not have been always the fame. This external administration, according to himself, was first by facrifices, and then by circumcifion, and now by baptism; for what else he means by an external adminiftration, than an adminiftration of ordinances, cannot be conceived; and then by infants being in the covenant, is no other than having ordinances administered to them; and fo their being in the covenant now, is no other than their being baptized; and yet he fays, "the "main foundation of the right of infants to baptifm, is their intereft in the co"venant;" that is, the external administration they are under, or the adminis tration of baptifm to them, is the main foundation of their right to baptifm. They are baptized, therefore they are and ought to be baptized; fuch an account of covenant-intereft, and of right to baptism from it, is a mere begging the question, and proving idem per idem, yea is downright nonfenfe and contradiction and fo, when baptifm is faid to be the feal of the covenant, that is, of the external adminiftration, which administration is that of baptifm, the fenfe is, baptifm is the feal of baptifm. This fenfelefs jargon is the amount of all the reasonings throughout this chapter: Such myfterious ftuff, fuch glaring contradictions, and ftupid nonfenfe, I leave him and his admirers to please themselves with.

5. From hence it appears, that the clamorous out-cry of cutting off infants from their covenant-right, and fo abridging and leffening their privileges, is all a noise about nothing; fince it is in vain to talk about cutting off from the covenant of grace, when they were never in it; as the natural feed of believers, as fuch, never were, under any difpenfation whatever; and even what is pleaded for, is only an external administration, which neither conveys grace, nor fecures any fpiritual bleffings; wherefore what privileges are infants deprived of by not being baptized? Let it be fhewn if it can, what fpiritual bleffings infants faid to be baptized have, which our infants unbaptized have not; to instance in baptifm itself, would be begging the queftion; it would ftill be asked, what spiritual privilege or profit comes to an infant by its baptifm? If our infants have as many, or the fame privileges under the gospel-difpenfation, without baptifm, as others have with it; then their privileges are not abridged or leffened, and the clamour must be a groundless one. To fay, that baptism admits into the chriftian church, as circumcifion into the Jewish church, are both falfe, as has been proved already; our author, it feems, did not know, that a national church was a carnal one; whereas a national church can be no other, fince all born in a nation are members of it, and become fo by their birth, which is carnal; for, whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh. Whereas a gofpel-church, gathered out of the world, does, or fhould confift, only of fuch who are born again, and have an understanding of spiritual things. This writer feems to fug

geft,

geft, that if infants are not admitted to this external adminiftration, and feal of the covenant he pleads for, their condition is deplorable, and there is no ground of hope of their eternal falvation; and does their being admitted into this external adminiftration make their condition better with refpect to everlafting falvation? not at all; fince, according to our author, perfons may be in this, and yet not in the covenant of grace, as hypocrites may be; and he diftinguishes this vifible and external adminiftration from the fpiritual difpenfation and efficacy of the covenant of grace; fo that perfons may be in the one, and yet be everlastingly loft; and therefore what ground of hope of eternal falvation does this give? or what ground of hope does non-admiffion into it deprive them of? Is falvation infeparably connected with baptifm? or does it enfure it to any? How unreafonable then, and without foundation, is this clamorous outcry? And now, Sir, we are come to

The fifth chapter of my treatife, which confiders the feveral texts of fcripture produced in favour of Infant-baptifm; and the first is As ii. 38, 39. Now, not to take notice of this author's foolish impertinencies, and with which his book abounds, and would be endlefs to obferve; for which reafon I mention them not, that I might not fwell this letter too large, and impofe upon your patience in reading it; you will eafily obferve, Sir, the puzzle and confufion he is thrown into to make the exhortation to repent, urged in order to the enjoyment of the promife, to agree with infants; and which is mentioned as previous to baptism, and in order to it. That this paffage can furnish out no argument in favour of Infant-baptifm, will appear by the plain, clear, and eafy fenfe of it; Peter had charged the Jews with the fin of crucifying Chrift; their confciences were awakened, and loaded with the guilt of it; in their diftrefs, being pricked to the heart, they inquire what they should do, as almost despairing of mercy to be fhewn to fuch great finners; they are told, that notwithstanding their fin was fo heinous, yet if they truly repented of it, and fubmitted to Chrift and his ordinances, particularly to baptifm, the promise of life and falvation belonged to them, nor need they doubt of an interest in it: and whereas they had impre cated his blood, not only upon themselves, but upon their pofterity, more immediate and more remote, for which they were under great concern; they are told this promife of falvation by Chrift reached to them alfo, provided they repented and were baptized; and which is the reafon that mention is made of their chil dren; yea, even to them that were afar off, their brethren the Jews in diftant countries, that should hear the gospel, repent and believe, and be baptized; or fhould live in ages to come in the latter day, and should look on him whom they have pierced, and mourn; and fo has nothing to do with the covenant with Abraham

