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 2] 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 3] 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 4] 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 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] 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 9]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 10] 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 11] 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 12] 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 13] 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 14] 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 15] 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 16] 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 17] 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 18] 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 19] 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 20] 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 21] 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!

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 22] 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 23] 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 24] 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 25] 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 26] 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 27] 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.