Section I. Of Baptisme of Infants.

I hope you will think me to judge Righteous Judgement, if I Judge according to your Judgement, That the Word of God doth allow and authorize, baptising of Beleevers; but then I must differ from your judgement in another, That the Baptising of Beleevers doth not disallow, or exauthorate, the Baptising the Infants of Beleevers, and that the one leadeth in the other, as it were by the Hand; if you had no more to say and dispute against the Baptising of Infants of beleeving Parents, than against the baptising of beleevers, the difference betwixt us had never begun.

If I speak Parables unto you, it is because you know not the Scriptures, not the very Scriptures your self doth here quote, Matth, 28.19. Acts 238. Acts 8.38. Acts 10 47. Acts 22.16. &c. What do they all import, but that, Those Jewes or Heathens, who were grown persons, aliens from the Covenant, had em­braced the Gospel and became beleevers, were presently baptised, or became baptiseable: And now that this is no barr, or con­tradiction to the Baptising of Infants, appears, for that the Infants of those beleevers baptised and entred into Covenant, if they had any, had likewise a right unto baptisme, being in the same Covenant with their beleeving Parents, and either were in present baptised, or were of right baptiseable: So that the baptisme of beleevers, makes way and gives ground for the baptisme of their Infants, whence in other texts, such and such beleevers were baptised, they and all their House; which is ac­cording to the Tenor of the Cov nane, in which God is, the God of the beleever and his seed, so that the one hath as good right to the Seal thereof as the other by vertue of the Covenant, God having Covenanted with both together.

I have formerly suggested unto you the only word, that must help you here, to make the baptisme of beleevers strong against the baptisme of Infants; and it is, the Word only; for if there were such a precept or practice to be found in Scripture, of Bap­tising Beleevers only, then you would write something near the matter (but yet should not so carry it away, to the overthrow­ing of the baptising of the Infants of beleevers, the Scripture no where calling them unbeleevers): But none of the Scriptures you cite, none of your considerations you mention, do so much as mention, much lesse infer the baptising of Beleevers onely; Therefore now, Judge you, but Judge Righteous Judgement, even as Good doth, you see, in your own Texts.

Or do you mean another matter, as I ghesse it, That Infants of beleevers born within the Church and Covenant, and bap­tised in their minority, when afterwards they attain to some ripenesse of knowledge and profession of faith of Christ, should then, as beleevers themselves, be baptised again, Then I must tell you, that which you call the first and great Ordinance of the New Testament, is neither great, nor first, nor Ordinance, namely such Baptising of Beleevers; Nay then I must tell you, such baptising of beleevers, is not only to be neglected and o­mitted, but slighted and rejected, yea preached against and con­futed, as now in present it shal be. For what is this your baptising of beleevers, but a rebaptising of them who were baptised before rightly, and (for any thing you know) beleevers also?

For first, God having given the Infants of beleeving Parents, Right unto the Sacrament of Baptisme, by speciall priviledge of their Birth within the bosome of the holy Church, and the Minister having administred the Sacrament of Baptisme unto such in the true Element of Water, with the Evangelical words, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to Christs institution, Containing in them the matter & form, and so the very essence of outward baptism, such baptism is good, sufficient, effectual and avayleable to Gods Children, and they ought not to be rebaptised: especially there being the devout invocation made to God for his blessing, also a serious application of both, the Element, and Word unto the party who receiveth both, and that secret reference which this acti­on [Page 4]hath to life and remision of sins by vertue of Christs own compact made solemnly with his Church, there is not any thing more required to the mysticall perfection of baptisme outward­ly within the Church of God, constituted and planted.

Now that such Baptisme is not to be reiterated, that Infants thus baptised, are not to be rebaptised, I shall prove unto you, both by the Word of God, and some reasons thence deduced: Eph. 4.5. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, one Bap­tisme, not onely, 1. Because it hath every where one and the same substance, consisting in one and the same matter; one and the same form; for we are not to use any other Elemental mat­ter, but Water, if it may be had, nor any other verbal form but this, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; not onely, 2. Because it offreth unto all men one and the same grace, even one saith of one Lord into w^ch we are baptised, but One also, for that it ought not to be received of any one man above once, even as we serve that Lord, w^ch is but one, because no other can be joyned with him, & imbrace that faithwhich is but one, because it admiteth no inovation; so we receive haptism w^ch is but one, because it cannot, and must not be received often. Thus all the Pious, & Learned, and Primitive Professors have interpre­ted this Text, and conceived of this matter, the Iteration of Bap­tisme once given, to be a manifest contempt and violation of this Apostolical axiom and Aphorisme, insomuch, that though the baptising minister were a Scismatick or Heretick, or a wicked one, they held their baptisme good and valid, and would not repeat it being performed in the true Essentials, the form of Words, and matter of Water (as before) yea and when such were converted and returned into the Church, they did note re­baptise them, but received them and held them in that baptisme which they had in their Schism and Heresie, knowing the same to have been according to the form prescribed.

I have no reason I confesse, to put a weapon of an objection into your hands, out of 19. Acts 5. but if I do, it is to take it out of your hands again, both to give you a blow in present, and prevent an after-blow. It is indeed there thus said, When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus; and its said before Verse 3. that they were baptised unto Johns Baptism: This Text hath been much and mightily urged, and pressed, [Page 5]even to the Vexation of the Spirit, by your torturing Anabap­tists, and truly the words lye doubtfully and ambiguously at the first hearing, as if Paul baptised the Disciples of Ephesus with the Baptisme of Christ, who had before received the Baptisme of John, and were never full and well cleered and explicated, until Beza took them in hand, who ingeniously confesseth that he received the same interpretation, from that Noble, Pious, Ver­tuous, and Industrious Divine Philippus Marnixius, that singu­lar ornament of the Belgick Church; who was born in 1538. and dyed in 1598. and lies in body buried at Leyden. I say this, because his name ought to be precious in the Churches even for this interpretation, (though he wrote Commentaries upon divers other books of the Bible:) and so ought the name of Theodorus Beza, to be venerable with us, as that singular or­nament of the Gallick Church, for the like Piety, Industey, Learning, and Vertue, as by whose means this interpretation, came to our hands of this Church.

I remember I have read it or heard it, written and spoken, and I may (I think) write it & speak it again, that as when God found David, he sound a Man after his own heart: So when David found Mollerus, he found an expounder, according to his heart, and I may apply it thus here also, That when Christ found Paul, he found a chosen vessel and beloved Apostle, after Christ own heart, and when he found Luke, he found a choise Historio­grapher of the Acts of the Apostles, after his heart, and a beloved Physician, besides; so when Luke found Beza, (and Beza Mar­nixius,) he found interpreters of them, after his own heart, and Beloved Divines moreover. But what need such a Trumpet afore hand? The Almes given, the interpretations given by these wo thies, will deserve it, and I do not blow this for your sake, Sir, but others that may (perhaps) read it.

The sum of the Interpretation is this, that in the 5th. Verse above cited, Luke speaks not of any Baptisme done by Saint Paul, But Saint Paul speaks on still of Johns Baptisme, and so you and all Anabaptists are blown away from this Text, as to any Anabaptisme or Rebaptisations hence to be had: This is a short and sweet interpretation, if it can be proved; Yes learned Beza proves it, and that from the two Greek Conjunctive Particles, [...] (I pray Sir, stand aloof, if you be afraid; but you shall not need, I do not Conjure; It is no Heathen Greek, no humane [Page 6]learning, be content, that for this once, or twice (If I did it be­fore) that I may write or speak a little Greek, it being, the Christian Greek, and Divine Learning.) These two particles, ever have relation one to the other, knitting together the parts of the Verse or Verses, and make them answer fitly one to the other. Therefore the particle [...] in the 5. Verse, must necessarily answer to the particle [...] in the 4th. Verse, and so in no wise doth or will suffer, that the series of the speech be broken of, as if the former in the 4th. Verse were to be attributed to Paul the speaker, and the latter part in the 5th. Verse, to Luke the Writer: So then the words in the 5th. Verse, are the words of Paul, who (having before related and approved of Johns Doctrine and Baptisme, as true and Evangelicall, doth here also relate and approve of the peoples hearing his Doctrine and receiving his Baptisme; and so laying his hands upon the 12. Disciples here present (baptised after Johns baptisme, but not by John, as who deceased long before, 30. or 40. years; In Judea, a place also far distant from this City of Ephesus, where these twelve Disciples dwelt, baptised (in all likelyhood) of some of Johns Disciples.) And the gifts following thereupon, which before Paul signified by the name of the Spirit, and of which he had questioned them, He confirmed and established the Ephesine Church: And so (to shew yet farther) that Beza and the other above named are intepreters after Lukes heart (as I said) see a­gain Luke himself in Acts 1.6. and 7. verses, where both are joyned together in like manner by the same Particles [...], and [...]

Yea moreover, if Paul had here baptised these 12. Disciples of Ephesus, sure he would have made mention of it in the 1 Cor. 1.13, 14, &c. where of set purpose he reckoned up such as were baptised by him, not only at Corinth, but else where; Yea and writing from Ephesus to Corinth, he doth not mention them a­mongst the rest, whom if he had baptised, he surely would and should

I wish indeed, that those of our excellently Learned Transla­tors, who took this part of the Acts of the Apostles in hand, had expressed the meaning thereof in some playner and more perspi­cuous English, and had made it plain upon the Tables (Verse or Margin) that he might have run that readeth it, and he that readeth it might have seen and understood, that, they who heard (John, when living, and beleeved his Doctrine) were here spo­ken [Page 7]of to have been Baptised of him, and not the 12. Disciples of Ephesus hearing Paul to have been baptised of him as the words now read seem to shew, which occasioned (though through their ignorance and wilfulness) this error of Rebapti­sing. But I will not be so presumptuous, as to proscribe or pre­scribe any thing here.

But, it may be, you, and the Anabaptists, who comply with the Papists in divers other of their Tenets, do also hold with them in this also, that Johns baptisme was much different from Christs baptisme, and not a like effectuall, (like as you say the same of our baptising of Children, that it is invalid and con­trary to Christs baptisme) and to therefore dream stlll of Pauls rebaptising these 12. Disciples, baptised of John, that so you may ground your dipping again, of grown persons, baptised be­fore of us. I must in a word tell you, That John his, and Christ his baptisme differ not in the nature and substance, which is one and the same in both, and both but one and the same baptisme; as to the Essence, (they differ indeed in Circumstance, John baptising into Christ, as to come and to suffer, and Christs Apostles baptising into Christ, as come and suffered.) If you alledge the words of John, against this, Matth. 3.11. I baptise you with Water, but be that cometh after me, shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, it is but a poor shift, to shift off that to the baptisme of John and Christ, which is put upon the persons of John and Christ, for the words carry onely a differ­ence of the Ministers of one and the same baptisme. John dis­pencing it outwardly in Water by the hand of Man, & Christ di­spencing it inwardly by the Finger of his Spirit, which is as Fire Its but Popish sophistry to compare Johns baptism with water, and Christs baptisme with Fire: Johns baptisme with water, is onely to be compared to Christs baptisme, with water, and then both the baptisme of John and of Christ are but one, both in Authority, for Christ, Authorised and Appointed it, John 3 3. H [...] that sent me to baptise with water, &c wa [...] God: as also in Es­sence (as I hinted) for John used the right Element and matter, and baptised with Water; and the right Words or form, invoca­ting the sacred Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (is appears, both because it was the form known to John, and the Apostles who certainly baptised many before the death of Christ, and [Page 6] [...] [Page 7] [...] [Page 8]before that form was solemnly and publickly declared, Math. 28.19 after Christs Death, and Resurrection: besides, that in the 19. of the Acts, Saint Paul testifieth that John baptised into faith, on Christ to come, and so knowing Christ, he could not be ig­norant of the Father and the Spirit, yea John 1.33. there is a ma­nifest Testimony of the Father, sending to him, and telling him of the Spirits descending like a Dove upon him, who was the Son of God. So thirdly, they were the same in effect and efficacy. For John preached (and practised) the baptisme of Repentance, for, or unto, the Remission of Sins, Marke 1.4. the same which the Apostles did in and by their administration of baptisme.

And Christ himself testifieth, that the baptisme of John per­tained to the fulfilling of righteousnesse, Matth. 3.15. and that the Publicans and People being baptised of John, Justified God; But the Phariseet despising the Counsel of God, were not bapti­sed, Luke 7.29. Whereby it appears, that Johns baptisme, was a part of that All Righteousnesse; a piece of the whole Counsel of God, which they that partaked of, Justified and declared God to be good and righteous.

Were it not so, the Apostles themselves might be questioned, whether truly baptised, as who were no doubt baptised of John, some of them being first his Disciples: for where else should they be baptised, seeing Christ with his own hands baptised none, unlesse one of them should baptise another, which is not proba­ble? And Lastly, If Johns baptisme were not one and the same with ours, that we have of Christs, how do we injoy the same common baptisme with Christ, who was baptised of John? It will follow, That Christ was baptised with another baptism than we are, and so that our baptisme was not sanctified in the person and flesh of Christ, (like as the Jews circumcision was) and so it will abate much of our Comfort that we have Christian Baptisme, the members one and the same Baptisme with our head.

Thus I have driven you off this shoar of Jordan John Baptists Wharf, where you see you cannot land or ground your dipping of Christians, or your Rebaptising of Christened people (as we speak.) Though I must withall prompt you here, that our Quaere is in these tearms twixt Anabaptists and us. Whether [Page 9]the baptism of Christ, (which is given to and received by in­fant Caristians or Christian infants) may be iterated, and you and they bring a Text to shew that the baptism of Iohn was iterated, which as it is not to the scope and purpose, so neither can you shew the same was iterated ever in the twelve Disciples, or any other baptised of Iohn. I say, so long as you hold the baptism of Iohn and Christ, to be two different and re­pagnant baptismes, you cannot inforce upon us from Iohns bap­tismes iterated, (suppose so;) Christs baptism to be iterated: It will be best for you therefore (see how still and ever I am ready to give the best counsell I can) to yeeld to the identity of both Iohns and Christs baptism as to the nature and substance of them, and so indeed you may argue from the one to the other. Hale in therefore again, your Fly-boat, to Iohn Baptists shoar, and see if you can land there, any thing to your purpose, cast on this right side your net again into Iordan, & catch a frog: Whatsoever you get, you then and thus will lose your new and true friends, the Papists and Jesuites; for they row hard against you, and these throw their nets on the other side, holding that Iohn and Christs baptism are very far asunder and differ­ent in the very Essentials; and do and will accurse you with Tridentine Book, Bell, and Candle, and Lantern too of their ship, (none of which, I know, you can abide, especially not the Book and Bell) and Anathematise all, who say that Iohn and Christs baptism are the same for substance, and of the same force.

It is like to be a hot sea-fight, (as most an end, the hottest fights are upon the water, and there is most fire spit out) or ra­ther a cold River skirmish twixt you; which, I for my part, do not intend to stand looking on, though I have set you to­gether by the ears, but will thus leave you to fight it out to the last man; and will passe away, and on to another Text, pressed and squeezed by some of your party for the Rebaptising of bap­tised ones.

It is Heb. 6.2. Where there is mention made, amongst o­ther Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, The Doctrine of Bap­tismes: Lo, say they, Here are Baptismes, in the plurall, as well as one Baptism in the singular, and if your reason were good, why the Apostle called it, one Baptism, because it is to [Page 10]be but once given and received, may not we say (say they) our reason is good why the same Apostle calleth, Many Baptismes, two at least: and so, baptise you your Infants in their Infancy, and we will baptise ours in their growth, when they can make profession of Faith: And so here are baptismes. Truely this is somewhat like the discourse the Saduces had with Christ, about one Woman, who had seaven Husbands, whose Wife she shall be of the seaven in the Resurrection. I say and answer in Generall as Christ did; Are yee not therefore deceived, and do err, because you know not the Scripture? I could tell you here, of the baptismes, that of Iohn, and the other of Christ, to be here meant, and (you may remember, if you have done fighting with the Papists) that we are agreed about them two, to be but one and the same baptism: I could tell you, that the Apostle here writing to the Hebrews, alluded to their old Legal Washings, Ablutions, and Baptismes, minding them of thens, but wi­shing them withall to lay them by, and mind the one Evange­lical baptism, and the sprinkling of Christs blood, the which they did but typifie or look at: So still but one baptism. I could tell you, that the baptismes here meant, are those (I must speak three words more of Human Latine, for the words sake, be­cause of the elegancy of them) Fluminis, Flaminis, Songuinis: But I will turn them into divine English words for yoru sake, of Water, Fire, Blood: For there, as I said before, is an out­ward baptism, which is the washing of the flesh with Water by the Minister: and there is an inward baptism, which is washing of the Soul with the blood of Christ by the Holy Ghost, these are baptismes indeed, and here meant, but in all Gods true Chil­dren, they meet in one baptism, and they come from God, as one baptism, entirely made up of these two sorts, the outward and inward: for that baptism, which is of blood, mentioned by Christ, and mentioned to his two Disciples, (are ye able to be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with) and resolved for them (ye shall indeed be baptised with such baptism) Matth. 20.22. It is nothing but a constant suffering and conflicting in Christs cause, even unto Blood, and the suffering of Martyrdom for his sake.

But I will call in again for Beza, whom as before I stiled an interpreter of Luke, and that Text Acts 19.5. according to [Page 11]his heart, (Though he confessed, he learned the interpretation of Marnixius,) so here also I may stile him an interpreter of Luke again, and of this Text, Heb. 6.2. according to his heart, the which interpretation also he learned of Calvin, who saith to this purpose, an interpreter of those Apostles and Prophets he commented upon, according to their hearts, (though here Beza doth not acknowlege so much) There was a right and Custom in the Church Primitive of administring many bap­tismes, upon certain set dayes; which set dayes were after ap­poynted, to be Easterday and Whitsunday especially, when ma­ny Catehumens and New Converts were wont to meet toge­ther for baptism; These therefore were called, Dayes of Bap­tismes, as appears out of the writings of the Antient both Greeks and Latines, so still it was but one, and the same baptism was conferred upon every one, though called baptismes, because so many received baptism together upon one day, like as some­time in London, six seaven, and more Children partake of bap­tism together at one time.

And now, Sirs, are you Masters in Israel and know not these things? are you Dippers, and know not these Baptismes? and wheras for the time ye ought not to be Teachers, for that ye have need that one Teach you which be the first Principles of the doctrine of Christ, learn, that this doctrine of Baptismes, is the third of them the principles, and that it containeth nothing of two Baptismes, our baptising Christians born in their infancy and your baptising Christians born in their grown age, and least of all, for your rebaptising our baptised Infants, when you have made them your Proselytes upon a confession of Faith. What though our Children be baptised in ignorance of God, they are yet baptised in Covenant with God; if that be a reason with you, they must be dipt again, and rebaptised when they come to knowledge, why were not the Apostles so, when better in­structed, who were ignorant of the Messias, and his kingdom, the death, the resurrection of Christ? will you put your self Sir, or your learned Dippers themselves upon the tryall, and if you be found ignorant of divers principles of the doctrine of Christ, and even fundamental poynts, will you be instructed, and Redipped? Alasse, Sirs, if as often as God shall shew you the errors of your Minds, and the enormities of your lives, you [Page 12]must be dipping & redipping, dripping & redripping, every Year, Moneth, and Day. No, there is another baptism to be used in these cases, eyē the washing the soul with the tears of repentance, dip & re-dip, drip & re-drip in these, and renew your repentance dayly. With what a bold face, & high hand dare you, Sir, be either dipt your self now twice, as I hear, or be a dipper of others, again, (as you intend) of those whom you have inveigled & seduced away into your Scism, & Heresie, being before rightly & validly bapti­sed? is not this a multiplying & so a vilifying of that ōe baptism?

What example have you in all the Word of God, of any Infant Jew re-circumcised, when he came to an ability of professing Faith? and will you tempt God, to put a yoak upon the neck of the Disciples of Christ, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear? Telling us, it is needful to baptise baptised Christi­stians again, when they come to be believers, whē it was not need­ful, yea sinful, to circumcise Jewes circumcised, when they came to be the like? Even when Ziphorah a Woman had circumcised her child,Exod. 4. Moses himself allowed it for good and lawfull, and never did he or any other iterate that circumcision in pre­sent, or afterwards, upon the profession of its faith; and when a­ny went over from being Samaritans, who worshipped they knew not what (as who knew not Jesus Christ) to become Jews,John 4. or came over to Christ, and to the faith of him, none of them were ever baptised again, as Beleevers. Your duplicate of baptism, doth not only oppose the one and single baptism of the Apostle, but brings Christans under a Tax, and layeth a new yoak upon their necks, as I said before.

Besides, To be baptised, is to be born anew, into the Church, & no man naturally can be twice or often born, every Nicodemus can say, Can he enter the second time into his Mothers Womb and be born? Iohn 3. Why then twice baptised, being once baptised sufficiently and truly?

By baptism, Children are admitted into the heavenly society of Saints; and no man civilly can be adopted often into any ones stock or family;Genesis 48. Ephraim and Manasses were but once a­dopted and assumed by Iacob, into his stock for his Children; and why then twice baptised?

When of Married Persons, one forsakes another, & returns a­gain into Love, & both are reconciled, they do not enter into a [Page 13]new conjugal Covenant, by any solemne Celebration of new espousals, because the first conjunction stands firm, the reconciliation made; The baptism of Christians, is, as the celebration of the Contract betwixt them and Christ the Bride­groom; when such a one, through open abnegation, or other hainous sins departing away from Christ, returns again, with and by a serious repentance, there will be no need of being baptised again, and so a new sealing of that Covenant, which being once entred into, is still in force and vigor, and by a pious recorda­tion thereof, the Penitent may confirm his Faith, as Peter did: and by vertue of the same, once established Covenant, God receiveth such to mercy and grace; otherwise the infidelity and impiety of man would frustrate the goodnesse and good will of God, the matter testified in baptism, which it cannot, be­cause it is constant, and changeth not, and therefore it is a horrible prophanation of it, to reiterate baptism.

In a word, Second baptism was ever abhorred in the Ortho­dox Church, as a kind of incestuous Birth, and if you iterate it, and baptise your beleevers again upon their profession of faith, you must be able to make their former baptism void, and no baptism, which you can never do, as having all things therein which God requireth unto Infant baptism, Though Faith, a positive and actual Faith, as you call for, should not be there, which is not required of God, and therefore is denyed of us to be a necessary condition requisite to be found & manifest in every one that is to be baptised: indeed in an Aethiopian Eunuch, an elder Gentile it is, and therefore when he said, see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised, Philip answered, If thou beleevest, with all thine heart, thou maist, who answering, I beleeve that Jesus Christ, is the Son of God, and so Philip bap­tised him, Acts 8 36, 37.

The onely Argument the Anabaptists triumph in, I shall here give a short answer to: Infants of Gentiles, are not of Abrahams seed, either according to the flesh, because not Iowes; or according to the promise, because not beleevers; therefore not to be baptised, whilest Infants, or if they be, to be baptised again, when belee­vere. But I answer, First, The consequent is denyed, for Simon Magus, and thousands more, even of them that you baptise, are neither. 2. Nor is it true that onely Iewes, are Abrahams [Page 14]seed according to the flesh; for that part of the Gentile-Galati­ans, who pleaded for Justification by the works of the Law, and thereby lay under the bondage and curse of the Law, are called the children of Hagar, and said to be born of the Bond­woman, Sinai, and Hierusalem upon earth, as it is to be seen, Gal. 3. & 4. The Apostle applying that part of the distinction to them, like as the other part, the Children of Sarah, to those Gentile-Galathians, who were justified by faith. Nor 3. Is it true that onely beleevers, actually beleevers (as you speak) are the Children of the promise, for thus they do not onely at this one blow, beat down all Christian infante from all interest in Christ, and title to heaven, and make them like as the Heathens, and Pagans (who yet are not wont to strike so hard) yea, and which is more, all Jewish Infants, Isaack, Iacob, and Ioseph; these must not be, with them, nor were by this reason, Children of the promise in their Childhood, but only according to the flesh, untill they did actually believe, and so became Children of the promise: And more absurdity yet doth follow hence, that those Patriarks whom I named (Abraham is to be here excepted) by their infant-circumcision, had no promise of grace sealed unto them, but were under a Covenant of works, and until the years of discretion and actual fiath, were incapable of any inter­est in the Covenant of grace: If onely true beleevers and the Elect persons be under the covenant of grace, & have right to the Sacraments, why is the same Covenant of grace inthe outward administration thereof, both in preaching the promises, and ap­plying the Seales of the Sacraments, to be propounded by Gods appointment to all the outward visible members of the Church? And why was Simon Magus baptised, as I said? 'Tis true, the inward saving grace of the Covenant in both Administrations is by the Holy Ghost conferred onely upon the invisible members of Christs mysticall body, which are the true beleevers and elect: But we not able to discern of these, give the outward baptism to all those, I mean all outward members of the visible Chruch; You must do so, for the Text before alleged out of the Acts, sheweth, that all they who have any degrees of Faith, may and ought to be baptised.

But Sir, will you stand to your own Tackling, The bapti­sing of beleevers? hereby you think and intend to exclude In­fants [Page 15]of Christians; What then will you make of them, Infidels, or Beleevers? can you shew any Text of Scripture old or new, where any Infant of Iew or Gentile in Covenant with God, is so stiled? or can you give any reason of it? That which makes an Unbeliever, must be a positive habit of unbeleef; to justifie this in an Infant, will be a task too hard for you, and to say that Infants do not beleeve in act, or have not the habit of faith onely negatively, will not in the Language of the Scripture de­nominate an Unbeleever.

Indeed those that are made Christians of heathens, they must give some positive and actual expressions of their faith, before they be baptised, (so Philip required of the Eunuch) and not till then are they to be accounted beleevers: but for such as are born Christians of Christians, as our infants are, being entred into and under a gratuitall Covenant with God, we admit them unto the Initial Seal of that Covenant, which is baptism, with­out any such Testimonial Act of Fath, as you require: for they are not Infidels or Unbeleevers; but beleevers, and with­in the compasse of your words (though not your sense) the bap­tism of beleevers.

Seeing you can produce no scripture against their Faith, I will see what I can do for their Faith, Matth. 18.5, 6. (Turn to the Chapter and Verses, and read them, and look to your Neck, in that Verse, it is a Neck verse) Whose shall offend one of these little ones which beleeve on me, it were better for him that a Mistone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the Sea. (Lord what shall become of those, that offend all thy little ones, by dobarring and excluding them from their birth­privilege, and their Right-baptism?) But that I aim at, as to you, Sir, is, that you would take notice that our Saviour Christ, who best knew, knowing the very secrets of the heart, pro­nounceth of some little ones, little Children, such as he took out one of them & set down in the midst of the Apostles, for a pattern of Humility and Harmlesseness, That they did beleeve in him; its apparent, that (howsoever sometimes and elsewhere, spiri­tuall Children are meant by little Children, such as are of a meek spirit, little in their own eyes,) here and at this time, very natural Children in age, and little in growth, or statute, are spoken of, as the very context and Antithesis do shew.

They who do so interpret this place, do make this not the same story with that which followeth, in Matth. 19.13. Where little Children are said tob e brought to Christ, it may be, in their Mothers armes, and so might be lesser Children than these. But the word in the original, for little Children, is the same in both Chapters (the like also in Marke 10.13. (and its acknow, ledged by all, that both in Mathew 19. and Marke 10. Little Children in age and stature are meant) and besides, such little Children in age and stature, were fittest to be examples of Hu­mility and Innocency (the thing intended) to the Apostles, than either greater Children or grown men, who many times, are stubborn and harmfull: And though in Verse 6. where they are said (To beleeve in me) little ones be mentioned without little Children, it is to me an exegesis or further explication of the word, Children, that they were little ones, and small oner, (though such as could come to Christ upon his calling of them, which maketh no difference in point of the one or the others beleeving in him.) Lastly, when Christ saith, Who so shall receives one such little Child in my name, receiveth me; But who so shall offend one of these little ones, &c. The very Antithesis or opposition sheweth, that he speaketh not of divers sorts of little Children, but one and the same. And so forewarneth, in this 18th. Chapter, his Disciples, that they should not be, as he fore­saw they would be, in the 19th. Chapter, offensive unto suchdd lit­tle Children, who were so notwithstanding. But if this be not a Text evident enough for their Faith (as I will not be con­tentious, but subject my Spirit to the Spirit of the Prophets,) let another witnesse speak, Acts 18.8. Crispus beleeved on the Lord with all his house. If there was any Infant there or young­ling (as most likely) it is said to beleeve. Yet our Saviour Christs singling out of Children, to be examples of Humility and Inno­cency, his accepting of savor shewed to them as done to himself, his prohibiting any offence to be done to them, all in this 18th. of Saint Matthew, together with his checking and rebuking of his Disciples, for forbidding them to be brought to him, or to come to him, his taking them up in his Armes, laying his hands upon the [...] and blessing them, Do not all these shew a great deal of Com­placency that Christ had, and took in them, and that these lit­tle Children pleased him very well; and therefore sure were [Page 17]not unbeleevers; For without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11.6. Besides that he pronounceth that of such also (little Infants in age and stature) is the Kingdom of God: but the Kingdom of God is not of unbeleevers. Sure some of these little Children, nay more, some of our little Infants, dying before they are baptised, are saved, and received of God into his Kingdom, whither no unbeleever, nor unclean, can come or enter.

Lastly, I read of two Examples, one in the old Testament of Jeremy 1.5. Of whom the Lord saith, Before thou camest out of the VVomb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet.

Another in the new, of John the Baptist, who being but a Babe in the Womb of Elizabeth, leaped for joy of the approach of Christ then also in the Womb of the Virgin (which joy there­of, was an act of the Spirit in him) Add hereto, Jacobs hold­ing of Esau by the heel, which the Prophet Hos. 12.3. interpre­teth to be a kind of striving with him for the Grace and Blessing. We cannot think these in the Womb, were in Christ and so sanctified one way, and when they came to years of understand­ing by another way. If Chidlren of Beleevers may thus have the Spirit of Grace and Faith, and that before the Seal of the Covenant, then they are not unbeleevers, but beleevers: Howso­ever there are some things extraordinary in these two examples, yet I have shewed, that the Spirit of God is an internal ordina­ry Agent and means in the Church of God, and as to the In­fantile nature and condition, (which from the two former examples appears to be capable of it) doth where it pleaseth infuse Faith and other Graces, as before, Humility, Meeknesse, Innocency, Patience, (whereof little Chnildren were also set for examples by our Saviour Christ) I do not say that any In­fants now have the Spirit and Graces of the same, in so ample and large a measure, as those above named, as who were san­ctified and consecrated in a more speciall degree, for a more spe­ciall work: nor do I say that all Infants, now under Covenant, have the Spirit, and this Grace of Faith, and other, but that they who are the Elect of God, and ordained to eternal life (of which there are many) have Faith and the Spirit, so far forth, as is suf­ficient for their Salvation, Acts 13.48.

But I will fall upon this poynt more closely; and if (as I have in part already, out of the Texts all ged) I can evince this, of [Page 18]Infants-Faith (I mean, and so must you, of Infants in speciality, or in kind some of them, such as he purposeth to save, and not of Infants individually, and in particular every one) Infants Baptism must needs be also evinced. As Paul saith to Agrippa, about the Resurrection of the dead, so may I to you. Why should it be thought a thing Incredulous with you, that God should give Faith unto Christian Infants? They have knowledge and other Faculties of the Mind, and the Soul, and why may not they have supernatural Grace, and so some seeds of the habit of Faith, according to their modell and measure, for the appre­hending of Christ, and so Faith it self in a kind, and in a like kind, unto that is in grown persons? (Faith wheresoever, is alike, and but one in kind, the which how small soever, sufficeth to Salvation.) What, doth the weakness of the Organ of Body or Soul, make it impossible for God to work supernatural­ly even in the little Children, at least so much illumination of the Mind, (more than is ordinary for that age) as may be fit to receive the Grace of Christ? I shall tell you more Sir, than I be­leeve you know, and I know you will beleeve. Such Infants whom deceasing, God taketh up into heaven, (for of such also is the Kingdom of Heaven, as Christ said) he filleth in a mo­ment, and at an instant, with an inundation of knowledge and understanding of Christ (for they come to sight and vision of him) more than you and I have, nay more than all the Prophets and Apostles had, whilest they lived upon earth. And now cannot the same God immediatly before, sprinkle their Souls with one jot of the knowledge of Christ, or one grain of Faith (though but as Mustard-seed) and make them to touch Christ, though but with the Tip, or Fingers and of that hand of the soul, which is Faith, whom they shall immediately have the full fruition of, like as many as touched the Hem of his Garment, were made perfectly whole? But I remember me, you must have plain direct Scriptures for this point, one you have had; and so you shall have more Scriptures, out of which, it may be plainly, and directly evinced, Infants Faith and Salvation by it, which is all one.

Doth not David say and testifie, Psal. 8.2. out of the mouths of Babes and Sucklings, hast thou ordained, or founded strength, or perfected praise? and doth he not, Psal. 148.12. call upon and [Page 19]exhort old men and children, to praise the name of the Lord? the which you cannot expound of spiritual children onely, (as some­times it may, and somewhere) for Mat. 21.15, 16. they are re­al, and bodily children, that cried Hosanna to the Son of David, and fulfilled Davids Speech: now if these had no Grace, Know­ledge, or Faith in Christ, how could they so glorifie and praise Christ, and rejoyce, and even Triumph in Christ?

I ask again, are any Infants in Christ? or ingrafted into Christ? or the Children of God? if so, as you cannot deny it, for we are all one in Christ Jesus, whether bond or free, male or semale, old or young, Father or Children. And God the Father hath given to Christ, Infants and Children, as well as Parents and Fathers: and to those that Christ hath received his Father, he gives eter­nal life.

But now they are all the Children of God, by Faith in Christ Je­sus; and if they be Christ, then are they Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise, Galat. 3.26, 28 if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his, Rom. 8.9. and he that is none of his, Christ Baptizeth not. But Christ Baptizeth, with the in­ward Baptism also, unto Remision of Sins, many Infants, & these are some of his, as who hath taken them into Covenant, to be the God of them, and them to be the Children of God. And surely if Christ should not impart unto some Infants, Know­ledge, and Faith, according to their measure Competent to Salvation, but only to the Adule and grown persons, he might seem to be an Acceptor both of Ages, and personages, which he is not, Deut. 10.17. Rom. 2.11.

See John 6.35. and 37. He that commeth to me shall not hunger, and he that beleeveth in me shall not thirst, immediately Christ ad­deth, whatsoever the Father giveth me, shall come unto me, or be­leeve in me; I ask you now, and Quaere you, hath not the Fa­ther in his everlasting Counsel and Bounty given to Christ, all his Elect Infants, and appointed them to be Christs, when Psal. 2.8. the Lord said unto him, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, ask of me, and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession? if so, why then, they also, Infants, being somewhat of that what­soever given unto Christ, shall come, and do come continually unto him, or beleeve in him, whatsoever you say, or write to [Page 20]the Contrary, that they neither shall, or do believe.

See Galat. 3.22. The Scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by Faith, in Jesus Christ, might be given to those that believe; you hear the disease, of sin, in Adam is spread over all things, that is all men, and whatsoever is of and in man, even Infants; therefore the Remedy of Faith in Christ, must be spread over them too, that this may be as generall and large as that, so Infants, who are saved, must and do believe in Christ.

See 17. John 3. This is life everlasting to know thee, the onely true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. Here is a Gene­ral and universal Rule given by Christ himself, the Author of Salvation, without any inkling, or tinkling of exception, for everlasting life to be atteined, namely by knowing and believing (for that is also included in it) as is specified and more enlarged in the 1 John 5.10, 11, 12 He that hath the Son, hath life, this life is in the Son, and he that believeth, hath this witness in him­self, &c. Now I Quaere you again, Have any of the Elect Infants, the Son of God, have they eternall life? you cannot deny it, and therefore you cannot deny them some spark of Knowledge and Faith.

See 2 Cor. 5.7. We walk by Faith, and not by sight, and 1 Cor. 13.12. now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face, whence it appeareth, there is but one way of joyning us all to Christ, and of our enjoying of Christ, which is, Sight of him in Heaven, or Faith in him upon earth, to which Sight, our Faith now is answerable, being of the same nature and quality, onely differing in the measure; for Faith is nothing else but a sight of him, John 12.44 and 4. Now I Quaere you again, do not you think, but the same way which serveth for all the rest of Gods Elect, doth serve for Children also, to joyn them to Christ? and that there is but one life begun here, which is perfected in heaven, according to that, He that believeth in me hath eternal life, John 6.47. Then also must Infants have some light of the mind, to see and behold Christ now here, as in a looking glase, so hereafter face to face.

See Rom. 4 6. To all Abrahams seed the promise is firm by Faith, and his Title is, the Father of the Faithfull, the Scripture maketh him the Father of us all, and all the Children of the promise. (i.e.) The whole number of Gods Elect (for of that [Page 21]Primary cause of our Salvation, Gods holy Election, Saint Paul there disputeth, Rom. 9, 8. which is observable against the Ana­baptists, who impute the Salvation of Infants solely to Gods Election, which is acknowledged of us to be the Primary cause) whereas in that very place, he mentioneth a secondary cause of their Salvation, that they are the Children of the promise, and so reckoned in Abrahams seed, because of that Interest they have in that blessed Seed, in whom Abraham, and all his posterity are partakers of the holy inheritance.)

Now I Quaere you again here, do you, or dare you exclude Infants from being Abrahams Seed, you must then also bar them from having interest and part in Christ; if not, why do you, or dare you to deny them Faith? seeing that in the same manner as Abraham obtained the Blessing (which was by Faith) so must all Nations of the world, Jews & Gentiles, and every particular per­son, all and as many as lay under the curse before, even Infants therefore, obtain the Blessing by Faith, according as it is, Gal. 3.8.13, 14.

What should I run on thus: your self will prove as much for me anon, and agaiost your self, for in your confutation or rather con­sideration following upon Acts 2.39. there you say, That no­thing but Faith answereth the promise; and I shall tell you that Faith answereth it, as the condition: If then there be no other way or means for Infants to come by Righteousness, or Salvati­on, but by Faith or believing, (the condition of the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel, as works and doing was of the Co­venant of Nature and the Law;) you must either grant some In­fants to believe and have Faith, or else leave them destitute of the ordinary way and means, or shew from Scripture some other, of their Righteousness and Salvation. Yea if Infants be saved with­out Faith, they must then be saved without Christ: for as there is none other name or person under Heaven given amongst [...]en, whereby we must be saved, than the Lord Jesus, Act. 4.12. So there is none other means or grace under Heaven, given amongst men, whereby we may apprehend the Lord Jesus, save Faith, Matth. 3.16. and Heb. 11.6. Remember your own words, no­thing but Faith answereth the Promise: If Infants have no Faith to answer the promise, nor works to answer the precept, how shall they do for the answer of a good conscience towards God, or [Page 22]a saving Baptism, 1 Pet. 3.21? Or what shall they do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall they answer him? Job 31.14. If he will contend with them, they cannot answer him one of a thousand, Job. 9.3 unless in Christ by Faith they be, and then all is answered. I could wish some others of a more vigorous body and brain, would prosecute these and many o­ther Scriptures to the proof of Faith in Infants, Elect and saved, the which (as I take it) would best stop the mouthes of the gain­sayers of Infant-Baptism; who now, not satisfied with their be­ing in Covenant with God also, or his giving of spiritual grace to them, never leave calling for Faith, Faith in Infants; so would it set opener and wider, the way of Infants to their Baptism, even in the opinion of the adversaries thereof.

If you question how such could believe in Christ? Christ who tells you so, gave them to do so, and so may give to others. Is thine eye evill, because he is good? may he not do with his own as him pleaseth? Take that thine is and go thy way, it may be he will give unto this least, even as to thee. Though Intants want the outward Means of Faith, which they are not ca­pable of, as the Hearing of the Word, by which Faith ordinari­ly is gotten, yet there are other besides; what, you will say, extraordinary? and so, you will fly now your self to extraordi­naries, who have taxed us of extraordinaries? no such matter; for besides the ordinary outward Menas of Faith in the Church, which an Infant wanteth, and is not capable of, there are ordi­nary inward Means of the same Faith, which it may find, and of which it is capable, namely Christ, the Author of Faith, and the Spirit of Faith, both these are internal but ordinary Means of Faith in the Church, and avaylable, when the outward are wan­ting, and the outward unavay leable, where those inward are wanting. But you can discern no such matter of Faith in Infants, these shew no such thing as Faith, what then? what evidence of expression do you see, or they shew of a reasonable soul in them? by this reason you may conclude them, unreasonable, as well as unbelievers: Even Childrens souls are equal, and like as yours and mine are in the essentials, which are as large and ample to all intents and purposes (though pent up for want of room) as our souls are, and are capable of Grace. They are Rational Creatures, Seminally, and in the inward Principle of human [Page 23]Nature, which is a reasonable Nature, though through defect of age, they are not Rational, Productively, and in the fruits, or external proceedings, or operations of reason; and so they may be Believers, as to the Root and Fountain of Faith, the Spirit of God, in the first act; though they may want the second act thereof, which is the increase of it in themselves, and the deri­ving the knowledge of it to others.

So then Infants in the Church, may have Faith, and all the E­lect of them have (fot it is called the Faith of Gods Elect, Tit. 1.1.) and you as you cannot descry it in them, so you cannot decry it. Therefore by your own Tenet and Rule, they going for Believers and Elect, may be Baptized; yea, all ought to go so, out of a charitable perswasion, and opinion that ought to be in us and you, (howsoever it goeth with them, as to the Truth and Reality) and therefore all should be Baptized: for by the same reason you Baptize any, of those you call Believers, we Baptize all Infants of Believers; and unless it were so, none at all were to be Baptized: Those that come to you, one by one, in a profes­sion of Faith, you have but a good and charitable opinion of his Faith and Election; you can have no sure and certain knowledge of the same; (For this and that Person, may be an Hypocrite and Reprobate) yet you Baptize him and him. Now therefore, may not we do the like? there comes presented to us, this and that Child, one and another, in the evidence of Gods Cove­nant engraven (as it were) upon them by their birth of Parents in Covenant; we have also a charitable perswasion of their Faith and Election, and can have no more, (for there are also In­fants born in the Church that are Reprobates) and so we Baptize them: But if onely the true Beleevers and Elect were to be Bap­tized, then you and we must have a certain knowledge of every Infants and every mans Faith and Election, as the ground of our and your Baptizing them; the which because neither we, nor you, can have in any ordinary way, neither of us by this Rule must Baptize any at all; You hope the best of all, and so do we; your old Limitation may do well here, so far as man can judge (which in this case is just nothing) and that's all can be said on both sides; but still, I must prompt you, that it is not knowledge of the Infants, being in Election, and the signs of it, or being in the Faith, and the prosession of it, but the being in the Covenant [Page 24]and a relation to it, that is and ought to be the ground of Bap­tism, in the Church of God; now because we find and know all Infants born of Christian Parents, within this Covenant Relati­on (& know not which of them is Elect or not, for if we knew who were Reprobates, we neither would nor ought to Baptize them,) we do therefore Baptize all of them, lest otherwise we should, and might deny the Seal of the Covenant to some of the Elect Children of God.

Me thinks you, who assume so much of the Spirit to your selves, (Take heed, you do not presume too much of your selves therein) there be they who separate themselves, having not the Spirit, Jude 19.) should not be so Covetous or Envious, (and it may be, refistous, and then, it is, blasphemous) as to deny some degrees of the Spirit and the graces thereof to Infants, when as the Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou canst not tell whi­ther it goeth: when as also the Dove-like Spirit of God, hath a neer compliance with, and a great complacency in Child-like meekness, mildness, humility, patience (of which graces he is pleased to stile himself the Spirit,) more, than with your man­ly, or rather unmanly pride, envy, uncharitableness, roughness, and presumption, whereout it is, that you so despise and offend the little ones, withholding them from their due of Baprism, & rail and revilethe Churches of God, and the Ministers of Jesus Christ. These things (I tell you) grieve the good, and mild Spirit of God, and send it away sad from such hearts, and at last, if presevered in, will quench its holy fervours.

And I wonder very much, that any people should run after you, as they do, who leave their Infants and Children under no better a condition, or denomination, than of Infidels and unbe­lievers: for so you tell them, that their condition by nature, and their seed, is the same which Pagan-Gentiles, and till they know God and believe in him, open and professed enemies of God; whereas upon their and our nature, that is, natural Gene­ration or Procreation of Seed, there is the Covenant of Grace established, and set up, which you see at large, Ephes. 2.3. and 4, &c. That we were by Nature the Children of wrath as well as others, when out of Covenant, You profess much Scrip­ture, Learn to speak in that Holy Language, and to call Chil­dren of Christians, Christians by Nature, and not sinners of the [Page 25]Gentiles or Pagans; for so Saint Paul speaketh, Gal. 2.15. We who are Jews by Nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: (How Jewer by Nature?) because they were the Children of the Pro­phets and of the Covenant, born under it, Act. 3.25. So are our Children, Christians by Nature (how not sinners of the Gentiles?) because born Jewes had not their sins imputed to them, (though born in original sin, as the Gentiles,) the Cove­nant being a remedy appointed against it, and a means to bring them into Gods favour again; and so are our Children, not sin­ners of the Gentiles.

You that are Parents, and are carefull enough to keep sure your inheritances, and joyntures of earthly things to you and your Children, suffer not your Children to be wrangled out of their birth-right, and joynt inheritance they have with your selves in the Covenant of Grace, under the name and notion of unbelievers, when as the Scriptures never calleth them so, but a holy Seed; and God hath made you, and you Children joynt­partakers of the Covenant and the Seals thereof.

I have been the longer in this, for that I would lay therein some ground-work, for something to follow. I will be very short in your next Quaere.

Section II. Of Baptism making Christians, and how.

YOu ask whether Baptism maketh a man or woman a Christian without Faith, and following of Christ in all his Commands and Steps, left upon Record for our imitation?

This is a short Quaere, and therefore shall be soon answered, as not seeing to what purpose it is for you or against me, I shall therefore briefly answer something to it out of, Rom. 2.28. and 29. distinguishing of the sorts of Christians, and the parts of Baprism, as he doth of the sorts of Jews, and parts of Circumci­sion. As Circumcision which was outward in the flesh made [Page 26](though I do not here approve of this your word; and therefore I will use another) shewed or declared the Jew outwardly, or the outward Jew; so Baptism which is outward in the flesh, sheweth or declareth the Christian outwardly, or the outward Christian; And both may be, without Faith and following of Christ in all his Commands, &c. as in Esau; and Simon Magus, the one Circumcised, the other Baptized.

Again, As Circumcision which is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the Letter, made (for here your word may go) a Jew in­wardly, or the inward Jew; So Baptism which is of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the water onely, maketh a Christian inward­ly, or the inward Christian; neither of these can be without Faith which parifieth the heart, or the fruits of Faith in following of Christ, &c. Now as the Apostle saith surther, He is not a Jew, and that is not Circumcision, so may I, He is not a Christian, and that is not Baptism, namely approved of God, and avayla­ble to Salvation, which are outward onely and literal; and therefore every true Jew or Christian, must indevour after Faith and Following Christ (to speak as you do) and to find, and get the inward and spiritual substance and nature of these Sacra­ments, which is, to worship God in Spirit, to believe and re­joyce in Christ Jesus, having no confidence in the flesh, Phil. 3.3. to put off the sinsull body of the flesh, Col. 2.11. That we may draw neer with a true heart in full affurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience, and our bodies wash­ed in pure water, Heb. 10.22. and may have the washing of Regeneration, and the Sprinkling of the Blood of our Lord Je­sus within us, as Tit. 3.5. and 1 Pet. 1.2.

Again, There are Made Christians, and there are Born Chri­stians, or a Proselytical or Parental Christianity. As for such who are of the Pagan and Heathen world by Nature, They can no otherwise be made Christians, or Members of the Church, but by a lawful Baptism, upon their accession unto the Church and expression of their Faith, so the Proselvtes of old were and did: whom Baptism made Christians and outward members of the visible Church upon their Confession of Faith, like as their Faith, if true, made them Saints and inward members of the In­visible Church. But for them Infants, who are in the Church and within the Covenant, descended of Parents and in Cove­nant; [Page 27]these are Born Christians and Church-members visible. I mean not as born of Christian Parents, but as born in and un­der the Christian Covenant; so that their Baptism doth not so much make them to be Christians, but only shew and declare them to be such (as I said) and seal them as Covenanters. And howsoever a Positive expression of Faith explicitely be necessa­ry unto a Heathen Born, for his Admission unto his Christianity or Church-membership, yet it is not so unto a Christian Born; for their Christanity, or Church-membership, is their Birth-Privilege; and Baptism is but their Instalment or inrolment, and is but as the Inauguration or unction unto a Prince Born.

Faith I confess, and I mean saving and justifying Faith (and so must you, seeing you joyn thereto, the following of Christ in all his Commands and Steps left upon Record for our Imitati­on) is absolutely requisite unto Born Christians, as a Conditi­on to their partaking and enjoyment of the Benefits and Fruits of Baptism, but not absolutely required, as the condition to their comming and engaging to the Covenant, to the which they have a good Title and Right, without present actual Faith; unless you will affirm that all the Jewes, who came to Circumcision, had the like, and all the whole Congregation of Israel, man, woman, and child, who Deut. 29. entred into Co­venant with God, had a saving and a justifying Faith.

In a word; Baptism without Faith may declare a visible Chri­stian, but incompleatly, as without Faith. Faith without Baptism, may make an invisible Christian but incompleatly, as without Baptism: Faith and Baptism together, both make a Christian compleatly, and that both Visible and Invisible.

Are not Children of the Heathens born Heathens? and why then are not Children of Christians, born Christians? I mean, it is theiri Birthright to be so esteemed; or they are to be esteemed such, by their Birth-right, to be reputed within the Covenant of Grace, or members of the visible Church. Is the condition of a Christians Child worse now under the Gospel, than a Jewes Child was under the Law? the Children of the Jewes were born Jewes, and it was their Birth-right to be Israelites, visible mem­bers of the Church of Israel; whereupon the Apostle calleth them, Jews by Nature, Gal. 5.15. As before I have said, and Rom. 11.24. He calls the whole Nation of the Jewes, the Natural [Page 28]branches of the Olive-tree, in that they were the vifible Church of God; so the 1 Cor. 7. Those that are born of holy Parents are called holy, yet sinners but in divers respects; by Nature, and as generated of their Parents, so sinners, for Parents do not generate by Grace but Nature: but by Grace, and as received by God into Covenant, so Holy, for God said, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and if the root be holy, then are the brancher, no repugnancy here; like as the Circumcised generateth an In­fant with a fore-skin; and as wheat dressed and clean bringeth forh wheat with chaffe upon it; so a Christian bringeth forth one, that is not a Christian, who is therefore Baptized that he may be made Christian, which is when he is Ingrafted into the body of Christ.

And whereas the Apostle saith, Eph. 2.3. That we were by Nature the Children of wrath, as well as others: it doth not con­tradict, we may be such, and yet born Christians too, and Holy in an externall Covenant, being born of believing Parents; if you would but remember the ordinary distinctions that are given, they would disperse this mist before your eyes, and cleer them matter to you I will give them you; as thus, as there is a Jew, so there is a Christian without and in open view, of the Church and as Jew, so a Christian within and in secret, & before the face of God; as none were born Jewes, so none are born Christians in this second and later senss, thus we must be made Christians, neither could or can we claim it by Birth-right: but in the first sens, which is that whereof the Assertion is, we may; even all that have a visible Birth and standing under the Covenant of Grace, are Christians, and Holy in the face of the visible Church, though (perhaps) not so in the face of God, but many, for all this, may be Children of wrath. Your mind, as your words, runneth onely upon the Internal part of the Covenant, which are inward saving graces, which belong only to the Elect; and because we know not, what these Infants are born with, we say not, that thus they are born Christians; where you should take notice of an external part of the Covenant, which is a true visible membership, and Birth-Holiness, which known to us and appearing to all, we call them born Christians as who from their Birth, are to be accounted and reputed visible members and patts of the Church.

For the Covenant of Grace is largely to be understood and; Taken for the whole dispensation of it in-outward Ordinances and under the Notion of its external Privileges, as well as in in­ward Graces, and under the notion of its internal powers. You most an end, and in this Quaere especially, use the Covenant, as Hanun did the servants of David, sent to comfort Hanun, and to honour his deceased Father, who shaved off the one half of their Beards, and cut off the half of their Garments, and so sent them away, 2 Sam. 10.4. So do you, and yours; you leave out in your writing and discourses, the one half of the Covenant, and still restrain it to the inward and spiritual part thereof, whereas it was sent whole and entire of God, with an outward and ex­ternal part also, for the further Honour and Comfort of the be­lieving Parents and their Children.

But I come to the last, your first Queare of the three about Baptism as you propound them; but my last of the three, as I handle your matters; and this it is.

Sect. III. Of Baptizing of Infants.

WHat warrant you have from the words of Christ for your Bapti­zing of Infants before they do actually believe? What warrant? I thank you for this word, a gentle and general word, I looked for no less, than what command or precept have you, such a se­vere and special word, as a command, to be demanded of me. Did you keep such a blustring in seven whole Quaeres together, about the commands and precepts of Christ & his Apostles, and their examples, (which I took as your preparative and Preface, unto this your particular Quaere of Infant-Baptism) and doth the wind go down, in this soft and still voyce, What warrant have you for it? After all your former Thundrings out the Com­mands of God against us, as if we of the Church of England had broken them all, and had pieced them up with our Human In­ventions and additions, as Infant-Baptism and the rest, is this your only Thunderbolt you have to strike us down with? what warrant have you for it, out of the word? Your friends and fel­lowes, [Page 30]lowes, will give you no thanks for this word (if it were not they that gave it you, word and work and all) who as the Jewes cry­ed, The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, so they go up and down, and cry, a Precept of the word, a Precept of the word for your Infant-Baptism; and do you come after them and behind, and so softly speak, for fear they should hear you, a Warrant out of the word, a Warrant out of the word for the same?

This made me look back over your other Quaeres about our Ministery, our maintenance; and I find upon such Review, that this word, Warrant, is used and prefixed before them all, and not a word of a Precept or Command. I see I have been much mistaken, who, when I might have put off you and all your Quaeres, with a Warrant, according to your demand, have put my self to such trouble, as to search the Scriptures, and send you Precepts and Commands out of the same for every particular. You are beholding to me, for I have gratified you herein, in giving you more than you required, and in spending more upon you than you desired, I will not say deserved. I hope you will make good use of my Indulgence herein; and not expect for time to come, that I shall do the like still. No, you will now give me Leave to take and make my advantage of the word, which I have lost hitherto, and you have gained hereby.

For (I take it) there is a great deal of distance and difference twixt a Warrant out of Gods word, and a Command or Precept out of the same; I shall (I hope) bring you forth some warrants out of the word for our Baptizing Infants; but for a Precept or Command for the same, I am not engaged, no nor required to give by this your Quaere. Warrants enough, and those from the word, I shall serve upon you; for though a Warrant from a Justice, be a Precept Missive, yet a Permissive will of God, which is no Precept for it, may be a Warrant of an Action; and such are and may be, any solid Reason, or good Consequence or like example drawn there from, which though it will not be admitted for a Precept, may serve for a Warrant.

A. first Warrant, shall be this Reason, which is but a recol­lection, or recapitulation of somewhat immediatly said before. If Infants of Christians are all of them capable, and some of them partakers of the Spirit, and Faith, and other inward Graces, [Page 31]Then they may and ought to be Baptized; This is warranted out of the word and those Texts, Act. 8.36. Act. 10.47. The one warranting Baptism, to a believer; the other to him, who hath received the Holy Ghost, whether young or old, Infant or grown person: If Thou believest (saith Philip) thou mayest be Baptized; when the Eunuch asked, what doth hinder me? so Faith it was that made him capable, and removed the hindrance, though upon his confession of his Faith, it being not otherwise discernable, he having no other right pleadable, he being one o'the Gentiles, He was actually Baptized. So can any man forbid water, that these should not be Baptized, who have recei­ved the Holy Ghost as we? and so he Commanded them to be Baptized.

That particular Hypothetical, (if thou believest, &c. thou may'st be Baptized) may and must be resolved into this general Categorical, whosoever Believeth, may be Baptized, Man or Child, Young or Old; and howsoever, Cornelius and the rest, their receiving of the Spirit, was in the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, then manifesting it self that way, yet any other manife­station of the Spirit, any word or act of God declaring, that Persons do belong to Gods Covenant, (as some or other way, the Spirit doth manifest it self in all that do belong to Gods Covenant) is to us and ought to be to you, a sufficient Warrant without any danger of will-worship to account them such, and therefore to Baptize them, be it this pouring out of extraordina­ry gists, as here upon Cornelius and others; or the Consession of Faith, as in Philip; or Repentance, as in those that came to John the Baptist; or be it a promise to believing Parents-and their Seed, to be their God, or Gods owning them as Persons belong­ing to the Church, or any other ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, or the Spirits supplying, their infirmities: in these cases can any man forbid water, that these should not be Bapti­zed? This Interrogative, and quaestionipropounding Speech, may and must be resolved into a Nagative-Answer, absolutely: No man can forbid water, rightly (for that's done, that is rightly done, or done of Right) anless he will forbid that, which God hath Commanded? and some of these we have abundantly for the Infants of believing Parents; where no man can forbid, there God Commands; that they, who have received the Holy [Page 32]Gholst, should be Baptized; The resule also out of this, is this ge­neral Proposition, whoseever (whether Infant or grown Per­son,) hath received the Holy Ghost (whether apparently or secretly, ordinarily or miraculously, whether in sight or Faith) hath a right to Baptism, no man can forbid it; and in one of the particulars, Peter here Commands it. See, how I have gratified you, beyond a Warrant, with a little less than a Command for the Baptizing of Infants, if having Faith and the Spirit, as many, yea, all the Elect of them have, whom, we not able to know one from the other particularly, do therefore Baptize all under the Covenant with God.

More briefly and syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.

All Persons who have received the Holy Spirit, or have Faith, are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptized; as appears by the two Texts here cited.

But some Infants of Christians have received the Holy Spirit, or have Faith; as appears by many Texts formerly cited.

Therefore some Infants are Commanded by God in Scripture to be Baptized.

A Second Warrant, is This Reason. It Infants of Christian Parents, be in the Holy Covenant of God, and have the same engraven upon them, and established with them, Then they are to be Baptized, and to receive Baptism as the initial seal thereof: This Reason is warranted, or this warrant may be reasoned out of the word, Gen. 17.9. &c. and Rom. 4.11. for its there appa­rent (and the light there shining dazzles all Antipaedobaptists, they cannot abide to look thereon) that as Abraham and his Proselytes, grown men, upon their profession of their Faith, were Circumcised, so the seed or Children of Abraham and those Pro­selytes, were Circumcised as Children of Parents in Covenant, and joyned together with them in covenant; and both these are there expresly Commanded; and so this also, that the seed of Abraham, and his Proselytes should be Circumcised, by vertue and reason of Gods Covenant with them, which was to be sea­led unto them by Circumcision. Now as the Being of Infants in Covenant under the Law, made them capable of, and gave them a due Right to Circumcision, the Initial seal of that Co­venant under the Law; so the being of Infants in Covenant un­der [Page 33]the Gospel, makes them capable of, and gives them a due or Right to Baptism, the Initial seal of the Covenant under the Gospel; The Covenant being the same, for substance, and in re­lation to the eternal wel are of the Soul (as in the n [...]x I shall shew:) which being so, if Anabaptists passing by this reason from the Covenant, will insist still upon the meer and sole Com­mandement of God, I must tell them, the Text saith not, Thou shalt keep my Command, but thou shalt keep my Covenant; im­plying, that this Command of Circumcision had reference to the Covenant, and was part of it. For here God is to be consi­dered, not in his absolute Prerogative commanding, but as God in respective mercy Covenanting with his people, and all his Commands, are to be taken as branches of his Covenant, and all prounded upon his Free-grace in Jesus Christ, therefore Gen. 17.10. and 13. God calls expresly Circumcision by the name of his Covenant, to teach you and all others that will learn, that the Covenant made Infants capable of the Seal, and not Gods meer Commandement, as you and your notional, and metaphysical Masters do abstract, who love to play with your own Fancies and Imaginations, whereas the Seal is nothing but the confirma­tion of the Covenant, and appointed and commanded so to be of God. But the Covenant, in order of Nature going before the Seal thereof, their being in Covenant, must needs be the ground of Gods commanding the Seal of Circumision.

It is acknowledged there was a special Commandement for circumcising in the time of Infancy; but do not you blame God for his such Command, by the same reason you blame us for our practice? Infants of Jewes were as much in the state of Nature, as ignorance, blindness, and under the same defects, that Infants of Christians are; and why do ye not charge the wisdom of God with folly, for Commanding the Infants of Jewes to be circum­cised? or excuse us who being under the same Covenant, do Baptize the Infants of Christians, In imitation of God, Com­manding Circumcision, and also in obedience of God and that Command, which was in part also Evangelical. For

That Commandement was for the Circumcising of such In­fants in their Infancy, whose Parents were under Gods seal, but there is no such command for Infants, whose Parents were not; for these, Profession of Faith was needful, Abraham (in whom [Page 34]the Church of the Jews began) therefore had Faith, before hee took the Seal, but no such thing was afterward required of A­brahams Seed, but the contraty Commanded, namely that their Seed should be circumcised in their Infancy.

