YOu are sensible, Antipoe­dobaptista, that Scepticism and Impiety have not only spoiled the Beauty, but are ready to Prey upon the Vitals of Religion.

The Complaint is General; but I am afraid the case of Religion is Despe­rate, and her wound Incurable.

It will certainly prove so, if Men be resolv'd to hazard the Common Cause of Religion for the sake of Private Opinion and Humour.

Pray who are they that do it?

All those, who either begin, or hold up the Heats, and Contentions, that first un­settled, and then turn'd Men from Practical Godliness: For ever since different Appre­hensions diverted Mens Zeal into the Chan­nel of Controversie; It hath, like a Mighty Torrent, born down before it all Religious Stedfastness and true Devotion: for when one Truth is undermined, it makes way for the shaking, if not overwhelming all other.

But what measures are now to be taken? For our Disputes are now as keen, and many, as ever they were.

The only Remedy now left, is can­didly, and conscientiously to consider of the Matters in Debate; and wherein we cannot agree, charitably to bear with each other.

Difference in Opinion, I know, will strangely alienate Mens Minds; But I bless God it never had that power over me, as to drive me from Communion with those that dissent from me, if in other things Or­thodox and Sober: But yet I will not dis­semble my Temptations to the contrary, I have sometimes been ready to have harsh Thoughts of all Christians that were not just mine own Length; but when I reflected up­on mine own Infirmities and Ignorance, I perceiv'd, I needed the compassion and for­bearance of my Neighbour, as much as he [Page 3]did mine; Then I understood the Use of the great Gospel Command of Love, and ever since I am griev'd to see Men revive, length­en, or aggravate. Controversies that concern, or threaten not the Ruine of Fundamental Principles.

You speak well, and like a Christian; tho some of your peevish Brethren will think you too moderate, and censure you as no up­right Man, for halting betwixt two Opinions. However, to requite your Kindness, I shall ac­quaint you with a Rul'd Case amongst our Divines, that is, That a meer Antipaedobap­tist is to be receiv'd into Church Communi­on, if he will Promise to give no Disturbance by his Opinion; and our practice is confor­mable. Don't you think then, we have great Reason deeply to resent that unseasonable opposition, the Men of your way have late­ly made, by Letters, Printing, and Preaching, without the least provocation from us? Af­ter so fair a Profession of Catholick Love as you have already made, give me leave for our Vindication, calmly and plainly to ac­quaint you with the Grounds of Infant-Bap­tism. I hope you will be more Impartial than those that have their Credit, or Interest engag'd in the Controversy.

I willingly assent to your Pro­posal.

And I shall think my self happy to hear the Point amicably discust; for since by Reading and Company, I began to enter­tain Objections about Infants Baptism, I reap no manner of advantage by that Ordinance: [Page 4]This Friendly Conference (by God's As­sistance) may tend to restore me to my for­mer stedfastness.

That our way may be the more clear, I must put you in mind, that we are very suspicious of Consequences. We think there must be plain words for every Institu­tion, and Consequences ought to be Genu­ine.

It is evidently to me the suspicion of a weak Cause, when the Defenders of it are forced, for their Security, to declare a­gainst Consequences; This is but a Blind they raise up, to hinder the Light, which they are afraid should discover them. Read the New Testament, and you will find, Christ and his Apostles did frequently prove their Do­ctrines by Consequences. How did our Bles­sed Saviour Prove the Resurrection against the Sadduces? Was it not by Consequences? and that from a Passage, which at first sight, one would scarce have thought would genu­inely afforded such a Consequence; And one would think there was as much in [I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee] to prove the Right of Believers Children in the Covenant, as in the one half of it, [I am thy God:] to prove the Resurrection of Belie­vers themselves. How doth the Apostle Paul prove that the Gospel was to be Prea­ched to the Gentiles, but by Consequence? Act. 13.46.47. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken unto you [ye Jews] but seeing you put it from [Page 5]you, and judge your selves unworthy of Ever­lasting Life, loe we turn to the Gentiles. Ta­king for their Warrant, Isa 49.6. I will set thee as a Light to the Gentiles. Concluding from thence, he must be Preached to them; and yet this was a great part of the Mystery of Godliness. 1 Tim. 3.16. Preached unto the Gentiles. But if these Instances do not satisfy; take any one or two Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans: For instance, Read the Third and Fourth Chapters. How doth he prove that we are not Justifyed by the Works of the Law? He asserts that Jews and Gentiles are Sinners; And that we must be Justified in a way Exclusive of Boasting; And that Abraham was Justifyed by Faith in Uncircumcision; That the Blessed Justifyed Man is a Pardon'd Man; and from hence he infers by Consequence, That we cannot be Justify'd by the Law.

But we expect plain words for a Positive Institution.

What think you of the Observation of the Lord's-Day? Is it by Divine Institu­tion? And what plain words can you find commanding us to observe it? If you ex­pect no less than a plain Command to Au­thorize the Baptizing of Infants, you must say the same of the Lord's Day; and deny the one as well as the other. Do not you also reckon Women's Communicating a Positive Institution?

Yes, we do so: But I admire you should urge that again, after it has been so often Answer'd. You have been [Page 6]told of plain Scripture Example, Acts 1.14 compared with Chap. 2.42, 44.

Not so plain as you imagine it; For tho in Act. 1.14. it is expresly said, that Mary and the other Women were with the Disciples in Prayers and Supplications, Yet it is not expresly said, Act. 2.42. that they were with them Breaking Bread; And to cut off all further Cavil; The words used are all Masculine (not so discernable in our English Translation, as in the Greek Origi­nal,) and in Act. 4.4. The number of the Men: and the Word [...], 1 Cor. 11.28. wherein you would comprehend Wo­man, (and so Infer a positive Command) is determin'd by a Masculine Article. I am not for Excluding Women more than you, but I urge this, to show you the Absurdity there is in denying Consequences; and how Untenable that Doctrine is, as well as ma­ny more, without them.

If you will not, Antipaedobaptista, exclude your Wife from the Communion Table, you must so far as I am able to judge, admit of good Consequences; and if so, it is like you may hear of good Reason to Include your Children in the Covenant; and that doubtless would be a Comfortable Doctrine.

It would so, but I despair to see it proved; I am assur'd to the contary. You have neither Precept, nor President in the New Testament for Baptising Infants; and the Consequences you make from Christs blessing little Children, and the Apostles baptising whole Families, are at best but pro­babilities, [Page 7]and conjectures too weak to sup­port your cause: We read of none baptized but Believers, and Penitents; and we think such an Institution as Baptism should have been delivered in plain Words.

You express'd an high Confidence in your arguing, but I am not surprized at it; I have known those that could not say so much for your cause as I suppose you can, even poor silly Women, boasting of their ability to confute any adversary with this single Weapon, Where is Precept, or Pre­sident? But have a little Patience, and you shall see, I will so prove the thing in Question, that I will turn the Argument of Precept and President against you. You have in a few Words express'd your whole Strength, excepting some small matters you have to say about the Practice of the Primitive times, which I shall take notice of afterwards; At present, I will speak to your Precept, and President. But whereas you insist upon it again, that there should be plain Scripture proof for an Institution, I must put you in mind here, that there are two things in this Question. 1st. The Institution of the Or­dinance of Baptism. 2dly. A Declaration of God's mind concerning the Subjects of Bap­tism. That God hath in plain Words in­stituted the Ordinance of Water-Baptism, you will not deny, tho' some others do. We are thus far agreed then, as to the Institution. Whether the Subjects of Baptism be not as clearly and plainly declared, and that Infants be such due Subjects of that Ordinance, is [Page 8]now to be spoken too; and I shall urge no­thing, which you shall have Reason to reject as ungenuine, or dark Consequence.

I will patiently attend your Rea­sonings.

First then I will propound this plain Question to you: Do you think that God who hath been so merciful to Mankind as to provide a Saviour for them, hath only pro­vided for the Salvation of the Adult, and made no provision for the Salvation of In­fants that shall dye in Infancy?

I dare not think but that God hath made provision for dying Infants; It seems to me to be a blasphemous Reflection upon the God of Mercy; to suppose him to damn all dying Infants, were to suppose him unmerciful and cruel: But I think we need not judge so hardly of God or Them; Doubt­less God hath provided for them in his Decree of Election, and all the Elect shall be brought to Salvation.

'Tis true the Elect shall obtain, and be saved; But now let me aske you a second Question, Doth God ever save any of the Elect but in the way and Method of the Cove­nant of Grace?

I think it must be so; for all men are either under the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace, they are either sav'd by Grace, or left under the Curse of the Law.

'Tis very true; For they that are out of Gods Covenant, are Aliens to the Com­mon-wealth of Israel, and Strangers from the [Page 9]Covenants of Promise afar off, without Christ and Hope: But this occasions another Question. How are Infants brought into Covenant, whether with their Parents, upon their Parents Faith, or upon some Qualificati­on of their own?

