FOr the orderly proceeding in the discovery there­of, I shall endeavour to shew,

• 1. That Mr. Baxters title to his book is imper­tinent.
• 2. His exposition of Christs commission, is er­roneous.
• 3. His Arguments, whereby he would prove in­fant-baptism, are groundless.
• 4. And that he hath contradicted himself, in speaking evil of the Ordinance of Baptism.

1. That the Title of his book, Plain Scripture-proof for Infant-baptism, &c. is impertinent, Mr. Baxter cannot but very well (I suppose) know, that Mr. Rogers, Art. 27. confesseth that the Church of England doth not pretend any plain or express Scripture-proof for Infant-baptism; and that he himself hath produced nothing but consequences, which he hath hammered out up­on the Anvil of Logical Arguments; and that he hath left it so mysterious [Page 2] and difficult, that it is not made so plain, that he that runs may read; or that he can tell us, in all the Scripture, in what chapter and verse we may finde any thing, plainly or expresly spoken for Infant-baptism: though on the con­trary, we have plain Scripture-proof, or the command and example of Christ and his Apostles, for the baptism of believers onely. Neither hath Mr. B. for all his distinctions, dispelled the darkness, or opened the difficulty, con­cerning infants sprinkling, which hath brought in all the smoke into the Tem­ple: And therefore I cannot imagine why Mr. B. should three hundred four­ty and six times print his Title, Plain Scripture-proof, &c. except he had some designe to satisfie the gazing multitude, to sacrifice to his net, as the Atheni­ans were moved, upon the inscription upon the Altar, to prostrate themselves to superstition: And therefore this title, Plain Scripture-proof, &c. proves like blue and yellow flowers, making a greater flourish, then they are any way advantageous to the reaper. For the true discovery thereof, let us see what Divinity may be found in Mr. Baxter's exposition of Christs commission for Baptism.

Answ. That, as a Scholar, he hath ingenuously acknowledged the origi­nal, Go ye therefore and disciple unto me, that is, Go and teach, I do agree with him; and so I shall, if with the like ingenuity he appear in the interpreta­tion of the words, thus rightly translated unto us.

Answ. If Mr. B. had gone the plain way to worke, as his title so often proclaimeth, then he would have lightned one candle by another, the first being lightned from the fire of the Altar; I mean, he would have explained the Scripture, or commission of Baptism, by some other Scripture: but fail­ing herein, he hath supplyed the want with Logical distinctions, a strange voice which the sheep cannot hear; and therefore, as not acquainted with conditionaliter, and effective, they cannot give the right hand of fellowship to Mr. B's (as being none of Christs) disciple: and therefore while I had thought to have returned an answer to those distinctions, Mr. B. having re­conciled himself, in telling us what disciple he will pitch upon in his next cha­pter, there you may expect a further discovery.

Answ. If this be the Disciple you pitch upon, out of the great choice that you afforded us, Its strange that Christ that is most glorious in all his works, and in whom the Saints are compleat, should command to baptize an incompleat Disciple; truly, M. B. it were well you had found some other [Page 3] master for him, and not Christ; As if Christ should say, Go and make incom­pleat Disciples, which indeed is no less then an implicite contradiction, all being compleat in Christ, Col. 2.10. And I wonder M. B. should think a Child an incompleat Disciple, if he will walk by his own pretended light, in that p. 132. he saith, that indirectly, and remotely, the discipling of the parent is the discipling of the seed, and yet the seed for all this, though upon his ac­count it be twice discipled, yet it is still incompleat, and will be so for all M. B. can do, though he had his desire that Children should be cofirmed, that is (to speak plain English) Bishopped, p. 120. And therefore M. B's distinction may suit with the Poets fiction, which by casting of stones cre­ated Disciples, which at first were in compleat or rude, but afterwards, were more compleated: and therefore it would too much savour of partiality, to admit of his Logical distinctions, seeing in stead of expounding, we find the text by M. B. so confounded, and overvailed with blind and imperti­nent distinctions; for indeed to tell you the naked truth, baptisme doth not make a Disciple, or a believer, though believing Disciples so called by grace, ought to be baptized, that is buried, or covered over, or humbled to God in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: so that to be a Disciple, and baptized, are two distinct things, though both are united, or married together in the same Gospel-Ordinance; and therefore M. B. ought not to imagine, as the blind world conceiteth, that baptisme maketh a Disciple or believer, or as they say, a Christian; for to be a believer, and Disciple, is to be a Christian, who as a Christian, he cannot be so adjudged, except he be baptized: And therefore all the course that M. B. taketh, in sprinkling or pouring water upon the face of the Child, will not do the feat. Neither can that which M. B. saith p. 14. be approved of, that the matter of a Disciple in a natural way is nothing, but our being, be granted him, for if by nature, or as we have a natural being, we are Disciples, then the worke is done to our hand, and Christ might have saved his Disciples a great deal of labour in commanding them, first to disciple, by teaching; and then to baptize: And if by nature, or our being, we have that miracu­lous priviledge, why are we called by nature the Children of disobedience? so that for any thing I can find, as none of M. B's distinctions are proved by Scripture, he cannot prove that his incompleat disciple, either in matter, or forme, is the taught Disciple, that is commanded by Christ to be bap­tized. And therefore I would not have troubled my self any further, but that I find M. B. so averse against the way of discipling according to the ex­press command of Christ in his text, which he pretendeth to explain unto us, as like the envious man, he denies his own discipling, saying, He was discipled by education, p▪ 133. whereby he puts out both of his own eyes, whereby we might lose one of our eyes, or he might have a sandy founda­tion, to raise an argument against discipling by teaching: therefore I have this further to tell him, If education made him a Disciple, then baptisme did not: and questionless, if he were well educated, he heard the word, and was Timothy like taught the Scriptures of a Child, which through the Spririt of grace are able to make us wise unto salvation: and though a [Page 4] work of grace cannot be discovered, yet all education, and knowledge, and waiting, are little enough; or it is but the means that God hath appointed for discipling, and yet with M. B's leave, whatsoever he thinks, yet we judge in the rule of truth, that to attain to common knowledge of the out­ward profession of Christ, doth not make a Disciple, except the day-star hath so risen in his heart, and his judgement be so brought unto victory, that he, as is prophesied, Psal. 110.4. be willing as well as able, in the day of power to submit, as called, or desire as the Eunuch did in his own person to be bap­tized: till this work be wrought, we judge one is not (as before baptism they ought to be) fully discipled: for such a discipling as M. B. speaketh of, unto which he had attained by education, suits with or may shake hands with his incompleat Disciple; And therefore if the Disciples of John, being igno­rant of the holy Ghost, were discipled again, and rebaptized, for any thing I can see, the work through disaffection is not so compleat, but that Pris­cilla and Aquila may schoole great Apollo, and most may learn to be Disci­ples; seeing the incompleat Disciple, which M. B. speaketh of in his in­terpretation, or rather prevarication of the commission of Christ, cannot be approved of. And here M. B. giving over his text, I mean, speaking no more of it then of the first words, Go and disciple, he not as I expected proceeding to baptize them, therefore in regard our difference lieth very much concerning the right use of the element of water, which by sprinkling, &c. is not observed; that I may therefore shew the mind of Christ, it being my desire to give satisfaction to my Neighbours, &c. where M. B. left off, I shall therefore proceed to interpret the Text, [And baptizing them] that is, first disciple by teaching, and baptize them, that is, do not pour or sprinkle a little water in the face of the Child, or partially dip in the head with the heels upwards, for this is not to baptize, nor is the Child the Disciple that is to be baptized, but the Text tells you whom you must baptize; that is, baptize those that are by teaching first discipled, so that their bodies may be buried, or covered over, and humbled upon the acknowledgement of faith and obedience, or upon the pronouncing, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, &c. in the lowest element of water prostrated, Abraham-like, before the presence of his Infinite grace and glory. Thus Christ himself being baptized, and praying, was prostrated with lowest subjection: and therefore its no marvell M. B. was silent in speaking of baptisme, for indeed this contradicting practice in sprinkling or pouring water upon the face of the Child, would not give liberty to make a handsome interpretation, with application to a Child, concerning bapti­zing, or the right use of water in baptisme. To leave then the interpre­tation of which M. B. was silent, let us return to see his Arguments, which from his unwarranted distinctions he indeavours to make his incompleat Disciple to be baptized.

Answ. If Mr. B. had kept to his text, he would not have made this Argu­ment; the minor whereof I deny, that Infants are Christs disciples, until, as the text sayth, they be by teaching made disciples. And yet Mr. Baxter so laboureth to make children disciples, that when the text faileth, he is resolved it seems, by Logical Fallacies, and wrested Scriptures, to try what can be done; and therefore thus further argueth:

Answ. That the fallacie in the minor Proposition may appear, the light that shineth Acts 15.1. compared with verse 10. will fully discover, that false teachers did endeavour to pervert the brethren to be circumcised, Act. 15.10. which said brethren were called disciples, not by Circumcision: And there­fore, that false teachers would have had the disciples, which from Baptism were called disciples, to have been circumcised, this proves nothing to make children disciples. If therefore they that pin their faith on Mr. B's sleeve, will not wilfully close their eyes, they may see, that Mr. Baxter, in stead of producing Scripture to prove a childe a disciple, it proves to be the bre­thren which had been baptized, which were called disciples, whom false bre­thren would have seduced to be circumcised, Act. 15.1, 10. upon which at­tempt, or the tampering of the false teachers, with the brethren which were disciples, Mr. B. catcheth hold of a shadow, or wrested consequence, to make a child a disciple. As if a Preacher were seduced, as some disciples were, to be circumcised; therefore all that are circumcised must be Preachers, or disci­ples. And that the fallacy may now clearly be discovered, take this Argument:

• Those that the brethren would have converted, are Jewish Rabbies, and Popish Priests.
• But the Brethren would have Children converted:
• Ergo, some children are Jewish Rabbies and Popish Priests.

Therefore, my dear friends that know not Logick, and yet have boasted of Mr. Baxter's Arguments, you may see, if you please, that as there is a fallacie a dictu simpliciter, ad dictum secundum quid, in this Argument, where­by children seem to be proved Rabbies, and Popish Priests: so the like fal­lacie is in Mr. B's Argument, whereby he would, from false teachers attem­pting to circumcise Christians, which are called disciples, conclude from thence that children may be called disciples. And now, behold the Scri­ptures fulfilled; He taketh the wise in their own craftiness, Job 5.13. in that those that are of contrary judgement, would not, till of late, grant that none but a disciple should be baptized: and now not being able to prove their children disciples, nay, not so much as an incompleat disciple, must therefore, if they will make conscience to submit to the command of Christ, let their children & themselves stay until they bed iscipled, that so they may be baptized; and so the controversie may be ended, and, according to the intention of Christ, all Christians may be united, in the Gospel-profession of the Ordinance of Baptism.

