A Man of Piety and Ingenuity, as well as of consi­derable Reading, having read Mr. Stennet, and some other of the Antipaedobaptist Authors, was brought under great Difficulty and Confusion of Mind, with Respect to the Validity of his Baptism; which gave Occasion to the following Conference between his Mi­nister and him.

Good-morrow Neighbour: I am heartily glad to see you. I have for some Time wanted an Op­portunity of Conversation with you.

I conclude, Sir, that I know the Reason of your Desire of Conversation with me, having heard something of it before; I am now come on Purpose to give you an Opportunity.

I am informed that you are inclined to the Errors of the Antipaedohaptists; that you are upon the Point of joining their Party; and of being dipt by them.

I am sure, if I know my own Heart, I am not inclined to embrace any Error; nor should I have the least Disposition to join the Baptists, could I be con­vinced, that they are in an Error.—But if you'll allow me to deal freely with you, I must tell you, that the Case at present appears to me in a quite contrary Light. I am afraid I have hitherto been bred up in Error, have never yet complied with our blessed Saviour's Institution, but remain unbaptized to this Day; and you can't wonder that this Thought is productive of very great Anxiety of Mind.

Consider, I entreat you, that it is not a small Matter to renounce your Baptism, whereby you were in your Infancy dedicated to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; to renounce all the other Ordinances of the Gospel, as the Ministry of the Word, and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which you have been so frequent­ly favoured with; as you will practically do, if you act up to the Principles which you now espouse.

How, Sir, is my doubting of the Validity of my Infant Baptism, a renouncing of it? And how is it a renouncing the other Gospel Ordinances which I have enjoy'd?

You were in your early Infancy, in the most solemn Manner dedicated to the sacred Trinity; you either acknowledge your self devoted to God by that solemn Transaction, and under the Bonds of that Cove­nant, which you were then brought into, or you do not: If you do acknowledge this, you can have no just Concern about any other Baptism, being already devoted to God, and brought into Covenant with him by that holy Ordi­nance. If you do not acknowledge this, you renounce your Baptism, you vacate the Covenant between God and you, by disowning that Relation to the glorious God, which you were brought into by Baptism.

This Thought is new to me; I shall endea­vour to consider it, and I hope it will have its proper Weight with me: But if this Reasoning be allowed to be just, I don't see how my seeking Baptism in the Method proposed, is a renouncing the other Ordinances of the Gospel, such as the Ministry of the Word, and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; since I acknow­ledge these to have been regularly administred, tho' I suppose my Infant Baptism to be a Nullity.

If you are unbaptized, you are as to your external and visible Relation, a Stranger to the Covenants [Page 5] of Promise; and this is not your Case only, but (upon the Principles you espouse) it is also the Case of those of us, who have been the Dispensers of the Mysteries of the Gospel to you; upon your Principles it therefore follows, that we of the Ministry being unbaptized, are not in Covenant with God, are not so much as visible Christians, and consequently cannot be Ministers before we are Members of the Christian Church: And how then can we have any Right to administer sacred Ordinances?—And as for you, what Right can you have to com­memorate that Relation to Christ which you have never sustain'd, to seal that Covenant wherein you have no Gospel Interest? as you must do, if you partake of the Lord's Supper, whilst unbaptized.—That in whatever View you consider this Case, it will appear, that all the publick Ordinances of the Gospel you have been privileged with, and been a Partaker of, are just so much a Nullity as your Baptism,& by rejecting, that, you reject them all.

I have (I trust) experienced so much comfor­table Communion & Fellowship with God, in the Ministry of the Word, and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that I dare not renounce them; and were I convinced of the Truth of what you have offered, and which I don't at present know how to answer, it would throw me into very great Confusion, but would not free me from my pre­sent Difficulties, with Respect to the Subjects and Mode of Baptism.

I hope I shall be capable to offer you full Mat­ter of Satisfaction upon those Points, before our Con­versation ends; but it cannot be improper to put you in Mind, that the whole Church of Christ for many Cen­turies together, practised Infant Baptism; that you your self was baptized in your Infancy, and were brought up in the Enjoyment of Gospel Ordinances, dispensed by one who was likewise baptized in Infancy; and there­fore [Page 6] greatly concerns you, to consider what Con­tempt you cast upon the great Head of the Church, to suppose that he has for so long a Time, wholly deserted all the Churches upon Earth, & left them without a Ministry, without Ordinances, and therefore without the instituted Means of Life and Salvation.—It concerns you also, seriously to consider, how uncharitably you offend against all the Generation of God's Children, to represent the whole Church for so many hundreds of Years, and very much the greatest Part of it at present, to be in a State of Heathenism, without any Hope of Salvation, but from the uncovenanted Mercies of God.—It concerns you to consider, what Indignity you offer to the blessed Spirit, by practically denying all his divine Influences in and by his Ordinances, whereby he has so eminently acknow­ledged those Institutions, and improved them for the Conversion and Edification of such Multitudes of precious Souls.—It likewise concerns you, solemnly to consider, how you may expect that God will resent your Renun­ciation of your Covenant Relation to him, and of all the publick Ordinances of Salvation, which you have Cause with so much Thankfulness to acknowledge and improve.—And I will only add, that it concerns you also seriously to consider, how it can be, that the blessed Saviour has fulfilled his Promise, that he would be with his Mini­sters in the Administration of Baptism to the End of the World: Or how it is possible there should be any Baptism at all in the World at this Time, either among the Paedobaptists or Antipaedobaptists, upon the Principles which you espouse.

I am pretty much surprized by the former of those Consequences which you have represented; I confess, I don't know how to evade or answer them; but the last appears not only new, but without any manner of Foundation.

Well! Let us consider that Case something particularly, and see whether that Consequence won't force it self upon you.—Don't you acknowledge that Infant Baptism did universally obtain in the Church, even from the Apostles Times?

No! by no Means! Could that be prov'd, the Controversy would be quickly brought to an End.

At what Time do you suppose Infant Baptism did first universally obtain in the Church?

I don't pretend to be read in Church History; but the Authors whom I have read upon this Subject, don't suppose this to have happen'd earlier than between three or four hundred Years after Christ's Nativity.

Had you read the Authors on the other Side of the Question, you would have found undoubted Evidence from the ancient Fathers, that Infant Bap­tism constantly obtain'd in the truly primitive Church; but I need not insist upon this; let it be supposed to be as late as your Authors imagine, before this Practice of baptizing Infants universally obtain'd; you must upon that Supposition allow, that there was more than eleven hundred Years, in which the whole Christian Church came into the united and constant Practice of baptizing Infants; you can't pretend that this Practice was called in Question, or made Matter of Debate in the Church, till the Madmen of Munster, who were the Scandal of the Reformation, set themselves against this Practice as well as against the other Ordinances of the Gospel.—You must therefore allow, that from the fourth Century to the sixteenth, is more then eleven hundred Years;—Now during this long Period, what became of our blessed Saviour's Promise, to be with his Ministers always, in the Administration of this Ordinance?—I now demand of you an Answer (if any can be given) to this Question; Was our blessed Lord with his Ministers in the [Page 8] Administration of Baptism during this Period, or was he not? If you answer in the Affirmative, you acknow­ledge Infant Baptism to be his own Institution; if you answer in the Negative, you call his Veracity and Faithfulness into Question.

