YOur Acquaintance with my Circum­stances makes you sensible of the lit­tle Leisure I have, from my multi­farious Encumbrances, to answer your Desires; you must therefore not Expect from me, a particular Answer, to all that's Exceptionable, in Mr. Gales Reflections, on Mr. Walls History of Infant Baptism; But must be Content with ha­ving matter of Conviction Briefly offerred, that his Arguments are not Unanswerable; and that a small degree of learning and Ingenuity, is suf­ficient to Undermine and Raze to the ground this admired Structure; which he has with such Elaborate pains and study Erected.

His two first Letters do principally consist of [Page 6] Reflections on Mr. Walls un-fair dealing, in his Book, (which not having seen, I am not able to vindicate.) These therefore not affecting the Controversy, I shall pass over in Silence.

Mr Gale begins his third Letter; by shewing wherein the Controversy between them and the Pado-baptists, Consists, viz. (1) In the Mode of Baptism, whether its to be administred only by Dip­ping? (2) Who are the true Subjects of it, whe­ther Adult Persons only, or Infants also? ^* Th [...]se Things he supposes so clear as to admit of no Dispute, and Even Dares to call in question the Legislato [...]s Conduct; if otherwise. Nay, he Even ventures to affirm, ‘That our Enemies allow, that as far as the Scriptures are clear in the present Case, our practice Exactly agrees with them; and they must confess too, that their own is very different from what the Text declares to have been done, in the An­cient Times.’

This his Harrangue labours of two conside­rable Infirmities; Profaneness and Fals-hood.

1. Profaneness. Must poor Dust and Ashes call in question the Conduct of Infinite Wisdom, if any points in Religion disagree with their Sentiments? What tho' the case seem'd clear to him, must he arraign the Conduct of the most High before the Tribunal of his frail Reason? surely this is insufferable Presumption.

2. Falshood. What Po [...]dobaptist. Author did Ever acknowledge, that their Practice Exactly [Page 7] agrees with the Scriptures, and that our Pra­ctice is very different, from what the Text declares to have been done in the ancient Times? I challenge him in the words of King [...] (^*) What is that Man's Name, or what is his Sons Name, if he can tell? And as we are very far from acknow­ledging, so I much suspect he will be as far from proving Those Allegations; We'll however hear what he has to say.

His first Argument is thus laid down. ^† ‘The Word Baptize necessarily includes Dipping in its signification, and that Christ in Command­ing to Baptize, has Commanded to Dip only. And subjoyns, I may Challenge any man to shew a single Instance, of its signifying any thing Else (than to Dip) Except in some Eccle­siastical writers of the Later Corrupt Times.’

I accept his Challenge; For although I freely acknowledge, that the word very frequently signifies to Dip, yet not always, which when made appear, will overthrow his whole Argu­ment, from the word Baptizo.

All his Quotations from profane Authors, (if pertinent) will do him but very little service; for his highest Pretence from them must be that the word is sometimes used in the sense he pleads for, and particularly in the places Cited; But this notwithstanding, it may carry a different meaning in Thousands of Instances, for ought he knows. But what will become of his Argu­mentation [Page 8] upon this Topick, if some of his own cited Instances, should have the ill manners to Contradict him? which I am pretty Confident they will.

He brings an Instance from Homers Batrachomy­omichia, who sayes, when one of the Champions was slain, by the side of a Lake, he breathless fell, and The Lake was Ebapteto, (which he transla­tes (Tinged with Blood.) Can he perswade a Gentleman of your Reason to believe, that the Lake was Dipt in Blood, or that the Poet so in­tended? Especially when you Remember, that this mighty Hero Crambophagus, from whose slaughter was this Deluge of Blood, was but a Frog Dying by the Hands of his victorious Ene­mies, the Mice. I am sure that it would be a more natural, and genuine Translation, to Read it, The Lake was sprinkled, or stayn'd with Blood, This would (if we look upon these Cham­pions as this ingenuous Ludicrous Poem Re­presents them, to be famous Martial Chevaliers) make the Poets words both Truth and sense; But his Translation neither the one or the other; For he himself is forced to acknowledge, it ^† very Ridiculous, to speak of Dipping or Plunging a Lake, in the Blood of a slain Champion.

Previous to a particular Consideration of his Crafty attempt, to make the word a Nose of wax, to bend to his purpose, I shall observe to you, that we are not to put a Metaphorical Construction upon any Authors words, unless [Page 9] the Sense of the Phrase Ne [...]essarily Require it, For this Practice would render all Writings, sacred and Profane, wholly Unintelligible, with­out any constant steady meaning, and liable to subversion, according to the Capricious Fancy of every humersome Wrangler; This would [...]ender the sacred Scriptures themselves but a Bone of Contention, and give a handle to the most Enthusiastical Sectaries, to bring in the Scriptures as Espousing their Extravagant sentiments.

How Mr. Gale, in the Case before us, and frequently in the following pages, has (with­out any occasion from the sense of the words) forc't upon them a Metaphorical meaning, with the greatest violence imaginable, you will, not­withstanding his plausible Discourse, be easily Convinced.

^* ‘This Phrase (says he) we must Consider, is borrowed from the art of Dyers, who colour things by Dipping them in their Dye.’

But then here is a Comparison without any similitude, for I can't devise where lies the parity between Dipping things in Dye, and the Running of Blood into a Lake; It is therefore but a wheadling of all Mankind out of their Reason, To perswade them to accept of this Translation, or this Metaphor, as you'll be con­vinced, when you consider, (1.) That if the words are litteral Translated, so as to be made sense of, they must be rendred as above The [Page 10] Lake was sprinkled or stayned with Blood. (2) If you choose the Latter of these Terms, and will have it Metaphorical, why it mayn't allude to the [...]aining, in Common use, by Affusion or Aspersion, Mr. Gale neither has, nor can offer any satisfactory Reason; And if any can Doubt of the Practice of staining without Dipping, every Limn [...]r, and House Painter can convince him by occ [...]lar Demonstration. Moreover, the Na­ture or the thing spoken of, (viz. The Lakes being stayn'd by the blood that was shed by the side of it) much better answers the Metaphor of this Sort of painting, than of Dying by Immer­sion.

By this time you are (I'm perswaded) convin­ced, that the word in Controversy, cannot, without utmost violence, be translated to Dip or Plu [...]g [...]; and therefore That his Challenge is already answered, and thereby his Argument enervated.

But I'll proceed to a second Instance.

He brings in Aristophanes saying, That magnes an old Comick of Athens, used the Lydian Musick s [...]ved the face; and smeared it over (Baptomenos) with Tawn [...]y Washes. This he acknowledges, was not (^⸫) by ‘Dipping their Faces in the Colour; but by smearing the Colour on their Faces.’ Here we have then, by our Authors own acknow­ledgment, an Instance where the word does not signifie Dipping or [...] And what be­comes then of his Arguments from the word [Page 11] Baptizo? But he'll tell us, That there is a (^†) manifest allusion to the art of Dying, in these, and all such passages. But how does this appear? ‘The true Primitive Meaning is only still Refered to and Implyed.’ And again▪ ‘If we suppose the Sense of the word to be altered; there will be the greatest Confusion, ¹¹ Languages ima­ginable, &’ He first brings this Instance to clear up his Sense of the word, Next, pleads from the Sense he gives the word, to the necessary Meaning of it in this place. A fine Round! I need not tell you, that this is a most bare-faced Begging the Question. But he tells us, ‘That none can be so hardy as to deny, that the word is Borrowed from the Art of Dying.’ I confess, I have such a brazen fore-head, as to Peremptorily deny it▪ for I see no Metaphor in the words; and if any, it can't allude to Dipping in Dye, wherewith it has not the least simillitude, but to the staining or Painting, before mentioned, with which it bears a lively and Exact Resemblance. Nay, M [...] Gale him­self is forc't to acknowledge, That (^⸫) ‘Nothing can be more Ridiculous, than for a man se­riously to talk of Dipping a Lake or River in Blood, or of a Ladies D [...]pping her Face in Ver­million, when she adorns it with artificial Co­lours, which on the contrary, its known, must be more artfully Laid on.’ But I'm sure its no wayes Ridiculous for a man seriously to talk of a Ladies Painting her Face with Ver­million, [Page 12] after the above said manner; And what need then of this Far-fetcht and Incon­gruous Metaphor? Again.

We need not go above a Dozen Lines fur­ther, before we meet with the word Baptei, which I think no man of Learning but Mr. Gale, would have translated as he does. The words he quotes from Aristo [...] Hyst. Animal. Lib. 5. Pag. 645. which I'll transcribe in English Character, and Construe verbatim, Thlibomenos de Baptei, kai anthizei teen keira. Thlibomenos de, When It's pressed, Baptei it Wets, kai; and, anthizei, it makes of a florid Colour, (floridu [...] Reddit) teen keira the hand. Thus Sir I think it must be translated, If we make the Philosopher to speak sense. That it may be yet more clea [...] let us Construe the words in our Authors Sense. Thlibomenos de, if it is pressed, Baptei, it Dyes or Colours, kai, and anthizei, it Colours, or makes of a florid Colour, teen Keira, the hands. There is no need to make Remarks upon the Tauto­logy of this Translation, or the Authors Unfair­ness in this Instance; But I must tell you, that if the word here be taken for Dying, it has no Reference at all to Dipping, nor can signifie to Dip or Plunge, unless he can persuade us to believe, that squeezing a Lock of wet Wool in our hands, is to Dip or Plunge them. How far then the word is here from properly, signi­fying to Dip, (as Mr. Gale, would persuade us it always does) I submit to your Censure. Again,

[Page 13]He brings in Strabo saying, That the Souldiers marched a Day through the water, (Baptizo­menon, which he Renders) Dipt up to the waste But would it not be better sense to Read it, Wet up to the Waste? Unless Mr. Gale can per­suade us, that there is no difference between Wading and Plunging.

I'll add but once or twice more; and no longer tire your patience, in this wild Goose-Chase. ^⸫ Mr. Gale promises us an Instance from Plutarch, which shall be Evident enough; and so it is, that the word in Debate does not always signify to Dip, or Plunge.

He finds Plutarch speaking of a Roman General, who, a little before he Dyed of his Wounds, set up a Trophy, on which having (Baptis [...], Which he Translates Dipt his Hand in Blood, he wrote this Inscription &c. You must understand, that this Genera [...] received the Blood running out of his Wound; But how this was Dipping his hand in his Blood, or how he was capable so to do, Mr. Gale should have better Illustrated. Its plain, his hand was Baptized by Affusion, and no otherwise.

He Proceeds to quote the Meditations of that Renowned Pious Emperour Mareus Antoninus, who says such as the Thoughts are, that you are most Possessed with, such will your Mind be; for the thoughts. (Baptetai, which he Reads) Dip the Mind. It would make a man smile, were he [Page 14] Never so serious, to hear of the Mind's being Dipt or Plunged in the Thoughts. The meaning of the words plainly are, that the Thoughts leave a fixed impression on the Mind, and that according to the Thoughts we Entertain with our Disposions and Affections be. Once more,

He finds the same Royal Author saying, Don't make the former Emperours the pattern of your actions, lest (Baphe [...]) you are infected with their Vices ▪ He indeed here again (Ridculously Enough Reads it Dipt; but you see how far the sense of the Phrase is from leaving him out in it.

There is no need of further Reply to his con­stant Refuge, (when he finds an Instance plain­ly against him) a Metaphorical Meaning: for there can be no allusion, (if it be Metaphorical) so Dipping or Plunging.

Thus [Sir] you see that out of those very Instances that he has, with so much Toil, col­lected to confirm his Hypothesis, we have found seven, that Can't With any modesty be Transla­ted to Dip or Plunge.

I might have taken Notice of other Passages, that further enlighten the Case before us; but I've already wearied my own patience, and I'm afraid yours.

'In the Close of his Third Letter, and begin­ning of the Fourth, he would persuade us, that the Lexicographers and Criticks, constantly affirm, That the proper and genuine sense of Baptizo, is Immergo, Mergo, &c. to Plunge or Dip. We'll then take the pains to peruse a few of them, and see what they say about it.

[Page 15] Schrivelius in his Lexicon (a Book of general Use; and best account throughout Europe) Ren­ders the word (Baptizo) by mergo, Lavo, to Dip and Wash. The word (Baptismos) by Lotio, Washing only.

Passor, a generally approved Lexicographer, Renders the word Just as the former, Baptizo, Mergo, Lavo, To Immerse or wash; and Baptis­mos, by Lotio, washing only:

Martin, in his Lexicon, Renders the word Bapto, by Mergo, Lavo, To Dip or Wash.

Martin Rulandus, a very compent Judge, in his Synonomya, gives us, among other Terms, (synonomous to the word Baptismois,) Loutr [...]n palingenesias, The washing of Regeneration, and Photismos, Brightness, Clearness light, the Effects and fruits of Washing.

We'll next look into Esq Leigh, in his Cele­brated Critica sacra, who tells us, That though Baptizo be taken from Bapto, Tingo, To Dip or Plunge, yet it is taken more largely, for any kind of Washing, Rinsing, or Cleansing, Even where there is no Dipping at all. Again, the same Author tells us, That the word (as Hesycius stephanus scapula and Budeus, the great Masters of the Greek Tongue, make good by very many Instances out of Classic Writers) importeth no more than Ablution or washing ▪ What can be plainer?

