- ■ I-. 
 

 
 £5 
 
 «3 
 CL 
 
 
 j^f 
 
 
 
 
 •J£» 
 
 
 ." 5 " 
 
 
 £? 
 
 
 1c 
 
 3 
 
 ,'. 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 J5 
 
 ■ 
 
 *«» 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 ~^» 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 ^W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 h- 
 
 
 & 
 
 fc 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 O 
 
 & 
 
 CD 
 
 C 
 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 • 
 
 5 
 
 Eh 
 O 
 
 ~CD 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 E 
 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 «j 
 
 -ft 
 
 *■* 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 -*-* 
 
 fM 
 
 s.! 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 2 
 >, 
 
 
 
 _Q 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 C 
 
 • s 
 
 £ 
 
 
 CD 
 </> 
 
 CD 
 
 Si 
 
 1 1 
 
 «D 
 
 CL 
 
 ,& 
 ^ 
 
 SoB' 
 
A 
 
 uft Reply 
 
 To the BOOKS 
 
 '• * ' V OF 
 
 •Mr. Wills,znd Mr. Bliman. /'with 
 
 Mr, Baxters injurious Preface > 
 FOR 
 
 •INFANT^BAPTrSM: ^ 
 
 Fo^indicatioYi oVlruth and In- 
 tegrity o{^4»tip«iobaptifts : 
 
 In a Letted to KtmyDanvers E% 
 
 ffi"-* Um * m * ni w *&*> *«%£* 
 
 $ X O iV 
 
 Printed for the Author, and fold by .» v at 
 
 the Crown in Corn-hiB , near the 
 
 Stocks. Market, i6j 5. 
 

V? J. 
 
Erratsu 
 
 m 
 
 By the Authors diftancc from the Prefs, 
 feveral grofs miftakes have been com- 
 mitted, very injuricnrc^to the fencv, ; 
 which the Reader is Sefired to corre&r 
 and amongft them, thffe that follow. 
 
 PAge i. line* i 6, read Inhahits"] p. 6. 1. 9. r. a for 
 as. p. 9. J. 17. r. federally, p. 14. J. 1 2. r. Perjons,, 
 p. 32., J. 8. r. is to. p. 34. 1. 7. r. Genuine, p. 35. 1. 19. 
 r. ng,Ko£*xl*. J. 3 2.r. Children kr Parents, p. 4. 1. 27. 
 r. Profelitifme {.Profejf.on. p. 45. 1. itf.r. wffo^f* «'!»)*» 
 J. 29. r. iiuf/0. p. 465 1. 1 1. r. abfurd f. abujed. p. 5 1. 1. 
 4. r. Precept, p. 53. J. 11. r. a tenth, p. 57. 1. 2. r. 40*6. 
 .1. 4. r.fu-ppojititious. p. 67.1.30.1-. intereft f.neareft.p. 74. 
 J. 24. after Cta^wawtr. external by Covenanting for them, 
 $r any other way as the Nations oftht Jews were, but alja 
 by God's prowije ofGofpel Grace meant, Gen 17.7. p. 87. 
 J. 19* r. is in, p. 88. 1 19. v. rationale, p. 90. 1. 1. r. 
 as years, p. 91. \. 19. r. orientis, p, 92. 1. f. r. reperitttr. 
 p. 95. 1. 27. r. acquit f. acquefce. p. 96. ). 19.- r. *'«/t»c 
 p. 97. 1. 27. r. «*8»*&c*>1h. p. 98. J. 6. r. ifvSwnwi, 
 «fl£»*. 27. 57. p. 106. 1. 10. r./«* qua. 1. 1 1. r. c. 9J.9. 
 p. 109. J. 30. r. perjonaltm. p.- no. 1. 27. r. alter f. 
 anjwer. p. 118. 1. 18. r. cure f. care. p. 119. 1. 6. r. per- 
 mitted {. Printed, p. 121. ]. 8. t.efit f. to it. p. 126. ]. 
 26. r. 1644. p. 132. r. vcrticef. wrtue. 1. 18. r. cxpit f. 
 crf«J, and caterist c&lerti. 1. 25. r. itsi. her. p. 133. 1. 
 13. r. XV. f. Sr. p. 137. J. 30. r. in admijjion. p. 138. 
 I. 27. r. jnditiou5. In the Catechifm p. 12, add to tig 
 3$tb. Q. Jffoi* *r« €hriftians to. d% vihe# t 
 

 LETT 
 
 T O 
 
 Mr. Henry Qanvm^ 
 
 Concerning the Book of Mr. ohedmlls^ 
 
 Intitledj Infants Baptifm Averted, 
 
 From John Tombes, B. D. 
 
 — ; — — ' — ■ ■■ . < 
 
 SECT. £ 
 
 The Censures paff'ed by Mr. Wills and 
 Mr. Baxter in their EpiJMes on Ariti- 
 Poedo-baptifts fhevoed to be Vnrigh- 
 teons* 
 
 S i it, 
 
 AS for Mr. Witt his Speech in his 
 Preface, of my Exercitation and 
 long fince Anfwered by Mr. Mar. 
 fl)*!, Dr. Hemes, Mr.Gerce, Mr. 
 Blake, Mr. Baxter, (though I know not that 
 Mr. Baxter hath done any thing in Anfwer to 
 B thofc 
 
thofe. Writings) it is to me afignof muck 
 Subdolous dealing to hide from People the 
 knowledge of my Review, or much Negli- 
 gence in him, who taking on him to handle 
 that point, notwithstanding he quotes oft my 
 Fracur[or y the Title whereof might have mincU 
 cd him of my Review, wherein I have Ar£ 
 fwercd all that I met with in the moll: Eminent 
 Divities, Prelatical, Presbyterian, Indepen- 
 dent, in Old and New England, and Scotland^ 
 and that in aScolaftical way without wrang- 
 ling ; yet mentions not thofe Writings which 
 he might have fcen at Oxford when he was 
 there in the Bodleian Library^and that at Mag- 
 dalen hall, or living in the chief City of the 
 County he inhabiting fhould have, if it had 
 been defired , communicated to him, and 
 (hould have been confidcred, if he had fincere* 
 ly and impartially fought Truth, and its dif- 
 covery to People. The Antipcedobaptifts are 
 confirmed in their Pofition, that Infant- Bap- 
 tilm is a great, and pernicious Errour, being 
 agaiuftthc Inftitutionof Chrift, in that which 
 is made one of the Six Principles of Chriftia- 
 mty,Heb.6. 2. of molt importance to cn^ge 
 men to adhere to Chrift \ fo that it was here- 
 tofore accounted, that whereby perfons were 
 declared Chriftians, and a Sin fcarce pardon- 
 able to go back from Chnftianity, or to com- 
 mit any trefpafs which confifted not #ith it 
 after Baptifm, but now atbeft isbucjameer 
 Formality, or Civil Cuftome, if not a mock- 
 
f 3) 
 
 cry, as it is commonly ufed j yea* hath 
 brought into the Church of God fuch Abufes 
 and Corruptions, as have quite difordered the 
 Church of Chrift, and the Miniftry thereof ; 
 and is maintained by Papifts and others, as 
 an Ecclefiaftical Tradition , upon that moll 
 grofs and arrogant pretence , by which, milli- 
 ons of Souls are deceived : as if by cafting 
 water on the face of an Infant of a few days 
 old, they did Baptize, regenerate it, free it 
 from Original Sin* and make it a Chriftian 
 Soul, and a Believer* and by others, up- 
 on worfe Falfhoods, which are manifeftly An- 
 ti-Evangelical; that the Covenant of Grace, 
 Gen. 17.7. made to Abraham and his Seed, is 
 made to every Believer, and his Natural 
 Seed 9 which, God not performing, doth in- 
 cur the Crination of Lying,which is a horrible 
 Blafphemy : and that we are to be directed 
 in Baptifm by the Command of Circumcifion; 
 which if true, we are dill under theLaw 3 which 
 Chrifl: hath freed us from j and the end of the 
 Ordinance of Baptifm is quite perverted* 
 which being apointed byChrift to exprefs our 
 Duty, is now only accounted a Priyiicdge to 
 fuch, asneither know, nor can performtheDu- 
 ty. As for Mr. Baxters. Fancies of a Mediate 
 Difciplefhip by theFaith of the Parent, or Pro- 
 parent, as.his Term is, by which he terms an 
 Infant a Difciple to be Baptized ; no Text is 
 alledged for the ufe of that word in hfs fenfe, 
 but Aft< 15. to. which cannot be meant of 
 B 2 art 
 
