The divine right of infant-baptisme asserted and proved from Scripture and antiquity. By Increase Mather, teacher of a church of Christ in Boston in New-England. ; [Ten lines of quotations]

The divine right of infant-baptisme asserted and proved from Scripture and antiquity. By Increase Mather, teacher of a church of Christ in Boston in New-England. ; [Ten lines of quotations]

Table of contents

Title page

§

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Infant-Baptisme Asserted and Proved.

ERRATA.

[Page]

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Infant-Baptisme Asserted and Proved.

IT is an Act both of Charity and Justice, to appear as an Advocate for those that being wronged are not able to speak for themselves, especially if they be deeply injured. And such is the case of the children of Gods Servants, when there are designs on foot to turn them out of the Lords and their Inheritance, as if they had no part in the Lord or in his heavenly Kingdome, but must all at once, (Quo jure quâque injuriâ) be cashiered and deprived of all the priviledges thereof, and so the glory taken from them for ever. The Lord Jesus hath not been without those that have appeared on his side, in defending the Cause of his dear Lambs; In these latter Ages especially, great have been the Company of those that have published and proved their just Title before the World, and that it is no usurpation to set the Mark of the Lambs of Christ upon them. Few of those many who have written summs of Divinity, or larger Catechisms, but have handled this Argument; Yea, whole Tracts have been long since emitted by the most eminent Reformers, (such as Calvin, Bullinger, Zuinglius) tending to evince The divine Right of Infant Baptism. Nor have any done more worthily in this Cause, then some of our own Nation, such as Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Marshal, Mr. Geree, Mr. Fuller, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Winter, Dr. Homes, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Crag, Mr. Cook, Mr. Carter. Also of our New English Divines, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Phillips have elaborate Treatises extant on the same subject. And within these six years last past, there are at least six Ministers in England that have appeared in the same Cause, five of them being provoked thereunto by the daring Confidence [Page] of one who having harnassed himself in Mr Tombs his Armor, hath thought good to enter the List of disputation, & again to throw the gantlet to the Paedobaptists; but he is come off with small credit, they whom he hath stirred up to fall upon him, having indeed smitten him under the fifth Rib. So that the Truth we are now to stand up for, hath been so fully vindicated by others, as that hardly any thing more needs to be spoken; In which respect, I would have spared this pains, had I not been sensible that the discourses mentioned are in few hands, and not to be purchased; or if they were some of them are voluminous▪ and in that as well as on other Accounts, not so adapted for vulgar Capacityes. Moreover, Anabaptistical Books are lately scattered among us, whereby not only the Lambs of the Flock are in danger to be lost, but the Sheep some of them are ready to be seduced; And considering where the present opposers and despisers of Infant-Baptism, have thought meet to hive themselves, it is conceived that the Lord doth call upon me in special (however in my self weak and worthless) to maintain the Right of the Innocent, which in the strength of Christ I am willing to do. Nor shall I need to draw forth any other Arrows out of the Quiver of the Lord of Hosts, any other Arguments from Scripture, then those which have already been shot by other hands, whereby the Anabaptists cause and Kingdome▪ hath long since received a Mortal wound. And they are such as these.

Arg. 1. The Covenant and the Seal of the Covenant should goe together; In Scripture they are so closely conjoyned as that the Seal is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. Act 7 8. They then that have an Interest in the Covenant of grace, have a Right to the Seal of the Covenant; But the Infant children of Believers have an Interest in the Covenant. It is certain they had so in the dayes of old, Gen. 17. Deut. 29 11. And if it be otherwise under the Gospel▪ then there is a substantial difference in the Covenant under the New-Testament, from what it was under the Old. To take in the Parent, and leave out the child maketh an Essential Alteration, whenas Abrahams Covenant is said to be Everlasting, Gen. 17.7. Which sheweth that as to the substance of it, tis the same throughout all Generations. And the New-Testament doth expresly declare that the blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles by Jesus Christ, Gal. 3.14. What was that blessing of Abraham but the Covenant? So then the Lord saith to every believing Gentile Parent, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed. [Page] And indeed if it were not so, the condition of the Saints in the dayes of the New-Testament (which is a dispensation of more grace) would be worse then it was with any of them before Christ came, which is most contrary to Scripture and Reason to imagine. The Jews would then have been unhappy loosers by believing, if thereupon all their children must be immediately thrust out of the Covenant and Kingdome of God, which before that time they had an Interest in. The three thousand Converts in the Acts, who repented at Peters Sermon, it is certain that before the Sermon their children were Interested in the Covenant; and shall we think that as soon as the Sermon was done, because their Fathers believed the Gospel, their children were all cashiered and discovenanted for ever? Without doubt if it had been so, the Jews would have stood up for their children▪ and have told the Apostles, whilst we continued in our Iudaism, our children had a part in the Lords holy Covenant, but if we turn Christians it will be so no longer. And this would have been such an Objection as no man could have answered; Wherefore since the Jews did never so Object against Christians, we may conclude that in the primitive times there was no such stumbling block cast before them. But on the contrary, the children of believing Parents are termed Holy, and it is said of them that they are not unclean, 1 Cor· 7.14. In Scripture language, they that have no right to the Seal of the Covenant are unclean persons, Isai. 52.1. And they that are the Lords Covenant Servants, are upon that ground, Holy, Exod. 19.6. Deut. 7.6. Whence the Covenant is styled the Holy Covenant, Dan. 11.30. because the Lords Covenant people are and ought to be an holy people. Nothing is more clear, then that the Scripture doth acknowledge a faederal Holiness, As for the Interpretation which the Papists, and after them, the Anabaptists have given of the Apostles words, when he saith, your children are holy, as if his meaning were only that their children were legitimate, it is (with due respect to any more Orthodox that have so sensed the Apostles words) an impertinent Exposition; for then in case neither Parent be a Believer, the children are Illegitimate; which is contrary to Heb. 13.4. And indeed to the light of nature, and Law of Nations. Can any rational man think that Legitimation is peculiar to the children of Believers? but the Holiness of children spoken of, 1 Cor. 7.14. is peculiar to the children of Believers. And whereas it is objected, that in the same place it is said, that the unbelieving [Page] wife is sanctified by the Husband, but that doth not prove Right to Baptism. The Answer is easy, the Apostle doth not say the unbelieving wife is sanctified, and no more but sanctified by, or unto (the Greek Preposition (En) may be and is so translated, 1 Thes. 4.7.) the husband, which is a different thing from saying, she is holy, as intending only a sanctification to his use; as the Raiment a man doth put on, the meat he eats is sanctified to him, (Tit. 1 15. 1 Tim. 4.5.) h. e. He may without sin make use of those creatures for the end God hath ordained. He doth not say, your children are sanctified to you, but they are holy▪ or as the words may be read your children are Saints. Now there is not so much as one place in all the Bible to be produced, where any are called Saints, but a faederal holiness at least is intended. And Paul, who was an Hebrew maketh use of a phrase that was common among the Jews with respect to the children of the Covenant. Besides all this, if the Infants of Believers be all strangers to the Covenant, there is no hope that any of them should be saved, Eph. 2.12. Which to affirm would be sinfully uncharitable, and Anti-scriptural Doctrine Math. 19.14. Some, to unlose the difficulty wherewith they find themselves entangled by this Argument, cut it in pieces, by denying that Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant. But they may as well say that Baptism is no Sacrament, or that the Lords Supper is not a Seal of the Covenant, or that the Covenant which the Lord hath established with his people hath no Seal annexed to it; and in a word, deny whatever principles in Religion they please. If Baptism be not a Seal of the Covenant, how are we said to be baptized for the remission of sins, Act. 2, 38. And how is Baptism said to save? 1 Pet. 3.21. Except signantèr, as it is a sign and Seal of the Salvation promised in the Covenant? Give a Scripture description of a Seal of the Covenant, and see if it agreeth not with Baptism; But more will be said to confirm this under the fourth Argument.

Arg. 2. All that are by Divine Institution members of the visible Church, have right to Baptism. To maintain that Church members should continue unbaptized is such gross absurdity, that Anabaptists themselves are not, (or at least not long since were not) willing to avouch it. But some Infants are Church members. They that appertain to the Lords spiritual Kingdome are of his Church, for his Church is his Kingdome, Math. 8.12. Now that is true concerning the children of Christians, they come in for a partnership in the Lords [Page] Kingdome. If the Jews children were so priviledged, then the Infants of Believers are not to be disfranchised, since the same Kingdome that once did belong to the Jews is now given to the Gentiles, Math. 21.43. They are come from the East and from the West, and do sit down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdome of God, Math. 8.11. Were not the Jews children as well as their Fathers deprived of their Church estate, when because of their positive unbelief in rejecting the Gospel, they were broken off, no longer to be branches of, or belong unto that Tree of the visible Church, as the Apostle disputes more largely, Rom.11. The Covenant did constitute the Church, Zach. 11 10. Therefore all concerned in the Covenant were belonging to, or Members of the Church, which we have proved that the Infants of Israel did, therefore the like is to be said of the Infants of Believers. The Christian Church being surrogate Israel, Rom. 11.24. Rev.7.4. therefore we cannot without sin deny Baptism unto those whom the Lord owneth as Subjects of his Kingdome, Members of his Church.

