into Idolatry, Ignorance, Superſtition, Profaneneſs, and other great Iniquities. And with theſe Qualifications it was not fit they ſhould be admitted into a Covenant of Grace and Reconciliation with God. Theſe were therefore firſt to be Converted and Reclaimed, and then Baptized. And this was the great Work to which the Apoſtles are here Commiſſioned. Now, if from hence you argue, that none ought to be baptized but thoſe only who are thus taught and made Diſciples by actual Belief: I muſt beg leave to ask, how you reconcile your Belief of Infants Salvation with theſe Texts? For they as much exclude Infants from Salvation, as from Baptiſm. I do not ask how Infants ſhall be ſaved; for in anſwer to that, you will ſay; Secret Things belong to God. But I ask, how you who do believe and confeſs that Infants may and ſhall be ſaved, do reconcile that Opinion with theſe Texts, and particularly with that of St. Mark, which does by the ſame Conſequence prove, that Infants cannot be ſaved as that Infants ought not to be baptized. For obſerve the Argument, Chriſt ſays, Matt. 28. 19. Go make Diſciples of all Nations and baptize them. And Mark 16. 15, 16. Preach the Goſpel to every Creature, he that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned: From whence you argue thus; None are to be baptized but thoſe who are firſt made Diſciples by believing; but Infants are not capable of believing; therefore they ought not to be Baptized. Now in the very ſame Manner one may argue thus, That Infants ſhall not be ſaved. He that believeth not ſhall be damned; Infants are not capable of Believing, Ergo, Infants muſt all be damned. This is juſt the ſame Way of Arguing without any Difference at all. How will you anſwer this? Will you ſet up for this Peice of Cruelty, that all Infants are damned? If not; you muſt ſay here as we do concerning Baptiſm: That theſe Texts are improperly and impertinently alledged in the Caſe of Infants; becauſe they were never intended to extend to them. Otherwiſe, they will as certainly conclude againſt the Salvation of Infants, as againſt the Baptiſm of them, in that Fai h and Repentance are as neceſſary to the one, as to the other.

The Matter then, in ſhort, is this; Men and Women were firſt of all to be made Diſciples by a Saving Faith; the Caſe of Children was a diſtinct Caſe to be conſidered afterwards; when their Parents had been firſt converted: And tho' believing was neceſſary in the Parents to be before their Baptiſm, yet this does not prove that their Infants were to be excluded from the Sacrament, becauſe they could not actually believe.

But you'll reply, is not Faith then neceſſarily required of Perſons to be baptized? I anſwer; Where the Apoſtles found Infidelity and Iniquity, they were neceſſarily to preach Faith and Repentance before they baptized. But the Scripture intimates, that the Innocence of harmleſs Babes (whoſe original Guilt is done away by Chriſt) and who never offended him by any actual Tranſgreſſion, is as pleaſing to God, and as agreeable a Qualification for the Admiſſion into a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, and ſealing that Covenant by the Sacrament of Baptiſm; as either the Faith of the actual Believer, or the Repentance of the Penitent. Chriſt has ſaid of us all, That unleſs we become as little Children, Mat. 18. 3. that is, for their lovely Innocence, we ſhall in no wiſe enter into the Kingdom of God. I do not argue whether he ſpake this with a particular Reſpect to the Baptiſm of Infants or no. I urge not that: But I ſpeak of the Qualifications that recommend us to God's Favour and Mercy: And Chriſt does here declare, That their Innocence is as grateful to him, as any Man's Faith and Repentance: And for this Reaſon, they ought not to be excluded.

The Truth of what I now maintain, I think, is ſufficiently prov'd from the very Nature of this Sacrament. Baptiſm, as I underſtand it, is a Seal for the Confirmation of that Covenant which God has made with Mankind in Jeſus Chriſt; and that Covenant is on God's Part a free Promiſe, and Engagement to grant Mercy, and Salvation through the Blood of Chriſt, to All, whoſe actual Sins do not render them incapable of, and exclude them from it. From whence I argue thus; Thoſe that are not in a State of actual Sin, are capable of being admitted into this Covenant, and thereby entitled to the Promiſes; for nothing but Sin made us at firſt obnoxious to Death, and nothing but the Guilt of Sin can exclude us from eternal Life: And thoſe that are capable of being admitted into the Covenant, and entitled to the Promiſes, are capable of that Sacrament which is the Seal of it. This, I think, is a good Concluſion. Infants therefore, tho' by Nature born in Sin, yet being reconcil'd to God, I don't ſay by Baptiſm, but by the Blood of Jeſus Christ, are capable of Admiſſion into the Covenant by Baptiſm, which is the Seal of it, tho' they do not actually believe. For this Reaſon it is, that the Church of England has ſo judiciouſly declar'd, That Infants baptized, and dying before they commit any actual Tranſgreſſion, are undoubtedly ſaved. For, dying in a State of Reconciliation, and having the Promiſes of God confirmed by this Seal: They are ſafe, having not by any actual Violation of the Covenant forfeited the Claim. This cannot but think a reaſonable Way of Arguing from the Nature of this Sacrament and Covenant: And if it be, theſe Texts do not exclude Infants, either directly, or by Conſequence.

And, methinks, it ſavours of Raſhneſs and Inconſideration, to think, that becauſe God has required Faith, and Repentance of Men in a State of Sin, and under the Power of abominable Luſts; and conſequently, altogether unfit to be admitted into Covenant till they abjure their Idolatry, and abandon their Vices: That therefore innocent Babes who never offended ſhall not be admitted through want of the ſame Qualifications. The different Circumſtances, and Conditions of the Perſons, is a ſufficient Proof that the ſame Qualifications are not neceſſarily required in both. But I foreſee ſome Objections which I will briefly conſider, and then proceed.

1. It is pleaded, that Capacity gives no Right; you may have a mapacity to be a Juſtice of Peace, but muſt have a Commiſſion before you ought to act as ſuch. And tho' the Innocence of Babes be thus acceptable to God, and he does for Chriſt's ſake ſave them, yet this will not at all countenance their being baptized; becauſe it is no where commanded. I anſwer, That if this be all, then the Caſe is changed, and the Objection is not that Infants are excluded, but that their Baptiſm is no where commanded. I was only now to prove, that nothing in the Nature of this Sacrament does neceſſarily exclude them. Infants being in a State of Reconciliation and Favour, does, I think, ſufficiently prove that. How far a particular Command is neceſſary to be added to this Capacity, is another Queſtion that ſhall be conſider'd in its place.

2. I may poſſibly be asked, how I reconcile this Doctrine to our Church-Catechiſm, which teaches, that Faith and Repentance are required of Perſons to be Baptized? Indeed, I think, the Anſwer is eaſie; for the Catechiſm ſpeaks firſt indefinitely, without any reſpect to Adults or Infants, as Chriſt has done in Matt. 28. and declares what in general are the Conditions of the Covenant, and conſequently not of this Sacrament only, but of our Salvation alſo: And theſe are Faith, and Repentance, which every one that enters into this Covenant, when they come to Age, are obliged to. But it no where declares, that actual Faith, and actual Repentance are univerſally neceſſary to all Perſons whatever, that ſhall be admitted to this Sacrament. No, it declares the Contrary; that tho' Infants, by reaſon of their tender Age, cannot perform theſe Conditions; yet they are baptized, not upon their Sureties Faith, or believing by Proxy: But upon the Expectation grounded on their Engagement, that the Children ſhall be taught and exhorted to perform them afterwards. And this, I think, is agreeable to what I have here maintained.

3. It may poſſibly be objected, That if this Doctrine be true, it will from hence follow, that the Infant-Children of Turks, Jews, and Pagans may be as capable of Baptiſm, as the Children of Believers; becauſe they are innocent as well as others, and have their original Guilt as well expiated by the Blood of Chriſt. I anſwer, Infants as to Covenants, and Privileges are reputed in the ſame Eſtate, and Right with their Parents, and that becauſe being under their Tuition its preſumed they will have the ſame Principles and Perſuaſion. And therefore, as the Children of Unbelievers on this account may in ſome Senſe be ſaid to be Partakers of their Parents Infidelity; as they are like to be brought up in it: For this Reaſon they are denied Baptiſm. Otherwiſe they are capable, and may be admitted wherever there is ſufficient Satisfaction given to the Church; that they ſhall be educated in the Chriſtian Religion. And the Reaſon why they are not admitted now, is only on this Account, becauſe it would be prepoſterous to admit Children into a Religion which they were never likely to be inſtructed, and educated in afterwards. But, I ſay, could the Church be aſſur'd, that they would be inſtructed, and educated in that Faith; they alſo might be baptized, and nothing in our Saviour's Commiſſion neceſſarily excludes them.

4. and Laſtly, If it be objected, That this Doctrine makes the Baptiſm of Infants unneceſſary, in that if they were in a State of Reconciliation and Favour before Baptiſm; they can profit nothing by being baptized. I anſwer, I did not undertake to prove that the Baptiſm of Infants was abſolutely neceſſary to their Salvation; but that it is lawful, and not at all diſagreeable to Chriſt's Inſtitution; and therefore no juſt Cauſe of the Separation from the Communion of our Church; which is all that I now contend for.

CHAP. III.

THE Third Objection is, That it is an Unwarrantable, and Unlawful Practice to baptize Infants, becauſe there is, you ſay, no Precept, nor Command, nor Autority for it in all the Word of God: And this is the Sheet-Anchor on which you lay the greateſt Streſs. For when we can demonſtrate by God's own Autority, and Example, that the natural Incapacity of Infants is no neceſſary Bar to exclude them from the Seal of the Covenant; you reply, all this is nothing, becauſe there was an expreſs and poſitive Command for Circumciſing Infants, but there is none at all for Baptizing them; and when we argue that Faith and Repentance are made as neceſſary to Salvation as they are to Baptiſm; and conſequently do no more exclude Infants from this Sacrament than from Salvation; you plead, that tho' they are capable and within the Covenant of Grace, yet they ought not to be Baptized, becauſe it is not Commanded. In Chriſtianity nothing is to be done without the expreſs Autority of God's Word.