I am not prepared to answer your Question; there appears a Difficulty in it, that I don't at present see how to get over; but however this Case be, I can't imagine how you draw your Consequence from hence, that there can be no Baptism now in the World.

Do you think an unbaptized Person can be qualified for the sacred Ministry, or be fit to administer Baptism to others?

No, I believe not; it seems necessary that they should be at least visible Christians themselves, before they can have either Right or Authority to act in the Name of Christ, in bringing others into his Family, vesting them with his Name and Livery, and introducing them into a Covenant-Relation to Christ, and into the Character and Privileges of his Disciples.

Well! How came the Madmen of Munster; how came the first Antipaedobaptistsin England, by their Baptism? Had these any other Baptism than what they received in their Infancy? If not, (as it is certain they had not) it must follow, that either Infant Baptism is the Ordinance of Christ, or they could not have a Right to administer that Ordinance to others, which they had not received themselves; the Administration therefore (ac­cording to your own Principles) must be a Nullity in the Beginning, and consequently must continue a Nullity ever since.—The Baptism you pretend to, was (upon these Principles) first administred in England, by un­baptized Persons; by such as were not so much as visible Christians themselves; by such who could therefore have no Claim to the Gospel Ministry, nor any Right to ad­minister [Page 9] sacred Ordinances; and consequently, the whole Succession of your Ministry from that Time, must re­main unbaptized Persons, and there can therefore be no Baptism among you, any more than among us, until there be a new Commission from Heaven to renew and restore this Ordinance, which is at present lost out of the World.

There were doubtless some adult Baptisms in the Church in the Period you speak of, tho' Infant Baptism generally prevailed, as there are now amongst most of the Churches of your Persuasion; and therefore Baptism was not quite lost out of the World, as you express it.

Were that so, by whom were these adult Persons baptized? Was it not by such as were themselves baptized in Infancy?—And how therefore will this help your Case, unless you can prove a continued Suc­cession of adult Baptisms?

I think I have heard, that the ancient Wal­denses were in the constant Practice of adult Baptism on­ly; and if so, it will wholly obviate all your Reasonings upon this Head.

This is a mere Imagination, without any Foundation that I know of, & is accordingly to be rejected as a groundless Figment; but were that allow'd to be true, how would that help the Case, with Respect to the English Antipaedobaptists? Did they descend from the ancient Waldenses? Did the first of this Profession receive their Baptisms from them? If not, (were this chimerical Imagination allowed to be Fact, yet) this new Sect must have been begun in England by unbaptized Persons, and consequently the whole Succession of their Churches must remain unbaptized till this Day, as I have shewn you before.

Sir, all this Conversation serves but to en­crease my Perplexity, and to throw new Difficulties in my Way; but in no wise relieves my Mind and Con­science [Page 10] from the Distress I was under before;—this does not shew me a divine Institution for Infant Baptism.

I doubt, you ha'n't well attended to the Evi­dence I have now set before you:—I have shewn you, that our blessed Saviour has promised to be with his Ministers in the Administration of Baptism, always, even to the End of the World. Mat. xxviii. 19, 20.—He is faithful, that gave us this promise, and it has certainly been fulfilled; but it has not been fulfilled in the constant Con­tinuance of adult Baptism, and therefore Infant Baptism must necessarily be his own Institution, in the Admini­stration of which, and of which only, he has always afforded his divine Presence with his Ministers, according to his graicous, Promise.—You dare not suppose the Promise violated, and therefore you must suppose Infant Baptism to be Christ's own Institution. I have besides shewn you, that Infant Baptism having obtain'd for so ma­ny Centuries in the whole Church or Christ, it must be the Ordinance of Christ, or there can be no Baptism in the World; and therefore you can gain Nothing by going over to the Party you have newly chosen, for Baptism, since they themselves are all (upon your Principles) un­baptized as well as we.—This appears to me sufficient for your Satisfaction, if there could be no other Argument offered for your Conviction.

This Reasoning does indeed perplex me, but it does not afford me such Satisfaction, as a plain Scripture Institution of Infant Baptism would do.

If you consider the Covenant of Grace, which was made with Abraham, and with all his Seed, both after the Flesh and after the Spirit; and by God's express Command to be sealed to Infants, you will there find a sufficient Scripture Institution for Infant Baptism;—you will find this Covenant in Gen. xvii. 2, 4, 7, 10, 12. And I will make my Covenant between me and thee.—As [Page 11] for me, behold my Covenant is with thee; and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations,—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.—This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every Man Child among you shall be circumised.—He that is eight Days old shall be circumcised among you. Here we are taught as plainly as Words can teach us, that this Cove­nant was made with Abraham, as he was the Father of many Nations, the Father of the Gentiles as well as Jews; that this Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, an Everlast­ing Covenant, a Covenant whereby the Lord is a God to Abraham and all his Seed after him; and that this Cove­nant was to be sealed to Infants, in their early Infancy, upon the eighth Day, which was as soon as any Creature was to be esteemed clean, after its Birth, and fit (by the Levitical Institution) to be offered to to the Lord. Exod. xxii. 30. Lev. xxii. 27. From all which it undoubtedly follows, that this Covenant was made with us, as the Seed of Abraham, as well as with the Jews; he was the Father of the Believers in our Nation, as well as in theirs; and therefore the Obligations of it still remain upon us, to dedicate our Infants to the Lord, by sealing this Cove­nant to 'em as soon as possible.—This Argument was accordingly used by the Apostle with the first Christian Converts, as a Reason for their being baptized. Repent and be baptized every one of you: for the Promise is unto you and to your Children; and to all that are afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts ii. 38, 39. The Promise was undoubtedly the Covenant made with Abra­ham; this Promise or Covenant was urged as a Reason why they ought to be baptized; this Covenant of Promise was also made with their Children, and was likewise at Reason why they ought to be baptized; this Covenant [Page 12] of Promise was likewise made with the Gentiles, withthem that were then afar off, even with as many of them as the Lord our God shall ever call into a Church State; and is therefore a like Reason, why the Gentiles and their Children, when called into a Church State, should be also baptized.

This Argument is (I confess) set in a stronger Light than I have before consider'd it; and yet I have sundry Objections against it, which I know not how to resolve; these I shall take Liberty distinctly to propose, that it may be seen whether any just Answer-can be given to them.—My first Objection is, that this Promise made with Abraham, seems to be no more than a Promise of Temporal Mercies; & particularly of his inheriting the Land of Canaan, as an everlasting Possession to himself and his Seed after him; as appears from ver8 of that Chapter.