And so I deny not, but God Commanded Circumcision; but this, that by vertue of Gods Commandement onely, they were Circumcised, I deny, for it was also and chiefly, because of the foregoing Covenant in the 7. and 8. verses, to which the words refer, saying, Thou shalt keep my Covenant. Therefore (what Covenant? vers. 10. Circumcision, is so named) He doth not barely Command it, but with an Inference or reference there­fore, to shew that, they being in Covenant, were therefore to have the Seal thereof, Circumcision, which did but put the Co­venant under Seal, in which Covenant those Children were be­fore by Birth, being born of Parents with whom God had stricken Covenant. But I shall go neer to make use of it anon for the Baptizing of our Children, like as they and you do now, for the circumcising of the Jewes Chrildren, Though (the Truth is) that was nothing but Gods word of Institution, whose incommunicable property it is to appoint Sacramental Signs. The Covenant then especially was the ground of Circumcising the Seed of the Jewes, and the same is the ground of Baptizing the Infants of Christians: and so Christian Parents, being in Covenant, their infants are in Covenant with God, and there­fore Baptizable; for Gods Covenant written upon Children of Parents in Covenant, is no Blank to seal too, but a just Title (or writ, as I may so say) for the Seal, and a very Commission given out by the Holy Spirit, for the Baptizing Infants of Chri­stians in their lofarcy; and so these things appearing to the Churches of God, That Infants of Christians are entred in Co­venant with God, They ought to put the same under the Seal of Baptism, as the Infants Due, and the Churches Duty.

More briefly and Syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.

All persons within and under the Covenant of Gods Grace, are Commanded of God, to have the Seal of Covenant put upon them, which in the Gospel-administration there­of is Baptism.

But all Infants of Christians, are within the Covenant of Gods grace.

Therefore all Infants of Christians, are Commanded of God to have the Seal of the Covenant put upon them, which in the Gospel-Administration thereof is Baptism.

The first Proposition is clear from Gen. 17. and God Com­manding all Jews in Covenant to be Circumcised; and from Matth. 28. and Christ Commanding all Gentiles, or Nations in Covenant to be Baptized.

The second Proposition, is the very Tenour of the Cove­nant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed; and so I have reasoned the Baptism of Infants and Terms, into a Command of God, before I intended it.

A third Warrant is this Reason; If the Infants of Jewish Pa­rents, were capable of Circumcision, the initial Seal of the Co­venant, which was Circumcision, and were Circumcised, though they could shew no Right they had unto it, but their Birth of Parents in Covenant. Then also may, and must, the Infants of Christian Parents, be Baptized and receive Baptism, the initial Seal, though they can shew no other Right to it, but their Birth of Parents in Covenant: This Warrant is Reasoned out, or this Reason is warranted out of, Heb. 13.9. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, to day and for ever. Jesus Christ ministred is the Cove­nant, which is (as I said) the same for ever in sabstance, and in re­lation to theeternal welfare of souls; Though the ministrations of him be different, of him as to be exhibited and to come, unto the Jewes, and of him, as come and exhibited, unto Christians; And though some Ceremonial and Circumstantial matters be changed, yet the substantial, and that which was purely a Co­venantall or Sacramental Part, abides, as being an everlast­ing Covenant made with Abrahams Seed, all true beleevers: they differ not, the Two Sacraments, in any substantial thing, or in any spiritual effect necessary to salvation, or in any use to confirm the Covenant of Grace, and further a man in the way to Heaven, and so, as an Initial Seal of the Covenant, they dif­fer not, nor as a Sacrament of entrance, into the Church; and so Circumcision was a Seal of the same Righteousness by Faith, as Baptism is to us, Rom. 4.11. and Circumcision signified the mortification of the flesh, and the renewing of the mind, and did bind over the Jewes unto the obedience of Gods will, Rom. 2.28. &c. Gal. 3.21. and so doth Baptism the same to us now, as [Page 36] Rom. 6.3. and 11. 1 Pet. 3.21. Insomuch that Baptized Christi­ans are called circumcised Christians; and Baptism is called by the name of Circumcision, Col. 2 11. and 14

4. Though we Christians are not to follow the Jews in things peculiar to his own dispensation, which was Legal and Cere­monial; yet those actions that were done by them upon such grounds that are of moral, perpetual and common concernment to one person, as well as another, in one Church, as well as another, for one age as well as another; none can deny such actions to be binding and obligatory to all, as a standing Rule for after Generations; by which may be answered that which is usually objected by those that except to our Analogy of Baptism with Circumcision, as why do ye not plead a Baptism of Males onely; and that, particular of the eight day, and so car­ry on the whole Analogy together and in order? why, because, these were but circumstantial things, the two Sacraments may be one in substance for all these; besides they were not of common, but peculiar use to the Jews, that Church, those ages; as for the eighth day, it was both a Ceremonial and Physical reason, as to life and health of the infant that thefore skin was not cut off till then; and for the Females not Circumcised, it is enough a­gainst you and your opinion, if the proportion betwixt Circum­cision and Baptism holds but in the Males, for that will infer the state of infancy capable of the Initial Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel; and again, under the Law, because of the inconveniency and unfimess of the thing it self to be done upon them, the Females were Circumcised in the Males, as the Church is circumcised in Christ, the Males bearing the Type of Christ upon their flesh; and the Males and Females in Matrimo­nial conjunction representing Christ and his Church, to which the Apostle alludes, Eph. 5 22 and 33. but now such a typical discrimination of Sexes being removed, Christ exhibited puts no difference in Baptism between Males and Females, Gal. 3 27 and 28.

Nor yet do we Argue for Infant-Baptism, from the bare Ana­logy of Infantcircumcision, but from the force of the reason, that lyeth in the performance, which holds not in the circumstances of the eighth day and the Females, as it doth in this, of Infancy. Namely, that as Infants of the Jews were circumcised, though [Page 37]they declared no right they had unto it, but their birth; so may the Infants of the Christians be Baptized, though they make no manifestation of their Faith, &c. but shew their birth, as Chil­dren of Parents in Covenant with God.

Yea the Foundation and occasion of both, Circumcision and Baptism, were one & the same, of common concernment to all; (to adde somewhat left out before, wherein they differ not;) namely Gods free eternal Love to his Elect, and mans misery by his fall in the loynes of Adam, and his birth in pollution from the loynes of his immediate Parents derived to them from the loynes of Adam, whence also I may argue, the original sin, and the clensing of Nature by the Spirit of Christ, are of Common concernment to Jewish and to Christian Infants: Therefore Christian Infants ought to the made partakers of the Seal of Re­generation in their Infancy, as the Jewish Infants were; and so there lyeth as much necessity in substance, yea morality in the duty for believing Christians to Baptize their Infants, as for believing Jewes to circumcise theirs; but of this particular, I shall say more presently.

5. If now for all this, you shall deny and withold Baptism from the Infants of covenant-Christians, in their Infancy, notwith­standing that God granted, yea commanded Circumcision to the Infants of covenant Jewes in their Infancy, (but by reason of the covenant, which God made with the Parents and their Seed,) You must of necessity do one of these absurdities yea Im­pieties, i.e. either you must deny Gods covenant of Grace under the Law and the Gospel, to be one and the same for substance, and these, circumcision and Baptism to be the Initial Seales of it according to the diversities of the administeations of the same, which is unreasonable and unwarrantable, as is shewed.

2. Or you must charge God with want of wisdom and discre­tion in managing his affairs, for choosing such unfit and uncapa­bie parties as Infants to make a covenant with and to Seal too; which is, Irreligious and Impious to do.

3. Or you must prefer the Typical Administration before the Evangelical, and so advance Moses above Christ, and the shadow before the Sun-light, by denying the Infants of Gods covenanted people under the Gospel, and since Christs comming the Initial Seal of the Covenant, and so making the Grace of less extent, [Page 38]than that which Moses allowed the Infants under the Law, and before the comming of Christ, which is unchristian and un-Gospel-like to do.

4. Or you must put our Children born in the bright day of the Gospel, and of more abundant Grace, into a worse estate and Condition, as to the meanes of their Salvation; if they be pas­sed by the Seal and not baptised, then the Children were, who were born in the Twi-light of the Law, who were admitted to the Seal & Circumcised; which is envious and malicious to do:

5. Or you must shew, that a manifestation of Faith, and some personal Righteousnesse, is now more requisite. (Which was onely required of such, whose Parents were not under the Faederal Seal) unto the baptism of our Infants, than it was unto the Circumcision of their Children; or that their Chil­dren gave at their Circumcision, such Testimony of their Faith and Righteousnesse more than ours. Which is even foolish and childish to think.

This Warrant of our Infant-baptism, from its Analogy with this Infant-Circumcision, lyeth as such a Block in your way, as neither you, nor any of yours, could ever get over, as Christ crucified on the Crosse, was unto the Jewes a stumbling Block. So Christ ministred in Circumcision, unto the Jewes in Cove­nant and their Infants, is to you and all Antipaedobatists, a very stumbling Block, which whilest they have endeavoured to lift at, and leap over, they have strained and stretched and wre­sted Scriptures more than their Armes, and have broken their shins, I mean, their first Faith and a good Conscience, making shipwrack of both, whilest they slit upon this Rock, or stumble upon this Block.

But, Sir, I hope better things of you, and I have better things for you, as my Friend and Neighbour: I will not leave you in the maze of the five-went way of the Anabaptists that they must walk in; I have a single path and a plain way for you, if you please to take it, and it is this, or none.

6. You must yeeld in Modesty and Humility, at it becomes you, to beleeve such parties, Infants of both Testaments to be inabled by God, with some proportionable Grace, for the Co­venant and Seals, in a way acceptable to himself. Though you cannot see it, nor have Capacity, (I will not say Inpenuity) to [Page 39]acknowledge it, and to clear off all Clouds of Doubts and Quaeres, which you or others have raised up and gathered to­gether, about the manner and manifestation thereof, and for this purpose read, Esay 40.13, & 14. Esay 55.8, and 9. Rom. 11.34, & 35. Ro. 12.3, & 16 And of this I have largely before discoursed, more briefly and Syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.

If all Infants of Jewes are commanded in Scripture to be cir­cumcised, and their Parents thereupon bound to bring them to Circumcision, Then also all Infants of Christians are com­manded to be baptised, and their Parents bound to bring them to baptism.

But all Infants of Jewes are commanded in Scripture to be circumcised, and their Parents bound to bring then to Cir­cumcision, Therefore all Infants, of christians are commanded to be baptised, and their Parents bound to bring them to baptism.

The first Proposition is clear from the cited Texts of Hebrews 13.9. and Colossians 2.11. and from the Analogy of Circumcisi­on and baptism, and the samenesse or identity of the Cove­nant of both Administrations, in the substantials, as to the good of Souls.

The second Proposition, is the very Letter of the Text, in the seventeenth of Genesis, and elsewhere as hath been shewed: and so I have reasoned Infant-baptism into a command, before I intend­ed it.

A fourth Warrant is this Reason; If Baptism be a means and Remedy to free Christian-Infants from originall sin, as to guilt and punishment, and the dominion thereof in them, that are E [...]ect and Beleevers, Then such are and ought to be bapti­sed, The Church or Minister of it, knowing nothing of this and that particular Infant, but he or she may be such. This Warant is reasoned out of Gods Word, or this Reason is War­ranted out of Gods Word, Romans 6.3.4, 5, 6. verses. We as many of us, as were baptised into Christ, were baptised into his death; therefore we are buried with him by baptism into his death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, so we should walk in newnesse of life, &c. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

I must here add a little explication, lest there may be a mis­construction [Page 40]construction of some Popery: The Popery in this poynt is this, That baptism taketh away original sin, that it ceaseth after bap­tism to be a sin properly, and is nothing but a defect or weak­nesse which maketh the heart fit and ready to conceive sin, like Tinder which is not Fire, but is apt to conceive Fire: This I abandon, as Popery and an Error. But this I aver, as Truth and Protestancy.

• 1. That after baptism, in the Elect Infants, original sin is taken away, as to the punishment of it, for there is no condemna­tion to them that are in Christ, Rom. 8.1.
• 2. As to the guiltinesse of the person, there being nothing to bind them to punishment, if no such condemnation.
• 3. As to the dominion of it, it shall not reign in their mortal bodies, nor they serve it.
• 4. As to the Imputation of it, it shall not be imputed to them, but be pardoned, and in that respect, be as if not.

But for all this, original sin or concupisence, remaines in the Elect Infants, even after baptism, and ever after, and is still sin and properly sin, some limbs and portions, of the old man, and the body of sin remain, even where he is said to be crucified and destroyed, in the manner above, and there are and will be defile­ments in them that are washed: I must enlarge no farether here.

However this may be a comfort to Beleevers, that in Christ the promised seed (who should and did break the Ser­pents head, which in some good sense, I may call original sin,) there is pardon of this sin, to their natural seed; and therefore Christ was also born, not in the ordinary way, as others of Mankind, but of a Virgin, as conceived by the Holy Ghost, that so being free himself from original & all sin, He might pro­cure the pardon of the same, and be a plea against it. Yea, though Infants in present have no actual sins, yet their baptism ex­tends its vertue to the taking away also of the guilt, punishment, dominion, and imputation of sins to come, so the party baptised stand to the order & terms of Baptism, which is to turn to God, beleeve actually in Christ, and continually renew repentance, as the place above mentioned imports, Romans 6.4. and thus bap­tism saveth, 1 Peter 3.21. (So doth baptism seal the Pardon, [Page 41]as of original, so also of actual sin, Acts 22.16. Ananias said to Paul, Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. Oh but we commit sins dayly after bap­tism, & that after justification, & will the Lord continue to par­don such sins? yes if we continue to repent of, and purge away sich sins. So 1 John 1.7, 8. If we confesse our sins he is faith­ful and just to forgive us, how faithful and just to forgive sin? it implyeth that he hath somewhere bound himself by promise to do it, and where and when but in baptism, and to whom but the party baptised, so far as sin is repented of? when the Conscience makes any question, whether God will continue to pardon sin, the washing of Baptism doth seal the assurance there­of; the person baptised may say, I am assured of it, I have it sealed to me, so many years ago, at the time of my Bap­tism.

It is also a popish device, who tell you that Baptism onely serveth for Remission of sins done before, and therefore for sins does after they must have a Sacrament of Penance, distinct from Baptism, appointed for a remedy: For the Sacramental force of Baptism doth extend it self to the whole life, that is, to be a Seal unto them of Remission of sin in the blood of Christ: And the confession of sin is but a more effectual application of the force of Baptism, like as the people who were baptised of John, confessed also their sins; And therefore there needs no Sacra­ment of Repentance, or Penance, to be set up for this purpose after Baptism, to be a second Table, for Refuge after sins actu­ally committed, like as they say, making Baptism but the first Ta­ble for Refuge after original sin contracted: For Baptism it self, is the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sins, Mark 1.4. (Christs baptism being not different from Johns Baptism, as is shewed) as which teacheth and ingageth us to dye unto sin, and rise unto newnesse of lie, Romans 6.4. Which is nothing but Repentance, which is called, Repentance from dead workes, and so a rising from them, Heb. 6.1.

It would therefore much promote the good cause of Infant-Baptism, if the Doctrin of original sin especially, (& also actual) were pressed and urged upon People and Parents, especially a little more, and they heard oftener, how all Men, and Women, and Children, born in the ordinary way, sin Adams fall, are [Page 42]born in the guilt of original sin, and have a sinfull and polluted being, whosoever have any being, and may and must every one confesse with David, I was born in sin, and in iniquity hath my Mother conceived me, (it is plain that he confesseth not his Pa­rents but his own sin, this being the scope of the whole Psalm,) & so with Job, Who can bring that which is clean not of that which is unclean? & that which is born of the flesh is felesh, & flesh and blood cannot inherit eternal life, and that by Nature we are the Children of wrath, and all Infants, as that in Ezekiel 16. polluted in their bloods, their Fathers are Adamites, their Mothers are He­vites, &c.

This if preached and pressed, would shew to Parents what great need there is of a New-Birth for their Children, and so would lead and drive them to procure for them the outward washing in Baptism, as a Seal of the inward washing away of that natural pollution of sin by the Spirit: Thus our Saviour Christ inforces it unto Nicodemus, John 3.5. and that not so immedi­ately in reference to actual sin, as original or Birth sin, the natural pollution in which Infants are born, and I can see, no good rea­son to the contrary, but that the outward Elementary Baptism of Water is here intended as a Seal of the inward washing by his Spirit, which is also called the washing or Laver of Regenerati­on, Titus 3.5. Because the inward washing of the Spirit in Regeneration, is sealed with the outward washing in Bap­tism.

Therefore I find it, in the Ecclesiastick Histories, That in those ages and places, where and when the vilenesse of origi­nal pollution was best understood of Parents of Children, as most preached of by the Fathers of the Church, as in Augustins dayes, what running there was od Parents with their Children in their armes, to Baptism; and why not? there being no o­ther visible ordinance appointed of God in the Church, but Baptism, for the washing away the guilt and filth of that Birth­fin and pollution; And was it not so of old? wherefore did God command the Infants of the Jewes to be circumcised, and wherefore were they so circumcised in the fore skin of their flesh? but to shew tht the very nature was defiled, which they recei­ved by carnal generation from their Parents, and which they were like to traduce and conveigh to their Children, and to testi­fie [Page 43]what need they had to have such original Corruption, and uncircumcision of the flesh, to be done away by the clensing and Regeneration Spirit of Christ, sealed in their outward Circum­cision: And that Circumcision in the former, as Baptism in the latter dispensation, do both poynt at this one and the same thing, the Cleming away of the pollution of the natural birth, by the Spirit of Christ, there is a clear Text, Colossians 2.11, 12, 13.

We now are fallen into those days, wherein there have been not only shaken but rased many foundations and principles of the Doctrines of Christ, especially two of those six in Hebrewes 6.2. Which are Repentance from dead workes, (a chief of which is original sin,) and the doctrine of Baptism; and wherein a Spirit of Pelagianism hath entred into many, and goeth about preaching unto Parents a freedom from original sin & pollution in their Infants, as derived from Adam, and so proclaming a liberty from baptifing of them (just as the impostors foretold of by Saint Peter) whilest they promise them liberty, they them­selves are the Servants of Corruption, 2 Pet. 2.19. It concerneth us therefore so much the more, who are Master-builders in the House of God, or but Repairers of the breaches, to uphold and maintain these two foundations of the Christians Faith, and to teach the people first, that as themselves were, so their Children are defiled with original sin and pollution by their natural birth, and then next, that there is no other ordinary way of clensing and washing them, but by the regenerating and purifying Spirit and Grace of Christ Signified, Sealed, and Exhibited in andby the outward washing of Water in Baptism, as pleaseth God.

Again, I say not that Baptism doth all this, from or by the deed done, or work wrought, which is their Popish phrase, but (as our Protestants say) either as it is a means to give & exhibite Christ with his benefits, the which it doth by signification, as a particular Certificate assuring forgivenesse of sins; or as a to­ken or pledge of the Grace of God, confirming it. Or as an in­strument, because in and with the right use of Baptism, God confers Grace where and when he pleaseth (for it is no Physi­call but a Moral Instrument) and sets his image or mark of Re­generation upon the party, whence Baptisme is called the Laver [Page 44]of Regeneration: God is at liberty, and may, when and how he pleaseth, let his Grace accompany his ordinance of Baptism, Which way soever God doth work these great things, by or in Baptism, Methinks, it is, a potent and invincible reason and warrant for the bringing Infants upon Baptism, the onely out­ward ministerial remedy in the Church, for the abating and a­bolishing the malady of original sin, of which even Infants stand guilty, born, and conceived in it, unlesse you would involve Parents in another guilt, of neglecting the meanes and cure of that disease, which they were instrumental to the bringing their Children into; or else that you are of the opinion of the Pe­lagian Hereticks, who held no original sin at all in Infants, but actual, which they also contracted by Imitation of other wick­ed; whereupon all the Antient and Orthodox Divines, urged and pressed them, with the Baptism of Infants, and made it a foundation and proof, of original sin in Infants; like as I now go the other way, and urge and presse original sin in Infants, as a proof and plea, or warrant (as you call it) for the Baptism of Infants, as being the only outward ordinary way to begin their cure and Rogeneration; more briefly and syllogistically thus take it as I recollect it.

If Baptism be commanded of God in the Gospel for the washing away the guilt and filth of original and birth sin, then all Infants, who are Partakers of these, are commanded Baptism.

But Baptism is commanded of God in the Gospel for the washing away the guilt and filth of original and birth-sin.

Therefore Infants who are Partakers of these, are commanded Baptism.

The first proposition is not questionable; the light of Nature and Reason, commandeth the use of meanes and medicines, to the end and for maladies: the sick need the Physician, &c. Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, &c.

The second proposition, is the matter of the Texts, Rom. 6.3, and 4. and Acts 22.16. as hath been declared, and so I have reasoned baptism of Infants into a command before I intend­ed it.

Sirs, (I speak to you Parents) are you willing, your little pretty babes should be saved? you should be very willing and desirous of it; and the rather, in that you have been means of conveighing [Page 45]into them, a corrupt seed, you should labour, they might be born again of the incorruptible seed, by the Word of God, and the Seales thereof, one whereof which is fit for them in their Infantile Estate, is this Baptism, I am speaking of and for.

If you would have them saved, it must be either without, or with Regeneration; without Regeneration they cannot be sa­ved, For Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, a degenerate sinful corrupt thing; neither can corruption iherit incorruption: Therefore they must be saved with Regeneration, for except a man be born again of Water and the Spirit, John 3.3.6. He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit, a Regenerate sanctified and clean thing. If so, the, Sirs, bring forth your Infants and Babes unto the Laver and means of Regeneration, present them to the Water of Baptism, and wati and pray for the Spirit of God, that it would move upon the face of the Waters, (as it did in the first Generation) and so form a spiritual Light out of or in a natural darknesse, That the Baptismal Water may be effectual (by and through that Spirit of God) as Waters of Jordan were, to the washing the Leprofie of original sin, and as the Waters of Bethesda, to the healing of other diseases whatsoever, even their actual sins also, when afterwards com­mitted.

It is true, that your Children dying without Baptism may be saved, by the Coverant and Promise of God and his Grace, many are so, all are so, that are of the Number of Gods E­lect.

Yea, I confesse the hope of salvation doth no lie so much in the Seal, as in the Covenant and Promise to which the Seal is annexed. Indeed the Lord having made a promse to you be­leeving Parents, concerning your Children born in original sin, (That he will be your God and the God of your seed) in this case you must beleeve this his Word and Promise: But where he hath ordained a Seal for the confirmation of your Faith, you must take heed how you neglect to apply it; you must not (as more than too many do in these days) think it a superfluous and idle figure, and some also hold it a superftitious and Idol-service, That which I may and do plead with you for, is this, that you [Page 46]would so account of it, as it is, that there is a necessity lying upon you to baptise your Children born in original sin, I mean a necessity not absolute but conditional; in case your Children be prevented of Baptism by death, you may well hope of the salvation of them, by the Promise and Covenant onely, as I said, of God and his Grace: and if after Baptism they be taken away from you by death, you may better hope of their salvation, from both, Covenant and Seal also: But if you be carelesse and negligent, and do also (it may be) purposely and prophanely o­mit your duty, to put your Children in Covenant with your selfs, under the initial Seal thereof, you will very hardly an­swer such your course either to God himself, or his Church, yea, or to your Children, and (I think at laft) to your own Consci­ences. But in the mean time what blindnesse and presumption is this in you, Parents, to tempt God, and to cast your Children, onely upon the hands of his Spirit, when he hath also appoint­ed Water, for their Washing and Regenerating? this is as if you should throw up your Children unto the top of the Pinnacle of the Temple, when as you have a Ladder standing and reaching up thither to carry them up by or upon; upon this glosie, God shall give his. Angels charge over them, so his Spirit order over them, and in their hands shall they bear them up, and on his finger shall he hold them, lest at any time they perish, and come to de­struction bodily or ghostly.

What Prophanesse and impiety is this, in you Parents, to slight and refuse the outward ordinary means of your Childrens spi­ritual and eternal good, as it may be the freeing of them from the Guilt, Dominion, and Condemnation of original pollution, &c. and to refer them over wholly to the inward ordinary means, Christ Jesus and his Spirit, when as these have appointed and dedicated the former, to be used and applyed also?

What carelesnesse, yea cruelty is this in you Parents, to leave and let your Children lie in the pit, and under the bondage of original and natural pollution, into the which your selves have been accessary to their falling, and not to suffer a hand of Gods ordinance to be reached out unto them, which is Baptism, for their raising up unto newness of Birth and Life?

And whereas, God hath made a Covenant with you, for your selves and your Children, yea a joynt Covenant with you both, [Page 47]to be your God, and the God of your seed, what ingratitude is this, and ungodsiness to God, what inhumanity or apparent im­parentnesse is this, to with-hold your Children from the Seal of that Covenant, and so in a manner, to disinherit them (as much as in you lieth) of their just and due Joynture and inheritance spiritual and eternal?

Well, be it so, your infants dying without Baptism may be saved, (and I pray God, they may be saved) through the Riches of his Grace, but you have not delivered your own souls, because you gave no warning to have them baptised, as you ought to do, seeing the evil come, and more a coming upon them. But, suppose, you with-holding them from their means of Baptism, blow no Trumpet, give no warning to have them baptised, God should also with-hold his Spirit of Grace from your Children (which God forbid) and your Children be taken away in their infancy and minority, They shall die in their iniquity, or original sin, But their-blood will he require at your hands, for your negligence & contempt, you have broken his Covenant, Gen. 17.14. & Ezek. 33.

A fifth warrant or reason is this; If Baptism now under the Gospel doth succeed Circumcision under the Law, Then are the Infants of covenanted beleeving Parents, to be baptised, like as Infants of the covenanted professing Jewes were circumcised; this warrant is reasoned out, or this reason warranted out of Collossians 2.11, and 12. Where the Apostle plainly sheweth, that there is no need of their being circumcised, who were bap­tised, Jews or Gentiles, because such baptised ones had recei­ved the Circumcision made without hands, namely Baptism, the better and great Circumcision, as the Antients call it.

If you deny this, you must affirm, that the Churches of the Gos­pel and all the Gentiles converted to the faith of Christ (of whom especially they consist) are left without a Sacrament of Inititiaon or admission thereinto for their infants, and so without one Seal of the Covenant of Grace, which ought not to be, nor is indeed, For the Condition of Christians and their Infants is better, at leastwise as good under the New Testament as the Old; & the Grace of God, by the cōing of Christ into the world, is more ample and clear, as ample & clear at leastwise, to us living under the Gospel, as to the Jewes living under the Law: To deny these things, were to cast foul dirt into the bright Sun, and [Page 48]to shoot Arrows of Contumely & Reproach into heaven against our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom came Truth and Grace, 1 John 17. as the Law was given by Moses: and to grant these things, is to yeeld Infant Baptism, under the New Testament.

And whereas it is, or may be replyed, that in that Text above, and others where Biptism is conjoyned to Circumcision as its substitute and successor, there also are conjoyned with Baptism, Mortification of the Flesh, Newness of Life, Faith and other Gra­ces mentioned: its easily taken off, though one of your most difficult Replies, as thus.

1. They are no more conjoyned with Baptism than Circum­cision: and therefore as their Infants were commanded to be cir­cumcised; So ours are commanded to be baptised, notwith­standing their iuoability and incapacity of doing such acts, or having such Graces, which is equal and alike in both.

2. In such Conjunctions, if the Texts speak of Actual Faith & Actual indeavoring after Mortification, &c. And require these in persons baptised, they must be limited to such as were Adults, grown in years, converts from Heathenism, such as Cornelius and the Eunuch; for therefore doth the Scripture name them, to shew the same, when it mentioneth their Baptism, and the conjoyned duties as required in such; which is nothing against Baptism.

3. Or if Infants should be meant, it sufficeth, that these have them; Mortification, &c. not in the Act, exercising and mani­festing themselves in any deed, or word professing the same, but onely in Habit included and lying in the principle of Grace, the Holy Spirit: and why, because infants are sinners, not by any proper Act of their own, but onely by an Hereditary Habit. Now who amongst you can or will say, that infants have not thus the Spirit of God, which bloweth where it listeth, and hath listed to blow in some of them we know of, and thousands more, where it listeth, that we know not of, effecting and producing in them this habitual principle of Grace. Of this see more before.

4. Nor is it necessary that Baptism, in that very moment it is received, should effect all things it figureth out and doth sig­nifie: (no more was it, that Circumcision should do the like) [Page 49]but it may fall to working them afterwards, wherein present there is an impediment and hindrance, that letteth actual fact, morti­fication, Repentance, &c. as in infants, the want of reason doth: Those Actuals are not for the present required in infants to be baptised, who yet are required to be in present actualy baptised, for they are required to be partakers of the death and burial of Christ, that is, the merit and power thereof, to the killing and burying of sin and natural corruption, of which Baptism is the sign and means.

More briefly and syllogistically thus take it, as I recollect it.

If Baptism do succeed, and is substituted of Christ now, instead of Circumcision, in the Church of the Gentiles, then, as infants were commanded to be circumcised then in the Church of the Jewes, so are Infants commanded to be bap­tized in the Church of the Gentiles.

But the Antecedent is true, being the very matter and sub­stance of the Text above.

Therefore also the Consequent is such; and so I have reasoned Infant-Baptism into another Command, before I intended this, as reserved for the latter argument.

But I serve too large warrants upon you, Sir, to whom I now return, I have another or two brief ones, yet to serve.

A sixt warrant therefore is this Reason, If infants of Christian Parents be capable of all the good ends, effects and benefis, that Baptism bringeth with it, and worketh or offereth them, then surely they are both capable of Baptism, and their Baptism is warrantable and justificable. This warrant may be reasoned out of the Word, or this reason warranted out of the Word, 1 Gor. 4.15. 1 Cor. 9.1. The Apostle warrants and reasons his Apostleship and the Gospel he preached, to be true and right, from the good ends, effects and benefits that came thereby to the Gorinthians, and they received, That he had begotten them through his Gospel, they were his work in the Lord, and the Seal of his Apostleship, were they in the Lord. So may I hence warrant and justifie our ministery, and even the Baptism which we minister, to the infants of Christian Parents, to be good had true, from the many good ends effects and benefits thereof, of which Infants are capable and receptive, and which are wrought and sealed [Page 50]in them thereby: Our Ministery of the Seal of Baptism, with such effects and successe, may be also the Seal of our Mini­stery.

Now the ends, effects, and benefits of Baptism are these, for which it was appointed.

1. To be a means of entrance and admission into the visible Church, and a kind of engrafting the party baptised into the body of Christ, and an enrolling of him amongst the houshold of God, as Members and Servants of Christ, Acts 2.37.

2. To be, instead of Circumcision, an annexed Seal and assu­rance, yea conveiance of the good and grace of Christs word and promise covenanted, the sum whereof is this, of being the Parents God, and God of their seed, Rom. 4.11.

3. To be a representation and Collation of the washing and clensing of the Blood and Spirit of Christ, and of the Regenerati­on and New Birth, Titus 3.5. 1 Peter 3.21.

4. To be a Tye or Obligation of the baptised to stricter O­bedience of God and his Truth, to make the parties more dili­gent to serve God, and careful to abandon sin, Rom. 6.1. to the 9. 1 Cor. 1.13

5. To be a means of Union with Christ, and of Unity a­mongst themselves, knitting them faster, and bringing them nearer unto Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. Eph. 4.5.

6. To be a badge of Christianity, and for distinction of Christians from Unbelieving Jewes and Gentiles, as the stamp and Character whereby they are known to belong to Christ, being a kind of partition-wall betwixt Christians and Jewes and Heathens, Ephes. 2.14.

Now Sir, tell me, which of all these our infants are incapa­ble of, that you should thereupon deny them Baptism; in the mean time, I tell you, they are capable to them all, and there­fore are not to be denyed. The promises of the Covenant, the washing away of sin by Christs Blood and Spirit, the admittance into the body of Christ, &c. may be sealed unto them, as where­in they are but Passive; and if you say, so are they capable of the Graces, signed in the Lords Supper, and therefore may commu­nicate, I say, how know you that? you have no rule for that, no glimpse of light from the Word for that, whereas I have [Page 51]given you evidence enough of light for the other, if you will see there is a Scriptural light, that infants are capable of the Graces signed and sealed in Baptism, we may be sure of it, and therefore may admit them to Baptism; there is but your suppo­sal light (which is below Traditional, you so much write a­gainst) that they are capable of the Grace signed and sealed in the Lords Supper; are you sure of it, and will you thereupon ad­mit them thereto?

The Lords Supper is no initial Seal, and for Reception into Covenant, which I onely plead for, for infants, yet this Seal which is Baptism it servesto confirm all the benefits of the Cove­nant, as the baptised grow capable of them, and are made par­takers of them, and so is a good preparative, unto the Christians Passeover, or the Lords Supper afterwards, in due time and order; The Lords Supper is a Seal of Augmentation, appointed for the nourishment and growth of those Graces which the Co­venant promiseth, and requireth particularly and expresly of all partakers of it, That they must discern the Lords Body, and try and examin themselves, and therefore Infants are not capa­ble of the Graces of the Lords Supper, like as they are of them of Baptism, for that they must be Active in that, whereas they may be but Passive in this.

Those that are capable of all the good ends, effects, & benefits, of an Ordinance, they are not to be forbidden to come, or to be kept back from it, as being a good and valid Ordiance to such.

But Infants and little Children are capable of all the good ends, effects, and benefits of the Ordinance of Baptism.

Therefore Infants and little Children are not to be forbidden to come, or to be kept back from it, it being a good and valid Baptism, and beneficial to them.

The first proposition is clear, from the 1 Cor. 4 15. 1 Cor. 9.1. already cited, to which I add, Matth. 19.14 which clears it as to this particular.

The second proposition is not questionalbe, that they are capa­ble, as having reasonable souls, belonging (it may be) to election; and so having the Spirit, and Grace (as before) and the Letter of the Text sheweth it, For theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. Except ye become as one of these little ones, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

To shut up this reason, the sum and result is this; That Infants of baptised parents, are in capacity to partake of the ends, effects, and benefits of Baptism, and of the inward Graces of the same, and many of them are actually and really partakers of them (as well as grown persons, who are visible professors) and there being in us no infallible ground of certainty, but of Charity, that either the one or the other have those inward Graces, yet they may be accordingly baptised; And the visible right to the Covenant, and the many promises made to the seed of the faithfu, added to their Capability of the Graces of it, are as good evidences to ground a baptism of Infants, as the external pro­fessions of grown men can give, yea, and to ground a judgement of their partaking of the invisible Graces, like as the others.

And Experience hath, and doth shew it, that of those that have been baptised in their infancy (our Ministry of the Word, after­wards following upon our Ministry of Baptism, sweetly winning upon them, and drawing them, to grow in Grace, and to bring forth other fruits and duties of the Covenant, to which they were bound by Baptism, as the Jewes were by their Circumcision, to be obedience of the Law, Gal. 5.3.) there have been; as humble and meek, as mortified and sanctified Christians, both Men and Women, as any amongst you, (to say no more, not to say, more) sound in the faith, sorrowful for sin, zealous in love, fervent in prayer, religious in their houses, and devout in the house of God, sincere in their dealings, grave in their behaviour, modest in their attire, exemplary in their lives, mourniful in Spirit and vexed in Soul, for to see the unclean conversations, and the er­roneous courses of others, as well as you, nay far better than any of you, in many of these are, or do.

Now though it be so, that God sometimes doth bring good out of evil, as light out of darknesse at first, yet usually and or­dinarily God doth it not, and therefore in a visible constituted Church, (where he proceeds ordinarily) he doth not from a false Ministery and an unlawful Baptism, produce such good ef­fects, and lightful converses. (I do not mean your new light, so full of darknesse) the which let it be, to the stopping of the mouths of all gainsayers, with whom nothing is more rife and frequent, than to revile our Ministery and Baptism, as false and Antichristian, evil and unlawful.

A word more, from hence, to you Parents; That, if you re­gard the above-named, good ends, effects and benefits, and now know your Children capable of them, and desire indeed, they should be partakers of them, bring them to Baptism, a means to those ends, a work to that effect, an office to such a benefit. (So whom God destinates to an end, he destinates to the means, whom [...] appoints to an effect, he appoints to a work, whom he de­signes to a benefit, he designes to office.) What? (moreover and above) are you not willing, your Children should have the privilege to be accounted as belonging to the family and houshold of God upon earth? That they should have an obli­gation upon them to bind them to the duties of the Covenant of God as they grow of capacity to perform them? that they have a good Title afterwards to that other Seal of growth and nou­rishment in spiritual Graces? Why then do you with-hold them from Baptism? are you not desirous, they should, as members of the visible Church, have a place in the Communion of Saints, and a share in those prayers that are put up to the throne of Grace, for the welfare of the Church, and (particularly) for a blessing upon the Ordinances thereof? and that they should have a Seal to plead, not only in the persent day of their initiati­on, but throughout all their life time, as to the Covenant, for all those good things whereof it is a Seal, so to the Condition, for fulfilling the good duties, and so gaining the answer of a good Conscience, and in which case it is said, to save? Why then bring them forth & present them unto Baptism. Be not like unto the O­strich in Job. 39 16. She is bardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers; her labour is in vain, without fear, because God hath deprived her of Wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her Ʋnder­standing, which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust, and forgetteth that the foot may crush them, and that the wild beast may break them: it needs no application, but this; Be not so hard hearted to your Children, as to leave them in the earth and dust of their natural Generation (so every foot they may be crushed, & your seed not onely bru [...]sed of the Serpent, but broken) but bring them out to the water and (it may be) the fire of Bap­tismal Regeneration. The Apostie tels you, (and you are (I be­leve) very expert in that Lesson, and experienced in that matter) that if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his [Page 54]own house and kindred, he hath denyed the faith and is worse than an infidel: but if you provide not for your own Flesh, and Children, and their Spirits: (not only giving them bedi­ly provision, but not giving them also such provisions as God hath made ready for their Souls) you leave them as bad as infidels in a manner unbaptised, denying them a means of faith, and the Seal of the Covenant.

I say no more, but what Man is there of you, whom if his Son ask Bread, will be give him a Stone, or if he ask a Fish, will be give him a Serpent, as Psalm 147.9. The young Ravens cry to God for their food to be given them, So your young infants (me­thinks) cry to you, and in their crying and weeping, seem to call to you for their Water of Baptism, as their milk of the Brests, to be, the one, the relief unto their Souls against original guilt and misery, as the other against natural hunger and infirmity.

But if you regard not your Children, do you look to your selves and your ends and benefits, and amongst these, your Ho­nor first? Is it not a great honour to you, to have a Child, counted to some great house, and of the Houshould, and under the Protection of some Noble-man? and is it not a great deal more honour to have a Child, counted to the House of God, the Church, and of the Family, and under the safegard of Je­sus Christ? why then, baptise your Child. If you stand not so much upon your Honor, or theirs, yet, I am sure, you are willing to have comfort of your Child, and good hope (here is not substance and evidence enough for Faith) of its well be­ing, whilest it liveth spiritually, and after death, eternally? the way is, enter him into the Church of God by Baptism. So you hope, your Child is preferred and made for ever (as you speak) when once you had gotten him into some great House and no­ble Family, which are but Cottages to the Church, and igno­ble to the Family of God: Whereas if you with-hold him from Baptism, you do leave him to have his visible actual standing & abode in the House of darknesse, and continue him in an outward case and condition, as an alien from the Covenant, and a stranger from the Common wealth of Christians, (what in you lyeth) which must needs be both dishonorble and uncomfor­table to you the while. True indeed, you may have comfort [Page 55]from the Covenant only, if by some invincible, and unvoyda­ble act of Providence intervening, your child be prevented and deprived of the Seal thereof which is Baptism, full against your will and purpose; but if through your default and wilfull de­taining of him, and Contempt of this Ordinance, it so fall out, that your Child dye unbaptized, He may be saved without the Seal of the Covenant, I believe; but I dare not promise you herein Salvation, or Comfort, without Repentance of this your fault and sin against God in his Ordinance.

And so this shall be my last reason to you Parents, for the bringing of your Children to Baptism, for that thereby you shall not onely get honour to your selves (as I said) but give ho­nour to God, by your submission unto the Seal also for them, to God, I say, who took order for your Childrens honouring you, yea, honoured you both by entring into Covenant with both, and annexing the Seal of Baptism thereto for your fur­ther Comfort and Confirmation. When our Saviour offered himself to be Baptized, John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? but Christ took him off, saying, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becommeth us to fulfill all Righteousness, Matt. 3.13, 14, 15. as John the Baptist thought Christ above the Ordinance of Baptism, by reason of his great perfection (and there be also others as say, they are above ordinances, in a high conceipt of themselves:) So some of you Anabaptists think Infants of Christians, below the ordinance of Baptism, by reason of their great Imperfections: Me things our Saviour Christ in this place answereth, and resuteth both them and you; them by his example, who being the Highest in per­fection, yet stooped down, and condescended to the Ordinance of Baptism, Therefore none sure, not the highest and perfectest amongst men in the Church upon earth, are above Ordinances; and you by his Doctrine, and Exhortation, suffer it to be so now for thus it becommeth you to fulfill all Righteousness; a part, and act whereof is, the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which Baptism is now under the Gospel, as Circumcision was under the Law; Rom. 4.11. and therefore as the Jewish Parents were diligent to fulfill that Righteousness, by putting their Children in Covenant under that Seal of Righteousness, Circumcision, so ought ye Christian Parents to be carefull to fulfill this Righte­onsness, [Page 56]ousness, and to put your Children in Covenant also under this Seal of Righteousness, Baptism: Suffer it to be so now, suffer little Children to come unto Christ, and forbid them not, for they have need to come to him, and now in his absence, to his Ministers to be Baptized; For thus it becommeth you as them, to fulfill all Righteousness. Make not a Nullity of the Seal of Righteousness, lest you come at length to make Righteousness it self a Nullity too.

and now that I am fallen upon this matter of Righteousness, I shall turn to you again Sir, my Quaerist, and ask you, if you do not deny Baptism to Infants, upon this ground, that you think, the efficacy of Baptism is seated and founded upon the practi­cal Righteousness of a Professour, or Member of the Church, manifested in words and deeds, Confession and Conversation? which if you do, (as indeed you do, and all that stand out a­gainst Infant Baptism:) it is a groundless ground. For the Text I just now cited, sheweth that it is not so grounded, but only up­on Covenantal Righteousness, and the free grace of God in Christ; for so Rom. 4.11. He received the sign of Circumcision, à Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which he had being yet uncir­cumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, &c. that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also: where you see it, or hear it in the very Terms, Righteousness of Faith, not Life or Works, Imputed-Righteousness (not inherent or practised, which both Abraham had, and his Children must have.) Now though our Christian Infants, have no inherent Righteousness, or practical manifested unto us by their words or deeds (as you require in those you Baptize; and therefore put off your Christi­an Infants untill years of discretion to profess true Faith, and years of action to practice good works) yet we present and dedi­cate them in their Infancy by Baptism, to Gods mercy and fa­therly love in Christ, their and our Ruighteousness and Atone­ment, for that we know, God hath Righteousness to be impu­ted unto them, by vertue of his Covenant of Grace.

I come to my seventh and last Warrant, which (I foresse) will bring you to no Justice, yet I will serve this also upon you, for though now and then in your letter, you let fall such a word, as Primitive Practice, and the good old way, yet I know, you cannot in your heart abide Antiquity, and the Primitive pra­ctices [Page 57]of the Church of old, for that they are point blank against your blank point, of Baptizing onely such believers, as can and do make Profession of their Faith in Christ, which is but a novel New Light of those Blazings, Comets, and Meteors, that sprung out in Germany some while ago, but yesterday, in comparison of the Baptisin of the Infants of believers, which hath brightly shined out throughout all the Churches, in good and full Lustre Sun-like, untill the Man in the Moon Muncer his Lunaticks, or Moon-Sirs, interposed, and made some Eclipse thereof in the Churches: This therefore is my sixth and last Reason.

If it hath been an ancient practice, and constant custom of the Primitive, and the succeeding Churches, throughout the se­veral ages to Baptize the Children of believing Parents, in their Infancy; then it ought to be so still continued, accustomed and practised: This Warrant may be Reasoned out of the word, or the Reason warranted out of Matth. 19.4.9 where Christ in case of a point of difference about divorce, himself argueth and reasoneth, from the Ancient times, and the beginning of the Church of God. So out of 1 Cor. 11.16. if any man seem to be Contentious, we have no such Custom, neither the Churches of God: Where you and I may see, the case there and here to be much a­like: The Corinthians had got up a fashion of their mens pray­ing covered, & in their long Hair, and their women praying un­covered, & in their shorn Hair; you likewise have taken up a pra­ctice, of baptizing onely believers, when grown persons they make profession, and have shut out Infants from their right to the Seal of Baptism, being Covenanters with their Parents. Saint Paul refuteth that their fashion by divers arguments drawn from the headship of man over the woman, from the dishonou­ring of the head, from the shamesulness and the uncomeliness of it, from the Presence of the Angels, from the light of nature, five good and sound arguments; and when he perceived for all those, that they were contentious and quarrelsome with him a­bout and for their fashion, He clappeth upon them as his last ar­gument, this taken from the Churches of God that have been before us. In like manner I have refelled your Practice by sundry Warrants and Reasons raysed out of the word, from such Infants, some of them having the spirit and faith in some [Page 58]degrees; from their being in the same Holy Covenant of Grace with their Parents, from the proportion and succession of Bap­tism unto Circumcision; from Baptisme's being a remedy against Original sin especially; from Infants capableness of the ends, effects and benefits of Baptism, five good and warrantable rea­sons out of the word: and supposing for all this you will not be conquered though overcome, but will still strive and contend, contrary to 2 Tim. 2.24.

Now I urge upon you, in the last place, this Reason, which is the Custom of the Church, both Modern, (we have such a Custom of Baptizing Infants of Believing Patents, and we have no Custom (approved, or General) of Baptizing onely Grown Believers:) As also Ancient, (Neither the Churches of God have had any such.) For so though Saint Paul argue N ga­tively, onely; the Reason is of as much force and weight affir­matively, and the Custom of the Ancient and Modern Church's is good and pleadable, both against the New Lights of late scismatical Innovators, as also for the old Light of former and present Orthodex Professours.

As for the Negative, the Not, or No Custom Primitive, and practice Apostolieal of Baptizing again at their growth, upon Confession of Faith, such as had been Baptized before in their Infancy, I do reserve it for at other Place, your Dipping Pond, of which I shall speak at last: onely here I shall bring in the Affir­mative, That the Ancient Prinritive Churchès succeeding the Apostles (what the Apostles themselve did do and practied shall hereafter soon follow) did hold and practice the Baptizing of Infants; And though I think, it will but disturb your Brain, and cause you to stop your Nostrils and Mouth, who small no sweet Savour or Odour of Antiquity, as being one of the New Sent, or unsent rather, yet notwichstanding I shall, and relate the Di­ctates of some of the Ancient Apostles succeeding Pastors and Fathers of the Church of old; and I will do it, for others sake, who are Lovers of Antiquity, but I will do it in English for your sake (whom I am Instructing) who are no lover of Languages, more than you can speak.

I know, you will not take this General Custom and Practice of the Church upon my bare word and present Assertion, nor do I desire you should; Therefore Remember the dayes of old, con­sider [Page 59]the years of many Generations; ask thy Father and he will shew thee, thy Elders, and they will tell thee; ask now of the dayes that are past, which were before, whe [...]er there hath been any such thing, as the Baptizing of Infants of Believers. You shall readily find the same, attested by the Reverend Fathers of the Church, the Bi­shops and Doctors of the dayes of old, and years of former Gene­rations, to have been so, to be the Custom and Practice.

In a matter of Fact or Practice, one Good and Creditable wit­ness is sufficient: and that I am sure I have Saint Augustine, I mean not onely for the General Practice of Infant Baptism in his dayes, and those present tim's wherein he lived; as might easily be shewed our of his Books of Original Sin, Chap. 40. Third Book of the Merit of Sin and Remission Chap. 9. Third Book against Julian, fourth Book of Baprism against the Dona­tists, &c. But also for the former and praeceding Churches, up to the Primitive dayes.

For so Augustine who lived in the year after the Nativity of Christ, 39 [...]. and was Presbyter first, and after Bishop of Hippo, saith thus in his third Epistle to Volusian. The Custom of the Mother Church in Baptizing little ones is in no wise to be despi­sed, not to be thought needless, and were not to be believed, but that it was as Apostolicall Tradition. This is a very full and clear evidence, of an Ecclesiastical Custom, an Apostolical Tradition, (whether written or unwritten, that infringeth it not, according to that of the Apostle, 2 Thest. 2.15. hold the Traditons which ye have been taught, whether by word or Epistle;) not to be despised, but believed.

Nor did Augustine utter this suddenly, but advisedly, and therefore upon second thoughts, saith it over again, and the more Resolutely; in his 15. Sermon, of the words of the Apo­stle. Let no man (saith he) buz or whisper into our eares, any Doctrine to the Contrary; This Practice of Baptizing Ghildren, The Church alwayes had, this it hath, this it alwayes held, this it hath received from the Faith or fidelity of our Ancestors, and this it keeps Constantly to the end.

Therefore doth the same Father so often and so much press this Argument, The Churches Practice of Baptizing-Infants up­on Pelagius and his followers (who were Contemporary with Augustine) holding Infants were not taken, or tainted with ori­ginal [Page 60]Corruption and Sin, by propagation, but only contracted the same by Imitation; as in his 150 Epistle unto Sixtus; in his second Book of Marriage and Concup. 18. Chap. in his first Book against Crescon. the Grammarian, cap 30. in his fourth Book against the Donat. c. 23. in his sixth Book against Julian, one of Pelagius his Schollars, or his opinions.

Now if this had not been truly and undeniably. The Cu­stom and Practice of the Church, even up to the first and Primi­tive times, as Augustine affitmed, Pelagius and his Disciples would soon have fallen foul upon him, as the Pharisees did upon our Saviour, and have said, thou bearest witness of thy self, (& for thy self) thy witness is not true, they would have given a check or denyal, to such a Custom, accused it of Novelty, or but of Ye­sterday, and so have turned off easily that Argument (which of all other lay most heavily upon them) the Ancient Churches Custom and Practice in Baptizing Infants. But they never did that, as who could not deny this.

And so that other exception against Augustine, as if he should utter and urge this in Heat and Passion against Pelagius his Ad­versary in point of Baptizing of Infants, and speak more of the Custom and Practice of the Church, than was true, falleth of it self. For they differed not in that point of Infant-Baptism: no nor in the matter of the Custom of the Church herein. For so Augustine affirmeth both in his first Book of the Merit and Remission of Sin. The Peloagians themselves do grant, that little Children are to be Baptized, as who cannot come in (or stand up) against the Authority of the Ʋniversal Church, delivered without doubt (or Traditioned) by our Lord and his Apostles.

And again in the eleventh Book against Caelestius and Pelagius, He affirms and cites, that Caelestius in a Book of his written at Rome acknowledged, that Infants in a Book of his wirtten at of sin, according to the Rule of the universul Church, and accor­ding to the sense and meaning of the Gospel: and Therefore Pe­lagius not daring to deny (though otherwise impudent enough) the General Practice of the Ancient Church in Baptizing In­fants, as who then, and that way, might have slipt his neck out of the Collaror Yoke, Augustine held him to, was feign to shist off that Fathers Argument as well as he could, but very poorly and pittifully, That the Church Baptized indeed Infants, but [Page 61]not for the washing away of original fin (which he denyed in Infants) but for the better bringing them to the Kingdome of Heaven, which Christ said, was of such, as theirs.

And truly, this makes a great Addition to the Truth of this, The Custom and Practice of the Universal Ancient Church in Baptizing lnsants, that Pelagius so great a Schollar and Travel­lour, who had seen the Customas and Practices, the manners and fasthions of the Affricane and Asiatiqne, yea and Europaean Churches, being also himself a Brittish born, should not, as in­deed he could not make any denyal, or take any exception there­to as who by his own eyes and experience, saw & found it to be most true and uniform; and so I may say, our Baptism of Infants, is a true Baptism; and the Ancient Churches Practice hereof, is a true Practice, even our enemies themselves being Judges; as Deut. 32.31.

[...] why then was not, Augustine himself Baptized in his In­ [...]y? who was such as strong Advocate for the Baptism of In­fants? the Reason is plain, and makes nothing against our Infant Baptism, or the General Practice of the Church; for neither his Father nor Mother were Christians or Believers when himself was born and they continued so, untill a little before their death; Augustine himself was not converted from his Maniche­an Haeresies and other vices untill the 31. year of his age, who two years continuing a Catechumen, and in the mean time writing somethings, to give proof and testimony of the truth of his con­version, or of his conversion to the Truth, was Baptized himself, and his Son Adeodate together, like as Ahraham was circumci­sed with Ismeal his Son, on the self-same day: These things may be seen, in His Confessions.

I shall need to adde no more, for the shewing Infant-Baptism, to have been the Custom and Practice of all the former Ancient Churches: Augustines Testimony of the same, is to me instead of all, and as Goliahs Sword to David, there is none like that, Give it me. 1 Sam 21.9 I have taken it, and I give it thee, not as a single Testimony of one Father for it, but as a Quadruple witness of the Universal Church, and its Custom and Practice for the point of Paedobaptism, being four times expresly deli­veced, though by one and the same Father, Saint Austin: Yet I may, for more perspicuity sake, follow up this General Testimo­ny [Page 62]by one Father unto its Particulars, I mean, the Covattestati­ons of other particular Fathers in their several ages.

You have heard what Augustine hath said and written as for that Century,For the year, 390. 384. and those years wherein he lived.

Hierom, In his Epistle ad Laetam, having told her, that the good and the evill of little once, are imtured much to their Pa­rents; he addeth in the middle of that Epistle: unless (perhaps) you think, the Sons of Christians, is they receive not Baptism, They onely are guilty of sin, and that the wickedness also thereof is not to be referred or to redound to the Parents, who would not give it, espe­cially at or in such a time, wherein they could not contradict, who were to receive it. In his Book against the Pelagians towards the end, he is for Infant-Baptism, and confirms it by allerdging the Authority of Cyprian, and his Colleagues: In the same third Book against Pelag: it is thus Crito (i.e.) Pelagian, saith grant me thus much, at lest, that they are without sin, who cannot sin, speak­ing of Infants: To whom Atticus (i.e.) Hieronimus, Answereth; I will Grant it, if they have been Baptized in Christ; and again, They are without any Sin, through the Grace of God, which they have received in Baptism.

Chrysostom Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, For the year, 382. in his Homil. to the Neophytes, is for the Baptism of Children; and in his 40. Homil: upon Genes. calls Baptism our Circumcision, His being not Bapti­zed untill he was 21. years of age, doth not prejudice here, as whose Father and Mother were not Christians, at his birth; and who himself was brought up under Libanius, an enemy to, and a scoffer at Religion: but after he was instructed in the Divini­ty knowledge by Miletus a Bishop, and Baptized of him.

In his Homil: ad Neoph: having spoken of the Honours and Benefits of Baptism, he saith a little from the beginning, For this cause we Baptize the little Infants, that they may not be defiled with sin, that to them may be added, Sanctity, Righteousness, A­doption, Inheritance, Fraternity of Christ, That they may be all his Members, and the Habitation of the Spirit.

In his 40. Homil: upon Genes. having spoken of Circumci­sion appointed to the Children of the Jewes, and the pain of the Incision, he addeth, but our Circumcision, or the grace of our Bap­tism, brings the medicine without without such dolour, and Innume­rable benefits with it. It hath indeed no definite time set down [Page 63]for it, as that hath; but it is lawful to receive both in the first, and in the middle, and in the last age, this, not made with hands Circumcision: in which there is susteined no great pain, but the weight of sins are put off, and Remission of them is found, even of all which are done throughout the whole life.

Ambrose, the Bishop of Millain, by whom Augustine was Con­verted and Baptized; in his Book of Abraham the Patriark, lib. For the year, 381. 2. Chap. 11. writing upon those words, unless a man be born a­gain of water and the Spirit: See (saith he) Christ excepts none, not the Infant, not the prevented by some necessity, &c. Every age is obnoxious to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacra­ment.

So also in his Epistle ad Demetriadem Virginem, he mention, eth the Baptism of Children, Epist, 84. lib. 10. speaking in that Epistle against Pride, and Boasting of some especially Hearetiques, and shewing the evill effects thereof, to the defending false opi­nions, extenuating of evil and sin, and the evacuating of some good, gives these two Instances, amongst others: Hence the sin of Adam is affirmed to hurt his Posterity, by example, not by passage, or transition into them: Hence is that Evacuation of the Baptism of little Children, as if they should be said, to have Adoption given there, but not to be absolved from their guilt: and again, Though little ones not Baptized, may or should be saved, yet great is the neg­ligence of those that hindeed their Baptizing.

In his Book de vocat. lib. 2. cap. 8. he mentioneth Baptism of Children three or four times; and once thus, They speak very ill and unjurly of little Children who say, Grace hath there what it may Adopt but the water hath not there what it may wash away, speaking of such as deoyed sin in little Children.

Paulinus Bishop of Nola in Camqania, For the year, 379. a man famous for Poe­try and Eloquence, Piety and munificence, a good acquaintance of Augustine, and Hierom, betwixt whom and Him there passed sundry Epistles, a great favorite and familiar of Ambrose whose life he wrote, as also of Sulpitius Severus, to whom he wrote 14. Epistles: As the Beginning of the twelfe Epistle, to the same Sulpitius Severus hath these two verses, whhich for your sake, I must be fain to tranflate into English.

Epiphanius, For the year, 376. In his first Book Haer. 8. The Figures were in the Law, the Truth in the Gospel. Circumcision, which served for a time, gave place to the Great Circumcision, which is Baptism, which Cir­cumciseth us from sin, and Sealeth us into the Name of God; In His Book against the Cerinthians. Circumcision had its time, untill the Great Circumcision came, that is, the washing of the New-birth, as is manifest to every one. Surely he meant that which the Apostle calls so, that is Baptism, the washing or Laver of Regeneration; and by calling Baptism the Great Circumcision, he must intend, Infant Baptism, as Infant-Circumcision; and speaks of them as of things manifest and wel-known, the Carnal or fleshly Baptism as Circumcision: In the end of his work, calls Baptism and other mysteries observed in the Church, which are brought out of the Gospel, and setled by Apostolique Authori­ty, Traditions; and then, in his Time, Baptism was ministred to Infants, and observed.

Gregory Nazianzene, For the year, 375. In his 40. Oration of Holy Baptism, largely speaketh of it; the brief is, in the Question and Answer, What say ye of those who are of tender Age, and perceive neither dam­mage or Grace, shall we Baptize those? Yes surely, if any danger be; it is better to be Sanctified without sense and feeling, then to depart without the Seal, and Initiation: Circumcision bearing in a manner the figure of Baptism, was offered to them, who were void of Reason, &c. calleth also Baptism, the Seal or Signet to such as enter into the Race of Life.

Basil the Great,For the year, 372. Bishop of Caesarea, 1 Tom. Exhortation to Baptism; wherein though the Baptism of Infants is not named, yet I find these words. There is a proper and peculiar time for this and that, as for sleep, for watching, for warring, the Time for Baptism, is the whole life of man; which he proves at large; and again, without Baptism there is no light to the Soul; and then adds, the Jew was compelled or forced to Circumcision, because eve­ry soul which was not Circumcised the eighth day, was to be cut off; & wilt thou defer the Circumcision, not made with hands, which is performed by Baptism, in the putting of the flesh; When wilt thou be a Christian?

Athanasius Q. 91.For the year, 325. Of the Sayings and Interpretation of Scripture, We dip or put the Infant thrice into the water, and thrice bring it out, insignification of the death and resurrection of Christ [Page 65]upon the third day. I shall also here set down an answer of his Quest. 2. to Antiochus, because it confirmes what I have writ be­fore, of Infants having the Holy Spirit; How shall we know, that the Infant was truly Baptized, and received the Holy Ghost in Holy Baptism when it was a Child? but the answer is long, and shall not need, because I would be short, The Question is enough to the purpose, and sheweth both, that Athanasius held both Infant-Baptism, and therein affirmed them to receive the Holy Spirit; the very question, makes it unquestionable as to him.

Again in his Treatise of the Sabbath and Circumcision, Hee calls Circumcision, a type of Baptism.

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and a Martyr.For the year, 247. The higher we go, the cleerer the light shines for the Baptism of Infants; for now here, Cyprian, with 66 Colleagues, all Bishops, do in a Councel at Carthage decree for it; and so Certifieth his Friend Fidus, in an Epistle to him, third Book of Epistles, Ep. 8. Yea that whole Epistle, written by Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues sit­ting in Council with him, The Title of it is, of Infants to be Baptized: and the subject of the whole Epistle is to justifie the Baptizing of them, and answereth the objections of Fidus. As to the Cause, (the Baptism of Infants) we all have judged that the mercy and Grace of God is not to be denyed to any Child born of man, &c. and that there is the same equallity of grace for the young Infant, as the Elder. God is no respecter of personages nor ages, Yea he gives divers reasons, why Infants, and the rather and the sooner, because Infants should be Baptized, which for brevity sake, I leave out here, as who am onely upon the shewing (ha­ving proved the Baptism of Infants before) the Custom and Practice of Antiquity herein.

This Epistle also, is owned and avouched both by Hierome Au-Augustine, to be the true Epistle of Cyprian: by Hierom as above is said; and by Augustine Epistle 28. unto Hierome saying, Cypri­an did not here devise a New decree, but kept and observed the true Faith, or the faithful Practice and Custom of the Church. Yea this Epistle of Cyprian was a very strong ground for them both to stand upon, and they very much relyed upon it for the strengthening themselves in their own opinion of Infant-Baptism.

Origen, the Schollar and Disciple of Clemens Alexandrinus, For the year, 204. so forward a Schollar, that at eighteen years of his age, he set up a [Page 66]School and taught others; in his fift Book to the Rom. 6. c. the Church hath received the Tradition from the Apostles, even, or also to little Children, to give Baptism, because in them, as in all, are the Genuine; (or ingenerated) filths of sin, the which ought to be wa­shed with water and the Spirit.

Somewhat more of this, there is in his eighth Book upon Le­vit. 8. Homil. and upon Luke Homil. 14.