Beza ⸫ on Mark. 7.4. Renders the word Baptizontai) Loti fuerint, they were washed.

Zepperus de Sacram, si vocis Notationem, &c. i. e. If we would attend the Notation of the word, it signi­fyes the Act of Immersion and Washi [...]g.

[Page 16] Bucan Sayes, Baptismos is para to Baptein, which is Tingere, Madefacere: et Lavare, To Tinge, to make Wet; and to Wash.

Danaus Isaq. Christ, Lib. 5. De sacram, cap. 21. Idcirco Baptismos pro Lotione & mundatione, in Sacra Scriptura fere accipitur; i. e. Baptism is fre­quently a [...]cepted in the scripture, for Washing, and making [...]ean.

I have no Critick by me that may seem to speak so much in favour of our Authors bold assertion, as Matth. Flac. in his Clavis Scripture and yet Even he Contradicts him, his words are these, Baptismus vox greca est in Ecclesia notis­sima, proprie intinctionem significat, Ducta autem est a Bapto, Intingo, et a Baptizo, Immergo, porro per Metalepsin significat abluo, Lavo i. e. Baptism (says he) is a Greek word, in the Church well known, which properly signifyes Intinction, and is taken from Bapto, to Tinge, and Baptizo, To Immerse; nevertheless by a Metalepsis, it signifyes to Cleanse or Wash.

Ioh. Binch. in his Mel. Theol. Loc 26. Page. 155. Baptizo, viz. en aquam immergendo, vel aqua aspergendo. Baptizo (says he) viz Immersing into water, or Sprinkling with Water.

The Renowned Wendeline in his Mel. Theol. Lib. 1. Pag. 838. Renders Baptizo by Conspergo, and ahluo, To Sprinkle or Wash.

I find by me one Celebrated Critick more it is Ioseph Lang. his Polyanthea Nova in verb Baptismus, saith Grece Baptismos et est ablutio, &c. Baptism. in Greek, Baptismos, and is a Washing &c.

[Page 17]Thus, Sir, I have perused all the Lexicogra­phers and C [...]i [...]ick, I have by me, and have shewn you, how much Truth there is in Mr. Gales bold assertion, That Pag. 132 The genuine Sens [...] of Baptizo, the Critick Constantly affirm is Mergo, In m [...]rgo, &c. To Dip and Plunge.

If he i [...]tends by this Paragraph, that C [...]iticks const [...]ntly affirm, That it signifyes nothing Else but to Dip and Plunge, it is utterly False, as you see in the above cited Instances, and he must be a Man of a Brazen Front, so confidently to assert it: But if he intends that Cri [...]i [...]ks con­stantly acknowledge; that it has the meaning he pleads for, it is true, but then it Labours of a small Imperfection, viz. it is nothing to his purpose; and he might have spared the pains of his following Quotations; for we all ac­knowledge it: But we also find, that it signi­fyes to Wash, and Even to Sprinkle, as well as to Dip.

You see, by what has been said, how little Mr. Gale is to be Relyed on, he having been very much out of the way in this Instance, we have great Reason to suspect him, in every thing Else, that Depends upon his Authority.

I am perswaded, that not only these Authors that I have cited, but Even all other Criticks in general▪ will assign the meaning I plead for, to the word. Baptizo; but I have none Else by me, nor advantages to obtain any in this obscure part of the world.

The next thing that lies before us, is to [Page 18] consider the use of the word in Scripture, and see▪ whether it always, as Mr. Gale pretends, signifyes Dipping there;

I shall offer you but one Instance out of the Seventy's Translation of the Old Testament, and one out of the Apocrypha; for the former being [...] a Translation, and the Latter not Canoni­cal Writ, the use of the Word in them is not so much to be depended upon, as in the New Testament, where the original Text (in which the Phrase, as well as sense, was Dictated by the spirit of God) will fall under our Consideration.

That of the Septuagine, is in Dan. 4.33. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnez­zar, and he was Driven from men, and did Eat Grass as Oxen, and his Body was wet; (Ebaph [...]) with the Dew of Heaven.

One would have thought this Instance so c [...]ear, that there would have been left no Room o [...] Cavil; for can there be a greater Solecism, than to speak of being Dipt or Plunged in the Dew?

But Mr. Gale tells us, page 141. ‘That the Chaldee word Tahang, and the Hebrew Word Taha [...], the former of which is the original word in this place; Necessarily Imply to Dip, and every Body must own signify nothing but to Dip.’ Esq Leigh is as worthy to be depen­ded upon in this case, as our Author, who in [...]is Critica sacra Renders the word Taba [...], by [...]axit [...]ntenxit ▪ &c. to which heads, ‘Ita L [...]vi [...] Res [...]n mundetur sed tantum attinga [...] humore, [Page 19] vel tota vel ex parte. It so washes that the thing many't be cleansed, &c, ’And Tabang, (the word under dispute) he Renders Immersus, In­fixus, Affixus, Impressus suit, Immersed, Infixed, Affixed, Impressed. And I'm sure that the Latter of these Constructions, that the Dew was Impressed, or fell upon him, is better sense than that he was Dipt in the Dew.

That the words may be sometimes used in the sense He assigns them, I don't Deny, but not always.

Our Author is again driven to his usual sub­terfuge, a Metaphorical meaning; and says Page 142. ‘Its Evident that Daniel and his Transla­tors, designed to Express the great Dew, Ne­buchadnezzar should be Exposed to, more Emphatically, by saying, that he should lie in Dew, and be Covered with it all over, as if he had been Dipt.’ This Metaphorical sense, he endeavours to vindicate by alledging, ‘That the Dews in the East are generally very large; ’which he Confirms by the Instance of Gideons Fleece (which being miraculous, is very Impro­perly urged in this Case) But all this Harrangue is very impertinent; for it's plain that the Scope and Drift of the words, was not to shew the quantity of the Dew he was wet with (he was Exposed to no Dew but what was ordinary; there needed therefore not Emphasis upon the words) But the Brutal sort of Life, that so great a Monarch was brought unto, by the Just (the amazing) Judgement of God; How he was [Page 20] turned out from Humane society, and instead of his magnificent Palace, which he with so much Haughtiness gloried in, had no Roof but the Sky, to Cover him, and to shelter him, from the Injuries of the Weather, and the Dew of Heaven. This is evidently the Scope of the Story, and therefore it stands in no need of (but has apparent violence offerred by) such meta­phorical Constructions, as he puts upon it.

The next place I shall mention; is, That Eccles 34▪ 29·‘He that washeth (Baptizomenos) because of a Dead Body, and toucheth it again, what availeth his washing?’ That the Washing here spoken of, was by Sprinkling is most certain, and will appear Evident (notwithstanding all [...] sayes to the Contrary) If the Institu­tion of this Rite be duely Consider'd, you'l find it in Numb. 19. throughout v. 13. ‘Whosoe­ver toucheth the Dead Body of any man that is Dead, and purifyeth not himself, Defileth the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that Soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the water of separation was not Sprinkled upon him. vers. 18. And a clean Person shall take Hyssop, and Dip it in the water, and Sprinkle it upon the Tent; and upon all the Vessels, and upon the Persons that were there, and upon him that touched a Bone, or one slain, or one Dead, or a Grave. vers. 19. And the Clean Person shall Sprinkle upon the Unclean, on the third Day, and on the Seventh Day; And on the Seventh Day we shall purify himself, and [Page 21] wash his Cloaths, and Bathe himself in Water, and shall be Clean at Even.’ From this last Cited verse our Author tells us, Pag. 146. ‘That the Defiled Person was to be sprinkled with Holy Water, on the third, and on the Seventh Day, praeparatory to the great Purification, that was to be by Washing the Body, and Cloathes on the Seventh Day.’ This is a gross mistake, for it was the Clean Person officiating, not the Unclean by touching the Dead, that was to wash his Cloathes, and Bathe himself in Water. This appears, 1. By the two following verses, 14.20. ‘But the man that shall be Un­clean; and shall not purify himself, shall be Cut off from the Congregation; Because he hath Defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord; the water of Separation hath not been Sprinkled upon him, he is unclean.’ He is Unclean, not because he hath not Bathed himself; But because he hath not been Sprinkled with the Water of Separation. But the next Verse puts it out of all Doubt, who was to Bathe himself in Water, vers. 21. It shall be a perpetual Statute to them, that he that sprinkles the Water of Separation; shall wash his Cloathes, &c. This also further appears from the 7th verse, which you may be pleased to turn to.

2. This is Evident also, if you Consider, that it was the Water to be Sprinkl [...]d, and not the Bathe, that is all along called, The Water of Separation, and of Cleansing, and of Purification, as in vers. 12, 1 [...], 1 [...], 20, 21, [...] which it will [Page 22] be too tedious to transcribe again; and I desire you therefore to turn to them.

Pag. 147 Mr. Gale subjoyns, That ‘it can't be Reasonably Imagined, that the Priest by barely purifying the Unclean, should need so much greater Washing and Purification, than the Unclean himself.’ Here he is out again; for the Bathe was the far lesser Cleansing. This will appear if you take notice of Lev. 11.31, 32. and forward, where it is ordained, That whoso toucheth the Dead Body of a Beast, was to Wash his Cloathes, and to be Vnclean untill the Eve­ning; and so the Priest, in the Case before us; but he that touched the Dead, Body of a Man, had contracted a greater Pollution, and there­fore was Unclean seven Dayes; nor was the ordinary methods of Purification, sufficient for his Cleansing, but there must be all this adoe of Burning a Heifer, mingling her Ashes with Water, &c.

But after all, if it be granted, that the wa­shing for a Dead Body, was not perfect without the Bathe, the word in the quoted Text, never­theless Includes Sprinkling (for that was certainly at least a part of the Washing spoken of) and Therefore does signify to Sprinkle, as well as to Dip.

We'll next look into the New-Testament and see whether it always there, necessarily signifyes to Dip, and if we find it there of a differrent signification, tho' but in one Instance, I'm sure we have gained the Cause.

[Page 23]The first Place I'll, turn to is Luk 3.16. shall Baptize (BAPTISEI) you, with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. You are sensible how Ridiculous it would be, to Translate the words, he shall Dip or Plunge you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire. Mr. Gale indeed Insinuates, That the Pag. 182. "Metophorical use of the word, must be" on his side. But you must Consider (Sir) that we are to Interpret Metaphorical Speeches, by taking notice of what is primarily alluded to in them, which in the Case before us, is the Cleansing or Purifying the subject. The office of the Holy Ghost is to Sanctify, or Purify, (not to Dip) the [...] and their being Baptized by the Holy Ghost, intends no other, than to be sanctifyed, or Renewed, by the Regenerating Efficacy of Gods Holy Spirit. There is here no manner of allusion to Dipping; but to Washing or Cleansing in general, or rather to Affusion, for those that are Baptized or sanctfyed by the Holy Ghost, are said to have it Come, or be poured upon them. Thus Mat. 3.16. And he saw the Spirit of God, descending l [...]ke a Dove, and lighting upon him. And Isa. 44.3. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed. So also Ioel. 2.28.

The next place I take notice of, is Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market, Except they wash (BAPTISONTA [...]) they Eat not, and many other things there be, which they have Receiv'd to hold, as the Washing. (BAPTISMOIS) of Cups and Pots, Brazen Vessels, and of Tables. But I must put you in mind, that tho' it be here Translated [Page 24] Tables, the original word [Kli [...]on] is Beds, and never signifyes otherwise, nor do I ever find it otherwise Translated, our English version only Excepted.

It may be worthy of Remark, that Beza and Er [...]sinus Translate the word BAPTISON [...]AI, [...]o [...]u [...]rint▪ They were Washed; and Baptismois, [...]otio [...]es, Washings; and so also our English version, which I think much better answers he meaning of the Text, than the sense Mr. Gale pleads for.

Our Authors long Discourse upon this Text, will hardly perswade any man to believe, that it was the Custom of these Hemerobap [...]ists, to Dip or Plunge themselves under water, every time they eat Meat, and every time they came from the Market; They must be Persons of hardy Constitutions, to bear Immersion under water three times every Day, especially in Cold Wea­ther, besides their occasional Baptisms when they came from the Market: But I'm sure your opinion for Mr. Gale cannot so put out the Eyes of your Reason, as to render it credible to you, that they plunged their B [...]ds under Water every time they Lay upon them; for if so, they would find but little comfort in them, especially in the Winter.

I shan't Contend with Mr. Gale about his novel Construction of the former part of this verse; But he may, for me, embrace his opinion, that they were not personally Baptized, when they came from the market, but only Baptized [Page 25] what they bought there, These Consequences must be improved against him, if this Sense be allowed him.

1. That many things bought at the Market were utterly Ruined, and Rendred useless, if Dipe under Water, as Meal, Bread, and num­berless other things.

2. That this Baptizing was usual with them before they went to Meat, whether they came from the Market or not, as is evident from the Text, and from their being Scandalized at our Saviours omission of it.

3 Their Baptizing their Beds, by Dipping, will (this Construction granted) be nevertheless Incredible, and Unintelligible.

4 If they had water enough in Ierusalem to Baptize themselves (by Dipping) every time they went to Meat, and to Dip their Beds under Water, every time they Lay on 'em. Then,

1. Ierusalem abounded with Water, that so many Thousands could be Plunged, three times every Day, which won't be easily Received, by those acquainted with the sacred story, where we find such pains Taken for, and such an Estimate put upon their Wells of Water. And,

2. If Water was plenty enough for the above mentioned purposes, then Iohn had no need to Baptize at Enon near to Sali [...], for the sake of Water to Dip in, there being a daily practical evidence, that there was water enough at Ieru­salem, and Elsewhere.