And here you load us with heavy Charges of pretending to take the Word of God for our only Rule of Faith and Manners, and yet to keep Unſcriptural Ordinances, and do that which the whole Word of God ſpeaks not one Word of from the Beginning to the End. So that we of the Church of England are guilty of adding to the Divine Laws of God in the moſt weighty Matters of Chriſtianity without his Autority: Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. This is a ſevere Charge, of which if we were indeed guilty, it muſt needs be heavy upon us at the laſt Great Day. And that we may be the better prepared then, let it be conſidered fairly what we have to alledge in our Defence now.

Firſt, This Argument may eaſily be turned upon you; the Baptiſm of Infants, you ſay, is no Goſpel-Ordinance; 'tis not Commanded, and therefore it is unlawful. I reply, 'tis no where forbidden, and therefore it is not unlawful.

And this Argument of no Prohibition is of more than ordinary Force here; in that God all along in both the former Covenants of Abraham and Moſes having commanded Infants to be admitted, and ſealed by the Sacrament, which was ordained for the Confirmation thereof: When he changed the Ordinance, and inſtituted Baptiſm to be the Seal of his Covenant, it was then proper to have declared, if Infants that were fit Subjects to receive the Seal of it before, ſhould now be excluded. For his having given no expreſs Prohibition, goes a great way to vindicate the Lawfulneſs of this Paactice; in that it ſeems to ſhow his Pleaſure, that they ſhould be continued to have the Seal of the Covenant as they had had before. For if ever Prohibition was to be expected, to declare a Thing unlawful; it was to the Aboliſhing a Practice that had been ſo long eſtabliſhed, and received; I mean the admitting Infants into Covenant with him.

2. But Secondly, We have the Autority of God for this Practice in two Reſpects. 1. The Autority of his own Example. 2. Of his Command in his revealed Word and Laws.

1. We have the Autority of God's Example for our Warrant in this Practice; and as Mr. Keach, I remember, confeſſes, Page 35, 36, that an Apoſtolical Practice, or a Goſpel-Precedent is of equal Authority with a Goſpel-Precept: So, I hope, it will be allowed that a Divine Precedent, from the Example of God, is of the ſame Autority alſo, when the Nature of Things, and the Circumſtances are alike.

But before I explain this Argument, I cannot but obſerve to you by that little I have ſeen in theſe Controverſies, that the naming of ſuch an Argument will raiſe ſome Mens Wonder, who being quicker to wrangle about Words than to weigh the Reaſon of Things; will break out into Exclamations, and ſay; Prove Baptiſm of Infants from the Example of God! Did Chriſt ever baptize an Infant? Is there one Syllable of ſuch a Practice in all Sacred Writ? This muſt be the Old Thred-bare Argument from the Analogy between Baptiſm and Circumciſion. Infants under the Law, or before it were Circumciſed, Ergo, they may be Baptized, and what a Non-ſequitur is this?

But, Sir, after all that Raillery and Diſdain with which this Argument is treated, which has, indeed, been often urged, and as often laughed at; yet I muſt confeſs, I cannot deſpiſe it, but am perſwaded that there is great Force in it, if it be ſtated well, and ſet in a true Light.

I do not then inſiſt that one was a Type of the other, nor argue from a bare Analogy, as to Jewiſh Church Member-ſhip, or the like, but my Argument is this; Baptiſm is now the Seal of the Covenant which was once ſealed by Circumciſion; Infants were by God's own Command admitted then, Ergo, Infants may be admitted now: Or thus, God did admit Infants into a Covenant of Grace and Salvation, thro' Jeſus Chriſt, and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience in that Covenant made with Abraham, and confirmed by the Seal of Circumciſion; Baptiſm of Infants does but admit them into the ſame Covenant upon the ſame Conditions, and as a Seal confirms that Covenant to them: Ergo, in Baptizing Infants we act by God's own Authority and Example; for we do no more in baptizing them than by God's own Ordinance was done in Circumciſing them. The Rite, indeed, is changed, it was Circumciſing; it is now Baptiſm: What then? The Uſe of both theſe Rites is ſtill the ſame; the One is a Seal of the Covenant of God, and ſo is the Other a Seal of the ſame Covenant. And ſo after all the pretended Non-ſequiturs in this Argument from Circumciſion to Baptiſm; when the Uſe or main Deſign of both theſe Rites, or Sacraments ſhall appear to be the ſame, the Argument will have Force, and the Change of the external Ordinances cannot leſſen it.

In the Proſecution therefore of this Argument, I have Two Things which you will challenge me to prove.

1. That Circumciſion, when enjoyned Abraham, was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him.

2. That the Covenant with Abraham was the ſame with ours, that is a Covenant of Grace and Salvation through Jeſus Chriſt, and upon the Conditions of Faith and Obedience.

And if theſe Propoſitions be found true, the Conſequence, I think, will be ſo clear as to want no Proof.

Firſt, That Circumciſion, when enjoyned Abraham, was ordained to be the Seal of that Covenant which God made with him. And this, I think, is very plain, both from the Original Inſtitution of Circumciſion in the Old Law, and the Explanations of it in the New: As to the Old Teſtament, God having made ſome Trial of Abraham, by calling him out of his own Country, and having found him readily obſervant in all that he commanded him; declares, Gen. 17. 2. that he will now eſtabliſh a Covenant with him: I will make my Covenant between me and thee, and thou ſhall be a Father of many Nations, Ver. 4. And again, Ver. 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 unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee. And as every Contract among Men muſt have its Sanction, and Eſtabliſhment; ſo here, God declares after what Manner this Covenant ſhould be confirmed, Ver. 10. This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee; every Man-Child among you ſhall be Circumciſed: Which Words do not make Circumciſion the Subſtance of the Covenant, but only the Manner of Eſtabliſhing, and Confirming it; as appears from the following Verſe: And ye ſhall circumciſe the Fleſh of your Fore-skin, and it ſhall be a Token, or Sign of Covenant between me and you. And again, Ver. 13. My Covenant ſhall be in your Fleſh, for an everlaſting Covenant, that is, a Token or Pledge in your Fleſh of an everlaſting Covenant: Biſhop Patrick in 〈◊〉 .For, as a Reverend Father of our own ſays, It was not a meer Mark whereby they ſhould be known to be Abraham's Seed, and diſtinguiſhed from other Nations; but they were hereby made the Children of the Covenant, and intitled to the Bleſſings of it; and Circumciſion was the Seal of it. And this is farther evident from the New Teſtament; for St. Paul in his Controverſie with the Jews, about Juſtification, inſtances in Abraham, whom he declares to be juſtified not for his being circumciſed, but for the Faith he had before it; Rom. 4. 11. He received the Sign of Circumciſion, a Seal, or Pledge of the Righteouſneſs of that Faith which he had yet being uncircumciſed; a Seal of that Covenant by which God receives him as Righteous for his Faith. And thus St. Peter, Acts 7. 8. He gave him the Covenant of Circumciſion, that is, he gave him the Covenant which he ſealed, and confirmed by Circumciſion; which is both a uſual, and very intelligible way of ſpeaking: So alſo St. Paul, Gal. 3. 15. Brethren, I ſpeak after the Manner of Men, if it be but a Man's Covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no Man diſannulleth, or addeth thereto. And again, Ver. 17. he ſpeaks of the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, plainly alluding to this Covenant with Abraham, which was Sealed, and had its Confirmation by Circumciſion.

2. The Second Obſervation was, that this Covenant with Abraham, of which Circumciſion was the Seal, is the ſame Covenant with that which we Chriſtians are now admitted into with God, by Chriſt. Mr. Keach, I remember, diſowns this; and contrary to what I now maintain, offers this Argument, p. 47. That Covenant that was made to ſeparate the natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World, and made ſure unto them the Earthly Promiſe of the Land of Canaan; could not be a Covenant of Grace which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Goſpel.

He who often finds Fault with other Peoples Logic, ſhould take ſpecial Care of his own: Here was one little, but material Word omitted in this firſt Propoſition: It ſhould have run thus, That Covenant which was made only to ſeparate, &c. The want of that only ſpoils the Conſequence. It might be made thus to ſeparate Abraham's Seed, and it might be made to other Ends too: And ſo it might be a Covenant of Grace, notwithſtanding God intended by it that Diſtinction of his People alſo.

To prove then that the Covenant, beſides the Promiſes it contained of a Land of Canaan, and a numerous Seed, was alſo a Covenant of Grace and Mercy, and Salvation in Jeſus Christ, and conſequently the ſame Covenant with ours: Be pleaſed, Sir, to conſider,

1. That the Covenant was made on the ſame general Conditions. 2. That it contained the ſame general Promiſes. 3. That both were founded on the ſame Conſideration, and had regard to the ſame Mediator Jeſus Christ.

1. That this Covenant which God made with Abraham was founded on the very ſame Conditions, on which that is eſtabliſhed, which we Chriſtians make with God in Chriſt; the Sum of what the Goſpel of Chriſt requires, in order to the Salvation of our Souls, is only a firm Faith and ſincere Obedience: And if this be ſo, the Agreement in this reſpect is very exact; God having required Faith and Obedience by the Covenant which he made with Abraham, as ſtrictly, and as indiſpenſably, as he has done by Chriſt.