Tertullain whom Cyprian read so diligently and esteemed so highly,For the year, 195. that in all matters of doubt, he would have recourse to him, saying, Give me my Master, meaning Tertullian, in his Book of Baptism, chap. 18. According to the Condition, dispositi­on, and also age of every person, the delaying of Baptism is more profitable, especially in and about Infants: for what neces­cessity is there, (if it be not so necessary,) to bring the suerties into danger, of not performing their promise, and whether this be meant of the Children, which were not born of Christian Pa­rents, as some will; or of the Children of believing Parents, as others say, its evident, that Baptism was administred in all ages, and he intimates the Custom, and practice of the Church in his age to Baptize them, even Children as well as others; Though he seems not to be so well pleased with it; and yet again, the words import no other, then, that he denyed the Necessity one­ly of Baptism, to them, being out of danger of death, not simply the Baptizing of them rather (as in another place) he doth im­ply, they ought to be Baptized, if there be danger or fear, that afterwards they may not or cannot be Baptized, in his Book of the Soul, Chap. 39. and 40. where he saith, that Infants of be­lieving Parents or one Parent, have such a Sanctity, and that from the Privilege of their Birth (not the discipline of their bringing up) as gives them a Right to Baptism; Therefore Tertullain calleth the Children of Believers, The designees, or destinates of Holiness, or as elsewhere, the Candidates of Holiness; and so here is an evi­dence for that Birth, Holiness, or foederal Holiness, of which I shall speak anon out of the 2 of Acts.

Irenaeus 2 Book,For the year, 170. Chap. 39. He came to save all by himself, I say all, who are born again by him, into God, Infants and little ones and Children, and yong men and old men, &c. The intention of the words is of Christ Jesus, who (as it followeth there, went through every age, to Infants made an Infant, Sanctifying In­fants, [Page 67]to little ones made a little one sanctifying those of that age: but you see there is an expression of Infants, of whom he saith, they are born again into or unto God, that is, Baptized; for so Baptism is usually stiled by the Ancients, especially the Greeks, a Renascence or New Birth, or Palingensy, as might be shewed out of Athanasius and Basil, who took it, from the Apostolique man­ner also of speaking, Tit. 3.5. as before I mentioned.

I can go no higher: for Irenaeus was the Schollar and Disciple of Polycarpus; and Polycarpus was the Schollar or Disciple of John the Evangelists; and to you see, I am come up to the very skirts and thresholds of the Apostolique Churches, and Primi­tive Times, with the Custom and Practice of Baptizing Infants. Some go yet higher, to Justin Martyr quaest & resp ad orthod. qu. For the year, 130 90 60 56. and so to Clemens the Roman Bishop in his Apostolical constit lib. 6. cap. 15. and to Dyonisius Areopagita in his Eccles. Hie­tarchy. Ch. last. And indeed there are pregnant places in them for Baptizing Infants, if the Authors, were Legitimate: they are so good and sufficient against the Papists, who own them and maintain them for true and Genuine: but with us they are held to be suppositions and spurious, and though ma­ny good and true things are in them, as Infant-Baptism, &c. Yet they are not belonging to such venerable Names as those I have rchearsed, and therefore not of that Antiquity with them, and so impertinent to my purpose.

Onely one thing I must ad, to satisfie the Reader, why, on this side of Augustine towards the Apostles, I have mentioned no more of the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, seeing there were many more, or what! were they discrepant in their opini­on about the Baptism of Infants? no sure; the reason must needs be this they all lived long before Pelagius came out from the Brit­tish Seat, and gathered to himself a Sect of Locusts which spread over the world, and troubled the Churches with this matter for one they denying the Traduction of originall sin in Infants. Therefore those Ancient Fathers of the Church, having no oc­casion to intermeddle with any such matters about Infant-Bap­tism, kept close onely to such controversies and questions as were on foot in their dayes (save onely that Cyprian, as I touched before, was questioned hereabouts:) the silence of those Fa­thers, that touched not upon it gives consent to the Practice as [Page 68]unquestioned by them; but God would put words of it it to the mouthes of some of them, to be witnesses unto posterity, of the Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, and the Churches Practice.

The like answer may be given, why in those two General Councels, the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan, and some o­ther Provincial ones, which were before Augustine, nothing is touched upon in their Canons, about Baptism of Infants (ex­cept that of Cyprian and his 66 Colleagues before mentioned) because it was at a thing never in question amongst them, never opposed by any; and yet that was a very sruitful age of haereti­cal weeds springing up, in those purer times; witness the Muni­chees, Arrians, Donatists Macedonians, Aaerians, Eunomians Lu­ciferians, &c. amongst all which, not an Antipaedobaptist, not any that so much as made scruple at it, which sure some or o­ther, in malice or envy to the Church, would have done, if they could have found, how to have shaken that, as they did all o­ther Foundations of Christinaity.

But after Augustines time, when Pelagius arose, Then the Councils came in against him, thick and threefold; as the Mi­levitane or Council of Carthage in the year, 402. 418. Ca­non 11. and the Gerundense Council held in Spain, 518. Can. 5. and the Bracarense Council the 2. 572. Can. 7. And so the Fa­thers and Doctors of the Church, are ever and anon storming of Pelagius and his adhaerents.

And now Sir, I know all this Labor is lost, as to you, who are and desire to be but a man of to day, and for ever; but for yester­day, or Antiquity, there you will leave even Christ, and his Church, and go no farther; you are none of the old Martiald Souldiery, but the New Modell'd Militia: and yet you may remember, how you began in your first Leaf, with the good and old way of the Baptism of believers; stand now therefore in the way, and see, ask for the old pathes where is the good way, and walk therein (such a one, I have shewed you, without your asking, even this, the Baptism also of Infants,) walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your Soul, as there it followeth: but if ye say still, as there it followeth also, we will not walk therein, then I shall look upon you as Saint Austins myracle and won­der (that I may end with him with whom I began this,) who believed not when the world believed, Practice not, when the world Practiseth.

Seeing then you care not for looking behind you to Antiqui­ty, look before you, and see the Reformed Churches, in France, Dutchland, Scotland (why not England? if Infant-Baptism be not now in present the practice and Custom (and so hath been of old, of these and other Reformed Churches, what then is your Church (if you have any) but a deformed one, but a New upstart one, who oppose this so General Custom both Ancient and Modern, and have quite cast it out of your doors, introdu­cing, instead thereof, and setting up, the Man-Baptism, and In­fant Rebaptism, crying out daily for these your Great (little Nothings Diana's of the Ephesian, first love and first Baptism for­saking Anabaptists.

Let the advise you to lay your hand upon your mouth, and cease declaiming and clamouring against this infant-Baptism, (for therein you reproach God and his Church, God for ap­pointing, Infant-Circumcision, and his Church, for using In­fant-Baptism:) yea to lay your hand upon your heart, and in love to the Truth, to return unto your First Love, and Truth, to enter again into Communion, and fellowship with your Mo­ther-Church of England, and those other her Sister-Churches of the Protestants, giving unto us the Right of Fellowship, who are ready to reach forth the same to you, and also to embrace you.

And if this be any Blook you stumble at in the way to our Churches, that there are Rents and Divisions still amongst us, (whom may we thank for them? even about this infant-Bap­tism; I answer you in a word, that our differences are not about Baptizing Infants, but about Infants to be Baptized, and so, in the Point of Paedobaptism, or Infant-Baptism, we are all agreed, and agrieved only at your Schism and Division, which you have made in our Churches, which are all against you, there­fore our care must be, if we cannot hold fellowship with you, to keep our Communion notwiststanding with all Christian Churches; and if you will separate and depart, from us and them, we must let you depart, a Brother, or a Sister is not under Boadage in such Cases, But God hath called us to peace, peace, as Christs Legacy left to his Church, we are willing to have with all man, so we may withall retain Truth. And seeing whil'st we speak of peace, you are still for dissention, whil'st we [Page 70]propound truth, you will still hold errors, our care must be, (and shall be, I hope, in our particulars) to maintain and pre­serve our peace and Truth, and our Communion in both, with­all the Reformed Churches abroad, in this point of Infant-Bap­tism, which Churches, (as ours at home) God hath blessed in this way, with great increase of heavenly gifts, and infinite numbers of renouned professours, and Saints of those that have bin baptized in their Infancy, And that knowing the time that now it is high time for you to awake out of sleep, Ro. 13.11. & to repent of those sinful Scismes, and Rents, and Separations you have made between your selves and us, and other true Churches, to give over your charging us, and them with iniquity, wherein we shew piety, and your putting a divine restraint upon Infant, Bap­tism, wherein God hath given them, and us liberty, and in ex­cluding Christian poor Infants, those privileges, and helps to heaven which Christ hath indulged them.

And thus I have answered your last Quaere, shewing unto you, what warrants we have out of the word, for our Baptizing of Infants, namely the six warrants reasoned out of the word, which are six Reasons, warranted out of the word. Now joyn all these reasons together, with the Scripture out of which they are deduced, and will they not make that Analogy, or proi­portion of Faith, as to this point of Infant Baptism, according to which we are to proceed; nay, may they not all arise to a Tantamount Command, or a virtual or implicite Command, or a consequential Command of the same, yea I have made two or three of them to be such in their particulars, I have been so used to give you Commands out of the word, for our former practices, being called ever upon by you, for such Commands, which so ring still in my ears, that, though, the word, warrant, do not put me upon such a hot service as a Command: (which I believe notwithstanding you meant, your Tongue either out­running, or short-running your wit,) I shall interpret your challenge, or Quaere to aim at, what Command out of the word have you for Baptizing Infants? And first, what Command have you out of the word, against Baptizing Infants of Bapti­zed Parents, if none, Then you deny Baptism to those, to whom Christ denyed it not, and so, in a manner you deny Christ, to be your Master, and if you deny him, you deny also him that [Page 71]sent him; if none, then you have no authority to infring or Counter-command the liberty of the Church herein: ye take too much upon you Sone of Muncer.

Secondly, What Command would you have out of the word for our Baptising Infants of Baptised Parents? do you mean an express: and praticular Command? in calling for this, you grant an explicite Command for it and a general one; I am glad of this, and will make much of it, as to my purposes: for as general propositions are enough to infer their particular, all Children of the Church and in Covenant, are to be baptised, and therefore the Infants of Baptised Parents are to be baptised: So implicite Commands, which are but folded up and wrapped in good reasons or good consequences, are sufficient for all true Subjects and Disciples of Christ, to do a work, and this, of Baptising the infants of baptised Parents, as if it had been more expressed; The words intimation, or a deduction from the Word, is to me and ought to be to you, the Words, Expressi­on, and an injunction from the Word. For if you be so streit girdled, and queasie-stomacht, or narrow throated, that nothing will down with you, or can be digested, but onely expresse Commands, in so many Words, Letters, and Syllables, as Infant-baptism doth consist of, Then I pray, produce such an expresse Command out of the Word, for Children of Be­leevers, when they are grown, to be instructed and baptised upon the Confession of Faith, or for Baptism of Believers onely, in Christian Churches (to use your own words)? or for Woe­mens eating the Passeover, and receiving the Lords Supper, or, for the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath, or for di­vers other such things that I name not.

And yet I have something more to shew you, than a Rational and Consequential Command for Infant-Baptism, There is al­so an Analogical (I had almost added, Typical) Command for the same, our Infant Baptism, For Go a Command to Abra­ham and the Jewes to circumcise their Infants (the Seal then in force, and for that time of the Law) The same Command binds us Christians, to baptise our Infants, (the Seal now in force, and for this time of the Gospel) binds us I say by the just Analo­gy and Proportion, that is between the two Sacraments and Seals of one and the same Covenant, especially, the one, Baptism, [Page 72]succeeding the other, Circumcision. Suppose a Jesuit, (who is of late in many poynts Anabaptised, like as you Anabaptis are in as many Jesuited) should oppose you, and deny your Baptism of Beleevers onely, to be a Seal (as indeed he doth so, denies both your and our Baptismes and the Lords Supper, to be Seals or Signes) will you not look back to Circumcision in the Old Testament, where it is called a Seal and Sign (for in the New Testament they are no where called, either) and thence fetch an Analogical proof, that ours are also Seals, our Baptism ard their Circumcifion agreeing in the General-Nature of a Sacra­ment. By the like Analogy, being questioned by you for a Command of Infant Baptism in the New Testament, if there be none there, I may go over to the Command of Infant Circum­cision in the Old Testament, and thence prove ours, also our In­fant-Baptism to be commanded, and us therein bound and ob­liged to put the Initial Seal of the New Testament upon our Children.

Once more, Do you think that Gods Command to Abraham, and the Jewes to train up their Children in manner of worship which was then in force: doth also command and bind us Christians to train up our Children in conformity to such Or­dinances as are now in force: I beleeve you think so; and therefore I think you will beleeve at last, that Gods Command to Abraham and the Jewes to Circumcise their Children, and to give them the Seal of Circumcision, then in force, is also a Command upon us Christians, binding us to baptize our Infants, and to minister unto them, the Seal of Baptism now in sorce.

And so now this is the use I told you besore I was like to make of your answering, That the Jewish Children were circumcised, onely by vertue of a particular Commandent of God for the same, I say this use I may, and shall make of it, that by Vertue or Vice of such you answer, I infer also there from, yea there­in, a particular Command for baptising Christians Children, there being such an Analogy and proportion between the two Sacraments of one and the same Covenant, in the Essentials, of it, and the Rationals of it unto the eternal good of Souls. This might be good enough against you, because it answers you in your kind, and meets with you in your own way, howsoever [Page 73]my self still hold, that the Jewish Infants were circumcised, Circumcision being the Seal thereof, and so both inforced by a Commandement or Word of Institution, as I have said before. But romember this also, that Gods Commandement being out for Circumcising Infants, whose Parents were under the Seal, and no farther, by the same reasons you blame our practice of baptising Infants, you blame God for such a Command, which you plead for the Circumcising Infants: because Infants of Jewes were as much under state of Nature, as Infants of Chri­stians are, and Infants of Christians are as much under the state of Grace, as the Infants of Jewes. If God were wise and good in commanding circumcising of Infants, then we cannot be e­vil and foolish in practising Baptism of Infants commanded also here.

But because you New-light men, regard not much the Old Testament, for that it holds forth the Old-light of the com­mand for circumcising of Infants, by the which walking, there may be proportioned out, or Analogised a command for Bapti­sing of Infants; I will set upon a Text or two of the New Testa­ment; and that famous one first, wherein you much delighted of old, and from whence you would seem to have your New light; it is Matthew 28.19, and 20. Methinks I hear you saying already with Nathaniel, Can there come any good thing out of 2 Nazareth? John 1.46. & 7. Chap. any command out of these words, for Infant Baptisms, Come and see, and hear, and whilest I am as Philip, bringing forth some good thing hence for poor Infanrs, be you as Nathaniel, An Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile, and not an Ishmaelite indeed, in whom there is nought but mocking at young Isaacks devotions, and young Childrens Baptisms, Gen. 21.9.

1. I may safely say, here in this command of Christ, is no­thing meant or minded by him, about your taking Children of Beleevers already baptised in our Church, where the Gospel is planted, and your rebaptising them again after your teaching them and their professing: For the Baptism here commanded and to be executed, was onely of Nations, where the Gospel was not yet planted, to be taught and baprised once.

2. I may as safely say, That the state of those Pagan Gentiles, being not the same in poynt of Religion, as is the state of us [Page 74]Christian Gentiles, (as is said above) how can their, as yet, un­taught and ungospelised, their uncovenanted & unbaptised con­dition, and be a rule and precedent to a Taught, Guspelised, Covenanted baptised Nation already? So Christs command here, doth not infringe or counter command our Infant-Baptism, yes you may say, for doth not Christ command all Nations to be taught before they be baptised? He doth so, all pagan Nations, who were without Christ, being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenant of promise, Ep. 2.12. Without God in the world, being carried away to dnmb Idols, 1 Cor. 12. What is this to us? but yet,

3. I must tell you; That this Commandement of Christ, placing teaching before baptising, doth not pronounce Christian Infants, unbaptisealbe, because unteachable: if there be any such force of Argument from the order and placing of words, I pray argue so out of Mark 1.1. Where Repentance is placed before faith; and out of John 3.5. Where the Water is set before the Spirit: Saint Peter will tell you, that the Spirit goeth before the Water, Acts 10.47. and you can tell your self, that Repen­tance followeth after Faith, as the fruit thereof; again it is not to be read here, first teach, then baptise. Christ doth not shew here, which ought to go first, and which last, but leaves both to be done according to the condition of the Church; for if it ba a Church planted, and Christian, as ours it, then they are to be baptised, and after instructed: if a Church to be plant­ed & Heathenish, then they are to be first taught, & then baptised.

Now the condition of the Church of God, which the family of Christ chiefly was in the Apostles times, at the beginning of their preaching the Gospel to and throughout the world, was much after the manner, of the Family of Abraham (which was then the onely Church representative:) As therefore Abraham in his family, had both adult, and Infants, himself being circum­cised at 100. years old, Ishmael at 14. years, the Proselytes at other several ages, Isaac at 8. dayes, and so taught Ishmael and the Proselytes of his house of this covenant and the Sacrament thereof, before he circumcised them, but forthwith baptised Isaac before & without any foregoing instruction: just so doth our Saviour Christ appoint to be done in his family the Church, which was now to be raised in the greater part, and gathered [Page 75]out of the Nations; So as the adult Heathens, aliens from the Covenant, void knowledge, were first to be taught before they were baptised, but the Children of such taught and baptised Heathens, were forthwith to be initiated by the Sacrament of Baptism, before they were taught in the heads of Religion Now the condition of our Churches, is a constituted and planted Church, already formed, and therefore according to the in­tention of this Text, the baptising of Infants is to precede, and the teaching them to follow, when by reason of years and ca­pacity, they can hear the word.

4. Christ indeed gave Command, that whom his Disciples had taught, they should be baptised; but that none should be baptised but suchf as were first taught, that is your Addition or Tradition, wherein you resemble the old Separates of the Jewes, the Pharisees (as I have told you, the name of a Pharisee, is in English a Separate) For as they transgressed the Commandements of God, by their Traditions of the Elders, Matthew 15. So do you corrupt this Commandement of Christ, by your Additions, and the inventions of your Youngsters. But in vain did they worship God; Teaching for doctrines, the Commandements of men; and in vain do you worry us, bringing in for proofes, the glosses and expositions of Children.

But look again upon the Text in Matthew, and see, if Teaching do not also follow close after Baptising, and Baptising so goeth before Teaching; thus with your own Argument retorted, I have slain you, as Goliah with his own Sword.

But, sure, our Saviour Christ, being the God of Order, and the Wisdom of God, did not thus place the words, and order them up and down, to no purpose. Yea, I conceive, that in so doing, he purposed to give a full and universal Precept or Command for Baptism, both to the Apostles and others, the Pastors of the Church, unto the worlds end, that so, when they ceased, committing their converted Churches unto these, succeeding them, these might proceed, where they left to build, upon their foundations, To Baptise and Teach where they had taught and Baptised: And thus the words are very orderly placed and ranked, the first file (as I may so speak) being, of Teaching and Baptising where the Apostles w [...], as Amb [...]ssi­dours in Extraordinary, Teaching the Cown Men and Women [Page 76]of the Nations and Pagans, the Gratuital Covenant of God, and baptising them, or giving them, the initial Seal thereof.

The next file, or order, is, of Baptising and Teaching, where went, either they also, as Pastors in Ordinary, or other Or­dinary Pastors, Baptising the Children and Infants of such con­verted, Nations and Pagans, being in Covenant with their Pa­rents, and teaching them afterwards to observe, whatsoever Christ commanded, &c. So that here seemes to be Christs Commandement in this Text, both for Adult-Baptism, and also Infant-Baptism, or (if you will) for Parental-Baptism, up­on their being taught the Covenant and their embracing and professing Christ, and also for Filial Baptism, upon their being in Covenant, as being Children of baptised Professors, after which is to follow teaching and instructing of them, as they are able: which is punctually observed by us, who do, or should, having baptised them (by order) Catechise them afterwards, that so they may be fitted in due time for that other Sacrament, the Lords Supper, according to that of Hebrews 6 2. Where the Apostle speaks of Baptisms (The Baptisms I mentioned which are plural or Two, in respect of the subjects capable, the grown men of the Nations converted, and their Infants or Children, but yet but one and the same Baptism, as formerly I have shewed) Baptisms I say, and imposition of hands, and alludeth to the practice then and since in use with the Church, That such Children as were baptised in their Infancy, should afterwards openly in their own persons and with their own mouth, own the Covenant, confirm an ratifie the promise and condition, make Profession of their Faith, and so be, by impo­sition of Hands, farther confirmed and admitted to the Lords Supper.

Now you, Sir, quite contrary to the order of these prinicples of the doctrine of Christ, as they are called in the 1. verse of Heb. 6. You begin at imposition or laying on of Hands, before Baptism, or the laying on of Water, and so do but impose upon us, as the Children, (Impostor-like) requiring first Confession of Faith from them, before they have from you Administration of Baptism, as if your Children born Christians, had no more privilege, were in no better condition, than the Pagans and Nations, Christ sent his Apostles unto.

5. I shall tell you, that the word translated, Teach, all Na­tions, (in which lyeth all the force of your arguing against Childrens Baptism) it signifieth (see your want of skill in, and your folly in declaming and clamoring against University and human learning in the divine languages, for so are the original ones) signifieth in the original, not onely to Teach, but to make Disciples of the Nations, to admit them to be Scholars, to be taught, This is the end wherefore the Apostles were sent out, namely to make Disciples, and the Actions, whereby they were to attain this end, were Baptising and Teaching, and if it were not thus, there would be found a Tautology in Christs words, and you must read them thus, Go teach all Nati­ons, baptising them, Teaching them. Such an Exposition as this would put you to your shifts, Go ye, make Disciples to me out of all Nations by Baptising and Teaching; and such a one, may do well enough, very well against you, who when you come to this or any Text, do but shift up and down for your self, but sift not at all for the sense. And therefore (to puzzle you a little, for there is no farther hopes of any of you I fear,) I will tell somewhat more that our Divines have added to justi­fie this Exposition; Christ saith not, go make Disciples and baptise them, but make disciples baptising them, implying, that by baptising them they made them Disciples; Like as it is said, that John did baptise in the Wildernesse and preach, as though he did baptise first, and then preach: So all Israel is said to be bap­tised into Moses, not as already taught, but to be taught by him, for the future, 1 Cor. 10.2.

But I will not stand upon this Discipling the Nations, by baptising them and their Children. Though the word (disciple them) be a general word, comprehending in it both kinds of conversion, both by the preaching of the word, and the initiation of baptism. This is that though, which I can presse hence, That all Disciples of Christ are to be baptised, there is a Command for this, Go, Disciple the Nations and baptise them.

And that this discipling the Nations, was a making them Scholars and Disciples of Christ, not as taught, but to be taught of him as before, the force and energy of the word in the ori­ginal importeth as much, as may farther be declared in Mat­thew [Page 78]27.57 Where Joseph of Arimathea, discipled himself (the same word is there that here is) entred himself to be of Christs school: and out of John 9.27 Where the blind man saith to th Pharises, Will ye be also his Disciples, and be initiated to learn of him? and may be farther instanced from the manner of the Jewes, amongst whom, to become a Disciple was to be initiated into a Master, to be taught of him, and therefore the very day any one initiated themselves to learn, they were called Disciples, as Christs were, and so called his Disciples, from the first day he called them and said, Come follow me; And like as men are called the Souldiers under such a Captain, from the time of their listing them, though they be not as then taught the skill of Armes.

Now then Sir, are not Children, may they not be called Disciples?Acts 11.26. you may as well deny [...] be Christians, as to be Disciples. For (I take [...] and Christians are Synony­mas, that is, (lest you [...] symony in that word) words of the same name and [...] fixation; so that all Christians are Disciples of Christ, and ano [...] Disciples of Christ they are Chri­stians: and howsoever Disciples were called Christians first in Antioch, they may be so called after in any place; and Christi­ans wheresoever may be called and are Disciples of Christ. In the mouth of two witnesses this word may stand, to bear you down for Acts 15.10. Children, upon whose necks those false Teachers would have put the yoak of circumcision, are called Disciples, I say, they would have put it upon the Infants of beleevers, as well as the beleeving Parents, for they would have done it after the manner of Moses Law, pressing it still to be of force. And why not Disciples, I pray? do they not visibly belong to the family and school of Christ, yea and his Kingdom, and so why not subjects also? are not the little Children of a kingdom, subjects thereof, though they know not the Lawes of the same? is not the promise made unto our Children, and the Covenant of God upon them, and do not we Parents offer them to God, giving up our Names to God, both for our selves and all our Families, and undertake for them, and their in­struction and education in christianity, and will this work no­thing to the declaring them Disciples? I will shut up all these interrogatories with this Assertory, that because if children of [Page 79]Christian discipled parents be also discipled, why then they are within this commandement of Christ, and may and ought to be baptized; and so you have a commandement for their bapti­zing out of that word, Go disciple the Nations; our chil­dren are as capable of being Disciples.

Or (if you will not go from your English) of being taught, as the children of the Jewish Parents were; which if you yeeld unto, as you cannot do otherwise, then shew me some reason why our children are not as capable of Baptism without such teaching, as the Jews children were of Circumcision without the same. Besides that. I will minde you of this, that though they be not capable of receiving actual teaching from men, they are not uncapable of Gods own teaching, even in their infancy, no more than children of the Jews were, that hereupon you should debar ours from Baptism, when as theirs were not kept from Circumcision upon any such account.

6. The same, or rather another, Commandement for our Infant Baptism, may be fetched out of those words, Bapti­zing them, for whom doth our Saviour design here for the Sub­ject of Baptism, or persons to be baptized? why, the Disci­pled, or taught Nations, Parents and Children, they have a right to the Gospel preached, as Nations, but a right to Bap­tism, Parents and Children, as discipled, taught, and brought into Covenant. So that when Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize the Nations so discipled and taught, he did not look onely to the time then being, but to the continuation of a Christian Progeny and Posterity of Believers upon earth. So that as S. Paul saith, 1 Tim. 1 16. For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me, first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them who should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting: so these Nations obtained mercy, that in them first, Jesus Christ might shew forth Baptism, for a pattern to them who should hereafter be discipled and taught of him in the everlasting Covenant; namely, that Baptism belongeth to them, all other Nations, so far forth as they consist of disci­pled Parents and Children, Parents professing Christ in their own persons, and their Children under their Christian Educa­tion; both together make up a discipled Nation, commanded here to be baptized, as the proper and adaequate Subject of Bap­tism, [Page 80]So that if I can shew that the Children are contained in the word Nations, the work is done, a commandement here is for their baptizing. I shall do it briefly, yea it is done to my hand already.

1. It is a general rule in Scripture, That children are alwaies included in every administration, whether of promises or threat­nings, mercies or judgements, privileges or burdens, unless they be excepted; and in the very constitution of it, children make a great part of a Nation.

2. In this particular, of these, all Nations here, some think it to be spoken emphatically, in opposition to the one Nation of the Jews (and so it is in a sense, this was the onely taught and discipled Nation, but now, go and teach and disciple all Nations?) I should rather, or as well, think it to be spoken in apposition and relation unto the one Nation of the Jews, that like as the Nation of the Jews hath been a long time disci­pled and taught in the Covenant, and circumcised, the parents with their children: so now all Nations are commanded to be likewise discipled and taught in the same Covenant, and bapti­zed, the parents with their children, the which S. Paul shew­eth clearly, Gal. 3.8. & 9. namely, that the Doctrine of the Gospel delivered to Abraham in the nature of a Covenant, was preached now to all Nations, and so the blessing of Abraham's family was here conveyed to the believing families of the Nati­ons, and so the Promise and the Seal Baptism were here applied to the same families, father and children, as the promise and seal Circumcision were to the particular families of Abraham, fa­ther and children, and so here came the Nations to be blessed in Abraham, and Abraham here began to be the father of many Nations.

The which may be yet made more to appear, if the time be looked upon, when the Apostles were sent to teach or disciple these Nations, just when Circumcision lay a dying (as I may so say) and expiring, or ceasing to be a seal of administration unto the Jewish Church, a very fit time, the very time for the Lord to appoint Baptism, and to enlive it for the seal, to come in place of the other, and perform the same office in the Chur­ches of the Gentiles, as the other did in the Churches of the Jews, namely, to let in the believing parents with their chil­dren.

Look again into Rom. 11.23. & 24. these Gentile and Pagan Nations were to be taken into the place of the Nation of the Jews; now upon this their cutting off and casting out, and these wild olives were to have the same engraffing into the good Olive, as the natural branches had: but they and their children were graffed in, and now they and their children are cut off; so these and their children, of the Nations here, were in the like manner here engraffed and implanted into Christ, and therefore baptized, Rom. 6.5. like as the other circumcised.

Lastly, what a great change would there have been else in the heart and love of Christ, if now he, who rebuked the Apo­stles for hindring the little children of the Jews to come unto him, yea who embraced them in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, should now himself in this comman­dement unto his Apostles, to teach, disciple, and baptize the Nations, not minde them the children of these Nations in the like manner as to Baptism, as he did the children of Abraham as to Circumcision, but leave them out, or forbid them to come, or be brought unto him, as if he had now no delight, or took no pleasure in the Infantry of the Gentiles, whereas himself long before spake of this very time, Isa. 49.22. Behold, I will lift up my hands to the Gentiles, and set up my standard un­to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms or bo­soms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. But why did not Christ here put in, baptize the Nations and their seed, as he did in the first administration, Circumcise the Jews and their seed? The Answer is made in the very Question, Be­cause he did it in the first administration of Circumcision, there was no need of doing it again; and besides, children having once a right to be accounted as belonging to Christs Church, and to be reputed visible Members thereof, and no forfeiture made thereof on their part, or bar put In by Christ or any o­ther person of authority, they are alwaies so to be reckoned of, yea they are here put in again and mentioned, in the discipled Nation, and comprehensively included in Them, baptize them, the Nations discipled, which consist of parents and their chil­dren, which make them up.

Again, if the children had not been included here, in these Na­tions, what a great change had here bin made in the latitude and [Page 82]extent of the Covenant, as to the subject thereof, I mean this particular of children, and that without warning given, where­by some other provisions or course might have been sought for and supplicated at Gods hands, for the good of their souls? for by this your rule of shutting out children from Baptism, by the power of this commandement, according to your interpre­tation, if a Jew should convert to Christ, and become a Chri­stian, and believe in Christ come in the flesh, he should be in a worse condition as to his child than before, as who may not be baptized, whereas before he might be circumcised, and the pa­rents faith in Christ will be a loss and prejudice to his child; and both parent and child may think it to be a worse Covenant than the former, whereas it is but one and the same, and there­fore when he was a Jew, his child was circumcised, so when he becomes a Christian, his child is to be baptized.

And thus I have, out of this Text of Matthew 28.19. where­in your party glorieth so much, (though I forgate to tell you, that herein is not described the primary Institution of Baptism, but onely an enlargement of the Apostles Commission) I have evinced a commandement for baptizing of Infants of Believers: you (perhaps) looked for a command, exprest in so many let­ters and syllables, Go, baptize the children of Believers; but is it not good and effectual (it ought to be) if included in the sense and meaning of the words? are not Magistrates and Mini­sters too (by your leave) meant in that commandement, Ho­nour thy Father? are not envie and hatred likewise comprised in that command, Thou shalt do no murder? yet neither those nor these are expresly literally or verbally commanded; where is the Bishop of Rome mentioned in the Revelations? yet he meant, and his universal headship, by the Beast there and his mark. I could give you many more instances. And why not Infants also comprised in this command, Disciple the Nations and baptize them, though not set down there by name, a­mongst the Nations and Disciples to be baptized. But I have writ enough of this Point before.

I will onely (as formerly, now also for a conclusion of this Point,) leave with you another Syllogism, supposing that now, having been used to them, (Syllogisms I mean) you will not be much afraid of them, though you think them the bug bears [Page 83]of the Universities, and limbs of humane Arts and Sciences: fear not, for unless you come nigh them, which (I believe) you will not, or dare not, they will not bite you: otherwise, they have teeth in their mouths.

The sixth Syllogism is this:

The discipled or taught Nations, and so brought into Cove­nant, are commanded by Christ to be baptized, Mat. 28.19.

But the Parents and their children are the discipled or taught Nations, and so brought into Covenant.

Therefore the Parents and their children are commanded to be baptized.

The first Proposition is the letter of the Text, as is said.

The second is largely proved before, and who need doubt but that children are included in the word Nations? being a part, and a great part of them, and comprehended in every ad­ministration of grace and mercy especially.

And now leaving the commandement of Christ for Infant Baptism, I proceed to the second kinde of Warrants you call for; namely, the example of Christ and his Apostles; for so these two you yoke together in your Quaeres, and impose upon my neck to bear up and carry out in this and all points, Com­mands and Examples, when your self, as a Bullock unaccusto­med to the yoke, neither do, nor can shew either of the two, for your wild, untamed, and untaught opinion.

As for the example of Christ, it is a vain thing to demand it, as who baptized none, as I have told you formerly out of the Evangelist.

And for the Apostles, they baptized but a few, as whose bu­siness and work was especially, and lay for planting Churches, and raising of foundations out of grown persons converted by them out of Judaism and Gentilism, as is expresly set down, 1 Cor. 1.13 & 17. And therefore if Christ sent them not to bap­tize, but to preach the Gospel, (not to baptize, either especi­ally in reference to preaching and converting, or generally, all whom they preached unto or converted:) it was not part of their commission to do so, nor any violation of Christs com­mand, for them not to do so; for then S. Paul would, and should rather have asked God pardon, than given him thanks, as here he doth, for that he baptised none of the Corinthians [Page 84](whom notwithstanding in Christ Jesus he begate through the Go­spel, 1 Cor. 4.15.) save some few here also named and mention­ed by him.

This I acquaint you with at first, to let you understand the reason of so frequent mention of the Baptism of believing Converts, and of so much silence in Scripture of Infant-Bap­tism, and to shew you further the irrationality of your de­mand, who, as your friends and father Jesuites were wont to call upon us, for Names, Names of Protestants before Luther's daies, now clamour me for Examples, Examples of baptized In­fants in the Apostles time: Yea, to present to you the inva­lidity of your reason, so frequently urged, the Apostles did not practise constantly the baptizing Infants, and therefore it is not to be so done. For (besides, that for you to reason negatively from the Scripture in a matter of fact, as here from the not-pra­ctice of the Apostles, to the unlawfulness of our practice, and fact, sheweth you are indeed averse, not onely to humane, but even Divine Arts and Sciences, there being no Divinity, little humanity, in such arguments, fitter for children than men, for the scales of a Higler, than the Schools of a Disputer.) I have shewed you good reason why the Apostles (yea the Apostles own reason, which (I suppose) you will not deny to be good) did not baptize all, either grown persons whom they convert­ed, or their Infants by name, and sometimes did not baptize at all, when they had converted people. And may not I now turn the same Argument upon and against your self, and put the same yoke upon your neck? There is no practice of any Apo­stle to be seen or read of in the whole Gospel, or Acts of the Apostles, of their baptizing any Christians child, when he was grown up to years, and therefore your practice in doing so is unlawfull and unwarrantable, you (I believe) would think this but mad arguing, but you know the man and his communi­cation. 1 Kings 9.11.

From the Acts of the Apostles there may be, but from the non-Acts of the Apostles there may not be made or drawn a good reason to enforce or unforce a practice. There is recorded no practice of any Apostle, admitting women to the Lords Supper, or example of any woman receiving the Lords Supper (more then of Infants receiving Baptism, and the Apostles [Page 85]admitting them thereto) will you therefore hence conclude, the practise of Womens receiving the Lords supper is to be omitted? yes will say there is, for doth not Christ say; Drink ye all of this; And I say, Christ also said, Teach baptise all Nations; (therfore Infants) will as well follow here; As therefore women will follow, there you will say again, was not the Lords supper, administred, to the whole Church of Corinth, and therfore to the Women therein? and so (say I) was not Baptism administred to the whole Church of Corinths, and to whole families there, and therefore to the children therein? You will say again, that in Christ Jesus there is neither Male nor Female, Gal. 3.28. And may not I say, that in Christ Jesus there is neither Old, nor Young, Father or Child? Thence indeed you may prove and deduct that Women are not to be kept back from the Lords sup­per, but there is nothing expresly set down or mentioned of their receiving the Lords supper, or the Apostles giving them it. And so may I prove hence (and have proved many wayes) that Christian-Infants are not to be kept back from the Lords Bap­tism, Though there should be nothing mentioned explicitly of the Apostles practise of baptising children, or childrens exam­ples of receiving baptism, in the Gospel.

For your fuller Understanding in this poynt, look back to what I have discoursed formerly about our imtation of the ex­amples of th Apostles and their practises; To which I add, that their practise and example is and ought to be, in all Morall and material acts of Religion, an affirmative and Positive Rule to the Churches of God, as thus and herein, they baptised such, and such, and therefore we may do the like. But it is no nega­tive or exclusive rule. They baptised not such and such. That therefore we may not baptise such, for the reason is plain, that they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions, and their practise is not a full rule, though a good rule; but the rea­son I gave before, is a playner one, for that they were altogther, in a manner, or chiefly taken up with the preaching to the Na­tions converting people and planting Churchs, that they could not, nor did attend so much upon Baptising, and therefore their Practise and example in not baptising such or such, is no rule for the Churches to walk by now.

But yet (Sir) notwithstanding all this, there are fair footsteeps [Page 86]and prints of the Apostles feet to be seen, walking in this, though not so much beaten, way of baptising beleevers and their infante, which the scriptures have traced and tracked out for us to take after them. As in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. 16 15. Lydia she and her houshold was baptised, and verse 33. The Gaoler, He and all his houshold was baptised; Acts 18. chapter verse 8. Crispus with all his house, and many of the Corinthians with their housholds (for so it is meant) were baptised. So in the Acts of Paul the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.4, 5.6. Where is repeated again, the baptising of Crispus, and Gaius, and the houshold of Stepha­nas.

And I know nothing to the contrary, or contrary to the Ana­logy and proportion of faith, but rather it may be agreeable to the Harmony of the scripture, and these scriptures, If I should say that those persons who are mentioned but single, are meant to be baptised, them, and their housholds; as Gaius here by Paul. So Cornelius by Peter, yea the Eunuch, baptised alone by Philip, might procure his children, if he had any, to be bap­tised by some or other Evangelical minister coming into those coasts, and so where the houshold of Aristobulus, and the hous­hold of Narcissus are mentioned, as Romans 16.10. And the houshold of Onesiphorus, 2 Tim. 4.19. Baptised housholds are there meant.

Now when it is said, such and such were baptised and all their housholds, such a one, and All his, by the Apostles, is your imagination so strong, and wide, as to shut out the children first out of doors of those housholds, that so next you may exclude them, from the Apostles Baptism? You must do so, if there were any within doors, or tell us, that the Apostles passed by them, in their baptisings; or you must shew us, that all the Women in those housholds, were barren, not a Mother of a Child, or a young one amongst them all (For though there should not have been in them, Infants or Sucklings, yet, if but a youngling and a Child of some years, all would have been but as one, as to their Understanding and confessing.) Or you must thus divide the housholds, (as you are good at dividing houses and house­holds, setting the Husband against the Wife, and alienating the Children from Father & Mother, which is a very bad practice,) and say, that not all the Houshold was baptised, whereas the [Page 87]Text saith expresly, He and all his houshold were baptised, but some major part, or the most considerable part of the house, and when it is said, the house of Israel was circumcised, its meant not of a part, either major or most considerable, but of the whole house, as to the Parents and Children, and Servants also or Proselytes under their education and instructi­on.

I do not wonder, you cannot abide our University, Arts, and Sciences, These cannot abide you and such reasonings and interpretations; the Apostles baptised such and all their hous­holds, that is, the greater part, the people of Growth: for though sometimes such a word may be so taken, where all are not capable of the thing done or spoken of, you must prove it to be so here meant in all the places, where the Apostles baptised such and all their housholds, which you can never doe, the ex­press Letter (which you are so for,) is expresly against you, such and all their housholds, of which many times also children are not onely some of all, and a part of the whole, but (in your Tearms, one of them at least) the major part (I say not the most considerable) but I say a capable part too, but if in all or a­ny of these housholds, there was but one infant, or any one young stripling, you are gone, as to the Apostles practice who baptised the beleever, and all his houshold: and incapacity here is none to hinder either our interpretation or the Apostles ministration; for if there had been any in the houshold uncapable, The Apostle would not have baptised the whole houshold, or the beleever, and all his houshold: and I have abundantly shewed before from the Apostle, that Infants of Beleevers are capable of baptism, Verse 32. Now if be said, that the Apostle preached and spake the word to the Gaoler, All that were in the Gaolers house, so all might beleeve and be baptised; it is true, the Apostle did so speak the word to all ca­pable of it, but yet at the 31. Verse, he speaks of the salvation of all the house upon the tearms of the Gaolers beleeving, for that the promise and Covenant being so made at first, held still to beleevers, parents and their children and here also servants, because it is said, he and all his, were baptised in the 33. verse. So it appears to me, that the Gaoler himself onely beleeved, and had an inward work of Faith wrought in the heart upon [Page 88]some special evidence he received of Christ come in the flesh, whereupon he and his, (of whom, the other Pagans of his fa­mily there is nothing said as to their faith, whether servants of growth or children under age the whole houshold, were bapti­zed immediately, in relation to the Fathers and Masters, undertaking and engaging for themselves and their hous­holds.

And indeed (to keep to my particular) if such in these, or our housholds, as did, or do actually beleeve and professe, were and are to be baptised onely, why was the houshold, as of the Gaoler before, who onely there beleeved (as I have shewed) so: the houshold of Lydia, (of whom onely, it is said that the Lord opened her heart to beleeve in Christ) baptis­ed?

Surely the Apostles would not bring in a different Admini­stration, now in the housholds of beleeving Christians, whe­ther out of Jewes or Pagans, from that which ever was in use and practice amongst the housholds of beleeving Jewes at first, and therefore went here according the common custom former­ly used in time of circumcision, and where they baptised any beleeving Father of a Family, there they did baptise, or others for them, the children of the same houshold, or might have done. Otherwise, how could they, the Apostes when they preached the Gospel to all Nations and so to their housholds, how could they bring the blessing of Abraham into all Nations and their housholds (according to the prophecy and promise thereof by God) if they did not apply the Covenant and the Seal gene­rally to them and theirs, in the same manner as it was to him and his, so, that the children of beleevers might now be baptis­ed, as formerly they were circumcised?

And lastly I may add this, That when men in those dayes were converted from Judaism or Pagainism, they did (proba­bly) at their admittance into the Church by baptism, make an open and solemn League and Covenant with God, before some people present to professe the Faith of Christ, they and their housholds, which Saint Paul may seem to put some of them in mind of, Ephesians 6.4. Fathers bring up your Children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord: And therefore when the Apostles did baptise housholds of beleevers, they did it in relati­on [Page 89]on to the Parents, or others in their stead, undertaking and ingaging for themselves and the children therein.

And thus now at last, and at length too (as all other point) I have asserted unto you this Point also, of Apostolical Practice and Examples, for the baptizing of the children and Infants of believing Parents.

I have answered all your Quaeres, and (I hope) have in­formed and setled your judgement better by my answers, than you could do it by our Quaeres (for I cannot yet forget, how that at the end of them you say, these your Quaeres are your judgement.) I proceed now to what you have more in your Letter of two sheets, but do not mean to proceed, as I have be­gun, either to transcribe all your words of the second sheet, all have done your words of the first, or to bestow twenty and five sheets closely written, in answering of your second sheet, but loosely written, as I have done upon your first sheet (for I have dispatched hitherto but the one first sheet of your Letter) and there is good reason for it.

For the first sheet, for the most part, put Quaeres to me, in your number twenty one, and they contained in them some ma­terial and substantial things to be answered, of a large extent, and great depth; and therefore I thought good to give unto them a full and proportionable answer, what pains and time soever it should cost me. But that which you propound in your second sheet to me, is nothing but certain Considerations of your own, against baptism of Infants, and about some Texts of Scripture, the very froth and barmings of your own head; the which if I should let alone unreplied to, as once I was re­solved, would of themselves sink, disperse, and fall to nothing. But, lost you should swell and be puffed up in any conceipt of these your considerations, as the Bladder is with its own winde, I will as briefly as I can, with my short breath, by reason of my old age, blow away your froth, and let out your winde, that so the hollowness and shallowness of them may appear to the Reader.

The Title you set over your first Consideration, is this, More particularly about the Doctrine of Babtism (Baptism) consider these Arguments proved by clear and plain Scripture. Sir, this is a false Title to your Tractate; for if you would have done here more [Page 90]particularly, it should have been, and you should have said, about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism: for if you bring not Ar­guments, not onely about Baptism, as you say, but against In­fant baptism, and these proved by clear and plain Scripture, I shall not consider them, neither have you considered well of our difference. 1. You bid me Consider that the Doctrine of Infants Babtism overthrows the nature of the Covenant of grace, and the whoe (whole) Gospel of Christ; why so? because the Covenant of grace and Gospel of Christ stands upon the account of faith a­ctual in there one (heir own) persons, as uppears in John 3.36. and John 5.24. But Infants Babtism stand upon the account of the faith in there (their) Parents or Surtie, (Sureties,) (although they have none for themselves) and so makes faith void and unne­sesery (unnecessary) to the perticipation (participation) of the Covenant, Rom. 4.13. Gal. 3.17, 8.

But what do I? did I not say I would not transcribe your words of your second sheet? but I see I must do it, for there is so much false-written English in them, that I must of necessity do it, lest if inscribed to my Answer, that may be thought mine. But to the matter. Baptism of Infants of Believers, doth not overthrow, but establish the Covenant and Gospel of Grace, because it sealeth and executeth it. Neither doth the Covenant of Grace, and the Gospel, stand upon the account of actual Faith in all mens own persons, but onely such as being grown in years, are converted from Paganism, these must make profes­sion of faith, before they can come into the Covenant, and be sealed. But actual faith is not a Condition required, as to the Covenant or Seal in Infants. Your Text therefore of John 3.36. is not to the purpose, as which onely sets everlasting life upon (to use your phrase) the account of actual faith, which I grant, and so doth the next Text, John 5.24. as appears, for that he begins with, and speaks of such as do hear the Word of God, and beleeve in Christ, which is not appliable to In­fants but grown men: And as to your Inference, The bap­tism of Infants stands upon the account of their being in Co­venant together with their Parents, and not upon the account of the Faith in their Parents or Sureties, but only so far, as the Faith of the Parents serves to shew them a seed of the faithful; and the Faith of the Sureties, undertakes for their education [Page 91]in, and profession of Faith afterwards: How strangely also do you pervert that Text, Romans 4.13? For it is there said, the promise was made to Abraham, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham and his seed through the Law, but through the Righteousnesse of Faith; Which he had yet being uncircumcised, to whom God upon this account of this faith, made the Promise both to himself and his Seed; you would have the faith there spoken of to be the faith of the Seed or Infant, as holding it necessary to the participation of the Covenant, and so falsifie both Covenant and Text, which both, together with your last, Gal. 3.17. do quite overthrow your first overthrowing Consideration (for Argumentation here is none.) More of this you shall have hereafter.

Your second Consideration, because it hath a Narration, yea a repetition of what you set down in your first Page, about the nature of the state (so you speak, whereas rather you should say, the state of the Nature) of Christs true visible Church under the Gospel, to the shewing of which you here onely describe Christs true invisible Church, and therefore cite the Texts you did before, and add some more, that speak onely of invisible Members, such as you call Saints, made so by the im­mortal Seed, new Creatures by the benefit of Regeneration. I shall therefore say nothing to that here, but refer you, and espe­cially the Reader, to what I have largely before discoursed, about the state and nature (for I will correct my self too) of the Church both visible and invisible; for though you may (perhaps) have no such care of me, I must and will be care­full, that I dead not the Reader, by any tedious and vain re­petitions and Tautologies.

Yet this I say in anser to it, That Infant-Baptism in the Church, is so far from overthrowing (as you argue) the na­ture and state of Christs true visible Church, that it is rather much confirmed and established, increased and enlarged there­by, because thereby more are admitted in present, members vi­sible, and are engaged to be for the future, visible professors and confessors of Christ; yea, and the invisible Church also is not overthrown, but upheld and augmented by our Baptism of In­fants, as whereby many Infants are not onely dedicated and consecrated unto Christ, but are also by Baptism, as a Seal [Page 92]and Means (as I have shewed) regenerated, and so fitted and prepared the better for Heaven and happiness. And whereas you add, That Infants Baptism is grounded upon the Relation they have to the Church, by generation onely, or by the meer pro ession of faith and repentance in the Parents and Sureties, I see you are corrup­ted in your Principles, and grounds of Divinity.

Once more I tell you (I pray learn it now, for I will teach you it no more) for the Readers sake, that Infants Baptism is grounded and foundationed upon the Covenant of God made with the believing Parents, for himself and Infants, and that which you call Generation, doth but raise up the ground and foundation-Covenant to bring it into some act of visibility in relation to the Church, for the Seal thereof. And so also In­fants have not their relation unto the Church by generation (rather by this they have relation to the world) nor by the meer faith and repentance of the Parents and Sureties, but by the Covenant and the Seal thereof, in both which Infants are interessed together with their Parents, have they their relation unto the Church. For which you may see Acts 2.39, & 41. (because you give me no Text here, which I wonder at) of which I have your consideration in particular to peruse anon.

Onely I shall add a word or two about Sureties in the Bap­tism of Infants, because I do not remember that hitherto, be­fore now, you have made any mention of them; and for that I see you are here in an errour about them; and you would put a slur upon us, and a kinde of slander upon our Church, as if In­fant-Baptism stood upon account of faith in the Parents and Sure­ties, although (say you;) they have none for themselves. I will adde somewhat, although they have more than your self. I may say the one, as well as you say the other.

Know then Sir, that the costom of having Sureties at the bap­tizing of Infants, hath been very ancient in the Church, when Truth was in its prime light, and Primitive purity, though thereupon it is the less liked, because the more unlike to the new upstart and out-staring novelisms of these later Ages, and last declining times; and their office was, as to bear witness of the birth of Infants of Christian Parents, and therefore were called Attesters or Witnesses (as at this day) so to answer for the faith, and take upon them the education of the baptized In­fants, [Page 93]and for this they were called Sponsors or Susceptors. Hereupon the Infant to be baptized, although he did not profess himself to be Believer with his own mouth, nor could, yet being asked and interrogated (as the manner was) Doest thou believe? he answered in the mouth and tongue of his Sponsors or Sureties, or the very Parents, or they (which is all one) an­swered in stead and place of the Infant, I believe. And with­out such profession of faith, Infants publickly were not bapti­zed in the Church. Thus in and by the judgment of charity, the Ancients held and judged the Infant to believe, and that if it could speak with its mouth, it would answer, that it belie­ved; and because it could not, they appointed (as before) Sponsors and Sureties in the name and place of the Infant, to answer, I believe.

And in this sense also (besides others I have given) were In­fants of Christians called of old, Believers, because they did in some manner profess faith, in and by the mouth and words of their Sponsors, Sureties and Parents. True, its uncertain and unknown to the Church, or man, whether the Infant doth be­lieve or not; but unless the Church had so judged by the judgement of charity (which, saith the Apostle, believeth all things, hopeth all things) the Infant to believe, she would not have appointed Sureties and Sponsors in the name and place of the Infant, so to asnwer; and unless the Infant it self had so answered, in the words and mouth of its Sponsors and Sure­ties she, i.e. the Church, would have forbid it to be bap­tized.

Thus I have told you of the ancient manner of the Primitive Baptisms with Sureties and Sponsors; you must not now here call upon me for proof hereof out of the plain and direct Scrip­ture: for I acknowledge this ancient Custom, and many a one in use amongst the first Christian Churches, is not expresly pre­scribed in Scripture (for then it might be concluded absolutely necessary for all ages and persons to follow) so neither is it for­bidden explicitly in Scripture, and therefore not utterly to be rejected, as unlawfull to be used, as which was for the good of the Infant (and hurs of none, as having neither impiety nor iniquity in it) so also it was for the provision and better education of the Infant, the edification of the Church, and [Page 94]the demonstration and exercise of Charity to, and charitable judging of others. Insomuch, that as those venerable Names and Lights of the Ancient Church, Tertullian and Augu [...]tine, have related and delivered that Custom of baptizing with Sure­ties and Sponsors: so other Reverend Names and Lights of these Modern reformed Churches, as Luther, Zanchy, Beza, have al­lowed, approved, and commended the aforesaid Custom, as fit to be retained still.

From all which it now appears, that you (Sir) are much out, when as you talk and tattle of the Churches baptizing Infants upon account of faith in the Sureties, although they have none of their own; for (you see) it was not upon the account of the faith of the Sureties, which the Sureties had of their own, that Infants ever were baptized, but upon the account of the faith of the Infant, which the Infant had of its own, testified and professed in their name, by the Sureties (appointed by the Church, which judged charitably of the Infant, to beleive) that the Infant was baptized.

But now, before I proceed to the next, I will call upon you to consider, That your Doctrine of baptizing actual Believers onely, and thereupon not baptizing the Infants of Believers un­til they have actual faith, and can and do make confession of it, doth rather overthrow, as much as in you lieth, the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the whole Gospel of Christ, at leastwise to the Seal thereof, all the while from their birth, that such Infants are kept by you from the same Seal of Baptism (for you cannot keep them from their Covenant, though you do shamefully, ingratefully, ungraciously, yea and unnatu­rally keep them from the Seal.) The thing is evident enough, if you do but remember, this is the nature of the Covenant and Gospel of Christ, the Promise of God, to be the God of the be­lieving Parent and his Seed joyntly, therefore also of his child as soon as its born; yea before, when it is his Seed; and soon after its birth, Gods will is declared to have this Covenant exe­cuted and confirmed by an initial Seal of Circumcision upon In­fants, in the Old, and of Baptism upon Infants in the New Te­stament; now, who overthroweth this Covenant, we, who put our Infants under the Seal of the Covenant, soon after their birth, (it being their birth-right) or you, that with-hold it [Page 95]from your Infants, until they come to be of years to make pro­fession, let God himself be judge, and that his Word, Genesis 17.14. He hath broken my Covenant; who? the child, whose flesh of his fore-skin is not circumcised: so also he, whose flesh is not washed with the water of Baptism; which latter, if not done, or ordered to be done by you, who are Parents to the Child, the breach and overthrowing the Covenant lieth upon you, and not upon the child, to answer for. You have broken the Lords Covenant, and the Lord may break in upon you, as he did upon Moses for neglect of circumcising his Seed, Exodus 4.24. Consider of it, its the Lords mercy you are not broken and consumed; let the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering, lead you to repentance; the Covenant Go­spell, Christ being the same under both Administrations, God will look (and justly may and must) that his Covenanters or covenanted with, even Instants, shall be now partakers of Baptism in a proportionable time (if there be no intercoming excusable impediment) like as the same were of Circum­cision.

And now also, before I set upon your next Consideration, consider with your self, whether your Doctrine of baptizing Believers onely, and thereupon your not baptizing of Infants of Believers, until they come to have actual Faith, and to a confession of it, doth not rather overthrow the state and nature of Christs visible Church under the Gospel? I have largely proved before, and that out of Texts you here cite to the con­trary, Romans 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.2, &c. That Christs visible Church under the Gospel consisteth and is made up of visible and out­ward members and professors, (some of which, though un­known unto us, are members also of the invisible Church under the Gospel) and I have also clearly shewed you, that Baptism is a means of entrance and admission into the visible Church; whereby Infants (who by vertue of Gods Covenant may also belong to the invisible Church as members) are reckoned & en­rolled, & even made members of the visible Church. N [...]w then, whether of us do overthrow the State and Nature of Christs visible Church under the Gospel, we, who help to uphold and increase it, by our ad nitting and initiating of our Infants to be visible members thereof through our baptising of them in their [Page 96]Infancy, or you, who, by your not baptising of them for the space of 15. or 16. years and more, and sometimes as much more, do all that while with-hold visible members from the Church, yea and do all that while leave them to a visible standing and being under the kingdom of darkness, (though in­visibly it may be otherwise) which is most opposite to the Church of Christ, Let the next Reader judge, for you are neither fit nor able to judge herein, as who are already prejudi­ced, prejudicated, and prepossessed with a Spirit of delusion as to the Nature and State of Christs visible Church under the Gospel.

3 You bid me, Consider, That Infants babtism, it overthrows the end for which true babtism was appointed, For the Chief one of Christs true babtism of beleevers, was to distinguish the true Church from the World: Col. 2.12. Compared with Verse 20 Gal. 3.26. and 27 Act. 2.41. But Infant baptism overthroweth this distinction, because all are admitted in by it, and no distinction made.

Sir, I not think of it until just now, or else I should have asked you, a Quaere, Why you alwayes write it Bahatism, when as you are so great an enemy to Babe-baptism? I shall be bold, to answer it, thus, because you do so babble about baptism. For is not this in present, (as there hath been much of it be­fore) profane and vain babling, which the Apostle bids you shun, to talk of The end for which baptism is appointed, and then to call it, a Chief one; And then to instance, in the distinguish­ing of the true Church from the world, as a chief one, which is the inferiour one; and lastly to cite holy Scriptures which are too no such purpose, is not this prophane and vain babling? But I answer to the matter.

1. It is an unsound and lame assertion or proposition, to say, that Infants baptism is to be rejected for ever, (as you con­clude your Considerations with, and therefore mean so in eve­ry one) if it should overthrow one chief end, for which true baptism was appointed, when as in the mean, it upholds five other ends, as chief, if not chiefer, which I have reckoned up to you in my fift warrantable Reason for baptism, to which I refer you.

2. How will you prove Infants baptism to overthrow the end [Page 97]why true baptism was appointed? because it overthroweth the chief one, which was to distinguish the true Church from this; but how if there be the ends, as well as the end why true bap­tism was appointed? how, if amongst the ends, there be chiefer ones, than that chief one you mention? how, if In­fants-baptism do not overthrow those five chiefer ones, though (supposed onely) it should overthrow one chief one? Here be now some Quaeres for you.

But now, how prove you also, The chief one end of true baptism to be, to distinguish the true Church, from the world? you cite, Col. 2 12. and 20. There is mention made of baptism and the world, and a spiritual end and effect of baptism, that therein the Colossians were buried in Christ and risen with him, (alluding to the ancient manner of baptising by immersion and emersion, to signifie them both,) & they were freed from the Rudiments and Ordinances of the World, that is of the Legal oeconomy of the Jewes, and what's all this to the purpose of baptisms being a chief end, to distinguish the true Church from the Heathen World, which is also but an external end? And though the Text speak of grown persons, and Heathens converted, yet it is true also of all elect and regenerate Infant (of which there are many you cannot deny it) that they are buried with Christ in baptism, and risen with him, &c. So that you get nothing by this Text, against Infants-baptism, They rather gain by you hence for their baptism; But ther's nothing at all gained for the distinguishing the true Church from the World by baptism, as the chief end there­of.

So that other Text, Galathians 3.26. Is nothing to your purpose, yea against your purpose, for it speaks onely of the inward and spiritual effects of Baptism, and of baptism into Christ, that thereby the Galathians had put on Christ, and were so incorporated, as they were one in Christ, so that there was neither Jew, nor Gentile, bond, or free, & So far is this Text from shewing the distinction of the true Church from the World, to be the chief end of baptism, that it rather and onely shews, the spiritual Union of true Christians with Christ, to be one end and a chief one, which also all Infants [Page 98]regenerate and baptised into Christ do attain unto, as well as these grown Galathians and converted Heathens.

I professe I never read in all my life time, Texts of Scripture, more impertinently cited, and I had once thought to have let your Citations of the word alone, and onely have replyed to your words; But that I honor the word, and you do dishonor it, by citing it for that which is not in it, even as Christ said, he honored the Father, but the Jewes dishonored him, by saying, he came not from the Father. Your last place, though it comes some what neerer that the former, as to an external addition of the 3000. Souls unto the Church, by baptism, yet it as far from mentioning any distinction of the true Church from the world, and making it the chief end of baptism, as the other before.

3. Infant baptism doth not overthrow but support that end, the distinguishing of the true Church from the World: that is, from the World out of the Church, which is the Pagan and Heathenish World, (you must mean this, or else you say no­thing, seeing there is a Christian World, or a World of Chri­stians, even all that professe the Gospel, and embrace Jesus Christ) for if you mean by Church, the elect true beleevers; and by the World, the Reprobate and false Beleevers, within the same, neither our Infant-baptism, nor your baptism of be­leevers, (as you call it) confessing Faith, when grown in years, can make such a distinction; for as amongst our Infants, so a­mongst the grown Beleevers baptised, there may be and are undoubtedly many Reprobates, & Hypocrites, and Falsehearted Professors; such of both sorts come to Baptism, without any distinguishing by us; and go from baptism without any distin­ction of such by it.

And therefore 4. Is a pittiful reason you add, and I pitty you for it, that Infant-baptism doth not distinguish the true Church from the World, because all are admitted in by it; True, all of the Church are admitted in by it, (What need a distinction in the Seal, where there is a conjunction in the Covenant) and this very admitting all of the Church professing Christ, or born of those that professe Christ (upon both which termes, the Covenant runneth) doth evidently prove, that we hold strictly, and uphold strongly, the distnction of the Church [Page 99]from the World of Pagans and Heathens, whom we exclude-and keep off from baptism, untill they learn and beleeve the Gospel and make profession.

And now 5. Consider, that your Non-baptism of your In­fants until they be grown to great years able to profess faith, &c doth overthrow the end of bapttism and a chief one, the distinguishing of the true Church from the World, for that none of them are admitted into the true visible Church, by it: for tell me, whats the distinction and difference betwixo the World-Infants, I mean the Infants of Pagans and Heathens, and the Church-Infants, the Infants of Christians and Professors, but this onely of baptism, admitting these into the visible partici­pacion of the Covenant, and Communion with the Church of God, for want of which, the others are kept out as aliens and strangers, until they by faith and confession come to claim the same Seal of admittance.