I percieve what you aim at in this Question: If I say, Infants are brought into Covenant by some Qualifications of their own; then you will say, it must be a saving Qualification, Faith or Repentance; and this, Children, that have not the exercise of their Reason, cannot have: Or if they had such Qualifications before, to give them a Covenant Interest, they may have the same Qualificati­ons now; If I say it is upon their Parents Faith, you will reply, there is now the same way of coming into the Covenant for them still: I will therefore suspend my Answer, till I hear what you assert in this matter.

I shall do it plainly; God's way of Covenanting with men, has always been to take the Children into Covenant with their Parents upon their Parents Faith: But to be more particular, as soon as ever God added Seals to his Covenant, he gave Command that Children should come under the Initiatiating Seal of it, which was Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. And God's own promise gives the Reason of it, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; which Abraham understood to be his Infant Seed, and Circumcised them accordingly.

This will not advantage you; For we are not under the same Covenant; [Page 10]For that Covenant was a Covenant of Works, or at least a mix'd Covenant.

I am sorry you should take things upon Trust, especially, when the Tendency of them may be so dangerous, as surely this must be; for if this be true, it will bereave us of the comfortable Promises of the Old Testament, and shake the foundation of the New: I told you the Apostle prov'd Justifi­cation (Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae) from Consequences out of the Old Testa­ment, but take whether of these you will; That this Covenant is either a Covenant of Works, or a mix'd Covenant, and I shall show you the Inconvenience that attends both. If this were wholy a Covenant of Works, then damnation must be the portion of all that were under it; For none can per­form the condition of it in a faln state: Pardon for the breach of it was not promised, and therefore could not be expected: Does not this Sound very harsh? If a mix'd Cove­nant, because Temporal Blessings were com­prehended in it, if that, (I say) be your Reason, pray clear me, Mat. 6.33. from that Imputation, viz. But seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you: Besides this will follow; As you put them under a mix'd Covenant, so you must condemn them to a midling condition; and they all their days must hang betwixt Hope and Fear; and never come to any sort of assurance, which would not Immediatly be dash'd with the bitter Mixture of the Law: And living [Page 11]thus and dying they must have an apartment of their own. This Doctrin will lay the floor of a Limbus Patrum: For I cannot Imagine whither those that have neither Law nor Gospel must go, but to a place where neither a broken Law, nor a saving Gospel, will carry them. But this will not touch these, that can decline all absurdily by deny­ing of Consequences.

'Tis an easy thing to charge a Doctrin with Inconsistency, but can you prove that Covenant of Grace pure and un­mix'd?

That I can, For 1. The foundation of it was laid in Grace, viz. God's Love to Abraham. 2. It was made in Christ, Gal. 3. v. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made, he saith not, and to Seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ. v. 17. And this I say, that the Cove­nant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disanull, that it should make the promise of none Effect. v. 18. For if the In­heritance be of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. v. 29. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heires according to the Promise. 3. It is repeated as such in the New Testament Heb. 8.10, For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days saith the Lord, I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a peo­ple. 4. It was made upon Gospel Terms, [Page 12] Rom. 4. v. 3. For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness. v. 4. Now to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned not of Grace, but of debt. v. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifyeth the ungodly, his Faith is reckoned for Righteousness.

The Apostle tells us, that Cir­cumcision binds to the observation of the whole Law, that is, the Law given on Sinai, The Decalogue; for I will not go about to Question the Gospel signification of much of the Ceremonial Law especially in the Sacri­fices.

The Law, saith the Apostle, which was 430 years after cannot disanul the Covenant that was before confirmed of God by Christ, Gal. 3.17. Whatever then was the design of God in giving the Law, it was not any way to contradict or destroy the Gospel; For the Law is not against the Promise, v. 21. Is the Law then against the Promises of God? God forbid. It must then be added [or put] to the Gospel in Subserviency to it, and for the discovery of Sin; For it (by shewing our weakness and Insufficiency) puts us upon looking out for some other way of Salvation, and thus it is as a School-master to teach us, and lead us to Christ. V. 19. Wherefore then served the Law? It was added because of Transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Me­diator. v. 24. Wherefore the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith.

But there are many things spoke of that Law, that seem to make it a Law of Works, and oppose it to the Gospel.

To the better understanding of this, you must distinguish betwixt God's design in giving the Law, (which was, as I told you, to convince and humble proud Man, and shew him the necessity of a Saviour) and the a­buse of the Law, through the mistake of the Carnal and Formal Jews, who expected Ju­stification from the Works of the Law, which they perswaded themselves they were able to fulfill. You are to understand Paul in this latter sense, when he pronounces so severely against that Law. Now that you may not think, that this distinction is made to serve a Turn, or for an Evasion; The same Apo­stle is our Voucher, 1 Tim. 1.8. But we know that the Law is good if a Man use it law­fully. Where he distinguishes betwixt the Lawful use, and the Erroneous abuse of the Law.

Well, If I yield it to be a Co­venant of Grace, How will you improve it for Infant-Baptism?

If you yield it, you give up the Cause; for if it be one, and the same Cove­nant, as there can be no more Covenants of Grace but one; then it must be, as to the substance of it, the same. Tho there be a difference, as to degrees of Grace, and Knowledge, and some particular Ordinances, yet is there no alteration, as to the main Bles­sings and Priviledges. This appears in the Parable of the Vineyard: Where we see the [Page 14] Gentiles (signify'd by those in the High­ways) upon the Jews rejection of Christ, were Invited to the same Marriage Supper; the same Church, State, and Kingdom of Heaven, which before had been offered to them, (the Jews.) The Vineyard that was taken from the Husbandmen, the Jews, was given to others that had not been Employ'd in it, the Gentiles: For tho there be another Succession of men, yet it is into the very same Vineyard. The Chief Priests understood it in this sense, and therefore wisht it might not fall out so, Luke 20.16. He shall come and destroy these Husbandmen, and shall give the Vineyard to others; and when they heard it, they said, God forbid. This sameness of the Covenant is further Illustrated by the Apo­stle, under the Similitude of breaking Bran­ches off an Olive-Tree, and Engraffing others in their Room. The Tree, The Fatness and Nourishment is the same, that is, the Covenant and its Priviledges, tho New Branches be En­graffed in the place of the Old Ones, Rom. 11. v. 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the World, what shall receiv­ing of them be, but Life from the dead? v. 16. For if the First-fruit be holy, the Lump is also holy; and if the Root be holy, so are the Bran­ches: v. 17. And if some of the Branches be broken off, and thou being a Wild Olive-Tree, wert Graften in amongst them, and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree, &c. And that which will help you to understand the whole Chapter, is, That such as the Breaking off is, such must the [Page 15]Engraffing be. I will but mention one Text more to confirm this, and that is, Eph. 2.14. For he is our Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the Middle-Wall of Partition between us: Where the Jewish Church is compared to a separate Tenement, but by the calling of the Gentiles the wall that parted them, is broken down, and they are made one houshold, fellow-citizens, and Enjoy the same Priviledges. What can be more Evident?

But doth not the Baptist, that was to prepare the way of the Lord, tell the Jews, they ought not to plead the Covenant of Abraham, but if they would be receiv'd to Baptism, they must repent? Mat. 3.8, 9. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for Repentance. And think not to say within your selves, we have Abraham to our Father, &c.

We would give the same Answer to the like persons. Who are they he speaks to? Were they not a company of corrupt men? A generation of Vipers, that boasted of being Abraham's children and yet did the Works of their Father the Devil. The Pharisee was a Self Iusticiary; And the Sad­duce deny'd the Resurrection of the Dead? Should such plead their Parental Right? we would bid them Repent: But what is this to the outing children of their Right? These were adult, and had by their wickedness for­feited their right. Did not the Prophets while their Church state stood, use the same Methods with them?

But you have not yet answered my Objection about the Obligation Circum­cision laid upon men to the keeping the whole Law; you only prov'd that that Law was not a Covenant of Works.

You do well to put me in mind of it; The Apostle there speaks of the erron­eous opinion of the Jews, who sought for a Righteousness by the Works of the Law, making the Law to themselves a Covenant of Works: Circumcision being an Initiat­ing Seal, was to them (according to their abuse of the Law) an obligation to keep the whole; But in it self Circumcision did oblige only to such Obedience, as God requires and accepts in his Covenant of Grace, according to that dispensation of it that was then on foot; and therefore when a more large, and manly state of the Church was to succeed, he took away that of Circumcision, and in its room commanded Baptism. Col. 2. v. 10. And ye are compleat in him, which is the head of all Principality and Power. v. 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands, in putting off the Body of the sins of the flesh by the Circumcision of Christ. v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, &c. Whereby we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision; for it contains all that was signify'd by Circumcision, the Circumcision of the heart, and the putting off the Body of Sin: As their Signification was the same, so one succeeded, but not typifyed the other.