[Page 6]And yet Mr. B. to back out or strengthen his Argument, produceth seve­ral Reasons, to prove a childe a disciple.

Mr. B. [...]. ‘Because children are partakers of Gods protection.’

To which I answer, That God, as God of providence, to children and all creatures, making his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, doth not make children and all creatures disciples, whose duties is to learn to know and follow the said God which is so good and merciful, in learning to know God, and following of God, and in not being protected by God, are called disciples, Matth. 16.24.

2. Mr. B. sayth, ‘Children are devoted to learning, therefore they may be disci­ples.’

Answ. Though children be devoted to learning, and may learn, yet I hope Mr. B. would not have them to commence before their time; nor upon this account, while they are a learning, and the seeds of a disciple sown in them, reap the corn, before it be grown up, and white unto the harvest.

Answ. To aske the reason of God thus in point of salvation, why hast hast thou made me so? is liable to that reproof, which upon the like account Paul said, What art thou O man, that that thou repliest against God? hath not Christ already told Mr. B. That he that will be his Disciple, must deny himself, take up his Cross and follow him? Mat. 16.14. must not every thing be as God hath determined by his will, and not as the thing is capable? for so a poor man is capable to be rich, and a sick man to be healthfull, and yet while poor and sick, they are not said to be rich and healthfull: but to an­swer Mr. B. datur tertium, a Child cannot be a Disciple, because it is an implicite contradiction, as to say a wise fool, for a Disciple is not a Child, nor a Child a Disciple: and besides, that Disciple which is to be baptized, must not be hid or secret, but man must so see and judge of him, as from full satisfaction proceed to baptize him, when by teaching the party is discipled; and therefore God in his wisedome, that giveth every thing its name, doth not approve of calling a Child a Disciple, neither can bap­tisme make a Child or any man a Disciple: how would Mr. B. then make a Child a Disciple, but because by grace as any is taught to profess to follow Christ, and is so discipled as a Disciple, and as a believer, we do baptize them? Thus having answered Mr. B. first Argument, and reasons whereby he would have proved a Child a Disciple, his enterprize failing to prove a Child a Disciple, to make work for Poedo-baptisme, he produceth this his second Argument.

[Page 7] Answ. Of this second Argument, Mr. B. giveth this superlative encomium, that this is his chief: but believe me, if he could have made his first Argu­ment good, whereby a Child might have been discipled, he then had had commission for what he had said; and therefore he failing to make his in­compleat disciple to be baptized, he would now see what he can do to make a consequence from his first Argument, whereof this second is but a shadow: for if Children be not Disciples, they can be no members of the Church visi­ble: but they are not Disciples; for indeed, to be a disciple, a member of a visible Church, differeth no more, then that a man that intendeth to list him­self to be a Souldier, and is approved of, onely wanteth an opportunity to have his admission or approbation: so a Disciple, as soon as he declares him­self, and is willing to yeild himself up to serve God with his Saints, is made a visible Church-member: but that this work of wonder did ever appear in Infants, that they were ever heard thus to declare their good affection to the government of Christs church, I never yet heard; and as soon as I hear them, I will submit to Mr. B's. Arguments, and say, that those Children thus decla­ring themselves for Christ and his Church, must needs be admitted visible Church-members: but till this appear visibly, I desire Mr. B. would content to forbear to intrude them, since Christs commission will not give leave for such to be baptized, in his name, that know not Christ, or yet have not named him; and yet Mr. B. to prove his second Argument, forgetting his promise, that he would not meddle with other mens Arguments, hath scraped up all the thred­bar'd impertinent consequences, that any before had pretended, to have blocked up the mouth of the Cannon, or to make the worke more tedious to gain-say or oppose him: while therefore I was intending to have lighted a Candle to have discovered, or rather dispelled this great cloud of darkness, Providence so ordered it, that a book, intituled A Christian, sober, and plaine Exercitation on two grand practical controversies of this time, Baptisme and singing of Psalmes, writen by C. Sidenham teacher to a Church of Christ in New-castle, being brought unto me, and I finding upon perusal thereof, that it treated as sufficiently of all Mr. Baxters consequences, and with no less advantage to his cause; and in that Mr. Sidenham with his party, hath as powerfull an influence to stop an ear; Therefore I thought that I might bear better testimony to the truth, to, answer Mr. Baxter, in Mr. Sidenhams booke: in which way I take no more liberty then he hath done with the right worthy and Apostolical Mr. Tombes. And yet before I proceed, ac­cording to my promise, I desire to hint something to Mr. Baxter, upon the fourth particular, which I first mentioned.

4. That Mr. B. hath contradicted himself in speaking evill of the Ordi­nance of Baptisme, as by his two Arguments will appear, is to be disco­vered.

[Page 8] Answ. It is impossible that an effectually called Child of God, can raise this Argument, without check of conscience or contradiction, he approving of the way of baptisme in Brasill, and yet in his Argument contradicts the same practise of Christ, upon the pretence of the cold climate, and custome of the Country. Alas, Alas, this needs no answer: for hereby the Scripture is experienced, their o [...]n [...]ongues shall make them fall, or at least Mr. B. I hope is ashamed, or may be ashamed of this cavilling scandalous Argument, in ma­king a Christians submission to the Ordinance of Christ a hainous sin, and in telling us it is good for nothing but to dispatch men out of the world, and to ripen Church-yards, these be his words. What if he had lived in the time of circumcision? he that can dispence to prevaricate Christs command in bap­tisme, by pouring a little water, or sprinkling a Childs face with two or three drops of water, certainly, if acted with the same Spirit, he would have thought the ripple of a pin, or a drop or two of blood to be spilt, to have been suffici­ent to have answered the command in circumcision.

Mr. Baxter 2 Argument.

Answ. I am ashamed to name Mr. Baxters lightness in mentioning (upon supposition onely) the Maids of Bewdley, though we have no ex­ample for being baptized naked, nor any thing against it: and therefore as an indifferent thing, a Saint may as well be baptized naked, as Saints pro­phesied naked; yet it is well known that Garments with decency are ap­proved of. And will Mr. Baxter argue against an Ordinance, because some probable evill may ensue? why then doth he administer the Lords Supper, seeing probably so administred, many eat and drink their own damnation, not discerning the Lords Body? or why doth he allow of marriage, meat, drink, and apparell, seeing abuse hath been found in them? why doth he therefore upon uncertain conjectures, speak evill of the way of God, in the administration of baptisme? may he not be ashamed thus to contra­dict himself? what is Christs command to be observed in a hot Country, and not in a cold? when were any killed with any one of the diseases that he hath reckoned? though to some thereof baptisme hath been a present remedy.

In regard therefore Mr. Baxter hath so presumptuously, shamelesly, scandalously, and malignantly spoken evill against the express command of Christ, and that very way which Christ had submitted unto, when he like the Eunuch went down and came out of the water after he was bap­tized, I can say no more, but without any acrimony declare my Christian judgement as by the fruits doth appear, that so many Scriptures are fulfil­led in Mr. Baxters self-expressions, that herein he hath like the troubled Sea cast not onely mire and dirt on the face of the Saints, but hath calumniated the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, so that in these two Arguments [Page 9] the smoak in the Temple hath blinded his eyes: and as he is looked upon by the common people, and cried up in defending this practice of popery, the taile of the beast hath strucken him as a starre to the earth, or brought him to a compliance or friendship with the world, where I leave him to God that can raise him, not doubting but if he were further discipled, then by education, he will see that all that he hath spoken against the Ordinance, and renowned Mr. Tombes, as hay and stubble shall suffer burning. How­ever, I leave all men to judge, how unjustly he hath alledged a Child to be a Disciple, and therefore leaving Mr. Baxter, I do friendly betake my self to answer Mr. Sidenham.

Answer. If you will understand nothing in Scripture to be expresly against any thing, except it do by name ex­clude [...]t, then Ships, Bells, and unbelieving Gentiles, &c. are not expresly prohibited to be baptized: for this is repugnant to the wisdom of God and man, to express the prohibiting of any thing by name, when the same thing, as not spoken unto in another thing, is excluded: and therefore when Christ bade Thomas put his finger into his side, Peter and John, they not being [Page 10] Thomas which was spoken unto, without naming of them, were expresly by Christs word prohibited: And so the female, though never named, was ex­presly prohibited, when the male was commanded to be circumcised. Upon the same account, Infants (though not named) are expresly prohibited to be bap­tized, or to partake of the Lords Supper, though thereby the Church is made one body, 1 Cor. 10.26. in that none, but those that have faith, and examine themselves, are commanded to receive the Ordinances, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.16. Acts 8.36, 37. 1 Cor. 11.28. And therefore, as by confession of those that are of contrary judgement, there is express Scripture to keep Children from the Lords supper; so we have express Scripture to keep them from Baptism, until they shall, according to the command of Christ, be discipled, by teach­ing, and shall profess the faith in the Gospel.

Mr. S. endeavouring, pag. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. shewing by divers Reasons, why Con­sequences are to be approved of; to this I answer.

Answ. We do allow of Consequences, provided they be not (as in case of Baptism) brought in to contradict an express command or example of Christ and his Apostles to the contrary. And yet though Mr. S's Consequences be such as oppose the express command of Christ, as not to deny his Plea, for information, and tryal of the Truth, I shall not deny to answer them.