(4) 
 
 anlnfant,the putting the yoke being byTeach- 
 ing, v. I. and therefore the Difciples, v. io. 
 cannot be meant of Infants, but'ef the Bre- 
 thren fo taught ; and fith Mr. fiaxter himfelf, 
 Plain Scripture Proof \ &c. p. 17. confefTeth 
 that the Yoak is the judgment and praclife 
 which the Do&rine, v.i\\, did teach them; 
 any that underfland Common fenfe might 
 perceive, that the Difciples there are not In- 
 fants, on whom that yoak could not be put \ 
 nor are Defciples meant, Mat. 28. 19. who 
 are only fuch as are taught by Preaching the 
 Gofpel, and become Believers, Mark^ib. 1 5, 
 16. As for his other Conceit of an Ordinance 
 of Infants Vifible Church-Memberfhip, or 
 Admiflion to it unrepealed, it is a piece of 
 N on fenfe ; Vifible Church- memberfhip be- 
 ing by fomething difcernable in the Church- 
 naember by fenfe, which is not from an Or- 
 dinance Commanding us, or enacting a Law 
 liable to repeal ; but from a fact of Divine 
 Providence, making it to be in aclual exig- 
 ence, which being once done, cannot with- 
 out a contradiction be undone y no not by 
 God h'imfelf: and being from the effcafe or 
 act of the perfon termed a Vifible Church- 
 member, cannot be barely by the Covenant- 
 ing or Confenting of another^without any fen- 
 fible act, or habit of the fuppofed Vifible 
 Church-member fignifyingir, which in Infants 
 is none at all. And for an Ordinance of Ad~ 
 million of an Infant into Vifible Chureh-mem- 
 
 bermip, 
 
berfhip, there is no other in the Old Tefta- 
 ment but Circumcifion 9 which, he that 
 holds unrepealed, againft theGofpel main- 
 tains the Ceremonial Law of Mofes Obligato- 
 ry, of us Chriftians condemned as Judaizing, 
 Gal. 5.2,3. Butifhe mean by a Law or Or- 
 dinance of Infants Admlfiion to Church-mem- 
 be illiip, Unrepealed Baptifm, which is the 
 Ordinance of Admiflion, now in force, his 
 A^guracnt is meerly nugatory, it being as if 
 he had faid, the Ordinance of Baptizing In- 
 fants is not repealed, therefore they are ro be 
 Baptized ; which is ail one as to fay, they are 
 to be Baptized becaufe they arc to be Bapti- 
 zed. And to fpeak the truth, they that plead 
 for Infants Title to Baptifm, by their being 
 by their Parents Faith in the Gofpel Cove- 
 nant, fith they cannot maintain that God hath 
 promifed to be a God by Regenerating and 
 J unifying every Believers Child , which is 
 onif the Gofpel Covenant, but cannot be faid 
 of every Infant of every Believer, rto not of 
 Abraham himfelf, without contradicting, Rom. 
 9. 6,7, 8. and impofing on God a Promife he 
 doth not keep, which is to make him a lyar , 
 they are driven to invent a Covenant Out- 
 ward, and a being in Covenant in refpeel of 
 Outward Priviledges; which neither is the 
 Gofpel Covenant, Ge%. 17.7. nor is made by 
 God there, or arjy where elfe, nor 13 kept by 
 God, fith every one of a Believers Seed, no 
 not Abrahams*^ is thus in Covenant; Milli- 
 B 3 ons 
 
(6) 
 cms being (till born without external Chcrch- 
 Piiviledge of Baptifm, or Vifible Chureh- 
 memberlhip, nor by their Parents Covenant- 
 ing for them, fith they may be dead when the 
 Infant is born : and if they mean they are in 
 the Gofpel Covenant, or it belongs to them 
 in refpeft of Outward Priviledges , when 
 they are prcfTed to mew what that outward 
 Covenant or Priviledge is, they can affign 
 none but the Outward Admimftration, or 
 having the Seal of the Covenant; and this 
 Seal is not the Lords Supper, but Baptifm 
 only: fo that this is their Argument (if the 
 terms be diHincftiy opened) jlnfants of Believ- 
 ers, as their Natural Seed, are all in theGof- 
 pel Covenant, not the Inward, but the Out* 
 ward } that is, the Outward Adminiftration, 
 that is, Baptifm • therefore to be Baptized, 
 which is meer trirlng, as proving they are 
 to be baptized Becaufe they are to be Bap- 
 tized, the fillyeft of allFalacies} which yet 
 I (hewed in my Apology, Printed in the year 
 1646. to be in effect Mr. Marjhals firftand 
 main Argument for Infants Baptifm, Se&.io. 
 and is, if it be fifted, Mr. Wills his Argument, 
 and is a ridiculous petitio principij. Andfurely 
 it is a fign that God hath left men to be de- 
 ceived, when Minifters and People, even 
 thofe who feem to be zealous for pure Ordi- 
 nances of Worfhip, againft Human Inventi- 
 ons; fo often urging Dent. 12. 32. Jfa.29. 
 13. Mat. 15. 8. Mark; 7/6. and have fworn 
 
 to 
 
K7) 
 
 to endeavour in their Place and Calling, Re 
 formation in Worfbip according to Gods 
 Word, do after fo full difcovery of the 
 fubtility of their unproved Dicfhtcs for In- 
 fant Baptifm , abufe Scriptures io grofsly 
 as they do, avouching and ufing that for 
 Chriftian Baptifm, which is a nullity jj neither 
 being indeed Baptifm, butRantifm; nor of 
 the Perfon appointed by Chrift to be Bapti- 
 zed- nor into the Name of Chrift in that ^ea{c 
 in which Baptizing into the Name of Chrift is 
 meant, by St Panls words, i Cor. 1.13,15. 
 which fhew then a man is Baptized into 
 the Name of Chrift, when at his Baptifm 
 he owns by it Chrift Crucified, as being a 
 Difciple of Chrift, and is thereupon Bapti- 
 zed , which is mamfeftly the Duty of the 
 Baptized, Acts 2. 38. Acts 22. 16. which 
 no Infant can perform: nor is itof any avail 
 to him, nor any Service to Chrift, which 
 fhouldbethe bufinefs of the Minifter, who 
 is to act as a Servant of Chrift, c.'fe he 
 fhews himfelf difobedient to him ; and 
 when he acts without his CommiiTion , not 
 according to his Inftitution by the Apoftlcs 
 Rule about the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 1 1, 23, 
 &c. but impofeth on mens Confcienccs In- 
 fant Baptifm tnftead of it^ takes upon him 
 that which is proper to Chrift his Matter, 
 arrogantly ufurping his Authority, and pro- 
 fanes his mod fokmn and chief Ordinance, 
 efpecially when notwitftanding he fecrns 
 4 to 
 
m 
 
 to pray that he may rightly and duly 'Ad- 
 minifter Gods Holy Sacraments, and teach* 
 eth that Repentance whereby they forfake 
 fin, and Pakh in Gods Promife, are requi- 
 red of Perfons to be Baptized, yet takes up- 
 on him to Baptize them, that it's confeffed 
 neither nave, nor can ordinarily have them 
 upon a promife of Sureties , who for the 
 moil pare are ignorant of the Ghriftian DocV 
 rinc, and mind not what they undertake ; 
 yet do molt prcfumptuoufly ( as if they 
 were God, who alone can promife and 
 perform that an Infant (hall repent and be- 
 lieve,) Promife and Vow them in their 
 names, without any deputation from'them^ 
 and upon Qucftions put to them, give An- 
 fwers containing fallhoods, and feem to give 
 thanks to God for that which they mould 
 confefs as a fin, and beg pardon for it, as 
 being a c<r ipt Cuftome brought into Sthe 
 Church with Infant Communion, as Bp. 
 Jew-el in his Reply to Harding, xrt- l.divif. 
 25. (hews; and is confefled by many Learn- 
 ed men to have rifen out of miftake of 
 F^3- S- ?°k* 6. 53- u P on which, many 
 great Abufes have followed. Nor is Mr. 
 Baxter more excufable , who after the Proof 
 in my Felo de fe y that mY own Arguments a- 
 gatnft Mr. Blake overthrow his Pofition a- 
 hout Infant Baptifm ; yet perfifts in the 
 third Tome of his Christian Direttory, to give 
 fuch rotten and {linking Refactions about 
 
 In- 
 
(9) 
 
 Infant Baptifrn ,from a pretended Baptifmal 
 Vow and Covenant, and a Pfriviledgc from 
 the Dedication of all that is the Believers 
 to God ; whereby not only the Parent that 
 is a True Believer , but any that is a Pro- 
 parent not only a Surety , but alfo any 
 Proprietary or Owner of a Child, as a 
 Guardian, or Mailer, by his Dedication 
 and Content intkles to Baptifrn an Infant that 
 is not his Seed, but by Adoption or Civil 
 Right is at his difpofal. So as that this is to 
 be taken for the Baptifrn Chrift requires , 
 though according to their own f but falfc) 
 expofition of I Cor 7. 14. this Propofition is 
 included ; Ali the Children, whereof one of 
 the Parents is not fan&ified by the Faith of 
 the other, are unclean, that is y not Adexaliy 
 holy, nor to be Baptized \ which , if title, 
 would prove the Children of Infidels when 
 adult, though their own or Believers arc 
 not to be Baptized. Thefe things, if Mr. 
 With and Mr. Baxter did confider as they 
 ought, they fhould fear toCenfurethe Con- 
 tending againft Baptifrn of Infants, as 
 unneceiTary and fruitlefs Endeavours, and 
 to impute to them as if they Were from a 
 bitter,? reftlefs, unpeaceabte Spirit. Nor 
 ihould Mr, Wills in his Perfuafiye to Unity, 
 p. 157. untruly have judged my Speech, there 
 recited a very uncharitable pafTage, and con- 
 tradicting what I had faid before: And 
 how far I am from Schifm, ail that read 
 
do) 
 
 my Writings, or know my praclife, cannot 
 be ignorant^ and therefore methinks fhould 
 acquit „me from it, if they had any regard 
 to Trijth or Charity : Nor fhoufd Mr. Bax- 
 ter have reckoned us among the Unthank- 
 ful, as tlifputing all Infants out of the Vi- 
 fible Church of Chrift, and Covenant, but 
 have fhewed his Repentance for his auda- 
 cious belying God, as if his forged Inter- 
 cftof all Chriftian Believers Children in the 
 world in the Covenant and Vifible Church 
 qf Chrift, were Gods Truth, and his Chur- 
 ches Right* 
 
 SECT, 
 
fiO 
 
 s;ecy. ItStT 
 
 77^£ Infant Baptifm is incwfijte&t vtitff' 
 the Institution and Vractife of Bap- 
 tifm in the New Teflament. 
 