These things Considered, I think it falls but [Page 26] little short of Demonstration, that the Bapti­ [...]ing, in the quoted Text, was not by Immersion. But I pass on.

To take Notice of 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. [Moreover Brethren I would not that ye should be Ignorant, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea; — and were all Bapti­zed (EBAPTISANTO) unto Moses in the Cloud.

This Baptism was Evidently by Sprinkling, and no otherwise; For would it not be a Trifling, unworthy of our Notice, to say, That their being wet, and Refreshed by Rain from a Cloud, was Dipping them under Water? And that the Baptism here spoken of, was by Rain from the Cloud, (un­der which the Apostle here says they were Baptized) will not remain Doubtful, when you have Read Psal. 68, 7, 8, 9. O God, when thou wentest forth before thy People, when thou marchedst thro' the Wil­dernes [...], the Earth Shook, the Heavens Dropped, at the presence of God, &c. Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful Rain, whereby thou didst Confirm (or Re­fresh) thine Inheritance, when it was weary. We find the Heavens Dropped, the Clouds Rained, &c. which was undoubtedly, the Baptism referred to by the Apostle. And I'm sure I need not say much to convince you, that they were not Dipt in the Cloud, nor Plunged in the Rain.

We'll next look into Heb. 9, 10. Which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and Divers Washings [BAPTISMOIS] and Carnal Ordinances.

This is a Home-Thrust, and therefore puts our Author into a Sweat to turn it aside; which by all [Page 27] his Elaborate Pains he is not able to Effect. The Substance of what he Says, and upon which all his tedious Harrangue is founded, is page 169. ‘That the Words, for ought he knows to the con­trary, may speak of those Washings only, which were by Bathing or Dipping into Water.’ This I shall therefore consider,

1 We shall first observe the End and Scope of of these words, which was to shew, that all the Legal Cleansings under the Mosaick Paedogogy, were Typical of our being sa [...]ingly Cleansed from the Pollution and Defilement of Sin, by the La­var of Christ's Blood; and therefore not Suffici­ent, to make him that did the Service perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience. And does it look at all likely, that the Apostle in shewing the De­ficiency of all the Iewish Washings should Referr them only to the Bathings, which were by far the Least part of the Washings in use amongst them.

2. The words are not true in fact, if our Au­thors construction be allowed; it did not stand ONLY in divers Bathings and Dippings, there was divers Sprin [...]lings also used for their Purgations, and that even in Cases of the greatest Defilement; But I Charitably Hope he was not aware of this Consequence: But to make all clear.

3. We'll allow the Apostle Liberty to Explain himself what Washings it was he refer [...]s to, and that he has done in the following verses. v. 13.14. If the Blood of Bulls, and of Goats and the Ashes of an Heifer, Sprinkling the unclean, Sancty [...]ies to the purifying of the flesh, How much more shall the Blood of Christ? &c.

[Page 28]This makes it clear, beyond doubt, that the Washings Spoken of, were principally the Sprink­lings used among the Iews; for these, and these only, he Instanceth in, and referrs to, Num. 8, 7, and 19. per totum, upon which I have particu­larly discoursed above.

By this time you can't but see, that the word in Debate, signifyes something Else beside Dip­ping, and Plunging.

I am already (and I'm perswaded you also) grown weary of this word Controversy, you'll therefore Excuse me from further searching after, the meaning of the word in Scripture, when I've only Remark't,

That the word in Debate is frequently used in Scripture; where (if the Sense Mr. Gale pleads for, be allowed, and it does signify to Dip) it will be far from Justifying the Antipoedobaptists in their Method of administring the Ordinance, for it don't necessarily (where it does signify to Dip) Imply, the Immersion of the whole Body, which is Clear,

1 From Luk. 16.24. And send Lazarus, that he may Dip (Bapse) the Tip of his Finger in Water, and cool my Tongue.

2. From Luk. 11.38. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvailed that he had not first washed, (EBAPTISTHE) before Dinner. This compared with Mark. 7, 5 makes it Evident, that the washing of the Hand, is the Baptism of the man. Whether the hands were washed by Dipping ▪ or Affusion, is not what I am now Enquiring; but [Page 29] what I observe is, that the Pharisee admired that he was not first Baptized (for so are the words Litterally to be translated) before Dinner, when the Washing of the Hand only, was what he Referred to. — And also to the same pur­pose.

3. From Mat 26.23. He that Dippeth (EMBAPSAS) his Hand, with me in the Dish. Hence then I argue, If Dipping the Tip of the Finger in Water be (Ba [...]tizing; If Washing the Hands be Baptizing the man; If Dipping the Fingers into a Sop, be Baptizing the hand, Then the word Bap [...]ize, does not necessarily signify to Dip the whole Body, nor has our Saviour in re­quiring us to Baptize, required us to Plunge the Body under Water. So that if we allow them all they plead for, (and which none of them can ever prove) that the word Baptizo does signify to Dip, and only to Dip, yet it does not vin­dicate their practice, of a total Immersion; for Dipping the Face, the Hand, Foot, Nay, the Finger, is a Baptism.

I have here indeed used the words Bapto and Baptizo, as Synonomous, with which our Au­thor can find no fault, since he has assured us, that they are; page 217. ‘Exactly the same, as to their signification.’

But if there be (as many have Learnedly argued) any difference in these words, it is al­together on our side: for if Bapto does not ne­cessarily include Dipping, in its signification, all Mankind will acknowledge it certain, that [Page 32] Baptizo can't be limited to that sense only.

Mr. Gale next endeavours to prove his mode of Baptism, by Citations from the Fathers of the Church, To all which its Answer sufficient,

1. That the most that he quotes are too late to determine the matter, This matter; This Mr. Gale supposes sufficient answer to Mr. Wall, when he quotes Arrian of Nicomedia Page 355. ‘That he lived not, until an Hundred and Fifty Years after Christ;’ whereas these he Cites, are much later.

2. Where he does make a shew of having primitive Antiquity on his side, he does but abuse his Reader. For Instance,

1. He brings in St. Barnabas saying, That we descend into the Water, full of Sins and Defilement, &c. If he had done fairly by his Reader, he would have told him, that St. Barnabas Words might as truly have been translated, We go unto the Water and come from the Water; for so the prepositions he renders into, and Out Of, are very frequently used, as you'll see at Large hereaf­ter. And

2. He quotes the Apostolick Constitutions, which he knows are Universally (by all learned men) acknowledged, to be spurious, and of a later date; He should therefore, have disabused his Reader, by giving him that account. All other his Citations, fall under the former Exception. To which I may add,

3. That the Fathers of the Church (as he knows, and is forced to acknowledge) do some [Page 31] of them approve, and argue for Sprinkling in Baptism;

And this seems to have been the only Mode of administring the Ordinance in the early Ages of the Church, by that Story of Clemens Alewand ▪ Related by Eusebius Hist. Eccles. Lib. 3. cap. 10. of an apostate youth, who after he had made a profession of Christianity, and enjoyed the Or­dinance of Baptism; forsook the wayes and fear of God, pursued all manner of Dissolute Cour­ses; Headed a Company of Thieves, and Ban­ditti, gave himself up to Slaughter, Murther, and Extream Cruelty. This being made known to the Apostle Iohn (who before had committed him to the Care of a Godly Bishop, for Educa­tion and Instruction in the Faith) He pursues him into the Wilderness, and finding him, brings him unto such a Sense of, and Repen­tance for his past course of Extravagance, that embracing the Apostle, he answered him as well as he could, for weeping; So that again (sayes the Hystorian) he seem'd to be Baptized with Tears, The Shaking the Hand only omitted.

Whether this Story be true or Fabulous, makes nothing to the purpose, but what I ob­serve is, that this Ordinance was, in those Ear­ly Centuries, administred by Shaking the Hand, consequently not by Dipping or Plunging: (he could not be dipt in his Tears) but by Affusion, or Aspersion; unto which that gesture is neces­sary.

I shall not weary your patience with the [Page 34] many other Authorities of the Ancients, that might here be Introduced; but only observe to you, That our Author himself brings in Origen, one of the most capable Judges among them all) rendring the word (BEBAMMENON) Baptized, in Rev. 19.13. By ERANTISME­NON, Sprinkled, But rather than vail to the Authority of this Father, and of the Syriac and Ethiopic Versions, which also render it so, He would fain believe Page 181. That the Text it self is wrong, and that the word there has been altered. But why so? is there any Copy of the New Testament in the World, to be found, that has any other Reading, different from the vulgar? no! But how is it possible for Origen ▪ and those Early Versions to understand the word otherwise, than he does, or of any Larger signi­fication?

You see, Sir, what strange Refuges a Disperate Cause must have, that Men will rather suppose a Mistake in the Scripture, than in themselves.

Our Author must think that all Mankind has laid aside the use of their Reason, and that no body could read but himself, when with such an Air he ventures to say, P. 109 101. ‘That he is inclined to believe, That in general is a mistake, that Words have more than one Signification.’ And for this to quote Mr Lock in the third Book of his Essay of Human Vnderstanding. Let us Look into him and see what he says. Book 3 Chap. 9 S. 4 That then (says he) that makes Doubtful [...]ess, and uncertainty in the Signification of some more than other [Page 33] Words, is the difference of Ideas, they stand for. He tells us again Book 3. Chap 7. S 4. In the He­brew Tongue there is a Particle consisting of but one single Letter, of which there are reackoned up, as I remember, Seventy, I'm sure above Fifty Several Significations. He goes on to Instance in our English Word BUT, of which he finds Five (and doubts not but he could if it were his Business to examine it, find a great many more) Significations.

I might also observe to you, That we have some words, even in our Language, of a quite Contrary Signification, to Instance in the word Let, Sometimes used to permit, as Let me go, sometimes to hinder, as I have met with many Lets in my way.

You may see by this how much his Assertions and how much his Quotations, are to be depen­ded upon.

I shall now Conclude the first Controversy about the mode of Baptizing, when I have shewn you that we don't want sufficient Reason for our Mode of administring the Ordinance.

1. Then what is Signified by, Represented and Sealed to us, in this Ordinance, is (in Scripture) expressed by Sprinkling, and Affusion, but never by Dipping or Plunging, that I Remember. To Instance.

1. Baptism signifies the Washing away our Sins by the Blood of Christ, as in Acts 22, 16. Arise be Baptized and wash away thy Sins. Now the washing away our Sins by Christs Blood is fre­quently represented by Sprinkling, as 1 Pet. 1, 2. [Page 34] Through Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience, and Sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ Isa. 52, 15. So shall he Sprinkle many Nations Ezek. 36 25 I will Sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean Heb. 12, 24. And to the Blood of Sprink­ling, which speaks better than the Blood of Abel.

2. The signification of Baptism is the Answer of a good Conscience, as the Apostle tells us, 1 Pet. 3 21. and this is also represented by Sprink­ling; Heb. 10, 22. Having our Hearts Sprinkled from an Evil Conscience.

3. Baptism Represents unto us our Sanctification and Cleansing by, and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. Hence these Metaphorical Expressions of being Baptized with the Holy Ghost, before spoken of, and this is Set forth in Scripture by Affusion; as in the fore-cited Isai. 43, 4· I will Pour my Spirit upon thy Seed. And Joel 2, 28. I will pour out my Spirit upon all Flesh.

2. It can't be proved from Scripture, that the Ordinance was ever administred by Dipping or Plunging ▪ there are indeed Expressions that seem to favour this mode of Baptis ▪ but if Examined, will not prove so unanswerable as Mr. Gale. pretends. I shall distinctly consider the Texts, that he Cites for that purpose.

The first is Joh. 3.23. And John also was Baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much Water there. Here note,

1 That the words in the original are, because there was (hudata polla) Many Waters there. And Travellers assure us, that it is a place of many [Page 35] Springs, and therefore not likely to Dip those Multitudes in, that came there to be Baptized.

2. Iohn being in the Wilderness, there was occasion for much Water, that the multitudes which attended his Baptism might have Water for themselves, and Horses, or other Creatures (on which its probable many of them Rid thither) to Drink, Many springs of Water seem much more suitable to this purpose, than for Dipping or Plunging men.

3. While the Rites of Purification were con­tinued among the Iews, it would have been thought a Scandal, for the same Vessel of Water to have been used for the Baptizing of many Persons, and therefore there needed much Water for this Administration, though it had been by Affusion or Aspersion.

4. If all that John Baptized had been Dipt, he must have stood whole Dayes togather in the Water, and therefore could not have survived that Imployment but by Miracle.

5 If Three Thousand were Baptized at Ie­rusalem in one afternoon, (Acts. 2.41,) Either they were Baptized by Sprinkl [...]ng or pou [...]ing on the Water, Else there was no need of going to Enon, near to Salim, for the sake of much Water to D [...]p in.

As for their being Baptized of Iohn in the River Iordan, it does not as Ex [...]m [...]ort. D [...]sp. Mr. Morgan has Ingeniously R [...]mark't; any more prove their being plung [...]d all over in it, than the mans Washing his Eyes in the Pool of [Page 36] Siloam Iohn. 9.7. proves his being Dipt all over. Mr. Gale Demands, ‘Which is most na­tural to Suppose, that the River was poured or Sprinkled on them, or they Dipt in the River?’ I assume the former, Its most natural to Suppose, that the River (by a Synechdoche of a part for the whole) was poured or Sprinkled on them, as in the above Example, of the mans washing his Eyes in the Pool of Siloam.