Arg. 3. Disciples have right to Baptism, Ioh. 4 1, Math. 28.19. But some children are Disciples. The Scripture doth expresly call them so, Act. 15.10. They upon whose necks, the false Teachers would have imposed the yoke of Circumcision, after the manner of Moses, were called Disciples. Now Moses Law required that Infants should be Circumcised; and without doubt, it was the design of those false Teachers, to bring Christian Infants as well as Parents, under Circumcision: These then are called Disciples. By far the greatest part concerned in that yoke were Children; And would the Apostle use a Term that did not suit with the generality of the Subjects spoken of? Is not a Disciple the same with a Scholar? 1 Chron. 25.8. Now it is the Anabaptists great mistake, to think that no one can be a Scholar before such time as he hath learned so many Lessons. He that is put to School, the first day of his entrance is a Scholar, though as yet he hath not perhaps learned one Lesson. Thus is it true, concerning the children of Believers; The Lord Jesus hath graciously taken them into his School, and they are to be subject unto the Orders and Instructions of it, according as they shall be capable, and therefore to receive Baptism as the Seal and Testimonial of their Admission into that blessed School, where Christ himself is the great Teacher. Again, they that belong to Christ are Disciples; It is said in Math. 10 42. He that shall give [Page] unto a little one a Cup of cold water, in the Name of a Disciple, &c. and the same thing is expressed in Mark. 9.41. by saying, whosoever shall give a Cup of water, because they belong to Christ, so that whoever belongs to Christ is a Disciple. Yea, they that are Christs are Abrahams spiritual Seed, and therefore to be baptized, Gal. 3.27.29. Now where is the man that dare affirm that no Infant in the world is Christs, or that will presume to pronounce concerning all the Infants among Gods people, They belong not to Christ; and if they do belong to him, they are Disciples, and (The order of the Gospel alwayes being duely observed) ought to be baptized.

Arg. 4. They that have the inward grace signified by Baptism have right to the outward sign. That is the Apostles own Argument, Act. 10.47. and 11.17. But some Infants have the inward grace signified by Baptism. The Subjects of Christs special blessing have the inward grace signified by Baptism. But this is true, concerning some children. There were that brought young children to Christ, and when his Disciples rebuked those that brought them, he was much displeased, and said unto them, suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdome of God, and he took them up in his Arms put his hands upon them, and blessed them, Mark. 10.13, 14, 16. Those children, doubtless were in the state of Infancy, for Christ took them up into his Arms. And they are termed little children, The Greek word (Paidia) properly denoteth one that is not above seven years old. The same word is used concerning Christ, whilst an Infant, Math. 2.11. Now it is a known Determination, Infantem accipimus septem annis minorem. And Luke hath put it out of Question, by declaring that those children were Infants, Luk. 18.15. (tabrephe) i. e. Nurslings, or Babes, as the same word is translated, 1 Pet. 2.2. He that when on Earth did vouchsafe such a visible sign and Testimony of his Respect to little children, and manifest such holy indignation against his own Disciples, when they would have with-held such from his blessing, is surely offended with those that will not suffer them, to be brought under the dispensation of his blessed Ordinances now. One thing signified by Baptism is Regeneration, Joh. 3.5. Tit. 3.5 And that some children have this, shall (by the help of Christ) be demonstrated when we come to the next Argument. Again, Baptism doth seal Union with Christ, and incorporation into his mystical body Gal. 3.27. 1 Cor. 12.13. We may believe that the greatest part of the Church of Christ (which is his body) doth consist of [Page] Infant, and not Adult Members; they are (as a worthy Divine hath observed) both the greatest and the purest part of the Church.

Again. The pardon of sin is sealed in Baptism, Mark. 1.5. Act. 22.16. And are not some children the Objects of pardoning grace? The children of believers that dye in a state of Infancy, either they have no sin, or if they be saved, that sin is forgiven to them. If it be forgiven to them, they ought not to be deprived of the sign and seal of that Remission. This Argument, so pressed the old Anabaptists that they fell to down right Pelagianism, denying the Doctrine of original sin. They maintained that children as they come into the world are under the guilt of no sin, and therefore do not need the Application of that Ordinance, which is a sign of Remission of sins. And this doth invincibly prove that some Infants have jus in re as to that Ordinance of Baptism, and that being granted, their jus ad rem will undeniable follow, if their Parents attend that order which the Rule requireth with respect unto present administration.

Arg. 5. Believers have right to Baptism, But some Infants are Believers. The Scripture speaketh of little ones that do believe on the Lord Jesus, to deprive whom of their Right will be found uncomfortable. Math. 18.2.6. compared with Mark 9.37. Infants are subjects capable of Grace. Yea, some of them are regenerated whilst in a state of Infancy. The Scripture tells us that John Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost from his Mothers womb, Luk. 1.15. Therefore his Soul was filled with Grace from his very childhood. Peter sometimes argued, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the holy Ghost? Act. 10.47. The Lord in Scripture tells us, that an Infant hath received the Holy Ghost, who then can without sin forbid water that they should not (any of them be baptized? If Infants have not Faith, how are they saved? There is no Salvation but by Christ, Act. 4.12. No Salvation by Christ except there be union with him, 1 Iohn 5.12. There must be Union before there can be Communion. There is no Union to Christ without Faith. Eph. 3.17. If the first Adam convey his sinfull image to Infants, why may not the second Adam communicate his holy image to them? Elect Children dying in the state of infancy have Faith (they believe the Resurrection of their bodyes) and other Graces, when in heaven, and therefore whilst on earth also seeing there is no grace in heaven which was not wrought on earth. Whether infants do act faith (as the [Page] Lutherans maintain) or have only seminal habitual faith, is another Question, which I meddle not with. They doe not put forth acts of Reason, and yet we must not reckon them among irrational creatures.

It is Objected, But we doe not know which of them have grace: and the children of godly Parents baptized in their Infancy sometimes doe after that appear to be unholy and profane.

To which three things are to be replyed,

1. That Baptism (as Mr. Cotton rightly observeth) is an ingagement unto future Repentance. Hence is that expression of Baptism unto Repentance. Math. 3.11. because, by virtue of Baptism the subject of it, is ingaged to repent and walk in Newness of life, before the Lord, and woe unto him if he doe not so. And withall, when elect Infants are baptized, the Lord doth (which is matter of great encouragement to a believing Parent) engage to bestow Repentance on them in due time. In like sort, was Circumcision an engagement unto Repentance, Deut. 30.6.

2. Many of the Elect of God, have had the seeds of grace wrought in their Souls, whilst in their Childhood. Mr. Ianeway hath lately exemplified in thirteen children, that clear Evidences of faith were observed in them, albeit sundry of them not seven years old. And dayly experience confirms the Truth of this. Yea, more, some Infants among the Lords people have dyed Martyrs of Iesus. So when that noble Romanus suffered, there was martyred with him a little child, but seven years old, because he said that Christ is God, & that there is but one God, professing that he learned those Principles of his godly Mother, from the time that he hung upon her breasts. And many other Christian Children both in former and latter Ages have dyed Martyrs, See the Martyr Books, vol. 1. p. 53 57, 83, 116. and vol. 3. p. 200, 747. and continuation of that History. p. 63. The bloody Papists, exposed four hundred Infants amongst the Waldenses, to death at at once with their godly Parents.

The Scripture speaketh of a threefold Baptism, 1. Flaminis, Some are baptized with the Holy Ghost & with Fire, Math. 3.11. 2. Sanguinis, Math. 20.22, 23. 1 Cor. 15.29. They that dye for the Truth are baptized in Blood. 3. Fluminis. The Baptism of Water. Many Children have been dignified so far as to be the subjects of the two former Baptisms; and shall they be accounted unworthy to be the Subjects of this Baptism which is not of so high a nature as the other mentioned?

[Page]3. Whereas it is suggested, that some baptized Children doe afterwards discover themselves to be faithless ones, the like is to be said of those that are baptized in adult age, how many of them have proved Apostates? The Anabaptists of this age, are better than their Fathers in the last Century, if the greatest part of them be true believers. Until the contrary doth appear, we must judge charitably of Children, as well as of those which are adult. Mr. Hooker saith truly, That we are to think as well of the infant Child of a Believer, as we doe or ought to doe of his Father, respecting his spiritual and eternal estate. Since God of his infinite Grace hath spread the wings of his Covenant over such, until they violate that covenant, there is sufficient ground of charity towards them.

To conclude this Argument, The Children of the Faithfull are either Believers or Unbelievers. They are not all unbelievers, or to be reckoned as Infidels, or strangers to the houshold of Faith; for then they must all have their portion in that lake which burns with fire and brimstone, Rev. 21.8. which who will or dare affirm? So then the Anabaptists strongest Argument is turned against them, and batters down their error. For they glory in this argument, and some of them (as Mr. Marshal noteth) have challenged all the world to answer it. Unbelievers (say they) may not be baptized, Children are all Unbelievers, therefore no children may be baptized. But mind whither this argument will lead, and the wofull havock it doth make in the flock of Christ; since it may with as much colour of reason be argued, Unbelievers shall be damned, Mark. 16.16. all infants are unbelievers, therefore all infants shall be damned. Let the Anabaptists answer this argument, and they'l remove the other, wherein their confidence lyeth. In a word, since infants have faith enough to bring them to heaven, they have faith enough to bring them to Baptism.