As to Faith, the Caſe is ſo very plain, and ſo univerſally acknowledged on all ſides, that I ſhall need to ſay but little upon it: The Faith of Abraham was ſo eminently renown'd, and ſo illuſtrious a Pattern to all ſucceeding Ages, that to the everlaſting Memory of it, he is diſtinguiſhed by that ſignal Character, the Father of the Faithful; and all Chriſtians in the World are called his Children, as we walk in the Steps of that Faith, Rom. 4. 12. And that this Faith was the Condition of Abraham's being received into Covenant, is evident not only from the Old Teſtament, which ſays, Gen. 15. 6. That he believed in the Lord, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs; but alſo from the New, in which St. Paul convinces the Jewiſh Converts, that the Works of the Law were not the Conditions of Juſtification and Salvation; becauſe Abraham himſelf was juſtified by Faith, Rom. 4. 2, to 11. And that his Poſterity were bound to this general Faith, is plain in St. Paul's Vindication of his Orthodoxy, on the very Account of his Believing all that is written in the Law, and in the Prophets, Acts 24. 14. And as Faith was one part of Abraham's Covenant, ſo Obedience was another: And this appears plainly by that Injunction which God gave him at the very ſame time that he was eſtabliſhing his Covenant with him, Gen. 17. 12. The Lord appear'd unto Abraham, and ſaid unto him, I am the Almighty God, walk before me, and be thou perfect: Which Words the Jews themſelves look upon to be ſo much a Command of Univerſal Obedience, as from thence to conclude, that in Circumciſion they all covenanted to have no other God but him. [See Biſhop Patrick.]

2. As Abraham's Covenant is the ſame with ours in its Conditions, ſo it is in its Promiſes too. The Two great Bleſſings of the Goſpel are Juſtification here, and eternal Life hereafter: As to the firſt of theſe, that Abraham was Juſtified by his Faith, and that conſequently Juſtification is one of the great Benefits and Bleſſings of the Covenant God made with him, is ſo plainly and expreſly aſſerted in the Goſpel, that it is needleſs to go about to prove it.

And that eternal Life in the World to come was promiſed to Abraham and his Poſterity by Chriſt, as well as it is to us, appears from hence, that the Land of Canaan has always been looked on as a Type and Figure of Heaven; and that not only by us in theſe latter Ages of the World, but is ſo eſteemed by St. Paul himſelf, Heb. 3. 1. And from the Account which the New Teſtament gives of the Spiritual Meaning and Deſign of the Old, when God declares to Abraham, That he would be his God, Gen. 17. 7. and to Iſaac, Gen. 26. 3. and to Jacob, Gen. 28. 13; That he intended hereby to reward their Faith and Obedience with the Kingdom of Heaven, is evident from the Words of Chriſt; who from theſe Promiſes proves the Certainty of ſuch a future State to the Jews, among whom it was controverted, Mat. 22. 31, 32. And St. Paul tells us, that Abraham and the Patriarchs expected ſuch a Recompence to be couched under thoſe Temporal Promiſes, Heb. 11. 13. where he ſays, Theſe all died in Faith, not having actually received the Promiſes, that is, the Bleſſings promiſed, while they were on Earth; but having ſeen them afar of, and were perſwaded of them, and embraced them, and confeſſed that they were Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth, and deſired, or looked for a better Country; that is to ſay, an heavenly. And what can be a better Proof that this was a Covenant of Grace, than to find the chief Bleſſings of the Goſpel here promiſed by God, and believed and expected by the Patriarchs, on the very Conditions of the Goſpel? But,

3. Laſtly, Both theſe are founded on the ſame Conſideration, and equally have reſpect to the ſame Mediator Jeſus Chriſt. And for the Confirmation of this, we all know, that the Promiſes which God made to Abraham, ſaying, In thy Seed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed; are truly and readily fulfilled only in Jeſus Chriſt. And as the Holy Spirit of God has taught us this, ſo Chriſt tells us, that Abraham himſelf underſtood it ſo: For diſcourſing with the Jews, about him, he ſaid, John 8. 56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced, and deſired to ſee my Day, and he ſaw it, and was glad, (i. e.) he was ſollicitous more perfectly to underſtand the Subſtance of theſe Promiſes, and he did underſtand them to be intended of me, and was delighted in the Contemplation.

But whether all that ſucceeded this Patriarch had the ſame particular Communication of this great Myſtery, is not at all to our Purpoſe: 'Tis ſufficient that the New Teſtament declares, that what Bleſſings were thus graciouſly promiſed in this Covenant with Abraham were with Reference to, and for the Sake of Jeſus Chriſt that was to come: And this St. Paul has expreſly affirmed, Gal. 3. 16, 17. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promiſes made, he ſaid not, to Seeds as of many, but as of One, and to thy Seed which is Chriſt. So he goes on, this I ſay that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Chriſt, &c. Affirming, in ſhort, all that I have here been proving, viz. that Circumciſion was the Seal for the Confirmation of that very Covenant which God made with Abraham in Chriſt Four Hundred and Thirty Years before the Law was given. So that Abraham had not only the ſame Covenant with us, but the very ſame Goſpel that is preached to us, was preached to Abraham alſo, Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture fore-ſeeing that God would juſtifie the Heathen through Faith, preached before the Goſpel unto Abraham. What Goſpel was it? It was certainly the Goſpel of Chriſt, through whom alone it was ſaid to Abraham, In thee ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed. And it was certainly at the Time when he eſtabliſhed that Covenant which was confirmed of God in Chriſt. And all the Seed of Abraham that were circumciſed were bound to worſhip the true God, and believe the general Promiſes of a Meſſiah; as we Chriſtians are to believe and obey the Goſpel more particularly revealed by Chriſt. From hence I conclude, ſeeing Infants at Eight Days old were circumciſed and admitted into this Covenant with God, by his own Appointment and Command; this Command is a good Authority for the Baptizing of Infants, which is but a new Way of Admiſſion into the ſame Covenant.

For while there is no Alteration of the Subſtance of the Covenant, but only of the external Ceremony of Admiſſion, which is the Seal of it; all Things elſe are to continue as they were, till God ſhall ordain otherwiſe by a new Law: But when he did change the Seal from Circumciſion to Baptiſm, he did not by any expreſs Law forbid Infants to be admitted: Therefore by Virtue of the firſt Original Inſtitution when God made this Covenant with Abraham by Circumciſion, and commanded Infants to be admitted, we have Autority to admit them now by Baptiſm. For where the Covenant, and the Capacities are the ſame, the Reaſon alſo muſt be of the ſame Force. But to this Argument I have found it objected

1. That what was done in Abraham's Time, was in the Minority of the Church, when Things were obſcurely repreſented, but now, that we have clear Light, and in that reſpect are under a better Diſpenſation, there is not the ſame Reaſon for admitting Infants, which there was then. All the Force of this Objection lies in the different Degrees of Revelation, that have been made to Abraham, and to us; and this I readily acknowledge for a great Truth: That which God intended in that Covenant with Abraham, was but obſcurely, and in general ſet forth, and the Particulars both of Faith and Practice, and alſo of our Reward and Happineſs are more fully and clearly brought to Light by Jeſus Chriſt.

When therefore I aſſerted, that our Covenant is the ſame with that made with Abraham and his Seed, I ſpeak of Generals, not of Particulars; and my Meaning is, that Faith and Obedience were required in Abraham's Covenant, as well as they are from us. Not but that the particular Articles of that Faith, and the particular Duties of that Obedience too, are now more fully diſcovered, and ſet in a clearer Light. But I cannot ſee how this makes any Difference, either as to the Capacity, or the Right of Admiſſion to this Sacrament; becauſe Children being equally inſenſible of both, cannot be leſs capable of the one than of the other.

2. It is objected, that there was an expreſs Command for the Circumciſion of Infants, but there is none for baptizing them. To this I anſwer;

There was not the ſame Neceſſity for it: There was an abſolute Neceſſity for commanding Infants expreſly to be circumciſed; becauſe there was nothing Antecedent to that Inſtitution, that could give Light or Knowledge to direct to it. But there was no ſuch Neceſſity for an expreſs Precept for Baptizing Infants; becauſe this might be learnt from the Autority of God in the Antecedent Inſtitution under Abraham; For they were certainly as fit Subjects of the one as of the other; becauſe the Conditions were the ſame; and if as fit Subjects of the Covenant, equally to be received by the Seal of it.

This I am inclined to believe was the firſt Ground of Baptizing Infants among Chriſtians. When the Apoſtles firſt began to preach the Goſpel, and eſpecially to the Jews; the Subſtance of their Preaching was, that what God had long before declared by Abraham and the Prophets, he had now fulfilled and accompliſhed by Jeſus Chriſt. From whence they were to learn, that this Goſpel was no new Thing, but what had been long declared, and propheſied in old Time: The Covenant was the ſame, the Religion was the ſame, only brought into a clearer Light by a more perfect Revelation. This was the Sum of St. Peter's Sermon, Acts 3. 18. Thoſe Things that God before had ſhewed by the Mouth of all his Prophets, that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer, he hath ſo fulfilled. And Acts 11. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, ſaying unto Abraham, and in thy Seed ſhall all Nations of the Earth be bleſſed. And for this Cauſe St. Paul ſays, Rom. 15. 8. That Chriſt Jeſus was a Miniſter of the Circumciſion, for the Truth of God, to confirm the Promiſes made unto the Fathers. And as this was the common Subject of the Apoſtles Preaching, ſo thoſe who were hereby convinced, and prevailed on to believe, were immediately admitted into the Chriſtian Covenant by Baptiſm.