That this Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, and contained special spiritual Mercies in it, is abundantly evident from the Tenor of the Covenant it self.—It consists of two general Articles, which include all spi­ritual Blessings in them; the first is expressed in ver. 4. Behold my Covenant is with thee; and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations: The second is expressed in ver. 7. 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 to thy Seed after thee. Was the Promise of Christ's descending from Abraham's Loins; Was the Promise of the Gentile Nations being bro't into the Faith of Christ, & thereby becoming the Seed of Abraham after the Spirit, no more than a Promise of Temporal Mercies? And yet this, you must allow, was immediately intended by the first Article of this Cove­nant.—Was the Promise that God would be Abraham's God, and the God of his Seed after him for ever (ac­cording to the second Article of this Covenant) no more [Page 13] than a Promise of Temporal Mercies? Are not all spiritual & everlasting Blessings of every Kind, contained in this Promise? And does not the Apostle, with Refe­rence to this very Covenant, strongly assure us, that the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World (or the Father of many Nations) was not to Abraham or to his Seed thro' the Law: but thro' the Righteousness of Faith? Rom. iv. 13. And does he not also further instruct us, that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made. He faith not, and to Seeds, as of many: but as of one; and to thy Seed which is Christ.—And if we be in Christ, then are we Abraham's Seed; and Heirs according to the Pro­mise? Gal. iii. 16, 29. Does he not, when alluding to this very Covenant, likewise teach us, that the Blessing of Abraham is come unto the Gentiles thro' Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit thro' Faith. Ibid. ver. 14. And that we, as Isaac was, are the Children of the Promise. Gal. iv. 28. I hope by this Time you are convinced, that this Covenant contains in it something more than Temporal Mercies; and that it was truly the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, on Behalf of himself and both his natural and spiritual Seed, both Jews and Gentiles.

I did not expect such Evidence upon this Point, but yet Part of my Difficulty remains; you have not answered my Objection, that this Covenant was a Promise of the Land of Canaan, to Abraham and his Posterity.

Yes, I have fully answered it, by shewing you, that it was a Promise of Christ and Salvation by him; that it was a Promise made to Abraham, and to all the believing Gentiles in him; and, in a Word, that it was the Covenant of Grace, that Covenant by which alone we can have any grounded Hope of Salvation: How then could it be a Promise of the Land of the Canaan [Page 14] only? Is not this the most trifling Pretence in the World? Were not the Promises of this Covenant made to all Abraham's Seed, both natural and spiritual? And are the believing Gentiles Heirs of the Land of Canaan, according to this Promise?—Nay, were all his natural Seed Heirs of the Land of Canaan, by Vertue of this Promise, when not a fourth Part of them (none but the Posterity of his Grandson Jacob) ever possess'd it?—Was there no more imply'd in God's being a God to Abraham and to his Seed after him, than that they should inherit the Land of Canaan? One would think that no Man could seriously talk at this Rate.—Evident it is, that the Promise of the Land of Canaan was no Part of this Covenant; it was but an additional Article of divine Favour annexed to it: If Canaan, as here promised, be considered as typical of our heavenly Inheritance; yet a greater than Canaan is here.

Another Difficulty before me is, that if this Covenant be allow'd to be the Covenant of Grace, I can't see how it can be prov'd, that Circumcision was a Seal of that Covenant.

It can be prov'd from the express Words of the Apostle,Rom. iv. 11. And he received the Sign of Circum­cision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised.—It being the Sum of the Co­venant of Grace, that we are to be justified and saved by the Righteousness of Faith, where the Righteousness of Faith is sealed, the Covenant of Grace is sealed; this Text of the Apostle is therefore express & full to the Purpose.

This does (I acknowledge) seem to be full and plain Evidence, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Co­venant of Grace; But what is this to Baptism? If God has ordered the Covenant of Grace to be sealed to Abra­ham's Infant Seed by Circumcision, how does it appear, that he has required it to be sealed to our Infant Seed by Baptism?

This also is evident, by most easy and natural Deductions from the Word of God, as well as by a just Consideration of the Nature and Reason of the Case. The Apostle teaches us, Gal. iii. 27, 29. That as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.—And if we be Christ's, then are we Abraham's Seed, and Heirs accord­ing to the Promise. Now, how can our putting on Christ by Baptism make us Abraham's Seed, and Heirs accord­ing to this Promise and Covenant made with him, if Baptism be not now a Seal of that Covenant? I think you can't pretend to shew any other Way, in which this can possibly be; and if Baptism be now a Seal of that Covenant, it must be administred to such, unto whom that Covenant requires its Seal to be administred; that is, it must be administred to Infants in their early Infan­cy.—And if we consider the Text before cited, the same Consequence will necessarily follow.Repent and be baptized every one of you.—For the Promise is unto you and to your Children; and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Acts ii. 38, 39. That the Promise here mentioned, refer'd to the Covenant made with Abraham, is certain from this Consideration, that the Covenant with Abraham, and that only, was a Promise both to his natural Seed, and to those who were then afar off; that is, to those Gentile Nations, who shall be called into a Church State. It therefore follows, that if this Promise gives a Claim to Baptism, (as the ci­ted Text assures us that it does) then all are to be bap­tized who are the Subjects of this Promise; these, the quoted Text assures us, were adult Professors, and their Children; and these, the original Covenant or Promise assures us, were Infants in their early Infancy.—Can any Man then forbid Water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Covenant of Promise as well as we?—And furthermore, what I would especially infer [Page 16] from this Text is, that the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, could not give a Claim to Baptism, and make it a Duty to be baptized, (as the Text teaches us that it does) if Baptism were not a Seal of that Covenant.—What Sense can possibly be made of the Apostle's Rea­soning, (Be baptized; for the Promise is unto you and your Children) if Baptism were not a Seal of that Promise? Consider you and see if you can find any other Reason than this only, why Baptism is enjoined on Account of our Interest in that Promise; if you can make no Sense of the Text in any other View of it, you must allow this to be its natural and necessary Meaning. This then is the Sum of the Matter: Circumcision is a Token or Seal of the Covenant of Grace. (Gen. xvii. 11. And it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you) And it is al­lowed on all Hands, that Baptism is a Token or Seal of the Covenant of Grace; it therefore follows, that since this Ordinance is administred to the very self-same Ends that the other was, it should also be administred to the same Subjects.

I cannot, I confess, be fully satisfied with this Reasoning, since there appears this great Difference in the Case; Circumcision was by God's express Institution to be administred to Infants, but there is no such Insti­tution with Respect to Baptism; methinks our Lord Je­sus Christ would have given us some plain Direction in this Matter, if he had design'd infant Baptism as a stand­ing Ordinance in his Church.

I am now proving to you, that the very same Institution which requires Circumcision to be administred to Infants, requires Baptism to be also administred to In­fants, in that each of these Ordinances were appointed as a Seal of the very self-same Covenant, and there­fore there needed no new Declaration with respect to the Subjects of this Seal; this was sufficiently provid­ed [Page 17] for by the original Institution.—To exemplify this to you, in a familiar Light: you hold your Lands by Patent made to your Grandfather, in the Reign of King James the Second, and sealed with a red Seal; now should King George call in all the Patents granted in that Reign, to receive a new Confirmation, by annexing his great Seal to them in white Wax, would there be any Occa­sion for a written Declaration, that this Seal confirmed the Lands to you, and to your Children and Heirs, when that is express contain'd in the very Body of the origi­nal Patent, which is nothing altered, but has only received a new Confirmation by the Seal annexed to it? The Ap­plication of this to the present Case is most easy and fa­miliar: The Patent sealed by Baptism is (so to speak) the very same Parchment that was given to Abraham, and therefore necessarily contains all the same Privileges and Benefits, and makes these over to the same Subjects; there is nothing altered, but the Seal only; that was a red, this is a white Seal.—What Necessity can there there­fore be of an express Declaration, that this Covenant under the Gospel Dispensation should be sealed to Infants, when it is already so fully provided for, by the original Patent? I entreat you. however, to remember, that I don't speak this by Way of Concession, that there is no Direc­tion in the New-Testament for the baptizing Infants: I have shewn you the contrary already, and may have fur­ther Occasion to illustrate that Point; but what I have now offered, is to convince you, that were this really so, we have a sufficient Institution of Infant Baptism, from the Abrahamitical Covenant.

