The first Consideration or Argument taken from the End of childrens Baptisme: Answered.

FOr the End you lay down for granted: First, A. R. that the end of childrens baptisme in our Church is regeneration. Secondly, that this appeares by divers passages in the Liturgie, Thirdly, you adde [Page 4] the Doctrine or iudgement of divers Authours which iustifie the same, as you say. Fourthly, you reason from this and some other prin­ciples against us. This is the summe of your first Argument, which at large to set downe were tedious and endlesse.

Answer. Ans. Though I will not go about to defend every expression in the Liturgie, or the Authours brought by you: yet I may well deny, first, your proposition as you expresse it: secondly, I deny also that the reasons brought by you from the Liturgie, and Au­thours prove that in our Church the end of baptizing is regene­ration, so that the act of baptizing should regenerate the child.

But to come to your proposition. If your meaning be that the end of our baptizing is properly to regenerate; as if our Church used baptisme that they may (ex opero operato, as the Papists say) conferre grace and regeneration, it is a slander to say it. If you meane that they use it for this end that it may be a pledge, signe, seale, or confirmation of regeneration; or to speake brieflier, that we use it sacramentally to regenerate, or mystically to wash away sinne, we avouch it; and this we beleeve is the right end of baptisme, as you grant, viz. A pledge of the pardon of sinne, which implies regeneration, so Rom. 6.3, 4. Mar. 1.4. Act. 22. &c. And in this sense those expressions in the Liturgie, and Au­thours may be warranted (if they intended any more let them answer for themselves) as being agreeable unto the Scripture phrase in sacramentall matters.Exod. 12.1.12.13. Gen. 17.11, 12. Matt. 26.26.28. 1 Pet. 3.21. As the Paschall Lambe was called the Passeover, though but a signe, pledge, or memoriall of the Angels passing over and sparing the Israelites. Circumcision is called the Covenant, though but the signe or token of the Cove­nant. Bread and Wine in the Supper, the Body and Bloud of Christ, though but signes and seales thereof. Baptisme saveth us, though it be but a pledge, signe, or seale of our salvation. And why may not the same be said to regenerate us, as well as to save us? Is not regeneration the beginning and also part of our salva­tion? Doth not the whole comprehend the part? And there­fore we may and ought to pray for the regeneration of infants to be baptized, (that if begun, it may be continued, increased, seal­ed, and perfected: if not, that it may be wrought in Gods due time; so that baptisme may have its efficacie.) And give thanks that God hath given the seale of regeneration, and solemnly ad­mitted them into that Covenant wherein he hath promised, the blessing it selfe.

Let us see now what use you will make of this, that we hold infants baptized to be regenerated, viz. sacramentally, as we have interpreted our meaning: whence you gather

That all infants baptized must be necessarily saved; A. R. which is acknowledged an absurditie even by our Ministers which call upon baptized persons to repent, and preach regeneration unto them: Or else (say you) we shall be forced to leave our other prin­ciple, which we hold against the Pelagians, Papists, and Arminians. Namely, that True saving grace can never totally, or finally be lost: And that they which have beene regenerate can never utterly fall away. This is the summe of your reasoning wherein you are very large, as having gotten us at an advantage, in your conceit.

Answer. Ans. Will any man say, that all that were baptized by Peter, or to whom baptisme was applied in his time (of which he saith,1 Pet. 3.21. that it saveth) were certainly saved? Or that it was an absurd thing to preach regeneration or salvation after baptisme? Or that this doctrine, that baptisme saveth or burieth with Christ, &c. is in­consistent with that other doctrine concerning the perseverance of the Saints, seeing some of those that were baptized in the A­postles time fell away and perished? Or in your baptisme (if you use any) which you professe is a pledge of the remission of sinnes; are all certainly pardoned? Or need you never to preach repen­tance and regeneration to them? If so, belike you are happier masters to your disciples, then Christ was to his.

And seeing now you thinke you have got our learned Divines (as you scoffingly call them) at an advantage, and follow them so eagerly with your horned argument, as if your blow were unavoidable, ‘comparing your selfe to Christ, and them to the Scribes and Pharisees,’ Matth. 21.23. Let us try whether you would not by this Argument, baffle and nonplus the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himselfe. For this your Argument holds as strongly against them as against us, who teach no other thing in saying that baptisme regenerateth, and true grace can never be lost (though some baptized perish) then what we have received from Christ, the Prophets, and Apostles. Might you not as well have taken up Nathan for preaching unto David, 2 Sam. 12. to bring him unto repentance and conversion. Why, what needs this Nathan? David received circumcision the seale of the righteousnesse of faith, and of circumcision of his heart in his infancie,Rom. 4.11. and had the spirituall grace bestowed on him effectually; and must he now [Page 6] be regenerate and borne againe? And why should David him­selfe upon Nathans exhortation and reproofe,Psal. 51.10. pray that God would create in him a cleane heart, and renew a right spirit within him? (which, what else is it but the renewing of the worke of regene­ration?Ezek. 18.21. Jer. 4.4.) Why should the Prophets exhort the Iews to make them new hearts, and circumcise their hearts, though they had received circumcision? What would Nathan, David, and the Prophets have answered this subtill disputant if he had examined them thus?

Or if you had been living in Pauls time, when he called up­on the Romanes, Rom. 12.2. 2 Cor. 5.17. Ephes. 4.23. & 24. Gal. 4.19. Rom. 6.3. Gal. 3.27. Corinthians, Ephesians and others, to repentance and renovation; to put off the old man, to put on the new man, to become new creatures, to be renewed in the spirit of their mind; professing that he travelled to forme Christ in them a­gaine. Belike this learned Divine (to use your phrase) Paul would soone have beene dasht, if you had but risen against him. ‘Why, what's the matter Paul? Did not you teach that so many as have beene baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, are buried with him in baptisme? What? have they put off Christ? risen againe to sinne?Rom. 8.38, 39. Phil. 1 6. Rom. 11.29. fallen away from grace, &c. This will not stand with your doctrine; that nothing shall separate from Gods love; that God will perfect the good work which he hath be­gun; that the gifts and callings of God are without repent­ance. Therefore you were deceived in saying that Christ is put on in baptisme; or in teaching that men cannot fall away from grace.’

Or if you had had Peter in hand when he called Simon Magus to repentance, Act. 8, 22. though he had been baptized; you would belike have lessoned Peter better. ‘Why, what needs this Peter? Didst not thou teach that baptisme saveth, and is he that was saved even now damned againe?1 Pet. 3.21. sure thou wast mistaken when thou saidst baptisme saveth; or when thou saidst that the faithfull are preserved by the power of God through faith unto salvation,1 Pet. 1.5. sith Simon that awhile agoe beleeved and was bap­tized, hath need now to repent, as being in the gall of bitter­nesse, and bond of iniquitie.’

Thus if you had disputed, learned Peter and Paul belike had beene in great straits what to have answered. It was well for them that none of these acute Anabaptists (as they are called) were sprung up in those dayes. One more instance I will bring. [Page 7] Our blessed Saviour preacheth unto his Disciples necessitie of conversion, and becoming as little children,Matth. 18.3. as they would enter into the kingdome of heaven. Yet elsewhere he saith,Joh. 3.35. Except a a man be borne againe of water and the holy Ghost, he shall in no wise enter into the kingdome of God. Thereby (as you gather) assuring us that if a man be regenerate and borne againe, he shall see the kingdome of God. But I conceive you will not deny but the Discipcles had already beene borne againe by water and the holy Ghost. Sure in this case had you beene in his time you would have more troubled him with your Dilemma, then an hundred of the Scribes and Pharisees with all their Sophistrie. What? To teach that being borne againe by water and the holy Ghost,Joh. 10.28. they shall certainly enter into the kingdome of God: And that none shall pluck them out of his hands being given him of the Father: And yet now threaten them with the losse of the kingdome of heaven, unlesse they shall be converted, become as little chil­dren? (which, what else is it but to be regenerate?)

Doe you thinke that this your arguing would have perswaded the world that Christ was a false witnesse of God? When your reasoning thus against the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ him­selfe, shall be found unanswerable, we shall be forced to yeeld unto you; but untill then we (who in this point have their do­ctrine for our warrant; That though Baptisme save and regene­rate, yet baptized persons have need to be called upon to repen­tance and regeneration) need not to regard your bold, and confident asseverations.

I have the largelier set forth the manner of your reasoning, only changing the persons, (if it may be) to make you see your weak­nesse; if not, to make others ashamed of their simplicitie which admire such disputers. You would not have reasoned so, if you had considered: First, that notwithstanding some abuse baptisme, yet that hinders not but in regard of Gods institution, baptisme may be said to regenerate or save. And so secondly, that they which have received baptisme according to Gods appointment, as farre as we can discerne, may be said to be regenerated and saved, viz. sacramentally. Thirdly, that baptisme is administred to the members of the Church; not onely as a pledge of remis­sion of sinnes past, upon supposition of repentance and faith; but also of sinnes to come; being both an obligation to us daily to re­new our faith and repentance, and an assurance unto us, that up­on [Page 8] the performance of that condition God will pardon; in so much that our regeneration, viz. sacramentall in baptisme is a main ground, why Ministers should call upon us being baptized to ma­nifest our regeneration in our lives, seeing God hath given us the seale of regeneration to assure us of the grace it selfe, if the fault be not in our selves; and to bind us to repentance that we may be partakers of the remission of sinnes; and hence the Apostle urgeth conversion or sanctification from baptisme before recei­ved.Rom. 6. So that if in Christs and the Apostles time the baptized had need to be called to repentance or regeneration, though baptisme saved and buried with Christ: what absurditie is it if our Mini­sters call to repentance, and regeneration, those that were rege­nerated in baptisme in the forenamed sense? For even in the best times some that had professed, and beene baptized, had done it unsoundly and hypocritically, and so had need to be called unto sinceritie: whereunto when they were brought, their baptisme though received in time of hypocrisie, should be a pledge of the remission of sinnes;Act. 8. as in Simon Magus whom Peter bids to re­pent, but not to be baptized againe. Secondly, others might have the truth of grace and regeneration, and yet not give so cleare te­stimonie thereof to themselves and others as was to be desired. Thirdly, those that had truely repented and beleeved, might have fallen and need to be restored. Fourthly, the best by such exhor­tations are kept watchfull. None in this life are so fully regenera­ted or converted, but they need additions and increase. So that your consequences that you draw against us from our principles are frivolous.

A. R.Now let us come to your answer to our Objections as you pretend: You say, that To sophisticate by some distinction, lest all our gaine by this trade should be taken from us; and as all the people gave care to Philip; so all the people should give care to us, and so our kingdome should be at an end: we use this distinction, that they are onely holy in the judgement of charitie, of the Church esteemed regenerate; neither are any required to beleeve them to be re­generate as an Article of faith, but in the judgement of charitie: and then you ask, What is the ground of this our charitie?

Answer. First, I would desire to know, Whether the Baptisme which you administer regenerates and saves, or no. (I meane sacra­mentally, for we say ours regenerates) If no, then it is not the Baptisme that Christ & his Apostles used,1 Pet. 3. for Peter saith, it saved; [Page 9] Paul saith, it buried with Christ. If yea,Rom. 6. whether you beleeve that all that are baptized of you, are certainly regenerate and sa­ved, or no; and then tell us, what is the ground of your beliefe.

Secondly, Whereas you dislike this distinction, you should have demanded of Peter and other the Apostles and Evangelists (that baptized some hypocrites no doubt, witnesse Simon Magus, Ananias, Saphira, &c. and yet held that Baptisme saveth and buri­eth with Christ) whether they held that these who received Baptisme were saved and buried with Christ in the judgement of certaintie or charitie, and then you might have demanded a ground of that their judgement: And seeing you arrogate to your self such skill in Scripture, tell us what was Peters ground in saying Baptisme saveth, when yet many that were baptized were damned; and what answer you shall make to this question, hap­ly may serve to answer your own question to us.

Thirdly, We answer directly. Our ground on which we build this charitable opinion, (viz. that Baptisme regenerateth sacra­mentally; or that infants of Christian parents baptized are rege­nerate) is Gods word. For doth not the Scripture tell us, that God is the God of the faithfull and of their seed, that he hath ta­ken them into Covenant?Gen. 17.7.10. Thus God promised unto Abraham the father of the faithfull, not as any priviledge peculiar unto him; but as the common priviledge of all in covenant, and therefore proselytes of what nation soever upon their entring into cove­nant had their children taken into covenant likewise. Again,Exod. 12.48. Act. 2.36. 1 Cor. 7.17. the promise is made not onely to the faithfull, but also to their chil­dren. Hence it is, that the children of beleeving parents are holy. Which places of Scripture shall in due place (God willing) be vindicated from your groundlesse exceptions. Now whosoever is in covenant with God, hath God for his God, hath the promi­ses belonging to him, and is holy, must needs be regenerate, as he is in covenant, hath God for his God, &c. And therefore seeing that children are in the same condition with their parents (or those that are in stead of their parents) in respect of outward covenant (which is all the ground we have for judging others;) So that if the parent be in covenant, the child remaines so untill by his own personall infidelitie and apostasie he discovenant him­self: if the parent be out of covenant, the child remaines so, un­till by his own personall faith, he accept and enter into covenant. Hence it follows, if we have so much ground for our judgement [Page 10] of charitie, to hold that the parents are regenerate, as the Apostles had for those whom they baptized, which was no more then their profession of faith and repentance; we have the same ground for our judgement concerning the regeneration of their children. viz profession of faith and repentance made by their parents; though we may oft be deceived in parents and children, and no marvell, even the Apostles themselves were deceived: for they doubtlesse baptized many hypocrites.

As for your other objections, whether fained by your self and fathered on us, or found in any writings on our side; they are not worthy defending, nor your answer unto them worthy a reply. Who say, that The meere election of infants, whether all or some, is the ground of our baptizing them, or beleeving them to be re­generate. If any say so, let him answer for himself. But our ground, as hath been shewed, is the externall being in covenant; whereby they have right to the seale of initiation; which is not without its efficacy unto al; though some (whether they receive it in infancy or ripenesse) by their own fault may render it unprofita­ble to themselves. Therefore your frivolous inferences have no place here, as that, Al men & women in the world are to be baptized: for all are not outwardly in covenant. And as for your confident assertion, that Faith manifested by the confession of the mouth, is the only ground of Baptisme to the elect, (if you meane it of the profession of faith of the person to be baptized) it is not proved by those Scriptures you alledge,Act. 8.37. Rom. 14.23. (as hath been partly shewed al­ready, and God willing shall be shewed more fully hereafter) unlesse you will make the Eunuches Baptisme with all its cir­cumstances, a necessary rule to be followed by all to be baptized. So much may suffice to be answered to your first consideration.

An answer to the second consideration or argument, taken from the manner of Baptizing.

LEt us come to your second consideration, taken from the manner of the administration of Baptisme.A. R. You say; The manner in which Baptisme is administred in our Church is by sprinkling or casting a little water on the head or face. And your position that you oppose against us is this. Christs institution re­quires that the whole man be dipped all over in the water. Hence your argument is this; The manner of the use of water must be ei­ther [Page 11] by infusion or dipping. But Iohn the Baptist or Dipper, used the water by putting the party into the water, not by infusing or sprinkling water upon the party, as is proved, Matth. 3.7. [...]. I indeed baptize you in water, Mark 1.8. I indeed have baptized you in wa­ter, Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.

Answer. Answ. We will try how substantiall this reason is. Whereas you say; The use of water must be either by infusion or dipping: In some sense this is true, namely, if it be taken by way of enu­meration, not of opposition; for Baptisme which signifies wash­ing, is done by applying the water to the party baptized or wash­ed; But water is ordinarily applyed the one of these two wayes. viz. either by dipping or sprinkling. In this sense we grant your proposition is true: viz. that Baptisme must be either by dip­ping or infusion, and so that it be either way it is sufficient. But you take it not in this sense, as may appeare by the manner of your reasoning; for by the affirmation of the one, you inferre the deniall of the other; and if you should take it in this sense, it would make against your selfe, and overthrow your own argu­ment. Therefore it appears you take it by way of opposition, and so we utterly deny it as false. Your reasoning is like this, We come to the knowledge of Christ by reading the Scriptures, or hearing the word preached.Joh. 5.39. But Christ bids the Iewes to search the Scripture, viz. by reading, that they might come to the know­ledge of him. Therefore not by hearing the word preached. Or like this, The Minister must preach either sitting or standing. But Christ preached sitting.Matth. 5.1. &c. Therefore Ministers may not preach standing. Or this, We must pray either standing, or kneeling, or sitting, or lying, &c. But Christ saith, when you stand praying.Mark. 11.25. Therefore it is not lawfull to pray with any other gesture but standing. Who seeth not the weaknesse of this reasoning? yours is no better.

But to come to your assumption. But Iohn the Baptist or Dip­per (as you say, according to the Dutch) did use the water: By put­ting the partie into the water, not by insusing or sprinkling, Mat. 3.11. Mar. 1.8. Ioh. 1.26. Act. 11.16.

Answer. Answ. First, None of these places prove that Iohn put the par­tie into the water, much lesse that the whole man was dipped all over in the water, which you undertooke to prove; But here is not the least intimation of any such matter.

Secondly, Whereas you gather from the Originall: that Iohn [Page 12] baptized in the water, and dipped the whole man all over in the water, and put the party into the water, you might as well say, that Christ baptized in the holy Ghost, and fire, and that he dipped the whole man all over in the holy Ghost and in the fire, Act. 11.6. Matth. 3.11. [...]. or put the par­ty into the holy Ghost and fire; (which were a strange interpreta­tion) for the particle is the same.

Thirdly, Whereas you gather hence [A Baptisme in water] not [a Baptisme with water] I would have you tell me what were they baptized or washed with if not with water? as if there were an irreconcileable repugnancy between baptizing in water, and baptizing with water.

But that [...] doth not necessarily signifie [in,] you grant in our objection, [...]. which you propound thus, [...] doth signifie [with] sometime as in Revel. 19.21. And the rest were slain with the sword. Whereunto I might adde that not onely in this place, but frequently in the New Testament, the particle [...] (by an He­braisme) answering the prefixe ב signifies as well with as in. Matth. 5.13. [...]. with (not in) what shall it be salted, Matth. 7.2. with (not in) what judgement. Act. 26.18. with (not in) the sanctified. You answer this objection thus.

" [...] is never taken for [with] after baptizo.

Reply. I reply. That is the thing in question. And I would demand whether you thinke that our Translatours, (and most or all others) who have Englished it [with] knew not how to render the O­riginall in its proper signification as well as your selfe? Besides these forementioned places,Mat. 3.11. Act. 11.19. speaking of Christs baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire, cannot be otherwise Englished with any sense.

Your peremptory deniall of [...] to signifie [with] after [...], you would confirme thus. ‘Either the word Baptizo must signifie to sprinkle, or the word [...] must not signifie [with.] But the word baptizo doth signifie to dip. Ergo, the word [...] must signifie [In] and not [with,] as is proved very clearely, and denyed of none who are not ignorant of the language.’

Answ. As for this your Syllogisme, it shews your Clarklinesse wherewith you scoffingly taunt our Ministers. It is notoriously fond, it wants forme, hath foure termes: In the assumption you put [to dip] in stead of [not to sprinkle,] as if one word might not signifie to dip and sprinkle both. There is no necessitie in the proposition. ‘Your assumption wherein you say (But baptizo [Page 13] signifies to dip) if it be taken exclusively, as to debarre all o­ther significations (which it must, or else it is brought to no purpose) is false. Whereas in your conclusion, you say [...] must signifie [in] and not [with] which you say is denied by none, who are not ignorant of the language.’

Answer. Answ. What fond arrogancy this is, I shall make appeare by and by. But let us heare this criticall Linguist prove what he saith from the signification of the Greek word.

Answer. Answ. Bapto indeed signifies Mergo or Tingo. [...]. Baptizo is a derivative that cometh thence, which sometimes may signifie the same with its primitive. But if we look into the use of it in the New Testament, we shall finde it rendred, To wash; where the Originall word to Baptize is not kept. as Mark. 7.4. And when they come from the market they eate not except they wash. — The washing of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds or tables. Again, vers. 8. The washing of pots and cups. Here you have the verbe Baptizo to wash, and the noune Baptismos, wash­ing. And that this is the proper signification of the word may appeare (Bez Lotiones Arias Mon. lo­tiones. vul. Bap­tismata. beside the consent of Translatours) in that it is used as signifying the same thing with the other words, that al­wayes signifiesBez Lotiones Arias Mon. lo­tiones. vul. Bap­tismata. washing, as vers. 2. [...]. With unwashen hands, and vers. 3. [...]. Wash their hands. By which it appeareth, that [...] and [...] signifie the same thing. So Hebr. 9.10. And divers washings, where the Apostle speaketh of the legall washings. So Luk. 11.38. The Pharisee marvelled that Christ had not washed be­fore dinner. So that the word signifies properly to wash, whether by infusion or immersion it matters not.

But should we grant Baptizo and Bapto, to be altogether of the same signification (though the contrary have been sufficient­ly proved,) what will you gain thereby? [...] signifies, either mergo or tingo. Mergo signifies properly, to drown, overwhelm, swallow up, &c. If you will have your converts (according to this interpretation) so baptized as to drown them; you will make sure work to prevent their sinning any more. And so your Baptisme will have a priviledge above the Baptisme of Christ, Iohn or the Apostles; for their converts and baptized ones sinned [Page 14] after Baptisme. But if you will have Baptisme taken and used in this sense, I know none that will be your disciples, unlesse they be weary of their lives. The other word Tingo signifies to dip orDan. 4.12. &c Interpreters render the word [...] which in sound hath great affi­nitie with [...], some let­ters being transposed, by Intingitur. Iun. & Trem. Ar. Mon. Buxtorf. our Transla­tours render it, to be wet. Where Intingo, cannot signifie to douse over head, or to dip, but to besprin­kle or bedew, for it follows — with the dew of heaven. besprinkle, to embrue, stain, wet, or wash, &c. Now what reason is there, why it should be restrained onely to the first signi­fication? Nay if we compare Scriptures, we shall finde that what is rendred by sprinkling in the Old Testament is expressed by this word [...] in the New. As if we conferre these two places, Rev 19.13. and Esa. 63.3. In Rev. 10.13. And [...] [...] sparsus, aspersus, insper­sus fuit. vel a­ctive, aspersit. [...] consper­sus, tinctus, ma­defactus. Bez. veste tin­cta sanguine. Ari. vestimen­tion tinctum. Vulg. veste a­spersa. he was cloathed with a vesture (dipt) in blood, So our Translatours, (or rather sprinkled, so we,) Esa. 63.3. Their blood shall be (sprinkled) on my garments; To which place of Esay it is certain that the holy Ghost in the Revelation alludes (that I say not that it may be a repetition of the same prophesis, pointing at the same time and thing) as it may appeare by the same similitude of treading the wine-presse of Gods wrath, largely prosecuted in both places. See Esa. 63.1 With dyed garments, vers. 2. Red in his apparell, &c. vers. 3. I have trod the wine presse, and compare Rev. 19. v. 15. &c. So that it is evident, that [...] doth expresse the same that was meant by [...] and [...]. Though our Translatours render it dipped, because the word in the Originall signifies either dipped or sprinkled equally; Yea, Beza useth a word that equally signifies dipped or sprinkled. So Arias Montanus. But the vulgar transla­tion hath a word that onely signifies besprinkled, not dipped.

But you say. ‘That Baptizo signifies, to dip, plunge, douse o­ver head, &c. is proved by Christs own Baptisme. And [...]. he was baptized into the Iordan. Mark 1.9. But it is not, the water was put upon him, as in sprinkling the water is put on the partie.’

Answ. 1. Neither is it, he was dipped, plunged, doused over head, or under the water, &c.

2. The force of your argument lyes in this particle [...], which you will needs have translated [Into] not [In.] But can you, who censure others for their ignorance of the language, be igno­rant that [ [...]] signifieth very frequently In or by, not Into? as Matth. 2.23. [...]. He dwelt in [not into] a citie called Nazareth. Matth. 4.13. He dwelt in [not into] Capernaum. Matth. 5, 45. Neither by the earth, neither by Ierusalem, [...] & [...], are put in the same signification there. Matth. 10.9. Neither possesse money [Page 15] in [not into] your purses. and 41. [...]. In [not into] the name of a Prophet. Matth. 13.33. She hid it in [not into] three mea­sures of flower, &c. Thus you see [...] signifying in, so that it were absurd to render it into, and so you have proved nothing for your purpose from the particle.

"You adde the testimonie of our Translatours themselves. For which I answer. Matth. 26.23. and Mar. 14.20. [...] & [...], have the preposition set before them, which alters the signification and restrains it to signifie Dipping, in which sig­nification the simple Verbe that we are about is not restrained un­to. From Luk. 16.24. Ioh. 13.26. [...]. you prove nothing but what we willingly grant without this labour; namely, that bapto some­times signifies to Dippe. But thence it followes not that it sig­nifies so alwaies, or onely. Of [...], Revel. 19.13. and the difference betweene Bapto, and Baptizo, I have spoken before. And here you confirme what I said, and contradict your self. ‘For saying that in no Greek Authour, nor Scripture writ­ten by the Apostles in that Language, can be found that they differ:Mark. 7.4.’ Immediately you bring a place where Baptizo is taken in a sense different from Bapto, which you never shewed, not have I read to signifie, to Wash. So that you pull down with your owne hands, what you have beene building all this while. See before what hath beene said to that place, where mention is made of such a washing, as is so farre from necessarily implying dowsing into the water onely, that it will scarcely admit it as washing themselves when they come from the market, and the washing of Beds or Tables. What you adde,‘That washing of cups, is putting cups into the water:’ is as true as washing hands or face is putting them into the water. May not cups be as well washed by infusion of water in and upon them; as by putting them into the water?

Your conjecture from Ioh. 3.23. is as frivolous. As if there could be no reason why Iohn should chuse a place where were many waters, but this, that he might dip the whole man into the water, plunge and douse them over head, or under water, (as your expressions are) But no such reason is here expressed, nor so much as intimated. Rather the cause seemes this. Because in those hot countreys waters were rare,Gen. 21.15.19. Gen. 26.18. Judg. 1.15. and in some places could not be had in a great distance: therefore Iohn chose places where were continuall running waters and streames: especially, seeing [Page 16] there came such huge multitudes unto him to be baptized,Mat. 3.5, 6, 7. and it is more then probable that not onely Iohn, but also his disciples baptized, as Ioh. 4.1, 2. Christ is said to baptize those whom his disciples baptized: So Iohn may be said to baptize those whom he and his disciples baptized together, a long the river at severall places of the river, that they might make more speedy dispatch, with so great multitudes.Act. 2.41. Act. 16.15.33. Neither is it true that you say; A little font will suffice to besprinkle a whole world with handfuls. More­over, we reade of great multitudes baptized, even three thousand in Ierusalem, without mention of going to the rivers; and of whole families, without mention of going out to the waters, or fetching great store of waters. It is like the waters they had within doores at midnight sufficed.