The next Text he brings to prove this Mode of Baptism, is That Acts 8.38. And they went both into the Water, both Phillip, and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him. In answer to which; its sufficient to Say, That the Preposition (Eis) here rendred into, might as properly be Read Vnto the Water, and so it is very often used in the Scriptures; It does not therefore necessarily argue, that he was Baptized by Dipping. Mr. Morgan has (in the above-cited Book) collected Sundry Instances, wherein this Preposition ne­cessarily signifyes unto, and against, whom for your satisfaction I'll transcribe ‘Ioh. 13.2. Eis Telos, unto that End, Joh. 7. often Eis teen Eo [...]t [...]n, unto the Feast Acts 25. often unto Ierusalem. Mat. 18.15. Ean Amartese Eis se ad [...]lphos, If thy Brother trespass Against thee; Iohn. 12.17. Eis teen Hemeran; Against the Day, (not Into it) for she Spent her Oyntment before the Day came.’ Thus he. To which I may add an Instance wholly Unexceptionable; It is Ioh. 20.4 So they Ran both togather, and the other Dis [...]iple did out run Peter and came first To (Eis) the Sepulchre, Here its most certain, [Page 37] that it does not signify into; for in the Next Verse, the H. Ghost assures That he Went not into the sepulchre, no further than Just to Look in; v. 5. And he Stooping Down, and looking in, saw the Linning Cloathes lying; Yet went he n [...]t in. Many more Instances might be Produced, to shew that this Preposition. [EIS] may properly be translated unto; from this Text therefore is no­thing Evident, but that they went unto the water Our Adversaries often urge our Saviours com­ing Out Of the Water, after his Baptism, Mat. 3.16. But this is far from being to their purpose; for the Words truly translated are, he went straightway From the Water, for thus I think the Preposition (Apo) is always to be un­derstood; it answers the Latin Prepositions A, Ab, Abs, and the English from. Thus, Mat. 1.17. It is used no less than three times going, so all the generations from [Apo] Abraham to David are Fourteen generations; and from (Apo) David until the carrying away into Babylon, are Fourteen gene­rations; an [...] from (Apo) the Carrying away into Baby­lon, unto Christ, are Fourteen generations. Thus also, Mat. 19.8. Ap' Arches, From the Beginning. Thus Mat. 4.25. Apo tes Gallilaias, from Gallilee. And thus Acts 10.17. Behold the men which were sent From (Apo) Cornelius, &c. But I need not add Instances; for this is the native and Con­stant meaning of the Word.

Though Mr. Gale urges these Texts With Earnestness enough, yet when he finds this Prepo­sition Construed to his disadvantage, he Lear­nedly, [Page 38] and indeed truly argues, that Page 440, 441. Apo signifyes From, in propriety of speech. So that all Arguments from Christs, and the Eunuchs coming Out of the Water, are by his own Pleas wholly out of Doors.

It is further worthy of Remark that we never Read any thing of going To the Water, or From the Water, in Baptism, Except in the Wilderness, or places distant from Inhabitants, where in all likelihood they wanted Vessels, to take up Water in.

But after all, were it granted that they actually went into the Water, its no Evidence that they were Dipt or Plunged into it; they might go into the Water, and not be wet up to their Ankles.

The next Text he brings is Col. 2.12. and Rom 6, 4. Which are both of the same Import; and therefore may be Considered togather. That upon which, he Layes The Stress of his Argu­ment, is our being Buried with Christ in Baptism. When he argues, That as Christ was Buried un­der the Earth, so should we be Buried under Water. In Answer to which, it is sufficient to tell you,

1. That the whole Scope of the Text is to shew us that we are Baptized to a Conformity unto Christs Death, by our Dying to Sin; and to his Rising again in our living to God: Here is not [...] Intimation that our Bodies should [...] Water; and I can't but won­der that [...] Gentleman of Mr. Gales Ingenuity should urge it.

[Page 39]2. Our manner of Administring the Ordi­nance, more Imitates a Burial than theirs; the throwing Water on the Baptized, is more like throwing Earth on the Dead. Dead men don't use to be Dipt, or plunged into the ground.

3. Our Author gives an answer to this him­self, If he'll be tyed to the same meat as he would limit us Page 180. ‘All Metaphorical Passages (says he) are out of Doors, Because of their Ambiguousness, and Obscurity. ’I'll only add,

4. Our Adversaries themselves do practi­cally deny their Commentary upon this Text, for the Administrator of this ordinance (among them) never Dipt but a part of the Body, nor are they but partly Buried under Water in Baptism. The Person to be Baptized goes into the Water himself above the Waste, and there­fore either partly Baptizes himself, or else nothing but his upper parts are Baptized at all.

The Antipoedobaptists call for Express Proof, that Infants are to be Baptized; Let them therefore produce Express Proof, that this Or­dinance is to be administred by Dipping.

3 We have Instances in the Scriptures of the Administration of this Ordinance, that we can't Reasonably suppose was by Dipping. It is Scarce possible the [...]hree Thousand Baptized a [...] Ierusa­lem (most certain [...]y toward the [...] of the Day) Acts. 2.41. were all Dipt. The Jaylors whole Houshold were Baptized in the Dead of the night, Acts 1 [...].33. And was Baptized, he, and [Page 40] all his straightway. There is not the least proba­bility, that they went out unto any Debth of Water for it. Nor any more probability, that Paul was Dipt, as you'll see if you'll Read Acts. 9.9. And the very Text it self seems to Contra­dict the Dipping of Cornelius and his Houshold, Acts. 10.47. Can any man forbid Water, that these should not be Baptized? He does not say, who shall forbid them going to the Water, in order to be Baptized, But; Who shall forbid Water, (that is the bringing of Water) for that purpose. Finally, the Degree of the Washing is not any thing Essential to the Right administration of the Ordinance, any more than the quantity of the Bread and Wine, in the Lords Supper. Which may be Illustrated by transcribing Ioh. 13.8, 9, 10. Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my Feet; Iesus answered him. If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me, Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my Feet only, but also my Hands and my Head; Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed, needeth not Save to wash his Feet, but is clean Every whit. Though our Saviour did not Institute this Ceremony of Washing their Feet; as a standing Sacrament, yet he did thereby put them in mind of the necessity of their being washed in his Blood, from the Pollution of Sin, as is evident from his saying, They had Else no part with him. And we see that washing but a part of the Body, did sufficiently signify the Sanctification of the whole Man; and why then washing a part of the Body in Baptism, [Page 41] does not sufficiently Signify the Cleansing of the whole Man, our Adversaries are accountable.

Thus I have, as breifly as the Task you Im­posed upon me, would allow, dispatched the first part of the Controversy.

HAving finished my Remarks (I hope to your Satisfaction) on the First, it is time to Consider the second, and principal Article in Dispute; which, Refers to the subject of Baptism.

Mr Gale is forced, Pag. 220. To Take breath a while, before he Enters upon this, that he might Regain his Vigour, and strength to Encounter his Adversary, in this new Combate; but as he Toiled himself out of Breath, to but very little purpose, in his former Attempt, so (you'll find, Sir,) that his new Accession of Spirits and strength, will be but little Service to him, in this fresh Encounter.

He promises, Pag. 220. To ‘avoid all he can the Celebrated Arguments, from Original Sin, and Circumcision, which have been (as he says) so often, and fairly Baffled.’ In this Indeed was his prudence very Considerable, for as often Baffled as they have been they Remain yet too powerfull for him to abide in the field.

He proceeds to Lay the Foundation of a long, and triumphant Harrangue, by telling us, Pag. 221. That Mr. Wall ‘very freely allows, that it can't be made appear from the Scriptures, [Page 42] that Infants are to be Baptized.’ Were this true, Mr. Wall had indeed given up the Cause, and made a voluntary offer of the Lawrels of Victory, to his Adversary: But tho' he does most seriously, and frequently affirm, it, [...] han't so Extensive a Charity, as to believe it; But con­clude, That in this (as frequently else-where) he watches all opportunities, Right or wrong, to make, Candida de nigris, et de candentibus [...]tra i. e. Our opinion Black, and his White·

I dare not, indeed, affirm, That there is no such passage in Mr. Walls Book, (I not having seen it) But am sure that the Passages quoted, fall so very far short of any such Concession, that there can't be modestly any such Construction (unless by a far fetch't Innuendo) put upon them; And I am ready to Conclude, that if Mr. Wall had said it, our Author would not have been so tender of him, as not to transcribe it.

He indeed brings in Mr. Wall saying, That there is no particular Direction given, what to do, with Reference to the Children of those that Received the faith. And that among all the Persons, that are Recorded as Baptized by the Apostles, there is no Ex­press mention made of any Infant, &c. But what is this like acknowledgeing that it can't be made appear from the Scriptures, that Infants are to he Baptized? Much may be made appear from Scripture, that is not Expresly mentioned there, as the Admission of Women unto the Lords Supper, the Change of the Sabbath, and the Baptism even of the Apostles themselves, &c.

[Page 43]It is a Ruled Case, That good Consequences drawn from Scripture, are as much to be Relyed on, as the Express words of it.

Did not our Lord prove the Resurrection, by Consequences from Scripture? Mat. 22.31. Did not the Apostle use Consequential Reasoning, when he argues from Deut. 25.4. (Thou shalt not muzzle the Mouth of the Ox that treadeth forth the Corn) to the maintenance of the Gospel Mini­sters, 1 Cor. 9.9? And does he not use Conse­quential Arguments, when he argues from the Priesthood of Melchizedec, to the Priest-hood of Christ, Heb 7. per totum? Cum multis aliis you hence see, that what is not Expresly mentioned in the Scriptures, may be evidently enough proved from them. And tho' Mr. Wall grants, that there is no Express mention of Infants, he may be far enough from acknowledging that it can't be proved from Scripture, that Infants should be Baptized. I insist more particularly here, to shew you the disingenuity of Mr. Gale in this Case, and how little he is to be depended upon, that will thus venture to say any thing; as well as to defect the vanity of their common Outcry, Let there be Express Scripture produced, that Infants should be Baptized.

But it is not so material whether Mr. Wall allows, or dissallows this Allegation, as whether it is true in fact; which if it appears to be, (as our Author would persuade us it is) our Cause, I must confess, is Expiring, and must quickly give up the Ghost. But I find so little grounds [Page 44] of Dependance upon Mr. Gales Word, that [...] rather Examine the Cause, than strike to his bold Ipse Dixit; And if upon a fair Examina­tion, it does appear from Scripture, that Infants ought to be Baptized, He may Order a Deleatur upon his whole 6th Letter, for the Lawrels he so hastily Snatches up will appear to be withered, and his whole Triumphant Cant, but a vain Boast. But its time to come into the Enquiry.

Arg. 1. If Infants have Faith, they are quali­fyed for, and ought to enjoy the Ordinance of Baptism. That Faith qualifyes for Baptism, is what I think no Antipoedobaptist will deny. The Consequence is Clear, and unexceptionable, see Mark. 16.16. Acts. 16.31.33. It only Re­mains to prove from Scripture, that Infants have Faith; which you shall now see done, I hope, to your Satisfaction.

I freely own, that the Acts, and Exercises of Faith they are no more capable of, than the Acts, and Exercises of Reason; but as all men will allow them the Habits of Reason; I can't see why they should deny them the Habits of Faith. I'm sure there is the same Cause to Deny their being Rational Creatures, as Believers. And our Adversaries will hardly be able to tell us why they mayn't, (the want of the Excercise of Reason notwithstanding) as well be Belie­vers, as Covenant-Breakers; as Uncircumcised Infants are styled, Gen. 17.14. But this won't Remain Doubtful, when you Consider,

1. That they are Expresly styled Believers in [Page 45] Christ, by him whose Authority must not be called in question. Mat. 18.2, 6. And Iesus called a little Child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Whoso shall offend one of these [...]ittle Ones, which believe in me, &c. This is plain and full Testimony; and the Objections commonly thrown in the way; to evade the force hereof, are but light, and trivial.

Its O [...]jected that our Lord by Little One here may only me [...]n those that are little in their own Eyes, those that are humble, &c. But this mistake is Evident enough, only by comparing the Consequent with the Antecedent. One of these Little Ones, which believe in me. What lit­tle ones? See verse 2d. It was one of those little Ones, which Christ took in his Hands, and set in the midst of them, which was a Little Child. It does not any thing strength the Objection, that our Lord in the 3d and 4th verses, urged the neces­sity of becoming as little Children, and as this Child, preparatory to our Entring the Kingdom of Heaven. This indeed refers to the Meekness, Humility, &c. necessary to all his Disciples; But observe, that in the 3d and 4th verses, he does not tell them that they must become such little Child­ren or such a Child as this, (as the Antipoedabaptists in Germany Dreamed, and therefore went playing about the streets with Rattles, &c. But as little Children and as this Child.

The Disciples had been Contending among themselves, who should be the greatest, as you'll see in the parallel Text, Mark 9.34. He there­fore takes a little Child in his arms, as a fit pat­tern [Page 46] to teach them Humility; and tells them, they must become as this little Child, &c.

