A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.

A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.

Table of contents

Title page

TO THE Reverend Assembly of Divines and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland now sitting at Westminster.

A Table of Scriptures vindicated and explained.

INFANT BAPTISME NO LATE INNOƲATION. But cleared to bee as Ancient as is pretended.

1

PART II.

PART III.

PART. IV.

A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM.

A Table of Authors cited or vindicated, and other materiall things cited in this Treatise.

Errata.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A DEFENCE OF INFANT-BAPTISM: IN Answer to two Treatises, and an Appendix to them concerning it; Lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that Controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the Apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The Arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered.

By Steven Marshall B. D. Minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.

The promise is made to you and to your Children,

Acts 2. 39.

[...],

Greg. Naztanzenus.

[...],

Basilius Magnus.

Hoc (viz. infantium baptisma) Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit; hoc à majorum fide accepit, hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit,

August.

Printed at London by Ric. Cotes, for Steven Bowtell, and are to bee sold at his Shop, at the Bible in Popes-head Alley, 1646.

TO THE Reverend Assembly of Divines and Commissioners of the Church of Scotland now sitting at Westminster.

[Page]

[Page]

Reverend Sirs,

WHereas all of you in generall are concerned, and some of you particularly named in the Booke I deal with, the world might happily have expected a joint endeavour, where there was a common interest: That I therefore (whilst you are otherwise fully employed) should undertake this taske, I desire may not bee imputed by you or any to an over weening conceipt of mine own abilities: for had it fallen to some of your lots, I should have hoped the Church of Christ might have reaped more fruit, then it is like to doe by my poore and weake endeavours. But my personall ingagement to assert that truth of God which I had held forth in a Printed Sermon, [Page] which my Learned Antagonist (passing by other bookes written by other men on the same argument) was pleased to single out to combate with, and to lay out his strength upon, hath called me forth to stand up in this controversie, not as your Champion, but as an affectionate friend to the truth, which we are all called upon earnestly to contend for; in which Jude 3. conflict as I cannot but feare that you will easily discover my weaknesse; so I cannot but hope that you will not finde me either so foiled by mine adversary, or deserted by God, whose cause I plead, as not to have sufficiently answered that booke, which hath obtained to bee called in Print, The strongest Shield and Mr. John Goodwins answer to Mr. Edwards Ga [...]gr. p. 20. Psal. 76. 3. Buckler wherewith that cause was ever protected; but in Salem God of old brake both Sword and Shield, and if he hath done the like now, the weake hand which hee hath made use of, serveth onely to point at that mightie arme of his, which hath gotten himselfe the victory. Truth, triumph and the Churches peace I have had in mine eye, and have desired to carry meeknesse and love even to him, whose opinion I fight with, all along in my heart and pen: what ever measure my [Page] former writing met with from him, I have endeavored to looke upon his with a neither bloodshot nor loftie eye; passion blinds the one, and pride makes the other oft-times overlook that truth which a lowly eye seeth clearly at a nearer distance: sure I am, the wrath of man worketh not the righteousnesse of God, whilst James 1. 20. the meeke hee will guide in judgement, and teach his way. VVhat herein God hath inabled Psal. 25. 9. me to doe, I willingly submit to the Churches censure, and humbly present to you, not as any way worthy of you, but onely as a publick testimony of my reverence and gratitude for all the refreshings of spirit, and that abundance of spirituall grace I have found from the hand of God, whilst I have had the happinesse to sit among you; for a yet more plentifull effusion whereof upon you, to the happy setling at length of these distracted Churches in truth and peace, is the prayer of

Your unworthy brother, and servant in the Lords work Steven Marshall.

Aprill 2. 1646.

A Table of Scriptures vindicated and explained.

[Page]

Gen. 17. 9. 10, 14, p. 92.

Deut. 30. 6. p. 128. Deut. [...]3. 2. vindicated, p. 149

Esay 19. 24. explained, 210.

Esay 44. 2. p. 128 Esay 59. 21. p. 128.

Malac. 2. 15. vindicated, p. 156

Mat. 18. explained and answered, p. 209, 226, &c.

Mar. 10. vindicated, p. 221 John 15. 2. p. 138.

Acts 2. 38, 39. vindicated, p. 124. Proves Infant-baptisme by consequence, p. 218.

Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated, p. 217.

Acts 19. 5. 6. vindicated, p. 69.

Rom. 11. 6. vindicated, p. 134.

1 Cor 7. 14. vindicated, p. 145, 153, 154, 157, &c. maintained against, p. 148. Verse 17, p. 161. ver. 34. vindicated, p. 151.

1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. explained, p. 199. 2 Cor. 3. 10. vindicated, 188.

Gal. 3. 27, 28. opened, p. 189.

Ephes. 6. 1, 2. explained, p. 200.

Coloss. 2. 8, 9, 10. vindicated, p. 169, 174. Heb. 8. vindicated, 188.

1 Tim. 4. 5. vindicated, p. 152.

INFANT BAPTISME NO LATE INNOƲATION. But cleared to bee as Ancient as is pretended.

[Page]

1

SIR,

I Received your Book about the time mentioned by your self: which when I had read over, and thereby perceived how meane an esteem you had not onely of my Sermon, but of all other things extant, in defence of Infant-Baptisme; and indeed of all Men whose judgement differs from your owne; and how highly you value your own performance in this piece: I concluded you would have no rest in your spirit untill it saw the light; and the rather, because you so earnestly presse mee To call in to my assistance all the rest who are ingaged in this Cause, that so you might have an adversary fit to deale with, that as a mighty man you might incounter with an Host. But when after some friendly conference with you, you declared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exercise your Ministery, in some place where you should not be put upon the practice of baptizing of Infants, you could (yea, [Page] and intimated to me that you would) keepe this Opinion private to your selfe, provided onely, that if any should preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them, you should take your self bound in the same place to preach against it; otherwise Mens preaching or printing abroad, should be no provocation to you. (In hope whereof, my self endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you are, desiring the Church might not lose the benefit of those good gifts which God hath bestowed upon you.) And thereupon I tooke no further thought of any present Examination of your large Treatise, having my hands full of other employments, because I verily thought you would have sate quietly down, preached Christ, kept your Opinion to your self, and not have any further appeared (especially at this time) to increase the flame of our Divisions and confusions.

But since you think it necessary to deprive the Infants of Beleevers, of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge; yea, and looke upon all other endeavours of Reformation, as things which will come to nothing, till this opinion of yours prevaile (so dearely are you in love with your own Babe) and come out into the field so bravingly, and gaint-like, to tread down all who stand against your way: I have (with the Lords assistance) undertaken your pompous Treatise; and as farre as my impaired health, and other services would permit, indeavoured to bring your Examen to the tryall, with as much brevity and clearenesse as I could possibly; and I hope also, with so much evidence of truth, that there shall be no need of a Colledge to make any further answer unto you. Wherein I shall not (as you have done) carpe at every phrase or expression, nor digresse into impertinent Discourses, thereby to swell up a volume; nor amuse the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latine and Greek Authors, and then turn them into English; nor frame as many senses of an expression as is possible, and then confute them, and so fight with men of straw of mine own fitting up; nor spend a whole sheet of Paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my Adversary, [Page] as the Reader shall clearly perceive you have deal [...] with me: but plainly grapple with you, and insist onely upon what properly belongs to the cause in hand.

But first give me leave to observe your destructive Artifice. It is the Socinians way to elude all Texts of Scripture which are urged against them, if they have been differently expounded by Learned and Godly men, ancient or modern: to question all conclusions infer'd by consequence from Scripture: to deride the testimonies of any of the Ancients, by discovering the nakednesse, error, and oversight of those Reverend men: and by making themselves merry by turning the Orations, Epistles, or allusions of the Fathers into Syllogismes: and by inserting of Ergo, now and then, to make all their Rhetoricall passages seem ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious Reader, whether this plot be not carried through your Examen & Exercitation. Especially I observe your maine faculty to lye in framing specious answers to Arguments brought to prove any thing. Your great Argument in your Exercitation is; if I can answer all Arguments for baptizing Infants, then &c. And then you form the Argument into severall shapes, and seek to clude them; and herein I confesse you are dextrous. The rest of the Arguments wherein you doe assert, or goe directly to prove; alasse how inconsequent are they, as will appeare when they come to bee examined. The like course you take in your Examen, laying out abundance of strength in the anosc [...]uasticall part, waving and eluding the dint of an argument, by distinctions and severall senses, and finding some men of note to construe a Text otherwayes, and the like. So that the Reader may see what you doe not like, but he may stay long enough before you bring satisfying arguments to settle him in that which you would have, when you have startled him, in what you would not have. But this kind of disputing never edifies the Church: what one book was ever written by any of our Divines, even in the great point of Justification, or Faith; which some learned and subtle Papist hath not been able to cloud and slur in such a way of answering? Well, however I proceed to your Examen.

[Page] And I begin with your Prologue, wherein you declare Reply to the Preface. ‘the occasion and end of this your writing; the sum whereof you make to bee this. First, you sent (as you say) Nine Arguments drawne up in Latine to a Committee appointed (as you were informed) to give satisfaction about points of Paedobaptisme; afterward Three Arguments more, with a supplement of some other things in writing, which were delivered to Mr. Tuckney, and by him joyned to the other Papers; your intent being either to give or receive satisfaction in this great point; but to this day (much contrary to your expectactation) you have had no returne from the Committee. Secondly, you are more provoked by some passages in a Sermon of Mr. Vines. Thirdly, and by a comparison in my Sermon, between Hazaels cruelty to the Infants of the Israelites, and the principles of the Anabaptists. Fourthly, you finde mee too vehement in maintaining of this point, of which you and others see no ground. Fifthly, yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confesses himselfe unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. Sixthly, that Mr. Ball cuts the sinewes of the Argument drawn from Circumcision. Seventhly, that Musculus at length found 1 Cor. 7. 14. impertinent to prove this point. Eighthly, to conclude, upon your best search, you are confirmed that it is an Innovation maintained by dangerous principles, a thing not to bee acquitted from Will-worship; that it hath occasioned many errors in Doctrine, corruptions in Discipline and manners, unnecessary and vaine disputes, and almost quite changed the Ordinance of Baptisme, &c.’

This is the sum of your Introduction; to which, because it is but a pompous dumb shew, I shall returne a very briefe answer.

First, for your Latine businesse sent to the Committee, I thought you had not been ignorant, that the worke of Committees, is but to prepare matter for the Assembly; but neither Committees nor Assembly have power to answer any thing, sent from any (except from the honorable Houses) without leave from the Parliament. And if you please now to take notice of it, you will no longer wonder why the Committee hath made no return to your private Paper; this I thinke [Page] is sufficient to remove your first stumbling block: onely I am further to tell you from Mr. Tuckney, that hee desires you to get better evidence for what you relate concerning him; for the truth is, he neither mediately nor immediately received any Papers from you, nor joyned your 3 last Arguments to your 9 first.

Secondly, your offence at a passage in Mr. Vines his Sermon, shall bee considered in the place where you againe repeate it, and aggravate it to the utmost, Part 2. Sect. 6.

Thirdly, as to your exaggerating my allusion to Hazaels practice. I answer, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles; casting all beleevers Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace, as they do the Children of Turks and Pagans and therein you your self joyn with them. Now whether such a comparison might not be used without any further Apologie, I leave the unprejudiced Reader to judge.

Fourthly, whether my proofs for this Doctrine are weak, uncertaine, far-fetch't, shall God willing appeare to them, who wil impartially read and compare your book and mine together.

Fifthly, as for what you suggest from my Reverend and Learned Friend, Mr. Dan. Rogers, although enough might be taken out of his words in that book, to declare his own meaning; I rather chuse to set it downe in the very words which he wrote to me in a Letter, bearing date the 29 of January last past, in way of answer to a Letter which I wrote to him; wherein I requested of him to know, what in his name I should answer to this passage of your book: his words are these; If I were to answer that Anabaptist, I should answer him silentio & contemptu: for why should I not? since in that very place of my Sacraments, part 1. p. 78, 79. where I confute those Schismaticks, he snatches my words from their own defence. My words are, I confesse my selfe unconvinced by any demonstration of Scripture for Paedo-Baptisme, meaning, by any positive Text; what is that to helpe him? Except I thought there were no other arguments to evince it: Now what I thinke of that, my next words shew, pag. 77. lin. 4, 5, 6, 7. I need not transcribe [Page]them. In a mord, this I say, though I know [...], yet that is no argument for the non-Baptizing of Infants; since so many Scriptures are sufficiently convincing for it. Therefore this want of a positive Text must no more exclude Insants, &c. then the like reason should disanull a Christian Sabbath, or Women-kind not to be partakers of the Supper: The quoting of mine own Text were enough.

6. If Mr. Ball cut the sinewes of the Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme, himself was very much mistaken in his owne meaning and intentions, who in the very same place alledged by you, uses the same Argument, & makes the parallel to lie in the same things which my Sermon doth: you might have done well to have informed the Reader so much, when you used his authority to overthrow that Argument: his words are these, ‘Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution, and so they argree in the substance of the things signified, the Persons to whom they are to be administred, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be observed: as Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, the righteousnesse of Faith, and Circumcision of the heart; so doth Baptisme much more clearly; as, Abraham and his Houshold, and the Infants of beleeving Jewes, were to bee Circumcised; so the faithfull, their families, and their seed are to be baptized. Circumcision was to bee but once applyed by Gods appointment; and the same holds in Baptisme, according to the will and good pleasure of God.’

Seventhly, I perceive you glory much that Musculus hath deserted 1 Cor. 7. 14. as an impertinent proofe for baptizing of Infants, and you repeat it at least three or foure times in your book: and I observe through out your whole Treatise, that when any Authour joynes with you in any particular, you improve his authority to the utmost; which makes me conceive, that it would be a great glory to you, to be able to prove a consent of Learned men to concur with you in your way. And therefore I cannot but wonder that you should so much slight and undervalue [Page] the Judgements of Fathers and Councells, Harmonies and Confessions of whole Churches, when they differ from you. As for Musculus, whether he changed his Judgement upon 1 Cor. 7. on good grounds, shall be examined in due place: In the meane time I informe the Reader that in the same place Musculus acknowledges that there are Arguments enough, and sufficiently strong to prove baptizing of Infants, though this 1 Cor. 7. be left out. And if Musculus Opinion sway in the one, I hope it's not to bee rejected in the other.

Eightly, whether Dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatn; whether your roast be answerable to your great boast; Whether your Arguments and Answers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Baptisme is an Innovation, maintained upon dangerous principles, &c. we proceed now to examine.

And first wee shall inquire concerning the Historicall Sect. 2. Reply to the Historical part, vindicating the Antiquity of Infant Baptism. part, Whether Paedo-Baptisme as it is now taught, be but a late Innovation: whether it bee not as anoient as is pretended.

Because many of the Anabaptists shame not to say, That the Ancients, especially the Greek Church, rejected Infant-Baptisme for many hundred yeares: I said in the beginning of my Sermon, that the Christian Church hath been in the possession of it for the space of 1500 years and upward, and named a few testimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers, in little more then one page, to make this good; no wayes intending to make the weight of the Question to hang in any degree upon humane testimonies or consent of authority, but onely upon the evidence of the Word; upon this you have bestowed two or three sheets of your book, and as if all Antiquity run on your fi [...]e you confidently affirme:

1. ‘As much may bee said for Episcopacy, keeping of Faster, the religious use of the Crosse.’

2. ‘That my highest Testimonies reach not so high.’

[Page] 3. ‘That being rightly weighed, they make rather against the present Doctrine and practice, then for it.’

4. ‘That there are many evidences, which doe as strongly prove, that from the beginning it was not so; and therefore is but an Innovation. The first of these you suppose so cleare to Scholars, that it is needlesse for you to bring any proofe; the other three you undertake to make good in your subsequent discourse.’

Truly Sir, your undertaking is very high and confident, and I shall diligently weigh with what strength you perform it; and shall therefore more fully inquire into the practice of Antiquity in this point, then else I should have judged convenient to doe. As for that which you tooke for granted, That there are plaine testimonies for Episcopacy, the Religious use of the Crosse, &c. before any testimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants, pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good. I have already alledged some, and shall now (God willing) alledge more testimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients, the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages, and from the very Apostles, as a divine Institution. I read no such thing for Episcopacy, as a distinct order from Presbytery; your selfe may read in Dr. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knolls, that in the Judgement of Ambrose, Chrysostome, Augustine, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Primasius, Sedulius, Gregorius, and many other, that Bishops and Presbyters were all one by divine Institution, and that Ecclesiasticall constitution made the difference between them. Much lesse doe I read among them, that the Religious use of the Crosse was received in all ages, and that as a divine Institution. If you can make it out that these things were so, you will do a very acceptable service to the Papists, Anabaptists, & Prelaticall Party, who no doubt will return you hearty thanks, if your evidence be correspondent to your confidence. If you cannot, you should doe well to revoke this bold assertion. In the meane time I shall examine your Examen, of the Antiquity produced to make good the practice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptisme. The first whereof was taken from Justine Martyr.

[Page] Your first exception put in against this testimony is concerning Justine Martyr, or the Treatise under his name vindicated. the year in which he lived: I said 150; thereupon you charge me with overlashing, because I affirmed, the Church had been in possession of the priviledge of baptizing Infants 1500 yeares and upwards. Yet my overlashing herein, is not so much as you would have the world believe; though my testimonies had pleaded for no higher time then 150 after Christ: Neither have I overlashed so farre in this (as God willing hereafter shall appeare) as you have done more then once. I said the Church was so long in possession of it; and if you bee pleased to subtract 150 from 1645. I hope the remaining number will shew the mistake was not great, as appeares in the margent. If the Church was not all the while in possession of it, it had been your part to have informed your Reader [...] of the time, wherein the Churches quiet possession was disturbed, and by whom. It is true, I named Baltazzar Pacommitanus with his associates, who to their own ruine started up to disturbe this possession: but the claim of an unjust intruder to justle out the true owner, will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place. In pleading the Churches possession of this truth for so long time, I said not so much as others have affirmed before me; Learned Augustine (though his judgement bee slighted by you) affirmed as much in his time, and yet I read not of any then that excepted against him for it: The Church (saith he) ever had it, ever held it, they received this from the faith of their Ancestors, Hoc Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide accepit, hoc us (que) in finem per severanter custodit. Aug. Serm. 15. de verbis Apost. and this will it with perseverance keep unto the end. If he might say that the Church before his time ever had, & maintained it, and if after his time it was more clearely h [...]ld out; then I hope I did not overlash in saying the Church had bin 1500 years possessed of it. And it were an easie task to produce abundance of testimonies, giving evidence (not onely for their own age, but) that it was the received custome in all ages even from the Apostles time, & that this evidence was true, we may hence know, (saith Learned Ʋossius) because the Pelagians never durst deny it, when the Orthodox Divines used to presse it, who certainly wanted neither Learning nor [Page] will to have gainsayed them, if they could have found them abusing Antiquity: nay, they not onely not denyed this, but concurred in it, so saith Augustine, lib. 2. contra Caelist. & Pelag. Caelistus (saith he) in a book which hee set forth at Rome, grants, That Infants were baptized for the remission os sins, according to the rule of the universall Church, and according to the sentence of the Gospell.

In the next place you tell me I know that booke from whence this testimony was taken, was questioned whether it was Justine Martyrs or no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof; therefore I said, in a Treatise that goes under his name; I did not confidently averre that he was the Author of it; yet you plainly call it a bastard Treatise, and never prove it▪ but whosesoever it was, it is well known to be ancient; and both Protestants and Papists asserting Paedobaptisme, cite it.

Thirdly, I take notice that you answer nothing against the truth of the testimony it selfe: onely you say, that by it I may see that the reason of baptizing Infants was, not the Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their seed, which you make the ground of baptizing Infants at this day. You cannot be ignorant that this testimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was administred: I onely made use of it to beare witnesse to the matter of fact, that Infants were baptized in that age in which that booke was written, which is plainely held out in the answer to the question; you may also remember what Iust. Mart. qu. 56 I said of all the testimonies quoted by me, that I did not relate them to prove the truth of the thing, but onely the practice of it; and so much it doth notwithstanding the answer which yet you have brought unto it: what ground the Covenant of Grace made to beleevers and their seed, gives to Baptisme, shall bee manifested hereafter, and whether the Ancients used not (at least) some of the Arguments which we doe.

Come we now to consider what you answer to Irenaeus his testimony; here you speake, 1. Of his Countrey. 2. Of P. 5. Irenaeus testimony vindicated. the age he lived in. 3. You question his translation. 4. And in the last place you speake a little against the testimony it self.

[Page] Before you fall upon the examination of the testimony, you say, Hee was a Greeke, and wrote in Greeke; but wee have his Works in Latine, except some fragments: this you conceive to be a reason why we cannot be so certain of his meaning, as we should be, if wee had his owne words in the language in which he wrote: and may not this Objection lie against any Translation whatsoever? and upon that ground you may slight it. I cannot guesse why you adde this [...], that hee was a Greeke, &c. unlesse it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not discern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers: yet you know that I mentioned him in the first rank of those Renowned Lights of the Church, which wrote in the Greek tongue, to which afterwards I added two other: and when I came to speake of any of the Latine Fathers; Cyprian was the first in whom this question did occurre. But whether his words in the testimony alledged bee truly translated into Latine, shall by and by be considered.

As for his age, you acknowledge with me, that hee lived in the same Century with Just. Martyr: the yeare in which he flourished is variously related by the Authors named by your selfe; one sayes 180, the other 183, I may adde i [...] third who varies from them both, and sayes 175, and may Trithem. not others point at other times also? For ought I know, you needlesly trouble your selfe, and your Reader, in naming particular year [...] in which these famous Lights of the Church lived, which I thinke can hardly with exactnesse be done: it is safe to say, about such a time, or in such a Century, such and such lived, which cannot bee prejudiciall to the Reader, when wee know a Century includes many years: neither can any man warrantably restrain it to any one year alone wherein such a man flourished, as if he had flourished one year and no more.

But I proceed to what you say of the testimony it selfe, it is extant, Iren. 2. 39. Christus venit salvare [...], &c. Your exceptions against it are many.

‘First, you question whether re [...]asuatur there signifies baptisme or no, as Feuardemiur his glosse take [...] it. [Page] Secondly, You say, that neither Christ nor his Apostles call Baptisme a new birth. Thirdly, possibly this was not the word used by Irenaeus in his own Writing. Fourthly, that the Latine alters Irenaeus his minde, as learned Rivet sayes. Lastly, that Irenaeus meant not Baptisme in this place, you goe about to prove by his scope therein. These are your exceptions which now wee come to examine.’

To begin with the first of them, when, Irenaeus saith, Christus venit salvare omnes qui per eum renasountur, infantes & parvulos & pueros, &c. First you question the meaning of the word renasountur, whether Baptisme is meant thereby; and you ask me, whether this was any other then Feuardentius P. 6. his glosse, and adde Rivets censure of him.

I take not upon me the defence of Feuardentius, let him goe for such a one as Learned Rivet relates him to be, A corrupter Answ. of Irenaeus in many things: yet that judicious Man says not that he corrupted Irenaeus his sense in this place. And that he did not, it's manifest to me; because Baptisme usually is stiled by the Greek Fathers a new birth. Learned Vossini saith upon that very place, that to call baptisme renascentia, was [...]sitat [...] veteribus loquendi forma; which a few instances will make good. Justine Martyr speaking of the manner of administration of Baptisme, sayes of the baptized party, He is brought to the place where the water is, Just. Mart. [...], &c. and i [...] regenerated in the same manner wherein wee were regenerated: and to put it out of all controversie, he is there speaking of Baptism under the name of Regeneration; he adds, They are then washed in water in the name of our Lord God Creator of all things, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the holy Ghost. Here he tels us what he meant by Regeneration mentioned before: viz. When the Party was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost washed with water, that is, baptized. Dionysini Areopag [...]ta (but you will say he is questioned, yet no man can question whether he exprest Baptisme by regeneration) [Page] speaking of Baptisme sayes, Divine signes of the divine generation, and what is that (I pray you) but a new birth? [...], Dionys. Areop. Hierarch. ca. 2. [...]. yea in the same Chapter he addes further of it. The Saorament of our divine generation as in a signe. And in the beginning of that part, hee calls the Font, or place in which Baptisme was administred, [...], the mother of our adoption. Athanasine De Sab, & Circumcis. sayes, [...], we are borne again by washing: and doth not Basil call it [...], the regeneration Basil. exhortatione ad baptismum. of the soule? Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 40. amongst many other titles he puts on Baptisme, this is one, [...]. Now I demand of you, do not all these Authors call Baptisme a new Birth, which you would fasten onely on Feuardentius? yea doth not Ambrose call the Fon: Baptisterium regeneration is lavacrum, the lavacre of Regeneration? Lib. de initiandis ca. 2. Whatsoever you say of me, I hope by this time you will not think that both Latine and Greeke Fathers learned of Feuardentius his glosse to call Baptisme a new birth.

Secondly, you say, no where doth our Lord or the Apostles, P. 6. call Baptisme a new birth. I desire to know of you the meaning of that place, Tit. 3. 5. I thought the Apostle there had called Baptisme [...], the washing of the new birth, or Regeneration: and what that is but Baptisme, yet I know not. To me the Apostle seemes plainely to parallel the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the holy Ghost, as type and countertype. And the Analogie between washing in Baptisme, and Regeneration, lies in that custome of washing Infants from the pollutions of the wombe when they are first born. A learned Critick of Mr. Mede. our own in his Diatriba upon that place, thinkes none will deny that in these words the washing of Regeneration, the Apostle is speaking of Baptisme: sure I am, most of the Interpreters which I have seen upon that place agree that he either argues directly from Baptisme, or at least alludes to it.

Thirdly, you grant, though the word renascuntur is used [Page]for Baptisme by the Ancients (which before you seemed to pin on Feuardentius his sleeve) yet possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus in his owne writing. It seems, now you dare not stand upon the strength of the word renascuntur, because you confesse it was used by the Ancients for Baptisme; therefore your conjecture here is, That possibly it was not the word used by Irenaeus for Baptisme in his own writing. I shall goe further then you (and yet not wrong the truth) and say, undoubtedly, renascuntur was not the word used by Irenaeus in his owne writing, for he wrote in Greek, and therefore it may well be conceived he said not renascuntur, though he might say [...]: But to that which you answer, I adde, you know 'tis commonly said in the Schooles, fortè ita, solvitur per fortè non: you say, possibly it was not Irenaeus his word. I answer, possible it is that Irenaeus might use the Greek word, which is well translated renascuntur: for why might not hee being a Grecian, speak of Baptisme in the phrase and stile as other Grecians did? yea, that he did speake so, is most probable, because that other Greek Fathers use the word [...], a new birth, in the sense in which I alledged it.

As for the altering of Irenaeus his mind by the Latin Translation, not having his works in his owne language, I dare not say so much: when you bring forth Irenaeus his words in Greek, I shall the better be inabled to judge of it; in the meane time I accept of the Translation, having made it good by parallel phrases in other Greek Fathers.

In the last place you labour to prove, That it is not meant of Baptisme from Irenaeus his scope in that place. To this I answer, P. 6. albeit that bee granted which you say was his scope there, yet his words prove the question in debate before us. I hope you will not deny, but that the scope of a speech may tend to prove one thing; and yet the expressions used may give light to otherthings: was not the Prophet Ezekiel his scope by the parable of dry bones rising again, to prove the restauration of the Jews (who then seemed to be dead) Ezek. 37. to their former state? that no doubt was the drift, yet hee layes it forth by that parable: and Tertullian by the De resur, ca. 31. [Page] same proves the Resurrection at the last day, if hee had not beleeved that dead bones were to rise againe (saith the father) how could hee by that Simile taken from them prove the Resurrection of the Jewes? So may I say here, let it be supposed that Irenaeus his drift is, as you say, to prove that Christ was an Infant to sanctifie Infants, yet hee sayes they were renewed when they were baptized. As for Irenaeus his judgement of Christs living upon the earth about 50. yeers, it was not alleadged by me, therefore I leave it to you to helpe Irenaeus therein, because you alledge it. Now I desire the Reader to cast his eye back upon all that you have said about this testimony, and see whether you have brought forth any thing to obscure the light that it gives to our question: all the strength of what you said lay in the word renascuntur, whether that signified Baptisme or no: which by the usuall language of the Grecians I have made good against your exception, and so I passe from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next.

In the third place you come to sift Origens testimony: ‘Where, first, you question the authority of the booke; secondly, Origens Test. vindicated. you say, if it be Origens, yet hee calls Paedo-baptisme but an Apostolicall tradition, and from thence you draw forth some conclusions. In all which I hope to manifest your mistakings, and so to discover the weaknesse of your premises, that they shall not in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw these conclusions after them.’

First, you question the authority of these passages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no: and you call the Author of them supposed Origen: It had been your part before you had so branded them, first to have made it manifest by some undenyable evidence or other, that they were not Origens, you question but prove not, and I am not the first that hath produced these testimonies to prove Infant-Baptisme, many learned men handling this question have done the same before me.

You seek also to weaken the authority of these testimonies [Page] by the Censures of two judicious men, Erasmus and Perkins: the former of them (who was vir emunctae naris in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients) saith, that when a man reads his Homilies on Leviticus, and on the Epistle to Romans, translated by Ruffinus, hee cannot be certaine whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen. Yet Erasmus saith not that these Homilies set forth under his name were Ruffinus his Homilies, and not Origens. If Ruffinus had wronged Origen in that point now in question, why should not that have been laid in his dish by some of the Antients discoursing on this question, who no doubt would have been forward enough to have taken notice of it to Ruffinus his prejudice, as well as other things which they object against him?

To this you adde Reverend Perkins his testimony, who puts his commentary on the Romans amongst his counterfeit works, as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus. It may be Origen might suffer by his Translators, for Translations are various: some affect in their Translations to follow their Author [...], to trace the very footsteps of the words they translate: other Translations are metaphrasticall, or by way of paraphrase, they expound as they translate; thus severall men have their severall fancies, though they adhere to the Author which they translate, even when they keep not in all things to his words: Hierom gives instance in the Septuagint Hierom ad Pammachium. Translators, whose testimony I need not name to you. Ruffinus acknowledges, in translating Origens Homilies on Leviticus, that hee added some things to what Origen said, and what they were hee expresses: ea quae ab Origene in auditorio Ecclesiae ex tempore non tam explanationis quam Ruffini peroratio in Ep. ad Rom. aedificationis intentione perorata sunt; the things which were spoken by Origen to his auditory, he translated them by way of explanation, or did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinus dealt candidly, telling us what were the things hee added; in this Erasmus acknowledges his faire dealing. But as for his Commentary on the Romans, Ruffinus confesseth se hoc opus totum He contracted it halfe in halfe. Ruffi. praefat. a [...] Rom. ad dimidium traxisse, there was no addition of Ruffinus; Erasmus here blames him for cutting off what Origen [Page] delivered more at large, but neither doth Ruffinus confesse, nor Erasmus challenge him here for any addition to what Origen said: I shall onely desire the Reader to take notice that none of the testimonies by me cited out of Origen, are denyed by Erasmus to be Origens: neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Ruffinus: therefore your exception is not proved by Erasmus nor Perkins testimony.

You adde, in the passages which I cite, there are plaine expressions in them against Pelagians, which makes you thinke they were put in after the Pelagian heresie was confuted by Hierome and Augustine; though they make against the Pelagians, yet who can necessarily inferre, that all these Homilies in which these passages occurre were written after the Pelagian Heresie was broached? Iust. Martyr maintaines the Divinitie of Jesus Christ, yet we know hee lived long before Arius the ring-leader of that cursed Sect which denied it: can any man conclude that Iust. Martyr did not beare witnesse to the divine Nature of Christ, because hee lived before Arius started up?

Then you tell us Origen calls Infant-baptizing an Apostolicall tradition, according to the observance of the Church. This cavill I prevented when I quoted the testimony, which seemes to have some weight in it, for you grant what I said about Traditions, which is warrant enough to me to adde no more to justifie it, otherwise (besides the testimony of Scripture which I named in 2 Thess. 2. 15.) many other out of Antiquitie may be added, where Tradition is taken in that sense. Epiphanius calls Baptisme and other mysteries observed Epiph. in s [...]ne operis. in the Church, which are brought forth out of the Gospell and setled by Apostolique authority, [...]: where by the way you may see that hee grounds the Baptisme, then in use in the Church, (and even then Infants were Baptized) on the Scriptures and authoritie of the Apostles, as well as other mysteries of the Christian; Religion. But I follow you, Because, say you, in neither of these places taken notice of by mee Origen cites any Scripture for baptizing Infants, therefore it must bee understood of an unwritten[Page]Traedition: had it appeared as a new notion not heard of in the Church before, then had it been fit he should have confirmed what he said: but it being a position, which (as he sayes the Church observed) hee needed not to prove it. Ignatius presses upon Hiero to attend to reading and exhortation, and cals those things [...], traditions, yet addes Ign. ep. ad. Hier. no Scripture to confirm what he sayes, because they were things well known to the Church to bee consonant to the Scripture. So Origen tells us Infant-Baptisme was generally observed by the Church; and had any appeared to plead against the lawfulnesse of it, he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it, as well as affirmed it, to come from the Apostles, which he did.

These are your premises which now being answered, your conclusions infer'd from thence, of themselves must fall to the ground: for if Infant-baptisme came from the Apostles, and was generally observed in the Church in Origens time, then you have no reason to challenge it as a thing not known before his time, nor delivered over to the Church in his time: albeit he exprest it under the name of an Apostolicall Tradition.

The last Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Nazianzen, Greg. orat. 40. in Bapt. Nazian. vindicated. who cals Baptism signaculum vitae cursum ineuntibus: against which testimony you have nothing to object: onely whereas I added, hee seemed afterwards to restraine baptizing Infants to the case of necessity: You ask of me, Doth he seeme onely to restrain it to the case of necessity? He gives (say you) his P. 8. reason why they should be baptized, but withall declares his opinion that others should stay longer: but what of all this, what follows hence more then this, that in his dayes Infants were baptized, though his advice was, that they should defer it, unlesse there were danger of death?

These are the Greek Authors alledged by me, none of which are denyed by you to testifie the practice of the Church in this point in their severall ages, onely your exceptions have been all on the by, not against the testimonies themselves, which yet (notwithstanding what you have answered) I doubt not will by any judicious Reader [Page] bee allowed, for cleare proofes of the practice of Paedo-baptisme in the Greek Church.

After your examination of the former Testimonies, you P. 9. adde 3 Arguments to shew that Infant-Baptisme was not known in the Greek Church.

First, if it had been known among them; you wonder why I finde nothing for it in Eusebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Epiphanius? To this I say, they spake to the clearing of such questions as were afoot in their times: had any question been started when they wrote about Paedo-baptisme, no doubt they would have cleared it, as Cyprian did, and as it was done in the Councell of Neocaesarea. It is enough to mee that none of the Authors named by you speake against it; can wee say that the Fathers living before the Pelagians troubled the Church, denyed the traduction of originall sin, because they spake not clearly of it, before it was denyed by those cursed Heretiques. Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was not ancient enough to be confuted by Eusebius, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanasius, and Epiphanius: yet whether any of these named by you spake for Infant-Baptisme, shall now bee considered. I finde even in some of them which you have named; expressions which doth induce mee to beleeve that they were farre from rejecting of Paedo-baptisme.

I will not search into them all, for if any thing were brought out of Ignatius, you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you see him, (as you have done with others named before) and I have no time to wrangle. You desire to know what Clemens Alexandrinus saith? why, Vide Clem. Alex. paedagog. sure he had none but great Infants to his Scholars; if you (who pretend to be acquainted familiarly with the secrets of antiquity) be acquainted with him, you'll know what I meane: He desired (as it is likely more Greeke Fathers who were converted from Paganisme did) to set forth Religion in such a way as might move other Pagans to come and make confession of the Christian faith, that so they might be added to the Church by Baptisme in such a way [Page] as was proper to the baptizing of grown men. The next (whose testimony you misse) is Athanasius: you desire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Baptisme; if that will make you cease wondering, I'll doe it: what say you to that passage in Athanasius? where hee is shewing how we are buryed with Christ in Baptisme, and rise againe; hee sayes, the dipping of the Infant quite under water thrice, and raising Athan. dicta & interpretatio Script. qu. 94. Athanasiu [...] gives testimony to Infant Baptism. [...], &c. of it up again, doth signifie the death of Christ, and his resurrection upon the third day: is not that testimony plaine? In his Questions ad Antioch. in the second question of that booke, it is desired to be known, how shall we know that he was truly baptized, and received the holy Ghost, ( [...]) in holy Baptism when he was a Child? (it seems then it was a custome for Infants to receive Baptisme:) He sets down an answer to it, that is to be known (saith he) by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards, as a Woman knows she hath conceived, when she feels the child to stir in her womb; [...], not because his Parents say so. If that place doth not plainly, and in an Orthodoxall way beare witnesse to Paedo-baptisme, I know not what can doe it.

I could out of the same Booke adde another testimony, but you will perhaps tell me, the words next following qu. ad Antioch. 114. those that I shall cite are questioned. But I shall then reply, 1. The words that follow may bee erroneous, and yet written by Athanasius. 2. The words which I shall cite may be the words of Athanasius, and the words which follow, none of his, but added by some other. 3. How doe you prove that Tertullian, or Greg. Nazianzen wrote those words which you cite out of them. 4. You can (more then once) make this a plea for your selfe (that your allegations may gaine a favourable construction) That your proofes taken out of Antiquity doe [...]s strongly prove the point P. 4. in hand, as proofes are usually taken in such matters. I doubt not but all impartiall Readers will vouchsafe me the same [Page] favourable graines of allowance, and then this testimony also of Athanasius may passe for currant.

These words then which are safe & sound, grounded upon the same Scripture which I have much insisted on, are read in the works of Athanasius: where the question is about Infants dying, requiring a resolution that might clearly set forth, whether they goe to be punished, or to the Kingdom? Athan. ad Antioch. qu. 114. The answer is, Seeing the Lord said, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. And the Apostle sayes; Now your children are holy; (observe that Gospel ground, [...] the same that I build upon) it is manifest that the Infants of beleevers which are baptized, doe as unspotted and faithfull enter into the Kingdome. This assertion is owned by all the Reformed Churches.

Epiphanius you say, sayes nothing of it in a place, which you cite: and are you sure he sayes nothing any where else? admit he doth not, forme a Syllogisme, and see how your argument will run, &c. but I desire you at your leasure to cast your eye upon that expression of Epiphanius, which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did not reject Paedo-baptisme: where hee tells us, That Circumcision had its time, untill the great Circumcision came, that is, the washing of the new birth, as [...], Ephiphan. contr. Cerinthianos. is manifest to every one. What's the washing of Regeneration but Baptisme? which he would scarcely have called Circumcision, if hee had rejected Infant-Baptisme, Epiphanius owned the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme. and denyed that the children of beleevers (who are hopefully capable of Circumcision made without hands, may lawfully partake of this great Circumcision: and addes, That this was notoriously knowne to all; surely then none denyed it in his time.

Secondly, you reason from the continuance of the Questions, The questions put to the Baptizes, disprove not Insant-Baptisme. put to persons when they were to be baptized, and answered by them: which I think because we must conceive children were not able to returne an answer to them, thereby [Page] you would inferre they were not baptized: But I answer, when the Gospel went first abroad into the world, such as being of age were first taught, were then baptized, Act. 2. 41. & Act. 8. 13. 37. After that time such as were taught are said to be catechized: for [...], the Paedag. Catechisme leads men to faith, saith Clem. Alexandrinus. When such were prepared and made fit to be baptized, certain questions were propounded to them concerning their faith in Christ, their resolution to forsake the Devil, &c. which are related by many of the Ancients: when those of age afterwards brought their children to Baptisme, these questions were likewise put to them (though of themselves they were not able to make answer to them) but how warrantably I will not goe about to prove; yet that they were used at Infants Baptisme, as well as at the baptisme of such as were of age, it appeares by Balsamon in Can. 6. Conc. Neocaesar. Aug. Ep. ad Januarium, &c. To all which questions at Childrens Baptisme, such as undertooke their education made answer on their behalf. Therefore you cannot by these questions infer that Children were not baptized, seeing these Authors certifie that questions were put to them, and also tell us who answered for them.

Thirdly, you conceive because many children borne of Christian parents were not baptized when they were young; Therefore it was not their custome to baptize Infants. For the making good hereof you bring forth instances of Constantine the Great, Greg. Nazianz. and Chrysostome.

Before I speak of these instances, it will not be impertinent Of old some defer'd their owne Baptisme, as well as their Infants. to speake somewhat of the practice of some among the Ancients in deferring Baptisme; and here I finde that some Ancient Christians deferr'd their owne Baptisme many times, (as well as their Infants) but upon no good ground, as may appeare by many sharpe invectives against them for it, which are extant in the Greek Fathers: see Basil. exhortat. ad Baptismum, Greg Nazienz. orat. 40. in Lanct. Bapt. Chrysost. Hom. 2. in Act. Apo.

From these severall Authors and others, may be gathered the grounds upon which they defer'd Baptisme. Sometimes [Page] they would doe it in imitation of Christ, who was not baptized till he was about thirty yeares of age; they would Vbi prius. put off their baptisme untill they came to the like age. Greg. Naxianz. disputes against these. Constantine the Great put Euseb. de vit. Const. lib 4. off his Baptisme untill hee should come to the River Jordan in which Christ was baptized, though he never attained to that desired place, for he dyed at Nicomedia. Some againe Ʋbi prius. deferred Baptisme, untill they should have opportunity to be baptized by some speciall Bishop of some eminent place; these Greg. Nazian. reproves at large. Some also put off their Baptisme upon another ground, they conceived it did wash away all sin; so thought Orig. Hom. 15. in Ihesh. Hom. Aug. Confes. 1. 11. 5. in Ex. Cypr. lib. 3. ad Quirinum. & lib. 4. ep. 7. Whereup-upon it was a common speech, when they saw one to follow his sinfull courses, sine illum, faciat quod vult, nondum baptizatus est: to the same purpose Greg. Nyssenus in his exhortation to Baptisme, brings in the very same speeches of them, who put off their Baptisme upon this ground; saying, Sine, carne abutar, & turpi libidine fruar, in caeno voluptatum volutabor, manus sanguine polluam, aliena auseram, d [...]lose ambulabo, pejerabo, mentiar: baptismum tum demum suscipiam, cum a vitiis & iniquitatibus desistam. Hee speakes much more to that purpose in that place, to which I refer the Reader: all which testifies what they thought of Baptisme, that it washed away all their sins, therefore they defer'd it; for they would have none abridged of their sinfull delights untill they were baptized. Epiphanius tells us that Marcion gave order to have Baptisme thrice administred; first when a man had committed any great sinne, after that in his judgement, hee might bee baptized for the doing of it away: Againe, if after that Baptisme hee had renewed his sinne, hee was the second time to bee baptized; and so the third time, if after the second he had renewed his sin again. This opinion of the efficacy of Baptisme to doe away sinne, might induce them to defer it untill they were ready to leave the world, that by baptisme then administred to them, in their opinion, all their sinnes might bee done away. But Naz. confutes such, telling them all [Page]times were fit for Baptisme; seeing no time was free from death; So did Greg. Nyssenus also. They were also led into this error by another, some thought that baptized persons might live and not sin, for if they did sinne after Baptisme (in their conceit) there remained no repentance for them, misunderstanding that place of Heb. 6. 4. which place also was abused by the Novatians, denying remission of sins to Christians, [...]inning after baptisme.

It is cleare upon these and the like grounds (but how justly, I leave it to you to judge) many put off their owne baptisme. Neither doe I see why that others also may not be thought (even upon no better grounds) to have deferred the baptisme of their Infants; which yet doth no wayes prejudice the commonly received, and constantly practiced ordinance of Infants-Baptisme, no more then the above-named practise may bee brought to prove that it was not the received practise of the Church to baptize such as were converted from Paganisme to Christianity, at their first conversion.

Yet here I cannot but adde further, that sometimes it might fall out that Christians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptisme, because they dwelt among Infidels, or Paynims, where they could not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for themselves or their children: therefore in such a case they were necessitated to put off the baptizing of their Children. Greg. Naz. sayes expressely, that some may be hindered from Baptism by some violence, or some unexpected accident, [...]: Orat. 40. that though they would, they could not enjoy the Grace (of baptisme whereof he is speaking;) if by such accidents they themselves might be hindered from Baptisme, why might not the like accidents hinder them also from receiving Baptisme for their children?

Againe, sometimes their lot might fall out to live among Heretiques, which corrupted the Faith, and therefore would not have their Children baptized by them: might they not do herein as that pious man Moses, who refused [Page] to receive imposition of hands from bloody Lucius Sozom. 4. 38. Theod. 4. 14. that Arian Bishop. Neither would Antiochus bee ordained by Jovinian, who adhered sometimes to the Arians: assuredly, such as scrupled to bee ordained officers in the Church by such, may upon the like grounds be thought rather to chuse to defer the baptizing of their children, then to have them baptized by such. Many questions were moved in the Church about Baptisme administred by such as were not sound in the Faith: which were agitated so farre by Cyprian, and other Asrieans, that they held their Baptisme to be null; and therefore condemning their dipping, or washing, ordered that such should be baptized.

Some other causes might be found out, why men might defer both their owne, and their childrens Baptisme, which yet I will not justifie: they might herein doe, as holy Moses, Exod. 4. defer'd the Circumcising of his son, yet Moses well knew it was an Ordinance in Israel, that Gen. 17. every son of eight dayes old should be circumcised. Holy men in this might aliquid humanum pati; I will neither excuse nor aggravate their fault: onely I thought good to speake somewhat in generall of the custome of some in deferring Baptisme.

I come to the instances here given by you: the first is Constantine the Great, (though the sonne of Helena, who is Constantines Bap. no Argument that Infants were not then baptized. reported to have been a zealous Christian) not baptized till hee was aged. You should have done well to have proved her to have been such, when Constantine was borne, otherwise what gaine you if shee were converted afterwards? The true cause why he received not Baptisme at his Infancy (so neare as I can gather it from the story of his life) was this: Constantius his Father, albeit a man of a sweet temper, and a Prince wonderfull tender of the welfare of all his Subjects; first out of the mildnesse of his nature favoured Christians; (seeing and observing their unblameable conversation and faithfulnesse in all their employments:) therefore he did not in an hostile way pursue their Religion, as others Emperors did: yea, at length he grew to a good esteem of it, especially towards the latter [Page] end of his life: in this time his son Constantine the Great, lived in Dioclesian his Court, from whence (his life being twice in danger) he suddenly escaping, came to his father then sick, and presently upon his death, hee was by the Army saluted Emperour: These things considered, it is no marvaile if hee were not baptized in his Infancy; when, for ought I read, his Parents had not then embraced the Christian Religion when he returned at his Fathers death, he was 30 yeares of age: and whether ever his Father was baptized, the story is silent. Neither is Helena her affection to Religion in his Infancy, related in the Story, though afterwards it is often mentioned. You need not then wonder, why when hee was an Infant hee was not baptized: inasmuch as it appears not that his Parents were then become Christians; yea, and himselfe also was an unbeleever many years, as is apparent in the story.

The next mentioned by you, is Greg. Naz. the sonne of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not baptized Nor Gregory Nazianzen. till hee came to be a youth. You say he was the sonne of a Christian Bishop, but how doe you prove it? he that writes his life, tells us, there was a time when his father was not a Christian; yet afterwards, when hee had cast of the superstition and deceit of the Hypsistarians, bee appeared a true follower, or disciple [...], &c. of the Divine grace; and so first hee became a Sheepe, and afterwards a skilfull Shepheard to the Church. What was the Hypsistarian errour, Greg. himselfe explaines in his Funerall Oration for his Father. Whether hee was converted from it before Gregory was born, it is not exprest: Yet the Historians tell us when Naz. was but young, he with Basil were bred in humane literature at Athens; from thence he past to Antioch, all this while we read not of his studying the Christian Religion till afterwards. For it is to bee remembred, Socr. 4. 21. Soz. 6. 16. that when he with Basil had spent much time, and well profited in humane literature, some would have perswaded them to become Teachers of that kinde of learning; others moved them to betake themselves to publike pleading of [Page] causes; but refusing that way of study, they beg [...]n to thinke how to order their lives holily, as the rule of Christian Religion did direct them, wherein they profited much; in the knowledge whereof Origens books were helpfull to them. Greg. Nazianz. having spent 30 yeares in those studies, he returned to his Father and was baptized: Greg. vita. his education was not under his Father, as you relate; and if his parents were Christians when he was borne, I wonder they should send him to Athens to be trained up under Heathens; and why hee was not baptized as soone as hee was converted to Christianity, if you can lay downe the true cause, I desire you to doe it; I dare goe no further then I have warrant from the story, and the relation of his life: Yet I may hint my conjecture from his own words; where he says there were three sorts of men (besides those which I named before) who deferred Baptisme. 1. Some purposely Orat. 40. put it off, because they would live in sin; there were others living more temperately, taking in as it were the meane between vertue and vice, who though they sinned, yet approved not of their sins, but were over-power'd by them. Lastly, some defer'd their Baptisme, that they might the better prepare themselves to receive it; and possibly hee for a while might bee ranked in the third sort of them, that for such a thing put off their Baptisme: yet himselfe reasons strongly against delayes of that nature, in that Oration, which peradventure was after hee was better informed.

Thirdly, you bring in Chrysostome among your instances, Nor Chrysost. Educated by Meletius a Bishop, yet not baptized till hee was past 21 yeares of age: If you can make this out, you say somewhat, though it will fall short of that you intend to evidence thereby. Christian birth, and Episcopall education might justly give occasion to a man to wonder how such a one came to escape the priviledge, which other Infants so borne, had; if it were the custome to baptize such. But stay a little, herein you have adhered too farre to your friend Grotius, upon whose credit you have avouched all this, though neither he, nor you tell us from [Page] whence you fetch this relation. I being loath to be led by an implicite faith, without some ground; after some search I have found that which makes me think you are deceived both in Chrysostome his Parents and education. The Ecclesiasticall Story (the Penman whereof undertakes to set forth the place of his birth, his parentage, his call to his Episcopall dignity, and his removall from it) sayes he was born of a prime family in Antioch, and names his parents, Socr. hist. 5. 2. Siz. 8. 2. but not a word of his Religion nor of his Baptisme. I could here tell you that some others speaking of his Parents and of himselfe, say, [...], he and they were Heathens, (for so is the word [...] there to bee taken) and they that say so are Grecians. But however, by Chrysostome his mothers own words it appeares that his father dyed within a very short time after his birth: so much is manifest from his mother, see Chrys. de Sacerdotio lib. 1. the death of thy Father presently followed upon the sorrows which I had [...], &c. in thy birth, which unseasonably made thee an Orphan, and mee a widow: and this fell out when Chrysostome [...], was young and could not speake, as shee sayes; there shee puts him in minde of her care of his education, and of the charge she had been at to improve it; but not a word of his Religion. I confesse it appeares from Chrysostome, that about the 20 yeare of his Orat. ad viduam juniorem. age his mother was a Christian: but whether his Father or his mother was so at his birth, it appeares not. His education in his younger time was under Libanius, who was an enemy to Christianity, and a scoffer at it, untill he was about 20 years of age: then changing his former studies, habit, and profession, he came to Meletius, by whom being instructed in divine knowledge, within 3 yeares afterwards he was baptized of him. After his mothers death, he betook himselfe to a Monasticall life, in which time hee was much furthered in his holy studies by Carterius and Diodorus, to whom he often repaired.

These things considered (which Chrysostome his own words make out) you can hardly perswade your Reader that there [Page] is any strength in what you bring forth from his example to plead against Paedo-baptisme, for you neither prove his Parents were Christians at his birth, neither was he educated under Meetius, yet both these you have affirmed, but without ground of evidence.

To all the forenamed instances you adde somewhat more Grotius not to be rel [...]ed upon in this point. out of Grotius, which before I doe examine, I have something to say to you concerning Grotius, whom I see you follow in severall passages of your Examen. I cannot but wonder, why you (who pretend to bee familiarly acquainted with the secrets of Antiquity) should have so much correspondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotius is the strongest stake to support your tottering hedge; and sure I am Grotius was a friend to the Socinians, and it is well known what they thinke of Baptisme. I have learned from Reverend Doctor Rivet, that Grotius was perverted by Cardinall Peron, Rivet. Apol. provera pace Ecclesia contr. votum Grotii. who pleaded the cause of the Anabaptists in his answer to King James. Quae tum protulerat, congessit, (saith Doctor Rivet of the Cardinall) in suam responsionem ad Regem M. Britan. & Anabaptistarum causam egit, quantum potuit, strenue. Video eum satisfecisse D. Grotio, qui in talibus satis est liberalis. Doctor Rivet told Grotius, that learned Vossius had set forth 8 Arguments in Print, to prove the lawfull use of Infant-Baptisme, and desired him to answer them first, and then Doctor Rivet promised to vindicate Vossius; but Grotius made a poor excuse in his Votum pro pace Ecclesiastica, Rivet. exam. animad. Grotii. and returned no answer at all. Grotius that hee might comply with the Papists, grants that Infant-baptisme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church of Rome: and to please the Socinians also, (for it seemes hee intended to gratifie both) he puts forth this question: An Christus Grotii votum pro pace Eccles. ad articulum 9. ab Joanne baptizatus suit in nomen Patris, Filii, & S. sancti? If any man desire a full character of Grotius, let him read his Piety, such as it is, in that subtle peece, entituled, Hugonis Grotii Pietas, or his Annotations upon Cassander, and his defence of those Annotations, and his Votum pro Pace: and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee [Page] trusted, nor likely to deliver the true sense of the Ancients in this or any other point. I will not stand to tell you what Laurentius, and Maresius say of him, but sure they prove enough against him; and therefore I will put an end to this discourse, with that censure which learned Rivet hath passed upon Grotius, in Grotius own words; Judicat prout amat, aut odit; amat & odit prout libet. In his verbis exactissime descripsit ingenium suum, saith D. Rivet Apologet. pro vera pace Eccles. Sir. I shall desire you may have a more sure friend to relye upon then Grotius: how far he hath deceived you, and you following him, hath wronged the truth, and both of you your Reader; I will now God willing open.

