First ANSWER.

Whether all that you have said here doth not directly tend to darken Knowledge, I refer to your own Conscience, and shall leave all wise men to judge when the Text is read, and the order of it laid down.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, after he had declared himself invested with absolute Power given him of the Father, to be Soveraign Lord, and supream Law-giver to the whole World through all Ge-Generations: He saith, as Mat. 28.19, 20. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things what­soever I have commanded you: And lo, I am with you alway, even un­to the end of the World.

This Command is so extensive as authorizes the Apostles of our Lord to take in by Baptism all Nations Discipled, or so many of all Nations as should be made Disciples; but how it includes one Infant, that neither is made, nor is capable (as such) of being made a Disciple. I see not (otherways) than as Infants are a con­siderable part of all Nations, and if therefore to be baptized, then are all Nations to be baptized by the lump, (even) Infidels, Idola­ters, prophane and abominable persons, as they are a part, yea, the greatest part of all Nations: And this will as truly follow as the other, if this Command may be understood without restriction, but if not, then the limitation must needs lye in the Word, which says, Teach or (Disciple); then neither the Infant nor prophane person can be admitted by this Text, if the Order in which it is laid down be duly considered, which is thus:

• (1.) Our Lord Jesus commands them to (go) to all Nations.
• (2.) To teach all Nations, or Disciple them.
• (3.) That they baptize such so taught or Discipled.
• (4.) That they shall further Teach and Instruct such baptized Disciples to observe all other things that Christ hath commanded.

Now, that this, and no less than this, is intended here▪ will ap­pear with great Evidence from the Consent of such as dissent from [Page 6] us: And therefore Mr. Baxter speaking of this Text, shews the several Work and Duty of the Apostles, in their several Places and Orders, who tells us in his second Disputation of Right to Sacraments, Pag. 149, 150▪ ‘Their (1.) Task is to make Disci­ples, which Mark calls Believers. (2.) Their work is to baptize them, whereunto is annexed the Promise of Salvation. (3.) Their work is to teach them all other things which are after to be learned in the School of Christ. Further saith he, To contemn this Order, is to contemn all Rules of Order; for where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text, that it is one sort of Faith, even Saving-Faith, that must go before Baptism, the profession where­of the Minister must expect.’ And in his Poor Man's Family-Book, pag. 168. saith, ‘The Church never knew any Baptism, but such as was joyned with a present profession of present Faith, Repentance, and Renunciation of the Devil, the World, and the Flesh, and a total devotedness to God and Christ, with more to this purpose.’

And the Author of the Annotations began by Mr. Poole, upon this Text, expresly saith, ‘I cannot be of their mind, who think persons may be baptized before they be taught, we want Presi­dents of any such Baptisms in the Scripture, tho' indeed we find Presidents of persons baptized, who had but a small degree of knowledge of the Gospel, but it should seem, that they were all taught, and then baptized.’ Now what this Author saith far­ther with reference to Infant-Baptism, because they are a part of all Nations, I leave, as that which may justly evidence him guilty of Self-Contradiction and Inconsistence.

You add further, That Christ is here prescribing a way to gather his Church, and of preserving it to the Worlds end; and That the Church consists of Infants, as well as grown persons.

Answ. As to the first, we grant, that Christ here is prescri­bing a way of gathering his Church, but that his Church was made up of Infants as well as grown persons, (professing Belie­vers) is a bold Assertion, and a meer Imposition upon your Au­ditory, having not the least Light or Evidence, nor being able to give so much as one Instance of any one Infant that was ever ad­mitted, by any of the Apostles, a Member of any Church by Baptism in their days: Could you do this, you would do some­thing to purpose; but to undertake this Task would be to labour [Page 7] under an utter Impossibility, knowing the old Maxim, that says, That which appears not, is not.

You further say, Had Christ said, Go circumcise all Nations, the Disciples would have understood what and whom he meant.

Answ. It seems then, in your Apprehension, the Apostles were ignorant of what Christ meant, and what they did in pur­suance to his Command they did at a venture. Is not this pee­vish Reasoning, and a manifest impeaching Christ and his Disci­ples? Was Christ so dark and unintelligible in what he com­manded them, that they could not apprehend him? Is not Go teach and baptize all Nations as easie to be understood, as Go cir­cumcise every Male at eight days old? Surely they did understand Christ, and you may, if you will not put out your own Eyes, which I entreat you to have a care of, lest continuing to preach up, and practise things contrary too, or at least not agreeable with the Doctrin of Christ and his Apostles, you become culpa­ble, and so liable to that Anathema pronounc'd against all, tho' an Angel from Heaven that shall preach another Gospel, Gal. 1.8. And Maimonides tells you no more than what we allow you, That the Jews of old did baptize the Proselyte and little Stranger, but in that they did not use Baptism as a Sacrament, as you your self acknowledge, is a Tradition of the superstitious Jews, an Autho­rity sufficient to warrant you in your sprinkling Infants as a Go­spel Ordinance. Sure, Sir, this your Practice, as well as some of their Traditions, bespeaks Christ's Command to be void, and of none effect, and in plain terms gives the Lye to Mr. Baxter, and more, in their Comments upon the Commission of Christ: For Mr. G. Lawson, in his Magna Charta dedicated to Hen. B. of Lon­don, pag. 27, 28. tells us, That the word Teach before baptizing imports a teaching with success, so as to cause the persons taught to learn, i. e. to receive their Doctrin, understand it, approve it, be convinced of the Truth of it, and be converted by it, so far as to be made Christians. And so the Apostles understood Christ, as is evident by their whole practise; and if you dare not say, that they were mistaken in the mind of Christ, I am sorry you give me occasion to tell you, that you are; and as a Friend, I advise you to correct the mistake you are under, and act for time to come more conformably to Christ's Doct [...]in and his Apostles Practice.

[Page 8]But you further urge, The practice of the Apostles in baptizing whole Housholds, for your practice in baptizing Infants.

Answ. That Housholds was baptized we grant, but that In­fants was in those Houses is more than you can prove, and the best ground you have for your Practice here, is Probability; there may be and may not be, is too slight a Ground to build so great an Ordinance upon as Baptism: We could give you an account of as many Housholds in this County, if not in this Town, that are baptized, and that have no Children in them, as you read of in the Gospel; but admit there were Children, which re­mains for you to prove, yet it follows not that they were bapti­zed, it being usual in Scripture to take a part for the whole; as 1 Sam. 1.21. saith, All the House went up to offer the yearly Sacri­fice; yea, the 22, 23. Verses say expresly, That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up, (yet all the House.) So Luke 2.1. In those days went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed; yet who will understand any other part of the World than that within his own Dominions, and within the bounds of his own Territories (yet all the world.) And so in many other places. But to speak of these Housholds in parti­cular, will, if I mistake not, turn your own Artillery against you, which we shall do in a few words; and,

(1.) To the Houshold of Lydia. 'Tis said she and her House­hold was baptized, Acts 16.15. but no ground to conclude that there were any Infants there, but a fair ground to suspect the con­trary; and that she might be a Maid or a Widow, there being no mention made of her Husband, and she reckon'd the Head of the Family, which is not proper where there is a Husband; be­sides, she was a Trader, and at this time many miles from home being now at Philippi, but was of the City of Thialira, as ver. 12 compared with the 14. so that if she had any Children, it is pro­bable she should carry them about with her from place to place, whither she went to trade and merchandize; most likely she should leave them at her abode in Thialira, and not that she would be cumbered with the trouble and care of her Infants in her Tra­vels to traffick: But that this may issue with Evidence against you, the Apostles, in the last Verse in this Chapter, they went into the House of Lydia, and when they had comforted the Bre­thren, they departed: So that it's plain those of Lydia's Houshold were Brethren, and the Brethren were capable of being comforted, which Infants are not in the sence of that Text.