 AS for Mr. WiUs his Anfvversto your Ar- 
 guments for the Baptifm of Believers 
 only from Mat. 28.19. Mark^i6. 15,16. 
 That which he faith Q that the words of 
 Chnft in both thefe places do not hold forth 
 the proper Subjects of Baptifm, or the form, 
 or manner of Baptizing being delivered in 
 general and indefinite terms, as, all Nations, 
 every Creature, by tranfitive words, Teach 
 them, Preach the Gofpel ] is falfe, and de- 
 rogatory from Chrift's prudence and faith- 
 fulnefs , as if he gave commands with un- 
 certain direction of what they were to do. 
 But the truth is, though the words be gene- 
 ral and indefinite , and do note a tranfeient 
 Aclion* yet both the Action is determinate, 
 and diftinclly exprefTeth what they were to 
 do; and the Subjects whom they were to 
 Teach and Preach the Go,fpel to, are plainly 
 expreft to be all Nations, every Creature, 
 that is, Perfons capable of hearing, and under- 
 ftanding; not only of the Jem y but alfo of 
 the Gentiles; and the cerm Baptizing fignirl- 
 
(12) 
 
 cd imrrjerfion into water, and the Sub) efts' 
 to be Baptized, Difciplcs, or Believers of al! j 
 Nations ( the word ^^Iwndi Mr, Wills 
 himfelf acknowledging to be rightly Tran- 
 slated, make Difciplcs J and thofe of any 
 Nation, felt pi Gentile, and this to be the 
 conftant lule of their Office; and therefore 
 hath the promife of being with them to the 
 end of the World .• which (hews, that irr 
 Preaching and Baptizing, they (hould follow 
 thit Precept, not only at firft Converfion of 
 a People, butalfo of their Pofterity in their 
 future Ages. Nor doth it advantage Mr. 
 Wills to fay £ that this Commiffion was for 
 the Difcipling of-the Gentiles, and Baptizing 
 them ] for befidcs that the Subjefts being 
 all Nations , every Creature^ comprehends 
 Jews as well as Gentiles , and Baptizing was 
 to be of the Difciples of both People; and 
 fo the Apoftles (hew by their Praftife they 
 undcritood Chrift's meaning, not dreaming 
 that any would put fuch a witlefs fence on 
 Chrift's words , as Infant Sprinklers do ; 
 £ that as Jews Circumcifed Infants, as being 
 in the Covenanant, and fo were to be Sealed ; 
 fo do you Baptize, or Rantize Parents and 
 Children, as being in a Gofpel Covenant of 
 God to be a God to Believers and their 
 Seed] And fure if the Apoftles had undcr- 
 ftood Chrift as Pa?dobaptifts do, they were 
 very undutiful, that when they Baptized 
 Jewst they did not Baptize their Infant Chil- 
 
dren, which the many thoufand* mentioned 
 J8s 2.41,. Acts 4. 4. were not without, 
 and their expofition of All si* 39. determines 
 rhey had ; and their right to Baptifm tiicnce 
 to be aliened. 6ut we muft allow Paedobap- 
 tiftSjit feertfs, as Painters and Poets, to fain 
 any thing for the countenancing of their Baby 
 Sprinkling. >leverthelefs , if Mr. Wills his 
 EcYion were granted [ that ChrifVs inftituti- 
 on Mat. 28. 19. were a new Commiffion 
 appointing the Difcipling, and Baptizing 
 Difciples of Gentiles only] it would however 
 fhew , that Chrift appointed none of our 
 Children, who are Gentiles, to be Baptized, 
 till they were taught, and by Preaching the 
 Gofpel to them were made Difciples, unlefs 
 he will have the Commifiion to be of 
 Preaching to , and Baptising any Gentile 
 whatfoever, though a Natural Fool, Mad- 
 man, or profeffed Infidel. Nor can any be 
 included, but fuch as in their own perfons 
 are made Difciples or Believers, whether by 
 us, or Gods immediate Call, as St. Paul 
 was } which if it were done to an Infant, and 
 revealed by God, as Sank Converfion to 
 Ananias, there would be no doubt of its 
 Baptifm. But the Inftitution, Mar. 23.19. 
 being the only CommiUion we have of Bap- 
 tizing is the ordinary Rule to is of that 
 Officte, and not including Infants, who 
 are not made Difciples by teaching the Gof- 
 ^?el; it is againft the Rule to Baptize them as 
 
 fan- 
 
(14) 
 
 fancied to be Difciples Seminally, in and \>j 
 their Parents, as if Believers could beget Dif- 
 ciples of Chrift , by Natural Generation ; 
 like as Mr. Blake, in his Birth Priviledge y ap- 
 plyed the Term, Jews by Nature, Gal. 2.15. 
 unto Chriftian Gentiles Infants, which being 
 abfurd , this is a reafon why Infants are 
 hot to be Baptized, as Profelytes Infants 
 were to be adjoyned to the femjh Nation, 
 without any diminution of Priviledge to 
 them, which Profelytes? Infants had, the 
 Church Chriftian being not of Perfon by hu- 
 mane Birth, but Spiritual Regeneration. Tis 
 true, that Mat. 10.42. with that Mar\$. 
 41. proves [ thofe Perfons that are Difciples 
 belong to Chrift ] [but not that all that belong 
 to Chrift are Difciples ; Holy Angels belong 
 to Chrift, yet are not Difciples in the fenfe 
 there meant, or Mat. 28. 19. ji$s 15.10. 
 is impudently alledged to prove Infants Dif- 
 ciples there meant j fith it ismanifeft the put- 
 ting yoke was not aclnal Circumcifion,' but 
 teaching the necelTity of it, v. I. which it were 
 ridiculous t« do to Infants : yet if it were act- 
 ual Circumcifion, it doth not prove Infants 
 to be, certainly meant by Difciples j fith adult 
 Believers of the Gentiles alfo were required 
 fry the Jews to be Circumcifed, as Timothy, 
 Ads 16. 3. As for that which Mr. Wills faith, 
 f.that allNations,/J/*tf,28.i9.is put in immedi- 
 ate oppofition to that one Nation ofthejewsj 
 it is falfe ; For it is put vfot in oppofition, but 
 
 in 
 
in Conjunction with the ^vrjr , the one a* 
 well as the other 5 Gentiles as well as few* 
 being comprehended threin. The prattle £o£ 
 the Seed of Difciples, born Difciples by the 
 relation of the Covenant, and fo may have 
 tht Seal fet on them without any precedent 
 Teaching] is ajvain unproved Dictate; as 
 if aTkle to Baptifm were by a relation to the 
 Covenant (which is a meer figment) and Bap- 
 tifm w ere in its narure a Seal of the Covenant, 
 which the Scripture nowhere faith : nor is a- 
 ny fuch thing according to the Inftitution, as 
 Baptizing perfons becaufe of Relation to the 
 Covenant. That which is alledgged from 
 Dr. Hammond of the Inftitution of Chriftian 
 jjaptifm to be expounded by the cuftome of 
 baptizing Profelytes and their Children 
 ( which is by Sir. Norton KnatchbttUs Animad- 
 verfions on 1 Pet* 3.21. made doubtful ) is 
 faid without proof, and is contrary, to the 
 praclife of the Apoftles, which bed expounds 
 Chrifts meaning; and j4£ts 14.21. (hews, that 
 they underftood making Difciples to be by 
 Preaching the Gofpel; and if the Jewijh 
 Cnftome did direcl us, we rauft Circumcife 
 and offer Sacrifice for them, as well as bap- 
 tize them; and now none are to be baptized 
 neither Parents nor Infants born of believers, 
 fith they Baptized none born after the firft 
 Baptifm, becaufe they were not then bora in 
 uncleannefs but holinefs, and their Baptifm 
 was immerfion. All which is proved by me in 
 
 the 
 
in the fecond part of my Review y Seft. 24. and 
 the third part Sett. 96, &c. Nor is there a 
 proof of Infants damnation without Faith, 
 from Mh\^\6.i6. becaufe of the duty of 
 Baptifm after Faith, fith the words, He that 
 Belitvctb not fliall be damned, muft be under- 
 ftood as Johns. $• 18.36. 1 John 5.10,12. 
 and other places of thofc to whom the Gofpel 
 is Preached, as the Context v. 15. leads us to 
 limit it ; and therefore I conclude, that unlefs 
 We will do as the Council of Conftance did, 
 when it decreed that however Chrift Inftitu- 
 ted the Lords Supper in both kinds, yet the 
 Church Determins otherwife \ To we are refol- 
 ved, that though Chrift lnftituted Baptizing 
 of Believers and no other, yetjwf think In- 
 fants, which are no Believers, are to be Bap- 
 tized. By which aclion Pcedobaptifts do in- 
 fringe that Rule which thcApoftle went by, 
 2 Cor. 11. 23. againft the Corruption of the 
 Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth, and 
 all Protectant Writers urge againft the Papifts 
 Mafs, and other Rituals of the Reman 
 Church. 
 
 SECT. 
 