Arg. 6. They that are among the number of the Lords bought, redeemed Servants, ought not to be denied that which is the Mark and Livery appertaining to such. Why should not the badge and character of persons devoted to the Lords service, be given to those whom the Lord doth own as his Servants? But some children are in the number of the Lords bought, redeemed Servants. So doth the Scripture expresly teach and testify, Lev. 25.41, 42. Hence is that, Psal. 116 16. O Lord, truly I am thy Servant; I am thy Servant, the son of thy handmaid. Bought Servants (saith David) doe not only themselves [Page] owe perpetual servitude, unto him that is their Lord and Master, but their children also are born his servants; and so am I born the Servant of God, inasmuch as my mother did fear his Name. A child as soon as he is born into the world is a Subject and servant of that Prince whom his Father was a servant unto. And shall the King of Heaven have only such as are grown unto years, bound unto him as his subjects, but their children freed from all service to their fathers God? And indeed, they must of necessity be as to their visible state the servants of Christ, or of Satan only, but to say that the children of Believers, doe all belong to no other Master but the Devil, is fearfull Doctrine. Now Baptism is the Mark and Livery of right belonging to the servants of Christ. As of old, Circumcision was the Mark and Cognizance of one visibly belonging to the only true God, whereby such were distinguished from the Heathen Nations, Jer. 9.25, 26. The like is to be said of Baptism now. Hence the Antients were wont to call Baptism the Seal of the Lord, and the Mark of the Lord. And great Interpreters (as I have elsewhere noted) conceive that Rev. 14.1. doth allude to Baptism. Furthermore, learned men have observed, that amongst the Jews of old, Proselytes were admitted by Baptism, as well as by Circumcision and Sacrifice. See Ainsworth on Gen. 17.12. So Buxtorf and others versed in Jewish Antiquityes have evinced: Yea, and the Jewish Masters tell us that when a Proselyte was baptized, his Children were baptized with him. And therefore Dr. Lightfoot judiciously argueth, that if children under the Gospel might not be baptized, there must of necessity have been an express prohibition against it, which it is certain there is not. Since the Lord Christ appointed his Disciples to lay aside those Rites of Circumcision and Sacrifice, and was pleased to retain only the other of Baptism, setting an Evangelical Stamp upon it, the Apostles must needs doe as formerly was practised in baptizing Infants, except their Master Christ did forbid them and say, Though Infants of Proselytes have hitherto been baptized, yet now it is my mind that not they, but adult persons alone shall be the Subjects of that Ordinance. The Antipedobaptists call upon us for an express Command in so many words and syllables, Goe, Baptize Infants, whereas we may with more reason, urge them to shew a command to the contrary: And until the Repeal from Scripture can be made out (which will never be) the good old way, of applying the initiating Seal of the Covenant to the children [Page] of the Church ought to be attended. And let the Anabaptists if they can, give one instance of any child of a Believer, that was suspended from Baptism until he came unto years of discretion. They have been challenged in the Name of Christ to produce any one such example throughout all the Book of God, but could never doe it. Not so much as one person mentioned in the Scripture, that was baptized after he was able to give an account of his Faith if his father was a Belieever, or did imbrace the Christian faith, before that.

Arg. 7. If Infant-Baptism be unlawful, and so a Nullity, then it will necessarily follow, that now, either Baptism must cease, or else that they who are unbaptized themselves may administer Baptism unto others, without an extraordinary Commission from Heaven. Not long since, there was hardly a man to be found in the world, that had any other Baptism but what was received in Infancy, and so (according to the Anabaptists principles) not one baptized person to be found upon the Earth. Of necessity then, if a man would be baptized, it must be done by one that is himself unbaptized. And shall a man that is unbaptized take upon him to baptize others! Who gave him that Authority? The first Anabaptist was baptized by an unbaptized person. Dat quod non habet. Their principle is that believers being baptized are visible Saints; So that an unbaptized person is with them no visible Saint. Shall he then be an Administrator (to use their own word) of Baptism? This Consideration hath so molested the Anabaptists, that being at an utter loss for an Administrator, some of them have turned Seekers, renouncing all instituted Ordinances, until new Apostles appear in the world; Others have become Se-Baeptists, (as did Mr. Smith in Holland) because they could not meet with a baptized man to Immerse them, they have thought meet to plunge themselves into the water, and after that to style themselves Baptized Believers. But where do these men, that call for a precept or example in Scripture, find precept or example in the Scripture, either for mens administring bap-Baptism to themselves, or to others whilst themselves had no Baptism? As for the Apostles, it is certain, they were baptized before they did baptize. Some of them were baptized by John, as having been his Disciples before they followed Christ, Joh. 1.35, 36, 40 41. As for John Baptist, he had not only Circumcision, but an immediate call from Heaven before he did administer Baptism unto any, Luk. 3.2. So then, let not the Antipedobaptists venture upon Rebaptization, until [Page] one with an immediate Call, or at leastwise, a regular Administrator, shall appear. And such an one (if their Doctrine be true) is never like to be seen in this World.

Arg. 8. If the Children of Believers under the Old-Testament had right to Circumcision, then the children of Believers under the New-Testament have right to Baptism. But the former is true. Therefore so is the latter.

The Anabaptists laugh at this Argument; and it is easier to do so, then by solid Reason to refute it. All our Divines for above these hundred years (as far as hath fallen within the Compass of my Observation) in their discourses about Infant-Baptism, have improved this very medium to confirm the Truth in hand. Yea, and so did some of the Antients above a thousand years agoe. Had the Consequence been so Irrational as our Antagonists imagine, I suppose, some of them who were better able to discern the strength of an Argument, then those we dispute against, would hardly have made use of it- I am rather of learned Whitakers Judgement, who saith, All the Anabaptists in the world will never be able to answer this Argument. Let us then Consider.

1. That Baptism cometh in the Room of Circumcision, wherefore the Apostle disswading the Colossians from the practice of Circumcision, he tells them that they were buried with Christ in Baptism, Col. 2.12. q. d. you are Circumcised because baptized, for Baptism supplyes the place and room of Circumcision. Nothing is more evident, then that of the Apostle, whilst labouring to take them off from Circumcision, doth put them in mind of their Baptism, why should he do so; if the one do not succeed the other? And it is not to be believed, that God would repeal the former Seal of the Covenant (wherein Infants were concerned) and not institute any other in the room of it. If there be any other Ordinance come in the Room of Circumcision, besides Baptism. Name what it is.

2. Circumcision and Baptism are Seals of the same Covenant. If Antipaedobaptists could prove what they affirm, in saying that Circumcision did seal to the promise of temporal blessings only, they would do something to enervate this Argument. But it is certain, that it was a Seal of the Covenant of grace, wherein, though temporal blessings are included, spiritual are the chief. There was no regular subject of Circumcision, but God said to him from Heaven, If thou wilt [Page] become my faithful Servant, I will be thy God for ever. Gen. 17.7. Now in that is the substance of the Covenant of Grace. God doth not any where except only in the Covenant of Grace, Say to the fallen children of Adam I will be your God. Thus did he say in that Covenant, of which Circumcision was a Seal. It follows then undeniably that Baptism and that, are Seals of the same Covenant.

3. There is not an essential difference between the Sacraments of the Old Testament and the New. If there were, the Apostles Argument would be invalid, when he tells the Corinthians that notwithstanding they were the Subjects of the Sacraments of the New-Testament, if they rested there, they might perish, inasmuch as many of the children of Israel fell under the displeasure of God, albeit they had such and such Sacraments. 1. Cor. 10. Their Sacraments held forth Christ yet to come, ours as already come (and so did John's Baptism and Christ's differ) which maketh not an essential difference. The outward Signs, (as to the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament▪) were not the same, but the inward Grace and mysteryes signified (in which the Essence of the Sacrament especially consists) were mostly the same. So is it eminently true, with reference unto Circumcision and Baptism. Hence Christians are called the Circumcision, Phil. 3.3. And the Children of Israel are said to be all baptized, 1 Cor. 10.2. Which shews that those two Ordinances are, as to the main intendment of them, the same. Let us consider how they agree. Doth not Baptism hold forth Redemption by the blood of Christ? So did Circumcision. Baptism signifieth a dedication and devotion to the Lords service (as before was partly observed) Hence men are said to be baptized (Eis to O noma) into the Name of Christ. Act 8.16. Especially when the Apostles baptized the Jews, they are said to baptize into the Name of Christ, because the Jews above others, did disown Christ from being their Lord. And the Gentiles who served Idols before, upon their conversion, were baptized into the Name of the only true God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit Math. 28.20. So did Circumcision signifie the like Dedication to the service of God. Jer. 4 4. Again, doth Baptism intimate that the nature of man is corrupt and needs cleansing, Eph, 5.26. Heb. 10.22? So did Circumcision, Iosh. 5.5 Col. 2.13. 1 Pet. 3.21. Doth Baptism hold forth Regeneration, Conversion, Mortification of sin through the Death of Christ, Tit. 3.5. Rom. 6.3, 4. All this is likewise true concerning that Ordinance of circumcision. Rom. 2.28.29. Deut. 30.6. [Page] Col. 2.12. Is Baptism a seal of the Righteousness of Faith? Is there in that Ordinance a solemn Declaration, that men are justified by Faith in the Righteousness of Jesus Christ? The same is to be affirmed with reference unto Circumcision Rom. 4.11. That which Antipedobaptists most stand upon, is, That Baptism doth call for Regeneration, Faith, Mortification, which Infants are not (say they) capable of. But circumcision did also call for Regeneration, Faith, Mortification in the subject of it, and yet Infants were circumcised. Nor doe I know any thing objected against the baptism of Infants, but carnal Reason might have made the same Objection against their being circumcised. Now then, if baptism come in the room of circumcision; if they are both seals of the same covenant of Grace; if the same mysteries that are now signified in baptism, were of old held forth in Circumcision, it followeth strongly, that if Infants had right to circumcision, they have right to Baptism.