Answ. That the nature of the Covenant should be the foundation-privi­ledge of beleivers and their seed, though I should, as others have, grant him; yet how justly upon triall I conceive it will appear, that the Covenant which Mr. S. and Mr. B. looketh at, if it be truly according to its nature discovered, they will come short of their expectations: for it appears unto me, that the Covenant only relates to temporall promises, in which it had so large extent, that all the Nation claimed it: yea circumcision was a meanes whereby every one was made of the Nation, or endenized, Exod. 12.48. so that the Nation claimed it as their distinguishing fleshly character, Gen. 17.11. being their en­tayl to an earthly inheritance: for the discovery whereof, and that we may see the true rise and motive cause of the institution of this covenant whereof cir­cumcision is a signe, which Mr. S. I suppose would have to be the foundation of the priviledge of believers; thus it appeareth, Gen. 15.1. that God telling Abraham upon his complaint of being childless, and asking God what he would give him, God said, he would multiply his seed as the Starres of Heaven for number, ver. 5. which Abraham believing, it was imputed unto him for righ­teousness, ver. 6. upon which same day God made a Covenant with Abraham, ver. 18. so that Gen. 17.12. God relates again the same covenant with Abra­ham, that his seed, & all that should relate to Abraham, should possess the land of Egypt, & to the great river Euphrates, & therefore as a signe & token of this temporall Covenant, God ordained circumcision as his token thereof betwixt [Page 11] God and his people, Gen. 17.11. and however Mr. S. and Mr. B. &c. have wrested the Scripu [...]e, as I shall by and by shew, in making this temporall Co­venant a Covenant of grace, and as relating unto the admission into the Church, yet I hope fully and clearly to prove the contrary: for as though the Lord would undeceive and satisfie the Jews, why he tooke away the first old Covenant, on which Mr. S. and Mr. B. &c. like the Jews do too much dote, he declareth himself, Heb. 8.7. saying, that if the first Covenant had been good, that is, if it had related to the good of their souls, then there had been found no place for the second, ver. 7. So that the covenant which was taken away, was the covenant of temporal promises, as the contents to Heb. 8. calls it, whereof circumcision was the signe, Gen. 17.11. for the cause that God alleadgeth, why he tooke away the old Covenant, is fully and plainly de­clared, Exod. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. by which it doth appear, that that Co­venant of which circumcision was a token, was abolished in all intents and purposes: and the new Covenant, not made according to the old Covenant, is onely established, Heb. 8.9, 10. and therefore the old Covenant which is abolished, upon which Mr. S. would build a foundation, is fallen to the ground: and how then shall his doctrine for which he hath no foundation, to make the seed of believers Church-members by vertue of the Covenant of which circumcision was a token, be able to stand, seeing it is so absolutely condemned and taken away. M. S's and M. B's consequence for circumcision cannot be admitted of, that Children upon that pretence should have bap­tisme, of which Mr. S. is much mistaken, in that he calleth baptisme the new externall signe, and seal of the Covenant, he having no Scripture to prove what he saith, neither can he prove that baptisme is a seal at all; neither is there any such thing in the covenant, to be signed or sealed, he as conceiteth: Yet,

Answ. First then, and chiefly, I answer, that here is a confounding of things that differ, circumcision being called a Covenant, but figuratively, Gen. 17.10. It being in its own Nature the token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. so that Mr. Sidenham saying, that circumcision is the same in sub­stance with the Covenant in the Gospel, is partly mistaken, as also in com­paring circumcision with baptisme; he being not able to finde any proof in Scripture, that baptisme is either Covenant, or Seal. Secondly, And that circumcision is not the same in substance with the Covenant under the Gospel, Heb. 8 expresly declareth, that when the Covenant whereof cir­cumcision is a token, and the new Covenant, are compared, that the new Covenant is established upon better promises, Heb 8.6. then a temporall inheritance. And yet Mr. Sidenham would have the best of promises in cir­cumcision, as in the next place doth appear, in that he saith, that cir­cumcision was founded on pure grace, and that it was a pure Covenant of grace, Gal. 3.16, 17, 18, 19, 29.

[Page 12] Answ. That it may truly and clearly appear, First, that the Scriptures he produceth, witness against him; And secondly, that he hath not rightly applied them, let us observe,

1. That that which he alleadgeth Gal. 3.16. that the promises were not made to Abrahams seeds, as of many, but as of one, to thy feed, which is Christ: though we take this for Christ mysticall, as Mr. Sidenham would have it, yet here is nothing relating to circumcision, in which, if we mind, it is said, the promises were made not to the seeds, which was of Hagar and strangers, as well as of Isaac, which promise had respect to circumcision: therefore those promises being excluded, which had respect to the seeds of many, there is nothing of circumcision spoken in the 16. ver. but of the promise which relates to Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. and that ver. 17. speaketh nothing of circumcision: there are three things mentioned in the said verse, Covenant, Law, and Promise, the first two whereof, the Covenant, and Law, are onely named, as that they could not, or cannot disannull the Pro­mise, which is made, as I have proved before, unto Abraham, Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. and unto Abrahams seed, which are the children of God, by grace and faith, called to walk in the steps of Abraham, Rom. 4.11, 12. as I shall presently more fully declare: therefore in that God made a gracious pro­mise to Abraham, because Abraham did believe in God when he should have sacrificed his sonne Isaac, therefore this promise hath respect to Gen. 22.18. for you see this is not called a Covenant, but a promise, which was made to Abraham, ver. 16, 17. and therefore that all that is spoken by the Apostle, ver. 18. as is above mentioned, as the verses are alledged by Mr. Sidenham, Gal. 3.16, 17, 18, 19. doth not hold forth any thing to make Mr. Sidenhams pretence, that circumcision is founded on pure grace, or to be a Covenant of pure grace, is fully discovered: And therefore,

2. That in the next place, I may make it appear, that Mr. S. hath not rightly apprehended these Scriptures, in calling circumcision from thence a Covenant of pure grace; This I say, To be founded on pure grace, or that God of his pure grace or good will was pleased to look on Abraham so as to give him a temporal promise, or a seed according to the flesh, is not to be de­nied; yet this makes not the gift to be pure grace: as if God in his pure grace give the wicked meat, drink and cloathing, doth not prove that their meat, drink, and clothing is pure grace. Therefore however circumcision, the signe of temporal mercies, was given on Gods part of his pure grace, it makes not the Covenant to be pure grace, which, as I said, in the contents of the 8. chap. to the Hebrews, is called a Covenant of temporall promises: for all spirituall promises which were made to Abraham, were not by vertue of cir­cumcision, but in that, as the Apostle saith, Gal. 3.8. God foreseeing that he would justifie the Heathen through faith, preached the Gospel unto A­braham, saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed: which words are expresly mentioned, Gen 22.18. and cannot be found Gen. 17. circumcision relating to Nations that should come of Abrahams seed, in which temporall promise the Gentiles had no Interest, but as they submitted to the Jews; There­fore its clear enough, or the Sun cannot shine more clearly, then that [Page 13] the seed of Abraham, being believers, or walking in the steps of Abraham, Gal. 3.7, 9. Rom. 4.12. circumcision the token of a temporall covenant, did not hold forth this spirituall mercy, which God upon Abrahams sacri­ficing of his Sonne, promised Abraham, even to bless all Nations in him, as hath been at large discovered. And therefore that which Mr. Sidenham saith, that the Apostle useth the same expression in Heb. 8.10. where he speaketh of the new Covenant, which was, as Mr. Sidenham pretendeth, used Gen. 17. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; In this he may see how partially he is blasted to favour his own imagination. For first, God doth not onely say, as in Gen. 17. I will be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee, but in the new Covenant he saith not onely, that He will be a God unto them, and they shall be a people unto him: but to shew that this new covenant is upon better promises, God sheweth that he will work a work of grace, even to write his Lawes in their hearts, &c. this God never promised in circumcision: and that God in circumcision did onely (it relating to all the world) promise no more, then to be a God in providence unto them, or to make good his promise or covenant to give them the pro­mised Land, read Levit. 26.44, 45. 2 King. 13.22, 23. and there you shall fully be informed: and therefore you may see, that circumcision is no covenant of pure grace, or equivalent with that new covenant under the Gospel, Heb. 8. which is said to be established upon better promises, ver. 7. which could not be, if Mr. Sidenham might have liberty to exalt it above measure, and plead a false title, or uphold that which by Christ and his Church hath been totally taken away, Heb. 8. Act. 15. And fur­ther, I must tell Mr. Sidenham, which it may be may seem to him strange, that God having made man judge of baptisme, whereby man must look at what is visibly revealed, and not contradict his commission upon the uncertain consequences of secret pretences, therefore the old covenant, as altogether made void and impertinent, is not onely waved, but also the gracious new covenant which is in force, except it should be revealed or manifested, so that through discipling and profession of faith, we could judge of it, (secret things belonging unto God) were no ground or conse­quence of baptisme, nor to proceed upon the promise, Act. 2.38. untill that time that they should be called.

Answ. The first great thing (as Mr. S. is pleased to call it) the nature of the Covenant, his foundation being thrown down, I cannot see how the door of hope, in this third chapter, can have a hinge to hang upon: neither can your opposites, in your sense, acknowledge your distinction, if by spiritual seed you understand the children of believers, before they be, by being cal­led, and made actual believers, made Abraham's seed, in walking in the [Page 14] steps of Abraham, Rom. 4.12, 16. Therefore as the promise was made to A­braham, both the seed and the promise must be distinguished. As Abraham had a natural seed, it was either that which he had of Hagar, called the seed according to the flesh; or of Sarah, called the seed according to the promise, be­cause God gave it by promise: both which seeds spoken of, Gal. 4.23. are both of them to be accounted the seed according to the Law, Rom. 4.16. and so the promise made unto them upon this account, was the Covenant of which Circumcision was a signe; that is to say, temporal promises, Gen. 17. as I have before fully proved.

2. But Abraham hath also a seed of faith, Rom. 4.16. that is, all believers, both of the Circumcision, and of the Gentiles, Rom. 4.12. which as they walk in the steps of Abraham, are the seed of Abraham; he is their father, Rom. 4.12, 16. Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. compared with Psal. 22.23, 30. And therefore if in this sense Mr. S. understand a spiritual seed, which the Scripture calleth a seed of faith, Rom. 4.16. I shall grant him: but if he imagine that the seed of faith came by Circumcision, or that it is, as he saith, Infant-belie­vers, then I deny it: for I do affirm, that the seed of faith came by the pro­mise and oath which God made to Abraham, upon the attempting of sacrifi­cing of his son Isaac, whereby Abraham to be father to the seed of faith, both those that are circumcised, and of the Gentiles, was then promised, Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. compared with Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. Heb. 6.13, 14. So that Mr. S. and I do not so much differ about Abraham's seed in a spiritual relation, which properly called, is Abrahams seed by faith, Rom. 4.16. as we differ, that he would make a spiritual seed by Circumcision, and in Infants, which till they be believers, are not so called: so that Infant-believers as considered to be Infants, were not in covenant, as M.S. pretendeth, further then in that co­venant whereof circumcision was a signe, whereby onely the Infants of Jews, or such as were made Jews by circumcision, had as Abrahams seed the tempo­rall promises, made good unto them, of Canaan, &c. so that here again Mr. S. stumbles upon circumcision: neither had I said this, but that Mr. S. will not let us be quiet. But, which is worse, with reflection upon circumcision, and to get a consequence to maintain the dotage of popery, &c. whereby they hold Chil­dren damned if they be not baptized; Mr. S. thus far further advanceth his cause with hay and stubble, saying, p. 21. there is a secret distinction and veine of election, carried through the administration, which takes hold of some, and not of others; as if the election or promise were made, it should not be effectuall, without that administration: but blessed be God, he hath not produced any Scripture, to sow this piece of old cloth on the new garment of the Gospel: of which I thought to have made a farther discovery, but that circumcision being again brought upon the stage, I am called to answer in that.