Circumcision was only in Abra­ham's family, and other Believers in the time [Page 17]of the old Testament had it not Enjoyn'd to them; which must for that Reason, seal somewhat peculiar to Abraham's Family, viz. The Promise of the Land of Canaan, and the descent of the Messiah from that Family.

If it designed either of the things you mention; Then all that received it, must partake of the Promise; but so could not A­braham's Servants, who were neither of A­braham's Lineage, nor had a promise of the Canaanitish Inheritance. Otherwise as Prose­lytes, Converts, or Believers, they were cap­able of the spiritual Significancy: All there­fore that entred into Abraham's family, which then was most properly, and eminent­ly the Church of God, (for other good men that were scattered here and there and were not gathered into one body, tho they belong­ed to the Covenant yet we are left in the dark as to what God requir'd of them, and therefore are the less able to judge concern­ing them) and all that were admitted into that House, were to be Circumcised; nor was Circumcision given them as a Mark of Distinction as you distinguish Beasts by slit­ing and cutting; That is a gross conceit! but they were to be acquainted with the meaning of that sign, and the contents of the Covenant. What a Religious person was Eliezer Abraham's Servant? What a noble Testimony does God give to Abraham as to his care in instructing his family after God, that is, To relinquish Idolatry and false-Worship, and make a Profession of the true God.

But Circumcision took in only the Males, Baptism both Males and Females.

You think you have a mighty Plea in this; but it is just nothing. 1. Do you not consider, that in the various Editions of the Covenant of Grace, God hath made gradual Alterations without any change of the Substance: Tho Infants were still includ­ed in the Covenant from Adam to Abraham, as parts of their Parents, yet when God brought in the Male Children under the Seal of the Covenant, this was an additional Mercy, but no change of the Covenant: Now were the Female children hereby ex­cluded from the Covenant it self. Pray give me the true meaning of Exod. 12.48. — For no Ʋncircumcised Person shall eat thereof: By this Rule no Woman shall eat of the Pass­over.

Surely Women were not de­barred.

But they were some way or other Circumcised then; For the Rule is Positive, and Universal; What other Answer can you give than this? That the Females were par­takers of the Circumcision of the Males? 2. Do you not consider that God seeing it fit to alter his Covenant for the better, when he saw fit to alter the Seal of Circumcision (which was a painful Ordinance and not applicable to Females) and to Substitute ano­ther for the same general end; It is but suit­able to his usual Method, to bring in Fe­males expresly, which were Implicitly under the Seal before; especially when Baptism is [Page 19]so easily applicable both to Males and to Fe­males.

But it is a doubt to me whether God intended Baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Your Doubting implyes, you would willingly deny it if you durst. Will you doubt also, Whether the Lords-Supper be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace succeeding the Passover? pray tell me first, Was not Cir­cumcision expresly call'd a sign or a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith? And was it not so, because it was a Token of the Covenant both on Man's part and God's? The con­tempt of which God reckoned a Contempt, and rejection of his Covenant, Gen. 17.14. And the Ʋncircumcised Manchild whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that Soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my Cove­nant.

Be it so. What then?

If Baptism be appointed to the same Ends and uses in the New Testament, 'tis as much the Seal of the Covenant as Circum­cision was before; But it is evident Baptism has the same Office in the Institution; For as Prosolytes and Abraham's seed Entred into the Covenant of the Old Testament by Cir­cumcision, so hath Christ appointed, that Consenters should be initiated into the new by Baptism, as soon as teaching made them capable of giving Consent, Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations Baptizing them, &c. and men are said to accept of or reject the New Testament proffer, according [Page 20]to their Submission to, or Refusal of Bapt­ism.

This indeed seems to be so, Else Baptism would not have been so Expresly commanded, and so generally propounded to all.

The Apostle expresly saith so, 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit are we all Baptiz­ed into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, &c. But for your further Satisfaction; Tell me 2dly. Doth not the very make and frame of Baptism show it to be a sign and Seal as well as Circumcision? Why else is Water used but as a Token? What is the Appli­cation of it, but as a Sealing on God's part, and ours? And what less doth the Apostle say, Rom. 6.3, 4. Know ye not that so many of us as were Baptized into Jesus Christ were Baptized into his Death. Therefore we are buried with him by Baptism into Death, that like as Christ was raysed up from the death by the Glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in Newness of Life: And pray to what other end do you use it? Is it not a sign of your solemn covenanting with God? 3. Tell me, Why are the Sacraments of the Old Testa­ment and the New so often compared to­gether in the New Testament: but to let us know they are for the same Uses, and that we lose Nothing by the change of these Or­dinances; they being so much the same in design, and End, that the Apostle mutually gives the name of the one to the other? Thus Effectual Spiritual Baptism is call'd spiritual Circumcision: Col. 2. v. 11. In whom also ye [Page 21]are circumcised with the Circumcision made with­out hands, &c. v. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, &c. And the very Outward signs have interchangeably one anothers names, 1 Cor. 5.7. — For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. So Chap. 2. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Sea.

But if the end of Circumcision and Baptism were the same; It would seem strange that God should not keep the Old Seal of the Covenant still.

Suppose no other Reason could be given but God's Pleasure; What is this to us? What if there were no other Reason but this, that Circumcision was Bloody and Pain­ful? This might sufficiently Answer your Objection: But other Reasons might be sup­pus'd. When the Circumcised Jews Reject­ed Christ, Circumcision could not be a Di­stinguishing Badge betwixt Christians, Jews and Heathens. What if God had a mind to remove the Fond and Excessive Opinion of the Jews, and the Confidence they had in Cir­cumcision, by this Change? Those of them that embraced Christianity were for introdu­cing Circumcision, against whom the Apostle Paul Disputes. What if God did it to no­tify his Mind about the Admission of Females by Baptism? Now when the Partition-Wall 'twixt Jews and Gentiles was to be taken down, it could not have been by Circum [...]i­sion, but by an Ordinance proper to both Sexes.

Still it sticks with me, That In­fants having no Faith, cannot be in the C [...] ­venant [Page 22]of Grace, or under the Seal of it. And if we might suppose them to have Faith, or to be Regenerated by Baptism, then it follows, That Infants are either in Cove­nant without Faith, or those that had true Faith and were Regenerated may wholly fall from Grace: For, daily Experience tells us, that many Baptized in Infancy become Ungodly.

You have started a difficult case, and such as all Men do not Answer alike. It is a great Question what is the State of In­fants, as to Grace. Some say, roundly, that Baptisme confers Regeneration: Others will not say so much, but that only Baptism con­fers Relative Grace, as Pardon, Adoption, &c. and that the Parents Real Faith is e­nough to Entitle the Children to this, and that Infants have a sufficiency of Grace suita­ble to their Infant-state; as, That they are under the Covenant of Grace, Have Origi­nal Sin pardoned; And, in case they dye in Infancy, the Spirit of God can, and will furnish them with such a measure of the Sanctification of Nature, as will fit them for Heaven; Not that they assert, That this San­ctification is an Effect of Baptism to all the Infants of Believers, but only to such as dye in Infancy. And that Relative Grace, which is the proper Effect of Baptism, Infants may lose it, when they out-grow their Infantile State: And yet all this, without falling from Faith, or Converting Grace. But let the Difficulty of Infant's Grace be what it will, this is no Objection or Plea against In­fant Baptism.

That is strange! But how will you make that appear?

Vey clearly. Do you Answer this Question. Was it not a Covenant of Grace that was made to Abraham, and were not his Infant-Seed under the Seal of it?

The Proof of that cannot well be denyd

Was not Faith and Grace as necessa­ry to Justification and Salvation then as now?

That cannot be deny'd.

Then must you grant, that want of Faith might be as well objected against the Circumcision of Infants, as against their Bap­tizing. If Infants could not be supposed to have such a measure of Grace then, as might be sufficient for their Salvation, you must de­ny their Salvation; and say, Their Circum­sion was not a Sign, much less a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith: If they had such a sufficiency; It cannot be deny'd but our Children are as capable of the same sufficien­cy of Grace and Salvation.

What Advantage have Children by Baptism?