And this I conceive, is the reason why the baptism of Infants is not in so many words and syllables mentioned in the New Testament (albeit there are such precepts and expressions therein as doe evidently imply it) because it was so clear and known a thing, that Children should have the initiating Seal of the Covenant applyed unto them, as there was no need to insist upon that: but there is express notice taken of womens being baptized, Act. 8.12. Inasmuch as they not being subjects of Circumcision (except virtually Exod. 12.48.) it was requisite that should be particularly spoken of, to shew that the subject of Baptism is not narrower, but larger then that of Circumcision.

Arg. 9. That which hath been practised by the Churches of God in all Ages thereof is of Divine Institution, 1 Cor. 11.16. Quod ubique quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditur Catholicum est. But so must we say concerning Infant-Baptism. This was Augustines Argument of old, and there is great weight in it, sc. that those practices in the Church which have been universal, and not instituted by any Council, are Apostolical Traditions, which ought to be observed, 2 Thes. 2.15. In all places of the world, where the Christian Faith hath been planted by the Apostles, if the Christian Name continue there, the Baptism of Infants is no new thing among them▪ though in most places not without Superstitious Additions. Albeit there are old Errors, yet Truth is older then any Error. The Anabaptists cannot inform us, who was the first that baptized an Infant; a sign that it is no Error, but an Apostolical [Page] practice, and Divine Institution. We can tell them who first opposed Pedobaptism. The holy Martyr Philpot declareth that Auxentius (an Arrian Heretick) was one of the first Anabaptists that appeared in the world. Indeed, according to the proper signification of the word, Anabaptist, i. e. one that is baptized again, there have been many such of old. So the Novatians that Cyprian; and the Donatists whom Austin opposed. But as for Antipedobaptists, i. e. such as deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism, I cannot, after diligent Enquiry find that any party of men called Christians (excepting such as denyed all other Divine Institutions) did ever scruple the lawfulness of it, until since Luthers Reformation, those execrable persons in Germany (who have left their Names for a curse to posterity) led the dance. Nay more, I could never yet see it demonstrated that so much as one man of any note amongst Christians did scruple the lawfulness of Pedobaptism, for above 1500 years after Christ. It is true that Popish Authors (and from them some late Anabaptists) have most injuriously charged the old Waldenses as if they had scrupled Pedobaptism, but the contrary is certain from their own writings and Confessions, albeit they did indeed (as well they might) refuse to have their Children baptized by Popish Priests, or after their Superstitious [...]. Likewise, I know that Tertullian, & some others of the Ancients, perswade to delay the baptizing of children, (and he doth urge the like procrastination with respect to the Baptism of Adult Christians) in case they be unmarryed) Tererl. de Baptism. p. mihi, 225. Not that they questioned the lawfulness of it, only upon prudential, or rather Superstitious grounds they judged delayes the most advisable; Therefore at the same time they counsel to baptize Children, if there be imminent danger of death; which if they had deemed the thing in it self unlawful, they would not have done. And certainly, (as Mr. Geree notes well) those of the Ancients that advise to delay the Baptism of Infants, if they had esteemed the practice as sinful, or as nuperous and novel, would have improved those Arguments to enforce the Cunctation by them perswaded unto; which they never did: A clear Demonstration, that in the Ancient times Infant Baptism was neither a new practice, nor thought by any to be unlawful. He that can produce one Instance out of the Antients, proving that any one of them did disswade from Infant Baptism, because there wanted Scripture precept or example for it, erit mihi [...]. It is confessed de facto, that many Christians informer [Page] Ages deferred their Baptism from year to year. Some because not rightly understanding, Heb. 6.4. they were afraid if they should fall into sin after Baptism, they could never repent or obtain forgiveness. Others, that so they might be baptized, at the same Age, and at the same River where Christ was baptized. Others, through the defect of such an eminent Administrator as they desired; but not as Questioning the lawfulness of the thing. Whoso pleaseth may see more in Mr. Walkers Preface to his late plea for Infant Baptism. And if we look into the writings of the first Fathers (as they are called) that lived next after, or were Contemporary with the Apostles, we shall see clear Testimonyes for the Baptism of Children. It is to be admired, that Providence hath so ordered that any such Testimonyes are extant, considering that this was in those dayes no Controversy, and but few of those that then lived have left Books behind them, or if they have, their design was to insist upon other Subjects. Yet the Divine right of Infant-Baptism, is frequently intimated by Antient Doctors in the Church. Clemens Romanus, (who is not improbably thought to be the same that is mentioned, Phil. 4 3) in his grave and godly Epistle to the Church at Corinth, exhorts that not only men, but women and children should be recipients of the Discipline of Christ. Are children subjects of Christs Discipline? Then certainly they are Disciples, and subjects of Christs Baptism. The Book of Constitutions are unjustly fathered upon that Clement, yet the Author was an Antient writer, and therein (Lib. 6. c. 15) the Baptism of Infants is expresly mentioned. In the very next Age to the Apostles lived Iustin Martyr. Many that have discussed the Controversy about Pedobaptism, have produced passages out of some of that blessed Martyrs writings, which plainly inferr the Divine Right of Believers children to that Ordinance; not to insist upon the Quest. and Resp. ad Orthod. which passeth under his Name, and is indeed (though none of Iustins, yet,) an Antient piece, wherein the Baptism of Infants is in express words asserted. Irenaeus, who is by Ierom reckoned as a man of Apostolical times, faith, Omnes vedit per semetipsum salvare, omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, Infantes, Iuvenes, Seniores. Haeres. Lib. 2. C. 39. p. 192. That Christ came to save all sorts, even all who are born again to God by him, Infants as well as young men, and elder persons. Are some Infants born again unto God by Christ, and are none of them Subjects of Baptism? Besides, to be born again, Renasci, [Page] is the very word by which the Ancients were wont to express Baptism. Also Hyginus (who was martyred Anno 144.) brought in Sponsores Suretyes, to undertake for the instruction and education of such children as were baptized into the Name of Christ, which is since degenerated into an idle piece of Formality. In Cyprian's time (who flourished Anno 250.) there was a Question started by Fidus, Whether, because children of old might not be circumcised before the eighth day, they might now be baptized before that time? And in his Epistle to Fidus (Pag. mihi. 37) He declareth that himself with sixty six more Bishops had considered the Question, and concluded in the affirmative, that Children might be baptized before they were eight dayes old. So that in Cyprians dayes, it was not so much as doubted whether children had a Right to Baptism, but was taken as a thing granted and unquestionable; only as to the particular day when the Ordinance should be administred, some began to have needless scruples. Not long before this lived Origen, who in his 8th. Homily on Leviticus, and his 14th. on Luke, doth in so many words again and again declare, That some Infants have right to Baptism, and giveth Reason for it. And that known passage of Origens on Rom. 6. is not to be passed over with silence, Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit etiam parvulis dare Baptismum. The Church (saith he) hath received by Tradition from the Apostles, that even little ones ought to be baptized. It is vainly pretended that Origen was translated, and so interpolated, and corrupted by Ruffinus, since it doth not appear, that either his Comment on Luke, or on the Romans was translated by Ruffinus, and in both of them he is for Infant Baptism. As for those who lived in the next Century, as Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius, Epiphanius in the Greek, and Ambrose, Ierom and Austin in the Latine Church, pregnant Testimonyes concerning Infant baptism, are to be seen in them; which Mr. Wills & Mr. Walker lately, & others formerly have produced for the confirmation of this Truth. If we must allow men to answer such clear and full Testimonies, as those that have been insisted on, by saying (but giving no solid reason for what they say) that haply those expressions were foysted into the works of the Fathers, (so called) by Popish hands in after ages all Records respecting the practice of Antiquity are of no use: for who that hath audacity enough to affirm it, may not say, that whatever practice or profession suits not with his Opinion, was never expressed by Origen or Cyprian or Iraeneus &c. only Antichrist inserted such [Page] words into their Writings. And indeed there is one who hath found an easy way to answer all this, it is but saying Mentiris, all these things are falshoods, and that's confutation enough. For Henry Danvers (if you will believe him) hath found that Infant-baptism was not practised upon any, until the fourth Century, and that Pope Innocentius was the first Institutor and imposer of such a Superstition. p. 223. Prob Padorem tuum! Did not Austin live at that very time? And doth not Austin, (who was more likely then H.D. to know what was practised in the Church in the Ages next to the Apostles) witness, that Infant baptism had been practised in the Church universally ever since the Apostles dayes? How could he say so, if in his dayes (or not long before) it was first practiced? It is to be marvelled at, that any who profess the fear of God, should be taken with such an Author. He is a most notorious Plagiary; not an Argument of any moment, besides what is borrowed from Mr. Tombs; yea (as Mr. Wills tells him) He hath taken 43 Pages of his Book together, almost verbatim out of Mr. Tombs, and yet hath not the ingenuity to say so. And the spirit of the man is enough to turn a Christians heart against him. For he is not ashamed to own his design, in perswading all men to renounce communion with the Churches that practise Infant-baptism. And how doth he abuse those of his own Party, Mr. Allen, Bunian, Lamb, because they are of more peaceable and moderate Principles then himself, desirous to hold communion with the Churches of Christ, whom in the point of Pedobaptism they have differed from? And he doth plead for, and justifie those Monsters of men, the German Anabaptists? In his judgement Menno an Heretick, Hubmer an Apostate, Knipperdoling, Iohn Matthias, Becold, Muncer (then whom the world hath seldom known greater Theeves and Murderers) were all very honest men only because they were Anabaptists. What others have done, I know not, but for my own part, I must needs confess, that the like forehead and Forgery in denying the clearest and most convictive Testimonyes that make aganist his Cause, and in producing others for it, (whom and where he pleaseth) I have seldom seen, except it be in some Popish Legenders, of whom Paul did long before prophesy, That they should speak Lyes in Hypocrisy, having their Consciences seared with an hot iron.