The Circumcision of Infants was indeed requir­ed by the Covenant made with Abraham; why is it not then continued now, if we are under the same Cove­nant? How comes Baptism to take Place of it, and to be administred by virtue of that Covenant which requir­ed Circumcision?

Circumcision was a bloody Rite, and as such, was typical of the Blood of the great Sacrifice; and of Consequence must be abrogated upon its Completion in the Antitype: There could be no Propriety in continu­ing the Use of a sacred Sign of Christ's Blood hereafter to be shed, when his Blood had been shed already.—Our blessed Lord has therefore instituted another Seal of this Covenant, proper to commemorate our Redemption by his Blood; and to represent to us the cleansing Efficacy of that Blood, by which we have been redeem'd.—By the former Seal of this Covenant, the faithful were led to look to a Saviour to come and save them by his Blood; by the present Seal of this Covenant, the faithful are di­rected to look to that Saviour who is already come, and has redeem'd them with his Blood; and to look to that Blood as what alone will cleanse them from all Sin.

Thus I have fully prov'd to you, that the Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace; that it was made with him and with both his natural and spi­ritual Seed; that the Obligations of this Covenant ex­tend to the believing Gentiles, as well as to the Jews; and that one of the Obligations of this Covenant was, that it should be sealed to Infants in their early Infancy: Does it not therefore necessarily follow, tho' the Seal be changed, that it may be adapted to the present Dispensation, that yet we are by the Tenor of that Co­venant obliged to have it sealed by the new, as well as by the old Seal, to Infants in their early Infancy? Does it not necessarily follow, since an Interest in the Promise of this Covenant gives a Right to Baptism(as appears from Acts ii. 38, 39.) that our Children who have an Interest in the Promise of this Covenant (as is strongly asserted in the same Text) have thereby an un­doubted Right to Baptism?—Does it not necessarily follow, since the Blessing of Abraham is come on the [Page 19] Gentiles thro' Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit thro' Faith (Gal. iii. 14.) that sealing the Covenant to our Infant Seed, which was one of the great Blessings of Abraham, is also come on the Gentiles by Jesus Christ; and that since we receive the Promise thro' Faith, that God would be the God of Abraham and his Seed, we also should seal that Promise to our Infant Seed, as Abraham did?

There is (I confess) much more Appearance of Evidence in this Case than I have ever before consi­der'd; but yet I seem to want (methinks) some more satisfying Evidence, that Children under the present Dis­pensation are in the same Manner Partakers of the ex­ternal Blessings of the Covenant, as they were among the Jews.

Don't you think, that sealing the Covenant to the natural Seed of Abraham by Circumcision, was really a valuable Privilege and Blessing, to those Children who were the Subjects of that Ordinance? Or to use the A­postle's Question, What Profit was there in circumcision?Rom. iii. 1.

It must be acknowleged, that Circumcision was a rich Privilege and Blessing to the Infant Seed of Abra­ham; it was the Token of God's Covenant; it brought 'em into the Relation of God's visible Covenant Chil­dren; it brought 'em under the Advantage (when capa­ble) of enjoying the Oracles of God, and the Ordinances of God's House; and therefore to the Apostle's Questi­on, What Profit was there in Circumcision? I must an­swer as he did, Much every Way.—But how does this affect the State of Children under the present Dispen­sation?

It was under the legal Dispensation a great and glorious Privilege granted to Children, that they should enjoy the Seal of the Covenant; and I would now [Page 20] demand of you, how, why, and when Children were cut off from this Privilege? They either yet enjoy this Privilege, or they are some Way and for some Reason cut off from it.—Can you find any Scripture which deprives them of this Privilege? If not, how dare you do it?—Can you imagine that the Lord Jesus Christ came into the World to lessen our Privileges, or to cut off our Children from their Covenant Relation to God? Nav, are we not fully altered from numerous Texts of Scripture, that these Privileges of our Children are continued under the Gospel Dispensation?

What Texts of Scripture do you refer to?

I have already cited and made some Remarks upon Acts ii. 39. For the Promise is unto you and to your Children. To which I may add, Mat. xix. I4. Suffer little Children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.—How, and which Way should we bring our little Children to Christ, but in the Way of his Ordinances? If they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven (whether we understand by it the Kingdom of Grace, or the Kingdom of Glory) they must have a Right to the Privileges of that King­dom, and a Claim to have their Title sealed [...] by Baptism.—So likewise, Mat. xviii. 6. And whoso shall offend one of these little Ones which believe in me, [...] better for him that a Millstone were hanged about his Neck, and that he were drowned in the Depths of the Sea. That this little One here refer'd to, was in an Infant State, appears, not only because he is here called a little Child, ver.2. but also, because we are assured in Mark ix.36. (where we have a Narrative of the same Thing) that our Saviour took him in his Arms. Now then, if such little Children are reputed by him who is the Author and Finisher of our Faith, to be Believers in him, we see here a full Anticipation of the common Objection [Page 21] against the Baptism of Infants, and a Justification of their Claim to the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, as well as a strong Declaration of the awful Danger of offending these little Ones, by denying them the Covenant­Privileges, to which they have a righteous Claim.—We have in like Manner the same thing repre­sented to us, ICor. vii. 14. —Else were your Children unclean; but now are they holy. If either of the Parents be a Believer, the Children are reputed holy, that is, they have a Covenant Holiness, and have therefore a Claim to Covenant Privileges; such Children are holy, as God's ancient Israel are so often called an holy People; they are holy by Virtue of their Covenant Relation to God, and must therefore have a Right to have that Covenant sealed to them in Baptism.—I may add to this, that as the Commission to the sacred Ministry, Mat. xxviii. 19. enjoin'd the baptizing of all Nations, whereof Infants are a very great part; it also enjoin'd the baptizing Infants as a Part of the Nations they were to disciple and baptize; and it's plain, that the Apostles thus under­stood our Saviour's Meaning, and accordingly baptized Lydia and her Household, the Taylor and all his, Acts xvi. 15, 33. And the Household of Stephanus, 1 Cor. i. 16.—To add but one Text more, which must be allowed to be decisive in the present Case: We are assured, Rom. xi. from 17 to 25, that the Gentile Churches are grassed into the Jewish Stock, are Branches growing from the Root of that Olive-Tree, and partake of the Root and Fatness of it; and that the Jews, when converted to the Christian Faith, will be again grassed into their own Olive Tree. From whence it is most evident, that since the believing Gentiles are grassed into all the Privileges and spiritual Blessings of the Jewish Church, they cannot be cut off from that great Blessing and Privilege of having the Covenant sealed to their Infant Seed; and since [Page 22] the Jews are again to be grassed into their own Olive­Tree, their Children will, as formerly, be Partakers of the Fatness of it, and have the Covenant sealed to them. The Olive-Tree remains the same that it was before; the Gospel Dispensation manures and cultivates it, and makes it flourish more gloriously, but by no Means deprives it of any of its former Fatness.—Thus I have shewn you the bright Fulfilment of that ancient Prophecy in Jer. xxx. 9, 20. That under the Gospel Dispensation, when the Church shall serve the Lord their God, and Da­vid their King, whom be would raise up unto them,—their Children also should be as aforetime.