Here is, indeed, no expreſs mention made of Infants, becauſe there was no Occaſion for it: Their own Reaſon and Underſtanding were ſufficient to convince them, that what God had authorized and commanded from the Beginning, was a very good Example for them to imitate. And conſequently, that when Circumciſion was aboliſhed from being any longer the Seal of God's Covenant, and Baptiſm was inſtituted in its ſtead, there was the ſame Reaſon for baptizing Infants, that there had been for circumciſing them: God's having commanded the One, was an Evidence of the Lawfulneſs of the Other. And what they were ſufficiently inſtructed in by the Autority of a Divine Precept and Command, in the Old Teſtament, was not abſolutely neceſſary to be repeated in the New; For to what purpoſe ſhould there be a particular Revelation to diſcover that which Men might be ſufficiently convinc'd of without one? And yet again,

2. The Baptiſm of Infants is founded on God's Word, in that, tho' there be no ſuch Precept, or Command of baptizing, in which Infants are totidem verbis expreſſed; yet there is ſuch a Precept and Command, in which Infants are certainly included: And this I ſhall prove thus;

1. From St. Peter's Words, Acts 2. 39. Repent, and be baptized, that your Sins may be blotted out, for the Promiſe is to you and your Children. In which Words Children are fairly intimated, at leaſt, to be entitled both to the Promiſes of the Covenant, and to the Sacrament that confirms it. I am not ignorant, that ſome laugh at this Argument, with a great deal of Scorn, and Deriſion, and think it ridiculous to mention it; becauſe Men and Women are often call'd Children in Scripture; as the Children of Iſrael are often ſpoken of when Infants are not all intended, but only Men of the Poſterity of Iſrael. I grant it, and yet when they have laughed their fill, I cannot think this Argument ſo ridiculous, nor ſo much to be deſpiſed: For, tho' its true, the Word Children, if that were all, might import no more than the Poſterity: Yet the Promiſe here ſpoken of, is that very Covenant into which Children, I mean Infants, were commanded to be admitted. So that if the Promiſe which God made with Abraham, and his Children included Infants; this Promiſe made to Chriſtians, and their Children, will by the ſame Autority, include Infants alſo; for the Promiſe is ſtill the ſame.

2. The Precept for Baptizing is general, and does not exclude any that are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chriſt; Infants are capable of being admitted into Covenant with God in Chriſt, therefore the Precept does and muſt include them: The firſt is evident from the very Words of St. Matt. 28. Go make Diſciples of all Nations, and baptize them; which being given in general, and unlimited Terms, and ordained by Almighty God as one of the ordinary Means of Salvation, ought to be extended to all Perſons whatſoever, that are capable of Admiſſion into the Covenant. Infants are capable of being admitted into the Covenant, and then Infants are alſo included in this Precept or Command. The Latter I have in great meaſure prov'd already in my Anſwer to the Two firſt Objections. I ſhall only add here, that it ſeems ſtrange to me, when ſo many of your Perſwaſion allow Infants to be in the Covenant, and believe that they ſhall be ſaved, which they cannot be, but by the Merits of Chriſt; that yet none of them ſhould think Infants intitled to this Sacrament. For why ſhould not the Covenant be confirmed to all thoſe, to whom the Promiſes of it belong? If indeed all Infants were ſaid and prov'd to be in a State of Sin and inevitable Damnation, this would be a real Argument againſt us; for then, we ſhould be charged with confirming the Covenant to thoſe to whom the Promiſes of it do not at all belong? And this would be a Crime indeed. But if Infants may be ſaved by Chriſt, nothing of this can be alledged. But you ſay, that we baptize Infants that know nothing of it, and that is almoſt as bad; Why ſo? We only by this Seal confirm the Covenant to thoſe to whom God has promiſed the Bleſſings of it. And where is the Impropriety of that? Or why is it more abſurd to baptize thoſe in the Name of Chriſt that know nothing at all of him, than to Redeem and Save thoſe by Chriſt that know nothing at all of him?

In ſhort, if no good Reaſon of Difference can be alledged from the Nature of Things, let Men wrangle never ſo long, it muſt follow, that if Infants are in the Covenant of Chriſt, they are alſo fit Subjects of Chriſtian Baptiſm; and if they are fit Subjects of Chriſtian Baptiſm, then the general Precept includes them; and ſo the Baptim of Infants is as much founded on the Autority of God's Word, as the Baptiſm of Men and Women.

But I am ſenſible, Sir, you will not acquieſce in this: No, Baptiſm is a Sacrament, a Fundamental in Religion, that gives Being to a Church; in which you must have a Command, mentioning Infants expreſly, totidem verbis, or it will not do; Inferences and Deductions here are not of ſufficient Force. But by the Way; What is your Second Objection, but a Deduction, that Infants not being capable of Faith, are not capable of Baptiſm? This is unreaſonable, and very hard, when you your ſelf muſt argue by Deductions and Inferences againſt the Baptiſm of Infants, not to allow us to do ſo for it; I appeal whether this be fair. However, fore-ſeeing that this my Argument would be thus withſtood, I proceed to ſhow,

1. That clear and evident Deductions from the Word of God are of equal Force with the expreſs Word of it; and that in Fundamental, as well as in other Principles of Religion: For, can we ſuppoſe, that in the Manifeſtation of all thoſe Divine Truths, which are revealed in the Goſpel, God would have us ſuperſede all Uſe of our own Underſtandings in the Concluſions to be drawn, and the Conſequences that follow from ſuch Doctrines? And yet we muſt do this, if the Inferences and Deductions from them be not acknowledg'd of ſufficient Autority to determine our Judgment, and guide our Practiſe. It was certainly no part of God's Deſign to undermine our Reaſon by Revelation; but to Enlighten and Improve it; to ſupply its Defects, by teaching us thoſe Things which of our ſelves we were not able to find out; and to clear ſome Principles of Religion that to the Light of Reaſon only ſeem'd diſputable and doubtful. But where that Light ſhines bright, and clear of it ſelf, it is a Divine Lamp held forth from Heaven to direct us, and its Autority is not to be deſpiſed.

Thus for Inſtance, in the Inſtitution of a Sacrament, we muſt expect a particular Revelation. For this being no part of natural Religion, but a Poſitive Ordinance, and depending on the ſole Pleaſure and Will of God; we can know nothing but what he ſhall be pleaſed to reveal. For tho' baptizing was in uſe among the Jews, as a Rite in admitting Proſelytes, and by our Saviour receiv'd from them; yet it muſt be his Poſitive Decree and Command, that muſt make it a Sacrament to us. Had it therefore been the Autority of the Inſtitiution it ſelf that had been in diſpute: You had argu'd well, that an expreſs Precept was to be expected. But as to the Subjects of Baptiſm, or the Perſons to be baptized, the Caſe is not the ſame, nor is there the ſame Reaſon to look for a Command mentioning Infants in expreſs Words: For, tho' the Sacrament be new, the Covenant is ſtill the ſame. And therefore, we may here argue, and be particularly inſtructed by Parity of Reaſon, viz. that thoſe who were admitted to the Old Covenant may be admitted to the New; becauſe the Conditions, and the Promiſes are the ſame in both. And here Deductions and Inferences from God's Word are of ſufficient Force to determine the Argument, and ought to be received in all ſuch Caſes. And the chief Thing to be reſpected, is not whether the Matter be Fundamental or no; but the Certainty of it, and the clear Evidence of its Truth. A certain, and evident Truth ought to be received in Things Fundamental as well as not Fundamental, let the Way of attaining the Knowledge be what it will; whether from the Light of Reaſon, or Revelation; or Deduction, and Inferences from it.

2. But to make this more plain I ſhall further ſhow from St. Peter's own Example, in being determined by ſuch Arguments in a Caſe equally Fundamental, that this Autority ought to be ſubmitted to in the Caſe now before us. The Caſe I ſhall inſtance in, is, the Admiſſion of the Gentiles into the Church of Chriſt, and baptizing them: And there, the Queſtion once was much as it is now, viz. about the fit Subjects of Baptiſm. For ſome then did as firmly believe, that the Gentiles as polluted and unclean, were as unfit to be admitted into the Covenant with God, as others now-a-days would have Infants excluded for their Incapacities. And I would beg theſe Men to obſerve, what Methods the Holy Ghoſt uſed for the Conviction of St. Peter; and how he directs him by ſuch a Train of general Inſtructions, as all along required the ſincere and impartial Uſe of his Reaſon in the Application of them. And at laſt, there was no particular Command for baptizing them; all that the Holy Ghoſt diſcovered, amounted to no more than to ſhow that the Gentiles were not by Almighty God excluded from the Covenant: From whence St. Peter's own Reaſon convinced him, that therefore they were to be baptized.

St. Peter had a Viſion from Heaven, wherein there appeared, Acts 10. 11. A certain Veſſel deſcending unto him as it had been a great Sheet knit at the four Corners, and let down to the Earth: Wherein were all manner of four-footed Beaſts of the Earth, and wild Beaſts, and creeping Things, and Fouls of the Air. And there came a Voice to him, Riſe Peter, kill and eat. And when Peter ſaid, not ſo, Lord, for I have never eaten any Thing common or unclean: The Voice ſpake the ſecond time, what God hath cleanſed, that call not thou common. And this was done thrice, and the Veſſel was received up again into Heaven. Here is nothing in expreſs Words about the Gentiles, nor did St. Peter yet apprehend that they were concerned in the Viſion: For it is ſaid, Ver. 17. That Peter doubted in himſelf what the Viſion which he had ſeen ſhould mean.