‘Mr. Baxter in his more proofs of Infant Church membership and right to Baptism, sheweth what is to be thought of this lamentable Reporter, as to the Historical part of his Book, & that his quotations are [Page] utterly false many of them, not having so much as one word of Truth in them, & (supposing him to have read the Authors referred unto) professeth that he can scarce match him again among all the falsifiers he knoweth in the world, and that the untruths (in matter of fact) by him published, are of such a stupendious magnitude as might have affrighted the Conscience of a Turk or Pagan, yea that a sober Papist or Pagan, would blush to have been guilty of some one page, the untruths therein are so notorious, & shameless, & doth seriously propound, whether it be not a dishonour to the Anabaptists Congregations, to have such a loose, partial Discipline, as to retein such a member, without either bringing him to repentance, or proceeding to Excommunication.’ Thus Mr. Baxter. I would hope that the man hath not wilfully mistaken but that he hath abused the ignorant world, partly by inadvertency in reading Authors, and partly by taking upon trust what he hath met with either amongst lying Papists, or in the Dutch Anabaptists Martyrology, or some other late writers amongst that party. Just as if another Anabaptist should publish a Book & declare that the old Brittish Churches, the Waldenses, the Wickliffites, & the primitive Doctors in the Church, for 300 years & more, were against Infant Baptism, and then to prove so notorious a forgery, should produce the Authorityes quoted by Major D. If he doth but read the Canons of an old Council, & therein finds nothing expressed for Infant-baptism, he concludeth they are against it. Or if he meets with an Author that speaking of adult persons, maintains that they should profess their faith and enter into Covenant before admission to Baptism, he thinks he hath found a witness for believers, and consequently against Infant-Baptism. If he meets with another, that refused to baptize the children of Excommunicates then he writeth down another witness against Infant Baptism, or if he finds this or that Author professing against the necessity of Baptisme in order to Salvation, and that baptism doth not regenerate or save, ex opere operato, then he giveth out that he hath found more Antipedobaptists. Upon all these grounds he may call mean Antipedobaptist if he please, & with as much Truth, as he hath so written concerning Wickliff, (who doth expresly assert the Baptism of Infants) and many other Authors both Antient and Modern by him perverted and abused. Yea, and he wrongs his beloved Donatists, who though corrupt in many things, and practising Rebaptisation on those that did Apostatize from more Orthodox Churches unto their party, yet opposed not Infants-Baptism. Austin who conversed and contended [Page] with them, and doth (de Heres. Cap. 69.) give an ample description of their Heterodoxies, saith not a word of their Antipedobaptism; that is Mr. Ds. Invention. And wheras it is recorded concerning some old Hereticks, Manichees, Messalians, Cathari, &c. that they rejected Baptisme, and all other instituted Ordinances as unprofitable things, what will you say, if now he hath found more witnesses, (pretious ones) against Infant-baptism. But his Book is well answered by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Whiston, Mr. Blinman, Mr. Wills and Mr. Walker. Nor do I find that what they have written is in the least enervated by the vain attempts of Edward Hutchinson, who calls upon Mr. Baxter to repent of that absurd and Heretical Position (those are his very words) of a baptismal Covenant of Grace, running in a fleshly Line, as he shall shortly answer it before the dreadfull Tribunal. We may judge by that, whom the Anabaptists look upon as Hereticks, and what favour the Churches, and in special, the Ministers of the Lord Jesus would find from them, had they power in their hands. The like may be said of Tho. Delaun, who giveth The Lye to that man of God last mentioned, and moreover revileth Mr. Whiston and Mr. Wills (men of known integrity and moderation) saying that They supply the want of reason (no doubt but they are the People, and wisdom shall dye with them) with rage & malice, & at last concludes, that if any persons be deceived by those Arguments which are urged for Infant Baptism, it is because they will be deceived. If these men should be such themselves as they judge others to be, what punishment may they be thought worthy of?

Arg. 10. Antipedobaptism is a blasted Error. The Lord hath not delighted to water it, and that is a sign that it is a weed that he never planted. I cannot easily think of any opinion that hath been more eminently witnessed against from Heaven by visible Judgements upon the professors of it. I do not (as some have done) Judge simple Antipedobaptists as Hereticks; I have known of that way not only in New England, but in England and in Ireland, that I believe were sincerely Conscientious. Nevertheless, the generality of those that have imbibed, & embraced that perswasion, have been a blasted Generation all along. The Lord said to Abraham that he would bless him, and make him a blessing, but as for these opposers and despisers of Abrahams Covenant, they have been unhappy Instruments of much trouble to the places where they have sprung up, not promoving, but retarding and wofully scandalizing the Interest of Reformation. Bullinger, that great Reformer, doth declare that at Waldshut the Gospel [Page] did once flourish, but the Interest of Reformation was utterly rooted out there, by the Anabaptists. At Basil, and other places in Germany, & in Amsterdam also (had not the signal of ringing the Town bell been happily disappointed, by reason that a drunken man took away the rope) they had like to have done so too, & at Geneva, had not the Discipline of that place been a Terror to them. And when the King of Swedeland began the work of Reformation in Stockholm, the Anabaptists party had like to have ruined all; And how few have we known that when once the Lord hath been provoked to give them up to that Error of Antipedobaptism, have stopped there!

Apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto.

This Error is oftentimes the first step of the Lords dereliction; yea departure from God begins here. Many an Apostate Professor of Religion, that here he began first to decline from God. Blessed Dr. Winter (once my special friend, whom for honours sake I mention) in his Sermons of Infant-baptism, saith, ‘that some have confessed that when they were inclining to the Anabaptists, they found their hearts sitting loose from all former owned principles of Truth, & as the first matter ready to receive any form, Impression or error whatsoever.’ And the same Author observeth, that an Anabaptist who was executed for a Capital crime at London, confessed, that from the Time of his going under water, he sensibly found God departing from him, How few of that perswasion at this day, but that which is worse then meerly through a weak and scrupulous Conscience to question the lawfulness of Infant baptism, is too truly to be affirmed of them? Are they not generally of a bad Spirit? Bitter Enemies to the Lords most eminent Servants? yea, to his faithful Ambassadors, spitting the cruel venome of Asps against them. A black mark! It was formerly good Divinity among those blessed Souls, the old Puritans, that lived in the dayes of our Fathers, that Love to the Ministers of God as such, is a sign of grace; what then shall be thought of those that hate the Ministry? To snarle at the Shepherds is no sign of a sheep. And as for other Errors, hath not Anabaptism been the Trojan Horse out of which an Iliad of them hath issued forth? Mr. Baxter hath said enough on that Argument, shewing how Anabaptistry hath been the ordinary inlet to the most horrid opinions, and he professeth that of the multitudes of Anabaptists that he was acquainted with, he could not call to mind one that stopped there. Alstedius writeth of fourteen [Page] several Sects of Anabaptists, & all of them tainted with other most vile opinions. The Anabaptists in Holland formerly were for the most part Arminians; And many of them Socinians. Whence a late learned Professor saith, Anabaptist a est indectus Socinianus. Servetus (that blasphemous Arian) was an Anabaptist, being wont to call the Baptism of Infants, an horrible Abomination.