[Page 9]A second Houshold is that of the Jaylor, in the 33d Verse of the same Chapter, the Jaylor and all his were baptized straightway; (all his) that is, as one observes, his Wife, his Servants and Re­lations, for to them it may more properly refer than to his Children, who whether he had any is uncertain, but whether he had or not, it's not material in this Case; for in v. 32. 'tis said expresly, And they (i. e. Paul and Silas) spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his House; which cannot be imagined they should do unto Infants: And v. 34. saith, He re­joyced believing in God with all his House: So then all that were baptized in his House, were such as heard the Word of the Lord, and rejoyced believing in God, which Infants are not capable to do. But

A Third Houshold is that of Crispus, Acts 18.8. And Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were bapti­zed. Though it be certain, that he, with all his House, was baptized, from 1 Cor. 1.14. yet from this Text it is not so plain, that he, with all his House, was baptized, as that he, with all his House, believed on the Lord. And that such as believe were fit Subjects of Baptism, who denies? But,

A Fourth Houshold is that of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16. says Paul, And I baptized also the house of Stephanas. Now, if any enquire what is said of this Houshold, to hinder but that Infants might be there and consequently baptized? why enough, and that which may satisfie all men, that there were no Infants here; for the Apostle saith in the 16th Chapter of this Epistle, and 15th verse, Ye know that the house of Stephanas were the first-fruits of Achaja, and that they addicted themselves to the ministry of the Saints. Which Infants, as such, will never be capable of doing, but are to be mi­nistred unto: Therefore how great an Uncertainty do the Pa­trons and Defenders of Infant-Baptism labour under! Hence it was that the worthy Dr. Hammond grants, that no concluding Ar­gument can be deduced from the baptizing whole Housholds, for baptizing Infants; and certainly the Doctor concludes but ratio­nally herein, knowing that a clear word of Command is necessary to constitute a Gospel Ordinance; as you your self have fully ac­knowledged in time past.

I now pass to the last Branch of your Argument, wherein you say the Infants of Professing Christians ought to be baptized, be­cause they are Disciples, which you would insinuate from Acts 15.10. [Page 10] which I find thus worded: Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear.

What is here in all this Text to prove Infants Disciples? Not one tittle; the Disciples here spoken of are those Gentiles that were converted to the Faith at Antioch, who met with some di­sturbance, occasion'd by some that came down from Judea, urging the necessity of Circumcision, saying as Vers. 1. That unless ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved: Hereupon Paul and Barnabas con­tends with them, and says, Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, in imposing the observance of Circumcisi­on, with the other Ceremonies of the Law upon the Gentile Church? For the Yoke spoken of by the Apostle lay not strictly in Cir­cumcision, but in keeping of the whole Law, whereunto they were firmly bound and obliged by Circumcision, Gal. 5.3. which Infants were never capable of doing, neither in the least are here intended; for though this Church at Antioch is made up of Di­sciples, we believe; but that one Infant is here included we deny: For when the Dissention grew hot between Paul and Barnabas, and the men that came down from Judea, the Disciples deter­mined to send Paul and Barnabas up to the Council at Jerusalem, to enquire as to that matter, ver. 2. and in the Third Verse you read, That the Church or Disciples spoke of in the Second Verse brought them on their way; and when they returned with their Answer from the Council, you read in the 31. ver. that they re­joyced for the consolation; and in the 32. ver. that Judas and Silas exhorted the Brethren, and with many words confirmed them; all which Offices performed, and Comfort received, Infants can no way be capable of, neither can be intended in this place by the Disciples.

Besides, to say Infants, as such are Disciples, is insipid, and contrary to the true import of the word, being render'd by all Lexicons and Dictionaries that ever I saw, which tell us, that a Disciple is a Scholar or Learner.66 Epist. to Dard. Austin saith, That those who go about to make Infants Disciples, do not only lose their pains, but expose themselves to laugh­ter: And though it be true, that all Disciples are of God's ma­king, and not Man's, as you say Infants are, and Paul was, yet we tell you, that Infants neither are nor can be made Disciples without a Miracle, according to the sence and signification of the word; neither are any made so, as to be fit Subjects of Baptism, [Page 11] till they have been instructed by Man what to do; as appears from the Commission and Paul's own Case; for, upon his en­quiring what the Lord would have him to do, you read, the Lord sends him to Damascus, and there, saith he, it shall be told thee what thou must do, Acts 9.6. And accordingly the Lord sends Ananias to meet and instruct Paul, as ver. 10, 11. I come to your

Second ANSWER.

If you would carefully examine and look into the nature of this Covenant mention'd Gen. 17. you will find it such as yields not your Infant-Seed the least Right to Gospel Ordinances, it being a Covenant peculiar to Abraham, which God made with him for [Page 12] his natural Seed, his Children according to the Flesh, wherein we have God promising unto him a very numerous and honourable Issue, v. 5, 6. (2) That as God hath graciously condescended to become a God in Covenant to Abraham, even so He will continue to be the God of his Seed after him, ver. 7. from whence it's evi­dent, that God hath chosen the whole Off-spring of Abraham, in a peculiar manner, to be his Covenant-People, by vertue of that Covenant that He made with him for himself and his Seed; and therefore (3) God on his part promiseth to plant and settle the Seed and Posterity of Abraham in the promised Canaan, which was a Blessing peculiar to that People, made sure to them by a Cove­nant-promise on God's part, ver. 8. as a Token whereof, he gives them Circumcision to be kept and observed by them, through their Generations, as ver. 9, 10. And this we judge easie to make evi­dent, were that our Business, though there be something of the Covenant of Grace intermixt with it.

But if by Covenant, Gen. 17.7. you mean the Covenant of Grace made in Christ, the alone Mediator unto Eternal Salvation, why then we cheerfully assent, that the Children of all professing Chri­stians are included, and heartily believe that the Infants of others are not excluded, this Covenant with Abraham being but a reci­tal of that which God made with lapsed Adam, which was the Covenant of Grace in the first Edition of it, Gen. 3.15.

And Mr. Baxter is so far from thinking that any are excluded the Grace of this Covenant, that he affirms, The Law of Grace was as truly made with all men in Adam, as the Law of Inno­cency was; and that all were really alike in Adam; and that Cain was not the Serpents Seed meerly for original Sin, and as born of Adam, as Abel was; nor did God make him the Serpents Seed by Reprobation, but that he made himself so by superadded Sins against the Redeemer and Law of Grace.