But when the Holy Spirit gave him Warning of Three Men coming to him, and ordered him to go along with them, doubting nothing, and the Meſſengers preſently came from Cornelius the Centurion, who was a Gentile; then he underſtood by Deductions of his own Reaſon, that the Viſion referr'd to the Gentiles, and that God had ſignify'd thereby, that they, notwithſtanding their reputed Uncleanneſs might be admitted into the Church of Chriſt. Ver. 31. Of a Truth I perceive that God is no Reſpecter of Perſons, but in every Nation he that ſeareth God, &c. Here was in all this no expreſs Command for admitting the Gentiles, but a Viſion, from which this was to be learned by way of Inference and Deduction. And St. Peter convinced by this, preached Jeſus Christ unto them; and as he was Preaching, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the Word, and they ſpake with Tongues, and magnified God, Ver. 44, 46. Here was all this while no Precept, or expreſs Command to baptize them; but St. Peter being convinced, both by the Viſion, and by the Deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt upon them, that the Covenant belonged to them: From thence concludes by way of Inference, that they therefore ought to be Baptized. Ver. 47, 48. Can any Man forbid Water that theſe ſhould be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord.

I hope it will not be diſputed, but that the Admiſſion of the Gentiles, is a very Fundamental Doctrine in Chriſtianity. From this inſtance therefore I obſerve, 1. That the Inference from a Divine Revelation had with St. Peter, the Force and Authority of a Divine Law, as much as tho' it had been ſaid totidem verbis, ye ſhall admit the Gentiles into the Chriſtian Church. And therefore it was that he told his Brethren, Acts 11. 17. that his not complying had been withſtanding the Autority of God. Foraſmuch then as God gave them the ſame Gift, that he did unto us, that believed in the Lord Jeſus: What was I, that I could withſtand God? 2. That when we are ſufficiently aſſured, that any Perſons are capable of Admiſſion into the Chriſtian Covenant; this is a ſufficient Autority to baptize them, without any particular expreſs Command. The Holy Ghoſt in this Viſion gave no Command for baptizing Cornelius, but only taught St. Peter, that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the Covenant; and from thence he himſelf could ſufficiently determine, that it was God's Will, that they ſhould be baptized. Who can forbid Water that theſe ſhould be baptized? And to bring this home to our Caſe, it is juſt thus that we argue for Infant Baptiſm. God has from the Beginning with Abraham taught us, that Infants are not excluded from the Covenant of Christ: And from thence we conclude as St. Peter did, that thoſe who are not excluded from the Covenant, are included in the general Precept of admitting them by Baptiſm. And how ſtrange is the Power of Prejudice not to be ſatisfy'd with that Way and Method of Conviction, which the Holy Ghost himſelf uſed to the great Apoſtle of our Saviour.

To this I have found objected; that there was expreſs Law for Baptiſing of the Gentiles. Matt. 18. Go teach and baptize all Nations, &c. To this I anſwer,

1. That tho' we, who are aſſured, that it was God's Purpoſe to call the Gentiles, do very well to interpret that Command for Converting and Baptizing them; yet the Apoſtles before this Viſion of St. Peter did not apprehend this to be the Meaning of it. And a Law can have no Force, nor be any warrant, farther than the Purpoſe and Meaning of it can be underſtood.

2. The Words themſelves did not neceſſarily and literally imply any ſuch Meaning, that the Gentiles were to be In Mat. 24. 7. admitted: For, as Dr. Hammond has truly obſerv'd, the Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not then in common uſe import the Gentiles, always excluſive of the Jews; but is oft uſed for the Jews, in their ſeveral Nations, and Countries. And, indeed, had that Word in common Acceptation ſignify'd the Gentiles, I do not ſee how St. Peter, and the other Apoſtles could have been ignorant of that Doctrine. And it is poſſible, that on this Account God might think fit to make further Diſcoveries of the Calling in of the Gentiles, the better to inſtruct them what was his Purpoſe, and Intention in thoſe former Words.

But, in ſhort, what was it that moved St. Peter to baptize Cornelius? Did he do it upon the Autority of the Precept mentioned? Matt. 28. Its plain he did not; He did not then ſo underſtand thoſe Words. And its obſervable, that in all that Affair there was not the leaſt mention made of that fore-mention'd Precept, but it was the Viſion that Convinced, and Rectify'd St. Peter's Judgment by the rational Inferences which he was to draw from it. And I may add that what convinced him, convinced all his Brethren too. Acts 11. 18. When they heard thoſe Things, they held their peace, and glorified God, ſaying; then hath God alſo to the Gentiles granted Repentance unto Life. And thus it ſtill remains good, that an Argument by Deduction from Scripture or Revelation is ſufficient to convince us, who are the fit Subjects of Chriſtian Baptiſm; and by ſuch an Argument we do prove, that the Baptiſm of infants is founded on the Autority of God's holy Word.

CHAP. III.

THE fourth and laſt Objection is, That there is no mention made of any ſuch Practice among the Apoſtles, or the moſt Primitive Times. I muſt here obſerve that the State of the Queſtion is now chang'd, from Matter of Law to Matter of Fact; and we are now only to enquire what Diſcoveries we can find of ſuch a Practice in the Beginning of Chriſtianity. As to this Objection therefore I anſwer,

1. That tho' it were true, that there is no mention made in Scripture of ſuch a Practice, yet this would not at all prove, that there was no ſuch Thing in uſe; and eſpecially, when it is found not contrary to the Laws of God. For we are no more to expect an expreſs, clear, and diſtinct Account of all Apoſtolical Practices from the New Teſtament, than we are to expect a perfect Hiſtory of the firſt Ages of the World from the Six firſt Chapters of Geneſis. It was ſufficient for the Apoſtles to acquaint us with all neceſſary Laws and Commands of God; and with the Practices only occaſionally as it ſerved either to illuſtrate or confirm thoſe Laws when called in Queſtion. Otherwiſe they were in many Particulars ſilent.

2. I do not affirm, that it was the conſtant and univerſal Practice from the Beginning of the Apoſtles Preaching to baptize Infants. For I know very well that God did not think fit to make a compleat Eſtabliſhment of all Things at once, but brought Things to Perfection by degrees. As a Reverend Biſhop has obſerved Biſhop Pearſon, in Acta Apoſt. Lec. 3. § 15. to us; there was a Time when the Chriſtian Church conſiſted only of Jewiſh Converts, and we know when the Gentiles were firſt admitted: And there was a Time when Circumciſion was thought neceſſary to be obſerved, and it was ſome Years before this was laid aſide. So the Apoſtles according to Chriſt's Commiſſion, being chiefly intent on the Converſion of thoſe Perſons that were polluted with Infidelity and Immorality; had not as yet taken the State of Infants into their Conſideration. But when afterwards many Families were converted, their Condition came alſo to be conſidered. And I conjecture, that this might firſt be when Circumciſion came to be rejected. For it is very likely, that when the Jewiſh Converts who eſteemed their Infants to be admitted into Covenant by Circumciſion found the Apoſtles declare, that Circumciſion was not neceſſary; they then began to ſtart the Caſe of Infants, who by Circumciſion had that Priviledge ſigned to them, which by the Abolition of it would ſeem to have been loſt. But this I mention only as a Conjecture which you may take or leave, as you ſee fit.

3. Tho' we have no Declaration in expreſs Words, that Infants were baptized in the Apoſtles Times; yet from one Expreſſion of St. Paul, ſuch a Practice may reaſonably be concluded. He ſpeaks ſo of the Holineſs of Children, as ſeems not to admit of any rational Interpretation, and agreeable to the Caſe and Context, but by ſuppoſing that thoſe Infants were admitted to Baptiſm. It is 1 Cor. 7. 14. where giving his Judgment concerning thoſe Chriſtians who were married to Unbelievers, he perſwades their Cohabitation in that Conjugal State, if it may be permitted, by this Argument. For the unbelieveing Husband is ſanctified by the Wife (i. e.) ſhe being a Believer; and the unbelieving Wife is ſanctified by the Husband; elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. In which Words the Apoſtle plainly founds his Determination on this known and received Opinion, that the Children of Chriſtian Parents, and ſo alſo if but one Parent was Chriſtian, are holy; Elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.

That Infant Children are here intended, is plain in that he ſpeaks of ſuch whoſe Holineſs depended on the Sanctification of the believing Parent, which muſt reſpect Infants only, becauſe the Holineſs of adult Perons muſt be from their own actual Faith.

Now the Queſtion is, what St. Paul means here by Holineſs: He ſpeaks of the Holineſs of ſuch Children, one of whoſe Parents only were Chriſtian, and yet of ſuch Holineſs of ſuch Children, as from thence to prove the Lawfulneſs of the Cohabitation of ſuch Parents. To this End the Holineſs of ſuch Children muſt be evident and indiſputable, or otherwiſe the Argument would not have Force. Now, tho' the Children both whoſe Parents were Chriſtians, may be reckoned an holy Seed or Off-ſpring, by Deſignation; yet it might juſtly be doubted whether the Children, one of whoſe Parents only were Chriſtian, were thus holy, when the Lawfulneſs of their Cohabitation was diſputed. I ask then, how it ſhould come to paſs, that when the Lawfulneſs of the Cohabitation of a Chriſtian and an Infidel was diſputed; yet it ſhould remain a known and indiſputable Doctrine, that their Children were not unclean, but holy? For this the Apoſtle aſſerts, And I am perſwaded, that the only proper Anſwer to this Queſtion muſt be, That there was ſome known Privilege according to the Practice of the Church, at leaſt of that Church at that time belonging to ſuch Children; by which the Churches Opinion of their Holineſs, became unqueſtionable. Had not this been ſo, St. Paul's Argument, inſtead of proving what he intended by it, might rather have brought the Opinion of their Holineſs into Queſtion. But that it ſeems was ſo certain, ſo well known, ſo unqueſtionable, that he might ſafely ground his Argument upon it. And yet, methinks, there was the ſame Reaſon to diſpute one as well as the other, had not ſome cuſtomary Privilege made the Difference, and what that Privilege was, the true Notion of Holineſs will diſcover.