Also in Poland, the Anabaptists are infected with the Heresy of Socinus denying the Lord that bought them; so that in a manner all the Churches in Poland have been overrun, and laid waste by them; the smoke of their errors having utterly darkned the light of the Gospel throughout that forlorn Nation, which yet calls it self Christian And if we look into Germany, what work have the Anabaptists made there? Its a known Observation, that when the Lamp of the Gospel did begin to enlighten every corner of that Land, the pestiferous breath of Anabaptism had like to have put it out; the Lord ordering those commotions, by a Judicial hand, to punish the ungrateful World, for despising the Gospel, and the faithful Dispensers of it. Nicholas Stork, Mark Stubner and Thomas Muncer (three ignorant conceited Souls) did Anno 1522. begin to sow this Cockle in Saxony, and in little time the whole Country was overrun with it. For at first (as Cloppenburgins, Hortensius and others have informed the world) they pretended to more then ordinary Zeal and strictness, they would decry Superstition and Profaneness and pretend great Mortification, (which was their Sheeps cloathing) whence they quickly had a multitude of Followers, it being more natural for men to imbrace Error then Truth, when speciously set forth. At last they became professedly Enthusiastical, and manifested more malignity against Luther & the Reforming Ministers of that Age, then against any men in the world; calling them false Prophets, and saying, they were worse then the Pope & his Clergy. And by force of Arms would defend themselves and their Cause, until they made the Countryes where they came swim in blood (as good Authors relate) no less then an hundred thousand of them perished by the sword, among whom no doubt were some honest souls that followed their Leaders (as they of old did Absalom) in the simplicity of their hearts, albeit most of those that fell in with them, were the Scum of the Towns from whence they came. After this, they played their Pranks in Switzerland, the Lord at last leaving them to such Enthusiasms, and horrid actions thereupon as proved their ruine. In the year 1526. Feb. 8, At Saint Gall one [Page] Thomas Skyker in the midst of an whole Congregation of Anabaptists pretended to have a Revelation from God, in whose Name he commanded Leonard Skyker his own brother to kneel down before him, who being no wiser then to believe him, Thomas with his sword cutts off Leonards head, in the presence of them all. A formidable Story; Yet I believe it, because holy Bullinger doth relate it as a thing known and certain. In the year 1529. Melchior Hophman (a Glover) dreamed that Strasburgh was the place designed for the New Jerusalem, and only Anabaptists were to be the Citizens thereof. A multitude of silly Souls were seduced by him, and the Interest of Reformation prejudiced. After these things hapned the doleful Tragedy at Munster, which hath filled the World with astonishment. The Anabaptists there at first seemed an harmless People; until at last, under the conduct of their Captain Iohn Becold a Taylor, once of Leyden, it was revealed to them, that all men not anabaptized were no Saints, but the world of the ungodly, whom they ought to subjugate and destroy. They became Masters of that City, and Becold was declared by them to be The King of Sion. And such horrid outrages committed, that the mentioning of them is enough to strike horror into a christain heart. The Princes of the Empire could not prevail with them to desist from their madness, until (which was in June 1535) by force of Arms they had taken the City, having endured a Siege of eighteen Months. Iohn Becold the Anabaptists King was taken, & deserved execution done upon him. He abjured his Errors, & promised to reclaim those that had bin deluded by him, might his life only be spared; but considering the murders (not only of bodyes but of souls) by him procured, he was tyed to a stake, and his body pulled in pieces with hot pincers. At his death (which is not to be wondred at) he roared horribly. Becold being thus dead, and gone to his own place, one Iohn Battenburg rose up, declaring that since the Gospel preached by Becold had been despised, the Time of mercy was now expired, and that he had received a Commission from Heaven to kill all the world except they would be rebaptized; but those Battenburgians were within a few years extirpated. Yet, Wilhemes, Cordwainer, Appleman, lead the same dance, & came to the same fatal Catastrophe in the low Countryes. The Anabaptists now have (some of them) the face to deny all this, nevertheless, these things will be objected against them to the worlds end, In perpetuam erroris infamiam, And if such men as Melancthon, Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Zuinglius, Gualter,[Page]Sleidah, Zanchy, who lived in the time of these disorders and Confusions, and testifie to the Truth (some of them) upon their own personal knowledge, (not to mention the Narratives of Spanhemius, Gastius Hortensius, Cloppenhurgius, or others, that have more lately written the History of those things) I say, if the Relations of such Worthyes of the Lord so circumstanced, may not be credited, all writings not of a Divine Inspiration may at once be rejected, and we may do as the old Munsterian-Anabaptists did, burn our Libraryes, because no Book but the Bible is of Divine Authority. Besides, in my opinion, those Antipedobaptists who both call in Question the received History of the German Anabaptists, and also justifie them as a godly, Innocent Generation, do not therein act wisely, forasmuch as they do give the world thereby too great occasion to think, that if they had the same advantages and Temptations, they would do as their Predecessors did, whom they cannot exceed in pretensions to piety. But supposing there never was a Muncer, nor a Iohn of Leyden in the world, only that the storyes about them were the fictions of men that lived an hundred years ago, yet fresh instances, which our own eyes have seen, and that in our own Nation are not wanting, sadly to confirm the Argument we have in hand. How the Anabaptists Party carried it when they were like to carry all before them in Ireland, above twenty years ago, there are enough still living that can testify; and I (all circumstances considered) am not forward to mention. In England, several Anabaptist Congregations, emitted Confessions of their Faith, wherein they professed Orthodoxy as to Fundamentals in Doctrine, and that they only differed from other Churches as to Infant baptism, and yet, I know not how many of the Leaders, in those Congregations, afterwards durst openly strike at the foundation of the true Christian Religion. Hobson and Erbury were both of them Ring Leaders of the Anabaptists Party: The first of these became a Socinian, disowning the eternal Deity of the Son of God; and as for the other, he turned a blasphemous Heretick, and as I have been credibly informed, dyed blaspheming in such a manner, as I tremble and abhor to mention. Who was the Father of the Ranting High-attainers in England! was it not one Copp. once an Anabaptist of prime Note! Most of the Quakers that I have had occasion to converse with, were first Anabaptists, and then Quakers.

My design in writing these things, is not to stigmatize all that through weakness of Conscience scruple Infant Baptism; some of [Page] which, their error notwithstanding, could imbrace with both arms, for I believe God hath received them. Only what hath been insisted on, seems to evidence the Lords displeasure against the way. The Opinion, I doubt not, is from Satan, though the men, who through ignorance hold that Opinion, may some of them belong to God. A late worthy Writer saith well, that ‘we are not to judge a Doctrine false, meerly because the Professors of it have miscarried, nevertheless, we may safely affirm that Doctrine is to be suspected as false which is usually attended with gross miscarriages on the Professors of it, for that speaketh the Doctrine ominous, and looketh like a spiritual Judgement of God upon it.’ I must confess that the reading and consideration of the Particulars referred unto, and attested by such a Cloud of Witnesses, hath caused me to dread Anabaptism, And I know not but that they may have the same impression upon others, and therefore have judged it both lawfull and necessary, a little to insist on this Historical Argument. And under this Argument, I might have taken notice how the Lord hath appeared against the Anabaptists when they have engaged in publick Disputations. When there was a Disputation held at Zurick between Zuinglius and Hubmer (a wretched Apostate) the Head of the Anabaptists there, how miserably did the Anabaptists come off? So again, when at Munster they disputed with the Reforming Ministers there. And when in our dayes, there was a Dispute at Coventry between Dr. Brian and Mr. Kiffith, who was worsted? Yea and Mr. Tombs, the great Antesignanus of that Party, who is by all men acknowledged to be the most learned and able of any that have undertaken the Vindication of that Cause; how egregiously was he nonplus't (himself confessing it) in his Disputation with Mr. Baxter at Bewdly; and with Mr. Cragg, who had not then studied the Controversy about Antipedobaptism, which Mr. Tombs had spent much of his time in, yet how shamefully was he foyled? So in the Conference with the Anabaptists at Terling, Jan. 11. 1643. And when something of that nature was attended here in Boston about twelve years agoe, the Anabaptists concerned did so speak and act, as that some wiser then themselves, of their own perswasion, were troubled and ashamed of them. Certainly these things came not to pass, without the Finger of God, manifesting his dislike of that Opinion which such men have undertaken the patronage of.

Upon all these Considerations, I cease to wonder that the most faithfull and eminent Servants of God, that have lived in the world since the Reformation, have been so sharp in their Zeal against the chief Fautors [Page] of that Way of Error. The Lord Jesus did never manifest more indignation against his Disciples, then at the time when they endeavoured to withhold Children from him, Mark 10.14. (eganact [...]se) So hath it been with those that have received much of the Siprit of the Lord Jesus; an holy Zeal hath been kindled within them, when they have seen men about to rob Christ of his Lambs. Calvin cannot speak of them, but, as Ierom saith of Tertullians Polemical Treatises, Quot verba, tot Fulmina, every word is a Thunderbolt. The Learned may see what he writeth in his Epistles, and de Psychopannych. p. ult. and his Institutions, Lib. 4. Cap. 16. That noble Martyr Mr. Philpot, thus expresseth himself, ‘The Anabaptists are an inordinate kind of men, stirred up by the Devil to the destruction of the Gospel, having neither Scripture nor Antiquity nor any thing else for them, but Lyes, and new Imaginations, feigning the Baptism of Children to be the Popes commandment.’ When the Prelates charged the good old Non-Conformists, as being Favorers of Anabaptism, renowned Parker replyed, Disciplina Ecclesiastica tantopere distat ab Anabaptistica confusione, quantopere Christus ab Antichristo. De Polit. Eccles. Lib. 1. C. 34. We have as much favor for their Opinion, as Christ hath for Antichrist.

As for the Anabaptists, of late years combined, in opposition to the Churches of Christ in New England, there are several things that do greatly dissatisfy serious men concerning them. To say nothing of their evil in not departing from the sin of Jeroboam, who made Priests of the lowest of the people; There is (as by them it is improved) a pernicious principle in the confession of their Faith, wherein they thus declare, Believers being baptized are visible Saints, and the true matter of the visible Church. Now they look upon Infant-baptism as a meer nullity, or as the Apostle saith of an Idol, that it is nothing in the world. Whence also they arrogate to themselves the Name of Baptists, as if there were none baptized, but they who are rebaptized. So then our Churches are no Churches, as wanting the matter (which is an Essential cause) of visible Churches, nor are we any of us so much as visible Saints, as not being (if their Judgement be according to Truth) baptized believers. And it is sufficiently known that when put upon it, in a solemn Assembly, to declare whether they did believe, that the Churches in New-England, were indeed true Churches of Christ, they would not be perswaded to own that. And another ground of great & just Offence, is, the Time and manner of their proceeding, when they first combined into a pretended Church-estate. I need not say how New-England was circumstanced at that hour, which they chose to make their disturbance in, and who did countenance and animate their motions; but that they should moreover take one that was under Censure, (at that very time under the lesser, & afterward under the greater Excommunication) in a Church of Christ, & set him up for an Administrator of Baptism, yea, & of the Lords Supper too, and to receive Members of other Churches, without the consent of the Church whereto they do belong; Turn thee yet again & thou shalt see greater Abominations. Nay, to receive such as have been actually delivered up to Satan by a whole Church of Christ, not for the opinion of Antipedobaptism, but for moral Scandal. Yea, themselves in cold blood being Judges for sin and great iniquity, which I know to be true with reference to the Anabaptists in Question? What is this better then setting up an Altar against the Lords Altar? And that this should be done in Ierusalem, and as it were in open defiance of the Lords Temple, cannot but provoke the eyes of his glory. I am uncertain, whether this deed can be parrallel'd throughout the whole Christian world. From these Considerations, that holy Man, blessed Mr. Wilson, (who like the Apostle John, excelled in the grace of Charity, and yet was a Son of Thunder [Page] when he had to do with seducing Spirits, witness his lately printed Sermon on Jer. 29 8. which Sermon was preached on occasion of the Anabaptists first setting up in opposition to these Churches of Christ) He laid those of his Family under solemn Adjuration, that they should not at any time dare so much as once to enter into the Anabaptists Assembly. (O my Soul, Come not thou into their secret, unto their Assembly mine honour be not thou united) I charge you (said the Man of God) that you do not once go to hear them, for whatsoever they may pretend, they will rob you of Ordinances, rob you of your Souls, rob you of your God. Blessed Wilson▪ Thy body, Thy dust remaineth still in Boston, but where is thy Spirit? where is thy Zeal?