Their Advantage is great every way. You have a Breviate of them given by the A­postle, Rom. 9.4, 5. Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Co­venants, and the Giving of the Law, and the Ser­vice of God, and the Promises; Whose are the Fa­thers, and of whom, as concerning the Flesh, Christ came, &c. He here speaking of the Jewish Branches that were broken off, and in whose Room the Gentiles were to be Engraffed. In­deed some Priviledges there mentioned are [Page 24]Judaical-peculiarities; as that, of them, ac­cording to the Flesh, Christ came. This Privi­ledge was so theirs, that it cannot be com­municated to others. Of them were the Fa­thers; If by that, no more be meant, than than there was a constant Succession of Good Men, it is a Benefit common to us with them; For the Church is the Seminary of Grace; They had by this Covenant-Relation, the Offer of the Gospel, and its Grace before o­thers, and were not cast out of their Privi­ledges till they wilfully cast themselves out. Ishmael was not turned out of Abraham's Fa­mily, till he was a Scorner and Persecutor; Nor Esau refused the Blessing, till he Sold the Birthright, and was Profane; And as to them belong the Promises, so the Promises may be pleaded by them, and by their Pa­rents in their behalf. And this has been of mighty use to Godly Persons in all Ages, not onely that they were Baptized, but that they were Baptized in Infancy. And this is no Inconsiderable Argument to me, that the Ordinance of Infant-Baptism is from God. ‘For tho (as one Judi­ciously Remarks) it may in some cases be granted,Ford's Practical Ʋse of Inf. Baptism, Ep. Ded. p. 5. that an Or­dinance Administred with some considerable Circumstantial Ir­regularities may Sanctify. Yet that these Irregularities themselves should be the Channels of Sanctifying Grace, is not easi­ly imaginable. Now this is the case of Infant-Baptism. Many Holy Men, of many [Page 25]Ages, have found their hearts warm'd and quicken'd in the Exercise of Faith, Repentance, Love, Thankfulness, Restrain'd from Sin, Excited to Duty by the conside­ration of Infant-Baptism, under that Cir­cumstance, and the Covenant of Ancestours, the Foundation of that Administration.’ How refreshing is it to hear a Dying Child plead Parental Covenant Right? What Comfort and Satisfaction is it to a Religious Parent, to be assured of the Divine Care o­ver his Child, that he has so Solemnly Dedi­cated to God? How much did God con­sult the Peace of his People when he took their Children into Covenant with them.

But it seems evident from Christ's Commission, Mat. 28. Go Teach all Nations, &c. That the Apostles were sent to Bap­tize the Adult; and such as were capable of Instruction, in order to prepare them for Baptism; and there is not a Word of Bap­tizing Infants.

That there is not a Word of In­fants by Name is granted. But you have been often told, that the Command of Disci­plining Nations (for that is the significati­on of the Word there used) doth Include Infants, as well as the Adult: And you can­not give us a sufficient Answer to Act. 15.10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of Disciples, &c. where Infants that were under the Circumcision, were cal­led Disciples as well as their Fathers. I shall not prosecute this; But in Answer to the strength of this Argument, I will lay be­fore [Page 26]you a Truth, which if you had consi­der'd as you might, it would have hindred you from making this Objection; 'Tis this, That Commission hath a direct Respect to the Conversion of the Gentile Nations; who were Strangers to the Covenant, and there­fore the Command would not run in any o­ther Terms then thus, Go and Convert them by Preaching, and then Baptize them; and yet this plainly implyes; That when they are Converted, their Infants, according to God's known, and undoubted method, were to be Baptized with them.

This is all but Conjecture.

I perceive a small thing will divert you, when you have not a mind to see the Truth: But that you may discover the weight of this Observation, pray do you an­swer me this Questian. Supposing it had been God's Pleasure, in the time of the Old Testament, to be so Merciful to a Heathen Nation, as to send any Special Prophets or Priests to Convert that Nation, might we not suppose the Commission would run thus, Go Teach that Nation, Circumcising them in the Name, &c. Or if God had continu'd Cir­cumcision under the New Testament, Would the Commission run otherwise than, Go and Disciple all Nations, Circumcising them.

Upon such Supposition, I am convinced it would have been so; For at that time, it was generally known, that In­fants were to come into Covenant with their Fathers. But now that Circumcision is taken away, and a New Ordinance of Bap­tism [Page 27]appointed, I am not yet fully satisfy'd that, Go and Teach all Nations, does mean First Convert these Nations, and then as they are Converted, Baptize them and their Infants.

Was it not a Truth generally be­liev'd, and never question'd from the time of Abraham, till Christ's Coming in the Flesh, That Infants were taken into Covenant with their Parents.

It was so.

Is it then unreasonable to think, that the New Testament in the Command of Bap­tizing, did take this for granted, as being Generally and Sufficiently known? And that there was no need of giving Particular Directions for Infants.

This is still but Supposition.

But I will prove it to you, from Plain Scriptures in the New Testament, that this was taken for granted, and Baptism was urg'd upon a supposition of their In­fants also Included.

I pray proceed.

The first Scripture I shall urge, is that, Acts 2.39. For the promise is unto you and to your Children and to all that are farr off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Here we may Expect the true meaning of Christ's Commission, as being the first oc­casion the Apostles had, of making an offer of the Gospel. Well then, here I would have you to observe, That Peter gives a direct Answer to the Jews that were pricked at their hearts, and hereupon made this En­quiry, What shall we do [to be Sav'd?] He [Page 28]tells them, they must Repent and be Bapt­ized; This was the necessary Advice, and all of it that concern'd their Pardon and Sal­vation, about which they were Sollicitous; What he speaks further about the receving of the Holy Ghost, was but an additional Encouragement; The Reason of the Advice is that of v. 39.

But that relates to the Last clause of the Verse which Immediately pre­ceeds, —Ye shall recive the Holy Ghost— For the Promise is to you.

A Drowning man will catch at a Straw to save himself, tho in vain, you can­not but see this is a poor Shift; Answer your self to these Questions. 1. Do you think the Apostle intended this, the Promise of receving the Holy Ghost, is to you and your Children, and to the Gentles that are afarr of? Have all converted Gentiles a promise to receive such Gifts of the Holy Ghost as the Apostle there speaks of? 2. Do you believe that the Apostle giving such an Advice of Repenting and being Baptized (which only answered their great fear of perishing) should give this as a reason of the additional Encouragement, and not as a Rea­son of the main of the Advice? They were Expecting an answer of their fear: What shall we do (to be saved) Here it was, that they were concern'd, and not about the Gifts of the Holy Ghost: and as he answered to that, Repent, &c. so his Reason relates to that, as if he should say The Promise of Pardon and acceptance is first To you Jews, and your; [Page 29]Children; and next to the Gentiles, upon the Terms of Repentance and Submission to the Covenant of Grace. 3. Do you not think that there is some thing in the Phrase (you and your Children) more then barely to signify, if you Israelites Repent you shall be sav'd, and so shall repenting Gentiles. Their Children were Israelites, as well as them­selves, and if he had not intended an Entail of Priviledge from Parent to Chlid, it had been enough to have said, The Promise is to you Israelites, and to the Gentiles. But the Promise which God made to Abraham [I will be a God to thee and thy Seed after thee] was so well understood to be Inclusive of Infants, upon the Parents accepting the Covenant, that the Jews understood it well enough to be a Comfort to them on their Children's behalf, upon whom they had laid, in their Unbeliefe, the Blood of Christ, as well as upon themselves.

Be it so that this Promise reach­ed to the Descendants of Abraham, yet this Text Limits the Promise to Conversion (as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Who would have Expected that a man of understanding should have made such an Exception? I pray to what part of the discourse doth the Limitation belong? There are two Sentences (the Promise is to you and to your Children) and the Promise is also to (those that are afar off) viz. the Gentiles, even (as many as the Lord our God shall call.)

It is true it is joyn'd to the Latter Sentence.

And there is a manifest Reason that Limits it to the latter Sentence, Because that tho' the Blessing of Abraham be come upon the Gentiles Gal. 3.14. That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ: Yet no Gentile Nation had such a Promise but as converted and call'd to Christianity; and so becoming Abraham's Spiritual Seed, they are heirs of the same Promises with the Jews: So that the mean­ing of that Scripture is plainly this, Repent and be Baptized O ye Jews; for the Promise is to you and your seed, as God spake to A­braham; And it's the same Covenant that Baptism Seals to; And your children have the same Priviledge of Entering into Cove­nant with your selves, as you know. And the same Promise of Pardon and Priviledge is also to as many Gentile Nations as shall be converted to the Faith; so yet they and their Children may be Baptized into Cove­nant as well as they.

You have said enough of this Scripture; pray name another.

The next Scripture I shall offer you to prove Infant Baptism, That is, that it was Sufficiently known in the New Testa­ment that Infants came into the Covenant with their Parents, shall be, 1 Cor. 7.14. For the unbelieveing Husband is Sanctify'd by the Wife and the unbelieving Wife is sanctify'd by the Husband: else were your Children Ʋn­clean but now are they Holy.

I Expected this, but I wonder you should urge it, when you have been so [Page 31]often told, that the Holiness there is (a Marriage Holiness) and the Holiness of their children is but this (that they are not Bastards.)

And I wonder more you Shelter your self under so pitiful an Evasion. But to answer you. Will not you grant in the General, That whatever be the Holiness here to be understood, it is a priviledge which Children receive from their Parents?

That cannot be deny'd.

Then if I prove, that this Holiness is not Legitimacy, but a priviledge of ano­ther Nature, and such as entitles them unto the Covenant, you'll confess, I prove what I produced this Scripture for.

Let me see the Performance.