You say, Grotius (in Annot in Matth. 19. 14.) addes, That the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesare a determines, That a Woman P. 9. 10. The Councell of Neocaes. not against baptism of Infants. with Childe might bee baptized, because the baptisme reached not to the fruit of her wombe; because in the confession made in Baptisme, each ones own free election is shewed: from which Ca [...]on, you say, Balsamon, and Zonaras doe inferre, That an Infant cannot be baptized, be [...]ause it hath no power to choose the confession of divine Baptisme. Your inference from the Canon, gives me just occasion to thinke that you never read Balsamon whom you name; for if you had, you would not assert what you doe. That this may appeare, I will set downe the words of the Canon, the occasion of it, and what the Glossator (mentioned by you) sayes of the same. The words of the Canon are these:

Of her that is with Child, [...]. Con. 6. Con. Neocaesariensis. that shee may bee baptized when shee will: for shee that bringeth forth, in this doth not communicate with the birth that is brought forth, because every one manifests his own free choice in confession.

The occasion of this Canon was this, as both your Glossators observe, it was propounded to the Fathers in that Councell, to know whether a Woman when shee is with child might be baptized or no? some opposed it, [Page] because (as they thought) in her Baptisme, the childe in her wombe was also baptized: and this they held could not bee, because there is required of him that would professe himselfe a follower of Christ (as Zonaras expounds the last words of the Canon) a free election: or (as Balsamon hath it) there is required of every one in Baptisme his own promise, which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe: at length it is determined in the Canon, the woman in that condition might bee baptized when shee would, &c. from whence your friend Grotius infers, That the childe useth Proles baptizari non solere [...] nisi propria vo untate, et professi [...]ne. not to bee baptized but of its owne proper will and profession: and to back this assertion, hee addes some words from Balsamon and Zonaras, as if Balsamon had denyed that any were to be baptized, but such as were able of themselves to make confession of their faith in Christ.

To vindicate the truth here from Grotius false inference, and yours also in concurring with him therein; I desire the Reader to take into his consideration these two things. 1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon speakes of. 2. What the Glossator mentioned by you speakes in the same glosse of Infants baptized in their Infancy. The first will let us see, that what you would infer from the Canon▪ is nothing to the question before us. The second will let all men see that you deale not fairely with your Reader.

Remember our Question is, Whether Infants of beleevers P. 3. are to bee baptized with Christs Baptisme, &c. but this Canon, speakes of children of Women as come out from among Infidells, being then converted when they are with childe; for Balsamon sayes, Such Women as were with childe, and come from the Church or company of unbeleevers: and [...] what is this to our Question, which is about children born in the Church of beleeving Parents?

Secondly, Balsamon distinguishes of children; some are [...] yet in the wombe, and not brought forth into the world, others are [...], young, but borne into [Page] the world, for the first of these he sayes, no man can undertake, (he meanes in Baptisme) but as for children that are borne [...], they affirme by such as undertake for them, and they being actually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination: your inference by Balsamons testimony is directly contrary to Balsamons words, for hee rotundis verbis affirmeth that children born, do in Baptisme answer by such as undertake for them: which words are mentioned neither by Grotius nor your selfe: herein you wrong the truth, and labour to deceive the Reader: in the beginning you charged me with overlashing (which yet was your haste, and not my errour) but here I may safely put you in mind of docking or Curtalling the Author cited by you.

Lastly, in this Paragraph you tell us that Grotius addes that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day doe keepe the custome of deferring the Baptisme of little ones, till they could Pag. 10. themselves make confession of their saith: you bragge much of the Greeke Church, but I will not deale with the Greeke Churches as you deale with the Fathers, I will not put the The Greeke Church misreported by Grotius in this point. Latine Church, Augustine and those Fathers and Councells which accord with him in one scale, and the Greeke Church in the other, such comparisons are odious: But this I can and must say, that when you have searched into the Greek Church to the utmost, that you and all the Anabaptists in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reject the Baptisme of Infants; which is the assertion which I said might well put the Anabaptists to the blush, and (now I adde) your self also for justifying them in so saying.

To returne to Grotius his Annotations, who sayes, that many of the Greeks, &c. What some of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not, but against his testimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce some testimonies (gathered by a learned Grecian, to whom the customes of the Greek Church were better knowne then to Grotius, or the Anabaptists who relye on Grotius his relation) whereby it is evident that baptizing Infants was held eeven [Page] necessary to be observed in the Greek Church.

Photius (that learned Grecian) gathering together the Phot. patriarch. Covel. anno, as some, 845. as others, 849. Greek Councells and laws for ordering of Church affaires, and reconciling them one with another, hath many things for Infant-Baptisme: as first, hee brings in an Imperiall Constitution, wherein it was provided, that all baptized Samaritans and Grecians should be punished, who brought not their wives and children in their families to holy baptisme. [...], Tib. 1. de fide ca. 10. Here was a Law which required Grecians that were baptized to procure baptisme for their children, otherwise they should be punished.

Again, Tit. 4. ca. [...]. he brings forth another Imperiall Constitution concerning Samaritans; such among them as are of age must not rashly bee baptized, but requires they should bee trained up in good Doctrine, and then admitted to Baptisme; but their children, though they know not the Doctrine, are to bee baptized. So for Grecians, it's required that all their little ones without delay be baptized, Conc. in Trullo. Can. 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell, when there were no sure Witnesses to be produced, who were able to testifie little Children (whose baptisme was doubted of) were baptized, neither for their tender age could testifie it themselves, without [...] any offence such should be baptized.

Balsamon in his glosse upon that Canon, relates a story how Children comming from a Christian Countrey, were taken by the Scythians and Agarens, and bought by the Romans: the question was, whether the Children should bee baptized or no? though some pleaded, they came from a Countrey where Christians dwelt; and therefore it is to be presumed that they were baptized [...], in their Infancy; Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptisme to them: and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptisme: yet if they could produce no witnesse to make it good, they were to bee baptized. All which clearely testifies that Infant baptisme was then [Page] generally in use among Christians, seeing they were so carefull to have it testified that they were baptized, and did presume where Christians dwelt it was in use.

Now see what from these testimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptisme among the Greeks; if such among them as brought not their Children to Baptisme were punished: if Imperiall Laws, as well as Synodicall Canons required Infant-baptisme; which they held so fit, that if there were any Children (of whose Baptisme it was doubted,) they required they should be baptized; may not I from all this wonder why Grotius, or you from him, do affirme, That in every age they deferr'd the baptisme of their children till they could make themselves a confession of their faith? Conc. Carth. ca. 14. Whereas the former Constitutions about Infants Baptisme testifie that among them in those ages it was held an undoubted truth.

I might also adde to these one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage against the Pelaegians; wherein was affirmed, That whosoever denyed Baptisme for the remission of sinne, to a new borne Infant, &c. should be anathematized.

All which being duely weighed, it will easily appeare, Whether the Anabaptists need to blush, in saying, that the Ancients, especially the Greeke Church, rejected the Baptisme of Infants for many hundred yeares. Let the severall testimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church alledged by mee, speake whether the Greeks rejected that ordinance or no: And so wee passe from the Greek Church here, though afterwards you give me occasion to search further into the Grecians.

Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Church will be more propitions to you in opposing Paedo-baptisme, then the Greeks have been; here Cyprian is the first that comes under your Examen; and calculating his age, you tell us Ʋsher places him in anno 240, Perkins 250; I might tell you that others take notice of him in other yeares, as Trithemius 249, Henr. Oc [...]us 245; so hard a thing it is to set down prec [...]sely the particular year; [Page] yet all (as I said before) agree in the Century in which he lived.

You acknowledge with me, that he was one of the anciencest Writers among the Latine Fathers; onely Tertullian, you say, was before him; and who denies that? here upon your Semi-Socinian Grotius his credit you say, That nothing was determined in Tertull. his time, concerning the age in which children were consecrated by their Parents to Christian Discipline; because hee disswadeth by so many Reasons in his Booke of Baptisme, c. 18. the baptizing of Infants. And you adde, If he did allow it, it was onely in case of necessity; as may appeare by his words in his booke De Anima. ca. 39. Though my task in this examination of your Examen, bee onely to make good what I said before in my Sermon; yet you shall have my answer to this place quoted by your self▪ whereby it may appeare there are more witnesses to confirm the same truth, which I avouched but onely by the testimonies of a few.

Tertullian indeed in the former of these places, is perswading Tert. de Bapt. c. 18. In Tertullians dayes Infants were baptized. men to defer both the Baptism of children, and others who are of age. Yet I beseech you tell me, doth he not therein intimate that it was the custome of the Church in his age to baptize the one as well as the other? otherwise I see no reason why he should desire that they would defer the one as well as the other. And what's the reason of his delay? such as did undertake or promise for children were in danger; whilst they promised on their behalf, that which by reason of their own mortality, and increase of evill disposition in children, afterwards might make them breake, or destroy their promise; his words are these, ‘Pro cujusque personae conditione, de dispositione, etiam aetate, cunctatio Baptismi utilior est: praecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, si non cam necesse, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? qui et ipsi per mortalitatem destruere promissiones suas possunt, & proventu malae indolis falli.’ Is it not evident by that place, that Baptisme was administred in all ages, even to little ones; and that there were some who undertooke that they should [Page] perform the promises made by them on their behalf? onely this custome of baptizing them did not very well please Tertullian: wherefore he seeks to disswade from it, but never pleads against it as an unlawfull thing, or an abuse of Christs institution, as you doe; yet how displeasing a delay of that nature was to others (famous in the Church) hath been cleared by severall testimonies before: here may you take notice of one, even before Cyprian in the Latine Church, that beares witnesse against you, that in his time children were baptized. This truth is so perspicuously laid down by him, that you cannot deny it; and therefore you come with an [if,] and say, If hee did allow it, it was onely in [...]ert. de Anima, c. 13. case of necessity; for this you refer me to his book de Anima, c. 39. where having reckoned up the idolatry, and superstitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children, he speaks of children, one of whose Parents is holy; and confesses both by the priviledge of their birth and profession they are designati sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis, not sancti, till they be born of water and the Spirit: but in that place is altum silentium, of his allowing baptism Cyprians testimony vindicated. to them in case of necessity, as you say: wherein if a man told you that you did overlash, he should not wrong the truth.

But before wee part with Tertullian, give mee leave to aske the question, whether the disswasion which you cite out of Tertullians booke de Baptismo, may not reasonably bee interpreted of the Infants of Infidells? because in that Chapter Tertullian speakes of the baptisme of such as were not born of Christian Parents, (such as the Eunuch, and St. Paul;) and therefore hee desires that the Baptisme of such Infants should bee deferred, till they came to yeares, and were able to make confession of their sinnes, and profession of their faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponsors mortall; for what (saith hee) though these Infants may have some Sponsors to undertake for their Christian education? yet their Sponsors may die before they are capable of instruction; and then that promise is void and of none effect.

And I am very much inclined to beleeve, that this is the [Page] true meaning of the place, because it is cleare and evident by the 39. Chapter of his book de Anima, that Tertullian did acknowledge that the children of beleevers had a kinde of priviledge (which he calls prerogative) by their birth, besides that of their education: and therefore in case the Sponsors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live, yea, and give those Infants due education; yet there was a great difference between them and the Infants of beleevers, who had such a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptisme; and by Baptisme, and the Spirit, saith he, they are made (what they were by God designed to be) holy indeed. Because I will give you, and the learned Readers light enough, I will transcribe the passage at large, and give you leave to judge, for I hope you will make it appeare that you are pius Inimicus, and passe judgement upon my side, when you have received some new light, if it bee new to you: but truly, I feare, that you saw something in this 39 Chapter, which made against you: and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter, and not set down the words of the Author, which was not so fairly done: be pleased then to peruse the testimony in words at length, and not in figures. Hin [...] enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait, tam ex seminis praerogativa, quam ex institutionis disciplina: caeterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur, quasi Designatos tamen sanctitatis, ac per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios, ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinarentur. Alloquin meminerat Dominicae definitionis, nisi quis nascatur ex aqua & spiritu, non introibit in regnum Dei, id est, non erit sanctus. Sir, are you not now convinced that Tertullian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had such a sanctity (as I called Covenant-holinesse) by the prerogative and priviledge of their birth, as gave them a right to baptisme? I would not abuse Tertullian, as you did Origen and other Reverend and Learned men; and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his owne words: I beleeve by this time you are sicke of Tertullian; let us confer with Cyprian [Page] and his 66 Colleagues, upon whom you have passed a Magisteriall censure.

Cyprian, say you, saith enough, and more then enough, except hee spake to better purpose: if that which hee hath spoken P. 10. be weighed in the ballance of your judgement, his words, though many will be found but light: yet you say that Hierom, and especially Augustine relyed upon that Epistle for the proving of baptizing Infants: for my part, I am more strengthened in my Opinion of the worth of Cyprian's words in that Epistle by this your confession: for had there not been solidity and truth in what hee said; learned Hierom, and Reverend Augustine (two eminent men in the Church, though you thinke great darkenesse was upon their spirits) would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in it; they were well able to ponder the weight of words, before they would relye upon them, or applaud them. And what saith Augustine of that Epistle? That Cyprian was not devising any new decree, but followed the most sure faith of the Cyprianus non novum aliquod decretum condens, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans, &c. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hier. Church: doth he not therein testifie that Cyprian maintaining that Infants might bee baptized before the eighth day, did devise no new decree, but observed faithfully what the Church did before him: whereby it seems, though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement, yet he relyed not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptisme; this to him is no new doctrine, he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church, which in that point hee followed faithfully.

You tell me, I said Fidus denyed not Infants Baptisme, but thought they ought not to be baptized before the eighth day: to this you give no answer; and may I not thereby thinke that it appeareth evidently to your selfe, as well as to mee, that Paedo-baptisme in that age was in use? for this you deny not: and indeed, that this was the question wherein Fidus craved resolution of Cyprian: s [...]il. whether Infants were to be baptized before the eighth day, it appears by the words of the Epistle: ‘Quantum ad causam pertines, quos [Page]dixisti intra s [...]cundum, vel tertium diem qu [...] [...] constitut [...]s baptizari non opertere, & considerandam esse legem circumcisioni [...] antiquae, ut intra oct av [...]m diem, eum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctifieandum non putares, &c.’ Fidus question therefore was, as I said before: this appeares also by August. his testimony, who ad Bonisacium, lib. 4. contr. [...]. Ep. Pelag. c. 18. sayes the same.

So farre then we agree: but you say, I might have gone further, and observed Fidus his reasons; one whereof was drawn from Circumcision, which was done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childe: The other is drawn from the childes uncleannesse in the first dayes of its birth, which makes men abhorre to kisse it, &c. both which are related by Cyprian, not Ʋestigium infantis in primis parus sui diel us constituti mundum non dixisse as his owne judgement, but as reasons of Fidus his scruples, whereof hee sought resolution from him: to both which he gives the judgment of the Councell, assuring him, that none of them agreed with him herein. If Fidus did Judaize in both these, or either of them, what's that to mee, who say he denyed not Baptisme to bee administred to Infants? if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day, was unsound, I seek not to justifie him in it. Yet let me tel you, that Fidus was not the onely man that reasoned from Circumcision to Baptisme, though they doe not tye Baptisme to the eighth day, as Fidus did. Besides the testimonies Ath. de Sab. & Circumcis. Orat. 40. brought out of Athanasius before, take notice that hee calls Circumcision a type of Baptisme. Greg. Nazianz. proves that Children are now to be baptized, as under the law they were circumcised. August. also saith the same, lib. 1. contra Grescon. Grammaticum, c. 30. & de Bapt. contr. Donatist. lib. 4. c. 23. Where he sayes, Baptisme is as profitable to children now, as Circumcision was to children of old. Chrysost. also Hom. 40. in Genes. calls our Circumcision Baptisme. But none of all these holy men tyed Baptisme to a certain day, as Circumcision was, as Chrysostome speaketh in the same place.

How far these worthy men Judaized in that age, in saying Baptism now comes in stead of Circumcision, is not now to be considered by us; therefore I leave it.

[Page] In the next place, you say, The resolution of this Councell is not to bee slighted, because upon your search, you finde it the P. 11. spring-head of Infant-Baptisme. It seemes when you cast your lead into the sea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance, your line was too short, and your plummet too light, that it could not reach beyond this Epistle: are there not divers instances among the Ancients which make it manifest, that before that time Infantbaptisme was in use, as hath been manifested to you already? therefore that was not the first time in which it sprung up in the world.

You say further, I am mistaken about the proofes of their opinion, which you call not reasons or proofes, but answers to objections. I will not wrangle with you about words, call them what you please, Arguments or Answers: this is enough to me, what I have produced is recorded in the Epistle: and all of them doe justifie the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants, which was the thing which I went about to cleare: neither doth any of them enforce Baptisme to be tyed up to the eighth day, as Fidus thought.

From the words of that Epistle, you alledge 3 things; 1. They thought baptizing, giving Gods grace, denying it, denying Gods grace. 2. They thought the soules to bee lost, which were not baptized. 3. That all Infants (not beleevers onely) were to bee baptized. The 2 first I grant are rightly collected from the words of the Epistle; you might, if you pleased, have collected divers other things, as that Baptisme comes in stead of Circumcision, &c. But suppose all their grounds which they plead be not to be justified: yet they doe not darken the light which the place gives to our question. If a man were to make good any assertion of a necessary truth, and use severall arguments to make it out; if one of these arguments be not good, or be weake, that may bee rejected, and yet the truth stand firme, seeing the other arguments are good and strong to evidence the truth. It is true, when the Ancients said that Children were to be baptized, sometimes they stood peremptorily for the necessity of Baptisme, as if without it no salvation were to [Page] be excepted; yet they made it out by other Arguments then that: why should then the truth justified and cleared up by them, be rejected for this? When they were to prove that men of yeares instructed in the truth, should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made that good by several Reasons; as sometimes from the necessity of the command which Jesus Christ laid upon all the Disciples of the Gospel, that they might remember his death till his coming again. At other times they urged it, lest men should brand themselves with unthankfulnesse in not comming to the feast when they are invited. Sometimes again they prest the same duty upon the people to come to that ordinance, that they might have the inward Grace signified and exhibted in the Sacrament, to bee sealed up and confirmed to them. These three wayes did they use to presse their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament: yet at some other times also they pleaded the necessity of that Sacrament, as if no man without the use thereof could be saved. No man can deny the first three Arguments to be good, though the last is not: and notwithstanding the weaknesse thereof, this is a sure truth, That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to be received. So it is here, divers Arguments are brought to prove that children are to bee baptized; and amongst many, this is one, They conceived the want of it might bee prejudiciall to the salvation of Infants, which I will not justifie; yet I dare not reject the truth made out by other media, reasons or arguments. And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was most frequently used by the Ancients in the heate of disputation, when they had to do with them that denyed the traduction of originall sin from Adam to Infants: howsoever, at some other times they confesse with Augustine, that some doe receive rem Baptismi Lib. 4. c. 22. contr. Donat▪ absque Sacramento, a man may have the grace given in Baptisme, and not be baptized.

As for the third inference made by you from his words, that not onely Infants of beleevers, but all Infants are to bee baptized: though he layes it down in generall termes, that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ: yet what [Page] he says ought to bee understood of the Church, because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified, who were common.

You construe some passages of the Epistle as answers to some objections, which doe no wayes weaken, but strengthen what I have said from thence. Onely in the closure of this Section, you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind, as if hee had meant that Infants are to bee baptized, because they are under Originall sinne, and need pardon. You say the Argument is rather, that they have lesser sinnes then others; and therefore there is lesser hinderance to them to come to this Grace, remission of sinne, and Baptisme. Cyprian indeed sayes, if Baptisme be not denied to men of yeares, who hath committed more hainous sins then Infants, why should Baptism be denyed to Infants, who are onely guilty of Originall sin derived to them from Adam: doth hee not there mention Originall sinne, which he sayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized: which in his judgement is lesse then the grievous actuall sins of men of years, added to their Originall sin.

In the farewell of your censure of Cyprians judgement, you call it naked, and say, you would have covered the nakednesse thereof, but that the truth suffered so much thereby: and so can at your pleasure put upon it the title of an absurd Epistle. P. 12. Sir, for one man to slight the judgement of 66. men, eminent in their generation, doth not well become a modest disposition taught in the Gospel, to thinke better of others then himself. I am afraid, that when Cyprians Epistle, and your answer shall bee compared together; the nakednesse of your answer will rather appeare; yea, remember what the Philosopher trampling upon Plato his neat Carpet, said, calco Platonis superbiam: yet hee spying a hole in his slovenly cloake, answered, & ego per rimam pallii tuam video superbiam, &c. I cannot but account it your nakednesse, that if it be naked, you have not in your answer laid open the nakednesse of it: but though it be absurd in your eye, yet in the judgment of men renowned for learning and piety, it hath ever been accepted in the Church, notwithstanding some mistakes in it.

[Page] Next to Cyprian comes Augustine under your Examen: P. 12. Whose authority was it (as you say) that carryed on Baptism Augustine vindicated. of Infants in the following ages almost without controule: For which you bring forth Walfridus Strabo, and Petrus Cluniacensis testimonies, which I here mean to passe over, and take notice of them in another place.

I confesse learned Augustine his authority was great in the Church, both whilst he lived, and since, and that worthily; not onely for his defence of the truth which you now oppose, but of other greater and more necessary truths also, which hee solidly maintained against the adversaries who laboured either to suppresse or corrupt the same: albeit you seeme not much to stand upon his judgement: which with you is of no more value, then his proofes and reasons can adde weight thereunto. Thus you slight him, though what he said is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by your selfe; and how far your bare single judgement and censure will out-weigh Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, and the Councells, (which you mention in this Question) let the Reader judge.

It hath been an ancient justifiable course in the Church in examining of controversies in Religion, to look back upon the writings of famous men who flourished in the Church before: was not Sisinnius his counsell to good purpose, which he presented to Theodosius (then studying how to put an end to the unhappy differences wch troubled the Church in his time) when hee perswaded him, [...] Soz. 7. 12. [...]: and to demand of them who petitioned him, whether they would not stand to the judgement of such as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided? especially when their judgement dissented not from the Scriptures: his counsell no doubt was good and wholsome; yet I desire that herein I may not bee mistaken. This I speake not, as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Verity. I have long since resolved (by Gods assistance) with Hierom, Antiqua legere, probare singula, [...]etinere quae bona sunt, & a fide Catholicae Ecclesiae non recedere; it were happy for the Church among [Page] us, if in this unruly age, many (who not content with former truth:, are carryed on with an itching disposition after novelties) would doe the like.

I return to judicious Augustine: Here I expected your accurate Examen would have canvast the severall testimonies in the places quoted by me; but I am deceived: Whereby it seems you have nothing to say against them, but that they evidence what was that Churches practice in his time about our question (which was the true and onely end why I named any testimonies from Antiquity:) for if they did not, I doubt not you would have said so much: onely here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reasons of his judgement in this controversie: all which to you seeme to bee but light: this you labour to prove in 6 following Sections, which I will now view; and see whether your weighty answers wil satisfie his light reasons in the judgement of any indifferent Reader.

Your first exception against his judgement is, because he makes it an universall Tradition; a shrewd fault, or a dangerous P. 14. position; which wil not down with an Anti-paedo-baptisme. And first you reason against it to this purpose; If the Church had thought it necessary that all children of Christians by profession should bee baptized in their Infancy; then none born within the pale of the Church should have miss't of it. But so it is that many did. Ergo, &c. Your Minor you prove, Augustine himselfe, Adeodatus his son, and Alipius his friend were not so baptized; and thus you labour to prove against Augustine, that Infant-baptism was not universally received in that Church as he said, which you thinke to evince by the induction of these instances.

First, that it was universally used in the Church, testimonies of good Witnesses recording the practise of the Church make it manifest; and wee have heard of some of them before in their severall ages; as, Irenaus lib. 2. cap: 39. (notwithstanding the bar you put in against him;) hee tells us that Christ came to save all sorts of people, whether young or old, for they are regenerated by him in Baptisme. [Page] Origen in severall places; as, in Luc. 14. lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. & in Levit. Hom. 80. in which places he tells us, it was the custome of the Church to give Baptisme to little ones; and sayes, not of this or that Church: which by a constant course they had observed: therefore in his time we find it universally practised in the Church; otherwise he could not say that the Church observed it. Cypr. Ep. 39. proves (as we have heard) that Baptisme is to be denyed to no age: then hee addes, quanto magis prohiberi non debet Infans, &c. this he sets down as no new Doctrine, but faithfully adhearing to the order of the Church; as we heard from Augustine before: may wee not now from all these say, it was in his time the universall custome of the Church to baptize Infants?

Shall I adde other Witnesses who lived in the same Century with him? Chrysostome Hom. ad. Neophytos. Ambrose Other ancient testimonies for Infant baptism. Ep. ad Demetriadem Virginem. Hieron. ad Laetam, & lib. 3. adv. Pelag. all which I now passe over: and are not all these Witnesses of the practise of the Church? which being weighed, who can deny that Augustine might well relate Paedo-baptism to bee universally practised, having such a cloud of Witnesses to confirm it.

And to manifest it further, this is somewhat to mee; Epiphanius (whose testimony you looked for) in the end of his worke relating what was generally observed in the Church tells us, The Baptisme administred in the Church in his time, was performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel, and the authority of the Apostles; as well as other mysteries then in use. And we know that in his time Baptisme was administred to Infants; therefore in his judgement, what the Church did therein, they had authority for it from the Gospel and the Apostles: to make that good, he says afterwards, That Baptisme came in stead of Circumcision, which then was not in use.

Furthermore, sometimes Historians relating particular customes in some things which were not in use in some Churches and Countreys, (upon which arose some debat [...]s in the Church) doe not mention that of Infants Baptisme as one of these particular customes observed in some Churches, [Page] and not in other; See Socrates Hist. lib. 5. 22. it's true, he relates some diversities of severall Churches about persons that had power to baptize, and about the time in which Baptisme was commonly administred; but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptisme, whilst others baptized them; which no doubt he would have done if there had been any such custome then afoot in the Church. Sozom. likewise setting down the severall customes of severall Churches (though they were of the same Opinion) Soz. 7. 19. among all which singular customes, baptizing Infants is not named for one, yet in use in that age: therefore it is to be conceived as the generall practise of the Church. Indeed there was a different custome (especially in some after ages) in the manner of baptizing both Infants and grown men; in some places they dipt them thrice, in some but once: and of this very custome Gregory the great meanes, when he saith, In una side nil officit ecclesiae diversa Soz. 1. 17. consuetudo. But in none of these Ancients doe I read any such diversity of customes that some Churches baptized Infants, others baptized them not: if you know any, I pray you produce them in your next.

Now I come to speake to the particular instances, by which you goe about to disprove this universall practise of the Church: you tell me Augustine was not baptized till above 30 yeares, though educated as a Christian by his Mother Monica. First, I might answer you with the Proverb, una P. 1 [...]. hirundo non facit ver; or that one exception takes not away Augustines baptism, no argument that Infants were not then baptized. the generall rule: if after ages come to read the stories of the Church, after the Lord was pleased to begin the Reformation thereof in Luthers time: and then find that even in that time Baltazzar Pacommitanus with some of his seduced brethren did withstand Paedo-Baptisme; or if after generations among us shall find that when God begun so happily to advance that blessed work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Ancestors dayes, if they should meet with Mr. Tombes Examen of this question, and therein see your Judgement against the constant and universall practlse of the Church at this day: if such [Page] should from a few particular Examples infer that this was the Doctrine commonly received in the Reformed Churches (that children should not be baptized:) Or deny that this was the common received Doctrine that children should be baptized; assuredly, a man that knows the Doctrine and present practise of the Church, might with all reason deny the consequence, because some among them did not stand for Infant-Baptisme; therefore the generality of them denyed it. So it may be here thought, peradventure some (though born of Christian Parents) were not in that age baptized in their Infancy; yet that is no way prejudiciall to the universall practise of the Church, in which Paedo-baptisme was received.

But secondly, I answer more particularly: I grant Augustine was not baptized till hee was 30 years old. And I will not take upon me to determine (besides the generall observation of the reasons, upon which Baptisme in those dayes was deferred by some, which formerly have been hinted) what the particular reason was of his not being baptized in his Infancy: but I will hold forth unto the Reader so much as shall clearely shew that you have no cause from that example to say, That children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in th [...]ir Infancy; because you should first prove that Augustine his parents were Christians at his birth; otherwise you speake not to the question before us; What was the profession of his Parents when he was borne? take it from Augustine himselfe: who sayes (though Possidonius in his life seemes to say otherwise) when he was Putr, a child grown, hee fell extreame sick, which put him in feare of death, (then hee and his mother also were both troubled that hee was not baptized:) he sayes of his Father at that time, as yet he beleeved Aug. C [...]nf. l. 1. c. 11. ille nondum erediderat. not in Christ. When Augustine was about 16 yeares of age, his father was but catechumenus, Conf. lib. 2. ca. 6. In another place speaking of his mothers peaceable cohabitation with him, (though he was a man of a hastie disposition, and sometimes used her unkindly) yet he sayes of her, virum suum in extrema vita temporali ejus lucrata est Confess. 9. 9. [Page]tibi (i. e. Deo,) &c. Doth not that testimony plainly hold out, that hee was not gained to the Christian faith untill hee drew neare the end of his life? and if it was so long before he was truly gained to the Lord; how can it seeme strange to any, that he who beleeved not in Christ himself, should neglect, or it may bee hinder the baptizing of his Childe in the name of Christ?

It is also said of Monica, that when shee was but 13 yeares old, she was marryed; her mother taught her to pray, but we read not of her baptisme when she was young: or if she were baptized when hee was borne, how shall wee know that her husband would give way to her to have Baptisme administred to her son, she suffered many things of him whilst he continued an Infidell, as Augustine confesseth. Nay more, if she were baptized herself at his birth, why might shee not be conceived to be carryed away with the error of some in that time of deferring Baptisme till death, that they might not sinne after it? it appeares not, his Parents were Christians (it is out of doubt his Father was not) at his birth: therefore nothing for the strengthening of your assertion is gained by this instance.

Afterwards Augustine put off his own Baptism till he was about 30 years, and upward, and what marvaile? He was poysoned with the Manichaean heresie, in which hee continued Poss [...]d. de vita Aug c. 1. almost 9 years, Conf. lib. 3. c. 11. in which time what account hee made of Baptism, may bee seen in his deriding Conf, 4 3. of it to his deare and intimate friend (who was baptized in his sicknesse) by whom hee is sharply rebuked for it. I might also adde what hee confesses, that the strength of his lustfull disposition carryed him on to many sins, which made him make no haste to bee baptized; quia post lavacrum illud, major & periculosior in sordibus delictorum reatus Conf. 1. 11. sorct: so much may be read in Augustine himselfe, of the causes of deferring his baptisme, which yet can be no prejudice to the general practise of the Church in that age; as it is mentioned by himself, and others.

Neither is it any wonder why Adeodatus his sonne was not baptized in his Infancy: for how can wee seeke for Nor his sonne Adeoda [...]us. [Page] his Baptisme in Infancy when as his father was unbaptized? he being borne when his father was about some 15. or 16. yeers of age. When Augustine himselfe was baptized, hee caused him to be baptized with himselfe, Adeodatus being Conf. 9. 6. almost 15. yeers old. Indeed if Adeodate had continued unbaptized after Augustine his baptisme, your objection drawne from him might have had some colourable pretence, which now it hath not; much lesse any weight in it to confirme what you seeke to strengthen thereby.

As for Alipius, besides his scandalous conversation, hee Conf. 6 7. Conf. 7. 19. Nor Alipius. was also poysoned by the Manichees: and further it appeares also what mistakings he had concerning the doctrine taught in the Church about Christs soule; whereupon it is said of him, ad ipsam Christianam sidem tardius movebatur: therefore considering how long he continued in his errors, it is not to be wondered at that he also was so long unbaptized. So much for your three instances.

Afterwards because you feare these instances will not bee sufficient to make good your answer, therefore you grant with Grotius, that Paedo-baptisme was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of necessitie in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world: I take what you grant, that it was used both in Africa and Asia: and may I not then with Augustine say it was universall, both among Greekes and Latines?

And when you say it was more frequented in Africa then in Asia; I know you would intimate that the received custome was, that some did, others did it not, each doing what hee thought best, but that the Greekes lesse regarded it then the Latines: for so I finde both Grotius, and the Arminians in their book Censura censurae, Cap. 23. to affirme confidently, but neither you nor they must be beleeved upon your bare assertion against so many witnesses: yet this sticks with you, that in the Councells (as Grotius saith) you cannot find ancienter mention Pag. 14. of that custome then the councell of Carthage: I have formerly told you why Fathers and Councells mention not all things which are controverted in our age, which was this: because their care was to resolve the doubts which troubled [Page] the Church in their dayes: if there bee no Canon concerning it, why may it not be thought that they did not mention it, because in their times none did scruple it? yet when any thing relating to childrens Baptisme was started, then the Church maintained it, witnesse the 66 Bishops assembled in a Councell answering Fidus about that question. I might also put you in mind that Constitutiones Clementis make mention of it saying, But baptize yee your Children: [...] albeit for my part I conceive these Constitutions not to be his, under whose name they goe, yet with the best Criticks I may affirme this, that they relate the ancient customes of the Greek Church, gathered into one volume, the Compiler of them desiring to put credit upon them would have severall Constitutions to come from severall Apostles.

And although it was more used in Africa then else-where, yet Fulgent▪ de fide ad Petrum, ca. 30. you question whether they did in Africa baptize Infants but in case of necessitie, or for healths sake: I pray remember what Tertullian that learned African said de Anima. Fulgentius tells us baptisme is sufficient to wash away originall sinne from Infants, so Hilarius Ep. 2. ad Augustinum mentions it, yet neither of these speake of Baptisme in the danger of death: to which you say they restrained it.

You mention the distinction of Catechumeni and persons Baptized, and the use of catechizing before Baptisme, that even after Augustine his dayes the baptizing of persons of growne age did continue as well as of Infants, &c. Doe you not forget the question before us? you should have proved that Infants were not baptized, and now you speake of baptizing of men of yeers, which gives you occasion to mention the distinction of Catechumeni and others, and that is nothing to our question; for who ever doubted that even in Augustine his time many still adhered to Paganisme? and when any of them had embraced the faith, why might they not be catechized, and so prepared for Baptisme, and when they were sound fit baptized? Augustine could us before, that his father was Catechumenus when hee was sixteene yeers of age.

[Page] Then you come to censure baptizing of whole Countries upon the baptizing of their King, &c. which is nothing to our question, otherwise I might relate unto you severall examples where you might see, what a notable preparation for the conversion of Nations it hath been to have their Governours shew them the way, but I forbeare.

In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement, because he held that Infants without baptisme must Pag. 15. bee damned by reason of originall sinne, which is not taken away but by baptisme. I grant that Augustine, and some others of the Ancients pressed baptizing of Infants upon that ground, but not onely upon that ground: and they did most presse that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques, denying originall sinne to be conveighed from parents to their children: yet they maintained Paedo-Baptisme upon other sound grounds, as formerly I have proved; therefore this exception is of no vilidity, nor was this Augustines constant Doctrine: yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour, as shall afterwards appeare.

Againe you say, that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon: that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seede. What if you have not found it, will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings? Bernardus non vidit omnia: why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity passe unseene by you? though you have seene much, and thinke that you have seene more truth then all the Ancients did, and can censure what they say at your pleasure: But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients, it would make nothing for, or against me, who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground, because they placed it so: I have asserted that ground from the Scripture, as afterwards, God willing, shall bee made good. But that they also, (even many of the ancients) pressed Baptisme upon the sound grounds which wee doe, I have made it appeare out of severall writings.

As for the judgement of Bellarmine, Aquinas and others quoted by you, I will not trouble my selfe in answering for [Page] them: they were not alledged by me, neither will I stand to their judgement.

In your third Section you bid mee consider of Augustine his judgement, holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper: that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us, therefore you can expect no answer from mee to it, for I never pleaded it.

But what is your Argument from hence, Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper, Ergo, What? draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can, our question being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes.

Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainety of Pag. 16. Regeneration by Baptisme, and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants, &c. I confesse that sometimes hee sayes so, yet at other times (as I told you before) hee sayes there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur. So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death (for hee died whilst Ambrose was on his journey comming to Baptize him) where he said of him, Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram, amisi: sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit—vita jam fruitur aeterna—qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte p [...]ter, quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam? hee speakes confidently of his eternall estate, though unbaptized: yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptisme.

Fiftly, you scorne his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptisme, and answerd by others. That's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized, though I will not take upon me to justifie that custome of putting forth questions to them, who by reason of their age were not able to returne an answer: possibly I could tell you how, and that many other customes crept into the Church, but because it is not to our purpose, I forbeare.

Lastly, you say, it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine, That Infants, whether borne of Beleevers, or of such as had not received the Christian faith, were baptized, neither doe [...] in that justifie him: you may take notice that here againe [Page] you confesse the question that Infants were baptized.

But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holinesse or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants, because they baptized other Infants if brought unto them; I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence, because they conceive that not onely such as are borne of Christian parents might bee baptized, but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to traine them up in Christs Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptisme; you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull, who yet plead covenant-holinesse, as further warrant why beleevers children not onely may, but ought to be Baptized: and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large, both prerogative of birth, and benefit of education. Furthermore many of the Rabbines say, that the children of Gentiles might bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion, yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children, for Circumcision; I alledge all this to shew that you should not thus vilifie and scorne their practise and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made: whether that which hath beene spoken out of Cyprians Epistle, and Augustines approbation of it, doe not advantage my cause, whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for, I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader.

To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same: here you confesse that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question, therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also: in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former answer.

Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practise of Infant-baptisme, as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity. You must give me leave to recollect [Page] what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations; as for your Vives and Strabo, I shall give you my thoughts of them anon.

You confesse I brought these testimonies onely to prove the practise of Infant-Baptisme, and that you cannot deny they prove, onely you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth, because practised upon such erroneous grounds. As the necessitie of Baptisme to salvation: The certaintie of the Remission of originall sinne: The denying of Baptisme unto none. But are these the onely proofes by which the Ancients did assert the baptizing of Infants; I have proved, that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground (and pleaded it especially in the heate of disputation) yet they baptized them upon the same grounds which we doe. Doe not Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptisme as wee now doe, and others of them from Covenant-holinesse? (but this and our other proofes you threaten to consider hereafter.)

In the meane time this you adde, (you should have said repeate) for you adde nothing to what you had spoken before.

That the Testimonies produced prove not that it was in practise, but in case of supposed necessitie. Let the Reader judge whether these Testimonies have not proved it an universall practise, and so not onely in case of supposed necessitie; and let Mr. Tombes but consult that Booke, which I perceive hee hath made great use of in this Controversie, an Arminian Book commonly known by the name of Censurae Censurae, and that will tell him that Augustine may bee said to bee the first that grounded Infant-baptisme upon necessitie, Cen. Cen. cap. 23.

Secondly, you say there was still in practise a constant course of baptizing the growne children of professed beleevers when they were at full age: you have seene already how much you are mistaken in those instances you give of such a practise, and how much this practise was disavowed by the Fathers of those times, could you but finde as much in Antiquitie against the baptizing of Infants as there is against the [Page] deferring Baptisme, how would you triumph?

Thirdly, you say they did conceive a like necessitie of, and accordingly did practise the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants. But did all the Fathers fore-mentioned judge and practise so? you cannot but know that all that plead for them doe not plead for the other, nor can you show that all that practised the one practised the other; I confesse some of the Africans did so.

Your fourth, that they made no difference betweene the Infants of beleevers and unbeleevers brought unto them, if it were true, doth not disprove the practise of Baptizing Infants, onely it proves an errour in that practise. But (if by unbeleevers you meane Pagans) it is not proved to bee their generall practise, I thinke it was practised by some of them upon the grounds above mentioned, but not found in their constant and generall practise.

In your fifth you speake cautelously that the Ancientest of Testimonies for practise [according to any Rule determined] is Cyprian neere 300. yeers after Christ. Here I must needs take notice of your overlashing, who before calculating his age acknowledged him to live but 250. yeers, and here you say hee lived almost 300. yeers. I see that the Testimonies of Iustine Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, (who all lived neerer the times of Christ then Cyprian) are made good against your exceptions; you finde onely this evasion, that their Testimonies doe not prove the practise of Infant-baptisme, according to any Rule determined. But Sir remember our controversie at present is concerning the practise, not the Rule.

In the next place you undertake to prove that it was not so from the beginning, and that by many evidences. Now I cannot but conceive it likely, that Augustines Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, should sway as much with the intelligent impartiall Reader, as Mr. Tombes his Non semper habuit, non semper tenuit; especially considering that you bring not in all the Antiquitie you have produced one man that doth either deny the Baptizing of Infants to have beene the ordinary practise of the Church or that condemne it, onely two you cite that doe [Page] advise the deferring of it, as they doe also the Baptisme of growne men.

As first, the propounding of questions unto Infants, which as Strabo and Vives did, so any reasonable man say you will thinke a manifest proofe that at first none were baptized but such as understood the saith of Christ.

This supposeth these questions to bee of as Antient use in the Church of God as Baptisme it selfe, which certainly you can never prove from Scripture, and how can any reasonable man thinke that a manifest proofe to whom Baptisme was, or was not at first administred, that was not in use in the first administration. I have produced testimonies bearing witnesse to the baptizing of children, which plead for it, before you can bring any to witnesse that those formes of questions and answers, had any being in the Church.

Secondly, your examples of Greg. Naz. Chrysost. August. Constantine the Great, have been already answered. Your mistakes in their parents, education, reasons of their deferring Baptisme, so made manifest, as it is abundantly evident they are farre from proving the Baptizing of Infants of Christian parents not to have been the received and constant practise of the Church of Christ.

Thirdly, Greg. Nazianzen and Tertullian whom you cite as disswading; you have heard even in the places cited to you, the one bearing witnesse to the practise of Infant-baptisme, the other commanding it.

Fourthly, the Testimony of the Councell of Neocaesaerea which you say is plaine against it; of the testimony of this Councell, let the Reader looke backe and judge, but the glosse upon that Canon to which you referred us, I am sure is a plaine Testimony for it.

Fiftly, the silence which you impute to the chiefe writers, Eusebius, &c. is your mistake, not their fault; for Eusebius, what the reason of his silence is you have heard; and for your, &c. if you meane Tertullian, Athanasius, Epiphanius, whom before you charged with silence in this cause, I hope you may now heare them speaking and witnessing for us.

[Page] Sixtly, for the many passages in Austine and others that call it an Apostolicall Tradition, in what sense they are to bee understood I have already shewed, and am loath to detaine the Reader with Tautologies.

For your Triumviri that bring up your reere and shut up this first part of your Battalia, Grotius, Vives, and Strabo. (to whom I wonder you did not adde Censura Censurae, for you are more beholden to them for your Testimonies of Chapter 23. Antiquity, such as they bee, then to all your other three, and I dare say, without disparagement to your reading, whoever lookes in Grotius and them, shall find almost all that you have spoken in this Controversie from Antiquity collected to your hand.) One of your three Champions I have encountred, and I hope dispatched already; and for the other two Vives and Strabo, I see they are men of great account with you. Vives you quote five or six times, and adorne your Frontispice with a peece of his, and Strabo you mention often. But I beseech you Sir, must wee take the bare word of Vives a man of yesterday, or of a Strabo in matters of fact in things done so many hundred yeers before they were borne, and that against the expresse witnesse of so many worthy and learned men who lived in those times? what evidence doe either of them produce out of Antiquitie to make their assertion good? You know well enough that learned Vossius did take notice of Strabo and Vives, and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred yeers before Strabo (for hee lived but about 850) that Infants were baptized in the Church of old, and wonders that Strabo should rely upon so weake an argument as hee doth; and I as much wonder that you knowing all this should boast so much of such broken Reeds. And so I leave you and your men, and shall expect to see what reliefe you will bee able to give them, for they can give none to you.

More Testimonies you say you could have added out of sundry Authors: which I hardly beleeve seeing you are forced to rake up an old use continued in some Cities of Italy onely upon the hearesay of Vives. But these you say are enough to you, and you thinke to any that search into antiquity, to prove [Page] that the custome of Baptizing of Infants was not from the beginning, and therefore is but an innovation, I verily beleeve upon your next search into Antiquitie, you will be of another mind.

And for your confident assertion that the Doctrine that Baptisme is to be [...] given to Infants of Beleevers onely because of Covenant-holinesse, is not elder then Zuinglius: Zuinglius I confesse was a great Patron of this cause, who in a publike dispute did so convince and stop the mouths of the Anabaptists, that they appearing to the Magistrates unreasonably obstinate were banished the Citie. But whereas you say hee is the first that you can finde that maintained the Baptisme of Infants upon this ground; I shall be glad to helpe you; peruse but what is before your eyes, and you shall find Tertullian and Athanasius pleading the right of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant holinesse: you may finde Epiphanius, Cyprian, Nazianzen, Augustine, Chrysostome, and others pleading Baptisme to come in the roome of Circumcision, and divers of them pleading Infants right to Baptisme from the Jewes Infants right to Circumcision, which to mee is all one as to plead it from Covenant-holinesse: you may also finde even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Institution for it, secundum sententiam Evangelii. And now I hope it will not offend you if I say, I am sorry you discover so much either ignorance, or negligence in the search of Antiquity, as to say, The Tenet and Practise of Infant-baptisme accordingly as wee hold and practise, is not much above 100. yeers old, so farre as you can find.

To conclude this part of my Treatise about the Antiquity of Infant-Baptisme, give me leave to adde these few things. First, that I should not have judged it convenient to have made so much search into the practise of antiquity, if you had not so confidently undertaken to shew that the ancients were of your mind, and that I perceive your faire showes make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme, and therefore taking my selfe bound to give the best account I could with truth, I have not onely made what diligent search I [Page] could my self, but have also (which I willingly acknowledge that no man may thinke of my reading above what it is) made use of my friend who is better versed in their writings then I am, lest the truth in this matter of practise might suffer through my weaknesse, who have but just leasure enough to looke into these Authors now and then, and consult them upon occasion. Yet had it been needfull, I could have added many other testimonies out of the Antients to let you see that they approved Infant-Baptisme, and affirmed that Baptisme came in the place of Circumcision, as the Author of the Booke De Vocatione Gentium, lib. 1. cap. 7 Cyrill. Alexandrin. in Levis. lib. Isychius Presbyter in Levit. lib. 2. cap. 6. and many more.

Secondly, in this search I find that the Ancients did not thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned, as you usually charge them.

They conceived that Martyrs were baptized with their blood, and therefore might bee saved though they were not baptized with water. When great Basil discoursed of this point in his Homily of the 40. Martyrs, he saith of one [...]; He was baptized not by another (or the saith of another) but by his owne faith: not in water, butin his owne blood. Here Baptisme by water was denyed, and yet salvation attained by a two fold Baptisme, by faith, and in blood.

Yea I also observe that they who were no Martyrs, were in the judgement of the Ancients sufficiently baptized by the holy Ghost, without blood or water: and for proofe of this point, I shall produce a testimony out of Augustine, whom I cite the rather, because upon second thoughts hee did retract his opinion, and acknowledge that Baptisme was not Absolutely necessary to salvation, Martyrdome might suffice without Baptisme, nay faith and conversion of the heart might suffice without Martyrdome, or Baptisme, in case a man were cast into such straights, that hee could not be made partaker of Baptisme; Etiam atque etiam considerans inv [...]nio (saith hee) non tantum passionem pro nomine [Page]Christi, id quod ex Baptismo deerat, posse supplere, sed etiam fidem conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum Mysterium Baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest, in his fift booke De Baptismo contra Donatistas; observe that hee saith, etiam atque etiam considerans, &c. and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon second thoughts, and more mature deliberation.

And when this point came to be debated in after ages, the Church tooke notice of this Retractation, Bernard discourses upon this subject at large in his 77. Epistle, and proves clearely out of Ambrose and Augustine that invisible sanctification was sufficient to salvation without a participation of the visible Sacrament. Invisibilem sanctificationem quibusdam affuisse, & profuisse sine visibilibus Sacramentis—Solam interdum fidem sufficere ad salutem, et sine ipsâ sufficere nihil, &c. Faith alone saith hee, (that is, faith without Martyrdome) is sufficient to salvation, and nothing but saith: for though Martyrdome, saith Bernard there, may supply the defect of Baptisme, wee must not conceive that the punishment or suffering prevailes, but the faith of him that suffers. Sufficiet spiritus solus (saith Blesensis, one that's as ancient as Bernard, more ancient then your Walafridus Strabo) quia ipsius testimonium pondus habet. It is also cleare and evident, that after this opinion prevailed, Infant-Baptisme was not rejected, and therefore you are extreamely mistaken in this point. Now if (in the opinion of the ancients) men of growne yeers might bee saved without Baptisme, if they were either converts, or Martyrs, why may not elect Infants who are certainly sanctified, bee made happy without Baptisme, when they have been made holy by the spirit of holinesse? could any of the ancients reasonably grant the one, and deny the other?

Thirdly, you may see that in pleading for this universall practise I speake no louder then other Reformed Divines, for the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme. Judicious Calvin who was well versed in Antiquitie, in his instruction against the Anabaptists hath these words; I affirme that this holy Ordinance of Infant-Baptisme hath [Page]been perpetually observed in the Christian Church, for there is no ancient Doctor, that doth not acknowledge that Infant-Baptisme was constantly administred by the Apostles.

4. That notwithstanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity, yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man. I acknowledge what learned Rivet saith to be very true, that Tradition is in most points uncertaine, and therefore he that will build sure must build upon the Scripture: Proinde necessario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis; quae si rem non evincant, frustra traditionem advocabimus. Animadv. in Annot. Grotii in Cassandrum, Art. 9. Pag. 71. And I would have you and every Reader to remember, that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument, nor did the ancients build upon humane traditions in this thing: the very Pelagians themselves acknowledge it upon this ground. Parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt (saith Augustine of the Pelagians) qui contra authoritatem universae Ecclesiae procul-dubio per Dominum et Apostolos traditam, venire non possunt, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. et Remiss. cap. 26. Nay, they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were baptized secundum regulam universalis Ecclesiae & Evangelii sententiam, lib. cont. Caelest. & Pelag. Now that which was pressed from the scope of the Gospell was not pressed as a Tradition, and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the practise of the universall Church, according to the rule of the Gospell, was not built upon tradition. I will therefore close up my testimonies produced out of the ancient writers, with that savoury passage of learned Calvin, in his Instructions against the Anabaptists; Caeterum minime peto, ut in eo probando nos Antiquit [...]s [...]llo modo juvet, &c. I doe not desire (saith hee) to borrow any helpe from Antiquity for the proofe of this point, any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients shall be found to bee grounded on the Word of God: for I know full well, that as the custome of men doth not give authority to the Sacraments, so the use of the Sacrament cannot hee said to be right, and regular, because regulated by custome.

[Page]

PART II.

HAving made good the practise of Antiquity for the Baptizing of Infants, I follow you in that which Reply to Sect. 1. you are pleased to make the second part of my Sermon, which you call prejudices against Antipaedo-baptists, from their noveltie and miscarriages. ‘Where, first, you blame me for seeking by prefacing and setting downe a briefe touch of the Anabaptists carriage in Germany, to create prejudice in my Auditors.’

To which I answer, that I yet never learned that a briefe Answ. setting downe the Originall History and State of a Controversie, or the weight and consequence of it, thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention, was against any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane; but in case it were a fault, Quis tulerit Gracchos? You who begin your booke with telling, how nine moneths since you sent thus many Arguments in Latine, drawne up in a Scholastique way, &c. and never yet received any Answer, and in the end of your booke intimated that though you allowed me but a moneth, yet I have kept your booke a whole yeere unanswered: and throughout your whole Treatise strive to make an ostentation of reading, and put abundance of scoffes and jeeres upon them who are of a contrary mind to you, and seeke to loade the opinion you write against as if it carried all kind of mischiefes in the wombe of it. All which things you know well enough are apt to take the people; but have no weight with them who use onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe, and Argument with Argument: you (I say) of all other should pardon such a peccadillo, and might very well have passed over what either my selfe or Dr. Featlies Frontispice, or Mr. Edwards [Page] his expressions might seeme to bee lyable to, of exception in this kind.

In your second Section you blame mee for two things, Reply to Sect. 2. first that ‘I gave you no more light out of Augustine, to know who they were that questioned Paedo-Baptisme in his dayes, you have searched and cannot finde any, the Pelagians you acknowledge opposed it not, the custome was so universall, and esteemed so sacred that they durst not oppose it.’

All the further light I shall now give in a matter of no Answ. greater consequence is, that if you cannot finde any in Augustines dayes who questioned it, I am contented you shall beleeve there were none.

Secondly, ‘you blame me for making such a leape from Augustines time, to Baltazzar Pacommitanus, as if be were the first who opposed it, where as you alledge many who opposed it 400. yeeres before his time.’ To which I answer, I sayd not hee Answ. was the first whose judgement was against it, but the first that made an head against it, or a division (or Schisme) in the Church about it. It is possible men may hold a private opinion differing from the received doctrine, and yet never make a rent, or divide the Church into factions about it. That the middle times between the Fathers and Luther were for Baptizing Infants.

But let us examine your instances; you ‘alledge the famous Berengarius as one. 2. The Albingenses. 3. Out of Bernard you mention another namelesse Sect. 4. Petrus Cluniacensis, charges the same upon the Petro-Brusians.’