Answ. That the vail of flesh, which through circumcision hangs over M.S's eyes, may be removed, that he may look above circumcision, the Scripture may inform him that circumcision is not a seal of the covenant, but it is onely [Page 15] a Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. and though it is called a seal of the righteousness of Abraham, Gen. 15.6. compared with Rom. 4.11. yet this makes not circumcision a seal of the covenant; and if it were, it could not seal more then is in the covenant, that is, temporall mer­cies: and as it was the seal of Abrahams righteousness, which he had before circumcision, and not given by circumcision, Rom. 4.10. with whom the covenant was first made. To this I answer, that circumcision as a seal relating to Abraham, holds forth Gods approbation of Abraham: as signs and miracles did confirm the approbation of the faith of the Apostles, Mark 16.17. and the conversion of the people is the seal or approbation of the Ministery, 1 Cor. 9.2. that therefore every ones faith must be so con­firmed, God not beginning an administration, or not making an originall covenant with them, but doing for Abrahams sake, or chusing these A­postles to be chosen witnesses, is neither consonant to Scripture, or reason: so that the Scripture in the old Testament never speaks more, then that circumcision is a signe of the covenant made in the flesh, Gen. 17.11. and as it relates with respect of a particular application to Abraham, it was the seal of his righteousness, which, as I proved before, was not by means of circumcision: and though we do disclaim Abraham to be our Father by cir­cumcision, in that thereby he was but a Father of some Nations, all being Jews, or made Jews by circumcision, Exod. 12.48. Gen. 17.15. yet we do own Abraham as to the example of faith, as Mr. Sidenham rightly states it, to be our Father, from the Oath and Promise God made to Abra­ham, Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. compared with Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. Rom. 4.12, 16.

Now that Abraham was a believer before, Gen. 17. so that God did bless Abraham, and that circumcision did seal his Faith he had though not as the Apostle saith by circumcision, Rom. 4.11. I do grant: but that God gave Abraham in circumcision, more then Abraham begged of God, Gen. 15.3, 48. or that God did give Abraham more then an inheritance of which circumcision was a token, Gen. 17.4, 11. this I defend: and that there­fore circumcision was not an administration to make Church-members, I desire (this being so much mistaken) to produce these reasons to the contrary.

1. Because they did not circumcise in the Temple, or by a Priest, but a woman, Exod. 4.25. and others did circumcise, Josh. 5.3.

2. A stranger by circumcision, was not said to be of the Church, but as one of the Nation, Exod. 12.48, and if any refused to be circumcised, they were not to be excommunicated out of the Church, but to be cut off out of the Nation, Gen. 17.14. and that the Church is not the Nation, Reason the seventh proves.

3. The Female was not circumcised, and yet Hanna and other Wo­men were of the Church: and if in the Man the Woman might be ad­mitted into the Church, why might not the Woman in the Man be bap­tized, and receive the Lords Supper? since they would have baptism to succeed circumcision,

4. Because God said, that the Covenant of which circumcision was a [Page 16] signe, Gen. 17.11. was a covenant in the flesh, Gen. 17.13. and God did never promise more then a temporall inheritance in that covenant, Gen. 15.3.18. compared with Gen. 17.3, 4, 5, 8.

5. In the case of Dinah marrying with Sichem, all that was desired of him, was this, that they should be one people, if Sichem, &c. would be circumcised: which was done without any change of religion, Gen. 34.22, 24. and though it might be supposed (as we do with our children) they would endeavour to learn them, and make them submit to their Religion; yet all this endeavouring, like the paines that we take in the nurture and admonition of our Children, did not admit or make them visible Church-members, but onely made preparation for their admission: as the next reason will fully clear it.

6. Because to the Jews God said, Gather my Saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with me, by sacifice. Psal. 50.5. and Zeph. 3.9. its prophesied both of Jews and Christians, that they should serve God with one consent; Therefore Children not sacrificing, whereby there might be a visi­ble appearance of Faith and Repentance, and they not being willing or knowing to serve God with one consent, could not be of the visible gathered Church, or they were not visible Church-members: for to make a visible Church member, there must be something appearing in the party that is to be admitted, so as to give his consent: but in a Child we have or see no­thing, that represents the face of a Church-member.

7. Children by circumcision were not made Church-members, because after they had been circumcised, they were presented unto the Lord in the Temple: and our Saviour did no more for them, when they were brought unto him, then bless them, by praying for them, Mat. 19.

8. God was said to have a Church in the Wilderness, Act. 7.38. and yet for forty yeers together they were not circumcised: and therefore circum­cision made not a Church, if baptism, as Mr. Sidenham saith, doth not make one; for so he saith, pag. 166. Baptisme doth not forme a Church.

9. Because the Gentiles had a Church, as Mr. Baxter hath notably proved by Job, &c. and Abraham was of the Church before, and yet the Gentiles were never circumcised, and Abraham had not been circumcised, but that God made circumcision a signe of the covenant, which was to give him a seed by Sarah, and to make him a Father, and Sarah a Mother of divers Nations, Gen. 17.6, 16. for as all Nations whether Jews or Gentiles, are blessed in Abra­ham, this was not by circumcision, but by oath and promise made to Abraham, Gen. 22. [...]6, 17, 18. as the Apostle, Gal. 3.9. compared with Heb. 6.13, 14. fully declareth: and therefore we do not look at circumcision, that it did admit unto the Church, or that baptism should succeed it, circumcision re­lating to temporal promises.

10. Because these words in the covenant whereof circumcision is a signe, I will be thy God, and o thy seed after thee, were onely spoken of God, that he might manifest himself to be a God in providence, to make his temporal promise good to Abraham, and such strangers that should sojourne with him: God excepting against none in circumcision, as he doth in point of [Page 17] salvation: and therefore God expresly declared his meaning, that in respect of the covenant whereof circumcision was a signe, he was their God to make good his promise to give them the Land of Canaan, Levit. 26.44, 45. and in that he condemned and tooke away this circumcision, making a new covenant, not according to the old covenant, declares that the old cove­nant had no spiritual promises, Heb. 8.6, 7, 8, 9.

11. That Mr. Sidenham and Mr. Baxter making circumcision to bring Children into the Church, is but from their own wrested consequences, for there is no such Scripture that saith, Circumcision makes a Child a member of the Church, neither is there any Scripture that can prove circumcision a covenant of pure grace, or that baptism doth succeed it, upon which they ground their conclusion or consequence.

12. If baptism should succeed circumcision, then it could not be said, that baptism is the like figure of Noahs Ark, 1 Pet. 1.21. in which there was no Children, nor did any enter into it, but such as believed the word preached unto them.

13. They were debtors to the Law, not by covenant or contract (the Law being made four hundred and forty yeers after circumcision, Gal. 3.17.) and therefore they were debtors to the Law by consequence, as a thing that followed, and was after imposed upon the people; so that they were not circumcised upon that account.

14. They were twice circumcised. The first time, in token they should inherit the promised Land. And the second time, as being come to possess it, Joshua 5.2. therefore circumcision did not make them Church-mem­bers.

The great thing then which Mr. Sidenham pag. 9. speaketh of in this con­troversie, the nature of the covenant being fully and plainly discovered, its too apparent that he hath been too much discipled by the Jewish rabbies, in making the Covenant by their traditions and doctrine, greater then ever God intended it, whereby the promise and oath God made to Abraham, whereby he is the Father of the faithful, hath been over-looked; Therefore Mr. Sidenham failing to make good his hinge and maine weight, in thinking to make all promises to Abraham as Father to the faithful, to be held out in circumcision, and that it was a seal of the covenant, and baptism a seal of the new covenant, in all which his errors and mistakes have been plainly discovered: yet I would not have Mr. Sidenham or any of his judgement, to think, that I have denied him that which may be some have, or he hath expected to have granted him (as I should readily have done, if it had been Gods truth) in relation to the covenant whereof circumcision was the signe: as though, if Mr. Sidenhams and Mr. Baxters consequences were granted him, he could thereby prove his infant-baptism; for this I say, that though he were certain that a Child were in the new covenant of the Gospel, yet no visible fruit of holiness, of profession, of faith, coversation, and willing desire of baptism being made to appear, secret things belong­ing unto God, and we being commanded as any shall be discipled to bap­tize them; its not in Mr. Sidenham, &c. to gainsay Christs will and power, [Page 18] to make the admission into the Church, according as he fancieth by any pre­tended pretences, consequences, or precedents, or to admit a Child, or ig­norant person, not being by Christ tolerated, seeing according to his own pretended light, he did not regulate circumcision to a former administra­tion, neither is there any Scripture to prove that baptism succeedeth cir­cumcision, but both by command and example the Scripture doth prove the contrary; therefore in the simplicity of the Gospel, except Mr. S. will flee from Scripture, and justifie the falling away from the faith, so that in this point of Infant-baptism, he should comply with the tradition of Popery, he hath hitherto produced nothing to uphold his controversie in this great thing, foundation and hinge, which I have answered. To proceed then.

Answ. According to that maxime, Omnis privatio implicat habitum, you know that every dispossession implieth a possession: Infants cannot therefore be cast out of the Church, before he can prove them admitted: and if Mr. S. or any man living can tell us by what visible administration, Chil­dren were admitted visible Church-members before the time of Abraham, or in the Gentiles Church, or by what Scripture they are said to be admited members by cirumcision; I shall admire him and them, and acknowledge their discovery, desiring him till then not to conclude, that we do cast them out, or deny them any thing, that can be conscientiously granted them.

Mr. S. chap. 4. p. 30. In that Mr. Sidenham doth make a twofold distinction, of being in cove­nant, in relation to the election of grace: and secondly, to be in cove­nant, in facie visibilis ecclesiae;

Answ. To this I answer, first, that onely the elect are in covenant of saving faith, which is called as he saith, by Divines, intentionally in cove­nant, as God intending onely to save them. I agree: onely this may be ob­served, 1. That the election of Grace is not by the Covenant whereof Cir­cumcision is a signe. 2. That if upon this account, that is, Predestination, we should look on children, then children of believers, as well as believers, Papists, Turks, and Infidels, may be in the Election, even before they be called; and yet this will give no liberty to children, until their secret electi­on be made visibly appearing, through a gracious call, Act. 2.38.

2. In that Mr. S. tells us that there is a being in Covenant in facie visibilis Ecclesiae, in the face of a visible Church; I confess, that a visible Church should have a race, so that they may see, hear, and speak with one another, to yeeld up themselves to serve God with one consent, Zeph. 3.9. but how he will make Infants in swadling-clouts such visible members, I know not. For want of such a face of the Church, Mr. S. I suppose excludes Infants from the Lords Supper, though he confesseth that thereby the Church is made one body, pag. 169. and so doth the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.17.

And I do absolutely deny that ever there was any such Covenant, by ver­tue of which God said a childe should be counted a member of the visible [Page 19] Church. Therefore Mr. S's Scriptures to prove that by Covenant children were brought into the Church, are to be examined.

1. As to that place, Rom. 9.4. which Mr. S. produceth;

I answer, that it onely holds forth the several priviledges belonging to the Jews, but doth not hint so much as one word, that by Circumcision chil­dren were brought in facie visibilis Ecclesiae, or made members of the visible Church.