To remove your Allegation, that the Childrens uncleanness is in this case Bastardy and so intended by the Apostle; I aske you, Was not the Law of Marriage observ'd among the Heathens? And was it not a known thing, that among them, forni­cation was distinguish'd from the Issue of such Marriages, some children being reckon­ed Bastards, and others Legitimate? If you say there was no such thing, you contradict the Apostle, who here saith, they were Hus­band and Wife before Conversation; and elsewhere mentioneth fornication, as a sin which the Heathens themselves owned as such, and that Incust was such a degree of fornication, as was rarely found amongst them. If you grant this Distinction of Ba­stard and Legitimate Children was found [Page 32]among the Heathen; then be sure the Apostle did not design to overthrow this difference, and call all the Children of Heathens Ba­stards. But I aske you further, If Marriages of the Heathens were not Lawful Marriages, and so esteemed by the Apostle? Why did he not direct them to be Married anew? This he would have done, If Infidels in the Matrimonial state lived in fornication. I might ask yet further where the word (Holy) is ever us'd to signify (Legitimacy) of Children? And if you seriously consider the Occasion of the Apostles discourse you'll find it was this; When the Gospel was preached to the Heathens it frequently hap­pened that sometimes an Heathen Wife was converted, and not the Husband, and some­times on the contrary. Now in this case the Question was not, whether the Marriage was Lawfull? But whether it were to be continu'd in? Because if it were, the con­verted Party was to live in Society with an Idolater. This might seem a difficult case, and its rise from what we Read in Ezra; Where the Reforming Israelites put away their strange Wives; but there was this dif­ference in these two Cases; In that of the Jews, they being of another Religion (when there was no need, and expresly against God's Command) took Idolatrous Wives; Here, both Parties, when they Marry'd, were Ido­laters alike; and therefore the Apostle de­termines their Marriages being Lawful be­fore, they might still continue in that state, though but one Party were Converted, if [Page 33]both were willing. In this case the Apostle takes it for granted, that the Marriage was Lawful, and if it had not been so, there had been no room for so difficult a Question, and all might have been Answer'd with this, That it was no Marriage, and therefore they were at Liberty. Once again let me Ask you, Sup­pose among Christians, both Husband and Wife be Unbelievers, are their Children Ba­stards, and do they live in Fornication, till one at least be Converted? And doth Faith make that Marriage-Society, which was For­nication before, to become Lawful? And doth it Legitimate the Children?

But if I grant all this, yet the Ho­liness of the Children seems not to be real Sanctification; because the Believers (Wife or Husband) are said to be Sanctifyed.

Nor do we say it is. But the Text evidently shews all we seek for, viz That the Children in this case are not reckoned as the Children of Infidels that are Strangers to the Covenant; but are Numbred amongst the Peculiar People of God. Let it be ob­serv'd, the Apostle gives this as a Reason of the advice for the Continuance of their Con­jugal Estate, The Unbelieving Party doth not make their Marriage-State Unholy, but the Relation is so Sanctifyed to a Believer (as other things are for Holy and Lawful Uses) that Children have the known Priviledge, which Children of the Jews and Gentile Be­lievers have; not to be cast out of the Cove­nant as unclean, but to be accepted into the Covenant with the Believing Parent. If you [Page 34]yet doubt, Whether this be the Sense of the Apostles Reasoning, I pray you consider to what purpose the Apostle should have men­tioned their Children; certainly he intends to signify that the Children have some privi­ledge by their Parents, and if this priviledge be not Legitimacy, (as I have prov'd and I think for shame you will Urge it no more) then there is no Church priviledge can be thought of, but that known priviledge of Childrens Entring into Covenant with their Parents, and this the Apostle doth not speak of, as a New proposed Doctrin, but as general­ly known, and truly appliable in this case, as well as others.

Have you any more Scriptures to offer for proof, That Children entring into Covenant with their Parents, was a known, and unquestionable Truth in the New Testa­ment?

All these Scriptures that speak of the families priviledge upon the Master or Mistress's believing, Luke 19.9. And Jesus said unto him, This day is Salvation come to this house, for asmuch as he also is the Son of Abra­ham. Acts 11.14. Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be Sav'd. 16.15. And when she was baptized and her houshold, &c. 31. And they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.

How weak is your Proof for Baptizing Infants from such Scriptures? How can you prove that these houses had children?

Not so fast, I am not here arguing the Probability that these houses had children. [Page 35]That they had not, you can as little prove, as I that they had: But that for which I pro­duce these Texts, is this, That the mentioning of (House) or (Family) speaks plainly a Pri­viledge, which that House or Family had by its Master's Conversion; Like that which A­braham's Family had, when God enjoyned the Seal of the Covenant to him, which reached to his Consenting Servants, and his Children; And Family is mention'd upon no other ground, but as Children were reckon'd with their Parents before, so it is still under the New Testament. For if Salvation offer'd by Christ, and Baptizing, as the Seal of that Sal­vation, had been intended only a Personal Pri­viledge to Lydia, or the Jailor, &c. the Ad­dition of that Mercy to that House, or Fa­mily, had been needless, and no Priviledge would have been supposed to have accru'd to their Houses, or Family as such. Nor can you turn off that to Zaccheus; Salvation is come to thy House, by saying, Christ, who was Salvation, was going to his House: for Christ, tho he be often call'd a Saviour, yet is never call'd Salvation: Besides, that agrees not with the Reason that is given, (for asmuch as he also is a Son of Abraham) but the Reason evidently relates to the Word (House) Salvation is come to thy (House) be­cause thou being a Believer, and so a (Son of Abraham) this Salvation belongs to thee, and to thy Family, according to the Promise which God made to Abraham (I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee.)

I have one Objection more, which if you can Answer, you will do much towards my Satisfaction. I observe that there are such Antecedent Qualifications required to Bap­tism, that it cannot be suppos'd that Infants should be capable of Baptism, in that they cannot be so Qualifyed, Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptized, shall be Saved, &c. Gal. 3.27. For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.

I know these Scriptures pass for In­vincible Arguments with some, who Argue thence, That Infants do not Believe, and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd; They do not put on Christ, and therefore ought not to be Baptiz'd: But I do not Question but I shall make you quit your Argument presently, if you will give me but a direct Answer to these Questions. 1. Do you think these Scriptures speak of Infants, or of Adult grown Persons?

I think these Scriptures speak of all that were to be Baptized, and that none were to be Baptized, but such as by Faith could put on Christ.

2ly. What do you think of Dying Infants, shall they be Saved or Damned?

Why do you trouble me with that Question? If I say they are Damn'd, you will call me Uncharitable.

But seeing you Argue against In­fant-Baptism from these Scriptures, you can­not be offended if I make these Inferences from them: (1) You say, Infants do not believe; And therefore cannot be Baptized; Will it [Page 37]not be as clear an Inference Children cannot Believe; Therefore they must be Damned? (2.) I Inferr, if Children be not Damn'd, then in some sense or other Infants do Believe, and put on Christ, and may be Baptized, and Sa­ved; Or, (3.) I Inferr, That if it be Unchari­table to imagine, that Children are Damn'd for want of Actual Faith, or Repentance, then surely these Scriptures do not speak of the case of Infants, but onely of the case of Adult Persons, to whom onely the Gospel was first to be Preached, and of whom Actual Faith, and Repentance were required, before either themselves, or Infants could be capa­ble of Baptism. Now I leave it to your self to chuse, which of these you please. If you make choice of the first Inference, you destroy your Opinion in the judgment of all good Men, who will abhor such Blasphemy against God, and such Uncharitableness to all Infants. If you take the Second Inference, you yield up the whole Cause. If you fly for Refuge to the Third Inference, Then you grant as much as we desire, that the New Testament, taking it for granted (as a known General Truth) gave no particular Commands, or Directions, about the Reception of Children into Covenant (that being needless) but only gave directions about Receiving A­dult Jews or Gentiles into the Church upon their Conversion.

This is hard choice; but I con­fess I see no other Remedy; But I would rather fix upon the last Inference than up­on the first; For methinks it goes against [Page 38]Humane Nature, to think, or speak so harsh­ly of poor Infants; and surely no Parents (whose Bowels yern after their Children) can be fond of such an Opinion. I pray call over the particulars discoursed, that we may have a short sum of all.