To all which I answer, first, in generall. That (these instances of yours having occasioned mee to make a more dilligent Answ. search into the doctrine and practise of those middletimes between the Fathers, and the beginning of Reformation in L [...]bers time) I dare confidently think, that you will have an hard taske to prove out of any impartiall Authors, that there were any company of men before the Anabaptists in Germany, who rejected the baptizing of Infants out of the confession of their faith; possibly some private man might doe it, but I shall desire you to shew that any company or Sect (if you will so call them) have ever denied the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants: produce if you can any [Page] of their confessions, alledge any Acts of any Councells where this doctrine was charged upon any, and condemned in that Councell: you know, the generalitie of the visible Christian world was in those dayes divided into the followers of the Beast, and the small number of those who followed the Lambe, who bare witnesse to the truth of the Gospel in the times of that Antichristian Apostasie, these were called by severall names, Berengarians, Waldenses, poore men of Lyons, Albingenses, Catharists, Petr-Brusians, and severall other names, as may bee seene in Bishop Ʋshers book of the Succession and State of the Christian Churches. Now all grant that the Church of Rome even in those dayes, owned the baptizing of Infants, and so did all those persecuted Companies or Churches of the Christians, for any thing I can find to the contrary. Severall Catalogues of their confessions and opinions I finde in severall Authors, Vsher de successione, cap. 6. Sect. 1 [...]. 17. Cap. 8. Sect. 34. Cap. 10. Magdeburg [...]en [...]. 12. Cap. 8 col. 1 [...]06. and more perticularly in that forenamed booke De successione Christianarum Ecclesiarum. But not any one of them denying this point; they indeed denyed any Sacrament to conferre grace ex opere operato, and thereupon some of their adversaries would lay to their charge that they denied gratiam Baptismi, the grace of Baptisme: And others of them denyed the trumperies that went along with Baptisme in the Church of Rome: And thereupon some of their adversaries charged them that they laughed at the Baptisme of Infants: but I can finde none who layd to their charge simply that they denyed the lawfulnesse of Baptizing of Infants, except onely such who also charged them with Manicheisme and other abominable doctrins & practises, which we all beleeve they utterly abhorred; Nothing tendes more fully to manifest their doctrine then their owne confessions, one whereof was published by Baltazzar Lidius which was presented to Ʋladislaus King of Hungary: In their Apologie Baltazzar Lidius, Tom. 2. Pag. 285. &c. and defence of their doctrine, they have a whole Chapter wherein they assert and prove Paedo-Baptisme largely. The confession of the Taborites hath not a word sounding History of the Waldenses. lib. 1. cap. 3. p. 10. against it. I finde also in the History of the Waldenses, this is set downe among the calumnies unjustly cast upon them, [Page] That they reject the Baptisme of Infants, for which Bernard is cited in his 66. Hom. in Cant. but of this they are purged out of their owne writings, and there the ground and occasion Lib. 1. cap 4. pag. 15. Lib. cap. 6. pag. 43. of imputing this errour to them is expressed line 15. True it is, that having been constrained some 100. yeers, &c. The same Author in the third part of his history, professedly sets downe the doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses, and among other things concerning Baptisme, he expresses this: And whereas Baptisme is administr [...]d in a full Congregation—and for this cause it is that we present our children in Baptisme, which they ought to doe, to whom the children are nearest, as parents, &c. Waldensis against the Wicklevists and Hussits imputes this heresie to some of the Lollards, that beleevers Tom. 3. Tit. 5. cap. 53. children were not to be baptized, and that Baptisme was to no purpose administred to them, secundum ritum quem servat Ecclesia, but he imputes it not to Wicklefs followers in generall, onely ascribes it to some Lollards of the Highlands in Scotland, and some few of the Diocesse of Norwich, and yet in the same place confesses hee had seene none of their writings to that purpose, nor knew what their grounds were, but onely had transiently heard that they used to produce 1 Cor. 7. Sanctificatus est, &c.

2. I answer to your particular instances, first, for Berengarius, it Vsher de Success. cap. 7. Sect. 37. Berengarius cleared from Anabaptisme. is true that Deoduinus Leodienses tooke it up as a common fame, and upon his credit Guitmund Archbishop of Averse relates it: But saith Bishop Ʋsher, in so many Synods held against Berengarius, wee never find any thing of this nature laid to his charge: and to him it appeares that they who in those dayes were charged to hold that Baptisme did not parvulis proficere ad salutem, held nothing but this, that Baptisme doth not conferre grace ex opere operato.

The same answer serves for the Albigenses and Waldenses; cleare it is that neither Aene [...] Sylvius in his booke de Origine Waldenses, Albigenses, &c. cleared from Anabaptisme. Bohemorum, when he sets downe their opinions, nor the Magdeburgenses, who out of an ancient Manuscript relate their doctrines, no nor William Reynolds in his Calvino-Turcismus, wherein he indeavours to reproch them, layes any such thing to their charge. Sure I am, the confession of the [Page] faith of the Albingenses recorded by Hoveden doth enough, Vsh. ubi supr. ca. 8. Sect. 34. and more then enough owne the baptizing of Infants. Tis true, Bernard in the place cited by you sayes of those Anonymous people whom he wrote against, (who were no other then some of the Waldenses) Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infantes, and the rest of the Doctrines which you mention, but withall in the same place charges them with Manechisme, and relates how the people threw them into the water as if they were witches, and when they would not sinke they fell upon them with stones and killed them; and if you beleeve Bernard slandered them in these two last, you will forgive the Reader if he beleeve that he did no lesse in the other. And as for what Petrus Cluniacensis writes against Peter de Bruis and his successour Henry, the truth is, these two men, did for 20. yeers together so much spread the Doctrine of the Waldenses, and so plague the Bishops Miters, and the Monks bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them which might make them odious to the people. He who reads that rayling booke of Petrus Cluniacensis, will find that he acknowledges most of what he layes to their charge to be upon the report of others, and layes this for one of their Articles, that Children who died before they could actually beleeve were damned, and that they would have all Churches demolished, and incouraged people to pull them downe; and that common fame gave out that they condemned all the Latine Fathers, and not onely excluded the Latine Doctors è Cathedra Doctorum, but è regno Caelorum; that they did not altogether beleeve the Prophets, Apostles, nor Christ himselfe. And no marvaile that these opinions should bee charged upon them, though they held them not, seeing wee find this particular charged upon Luther, Calvin, and Beza, who did all in speciall manner oppose this errour: So that untill you or some other doe out of their owne confession, Jos. Vicecom. Obser. Eccl. Vol. Lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 103. or some other impartiall and authentique Register give better evidence then yet you have done, I shall beleeve that this doctrine of opposing the baptizing of the Infants of beleevers, is an Innovation no ancienter then the Anabaptists in Germany; concerning whose practises wee now proceed to inquiry.

[Page] In your third Section you take great paines to shew out of To Sect. 3. your reading who first in Germany stirred this question. I shall not stay the Reader long about it, because your selfe grant that it is not tanti; I deny not but Nicholaus Storch, Marcus Stubner, and Thomas Muncer did bring it first upon the Stage about 1521, or 1522, and that by Muneers doctrine, a sad sedition was raised in the upper Germany, among the Country people, but because this Baltazzar Hubmir P acommitanus Pastor of the Waldshut, a Towne neere the Helvetians, was a man of greater note for learning, of an active turbulent spirit, one who both by preaching and writing much fomented their way, & was in very great repute among them, I feared not (as others have done before me) to name him as the Antesignanus of that unhappy Sect: of whose seditious practises, doctrine, recantation, Apostasie, and miserable death, for which he was esteemed a Martyr by his followers, I might out of many Germane writers easily informe the Reader, if I affected a needlesse ostentation of reading.

In this Section upon occasion of the name of Anabaptisme, and reiterating of Baptisme, ‘you desired to have it To Sect. 4. proved unlawfull to repeate Baptisme, or for a man that hath beene baptized rightly to be baptized againe: and afterward in your third part Sect. 12. you professe you are not satisfied, but that both Circumcision might have been, and baptisme may be reiterated: and here you adde that the Argument used against the repetition of Baptisme are insufficient; and that if there were but as much for baptizing of Infants, as Acts 19. 5, 6. affords for rebaptization, the controversie were at an end with you.’

I answer, you here clearely discover your itch after new Answ. opinions, your joyning with the Marcionites and Aetians, who allowed it to be done at least thrice. I suppose in your next wee shall have your Arguments to prove the lawful fulnesse of it, which if you doe, I beseech you also to shew how oft it may bee done, whether as oft as the Pharis [...]es used to wash: at least (because your answers here seeme to imply so much) whether it may not be repeated as oft as wee should attend upon the preaching of the word, or as oft as wee [Page]should indeavour to mortifie our corruptions? In the meane time I shall tell you some of the reasons which have hitherto satisfied Vide Vossii Theses de Anabaptist. R [...]asons against rebaptization of such as are rightly baptized. the Orthodox Church in all ages.

First, Baptisme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of our new birth, the washing of regeneration, which is done but once, the Sacrament of our insition into Christ, which is done but once; the Sacrament of our admission into the new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it, and (although many of those benefits and priviledges are repeated and augmented, yet) we have but one admission to them.

Secondly, in no place where the Institution of it is named is there any mention, directly or by consequence, of any repeating of it, nor any order taken about it; whereas in the other Sacrament, we have a quotiescunque in the very Institution: nor in any of the thousands baptized in the Scripture is there the least hint of any example of rebaptization of such as were rightly baptized, no not though some of them had played the Apostates, as the Galatians, some of the Corinthians and many others. And mee thinks this Argument should move you whose principle is, that nothing should be done about the Sacraments, but what wee have either institution, or example for.

Thirdly, Baptisme succeeds Circumcision, wch was but once administred nor to be administred any more, as is cleare to mee not onely from the totall silence of the Scripture, but out of Josh. 5. 4. &c. where the holy Ghost is pleased to give this as a reason, why Joshuah Circumcised the Israelites in Gilgall, viz. because all the Circumcised were dead; intimating that had they been Circumcised already, it should not have been done againe. Beside, by Gods institution it was tied to the eighth day and unlesse you can find another eighth day after the birth beside the first, you will never bee able to justifie it from being a breach of the institution.

Fourthly, to this I might adde the uncontradicted custome of all the ancient Church, with whom it was numbred among Heresies to reiterate a Baptisme, which was acknowledged to be valid: Indeed Cyprian and his fellow [Page] Bishops baptized such as had formerly been baptized by Hereticks, but it was onely because they thought the Baptisme administred by Hereticks not to bee true Baptisme. What weight these things have with you I know not; the judicious Reader will consider of them.

But whereas you adde ‘that if you saw but as much for baptizing of Infants as Acts 19. 5. &c. affords for rebaptization, the controversie were at an end with you;’ give me leave to tell Answ. you that I perceive a small Argument would satisfie you if wee could but once gaine your good will. As will easily appeare by a serious examination of the sense of that place, Act. 19. which it seemes satisfies you for rebaptization. I Act. 19. 5, 6. vindicated from favoring rebaptiztion. acknowledge, Interpreters differ very much concerning the meaning of that Text, but none of their expositions doe in any degree favour that opinion, that such as were once rightly baptized may be rebaptized: which I thus manifest; very many Interpreters doe judge that those twelve Disciples were not baptized in that place, and they make the fifth Verse, when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, to bee a part of Pauls speech, not of Lukes the Historian, and then the sense is this, when those twelve men had told Paul that they were baptized with Johns Baptisme, Vid. Vossii Theses de Baptismo Johan. pag 402. &c. Paul tooke upon him to explaine to them what Johns Baptisme was, namely that Johns ministry did first exhort men to repentance; and then that they should beleeve in Christ, who would give all them who beleeved in him the gift of the holy Ghost, which after John had sufficiently instructed them in, he then baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, which say they is a paraphrasticall interpretation of this fifth Verse: and so Paul having approved the doctrine and Baptisme of John, which these twelve Disciples had received, hee did not rebaptize them, but laid his hands upon them, and then the holy Ghost immediatly came upon them. Other Interpreters thinke, that these words in the fift Vers. are the words of Luke the Historian, and that these twelve Disciples were then baptized after Paul had done his speech; and of these some conceive that these were first baptized by some of Iohns Disciples into Iohns [Page] name, and not into Christs: and so their baptism was a nullity; or at least, if they were baptized into Christs name, yet they were not instructed in the right faith of the Trinity, of Jesus Christ, his person, gifts; and offices; and so consequently that their faith and Baptisme were deficient in some fundamentall and essentiall things; and this way go many of the Fathers, and Schoolemen. Others thinke they were rightly baptized with John's baptisme, and yet were baptized againe by the Apostle Paul; because they think that John's baptisme, and Christ's did really differ; and that the Lord would have them re baptized, who were baptized with John's baptisme onely; but not them who were baptized with Christs. And this way generally goe the Papists: now whichsoever of these you take, here is no colour of rebaptizing of such who were rightly baptized with Christs baptisme: and indeed, whoever considers the Text, must needs grant that if they were re-baptized, it was because of the deficiency of the baptism which they had recieved. Paul demands of them, Have you received the holy Ghost since you were baptized? They answ. The holy Ghost: what meane you by the holy Ghost? wee never so much as heard whether there be an holy Ghost: No? (saith Paul) what were you then baptized into? what strange kind of baptisme have you received? what Doctrine, or Faith were you instructed in before your baptisme? if you never so much as heard that there is an holy Ghost. Doth not this plainly hold forth, that if they were re-baptized, it was because Paul thought their former baptism to be insufficient? Truly Sir, I conceive you might easily be perswaded, that there are at least as good grounds for Infants baptisme, as this Acts 19. affords for re-baptizing of such as have been rightly baptized.

‘In this 5. Section, I very much wonder at your spirit; the summe of it is, That although much of what I speake of the To Sect. 5. Anabaptists in Germany (especially about Munster) is true; Yet you say, 1. Perhaps vehemency of opposition hath made matters more or worse then they were. 2. No marvaile though [Page]such things happen, when Reformation of abuses is denyed men by an orderly Synodicall way; and the persons who seeke it, declaymed against, and persecuted as Heretiques, &c. 3. That the like things, if not the same, happened among the Non-conformists, and such as sought to remove Episcopacy and Ceremonies in Queene Elizabeths dayes; that some of them grew to bee a dangerous and turbulent Sect: the practise of Hacket, and his companions proved like that of John a Leiden at Munster. That miscarriages, divisions, and persecutions brought the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists. That Whitgift and Hooker have long agoe compared the Non conformists principles and practises with the Anabaptists, &c.’

To which I answer. First, I am confident you shew more Answ. good will to the Anabaptists, then you intend ill wil against those worthy men who have written these Stories: but the things have been done so lately, and so many agreeing stories are written of them, and by men of such undoubted faith and honesty, that the things are not to be questioned. And I think you are the first of our Divines who have suspected them to overlash in their relations.

Secondly, what you meane by denying Reformation to them who seek it in a Synodicall way, &c. I can hardly guesse: whether you intend it to excuse the Anabaptists in part, and to blame the Reformed Churches, as laying that stumbling blocke in their way, by refusing to heare them, or whether you hint it as a warning to our selves. As for them, I never read that they sought Reformation in a regular way, or were denyed it, before they fell into these furies. And as for our selves, you are the onely man, who hath pretended to seek Reformation (if it may be so called) in this point; the rest of our Anabaptists seek not The old Nonconformists in Qu. Elizabeths days, pleading against Episcopacy and Ceremonies, il compared with the Anabaptists in Germany. to our Assembly; unlesse it be to reproach, and load them with scoffes, libels, threatnings, &c.

Thirdly, but the rest of this Section is to me extreamly scandalous, when I read your odious comparisons between the Non-conformists in Queene Elizabeths dayes, and the Anabaptists in Germany; it even grieves mee to consider, whither affection to your cause doth carry you. Sir, are [Page] you perswaded in your own conscience these things are so? The Anabaptists in Germany rose up, and with fire and sword pulled downe Magistracy, Schooles, &c. wrought wofull Tragedies in upper Germany, in M [...]ravia, Silesia, Helvetin, and elsewhere; did the like if not the same things happen here? What did the Non-conformists ever endeavour to doe beyond prayers and teares? what turbulent Sect was ever found among them? what were those divisions and miscarriages which brought them so low? the persecutions of the Prelates indeed brought them low; but I professe I am wholly ignorant of any divisions and miscarriages of theirs in that kind: Hacket indeed was a blasphemous wretch; and hee and his two Companions (for no more there were of them that I can find:) Coppinger, and Arthington made a noise in the City of London for a few hours. Hacket was taken and hanged for his blasphemy, his two Companions laid in prison, where one of them dyed, and the other (I thinke) was spared in hope of his repentance But what is this to your purpose? what had Hacket to doe with the Nonconformists, who (you know, if ever you read that Story) abominated him, and would have nothing to doe with him, even before he fell to those prankes he plaid in London? Or wherein was Hacket to bee compared with John of Leiden, who overthrew Magistracy at Munster; set up a King of his owne Sect; plundered the Towne, gave up all to Polygamies, Adulteries, &c. And lastly for the parallel which you say Whitgift, and Hooker made between them and the Anabaptists both in principles, and practises, (under which reproach you leave them, without speaking a word in their behalfe to vindicate them) I answer onely this, that I am perswaded your selfe beleeve, that Whitgift and Hooker abused them in these Comparisons: and what your ayme should bee in setting it downe, I cannot tell; unlesse it bee to insinuate, that as the good Nonconformists were thus abused by their Adversaries; so Sleiden, Bullinger, Calvin, &c. are not too much to bee credited in their relations of the Anabaptists, to whom they were professed adversaries.

[Page] In this Sect your quarrell is against Mr. Vines, for suspecting To Sect. 6. the Anabaptists will indeavour to undermine Magistracy, if they could once get strength. To which you answer: 1. ‘You take not Mr. Vines for a Prophet. 2. It follows not, that because they oppose Paedo. Baptisme, out of Mat. 28. 19. that therefore they will oppose Magistracy out of Rom. 12. 19. 3. That you will undertake to make good that to prove Paedo-baptisme from the equity and reason of Circumcision, doth undermine much of the Magistracy and Lawes of this Kingdome. 4. That some of the enemies of Anabaptists have opposed Magistracy. 5. That since the actions of Muncer and Munster, you finde neither their writings nor actions opposing Magistracy. 6. You bring in Cassander a Papist, speaking moderately of some of them. And to make your Reader thinke obaritably of them in this point; You 7. referre them to the Compassionate Samaritan, and the London Anabaptists late confossion.’

I see how diligent and willing an advocate you are for Answ. your friends, but few of these things will either help you, To 1, 2 Mr. Vines vindicated. or indure the tryall. 'Tis true, Mr. Vines is no Divining Prophet. And 2. it follows not by Logicall argumentation, that because they have opposed the one, therefore they will oppose the other. But Sir, without a Spirit of Divination, or necessary consequence of reason, when wee see clouds gathering, wee may suspect rainy weather; when we Almost all the Errors of the Germane Anabaptists, lately drunke in in England. see multitudes of our Anabaptists, especially those of the last edition, to have drunk in almost all the rest of the dregs of the Germane Anabaptists; (I say) in a manner all, except that of opposing Magistracy; may we not feare that even that also would bee imbraced if they were fit for it? Read over the whole Gangrene of their opinions recorded by Bullinger, Calvin, and others; and lately [...]pitomized by Cloppenbergius; and see whether among our Anabaptists in England, they are not almost all to be found: Doe not some of ours, as well as they, hold blasphemous Opinions about the flesh of Christs? Have not multitudes of ours swallowed down all Arminianism, as well as they? Plead not some of ours for the mortality of the soule, as well as [Page] they? have not some of ours laid downe their Armes out of opinion that even in a just cause warre is unlawfull? have not many of ours drunke in the conceits of immediate revelations and Enthysiasmes as much as they? doe not many of ours conceit a perfection of grace? doe they not oppose the Christian Sabbath? doe they not cry downe our Ministry as no Ministry? our Churches as no Churches? Verily one egge is not more like another then this brood of new opinions (lately hatched in England, and entertained among them who are called Anabaptists) is like that Spawne which so suddenly grew up among the Anabaptists in Germany; and ours plead the same Arguments which theirs did; and if they flow not from the same Logicall or Theologicall principles, it is yet their unhappy fate to be led by the same spirit. I confesse I yet heare not much of their denying the Magistrates authoritie, but if these men should increase to much strength, I will not take upon me to divine, but I shall pray that Mr. Vines prove not too true a Prophet, especially considering the nature of erroneous and hereticall spirits is to grow worse and worse, and not at first to vent all their poyson; even the Anabaptists of Munster in the beginning of their Schisme set forth a confession of faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of the seven Churches of the Anabaptists of London, in their Confession mentioned in the latter end of this Section, as I am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine, Mr. Dury. who hath many yeers agoe both seene and read it in Germany.

To your third and fourth I answer, onely this, that I shall waite untill you cleare them, as being not able out of my To 3. 4. small judgement and Reading to conjecture either what proofes you can bring for the one, or example for the other: you who make your selfe merry with Mr. Vines his Logick, will shew your owne to bee supereminent when you make this consequence good, that pleading baptizing of Infants from Circumcision of Infants, overthrows much of the Magistracy and Lawes of England.

But your fifth seemes very strange, that you cannot finde, [Page] that since Munster and Mun [...]er the Anabaptists in Germany have either by writing or action made any opposition against magistracy: as for their actions, they have of old paid so deare for their insurrections, that wee have not lately heard of any new ones; but for their writings it is most apparent that their bookes written by them, even to this day, do constantly defend, that though Magistracy bee an Ordinance of God, as to them who are not under the kingdome and dominion of Christ, yet Christ hath put an end to it among his owne people, taken away all Magistracy from among them, that no Christian can be a Magistrate with a good conscience, and that if Christians doe live under any such, they are to beare them but as other plagues and judgements are to be borne.

You oppose Cassanders moderate testimony of some of 6. them to the Duke of Cleave a Papist, against Mr. Vines his speech before the Lord Major and City of London; Cassander indeed spake favourably of some of their persons, but doth not excuse or plead for their doctrine or principles; and Mr. Vines speakes against their doctrine or principles, but speakes nothing against the persons of any of them: so that I can see no cause of your bringing in this long testimony out of Cassander, in the favour of Menno and his followers, but onely to shew your good-will to the Anabaptists, and your displeasure against Mr. Vines, who differs from your opinion. One thing more I adde concerning this Menno (whom you pleade for by Cassanders pen) that his whole doctrine is as full of blasphemy about our Saviours taking flesh of the Virgin Mary, and other Hereticall and abominable stuffe, as the rest of his fellowes, though I thinke his spirit was not so seditious as many of theirs.

And as to your allegation out of the compassionate Samaritan, which indeavours to speake all possible good of 7. such as oppose Presbyteriall government: pleading to obtaine an universall libertie for all their opinions, and practices, and indeavors to brand as infamous, and cast all manner of filth in the faces of such, as indeavor to promote it, I leave such Lettice to their lips who like it. And for what [Page] you alledge out of the London Anabaptists confession, I acknowledge it the most Orthodox of any Anabaptists confession that ever I read, (although there are sundry Heterodox opinions in it) and such an one as I beleeve thousands of our new Anabaptists will be farre from owning, as any man may bee able to say without a spirit of divination, knowing that their received and usuall doctrines doe much more agree with the Anabaptists in Germany, then with this handfull who made this confession here in London.

‘In your seventh, you first expresse your good affection To Sect. 7. to further Reformation; secondly, you propound what in your judgement is the best way to promote it In the first you are sensible of your [...]ath and Covenant, declare the sincerity of your desires and prayers to promote it according to the Word of God, &c.’

Your desires, and prayers, and intentions are holy, and Answ. good, well suiting with the report I have often heard of you before I read this your booke; and would the Lord please to draw out those good Talents he hath given you in the most usefull way; I conceive you may be a very profitable instrument in this great worke, and I verily thinke your abilities greater then many others, whom you suppose to have been imployed more eminently then your selfe▪ But pardon me, that I tell you sadly and freely, that the frame of spirit which the genius of your booke shewes forth makes me feare the contrary, you every where manifest such height of selfe-confidence, you powre out such abundance of scorne upon them who thinke otherwise then you doe, you so magisterially tread under foot the Arguments and Reasons of those who differ from your opinion, though they appeare never so strong or evident to others; you so boldly call into question some doctrines which few have ever questioned before you; you so slight the Authoritie both of ancient and moderne writers, especially in this point, though you know the generality of all Confessions and Harmonies (except onely the Anabaptists) concurre in one against you, that unlesse God alter your present temper, I suspect this is not the last trouble you are like to put the Church unto; and I assure you, very many who [Page] willingly acknowledge your learning, and other abilities and are no whit sorry your booke is extant, (because they conceive this controversie may thereby receive a fuller scanning) are extremely scandalized at your high and scornefull spirit.

‘You propound what you conceive is the best way to promote Reformation, and your thoughts are, that the 2. onely way to further Reformation is to begin with this your darling, the casting out this point of Infant-Baptisme, a point which you conceive to bee a mother corruption, which carries in her wombe most of those abuses in discipline and manners, and some of the errors in doctrine which defile the reformed Churches, without which all after Cathechizing, Censures, separaton, Church-Covenant, &c. are altogether insufficient to supply the want of it. Secondly, that Baptisme therefore hath not that influence into the comfort and obligations of Consciences as it had of old. And thirdly, that the Assemblies not beginning with this point is one great cause why Gods blessing doth no more accompany them, whilst they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison of this, and either hastily passe over, or exclude from examination, this which deserves most to bee examined.’

Ah Sir, How deare and lovely are our owne children in our eyes! did ever any before you conceive so many and great evills to follow upon the baptizing the children of Answ. beleevers? that such Monsters should be bred in the wombe of it, or conceive that the removing of this would bee the healing of all? I verily thinke, should another have spoke such things of farre greater points, you would have called them dictates, Chimaraes, bold, assertions, and what not? Whether your Examen of my Sermon, and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Christs institution; whether the reasons for Paedo-Baptisme be far fetched; whether there be a cleare institution of Christ against it. (as here you affirme) wee shall have leisure (God willing) to examine in their due place: but for the present, suppose mee to grant your postul [...]tum, that it is an applying of an institution to a wrong subject, yet I would faine learne of you, how all these odious [Page] consequences will bee made good, how these abuses in doctrine, discipline and manners (which you mention) would be taken away if Paedo-Baptisme were removed; nay would not the selfe same things still bee found as grounds or occasions of the same differences, while some professe they would baptize any, whether Turkes or Heathens, who onely would make a profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and then admit them to all other Ordinances, and not have them Excommunicated è sacris, (but onely a private consortio) though their lives should prove scandalous; (and I am misinformed by good friends who know and love you very well if your selfe incline not this way) others would take the same course before Baptisme, which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and would proceed to excommunication à Sacris as well as privately withdraw from such as prove scandalous and obstinate; yea and take themselves bound to separate from mixt communions with them, as much as they doe now, notwithstanding their admission by Baptisme in your way. And in this various manner of admitting men to Baptisme, and dealing with men in other censures, every Church or Eldership proceeding according to the largenesse or strictnesse of their owne principles, I can see nothing but that the same abuses in discipline and manners which are now found among Christian people, the same controversies about such as should be admitted to the Lords Supper, the same divisions and separations would be sound in the Church, which now (alas!) take too much place amongst us. This I say, supposing your Postulatum were a truth; But on the contrary supposing it not to be a truth, what a Deformation instead of a Reformation should wee bring in, in casting the children of Beleevers out of the visible Church, reputing them no better then Turkes and Indians, and especially doing it upon such grounds, as are pleaded by you and others; which even alter the state of the Covenant of grace? As for your second, I know not what influence of comfort or obligation upon conscience Baptisme had of old, which is not now to bee found among them who are [Page] truely baptized, who injoy not onely the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And lastly, for what you speake of the Assembly, I impute it to your prejudice, and extreame doting upon your owne opinion, that you thinke this Point most worthy of their examination, and to your misinformation (to speake no worse) that they waste much time about things inconsiderable in comparison, or that they exclude this from Examination, or seeke to stop it from any Tryall, or that they hastily passe it over; This is a very bold charge which you give upon the Assembly in the face of the world: What evidence have you for this? unlesse your Compassionate Samaritan bee Authentick with you? The Apostle commands Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder unlesse it bee under two or three witnesses. But for one man to cast thus much filth in the face of an Assembly of Ministers is very high, and savours little of that modesty or meeknesse to which you did sometimes pretend. How farre the blessing of God (who hath not hitherto altogether left us, notwithstanding our unworthines) doth and will accompany the endeavours of the Assembly; it is fit to leave to himselfe, who gives increase to Pauls planting and Apollo's watering according to his good pleasure. But as for their shutting out the due examination of this Point, you are wholly mistaken (though they have returned no answer to your paper.) It is true (as I told you in the beginning) that wee are shut up by Ordinance of Parliament from answering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houses; but I dare speake it in the name of the whole Assembly, that they would bee glad you were admitted to dispute all your grounds among them.

In your next Paragraph which containes a comparison Sect. 8. betweeve the evidences held out in the New Testament for the Religious observation of the Lords day, and this of Infant-Baptisme, you first make your selfe merry with my expressions, that all who reject the baptizing of Infants, because there is not an expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament, doe and must upon the same grounds reject the observation[Page]of the Lords-day. But I am no whit ashamed of those words. They doe, and they must upon the same Principles (if they be true to their Principles) reject the one as well as the other. And though I want the skill which some others have to plead for the Lord-day; yet I suppose you shall find I have skill enough to make this good, That there is no more expresse Institution or Command in the New-Testament for the Lords day then there is for Infant-Baptisme. And whereas you alledge that some of the reformed Churches reject the Lords day, and yet entertaine Infant-Baptisme, and thence inferre that these two must not necessari'y stand and fall, bee received and rejected together. I answer, Those Churches which doe so conceive that there is an institution for the Baptizing of Infants, but none for the observation of the [...]ords day, although herein I humbly conceive they are mistaken, I doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartiall and unprejudiced Readers, that there is sufficient evidence of an Institution for both of them, though not in such expresse Texts of Scripture in the New-Testament as the Anabaptists require, and I shall now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one, then is to be found for the other.

First, you say, they meane it of positive worship, consisting in outward rites, and not of worship which is naturall or morall.

Answ. But this but a blind, morall and naturall are not to be confounded; whatever worship is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall, but not whatever is morall is to be esteemed naturall: I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received distinction of Morale Naturale, and Morale positivum, and I beseech you, though a Sabbath be grant [...]d to be Naturall, yea if I should adde, that one day in the revolution of seaven should bee so; yet that this or that seventh day in the revolution of a weeke should bee observed, all grant this depends upon an Institution, and hath no more moralitie in it then what can bee made out from an Institution, and consequently, that the first day of the weeke should be the Christian Sabbath, or that this one day of seven which God hath separated to himself and had once expresly fixed upon the seventh or last day of the week, [Page] should be translated from the last day to the first day of the weeke, must depend wholly upon an Institution, and consequently they who reject that which depends upon positive Institution, unlesse its Institution can bee expresly found in the New-Testament are as much at a losse for the Lords day, as for the baptizing of Infants.

Nay give me leave to adde, that in this point in question, the advantage lies more on this hand, (I meane for Infant-Baptisme) because there is more necessitie of clearing the Institution for the Lords day, then for baptizing of Infants, because in the one the ordinance it selfe, and its institution is questioned, but in this of Infant-Baptisme, the question is not of the Institution of the Ordinance it selfe, but onely of the subject to whom the Ordinance is to be applyed. If the question bee betwixt Baptisme and the Lords day, all grant that we have clearer Institution for the Sacrament of Baptisme, then for the Lords day: Baptisme is clearly instituted in the New-Testament to bee the Sacrament of our admission into the Covenant of grace, and to succeed in the roome of Circumcision, (as your selfe grant.) Now the onely question is, whether (taking this for granted) that baptism succeeds in the roome of Circumcicision, and to bee applyed unto all persons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him, whether the same persons may partake of this Sacrament, as might partake of the other, unlesse those persons bee expresly set downe in the New-Tement; I hope in the judgement of all indifferent men, a question about the persons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyed, is a question of a farre inferiour nature to that question, whether such a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Institution at all or not. It's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worship, another (and that of inferiour rank) to mistake in some of the persons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed. In some of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants, and carried to sick persons when absent, to testifie their communion with the Church: I take them both for errours, but yet not for errors of the like nature with inventing a new Sacrament; I [Page] say againe, there is a great difference betweene bringing in a new Ordinance, and applying it to these or these persons, especially, when the question is not of the persons in generall, who are the subject matter, (as whether men or Angels, men or beasts) but whether men of such an age or of such a Sex. Sir, to my best understanding, these two questions are not parallell, a just parallell question to this of Infant-Baptisme would be such a one as was once disputed betwixt Mr. Bifield and Mr. Brerewood, viz. Taking it for granted, that by a cleare Institution, the Lords day succeeds in the roome of the old Sabbath, whether yet the same persons are tied to keepe the Lords day, who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath, unlesse those parties were mentioned in the New-Testament, as whether servants as well as their masters, the same holds here.

All this I speake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants, as there is for the religious observation of the Christian Sabbath, notwithstanding the latter seemes to require fuller evidence then this doth.

Your second explication gives you as little advantage, you say that Apostolicall example which hath not a me [...]re temporary reason, is enough to prove an Institution from God, to which that practise doth relate, especially when such examples come to bee backed with the constant practise of all Churches in all ages. And then you bring in Pauls preaching at Troa [...], the collections upon the first day of the weeks in the first of the Corinthians and the sixteenth, the mentioning of the Lords day, Revel. 1.

Sir, I except against none of all this to bee a part of that good evidence which wee have for the religious observation of the Lords day, but I dare confidently speake it, that out of these you can never evince more (laying all things together) to prove the Institution of the Lords day, then I have done for the lawfulnesse of baptizing of Infants; and I appeale to all learned Readers, whether the many bookes written of late against the Institution of the Lords day, give not as specious and plausible answers to these places alledged by you concerning the Christian Sabbath, [Page] as yours are against Infant-baptisme (although they have received sufficient cleare and solid answers) yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from these examples, with as much confidence and scorne, as your selfe doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptisme. And as for the supplement which you bring out of the constant practise of the Churches for the religious observation of the Lords day in stead of the old Sabbath: I earnestly desire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to beare witnesse to that truth, as I have done in this point for Paedo-Baptisme, and I promise you, you shall receive my hearty thanks among the rest of your Readers; in the meane time the Reader shall judge whether I have not brought a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants, which you have done for the Lords day.

Further, whether you have not abused your reader in so confident averring that there are no footsteps in Antiquity for Paedo-Baptisme, till the erroneous conceit of giving Gods grace by it, & the necessity of it, to save an Infant from perishing some hundreds of yeers after Christs Incarnation, is easily to bee seene by what I have at large produced in the former part of this treatise.

Lastly, your tedious discourse of that dangerous principle of framing additions to Gods worship by Analogies of our own [...] making without warrant from Gods Word; I desire you to apply it to them who do so, I no further make use of it, then I find Gods Word to goe along with me: Whether beleevers Infants are confederates with their parents in the Covenant of Grace, comes afterwards to be examined; the rest of this Section being carping at a phrase or expression which your selfe grant being taken cum grano salis, may passe with a candid Reader, I passe over as worthy of no further answer, onely I adde this one word, that though it bee not safe to reason barely from events of things, yet it well becomes us thankfully to take notice of Gods blessing upon his owne Ordinance, and the more earnestly to contend for that which God is pleased so mercifully to accompany with his grace.

In your ninth Section you concurre with mee in condemningTo Sect. 9. [Page]it as a wicked practise to separate from ministry and communion in Ordinances, by reason of this difference in opinion, and that the making of Sects upon these grounds is contrary unto Christian Charitie: and I as willingly concurre with you in what you say in the latter part of this Section, that godly Ministers and other Christians should not by harsh usage of their brethren in stirring up hatred in Magistrates and people against them, cast strumbling blocks in their way, thereby to alienate dissenting brethren from them: but for what you say in the middle of this Section, that this is not the evill of Anti-paedo-baptisme; I answer, I conceive it flowes from the principles which most of the Anti-paedo-baptists do conceive (though possibly all (and your selfe for one have not wholly embraced them) for if you please to take and to compare these three principles of theirs together. First, members are added to the Church by Baptisme, and not otherwise. Secondly, that such as are not baptized according to Christs Institution, their Baptisme is a nullitie. Thirdly, that because the Baptisme of Infants is not clearely held out in the New Testament, it is therefore not warranted by Christs Institution, but contrary to it, and then tell mee what followes lesse then this, that none so baptized are Churchmembers, & consequently can performe no acts of Churchmembers, and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches, our Ministry can bee no true Ministry, and therefore a necessitie of separation from us. What you add in the end of this Section, that a passage in one of my Sermons about the hedge which God hath set about the second Commandement hath been one cause of your startling at this point of Paedo-Baptisme. I answer, onely this, had you not bin startled before, there is nothing in that speech could have moved you; and when once you have manifested that Baptizing of Infants doth breake downe the hedge which God hath made about the second Commandement, I shall bee startled with you, and not till then.

In your tenth and last Section, wherein you undertake to answer that passage in my Sermon, that the opinion To Sect. 10. of the Anabaptists puts all the Infants of beleevers into [Page] the selfesame condition with Turkes and Infidells, you answer severall things: wherein I plainely perceive you cannot deny what I affirme, and yet you are loath to grant it: you say, first, Cyprian with his 66. Bishops doth the same, which I have forinerly shewed will not follow out of the words of of that Epistle: secondly, you say, Mr. Rathband pleading that such Children whose Ancestors in any generation were faithfull may lawfully bee accounted within Gods Covenant, grants the same also. But this no wayes followes without extreame wracking those words in any Generation. I suppose your selfe doth not thinke those words, Exod. 20. 5. were intended to intimate that all the children in the world, who came from Adam or Noah were included in the Covenant of grace, nor doe I conceive you beleeved Mr. Rathband to thinke so. For your owne opinion you declare it thus; 1. You know no warrant to thinke election to reach beleevers children more then unbeleevers children. 2. You know no more promise for them then for the children of unbeleevers. 3. All the likelihood there is, that they belong to Gods election rather then Turkes and Infidels, to be, because they have their parents and the Churches prayers, some generall and conditionall promises, and enjoy the benefit of good instruction and example, which puts them into a nearer possibility to bee beleevers and saved, and experience shewes God frequently continues his Church in their posterity. But this you dare not ground upon any promise made unto beleevers as such, for store you should incurre blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe: in that many of the posteritie of godly parents prove very wicked.

To all which I answer, first, in generall, that to my understanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants of beleevers to bee in the same condition in reference to the Covenant of grace, which the Infants of Turkes and Indians are in, no more promise for the one then for the other: which so oft as you consider, mee thinkes your fatherly bowels to your owne children should bee moved within you. Secondly, I answer, first, to that of election, your owne speech that experience shewing that God frequently continues his Church among beleevers posteritie, should be one argument to [Page] make you thinke Gods election lies more among them then among others, though wee can bee certaine of no one of them in particular. Secondly, what promises are made to beleevers children more then to Turkes, and whether Abrahams promise reach them, shall God willing bee scand in its proper place. Thirdly, as to that which you say, that the children of beleevers are in a more hopefull way, because of their parents prayers, instructions, examples, &c. and some generall and conditionall promises which puts them in a more possibilitie; I answer, this is nothing to the children which die in their Infancy, nor secondly, any more then children of Pagans enjoy, whose lot may fall to be educated by Christians, but no more promise by your doctrine for the one then the other. Thirdly, whereas you affirme that Generall, Indefinite, and Conditionall promises doe prove that there is a more comfortable likelihood that the children of beleevers are elected by God rather then the children of Turkes. I reply, 1. You doe not expresse what those promises are. 2. I wonder that you should inferre election from conditionall promises. Did God ever say that if you will performe these and these conditions, then I will regenerate you, give you a new heart, and put my spirit within you? 3. If the promise of regeneration bee not conditionall then you must say that there is some comfortable likelihood that such Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated, for if there be any thing lesse then regeneration promised, sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate. But I much admire that speech of yours, where you feare you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe, because many of the children of beleevers prove wicked; I beseech you tell me, was it not so among Abrahams posteritie? and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which wee have not; might not they without blasphemy plead that promise, notwithstanding that promise, I will he the God of thee and thy seed, was not made good to every one of them? for it is most [Page] cleare by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans, that God was not the God of thousands of Abrahams seed, either in respect of saving grace, or outward priviledges, for he cast off the Jewes from being his people, and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward priviledges, but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead; and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seale of the Covenant in their flesh; and yet were rejected not onely from saving grace, but from outward priviledges.

Next let us see how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogisme. I said, all being left in the same condition, 1. All must be saved. Or 2. all must bee damned. Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turkes, and some of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito. After some discourse of the two first of these, you deny the consequence: It follows not (say you) God may save some, and those some may bee the Infants of beleevers, and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians. It's true, a man that will may venture to say so; and if another will, he may venture to say, That those some, are the Infants of Pagans, and not of Christians: and hee that should say so, hath as good warrant for this, as you have for the other, according to your principle. But what's this to the question before us? I said, This opinion leaves them all in the like condition; One having no more reference to a promise then another. Now if you will avoid being goared by any of these three hornes, you should have shewed, that according to your opinion, there is some promise for some of the Infants of beleevers, though there be none for the Infants of Pagans. But in stead of shewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them: you tell me what God may possibly doe in his secret Counsell, which is altogether unknowne to us. But I perceive your selfe suspected this answer would not endure the tryall: and therefore you quarrell at that expression of mine, That if any of the Infants, of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ; then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church, whereof God hath made no promise. Against this you except; 1. That salvation is not carryed out of [Page]the invisible Church; though some Infants of Pagans should bee saved by Christ. I answer, it's true; and I adde, That if any man shall say, the Devils should be saved by Christ: even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church. But Sir, we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made. Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise, that he will gather a number, or hath a number whose names are written in the Lambs book, although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ, nor themselves ever live to bee instructed, you may then perswade your Reader to beleeve, that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church: and till then, you must give him leave to beleeve that this answer is brought in as a shift, onely to serve your present need.

Secondly, you answer, That men may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church; and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea; Job in the Land of Vz; Rahab in Jericho: and you say, Hee that called these, may save some amongst Turkes and Indians out of the visible Church. I answer, I hope in your next, you will a little better explaine your meaning: The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning: that as Abraham, Job, and Rahab, were saved out of the communion of th [...] visible Church in their dayes: so some among the Turkes and Indians may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our dayes. But surely this is not your meaning, you doe not beleeve, that Abraham, Job, and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church, though possibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary, as afterwards St. Pauls was. Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church; though his habitation (at least for a [...] while) was not among Christians but Infidels. I am perswaded that you thinke all visible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the visible Church, though possibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church. I will not so much as imagine that you [Page] mentioned these three examples, as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader: and therefore I only desire you in your next, to let us know your meaning plainely: and discover to us this mystery, how men may bee called to fellowship with Jesus Christ, and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ.

The rest of this Section, wherein you enquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of beleevers, I shall (God willing) give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon, whither now you call me; onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section, how manfully you have entred my outworkes, and thereby incourage your selfe to scale my walls: You indeed entred, and set up your flag, but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great spoile, unlesse my walls prove weaker then the outworke, which as yet are farre from being taken by you.

PART III.

NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause, the evidence which the Scripture gives Defence of the third part of Sermon. Reply to Sect 1. Of the connexion betweene the Covenant, and Seale. for Infant-Baptisme: which before I proceed in the examination of, I briefly propound to the Readers consideration, that you have this advantage to make your worke have a specious probabilitie, in that the question is concerning Infants, concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture, and should any man argue against the justification of Infants, by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture, how specious a plea might he make, especially if his disputation should bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments, but not positively affirming any thing? But notwithstanding, by the helpe of God, I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions.

My first Argument was, the Infants of beleeving parents are faederati, therefore they must be signati, they are within the Covenant [Page]of Grace, therefore are to partake of the Seale of the Covenant.

This Argument, because I knew the tearmes of the propositions and the reasons of the consequents would not be cleare at the first propounding, I therefore made no further prosecution of untill first I had cleared five conclusions The consequence of the argument made good. from which it receives not onely its light, but strength, and from which it ought not to bee separated, because in them I both prove a Covenant and signe initiall, this, first you assault singly, and denying both the propositions you try your strength in this Section against the consequence, and affirme that they who deny the consequence doe it justly, because (say you) if they who are faederati must be signati, it must bee so either by reason of some necessary connexion betweene the tearmes, or by reason of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace: but for neither of these causes; first, there is no necessary consequence that God gives a promise, ergo he must give a seale, or a speciall signe, Joshuah had none for his promise of bringing Israel into Canaan; Phinehas none for his, for the Priesthood to continue in his family; nor secondly, by any declaration of Gods will, Adam, and all the rest to Abraham had none, yea, and in Abrahams time Melchisedeck, Lot, Job; and for Abrahams family there was no such universall order or declaration of Gods will, for children under eight dayes old, and all the females had no such command, and therefore to have sealed them, would have beene will-worship, and so you conclude here and in many other places of your booke, that it is not being foederati in Covenant which gives title to the seale, but onely the declaration of Gods will to have it so.

To which I answer clearely, and first in generall. That concerning the truth of this consequence, the difference betweene Reply. The consequence proved by Mr. Tombes owne principle. you and me is not so much as you would make the world beleeve, wee differ indeed in the interpretation of the word faederati, about what is meant by being in Covenant. I assert, that many are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace, and in some sense to bee Covenanters though they be not partakers inwardly of the saving graces of the Covenant, for the Covenant of grace containes not onely saving grace, but the administration of it also in outward Ordinances, and Church priviledges, and that according to Gods owne word many are Covenanters with [Page] him, or in some sense under the Covenant of grace, who are partakers onely of the outward administrations and Church priviledges; you allow none to be under the Covenant of grace in any true Gospel sense, but onely such as are inwardly beleevers, justified, sanctified, and partakers of the saving graces of the Covenant. Whether of us are in the right, shall (God willing) be tryed out in this dispute; but as to the truth of the consequence, That all who are in the Covenant of grace, ought therefore to be partakers of th [...] seale: you acknowledge more then once, or twice, or ten times; for though you every where dispute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infants, yet rotundis verbis, you professe that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerate, you would baptize it. And when I said, Such as have the inward grace, ought not to bee denyed the outward signe: You answer, There is none of the Antipaedobaptists but will grant that proposition to bee true, pag. 142. And the present state of a person is that which gives right to baptisme, pag. 158. It's granted that (such Infants) such as are inwardly sanctified are disciples, and may not be debarred from baptisme; mark, Infants disciples; and is not this in plain English, That such as are Covenanters, ought not to be denyed the initiall seale of the covenant; Now then, if I can prove that not onely such as are inwardly regenerate, but others also, whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant, and that an externall visible right (in facie visibilis Ecclesiae) may be made out for any person or persons, to be by us owned & received as Covenanters with God, you your selfe grant that the seale may be applyed to them; and whether this bee so, or not, shall (God willing) afterwards fully appeare.

Secondly, I answer more particularly; 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seale, the addition of a seale to a promise is of free grace, as well as the promise it self; & if God had never given any Sacrament or seal of his Covenant, wee should have had no cause to complaine of him, he well deserves to be believed upon his bare word. Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Proposition was true in all [Page]ages of the Church; All Covenanters must bee sealed, I carryed it no higher then Abrahams time, when God first added this new mercy to his Church, vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant: And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward, I say it was Gods will, that such as are in Covenant should bee sealed with the initiall seale of the Covenant, supposing them onely capable of the seale, and no speciall barre put in against them by God himselfe, which is apparent in the very first institution of an initiall seale, Gen. 17. 7, 9, 10, 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God to thee and thy seed after thee: thou shalt keepe my Covenant therefore; and this is my Covenant which yee shall keep, every man childe among you shall bee circumcised; and afterward in the 14. the seale is, by a Metonymia called the Covenant, for that it's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcised, but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant, or in token of the Covenant betweene God and them; and he that rejected or neglected the seale, is said not onely to breake Gods commandement, but his covenant: so that because the initiall Seale was added to the Covenant, and such as received it, received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or because they were in Covenant: I therefore concluded, that by Gods own will, such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal, supposing still that they were capable of it. So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command, and the Covenant of grace too, are well consistent together; for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty; but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it. 4. Whereas you alledge concerning Melchisedeck, Lot, Job; we find no such thing that they either received this seale of circumcision, Answ. to Melchisedeck, Job. and [...]et. or were tyed to it. I reply, it's very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive; and had he been alive, he was of an higher Order, and above that Paedagogie. Or in what age of the world Job lived, though hee bee thought to be of the posterity of Esau, and so might have [Page] a right to it (even in your sense) as descending lineally from Abraham; however this is a meere negative Argument in matter of fact, which your self know to bee of no validity; Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith. I am not bound to beleeve this or that, unlesse it be found in the Scriptures; but they are not good in matter of fact; this or that fact is not recorded in the Scripture, therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done, is no good consequence; A non scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia. No Scripture saith they were circumcised, (though very good Authors thinke that Lot and Iob were circumcised,) nor doth any Scripture say they were not circumcised.

As to that you say of Infants under eight dayes old, and of all the females in Abrahams family. I answer to that of Infants, And to Infants under eight dayes old. there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself, whether for any typicall reason, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe so sharp a paine as was to bee indured in Circumcision, before the seventh and criticall day was past, or whether for any other cause, I dispute not; it is sufficient, God forbad them to have the seale till they were eight dayes old. For the women, they were not Women not capable of Circumcision. subjectum capax circumcisionis, there was in them a naturall impediment against it, therfore could not be injoyned them: and suppose some men among them, or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praeputium (as some sort of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them; whether the wisdome of God purposely chose a signe that Women might not be capable of receiving it, for some typicall use, as some conjecture: I cannot tell, it is sufficient that they were not capable of it, & were exempted from it by God himselfe: so that if you please to state the generall Proposition, as you needs must, That all who since Abrahams time are foederati, or covenanters with God, must by Gods own appointment receive the seale of admission into covenant, unlesse they be either uncapable of it, or are exempted by a particular dispensation: This proposition will indure all the shock of your arguments, and remain unmovable.

[Page] Next you reply to my answer concerning Women among Women circumcised in the men, vindicated. the Jews, I said they were circumcised in the males: this you cast away with scorne, affirming it to be an easie answer, because it's easie to bee answered. Indeed Sir, you answer it as easily as he who undertooke to answer Bellarmine in one word, and said, Bellarmine thou lyest: so you, it is an insufficient answer to take away the exception against the proposition, and that you might have a little matter to worke upon, you goe to another part of my Sermon, and thence you fetch the word virtually, with which you make your selfe merry putting my proposition into severall shapes and formes; and in one form (you say) it concludes not the thing in question; in another, it hath 4 termes; in another, the major is false. Wheras my plaine meaning was, and is, that the women being uncapable of it in their own person, because of their sex, wherein was a naturall impediment, as to this Sacrament, God imposed it onely upon the Males, and yet the women were not esteemed as uncircumcised, being (as Divines use to expresse in this point) viris annexae & in iis censerentur qui familiarum capita debebant esse; and whether this will not be justified, we shall presently inquire. But first give me leave to observe by the way how you pinch me with a point of law, That no man can be said virtually to have that by his Proxie or Atturney, which he might not actually receive himself in his own person. I question whether this be good law, but I am confident it is bad Divinity; sure we sin'd virtually in Adam, yet we could not actually, though that sin of Adam be ours by imputation. The sun is virtually hot, yet Philosophers say it's not actually. And the Jews of old offered to God such things by the hands of the Priests who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own persons: yea, and received such things by the hand of the high Priest (who bare their names in the most holy place) which they might not receive in their owne persons immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually, and quoad effectum juris, receive some such priviledges in Christ their Advocate, who in their right, is at Gods right hand, which here they are not capable of receiving [Page] immediately in their own persons. I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours, That it had beene a sinne for a child to have been circumcised after the eighth day was past. And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered elsewhere; viz. That circumcision might bee administred oftner then once; surely those other times must be after the first eighth day.

The other fault you note in my argument, is, That I conclude of a signe of the Covenant indefinitely, and not of Baptisme onely; whereas the Lords Supper is also a signe of the Covenant; which yet you thinke I will say is not to bee delivered to them, because not appointed for them: I answer, I clearely in my Sermon shewed this Proposition onely to be meant of the initiall sign, and not of the other; and I am confident your self, who durst baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate, durst not yet give the other Sacrament to it▪ because more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptisme: a regenerate Infant you thinke is capable of this: but besides regeneration, I am sure you will grant, That an examination of a mans selfe, and an ability to discern [...] the Lords body, is required to make one capable of that.

Now let us see how you avoid my proofes, That the Women were circumcised in the men. My first was, That the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised. You answer, That by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all, but the major part, or the most confiderable part. But Sir, doe you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can Circumcised not put for the major or nobler part. be satisfied with this answer, when (you know well enough) that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God, in opposition to the uncircumcised that is, al the rest of the world who are not the people of God. When Peter was to go to the Circumcision, & Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel; does not circumcision include the Women Jews, as much as the men, in opposition to the Gentiles; as well as the word Gentiles includes the women Gentiles as well as the men, to whom Gal. 2. 8. Paul was sent? Gal. 2. 8. 9. Surely it must needs be granted, that not onely the major, or nobler part, but the whole [Page] Nation of the Jewes, both men and women are there meant by Circumcision, which could not have been, if in some sense they were not to bee accounted Circumcised.

Secondly, I argued thus, No uncircumcised person might eate the Passeover: Ergo, Their women might not have eaten it, if in some sense they had not been circumcised. Your answer is, This is to bee limited pro subjecta materia, none that ought to be circumcised might eate the Passeover, unlesse they were circumcised. But this answer is altogether insufficient. For, 1. Where is this distinction of yours found, or founded in the Word of God? other distinctions about eating the Reply. Passeover, are clearely found, the cleane might eate it, the unclean might not eat it, the circumcised might, the uncircumcised might not: but of your limitation there is altum silentium.