You have been so long in this Discourse, that I am almost lost, and can't so well retain the Connection and the Scope of your Reasoning.

You have acknowledged, that under the legal Dispensation, it was a great Privilege for Infants to en­joy the Seal of the Covenant; I have demanded of you, and must still demand of you an Account, how they came to lose this Privilege? The Infants of God's professing People once had this Privilege, and it may either be prov'd, that they are some Way depriv'd of it, or it must be allow'd, that they still enjoy it.—Here then the Cause might rest, till you can bring some rational and scriptural Evidence, that the coming of Christ, and the Dispensa­tion of the Gospel, has cut off these Branches from the Olive-Tree: but that I might fully satisfy you, I have prov'd to you, that Infants are not cut off from this precious Privilege; that the Covenant Promise is still made, and therefore still to be sealed to our Children; that little Ones do believe in Christ; do belong to the Kingdom of Heaven; have a Covenant Holiness; are a Part of the Nations whom Ministers are required to baptize; do belong to the same Olive-Tree now, as un­der the legal Dispensation, and should partake of all the [Page 23] Fatness of it; and are as aforetime; and should there­fore be suffered to come to Christ, partake of the Seal of the Covenant, and enjoy all the Privileges of the former Dispensation.—It therefore concerns you to take Heed that you don't offend these little Ones (by denying them these Privileges, which they have never forfeited) it were better for you, that a Millstone were hang'd about your Neck, and that you were drown'd in the Depths of the Sea.—Take Heed that you don't despise one of these little Ones, (by treat­ing them as unmeet or unqualified for a Covenant Rela­tion) for I say unto you, that in Heaven their Angels do al­ways behold the Face of my Father which is in Heaven, Mat. xviii. 10.

The Lord keep me from offending any (tho' but the least Infant) that belongs to him.—Your Rea­soning has surpriz'd me, and I dare not attempt to an­swer it; but, as you have already obviated some of my Difficulties, I entreat your Patience, while I mention some others, which yet prove too hard for me.

What are they?

I can't understand how the Commission, Mat. xxviii. 19. enjoins the baptizing of Infants, as a Part of all Nations, since the Ministers of the Gospel are requir­ed to teach them; and baptize them; now I can't under­stand how Infants can be taught, previous to their Bap­tism.

You can read Greek.

Yes, Sir, I can read and understand something of the Greek Testament, but not enough to criticise upon any difficult Text, without the Help of a Lexicon

Well, here take the Greek Testament, and see if there be any Thing of teaching, in the Greek Text, previous to Baptism.

I dare not presume to determine, whether the Greek Word (Mathêtêusate) signifies to teach, or not.

Here's a Lexicon; here are several Criticks upon the Greek Language; read, and see if they don't every one agree, that the Word signifies to Disciple, or constitute Learners, and not to teach: The Words ought therefore to be read, Go disciple all Nations, baptizing them; and it is accordingly rendred in the Margin of our English Bibles, make Disciples or Christians of all Na­tions.

I find, these Authors all agree with you, as to the Signification of the Greek Word; but I don't un­derstand how Infants can be made Disciples, and there­fore I can't understand how this Criticism upon the Text will help the Cause.

They may be made Disciples (or admitted into Christ's School, which is the same Thing) by Baptism; and so this Commission should be understood, as requir­ing the Ministers of the Gospel to make all Nations Dis­ciples, by baptizing them; and none, either Adult or Infants, are to be consider'd as visible Disciples of Christ, till they are baptized. Baptism is the Ordinance by which every one is to be entred into the School of Christ, and constituted a Learner of him.

Can you shew me any Text of Scripture, that gives the Denomination of Disciples to Infants? Could this be done, it would, I acknowledge, determine the Case.

Well, this can be done; you may find an In­stance full to the Purpose in Acts xv. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Dis­ciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear? The Yoke referred to was Circumcision, this was laid up­on the Neck of Infants at eight Days old; such Infants therefore are the Persons here called Disciples: and such Infants were then made Disciples by Circumcision, but now by Baptism. If there were some adult Persons in [Page 25] the then-present State of Things, upon whose Neck the Jewish Teachers would have laid the Yoke of Circumci­sion; yet you must own, that at least the greatest Part of those Disciples, upon whom they would have imposed this Yoke, were young Children.—But what need have we to enquire, whether the English Word Disciple is ex­pressly apply'd to Infants, when the Thing signified by it so often occurs in Scripture? Every Text of Scripture, which represents young Children as belonging to God, and to be his Sons and Daughters, and his Children (as the Children of his Covenant People are stiled, Ezek. xvi 20, 21.) declare them to be Disciples; for this repre­sents God's special Propriety in them, as belonging to God's School, under Obligation to learn of him, which is the true Notion of a Disciple.—Every Text of Scrip­ture which obliges us to take Care, that our Children which have not known any Thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord (as Deut. xxxi. 13.) To train up our Chil­dren in the Way they should go (as Prov. xxii. 6.) And to bring up our Children in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord (asEph. vi. 4.) obliges us to constitute them Lear­ners, or which is expresly the same Thing, to make them Disciples of Christ.—In a Word, Learners and Disciples are synonymous Terms, of the very same Significancy: and therefore, since the youngest Infants may be put into Christ's School, to be Learners of him, they may be made his Disciples, according to the Tenor of the Commission before consider'd.

I am satisfied upon that Point; but I have a­nother Difficulty before me, that I do not yet know how to get clear of; and that is, how it's possible that Infants who know nothing of Christ, can be Believers in him; Faith seems to be consider'd in the New-Tes­tament as a Pre-requisite to Baptism, and Baptism to be a Seal of our Faith in Christ; and how then can Infants be meet Subjects of it?

Don't you know, that this Argument could have been urg'd with the same Force against Circumcision, as it now can against Baptism? The Apostle assures us, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. iv. 11. And what Answer could have been given to one under the legal Dispensation, that should have argued at the Rate that you now do? ‘Circumcision is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith; but how is it possible that Infants, who know Nothing of a Saviour to come, can have Faith in him? And how then can they be meet Subjects of Circumcision? Shall the Seal be set to a Blank? Shall Righteousness of Faith be seal­ed to those who have it not? to those who are no Ways capable Subjects of it?’—Consider, I say, what Answer could have been given to such Reasoning, under the for­mer Dispensation. You must acknowledge, that some just Answer may be given to this Objection: you must otherwise suppose a positive Institution of God chargeable with Unreasonableness and Inconsistency. And whatever Answer to this Objection can possibly be devised, will serve for Answer to yours also: for the Case is exactly the same, without any Difference.

You have cut the Knot, but I would be glad to see it untied; and would willingly be inform'd, how Faith could either under the old or new Dispensation, be sealed to Infants, who seem not capable of the Exercise of Faith.