I have proceeded by these steps. 1. I have proved that God has taken care of the Salvation of Infants, as well as of the Adult. 2. I have proved God's way and method to Salvation, is to bring them into the Covenant of Grace. 3. I have proved that Children were all along in Covenant with their Pa­rents. 4. That as soon as God added Seals to the Covenant, he Commanded Children to be brought under the Initiating Seal of it. 5. That this was not a Priviledge peculiar to the Children of the Jews only. But that the Infants of Proselited Gentiles were Admit­ted to the Seal. 6. That the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of Grace. 7. That the Edition of that Covenant in the New Testament was the same for Substance. 8. That when God saw it fit to take away Circumcision, he Instituted to his Covenant, as a Seal to it, the Ordinance of Baptism. 9. In the Preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, for their Conversion, it was never Question'd, but known of all, that their Children were to come into Covenant with their Convert­ed Parents. 10. That therefore it was need­less, to give particular directions about In­fants. 11. That the Great Business of the first Planters of the Gospel, being to Convert Jews and Gentiles, all that was usually said a­bout [Page 39]Baptism, related to the Adult. 12. And I have also proved, that where there was oc­casion, the New Testament hath sufficiently declared the Infants Right to the Promise and Covenant, as derived from their Believ­ing Parents. 13. I have besides this Answer­ed all your Objections. And now tell me, whe­ther this be not (for all the Talk about Pre­cept and President) a giving you both Pre­cept and President plainly for this, That Children were under Covenant with Abra­ham, and under the Seal of it: I have also given you plain Declarations from the New Testament, That Children were to come in­to Covenant with their Parents. And now I will put one Question to you Antipaedobaptista; Children have been in Covenant, and under the Seal of it all along. If you think they are not in Covenant still, shew me, where, when, and how, God hath put them out. And here I might be as Perem­ptory with you, as you were with me. Give me either Precept or President that will prove, that God hath taken this Priviledge from them.

One would think that the Dispute were at an end, when it hath proceeded so far as to prove, That Children were always in the Covenant, and under the Seal of it, so soon as any Seals were Instituted; Except Antipaedobaptista can prove from plain Scri­pture in the New Testament, that God hath repealed his Grant and Priviledge, formerly given to Infants: If he affirm that God hath done so, the Proof must ly on his side.

God disolved the Jewish Church-State at the Resurrection of Christ, and set up a New Church-state in the New Testa­ment.

What do you mean by Church-State? Do you mean God's taking down their par­ticular Ordinances of Worship, as Sacrifices, and consequently their Temple, and the Services of it? Or do you mean, God took down these Promises by the Messiah to the faithful and their Seed; upon which the Church was founded, and constituted? Or do you mean that God destroyed the Nation, and Individual Church of the Jews, and broke them off for their Unbelief? If you mean the first or the last, you say Nothing that can prove their Church-State altered. The Question is, Whether now that God hath taken away the Jewish Circumcision, and their particular Mode of Worship, and hath also destroyed the Nation, and unchurched these Unbelievers? Whether God hath set up a New Church upon a foundation, quite distinct from that upon which the Church of the Jews was Established, viz. a different Promise, and a different way of Salvation, and Justification, than that which was given to Abraham.

You know the New Testament is said to be a better Covenant, and to be Established upon better promises.

And you know, That tho' we grant that the New Testament Edition is in many Respects better, yet I have proved to you before, that for Substance it was the same.

To save Labour and needless Talk. Pray for my Satisfaction Prove, That God hath not repeal'd the Essential Church-State of the Jews nor Infants Priviledge.

Its more than I am oblig'd to do by the Rules of Disputation; But for Truths sake, and your satisfaction, I will do it; And for that end will recommend to your Con­sideration these few things. 1. No Edition of the Covenant (and there were at least two Editions of the Covenant before Abraham's time) repealed any Covenant priviledge formerly granted, but confirmed and Enlarg­ed such Priviledges; The New Testament Edition being every way better, it cannot be suppos'd, that God would take away from Infants, their Covenant Priviledge, except he had given them something better in the Room of it. 2. Whatever God saw fit to take from the Old Testament-Church, he hath plainly declared the Repeal of it in the New Testa­ment; where he dischargeth Circumcision, Sacrifices, and difference of Meat and Days: And it was necessary that God should do so, or else we could not have known the mind of God in these matters. But now tell me, Is not the Priviledge of Children Entring into Covenant with their Parents a greater Privi­ledge, and matter of greater Importance than a Ceremony? And would it not have been highly necessary, that if Cod should have pur­posed to take it away, he should have plainly declared his mind about it? 3. The Apo­stle, Gal. 3.15.17. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men, though it be but a Man's Cove­nant, [Page 42]yet if it be confirmed, no man disanulleth, or addeth thereunto. 17. And this I say that the Covenant that was before confirmed of God in Christ, the Law which was 430 years after can­not disanul, that it should make the Promise of none Effect: I say, the Apostle here doth ex­presly Affirm, that God's Covenant of Grace (particularly that made to Abraham) as a Covenant or Testament, is as to all Essential's unalterable; and that the Law which was 430 years after could not disanul it. And by the same Reason, the New Testament could not disanul the Covenant to Abraham, neither as to promise nor priviledge. I need not repeat what I have already proved, That the New Testament was not the taking down one house and setting up another, but build­ing upon the old foundation and planting the Gentiles where the Jews were broken off, The Olive Tree is the same, and the Seed but one, Gal. 3.16. Not, and to Seeds as of many, but as of one, &c. 4. If this Church-state and Covenant had been altered, then should not Abraham and we have been justifyed after the same manner, which the Apostle affirms, Gal. 4.3. upon the Supposition that the Church-state of both was the same; Else it might have been answered, That they might have been justifyed one way and we another. 5. Let it be observ'd that the New Testament insists upon this Principle frequently as a thing denyed by none, That Abraham is the Father of the Faithful, and, That the Gentiles were Children raised up to Abraham, That they were Abraham's Seed, and Heirs accord­ing [Page 43]to the Promise, That this Blessing of A­braham is come upon the Gentiles, That tho' the natural Seed of Abraham be now rejected upon Unbelief, yet the Converted Gentiles were the Spiritual Seed. And if this had not been Intended by God when he gave the Promise; the Promise to Abraham had been broken upon the Rejection of the Jews, This the Apostle Expresly argues. Rom. 9.6. Not as though the Word of God hath taken none Ef­fect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

The Apostle there tells us, That the Children of the flesh are not the Children of God, and that all are not Israel, that are of Israel. Neither were they the Children of God, because they were of the Seed of A­braham, and therefore it would seem that there is no such priviledge to Infants by Birth.

The Apostle is there speaking of the rejection of the Jews for their Unbelief, and asserts no more than this, that in that case when they put themselves out of Covenant, it was no breach of Promise in God to reject them, tho' they were the Natural Seed of Abraham. But what is all this against the Priviledge of Infants of Believing Parents? The Promise was still made to Believers and their Seed, and in that sense the Promise was made to Abraham and his own Imediate Na­tural Seed, as the Seed of a Believer, and so successively to that Seed when grown up, when they continued in the Faith, and to their Infant Seed, and so on to succeeding genera­tions. Now if any Israelite forsook God, he [Page 44]was not reckoned to be in Covenant, because he was of Abraham according to the flesh: so that the Natural Seed of Israelites Believing, and of Believing Gentiles were the Spiritual seed, tho' still the Infants were Children by natural desent, and by it had this Priviledge with their Parents, not because their Parents were their Fathers, but because their Fathers were Believers— But this has diverted me, I will return to what I have to say further. 6. That God is so far from taking down the Essential Church-state of the Jews, that (as I hinted before) he has taken down the Par­tition Wall of Ceremonies, and has made them one house, of which the Apostles and Prophets are secondary foundations, Eph. 2.14. For he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. 19. Now therefore, ye are no more Strangers, and Foreigners, but fellow Citizens with the Saints and of the Housho [...]d of God. 20. And are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone. Lastly, Consider also, that Christ hath Expresly declared, that Children belong to this Church as parts of the King­dome of God, Mat. 19.13, 14. Then were there brought unto him little Children, that he should put his hands upon them and pray, and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said suffer little Children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdome of Heaven. I know you would evade this Text, by telling us that (such) means (such like) in Humility, &c. but that Christ intends these very little [Page 45]Children, is Evident. 1. Because he might (if such like had been his meaning) as proper­ly have said, suffer Doves and Lambs to come to me, for of such like is the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. This taking them in his Arms and Blessing them, shews he meant them. 3. He asserts their Church Membership and that as a Reason why he would have them come, (For of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.)

You have said enough to convince me that Infant Baptism is not a groundless absurd opinion, there is much more to be said in its behalf, than ever I Imagin'd, or was ac­quainted with before. I thought neither Argument nor Solution was able to stand be­fore me. And I assured my self the Smooth Stones that I had chosen out of the Brook (the Pleas for Precept or Example and the mighty Objection of Childrens Incapacity) would have knock'd down the stoutest Cham­pion for Infant Baptism. I will try your Strength in one thing more, and that is the manner of Baptizing. You know that we hold that it ought to be done by total Immersion douseing, dipping, or covering the person with Water, This has mov'd some, other­wise well enough satisfied with Infant Bapt­ism, to be Baptized after our way, taking the former to be only Sprinkling, and therefore (as not answering our Lords Institution) null and void. And what Indeed can be more plain? Seeing the Genuine proper and primitive signification of the Word [ [...]] the thing designed in this Sacrament, and the Concurrent practise of the Primitive Church are all on our side.