2. I demand further, where is there any command or institution for women to eate the Passeover, (more then No warrant for women to eate the Passeover, unlesse they were to bee esteemed circumcised. for Women now to eate the Lords Supper,) unlesse it bee founded upon Circumcision? yet in practice we know they did eate it; and if they eate it not as ci [...]cumcised persons, tell me by what right they did it. If you say they were included in the houshold, Exod. 12. 3, 4. Every houshold was to eate the Paschall Lambe, and there was no exception of women. I reply, first, grant but the same consequence, that when wee read so frequently in the new Testament, that whole housholds were baptized, & no exception of children, that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized, and this controversie is quickly ended But I adde further, it is not said that the whole houshold shall eate it, for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it, & none but circumcised persons had any warrant to eat it. Yea further, suppose some words in the institution should reach the Iewish women, yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles, who should prove Proselytes to them? for Exod. 12. 48, 49. there is order taken for the male stranger, Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come neare and keep it; but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females. I hope by this time it appears that your exceptions against the consequence [Page] of my Argument have no weight, they are foederati; therefore they are to be signati.

Next come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Reply to Sect. 2. Sermon: The first whereof is this, That the Covenant of Grace, for substance, hath alwayes been one and the same, both to The Covenant of grace always one and the same. the Jewes and Gentiles. This first conclusion you grant; and therefore there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it; were it not that some of your exceptions doe almost recall your grant: If it bee in substance the same, though you should reckon up a thousand accidentall and locall differences, it were nothing to the purpose: but the first doth almost recall it; wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did onely containe the Covenant of Grace in Christ; whereas it is apparent (say you) out of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant, consisting of temporall benefits, the multiplying of Abrahams seed, possession of Canaan, the birth of Isaac, besides the spirituall blessings. To which I reply, I meant so indeed, and so I plainly expressed my selfe, that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham, and the Covenant made with us, lies onely in the manner of the administration of the Covenant, and not in the The Covenant with Abraham no more mixt for substance then the Covenant with us. Covenant it selfe. The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies, both spirituall and temporall, to them, and to us: Godlinesse having all the promises both of this life, and that which is to come; and that they, and we have our right to all these promises upon the selfe same condition: earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully, heavenly things more generally and springly then they are now to us; and on the contrary, spirituall things are more fully and clearely promised to us then to them; and earthly promises more generally and sparingly: And that these temporall benefits which you mention, viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed, the birth of Isaac, and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace, they were [Page] figures, signes, and types of spirituall things to be enjoyed both by them and us. These things I not onely asserted, but proved in my Sermon. If you think otherwise of these earthly blessings, I desire you to explain your meaning in your next. If you mean no more then this that all these temporall blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ, and were subservient to it, or were but types and shadowes of it, you meane no more then what wee all grant, who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it then there is in that made with us: and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration. But I confesse I suspect you have a further meaning, not onely because you here mention the temporall blessings before the spirituall, and call the land of Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham, but especially that expression which you owne from Cameron, that Circumcision did primarily seale the temporall promise, and signified sanctification but secondarily; what your meaning is in this expression, I cannot tell, it hath an untoward looke, as if the meaning were, that God did primarily and chiefely, in a Covenant of Grace founded in Christ (wherein himselfe promises to bee their portion) intend in the seale of it to ratifie temporall blessings which onely concernes vitam animalem; now that the Seale (I say) of this Covenant should primarily, and chiefly give evidence to such a porton which a people may enjoy, with whom God Circumcision sea [...]ed the spirituall part of the Covenant. never made a Covenant to be their God, is so grosse a thing to imagine of God, and so expressely contrary to the word, that untill you owne it, I will not impute it to you, although I know the Anabaptists in Germany shame not to say, that the Covenant made with Abraham was a meere carnall thing, and had nothing to doe with eternall life. As for that expression of the learned Cameron that Circumcision did primarily seale the earthly promise, &c. if by primarily hee meant immediatly, though not chiefly, that it sealed these things first in order, as they were types of spirituall things, it may then passe [...]um gran [...] salis, but if by primarily be intended principally, that Circumcision did chiefly seale earthly blessings, the opinion is [Page] too unsavory to be received: and whereas he, (and you with him) say that Circumcision did thus primarily seale the earthly part of the Covenant, I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcision a Seale of Canaan; wee have expresse Scripture that it sealed the righteousnesse of faith, whereby he was justified, but I no where read that i [...] sealed the Land of Canaan. Whereas you say, though the promises were types of spirituall and heavenly things, yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly, as the sacrifices were but carnall things, though shadowes of spirituall: I reply, all this is true, but this belongs to the administration of the Covenant (as was said before) but makes it never a whit the more a mixt Covenant for the substance of it; the Covenant then was more administred by carnall things then it is now, and yet the administration of the Covenant even now also hath some carnall promises, and priviledges as well as then, as the externall ordinances of the Gospell, Baptisme and the Lords Supper; and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace, the promise of this life, and of that which is to come: and so you may, if you will, call ours also a mixt Covenant, consisting both of temporall and spirituall blessings; and as among them some who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part, and never were partakers of the spirituall, others of them were partakers of the spirituall part also; even so now, some partake of the externall and carnall part onely, whilst others partake of both: this you must grant to be true, unlesse you will maintaine that none are now members of the visible Church, but onely Elect and true beleevers.

Secondly, you except against mee that when I said the manner of administration of this Covenant was first by types, shadowes, and sacrifices, &c. it had beene convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant: I reply, first, this is a very small quarrell, I added, &c. which supplies both Circumcision and other things. Secondly, you know the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted.

[Page] Thirdly, whereas I said there were some Proselytes in the Jewish Church who were but selfe-justiciaries, carnall and formall professors, who are yet in the Scripture called Abrahams seed, you answer I call them so without the warrant of Scripture, as you conceive: to which I reply, my words were that there was another Proselytes were Abrahams seed. sort of Abrahams seed who were onely circumcised in the flesh, and not in the heart, who though they were borne of Abrahams seed, or professed Abrahams faith, and so were Iewes facti, though not nati, yet they never made Abrahams God their portion, but rested in somewhat which was not Christ, &c. and so were to perish with the uncircumcised. This you doe not here deny to bee true, onely you would have me shew where the Proselytes were called Abrahams seed; I reply, had I mentioned no proselytes at all, but onely said there were some in the Church of the Iewes, who were visible members, and partakers of outward Church-priviledges, and yet were not inwardly godly, nor partakers of the spirituall part, and that these were called Abrahams seed as well as others, it had been enough for my purpose. I named not Proselytes to adde any strength to the argument; and because they are called Gods people, I feared not to call them Abrahams children by profession, and never expected to have met with a quarrell for calling them who joyned to the Church of Israel by that common name whereby the Church members were called, viz. the seede of Abraham or the children of Israel: and could no place of Scripture be produced where proselytes are expresly called by this name, the matter were not tanti. But if it were a thing of any moment, it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham, as Acts 2. 10. and 22. compared, Act. 13. 26. compared with Verse 43. but I forbeare. You go on and accuse me, that herein I joyne with Arminius, who saith, there is a seed of Abraham mentioned, Rom. 4. 9. 10. Gal. 3. Gal. 4. who seeke justification and salvation This is not to joyn with Arminius. by the workes of the Law, and that hee makes this the ground of wresting that Scripture, and that Mr. Bayne upon Ephes. 1. sayes that the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken: I reply, you give an high charge, but a weake [Page] proofe; I said there was a sort of proselytes who were the seed of Abraham by profession onely, or outward cleaving to the Covenant, who though they professed Abrahams faith, yet did not place their happinesse in Christ, or make choyce of Abrahams God for their all-sufficient portion. Sir, is this to joyne with Arminius in his interpretation of the ninth to the Romans? 1. How doe you prove that Arminius meanes the words which you cite, of Jewish Proselytes? Nulli filii carnis censentur in semine, saith Arminius; doth hee meane that no proselytes were the seed of Abraham according to the flesh? if so, I beleeve acute Mr. Bayne would Mr. Bayne of of my judgement, That civill justiciaties were called Abrahams seed. have been more wary then to have opposed him in that point. Nay Mr. Bayne in the very selfe same page which you quote, having set downe Arminius his two conclusions. (1. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed. 2. The children of the flesh are not reckoned for the seed;) passes his judgement upon them in these words, Page 140. The Conclusions are true, but not pertinent to this sense, for the children of the flesh here, are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham. But you very wisely mention neither of these Conclusions of Arminius, you thought it more for your advantage to fasten upon some other proposition laid downe by Arminius, and as you set it downe it runs thus: There is a seed of Abraham, qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consequuntur; I was much amused at the words. I know Arminius saith, Deus ex promisse ac debito dat vitam aeternam operanti, but he meanes it not of the workes of the Law; and therefore I wondered to see opera legis in your proposition; but the word which puzled me most, was consequuntur. Sir, let me intreat you to correct your booke, there is no such word as consequuntur in Arminius his exposition, and it doth not agree with your own exposition, for consequuntur justitiam, is by you translated; Follow after righteousnesse. I have perused Arminius, (with whom you say I joyn) and Mr. Bayne, from whom you say I say I differ, and I shall give an account of both to the reader.

First for Arminius, his words are these, Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt, qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consectantur, [Page] not consequuntur: so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne, is, whether in that place, namely, in the 9 to the Romans, the Apostle by children of the flesh, doe meane such as seek righteousnesse by the Law? Hoc in loco, saith Arminitor, the phrase is to bee so interpreted in this place; No, saith Mr. Bayne, it is not to bee taken so in this place, though it may be taken so in other places: I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words, that the Reader may see how grossely you have abused me; For though (saith Mr. Bayne) children of the flesh in some other Scripture, doth note Bayne in Ephes. p. 138. cap. 1. 5. out justiciaries, seeking salvation in the Law, yet here the literall meaning is to be taken, a child of the flesh, being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. Good Reader observe, 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans; and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne.

2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself, whom Mr. Tombes produced against me. 3. The words which cleare me, are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombes cites against me: whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falshood, I leave to your judgement. 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited, and I joyne not with him in any one of them. First, I doe not conceive that by [Word] Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant, but the word of promise, or else the Apostle had not answered directly, v. the 9. Secondly, by the word [Seed] was meant the children of the promise, the elect, Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne, nay Arminius confesses; onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith; an Opinion wch I detest, as being injurious to the free & effectuall grace of God. I need not instance in any other errours, only draw this Corollary, if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham, though God did reject so many of his seed (that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh) not onely from salvation, but from the partaking of outward priviledges, from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer: then God may reject many of the seed of beleeve [...]s now under the Gospel, though baptized, [Page] not onely from salvation, but from all Church-priviledges besides baptisme, and yet make good his promise sealed in baptisme, in which he engageth himselfe to be the God of beleeving Christians and their seed.

Fourthly, Mr. Tombes speaks of Abrahams seed by celling, and saith that promise, [I will be the God of thy seed] was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles, pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling, the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling, are the seed of Abraham onely by profession say I, because they are of the same profession with the spirituall seed of Abraham, who are inwardly called. If Mr. Tombes say that it is better to term them seed by calling, then seed by profession; if it bee but an outward call, where lyes the difference?

Fifthly, Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed, that by the seed of Abraham, Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onely, Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine, nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine, saith Arminius.

Sixthly, the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius, is, that this elect seed was elected upon Gods foresight of their faith, as Arminius would have it; but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion, as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God: and Mr. Bayne joynes with me, in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to bee justified by the Law, are termed children of the flesh. To conclude this of Arminius, I Mr. Tombes joynes with Servetus. wonder you should seek to cast an odi [...] upon my expression (as you do here and severall other times) by saying it's a joyning with Arminius, when you know well enough that you joyne not onely in an expression or two, but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedo-baptisme, with that monster Servenus, and other like him.

Lastly, you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say, There yet remaines in the Church a distinction Mr. Blake vindicated. of Abrahams seed, some borne after the flesh, some after the spirit; and that both these have a Church interest, or a [...] bright to Church priviledges; and that [...]ee for this alledged[Page]Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now, &c. I reply, for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very grosse, for though it bee granted, 1. That the Apostle shews Ishmael to be intended as a type of civill justiciaries who sought righteousnesse by the law. Yea, and 2. that these persecuted the true Church, who sought justification by Christ. And 3. That they are cast out from being heires, never to partake of the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant; yet because it is apparent that even these (who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar) had a visible standing in the Jewish Church, and were partakers of outward Church priviledges, and were the same of whom Paul speaks, Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse, and going about to establish their own righteousnesse, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God. And that in the same place Paul himself saith, even so it is now, (even in the Church of Gallatia it was so) and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better.) I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument, that some have a visible Church membership, and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges, notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children, unlesse they repent. The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is, that hee thinkes there is a fleshly seed of Abraham: but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase, since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own, whatever we put confidence in, and leane upon, as that which may commend us to God; whether our birth, or parts, our understanding, or morall vertue, yea, or our Religious duties, and performanc [...]s, all are but flesh; and this St. Paul plainly signifies, Phil. 3. 3 &c. We are Phil. 3. interpreted. the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit, and put no confidence in the flesh, and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh, viz. his birthright, his circumcision, What meant by seed of the flesh. his unblameable conversation, &c. And might not Mr. Blake safely say, there is still a seed of these who are visible members?

My second conclusion was to this effect, Ever since God Reply to Sect. 3. [Page]gathered a distinct number out of the world, to be his Kingdome, Infants taken into Covenant with their parents. Citie, Household, in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the Kingdome, Citie and Household of Satan; Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him, to bee accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devills.

So much weight lies upon this Conclusion, and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it, that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits, and artifices to shake the strength of it, by scornefull speeches, by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely, by framing senses, and confuting what was never asserted nor intended, by Bringing in at the by, opinions of other men, and disputing against them, by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men, when they are nothing to the purpose in hand, and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments: In all these I shall attend you, and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure, briefly to passe over what is impertinent, and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand.

First, you tell me this conclusion is a b [...]kin, that may bee put on either leg, right or left, exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it.

Truely Sir, you take a course to make it seeme so: I knew Reply. a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler, whose remarkable facultie was, so to expound a Text, as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation; even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion, you bring first, three sorts of senses, then you subdivide them, and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses, foure or five under one head, five or six under another head, and then blame me that I have not distinctly set down [...] in which of these senses, Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant, whether in respect of Election, or of a promise of grace in Christ, whether potentially, or actually, whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science, or faith, or opinion, and that grounded on a rule of haritie, or prudence, or probable hopes for the future; thus you expresse your skill in multiplication [Page] of senses: But I reply, that hee that runs may reade my sense, and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it, which I never thought upon, might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae, or have their share in the faedus externum, which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome, Citie, Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome: and afterwards in the same Conclusion, God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome (although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect) he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High, is not this plaine enough? that as all they who by externall vocation, and profession joyne to the Church of God, (though few of those many so called are elected) have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church & Kingdom of God, (which is a visible Corporation, distinct, and opposite to the rest of the world, wch is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign;) So God would have their children, even while they are children, to enjoy the same priviledge with them: what Delian Diver is there any need of, to fetch up the meaning of this? But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense, I say plainly, The Covenant The sence of this second proposition cleared. of grace is sometime taken strictly, sometime largely; as it is considered strictly, it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification, regeneration, perseverance, and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly, as the Covenant of grace is taken largely, it comp [...]hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend Men may bee under the Covenant severall wayes, some spiritually, and some under the administration onely. upon the free and gratious appointment of God, and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will; sometimes it was administred by his appointment in type [...] shadowes, and other legall Ordinances; this Covenant of administration, God said, Z [...]ary 11. 10. h [...] did [...] with the people of the Jews, and at the death of Christ [Page] hee did wholly evacuate and abolish, and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under, where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant, and called the Gentiles, and graffed them in ram [...]rum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off, as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it. Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God, or to be members of his Church and family; some are mysticall members by inward grace, the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them, being made new creatures, &c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy; accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise, and not onely after the flesh, who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward, others were Jewes in propatulo, Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia: and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church, some are in Christ by mysticall [...], so as to bee regenerate, &c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession, as branches which beare no fruite, Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine, though such branches, as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away; and often times tells us many are called, but few are chosen: Unto both these do belong great priviledges, though the priviledg [...] of the one be saving, & the other not, as shall by and by appeare.

Furthermore, according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ, there are also different S [...]ales belonging unto the Covenant; some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually, a quo [...]d substantiam et grati [...] fae [...]ris, as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit, 2 Cor. 1. 2 [...]. Ephes. 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all, who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation, and so in Covenant quoad [...], till by scandalous [...] which are [...] with that very outward dignitie [Page] and profession they cut themselves off from that relation, and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians, as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally.

When therefore I say, they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, I meane looke what right a visible pr [...]fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church, qu [...] visible professo [...], that right hath his child so to bee esteemed: now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible, but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out, but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors, as to be reputed the sonnes of God, Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw Great priviviledges belong to them who are under the externall Covenant. Gen. 6. 1. Deut. 14. 1. Gal. 3. 26. the daughters of men, Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God; and Paul, writing to a visible Church, Gal. 3. 26. saith, yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, (yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so) so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome, Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out, the children of the Covenant, Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers, and many other of their priviledges which belong to them, who are Israelite [...] in this sense, viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God (though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant) Saint Paul reckons up in severall places, as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth Rom. 9 4. the adoption, even to the body of that people (not a spirituall adoption, but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God, Deut. 14. 1.) and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; yet of these Paul saith, they were not all children of Abraham, when he speaks of the spirituall seed. So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afte [...] Paul had shewed Rom. [...]. Rom. 3. 1. that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant, and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes, who were onely Jewes in propatulo, [Page] Jewes outwardly, were nothing to justification before God, hee then propounds this question, Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew, or what profit is there of Circumcision? what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor, a visible member of the Jewish Church? hee answers, the advantage is great many wayes, and instances in this one particular, that the Oracles of God were deposited to them, the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances, which they might use as their owne treasure, and thereby learne to know and feare him, (therefore it is called their Law, John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law) when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world, and received John 8. 17. Deut. 33. 4. the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill, according to that of the Psalmist, Psal. 147. 10, 20 He shewed his word to Iacob, his statutes and his judgments to Israel, hee hath not dealt so with any nation, and as for his judgements they have not knowne them: So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance Psal. 147. 20. of the Congregation of Iacob. And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice, in the outward thing it selfe, and labour not after the spirituall part, yet the priviledges themselves are very great. It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary, this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria, Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes, this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had John 4. 22. above the Samaritans, that salvation was to bee found in their way, and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such, I meane so, as to have some of them inwardly holy, and others of them by externall profession onely, for this reason among many others, that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church, as well as others, who should be built up, that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke, should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up, but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him: and though all are bound [Page] de jure to bee inwardly holy, who joyne to the Church, yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his, that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth, as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned, but such as are dedicated to be learned, not onely quia docti, sed ut sint docti: and who ever will deny this, that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership, who onely partake of the visible priviledges, must deny, that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted, which I thinke you will doe, but lest you or any other should, I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle, Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive, and An externall right to the Covenant proved. Rom. 11. afterwards broken off, not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off, but the Gentiles also; the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome, and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive, even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not, and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other; now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church, from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive, from this neither Jew This proved from Mr. Tombes owne principles. nor Gentile are ever broken off, it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary, it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges; and if you thinke otherwayes, that none of old were, nor now are visible members of the Church, or had right to externall Church priviledges, unlesse they were inwardly sanctified; I beseech you in your next, to cleare this, and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you, and in stead of leading your Reader into a ma [...]e by framing multitudes of senses & the like, produce some solid arguments to shew, and prove that no other but true beleevers, may in fore visibi [...] Eccl [...] siae, bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God. But I suppose in this particular, you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion [Page] upon a visible profession, and that rightly, even by a judgement of faith, though their inward holinesse be unknown to us; for so much you grant, pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace, and not stay from applying the seale to him, who makes an outward profession, because wee have not a Spirit of discerning, to know them to bee reall beleevers; then it undeniably follows, That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God, and Covenant of grace, beside reall beleevers, which is as much as I need, to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant. And truly Sir, whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale, must doe it de fide, in faith, being assured he applyes it according to rule; must either grant such a right as I plead for, that many have right to bee visible members, and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances, though they be not inwardly sanctified; or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto; for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon, for the state of this or that man. And for my own part, when once you have disproved this, that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon, I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants, but the administration of the externall seale to any, what profession soever they make, untill I may bee de fide assured, that they are inwardly regenerate.

This then was and is my meaning, when I say, That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents; that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members, as their Parents have by being visible Professors; and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of; and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children, that the invisible takes in neither all of the one, nor the other, but some of both. Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is, and know not what to [Page]deny, or what to grant: and again, pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant, in respect of saving grates; or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances. I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning, I meane of them, as I meane of other visible Professors, they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively, according as they are elect, or not elect, all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges, are in Covenant with respect to saving graces; and the same is to bee said of visible members, both Parents and Infants, under the New Testament, in this point of being in Covenant, as was to be said of visible members, in the former administration, whether Jewes and their children, or Proselytes and their children. I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly, not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning; but because this mistake runs through your whole book, that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace, but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it. Now I proceed with you.

When I say, That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family, and not to the devills. You answer, That you feare I use that expression (of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome) to please the people. But Sir, why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse, in using an expression which your self cannot mislike? I have more cause to think you use all these words (it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his, to belong to him, his Church and family, and not to the Devills. And againe, it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae, the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods, &c.) onely ad faciendum populum, to please the people, because this is not Mr. Tombes leaves all Infants of beleevers to be under the visible kingdom of the Devil actually. your judgement; for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point, you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant, then to the children of Turkes: And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children [Page] of Infidels have: therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it, but onely in a possibility: so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially, yet (by your doctrine) they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually▪ and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them, dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk, if born among Christians; especially, if a Christian will take it, and bring it up in Christian Religion; and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ, since by your rule there is no promise, no externall Covenant? why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children, if Gods promise helpe not here? But say you, To make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church, that Protestant Writers use to give; because they must be all Christians by profession. I reply, it overthrows it not at all, for they all include the Infants of such Professors▪ as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants, male (and female too, lest you say that Circumcision made them members:) I adde also, Baptisme now (as well as Circumcision of old) is a reall, though imp [...]i [...] Profession of the Christian Faith. But (say you) Infants are o [...]ly passive, and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians. I answer, even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old, who yet in their dayes were visible members. Yea (say you) further it will follow, That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers. I answer, no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church; it's possible, but very improbable, that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely [...] behind [...] them, and it's farre more probable that a Church [...] Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocrit [...] ▪ Againe, you affirme, We are not to account Infants to belong to God, either in respect of election or promise of grace, or presen [...] [...] of in being in Christ, [...] [...]state by any act of [...] with in a particul [...] revelation, because there [...] declaration of God, that the Infants of pris [...] [...][Page]all or some, either are elected to life, or in the Covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being, or future estate. To which I answer briefly, though all this bee granted, if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely, yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for. Yea, I re [...]ort the argument upon your selfe, and dare boldly affirme, that by this argument, no visible Church, or all the visible Professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity, or promise of grace, or present state of in-being in Christ, &c. without a particular revelation, because there is no declaration of God that the present visible Professors are indefinitely all, or some, either elected to life, or are in the Covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being, or future estate: look by what distinction you will answer this, for visible Professors who are growne men, the same will serve for the Infants of beleevers.

In the next place, you make a digression against an expression of Mr. Cottons, which you thinke necessary to do, because Mr. Cotton vi [...] dicated. you f [...]de many are apt to swallow the dictates of such men as Mr. Cotton is, without examination; he affirmed, the Covenant of grace is given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17. 7. and in every godly man to his seed; God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever: against this you except many things, and according to your usuall course, you frame many senses, of the Covenants being given to every godly man and his seed; some whereof are so absurd, as no charitable man can imagine ever came in Mr. Cottons thoughts, That every godly man should be to his seed, as Christ to every godly man; which in truth (as you say) would be little lesse then blasphemy. But I shall give you this short Reply, that I take Mr. Cottons meaning to be, that looke as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and other godly Jewes were to their seed, in respect of the Covenant; that is every godly man to his seed now; except onely in such things wherein those Patriarchs were types of Christ, in all other things wher [...]in God promised to be the God of them and their [Page] seed, godly parents may plead it as much for their seed [...], as they could then; and whatever inconvenience or absurdity you seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton, will equally reach to them also: as for example, suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed, you'll demand if [...]ee plead it to his seed universally, that's false, and so of the rest of your inferences, look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you, the same would Mr. Cotton give, and at satisfyingly. As for what you say concerning Abraham, that by the seed of Abraham are meant onely elect and beleevers; I have sufficiently answered to it before, and shall have occasion to meet with it again in its due place; therefore I now say no more of it; but the chief thing you grate upon against M. Cotton, is that expression in the close, That God will have some of every godly mans seed stand before him for ever. You aggravate this to the utmost, as a bold dictate, imposing on Gods counsel and Covenant, the absurdity and falsity wherof, you indeavour to manifest at large: to which I answer in two or three words, that supposing his meaning to be as you set it downe, That it is in reference to election and everlasting life, that every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved. I confesse the expression is not to be justified; nor doe I thinke that that sense ever came into the mind of so learned and judicious a man as Mr. Cotton is: for my part, I think he onely alluded to that promise made to Jonad [...]s children, Jer. 35. tha [...] God would alwayes beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants, according to that promise, Exod. 20. 5. I will shew mercy to thousands of them that love mee and keepe my commandements. And that being his scope, (as I thinke it was) you need not have kept such a stirre about it.

After your digression to meet with Mr. Cotton, in stead of returning to my Sermon, you wander further out of your way; for after a short discourse of judging children to bee Mr. Tombes [...] deavours to [...] a sense upon this Proposition, never intended by [...] not owned by mee. within the Covenant (by opinion) according to a rule of prudence or charity (senses which I meddle not with: and therfore need not stay the Reader in descanting upon them. My rule of judging their condition, being limited to the Rule of Gods revealed will in his word) you then proceed in [Page] an indeavour, wherein you doe but lose time, and waste paper for many pages together, endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me; viz. That the Covenant of saving grace is made to beleevers and their naturall seed; that the Infants of beleevers are so within the Covenant of grace, as to be elected, and to have all the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant belonging to them; this you would needs have to be my meaning: and I almost suspect you would fasten this sense upon mee, against your owne light; for pag. 142. you doe as good as cleare mee of it; where you say, You suppose that I doe not hold, that the Infants of beleevers indifferently have actually the thing signified by baptisme, union with Christ, adoption, pardon of sinne, regeneration, &c. So that in all this discourse, you doe but luctari cum larvis, according to your owne expression, pag. 45. my plain meaning was as is before expressed; nor doe any of the expressions used by mee, and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to be my meaning, hold forth any such thing; as, they are within the Covenant of grace, belonging to Christs body, kingdome, houshold; therefore are to partake of the seale. True, as visible professors are, quà visible. Againe, they are to bee accounted to belong to him as well as their parents. True, as well as their parents doe by a visible profession. Againe, they are made free according to Abrahams copy. True, according to the promise made to Abraham, I will bee a God to thee and thy seed; that looke as Abraham and his seed, the Proselytes and their seed, upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant, had this visible priviledge for their posterity, that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents; so it is here.

One Argument more you bring (beside laying of my words together) to prove that this must needs bee my sense, because you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Directory, which holds forth, That the promises are made to beleevers and their seed: and directs Ministers to pray, That God would make Baptisme to the Infant a seale of adoption, regeneration, and eternall life. And [Page] you conclude, that if there be not a promise of these saving graces What the Sacrament seales absolutely, and what conditionally. to Infants, in vaine are they baptized, and the seale is put to a blank; To which I reply, my meaning is indeed according to the sense of the Directory, and according to that direction, I doe pray that God would make baptisme to bee a seale to the Infant of adoption, and the rest of the saving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny you consequence, that unlesse there bee absolute promises of saving grace to Infants, the Seale is set to a blank, for give mee leave but to put the same case; first, for the Infants of the Jewes, was the seale put to a blanke with them, or had they all promises of saving graces? Secondly, let mee put the same case in growne men, who make an externall visible profession, and thereupon are admitted to baptisme, can any man say, that all the saving graces of the Covenant, or the spirituall part of it, is promised to all visible professors? is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages, even in the best times, even in the Apostles times, multitudes were baptized, to whom God yet never gave saving graces, and therefore never promised them? for had hee made a promise, hee would have performed it. But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament, in what sense it is a seale, and then you neede stumble at this no longer; these three things are necessarily to be distinguished, first, the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament; and secondly, my interest in that thing; And thirdly, my obligation, to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament: I say therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in it selfe, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea, and Amen; Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision, to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers, & so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme, according to the rule which God hath given to his Church, to administer that Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ, shall partake of all these saving promises; this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme, but as to the second, which is interesse meum, or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] Covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally; in this particular, all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia, conditionall seales, sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver, upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant: thus our Divines use to answer the Papists, thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales, alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes; hee answers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditionall Seales, and therefore not seales to us but upon condition. Now for the third thing, the obligation which is put upon the receiver, a bond or the for him to performe, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third I say is also absolute, all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part, and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law, that is, that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force, and Infants among the rest were bound to this, though they had no understanding of the Covenant, or that administration of the Covenant, when this Seale was administred to them. Now then, since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe, a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant, and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part, is there any reason that you should say, that the seale is put to a blank, where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of? What you further say here, that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person, and not every beleever, that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham, and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers, which thing you repeate very often, it shall bee considered in a more proper place. So that, you having thus wholly mistaken my sense, and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned, I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe: I joyne with [Page] you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant, for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture, of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people, and that experience [...]eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie, and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others, yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time, that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all; it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church, partake of the outward priviledges of the Church, and bee trained up under that discipline, or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation, in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents, and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents. And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow, yet I shall not here stay upon them, but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee, as here you doe not; onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments, because in some sense it militates How Christianity may bee called a birthright. against my Thesis, Is this were true, say you, that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge, then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature, then Christians are borne Christians, not made Christians; if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian, as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke; and if so, how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others? I answer, According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true, that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian, it is his birthright to bee so esteemed; I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace, or a member of the visible Church, our▪ I am sure it was so, the child of a Iew was borne a Iew, and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite, a visible member of the Church of Israel, and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature, Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature, and not [...] of the [...]tiles, [...]ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the [Page] members of the Church to the condition of the heathens, and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree, because they were the visible Church of God: Will you say of them also, how were they then the children of wrath by nature? I answer, doe but consider the Apostles distinction, Rom. 2. last. betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae, a Jew without, and a Jew Rom. 2. [...]. in abscondito, a Jew within, and your objection is answered; in the first sense, every child of a beleever is brone a Christian, that is, hee is a member of the visible Church; in the second sense, none can claime it as a birthright, men must be made Christians in that sense, and not borne Christians; thus this, which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists, is easily answered, to bee children of wrath by nature▪ and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant, being borne of beleeving parents, do no whit oppose one another; thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace, and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath; but even thus it is unto this day among growne men, who are admitted to be Christians in your way, some of them are sancti, called and holy in the face of the visible Church, and yet not so coram facie dei, whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter. Your great errour and mistake is, that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace, for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces, you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect; You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant, under the notion of faedus externum, and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inte [...]um; you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely, and would perswade your Reader, that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly, and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership, upon a visible profession, whether the inward saving grace be known or not.

[Page] Now I returne with you to my Sermon, where your To Sect. 5. Comparison betweene Christs kingdom and other kingdoms, vindicated. examen proceeds, I used for illustration sake [...] comparison from other Kingdomes, Corporations and Families; the children follow the condition of their parents, free m [...]n [...] children are borne free, the children of slaves are borne slaves, &c. and thus hath God ordained (said I) that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family, children follow the Covenant condition of their parents; this passage you slight, first in generall, as that which containes nothing but dictates; but par [...]ius-ista-vitis, you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating, you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place, Christianitie say you is no mans birthright, this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake, and you here without any proofe [...]et downe this peremptory conclusion (which was the very question betwixt you) Christianitis is no mans birthright, but the thing is true, call it what you please, and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe: but say you, I do [...]very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations, as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth, whereas in this all is done by free election of grace, and according to Gods appointment. I reply, you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular, for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations? were not children then admitted in by birthright, and yet was not grace then as free as it is now? had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace, and that by Covenant, because God was the God of them and their seed, or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments? I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it. And further I pray you tell mee, was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace, as among us? are you of Arminius his mind, that Iacob and Esa [...] (both circumcised persons) are not proposed to us, Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation? Secondly, what meane you when you say, all is done in the Church according to the f [...] election of grace? Tis true, if you meane it of the Church invisible, all is there done by the free election of grace, but wee are speaking [Page] of the visible Church: and I hope you will not say, all is there done by free election of grace, you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges, but onely they who are elected. You adde, yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church, as in other kingdomes, is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors; Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs, Metropolitans, &c. and this is (say you) the reason of invocation of Saints, &c. I reply, true, for men to say thus it must be, or thus it may b [...]e in God [...] kingdome, because it is so in other kingdomes, is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of; but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes, when God himselfe hath made them so, it is obedience and not presumption. Yea, it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing. Next when I say, if hee take a father into Covenant, hee takes the children in with him, if hee reject the parents, the children are east out with them. You answer, if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation, it is not true, or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation. I answer, you judge right, I meant it not of election or reprobation; nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good, either to Infants or growne men, who are taken into Covenant▪ I meant it as before I expressed it, of taking in, into a visible Church-standing. But (say you) neither is that true, it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances, the father may bee baptized and not the child, and è contra, the father may, bee deprived, and the child may enjoy them, I answer, but this is the [...], the thing that is in question betwixt us, the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie; Indeed de sacto, the one may enjoy them, and the other hee deprived of them, a father may bee baptized, and his child die before it bee baptized▪ but our question is de jure, whether a Parent, being a beleever, his child hath not right to Baptisme, and other Church-priviledges, as it growes copable of them, at the [...]ew [...]s children had to Circumcision, &c. De sacto, it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes, David, the [...]ather circumcised, and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba, [Page] which dyed the seventh day, and was not Circumcised, and many multitudes more in the same condition, but is this any thing against the right of Infants to be [...] Circumcised?

Next (say you) In this point there i [...] [...] certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination, becaus [...] Mr. Rutherford saies, the children of Papists, and excommunicate Protestants which are barne with in our visible Church, are baptized if their forefathers have been found in the faith, but others will deny it, and you cite Mr. Cotton in the Margin, wh [...] sayes that if hath Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Cotton reconciled. the nearest parents bee excommunicated, the child is not to bee baptized, because the parents are to us as heathen [...], and th [...], say you, Paedobaptists as well as Anabaptists, like wates of the Sea, beat one against another: To which I answer, This peculiar controversie betwixt some Paedobaptists, by [...] right the children are to bee baptized, whether by right of their nearest parents only, or by the right of their remoter forefathers, who have been sound in the faith, is very little helpefull to your cause, nor is it any very great controversie betwixt those parties whom you mention, for Mr. Cotton in the very words cited, doth almost, (if not altogether) reconcile it, while hee saith, when the nearest parents are excommunicate, it may bee considered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profession, or in the right of the Houshold Governour, who promises to educate the child in the faith, [...] by proportion of the Law may bee gathered from Gen. 17. 12, 13. Here is little or no beating of one wave against another, but both of them beating Anabaptists; and I wish, that your answer did no more beace against the very reason of the holy Ghost, Gen. 17. 7. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumcised, and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him, because their parents are in Covenant with him; this in mee you call a carnall imagination, take heed you dash not against the Lord Jehovah himselfe. Lastly, whereas I adde thus i [...] w [...] in the time of the Iewes, both Jewes and Proselytes, they and their children came thi [...] Covenant together, and when God rejected the parents out of the Covenant, the children were cast out with them. To this you [Page] answer, indeed when par [...]nts were taken into Covenant, their children were circumcised with them, but whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants you shall con [...]ider in du [...] place, and there (God willing) I shall meet with you. But for the second thing, that when the parents were cast out of Covenant the Children were cast out with them; this (say you) is not true, parents might bee Idolaters, Apostates, &c. yet their children were to bee circumcised; I answer, first, Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day, that they and their children are cast out together? and (I adde) if you would shew the falsitie of it, you should have given some instance, not of parents, who remaine Gods people in externall profession, not having received a Bill of divorcement, though their lives might possibly bee very wicked, but of some who were cast off from being visible professors, and yet their Infants remaine in the visible societie of the Church, or of some who were visibly thus taken in, and their Infants left out, but instead of this, you still goe on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace, taking it onely of the Covenant of saving grace, not including the externall way of administration with it.

Now (God willing) I shall try what strength there is in Io Sect. 6. Vindicating Act. 2. 38. 39. as a proofe of Infants of beleevers to belong to the the Covenant of grace. your exceptions against those Texts I brought to prove that Infants of Beleevers do belong to the Covenant now as well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former administration. The first whereof was taken out of Acts 2. 38. 39. where Peter exhorting his hearers to beleeve and bee baptized, used this as an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their posteritie, The promise is made to you and to your children, &c.

The first branch of your answer is according to your usuall method, to throw dirt in the face of an Argument Mr. Tombes his method of answering. which pinches you, sleighting and scorning that which you know not how to answer; and then to frame severall senses, and raise a dust about it▪ You complaine how irkesome it is to Readers and Answerers, to finde them who alleadge [...] Text to paraphrase upon it, but show not how they conclude from it. It is harder for you to finde your enemy then to vanquish him; and[Page]you wish, that I would first distinctly expound, and then frame my arguments out of the Text.

I answer I hardly can tell whether it were best to smile at or pity this grievous trouble you are put to, that your patience should bee thus compelled deverare taedium; it seemes you expected I should make syllogismes in moode and figure, in a Sermon ad populum, if you did not, I wonder why you should bee thus troubled, since as plainely as I could I expressed the meaning of the Text: I first shewed where the strength of the Argument lay viz. That not onely themselves upon their faith and Baptisme should receive such an Invaluable benefit, but their children should also (as under the former administration they were) bee taken into a better administration, the Covenant being now exhibited in the best and fullest manner, and all they whether neere or farre off, who would owne this should themselves and their children with them, bee under this best Covenant, as formerly they were when the Covenant was more darke. And in the progresse of my discourse I both proved this to bee the meaning, and answered the exceptions to the contrary.

Next follows your severall senses: You doubt whether I Mr. Tombes his art in multiplying senses. fetch children in under the first part, I will be thy God; or whether under the second, I will be the God of thy seed. Or whether I meane is of saving graces, or Church-priviledges. One while you doubt whether my sense be, that God will be the God of their children if they obey his call: then you rather guesse it, That if the Parents obey his call, bee will be the God of them, and their children, though the children doe not obey his call. Yea further (because here are not yet senses enough) you proceed and say, If by the promise to them and their children, be meant of outward Church-priviledges; then the sense must bee, If you will beleeve, repent and be baptized, then you and your children shall be baptized. Yet another sense you make out of that which I spake (at the by) of Zacheus, Luke 19. that salvation came to his house upon his beleeving; that thence may be gathered, That the meaning is, a mans whole houshold may be saved barely by his beleeving: and not content with all these senses, you step out of your way to bring in Mr. [Page] Goodwins interpretation of Zacheus, that he meant it of the whole houshold; and that thence he collected that an household was Ecclesia prima, which you confute, and then you set down your own sense of salvation comming to Zacheus his house; that by Zacheus his house is mean [...] onely Zacheus himself.

What multiplicity of imaginary senses, and consequences of senses are here poured out on an heape? could the [...]arest Chymick have extracted any more? The Reader would hardly swadlow downe the tediousnesse of my discourse, if I should take them all singly, and shew what I own or reject of each of them: It is better to set down the plaine sense together, and make it goods; and then he will discern how you have indeavoured to cloud an argument, and wrangle against it, when you cannot answer it. I plainly expressed the Apostles argument to be fetched from The p [...]ame sense & scope of this argument opened and vindicated. the benefit, which would not onely come to themselves, but to their children by their beleeving in Christ; and after added, that the cleare strength of the Argument lay thus; ‘God hath now remembred his Covenant to Abraham, in sending that blessed seed in whom hee promised to be the God of him and of his seed; doe not you by your unbeliefe deprive your selves and your posterity of so excellent a gift:’ In which passage you acknowledge I have hit the marke, and given that very interpretation which you owne. And whereas you adde as a further illustration, that the promise is now fulfilled to them and their children, according to Acts 3. 25. Ye are the children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant, which God made with our fathers, &c. I confesse that is true, but not all that is meant; and yet even that strengthens my Argument, the Covenant which God made with their Fathers, That hee would bee th [...] God of them, and of their seed, and they were the children or heires of that Covenant▪ that look as God was the God of Abraham and his seed, so he would be the God of them and of their seed, if they did beleeve and were baptized; and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive themselves and their children of that priviledge: this I then made my argument, [Page] and this you saw well enough, and therefore say, that this expression, doe not by your unbeliefe deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift, hath a little relish of my interpretation of the promise concerning the naturall seed of beleevers. But Sir, why doe you call it a little relish? it is the very scope of my Argument, that look as God did when hee made the promise of grace in Christ to Abraham upon his beleeving, and took also his posterity, those that were borne of him, into Covenant with him, in the sense which I before alledged; and not onely the naturall Jews, but even among all Nations, whoever became followers of Abrahams faith, did inherit Abrahams promise, That he would be the God of them and their seed, and by vertue of that promise, their children were taken into visible communion: so this blessed seed [in whom this promise was founded] being now come, would according as heretofore, make it good to al, whether Jewes or Gentiles, that should beleeve in him.

This clause of the Covenant of grace, and the interpretation of it, viz. That it belongs to all believers, and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into visible communion, you often dispute against, and sometimes say that it was a promise peculiar to Abraham at other times, it was at the utmost to be extended no further then to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have their posterity (as born of them) to belong to the visible Church, though in this place where it was most proper, you say little or nothing about it, onely make wrangling exceptions against my interpretation; but because it most pertinent to the businesse in hand, I shall here take it into consideration, and manifest that it was not a personall priviledge to Abraham; no nor to Abraham, Isaac The promise given, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, not peculiar to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, proved by three Arguments. and Jacob, to have their poste [...]ty taken into Covenant by vertue of that promise, I will be the God of thee and thy seed

For first, though Abraham was the father of the faithfull, and so in some sense [the root, as you elsewhere call him:] yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake, and believers are his children and heires, and partake of those priviledges and promises which were made to [Page] him: and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God, & gave him interest in the spirituall graces of the Covenant, and none but himself; yet it was so beneficiall and advantageous to his children, that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houshold, and partake of the externall priviledges of it; and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it, and so bee fitted for spirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus trained up; so shall it bee with them who become followers of Abrahams faith.

Secondly, had it been a peculiar priviledge to Abrahams naturall seed, Proselytes of other Nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abrahams faith, have brought their children into Covenant with them, so as to have a visible Church-membership, as wee know they did.

Thirdly, and we know also that this promise of being the God of beleevers and their seed, was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead and rotten, as Deut. 30. 6. The Lord will circumcise thy Deut. 30. 6. Esa. 44. 2, 3. heart, and the heart of thy seed, &c. so Esa. 44. 2, 3. Feare not O Jacob my servant, and thou Jesh [...]run whom I have chosen, I will poure my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off-spring, and they shall spring up as among the grasse, &c. So likewise Esay 59. 21 As for me this is my Covenant Esa. 59. 21. with them, saith the Lord, my Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever, and this last promise your selfe acknowledge, page 54. to bee intended chiefly of the nation of the Jewes at their last calling in: and whereas you use to elude these Texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect, when they These places vindicated. come to beleeve, and reach not to any priviledge which is externall; I reply, by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for to beleevers then as well as to beleevers now were these promises made; and I shall desire you, to thinke how by this Answer you will avoyd that which page 42. you call absurditie and [Page] trifling in Mr. Cotton. For Instance; God made this promise (say you) to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to bee the God of them and of their seed, in all generations: see how you will answer your owne objection; if it bee understood universally to all his seed, that is manifestly false, all his seed had not God to be their God; or if it be meant conditionally, if they beleeve, then the meaning must bee, that God would bee the God of Abraham and his seed if they did beleeve; and then it signifies no more then thus, that God will bee the God of every beleever, and then it is but trifling to adde, to bee the God of him and of his seed, because nothing is more expressed in the last words th [...]n what is said in the former; therefore this promise made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, must bee restrained to elect and beleevers onely, not to the naturall seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, but to beleevers, as they and their seed by calling: thus by your owne Argument you cut off all the Jewes but such as were elect and inwardly holy, as much as you doe the Gentiles, from having any visible communion in externall priviledges. Consider what you will answer to these things, I nothing feare but by what distinction you will fetch off the Jewes, wee shall fetch off the children of beleevers, whether Iewes or Gentiles. This I adde to make it more cleare, that that promise, Gen. 17. I will bee the God of thee and of thy seed, (to which the Apostle here relates) is a Gospell promise, which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of beleevers. So that when the Apostle presseth them to beleeve in Christ, and by being baptized to come under this new and best administration of the Covenant, by an Argument reaching to their posteritie; the sense is no more then thus, you have indeed crucified the Lord of life, and deserve that his blood should bee required of you and of your children, and that that Vineyard (the heire whereof you have killed) should bee taken away from you, but if yet you will receive him offered to you in his Gospell, it shall not prove so, but you shall receive the holy Ghost, you shall bee justified, accepted, you shall still bee a chosen generation, the Church and people of God, ye [...] and your posteritie shall be under this [Page] best administration, they shall be accounted by vertue of this promise still to bee his, and be trained up for him, in his Schoole, in his house, as heretofore they have beene, yea and with greater advantage, because a greater abundance of the spirit is now poured and to bee poured out. Try what absurdities you can make to follow from this Argument.

After I had opened the scope of the Argument, I proceeded to examine what exceptions are made against it. First, Mr. Tombes his exceptions against this argument answered. some say the promise here mentioned is meant of extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, this I confuted, in this you concurre with mee, onely (that you might debase as much as is possible what ever I goe about to prove) you adde, my reasons are not sufficient to confute it, for though all who then 1 Exception. beleeved and were baptized did not receive those extraordinary gifts, yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future; This deserves no reply; is it imaginary that Peter might promise what never was to bee performed? was it to be true Answer. at any time, that all who beleeve should receive the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost? Your selfe say elsewhere, you should incurre blasphemy to challenge a promise which God should not make good. And whereas you adde further, that it doth not follow that this promise must bee true in all ages, that whoever beleeves and is baptized, shall receive remission of sinnes, and the gift of the holy Ghost; b [...]cause there is nothing in the Text to prove that this promise should be in force in all ages. But Sir is there not in the Text, all that are afarre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call; and doth not that reach to all ages?

The other shif [...] which I said was insufficient to avoyd the force of this Argument, is their interpretation 2 Exception. who say, To you and your children, must bee thus limited, viz. as many of them as the Lord shall call, that is, when any of your children come to bee called, this promise shall bee made good unto them; now I said this was but a shift, because the Apostles Argument is taken from the benefit which should come to their children, which would bee no Argument at all; because with this limitation, it holds forth no [Page] more to the children of beleevers then to Pagans, the promise is made to as many as God shall call, that is, to you, to your children, and to Pagans, and their children as much as to you and your children; what argument can this afford from a benefit which their children should receive if they beleeved?

But this say you is the genuine and necessary explication of the Text, for let the promise bee what it can bee, whether of saving graces, of outward priviledges, of extraordinary gifts, it is no wayes true without that limitation, as many as the Lord shall call.

But this is but a deceiving of your Reader with an equivocation in the word call, for if you meane of inward effectnall Answ. calling, of true faith wrought in the heart, and then say, what ever is meant by the promise, whether inward graoes or outward priviledges, none partake of any of these things, without this inward call: I must tell you, this is one of the things you use to call dictates, bold assertions without proofe, the falsehood whereof is abundantly manifested already: Do you not know and grant that outward priviledges are common to elect and reprobate? But if you meane it of outward calling, then I not onely assert, but have already proved their Infants injoy this calling with them. But because you cannot deny that the Apostle here meant to fetch 3. Exception. an Argument taken from the benefit which should come to their children, you have found out another shift, and say, the maine matter was concerning themselves to erect them, because they had said, His blood be upon us and upon our children, and this was a comfortable Argument, because they might hereby understand, that notwithstanding this imprecation or execration, they and their children might yet bee saved by this Jesus whom they had crucified, in case they should beleeve in him.

But I reply, first, there is nothing in the Text to evince it, Answ. that all these men either uttered that curse, or were privie to it: for though Peter said they had crucified him, he meant the Scribes and Pharisees had done it, and elsewhere hee saies, the Jewes which dwelt. at Ierusalem had done it: it is most probable that many of these stranger Jewes knew nothing of it. Secondly, let it bee granted that they both knew it [Page] and were parties in it, and so consequently that the application of the promise was the more seasonable to them, yet because it was the promise of the Covenant, which belonged to every Covenanter, that God in Christ would bee a God to them and to their seed, and that hee pressed it to them as to those who were children of the Covenant, Acts, Chap. 3. Verse 25. this Argument taken from the Covenant had been of use, though that speech had never beene uttered.

As for that which you call the witlesse descant I put upon my adversaries, while I say the Argument must run thus, that if the Apostle must be interpreted, (as these men would have him) to you and your children, so many of them as the Lord shall call, viz. you and your children have hitherto been an holy seed. But now if you beleeve in Christ your selves, your children shall bee in no better condition then the rest of the Pagan world, but if afterward any of them or any of the heathen shall beleeve and be baptized, their particular persons shall be taken into Covenant, but their Children still left out, this (said I) would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perswade them to come in, in relation to the good of their children. To this your answer is, that this witlesse descant followes not on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse, to them, their children, and all that are afarre off; and that which I burden my adversaries Tenet with, of putting beleevers Infants out of the Covenant into the condition of Pagans children is a Co [...]cysme answered before. But Sir, bee it witlesse or witty, they must owne it whose it is, and I perceive you can more easily put it off with a scoffe then give it a solid answer, and it is a thorne which will not so easily bee plucked out of your side▪ the strength of it is, Peter could not have used this as an Argument to perswade them to come under this administration of the Covenant, whereof Baptisme was a seale, from the benefit which should come to their children if your interpretation bee true, because by this their children should be in a worse condition, in relation to the Covenant, then they were before: all grant in the former they were included; you say in this latter, you know no more promise for them then for the children of [...]: [Page] How then could this argument be fit to be used? tel me I pray you, suppose a man held some Farm or Office under some great man, and that in his Grant or Patent, there were some apparent priviledges or benefits included concerning his posterity; If now the Lord of whom hee held it, should offer him a new Grant in which his children should be expressely left out, and no more priviledges for them then for meere strangers, could an Argument bee taken from the benefit that should come to his Children, to perswade him to give up his former, and accept this latter Grant? I thinke not. And whereas you call that expression of putting of the children of beleevers into the same state with the children of Turks, a Coccysme which you have answered before. I pardon your scornfull expression, you doe but kick at that which bites you, it is a truth which you have no cause to delight to heare of; you have answered it indeed, by granting the truth of it, as the Reader may plainly see in my Answer to your 10 Section of the second Part; and to Sect. 3. of this part.

Whereas I further said in my Sermon, except in relation to the Covenant, there was no occasion to name their children, it bad been sufficient to have said a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call. You answer, Their children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant: But there was another reason then that which I alledge; not onely their imprecation, Matth. 27. 25. but especially because Christ was first sent to the Jews and their children, Acts 3. 26. I Reply, but this reason which you alledge affords no Argument for them now, to beleeve and repent from any benefit should come to their posterity by vertue of that promise, I will bee thy God, and the God of thy seed.

To close this Section, you say, The Antipadobaptists have hence a good Argument against baptizing of Infants, because Poter required of such as were in Covenant repentance before baptisms. I answer, just as good an one, as because Abraham was in Covenant, and an actuall beleever, and justified by the faith he had in uncircumcision, and received it as a seal of the righteousnesse of faith; therefore all these must go [Page] before Circumcision; and because all who turned Proselytes to the Jews, must first make profession of their faith; therefore none may bee circumcised but such as they are. But more of this when we consider this Argument in your Exercitation.

Next, let us try whether your successe bee any better against the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove To Sect. 7. this Conclusion; viz. Rom. 11. 16. &c. where I said, The Apostles scope was to shew that we Gentiles have now the same Rom. 11. 6. &c. vindicated. graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had; and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out; and their taking in at the latter end of the World, shall bee the same graffing in [though more gloriously] as ours is now; and it is apparent that at their first graffing in, they and their chi [...]dren were taken in; at their casting out they and their children were broken off; and when they shall be taken in again at the end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in together; and all this by vertue of the Covenant, Ero Deus tuus, &c. Which is the same to us and to them, we and they making up the Church of God.

In your Examen of this Argument you still proceed in your old method; first to cast scorne upon it, as such an obscure Argument, That none but a Diver of Delos can fetch up the meaning of it: and indeed, should you not pretend difficulties, you could have no colour to bring in so many imaginary senses; thereby to darken an Argument, which is the second branch of your Artifice: As whether this ingraffing be meant of the visible, or invisible Church, by faith, or profession of saith certain, by reason of election, or Covenant of grace made to them, or probable and likely, because for the most part it happens so, &c. Alas Sir, why doe you thus strip your selfe to dive under the water, when the sense swims upon the top: Look how the Jewes were Gods people, so are the Churches of the Gentiles; looke how the Jewes children were graffed in, so are our children, we are taken in, in stead of them who were cast out, and become one visible kingdom of Christ with the rest of, them who kept their station; [Page] this is the plaine sense of my Argument. Now if you please but to apply all your imaginary senses to the Jews and their children, and say, if they and their children were graffed in together, was it into the visible, or invisible Church? was it by faith, or the profession of faith? was it certain or probable? Doe you not thinke your Reader would smile at the vanity of these questions?

When you have set downe your senses, next you thus proceed, the thing that is to be proved is, That all the infants of every beleever are in the Covenant of Free grace in Christ, and by vertue thereof to bee baptized into the Communi- of the visible Church. No Sir, the thing to bee proved from this Text, is, That our infants have the same right which the infants of the Jews had, and your Arguments fight against the Infants of the Jews, as much as against the Infants of the Gentiles; for [to apply your own words spoken of beleevers now, to the Jewes then,] Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jews were for the most part under the election and Covenant of grace, and so in the visible Church; yet it will not follow that every infant of a Jew, in as much as hee is the child of a Jew, or a beleever, is under the Covenant of grace, because we have Gods expresse declaration to the contrary, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. and all experience proves the contrary; is not this as much against the one as the other?