I say again consider this, and lay it closely and seriously to your heart, that during the years you detain uyour Infants and Children from baptism, which is their birth-privilege and their Covenant-Seal and their distinction-mark, you leave them in a Heathenish and Gentile state, as Aliens and strangers from the XCommom wealth of ChrisTians, and Covenants of Promise, Them, I say you leave without Hope, as being without the Seal of the Promise, and your selves in doubt, about them. The revealed things belong to you and your Children; The Promise, and the Promise to be sealed, belongs to you and your Children, to your Children, upon their birth, as their Privilege and due, Let them have it, and leave the secret things to God, to whom they belong, their Salvation by Election; for he that elected them to such an end, hath elected them to the means.

And thus you have been thrice overthrowing of Infant: Bap­tism, yet have you not given is any fall: For though in words you seem to make is the great overthrower, as if it overthrew the Covenant and Gospel, the visible Church, the ends of true baptism, yet Infant-baptism, and all these stand ver, well to­gether, each upholding the other, and though you would in­deed seem as the great Goliah and overth over to little David, and so have given these three retches and girds at Infan shap­tism, [Page 100]its rather to your own overthrow, and of vour own bap­tism, and yet (I perceive) you have another stroke to come, in the 21 of Ezekiel 27. God said of Jerusalem, purpo­seing to destroy it, I will overturn, overturn, overturn, and it shall be no more; but in your design for the ruine of Infant-baptism, you exceed the wrath and indignation and have gon beyond that threefold Ingemination, saying, I will overthrow, overthrow, overthrow, overthrow the doctrine of Infant-bap­tism. But as curst Cowes have short horns, so strong words have (most an end) weak hands, you have done but little yet by your three highly and strongly conceited considerations, and I (beleeve) the fourth will be like the sormer. Which, because there are so many, In and outs and round abouts in it, I will reduce it to a short form.

The baptising of Beleevers or Deciples, is onely expresly com­manded in Scripture, as in Matthew 28.19. Mark 16 15. John 4.12 Acts 2.38. and 41. Acts 8.37. and 38. But Infants bap­tism overthroweth and prevents that babtism which is onely expres­sly commanded in Scripture? Therefore what? you infer nothing, lest it should be a Syllogism, a Limm of the profane University human Learning, but I know your meaning, onely mend in your copy at home, (Deciples and Babtism) as you write here, and make it, Disciples and Baptism, lest your friends think you call the baptism of beleevers onely, a babism: and derive your Disciples from Deciples, decipients or decei­vers.

You must pardon me, for not turning to your Texts, & some of them I have already handled, & shewed they were nothing to your purpose, and others, I shall meet within in a fitter place, I know them without book, that none of them all do expresly command the baptising beleevers onely; Which they must do, if you cite them for your purpose: For who ever denyed the baptising of beleevers, as I have formerly written? Again as these Texts, do command, some of them, expresly the bap­tising of beleevers, as Acts 2.38. So some other doth but con­dition for, and propound Faith unto baptism of grown persons, as Acts 8.37. And another mentions faith and baptism as a joynt requisit to Salvation, as Mark 16.16. And another hath nothing at all in it either of faith, or baptism, or com­mand [Page 101]as John 4 12. And for the last place (in your paper, the first,) look back, where its largely handled, and you shall see (you might have seen it in the Text it self) there is no ex­presse command for baptism of beleevers, but of Disciples, and therefore you did well to add, to beleevers, (or Deciples) and are not Children of beleeving Parents, Disciples too, if not beleevers? you shall find (if upon your first reading you did not) Them also to be commanded there, under the Notion of Disci­ples or a discipled Nation, (of which they are a portion) to be baptised, and much more to that purpose.

And lastly your Texts that do speak of Baptism of Belie­vers, mean it of Believers, being grown persons and Heathens converted newly, not of Believers born and living within the Precincts of the Church.

But how (I pray) doth the Baptism of Infants within the Church, overthrow the Baptism of believing Heathens and Pa­gans, grown persons? they stood up together, both in Apo­stles General and National Commission, by which the children of believing and baptized Heathens were to be also baptized; and in Apostles domestical and special Dispensation, when they baptized whole Housholds of believing Parents and their chil­dren. It is true, this Doctrine of thus baptizing Infants, over­throws your practice of baptizing onely Children grown, though born of baptized Christian Parents, when they can give a reason of their Faith. I say Infant-Baptism overthrows this your Man Baptism in a setled & planted Church; and you have not one Text to raise or lift it up, or hold up your selves, But I remember you joyned with Infant-Baptism overthrowing, its preventing also the Baptism expresly commanded in those Scrip­tures alleged by you. What mean you, Sir, by such a con­juntion of overthrowing and preventing? for if that over­throweth this, then it doth more than prevent; and if that doth but prevent this, it doth not so much as overthrow it. For my part, I think the one doth not prevent the other, but both were; joyned together, both in the Precept, Baptise the discipled Nations, the believing Parents and their children; as also in the practice, The Apostles having converted Pagan Na­tions and Houses, I mean, the grown Parents, unto the Faith, baptized them and their children at the same time, or left them [Page 102]baptizeable, and to be baptized of others, if they were in haste of their preaching the Word; like as Abraham the Believer, and Ismael his Son, were both circumcised upon one and the same day. Sure if any one prevented the other, it was the old Administration (as you call it in this place) the Baptism of Be­lievers, that prevented the other, the Baptism of Infants; and not the other back way, as you affirm; for the Believers both of the Jewish and Heathenish Nations, were first baptized, and then their Infants were afterwards baptised, as Abraham was first circumcised, and then the self-same day was Ismael circumcised.

But let me hear and reade your Reason. You say likewise, Insant-Baptism prevents the old ministration of this expresly com­manded baptizing of Believers, because most of persons look upon themselves as baptized in their infancy, and so never look after the command of Christ to be baptized when they believe. What a Rea­son is here given of Infant-Baptism preventing, another Bap­tison expresly commanded? namely the baptized persons, ima­gination of himself, or looking upon himself as baptized in his infancy, and so never look after the command of Christ to be baptized when they believe. To let go the irrationality of this Reason, I must say again, that there is no such old or new ministration of an expresly commanded Baptism of Believers grown, after they have been once baptized in their Infancy; Your cannot wring or wrest it out of the mouth of any one of your cited Texts; so far are you from deducing, and leading it fairly by the hand (as I may so say) out of them or any one of them. This of yours, savours too rankly of the old Heresie, and new Schisme of Rabaptization, ever condemned in the Churches of God, both of old, and of late, as I have for­merly proved, from the Apostles casting up this account, and bringing all Baptismes to this, as the total summe, that there is but one Baptism, and therefore once baptized, are not to be baptized any more. And therefore not onely most of the per­sons, but all of the persons baptized, are to look upon them­selves as baptized sufficiently, and never to look after any other Baptism, commanded them of Christ when they believe, for there is none commanded.

Do you, Sir, express it as if it were a fault or a fancy, that most of persons look upon themselves as baptized in their infam­cy, [Page 103]and never look after to be baptized when they believe? Stop your ears (Oye baptized men, women, and children) at the voice of the chaarmers, for they charm neither wisely, nor foundly, nor sweetly, as to you and your good and benifit; not wisely for you, but subtlely for themselves and their party, who having forsaxen their first love, and renounced their first Baptism, now compass about to make your their proselytes, and so two-fold more the children of Hell than themselves, if ye after so many strong Reasons, and so fair a warning, will also renounce your Baptism, wherein ye renounced the Devil and all his works, A chief one of the DXevils works is, to draw peo­ple to renounce their Baptism, the mark and Seal of their Co­venane with God, & Gods with them, as he useth to do with Wirches and Sorcerers, before he entreth into Covtract with them, and give them a mark and Seal of their Langue with him, and his with them.

Not soundly or truly for you, but hypocritically and falsly for themselves, do they thus charm, as who onely do pretend the Word and Commandement, but can shew you none, nor example for any Christian once baptized, who ever was bapti­zed again. The desire to have you baptized again, as the Im­postors would have had the baptized Galathians circumcised, That they may glory in your flesh, Galat. 6.13. (a most vain and shamefull glory) and make you tread under foot the Son of God, and to count the blood of the Covenant, wherewith ye were sanctified, an unholy thing, and do despite unto the Spirit of grace; Heb. 10.19. at least to grieve the holy Spirit of God, wherewith ye were sealed unto the day of redemption, if ye belong to the Election of God. Such a grievous, hainous, and unsound thing tit is to renounce your Christian Baptisms: Look therefre diligently to your selves, as the Authour to the Hebrews hath it, lest any man among you fall from the Grace of God, (even that Grace offered in the Sea crament of Baptism ot you, and (it may be) received by you therein) lest any root of bitterness springing up in you, trouble you, lest there be any profane person amongst you, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birth-right; Heb. 12.15, 16 thus Esau despised his birth­right, Genesis 25 34. Is not Baptism your birth-right also? is not your renouncing of your Infant-Baptism, a despi­sing of your Infant Birth-right, and a breaking or pulling off, [Page 104]or a trostrating or evacuaring the Seal either way, a despising it, and a profaning of the Covenant of Grace? and will ye thus part with your Birth-right, first Baptism and sell it (as it were) to these supplanting Jacobs, and all for a mess of twice sod pottage? such is second Baptism, or rebaptization, Will you leave your Manna that came down first from Heaven, loathing it, to lust after, and hunt after these Quails, and listen to their Quail piper, who say. What is this Manna? nothing before ouer eys but this Manna. Remember, that whilest the flesh of the Quails eaten in cintempt of Manna; was yet between their teeth ere the Quails were chewed, the wrath of God was kindled amongst the people, to the smiting of them with a great plague (besides that the flesh afterwards came out at their nostrils, and was loathsom unto them:) and so fear ye, left while the water of the new Dippers or second Baptism, recei­ved in contempt of your first Baptism, is yee upon your heads, and ears, and faces, the wrath of God (which ever attends upon the contemners and despisers of his Sacraments) fall hea­vily upon you, and some or other curse of God pursue you; so also, that such water may be loathsom and noysom to you af­terwards. Remember Esau again, For ye know how that after­wards, when he would have inherited the blessing, Heb. 12.16, 17 he was rejected, for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it with tears. Are they not ritghtly called Jacob's, Supplanters? (one of the first planters of them was called Jacob, and that rightly;) for they that take away your Birth-right, Baptism, will also take away your Blessing, the Blessing of God in Covenant with you, as well as with your Parents. Yea, remember one of the Separa­tion, by name Hodsou, of the City of Glecester, and by an E­pithite called Hodson-peevish, who since he was new baptised, grew as light in the head, as before he was light in heart; the which I finde recorded by Master Thomas Wynell in print, a Mi­nister of Cranham, nigh unto that City. Yea, remember the sad and desatrous ends of those first Ringleaders of re-baptising, Muncer, Cnipperdoling, &c.

And now, thirdly, Can they charm sweetly and delightfully to any of you, who have the root of bitterness in them (from which I dehorted you) and whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness; like as they have bitter envying and sirife in their hearts [Page 105]against your Mother-Church, and your Baptism especially wherein ye were (if regenerate at all) born again of water and the Spirit. My Brethren, these things ought not to be; doth a Fountain send forth at the same place or hole (of heart or mouth) sweet water and bitter? Hear now ye Benjamites, (ye left-handed Protestants) will the Son of Jesse Muncer (who I men­tioned but now) give every one of you, the Field Benefits,1 Sam. 22: 2, 5 and Vine-eard Priviledges of Christ and his Church, by their new dipping of you, and make you Captains of thousands, and Cap­tains of hundreds, against your sins, that they shall not raign, or have dominion over your mortall bodies, or immortall Soules; that all of you have conspired against your Mother-Church, and brethren Ministers? O foolish Galathians, who hath bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified amongst you, even in your Bap­tism,Gal. 3.1. (as the word and other Sacrament) wherein you were sprinkled with the blood of Christ, unto the washing away of sin, being also crucified in the old man with him, and buried with him by Baptism, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that thenceforth ye should not serve sin? I mervaile that you are so soon removed away from your Baptism, and your calling into the Grace of Christ, and his Covenant of Grace, unto ano­ther Baptism; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Baptism of Christ:Gal. 1.6, 7 But though they or an Angell from Heaven preach any other Bap­tism unto you, then that which we have preached and reached unto you, let him be accursed; and as I said before, so say I now again, if any man preach or reach any other Baptism unto you, than that ye have received of us, let him be accursed: or let him shew where ever the Lord Blessed for ever, at any time blessed or consecrated, instituted, or appointed a Baptism of Baptized ones, Parents or Children, or any other Baptism, then once of Believing Parents and their Children once.

They say, if a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another mans, shall be return again to her? shall not that Land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the Harlot with many Baptisms, and many Dippers, yet return again to me saith the Lord: I say return again to the Lord,Jer. 3.1. and to the Lords Bap­tism, if thou hast put it away from thee and renounced it, if [Page 106]thou be gone from him, and with the strange woman, hast for­saken the guide of thy youth (yea Child-hood) and forgotten the Covenant of thy God, Prov. 2.17. and the Seal thereof, & art become another mans, and betaken thy self to another Baptism, (for which the Land is also defiled as thy self) I say, return again to the Lord, and his and thy first Baptism.

The Lord look upon thee, and remember thy first Baptism, and the words of the Covenant of Christ, and go out from a­mongst them who, by their Quaeres and intricate questioning of thee, caused thee to deny thy first Baptism, and therein thy Lord and Master go out and weep bitterly for the same. Remem­ber therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do thy first works, Rev. 2.5. and leave not thy first Love; hold fast that which thou hast already, (even thy first Baptism) till Christ come, I say, Repent, and be still as you were in your Infancy, baptized every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, and you shall have the Remission of your sins, (even of this sin, of being Bap­tized again, if so you have committed it.) For the promise is made to you and to your Children; & with many other words I would have testified and exhorted you, saying, save your self from this untoward Generation. But that I hasten; and will tell you to the contrary, Look often back to your first Baptism in your Infancy, and think not upon any other Baptism after­wards) as to a Store-house of comfort in all time of your need: if you be tempted by the devill, and assaulted about your sins, in your youth, or old age, think not now of ny new or second Baptism, but recall thy first and old Baptism, oppose it against him, say and know, that therein God hath promised and sea­led unto thee the pardon of thy sins, and the purchase of everla­sting life by Christ.

If thou beest troubled with doubtings, and weakness of Faith, Fetch from thy first Baptism, such a strengthening con­sideration and meditation (for the doing of which, to intro­duce another Baptism, is but a Fetch) that God hath given thee there, an earnest and pledge of his loving kindness to thee, in the water sprinkled upon thee, representing the blood of Christ applyed to thee, and so (as when Thomas saw the Holes in Christs-side; and the print of the nailes, he strengthened his [Page 107]Faith against doubtings) be not thou faithless, but faithfull, when thou reflectest upon thy Baptism, and remembrest the pouring out of the blood of Christ for thee, and the earnest thereof, the pouring out of water upon thee.

If thou liest under any kind of Crosse or Calamity whatso­ever, have recourse to thy Baptism, in which God hath promised to be thy God, of which promise he will not fail thee, nor canst thou be miserable, having this promise, yea if God be with thee, who shall be against thee?

Thou doest often look upon the wills and Testaments of thy Father and Grandfather, when you are in a doubt of hour E­state, or in some trouble about it, or in want, to be resolved in all matters thereabout: do the same here, look often back to thy Baptism, wherein the will of thy heavenly Father (which is this, I will be thy God) is delivered and sealed, and thou wilt be well resolved, comforted and cleered, in all Estates and Condi­tions.

Onely look back also to, and remember as often, the obliga­tion of Homage, and stipulation of obedience wherewith thou hast bound thy self to God, (by thy suerties, or prelenters of thee to Baptism;) now thou knowest and understandest it, thou must stand to it, nd make it good, thy part of the Indentures, per­form the Order of Baptism on thy side, which is to turn to God, and believe in Christ, and be continually renewing of thy Faith and repentance: and then there shall be no need of any second Baptism, or washing in water, having the benefit and effi­cacy of, and from the same Baptism at first.

For this also I will tell thee for thy farther comfort, that the be­nefit and efficacy of Baptism extendeth it self to all actual sins (like as originall) & to the whole course of the life of man when­sovever he shall believe and repent, and is not to be restrained to the time of the Birth and Infancy, & so after the administration of it, Baptism hath the same force, it hath before, or in the time of its administring: for Baptism is of force, so long as the Co­venant is of force, and that is everlasting, Esay 54.10. Hos. 2.19. The Papists indeed will tell you, as I have mentioned al­ready, that your Baptism will serve you only for Remission of sins, done before it, meaning your originall sin, and so call your Baptism the first Table for Refuge as from it; and for sins done [Page 108]after Baptism, you must have their Sacrament of Pennance or Repentance, which they call, a second Table for Refuge; (like as the Anabaptists tell you, you must have their Sacrament of Confession, as I may call their second Baptism, which they Mi­nister upon Confession, of Faith,) But I tell you both, are need­less and superfluous, for your one, first, single Baptism supply­eth all, (you need no New Sacraments for the matter) as whose force and efficacy (though the rite and Ceremony were gone in an instant) doth extend it self, to your whole life time and to all sins, to be a seal unto you of the Remission of all, original and actual, past and to come, so you will still have recourse unto it, and make application of the grace thereof offered and sealed to you on Gods part.

For I do not mean, nor must you think, that the bare and empty Review or Remembrance of your Baptism, that such an outward Act was done will be unto you, at all times, a Remis­sion of your sins, but it must be an effectual application of the blood of Christ, which is the virtue and power of it, that will do it; and this may be and is done, in the confession of your sins, and the profession so your faith; I may rather speak more pro­perly, (than they do) and say that your Baptism is not so only the first Table for Refuge after Shipwrack, and Repentance the second; but that Baptism is the first and one long drawing Ta­ble, that may and must be drawn out at length into the Two Leaves of it, namely into and unto Repentance of sin, and con­fession of Faith: at or upon which, rightly used and applyed, you and all true believers, and penitent sinners may sit down, and find plenty and provision of grace and mercy, or which, not so much as a Table or Plank, but as the Ark and Ship it self, will save you; as Saint Peter saith.

So then, let the effects and fruits of your first Baptism be acted and exercised by you, aad let the force and efficacy thereof be seen in the reformation of your whole life: (for Baptism is a seal of a dying to sin, and a rising unto Newness of Life, Rom. 6.4. as well as a Seal of the Remission of sin, Mark. 1.4.) and then you shall need no second Baptism; and if not, your first will be frustrated, (and yet you can have no second;) and I may say unto you Christians, ye stiffnecked, and unbaptized in heart and eares, as Stephen doth the Jewes, ye stiffnecked and un­circumcised, [Page 109]in heart & ears, when as you do not express the force and vertue of your first Baptism, (as they did not of their first Circumcision) in the renovation and reformation of your hearts and eares, i.e. life and actions. Therefore, when the Jews fell away from God, at any time, and were called to Confession of sin or profession of Faith, the Prophets did not propound unto them a new or second Circumcision (as if the former were voy­ded or vacated) but onely mind them of their first and onely Circumcision, and their Obligation, in their Infancy, bidding them to Circumcise the fore-skin of their hearts, and to pra­ctice the inward Circumcision, in conversion to God, the spiri­tual and inward part of that Sacrament. And so the Apostles used to call them that had sinned after Baptism, as the Galathi­ans by name, who had fallen from the Grace of the Gospel, to confession of sin and repentance to believe in Christ, telling them of their Baptism into Christ, & so bringing and reducing them to that foretaken by them, and the order set down there, which is already mentioned, nor do we read either in Prophet or Apostle of any other new order, required afterwards, of the Baptizing them again, but only a renewing of their Faith and Repentance, the Order and Obligation of their first and once Baptism, by the Ministry of the word, and that other Sacrament, the Supper of the Lord.

In a word, learn now to practice thy Baptism, the inward part of it, to which appertains Repentance and Faith; and so look not only back to it, but into it, an find out there thy in­gagement and restipulation, and perform that now, that thou art come to knowledge thereof, and walk before God, in true obedience, and in good resistance; and abrenuntiation of the Devill and all his works: For I would not such a looking back to thy Baptism, as may put a vain confidence in the cutward element received by thee, such a Respect or Contemplation of Baptism, as to trust in the Elements, is a misapplication of it, through corruption, and may well indeed, occasion sin, and encourage thee to a certain libertinisin, & licentiousnest in life; there are some who being reproved for their swearing, drunken­ness, and whordom take Sanctuary at their Baptism, as if it assured men wilfully trading in sin, of the remission of it with­out Repentance, and Faith; but rest not thou in the outward [Page 110]Letter or Element of the water; but study the Spirit, and walk in the Holiness of the same Repent of every breach of Co­venant, and this Repentance will be, as a second plank or board, after such Shipwrack, to carry thee to the Haven of Happiness, like as thy Baptism was a first step and stair of thy entrance into the visible Church, and set thee, as it were, a Shipboard, or in­to the Ark sealing Christ with his benefits unto thee, which shall not be pulled off and made Null, and therefore need not to be iterated. and set to again, the first being still of force and ef­ficacy, to all true believers in Christ, and repenters of sin.

Thus I have shewed you (Sir) how most men, yea all men who have been Baptized in their Infancy, may, and ought to look upon themselves, as Baptized in their Infancy (which you seem to condemn,) and that to very good purpose and benefit; and whereas you adde, as the other part of your condemning them, for their not looking after the Command of Christ to be baptized when they believe, will you have them look after that, is not to be seen or found; nay have you seen or found out such a Commandment? I pray Si lend, or sell no some of your eye-salve to annoint our eyes, for by and from that eye-salve in the 3. of Rev. 18. (wherewith we have anointed our eyes, accor­ding to Christs Council there given) we cannot see from the one end of the New Testament to the other, any such Com­mandement for persons baptized in their Infancy, to be bapti­zed when they believe.

And yet as if you had revealed and brought to light some rare matter of Salvation, you have a very scrious and devout epilogue, that it & your considerations, should be considered without a selfiish prejudicial Spirit, a Spirit willing to he guided by the Spi­rit of the Lord according to his word of truth, and the Scriptures truly red and interpreted by the Spirit of the Lord, which are quoted to prove the Assertions, It will appear to every honest and unbyassed Spirit that Infant-Baptism is a great and dangerous errour for ever to be rejected of every Soul that expects Salvation by Christ Jesus: What a Cackling is here made upon the laying of an addle egge, or rather what a Crowing is here, upon the Treading out, of a few idle considerations? you have the faculty of entitling upon the Spirit, and the Scriptures that which they being the Spirit and Scriptures of Truth, own not, your considerations, and in­terpretations, [Page 111](though very seldom you give interpretations (them you leave for me to make) quotatious, and considerati­ons enough you bring, and those to no purpose or proof, as I have particularly demonstrated, where you cite them, I leave it to the Honest and unbyassed Spirits, to judge and determine, whether the Texts you have cited, were pertinent to your Consi­deration, or according to your meaning, or interpreting (if you have given any:) whether Infant-Baptism be a great and dan­gerous errour, for evewr to be rejected, because now opposed of you, which ever was, a good and Religions Truth, ever pra­ctised amongst the Saintt, because recommended of Christ and the Apostles; whether youts or mine be a selfish and prejudiciall Spirit (I confess, my Spirit is prejudiciall to yours, & your opi­nions, as your Spirit is prejudicate to mine, and thoughts. Last­ly whether your considerations, be not as inconsiderate in the writer, so inconsiderable to the Reader.

However you think so well of them, that you go on, to more of them, (when its time to have done with such selfish things) and in the next place, offer to me, some of your considerations upon Act. 2.39.

The which if I thought, they were no more considerate, nor considerable, than your former, I would consider a while upon it, whether or no I should take them into consideration at all, or pass by them, as inconsiderable.

And such indeed they seem to be, and upon the General view, I find them so: for in them all, there are nothing but an­swers and solutions made to objections not set down; Refuta­tions and denyals, of a sense before it be any where mentioned; is not this Cart before the Horse, which a Carter (methinks should not do:) & a consideration, without consideration, w^ch a Consideratour (I am sure,) should not do; we had before, your judgment setled out of Quaeres; this is as bad, your an­swers to no objections, & your refuting, no Exposition of ours.

Well, as all the way hitherto, I have ordered your matters for you, so (I see) I must do so still, or else we shall make no work of it, at least, have no orderly proceeding in it.

First therefore, let the sense of that Text be given, and the argument drawn out of it for Infant Baptism (which I will do for you:) and then after, let the refutation of that sense, and [Page 112]the Answers to that Argument be added or subjoyned; the which you shall do for me.

Peter having preached here unto the Jess, and laid to their charge the death and crucifying of Jesus Christ, and brought them to some apprehension of their horrid sins, at the 38 Verse exhorteth them to repent and be baptized into the Name of the same Jesus Christ, and to accept him for their Messias; the which he doth upon this reason and ground, mentioned in the 39 Vers. and drawn from the benefit that should redound not to the mselves onely, but to their Children, by their believing in Christ. The which he proves from the Promise made to them and their Children. In plainer and larger words, thus it is.

God hath remembred his Covenant, in sending that blessed Seed, in whom he promised to be the God of Abraham, and his Seed; know ye therefore, that (as God made the Promise of Grace in Christ (to come and to be exhibited) unto Abra­ham upon his believing, and took also his Children and Poste­rity into Covenant with him, not onely the natural Jews, but even amongst all Nations whoever became followers of Abra­ham's Faith, should by vertue of the same inherit Abraham's Promise, That he would be their God, and the God of their Seed also, which should also be taken into the same Covenant) so now this blessed Seed in whom the Promise was founded be­ing now come and exhibited, would make it good to you all, Jews and Gentiles, who would believe in him; and (notwith­standing your cruel practises against him, and your crucifying of him) if you will believe in this Lord of life, and your Messias, you shall thereby be in as good, or better condition, under this last Administration, for your selves and your chil­dren, as in the former; therefore deprive rot your selves by your impenitency and infidelity, of so great a benefit, as may come to your selves and Posterity; for the Promise is made to you and your Children, &c. what Promise, or the Promise of what? for so I will clear the Text of some exceptions; the Promise of the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost? so say some of you, that you may the better turn this off from In­fants of Believers baptized. It is true, they are promised also in the Verse before, and I acknowledge, they were Appendants [Page 113]to the Primitive Baptismes of the adult, and peculiar to the first times, for the more abundant confirmation of their Faith, as Act: 10 & 11. who were converted to it from Paganism and Judaism. But (no doubt) Peter here aimed, and even pointed at that grand and fundamental Covenant of Grace made to A­braham, In thy seed shall all families of the Earth be blessed. Such a Promise as this, of Grace, and the free remission of their sins, by that blood of Christ (though shed by some of them) sealed in the Sacrament of Baptism, comes seasonably to them, to pacifie their troubled consciences, and cheer up their droop­ing spirits; whereas the other Promise, of receiving the Gifts of the Spirit, that is, the extraordinary ones of speaking di­vers Languages, &c. would nothing so properly and effectually have done it, as that was the thing then in hand to be done. And besides, the Promise here spoken of, being a Gospel Pro­mise, was to extend to all also that were afar off, as many as the Lord shall call; and so it did pass on in the general Tenders, Privileges and Effects, to the Believers of the Gentiles and their children, from that time, and so shall unto the end of the World. But you will not say (I dare say) That according to this Promise, the believers of the Gentiles and their Children have received, and shall receive, those Gifts of speaking divers and strange Languages, throughout all Ages and Generations. Such a Promise was never made, and ought not to be challenged of God.

But (it may be) the Promise made to Abraham was but a personal and peculiar one, to him and his seed, to be taken In­to Covenant, and to become a visible Church (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) i.e. Isaac, Jacob, and their children. No, it extended, we see, to the Proselytes of other Nations also, and to all followers of Abraham's faith, both Jews and Gentiles; and therefore the same Promise was fre­quently renewed in Scripture, many hundred years after those Patriarchs deceased, both to Jews and Gentiles, as Isa. 30.6. Isa. 44.2, 3. and so shall continue unto the end of the World, Isa. 59.21. to as many as the Lord our God shall call, until the very last calling in of the Jews; it being, as I said, a Gospel-Promise.

Yea, say you, it is granted, when any of the Children of [Page 114]Believers come to be called, and do believe, this Promise shall be made good to them. But thus saying, you make the Promise to hold forth no more comfort or benefit to the children of Be­lievers, than the children of Pagans; and thus even Isaac and Jacob should have no external privilege by this Promise, until they actually believed; yea thus all the Jews (but such as were Elect, and truly faithfull) were cut off, as well as the Gentiles, from having any visible communion in external privileges there­of. The Call here is either inward or outward; if inward, can none partake of the outward privileges, as Baptism, but such as have that? We know those are common to the Elect and Re­probate. If of an outward Call, why the Infants of Believers enjoy this Call with their Parents, and so partake of the Pro­mise.

And what if Peter here required repentance of such as were in Covenant before baptism, are therefore Infants not to be baptized? so Ahraham was in Covenant, and an actual Belie­ver, and justified in Uncircumcision, and received Circumcift. on as a seal of righteousness of Faith; and Proselytes turned to the Jews, were first to make profession of faith; were therefore none but such to be circumcised?

But if being under the Covenant besufficient, to give a pro­per right to the seals of it, and the privileges of it, (as I said) why-doth Peter keep such a do with these Jess, being already in Covenant, to repent and believe before they were baptised? and why were none of them being in Covenant, baptized, but such as gladly received the Word and believed? It is no where so said, that none but such were baptized amongst the three thousand souls. And as for the Jews, who receiving the Word gladly, were baptised, you must know, they were not now be­fore it in Covenant, so as to acknowledge Jesus Christ the Son of Mary, to be the Messias and Saviour of the World, as who denied that holy One, and killed the Prince of life. True, they were born Jews, under the Covenant, in the first Ministration of it, and were circumcised, and had the seal of their faith in Christ to come. But this being now antiqunted and out of date by the coming of Christ in the flesh, and these Jews having re­nounced Christ, and deposed themselves and their children from the Title they had to Christ, as Matthew 27.25. they so [Page 115]renounced the Covenant they had Title to by birth, and were now in a condition little better than Pagans, Christians to be made; and therefore they were not to have the new appointed seals of entrance, which was Baptism, to assure them that Je­sus was Lord and Christ, until they embraced him by faith, confessing that he was come, and that Jesus was he, and repent­ed of their crucifying him.

And thus having cleared the interpretation of the Text, I will give you a Consideration of mine upon it, before I come to your Considerations, without any interpretation given of you.

My Consideration upon it is this, That here is a good war­rant for me, and for Infant Baptism, against you; and so as So­lomon said of Adonijah, 1 Kings 2.33 That be had spoken a word against his own life: I may say, you have brought in this Word and Text against your self, and the life of your Cause; said I a warrant? yea a very Command.

The words, Be baptized every one of you, you will not de­ny (I suppose) to be a word of command from Peter in Christs stead, and so from Christ by Peter. But the Command is, To baptiae Father and Child, I prove thus; Because the Promise is to the Father and Child. The Promise is made to you and your Children, and therefore the Command is, Be baptized every one of you, and your Children. For if the Children of Belie­vers have a right to be baptized by the word of Promise, they must have a right to be baptized by the word of Command, and so the other way also, these two being convertible Terms, the word of Promise, and the word of Command, having mutual relation each to other. So its in the general nature of Cove­nants, there must be a convertibility betwixt the two parts that do contract, as the mutual Indentures shew, and so also it must be in the Sacramental Covenant betwixt God and man, and be­twixt the word of Promise, which is Gods part, and the word of Command, that contains the duty of man, in the Sacra­mental Action. And so particularly it was in Circumcision, in which Institution there was a mutual neer relation and conver­tibility between the word of Promise (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) and the word of Command (Every man­child among you shall be circumcised) so that as many of them [Page 116]that had a right to be circumcised by the word of Promise, had a right to be circumcised by the word of Command; and so also the other way, turn it, and its as true.

Sir, my hand is now in, and I will give you another Syllo­gism.

Whosoever are expressed in the Promise, Verse 39. are con­tained in the Precept before, Verse 38. Be baptized every one of you.

But believing Parents and their Children are expressed in the Promise, Verse 39. The Promise is made to you and your Children.

Therefore believing Parents and their Children are contai­ned in the Precept; and so both are commanded to be bap­tized.

There is no difficulty but in the first Proposition; and in it there is none, by reason of the mutual relation, and reciprocal convertibility that is betwixt a Promise and a Precept in Co­venantal, and Sacramental matters, as hath been shewed.

And whereas it may be said, That a Promise may be without a seal, and this here doth not infer Baptism. It is true; but when men have once put their seal, then there needs must be a cor­respondence and relation between that Seal and the Covenant. So here, though it was not absolutely necessary, the word of Promise, or Covenant of Grace, should be set forth by out­ward seals, appearing to the senses; yet God having once an­pointed them to signifie the inward grace, it is now necessary there should be such a mutual relation between the word of Promise and the word of Command, and the Seal also. But I come now to your Consideration, upon the Text of Acts 2. verse 39.

Consider, that such a being in the Covenant, as maketh Faith void, is no true being; But that being in the Covenant which is concluded from the Faith of the Parents, is such a being, as maketh Faith void, therefore no true being. That this is so, I prove.

That Title whereby any person hath once a being in the Covenant, by the same he may remain in it for ever; now then if any one hath such a Title as to be within the Covenant, by being the seed of the faithfull, he may remain in it for ever, and so needs no faith [Page 117]of his own; and so by the same reason one may, all may; and see­ing all be the children of Abraham or Noah, which were faith­full, all are in the Covenant, and so Faith needless in the wordl.

2. Consider that such on Expositionas overthroweth the Promise, that cannot be a true Exposition of the Text, but such as expound a be­ing in the Covenant from faithfull Parents overthrow the Promise. Therefore this Exposition is no true Exposition, for the Promise is upon account of faith in our own persons, and not in our Parents; as appears in Hab. 2.4. compared with John 3.36. And that it doth overthrow the Promise, I farther prove, because nothing an­swereth the Promise but faith; and if faith be needless, then the Promise is needless.

Sir, I can write no farther, being sorry I writ out so much of your needless stuff; for to what purpose is all this? are these Considerations upon Acts 2.39? they might have been upon any other Text as well, which makes any mention of Promise, Faith, Children. And what is it, but such an Exposition as overthroweth the Promise? Why did you not set it down the Exposition at first, and then consider upon it? you alwaiet love to shuffle with shadows, and fight with fancies, and strange Chymaera's.

Your purpose is, to except to the children of Believers being in Covenant, with their Parents: (for so I must still be work­ing upon your earth, which is without form, and void, and darkness upon the face of it, like a Chaos) and you say it is a false being, as concluded from the faith of Parents, and so ma­keth faith void.

First I must tell you, that the being of children in the Cove­nant of Grace with their Parents, was concluded by God jointly and together (in that Promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Seed) both were in the Promises, and concluded toge­ther, not one from another: both in the Promise, and confe­derate together, not one from another. Your expressions are uncouth, unheard in the Church; yet we may conclude thus, That if the Parent be in Covenant with God, then also his seed and children are in Covenant, not so much from, as for the faith of the Parents, God accepting of it, so as to Covenant with them and their Seed.

But grant your Conclusion in your own terms, what then? [Page 118] Such a being in Covenant as is concluded from the faith of the Pa­rents, maketh Faith voyd, say you; and say I, what Faith, or whose Faith do you mean? Not the Faith of the Parents, I sup­pose; for the Baptizing of the Child, or the being of it in Co­venant, from the Faith of the Parents (as you speak) doth ra­ther confirm, establish, and bring it into effect, than make it void: nor can you mean the Faith of the Children; for you hol­ding them to have no Faith of their own, as here you expresly say, how can you say it is here made void, any way, which was or is no where extant at all? nor is Faith required of them as to any manifestation of it, for their being in Covenant, or taking the Seal; though these do require it of them afterwards: But the Proof that you bring, it being of, I know not what, nothing asserted before of you, or denyed of me, deserveth to be an­swered in its kind, that is, by a Reproof; for thus you prove. That Title wherby a person hath once a being in the Covenant, by the same he may remain in it for ever, (I must cast in a grain of Salt here, without which it is too fresh, yea, unsavoury: that is, (so long as he lives, and renounce not before,) whether he be one of our Infants, or one of your grown Baptized ones;) Now then if any one hath such a Title, as to be within the Covenant, by being the seed of the faithful, he may remain in it for ever, and so needs no Faith of his own: Here's a rope of Sand, for my grain of Salt. I grant he may with the former limitation: and he that hath such a Title, as to be within the Covenant, by being converted from Paganism, may do so too, and as one, so all may.

And he needs no Faith of his own, I hope you remember your self, no Actuall Faith expressed, as elsewhere you write it, as to this purpose to give him Title unto the Covenant or Seal, which his being the seed of the faithfull doth; yet he needs Faith, to give him Title to the benefits of the Covenant, Justification and Salvation; and he must be also, a faithful seed himself. And so by the same reason one may, all may, and seeing all be the Chil­dren of Abraham and Noah which were faithfull, all are in the Govenant, and so Faith needles in the world. Sir, you rise apace, but to no preferment of a Proof: before it was but, He needs no Faith of his own, and now, it should but have been, they need no Faith of their own, because by the same reason, one [Page 119]may, all may as you say: but instead of such, you fly high and far, and say, And so, Faith needles in the World, because all the chil­dren of Abraham and Noah which were faithful, are in Cove­nant. I never met with a man that made or called Faith, a Cost needless in the world, that is and may rather be called, that one needfull thing in the world: for though actual Faith be not needful in all, to entitle them unto their external part of the Covenant and the Seal, as in the Baptism of Infants of belie­vers (for whom it is sufficient, that they are born in and under the Covenant of grace) yet it is needful for the partaking of the inward part and benefits of the same, and their being in Covenant, is an obligation unto them to believe after­wards, &c. as a part of their Astipulation.

Now then if I should reckon up, the Company of your, And so, and so, and so, (which are the Formals of your proofs) I shall not need to go out into Lanes or Streets, and fetch in, the Blind, and the Halt, and the Maimed, to fill up the Room, so long as your Reasons, Proofs, and And soes are in presence, for they supply us fully, as thus; The Children of John and Thomas who were Loyall, are joyned in the same Copy of Court-roll, and so Fealty is needless in the Mannor: or thus, your Plough lyeth in the Field, with its whipple-trees, and so rain is needless in the County.

And a man may see, you understand very well the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed, to be a Gospel Covenant of Grace, for the Remission of Sins, and Salvation of Soules in and through Christ promised, who joyn thereto together, No­ab and his Covenant, without any distinction, or difference made, whereas the Covenant God made with Noah, was but a Covenant of Nature (as I call it for distinction sake) for the Continuation of the world, and preservation of the Creatures, and fruits of the Earth, to which he also annexed as his sign, his Bow in the Clouds, That Rain bow: Are you of the mind of those, some of your Cut and Size, who when they are put to it, and pent up by our Reasons for Infant Baptism, from Infant-Circumcision, stick not to say, that God meant no farther in his Covenant with Abraham, and his seed, than that he would give him and them a visible standing in the promised Land of Canaan, and Circumcision should be the seal of it? if There­fore, [Page 120]you joyned Abraham and Noah together in your proof and discourse, you thereby shewed, that you are not of Abraham, your Father, nor as Noah, a Preacher of Righteousness.

But you call of me to Consider, that such an Exposition as overthroweth the promise, that cannot be the True Exposition of the Text, it is granted, but where, what is that Exposition? such as expound, a being in the Covenant from faithful Pa­rents, overthrows the promise: it seems you are got up again, and come to overthrowing again: But how do you prove, that Exposition overthroweth the promise. First, By reason taken out of a Text out of Habakkuk, because the promise is upon the Account of Faith in our own persons, and not in our Parents: And secondly, because nothing answereth the promise but Faith, and if Faith be needless, then the promise is needless; and this I must take upon your bare word without any Text. Most of this is answered already, if you will read back. You bid me here compare Habakkuk with John; I pray compare your Ex­position, and the Promise together.

The Text saith, the Promise is made to you, and your Chil­dren, and to all a far off; (I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed) where you see, Children are Covenanted joyntly, and together with the Parents: you frame an Exposition, and would put it upon us, Childrens being in the Covenant, is from faith­ful Parents, as if severally, and a part faithful Parents were taken into Covenant, and then from them their Children should, because born of them, and when born of them, come into Covenant; for Abraham, believed whil'st he was in uncir­cumcision, but that Faith of his, gave no being in that speciall Covenant, either to himself or children, whereof Circumcision was the Seal: but yet God so well accepted of Abrahams Faith, that for its sake, he was pleased to enter into Covenant with him, and with his children at one and the same time, and to as­sume them together into Covenant with himself: So there the childrens being in Covenant, is not from faithful Parents, sim­ply and absolutely, as I have shewed, but from faithful Parents in Covenant: or rather (to speak properly and fully) from the Covenant God made unto both, Parents and Children, so that not so much their being in Covenant, as their being born in Covenant, is from their Faithful Parents in Covenant.

But neither way doth it overthrow this Promise; for the childrens being in Covenant, by vertue of the promise made, supporteth and supposeth the promise; and their being in the Covenant, from faithful Parents, as you speak, doth not over­throw the promise, seeing even their being so is, from them, by reason of the promise made to them for their Children also, which rather establisheth and confirmeth, than overthroweth and evacuateth the promise. You had need add another Ex­position to your Exposition, and put better light to your New light, and into your dark Lanthorn, or else none will see to walk by it but your self; and so you have done. For it over­throweth the promise, you say, because the promise is upon account of Faith in our own Persons, and not in our Parents. See how you forget your self, in forgetting the Children, of whose being in the promise, you are discoursing; you let them alone, and put your self (and would joyn me with you, but that I will not) in their place, saying, the Promise is upon account of Faith in your own person, and not in your Parents. True, now you are a grown man, the promise will be, and must be accounted to you, upon the Faith in your person, as to the vertue, efficacy and effects of the promise. Now you are become a man, you must put away Childish things, as the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 13.11. to which purpose onely your Texts are, out of Habakkuk and John, where Justification, and everlasting life, are set upon the account of Faith in a mans own person, speaking of such one­ly, as are grown to be tall proper men like your self, able to ac­count, and give a reason of them.

But why did you single out John 3.36. where the words of the Prophet Habakkuk, are not repeated, and bauk those other Texts in the Margent, Rom. 1.17. Gal. 3.11. and Heb. 10.38. in all which the very words of the Prophet, The just shall live by his own Faith, are repeated and applyed? is it to shew in your own person, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness more than light? you turned onely to John, for Name sake, out of self-love; (yet I tell you, the Evangelist John, is against the the Anabaptist John, even herein, in that very thing for which you cited him, as I have shewed you) but if for Truth sake, out of love to the Truth, you would have compared Habakkuk with Paul, in any of the three Texts, the Margent directed you [Page 122]to, (yea, the whole Books and Epistles to the Romans and Ga­lathians) they would have given you a cleer Elucidation, if you would lay aside your own Spectacles, and look with theirs, that your Justification, and everlasting life is there, in the Pro­phet, set upon the account of Faith in your own person, apply­ing to your self the Righteousness of Jesus Christ: which con­tains rather the Execution of the Promise.

But whats all this to the Promise it self here mentioned, and of old made to the believing Parents, and their Children in their Infancy? Sure when you were a Child, you spake as a Child, you understood as a Child, you thought, or reasoned as a Child, you reckoned and accounted as a Child: I pray now give me some account, (because you make an instance in your self,) passing by the Faith in your Parents, of the Faith was in your own person, when you was a Child, and went to Baptism, by which you lived; or instance now again, in the Children of faithful Parents amongst the Jews, what account of their Faith, did any of them make in their own persons, when they were Circumcised in their Child-hood; or here in the 2. of Acts, which you have taken upon you to expound, what word, or syl­lable, or the least intimation is there, of any account of faith to be made of Children in their own persons? And yet the Pro­mise and Covenant is both here said to belong to the Children, and the Children before, and so likewise to your self, Sir, all the while before you could, or did give an account of Faith in your own person; you would be loth to be accounted all that while to be without Christ, and an alien or stranger from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; and if you should think or say so of your self, yet I will not so account of you, and you would be very ungrateful unto God, Covenanting, and Promising, and ungracious to your Parents bringing you into the world, and to Baptism, in so thinking or saying: It is as cleer as the light at noon day, that Feter, to perswade those enemies, and Crucifiers of Christ to Repent, Believe, and so to be Baptized, and to come under the New administration of the Covenant of Christ exhibited in the Gospel, whom they had renounced, useth this as a main ar­gument, the Benefit also that should redound to their Children, that they should also be accepted into Covenant, and be made [Page 123]partakers of the external Privileges of the Church, as to be Bap­tized and Counted Gods people, like as before they were Cir­cumcised, and so reckoned; which he proveth, for the Promise is made to you and your Children, as to them and their Chil­dren: to you indeed, upon account of your actual Faith in your own persons, but unto them, upon account as I have given before, of their being taken of God, into the same Covenant with you, their believing Parents.

But for all this, Though Children without account of Faith in their own persons, by their Birth of believing Parents in Co­venant and Promise, have Right and Title to Baptism, by ver­tue of the Promise and Covenant made to them both, (Thy God, and thy Seed,) yet Children, when they come to enjoy the Benefits of the Covenant in their Justification and Salvati­on, they must have these upon the account of Faith, in their own persons, or some grace of the Spirit answerable applying Jesus Christ, and his Righteousness unto them.

Your other Reason is, Because nothing answereth the Promise, but Faith, and if Faith be needless, then the Promise is needless. You did well to add no Text here, having abused enough al­ready: but let us look upward, and see what its you prove, And that it doth overthrow the Promise, what is it? the Expositi­on of the Text, Act 2.39. of Childrens being in Govenant from Faithfull Parents, that it overthroweth the promise, I prove farther, because nothing answereth the promise but Faith; thus then it must be reasoned; if nothing answer the promise but Faith, then Chil­drens being in Covenant from Faithfull Parents, overthroweth this promise; I am sure, This is a needless consequence; because the promise stands up still, and is of so ce, notwithwanding though there were no Faith in some to uphold it; and much more, though no Faith in some to answer it. I will give you a Text here, though you give me none, Rom. 3.3, and 4. What if some did not believe? shall their urbelief make the Faith of God (the Faith made and given of God) i.e. this promise, without ef­fect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man a lyar; Let Gods promise stand, though some mens faith fall: yea, though none in the world had believed, yet God would have fulfilled his promise, in sending and exhibiting the Messias, a Christ; and therefore much less is the promise overthrown, because there [Page 124]may want Faith in some, for some while, to answer it: If indeed there were no Faith at all extant or to come any where to an­swer the Covenant, and promise, this might seem to endanger the overthrowing of it, as to the taking effect and benefit in men; and then your reason would be of some seeming conse­quence, or your consequence carry some shew of Reason. But it is not so here; for here is Faith in the faithfull Parents (as you acknowledge) embracing and holding up the promise; and here are Children in Covenant, upholding also and enjoy­ing the promise, by birth of Faithfull Parents, by grace, and indulgence of God, and (for any thing you know) by Faith or other influence of the Spirit: Look again into the Text of Act. 2.39. See if the promise there be not standing fast and firm to the believing Parents and their Children, though there is no mention made of Faith to answer the promises, but only called for of those grown men that were to be, and were Con­verted.

But which way do you mean, Faith answereth the Promise? For one thing may be said to answer another, many wayes, as the Antitype doth the Type, the thing signified the Sign, a thing regulated the Rule, the consideration a bargain, performance a contract, or a Condition a Covenant. I suppose it is this la­ter way, that Faith answereth the Promise; For as the old Co­venant with Adam stood all in Preceps, Do this & Live, and so works as the Condition were to answer that Precept; so the new Covenant stood all in Promiser, I will be thy God, if thou wilt trust to me, and Faith, as the Condition, is to answer the pro­mise, else no proportion or agreement betwixt them.

For nothing but Faith it is, that answers the promise, it being impossible to have made the Sons of men partakers of the Co­venant, that other way, by obedience to the Law; if it could, it should have been done that way: Adam (though made perfect­ly Righteous, and able) did not answer it; and if God had tryed Adam the second time, he would not have answered, in o­bedience to it; but would have broken it again, and so should we; Therefore it must needs be by Faith embracing the promises and so amswering them, that the Covenant of Grace must be made sure unto us, which otherwise could never have been done.

But all this maketh nothing against the exposition of the Text above of Infants being in Covenant with their faithfull Parents, and included (yea they are expressed) in the promise; for God looked upon the Faith of Abraham, when he entred into Covenant with him and his Children, and made the pro­mise to be the God of him and his seed; and hereupon himself was Circumcised and his seed: And where God pleaseth, and when he pleaseth, as he doth give sanctity, & the Spirit, and other Graces to Infants, as to the Innocents, Jeremy, & John the Bap. so the habit of Faith infused, (it being the Condition on mans part, yet wrought in every Elect Infant by God,) whereby they answer the promise, as to the good and benefit of the Covenant, if they dye before, or soon after the Sealing thereof by Bap­tism, besides that Infants being born of Parents in Covenant, and themselves also in Covenant with God, and others, as sure­ties and sponsors, in the name of the Infants answering for their Faith, and promising for their education in the Faith, and the Churches charitable opinion, or judging them to have Faith, are sufficient to answer the promise, as for the outward visible seal which is Baptism, to be conferred upon them.

But you make an answer to an objection, which will make also an answer to the promise; If any will say, (say you) that the Parents may believe for their Children, and so their Faith will answer the promise, I answer; 1. That the Text doth not say, the promise is made to you, in the behalf of your Children, but to you, and to your Children; and therefore you must believe for your selves, and they for themselves, or else neither you, nor they do answer the promise. Somewhat of this before.

Sir, whilest you are about this promise, I wish you would ob­serve the precept, of using no vain repetitions, as here you do, so that I must either wholly omit, or repeat vainly with you.

1. Though the Text saith not so much in so many words, yet it meaneth so much; The Promise is made to you, in the behalf of your Children (also) that word added, it is the same with, The Promise is made to you and your Children, both toge­ther and joyntly, the one being in promise as well and as soon as the other; and thus the Text neither saith, or denyeth your objection, nor your answer. For the promise may be truly made, [Page 126]and is to believing Parents and their Children, whether the Pa­rents do believe for their Children also, or the Children for themselves.

2. Whereas you say, Parents must believe for themselves, and children for themselves, or neither answer the promise it is truly meant according to the inward and spiritual part thereof, so as to partake of Remission of sin, Justification and Salvation: But yet the Faith of Parents in Covenant may be, and is so far beneficial to their born Children, that thereby they are decla­red to be also in Covenant with themselves, and to have a Right and Title unto the Seal of the Promise, and the exter­nal Ordinances, and outward Privileges of the Church, and in respect of these may be said to answer the promise. For the promise is, the whole Covenant and the dispensations of it in outward Ordinances, as well as saving Graces; and its your constant errour and mistake, never to speak distinctly of this promise, but usually, and onely strictly of the saving Graces thereof, belonging to the Elect, whereas there is an answering of this promise also, by visible profession, and external Church-membership and privileges, which is done both by the Parents and Children, whether the inward Graces thereof be known or not.

Concerning Infants Faith, and their inward Graces, whereby you will have them also, and they may be answerable to the in­ward promise, I refer you to what I have said before.

3. You Sir must own the Child above, and it must be laid at your doors. I mean the objection there made, That Parents may believe for their Children, and so answer the Promise. I do not believe you can find out a Father for it, nor did I ever reade the words, as I remember, it is true, as I have related be­fore, that Parents did answer for the Faith of their Children presented to Baptism, when the Child was asked, dost thou be­lieve, the Parent, in the Name and place of his Child, answe­red, I believe; but this is far off from your Parents believing for their Children, for it was onely Parents professing of their Childrens Faith; or the Childrens professing their Faith by or in the mouth of their Parents, as I have largely shewed.

And as for those Divines, who, though contesting for Infant-Baptism, because they could not be perswaded of Infants-Faith, [Page 127]made their refuge to Parents-Faith, yet they did it not in such words, as Parents believing for their Children, nor to such pur­pose, that their Faith might answer the promise, but to shew, that the Parents Faith gave unto their Children a proof of be­ing born under the Christian Covenant, and a Plea for the Seal of Baptism, notwithstanding the supposed privation of Faith in Children.

Though therefore Infants, as to their inward state before God, of Justification and Salvation, are not relieved and hel­ped forward either by profession of Sponsors and Parents, or by the acts and habits of their Faith, because as I said, the just shall live by his Faith, and as you say, the Parents must believe for themselves; and as the Errors and Heresies of the Parents do not hurt the Children, no more do their Faith and Truth help them, as giving nothing from themselves unto their inward and eternal condition. Yet are they beneficial to their Chil­dren otherwayes. 1. Its from their Faith, that the Children are brought out to Christ, and offered and dedicated to him in Baptism,Psal. 206.37. whereas the Infidels offered their Sons and Daughters unto Devils. 2. And as in their dedication, so by their suppli­cation, the Faith of the Parent is helpful, towards the obtaining of their Childrens regeneration, and many graces of the Spirit, God being ready to hear, and do accordingly. 3. If original sin did hurt Infants, which without any fault of theirs, they drew according to the flesh from their Parents, why may not the Faith of the Parents profit the Children so, as that sin be not imputed to them, for Christs sake, to whom they are offer­ed and dedicated purposely and willingly, by their Parents, see­ing grace is more abundant than Condemnation, and the gift greater than the fault? 4.Rom. 5. 1 Cor. 7.14. Rom. 11.16. It is from the Faith of the Parents in Covenant with God, that their Children born of them, are not unclean but Holy, and if the Root be Holy, so are the Bran­ches.

So also for the obtaining of Temporal blessings, upon their Children, the Faith of Parents is avaylable: How often is God said to bestow such, and such good Temporal things, for Abrahams and for Davids sake? Jesus seeing their Faith, Matth. 9.2. who brought him lying on a bed, Healed the sick man of the Palsie. So Christ said unto the Centurion, Go thy way, and as thou hast belie­ved, [Page 128]be it unto thee, [...]t. 8.13. and his servant was healed the same hour that he believed: will Christ do so much for a sick servant, because of his Masters Faith, who brought him, to a sick man, because of his friends Faith that brought him? and will he not do the like, or more for Children, because of their Parents Faith, who bring them and offer them to him in Baptism?Matth. 15.28. John 4.50. Yes he healed the daughter that was grievously vexed with a Devill, for the Mothers great Faith, the woman of Canaan; and healed a Son that was at the point of death, for the Fathers Faith, a ruler in Caperna­um.

In a word; one mans Faith may profit another, as the Pa­rents, the Children, towards both Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal Salvation, by way of intreaty and impetration, but not by way of conveyance and application: For this, the Applica­tion of Christ and his Benefits, is not another mans work of Faith, but it is every mans Faith to work it: and now, Sir, you that have thus slighted the Faith of Parents, as to the good and benefit of their Children, Go you and learn, what this meaneth, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy House, Act. 16.31.

And so you suppose it ware (were) so, that the promises ware (were) made unto the faithful, in the behalf of their Children, and they concluded to be in the Covenant thereby: Then either God doth perform his promise, in saving all the Children of faithful Parents according to his Covenant: or else he breaks his Covenant made to those Parents, and doth not perform it his promise; either of which particulars, no man which is in his right wits will dare to affirm; and therefore this Exposition, that Children have any right to the Covenant by vertue of the Faith of their Parents, or to any privilege of the Covenant, by vertue of the same, is a falce (false) Exposition of the Text; and a wresting of it; Jesus saith, ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Matth. 22.29. I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaack, and of Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, vers. 32.

I thought it it would come to this at last: that, after your Railing upon the Church of God in England, for worse than naught, even no Church, and after your baiting the Ministers of God there, and, by your good-will, ill-will, your quaerying and tearing Gods portion of Maintenance from them, your [Page 129]Quarrelling at their Ministrations of the Sacraments of God, this especially of Infant-Baptism, besides abundance more of Gods institutions and allowances, that you have been Quaeru­lous at, you would at last ascend above the height of the Clouds, and fall to Questioning of God himself, about the performing and breaking his promise, about his saving all, or not saving all the Children of faithful Parents.

Either of which particulars, if you had been in your right wits, you would not have dared (yet what is it, you will not dare, in matter of Interpretation of Scripture, or argumenta­tion of reason?) to have drawn and enforced, so inconse­quently and inconsiderately, from that, though but supposed proposition.

For suppose it again, that the promise was made to the saith­ful in the behalf of the Children, and they concluded to be in Covenant thereby, yet neither of the particulars, you menti­on,) doth follow, that all their Children must be saved accor­ding to that Covenant, that so God may perform his promise; or if not, God must be a breaker of his promise: and seeing you have not proved the consiquence, I will prove the Inconse­quence of it; by the reason I have touched before, the Promise and Covenant made to the faithful, in the behalf of the Chil­dren, and concluding these in the same, (I must here use your words) containeth not only the inward saving graces, and the spiritual benefits of the same, such as are, Justification, Rege­neration, perseverance, and glorification freely promised in Christ: (if so taken only, then indeed all in Covenant must be saved, or else God be a breaker of Covenant.)

But it containeth in it also the outward administrations, in visible Ordinances and Church Privileges, which are many, as to be Gods people, and the Children of Gods invisible League, to have the Oracles of God, &c. and thus taken, God is no breaker of promise, if all in Covenant with him, be not saved by him; for God made no such Covenant with all faithful Pa­rents, to save all their Children, but to put them under the way and means of Salvation, by taking them also to be the God of, and owning them for children in Covenant, and appointing them a Seal thereof. This may be called the Covenant of Ad­ministration, or rather that part of it which stands in admini­strations [Page 130]of external Ordinances and Privileges; the which hath belonging to it all visible and external professors, as also a visible Seal, which all that are in this Covenant, ought there­fore to be partakers of; you (as it appears) allow none to be un­der the Covenant of Grace, but only such as are inwardly be­lievers Justified, Sanctified, and partakers of the saving Graces of the Covenant; The which error and mistake, as I told you before, I tell you again, hath seduced you into these inconse­quent consequences, and mislead you into your Anabaprismal Baptismes: for as many are called but few chosen, so many are to be reputed to belong to the Covenant of grace, and to be Covenanters, though they have not inwardly and effectually the saving graces of the Covenant. Besides, I could prompt you, that the Covenant is but conditional, not absolute.

And now, for a conclusion, because you have made mention of such a thing, the Salvation of Infants, born in the precincts of the Church, I will leave with you a few Propositions to consider off.

1. That the Church of God determineth nothing positive­ly and peremptorily about the Salvation of Infants dying ei­ther with, or without Baptism, for she knoweth that secret things belong to God, and onely revealed things belong to her and her children.

2. She judgeth that Infants in the general, Baptized or un­baptized are saved, that is some, but not all; for this she hath a judgement of certainty an charity both, both the charity and certainty of such a judgement.

3. That this and that particular Infant, baptized, or unbap­tized is saved, she hath no judgement of certainty, but only of charity, and this may have, though there should be none of those particulars saved

4. That inward saving grace, doth not alwayes attend the Covenant (largely and comprehensively taken, of which before) nor the Seal, but only in such as belong to the election of grace. Yet the Church may in charity think so; as to particulars in Co­venant and under Seal, (till the contrary appear) though she have no certain knowledge of it.

5. Elect Infants Baptized, and dying in their Infancy, have no outward means of Salvation but their Baptism, the Seal of the [Page 131]Covenant, but there is an inward invisible grace, which the Holy Spirit, before, in, at, or by Baptism, doth truly, really, and actually impute or impart to them, applying Christ in his Justifying, and Sanctifying vertue, unto the souls of such Infants. This the Church holdeth not only as of Charity, but as of cer­tainty.

6. Such Elect Infants Baptized, and so dying, are capable of, and do attain to such saving inward graces, not by the usual and ordinary way of Believing upon hearing and conceiving (for such actual Faith, is not of absolute nececessity to all Gods E­lect, but only to those to whom God affords the means of it.) it is the application of Christs Righteousness, that justifieth them; which is done to them, either by some habits of Faith in­fused of God into their hearts, or by Gods Spirit in a secret and unknown way to us, supplying all defects in them, and doing all things on their parts; and this he holdeth, most in charity, with some though not, full of certainty, because it is secret.

7. Such Elect Infants Baptized, and living to the Use of Rea­son and Understanding, the seeds of Grace and Faith infused before, or in Baptism, do grow up, by the ordinanry means, un­to an actual apprehension of Christ and his Righteousness, yea areall possession and comfortable fruition of Christ and all his benefits, which were in Baptism truly and effectually sealed be­fore unto them, whensoever they should be capable to make use of them: and this she affirmeth both out of certainty, and charity.

8. Because the Church (and all this while, I speak of the Church of old England) hath no certain knowledge of parti­culars, who are Elect Infants, and who not; but only a charita­ble opinion of this and that, and so every particular one, born in the bosome of the Church; & for that she not only charitably holdeth, but certainly knoweth, that all Infants born of Chri­stian Parents, are also inexternal and professional Covenant of God, together with their Christian Parents, Therefore she is carefull, as she ought, that all such in convenient time and with the soonest, may be Baptized, and receive the Initial Seal of the Covenant, so as none, as much as may be, depart out of this life, without Baptism, not as if she certainly thought In­fants, having been true partakers of Baptism, must needs with­out [Page 132]doubt be saved; but because she will not be wanting in her charity, and duty to God and such Infants, which being once baptized, and dying soon after, she thinks them saved in her judgement of charity (in which she thinketh the inward grace may accompany the outward Ministration) but for any judge­ment of certainty and verity herein, she disclaimeth, and refer­reth the same to the God Omniscient.