The beſt Notion of Holineſs in general that I have yet met with, is from the Learned and Judicious Mr. Mede, Diſc. 2. who makes it to conſiſt in Religious Separation and Diſcrimination from other Things; which in Oppoſition thereto, are called Common. I would ask then by what other Means or Privilege the Infants of Chriſtian Parents can be eminently diſcriminated from the Children of Infidel Parents; ſo as in the Language of the Church to be called Holy; but by being baptized? In this Interpretation, the Coherence and Purport of the Apoſtle's Argument is eaſie and plain, which otherwiſe is unintelligible. The Children of Gentile Parents are common and unclean, in St. Peter's Senſe, mentioned above, Acts 10. 14, 15. (i. e.) not yet to be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant, but the Infants of Believers are holy and may be baptized. And thus alſo the unbelieving Husband is ſanctified by the believing Wife, in that he who is an Unbeliever has his Child baptized becauſe of the Faith of the Mother, as much as tho' both Parents were Chriſtian.

And this is a good Argument of the Innocence of their Cohabitation: For if the Church admits the Child of an unbelieving Husband to Baptiſm, becauſe the Mother is a Believer, the Cohabitation of thoſe Parents of whom ſuch a Child is born, cannot be thought unlawful, upon the Account of their Religion. Thus every Thing in the Words is Intelligible and Plain, and if this be a true Interpretation, here is Proof that the Baptiſm of Infants was in uſe in the Apoſtles Time.

But you, Sir, have ſent me ſome Objections, and another Interpretation of this Place: Both which ſhall be conſidered. I ſhall begin with the Objections.

Object. 1. It is objected, That there is no other Holineſs here attributed to the Children, than what is aſcrib'd to the unbelieving Parent; for, as the Children are ſaid to be holy, ſo it is ſaid of the unbelieving Husband, or Wife, that he, or ſhe is ſanctified, or made holy; and therefore as much ought to be baptized.

Anſw. But where's the Force of this Concluſion? You ſeem from hence to infer, that there is the ſame Holineſs in both: But, why ſo? Are there not ſeveral Degrees or Kinds of Holineſs, or Religious Diſcrimination? Are not all Chriſtians holy by their Profeſſion? In which Senſe St. Paul calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Saints or holy Ones by way of Diſtinction from other Men: And are not all true Chriſtians holy by a real Sanctification of God's Spirit? And yet theſe are not the ſame. Again, Are not all that miniſter at the Altar, holy in a third Senſe by their Office? There is then an internal, and there is an external Holineſs; there is a real, actual Holineſs, conſiſting in Faith and Obedience, by the Sanctification of the Spirit; and there is a relative Holineſs, conſiſting in Separation by Profeſſion, or Privilege, or Office. Here then are different Degrees of Holineſs aſcrib'd to different Perſons, according to their ſeveral Circumſtances. The Holineſs of the Believer is of one Kind; that of the Unbeliever of another; that of their Children of a third: And ſo this Objection can be of no Force in that its founded on this groſs Miſtake; That the Holineſs is the ſame in all!

Object. 2. It is objected, That the Holineſs, or Sanctification of the unbelieving Parent is mentioned by the Apoſtle as The Cauſe of the Childrens Holineſs: Otherwiſe, (i. e.) were it not that the Unbeliever was thus ſanctified, your Children were unclean, but now are they holy. Conſequently, ſay you, there is a ſtronger Argument in this Text for baptizing the unbelieving Parent, than the Children; Even as The Cauſe is more noble than the Effect.

Anſw. I anſwer; If it had been ſaid One Cauſe of the Childrens Holineſs it had ſounded better; becauſe the Cauſe looks as tho' it were the chief or only Cauſe, in which Senſe the Aſſertion is not true: For, the Logicians have juſtly taught us to diſtinguiſh that there is a principal Cauſe, and a leſs principal Cauſe. The Holineſs of the unbelieving Parent is at moſt but a leſs principal Cauſe of the Holineſs of the Children, or a Cauſe ſine quâ non; otherwiſe were the Children unclean, but now are they holy. And if this be St. Paul's Meaning; yet then in this Senſe, the Concluſion will fail. For, whereas it is alledged, that on this Account, the Words are a ſtronger Argument for Baptizing the unbelieving Parents, than their Children, even as the Cauſe is more noble than the Effect: Here lies the Weakneſs of this Objection; which is, indeed, a downright Fallacy; for it is not the leſs principal, but the Principal Cauſe only that is nobler than the Effect. 'Tis one of the Maxims of Logic, that the leſs principal Cauſe, Semper eſt deterior effectu ſuo, is always leſs noble than the Effect. There can then be no Force in this Concluſion, unleſs Men will aſſert, that the Holineſs of the unbelieving Parent, is the Principal Cauſe of the Holineſs of the Children, which is more than St. Paul ever ſaid.

Object. 3. It is objected, That a Foederal Holineſs cannot be intended here, unleſs it be ſuppoſed, that the unbelieving Husband or Wife is in the Covenant of Grace.

Anſw. But why ſo? I have already ſhown, that their Holineſs is not the ſame; the one therefore may be a Foederal Holineſs, and the other not; and, ſo this is a falſe Deduction.

Object. 4. Another Objection is, That if here he meant a Foederal Holineſs, whereby Infants are ſet apart from the reſt of the World, as Members of Chriſt's Church, they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper alſo; which Ordinance is no leſs a Duty, and Privilege of every Member of Chriſt's Church than Baptiſm. And therefore ſays Mr. A— It is well known that among the Ancients, Infants were for a time admitted to this Sacrament, as well as to the former: But ſeeing none now to the Latter, why to the Former?

He who makes this Objection, has furniſh'd me with an Anſwer to it, and ſays, That Self-examination is urged as a Bar in this.

But if this be all, I ſhall not thank him for the Invention. There is another, and I am perſwaded, a better Argument drawn from the different Nature and Deſign of theſe Two Sacraments. For Baptiſm is a Sacrament of Initiation; the other of Confirmation. And, tho' God may, and does of his abundant Grace admit Infants into his Covenant; yet the Renewing of this Covenant is founded on a Suppoſition of our Frailty; who, more or leſs, do all tranſgreſs the Conditions of our Baptiſmal Vow, and impair our Hope. The Lord's Supper therefore was intended, the ſtronger to oblige Men to actual Faith and Repentance, after the Violation of their firſt Vow, and to adminiſter Comfort in our Penitential Sorrows, in the Commemoration of our Saviour's Paſſion.

This Sacrament therefore in the very Nature of it always ſuppoſes actual Faith and Repentance, which Baptiſm does not. Actual Faith and Repentance are not univerſally neceſſary to Baptiſm, as I have proved above, but where Sin and Infidelity have gone before. For he that has never ſinn'd, has nothing to repent of. And the Innocence of the Perſon then is a ſufficient Qualification for Baptiſm, where there is a rational Hope, that he ſhall afterwards believe and obey the Goſpel. But the Lord's Supper, which was deſign'd for the Renewing, and Confirmation of our Vow, ſuppoſes both that Vow to have been broken, and that Breach to have been repented of.

There is not therefore the ſame Reaſon for admitting Infants to the Lord's Supper as to Baptiſm; becauſe the different Nature and End of each Sacrament ſhows the One to be proper, and the other not. For which Cauſe that Cuſtom is now left off.

I think then Mr. A—'s Objections againſt my Interpretation of this Text appear to have very little or no Force. I deſire now that my Reaſons againſt his Interpretation of the Place may be as fairly conſidered, and as impartial a Judgment paſs'd upon them: Which is moſt agreeable to the Context, and the Force of the Apoſtle's Argument and Deſign. His Interpretation is this; The Scope of the Apoſtle determines the Sanctification or Holineſs of the unbelieving Husband or Wife to be no other than Matrimonial Holineſs, or Chaſtity; in Oppoſition to Ʋncleanneſs, or Fornication, (in which Senſe it is taken, 1 Theſſ. 4. 3, 4, 7. and conſequently by the Holineſs of the Children flowing from it, we may underſtand no other than Legitimacy, in which Senſe we read of a godly or holy Seed, Mal. 2. 15. So that St. Paul here bring Two Arguments to prove the Marriage to be good. 1. Becauſe the Ʋnbeliever ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) hath been ſanctified, not by, but to, or unto the Believer by being joyned in holy Matrimony; and conſequently a Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Chriſt, unleſs for the Cauſe of Fornication. 2. (Ab abſurdo) from the Abſurdity that would follow ſhould they ſeparate upon the Account of Religion, thereby diſowning their Marriage, and conſequently baſtardizing their Children; which the Apoſtle, ſuppoſing them unwilling to do, adviſes them to continue with their unbelieving Husband or Wife, notwithſtanding their Differences in Religion. Thus this Text Mr. A— ſays is expounded by Melancthon, Camerarius, and Muſculus, who alſo cites St. Jerome and Ambroſe for it; acknowledging, that he had formerly abuſed it against the Anabaptiſts. So that it ſeems in this, we muſt conſider both the Interpretation, and the Autorities produced to confirm it. As to the Argument I have theſe Things to offer:

1. That ſuch a Senſe is put upon theſe Words, as ſome of them are never found to have in all the Holy Scripture. For, tho' it is true, that Holineſs is ſometimes uſed for Chaſtity, and particularly, 1 Theſſ. 3. 3, 4, 7. in Oppoſition to Fornication; yet Ʋncleanneſs is never taken for Illegitimacy or Baſtardy in a litteral Senſe, as it is here rendred by Mr. A—. As to what is alleged concerning a godly or holy Seed, Mal. 2. 15. which Mr. A— by the Autority of Calvin, and other Learned Interpreters, would underſtand to be Legitimacy; let thoſe learned Interpreters be who they will; it is very plain, that they muſt take Legitimacy there not in a Litteral Senſe, but Figurative, according to the uſual Language of the Prophets, who often expreſs Idolatry by Whoredom and Fornication, and call the Revolting into it the Marrying a ſtrange God; and going a whoring after Idols, Ezek. 6. 9. St. Jerome and and the Chaldee Paraphraſe by the holy Seed, underſtand the Poſterity of Abraham in Oppoſition to the Gentiles; and the former ſays, The Prophets Purpoſe here was to reprove the Jews for Marrying Wives of the Idolatrous Nations, and he grounds this Interpretation on Ezra 9. 2. And if this be good, the holy Seed is the People under Covenant with God in Diſtinction from the Gentiles.