So that if a being in the Covenant of Grace be a sufficient ground to baptize any, why then it is confest, that all Infants have equally a Right to Baptism.

But it is humbly offer'd, That neither Baptism now, nor Cir­cumcision in its place, was given as a Sign and Seal to the Cove­nant of Grace; for though the efficacy of its Grace did reach in­nocents and Believers in all Ages, yet what Ordinance was ever annexed to it as its Seal through the several Ages from Adam to Noah, in which Ages lived Abel, Seth, Enoch, who by Faith wal­ked with God, and Noah, with whom this Covenant was re­newed, [Page 13] Gen. 6.18. and from Noah to Abraham, and from the time that Abraham had this Covenant ratified by a sure Promise of a faithful Seed, before the Covenant of Circumcision was given out, which was about 25 years.

A Seal it was to Abraham of the Righteousness of his Faith wherewith he believed whilst uncircumcised; so the Holy Ghost applies it, Rom. 4.9, 10, 11. Verses, but to no other Person as a Seal as I know of. Nay, to imagine that Circumcision was a Seal proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace, must needs be a Mistake, else the Patriarchs of old, Melchisedeck King of Sa­lem, and Priest of the Most High God, an eminent Type of Christ, just Lot, and Job God's righteous Servant, of whom it's said there is none like him in all the Earth, could have laid as good a claim thereunto as any besides; but Circumcision never received its Being as a Seal annexed to the Covenant of Grace, for had it been given as a Token peculiar thereto, it would have remain'd (I presume) as unchangeable as the Covenant itself, and would not have vanish'd away with the other shadows of the Mosaical Dispensation. So that though we grant your Infant-Seed to be in the Covenant of Grace, yet because of their Interest therein, it follows not that they have a Right to Baptism, that being now no more a Sign peculiar to the Covenant, than Circumcision was, that is now abolish'd; for were it a Sign, then the Covenant once had two Signs annexed to it, as proper and peculiar, even from the time of the institution of Baptism to Christ's Death; till then Circumcision was in force, and how absurd is this to ima­gine? Neither is Baptism any more a Sign which you grant Children than the Lord's Supper, of which you most uncharita­bly deprive them, for they who in a Gospel sence have a Right to the one, have no less Right to the other.

Besides, the Seed promised to Abraham, in the Covenant of Grace made or renewed with him, is a spiritual and believing Seed; and so the Holy Ghost expresly tells you, if you dare de­pend upon his Testimony, Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. of whom Isaac was the Type, not a carnal and fleshly Seed, figured by Ishmael, as is obvious in the Allegory explain'd by the Apostle Gal. 4. from 22, to 29. And as it is Faith only which denominates a person to be the Child of Abraham, Gal. 3.7, 9. so it is Faith only that bespeaks a Person to be a fit subject for Baptism, as Acts 8.37, 38. Could any person shew where the Holy Ghost calls Baptism a Seal, 'twould be of some service to your Cause, but as [Page 14] that cannot be assigned, so Baptism cannot be any more than Circumcision was, a Seal; for the proper use of a Seal is to con­firm, ratifie, and make sure Bonds and Contracts, &c. But, I pray, what is it that Baptism confirms, ratifies, and makes sure unto Children, more than what is through Grace made sure to them, to wit, Eternal Life by Jesus Christ without Baptism? 'Tis true, by Faith in Baptism we put to our Seal, but there is some­thing else which God annexeth as his Seal, whereby he sealeth up Believers, the alone Children of Abraham, and confirms them in the sure hope and expectation of Eternal Life, viz. the Holy Spirit, Ephes. 1.13. and Chap. 4.30. Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed to the day of Redemption. Many may be baptized, that are not of the Seed promised to Abraham, as many such heretofore have been to instance only in Judas, Simon Magus and the foolish Virgins, but the Holy Spirit is given to none as a Seal, but such who by believing are not Bastards, but the true Sons of Abraham.

Furthermore, if you consider the nature and scope of the Co­venant made with Abraham, it must needs make void your man­ner of arguing, because it's said to Abraham and his Seed, There­fore say you to us and our seed. But now consider, are each of you by this Covenant made the Father of a blessed Seed, as Abraham was the Father of the Faithful? Or can you claim the Promise for your selves and your Seed, according to the Tenure of Abra­ham's Covenant, and as he might (know) but we must rest in a relation to him, as Children, and so receive his Blessings, i. e. the Blessings promised to him for his Seed, and that by means of our own Faith, and for our selves alone? Believers, because they are Abraham's Seed, are blessed with faithful Abraham, Gal. 3.9. And if we are Christ's, then are we Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise, ver. 29. So much to the Covenant and its Seal.

You add, The Promise is to you and your Children Acts 2.39.

Ans. If by Promise you mean the Remission of Sin, and the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in v. 38. we are of your mind, That they belong to every penitent and believing Jew: Even so to every penitent and believing Gentile, the Wall of Partition be­ing now taken down, is this Grace extended, as is plain in the close of the Verse, Even to as many, (i. e. Jews or Gentiles) as the Lord our God shall call. But doth it follow hence, that any per­son ought to be baptized before Repentance, whereas it is our [Page 15] being renewed by Repentance and Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, that evidenceth our Right to the Grace promised, and Baptism is prescribed to be performed as a Duty by such, for the obtaining the Grace promised? But if you say it doth follow, I demand why John did treat any of the natural Offspring of Abraham so roughly as he seems to do, calling them a Brood of Vipers, and as such, rejected them, requiring them to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, Mat. 3.7, 8, 9. And doth not Acts 2.38. as plainly say, Repent and be baptized? Is not therefore to baptize any without the least shew of Repentance in the Subject, to in­vert the Order of the Holy Ghost, it being certain, that you and your Children, in the 39th Verse, is not so properly you and your Infant, as you and your Posterity? I wish it were not to be said of you in this case as Stephen speaks of some Jews in another, Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your Fathers did, so do ye, Acts 7.51.

You proceed, telling us, That God dealt thus with Man in all Ages, in the Covenant of Works with Adam, in the Old Testament with the Patriarchs or Fathers, and can we think He hath altered his Me­thods? What Evidence of that?

Ans. That the Transactions of God with his People and their Seed in all Ages, hath been in a Covenant-way, and will be so to the end of the World, and that our Seed is interested in the Grace of the same Covenant that Adam and the Fathers were in all Generations; God hath not altered his methods at all, with re­spect to the Covenant he hath made, which is unalterable and everlasting as David saith, 2 Sam. 23.5. As you had an Interest in the Covenant of Grace, so have your Infant-seed, but should they live to forfeit their Interest in that Grace by actual Trans­gression, as you and I have done, may not God direct to the use of such Mediums as Faith, Repentance, and Obedience are, for the Sinner's Recovery, and give out such Laws and Ordinances as is consistent with his own Grace and Wisdom, upon his dissolving of one Church Frame, and erecting another, without the Sinner's controul?

You say, Children are a part of their Parents, and of the same Con­dition with them, &c.