If,7) .,v 
 
 SECT. H,.:,^- 
 
 Mr, Wills doth without Caufe except a- 
 gainft Mr. Danvers^ as urging Mr. 
 Baxters Sayings in his Book againjl 
 Mr. Blake againft his Opinion for 
 Infant Baptijm, 
 
 AS for that which, p. u, 12, 13- Mr. 
 Wills faith of your alledging Mr. Bax- 
 ters wox&s againft his own Opinion £ as if it 
 were out of indignation, becaufe of his fo 
 notable wounding our Caufe, as if you were 
 pofleft with a Malevolent Spirit againft that 
 Learned and Godly Divine, and glad of any 
 occafion to wound his Reputation -, that our 
 alledging his Sayings againft himfelf were Ca- 
 vils of unworthy Perfons, traducing and per- 
 verting the fayings of that Worthy Perfon out 
 of difmgenuity to countenance our Errour] 
 it is To venemous and unrighteous a palTage, 
 as might amaxe me, that a man, infhewavi- 
 fible Saint, Minifter of a gathered Church, 
 flionld not only in heat utter, but alfo delibe- 
 rately write and Print it ; had I not been fo 
 much acquainted with the intemperate deal- 
 ing of Mr. Marjhall, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Geree, 
 Mr. Baxter j and others in like m anner : The 
 PafTages you cite out of Mr. Baxter, I ac- 
 knowledge that you had them from my Fete 
 G ds 
 
(18) 
 
 de [e , not as a Plagiary, but as an honeft Bor- 
 rower ; and if there be arty wrong done, it 
 is to be charged on me, who do not find that 
 I have mifufed Mr. Baxttrs words,or any way 
 traduced him, or perverted his Sayings, or 
 ufed any Cavils out of any Malevolence, or 
 di(lngenuity,having in myEpiftle before myi^- 
 lo de fe prevented thcfe Objections; declaring, 
 that my dealing therein was fuch as Bifhop 
 Morton ufed in his Catholicity Apology, and al- 
 moft all the Learned Pfoteftants, who confute 
 the Papifts by their own Sayings, ufe, as 
 when King James and Bifhop Andrews alledg 
 Bellarmines words, lib. %.de Juftificatione, c. 7. 
 frop. 3.againfthiswhole difpute about Inhe- 
 rent Righteoufnefs and Merit; and Bp. If all. 
 Honor of the Married Charge firft book,y<?#. 
 21. faith righrly, Bajils Rule is a fure one, 
 *hat the witnefles of Enemies are moft con- 
 viclive. And therefore it was a moft juftway 
 in me to convince Mr. Baxter of his evil deal- 
 ing by his own words, fo fully and rightly ac- 
 cording to Holy Scripture delivered, detect- 
 ing his own errour ; and would, if he had not 
 a hardned heart, have wrought in him Repen- 
 tance for deceiving fo rpany thoufands of 
 Souls by his accurfed Book, termed, falfely, 
 Plain Scripture Proof for Infant Baptifm and 
 Church Memberjhipy in which that pradtife, 
 whichisaprophaningofthat great and moft 
 holy Ordinance of Chriftian Baptifm, worfe 
 than the prophaning the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 
 
 J U 
 
(19) 
 
 11^20, &c. being in effeft, as ufed, a nullity, 
 or rather a mockery, is juftified and promo- 
 ted, and his own Writing overthrew his Po- 
 fition even then when he Printed his firft Edi- 
 tion of his Book, as thofe which I alledge in 
 my ?r*CHrfir,feit. 16. Befides Juftin Martyrs 
 words and his Speech out of the Second Editi- 
 on of his Saints Everlafting Reft, part i .fitt. 5. 
 p. 179. in the Margin, to which, befides what 
 I alledge in my Felo de fe out of his fecond 
 Deputation of Right to Sacraments againfl; 
 Mr. Blake y I add that in the firft Edition of 
 his Plain Scripture Proof, p. 298, 299. he faid, 
 in the Inftitution and every Example of Bap- 
 tifm through all the Bible the firft Grace is 
 pre-requifite as a Condition j John required a 
 Profeflion of Repentance in thofe he Bap- 
 tized. Jefus firft made them Difciples, and 
 then by hisApoftles Baptized them, John 4. 
 ,i. The folemn Inftitution of it, as a (landing 
 Ordinance to the Church, which tells us fully 
 the end is in Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go and Difci- 
 pie me all Nations, baptizing them, &c. 
 now for the Aged, a Difciple and Believer 
 are all one, Marl^i6. 16. He thai believeth 
 and is baptized flail be faved. Adt. 2. 38. Re- 
 pent and be bapti zed every one, 6cc. 4 1 . They 
 that gladly received his Word were baptifed. 
 Ads 8. 12, 13. The Samaritans believed and 
 were baptized both men and women j Simon him* 
 felf believed and was baptized. Acls 8. 36, 
 37. Ifthoti believe ft with all thy heart thou may ft 
 C 2 (be 
 
( be baptized ) and he anfwered, I believe, &c. 
 A&s 9. Paul believed on Ananias his Inftrufti- 
 on and then was baptized. Ads 10.47,48. & 
 16.15,33. &18. 8. &19. 4,5, &c. You 
 fee this required, that all.at age do firft believe 
 and then be baptized ; I require fome Proof 
 that God hath Inftituted baptifm to Infants to 
 one end, and to the Aged to another where 
 the A&ed are capable of both : And to feign 
 fuch a thing without Scripture proof, is to 
 feign a Covenant and Ordinaace that God 
 never made. If Baptifm have ends fo exceed- 
 ing different in Infants and the Aged, then 
 you muft have feveral Definitions of Baptifm, 
 and (o as it were feveral Baptifms. But the 
 Apoftle faith, as there is but One Lord, and one 
 Faith, fo but One Baptifm, Eph. 4. 5. And 
 fure they that make the ufing of the words, 
 / Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son y 
 mid Holy Spirit , as EfTcntial to Baptifm, ac- 
 counting it not right Baptifm without them, 
 becaufe of the Inftkution, Mat. 28. 19. muft, 
 if they will keep to their own Rule deny any 
 to be rightly baptized but Difciples, or pro- 
 feffing Believers, and Infant-baptifm to want 
 that which is eflential to that baptifm Chrift 
 appointed, and fo to be no Chriftian baptifm. 
 Thefe Allegations, befides thofe in my Feb de 
 /<?, do fo wound Mr. Baxters Caufe, and pre- 
 vent the retraining his word to the baptifm 
 of the Aged, that they prove none but the 
 Aged mould be baptized ; and therefore, his 
 
 own 
 
own words do prove that his Infants Vifibfe 
 Church Membership and Baptifm are but his 
 own Figments ; which I did in my Felo ~de p, 
 Printed 1659. and in my Letter to him, Aug, 
 10. 1670. tell him, tell him, and now to you 
 rehtfarfe, not out of any ill will to him, but 
 commiferation of thofe Chriftians that are de- 
 ceived by him, and out of love to him, that 
 he may repent his exceeding injurioufnefs to 
 the Church and Truth of God, and to my 
 felf } who, if any could mew me that I have 
 done the like to any, would have burnt my 
 book, and humbly on my knees have begged 
 pardon. This is enough to anfwer Mr. Wills 
 his bafe Infinuations of you and me, as if we 
 wronged him and others , by citing their 
 words, and not fetting down all their words 
 for Infant-baptifm : which there was no rea- 
 fon we mould do, when we ufe a mans word 
 againft himfelf, unlefs we had faid his Opini- 
 on was againft Infants-baptifm, whereas we 
 faid only-his own words in one place were a- 
 gainft that which he avoucheth in another - y 
 and this we faid not, was in pofitive terms, 
 but by juft Confequence, which was no dif- 
 ingenuity. 
 
 SECT, 
 
(22) 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 The Apoftles Teaching and Praffife is 
 rightly alledged againji Infant Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 AS -for Mr. Witts his Anfwer to your fe- 
 cond Chapter, your Argument is ill re- 
 cited thus [ We read of no Children bapti- 
 zed, therefore there were none] But it is 
 thus, The Apoftles taught that Perfons (hould 
 be Baptized after Repentance, and Faith ac- 
 cording to Chrifts Commiflion, and there is 
 aoinftanceof any other Teaching or Praclife 
 to warrant Infant-baptifm } therefore to In- 
 troduce another Praclife , is not only con- 
 trary to Chrifts Commiflion, but contradict- 
 ions to the Apoftles Teaching. Which being 
 an Argument, not as he makes it, but thus, 
 The Apoftles Doctrine and Praclife fhews 
 how Chrifts Commiflion (hould 'be under- 
 ftood; and Chrifts Commiflion and their 
 Dcclrine and P.raclife contains the Rule we 
 fhould follow, and that warrants no Bap- 
 tizing but of Believers ; therefore Bapti- 
 zing Infants, that are not fuch, is unwarrant- 
 able. So that it will concern them, whoaflert 
 and praclife Infant-baptiim, to (hew Chrifts, 
 or the Apoftles Teaching or Praclife to war- 
 rant it, iinlefs they will hold, we may fwcrve 
 
 from 
 
( *3) 
 
 from the Rule of Chrift without fin by alter- 
 ing it, and doing otherwife than it appoint^ 
 which the Apoftle would not do, i Cor. n. 
 23. and generally Proteftant Writers con- 
 demn additions to Divine Appointments, as 
 againft the Papifts and others in their Con- 
 feflions, Books and Sermons, I could abun- 
 dantly evince. I named Art- 26,28, 30. of 
 the Church of England^ with many more, in 
 the fecond part of my Review, fed. 5. and 
 could add fcores to them, which prove the 
 Commiflion, 4/^.28.19. to beexclufiveof 
 Infants from Baptifm according to ordinary 
 Rule, it being a Received Axiom, that in 
 Precepts, exprefling what, and to whom a 
 thing mould be done, it mould be done Co y 
 and to them only as it is commanded. And. 
 therefore we are not tied (as Mr. WiHs im- 
 pofeth on us ) to (hew any Infant of believer 
 Baptized at age (though I doubt not Timo- 
 thy^ whofe Mother was a Believer, and he 
 Circumcifed at age, to have been Baptized 
 at age, reading what I find Achs 16. 1,2, 3. 
 zTim. 1. 5, 6. & 3. 14, 15. ) but they that 
 averlnfant-baptifm, are bound to mew any 
 Infant to have been, or ought to have been 
 Baptized according to the Scripture in its In- 
 fancy, Church Tradition no more juftifying 
 it, than Infant-Communion, as 1 (hew in 
 my Prtcurfor , Seel. 3. and in the third 
 part of my Review, Seel. 88. 
 
 C 4 SECT, 
 
S E C T. V. 
 
 The Argument from Gen. 7. Rom. 4. 1 1. 
 Col. 2. ii, I?, from the Covenant, 
 Circumcifonftke Seal to prove Infant 
 BajtHfrn is of no Vallidity. 
 