Abraham and his natural feed, and much lefs with the Gentiles and theirs and be it fo, that the Gentiles are meant by those afar off, which may be admitted, fince it is fometimes a defcriptive character of them; yet no mention is made of their children; and had they been mentioned, the limiting claufe, even as many as the Lord our God fhall call, plainly points at, and describes the perfons intended; not among the Gentiles only, but the Jews alfo, as agreeable to common sense and the rules of grammar; and is to be understood only of the Jews that are called by grace, and of their children, that are effectually called, and of the Gentiles called with an holy calling, as the perfons to whom the promife belongs; and which appears evident by their repentance and baptifm, which this is an encouraging motive to; and therefore can be understood only of adult perfons, and not of infants; and of whose baptifm not a fyllable is mentioned, nor can it be inferred from this paffage, or established by it.

II. The next paffage of fcripture produced in favour of Infant-baptifm, and to as little purpose, is Matthew xix. 14. it is owned by our author, that thefe children were not brought to Chrift to be baptized by him; and that they were not baptized by him; these things, he fays, they do not affirm. For what then is the paffage produced? why, to fhew, that infants become profelytes to Christ by baptifm; and is not this to be baptized? what a contradiction is this? And afterwards another felf-contradiction follows: he imagines these infants had been baptized already, and yet were commanded to become profelytes by baptifm, and fo Anabaptifts; but how does it appear that it was the will of Chrift they should become profelytes to him this way? from the etymology of the Greek word, which fignifies to come to; fo, wherever the word is ufed of perfons as coming to Chrift, it is to be understood of their becoming profelytes to him by baptism: it is used in Matthew xvi. 1. the Pharifees also with the Sadducees-mejoradores, "came tempting him." Did they become profelytes to him by baptifm? what stupid stuff is this? nay the Devil himself is faid to come to him, and when the Tempter, came to him, he faid, &c. Mat thew iv. 3. our author furely does not think he became a profelyte to him. That it was the custom of the Jews, before the times of Chrift, to baptize the children of profelytes, is not a fact fo well attefted, as is faid; the writings from whence the proof is taken, were written fone hundreds of years after Christ's time; and the very first perfons that mention it, difpute it; one affirm-' ing there was fuch a cuftom, and the other denying it; and were it fo, fince it was only a tradition of the elders at beft, and not a command of God, it is not credible that our Lord fhould follow it, or enforce fuch a practice on his followers: the coming of these children was merely corporal, whatever it was for, and temporary; there is no other way of coming to Chrift, or becoming profelytes VOL. II. 3 L

to

to him, but by believing in him, embracing his doctrines, and obeying his commands; and when children are capable of these things, and do them, we are ready to acknowledge them the profelytes of Chrift, and admit them to baptifm: nor does the reason given in the text, for of fuch is the kingdom of heaven, prove their right to baptifm; for not to infift on the metaphorical fenfe of these words, which yet Calvin gives into; but fuppofing infants litterally are meant, the king dom of heaven cannot be understood of the gofpel-church-ftate; which is not national but congregational, confifting of men gathered out of the world by the grace of God, and who make a public profeffion of Chrift, which infants are not capable of, and fo not taken into it; and were they, they must have an equal right to the Lord's fupper as to baptifm, and of which they are equally capable; for does the Lord's fupper require in the receivers of it a competent measure of christian knowledge, the exercise of reafon and understanding, and their active powers, as this writer fays, fo does baptifm. But by the kingdom of heaven, is meant the heavenly glory; and we deny not, that there are infants that belong to it, though who they are, we know not; nor is this any argument for their admifion to baptifm; it is one thing what Chrift does himself, he may admit them into heaven; it is another thing what we are to do, the rule of which is his revealed will: we cannot admit them into a church-state, or to any ordinance, unless he has given us an order fo to do; and befides, it is time enough to talk of their admiffion to baptifm, when it appears they have a right unto, and a meetnefs for the kingdom of heaven.