Ans. If this pass for right Reason with you, it will not so with me, neither will it at another turn pass for good sence with you. We grant, that Children are of the same nature (humane) [Page 16] with their Parents, Bone of their Bone, and Flesh of their Flesh, but not alwaies of the same state with their Parents. What think you? Was Cain of the same Condition with Adam, Ish­mael with Abraham, Esau with Isaac, Absalom with David, Ma­nasseh and Amon with Hezekiah, or good Hezekiah with wicked Ahaz, or good Josiah with his wicked Father Amon, or those Chil­dren of Israel who enter'd and possessed the promised Canaan with their wicked Father, whose Carcasses for their Sin fell in the Wilderness. How directly opposite is this your beloved Notion to that Rule of perfect Righteousness and Equity, which God hath laid down in that 18th of Ezekiel, wherein he attesteth, that all Souls are his, as v. 4. and that the soul of the Son shall not dye for the sin of the Father; intimating, that the Father by becoming a wicked Apostate and abominable Idolater, may change his own State, and forfeit his own Interest in the Covenant, but thereby shall not weaken his Childs Interest in the Covenant, which abideth firm unto Eternal Life, notwithstanding any Sin in the Father; nothing can ruin that, but the Childs own Disobedience, as the whole Chapter sheweth.

Nay, if the good and happy estate of Infants depends so much upon the believing of mediate Parents, is not the Salvation of such Infants rather to be imputed to their Parents believing, than to Christ in dying? But this your way is not God's way, for God claims a Right to, and a Propriety in the Children of an Apostate Israelite, as well as the Children of his faithful Servants; which could not be, should the Covenant-Interest of Children be suspen­ded upon the defection of their immediate Parents; but so it is, Ezek 16.20, 21. Moreover, thou hast taken thy sons and thy daugh­ters, whom thou hast born unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them, to be devoured: Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, that thou hast slain my Children?

You add, That the thing signified belongs unto Children, to wit, Pardon, Regeneration, and the Kingdom of Heaven, if the greater, then the less.

Ans. That the Grace of Pardon belongs to Children we be­lieve, flowing purely from the Grace of God in Christ to them, and not by vertue of any Act of Faith in their immediate Parents; That the Kingdom of Heaven also belongs to Children, we fully consent to with you; but that Regeneration doth belong to Chil­dren, or the Duties of it is any where required of them, I profess [Page 17] my self a Stranger; and that this may issue, I do sincerely promise, that when you can by good warrant prove it the Duty of Infants to be regenerated, and that such are regenerated, according to the true sence of that word, to be one with you in the baptizing of them.

As to the Objection formed in the close of your Argument, I judge it stands strong against you, till you have given us a more convincing Answer, than telling us it's weakly argued, amounts to, appealing to your own Conscience, whether Infants, with respect to Spirituals, are any more fit for Milk than strong Meat, whilst capable of neither; and whether the Prerequisites neces­sary to Baptism be not superiour to the Capacity of Children, as those necessary to the Lord's Supper, whether an actual Dying to Sin can be any more the work of an Infant than Self-examination. I now come to your

Third ANSWER.

If Circumcision be the best Authority you have for Infant-Baptism, as I think it may be, or at least as good as any, in ano­ther Case, I should mightily pity you, to think how poor a shift you make to prove a New-Testament-Ordinance by an Old-Testament-Writ, and an abolish'd Ceremony. Is not this as good Arguing? The Lord's Supper comes in the room of the Passover; the Children eat of the Passover, why not of the Lord's Supper? But that Baptism comes in the room of Circumcision is not in the least proved, nor can be from Col. 2.11, 12. for there the Apostle is speaking of a Circumcision, then and to this day in force, to wit, the cutting of the fore-skin of the Heart, a putting off the Body of Sin, in token whereof the believing Colossians are said to be buried with Christ in Baptism.

Besides, that Baptism comes not in the room of Circumcision, is further evident, as they were both in force together, from the time of Baptisms institution to the end of our Saviour's Life; whereas if Circumcision had been a Type of Baptism, the Shadow must have vanish'd when the Substance was come, but no man will say, that Circumcision was abolish'd, until Christ by Death nail'd it, with other Ordinances that was against us to his Cross.

You add, They belong to the same Covenant.

Ans. That they may appertain to the Covenant, as annexed thereto by positive Institution, we believe but as we told you be­fore, neither of them as Signs and Tokens proper and peculiar to the Covenant of Grace, and therefore can belong only to them to whom they are assigned.—

You say, They are of the same nature.

Ans. Is not this to say the Ministration of Christ is as legal as the Mosaical, contrary to Heb. 8.6, 7. and so on. If Flesh and Spirit, Legal and Evangelical, be one in Nature, then Baptism is the same with Circumcision.

You add further, They have the same Ends and Ʋses.

Ans. How that appears I know not: Was not this one end of Circumcision, to confirm unto Abraham and the Jews, in their suc­cessive Generations, that Christ the Promised Seed should come of the Line of Abraham, according to the Flesh; whereas Baptism hath no such End, therefore the Analogy betwixt them are not [Page 19] the same as you imagine: However from what you have said you conclude, there is the same Reason that Children should be baptized now as circumcised then, if you have the same warrant for the one as for the other: I confess, the Reason is the same, else not; for the tryal hereof, I will briefly enquire (1.) what it was that made Circumcision the Duty of Children; (2.) the Qualifications that gave Children a Right thereunto. But,

(1.) That which made Circumcision the Duty of Children, was not their Covenant-Interest, as we have before shewed. Had that, the Patriarchs, Melchisedeck, Lot, and Job, had had an un­doubted Right thereto, and their Posterity, as they were of the same condition with them, as before you have argued; but it was the positive Command of God, given out to Abraham in Gen. 17.10. Every Man-child amongst you, saith the Lord, shall be cir­cumcised. Here Circumcision is introduced by Divine Institution and Appointment; and that you may assuredly know who are the Subjects hereof, the Lord plainly tells them, every male Child amongst them shall be circumcised, the time when is expresly set down, viz. at eight days old, v. 12. They were not to do it soo­ner, nor deferr it longer. And as the Law is thus express for the Male Children, through their Generations, even so it is as positive for those born in their Houses, that are not of their Seed, and the Stranger that is bought with their Money, v. 13. and also for the Proselyte, Exod. 12.48, 49. And to oblige all to the due observance of this Law, the Lord joyns a severe Threatning of disinheriting or cutting off every uncircumcised Male Child amongst them, (or rather every man amongst them that circumcised not his Males) else the Commination would turn its edge against the Child for the Parents Fault, knowing the Child could only be passive in the thing. Thus you see by what Authority Circumci­sion was practised.

(2.) The Qualification that gave Children a Right thereto, was not their Covenant-Interest, for then their Females had the same Right as their Males; besides, by vertue of the Institution, such were to receive Circumcision, as you will have much ado to believe were interested in the Covenant, to instance only in Ishmael and Esau, and the words of the Apostle, that saith, All are not Israel that are of Israel.