Now to what end you add these last words, Jesus saith, Ye do erre, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God, Mat. 22.29. I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and Jacob; God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Verse 32. unless it be to shew a kinde of fatality of errour falling upon you, and following you wheresoever you go, not knowing, but pretending ever the Scriptures; which still you cite, as heretofore, and speak words against your own life (the life of your Cause) and cut your own throat with your own knife, or run your self thorow with your own Sword, even the Sword of the Spirit, the Texts of Scripture, as you cite and apply them, as here: For by virtue of Abraham's saith, which God so well accepted of, did not God enter into, and make a Covenant, both with Abraham, and his Seed, Isaac and Jacob, and all other, both Jews and Gentiles, who should be followers of Abraham's faith? and God being the God, not of the dead, but of the living, Abra­ham liveth still in the children of Abraham, who are of the same saith with him; and so the Covenant made with Abraham, lives still in all believing Parents, for themselves and their chil­dren, In that saidest thou truly, John 4.18.

And for your last words hereabouts, Consider these things with a single eye, aiming at Gods glory, and thy Neighbours good; and answer these Considerations by plain and direct Scriptures, if you can; or eise leave off wresting the Scriptures to your own ends (if not your destruction,) I have done it, you see, considered your Considerations, (which I wish you had better considered of, that so they might have been truly Considerations) and that not onely with a single eye, as you speak, but with a two­fold eye; so I must, if aiming at both, Gods glory, and my Neighbours good, even your good also, as well as Parents and their children; whereas your Considerations did neither, but rahter obscured Gods glory in his Covenant, and diminishing [Page 133]your Neighbours good, the good of Infants especially, which God hath enlarged to them. And God hath enabled me (for I can do nothing of myself) to answer your Considerations by plain and direct Scriptures, and Reasons drawn from them; yea, and such Scriptures, as you have wrung, wrested, and wrong­ed, I have vindcaged by explaining them, and directing of them to their right end and construction. And so I shall not need to leave off that I never began. But (truly) it is time for you to give over that which you have practised all along your Letter to me, the wresting of Scriptures, and that to your own ends (if not destruction;) yea, I must tell you, (though you may wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction, unless you see your errour and repent) you do not wrest them to your own ends, I am sure, for they do not come up, or attain, either to your own end, the destruction of our Infant-Baptism, or to your other end (for both these are your own ends) the justifi­cation of your Adult Baptism of persons before baptized. I will not be my own judge herein, but refer it to the indiffe­rent Reader; if any shall peruse this my Answer.

I proceed to that which followeth of yours.

An Exposition according to the minde of the Holy Ghost in that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; else were your children unclean; but now they are holly (holy) (or clean) which is opposite to uncleanness.

What a Mountebank are you, alwaies thus to mount up your low bank, and to elevate your mean drugs of Exposition, with such high and extream Praises and Titles, as if it were accord­ing to the minde of the Holy Ghost; is not this to sound a loud trumpet before a poor alins given, as the hypocrites do, Matth. 6.3? Is not this one kinde of boasting of things without your measure, 2 Cor. 10.15. and this one thing, The minde of the Holy Ghost in this and that Scripture, and peremptorily saying your Ex­position to be according to the same? this is that the Spirit in­deed speaketh expresly, that in the Latter days some shall be lovers of themselves, proud, boasters, 2 Tim. 3 & 1 Tim. 4. and boa­sters of the Spirit, having not the Spirit; these be they who se­parate themselve, as Jude telleth you now again, verse 19. O the depth of the riches both of the knowledge and wisdome of God, [Page 134]for who hath known the minde of the Lord? Rom. 11.34. Behold the man, who expounds according to the minde of the Holy Ghost, in that Scripture at leastwise: No Sir, you do not, you are confounded already, who presume to be of the Council of the most High, and of the minde of the Holy Ghost; see how you falter and stagger at the first step and setting out to your Ex­position? (for the meek will he guide in judgement, and the meek will he teach his way, Psal. 25.9. God resisteth the proud, and gi­veth grace to the humble, James 4.6.) for you chop and change the words of the Holy Ghost, whose own words do best express its own minde, turning (holy, as you should write it, but that you are so holly, or hollow) into clean, as if you would teach the Spirit of God, the words it should use; and then (indeed) you may the sooner know the minde of the Spirit, speaking in your own words.

Sir, are you like to expound this Text according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, who refuse the words of the Spirit, by which it signified its minde? and bring and add another word, which expresseth your minde better; besides that in the ciring the words of the Spirit, you twice add (Believing, believing) as if you would teach the Spirit to express its minde, more fully and plainly than of himself he doth, putting words into his mouth, which he left out; though I acknowledge, the words aee twice necessarily implied. But I would you could once teach your self to write English, and speak sense your self (so far are you from expounding according to the minde or words of the Holy Ghost) Look agian upon what followeth of yours. This Scripture is owne (one) of the main props that Mr. Wsinell buildeth his Infant Baptism upon, gounding rom hence, That children are holy, because there (their) fathe [...], and there (their) mother are lawfully married; for that is the Apostles meaning in this Text; namely, the holiness of the child, or uncleanness of it, according to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the marage (marri­age) of the Parents; and so the the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by the believing husband or wife, being lawfully marid, (married) as the holy Ghost saith, Ʋnto the pure all things are pure, Titus 1.15. Rom. 14.20. and so an inpure (impure) or unbelieving wife or child is sanctified or pure to the pure or believing husband; and so likewise the husband to the wife, being lawfully [Page 135]maryed (married) or joyned together, according to Gods Ordy­nance (Ordinance) or may of maryage, Heb. 13.4. and so their children are holy or clean, otherwise they ware (were) unholy or un­than, or bastards, and they themselves made whoremongers and a­dulterers, whom God will judge.

First, I pray Sir, poine your two first lines, and make your flops; for the whole two Verses seem to relate Mr. Wyness opi­nion, and grounding childrens holiness upon their father and mothers being lawfully married; as if that were the Apostles meaning. The which Mr. Wynell disclaimeth, as his grounding, or the Apostles meaning. Seeing then it is your gounding and expounding, put it into such words, or dress it in such clothes, that I may know it, and you own it, for your Child, or child ish opinion, whether it prove a legitimate or bastard; for so (I see) you intend to make of the Apostles holy children, only legitimates; and of the unclean, onely bastards. And I am farther glad to see you are willing to look into any of our Wri­ters and Books, that treat of Infant-Baptism, as here Mr. Wynell (whose Treatise, as I remember, I sent either to you, or to a friend to shew you) and the rather, because your Provincial Ana­baptists (like as the Provincial Jesuites, do forbid unto their new Converts, and old Catholiques, as they call them, the read­ing of our Protestant Books) are cautious that our Oathodox Teactates come not into the hands and view of their Catechu­men Proselytes. It appears to me, you have not so much as read Mr. Wynell about this Text (so far are you from reading over his Book) or not read so much as he wrote about it, be­cause you pass by his Exposition of it, and his Reasons, and your Answers to them, and spend your time in drawing out of your self and your own bowels, as a Spider, those Cobweb-Consideration of your own, spread out to catch Flyes, that will come into them.

Well, suppose it one of Mr. Wynell's main props or pillars, he hath more besides; and I thought that such a Sampson as you are, would have laid hold on both, or all the pillars of the house, and pulled them down: but instead of pulling down his, you set up first a prop and pillar of your own by his; and do interpret the Aposltes meaning, of children being holy, to be onely from a Matrimonial holiness, as born in lawfull wed­lock; [Page 136]and so to be nothing else in a manner, but a legitimation of birth: And here you cite Rom. 4 20. which speaks of law­fulness and purity of meats to Believers; and Titns 1.15. which speaks of faith purifying the heart, and all things after to the pure; and Heb. 13.4. which sheweth Marriage is honourable, and the bed undefiled, all to what purpose? forsooth to prove, that the holiness spoken of children by the Apostle, was meant of a legitimation of birth; and the sanctification there menti­oned, of a Matrimonial sanctification? were they not rather to this purpose, to shew that a good memory, and a good wit, have not met in your head; who shew your good memory, to cite many Texts of Scripture, but no good wit to apply them, or to prove that out of them, for which you bring them?

Next you infer it from the scope of the words; For (say you) the words are part of an Answeare (Answer) to a Question put by the believing Corimhians, Whether that they which were converted by the preaching of the Gospel, might live with there (their) husbands or wives, which were not converted? Now the Apostle answer thus, If the unbelieving husband or wife will dwell with the believing hus­band or wife is sanctified to or by the unbelieving husband or wife; else ware your children unclean, or unholy. But now (saith he) by your dwelling tegether, and owning your former marriage (which was lawfull) they are holy and clean. This in short is the genuen (genuine) meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture.

This, neither in short, nor at length, is the meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture; for according to this meaning, all the children of Heathens and Pagan-Parents, lawfully mar­ried, as they may be, and many of them be, may be said to be holy, and each of the Parents sanctified to the other, by their dwelling together, and owning their Marriage, which was law­full: Which things are nothing pertinent to the Corinthians Question, or the Apostles Answer, and quite wide, and fardi­stant, if not wholly repugnant, to the scope of the words and meaning of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture.

To let pass the non-sense of some part of your Relation, and the confusions thereof, as to the Question and Answer, and your shortning, or rather curtailing of them, I will set it down to the full, because upon this depends, as upon a prop or pillar, [Page 137]the Frame and Fabrick of all Reasons and Arguments.

These Corinthians, before they received the Gospel, and their conversion, were of the civil Heathens and Pagans, amongst whom the men had their wives, and wives their husbands, joy­ned together in lawful Matrimony, according to the Customs and Laws amongst them. Now when amongst these married couplet, sometimes the husband was converted to Christ, and became a believer, the wife abiding in her unbelief, and some­times the wife was converted to Christ and became a believer, the husband rentaining in his Idolatry, (the Spirit blowing where it listed, and grace being free,) the believing party began to have some scruple of Conscience, (occasioned, it may be, upon their knowledge of the Law in Hug. 2.12, and 13. or remembring the fact of Ezra 9, and 10. Chapters, or considering its faith, and the others infidelity, how ill they would comply toge­ther,) and thereupon sent to the Apostle to have his resolution and answer, whether they might retain, dwell and live with their unbelieving consorts: to which the Apostle answereth, that if the unbelieving party, be pleased and willing to live and dwell with the believing parcy, the believing party should not depart and leave the other; and giveth them this reason, for that the unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing party: the which he asserts, by this reason, Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.

Or else this may go for a second doubt and scruple, of the Corinthians, resolved here by the Apostle, for so sure, when they scrupled whether their married society, as husband & wife were lawful in this respect, because one party was an Infidel and un­clean, they doubted next concerning their children, whether they should be holy with the believing Parent, which was with­in, or unclean with the unbelieving who was without the Church, and its Privileges, and therefore the Apostle, in his an­swer speaketh to the Case of children also so born, (as well as he had done to the other, concerning the Parents,) that their children also were holy, and not unclean.

Now (it seems) the Corinthians rested well satisfied in their Consciences, with this Apostolical resolution of this double doubtful Case; for he spake as unto wise men, able to judge what he said and meant, as himself testifieth of them, 1 Cor. 10.15. [Page 138]But we have sought out many inventions, and though they might be plain Cases with us, being thus determined aforchand long ago by an Apostle, we have folded them, and perplexed them with many intricacies, about the senses and meaning of the Canons of that Apostle.

As, what is that sanctification, and how the unbelieving wise is sanctified by the believing husband: and what is this holi­ness, and how the children of such Parents are said to be holy and not unclean.

You have already and soon shot your bolts at both at once, and thus give the Genuine sense and meaning, as you boast, of the Holy Ghost in this Scripture, that the former resolution, Apostolical, is to be taken of Matrimonial sanctification, as thus; the unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband, so that they are lawfully Husband and Wife: And the latter reso­lution Apostolical, is to be taken, of Natural holiness (as you call it in your third Consideration) so as the children of such Parents were not unclean but holy; that is, not bastards but Le­gitimates.

And now I must skip over to that third Consideration men­tioned, to finde out either some Text of Scripture, or some sound of reason (there being none betwixt this and that.) There indeed I finde cited by you, 1 Thess. 4.3, 4. Wherein thus you pro­ceed; in the 3. verse the Apostle saith, For this is the will of God, even your sanctificaion (or holinesse: What is this sanctification or holinesse? it is laid down in the latter part of the verse in those words, that you should abstam from Fornication; so that from hence it appears, what holinesse the Apostle meant before, even a Natu­ral holinesse or clean e [...], (cleanness) that is, not born of Fornica­tion; and the reason is in the 4. verse, that every one of you should know how to posese (possesse) his vesel (vessel) in sanctification and honour: speaking of Natural holinesse and cleanness, of keeping their body, &c. and so their children come to be clean and holy, else were they unclean and unholy.

First, What a Reasoner are you, your self may see by ma­king the 4 verse a reason of the 3. verse, which is only an ex­plication of it as to the persons to whom he prescribed the du­ty of abstaining from Fornication, and to the means thereof, that every one should keep his vessel or body in sanctification, &c. w^ch [Page 139]is the same thing in substance with the former. Secondly, You mis-name the thing, as well as mistake the reason: For it is not a natural holiness or cleanness, that the Apostle speaks of or for, but a conjugal, or civil, or moral one; nor is Fornication or uncleanness, here, any natural, but a moral, civil, or conjugal thing, or otherwise an unconjugal, uncivil, and immoral, as all other vices and sins are.

Thirdly, If this Text must prove the former Text, of the Co­rinthians to be meant only of Matrimonial sanctification, (for I hope now you will leave off your Natural holiness:) Why then this text (of the Thessalonians, I mean) and the uncleanness and holiness there, must be restrained to Fornication and chasti­ty: but this cannot be, because other sans are named and men­tioned in that place besides it, as, that no man go beyond & defraud his brother in any matter, at the 6. verse; and then the Apostle at the 7. verse, gives this as a reason common to both and all par­ticulars, because God hath not called us to uncleanness but to holi­ness, so that by holiness there is meant not only chastity, but ju­stice also and integrity; and by uncleanness, in justice also & frau­dulency. For the will of God is first generally set down, at the 3. verse, and specified in two particulars, the one of chasti­ty, along to the 6. verse, in whcih verse is another particular, of justice, and at the 7 verse, the reason of both is yielded; For God hath not called us to uncleanness, but holiness; which if understood only of Matrimonial uncleannes which is Fornica­tion, and holiness which is chastity, then the Argument must run thus; let no man go beyond his brother in bargining, for God hath not called us to fornication but to chastity, and so you alone shall run with it for me, and follow the consequence thereof, which I hold to be of no consquence.

And fourthly, Such another consequence is this; unclean­ness and holiness, or sanctification is put by St. Paul. to the Thessalonians, for fornication and chastity, (suppose it so, though I grant it not so) and therefore the same is meant by St. Paul to the Corinthian, when he saith, the husband is sanctified by, or in, or to the wife, else the children were unclean, but now they are holy; as if the same words may not bear divers senses, in scveral Text of Scriptures, according to the diversity of the matter and scope; and how will you shew, that chastity among [Page 140]the Heathens and unbelievers, is ever called sanctification in Scripture, the spirit only being the Spirit of sanctification, and the bodies of Heathens and unbelievers, being not the Temples of the Holy Spirit: and yet (you see) the Heathen or unbelieving husband or wife, is said to be sanctified in or by the believing wife or husband.

And Fiftly and lastly, The Apostle speaketh to the Thessalo­nians, grown persons, converted to Christ, and tells them for the present and time to come, that it is the will of God, they should abstain from uncleanness and fornication, from fraud and injustice, (for the one of which you cite Heb. 13.4. also, the only t [...]xt you ci [...]e, according the sense of it,) and whats all this to the unbelievers being sanctified by the believers, or their childrens being holy? Here was no such mixt conjugal societies of Christians and Gentiles or Heathens, and children born of them, as appears in that the Apostles saith, Let every one of you possesse his vessel in sanctification, and not in the lust of Concupisence, even as the Gentiles, which know not God: I am sure the Apostle neither speaks nor means a natural holiness or cleanness, that is, not born of Fornication, as you strangly and inconsiderately blurt out; which words I leave to you to put into some Genitive Case, for the birth of I know not whom, the fathers or children of these Thessalonians; for you make no Genuine sense here, either of fathers or childrens Natu­ral holiness or cleanness.

There is a parcel of your third Consideration, clapt in by you, not belonging to the matter in hand there, which, according to my custom of right ordering, and methodising of your confused stuffe, I reserve untill anon, to come in its due and proper place.

I proceed, now that I have answered your Allegation for a Natural (you would say, if you were acquainted with the best spoken of your Sect, Matrimonial) sanctification, Holiness and cleanness: to give you my Reasons to the contrary of your Opinion.

1. When the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is san­ctified by the wife, &c. and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: this cannot be meant of Matrimonial sanctity and holiness, that their Marriage was good and lawful, and [Page 141]chaste, for both parties knew that of themselves before, nor need­ed they, nor did they here propound any such Quaere unto the Apostle, Whether they were at first or still rightly man and wife, or were joyned, in lawful way of Wedlock whilest they were Heathens. And that case was also determined before by the A­postle, as the 9, and 10. verses, let not the wife depart from the husband, and let not the husband put away his wife: But the Quaere here was, whether the believing party might depart and seperate from the unbelieving party, a Brother or a Sister, as its more explicated at the 12, and 13. verses; so that it seems, this Quaere arose from something in difference of Religion, that troubled the Conscience of the believing party after his or her conversion, as whether it would not be defiled in remaining joyned to Idolaters and Infidels: Now suppose the Quaere had been sent to you for answer (for I will see how good you are at answers, who are so much in Quaeres) what will you answer to these Corinthians? why thus you do: Be content, Sirs, you have a natural holiness & cleanness, or your Matrimony is law­ful, notwithstanding the difference in faith, you may live toge­ther for all that, you are no Adulterers and Adulteresses, increase and multiply, your children are no bastards but Legitimates.

But, Sir, do you think this would have answered their Quaere, satisfied their scruple, or pacified their Conscience? would they not have replyed to you, in the words of Job to his Friends, We have heard many such things, miseralbe Comforters are ye all. Job. 16.2? Tell us that we know not; answer us to that we Quaere you; speak that we have not heard; we have heard many such things, we know all this, that we are lawfully man and wife, and our children are no Bastards but Legitimater; if this be all you can say, as good hold your peace, for you speak no peace to Conscience: Miserable comforters of Con­science are ye all, or as in the margent, troublesome comforters of conscience are ye all, and by this your resolution, make our Con­sciences more troublesome and miserable than before they were. Our doubts are, whether we that are converts and believers, may put away or go from our husbands or wives, which are Infidels and unconverted, and also his or her children, as not belonging to God for part of his people, or seed, and being as a grief and vexation, if not pollutionto us: what do you tell us of lawful­ness [Page 142]of our Marriages, or Legitimacy of our children? Can you shew us, there is any sanctification, betwixt us and our unbeliev­ing consorts, whereby we may be induced to live and dewell to­gether? any holinesse, of our off-spring and children, that we may own them, as members of the Church of God? do this and do somthing, else its nothing you say.

But I will take off these Corinthians from you, Sir, and from baiting of you; (for which you may thank me) and will di­rect them to a more happy and peaceable Comforter, ever their own Apostle St. Paul, who here fully answereth their doubts, and quiets their Consciences, telling them, that the unbelieving husband is sanctisied by or in (the word in the Original beareth all) the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by or in the husband, meaning (though not expressed) the believing husband and the believing wife. (I blamed you Sir, before for expressing it in the text (where the word, believing, is not for mentioning it as the fense and scope, which my self now do) for the question is, what the believing wife or husband is to do with the unbelieving husband and wife. Now this go­eth and speaketh to the heart (as the Hebrews say) of these Co­rinthians, and bringeth a calme upon their troubled spirits, now if the unbelieving husband bepleased to dwell with his believ­ing wife, she is well coutented, for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by or in the wife: and if the unbelieving wife be con­tent to keep with her believing husband he is as well pleased, for the unbelieving wife is sanctified in and by the husband; and now also their children are not unclean, but holy. This of san­ctification, is such a privilege, as is not common to all married folks, but peculiar to believing persons, so that these may reap such comfort and benefit hereby, that their unbelieving consorts are sanctified to or by themselves; and they may have not only a lawful enjoyment, but also a holy use of their unbelieving yoke­fellows, for that God esteems the seed of such to be a holy seed, as truly as if both were believers. Thus the Apostle, his resolution removes that scruple of Conscience, telling them, the believing husband or wife, they were not defiled by remaining joyned with the unbelieving consort, but rather that the unbelieving consort was sanctified in or by the believing husband & wife: he which your sense, of natural or Matrimonial chastity, or sarcti­fication, [Page 143](if you will have the word also) is nothing so satisfa­ctory to, or answerable for.

For (again) if so it should be meant and understood, the Reason would have been as good, The unbelieving wife or husband is sanctisied by or in the unbelieving husband and wife; or the believing Consort is sanctified in and by an unbelieving Consort; or the husband is sanctified by the wife, and the wife by the husband, Let them be what they will, believers or un­believers, according to your sense, as betwixt whom there is your matrimonial Chastity, or lawful Marriage. But then it would not have been so true every way (as now it is according to my sense) for to the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, is nothing pure, but even their minde and conscience is defiled, Titus 1.15.

Nay more, whereas the believing Consort sanctifieth the un­believing Consort, and not the other way, the unbelieving Con­sort sanctifieth the believing one, if matrimonial Chastity, or your natural Sanctity, were here understood, both Consorts would here be sanctified; yea both the believing one, and also the unbelieving one would be, and were hereby sanctified in themselves, not by, or in, one the other, for Marriage is honou­rable amongst all, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. And then you may alter the Text of Titus, and say, to the impure, and unbe­lieving husband or wife also, all things are pure 3. they are san­ctified even in themselves, by their matrimonial Sanctity, and natural Chastity, and even their minde and conscience is un­defiled.

Besides, what an incongruity and inconsistency is there in such a reddition and interpretation, the unbelieving: wife is sanctified by or in the believing husband; that is, chastified or matrimonially holy? Said I not but even now, That chastity amongst the Heathen, or spoken of them, as here you will have it, of the unbelieving, is never called Sanctification, or San­ctity, in Scripture? Turn down to your self the one Text, and then turn it over to me. I gave you also reason for it, because their bodies are not the Temples of the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of Sanctification and Sanctity. But, I pray, shew me also, that one Consort or yoke-fellow doth chastifie or make chaste the other, like as the Apostle sheweth you, that one doth [Page 144]sanctifie and make holy the other; and if so be both Consorts be not chaste, how are they made chaste or chastified, each by, or in other; or if but one be unchaste, how is he or she chasti­fied or made chaste, by or in the other chaste one, be it he or she?

Truly, Sir, this opinion of yours, and your sense here, de­serves a little to be chastised, till it be more sensible, yea and chastified too, as which doth adulterate and corrupt the purity of the Word, and the sanctification of this Text. It may some­thing recreate the Reader (if any come to reade these sheet [...], besides your self, who do concreate i [...]) to intersert what a great Champion of Infant-Baptism hath related of as great an opposer of it, about the interpretation of this Text; which he holding, as you do, it to be meant of matrimonial chastity, and holiness, bringeth forth as a parallel Text, the 34 Verse of this Chapter. I pray look the Verse, it is too longton me to write out twice; and he thus rendreth and meaneth it: The unmarried cares for the things of God, that she may be holy in body and Spirit, i.e. That she may be chaste: but she that is mar­ried, cares for the things of the world, that she may please her husband. The Relator saith of it onely this, That in truth it is a pretty odd sense, thus invented; and that which I onely shall adde, is, That if thus invented, it is (hardly) in truth; and though pretty, it is not chaste, but holy, that the Apostle aimeth at, That she being unmarried, and free from worldly cares, careth the more for the things of God, that she may be godly and holy; and whether the sense be even or odd, I pass not; it is odd indeed, that the unmarried careth for the things of God, that she may be chaste. I will make it even, and say with the Apostle, The unmarried careth for the things of God, how she may be holy.

If you ask me now for my sense and interpretation of S. Paul here to the Corinthians, saying, The unbelieving Consort is sanctified by or to the believing Consort, I gave it you but a little before, to be this plainly, You believing Consorts may have, and have, if you dwell together, not onely a lawfull enjoyment, but a holy use of your unbelieving Consort. This I shall elucidate, by comparing it with 1 Tim. 4.5. where the creature is said to be sanctified by the word and prayer, unto the [Page 145]pure and Believer. You may as well limit and restrain the San­ctification here, onely to a lawfull use of the Creatures to Be­lievers and unbelievers, as you do the other former sanctificati­on, onely to the lawfull marriage of the unbelievers and Be­lievers: But as I have shewed you the one, so I shall now prove that the other holdeth out more to your eyes, if you will open them and look on, because the Heathens and unbelievers had a lawfull use of the Creatures; but S. Paul here to Timothy, speaks of such an use of the Creatures, as they had not, and is appliable onely to Believers, and therefore is a holy and sancti­fied use also (not lawfull onely) as appears by that which fol­loweth, for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer, they have the Word to Warrant the use of them, and Prayer to worke down Gods blessing upon them; and then also (in the fourth verse) Thanksgiving, to send up glory to God for them; all which the Heathen and unbeliever were not capable of, or able to, and this Sanctification is not their lawfull use of the Crea­ture, but a peculiar holy use of them, which the Believers and Saints have.

And so this Exposition of Paul to Timothy, makes the other of Paul to the Corinthians, clear and stronger; for some of your Sect hold, That the Sanctification of the unbeliever here in the Corinthians, is such a Sanctification as is parallel with that there in Timothy; and therefore I may infer, that as the sanctification in Timothy, is peculiar onely to Believers, and more than a lawfull use of the Creatures, which Heathens are also capable of: so the Sanctification in the Corinthians, is a holy use of the unbelieving Consort unto the Believer, and more than a lawfull or Matrimonial Chastity, which the un­believers may and do enjoy amongst themselves.

This that I have set down, is the same in effect, with that which our latter Divines call Instrumental Sanct fication; they mean, and so would have the Apostle to mean, when he saith that the unbelieving Consort is sanctified by or to the believing Consort, that is sanctified instrumentally, to the precreating of issue or children, which the believing Consort doth sanctifi [...]; and so both together, the unbeliever sanctified by or in the Be­liever, do make a holy root, to produce a holy branch. For its evident, that this sanctifying by the believing party here men­tioned, [Page 146]respects the issue, as the Apostles reason sheweth; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. And you and your Sect acknowledge as much, by your grounding and building a legitimation of issue thereupon. Briefly, the Infidel party is sanctified by and in the other, both for a holy Conjugal Society, and for raising up of a holy Seed unto God: so it is but relatively, for absolutely all are sanctified onely in Christ Jesus.

And so I should and would have come to the Corinthians se­cond Scruple, or Case of Conscience, about their children; but that I remember a parcel or Clause of your third and last Con­sideration, reserved hither, because it was clapt in there disor­derly and impertinently; and it is this, as you deliver it.

Again, if it ware ment (were meant) otherwise, then might the unbelieving wife be saved, and enjoy any Church-privilege by the faith of the husband, or the husband by the faith of the wife, as well as the child by the faith of the Parents, and that by the Apostles rule in this Verse.

If it were meant otherwise; you mean (I suppose) if the being sanctified of the unbelieving Consort, by or to the Be­lieving one, were not meant of your natural holiness or clean­ness, or others Matrimonial Chastity and Sanctity (for I will give you in this, as an overplus) but of our, either the Belie­vers holy use of his unbelieving Consort, or his unbelieving Consorts being instrumentaly sanctified to the procreation of children, together with the Believer. What then? then might the unbelieving wife be saved, and enjoy any Church-privilege by the faith of the husband, and the husband by the faith of the wife, as well as the child by the faith of the Parents. For the General, its a non-sequence, and then a non-sense. Once more I must tell you of your non-sense, of natural holiness or cleanness; you did well to joyn them together, otherwise, were it not for your cleanness, you were clean gone as to your holi­ness, and must go off uncleanly from your natural holiness; for the Apostle never intended any of your natural holiness or cleanness (nor the others Matrimonial) but either a Moral, or Ceremonial, or rather Instrumental, or Sacred-usual (if I may so speak.) And another non-sense of yours is, your putting of Salvation, and enjoying of Church-privileges together, when [Page 147]as many are saved that enjoy none of them, and some enjoy many of them, and yet are not saved; yea, and putting Salva­tion before enjoying of Church-privileges, when as ordinarily Church-privileges, and the enjoying them, go before saving and Salvation. These things carry not sense in them, besides they are not according to the sense of the Apostle and his Text, which speak onely a word of sanctifying, and not of saving a syl­lable.

And now again, from being sanctified, especially the unbe­lieving husband or wife's being sanctified to their being saved, whilest unbelieving is one of your greatest non-sequences you have made in your two sheets, though you understand it of any of the sanctifyings mentioned, mine or yours.

Once more, and lastly, The unbelieving husband or wife, though sanctified by and in the believing Consort any of the waies, yet may not be saved and enjoy Church-privileges, as well as the born child of a believing Parent, because this child hath present capable Right, and real Title to a Church-privi­lege, which is Baptism, and all other Privileges of the Cove­nant, as he shall grow up to them, yea and to salvation it self: whereas the unbelieving husband or wife hath not just plea in present to any of these, until forsaking their unbelief, they em­brace Christ, and make preofession of their faith, and so come into Covenant with the believing Consort, and its child or chil­dren. Therefore I say, not so well as a Christian child, may an unbelieving husband or wife be saved, or enjoy Church-privileges, by the faith of the believing Consort; and you did not as well as you might to say so; especially seeing children born of Christian Parents, are not unbelievers or Infidels, but Believers rather, as I have formerly shewed; as also how, and in what way and sense, such children may be said to enjoy Church-Privileges, and to be saved by the faith of their Parents; to which I refer the Reader, and your self.

You write something of the Apostles rule in this Verse, by which it would follow, which you presume of; but whil [...]st you apply it ill here, it begins to be your rule, and you being the Authour of the misapplying, are also the Master of mis­rule. I know no rule here, but the Proposition and Resoluti­on of the Apostle, that the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the [Page 148]husband, and the unbelieving husband is sanct [...]fi [...]d by the wife. The Apostle saith not, as you, is saved, or enjoyeth Church-privileges, by or in the believing Consort, whilest he is an un­believer; and yet so it may fall out, that the unbelieving Con­sort may be brought off from its infidelity by the believing Consort, and so may enjoy all Church privileges, and in the end be saved; for so Verse 16. What knowest thou, O wife, whe­ther thou shalt save thy husband? (he speaks to the believing wife of her unbelieving husband,) Or how knowest thou, O man, whe­ther thou shalt save thy wife? (so he speaks also to the believing husband, of his unbelieving wife.) The which Text may be a satisfying reason for the comfortable and hopeful continuance of marriage-society and cohabitation, as which doth fully re­move those jealousies that might arise in their minds from ano­ther Text, perhaps they knew of, Deut. 7.4. & 3. ver.

I shut up the Point with this, That howsoever the just and righteous man shall live by his faith, yet as the Apostle saith, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife, and the unbe­lieving wife by her husband (though it may be, not to life or salvation) this sanctifying which the Apostle mentions of the unbelieving party, is a result of the faith of the believing Con­sort; so the unbeliever is twice said to be sanctified, but not the Believer; and the Believer doth sanctifie the unbeliever, or else I can make no sense of the Apostles Argument.

And so now by a kinde of back skip, I shall return from your third Consideration, where you ended about the unbelieving Consorts sanctification by the believing one, unto your first Consideration; where you begin about their childrens being unclean or holy. Do you not see what a great deal of trouble your want of good order and method, your ignorance of our University Arts and Learning, doth create to me? Truly you might pitty me as much for the one, as I do you for the other.

For so the next Quaere or scruple of Conscience in the Co­rinthian Believers unto the Apostle, was, what they should do about their children they had, or should have begotten of their Infidel husbands or wives, whilest they lived and remained in wedlock with these? and whether they should look upon them their children, as any part of Gods people belonging to the [Page 149]Church, and so what he thought of them? To which the A­postle answereth, they were not unclean, but holy. But the words are not barely propounded as his Resolution of the Co­rinthians second Doubt or Quaere, but as an addition or proof unto their first Quaere or doubt, as the form and manner of the speech sheweth, Else were they unclean, but now they are holy. The like is, 1 Cor. 15.29 Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? So here, The unbelieving husband is sanctified by his wife, &c. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. As who should say, This farther proves that Sanctification, because your children are holy, which else would be unclean. Thus the Apostle here, one of these Doubts or Quae­res necessarily flowing from another, as one sore breaking out by another, by the resolution of the second, as it were a Play­ster laid upon it, both salveth that, and also spreads and dila­teth the same, to the more perfect cure of the first.

But I will give you the precedency of speech, as who love to hear you speak first; and it is (indeed) my place to be but an Answerer, and so to take into consideration what you put to me. Say on therefore, and speak out.

Consider farther first, if this holiness here spoken of, be a holi­ness of sanctification; such as is the way to heaven and salvation, as some will affirm? then I pray let me ask you this question, from whence this holiness cometh?

What some will affirm, I know not, do you? then you know the future opinions of some as well (and indeed, as well) as the present minde of the Spirit in this Text. But its not mate­rial to my answering of you, what some men will affirm; let me hear what either they or you do affirm; or tell me the names of those some, and then I shall tell whether they do affirm; but what they will affirm, I leave it to you to foretell, and from henceforth to begin to be a Prognosticator or foreteller of weather; which you may be better, than of the wills of men.

Again, holiness of sanctification! Manhu, what is this? I do not think any will affirm it, besides your self, either to speak such words, being both one, not distinct things, holiness being the quality or habit, and sanctification being but the act and operation of the same; so that rather both you and they should [Page 150]have said, if you would speak right English, or sense, The san­ctification of holiness, than The holiness of sactification. But now farther, neither is holiness of sanctification here spoken of, as to the children in question, and under doubt; for, because you do not specisie whom you speak of, and of whom you affirm or deny this your holiness of sanctification, let me, I pray, ask you this question, Of whom, Parents or their children? sure of the children, and their holiness (for of the unbelieving Parents and their sanctification, you have done speaking; and your asking me whence this holiness of sanctification cometh? and your answering your self, Either from the lawfulness of the marriage of their Parents, or from the faith of the Parents, or from the Covenant; these do make clear what you held in obscurity, that the holiness here spoken of to be a holiness of sanctification, such as is the way to Hea­ven and Salvation, as some will affirm, no matter who, is in­tended by you to be, or at least questioned, if not refuted, as to the being of it in the children of Parents, whereof one is an unbeliever.

And now I have another question to ask you, Why you joyn together in the children onely (sanctification of holiness) when as the Apostle divided them betwixt the Parents and their chil­dren, giving sanctification to the Parents, the unbelieving wife or husband, is sanctified by the believing Consort, and lea­ving holiness to their children; Else were they unclean, but now they are holy? And lastly, (for I cannot forget how when time and place was, you wearied and tired me with your quae­res, I ask you another question, If your conjunction (holiness of sanctification) be not a tautologie, or vain repetition? whether your limitation following (such as is the way to Hea­ven and Salvation) be not a Battologie, or needless restriction? For is there any holiness or sanctification, which is not the way, or tending to Heaven and Salvation?

And now Sir, to your question you ask me, From whence this holiness (that is, of children) cometh? and as soon as you asked this question, and before I could open my mouth to make you answer, from whence, away you are gone, to your suppositions, If it come from the marriage of the Parents, or if from their faith, or if from the Covenant: and who are you [Page 151]like to herein? I will not give you neither time or scope to an­swer; but without all supposition, shall say, you are like to Pi­late, who asked Christ this question, What is Truth? and as soon as he had said it, went out unto the Jews, as not having the patience to stay for the Answer, John 8.38. Whether Pilate were able to answer that question himself, What is Truth, I know not, it seems you are, and therefore made such haste a­way from me, to take my breath (as it were) out of my mouth, or rather to stop it, and to undertake the answer your self; for presently you follow on.

If it cometh from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Parents, then why was not (were not) all the sons and daughters of Solo­mon, Rehoboam, Jeroboam, Nadab, and others of the kings of Israel and Judah saved; seeing they were all lawfully married ac­cording to there (their) Laws and Customs? and why are not drun­kard, (drunkards) swarers, (swearers) and other prophane per­sons saved, whyle (while) they so lived and so died; seeing they are in our experience of tymes (times) the children of lawfull married people, according to the laws of the land? and why was Jeptah (Jephthah) saved, seeing he was a bastard?

How now, Sir? is all the ado for this? I looked for Grapes from your mouth, and you bring forth wilde grapes; I looked for judgement, and behold oppression, or a scab; and for righ­teousness, and behold a cry, or a lye. In a word, I looked for an answer, and behold more questions, and nothing but questi­ons, and those nothing to the purpose; for 1. whereas you said before, Some will affirm, that sanctification of holiness in chil­dren, such as is the way to heaven and salvation, is here spoken of, do you affirm if you can, of some that say, or ever said, that it came from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Pa­rents. Here you are like Don Quixot, who imagined wind­mills in the air before him, and ran a tilt at them: so you set up images and imaginations in your way, to question them, thereby to keep your self in breath, and your pen on paper. 2. Suppose some had affirmed it, that childrens sanctification of holiness (for as long as I am about your work, I shall use your words, and when I have done that, I shall leave there, for I like them not) cometh from the lawfulness of the marriage of their Parents, doth or may then rationally or religiously follow [Page 152]thereupon such a question, as, Why then were not all the chil­dren of all married Parents in the Church? (for I pass by your great reading in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah, and their Genealogies, so impertinent here;) and why not drunkards and swearers, which are in your experience of times the children of lawfull married people? (you seem to be a man of great experience of times, and a diligent observer of chil­drens births, and their Parents marriages, and are a fit man to be the Register of your Parish, and to keep the Book;) why, (say you) were they not all saved? and why was Jephthah saved, seeing he was a bastard, and not the child of lawfully married Parents? what a consequence, or rather, as I said be­fore, a non-sequence of a question is here from a supposition? like unto this, the qualification of coldness in the water, co­meth from the confluence of showers into the pond, why then are not all the drops and handfuls fetched thence, sweet and di­stilled? Sanctification of holiness in the children, cometh from the lawfull marriage of their Parents, why then are not all their children and issues saved? Sirs, can you forbear smiling? They say, when one Almanack-maker looketh upon another, they smile both, to think how they delude simple people with their vain and false Prognostications; certes, when you Secta­ries see one another, you cannot but laugh out, to remember how you deceive silly people with your irrational and inconse­quent argumentations: offer it now unto thy Governour, thy God, will he be pleased with thee, and thy Question, Why not all sa­ved? he will tell thee, that thy and their destruction is from themselves; but thy and their help or salvation is in me, saith God; not in or from any other, Parent or not Parent, married or not married, lawfully or not lawfully, you and they are sa­ved by the free grace of God, and not by the sanctification of holiness in the one or other.

Yea, do you not answer your self, why drunkards and swea­rers, who were children of lawfull married Parents, are not saved? Why they so lived, and so died drunkards and swearers, how could they?

But what is all this to our business, which is not of salvati­on, but sanctification? Here is another of your absurd and in­consequent questions; sanctification of holiness in children, if [Page 153]it come from the lawful marriage of the Parents, why then are not all sanctified, so you should have said, & would, if you could have told how to keep to the Question: & then you might have answered your self, or needed not have made such a question, seeing even the wicked children born of lawful married Parents in the Church, are in a way, which I shall anon shew you, san­ctified, and this their sanctification is a way also, unto Heaven and Salvation, and all those whom you name, were in this way, and I suppose you know, I shall not need to tell you, what fell out in the way, that they were not all or any of them saved. It is one of your grosse mistakes and Reasonings, from every kinde of sanctification of holiness, to conclude, the salvation of souls, when as (to go no farther) the unbeliever is here said to be sanctified in and by the believing, and their children are said to be holy, from whence who can infer their salvati­on? these arguings, are rattles for boyes to play with, not Rea­sons for men to bring forth.

But whats the business, why Jephthah is here named? It is confessed, He was saved, because the Scripture beareth witness of it, in Heb. 11.32. and also that he was a bastard, Judges 11.1. But seeing he was a bastard, you ask, why he was sa­ved? why? to teach you, that base birth is no obstacle to free Grace, nor hindreth the salvation of any believer: no more than lawful marriage of Parents, so much talked of, or rather, as you should have spoken, the legitimate birth of children, doth further the salvation of an unbeliever.

But in the mean time, this Example named by you and pro­duced, doth accuse you of inconsiderateness in your Consider­ation; for we are both considering (as you will have it) of the sanctification of holiness in children, whose Parents are one of them an Infidel or unbeliever, and you come in with your Jephthah neither of whose Parents were unbelievers, (though sinful in that act,) and so its impertinent, as not com­ming within the compasse of the Corinthians doubt and Quaere, or the Apostles answer and Argument; and so you are besides the Matter, and out of the Cause and Case here questioned in, all your Questions, being nothing to the purpose.

But now lastly, tell me one thing, did you not once, but a while ago hold, the Apostles meaning here, of childrens being [Page 154]holy, to be noching else, but a legitimation of their birth, from Parents in lawful Wedlock, or Matrimonial holiness or chasti­ty, (which you also, or yours make to be the very sanctifica­tion of the unbeliever to or by the believer?) How then can you, and with what constancy can you now here argue against the sanctification of holiness in children, as comming from the lawfulness of the marriage of the Parents, who before make legitimation of their birth, and nothing else to be their Birth­holiness? and lawful marriage to be the unbelieving Parent his sanctification? Thus usual it is with God to confound the op­posers of his truth, so as to contradict their own Tenets: for as they heard only, that he which persecuted the Church in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed, Paul by name, Gal. 1.15. So we may see now, that he which revileth the Church in times present, now destroyeth the er­rours, his own errours, which once he preached and wrote; but I will not name him: and as they glorified God in Paul, so we may glorifie God in this, and say, Great is Truth and will prevall; vile is errour, and will fall.

2. If it come from the faith of the Parrents, (Parents) or at least from the faith of one of them, thenn (then) I pray tell me why Cayne (Cain) Esau, Absolon and others were not saved, seeing their Parents ware (were) all faithful and belevers (believers) and why was Rahab the Harlot saved, seeing her parents ware Heathens or unbelevers; neither ware the Parents of all those who were con­verted at the first preaching of the Gospel, belevers.

Here it the same song again of the sanctification of holiness in children, only to another tune; the former was to the tune of the lawful marriage of their Parents, and this is to the tune of faith of the Parents, or at least one of them. I have found or put the first song, out of tune, and I believe I shall do so to the second song, especially in reference to the consort or conse­quence thereof.

Sanctification of holiness in children, cometh not from the saith of Parents, neither of them, by way of conveyance cau­sality or application, as I have said before: that is, the faith of the Parent apprehending Christ and his righteousnes, and holiness, doth not cause, convey or apply the same unto his or their child, thereby to justifie and sanctifie it: so it must, if [Page 155]you will argue from it, the faith of the Parents or one of them, to the salvation of their child, and therefore all that follows, even your consquences, are thus blasted and blown away.

But yet there is a sanctification of holiness in children, that comes from the faith of the Parent, or either of them, by way of declaration, relation or impetration; that is, the faith of the parents, Covenanted with God and baptized into Christ, doth relatively, and declaratively sanctifie their child, even un­to the same holy seal of the Covenant with themselves; and may impetrate holiness, and salvation for him, though not impart or derive the same to it, unless it be in a foederal way, which is a way also to salvation, like as if the root be holy, so are the branches. But all this may be, but without any neces­sary or infallible consequence of salvation hereupon, though it is in the way, and a way thereto, as I said.

I must here tell you again of the same fault, as I did before, that our Discourse and Dispute, is about childrens sanctification of holiness, and you still run out, to childrens salvation of happiness, whereas this doth not alwaies or necessarily, either Logically, or Theologically follow upon that. There needs no more or farther Consideration of this Paragraph, but only of this, that instead of proceeding in Dispute like an Acade­mick and Scholar, you conclude here like an Epidemick and vulgar, Taking away the subject of the question, the holiness of children from the faith of the Parents: for you give instances of Rahab a Heathen, whose Parents were Infidels; she was sa­ved from the Grace of God, what is that, to her being sancti­fied from the faith of Parents: the like is to be thought and said of those first converts.

Besides, you are out of the text, you undertook to expound ac­cording to the minde of the Holy Ghost: for here the Corinthi­ans second Quaere, and the Apostles second answer (which you are upon) is about the living children of believers, at least one of them, and their childrens holiness, you instance in Rahab, a grown person, as were also these first converts (whose Parents were unbelievers, it is likely, both of them as to Rahab,) and you tell me of their happiness and salvation being now dead: Well Sir, if you were a young man, or youth, I would per­swade you to go to one of the Universities for all this. But I [Page 156]go to another, even the last now of your Considerations, and glad I am, that I am come to the last end of your Considerati­ons, that so having gone through them, I may return again to my Considerations of my latter and last end, Deut. 32.29. and make ready to answer my last Enemy and Adversary, which is Death, 1 Cor. 15.

3. If it be a foederal holiness that the Apostle here speak­eth of, as Mr. Weinell afirmeth (affirmeth) and others likewise, I would desire to know, whether ever any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any priveledg (privilege) of the Church upon any such account, without or before they had a command for it? ware (were) they Circumcised, or did they eate the paskall, (paschal) before they had a commaund for it? And I pray, shew me if you can, any commaund in the Gospel for the Parrents (Parents) to admit any of there (their) children to any Ordinance of the Gospel without faith in there own persons, or any commaund in the Gospel for any Minister of the Gospel to admit persons to any priveledg of the Church without faith in there owne persons, or at least so far as the Ministers of the Gospel can judge.

Sir, I thank you for your four last lines; which being no­thing but what you have Quaered before, and I have answered before, (as you self, or any Reader may see, if you will re­view or remember) I may save so much labour and passe by them with silence, or only bid them, farewell: I see you begin to be weary as well as my self, or to want new matter, which makes you now here retrace and retract the old, to requaere and require, what formerly you have done: I look upon them, as a piece of Recapitulation, as its usual, at the period of a Dis­course, and I shall need to look no farther after them, having made a long look before, upon the matter of them.

As for the three first lines, you are come now indeed to the Point: your former, its or suppositions, were but circumfe­rences, or round-abouts.

It is now the second time you have named Mr. Weynell, but not a Sentence or Argument of his do you mention, much l [...]sse Argue against, from first to last of this your Consideration up­on 1 Cor. 7. The shortest and sweetest, the finest and prettiest way of answering and confuting, you have gotten that ever I met withal, in any man: I would you could or would teach it [Page 157]me, I am not too old yet to learn any good thing of you; your words in the beginning would have put upon him a false opini­on even your own, about the Matrimonial holiness of the unbe­liever, as if that were this sanctification of the believing con­sort, which I put off again, from him to you: now you ascribe unto him and others, and that rightly, a foederal holiness to be held of them, as meant by the Apostle; and if you can and will shew me (who hold with him the same foederal holiness) that it is not meant, but only a legitimal holiness, I will be your lawful Atturney to follow this matter in your name, and moreover your confederate friends.

But if I can and shall shew you, (who with the others of your Sect, hold only a Legitimal holiness) that it is not here meant, but only a foederal holiness, then you shall be my confederate friend, and moreover my lawful Atturny to prosecute this bu­siness in my name: it is agreed; begin you first, so you have already, but not to prove any thing, either for your holiness of legitimation, or against our holiness of federality, and thus you say.

If it be a federal holiness, you desire to know whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any priviledge of the Church upon any such account, without or before they had a commaund for it, ware they Circumcised or did they eate the paschal Lambe before they had a commaund for it?

What! still more rattling without reasoning, and prattling without pressing? I would you were as desirous to know, as here you pretend, you would then soon know, that your de­sire to know, is not a refuting of what others know, nor is your putting forth a Quaere, a putting down of our Answer, of the foederal holiness of children. But what do you desire to know, whether any of the seed of Abraham or David did enjoy any privilege of the Church, upon any such account, (of the Covenant you must mean) without, or before they had a com­mand for it? yes, Sir, all the seed of Abraham did enjoy this holiness, they were a holy seed, and people unto God, be­cause of the Covenant of God made with them, and so were a peculiar people and privileged Church, before and without a command; as for your instance, which you bring for proof, were they Circumcised, or did they eat the paschal Lamb, be [Page 158]fore they had a Commaund for it? it is as pittiful a proof, as the instance is impertinent; for our discourse is about holiness from or under the Covenant, and your return upon it, is about Circumcission and the paschal Lamb, the Seals of the Cove­nant, from and under command; so according, to the proverb, whilest we ask the question of Onione, you make an­swer of Garlick, other impertinent instances: And the proof is as pittiful, for though we should grant it, that none were Cir. cumcised or did eat the Paschal without or before a Com­mandement, yet were they holy, by vertue of Gods Cove­nant, without and before that Commandement, yea before and without their being Circumcised, all the seven daies before they came under the Seal, they enjoyed that Church-privilege of holiness, and were holy from the very Womb and birth; (and some also sanctified in the Womb, yea, why not all there, saederally holy, being the seed of faithful Parents!) and so the seed of David, (because you mention it) the child that died the seventh day (and so a day before Circumeifion) enjoyed the same Church-privilege of holiness, (from the Covenant) other­wise David could not nor would have said, I shall go to it, declaring his hopeful assurance of its happiness and being with God, from its birth-Covenant holiness, knowing that no un­clean, or unholy thing can enter into Heaven, 2 Sam. 12.23.

I deny not, but children of the Jews were holy also by Cir­cumcision, the Seal of the Covenant, which was commanded them; but they were holy too, before that, by the Covenant of Grace, which was promised them, and to argue from their sig­nal or Sacramental holiness, to the denial of their foederal or Covenantal holiness, when as children have both holinesse [...], is to strain or winde up one bow-string, to the snapping asunder of the other bow-string, when a man hath two strings to his bow.

But (it seems) you would have a command also for chil­drens holiness by Covenant: do you make so little account of Gods holy Covenant, as it children upon that account of their entrance, and being in Covenant with God, could not or should not be accounted holy? is Gods Commandement only able to joy them of a Church-privilege, and to make them en­joy it, and not Gods Covenant, and Promise? when as the [Page 159]Commandement of God, for the holy Seal to be annexed, is but a branch of the Promise or Covenant of God, and the Co­venant goeth before the command, and is as a first step or fore­runner precedent of holiness (as I may so say) unto children; The first holy Church-privilege, is the Promise and Covenant it self, and the next, is the Seals of the Covenant; Holiness is more intrinsical to the Covenant, and more extrinsical to the Seal, as manifesting a discrimination, and difference of holy people from prophane and heathenish; so that children of be­lievers, may be both waies holy, in their order and times, but primarily and principally holy by Covenant. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed, are the words and tenour of the Co­venant and Promise, and they ar eof force, and efficacy to pro­nounce, and make holy, both father and children, that are ta­ken thereinto: yea more (because I am willing to give you full satisfaction in all your queres and quirkes) there is a Comman­dement also for childrens holiness, in those words (though they belong to a part of the Covenant interwoven with them) Thou shalt be my people, thou shalt be a holy Nation, a holy seed: whereupon the Apostle Rom. 9.4. being to prove the ho­ly privileges of the Church, and Nation of the Israelites, saith, that to them pertaineth the Adoption, the Covenants or Testament, the giving of the Law, the service of God, and the Promises, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: all which and especial­ly the Covenant and Promises, were sanctifying Ordinances to the Parents and their seed.

But I hasten to an end, and will give over spending my pre­cious time about your nifles and trifles; only I cannot but ob­serve you, speaking of children and their holiness, how you joyn together, their being Circumcised, and their eating the paschal Lamb, and both by a Commandement. Take heed what you say, children of the Jews did they eat of the paschal Lamb, by Commandement of God? I shall be ready to give you a fir caution, lest you give occasion to a foul notion. First, therefore be sure of your Commandement, to have it in a rea­diness to shew; shew it now, and then it willb e in more readi­ness: I have read over the whole institution of the Passeover, and cannot finde a syllable of such a command, for, nor a foot­step of such an example of, children eating of the paschal [Page 160]Lamb: It may be you may finde some tuch thing au-ongst the Rabbins, and Doctors of the Synagogues, (but you, I suppofe, regard them as little, as you do our Students, and the learned of our Universities:) but is there any such to be seen in the chair of Moses, or to be read in the Pentateuch of his books? all that I can meet with is this, that (when their children should ask their Parents the meaning of the Pesseover) the Parents were to instruct or Catechiz: them therein, and so prepare them for a Passeover, against the time should come, that they under, stood the service thereof; in the mean, the memorial of the Angels passing over them in Egypt, and their passing over the Red Sea into the Wilderness, was so held up, even amongst their children, Exod. 13.14.

Whats now become of your old Quaere now, what expresse command have you for such and such, (I retort it upon your self,) for childrens eating the paschal Lamb? Every Male-child shall be Circumcised, a command is expresse for the Circum­sing of children: Deus. 16.16. and sure if chidlren had been to eat of the paschal Lamb, there would have been as expresse a command for this; and whereas Exod. 34 23. Thrice in the year, shall all your men children appear before the Lord God, the place which he shall choose, whereof one time was, the feast of the Passeover; its granted, as a Commandement, that such children, who could hold the father by the hand, and walk with him up to the Temple, went along with him; but where­fore? namely to be instructed, Catechized and blessed of the Priest, but not to eat of the paschal Lamb, unless: they were of that groweth in years, and in understanding of the mystery: if otherwise, they had other food than the paschal Lamb, for them of lesser age and knowledge, as also for the unclean (as some might happen to be) and uncircyncumcised, both at home, (when they did eat the Passeover,) and also at the Temple; as for the unleavened bread, I suppose the children did eat of that, because for seven daies together all leavened bread was to be put quite and utterly out of the house, and burnt, insomuch as they must not look upon any, yea, it was under Gods curse, if any did eat any leavened bread, during those seven daies (which at other times, ordinarily they did:) but for the paschal Lamb, which was to be eaten up all in that one night, and what [Page 161]remained of it, to be burnt with fire in the morning. I take it, the children of the Jews did eat nothing of it at all, who were there, fore had to bed, and laid to sleep, whilest the Parents were ce­lebrating their evening, and night-service of the Passeover. At other Sacrifices and Offerings, which were not Sacramental, its expressed, it shall be for Aaron and his sons, for the Priest and his children, as being a part of their maintenance.

Now this I the rather enlarge upon, to perswade you from your opinion that you have taken up, I know not where, (yes, I believe I know where you have taken it up, even where it lay, in-Tombed) that so you may be no occasion of reviving and rai­sing up and old bruied error, that hath lain quiet in its grave these thousand years and upwards; and that is, The administraing the Lords Supper unto Infants and children of Chriftians, as neces­sary and decent.

This opinion was of force in the Roman Church in the daies of Pope Innocent the first (I will not name some others of anci­ent and reverend remembrance in that Age, who held the same thing and practice; and did thereby shew, that men standing too much upon their own conceited interpretations of Scrip­tures, may fall from the truth, and erre from the faith in some particulars; as you, Sir, have generally done throughtout your whole Letter;) for then He, and the rest of the Roman Church under him, believed that Infants baptized could not be saved, except they should participate of the Eucharist; taking their ground from that Scripture, John 6 53. Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; and therefore they held it the Lords Supper, wherein the flash of the Son of man is eaten, and his blood drunk, necessary to the life and salva­tion of Infants. But this was not the right interpretation of that Text, as which is not meant of that Eucharistical or Sacramen­tal feasting upon Christs Body and Blood, but of a Spiritual Faith, and believing in Christs Death and Passion. And here­upon this opinion of Pope innocent the first, and the Roman Church under him, is since retracted and rejected by Pope Pius the fourth, and the Roman Church under him, in that Council of Trent (whose Decrees are all held and canonised, to b [...] ­lieved upon necessity of salvation) as who have determined [Page 162]against administration and participation of the Eucharist. as neither necessary nor decent for Infants.

[How say you to this, you Great Patrons and Imitators of the Church of Rome, who say she cannot erre, at leastwise hath not erred? Did the Church of Rome not erre in the daies of Pope Innocent? then is she now in an error; doth she not now erre herein? then did she formerly erre, and conseq tently may erre hereafter.]

But now, if those above named had light upon your Tenet or error (as I think it) and could have made it hold up, which you onely raise and startle (having the Gift, as any gisted Bro­ther that ever I read, to prove nothing, and affirm any thing) That the Infants of the Jews did eat of the Paschal Lamb and Supper, they would have had a far fairer pretext, and faster ground, for the Infants of Christians to participate of the Eu­charistical Cup and Bread of the Lords Supper; for then they would have pleaded hard for a Commandement of Christian Infants to partake of the Eucharistical Supper, even in or out of that Commandement you mention, but shew not, of the Jewish Infants to partake of the Paschal Supper; and pressed it the rather, for that the Eucharistical Supper succeeds in place under the Gospel, unto the Paschal Supper under the Law; and rather more, for that the Grace of Christ now exhibited, is of larger extent, and greater latitude, than when he was to come and be revealed. And I tell you, these reasons would have troubled much these Tridentine Fathers to have answered and refelled, more than that Text of John above cited.

But I believe, that you never had any such notion or dream in your head, either sleeping or waking; nay upon a re-view of your words, I see I may answer to your Question, and say as you mean, and you never the nearer to what you aimed at; for you say thus, Did they eat the Paschal Lamb before they had a Commandent? I answer, They did not eat the Paschal Lamb before they had a Commandement; you mean so, do you not? and so do I, and what then? therefore the Jewish children had a Commandement to eat the Paschal Lamb. But this followeth not well, nor will, before you follow this better.

But some others, whose opinion I rather think you follow, than they yours, they drive it on to another design, as thus, [Page 163]Because the Infants of the Jews did eat the Passeover, as well as they were circumcised, Therefore the Infants of Christians should eat and drink the Lords Supper as well as be baptized. This structure is soon pulled down, standing upon a false foun­dation, even as the house fell, built upon the slippery sand; and therefore I shall but touch it, and it sinks or slides. Be­cause the Infants of the Jews did not eat the Passeover, but were onely circumcised, Therefore the Infants of Christians are not to eat and drink the Lords Supper, but onely be baptized.

So taking off the Argument against Infant-Baptism, from its false and ruinous foundation, of the Jewish children eating the Paschal Lamb, you were best set it upon its own proper Basis and build Baptism upon the Lords Supper thus, or rather pul [...] it down by the Lords Supper, thus: If Infants of Christians may be partakers of Baptism, then also they may be partakers of the Lords Supper; for why of one Seal of the Covenant, more than another? and if Infants may not be partakers of the Lords Sup­per, why then not of Baptism, no more of one Seal than the other; besides they are capable of the spiritual part of the one Sacrament, as well as the other. So I have made the Argument as strong for you as I can; if you can fort fie it yet more, do it quickly, for I am in haste to answer, as desirous to make an end of these wearisom skirmishes, as to my self, and tedious discourses, as to the Reader.

What! will you become of Antipaedobaptists, now Propae­docoenists, and grant Infants sometimes, and sometimes deny them in Argument the Lords Supper, that you may deprive the of the Lords Baptism? You shall never do it by such am­bidextrous inconsequences, to which the Answer and Reason is very obviou [...].

1. Your own Reason and Answer will do it, that from the one Seal ordered and appointed for Infants, to another Seal not enjoyned or instituted for Infants, the Consequence is vain and invalid; the former I have largely proved, and disproved the latter clearly; let but the Argument rest till can can dis­quiet or disturbe it, and I desire no more.

2. From Baptism, which is the Seal Initial, and of Admis­sion due to Infants, to infer the Lords Supper, which is the Seal Progressional, and of nourishment, to be also due in present, [Page 164]and partaked of in infancy (like as the other) is as inconsequent an absurdity, as to infer time to come from present, or perfe­ction from beginning, or a man from a child, and to joyn them in one moment, state and age. Can a man enter into his mo­thers womb, and be born a babe again? or as soon as he is born a babe, can he run over the ages, and become a man presently? When I a child, saith the Apostle, I spake as a child, and understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. I mean, Infants may be ini­tiated by the Seal of Baptism into the Church, and are fitted to have the Graces and Benefies of the Covenant sealed unto them, but that they are presently perfitted to have the nourishment and growth of the same Graces sealed and confir­med unto them, by the Lords Supper, passeth mine, and your, as much as their capacity.

It is true, that both Baptism and the Lords Supper do seal the same, and the whole Covenant and the Graces of the same, but both in their place, order, and time, so as the prime and main use of Baptism is to be the Seal of Initiation and Recepti­on into Covenant, and the Lords Supper is the Seal of Aug­mentation and Confirmation of the same, as to the main and prime use of it: so as that Baptism seals the Infants entrance and admission thereinto, which the Lords Supper doth not properly and principally, but onely by way of supposition and testification of a spiritual life and entrance, (such doth the spi­ritual food of the Lords Supper imply and require aforehand:) So also, as that the Lords Supper seals the growth and nourish­ment of the same Graces of the Covenant, which Baptism doth not properly and primarily, but onely by way of infusion of a seed, or laying a foundation of such growth and nourishment (such doth the spiritual life of Baptism tend and proceed to af­terwards.)

Lastly, Though Infanrs may and ought to be partakers of Baptism, yet may they not, nor ought to be partakers of the Lords Supper in their infancy, because the Lords Supper belongs onely to such, as can spiritually examine themselves, and dis­cern the Lords Body, as the Apostle expresly and directly saith, 1 Cor. 11.27, 28, 29. whereas Baptism belongs unto Infants of Christians by right of their being in the holy Covenant of God, [Page 165]and birth of baptized Parents; for more is required to the Lords Supper, than unto Baptism, of Church-members by nature and birth: whereas of Aliens and Strangers, more is required of them unto Baptism, than of Church-members unto the Lords Supper; a publick profession of faith is necessary for the admitting of a Heathen into the visible Catholick Church by Baptism, and his entring into the Gospel-Covenant for himself and his Seed, and he may presently after be partaker of the Lords Supper, upon the examination of his faith, for the con­firmation of the same.