 WHat Mr. Wills faith in Anfwer to-Cfe. 
 3d, fuppofeth [ that the Circum- 
 cifion, Gen, 17. is a Rule to us about Bap- 
 tifm ] which is falfe, there being no rule in 
 mere pofitive Rites, but their Inftitution, 
 and the Inftitution being not Gen. 17. but Mat'. 
 28.19. and knot including Infants there, is 
 no rule for Infant-baptifm. That which is fup- 
 pofetl C that Criftian Babtifm comes in the 
 room and ufe of Jewifh CircumciGon]is from 
 amiflakeofC(9/.2.ii 5 i2.WherenoCircumci- 
 fionin theflefhis expreft, or can be meant, 
 but that ofChriftin his own pcrfon, and there 
 it is made the exemplary efficient of Spiritual 
 Circumeifion, and Believers compleatnefs in 
 him, who is the head of all Principality and 
 Power. Which to fay of every Minifters 
 baptizing even of an Infant is to afcribe that 
 to fuch a one as is proper to Chrift, which is 
 blafpemous, befides, that which anfwers 
 toCircumcifionfpiritua! v. 11. is burial with 
 Chrift in baptifm, and being raifed with him 
 
 by 
 
(n) 
 
 by the faith of the operation of God who 
 raifed him from the dead. And to fay there 
 is the fame ground of Infant-baptifm as of 
 Infant-circumcifion is to affert that the Com- 
 mand of Circumcifion is obligatory to us. As 
 for the conceit of parity of reafon from analo- 
 gv or proportion between them, its upon a 
 falfe lurmife that there is a reafon of them to 
 direct us in their ufe befides the will of the ap- 
 pointer : And to fay though Chrift and his A- 
 poftles have not told us fo, yet we think it 
 mould be fo,that as Infants were Circumcifed, 
 fo they mould be Baptized, it is as if we faid, 
 Though Chrift and his Apoftles have not told 
 us fo, yet we think it mould be fo, which is 
 to impute defect in them, in that they ihould 
 have done, and more W ifdom and Diligence 
 in our felves about ordering divine.fervice, 
 which is extreme arrogance, and Blafphemy. 
 As for the talk of the Covenant and feal which 
 is ufed by Pcedobaptifts,for Infant-baptifm it is 
 frivolous. No where is common circumcifion 
 termed the feal of the Covenant of grace. The 
 Apoftle Gal. 5.3. makes it rather a feal of the 
 Covenant of works. And for Gen. 17.4, 5, 
 6, 7> 8, 9, 10. It is only faid to be a token of 
 the Covenant with jibraham^hkh Covenant 
 is manifeft by the promifes of the Land of Ca- 
 naan 3 to him and his feed ,6c that Kings mould 
 come out of him , &c. Was not a pure 
 Gofpel Covenant, though under the dome- 
 (tick or national promifes to Abraham peculiar 
 
 to 
 
him and his pofterity by Sarah fpiritual bletV 
 fings in Chrift were fhado wed • But the pro. 
 nrifes as to Abrahams natural feed belong not 
 to us Gentiles: Nor Circumcion was a token 
 to every one Circumcifed, that the promifes 
 whether national or Spirtual, did belong to 
 him : Nor was intercft in the Covenant the 
 adequate formal or proper reafon of the Cir- 
 cumcifing of them. For Ijhmail was Circum- 
 cifed and others were to be Circumcifed, to 
 whom none of the promifes in that Covenant 
 were made, as is plain from Gen. 17. 21. 
 23. Rom* 9' 7, 8. (7^.4.28,29. And therefore 
 there was no good Argument : they were in 
 the Covenant therefore to be Circumcifed, 
 for Females were in the Covenant yet not to 
 be Circumcifed: "Nor on the otherfide, Males 
 were to be Circumcifed, therefore they were 
 in the Covenant. For Ifhmael and others were 
 to be Circumcifed, y et not in the Covenant, 
 the reafon of perfons Circumcifion being the 
 command not intereft in the Covenant , much 
 iefs it is true which Mr. PF/7/j faithJXhildren are 
 baptized by the promife firft to the Parents, 
 I believers, and in them to their feed, asfubor- 
 dinates ] as he ineptly fpeaks. For, hefides, 
 that there is no fuch promife in Scripture , 
 that God will be a God to every believer, and 
 his natural feed, the rule of baptizing either 
 Parents or Children is not intereft in the pro- 
 mife by Gods promife to them, but their pro- 
 fcffion of faith, or being Difciples of Chrift, 
 
 whom 
 
(27) 
 
 whom alone Chrift hath appointed to be bap^ 
 
 jized. As for the conceits of the nature of 
 
 Sacraments as feals of the Covenant of Grace, 
 
 and tfiat they who have right to the Covenant 
 
 have right to the feal]they are but vain,though 
 
 common in Writers and Preachers difcourfes. 
 
 For no where are Sacraments termed feals of 
 
 the Covenantof grace,cither thofe of the old or 
 
 of the new Teft ament. Only Rom. 4.11,12. 
 
 j&rahams Circumcifion in his own perfon, & 
 
 no other perfons Circumcifion is termed the 
 
 fealof therighteoufnefsof faith,and not of the 
 
 Covenant or promife of what we (hould have, 
 
 but a fcal for aflurance farther,or memorial of 
 
 what he had before he was Circumcifed, and 
 
 this his Circumcifion was a feal of the righte- 
 
 oufnefs of Faith, which is Gofpel grace, not 
 
 ^0 his natural feed as fuch nor to any others 
 
 natural feed as his but to his feed by faith even 
 
 Gentile-believers that were not, nor were to 
 
 be. Circumcifed : And therefore from hence 
 
 to gather a defination of Sacraments, as that 
 
 they are feals of the Covenantof Grace, is 
 
 vain. For the term feal which is a Metaphor 
 
 its contrary to Logic k rules to make it the 
 
 genus in a defination, as not (hewing what it 
 
 is, but what it is like to, or is ufed for, if it 
 
 comprehend all Sacraments, the inference 
 
 thence, Infants are in the Covenant therefore 
 
 are to have the feal, might as well ferve for 
 
 their admiffion to the Lords fupper, yea to 
 
 Circumcifion and the paflbver as to Baptifm. 
 
 And 
 
r28>. 
 
 And farther,to make as if Infants-baptifm were 
 a priviledge which perfons have a right to, by 
 Gods promife to them without any promife 
 of theirs to God, is to;overthrow the main im-j 
 port and ufe of Baptifm , which is thereby to 
 perform their duty in profefling thmfelves to 
 be Difciples ofChrift, which is termed put- 
 ting on ofChrift, Gal. 3.26, 27. Being bap- 
 tized into his Death and Refurreclion, Rom. j 
 6. 3, 4. And therefore Infants have not 
 ChrirVs Baptifm, who make no fuch profef- 1 
 fion : nor according to the definition which 
 themfelves give, is it a fign or feal of God's ! 
 Covenant to them, .nor theirs to God 9 and 
 therefore is no Sacrament to them who are; 
 uncapable of perceiving fuch fignification. 
 
 SECT. V I. 
 
 The ends of Baptifm are not observed in- 
 Infant pretended Baptifm. 
 
 AND this anfwers to what Mr. Wills 
 faith againft your fourth Chapter £ a- 
 bout Baptifm teaching when the baptized 
 comes to age, as Circumcifion did 2 For be- 
 fides that if Baptifm be in its nature a fign or 
 feal of the Covenant of Grace, it is not a fign 
 •or feal to an Infant then • and if he never 
 live to know it or be a fool it is never a fign, 
 and therefore no Sacrament to him, and fo he 
 
 was 
 
f2 9 ) 
 was never baptized; the pretended baptifrny 
 or wafhing, and the words ufed then are no 
 figns to him, there being no fuch fencibleimv 
 predion left to the Babe to perceive its end 
 and ufe by, as in Circumcifion : And if he be 
 after told the words of him that did baptize, 
 they are the fign to him, not his Baptifm ; 
 which neverthelefs may in thofe of age figni- 
 fie to them the Death, Burial, and Refurrecli- 
 on of Chrift, the plunging under water, nei- 
 ther while it is done, nor before nor after hin- 
 dring, but furthering the understanding of 
 thofe Myfteries , for (hewing of which, Bap- 
 tifm was ordained. If [Baptifm be fas he 
 fpeaks p. 28 ) in its own nature a feal of our 
 being already ingrafted into Chrift, and fo 
 confequently into the Church, Aft% 10.47, 
 48O then it is a feal only to Believers,who on- 
 ly are ingrafted into Chrift and his Church • 
 Sith it is by Faith that Men are in Chrift, and 
 Chrift in them, 2 Cor. 13.5. Rom. 11. 20, 
 -29. Efh. 3. 17. And therefore to Infants 
 without their Faith it is not a feal. To deny 
 that the end of Baptifm isto fignifte the re- 
 pentance of the baptized is impudence, fuhit 
 was required in Johns and Chriftian Baptifm^ 
 A/at. 3 . 6, 8, 1 1 Alls 2.38. termed thence 
 the Baptifm of repentance, Afark^ J . 4. AUs 
 19. 4. That the Pharifees are termed a Gene- 
 ration of Vipers, (hews not that they were 
 fuch then ; but that they had been fo before 
 their coming to his Baptifm.' L 'Tis true 
 
 Chrift's 
 
c 30; 
 
 ChrifVs Baptifm was for another end than onr 
 Baptifm, to wit, to manifeft him to be the 
 Mefiah j and therefore notwithftanding it, 
 the end of our baptifm is the teftifying of our 
 repentance , which Infants cannot do. The 
 end ofbaptifm,isto fignifie regeneration of 
 the baptized. Circumcifion might fignifie 
 the duty of regeneration to Infants ; but re- 
 generation in aclual being before Circumci- 
 fion was not fignificd by it, as it ought to 
 be in the baptized, at leaft in profeffion,which 
 is all the bapti?:er is to require ; and was in 
 Simon Magus : but is not in Infants, though 
 by fecret operation of God regenerated; 
 from which they are not excluded by us ^ 
 though from baptifm. But it is moft falfe 
 which he faith p. 34. VVe have as much rear 
 fon, if not more, to look upon the Infants of 
 believers to be fandified, than we have to 
 efteem grown Ghriftians to be fuch , becaufe 
 our owning of thefe as fuch depends upon 
 their own Teftimony only in a viiible pro- 
 fefTioa which may be counterfeit] for we 
 have no Teftimony of Infants that they are 
 regenerate , though we yeild they may be 
 regenerate : but vifible profeflion of grown 
 Perfons being free and ferious, is not only in 
 the Judgement of Charity , but alfoofMini- 
 fterial Prudence to be taken for a fign of pre- 
 fent regeneration , though it may be in God's 
 fight counterfeit, which belongs not to us 
 to examine. 
 