Act. 8.38, 39.Your Collection from Philips going down to the water with the Eunuch, that therefore they used dipping; is as vain. Must not they go to the water where it was, if they would use it? would the water have come up unto them in the chariot any soo­ner for sprinkling then for dipping? Of the same stamp is your inference, from Matth. 3.16. Mark. 1.10. from Christs ascending from the water. For as Christ was pleased to be baptized with water: so he was pleased to go where the water was. viz. in the channell, to which there was a descent, and from which there was an ascent; so that he must go down to and come up from the water. But here is not the least hint that Iohn doused Christ over head or under the water. Nay, rather that conceit of yours is here confuted; for if our Blessed Saviour had been plunged of Iohn into the water, then it would rather have been said; That Iohn cast or plunged Christ into the water, [...]. and took him out of the water. But it is onely implyed, that Christ went down unto the water and came up again from it.

From your other Scriptures, Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4.5. 1 Cor. 15.29. what you goe about to gather I know not, unlesse this, that as Christ was buried, abode in the grave three dayes, and then rose again: so the party baptized must be put under the wa­ter, abide there some considerable time, and then come up a­gaine (for if you presse a similitude of Christs buriall in going down into the water, and of his resurrection in coming up out of the water; why not also of his abode in the grave three dayes, by abiding three dayes, or some answerable time under the water?) which will make bad worke; neither can any such thing be ga­thered [Page 17] from those Scriptures. Now to use your owne words: Let any man that is not quite fallen out with his reason judge, whether in all these Scriptures be any syllable that speaks more for dipping then for sprinkling or washing with water? Men may well be at agreement with their reason, and yet perceive no such thing as you inferre hence.Col. 2.12. Rom. 6.4, 5. 1 Cor. 15.29. But I would demand here two Que­stions: First, How can you gather from these places, a dipping of the whole man over head and under water? and that a simi­litude of Christs death, buriall, and rising againe, to be represented by dipping into the water is signified here? These Scriptures shew indeed that the end of our baptisme is to seale our commu­nion with Christ, in his death and resurrection, by which we are dead to sinne, and raised againe to holinesse. But if you will presse hence a necessitie of resemblance of Christs death, buriall, and resurrection by our descending into, abiding in, and coming up out of the water;Pro. 30.6. Revel. 22.18. take heed lest you be one of those which adde to Gods word, lest he reprove you as a lyer: and adde unto you the plagues written in his Booke. For I know not any word of God wherein this representation is necessarily implied, much lesse expressed. Besides, if you urge death and resurrection to be resembled by descension into, and ascension out of the water: you must urge also buriall (which is principally there expressed) by the biding of the whole man, head and all under for a time an­swerable to Christs three dayes buriall, which cannot be without danger (yea certainty) of drowning.

Secondly, If it should be granted that a representation and re­semblance of Christs death, buriall, and resurrection is set before us in baptisme; and so of our death to sinne, and rising again to holinesse: Yet I would demand, why may not this be represented as well by infusion of water, as by dipping? Can you give me an example of so many killed and buried by immersion or dipping into the water; as I can give of them that have beene put to death and buried, by the infusion of water? I am sure a whole world of men and other earthly creatures (those few that were in the Arke excepted) were buried in the universall Deluge at once, by infusion, not by dipping. So that infusion or sprinkling,Gen. 6.27. & 7.11, 12. may well as clearely signifie death and buriall, as dipping. And to the preservation of Noah and those that were with him, by the Arke, (on which waters were poured) from drowning: the A­postle [Page 18] compares baptisme, as its antitype. Wherefore you might doe well to be henceforth a little more modest, and not talke as if all men were fallen out with their reason which will not jumpe with you in your weake conceits.

Now we come to your inference or conclusion, which being built on the crazie and rotten foundation of such vaine and fond premises, falls to the ground of it selfe. And whereas you say, that, The Greek wanted not words to expresse any other act as well as dipping. I answer. Neither did the Greek want words to ex­presse onely dipping of the whole man all over into the water; or dowsing and plunging over head and under the water (which you would have Baptizo to signifie, but neither have nor can prove that it doth) if the holy Ghost had meant any such act. Nei­ther doth the Spirit of God need your helpe to find out fit words. It seemed fit to that wise Spirit to use Baptizo, which signifies to wash, whether by dipping or sprinkling; washing onely being in­tended to be significant, and not either dipping or sprinkling. Whereas you say, that It cannot be proved that baptisme was ad­ministred any other way then by dipping, for at least a thousand years after Christ.

Ans. I leave the proofe and trialls of that to Historians and An­tiquaries, as being unfurnished with the Records of Antiquitie: though I conceive your Assertion is as bold and groundlesse as your others are proved to be. Secondly, Why do you not prove that dowsing over head, and under water, was used for at least a thousand years after Christ? Thirdly, How can you tell it can­not be proved that sprinkling was used of all that time? Will you perswade people that you have read over all the writings of the Ancients; or that you are so honest, faithfull, and unerring, that your word must be taken for an Oracle without proofe?

As for your cleare resulting consequence, as I said, It is built on too weake grounds to stand, and therefore may be safely de­nied as a plaine untruth. And whereas you apply the words of Peter and Ananias unto us,Act. 2.38. Act. 22.16. 1 Sam. 15.23. as to unbaptized persons, per­swading us to arise and be baptized: Intimating, that for us to refuse this your Charge, is rebellion and stubbornesse, as witch­craft, iniquitie and idolatrie. I would advise you take heed of, and repent for abusing Scripture, as in these and a great part of your quotations you doe most grosly. God will not hold them [Page 19] guiltlesse that take his name in vaine. When you come to us with the same spirit and authoritie, as Peter, Ananias, and Samuel had; we will hearken to you.

Now though what hath beene said in answer to this disputers Arguments against baptizing by sprinkling, or infusion; and for onely dipping or plunging might suffice; yet I will adde some­thing more to what hath been written, endeavouring to make it appeare, that washing, whether it be by dipping, or sprinkling, is the externall act required in this Sacrament, to be used; and that sprinkling, or infusion, is as (if not more) agreeable to the nature and institution of this Sacrament, as dipping, or im­mersion.

Argument 1. As the word used signifieth washing, (as hath beene shewed) so the thing represented, signified, and sealed in this Sacrament, is set forth in the Scripture by the phrase of washing, or cleansing, as 1 Cor. 6.11. But ye are washed, [...]. but ye are sanctified, but yea are iustified, &c. Now who questions but our justification, and sanctification, or remission of sinnes, together with mortification, and vivification are sealed, and signified by baptisme, &c. But these are here called washing. So Tit 3.5. [...]. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost. In the former of which expressi­ons (washing) if here be not meant baptisme it selfe, (which to deny I see no reason) yet certainely here is meant the thing sig­nified by baptisme, which is sufficient for our purpose which way so ever it is taken. Heb. 10.22. [...]. Having our bodies washed with cleane water. 1 Ioh. 1.7. And the bloud of Iesus Christ his Sonne shall cleanse us from all our sinnes. Heb. 9.14. The bloud of Christ shall purge your conscience. Now we know washing, purging, or cleansing, may be, and commonly is, as well by infusion, or powring on the thing to be washed, as by dipping. Common ex­perience testifies so much, and Scripture is not silent herein. Luk. 7.44. She hath washed my feet with tears, viz. [...]. by powring or distilling, as the word signifies. And though it were granted that in those hot Countries they commonly washed, by going downe into the water, and being dipped therein; whether in ordinary, or ceremoniall, or sacramentall washing; that will no more in­force on us a necessity of observing the same in baptisme now, then the example of Christ and his ApostlesMatth. 26.2. [...]. Mar. 14.18. [...]. Luk. 22.14. [...]. Matth. 14.19. [...]. gesture in the Sacra­ment of the Supper ties us to the same, (which was leaning, and [Page 20] partly lying, which was their usuall table gesture then.) Now the ordinary table gesture which is usuall among us is most fit; so the usuall manner of washing amongst us is most fit to be obser­ved in baptisme; and that is by powring, as well as by dipping.

But it may be objected, That sprinkling a little water, doth not so fitly represent the perfect washing away of all our sinnes, as dipping or plunging, sith here the whole body is washed, there onely the face or head onely. Answ. First, the Scripture no where requires the washing of the whole body in baptisme. Se­condly, with as good reason one might plead thus. It is most con­venient that at the Lords Supper every communicant should re­ceive his belly full of bread and wine; and take as long as stomack and head will hold, to signifie the full refreshment of the soule with the body and bloud of Christ. But who would endure such reasoning? These outward elements of Water, Bread and Wine, are for spirituall use, and to signifie spirituall things; so that if there be the truth of things, the quantitie is not to be respected further then is sufficient for its end; namely, to represent the spirituall grace: and that it be neither so little, as not clearely to represent it;2. Pet. 3.21. nor so much, as to take off the heart from the spirituall to the corporall thing. Not the washing away of the filth of the body in baptisme; nor the glutting or satisfying of the naturall appetite in the Lord Supper is to be looked after, but the washing and re­freshing of the soule; which may well be represented by the sprinkling of a little water; eating, and drinking of a little bread and wine. In Circumcision a little skin was cut off.

Arg. 2 The spirituall grace and invisible act of God upon the soule sig­nified and represented by the outward act of baptisme, is oft ex­pressed in Scripture by the phrase of powring, and besprinkling, and that in great probabilitie (if not certainly and unquestionably) with allusion to the Sacrament of Baptisme, either already ad­ministred, [...] of [...] fudit. Infu­dit, affudit, pro­fudit, perfudit. [...] or to be administred. I mean the bloud of Christ, and the Spirit of God, (which are the invisible grace of Baptisme) are said to be powred or sprinkled on Gods people. Esa. 44.3. For I will powre water on him that is thirstie, and floods on the dry ground: I will powre my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring. Here the Spirit is said to be powred, and this benefit is signified by the type of powring water. Ioel 2.28. I will powre out my spirit on all flesh. Which promise Peter citing, cal­leth upon the people to repent, and receive baptisme, as being [Page 21] the signe and seale which God had appointed to represent, and ex­hibite this promised blessing by. Ezek. 36.26. [...] And I will sprinkle upon you cleane water, and you shall be cleane. This cleane water questionlesse, is the blood and spirit of Iesus Christ, represented by the water in baptisme. Thus we see three severall phrases sig­nifying, to sprinkle, besprinkle, powre. If we look into the New Testament we shall find the like phrases, Act. 2.17. [...] [...]. I will powre forth my Spirit upon all flesh. Heb. 10.22. Having your hearts be­sprinkled from an evill conscience. 1 Pet. 1.2. By the sanctification of the spirit, and sprinkling of the bloud of Iesus Christ. See Heb. 9. 13. and 14. verses compared together; and Heb. 12.24. Now let any one without prejudice consider these Scriptures, whether at least some of them speake not in allusion to baptisme, and whe­ther they all hold not forth the thing signified in baptisme; and whether baptisme be not a lively resemblance and representation of the things here spoken off. And then withall let him consider, whether the thing exhibited in this Sacrament be ever so fully set forth by dipping, and then I leave him to judge whether sprink­ling be not as (that I say not more) agreeable to the nature of this Sacrament, as dipping.

Arg. 3 Thirdly, this dousing over head, and under water that A. R. pleads for, as essentiall to baptisme, seems directly against the sixth Commandement, and exposeth the person baptized to the dan­ger of death. For first, suppose the party be fit for baptisme (as they account) in the sharpe Winter as now beleeving, professing, &c. He must immediately be taken to the river (as his tenet seemes to hold) and there plunged in over head and eares, though he come forth covered with yce. But if he escape perishing with cold; how can he escape being choaked, and stifled with the wa­ter: if he must be plunged over head to signifie his death to sinne: secondly, be kept under water, to signifie his buriall: and third­ly, be taken up, as this Disputer seemes to reason? But whatsoe­ver be the danger of freezing, or suffocation; it seemes this he holds the onely baptisme, and therefore must not be swerved from.

Arg. 4 Fourthly, will not this their manner of dipping be found also against the seventh Commandement in the Decalogue? For I would know with these new dippers, whether the parties to be dowsed and dipped, may be baptized in a garment or no? If they may, then happily the garment may keep the water from some [Page 22] part of the body, and then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole man, say they, must be dipped. Againe, I would aske what warrant they have for dipping, or baptizing garments, more then the Papists have for baptizing Bells. Therefore belike the parties must be naked, and multitudes present as at Iohns baptisme, and the parties men and women of ripe yeares, as being able to make confession of their faith and repentance: yet though they both sinne against the sixth Commandement, indangering life, and against all common honestie and civilitie, and Christian mo­destie required in the seventh Commandement, they must have this way observed, because they fancie it the onely baptisme. Shall we thinke this was the baptisme of Iohn, Christ, and his Apostles? But enough of this second Consideration; we come to the third Consideration.

The third Argument, or Consideration against our Baptisme, taken from the Ministers (by whom administred) examined.

YOur third Consideration against baptizing of infants amongst us, is taken from the Calling, Office, Power, and Authoritie of the Ministers, by whom they are baptized. Which subject be­cause it hath been largely handled by others, shall be lightly passed over. Yet we will try what you say to it with shew of truth, or weight.

A. R.Whereas you say, That our Ministers power and authoritie was received from Bishops, who received their power from the An­tichristian State of Rome, as they confesse; so that the baptisme is from Antichrist, not from Christ.

Answer. 1 I answer. First, our Ministers have their authoritie, and office, from Iesus Christ; as many as being fitted for that function, upon due triall, and approbation of Ministers, (though a Bishop, or Bi­shops have had an hand; yea, a chiefe stroke therein) and the choyce or acceptation of Gods people; have set upon the worke of the Ministery.

Answer. 2 Secondly, a thing is not therefore forthwith unwarrantable, or Antichristian, because it comes from a Bishop, or from the Pope; or authoritie derived from them. Is the doctrine of the unitie of Gods Essence, Trinitie of Persons, Creation of the world, &c. therefore unlawfull, or Antichristian, because holden by them? If [Page 23] the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament have been in the custodie of the Papists, as the Old Testament in the custodie of the Iewes; so that we have no Bibles now, but what came suc­cessively from the Iewes and Papists: Must we therefore reject the Scripture as Antichristian, or Iewish, and look for immediate revelations? Or if the Bishops had a hand in the Translation of our Bibles; must they therefore be cast away as Antichristian: so that neither you nor your disciples may meddle with them, be­cause they have passed through the hands of the Bishops? If any of you have heard any Sacred truths from Ministers (which have beene ordained by Bishops) which you seemed to beleeve for a time: must you of necessitie cast them away as falshoods, and An­tichristian Tenents, false doctrines or nullities? as you will make their baptisme Antichristian baptisme, the reason is the same. Take heed lest in so doing you cast away your soules.

Answer. 3 Thirdly, many things that Antichrist, and they that are held under Antichrists tyranny, hold and professe, are not Antichristian, but truly Christian. As that the Canonicall Scriptures are the word of God, that God is one in Essence, yet three in Persons; that Christ is the Sonne of God, &c. And many things taught by them, many acts done by them, are not Antichristian, but Chri­stian. For Antichrist was foretold to sit in the Temple of God;2 Thess. 2.4. which he would never have beene suffered to do, had he not pro­fessed and practised some things that for their substance were of God. And as for the faithfull over whom he did tyrannize, while he sate in the Temple of God: though they were abused and chea­ted by him, with many superstitions and errours, that he impo­sed upon them: yet there were some saving truths that they professed, and holy and acceptable worship, and practise which they did performe, which in Christ God was pleased to accept; so that it is fond to reason; Baptisme, Ordination and the Scri­ptures were received from Antichrist, therefore Antichristian.

Answer. 4 Fourthly, the power and authoritie of the Ministers doth not depend on the qualitie or station (especially in respect of the worst part) of the person or persons, chusing or ordaining them. Else men could never be assured of their owne or others ministrie, whether it be true or false: (for the qualitie of men is onely knowne unto God, and in the station of the best there may be somewhat irregular and wanting exact perfection) but princi­pally on Christs inward call, discerned by the gifts, propensitie, [Page 24] and sincerity of the parties undertaking that office; al which are re­quisite, if they will, to their own comfort, and with Gods approba­tion exercise their ministerie; although the want of some of these hinder not, but that he which by Gods providence is called to the ministerie, may have power and authoritie sufficient from God to be an instrument of God, for the good of others, though he were weake and unfound himselfe;Mat. 10.4. and 40. as we may see in Iudas: (who was one of those to whom Christ saith, He that receiveth you, re­ceiveth me, &c.) the Scribes and Pharisees, (concerning whom Christ gave a charge that they should be heard and obeyed in those things which they taught sitting in Moses chaire:Matth. 23.2, 3. Phil. 1.15, 16.18. Act. 6.5. Rev. 2.6. vide Bright­man, in locum. though their lives were not exemplary) the envious, contentious, and unsin­cere Preachers of Christ (in whose preaching yet Paul rejoy­ced;) in Demas, and Nicolas the Deacon, who as Interpreters hold, proved afterward the ring-leader of the Nicolaitanes.) This (I say) Christs inward call either of approbation, as in the first; or of providence, as in the later, is the principall thing, whereon the power and the authoritie of the Minister doth de­pend. And then the lesse principall are the ordination and choyce of them, by such as are the Ministers and people of God, by pro­fession (though something Antichristian, or otherwise sinfull may cleave unto them, in regard of their qualities or stations.) And lastly, the expression of the end for which they were ordain­ed, viz. to administer the holy things of God. By which two lat­ter, viz. the outward calling, and the manifestation of the end, the hearts of Gods people may be assured of Christs inward cal­ling, so farre as that they may be confident, that whiles they dis­charge the duties of Ministers, it shall not be without efficacie for their good, if they be not wanting to themselves.

Answer. 5 Fifthly, as Paul proveth his Apostleship (when it was que­stioned amongst the Corinthians by occasion of the whisperings of the false apostles, who could not otherwise insinuate themselves into the favour of the Corinthians, but by traducing Paul and bringing him out of favour with them, as no Apostle of Christ, which hath beene ever the guise of false Teachers (which practise is too rife now adayes) As I say, Paul proves his Apostleship a­mongst other arguments from Gods blessing upon his ministery (Are not you my worke in the Lord?2 Cor. 9.1, 2. If I be not an Apostle unto others; yet doubtlesse I am unto you: for the seale of mine Apo­stleship are ye in the Lord;) Which must needs be a good argu­ment, [Page 25] both because the Apostle used it, who would not bring a weake and non-concluding argument; and also because as God will not blesse any Ordinances but his owne, to work repentance, faith, and holinesse; so neither will he blesse any Ministery but his owne Ministery: so through the mercy of God our Ministers have a sufficient answer for all that shall examine them concern­ing their ministery. The Conversion, Humiliation, Reformation, Faith, Consolation, heavenly Ioy, and Holinesse, which God thereby hath wrought in thousands of soules (to his everlasting glory be it spoken) evince them to be the Ministers of Christ, whose worke and seale so many faithfull soules are, and prove that all those which goe about to perswade the people that they are Antichristian ministers are slanderers:2 Cor. 9.13, 14, 15. ‘Like those false Apostles of which Paul speaks, deceitfull workers, transforming them­selves into the Apostles of Christ; and no marvell, for Satan himselfe is transformed into an Angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed into the Mi­nisters of righteousnesse, whose end shall be according to their workes. Or like those deceivers which had so bewitched the Galatians, Gal. 4.14, 15, 16, 17, 18. that whereas they had received the Apostle as an Angel of God, even as Christ Iesus, &c. yet after a while ac­counted him their enemie, because he told them the truth, whom they zealously affected but not well, desiring to separate those Galatians from the Apostles, that they might have all their affection.’ But I will leave such deceivers and those which are deceived by them (if they doe not truely repent) to the judge­ment of him on whose Ministers they raile; knowing that he who hath so farre honoured their faithfull labours, will vindicate them in his due time, from all those contumelious aspersions, wherewith on all sides they are laden: if they continue faithfully and resolutely doing his worke, notwithstanding all oppositions.

‘Your reasoning that you falsely say, the Non-conformists have taught you, is idle.’ Did the Non-conformists ever call mid­wives Antichristian ministers? midwives were never capable of ministerial functions, nor called to the ministerie by the ordination of Ministers, nor choyce or acceptation of the people; neither have they any ministeriall power from Christ. But our Ministers have, although there have beene some disorder or defect, in the externall exhibition of this power, through the fault of men, which yet probably was nothing so great, as was the disorder a­mong [Page 26] the Iewes in calling the Scribes and Pharisees, whose mi­nisterie notwithstanding our Saviour enjoynes the people to use.

First, If you speake of Bishops being lawfull Elders, so as to be right Ministers in all circumstances, and particulars of their sta­tion and calling, so that there needs no reformation: we doe not plead for them as lawfull Elders in that sense; as knowing that some evill adhereth unto their Ministery, which being removed, they become lawfull Ministers. But so farre we hold them law­full Elders, as that their calling of Ministers, Preaching, admini­string of Sacraments, (when done for the substance according to the rule of Gods word) are not meere nullities, nor prophanati­ons of Gods Ordinances to Gods people or Ministers that make use of them; but may be, and oft are, effectuall for their good; so that if these Bishops will cast away that which being Antichri­stian adhereth unto them;Act. 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.2. and faithfully discharge the office of Elders and Ministers of Iesus Christ, faithfully feeding the flock of God, they are to be imbraced as Christs Ministers, and that without any new Ordination;Rev. 2.3. as may appeare, Revel. 2. and 3. Chapters: where the Angels or Ministers which had left their first love,Rev. 2.13, 14. had them which held the doctrine of Balaam, which taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Is­rael, Rev. 2.20. to eate things offered to idols, and to commit fornication, and had them which held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which Christ hated; yea which suffered the woman Iezabel, which cal­led her selfe a Prophetesse, to teach and deceive Christs servants, &c.Rev. 3.15. Those which had a name to live, and yet were dead, whose workes were not perfect, such as were neither hot, nor cold, but luke-warme. Such, I say, are still called Angels, bidden repent and doe their first workes; with a promise at last implied, that they shall keep their stations of Angels. And this is sufficient to war­rant unto us,Matth. 23.1, 2, 3, &c. per totum. the acts which they doe as Ministers. The Scribes and Pharisees had many corruptions (in Christs time, and so had the Priests both before, and in Christs time) adhering to their [Page 27] function, and those very grosse; yet was not their ministery vaine to those which according to Christs appointment made use of it.

Now to your position; ‘That, they must be Elders chosen by a true Church, which is a congregation of beleevers.’ That I may know your meaning: I would demand of you,

1 First, Whether you mean that of necessitie the whole Church and every particular member therof, must be present at the choo­sing of a Minister, and give their voice expressely therein. If this be your meaning, it is neither proved in the Scriptures you bring, nor any other. Or whether by being chosen by a Church, you meane no more then to be chosen by some speciall persons in a Church, that represent the whole Church. If this be your mean­ing, I will concurre with you in that particular, as knowing that women and children have no voyce, though members. Nor is it necessary that every particular member of the rest should give his vote: sith at such times oft some are occasioned to be absent, and if present, they yet may be so many, that they cannot well give particularly their voices, and though many refuse to give their votes, yet if the greater part vote for him it is sufficient.

2 Secondly, Whereas you say. Constitute of Saints and belee­vers by calling. I aske, whether you meane those that are so effe­ctually called, that they are really and truly become Saints and be­leevers, so that there is not a wicked man or hypocrite among them, and that the mixture of wicked men or hypocrites among them which call the Elders, causeth them not to be true Elders. If this be your meaning, looke over that place which you brought for proofe of your opinion, and you shall finde it clearely confu­ted; 1 Cor. 1.2. if you compare that verse with Chap. 3. v. 3. and Chap. 5. and 6. throughout. Chap. 8. and 10. and 11. and 15. and 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. and almost throughout both Epistles. By comparing which places you shall see, that these beleevers and Saints by calling, did not so walke, either in regard of soundnesse of judgement, puritie of worship, or holinesse of life, as to give cleare evidence of their effectuall calling or sound sanctification. So compare, Phil. 1.7. with Chap. 3.18, 19. and Rom. 1.7, 8. with Chap. 16. v. 17, 18. and then speake your conscience, whether you can judge all these down right beleevers effectually called, really Saints. But if by beleevers, or Saints by calling, you meane such as are called to faith and holinesse, and withall make a pro­fession by externally giving their names up to Christ, and accept­ing [Page 28] outwardly the covenant, promising faith and obedience unto Gods word; though there may be hypocrites and wicked livers: we concurre with you, as knowing that they must be Christians by profession, and partakers of the heavenly calling (not Iews, Pagans or other Infidels) that goe to the making up of a visible Church; and such are our Churches, whereby the Elders of whom we speak have been chosen or accepted.

3 Thirdly, whether your meaning be the Congregation or peo­ple only, without the precedency, concurrence, examination, di­rection, and Ordination of Ministers, must chuse their Governours or Officers, or else they are not true Governours or Officers: If you meane so, looke backe on the Scripture cited by you Acts 14.23. with other places, Act. 6.3.6. 1 Tim. 4.14. and 5.22. where it appeareth, that Ministers had the chiefe hand in making Ministers.

Now these things propounded: I answer to your position, that we can easily shew, that our people in England, in regard of their generall and unanimous consent to (and profession of faith in) the same truth, contained in the book of God, acceptation of the co­venant, and giving up of their names unto Christ, are a Church or Congregation of faithfull people or Saints by calling, though many doe not walke answerably to their calling (the greater is their sinne, and shame, and shall be their condemnation unlesse they repent.) And in regard of the many severall companies of the faithfull, by whom Gods worship is performed apart one from another; there are many Churches or Congregations of Saints by calling in our Land. We can shew also, that although our Elders of whom we speake, have not been chosen by the whole Congregations, in respect of every particular member; yet by some speciall persons (in behalfe of the whole Congregation) to whom that charge was committed by them, (or (which was their sinne) usurped from them) and that the people at least by accepting them so chosen, did make choice of them in their own persons. And that whatsoever disorders or defects have been in the choice, do not nullifie their ministery. ‘As for such as have ac­knowledged the unlawfulnesse of their ministery, or plead meere qualifications (of whom you speake) let them answer for themselves, how they can, we are not bound to stand to their principles, or maintain their opinions.’