But Infants, being in Church-Covenant by birth, have a just Title and Right to all the external Privileges in the Church (as being free-born to them all) in due time and order, as to Bap­tism in their infancy, because born members of the Church, so to the Lords Supper, when by reason of full age and use they have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil; and this their Covenant-right remains until it be forfeited by a re­nunciation of Baptism on their part, or by excommunication from the other, the Lords Supper, by the Churches power, when they are either wilfull violaters of the Conditions of the Covenant, or hate to be reformed by wholsom Censures.

If any farther reply (He must be a better replyer than you) That the Infant baptized can no more discern the Lords Body and Blood in Baptism, than in the Supper, nor the sign it self in the act of Administration of either Sacrament, and therefore Baptism is as vainly given it as the Lords Supper. I re-joyn, That our Infants can and do as well discern the Sacramental Sign, and the thing signified in Baptism, as well as the Jewish Infants did discern the same in Circumcision. So that if our Baptism be in vain to ours, their Circumcision was also in vain to their Children; and the Replyer doth but open his mouth against Heaven, and chargeth God himself with vanity and folly, for appointing Circumcision of Infants (and also Bap­tism of Infants) whereas the Axiom is, God and Nature doth nothing in vain, or foolishly. As therefore the Jewish Infants were to have the initial Seal of Circumcision, the old Ministra­tion imprinted upon them in their infancy, to seal up the Cove­nant unto them, under which they were born, though they had no such discerning, as is now required of the Replier to be in [Page 166]the present act of our new Ministration: so our Christian In­fants are to have the initial Seal of Baptism, the new Ministra­tion, sprinkled upon them In their infancy, to seal up the same Covenant unto them, under which they are born, though they have no more discerning, than was mentioned to be in the Jew­ish Infants then at the past act of their old Ministration.

And yet neither of these Ordinances vain or ineffectual to ei­ther of the Infant parties. For the efficacy of Baptism (as Cir­cumcision) depends not upon the act of the Creature discerning and working, (this is but a rank Romance, or a Roman prank of the Replier,) but upon the free Grace and mercy of God conveighing and operating; yea Baptism is not onely a tran­sient act, as to sprinkling of water and outward washing, but a permanent and continued act of the same grace and mercy, as to the inward washing, and application of Chirsts merits unto all Gods children.

But Jewish infants discerned somewhat, as who had a bodily seeling of the cutting of their the foreskin of their flesh; and so have our Christian infants, a bodily feeling of the water laid up­on their forehead or faces; but what's either to the purpose of the spiritual discerning of either action, or sign as Sacramental to them? they discern somewhat, and this somewhat is nothing, nothing to the purpose, being but a natural feeling of the cold­ness of the water, or sharpness of the knife.

But there is mroe reason, there should be demanded, dis­cerning of the sign when Baptism is ministred, than there was when Circumcision was given, for this left a mark or print of it self behinde it, so that the Circumcised person, bare in his body the mark of the Lord Jesus, (to use the Apostles phrase,) and he did daily discern that visible sign to assure him, that he was sealed into Covenant with God; but the water leaves no impression upon Baptized infants, but is either presently wiped off with a Handkercheif by the Midwife, or other woman (though I think they should not do so, and the Ministers ought to rebuke them for it,) or shortly after it is dried up of it self, so that the body is as if it were not washed or wetted at all, and and no mark to be seen outwardly to put the party in minde of his being sealed into God his peculiar Servant.

But what, and if there be a mark and character, of Baptism, [Page 167]like as of Circumcision then there is no more reason of discer­ning in the one party, than the other.

I do not mean, that mark which Papists hold, is formed in the soul of every Baptized infant, and inscribed thereby the ex­ternal action of Baptism, Simply and barely in it self consider­ed, which they call an Indelible character: For such is not to be found in Scriptures nor Orthodox writers; such a chara­cter, as may be imprinted and consist without grace, in a soul damned; and besides its absurd, if not impious to ascribe to an external action of a creature, that which is the proper act of God, an internal characterising, or indelible marking in the soul; and they may as well say, the bare and naked external preaching of the Gospel or remission of sins, doth imprint eter­nal salvation upon the soul without perceiving any force, or using any faith.

But I mean that mark and character, which the Ancient Or­thodox held to be imprinted in Baptism, which was either that gracious act, or gift never to he reiterated, and therefore cal­led an indelible character: for a man rightly baptized, becom­ming a Turk or Jew, and afterwards returning to the faith and Church of Christ, is in no case to be re-baptized, the vertue of his former Baptism is not spunged out, but still remainech a vailable: (of which matter I have spoke largely before) or else the very grace and gife of the holy spirit, of which the Apostle speaketh, 2 Cor. 1.22. Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the spirit in our hearts, and Eph. 1.13. In whom, af­ter ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise; which also may very truly be called, an indelible seal and cha­racter, wheresoever it is inscribed and imprinted, as it is in the hearts, and souls of many Baptized infants, even all belonging to the eternal election, and inheritance mentioned, and spoken of in the Texts above alleged.

Or thirdly, the character of Baptism is that passive power, whereby the party Baptized is made fit and capable, in due time and order to receive the other Sacrament, the Lords Supper; whereof without Baptism he were uncapable, as without Cir­cumcision the Jew was of the Passeover.

So then there is in both the initial seal, marks or characters; and as much mark, left upon the face and forehead of the infant [Page 168]Baptized, as there was upon your head and face, when you were dopt, or dipt over both, in the Pond or River you wote off; and though the outward mark were more permanent in Circumcision, being done and engraven upon, and into the flesh by incision, yet there was an outward mark in Baptism (though more transient.) done, and laid upon the face, and flesh by aspersion or infusion, as anciently by immersion,

But neither was the one character or mark more discernable to the one, the Circumcised infant, then the other to the Bap­tized infant: neither if it was, was it more available to the par­ticipation of the Passeover, then the other to the partaking of the Lords Supper; or more acceptable to God, who though he set sometimes an outward mark upon them that mourned, Ezek. 9. and so and outward mark upon the houses of the E­gyptians, for good ends and purposes, and so appointed the external elements and actions both of Circumcision, and Bap­tism to be holy, and profitable signes and seals, yet are not the outward marks in the flesh, or the sensitive discernings of the sings, the excellencies of Circumsion, or the eminencies of Baptism; nor is God taken onely, or chiefly delighted with beholding such external services and administrations; who re­quired these at your hands, these onely or chiefly? when there­fore the Jewish infants came to years of discretion and discer­ning; God looked for and called for, not the Circumcision of the flesh, but for the Circumcision of the heart; this was the mark he looked for, and upon in his sheep, the Israelites: and and so likewise, when Christian infants shall attain to the age of discerning and understanding, God will look for and upon, not so much the water in or upon the face, which was the mark of flesh, as the blood of Christ in the heart, which is the mark of the Spirit.

And this is that I conclude with; As one of your Baptized, and re-baptized adult proselytes, may have the sign of water, and discern the sign in the very act with the eye of his flesh, and yet be a grosse heritique, and a vile hypocrite, yea a very reprobate; So an infant may be, and but once Baptized, and that in its infancy, and want your discerning of the sign, and yet when he comes to years of discretion, prove a holy, pious, honest, orthodox and worthy Christian.

But now that, according to our agreement, you and others have spoken first, all you had, and have to say for your legitimal holiness to be here meant, against the federal holiness of chil­dren of Christians Baptized: (which all, is but very little, ve­ry nothing,) it is my turn now to say something for our fede­ral holiness to be [...] a meant, and against your legitimal holi­ness; which [...] also little, yet something, onely a small addition to whom have already enlarged upon, in my answer to you hereabouts, to be as a conclusion to the premisses, and a performance of my promises.

I say then, that the Apostle speaking of the children of Pa­rents, of whom one is a believer the other an infidel, and saying that they are not unclean but holy, doth not mean, holiness by legitimation, as thus, your children are not bastards, but law­fully begotten and born, as you, and other of the separation do expound it, insisting in the steps of the Jesuites, and in the way of Rome, from which and whom, notwithstanding you pretend a seperation as much, yea have taken a solemn Covenant for the extirpating of Popery. It is true such a holiness is here spoken of, and meant as is opposite to uncleanness, but to what uncleanness? the uncleanness of Idolatry, and Paganism, (for so these are called in Scripture phrase, uncleanness and even spiritual Adultery and Fornication, and all Idolaters and Hea­thens are called harlots, and said to go a Whoring after other gods) but you and your genuine Expositors, oppose that holi­ness, to anothers uncleanness, onely which is bodily adultery, fornication and uncleanness, and so give us, as the genuine sense of those words, else were your children unclean, that is bastards, but now they are holy, lawfully born, and no ba­stards; a genuine sense indeed as you call, and according to the lust of the fl [...]sh, more than the minde of the Spirit, as you boasted in the beginning of your exposition of this verse.

If this had been all the matter, the Corinthian couples, know this particular better than the Apostle himself, who knew more than they all, of this matter of holiness; they needed not to have sent to him for his opinion and resolution, to know whether their children were bastards or no, who knew them­selves, being of the civil Heathens, to be lawfully married ac­cording to the Laws and Customs of their Nations, and so their [Page 170]issue to be legitimate; they were so fully assured of that and this, that they could have made evidence, and given satisfacti­on to the Apostle, rather, then needed to have the one, or take the other from him.

And whereas its held of you, and all of us, that the Apostle here answereth a scruple or case of Conscience, which the be­lieving party, joyned with an unbelieving yoke-fellow pro­pounded unto him, (as before about their conjugal society, so) about their natal or natural issue, whether it was to be counted to the people of God, after the believing party, or as alien from God, after the unbelieving party; he answereth it clearly and pertinently, their children were not unclean, but holy, by which if he had meant, they are not bastards, but le­gitimates; the incomparably learned and Logical Disputer, St. Paul had not answered to the business, and question pro­pounded (for they made no question of the legitimacy of their issue, but of the holiness of their state) and the exquisitely pru­dent, and Theological discerner, had very meanly resolved their doubt, and but very cloudily elucidated their scruple, and afforded no peace as all to their Consciences in this, but rather involved them in farther troubles. For the whole City of Corinth, and all the Heathen Regions, and conjugal couples emongst them, would have been disturbed, and disquieted in their Consciences, at this case of Conscience so resolved by the Apostle, and would have been filled with confusion, ready to have laid hands on Paul, where they could meet him, and to say of him, This is he that hath turned the world up-side-down, and is come hither also to be a setter forth of strange resolves and doctrines; yea to take and apprehnd him, and bring him unto Areopagus, the greatest Court of the Heathens, for calling them all Whores and Adulterers, and their children bastards and illegitimates, by this his resolution, if it were according to your interpretation.

Look to it, Sir, for you are in danger to be called in questi­on for this daies uproare, and this trouble of Conscience a­mongst the poor Heathen, there being no cause whereby you can give an account of this con-course and rugged interpretati­on. For, (observe it I pray) if the Apostle saying, the unbe­lieving wife is sanctified by the husband, and the unbelieving [Page 171]husband be sanctified by the wise, else were their children un­clean, did mean, else were they bastards, according to your interpretation; doth not he, or rather do not you make him, call all those children bastards, whose both Parents were or are unbelievers? it is palpable, you do; for if the unbelieving par­ty were not sanctified by the believing, then were they un­clean, that is, bastards you say; and in so saying, you say thus much, That all children of those Parents, whereof the one is not sanctified by the other, are unclean, that is, bastards; for the former proposition being conditional and hypothetical, were not true, if this proposition, which is pofitive, and cate­gorical were not true: or more plainly, I will resolve the truth of the Apostles sequel, (the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, &c. else were your children unclean:) into this pro­position, from which it floweth, namely, All the children of an unbeliever are unclean, unless the unbelieving husband be sanctified by a believing wife, or the unbelieving wife be sanctifi­ed by a believing husband, for generation and coition, as I have said: Now give you the sense, and bring in your interpretation of it. All the children of an unbeliever are bastards, unlesse the unbelieving husband be sanctified by a believing wife, or an un­believing wife be sanctified by a believing husband, for generati­on and coition: and then tell me whether you do not make the Apostle say, or rather say your self, that all the children of the Heathen and unbelieving Parents, of which the one is not san­ctified by the other believing are bastards, notwithstanding born of both Parents in lawful wedlock according to the Laws and Customs of Nations.

If the Apostle Paul had preached this doctrine, that you by your Exposition would seem to make him, he would have been in many more perils and hazards, whilest he passed through the Pagan and Heathen Nations, than he was, and would not have converted so many of them as he did; and I would wish you to be very wary, when you go over to the Savages in New England, and the Pagans in our West Indes, that you broach not this either doctrine or interpretation, amongst them, lest the Parents there and husbands, and especially the mothers and wifes fly in your face, and all to scratch you and scald you, for calling and making their children bastards; and left the [Page 172]children [...] come forth out of the Cities, and mock you, and throw stones at you, or words as hard; Go up thou baldhead, (he interpretation is bald indeed, and hath not one hair of a rational Writer, whatsoever the head is or hath under the cap, I know not) and the she Bears come out of the Wood, and tear the false Prophet and interpreter, instead of the true children and no bastards.

What a man are you, Sir, that thus fill the world with ba­stards, by such your interpretation, I mean the world of Pagans and Heathens, where man and wife being neither of them be­lievers, and so neither sanctified by the other, their children must be unclean bastards; according to your doctrine and Ex­position, thus instead of satisfying and pacifying the doubtful and scrupulous consciences of some converted yoke fellows, the other remaining unconverted you will trouble, and disquiet a world of consciences, or the conscience of the greater part of the world, which being unconverted, and lying in infidelity, must sadly look upon their issue as bastardly and illegitimate, be­cause unclean. Yea this will make such mutinies, & insurrections in those Kingdoms, that there will be no Conscience of peace made (as no peace of conscience,) successions in them, and all in­heritances may be hereby questioned and overthrown, by this your Divinity, although it be not good Humanity: Yea, & those worthy Primitive Christians converted by the Apostles, who were born in Paganism, of both Infidel Parents, must lie under your censure and sense of bastardy, until you release them; and the very father of the faithful, Abraham himself, cannot escape you, but by your exposition must be a bastard too, as whose Parents were Idolaters both, and servers of other gods, than the true one, Jos. 24.2.

I pray you, Sir, you that pretend so much to the language of the Spirit (as if it were your Mother-Tongue, the cloven Tongue of the Spirit,) as also to exposition according to the minde of the Spirit, as you said of your self, even now, (as if you were the Spirits Secretary or Clerk of its Closet) shew me such a language of the Spirit, such a minde of the Spirit, in any one Text throughout the whole Bible (for this in hand, fails of it,) where a child, or children of two unbelieving or Infidel Parents, lawfully married together, are called, or but intima­ted [Page 173]bastards; and will you have the face and impudency, with­out any exemplary Text or parallel Scripture, or miraculous gift of Prophesie (it would be miraculous indeed, if you were so gifted, but indeed miraculous gifts are ceased, and they were for confirmation of Truths, not for confusion of them, as are your prophesyings) to affirm such children bastards, as you cannot avoyd it, whilest you interpret, the children (in St. Paul) whereof but one of the Parents in lawful wedlock is an Infidel or unbeliever, are therefore caleld holy, because they are legitimates, or lawfully born, and not bastards; and when you have done it, or before you do it, to call it the genuine sense, and meaning of the Text, and to father it, (as it were) upon the Spirit, to be an exposition according to the minde thereof: And so now having gone thus far, against your interpretation of bastardly uncleanness, and legitimal holiness; I shall now come back to mine, (which is also the Exposition generally of all Orthodox Baptist Protestants, and I may adde more truly, an Exposition according to the minde of the Spirit, and the ve­ry genuine sense of the Text.

For I suppose you will not deny, but the minde of the Spirit was in Paul; Now Paul was of this minde, you must confesse it, That children of, though but one Christian Parent, were holy, in the Scripture phrase, in the Spirits language, in the Churchs relation: and if they be judged and reputed such e­steemed, and spoken of as such by Paul, I shall not hereafter much minde or regard, what they are in your or others mindes and meanings, expositions and interpretations. For if the A­postle reputeth them so, then God reputeth them so: in some things the Apostle said, I, but not the Lord, 1 Cor. 7.10. in other, not I, but the Lord, 12 ver. but in this, I, and the Lord, for not I, (saith he) i.e.) I, onely, but the Lord also, verse 14. the believing wife is sanctified by the husband, &c. else were your children unclean, but now they are holy: I said before, that such holiness is here meant and spoken of, as is opposite to uncleanness, as appears in the very words, placed and set in opposition, one to the other, (else they were unclean, but now they are holy:) but to what uncelanness? not to the un­cleanness of bastardy, as you will have it, to make up a holi­ness onely of legitimation, both which I have refelled: but [Page 174]the uncleanness of infidelity, or a state out of Covenant, as our Divines will have it, to make up the holiness of these children, a holiness of federation, or federal holiness.

For so this state out of Covenant, as Infidelity and Paga­nism and Idolatry, is very often stiled and called uncleanness, as I touched before, and such Infidel and Idolatrous Parents or people, are even named Adulterers and Fornicators, and said to go a Whoring after strange gods or Idols, and so its the condition, and denomination of their children to be called un­clean, all after a Spiritual or Ecclesiastical sense.

But you cannot shew me, where by unclean are meant ba­stards, though bastards may be called unclean; for where the unclean persons are reckoned up, bastards are not mentioned: But if this must go for an Exposition of the Text, and that ac­cording to the minde of the Spirit, as thus, unclean, (i.e.) Ba­stards, then the terms or words must go or run true, both waies, backward and forward, that bastards are unclean, and the unclean are bastards. And whereas bastards amongst the Jews might not, by their Laws bear any Office in Magistracy ordinarily: (for Jephthah was extraordinarily chosen, by God and the people for this valour) nor sit in the Sanctuary, nor ex­ecute any Priestly Office, as over the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 13.7. (like as by the Civil Laws, they could not enjoy Inheritances,) yet they were Circumcised, and might eat the Passeover, and had free accesse to the Temple, and Taberna­cle, to perform worship and hear the Law, and were federally holy, as any legitimates.

But for the particular of infants holiness, I say, 1. in gener­al, Any person, or family (for so it was at first, in Abraham) or Nation (as afterwards it was with the Jews, and is now with the Gentiles) that are in Covenant with God, and enjoy the Ordinances of his grace and mercy, do also, by vertue of Gods Promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, convey to their issue and posterity, a state and privilege, (and so rather, it is the joynt Covenant made by God with both together, the Parent, and his issue and posterity,) to be reputed of a holy, and clean society and Congregation before God, from the o­ther Pagan and heathenish world, and so the child or children born of such Parents in Covenant, to be truly holy, like as the Parent, because of the Covenant.

Not that insants have any real personal qualitative holi­ness in them, (which is and must be in all true believers, whi­ther Parents or children, to make them acceptable to God, as to justification and Salvation) whom I confess, though born within the Church, and of believing Parents, to be born in sin, naturally, and be unclean, children of wrath by nature, as well as others, the children of Pagans, without the Church. But I say, they have a federal and parental, (so it may be cal­led by a savory mouth) and relative or imputative holiness, put upon them by the Covenant of God, and brought forth or executed on them, by, or at their birth of believing Parents, which is sufficient and enough to make them passe in the eyes of God, and in the face of the visible Church, for clean and holy; or if not, their professions of the faith of Christ (for you will not deny them to be professors of Christ, and members of the Church in part and in kinde, at leastwise) by the mouth of their Sureties presenting them, and speaking for them, this will bear them out, to be holy likewise.

And what if, I should tell you in your ear, that Christian infants in Covenant with God, are holy too, by an inward ho­liness also, (are not all inward sanctifying graces, effects of Gods Covenant, and who knoweth when God, as where, he effects them?) you, perhaps, would stop that ear, cry out. ‘Then grace, which onely maketh holy, cometh successively and is derived by nature, and Parents shall be the authors, and conveighers of grace and holiness to their children.’ No such matter, Sir, For the children are primitively holy with the Parents by the Covenant, as co-partners and confederates with them therein; (I will be thy God and the God of thy seed) not derivatively holy from the Parents, as solely or first partners and prefederates without these: Christian Pa­rents and children are both, joynt confederates, I say, and do both draw and derive together their holiness, as other privi­leges, from the Covenant and Tenour of grace therein, and not successively from one another, children from Parents deri­vatively, as you fondly fansie to your self, and erroniously imagine. The which truth may also serve much, to clear off those cloudy difficulties, so much pressed by the Anabaptistical party, from the Jesuitical side, about infants being Baptized, [Page 176]sanctified saved by the faith of their Parents, as they use to blate and b [...]e abroad.

You, like enough before you will believe any holiness in them, would have them shew some such thing, either in words before they can speak, and whilest they are infants, that is, non­fants; or indeed, before they have any idoneity of instruments and ability to act. (Have patience a while, and you may hear them speak the words, and see them do some acts of holi­ness.) What! are you so sensual, all for sense, and so altogether lead by sense, that nothing, but a sensative or sensible manifesta­tion of holiness in children will be believed by you? I had thought, you had walked by faith, and not by sight; you be­lieve a holiness, in other things, in Faith, in the Word, in the Sacraments, in the Church of God, and in all things, which the holy Scriptures, the oracles of holiness, have pronounced holy, though you have not a visible and sensible demonstration of holiness in them (you walk by faith there and not by fight) and why cannot you believe a holiness, in children of Christian Parents in Covernant with God, though they shew forth no sensible effects of such holiness, seeing also the same holy Scrip­ture, doth call them holy, and not unclean, and so supplying their defect of speech and action, giveth you what you ask, even a sensible manifestation of their holiness, and speaks them holy unto your ears, not declares them holy to your eyes, (so you may now walk by sight, and hear say, not by faith and hope, limping and halting therein, for except you shall see in their hands, and tongues, the prints of holiness in works, and words, and (perhaps) thrust your fingers into their fides, to feel the holiness of their hearts too, in affections and thoughts, you will not believe.

What and if our Saviour Christ should now, as once, take one of our little children in Covenant with him, and set it be­fore you, and say, whosoever humbleth himself as a little child, the same is greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven? would it not be strange for you, to tell him, you see no such (yet you hear of such) humility, lowli­ness, meakness, mildness, innocency, in children: and is it not a like, to tell him, you see no such holiness here, when you hear of it, from the mouth of Christ, his and this Apostle Paul [Page 177]here saying, They are holy; But that I have said it before and already, I would say, that even children shew themselves more bumble, lowly, meek, mild, and innocent, and so more holy, than a great many of your grown Professors, and grand Pretenders unto holiness and all those graces; let their holiness and other graces rest but a while, as seed hidden up in their hearts, or wrapped up in Gods Covenant with them, and see, if after­wards they do not shew it, and their holiness break not forth as the light at noon day, that was within the cloud, or as the seed in harvest, that was within the clod; and in the mean time, shew me thy faith by thy works, and thy holiness, by thy words; and learn to speak better of childrens holiness, and to do better with children for their holiness, even so well, as to let them be Baptized.

But besides this in hand, there are two eminent Texts, that hold out infants of Christians, their holiness by Covenant: the one is, Rom. 11.16. If the first fruit be holy, the lump also is holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches. I know the stream of our Divine Advocates for Infant-Baptism run altogether, and out of this Text, upon a derivative holiness from the Pa­rents or Ancestors, to their children, which notwithstanding they call and make a federal holiness; I am not willing, in my old and infirm daies, to strive or swim against a stream, onely I will be bold to venture, and wade so far, as to hint again, and mention unto those akilful steersmen, now especially that the waters of strife about Infant-Baptism are risen high, what great difficulties, and intricate Objections are laid upon the Point, as pleaded and held to be derived from the faith or ho­liness of Parents and Ancestors, the which, for my part, I have not found so easie to extricate and shake off; though I have said something for it, and enough against my Antipoedo baptist hare. I do therefore refer this to better Confideration, whe­ther our Plea for Infant Baptism would not be stronger, cleer­er, and more consonant to the Truth, (not that I any way do implead the other, as weak, dark, or dissonant) if it be made directly and primitively from the Covenant it self, and the saith (of which before much is said) and the holiness of chil­dren themselves thereby.

I see indeed, our worthy Divines do interpret, and call the [Page 178]derivative holiness, from Parents to their children, a federal holiness too; and so we all agree together in our general mean­ings: but would it not be more properly, and rightly called, a federal holiness, if it were said to be derived from the Cove­nant of God, as to Parents, so to children, to both joyntly, equally and indifferently made? And methinks the Text a­bove cited speaks clear for it, somewhat clearer in the Origi­nal than in the Translation, as to the former part, but if the first fruit (be) holy, And, or so, the lump is; if the root (be) holy, And, or so, the branches are. And thus we shall not need to fly to Parental holiness, as sometimes we are driven (or faith, of which before,) for the upholding of holiness in chil­dren, seeing we may have federal holiness for them; the which I know not, but that it may be called a personal holiness, (sure it is not an abstract Metaphysical, Metaphorical, or an aerial imaginary notion) I say a personal holiness, being in or upon the persons of children, as the Covenant is, and as other rela­tive privileges, and the imputative righteousness of Christ are. If I erre in any thing here, I will not be either Here [...]ique or Scis­matique, for I am ready to retract, if convinced, no [...] willing to divide from the differing: Either way, it will be still a fe­deral holiness, and good either way against you, Sir. And therefore also, some of those our Divines do Expound the ho­ly Root, and first fruit, in St. Paul, to be the Covenant, (and in a good sense and sounding to that I have said, it may be so) upon which Abraham and his seed, and so along, all believing Parents and their, children, do grow together as holy lumps and branches; and it is by vertue of such Covenant, that Abra­ham and every believing Parent, is called and meant, the ho­ly root and first fruits, and their children or posterity, the ho­ly branches or lump.

For the holy Covenant stayed not, and determined in A­braham, and his seed, Isaac and Jacob, (as some say) because the Covenant runs in their names onely, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, as if that were meant, when God Covenanted, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; God often renewed this his Covenant with that people, e­ven after those Patriarchs were deceased, and the Covenant en­tered into with Abraham, was an everlasting Covenant, and [Page 179]comprehended under it all Nations, as the Jews, even the Gen­tiles, as many as the Lord our God should call to the saith of Abraham, had a share therein, and in the eternal privileges thereof, both Parents and children, and were both holy there­by before the Lord, as in others and the Churches account. For not onely the Jewish children the natural branches of their fa­ther Abraham, (if he be the holy root, as he is, but by vertue and in respect of the Covenant) are holy and partakers of holiness, and the other privileges thereof; but even so Gentilish chil­dren, the natural branches of their converted Parents or Parent, being also a holy root, as its said, the root of Jesse, Esa. 11. still by vertue and in respect of the Covenant, are holy, and par­takers of holiness and other privileges thereof: But, (to derive the Pedigree, as I may so call it, of holiness of children to its first original and root,) I think, I may safely say, that all Pa­rents and their children, both Gentilish and Jewish, even up to Abraham and his seed Isaac, were holy branches, and partakers of holiness, and other privileges, from the Covenant it self, as the first original and root of their holiness.

Another Text there is, that doth eminently hold out the holiness of Christian infants by Covenant, which is Gal. 2.25. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: (of which because I have had a former occasion to say something, I shall need to adde but a little,) there Jews by nature or birth, are put in opposition to sinners of the Gentiles, just as he [...]e the holy children, are to the unclean; And these two Texts seem to be parallel. As therefore Jews by nature or born Jews, in contradistinction to sinners of the Gentiles, were holy federal­ly, by being born in and under Covenant, and of Parents in and under Covenant; so Christians by natures or born Christi­ans, in contradiction to born Heathens, are holy federally, by being born in Covenant, and of Parents in Covenant; our children must be one of the two, holy or unclean, Christians by nature, or birth, or sinners of the Gentiles; but unclean they are not, or sinners of the Gentiles or Pagans, therefore t [...]y are born Christians and holy, with the holiness external of the Covenant, and also the holiness particular of the Parents, and the chosen Nation in Covenant.

Besides that, they are dedicated and consecrated to God, and [Page 180]designed to holiness, as Candidates thereof (as some of the Fa­thers were wont to call the infants of Christians,) and there­fore are holy, as the Temple is holy, the Sabbath is holy, the Priests were holy.

Again, Moses and the Prophets every where call the Jews, a holy Nation, and holy people, in respect, and by vertue of the Covenant; and shall not the children of that Nation and people, being also in Covenant, be holy federally too? yea, in therefore called, a holy seed, Ezra 9.3. in Ezek. 36.38. a holy flock is the flock of Jerusalem, and shall not the little Lambs, a great part of the flock, be holy too? The visible Catholique Church is holy, and so are particular visible Churches, and all the members of the same are federally holy, and therefore al­so little children are so, who are members of the same, even as the little finger is a member of the body, and partaker of the bodily external cleanness.

Lastly, is not the external Covenant it self holy? why then, sure, all who are taken and assumed into it, are Covenantly holy, and they are, Parents and their children.

And so now lastly, I will shut up this Point, (as I have done often before, even all along before,) with this Syllogism, to bring you still into more love, and liking of our University Arts and Sciences, one whereof is, Logical syllogising; and it shall be this.

All persons in the Church, holy, and so reputed by the Apo­stle to be, by their being in, and under the holy Covenant of God, or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant, may and ought to have the holy Initial Seal of that Covenant, which in the Gospel is, Baptism.

But all infants in the Church of believing Parents, are such persons, holy, and so reputed by the Apostle, to be by their being in and under the holy Covenant, or by being children of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant.

Therefore all infants in the Church, may and ought to have the holy initial Seal of the Covenant, which in the Gospel is, Baptism.

You will now, Sir, of your self (I shall not need to urge or advise you,) being experienced and practised often before therein, now the eighth time, with much facility, deny the conclusion.

For the first Proposition you cannot deny, it being ground­ed out of that Text, Act. 10.47. where Peter saith, Can any man forbid water, that those should not be Baptized, who have re­ceived the holy Spirit? and, as is largely explained and proved before; as also upon this Reason deducible hence, that where holiness is, the Spirit is, and where the Spirit is, Christ is, and where Christ is, the Covenant is, and where the Covenant is, the Seal initial, namely, Baptism, may and ought to be.

For the second Proposition, you cannot deny it, being the expresse affertion of Paul here; But now they are holy, namely, their children.

And whereas I have put in my whole Discourse, all these my eight or nine Arguments into the form of a Syllogism, I have done is the better to inform you, (to which you pretend to be willing, in the close of your Letter.) I hope you will taste it now at last the better though savouring much of our Univer­sity Arts, and Humane learning, as consonant and agreeing, subservient and conducing, to the Divine wisedom, and of good use for the understanding, and Expounding of the Scriptures written in the learned Tongues and Languages, and often refer­ring to Moral and Phylosophical matters; of which I have spoken largely before, and should not have mentioned again, but that you have another fling at the same, in the close of your Letter, saying, that it appears, that the most learned by Humane learning, want the learning of the Spirit to interperate (interpret) Scripture.

It is true, that some of the learned by Humane learning, may and do want the learning of the Spirit to interpret Scripture; but do not more of the ignorant, by their Humane ignorance much more want the same? yet none of the learned, and much less of the most learned, do by humane learning (as you must mean, though you point not your words, with any Comae's or Colons, for want of Humane learning) by Humane lear­ning, I say, want the learning of the Spirit, seeing the Spirit of God hath both taught it at first, as the Author of it, and made much use of it, practising some of it in the Scripture, and as Hagar and Sarah, may dwell together in the same house; humane learning, as you call it, and the learning of the Spirit, [Page 182]may keep together in the same head-house, so long as Hagar is an obedient handmaid to her Mistris Sarah, and Humane learning humbly submits, and is servant, or subservient unto the learning of the Spirit, and the Misteries of it. But of this mat­ter there is enough written before; and how it should now at the last appear to you, that the most learned by Humane lear­ning, do want the learning of the Spirit, to interpret Scripture, (if you mean it of those who interpret the Scriptures for In­fant-Baptism, against you) it is marvelous to me; for I will instance but in this one, and last interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14. But now they are holy: We interpret it, holy federally, as who are born in Covenant with God, and of a believing Parent or Parents in Covenant with God, and so are not unclean, as the Gentiles out of Covenant; but you interpret it, holy legiti­mally, as who are lawfully born of Parents in wedlock accor­ding to the Law, and so are not unclean, as bastards born out of wedlock: now do you remember your words, four times repeated in one of your pages, I will repeat them once more for you, but to you, Judge you, but judge you righteous judge­ment, for God will: judge you, I say, whether of the interpre­tations savours most of Humane learning, or the learning of the Spirit, yours or ours? doth it not clearly appear to your eyes, that your interpretation is a meer Humane, natural, car­nal, political interpretation, and such as you can bring no word or example for, from the learning of the Spirit, the Scrip­tures, where holy are called or meant, legitimates; and un­clean, bastards; and therefore it is a meer Humane learning, and not agreeable to the learning of the Spirit, nay repugnant to it, for by the learning of the Spirit, all bastards are not un­clean, nor all legitimates, holy.

But our interpretation is a very Divine, gracious, spiritual, Ecclesiastical interpretation, and such as I have brought both word and example for, from the Scriptures, the learning of the Scriptures, where all in Covenant with God, or born of Christians, or one Christian Parent, are stiled holy, and all childeren born out of Covenant, or of Parents both Heathens, are called unclean; and therefore ours is the very learning of the Spirit, (to take your words now out of your mouth, and put them into ours, as justly I may) according to the minde [Page 183]of the Spirit, as who declared unto us, in the Scriptures, and we from it, to you, that all Covenanters, born of Covenanters with God, are holy, and all out of Covenant, and born of such as are out of Covenant, are unclean.

And so now by this (as indeed by all, or most of the Scrip­tures, that you have made use of throughout your whole Let­ter, which rather you have made an abuse of) it will appear, yea doth, that your self is one of them, the most learned by Humane learning, (certainly, Sir, for all your talk against it, you have been at the University, and gotten up some Humane learning, and are a great Practitioner therein, as appears by this, and your other interpretations) yea, I take you to be a man, if not a Master of Arts and Humane learning, more than of the learning of the Spirit (though pretending to this more) a better Humanist than Divine, or rather an Alchymist, who can extract out of the Spirits holy, in Scripture, the spirit and flesh to a child lawfully born, and out of spirits unclean, the quintessence of a bastard.

Do you call this, the learning of the Spirit, to Interperate Scriptures with all? (for so you write, and shew your self to be good at expounding, as you are at spelling, your Orthography and Orthodoxy being both alike,) do you interpret the Scrip­ture by your learning of the Spirit? no sure, you Interperate (interpret) Scripture rather, by the ignorance and illiterature of your flesh; Interperate, (what's that?) is it not Intemperate, or interprate? sure it is not, to interpret Scripture: No mar­vel indeed if you would have me, To confider of these things you have written, with an unbiassed spirit, and a self-denying humble spirit such as those spirits are that are guided by the spirit of the Lord: For surely, then your spirit hath not been guided by the Spirit of the Lord, as which is, or hath been in your Letter, a byassed spirit, and an all other, besides your self, denying, proud spirit; and therefore without any just ground, you ar­rogate those words of the Apostle, to your own practise, saying as he, 2 Cor. 2.17. We are not as many, which corrupt, or deal deceitfully with the Word, but as of sene [...]rity (sincerity) but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ: What you speak, when you are teaching, and expounding, or praying, I know not; this I know, by the experience you have given of your [Page 184]self to me, that in your writing and citing Scriptures in your Letter, you are the most corrupter, and the most deceiptful dealer, and wrester also of Scripture, that ever I read; I do not know many, scarce any, that go beyond you, except your Ma­sters and Tutours, you know whom I mean; and your since­rity is as false spoken, as written of you; if as of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God, you shall speak in Christ, it will be acceptable, as to God, so to man and my self, if renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, not handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth, you commend your self to every mans conscience in the sight of God, as you add of your selfe, 2 Cor. 4.2. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual; but so you did not, when you compared the holy and legitimates together, and the unclean with bastards (to go no farther backward,) And Scripture with Scripture, for Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture, (neither did you so, when you could finde no Scripture to compare with 1 Cor. 7.14. that either did interpret or intimate, bastards to be un­clean, and much less fignified by this word there, or legitimates to be holy, and much less meant by this word there.

For that in the close of your Letter, which concerneth my self in particular, as That you should gladly see better fruits from me, If I knew what fruits you mean, I should soon tell you whe­ther or no, I should ever glad you so much as to see them; but if they relate to which immediately goeth before them, the wresting of Scriptures by Humane learning, I must tell you, that the root that I am graffed into, and which beareth me, shall ever (I hope) bring forth better fruits, though I question your gladness in seeing them, as being opposite to your fruits; who throughout your whole Letter have been gathering, yea, pulling and enforcing, thornes of grapes, and thistles of figs, divers errorneous Tenets from Texts that will not, nor can, bear them, the which I am sorry to see from you.

And for your intreating me to lay aside all selfe-ends and by-re­spects, you must pardon me herein, for I took up the defence of my self, and my Ministery and Infant-Baptism, as well as of others, making both my end, next unto Gods glory, and the truth (without any other by respects) which I must not upon your request lay aside: but for that which followeth; I have [Page 185]seriously considered the things and words of God spoken by the Spirit of God in the Scriptures, which were all written for our learning and imitation, yea moreover have enformed you in particular, how far forth all which were written for our learning, were written for our imitation, some of them, and some of them not, which you indistinctly and confusedly jumble together; yea, and according to your farther intreaty, I have turned to and looked into all those Scriptures you have but quoted and named and not written out for want of time as you say, and have writ out all the words of most of them, (as who never want time to search out the Truth of the Scriptures, if I want not health:)

Your self best know, whether it was for want of time, or for want of truth, you did not transcribe the words, as making, most an end, nothing to the purpose or Point, for which you set down and multiplied Chapters and Verses by their figures onely, and whether this was, Not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceiptfully, but by a manifestation of the Truth, a commending your self to every mans Conscience, whether this was of sincerity, as of God, as in the sight of God spoken or written, judge you, but judge righteous judgement, for God will, who trieth the heart, &c.

For that in the close still of your Letter, which concerneth your self, it is your desire, that wherein you have erred I would inform you by plain Scripture, It is done to your hand, but, I fear it is not gone to your heart, whose heart was and is, (I surmise) resolved before hand, as your hand laid upon your heart to that purpose, of not acknowledging any error, or sub­mitting to information; for what hope or likelihood is there hereof, when as presently you adde, You are confident heare (here) is nothing aserted (asserted) nor queared but will now ap­peare a truth proved by Scriptures, and likewise will appeare at the great day? Wherefore then do you intreat me, to weigh things seriously, and if you have erred in any thing, to inform you, when as you are confident here is nothing asserted or quaered, but will now appear a truth? just as the man in the Gospel pro­fessed to follow our Saviour Christ, and went away presently about other matters of no such consequence; you likewise say, you will be informed by me, wherein you have erred, and in the next words you are confident of nothing asserted or quaered [Page 186]by you here, but the very Truth. I am perswaded the work will be much alike, the informing you, to the laying down of any error of yours, and the washing of a Leopard, to the put­ting off any of its spots; But I should gladly see better fruits from you, than such a non resolution and brasse-forehead, (which for the most part is in most of the Revolters from our Church and the Truth) as not to be conformed and converted, when informed, confuted, notwithstanding, Though I have la­boured in vain, and spent my strength for nought, and in vain, yet surely my judgement is with the Lord, and my work with my God, Isa, 49.4.

But, Sir, are you confident that there is nothing [...]sserted or quaered, but will appear a Truth? what that which is asserted by you may appear, let passe, bu [...] sure, that which is quaered by you here, will not now appear a Truth; neither now, nor ne­ver will it be a Truth, no not at the great day, that which is quaered onely; your Quaeres were your judgement, as you af­firmed before, now you affirm, they are a Truth, proved by Scriptures, and yet but propounded in Quaeres; and what will they be at the last? your Quaeres will appea (you say) a Truth also, at the last and great day; you will be deceived, then, as now; for your Quaeres, are not Resolutions, Decrees, Axioms, but Quaeres; it doth not yet appear what is Truth in them, to your self or any others, put them out of Question, into Pro­positions, come out of your Quaeres, into your Resolves, and then I will tell you, whether now in the later little daies they do, or in that last great day, they will appear a Truth or Truths.

In particular, (to passe by your Questions and Quaeres,) your Sacrilegious Usurpation to Preach, Baptize, and distribute the Sacramental Bread and Wine, your injurious Detension of Christian Infants from Baptism, the Seal of the Covenant God made with them also; your ridiculous dopping and plunging of grown persons, over head and ears back ward in a Pond, who were before Baptized in their infancy in the face of the Congre­gation; your Scrismatical separation from your Parochial and National fellow members, professing truth and holiness; your Scurrilous railing upon the true visible Church of England, and the Ministers thereof, as Baalitish, Devillish, and Antichristian, professing and worshiping Christ Jesus, and God in spirit and [Page 187]truth, with a world more, of fraudulent misinterpreting, and misapplyings of sacred writ, virulent Caluminations of holy Truth, violent oppositions of lawful order, uncharitable imaginations, and contempts of higher Powers, and all per­sons who are not of your S ct and Set: can I think, or any man else, whose brains and heads have not been intoxicated by a su­perfluous re-baptization, that these will appear a Truth, or truths at that great and last day, which in all the former daies, the Word of God hath judged, and condemned for er­rors and untruths? it hath been the fashion of some Heretiques and Scismatiques, when they have been confuted, and confound­ed with the evidence and light of Truth, which hath been flashed in their faces here from the Word and Scriptures, to make their appeals to the great, and last day for trial, and to Jesus for the Judge of truth or untruth: but we have it already, as a ruled Case from himself, in the 12. of John 48. ver. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him (and you, and all,) at the last day: and the Apostle Paul speaketh of the same day, When God shall judge the secrets of men, according to his Gospel, Rom. 2.16.

Flap not me off therefore with this put off, of your Tenets (if you have done with Quaeres, as its high time) that they will appear Truths at that great and last day: for if you cannot now in this your little present day, make them to appear Truths, according to Christs word. and Pauls Gospel, (better than you or others have done as yet, and yet I think you, and they have done your best) they will never appear Truths in the great and last day, but the Word and Gospel will then, as now they do, appear against them, for errors and untruths, and by that Word and Gospel, Christ and his Apostles, and all the Saints shall judge, and condemn them for such; so that you and they, who held up your heads in these waters of strife, and con­tention here on Earth, with the pust and blown bladders of your self-conceipted fansies, will be fain to hang them down in shame, and confusion of face,Revel 3. [...]. Calling upon the Hills to fall upon you, and to the Mountains to cover you, from the face of him that siteth upon the Throne, and from that shine and lustre of Truth, that then will appear at that great and last day.

I will therefore give you the good counsel of the Apostle; Let every man (for the counsel is good for all of us) take heed [Page 188]how he buildeth upon the Foundation, Jesus Christ; every mans work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it. (Espe­cially the great and last day, you speak off) Because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is, whether Gold, Silver, precious Stones, or whether Wood, Hay, Stubble; if any mans work abide which he hath built there­upon, he shall receive a reward; if any mans work shall be burnt, he shall suffer losse, 1 Cor. 3.10, and 12.

And whereas in your next close, you bid me lye down before it and stoop to it, it is spoken like an imperious School Master, or imperial Master of the Field, (which as yet, you are nei­ther;) as for all the Truths of Christ, set forth in his Word and Gospel, I do here stoop to them, and ly down before them, prostrating, and casting down all my imaginations, and every thing (of my Reason) that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God, & bringing into captivity every thought (or affection of mine) to the obedience of Christ, and his Truth and pleasure, laying my hand upon my mouth, and putting my mouth in the dust, and laying dust upon my head, I do here bow down my head, in­cline my heart, throw down all within me and without me, and wholly, and totally yield my self unto Truths of the Word of God, as to the Victorious and Conquering, the powerful and Triumphant Rod and Scepter of Christ: Speak Lord for thy servant heareth: 1 Sam. 3.10. 1 Kings 18.39. Numb. 23.18. Deut. 32.4. The Lord, he is the God, The Lord, he is the God; God is not as man that he should lye; a God of Truth and without iniquity, just and right is he; yea God is truth it self: and Christ is the Way and the Truth: and the Spirit is truth, 1 John 5 6. And thy Law is truth, and all thy Commande­ments are truth, John 14.6. Psalm 119.142, and 151. Thy Word is true from the beginning: Psal. 119.160. and so to the end thy Word endureth, Heaven and Earth shall passe away, but one jot and tittle of the Word shall not passe away till all be fulfilled, Matth. 5.18. But, Sir, to lye down before, or stoop to your Quaeres, and Considerations and Interpretations, so void and empty of the Divine Truth of God and his Word, so full and even swoln with the Humane sanfie of man and his will, though you masterly expect it, I shall Scholarly defeat you: I am now too strong and well truss'd, and truth'd, to untrusse or untruth to such a dip-dop pedant (or rather Anti-pedant) [Page 189]as you are, such a one as you are, I could have disciplined that way and discipled any other way, fifty years ago: and I have too much of Mordecai the Benjamite in me, and of his zeal to the Church of God, than to bow or stoop to such a Haman, a man, the Agagite, the separate that speaks so ill and vilely of the people of God, and seeks to destroy it and them utterly.

Nay rather let your Dagon fall upon his face to the earth before the Ark of the Lord, and your Quaerulous errors lie down before the Truth, and stoop to it, now that that I have brought it unto your house, and set it before your face and eyes: and if you would but rise up betimes in the morning, and admit in of the light of Christ, that true morning Star, you might see your Dagon fallen down before the Ark, and the truth standing up over your errors: I doubt not, but there will be those (for, Sir, if you will be reled by your friend, ne­ver meddle more with any controversie of Divinity, I had al­most said Text of Scripture) that will take up Dagon again, and set him in his place again; but I may foretell them, it will be labour lost; for when they rise up the next morning, they will behold D [...]gon fallen again upon his face to the ground, before the Ark of the Lord, and in worse case than before, with his head and both the palmes of his hands cut off upon the thres­hold, and onely the stump of Dagon to be left him.

‘But why should I lie down before and stoop to your Quae­res, Considerations, and Interpretations, and the Truth of them that will appear at that great day, and now appeareth proved by Scriptures? For that now I am enformed (informed) and so cannot plead ignorance before the Lord at his appear­ing, when he will reward every own according to his work.’ I am now informed you write, and must mean, by your self & your Letter: and I am glad to finde you here in form, though now you are out of matter; for when you had matter to Quaere and Propound, then (I am sure) you had no form to proceed or order it in: I was then fain to inform you, that is, to put your matters in form, which are so deformed and disordered, that so I might inform you in the matters which were material and of moment: for if otherwise you mean of the matter, I pray let me know, wherein I am now informed by you; (not by your Quaeres) these rather put doubts than bring any matters of [Page 190]Informations from you or themselves: (nor by your Conside­rations;) for they were so inconsiderable in themselves, and so inconsiderately delivered by you, that I never considered them farther than to refutation of them, they never got within me, and took any place in me, to form or inform, or conform or transform into or unto any thing in them: (nor by your inter­pretations of any Texts of Scripture;) for you never had the spirit, you have so talked of, to give a right interpretation of the Text, but still as you broached it for my information, it seemeth the Text of the Spirit informed me to the contrary, that it was not the meaning of the Text, nor minde of the Spirit.

I acknowledge, I am not too old to learn, nor so much a Scho­lar, but I may be informed; but I think I am too old a Bird, to be caught with such your chaff, and too long a Scholar and a Minister, to be taught by such your stuff; What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord by Jeremiah? Jer. 23.28. If, Sir, you spread out any more shrapnets, and send out any more Letten of Information to me, let them be more literate, and better baited with wheat, else I shall not come down to them, as who care not for pecking amongst such light and chaffy Quaeres and Considerations, though I like well of sound, solid, and whea­ty Reasons and Argumentations. Again, what are the resuse fish, to Soles and Salmons? now that you have toiled all this night, (for I see you fished in the dark night) and have caught nothing of worth; if you launch out into the deep again (of controversies) and let down your Net again (of another Let­ter) for a draught (of Objections or Answers) I pray be care­full to enclose a multitude of good fish, Salmous and Soles (of solid Objections and Reasons, salving Answers and Distincti­ons) or else I shall not be beckoned to, to come in, as who can­not (though I love Fish well, such as are sound and whole as a fish should be, as I have mentioned) feed upon poor John, and fresh Herrings, Minna-Quaeres, and Sprat-Considerations, and such other refuse fish; you will never fatten me, or inform, or immatter me, with such; but I shall still be lank, lean, and ig­norant, and may plead ignorance before the Lord, at his appea­ring (for any thing of knowledge I have found in you,) and when he will reward every one according to his work, you are not [Page 191]like to be rewarded, for your informing me, or for your inter­preting Scripture, or for your denying Baptism to Infants, or for your dipping again the baptized, or for your reviling the Church of Christ, and his Ministers, or for presuming to preach in Pulpits, without Ordination and Authority; for there shall be no reward to the evil man, Prov. 24.20. Therefore take heed of having an evill eye, or evil tongue, against little Infants and their baptising, or against the great God, and his Church and Ministers, and bringing and evil report or interpretation up­on the good Word of God, and the Scriptures, lest God re­ward you according to your work, and your evil work be re­warded with an evil wages of punishment; for David's prayer is still with God, Psal. 94.2. Lift up thy self, thou judge of the earth, render a reward to the proud.

But now again, Sir, why do you follow, And if you can answer these Quaeres and Considerations by plain Scripture, I pray do, or else hold your peace, and leave your unwarrantable pra­ctices? Did you not tell me but even now, that I was informed now by your Quaeres and Considerations, so that I could not plead ignorance? and what, will you have me answer them, when as I am fully informed by them, and have gotten full knowledge by them? shall I answer against my information, and dispute against my knowledge of your truths? you even here contradict your self, and your own spirit and speech; as it often falls out to them that have such speeches, and such a spirit of contradiction of others.

But if I can answer them, and that by Scripture (it is possi­ble, it seems, or otherwise why do you pray me to do it) then sure you have not rightly informed, but rather mis-informed me, and mis-interpreted the Scriptures; and therefore I may more justly set upon the answoring them, to inform you better in the knowledge of the truth, and to infirm in you the grounds of your errours; which I have done by plain Scriptures, and by Arguments also proved by direct and plain Scriptures, rightly interpreted. And now that it is done, I will command my self to hold my peace, and enjoyn my self silence. You (boldly enough) prayed me to do it, or else hold my peace; and I (kindly enough) have done it, and do hold my peace, Isa. 62.1. It was for Zions sake, that I held not my peave, and for Hierusa­lems [Page 192]sake, that I did not rest, until the reighteousness thereof went forth as brightness, or rather some little glympse brighter by my enlightning, some small step farther, by my upholding, or ra­ther by Gods enlightening of it, and Gods upholding of it; For not I, 1 Cor. 15.10. but the grace of God it is, by which I am what I am, and have done what I have doen; to the God of which Grace I do here give up the Glory, in the words of that heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men, Luke 2.14. And now return unto thy rest, O my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee, &c. Psal. 116.17.

But I must not thus make an end; you, Sir, will not let me return to my rest, or give me a Writ of ease, until I have consi­dered some certain Texts of Scriptures, which you have writ­ten out to the full of the words, and left with me, for the con­clufion of your Letter. There is not reason the Reader should be deprived of them, they are so excellent for the purpose, and so pertinent to the cause; they come like after-drops, when a storm of rain is over.

The first is, Job 6.24, 25. Teach me, and I will hold my tongue, cause me to understand wherein I have erred: how, orceable (forci­ble) are right words? but what doth your arguinges (arguing) (or Arguments) reprove? do ye imagie (imagine) to reprove words (Why do you leave out that which followeth? with your leave, I will add it, as belonging to the former) and the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as winde. This is kindly spoken of you to me, as of Job to Eliphaz his friend, if as truly meant; and I think I may say in justification of the truth more than my self (for wisdom is justified of her children) that the thing is really done, you are taught the truth here, and caused to understand wherein you have erred, and may hold, if wil­ling to learn; therefore hold your peace, as a friend answered, and therein satisfied, without reply, as another friend only que­stioned, and thereby convinced, was speechless, without answer, Luke 22.12. But I suspect you have not told me all your heart, and do but mock, as Delilah told Sampson. I fear I shall never teach you, who have learned as much as you desire to know; I may (perhaps) cause some other, an indifferent Reader or so, to understand wherein you have erred; but your self, the [Page 193]principal party, I shall not, I foresee, according to that Text, Prov. 27.22. the words whereof, for want of time, I have not written out. Nor will you hold your peace, for all your saying so, you must or may, as to any material or substantial replica­tion, you can make against the truth herein asserted and proved; but you neither will, nor can hold your peace, as to frivilous multiplication of words, impertinent citations, and misin­terpretations and mis-applications of Texts, slanderous calum­niations of Ministers, and the Answerer especially, no more than the dog in the dark night, can or will leave barking and bawling at the bright Moon.

But how feeble and impotent are crooked and impertinent words, appears by Job, saying, How forcible are right words? the other words, What doth your arguings or arguments re­prove, as unfitting and unseasonable for you to use unto me, before you had heard or read any word or syllable of any argu­ing or argument from me; You might rather have left them out for me to have said them to you, as now I shall, after that I have read over and heard your arguings and arguments, or ra­ther Quaeres, Gonsiderations, Interpretations, without any arguings or arguments in them; What do they reprove? Indeed they reprove something, every thing, those things that deserve no reproof, but they prove nothing, no not those things that most needed proof, and which you undertook to prove (which indeed moved and occasioned me to be thus large in setting down the things in controversie betwixt us, by proving, and disproving, and reproving sometimes, lest all the time should be as lost and mis-spent betwixt us, and no body, nor our selves the better by this discourse.)

The last words are right words for us both, and very forci­ble to inform me, and reform my imagination, which hath been, to reprove words and speeches of one that is desperate; (you were very loth to write out these words, and good cause why) which are as wind; so are both the words and speeches of one that is desperate, and so are the reprooss of such words and speeches of one that is desperate; you, out of hope of lear­ning, I, out of hope of teaching; according to that Text, Jer. 17.9. & Jerem. 13.23. The words whereof I have not written out for want of time.

The other Texts that you have heaped up together, and at large transcribed, are nothing but very Quakerisms in the end of your Letter, to which Anabaptisms will come in the end; you have here begun, though you are not the first. For as it is the fashion of Quakers, to get up into their memories and mouths, all the Texts of old and new Testament, where any false and vicious Prophets are spoken of, and against, or any covetous and superstitious Pharisee is taxed and reproved, and to flap them in the face of every Minister they meet withall, though never so impertinently and inconsiderately; insomuch that one of them very lately being at Church, after the Minister had ended his Sermon, as who preacheth constantly every Sun­day twice; Yea, said he, this is just as the Prophet saith, Isa. 56.10. They are all dumb dogs, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, &c. And just even so do you, Sir, first you tell me of Jerem. 5.4. and have now time enough to write out the words at length, and not in figures, Surely these are poor, they are fool­ish, for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgement of there (their) God. The which is spoken of the ignorant and perverse people amongst the Jews, the Prophet complains of, like as we Ministers may of many such amongst us, your self not excep­ted; and I commend you for your fit and pertinent, and even Quaker-like application of it, to us the Ministers of England, whom you know to know the way of the Lord, &c. and there­fore apply it against your own science and conscience, to Ministers, which is spoken onely to the People by the Pro­phet.

The next is, Micah 3.5, 11, 12. Neither here is there to you any want of time, to write out all the words: Thus saith the Lord, concerning the prophets that make my people to erre, that byte (bite) with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into there (their) mouth, they even prepare war against them. The Heads thereof judge for reward, and the Priest thereof teach for byre (hire) and the Prophets thereof devine (divine) for money, yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord amongst us? none evil can come unto us. Therefore shall Zyon (Zion) for your sakes be plowed as a field, &c.

What if there were in the State of Israel both Civil and Ec­clesiastical, such corruptions as are mentioned in those Texts, [Page 195]at that time, what reason or Religion, prudence or conscience, is there in this, to make use, and your application of them to our State, both of Magistracy or Ministry, until you had clea­red the Doctrine and proof of the same sins to reign amongst both? What Prophet do you know makes the People to erre, bite with the teeth, and cry peace, to teach for hire, and if their mouths be not filled, to prepare for war? do you not re­member who it was that said, And how like unto him you are herein, doth Job serve God for nought? and who said, Ye are of your father the devil? he is the accuser of the Brethren, and a false accuser; we Ministers teach not for hire, and yet we la­bourers are worthy of our hire; and if it be detained, and ta­ken out of our mouths, the Law is open, they may implead one another, (as I have largely shewed before) we may flie into the arms of the Law, which is no Law of Arms, or War. But farther, the word of Micah was that which he said concerning Samaria and Hierusalem, and (for any thing appears) the word in the Text might be concerning Samaria, and not Hierusalem, and then it concerns you more than us, you more and your Pro­phets, for Samaria was the head City of the separate Jeroboam and his company, the ten Tribes who divided from the House of David, and departed away from Hierusalem and the Temple, and set up their Calves in some private stalls and houses; and so ever after continued separates, so that the Samaritans had no dealing with the Jews ordinarily, when Christ came and lived with them, but kept aloof and apart from the publick Ser­vices of the Temple, 1 Kings 12. & John 4.

The third is, Isa. 3.12, & 15. O my people, they which lead the (thee) cause the (thee) to erre, and desroy (destroy) the way of thy paths. What mean you to beat my people to pieces (pieces) and grind the face of the poor, saith the Lord? Neither here wanted you any time to write out all the words. Besides, here's excellent good order in your proceedings, from Esay to Mi­cah, from Micah to Esay, by a new retrograde method, or ra­ther your old crab-order, backward and forward, forward and backward. But these words are wholly and solely directed by the Prophet, to the secular Powers and Civil Rulers of the People of Israel; the which if you by-your bold and prophe­tical spirit, shall, as you do here, (or else you are quite out of [Page 196]your Texts) revile the Temporal Rulers of our Nation, with beating Gods people to pieces, and grinding the face of the poor, I must refer you over to their Temporal Authority and Justice, to chastise your insolency and rebellion, according to those Texts, Exod. 22.28. Rom. 13.4 the which for want of time, I have not writ out in all the words.

The next is, Jer. 5.30. & 31. A wonderfull and horrible (thing) is committed in the land, the prophets proplesie falsely (talsly) and the priest (priests) bare (bear) rule by there (their) means, and my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof? Falsly written, and falsly applied is all this Text. In what, and which of our Prophets, (for so and such you make us, and must grant us, or all your Applications of the Prophets to us, out of prophets, is vain, impertinent, and inconsistent) I say, which of our Prophets, and wherein do they prophesie falsly? we neither foretell or reveal hidden particular things to come; some of your Prophets do, as Christs coming to reign temporally and gloriously upon earth for a thousand years, to­gether with the very year of the beginning of his Reign; and have herein prophesied falsly, for the year is passed of late where­in some of them said it should begin.

Or if you mean by prophecying, expounding and interpret­ing of Scripture, I will go no farther than your self, for a false prophet, at the next door, (because I am weary with travelling thus far,) than whom, if there be a more false Expounder and Interpreter of Scripture, as I have abundantly declared through­out this whole Tractate, I will forfeit all my Commentaries upon the Bible, into his hands, if he will reade them, and take them so into his head, thereby, by such help, to make him­self a true Expounder and Interpreter of the Scriptures after­wards. As for our Priests bearing rule, by their means; your own eyes, looking about you, may serve to give your tongue (I will not say, the lie) an answer to the contrary. And for our People love to have it so; I thought you had been better ac­quainted with the People than so, or to say so of them, for the People love to have it otherwise than so, that Priests should bear rule by any means. And if you love the People no better than so, to say they love to have it so, they may (likely) begin not to love you so as they have done, to make you a Father or [Page 197]Son of the People, and Vox Populi, (I think you understand that word) a Preacher of the Peoples making, and a voice of a Crier in the Wilderness, against John the Baptist, though your name-sake, and their Childrens Baptism. And for the last Clause, And what will ye do in the end? Here's a Quaere indeed; I who have answered so many of your Quaeres before, will not stand out for this one at last; but will tell you what I will do in the end (let others tell you what they will do in the end.)

I will now in the end, pray to God, (and I do so) that he would give unto you a better understanding of his Word into your head, and a greater love of his Ministers into your heart. For (to end with that you began the Text with) a wonderfull and horrible thing is committed in the Land, and by you, for one and a chief one, some prophets (but they are onely so called by some) expound the Word of God falsly, and revile the Ministers of God falsly, and the Priests and Jesuites bear rule by their means, and some people love to have it so; and what will you do in the end? I hope you will have doen in the end, and hold your peace at last, as you promised even now by your Sarety Job, in your first Text; which you have cause to do, lest Job minde you of it, and say, as he doth, Job 18.2. How long will it be ere you make an end of words? (words in­deed, and little else besides.) I hope you will do so anon, for I perceive the next Text is your last you end with.