Abraham's whole Male natural Seed must needs be circumcised; yet who will imagine, that the numerous Issue proceeding from him were so interested in the Covenant, as Abraham and the Faith­ful [Page 20] were, neither was any thing of Duty required as a necessary Prerequisite to qualifie Abraham's Seed for Circumcision, more than a descending lineally from him; a being his Children ac­cording to the Flesh, qualified them for, and interested them in the Blessing of the Covenant of Circumcision, which are inferior to the Blessings of the new Covenant and Gospel Ministration: So that it's evident the carnal Seed of Believers can obtain no greater Priviledge, than the Seed of Abraham did by the Cove­nant of Circumcision, whose Priviledge reached not to an Interest in Gospel-Blessings (or the New Covenant) unless they had obtai­ned that Right for themselves by believing, otherwise, as one saith well, they had no more Right to them by their natural descent from Abraham, than Ishmael had in their Covenant of Peculia­rity.

And as of old Circumcision was not to be administred to any but those appointed by the express Will and positive Law of God; neither ought Baptism now; nor can any man conclude from a good ground for Infant-Baptism, till as good Authority be pro­duced for it, as they had of old for circumcising the Males of Israel.

You add further, Doubtless if it had not been so, the believing Jews would have debated with the Apostles about it, &c.

Ans. I confess, had they not learned better Manners, and been of much a better Temper than many in our days, they would not only have debated but quarreled with them, as some do, thrust­ing away Truth as a Troubler of their Coasts, as the Gadarenes did Christ; but the Believers of old learned Christ to better ends, than to maintain unnecessary Debates with the Apostles, being satisfied from the nature of the Gospel Ministration, that there was no room for Controversies in Christ's changing the Subject as well as the Ceremony; and you may see that Point as fully decided and resolved as they did, would you rid your mind of Prejudice, and with a single Eye look into the Commission where Christ bids them to make Disciples and baptize them, and into the general Practice of the Apostles, which did perfectly cor­respond with the Command, which Command was made the Rule of their Proceedings, and not the demolish'd form of the Jewish Church: And Christ, in faithfulness to his Church, and in mer­cy to little Infants, hath as evidently changed the Subject as the Sign, Mark 16.15, 16. which in conjunction with the general Practice of the Apostles, in that they never baptized one Infant, [Page 21] puts the thing out of doubt. Thus, I hope, your three topping Arguments are fully answered, which you say are equivolent to an express Command; an Assertion so impudent, that I pray God it may not be laid to your Charge; for there is not any thing said in all of them, but what may bespeak you to need, that some one teach you which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God, Hebr. 5.12.

And now Brethren, I hope, as wise men, you will judge, and seriously consider what is said, and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. 2.7. I now come to your Argument of lesser magnitude.

Fourth ANSWER.

That little Children, as such, belong unto the Kingdom of Hea­ven, we discent not from you one jot in this Truth; for since Christ hath said, that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, we joyfully and stedfastly believe the certainty of it, and that little Children are of the Church of God, i e. the Universal and Invisible Church, which contains all the Elect of God, known and un­known [Page 22] known unto us, and that to the most remote Corners of the Earth, in which blessed state they abide, though their Parents may suffer a change of state by sin, yet that alters not the state of Children, nor nothing can, till by their voluntary departure from God in choosing sinful ways, they destroy themselves. To prove Infants (as such) in a visible state of Salvation, we conceive not difficult, the words of Christ strongly concluding it.

But if by Church you mean the visible Church of Christ, and do say, That because little Children are of the Kingdom of Hea­ven, that therefore they are of the visible Church, as that most be intended, because of your pleading for admission for them, then I conceive your Conclusion to be most untrue. (1.) Be­cause, to say the Fleshly Seed of Believers are born within the Pale, and Members of the Church of Christ, is a Doctrine For­reign to that of the Gospel. (2.) Because such a Doctrine, in a great measure, destroys the right end of Baptism, which is to make them Members of it, that are not, Acts 2.41. and 47. and not to bring them into the Church, that are in it already. (3.) Because Infants, as such, are not capable, and fit matter to make right Members of the Church of Christ under the Go­spel: For, says the Apostle writing to Church Members, Ye also as lively Stones, are built up a Spiritual House, an holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 2.5. which Infants can neither be nor do. (4.) To say Infants are Members of the visible Church, is incongruous to all Defini­tions that ever I met with of a Gospel Church, as I might shew by some of your own. I forbear to name ours, as that which may not pass with you for currant, therefore shall assign only that of the Church of England, as an Evidence against you, which speaks in the Nineteenth Article, as follows:

The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful Men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.—which strong­ly bespeaks the Church of Christ to be exclusive of Infants.

Further, your grant that Children before Baptism belong to the Kingdom of Heaven doth call into question that part of the Church Catechism which teacheth her Catticuminies to say, [Page 23] That in their Baptism they were made Members of Christ, Children of God and Inheritors, or (Heirs) of the Kingdom of Heaven; and if they are Members of the Church, as you confess, they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, is not your own practice as forreign; when as, in your baptizing any, do tell the People that thereby that Child becomes a Member of the Church of God; a goodly fa­vour you do 'em indeed by Baptism, you make them what it seems they were before, and no more by your own Grant.—

Again; That your Conclusion is not true, that saith, Be­cause little Children are of the Kingdom of Heaven, therefore they are of the Church, and ought to be admitted by Baptism, is further evident, in that there are many that shall be saved, as have not the least shew of Right to a Place in, and to the Priviledges of the Church of Christ, of which Infants are some who have not fin'd actually against the Law of Nature; and the rest are those Heathens who do live and walk up to that Light and Law of Nature which God hath placed in them, who are not blest with the Gospel Light, nor any Divine Revelation, over and a­bove the Light of Natural Conscience: and surely some such there may be, of whom the Apostle speaks Rom. 2.14. who do by Nature the things contain'd in the Law; and with reference to such, in all probability, Christ spake, saying, Many shall come from the East, and from the West, meaning the most remote parts of the Earth, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven; but the Children of the Kingdom shall be cast out, Matth. 8.11, 12. If it be granted that there may be any such, it's evident the Kingdom of Heaven will be a Receptacle for them; but who in the least can imagine that they have any right to Gospel Priviledges? so that your Conclusion must needs fall. A right to Heaven from this Text is granted them, but it yields them not the least Evidence of a Right to a Church Re­lation and Priviledge. So that I conceive all your pains in plead­ing from this Text vain, and in all that you have said, to be but like one that beateth the Air. A gallant Vapour, brandishing a Sword that hath no Enemy to strike at, 1 Cor. 9.26.

You say the same Objections lye against their being saved, as against their being baptized, if they cannot actually believe Mark 16.16.