As for the seven next Objections, into the Answer whereof [Page 29] you digresse (most of them being belike fained of your self, that you may finde somewhat to say) beside extravagant imperti­nencies, malicious and master-like censures, and some unquesti­oned truths, which are yeelded by us, but do nothing profit your cause, nor hurt ours: I see nothing that it is worth while to an­swer, but what may be sufficiently answered unto, by what hath been said before. Neither do I intend to follow you in your idle roving. Onely it is to be observed, that this A. R. cannot endure to heare of a Synode, though a speciall and maine ordinance of God, to compose differences, and quiet the hearts of Gods peo­ple, which have been disquieted by trouble-Churches. See Acts 15. the whole Chapter.

Because (saith he) a Synod cannot make a Last to suit every ones foot, which in plain English is this, they will not suffer Iesu­its, Papists, Arminians, idle Ministers, Anabaptists, Antinomians, and Familists to have their own way in practise, worship, opini­on, &c. Neither will they suffer every man to abuse the Scripture after his owne fancie, and vent abroad his poysonous conceipts a­mong the simple, to draw disciples after them. As if it were better to let every man follow his owne devises, and labour to draw others into his opinions (so that whosoever is most cun­ning, pragmaticall and able to conform his doctrin to the humours of men, shall goe away with most disciples, to the overthrow of thousands of soules,) than that there should be a consultation of godly, learned, & conscientious Ministers, about the establishment of religion. And here it is further to be noted, that the children of darkenesse, though in some particulars they be opposite one to another, as Papists, Arminians, ignorant, lazy and malignant Mini­sters and licentious Atheists on the one side, and Anabaptists with Antinomians and Familists on the other side, doe differ from, yea directly oppose one another in some particulars; yet they agree together, as in opposing Gods faithfull Ministers and people, so in hating the light, and refusing to be brought unto the triall of Gods word, and to be tyed unto the Rules thereof, as they shall be found out and applyed by an Assembly of faithfull Ministers.

Again, it is to be observed, That these men take it in high in­dignation, that any should go about to restrain them from abusing the Scripture, and carrying about the simple people with every wind of doctrin, by whom they may be had in admiration, while they are suffered to go on in their bold presumption, and confident [Page 30] venting of their ignorant conceits, and malicious rayling against authoritie; which may appeare by this Authours abuse of Scrip­ture, ‘for a colour of accusation of those that would restraine them, and by his tale of a Minister in the West.’ But I come to the fourth Consideration.

The fourth Argument Answered.

YOur fourth Consideration then is taken from the ground of baptizing children; which as you are short in urging, I will be short in answering.A. R. Whereas therefore you say, The faith and repentance of the Sureties, is the ground of our baptizing, as you would prove from the questions propounded at the baptizing, and out of the Catechisme. Whence you conclude, that it is not true Baptisme; because in true Baptisme, the faith and repentance of the partie baptized is the ground.

Answer. I Answer. Not the faith and repentance of the Sureties as you pretend, is the ground of our Baptisme, (neither do we say so) but Gods gracious Covenant which he hath made with the parents and their children; (of which hereafter) Which Cove­nant that parents may publiquely professe themselves to have in­terest in, and with them their children, it is convenient that they (and other Sureties, if they see it good, to joyne such with them­selves, to undertake what they promise in the behalfe of their children, in case parents should be negligent, ignorant, or by spee­dy death, or otherwise disabled to bring up their children religi­ously) I say it is convenient, that they should make a profession of their faith and repentance, which yet doth not at all prove that their faith and repentance is the ground of the childrens Bap­tisme. But the tenour of Gods gracious covenant, under which they professe themselves (and with them their children) to be, is the ground of this act. Now though there may be some un­justifiable or unfit passages, in the Catechisme or manner of Bap­tisme, whence you fetch your Argument, (seeing that it is ap­parent, that our ground of baptizing Infants, is the Covenant of God made with the parents, or those which are in stead of pa­rents, which Covenant that they are in, they testifie by profes­sing their faith and repentance, and considering that the answer­ing of Sureties, and the Catechizing of Children, doth nothing touch the essence of Baptisme) those passages nothing prejudice [Page 31] the truth of Childrens Baptisme. But concerning this matter, viz. the ground of Childrens Baptisme more hereafter.

The fifth Argument against the Baptisme of Infants, taken from the subiects to whom it is ad­ministred, Answered.

THe fifth Consideration, A. R. which yeelds an Argument against our Baptisme, is taken from the subiects, on whom Baptisme is ad­ministred, and those are Infants, whereas (say you) the Scripture holds forth the Disciples, or beleevers onely are to be baptized, which you prove thus. For the Commission of Christ was onely to baptize disciples, as appeareth, Matth. 28.19. the words being these. [...], &c. Going therefore disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now the questi­on (say you) is to what this word ( [...] them) hath relation, whe­ther to [...], nations, or no. But (say you) it is cleare out of the words, that it hath not relation to nations, but to disciples: for the word which is put for them in that place, is autous not auta, which it should be, if it had relation to nations.

Answ. 1. But I pray you, who (but your self) ever saw in this Text, the word Disciples, to which [...], them, may have rela­tion? There is no such word, either in any usuall translation, or in the Originall. 2. What necessitie or likelihood is there, that your supposed [...], disciples, should be antecedent to [...] them? Because forsooth, it is [...], not [...]. Know you not, that [...], Na­tions, though in voyce it be Neuter, yet in signification it is Ma­sculine: Signifying men in the Nations or Heathens ( [...], or [...], or [...], Homines in Gentibus, or Gen­tium, or Gentiles. You sure would never have been so confident, that [...] must needs be referred to [...], disciples, if you had but consulted with Lylies Rules, who tels you of a figure called Synthesis, when a sentence is congruous in sense,Synthesis est o­catio congrua sensu, non voce. Gens armati. [...]. though not in voice; and brings an example like to this; The Armed nation: which figure is very frequent in the Greeke language; to instance onely in this same word [...]. Act. 15.17. And all the nations up­on whom my name is called upon them, where you have [...], whom and them, answering to the antecedent [...] gentes. And I beleeve where you finde a Relative in Scripture, answer­ing to [...], nations, [...]. most frequently (if not alwayes) it is the Ma­sculine gender, as Act. 28.28. to the Gentiles is sent this salvation [Page 32] and they shall heare. [...], &c. [...]. Act 13.48. The Gentiles hearing glorified the word of the Lord, and they beleeved, so many as were or­dained unto eternall life. Rom. 2.14, 15. When the Gentiles not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, these having not the law, are a law to themselves, which shew the work, &c. Insomuch, that your Criticisme hath greatly failed you here; and so your foundation which you have laid to prove, That all who are baptized according to Christs Commission, proving but a meere conceit, or self-deceit, your building that you reare thereupon will vanish away.

Obiect. If it be said, Christ commanded the Apostles to teach or make disciples, and then to baptize, so that none are capable of Baptisme but those that have been taught or made disciples first.

Answer. 1 To this I answer. First, This cannot be gathered by any neces­sary consequence from the connexion of the words; any more then it may be concluded from the same verse: that none may Teach or Baptize but Apostles, or such as have authoritie, and gifts of miracles and tongues, to goe to all nations. For, as Baptizing is joyned with Teach, so Teach ye, is joyned with Go ye (before) and All nations after. But if no wise man will deduce or yeeld to this conclusion (None must either Preach or Baptize, but those which have gifts and authoritie to goe into all nations for that end) from the coherence of the words; you must excuse us, if we yeeld not to the deducing of your conclusion from the cohe­rence. viz. That none are to be baptized, but those which have been first taught or made disciples.

Answer. 2 Secondly, I answer. It is true the Apostles were to teach those among the Gentiles of ripe yeares, and make them disci­ples before they or their children were to be baptized, because they and their children were out of covenant, and so uncapable of the seales, and might not be received into covenant themselves or their children, untill they gave up themselves and theirs unto Christ by faith and repentance: which they could not ordinarily have wrought in them, but by hearing the Gospel preached. Yet when parents had given up their names unto Christ, their chil­dren being also given up to Christ by them, were capable of Bap­tisme. As by Abrahams giving up himself unto God in Cove­nant, not onely he, but also his children, and those that were as his children, were received into Covenant, and had the seale thereof [Page 33] administred to them; by vertue of the unchangeable tenour of the Covenant of grace, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed: Gen. 17.7. as hath been said, and God willing shall more fully be shewed. Therefore the Commission which was given to the Disciples, makes nothing against baptizing the children of the faithfull: which are already in covenant with God, though they have not heard the word preached.

Answer. 3 Thirdly, Yea I conceive it is no absurditie, but a sound truth, to say, that infants of beleeving parents are made disciples of God and Christ: so that the Apostles in making parents disciples that gave up themselves and their children unto God; in that act made their clildren also disciples; in two respects. First, in that parents gave them up unto God, promising and purposing to bring them up in the knowledge of God, so soone as they should be capable of outward teaching. This Abraham was bound unto by vertue of the Covenant; that as God would be the God of his seed, so he should command and teach his children and houshold after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord, &c. Gen. 18.19. So all the Israelites, Exod. 12.26.26, 27. Deut. 6.6, 7. And the like obligation lies upon Christian parents, Ephes. 6.4. so that now they are the disciples of Christ, in respect of Gods obligation, and the parents promise, purpose, and prayer.

Secondly, they may be said to be Christs disciples, in that they are now under the teaching of God and Christ, who hath pro­mised to teach all that are in covenant, all the children of the Church, or faithfull (at least some of all sorts) from the least to the greatest. Esa. 54.13. [...] Edoctia Ieho­va, or Edocti Ievovae. [...] And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, &c. All, is an universall note, implying all sorts, sexes, ages, and conditions of those which were children of the Church, or posteritie of the faithfull. Ier. 31.34. And they shall teach no more every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord. For they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. And so that those which are so little, that they are uncapable of the teaching of men, are capable, and under the promise of Gods teaching. To which promises our Saviour having, as it seems, respect, saith, Ioh. 6.44. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and learneth, com­eth unto me: So that as there may be outward teaching with­out inward: so there may be inward teaching without the out­ward. Christ saith, Whosoever hath heard of the Father, not who­soever [Page 34] hath heard of the Preacher; for many may heare of the Preacher, and yet not come to God; and some may be taught of God, that are uncapable of the Preachers instruction: though the inward and outward both be ordinary, to those who being of ripe yeares are effectually called. So that sith God promiseth, that in the time of the Gospel, All even from the least unto the greatest shall become his disciples, why should the infants of beleevers be excluded, seeing they are capable of divine instruction, and the operation of the holy Ghost, even from their mothers wombe? Luk. 1.15. I have stood the longer on the answering of this Scripture objected, Because these answers may serve for all the other reasons, and Scriptures you bring, to confirme your last Argument against baptizing of children. Where having heaped up many Scriptures needlesly, you talk your pleasure, and triumph as if the cause were your owne; as if your grounds were un­moveable, and your conclusion unquestionable. But though you plead against Childrens Baptisme, you should remember that you dispute not with children. ‘Neither have we need or will, By wit and sophistrie to goe about to elude any truth, and justifie any errour, though never so grosse and absurd, as you say;’ Which imputation of yours, it may seeme, is you last shift; to answer those that will not be carried about with every winde of your vaine doctrine, and subscribe to your dictates.

Now for what followeth, I will not proceed in maintaining those further objections; which either you devise of your owne head, or raise out of others words, to whose principles we are not bound; your answers whereunto either doe not concerne us, or if any thing therein seeme to beare shew of truth and weight, it may be sufficiently answered from what hath beene already laid downe. Therefore I will not trouble my selfe with the re­petition of the same things. So forbearing any further to meddle with your confident conclusions, Apology for your expressions, or other impertinent digressions, wherewith you fill up paper; I come to give our reasons for the lawfulnesse, and requisitenesse of baptizing the infants of Christian parents; intending to consi­der all along your answers you have made to them.

Arg. 1 Our first Argument therefore shall be: To whom the spirituall and invisible grace represented, signified, and sealed in baptisme belongeth by vertue of Gods promise, to them baptisme it selfe belongeth, Act. 2.38, 39.

But to the children or infants of parents beleeving, or within Covenant, belongeth by vertue of Gods promise, the spirituall grace represented, sealed, and signified in baptisme; to wit, the teaching of God, and the Spirit of God, which doth include all the spirituall blessings signified by baptisme; as sanctification, or regeneration, wherein is comprehended virtuall faith, and there­in, being besprinkled with the bloud of Christ, and pardon of sinnes, Esa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Ioel 2.28. Es. 59.21. Act. 2.39.

Therefore Baptisme belongeth to infants of Christian pa­rents.

Both the premisses me thinkes should be undeniable with Christians, as being built on the word; and so the conclusion certaine. But because I would cleare this Argument, against the cavils of the captious, and doubts of the ignorant, or scrupulous; I will adde some what by way of explanation, and confirmation.

The proposition, for ought I know, it is not doubted of by any. It is taken as an unquestionable principle by A. R. and many of his arguments against baptizing infants, are built upon this ground: because they have not regeneration, faith, remission of sinnes. And it may further appeare by these Scriptures, Act. 8.38. Nothing now could hinder the Eunuch from being baptized, for now the spirituall blessing appertained to him, and therefore the externall signe: Act. 10.47, 48. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized, &c. And Chap. 11.17. The Apostle implies, that it had beene a withstand­ing of God, not to have baptized them on whom the gift of the holy Ghost had been powred. And so still upon the profession of faith, and repentance, when in the judgement of charitie, the Preachers apprehended the parties to have interest, and right to the spirituall grace, they administred the outward signe, though questionlesse they were deceived in many: as Ananias, Sapphira, Simon Magus, &c. Yet it was a sufficient warrant to the Mini­sters to baptize them: because so farre as they could judge, they were under the promise. For if amongst Christs few Disciples, there was one traytour, sonne of perdition, devill: doubtlesse a­mongst those many thousands that were baptized, upon their pro­fession of faith and repentance at the preaching of Iohn, and the Apostles, many were hypocrites; as may appeare by the great evils that brake out in the Primitive Churches. This I adde to [Page 36] shew that there is no infallible certainty of the inward grace re­quired of, or possible to the Minister.

And that to whom the inward grace belongs, to them the out­ward signe belongs; appeareth in Peters exhortation in that place quoted in the proposition, Act. 2.38, 39. And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Iesus Christ, to the remission of your sinnes, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost: For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afarre off, even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Wherein he shews them that if they will repent, they have right unto baptisme, as having right unto the thing signified in bap­tisme, viz. the remission of sinnes, by the bloud of Christ powred on their soules; and the gift of the holy Ghost being the Spirit of Christ, powred on them; of which he had spoken before, ver. 17. both clearely represented and signified by the infusion, or powring of water in baptisme. And the rather to perswade them to re­pent, and be baptized, that they might receive remission of sinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghost: Peter tels them, that the pro­mise is to them and their children, and so many as God should call, though afarre off: even among the Gentiles. So that if by faith and repentance they and the Gentiles should accept the promise, they and their children should have interest in the re­mission of sinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghost; and so conse­quently in baptisme; so that not onely the parents repenting, but also their children had title to the promise of the holy Gohst; and so to the seale thereof.

A. R.First, against this you object: It is not said, your infants, but your children.

Ans. Infants are not excluded I hope; for infants are children, though not onely infants: neither do we hold that the promise was made to infants onely. [...]. Peter useth a generall word that sig­nifieth posteritie, of what age soever, whether of ripe or tender years.

Secondly, you object: It is not said promises, but promise; and that it is not promises, but promise; not infants, but children: ‘You promise us satisfaction by looking back to what went before in the Chapter, after a long repetition wherof, you tell us what we may gather; to wit, that the gift of the holy Ghost, mentioned ver. 17. to be prophesied of by Ioel; and to be received of the Father, and shed forth by Christ, ver. 33. is repeated ver. 38.’

Answ. All this maketh nothing against us; but for us.

Thirdly, you adde: You may see who are meant by children, viz. the same that were mentioned, ver. 17. under the termes of sonnes and daughters that should prophecie.

Answ. As if the Spirit mentioned here, were onely a Spirit of prophecie. The Spirit hath divers operations; some ordinary, and some extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.4.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Neither is it said, that all shall prophecie and dreame dreames.

Fourthly, you say: Therefore no infants are meant here who can­not prophecie, &c.

Answ. Why may not infants be of the number of that all flesh, on which God would powre his Spirit, though none of those that prophecie, see visions, dreame, &c. For these effects of the Spirit are not related as common to all, on whom God would powre his Spirit; but peculiar to some, which had extraordinary gifts. Secondly, What hinders but they may receive the Spirit in their infancie, by which they may prophecie in ripe yeares? as we see in Iohn the Baptist, Luk. 1.15. & 41. Thirdly, I answer; That this promise is not onely made concerning the extraor­dinarie gifts of the Spirit which were bestowed in the times of the Apostle, by which men did prophecie, dreame dreames, see visions, speake with tongues, &c. but also of the sanctifying Spirit which is common to all ages of the Church, even where such miraculous and extraordinarie gifts are not bestowed: may appeare, vers. 30. The promise, saith the Apostle, was to all afarre off, whomsoever the Lord should call: that is, all the Gentiles whom God should call by the Gospel to faith. Now no man I hope will say, that all whom over God called, dreamed dreames, saw visions, prophecied, spake with strange tongues, &c.

Fifthly, you adde: ‘There is not so much as any colour, for baptizing of infants from hence. For the Text is not, Be bapti­zed. For the promise is to you, and your children; as many in Print doe falsely alledge. But repent and be baptized, &c. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy ghost. For the promise is to you and your children.’

Answ. If we should take the words in your sense, viz. that those words For the promise is made, &c. are brought as a reason onely of the words going immediately before; it makes nothing against me, for so the 38. vers. containes a pregnant proofe of my proposition, and vers. 39. of mine assumption.

Secondly, I answer. There is no necessitie can appeare, no nor probable reason (I beleeve) can be rendred, why the reason (For the promise, &c. vers. 39.) should be referred onely to the words immediately preceding (you shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost; and not unto the exhortation, Repent, and be bapti­zed, &c.) which untill you could have given some proofe of, you might well have spared your immodest language, and hainous accusation of false alledging Scripture. For the context may either be analysed thus. First, Peter exhorts to repent, and be baptized; then he spurres them on by a reason taken from the effect, viz. remission and the gift of the Spirit: secondly, from the promise that God had made concerning the thing signified, viz. powring his Spirit; which promise belonged to them and their children: therefore they should receive the signe which God had instituted to signifie it, which may seeme the most genuine resolution of the Text. Or secondly; This reason may be understood as brought both to the exhortation, (Repent, and be baptized) and the pro­mise, (And you shall receive remission of sinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghost:) for considering that baptisme, and the gift of the holy Ghost are correlatives, as the signe and thing signified, the reason well may (that I say not necessarily must) be referred to both. Or thirdly, if we grant that it is immediately referred to the foregoing promise, yet it must necessarily be taken as a reason of the exhortation at least mediately: for seeing the pro­mise of remission of sinnes, and the holy Ghost, is brought as a reason to perswade them to be baptized; and these words, For the promise is to you, &c. is brought as a confirmation of the promise;Causa causae est causa causati. and considering that the cause of the cause is the cause of the caused, and the reason of the reason, is the reason of the thing proved by that reason, this (For the promise, &c.) must needs be brought as a reason why they should be baptized; and so those who bring this as a reason that the Apostle gives, why they should be baptized, joyning the thing argued, and the Argument together, and omitting that which was interposed, as not perti­nent to the purpose; are quit from your slander of false alledging Scripture; and you convinced to be a false accuser of the bre­thren.

The next Objection that you frame I owne not. Assenting that it is true, that neither these Iewes, nor the Gentiles were in Co­venant, untill they had entred into the same by repentance and [Page 39] faith, seeing that the old Covenant was now abrogated, and the Gentiles had beene hitherto foreiners: so that you will acknow­ledge that whensoever Iewes or Gentiles should receive the pro­mise by faith and repentance, it did not onely belong unto them, but also to their children. For though it be expressed to the Iews, (That the promise was to them and their children) it is to be understood, to hold of the Gentiles also. For now the partition wall was removed, and the Iewes had no priviledge for their childrens having right unto the promise, any more then the chil­dren of beleeving Gentiles.

Thus farre I have digressed in answer to some objections made against the Scripture which was brought for the proofe of my proposition, though it might be handled as well in the assumpti­on; yet because I have more to say on the assumption, I brought these objections under the proposition. The summe of the pro­position must be remembred to be this. Where is right to the spirituall blessing promised in the word, and sealed in baptisme, there is right to baptisme: which stands firme against whatsoe­ver hath beene objected. I come to the assumption.

The places of Scripture quoted to confirme the assumption have beene spoken of before. Onely we may consider now, First, what things are promised in those Scriptures expresly. Secondly, what is implied. Thirdly, to whom these promises are made.

For the first, God promiseth to be their teacher, yea though they be uncapable of humane discipline (They shall not teach one another, but they shall all be taught of God) Esa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Againe, that he will give, yea powre his Spirit, and that his Spirit shall be upon them, Ioel 2.28. Es. 59.21.

Secondly, under these two expressions, yea each of them se­verally, are comprehended all those things that are requisite for our being in Covenant with God; and all those spirituall graces that give us right to the seale of entrance: as first Regeneration, which is the proper and certaine worke of the spirit of sanctifica­tion, Ioh. 3.5. which spirit of regeneration to be signified by the water of baptisme may appeare by that Scripture, Ioh. 3.5. & Tit. 3.5. Againe, this implies communion with Christ, which must needs be by faith, actuall or virtuall, Ioh. 6.45. Heb. 11.6. For who­soever is taught of God, and hath the Spirit of Christ, must needs have Christ, and so it follows that such have right unto remission of sinnes.

Thirdly, these promises belong unto the children of the Church, the sonnes and daughters of the faithfull, all of them from the least to the greatest; the seede of the faithfull, and their seeds seed, as may appeare in the Scriptures quoted; and here must be comprehended, infants as well as others, who have right unto the promise by vertue of their parents entering into Cove­nant with God, as Act. 2.39. The Apostle bids them repent and be baptized; (and so enter into Covenant) for the promise, saith he, is unto you and your children; so that there can no reason be given why infants should be excluded from these promises: un­lesse any one shall say that infants are uncapable of these gifts, which this A. R. seemes to hold, in many places of his booke; which opinion is more worthy detestation then confutation. Are not infants capable of sinne? Psal. 51.5 and therefore of sancti­fication: shall the first Adams disobedience be available to bring guilt and defilement? and not Christs obedience to procure re­mission, and sanctification? Or is there no remedie for the poore infants of beleeving parents; but if they die before they come to the use of reason they must necessarily perish, as being born the children of wrath, and being uncapable of remedie? Or doth this man hold, that they are brutes without soule in that he compares baptizing of infants to circumcising of Camels or Asses?2 Part, pag. 21. Are not these profane Atheisticall conceits, contrary to the promises of God, cleare testimonie of Scripture, and exam­ple, as of Iohn the Baptist, who was sanctified and moved by the Spirit even in his mothers wombe?

Quest. But what must we then beleeve: that all the chil­dren of Christians are already indued with the holy Ghost, taught of God, and sanctified, &c. so soone as borne, or in their infancie?

Answ. It is enough to prove their right to baptisme, that they are under the promise and interessed therein, by vertue of their parents being (at least externally) in Covenant: so that whether they have already received the Spirit, or have a promise thereof, it sufficeth to give them a right to the Sacrament. As these are bid repent, and so come under promise (themselves with their children) and then be baptized; and afterward they shall receive the holy Ghost.

Quest. But must we think that all children of Christian parents that are baptized, either have or shall receive the Spirit, and so be saved?

Answ. Iohn the Baptist, and the Apostles, though they were not to beleeve that amongst those multitudes whom they bapti­zed, there were none but truely had or should receive the Spirit, for it was after proved by the event, that many were hypocrites, yet they turned away none, because by their externall confession of sinne, and profession of faith and repentance, they shewed themselves to be externally in Covenant, and so to have right to the outward seale, which they therefore administred to one as well as to another. So though we are not bound to think that all the children borne of parents in covenant are, or shall be sanctified: yet because they are outwardly in covenant and under the pro­mise, (which promise God makes good as seemeth good in his eyes;) therefore the Minister, that is not to judge of the inward worke of sanctification on the heart, whether present or future, but of the outward estate, (neither if he could discerne the in­ward estate might he withhold the outward priviledge from any (though wanting inward grace) that hath right thereunto by be­ing under covenant outwardly) may and ought to administer baptisme to the children of all Christian parents under his charge that requires it, so long as by wilfull Apostasie from the faith, or just excommunication wherein they obstinately continue, they with their children are not discovenanted.

Obiect. If any should object, That those promises of the Spirit, or Gods teaching, &c. made to the seed of the faithfull, to all both small and great, &c, and the promise made to the faithfull and their children belong onely to the spirituall seed of the Church, viz. those that are borne againe in the wombe of the Church.

Answer. I Answer. 1. These promises made to the Christian Church, are like to that promise made to the Iewish Church, Deut. 30.6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God. Now this they were to un­derstand, not onely or principally of Proselytes that should be converted to the Church, nor onely of their posteritie, when they came to the use of reason; but even of Infants, as may appeare in that God appointed them to circumcise their Infants. For cir­cumcision of the flesh, was a sign of circumcision of the heart; which if infants had not been capable of, God would not have commanded the outward signe to have been administred unto them. And so these promises made to the Christian Church, to their seed, to their seeds seed, to their children, from the least to [Page 42] the greatest, appertain to infants in the Christian Church as well as others. The universall note being understood, De generibus singulorum, not de singulis generum, as they say; of all sorts, sexes, ages, and condition some: though every individuall of all sorts be not comprehended therein. And therefore Baptisme sealing such promises, belongs to Infants in the Christian Church, as well as circumcision did in the Iewish.

Secondly, I answer. It is absurd to understand these promises onely of the spirituall seed, as if they belonged only to the rege­nerate; For what is it to be taught of God and have the Spirit powred, but to be converted or regenerated, and drawn to Christ; so that by this interpretation, the meaning of these pro­mises should be this much. I will powre my Spirit on whom I have or shall powre my Spirit, and they shall be taught of God, that are or shall be taught of God. It is true, God may here well promise a greater measure of the Spirit and illumination, where he hath given some measure. But withall it is certaine, here is promised the Spirit and illumination also, to those that are quite destitute, and so to such as are not yet the spirituall seed of the Church.

Thirdly, I answer. What matter of consolation can this be to beleeving parents, if not withstanding their prayer for, and re­ligious education of their children, none of these or the like pro­mises belong to them; but onely to the spirituall seed of the Church, that is, such as are already converted, and declare their conversion by actuall faith? What ground of prayer for, or hope of the salvation of their children have they, more then of the Heathens, if this be admitted?