 SECT. 
 
SECT. VII. ■'■*■ 
 
 I Cor. 7. 14. Mat. 19. 14. Prove not 
 
 the lawfulness of baptizing Infants. 
 
 1 f~^OR. 7. 14. It is not faid Infants, but 
 V-/ Children who may be at age : nor 
 that they are holy,as is meant Rom.i.j.i Cor* 
 1. Forfuchare Saints by calling, which In- 
 fants are not, nor can be fuppofed to be, nor 
 of fuch holynefs can the ApoftJes words be 
 meant, which aver $ that without theSancli- 
 fication of the Husband in or to the Wife; 
 and vice wrfi their Children were unclean, 
 not holy ^ which Confequence fuppofeth, 
 that without fuch Sanftification the Children 
 mull be unclean , but they are holy by it ; 
 which if meant of holynefs, as Rom. 1.7. 1 
 Cor. i,2. are both mod falfe. Children of 
 Parents not Sanctified may be Saints by call- 
 ing, nor is fuch holynefs at any time the ef- 
 fect of that fanctifiednefs of Parents, Children 
 not being holy by birth, or defcent from Pa- 
 rents. And that the holynefs cannot be 
 meant of that which they term federal holy- 
 nefs, but of Matrimonial is inevitably mani- 
 feftbythe analyfis of v. 12, 13. 14. And the 
 words themfelves, in which the term belie- 
 ver is omitted, which would not be if the 
 holynefs were derived from the Faith of the 
 
 one 
 
(32) 
 
 one Party; and the terms Husband and 
 Wfie are twice ufed ; which (hews that the 
 holynefs is from the conjugal relation, and 
 cannot be meant of any other then Legitima- 
 tion : And the term unbeliever is twice ufed, 
 and faid to be Sanctified ; which can have no 
 other fenfe but this, though an unbeliever, 
 yet is the Yoke-fellow for ufe as if Sanftifi. 
 ed, by an abufe or impropriety of fpeech , 
 as i CV. 10.2. The word baptized, Mat. 19. 12. 
 49,50. The word Mother, Mat. 12. ►The word 
 Eunuchized, Heb. 1 1,1 2. The word deaded 
 are ufed. And fothe fenfe is y the unbelie- 
 ving Yoke-fellow is as if Sanctified in refpecl 
 of Conjugal ufe to his or her Yoke-fellow- 
 and fo they may lawfully live together irf 
 Conjugal ufe: elfe your Children were to be 
 accounted illegitimate, but this being deter- 
 mined, that the one is Sanctified thus to the 
 other, they are holy that is lawfully begot- 
 ten; which is the only fenfe appofit to the 
 determination, i>. 12, 13. Whereas on the 
 other fide, if the Sanclification were from the 
 Faith of the one Party, not from the Conju- 
 gal relation, an unbelieving Whore might be 
 faid to be Sanctified by a believing Whore- 
 raafter by their expofition ; and fo may live 
 together and ufe each others bodies, and 
 their Children be holy in Covenant with God 
 by the Whores Faith ; and the Children be- 
 gotten by Parents whereof neither have Faith 
 could not be holy to be baptized, but un- 
 clean y 
 
( 33) 
 dean, or out of the Covenant of GdcJ ; which' 
 were falfe.« and therefore this Text is altoge- 
 ther impertinent to the point of federal holy- 
 nefs and baptizability of Infants from the 
 Parents Faith. And as for Chrift's words , 
 Mat. 19. i4» It is clear, that fpeech is meant 
 only of thofe little Children, and fuch as 
 were like to them in quality, though not in 
 age, by what we find, Markjo. 14, 15. Luke 
 18. 16,17* And that it makes not for Infant- 
 baptifm is apparent, in that it is not faid 
 theirs was the Kingdom of Heaven by pre- 
 sent entring into the Chriftian Church ; but 
 to them was to be a future admiflion into the 
 Kingdom of Glory, as AM. $.10. Norisit 
 faid they were the Children of Believers , or 
 that the Kingdom of Heaven did belong to 
 them eo nomine by Gods promife to a Be- 
 liever and his Seed ; but becaufe brought to 
 Chrift and bleffed by him. Nor doth Chrift 
 baptize, but lay on hands, and pray for them ; 
 nor appoint them to be brought to his A- 
 poftles, but to himfelf ; nor appointed thefe 
 to be baptized, though be faid fo of them. So 
 that if we did weigh all, it would rather prove 
 Infants are not, than that they are to be bap- 
 tized. No wro»g is done to Dr. Taylor, ot 
 Mr. Baxter, in ailedging their words againft 
 their opinion : Nor hath Dr. Hammond done 
 that which is fufficient to juftifie Infant-bap- 
 tifm; but what is faid by him to that end, is 
 fully anfwered in the fecond and third parts 
 of my Review* D SECT, 
 
p 
 
 ££CT. VI I L 
 
 I Vet. J. 21. Is rightly alledgeh agamfi 
 Infant-baj/ttfm. 
 
 ET. 3.21. Sir Norton Knatchbull in his 
 Animadverfion on that Text hath large- 
 ly fliewed, that Baptifm was by immcrfion 
 into the Water from holy Scripture and Fa- 
 thers; and that it is not likely to have been 
 zjewijl) Rite in admitting Profelytes into the 
 Jewijh Policy, and that the Jenuine end of 
 Chriftian Baptifm was, that it might fhew 
 the Death and Refurreclion of Crrriftj and 
 our Faith in it; and that it was a. tipeof 
 the Refurreclion of all Believers , who are 
 baptized into the Faith of it, and therefore to 
 be called Regeneration-, a Refuireclicn,to 
 wit, from death in fin, to newnefs of life ; 
 Which if we (hall do, we have alfo firm hope 
 that we (hall rife after death to glory • and 
 that it is not properly a fign of warning frcm 
 fin, and that the anfwer of a good Confcience 
 was when the baptized did anfwer the quefti- 
 ons propounded t by rhcMinifter which are now 
 Continued; though the anfwer be not made 
 by the Perfon 6aptized, yet it (hews what 
 antiently was the -life, and is meant by St. 
 Peter. Now this Mr. Wills thinks to put oflj 
 by telling us £ if it be of any force againft 
 
 f bapti- 
 
hi) 
 
 baptizing Infants, it will be of the fame force 
 againft Circumcifing them, fince St. Paul 
 doth, Rom.z.zS. as much invalidate the ex- 
 ternal part of Circumcifion, as St. Peterhere 
 doth that of Baptifm ] But this is no anfwer : 
 For you urged not againft Infant-baptifm ," 
 that it was not the Baptifm required by St. 
 Peter y becaufe it did not fave ; but becaufe vt 
 is not with their anfwer, which fignally re- 
 prefents the Covenant and Promife the Be- 
 liever enters into thereby • which Mr. Wills 
 grants was done of old, by anfwering to 
 queftions propounded by the Minifter, and 
 that theApoftle alludes thereunto ; and that 
 this praclice of giving an account of ones 
 Faith, by way of anfwering to queftions (as 
 J5ez,a notes upon this place of Peter) was 
 drawn from the primitive ufe in after Ages 
 out of a «xo£r*i« a perverfe immitation and 
 applyed to the Baptifm of Infants , not Co 
 fitly fas he conceives ) they being nota- 
 ble to anfwer for themfelves. Neverthelefs 
 though Children cannot perfonally and actu- 
 ally aufwer for themfelves, I fee no reafori 
 ( faith he ) to the contrary, why they may 
 not be faid to ftipuiate paiTively, in and by 
 their Parents; who accept the Covenant, 
 not only for themfelves, but fcr their little 
 ones, as was done Dem. 20. 10, u, 1 2, 
 and isufaalin civil contracts; and the Law 
 >f Nature teacheth Paints to Covenant for 
 :heir Parents, when 'tis for their good. To' 
 £> i which 
 
which I reply, i. Stipulating paffively h 
 nonfence. 2. Anfwering by another is not 
 that which St. Peter means. 3. The Cove- 
 nant and Oath, Dent. 29. 10,11,12. was 
 not of Parents only for Children, but of the 
 whole Body of the People, or their Captains, 
 Elders, Officers, forne for the whole, as 2 
 Chron. 15. 9, 10, 11, 12. which was nor by 
 anfwering queftions, but Adjuration and 
 Commination - 7 and may bind, not only in 
 refpeel of the thing fwarn, but alfo in refpect 
 of the Oath, as that to the Gibeonhes did 
 Jofli. 9. 1 5. But the anfweriug to the quefti- 
 ons required at Baptifm, whether by Parents 
 or others is evil, when they fay, the Infant 
 doth believe or promife it fh^ll. 4. Neither 
 are civil contracts fufficient to juftirie this in 
 a fpiritual Ordinance ; nor is Parents promife 
 to this end for their good, nor doth the Law 
 of Nature tye Parents to do what thev think 
 is for their Childrens good, but what is real- 
 ly fo ; nor do Parents enter into Covenant 
 with God for them felves, and for their Chil- 
 dren, foas that God accepts it for the Child, 
 when as he requires it of the Child hirnfelf. 
 
 SECT. 
 
SECT. IX. 
 
 A&si. 38^39. Makes nothing for In* 
 fant-baptijm. 
 