Answer; That Faith in Jesus Christ is made the Condition on [Page 24] which all Men must be saved to whom the Gospel either was, is, or ever shall be preached, is certain; yet as the Gospel never was appointed to be preached to Infants, as such, neither is it by you, nor any Man in this day; so it is not required any where of them to believe in order to their bring saved. If it be, who required it? and where? And since their natural Capacities is such as renders the work of Believing impossible to them (with­out a Miracle) whose Faith shall save them, their immediate Parents, nay, rather the Faith of our remote Father, to wit, A­dam; as his Unbelief at first destroyed them, so in likelyhood his Faith should interess them in the Grace of Eternal Life: but we say the Faith of neither; for the Faith and Righteousness of all believing Parents in the World considered in one, will not be of Merit sufficient to save one Victim, Ezek. 14.14. No, this Bene­fit flows purely from the Fountain of all Grace, and is conveyed to them by another Stream, to wit, God's free and full imputing the Righteousness of Christ, the second Adam, by whose Righ­teousness, Life, and Meritorious Death they are inverted with a Justification unto Life Eternal, Rom. 5.18. As by the offence of one Judgment came upon all Men to Condemnation, even so by the Righ­teousness of one, the free Gift came upon all Men unto Justification of Life. Were it so that the Faith of Parents did intitle their Children to Salvation, how unworthily would it reflect upon our Lord Jesus, as if he could not save Innocent Babes without their Parents believing, and strongly conclude God to be more prone to Severity then Mercy, in saving a very few, i. e. the Children of believing Parents, and Eternally damns all the rest from their Mothers Womb for what they could not help, viz. a remote Fa­thers sinning, and an immediate Fathers not believing; but how contrary is this to that God, whose Mercies are over all his Works, Psalm 145.8, 9. So that it's evident the Salvation of dying In­fants is sure, though they believe not in the sence of that Text, Mark 16.16. or with that Faith which alone qualifies a Person for Baptism. So I come to your

Fifth ANSWER.

That the Children of Believers are holy, we believe and that their Holiness is founded upon a better Basis than the Faith of their immediate Parents; and also that it is different from that of their Parents; and such a Holiness as is so far from inright­ing them to Baptism, as that till they come to sin, it doth much rather exempt them: For if Baptism be a Sign that signifies to all that submit to it, the Remission of Sins, as Scripture suffici­ently shews, Acts 2.38. and Mark 1.4. &c. then I pray of what use can Baptism be to those who are under no actual Commissi­on of Sin, and as such, needs no sign of Remission of them.

But if with Austin, you say, they have Original Sin that must be washt away by Baptism, why then their Holiness before Baptism is nothing but Uncleanness, agreeable with some of your own Coments upon Psalm 51.5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my Mother conceive me. So that it's plain they have no Holiness to inright them to Baptism, but rather need Baptism to make them holy.

Further, Consider how manifest a Contradiction the Patrons and Defendors of Pedo-baptism meet with from each other, not knowing where to find a stay for it's Support. How doth Austin thwart you; you say they that are born of Christians are to be accounted Christians, that is, they are Christians, or ought not to be so accompted. And he tells us, as my Author quotes him, in his Book De Verb. Apost. c. 24.— the Question being, Whether the Infants of baptized Christians were holy? he saith Not; because as the Circumcised begot only the Uncircumcised, [Page 26] so neither did the baptized beget baptized, or (holy ones) the terms are equivolent; the Reason he gives, None is new born before he is born. And further proves it by these two Illustrati­ons; (1.) That the purest Wheat that is most purged from Chaff or Husk, yet being sown, brings forth Grain that has Chaff and Husk. (2.) That the best Grapes that are sown brings forth wild Grapes. And there is reason to believe, that most of the Fathers, in this particular, was of Austin's mind, as might be gathered from the consent of whole Councels; take one for all, that is, the Affrican Councel, where Austin was both Present and President; they thus Decree:

All that affirm young Children receive Eternal Life, albeit they be not renewed by Baptism, they are accursed, &c.

And notwithstanding the shew of kindness you extend to In­fants in your Coment upon the Text, I am perswaded you are also of Austin's mind; for if I mistake not, in your second Ar­gument, you talk as if they must be washed by Baptism; but I tro for what, if they be not unclean, but holy.

Further, Every Holiness gives not a right to Baptism. You confess the Holiness in the Text is not a Moral or Real Holiness, which only opposes Sin, Pollution, and Uncleanness of Heart and Life; so Holiness is proper only to the Adult. The Vessels of the Sanctuary are as expresly said to be holy, as the Children in the Text; see 1 Chron. 22.19. and Ezra 8.28. then see how unsound you argue, saying, The Children of Believers are holy; Ergo, They ought to be baptized. The Cups and Vessels of the Sanctuary are holy; therefore they ought to be baptized. Now to every con­siderate Man, is not the one Conclusion as truly deducible from the quality, as the other. Who but Men willing to be deceived will conclude any more for the one then for the other? Austin telling you, whatsoever this Holiness is, 1 Cor. 7.14. it is not of power to make Christians, or remit Sins.

But you proceed and say, It is not Legitimate Holiness, neither is that the Question that the Apostle here handles.

Answer. Surely Sir you shoot at Rovers, and in this have spo­ken foolishly with your Tongue: Is not Marriage, and Matters relating thereto, the Subject of this whole Chapter? and does the scope and design of it, bespeak the Apostle labouring the re­moval [Page 27] of some Doubts and Difficulties that many were under at Corinth, that were turned from Idols to God, though but young and weak in the Faith; therefore they write to the Apostle for sa­tisfaction in Matters and Things they were doubtful of. And what more plain from the manner of the Apostle's addressing him­self to them in the first Verse, Now concerning the things whereof ye write, &c. One, amongst others of these things, we may rational­ly conclude was,

And to the matter proposed by the Corinths, the Apostle advi­ses, That the Believer by no means shall depart, if in case the Unbelieving Party still please to abide and cohabit with them, as vers. 10, 11, 12, 13. And further to resolve them in this mat­ter, he renders them a twofold Reason in the fourteenth Verse: (1.) The unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife, and the Ʋnbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband. Which is, as if he had said, You are as truly Man and Wife in God's account now as you were before; your Marriage as honourable, your Bed as undefiled, your living and lying together as unblame­able in the sight of God as ever; the Husband and Wife as truly sanctified a Companion for each other, notwithstanding the dif­ference between them in Matters of Religion; which the Anno­tator on this Text, in the Second Volume of Mr. Pool's Work, saith, The Believer, without Offence to the Law of God, may conti­nue in a married state with such a Yoke-fellow, notwithstanding their disposition in Matters of Faith. And Erasmus, with others, tell us expresly, That Children are legitimately holy; agreeable with that [Page 28] in Malachy 2.15. where the Lord himself calls the Children born in lawful Marriage a godly Seed. Therefore as a (2.) Rea­son, the Apostle removes the Absurdity that the scrupulous Con­verts at Corinth feared, saying, Else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy: i. e. Were it so as you fear, that despari­ty in Matters of Religion dissolved the Marriage Bond, why then your Issue would be born in Uncleanness, and bear the Blot of Bastardy upon them. But to remove this Scruple, and satisfie that there abode is as warrantable as ever, saith elsewhere, Your Children were unclean, but now are they holy. Now as the Husband and Wife are sanctified to each other, abiding in that honourable, or holy state of Matrimony, the Children born unto them are holy, which needs no longer to be feared by you, as Holiness and Sanctification opposeth the Uncleanness of Fornication, 1 Thess. 4.3, 5.

Now I pray, Sir, if this be not the Question that the Apostle here handles, will you shew us what it is, or cease to darken Counsel by words without knowledge.

You proceed, and must needs have this to be Foederal Holiness, ex­plaining it thus, As they that were born of the Jews, were Jews, not common and unclean as Heathen, but accounted as in the Church, so that you, that are born of Christians, are to be ac­counted Christians.