And therefore I ſay again, that tho' Uncleanneſs is uſed in the New Teſtament for Fornication and Senſuality; yet not once for Baſtardy, nor Holineſs for Legitimacy. But, I think, I may ſay, that whenever theſe Words are uſed, and eſpecially when they are ſet in Oppoſition one to another; Uncleanneſs denotes ſomething of the vile Pollutions that were common among the Idolatrous Heathens; and Holineſs, when attributed to Perſons, always includes ſomething of Diſtinction and Diſcrimination from the Heathens, either by way of Perſonal Excellence, or of Privilege. And therefore,

2. It is eaſie to ſhew, that as theſe Words are not uſed for Baſtardy and Legitimacy in any other place of the New Teſtament, ſo that they cannot have any ſuch Signification here. Mr. A— ſays, That St. Paul here ſpeaks of Matrimonial Chaſtity in Oppoſition to Fornication; and that his Deſign was to ſhew, that the Marriage was good notwithſtanding their Difference in Religion; and that they were therefore under no Obligation to ſeparate on that Account; which ſeems plainly to be one of the Scruples about which the Apoſtle wrote. The Chriſtians, indeed, had Scruples about their Cohabitation with Infidels; But how does it appear that the Scruple was, that after their Converſion to Chriſtianity, their Marriage was no longer valid or good? How does this appear? Their Scruple was, I confeſs, whether or no they were to ſeparate on Account of their Difference in Religion: But the Ground of that Scruple was not any Fear that their Marriage-Contract was invalid, and their Cohabitation to be deem'd Fornication; but a Tenderneſs upon Account of the Unbelievers being an Infidel and Idolater; leſt by ſo near an Alliance to ſuch an one, they ſhould ſeem either to run into Danger, or to partake of the Pollution and Guilt of Idolatry and Unbelief: This is agreeable to the Apprehenſions which we find that the Primitive Chriſtians had. An Inſtance of which Juſtin Martyr gives an Account of: Of a Woman, who upon her Converſion to Chriſtianity finding that ſhe could not reclaim her Husband from the abominable Lewdneſs of his Heathen Life, would be divorced from him, and tho' at the Importunity of her Friends, ſhe continued with him ſomewhat longer; yet finding he grew worſe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. leſt ſhe ſhould be Partaker of his Iniquities and Impieties by cohabiting with him, and being Partner with his Table and Bed, ſhe gave him a Bill of Divorce, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and was parted from him. This remarkable Inſtance ſhews what the Apprehenſions of the Primitive Chriſtians, as to this Matter were, and gives no ſmall Light to the Debate now in hand.

And that ſuch as this was, in Truth, the Caſe upon which St. Paul there treats, is farther evident from the Coherence of the Text with what goes before.

The Queſtions upon which St. Paul wrote were ſeveral: Firſt, Whether Chriſtians ſhould then Marry, which he rather diſſuades as that which would more engage them in the Affairs of the World, and make them leſs willing to ſuffer Perſecution. This he mentions both in the Beginning and End of the Chapter; but then with this Reſtriction, that they ſhould rather marry, than be ſubject to impulſes of burning Luſts, Ver. 9.

Next to the Married, he declares, that they are bound by the Law of God, not to ſeparate, if they can avoid it. To the Married I command, yet not I, but the Lord; Let not, &c. Ver. 10, 11. Then comes the Caſe now in hand concerning thoſe who were Married, but not both Parties as yet converted to Chriſtianity; and among them it was a Queſtion whether their Difference in Religion was a juſt Cauſe of Separation. Now, I ſay, had the Ground of this Scruple been an Opinion, or Fear, that their Continuance in that married State had been equal to Fornication or Uncleanneſs: St. Paul who knew very well that their Difference in Religion made no ſuch Alteration in the Caſe, would never have uſher'd in his Determination with, thus ſpeak I, not the Lord, but thus, not I, but the Lord, as V. 10. It is not credible, or morally poſſible, that He, who was immediately influenced by the Holy Ghoſt in the Execution of his Apoſtolic Office, ſhould only give his Conjectural Judgment, or meerly Prudential Determination, in a Queſtion: In which both he and they were afore determined by the expreſs Law, and Inſtitution of God; and in which he knew himſelf to be ſo determined. To the Married command I, and yet not I, but the Lord: Let not the Wife depart from her Husband, Ver. 10. Eſpecially, if the Conſequence of their Separation would prove ſo pernicious, as to Baſtardize their Children, (as Mr. A— ſuppoſes:) He was the more oblig'd to determine them by the Autority of God's Inſtitution, or Law. It is, I ſay, incredible, that he ſhould uſher in the Determination of ſo important a Queſtion, only by a Conjectural Order, that could not determine their Conſcience: For, ſeeing it was but St. Paul's Order, and not God's Command, it could not determine the Good or Evil of the Thing. Had therefore the Queſtion been, what Mr. A— ſuppoſes it, St. Paul muſt have determined it by God's Autority, and not by his own only; ſo that the very Manner of the Expreſſion plainly proves, that the Queſtion was only about the Danger of Cohabiting with an Infidel, and an Idolater: And if this be the Caſe, Mr. A—'s Interpretation of Holineſs by Legitimacy cannot be good. For Divorce in this Caſe can never baſtardize the Children, that is only done by the Original Illegitimacy of the Marriage-Contract. And ſo far is St. Paul from aſſerting what Mr. A— affirms, that Divorce would be unlawful, that he, if the Unbeliever will not cohabit, leaves the Chriſtian at liberty to ſeparate; which he would rather have diſſuaded, if a Separation had been againſt the Law of Chriſt, and made their Children Baſtards.

As to the Autority of ſome Commentators, Melancthon, Camerarius, and Muſculus, who are alledged to Countenance this Conſtruction; What does it ſignifie, when it appears thus plainly to be contrary to the Uſe of the Phraſe, and the Coherence of the Place? And that it does ſo, will be more plain, if we obſerve,

3. That Mr. A—'s Interpretation deſtroys the Force of St. Paul's Argument, which our Notion of Holineſs cofirms. Mr. A— ſays, St. Paul proves their Marriage good by Two Arguments: Firſt, Becauſe the Unbeliever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hath been ſanctified to, or unto the Believer (i. e.) joyned in holy Matrimony. If he means that, becauſe Matrimony is an holy State, therefore their Cohabitation is lawful notwithſtanding the one Party is not Chriſtian, I can go along with him: But when he makes St. Paul to argue, Secondly, Ab abſurdo, that if their Marriage and Cohabitation be lawful, therefore a Divorce would be contrary to the Law of Chriſt, and baſtardizes their Children: Here I doubt he perverts St. Paul's Senſe in many reſpects; for, as I have hinted above.

1. St. Paul does not ſay in this Caſe, that a Separation would be contrary to the Law of Christ. So far from it, that he does not determine it by God's Law, but by his own Opinion. V. 12. But to the reſt ſpeak I, but not the Lord, If any Brother hath a Wife that believeth not, &c.

2. He is ſo far from declaring their Seperation to be a Sin, and ſuch a Sin as Baſtardizes the Children, that he only gives his Advice in caſe both Parties agree to Cohabit. If ſhe be pleaſed to dwell with him, V. 12. and if he be pleaſed to dwell with her, let her not leave him, V. 13. But if they diſagree about Religion, they may part, If the Ʋnbelieving depart, let him depart. A Brother or Siſter is not in Bondage in ſuch Caſes, V. 15.

3. As I have prov'd, that the Queſtion was not about the Validity of Marriage, but of the Lawfulneſs and Expedience of their Cohabitation: So Mr. A—'s Legitimacy puts ſuch a Conſequence on St. Paul's Aſſertion, as does by no means follow; for it is only the Invalidity of Marriage that Baſtardizes the Children, but Divorce alone does not.

In a Word, Mr. A—'s Senſe of St. Paul's Words makes St. Paul to contradict himſelf; for it makes him to declare ſuch a Seperation contrary to God's Law, and injurious to the Children, in the 14th Verſe, which it is plain, that in the 15th he conſents to; and which in the 12th he ſays, he did not determine by the Autority of God's Laws, but only by his own Autority.

But taking the Holineſs of Children in our Senſe, for admitting them to Baptiſm, it makes the Apoſtle's Argument ſtrong and clear: For the Holineſs of Children born in ſuch a State, is a very good Proof, that their Cohabitation was Lawful and Innocent. 'Tis as much as if St. Paul had ſaid; As to the Caſe of thoſe married to Ʋnblievers, the Practice of the Church in the Admiſſion of the Children of ſuch to Baptiſm, as well as the Children of thoſe Parents who are both Chriſtians ſhow what our Opinion is of their Cohabitation: The Ʋnbeliever is Sanctified in this reſpect by the Believer; elſe were the Children of ſuch common and unclean, like the Children of Infidels; but now are they holy, or in Malachi's Phraſe, an holy Seed, and admitted into the Covenant of God in Chriſt by Baptiſm; as well as the Children of thoſe Parents who are both Believers.