2. To that place, Deut. 29.10, 12, 13, 14.

I answer, It is not at all proved that Circumcision did at all relate to Re­ligion, but that God said that he would make them a people, as he promi­sed, Gen. 17.6, 16. to make Abraham a father of many nations, and so Sarah should be a mother of many nations, as I have proved before of which Covenant Circumcision was the signe.

3. To that place, Joh. 15.2. and Job. 1.11. I cannot see the least conje­cture of a Covenant.

4. To the last place, Psal. 50.5. Gather my saints together, that is, make a visible Church; This I acknowledge: but that any children were gathered, the next words tell him who they be that God would have gathered, even such as have made a covenant with sacrifice: not such as are of the covenant whereof circumcision is but a signe, but such as have made a covenant with me (saith God) in sacrifice: so that we finde no shadow of proof in the places pro­duced by M.S. that children are of the visible Church. To another relation.

Mr. S. chap. 5. page 35. endeavours to open that place, Acts 2.39. For the promise is made unto you and your children, &c.

Answ. In the pretended opening of which Scripture, Mr. S. indeed hath so over-veyled the same, and shut it up in Logical Distinctions, Critical Questions, and Wrested Applications, that I may say of this Scripture, as the parents said of their son, It so clearly shineth, that it is able to answer for it self. These be the words: Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: for the promise is made unto you, and to your chil­dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Now the promise here, which Mr. S. omitted, as the antecedent to be related, was to receive the holy Ghost, by such as did repent and were baptized, and who are here said to repent, to be baptized, & to receive the holy Ghost: but such of them, and of their children, and them that are afar off, and of their children, with this restriction, even to as many, and no more, then the Lord our God shall call. So that here is a plain restriction, and application to whom this promise is made, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. And there­fore no heart could desire a more full and plain expression of the minde of God. And therefore Mr. S. hath not opened, but shut up, or turned the stream of those gracious expressions of Scripture. And yet upon conclusion, after a great deal of discourse, this chapter consisting of almost a sheet of paper, he concludes, that however this Scripture holds forth the promise of believers of the Gospel, both Jews and Gentiles, and their children: which is true, if the last words, wherein all the main business depends, be applied, whereby we may see to whom this promise is made, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call.

[Page 20]Mr. S. chap. 6. pag. 45. having hitherto endeavoured to plead his own cause, by the strongest Arguments which by consequence he could produce, now endeavouring to throw down our foundation in this sixth chapter, he tells us, that our great plea from Mat. 3.8, 9. is made vain.

These be Mr. S's words:

That we may still take off the Objections, let us view that place so much stood on, Matth. 3.8, 9. When John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his Baptism, he sayth, O generation of vipers, who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say that you have Abraham to your father: for I say that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. From this text they gather, The pretence of being Abrahams children could not give them a right to Baptism. And if John denyed Abraham's seed upon that account, much more would he the adopted children.

That this is no such ominous place against Infant-baptism, consider who they were he spake unto, the Pharisees and Sadduces, men of age, and degenerate from Abrahams faith, persons that lived in their own works and righteousness: there­fore he calls them a generation of vipers, which was not as they were Abrahams children, but as they walked not in Abrahams steps, and were quite degenerate.

Answ. To which I answer, that the plea is not vain (as Mr. S. in the con­tents of his chapter pretendeth) that is by us made from Matth. 3.8, 9. though to obscure the light that therein shineth, or for Mr. S. to light his candle, or gloss, or interpretation, to darken the sun-light of express Scripture, is la­bour in vain, in that,

1. I say, that Matth. 3.8, 9. in the general, is directly against Infant-ba­ptism, in that none but such as have faith and repentance must think to be baptized, is as clear a place as can be desired or pleaded for.

2. That the pretence or consequence from Circumcision, from this of Mat. 3.8, 9. Think not to say you have Abraham to your father, is also condemned, it appears that John did not judge them to have any benefit or priviledge as being Abrahams seed according to the Law, Rom. 4.16. whereby Abraham was their father by circumcision, Gen. 17.5, 16. And therefore John apprehending the Pharisees and Sadduces (as Mr. S. &c. do) to stile themselves, through this pretended priviledge from Abraham, without looking home for faith and repentance, which every childe of Abraham should have, which calls Abra­ham father by faith, as onely they that believe ought to do, Gal. 3.7. there­fore, to undeceive the Pharisees and Sadduces, and to unbottom them, and to throw down their sandy foundation, that John in the simplicity of the Gospel might be downright with them, (though it's true, that Mr. S. sayth, that he did not call them a generation of vipers, as they were Abrahams seed, yet) that they might not through fleshly confidence make their plea, or rest upon this account, that they might be baptized, being but Abrahams seed according to Law, and not by faith, he tells them (to undeceive them) saying, Think not to say that you have Abraham to your father, as that you should think upon this account, that I should baptize you; therefore John, without as much as taking notice (which he would have done, if there had been cause) of any [Page 21] legal priviledge they had by Abraham to plead for Baptism, onely exhorts them to faith and repentance, by which they are the children of Abraham by faith, Rom. 4.12, 16. Gal. 3.7. which John makes the ground of his admittance unto Baptism: unto which Gospel-ordinance, none but a taught disciple, by the express and plain words of Christ, ought to be admitted. And therefore our plea, that the pretence of being Abrahams children by Law, or Circum­cision, could not give a right to Baptism, as hath been before often proved, is very warrantable: so that John did not desire to dispossess them, or que­stion them as the Legal seed, or children of Abraham; but onely let them know, that they ought not to have so much as a thought to get Baptism, though they should think to say, We have Abraham to our father: which in other respects, it was both lawful for them to think, profess, and affirm, that they were Abrahams children according to the Law, but yet not to plead it as a consequence for Baptism, much less for their childrens. And, but that I strive not to take advantage upon every occasion, it's an easie thing to prove by the words of Christ, in that he did approve of the Pharisees to sit in Mo­ses chayr, and of their doctrine; and [...]n that they (as the word Pharisee signi­fieth) did expound the Scripture; and that the Sadduces were strict living men, that gave much to the poor, though they (admitting of nothing but the letter of the Scripture) denyed the resurrection: yet, as Authors testi­fie, they were the best of the Jewish Church, and did uphold circumcision, though, as many that pretend to the Church, they stood for traditions, and had their failings, and, through unbelief in Christ, were a generation of vipers: yet that they were quite cut off, and degenerated from Abrahams seed by the Law, he cannot prove, as may appear by Christ, Joh. 8.37, 39. And therefore John not approving of them upon this account, as being A­braham's seed according to the Law, makes it clear, that John did object both against them for their evil lives, and for pretending that they should have Baptism, from the pretence that Abraham is their father according to the Law, as before said. Therefore we stand to our plea, that Matth. 3.8, 9. is not onely against Infants baptism in the general, but also against the very consequence which (from Circumcision, whereby Abraham is a father accor­ding to the Law) is pretended, to uphold the same. And therefore children were not baptized by John, as though, as Mr. S. sayth, p. 47. they were neg­lected by John, as though he could not have got time to attend to baptize them; but, John did not baptize them, because they were not Abraham's seed according to the faith, Rom. 4.12, 16. Gal. 3.7, 9. that is, they were not actually believers, otherwise John would not have been guilty of such partiality and injustice; for John refused none but such, and all such whatsoever, as in whom there was not the appearance of the fruits of faith and repentance, Acts 15.1, 2, 3, 4. And seeing, by Mr. S. children were not baptized by John, and yet all Judea and Jerusalem, and all the regions round about Jordane, came to Johns Baptism, Mat. 3.5. I hope he may be perswaded that countrie and housholds may be baptized, and yet children, ignorant, and profane, according to Christs command, may justly be debarred of the said Gospel-Ordinance.

Mr. S. ch. 7. p. 49. 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.

[Page 22] Answ. All that are of Mr. S's judgement, are so partial, and do so appa­rently contradict themselves in the application of holiness, as pretending it relates unto childrens Baptism; in that, as they pretend to bring children into the Church, in that they say they are holy; so on the contrary, they excommunicate them out of the Church, from being partakers or members of the Body or Church in the Lords Supper, because they want saith and holiness, which is required in all communicants. Therefore I care the less to trouble my self or others in further answering this wrangling conse­quence: for they themselves shew sufficiently, that it is not relative holi­ness, as being appropriated to God, as the vessels in the temple, 1 Sam. 21.5. but, it is the holiness of conversation; which we nor they cannot see in a childe; the ground, with faith, of admission into an Ordinance: which rule as they walk by in admission unto the Supper; so, by the same rule they ought to walk, in the admission into the Ordinance of Baptism. And there­fore Mr. T. is not (as Mr. S. sayth) too critical, to enquire whether children holy inherently, imputatively, or invisibly: for unless there be a manifesta­tion of holiness, as the fruit of the inward grace, we see not a disciple: and therefore man being judge of Baptism, cannot, by the rule or commission of Christ, judge a childe to be baptized. And therefore as Fryer Toi [...]is conse­quence, That because Angels were holy, we may pray, Hallowed be thy name: so Mr. S. pretending children are holy, ergo we may baptize them, is equally to be condemned.

Mr. S. chap. 8 & 9. In which he endeavours, from the cutting off the Jews, and ingraffing in of the Gentiles, to relate to a visible Church-membership, in answering Mr. Tombs eight Arguments to the contrary.

To which I answer, That, without any partiality, I cannot see but that Mr. T's eight arguments are so unanswered by Mr. S. that it were to eclipse Mr. T's light, and to take upon me an unnecessary task, to answer Mr. S. Mr. Tombs's eight Arguments shining more glorious, through the opposition made against them. That I may therefore onely hint something that may further discover the mystery of cutting off and graffing in, &c. I conceive it cannot be understood of visible Church-membership, which is but a conse­quence and effect of Preaching; but hereby God hath declared, in a more general way, his total withdrawing away of his presence, as denying the Jews, and affording of the Gentiles the means of salvation. So that we may understand root and branch, as root and rush or branch is explained, Isai. 9.14. And therefore as Paul, Acts 13.46. sayth, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles; thus, there was a cutting off, and ingraffing in; rejecting the Jews, and affording of the Gentiles of the means of salvation.

To proceed, Mr. S. chap. 10. pag. 88. sheweth the harmony of Matth. 19. with Mark 10. and Luke 18. concerning the bringing of Infants to Christ, and his acts towards them.

Answ. Not to occasion discord to such a harmony, the ground of Mr. [Page 23] Philipus consequence, which I though (thought many are not of that opi­nion) the strongest consequence that is pretended for Infant-baptism; there­fore that Mr. S. &c. may see, that we do desire to declare, that we are so acted with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles, to follow his steps, 1 Pet. 2.21. who is our forerunner, Heb. 9.20. in every thing; whereby the reign of Christ, in raising men up in the spirit of the Apostles and Prophets, Rev. 20. may be made visible: that we may profess to imitate Christ, (Miracles ex­cepted) in all things, in that Christ in all things: was the great servant of God in obeying, Isai. 42.1. Therefore, I humbly conceive, they are not to be judged, that are made willing to imitate Christ, as in praying for a bles­sing for meat and drink, and to bless the elements of bread and wine in the Lords Supper, if they also shall in imitation of Christ bless children, by pray­ing for them: yet in this we have not the least ground at all for the Gospel-ordinance of baptism; though herein our Hannab-like love and care of children, to seek God for them, and that they may be brought up in the nur­ture and admonition of the Lord, is discovered.