Answer. The Heathen were bad enough, is granted, and that you need not make them worse, believing you will never be able to prove the difference so great between the Issue of Jews and Gentiles, that had an equal advantage of being born of Parents that were lawfully married, what degree of Sanctity descended upon the Jews in lawful Marriage, more then upon the Off­spring of the Gentiles under the same Circumstance, I know not; and yet I believe Israel was a People blest with an Eminent Holi­ness above the Gentile Nations in common. But then, that pe­culiar Holiness streamed to them from another Fountain than meerly being born of the Jews in holy Matrimony, to wit, the Grace and Love of God, in that he was pleased to choose them, before any other Nation, to make them his People, and accord­ingly blest them with holy Laws and Ordinances, as Psalm 147.19, 20.

[Page 29]That every one born of Jewish Parents was a Jew, is not doubted, but that the Jews were Church Members by their Birth, is not so easie; for if they were Church Members so soon as born, they had a right (I conceive) to the Priviledges thereof. But with respect to the Passover, we are expresly told, that no un­circumcised Person shall eat thereof, Exod. 12.48. And that such as are born to you English men, are English men, and so account­ed, though born in France, Spain, or Ireland, where such born of English Parents, even disdain to be accounted but English; but that such as are born of Christians, are Christians, is a Pa­radox, and absurd with a witness, considering that no less then a believing the Doctrine, and an imitation of the Life and Man­ners of Christ, can truly denominate a Man to be a Christian. At this rate, a Man that is an Idolater begets an Idolater, and an Hypocrite begets an Hypocrite. Strange Divinity!

And as to the Text you cite, Rom. 11.16. it favours not your Conclusion at all, for if by First-fruits and Root, you will under­stand those holy Persons Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet its evi­dent the whole Lump and Branches were not so, by their manifest rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ; for amongst whom did he meet with more notorious Enemies then amongst the Jews: Did their tempting, belying, betraying, accusing, condemning, and execu­ting the Lord of Life, bespeak them to be a holy Lump, which in your sence they must be, as they proceeded from a holy Root, to wit, Abraham, notwithstanding the many Insolencies and In­dignities wherewith they treated the Lord Jesus. How directly opposite is this to what Christ saith of the Jews, the natural Seed of Abraham, who notwithstanding that, tells them, That they were of their Father the Devil, John 8.44.

But by that Scripture we may understand, that as God did look favourably on Abraham, the Root of that People, so also he doth favour the Branches of that whole Nation that sprang from him, and therefore as some of the Jews had received Christ, and were thereby interested in the Divine Favour, so the words rightly understood are an Incouragement to the Unbelieving Jews that stand of, to come into Christ, assuring them thereupon, that he would not reject them, but take them into his Favour, as Branch­es that proceeded from so holy a Root; they also contain an Ar­gument to take off the Gentiles that were come in, from judging and censuring the Jews upon their Rejection, and being Cast off; [Page 30] for though God in Justice hath cut off the obdurate Jew, and graciously taken in the Gentiles through believing, yet from that favour he anciently bore towards that People, he will not have the Gentiles to despise them, who is ready to receive them into favour as Branches springing from so holy a Root, if they con­tinued not in Infidelity, which is evident in this and the follow­ing Verses; so that all the Scripture speaks of Infants right to Baptism, whether more or less, or nothing at all, it's evident you have said nothing to purpose from it. I pass to your

Sixth ANSWER.

As to the first of what is contain'd in this Argument, of their being taken into Covenant, and belonging to the Kingdom of Heaven, is sufficiently spoke to already, in my Answers to your Second and Fourth Arguments: A word or two to the Querest, demanding what hinders. Methinks this Question is so fully re­solved by the Holy Ghost in that Eighth of the Acts, verses 36, 37. that no thinking Man could, without blushing, have so interro­gated. However, if you are willing to know, I will tell you, and amongst many things, there is one that may warrantably hinder, and that is a total want of Command from God for your Authority; could you once preface your practice with a Thus saith the Lord, every Mouth would be stopped; but till then, we humbly desire, who hath required this at your hands, it may be worthy your search; for sure that which God never had a will [Page 31] to require, he will never have a heart to accept: if things but half done in pursuance to his Command, be a rejecting his Au­thority, as in the Case of Saul, how much more a doing things in his Name to which he never directed: If the Lord delights not in the Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices he once required, compa­ratively to an obeying his Voice, how much less will he delight in Works of Supererogation, in things done over and above in what he hath commanded. See 1 Sam. 15.22, 23. But if you assign the Commission of Christ for your warrant, is it not plain from thence, that you have broke his Law, and changed his Or­dinances, and that at best you do but one thing for another, which is not one jot the better; for this cause the Earth is defiled, and the Land mourneth; for truly may the Lord say, as Isaiah 24 5. They have transgressed my Laws, and changed my Ordinances. Sir, That an express Command is necessary for the warranting your practice, is no more then what you have acknowledged, (viz.) That it is the Command of God only that can constitute an Ordinance of God, which you affirm your sprinkling of Infants to be; there­fore assign your Command, as you would the Lord should not say of you, as of others in another Case, They have done that which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart, Jer. 7.31. Nei­ther will you ever be able to quit your selves from the Guilt of Will-worship, which we justly charge upon you; which truly de­fin'd, is, as I shall give it you from the worthy Doctor Hopkin, late Bishop of London Derry, as I find it in his Exposition upon the Ten Commandments, (worthy to be printed in Letters of Gold) page 142. who says,

Will-worship is nothing else but an inventing and ascribing any other Worship unto God, besides what he hath been pleased to Command and Institute. God saith, Will worship, what it is. he will not be wor­shipped according to our Fancies, but his own Appoint­ment; for as we must have no other God besides the true, so that God must have no other Service performed unto him, besides what himself hath required and prescribed; for this were to impute folly and weakness unto him, as if indeed he would have Servants, but knew not what Service to injoyn them.

And by this time I hope you may see what may hinder, if not, may not I as industriously inquire why Nadab and Abihu might not bring strange Fire to the Lord's Altar, I know of no express Command of God hindering, and yet for their unadvised at­tempt, [Page 32] the Lord sends Fire from Heaven and destroys them both, Lev. 10.1, 2. Let us therefore fear to do any thing in the Worship of God which he hath not commanded, nor conclude our selves safe, though he hath not in so many express words forbid it. To do what he hath commanded is our work, not what he hath not prohibited, else where would our wild Inventions terminate.

Further, If this be not sufficient to hinder, I pray what may hinder your use of the Cross in Baptism; Is that Ceremony any more incongruous to holy Writ then your own practice? And why find you fault with the Church of England for the use of their Ceremonies, whereas many of them are so indifferent in them­selves, that for ought I know they may, or may not be used. Nay, if any thing can warrant you, short of a Command of God, to set up this or that in the Worship of God, as an Ordinance of God, may not the Church of Rome pretend to as good Authority for any part of their practice that is not in so many express words forbid, especially their Baptizing with Salt and Spittle, as you can for yours. I do sincerely profess, were I satisfied that either Cu­stom or Consequence were a warrant sufficient to bear you out in this particular, I should reckon my dissenting from the Church of England (where I may be as holy as I will or can) might be justly imputed to my Ignorance or Pevishness.