III. Another paffage brought into this controversy is Matthew xviii. 16. this is owned to be lefs convictive, becaufe interpreters are divided about the fenfe of it; fome understanding it of children in knowledge and grace, others of children in age, to which our author inclines, for the fake of his hypothesis; though he knows not how to reject the former: my objections to the latter fense, he fays, have no great weight in them; it feems they have fome. I will add a little more to them, fhewing that not little ones in a litteral, but figurative fenfe, are meant, even the difciples of Chrift, that actually believed in him: the word here used is different from that which is used of little children, ver. 3. and is manifeftly used of the difciples of Chrift, Matthew x. 42. and the parallel text in Mark ix. 41, 42. moft clearly fhews, that the little ones that believed in Chrift, which were not to be offended, were his apoftles, that belonged to him; quite contrary to what this writer produces it for; who has moft miferably mangled and tortured this paffage: Moreover there was but one little child, Chrift took and fet in the midft of his difciples, whereas he has regard to several little ones then prefent, and whom, as it were, he points unto; one of which to of fend, would be refented; and plainly defigns the apoftles then prefent, who

not

not only had the principle of faith, but exercised it, as the word ufed fignifies; and who were capable of being scandalized, and of having ftumbling-blocks thrown in their way, and taking offence at them; which infants in age are not capable of: that fenfeless rant of cutting off infants from their right in the covenant of falvation, and from the privileges of the gospel, (I suppose he means by denying baptism to them) being an offence and injury to them, and the whining cant upon this, are mean and despicable: his reasons, why the apostles of Chrift cannot be meant, because contending for pre-eminence, they discovered a temper of mind opposite to little children, has no force in it; for Chrift calls them little ones, partly because they ought to be as little children, ver. 3. and in fome fense were fo; and partly to mortify their pride and vanity, as well as to express his tender affection and regard for them, fee ver. 10. and fince infants are not meant, it is in vain to dispute about their faith, either as to principle or act, and what right that gives to baptifm; and efpecially fince profeffion of faith, and confent to be baptized, are neceffary to the administration of that ordinance, and to the fubjects of it.

IV. Next we have his remarks on the exceptions to the fenfe of 1 Corinthians vii. 14. contended for: the fenfe of internal holiness derived from parents to children is rejected by him; but there is another, which he feems to have a good will unto: he fays there are some reasons to fupport it, and he does not object to it; yet chooses not to adhere to it, though if eftablished, would put an end to the controverfy; and that is, that the word fanttified fignifies baptized, and the word boly, chriftians baptized; and then the fenfe is, "the unbelieving "husband is baptized by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is bap"tized by the believing husband; elfe were your children unbaptized, but "now they are baptized chriftians;" the bare mention of which is confutation fufficient. The sense our author prefers is a visible federal holiness: but what that holiness is, for any thing he has faid to clear it, remains in the dark: covenant-holiness, or what the covenant of grace promifes, and fecures to all interested in it, is clear and plain, internal holiness of heart, and outward holinels of life and converfation flowing from that: But are the infants of believers, as fuch, partakers of this holiness? or is fuch holiness as this communicated unto, or does it appear upon all the natural feed of believers? This will not be faid; experience and facts are against it; they are born in fin, and are by nature children of wrath, as others; and many of them are never partakers of real holiness, and are as profligate as others; and on the other hand, fome of the children of unbelievers are partakers of true holiness: if it be said, and which feems to be our author's meaning, that it is fuch a holiness the people of the Tews

3L 2

Ezek. xxxvi, 25-27.