Mr. S. chap. 11. pag. 103. wherein the method of God in the Old Testa­ment, of a administring Ordinances in families, and baptizing housholds, in the New Testament, how far it contributes to Infants baptism.

Answ. Though I acknowledge, as Mr. S. hath declared, that Abraham and his house was circumcised, and might alleadge that Abraham had no children in his house, Ishmael being thirteen yeers old, and Isaac as yet un­born, when Abraham was circumcised; yet this needeth not to be alleadged, for Mr. S. cannot prove that Abraham was brought into the Church, he be­ing in the Church before: and Israel his son, if he were called to offer, or bring his offering unto the altar, was also a visible member of the Church, Psal. 50.5. And besides, Circumcision being but the signe of a temporal covenant, Gen. 17.8, 11. as I have before fully proved, therefore I see no ground, from Abraham's houshold being circumcised, to be a president or method (as you call it) for bringing of children which cannot profess; see­ing, upon profession, Christ hath ordained all to be called to the Ordinance of Baptism. And that, which puts all out of doubt, the Scripture it sel [...] clearly removes this scruple or supposition, in that when whole housholds were baptized, as in Acts 10. Cornelius and all his house feared God: and of the Jayler and his houshold that was baptized, it is said, that he and all his house heard the word of God: Acts 16.32. was baptized, ver. 33. believing in God with all his house, vers. 34. And when Paul baptized the houshold of Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1.16. it's said in the same Epistle, chap. 16. vers. 15. that the houshold of Stephanus addicted themselves to the ministery of the Saints: so that there is a constant method to the contrary. If there then had been a childe in Lydia's house, she going to hear, not knowing of Baptism (a thousand families not having little children, as either not being married, barren, or ancient) I conceive the like would have been mentioned. And therefore I do not say, as Mr. S. saith, chap. 6. pag 47 that children were neglected: for if it had been the will of God, the Apostles would have readily baptized them, and would not have neglected their duty; nor would the holy Ghost [Page 24] so fully have declared the exclusion of children; or nominated, that all in the house believed, &c. when housholds were baptized.

Mr. S. chap. 12. pag. 109. in which Circumcision and Baptism are com­pared.

To which I answer: Mr. S. having pleased himself to roul over the same stone, (I may say, a stone of offence) in tumbling it back again, we being ful­ly troubled with it, chap. 1.2, 3. So that Mr. S. I suppose, will not finde it useful for his building: therefore I much admire, that he would compare Baptism and Circumcision, and yet make them both look so like themselves, as that, pag. 114. the one (he sayth) cutting away sin, as with a knife; and the other washing it away with water. In which words of Mr. S. there ap­peareth so much smoke in the temple, in this blinde Popish doctrine, as that I need not further confute it. And yet it is so precious in his eyes, as that the darkness of Uncharitableness hath so far possessed his spirit, (as I am con­strained to say) that he further hath judged his brethren, saying, That if they did with more sobriety weigh such considerations, they would not with such foolish contempt write and speak of Infant baptism.

To which words of Mr. S. in soberness, plainness, and in the simplicity of the Gospel, I say unto him, Brother, first take out the moat out of your own eyes, which makes you imagine you see your brethren want sobriety and wisdom, in that they cannot with you see that knife and water that cutteth off and washeth away sin. Who is most inconsiderate, I pray you? It is the blood of Christ, and not that of Circumcision, which is the fountain; and not of water, that is set up for sin and for uncleanness, Z [...]ch. 13.1. Did not Popery hold forth this doctrine, in teaching that Original sin is washed away in Baptism? Certainly upon second thoughts, I hope Mr. S. will not con­demn his despised brethren of foolish contempt, it upon this account, as Po­pery hath corrupted and perverted the Ordinance, they deny your doctrine concerning Baptism and Circumcision, being thus by you made enemies to the cross of Christ: and therefore there neither wants wisdom nor sobriety in those, that upon this account do zealously oppose the ascribing of Justi­fication to Circumcision and Infants baptism; seeing Circumcision did never cut off sin, and that Infant baptism is repugnant to the command of Christ in the Scripture. And though I am tyred, to meet again with Circumcision, which was so silenced by the first General Assembly, Acts 15. as methinks it should not be received by us that succed them;

To answer further: That Circumcision, as Mr. S. pretendeth, hath no correspondency with Baptism, we may observe,

1. That Baptism is upon profession and prayer: but Circumcision with­out any prayer or profession was instituted.

2. Baptism hath relation to the Church called out of the world: but Cir­cumcision was onely the token of an entayl of inheritage, in which the world were gathered, or made a nation, Exod. 12.48.

3. Baptism brought in both men and women into the Church: but Cir­cumcision had no relation to the female. And therefore I know not in what Baptism and Circumcision may justly be compared.

[Page 25]Mr. S. chap. 13. pag. 116. tells us, that Col. 2.11, 12. is a famous place holding forth correspondencie betwixt Circumcision and Baptism.

To which I answer. You see Circumcision hath got upon the stage again, to plead its correspondencie betwixt it and Baptism, from Col. 2.11, 12. from which you cannot expect any great applaudet, first, in that M. S. confesseth that some Divines are of contrary judgement. And if all be not, they may see cause of better information, if they consider, that it is circumcision made without hands which precedeth, vers. 11. which Baptism cannot succeed, v. 12. And therefore this place which Mr. S. produceth, cannot be famous, except thereby, that Mr. S. produceth a place, whereby he is cast with his own wit­ness. But I hasten.

Mr. S. chap. 14. pag. 122. In which is a clear explication of Matth. 28.19. with Mark 16.15, 16. where­in their Arguments from the first institution are opened and confuted.

Answ. Mr. Baxter's Arguments, and explanation of the commission of Christ, Go and disciple unto me, and baptize, is I hope so fully answered, that all the mists, scruples, wrangling, and criticisms, whereby Mr. S. hath en­deavoured to over-veil the commission of Christ, are there so answered, that it will further appear, that Mr. S. is either under delusion, or doth prevari­cate the command of Christ, in that he would have the express and most plain words of Christ, Go teach and baptize, to mean sprinkle an untaught disciple: An implicite contradiction to the Gospel-Ordinance, as in Mr. S. next chapter will more appear.

Mr. S. chap. [...]5. pag. 130. In which the signification, or what it is to be ba­ptized, is discovered.

Answ. That you may see what Mr. S. hath done in this business, and how little his Humane authority, which pag. 131. li. 1. he sayth, are the best guides in this case: It cannot be denyed, but that after Mr. S produced Scapula, Pasor, and Grotius, to shew their judgement of Baptism, out of his ingenuity he confesseth (which is all which we desire to be granted) that those Authors, in the strictest sense, acknowledge, and do interpret baptism for immersion, that is, to be covered all over, or, as the Scripture saith, to be buried in baptism, Rom. 6.4. Now behold how Truth prevaileth! when Mr. S. set himself, and all his learning, to finde some scruple or doubt against the known received practice of Christ and his Apostles in baptism, to try the test, and to see how it may be judged by man; his own witnesses, Budeus, Scapula, and Grotius, confess, that in the strictest sense, baptizing is to be un­derstood as we would have it. Yet notwithstanding, Mr. S. doth with this Ordinance, as the Heathens (as Josephus tells us) did with Christ, in that they would not acknowledge him to be God, because the Synod and com­mon people had not seen him before his resurrection. For, to deny the right use of water in baptism, Mr. S. flees to the Oracle of the Athenians. O [...] wonderful! how gropes he, or stumbleth for light on the noon-day! or how hardly would he admit of Baptism? In that he saith the Athenians baptized pots or cups; what then? do you think them so slovenly, that they would onely sprinkle their pots and cups, which are usually put into, or washed all [Page 26] over in the water? Alas, Mr. S. alas, this running under the fig-tree for shelter, discovers Eve's nakedness. Truely, these critical fancies, and wrest­ed allegations, will not hold water. You are deceived, if you think to blinde a seeing eye from beholding the right use of the element of water; into which Christ descended, was buried, and for this cause they chose Jordano, for that there was much water there, to be the place for baptism. And there­fore though at the beginning of the Chapter, p. 130. and in the last lines but two, you have promised to clear up the mist; yet indeed you have done nothing less. But it's no matter; the sun of Truth can shine thorow your darkness, which cannot comprehend it. And that which makes me humbled, is this, that I see you do much endeavour to put a veyl upon the Word; so that p. 134. you say, Let us view (your veyl being cast over) the Scriptures which they bring for maintaining of this signification, that is, to be covered over in baptism, Matth. 3.13. Act. 8.36, 37, 38. What think you, Mr. S. have not those Scriptures satisfied you against sprinkling, or pouring water on the face of a childe? Not to trouble you how much Mr. S. strives to evade with his distinction, ab & ex, that Christ came not out of the water: as though Philip was not baptized as Christ, whom he confesseth to have come out of the water. Oh lamentable cavilling! what would he do? would he with his ab or ex deny the gonig into the water? or what would Mr. S. mean, say­ing, p. 135. that Philip was as much in the water as the Eunuch? what, was Philip buried in the water as much as the eunuch? Lord make us truely humbled. How gladly would man uphold his sandy foundation! or how loth is a lofty spirit to become humbled! Cannot a man baptize, or put ano­ther man into the water, but he must go as much into the water as the party that he baptizeth? How Mr. S. should be able to answer to the third place, where it is said, John was baptizing in Enon, neer Salim, because there was much water there, in regard his sprinkling ceremony speaks his contradiction, I shall not spend time to no purpose, to answer more then I have said, to what he can alleadge against the baptizing because of much water; seeing that as Reason Janus-like hath two faces, some men have a face to object against any thing.

Mr. S. pag. 138. The last pretence commonly urged for this dipping, is from the analogie it hath with Christs burial: Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. Buried with him in baptism. Hence they say it is most clear, we must be dipt under water, else it will not represent a burial. In this they put all their confidence.

Answ. Our confidence is in God and his Truth; and therefore we shall be ready to answer, if you can, more seriously then before, object any thing from Scripture to prove the contrary practice: And therefore let us hear what Mr. S. hath to say, pag. 138. in these words:

Plunging the whole body in water, doth not represent burial: for the custom of the Jews was, to cut out a place like a cave, or den, out of a rock, to lay their dead bodies: and, as it is observed by a man of great learning and diligence, Thus when we sleep in our houses we may be said to be buried, having something over our heads.