You add, Nothing in the Sacrament may hinder, they may have all that is Essential to Baptism given to them, as well as the Adult and grown Persons.

Answer. Sir, It is strange that you should so thwart your own practice; for I presume there is not any whom you Baptize, but you do it upon a Profession of Faith, if not their own, yet their Parents; so that your own practice bespeaks Faith essential. And Mr. Baxter in his Poor Man's Family Book, pag. 168. affirmeth, The Church never knew any Baptism, but such as was joyned with a present profession of present Faith and Repentance, and Renunciation of the De­vil, the World, and the Flesh, and a total devotedness to God in Christ. Also the Church of England in her Catechism, to this Question, What is required of Persons to be baptized? The Answer is, Repen­tance, whereby they forsake sin, and Faith, whereby they stedfastly be­lieve. Which, with Acts 8.36, 37. Acts 2.37, 38. and Rom. 6.4. is evident that Repentance, Faith and devotedness to God is ne­cessary; [Page 33] but how doth it appear that Children are capable of these things? When did any Child give you the least Evidence that he Believed, Repented, Renounced the World, the Flesh, and the Devil? and that before he can possibly know the nature, or evil, of the one, or the other. Remember, Sir, that which appears not, is not; nor let it suffice that the Parent believes for the Child: for I pray, why may not the Parents Baptism pass currant for the Child, as the Parents Faith.

You add, Nothing on the Minister's part, but they may Baptize Infants as well as grown Persons.

Answer. I confess some Ministers by permission, and through the liberty of their own will, may do what they please; but in that case, what they do is neither in obedience to any Command of Christ, nor in Imitation to any Example of the Apostles, who neither did, nor durst do it, but had it been in their liberty, with­out controversie they had done it, and then their president had been sufficient. But though Paul shunned not to declare unto the Elders and Churches the whole Counsel of God, Acts 20.27. yet the Baptizing of Infants no where appears, to be either any part of the Lord's Counsel, or his Ministers Practice; therefore as you would have a comfortable Evidence that you are the Lord's Mini­ster, it becomes you publickly to enter your Protest against this practice for the undeceiving of many; and for the future, that you presume to do nothing in his Name, but what you have his Au­thority for.

You say further, There is nothing on the Childrens part, as hath been shewn, &c.

Answer. As hath been shewn there is nothing on the Childrens part that renders it needful; and as they need it not, so they have not the least appearance of right to it.

As to their Capacity, being the same with them that received Circumcision, I conceive it to be a wide mistake; for they recei­ved both Capacity and Right for Circumcision from the words of Institution, and not because they were either able or unable imme­diately to answer the Obligation they were laid under by it, which was to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5.3. Therefore, as your [Page 34] Infants now are able to do no more then they did under the Law, and you having no Institution and Divine Authority for your war­rant, bespeaks both their incapacity and want of right; but as to your Females, I perceive they have both a larger Capacity and Propriety than those of old, in that yours must be baptized, though the others were never circumcised. I pass to your

Seventh ANSWER.

You are pleased, I perceive, to restrain the Churches of Christ to the conventions of your own practice, and to exclude all dif­fering with you in the point of Baptism; so that many Churches, as perspicuous as your selves, especially in a trying season, have little thanks to give you for your Charity towards them: how­ever, since you make not the practice of preceding Churches the Basis on which you build, only call them in for Light and Evi­dence to help you in Cases dark and difficult, as by your own Grant, as well as Mr. Baxter's, That the Baptizing of Infants is, if it be an Ordinance at all, it is next to a Miracle, that all the famous Lights shining in the Churches, have not given so much light and clearness in this thing of so much weight and moment, but that it should still be found so dark and difficult, as it appears [Page 35] to this day; and when a Star will arise to make it more clear then it is, I know not.

But in fine, to perswade your Brethren into a good and firm opinion of it, you tell them that you could quote Justin Martyr, Origin, Cyprian, Jerom, and S. Augustin all for it; to tell them you can do it, is much easier than to do it: And to tell you by the way, if you have read the Fathers, you know in your Conscience, that though some baptized Infants in the Third and Fourth Centuries, for particular ends, yet none in those Ages practised Infant Bap­tism as a Gospel Ordinance, if any before Austin, as may be shewed from Dr. Taylor's Testimony, with others. Therefore to come to a Conclusion, though I might give Instances at large from Tertullian, with all, or most of those you name, together with Nazianzene, Ambrose, Athanasius, and many more, as they are handed to me, all bearing head strongly against your practice; yet take one for all, which sways much with me, as I find it quo­ted by Mr. Baxter, and you may read it in this order of words in his Saints Everlasting Rest, pag. 143. viz.

In the primitive times none were baptized without an express Cove­nanting, wherein they renounced the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and ingage themselves to Christ, as you may see, saith he, in Tertulli­an, Origen, and Cyprian, and others at large.

Now, Sir, I would ask you, whether Mr. Baxter never read of any that opposed Infant Baptism; whereas he tells you, That none of old were baptized without an express Covenanting. Certain­ly you have either mis-quoted Mr. Baxter, or else he greatly for­got himself when he said as you speak of him; yea, he proceeds and names Justin Martyr in particular in the same Book and Page, speaking of the order and manner of baptizing the A­ged, and how we are dedicated to God, being renewed by Christ, saith he, we will now open unto you.

As many as being perswaded do believe these things to be true which we teach, and do promise to live according to them; they first learn by Prayer and Fasting to beg pardon of God for their former sins, our selves joyning also our Prayer and Fasting; then they are brought to the Wa­ter and born again (or baptized) in the same way as our selves were born again; for they are washed in water in the Name of the Father, the Lord and God of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. Then we bring the Person thus washed and instructed to the Brethren, as they are called, where the Assemblies are, that we may [Page 36] pray both for our selves and the illuminated Person, that we may be found by true Doctrine and by good Works worthy observers and keepers of the Commandments, and that we may obtain Eternal Salvation. Then there is brought to the chief Brother, so they called the chief Mini­ster, Bread and a Cup of Wine, washed, which taking, he offereth Praise and Thanksgiving to the Father, by the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost; and so a while he celebrateth Thanksgiving; and after Prayer the whole Assembly saith Amen. Thanksgiving being ended, by the President or chief Guide, and the consent of the whole People, the Dea­cons, as we call them, do give to every one present part of the Bread and Wine, over which Thanks was given, and they also suffer them to bring it to the absent; this Food we also call the Eucharist; to which no Man is admitted but only he which believeth the truth of our Do­ctrine, being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for remission of sins, and that so liveth as Christ hath taught. This then, saith Mr. Baxter, is no new and over strict way, you see.

Thus I have done with your seven Arguments, believing (through the Mercy of God) might what is said be impartially considered, be sufficient to bring us to that Unity of Judgment in all the Truths of Jesus Christ, and Conformity in Practice that might render us more serviceable in carrying on that Inter­est in the World for our One and Only Lord, which would be mighty conduceable to his Glory, and a full Evidence, through Grace, of our own Title to that Glory which shortly will be re­vealed in him, unto whom be given all Glory in the Church throughout all Ages, Even so. Amen.