2. Argument. If Governours of families upon their belee­ving and tendring up themselves, and theirs to God and Christ, were not onely themselves baptized; but all the persons in their houshold, and which were under their government, of what age soever, were baptized also; so that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Governours them­selves; yet their whole housholds were dedicated unto God in Baptisme: Then it is lawfull (yea a dutie) to Christian parents to tender their children (being part of their family) unto God in Baptisme, and Ministers have good ground, yea, ingagement for baptizing such.

But Governours of Families upon their beleeving and tender­ing [Page 43] up themselves and theirs unto God and Christ, were not one­ly themselves baptized; but all the persons in their houshold, or which were under their government: so that where there is no mention of preaching to, or the beliefe of any but the Govern­ours themselves; yet their whole housholds were dedicated un­to God in Baptisme. Act. 16.14, 15 and 31, 32, 33. 1 Cor. 1.6.

Therefore it is lawfull (yea the dutie) for Christian parents or governours of families, to tender their infants, which are part of their houshold, unto God in Baptisme, and Ministers ought to baptize such being tendred of their parents.

The Major needs no confirmation, it being granted by all, yea, by the Adversaries themselves (as I conceive) taken for an un­deniable principle, that the Apostles example in baptizing is a suf­ficient warrant for us, and that such are to be admitted to Bap­tisme now, as were admitted by the Apostles: For most of their reasoning is grounded hereupon, and they hence condemne our baptizing of Infants; because (say they) it is not agreeable to the practise of the Apostles; so that that Baptisme w^ch is agreeable to the Baptism of the Apostles, is warantable by their own grants: and so the sequele standeth firme and good. If in the Apostles times, whole families of beleeving governours were baptized, they ought so now, and so consequently the infants of those fami­lies, which are parts thereof, if there be any such: For as Abra­ham and his Family, was a pattern unto all such as should enter into the Covenant of grace during the time of circumcision; that as he and his Family were circumcised, so should all, whether of his posteritie, or proselytes, circumcise all their Males, even the babes: So those primitive Converts, that were the first fruits of the Gentiles, and when they beleeved were baptized with their whole families; are examples for the beleevers of all Ages to follow, in consecrating themselves and theirs to God in Baptism.

As for the Minor; those places of Scripture cited prove it. Act. 16.31, 32, 33. To the Iaylour demanding, what he should doe that he might be saved; Paul and Sylas answer, bidding him beleeve in the Lord Iesus Christ, promising that he should be sa­ved and his houshold. Teaching that the beleefe of a father, or go­vernour of a family, is sufficient to bring a whole family that is at his disposing and to be ruled by him, into a state of salvation, so farre, as that now they are within the Covenant, and so conse­quently have right unto the seale of initiation. It is said indeed, [Page 44] that they spake the word of the Lord unto him, and all that were in the house. viz. so many as were capable of instruction; But there is no word of the actuall beliefe or repentance by expressi­on, word, or action, of any in the family, except onely of the Iay­lour himself, whose repentance and faith (at least initiall) is ex­pressed by the effects thereof. viz. his humiliation, and desire of salvation, vers. 29. and 30. and more fully by the fruits of them, declared vers. 33. in taking them the same houre of the night, and washing their stripes, [...]. and then it is said, that he and all his were baptized straight-way. Which evidently sheweth, that the go­vernours faith and repentance, or being within the Covenant, doth sufficiently interesse their inferiours, that are at their dispose, to the Covenant of Grace, and so to the Seale of entrance, at least if they be not refractary, wilfully and stubbornly refusing to be given up to God by their superiours. The like may be said of Stephanus his family, 1 Cor. 1.16. But most cleare, and expresse, is the example of Lydia, Act. 16.14, 15. When the Lord had opened her heart, to attend to those things that were spoken of Paul, she was baptized and her houshold; Not a word spoken of preaching to, or actuall faith, and repentance of the rest. So that it is apparent, that as upon Abrahams faith and repentance, and interest in God, his whole Family, whether those that were born in the house, or those that were bought with money, yea, even his infants of eight dayes old, had so farre interest in God, that (upon his tendring them up unto God according to his gracious appointment) now they had right unto the Seal of Circumcision after God had once instituted it: so Christian governours of fa­milies, or parents by their faith and repentance, are meanes of bringing salvation to their families, and interessing those that are under them to God and Christ, so farre as that they have right unto Baptisme; at least except they stubbornly refuse the Seale, and reject the Covenant.

A. R.To this Argument, especially the Scriptures brought to con­firme the assumption, you answer. There might be no Infants there (viz. in those families which were baptized:) and my negative (say you) is as good as your affirmative.

Answer. This toucheth not the force of mine Argument, which hath shewed that upon parents or governours of families receiving the Gospel, their families were accepted unto Baptisme, their superiours tendring them thereunto. Whether Infants or not, there is no exception of Infants or others.

‘But you say your Negative is as good as our Affirmative, without proofe, and that you bring Scripture for your negative, as Act. 18.8. which Scripture maketh nothing against us.’ For first, if Crispus beleeved in the Lord with all his Family, it doth not follow, that these families which we mentioned, had none but actuall beleevers in them, before they were baptized. Se­condly, Crispus may be said to beleeve he and his houshold, and so to be baptized, though they were not all indued with actuall faith, as Abrahams Family was a Family of beleevers, even the whole Family, when the Seale of the righteousnesse by faith had been set upon all the Males therein, although they did not all actu­ally beleeve.

"You adde the example of the Iaylour, Act. 16.31, 32, &c. Answer. We have already sufficiently considered, what is con­tained in vers. 31, 32, 33. viz. though Paul and Silas preached the word unto all in the family (viz, that were capable of instructi­on) yet the faith and repentance of none but of the Iaylour him­selfe is manifested.

But you say: ‘He and all his houshold beleeved in God, as it is’ vers. 34.

Answ. If you looke into the Originall, you shall finde that that verse makes nothing for your purpose. It is word for word. [...]. And he rejoyced (with all his house) having beleeved in God, or when he had beleeved in God. But because the English can­not so fully and clearely give the sense of the place, it may be noted [...], (having beleeved) being the Masculine gen­der, and singular number (as the Grammarians speake, cannot be referred to that [...] alone, or taken with [...], the kee­per; So that the sense should be, the whole house beleeved, or the Iaylour, and the whole house beleeved. I say the words cannot beare this sense, as the skilfull in the language may easily see, and therefore in the translation, beleeving (or rather having beleeved) in God, is to be read within a parenthesis, so that those words with his whole family, is to be referred onely to the word rejoy­ced; Thus: And rejoyced (beleeving or having beleeved) in God) with all his house: So that though our Translatours did well render the words, yet the want of observing the parenthe­sis, causeth the words at the first sight, otherwise to sound then indeed they do, to those that looke on the Originall.Laetatus est cum omni domo cre­dens Deo. So Arias Montanus. But under correction, and with submission to better [Page 46] judgements if I might be so bold: I conceive it might be ren­dered, more agreeably to the signification of the words, the scope of the place, and for the avoyding of ambiguitie. And having beleeved in God, he rejoyced (exulted or testified his joy open­ly by outward actions) in all his family, (or through his house, or all his house over). For ( [...]) beleeving, and ( [...]) rejoyced, are both the singular number, and so have reference to one alone. viz. [...], the Iaylour. [...] (rendred, with all his house) is an adverbe, and so according to the ordinary use of that part of speech, is referred to the verbe, to shew how the thing was done, not by whom. Beside, the scope of the place, seemes to favour this Interpretation; for it is said in the words before, that he brought them into the house, and set meat before them, or made them a feast, so that he expressed his rejoycing in his whole house, by making a solemn feast in all the family, as it were celebrating that night, as his spirituall birth-dayes solemnitie.

Now you come to compare that Scripture mentioned, which you apprehend to speake of whole families beleeving before they were baptized, with these that speake of baptizing families, where yet none are said to beleeve, save the heads, and thence you gather, ‘That it cannot be reasonably imagined, but that the A­postle did baptize these families according to commission, &c. and those other places which are more silent, must be expound­ed by this which is more plain, and not this by those.’

Answ. First, No question, the Apostle baptized according to commission: but that their commission bound them to baptize none, but those which were brought to actuall faith, you have not proved, as may appeare by the foregoing examination of what you produced.

Secondly, Why should not we interpret their commission, by their practise, rather then draw their practise to that sense which your fancy is pleased to put on the commission? Their practise as a commentary on their commission, shews in what sense it was understood by them.

Thirdly, Why may not those places, that speake of the belee­ving of the family before they were baptized (if you can produce any such) be expounded by these that shew the heads of that the families beleeving and being baptized, and giving up themselves and theirs unto God; the whole families were accounted be­leeving families, and so baptized; especially, seeing it so agreeth [Page 47] with Gods proceeding with Abraham the father of the faith­full?

Fourthly, Or what necessitie is there, that either those Scrip­tures should be expounded by these, or these by those; when they are both equally plain and cleare? They may be both true accord­ing to the proper sense of the letter and history. In some fami­lies, all might well be of ripe years and actuall beleevers, in others not, and yet both sorts might be baptized without absurditie.

Arg. 3 Those which are Saints, or holy ones, are meet members of the Church, and so have right to that Sacrament that seales ad­mission into the Church, Eph. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 1.2.

But the children of Christian parents are Saints or holy ones, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 7.14.

Therefore they are meet members of the Church, and so have right to baptisme, being the Sacrament that seales admission in­to the Christian Church.

The Proposition, namely, that Saints or holy ones are members of the Church, and so to be admitted to the Sacrament of en­trance thereinto; I know not to be questioned or denied by any; and (if it should) may be confirmed by those Scriptures, wherein the Churches have the title of Saints given to them, or Saints by calling; implying that a Saint, and a member of the Church, are termes convertible, considering that in some Epistles the faith­full are all called by the name of Church, the name of Saints or holy ones, not being used: and contrariwise, so that sometime the Apostle calls them to whom he writes, Saints, not Church: sometime Church, not Saints: sometime both Church and Saints,Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2. 2 Cor. 1.2. Ephes. 1.1. Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.2. Gal. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.1. 2 Thes. 1.1. as may appeare in the places quoted in the margine: so that all the members of the Church are Saints, all Saints are members of the Church. Yet it is to be noted by the way, they were Saints by calling, or called to be Saints. Not so, that every member of these Churches were truly sanctified, but such as had beene cal­led to holinesse; and made (at least) an externall profession of obeying this heavenly call. For some among those sanctified ones, or Saints by calling, were notorious offenders, and such as were stained with grosse errours; as 1 Cor. 3.3. & 5.1, 2. & 6.1.8.13. so Chap. 8.11. & 15. 2 Cor. 12.21. Gal. 3. Phil. 3.15. Yet it was sufficient to make them Saints by calling, and members of the visible Church, that they were partakers of the heavenly cal­ling, Heb. 3.1. and so they had externall right to the Sacrament, [Page 48] although if they did not walke worthy their calling, they brought upon themselves the greater condemnation.

Secondly, it is confirmed hence. In that holinesse comprehends all the conditions, or qualifications that are requisite to baptisme. Holinesse cannot be without communion with Christ, regenera­tion, and remission by the Spirit and Bloud of Christ, 1 Cor. 6.11. 1 Ioh. 1.7. So that as much as a man is holy, so much he hath com­munion with Christ, regeneration and remission. If indeed and truth, he be holy, then is he inwardly and really united unto Christ, regenerated, and justified: If outwardly and in profession onely he be holy, then hath he communion with Christ, regeneration, and remission onely outwardly, and in profession, as Heb. 10.29. Those Apostates are said to account the bloud of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified prophane, and to doe despite to the Spirit of Grace. These were not truly and inwardly san­ctified (for then should they have never fallen away) but one­ly outwardly, faederally, and in respect of externall profession. Yet this externall holinesse is as much as the Minister can discern, or require as necessary, for receiving into the outward covenant and admitting to the seale of entrance.

Thirdly, this is confirmed by that Scripture cited in the Propo­sition, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. where it is shewed that the Church is sanctified and purged by Christ in the washing of water in the word, that he might make it to himselfe, a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and unblameable. Wherein these two propositions (making for the confirmation of my Proposition) are plainly contained. First, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, and that it is an holy societie; which holinesse is such a proper adjunct or unseparable propertie of the Church, that whosoever is holy must needs be a member of the Church. Secondly, that this Church which Christ so loved, for which he gave himselfe, which he hath made holy, he hath cleansed with the washing of water in the word; which whether it be meant of the outward signe or thing signified in baptisme, or rather both; doth apparently shew that the whole Church and all the members thereof being holy, have right to the outward washing of water in baptisme.

To the Minor or Assumption; That the children of Christian parents are holy. First, it might be proved from the same place, Ephes. 5.25, 26, 27. For otherwise unlesse it be granted that all [Page 49] the children of Christian parents are so faederally holy, that at least some of them are sanctified in deed and truth, it will follow that they are not loved of Christ, none of those for whom Christ gave himselfe, nor part of the Church at least in their infancie, and consequently those children of Christian parents that die before the years of discretion, and actuall faith, must unavoidably and re­medilesly perish; and that the parents of such can have no hope at all of their escaping eternall damnation; not withstanding all the promises that God hath made to his people and their posteritie: which opinion, what Christian heart doth not abhorre?

Secondly, but for the fuller proofe of the point, that children of parents whereof the one at least is a beleever, are holy, that place, 1 Cor. 7.14. is most direct and cleare, where the Apostle saith, For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife; [...]. and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children uncleane, but now they are holy; whence we may note,

First, that the word holy, is the same that is used else-where, for Saints, as the proper title of the members of the Church, [...]. Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, &c.

Secondly, that the reason why these children are said to be ho­ly, is the faith of the parents, or one parent at least, to whom the other parent is sanctified, by vertue of the beleeving parents faith, (according to those generall rules, 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. Tit. 1.15.) Whence it was that the beleeving yoke-fellow had the lawfull and sanctified use of the unbeleeving yoke-fellow. For though it be unlawfull for a beleever to marry an infidell, 2 Cor. 6.14. Yet when of unbeleevers, who were married together in the time of infidelitie, one is called, the other is not; the calling of the one to grace doth not dissolve or annihilate their marriage (which is Gods ordinance, and therefore good) if the unbeleever be content to live in marriage fellowship with the beleeving mate. So that Gods Covenant with the beleeving parent, or parents, is the ground of the childes holinesse; for (as hath beene touched be­fore) in regard of externall covenant with God, the state of the parents, or better parent, and of the child is the same. If the parent be in Covenant, the child (though by nature the child of wrath, yet by Gods grace) is borne in Covenant, and so he and his posteritie continues untill any of them cast themselves and their posteritie out of Covenant by Apostasie. The child that [Page 50] is borne of parents out of Covenant, remaines out of Covenant, unlesse either the parents, or some that are in stead of parents, be­ing called of God, give up themselves and the child unto God, or the child coming to yeares of discretion be called into the Cove­nant in his owne person.

Thirdly, Hence it followeth that the holinesse of the children of beleeving parents, is not necessarily internall and reall holinesse; so that it be externall and faederall, it sufficeth to make them mem­bers of the visible Church. For as of those Corinthians and others that are called Saints, we cannot infallibly gather that all were internally sanctified, it was sufficient to make them externall members, that they were both Saints by calling: so it is sufficient to make the children so farre holy as to be members of the Church and outwardly in Covenant, if their parents were outwardly in Covenant. What is inwardly wrought, it is not for man to judge.

Now let us see what A. R. objecteth to this place of Scri­pture.

A. R.For answer, you lay down some grounds: as, First, There is but one Covenant now on foot, which is the Covenant of grace and salva­tion, Heb. 7.22. & 8.13. & 10.9.

Answ. We grant you this, and more too. Namely, that never since Adams fall was there any Covenant, properly so called, made with mankind by God, but the Covenant of grace and salvation: Where read you of any Covenant of works and damnation?

Secondly, You say: ‘That there is but one manner of enter­ing and being in the Covenant, Ioh. 3.3.5.6. Heb. 10.19, 20, 21, 22.’

Answ. True, If you meane being in that Covenant inwardly, spiritually, and savingly, and the same ever was the manner of be­ing and entering into Covenant since Adams fall, viz. by Iesus Christ, or regeneration.

Thirdly, You say: ‘There is but one holinesse now accepta­ble unto God; which is inward, spirituall, and in truth, without which no outward obedience, or conformitie to any worship is warrantable or acceptable, Ioh. 4.23, 24. Heb. 11.6.’

Answ. If you understand it of such warrantablenesse, as finds acceptation with God in the party performing it, as your latter seemes to expresse the former: This is not questioned nor denied by any that I know. But why doe you limit your propositions by [Page 51] the particle [Now,] as if though now outward obedience and conformitie to any ordinance, be not acceptable without inward holinesse; yet it sometimes had been? which is utterly untrue, as may appeare, Gen. 4. Psal. 50. and 51. Esa. 1. Ier. 6. and al­most every where.

Now you come directly to answer. ‘Hence (say you) it fol­lowes, that if beleevers children be in Covenant, and have true holinesse, then they are all saved old and young. But all belee­vers children are not saved, no not of faithfull Abraham him­selfe, Esa. 10.21. with Rom. 9.27. Therefore the children of beleevers are not in the Covenant now on foot, nor ought to be baptized.’

Answ. You might as well reason thus. If Simon Magus, Ana­nias, and Sapphira, with many other hypocrites, in the Primitive Churches, whom yet the Apostles baptized, and called Saints, and faithfull, were in the Covenant, and had this true holinesse, or were truly Saints; then they must needs be all saved. But they were not all saved. Therefore they were no beleevers or Saints, nor in the Covenant now on foot; and therefore should not have beene baptized. The Apostles belike, wanted you to direct and controll them, and shew whom they should have baptized, and whom not.

Secondly, I answer directly. Though true holinesse be neces­sarie for spirituall and internall being in Covenant, and for eter­nall salvation; yet the outward holinesse of the party consisting in externall being in Covenant, is sufficient to warrant a Minister to baptize; otherwise he should never have warrant to baptize: for none knowes the heart, (so as to judge of inward holinesse infal­libly) but God.

Answ. Secondly, though they were under the old Covenant legally dispensed, wherein grace was more obscurely and sparing­ly communicated to Gods people then it is under the Gospel: yet the old Covenant was a Covenant of grace, which all must needs grant, unlesse they thinke that the Patriarks, Prophets, and that holy nation of the Iews were a gracelesse people out of favour with God, either not at all saved, or saved by workes. (For there is no way to be saved, but by grace or workes; and no salvation by grace, but in a Covenant of grace) But I hope you will not be so blasphemous as to say this.

Secondly, If the old Covenant stood not by faith (to use your phrase) and circumcision of the heart, how is it that God pro­miseth circumcision of the heart, Deut. 30.6. and living by faith, Hab. 2.4. and the Prophets call upon the people for circumcision of the heart, Ier. 4.4. and for faith, Psal. 37. Esa. 7. 2 Chron. 20. and that the Apostle shews, Heb. 11. that under the old Cove­nant the godly were famous for their faith? Were those pro­mises of God, exhortations of the Prophets, and practise of those Worthies spoken of concerning faith and circumcision of the hart, more then was comprehended in the Covenant under which Gods people at that time were?

Thirdly, whereas you say the Church of the Gospel doth stand on faith and circumcision of the heart: Is your meaning that there is no Church of the Gospel, but all that are therein, and professed and acknowledged members thereof, are indued with faith and circumcision of heart? If so; experience of the Scripture, and all Christian Churches, will confute you; sith still chaffe is mingled with graine, tares with wheat; the children of the wicked one, with the children of the kingdome. Or is your meaning that faith and circumcised hearts, is required of all in the Church of the Gospel; and is truly in those that are internall and living members of the same? This is granted, and may be said as truly of the Church of the Iewes; and therefore this can make no difference being common to both.

Fourthly, Can you tell what you meane when you say, That the old Covenant stood onely by nature, and circumcision of the flesh? I cannot tell how you are to be interpreted but one of these three waies: Either, first, that this Covenant was grounded on [Page 53] nature. Or secondly, that it promised onely naturall or temporall blessings. Or thirdly, that it was made with all and onely the na­turall seed of Abraham: all which are grosse and notorious er­rours, openly crossing the Scriptures. For if you meane that this Covenant was grounded in nature, this is false: for God chose Abraham and Israel of free grace and love above all other peo­ple, Iosh. 4. Deut. 7.7, &c. neither did they differ in nature from others. Or secondly, if you meane that God onely required of them outward circumcision and cutting off the naturall foreskin, and promised only naturall and temporall blessings; this opinion is fitter to be abhorred, then confuted. Or thirdly, if you meane, that to be of the naturall seed of Abraham, and to be circumcised in the flesh, was sufficient and necessary for being in that Covenant, so that their being in Covenant consisted in being the naturall seed of Abraham; this is as false: for first, Were not many Pro­selytes joyned with the Israelites in the same Covenant? so that to be of Abrahams seed was not necessary. Secondly, Did not they want circumcision in the wildernesse fourty yeares, and yet remaine in Covenant. Thirdly, Did not Ishmael and Esau grow out of Covenant, though the seed of Abraham; and so ten Tribes ceased from being Gods people long before the old Covenant was antiquated; and did not the Prophets shew that Legall ob­servations were nothing worth without sinceritie?

Fifthly, though the outward cleansings and ceremonies of the Law have ceased, and so that outward & faederall holinesse be at an end: yet there is an outward and faederall holinesse of the new Co­venant, whereby Christians are distinguished from other people. They have their outward Baptisme and the Lords Supper, prayer in the Name of Christ alone, the Word, and profession of the Gospel, by which they are distinguished from unbeleevers. Act. 2.41.42. There are reckoned up: first, Baptisme: secondly, the A­postles Doctrine: thirdly, Fellowship, or Communion with the faithfull: fourthly, breaking Bread: and fifthly, Prayers: as di­stinctive markes of the Church, by which it then was, and to this day is distinguished from all other societies whatsoever. 1 Cor. 5.12. There is a distinction expressed of those that were within the Church, or Covenant, and members of the Courch, and those that were without; whereof these were not subject to the judgement or censure of the Church, those were. But how are these distinguished? (that the Church may neither goe beyond, [Page 54] nor neglect her office within, her bounds) By inward holinesse? that none sees but God, and each mans owne conscience; and therefore cannot be a note of distinction unto men that cannot discern the heart. By outward holinesse of life? Not so; for some of those that were within, were guilty of more grosse profanenesse then those that were without, as in the same Chap. 1 Cor. 5.1. and 11. Therefore there must be some note of distinction, or fae­derall holinesse, by which those that were wicked in heart, and life, and yet Saints by calling, and members of the Church, and so under the Churches jurisdiction, might be discerned (from them that were without) and so subjected to the Churches censure, 1 Cor. 5.11, 12, 13.

Yet you say further. ‘There is now onely the new Covenant, which is a covenant of grace and salvation, and brings certaine salvation to all those that rightly enter into it; which is onely by faith. Hence it is said, Act. 2.47. That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.’

Answ. It is as true that the old Covenant made with the Iewes, was a covenant of grace and salvation, which brought cer­taine salvation to all those that rightly entered into it, and that it was onely by faith.Heb. 11. And as for the Scripture you cite, it is said indeed, That the Lord added to the Church such as should be sa­ved. But it is not said, onely such as should be saved were added to the Church; or that all those who were added to the Church were saved.

You proceed: ‘And that the holinesse of children is not meant of any holinesse in relation to any Church-covenant will appeare further by these reasons. First, that which is an effect of regeneration is not brought to passe by generation (though the parents be holy.) But to be of the covenant or kingdome, is the proper effect of regeneration, Ioh. 3.3. without which none can see it, (much lesse be of it) or enter into it. There­fore it cannot be brought to passe by generation, though the pa­rents be holy.’

Answ. We say not (neither can it follow from our grounds) that the children of Christian parents are in covenant with God by generation, but by vertue of Gods gracious promise, and from the nature of the covenant of grace; wherein God is pleased to accept parents together with their children for his. Secondly, to be of, or in the covenant outwardly (of which being in covenant [Page 55] we speak, and which is sufficient to make an externall member of the Church, and give right unto the outward seales) you can never prove to be the proper effect of regeneration, untill you have proved that all those who were baptized by Iohn the Baptist, and the Apostles, and so admitted into the covenant as members of the Church, were truly regenerate; which to hold, were to contradict the Scripture.

Your second reason is this: ‘Secondly, contradictions cannot be the effect of one and the same covenant, in one and the selfe­same respect. But for one parent to be a beleever, that is of the Church, when the other parent is not, to produce an holy seed that is in covenant, 1 Cor. 7.14. and for the other parents to be one a Iew, the other a Babylonian; the one a member of the Church, the other not; to produce an unholy seed that is out of covenant, and to be put away both wise and all borne by her, as Ezr. 10.3. is a contradiction in one and the selfesame respect; and therefore cannot be the effect of one and the selfesame co­venant.’

Answ. Not to examine the forme of this Argument, nor to stand upon the strangenesse of your expressions: I conceive I ap­prehend what you would say, and answer. It is no contradiction for the same covenant to require that the Iewes should cast away their Babylonish wives, and the children which they had by them as unholy, and out of covenant: and yet allow the Primitive Christians, their retaining of their yoke-fellowes; (though unbe­leevers; in hope that they might be brought within the covenant, and wonne unto Christ) and the retaining of their children, as being already in covenant and holy. I say here is no contradiction, for here is not the same respect, which is necessary in contradicti­ons. First, the Iewes were forbidden to take wives of any, but of Abrahams, seed and their owne Tribe. Christians are not tied to any Tribe for their yoke-fellowes; which hinders not but the covenant was the same with us and them, though some circum­stances varied. Secondly, the Iewes took Babylonish women; (for I will not contend about the name Babylonian, but give you leave to call these strange wives Babylonians) after they them­selves were in covenant with God; which made their marriage with them altogether unlawfull, and their seed an unholy, off­spring. But those Corinthians to whom Paul writeth, were married before their calling into covenant with God, as your selfe [Page 56] write. 2. Part. pag. 10. And after marriage the one was called to the faith, the other remained unconverted, as may appeare, vers. 20.21.24.27. so that their former marriage being lawfull in it selfe, and not forbidden of God: (but rather approved, for marriage even among infidels, as well as eating and drinking is Gods ordinance, necessary for the due conservation of the world) and it not being the unbeleeving yoke-fellows fault that his yoke­fellow is an unbeleever; the unbeleevers sinne shall not prejudice the beleever, to hinder their posteritie from the priviledge of faederall holinesse.