Answ. In that Mr. S. hath acknowledged, that to be covered over head, [Page 27] represents burial; or to be buried in baptism, is to have the water covering us; in this he hath, whether he intended or no, justified our proceeding, and condemned his own sprinkling business or ceremony. To what Mr. S. sayth further in this particular.

Answ. In that Christ went into the water, and prayed in the water; and that in imitation of Christ it is said, Act. 22.16. be baptized—calling upon the Name of the Lord; the mystery of a burial is held forth, not so much from passive deadness, as in being separated and covered in the water, whereby deadness in that act is declared. And this Mr. S. pag. 138. that to be cover­ed, is implyed in burial, and that this covering in water is not by sprinkling: for in stead of covering the childe, to represent a burial, Mr. S. takes another course, or the Good-wives, by his permission; for they take off the cloth, and make the childs face, that before was covered, to be uncovered, that he may sprinkle a drop or two, or pour a little water on the face. Now hereby that he should represent a burial, when he seems onely to rantize the face; it's known that the childe is so far from being covered, or hid from the peo­ple, or separated, that the Goodwives hold it up in their arms, to be ranti­zed in the face of the Congregation. Which methinks Mr. S. should not fan­cie to represent a burial: for in this he is as much mistaken, as he is by the book, in that he tells us, pag. 141. that the Jaylor was baptized in prison: for Acts 16.30. the Jaylor brought out Paul out of prison, and after Paul had preached to the Jaylor, and to all his house, then the Jaylor was baptized: and that this was not in prison, as Mr. S. dreamed, it is said after he was ba­ptized: he brought them into his house, vers. 34. But this mistake is not so great, as that Mr. S. hath thus far suffered his passion to be predominant, as to say, pag. 142. that if there be any absolute need of dipping, it is to cool the heat of these mens spirits, who deny baptism to be true, because they have not been plunged.

Answ. Oh strange! if this vox populi should come from Christ, what's that he tells of cooling the heat of spirits? Alas, Physitian, cool your self. But I hope he hath his check, as I am troubled for his levity: for that fire of zeal that is in the Saints, to own the due administration of the Ordinance in Baptism, is such a fire of zeal, that Mr. S. is not able to quench it. And if there could be an outward remedy for hot spirits, it were a mercy that the sparkles of Mr. S's youthfulness were so far quenched, that it might not be his recreation to contradict the minde of Christ in the right use of the ele­ment of water in baptism; which we do not, as Mr. S. saith, ascribe to plunging, but to be covered over, or buried with Christ in baptism.

Mr. S. chap. 16. pag. 148. endeavouring, that the washing of the body, Heb. 10.22. was not meant by baptism; and his summoning up his former principles, as he calleth them, chap. 17. p. 154. and his business in troubling [Page 28] himself about the administration of baptism, chap. 18. being things that are not either granted, or denyed, prejudicial to the cause, no more necessary then his recapitulation of his former principles, which doth spend time, and make him tedious to the Reader, as what he hath alleadged in Christ's be­ing baptized by John, chap. 19. pag. 162. with his conceited Question, Whe­ther Christ did preach before he did baptize: All these Chapters being but strife of words, and doubtful disputations, I not striving for mastery, but one­ly, as engaged, endeavouring to undeceive the deluded people, in holding forth the Truth; I seeing no edification for me to follow the flying shadows of needless conjectures, altogether as unedifying as endless genealogies: Therefore onely to the last Chapter, wherein Mr. S. holdeth forth, pag. 166. That Baptism doth not form a Church;

I answer, That though Baptism doth no more form a Church, then it formeth a believer, no Church hath been found or acknowledged, which hath not been baptized. Therefore, though through the falling away from the Faith, Christians can experience, that the work of grace, in giving a seal to the Ministery, and thereupon there hath been a yeelding up of one another to serve God with one consent, whereby a Church hath been gathered, be­fore these members (as in the Churches of all Independents) they have been baptized: yet if the said Independent Churches should in mercy have their eys opened (as some can experience) to see and submit to the minde of Christ in the Order of the Gospel, whereby the first that is in baptism be last disco­vered, then in this extraordinary work of grace, the work of grace upon full trial being approved of, that the said Church be found to be gathered Saints, and the seal of the Ministery, then the said Church, as a houshold of faithful, without breaking their relation of Pastor and Flock, they may be baptized. For we must not build upon another mans foundation; Christ himself own­ing the man that cast out devils, though he followed not the Apostles: And though the Spouses sister want two brests, yet was she owned for their sister, Cant. 8.8. So that whatsoever work of God is wrought, it is to be acknow­ledged; provided that the Pastor of the said Church be baptized by such a Pastor of a Church that is under the practice of Baptism.

Thus much in answer to Mr. S's book, as it relates unto Baptism.

To conclude, I shall onely make answer to that which Mr. S. first object­ed against the doctrine of Baptism, and concerning the denying of singing of Psalms, in his Epistle Dedicatory.

[Page 29]To which, I return this answer:

That Hypocrites drawn out of the element of the world, receiving the new wine of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, into the old bottles of their hearts, Hymenius-like, have made shipwrack of their profession, makes not the Opinion always ominous: nor doth the abuse of drink condemn the lawful enjoyment of the creature. For, if you had but tasted, you might have experienced, that the doctrine of baptizing of believers doth, like all other Truths, Joh. 17.17. so sanctifie, and work, through Christ, such a spiritual union with Christ and all his Saints, that indeed a blinde and profane soul cannot live in the element of it. And therefore, if any such appear, that have owned it, they either forsake the Church, or they are cut off by the Church, as withered branches: however, the evil complained of (if ever it be visible) though a Gangrene, may be cured with the knife of Excommu­nication.

Yet on the contrary, such inevitable evils attend Infant-Baptism, that it is the very heart-blood and pulse of the soul of Antichrist, and the onely partition-wall, which hinders the communion of Saints, and the greatest let to the gathering and uniting of all Saints, into Truth and Church-fellow­ship, that can be: So that as long as it is in practice, the smoak shall not fully vanish out of the Temple. And therefore such black characters do point it out, it being built upon the foundation of wrested consequences, implicite faith, blinde charity, and pretended antiquity, that Antichrist him­self, and all the profane sons of the world, plead their own birthright-privi­ledge in it, and rest under the cover or shelter of it: Though I must with Mr. Sidenham conclude, that many Saints do acknowledge it, and as owned by the world do decry it. And therefore it is to be hoped, that, as the Saints shall be more fully informed, Saint-like, they will renounce it, and will submit, Christ like, unto the Ordinance of Baptism.

The second thing in controversie, is the denying of singing of Psalms; of which Mr. S. saith thus:

Answ. As concerning Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, though I hope to make these to appear to be distinct, which Mr. S. concei­veth to be individually united; yet, as to the point in controversie about Singing, this I have to say, That as Christ shall more and more raign, he shall rouze up and gather his Saints to be baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12.14. and united into, and acted with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles, that their hearts will be in tune: That as Independent Churches cast off In­fant-sprinkling, so Churches of Christ under baptism will return (as some of them for the present are) unto singing. And yet I finde, that those that are not under the present practice, dare not deny their title to the Ordinance of Singing. But that denying Infant-baptism is worse, or that there is any [Page 30] evil at all, but a submission to the Ordinance and Commission of Christ, in denying of Infant baptism; I must needs therefore further say, That to pre­tend baptism of Infants to be helpful to exalt free grace, is absolutely to deny the grace of God to be free, which is conveyed without the Ordinance of baptism. And that the childe of a reprobate may be as soon under the Covenant of Free-grace, as the childe of a believer: And that no man can judge who are under the Covenant of Free grace, and who are not. And therefore we do not baptize upon this account, but as we see grace, faith, and consent visibly appearing. And therefore their pretended light, that will baptize the children of believers onely, as from free grace pretended, is most full of darkness. And if free grace had been a ground of baptism, man could not have been the judge. And that God doth require man to do nothing ignorantly, or doubting: and therefore hath expresly commanded (though hypocrites may falsly pretend to submit unto the Rule; and in ad­mitting them upon that account, man is no offender) who we shall baptize, even every one that is discipled by teaching. And therefore we leaving to act upon the pretence of the Covenant of Free-grace, we do not deny chil­dren any outward warrantable priviledge, that was granted them before A­braham's days, in his days, or ever was done by Christ or his Apostles, in presenting them to God, in praying for a blessing for them, and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; that as soon as ever this secret will of God, in his free grace, shall be revealed, They may, ac­cording to the command and example of Christ and all his Churches, pass the Gospel-Ordinance of Baptism.

Question 1. WHether is Baptism a Gospel-Ordinance?

Answer. In thatMat. 28.19. Christ himself is the author of it, and did after hisMat. 28.7, 16. resurrection from the dead immediately command it, and that all the Saints upon their profession of saith were accordingly baptized: Therefore Baptism doth appear to be a Gospel-Ordinance.

Quest. 2. Whether may baptism be called a Seal?

Answ. In that man is judge of baptism, and that it is against the wis­dom and truth of God to seal to a blank, orRom. 7.4, 5. uncertain condition; there­fore baptism is no Seal, though commonly so called.

Quest. 3. What do you call Baptism, if it be not a Seal?

Answ. Baptism is aHeb. 6.1, 2. principle of the foundation of the doctrine of Christ, a Gospel-Ordinance, the1 Pet. 3.21. answer of a good conscience towards God and man, and a1 Pet. 3.21. figure of salvation.

Quest. 4. What is the end for which baptism was ordained?

Answ. In that Christ commanded toMar. 16.15. preach the Gospel to every crea­ture, and yet onely to baptize such as areMat. 28.19. discipled, or are taught the word of God, or believed; it doth therefore clearly appear, that God in Christ did ordain Baptism, to this end, that Christ might2 Cor. 6.16. separate the election of grace, byMat. 28.19. calling them out of the world, into theActs 9.19, 27. fellow­ship of the Church, and to unite all so called, in the profession of saith, in their baptism, andAct 9.39. breaking of bread, in which they communicate.

Quest. 5. How can you prove, that by these words of Christ, Go and preach the Gospel to every creature, Go and make disciples, and baptize them, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, is so to be interpreted, Acts 2.41. compa­red with 46, 47. that none but those that believe are to be baptized?

Answ. Because the Apostles and Church of Christ did thus understand them, as by their doctrine and practice doth appear.

[Page 32]Quest. 6. Where have the Apostles taught, that none but those that hear and believe, should be baptized?

Answ. In that the Apostles have taught, that those that are baptized, ought toActs 2.38. repent, beAct. 2.39. Rev. 18.4. called out of the world, have the1 Pet. 3.21. answer of a good conscience towards God and man; and have declared thatAct. 8.37. un­faithfulness hinders baptism: therefore by their doctrine it doth appear, that none but such as hear and believe, should be baptized.