To what I said, the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumcision; therefore ours are to be ingraffed in by Baptisme. You answer, by demanding whether in good sadnesse I doe thinke the Apostle here meanes by graffing in, baptizing or Circumcision, or incision by outward Ordinances; for if that were the meaning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good sober sadnesse I do think that graffing in is admission into visible membership, or visible communion with the Church of Christ; and that the externall seale of their visible graffing in was Circumcision, and of ours Baptisme; and yet it follows not, that breaking off is onely uncircumcising, or unbaptizing▪ but breaking off [...] a casting out from that visible membership whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole. [Page] But to you it seems that ingraffing here, is meant of the invisible Church by election and faith: I Reply, if it be meant of the invisible Church onely; and that all who are graffed in, in the Apostles sense, whether Jews or Gentiles, are onely electones, I will solemnly promise you never to plead this Scripture more, for any Infants, either of Jews or Gentiles; no nor for visible Professors of either of them; provided onely if you cannot make that good, you will [as indeed you must] yeeld that some are to be reputed visible Church-members, though not elect, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that our graffing in, is as theirs was; they and their children, we and our children; and if you please, let us a little try it out. The Text is plaine, some of the branches were broken off, such branches whose naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that priviledge which they now partake of who are graffed in in their stead; were these broken off from the invisible Church? you dare not say so: if then the Olive from which they were broken off, bee the visible Church, I have enough: and I wonder that any but an Arminian, should make any question that the Apostle speaks onely of rejecting the Nation of the Jewes from being the visible Church, and taking the body of the Gentiles in their stead, to be Gods visible Kingdom; in that it is meant of such an ingraffing as may be broken off, which cannot bee from the invisible Church. But let us see how you seek to evade this, and how you prove that it must bee meant of the invisible Church: Abraham (say you) bad a a double capacity, one of a naturall Father, and another the father of the faithfull; in respect of the former capacity, some are called branches according to nature; others wilde Olives by nature, yet graffed in by faith: and when it is said that some of the naturall branches were brokin off, the meaning is not that some of the branches of the invisible Church may be broken off; but onely such as were so in appearance, according as our Saviour expresses it Joh. 15. 2. But I Reply, I professe I understand not how this distinction gives you the least helpe, for tell me I pray you, were not these whom you cal naturall branches is truly in the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet [Page] graffed in, in the stead of them who were broke off? If they were, how doth this distinction help you? You say indeed, That the Infants of beleeving Jewes were not in the Covenant of grace, because they were their children: if by this you meane they were not members of the invisible Church, you say the truth, but nothing to the purpose. But if your meaning be, that they had not a visible membership, such an ingraffing as gave them a right to outward Ordinances; you not onely contradict the Scripture, but your selfe, who plead this, That it was a peculiar priviledge to Abraham, that his children should have such a visible standing as ours have not: plainly, the Jewes were the naturall branches, some of them were elect, some not, the body of them were the branches spoke of in this place; many of these were broke off, others of them kept their station; yet Gods election failes not; even so is it now, the Gentiles were graffed in, that is, their visible faith gave them a visible ingraffing, their invisible faith gave them (who have it) an invisible membership: yea, to me your selfe seem to say as much, when pag. 63. you affirme, incision may be either into the visible or invisible Church; graffing in, may be either by faith, or profession of faith. And pag. 65. It is true that our present graffing in, is answerable to [or rather for their] casting out; that is, God would supply in his Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the Iews by the calling of the Gentiles, so much the Apostle saith, ver. 17. thou being a wilde Olive, wer't graffed in, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off; if you mean it in this sense (say you) I grant it. And truly Sir, in these words, to my understanding, you grant not onely my interpretation of this place, but even the question controverted betwixt us. First, you grant my interpretation, that it is not meant of the invisible, but the visible Church: for I know you will not say that any of the elect Jewes were broken off, and the Gentiles elected and put into their place. It must therefore be meant of the visible, and of the visible Church of the New Testament; and that those Jewes who kept their station, and we who are in the roome of those that were broke off, doe make that Olive which the Jewes [Page] made before. Yea secondly, you by necessary confequence grant, that our children are taken in as theirs were, we are graffed in, in ramorum defractorum loeum; we supply in the Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the Jews. Now if we thus supply, our children supply the place of their children which were broken off; and beside, we are one with the rest of the Jews who remained in this Olive; and their remaining in the Olive, did not (I hope) deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children, and therefore we must have the same with them, and a greater then they had for their children, none of us ever pleaded, though ours be clearer, and a greater measure of grace accompanying it.

You goe on, and say, when some of the naturall branches were cut off, it is not meant any otherwise then our Saviour Christ meanes, Joh. 15. 2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit hee Joh. 15. 2. proves the interpretation to be true. takes away; that is, not that any branch truly in him could bee fruitlesse, or taken away, but onely those branches which were so in appearance. I reply, that this is my very meaning, that this standing as branches of the Olive, is not to be limited to the invisible, but takes in the visible also, not restrained to such as have a spirituall union with Christ by faith, but takes in also the externall profession of faith, which oft times is not in truth, that which it appears to be.

Whereas you say, the Apostles scope in the whole chapter is to answer that question; Hath God cast away his people, &c. and not to shew that wee have now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had. I answer, I undertook not to Analize the whole Chapter, but to open the scope of that matter or argument which begins at the 16 ver. and that you cannot gainsay, but that there the Apostle makes an Argument from our graffing in in their stead. And you minde me also of my owne distinction of the substance of the Covenant, and the administration of it. Sir, I thank you for remembring me of it, it is of very good use in this place, though not of that use which you bring it for, we have the same Covenant with them for the substance; which Covenant consists of the same blessings, and is applyable upon the [Page] same conditions, belongs to the same sorts of persons, but the administration of it, is clean differing from theirs. You grant, That by faith wee partake of the substance of the Covenant, in respect of which, all beleeving Gentiles are Abrahams seed. Yea, and you may adde, visible beleevers are his visible seed: But if you mean it (say you) of the outward administration of this ingraffing by Circumcision, Baptisme, &c. nothing is more false, the outward administration is utterly taken away; and to affirme that it is not, were to [...]vacuate the blood of Christ in this particular. But Sir, this is at the best but cunning dealing, and in part, a confident false assertion; it is cunning to say by Circumcision, Baptisme, &c. as if both these belonged to one administration. Indeed to affirme that ingraffing into the visible Church, should now bee by Circumcision, were to evacuate the death of Christ in that particular; but to say [as you ought, if you would speake plainly] that to have our initiation now by Baptisme into the visible Church, as formerly by Circumcision; or to say that all outward administrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away, [though the old one is vanished] is not onely a co [...]fident, but a false assertion, and if you say not this, you apply my distinction to no purpose.

You goe on, whereas I said their taking in in the end of the world wil be as ours, they and their children; you grant this is true. If it be true, that their children by being the children of beleevers shal be accounted to belong to the Church, you grant my Argument, if you meane not so, but think that at their last and best restauration, their children shal not enjoy that priviledge which they had when they were Gods people before, why doe you not say so, that all the world may see that you think in their best condition they shall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age? and yet you grant, That they and their children shall bee taken in, yea and a more full taking in of the children of the Jews, then is now of the Gentiles, according to that, Rom. 11. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved. But (say you) all this proves not, that God would have either all Infants of beleevers, counted his as elect persons, or in the Covenant of grace in[Page]Christ, or in the face of the visible Church admitted to Baptisme. I answer, the thing to be proved was, our Infants have the same priviledge with theirs▪ and that it proves abundantly; as for election, wee are not to esteem all visible members, whether Infants or grown men, to bee elected, God having declared the contrary, this being true in all ages of the Church, Many are called, and but few chosen. Notwithstanding, when we speak of particulars, wee have the same ground of charitable hope for one as for another. As for your other expression, That this proves not that they are to bee looked upon as visible members of the Church, and to be admitted to outward Ordinances; this is onely to deny the Conclusion, whether this being proved, that our Infants have the same right to bee reckoned to the Church of God, as well as the Infants of the Jews, be not a just ground, and as good a foundation to prove, that therefore they must bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall seale, shall in due time appeare, when I have made good the next conclusion, That Baptisme succeeds in the roome of circumcision to that use; in the meane time let the Reader judge.

I further said of the Jews, they shall by vertue of Gods Covenant bee taken in againe in the end of the world, because the root is holy, because Gods covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob extends yet to them, and shall againe blossome, and will take place, when the Nations unbeleefe shall bee taken away, and their present nationall condition I shadowed out in the comparison of Nebuchadnezzars dreame, Dan. 4. 14. of a tree that was cut downe, and the root bound with an iron chaine, and yet afterward did grow again. The thing it self you deny not, nor go about to answer my argument drawn from the Jewes, viz. we, as they, were taken in; they, and their children shall be at the last taken in againe, as they were at the first: and therefore we and they making up the same body, are taken in upon the same ground, our children with us, as well as theirs with them; this Argument (I say) you go not about to answer, but in stead of answering, you pick quarrels against my comparison taken from Nebuehadnezzars dreame. Why Sir, I never thought a Scholar would have expected a comparison [Page] should runne upon foure feet; nor have wrested it beyond what was intended by it, I never intended to make Nebuchadnezzars dreame an argument to prove, but onely to illustrate, that as that tree for a while was cut downe, and the root bound with an Iron chaine, was kept from growing, yet in the end the chaine was removed, and the tree grew againe; so the nation of the Jewes was for a while cast off, from being the people of God, during the time of their blindnesse and unbeleefe, but in the end the vaile should be removed, and their nation taken into their former Church-standing, yea and more gloriously, and that by reason of the Covenant; But from this you seeke to draw many absurdities, and to shew wherein my comparison holds not; as this tree is not cut downe as that was, onely some branches broken off, and that to make Abraham the root; to bee bound with a chaine is unhandsome; and that in this allufion, I sometimes make Abraham the roote, sometimes the Covenant the root, &c. all which are worthy of no answer; nothing being held out in the allusion but what I now said; neverthelesse, were it pertinent to our controversie it might easily enough be shewed, how in a sound sense the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the rest of the branches grow, and also how by vertue of the Covenant, Abraham is also a root from which his seed grow, yea, and severall beleevers are roots from which their posteritie springs, and how in one sound sense Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, and all visible beleevers make up this one tree this Olive, and yet in another sense they are all but branches of this Olive.

Whereas I said in all this discourse, the holinesse of the branches there spoke of, is not meant of a personall inherent holinesse, but an holinesse derived to them from their Ancestors, a faederall holinesse. Against this you except many things. First, Mr. Goodwin expounds it otherwise: if Mr. Goodwin meane that there is no other holines which may make men esteemed so in facie dei according to Rom. 2. ult. I concur with him, but if he say there is no other holinesse, or that the profession of holinesse may not make him passe as holy in facie visibilis Ecclesiae, [Page] when I heare him say so (as yet I never did) I shall dissent from him though hee be my loving friend. Secondly, say you, bere are divers things to be marked indeed, but with an obeliske: indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your hand, let us see whether you have set it justly or no in this place, and whether your impartiall Reader will not take Derivative and inherent holinesse not opsed. it off and set it upon your selfe. I oppose (say you) personall inherent holinesse, to derivative holinesse as inconsistent: but Reader looke into my Sermon, and see whether I did so or no; I confidently deny this charge, I onely shewed the meaning of the word in this place to bee of derivative holinesse common to the whole nation, not excluding personall inherent holinesse in true beleevers among them; and I say again, the whole nation was called holy, not personally inherent, but federally; and you acknowledge here a derivative holinesse from Abraham as a spirituall father, yet I suppose you will not undertake to justifie that true inherent holinesse is derived from any, but from our Lord Jesus Christ, and his holy spirit. Next say you, this holinesse is derived not from any Ancesters, but onely from Abraham. But I beseech you in your next not onely to dictate this, as in this booke you doe very often; but cleare and prove it by some good arguments, why it does not descend from other immediate parents, who are beleevers, as well as originally from Abraham: for parents who are branches from Abraham their father, are yet rootes to their children who spring from them; Doe wee not read of the root of Iesse, Esay 11? though hee was but a branch from Abraham, might not every parent among the Jewes, at least every beleeving parent apply that promise made to Abraham, I will bee the God of thee, and thy seed? if you thinke hee may not, disprove the Arguments which I have brought for it, in answer to your sixt Section. I demand further, was not such a holinesse derived from Abraham to his naturall seed, or posteritie, where all Abrahams posteritie, who are called the holy seed, true beleevers, and inwardly holy? No (say you) other parents are not Beleeving parents are roots to their children. roots, Abraham onely is an holy roote, or at the most, Abraham, Is [...]ac, and Jacob, in whose names the Covenant runs. To which [Page] I reply, first, this is to say and unsay; Abraham onely is an holy roote, yet Isaac and Iacob are holy roots too. Secondly, the Apostle names none of them at all, but speakes of the fathers, which includes all their Ancestors, at least more then Abraham onely. Thirdly, how often did God (as I shewed before) renew that promise, I will bee the God of thee and of thy seed, after Abraham, Isaac and Iacob were all dead? Fourthly, your self say, the body of beleevers is compared to the Olive tree, and each beleever to a branch, and then, sure Abraham, Isaac and Iacob onely, are not the root or tree which bare the branches, but the body of beleevers is the tree, and so (by your owne grant) it followes, beleevers in one sense are the tree, in another the branches. Fiftly, I adde, that the body of beleevers, who make this Olive tree and branches, must necessarily be understood of visible professors, and not restrained or limited to true beleevers onely, otherwise the branches could not have been broken off, as is aforesaid.

Next you step out of your way, to reproach Mr. Thomas Mr. Goodwin Vindicated. Goodwin, who (say you) indeavored to inserre a kind of promise of deriving holinesse from beleevers to their posteritie out of the similitude of an Olive, and its branches, compared with Psal. 128. 3. &c. And then you vilifie him, as a man who by spinning out similitudes and conjectures, deludes his Auditory with such things, rather then satisfie them with arguments: what his discourse was, you set not downe, nor in what sense he alledged holinesse to be derived from beleeving parents to their posterity, but why like Ishmael your sword should bee thus against every man, I cannot tell? as for Mr. Goodwin (notwithstanding his difference from me in some points of Church-government) I can doe no lesse then testifie that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Gospel of Christ, and his worth not to be blasted by your scornfull speech; and for the things you alledge against him, he assures mee, You have set downe his notions in your Booke otherwise then he preached them; and that in due time hee intends to publish his Sermons, and then the world shall see whether you have done him right or not.

[Page] Lastly, to that which I asserted, That the Infants both of Children follow the Covenant condition of their parents. Jewes and Gentiles, for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their Parents; the Infants of godly Parents, according to the tenor of his mercy; the Infants of the wicked, according to the tenor of his justice: you upon this demand whether I do not in this symbolize with Arminius, who makes this the cause why the posterity of some people have not the gospel, because their forefathers refused it; and you bring in the learned Doctor Twisse, and Moulin disputing against him in that point. How faine would you Mr Tombes symbolizing with Arminius his expounding Rom. 11. say somewhat which might reproach this Argument? But may not both these things be true, that God shews mercy to whom he pleases, and hardens whom he pleases, and yet shews mercies to thousands of generations that feare him, and visit the sins of parents upon their children? may wee not say truly when God cast out the nation of the Jewes from being his people, that for their sins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children, that they should no longer be his people in Covenant, as they were in time past, and yet his grace remain free? I spake expressely of outward administration of the Covenant, That when Parents are taken into Covenant, their children also with them have a visible right, and when God gives a bill of divorce from a visible Church standing, (for to true beleevers hee never gives any) their children are cast out with them, as appeares in the Jewes at this day; is this to symbolise with Arminius; or doth Doctor Twisse or Moulin, or any other of our Orthodox writers gainesay this? I appeale to every learned Reader to judge; But é regione, I desire you to shew how you will avoyd symholizing with the Arminians, who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holinesse, from this 11. of the Romans, because the branches were broken off, when you with them say, the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the invisible Church, yet of the branches growing in, or graffed into this Olive, it is expresly said some were broken off, and others will fare no better if they beleeve not. Bert us in his relation of the conference at the Hague, urges this very place, to prove that it is poss [...]ble for the Saints to fall away from grace, because[Page]we are advised to take warning by the Jewes Example, who were broken off for their unbeleefe; I know that you thinke not that true beleevers may fall away, but how you will avoid the Argument, interpreting this place as you doe, I professe I cannot tell.

And now I leave it to every judicious Reader, whether you or I have darkned this Scripture, whether you in saying this Text, is meant of the invisible Church onely, and the graffing in is by election and faith, or I who say the rejecting is of the Jewes from being of the visible Church, and ingraffing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the visible Church, kingdome, and people of God in their roomes; whether (in a word) I who interpret it of such a growing in the Olive, or ingraffing into it, as may endure a breaking off, and yet none fall from saving grace who once had it, or you who make such a graffing in, as that if any branches bee broken off, it must necessarily follow, that branches may bee rent off from the invisible Church, and fall away from inward holinesse, have interpreted this Text, most agreeable to the Analogy of faith, and the Apostles scope: and to conclude, let the Reader also judge, whether this Text (notwithstanding all your indeavors) remaine not still in my hands, as one of my strong holds, to defend this conclusion, That the obildron of beleevers new, have the same right to the Covenant with their Parents, as the children of the Jewes had with their Parents.

Now (say you) you are come to my principall hold, 1 Cor. 7. 14. I perceive at first you thinke there is some To Sect. 8. 1 Cor. 7. vindicated. strength in it, for you have brought a huge army against it, and drawne a long line about it, raised abundance of batteries, and in a very long discourse say something almost to every sentence of mine concerning this Scripture, and after all your shot is spent, you cry Io triumphus, I have got your chiefe hold which you had best manned. Truely Sir you speake like [...], qui diff [...]avi [...] omnes [...] Gurgu [...]. But the best is, all the ground is not yours that you walke over, nor every man killed that you [Page] shoot at. I have no feare that your great swelling words will give any satisfaction to your judicious Readers; wee will come to what you have done, and try what strength there is in this long Section, and that I may make my answer to it as briefe as is possible, I shall bring all the matter of your discourse to three heads. First, such things as wherein you and I doe agree, and must necessarily agree. Secondly such things as wherein whether wee agree or disagree it matters not much to the point in controversie; these two I shall but touch upon. Thirdly, such things wherein wee differ, and which really concerne the controversie betwixt us. And these things (God willing) wee will try out hand to hand.

First, wee agree, that sanctified may have many senses, and that of those many, two onely are applicable in this place, either the matrimoniall sanctification, which you insist upon, viz. Chastitie in the wife and husband, or lawfull matrimony between them, and legitimation of the children. Or else Instrumentall sanctification, in the husband and wife, and federall holinesse in the children, which I insist upon. Wee agree also, secondly, that i [...] may signifie by as well as in. Wee further agree thirdly, that the seepe and meaning of the Text is, that the Corinthians having writ for the Apostles resolution whether it were lawfull for them who were converted, still to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands; the Apostle here resolves that case upon the affirmative. And I will further agree with you fourthly, that these words else were your Children uncleane, &c. are a medium or argument whereby the Apostle proves the former sentence, the unbeleeving husband is sanctified in the wife, &c. I yet further agree, fiftly, that all the places which you cite out of the learned Chamier often cited to no purpose. Chamier are Orthodox, and clearely prove that for which hee brings them, viz. That sanctification cannot bee understood of the conversion of the unbeleever, through the diligence of the beleever, page 73. And that the Argument is not fetched from a contingent thing, pag. 74. And that holinesse is not meant of ceremoniall holinesse (which sense was ascribed to Augustine) pag. 76. And that the holinesse of Children here, is not that [Page]which they receive from their education, pag. 75. And I am sure you must agree with mee, sixtly, that in all these testimonies you have cited out of Chamier, there is not one word against my Interpretation, or for the Justification of yours; And against his owne judgment. yea and I know also that you will agree with mee seventhly, that the learned Chamier in a large dispute doth confute your interpretation, and vindicate my interpretation, as the onely true and proper meaning of this Text, even in that very place where you quote him. And therefore I know the Reader will agree with mee (whether you doe or no) Cham. Panstrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 3. ca. 10. that you doe but abuse your Author and Reader, both in making a flourish with Chamiers name nothing to the purpose, and thereby would make the Reader conceive Chamier to bee of your side when hee is point-blanke against you. I yet further agree with you, eighthly, that some Interpreters both antient and moderne doe interpret this Text as you doe, and I am sure you will also agree that it were easie for mee to bring ten for one, who interpret this Text as I doe; though I forbeare to bumbast my booke with them, no wayes desiring that this cause should bee carryed by number of suffrages.

Secondly, there are many things in this Section wherein wee differ, but the cause depends nothing at all upon them; Beza cited by Mr. Tombes contrary to his owne judgement. first, you severall times cite the learned Beza as if hee were of your mind in the interpretation of this Text, to construe it of matrimoniall holin [...]ss [...]. I confesse the cause depends not upon Beza's judgement, but your reputation depends much upon making this good: That you should dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who exprofesso interprets it against you; Beza indeed acknowledgeth this Text warrants a lawfull use, but withall sets himselfe to prove that that's not all, but saith it's such a sanctification as I contend for, and saith, no man may interpret it otherwise then I doe of federall holinesse: according to the Covenant, Ero Deus tuu [...], &c. And out of that very Text, doth (in his annotations upon that place) assert Infant-Baptisme. Secondiy, you thinke this Text was never interpreted of federall holinesse untill the dayes of Luther: the cause I confesse depends [Page] not upon this, but it discovers some defect in your reading, since it is apparent that Athanasius, one of the most ancient of the Greek Fathers, and Tertullian one of Tertullian and Athanasius expound this Text for sederall holinesse. the most antient of the Latine Fathers bring this Text to prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers, which certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted as you doe, that their children were legitimate, nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven, if to their understanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace. Thirdly, whether Mr. Blakes paralleling this place with Gal. 2. 15. (upon which you spend almost two whole pages) bee good or no, or whether these places doe interpret one another, is not much materiall to the present controversie about this Text, although it be plaine, that by Jewes by n [...] ture the Apostle intends the Church-priviledge of the Iewes in opposition to the Gentiles, as I have elswhere shewed. Fourthly, whether Bellarmine was the first who expounded holy for Iegitimate, in confuting whereof you spend another page, and alledge sundry Authors before him who so understood it; this is not to our businesse though you take occasion to shew your reading in it.

Thirdly, this therefore onely remaines to bee tryed out between us, whether this bee meant of lawfulnesse of wedlock between man and wife, and legitimation of children, as you affirme; or of Instrumentall sanctification, betweene husband and wife quoad hoc, and federall holinesse of children, as I affirme; wherein I shall, first, make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold; secondly, that mine must stand.

The sense which you undertake to justifie is, that it is a Matrimoniall sanctification, when the Apostle saith the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. the meaning i [...], their marriage is lawfull, and their children are not unclean, but holy; the meaning is, they are not bastards, but lawfully begotten. Against this I dispute. First, in making good Mr. Tombes his interpretation of this Text overthrowne by eight Arguments. the foure Arguments used in my Sermon against this interpretation; the first whereof was this, uncleannesse and holinesse when opposed one to another, are never meant of civilly lawfull or unlawfull, but are alwayes used in a [Page] sacred sense, alluding to a right of admission into or use in the tabernatle 1 Argument vindicated. or Temple, which were types of the visible Church, & holinesse is always taken for a separation of Persons or things from common to sacred use. To this you except many things.

First, you like not the term civill holinesse, you rather would call it matrimoniall holinesse, because its institution is of God, not from the laws of Man. I Reply, this is a poor shift; by holy and civill wee distinguish things belonging to the first and second Table. All second Table duties are civill things, though their institution be of God; civill Magistracy though instituted of God; obedience of children to their Parents, though instituted of God; and all the judiciall lawes given to the Jews about meum and tuum; were they not therefore civill, because they were Gods institutions? Or is marriage a businesse more concerning Religion, then these are? is it a Sacrament? or how else, is it more holy then these other civill things?

You except secondly, uncleannesse may bee taken for bastardy, in an allusion to a Tabernacle use: Bastards being numbered among the uncleane. I Reply, this is spoken without any proof, for although the Lord saith, Deuteronom. 23. 2. Deut. 23. 2. vindicated. That a bastard shall not come into the congregation of the Lord, it cannot be meant that bastards shall bee numbered among the uncleane, or having nothing to doe about Tabernacle or Temple services; for there was the same law for Eunuchs who were not excluded as unclean: no unclean person might eate the Passeover, might no Eunuch or Bastard eate the Passeover? Beside, when you thus construe, else were your children unclean, you make there a Bastard and unclean, to be termini convertibiles, consequently every unclean child must bee a bastard. Now if any man would suppose that bastards might bee reckoned amongst unclean, yet all unclean children must not bee reckoned amongst bastards; all the children of the Gentiles were unclean, but they were not bastards. It is needlesse to enter into a further discourse about that place, Deut. 23. how or in what sense a bastard might not come into the Congregation; whether by the Congregation be meant the Sanhedrin, as some; or whether his not entring, bee of bearing [Page] Office, as others; or of not marrying a wife an Israelitesse, as others, it matters not, it's sufficient they were not numbred among the unclean.

Thirdly, you refer me to the 1 Thess. 4. 7. God hath not called us to uncleanness, but unto holinesse; and desire me to tell you, whether uncleannesse be not there meant of fornication, and by holinesse, chastity. I answer, I prevented this in my Sermon: and shewed that chastity among the Heathens, is never called sanctification; the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples of the holy Ghost: but among beleevers it may be called so, because it is a part of the new creation, a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghost; and though the chastity of beleevers is onely a morall vertue in respect of the object, yet in respect of the root, principle, end, it's a Christian vertue, and it's an act of pure Religion, to keep a mans self unspotted from the flesh, as well as from the world, Iam. 1. 27. Besides, I now adde, there is no reason that that place, 1 Thess. 4. should be restrained to fornication, 1. Thess. 4. vindicated. Beza not interprets this Text as Mr. Tombes would seem to make him. because many other sins are named in that place, besides fornication. Mark the words in the 3 ver. the Apostle tels them, That the will of God is their sanctification, that every one should abstaine from fornication; that no man goe beyond and defraud his brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a reason common to all the particulars, because God ha [...]h not called us to uncleannesse, but to holinesse. So that by holinesse there, is meant not onely chastity but justice also; and what kind of consequence were there in such an Argument; let no man goe beyond his brother in bargaining, because God hath not called us to fornication, but to chastity? Whereas you alledge Beza thus interpreting this Text, vers. 3. This is the will of God, even your sanctification, i. e. saith Beza, that you abstain from fornication; and upon this id est, you build much; therefore I shall consider it. Sir, id est put in by Beza, hath reference not onely to that which doth immediately follow, namely, that you abstaine from fornication; but to the 6 verse also, that no man go [...] beyond and defraud his brother: Beza saith, id est, ut abstineatis, ut ne quis opprimat & habeat [Page]quaestui, It being ordinary to have instances given in the second Table, when the duties of the first Table are included, if not principally intended; that the holy Ghost might meet with Hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holinesse in outward performances. Yea, Beza in the same place in his Annotations upon the word [...], referres him to Iob. 17. 17. and his note upon Iob. 17. 17. is this, Sanctum autem dicitur, quod Deo peculiariter devotum ac consecratum est; an expression agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Beza addeth, est autem hoc vocabulum profectum ab Hebraeis: so that by Beza we are brought back to the notion of consecrating and devoting things to God. But you yet endeavour further, and turne and winde the words every way, and run over all words that are of the same Tribe or kindred, [...], because you cannot find [...] among the heathen; and in the end you have Hen. Steph. misrecited. found an instance in Stephanus's Thesaurus, where [...] signifies castim [...]niam servo, [I am chaste.] But first, Stephanus speakes but doubtingly, he puts in videtur, which you leave out. Besides, [...] is usually meant, [...], so Suidas; and the very instance which you from Stephanus have brought out of Demosthenes, makes directly against you: for the Priest saith, I offer sacrifice, and I am in case to doe it, for I am pure from the company of man, [...], and all other things which might pollute me. That is, I am holy according to my order, and therefore fit to doe my office. These last words which give the full sense of the place, you have (not very fairly) left out of your Quotation. Yet you make another supplement out of Corinth. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 34. mis-interpreted by Mr. Tombes. 34. That she may be holy in body and spirit; and demand whether the meaning be not that shee may be chaste. I answer, the plaine meaning is, that she being free from worldly distractions, is at more liberty to give her self wholly to godlinesse, then others can, who have these worldly avocations; and in truth it is a pretty odd sense which you have invented of this place, the unmarried cares for the things of God, that she may be chaste; but she that is married cares for the things of the [Page]world how shee may please her husband. I wonder what learned man concurs with you in this: I doubt in this rare interpretation you are all alone. When I added, That even 1 Tim. 4 5. vindicated. the meat and drink of beleevers, sanctified to them, serves for a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the Temples of the holy Ghost. You answer, then is seems in eating and drinking they do an act of religion; to which I need no other reply then your next words, that they are sanctified to them by the word and prayer, they receiving them after an holy manner, with faith, supplication, and thankesgiving, &c. And that this place of Timothy doth hold out more then a lawfull use, is most apparent; because it is such a use of the creatures as the heathen had not, who yet had a lawfull use of the creatures; and it is such a use as is appliable onely to beleevers; and such a use as is procured by the Word and prayer: and although wicked men doe not doe an act of Religion in feeding the bodies of the Saints, because all their actions are uncleane; yet beleevers have an holy use of those creatures which heathens feed them with having the Word not onely to warrant the use of them, but prayer to procure Gods blessing, to that end for which they eate and drink, which is to live unto God.

My second Argument was, had this been the meaning, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; else had 2 Arg. vindicated. your children bin bastards, but now they are legitimate; the Apostles answer had not been true; because then if one of the parents had not been a beleever, and so by being a beleever, had sanctified the unbeleever, their children must have been bastards, whereas wee know children born in lawfull wedlock are legitimate, though both the Parents were unbeleevers. To which you answer, this priviledge comes not from the faith of the beleever, but from the relation of marriage; and your reason is, because the Apostle saith not, the unbeleever is sanctified by the beleever; but from the husband or the wife, although one or two old Copies have the word beleever, yet the rest have it not▪ and the reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a beleever is well as an husband or wife; yet in this passage they were considered onely as husband and wife, and not as beleevers, to[Page]intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugall relation.

I reply, this expressely crosses the Apostles confessed scope, for the question was not, whether an husband might leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apostle had resolved that case before, ver. 10. but whether a beleeving husband might leave or separate from an unbeleever; no (saith the Apostle) if the unbeleever be content to dwell together, (if not, let them go, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case) Why? for the unbeleever is sanctified in or by the wife; but now in your sense, the Argument had been as good, to say, the unbeleever is sanctified in or by the unbeleever; or the beleever is sanctified in or by the unbeleever, which had beene nothing to the question in hand. Againe, the Apostle expressely names the unbeleever in opposition to the wife or husband who is a beleever; of which there had been no use, if he had intended onely matrimoniall sanctification, he might have said the husband is sanctified by the wife, and the wife by the husband, let them bee what they will, which cannot be spoken truly, when the Scripture plainely sayes, Nothing is pure or holy to the unbeleever, as Beza well observes upon this place: and though the word beleever be not in the Text, [yet it is necessarily implyed, and therefore some Copies have it in the Margin, not onely one old Copy, and a Copy of Clermont, and the Vulgar Latine so reade it, but Augustine also in his book, wherein hee expounds the Sermon on the Mount; and Tertullian in libro secundo ad ux [...]rem,] for as Beza rightly observes, the question is concerning a beleever, what he is to doe with an unbeleever; and when he sayes the unbeleeving party is sanctified in or by the other party, it plainly implyes the one party sanctifies the other, viz. the beleever sanctifies the unbeleever, (not retro) which needed not be said of matrimoniall sanctification, as you call it, for in that sense both parties were sanctified in themselves, not in or by one another, marriage being honourable among all, and the bed (the coitus) undefiled. Besides, there are words which plainly denotate it a little before, a brother or sister, which are taken [Page] for beleevers, ver. 12. if a brother have an unbeleeving or infidel wife, ver. 15. a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case: And if you should say the beleeving party sanctifies the unbeleever, not qua beleever, but by the Word and prayer I answer, this would make the Argument stronger; for it is therefore such a sanctification as heathens are not capable of.

My Third Argument was, the Apostles argument had had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpreted as these Argument 3. vindicated. men would have it: their doubt (say they) was, their marriage was an unlawfull wedlock; and so consequently their children bastards; and they make the Apostles answer to be, were you not lawfull man and wife, your children were bastards: which kinde of Argument (said I) were but idem per idem. Your answer to this is such a one as I know not what to make of it; you say I doe not rightly set downe my Adversaries explication of the Apostle, the doubt (say you) was onely, whether they might live in conjugall use; but there was no question of their children, whether they were legitimate or not; they were assured their children were not bastards, but legitimate, and this the Apostle uses as his medium, to prove they might lawfully live together. To which I Reply, take this for granted which you say, and (if I want not common sense) you plainely and fully answer your selfe, for if they were out of all doubt, that their children were not bastards, then it was not possible for them to doubt whether their owne marriage were lawfull; take this to be his Argument, your children are legitimate, this you all grant: Ergo, your marriage is lawfull, of which you doubt: Risum teneatis amici? they received the one as a supposed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock, yet had not light enough to know, that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock; if they doubted not of the latter, how could they of the former?

My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the qui [...]ting of Argumen [...] 4 their consciences; their doubt was, whether they were not to put away their wives and children as not belonging to God, as being a[Page]seed whom God would not owne among his people, and this answer could never have quieted their consciences, to tell them their marriage was lawfull, and their children legitimate.

To which you answer, this Argument is grounded on a mistake, the question was not (say you) about putting away of their Wives and children as not belonging to God, but something else.

I Reply, but if it be not grounded upon a mistake, and that (as Beza sayes,) Paut is not here arguing about civill policy, but arguing a case of conscience. Whether because of the idolatry of the wife or husband, Religion did not require they should be put away, because God would not have his holy seed mingled with them, then by your owne confession the Argument stands good; which whether it will not be made out, shall (God willing) by and by appeare.

These foure Arguments I used before; and whether the first three be not already vindicated, let the Reader judge; the fourth comes to be made good afterward, when I come to confirme the interpretation which I made of it. I shall briefly adde foure other Arguments, to shew that this Text cannot be interpreted as you would have it.

First, you say, The unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife, and sanctification you here take for chastity: which is 5 Arg. against Mr. Tombes interpretation. a most incongruous speech, to say that the one party makes the other chaste; if he or she were not unchast, how are they made chaste by the husband or wife? and if they bee unchaste, how doth this make them chaste? marriage is then honourable or chaste when the bed is undefiled: this Argument is onely from the unseemlinesse of the expression.

Secondly, my second I take from your own words, pag. 73. Where you say, The sanctification of the unbeleever here, 6 Argument. is such a sanctification as is parallel with that, 1 Tim. 4. 5. where the creatures are sanctified to the pure by the word and prayer; therefore there must be more meant then the Heathens are capable of; therefore another sanctification then matrimoniall sanctification, for that the heathens had: if therefore this must be such a sanctification as that place in Timothy meanes, it must be a sanctification peculiar onely to beleevers.

[Page] Thirdly, yet a third Argument I take from your owne words: you have endeavoured (though in vaine) to shew 7 Argument. that bastards may be called uncleane, and holy may be called chaste; but you doe not, and I beleeve you cannot produce out of the Scripture the least shew of a proofe, that holinesse signifies legitimation; you are holy, id est, you are lawfully begotten; if you can, pray let us have it in the next: sure I am, that place, Mal. 2. 15. That man might seeke a holy seed, or rather, a seed of God, will give you no help; for though Mal. 2. 15. expounded and vindicated. a seed of God in that place, might be interpreted (as M. Calvin would have it) for legitimate, because (as he sayes) that uses to be called Divine, which is excellent, a legitimate seed is in comparison of spurious, yet this is nothing to holinesse. The word in the Hebrew there used, is not a holy seed, but a seed of God, an eminent or an excellent seed, as all eminent or notable things use to be called; great Armies are called the Armies of God; great and high hills, are called the hills of God; great and tall trees, are called the trees of God: so that take a seed of God in that place for a legitimate seed, yet there is nothing to prove that holinesse may signifie legitimation; though for my owne part (Pace tanti viri) I humbly conceive the Prophet intended, not a legitimate seed onely, (as Mr. Calvin would have it) but to shew what was Gods chiefe end in the institution of marriage, viz. The continuance of a seed of God, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world; now according to your interpretation of holinesse for chastity, the Apostles Argument must run thus, If your marriage were not lawfull, your children would be bastards, but now they are chast; which sense were too ridiculous which to avoid you are compelled in stead of chaste to say legitimate, without any example of such a use of the word holy.

Lastly, yet one Argument more I propound, your sense [...] Argument. makes the Apostles Argument wholly inconsequent, if the unbeleeving party were not sanctified by the beleever, (viz. matrimonially) then were your children unclean, that is, (in your sense) Bastards, which follows not; for if they were both unbeleevers, yet their children were not bastards; [Page] and if they were both chast, (yet being Infidells) their children were uncleane, id est, Infidells and Pagans, so that to close this I retort your owne words, page the 75. That let this be granted (that it is meant of matrimoniall sanctification, [...] of necessitie it must) then the uncleanenesse must bee meant of Bastardy, and holinesse of Legitimation; but I say, é centra, let this bee granted, (as of necessitie it must) that it is not meant of matrimoniall sanctification, or lawfulnesse of wedlock, then uncleannesse must not bee meant of Bastardy, nor holinesse of Legitimation, but of some other holinesse, which what it is, is next to be enquired.

Having thus plainely overthrowne your interpretation, it remaines that I make good my interpretation against The true interpretation vindicated from Mr Tombes exceptions. 1. Exception. your exceptions, I said, their doubt seemes to arise from the Law of God, which was in force in Ezraes time, where Gods people were ordered to put away their Infidell wives and children, as a polluted seed, which God would not have mingled with his owne: you answer, first, You see very little agreement, betweene this case and that; and that the cases are very farre different of two persons not under the Law marrying in unbeleefe, and of two persons under the Law, the one a Iew by profession, the other a stranger; secondly, and that none of the phrases, except the word (holy), are used in the one place which are not used in the other; thirdly, you rather thinke their doubt arose from a former Epistle which hee had wrote to them, mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 9. wherein he commanded them not to keep company with fornicators, or Idolaters, thereupon they might doubt whether they should continue with their unbeleeving yoke fellowes

I reply, first, that the cases were the very same when their scruple arose, for though they were both unbeleevers when they were married, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an Infidell, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remained an alien, their case was the very same, and they finding their condition parallell with that in Ezra might very well apply that case to themselves, and make this their doubt. Secondly, although the phrases used in Ezra differ from those used here, that makes nothing against this collection, [Page] because phrases are used according to the different administrations, each speaking according to the received dialect belonging to the administration they lived under. Thirdly, and as to that, you say that it might arise from 1 Cor. 5. 9. I answer, should that be granted, yet my sense remaines as strong as before, for if this scruple now rose, that if beleevers because of the unbeleefe or Infidell condition of the husband or wife, might not by the rule of the Gospel continue in marriage societie with them, it must bee from some rule of Religion, which must strike upon their conscience, and from what rule could they gather, that their marriage which before was lawfull was upon their conversion turned into fornication? and if their doubt were (as your selfe grant) whether it were lawfull for a converted party, or a beleever still to retaine their Infidell wife or husband, (not of unbeleevers whether they bee sanctifyed matrimonially one to another) the doubt must necessarily arise from something in Religion, some case which was peculiar to beleevers, now (as Mr. Beza saies truely) the doubt being in their consciences, of an unlawfulnesse to continue in their married condition from some thing peculiar to Gods people, the Apostle should have used a most indirect argument to pacifie their consciences in referring them to the civill Lawes of other nations, by which their marriage is proved lawfull; and to what purpose should hee discourse of Bastards or the like, when their consciences were scrupled in something which begun to concerne them upon their conversion, and to tell them they were sanctified in their unbeleefe, could never have reacht the scruple arising, after they begun to bee beleevers, because their marriage might be firme and good, while they remained unbeleevers; yet the Infidell might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other, which was converted. And therefore it remaines, that it must bee resolved from some rule which must reach beleevers, as they were the people of God, and not bee common to Infidels with them; now what is that Argument which Paul here uses to satisfie them? (which must reach them as they were beleevers) your selfe grant it is this, else [Page]were your children uncleane, which is the medium, because your children are not uncleane but holy, therefore the unbeleever must bee granted to bee sanctified to the wife or husband, this Argument must therefore necessarily inferre some kind of holinesse which is appliable onely to the State of Religion, therefore it must be federall holinesse.

But against this you except many things. First, this could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those who by Age could 2. Exception. not bee sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidendall inabilitie for generation, they might still depart each from other notwithstanding this reason. I answer, it followes not, this is a Answ. laying downe of their right, which they may claime when ever they are capable of it, this is their priviledge, which remaines firme though it should never come into Act, as if a freeman of a Citie should have right to have all his children borne freemen, that is to bee numbred among his priviledges, though hee should never have a child, this reaches to men and women, married, and unmarried, yea even to children yet unborne: besides, the first part of it reacheth to the bed, even the coitus is not onely undefiled, but sanctified. Secondly, say you, this reason would then run 3. Exception. thus, you may live together, for you may b [...]get a holy seed, and so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawfull living together from a future event which was uncertaine, and here (as I toucht before) you bring in Chamier nothing to the purpose; I answer, it is not from a future event, but from Answ. a positive reall truth, if Pauls reason bee framed thus, the children which beleevers beget upon their Infidell yoke-fellowes are a holy seed, therefore beleevers have a sanctifyed use of their Infidell husbands or wives, had this been a reasoning from a future contingent. As for what you here cite out of Chamier, I answer onely this, I perswade my selfe you are by this time ashamed of your impertinent quotation, I assure my selfe, if you bee not, your friends are. Thirdly, say you, 4. Exception. sanctification is here not ascribed to God a [...] selecting some from others to such an use, but is common to all unbeleeving husbands in respect of their wives, and comes from that common relation, not speciall designation. I answer, this Argument is a plaine setting Answ. [Page] downe the question in controversie, as an Argument to prove it selfe, and I have already proved the contrary, that it is a priviledge not common to all who are married, but peculiar to beleevers. Fourthly, say you, according to this exposition the words following could not be true, else were your children uncleane, but now they are holy, because in this forme of reasoning this proposition is included, their children could not bee holy without that sanctification, which (say you) is false, because children may bee in Covenant, and bee regenerated, though their parents had never been thus sanctified the one to the other, the children of Infidel parents may bee sanctified. I reply, not while they are Infants, they are not by any birth priviledge to bee accompted as belonging to the Church of Christ, which is the onely thing about which wee are disputing, no man ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee converted, whose parents are not sanctified the one unto the other.

Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Chamier) you reason thus, take it in my sense, and it is no satisfactory 5. Exception. reason you may live together, for you may beget a holy seed; I answer, this is the same with your second Argument answered before; and wherein I pray you lies the weakenesse of it, you may live together, and have a holy use of Answ. your unbeleeving yoke-fellowes, for God esteemes the seed of such to bee an holy seed as truely as if both were beleevers, is this a slight or unsatisfying answer? nay I adde further, had the Apostle gone about to prove, that a beleeving wife and a beleeving husband have not onely a lawfull enjoyment one of another, (as heathens have) but a sanctified, as they have of other creatures, because else their children were uncleane, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lie as strong against this last as against the former, for you might have said, this reaches onely those that are of age [...]; secondly, this depends upon a future contingent; thirdly, this depends upon their common relation; fourthly, and children may be holy, that is, afterward regenerate though this be denyed, let the Reader consider of it; You goe on, and say, that in 6. Ex [...]ption. your sense the reason is plaine and satisfactory, let them live together,[Page]though one bee a beleever, the other an unbeleever; for notwithstanding their difference in Religion, they are husband and wife, marriage being honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; I reply, but this had been no satisfaction to their scruple, Answ. their doubt was not whether their marriage were lawfull while they were heathens, but whether now their conscience would not bee defiled, in remaining joyned to Idolaters, and the Apostles resolution must remove that, which your sense doth not; you granted, they doubted not the legitimation of their children, and therefore your sense could not have removed the scruple, as is above shewed. And whereas you adde the like resolution hee gives verse the 17. 7. Exception. concerning circumcised and uncircumcised servants, they might still continue with their master, their Christian calling did not dissolve those relations. I answer in one word, this like, hath no Answ. likenesse at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt these two cases, hee speakes not one word about beleeving servants continuing with unbeleeving masters, but of servants in generall, whether their masters were beleevers or unbeleevers, hee tells them that they might continue servants though they were Christs free men, yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome, let them choose that rather.

One Argument more you bring against this interpretation, 8. Exception. if the sanctification were meant of matrimoniall sanctification, and the uncleannesse of federall uncleannesse, so as to exclude them out of the Covenant, whether of saving graces or Church-priviledges, then the proposition was most f [...]lse, because children of parents not matrimonially sanctified one to the other, were within the Covenant, as Pharez, Jepha, and others. I answer, Answ. first, I desire the reader to take notice that you take the Covenant here in this place as I doe for Church-priviledges. Secondly, indeed if sanctification bee taken for matrimoniall sanctification or lawfulnesse of wedlock, and uncleannesse of federall sanctification, the proposition may bee granted to bee false, and let them who so take it, undertake the defence of it if they can, but let it bee meant of that other sanctification which I have justified, the proposition is most true; I say againe, all the children of those parents, the [Page] one whereof is an unbeleever, are uncleane, that is, federally uncleane, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledges, at least if not of saving graces, (which is a secret left to God) unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other; this Argument I answered in my Sermon, and framed it thus, that holinesse is here meant, which could not bee unlesse one of the Parents were sanctified to the other, but federall holinesse of Children may bee, where Parents are not sanctified, one in or to the other, as in Bastardy, Davids child by Bathsheba, &c. in which case the children were federally holy, and yet the barlot not sanctified in, or to the Adulterer or fornicator though a beleever: my answer was, that the Apostles scope in this Argument is, to shew that the children borne of an unbeleever would not bee holy, unlesse the other Parent could remove that barre, but hath no force of an Argument where both the Parents are beleevers, which was the case of the Jewes, the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, &c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to bestow a few scoffes upon it, that my answer is to deny the conclusion, that I shew no fault either in the matter or the forme of the Argument, that the scope which I mention is but a meere figment, that I doe as good as say, that the objector can make no Argument out of it, and that therefore I need make no answer; And that in one place I grant the minor, then the major, and thus you most gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that some Readers are prone to thinke him to have the truth, who speakes most bravingly, I durst (without adding a word more) leave all Schollers to judge whether my answer deserves all this scorne; but lest you goe on in your vaine hoasting, I shall apply my answer more particularly to this Argument which you acknowledge to bee your owne, and I say plainely that the major proposition is not true if taken universally, viz. That holinesse of children is here meant, which could not be unlesse one of the Parents bee sanctified in or by the other, what ever those parents bee, though both of them bee beleevers.

This proposition (say I) is not true, because when both the Parents are beleevers, there is no such barre to bee removed, by the ones being sanctified in the other quoad hoc, [Page] so farre as to make them capable to bring forth a holy seed, they being both in the Covenant, and that sinfull defiling of one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that priviledge of the Covenant to have their children accompted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of the Parents being an unbeleever or Infidell, must have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unlesse that barre be removed, to them it's true, that unlesse the one bee sanctified in the other, (the unbeleever in, or by the beleever) their children would not be holy; if therefore you make not your major so universall, but limit it as the Apostle doth, and make the Argument thus, That holinesse of children is here meant, which could not bee unlesse the one were sanctified in, or to the other, the one of the parents being an Infidell, but this was the case of Hagar, Bathsheba, Jeptha, Pharez, &c. Now your minor is false, this was not their case, neither of their Parents were unbeleevers, though sinfull in that act: and now I pray you, where lies the absurditie or weaknesse of my answer; all this I said before, onely you would not see it; and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by scoffing then by solemne refuting. In the close I added, indeed if a beleever should Adulterously beget a child upon a Pagan, this objection in that case deserves to bee further weighed, but here it comes not within the compasse of the Apostles Argument; upon this also you bestow two or three scoffes, you call it a wise remedy nothing to the purpose; and you construe it as if I said, I will not answer the objection which i [...] made, but if you will make it thus, and thus, then I will answer it. Truely Sir, I am perswaded, all learned men, either laugh at or pity this vanity of your disputing; in sober sadnesse tell me, was this the scruple of the Corinthians, or doth the Apostle here meddle with this case of beleevers, and Infidell harl [...]ts? doth he not confine himselfe to answer cases betwixt beleevers, and their unbeleeving wives and husbands? or doe both these cases require one and the same answer? To speake plainely, I could name Divines, who are no whi [...] inferiour to your selfe, who conceive that a beleever, even when he commits fornication with an Infidell, doth so far [Page] remove the barre, in the unbeleeving party, as that the child is (in the beleeving Parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God, but because I knew that question fell not within the Corinthians case, and was a question which the Text and controversie in hand did not tie me to give a resolution to, I purposely baulked it, not once suspecting I should have met with an adversary so uningenuous, to say no worse, who would have said, the baulking of this question had been the yeelding of the cause▪ and I say againe, this case of Bastards concernes not the Apostles case, who speakes not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one a beleever, the other not, yet this advantage may bee made of those Instances, that if among the Jewes, the true Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to bee married) were federally holy, as in the case of Pharez and Thamar, then may one party a beleever interest their children in the same Covenant, and if Bastards among the Jewes were partakers of Church priviledges, much more reasonable may it seeme, that the children of both chast parents, whereof the one at least is a beleever, should be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this case, parius sequetur m [...] liorem partem. And now Sir, I leave the reader to judge, whether you have taken this which you call my chiefe hold, you have indeed set up your flag, but I hope your Reader will take it downe againe.

Thus I have vindicated the truth of these two Conclusions, and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of them with satisfaction to the unprejudiced Readers, though not with that ability which some others might have done: Your selfe acknowledge, that if these two Conclusions could be proved, the cause is gained; as well as lost, if these Conclusions be lost.

My third Conclusion was this, God hath appointed and ordained Conclusion 3. Baptisme succeeds Circumcision. a Sacrament or Seale of initiation to bee administred unto th [...] who enter into Covenant with him: Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christs Incarnation, Baptisme since the time of his incarnation: This (say you) [Page] may be granted. But whereas I adde, That our Baptism comes in the room and use of Circumcision: against this you except many things.

First you say, this I deny. I wonder how you could grant my Conclusion to be true, and yet deny this. Nor would you deny this, if onely the baptizing of grown men were intended to be proved out of it; 'tis for Infants sake you thus labour to invalidate this Argument.

Secondly, you make a large parallel betweene them, wherein they are like, wherein unlike, and shew how farre you come up, and where you differ.

I Reply, your self say similitudes are weak proofs, be sure the shewing of dissimilitudes is the weakest way of answering when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply it. A Lievtenant may be locum ten [...]ns to a King, though there be many things unlike between them. Let us make the businesse as short as may be: I agree with you in that speech Wherein Baptism and Circumcision are parallel by God himself. which you cite out of Mr. Ball, we may stretch the parallel no wider, nor draw it narrower then the Lord hath done it; and in this point to alledge nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us; and whatever parallel men make between them, if the Spirit of God make not the same, let it be rejected. And I say againe, That the Spirit of God has made parallel in these particulars.

First, Circumcision is the same with Baptisme for the spirituall part; Circumcision was the seale of the new birth, Deut. 30. 6. so Baptisme, Tit. 3. 5. Col. 2. Circumcision was a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, Rom. 11. 11. so Baptism, Acts 8. and many other places. Circumcision was the seal of the Covenant of Grace, Gen. 17. so Baptisme, it being the nature of every Sacrament.