I shall add no more at present; How long I have to speak or write, I know not. But that God whose I am, and whom I desire to serve, hath set me in this place for the defence of his Gospel, and the holy Ordinances of it, amongst which Infant-baptism is one. And to him in Heaven I can appeal, that love to the Truth, to the Churches, and to the dear Lambs of the Lord Jesus hath moved me to stand up, and appear in this Cause. Fuit Ilium, fuimus Troes. The first and most eminent Christians in New-England, were not defective in Zeal against Errors, or those that with an high hand have propugned and propagated them; Ah! New-England, art thou now New-England! Remember whence thou art fallen, and do thy first works, lest the Lord Jesus, who hath lately removed four of thy Candlesticks out of their places, and sorely threatned others, say that he will come quickly and remove all thy golden Candlesticks. Therefore embrace not unchurching principles. The snow is fallen off from the venerable heads of thine Antient Worthyes, thy Leaders both Civil and Ecclesiastical, so that now thou mayst expect a Land flood to be not far off. The Lord in mercy grant, that it may not be such a flood (wherein Churches fled into the Wilderness are concerned) as that spoken of in the Revelation, which shall endanger thee and thy Seed.

FINIS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF Infant-Baptisme Asserted and Proved from SCRIPTURE And ANTIQVITY.

By INCREASE MATHER, Teacher of a Church of Christ in Boston in New-England.

Mic. 2.9.

From their Children have they taken away my glory for ever.

Mar. 10 13, 14, 16.

And they brought young Children to him that he should touch them, and his Disciples rebuked those that brought them. — But when Iesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer ye little Children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdome of God.— And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them.

Paedobaptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus, usitatus & frequens, ut nihil fere notius aut usitatius: Non igitur opus erat ut aliquo Praecepto roboretur, cùm Baptismus jam in Sacramentum evaderet evangelicum.

Dr. Lightfoot. Hor. Hebr. p. 40.

BOSTON, Printed by Iohn Foster, in the Year 1680.

§

§

[Page]

Christian Reader.

IT is the good Counsel of Solomon, yea, and of a greater then Solomon, unquestionably worthy of all Acceptation, Buy the Truth, and sell it not, Prov. 23.23. Importing, that Divine Truth (respecting matters of Faith and obedience) is a good Bargain, what ever it costs; and that he will be a great loser, that suffers himself to be cheated of it, or parts from it on any Terms. One may buy Gold too dear: but Truth will pay for the purchase at any rate. The merchandise of it is better then the merchandise of silver: and the Gain thereof then fine Gold, Prov. 3.14. Truth is such an excellent commodity as will more then quit the cost of any pains and Travel in the pursuit of it, and cannot be exchanged (as wares by the Merchant) for any thing the world affords, but to great disadvantage. It was the affectionate speech, and is deservedly one of the many celebrated sayings of that happy Instrument of the Reformation, the great Martin Luther, potius ruat Caelum, quam pereat una mica veritatis. Let the Sky fall, or Heaven tumble on our head, rather then one crumb or particle of Truth perish. Which though it may be despised by irreligious Scepticks and worldly Politicians (the wise fools of the times that deride the seriousness of good men in this matter) as a rash Effort of injudicious Zeal; yet was indeed a sentence well fitted to the lips (Prov. 22.18.) of so renowned a Champion of Truth in his Generation. But what Tears then are sufficient to lament the Spirit and genius of too many Professors at this day? the wantonness, the levity, the unaccountable fickleness and folly of men, that make little difference between Truth and Error, spurn at Truth, and support themselves with their own deceivings, and can, upon very slender occasions abandon the Truth they have sometimes courted and entertained, falling in love with, and espousing those erroneous opinions about the things of God, which both Scripture and Reason, as well as the most pious, learned, and Judicious men have condemned and branded? This is matter of unspeakable sorrow, and portends very ill, to this loose and slight, evil and adulterous Generation. Whoso is wise and observes these things, will dread the Consequents, and tremble to think, what severe course the Lord (who is very jealous of the honour of his Truth) may take, to right himself and his Truth, and bring it in request again. What hath been said of Divine Truth in general, may be brought down to particulars, and aptly enough applyed to that pretious Truth which the ensuing Treatise labours in the defence of, respecting the Divine Right of Infant Baptism. Which indeed is a Truth of higher Elevation, and greater Importance then many of the good Friends of it apprehend; And the opposite Error (however resented by some as very harmless, and of no dangerous Influence into the main concerns of a Christian, and represented by others as a Truth of great Consequence, and laid in the Foundation of a pure and entire Reformation from Anti-Christianism) will be found (upon a due [Page] search into the nature and Appurtenances of it) plainly subversive of the frame (might I not have said? of the whole Frame) of Divine Dispensations towards the visible Church of Christ in the World. It is not unworthy of a serious Inquiry, what should be the matter that so many Christians are so much enamoured on that Error of Antipaedopaptism, and make no difficulty to sell or give away that great Truth concerning the Interest of their Children in the Covenant of God, and the Appendant Seal of it, notwithstanding so much Scripture evidence for the priviledge of the Seed of Believers, & such an utter silence of the Scriptures of the New-Testament, as to any express or consequential denyal, Repeal, or Revocation of the Grant of that priviledge, which was so clearly made, and long enjoyed by the Church-Seed before the coming of our dear Lord Jesus into the World. It is not ill guessed in my Apprehension, by a worthy man, that some of the causes why many persons pretending to Religion and Conscience, are so strangely transported and carryed away with that erroneous Opinion so uncomfortable to themselves, so injurious to their Children, are, the want of due esteem of Covenant priviledges, and of natural Affection to their Relations, which the Apostle long since foretold would be one of the Epidemical diseases of these last & perilous Times, 2 Tim. 2.3. There are at this day loud Outcries made and lamentable Tragedies raised about Persecution: and it were well for some in the World, if they were altogether groundless. That Persecution upon the account of the profession of Religion, which the Scripture condemns, (and I know no Reason to enlarge the Notion of it beyond the bounds the Scripture hath assigned it) is not (for ought appears) troubling men for an erroneous Conscience, and the Disorders or Irregularities they rush upon, in pursuance thereof, but for Righteousness sake, Math. 5.10. Christs sake, ver. 11. for Christs Name, 1 Pet. 4.14. for Christs sake and the Gospels, Mark. 8.35. So that he who suffers, fills up that which is behind of the Afflictions of Christ, &c. Col. 1.24. And hath such Communion with Christ in his Sufferings, that Christ is persecuted in Him and with Him, Act. 9.4. which how it can be verified concerning such as suffer for Heresy or Heterodoxy professed and practised, is beyond the reach of my understanding. It's readily acknowledged, that that persecution which the Scripture brands is a grievous provocation, and one of the great sins of Anti Christ and his Followers, whose damnation slumbers not. But what if the Antipaedobaptists themselves are engaged in a course of Persecution? yea, and of the most barbarous and unnatural Persecution, in their injurious and cruel usage of poor Children, that are uncapable of the use of Tongue, or Pen, or Hand in their own just defence? Was it persecution in Ishmael to deride and mock Isaac, (Gen. 21.9. Gal. 4.29. on the account of his Right and prerogative of Primogeniture, and Heirship, or Interest in the Covenant of God, as some not improbably conjecture? And is it none in them, that deny the Interest of the children of Gentile Believers (upon whom is come the blessing of Abraham, Gal. 3.14.) in the Covenant and promise of God? Was it persecution in Saul and his Counsellors, that drove David away from abiding in the Inheritance of the Lord, saying (according to the just construction of their practices against him) Go, serve other Gods? 1 Sam. 26.19. And is it none in them that would drive the children of the faithful out of the Inheritance of the Lord, and disseize them of that which God hath given them to possess? saying, in Effect, what have you to do with the Lord God of Israel? Josh. 22.24. Was it persecution in Dioclesian to emit an Edict, and give order that all Christians should be disfranchised, and lose their civil priviledges? And is it none in them that would devest children of better priviledges then Dioclesian could give or take away? Was it persecution in Iulian the Apostate to forbid the children of Christians Admission into the Schools of Learning? And is it none in them that would undisciple them, and turn [Page] them out of the School of Christ? Was it persecution in Heathens and Antichristians to murder the children of Christians with their Parents or Relations? (of which the following discourse gives some Instances) And is it none in them that would rob children of that which is dearer and better then their lives? their interest I mean in the Covenant of God (on which the visible hope of their Salvation depends) and the Seal of it? I doubt not, whatever is clamour'd to the contrary, but the interest of children in the Covenant of grace, and the initiating Seal thereof, hath been irrefragably demonstrated by many of the Lords Servants; and is now asserted and vindicated with an high hand of Evidence, by the Learned and Judicious Author of this Treatise. And may we not then if we listed to recriminate, return a much juster charge of persecution upon the men of this heterodox opinion then they can possibly fasten upon their Opposites? I speak not of the design of the Opinionists, but of the nature and tendency of the opinion, which una Litura with one dash, strikes out one half of Gods Covenant with Believers, and turns all their Seed out of possession of that inheritance which God hath given them. I confess it were no small indiscretion to give hard words in this Preface, where there is no room to back them with hard Arguments; but that I am well assured the following dissertation will make good all I have said with Advantage. It is truly said by a very moderate and judicious Divine (Mr. Ioseph Caryl) Though erring persons may have our Charity, yet no error ought to have our love: Though many who erre may have much of our patience, yet there is no error (how small soever) should have any of our countenance. I profess I have a great deal of charity for many well-meaning persons▪ that have unawares imbib'd or inconsiderately slipt into that Error of Anabaptism. Nor would I be so unkind to the opinion of Antipaedobaptism (as bad as it is) as to give it that hard name of Heresy, in that sense of the word which hath obtained in the Church for many Ages, importing an Error in the foundation of Faith, pertinaciously retained against due means of Conviction. But I cannot avoid saying, it is an Error of too perillous consequence to be dandled & dallied withal: & it argues but an ill spirit, & very low esteem of the Truth, when a man dreads no Error, but that which will damn him: which yet an Error, small in it self, or in comparison, may do, as it may be circumstanced. Nor yet can those justly censure us for laying much weight upon this matter of the interest of children in the Covenant, and Seal of it, who themselves are transported to such extremity on the other side, as to place proram ac puppim, the whole and all, in a manner of their Religion, in the belief and practice of Anabaptism; Antichristianizing, or unchristianizing (in a very Magisterial and dictatorly way) all that are not baptized into their spirit, and in their way: Acknowledging none for the Churches of Christ, or true Members thereof (that is, visible Heirs of Salvation) but those that are of their own Constitution and Profession.