I have already shewn you, that our blessed Lord spake of Infants, or little Ones, which believe in him, Matth. xviii. 6. And if be reputed such to be Believers, it certainly becomes us to do so too.—You can't under­stand how Infants have the Exercise of Faith; neither can you understand how they have the Exercise of any other of the Graces of the blessed Spirit: but you can understand, that they must necessarily be united to Christ, [Page 27] and be renewed and sanctified by the blessed Spirit, since they must otherwise all be in a State of Guilt & Condem­nation. I think, you can't be so uncharitable, as to doom all Infants to final perdition, who die in Infancy: & there­fore you must allow them the Habit of Faith, and of every other Grace of the Spirit, without which they can have no Interest in Christ, nor be any Ways qualified for an Inheritance with the Saints in Light.—If Infants can be saved without an Union to Christ by Faith, it must be in a Way which the Gospel has never proposed.—And if they have (tho' but) the Principle and Habit of Faith, they have a Right to the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith—He that declares them Believers, and Members of the King­dom of Heaven, knows how to give them Faith, and to make them the Subjects, and in title them to the Privileges of that Kingdom.

I acknowledge, that I am bound to submit to the Force of this Reasoning, whether I can understand the Manner of the divine Operations upon the Souls of In­fants, or no.—There is, however, another Difficulty upon my Mind, which (tho' perhaps it may appear to you light and trifling) is Matter of great Perplexity to me; and that is, how can Baptism succeed to Circumcision, when this was administred to the Males only, but that is ad­ministred both Male and Female? And how can we be now obliged to administer the Seal of the Covenant both to our male and female Infants, by Virtue of that Insti­tution, which required the Administration of it to the Males only?

Circumcision was a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, both to the male and female Children of Abraham, tho' the Males only bare the Sign in their Flesh.—This appears from the original Institution. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee, [meaning both Male & Female] in their Generations, for an [Page 28] everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed (thy whole Seed) after thee. This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed (all thy Seed) after thee: Every Man Child among you shall be circumcised. Gen. xvii. 7, 10. I think, you dare not pretend, that the Females of Abraham's Posterity were not in Covenant with God: and it is certain, that you cannot pretend, this Covenant was sealed to the Females any other Way, than by the Circumcision of the Males. But tho' Females were not capable Subjects of that typical Seal of the Covenant, the Case is altered under the present Dispensa­tion: and the Apostle tells us, Gal. iii. 27, 28, 29. that as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ: And that none of the Distinctions of the ancient Dispensa­tion now remain; There is neither Jew nor Greek, the one in Covenant, and the other not; There is neither Male nor Female, the one personally to receive the Seal of the Covenant, and the other not: For ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra­ham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise. The Cove­nant has been sealed according to the Nature of the respective Dispensations. According to the legal and typical Dispensation, it was sealed to the Seed of Abraham after the Flesh, while the Greeks or Gentile Nations were excluded; it was sealed to all his Seed, in the Persons of the Males only, who alone were capable Subjects of that bloody typical Rite. But now under the Gospel-Dispen­sation, this middle Wall of Partition is broken down, and none of these legal Distinctions remain. As many as are baptized into Christ, whether they be Jew or Greek, Bond or Free, Male or Female, are all one in Christ Jesus, all Abraham's Seed, all Heirs according to the Promise, according to that Promise which was made to us and to our Children.

You have fully removed this Difficulty also; and yet I must entreat you to bear with me while I pro­pose one Objection more.—There are some who suppose the Promise mention'd Acts ii. 39. (which you have several Times taken Notice of) instead of being as you suppose the Promise made to Abraham, is the Promise of that Effusion of the Spirit predicted by Joel, and apply'd to that extraordinary Descent of the Holy Ghost, with his miraculous Gifts upon the Day of Pentecost: this Pro­mise you know, is mention'd by the Apostle in the 16th Verse of that Chapter; and why should be not refer to the same Promise in the 39th Verse, which he had been speaking of but a little before?

Do you seriously think, that those miraculous Gifts predicted by Joel, are the Matter of that Promise which gives a Claim to Baptism? If so, none have a Right to Baptism, but they who have the Gift of Prophecy, who see Visions, and dream Dreams.—Do you seriously think, that this Promise of miraclous Gifts was made to all the Christian Jews and their Children, and to all that are afar off, to all the Gentiles whom the Lord our God shall call into a Church-State? Or has that Promise ever been fulfilled to them? The mere Mention of such trifling Supposals is a sufficient Refutation of 'em.—I have al­ready shewn you, that there is no other Promise made both to Jews & Gentiles, which can give a Right to Baptism, but only the Promise which was made to Abraham.—This Promise was of such vast Importance, so well known and so much consider'd, that when mention'd by the Apostles, it is emphatically called The Promise, without any special Declaration, what Promise is meant; this very frequently occurs in the New-Testament, with respect to the promise made to Abraham; but I ha'n't observ'd it ever to occur with Relation to any other Promise whatsoever. To this Purpose, see Rom. iv. 14, 16. Rom. [Page 30] ix. 8. Gal. iii.17, 19, 22. Gal. iv. 28. Eph. ii 12. Heb. xi.39. and many other Places.—By all which it evidently appears, that the Promise refer'd to, must be the Promise made to Abraham, and in him to all Chris­tians and their Children, whether they be Jews or Gen­tiles; and to them, to all of them, it gives a just Claim to Baptism.

You will perhaps think me impertinent, if I should desire a fuller and plainer Solution of the common Objection, that there is no express Mention of the Bap­tism of Infants in the New-Testament.

I have already shewn you, that by a divine per­petual Institution the Covenant of Grace is to be Sealed to Believers, and to their Infant Seed.—It therefore lies at your Door to prove, that the coming of our blessed Saviour, and the more excellent Dispensation of the Gospel, has cut off Infants from this most precious and valuable Pri­vilege; and that the Gospel is a less glorious Dispensa­tion with Respect to Infants, than the former Dispensa­tion was; that instead of bringing them any new Advan­tages, it has depriv'd them of those which they formerly enjoy'd.—This, I think, you won't attempt to prove, and therefore you must allow, that their perpetual Right to have the Covenant of Grace sealed to'em, still remains, by Force of the original Institu­tion, and is by no Means vacated.—You require express New-TestamentProof, that Infants are to be baptized; and I require of you express New-Testament Proof, that Women should partake of the Lord's Supper: prove the latter by what Arguments you please, and I will prove the former by the same.—Are Women in Covenant? So are the Infants of believing Parents.—Are Women Believ­ers? So are some Infants.—Are Women Disciples of Christ? So are some Infants.—Are Women Part of the Nations, to whom the Ministers of the Gospel are commissioned & [Page 31] sent? So are Infants.—Have Women a Claim to have the Covenant sealed to 'em? So have the Infantsof believing Parents likewise.—All these Things with respect to Infants, I have fully proved to you already; and what would you have more? And I have also shewn you, that Lydia and her Houshold, that the Taylor and all his, and that the Household of Stephanus, were baptized; and there is no Room to doubt, but that in those Families (at least in some of them) there were such Children, as were not capable, personally and explicitly, to Covenant for themselves.—Is not here Matter of sufficient Satisfaction to any unprejudiced Person, that is not resolved against Conviction?

Sir, I heartily thank you for your Pains upon this Head. If now you can remove my Difficulties also with respect to the Mode of administring the Ordinance, I shall be fully satisfied.

I hope, this may be easily done: Can you find any Thing like an Institution for Dipping or Plunging, in the New-Testament?