Secondly, Circumcision was the way of entrance and admittance into the Church, during the time of that administration, so is Baptisme during the time of this administration, Matth. 28. Acts 2. and throughout the whole Story of the Acts, Circumcision was the distinguishing badge between them who were Gods people, and the rest of the world; so is Baptisme now, all who are not belonging to [Page] the Church, (the solemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptisme) are said to bee without, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Ctrcumcision was to be but once administred, nor Baptisme any oftner, as I have largely proved before, in answer to your 4 Sect. Part 4. None might eate the Passeover till they were circumcised, Exod. 12. nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper, till they be baptized, as appears Acts 2. 41, 42. And throughout the whole Story of the New Testament, all examples are for it, not one against it, and the reason is plaine, because none might partake of the Lords Supper, but such as were in visible Communion; and your selfe know and grant, that Baptisme is the doore and entrance of our solemne admittance into visible communion, wee are by Baptisme (say you) according to Christs institution exhibited members of Christ and his Church, Exercit. p. 30. These parallels you see are made by the Spirit of God, and Exerc. p. 30. your exceptions against the comparisons between them, or rather your adding of more comparisons, similitudes, and dissimilitudes between them, by them to destroy these, are Mr. Tombes exceptions answered. such as arise from the diverse administration of the Covenant, and do indeed manifest that they belong to severall administrations, but doe not prove that they had not the same general state, signification and use, as Sacraments, which seale the same thing in their diverse administrations; Christ to come, and Christ already come, is the cause of difference of administration, and so of Ordinances, but hinders not the succession of one ordinance into the place of another, and therefore all those differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other. As for your exceptions, That Circumcision did confirme the promise made to Abrahams naturall posteritie concerning their multiplying, bringing out of Egypt, the yoake of the Law of Moses, setling in Canaan, &c. I answer, if this were granted, it hurts not me, these things concerning the manner of administration of the Covenant. Secondly, how prove you this which you say? Thirdly, did circumcision confirme these things to all Abrahams naturall posteritie? was the posteritie of Ismael and Esau to come out of Egypt; possesse Canaan, [...]ee yoaked with the Law? Fourthly, [Page] what is the sense of these words, Circumcision confirmed the yoake of the Law? it was indeed a part of the yoake, and obliged a person to it, Secondly, to that of womens being not circumcised, and children under eight dayes old, I have at large spoke to them in the first Section of this third part. Thirdly, the catechumini; though they were members, yet they were not received into visible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Supper till baptized; the case of the Israelites travelling in the wildernesse was an extraordinary one. Fourthly, for that which you except against Circumcision being a distinguishing badge, because others were Gods servants who had not this badge; I answer, that of Melchisedeck, Lot, &c. was answered before: beside, may not a livery bee a distinguishing mark of such a mans servant, and yet haply every servant not under the livery? the Sabbath was a signe to Gods people, yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Moses did not keepe a Sabbath. Fiftly, and for what you adde that you Vnbaptized persons may not eate the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. make question whether an unbaptized person might not eate the Lords Supper, though you confesse you finde no example of it, and that in 1 Cor. 10. 2. 3. 4. and 1 Cor. 12. 13. Baptizing i [...] put before eating and drinking; I reply, this I must number among your freakes, and out-leaps, and is a spice of your itch after singular opinions, and inconsistent even with your own grant, that Baptisme is the way and manner of solemne admission into the Church, and that nothing i [...] to bee done about the Sacraments, whereof we have not either institution or example, and yet here for oppositions sake you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though unbaptized, and I thinke it never yet was a question in the Church whether an unbaptized person might receive the Lords Supper; but say you, these and a hundred mor [...] cannot make [...] other then a humane invention, if the holy Ghost doe not shew that they agree in this particular of Baptizing as well as Circumcising of Infants. I answer, but when these Arguments and parallels made by God himselfe, are added to the parity of Jewes and Christian Infants, in being comprehended with their Parents in the Covenant which is to be sealed, it's a vertuall[Page]warrant, it's not meere analogy we reason from, for wee have a command to Baptize, and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptisme sufficiently proved elsewhere, your selfe grant right to Baptisme arises from the present state of a person, and therefore wee apply this seale, which succeeds that seale, to our Infants which succeed their Infants, in the priviledge of being faederati with their Parents, there being not the least hint in the word, that they should be left out.

To slurre this Argument from Circumcision to Baptisme Compatison of Priests, and Ministers brought in by Mr. Tombes. you frame a large and needlesse comparison between the Priests of old under the Jewish administration, and the Ministers of the Gospel now, and you demand, are Ministers therefore Priests? and shew how many absurdities and dangerous consequences will follow if wee give way to such kind of comparisons, hence the Papists have pleaded for an universall Bishop, and the Prelates for superioritie of Ministers. To no purpose.

A short answer will serve all this, you demand whether therefore Ministers be Priests, and so make simile to be idem against all sense and reason, as if I had gone about to prove Baptisme to be Circumcision. Secondly, wee onely apply things set up by God himselfe, and make the parallell as God hath made it, when any can prove that God hath set up an universal Bishop, or appointed superioritie of Ministers one above another, and hath made such parallels between them as you speake of, let them plead those comparisons and spare not, they had in their ministery many things which were typicall of Christ, which we have nothing to do with, but in other things where the Scripture hath made a comparison, wee may doe it safely, and may plead from the one to the other, as that they must have a call to their office, so must wee; they that serve the altar must live upon the Altar, so they who preach the Gospell are to live upon the Gospel; they must bee pure who bar [...] the vessels of the sanctuary, and the Priests lips must preserve knowledge, so our Ministers must be of holy life, fit to teach, &c. And all this wee may plead by good warrant; and whereas I added in my Sermon that our Why Christ was Circumcised and baptized. Lord taught us this by his owne example (miz. that Circumcision [Page] initiated into that administration, and Baptisme into this) who was Circumcised as a professed member of the Jewes Church, and when hee set up the Christian Church, hee would bee initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptisme; hereupon you runne into divers things, as why Christ wou [...]d bee Circumcised, why Baptized, and in what sense Christ when he was to be baptized, said that hee would be baptized that hee might fulfill all righteousnesse, but you thinke it not probable, that it was any part of his meaning to be initiated into the Christian Church by baptisme, the Christian Church was not yet set up, with worship & discipline distinct from the Iewish, and because his Baptisme was of a higher nature then our Baptisme; I reply, that the Christian Church was not fully set up, and compleated with all Ordinances of worship, government, officers till afterwards, is readily granted, but that it was not in fieri, in erecting and framing, and that Baptisme was administred in reference to the Christian Church, and that by Baptisme men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church, I thinke no sound Divine did ever question. I grant Christs Baptisme was a transcendent one, and differs from ours in many things, and so was his Circumcision also a transcendent one, and differed from the Jewes in many things; can you thence frame an Argument that hee intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances, to expresse the same favour to us as he did to the Jewes in conforming to their Ordinances, but that you should hence fetch an Argument, that because Christ was not baptized till hee was thirtie yeers old, (which was within lesse then thirtie weekes after Baptisme was made a Sacrament) is I confesse a most transcendent straine of wit, yet you boast of it, as if by it you had broke one of the strings I have to my bow.

And proceed to try, whether you cannot crack the other also, the evidence which Colos. 2 8. 9. &c. gives to prove Baptisme Col. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11. Vindicated, to prove Baptisme to succeed Circumcision. to succeed in the roome of Circumcision: but before you come to the examination of this place, you make enquiry in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome of Circumcision, and you first observe that in speaking exactly, Baptisme was a concomitant of Circumcision, if not ancienter, that it was in [Page]use among the Jewes for many yeers together with Circumcision, though not as a Sacrament; and for this you cite the learned Gentleman Mr. Selden, and Mr. Ainsworth on Gen. 17. and Mr. Lightfootes Elias Redivivus: I confesse, you are in the Baptisme in use in the Church of the Jewes, and applied to Infants as well as growne men. right, Baptisme was a knowne rite in the Jewish Church long before it was made a Sacrament, and therefore when Iohn came baptizing, none of the Jewes were ignorant of the use of Baptisme, they never asked him what he meant by baptizing, they knew well enough that it was a rite used in admitting of Proselytes or new Converts into the Church, they onely wondred, why hee did Baptize if hee were not the Messiah. But Sir, this exception of yours is so farre from being any argument against mee, that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Baptisme, because the same authors, which mention this as an Ecclesiasticall rite, in admission of Proselytes, doe testifie that the Infants of Proselytes were baptized as well as circumcised, and wheresoever Circumcision was applyed, Baptisme went along with it, so that the use of Baptisme was the same before, viz. to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the Church, onely it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine institution, when Iohn was sent to Baptize into the name of Christ: and it is in this Sacrament as in the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the panis benedictus, and the cup were used before in the Sacrament of the Passeover, as an Ecclesiasticall rite, but our Lord at the last Passeover, instituted the bread and wine to bee Sacramentall Elements, which before were only an Ecclesiasticall rite; now seeing that Baptisme which was in use before, was onely turned into a Sacramentall use, to succeed Circumcision, with whom before it was a concomitant, and alwayes applyed to the same persons. Have you not helped us to a good Argument, that Baptisme belongs to Infants as well as grown men, especially since there is not the least hint given in the Word, that when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament, it should not bee applyed to those persons to whom before it was, viz. Infants as well as growne men? the truth of this, that it Proved from Mr. Selden. was so, may appeare partly by Mr. Selden who testifies that [Page] the Infants of the Gentiles were made proselytes by this rite among others, both the male children and the female; so likewise Maimonides [Issurei biah, Cap. 13.) tells us by three things Israel entred into Covenant, by Circumcision, by Baptisme, Maimonides. and offering, and that Baptisme was in the Wildernesse before the giving of the Law, as it is said, And thou shalt sanctifie them to day and to morrow, and let [...]hem wash their garments; and in another place, when a Gentile will enter into the Covenant, [...] and gather himselfe under the wings of the Divine majesty, hee must be Circumcised, Baptized, and bring an offering, if it bee a female, baptisme and offering; and againe, a Proselyte that is circumcised and not baptized, or baptized and not circumcised, is not a Proselyte, untill hee bee both circumcised and baptized; and againe, a little Proselyte, they baptize by the appointment of the Consessus. There are also speciall testimonies in the Talmud, which declare, that Infants both of Iewes and Gentiles, were The Talmud. thus admitted, the male children by circumcision and baptisme, the females by baptisme, &c. Many testimonies of this nature to shew that Infants as well as growne men, were baptized among the Jewes are to be seene in Mr. Ainsworth upon Gen. 17. vers. 12, 13. I was willing to give this little taste, that the Reader may see, that baptisme ever since it was in use, was applyable to children as well as growne men. You adde, even the Sacrament of Baptisme was before circumcision ceased, and you instance with Iohns Baptisme, which was a concomitant Sacrament with the Sacrament of circumcision; I answer as before, Iohns Baptisme and Ministery, was a Pr [...]ludium Johns Baptisme initiated into the Christian Church. to Christ, and was wholly in reference to the Christian Church, which then begun to bee moulded; and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianitie set up, yet all this was preparing the materialls of it, and Iohn did not admit them by Baptisme, as members to the Jewish Padagogy, which was then ready to bee taken away, but into that new administration which was then in preparing, but this is no argument against baptisme to succeed circumcision, as a Lord Major elect succeeds the old, though the old continue after his election for a time. Yet further, You inquire in what sense Baptisme succeeds in the roome [Page]and place of Circumcision, and say if by roome and place, I meane, Mr. Tombes Exceptions. locus communis et proprius, so Baptisme being an action, hath no roome or place at all properly: and if by roome and place I meane the baptized and baptizers, that is true but in part, seme who were to be baptized were not to bee circumcised, as women. Thirdly, if by roome and place I meane the same society, that is not true, Circumcision admitted into the Jewish, baptisme into the Christian Church. Fourthly, if of the Commandement upon which both are sealed, that is not true neither, Circumcision was commanded long before Baptisme. Fiftly, if of the same use, that is most untrue, for the use of Circumcision obliged to keepe the Law, to be a partition between Iewes and Gentiles, and to initiate into the Iewish Church, or rather into Abrahams family. Then lastly you say, if I meane it of confirming and sealing the same Covenant, neither is that true save onely in part, because their Covenant was a mixt Covenant, and although Circumcision did confirme righteousnesse by faith, and signified holinesse of heart, so also did the Cloud, Sea, Manna, the Rock, the Deluge or Arke: and the same are also confirmed by the Lords Supper; and therefore to say that Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision, is a position erroneous and very dangerous.

I am prone to thinke that time as well as paper and Inke are very cheape with you, who thus needlesly Answ. waste them; this poore quibbling about succession and roome, place, &c. is too Pedanticall for a grave Divine, what Reader will not at the first view see this to bee my meaning, of Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision, that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as a signe substituted, in the place and stead of Circumcision, to signifie and seale the same Covenant of grace which Circumcision did, Circumcicision more darkely sealing, Christ being not yet exhibited, baptisme more clearely, the shadow being taken away and the substance come? & almost all your differences refer onely to the severall manners of administration of the Covenant, not to the Covenant it selfe, or thing administred, yet I shall touch upon each particular. First, your fancy of Locus 1 Exception deserves no Answer. proprius & communis, is too idle to require any answer. Secondly, that of the Iewish women hath been sufficiently [Page] spoken to in the first Section of this third part. Thirdly, 2 Exception answered before. when you say, circumcision admitted into one Church, baptisme into another; (I am very loath to impute to your sense which you intend not) if you meane onely the severall administrations, 3 Exception answered. the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration, the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration; you speake truth, but not to purpose, my conclusion never said, Circumcision and Baptisme doe initiate into the same Administration of the Covenant: but if you meane, that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the same Church, you speake pure Anabaptisme indeed, and contradict the Scripture expresly, which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles, one and the same Church though under divers administrations. I count it needlesse to annex any proofes, because I thinke you dare not deny it. Fourthly, you lay the command of circumcision was lo [...]g before the command of Baptisme, but how 4 Exception answered. this followes that therefore Baptisme doth not succeed in the roome of Circumcision I cannot guesse, the Lords day succeeds the seventh day in being Gods Sabbath, but certainly the institution of it was long after the other. And fiftly, as for the severall uses mentioned by you, they all referre 5 Exception answered. to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jewes; I have often granted there were some legall uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration, and so they were part of the Jewish paedagogy, which is wholly vanished, and therein Circumcision hath no succession, but baptisme succeeds it as a Seale of the same Covenant under a better administration, as a set and constant initiating Ordidinance: onely I wonder that you say, Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Iewes, or rather into Abrahams family; I pray you explaine this, rather into Abrauams family; if by Abrahams family you meane the Church of the Jewes, why say you rather into Abrahams family? if you meane any thing else, tell us what it is, and how Circumcumcision initiated Proselytes into Abrahams family any otherwise [...]hen as it was the Church of the Jewes Lastly, [Page] you hit upon the right thing intended, They he both seales of 6 Excep. Answ. the same covenant; but (say you) the coven [...]nt was not the same, except in part, which hath abundantly been confuted before, and justified to be one and the same, and the difference to lie onely in the manner of administration.

But say you, the Cloud, Sea, Manna, water of the rock, &c. signified 7 Excep. Answ. righteousnesse by faith, and holinesse of hea [...]t, as well as baptisme doth; and why then should we not say that Baptism succeeds these, as well as it doth Circumcision? I answer, these were extraordinary signes, not standing Sacraments to bee used in all generations; much lesse were they set and standing Sacraments of initiation: And yet so farre as God hath made the parallel, what hurt is there in saying baptism succeeds them? sure I am, the Apostle Peter compares baptism 1 P [...] 3. 21. and the Ark, the like figure whereunto Baptisme saves us.

But whereas you adde, And why also should not the Lords [...] Excep. Answ. Supper succeed Circumcision as well as Baptisme? I answer, what ever disparity may bee made betweene Circumcision and Baptisme, yet herein certainly they agree, and you often grant it, That both of them are initiall signes; and therefore this is most wildly said of you, That the Lords Supper may he as well said to succeed Circumcision; did ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall signe? And now let the Reader judg of that expression of yours in the close, which you so boldly use against all Divines and Churches since the Apostles time, who all concurre in the same truth, (except onely the Anabaptists) That to say Baptisme succeeds in the roome and place of Circumcision, [...] a propos [...]tion [...], and very dangerous.

To confirme this of Baptism succeeding Circumcision, much may be gathered out of many places in the New Testament, which hold out the things wherein they are parallel'd: I used onely that clear place, Col. 2. 8 to 13. whence I made it evident, Not onely that we have the same thing signified by Circumcision, while we are buryed with Christ in baptism, but also that the Apostle plainly set [...] Baptisme in the same state, Mr. Tombes exception against Colos. 2. answered. and makes it of the same use to us, as Circumcision was to the Jews; Christ onely to them [...]nd [...] also, is the author [...]f spirituall[Page]Circumcision. The Circumcision of the flesh, was the Sacrament of it to them; and now that is abolished, we have baptisme to seale the same thing.

Let us see what your exceptions are against it, First, you acknowledge with me, the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are compleat in Christ, and therefore needed not Circumcision: And you adde, his scope was not to teach them that we have another ordinance in stead of Circumcision. I reply, it is very true, he teaches them wee are compleat in Christ, and need not Circumcision; but it is as true, that he further enlarges this comfort, by shewing them that we have a visible seale of this compleatnesse in Christ, and so it is more evident wee have no need of Circumcision.

Secondly, say you, Aretius in his Commentary sayes, That Aretius alledged by Mr Tombes, as if for him, who is expressely against him. the thing it selfe is asserted to the Saints, without an outward symbole, which yet the adversaries incessantly urged; and for which Aretius his helpe, you conclude it is utterly against the Apostles whole argument, to say, that they needed not Circumcision, b [...]cause they had another ordinance in the room of it. But Sir, why do you thus frequently abuse your readers with the names of Learned men, inserting some one sentence of theirs into your book, and thereby insinuating to your Reader, that they are of your Opinion in the point wherein you cite them? I assure you, it concernes your Conscience, as well as your Cause, to be thus often taken tardy. The Learned Aretius in that very place where you cite him acknowledges indeed, That we are compleat in Christ, without an externall symbol [...]; and that he is a perfect organ of our salvation; you needed to have cited no man for this, we all concurre with you in it; the onely thing controverted is, whether the Apostle intend also in this place to shew, that our baptism succeeds in the room and use of Circumcision; and doth not Aretius concurre in this? let himself speak: Observetur [...]tiam successio Baptismi in locum Circumcisionis, quando aperte hunc vocat Circumcisionem Christi: Hee plainly tells us, that the Apostle calls Baptisme the Circumcision of Christ. But since you have put me upon Aretius, I shall make bold to inform the Reader, that the same Aretius in his Problemes, after the History of Ʋalentine Gentilis, [Page] hath an intire Discourse to prove that Baptisme succeeds Ancient Authors cited by Aretius to prove that Baptism succeeds Circumcision. Circumcision, and brings this second of the Col. there also, as a maine evidence; and cites many notable testimonies out of the Fathers, both Greek and Latine, for the confirmation of it.

Accepimus non illam secundum carnem circumcisionem, sed spiritualem, quam Enoch & similes custodierunt, no [...] tamen per baptismum Just in Martyr contra Tryph. accepimus.

Circumcisio figura erat exuviarum quae per baptismum deponuntur. Athan. in Luc. [...]nia mihi tradita.

Abraham ubi Deo erediderat circumcisionem accepit pro nota ejus regenerationis quae per baptismum conficitur.

Illic fuit circumcisio carnalis quae inservit tempori ad magnam Epiphan. contr. Iip [...]cureos. circumcisionem, h. e. Bapt. qui circumcidit nos a peccatis & obsignat nos D [...]o.

Duravit circumcisio tempore inserviens donec major circumcisio Idem contra Ce [...]nthu [...]n. accessit, h. e. lavacrum regenerationis.

Affi [...]mat Christum in ecclesia sua dedisse pro circumcisione Aug in Epist. 1 [...]8. carnis, Baptismum.

Baptismi & circumcisionis ejusdem est natura. In Epist. ad Dardanun.

All these the Reader shall finde in Aretius, whom you bring in, as if he concurred with you; most of these testimonies are before also alledged by me.

Thirdly, but you goe on and say, That in truth it would evacuate the Apostles argument used both here, and Hebr. 9. 11. 9-13. who still proves the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law, because we are compleat in Christ; not in some new ordinances added in stead of them; for if there bee need of other Ordinances, (besides Christ) in stead of the old, then Christ himself hath not fulnesse enough, and though our Ordinances may bee said to imitate theirs; yet Christ onely succeeds them.

I answer, it is very true, that whoever should plead that we have any of our compleatness in any outward Ordinances would evacuate the Apostles Argument But Sir, is there no distinction to be made betwixt our compl [...]atnesse in Christ, and Ordinances which by his own appointment helpe us to apply this compleatnesse: doe the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, and other Christian Ordinances [Page] hinder, or argue that all our compleatnesse in not in Christ. I adde further, that Christ onely succeeds all the Jewish ordinances, as the body succeeds the shadow: we plead not as the Papists doe, that the Jewish Sacraments were types of ours, they were types onely of Christ; but yet ours succeed them to be like signes of the Covenant of grace, and so the Apostle doth in this place.

Fourthly, say you, I deny not but there is an analogy betwixt Ʋide Rive [...]. in Gen. 17. baptisme and circumcision, as there is also betwixt the Arke and Baptisme; but we are not to conclude thence, that Baptisme succeeds in the room and use of Noahs Arke, &c. for in the administration of an Ordinance, we are not to bee ruled by bare analogie framed by our selves, or delivered by the Spirit of God, but by the institution of God. I answer, but when those analogies framed by the Spirit of God, are agreeable to the use and end of Gods institution, we are to bee ruled by them; and the Apostle shews that's our case here.

Fifthly, say you, The Apostle in this place rather resembles buriall to circumcision then baptisme: and so makes the analogie between circumcision and Christs buriall; and you bring in Chrysostome and Theophylact concurring with you. I answer, this I wonder at, where is Circumcision compared to buriall, and wherein I pray you lyes the analogie between them? Besides, whoever will look into this Text, shall finde that this spirituall circumcision containes both our death to sin, and rising again to newnesse of life, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, both which are here fully signified in our baptisme, ver. 11. & 12. consepulti sum [...]; the analogy lyes plain between our buryall and baptisme. And Chrysostome whom you cite, saith plainly, wee are spiritually circumcised, but when and where; and answers in Baptisme.

Sixthly, say you, Circumcision was not onely a priviledge to the Jews, but it was also a buriben to them, and it would be a bu [...] then, Chrysostome cited by Mr. Tombes, is against him. not a priviledge, to have an ordinance in the roome and use of it. I answer, Circumcision was a burthen, as it was a painfull Sacrament, and as it obliged them to that painfull, costly and burthensome manner of the administration of the Covenant, which was before Christs incarnation; but [Page] it was no burden, But a great priviledge, as it was a seale of the Covenant. And in this last respect onely is baptism substituted into his room and place.

In the close of this Section, I like your farewell, though you tell me, I speake with more confidence then truth; I said Mr. Tombes his reason, why baptism is there named, confirmes my interpretation. there had been no reason to have named baptisme, but that he meant to shew baptisme was now to Christians in the room of circumcision to the Jewes: You say, baptisme is named, because it is one of the meanes by which Christians come to have communion with Christ, and to be compleat in him; which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12. verse. And therefore faith is joyned with it, they being the two speciall means whereby we have our communion with Christ, to which you adde, Gal. 5. 25, 26. Rom. 6. 3, & 4. But is not this the same sense with mine, who have hitherto undertaken to justifie that, though our compleatnesse be in Christ onely, who is now exhibited, and no longer to bee sought in the types and shadows of the Jewish administrations, (to which manner of administrations Circumcision did oblige them;) yet Baptism is now the seal of our initiation, and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us, as Circumcision was to them, though the manner of their administration be wholly ceased. If I have not taken you right, make a syllogisme, and make all Logick quake before your mighty consequence. Baptisme is named, because it is one of the meanes of Christians being exempted from the Schoolmaster, and come to be ingraffed into Christ, and to bee compleat in him; therefore it doth not succeed in the roome and place of Circumcision: nay, rather, it therefore doth. I pray you put together these words, Ye are compleat in Christ, in whom ye are also circumcised, being buryed with him in baptisme; and see if it speake not this plainely, that baptisme succeeds into the use of Circumcision: surely, it hence appeares Circumcision and Baptisme are nearer of kin then you would make them.

In the close of this Section, according to your wonted manner, you triumph, and tell me that you have at last waded through this conclusion, and the text, Col. 2. 12. & 10. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis faruis, foolish fire, [Page]which hath led men out of the way in this matter, into bags. Truly Sir, were these scorns of being led by foolish fire into bogs, &c cast upon my selfe onely, it were nothing; but when they are thus cast in the faces of all Divines, ancient, and modern, all Harmonies and Confessions (except onely a handfull of upstart Anabaptists) as if they were all such simple ones, that an ignis fatuus, a fooles fire, might lead them into any bogs, I can hardly forbeare to tell you it is an argument of an arrogant Spirit.

There is also in the end of your booke, a short discourse The descant of Mr. Tomber upon this Text at the end of his book briefly examined. upon this Text, which I read over to see if there were any thing which might weaken my Argument, or strengthen your exceptions; but in it I finde not any one sentence that hurts me, or helps you; only some of those things which you call dictates, bold assertions, some of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture, all of them magisterially set down with out proof: as, circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Iews children; which is contrary to the very Text, Gen. 17. That the promises of the Covenant, were not the reason that they were circumcised. Yet any Reader may see that the Covenant is there set downe as the reason why they should bee circumcised. That the Jews children were not therefore in covenant, because they were Abrahams naturall seed, that beleevers children are not in covenant, because beleevers children; and divers other Conclusions of the same nature, which are already answered; and therefore I shall not stay the Reader any whit about them.

Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot, because the gaining or losing the cause, depends upon these former conclusions, the samenesse of the Covenant both to Jews and Centiles, the s [...]menesse of our Infants right to the Covenant with theirs; and baptisme succeeding circumcision, as to the use of an initiall seale to them, who are in Covenant. In that which remaines, I shall more contract the matter of your large Discourse [...] partly, because many things in it are upon by-matters; partly, because that which is materiall, is but the repetition of that which hath been answered already.

[Page] My fourth Conclusion was, That by Gods owne expresse order, Infants as well as growne men, were in the time of the Iewes to be initiated and sealed with the signe of circumcision, whether Jews by nature, or Proselytes of the Gentiles, one law was for them all, if they receive the covenant, they and their children were circumcised.

This Conclusion you grant to be true; onely, because you wil say somewhat to every thing: you answer, First, That it is 4 Conclus. vindicated. as certain that this expresse order of God is now repealed; very true, and you might have added, That by his order likewise, Baptisme succeeds in the room of it. I added, whereas some alledge, Though circumcision was to be applyed to their Infants, yet Why Infants of Jewes were circumcised. it was not as a seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant, but as a Nationall badge, or seale of some temporall and earthly blessings and priviledges, as of the right to the land of Canaan, &c. and that Ishmael, though he was circumcised for some temporall respects, was not thereby brought under the Covenant, &c. You answer, they who thus object, speake the truth: and here you referre to your Latine Paper. I reply, to my understanding, you here speake pure Anabaptisme indeed, just like the Anabaptists in Germany, who say, The Covenant which circumcision sealed, was a carnall covenant: and that when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their children, wee are not to understand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcised, nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward man; that the condition required by God in circumcision, cannot bee drawne to a spirituall businesse; that the circumcised by circumcision, were not bound to looke for salvation by Jesus Christ: how very neare are you come to these carnall conceits of the German Anabaptists, which have been a thousand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines? yet you bring not one shadow of a proofe for what you say, onely you alledge, Ishmael had no part in the covenant, the cov [...]nant was to bee establisted with Isaac, and not with Ishmael, &c. But I have made it abundantly cleare, that not onely Ishmael and Esau, but missions of Jacobs seed, did never partake of the spirituall graces of the Covenant, yet were reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant, and were obliged to seeke after the spirituall [Page] part of it, and whereas you say, when Ishmael was circumcised, Abraham understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael but for Isaac, that Ishmael onely was to have a share in some temporall blessings; I answer, supposing that were true, you have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward signe of the Covenant, and have a visible standing in the Church, though hee who administers the Seale, might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting. Secondly, I answer, how doe you prove that no part of the spirituall Covenant made with Abraham did appeare to belong to Ishmael when he was circumcised, or not to Esau when hee was circumcised? God indeed did then declare that Isaac was he in whose family the Covenant should continue, but not a word that Ishmael should have no part in it: prove (if you can) in your next that Ishmael and Esau were not by their circumcision bound to have their hearts circumcised, and to beleeve in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed. And whereas you say, againe and againe, that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason why these or those were circumcised, but onely Gods precept: I have already cleared it out of the Text Genesis 17. that though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the dutie of Circumcision, yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and these two are well consistent together.

Whereas I answered to that carnall objection of the Anabaptists, that nothing is plainer then that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was a signe was the Covenant of grace, you reply, first, it was a mixt Covenant, which is before taken away, in answer to your exceptions against my first conclusion, Sect. 2. Part 3. Secondly, you say, all circumcised persons were not partakers of the spirituall part, it's one thing to bee under Mr. Tombes grants what is in controversie. the outward administration, another thing to be under the Covenant of Grace; Sir, I thanke you for this answer, you grant as much as I have been proving all this while, viz. that men may have a visible membership though they bee not elected, and that there ever was and will be some such in the Church to whom the outward administration and externall priviledges doe app [...]taine, though they are not inwardly sanctified, [Page] and I hope you will not deny but that these are called, in that sense which our Saviour meanes when hee sayes, Many are called, but few are chosen. I added Abraham received Circumcision a signe of the righteousnesse of faith: true, say you, Circumcision was a seale of righteousnesse, but not to all or only circumcised persons, but to all beleevers, whether Iews or Gentiles though they never are or may be sealed in their own persons. I reply, first, this is but a peece of odde Divinitie, that Circumcision should seale righteousnesse to them who never are circumcised, nor reputed so, nor capable of being circumcised, nor might lawfully be circumcised, but let that passe. 2ly Indeed none but beleevers have the spirituall part of Circumcision, but visible professors had a visible right to it, and were obliged to seeke the spirituall grace of it, and though they who are externally called, and not elected, never come to attaine the spirituall part, yet are they in foro visibilis Ecclesiae to be reputed Church members, and they have as Austin saith, veritatem sacramenti, though not fructum Sacramenti, they receive the truth of the Sacrament, though they partake not of the best part of it; And the Iewes (said I) received How the Jewe [...] received circumcision. it not as a nation, but as a Church, as a people separated from the world, and taken into Covenant with God; against which you object, if I take (as) with reduplication, they received it neither as a nation, nor as a Church: for if as a nation, then every nation must have been circumcised; if as a Church, then every Church must be circumcised; they received it as appointed them from God, under that formall notion, and no other. But what poore exceptions are these? my plaine meaning was, the Jewes were both a civill societie or Common-wealth, they were also a Church or a people in Covenant with God; Circumcision was given them in reference to their Church State, not in reference to their civill state, and was in ordine to the things of Gods kingdome▪ and though the formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God, yet the Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it, and the thing it related to, as is most cleare out of the 17. of Genesis and many other places where their Circumcision denotates their religious standing, as hath often been shewed before.

[Page] But what is all this, say you, to the answering of the objection, which was, that Circumcision was not the Seale of the spirituall part of the Covenant of grace, to all circumcised persons, and that Circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant, &c. I answer, I thinke it very fully answers the objection, for if it was commanded and observed, as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant, and they used it as being in Covenant, the objection is wholly taken off. Your frequent bringing in of the manner of administration, by types, shadowes, &c. hath been abundantly answered in my vindicating my first conclusion, and elsewhere. Next you much trouble your selfe, how I will cleare that expression of mens conformity to temporall blessings and punishments, because blessings and punishments are Gods acts and not mens: I desire you to require an account of it from them who assert it, I said, Circumcision bound them who received it to conforme to that manner of administration of the Covenant which was carried much by a way of temporall blessings and punishments, they being types of spirituall things: is this all one to conforme to temporall blessings and punishments? I added, no man can shew, that any were to receive Circumcision in relation to these outward things onely, or to them at all, further then they were administrations of the Covenant of grace; you answer, they received Circumcision neither in relation to these outward things onely no nor at all, either as they were temporall blessings or types of spirituall Mr. Tombes by consequence denies circumcision to be a Seale of any thing. things, and so administrations of the Covenant of grace, but for this reason and no other, because God had so commanded; I reply, here had beene the fit place for you to have made good what you have so confidently asserted heretofore; that Ishmael, Esau, and others were circumcised for some temporall respects, that Circumcision sealed the temporall or politicall promises, &c. but in stead of proving this, you doe here as good as deny it, for if they were not circumcised, in any respect at all to their temporall blessings, how I pray you did Circumcision seale their temporall blessings? Nay further, you by consequent deny that Circumcision sealed either temporall or spirituall blessings, and consequently it was no seale at all, or a seale of nothing at all; [Page] for if they were circumcised with respect to nothing, but onely because God commanded them to bee circumcised, how was Circumcision any Seale to them? If a father give a child a Ring, and command him to weare it, onely to shew his obedience to his fathers command, what doth the wearing of this Ring seale to the child? it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father, but seals nothing to the child from the father. Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this, you say, You deny not that circumcised persons were by faith to looke on the covenant of grace, through these administrations, but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcision if the command of circumcision were not in reference to the Covenant of grace? I professe I cannot understand it, nor doe I thinke it possible for you, to reconcile this, either with the constant doctrine of the Scripture concerning the end and use of Circumcision, or with your owne grant, that Circumcision was the initiall Seale of the Jewes Covenant with God.

To cleare it further that Circumcision was not a seale of the land of Canaan, or the temporall blessings of it, I shewed the Proselytes and their children could not bee circumcised in relation to Canaan, &c. because they were not capable of any inheritance there; yea, that it tied them to a greater expence of their temporall blessings by their long, frequent, and chargeable journies to worship at Ierusalem; you answer onely this, all this may bee granted, yet this overthrowes not this proposition, that the Covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporall blessings, and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the covenant of grace: but Sir, the thing I am here proving is that Circumcision was no Seale of the land of Canaan, not that there were no temporall blessings belonging to the Covenant; I know the promises of temporall blessings belong to the Covenant of grace, as well as the promises of spirituall; godlinesse having the promise of this life, and of that which is to come: nor was I proving that all who were to bee circumcised had part in the spirituall graces of the Covenant, my drift being onely to prove, that all who were to be circumcised [Page] had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church, against which in this place you say just nothing. Lastly, whereas I added that Ishmael and the rest of Abrahams family, Esau and others were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by apostasie they discovenanted themselves, you answer that I plainely deliver ap [...]stasie from the covenant of grace, which in others wou'd bee called Armianisme, because taking into the covenant of grace, argues election or some act which executes election: I reply, I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, in ramorum defractorum locum, instead of the Iewes, who were broken off: your selfe grant, it is one thing to bee under the spirituall grace of the Covenant, and another thing to bee under the outward administration; in this later sense were Ishmael, Esau, and the rest taken in, they were visible professors had an externall calling, and are all visible professors elected, and is not externall vocation Gods act, though a common one?

The fifth and last conclusion which I laid downe in my 5 Conclusion vindicated, our priviledges nor straitned but inlarged. Sermon was this, the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the covenant of grace are many wayes enlarged, made more honorable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Iewes administration; many Scriptures speake of their inlargement, not one for the dimininishing or extenuating of them; I could hardly have imagined that you could have spent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting against this, I shall very briefely examine what you have said; first, you shew your skill in the description of a priviledge out of the civill Law, and I concurre with you, that a priviledge must bee somewhat which is a benefit, and that the same thing may bee a priviledge at one time, which is not at another; that that may bee a priviledge in comparison of the heathens which is not in comparison of Christians: but what's all this to the purpose? further say you, the priviledges of the covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it, are not now more enlarged or more honorable or comfortable then they were in the time of the Iewes; I answer, [Page] first, though this were granted it hurts not mee, it's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to beleevers and their children. Secondly, if there be no more honorablenesse in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant, how comes it to passe, that in your answers to those severall texts which I and others bring to Our spirituall priviledges how inlarged. prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration, you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it? Thirdly, though I willingly acknowledge that the spirituall priviledges are the same both to the Jewes and Gentiles, the same under both administrations, yet seeing that under this last administration, these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearenesse, but in greater measure and abundance, floods in stead of drops: wildernesses made like Lebanon and Sharon, I wonder you should say they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then; is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace? But say you, in respect of the administration it is granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honorable: this will serve our turne well enough, for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration, that their Infants were under it as well as themselves; yeeld that for ours, and the controversie is ended, wee (say I) are freed from that hard and costly yoake of their way of administration: true say you, it is not onely our priviledge to bee free from that, but it is our priviledge also to have nothing in lieu of that yoake. To have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadowes of the substance, which is Christ, is very right, but to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them, as they were externall Ordinances to apply Christ, is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us, and thereby to make us compleat in him, which were a most absurd thing to affirme. Whereas I added that our priviledges for our selves and our children, are at least as honorable, large, and comfortable as theirs, your answer to this is very remarkable, but whether with an obeliske or asteriske the Reader shall judge; first say you, [Page] circumcision belongs to the administration of the Covenant, not to the substance of it. I reply; it was indeed a part of their administration, and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration, as Baptisme now doth to ours, but did it not also belong to the substance? was it not a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, of circumcision of heart, &c. doth not the seale belong to the thing sealed? the conveyance and seal annexed to it, are no part of the purchased inheritance, Mr. Tombes makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized. but doe they not belong to it? Secondly, your next is as remarkable, viz. That it's so farre from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized; to have Baptisme succeed in the stead of Circumeision, that it is a benefit to want it, God not having appointed it. I answer, then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptisme, that it had been our priviledge to have wanted Baptisme if God had not appointed it; and by as good a reason at least, you might have said, that Circumcision was so farre from being a priviledge to the Jews and their children, that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not commanded it; sure, that is a strange kinde of priviledge, of which I may truly say, that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it, to have wanted it, if the Donor had not commanded it.

Next, you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclusion; and (say you) the thing I should prove, is one of these two, either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace: or that the want of circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a losse of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children. Sir, the thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclusion, viz. That our priviledges are inlarged, not extenuated: and as for these two particulars, I have already proved, that Circumcision, though a part of their administration, did yet belong to the substance; belong to it I say, not as a part of it, but as a meanes of applying it. And I have also proved, that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed circumcision, as it bound to that manner of administration; yet it is a priviledge to [Page] have somewhat succeed it as a seale of the Covenant, in as much as a Covenant with a seale, is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seale. More particularly, I said our Mr Tombes makes the Covenant, Heb. 8 to bee the Covenant of Works, erroneously. enlargement of priviledges appeares, partly, in that wee have freedome, in what was burthensome to them in their manner of administration; partly, because our Covenant is established upon better promises, Heb. 8. 6. Whereupon you enter upon a Discourse of that Covenant there mentioned; and you positively assert, That it was the Covenant of workes. Alasse Sir, why doe you run into this needlesse and erroneous digression? I said indeed in my Sermon, that the morall Law was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with Abraham, not as a part of that Covenant, but as a Schoolemaster to whip them to Christ; that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law, might more earnestly long after Christ, exhibited in those shadows of Rites and Sacrifices, &c. but to say that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the Hebrews, was the Covenant of works, is a most erroneous doctrine; look into the Text, and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned, (which God finds fault with, and calls the first Covenant; in opposition to this b [...]tter Covenant) had Ordinances of divine Worship, had a Sanctuary, a Tabernacle, Priests, and High Priests, Sacrifices, and other Rites belonging to the administration of it. Sir, was this the Covenant of works? I hope you will not own it in your next. Next you say, That place, 2 Cor. 3. 10. the glory of 2 Cor. 3. 10. mis-interpreted by Mr. Tombes. theirs, bad no glory in respect of ours: This is not meant of the Covenant of grace, but of the Covenant in Mount Sinai; therefore impertinently alledged by me. Sir, I wonder at your confidence in it; the Reader will easily discorne that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel, above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies: belike then with you, Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works. Next, I shewed in my Sermon, that as our priviledges are better then theirs, in being free'd from their burthens, so we as well as they, enjoy the honour of being called a holy Nation, a peculiar people,[Page]a chosen generation, &c. Vpon this you discourse at large, especially against Mr. Blake, and you undertake to prove that all these things are meant of the invisible Church. I answer very briefly, none of us ever doubted, but that the spirituall part belongs onely to the invisible Church, and did so in the time of the Jews, as well as now; but yet we as well as the Jews partake of that priviledge, and our visible standing gives us the honor to be so reputed, as wel as theirs gave it unto them; and were all the Jews who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation, really such? were they all inwardly holy, or effectually called? the like answer serves to your discourse upon Rom. 9. the Apostle speakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation, their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God, according to Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God, yet they were not all the spirituall children of God; the Reader may see more of this in the vindication of my second Conclusion, and you shall doe well in your next, solidly to prove that these were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed (though many among them had the kernell without the shell) rather then thus to triumph in these feeble exceptions. I added, Wee have all these things with advantage, not onely in the clearnesse of the administration, but in some sense, in greater extent to persons, with us there is neither male nor female. Why I adde this of male or female, you say you know not, except I meane to insinuate that in the Jewish Church there was male and female, because Circumcision was onely of the males, &c. I reply, I acknowledge that Gal. 3. 27, 28. opened. though it bee true, that among true beleevers, among the Jews there was neither male nor female, all equally did partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant, as well as now with us, yet for the comfortable manner of administration of it, even this distinction of male and female, is a priviledge enla [...]ged under this last and best administration, and the Apostle in that place, Gal. 3. 28. doth plainly intimate the enlargement of this priviledge in this respect, and so I think the words plainly hold out, As many of you as have [Page]been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; there is neither Iew nor Greeke, bond nor free, made nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus; and if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heires according to promise. To me the Apostle here doth plainly hold out, that now under the New Testament, baptisme is the visible pledge of our being Abrahams seed, as circumcision was the pledge of it under the Old Testament; & that here is the enlargement of our priviledge in the New Testament, that whereas Circumcision of old was applyed to one Nation, and not to others; now out of all Nations, such are called in, as are made Abrahams seed, whether Jew or Greek. And whereas of old the seale was applyed onely to the males, in this respect the differences of sexes is now taken away. And although it be true that the spirituall part of all this be made good onely to true beleevers, who likewise alone have the inward baptisme, yet visible professors enjoy the visible priviledge.

Next you proceed to reply to an Objection which I propounded in my Sermon, and answered, (viz.) In some thing's the Jews had greater priviledges then we have; as that Abraham had the priviledge to bee called the Father of the faithfull: that Christ should be born of his flesh; the Virgin Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Christ; the whole Nation of the Jews had this priviledge, that God will call in their seed againe, after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years; which priviledges none of the Gentiles have, or can have. And my answer was, That our question is about such priviledges as belong to all who have a standing under the Covenant, which every one who is in covenant with God might expect by vertue of the covenant, whether hee were a Jew or a Proselyte, not for any peculiar or personall priviledge to any one man or woman, or family, or Tribe. That it no ways derogates from us that some particular person or Tribe should enjoy some peculiar priviledges; but if any of the common priviledges, which they all enjoyed by vertue of their Church standing should be abridged, then the priviledges of the New Testament would bee more restrained then those of the Old; this, said I, is against the word of God. Your answer is, That this Argument hath no weight, but onely amongst Vulgar, and nonsyllogising[Page]capacities: and therefore in your Latine Paper you mention these instances of the Virgin Mary, &c. And thence would shew, That the Iews might have more priviledges in some respect, in some things, then we, and yet our condition better then theirs by reason of some other priviledges we have above them, which recompence the defect of those priviledges; and therefore no good Argument can be drawne, That because God gave such a priviledge to the Jews, therefore we must have such a priviledge too; yea, it would bee an Argument of arrogant presumption, to say, the Iews had such a priviledge, therefore we must have it: They had a priviledge to circumcise Iufants, therfore we mast baptise Infants.

I Answer, I thinke indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue: The Jewes had it, therefore wee must have it. But Sir, to argue thus, God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews, that their Infants should be reputed to belong to his Church, and have the initiall seale: Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians, that their Infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initiall seale; then his grace to beleevers under the New Testament is straitned as to their posterity. This Argument appeares so cleare to mee, that I must confesse my selfe one of those Dull ones, who know not how to deny the consequence. In the meane time I observe, that though you would make your Reader believe, that these personall priviledges of Abraeham, to have Christ born of his flesh; the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Christ, &c. doe presse my Conclusion; yet you spake not one word to vindicate them from my answer: And therefore I collect that by this time you see, that now under this administration, some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the rest, may be denyed us, and yet they make nothing against this Argument; That if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denyed us, our priviledges were Distinction of Proselyres of the Gate, and of the Covenant, helps not Mr. Tombes. straitned. Your other exception which you make concerning Melchisedeck, Lot, and Job, have been often answered before. That which you adde concerning one kinde of Proselytes among the Iews, who were called Proselytes of the gate, who[Page]though they were not circumcised, were yet reckoned among the Worshippers of God, (such at were Cornelius and others) and were also within the Covenant of grace. I know not what you intend to gather from it; unlesse you would intimate, that they were Church-members among the Jewes, although they were not circumcised; but had you said so, that the priviledges and Church-membership of these Proselytes of the Gate, were as honourable as those of the Proselytes of the Covenant, your learned Readers would have smiled at you; sure there would have been no need for God to have instructed Peter by a Vision from heaven, that he should not call them (to whom he was to be sent) uncleane; nor had Peter been ever put to have made his apologie for going in to Cornelius and his company, if these uncircumcised Proselytes of the Gate had been reputed Church-members among the Jews. Next you grant, The Iews indeed had that priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the O live by their birth, which the Gentiles have not. But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not wee I pray you, straitned in that particular? And I demand further, when we are graffed in, and so naturalized with them, doe we not partake of all the fatnesse or priviledges of the Olive with them? what Scripture ever denyed it? I demand yet further, did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles dayes, by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant, and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage; did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you say was their naturall priviledge? if you thinke so, produce your evidence to prove it; if they were not, then it seemes the Jewes who beleeved in Christ, and kept their station, had a greater priviledge for their children, then the Gentiles who grow together with them, have for their children.

I added, Let any man shew out of the Scripture, where our priviledges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things, and in particular for the case in hand, concerning our Infants right to the Covenant and seale of it; once we are sure the Infant-children[Page]of all Covenanters were within the Covenant, and the sedle also belonged to them: and by vertue of the Covenant (which is still the same) [...] pl [...]ad their interest in it; let any shew when and where this was taken away. You answer, it is unreasonable to require this at your hands, to shew what you doe not avouch: you goe not about to expunge Infants of beleevers out of the Covenant of Grace; and you see no cause to beleeve me, who affirme that once they were within the Covenant, &c. I reply, but doe not you avouch, That the Infants of the Jewes had this peculiar privil [...]dge, and birth-right to be under the administration of the Covenant which ours have not; which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us: may not I boldly say, That once the Infants of all Covenanters had this priviledge? may I not also exact of you to shew when and where this was taken away? who though you goe not about to expunge them out of the book of life, yet you expresly expunge them out of visible membership, while you say, the Jews Infants had it, and ours have it not.

Lastly, I added, who ever will goe about to deprive them of it, to cut off such a great part of the comfort of beleeving Parents, must produce clear testimonies before they can perswade beleevers to part with either of them, either right to the Covenant, or to the seale of the Covenant; because next to the glory of God, and the salvation of their owne soules; their Infants interest in the Covenant, is one of the greatest benefits beleevers have from the Covenant A great a bridgment of our priviledges to have our children left out of the Covenant. of grace, even to have their Children belong to Gods family and Kingdome, and not to the Devills; Children being the greatest treasure of their Parents, and the salvation of their childrens soules, the greatest treasure in their children; and therefore to exclude them out of that society or visible standing where salvation is ordinary, is so great a losse, or eclipsing of their comfort, a [...] whoever would make them yeeld to it, had need produce very strong evidence; and much more I said in my Sermon to this purpose. You answer, Here I am upon my advantage ground, in a veine of Oratory, and on a subject, of all others, aptest to move affections; to wit, Parents tendernesse to their children. I confesse in this point, I stand upon a vantage ground (not in Oratory, to which I pretend not, but) in point of truth, had [Page] I only spoken words without weight, you could and would have discovered their emptiness, and scoffed at them sufficiently; you make severall small exceptions which I shal briefly touch: as, First, That I touch something too neare upon the Popish Opinion; as if I might be guess'd to symbolize with that Opinion of the Papists, who judge all unbaptized infants to perish; which is not worth the answering. Then you demand What comfort doe wee give Parents, which the Antipaedobaptists doe not give them as well as we; or what discomforts in truth doe they give them, which we doe not? I answer, the difference is very great, you leave them in the state of Infidells, we in the condition the Jews children were in while they were the people of God; wee account them actually belonging to the visible kingdom of Christ, you actually to belong to the visible kingdom of the Devill; wee leave them under the benefit of that promise, I will be the God of thee and of thy feed, you acknowledge no more promise for them, then for the children of Turks: it may be these things are of no account to you, but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader.

I next proceeded to the maine and onely Objection made against this whole Argument, which is this, There is no command, Sect. 12. Ans. to the maine Objection. no expresse institution, or cleare example in all the New Testament, of baptizing of Infants; and in administration of Sacraments, wee are not to be led by our owne reason, or grounds of seeming probabilities, but by the expresse order of Christ, and no otherwise. You say, this is indeed the maine Objection, and without answering it, all that I have said is to little purpose. But Sir, did not you formerly grant, that upon the proving of my two first Conclusions the whole cause depended? if therefore those Conclusions remaine firme, there is enough already said to the purpose.

You adde, Ʋnlesse this Objection be removed, the practice of baptizing infants will never be acquitted from Will-worship, and that the Prelatists will shew vertuall commands from analogy of the Ceremoniall Law of the Jews, and Traditions Ecclesiasticall, as ancient as ours for Paedobaptisme, for their Prelacy, Holy dayes, Surplice, &c. And therefore if I stand not to i [...] here, I [Page] must yeeld up my weapons. Sure you think you are here like to get some advantage, you speake so big, but by this time I have had such sufficient experience of your strength, that I much feare not your great words.