Quest. 7. And did the Apostles onely baptize believers?

Answ. Yes verily, they onely baptized visible professors; as, when theyAct. 8.12. believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the Lord Jesus, they were baptized, both men and women: and whenAct. 10 2, 44, 48. housholds were baptized, the Scripture doth declare, that they allAct. 10 2, 44, 48. feared God, received theAct. 10 2, 44, 48. holy Ghost,1 Cor. 1.16 with chap. 16.15. gave themselves to the mini­stery of the Word of God,Act. 26 32, 34. heard the word of God,Act. 26 32, 34. rejoyced in God, andAct. 26 32, 34. believed.

Qu. 8. If this be so, then neither children nor unbelievers ought be baptized.

Answ. It's true indeed: for as in Circumcision, when the male was one­ly named, the female was excluded; so when Christ onely ordained that those that hear and believe should be baptized, unbelievers, and chil­dren, must needs be excluded.

Quest. 9. How comes it then to pass, that this doctrine of baptism hath not been before revealed?

Answ. Though the doctrine of baptism hath been always professed, yet it hath not been generally received, for these reasons. 1. Because there was2 Thess. 2.1, 2, 3. a falling away from the faith, whereby all the Ordinances of Christ were perverted and corrupted, by theRev. 15.8. smoak which was to continue till the Lamb's souldiers should procure the free course of the Gospel. 2. The tayl of the beast is to strike down theRev. 12.4. third part of the stars, even lear­ned men, &c. (not under the powerful means of information) which shall walk under the sparkles of their own Consequences. 3. Because that though Antichrist, before these times, hath been revealed, as opposing the person and merits of Christ, yet the Ordinances are but beginning to be cleared; in discovery whereof, the Church begins to be restored to the purity of the primitive time of Christ and his Apostles. 4. In such a case as this, where things are admitted, as Infant-baptism, being the re­ligion men were brought up in (though godly) yet it is not questioned, till men be put upon it, or otherwise by God extraordinarily called: for which cause, Infant-baptism hath not been much questioned.

Quest. 10. What will become of all the world, the unbelievers and children, if they be not baptized?

Answ. Christ must be preached to all theMark 16.15. Gal. 6.6 world, to every Parish, even to capable children, and unbelievers, &c. And as they shall have an ear to hear, and beRev. 18.4 called out of Babylon, they ought to be baptized, and receive theAct. 2.42. Lords supper, with the gathered Churches of believers.

Quest. 11. How shall we be able to judge believers?

Answ. By theJoh. 15.8. Mat. 5.16. fruits of their profession, or holy conversation; and [Page 33] in that they are willing to be united unto, and1 Joh. 3.14. love the Saints, and sub­mit unto theMat. 18.17. Act. 2.41. government of Christ under the Gospel.

Quest. 12. But may not unbelievers, like Simon Magus, come to be baptized?

Answ. Yes. a garden may have weeds, andMat. 13. tares may be sown with the good seed; yet, as the Church is to1 Cor. 6.2, 3, 4. judge of her members, to re­ceive them into communion; so hath the Church power to exclude them also out of her communion.

Quest. What is the way of the administration of baptism?

Answ. The Christian disciple that is to be baptized, must,Luk. 3.21. Mat. 3.15. Christ-like, upon the profession of faith and obedience, descend to beRom. 6.4. covered or buried in water,Act. 12.16 comp. with Luk. 3.21. calling upon the Name of the Lord, being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: which being done, those Christians which are baptized, are (as brethren) to be received by theAct. 9 26 Church, by theGal. 3.9. right hand of fellowship.

Quest. 14. But may not sprinkling of water suffice in baptism?

Answ. No: there can be no baptism in sprinkling or partial dipping: for in sprinkling, the right use of water is as much perverted, as when1 Sam. 15.15. Saul spared part of the sheep, though he intended them for Gods ser­vice. And besides, in theRom. 6.4. burying of the whole body in water, the my­stery of being buried with Christ unto his death; and the raising out of the water, to be conformable to the resurrection of Christ, is not onely revealed, but in the baptized, humbling of themselves, prostrated Abra­ham like before God in the lowest element, there is a submission to the acknowledgement of the profession of Christ in the Gospel; which can­not be done or demonstrated in sprinkling, which neither sense, reason, Scripture, nor any Author, profane or divine, can judge to be baptism.

Quest. 15. Whether is it not then a sin to baptize Infants?

Answ. That we may judge no man but by visible appearance, it's without controversie, that they which baptize the children of all the Pa­rish, or other mens Parishes without exception, sin against the light of their own pretended consequences.

Quest. 16. But may not God accept of the good meaning and intention of man, though the rule or command be not altogether observed?

Answ. In the sprinkling of an Infant, there is nothing at all, either in the taught disciple, that ought to be baptized, or of the use of water in baptism. And therefore intend or imagine what we please, the Ordinance is so totally perverted, that after information, I do not know how the Lord can be said toActs 17.30. wink at such ignorance.

Quest. 17. Whether is the childe damned, if it die unbaptized?

Answ. It is not in man to judge, that any childe that dieth is either saved or damned:Deut. 29.29. secret things belong unto God, and if in Gods election it be saved, want of baptism cannot hinder, nor the pretended enjoyment thereof alter the decree of Gods Predestination.

Quest. 18. But may not consequences be admitted, to prove Infants ba­ptism?

Answ. In such a case as this of Baptism, where there is (as Quest. 5, [Page 34] 6, 7. hath been proved) an express command and example to the con­trary, Consequences cannot be admitted of, lest we shouldRom. 9.20 reason a­gainst God, and resist his commandment.

Quest. 19. Wherein do we resist or reason against the command of Christ in Infant-sprinkling?

Answ. In baptizing of an Infant, when we are commanded to baptize a taught disciple, 1. We bring the wisdom of Christ in question, as though he should forget to except against a childe by name, having in the taught disciple already excepted against both the ignorant and in­fants; as in wisdom God, in onely commanding the male to be circum­cised, the female, though not otherwise excepted against, was expresly excluded.

Again, when Christ saith, Baptize a taught disciple; for us by conse­quence to interpret this command to belong to sucking children, is to make Christ guilty of an implicite contradiction, or to deny, con­found, gainsay, or confute himself, as to say, A wise fool: Therefore no Consequences, whereby we would uphold Infant-sprinkling, ought, in contradiction to Christs command, be at all pretended; but as Chri­stians, in this Ordinance of baptism, we must have the faith of Abra­ham, or believe according to the example of Abraham, to submit to Christs expressMat. 28.19. Mark 16.15. Mat. 3.15. command, as hath been declared, without any reason­ing to the contrary.

Quest. 20. Why do men then usually, for the most part, rage against the baptizing of believers onely, seeing it is according to the express command and example of Christ and his Apostles?

Answ. Because the election of grace (before, through powerful in­formation, they have the means of seeing) oppose the Truth of which they are ignorant. 2. The world, which is the multitude of unbelievers, neither will nor can acknowledge to receive anyJoh. 17. truth which doth san­ctifie, but as it is commanded by Law, or acknowledged by custom. 3. The baptism of believers onely, is such a strict way or profession of godliness, that the generality do rage against it, so that the Papists and most licentious cannot endure to profess it.

Quest. 21. But may not the Magistrate stint or limit the publike Preachers to observe an Uniformity, and suppress this doctrine of Baptism, as being a­gainst the tradition and present practice of the Church of England?

Answ. All formerly-received Doctrinal Truths and Traditions of the Churches, ought not as a Foundation (which is Christ in his Word) be so peremptorily and forcibly enjoyned, as that the authority and truth thereof may not be questioned, or, upon a true and full discovery thereof, be altered or reformed; seeing, to limit and force publike Uni­formity, so that none may buy or sell without that mark, was and is the designe of Antichrist, whereby he tyrannized over the Saints, and their most glorious lights were put under a bushel: Therefore all private and publike Preachers, &c. are to be2 Thes. 3.14. 2 Cor. 10.14. limited onely to the Word of God, and not otherwise. And therefore, if the Lord shall be pleased to [Page 35] reveal himself to any publike Teacher, more and more to pull off the veil from off the Word, and to bless his endeavours in calling the Election of grace out of Babylon; this work of grace, as it shall appear in any Parish, is to be owned and encouraged: provided, that the Word be not so wrested, or pretended to be interpreted, as may deny the Funda­mental Truth, which Christ after his resurrection did immediately com­mand to be preached to all Nations, that is to say, to teach and baptize them, in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and to observe all things whatsoever he hath commanded, with belief of hisMat. 2 [...].19, 20. presence to this way, and faithfulness to make good all other his promises, the in­heritance and priviledges of all faithful Christians.

Quest. 22. But may it stand with the honour of the Magistrate, to counte­nance the professors of this doctrine?

Answ. In that, for divers yeers, we have experienced, that the Lord isIsai. 1.26. fulfilling of his prophecie, to send Magistrates to take away the dross and tin, and to restore theDan. 7.25 dominion of the Saints, in the enjoyment of their Laws and Languages, which were taken from them by the fourth Beast, or last Monarchy:Rev. 17.1, 14. and that they are the Lamb's souldiers that shall pour out the seventh Vial; that as former Monarchs brought in smoak or darkness into the Temple, so Gospel-Magistrates, by their ap­probation of publike shining lights, shall be glorious instruments to re­store again the light into the Temple, or publike Meeting-place for Gods Worship. And in that the Magistrates have also, according to their du­ty, so far opposed visibly appearing1 Tim. 1.9. unsound doctrine, having put their hand to Gods Plough, in cutting down the Episcopal tree, and in abo­lishing the Service book; it must needs be then their honour, crown, and glory, so to finish the good work begun, so that Parochial sprink­ling, the root of the Episcopal tree, having its life and moisture in the old Service-book, which is abolished, may not in this great light of the Gospel be replanted, or so suffered to take root again, so as to shoot out more wilde olive-branches, or sons of opposition, under which the most ignorant and Popish party are still nourished; or so to favour it, as not to suffer the Gospel-Ordinance to grow beside it.

Quest. 23. But is it consisting with the peace of this Nation, (so many oppo­sing, and being disaffected to this doctrine) for the Magistrate to tolerate it in publike?

Answ. As no Ordinances (the fruits of faith) are to be forced; so there is little appearance of God in them, or they are not at all consi­derable, that being not forced to this doctrine, become the troubled sea, to be offended with such Saints that receive this Gospel-Truth that is preached unto them, and that the peace by any such shall be disturbed or broken; the Lord, which hath so promised his presence, & hath so bles­sed these and other Saints in procuring the peace of this Nation, that the Saints of Gathered Churches are ready to sacrifice their lives to [Page 36] maintain the peace of the Nation, under the present Government. And therefore the Magistrate may expect, in the promised presence of Christ to this Way really submitted unto, the blessing of God un­to themselves, and the establishing of the Peace and Righteousness of the Nation.