 TO that which you fay, the fifth end of 
 Baptifm is to be afign to the believe*; 
 of the Covenant on God's part of wafhing 
 away his fins by the blood of Chrift to give 
 fpiritual life and falvation , Alls 2. 38,39. 
 Afts 22. 16. 1 Pet. 5.21. Mr. Wills an- 
 fwers £This alfo is true of that Baptifm 
 which belongs to the Children of believers, 
 as that which is given to believers themfelves. 
 Recent and be baptized every on e of yon for the 
 remiffian of fns : for the fromife is to yon and to 
 your feed &c. And Baptifm ( even to In- 
 fants ) isafeal of God's pardoning grace id 
 doing away the guilt of original ftri; in re- 
 gard of thofc tkat belong to God's Election, 
 if not alfo aclual, which afterward fhall be 
 committed if they live to age ] To which I 
 reply. I. The promife,X c ?i2. 39. is not of 
 being a God to them , as Gen. 17. 7. nor 
 that sifts 2. 17, 38. of the gift of the Holy- 
 Ghoft as then it was given ; iith this was not 
 to all afar oft as many as the Lord our God 
 fhould call. But the promifeis that which 
 Peter alfo fpeaks of, Acts 3.25,26. of rai- 
 ling up Chrift to blefs them , and to. turn 
 D 3 t.herp 
 
them every one from their Iniquities. 2< This 
 ipromife is not made as to the Fathers, but 
 fulfilled,as^;i3.23. 32,33. 3. To them 
 not as believers : for they were not believers 
 till after his exhortation, v. 40. Some of 
 them received his word and were baptized , 
 v. 41 but then they were exhorted to re- 
 pent and be baptized in the name of Chrift, 
 i>. 3#. 4. Nor was the promife to their 
 Children as believers feed ; nor to them or 
 any other, unlefs called by the Lord ; which 
 calling alone made them Chrift's, and capa- 
 ble of baptifm. 5. Nor are the words to you 
 and your Children mentioned as an acknow- 
 ledgement of a priviledge to them afore o- 
 thers ; but by reafon of their wifh, Mat* 27, 
 25, And fo as a remedy of their perplexity, 
 uifts 2. 37. As Jofeph's words ufed, Gen, 50. 
 20. 6. Nor is any intimation given of a Ti- 
 tle for Baptifm of them or their Children, as 
 the Children of believers : but an exhortati- 
 on to them and theirs to repent and be bap- 
 tized as their duty for their benefit. So that 
 they grofsly abufe this Text, that talk of a 
 Title to Baptifm of them as believers j and 
 their Children by vertue of a promife to them 
 as fuch : whereas it is manifeft from the 
 whole fcope of the Context, that it is only an 
 encouragement againft defpair by reafon of 
 their Crucifying Chrift, v. 36. and wifhing 
 his blood on them and their Children, Mat. 
 27. 25. by comforting them^elling them that 
 
 they 
 
(19) 
 
 they might have remiflion of fins, even of 
 that fin, if they did repent and were baptifed 
 into the name of Chiift ; becaufe beyond 
 and contrary to their acling in Crucfying 
 Chrift, God had brought to pafs theraifing 
 up of Chrift for their falvation and their Chil- 
 dren? and all God mould call, though afar 
 off, if they did repent and were baptized into 
 the name of Chrift. 
 
 SECT. X. 
 
 By Infmt-baptifm is not a putting on 
 
 Chyi\ty nor cut ring into the Chrijlian 
 Church, 
 
 TO your 6th. end from Gal. 3. 27, 28, 
 2q. Infants put not on Chrift, that 
 which out of Wendeline Mr. Wills anfwers 
 £ that it is meant of adult Perfons newly con- 
 verted ] confirms your Argument, that In- 
 fants were not then baptized. And when he 
 confefTeth £ that they cannot put on Chrift 
 by external Aftj it is manifeft they cannot 
 put on Chrift as there is meant by Faith 
 whereby they become Abrahams feed. And 
 it being granted £ they may have an infufed 
 feed of Graces and that we have good ground 
 D 4 to 
 
(40) 
 to believe all Eleil Infants dying in their In* 
 fant ftate have done fo; and that Chrift's 
 righteoufnefs is imputed to them for righte- 
 pufnefs, elfe they could not be faved ] yet 
 neither being certain, that this or that Infant 
 is an Elecl Infant, or that he (hall dye in his 
 Infancy ; there is no intelligence to thebap- 
 tizer that he hath put on Chrift, and is to be 
 baptized. As for Dr. Taylors Synecdoche 
 here can be no ufe of it, fith it is *«• as many 
 as are baptized into Chrift, and there is nei- 
 ther^ nor Greedy there is neither bond nor 
 free ; but ye are all one in Chrift Jefus. And 
 if as Mr. Wills faith [fo it is regularly, and 
 this is the defigned event] we may from 
 hence conclude of every Perfon, and of every 
 Period of time he ought by Faith to put on 
 Chrift afore he is to be baptized ; which fol- 
 lows , though the putting on be but Sacra- 
 mentally ; which he falfly faith [^Infants do 
 ss well as grown Perfons ] 
 
 As for your jth. end of entrance into the 
 vifible Church by Baptifm , as by Circum- 
 cifion into the old Teftament. Church ; 1 con- 
 ceive that as entrance was not into the vifi- 
 ble Church Jewifh by Circumcifion, but by 
 Birth or Profeflion ? fo entrance into the vi- 
 fible Church Chriftian is by profeflion of 
 Faith, not by Baptifm; which regularly is to 
 follow when it is to be had; and that regu- 
 larly Paftors are not to admit any to the Lords 
 Supper till they be baptized , which I think 
 
 is 
 
(40 
 
 is rightly proved from jtfts 2.41,42. 1 Cor. 
 IQ.2,3. 1 Cor. 12. 13. asbeingpartofhis 
 Office required, 1 Tim. 3. 5' Though 1 Cor. 
 J 2. 13. exprefs the Spirit as the efficient of 
 Union to the Body of the Church Univerfal, 
 yet withal it notes Baptifmof Water as the 
 regular fign of all Chriftians united into one 
 Body ; and by the drinking, the partaking 
 of the Lords Supper. And confequently 
 they fin that go to the Lords Supper , yet 
 negleft Baptifm after their believing, becaufe 
 they break the order Chrift hath appomted j 
 and to content Mens felves with Infant 
 fprinkling is evil. But what hath been my 
 Judgement in this, was known by a Confe- 
 rence with different Parties in the Year 1653. 
 And hath been argued by me in a Manufcript 
 referved by me. But mould 1 here medaie 
 with this Point, it would divert me from the 
 prefent bufinefs. However this I fay, tha: 
 Mr. Wills his Speeches p 49. £ that there 
 muft be a Church of Believers to chufea Mi- 
 nifter lawfully } for none but a Church can 
 give them a call, and without a call he cannot 
 Adminifter; and thence infers, that if Bap-* 
 tifm cannot be without a Minifterial Church, 
 nor that before a Church Congregational , 
 which muft make choice of a Miniftcr; 
 then fuch a Church is" much before Baptifm ] 
 are but unproved Dictates, and do more 
 tend to rigid feparaticn and diffolution of 
 Churches then your Speeches he fo much in. 
 veighs againft. SECT 
 
SECT. XL 
 
 The Chrifiun Church is not conftitute& 
 as ths Jewittl. 
 
 >uiTftfth Argument, that the Church 
 Chriftian is not National confuting of 
 the flefhly feed of Abraham-, but by God's 
 appointment to be a feparated People out of 
 the Nations, confifting only of the'fpiritual 
 feed of Abraham: and therefore Believers 
 upon profeflion of Faith by the Ordinance of 
 Baptifm were added thereto, Acts 2.41. 1 
 Coy, 12. 1 3. Had it met with a Catidia Rea- 
 der, had not been foill andinfolaitly repre- 
 sented as it is. For your meaning might 
 have been conceived as your words intima- 
 ted , that the new Teftament Church confifts 
 only of Abraham's fpiritual feed by true Faith 
 before God: But the Chriftian Church as it 
 is vifible to us, confifts of ProfeHors of Faith j 
 who alone are to be baptized as your Texts 
 (hew. That which Mr. Wills faith is fome of 
 it falfc , and fome of it Cavils. It is falfe 
 which he faith [ that the Covenant of Grace, 
 1 will be thy God, and the God of thy feed , 
 is the grand Charter of Church memberfhip, 
 which takes in the Child with the Parents 9 
 and confequently Intitlesit to Baptifm : and 
 as this Covenant was made with Abraham 
 
 and 
 
and his feed after the Flefh, fo like wife is it 
 ftiil the fame with Believers and their natural 
 feed under the Gofpel difpenfation by vertue 
 of the fame grations Covenant made to them 
 and their feed 7 j0s 2. 39O which is already 
 fhewed to be a <iuliedgeci. As for Mr. Bax- 
 ters Figment [ that Infant Church-member- 
 fhip did take place as an Ordinance of God 
 by a moral Initiation of God, even from the 
 beginning of the World ] it hath been proved 
 fully to be felfc in my Anfwer to all he produ- 
 ceth in his plain Scripture proof, and his Let- 
 ter to me in the third part of my Review from 
 Sedt 48. to Sed 75. As for Mai. 2. 15. 
 The feed of God there being the end and con- 
 fequent of Marriage, can be underftood of no 
 other, then as the Affembly Annotations fpeak 
 a lawful and legitimate, not a fpurious feed. 
 We need not prove a repeal of an Ordinance 
 that never was. Mr. Wills his grant p. 56. 
 [_ that under the new Teftament difpenfation 
 Chrift hath appointed the Church to be a 
 feparated People out of the Nations ] is a 
 certain troth. But his oppofmg your faying, 
 as if you counted none of the viiible Church, 
 but the ipirituai (ccd of Abraham before God, 
 is his Cavii. And it is falfe that he faith 
 £ we have as much ground, if not more , to 
 look upon Infants of Believers as the fpiritual 
 feed of Abraham, as vifible Chriffrans, until 
 they manifeft the contrary] For the Infant 
 doth nothing, nor hath anything that fhews 
 