2dly, As little Children affect not Dominion, nor Contend for Prerogative or Priority; As they are not given to Boast and Glory, nor pre­fer themselves to others; As they are not Haughty and Proud; As they are Meek, not Angry, Malicious, Vindictive; As they wholly depend upon their Fathers care and providence, &c. So must you be like them, &c. Whereas in the Text Insisted on, there is no comparison taken from the Child, the Occasion of the Discourse, as in the other Verses; But an Im­mediate Reference to that, and such like little Children: One of These little Children. More­over,

The Scope and drift of our Lords Discourse in the 5th and 6th Verses, will help to Enlighten this. Our Lord is there shewing how much he values, and how highly R [...]ents Indignities done unto his Mystical Members, that he will well Reward the kindness shewn, and Revenge the Injuries done, to any of them, tho' but one of his Believing Infants, for his sake.

It is also objected, That this Child, tho' little, might be grown to some Years, and so be capa­ble of Actual Faith. To which I answer,

1. He took the Child in his Arms, as Mark. assures us, Cap. 9 v. 35. and it is therefore most Reasonable to conclude, that it was but in its Infancy.

2. The End of our Saviours presenting them [Page 47] with that Emblem of Humility, Meekness, &c. was lost, if it was a Child arrived to an age capable of the Acts of Reason and Faith; for you are not so unacquainted with such little Chil­dren, as to be Ignorant, how Proud, Pievish, Contentious, &c. they are, more I think at such an age, than any other.

If it be objected, That he called him, there­fore he was not an Infant. I answer, He might call him in his nurses Arms, and it seems most probable that he did, by the forecited parrallel Text, Mark. 9.35. Where its said he took him in his Arms. But if otherwise, an Infant in Un­derstanding, may be capable to go alone, and come when called.

As to the Objection, That Infants can't be Of­fended, Its too trivial to be taken notice of. Can't they be Reproached. Vilify'd, Scandalized, (as the Original Greek Word Scandalise, properly signif [...]es)? Did Hazael offer no offence, or In­jury to the Infants that he dashed to pieces, as was prophesyed of him, in 2 Kings 8.12.

Our Adversaries Practice indeed makes evident their belief, that Infants can't be offend­ed. This threatning of our Lord gainst those that do offend these little Ones, would Else make them tremble, when they deny them the Ordinances of the Gospel, a Station in the Church, and Faith in Christ, and Rank them among the Heathen.

2dly. Infants Either have Faith (habitual at least) or they can't be Saved, He that Believeth [Page 48] not shall be damned, Mark 16, 16. Ioh. 3.18, 36. It would be most Uncharitable Cruelty, as well as Express Contradiction to the Scriptures, to Deny Salvation unto all Infants, and to Damn them by whole-sale. And if they are saved without Faith, it must be in some way that the Gospel has never proposed; Nay, it must be in away directly Repugnant to the terms of Sal­vation, proposed in the Gospels. Can we any where find Salvation Exhibited to Graceless Infidels? And such are all Infants and such to be Esteemed, if without Faith.

Are they Sanctifyed and made Gracious, or do they all continue under the Pollution and De­filement of Original sin? If the former, they must have Faith, the Sanctifying Grace and Root of all other Graces. If the Latter, they cannot be Saved, for no Unclean thing shall Enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. They must inevitably fall within the Reach of this Dilemma, Let then consult what Answer they will; For Infants must be Either Clean or Unclean, Sanctifyed or Polluted; If Sanctifyed, it must be by the Infusion of Grace, and Consequently of Faith; If Unsanctifyed, they can't be saved. I might yet prosecute this Argument, by shew­ing you,

3. That if they have not the Spirit of Christ they are none of his, Rom. 8.9. And if they have the Spirit of Christ, Their Hearts are certainly pu­rifyed by Faith, for the H [...]l [...] Ghost will not take up his Dwelling, in an Impure and Unsanctify'd [Page 49] Mansion. But I believe what has been said will yield you Satisfaction.

What tho' we can't understand the Unsear­cheable Methods of the Holy Spirit, in begetting this Grace in them, He that calls them Believers, and sayes, of such are the Kingdom of Heaven, knows how to give them Faith, and a Title to his Kingdom. But I proceed to▪

Argument 2. They that are in the Covenant of [...]race, have a Right to have the Covenant Sealed to them by Baptism. But Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace. This whole Argument receives sufficient Confirma­tion, from that Acts 2.38, 39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be Baptized, every one of you, in the name of Iesus Christ; for the Remission of Sins, &c. For the Promise is unto you, and to your Children. The Major of this Argument is plain from the Words, The Tittle they had to Baptism, and the Grounds of their being exhor­ted to it, was their Interest in the Covenant Promises; Be Baptized; for the Promise is unto you. And that Infants are in the Covenant of Grace, is no less Evident, For the Promise is unto you, and your Children: What can be plainer? And by the way, you may observe, That Infants have the same Claim to Baptism, as the Adult. By the Apostles argument in this Text, they are Exhorted to Be Baptized, in Order to receive Remission of Sins, and the Holy Ghost, which Exhortation is pressed upon them, from their Interest in the Promise, as an Enforcing Motive [Page 50] and Encouragemen [...], and as a Reason why they ought to be Baptized Infants have the like Interest in the Promise (The Promise is to you, and to your Children) and therefore by Irresistible Consequence, the like Claim to Baptism.

It can't be Reasonably objected, That their Interest in the Promise was urged, only as an Encouragement unto them, that they should Receive Remission of Sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost; and not as a motive to their Being Baptized; For the Argument of the Apostle must have the next and most Immediate Refer­rence, to their being Baptized; Because it was their Interest in the Promise, upon which their Right to Baptism, is founded. Their being Children of the Covenant, entitles them to the Seals of it. The Argument is very apt and ap­plicable; Be Baptized, Got the Covenant Sealed, (in order to your Enjoying the Blessings and benefits thereof, viz. Pardon and Sanctification) For you have a Covenant Right, and therefore ought to enjoy Covenant Priviledges▪ But the Argument is not so applicable, as an Encoura­gement to their Receiving the Gifts of the Holy Ghost; For there are many that have a visible Covenant Right, who never Receive the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

But after all, If this Text does not Sati [...] ­factorily strengthen the Argument, what fol­lows (as you'l be Convinced) will fall nothing short of Demonstration.

That the Abrahamitical Covenant did include, [Page 51] and was Sealed unto Infants, as well as the Adult, none can doubt, that will Read the 17 Chap. of Gen. and that it Extends in the same Latitude to Believers under the Gospel, is Evident, in that Abraham was made the Father of many Na­tions, Gen. 17.5. of Gentiles, as well as Iews, and therefore the Covenant with him and his seed, Extended in the same Latitude to his Gentile seed, as to his seed after the flesh. A [...] the Covenant was made with, and sealed to his natural Progeny, and their Infant seed, Even so to the Believing Gentiles, and their Infant seed. The Apostle Confirms this, in Gal. 3.14. The blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ.

The Objection, That this Covenant which was Sealed by Circumcision, was only a Promise of the Land of Canaan, is almost too Trifling to be taken notice of. For,

1. There was not a fourth part of Abrahams Posterity, (none but the Progeny of his Grand­son Iacob) that were to Expect, or ever did Enjoy a portion in the Land of Canaan.

2. There is much more implyed in the very words of the Covenant, as in the 7th Verse of the fore-cited Chap. of Gen. And 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 thy seed after thee. The Covenant was an Everlasting Cove­nant, but the Land of Canaan was not their ever­lasting Portion. The Tenor of the Covenant was [Page 52] That he would be a God unto Abrah. and his seed. The promise of the Land of Canaan was but a Subjoined Article of Divine favour to, and Care of him and his. This is further Illu­strated from Deut. 29.10, 11.13. (where God Renews this Covenant with the Posterity of Abraham, and their little Ones) Ye stand this Day all of you, before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Elders and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your Little Ones, &c. that he may establish thee to Day, for a people unto himself; and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

It may be here Remark't, that God takes their Little Ones into Covenant with him, as well as themselves; and that the Blessings of the Covenant made with them, and their Fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, were no less than the enjoying God himself, as their Portion. This was the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was a Seal.

3. This Covenant could not be a Promise only of the Land of Canaan, in that the Blessings thereof Extend to believing Gentiles, as well as Iews, who are the seed of Abraham after the Spirit, and Heirs of this very Promise, or Co­venant, that was made with him, as was before noted, and is very plain from Gal. 3.29. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the Promise. Heirs of what? Of the Land of Canaan? No Surely! we have no Inter­est [Page 53] there; But there are Richer Blessings in store, for those that are Members of Christ, viz. their having God himself, their Portion for Ever.

If I have been too long in answering this Trifling Objection, you know where to Lay the fault, I'll conclude this Argument by only adding,

1. That either Infants are yet Included in the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Spiri­tual seed, both Iews and Gentiles, and ought to have it Sealed unto them, as formerly, or else it lies at our Adversaries Doors, to shew us from Scripture, How, Why, and When they were cut off from the Covenant, and the an­nexed Priviledges.

2. That either Infants have an Interest in the Covenant, and a just claim to have it Sealed unto them, or else the Blessings and Priviledges of the New Testament Dispensation, are far less than the Old. That the Covenant of Grace, and the Seals thereof are Blessings and Privi­ledges, none can be so hardy as to Deny: nor dare any Christian suppose, that the Evangelical Dispensation, has Lessened the Priviledges of the Faithful, Therefore the Covenant of Grace must Extend, and be Sealed to Believers, and their Infant seed. Arg. 3. And now Sir, I shall venture (not withstanding Mr. Gale would even Laugh us out of it) to argue from Cir­cumcision, and it will appear, that this so often Baffled Plea (as he calls it) will yet be able to [Page 54] bear the Shock. of their fiercest Opposition. I thus argue;

If Baptism comes in the Room and stead of Circumcision, It ought to be administred to Infants, as Circumcision was. This is a Clear Consequence, and admits of no Debate. To say, that this is not Commanded, as that was, is a begging the Question; for if it succeeds in the Room of Circumcision, it must be used in the Room thereof, and then certainly be ad­ministred to the same Subjects. It only there­fore lies before us to prove that Baptism does succed unto, and come in the Room and stead of Circumcision, which will receive clear evi­dence from these Scriptures.

I shall first turn to Col. 2.11, 12. In whom also they are Circumcised, with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, By the Circumcision of Ch [...]ist; Buried with him in Baptism. The Apostle in the fore-go­ing verse, tells them, That they were compleat in Christ; But it might something plausibly be objected, That they could not be compleat, that wanted Circumcision, the Seal of the Covenant, and Symbol of their Covenant Right. He there­fore as a Sufficient matter of Satisfaction to 'em in that point, tells them, That they had (1.) the thing signifyed by Circumcision, viz. the Circumcision of the Heart. (2) That they had the Covenant Sealed by another Ordinance, that (since the abrogation of Circumcision) suc­ceeded to, and was in the Room and Place of, [Page 55] the former. They had not only the Circumci­sion made without Hands; but were also Buried with Christ in Baptism. This is (I think) the plain and natural meaning of the words.

Let us next look into Gal. 3.27.29. For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and if they be Christs than are they Abra­hams Sued and Heirs according to the Promise. Hence I argue

If Baptism be now a Sign and Seal of the very same thing whereof Circumcision was appointed a Sign and Seal, under the Old Testament Dispensa­tion; Then Baptism comes in the Room and stead of Circumcision; The Consequence is c [...]ear▪ and can't be Opposed And that Baptism is a Sign and Seal of the same thing, is express in the Text, where we find Baptism to be a Sign and Symbol of our belonging to Christ, and thereby of being Abrahams Seed, and Heirs according to the pro­mise, as Circumcision also was; See Gen. 17. This is also Evident from

Acts 2 41. Then they that gladly Received his Word were Baptised, and the same Day were added unto them about Three Thousand Souls. From whence I argue.

If Baptism be a Note and Symbol of our being Received into, and being Members of the Church, then it Succeeds in the Room and stead of Cir­cumcision. The Consequence is clear, in that Circumcision was a Symbol thereof, see Exod▪ 12.43.44. There shall no stranger Eat thereof, but every Man Servant that is bought for Money, when [Page 56] thou hast Circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof; So v. 14 And when a Stra [...]ger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passover unto the Lord, let all his Males be Ci [...]cumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one born in the land. None but the Church (which was then National) were to eat of the Passover, and we find every one that was Circumcised was a meet Subject of this Ordi­nance, and to be lookt upon as Members of this National Church; without Circumcision they were strangers, being Circumcised they were Isra­elites.

It now remains to consider, Whether Ba [...]tism now is (as Circumcision then was) a Symbol of Church Membership; this is plain from the quoted Text, where we find Three Thousand Souls added to them (that is the Church) by being Baptized. I'll and once more,

If the same Covenant and Promise, whereof Cir­cumcision was a Seal, be the Grounds of Baptism, then Baptism comes in the Stead of Circumcision; The Consequence is Clear, and needs no Proof. And that the same Covenant and promise is the grounds of Baptism appears from that fore-cited Acts 2.38.39. which has been particularly expli­cated above.

The Objections raised against this Doctrine, are very light and trivial, as,

1. They Object, That Circumcision was always performed on the Eighth Day, and therefore Bap­tism, if Successive thereto, must also be Admini­stred then.