I profeſs with Sincerity, that I cannot find out any other Senſe of the Place that will agree with the Apoſtle's Scope and Deſign. And when it thus appears, that after Mens Sedulous Endeavours to evade the Teſtimony of this Place, their Objections are of no Force, nor can any other Conſtruction be deviſed, that will well agree with the Scripture-Phraſe, and be conſiſtent with the Scope and Deſign of St. Paul's Determination in this Caſe: Methinks it adds very great Autority to my Argument, makes the Force of it much more conſiderable; and muſt be admitted as a good Proof that Infants were baptized in St. Paul's Time.

But the Thing now in Debate, being whether it was the Apoſtles Practice to baptize Infants: I think it will be very proper to ſhow what early Diſcoveries we have of it in the Writings of the Primitive Fathers. For let Men that are Conſcious of the Teſtimony of Antiquity againſt them never ſo much decry the Autority of the Fathers, and the Primitive Church; and tell us, that the Myſtery of Iniquity began to work in it very early; nothing of that ſhould derogate from their juſt Eſteem. The Myſtery of Iniquity began to work in St. Paul's Time, and yet, I hope, that does not leſſen his Autority. So neither do all the Hereſies, and Haeterodox Opinions of the firſt Ages derogate from the Autority of the Fathers in that they proceeded from Men out of the Communion of the Church; and were oppoſed by the Fathers, with that Vigor, Conſtancy, and Zeal; which makes their Teſtimony, both in Doctrines and Practice, highly to be valued.

For this Reaſon, I ſay, it is remarkable how early we find plain, and undeniable Evidence of the Baptiſm of Infants. From the Death of St. John for ſome Years we have no Chriſtian Writings extant, except a few ſhort Epiſtles. In which we can no more expect a particular Account of all Apoſtolical Practices; than, as I ſaid before, we can hope for a particular Hiſtory of the firſt Ages of the World in the firſt Five Chapters of Geneſis.

But one of the firſt of the Fathers that wrote in any conſiderable Bulk, was Irenaeus, and his Evidence is very expreſs in this Caſe: For he has theſe Words; Omnes enim venit (viz. Chriſtus) per ſemet ipſum ſalvare: Omnes, inquam, qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum, Infantes, & Parvulos, & Pueros, & Juvenes, & Seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & Infantibus factus Infans, ſanctificans Infantes, in Parvulis Parvulus, Sanctificans hanc ipſam habentes aetatem, Adv. Haer. lib. 2. c. 39. The Deſign of the Father in this Place, was to lay open the Fantaſtic Conceits of the Valentinians, who pretended that their Aeons were prefigured by the Years of Chriſt's Life before his Baptiſm; and that what they dreamt of the Paſſion of the Twelfth Aeon, was ſignified by Chriſt's Suffering the Twelfth Month; to ſupport which Notion, they aſſerted that Chriſt Preached but one Year after his Baptiſm.

Theſe were the Heretic's Fantaſtic Dreams; to confute which, Irenaeus firſt ſhows that Chriſt was at Jeruſalem Three ſeveral Paſſovers after his Baptiſm; and conſequently muſt have Preach'd above one Year, in that he begun it upon his Baptiſm, and continued it to his Death.

Then he ſhows, that Chriſt paſſed thro' the ſeveral Stages of Humane Life; Omnem aetatem ſanctificans per illam quae ad ipſam erat ſimilitudinem, that he might ſanctifie every Age by his own Likeneſs thereto: For, ſays he, he came to ſave all by himſelf; all I mean that are regenerated by him to God; Infants, Little Ones, Children, Young Men, and Old. For this Reaſon he paſs'd thro' every Age, and to the Infants he became an Infant, ſanctifying the Infants; and to the Little Ones, a Little One that he might ſanctifie thoſe of that Age. Which Words were purpoſely deſigned to declare, that the Salvation purchaſed by Chriſt belongs to all Ages or Years whatever, whether Infants or Old Men, who are Members of Chriſt's Church. Omnes qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum; all that are Regenerate, or born again to God by him: Which is the very Expreſſion that St. Paul, and the Ancients after Tit. 3. 5. See Juſt. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 94. Edit. Par. him, uſe for Baptiſm. And it appears here to be added, to put a Limitation to the Aſſertion; that what he ſays he means peculiarly of Chriſtians, that have been by Baptiſm admitted into the Covenant. All that are born again unto God by him; Infants, Babes, Children, &c. nor are Infants capable of being born again unto God by Chriſt, any other way, that I know of, but by Baptiſm.

So that I do not ſee how it can be evaded, but that this ſingle Evidence muſt be acknowledg'd a ſufficient Proof, that the baptizing Infants was a Thing in Practice when Irenaeus wrote this Book: For otherwiſe this Aſſertion could be neither pertinent, nor proper.

It may not therefore be amiſs to ſhow how early this was, and how very improbable it is, that ſuch a Cuſtom ſhould ſo ſoon prevail; unleſs it had been received by a certain Tradition from the Apoſtles themſelves. Irenaeus wrote this Book about A. D. CLXXX, which was but about Fourſcore Years from the Death of Biſhop Pearſon, Op. Poſthuma. Diſ. 2. c. 14. St. John, who died in the Third Year of Trajan (i. e.) about A. D. 100. And Irenaeus was ſo far Cotemporary with Polycarp, who was a Diſciple of the Apoſtles, and convers'd with Iren. l. 3. c. 3. many of thoſe who had ſeen Christ, and by them was made Biſhop of Smyrna, in Aſia: That he ſays, he had ſeen him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , when he himſelf was but a young Man. He muſt write this Book then in the very next Age after one that had been Contemporary with the Apoſtles. And this I think is very early.

It can hardly be ſuppoſed that any corrupt Practice ſhould be introduc'd, but Polycarp; who was Inſtructed by the Apoſtles, and taught what he had learnt of the Apoſtles, and what the Church had delivered to him, and what alone was true, as Irenaeus Lib. 3. Cap. 3. ſpeaks of him: Would zealouſly have oppoſed it, and have had Autority to reject it. There is no Probability that any great Innovation ſhould be introduc'd while a Cotemporary and Diſciple of the Apoſtles was yet alive. There is then only from the Death of Polycarp to Irenaeus's writing this Book, for the introducing this Practice, if it was introduced. And that, at moſt, is but about Thirty Two, or Thirty Three Years. For Biſhop Pearſon, who places the Martyrdom of Polycarp earlier than other Men, Opera. Poſthuma. Diſ. 2. c. 20. aſſerts, that it was A. D. CXLVII. And can it be thought that any great Innovation ſhould be made in Irenaeus's own Time, and he either not know it, or not reprove it? Can thoſe who think the baptizing Infants ſuch a Corruption, ſuch a Violation of Chriſt's Inſtitution as, they conceit, to deſtroy the true Being of a Church; to deprive the Miniſters of God of all just Power of Miniſtring in holy Things; and to make Communion with us, in our Sacraments, unlawful: Can they, I ſay, imagine that thoſe Fathers whoſe Glory it was to do all Things according to the Inſtructions of the Apoſtles; ſhould ſuffer ſuch an heinous Innovation to come in among them, and be received; and never make any Complaint, nor any Oppoſition to it? Would not Polycarp, who was Inſtructed of the Apoſtles themſelves, have oppoſed it, had it been in his Time? And would not Irenaeus, who ſays, that only thoſe Things are true, which the Church from the Apoſtles delivered; would not he, I ſay, zealouſly have oppos'd it, had it been in his Time? When therefore we find him ſpeaking of it as a known Practice, I appeal to all impartial Men, whether it is not Rational to believe that the Fathers, and the Primitive Church receiv'd it from the Apoſtles themſelves.

You ought then, Sir, to be very tender in Charging all Chriſtians from the Apoſtles Times for Fifteen Hundred Years together; with not being a lawful Church, nor ſuch, with whom one may Lawfully hold Communion in the Sacraments. This ſhould not be done without very good Proof. Other Errors and Corruptions that have been found fault with, and wanted Reformation; we know when, and how they were introduced. And before this is ſo Poſitively affirmed to be a corrupt Innovation, you ought to ſhow us, about what Time, and by what Means it came to prevail; rather than decry the Autority of the Fathers that bear Witneſs to this as an Apoſtolical Practice.

I might confirm this from the Teſtimony of others, and particularly of Tertullian in the next Place; who altho' he ſeems not, I confeſs, to approve it, as he was in many Things particular in his Judgment; yet even in his Diſlike he undeniably atteſts that it was then in Uſe. But the Teſtimony of Antiquity has been ſufficiently inſiſted on by others. I ſhall therefore add no more, but leave it to your ſelf to conſider, and to the World to judge; whether your ſeparating from our Communion upon the Account of a Practice ſo agreeable to Chriſt's Inſtitution, and the Ancient Uſage of the Church, be not more owing to the Prejudice of Education, than to the Force of Reaſon, or the juſt Merits of the Cauſe. I am

SIR, your Humble Servant. FINIS.
ERRATA.

PAg. 2. l. 30. read enjoys. p. 6. l. 19. r. Capacity. l. 34. dele firſt. p. 13. l. 28. r. really. p. 15. l. 1. r. aſſert. p. 16. l. 26. r. at all. p. 17. l. 15. dele? p. 24. l. 10. after Wife, add, (i. e.) the Sanctimony of the Conjugal State is atteſted.

ADVERTISEMENT.

A DISCOURSE of FORNICATION: Shewing the Greatneſs of that Sin; and Examining the Excuſes pleaded for it from the Examples of Ancient Times. To which is added, an Appendix, concerning Concubinage; As alſo a Remark on Mr. Butler's Explication of Heb. 13. 4. in his late Book on that Subject. By John Turner, M. A. Printed for John Wyat, at the Roſe, in St. Paul's Church-yard.