First, for the point of Will-worship, I shall desire you to prove this Conclusion, That all things belonging to Christian worship, even in the circumstances of it, even the ages and sexes of the Persons to whom the Ordinances are to bee applyed, must bee expresly set down in the new Testament; if you prove not this, you say nothing to the purpose, for this is our very case. I have already shewed the falsenesse of it, in the point of the Christians Sabbath; for though the Ceremoniall Worship, which was a type of Christ, be wholly abolished, yet not every thing which concerns all Worship which must have an institution, is abolished. And for the plea which the Bishops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ceremoniall Law; when you shew how they will raise their Arguments (which possibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have) as plainly as I doe for Infant-baptisme, you may possibly prevaile with the Reader in their behalf. And when you shew as much Ecclesiasticall Antiquity for Prelacy, Holydayes, Surplice, &c. I shall beleeve your Reading to be greater, then I can yet be perswaded of, that you have seen some such Monuments of Antiquity, which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon. But I proceed with you. I first granted, That there is no expresse syllabicall command for baptizing of Infants, no expresse example where Children were baptized. Sure (say you) this is a shrewd signe that I am not like to make good my ground, having yeelded thus much. And why so I pray? your very next words leave me ground enough, when you say, That if it bee made good by good consequence, it is sufficient: what need was there then of this idle scoffe? I added, Many other points of high concernment, are not expresly laid down in the New Testament, a [...] forbidden degrees of marriage, Laws against Polygamy, the Law of a weekly Sabbath, &c. You answer, In meere positive Worship, it must be so, it must have either Precept or Apostolicall example, equivalent to a precept found in the New Testament, else it[Page]is will-worship, and this say you is our case in hand; I answer as before, there is no absolute necessitie that every circumstance of an Ordinance, or the severall Sexes or ages to whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed, must bee thus set downe in the New Testament, this is sufficiently cleared Part 2. Sect. 8. and part 3. Sect. 1. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage, you say, there is one branch mentioned and censured in the New Testament, viz. the incest [...] ou [...] Corinthians case, and that is, say you, a finne against a morall commandement; but how would you laugh at such a consequence in another; a man may not marry his fathers wife, a thing which by the light of nature was abborred amongst the Heathens, Ergo, all the degrees of forbidden marriage in Moses Lawes stand firme? The like say you against P [...]lygamy, there is proofe against it, Matth. 19. 5. 9. But is this an expresse prohibition of it? must you not bee compelled to goe by a consequence to bring it in, which is all I contend for? For that of the Sabbath you referre your Reader to Sect. 8. Part 2. whither I also most willingly send him, and leave it to his impartiall judgement whether the advantage lie not clearely on my side. I added, there is no expresse command for children of Beleevers, when they are growne, that they should be instructed and baptized, no expresse command or example where women received the Lords Supper, good consequence I acknowledge there is, but no syllabicall or expresse mention of it; but say you, there is expresse mention of womens receiving the Sacrament, Let a man examine himselfe, 1 Cor. 11. 8. where the Greeke word comprehends both sexes, but doth that Greeke word, where ever it is used, signifie both sexes? you will not offer to say it, I deliver to you what I received from the Lord, Vers. 23. that, say you, is a command to the whole Church, which consisted of women as well as men, &c. But Sir, if any man were disposed to wrangle with you, might hee not in your owne words doe it, and say, all these expressions must be limited pro subject a materia? I grant all this is good by consequence, but not in expresse termes; the same say I for Infants, you grant all disciples may bee baptized, for that you say there is an expresse command; your selfe also grant, that [Page] regenerate Infants may be called disciples, I grant this a good Argument by consequence, that such Infants may bee baptized; and if I have proved or can prove, that Infants of beleevers by their birth priviledge have a right to bee esteemed visible Disciples, then by your owne g [...]ant, by a good consequence they also may bee baptized; and I undertake to justifie that Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples, as truely as regenerate Infants are invisible disciples. I adde further, they who are visible Covenanters are to receive the visible signe, Ergo, Infants (who have been at large proved to bee visible Covenanters) are to receive Baptism which is the visible signe of it: these things are fully cleared already, it is apparent there is as cleare a command for Baptisme to be the initiall seale under this administration, as ever there was for Circumcision under that administration; and as good evidence that our children are to be reckoned to the Covenant, as there was for theirs, and no exception in the word put in against them. Is not here then good consequence, that therefore they are to have the Seale administred to them? suppose when Paul. said let a man examine himselfe, and so let him eat [...], that there had been no women there then amongst them, would not this command by consequence have reached women as well as men? if this qualification was found in them that they could have examined themselves, must the command necessarily expresse all sexes, ages or conditions, or else not reach them? these things I mention, as consequences parallell to these which your selfe infist upon. I added, wee by good consequence have sufficient command and example for Infant [...] Baptisme: to which you answer, I should have said jeere, I fetch such a The command of Circumcision reacheth us by analogy. compasse, that you imagine my attempt will prove but a Mouse from the M [...]untaines travell; I perceive you know not how you should possesse your Reader with prejudice, if you should not now and then interline a confident scoffe, but let's try the particulars, my first was, Abraham who received the Covenant had a command to seale his children with the initiall seale, because his children were in Covenant with him. Now because what concerned the substance of the Covenant is [Page] alwayes the same, and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as they were Covenanters, the same concernes us equally with them as we are Covenanters, what concerned them in reference onely to their administration was peculiar to themselves, as that which concernes the manner of our administration is peculiar to us; it thence follows that the same command which was laid upon them in their administration in all those things which properly related to the substance or spirituall thing intended in that administration, by a just analogie and proportion, binds us as well as them, I said, this our Divines maintaine against the Papists, that Gods commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidentall to them, my meaning being plainly this, that all Gods Commands and Institutions about the Sacraments of the Jewes as touching their generall nature of being Sacraments and seales of the Covenant, and as touching their use and end, doe bind us in our Sacraments, because in these they are the same. To speake yet more plainely, if I can, there are in the Sacraments these two things to bee distinguished, the generall nature, end, and use of a Sacrament to seale the Covenant of God by some sensible signe; and secondly, the manner of administration of these signes, as they referre to Christ to be exhibited, or to Christ already exhibited. The first concernes rem ipsam, the thing it self, which I called in my Sermon the Substance; the other wch concernes the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference to Christ not yet come, or to Christ already come; that in my Sermon I called Accidentall; now when I say that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to assert, that the rituall part of their Sacraments doe remaine in the least particle, or that we are tied to practise any of those things, but onely that there is a generall and analogicall nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament doe agree; and that in these things, our Divines doe argue from their Sacraments to our Sacraments; thus Chamier de Sacramentis, Vet. T [...]st. cap. 1. Chamier, Catholici▪ docent convenire Sacramenta vetera cum novis,[Page]omnibus, iis capitibus quae sunt de Sacramenti natura; Protestants doe teach that the Sacraments of the Old Testament doe agree with the Sacraments of the New in all things which concerne the nature of a Sacrament, and yet saith he, our very senses teach us that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from ours; So Amesius, quaecunque de Circumcisione dicuntur & spectant Ames. Bellar. Ene [...]v [...]de Sacrament. in genere. ad Sacramentalem eju [...] naturam quam habet in communi cum reliquis Sacramentis, illarecte applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta, and addes immediatly, ratio signandiest talis in circumcisione: and you know multitudes of our Divines speake to the same purpose; their Sacraments were Seales of the Covenants, so are ours, their Sacraments had a Divine institution, so have ours, their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more are ours, the grace accompanying their Sacraments was not included in their Sacraments, (tanquam contentum in continente) nor in ours, their Sacraments were to bee administred onely to them who were accounted to bee in Covenant, so are ours; they had one Sacrament which most immediatly and properly, was a standing Sacrament for admission into the visible Church, so have wee, now in these things doe our Divines use to argue by analogy and proportion from their Sacraments to ours: this was that which I intended in my Sermon, namely, That looke what dutie they were tyed to by their Sacraments, in seeking after the spirituall part of it, looke what graces they were bound to beleeve to bee sealed unto them in their Sacraments, the same are we tied to beleeve in ours; these things concerne us as much as they did them; but for those things which were the accidentall, or (if you like not that expression) which concerne onely the rituall part of their Sacraments, these doe no wayes oblige us; Rites and Ceremonies, which were peculiar to them, are ceased, the duties, obligations, comforts and benefits which they were led to in their administration, doe all remaine the same to us under our administration, when the Apostle sayes, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. explained. 1 Cor. 10. That all our fathers did eate the same spirituall meat, and dranke the same spirituall drinke, our Interpreters generally doe agree, that by the same spirituall meate, and the [Page]same spirituall drinke is meant the same with ours; So Calvin, Beza, Chamier, and who not, because say they, Eadem fuit veterum Sacramentorum & nostrorum substantia, Their Sacraments and ours were the same in substance, yet no man is so absurd, as to thinke that either the Manna or the water of the Rock doe remaine to us: such an analogicall Ephes. 6 1, 2. explained. Argument as this the Apostle Paul himselfe uses, Ephes. 6. from the fifth Commandement which in the Jewes time was backt with a particular promise of living long in the Land whi [...]h the Lord their God would give them; and beleevers now have no promise of living in the land of Canaan, yet Paul there presses a promise to us from the generall scope of that promise, Honour thy father and mother, which is the first Commandement with promise, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayst live long on the earth: I indeavour the more fully to expresse my sense in this particular, because after your usuall manner you endeavour to make my assertion senselesse, and absurd, and then come to reason against a sense of your owne making, and cannot bee acknowledged to be mine. Now I proceed to see what you say against this Argument, First, say you, it is no und [...]niable argument that this must bee good, because all Protestants use it, nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or consent, but onely intimated, that it is obvious and usuall; if you take away the strength of the Argument, I shall not leaue upon the men. Secondly, you consent not to this, that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the Iewes, then Circumcision and the Passeover; you rather concurre with Mr. Cudworth, that they had almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies; I reply, whether this bee right or wrong, it is nothing to the businesse in hand, Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulnesse of such an Argument as reasoning from the Jewes Sacraments to ours, in that sense which I have here set downe, yea in that very Treatise he acknowledges the Lords Supper to succeed the Passeover in that notion of being a feast upon a Sacrifice. Thirdly, you take a great deale of paines to put a sense upon my words which I never thought of, (viz.) That the Iewish Sacraments are still in force to us, that I make [Page]some things in the Iewish Sacraments to bee substantiall, some things to bee accidentall, that the accidentalls I would have abolished, the substantialls to remaine, that I shew but little skill in Logick in opposing the substance of an Act, and the Accidents of it, that I would make somethings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidentall, and not to bee of the same weight or obligation as other things which are substantiall; and finally you bring no lesse then ten Arguments to prove that all the Iewes Ceremonies▪ Rites and Sacraments, are all abrogated, substance and circumstance, whole and part. In all your ten Arguments I fully concurre with you, and in that conclusion which you confute by those Arguments, I never understood by the substance of their Sacraments, the sensible signes used in the Sacraments, but rem Sacram [...]nti, the spirituall part of the Sacrament, or the res signata; and my Argument was never intended to bee any other then that analogicall Argument which is above set downe, and none of your Arguments meddle with. You proceed to those particular instances I gave, in which you might have knowne the meaning of my Argument if you had pleased, and spared fighting with your owne shadow by your ten Arguments. The first, is Circumcumcision is called a Seale of the Covenant, theno [...] our Divines plead, our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant. To this you except, first, you know not where Circumcision is called the Seale of the Covenant, though you acknowledge it is called the signe of the Covenant in one place, and both the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith in another place; truely Sir, I thought that the comparing of these two Scriptures together, had been sufficient to shew that Circumcision was a sealing signe. Secondly, you except, though Circumcision bee called so, yet that is no Argument to call our Sacraments so, though you are willing they should bee called so, and you say our Sacraments are Seales of the Covenant. I reply, lay aside but this analogicall Argument, and prove if you can that our Sacraments are Seales; our Sacraments are neither called signes nor seales in the New Testament, all the world must grant indeed that they are signes, but when the Papists deny our Sacraments to be Seales of the Covenant, how will you bee able [Page] to prove it, if you lay aside this Argument, Circumcision was a Seale, therefore our Sacraments are Seales, ours agreeing with their in the generall nature of a Sac [...]ament? Next I said, Circumcision might bee administred but once, it being the Seale of admission: therefore Baptisme being also the Seale of admission may bee administred but once; you answer, denying both antecedent and consequent, you know nothing, you say, but that hoth Circumcision, and Baptisme might bee administred more then once, which I hope I have sufficiently consuted in answer to Sect. 4. Part. 2. And secondly, say you, had there been a command to circumcise but once, it would not follow that therefore a person may bee baptized but once; but when this is proved that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision to bee the initiall Seale, which your selfe cannot deny, it must then follow, that a man may bee baptized but once, no more then hee may be circumcised but once, because where there is the same reason of a command or practise, there must bee the same practise. I added, that Circumcision was to be administred upon the eighth day onely, was an accidentall thing, and therefore binds not, meaning that it had some peculiar relation to that manner of administration, and had nothing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in generall, or to the end and use of that Sacrament as it was the Seale of admission; you answer, if reason may rule the rost, there is more reason that Circumcising on the eighth day should rather belong to the substance of the Covenant, then but once circumcising, both because it was commanded by God, and typified, as some conceive, Christs resurrection on the eighth day. I reply, if you please but once to understand, that by the substance I understand the res signata, the spirituall part of the Sacrament, you will no longer insist upon making every thing a substantiall part of the Sacrament which God hath made a part of the outward administration onely; Indeed if Circumcising upon the eighth day had had any such spirituall meaning of Christs resurrection upon the eighth day, you had spoke something to the purpose; but had I pleaded any such Type in it, as that Circumcision was to be upon the eighth day, because Jesus Christ was to rise the first day of the weeke, you would have laught [Page] at me though Cyprian had joyned with mee, and told mee as you doe here, mens conceits are voin [...] without the light of the word. My next instance was, from the Passeover, which being yearely to bee repeated binds us to a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which succeeds the Passeover, it being the Sacrament of spirituall nourishment and growth, as the other was for birth and enterance; but that the Passeover was to be eaten in an evening, and upon one set evening in the yeer, was accidentall and so binds not us. You answer, here are a heape of dictates, and you as confidently dictate the contrary, you grant that the Passeover was to bee yearely repeated, but that this yeerly repetition belonged to the substance of the Covenant, or that this binds us to a frequent use of the Sacrament of the Lords supper, you utterly deny, but I doubt not, that the Reader who knowes that by belonging to the substance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and use of it, to bee a standing memoriall of that deliverance, and a typicall representation of Jesus Christ, and our deliverance by him, will not reject this, because you magisterially deny it, That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and stead of it, there is such a cleare demonstration of it, from the very manner of the first Institution, and the ends and uses of it; Christ our Passeover being then to bee sacrificed for us, and wee in this service shewing it forth; and in this parallell there is such a harmony of consent, that I intend not to lead the Reader into a digression about it. As for the maintaining of Easter and such superstitious customes, my discourse gives not so much as one hint for it; yea in my Sermon I expressely shewed, That that Circumstance of once a yeere belonged onely to the Jewes administration. And I pleaded for a frequency of it, but because you love to knit knots, for others to untie, you demand, since wee have so cleere an Example, Acts 20. 7. of the disciples comming together the first day of the weeke [...] eate the Lords Supper, and that that Action gave denomination to the whole service, and by the relation of Justin Martyr and others, this was the received practise in the primitive Churches, whether wee are not tied to have [...] Sacrament every Lords day in the weeke: I answer, [Page] though I conceive no absolute tie to have it so, yet when it can bee with convenience, I know no reason why it may not bee so: but you making this one of your great Arguments, to prove the Institution of the Lords day, (viz.) An Apostolicall example, and practise of the primitive Churches, whether you bee not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lords day, I leave to your selfe to consider. You demand further, since the Apostle does so expresly, and distinctly in his relation of the Institution mention the time of it, you would know of the Assembly of Divines, especially such of them, as have beene earnest for sitting at the Sacrament, how wee can be loose to receive it at another time; I answer, certainly the Assembly would answer you, as Cyprian did in the like case, that the time was an occasionall circumstance; and that the cleere examples recorded in the New Testament of the Disciples partaking of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings, whether by night or by day, doth abundantly manifest it: nor can I conceive why you put this question to the Assembly, unlesse it be to shew you are not pleased with the dispute about sitting at the Communion, it seemes you still like kneeling better, for the thing it selfe, you either judge thus of it, that it was an occasionall circumstance, and so you pick quarrells even against your owne light and principles, or if you thinke it a binding circumstance, whence comes it that you use it not? You have yet another quarrell about that expression of mine, in caliing Baptisme the seale of our extrance and new birth, and thence you would insinuate, that I deny Baptisme to be a Sacrament of our nourishment and continuance, and you tell me that's but a dictate like the rest, and somewhat akin to Bellarmine and the rest of the Papists, who make the efficacy of Baptisme to extend not to the remission of the sinnes of our whole life, but of originall sinne onely. I answer, that Baptisme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved, and your selfe grant, that it is not of use afterward I never spake, never thought; but as for my being akin to Bellarmines assertion, if your assertions were no more akin to Socinus, Servetus, Marcion, &c. then mine are to the Papists, it were better for you.

[Page] My next Instance was from our Christian Sabbath; the The same Argument which is good by consequence for our Sabbath, is good for Infant-Baptisme. fourth Commandement binds us for the substance, as much as ever it bound the Jews; there God once for all separated one day of seven to be sacred to himselfe; and all the world stood bound by vertue of that Commandment in all ages, to give unto God that one day of seven, which should be of his owne choosing, though onely the seventh day of the week be named in the fourth Commandement. Now (said I) God having put an end to the Saturday Sabbath, and surrogated the first day of the weeke in stead thereof, to be the Lords day, we need no new Commandement for keeping of the Lords day, being tyed by the fourth Commandement to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose: And though no day bee mentioned in the fourth Commandment, but onely the seventh from the Creation, yet our Divines think it no absurdity to reason thus, Thou shalt keepe the Sabbath, thou shalt rest the seventh day, that is, thou shalt rest the seventh day from the Creation, while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath, and thou shalt rest the first day of the week, when the Lord chooses that to be his Sabbath; in like manner I say of the Sacrament of Baptisme. To this you answer, You referre your selfe to what you have before declared, Part 2. Sect. 8. And thither also I referre the Reader, where I have vindicated this answer from you. I further adde, you neither there nor here deny this Argument from a consequence, to be sufficient for practise of some things in the Worship of God, which are not expresly laid downe in the New Testament; onely you adde here, I forget the marke at which I shoot, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Iews Sacraments. I reply, first, I might as well reckon the seventh day from the Creation, among the Jews Sacraments, as you may say the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies. Secondly, I never numbred the Sabbath amongst Sacraments, but because the Sabbath belongs to the instituted Worship of God, as well as the Sacrament, and requires its institution to bee at least as cleare as this about Infant-Baptisme, which touches but a circumstance of age, this Argument from the one to the [Page] other, will appeare to the impartiall Reader, to bee too strong for you to answer.

Next follows, the blow which will tumble downe all, if your selfe may be believed: Mark Reader how heavie a one it is. ‘I said when God made the Covenant with Abraham, and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed, what God promised to Abraham, we claime our part in it, as the children of Abraham; and what God required on Abrahams part for the substance of obedience wee stand charged with as well as Abraham, to beleeve, to love the Lord with all our heart, to walke before God in uprightnesse, to instruct and bring up our Children for God, not for our selves, nor for the Devill; to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will, to traine them up under Ordinances and Institutions of Gods owne appointment. All these things God commanded Abraham, and wee by vertue of that Covenant (being Covenanters with Abraham) stand bound to all these duties, though there were no expresse reviving these Commandements in any part of the New Testament: and therefore consequently that command of God to Abraham, which bound his seed of the Jews to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force, binds beleevers now to traine up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force.’

To all this you answer, supposing I meane the spirituall part of the Covenant to be that which God promised to Abraham, and the persons claiming to bee beleevers; this passage you grant to bee true, be [...]ause these are mor [...]ll duties. Well then, the deadly blow is not yet given; I meane this which you suppose: and I meane more then this, I meane that what Abraham might claime as an invisible beleever, we may claime as invisible beleevers; what he might claime as a visible beleever or Professor, wee claime the same as visible Professors; and so what he stood obliged unto as a visible beleever or professor, the same are wee obliged to; I meane all this, and you say nothing against it but the next passage is that which kills all. ‘I said, and the same command [Page] which enjoyned Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant, enjoyns us to seal ours with the seale of the Covenant; and that command of God which expresly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of circumcision, which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore, for the time, doth vertually bind us to seale ours with the sign of Baptisme, which is the Sacrament now in force, and succeeds into the room of the other by his owne appointment.’ Your answer is, This Consequence is inferred from The rest of Gods commands to Abraham, teach us. a Judaizing principle, without Scripture proving either principle or Conclusion, whereas you have brought ten Arguments out of the Scripture against it; and that the meaning of the Concluclusion must be, that we are still bound to circumcise, that our males must be circumcised at the eighth day, that by no rule of Divinity, Logick, Grammar, or Rhetorique, any man can construe this Command, Cut off the foreskin of the males upon the eighth day; that is, let a Preacher of the Gospel baptize young Infants, male or female, by as good Consequence I might say, thou art Peter, and upon this rock: Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church; or, arise Peter kill and eate, Ergo, the Pope may deprive Princes. So then, the din [...] of your mortall blow lyes in this, that you magisterially call it a Judaizing principle; that you have brought ten Arguments to prove that Moses Ceremonies & Rites do not bind Christian men, but that they are all abrogated, substance and circumstance, whole and part; that this vertuall consequence from the command of Circumcision to baptism cannot be made good either by Divinity or Logick; but sure, if this be all you can say against it, the Consequent and Conclusion will easily recover of this wound. When I said but just now, That Gods Command to Abraham and the Jews, to traine up their children in that manner of Worship which was then in force, binds us now to traine up our children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force. You granted this rule was true, if meant of beleevers. I pray what difference is there betwixt this consequence and that, especially, it being cleare in the Scripture, that Baptisme succeeds Circumcision as the initiall seale of the Covenant, and our children have the same right with theirs to bee reckoned to [Page] the Covenant: if it be a good consequent, That because Abraham was bound to traine up his Children in conformity to those institutions which were then in force, because their children had right to be so trained up; therefore we are bound to traine up our children in conformity to the present institutions, because our children have right to be so trained up; is not this other consequence I say as good, That because God commanded Abraham to administer to his children, the seale of admission into Covenant, because his children were to be accounted to belong to that administration, we are to doe the like to our children now, because they belong to this administration. I say further, because Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the seventh day of the week to be Gods Sabbath, we therefore are bound by vertue of that Commandment to traine up ours to keep the first day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath: which consequence your self grant to be good, though the thing be a part of instituted Worship, and no expresse command or example of it in the new Testament. I appeale to al Divinity & Logick, whether this consequence from the command of Circumcision to Baptisme be not every way as strong & clear. As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewish Sacraments & ceremonies, they are al agreed to, & are brought nothing to he purpose in hand. I have already shewed that this argument from the Analogie betweene Circumcision and Baptisme, and the reason, end, and use of them both stands still in force, though Circumcision it selfe be abolished; and I doubt not but the impartiall Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good, Circumcise your children, because your children have right to this initiall seale; Ergo, by analogie let Christians baptize their children, who have the same right to the initiall seale; as this, ye Iewes keepe the Sabbath on the seventh or last day of the weeke, Ergo, ye Christians keep the Sabbath on the first of the weeke. As for your ridiculous consequences which you put upon me, of, thou art Peter, Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church, &c. I answer onely this, I shall desire you in your next, to deal with your Adversary by solid Arguments, rather then seek to render him ridiculous by jeeres and scoffes, lest in the end you meet [Page] with some adversary who may dresse you in your own kind, which I have no minde to doe; whether I have not made good this command of Circumcising Infants to prove baptizing of Infants, by good consequence, I leave the Reader to judge; and proceed to try your strength against the next.

Another command by good consequence I gathered out of Mat. 28. compared with Mar. 16. 15. Gal. 3. 89. Rom. 1. 16, 17. Sect. 13. Mat. 28. A command for Infant Baptisme by consequence. where our Saviour bids his Disciples goe and teach all Na [...]ions, baptizing them, &c. VVherein I observed two things. First, what they were to doe; viz. to teach the whole Covenant, the Covenant made with Abraham, whereof this was one branch, I will be the God of thee, and of thy seed; they were also to baptize, that is, to administer Baptisme as a seale of the Covenant, to all who received the Covenant. Secondly, wee have the persons to whom they were to doe this, all Nations; whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation, one Nation onely were disciples; now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples, every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now, as the peculiar Nation of the Iews had been in times past; now we know when that one Nation of the Iews were made Disciples, and circumcised, their Children were made Disciples (made to belong to Gods school) and circumcised with them, &c. To this you answer, First, that promise, I will be the God of thee and thy seed, that it should be thus interpreted, the seed of beleevers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, is a new Gospel, no older then Zwinglius. But I have sufficiently proved that this was good Gospel in the Apostles dayes, and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Secondly, concerning the persons who were to be baptized, every Nation, or all Natitions: to this, because it is like to trouble you, you bring forth your old artifice of framing many senses, whether by every Nation, be meant beleevers of every Nation, then you grant the sense is good: or, whether by Nation be meant a great or eminent part of the Nation, the Gove [...]nours, and chiefe Cities, the representative body of a Nation. Then you fly out, and talke of baptizing all within the Precin [...] of a Parish, [Page] a conc [...]it which you fasten upon Cyprian, and talke of necessity of baptizing by officiating Priests; and bring in the Independents, nothing to the purpose, and enquire whether [...], or [them] referre to Nations, or Disciples, in those words of our Saviour; then you vent your Criticismes against the author of Infant-Baptisme, and undertake to shew that [...], signifies to teach cum effectu, or teach till they be made Scholars; and after a long Discourse upon these things, your result is, that [...] [them] may be meant of Disciples, and Nations respectively, Disciples of Nations, or Nations who be Disciples, but not to baptize any of them till they were Disciples. But Sir, what need all these things? the meaning is plaine; by Nations, I neither meane the major part of a Nation, nor representative body of a Nation, nor the King of a Nation; but whereas before, onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant, now other Nations should be taken in likewise: and whereas before their Commission to preach and baptize was restrictive, Goe not to the Gentiles or Samaritans, now he enlarges their Commission to all Nations; and wherever their Ministery should bee so blessed, as to have any Nation accept the Gospel, they should be his people now, as the Jewes had been in times past, according to that Evangelicall promise, Esa. 19. 24. In that day shall Israel he a third with Egypt and Assyria, even a blessing Esay 19. 24. explained. in the midst of the Land whom the Lord of Hosts shal [...] blesse; saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my [...]ands, and Israel mine inheritance. Here is the Nation of Egypt, and the Nation of Assyria taken into Covenant as well as Israel Gods inheritance; and now Abraham indeed became the Father of many Nations; so that the emphasis of this Text is in the word [Nations,] in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews; that whereas the Apostles thought they were never to go to those vile nations who were esteemed as Dogs and Swine; our Lord instructed them, That now hee would pluck up the partition wall, and that the rest of the Nations should be brought within the verge of his Church, and partake of the same Covenant, which the Jewes had before enjoyed as their peculiar treasure (a wonder of mercy, [Page] as the Jews themselves judged, when they came first to understand it, Act. 11. 8.) and consequently when other Nations should thus by receiving and professing the Gospel come under his wing, they should enjoy the same benefit of the Covenant with the Jews, He would henceforth be the God of them and their seed.

Against this you except many things: First, say you, then there may bee a rule assigned to know when a Nation may be called a beleeving Nation, but there is none: And to prove this minor, you run out at large, not when a King is baptized, nor when the representative body, nor when the greatest part are beleevers; and further, if the children of wicked parents in a nation may be baptized, it must be either from their descent, or place of birth, or both; if by descent, it must be either from their immediate parents, or forefathers within memory, or beyond memory; if from the place of their birth, then the children of Turks born in England may be baptized; and if the children of wicked parents may claime it, it must be from some Charter, Abraham indeed had a Charter to circum [...]ise his, how wicked soever they should prove, but other parents have none. And here againe you bring in Rom. 11. to be meant of a personall priviledge by faith, which hath been before confuted. I answer to all this in a word or two, there is a known rule, viz. when a whole Nation consists of visible Professors, that Nation is to be reputed a Christian Nation; and when the major part of a people may by a figurative expression bee called a Nation, that major part, if they bee visible Professors, may by the same figurative expression be called a Christian Nation, a holy Nation, a separated people, whether any who having been visible Professors, and afterwards prove apostates, or be excommunicate, may have their children baptized, or whether children in right of their forefathers, or r [...]mote ancestor [...] (when their immediate Parents are cut off from the Church) may be baptized, or whether the Infants of infidels brought up by Christians, and so adopted into their Families, may be initiated into Christianity by Baptisme, whether upon the ground of federall holinesse or other warrant of Scripture, are questions not belonging to our present businesse, therefore I passe them over.

[Page] I added, when that one Nation of the Jews were made Disciples and circumcised, their Infants were made Disciples (made to What it is to make disciples. belong to Gods Schoole) and circumcised with them, when that Nation was made Disciples in Abrahams Ioynes, and circumcised, their seed was also the same when they were taken out of Egypt, and actually made Disciples, their chi [...]dren were also with them. You answer, First, this supposeth that Christ bid them baptize all Nations after the manner that the Iews did circumcise one Nation. Secondly, that the Nation of the Iews were discipled when they were circumcised. And you say to the first Supposition, there is no ground for it, the Apostle knew Christs meaning well enough, that th [...]y were to preach and then to baptize; and that there was no allusion from circumcision to Baptisme, as Mr. Blake conceives. But Sir, since it is apparent that here is no commission for any new Method in their work, but onely an enlargement of their commission to apply their Ministery to new persons, how could they understand our Saviours meaning to proceed any other wayes to the Gentiles, then among the Jews? Now among the Jews and Proselytes, it is apparent, that children receive the initiall seale with their parents, yea, and you your selfe grant that their infants were baptized when they were circumcised, though baptisme was not then a Sacrament; and when it was taken into the honour of being a Sacrament, there is not one word in the Scripture of restraining it from being applyed to infants as in times past, the reason of the silence of the new Testament about baptizing Infants, comes afterward to be considered, when your Objection from it comes to hand.

To the second Supposition, That the Iews were discipled, and their children were discipled when they were circumcised. You say, it is such a construction of the word [...], [make disciples, as you beleeve no Lexicon, nor any Expositor to this day, hath ever made of that wo [...]d, which plainly signifies [...]o to teach, as that the persons taught do learn, and accordingly professe the things taught. Sir, I pretend not to be a Critick, though you doe, but I have learn [...], from better Criticks then your self, that [...], is a [...]abbinick phrase, and from their use of it, it is best to be understood, and with them it signifies to [Page] admit Scholars [...] is a familiar manner of speech among them for to admit Scholars, and [...] to get or retaine a Master; now this admission of Scholars was not quia erant docti, sed, ut essent; and there is this difference with them about this matter, that [...] is to admit Scholars to be taught, and [...] is to breed Scholars, or to make them learned. And if you please to consult the Learned Spanbemius, in his Dubia Evangelica, ‘upon this very place, wherein he vindicates it from the Anabaptists, he will tell you that [...], signifies not onely to teach, but to make disciples; which (saith he in this place) is done by baptizing and teaching; therefore (saith he) the sending forth of disciples in this place, is shewed or laid down, First, from the end of their sending. Secondly, from the severall acts they are to doe to to attaine this end. The end of their sending is [...], to make Disciples; the actions whereby they are to attaine this end, are baptizing and teaching: and he gives this good reason for this his Analysis, because if [...], should simply signifie onely to teach, there would be found a tautologie in Christs words; thus, Go teach all Nations, baptizing them, teaching them. The sense therefore (saith he) of Christs words, is this, Goe ye, make disciples to me out of all Nations by baptizing and teaching; and this making disciples, suo modo infantibus etiam aptari poterat; quando enim parentes, &c. For when parents doe give their names to Christ for themselves and their families, their whole house is discipled, their children as well as themselves.’ By this time I hope you may be perswaded that baptizing may well bee rendred discipling. And among the Jews, to become a disciple, was not by being first taught, and then initiated into a Master, but is meant of being initiated into a Master, to bee taught by him; so all Israel was baptized into Moses, 1 Cor. 10. not as already instructed, but to bee instructed and guided by him for the future; so Ioseph of Arimathea, [...] Mat. 27. 57. discipled in himselfe, entred himselfe into Christs schoole; so the blind man to the Pharisees, Iohn 9. [Page] will ye bee his Disciples, will ye professe him, will ye bee initiated into him? the very first day any one initiated themselves to learn, they were called Disciples.

Further you say, if the Apostles had understood our Saviours command thus, Disciple all nations baptizing them, that is, admit the Infants of all nations to baptisme, as the Jewes did the males of that one nation to Circumcision, they might have saved themselves a great deale of labour of preaching before Baptisme, and of baptizing females, and would have left us some president of such a practise. I reply, why the baptizing of Infants of Beleeving Parents should spare any Preachers the paines of teaching growne men, who are infidells before they are converted, doth wholly transcend my capacity, because the Infants of Proselytes were to bee Circumcised with their Parents, therefore the Jewes might spare the labour of preaching to growne men before they circumcised them, this is a most wild consequence; or why the vertuall and analogicall arguing from circumcision to baptisme, should be brought as an Argument against baptizing of women, hath as little reason in it; there being now under the Gospell, in reference to this Seale of admission, neither male nor female. Whereas you adde, had they done it they would have left some president of such a practise; whether by good consequence they have not left us some evidence of it, is the question wee are now debating. I added, in every nation the children make a great part of that nation, and are alwayes included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatnings, priviledges or burthens, mercies or judgements, unlesse they bee excepted, whereof I gave divers instances in my Sermon; you answer, the Lord hath plainely given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration, according to ordinary rule, in that hee directs them to baptize Disciples upon preaching, hee excludes Infants, &c. and when Christ and John baptized onely such, this practise excludes others. I answer, by what rule then durst you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate, since they cannot bee Disciples upon preaching, if you say you cannot doe it by ordinary rule, shew us (I pray) your extraordinary; if you answer they [Page] are Disciples, therefore they may bee baptized; I answer, the Infants of beleevers are visible Disciples, they visibly belong to the kingdome, family, schoole of Christ, as I have abundantly proved already; any manifestation of Gods that persons belong to his Covenant is to your selfe a sufficient ground of accounting them such, either a promise, or powring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, (though they are no infallible signes of inward sanctification) or confession of faith or of repentance, are warrant sufficient for us to baptize them, now the promise of God to beleeving parents to bee the God of them and of their seed, and his owning them as persons belonging to his Church, is as reall a manifestation of it as the other signes of receiving extraordinary gifts, externall profession, &c. either are or can be. And whereas you adde that Christs and Johns Baptizing such, and no other as made a visible profession, is exclusive to all others. I answer, first, it is no where said they baptized no others; secondly, I deny that consequence, this is not an exclusive rule, the practise and example of Christ, and John is sufficient to make an affirmative or positive rule, they baptized such, therefore wee may baptize such, but it's not exclusive, that therefore wee may baptize no other, and the reason is plaine, they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasioons, and so their practise is a good rule, not a full rule; I shall give one instance, wee read not before the tenth of the Acts that either Christs Apostles or Iohn the Baptist baptized any proselytes of the gate, or that they baptized any (as you say) untill they made actuall confession of their faith and repentance, or that there was any rule given, that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession bee a sufficient warrant to Baptize any, yet Peter upon the very powring out of those gifts, without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance, baptized Cornelius and all his company: in one word, any word or act of God declaring that such and such belong to his visible Church, is a sufficient warrant without any danger of wil-worship, and this wee have abundantly for the Infants of beleeving parents, [Page] wee have therefore here nothing to doe with a mixture of wine and water, salt and creame and spittle, they are impertinent to our businesse, and you bring them in to no purpose; all your discourse of wil-worship which you thus often repeate, reaches not the point in hand in the least tittle; the Sacrament of Baptisme is an ordinance of his owne appointment, and by his appointment may bee applyed to all such as himselfe doth manifest to bee in the number of those who belong to his visible Church, what course soever himselfe pleases to take to manifest it, whiles wee keep within these bounds, we are therein out of the danger of will-worship. I added, it behooved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his mind if hee had intended to leave them out, which that ever hee did in word or d [...]ed, cannot be found in the Scripture; to this you answer, it behooved the Lord to give a precept to put them in into this new administration if hee intended to have them in, which that ever he did you cannot find; I reply, but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church, to bee reputed visible members, and therefore need no new putting in: if God once bestow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a signe between him and them, they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week soever he please to appoint it: the like is to bee said here, while the Lord will own any to be visible members of his Church, they have right to the administration, bee it new or old, if they bee capable of it, and no barre put in against them by himselfe. That which followes in your booke, page 133. about Childrens being taken in with their parents, and included unlesse excepted, and of being under the former administration, and so under this, by paritie of reason, hath been abundantly spoke already. I added, our Infants are capable of being Disciples as well as the Infants of Jewes and Proselytes, you grant it to bee true, and I aske no more for ours then they had for theirs, and though they bee not capable of receiving actuall instruction from men, yet they are capable of Gods owne teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes [Page] Children were, which is sufficient for my purpose▪ I added, in Christs dialect to belong to Christ, and to bee a Disciple i [...] all one, and cleared it by some Text in the Margent, you answer onely this, that though Mr. Blakepr [...]ph in this n [...]tion, yet it is a triumph beford victory, and that the Text cited by me spake not of little ones in respect of age, and some of them mention not little ones at all, but what's this to the purpose, when the intent was onely to prove this notion or expression that to bee a Disciple and belong to Christ is all one. Lastly, I argued from Act. 15. 10. to shew that Children may bee called Acts 15. 10. explained and vindicated. Disciples, because they upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoake of Circumcision, are called Disciples, and to bee called Disciples, and it is apparent that they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers as well as upon the beleevers themselves, because they would have imposed it after the manner of Moses Law, and prest that Law still to bee in force; you answer, you see no necessitie from this to call Infants Disciples, and you first deny the major, that all are to bee called Disciples upon whose necks they would have put that yoake. To which I answer, without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge, onely I thanke you for the reason you alledge why you deny the major, because it is not said they would put it upon Disciples onely: I hope you will receive the same law you give, and therefore will rest satisfied, when your selfe doe plead, Johns and Christs Disciples required confession of saith and finnes of those whom they baptized, and when Christ bid his Apostles and Disciples first to teach, then to baptize, I shall answer, it is no where said, they baptized onely such, or were to baptize onely such. Secondly, you answer that this yoak of Circumcision which necessitated them to keep Moses Law to salvation was not put upon Infants, but upon brethren who were taught the necessitie of it. I answer, then Paul himself was much mistaken, who said, that every one that was Circumcised was bound to keepe Moses Law; and certainely Paul meant that which these false teachers alledged, even Circumcision imposed after the manner of Moses. Lastly, you make your selfe merry with Mr. Blake, as if hee alluding to Esa. 49. 22. of bringing sonnes and daughters upon their shoulders to Christ, &c. [Page] had alledged that Text nothing to the purpose; I confesse I am not satisfied, that that Text is cleare to the purpose, but I am fully satisfied, that you often make a noyse with Texts lesse to the purpose, as in bringing Acts. 19. for rebaptization, 1 Cor. 7. 34. to prove holinesse to bee meant of Chastitie, and many others.

My next instance was from the forementioned place, Acts. 2. whence I shewed the Children of such as beleeve and are baptized are taken into Covenant, and therefore by good consequence Sect. 14. Acts 2. 39. holds forth a command for Infant Baptism by good consequence. are to receive the Seale of the Covenant, and that that Text not onely shewes that they are within the Covenant, but also that a right to baptisme is a consequence of being within the Covenant; Your answer is to this effect, that you have already answered this plaoe, and that it is so far from proving this, for which I alledge it, that it proves the contrary; I cheerfully referre the Reader to my vindication of this place, Sect 6. Part 3. I added, wee have likewise examples enough by good consequence. First, Examples of Infant Baptism by good consequence. I shewed that the Gospell tooke place by bringing in whole housholds as the former administration also did; you alledge to the contrary severall examples page 138, 139. that it was not constantly so, nor did I ever say it was so alwayes or constantly either among Jewes or Christians; you alledge the thousands converted in the Acts, the Citie of Samaria, and others, yet no mention of the whole housholds; yet possibly their whole housholds did come in with them, the Scripture speakes nothing to the Contrary, how ever I alledge it not, nor doth the cause depend upon it; I alledged many housholds who were baptized, Cornelius and his houshold, the Jaylor and his houshold, the houshold of Stephanus, of Crispus, of Aristobulus, of Narcissus and severall others; to all which you answer, this must bee interpreted by other places, which when they expresse the haptizing of the houshold, they expresse also the beleeving or receiving of the word by the whole houshold, and that sometimes the house is put for the people of growth in the house; but who taught you it must bee so interpreted? hee that will may force such an interpretation upon himselfe, and it is hard to open the eyes of a prejudiced man, but I feare not, try it when you will, that you shall never finde so good evidence [Page] out of the housholde eating the Passeover, Exod. 12. thereby to prove that women did eate the Passeover, as this proves that the Infants of the house were baptized, because according to your principles women might not bee numbred amongst the Circumcised; and the Law was plain that no uncircumcised person might eate the Passeover, whereas on this hand for Infants baptisme, it is not to bee doubted, but that there were some Infants amongst these housholds who were baptized, and no Law made against the baptizing of them. And for your evasion that though is bee sometimes said housholds were baptized, yet it is said these housholds received the word, though this might be pleaded concerning some of them, yet there is no evidence why you should speake it of all of them. And whereas you further alledge, that a house is sometimes taken for the growne persons in that house▪ (though all the Scriptures which you mention are not fit instances) it may very well bee granted, and hurts not mee, unlesse you can prove that it must bee so meant: I have better warrant to affirme concerning the Jaylors house, of whom it is said Paul preacht to all those that were in his house, that either there were no Infants in that house, or that the preaching of the word to all in the house is to bee limited pro subjecta m [...]teria to them who were capable of preaching, and yet the rest received baptisme who were capable of it. And thus I have cleared and vindicated my first and great Argument, Infants are foedera [...], therefore they must it [...] they are in Covenant▪ therefore the initial [...] of the [...] belongs unto them. I proceed to the second.

My second Argument was to this effect▪ the Infants of bele [...] vers even while they are Infants are made partakers of the inward gra [...] of Baptism [...] as well as growne [...] who are visible professors; Sect. 15. Argu. 2. Infants are capable of he grace whereof Baptisme is a Seals. therefore they may and ought to [...] Baptism [...], which is the outward signe of this inward grace. In your answer you grant the major, that all who partake of the inward grace may partake out of the outward signe, and that [...]o Antipaedobaptist will deny this, but then you enquire what I meane by having the thing signified, and you suppose I doe [...] [...]old that all Infants of beleevers have actually the inward grace signified by baptisme; no [Page] indeed Sir, nor do I thinke that you conceive that all grown persons who are visible professors have it. In your answer to the minor proposition that Infants as well as growne men are partakers of the inward grace, according to your usuall course, you enquire after a great many senses, whether I meane it of potentiall having it, or actuall having it, whether I meane onely some have it actually, others potentially; in one sense the argument hath foure termes, in another forme, the argument will conclude but for the baptizing of some Infants; then you enter into a discourse upon the Lutherans, and about a booke intituled, Baptismall regeneration of elect Infants, with which you say Doctor Fe [...]tley concurs, and of a book written by S. C. Intituled, A Christians plea for Infants Baptisme, which holds positions somewhat like the Lutherans, all which you professe you mention to discover what stuffe the Pedobaptists doe feed the people withall, you might have added, to worke prejudice in your Readers, and to shew your owne reading, and to swell up a volume, otherwise quorsum haec? my meaning is as plaine as the high way, that as Infants are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant as well as grown visible professors (which was the drift of my first Argument) so the scope of this is to shew that they are in the same capacitie to partake of the inward grace of the Covenant, while they are Infants, as there is of grown visible professors; and that they are not onely capable of it, but many of them are actually partakers of it as well as grown men▪ and consequently that wee have the same ground to look upon and judge Infants of beleevers to bee regenerate as upon grown men by a visible profession, there being to [...]s no infallible ground of certaintie, but of charity, for the one no [...] for the other, and that their visible right to the Covenant and the many promises of God made to the seed of the faithfull are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon, as the externall signes which growne men can give; and therefore whereas you say, that all the Infants of beleevers▪ or the Infants of beleevers in as much they are the Infants of beleevers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme, else the Argument will not serve for my purpose; I utterly deny, [Page] that this is the Conclusion to be proved, or that my argument is not to the purpose, unlesse I undertake to prove this; for I argue in the like case from grown men who are visible Professors, thus; All who are partakers of the inward grace of Baptism, may and ought to partake of the outward signe and seale, but visible Professors are partakers, &c. This minor is lyable to the same exceptions that the other is, for who knows not that many visible Professors have not the invisible grace, That many are called, when but few are chosen? and yet your self doe hold, that we may de side, out of faith & assurance, that we do it according to Gods will, apply the outward signe to them, though we have nothing but charity to make us conceive the inward graces to be in them. Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all visible Professors taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace; the Scripture (which is the rule of our charity) having declared the contrary, our charity onely warrants us to judge of every single person, when possibly we may know no more against the one, then against the other, though we know there are some false hearted amongst them: The same is to be said for Infants; and this I proved out of the Scripture, Mark 10. To such belongs the kingdom of God; and in my Sermon I Mark 10. vindicated from Mr. Tombes exceptions. vindicated this Text from the glosses which the Anabaptists would put upon it: your exceptions against it are such as these, it is possible they were not very little ones; possibly our Saviour meant not of them, but of such as they, for the word is [...] of such, not [...] of these: possibly, horum & similium, of th [...]se and the like: possibly, they were not the children of beleevers: possibly, it is meant onely of elect Infants, that these were elect, and should in time be called: but yet, say you, grant all, and it will not [...]ence follow, that all Infants of beleevers have right to invisible grace; yea, it here suits better for confirmation, then for baptisme; yea, that it is rather an evidence Christ would not have Infants baptized, because he ordered not th [...]se Infants to bee baptized. But Sir, how many of these things would you have called dictates in another, assertions without proof and to how little purpose are all these things brought i [...]? your self grant enough to serve my turne; you grant that the [Page] kingdom of heaven did belong to these Infants, and I intended from this instance not to prove that all Infanta of beleevers are made partakers of saving grace▪ but that Infants in their infantile age, are capable of inward grace, and some of them actually partakers of it; this is enough for me; and more then this cannot be said of growne men who are visible Professors. I added in my Sermon, sa one branch of a reason, that there is nothing belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian, whereof Baptisme is a seale, whereof Infants are not capable, as well as grown men; as receiving the holy Ghost, union with Christ, pardon of forme, regeneration, eternall life. Your answer is a scoffe out of Hora [...]e, Amphora caepit institui, &c. I should prove, say you, that all Infants of beleevers are actually partakers, and in stead of this, I prove they are capable of it. Sir, this is but one part of my reason; and I undertook not to prove that all infants, but onely that fome are partakers of it.

I added, and it is further considerable, that in the working that inward grace, of which baptisme is the signe and seale, all who partake of that grace, are but meer [...] Patients; and therefore Infants are as fit subjects to have it wrought in them, as growne men; and the most growne men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace, when it is given them, in respect either of faith or repentance, which they yet bave, then a very little child, &c. You answer, by demanding whether I bring all this as a proofe; that all infants have it, or that they are capable of it; or whether I intend it [...]s a further argument, that baptisme is to be given to those, who are capable of the first grace, which because Infants are as well as grown men▪ therefore they are to be baptized; but then you deny the major, for a person is not to be baptized, because he may have grace, but because he hath it. Sir, I brought it to prove that which was in hand, viz. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men, and that some of them are partakers of it as well as grown men; and therefore their Infant-age cannot be pleaded against them, as if inward grace could not comp [...]tere to their present condition. And as for that you adde, That baptisme is to be administred, not to them who may have grace, but to them who have it. Then it seemes they [Page] are all wrongly baptized who have not inward grace; and so (according to your owne expression) baptisme to such is as a seal set to a blank; yet you know, even the Apostles themselves baptized many who were in no better condition: and your selfe afterward grant, That a Minister may defide administer this Sacrament to such as make a visible profession, though he be not assured of any inward grace. I have often proved, that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the visible Church, is a sufficient warrant to administer the seal of admission. Secondly, you much trouble your self, to finde out what I meane by the first grace: whether the free favour of God, or the Covenant of grace; whether if I meane the first grace in exceution, I pitch upon justification, or regeneration, or adoption; and then inquire which is the second grace. But all this is but seeking a knot in a rush. I am perswaded all other Readers understood me to meane by the first grace, all that grace which is requifite to the being of a Christian, union with Christ, forgivenesse of sin, the indwelling of the holy Ghost, as a principle of a new life; and your selfe say more then once, that baptisme is the sacrament of our Initiation, and that which exhibits us members both of Christ and of his Church; and therefore thus needlesly to quarrell about things wherein your self concurre with mee, is too too vain. Lastly, you have somewhat to say to that of our being meerly passive in our first conversion, and you tel your reader, what the Divines of great Britaine said in the Synods of Dort, of some preparations going before conversion: and what Mr. Rutherford, Dr. Twisse, and Dr. Preston have delivered about this point. And after a needlesse shewing that you have read these Authors, you grant as much as I contend for, That the taking away the be art of stone, and insusing of a principle of new life, is only Gods work; and that a new heart, faith, &c. are the effects of converting grace, and that in these things wee are passive: in summe, you are of my judgement in this point, that Infants are capable of new life, and some of them partakers of it: and I likewise consent with you, and those above mentioned Reverend Divines, that in Gods usuall way of working upon grown men, there are some preparations [Page] for conversion, before conversion it selfe, in which preparations men are not meerely passive; but in the receiving of the principle of new life, all men are meerely passive. I know you will owne that expression of Augustine, Qnid agit liberum arbitrium? san [...]tur. I conclude this argument of baptizing Infants, with a speech of Bellarmine, there is, saith he, no impediment why Infants may not bee baptized; nec ex parte prohibitionis alicujus divinae, &c. neither Bella [...]. lib. 1. de Baptismo, cap. 8 from any divine prohibition, nor on the part of the Sacrament administred, nor on the part of the Minister administring, nor on the Infants part to whom it is to bee administred, nor on the Churches part in which it is administred. Paedo-baptisme therefore is rightly continued in the Christian Church.

PART. IV.

I Proceed now briefly to examine what you have said against that which you are pleased to make the fourth Sect. 1. Answers [...]o Objections against Infant-Baptisme. Part of my Sermon, though I know no reason of this your Analysis: Had I indeed made this an answer of all the objections which I undertooke to answer, you might have called it so; but you know well enough, that I intended here onely to satisfie these Objections which lye most properly against this second argument, as before I answered what was most properly objected against the first argument; however, I shall take it as I finde it, and examine what strength you have added to these Objections.

The first Objection I undertooke to answer, was to this purpose, Though Infants are capable of these things, and that Object. 1. From Mat. 28. they are wrought by Christ in many Infants, yet wee may not baptize them, because according to Scripture pattern, both of Christs command, Matth. 28. in his institution of baptisme, and John the Baptist, Christs Disciples and Apostles, they alwayes taught, and made them disciples by teaching, before they baptized any. And to make this argument the more plausible, you adde, It is a sin of prophaning that Sacrament, when the institution is [Page]altered by subtraction or addition, and that it was pleaded by the Non-conformists, that it is Will-worship to administer the Sacraments by addition of any thing to them, but circumstances which are alike requisite to civill actions; now the persons to be baptized cannot be conceived a meere circumstance, but belongs necessarily to the administration of worship, as well as the person baptizing, or the persons receiving the Lords Supper.

I answer, I intend not needlesly to multiply words, and therefore doe grant that to apply Sacraments to persons to whom they belong not by the Lords appointment is a prophanation of them. Now that it is so in this case, you goe about to prove out of this 28. Mat. Because the institution appoints onely disciples of all Nations to be baptized, and Infants are not such. This you have made good (as you say) Sect. 13. Part 3. You adde, Christs order thus appoints it, which must be kept in this point, as well as in examination before the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 28. &c. and that by the institution they are to bee baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, which Infants cannot doe; with devoting themselves to the service and adverence of God, which Infants cannot doe; that presently after baptisme, the baptized are to be taught to observe whatsoever Christ command [...]d them, which Infants are not capable of; that John Baptist and the Apostles alwayes made profession of repentance and faith, an antecedent to Baptism, which Infants cannot make. To all this I answer, First, this of Matth. 28. is not the institution of Baptisme, it was instituted long before to be the seale of the Covenant, it is onely an enlargement of their Commission, whereas before they were onely to goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel, now they were to goe into all the World. You reply, If it be not the first institution of Baptism, yet it is an institution of Baptisme to us Gentiles; and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize, or if not, wee must shew another institution, else we cannot acquit it from Will-worship. I answer, all this is abundantly answered before, Sect. 13. Part 3. And I add this inlargement of their Commission is very unfitly called by you an institution of baptism unto us; their Commission at the same time was inlarged to preach to [Page] the Gentiles, will you call that an institution of Preaching? and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must bee fetch'd out of this place? I know you will not. For the rest of your petty reasons above alledged, they resolve severall Answers to othe petty Arguments of Mr. Tombes out of Mat. 28. of them into one and the same: Christs order is (say you) teaching should goe before baptizing; is not that the same with this; That men must be made disciples by preaching, before they be baptized? the answer to the one doth fully satisfie the other. But your third reason is a strange one, They must bee baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, that is, (say you) with invocation of the Name of the Lord: then it seems if the party baptized call upon the name of the Lord by prayer, that's all that is intended b [...] baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; that the name of God should be invocated at the administration of Baptisme, and of Circumcision, and of every Sacrament, is most true; but that baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name, and so to make Baptisme and Prayer all one, is strange Divinity; it is true, Paul was exhorted to pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized, Acts 22. 16. but doth it prove that his Baptisme and Prayer was all one? it may be you meane onely this, that every person who is baptized, must be able himself at the time of his baptisme to pray; if that bee your meaning, prove it by your next, shew why more at Baptisme then at Circumcision. As for your fourth, were not the Infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision, though they could not actually devote themselves? To your fifth, That they were to teach them as soon as they bad baptized them; and that therefore none wete to be baptized, unlesse they were fit presently after their Baptisme, to learne the rest of their duty. I answer, this also is sufficiently answered in Sect. 13. Part 3. and I further adde, that baptized persons ought indeed to be taught all that Christ commands them, and so likewise were circumcised persons, but not presently, onely as they were capable of it, and able to receive it. And as for the persons baptized by John, and Christs disciples; I have before [Page] answered that it cannot appeare that they baptized no oother but such as made profession of faith and repentance; and if it were granted, it follows not, that therefore no other may be baptized, their practice is a good rule, though not a full rule, as I shewed, Sect. 13. Part 3. And whereas you say, Iohn baptized none but upon profession of repentance▪ you would have a hard task to prove it, if any man should put you to it; to prove (I say) that Iohn did impose or require confession of sin before baptisme, it is said hee baptized them [...], to repentance; not [...], as stated in actuall repentance; and his calling for repentance, and preaching the Baptisme of repentance, shew that this was the lesson they were all to learne; not that they must all manifest that they had it before he baptized them; and though some did make confession of their finnes, yet you can never prove that all did it, or were tyed to it. Sure I am, I meet with very learned Men who judge thus, ‘That their confession of sinnes was not because confession was a necessary medium to all who should receive Baptisme, but because heretofore Baptisme had initiated into Judaisme, and so to Legall performances; and the men who came to be baptized of John, were such who had been educated in an opinion of Justification by works of the Law: and therefore John in calling for repentance, did but clear his Baptisme from misconstruction, lest they should think it to be a Baptisme obliging to legall performances, as that was of old, he would teach them that his Baptism was a Baptisme of repentance and faith in Christ, and so doth but rectifie those relyers upon their owne righteousnesse, in the right doctrine of Justification, which the Gospel now began to teach, contrary to their legall conceited righteousnesse; and that therefore his calling for repentance and beliefe in him that should come after, did more shew the nature of the Gospel, to which his Baptisme was the introduction, then the nature of the Sacrament of Baptisme it selfe, or the method in which it was to be administred; and with these accords the interpretation Paul made of Johns baptisme, [Page] Acts 19. 4. and consequently that the confession required had speciall relation to the condition of the persons who came to be baptized, and was not necessary for all, more would be required of a heretick for his admission into the bosome of the Church, then is requisite to be required of a child.’ But however, I thinke it will be hard for you to confute this, I shall leave it to the Judicious Readers consideration, and not insist upon it, but shall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans so bo [...]ne and bred, were not baptized till they professed their faith and repentance, because the Jews were all to come under a new administration, and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Covenant of grace, and then their Infants came in in their Parents right. But say you, This grant that the Iewes who already were in Covenant, were to make confession before they were baptized, is a sufficient proofe that the administration of Circumcision, is not the administration under which we now are: and that overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme. I reply, who ever said that this administration is the same with theirs? it is the same Covenant, but a new administration. And as to that you say, This overthrows all virtuall consequences from Circumcision to Baptisme; I have so abundantly justified this before, that I shall not trouble the Reader with it againe, though you repeate this so often, that I am ready to thinke you hope your reader will beleeve you in one place, if he doe not in the other. You adde my saying, That their Infants were to come in onely in their parents right, doth overthrow my second Argument, because that is grounded upon a right which Infants had of their own, viz. participation of the grace of the Sacrament. I answer, belike then if any had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants, That to Infants, as well as growne men, God communicated the spirituall part of Circumcision, therefore they might bee circumcised; you would answer, that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-priviledge. I rather should judge it to be a second good Argument for their Circumcision; the truth is, they are both grounds of Gods owne appointing: and the second is a farther manifestation [Page] of their right to the Sacrament, God not onely giving them a visible standing in his Church, because they are the seed of the faithfull, but among them, who are Infants as well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good pleasure. Whereas you adde, that you cannot yet discerne but that our grounds for Paed baptisme are worse then the Papists and ancients, who build it upon the necessitie of baptisme to salvation; I must needs tell you, your respect to the reformed Churches in this is very small, whil [...]t you thinke the Papists ground of damnation of Infants not baptized is not so ill as the Protestants, who baptize them because they looke upon them as within the Covenant of grace; I will not aggravate this, I hope in time you will see it and be sorry for it.