Yes, Sir, the original Commission, which requires the Ministers of the Gospel to batize, requires them to dip; it being the natural Signification of the Greek Word, Baptize, to dip, to plunge, or overwhelm with Water.

There can be nothing more chimerical, than this Pretence. I have never seen one single Lexicographer or Critick upon the Greek Language, but what agrees, that tho' the Word Baptize sometimes signifies todip, yet it also naturally signifies to wash; and that Washing (in any Mode whatsoever) is the native Signification of the Word Baptismos.—Here are Scapula, Stephanus, Schrivelius, Passor, Martin, and Leigh, (the Books you but now look'd into upon the other verbal Debate) search them, and see if they don't every one of 'em justi­fy my Explication of the Words Baptizo and Baptismos.

They do (I confess) all of 'em explain the Words in your Favour.—How strange a Thing is this, that learned Men should so strongly and confidently con­tradict one another in an Affair of this Nature! Which Way can we come at any Certainty in this important Enquiry?

The directest Method to be ascertained of the true Meaning of these Words, is, to consider how they are used in the New-Testament; the inspired Writers certainly knew in what Sense the Words were used by our blessed Lord, and in what Sense they themselves un­derstood them.

This seems indeed to be the surest and most satisfying Method of Enquiry into this Matter: you'll therefore oblige me, by giving me a just View of the Use of these Words in the New-Testament.

It would take too much Time to enumerate all the Places where these Words occur; or to make par­ticular Remarks upon such Passages as I shall enumerate: I shall only propose some brief [...]ints, which will be suf­ficient to clear this Case beyond any just Matter of Doubt or Objection.—The Descent of the Holy Ghost in cloven Tongues like Fire upon the Apostles and Com­pany, and upon Cornelius and Company, was called bap­tizing, Acts. i.5. and Chap. xi. 16. You can't pretend that here was the least Allusion to or Resemblance of Dipping, or Plunging, in this Use of the Word.—Our blessed Saviour's Persecution and Crucifixion is called the Baptism he was baptized withal, Mark x. 38, 39. I think, you will readily allow, that being buffetted, spit upon, and lifted up upon the Cross, bears no Resem­blance, nor can have any Allusion to Dipping, or Plung­ing.—It is said of the Pharisees and all the Jews, that when they come from the Market, except they wash (Bap­tisontal) they eat not. And many other Things there be, [Page 33] which they have received to hold, as the washing (Baptis­mous) of Cups, and Pots, brazen Vessels, and of Tables (or BEDS, as the original Word properly signifies, and ought to be translated.) I think, this is an unexceptionable Instance of these Words signifying Washing, without Dip­ping or Plunging: for you yourself can hardly suppose, that they dipt themselves under Water every Time they came from the Market, or that they dipt their BEDS every Time they sat or lay upon them. We are told, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. that all the Fathers were under the Cloud, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud. I think, I need not seriously undertake to convince you, that the Fathers were not dipt in the Cloud; but that the Rain from the Cloud bore a much greater Resemblance to Sprinkling or Affusion, than to Dipping.—I shall only add, that the Apostle speaking of the ceremonial Dispensati­on, tells us, that it flood only in Meats and Drinks, and diverse Washings (Baptismous) and carnal Ordinances, Heb. ix. 10. The Principal of these Washings (or Baptisms) of which the ceremonial Dispensation consisted, the Apostle exemplifies to us in the 13th Verse, to be the Blood of Bulls, and of Goats, and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the Unclean. Here therefore the Word cannot, with any Appearance of Modesty, be explain'd in your Fa­vour. From all this it therefore necessarily follows, that the Words Baptise and Baptism, do not from their Sig­nification make Dipping, or Plunging, the necessary Mode of administring the Ordinance.

But now let us turn the Tables, and see if you can find any one Place in the New-Testament, where these Words necessarily carry Dipping, or Plunging, in their Signification: If you can't (as I am confident you can't) find one Instance of this kind, you have Reason to be for ever silent upon that Head.

Well! whatever be the Signification of these Words, you must acknowledge, that Dipping was the first Mode of administring the Ordinance of Baptism: There are a Variety of Instances of this Kind, that seem to carry this Matter beyond Doubt.

I must acknowledge my very great Ignorance, if the Matter be as you represent it: I have with very careful Application look'd into this Case, and could ne­ver yet find one Single Instance of that Mode of admi­nistring the Ordinance, in all the New-Testament.—There are, I confess, some Passages in our English Tran­slation of the Bible, which have that Appearance: But if you will look into the original Greek, you will find, that none of those Texts will necessarily Prove, that any one Person was baptized by dipping, either by John Bap­tist, our blessed Saviour, or his Apostles.—But then on the contrary, there are a Variety of Instances of the ad­ministring this Ordinance, which give us sufficient Evi­dence, that Dipping was not, could not be, the Mode of Administration.

This is surprizing! Don't we read. Matth. iii. 6. that they were baptized of John in Jordan, Confes­sing their Sins? How could they be baptized in Jordan, if they were not dipt in that River?

Don't we read, Joh. ix. 7. that the blind Man was directed to go and wash his Eyes in the Pool of Si­loam? May I not as justly argue. How could he wash them in the Pool, if he did not dip himself in it?—Don't we read, 2 Chron. iv. 6. that Solomon made ten Lavers; and put five on the right Hand, and five on the left to wash in them? May I not again as justly demand, How could they wash in those Basons, without dipping in them?—Don't we commonly wash our Face and Hands in a Bason of Water, without dipping in it?—If those Words therefore cited by you, are understood according to the [Page 35] usual approved Mode of speaking, they will afford no Argument at all for Dipping in Baptism.

We are told, Joh. iii. 23. that John was bap­tizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was much Water there. what Occasion had he for much Water, if not to dip the Multitudes that resorted to him?

The Words in the Original are (budata polla) many Waters; which implies many Springs or Brooks of Water;—Waters suited to the Necessity and Conveni­ency of the vast Multitudes that resorted to John, as a Supply of Drink for themselves and for the Horses or Camels which they rode upon, as well as for their Bap­tism: Here is no Appearance of Dipping in the Case.—Had John baptized all these Multitudes by Dipping, he must have stood almost continually in Water up to his Waste, and could not have survived the Employment, but by Miracle.

We read, Matth. iii. 16. And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the Water. And in Acts viii. 38, 39. that Philip and the Eunuch went into the Water; and came up out of the Water. Which seem plainly to intimate, that our blessed Saviour and the Eunuch were baptized by dipping.

As to the first of these Instances, there is no more in the Original, than that our Saviour went up straightway (apo) FROM the Water. I think you will allow, that the Greek Preposition (Apo) always naturally signifies FROM, but never OUT OF: and therefore that Instance can stand you in no Stead.

I believe, your Remark upon that Text is just: But how will that affect the second Instance?