What your Arguments want in Strength, you make up in Readiness. All that you have said (and it's all that can be said) is very easily Answer'd. If you will joyn with us in what I have been pleading for, the Covenant right of Children, We shall leave you to your Liberty in this, to act as you are perswaded in your own mind. The Scripture (as I shall show you anon) has not determined the particular Mode, and why should we? To your First Argument from the signification of the Word [Baptizo] I answer, That Word in Scripture is of a large signification, and generally signifies to Wash, but determines not the manner How; Whe­ther by Aspersion, Superfusion or Dipping, I think most rarely the Last, (viz. Dipping) I'll give you some Instances in which you can­not without manifest wresting of the Text confine it to Dipping or Dousing. My first Instance is, Mark 7.4. Ʋnless they Wash: [...], unless they be Bap­tized; Spoken of their Traditionary washing of their Hands (by them accounted Re­ligious) That it is only meant of their hands is plain from v. 2.3. And when they saw some of his Disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say with unwashen hands) they found fault. For the Pharisees, &c. And the Paralel place, Mat. 15.2. where the Quarrel with the Disciples was for Eating with Unwashen Hands, and their contrary practice was assert­ed. Now the Jewish way of washing was by powring Water upon the Hands, and not by dipping their hands in Water; And there­fore [Page 47]one that poureth water on the hands of a man, is but another Word for a Servant or Attendant. Thus Elisha poured Water on the hands of Elijah. From both these Scriptures compar'd, I gather, That when one (principal) part of the Body is washed, or (Baptized,) the whole man is said to be Baptized, or washed. 2. That pouring on of Water is called Baptizing. I do not see what you can object against this Scripture, and therefore I proceed to another, and that is Hebrews the 9.10. Which stood only in Meats and Drinks and divers Washings, and carnal Ordinances Imposed on them, untill the time of Reformation: divers Washings (in Greek Bap­tisms,) This Text undoubtedly relates to the Ceremonious Legal Washings, of which some were by way of sprinkling, compare it with these Places that speak professedly of them, Num. 8.7. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle Water of purifying upon them, &c. to the 19. Besides, These Wash­ings did signify to them their Pardon and Sanctification.

The Dutch Translators Translate John the Baptist, John the Dooper, or Dip­per.

You Triumph mightily in their Suf­frage, and yet I know not by what Authority they changed a Word used by the Scriptures, and retained all along in the Christian Church, into a Word of a less and more restrained Sense? However you take (Dooper) to sig­nify their Painting (wherein the Wit of that People lies) expresses it by his pouring [Page 48]Water upon the Head of the Penitent; and well enough might they do so, for we read Lawrence was so Baptized; Nor can it be well thought, that his Case was singular. You see then,Vossius in These de Baptismo. by Limitting the Word (Baptizo) you di­stinguish where the Law doth not distinguish. For plunging, or going under Water properly is [ [...]] Do not you think now, that if Dipping were [as one of your Writers affirms] the very form of Baptism, but that God would have told us more exactly what it is, and described it in every Circum­stance? but seeing he has not determined the Quantity of Elements in either Sacra­ment; as in the Lord's Supper, how great a Piece of Bread, or how large a Draught of Wine we are to take; nor has he tyed us to the Quantity of Water in Bapiism. By this time you cannot but see, That either an over­fondness of a Received Opinion has Capti­vated you into a Beliefe of the Impregna­bleness of such Weak Arguments. Or, that you have too easily taken upon Trust bare Assertions from Men, that by plausible (for solid you see it is not) Arguing would cast a Mist before your Eyes, that you may not dis­cover the Nakedness and Weakness of their Pleas about the Subjects of Baptism. That which further lays open the Slender hold you have of Scripture, is the Squeesing of Words and forcing them to your Purpose, and In­doctrinating your Proselytes in Greek Crit­icks; Shall such a great and necessary Truth [Page 49]lie couched in a little and Arbitrary Crit­icism, which proves false or doubtful when it comes to the Tryal? They must have a stronger Faith than I either pretend to, or desire, that can credit it.

But if the Word it self is not sufficient Witness for us, yet that with the Aid of Scripture Examples will abundantly prove what we plead for. Was not John Baptising in Enon? And is not the Reason plain, because there was much Water there? John 3.23. Is not the Eunuch said to go in­to, and come out of the Water, and is not the same said of our Blessed Saviour? What can be more clear?

Nothing I confess to those, that will look at Scripture through the Glass of their own Opinion, but a thinking and unpre­judiced person will not be deceved by ap­pearances; your much Water in Greek is [ΠΟΛΛΑΥΔΑΤΑ,] many Waters, Streams, or Rivulets, where tho' there might be much Water, comparatively to other places in that Land, where Water was scarce; yet says no­thing as to the Depth of the Water: Besides the Name of the place Enon a little Fountain, (and doubtless they gave it a name answer­able to the Quantity of Waters there) and the Account of Travellers favour this Expo­sition. Your Instances of going in or coming out of the Water, are of no more Validity. There are few Waters but they run Low, and a man cannot come to them but by de­scending, nor come from them, but by ascend­ing; and if you will have these Phrases to [Page 50]conclude any thing, it must be the Baptising of the Administrator as well as the Penitent; and then it will over-do, for it is spoken of both. But granting these already mentioned were baptiz'd by Dipping, How got they Water for Plunging in the midst of the Night?

Yes; Why might not they have Vessels in the House large enough?

That is a meer Childish Cavil; so much Water would stink and corrupt before it were used, and it is mere Conjecture all, and may as easily be deny'd as affirm'd.

But Christ has affixed such a meaning to the Action of Plunging, that can be Answer'd no other way, Rom. 6.4. There­fore we are Buryed with him by Baptism into Death, &c. Col. 2.12. Buryed with him in Baptism. How can Sprinkling or Pouring on of Water, shadow out Death?

It will represent Death to Sin, as well to us, as Plunging did to them; for as their Burying was by putting the Body down into a deep Hole, or by hiding it in a hol­low'd Rock, laying it in at the side, where­by it was suddenly cover'd, and out of sight. So ours is by laying it in the Ground, and throwing Earth or Dust upon it. Is not our way then (considering the different Custom of the Country) as Teaching and Edifying as yours? But that I may dispatch an An­swer to your whole Objection. The Spiri­tual Grace is as well signify'd by Pouring or Sprinkling; for whether you will have the Water to signify the Cleansing Power of [Page 51]Christ's Blood, nothing can do it more lively; seeing it is call'd, The Blood of Sprink­ling, Heb. 12.24. — And to the Blood of Sprinkling: Or, the Graces of the Holy Spi­rit purchased by that Blood, which the Scri­pture calls, A pouring out of the Spirit; we are not behind you in your way of Admini­stration. As ours hath all the Advantages you can pretend to in your way; so ours la­bours not under the Inconveniency and In­decency that yours doth.

What do you mean.

I mean the Immodesty and Hazard of Baptizing Naked, or next to Naked.

I wonder you'll charge us with such an Abominable Practice, as Baptizing Naked. 'Tis a thing we all detest.

It may be you do. But then let me tell you; 1. That you Baptize the Garments as well as the Person that wears them. And, 2. You must quit all your Pretence to Anti­quity; for, so long as they practis'd Dow­sing, the Persons that were to be Baptiz'd, were stript of their Garments. And this they did, to signifie, The putting off the Old Man, and Body of Sin; Baptizing in Water was to them Cleansing from, and Dying to Sin; And the putting on the White Gar­ment, which they had on purpose, was a put­ting on the New Man: But tho in the Hot Countreys, where they went almost Naked, such practises were more seemly, yet they would be next to Scandalous amongst us; And the Garments you have, if I be rightly Informed, are not so Comely, and Distinguish­ing, [Page 52]as they should be: And very light and loose sort of Garments they must be, that will on a sudden Plunge, give Passage for the Water to the Whole Body.

The hazard you speak of, would not be so much dreaded, if Men Indulg'd not their own Unbelief and Carnallity. God will keep Men in the Exercise of their Du­ty. I know not any one that ever got harm by being Baptiz'd, tho I have known many Weak People Paptized in Winter, and some have been better after.

I have heard the same observ'd of Childrens being Baptiz'd. Yet are we not to tempt God, especially when he has not oblig'd us to the more severe way, where there is Imminent Danger; God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice.

The Sabbath-day must rather be violated, than a Sick Person not Cur'd, or a Necessi­tous Person not Reliev'd; And Circumcision is Dispens'd with in the Wilderness, because of the Danger and Inconvenience that attend­ed it in that unsetled and wandring State of the Church: And the Jews saw it necessary to soften the Extremity of some Usages Commanded by God. If a Man had Two Children that dyed upon Circum­cision,Ainsworth, on Gen. 17 13. it was taken for granted, that Circumcision was fatal to the Males of that Family, and therefore the suc­ceeding Children were not to be Circumci­sed in Infancy. And I remember Mr. Tombes somewhere in his Precursor, allows of Warm [Page 53]Water to Weak Persons. The Primitive Christians thought Sprinkling was sufficient for the Clinici those that were Baptized in Sickness upon their Beds—But you are the Men, and Wisdom must dye with you— Whole Congregations must forfeit their Baptism, and be Unchurch'd, because Un­plung'd. The desperate Tendency of such a Tenet renders it suspicious to me. And it needs not only Water, but Niter, and much Sope, to wash it from horrid Uncharitable­ness.