Answ. That scripture Exod. 14.48. doth not necessarily re­quire, that both parents whose male children should be circumci­sed, should become Proselytes, and submit themselves to Gods Covenant. It was sufficient that the man who had principall Au­thority and power to dispose of his children, should circumcise his male children, though his wife should refuse to become a Pro­selyte; (for ought that can be gathered from that or any other scripture) or the Proselyte wife (if either she should be forsaken of her husband, or become a widdow, or be permitted of her hus­band to dispose of her children, though he were never converted) might have given up her selfe and her family to the God of Israell by circumcising her males, for it is said the stranger (not his yoke­fellow, or both the parents) shall circumcise his males. So that your reasons (being disproved) prove nothing.

You bring us in objecting ‘They are termed holy, and so to be esteemed: to which you answer, So were the unbeleeving Iewes, when they were broken off, Rom. 11.16. and so is the un­beleeving wife, and yet neither of them to be baptized, for their being termed holy: and therefore neither children for their be­ing termed holy.’

Answ. Neither are the unbeleeving Iewes called holy as unbeleiving, for the Apostles calls those Iewes an holy lumpe and holy branches (not that were rejected through unbeleefe, but) [Page 57] that had been, and were to be converted to the faith and saved, as is apparent by the coherence: for whom he calls holy here, Rom. 11.16. he speaks of their fulnesse (or full and generall conversion) vers. 12. and v. 15. he speakes of their conversion which shalbe life from the dead, and saith that they shalbe saved, v 26. So that it is evident that he calls the Iewes holy, not in respect of the unbe­leevers which were broken off and discovenanted; but of their holy ancestors, and those whose fulnesse should be a glorious inrich­ing of the Gentiles, whose receiving should be life from the dead, and who should be saved and obtaine mercy. And so they are call­ed holy, as a people considered for the future to be taken again in­to Covenant, and to have right to the seale of the Covenant.

Secondly, Neither is the unbeleeving wife called holy in this place, indeed she is said to be sanctified to the husband, so that he hath an holy and comfortable use of her as of other temporall blessings: But to be sanctified for such an use or to such a person, differeth farre from being holy.

Ans. Because you have a good faculty, in repeating the same things againe and againe, and denying without proofe whatsoever makes against you; I will be content to cast away some more time in answering you, though the same for substance that hath been said; and reply: If you meane that holynesse which accompa­ny faith, vertuall or actuall, is only available to internall admittance into the state of the Gospell, so as to be made living and reall members of the Church: we assent to this assertion. But the que­stion is not now; who is a true and spirituall Member of the Church, and infalliblely admitted to the spirituall and saving bene­fits that Christ hath purchased for his Church? But who is an ex­ternall Member and may be admitted to the outward seale? No question, Iohn the Baptist and Christs Disciples, admitted many to baptisme, of whose saving faith yet they were not undoubtedly assured.

‘Wheras you goe about largly to shew, That in the state of the Iewes, and old Covenant some were faederally and outwardly holy, and some uncleane: But now that all such distinctions are taken away, and that the Apostle now meant not any such holy­nesse, [Page 58] for beleevers children to have, neither is there now any such kind of holynesse in the world; neither is there any other kind of holynesse, save only that true holynesse which accompa­nies the new creature available to baptisme: this is the summe of your speach, wherunto I Answer.’ It hath sufficiently been shewed before, that there is a federall holynesse in the new Co­venant or Christian Church, aswell as there was in the Church of the Iewes. Neither doth your long discourse or many abused scrip­tures prove any thing to the contrary. To repeat what was said before. Whence was the Church of the Corinthians holy, or a Congreation of saints, (sith there were so many really profane and carnall amongst them) but from federall holynesse, by which they were distinguished from them that were without; though some in the Church were more notorious for vice, then those that were without? whence were the Hebrews called holy brethren, but because they were partakers of the heavenly calling; though some were so fastned to the Ceremonies,Heb 3.2. and inclined to backsli­ding, that the Apostle useth sharp and severe language towards them ch. 6.10. and 12? How is it said that they had been sanctified by the blood of the Covenant, that afterwards trampled on the Sonne of God by apostasy, accounting the blood of the Covenant profane, and doing despite to the spirit of grace: if men may not in the state of the Gospell, have a federall holynesse, without in­ward holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith? So 1 Pet. 2.9.10. the Apostle calls the Christians to whom he wrote, a chosen generation, a royall priesthood, an holy nation, a pe­culiar people, a people of God, that had obtained mercy. Must we think that all these (to whom Peter wrote) were undoubtedly indued with true faith, and holynesse that accompanies the new creature; so that there was no hypocrite amongst them? that we have no ground for. How then are these glorious titles bestowed upon them all? By vertue (doubtlesse) of Gods calling and their outward accepting of Gods Covenant; though there was but a part only amongst those Churches, to whom these clogies pro­perly belonged, for there were tares among the wheate.

Answ. If the same be the rule or ground for justification and salvation, and for baptisme: then must Ministers have no rule for baptisme, unlesse they can know the heart, as God who justifies and saves; and so consequently the baptizer must either be ( [...]) the knower of the heart, that is God alone;Act 1.24. or baptize beside or without rule, that is unlawfully; for the true holynesse that accompanies the new creature and saving faith, is known to none but God and the spirit of man which is in him.1. Cor. 2.11.

Answ. To what purpose is it, to say, this is an infallible and e­ternall rule, Whosoever beleeves shall be saved: unlesse you prove the other, that is in question. viz. that saving faith is the only rule of Baptisme, and that none might be baptized, but they that did actually beleeve, with the faith that accompanies the new crea­ture, and that this rule is true as God is true? which yet I conceive you will not be so bold as to say (which unlesse you say, you say nothing to purpose.) For hence it would follow, that all whom Iohn and the Disciples, &c. regularly baptized, had true faith, and consequently were saved, that they failed, yea were rash and pre­sumptuous and sinned grievously (as going beyond commission) when they baptized any hypocrite; that such an one after he came to repentance, must necessarily be baptized againe; for his former baptisme was applied beside the rule, and so was a false baptisme. Yea if faith be the rule both of baptisme and justification alike, it will follow that as all and only beleevers were justified, and all and only the justified were beleevers: So all and only the faithfull [Page 60] must be baptized, and all and only the baptized are faithfull, and consequently whosoever is baptized is a beleever and a justified person, and whosoever is not baptized is neither beleever nor justified. But to leave these absurd consequences that necessarily follow upon your absurd opinion; It is evident that God never ap­pointed saving faith to be the rule of baptisme, by which his Mi­nisters should be directed in administring baptisme. For it is im­possible for a Minister to know infallibly whether another saving­ly beleeveth, and so whether he may baptize him according to the rule (if faith be the rule.) That cannot be a rule to us to worke by, which we must necessarily be ignorant of. God never ordained such an uncertaine, yea incomprehensible rule for his servants to worke by.

Answ. There is no more danger of failing in judging an In­fant to be an Infant, then in judging a man to be a man. But there may be failing in judging an Infant to be truly and really holy and in Covenant, though all the children of Christian parents are called holy: aswell as there might be failing in judging this or that man in the Corinthian Church to be a saint indeed; though the whole Church were called saints. For as the Apostles did according to the rule of charity, judge men to be beleevers, and so baptized them, when they made a profession of faith, and did not manifestly discover the contrary; though afterwards many proved other­wise: So we are to judge Infants of Christian parents to be holy, and so within Covenant, and to be baptized, because Gods word testifies that they are holy, (and neither your shifts and so­phisticall evasions, nor all the policie of Satan can disprove it) though afterwards some of them are proved to have been only outwardly, not inwardly in Covenant.

‘Here you bring in some authours testifying, that baptisme of children is but a tradition, a custome of the Church, invented by the Pope &c.’ Which testimonies I cannot for the present ex­amine, as not being furnished with the bookes of the authours. Though if one should cast away so much time as to follow you, in examining these testimonies: in probability you would bee found no honester in citing them, then you have been in citing many scriptures. For he that will be so bold as to pervert, and abuse [Page 61] Gods word, will not spare mans. But because we are not bound to stand to the testimony of humane authors, neither will you as I conceive. I will answer no more at this time to your humane authorities, but these two things: First, that if you would stand to the verdict of authors; I make no question but more and more ap­proved authors might easily be brought against you, then those you have brought for your selfe. Secondly, what credit is to be gi­ven to your authors, who manifestly contradict one another? In a word to give a touch, Origen the prime and ancientest of those whom you cite, which lived about 200. yeeres after Christ, overthrowes what you bring out of him, or other authors for your purpose. For whereas you say he calls it a ceremony or tradi­tion of the Church, (which yet it may be well called, and withall be of divine institution, as being delivered to, and used by the Church, in which sense Baptisme in generall, and the Lords Sup­per may be called Ceremonies and traditions of the Church which is the keeper and user of them, not the author or institutor of them) elsewhere he speaks of it, as an unquestionable practise of the Church in his time, thus, in his second tome and 14. homi­ly on Luke, cited byParvuli bap­tizantur in re­missionem pec­catorem. Quo­rum peccatorum? aut quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sen­sum de quo pau­lo ante diximus? Nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius dici quidem fue­rit vita ejus su­per terram. Et quia per baptis­mi sacramentum nativitatis sor­des deponuntur, propterca bapti­zantur & par­vuli, Orig. Tom. 2. Hom. 14. in Luc. citat. Po­lan. Synt. Tom. secundo lib. 6. cap. 55. Polanus in his Syntagme, Little ones are Baptized for the remission of sinnes. Of what sinnes? Or at what times have they sinned? Or how can there be any reason of washing in little ones, but according to that sense of which we spake a little before? There is none cleane from filthinesse, no though he hath lived but one day on earth. And because by the Sacrament of Baptisme, the filthinesse of birth is put away; therefore little ones are also Bapti­zed. Wherein this Authour seems (for I have not his Booke) from the Baptizing of Infants, as from an unquestionable practise of the Church in those Primitive times, to demonstrate as from a cleare principle, that Infants even of one day old were polluted with sinne: And yet you say Luther saith that for one thousand yeares since Christ and the Apostles it came to be in use in the Church, and was established by Pope Innocentius. Surely your Au­thours are honestly cited by you, or worthy credit with us, when you bring them speaking such flat and irreconciliable contra­dictions.

Answ. It is well yet that you give leave to wise men to use their owne judgement, and doe not tie them upon necessitie of salvation to subscribe to your fancies.

You goe on, I say then it is such an holynesse as is opposite to some kinde of uncleannesse, which holynesse I take to be this; as if when they are said to be holy, it is no more then to say they are not uncleane, (to wit) no bastards.

Answ. Who ever before (butNote reader that this is Bel­larmines inter­pretation of this place. Liberi tales di­cuntur, non in­mundi, i. e. infa­mes & spurij, sed sancti, i. e. le­gitimi & liberi a civili igno­minia. Whether A.R. borrowed this answer of Bel­larmine, or in­vented it of himselfe (as it is the hapinesse of the good wits and holy affections of Ie­suiticall and A­nabaptisticall heads & hearts to jumpe in the same thing) let others judge. Bellarmine or such Iesuiticall perverters of Scriptures) tooke it so, putting uncleane for bastards, or holy for legitimate?

Answ. But let any man that is not given over to strong delu­sions to beleeve lies, judge whether there be any syllable favour­ing this interpretation, or proving that by holy must be meant on­ly No-bastards, or whether you can with all your cunning, wrack the Apostles speaches to speak any thing for you, yet now we must take your word for it, because you say it clearely appeares to be so.

Further; ‘This (you say) may likewise appeare, Mal. 2.14, 15, &c. In which words it plainly appeareth, that the scope of the place is, that those children which are generated by one man and one woman lawfully married, are a godly or an holy feed, and those that are generated otherwise, are not so, but bastards. And the reason of this holinesse, ariseth not here from any rela­tion they had to the Iewish State, not from any Church cove­nant; but meerely from Gods first institution of marriage in the creation, and his then providing one woman for one man; and which therefore is of universall concernment to all mankind, by the law of creation.’

Answ. No such thing plainly appeareth, as you would beare men in hand. For the scope of the Prophet in that of Malachi, seemes to be this, which in the 16. vers. he concludes; viz. that God hates putting away, that is, divorcement; whereby the Israelites alienated their owne wives that were Israelites, that they might marry strangers: and this he proves by divers rea­sons, to be odious before God. First, because by this meanes they prophaned the holinesse of the Lord, in breaking his cove­nant, by putting away their owne wives, that were Israelites; and marrying the daughters of strange gods; viz. heathenish [Page 63] wives, which God in his covenant had forbidden: by which meanes they would soone grow out of covenant, and cease to be an holy people, vers. 11. Secondly, because by this meanes they caused the Altar of the Lord to be covered with teares so that no sacrifices were acceptable, (which should have beene offered in joy) because the poore sorrowfull wives that had been put away, could not but testifie before the Altar the sorrow for the wrong that had been done unto them, vers. 13. Thirdly, because in so doing they dealt treacherously against the wife of their youth, which was the husbands companion, and the wife of his cove­nant, vers. 14. Fourthly, because God had made them one, vers. 15. In the first institution of marriage appointing that two onely should be made one flesh by marriage, appointing also that they should be of one stock, viz. of the Tribe of Israel of one Religion, viz. worshippers of the true God of Abraham, inclining by his speciall providence these couples to make choyce of one another. So that now for them to divorce their wives, is to cast away part of themselves. In all these respects it may be said that God made them one, viz. in regard of the first institution of marriage, in re­gard of lineage, Religion, their mutuall choice one of another, whereby they became one; and in regard of the nature of mar­riage, which is to make one man, and one woman no more two, but one flesh. And though God had the rest of the spirit, that is, the disposition of all persons, and the inclination of their hearts, in his power; yet as to Adam he gave but one wife, so to these that are here reproved he gave to each of them but one wife, with whom their severall husbands should become one; inclining their spirits at their first choice, to mutuall and conjugall affection one to another: though it was in his power, to have given them o­ther yoke-fellows, if it had seemed fit to him. Therefore they are bidden to take heed to their spirits, vers. 15. & 16. that is, looke to their hearts that they should not wander after adulterous lusts. Fifthly, the fifth Reason or Argument, to shew that this putting away was odious to God, which the Prophet brings is: Because God therefore made them one, as in other forenamed respects, so principally in Religion, (for that he speaks principally, if not onely, of this, appears in that he complains of marrying the daugh­ter of a strange god) to the end that he might seek a godly seed, or seed of God: that is, [...] that there might successively proceed from them, a seed in covenant with God: whereas otherwise [Page 64] the holy seed would be stained, and God provoked, to discove­nant them, and their posteritie, so many as should marry ido­latresses. This seemes to be the meaning and summe of this Scripture, whereon I have stood the longer, because it is some­what obscure. But howsoever A. R. will gather that the godly seed here, or holy seed, as he will metaphrase it, must needs sig­nifie a seed onely legitimate, or borne in lawfull matrimony; and so conclude that no more is meant by holy, 1 Cor. 7. His ground I can see to be none other, but because God is said to make one seeking an holy seed. But I answer: First, that this place is too farre fetcht to gather clearly therefrom, that all children begotten in lawfull matrimony are an holy seed; and that unholy seed is so called in respect of the first institution onely of marriage, which is the ground of the marriage of Heathens and Infidels. Secondly, I have shewed that in divers other respects, God may be as truly said to have made them one; as in respect of the first institution of marriage, which may as pertinently to this place, and agreeably to the scope of the H. G. & to the truth it self have place here. Third­ly, I shewed that the scope of this Scripture imports that onenesse in Religion must needs here be meant (whether with or with­out the other significations, I say not) which quite overthrowes his ground; for if unitie in the true Religion must needs concurre in parents, (at least as the case stood with them) to make an holy seed, then they that are of a false religion cannot produce an holy seed, let their marriage be never so lawfull. Fourthly, though I should grant (which yet you can never prove, nor will I yeeld) that this making one to seek a godly seed, were to be referred onely to Gods first institution of marriage: yet will not your con­clusion at all follow, Therefore all children borne in lawfull ma­trimony of what Religion so even, are an holy seed. For if God at first intending to have a holy seed from Adam and Eve, and so successively, that should be in covenant with him, appointed that one man should have but one woman; and set down this as a law of nature to be observed by their posteritie; to the end that they should not pollute themselves with promiscuous copulation, and should be discerned from other people; as by other pious conver­sation, so by their chastitie in marriage, and avoyding of polygamy and wicked divorces: will it hence follow that what parents so­ever avoyd polygamy and live chastly in marriage, generate a god­ly feed? in no wise: For that a people may be Gods people, and [Page 55] their seed a godly seed, or seed of God, many things are required, as that they be worshippers of the true God, that they be no ido­laters, no witches, blasphemers, murderers, &c. and divers things more both affirmative and negative, are required in the covenant. Whereof if a man performe one or two, he is not forthwith in covenant, nor his seed a godly seed. Besides, what an absurd collection is it which you make hence, that all legiti­mates or not bastards, are a holy or godly seed? for now you that pleaded against the holinesse of Christians children, will have all children, though of Turkes, Indians, and most grosse Idolaters to be holy, so that they be borne in lawfull matrimony, which you grant may be (and it is plaine commonly is) among the heathen. You say, ‘This that is here spoken of a godly seed is of univer­sall concernment to all mankind by the law of creation.’ But I answer. It is plaine that the Israelites onely in regard of the co­venant with God, were called the holy seed, Ezr. 9.2. [...] Semen sancti­tatis, or semen sanctum, i. e. vocatum ad sanctitatem & Dei gratia ab aliis separa­tum. Trem. & Jun. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled thēselves with the people of the Lands; yea, the hand of the Princes and Rulers have been chiefe in this trespasse. So Ezek. 16.20, 21. The little ones which the Iewes had offered to idols, and caused to passe through the fire, were borne unto God and were Gods children; so that these pla­ces speaking of a godly seed, an holy seed, children born to God, Gods children; to wit, [...] those that were borne of a people in co­venant, make directly against you, as setting forth the sinne of the Israelites, who being a godly seed by covenant, would mingle themselves with the heathen that were out of covenant, and so profane and discovenant their seed, and offer those children to idols, which by vertue of the covenant were dedicated to God: which places shew clearely how that in Malachi is to be under­stood.

You adde. ‘In the same sense is that to be taken, Heb. 13.4. Marriage is honourable in all, but whoremongers and adulte­rers God will judge. And gather hence, if marriage be honou­rable, & the bed undefiled; then the issue of the bed must needs be undefiled, that is, cleane and holy: on the other side, the issue of unlawfull conjunctions are unclean, illegitimate, and bastards. Now this holinesse or unholinesse of children, proceeds not from the holinesse or unholinesse of parents: but from the law­full or unlawfull conjunction of parents, in the begetting of [Page 66] children; for the Apostle in this place speakes of all men uni­versally.’

Answ. Let any indifferent man judge, whether this be not an uncleane, illegitimate, and spurious interpretation of, and draw­ing conclusions from the Scripture. For first; What comfort or resolution had this beene in the scrupulous parent, to tell him that his children were holy, that is, legitimate and no bastards, but legitimates because they were begotten in lawfull matrimony that had beene contracted before conversion; whereas by your interpretation of these Scriptures, if they had continued still un­converted both of them, their children had beene as holy, that is, legitimate and no bastards? Secondly, how can this place [Mar­riage is honourable in all, &c. and the bed undefiled] be understood of all men universally (as you say) viz. unbeleevers as well as beleevers?Tit. 1.15. When the Apostle saith: Vnto the pure, all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbeleeving, is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled; how can the marriage bed then be undefiled to such? It is evident therefore, (that we make not the Spirit of God contradict it selfe) that the universall note (all men) is to be restrained to the subject matter, viz. all sorts of beleevers, (for to such he wrote) of what qualitie, condition or calling soever.

Thirdly, But I pray you see (and if you will not, let others con­sider) how all this while in interpreting this Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. and wresting, wiredrawing, and pulling in (as it were, ob­torto collo) other Scriptures which you would force to favour your interpretation, you have directly and manifestly contradicted the Apostle, and corrupted the Text. The Apostle tells the be­leeving yoke-fellows, that their children are holy, though their yoke-fellows were unbeleevers: because they are sanctified to them; (viz. by their faith) you say, therefore the children are ho­ly, because their matrimonie was lawfull: If the Apostles mean­ing were that which you would have it, he should have said, You were lawfully married, therefore are your children holy. But he saith, The unbeleever is sanctified by (or to) the beleever, else were your children uncleane, let their marriage be never so law­full. Paul gathers the holinesse of children from grounds peculiar to the faithfull: viz. the faith and being in covenant at least of one of the parents, shewing plainly that were it not for this, the children must needs be uncleane. You would draw it from [Page 67] grounds common to Infidels, viz. lawfull matrimony; affirming that whosoever is borne of parents (though infidels) lawfully married, is holy in the Apostles sense. Thus when men set them­selves to maintain errours, they are not afraid nor ashamed plainly to contradict the Spirit of God.

Answ. It is even false (though you dictate it as è cathedra, or è tripode) and a manifest contradicting of plain Scripture, as hath beene before demonstrated. Your two next objections doe not concern us; and therefore I passe them by.

Yet one more objection you bring us in making: Have the children of beleevers no more priviledge then the children of Heathens, Turks, and Infidels? you answer. In respect of the Covenant of grace and salvation, none at all; and bring those Scri­ptures, Ioh. 3.7, 8. Act. 10.34, 35. to shew that the Covenant of grace cometh not by any naturall birth, but by a new birth. Onely their priviledge (you say) is in respect of the meanes of salvation; for beleeving parents may be a means to bring their chil­dren to the knowledge and faith of Christ.

Answ. What Christian heart doth not abhorre this assertion as being directly contrary to the tenour of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. (of which more hereafter) and repugnant to Gods gracious pro­mises frequently inculcated in Scripture, Exod. 20.5, 6. Act. 2.39. Esa. 59.21? Doth not this strike at a maine pillar of a Christians comfort grounded on those precious promises? so that by this tenet, if the children of Christian parents die before they be ca­pable of the outward meanes of salvation, or their parents be ta­ken from them before they come to yeares of discretion; they must be parted with as the children of Turkes or Infidels, as being out of the state of salvation, as being in a lost and hopelesse condi­tion, as having no right to the Covenant, notwithstanding all the gracious promises that God hath made to the faithfull to be their God, and the God of their seed, to shew mercy to their posteritie, even to thousands, that the promises doe belong unto them and their children, that his word and Spirit shall abide on [Page 68] their seed, and their seeds seed. Let men judge whether the fa­ther of lies can speake more contradictorily to Scripture, for the extenuating of Gods rich grace, and dashing the comfort of Gods people.

Thus have I vindicated the ground of my third argument. Yet notwithstanding all shifts we see this truth remaines firme, that the children of Christian parents are faederally holy, and mem­bers of the Church, and so have right to the seale of admission into the Church.

4. Arg. 4. Arg. To those that are in Covenant with God, the Sacra­ment or seale which God hath instituted to represent and seale admission into Covenant, is to be administred, Gen. 17.10, 11. Exod. 12.48.

But children of beleeving parents are in Covenant with God, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.48. Esa. 59.21. Therefore children of be­leeving parents are to be admitted to the seale of entrance into the Covenant, which now is baptisme in the time of the Gospel.

For the confirmation, and explication of the former proposi­tion, I conceive it is hardly questioned but that when God hath made a Covenant with his people, and appointed a seale to signifie and represent admission into the same; then the seale or signe belongs to those which have entred into Covenant under what kinde of administration soever the Covenant be dispensed. So Philip reasons, If thou beleeve with all thine heart, thou maist be baptized. So Peter, Can any one forbid water that these should not be baptized, &c. For actuall faith, at least in profession, was ne­cessary to those that at first entered into the new covenant, and re­ceived the sign or seale thereof; to wit, baptisme: as well as it was necessary to Abraham who entered first into the old Covenant which was sealed by Circumcision, though actuall faith was not required of his posteritie as necessarie to their being in Covenant. Neither for ought that I see doth the Adversarie deny this propo­sition. Yet if it be questioned, it is fully proved in Abraham, Gen. 17.10, 11. with whom we read that God first made an expresse and formall Covenant, and instituted a signe or seale to signifie enterance into that Covenant, and distinguish the Church from other Societies. And this was not required of Abraham alone and his family: but of all foreiners also, that so soone as they should enter into covenant, they should have this signe and seale of admittance,, Exod. 12.48. And still in the New-Testament as [Page 69] soone as men had given evidence of their entrance into the new Covenant, they were baptized.

Now here is to be noted, that the Covenant of grace was ever one and the same for substance; though for the manner it have beene variously dispensed, Heb. 11. through the whole Chapter, and Heb. 13.8. Ephes. 4.5. as shall be shewed (God willing) more fully hereafter.

Secondly, before Abrahams time we read not of any distinct and full manifestation of the Covenant of grace expresly in the termes of a Covenant, nor of any gathering of a Church out of the world, as a distinct body whereunto the faithfull were to joyn themselves; nor of any visible seale or sacred signe of admission into Covenant with God; though God had a people in covenant from the beginning, yet the covenant was more sparingly, ob­scurely, and implicitly revealed, and no distinctive outward note of entrance into covenant (that we read of) appointed.

Thirdly, since the Covenant was made with Abraham, and the signe of circumcision instituted, in the old and new Cove­nant, there hath still beene a solemne signe or Sacrament of ad­mission, to which all that were in Covenant had right; so that A­braham that was the first expresse Covenanter is called, the father of the faithfull, or of those that were in covenant with God; and is to be imitated by the faithfull in all those things that are essenti­all to the covenant.

For the Assumption. The words of the Text are cleare. First, that God made the Covenant with Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. Secondly, that we should not thinke that that externall covenant belonged onely to those that imitated his faith, it is made with his naturall seed, all that should be begotten of him, Gen. 17.10. Even all that seed wherein God promised to make Abraham fruitfull, should so farre be in Covenant, as to have right to the onward signe, untill they should fall away from the outward covenant by wilfull Apostasie, vers. 6, 7, 10. Thirdly, that you may see this was not peculiar to Abraham and his posteritie alone that proceeded from his loines; the same is commanded concerning his servants borne in his house, or bought with his money, that the males who onely were capable, should receive the seale of the Covenant, vers. 12, 13. Fourthly, that you may know that this did not belong onely to Abrahams family, but was a thing com­mon to all that should enter into covenant, viz. that their children [Page 70] should be acknowledged to be in Covenant also, by having the seale of entrance administred to them; see Exod. 12.48. Lastly, that we may understand that this was not proper to the old cove­nant in the Legall dispensation, but common to the Covenant of grace under whatsoever dispensation, as well Evangelicall as Le­gall; a promise of the same priviledge is made to beleeving pa­rents, even from the time of the Gospel, Esa. 50.20, 21. com­pared with Rom. 11.26, 27.