I have the same Remark to make upon the second Instance also: There can be no more proved from this Text, than that Philip and the Eunuch went down to the Water, and came up from it; the Preposition [Page 36] (iii) there rendered into, naturally signifies unto, and is commonly so used in the New-Testament. Thus, Matth. xv. 24. UNTO the lost Sheep. Joh. xiii. 1. UNTO the End. Joh. vii. 8. UNTO the Feast. 1 Thes. i. 5. Our Gospel came not UNTO you, &c. See likewise Matth. xvi. 21. Luk. ii. 22. Chap. Ix. 53. In all which and many other Places, the Preposition is used in the Sense I plead for, and cannot with any Modesty be ren­dered INTO. I might add one Instance more, which I am sure you must acknowledge to be altogether un­exceptionable: it is in John xx. 45. And the other Disciple did out-run Peter, and came first TO the Sepulchre (eis to mnemion) yet went he not in.—I hope, by this Time you are satisfied, that there is no Evidence from this Text, that the Eunuch was baptized by Dipping.

But did they not both come up out of the Water? How could they come out of the Water, if they were not in it?

The Greek Preposition (EK) here rendered out of, properly signifies from; as might be illustrated to you by innumerable Instances. (See to this Purpose, Luke i. 35. Acts xvii.33. Acts xviii. I—2 Pet. i. 18. Rev. xiv. 17. &c.) But I need not multiply Quotations, since every Greek Lexicon and Critick agree to this Signification of the Preposition.—Thus you have hitherto failed of producing one single Instance, that will conclude in your Favour, and make it evident that Baptism was ever ad­ministred by Dipping, in the Beginning of the Gospel­Dispensation.

What Reason can be assigned for such express Mention in the cited Texts, of going to the Water, and coming from the Water, at the Administration of Baptism, if the Ordinance was not administred by Dipping?

It is remarkable, that there is no mention of going to, or coming from the Water, when the Ordinance [Page 37] was administred in a City or Place of Habitation, but in the Wilderness only, where there was probably no conve­nient Vessel, to bring Water for the sacred Solemnity.

The Apostle tells us, Rom. vi. 4. That we are buried with Christ by Baptism into Death.—Now what Resemblance is there in Baptism to a Burial, unless it be administred by Dipping?

We are also taught in the foregoing Verse, that we are baptized into Christ's Death: Now what Resemblance is there in Baptism to Christ's dying upon the Cross, if we are baptized by Dipping? Was there any Thing like Dipping, in our Saviour's Crucifixion?—If we consider the Words cited by you, what is it, that Baptism (upon your Acceptation of the Words) must resemble, according to the Letter of that Text? Is it not Christ's being buied into Death? This (if any such Resemblance be designed) is plainly the Thing to be imitated, according to the express Words of that Text. And was Christ indeed literally buried into Death? Was his Burial the Cause of his Death? Or would you have such a Manner of Death resembled in Baptism, by drowning Men when you baptize them? Could the Apostle, by the Words before us, design to communicate any such Idea as this? No certainly!—It is most evident, that this Text has no Reference at all to the Imitation, either of Christ's Death or Burial, or to any particular Mode of administring that Ordinance but the plain manifest Scope of the Words is, to shew us our Obligation by Baptism, unto a Conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ, by dying unto Sin, and rising again unto Newness of Life.—And the same Answer will serve for the parallel Text, Col. ii. 12.

I must acknowledge, that you have indeed answered my Objections; & sufficiently prov'd, that we cannot certainly conclude from the Instances cited by me, that Baptism was administred by Dipping or Plunging. [Page 38] But still does it not look probable, that this was the Mode of Administration? And the more so, because there is no Appearance of Evidence in the whole New-Testament to the contrary?

Either you or I are in a great Mistake in this Matter.—We read, Acts ii. 41. That there were three Thousand baptized at Jerusalem in one Day (most cer­tainly towards the close of the Day) and was there any Probability (I had almost said, Possibility) that they should all be baptized by Dipping in so short a Time? Or is it probable, that they could so suddenly find Water sufficient in that City, for the Dipping of such a Multitude; espe­cially, while they were yet so firmly attached to the Ceremonial Institution, which made it unlawful for two Persons to be dipt in the same Vessel of Water?—The Narrative of Paul's Baptism makes it appear to be administred in his Bed-Room, where he had lain three Days blind, without Meat & Drink; but upon Ananias's speaking to him received sight forthwith, and arose, and was Baptized. Acts ix. 9, 18.—The Words of the Text seem plainly to contradict the dipping of Cornelius and his Houshold. Acts x. 47 Can any Man forbid Water, that these should not be baptized? Certainly the Apostle did not speak of forbidding the Water to run in the River, or to remain in any other Receptacle or Reservoir of Water: and therefore must speak of bringing Water for their Baptism; the Words must in any other Sense be altogether unintelligible.—The Taylor and his Houshold were baptized in the dead of the Night, in the same Hour of his Conviction by the Earthquake: and therefore there was no Probability (nor indeed Possibility) of their going to any Depth of Water, for that Purpose. Acts xvi. 33. And he took them the same Hour of the Night, and washed their Stripes; and was baptized, be and all his, straightway.— These Instances are sufficient to convince [Page 39] any unprejudiced Person, that the Ordinance was not ad­ministred by Dipping, in the Apostolick Times.

As Dipping was the Mode of the greatest Pu­rification among the Jews, in that typical Dispensation, does it not make it look probable, that the same Mode would be continued in that Ordinance, which is to re­present our Purification by the Blood of Christ, and by the Influences of the blessed Spirit?

This Query is founded upon a great Mistake. For the Blood of Bulls, and of Goats, and the Ashes of an Heifer (or the Water of Purification) SPRINKLING the Unclean, was the greatest Purification among the Jews. Lev. xvi. 14, 16. Numb. xix. 2, 17. Heb. ix. 13. Ac­cordingly our Cleansing by the Blood of Christ, and by the Influences of the blessed Spirit, are frequently repre­sented by Sprinkling, but never by Dipping. Thus, 1 Pet. i. 2. Thro' Sanctification of the Spirit unto Obedience, and SPRINKLING of the Blood of Jesus Christ. Heb. xii. 24. And to the Blood of SPRINKLING, that speaketh bet­ter Things than that of Abel. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. I will SPRINKLE clean Water upon you; and ye shall be clean. So likewise, Isa. lii. 15. So shall he SPRINKLE many Nations.—In like Manner the Influences of the Spirit are represented by Affusion. Prov. i. 23. I will POUR my Spirit unto you. See also Isa. xiiv. 3. Joel ii. 28, 29. Acts ii. 17, 18.—I may therefore Justly retort your Ar­gument. Since Sprinkling was the greatest Purification amongst the Jews, and the Blood of Christ and the In­fluences of the Holy Spirit are frequently represented by Sprinkling, and by Affusion, but never by Dipping; it is a natural and just Conclusion, that our Mode of admini­string the Ordinance of Baptism is a more lively Emblem of what is signified and represented by it, than Dipping or Plunging can be supposed: and therefore that ours is the most proper Mode of Administration.

Sir, you have, beyond my Expectation, re­moved all my Difficulties, and given me full Satisfaction. I heartily thank you for your Pains; and entreat your Prayers, that I may no more be like a Wave of the Sea, driven with the Wind, and tossed.— I have already robb'd you of too much of your Time, and must there­fore take my Leave.

Farewel, Neighbour: I heartily rejoice, that I have been so successful in my Endeavours to convince you of your Mistake, and to reduce you to the Acknow­ledgement of such an important Truth. I pray GOD, that you may not only acknowledge, but live answera­ble to the Obligations of your baptismal Covenant.