But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you have got, from that which followes in my Sermon, the Heathen nations who were to bee converted to Christ were yet without the Covenant of grace, and their children could have no right untill themselves were brought in, and therefore no marvaile though both Iohn and Christs Disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of baptisme, in this (say you) I grant many things which doe yeeld the cause: Sir, I shall not recall any one of them, make your best of your advantage. 1. Hence you collect it followes that baptizing of Infants is not according to Iohns, and Christs Disciples, and the Apostles practise: I answer, it no wayes followes, if you take but that in which immediatly followes, that their Infants came in in their parents right. 2. Hence I grant (say you) that no other were capable of Baptisme, but wherein I beseech you have I granted the cause in saying their Infants were not capable of it till their Parents came in, and when they [...] in, their children came in also by vertue of the Covenant. What need you keepe such a coyle in asking whether beleevers had then no children? or whether the Apostles had no commission? or whether wee have a Commission if they had not? you goe on and say, I thinke to salve it thus, when once themselves were instructed and baptized, then their children were capable of it by vertue of the Covenant; I doe so, and what have [Page] you to say against it? why then say you they were capable in Iohns time and the Apostles time, and this destroyes that which I said before, that then none but taught persons were capable of Baptisme; but where did I say so? I said there was no expresse mention made of any other, I said also Infants were not capable till their Parents came in, because their Parents were to come under this new administration, but I never said, when their Parents were come in in Johns time and Christs time, that their children then were not capable of it. Yea, I have shewed good grounds by consequence that the practise was otherwise. Further you say, it seemes I cou [...]d produce no Institution in the new administration, but the Institution of Circumcision, because I say the children were capable by vertue of the Covenant, and the validitie of arguing from Circumcision hath been considered before: and you further adde, that the Covenant being the same at all times, as my first conclusion holds, the children of bel [...]evers were as capable in Johns time as after; and thus you say my words doe plainely interfere; I answer, I have abundantly proved, that this ground from the Covenants being the same, and our Infants right the same with theirs to the Covenant, and our Baptisme succeeding in the roome and place of Circumcision, is a sufficient ground for this practise, though there be no expresse mention of them in this new administration; nor did I ever say that Infants of beleevers were not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in Johns time, so that this triumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering, but of your owne blindnesse or stumbling. Whereas in the close of this Section I said, if any in the Jewish Church had received Commission to goe and make other Cities Proselytes to them, their Commission must have runne thus, goe teach and circumcise, and yet it would not thence have followed, that none might bee circumcised but [...] as were first taught; you answer the Commission must have had reference in the execution of it, either to the old institution of Circumcision, Gen. 17. or to a new Institution, and then it would have been told plainely what and whom they were to circumcise. I reply, supposing it had gone according to the institution, Gen. 17. which (as you say) was to circumcise males at [Page] eight dayes old not taught, I hope you will not say they might circumcise the males of any at eight dayes old, although their Parents were not taught, which is the case that I put, you cannot (I perceive) deny this case to bee parallell, onely this arguing from Circumcision to Baptism you cannot away with; but Sir, this reasoning is justified to be good, rumpuntur ut ilia.

The second objection I thus expressed, it is expresly said Sect. 2. Object. 1. Infants are unbeleevers, ergo, not to be baptized. that he that beleeves and is baptized shall bee saved, faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may bee baptized, and no other unbeleevers may not be baptized; children are unbeleevers, therefore they may not bee baptized; they say the negative is included under the affirmative, beleeving is the affirmative, unbeleeving is the negative, therefore where beleevers are commanded to be baptized, unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized. This Argument I said the Anabaptists doe very much glory in; my answer to it was to this effect; that if this Argument have any Answ. strength at all against the baptizing, it hath much more strength against the salvation of Infants, because it is expresly said both affirmatively and negatively, hee that beleeveth shall bee saved, but bee that beleeves not shall bee damned; whereas though it bee said affirmatively hee that beleeveth and is baptized shall bee saved, it is not said hee that is not baptized shall not bee saved, looke by what distinction they will maintaine the salvation of Infants against this Argument, by the same will I more clearely justifie the baptisme of Infants against this argument. I adde now further, if they take beleevers in a contradistinction to Infidells, then I say Infants of beleevers are beleevers, as well as the children of Infidells are Infidells; if they take beleevers in a more restrained sense for positive and actuall faith, then I deny that this is a necessary condition required to bee found and manifested in every one who is to bee baptized, as I have at large proved before, and your selfe cannot deny. To this Argument your answer is onely this, that you owne not the Argument, onely thus farre you owne it, viz. that a profession of faith is a pre-requisite to Baptisme, and so it was accounted in the dayes of Justin [Page]Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, &c.

But I reply, though you dare not: owne this Argument, yet it stands upon the same ground that the rest of your arguments doe, and upon the same grounds that many of your expressions doe, such as this, That men are not to bee baptized, because they may have grace, but because they have it. But now you will not stick to this, That to have true faith, is a pre-requisite to Baptism; you are contented with an outward confession of it onely, and that a visible profession gives right to a visible membership, and consequently that a visible membership gives a right to Baptisme, which is the thing I have been contending for all this while. As for what you adde, That in the dayes of Iustin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and so forward, this confession before baptisme was continued: it is true, it was continued for those that had been Pagans and Infidels, that they should make such a confession before Baptisme; and it is as true, that in their days Infants of Christians were baptized.

3. I said it was objected, That though Infants are capable o [...] Sect. 3. Object. 3. We know not what Infants have grace, ergo we may not baptize any. the inward grace, and that God doth effectually worke in some of them, yet that is no sufficient warrant for us to baptize all of them; if we knew in what Infants the Lord did so worke, wee might baptize those Infants, but that we cannot know by any ordinary way of knowledge, therefore we may not baptize any of them, but wait to see, when and in whom God will worke the thing signified, and then apply the signe to them. You answer, this is granted, that Answ. if by revelation it could bee knowne, such as have this inward grace might be baptized; and that those who are thus intituled are not through want of an institution to be excluded. To my understanding this over throws all which you have hitherto contended for; for then if wee can prove that Infants are such, as to whom this Sacrament belongs, by your owne grant they are not to be excluded for want of an institution; now I have proved that Infants of beleevers are such as to whom the Sacrament doth belong: yea, and your selfe grant, that true faith is not a needfull pre-requisite to the administration of Baptisme. Besides, I desire before I leav [...] [Page] this passage to know of you, how you will reconcile this with that which you spake, pag. 162. That there is a plaine Text requiring confession before Baptisme, though not before Circumcision. I hope you doe not think a regenerate bab [...] can make a confession of its faith; surely these two things doe much differ, Gods inward revealing that he hath sanctified a child, and the childs own profession or confession; God revealed that Saul was hid behind the stuffe, but this was not Sauls owne confession; God revealed to the Prophet Ahijah, that the disguised woman was Jeroboams wife, but that was not her owne confession. My answer to this objection was, That our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified, is not the condition upon which we are to apply the seale, he never required that we should know that they are certainly converted whom we admit to Baptisme, we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the signe, not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified, fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in admistring Sacraments either to Infants or growne men, but a knowne rule of the Word, out of which we must be able to make up such a judgement, that our administration may be of faith, as well as out of charity. To all this you assent, and cons [...]quently that there is nothing needfull according to the Word, but a visible right; and then what is become of all your pleading, That because we cannot know that all infants of beleevers have the inward grace, we may not therefore baptize them? this hold you have now quitted; and when once you have proved that they have not a visible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the visible Church, I promise you to quit all mine.

Whereas I added, That I doubted whether in case Peter, or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation have known that Ananias, or Alexander, would have proved no better then hypocrites, wh [...] ther they either would or ought to have refused them from baptisme, whiles they made that publick profession, upon which others were admitted, who in the event proved no better then those were. You think they would and ought, because the end of such an extraordinary revelation, would be to warn them not to admit such persons. [Page] I answer, the cause depends not upon it, whether your conjecture or mine be rightest in this particular; and I confesse, should such an extraordinary revelation be made purposely to warne them not to admit such persons, that would be equivalent to a prohibition; but might not such a thing be revealed for other ends? Christ knew that Judas would prove a devill, yet he admitted him not onely to baptisme, but Apostleship; and since your selfe doe grant that we have a warrant de fide, out of faith, and not out of charity onely, to admit men into visible communion by baptisme, upon an externall confession onely; I cannot understand why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition, should be a sufficient barre against proceeding according to the ordinary rule; if I were infallibly assured that some glorious professor were no better then an hypocrite, were that sufficient warrant to deny the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to him, so long as his life was unblamable before the Church?

Lastly, I added, That in this the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plaine for Infants as for growne men, the rule having beene alwayes this, that grown men who were strangers from the Covenant of God, Pagans, or Heathens should upon their being instructed, and upon profession of their faith, and promise to walke according to the rule of the Gospel, bee received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the Sacrament of admission, and their Infants to come in with them, both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of, untill they give signes to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking evill of them, not bound to conclud [...] certainly of any of them. Your onely exception against this is, wondering that I dare say, the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plaine for Infants as for growne men. I answer, truly Sir, by as plaine, I intended onely the truth of the rule, that it may be as truly known as the other, though possibly not so cl [...]arely. I deny not but I had spoken more fitly in saying the rule is plaine for Infants as well as for growne men; and that I have proved abundantly.

[Page] My fourth Objection was, That all who enter into Covenant Sect. 4. Object. 4. Infants cannot Covenant, or promise for themselves. must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his; they must indent with God to performe the beleevers part of the Covevenant, as well as God doth to performe his part: My answer was, The Infants of Jews were as much tyed, as the Infants of beleevers under the Gospel, every one who was circumcis [...]d was bound to keep the Law, yet they knew not what it meant, nor could have Answ. the same use of it with their Parents and others of discretion. You own not this Objection, nor say any thing against my answer; onely you except, That through my whole booke, I suppose there is the same reason of the mixt Covenant made with Abraham, and that it is the same with the pure Covenant of the Gospel, and of every beleever as of Abraham, and of Baptisms as of Circumcision. I doe so, and have justified these thing to bee true against your exceptions. You adde also, God commanded the one, but no where commanded the other; which whether he have or no by good consequence, I leave the Reader to judge, by what is already spoken.

I added in my Sermon, God seales to them presently, i. e. conditionally, as I have before shewed, and when they come to years of discretion, they stand obliged to the performance of it in their owne persons; in the meane time Jesus Christ who is the surety of the Covenant; and the surety of all the Covenanters, is pleased to be their surety: & this I illustrated from things done amongst men, thus, when severall parties stand obliged in the same bond, they may seale at severall times, and yet be in force afterward together, or even a child sealing in infancy, may agnize, and recognize that sealing, when they come to yeares of discretion, if then they will renounce it, as done when they understood not, they may free themselves, if they please, if they finde the former act a burden to them, so said I is it here, God is pleased to seale to infants while they are such, and accepts of such as seale on their parts, as they are able to give in their infant-age, expecting a further ratification on their part, when they are come to riper yeares; in the mean [...] time affording them the priviledge of being reckoned unto his kingdome and family rather then the devils, if when they are growne men, they refuse to stand to this Covenant, there is no hurt[Page]done on Gods part, let them serve another God, and take their lot for the time to come. To this you answer, First, this is onely the spinning out the simile of a seale; which whether it bee to the purpose or no, I as willingly as your selfe, leave it to the Reader to judge. Secondly, you say, it is very inconsiderate boldnesse in me [...], to make every baptized person a Covenanter, for whom Jesus Christ is a surety; when as the Scripture makes Christ the surety onely for his redeemed ones. I answer, it is very true that Jesus Christ is the surety onely of the elect, so farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them; but he is also the surety of all visible Professors, aliquo modo, upon their condition of performing the Covenant; looke in what respect your selfe will acknowledge Christ undertakes for visible Professors, as they are visible Professors, the same will serve my turne, and I shall ask no more.

The fifth Objection was, that no benefit comes by such a sealing as this is. My answer was, The same which came to the infants Sect. 5. Object. 5. No benefit comes of Infant-Baptisme. of the Jews, who received the seale in their infancy. You answer, First, you allow not that expression, That God seales to every one that is baptized, he seales onely to beleevers, to whom be undertakes to make good his promise of writing his law in their heart, &c. And here againe you charge me with symbolizing with the Arminians, who make the Covenant of grace common to elect and reprobates, and left to every [...]ans liberty to free themselves if they please, and so nullifie all. I passe by your scoffes, of my frivolous supposing of Chimeraes, and other such good language; you have pretty well enured me also to receive the reproach of Arminianisme. As to the thing it selfe, I answer, was not Circumcision Gods signe and seale? which by his owne appointment was applyed to all the Jews and Proselytes and their children, did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their heart, &c. And are not the Sacraments signa conditionalia, conditionall signes and seales? and did any Orthodox Divine before your self charge this to be Arminianism, to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions? I confesse it is Arminianisme to say any thing is conditionall to GOD, this [Page] I never asserted, but that the Gospell is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith, will passe for orthodox doctrine, when you and I are dead and rotten.

You adde that you doe not well understand that God required of the Jewes Infants to seale in their Infancy; I reply, but I hope you understand, that the Jewes Infants were sealed in their Infancy, and by this they received not onely a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family, but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the Covenant, as they grew up to bee capable of performing them. I added, secondly, God hath other ends and uses of applying the Seale of the Covenant to them who are in Covenant with him, then their present gaine, it is an homage, worship, and honour to himselfe, and it behooves us in that respect to fulfill all righteousnesse; when Christ was baptized and circumcised hee was as unfit for the ordinance through his perfection, as children through their imperfection, being as much above them as Children are below them: your answer is, Baptisme is Gods worship, Paedobaptisme a wilworship; Christs Baptisme was of a transcondens nature, children are unfit for this ordinance, not because of their imperfection, but through defect of Gods appointment; had God appointed it, there were no doubt to bee made of their fitnesse; all this hath been considered and weighed againe and againe, and I desire not to burden the Reader needlesly. I added thirdly, the benefit and fruite of it at the present is great, both to the parents and to the children, to the parents whilst God doth thereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church, and under his wing, whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the Prince, and in the kingdome of darknesse, and consequently while others have no hope of their childrens spirituall welfare, untill they bee called out of that condition, these need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare if they die in their Infancy, nor if they live untill they shew signes to the contrary, God having both reckoned them unto his people, and given them all the meanes of salvation, which an Infants age is capable of. You answer. First, all this passage is but dictates. Secondly, you say if I meane the unbaptized children of beleevers,[Page]doe belong to the kingdome of the devill, it is a harsh and uncharitable speech. Sir, I am glad to heare you give that censure upon your owne judgement, it is your judgement that all Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome of Christ, yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devill; but for my selfe, I meant onely the children of Infidells, I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptists doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge. You demand further, What comfort doe I give more to beleeving parents that have their children baptized, then belongs to them, though their children were not baptized. I answer, if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized, but onely by the providence of God, they may have the same comfort, yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the visible Seale, an ordinance which they are capable of, and which God uses to blesse according to his good pleasure; but I say when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle, that their children doe not belong to the Church of Christ, no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans, and consequently are without that pale, where ordinarily salvation is onely to bee had, it is easie to say that their comfort cannot bee so much as others: your selfe doe grant that this which I plead for is a comfortable condition if it could be made out, page 82. Whereas I added they need not make any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they die in their Infancy, &c. You answer, I speake like one who holds that Baptisme doth conferre grace ex opere operato: But why so? when I ground it upon the Covenant, upon their capacitie both of the Seale and the inward grace, and yet leave all to bee done by God, who hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy; I said not that they may de fide bee assured of their salvation, but that they need not have any doubt, the same which may bee said of growne visible professors. I added, here is also much priviledge and benefit to children when as (beside what inward secres worke God is pleased to worke in them) they being members of the Church of Christ have their share in the communion[Page]of Saints, are remembred at the throne of grace, every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church, and particularly in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his ordinances; here first you desire to know what I mean by a secret work which God is pleased to worke in them; whether any thing, ex opere operato, or baptismall regeneration, I answer, I meant onely this, that God is at liberty, and may when her pleases let his grace accompany his ordinance: as for their being members of the visible Church, you deny they are so, and I have proved them to bee so. Lastly, I added, it is no small priviledge to have that Seale bestowed on them in their Infancy which they may afterward plead when they are growne, and came to fulfill the condition; you answer, when, where and how Baptisme should bee pleaded, you doe not well conceive, it is not Baptisme that will yeeld a plea of any force either in the Court of earth or the Court of heaven, but the promise of God and the condition of faith in Christ, and you never knew any Saint that pleaded his Infant Baptisme, in such cases, as the Apostles plea lies for Rom. 8. 31, 32. I answer, as it is a plea for visible professors all their dayes, so it is a plea for Infants, when they grow up upon the same condition, and though the promise and faith in Christ bee our best plea, yet Baptisme the Seale is no meane one, and you who say, that of old the influence of comfort from baptisme was very great, I hope did not intend to limit it to the present time of its receiving, but extended it to all cases, which may fall within the compasse of those things for which Baptisme was appointed to bee a Seale, and as long as it remaines a Seale, and why you should speake against the pleading of Infant Baptisme, when they come to fulfill the condition and to have the answer of a good conscience toward God, (in which case the Apostle said Baptisme saves us) I cannot tell, unlesse you think with the Anabaptists that Infant Baptisme is a nullitie, which if you doe, I pray you let us know it in your next.

The last objection was to this purpose, If Infants being capable Object. 6. Then also Infants may receive the Lords Supper. of the spirituall part will intitle them to the outward sig [...], why then doe wee not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords[Page]Supper, which is the Seale of the Covenant of grace, as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme; and the rather because the Infants of the Jewes did eate the Passeover as well as they were circumcised? My answer was to this effect, Infants in their infantage are capable of the grace of Baptisme, that we are sure of, not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Lords Supper, wee know they may bee initiated into the Church, while they are Babes, not that they receive nourishment and augmentation. And I further adde, there was expresse order that Infants should bee admitted to the initiall signe, not that they should bee admitted to the other. To this you answer, This Argument is good ad homines against them who argue that to whom the Covenant belongs, to them the Seale belongs, and you say, this argument is confirmed by the practise and opinion of the ancients, who gave the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeers as well as baptisme. I reply, my Argument runs thus; To whom belongs the Covenant, to them belongs the initiall Seale of the Covenant, not every Seale of the Covenant, and though the Lords supper bee a Seale of the Covenant, and succeed the Passeover as a Seale of that Covenant, yet neither the Passeover, nor the Lords Supper were appointed to bee initiall Seales; and though Baptisme, which is the initiall Seale, serves to confirme the rest of the benefits of the Covenant, as the baptized grow capable of them, or are made partakers of them, yet the prime and maine use of it is to bee a Seale of initiation and reception into Covenant. As for what you adde of the ancients giving the Lords Supper to Infants for 600. yeeres, I have before answered to it, that it cannot bee proved to bee so generall a practise as the baptizing of Infants was among them, nor was it pleaded by any such Arguments, as they pleaded for Infant Baptisme; Indeed in the African Churches about Cyprians and Augustines time, the Lords Supper was given to Infants, but I can finde no such generall practise of it as you would insinuate. Howbeit, I am glad that upon this occasion you acknowledge, that for the first 600. yeers Infants were baptized among the ancients, though I know not how this will agree with that which you have so [Page] fidently asserted before, that it was hardly knowne in the Church for the first 300. yeers. Whereas I added, that though baptisme and the Lords Supper are both of them Seales of the new Covenant, yet it is with some difference; the first is for birth and entrance, the other is for food and growth; you answer, this is a paradox to you, because if I make the entrance at the remission of sinnes, justification, &c. the Lords Supper which seales Christs death, seales the entrance into the Covenant, and Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sinnes as of originall sinne; and therefore this difference which I put of the one being a Seale for entrance, the other for growth, is a difference which the Scripture makes not. I reply, if this bee a paradox, your selfe have very often owned this paradox, in calling both Circumcision and Baptisme the Seales of our admission, and that by Baptisme wee are exhibited to bee members of Christ and his Church: which you yet never said the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to bee. And as for what you now adde that the Lords Supper sealing the death of Christ doth therefore seale our entrance; I answer, it followes not, it seales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and order, as our food is a witnesse that wee are alive, and is a meanes to preserve our life, but yet it must bee supposed that wee are first made alive before wee are capable of the benefit of our food. And whereas you jerke at that phrase of the Lords Supper sealing the growth and augmentation of the Covenant, as an unfit expression; truely, I thought every child would have understood, that by nourishment and augmentation I meant nothing but the nourishment and growth of those graces of the Covenant, which the Covenant promiseth, and all are tied to seek after. As to that of the Jewes Infants eating the Passeover, I answered, there is no such thing mentioned in the books of God: It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate the Lambe, and if the family were too little to eate a Lambe, severall families were to joyne together, and that when their children should aske them the meaning of it, they were to instruct them about it, but not a word of institution appointing them to eate it, nor any example witnessing that they did eate it: You answer, All the males were appointed [Page]three times a yeere to appeare before the Lord, one of which was the Passeover, and at that time there was no other food to bee eaten, but unleavened bread and the Pascall Supper; and you observe out of Ainsworth that every child that could hold his father by the hand, and could goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple, his father was bound to carry him up, to the end hee might catechise him in the Commandements, and they who went up were bound to keepe the feast. I answer, were the Jewes bound to carry all their Babes up with them to Jerusalem, or any of them, before they had understanding in those rites and mysteries? and was there no food among them all that time, but the Sacramentall food? were the uncleane and uncircumcised in their families to fast all that time? produce any Scripture that witnesseth these; you indeed quote two or three broken testimonies out of the Rabbins, who lived some hundred yeers after Christ, but not one text of Scripture, and yet even your Rabbins say no more then I am willing to grant, that when they could understand the service, they might partake of it; nor doth the Gospell prohibite such young ones to partake of the Lords Supper, who are able to discerne the Lords body. I observe also that when a testimony out of a Jewish Rabbi seemes to make any thing on your side, you draw more confident conclusions from it, and fetch consequences further then you will allow mee to doe out of the holy Scriptures.

The application of my Sermon you passe over, as Sect. 7. Of the comparison between Hazaels crueltie to Infants and the principles of Anabaptists. not being argumentative; onely in the first use you againe fall upon the comparison which I made betwixt Hazaels slaying the Infants of Israel, and the principles of the Anabaptists, in putting the children of beleevers out of the Covenant of grace, and this you aggravate to the utmost, calling it a false accusation, a fruit of passion, not of holy zeale: this also you fell upon in the very beginning of your treatise, where I answered, I compared not their intentions with his, but the fruit of their principles, casting all beleevers children, as much out of the Covenant of grace as they doe the children of Turkes and Pagans; [Page] and this I am sure they doe, and your selfe joyne with them, who acknowledge no more promise for the children of beleevers, then for the children of Turkes, and leave them to have their actuall standing in the visible kingdome of the Devill. This I said in a spirituall sense was more heavy to the bowells of Christian parents, then to see their Infants slaine before their face, while in the meane time they might looke upon their Infants so dying, to bee within the pale of the Church, where salvation is ordinarily to bee found; this I leave the Reader to judge of. Whereas you adde that this followes not upon the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme that Infants are thus excluded, and that if to be within the Covenant of grace, bee rightly expounded, you exclude them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe; of the truth of this, without any needlesse repetition, I leave the Reader to judge by what hath been disputed betwixt you and mee; if they find this assertion of yours to bee true, I give them leave to charge mee with the same rashnesse, false accusations, and passions, which here you powre upon mee; if not, I am sure they will lay it all at your dore.

I now come to your Epilogue, wherein you intimate, first, that you presume you have said so much against my Sermon, Sect. 8. Answer to the Epilogue. that you hope I see cause to consider more exactly of this businesse then I had done before, that I am not now so confident as I was, that this is Gods truth: I answer, as in the presence of the same great God to whom you and I both must give an account, I have seriously weighed what you have written, or any other who have come to my hands, with a full resolution not to shut my eyes against what light hee would cause to shine upon mee, and upon my most diligent study, accompanied with my weake, yet sincere and earnest prayers, I am more confirmed in it, and the more I have studied, the clearer it appeares unto mee. Secondly, you say you have endeavored to examine every thing of weight delivered in my Sermon, and what you could remember of Mr. Thomas Goodwins, and what Mr. Blake, or any other have written about this thing; and I likewise have seriously [Page] weighed and not past over any thing of weight in this your Examen. Thirdly, you say you chose out my Sermon, because I am in print stiled the Antefignanus, the Ensigne-bearer; a title which I neither deserve nor desire. Fourthly, you motion that all wee who have appeared in publique in this cause would joyne our strength together in a reply to this your Examen, that you might see the whole strength imbattel'd, that you might not be put to the reading of every Pamphlet. Truely Sir, this smells a little too rankly, thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented with Goliah to say, Give mee a man, that I might fight with him, but to defie a whole host, argues a little too much selfe-confidence. But for your satisfaction, here is my booke, you may try your strength against it, and though I find my impaired health and multitude of imployments is like to bee an apology for mee, from drawing this saw any longer, nor indeed is it needfull, there being no end of writing, all knowing that there is no controversie of faith, wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write booke after booke against the truth, especially when they choose such a way of disputing as you have chosen; However, I feare not but it will indure your uttermost opposition, and if my booke alone bee looked upon, as too poore a businesse, you see there are already two or three other bookes extant already, against you, and I am informed two peeces at least come out of New-England upon the same subject, your selfe being therein concerned (for even thither have some sent your writings, and sufficiently in them, shewed your scorne of Mr. Thomas Goodwin, Mr. Vines, and my selfe, as our friends doe from thence write unto us) you may take us all together, and then wee may goe for a pretty Army, and when you have done all you can, I doubt not but some will be found who will have leasure as well as ability to cope with you; I onely desire you in your next not to goe on in this way of making wrangling exceptions, and seeking to slurre and blind what is written by your Antagonist, but by solid and cleare arguments, see if you can refute that which is asserted, and let your Reader also [Page] know as well what you would have, as what you would not have, and open your judgement to the full in this controversie, and shew whether you take Infant-baptism to be valid, or a nullity, and if you think it not a nullity, shew your grounds for it, why all this should be true, which you have thus far contended for, That Infants are no more to be accounted belonging to the Church of Christ then Pagans, and yet their baptisme should be valid, whether if any man should baptize a Turk or a Iew when he should be asleep, or by violence or any wayes against his own consent, this baptisme were not a nullity, and I know not what difference you make between the one and the other.

If on the other side, you doe thinke it a nullity, then manifest how any at all can now be baptized, unlesse you will thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized themselves; for my own part, I seriously professe, that supposing Infant-baptisme a nullity, I cannot understand how any in the world should this day be lawfully baptized, unlesse it can be made good that a person unbaptized himselfe may be a lawfull Minister of baptisme to others: for certainly untill the Anabaptists arose in Germany, all the baptized world were baptized while they were Infants; and consequently the first Anabaptist was baptized by an unbaptized person, and so in conclusion we must all turn Seekers, and be content without baptisme, till Christ give some extraordinary Commission from Heaven unto some men to be Apostles in this businesse.

Fifthly, you expresse the straights you are like to be brought into by the losse of your small stipend, as a consequent of this your Opinion. Sir, I am perswaded this is made up abundantly in that Honourable Society where now you exercise your Ministery; and I beseech the Lord so to informe you in his truth in this particular, and to guide your Spirit, that you may no longer be a stumbling-block to others, nor others prove stumbling-blocks to you, that those good parts which God hath bestowed upon you, may for the time to come be employed in the most serviceable way, that both your worke and wages may bee with and from the Lord.

[Page] Sixthly and lastly, you declare your willingnesse, either to have conference with me, to consult about a way of a brotherly debating of this point, or to receive other answer within the space of a month. What past betwixt your selfe and me in Conference, I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Booke; and in truth, I verily thought you would quietly have kept your Opinion as private to your self, which was the true reason why I medled with your Book no sooner; as soon as it was published, I took my self bound in conscience to take it into Examination, and give this publike account of it; since which time God hath been pleased to visit mee with sicknesse and infirmity of body, so that for a moneth or six weeks I could very little attend upon this task, and many other employments have compelled me to go through it, horis successivis, not being able to attend it many whole days without much interruption. Such as it is you now have it with you, and I make bold to say again, I am verily perswaded it is Gods truth which I maintain against you, and I fear not my account of this Work in the great day; save onely I must ever acknowledge and bewaile those frailties and infirmities which cleave to whatever I put my hand unto.

A Brief EXAMINATION OF Mr. TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM.

[Page]

YOur Exercitation might very well have been spared in this place, for any great advantage it is like to bring to your cause, but I am very glad it is extant, because all Learned men will by it plainly discern how mean and poor your Arguments are, when you come positively to assert, they will now finde that true which I said in the beginning, that your faculty is farre better in darkening, slurring, and plundering the Arguments of your Adversary, then in making good your owne. You have here impanelled a whole Jury, and would faine perswade a verdict of twelve men to stand upon record on your side, as having found Infant-Baptisme guilty of the crimes which you have laid to its charge: I shall very briefly examine what every one of them have said, and only run them over, partly, because there are lately extant two learned Treatises against it, written by Doctor Homes, and Master Geree, the first of them was published when my Book was almost half Printed, the other since; but chiefly because almost every sentence in this your Exercitation which hath any strength is by yourselfe brought into your other Treatise, which [Page] you call the Examen of my Sermon, and there is already fully answered.

Of your twelve Arguments, the first is not properly to be called an Argument against Infant-Baptisme, but is rather an answer to severall Arguments pretended to bee brought for Infant-Baptisme; and upon this you bestow at least two third parts of your Exercitation, twice as much I nke and Paper upon the foreman of the Jury, as you doe upon the other eleven.

Vnder the head of this first Argument, you have brought in no lesse then fourteen Arguments (as you call them) for the lawfulnesse of Infant-Baptisme, and then you undertake to answer them; your self say truly of many of them, they make a number without strength; and therefore as you have made a conquest of them, doe with your prisoners what you please, for I count them not worth the redeeming; onely this I say, we have six or seven of your twelve, which I think all the world, and your selfe also, will grant to be taken Prisoners by us, if you please we will exchange them for the other, and then in the exchange we shall lose nothing, being assured yours are as weake and simple as it is possible for those to be which you have taken; and for the rest of the arguments brought for Paedo-Baptisme, you have propounded them for▪ your owne advantage, so set them downe as to make them best capable of the specious answers you bring unto them; but I like not that an enemy should have the ordering of the Forces which hee meanes to fight against, you must give us leave to choose our own weapons, and Marshall our own Forces, and then you may try your skill and valour against them. Doctor Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which you have produced according to your owne method Mr. Geree hath chosen out onely those arguments which carry most evidence, and not troubled himselfe to examine every thing; for my part, I humbly conceive that Infant-baptisme is not to be fetched from any one of these grounds singly, but is built upon the identity of the Covenant, Infants right to the Covenant, and the initiall seale; and consequently though one Text may [Page] be a sufficient medium or Argument to prove some one or two of them, yet to make the evidence full, these ground [...] must not be separated one from another, but necessary recourse must be had to them all; and if all your Arguments doe overthrow any one of them, either the Covenants being the same in substance, or infants right to the Covenant, or the Lords appointing an initiall seale to bee administred to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant, I shall readily yeeld the cause, as I have often told you. All the trouble I shal put the Reader to, about this your first Argument, Arg. 1. Answ. or rather your answer to Arguments, shal be to point him to such places in my book, where you have already prest the same things, and I have given an answer to them.

The first Argument from Gen. 17. hath beene examined, Part 3. Sect. 1, 2. and elswhere.

The second argument taken from Baptism succeeding into the room of Circumcision, and Coloss. 2. 11, 12, &c. is examined Part 3. Sect. 9.

The third argument from the priviledges of beleevers under the New Testament, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 11. 7.

The fourth argument from Acts 2. [...]8. is fully examined, Part 3. Sect. 6.

The fifth argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. is examined, Part 3. Sect. 8.

The sixth argument from Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. &c. which also you put into severall shapes, is examined, Part 3. Sect. 15.

The seventh argument from Acts 16. and severall other places which speake of baptizing of housholds, is examined Part 3. Sect 14. And in these severall places you have pressed whatever is of any seeming weight in this your Exercitation, and added many other things which the reader shall finde to bee examined in the places which I have pointed to, besides in severall other places of my Booke, where you have again and again repeated many of the same things.

The other seven arguments (as you call them) I looke not upon as arguments, and therefore will not meddle with them▪ some of the Scriptures mentioned in them, as, [Page] Exod. 20. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 9. &c. so farre as they have any use in this controversie, are also considered of here, and there in my Book, as the Reader may observe.

Your second Argument against Infant Baptisme is fetcht from Mat. 28. 19. That which agrees not with the Lords institution Arg. 2. of Baptisme, that is deservedly doubtfull; But the rite of Infant-baptisme agrees not with the Lords institution of Baptism, Ergo. This argument hath received its full examination, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect. 1. whither I refer the Answ. Reader, as not willing to trouble him with needlesse repetition of the same things.

Your third Argument is taken from the practice of the Apostles, and John the Baptist, and runs thus, That tenet and Arg. 3. practice which being put, Baptism cannot be administred as John Baptist and the Apostles did administer it, agrees not with the practice of John Baptist and the Apostles; But the tenet and practice of Infant-Baptisme being put, Baptisme cannot bee administred as Jo. Baptist, and the Apostles administred i [...]; Ergo &c. This you goe about to prove, because John and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed sinnes, they required shewes of faith and repentance in all whom they baptized.

This Argument relates wholly to matter of fact, wherein you put your selfe to prove a negative; and therefore the argument Answ. can prove nothing, unlesse you can produce some one place at least out of the Scripture wherein it is said no Infant was baptized by them, or no other then such as you have mentioned; but what you have here said about it is fully considered, Part. 3. Sect. 13. especially Part 4. Sect. 1.

These three Arguments, which alone deserve to bee called (if yet the first may be so called) are fully examined in the places above-mentioned; the rest of your arguments are so wholly inconsequent, that I wonder you should think them worthy or fit to face an Assembly of Divines, and expect that they should joyne their strength together to frame an answer to them; when as I verily thinke they may all bee routed by the running pen of an ordinary Clerke in a few houres.

Your fourth is taken from the next age after the Apostles, and stands thus in your book, Because Infant-baptisme Arg. 4. [Page]cannot be proved that it was inforce or use in the next age after the Apostles; Ergo, the tenet and practice of it is doubtfull. The major (you say) is manifest of it selfe; for the minor you alledge Vives, and Strabo; and (say you, it is confirmed by examining of places brought to that purpose, & by continuing questions to the parties baptized in ages following, and other tokens from Councells, and Ecclesiasticall writers.

I answer, First, to your Major, which you say is manifest of its selfe, I judge to bee most false, and a most dangerous Answ. position: is every tenet and practice doubtfull, which cannot be proved by historicall evidence to have been received and practiced in that age, whereof we have so few Records? the procession of the holy Ghost, the propagation of originall sinne, and many other Tenets, I beleeve you will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next; How would you have laughed at such a conclusion set downe by another? And secondly, for your Minor, I answer 1. There were no Councells at all assembled in that age next to the Apostles. And 2. as for Ecclesiasticall Writers, I wish you would name them; I beleeve you will find very few Writers of credit in that age, whose legitimate workes are transmitted to posterity. Thirdly, how do Vives and Strabo know what was done in the ages next the Apostles, when the eldest of them lived almost 800 years after that age? the authority and skill of these two men hath been sufficiently spoken to, Part 1. Sect. 2. Fourthly, I wonder how the questions propounded in ages following to the baptized, doe prove that Infant-Baptisme was not in use in the age next after the Apostles.

Your fifth argument runs thus, That which in succeeding Arg. 5. ages in which it was in use, was in force first as a Tradition not written. Secondly, out of imitation of Jewish circumcision. Thirdly, without universall practice. Fourthly, together with the error of giving Infants the Lords Supper, and with many other humane inventions under the name of Apostolicall Traditions, that is deserv [...]dly doubtfull. But such was Infant-Baptisme in those ages, Ergo, &c. I answer, first, by denying your Major, the observation of the Lords day hath beene by some accounted a Tradition, others have said it is Jewish to keep any Sabbath [Page] at all, because Sabbath dayes were a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ, what will you thence conclude against our Christian Sabbath? And for what you say about the practice of it that it was not universall, I desire you to remember, that argumentum ductum a non facto ad non jus est absurdissimum; may wee plead thus, such and such a thing was not generally observed, Ergo it was not a duty? the boyes in the Schooles would stamp and hisse at such an inference; from the dayes of Iosoua, to the dayes of Nehemiab, the children of Israel had not kept the feast of Tabernacles Nehem. 8. 17. in Booths or Tents, which was about a thousand yeares; was it therefore not their duty to have done it? Dr. Hoylin in his History of the Sabbath, urgeth this very argument against the Lords day, in such and such Fathers days many did not observe the Lords day, many did tipple and dance upon the Lords day; ergo the Lords day was not generally observed, and if it were not generally observed in those days, Ergo we are not bound to observe it. This kind of arguing is almost as wilde as that which the Schools call, a baculo ad angulum, my staffe stands in the corner, Ergo it will rain tomorrow morning.

Your last Exception under this fourth argument is yet more strange, There were many other things went under the name of Traditions, which were meer humane inventions, Ergo Infantbaptism, which went under the name of a Tradition is also a humane invention. Shall I shew the naturall face of this argument in a glasse; such and such men who went under the name of honest men were knaves; Ergo all that goe [...]nder the name of honest men are knaves. It is true, many things went in those dayes under the name of Traditions, which were but humane inventions, and it is as true that many points of faith, and other divine institutions went in the same ages under the name of Traditions, as I have made apparent, Part 1. Sect. 2. You see what a poore argument this would prove although your minor were true, though the things were as you set them downe; but I have abundantly proved the contrary: I have shewed the Ancients received it as a Divine Institution, and upon such arguments as we doe, though some of them prest some corrupt grounds which we reject: and as for the universality of the practice of [Page] it both in the Greek and Latin Churches I have abundantly cleared it from all Objections you make against it: and you out of all your reading have not been able to produce one of the ancients, who either beld it unlawfull, or denyed that it was in use from the Apostles dayes. One or two indeed you bring who advised the deferring Infant-Baptism, as they did also the baptisme of grown men; and some examples you produce of the children of Christians not baptized (as you think) in their Infancy; to all which I have spoken at large, Part. 1. sect. 2. And as for what you alledge of their giving the Lords Supper unto Infants, I have denyed, and shall doe still, till you bring some evidence for it, that there was any such universall practise, indeed in the African Churches that errour did obtain in the days of Cyprian and Austin, but I finde no such generall practice of it; however the Argument follows not, That it was their error to give Infants the Lords Supper; Ergo it was their error to baptize Infants.

Your sixth Argument runs thus; that which hath occasioned Arg. 6. many humane inventions, partly by which Infant-Baptisme it selfe may bee underpropt, partly the defect in the p [...]licy of the Church supplyed; that is deservedly douhtfull; But the matter i [...] so in the businesse of Infant-Baptisme: and here you bring in witnesses in Baptisme, Episcopall confirmation, the reformed union by examination, confession, before receiving the Lords Supper, Church-Covenant before the admission of Church-members into Church-fellowship, &c.

I answer briefly, if by occasioned you meane that Infant-Baptisme Answ. hath exnaturâ rei given occasion to these things, I deny your minor, Infant-Baptisme is no more an occasion of these things in the Christian Church, then circumcising of Infants was an occasion of the like in the Jewish Church; Infant-Baptisme may very well stand, and doth very well stand in many reformed Churches without such witnesses, without confirmation, or any other examination, confession, &c. before the Lords Supper, or other Church-discipline, then such as might bee in use to men though they were not baptized in their Infancy: but if by occasioned you meane not [...] da [...]a, but [...] temer [...] a [...]pta, that the corrupt mind of man hath thence tooke occasion for other [Page] errors and mistakes; if you meane that which hath thus [...] casioned many humane inventions is doubtfull, then I deny your major: there is scarse any common place in the body of Divinity but hath occasioned humane inventions, the Lords Supper hath occasioned kneeling at the Sacrament; and that hath occasioned suspension, excommunication, separation; what will you thence conclude against the Lords Supper? Ergo, the Lords Supper is a humane invention?

Your seventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments are but so many branches or rather so many repetitions of your sixth Arg. 7, 8, & 9. Argument, possibly you have thus divided them that you might make up a whole Jury. And the selfe same answer serves them as was given to the other; I will conclude as Answ. strongly against you, out of your owne premisses thus; Antipaedobaptisme hath occasioned many errours, many abuses and faults in discipline, divine worship, and conversation of men, together with many unnecessary disputes, fostering contention onely: Ergo, Antipaedobaptisme is what you please to all Infant-baptisme: I leave out that passage onely in the major of your ninth Argument, viz. which cannot bee determined by any certaine rule, because therein you doe very heartily beg the question.

Your tenth argument is framed thus; That in the midst of the darknesse of Popery, the same men who opposed invocation Arg. 10. of Saints, Prayer for the dead, adoration of the crosse, and such like, opposed also the baptizing of Infants, and here you bring in Bernard his 66▪ Sermon upon the Canticles, and his 140. Epistla against Henry the Heretick (as you call him) and Cluniacinsis against Peter de Bruis and Henry; also a passage out of Ostander, accusing the Albingenses [...]s consenting with the Anabaptist [...]. To which I answer, first, I deny the consequence, because they opposed invocation of Saints, prayer Answ. for the dead, &c. and also opposed Infant-Baptisme; Ergo, the last is an errour as well as the first: for the same men have opposed Popery and the Sabbath, the same men have denyed Prelacy and the blessed Trinitie: Is it not possible for the same man to oppose a multitude of cursed errors, and yet to oppose some one blessed truth? Secondly, I also deny your minor; they who thus opposed invocation [Page] of Saints, &c. did not oppose baptisme of Infants: Bermgarius, the Waldenses, Albingenses, Wickluites, Hussites, and others are indeed slandered by some of their adversaries, as if they denyed Infant-baptisme, but are cleared out of their owne confessions; as I have made abundantly manifest, Part 2. Sect. 2. What under the head of this tenth Argument you mention out of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen hath beene fully confidered of, Part 1. Sect. [...].

Your eleventh Argument runs thus; The asserters of Infant-baptisme Arg. 11. little agree among themselves upon what foundation to build Infantbaptisme: some from universalitie of divine grace, some from necessitie of Baptisme to salvation, some from the promise of the sureties, some from the faith of the Infants, some from the faith of the next parents, Ergo, What? what conclusion can you make from this: Answ. The Antipaedobaptists reject the Baptisme of Infants upon severall grounds: some because Infants have no sinne, some because they have no more to doe with the Covenant of grace, then the Infants of Turkes; some because Infants are not capable of grace, some because they are unbeleevers, some because we cannot know whether they have grace or no, will you therefore say Antipaedobaptisme is to bee rejected? So for the Lords day, fome pleade it upon one ground, others reject that ground, and plead it upon another, have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground? the like may bee said of many other points both of faith and practise in Christianitie; the utmost that can bee collected from mens different grounds in pleading for such or such a truth is, that God hath not left that truth so cleare as possible he hath done others wherein there is a greater consent: but to collect that therefore the opinion is to be rejected, is a strange consequence. I add farther that almost all, both ancient and moderne, doe agree in the argument from Circumcision to Baptisme, which necessarily implies our Covenant to be the same with theirs, our Infants right to be the same with theirs, and our Sacrament of Baptisme to be the same with theirs of Circumcision as to the use of an initiall Seale.

Your twelfth and last Argument which brings up your reere, which you call a weighty reason, runs thus: Because Infant-Baptisme Arg. 12. seemes to take away one, perhaps the primary end of Baptisme, viz. that it should bee a signe that the baptized shew himselfe a Disciple, and confesse the faith in which hee hath been instructed, and this you prove from Iohn the Baptist and other passages in the New Testament, which put [Page]Baptisme for Doctrine, from the forme of Christs institution, and by the use of Baptisme in the initiating of Proselytes, and hence you collect that Baptisme doth not onely confirme a benefit, but signifies also a profession made. To which I answer: This Argument how weightie soever it bee, is but a branch taken from your second argument out of Mat. 28. and from your third argument from the practise of John and Christs Apostles, and is but a Crambe of what you have often prest before, and hath received its full answer, Part 3. Sect. 13. and Part 4. Sect 1. and I adde further, that even that which your selfe here sets downe, gives a full answer to your own Argument, for you say that a Sacrament is not only a visible signe of an invisible grace, [...]r appointed to signifie only a divine benefit, but it likewise serves to signifie his dutie who receives the Sacrament: It signifies a profession made, as well as confirmes a benefit; for doth it not thence necessarily follow that the Infants of the Jewes made by their Circumcision a profession, as well as received the signe of a benefit? and that therefore the Baptizing of Infants doth not frustrate that end of initiating them to bee Disciples or Professors? And that which you adde of the use of Baptisme in the initiating of Proselytes into the profession of Judaisme, is as full to the purpose as can bee to prove what I affirme: for wee know from all the Authors who write about it, that Infants as well as growne men were initiated into the profession of Judaisme by the rite of Baptisme.

In the last place you shut up your Exercitation with a discourse about the Devills indenting with witches to renounce their Baptisme, as if some would thence argue that Infant-Baptisme is good, because the Devill would have them renounce it: but you, who it seemes know the Devills mind in it, say the true reason why hee requires witches to renounce their Baptisme, is not because the Baptisme is good in respect of the administration of it, but because the faith mentioned in the forme [...]f Baptisme is good; for my owne part, I am so little acquainted with the Devills practise in it, and see so little strength of Argument for or against Infant-Baptisme from the trading betwixt the Devill and the witch, that I intend not to meddle with this Argument [...] from h [...]ll, I rest contented with those which I find in the [...]ke of God.

FINIS.

A Table of Authors cited or vindicated, and other materiall things cited in this Treatise.

[Page]

A

ABraham, th [...] Covenant with him no more mixt then with us, p. 97. Pros [...]lytes were his seed, 100. So were civill Justiciaries reputed, p. 101, 104.

Adeodatus why not baptized in his infancy, p. 48.

Alipius why not baptized in his insan [...]y, Ainsworth, p. 171.

Albigenses [...]o An aboptists, p. 64.

An abaptists not like the Non-conformists, p. 72. Their ancient errours newly sprung up again [...], p. 73. Opposed Magistr [...]cy, p. 75. P [...] no difference between Infants of Christians and Turkes, p. 86, 87.

Aretius vindicated, p. 175. Proves Baptisme to succed Circumcision by the An [...]ionts, p. 176.

Athanasius mentions Infant-baptisme, p. 20.

Augustin [...] vindicated, p. 43. &c. Why [...] baptized in his infancy, p. 46, 47.

B

Ball vindicated, p. 6.

Baltazzar Lydius, p. 64.

Baptisme called a new [...] by th [...] Scripture; and the Anci [...]s, p. 1 [...]. Anci [...]ntty deferred, p. 22. Salvation may be obtained without it, p. 52, 5 [...] Whether it may be repeated, p. 67, 68. Succeeds Circumcision, p. 164. [...] rallelled with it, p. 145. In use among the Iews, and applyed to Infants as well as [...] men, 170. How it may be pleaded, p. 239.

Beza cited against his owne judgement, p. 147, 150.

Bal [...]mon [...], p. 31, 32.

Bayne vindicated, p. 101, 102▪

Berengarius no Anabaptist, p. 65.

C

Catechumeni, p. 50.

Chrysostome not baptized in hi [...] [...] fancy, p. 27. vindicated, p 177.

Circumcision; women not capable of it, p. 93. Seales the spirituall part of the Covenant, p. 98. Baptisme s [...] ceeds if, p. 164. [...]ar a [...]led with baptisme, p. 145. Why Christ [...] circumcised and baptized, p. 168. Why Jewes infants circumcised, p. 1 [...]. How the Jews received it, p. 1 [...].

Christianity how is may bee called [...] birthright, p. 119.

Chamler often ci [...]ed to [...] purpose [...]. Against hi [...] own [...] judgment, p. 144.

Constantine M. why not baptized in his infanty, p. 25.

Cotton vindicated, p. 114. [...] [Page] Mr. Rutherford reconciled, p. 123.

Cyprian vindicated, p. 38. &c.

Covenant and Seal connected together, p. 89. What is meant by being in the Covenant, p. 89. Covenant of grace alwayes [...] and the same, p. 97. Infants taken into the Covenant with their Parents, p. 105. Men may bee under is severall wayes, p. 106. Priviledges of them who are under the externall Covenant, p. 108. Anexternall right to it proved, p. 140. The promise in it not peculiar to Abraham p. 127.

D

Disciples, What it is to make Disciples, p. 212, 213, 214, &c.

E

Epiphanitis mentions infant-baptisme, p. 21, 45.

F

S [...]e [...] of Flesh what, p. 104.

G

Goodwin vindicated, p. 143.

Grotius not to bee relyed on about infant-baptisme, p. 29. Misreports the Greek Church, p. 32, 33, 34.

Gospel how conditionall, p. 236.

H

Hacket his Story, p. 72.

Henricus Stephanus mis-retited, p. 151.

Holinesse derivative and inherent not [...]pposed, p. 142. Fedrall holinesse assented by the Ancients, p. 148.

I

Infants taken into covenant with their Parents, 105. of beleevers left by Mr. Tombes to be under the Devils kingdome, p. 112. Why Jewish Infants circumoised, p. 180. Whether Infants may be said to bee beleevers, p. 231. Ought to be baptized though we know not that they have grace, p. 232. How their Baptisme is commanded in Matth. 28. p. 207. Capable of the grace whereof Baptisme is a signe, p. 219, 224, 226.

Infant-baptisme, Antiquity of it vindicated, p 7, &c. p. 44, 45. Episcopacy not so ancient as it, p 8. Why some Ancients speake not of it, p. 19. Athanasius, p 20. And by Epiphanius, p. 21, 45. Not dispre [...]ed because of questions put to the party that was to be baptized, p. 21. &c. Grotins not to be relyed upon in it, p. 29. The Greek Church received it, p. 32. Asserted by Tertullian, p. 35. And Cyprian, p. 38, 39. &c. By Augustine, p, 43. &c. By Fulgentius, p 50 How it is called a Tradition, p. 44. Why not mentioned in Councels before that of Carthage, p. 49. Still acknowledg [...]d in the Church, p. 63. The rejecting of it not the way to Reformation, p. 76. Examples of it by consequence, p. 218. Not a Will worship, p. 195, 225. Benefits of Infant-baptisme, 236. No occasion of humane inventions, &c. 253.

John Baptist initiated to the Christian Church, p. 171.

Irenaus [...]ind indicated, p. 10, 11, 12.

Justine Martyr vindicated, 9, 10.

L

Ludovicus Vives examined, p. 37, 38.

Lords-day, p. 80, 81, 82. Proved by [Page] consequence from the Sabbath, p. 205. Comparison between evid [...]nce for it, & Paedo-Baptisme, p. 81, 82.

Lords Supper not eaten by unbaptized persons, p. 167. not by Infants, p. 240.

N

Nazianzen vindicated, p. [...]8. not baptized in his Infant, p. 26.

Nation when it is to bee reputed Christian, p. 211.

Neocaesarean Councell vindicated, p. 30, 31.

O

Origen vindicated, p. 15, 16, 17.

P

Parents beleeving are roots of their children. p. 142.

Passeover, our Sacrament comes in stead of it, p. 203.

Priviledges ours, not straitned, but enlarged, p. 185. A great abridgement of them to have our children left out of the Covenant, p. 193.

Photius Patriarch, p. 33.

Q.

Questions put to the baptized disprove not baptisme, p. [...]1. [...]ay they prove it, p. 52.

R

Rogers vindicated, p. 5.

S

Selden, p. 170.

Strabo examined, p. 37.

Sacrament what it seales absolutely, and conditionally, 117. How they are Seales, p. 201. our rule in administring them, p. 233. how we may argue from Jewes Sacraments to ours, p. 198. 201.

T

Tombes his way of reasoning, p. 3. 105. 125. 134. Ʋnjustly charges the Assembly, p. 79. thinkes some may be saved out of the communion of the visible Church, p. 88. He joynes with [...] Circumcision to bee a seale of any thing, p. 183. makes it a priviledge not to have Infants baptized, p. 187. He makes the Covenant Heb 8. to be the Covenant of workes, p. 188. Misinterprets the 2 Cor. 3. 10. p. 188. Leaves all Infants of beleevers to bee under the Devills [...], p. 112. Symboliz [...]th [...] Arminius, p. 144. compares Priest▪ and Ministers to [...] purpose, p. 108. [...] his own [...] opinion [...] [...]nfants condition, p. 238.

Tortullia [...] speak [...] for Infant-Baptism, p. 35.

Talmud, p. 171.

V

Vines vindicated, p. 73.

Usher de successione Chr. Eccles. p. 64. 65.

Vo [...]i [...] p. 68, 69.

W

Waldenses, p. 64. no Anabaptists, p. 65.

History of Waldenses, p. 64.

Women not capable of Circumcision, p. 93. how Circumcised in the men, p. 94. if they had not been esteemed as circumcised they could not have eaten the Passeover, 96.

Errata.

[Page]

PAge 1. 10. Line 11. read, you will not doe, p. 144. l. 34 for where r. were p 145. l. 35. r. thrasi. p. 157. l. 23. dele not, p. 164. l. 22. [...] sequitur, p. 166. l. 5. r. [...]. p. 167. l 6. r. Catechumeni, p. 173 l. 3. r. impure to you a sense, p. 175. l. [...], [...] 176. l. 13. 1. [...], 1. 16. r. tempore, p. 178. l. 38. r. fa [...]u [...], p. 191. l. 33. for That r. But, p 199. l. 1. dol [...] comma after omnibus, p. 213. l. 1. r. [...] p. 213. l. 5. r. [...] p 222. l. 7. [...] as for [...]a. p. 226 l. 19. [...] Baptisme and prayer all one, r. baptizing into the name of the Father, S [...]nne and holy Ghost, and prayer all one, l. 22. for, his Baptisme and prayer was all one▪ read, that Ananid [...] his baptizing Paul into the name of Christ, or into the name of the Father, Some and holy Ghost, and Pauls calling upon the name of the Lord, was all one.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex.

Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.

Edition statement

1646

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A89563

ID [STC]

Wing M751

ID [STC]

Thomason E332_5

ID [STC]

ESTC R200739

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99861404

ID [PROQUEST]

99861404

ID [VID]

113537

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A89563)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 113537)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 54:E332[5])

Source

— A defence of infant-baptism: in answer to two treatises, and an appendix to them concerning it; lately published by Mr. Jo. Tombes. Wherein that controversie is fully discussed, the ancient and generally received use of it from the apostles dayes, untill the Anabaptists sprung up in Germany, manifested. The arguments for it from the holy Scriptures maintained, and the objections against it answered. / By Steven Marshall B.D. minister of the Gospell, at Finchingfield in Essex., Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655..

Extent

[12], 256 p.

by Ric. Cotes, for Steven Bowtell, and are to bee sold at his shop, at the Bible in Popes-head Alley,. Printed at London :: 1646.. (A reply to: Tombes, John. Two treatises and an appendix to them concerning infant-baptisme.) (The first leaf is blank.) (Includes index.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "Apr: 9th".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.