A. R.Now I come to your answers, which is: That neither Abra­ham nor his seed was circumcised, because the Covenant was made with him.

Answ. Who denies this? or what is this to the purpose? we know that God might have made a Covenant without a seale, if it had pleased him. They were circumcised, because God did in­stitute circumcision for a seale, and appointed it to those that were admitted into Covenant. The faithfull we know were in covenant before Abrahams time; though there be no formall or full expression of the covenant, nor of any signe or Sacrament of entering thereinto.

Answ. No such thing appeareth in the places cited. It appear­eth indeed that God had made a promise to Abraham long be­fore of making him a great Nation, and blessing him; but there is no word of the Covenant, or that God would be a God to him and his seed, in those places before, Gen. 17.2. (though we know that Abraham from his first call was in covenant with God; as were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and all the faithfull before Abraham, as the covenant is generally taken. But here we speake of the Co­venant in regard of its expresse manifestation and speciall admi­nistration, with Abraham, and afterward, since the institution of a seale thereunto.) And it appears that in Gen. 17. vers. 2. is the first expression of Gods making a covenant with Abraham, at which time also circumcision was instituted. And if God had made a covenant never so long before with Abraham, neither he not his seed must have used circumcision untill God had institu­ted it. But after God had appointed it, all that were in covenant [Page 71] were to be circumcised, that were capable, even all males of eight dayes old and upward.

Answ. We know that the Covenant was not made with A­braham for his being a faithfull man; neither yet for his being such a faithfull man, &c. as you would have it. But Abraham was made by God a faithfull man, and taken into covenant of Gods free grace, that he might be a patterne to future beleevers, and a father of many Nations, &c. Abrahams faithfulnesse so qualified, was not the cause why God took him into covenant. But Abra­hams faithfulnesse, acceptance into covenant, and being a patterne of beleevers, a father of many Nations; in whose seed all Na­tions are blessed, were effects of Gods good pleasure, and free grace. Secondly, neither doe those places of Scripture produced by you yeeld the least shew of proofe, that Abraham was taken into covenant and his seed for being such a faithfull man as God was pleased to choose and set out a patterne to all beleevers, &c. Thirdly, seeing Abraham was taken into covenant, that he might be, or at the most, as being (I dare not say (with you) for being) such a faithfull man, whom the Lord was pleased to choose, and set out a patterne to all beleevers, and to be a father of many Nations; and in whose seed all the Nations of the world should be blessed: then it is the dutie of all that are beleevers, children of Abraham, and will be blessed in Abrahams seed, that is, Christ, to imitate Abrahams example, in laying hold on the covenant for themselves and their children; and giving them up to God even in their infancie, by requiring the seale of the Cove­nant to be administred unto them, and not to loose any part of that inheritance that God entayled upon Abraham and his children: seeing as it hath been proved, it is no peculiar priviledge of Abra­ham to have his seed in covenant; nor his peculiar dutie to lay hold on the covenant for his children: but the common priviledge and dutie of all the faithfull.

Answ. First, If the consequence will not follow, Because God is the God of Abraham and his seed; Therefore he is, to all the faithfull, and their seed: how is Abraham a father of the faithfull and patterne of beleevers? Or how will it follow that Abra­ham performed any dutie, or received any priviledge; Therefore all beleevers ought to doe those duties, may receive those pri­viledges? Secondly, your reason that you bring for your deniall of our consequence, is a bold assertion manifestly repugnant to plain Scripture: as Exod. 20.5.6. Where God having laid downe the summe of the covenant, vers. 2. bindes his people to his true wor­ship, and to avoid Idolatrie, with a promise of mercy unto thou­sands of those that should love him, and keepe his commande­ments. Now these thousands are meant of the godly mans poste­ritie, as appeareth by the Antithesis of vers. 5. visiting the sinnes of the fathers on their children, unto the third and fourth genera­tion, &c. Doth not this promise belong to all that are in covenant with God, and are bound to the obedience of the morall Law, and to the pure worship of God, and abstinence from idolatry? so Esa. 59. last vers. Act. 2.37. What is meant by Gods shewing mercy to a thousand generations, making a covenant that his Spirit, and word shall be continued to their seed, and seeds seed, that the promise is made to them whom the Lord doth call and their children; but the same that God promiseth unto Abra­ham, that he will make a covenant with him and his seed; be a God to him and his seed? So that this answer to your boldly-af­firmed, but never-proved assertion, (that to Abraham and his seed onely the promise was made) may suffice to overthrow the inferences you bring thereupon, and your absurdities that you would father upon us mingled with divers untruths (as may ap­peare to any intelligent Reader) not worth answering. Onely that which you lay downe in the beginning: ‘For beleevers onely are the seed; and in the conclusion, Abraham hath not two sorts of seeds in the sense and acceptation of the Gospel.’ Vpon which as upon a ground-work of all, your reasoning is built; [Page 73] that the rottennesse of the foundation being discovered, it may appeare how easily the superstruction will come down of it selfe. I answer therefore:

Answ. We read in the Gospell or new Testament, of three sorts of Abrahams seed: First, Christ is called his seed, Gal. 3.16. Secondly, the faithfull of what Nation soever are called his seed, Gal. 3.29. Thirdly, those who naturally desended from his loynes, Iohn. 8.37. 2. Cor. 11.22. And in this last kind to be Abrahams seed, was sufficient to intresse men to the outward Covenant, and the seale thereof; and the promise was made to Abraham, Gen. 17. literally and properly in this last sense, not in the first or second, as is apparent by the text. For with that seed God made the Covenant in Abraham; and to that seed God became a God, which was to be circumcised at eight dayes old, in respect of the males, & (as you say) the females in the males. But the natural issue of Abraham was to be circumcised at 8 dayes old, in respect of the males, & in them the females: See Gen. 17.7.10.11.12. for proofe of both propositions. Therfore the naturall issue of Abraham, is the seed to which according to the litteral and proper meaning of the Scripture, God promises to be a God in Covenant. And so it ap­peares to be false which you say; that beleevers only were the seed of Abraham, sith many naturally descending from Abraham, and circumcised, and so outwardly in Covenant, were unbeleevers.

Answ. But I hope Gods people are not so simple as to be­leeve your bare words, against Gods expresse truth, (though you were an Angell from heaven or an Apostle,Gal. 1. [...]. much lesse being as you are discovered) and to think that in former times indeed In­fants were in Covenant with God, but now are excluded, that now all Infants of christian parents dying without actuall faith, and under yeares of discretion, must certainly perish as aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and out of Covenant with God; that grace is so farre straitned under the Gospell in compa­rison of what it was under the law, that whereas God was then a God to parents and to children even to many generations, yea [Page 74] to the children of Proselytes, Exod. 12.48. of what Nation soever; now the holyest Christian parents can apprehend no benefit from the Covenant for their children, at least till they come to yeares of discretion and actuall faith; and till then must accompt them in­fidells and wholly under the power of the devill. Is this to ad­vance Gods Grace, to extoll the Gospell and glorifie Iesus Christ? Or rather is it not a tricke of the devill greatly to obscure, and in­deavour the utter extinguishing of the glory of Gods grace, the virtue of Christs death, the lustre of the Gospell, and the comfort of a Christian all at once? They that will hearken to such deceits as these, let them make account at the last to be cheated of all grounds of comfort in Gods word.Act. 2.39. Doth not the Apostle say, the promise is to you and your children, and to them that are afarre off, &c. when the Iewes Church-state and old Covenant were ab­rogated.

But let us come to consider the many respects wherein you say that the Church of the Gospell differs from the Iewish state or old Covenant, whence you would prove that Infants are now cast out of Covenant: wherein because you repeat for substance some toyes and fancies of your owne braine, that you have vented be­fore, I will not think it burdensom to answer you, though in some things the same for substance that hath been said before.

Answ. I pray you, can you tell what you meane when you say that the Iewes Church-state was constituted upon nature and the naturall seed of Abraham? I am sure you speake not according to Scripture (that I say not, nor according to sense or reason.) As far as I can apprehend, when you say it was built upon nature (If you have any meaning in these words, and doe not let them fall from you at randome) it must be understood either, first, that nature was the ground & cause of this covenant; or secondly, that naturall blessings were onely bestowed in this covenant; or third­ly, that this covenant was made onely with the naturall children of Abraham: all which are manifestly false. For first, if your meaning be that this covenant was grounded on nature, so that nature was the cause of it; you must either meane the nature of God as contradistinguish't to his will and good pleasure: or the nature of Abraham. The nature of God was not the cause of it, [Page 75] for what God doth by nature (his nature being the cause) he doth eternally, necessarily, unchangeably, so as he cannot but doe it; as to know himselfe and all things knowable, to love himselfe. Or if you meane that the nature of Abraham was the ground of this covenant, it is as false; for there was nothing in Abraham by na­ture, that put difference between him and others, Deut. 7. Iosh. 24. Rom. 4. Or if you meane God onely bestowed temporall blessings in this covenant, that is palpably and execrably false also. God was their God in the old covenant, circumcised their heart to love him, feare him, and obey him, and trust in him; he gave remission of sinnes and sanctification under that Covenant, which were not naturall blessings. Or thirdly, if you meane that that Covenant was made with Abrahams naturall posteritie, there is no appearance of truth in it; for bond-men and those that were bought with money, and Proselytes of any nation or stock what­soever, were admitted into this Covenant, Gen. 17. Exod. 12.

Answ. So was the old Covenant (to use your phrase) con­stituted on grace, Gods free favour was the cause of it, and the graces of the Spirit bestowed as truly under it (though not so plentifully, and clearely as now) as these phrases expresse:Gen. 17. Deut. 30. Mal. 2.5. I am God all-sufficient. I will be thy God. I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, &c. My Co­venant was with him of life and peace. Secondly, if you meane by the spirituall seed of Abraham, Iesus Christ the seed of the wo­man that was to breake the Serpents head,Gen. 3. Joh. 8. Rev. 13. 1 Tim. 2. in whom the Cove­vant was made with our first parents fallen; at the seeing of whose day Abraham rejoyced, in whom God promises, that all the Nations of the earth should be blessed: the old Covenant was made with Abraham in him; who is the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world; who is the onely Mediatour between God and man, and by whom alone, Abraham and all the faithfull have had communion with God.

Answ. No such thing appeareth in those Scriptures. Take heed how you falsifie Gods word, would you perswade men, that God [Page 76] gave not circumcision of heart under the old Covenant? that be­cause all were not right Israelites that were Abrahams seed, there­fore none were? that because he is not a Iew that is one outward­ly: therefore none under the old covenant were inwardly Iews? because true Christians are circumcised with a circumcision with­out hands; therefore the Iewes were not circumcised but onely with hands, not spiritually. Let any man examine those Scriptures, and see whether from thē it can be gathered, that all under the old covenant had onely circumcision of the flesh, and that all under the new covenant have circumcision of the spirit. It will appeare to any judicious Reader, that here are two or three notorious falsehoods, with a grosse perverting of Scripture in this short sen­tence. The first: That the Iewish Church-state, or old covenant is called Israel, according to the flesh, or circumcision of the flesh; but the Gospel-state Israel, according to the spirit, or the circum­cision of the heart, (wherein are infolded more untruths then one.) Secondly, that therefore they are so called, because that was constituted on the naturall seed of Abraham, &c. The abuse of Scripture appeares, that these Scriptures neither prove the an­tecedent, nor sequele, nor consequent, neither make any thing for his purpose; as if it would not be overtedious to stand upon, and needlesse to any men of judgement, might be shewed. But such uttering of falshoods, and then propping them with Scri­ptures to abuse the simple, is ordinary almost in every page, and sometimes frequent in one page, as may appeare by the answer, though I have not said so much in expresse words before; neither should have said so now, but that I consider such is the weaknesse of some Readers, that what they read, if Scripture be brought for proofe thereof, though never so impertinently, abusively, and perversely, they thinke it must goe for currant.

Answ. That under the Old Testament the Church of the Iews was an heire, yea lord of all: (though in regard of its infancie and immaturitie, nothing differing from a servant, as being held un­der the tutourship of the Law) this I say, is sufficient to prove that the Church of the Iewes, and the Christian Church, is one and the same, for substance, and under the same Covenant in all essentialls. For all know that a sonne and heire is the same for [Page 77] substance and in person, at three yeares old, and at thirty; though altered in some accidentall priviledges at riper yeares. And hence your fancie of the Iewish Church being constituted on nature, is quite overthrowne. For if the Iewish Church was heire and lord of all, beleevers were then children, though in minoritie and un­der tutourship. How were they children? not by nature; for Christ onely is the Sonne of God by nature; therefore by grace, and so they were under a Covenant of Grace. Thus powerfull is the word of truth to overthrow those errours that ignorant men would abuse, and force it to maintaine, and yet you are not afraid nor ashamed to father this errour upon Christ himselfe, and would force his words to the Iewes to sound this way, Ioh. 8.31. And a­mong other your toyes, that you would fasten on him, (which are not worth the examining, unlesse a man had more time then he knew how well to bestow) you bring him in speaking thus in the conclusion of your paraphrase that you make on his words to the Iewes. ‘You see then how that Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and you his naturall seed, was to be an e­verlasting Covenant in your flesh; to wit, in me that was to come of your flesh, Gen. 17.13.’

Answ. First, is not this notorious presumption to father such a fancy as this on Christ? to call the flesh of the Iews fore-skinne, Christ himselfe? for that by the flesh in which Gods covenant was, is meant the fore-skin, wherein God set the signe and seale of his covenant, is apparent by comparing the 10, 11, & 12. verses of Gen. 17. together. Secondly, If that were an everlasting Co­venant which God made with Abraham, and the Israelites; and made with them in Christ (though Christ was not that flesh in which circumcision was made) both which you grant here, and the Scripture plentifully proveth; then certainly was the co­venant made with the Iewes, and with us, all one for substance: seeing they and we have one Mediatour, and seeing the old di­spensation of the covenant is abrogated; how was that an ever­lasting covenant; but as the same covenant is perpetuated now in the Evangelicall dispensation of it?

Answ. Was he so? Was Christ to come of the flesh of stran­gers, and Proselytes, or of all the posteritie of Abraham, which [Page 78] had the covenant in the flesh? Did Christ come of the flesh of all that were circumcised? (which must needs follow on this con­ceit) What prodigious opinions doth this mans braine conceive and father on Christ?

Answ. No su h thing is apparent from these Scriptures; as is, first, sufficiently shewed by the foregoing reasons. Secondly, by the fore examination of those Scriptures and grounds you build upon. Thirdly, in none of those places doe you finde baptisme so restrained to those that professe the faith, that it should be lawfull for none else to have it. Fourthly, I adde, if abusing the Scriptures and inventing and avouching new and monstrous errours, may make your opinion for which you plead to be apparent truth, then indeed you have made appparent what you say, otherwise not. Fiftly, though in mine answer to that Scripture, Matth. 28.29. I hope sufficient hath been said to answer all other Scriptures of that kind; yet because some put great confidence in that Mar. 16.15.16. for this opinion, though it be the same for substance with the other,Mar. 16.15, 16. I will adde a little in this place, though happily the same for substance that hath beene said. The words of Christ are these: Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel unto every creature. He that beleeveth and is baptized, shall be saved, he that beleeveth not shall be damned To make it appeare that nothing can be gathered to confirme the adversaries opinion, note these foure things.

First, Here our Saviour doth not forbid his Disciples to baptize any that want actuall faith, or confine baptisme to beleevers; or expressely shew who should be baptized, and who not; onely he shews who should by saved, viz. those that beleeve and were baptized; and who should be damned, viz. those that beleeved not: so that it is strange that men should promise to themselves any patronage for Anabaptisme from this place. Secondly, If any should say, that though here it be not expressed that beleevers [Page 79] onely are to be baptized; yet it may be hence gathered, and is implied from the order and connexion of the words, (He that beleeveth and is baptized) so that men must beleeve before they be baptized. I adde, secondly: That no such thing can be necessa­rily implied by the series of the words, which I prove by this very Text. First, it would by as good consequence follow, that none ought or can preach the Gospel, be meanes of working faith, ba­ptize, or helpe toward salvation; but those who have received Apostolicall authoritie, and gifts to goe into all the world, and preach unto every creature, for the connexion and order is alike; but no man will yeeld this consequence. Secondly, by as good and better consequence you might gather, that none shall be sa­ved but those that beleeve and are baptized, which is false; for whatsoever you hold, I conceive that none but those that are gi­ven over to strong delusions will hold that all the children of Chri­stian parents that die before they come to actuall faith, must re­medilesly perish: and as for the absolute necessitie of baptisme to salvation, if with the Papists you hold it, will easily be confuted from this Scripture, shewing that not want of baptisme (where it cannot be had, and is not wilfully contemned) but unbeleefe con­demneth. Yet there is as good reason for these inferences from this place as for that you would imply hence. Or thirdly, that no­thing but unbeliefe can be the ground of damnation might as well be concluded hence, as that nothing but faith can be the ground of baptisme; whereas not onely unbeleife, but every sinne is dam­nable, and without repentance will bring damnation.

Thirdly, I answer to this Scripture, that though it were granted that the Apostles, who were to gather a Church out the unbeleeving world, and take them into Covenant that were out of Covenant, might not baptize any but those who by professing faith tooke hold of the covenant, from which before they were aliens, and their families, who were now received into covenant with them: yet it doth not follow, that the children of parents in covenant (and so in Covenant themselves) should be denied baptisme; though they want actuall faith: for there is not the same reason of a Church gathered, and to be gathered: as that latter part, He that beleeveth not shall be damned; if it be under­stood of actuall faith, must be restrained to the present time and matter: for to those that were out of Covenant, actuall faith was necessary to bring them and theirs within covenant. So that the [Page 80] Gentiles to whom the Apostles were to preach, must of necessity actually beleeve, else they could not be saved. But this must not be extended to all persons and times: for then it should follow that no child of Christian parents dying before yeares of discretion and actuall faith, could be saved; which is directly contrary to those Scriptures that shew, that God will be a God to the faith­full and their seed; will shew mercy to thousands of their poste­ritie, to the childrens children of those that keepe covenant, Psal. 10 [...].1 [...], 18. that the promise is to the faithfull and their chil­dren, that their children are holy, and such places before cited, which will not suffer any one that beleeves Gods word to hold that the children of the faithfull dying in their minoritie, must un­avoidably be damned all of them.

Fourthly, I adde for answer to this Scripture, that infants of Christian parents, as they are within the covenant, and are holy, so they may be said to have a virtuall faith, or that which is analo­gicall thereto, that giveth them right to baptisme, as much as the converted heathens profession; for being in covenant with God, and being holy, cannot be conceived to be without answerable faith, or somewhat equivalent.

At last you having triumphantly concluded your dispute, come to shew your disciples what they may see by what you have taught them. I will examine a few of your words.

Answ. Yes, we may see what you inferre, as we may see false shapes by false glasses, or one falshood by another. Secondly, may not ignorant phantasticks possiblely fall into grosse errours assoone as great clarks? Thirdly, as for the differences that you put be­tween the Covenant of the Law, and of the Gospell (as you call them) First, we grant that the Covenant which God made with the Iewish, and that which he made with the Christian [Page 81] Church, differ as old and new. But this is too narrow a difference to make them diverse in substance: as he that was of old a child is a new become a man, yet differs not in substance from what he was, but is the same person. God gave that old commandement to the Iewes: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe, Lev. 19.18. Christ saith to his Disciples, A new commandment I give un­to you, that you love one another, Ioh. 13.34. Must these comman­dements needs differ in substance? or must they be accused of grosse mistake that hold that these commandements agree in substance as being the same? The Apostle Iohn, 1. Ioh. 2.7. saith he writes no new commandement, but the old, yet vers. 8. he saith he writes a new commandement. Will you say, That great clark Iohn was grossely mistaken in saying that he wrote no new com­mandement, but an old: and yet presently saying he wrote an old commandement? Because in your conceit old and new so farre differ, that the same thing cannot be said to be old and new, though in different respects, and in regard of some circumstances.

Secondly, In your second and third difference you (how great a Clark soever) are grossely mistaken in calling the old Co­venant made with the Iewes a Covenant of works, and a Cove­nant of nature. Where finde you the Scripture calling it so? Will you perswade men that Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, Moses, Da­vid, and the faithfull before Christ, where without faith and grace? That either they were saved by works and nature (for you will allow them to be under no covenant, but works & nature you, ex­clude them from faith and grace) or else to have perished remedi­lesly? The one whereof must needs follow upon your tenet. But of this we have heard before, & this your opinion is so absurd and unchristian, that it deserves rather to be abhorred then confuted.

I Answer: First, there is no such thing proved by that Scrip­ture, that the old covenant was the administration of condemnati­on, and a killing letter. Secondly, neither can any such thing be con­ceived; unlesse we shall say that all which were under the old Co­venant were condemned, and killed, destitute of righteousnesse and life, and that God made a Covenant with his people to kill [Page 82] and condemne them (which will necessarily follow upon that te­net) which were blasphemy.

Thirdly, the Apostle indeed calleth the law, which was an addi­tion to the covenant of promise, a killing letter, & the administra­tion of condemnation, not as it was given and intended by God primarily, who gave it primarily and properly, to humble that stubborne people, drive them to the promise, and exercise them in obedience, and to be taken along with, (not apart from) the promise, and to traine them up for, draw them to, and direct them how to walke in, Christ, which is the end of the Law, not to drive them from Christ. But as it was in it selfe considered without the promise and without Christ, so it was a killing letter, and the mi­nistrie of condemnation; and as it was misunderstood and abused by false-teachers, hypocrites and Iusticiaries: who before the comming of Christ forsaking the promise, and since his comming, forsaking the Gospell; (both which held forth Christ, in whom a­lone righteousnesse is to be sought) or at least mingling the Law and Gospell together in point of justification, sought righteous­nesse by the works of the Law either alone, or with the Gos­pell; to them it became a killing letter. And the addition of the Law to the promise, was a testimony, and an occasion of greater condemnation to such as they who abused it, sought righteous­nesse in it,Rom. 7.12.14. Gal. 3.21 24. and made their boast of it, but were not humbled, nor driven to Christ thereby, though in it selfe the Law was spirituall, holy, and good, not contrary but subordinate to the promise. As the Gospell is an occasion of greater condemnation even to those that are externally under the Covenant of the Gospell, who abuse it 2. Cor. 2.16. Heb. 10.29. Iud. 1.4. Yet will it not hence follow that the Covenant of the Gospell or new Covenant is the mi­nistry of condemnation, though it turne to the greater condem­nation of some for their abuse of it.

Answ. Tis true, the Law given on mount Sinai (for of that the Apostle speakes) as it was taken without the promise, and that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and as men sought justification by it, whether without the promise before Christ, or without the Gospell since Christ, or whether they sought justifi­cation by the Law together with the promise or the Gospell, which was not Gods end in giving the Law to his people, but [Page 83] mans abuse of it: so it brought men into a state of bondage, and so the obstinate Iews, that thus abuse the Law, are cast out as Ish­mael, and Hagar. And as the faithfull were under the discipline and padagogie of the Law, they were in a servile condition, in comparison of that great freedome (from those intolerable bur­dens of ceremonies, and great discomfort and feare accompany­ing the same) which the faithfull have under the Gospel. But notwithstanding their bondage, they were sonnes and heires and lords of all, Gal. 4.1. and so they were under a Covenant of grace, though legally administred.

Answ. I account this wild talke, being the evaporations of a giddy braine, intoxicated with a drunken slumber whereof you complaine, worthy no other answer but this. Of every idle word you must give an account at the day of judgment, Matt. 12.36. much more of speaking evill of those things you know not, raill­ing upon dignities, and authorities, despising dominions, 2, Pet. 2.9.10.11.12. Iud. 4. & 8 9. &c. and of calling evill good, and good e­vill, putting darknesse for light, and light for darknesse, Es. 5.20. Which places of Scripture I would intreate you, when you shall awake out of your drunken slumber to consider, and seriously ponder.

So much for the fourth argument, and clearing it from excep­tions: Now I come to the fifth, which is of affinity with the for­mer (and confounded with it by A. R. and therefore his answers to it, mingled with his answers to the former) but not the same, and therefore we will consider it apart, and set downe his answers of any weight, and replie to them (God willing,) and this is taken from circumcision.

5. Argument, If Infants of beleeving parents (or parents in Covenant) under the old Covenant, might and ought to be conse­crated unto God, and initiated into Covenant by circumcision: then Infants of beleeving parents under the new Covenant, ought to be consecrated to God, and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme.

But Infants of beleeving parents, under the old Covenant, might and ought to be consecrated to God, and initiated into Co­venant by circumcision, Gen. 17.10.11. Exod. 12.48.

Therefore Infants of beleeving parents under the new Cove­nant, ought to be consecrated unto God, and solemnly entred into Covenant by Baptisme.

For the clearing and confirming of the sequele of the propo­sition (for of the assumption, there is no question) I will lay downe two or three considerations.

First, that the old and new covenant were one and the same for substance; Abraham, Moses, David, and all the faithfull before Christ were under the same Covenant, that all the faithfull since Christ are under. For since Adams fall, there hath been but one way of salvation, common to all that have been saved; which way is revealed, and exhibited only in the Covenant of grace, as hath been partly shewed before, see Rev. 13.8. & 14.6. Heb. 11. through the Chapter, and 13.8. Hath been demonstrated by the godly learned: and must be needs acknowledged by all that will without prejudice consider that,Exod. 34.6.7. first, God considered as a merci­fu l Father, a gratious & long-suffering God, abundant in goodnesse and truth,Ezeh. 16. is the Authour of the old Covenant, as well as the new: secondly,Iosh. 24. Exod. 33.19. That man considered as a miserable sinner, yet weary of sinne, desiring mercy, professing and promising, repentance, faith, and obedience,Eph. 1.12. upon his being received into this Covenant, is the other Covenantier or confederate in the old aswell as in the new. Thirdly,1. Cor. 10.4. that Christ is the Mediatour in both, being the Lambe slaine from the foundation of the world,Gen. 3.15. Ioh. 8. Ps. 110. Exod. 34.7. the promised seed, who brake the serpents head, whose day Abraham seeing rejoyced. A priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Fourthly, that the principall good things promised in both, were pardon of sinnes,Ps. 32.1.2. adoption, sanctification, perseverance, and eternall salvation. Fiftly,Gen. 15.6. that the condition required is repentance, faith and obedi­ence in the old Covenant, aswell as the new. Sixtly, that the end in both is the same,Act. 15.10.11. to wit, the glory of Gods rich mercie; in pow­ring [Page 85] spirituall, temporall, and eternall blessings upon his people. And seventhly, that the summe of the Covenant is the same, viz, Rom. 4. Exod. 19.5, 6. Deut. 4.29, 30. & 10.16.19 & 11.22. I will be thy God, and thou shalt be my people. All which are un­denyably the same in the old Covenant and new. So that con­sidering they agree in Author, Object, Mediator, Good things promised, Duties required, End, Effects, in a word, in Matter, Forme, and Definition, there can be no essentiall difference. Only they differ in some Accidents. As there the Covenant was made in Christ to come: Here in Christ already come. There with a few people, and after Abrahams (or at least Moses his) time, only with the house of Israel, and those that should joyne therewith: Here with more, even with all nations. Then dispensed by darker pro­phesies, and more obscure sacraments, sacrifices, and ceremonies or types; now by cleare revelation, and plaine or open ordinances, without the vaile of shadowes, types, and darke ceremonies. Then grace was more dimly, scantly, and with mixture of legall slavery, ordinarily bestowed; now more plainly, plentifully, com­fortably and freely; all which are but circumstantiall, or graduall differences.