[Page 57] Ans. That the Ordinances differ in Circum­stances, is no Argument that this does not suc­ceed, and supply, the p [...]ace of that. The Lords Supper diff [...]rs much in Circumstances from the Passover, and yet none can doubt its Succee­ding it. That was to be [...] in haste, with their Loyns girded, Shoes on their Feet, and Staff in their Hand, and upon a set Time, bu [...] once in a Year; This to be taken in a Tab [...]e gesture, more frequen [...]ly, and upon no pre­fixed Day in the Year.

They Object, That if Baptism Succeeds Cir­cumcision; Than Females are not to be Bapti­zed, they not being Circumci [...].

Ans The Seal of Circumcision could not be administred to Females, they were not capa­ble Subjects, but it is not so with Respect to Baptism. Moreover,

Circumcision Sealed and Confirmed the Blessings of the Covenant, to all the seed of Abraham, whether they were Male or Female, tho' the Males only bare the sign in the flesh. This ap­pears from the Institution, Gen. 17.7. An [...] I will establish my Covenant between me and thee▪ and thy seed (Indefinitely) after thee, to be a GOD unto thee, and thy seed (Indefinitely, Female as well as Male) after thee. Altho' none but the Males bare the Seal of this Covenant in the flesh: But the Dispensation now, is vastly different; they were then but one Family, the Posterity of one Man; But now the Gospel and Covenant [...]f Grace, is promulgated unto all the [Page 58] Families of the Earth: Circumcision sealed the Covenant unto the seed of Abraham after the flesh, and assured both Male and Female; that God would be their God, and Portion; upon their accepting of him, and living to him; But Bapt [...]sm now, Seals that Covenant to none, But the [...]eed of Abraham after the Spirit, who have a visible Covenant Right; and therefore to be administred to such, and none but such, whe­ther Male or Female.

I'nt afraid you'l Charge me with prolixity, I will therefore pass by all that might be further said, upon this head; and pass to,

Arg. 4 They that have the Holy Spirit, ought to be Baptized. Acts. 10.47. Who can forbid Water, that these should not be Baptized, who have Received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

But some Infants have the Holy Spirit, or Else all Infants are Christless, and in an Estate of Condemnation, Rom. 8.9. which the greatest Uncharitableness can't suppose, therefore some Infants ought to be Baptized.

Arg. 5. The visible Children of God, ought to be Baptized, But Infants of Believers are such. Our Adversaries don't deny, that Baptism. belongs to all the visible Children of God; If they did, they would Soon be a ground; for whence have they their Orders to make a differ­rence in Gods Visible Houshold, to withold, from some, and allow to others, their Portion of meat? And that Infants are the Children of God, I thus prove,

[Page 59]1. They are Either the Children of God, or the Children of the Devil. This is an awful Distribution, which divides all the Children of Men 1. Ioh. 3.10. And I am sure none can be so uncharitable▪ as to Rank the Infants of Belie­vers, among the Children of the Devil; and therefore they are visibly, in the Eyes of Cha­rity, the Children of God.

2. God himself calls the Children of his Cove­nant People his Children, Ezek. 16.20. More­over, thou hast taken my Sons and my Daughters, which thou hast born unto me, &c. which in Vers. 21. he calls my Children.

3. Mr. Gale with an Extensive Charity, acknowledges this, when he Sayes, Page 421. ‘If there be any Mercy in God, in him who is goodness it self, which the greatest Impiety dares not doubt of, Then all Infants that could never offend him, shall assuredly be saved.’ I shall not now take time to Examine this bold Assertion, but only observe, That if they shall assuredly be Saved, they are as assuredly the Children of God.

Arg. 6. To whom belong the Kingdom of Hea­ven, to them belongs Baptism; For if they have a Title to the Kingdom, why ma [...]n't their Title be Sealed unto them, in Baptism, which every body acknowledges, the Seal of our Regenera­tion, and Title to the Kingdom of Heaven?

And that Infants have a Title to the Kingdom of Heaven, is plain from Luk. 18 16. Suffer l [...]ttle Children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for [Page 60] of suth is the Kingdom of Heaven. Whether the Church Militant or Triumphant, is here in­tended, by the Kingdom of Heaven, no waies affects the Arguments; for if they have a Title to Either, it ought to be Sealed in Baptism.

If any Object, That these little Children might not be Infants, but grown to some years of Vnderstand­ing. The fore-going Verse Confutes them; for they are there called Infants [Brephe] Which necessarily signifies very young Infants, and is well Rendred, 1 Pet. 2.2. New born Babes. We have the same Word also Acts. 7.19. Rendred Young Children, and young they were; For it Refers to the bloody decree of Pharaoh, who order'd all the male Children of the Hebrews to be cast out, and Slain from the womb.

Mr. Gale hath a long Discant upon this Text, but says nothing that affects our Argument, unless it be, that Page 434. ‘It may Equally be urged, that Infants may be Communicated (as he words it) too.’ But he discovers his in­advertency; For who-ever supposed the other Sacrament▪ a Seal of our Regeneration, and Title to the Kingdom, as Baptism is?

Arg. 7. If infants of Believing Parents have a Foederal, or Covenant Holiness, they may be Baptized. This (I think) must be granted by all men; For if they have a Covenant Holiness, they have an Undoubted claim to Covenant priviledges; And that they have a Covenant Holiness, the Apostle assures us, in 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children [...]lean, but now are they Holy.

[Page 61]This by the joynt Suffrage of Expositors, is allowed to be a Foederal Holiness, the Antipe­dobaptists only Excepted, and they have but a desperate Shift to Evade it by so Ridiculous, that one would have thought Mr. Gales Inge­nuity would not have Suffered him to have Espoused it: But he must say something

Their Evasion is, That the Holiness here spoken of is Legitimacy, and that if the unbe­lieving Parent is not Sanctifyed by the Parent, that is a Believer, the Children are Bastards. Mr. Gales Gloss upon this Text, is, That the Apostle is here Correcting a mistake among these primitive Christians, who were ready to sup­pose, that their Proselytism dissolved all natu­ral Tyes, and made it unlawful for a man any longer to Co-habit with his former Wife, she being no longer accounted his Wife. ‘What can be more proper and natural (says he) than to Suppose, St. Paul is Endeavouring to put better thoughts into his Conv [...]r [...]s, and to per­swade them, that their Proselytism did not dissolve natural Bonds, and Co [...]s [...]nguinity, and that it was not only Lawful, but advi­seable and a Duty, for the Wife to Dwell with her Husband? For he is still her Legiti­mate true Husband, otherwise indeed (says he) your Children would be Unclean, as Bastards were accounted, but the Husband being Legitimate the Children are so too.’ Thus he. To which I Answer.

1. That he must have a strange art of Per­swasion, [Page 62] to gain Credit in this, that Children was lookt upon as Bastards, only thro' the un­equal match of their Parents, especially by those primitive Christians, who had learned from the Apostle, that the Marriage bed was undefiled. Could they think their marriage with Unbelie­vers annulled, because such were not capable of, nor qualifyed for, so Holy a Relation? If so, the greatest part of the World must be Esteemed, Fornicators and Adulterers. But I'm weary of this unintelligible Jargon. And will therefore only add,

2. The word Holy is not applicable to Legiti­macy, no [...] ever used in Scripture in a Lower Sense, than for a Covenant Holiness. I'm Sure, it [...]ooks odd Enough to call Every Legitimate Child a Holy Person; For by that means, the far greatest part of the world, might be called Holy.

Arg. 8 If under the Gospel Dispensation the Children of Gods People are to be as afore­time, They should Enjoy the benefits of the Covenant, and have it sealed unto them; for so it was with them afore time.

But it is Expresly promised, Ier. 30.20. Their Children shall be as afore time.

If any question, whether this refers to Gos­pel Dispensations, Let him Read the 9 and 21 Verses, and be satisfied.

And that under Gospel Dispensations we are Invested with the same Substantial priviledg [...]s that the Iews have Lost by Unbelief, Receives a [Page 63] Meridian Lustre, from that Rom. 11.17. And [...] some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive Tree, we [...]e grafted in amongst them and with them, partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree, &c.

We have not only the Joynt suffrage of Com­mentators; but the clearest Evidence of the Text and Context to assure us, that by the Olive Tree is meant the Church of Christ; By the Root and fatness of the Olive Tree, all the Promise, and Priviledges, the Graces and Or­dinances, the Spiritual Blessings and Benefits, which belonged to Abraham and his seed, or unto the Church of God under Legal Administrations.

This Argument must therefore be Forcible and Unanswerable,

I [...] the Gentile Church are graffed into the same priviledges, Graces, Ordinances and Spiritual Blessings, which the Iews did Enjoy, and are by Unbelief cut off from, They've a claim to have the Covenant sealed, not only to them­selves, but to their Infant seed; For this was one of the most glorious priviledges Enjoy by the natural Blanches of this Olive Tree.

But the former is most clear from the Text, therefore the L [...]t [...]er.

I believe, Sir, you are by this time Satisfied, th [...] the Scripture is not so silent in this Case, as Mr. Gale would [...]ain persuade us, and that Infant Baptism can be made appear from Scrip­ture; I shall therefore pass over much t [...]at might have been offered for the clearing of this [Page 64] Cause, and only Consider the Commission of our Lord unto his Apostles, in Mat. 28.19, 20. which Mr. Gale tells us Page. 247. ‘Is the main Ground and Foundation of the Ordi­nance.’ And tho' he would persuade us that Page 258. ‘There is nothing in the Commission, that can be tolerably urged, to prove that In­fants are included in it.’ I can't Depend up­on his Word, So as to take it for granted with­out some further Enquiry.

The Commission Runs t [...]s, Go ye therefore, and Disciple (Matheteusat [...]) [...] Nations Bapti­zing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and Lo I am with you alway, even unto the End of the World.

I have here indeed taken liberty to differ from our English Translation, by Rendring the Word Matheteusate, by Disciple, instead of Teach, and the genuine natural sense; and mea­ning of the word bears me out in it.

Mr. Gale indeed (as was his Interest) stands up for our Translation, and something plausibly attempts to prove, that The Word always signifyes to Teach, But his Reasonings will prove Superficial Enough, when they come to be Scann'd,

In the mean time, let us take it for granted, that the word does signify to make Disciples, as I have Rendred it, and then I can't see why the words mayn't be thus understood, Go make Dis­ciples of all Nations, by Baptizing them, and by [Page 65] Teaching of them to observe all things, that I have Commanded you. They are first ordered to make Disciples, next Directed how to do i [...], viz. by Baptizing and Teaching; Baptism is the Cere­mony, or Symbol of their being Received into Discipleship, and the badge of their Christianity, as Circumcision was among the Iews, and Teaching a necessary previous Qualification to Discipleship, in all Capable Subjects.

If it be thus Understood, the Case is plain, That if Infants be a part of all Nations, to whom they were sent out upon this Errand, (Capable of being made Disciples by Baptism) they ought to Enjoy this Ordinance, for that End.

And this Sense of the Words will appear very natural and Reasonable, when we consider, That Infants were acknowledg'd Disciples under the Old Testament Dispensation, and made such by Circumcision, in the Room whereof, Baptism is now Instituted; as has been made evident above. And it is Considerable, that I have the most of Learned Interpreters on my side, Justifying this Sense of the Words: And I don't find our Adversaries capable to offer any thing against this Interpretation, unless that the Word Ma [...]he [...]usate signifies to Teach, which I design particularly to Consider, and am there­fore loath to Anticipate it, in this place.

But whatever is the true meaning of that Word, Infant Baptism may be proved from the Commission, as you'l be sensible, If you'l take [Page 66] notice of the Subjoyned promise, Lo I am with you alway, Even unto the End of the World. Christ is here promising his gracious Spiritual Presence unto, and his Blessing upon his Faithful Mini­sters, in the Administration of this Ordinance of Baptism, and preaching the Gospel, unto the End of the world; This Ordinance there­fore shall not Cease, until the World Ceases to be. But if Infant Baptism be not of Divine Insti­tution, I can't see how this Promise has been fulfilled. For,

1. Being supposed that Infant Baptism is no Ordinance of [...]hrist, it must be an inevitable Consequence that for many Centuries there was no B [...]p [...]ism at all. Mr. Gale acknowledges that Infant Ba [...]tism was used in the Early Cen­turies of the Church, Pag [...]. 528. as Early as St Cyprians time, who flourished Anno 240. By which Adult Baptism (if Constantly used before) was Shuffled out of Doors, and so the world from that time without Baptism, and Conse­quently with [...] a Church (contrary to the Promise; Mat 16.28) Until N. Stock, and his O [...]re [...]erous followers in Germany Restored it; nor did they Restore it neither. For

2. From this Doctrine it follows, that the World being so long without Baptism, there was none qualifyed for the Administration of the Ordinance; It must therefore Inevitably and Eternally Fall to the Ground, unless some with a new and Immediate Commission from Heaven Revive it. For how can they Baptize [Page 67] others, that are not Baptized themselves?

Thus you see that our Lords Promise to up­hold this Ordinance, and his Ministers in the Administration thereof, (unless Infant Baptism be his Institution) is Inevitably Violated.