If you please, Sir, we'll dismiss this Part of the Controversy, and pass on to that which is Historical; Antipaedobaptista disowns the Consequence of the Opinion, and his Practice is otherwise.

I know he doth; but the most of his Fellows in this Controversy, will have no Fellowship with us in the Lord's Supper, be­cause we are Unbaptiz'd; and least some Men's Christianity get the Ascendant of their Opinion, they are Pronounc'd by these Zealots worse than we; and we, in their Language, set our Thresholds beside God's Threshold, that is, if I take them, we are Idolaters.

I heartily wish a better Under­standing amongst Christians — But if you please, we will, according to Aporeticus his Motion, now proceed to what is Alledg'd out of Antiquity; and here I must be free with you; I know little of Antiquity, but what I see Collected by Writers of our Way.

I wish all Unskilfull Men would Ex­press themselves with the like Modesty, they would not so readily have been Impos'd upon, nor deceiv'd others that trusted to them: I shall give you an honest and short Account of what is considerable in this matter. If you desire an Answer to Mr. Tombes, the Learnedst Champion for your Way, which most that have Written after him, have Copy'd from; you have it perform'd by Dr. Homes, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Danvers, that takes the Magdeburgensian Centurists, and gives you an Account, out of them, of the Practice of Antiquity, neither doth them nor us Justice, and has brought but small Credit to his Cause. I have taken pains to compare his Extract with the Historians, and I could give you several Instances of his unfair Dealings; But I promis'd Brevity.

There are Two of the Antients that I have heard Quo­ted on our side,Tertul. Lib. de Bap. c. 18. Veniant Ergo dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur. Tertulli­an and Gregory Nazian­zen.

Tertullian indeed tells his Thoughts concerning Children that were not in danger of Death, such might have their Baptism deferred; And obviating an Objection that might be made from the Words of our Sa­viour, Suffer little Caildren to come to me. He Answers, Let them come when they grow up, and know when they come; 1. You see the Insufficiency of the Answer he makes. It satisfies not the Objection. Our Saviour [Page 55]bids, Let the Children come; and he Answers, Let them come when they grow up: Then they cease to be Children, such as our Savi­our speaks of: If this Answer would have serv'd our Saviour, little Children had never been brought to him. 2. From this it is Evident, that Children were then Baptiz'd, or what needed the Objection, or his An­swer. 3. That Christians, in that time, thought there was ground in that Scrip­ture for Childrens Admittance into the Church, and consequently their Baptisme. Compare what he here says, with what he Writes in another place, where he makes a Descant upon these Words of the Apostle. Now your Children are Holy— You will see he uses an Exposition of that Text,De Anima, cap. 39.40. and compares it with another (John 3.5.) that must make him speak for Infant Baptism or no­thing. As for Nazianzen, he gives us his Opinion, That it would be better (he thinks) that Children should put it off, till they can Answer some Questions (I suppose in Imitation of the Adult.Oratio: 40. que est in S. Baptisma, p. 458. ut cit. a Vossio in Thes. de Bap. p. 435. 436. See Sellers Remarks on the State of the Children of Believing Parents, p. 417, 418.) And, to the Question— Whether Children were to be Baptized, he An­swers Roundly, They should; and urges it from Childrens Receiv­ing the like Seal of Cir­cumcision; and to Argue from Circumcision [Page 56]to Baptism was usual amongst the Anti­ents.

If the Primitive Church were of your Mind, why put they off the Baptism of the Children of Believing Parents.

And I may Ask you why the Bap­tism of Believers was delay'd after their Profession of Christianity. The Reasons in General were these. Some deferr'd Bap­tism, both that of their own, and Children, out of a kind of Novation Principle, That Sinners, after Baptism, were Irremissible; misunderstanding Hebr. 6. (See Dr. Owen in Cor. and on Apostacy.) Others, till they could have a Time, Place, Company, River, (as Jordan) or Administrator that pleas'd them; some, because they would not disco­ver their Errours concerning the Trinity, into whose Name they were to be Baptiz'd; some, because they would not give the Church Satisfaction in Confessing their Sins; others, because they were Resolv'd to live in their Sins, and would not cut off their Sins by Repentance, or lay any Obligation upon themselves to Strict Holiness; Some, for fear of Persecution, frequent in those days; Some, out of Imitation of Christ, who was not Baptiz'd till the 30th Year of his Age. Others on more pitiful Reasons, as that they were unwilling to defray some little Charges and Expence that attended it. Others out of meer Carelessness, or because they were busyed in the Affairs of the World: Which last, I doubt not, would prevail with many [Page 57]in our Time, if they had not been prevent­ed by their Godly Parents.

The Reasons seem probable; But were there no Men in the First Times, that set themselves against Infant Baptism?

The first that I find charg'd with it, was Pelagius, who once deny'd it, and it was indeed for his Purpose; For it would have strengthened his hands, if he could have wrested so Considerable an Argument from the Orthodox as Baptism: For the Ground of it, that Children were Born in Sin, and therefore needed this Sacrament, Knock'd his Arguments against Original Sin on the Head. But so great a Cloud of Witnesses were against him, even the whole Church of Christ, that he was forced to let it alone, as too hot for his Fingers; and grant, That Children ought to be Baptized;Usher Antiq. Ec. Brit. p. 148. 153. &c. 11. per totum Edit. 1687. and confess, That the Catholick Church was al­ways of that Beliefe, and Wonder'd that any that Read the Gospel, should be of another Mind. The next we find were the German Anabaptists, a Genera­tion of Men that were raised up by the Devil to the Disgrace of the Reformation; a Com­pany of Ignorant Furious Enthusiasts.

By speaking so harshly of them you Reflect upon us.

No further than you undertake their Vindication, I perswade my self you have no­thing common with them but your opinion of [Page 58]Antipaedobaptism. I wonder any of you will turn advocate for them; and to clear them, cast Reproach upon the first Excellent Reformers, as if they had dealt falsely, and misrepresented them, and link them with the malicious Papists. I would Counsel you to have nothing to do with them, for you'll get no Credit by their Company.

You are always throwing their actions in our Teeth.

I know no man that is Honest and considerate, that will make any further Use of it, than this, That it is not likely, that so very glorious a Truth of God as you hold this to be, That God first suffered the Pelagians (the first sacrilegious Oppugners of the free grace of God) and then the German An­abaptists, a Number of Brutish Ranters, to be the discoverers of, and then the Propagators.

The Waldenses were for Anti­paedobaptism.

They were so represented by the malicious Papists their Adversaries, especially after the Reformation, such as Baronius, Spon­danus, &c. The Truth is the chief Quarrel against them was for their Opposition to the Grandeur and Vices of the Clergy. 'Tis true some of them deferred the Baptizing of their Children, but it was not because their (Barbs.) Ministers were abroad, and they would not have them baptized by the Roman Clergy. If you would know what their real Principles were you must take an Account of [Page 59]them from, 1. The Concessions of their Ad­versaries when Unprejudic'd, and when they design not to disgrace them. Some of them plainly Profess, That for all the Noise a­bout them, they had ever distinctly decla­red, what it was they held; So Rob. Gaguinus, Gag. de Relig. ge­stis. Francone, Edit. An. 1511. fol. 104. a Monk, who Wrote a little before the Refor­mation. Phil. Bergo­mas, that Wrote about the same Time,Bergom. Suppleus. Chron. fol. 282.298. menti­ons no such thing of them. 2. From their own Publick Professions, which you may find in Bishop Ʋsher de Succes. See Dr. Cave, Hist. liter. p. 632. Ec­cles. Edit. An. 1687. c. 6. per totum. Fuller Hist. Holy War. B. 3. c. 10. c. 8. p. 107,Momens Hist. Pa­pal. defended; As al­so Illiricus by Voetius, desperat causa. P. p. 666. lib. 3. chap. 9, 10. &c. c. 10. p. 150. Be­sides, you may Read in English, Morland, Perin, Dr. Allex. Boyer, in their Histories.

The Antient Britains were for us.

The Quarrel was not about In­fant Baptism, but about some ROMISH Rites and Additionals to Baptism; See Bede Hist. Eccles. who is the Antientest Author.

Berongarius oppos'd Infant Bap­tism.

There is no such thing mention'd in the Councils against him. Ʋsher de suc­cess. p. 104, 105.

I am satisfy'd in the Account you have given us; I Thank you for the Trou­ble you have taken.