Matth. 23.4. Foor (for) they bind heavie burdens, and grievous to be bourne (born) and lay them on mens shoulders, but they them­selves will not move them with one of there (their) fingers; in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandements of men, Matth. 15.19. And if ye love me, keep my commandements, John 14.15. For so I have put your three last Texts together into one, as being all much as one, that so I might bring your words the sooner to an end. Neither here wanted you time to write out all the words, even of three Texts together: yet I see you are as far off from an end, as when you began; for you here fall back again upon your old matter you began withal, to quaere me about Commandements of God, and mens Tradi­tions and Prescriptions; say once more out of your former Text, What will ye do in the end? I must answer you from these [Page 198]Texts, That I must now do in the end, the same I did in the be­ginning, discourse again of the Commands of God, and Pre­scriptions of men. But I am resolved otherwise, having got­ten up the stone to the top of the hill, not to let it roul back, or tumble down again, this would make my labour endless, and my pains infernal, and Hellike, which are supernal now, and Heaven-like; nor will I suffer you to begin the Sute again, but will force you to joyn issue, and to come to trial, and so to an end. In vain, Sir, you will tell me, that we worship God in vain, teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of men; when as you do not here (as not heretofore) teach me, and tell me what Commandement of man we make, or teach, for a part of Divine Doctrine or Worship. We teach and embrace the Political and Ecclesiastical Commands of the Supreme Ru­lers over us, as prescriptive Orders, and directive Rules, about the external carriage, and outward celebration of the publick Divine Service and Worship, to make it the more comely and in order (and have not you the same Collinical and domestical Orders and Rules about your private Congregations and Ad­ministrations, and so teach for Doctrincs the Commands of men, and worship God in vain, by your Text?) What a va­nity is this in you, to write thus in vain; and in fine, to shew nothing of ours in vain, but onely words in vain of your own? So likewise, why do ye not name some one of those heavie burdens, grievous to be born, that we either lay upon the peo­ples shoulders, or if lasd by others, we our selves are not ready to move them with one of our fingers. As for the old legal burdens and yokes, of keeping the Law in all its Morals and Ceremonials, as to justification and salvation thereby, we were, and are so far from laying them on mens shoulders, no not with one of our fingers, that with both our hands, and not ours only, but with the hands of the Apostlet, Acts 15. we do pull them off, knowing that neither our Fathers, nor we, (for our shoul­ders yet are underlaid by them, as well as others) were able to bear them, and to lay no greater burden upon men, than things necessary as to salvation, than the yoke and burden of Christ, of which the one is casie, and the other light, as Christ himself said of it, who also maketh it so unto all that undergo the same, Matth. 11.29, 30. This is no other than the Gospel, the [Page 199]Doctrine and Commands of Christ, the which, as his yoke, draweth in all; and as his burden, beareth out all Evangelical Graces and Duties, which we Ministers in the Name of Christ impose upon our People, or rather call upon them, to take this yoke and burden of Christ upon them, and to learn of him, and to practise as he did (things learnable, practicable, and imi­table.) And these burdens and yokes we also, as yoke-fellows, and burden-fellows with our people, we are even with both our hands, and all our hearts, ready to move, stir, and lift at, and lift up, as upon our own, so their shoulders, bearing our parts, and helping them to bear their parts, in repenting, be­lieving, praying, &c. so bearing one anothers burthens, as the Apostle adviseth, Gal 62. yea with heart and mouth, praying for them, and preaching to them, we strengthen the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees, as the Prophet bids us, Isa. 35.6. by saying to them that are of a fearfull heart, Be strong fear not, if any faint under their burden, or hold it not fast, or stand not sure under it, or grow weary of well-doing, Coloss. 6.9. and as the Apostle again exhorteth, 1 Thessal. 5.14. we are alwaies ready to comfort the feeble-minded, and to support the weak, and to be patient towards all men, (as active towards some) for we that are strong (or stronger than some others of our people; I may say) ought (and some of us, I say do, or de­sire to do as we ought) to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please our selves, Rom. 15.1. nay we cannot please our selves, if we be such as we ought to be, better, I think, I am sure, we cannot please God better, than by bearing the in­firmities of the weak, and helping them to bear their bur­dens.

What would you, Sir, have more of us? do you so much your selves? are not you rather of those bad Scribes and Pharisees, and in their coat and seat, whom you quote and cite against us?

For a Scribe, I think you are none, or a very bad one, who not only cannot write true English of your own, without a Copie, but even when you have a Copie before you, and write out of the Bible, cannot write the true English out of that Co­pie, witness my Corrections of your Transscipts of these last Texts.

Nor are you a true Scribe; for whereas at the beginning of your Letter, and so all along, when you had time enough be­fore, then you did not write out the many Texts you quote and cite, about matters in question and proof, but onely name the Chapter, and Verse, now, at the end of your Letter, when you have less time, and are in more haste to make an end (excusing the former, for want of time,) you write out to the full length, all the words of ten or eleven verses, without any mention made of, or excuse for want of time: They were not the Pha­risees onely, but the Scribes also, that were the Hypocrites, in our Saviours time: so the words run together, Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites,

And was there not an Hypocrisie in your Scribism, or the Scribe here shewed himself an Hypocrite? I have said it, and shewed it, it was not want of time or leasure; what then? even want of truth and sincerity, (which you so much assume to your self, or rather presume of in your self too much.)

For, Sir, of fifty Texts of Scripture at least alleged by you in the former part of your Letter, of which all had one verse, many two, and some three verses, and some more; To write out the words of few or none of them, (whereby the Reader, and especially Popular sort might see how they accorded to the matter in hand, for which they were cited) when time e­nough was before you, and at your own will and pleasure to take, and then towards the end of your Letter to intreat me to look them, and seriously to weigh them, excusing the matter, that for want of time you had not written out all the words of all the Scriptures, you might have added, scarce of any at all; when in the end and last clauses your Letter, when time must needs therefore be more wanting to you, by reason your Letter comming, was noised abroad, and long expected, to take so much time as to stand, and stay the writing out all the words to the full (a thing different from your fashion, when you had more time) of six or seven Texts, without the least intimation of want of time, let the next honest Clerk or Scribe judge, whe­ther there were not some Legerdemain and Handicrast, if not heart deceipt in such hand-writing, and a piece of hypocriti­cal Scribism, (as also Anabaptism) or of scribbling and Ana­baptizing hypocrisie in it.

And there was another piece of the same stuff in it besides: for the former part of your Letter being of matters, and points of Divinity in Question betwixt us, it was your policy and hypocrisie, to set down to your Tene's and Assertions, Texts of Scripture, named and figured by Chapter and Verse, so to put a fair gloss and Iustre of Truth, for the amusing of the vul­gar people, and deluding them with such shews and paints of proof, you knowing they neither have skill nor will, nor lea­sure, nor pleasure to turn to the words themselves and weigh them, of which you might have saved them the labour and me also; (but that you meant not, but rather to put me to the pains, wherein you lost your labour and purposes, for that it is a pleasure to me to search the Scriptures) if you had written out the words into your sheets, and folded up them with your Arguments or Expositions together into the same.

But then there was another fear or Quakery in it, (for Hy­pocrites are ever a fraid of discovery, and Quake for fear of it, as the Devils believe, but tremble for the same fear of being discovered in their false faith.) For you feared and might well enough, that if you had written out the words of your Texts, and set them down together, or by your Opinions and Exposi­tions; people must needs see and reade both together, and so comparing the one with the other, the words of the Texts ci­ted, with the words of your Tenees asserted, they might espy and discern (as an ordinary understanding may do) the imper­tinency of the one to the other, yea the contrariety of the mat­ters in them.

And truly this was, and it a notable piece of Popery and Je­suitism, to keep the people as much as may be, from the words of the Scripture; for the words of the Scripture are pure, en­lightning the eyes, but peoples darkness best for their devotion, they know and say: Therefore indeed was I the willinger to look into every Text cited by you, that so I might present un­to the Reader whomsoever, the Texts of Scriptures in words at length, and not in figures, (as I said before, if I remember well) and so giving him a plain outsight of the words, He may come to a clearer infight of the sense, and better discern what it proveth or proveth not: A good way to disfigure an onely [Page 202]Text scribe, and to reverse and decapitate, a verse and Chapter Hypocrite.

But there is more of the same cloath, your Linsie Woolsie hypocrisie here, at the end of your Letter; for usually he that plaies the Hypocrite in the beginning, works the Hypocrite in the end, and turns to be of a merry, a very one; when you were engaged to prove and fortifie your Tenets, as hitherto, you onely set down Chapter and verse, but not the words, why so? you could not stand about writing them down for want of time, no no, that was not the cause, for being but newly begun, it was free to you to have taken as much time as you would: was it not rather for want of truch, and out of a­bundance of subtlety and policy, lest the Reader finding Gods words, and your words in the same place together, might the easier at one view see the distance, and diffonancy of the one from the other, and so perceive the weakness of proof in your allegation?

But now that you are resolved in the end, (for a friendly farewel) to reprove, yea to revile, and reproach the true Church of England, and the true Ministers thereof, and now in the foot of your Letter, without any foot, or ground, unless the foot of Pride, (like as you did the same in the front of your Letter, without any front or brow, but that of Brasse) to trample under your unclean, and stinking feet, the sweet, and precious Sons of Sion, (like as you dossed them before with your brasen, and impudent forehead) it seems now at the lat­ter end of your Letter, you can finde time enough (though it be high time you should have done two hours, and two sheets ago) to write out fully the words of six or seven Texts, spoken of some false, and erroneous Prophets, yea, and of some cor­rupt Judges, and Magistrates, yea, and some ignorant, and sottish people, some thousands of years fithence, and to apply them to the learned, pious, and laborious Ministers of England, very foolishly, impertinently, inconfiderately, yea very wick­edly, maliciously, devillishly.

Oh here you are very exact, and diligent to write out all, and the very words, that your proselites reading here, may learn the Scripture phrases and words, and get them by heart, and [Page 203]have them ready in their mouths, as Shimei had the stones in his hand, to cast them at David, a man after Gods own heart, and to asperse, slander, and bequaker the Ministers of God, who are such according to Gods will, as they passe by them, or meet with them; Remember (Lord) the reproach of thy servants, how we do bear in our besoms the reproaches of the mighty people: Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine Anointed, Psal. 89.56.

Why did you not write out a thousand Texts more, word for word, even all in the Bible, that mention any sin or vice, of any Nation, any erroneous or prophane person, of any place there recorded, and make application of them all to the Church of England, and the Ministers there of? This would have made the heap of your stones the bigger, and so would have heaped up more wrath for you, against the day of wrath, for your speaking evil of Dignities, and reviling Orders; and especially for your teaching vulgar people, errors, confusions, as to renounce their first Baptism, and reproach their Preach­ing, and Baptizing Ministers, and that in Scripture Language, and Phrases which they learn of you, and such as you, who writ: out the Texts, and the words too, when you wrest Scripture to the vilifying of Ministers, and you want no time, nor malice for the doing of it, to put such words into your peoples eyes, and ears, and mouth: but when you are to wrest Scriptures, for the justifying of your errors, then you cite the Text onely, but write not the words, for want of time, and truth too, and so feed their senses onely with figures, and num­bers onely, sending them away to search out the words, for their satisfying their understandings, as the Egyptians did the Isaelites to finde out straw, for their burning the Brick.

But I remember your last Text you cited, wherewith you think, you have hit us home, was that off the Scribes and Pha­risees, laying heavy burdens upon mens, or the peoples shoulders, and not moving them, with one of their fingers. I have put by the blow, as of all the other your Texts alleged against us, so of this, and the Scribism of the same, and have made them to recoil-back & fly in your own face, because you overcharged, and had no kill to charge aright: you hold as great, if not a greater correspon­dency [Page 204]with the Pharisees, than the Scribes; Few of you are Scribes, more are Pharisees: for you are like unto them in your name, the word Pharisee signifying Separate, (as for­merly I said,) so in your corrupting, and false interpreting of Scripture (this I have shewed throughout this Discourse) so in your high conceipt, of your own righteousness and holiness, (this you manifest in your scornful, and supercilious loo [...]s and speeches,) so in your compassing the Land to make you Proselites, and ambitious seeking the people, and their ap­plause (this all men see, and you will not deny) I adde lastly, (which makes the wonder, that people run after you) in your laying heavy burthens, and grievous to be borne upon the shoulders of men and women.

This latter, is the thing, I will shew out off, Act. 15. where ver. 5. There arose up certain of the Sect of the Pharisees which be­lieved, or professed Jesus to be the Messia, saying it was needful to Circumcise the newly converted Brethren, &c. the matter is decided in the 10. ver. 28. ver. Now therefore, why tempt you God? who put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers, nor we were able to bear: And it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and us, to lay upon you, no greater burden, than these necessary thing, &c. Out of which I gather, and deduct this one General Proposition (leaving out the particular of Cir­cumcision.)

Things laid upon Christians or Disciples, more than necessa­ry, are a burden and yoke, and seemeth not good to the Holy Ghost, but is a tempting of God. Joyn we issue now in brief. Here the Pharisees of the old separation said, it was needful to Circumcise the new converted Chirstians or Dis­ciples; and you of the newer separation say, it is needful to re-Baptize grown, and professing Christians or Disciples, up­on a particular confession of their Faith; are not you now agreeable to the Pharisees, in laying on a burden, and a yoke, upon the necks, and shoulders off the Disciples and Christians?

But, how do I shew this latter, to be a burden or yoke? why, from the Proposition here, because the re-Baptizing of Christians or Disciples, who were Baptized formerly in their [Page 205]Infancy, is more than needful or necessary; andthat it is so, my whole last part of this Discourse, which now I am finish­ing, hath amply Demonstrated; yea, your own Rule given to me at first, doth joyntly attest the same, the which is this, of all things necessary to Salvation, the Scripture hath either a Command or an Example, or both. Now shew me for that your practise, any Command of God, Expresse, or Impli­cite, or by Consequence, for such your re-Baptizing; Or any Example of any grown person or Christians, formerly Bap­tized so re-Baptized; if you cannot, hold you your peace (they are your own words,) I will speak you a Pharisee, laying up­on mens necks, and shoulders, a yoke, and a burden; and moreover by doing so, a tempter of God, and doer of that, which seemed not good unto the Holy Ghost, and the A­postles.

Again, for you to require of Infants born in Covenant with God, and of Parents in Covenant with God, an exter­nal confession, or profession of Faith, before you will put them under the initial Seal of that Covenant, and in the mean while to with hold this from them, until they shall do that, is a putting a yoke, and burden upon their necks and shoulders, to hinder them in their Christian progresse; it is to tempt the Lord, and to put him upon other means for Infants Salva­tion than Baptism, and its a doing of that, which seemeth not good to the Spirit, and the Apostles assembled, and de­termining the case in a holy Synod, for, that it is a requiring more of Infants, than is necessary to needful for their Bap­tism.

Yet once more: The leading of grown Christians, Bapti­zed before, into some deep Pond, and therein re-Baptizing them, plunging, and holding them some while there under wa­ter over-head and ears, body and cloaths too, is a yoke upon the neck, and a burthen put, and laid upon the head and shoul­ders, heavy and grievous to be borne, especially of the aged, infirm, and sickly, and a doing of more than is necessary un­to the administration of Baptisin, unseemly, and superfluous if not ridiculous, and so more than seemeth good un to the Ho­ly Ghost, and the Apostles met in Counsel yea it is an temp­ting [Page 206]of God, (and some, as I have heard, have sickned and died soon after thereupon,) of which I shall discourse at large, in my Narration, & censure of a late dipping which followeth.

Now see, Sir, by this, whether we Ministers of the Church of England, or you Separates from the same, be like to the Pharisees.

And so I have retorted, all your Texts, and returned them to you again, to apply them to your selves, or to apply your selves to them.

I shall therefore onely give you the like friendly farewel at the end of my Letter, as you gave me in yours, namely, a few Texts of Scripture to consider of, and seriously to weigh, some for your self, and others, that take upon you to be Preachers of the Separation, to consider of, and that not slightly as you use: Numb. 16.11. and 12. 2 Chron. 26.18. Jer. 23.21, 31, 32. 2 Corinh. 11.13, 14, 15. 2 Tim. 3.5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Tit. 1.10, and 11. Heb. 5.4, and 5, 2 Pet. 2.18, 19. 2 Pet. 3.16

Some for your followers, and others that hear you, and (if any of my people be amongst them) for them also to consider of, and that not lightly 2 Chron. 36.15, 16. Jerem. 2.13. Matth. 24, 23, 24, 25, 26. Mark 12. 38, 39, 40. Luke 21.1. with Mat. 16.6, and 12. Rom. 16.17, 18, Gal. 4.16, 17, 18. Gal. 5.7, 8, 9, 10. 2 Tim. 4.3, and 4. Heb. 10.23. and 24, Heb. 13.9. 2 Pet. 2.12. Jude 17, 18, 19. 20. And this one, for all, and every one of you, 1 Tim. 6.3, 4. 5.

You see, Sir, I do not as you did, for whereas in the mat­ter of Proof, I have written out the words of every Text to the full, here in point of Reproof, I onely name the Texts, and no more; so the Reader cannot know the particular here of them, until he take the Bible, and look farther, so ready I am, not to blazen abroad, but rather to go backward and cover your nakedness, as Cham.

But, What have I done? I thought indeed I had done, and replyed to all your Letter: But I perceive, that it is undone, as who have omitted one of your Texts, which is in your last line of all, John 14.15. and in these words of Christ Jesut, If you love me, keep my Commandements. What a bad-sighted [Page 207]man am I, that I should take no sooner notice of these last words, of your last Text, in your last line? words, like Ap­ples of Gold, with pictures of Silver, as spoken in season; a Text, like a bundle of Mirth, worthy to be laid betwixt the breasts. A line, Sir, I speak seriously, worth all your Letter besides, and had it not been for this last line, it had been so far from being any Love-Letter, or Message of Jonathans to David, that rather it would have been, as Davids Letter a­gainst Ʋriah, or a Johnathan's Maranatha Letter, writing bitter things, as Marah, and breathing out not onely excom­munication, but even damnation, whose mouth I have stop­ped notwithstanding, If you love me, keep my Commandements, John 14.15. saith Christ to his Disciples; This is a text to purpose, which few or none of the former were, brcathing love at last, the best thing to end a Letter with, and to make some recompence for all your hateful, horrid, hellish, and ma­licious, calumniations, of your Mother, and Brethren, in the beginning thereof; Above all things, and so in the be­ginning, and after things (and so in the end) Put on love, which is the Bond of perfectnesse; The Law maketh nothing per­fect, but love doth: for the end, and so the perfection, and fulfilling of the Commandement, is Love, out of a pure heart, and a good Conscience, and Faith unfeigned; at leastwise Christ Jesus, whom we love, (as who loved us first) is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that believeth; if Christ Jesus be the end of the Law, and the Commande­ment, and love the end of the Law, and Commandement, Then the love which is of Christ, sure, or Christ who is love, (for God is love) must needs be the end of the Law, and Com­mandement; and therefore is ye love me keep my Com­mandements, saith Christ, John 14.15. (a Text worthy to be thrice mentioned, and repeated.)

This is the one onely Text, that you, and I shall not differ in I hope, and which you have rightly applyed, and both my self, and all of us, do take to belong unto us, to love the Lord Jesus Christ, and to keep his Commandements: yea I adde, if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, Let him be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. 16.22. And in testimony of [Page 208]our love, we walk in obedience of his Commandements; but I will say to you, asit is, Jam. 2.8, 9 If ye fulfill the royall Law, according to the Scripture, That shalt love thy neighbour as thy self, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convincedof sin, as transgressors. For he that said, If y love me, keep my commandements, said also, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, or Brother; and keep that Commande­ment also of his, amongst others; and this Commandement have we from him, that he who loveth God, loveth his brother also, 1 John 4.21. If a man say, as it proceedeth vers. 20. If a man say, I love God, and Jesus Christ, and hateth his brother, he is a liar, (whosoever the man be) for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And again, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law also, Rom. 13.10. I confess, I could now much refresh my self in this sweet & rosie Discourse of this point of our love of Christ, and our Brethren, after my wearisome tra­velling through other sharp and thorny Disputes; but I resolve this Page now in hand shall be the last, and determine both.

Onely I shall minde you, that amongst these your Neighbors and Brethren, we the Ministers of Jesus Christ are to be accoun­ted and taken in, by your leave, Sir; for by his leave, Sir, we are so accepted of, to be his Neighbours and Brethren; his Neighbours, as whom the Lord hath brought nigh unto himselfe, to do the service of the Tabernacle, (and Temple) Number 16.9. and also his Brethren, For both he that sancti­fieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed tocall them brethren, Hebrews 2.11. whether sanctified by Grace from him, or by Office under him; and if he called and owned the Hearers and Doers of his Word, his Brethren, sure he owneth for such also, the Preachers and Doers of the same. Yea, see how Christ Jesus not onely owneth them for such, but oneth them also as himself (if I may so speak) saying, He that heareth you, heareth me; he that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that despiseth you, despi­seth me, Matthew 10.4. Luke 10.17. And truly I must tell you, that when our People were let alone, and left to them­selves, and our Ministers, and before they were befooled and bewitched by you separation from us, as the Galathians were [Page 209]by creepers in amongst them, they did, as the same Galathians Paul, receive their learned, pious, and industrious Ministers, as Angels of God, even as Christ Jesus; Galath. 4.14. And will do so again, (I believe, or hope) by that time they have had a little more trial and experience of your courses, and seen the difference betwixt the new light, or flashings of your blazing Comets, and the old light and lustre of their own fixed Stars.

But I give over proving against you, or reproving, seeing you have given over accusing of us, and reviling, and are fal­len upon love in your last line; love, I say, and that of Christ Jesus, the most lovely Object for a fair conclusion, from those foul Principles of malice in your former lines; malice I say, and that against the Church of England and her Ministers; the least deserving hatred from you, because serving you by love, shewed, if not saving you by faith, Preached to you.

My advice, I know, will seem strange and irrational to you in the form of my words and expression; Forsake your Prin­ciples, and leave them, hold fast your conclusion, and keep it; but it is good and religious, in the matter of sense, and my in­tention, which is this, Let all bitterness, and wrath, and an­ger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice, Ephes. 4.31. this was your Original sin, and bad Principles: And again, Be kindly affectioned one to ano­ther in brotherly love, love as Brethren, be pitifull, courte­ous, of one minde, having compassion, putting on the bowels of mercies, Rom. 12.19. & 1 Peter 3.8. Goloss. 3.12. And thus your latter end hath been better than your beginning, and your conclusion, your last line, lovely and amiable, though the first leaf was hatefull and detestable.

I embrace you in your last line, so also in your Subscription, speak it again, and write or subscribe again your self (that in the hand of two witnesses, or the double witness of your hand, this word may stand and be more confirmed,) To be the Lord Jesus's devoted Servant, as also mine (and the rest, the meanest of Christs Servants and Ministers) Servants for Jesus sake; which I take onely according to the Apostles limitation, Galath. 5.13. [Page 210] in or by love, for which also I thank you, being ready also to serve you, in and by love, for Jesus sake, but with another of the same Apostles limitations, 2 Thess. 2.10. by an in love of the truth, the which because some have not received, God hath sent them strong delusions, that they should believe a lye, as it followeth in the Apostle, ver. 10, 11. But we are bound to give God thanks for you, Brethren, and N [...]ighbours, and Pa­rishioners, (and your selves are boundmuch more to do the same to God) for that he hath called you unto the belief of the truth by our Gospel, (and something also, by this my An­swer to you) 2 Thessalonians 2. verse 14. Therefore Brethren, and Neighbours, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our Epistle, verse 15. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort and [...]stablish you in every good word and work, verses 16, & 17 And now also Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, Acts 20.32. Consider what I say, (and have said) and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. 2.7. Let every soul, that is understanding, be subject to the higher powers of the word, and captivate every thought to the obedience of the truth; Let every Saul who is ignorant admit of the light of the Word and Truth, to shine round about him, that the scales, by the Ministry of Ananias, may fall away from their eyes, that in seeing they may see, and under­stand the truth of all the matters and mysteries of Salvation, Acts 9.15. But if any man be ignorant (and will be ignorant) let him be ignorant, and still be ignorant, 1 Cor. 14.38. Or, Let them hear and say, (reade and see) It is truth, Isa. 43. verse 9.

And so Sir, because I will be answerable to you in all things, I do now subscribe my self, as in relation to my Master and Lord Jesus Christ, His, the least of his Servants and Ministers, not worthy to be called a Servant and Minister of Christ; so in reference unto you my Antagonist and Opponent, Your, the greatest of your friends, worthy to be called a friend of yours, (for, am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the [Page 211]truth? Gal. 4.16.) When you have tried all your Brethren and Friends, Truth will be your best Friend; and your best Brother will be

Now I proceed from a Scribe and his Letter answered, and a Pharisce or Separate chur­ched, to a hypocrite or Dipper sprinkled: but first of all to be questioned and cate­chised; and so to the Narration of a dip­ping, to be censured, according to my Promise in the Title and Frontispiece of this Treatise. Onely first,

The second Catechistical Quaere, is concerning the Persons Dipped.

Quaere, 2. What warrant, of precept, or example have you, from the Sacred Word, or Prim tive Antiquity, for your Dip­ping and Anabap [...]iz [...]ng Christians washed before; or members of the visible Church, baptized once in their Infancy by lawful Ministers; so as the two Women and Sisters were, whom your Brother Dipped?

Ask now of the days that are past, which were before, since the day that God created man and woman upon Earth, and com­manded circumcision in the eldest Chruch of the Jews, and ap­pointed [Page 10]Baptism in the younger Church of the Gentiles: ask from the beginning to the end of both, whether there hath been any such thing as this, that a person circumcised or baptized in their infancy, were ever recircumcised or rebaptized, at growth, or yeras after, when they could render a Rea­son, or make confession of their Faith, &c. Instance in one if you can, and be instant upon it as you will, and is not then your dipping the formerly dipped, a new business?

As for that example of Joshua, upon Gods command (Cir­cumcise again the children of Israel the second time) Jos. 5.2. This doth not intimate any Repetition or Reiteration of that Sacrament, in, or to the same particular Israelitish person cir­cumcised, as if he should be now circumcised again; but onely re­lates the Restauration and Renovation of that Sacrament unto the people of Israel in general, amongst whom Circumcision was a long while intermitted and discontinued, by reason of their frequeut, yea, continual journals and removings up and down, as the 4, 5, 6 Verses do evidence the same.

As for that Acts 19.5. of St. Pauls practise, & the example of the Ephesian Disciples in the Acts, it is abundantly answered in my Instruction of your Scribe, to which I refer you, and I add this for a plainer and shorter Resolution for you, 1. That it maketh nothing for your Re-dipping, and Re-baptizing.

1. Because St. John's Baptism being there spoken of, and you or your Sect being Popish in your opinion of Re-baptizing, and so holding from hence that the Baptism of John and Christ, are two different Baptisms, and that in the substance, and not onely in the Degree of their signification and efficacy, Here was no iterat on of one and the same, but the ministration of a di­verse Baptism, and so is not to your or my purpose.

2 For that there is no Baptism of water spoken of, much less there laid to be reiterated; (that the Ephesian Disciples had long before received from some of Johns Disciples) but onely the Baptism of Fire, i.e. of the Spirit and the miraculous gifts of the same, is there mentioned, which they confess they had not so much as heard of, namely, that they unsually as then, accompanied the other Baptism of water. And so that the former was that they were baptized with, and was poured upon them there, in the Name of Jesus, namely, the gifts of the holy Spirit which were miraculous.

If you shall produce (as somewhat you must say for your selves) the example of Saul, Cornelius and the Eunuch, baptized in their elder years upon their conversion to, and cofession of Christ: and the commands of God to Ananias, Peter and Phi­lip, &c. to baptize them thereupon: All this, and as much more which you might have alledged of the same sort brings no ad­vantage to your practice, no age, to your new business of Re­baptising the second time: for, that the mentioned above, were their first and onely baptizings, they being some of them Pagans born, others, aliens from the Covenant of Christ, adverse and opposite to ignorant, at leastwise, of the Christian Faith, were then frist of all baptized, upon their embracing of it, and never after baptized again. No, not the Black Aethiopian amongst them, was ever dipped the second time, And what is all this, to your Redipping of two Women baptized before in their infan­cy, as being born Christians and within the Covenant of Grace and Christ? Yea more, if the Pope of Rome should come over into England and turn Protestant, or become one of your Sect, a se­parate; nor we would, nor should you (of right) baptize him again, having been baptized before rightly, as to the Element and Words of Institution.

Therefore the Ancient Orthodox Church, never Re-baptized Hereticks themselves, upon their return and reversion to the Faith, (who were before baptized; nor the children of Profes­sors, though baptized by Hereticks, or heretical Ministers, if rightly according to the Ordinance) but rather condemned it, and pronounced it a Heresie to hold it, or to practise so, a Re­baptization.

For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, there is a Quotiescunque, & it should be received as oft of the same Person as may be con­veniently, for that our growth and augmentation in grace, ought to be daily and continually, whereof the Eucharist is the Sacrament: But I never read of above a semel, of the Sacrament of Baptism, that it should be received above once, of the same person, because our Spiritual Birth and incision into Christ is but once, whereof Baptism is the Sacrament. The thing is acted but once, and therefore is signified but once.

I acknowledge indeed that it is no where expresly written, that baptism should not be irerated and received the second [Page 12]time, so its no where said, there are three Persons of the Deity, though the word (of persons) is no in sacred Writ, yet the will of God about the things signified by the Word, is revealed and expressed in the same. So, the Will of God, that baptism should not be iterated, and once baptized should not be re-baptized, or baptized the second time, appears partly out of what I have alledged.

1. That Circumision was never iterated, none ever cir­cumcised twice, and Baptism succeeds Circumcision.

2. That there is mention made of an Iteration or often Re­ceiving, the Lords Supper, but not a syllable of Intimation there or elsewhere, of the like of Baptism.

3. That in the very Place and Scripture, where Christ instituted Baptism (which yet had been the very proper place for it) there is no order at all, for re-baptizing, or iterating baptism.

4. That among all the many examples of persons baptized, There is not one recorded to have been re-baptized, no not Si­mon the Sorcerer, nor Demas the Revolter, not one of the Corm­thians; nor of the Galathians relapsed, but onely were called up­on to Return to the Grace of the Covenant (sealed in their first Baptism) by Repentance and Faith.

I suppose the grand reason of your re-dipping and re-bapti­zing in elder age is this, for that you hold your first dipping and baptizing to be vain, Invalide, & frustrate, which was transacted in your infancy (for so one of your Sect told me the other day, that when he was a Child he was Christened, but he was then also but cozened.) As I warned him, so I wish you, to take heed unto your wayes that you offend not in your tongue or thought, so, as in either of them to reproach the Living God, or blaspheme his holy and effectual Baptism, by thinking and calling this a Cozenage, and him a Mocker.

Did God cozen the whole Church and People of Israel when he appointed and commanded their children even but of eitht days old to be circumcised? how then doth he cozen the Church and people of the Gentils in our Infants baptized, seeing baptism is the Circumcision made without hands, Col. 2.11. Nay, seeing both Circumcision and Baptism are the signs, and seals of that one and the same Everlasting Covenant of Grace; they neither are, nor can be any cozenage or frustrate things, to [Page 13]the right Partakers of them (until they be frustrated by them­selves, the Partakers, as by Esau was his birth-right, and also his circumcision, and them God is rather mocked and cozened, then a Mocker and Cozener;) but they are valide and of force to the spiritual good ends and purposes of either; and therefore being rightly once imprinted, are of vigour and vertue, of frait and efficacy during life, and so long as the Covenant lasteth, which is everlasting; (as I said) and so need not to be repeated and re­iterated, but are often to be revolved, and revived in our mindes, memories and meditation and the Tenor of the Covenant daily to be studied and practised, and the Condi­tions thereof on our part to be observed and performed accord­ingly.

Rather your self, Sir, and your two Sisters were cozeded and cheated (and never so much in all your lives as) when you renounced that your first Christian Infant baptism, and received this your second novel youthful Dippism.

Nor can that be any good reason of your re-dipping or re­baptizing, your defect of Faith in the time of your Infancy, or sithence days of age, your Eccess of sins, such as have vacated the gracious Covenant and vitiated a good Conscience. For you must consider, that the Covenant is sealed in Baptism, or Baptism is added to the Covenant on Gods part as well as mans: God promising there Grace and Eternal life, and man sti­pulating for Faith and new Obedience; Though therefore you might or did fly from the performance of your Promise, by Hy­pocrisie or Apostasie, and upon such default on your part lost your right and claim of eternal life; God notwithstanding stood and standeth still firm to his Promise on his part, as who never breaketh Covenant with any, nor ever loseth his right to any party baptized by any default made on his side.

These things if they be true, as they are most true, God being not as man that be should change and alter, to what purpose was it, that you should or did ent [...]r anew, into a Covenant with God, and reiterate the seal thereof, Baptism, and so be re­baptized and re-dipped, which was but will-worship of yours, fruitless; and a tradit on of men, needless; no where commanded you of God, no where exemplified to you by the men of God, the Saints.

This rather you should have done as that one and onely necessary thing, you should have repented of your evil ways and works, and so have returned unto God, in Covenant already and still with you, sealed in your Infant-Baptism; (though for­feited on your part, yet not released on Gods part) This you should have earnestly pleaded with God, confessing your sins, and by Faith firmly embracing it, through Christ your Advo­cate and Mediatour; Thus you would have set your former Ba­ptism on work, and your self too in performing the conditions thereof, and so you should have recovered and received all the fruits and benefits of the Covenant of Grace, sealed to you by Baptism in your Infancy.

This every where in Scripture do the Prophets call upon Covenant-breakers on their part, and his revolting and relapsed people, to repent and to return to their first Covenant with God, sealed in their Circumcision, not to any re-circumcision as you may see Jeremy 3.1, 12. Hos. 2.7. and 6.1.

And so the Apostle cals to the Corinthians, and the Gala­thians who were far gone from God, yea fain from Grace, not to put off their old baptism and to put on a new; but to put off the old man, and to put on the new, to Repent of sin and to re­turn to the Grace of the Covenant, & to perform the condition of their baptism, and to grow up in the fruits of the Spirit, minding them of their first baptism, that as many of them as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, Galat. 3.27. 1 Cor. 6.11. such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, &c. see also Rom. 6.3, &c.

The Husband who hath kept the marriage contract invi­loable and undefiled in his part, and is willing to receive into bed and board a fornicating wife, requires, no new marriage or the solemnities thereof again, but her humiliation onely and submission, with promise of better carriage after. God, who keepeth Covenant for ever, fast and indissoluble on his part, is also ever ready to admit into his Grace and Favor, all who have gone a whoring from him, onely upon their repentance and sor­row, with resolves of reformation for time to come, and expects no new solemn Re-baptizings and Re-dippings into the Cove­nant: but I have spoken somewhat of this, in the Scribe instruct­ed.

I shall add to this point, but, a few words of the good old Fa­thers of the Church; and shall shew by them that this your se­cond baptism, or rebaptizing, was & is none of their good old way.

Some of them built their judgements against Rebaptization, upon those Texts, Rom. 6.9. Heb. 9.28. wherein its said, Christ died once for all, but once offered for sin: Hence Basil de Spirit usancto, Cap. 15. [...]. I English it for your sake, We know there is but one saving Baptism, for that there is but one Death for the world, and one Resurrection from the dead, of which Baptism is the Figure, Damasc. lib. 4. Orthod. sid. Cap. 10. hath almost the same words, as to the one Death.

Augustine also de vera & falsa poen. Cap. 3. (if that be his Book) hath the same also, Semel Christus crucifixus est, & una morte suâ nos omnes redemit, quod videns Ecclesia, intellexit, non iterandum esse Baptisma. (Let the English before serve for this also.) Yea, Damascen calleth the Reiteration of Baptisin rightly collated, [...] as if rebaptization, were a kind of Recrucifixion of Christ, others of them concluded against re­baptization from John 13.10. He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet; but is clean every whit. Thus Augustine, lib. 11. de Baptismo contra Donat. cap. 14. Quid sit perniciosius, non baptizari an rebaptizari, judicare difficile est; Invenio de utraque Domini sententiam; nam & Petro dixit, qui lotus est non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi; & Nicodemo, ni­si quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ & Spiritu, non intra­bit in regnum coelorum: It is hard to judge whether of the two is more pernicious, not to be baptized at all, or to be again baptized. I finde the Lords sayings of both, for he said to Peter, He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit. And to Nicodemus, unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven, John 3.5. It seems St. Austin could not well tell, or would not, which of the two are the worst, an Abaptist or an Anabaptist.

Ambrose also, lib. de iis qui initiantur myst. cap. 6. and Ful­gentius de Fide ad Petrum, cap. 36. agree to the same interpre­tation of, and argumentation out of that place of John against Rebaptization; especially Fulgentius, whose words are, Ideò [Page 16]Baptisma, et si ab Haeretieis fuerit administratum, modò in nomine Patris, Filii, & Spiritus sancti fuerit factum, venerabiliter agnoscendum, & ab hoc, nullatenus iterandum esse, juxta dictum Christi semel lot us non indiget, nisi ut pedes lavet. I shall english this the rather to you, because it confirms a passage of mine be­fore, which (perhaps) seemed strange, if not false to you: Therfore Baptism, although it were administred of Hereticks, as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, is venerably to be acknowledged, and even for this, not to be repeated or reiterated, according to the saying of Christ, once washed, hath no need, save to wash his feet. Others of them con­cluded against Rebaptizing from Ephes. 4.5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Thus Leo Papa, cited by Gratian decret, de censec. dist. 4. Canon non licet. And so Thom. Aquinas in 4. Sent. Distinct. 3. I shall onely cite what the learned Hugo saith, Hac authoritate universi utuntur, All the Ancients make use of this Text and Authority, against second or double Baptism: quod enim unum est, geminari non potest: that which is but one, can­not be doubled and iterated, whether a man be baptized of a Catholique, or of a Heretick, as he also addeth; but no more of this, because there is somewhat of this unity of Baptism, in my Instruction or a Scribe.

I know there be some of our Divines do not allow of these ancient Deductions and Argumentations from those Texts cited by them; which I believe they would have made good and firm, if they had been questioned in their times; and now others might do the same in their behalf. But this in present is onely my business, to shew their Judgements (not to maintain all their Arguments, by which they grounded them) I say, to shew what their judgements about this your Redipping and Rebaptizing, namely, that they are quite against it, and would not own it, as any of their good old wayes; its evident, this was their strong and unanimons judgement, and therefore the (and very pro­bably) confirmed it from the Scripture Dictates, mentioned and produced above.

The third Catechistic. I Quoere, aebout the maner of this Dipping.

Quaere 3. What warrant or command, or example, have you from the sacred Scriptures, or the succeeding Primitive Anti­quity, [Page 17]for your dipping of persons in their clothes and vest­ments at your baptizing them; so your two Sisters stripping themselves in a chamber, and putting on other, and others clothes, that so they might have their own dry against they came to the House again from the Pond; went into the Pond in their clothes, and there were dipped in their body, and clothes, (as you relate to me, and as you, or others instructed them) All this speaketh novelty, and nothing else but a new business, un­heard in Scripture, unseen in Antiquity, and the Ancient Churches.

For do your think that thd Eunuch, or Lydia, were thus, and in this maner baptized of Philip and Paul in the waters clothed, and with their garments upon them; and that to this purpose they went aside in private to shift themfelves of the suits they had on, and to put on others that they might have dry clothes ready, against they came out of the water with their wet ones: say not so, no, not in your thought, for the Scripture saith no such matter, no, nor suggesteth any such thing to thought. This being then silent here, succeeding Antiquity must be heard what they say, and you cannot refuse to do so, seeing in your dipping you plead it for the good old way, and reject my ap­peaching it for a new business.

Now there, and then, when Baptism was performed by im­mersion or dipping, (yet I make some difference 'twixt the words as I shall shew) they stript their bodies of all their clothes, and went into the water stark naked, and were baptized naked, even as Adam and Eve created naked were in Paradise; as naked as ever they themselves were born into the world; as Christ was crucified on the cross, and as the bodies shall go to heaven or hell: (for by these patterns, the Ancients expressed the maner of it, and if you see any vail, or such like, about, or over the bodies of any of these at the time of baptizing, it is the Painters fancy, it was not theirs, the Ancients fashion.)

I know you look for a proof of this old way, this naked truth, which I shall give you to the proof and reproof of your new business, of clothed or cloaked novelty.

Cyril of Hier. Catech. Mystag. 11. saith, [...], &c. [...], &c. When ye went into the water, you [Page 18]put off your garments, as a token of the old man put off, &c. and so being naked, you were like Christ; who being naked, spoiled the powers and principalities: and it was a wonderful thing ye were naked, and were not ashamed as Adam. And so other Ancients of the Greek Church do testifie the same, whom I forbear to cite; onely I adde Chrysostom Homil. 6. upon Col. 2. because he addeth the mysticall of this putting off the garment at baptism, to be the putting off the old man: [...]. And Elias Cretensis upon the 4. Oration of Nazianzen, because he makes an addition of certain officers and helpers appointed to undress them, and take off the garments of those that were to be immerged or baptized, & to dress them, and to put them on again afterwards. Ad sacerdotem quidem is adducitur, qui spirituali regeneratione donandus est, ipse autem, & pedes ejus adhibita ministrorum eorum qui ad hoc constituti sunt operâ, calceis nudat, & corpus universum detegit. And for the ancient Latine Church, Ambrose testifieth the Custom, and urgeth from it against the covetous persons, saying, Thy mo­ther brought thee forth naked, when thou camest into the world; the Church (thy mother too) received thee naked when thou camest to the Laver, and wouldst. thou go clothed and rich to Heaven? I will transcribe the very words of Ambrose in his own eloquent language, Ideò nudi in saeculo nascimur, nudi etiam accedimus ad lavachrum, ut nudi qucque & expediti ad coeli januam properemus: quam autem incongruum & absurdum est, ut quem nudum mater genuit, nudum suscipit Ecclesia, dives intrare velit in coelum, &c. And because I may have occasion anon, and again, to make use of it, I will also set down Ansel­mus his witness and words upon the third Chapter of Matthew, where twice he saith it; amongst the reasons he giveth of Christ being baptized, this was one, and another this, That none should disdain to be baptized of his inferiour, (as he was of John) That none should be ashamed to be naked or denudated in the sight of men, (as he was before John, and the rest of the company there baptized.) Plures causae quare Christus ad ba­ptismum accessit, primò ut exemplo nos invitaret, nequis fortè in conspectu hominum denud [...]i erubescerit, &c. It seems by this [Page 19]testimony of Anselm, that Christ himself, as all those baptized of John, were baptized naked.

If you think all this to make nothing against your new busi­ness, because they speak of mens dipping, and yours was of womens dipping, I shall therefore (because I see you minde not that of St. Paul, that in Christ Jesus now there is neither male nor female, no discrimination of sexes, as to the Gospel ordinan­ces) shew you the same old way, in use for women also; so Chrysostom in his Epistle to Pope Innocent relateth, that women also were baptized and immerged naked: for there he relateth unto that Pope, how, when Theophilus a Bishop of Alexandria had raised a tumult for the ejecting of himself out of the Church, this, amongst other things, fell out, That the women who were there in the Church, and had stript themselves naked, as prepared for Baptism, upon the noise, and for fear of this sudden and cruel commotion, ran away naked out of the Church; and through fear, had no time and leisure to provide for the shamefastness and modesty of that sex, by putting on their clothes again. I adde somewhat to the words, but nothing to the sense of Chrysostom. And he also relateth, that there were women appointed of purpose by the Church (not to shift off the better clothes in a chamber, and put on worser to be dipt in, as your course is) to accompany them to the water, and there to take off their clothes, and so also for the more decency, and that nothing of immodesty might appear or be occasioned, the women were baptized naked by themselves apart from men, (as the men apart by themselves naked.) To which also Epi­phanius attesteth, Haeres. 79. and Augustine 22. Book of the city of God, 8. Chap. for Augustine there speaks de parte foemina­rum ad Baptisterium, a certain part and place about the Fonts, or where the women stood apart from the men ready to be ba­ptized: like as Epiphanius doth of [...], &c. an order of Deaconesses ap­pointed for the safeguarding of the womens modesty and shamefastness, to undress them at Baptism. And Cyril also in the place aforesaid. The which Custom held on until Beruards time, who was made a Monk in the year 1110. in whose dayes that old way was put by, because of some scandall and offences were given or taken, through haughtiness and wickedness on [Page 20]the one or other side, which the innocency and honesty of the former Ages kept off and prevented.

By this time, Sir, I hope you see, that your dipping of women in their clothes, is a new business in the Church, and hath no print or footsteps to be seen in the old way, or amongst the ancient Writers and Fathers of the former Churches. Yea, this your clothes-dipping also, is so new a thing, that not much above fourteen or fifteen years ago, your predecessours, and primer Anabiptists, the Virgins of Sion, and the precious Sons of the same, the Proselytes of those dayes, did in the Evening resort and run together, and went naked into the Rivers, their Jordan, and were there dipped and plunged in their naked bodies (without clothes on them) by their John-Dippers, or Dipper-Johns.

I cannot deny, but that Infants also, as well as grown persons, were, according to the old way, undressed, or taken out of their clothes, and were baptized and dipt naked, and pre­sently clothed again, and so carried to the Bishop to be con­firmed, as Gregory the Great acknowledgeth in his Sacramen­tary, in which is set down the order of baptizing Infants: To which I shall adde the Testimony of another, one Alcuine or Albine, by name, who lived in the Year 780. and so 220. years after the aforesaid Gregory; and the rather I do, because he was an English man, born in Yorkshire, (and, it may be, thereupon called the other name Albine, of Albion) he was the scholar of our venerable Bede, and the school-master also (as friend and familiar) to Charles the Great; by whose advice, Charles the Great founded the University of Paris, and appointed four prin­cipall Heads and Presidents thereof, Rabanus, Alcuinus, Clau­dius, Johannes Scotus, all the Scholars of our Beda: (so much is France beholding to England for their Learning and learned men) but to the purpose, the words of Alcuine are Postquam vestiti fuerint Infantes (he is speaking of Infants after they had been baptized naked) deportantur ante Pontificem ad confirman­d [...]m; who sate in a seat fixed somewhere in the Church, or in Sacrario, the Chancel or V [...]stry, for the same purpose; where­by I conceive, it was at the solemn times of Baptism, twice in the year, Easter and Whitsontide, an evideut Testimony, both for Infant-baptism, and also for Infants baptized naked. And [Page 21]it is true also that the old and late Liturgy of our Church of England mentioneth the Ministers taking the child to be ba­ptized, into his arms, & naming it, shall (as the Rubrick hath it) dip it in the water, so it be discreetly and warily done, but whe­ther in the cloaths, or out of the cloaths, it is not expressed. In present I think, and so shall, until I be better informed, that our Church meant a dipping of the Infant out of the cloaths, and therein owned the Antiquity of the practise; but yet shewed her authority in things of such nature, for that she addeth, if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it, so indulg­ing the health and welfare thereof: (and what child is not weak, in these our Northern cold Clymates?) though not contradi­cting Antiquity which did so dip children naked in those Eastern warmer Countreys, where they might more safely do it; I am sure she meant not your new way of dipping in the cloaths over head and ears, and the whole body. What if she meant the dipping of the naked face onely, or the naked fore­head, and head also in the water, by such as hold still to the dipping there mentioned? so doing, as it crosseth not the Anti­quity for the reason I gave but now, so it favoureth not your novelty for the reasons I have given against the same all this while.

By this time you may see and hear how your dipping and ba­ptizing bodies in their cloaths, in a new busines, and none of the old way. I remember Justin Martyr in dial. ad Tryph. gives the Pharisees, that peculiar term and epithite, of [...], because of their washing so many things, as cups, pots, vessels and tables, us are mentioned Mark 7.4. But these are civil or supersti­tious washings, or ceremonial. Your Scribes surpasse these Pharisees, in dipping of cloaths and all, in their baptizing and washings, which are Eclesiastical, religious, and even moral with them, and therefore may more justly be called [...], dippers or washers, and in this sense, Johns the Baptists. I do look when you shall fall from this novelty in this Sacrament of Baptism, to such another novelty in the other Sacrament, and when you break bread, give it into your proselytes hands with their gloves on. I omit to open unto the Reader, the packet of these other frivolous if not scurrilous Rites and Ceremonies which were used at this your dipping, some whereof you relate, and others, (for [Page 22]modesty I suppose) you silence, but are talked of by the spectators, as ridiculous and infamous. I question them not at all, for they were all such, questionless, onely this I question, How men of such sincerity onely, should be thus full of ceremony also, and won­der also how you, who hate in others, innocent and significant ceremonies in ministerial celebrations, and abominate them, as the abomination of desolation, throwing them away as the rags, and patches of Popery, and rending them off, as the fringes and laces of the whore, should now be so far in love of them as to clothe and adorn your Dippal administrations in such offensive and sensless Rites, and Ritual dresses, so that your brother may be better called a master of Ceremonies then a Minister of Or­dinances.

This one thing I shall question here, why your brother was so quick of his words, and so slow at his work? for so it seems by the narration (which is your relation) that he spake the words accord­ing to the institution; I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, before he dipped them in the water, though but immediatly before, The which I take to be another novelty, if not more, some vanity be not in it.

For our English Liturgy, consonant to the ancient Litur­gies of the Churches, doth otherwise and better practise & di­rect: where (as the Rubrick hath it) the Minister naming the child, shall dip it in the water, saying, I baptize thee, &c. And I conceive there is good reason for it, that the dip­ping into, or sprinkling with water, and the pronouncing the words of administration I baptize, &c. should be done in one and the same instant of time, as two conjunct Acts, (and not one be­fore the other) because the sign and the thing signified are two correlate parts, and go together, not one before the other. If either may go immediately & instantly before the other, It is the dipping, before the words, as our Liturgy hath it, (Dip it in the water, saying) and not the words before the dipping as your Tympany doth it, (he spake the words, before he dipped) nay, there is not verity or truth in it to say the words, I ba­ptize, &c. before the party be in the water, or the water upon the party.

But your Dippers tongue, dipt and tipt (it may be) aforehand for the better keeping out of the cold of water, did run so fast, [Page 23]in the pronouncing the words of institutution (too fast indeed, as which did run before it was sent, and spake before the Lord opened the mouth of the man, Numb. 22.28.) that his hands, having taken such fast hold of the sisters by their clothes about the shoulders and loath to let it go, or put them out of his sight, till needs must, he forgat the work & action of dipping them, & put­ting them under the water at the same time, or before the speak­ing of the words of Institution: And so I may say, as the Comae­dian doth, in a like dipping and tripping, Neque lingua neque manus suum faciebant officium, I may put in neque pedes (as the Comaedian doth) for his feet ran too fast to the Pond, aswel as his tongue ran too fast in the Pond.

The Fourth Catechistical Quaere, is about the place where the Dipping was done.

Q. 4. What warrant have you of precept, or example of sacred Scripture, or succeeding primitive Antiquity, for your dipping of your Sisters & other your Proselytes, in Ponds at your Baptizing. This to be done, I understand from all present there. It was your modesty and humility not to make any Re­lation or mention of it, for that it was your own Pond of your yard, and so not to glory of it, that the Dipper should make choice of your Pond, your common & ordinary pond, where your Ducks and Geese do wash themselves dayly, to honour, it with a solemn dipping of two special Sisters therein at their Bap­tism.

I speak not this, as if I took exception to common and ordi­nary water, used in Baptism; yea, I acknowledge that God therefore also made choice of the vulgar and common Ele­mentary water to set forth, as the purifying and cleansing of souls from sin, by the blood of Christ (which water that wash­eth doth well represent) so the general offer and benefit of the grace of Christ thereby to all, rich and poor, even the meanest and vulgars (which the commonness and copiousness of water, every where to be had, doth also intimate.) And therefore that question about the necessity of water unto bap­tism, so that in decay and defect thereof, there can be no Bap­tism in wine, or milk, or other liquor, needed not either to have been first raised, or after so hotly pursued by Hunnius and his party, for that water is so common a liquor as every [Page 24]where to be had, and at all times, as there will be no need (nor hath been that ever I read) of running out for wine, or other liquor to minister the same in Baptism. Yea, and so long as water may be had, wine or other liquor is not to be used out of a luxury of pride, or pride of luxury, lest they be called Vinarii, or [...] of us, winy and windy men too, like as some, who used water instead of wine in the Lords Supper, when this might also be had under a pretence of abstinence, but not abstinence of pretence, were called by the Church [...], or Aquarii, watry and washy Hereticks, as Augustine witnesseth, Haeres. 64.

But yet this I add, that if there be such an invincible want and unavoidable scarcity and privation of water for Baptism, and wine for the Lords Supper, so as to water can be procured, but onely wine may be had, where baptism cannot with edifi­cation, and ought not in duty, to be delayed; so also no wine can be gotten, but onely water, where the Lords Supper can­not with edification, and ought not in duty to be delayed, there the one may be supplied by the other in each Sacrament; the water by wine in baptism, and the wine by water in the Lords Supper. And if there be no affectation of novelty in ei­ther, no contempt of either of the elements, no neglect of inqui­sition or acquisition of the proper element to either, I suppose, there can be no charge of Heresie, or breach of institution, in such administrations, where the peculiar and proper common elements (as I may so call them) of wine and water, proper to the Lords Supper, and commonly in use, proper to Baptism, and commonly in use, cannot be had and procured, where such admi­nistrations ought to be done and performed.

If any shall here ask what need all this, seeing water is every where to be had for baptism, and also wine for the Lords Sup­per, I answer, either, is not so every where to be had, and there­fore it is not a needless discourse; for there is no use of wine in America, where there where brethren that wrote to Calvin here­abouts, as Beza in his 25 epistle relateth; and there are besides a sort who were, & are, & so called, Abstemious, who cannot endure the very smell or least tast of wine, but they will swoon away, as we speak, and fall down for dead; what shall these be done to? They must either not receive the Lords Supper at all, which [Page 25]they cannot well answer, if they ask not for it, nor we, if we deny it them; or else we must give it, and they receive it but in one kinde, (for neither can they away with it, if diluted and mixed with water) and then we shall do as the Papists would have us, and Bellarmine propoundeth, as the wise way of the Roman Church, to heal up this inconvenience, namely, the withholding of the Cup from such people, (lib. 4. de Sacr. cap. 24.) And how and if the Priest also should be so Abstemi­ous? its readily replied, none of these are ever taken with such a disease.

What remains then, but that they must and may take this Sacrament in water, or other drink, usuall and familiar unto them; like as Philip Malancthon tells the Ruthins, that they may do well to take the same in their [...], or ordinary Mede, for the scarcity of wine amongst them, lib. de usu integri sacramenti.

And if there had been no water in that Desart where the Eu­nuch was converted, and earnestly desired Baptism, (as in many desarts there is none) and he had said, See here is wine in my cha­riot (in stead of) See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized, I doubt not but Philip would have baptized him therein, and the absence of water would not have hindered it, but the providence of God disposed it otherwise, and better too, there.

Lastly, I should not have touched upon this discourse, but that I finde Hunnius, and Bellarmine, and another Jesuit, Jaco­bus Gualterius, coursly handling Calvin, Beza, Melancthon hereabouts, whom I ought to defend in the way of truth, as be­ing three great Lights of the Protestant Religion. To let the first of these alone, Hunnius; the third I named Gualterius, cal­leth this a Diabolicall mutation of the Eucharisticall matter, lib. 1. Tabulae Chronol. The second, Bellarmine, roundly asketh, Quis dedit Philippo authoritatem mutandi sacramentorum mate­riam? somewhat like my Scribe and Pharisee; By what autho­rity doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? (he speaketh of Philip Melancthon) I answer, Christ gave it un­to him, and the other two, (in the cases mentioned) and that upon good reason. For a good reason hereof may be given, that this being the mind and meaning of our Saviour Christ, [Page 26]by setting forth the signes of those things by which our bodies are washed and cherished (as the water and wine) thereby to present our spiritual ablution and augmentation by his blood, we do no way swerve or go from that his mind and meaning, if without any wantonness of innovating in the want of the one, we substitute another, as wine for water in baptism, or water for wine in the Lords Supper, or any other com­mon and ordinary liquor that may have, though not an equal, yet alike analogy, of washing and nourishing spiritu­ally.

By which may be put back what the aforesaid Hunnius ob­jecteth, (as that we have no word of institution, none for substi­tution, and whatsoever is not of faith is sin) all which are blunt­ed, by our keeping still to the minde and meaning, purpose and intention of Christ, as to the end and use of the elements in ge­neral, though the particular elements themselves cannot be procured. And whereas he puts a man so baptized under some perplexity of conscience and under the temptation of Satan (for I will instance but in that) (see you are not baptized with water, but with some other liquor which was neither sanctified by any Word of God, to this use of washing away sin, neither hath it any such promise in Scripture adjoined therto) he may be taken out of the same tentation, by this answer of a good con­science; That water was sought out for, and none could be got­ten, and he was in danger and extremity of life, and in distresse and want of Christ, and his blood to wash his sins away. There being some wine in a vessel in the house, a Minister affecting no innovation, but his good and salvation, and the sacramental ap­plication of Christs washing blood for his further confirmation and consignation which he so earnestly desired, took wine (when he could have no water) and poured of it upon him, using the words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, and so he may hope, ye doubt not, but God hath ac­cepted of him as rightly baptized and interressed in Christ. If it be said, what analogy in the Lords Supper is there of water to wine, seeing this is made up of many bunches of grapes; or in baptism, of wine to water, seeing this hath a vertue to wash and cleanse: I reply, such particular analogies (though they may be profitably thought of where the proper Elements to each Sacra­ment [Page 27]may be possibly gotten, which are not negligently to be omitted, yet are they not so precisely to be urged, and strictly pressed the one against the other, in the times of the scarcity of each (Though if so, I can say, That the water also is made up of many drops of Rain, and the wine hath also a washing and cleansing vertue) It is sufficient that there is here a general ana­logy for the testifying of our mutual Communion and spiritual ablution, as here is, in that we use the same kind of symbols, as drink (and meat also) and washing, which are common and usual amongst us, in defect of the proper and special, and specially in that we hold one and the same faith in, conjunction with, and sanctification by one Christ and Saviour. If indeed, though in a case of exigency and scarcity of water, any should substitute or use such a matter as hath no power at all in it self to wash or cleanse off the filth of the body, & so not to signifie the blood of Christ which cleanseth from the guilt of sin, it were to be disal­lowed, as that Baptismus Arenarius spoken of by Nicephorus, lib. 3. cap. ult. how that a young man of the Hebrews being desperately sick and calling for baptism, in want of water was superfused with sand, and miraculously recovered immediately; whom notwithstanding the Bishop of Ascalonia being consulted with thereabouts, sent away unto Jordan to be truly baptized; the former baptism, being indeed as the house in the Gospel, built upon the sand and could not stand. I know no History of a sandy Supper of the Lord, as I may so speak, to parallel with that sandy baptism, as it was called, unless it be that sucacoe­na, that dry Communion and Supper the Popish Priests do give to their people; for they also as to the one material part of this sacrament, give them not that which doth and should represent the blood of Christ, and satisfie their thirst, as who give them no wine, nothing at all instead of it; and is it not all one, to give them nothing, and to give them that which doth not, nor can signifie the blood, and satisfie the thirst; I am sure nothing doth neither

But why do I thus enlarge I return to you and your Pond water. And here again I must tell you, it was a new business, for the ancient manner of the Church in the purest times was to baptize, as out of the Church, so in Wels and Rivers, Floods and Fountains, so Walafridus Strabo saith in the 26 Chapter of Ec­clesiastical [Page 28]things; For thus Christ and all the other multitudes of people were baptized of John in the river Jordan, as is expres­ly said by the Evangelists, two of them, Matth. 3.13. and 6. Mark 1.5, 9. and where it is said, John baptized in water, [...] Beza noteth that Jordan is meant in that Story, wheresoever its mentioned in the singular number, as there Matth. 3.11. And whereas John 3.32. John was also baptizing in Aenon, neer to Salim, because there was much water there, either Jordan over­flowed hither also, and these were other rivers about Aroer, and and by the river Arnon mentioned in the Books of Moses oft, and meant here by the many waters, like as Acts 8.36. they came to a certain water, and the Eunuch said, See here is water, thereby is meant the river Eleutheras, lying without the borders of Aegypt, where Philip overtook or found the Eunuch, and ba­ptized him, saith our learned Beza, Yea, and that Text, Acts 16.13, and 15. that Lydia and her houshold were baptized by a Rivers side, of the Apostle St. Paul.

Now tell me who of old, as old the Gospel & as the Acts of the Apostles was ever baptized, or (as you speak) dipped in a Pond? True in the 5 of John there is mention made of a Pond or Pool (Stagnum, a standing or pent up water) whereinto whosoever, after the moving or troubling the water by an Angel descend­ing, stepped in first, was made whole of whatsoever disease he had; but this being a special Pond of water, extraordinarily as­sisted of God, and miraculously, for medicinal cures of bodily di­seases, maketh nothing for Ponds generally and ordinarily ap­pointed, and mysteriously used for baptismal washing of spiritual sins of the soul: Where is now your zeal for Scripture examples, and patterns, that you so much pretend to make shew of? How are you still taken tardy in those defaults (as you make them in us) of humane inventions? is this your conformity to the Word, is it not rather your difformity from it, and its presidents? and so indeed this people have committed two evils, you have forsaken the clear Fontains and Rivers, and Well-springs, and have sought out muddy Ponds, Pools, and Well-springs, and have sought out muddy Ponds, Pools, and standing waters to dip your proselytes in, and so leaving the Scripture examples, em­brace your own inventions: we our selves do not therefore ba­ptize, no not in Rivers or Fountains, nor do we press the same

For such examples are not (we know) left upon the record of Scriptures for our imitation; but for our learning, Rom. 15.14. Yea, we finde the custom of baptizing in Rivers and Springs, used by John the Baptist, and practised also by Philip, to have bin al­tred and left by other the Disciples and Apostles. Peter there­fore baptized, or if not Peter himself, those that accompanied Peter thither, or some Disciples he met there, (because its said, Peter commanded them of Cornelius house to be baptized, and no man is said properly to command himself) Baptized them with­in the doors, and did not remove thence, they and all the company to the next Rivers or Fountains. Yea, and Paul (though he had but lately, Acts 16.13, and 15. baptized Lydia and her house­hold at a Rivers side, a place where prayer was wont to be made, as also preaching, and whither women resorted, and whither came Lydia with her houshold, who, the Lord opening her heart, attending to what Paul said, was converted, and so, being at this time by the Rivers side, was baptized there occa­sionally) in the same Chapter 33, 34. Verses baptized the Jaylor and all his, in the prison-house, occasionally also, because he was there, and in that place converted to the faith: the words them­selves do evince the same. The Jaylor took Paul and Silas, the same hour (it was midnight) and washed their stripes, and was ba­ptized, he, and all his straightway, and therefore the Disciplse lead them not out to the next Rivers & Fountains, it was no time & season to do it at midnight, and his being baptized straightway, the same hour, sheweth that there was no stay made until next morning, to have it done in any such place; and the like is to be thought of all those other persons and their housholds whom St. Paul is said to have baptized, namely, in their houses, and not in Rivers and Fountains. Likewise (which I should have men­tioned first) Ananias baptized Saul in the house where he found him, sitting in sorrow for his persecution, and in amazement about his vision in the way, though now blinde: so the series of the Text sheweth it, Ananias went his way, entred into the house where Saul was, put his hands upon him, and immediate­ly the scales fell from his eyes, and he received his sight forth­with, arose and was baptized, namely, in the place and house where he was, Acts 9.19. Afterwards in process of time, the Church of God, left off going to Rivers as for [Page 30]baptism, and ordained large vessels for the same purpose, cal­led Baptisteria with the Latines, and [...] with the Greeks, and with us, as with them also, Ambrose and others, Fonts, or Founts; though at first these were placed without the Church or Temple, but with a house also over the same, and that for the honour of the Christian Religion, and the more decent celebra­tion of that mystery thereof, so Cyril in his first Catech. and Pau­linus in his 12 Epistle to Severas, and Nazianzen in his 40. Oration. And there was at first but one of these in a City placed nigh unto the Basilica or greatest Church, wherein all, rich and poor were baptized; like as it is still observed and to be seen in Florence, Parma, Bononia, and other Cities of Italy. And one thing more of Antiquity I will acquaint you, and some others with, that both Constantine the Great, Emperour, and Professor too, in the year 300 after Christ, or thereabouts, made one him­self, a costly Font for baptizing, and willed others to do the like, whose outside was of Marble, or Porphyry, and the inside of pure silver, which I repeat to tax the niggardise or prophanenesses of these latter ages, wherein men who yet are great professors, put off the same Sacrament of baptism, with an earthen Bason, or a pewter one atthe best, in most places.