Mr. Gale in his 7th Letter, Entertains us with a very Large▪ and tedious Discourse, wherein he undertakes to make it Evident, that the Commission does directly Exclude Infants from Baptism; The Sum of all his Argumentation upon that Topick, I find thus proposed, Page 258. ‘Infants are such a part of the Nations as are not capable of being Taught, and so not to be Baptized, because the Commission does as much command to Teach, as to Baptize all Nations.’ The whole Stress of his argument has its dependance upon the Greek Word Matheteusate, which he translates Teach; this he acknowledges, and fairly tells us, that Page 259. ‘If the Greek Word does signify barely to Disciple, by Baptizing suppose, or any other way, without Including to Teach, all our Argument from this Place, unavoidably falls to the Ground.’ That now lies before us to Examine, and if upon the Stric [...]est Tryal, it appears that the Word does signify barely to Disciple, he must acknowledge that he is fairly beat out of the field, with his own Weapon.

The Methods he proposes, are very fair, and such as (Duely observed) will Infallibly bring us to the Sense of the Word. Let us therefore follow him in his own Track.

[Page 68]He first Searches into the Origination of the Word, to see if he can find any thing to his purposes from thence; and I am of Opinion, that there is no way more sure to find out the true sense of a Word, than this; This shews its native meaning, and therefore is more to be depended upon, than the figurative use Words often obtain among Authors.

Let us Seek therefore into the Etymology of the Word, and we shall find this Renowned Critick, Chargeable with the Greatest vanity Imaginable in venturing to say, Page 263. ‘it makes it necessary to understand the Word, to signify to Teach, Instruct, or the like.’

No Man doubts but Manthano, the Theam Signifies Disco, to Learn, and all the Derivatives, and Compounds bear an agreement in Signification; thus Math [...]sis, the act of Learning: Amathes, un­learned; Op [...]mathes, one that began late to Learn; Prilomathes, desirous of Learning. And thus in the Instances Mr Gale himself has assign­ed, Mathema, that which is Learned; Mathe­tos, apt to Learn, Mathetian, I desire to Learn; Artimathes, one that lately began to Learn; Automathes, one that Learned of him self without the help of a Master; Olig [...]mathes, one that Learned but little; Pollumathes, one that has Learned much; Anamanthano, I Learn again; Kata [...]antheno, I learn throughly, or exactly; Sum [...]an [...]han [...]in, To Learn together, from whence, S [...]mmathales, a fellow Learner, or School fellow; and so in like manner the Words in Controversy, [Page 69] do Retain some marks of the same Significa­tion, with the Theam from whence they are derived; as Mathetes, a Disciple, or Learner; from whence Mathe [...]euo, to Constitute a Learner, or that which signifyes the very same to Disci­ple, the sense we contend fo [...]. But you'l say perhaps, how can Infants be Constituted Lear­ners? I answer, by Baptism, whereby they are Laid under awful Obligations to Learn (as soon as capable) both the Doctrines and Practice of Christianity; And whereby their Parents do Solemnly Dedicate them to Christ, and ob­lige themselves to bring them up in his School.

And now (Sir) would not even a School Boy, but newly initiated in the Rudiments of the Greek Tongue, Laugh to Scorn Mr. Gales at­tempt to prove that Matheteuo, signifies to Teach? Could he not tell him, That the Theam from whence it comes, signifyes to Learn, and that all its Derivatives bear a like Sgnification? Could he not Instruct him in the difference, between Teaching and Learning?

And yet how seriously does he proceed to say, Page 263 ‘Since then the Primitive Signifies to Learn, and all its Derivatives and Com­pounds Retain the like sense, why must Mathetes and Matheteuo be Excepted?’ I say, why Indeed? But who is it that does Except them? Is it not they that thus Industriously attempt to Change their True Native sense; and argue (tho' Ridiculously enough) that Manthano and its Derivatives signifies to Learn, [Page 70] Therefore Matheteuo, one of its Derivatives must signify to Teach?

One would think that this Gentleman de­signed his Book for the Veiw of None but Illiterate men, or Dunces, that could not dis­tinguish between Teaching and Learning, why Else did he take such Elaborate pains to Expose both himself, and his Cause?

But as tho' he had not Effectually Bantered his Cause, he gravely undertakes to Shew the meaning of the Word Disciple among our selves, and likewise the use of it, among the Latin Au­thors, from whom we have borrowed it. Page 297. ‘Now its plain (says he) that Discipulus is formed from Disc [...]re, to Learn, &c.’ If this be true, (as he has made it appear to be by many quotations from Ancient Latin Authors) to make Disciples is (as the Greek Word Matheteuo, signifies) to Constitute them Learners, and not to Teach.

Thus you See [Sir] how unhappy his Argu­ments have been from the Origination of the Word, that instead of Clearing the Cause he undertakes to Defend, they have abundantly Confirmed ours.

He next proceeds to Shew how the word is used in Greek Authors, which he says, Page 266. "will perhaps be thought less liable to Exception, than arguing from Etymologyes.

But I would Intreat Mr. Gales Pardon, if I am forced to believe, that this is much more liable to Exception, than arguing from Etymologies; [Page 71] For (as a Gentleman of your Reading cannot be Ignorant) Words oft times in Authors, Suffer a violent Catechresis, as; vir gr [...]is, ipse Caper, deerraverit. Vi [...]g. Eclog. 7 i. e. The man of the Flock, even th [...] He Goat himself, went astray. But no man will argue from thence, that V [...]r, a Man, properly signifies the Leading Goat of a Flock. And nothing is more common, than the Cha [...]ge of Words from their Native Sense; as you may find an Instance in our Author, out of Pindar, Page. 280. Who says Sa [...]amis ca [...] produce a b [...]ve Souldiers as any in the Wor [...]d. H [...]ct [...]r Learned [Akousen] the truth of this, before the Walls of Troy. Will any man of Sense argue from hence, that the Greek Word Akouo, To hear, signifies to Learn, by the feats of Martial Chevalry? But I'm sure I need not multiply Instances of this Kind to you.

So that if Mr Gale by Unwearied application, can Collect some passages from Authors, where the Word in Debate is used in the Sense he pleads for, (and yet I even despair of finding that done) it will not determine the Sense of the Word, inasmuch as they may (and in this Case cer­tainly must) have taken the common liber [...]y of Authors, in using the Word in a Sense diffe­rent from its native and true Signification.

And therefore if you can find in any of his Quotations, the Word so used, as may seem to make to his purpose, I desire you to [...]rray this Consideration along with you, which will st [...]p the mouth of all Argument from thence; I don [...]t [Page 72] speak this, because I'm afraid to Joyn Issue with him, upon this Plea; but to shew you, that [...]he use of the word in some si [...]le Instances, is not sufficient to Determine the sense of it, This being premised,

There are two things the Subject of our pre­sent Enquiry.

1. Whether the Word in Debate, as it is Commonly used by Authors, signifyes to Teach; it not, all Mr. Gales Argument falls to the Ground; for that's the Construction, he assignes and pleads for; But in all his numerous Quotations, he does not find it once used in that Sense, or Indeed so much as look that way, Except in a passage taken from Ignatius, where he says; I would also that these things should be [...] by your Practice, which you have prescri­b [...]d; [Mathet [...]uon [...]es, which he translates] in Teaching But why in this Instance (which is the only one, that in the least seems to favour his Construction) it may'nt as naturally be translated in the sense we plead for, there can be no Reason assigned. This Father is desiring the Roman Church, to whom he writes, not to use any Es [...]ayes to hinder him of a Crown of Martyrdom, which he then had in near Veiw, and uses this as am Argument; That what they had praescribed in Discipling [Matheteuontos] others, and both prosely [...]ing them unto, and Confirming Them in, the Christian Faith, was to stand to the Cause of Christ unto the Death, and in that way to Expect a Crown of Li [...]e▪ [Page 73] He would therefore have them confirm this by their Practice, and not hinder him of his Crown.

Now this Duty is prescribed to Proselytes, as well by bapt [...]sm, as by Teaching; they are there­by listed under the banner of Christ, and awfully obliged to s [...]nd the shock of ner [...]est opposition, and even to say down their lives for his sake, when called to it The Word therefore does not necessarily signify Teaching, even in this Place; But i [...] it di [...], it does no way determine it to be the constant, steady meaning of the word, since in all his Exquisite Search he can't find it any where else to be so understood. He does indeed (disingenously enough) sometimes so translate the word as Pluta [...]on vi [...] Decem. Rhetor page 1539. Math [...]teusas de to Patri, which he translates, Was Taught by his Fat [...]e [...]; but this Instance (and all other where he so uses the Word) is apparantly on our side, and ought to be construed, He Learned of his Father, or which is the same thing, was his Fathers Disciple.

We are next to consider whether the word in Debate, as it is commonly used by Authers, does signify To Disciple, or Constitute Learners, and if we find that it does▪ Even by Mr Gales own Collection from Greek Authors, I'm sure you'l acknowledge that he is fairly [...]affled upon this head.

I shall not mis-spend so much time in this word War, as to take particular Notice of all his Cita­tions, but only consider four or five of the first of them, in the same order as he has placed them, by which you may judge of all the rest.

[Page 74]The first Instance is from Pl [...]tarch vit. Decem Rhetor. pag. 1539. where he finds Isocrates saying (to those that not being able to pay for the whole of his Art, were willing to Learn a part of it) ‘We don't use to divide our Art, but if you would be Learners of it, I [...]ll instruct you in the whole Art.’ This word is here used with an application to such as already were not, but were yet to be Constituted Learners of this famous Or­ator, which is the very same sence we contend for in the Commission.

And now let us see how well it suits the Con­struction, Mr. Gale pleads for (while he says, it necessarily and always signifies To Teach) by trans­lating it in his Sence, ‘We don't use to divide our Art, but if you would Teach, I'll instruct you’ I need not tell you that this construction (which it must have, or be wholly impertinent to his purpose) is Ridiculous Non-sence.

But I find he would render it passively, If you would be Taught, I'll Instruct you; But the Word is Active, and he therefore must account for this passive construction, or by looking back into his Accedence, be learned to Correct it.

His 2d Instance is from Ignatius, who in his Epistle to the Ephesians, says, Though I am bound for his name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Iesus; nay, I am as it were but as now beginning [Matheteuesthai] to be a Learner, or to be Discipled. The word here is so clear in our favour, that nothing could have been plainer; For the Martyr here Represents himself to be, but an Initiated Learner, or newly [Page 75] constituted a Learner of Christ; which is the very sence we c [...]ntend for; But how the most Luxuriant Fancy, can understand the word here, in Mr Gales Sense, or suppose that it signfiies to Teach, is far beyond my Conception. Let us see what a monstrous Solecism it would be, to Translate the Words in this sece. They must be thus Read, I am not yet perfect in Christ, nay, I am but yet beginning to Teach him. To be taught of him, it cannot be rendred, for the Word as in the former instance is Active, and therefore it cannot be passively understood

His Third Instance is as clear as the Meridian Sun to our Purpose, it is from that some Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, where he directs them how to behave themselves towards unbelievers and strangers to the Faith; and advises them to Pray for all Men; For (says he) there is some hope that they may Repent, and obtain the Mercy of God, Let the [...] be Discipled, or won to the Faith [Mathe­teuthenai] by your good works. Here I think every body must allow me this Sence of the Word, if it be considered that the Heathen could not be Taught the Doctrines of Christiani [...]y, by their con­versation and good works; but they might be Discipled, i. e. So won by their watchful walk, and Charitable, Christian-like Spirit, &c. as to be brought to declare for Christ, and bring them­selves into his School, or (as you find the word properly Signifies) to be constituted Learners of him.

His fourth Instance I have considered already, [Page 76] and therefore now pass it over.

In his Fifth Instance, the Word is a little altered from Its native sense, and yet makes clearly against him. It is taken from Clemens Alexand. Strom. Lib. 1. Pag. 320, Where he says, If they are Learners (Matheteuontes) of any thing, from the Hebrew Phylosophy, let them acknow­ledge it. If they Teach any thing from the Hebrew Philosophy, it must be Rendred, in order to be made any thing Serviceable to Mr. Gales Undertaking, which is to prove, that the Word signifies to Teach; But this is an Absur­dity, even too great for him to espouse.

Here the Word indeed does not properly signify to make, or Constitute Learners, but it Signifies being Disciples, or Learners, which is but little different.

His 6th Instance is taken from the same Clemens Strom. Lib. 6. Page. 691. Who there says, To Converse not only with the Greeks, but with the Barbarians too, and by these common ways of Improving their knowledge, they are brought to the Faith; And then having laid the Foundation of the Truth, they are better enabled to go on in the Search after it; and hence it is that they delight in being, Discipled, (Matheteusamenoi) to Christ, and by pursuing after knowledge, they Vigorously pursue Salvation. The Word is necessary, if you Con­sider, (1) The purport of the Argument here Improved, which is to shew, that the Cultiva­ting our Faculties by all Sorts of knowledge, will Render the Profession of Christianity desi­rable, [Page 77] in our first entring upon it, or begin­ning to be Learners, or Disciples; and make us willing to pursue further Degrees of know­ledge. (2.) The Word here Respects the Lay­ing the Foundation of the Truth, as the fore-going, and following Paragraphs make evident; And is not the Foundation of the Faith laid by our being made Disciples of Christ?

Thus [Sir] I have gone thro' Mr. Gales first Six Instances, (and might, with the like advan­tage, take notice of the Rest) and we find him as unhappy in this Undertaking, as in the for­mer from the Origination of the Word.

He next brings in Sundry of our Modern Authors accepting the Word in his Sense; to which it's sufficient answer, That numberless others, as great men, and as much to be Relyed on as they, Justly Contradict 'em.