That this Error of the Anabaptists hath been a great Troubler of the Church and Disturber of the peace and Order thereof, to the extream disparagement and obstruction of the work of Reformation, is well known to those that are acquainted with the History of the last Age. Nor doth the Lord ordinarily bless the world with the discovery of any momentous Truth in Religion, by the hand of Persons of such a Complexion, as the Fathers of this Opinion were in the last Century, whose horrible Immoralities, and almost unexampled Outrages (too notorious and demonstrable to be denied with any great hope of Belief) were enough to turn the spirits, and enflame the Zeal of all sober and conscientious persons against them and their Sentiments. If it might be supposed after such undeniable Demonstration of the Error of it, that the Opinion of Anabaptists is the Truth; I must say, It is the unhappiest truth that ever yet appeared on the Stage, in respect of the trouble it hath given the Church of God, [Page] and the prodigious enormityes of the first Discoverers and Followers of it. Though some Errors are meer infirmities of the Vnderstanding, where there is an honest Heart, but a weak and injudicious Head: yet most Errors are occasioned by a corrupt Bias in the will and affections: and so was this manifestly in those that unhappily started it in the infancy of the Reformation, to the great Scandal of the World, and weakning the hands of the first Reformers. I know there are some quick and pungent Expressions of the Author of this Treatise, in the management of his last Argument, which those (I doubt not) against whom their edge and point is turned, will quickly feel and complain of: but let him not become their enemy for telling them the Truth. There is one sure and good way to help themselves in this case: Let them quit their Error and they are unconcerned. It is necessary to remind the World of the Truth of those Historical Passages, when there are some of late that have confidence and Forehead enough to face down the world, if it were possible, in those matters of Fact, which were acted but yesterday in comparison, and not done in a corner, attested by very many witnesses of unquestionable Reputation. Nor is it any great wonder if those men have impudence enough to cry down Infant-Baptism as a nuperous or novel invention, an upstart Error, the pretty contrivance of some Pope or Heretick, unknown to the primitive times of the Church; that have the boldness to deny, or question, or palliate the foul miscarriages of the Founders of their order against the best evidence that can be given by the Sons of men. Concerning the cogency, or how concluding this Argument from Gods Testimony in the wayes of his providence, is, I will not here dispute, but surely the world had need be told the Truth in this matter, though it cannot be done without dealing otherwise, with the memory of the Ringleaders of this new Way, then will be to the liking of their Followers. Nor can the Error be branded as it deserves, and men duely cautioned against it without such just reflections upon the prime Assertors of it. When Christ hath signified his displeasure from Heaven against those that would hinder little children from coming to him in the way of his appointment, and pleaded the cause of the children of the Covenant in his signal and tremendous Judgements against those that would injuriously bereave them of their Covenant-Birthright; I suppose the Author hath an authentick Dispensation, and more then a Dispensation, to jogg the careless or forgetful world, and tell them the story of these things over again. It is sufficiently known to those that know the Author, that he is none of the Ishmaels of the times, that have their hand against every man, and love to be taking a Dog by the Ears (as Solomon speaks, Prov. 26.17.) or to be dabling in the waters of strife. His Abilities in Polemical Divinity are too manifest to be denyed: but they that know his Doctrine and manner of life, cannot but know that the life of his Spirit is in the things of practical Divinity, and the great Design of his Ministry is to promote the power and practise of piety in the greatest instances. Nor can he be ignorant of the pugnacious humour of his Antagonists in this Controversy, in which respect he understands well enough, he hath not consulted his own repose in this undertaking. The love of Truth, and compassion to such as are gone out of the way, or may be exposed to the danger of seduction is doubtless, that which hath drawn him forth to this Engagement. I dare undertake for the Reverend Author (that hath deserved so well of the Church of God by sundry discourses formerly published) that his design in this Treatise is not to traduce the persons of those that are otherwise minded, or expose them to severities & sufferings on the bare account of their opinion: but to appear in the defence of a precious Truth, at such a juncture (wherein who sees it not to be seasonable?) and to secure some, rescue others from the Error of the way of Anabaptism. But to what [Page] purpose all this wast? may some say. Satis cribatur hoc cribro. Enough hath been said and written on this Subject. And it must be acknowledged with great Thankfulness, that there are many excellent and unanswerable Discourses on this Argument already extant. But as long as the Tongues and pens of men are going so fast in the favour of Error, it would be strange neglect and unkindness in the friends of Truth, if they should leave it to shift for it self, or desert their post, and quit the defence of it, when there are so many Batteries raised up against it. And possibly those that make this Objection, if they duly weigh the perspicuity, conciseness, and comprehensiveness of this discourse (wherein the summe of what is usually pleaded is delivered in a narrow compass) as well as the strength and solidity of it; will thank the Reverend Author for his pains, and acknowledge he hath not bestowed labour in vain. It must be confessed that the tenaciousness in men of Errors (which take faster hold of the minds of carnal men, and of good men, so far as they are carnal, then Truth will do, and have something whatever it is, that renders them very recommendable to the corrupt principles and lusts in the hearts of men) and their unwillingness to lay down any dear opinion they have once taken up, is no small discouragement in this kind of undertaking. And it is particularly observed by a learned man about an hundred years since, that the Anabaptists in those times were wont with much wiliness, to pretend to great Humility and Teachableness, as if they desired nothing more then Instruction and Conviction out of the Scriptures, and were readily disposed to conform to the discoveries of Truth, whereas they performed nothing less; but persevered in their Errors against all means of Conviction. But it is to be hoped, this Character doth not universally agree to the men of that perswasion. Who knows but the good Lord, that hath put it into the heart of his Servant to lay out himself in this way, may so prosper his labour, as to make it instrumental to reduce some into the way of Truth, from which they have wandred, and deliver them out of the snare of Error, with which their foot hath been taken? However, he will have comfort in the clearness and faithfulness of his Testimony. It was the saying of him who is Truth it self, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the World, that I should bear witness to the Truth, Joh. 18.37. If our Lord and Master thought it worth his coming into the World to bear witness to the Truth, though no man (none in comparison) received his Testimony, Joh. 3.32. Well may his Servants esteem their Time and pains well bestowed in giving due Testimony to the Truth, though few or none receive their Testimony. The blessing of the God of Truth (who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, Eph. 3.20.) goe along with this seasonable discourse, that it may happily accomplish all (and more then all) the good designed by the worthy Author in its publication: which is the hearty desire and prayer of him, who is, good Reader,

Thy Servant for Christ's sake, VRIAN OAKES.

Cambridge, Febru. 21. 1679./80.

ERRATA.

P. 1. l. 16. for have r. hath. p. 7. l. 15. r undeniably. P. 12. l. 25. dele of. P. 14. l. 26. r. Church.

Information about this book

Title statement

The divine right of infant-baptisme asserted and proved from Scripture and antiquity. By Increase Mather, teacher of a church of Christ in Boston in New-England. ; [Ten lines of quotations]

Mather, Increase, 1639-1723.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2004-08.

ID [DLPS]

N00230

ID [TCP]

N00230

ID [STC]

Evans 292

ID [STC]

Wing M1203

ID [NOTIS]

APX2921

ID [IMAGE-SET]

292

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99019673

Availability

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

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 292.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N00230)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 292)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 292)

Source

— The divine right of infant-baptisme asserted and proved from Scripture and antiquity. By Increase Mather, teacher of a church of Christ in Boston in New-England. ; [Ten lines of quotations], Mather, Increase, 1639-1723., Oakes, Urian, 1631-1681..

Extent

[8], 27, [1] p. ; 19 cm. (4to)

Printed by John Foster,,. Boston, :: in the year 1680.. ("To the reader" signed: Urian Oakes.) (Errata note, p. 27.)

Creation

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

Editorial practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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