And so a little after for good causes, they remmoved their Fonts or Baptisteries, into the very Churches, and placed them (as they were with us) next the porch or entrance of the same as Gregor. Turonensis witnesseth, lib. 2. hist. cap. 21. so called, because he was Bishop of Turon in France in the year 573. who testifieth this amongst the Histories of France, which he wrote, and so also doth the Decretal distinct. 4. cap. 106. For good causes saith Turonensis, best known to themselves, which because he could not, or would not relate, being in a history (and that removal of the Fonts was of my­stery) this may be one, that the word, and the first seal of en­trance, which is baptism, as well as the second seal, of continu­ance, and perseverance, which is the Euchar [...]st, might be both administred within the Church, for more order, decency, and conveniency sake.

Now all this I have added to shew how your Pond-baptism, is a new business, not onely as to Apostolique customes, but to the Primitive fashions, and all successive pra­ctises; [Page 31]yea, as to your own original Authors and Scismarchs, of whom I told you before, who ran not to Ponds but to Rivers to be dipped.

Not that I make any difference of waters, as to the material of baptism, or the effectual therof, whether it be Pond-water, or Ri­vere-water, or Well-water, as who hold with Tert. in his book of Baptism, ca. 1.12. Nulla est distinctio, mari quis aut stagno, flumine aut fonte, lacu aut alueo diluatur, & I give you this reason, because in the water of all those places, there is, and rests the Analogy, which each of them being true, natural, and elementary water, hath with the blood and Spirit of Christ, purging and cleansing from sin. And because Christ by his Example (as Chrysostom homil. 25. in John.) by his Mandate, Word, and Authority, hath sanctified all water as well as Jordan. But it is that which I have said of your Pond-dipping onely to these pur­poses.

First to convince you of a new business, who talk so much of your good old way, of which, that is none, but the River-dipping, and other, was that.

Secondly to take you tardy in following Scripture and primi­tive Examples, which you pretend so much to, as who do forsake the River-dipping, and go to the Pond.

Thirdly, to tell you that as there is no discrimination in wa­ters to choose of, for baptismal-uses and benefits, so there was (heark you, Sir, in your ear) little or no discretion in you and yours to make choise, of a commond Pond or Weyr to dip your two new converted holy Sisters in, wherein Horses, Cowes, Swine, Geese, Ducks, do daily duck and pick themselves, wallow and drench themselves, and do somewhat elss besides: Though they (as you thought it seems, and shewed indeed) de­served no better a pond of water to be dipped in; wherein you were like to those in James, who had their fai [...]h in respect of persons, who sa [...]d but to the poor in vile rayment, stand thou there, or sit here under my foot-stool, dip thou here in my horse-pond: yet you being about a work of the Lords appointing, as you pretended, namely, a dipping, & naming it baptism (this indeed is the work of the Lord) it merited one of your best, clearest, and purest water-ponds, to do the Lords work in, otherwise you make the baptism of the Lord despicable, by your chusing a [Page 32]foul, muddy, horse-cow-hog-pond for dipping, as they in Malachy, who made the Table of the Lord contemptible, by their offering to him the blinde, and the lame, and the sick for sacrifice, Mal. 1.7, 8. If you think of no better then pond-water, and such water-ponds, instead of River-water or Fountain, for their dipping in at the first Sacrament, your poor proselytes may be afraid, that you will set forth the brown-loaf to them instead of white-bread for their feeding, at the next Sacrament: for this people who knoweth not the Law, are cursed, in comparison of themselves (say the blessed Scribes and Pharisees.

The fift Chatechistical Quaere, is about the Action it self, of the Dipping.

Quaere 5. What warrant have you of precept, or example from sacred Scripture, or the succeeding primitive Antiquity, for your dipping or immerging the bodies, over head and ears of these Sisters and others, whom you presume to baptize as your proselytes.

If I would be a critick upon words I could tell you, that your word of Dipping falls short and cometh not home to the word of Immerging: for all dipping is not immerging, though all immerging be dipping. That all dipping is not immerging, See Mat. 26.23. He that dippeth ( [...]) his hand with me in the dish, shall betray me I think you will not say, that he im­merged his hand, and thrust it, or put it into, and under the sauce there, over back and palm, up to the wrist: besides, Dipping may be of a part of the body, whereas usually immerging is spoken of the whole body: That dipping may be of a part, you see by the former Text of the hand, yea, of a part of the hand, so you may see Luke 16.24. That he may dip ( [...]) the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue.

It is true, there is something of baptism in them both, in Dip­ping and immerging, because [...] signifieth both; yet both together (if so be you can make them agree together) are at odds with baptism, and go not even with it in the language of the Scripture or latitude of the Word, for some things are said there to be baptized, which were neither dipped nor immerged, as the children of Israel were baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. but neither dipped or immerged in them, of which more anon, and some things are said to be [Page 33]dipped and immerged, which are not baptized: This you confess in your Letter, and give me a very homely instance, that you may dip your dog, but not baptize him.

Yea, some School-men, as Hallensis and Gabriel deny it to be the Sacrament or Baptism, if it be said, Ego te mergo, I dip or immerge; and they give this reason, because those words are not Synonimal with the word I Baptize thee; baptism not signifying every dipping or immersion, but onely that sacred one: but in reverence of Antiquity, and in respect had to the Ancient Fathers of the Church, who in the point of baptism so speak of them, as one and the same, I yeild tinction or dip­ping, and immersion to be one and the same likewise in this matter: for so Tertul. lib. de Coro. militis translateth and readeth these words, Ite, docete omnes nationes Tingentes eas; and so likewise do others of the Latine Fathers, which sheweth that with them Tingo, as also Immergo, doth both signifie the same with [...].

But yet I shall not yeild it to the exclusion of our sprinkling, and aspersion or perfusion, but that this also is included in the word [...], if not also [...], for which (letting Lexicons and Grammarians rest) I will produce Nicephorus, Narrat. Lib. Cap. 3. where speaking of Novatus, how that after, or upon great sickness, converted, he desired to be baptized; Aquam petiit, quâ in lecto ipso, ita uti decumbebat, perfusus, baptizat [...]s scilicet est; siquidem Tinctionem hujusmodi Baptismum vocari licet; where you see that the three words, Tinction, Perfusi­on and Baptism are all one, and both perfusion and tinction are called Baptism. This Nicephorus lived in the year 1330. above 300. years sithence.

But I have undertaken to be rather a censurer of your work, then a Critick of words. And yet before I pass from this, I must not so much Criticise as Catechize you about the word of baptizing, which some of your Learned in the Greek tongue (though most of you are professing and professed against both learning and languages) do urge for your dipping and immer­ging Baptism, for so they derive [...] from [...], which signifieth to dip and immerge, and hence conclude, that the dipping and immerging Baptism is the true and onely Baptism, as derived from dipping.

1. But first, How if [...] doth also (as it doth also) signi­fie [Page 34]to Wash, then doth it not fetch in with it, our sprinkling and aspeising Baptism, or rather the pouring on, or laying on of water with the hand, and gently rubbing the face or forehead therewith?

Yea, and the word signifieth also to Dye, (as well as to dip or wash) and intimateth that changing of the Hiew or Colour (as I may so call it) which is in Baptism, and which is alluded to, in Isay 1.16. Wash ye, make ye clean, put away the evil of your do­ing, and then at the 18. v. Though your sins be as scarlet, and red as Crimson, they shall be as wool, and white as snow: For whereas in our natural estate, we are deep Dyed, in sins and transgressions, as scarlet and crimson, and as the Aethiopian, have contracted a black skin upon our souls, which we cannot change, and are as full of black spots as the Leopard, which we cannot put off by any of the powers of nature, Jer. 13.23. when we are baptized into Christ, we do put on Christ, that pure and immaculate Lamb, who spreadeth over us the white Fleece of his innocency and righteousness; and therewith, as with a white garment, covereth all our black deformities, and so (which is strange) being dipt in his blood, we are dyed white i.e. innocent as in the sight and acceptation of God; which was signified of old, by putting presently a white garment upon the party baptized, of which Ambrose speaketh, Lib. de iis qui initiantur myst. Cap, 7. Accepisti post haec vestimenta candida, ut esset indi­cium, quod exueris involucrum peccatorum, & indueris innocen­tiae c. sta velamina, de quibus dixit propheta, Asperges me, Do­mine, Hysope, & mundabor, lavabis me, & super nivem de [...]lba­lor. And so the same Gregory Turonensis (whom I cited before) Lib. 5. Hist. Cap, 11. Renatus (que) Deo per Baptismi Sacramentum cum Albatis reliquis & ipse procedit; and a little after, Albi­cabat tota civitas de Grege candido. I add also the testimony of our Countryman Rabanus Maurus, one of Beda, his Scho­lars, who, Lib. 1. de Instit. cler. Cap. 29. P [...]st Baptismum tra­ditur Christiano vestis Candida, designans innocentiam & puri­tatem Christianam, quam p [...]st ablutas veteres maculas studio san­ctae conversationis immaculatam servare debet ad presentandum ante Tribunal Christi. I think I may as well heap to my self Testimonies, and have herein an itching hand, writing for the good of others (you being indocible herein) as there be some [Page 35]that heap to themselves Teachers, having itching ears, hearing too little good of themselves. Lactantius de Resur. Domini­cae die; speaking to Christ,

1. This testimony I the rather add, because of its antiquity; for Lactantius lived in the 310 year from the Nativity of Christ, and speaketh of the clear and white waters of the Rivers used in Baptism, to confirm what I said before hereof; like as ano­ther doth of Fountain or Fonts, Paulinus by name.

So Paulus Diaconus, who wrote in the year 790. Lib. 6. Hist. Longobard. Cap. 15. maketh mention (for which cause I also make mention of him and his testimony) of one Codratus, King of the Anglosaxons, who was baptized at Rome, of Ser­gius the first, Pope there, in the year 690. and by him named Peter, and that he died, being in his white Garments; and that was within the seven days or weeks after he was baptized: For of old they were baptized at Easter (a solemn time ap­pointed for the Catechumens to be baptized in, after their in­structions and preparations certain dayes before) and so array­ed in the same white garments, for seven or eight dayes, they appeared all upon the Sunday following Easter-day, which thereupon was called with them Dominica in Albis, as both Rabanus in his 2 Lib. de Instit. Cle [...]. Cap. 30. and Augustine in Serm. ad competentes, a very white Sunday, though in our English called Low-Sunday, It might be a second Palm-Sun­day, being both Ensigns, as of Innocency, so victory. The which Feast of Easter lasted with them, until Pentecost, there­fore called with us Whit-sunday or White-Sunday also, because they then also appeared together in their white cloaths; after which, namely, the Lords day after, their white garments were taken off, for which purpose it was called Pascha clausum, or the Feast of Easter finished or shut up, as Alcuinus in Epi­stolaad Carolum Magnum & in Hebdomada Pentecostes.

In imitation of this, the Papists do even yet continue to put a white handkerchief, or other white linen vestment upon, or about the head of the baptized and anointed Infant, by which they signifie both the glory of the Resurrection, as also the splendour and whiteness, or brightness of the soul, the black and foul spots of sins being washed off; and lastly, that the bap­tized must so long as he liveth, keep and preserve its purity and innocency; and so in a manner, and upon the matter, I have given you in English, the substance of all the Latine before, lest thou should traduce me also for a Papist, for writing thus to you in an unknown tongue.

But I leave now this digression, occasioned from the third signification of the word [...], which is (as I have said) to Dye, even to dye white as wool and snow, the crimson and scar­let sins of such as being born therein, come to be baptized. And so I conclude my first answer to your, or rather others, objecti­on, the which answer is briefly this, That your dipping or im­merging cannot be the true and onely baptism, because (as they say) [...] is derived from [...], which signifieth to dip or immerge: for that I say [...] signifieth also to Wash, and also to Dye, and where there are three significations as three branches of a Primogenial or Radical word, it followeth not, but is a great non-sequitur or inconsequence, that the word deri­ved, as Baptism here, should be confined to, and concluded in the one, namely dipping; when as it may be, and must be, enlar­ged and extended to the other also, washing and dying.

Secondly, in words, when from them arguments are drawn, you must consider to what use and purpose the words are brought, and not so much, or onely from what root and origi­nal they are fetcht: for howsoever most an end, I acknowledge the Primitive and Radical word is of a greater latitude, and larger extent, then that which is branched and derived from it; yet it is often otherwise, or sometimes at least, as in some trees, whose branches do exceed the root in extension; and as in man, who is Arbor inversa, whose arms and legs do spread wider and farther then the head and hair.

Our Divines do instance in two Derivative words, Cate­chising and Prophecying whereof the first, namely Catechizing, according to the use of the Scripture, spreads now as far as to [Page 37]the teaching of men of riper years by any way of writing, or preaching, or conference, as is to be seen, Luk. 1.4. Acts 18.25. Acts 21.24. 1 Cor. 14.19. yet is derived from a word [...], or [...] a sound, or such a sound as an Eccho yeildeth, and pro­perly and originally is but such an instruction as is of children or Novices in the Elements and Rudiments of Religion, by a lively voice of Question and Answer, sounding and resound­ing like the Eccho.

So the second, namely, Prophecying, according to the use of the Scriptures, spreadeth now farther then the root or word whence it is derived; for whereas this [...] or [...], signi­fieth properly and radically, but to foretell things to come, and reveal matters to be hereafter fulfilled; that now is extended to the declaring of things also past, done, and already fulfilled, as in those well known places of Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 11.4. and 1 Cor. 14.13, 31.

So thirdly (to come to our business in hand) Baptizing, though it may be, and is derived from the radicall word before mentioned, which signifieth dipping and immerging into, and under water; yet, it is of a larger signification then so, and is extended in general to many kinds of washings and laverings, rinsings and cleansings, even where there is no dipping or im­merging at all; and this also according to the use and language of the Scriptures.

I shall give you some particular instances and inductions, as I have in part already, and so shall a little exercise your patience, and mine own too, according to the rule given me, being apt to teach you, patient, in meekness instructing you, if peradventure God will give repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, 2 Tim. 2.24, 25.

1. The children of Israel are said to be all baptized unto Mo­ses in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. 10.2. (the Red sea being an antitype of the Waters of Baptism, and the cloudy pillar an antitype of the Spirit) yet were they not dipped in the cloud; dashed they might be, and wetted with the cloud, and some showers or drops falling from it, as they passed under it, going before them and behinde them at times, as Exod. 14.22. but dipped or immerged in, or into it, you will not say, I suppose, nor can you say (I think) that the Israelites were [Page 36]dipped in or under the waters of the Red Sea, as which were a wall unto them, both on the right hand and on the left, so that they walked dry foot, and dry shod through the same; sprinkled they might be, and washed a little with some drop­pings, and aspersions from the walls, but dipped and immerged they were not in them, and yet baptized.

I the rather and at first instance in this, because the Apostle doth himself call this a figure or example of our Baptism, at the 6. and 10. verses; for as in that passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, they were preserved, and their ene­mies the Egyptians drowned; so by our undergoing and par­taking of Baptism, the water whereof representeth the blood of Christ to us; our fouls are saved, and our enemies, sin and our natural corruption, are enfeebled and overthrown; so, as remitted unto us thereby, it cannot have dominion, or bring damnation.

2. Our Saviour asketh the two ambitious Suitors, Can ye be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? and foretel­leth them, With the Baptism that I am baptized with, shall ye be baptized, Mark 10.38, 39. What did he mean, that either himself or those two Apostles should be dipped all over in blood and immerged therein? no, rather, but that they should be sprinkled with the drops thereof, and besmeared with the same; so himself, Though blood trickled down his head, by the prick­ing of the Thorns, and blood ran down his back, by the cut­tings of the scourge, and blood issued out with water out of his side, by the piercings of the spear, and blood fell out of his hands and feet, by the wounding of the spikes and nailes; sprink­led he might be, and aspersed in body, and so was with blood, but dipt and immerged he was not, and yet baptized with the baptism thereof: and as for the two Brothers, James, was kil­led of Herod with the sword, Act. 12.2. and so he was bapti­zed in blood, but not dipt in it; and John was banished by Domitian into the Isle of Patmos, in the 90 year of the Nati­vity of Christ (which was, as every persecution is, a kind of such baptism as is here meant by our Saviour) where he endu­red Exile nine or ten years, and there wrote the Revelation to the Churches, but being after released by Trajanus, he retur­ned to Ephesus, and there wrote his Gospel, and there dyed [Page 37]in the 100. year after the Nativity, he onely amongst all the A­posties (being the Survivor of them all) siccâ morte & sine san­guine as some say, though Augustine; Libro Soliloq. Cap. 29. Tom. 9. hath these words, Veneni poculum Johanues intrepidus potavit. He was forced to drink a cup of poyson, but he saith not that he died thereof; so if he were not baptized with the baptism that Christ was, he drank of the cup which Christ did, and foretold he should die also, in the same Text.

3. John the Baptist told the people that He who came after him, meaning Christ, should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, Mat. 3.11. and Christ himself foretold the Apostles, they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence, Acts 1.5. and so they were on the day of Pentecost following, when there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, Acts 2.3, 4. thus were they baptized with fire and the holy Ghost; but not dipped or immerged in that fire, but rather as­persed or superfused, according to the phrase of Scripture, I will pour out my spirit, Joel 2.28. and the spirit was shed abundantly, Titus 3.6.

I could tell you of more baptizings (for so the word is in the original) of Cups, Tables, and Beds, as they are mentioned in the Evangelist, Mark 7.4. The which howsoever they may fit you well, as being Pharisaical and Hypocritical; and me al­so, as wherein there was no dipping or immerging, but onely washing and rubbing, I passe by for brevity sake, as also that which the Fathers call [...] called since the Baptism of Repentance, in which they were not merged or drowned in tears; that's but a metaphorical phrase to shew an abundance of their weeping, but onely sprinkled and perfused with tears, by which they did seek and desire the remission of their sins, and also found and obtained the same.

4. I will add but one more, 1 Cor. 15.29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead? whether it be taken pas­sively, according to the translation, for those who were bap­tized with water, for dead, i.e. given over for dead, or ready to die, or whether Actively and Passively, for those who did bap­tize, and also were baptized, over the dead, (i) upon the graves of the dead, [...] being oft, as here put for [...] as learned [Page 40] Beza observeth upon Mat. 17.27. and Mark 10.48. or whe­ther it be meant, who are washed for dead, their dead bodies are washed, according to the custom of the Patriarchs, as yet then retained in the Church, and mentioned to be done unto Dorcas, Acts 9.37. who being dead they washed and laid in an upper chamber; which way soever that Baptizing with water be meant, it cannot imply any dipping or immerging, as being unto dying persons, or unto persons baptized over graves, or unto dead bodies.

And thus I have shewed you, that there may be baptizings, where there are no dippings and immergings, and that this deri­vative [...], is of a larger signification then its original [...], as to the general, and therefore that it can be no Argument to prove your dipping to be the baptizing, because baptism is a de­rivative word from the root [...], signifying to dip. And so I come now to the very particular work in hand, and shall take it not onely in the Grammatical and Theological sense, but in the very Sacramental and Mystical meaning, the proper­ly baptizing with water, In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, so as John the Baptist, Peter, and Paul, and Philip, and the Deacons, and the 72 Disciples gave and ministred its; so as Jerusalem and all Judea round about Jordan, Christ and the Apostles, the 3000. the 5000. the Eunuch, Lydia, the Jaylor, and the several housholds gave it, and received, and parta­ked of it.

It is confessed on both sides, that the former baptized, and the later were baptized, both according to the good old way, and in the right and true manner. The which, whether it was by Dip­ping and Immerging the body into, and under the water, or onely sprinkling and asperling, or laying on, and pouring the water up­on some part, that is the question: for whereas the two mothers strove about the living child, whose of the two the child should be; here the two children, dipping and sprinkling, which I may call the twins of Rebecca, or the Churches two man­ners of baptizing strive whose of the two the mother, Baptism, shall be.

The Church of England hath been now of a long time, time out of mind, mind of any man living, in firm possession of ba­ptism, and practice of it, by sprinkling, or [...] on of water [Page 41]upon the face and fore-head, and gently washing and rubbing the same therewith, and pronouncing the word of Institution, In the name, &c. it is your part to bring the Writ of Ejection, a word, or the Examples of the word sufficient to dispossesse and eject us out of our baptism, and to invest your self into the same, by shewing your better title and plea of dipping and immerging the whole body in or under the water.

All that you can, and therefore do produce for your dipping and immerging, that ever I could read of, are (besides that deri­vation of the word, baptism, from an original word, that so sig­nifieth) the three examples of John the Baptist, Philip, and Paul baptizing, our Saviour Christ, the Ethiopian Eunuch, and Ly­dia.

But for that argument, drawn from the derivation of the word Baptism, you have heard enough already, and I pray let me hear no more of it, as not being of force, or to the purpose, unless you can shew, that so it is always used in the Gospel, and that where­soever baptism was ministred, there was dipping and immerging into, and under the water, otherwise, words are of value, as mo­ney is, according to the esteem of men, and the use of the time Nummus à [...] and as the Poet hath it —

Both of which derivation, and use or value of the word, are for the aspersion and perfusion of water upon a part, to be under­stood by baptism, aswel (if not better) in sacred Writ, then for immmersion or dipping of the whole body; yea, the word in its proper and genuine signification (as well as in its derivation, as I have shewed) importeth but an ablution and washing with wa­ter, which is ordinarily practised and performed in our good and old way of baptizing, and which doth not necessarily infer or inforce your new business of dipping and immerging in, and under the water, the whole body cloathes and all. But for your examples of Scripture, (for precept there is none in the Word, Go and Baptise, for the dipping.)

I will set down what the Texts have, and in order as the E­vangelists report of Johns baptizing Christ, Matth. 3.16. and straightway coming up out of the water, He (i.e.) John, saw the Hea­vens opened, and the Spirit like a Dove descending upon him, [Page 42]Luke 3.21, saith onely, that he being baptized and praying, the Heavens were opened; so of Philips baptizing the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. They went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him.

So of Pauls baptizing Lydia, Acts 16.13, and 15. On the Sab­bath he went out of the City, by a Rivers side where prayer was wont to be made, there Lydia hearing Paul preaching, and at­tending, was baptized.

All this that I hear, is Text, but where is that that is for your Tenet of dipping and immerging? why do you not press it, and argue from hence, any of, or all of the three Texts? nay where is any intimation that any of these persons were dipped and im­merged in any of these Rivers?

If you say, there, where it is said, that Christ descended into the water, I must tell you, that's no where expresly set down, but onely by consequence, because it is said, He went up straightway out of the water (I pray hereafter, you and your brethren, love good consequences better, and stand not alwayes upon verbal expressions of the Scriptures for every thing.) It is in­deed said of the Eunuch expresly, That he went down into the water at his baptizing; but of Lydia neither of both is said, but onely that she was amongst the rest, and that she was bap­tized by the Rivers side.

But what of Christs descending down into the waters? If I shall argue for you, and conclude hence it is onely this, that therefore it was not now Harvest time, when John Baptized Christ and others, for Jordan overfloweth all his banks in the time of Harvest, Jos. 3.15. then they could not have either gone down into, or have come up out of Jordan: But you shall ar­gue for your self, and conclude hence, if you will or can (for I neither will nor can.) Therefore Christs body was all over dipped and immerged in Jordan, under water, over head and ears as you say, that followeth not thence; Therefore also in his cloaths tyed about him as you do, nor that.

More probably, if he was so dipt, it was in his naked body, and out of cloaths, as before I alledged the opinion and say­ing of Anselme; but most likely, John did but either dip the head of Christ, bending it downward and forward into the wa­ter (not backward as you do the whole body) or else with one [Page 43]or both his hands did pour water upon his head (as he stood in Jordan) which ran down and wetted his body; and so for any thing I can see to the contrary, John did baptize in the like man­ner and way, all those other that came unto him. And thus al­so Philip baptized the Eunuch in the River or Water; and thus Paul baptized Lydia by the Rivers side. And so this cometh up neer to our manner and way, and so it will prove at last, the good old way at first. But did not John baptize in Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water John 3.23. water enough as you think, to dip and immerge all the bodies over head and ears; this is but your vain collection: look about the Text, and you may see the drift and purpose of that, How that there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him. Much water was re­quisite for such multitudes, though but to lay and pour some up­on every one, or to sprinkle and asperse them all therewith.

Again, if he dipped and immerged them over head and ears, in their whole bodies, cloathed as you do, or uncloathed, it must have been a tedious, toilsome, and over-burthensome work for one John Baptist, to have taken them fast by the cloathes or shoulders, and to have laid them down backward in the waters, and to have lifted them up again out of the waters, being now more heavy in their drenched garments, and to have set them upon their feet again, surely John the Baptist would soon have been spent that way, or had needed many other Baptists under him, half a score of such dippers as your Brother is, to have assi­sted him daily and continually, to have dispatched such multi­tudes as daily and continually resorted to him. Amongst which great multitudes, that came continually unto him from all quar­ters of Jerusalem, and Judea, and other Regions about, I can­not but think that many sickly, and weakly, and diseased per­sons hearing of the great fame of such a Prophet as John the Baptist was, who not onely preached the doctrine of Repen­tance, and of the Messias come, or shortly to come, but bap­tized into Remission of sin through the same, came flocking to him, or were led or brought by others, as desirous to partake of so great a blessing and mercy before they departed the world, like as Mat. 4.24, 25. And now can you think or imagine that Joh [...] when he baptized such, would dip or immerge them under [Page 44]water, over head and ears, thereby to endanger their lives, and in the curing their souls of sin, to destroy their bodies of life; when as with more safety to them, and to as much efficacy he might onely asperse or sprinkle them with water, or lay it on with his hand upon some part of their body, or head rather. If farther you add, that it is said in the original, that John bapti­zed, [...], in water, which he could not do unless he stood and dipped them in water; Sayest thou this thing of thy self, or did others tell it thee of him? I am sure you could not say it of your self, who know nothing of the original but your sin; (if that); and therefore for those others that told you so of him, tell them from me, that it is right enough translated and ren­dred to their hand if they can take it, with water, that Greek particle [...] very often signifieth, and is put for [...] or [...], with or by, and that in the Gospel, as Mat. 26.52. they that take the sword shall perish [...] by or with the sword, and so Luke 22.49. Lord shall we smite, [...] by or with the sword, &c.

But to draw up, if John the Baptist was in the River of Jor­dan with the people that came to him, how was it possible for him to stand there in the cold water, all the day, and every day dipping and immerging their whole bodies in and under the wa­ter? and if he was out of the water upon the brink or bank of Jordan, how was it possible for him, to dip and immerge with his hands, the whole bodies of those and so many as came to be baptized? For whereas it may be replyed, that John came straightway up also out of the water; and therefore he stood in the water and baptized there, Mark 1.10. if the words of straightway coming up out of the waters, refer not to Christ, but to John, then its spoken of John, that he did so after the baptizing of Christ onely. At the baptizing of others as they came and went away, John stirred not from them, but discoursing many things of Repentance, and Faith in the Messias to come, both whilst he was baptizing them, & afterwards; and so before they departed out from him, he inculcated to them of the Faith & of the Fruits of Baptism, as Mat. 3.8, 9, 10 there is the sum of his instructions to the people set down, which because (as he knew) Christ had no need of, therefore as soon as he had bap­tized him, he straightway came forth with Christ out of the water, and the rather to see the Heavens opening, and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and so further to instruct the people thereupon.

Again, if the people baptized, were dipped and immerged with their cloathes on their bodies, it was the more heavy, too heavy a work to be done by one; if with their cloaths off, the multitudes coming consisting of men and women, & some (doubtless) weak and sickly, it was too dangerous a work to be done & too immo­dest a spectacle to be caused, or endured, by that holy and reve­rend Prophet of God. Hereupon my opinion is clear to my self (but with a Salvo to the naked immersions of the whole body by the Ancients, cited onely by me, to disprove the cloathed dip­pings of Anabaptists to be the old way) yet not so stiff, but that it is ready to bend & yield to the spirit of the Prophets upon bet­ter evidence given, that Christ & the people baptized of Joh. came indeed to the River Jordan, and into it some little way, it may be, or abode in the brink thereof, the people confessing their sins, & so John the Baptist from his hands taking up water, poured it upon their heads, or sprinkled and aspersed it upon their heads or faces.

The which manner of baptizing by aspersing or infusing of water, doth yet plainer appear unto me out of the 2 Acts 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. What do you think of these three thousand baptized in one day? were they dipped and immerged so many bodies, in one day, by Peter and the Apostles? how could they, if they had bin together in, or at a River? but where they were, gathered together in the City and in one place thereof, there was neither River nor Fon­tain, nor Wels, nor Ponds, to be dipped and immerged in, in their whole bodies, neither is there any fyllable of their removing or going out of the City to Rivers or Ponds, and how then could they be so many baptized there, but as I said, by aspersing water upon them, or pouring water upon their heads: the very place, and the persons, the multitude of those who were to be baptized, and the paucity of those who did baptize, do plainly evidence, that the 3000 were not dipped, but aspersed onely, at that great and first baptizing after Christs Ascension.

No, nor Lydia, and her houshold though by a River side abroad, when she was converted and baptized, was dipped and immerged in her cloaths, or out of her cloath [...]; and so much less those other housholds, of grown persons and professors, baptized in private by the Apostles, as of Cornelius, Stephanas, &c. these, [Page 46]or any of these cannot be said or thought to be dipped and merged under water, in their whole bodies, cloathed or naked, without great inconveniences, difficulties, improbabilities, if not impossiblities, all which are, and may be avoided by the other way of baptizing.

And thus, Sir, you may see and feel too, unless you will run in­to darknes in the day time, & grope in the noon-day, as in the night, that there is no footing or bottom in any River or Pond in Scri­pture for your dipping and immerging baptism. How dare you then cry this up as the onely good old way of baptizing, and de­termine that, and decree it so to be, even the very practice of John the Baptist, and the very Acts of the Apostles, and the mind of the Spirit, when as it never seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to them, to lay upon us no greater burthen then the necessary things. of which, your immersion and dipping is none, I am sure, a bur­den indeed, but not necessary thing, sure if there had bin, or were any such necessity, or but conveniency thereof, to the perfecting and compleating baptism, as that without it, baptism should not be true and right as of old, the wind that bloweth where it listeth, and the spirit that breatheth where it pleaseth, would in some place or other of the Gospel have blown and breathed out unto us something of it; nay rather, hereof is a very great silence of your dipping and immerging, though much speech and practice of baptizing. Christ saith as elsewhere to the winde, peace and be still, and the spirit rather holds in its breath, no words here are made, no circumstances are given, no consequen­ces are to be drawn out for this dipping & diving, putting off or on of cloathes, laying or lying down in the waters of ponds as is used by you at your baptizing. But I shall now tell you, that the winde bloweth fair, and the spirit breatheth strongly and sweetly, and that of old too, for our sprinkling and asper­sing Baptism; and I perceive this sound from heaven will come suddenly upon you, (before you looked for it) as of a mighty rushing winde, and I wish it may fill all the house where you and your Brethren are sitting, and that you would take them, the Texts I mean, into your considerations, (unless they be all spent and sent away to me in your Brothers Letter, wherein he gave me so many considerations.)

• 1. Now of these Texts, 1. Some are Typical, as all those in [Page 47]the Pentateuch, especially, which speaks of the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices, as Levit. 16.14. The Priest shall take the blood of the Bullock, and shall sprinkle it before the Mercy-Seat.
• 2. Some are Prophetical, and allude unto Baptism, as that of Ezek. 36.25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness; by the which, I mean the thing signified, in and by the Baptismal-water, even the cleansing blood of Christ, the which David aimed at, when he said also, Wash me from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin, and I shall be whiter then snow, Psal. 51.2, 7.
• 3. Some other Texts are Mystical and represent it, as Heb. 10.22. & 12.24. ye are come to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things then that of Abel; and again, Let us draw nigh with a true heart in full assurance, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Here is men­tion of sprinkling, and washing, with a reflexion upon the pure water, or baptism; the which another Text sheweth, 1 Pet. 3.21. where he nameth Baptism, where having spoken of the eight souls saved by water in the Ark, He saith, The like Figure whereunto, even Baptism doth now also save us, by the resurre­ction of Christ; so then, like as the Ark saved Noah and his fa­mily by water, so doth Baptism save us by water, by being washed and sprinkled therewith, as they were in the Ark; for so the Apostle specifieth, and hath no words of dipping or immer­ging, as not conducing to the salvation of them, or of the Ark it self, which may be a fifth Text or instance, where that is said to be baptized, which was not dipt or immerged.
• Again 4ly. 1 Pet. 1.2. the Apostle there mentioneth the san­ctification of the spirit unto obedience, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, as the inward grace, and thing signified, of the outward sign and water in Baptism. Now wherefore in all these, or the most of these places, doth the Spirit of God set forth the manner of application of Christs blood, and the spi­ritual grace by the sprinkling it upon us, but to intimate the way and maner of ministration of the Baptismal-water, the sign and seal thereof to be by the springling and aspersing it upon us.

Had you Sir, but such a Quaternion of Souldiers, as it is cal­led, Acts 12.4. four such militant Texts to stand up and fight [Page 48]for your dipping and immerging, yea, or but an Union, one such Text, I mean, in all the Bible, that did but carry the co­lours, or bear up an Ensign, a sign, or but the name of dipping (as they do of sprinkling) how would you glory and triumph as the Philistines did when they had gotten Samson into their hands; how would you call your friends and neighbours, your Brethren and Sisters together, especially the two last dipped, saying, Come rejoyce with me, for I have found the piece that was lost, a Text for our dipping that was at a loss. But it is so still, and you are at a loss for it, and may be at alas also for it! you may go light up a candle, and sweep or sweat too, and seek diligently, and yet not finde a piece of Scripture, one Text for your dipping and immerging into, and under the water, like as I have found out fair texts and pieces of Scripture for our sprink­ling and perfusion of water in the time and act of bap­tizing.

For as for that Text and piece of Scripture, Rom. 6.3, 4. & Col. 2.12. (which are both one) that we are buried with Christ in Baptism, wherein also we are risen with him; I know some, do descant and discourse hereout, of Immersion into, Immoration under, and Emersion out of the water of baptism, but the Plain Song in this (as in other) Scripture is this onely, that through baptism, being truly ingrafted into Christ, and made one with him, we are made partakers of the merit and efficacy of his death, and burial, and resurrection (for these are included in that) to kill and mortifie, bury and abolish sin and natural corruption in us.

Though I add also this, that such representation and operation of the death, burial, and Resurrection of Christ, and of us sinners after his example, is not then at baptism required of us, as which is accidental to baptism, or secondarily essential; neither is it primarily nor properly, the inward grace signified by baptism; but the ablution and washing of the soul, and cleansing it from the guilt and filth of sin in that Laver of Regeneration, is principally intended, and primarily essential to baptism; like as the putting away the filthiness of the flesh, by cutting off the foreskin, was to circumcision.

And lastly, if it were so, the burial and Resurrection of Christ, the main thing in baptism, yet shall we not need to infer hence, [Page 49]or to introduce hither the Rite of immerging and emerging, which is your total dipping, as which is resembled as well and better in our manner of aspersion and effusion of water upon the party, though but upon a part, for when water is pour­ed upon, or is laid upon the head of the adult standing on his feet, or kneeling on his knees, as likewise upon the face of the child, lying in the Arms of the Minister, or the Parent or o­ther presenting it, are they not the while, as it were, buried in, or do they not lie under the water, as the buried doth under the earth? and so the party may be said to arise as it were, when it comes or goeth from the water, as the body doth from the earth, or the Ministers dipping his hand into the water, and plucking it out when he layeth it on, may it not have the same signification with immerging and emerging, and so of the Bu­rial and Resurrection of Christ? And I think I may say, our Church, in giving liberty of dipping or immerging and emer­ging of Infants (if not weak) did it not so much from authori­ty of this or any other Scripture, as in conformity to some of the Ancient Christians and Fathers of the Church, in this cu­stome, as in other lawful Rites they practised, to which and whom I now come.

Onely I shall give but a tender and gentle touch of one thing that floweth more naturally, or rather more mystically from the afore-alledged Texts. That if the baptized, his being buried with Christ in baptism, be represented and signified by the lying and abiding of the water upon the face or forehead, as a part of the body, and so the body in that part thereof, its lying and abiding under the water, even sprinkled and poured upon it: Then sure it is not advisedly and conveniently done by Gentlewomen and tender Mid-wives, to wipe off the water from the part, and absterge it with a handkerchief as soon as it is laid on by a Minister, or by turning the head of the Infant (whom I speak for, that cannot speak for it self) presently downward, to cause the water to fall off it, upon the ground. In all the History of Baptism, from the beginning of it in Jor­dan and Rivers to the present being of it in Fonts or Vessels; I do not read of such a word spoken, or such a work done, as absterging or wiping off water in Baptism; no not then, when there seemed more occasion for it, as when the adult, and like­wise [Page 50]Infants were immerged all over their naked bodies in the water at Baptism: nor then, when presently after it, they went or were carried to be anointed (as they were) either all over their bodies, as in the Greek Churches (so Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 11. & Chrysest. Homil. 6. in Col. witness) or in their fore­heads and breasts, and between the shoulders; (so Epiphanius, Haeres. 79. Rabanus de Instit. Cler. l. 1. c. 23. affirm.) Therefore learned Vossius, doth justly censure the Translator of the Apo­stolical Constitutions of Clemens (as they are called) for ren­dring those words, [...] Lib. 3. Cap. 15. Thus, deinde Diaconissa eas abstergit, for the word is, and sig­nifieth anointeth, not abstergeth; and the work was, the Dea­coness anointed them, not absterged them after baptism. The truth is, they neither absterged or wiped off water after their Baptism, or oyl after their unction, and so such a custom hath no ground either in Equity or Antiquity.

True it is also, that this our Westernly Northen Climate is colder much then those Easternly Southern, and our waters therefore are colder, and our Infants tenderer, and our Mo­thers more indulgent, and our Midwives are more advente­rous; but our Ministers are descreet, not to pour on much wa­ter, and that they do, to hold it some while in their hand to the warming of it, and gently to rub and wash the face of the In­fant with such warm hand and warmed water: and God is ever merciful, at his Ordinances and Sacraments especially, so that I never heard of any child that ever sickned, much less died, up­on a cold taken at Baptism: In a word (and a word also is enough to a wise woman) The wiping of the Baptismal-water from the childs face, as soon as it is laid or poured on, is (so far as lieth in her) the taking off and avoiding (I will not say a frustrating and evacuating) of the sign and seal as soon as it is laid on, as to that signification, and sigillation, of the parties being bu­ried with Christ in baptism, as which onely the abiding and remaining of the water upon the body or bodily part (and its lying and centinuing under the water) doth resemble and repre­sent. But I return to you Sir, and shall now proceed to far­ther discussing of your dipping and our sprinkling, by Antiqui­ty to shew which is the good old way.

I or it may be when you wrote me word, that your dipping [Page 51]was older then our sprinkling or pouring on of water, and that it was the good old way, you had some squint-eye upon Anti­quity of the second hand, (for the Scripture is the Antiquity of the first hand, the very good old way it self) for that your right or direct eye, could see little or nothing in the Scripture, for your dipping and immerging.

And I am glad to meet you here again, in this your good old way, hoping that by your looking upward to Antiquity, and the ancient Customes of the Churches of God, you may ere long, lay down your Novelties, and the yesterday fashions of your new Brotherhood. And to say the truth, whither else can you now go, being beaten out of your holds you thought you had, and those firm ones (as you had thought) in Scripture for your dipping and immerging, and finding (at leastwise now) no ground or footing in any Pond there, no not River for your Dippers and Immergers to stand in and baptize; whither I say can you go; but (need of it, more then zeal to it, driving you) to the next Antiquity, which succeeding, and some of them seeing the Canon of Scripture consummated and consigned by St. John the Revelationist, as Evangelist, and so living and dwel­ling next to those starry times of the Apostles, and those Sun­shining dayes of Christ Jesus, can best discover, relate, and tra­ject their light, they being the next neighbours to the same, borrowed and participated from them. But to the point.

I acknowledge that some of the Ancients, (yea many of them) did use to dip and immerge at, and in their baptizings, and because it lieth upon your hand to prove it, let the learn­ed of your side take it in hand to transcribe and produce such ancient Authors and their Testimonies: I had as live they should spend the time, and lose their labour when they have done, as my self; for so they will, neither will it be of any advantage to you and your dipping and immerging, being far different as to the Ancients, their dipping and immerging, as I have before touched in part, and now shall fully handle. For

1. I have shewed how the Ancients dipped and immerged in Rivers and Fountains, and Wells, and Fonts, or Baptisteries (made so wide and big of purpose) but you, especially of the later brood of the Separation, run out into Ponds to do the same.

2. They, the Ancients dipped, the whole bodies of those who were baptized, naked and out of the cloaths, such was the Candid In­nocency & honesty of the old times, and for other reasons I have given: but you do dip your converts and proselytes, covered and in their cloaths, for no reasons given by you, that I hear of, unless it be fear, lest Satan tempt you to incontinency, as these last ages are very naught indeed and wicked. And yet I know, some of the Ancients dipped & immerged but a part of the body in the water, this is not yet touched upon, and it will make somewhat for what I have said before, of sprinkling and pouring the wa­ter upon the head of the baptized. Augustine in his 4. Homil saith (and so he is cited of Gratian. decret. de consec. distinc. 4. cap. 66. Postquam vos credere promisistis, tertiò capita vestra in sacro fonte demersimus, and this in the words following, he calls Ordo baptis­matis, it was the very order and manner of baptism, after their confession, to dip and immerge their heads in the sacred Font. And before him Hierom. Dial. adversus Luciferianos hath these words: Multa quae per traditionem in Ecclesia observantur, au­thoritatem sibi scriptae legis usurpaverunt, velut in lavachro ter caput mergitare, To dip and immerge the head thrice in the laver of baptism, he makes it a tradition of the Church, and as Authen­tique as if it were a Law written. And before Hierom, a little, a matter of two years, Chrysostom upon these words of John 3. Ʋnless a man be born of Water and the Spirit, saith he, [...]. To those who dip and immerge their head in the water, as in a sepulchre, the old man is buried and overwhelmed, &c. Yea, & before him Eunomius and his fol­lowers, (as ever the Heretiques like Apes, will be following some Ancient Customs of the Church) who started up in the year 360 [...], when they baptize, they wet them down to the breast, and no lower, (the word is not [...] dip and immerge strictly, but [...], i.e. dew or wet them, (it may be our English dew, may be derived thence) (and so here by the way, may be a proof of the Antiquity of our aspersing or sprinkling, or bedewing the baptized) for which cause, when they the Eunomians baptized [...], which is labrum quasi lavabrum, in a large and ample vessel, such as they used in [Page 53] bathes or bucks, the party to be baptized standing on the outside or brim thereof, [...], they bowed down his head un­to his breast into the water, all this is reported by Theodoret. lib. 4. haeret. fabularum. Lastly, before these, it is recorded of B. Lau­rentius that he baptized one Lucillus, and the manner this, as the words in the Acts are, & cum expoliasset eum, fudit super ca­put ejus, when he had stript him of his cloathes he poured (the water) on his head, these lived about Cyprians time, in the year 260 recorded by Surius, tom. 4. in the Hist. of the Martyrdom of the B. Laurentius.

But you, as you differed from some of the Ancients, in dipping, and immerging cloathed bodies, wheras they did them so naked; so do you differ from some other of them in dipping their whole bodies, down even to their feet, whereas these did but their heads down to their breasts.

3. The Ancients, dipped those thrice, whom they baptized; you had but even now the Testimony of Hierom and Augustine, a part of whose words I reserved for hither; Qui ordo baptismatis duplici mysterii significatione celebratur; The order of baptizing, with thrice dipping and immerging, is famous in the Churches for these two mysterious significations, 1. Of three Persons of the Deity. 2. Of the three dayes death and resurrection, (some others add a 3. of the three sorts of sin cleansed by baptism, offenc [...]s in thought, word and deed (To which may fitly come in next Te [...] ­tullian advers. Praxeam cap. 26. Nam nec semel sed Ter, ad singula nomina, in personas singulas mergimur: as also Athanasius in dict. & interp scr. qu. 91. [...], &c. To dip the childe thrice in the Baptistery or Font, is to signifie, as above Augustine saith. I might add to these Chrysostom homil. De fide in Deum Patrem, Filium, & Spiritum sanctum. Ambros. lib. de Sac. 2. cap. 7. Gregor. Mag. in Epistela ad Leandrum.

And it appears that as this custome was very general, so very Ancient, for that Arrius also, who lived in 314. some ten years before Athanasius, (but yet a great while after Tertullian, who lived in 190. and therefore best sheweth to be ancient) He, I say, Arrius, had got up also this manner of baptizing, by thrice im­merging, who did it for an ill purpose and proof of three natures in the Trinity, and not three persons and one God, as the Catho­liques [Page 54]then spake, and therefore according to Christs form, ba­ptized in the Name, and not in the names, (for there is but one Name, and so but one Divinity) which when the Fathers of the Church perceived, they saw good reason to change that cu­stome and order of thrice dipping, and instead thereof, to use but once dipping; and thereupon Gregory the Great and the 4 Tolletan Councel are very earnest about it, the leaving of that Trine im­mersion, and taking up the simple or once immersion, for the avoid­ing of the scandaling the weak, and incouraging the heretiques, and lest they should seem to countenance their error, when they complyed in their customes.

But you herein also differ from the Ancients, and your pra­ctise is to dip but once, for so you tell me in your Letter, and that with an emphatical reduplication. If he had dipt them more then once, I would have expressed so in my first Letter, but he did dip them but once; and so in your saying twice, once, and again that he dipt them but once, you gain-say the greater and higher Antiquity, and your self too; for once dipping though it was also, a good old way, yet it was not, The good old way, as you say, that is, it is not the best and the oldest way amongst the orthodox Ancients.

Not but that I acknowledge, once dipping to be as efficacious to the ends and fruits of baptism, and as mysterious to the signi­fying of the one Deity, of the three holy Persons, and the one Death of Christ Jesus, besides that in the unity of the same faith, a diverse or different custom of the Churches cannot be hurtful, neither is it prejudicial to the baptized party, whether it be once or thrice dipped and immerged: but so much I have said, to shew the vanity of your boast, of the good old way of your dipping, insomuch as you have thrice digressed from Anti­quity therein, as is hitherto proved.

Yea, you are gone from the present way of your Mother, and not onely Brother-church of Rome, which hath lately sided with you, & gone cheek by joyl with you; sided, said I, nay, rather head­ed you and the other Sects amongst us, for so, she hath given over her old way of the Trine-immersion, and is upon the new path, of Trine-aspersion: and you have left her also in both, both in the number of Trine or thrice, as also in the matter of asper­sion or sprinkling in this your once dipping and immerging; and [Page 55]thus you forsaking your friends, & walking alone by your selves, (yet going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it, yea, compassing sea and land to get proselytes) your friends may perhaps at last forsake you, and leave you to your selves, and your bad new way, to walk alone and wilder your selves. But I come to a fourth and last difference.

4. The Ancients dipped and immerged, and though they made it mysterious and significant, yet they, the learnedest of them, thought it not absolutely necessary, but adiaphorous, and therefore held it but as an Ecclesiastical custom and tradition, as Hierom. dial. adver. Lucif. (whom I cited but even now) expresly calls it such, morem & traditionem Ecclesiae; and so Basil. lib. de Spiritu sancto, cap. 27. by way of Question, demands this of the thrice dipping, how came it to us, and that other of renoun­cing the devil and his angels, from what Scripture have we it? and then answereth it by an affirmative in a negative interroga­tion, have we it not rather from an [...], from a private and secret instruction or tradition; for the word is, [...] (as to the liberty of it, and no necessity hereof, being a consequence hereupon, I shall say more afterwards.

As for those that owned and held this dipping, and especially the thrice dipping, to be either a Divine precept, or an Apostolical tradition unwritten and nonscript, they were either minoris, vel nulliusfidei, as the Canons of the Apostles (as they are called) Can. 50. and Basilius is cited by the Papists in the Book before alledged by me, for making the thrice dipping an Apostolical and necessary tradition: but it's answered by Whitakers desc. cont. 1 quest. 6. and so also by Rivet in his Criticus cap. 20. (who both acknowledge they had it from Erasmus in Epist. aa Johannem, Episc. Culmensem) that that Book de Spiritu sancto, is not any true and genuine work of the great Basil, but a spurious and sup­posititious one, especially in the later half thereof, by some one that would be great in Basil, and therefore though I cited a te­stimony a little before out of the 27 Cap. of that Book de Spiritu sancto, bearing the name of the great Basil, like as Vessius and others do, yet I will not stand upon it (as I need not having an­other Authentique one standing by him, which is that of Hie­rom) for that I hear of it by those learned above mentioned, and read also my self in that 27 Chapter, for though the words that [Page 56]I have cited thereout may bear a good sense by themselves, yet finding the drift of that 27 Chapter, being to equal, or to adjoin Traditions (of which a great many are there named, and this amongst the rest) unto the written word of the holy Spirit, as Apostolical and necessary, I do suspect those words before (of pri­vate, and secret or hidden doctrine, as I rendred them) to bend and incline that way.

Others, lesse credible, Ancient Authors there are, who make this Trine immersion, and Apostolical tradition, yea precept, as Pelagius Papa, Anno 510. who is cited by Gratian de consec. dist. 4. can. 10. makes it a precept in those words (because of the three Persons named in the Precept) Go baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: and Theo­doretus, l. 4. haeret. Fabular. Which book is thought to be none of his, by reason of some fabulous things in it: and so this way gene­rally the opinion of the later Roman Church, whilst they held to the Trine-immersion, that it was a necessary Apostolical tradition: and the like (I beleeve) they are as ready to say, now, they have left that, of their Trine aspersion to which they have be taken themselves now at last.

And you also, and yours, are of the same opinion, for your once dipping and immerging; that it is of Divine prescription and A­postolical tradition, who adhere so peremptorily to it, disallowing and condemning all of us and other Churches, who practise aspersion and sprinkling, for heretical and antichristian and our baptism, for unlawful and invalid.

And therefore I shall now also give you a little of Antiqui­ty to [...], for our sprinkling and aspersing of water with the hand, upon the party baptized, or our pouring or laying on of wa­ter upon some part, head or face of the same, whereby it shall be made to appear to be also, a good and old way of baptizing.

But shall I need to add any more of this? I have given you already the Testimonies of some of the Ancients for the same, in the third difference I made 'twixt your and the Ancients dip­ping and immerging: and the Example of Laurentius so bap­tizing Lucillus, by pouring water upon his head; and so also he baptized one of the Souldiers, who brought Ʋrceum cum aqua, and took his time, and offered it to St. Laurence, that so he might be that Souldier baptized of him; which could be [Page 57]no otherwise, then by taking water out of the Pitcher, or Pail, or Kettle, with his hands, and pouring it upon him, even his head: and this was much about Cyprians time, in year 250. And therefore sure it was the practice in Cyprians time; yea, and it was his very judgement given hereupon, to one by name Mag­nus, Epist. 76. who propounded the Question to him, whether the weak and sick, who could not be dipt, but were onely per­fusi, sprinkled or aspersed with water, were truly Christians, and obtained grace? He answered, Let it not move any, quod aspergi vel perfundi videantur aegri, that the sick are aspersed or poured upon with water at their Baptism, for that also they partake of the Lords grace, seeing the holy Scripture by the Prophet Ezekiel saith, I will sprinkle upon you pure water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness; of which Text I have made use before to the same purpose.

So likewise I have shewed the Antiquity thereof from Eu­nomius, and the Eunomians, who living about the year, 360. did wet the head down to the breast, in their baptizing; and I have pressed it out of the Greek word which Theodoret useth, who relateth it, that they did it by pouring or sprinkling of wa­ter upon their head (those Heretiques imitating therein as their manner is, in those things there is no difference) the Custom of the Orthodox.

And yet before these, Athanasius who lived about 325. Orat. 3. Contra Arianos, hath another more express testimony, where having shewed, that the Arians could not give a true and perfect baptism, because they erred in the foundation and es­sence of it, as who (though they pronounced the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) believed not in the sacred Trinity, as who deny the Son, he hath these words, [...], so that those who are sprinkled and aspersed of them (that is baptized) are rather polluted and defiled with ungodliness, (then washed) for so I think the word ought rather to be rendred, as having reference to baptism, ac­cording to the sense and purpose of Athanasius in this place, then as Petras Nannius doth (Redeemed:) for though the Greek word [...], signifie also to be redeemed, yet he shewed him self a true Translator indeed of the word in General, but [Page 58]not so good an Interpreter of the sense, nor word here in this particular, which also signifieth, and here must, to be washed, for the reason above I have given: and so Vossius saith elegant­ly as pertinently, polluere ait non abluere, rather polluted then washed, as I rendred it, but that which comes hence to my pur­pose, that Athanasius calleth and maketh [...], the sprinkling and aspersion of water in the right form, to be baptism, and that it is good and true baptism which is given in that way and manner.

But I can bring forth a testimony far beyond these, for the Antiquity of aspersing or perfusion in baptism, and that is of Tertullian, living about the year 190 lib. de poenit. cap. 6. I deny not (saith he) but that the Divine benefit, Ablutio delictorum, the washing of sin, should be ready and safe to all that come to the water, and then he addeth, but they must labour also to come thither, for otherwise (saith he) Quis tibi tam infidae paenitentiae viro, asperginem unam cujustibet aquae commodabit; if thou beest a man untrue to thy repentance thou makest, who will let thee have one sprinkling of water; (in opposition or allusion to the Trine immersion, as I suppose) and meaning that if he would not come to the waters being in health, to be dipt thrice, he de­served not to be come unto in sickness, to be once aspersed and sprinkled: so speaking plain enough, for sprinkling and aspersing the sick and weak especially, the which also Cornelius a Byshop of Rome in Cyprians time maketh mention of, in an Epistle to Fab. Antioch. which is in Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. where he likewise relates of Novatus the Heretique, that when he was freed from the evil spirit, and fell into a grievous disease, upon his bed desired baptism, and so was in his bed baptized, i. e. perfusus aqua, by wa­ter poured & sprinkled upon him; This was so customary amongst the Ancient, to sprinkle and asperse the sick in bed (if there they came to their first conversion) that it was called Baptismus Clini­corum, the baptism of the bedrid, though they did not so highly esteem of such as were so baptized in bed & upon sickness, yea, they debarred such from being of the Clergy, because they thought they become Christians rather of necessity then good will.

And because I have mentioned such a thing, as the Baptism of the Clinicks, or such as were converted and baptized in their sickness and death beds, I will put you a Quaere upon a supposition [Page 59]which often falleth out, knowing you will presently run to your master of quaeres for answer and resolution.

Suppose one of your children, or his, or any your other bre­thren, who by vertue, or vice rather of your opinion, hath been kept and detained from it's baptism during it's infancy and mi­nority, should be at 13 or 14 years of age, visited of God with sickness, and so scholed, and enlightned by him therein and thereby (for schola crucis est schola lucis) that he should come to a good measure of knowledge of himself and God, of his sins, traduced at his birth, and committed in his life, of Gods mercies promised in his word, and covenanted in Christ; and so lying in bed, under great distempers, even fore-going death; should upon and after confession of his sins, and profession of his faith in Christ earnestly desire and require baptism, as the Seal of Gods Covenanted Mercy, and as a confirmation of his faith therein and a strengthening of him against the fears of death before and at his departure out of this world. What would you now do here?

Dare you deny still and withhold baptism from him in this condition, when as it may be and ought to be ministred unto him? then will you be, and are you guilty before God of a plain and palpable contempt, of the ordinance of baptism, which is and will be damnable to whomsoever, Gen. 17.24. Exod. 4.24, 25. And if you think it now needful for him to have baptism, for that he is now capable of it, according to your own tenet, and the thing is now feizable, and possible to be had, I ask how and which way shall baptism be given and conferred unto him?

Will you remove him out of his bed in his clothes, or in his bed and its cloathes to your Pond? or cause to be brought to the bed-side some big Vessel or Tub of water (which later, is more then I need grant unto you, in the point betwixt us,) and so, either the one or the other way. [...] immerge his whole body in the cloathes or out of the cloathes (which is still more then I need yeeld?) Then in all probability may and will you be guilty both before God and man of the death and destruction of the party, the which is and will be as damnable to whomsoe­ver.

Now advise and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me; You cannot but see and say as David once) you are in a great [Page 60]straight, 2 Sam. 24.13, 14. For according to your opinion and practice, you must either let your child depart the world with­out baptism, when it might have it; if you would, which will be prejudicial to your soul and your salvation, or you must give it your dipping baptism, which will be prejudicial to its body and its preservation, as causing it to depart the world sooner then otherwise it would.

The onely way to come out of your straights, is straightway to fall now into the hands of the Lord God (with David,) and (lay­ing down your imaginations, and every high thing of yours that exalteth it self against the knowledge of God,) 2 Cor. 10.5. to call for and suffer some lawful Minister of God, to come, and after such confession and profession heard by him, or testified by others, to Asperse or sprinkle (In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost,) a little water upon the face & fore-head of your child in the bed, gently washing therewith, by the moving of his hands, with prayer and supplication before and after; Thus doing, both dangers may be prevented; and this was that, I with the Ancients even now called Baptismus Clinicorum. How long halt ye betwixt two opinions and thoughts, if the sprinkling or aspersion be baptism, follow it, but if dipping and immersion, then follow it. And the people (with their Dipper) answered me not a word.

I will but add one Testimony more, and that is, of Walafri­dus Strabo, de rebus Ecl. cap 26. Notandum non solùm mergen­do, sed etiàm de super fundendo multos baptizato fuisse, & adhuc p [...]sse baptizari, It is a thing to be noted, as it is notable, that ma­ny have bin formerly, and may still be baptized, not onely bydip­ping and immerging, but also by sprinkling and pouring water upon them, and so he also maketh mention of the baptizing of St. Laurence out of a Pitcher or Pot of water, which was by as­persion or perfusion, and [...] was often (as he saith) when as the bigness of the bodies of grown persons converted, would not suffer them to be immerged and dipped in the Vessel, their Baptisteries and Fonts being too little for them.

And so I have done my Task which was to be a Task-master unto some of the Egyptians, who have bin and would be still Task-masters over the Israel and churches of God, and give out their commands for the dipping and immerging of our children in [Page 61] Ponds or Rivers, when, (and then onely) they shall be of years of discretion and confession, as to their faith: and I have drawn up this my censure of it as an Ark, (you will presently say I know, of Bulrushes; and therefore I say so in present myself afore-hand to prevent you) The which, how weak and mean a thing soever you may think it, through Gods providence, may be a means, to preserve a Moses and more children of Israel from your immergings and plun gings of them, (for the time, little else then drownings,) especially the Ark being daubed with slime and pitch, cemented and closed together, with Scriptures, Reasons, and Antiquity moreover.

More plainly, I have passed my censure upon your late dip­ping and immerging in my Parish, for a new business, as I called it once, and ever shall; and if I could stand so long about it, and the Reader would stay the while, as to gather them up together or take a review of the evidences I have brought in against it, for a new business, I do think there would be a full Jury, and a grand Jury of them, the which propounded and given up to any indifferent Judge besides your self, he would not onely passe a censure of novelty upon it, as I hove done, but might crie once and again Novitas novitatum omnia novitas; Yea, and he would give out a Sentence of vanity also upon the same, and say, vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas. The Person dipping and baptizing, an ordinary man, no ordained Minister: the Persons dipped and baptized, Christians born, and baptized before; The manner, the dipping and baptizing them in their cloathes; (the circumstances or ceremonies, I omitted, because they were not onely new and vain, but foolish and immodest) and the action of dipping the whole body over head and ears in the cloathes, and lastly the place, a common Horse-pond and weyr; Novelty of novelties, all is novelty; yea, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity; I will say no more of it; (though more might be said of it) then that it was a new, and a vain busines, yea, a taking of the Name of God, Father, Son and holy Ghost in vain.

I will now onely add a Corollary or two, touching the whole business betwixt us, and so I shall give a Vale or Fare-well to it, and to your Letter and my answer, or censure rather: for so I must call it to the end, who so stiled it in the beginning.