He proceeds to justify his Sense of the Word, from the various Translations of the New Te­stament: But here also he fails of Success; for tho' some of them do make for, yet others against him, and therefore all Argument from that head, must fall to the ground.

The Hebrew Translation renders it by Lamad, which properly signifyes to Learn (as Jer. 10.2. Learn not of the Heathen) and in Pi [...]el Dicere fec it, he has made to Learn, says Buxt [...]rf and Leigh.

The Ethiopick, and Arabick Versions, use Words which Mr. Gale acknowledges signify to Learn, and was Learned.

The Dutch, Read it Leert, which signifies [Page 78] to Learn, or be Learners, as you may see in Hezam's Dutch Dictionary.

The Danish Read it La [...]rer, and the Saxon, Lanas, both which signify Learne [...]s.

The French Render it Endoctrinez, which signifyes, To Endo [...]trinate, or bring into the Profession and Knowledge of Christianity.

I have by me two Latin Versions, the one of which indeed renders it D [...]ce [...]e, but the other Disc [...]pulos facite, make Disci [...]les.

Some of those Versions he mentions, I know nothing of, and am not therefore capable to Examine.

He next proceeds to tell us, that the Fathers of the Primitive Church, Understood the Word in this Sense; but this is all of a piece with the R [...]st: For where he Cites the Greek Fathers, as Understanding the Word to signfy To Teach, they use the very same Word (Mathete [...]) which is in the Commission; but whether it signifyes to Teach, or not, is what we have been all this while Debating; For In­stance, he quotes Origens Comment in Mat. Pag. 225. where he says, The Apostles obeyed our Saviours Command. (Matheteusate, which he Renders Teach, But we) Disciple all nations. And again, Origen Contra Celsum. Lib 2. Pag. 84. The Disciples going forth should (Mathetas, which he here Transla [...]es) Preach the Word to all Nations. Thus also he deals by O [...]igen Contra Celsum Lib. 2. P 79. By, Iustin Expos Fides. P. 376. And his Dialogue with Tripho, Page. 272. By, the [Page 79] Apostolical Constitutions, Lib 7 Chap. 40. By Clement, Hom 17 Cap. 7. And by, Epiphan. Ad­vers. Her f. Lib 1. Cap. 50. His Argument upon this head, should be thus formed, The Greek Father Unde [...]stood the Word (Matheteuo) in the Commissi [...]n to signify to Teach, because they use the same Word, in their Comments upon the Text.

There's indeed several Passages he quotes, that make it plain, that they did understand the Word to enjoyn Teaching, in Order to Baptism; but its Evident (as you'l be sensible, if you'l Read his Quotations) that they had a peculiar Reference to the Adult only; and that such are to be made Disciples by Teaching, every body owns, tho' Infants may be Disci­pled otherwise.

He next undertakes to prove from Scripture, that the Word does signify to Teach; and if his performance had been any thing answerable to his undertaking, we must have been forever Silent upon this head.

He first from Acts 8.37 Argues, That Phil­lip, previous to his Baptizing the Eunuch, In­structed him. Bravely performed! But who questions this a necessary Pre-requisite, to the Baptism of the Adult?

He next argues from Acts. 14.21. They had preached the Gospel in that City, and had Taught many. This Word (says he) is the same with that in the Commission, and is here Rendred Taught; But why may we not Read it, had made many [Page 80] Disciples; for so I find it rendred in the Old Latin Version, and also in t [...]e Marg [...]n of our Bibles: and so I'm sure the Sense best Carries it.

He next argues from the parrallel Place, Mark. 16.15. Preach the Gospel to Ev [...]ry Creature: But that is also Required in the Co [...]m [...]ssion, Mat 28.20 [...]eaching them to observe all [...]hings, whatsoe [...]r I have Commanded you Unto wh [...]ch the quoted Text is parrallel, whatever be the Signification o [...] Mathet [...]usa [...]e

He again tell us, That St L [...]ke, with a parti­cular R [...]ferrence unto these W [...]rds, says, t [...]at Repentan [...]e, and Remission o [...] si [...]s, shou [...]d be preached in his Name, among all Nati [...]ns Luk 24 47. And That St. Peter, who Immediately received the C [...]mmission from the Mouth of our Lord, [...]ssures us, I ha [...] this was his sacred meaning, Acts [...]0.42. He Commanded us to preach to the People. To both which its answer sufficient, That our Lord Required their preaching to all Nations, in the above-cited Clause of the Commission, Teaching them to observe all things, &c. whatever be the meaning of the Word in Debate.

Thus, Sir, we have heard all he has to say in this Case, and it therefore now belongs to you to Judge, what grounds he has, with such a Dogmatical Air to say, Page 262. ‘If any one can make the Experiment, and afte [...] Exa­mination, and deny it S [...]gnifyes to T [...]ach; he may as well, if he plea [...]e, open [...] Eyes, and turning to the Sun when it shines out, [Page 81] deny there's any Sun at all, or affirm its mid­night.’

What put Mr. Gale upon this Attempt, I'll not undertake to Determine; If it was an affect­ation of Esteem for his Schollarship, his End is answered; but if what he pretends, he's mise­rably disappointed.

You'l now (Sir) I'm sure, Excuse me from any further Remarks on Mr. Gales Book, when you consider, that his 9th and 10th Letters, are ta­ken up about the Customs among the Iews, and their manner of admitting their Proselytes, which I think can't have so much stress laid upon it, as to be worthy our present Enquiry; And that all the Rest of his Book, is an Exami­nation of Mr. Walls Arguments from Antiquity.

Had Mr. Gale found any authority to Confirm his bold Assertion, that Page. 541. ‘There is abundant grounds to Deny, that it (Infant Baptism) was used above two hundred years after Christ,’There would have been some­thing Considerable, in the Argument: But since he layes it down praecariously, without one single Author saying a Word in his favour, we have found so very little grounds to depend upon his bare Word, that we may fairly Reject it. I should indeed have been willing to make some Enquiry into the truth hereof, if I had by me, or could in this Dark Corner of the World, come at the Ecclesiastical Writers of the first Centuries; But yet I must tell you, that I can't help but Conclude, that the writings [Page 82] of the Earliest and purest Times, are not so silent in this Case, as Mr. Gale pretends; for I find Clemens Romanus, Ireneus, Iustin Martyr, &c. quoted to this purpose, by those, whose Lear­ning and Faithfulness I shall not question, Until I see it disproved; And I'm pretty well assured, that there's nothing in the primitive Fathers against Infant Baptism; if there had, Mr. Gale would not have scrupled to let us know it. What Ecclesiastical writers I can come at are very full and plain in this Case.

Origen, who flourished Anno 220. brings in full Testimony to Infant Baptism; as in Lib. 5. ad Rom. cap 6 E [...]clesia Traditionem ab Apostolis suscepit, Etiam pa [...]vulis dare Baptismum, i. e. The Church has Received a Tradition from the Apostles to Baptize Infants.

Its true; that his Greek Copy is not Extant, and we have only a La [...]in Translation to depend upon, but its not very likely, that any Inter­polation should be attempted, with a Reference to the Baptism of Infants, There being no De­bate about that Subject, until of Late Years.

Cyprian, who wrote Anno 240 is as plain as can be, in many passages that might be cited; take one, in Epist ad Fid. Lib. 3. Epist 8. Si Etiam gravissimus [...]el [...]ctoribus, & in Deum multum ante p [...]c [...]arotib [...]s, cum postea Credidorint Remissa, peccatorum Datur, et a Baptismo, a [...]que a gratia, nemo prohib [...]tur; quanto magi, prohiberi non debet Infant [...], &c. If (says he) to the most grievous offenders, and those that were before great Sinners, [Page 83] is given, after they Believe, Remi [...]sion of Sins, and no man Denyes them Baptism, and Grace; by how much the Rather, ought not in a [...] to be pro [...]ibited.

Gregory Nazienzen, who wrote about the year 370. Orat. 40. p. 658. Si [...]e ei [...]o [...]s peri [...]on eti n [...]pion K [...]i m [...]te tes zemias Epa [...]inem panuge? [...]iperp tis Epeigoi Kindunos, i. e. But w [...]at [...]o you say, (quoth he) of thos [...] that a [...]e yet in their Tend [...]r age, they understand neith [...]r C [...]ime nor g [...]ace; Should we Baptize these also? Yes tr [...]l [...], If Danger Vrges. This Father indeed had a singul [...]r Whim, that Unless danger urges, it were better to defer their Bapt [...]sm, until they are three years old; But as this was h [...]s singular Opinion; It's no Evidence of the Faith and Pr [...]ctice of those Times; Besides, this makes nothing for our Adversaries; for he affirms, and argues for their Right to Baptism, even in their Earlyest Infancy.

Ambrose, who wrote Anno 376. De Abraham. Patriarch, Lib. 2 Chap. 12. says, Nec Senex pro­sel [...]tus, nec Infans vermaculus exipitur, quia omnis aetas peccato obnoxia, et Ide [...] omnis aetas Sacramento Idonia. i. e. Ne [...]ther an Old Proselyte, nor a Do­mestic Infant is excepted; every Age is liable to Sin, and t [...]erefore every age is fit for the Sacra [...]ent.

Augustine, who lived Anno 400, or 420, is very plain▪ full▪ and large up [...]n this head, in his Controversie with Pelagius, as Lib. 1. De Peccat. Mer. et Remiss. cap. 26. Parvulos Baptizandos Esse concedunt, qu [...] contra autorita tem universae Ecclesiae, procul Dubio per Dominum, et Apostolis traditam, [Page 84] venire non possunt. i. e. That Infants are to be Baptiz­ed (says he) They (the Pelagians) grant, who cannot go Contrary to the Authority of the Universal Church, which, without doubt, was Delivered by the Lord, and his Apostles. And Serm. 10 De verb. Apostel. speaking of Infants Baptism, he says Nemo vobi sussuret Doctrinas alienas, Hoc Ecclesia semper habu [...]t, semper tenuit, Hoc a majorum Fide ac­cepit, Hoc usque in finem perseveranter Custodit, i. e. Let no man whisper any other Doctrine to you; this the Church has always had, always held; this she Receiveth from the Faith of our Ancestors; this she perseve­ringly keeps to the End.

These Testimonies are as full and plain as can be written, and tho' Mr. Gale intimates, that they are too late to determine the matter; I think not so; for can it be supposed, that in an affair of this Nature, the Church should be thus Imposed upon a Foundation laid for turning the true Baptism out of Doors, and even Un­churching the World (the necessary Conse­quence of bringing in Infant Baptism Contrary to Christs Institution, as I observed before) And this be received as the Ordinance of Christ, and the Constant Faith of the Church, in all Quarters of the World; And yet all Footsteps of this Innovation be oblitterated, and the Remembrance and Knowledge of it utterly Effaced, in two or three Hundred Years? It does not look possible.

Many Errors indeed did creep into the Church in these Centuries, but as they generally met [Page 85] with opposition, so we have for the most part an account, by what means they were brought in. But this Doctrine (tho' of such great moment) must at once creep into all parts of the Earth, and without any opposition, like an Irresistible Charm, gain universal Credit; and all Circumstances of this Change, be hid from the knowledge of Next Ages: And thus the true Ordinance of Christ, (which by his Promise was to continue to the End of the Worl) must fall a Sacrifice to this Innovation, and not one Tongue or Pen stand up in its defence.

Its Strange (if this were an Innovation) that there can be no account when it was Introduced. Mr. Gale is Ready, Pag. 528. to account it pro­bable, that it was Introduced in Affrica, at or near St. Cyprians Time; But then, its Strange that Augustine in so little a time after, should know nothing of this, and boldly affirm, That the Church had always had, and held Infant Baptism.

Mr. Gale frequently tells us, that the Mode of administring this Ordinance in England, was Changed about Queen Elizabeths time; but would he not take it as an Affront, if we should tell him, He is too late to determine this mat­ter, we can't depend upon what he says in that respect; he speaks of an Affair of too ancient a date for him to know any thing about.

If it should be enquired, what Religion was Established in England, before King Henry 8th, [Page 86] Could not even every Plow-man (almost) tell us, it was Papery? How then should these Fa [...]ers in less time, be perfect strangers to the Practice of the Church about Baptism?

I might add much more upon this head, and bring in Ierom and other of the Ancients, with several of the Primitive Councils, Confirm­ing our Cause; but I've already out gone the bounds of my intended Brevity; therefore ‘Iam tempus Eq [...]um Spumantia solvere Colla.’ Its time to have done with this Controversy, which I shall wind up, with this needful Apology,

You won't find many of the Arguments so largely handled, and so clearly Explicated, as you may desire; For I have carefully avoided Prolixity, and was willing to be as breif as I could, without obscurity

Tho' you may be capable to Read the Oriental Languages, yet your Friends to whom you seem'd Inclinable to shew this Letter, may not, and therefore what from them has occur­red, I have written in English Character, You'l be Ready to Dis-relish the harshness of the Style; I am no Oratour, nor do affect a Har­rangue instead of Argument.

You may find some Arguments herein, that others have handled before me; but (tho' I don't love to Transcribe) I see no Reason, to [Page 87] neglect the mentioning of 'em, because they occur in others; And I would also put you in mind of that Saying, ‘Non quicquid cum antiquis Convenit Ex antiquis Sumptum.’

The many other Defects, I Submit to your Censure, Depending upon your Usual Candour.

If this hasty Scribble yeild matter of Satis­faction to you, it will also more abundantly, to