Secondly, when the new Covenant succeeded the old, then Baptisme succeeded in the place of circumcision; as the Lords Supper in stead of the Passeover.Exod. 12 48. Rom. 4.11. 1 Cor. 12.13. Act. 22.16. Col. 2.11, 12. I say Baptisme succeeded in the roome of circumcision, and is to us of the same use that circumci­sion was to the Iewes, to wit, a signe of entrance into the Church, a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, which comprehends remissi­on of sinnes, Baptisme of the spirit, and circumcision of the heart; which are the things signified in Baptisme. Insomuch that the Apostle puts circumcision without hands, in puting off the body of sinnes &c. and buriall with Christ in Baptisme, &c. for one and the same thing, implying that though we now want outward circumcision with hands, yet we have inward circumcision with­out hands, signified and sealed in Baptisme to so many as have Christ. And so though the beleeving Iewes before Christ, want­ed the outward sacrament of Baptisme; yet they were inwardly partakers of Baptisme without hands, in remission of sinnes and mortification (sealed by circumcision) aswell as we. So then if by being buried with Christ in Baptisme, we are partakers of cir­cumcision without hands; It appeares that Baptisme is of the same use to us, that circumcision was to the Iewes, whereof one particular among the rest, was to be a signe of entring into the [Page 86] Church or Covenant, as may be seen in the generall use of both the Sacraments, and which our Saviour (it may seem) would in speciall teach us by his example, in that at the eight day he was circumcised, as a professed Member of the Iewish Church; but after when he would set up the new Covenant or Christian Church, he was initiated thereinto by Baptisme. So that though in some things circumcision and baptisme differ: as, first, in the ourward ceremonies. Secondly, in regard of the sexes to which applyed, (for circumcision was applied only to males, the females being uncapale, and so being received into Covenant, in or with the males, whereas Baptisme is applied to both sexes, being both alike capable of it.) Thirdly, in the exact determinate time, requi­red in the one, viz, circumcision, tied to the eight day; but left free and undetermined in the other, so that it be done as speedily as conveniently may be, after the party is apprehended and acknow­ledged to be within the Covenant, and so to have right to the sa­crament. And fourthly, in the adjuncts or effects. Circumcision with spilling of blood, Baptisme without blood, because the true blood of the Covenant is shed, and therefore no more to be sha­dowed by bloody sacrifices or sacraments as aforetime. Yet they agree in the maine end and use. Circumcision and Baptisme be­ing signes of entrance into the Church, as the Passeover and the Supper, signes of continuance; and so consequently circumcision and Baptisme to be applied to those that were but newly in Co­venant, as to Infants of beleevers, and infidels newly converted; the other to be used by them that had attained to some growth. Those to be applied but once to one person, as signifying our spi­rituall birth, which is but once; but these often to be used, as signi­fying spirituall nourishment and growth, which must be often and continuall untill we come to perfection, though we bee not bound to the distinct times, in using Baptisme and the Lords Supper, that were appointed for circumcision and the Passeover, viz. the eight day from the birth for the one, or the foureteenth day of the first moneth yearely for the other.

Thirdly, consider that Gods bounty and grace on the one side; or mans dutie, and obligation on the other side, is nothing dimi­nished or straitned in the time of the New Testament, in com­parison of what was under the Old: but rather much increased and inlarged, in respect of manifestation, more abundantly to Christians then Iewes; as the whole course of the Scripture [Page 87] shews. So that if God was pleased graciously to accept into co­venant, parents together with their children then; and to become the God of the little infants, as well as of the parents; and to set the seale of the covenant upon the infants, for the confirmation of faith, and comfort of the parents for the time present, and of the children for the future, when they should come to understanding: And if he were then pleased to binde parents to offer and dedi­cate their children unto him by the seale of entrance into cove­nant: much more he vouchsafeth the former, and requireth the latter, now under the Gospel.

Answer. Ans. It was shewed before that the restraining of circumcision to males, and tying of it to the eighth day, were accidentall, and peculiar to circumcision: as being the seale and sacrament of entrance into the old covenant, whereas some things are essen­tiall and common to the seales of entrance in both covenants. And therefore though the argument hold not from one Sacrament to another in those things that are accidentall and proper to the one: yet it holds from one to another, in those things that are common and essentiall, as we justly maintaine against our adversaries the Papists; that every Sacrament is a seale of the covenant of grace, or of the righteousnesse of faith: because circumcision was so, to which you seeme to assent, calling Baptisme a pledge of remission of sinnes; though the name of pledge or seale be not expresly given to other sacraments in scripture. Now we learne, by the Israelites frequent using of the Passeover, that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is oft (not once onely, as Baptisme) to be re­ceived [Page 88] by Christians; (though otherwise we have no expresse clear command for the oft receiving of it) howbeit we be not re­strained to one in the yeare onely, nor to the time of Passeover, nor to the use of unleavened bread, and such things as were pro­per to the Passeover: so though we doe not in baptisme observe the same ceremonie, nor precise time, nor sex that was peculiar to circumcision; yet we justly gather, that baptisme belongs to such persons for age, viz. Infants (though there were no expresse command in Scripture for it) and that upon the grounds afore­mentioned.

Secondly, Gods command to Abraham as he was the father of the faithfull, is sufficient warrant for our actions, though we have no speciall command for the same, set downe in the New Testament, much lesse brought to us by any speciall revelation as to Abraham; even when in regard of some speciall acts, and ma­ny circumstances we may not doe as Abraham did: yet by ver­tue of Gods commandement to Abraham, we are bound to doe that which is analogicall thereunto.Gen. 17.1. Gen. 17.23. Gen. 22. Gen. 18.19. For example, God comman­ded Abraham to walke before him and be perfect. This binds us as well as Abraham, though Abrahams circumcision of himselfe and his family, his purpose and endevour to offer up his sonne Isaac; his commanding and teaching his children and houshold not onely in morall duties, but also ceremoniall, in respect of cir­cumcision and sacrifices, were parts of his walking before God, and being upright: yet we may not imitate him in those very particulars. But in those duties required in the New Testament, which are analogicall and proportionable to these; as giving up our selves and ours unto God, in the use of those Ordinances which he for the present hath appointed, in denying our selves in our dearest comforts, and bringing up our children in feare and in­formation of the Lord. And so whereas God promiseth to Abra­ham to be his shield, and exceeding great reward, and his All-suffi­cient God: we may apply these promises to our selves, though our condition be not the same in all things with Abrahams, though we be not in danger of having the nations to rise up against us for rescuing Lot, &c. So God promiseth to be God to Abra­ham and his seed, and requires that he should lay hold on the pro­mise by faith, not onely for himselfe, but also for his children, and so give up his children unto God in circumcision; which is a ground sufficient for Christian parents to lay hold on the promise of God for themselves and their children, & give them up to God [Page 89] God in baptisme, notwithstanding some circumstances, wherein the promise and command made to Abraham differ from them, as they are applied unto us So God gave a command and a pro­mise unto Ioshua: I will be with thee,Josh. 1.5.6. to the 9. I will not faile thee nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage, &c. This promise and command we may, and ought to apply to our selves in any worke that God calls us unto, as if it had beene made unto us in particular, Heb. 13.5. Though we be never made Captaines of hosts; to goe against Canaanites, or take possession of a promised land; or be types of Christ, the true and reall Ioshua, or Iesus, all which were peculiar to that Worthy: yet the command and pro­mise concern us as well as him, as the Apostle in that place shew­eth. Else if you will not grant, that we are bound to beleeve pro­mises, and obey commands, made to Abraham or some other speciall persons; unlesse we observe all circumstances and particu­lar actions, in obeying the command; and jumpe with their estate in every particular qualification, in receiving the promises: you will deny that we have any thing to doe with any command or promise of God, and so go about to overturne all the consolation of the faithfull, and discharge them of all their dutie. But seeing none, I hope, is so foolish as to follow such absurdities, we may safely hold, (notwithstanding what you object) that Abrahams promise for his children, and command to circumcise them; is a good ground for Christian parents, to lay hold on the covenant for their children, and to present them to God in baptisme.

Answ. I hope your meaning is not, that we must have imme­diate revelation from God, as Abraham had; for if untill then we sit still, we shall never obey nor beleeve. Otherwise so many as are the children of Abraham acknowledge themselves bound by Gods command to him, to give up himselfe and his chil­dren unto God, to doe the like; though they have no new reve­lation from God, neither are bound to observe all circumstances that Abraham was.

Answ. God doth not declare there, Gen. 17.18, 19. and cited by you, nor any where else that Ishmael was not in covenant; for though the covenant was established with Isaac, so that he and his posteritie should continue in covenant untill the promised seed should come of his posteritie: yet Ishmael was outwardly in co­venant, Gen. 17.10, 11, 12, 13, 14.23.25. untill he discovenanted himselfe.

Secondly, whether is it fit that we should beleeve you, or God himselfe speaking, Gen. 17. and Paul (interpreting that place, Rom. 4.) who had the mind of Christ, and the Spirit of God? you say, that circumcision was not ordained by God, nor under­stood by Abraham to be to the person circumcised, a seale of their being in covenant, much lesse of their being in the faith, and re­generation, (though we say not that it was so:) God saith, Gen. 17.10, 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keepe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: every manchilde among you shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the fore-skinne of your flesh, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. And Paul saith, that Abraham received the signe of circumcision, a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, &c. Let men judge whether of these two parties testimonies is more worthy credit.

Thirdly, It is not to be questioned but those Scriptures, Gen. [Page 91] 17.7. Rom. 14.11. must be understood as the Apostle applieth them. But so farre is the Apostles application there, from exclu­ding or denying our interpretation of those Scriptures, viz. that God ordained, and Abraham understood circumcision to be a seal of their being in Covenant, and so a seale of faith and regenera­tion to those that worthily used it; that the Apostles application presupposeth this, and therefore gathers, because circumcision was a signe of the Covenant, and a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, that righteousnesse comes by faith, not by workes.

Fourthly, If the same was not the use of circumcision to A­braham and his posteritie for the substance, to wit, to be a signe of their being in covenant, and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, in your opinion; why doe you not shew the difference of Abra­hams circumcision and theirs? If you say, it was to Abraham a seale of his faith, righteousnesse, and regeneration, that he had al­ready, to them of that which they were to have: I answer, this is but a circumstantiall difference, and gives what we desire, and maintaine. If you say, that many who were circumcised were never justified by faith, or regenerated; this was mans abuse, and fault, who being received into such a Covenant, wherein God promised to be his God, and was ready to performe his promise, yet would not performe the conditions required in the covenant. For if some that received circumcision, were never internally in Covenant, nor indued with the righteousnesse of faith, that hin­ders not but that circumcision was a signe of their being outward­ly received into that covenant wherein God was ready to be­stow faith and regeneration, if through their owne default they did not deprive themselves thereof. Besides, if there was not the same use of circumcision to Abraham, and his children circum­cised by Gods appointment: How doe you say, in your Preface to the Reader, That baptisme is an undoubted pledge from God of the free pardon and remission of sinnes to the right subjects there­of: sith it may with as good reason be said, though it were so in our Saviours time, yet it is not so now; as you seeme to beare men in hand: Though circumcision was a seale of the righteous­nesse of faith, and a signe of the covenant between God and him to Abraham; yet it was not so to his posteritie, though they were the right subjects thereof, whom God had appointed to be cir­cumcised. But if you rightly gather that Baptisme is an undoub­ted pledge of the pardon of sinne to the right subjects thereof [Page 92] now because it was so to those which were first baptized; we may as well gather, that circumcision was a signe of the Cove­nant, and seale of the righteousnesse of faith, to those infants which by Gods appointment received it, as it was to Abraham.

Hitherto of those Arguments of ours, whereunto this Dispu­tant answers. As for the other Arguments and Objections which he brings and answers, I shall leave them to defend them that owne them. I will adde briefly one or two Arguments more.

4. Arg. Arg. 6. If the baptizing of Infants born of Christian parents (or parents within the new covenant) be not according to the rule of Gods word, then there is no rule or warrant in the Scri­pture for baptizing the posteritie of beleevers, under the New covenant at all, and so consequently the children of beleevers must not be baptized at all, neither young nor old; for we must do nothing without Scripture warrant.

But that the posteritie of Christian parents ought not to be baptized at all; is most absurd and false, as I think will be acknow­ledged of all that beare the names of Christians. For how can it be supposed, that the faith and Christianity of the parents, should be so prejudiciall to the children, as to deprive them of the pledge of the remission of sinnes, though they repent and beleeve; when yet the posteritie of Infidels may be baptized, upon their faith and repentance? Therefore the Antecedent must needs be false, (viz. that the baptizing of infants of Christian parents is not according to the rule of the word) and consequently the contra­dictory thereto true. viz. that the baptizing of infants borne of parents in covenant is according to the rule. The Assumption I conceive needs no proofe seeing Christ hath appointed, that the Sacraments of the New Testament should be perpetuall to the end of the world, Matth. 28.19.20. 1 Cor. 11.26. to those that should be in Covenant.

For the confirmation then of the proposition, and making cleare its consequence: Consider, first, there is no command, ex­ample or other testimony in Scripture, can be given to shew that the children of testimony in Scripture, can be given to shew that the children of beleeving parents should be kept from baptisme, untill they could in their owne persons actually repent, beleeve, and make confession of their faith. But still when parents were converted to the faith and baptized, their whole families were [Page 93] baptized with them. Neither is there any word concerning the posteritie of Christian parents, (who were borne of them, being in covenant) to have been baptized in riper yeares.

Secondly, those commands and examples of baptizing them that repented, beleeved, and professed the faith, are all of such as had before been out of the New covenant, and were come of pa­rents that had never been under the covenant of the Gospel; and therefore with lesse reason can be applied to the posteritie of Christian parents, when they come to yeares of discretion, then when they were infants. For those examples and commands shew that so soone as one is in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel, he hath right unto baptisme. Neither can it without sinne to God and injurie to the person be denied to him, but ought to be administred so soone as it may conveniently be had. And therefore as they that had beene out of covenant before, so soone as they had repented and beleeved, (at least professed so much, which was necessary to their being taken into covenant) ought to be baptized, as soone as might be conveniently,Act. 8.36, 37, 38. Act. 10.47. Act. 22.16. and might not without injurie be hindred by others, or sinne in themselves neglect it: So the children of Christian parents being in covenant, as hath beene proved, and cannot be denied with any shew of truth, (that I say not, without blasphemy) cannot without inju­rie be denied baptisme so soone as it may expediently be admi­nistred to them.

This Argument for more evidence and clearenesse may be pro­pounded thus.

The posteritie of beleevers either must be baptized in their in­fancie, or when they are able to make a profession of faith, and do it really, or they must not be baptized at all.

But to hold that they should not be baptized at all; but that all the children of beleevers should be debarred baptisme though they prove never so godly, is absurd and wicked; that they should be baptized onely when they come to yeares of discretion, and make profession of faith and repentance, there is no warrant in Scripture, neither by command, practise, or otherwise, as hath been shewed.

Therefore they are to be baptized in infancie.

Arg. 7. If Christian women that are under the new covenant, have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and ought to be admitted thereunto (neither can without great in­jurie be detained therefrom) notwithstanding their sexe; though [Page 94] there be no cleare, expresse, direct and immediate command or example in the Scripture for the same: then may and ought in­fants of Christian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme; neither can without great injurie be de­barred there from, notwithstanding their age; though there were not any clear, expresse, direct & immediat command for the same.

But Christian women have right to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and may and ought to be admitted thereunto; neither can without great injurie be detained therefrom, notwithstanding their sexe; though there be no cleare, expresse, direct and imme­diate command in Scripture, for womens being received to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

Therefore may and ought infants of Christian parents being in covenant, to be admitted to the sacrament of baptisme; neither can without great injurie be debarred therefrom, notwithstanding their age: though there were not any clear, expresse, direct and im­mediate command or example in the scripture for the same.

For confirmation of the sequele in the major or first propo­sition note: First, there is as much cause to question womens title to the Lords Supper, in regard of their female sex, as there is cause of questioning childrens baptisme, because of their infant age; especially, considering the female was deprived of one Sa­crament in the old covenant; and there is no more (if so much) spoken in Scripture for womens being admitted to that, then for infants being admitted to this. Secondly, whatsoever can be said or gathered by good consequence from Scripture for Christian women receiving the Lords Supper: the same, as much, or more, may as truly, and by as cleare consequence be said for the bapti­zing of infants of Christian parents. Are Christian women of some standing, and continuance in the covenant of grace, and so have title to the seale and Sacrament that signifies growth in grace, and continuance in Christ? No lesse are infants of Chri­stian parents entred into the covenant of grace, by vertue of the covenant made with their parents, as hath been proved (and will not be denied I thinke by any that cares and knows what he saith) and so have title to the seal of admission, or entrance into covenant. Have they (at least in judgement of charitie) right to the thing signified in the Lords Supper, viz. Christ his body and bloud, with all the benefits of his death and passion? No lesse have these (in the like judgement of charitie) right to the thing signified in baptisme, viz. the Bloud and Spirit of [Page 95] Christ, pardon of sinne and regeneration. Were they being the inferiour sexe comprehended under the superiour sexe of men in the command? Why might not these as well being inferiours in age, and wholly at their parents dispose, be comprehended under the command of baptizing the parents? Were they never for­bidden nor excepted, or exempted from the Lords Supper, though not expressely commanded to receive it? The same may be said concerning childrens baptizing. Have women need of the Eu­charist to strengthen faith, and quicken them to obedience as well as men? so have infants need of baptisme to confirme faith in Gods gracious covenant, and incite to obedience, their parents for the present, and themselves for the future. Is it more then probable that (although at the first institution of the Lords Sup­per, there were no women, because Christ had none present, but onely his owne family, and peculiar flock of his Disciples who were all men; yet) Act. 2.42. (if breaking bread unquestionably signifie the use of the Sacrament there) and Act. 20.7. and 1 Cor. 11. when mention is made of the Lords Supper, there were wo­men, though it is not expressed? No lesse probably may it be ga­thered, that in those families that were baptized, there were some children. In a word, were women admitted to eate of the sacri­fices and sacrament of Passeover in the time of the old covenant among the Iewes? It is known that infants were received to the Sacrment of circumcision in the old Covenant likewise. So that I see no reason why the one should be questionable when the other is not called into question.

For the Assumption or minor proposition, it hath two things in it to be confirmed: first, that there is no direct, expresse, im­mediate command, or example in the Scripture, for women re­ceiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more then for chil­drens being baptized. This is easily proved by turning over to all those places of Scripture that speak of the Lords Supper, which are not many, Mat. 26.26, 27, 28. Mar. 14.22, &c. Luk. 22.19, &c. Act. 2.22. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 10. & 11. neither do I remember any other places that speake expresly of this Sacrament, in all which places is no mention of women.

The second part of the assumption is, that notwithstanding this is not expressed in so many words in Scripture, that beleeving wo­men shold receive the sacramēt of the Lords Supper; yet that they may & ought to be admitted, neither can without injury be debar­red: [Page 96] which is so universally (for ought I know) acknowledged, that I never heard it questioned: And he that should question it, might seeme worthy of detestation or contempt, rather then answer, or disputation. It may be confirmed by such grounds, as were in­timated in my confirmation of the proposition, And my reason why I say this is an unquestionable truth, Beleeving women have right to the Lords Supper aswell as men, & that by Scripture war­rant, is the received maxime in Divinity, that what is contained in Scripture in expresse words, or may be gathered from the Scrip­ture by just consequence, hath sufficient warrant from Gods word, and is a matter of faith. Or, as it is expressed by some, thus. A scripture commandeth, promiseth or threatneth, whatsoever is contained in it, though not expressed; and that is contained in it, which may justly, and truly be gathered from it, though by never so many consequences or inferences. Now I hope none questions, but that it may by just and undenyable consequences be proved, that beleeving women aswell as men, ought to receive the Sup­per, and so it hath been proved, that children ought to be bapti­zed; otherwise if we will not admit that we have sufficient scrip­ture warrant, not only for that which is expresly set downe in scripture; but also for whatsoever by just consequence is or may be deduced therefrom: we shall deprive our selves of all or most Scripture-promises or priviledges, and exempt our selves of all or most commands. Seeing what is set downe in the Scripture, is not spoken immediatly and expressely to us in particular, but only by just consequence or inference is derivable and appliable unto us. And therefore let those that either out of ignorance and scru­ple, or wilfulnesse and prophanenesse, think that there is warrant or obligation for nothing to be done, as an act of faith and obedi­ence, but what is set downe or they are commanded expressely and clearely in the scripture, in so many words, take heed they doe not at once, deny to God all obedience, and to their soules all com­fort in the promises. This last argument may be summed up briefly thus.

If it be not warrantable for children to be baptized, then it is not lawfull for women to receive the Lords Supper; for as much may be sayd for that, as for this, and against this as that. But the consequent is absurd; therefore the antecedent is false. And this I would wish those women to consider, which by reason of the weakenesse of their judgment, are aptest to be deceived, by those [Page 97] that creep into houses, and leade captive silly women laden with sinnes, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning, and never a­ble to come to the knowledg of the truth. For if they should yeeld to this perswasion, their children must not be baptized in their infancie, because the Scripture doth not expressely command it; On the same ground, they must yeeld that they themselves have nothing to doe with the Supper; and so by degrees they may be cheated of all Gods Ordinances and their comforts, priviledges, and obedience, on the same grounds. As also I would wish that the foregoing argument may be considered by them, who have refused to have their children baptized in infancie, and shew what ground they have in Scripture for baptizing them when they come to yeares of discretion. I cannot see but they have as great cause to question, whether ever their children may be bap­tized as whether they may baptize them in infancy. Let them give an example or command in scripture, expresse or by just con­sequence, of a beleeving Father which kept his child unbaptized, untill he actually beleeved, and then brought him to baptisme. And then let them bethinke themselves whether the issue will not be, either their posterity must not be baptized at all, (though they beleeve and repent never so much) and so they cast them­selves and their children out of Covenant; or they must be bapti­zed without warrant, or commande (for all those examples and commands that are in scripture of faith required in those that should be baptized, speake of them who themselves and their pa­rents till that time had not been under the new Covenant.) Or lastly, if they will have those commands and examples for their warrant and applyable to them; they and their children must be­come infidels, and persons out of Covenant, and deny that ever they were in Covenant before, or had received any spirituall and Evangelicall favour, that so now at last entering newly into the Covenant of grace by faith and repentance, whereunto they pro­fesse that they have been hitherto strangers, they may receive the Sacrament or pledge of admission into Covenant. Which how injurious it would be to Gods grace, and their own souls and po­steritie, if ever they tasted of Gods mercy, or were but external­ly in Covenant, let all men judge.

It is usuall in controversies of this kinde, after Scripture proofes and reasons deduced therefrom and grounded thereon, to produce the consent and testimony of the Godly and learned, whether [Page 98] Ancient or Modern; especially, the former, that were most neere the Primitive purest times; And I doubt not if a man had helps and leisure for searching Antiquitie, it might be easily shewed, that the baptizing of Infants was long in use before Antichrist got to his throne, (contrary to the opinion of this disputant) yea in the Primitive times (unlesse Authors be silent in this point, (because no controvesie then rose above this matter) or cor­rupted:) But as I have said, neither having the books of the An­cients, that speak of this subject, nor time well to turne over those volumes, if I had them, I must forbeare. Onely let the Reader a­gain take notice of these two first-mentioned and Prime Authors whom A. R. cites for his purpose. For as touching Origens gi­ving testimony, that baptizing children was a ceremony or tra­dition of the Church, (not to examine how truly these words are cited out of the Author, which I cannot for the reason aforemen­tioned, but to take the words on his trust) This testimony shews that in his time, who lived but 200. yeares after Christ, it was a thing ordinarily practised, and (as I shewed before in vindicating my third Argument) an unquestioned practise, from which as an undeniable principle, that holy man seemes to prove that In­fants of a day old are not free from sinne. And let none be offen­ded that it is called a ceremony, though that name, as it is used for humane traditions beside or contrary to Gods word, is odious, yet the word may in its proper signification be used for any rite, ei­ther humane or divine, and both Baptisme and the Lords Supper may fitly be called ceremonies now; as well as Passeover, Cir­cumcision, and other Divine Ordinances, instituted by God a­mong the Iews. Neither let any be troubled at the word Tradi­tion, for that is used not onely to note things taken up by men, but also for the Doctrine of God, [...]. and Institutions of the Apostles, 1 Cor. 11.2. 2 Thess. 2.15. And whereas it is said, a ceremony or tradition of the Church, there is no necessitie that it should be understood that the Church was the Authour thereof, but the sub­ject (in which it was used, and by which it was delivered to po­steritie) may well be meant, by that phrase. So Augustine (who lived in the fourth Century after Christ) calles it a custome (as he saith) of the Church. Which yet he might well doe, and yet it be a divine ordinance, for all Gods ordinances are or should be in custome in the Church. But if it were a custome of the Church in Augustines time, (and a ceremony or tradition of the Church [Page 99] in Origens) sure it is strange that it should be brought into use a thousand yeares after Christ, as one of his Authours saith, and be a devise of Antichrist, as he holds. For customes are things that have been of long use and ancient standing. And whereas some Authours speake of such as were Catechized and instructed by the Church, before they were baptized, and must give a reason of their faith before they were admitted to Baptisme, and that they used to Baptize such at two times of the yeare onely. I beleeve it will be apparent to those who looke into these Authours, that they speake not of the children of beleeving parents: but that those Catechumeni, who were first Catechized and then baptized, were Pagans (who lived in those parts where the Church was) which were quite out of Covenant, and therefore, because God did not so miraculously and suddenly bring such to the faith, as in the times of the Apostles, some space was required to instruct them in the principles of Religion, before they could be judged fit for Baptisme. But as I said, I may not meddle with the exa­mination of his authorities, nor produce any humane authoritie for this; seeing it hath been sufficiently confirmed by Arguments drawn from Scripture grounds; though it were an easie thing, I suppose, to beat this Adversary with his own weapon. And it might be an usefull worke if some Antiquary would take the pains to turne over the ancient Writers, and shew what they have left on record concerning this subject.

I will come to make some practicall use and improvement of this dispute, and so end. Seeing all those Arguments that have been brought against the baptizing of Infants, have been answer­ed, and our Arguments for it defended (through the help of God and in his feare, how sufficiently let others judge) so that the weaknesse of the Adversaries Arguments hath beene detected, and the truth vindicated against cavils, and it hath been proved from Scripture grounds, that children of parents within Cove­nant have right to Baptisme; this discourse may serve.

First, To admonish such as the Authour of this pamphlet an­swered that are so pragmaticall in broaching their new conceits, that they would impartially, and without prejudice, weigh and examine their owne tenents and grounds by the Scripture, before they proceede with such confidence, and heate, to commend them to, and urge them upon others, deride, rayle upon and condemne, as Antichristian and Deceivers, all that will not receive their [Page 100] doctrines as infallible. I would wish them to consider whether this be the truth of God that they pleade for, and maintaine, with such grosse perverting, abuse, and falsifying of Scripture, as hath beene shewed throughout the booke; whether hath the cause of God neede to be upholden with manifest errors, and those of ve­ry dangerous consequence, bordering on blasphemie, such as have beene discovered in this Authour; as calling the Covenant under which the faithfull were before Christ, a Covenant of workes, of Nature, and of condemnation: And casting out all infants of the holiest Christian parents from the Covenant of Grace, and making them equall with the Children of Turkes, at least whiles in­fants, and many errors of like sort, and that against playne Scrip­tures. Doth God neede mens lyes to maintaine his truth? It may be, these errours, abuses of Scriptures, and bold assertions of un­truths, and those not one or two but many, proceeded from ig­norance, and zeale without knowledge. (For such is our weake­nesse of judgement, that wee are apt to take up, embrace, and maintaine error for truth.) If so, I hope such persons upon con­viction may be humbled and give glory to God in confessing the power of his truth, in overcomming them. But if otherwise they proceede out of pride, vaineglory, and they be thus active out of a desire to gather Disciples after them, that they may be followed and admired of the simple, creeping into houses and leading cap­tive,Act. 20.30. silly women laden with iniquitie, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth; [...] Tim 3.6, 7. pretending to serve the Lord Iesus, when indeed they serve their own bellies, and by good words,Rom. 16.17. and faire speeches deceive the hearts of the simple; professing zealously to affect Gods people,Gal. 4.17. that they may exclude and withdraw them from Christs Ministers: I would wish them to consider, that though Satans Ministers may be suffered for a time to transforme themselves into the Ministers of righteous­nesse,2 Cor. 11.13. and 14.15. yet their end shall be according to their works. And though there may be false Teachers amongst Gods people,2 Pet. 2.1, 2, 3. who may pri­vily bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, they shall bring upon themselves swift destruction. Yea, though they so farre insinuate themselves into people, that many shall follow their pernicious wayes, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evill spoken of, &c. yet their judgement linger­eth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Neither will God suffer such abuse and perverting of his Scriptures, venting of [Page 101] errours, railing against authoritie, speaking evill of his Ministers, seeking to seduce his people, and impoysoning many unstable souls, with fond opinions, goe unpunished;1 Cor. 11.19. 2 Thess. 2.11, 12. Though for a time he may (for the correction and tryall of his own people, the dis­covering of the sound, and punishing of the unsound, by giving them over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes) suffer such persons to escape; yet surely men at last shall know what it is with a great shew of Scripture, and under pretence of zeale, to oppose the truth and draw people from the wayes of holinesse. I know the best of Gods servants may erre in judgement, aswell as faile in practise; But such will blesse God for discovering their errour, and be thankfull to the instrument which he useth for that end, and to such doubtlesse God is ready to shew mercy in forgiving their errours. But as for them who for their credit sake (as they thinke) when their errours are discovered, and opposed, shall be more bold in asserting them, fly out in rayling and bitternesse a­gainst those that would have given an helping hand to the redu­cing of them to the truth, set their wits a worke, to invent new Arguments to maintaine falshood against their own conscience, and so to uphold one errour by another, (for no truth will patro­nize an errour) and consequently run from one fond opinion into another; such we are commanded after once or twice admoni­tion to reject,Tit. 3.10, 11. as knowing that they are subverted and sinne being condemned of themselves.

Secondly, It may serve for a warning to those who have beene too apt to listen to the perswasion of such busie pragmaticall per­sons; that they should not be so simple, as to thinke the greatest confidence, and boldest peremptorinesse, and fairest shew of zeal, is an infallible signe of the best cause maintained, or best heart in the maintainer. Hypocrisie oft is attended with appearance of zeale, and ignorance is ordinarily accompanyed with perempto­rinesse. For none usually are more pragmaticall, busie, and bold, then they that are most ignorant;1 Tim. 1.13. none more desirous to teach others, ther they that understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirme; none so unruly and hard to have their mouthes stopped, perverting whole houses, by teaching those things which they ought not, as those that are but vaine talkers, and meere de­ceivers, when they come to bee tryed. Christians should try the Spirits, whether they be of God or no, not beleeving a tenent forthwith, because men come with it to us,1 Joh. 4.1. under a pretence [Page 102] of love,2 Cor. 11.13, 14, 15. zeale, humility, &c. Seeing Satan can change himselfe into the liknesse of an Angell of light, and his Ministers are taught his art. God hath given us his word as a touchstone, that we may try all things and hold fast that w^ch is good. He hath appointed the Ministers & Ministery of his word to this end, that we may not be henceforth such children,Eph. 4.11, 12, 14. as to be carryed about with every wind of vaine doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftinesse whereby they lie in waite to deceive; and seldome doe we see any insnared in these, and such like errors, till they leave the Mini­stery of the word; the speciall meanes which God hath appointed to prevent them. It is true all Christians ought to make tryall of their tenets, practise and worship, and not take them up meerely of custome, because they are generally received. But it is not safe for people to leave the Ministery of the word, and hearken to none but those that wil humour them in their opiniōs & say as they say. It is an argument that peoples opinions and practises are workes of darknesse, when they refuse to come to the light to have them tryed. How miserably may Satan and his instruments abuse silly soules, if they can perswade them to come into no company, but such where they may be confirmed in their errours? I would in­treat such to take heede lest being drawn to renounce their Bap­tisme received in infancie (which is the drift of these men, by per­swading them that it is no Baptisme) and keeping their Children unbaptized, they cast themselves and their posterity out of Cove­nant, reject God the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost, to whom they were consecrated in Baptisme by their parents, and so cast a­way their Christianity, their soules and salvation all at once; and not onely their owne, but their posterities too. It cannot but bee very offensive to God, whereas he hath offered himselfe to be our God from our infancy, and taken us into his family, having made the promise and covenant to our parents and us their children, and sealed the same Covenant to us, and really bestowed on us (at least some of us, and is ready to bestow on us all if we be not wanting to our selves) what was in Baptisme sealed, namely remission of sinnes, regeneration, and the spirit of adoptions; if all this notwith­standing we shall hearken to the enemy of Gods glorious grace and our soules greatest comfort, perswading us that neither wee were in Covenant with God, in our infancy, by vertue of the Covenant made with our parents; neither our children in any bet­ter condition then the children of Turkes and Pagans, untill the [Page 103] time of actuall faith. If we set so little by Gods ancient mercies conveyed to our parents and us successively, for many generati­ons, according to his mercifull promise and covenant; let us take heede, lest wee provoke him to cast us off, and give us over to strong delusions, because we have followed lying vanities, and for­saken our owne mercies.

Secondly, seeing the children of the faithfull have right to the promises of those blessings which are sealed in Baptisme, and not onely the beleeving Governours of families themselves, but al­so the whole families were baptized, the children of the faithfull are holy, within covenant and have right to Baptisme, as well as infants in the Iewish Church had right to Circumcision; upon which and the like grounds it hath beene proved that they ought to be baptized: This should call upon Christian parents that have or shall dedicate their children to God in Baptisme, and all the posterity of the faithfull that have beene consecrated to God in their infancy by Baptisme, both highly to esteeme this priviledge and ancient faederall mercy of God; so that they doe not suffer themselves to bee cheated of it by impostors: And so thankfully, holily and fruitfully to use it, that it may be a meanes to strengthen their faith, and confirme them in the assurance of Gods love, and a speciall spurre to holinesse, and curbe to restraine from profane­nesse; and by all meanes take heede of so abusing it, that it should be an occasion of Gods dishonor (by causing this holy ordinance to be blasphemed,) the offence & stumbling of others, and their own greater condemnation. And this they should the rather look unto:

First, because so many Christians by profession bring their chil­dren to baptisme meerly of custom; neither regarding the grounds on which, nor the end for which, nor the manner how, they ought to do this; neither considering the mercies which God offers to them, and their children, in this sacred ordinance, nor yet the duties whereunto they and their children are herein obliged; as if Gods ordinances whereunto he cals us, the priviledges which he bestowes on us, and the duties whereunto he bindes us were but matters of fashion or sport. And in like manner, many when they come to yeares of discretion, no more regard their baptisme then a trifle, hardly so much as inquiring, why they were baptized.

Secondly, because as the Apostle said of circumcision,Rom. 2.25. that it became no circumcision, if men kept not the Law: so may I say, Baptisme becomes no baptisme to those which walke not accor­ding [Page 104] to the Gospel. Let us not thinke that the meere worke done makes us sufficient Christians. If men perswade themselves they may live ignorantly, profanely, and carnally; and yet hope to be saved, because they have been baptized; let them read 1 Cor. 10. vers. 1. to the 12. for confutation of their errour, and discovery of the dangerousnesse and damnablenesse of that opinion.

Thirdly, as the name of God was blasphemed by the Gentiles, through the vicious lives of the Iews,Rom. 2.24. who were by circumcision consecrated to God, and made his people by profession: so is God, and Christ blasphemed, and this holy Ordinance of Ba­ptisme spoken evill of, by occasion of the wickednesse of many that have beene baptized. For not to speake of the blasphemy of Turkes, Pagans, and Papists, cast upon the Christian Religion, for the profanenesse of Protestants; doe not we heare that some hence make bold to speak evill of the Baptisme of Children, as if it were the cause of all profanenesse and impietie that is in the Church? which though it be a most false calumnie, (and I know not how it can be excused from blasphemy;) For are not many of those that were baptized in infancie, pious, wise, and garcious Chrstians? How can baptisme then in infancie be the cause of profanenesse; seeing where the cause is, it produceth the effect? Were not there among the Iewes as many profane, ignorant, and disordered persons, as among us? shall men say, that circumcising their children in infancie was the cause of it? that were plaine blasphemie. Was there not notorious profanenesse in the Primi­tive Church, as among the Corinthians, &c. Was baptisme, whe­ther of infants, (which yet I thinke they will not say) or of pro­fessours of faith and repentance, the cause of it? This imputation a Christian eare will abhorre. Is not the word of God a savour of death and occasion of hardning to some? the Sacrament of the Lords Supper an occasion to some of temporall and spirituall judgements? Yet what Christian dare say, that these are the causes of sinnes in the Church? Yet I say, though this be a false and wicked imputation, that the baptizing of infants, is the cause of evils in the Church: let them looke to it that give occasion of such blasphemy.

Fourthly, all Christians should be stirred up the rather to make a good improvement of this priviledge of Christian parents, in having God not onely for their God, but also for the God of their children; and so of the baptizing of their children, because we see [Page 105] Satan so busie to rob them of this most comfortable doctrine, and precious priviledge, concerning childrens being in covenant, by vertue of the covenant made with their parents; and so to drive Christians to renounce their baptisme received in infancy, and disswade them from tendering their children to God in baptisme, and so to overthrow a maine ground of our comfort in Gods an­cient love to us, and a speciall motive to obedience.

Fifthly, in a word; If we doe not prize, and profit by this an­cient love of God to us, which he hath shewed us from our birth, in taking us into externall covenant, wherein he is ready to be­stow the internall blessings: If we doe not take God for our God, repent of sinne, and beleeve in Christ, according to the obligation of the covenant of grace, that was sealed to us in baptisme: If the baptized doe not give up themselves to God actually in their own persons when they come to yeers of discretion: And if parents be not carefull to bring up their children, whom they have pre­sented to God in baptisme; we must know that all these mercies of God offered unto us; all the professions of faith and obedience we have made, will rise up in judgement against us and in­crease our condemnation, above the condemnation of those that never were in outward covenant. Other men are not so fast tied unto God as we that are baptized, who are now, no more our owne, but Gods tied unto him by covenant, which if we breake, it will be to our greatest perill.

If it be demanded wherein this dutie of highly prizing, and holily improving this priviledge of baptisme in infancie consists? I answer.

First, we should labour to be well instructed and settled in the grounds of this action, viz. baptizing infants, which are Gods gra­cious covenant and promise, &c. as hath been shewed before; that we may give a reason of our being baptized in infancie. That seeing our priviledge bestowed by God, we may not suffer our selves to be sophisticated out of it by any; so as to be driven from our hold in the covenant of mercy, which God hath made to us and ours. To this end we should solidly study the doctrine of Grace and of Baptisme, and those Arguments that have beene be­fore handled. The reason why we so easily be driven by tempta­tions from faith, and obedience, duties, and priviledges; is be­cause we doe not well meditate on, and throughly digest the grounds thereof. But when we are well and throughly perswa­ded [Page 106] on Scripture grounds, that this is a dutie enjoyned, and a pri­viledge bestowed by God, we shall see there is cause to contend for the faith delivered to the Saints, Iud. 3.

Secondly, let parents looke that they offer up their children to God in baptisme, with faith, prayer, and unfeigned purpose of heart to consecrate them wholly unto God. And that they may make it appeare that they doe so indeed, let them look that they give up themselves unto God in holy obedience, repentance and faith, praying earnestly for their children; and when they be ca­pable of instruction, let them give them good example, bring them up in the feare and instruction of the Lord, putting them in minde of the covenant whereinto God hath taken them, and use all holy meanes to bring them to actuall faith, and holinesse; and let them know that this is a necessary dutie required at their hand, whereunto (at least implicitly) they obliged themselves, when they tendred their children to baptisme, wherein they may not be negligent without grievous sinne of disobedience to, and mocking of God, and most heinous injurie, and dangerous hazard to their owne and their childrens soules, Deut. 6.7. Prov. 4.4. Ephes 6.4.

Thirdly, all those that have beene baptized, remembring that now they are not their owne, but given up to God in the co­venant of grace, and solemnly tendred to his Majesty in this sacred Ordinance of Baptisme in the presence of the Angels, and the congregation of the faithfull, (which act of their parents was not arbitrary, but necessary; and that whereunto they were absolute­ly bound by Covenant, viz. to take God for their God, and the God of their children; and give up themselves and their children to God) All Christians, I say, considering this that they were given up unto God in baptisme, and that God graciously tooke them into covenant, and admitted them into his family, before they knew the right hand from the left, must (so soone as they are able to doe a morall act) give up themselves unto God in their owne persons, voluntarily, and gladly assenting unto, and ratifying that covenant which their parents entred into in their behalfe; seeing it is not now in their owne choyce to be of what Religion or conversation they will. They are bound to be Christians and Saints, and that not onely by vertue of the creation, preservati­on, and redemption which God hath wrought for men: but al­so, by solemne promise, vow, and covenant. Insomuch as those [Page 107] who having beene baptized, live in wilfull ignorance, superstition, unbeliefe, profanenesse, covetousnesse, following the lusts of the flesh, continue all that while in most treacherous breach of co­venant, and rebellion against God, whose servants they have bound themselves to be, and yet serve his sworne enemies; namely, the devill and their owne lusts. So that they have not onely forfeited their bonds, and deserved for ever to be deprived of all those glo­rious and incomprehensible benefits contained in the covenant of grace: but also have deserved to be dealt with as perfidious Apo­states, and traiterous revolters from their Lord and King. Which breach of Covenant, though the Lord will not impute to those which seasonably, heartily, and sincerely repent, when they come to see what they have done (for they are in a covenant of grace which admitteth repentance:) yet when people come to con­sider how they have sinned against God in this kinde, must be the more humbled by this consideration, that so many yeares after they were consecrated unto God, they dealt traiterously and re­belliously against him; and for the future be the more carefull to redeeme the time, and by so much more diligently and zealously to honour him for ever after, by how much carelesse and loose they have beene before. But they that doe not thus repent, and take care to keepe touch with God, shall know to their woe,Gal. 6.7. that God will not be mocked; and that it had been better many waies never to have beene baptized, or heard of the covenant of grace,Eccles. 5.4, 5. 2 Pet. 2.21. then to live wickedly and impenitently in a profession of Chri­stianitie. Let Christian parents whet these and such like conside­rations on their children; yea let all Christians from the youngest that are capable to the oldest, whet them on themselves, and one on another, that they may be stirred up to give up themselves wholly and really to God.

Fourthly, whensoever Christians finde themselves tempted to sinne, or drawne from holinesse, inclined to loosenesse, or backward to good duties: let them looke backward unto their baptisme, and their consecration unto God, and their abrenuncia­tion of the world, and the devil, transacted therein: and remem­ber that they were buried with Christ in baptisme, and professed a death unto sinne, and a resurrection to holinesse, so that now it were a monstrous and absurd thing to live in sinne, as for a dead man to rise, or a living man to lie in the grave. Remember you are not your owne, but Christs, who is your Lord and Master, and [Page 108] so resolve to continue still doing his worke, and resisting his and your soules enemies. Thus the Apostle teacheth us from ba­ptisme to fetch arguments of sanctification, both for the mortify­ing of our corruption, and for the quickning of us to holinesse, Rom. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, &c.

Fifthly, In times of doubt, desertion, temptation to distrust, &c. Christians should have recourse to the consideration of their baptisme, and remember the ancient love of God to them in their infancy, in taking them into his family, and undertaking to be their God in baptisme, wherein the whole Trinitie, Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, became ours, giving us under seale assurance of pardon, and peace, direction and support, perseverance and salvation. So that let our temptations, miseries, and discomforts, be what they will; if we can but cast our eye back on baptisme, and the covenant of grace sealed therein, we may gather strong consolation therefrom. And if we can in these and such like parti­culars testifie our prizing and improvement of our baptisme, we shall not easily be cheated of it, or drawne to question whether we were ever truly baptized, seeing we daily find the comfort­able fruits and effects thereof: not shall we give occasion to others to queston whether our Infant baptisme were true baptisme, when we give a reall demonstration to them that by vertue of the covenant of grace sealed therein unto us, we walke as Christians in all holy conversation.

Sixthly, this may serve to stirre up the Ministers of Christ, (a­mong whom I professe my selfe the meanest and unworthiest of any) that seeing there are so many pragmaticall deceivers abroad to seduce Gods people, not afraid to call in question well-grounded truths, buzzing into the eares of the simple, such things as tend to the overthrow of Christian consolation and chearfull obedience; speaking perverse things, by which they overturne whole houses: This, I say, should stirre us up if there be any con­science of our owne weightie duty, and dreadfull charge, any sparke of compassion to mens soules, love to the truth, or zeale for Gods glory, to endeavour to prevent the inundation of er­rours, rents, distractions, licentiousnesse and profanenesse that will unavoidably follow, upon the plucking up of these flood­gates, to the overflowing of the Church, if some speedy remedy be not applied, which belongs to the Ministers of Christ princi­pally: should it not grieve us to heare this holy function of the [Page 109] Ministery, spoke of so disdainfully (as it is in this Pamphlet an­swered) as if our Ministers were but a company of ignorant, co­vetous, and ambitious men. And oh would, too great occasion of this imputation were not given, by too many of our Ministers! Woe to the world, (saith Christ) because of offences;Luk. 17.1, 2. but woo to them by whom offences come. They that runne into these errours of Anabaptisme by occasion of the badnesse of some Mi­nisters, shall not thereby be excused, nor escape the woe, unlesse they repent: But it had beene better for those men, never to have meddled with the Ministery; yea to have beene throwne into the bottome of the sea, with a milstone about their necks, when they undertooke the charge of soules, who by their ignorance, lazinesse, covetousnesse, pride, and superstition, have given occasion unto some to raile on our Ministery, as Antichristian. And it is apparent that these errours are growne so rife and over-spreading through the silencing of good Ministers and setting up and maintaining of such as have beene carelesse and scandalous. Therefore it greatly concerns all good Ministers to seek a remedie to this evill,1 Tim. 4.15. 2 Tim. 2.15. 2 Tim. 4.2. by gi­ving attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine. To study to shew themselves approved workmen of God, that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth; yea to preach the word in season, and out of season; rebuking and reproving, and exhorting with all long-suffering and doctrine, seeing the time is come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but after their owne lusts, heape to themselves Teachers having itching eares. If ever they had need, (tis now) to hold fast the faithfull word, that they may be able by sound doctrine, both to exhort,Tit. 1.9, 10, 11. and convince the gain-sayers. Because there are many unruly vaine-talkers, and deceivers, whose mouthes must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not. There is great need that Ministers should take heed to them­selves,Act. 20.28, 29, 30. & to the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them Overseers, to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud; seeing grievous wolves are entred among us, not sparing the flock; and from among our selves are men risen which speak perverse things to draw disciples after them. These exhortations of the holy Ghost, and many more in Scri­pture to call us to our dutie, were never more seasonable and ne­cessary. In obedience to which charges of God, let us therefore by painfull studie, constant preaching, fervent prayer, and holy [Page 110] conversation, fit our selves for, employ our selves in, and procure authoritie to, the work of the Ministery, that we may be free from the bloud of all men, and that the people may be no more as children carried about with every winde of doctrine; nor for want of plenty of pure streames, be forced to drink up the puddle waters of errours and delusions.

Lastly, The consideration of the pragmaticalnesse of many in these dayes, to impoyson the mindes, and trouble the hearts of Gods people, with strange doctrines and dangerous errours; who doe not onely creepe into houses to pervert the simple, but also are so bold as to divulge their opinions to the danger of many souls, as it appeareth by this Pamphlet answered, and the effects it hath wrought: The consideration, I say, of the boldnesse of such persons, and of the distractions and unsettlednesse of the hearts of Gods people by occasion thereof, should stirre us up every one in his place, to doe what we can for applying a remedy to this miserable distraction and spreading sore. Let us receive the truth in the love thereof,2 Thess. 2.10, 11. 1 Joh. 4.1. lest God be provoked to give us o­ver to strong delusions to beleeve lyes. Let us not be so fond as to beleeve every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. Let us labour for soundnesse of judgement, that we may discern between things that differ. But especially, that we may procure a generall remedy not onely for our selves, but for our whole kingdome also. Let us by our repentance, and prayers, and all pi­ous endeavours, religious and civill, help our Religious, Honora­ble, (and with all praise and thankfulnesse to God ever to be men­tioned) Parliament, into whose gracious hearts the Lord hath put a sincere desire, and stirred up to expresse an holy resolution of endeavouring to finde out a remedy to this evill, that their ho­ly endeavours may be blessed.

1 First, earnestly craving of God, That as he hath been plea­sed so farre to honour the Honourable Assemblies endeavours, and his poore peoples prayers, as to call together an Assembly of Gods faithfull Ministers, being men of approved pietie, sinceritie and abilitie: so he would vouchsafe to stirre them up, direct and inable them, in the feare of God, without prejudice, by the Rule of the Scripture, to examine all sorts of tenents that are contro­verted in the Church, giving libertie to every one that hath any thing to say for the truth (though but in pretence) to speak their minde freely; that so Gods truth being cleared, and established, [Page 111] and errour unmasked and suppressed, Gods peoples hearts may be quieted. That this means is likely by the blessing of God to prove effectuall, if our sinnes doe not hinder and deprive us of it and its expected blessing, may appeare by Christs promises Matt. 18.18, 19, 20. and the Apostles practise together with the Pri­mitive Church, Act. 15.1, 2, 3. to 32.

2 Secondly, Let us penitently, humbly and heartily crave of God, his blessing on his servants endeavours, for the settling of an able, painfull, and godly Ministery in this Land, and rooting out of the ignorant, idle, and scandalous Ministery, (seeing the abounding of this, and the want of that, hath been a principall cause of igno­rance, errour, Popery, Separation, and Anabaptisme in the Land.) That every Congregation being furnished through Gods mercy (if we may be accounted worthy such an happinesse) with a faithfull Ministery, and Gods pure Ordinances, might be faith­fully instructed in the truth of God: So that all Superstition and Reliques of Popery on the one side being rooted out, and all phantasticall opinions on the other side, confuted and exploded, Gods people may be guided in the even and cleare way to hea­ven; so that they may neither turne to the right hand nor to the left.

3 Thirdly, We ought by our prayers, Repentance and all holy endeavours to promote and help forward that Religious designe of settling Church Government,1 Tim. 1.4. Rev. 2.2. and the Discipline of Iesus Christ amongst us. That an Authoritative charge may be laid on them that bring in strange doctrine, that they proceed not to disturbe the Church. And those which say they are Apostles but are not, may be found lyers. That by it all truth, pietie, and since­ritie, may be established, approved, and maintained, with all means furthering the same. And that all things that tend to the maintaining of superstition, profanenesse, and ignorance, and oc­casioning of divisions, jarres, and separations, may be removed. That these things have been, and still are intended and laboured for, by that Honourable and Gracious Councell, and that Religi­ous and Learned Assembly, we have had large testimonies. It remaines, that we finde out and remove (as much as lyes in us) what hinders such a mercy, most humbly and earnestly intreating our gracious God, on whose blessings depends the successe of all holy endeavours, and in whose hands are the hearts of all men: That he will still prosper the labours of his servants, and stirre up [Page 112] the hearts of those whose concurrence in this most Christian de­signe is of great concernment, to joyne with them, and further them therein: and remove out of the way whatsoever are the impediments thereof.1 Cor. 1.10. That so occasions of divisions being re­moved, we may be perfectly joyned together in the same minde, and in the same judgement,Eph. 4.3. and 12, 13, 14, 15. in the truth. Endeavouring to keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace. That so the body of Christ may be edified; till we come in the unitie of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carryed about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftinesse, whereby they lye in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up in him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghost, three Persons, but one onely wise God our Saviour, be all Glory, and Majestie, Domi­nion and Power, now and ever. AMEN.