 him 
 
(44) 
 him to be of the fpiritual feed of Abraham, as 
 ■vifible ProfefTors do. As for what he faith 
 £ that thefe Jews were under a new Admin i- 
 ftration of the Covenant, and the firft Sub- 
 jects of this Adminiftration, muft be Perfons 
 abie to give account of their Faith and Re- 
 pentance* j and Chrift was now come, and 
 therefore it was neceiTary, that as thefe Jews 
 relyed on the Covenant of Abraham, fo they 
 ihould hold forth their relyanceonChrift] 
 is a plain confeflion , that it was not in the 
 new Administration , as in that Gen. 17. 
 where at firft Adminiftration of Circumcifioti 
 they were Circumcifed , who did not give 
 account of their Faith, nor were of Abrahams 
 feed: but though Infants bought with his 
 Money were Circumcifed. And to fay Qhat 
 in Chrift the Covenant was confirmed £0 the 
 fews, repenting and believing, and their feed] 
 isfalfe; nor hath it any Proof from Afts 2. 
 38,39. as is before fhe wed. And this fruit 
 of repentance, confeflion of fin, to have been 
 in all the baptized, is manifeft from the ex- 
 prefsword, Mat. 3. 5,6. and from the end 
 of their coming to Baptifm j fith it was the 
 Baptifm of Repentance for remiffion of fins, 
 Mark^ 1.4. It appears that John did not bap- 
 tize any without Profeflion of Repen- 
 tance : nor would any have expecled Bap- 
 tifm without (hew of Repentance. And 
 thefe fhews might give John caufe to take 
 them for Abraham's fpiritual feed j and fo our 
 7 Safiour 
 
(4)') 
 Saviour fpeaks of them, Mat. II. 12. Luke 
 7.29,30. Even Mr. Cotton, The way of the 
 Churches of Chriitin New England , eh. I. 
 Sett 1. Prop. 4. In the times ofJohnBap- 
 tifi y fuch as were received into Baptifm, they 
 did firft make confeflion of their fins , and 
 therewith of their Repentance, and of their 
 Faith alfo in him, who was to come after him, 
 Mat. 3. Ms 19. 3,4. And in the times of 
 the Apoftles Philip received the Eunuch un- 
 to Baptifm, not until he had made profeffion 
 of his Faith in Chrift Jefus, Atts 8. 37. As 
 for Mr. Marfhah quirk £ that it is *j fa1*»tw> 
 Mtu3.11. not ii **#W« ] it is vain, fith 
 it is to be Read upon as our Tranflators in 
 the Margin, as «'«^»«siW Mat. 12.41, 
 is at or upon the Preaching of Jonah, as I An- 
 fweredin my Review part 2. feEt. 5. And for 
 Mr. Wills his words, p. £4. I retort them. 
 Indeed if the new Teftamcnt Church confift 
 only of believers, at leaft by Profcflion } how 
 abominably is the Ordinance prophaned , 
 when it happens that Infants are baptized , 
 who are not by profeflion, or inward operati- 
 on believers; and where it appears, that the 
 Title they had to Baptifm was but feeming - 7 
 will it not follow that all that was done in re- 
 ference to them was a Male Adminiftration, 
 and null ah mitio ; and as God looks upon, 
 him as unbaptized ( though they have beea 
 rantized) fo ought the Church to look upon 
 them ; and if they repent and be .Converted s 
 
 are 
 
r.+n 
 
 are they bound to offer themfelves afrefh to 
 Baptifm, and can the Church refufe them ? 
 
 SECT. XII. 
 
 No other Rule is to be followed fa hapti- 
 zing after ? than at frft Preaching the 
 Gojpel. 
 
 MR. Wills In Anfwcr to yonr 6th. Chap- 
 ter tells us [that the import of 
 ChriiVs Commiffion to his Apoftles was de 
 Ecclefiu colligetida to direct them how, and 
 in what manner they mould gather Churches; 
 they being at fir ft lent out to Preach, only to 
 inch as were Aliens in refpecl of the new 
 Adminiftration : And we acknowledge all 
 Perfons under fuch a Circumftance are to be 
 Taught before they ar to be baptized, or ad- 
 mitted into the Church. But in Ecclefl^col- 
 Idl} a Church actually gathered, wherein 
 there are Infants, the Cafe alters.* for fuch 
 are to be eiteemed as' Portions of their Pa- 
 rents, as being one with them in a moral 
 account, and belonging to the Church of 
 which their Parents arc Members ] But this 
 contains Didhtes without Proof £ that there ' 
 isalteration of the Cafe, that is, about the 
 
 Con- 
 
f46) 
 
 Conftitution of Members in a Church to be 
 gathered of Aliens, and a Church gathered 
 actually, that therein are Infants any more 
 than in the former; that they are to be e- 
 fteemed as Portions of their Parents anyo- 
 therwife than in natural, Domeftick, or civil 
 refpecls ; that they are one with them in a 
 moral account] which is, if the Father be 
 vcrtuous, fo is the Infant Child; but this is 
 toogrofs for any under/landing Man to em- 
 brace; muchmoreitisabufed inEcclefiafti- 
 calrefpett, fo as that if the Father be a be- 
 liever the Infant Child is to befoefteemed 
 or a Church-member, or Elder, if the Parent 
 befo. Thdeare monftrous Baftard inventi- 
 ons dev, fed by wills of Men, not from the 
 Word of God. Neither Chrifts Commim- 
 cn nor the Apoftles Pratfife, nor any words 
 in the Scriptures of the new Teftament give 
 any a.re<ft,cn to gather Churches, but bv 
 Preaching the Gofpel; nor to admit them to 
 whom we Preach, till in Profeffion thev be 
 Penitent Believers; nor any intimation of a- 
 nyfo accounted, as you fully prove in your 
 ^Chapter. And your conferences good ' 
 M he can ftcw that we are to account Perfons 
 j.hurchmcmoers^therwife than the Apoftles 
 id. ButfauhMr.^ Cwenave A S! 
 on given us, that the Ch.ldrcn of Believers 
 ire Church-members; and the Apoftle 
 Writes to them as fuch as appears, Eph.l 
 ,2,?. Col. j.^03 TowhichIanfwer,that 
 
 I 
 
I remember twenty Years ago Dr. AJanton 
 told me, that with this Mr. Benjamin Wood- 
 bridge baffled Jer, Ives in a Difpute at New- 
 bridge urging this, that Believers were Pa- 
 rents in the Lord; and therefore their Chil- 
 dren were to be baptized, even their Infants. 
 But I had thought none fearing God would 
 ever have fo abufed Scripture, the Parents 
 not being Parents in the Lord, but all Chit- 
 dcen Were required to obey them in the Lord j 
 that is according to God's Command, v. z. 
 which Infants could not do * or as v. 5. as 
 unto Chrift, v, 6, 7. not with eye-fervice as 
 Men-pleafers, but as the Servants of Chrift, 
 doing the will of God from the heart with 
 good will, doing Service as to the Lord, and 
 not to Men. The like is Col. 3.18. Wives 
 fubmityourfelves to your own Husbands as it it 
 fit in the Lord, v. 20. Children obey your Pa- 
 rents in all things : for this is w ell p leafing to the 
 Lord, v. 22,23. Servants obey in all things 
 your Makers according tfi the fit ijh, not with eye- 
 fervice as Menpleafers, but in finglenefs of 
 heart fearing God ; And whatfoever ye do, do 
 it heartily as to the Lord, and not unto Men. 
 The Apoftle termed himfelf Father, as ha- 
 ving in Chrift Jefus begotten the Corinthians 
 through the Gofpel, 1 Cor. 4. 15. But I 
 (hould not have thought any would count 
 natural believing Parents Parents in the Lord 
 of their Infant Children, but that I have Fquj<J 
 Paedobaptifts glory, if they can by never fo 
 
 fhame- 
 
f 4V J 
 (hameful abufe of Scripture, or reafori, get 
 the fame of a Viclory in Difpute over an 
 Anabaptift, as they call him. Of which I had 
 experience, fan. i. 1649. in Mr. Baxters 
 Difpute at Bewdly ; the rememembrance of 
 which, Mr. Wills here, p. 7 1 . revives, though 
 it concerned both him and Mr. Baxter too, 
 to have Buried the Memorial of it, which 
 (rinks in the Noftrils of the Judicious. But 
 [ blefs God, I have lived to Anfwer long ago 
 in Print, all his Argumants , which in that 
 Difpute he urged ; and to (hew how he did 
 moft falfly blaze abroad in his Epiftle before 
 the firft Edition of hhSaints everlafting refi 7 h[s 
 imagined driving me to grofs abfurdities ; 
 and to wipe away the Un-Chriftian Calum- 
 nies he hath ufed in his Wrightings, and o- 
 ther Pra&ifes, which alienated many Souls 
 unjuftly from me, and from my Dodlrine and 
 Miniftry. Yet Mr. Wills thinks he hit me 
 home, by an Argument in thai Difpute ; tel- 
 ling me £that I was near to a ne {his ultra by 
 Mr .'Baxters Argument; that the Ordinance 
 of Infants Churchi-memberlhip is not repeat- 
 ed, neither in Juftice, nor in Mercy ] which 
 he would have been afhamed to have Printed, 
 had he, as it became an honed Impartial 
 fearcher after the Truth, read what I An- 
 fwer in the third part of my RevUwfett 64. 
 or made what ufe he ought of my Prxcurfcr 
 fitt. 6. 17. &c. Which it feems. he had, 
 $ure it was not equity in him, to reft on Mt. 
 E Baxters 
 
Baxters Book fo injurioufly put forth by hira; 
 He might have underftood that Mr. Baxter 
 Difputed as a Captious Wrangler, not as a 
 Chriftian Brother, who feeks Truth ; when 
 he would not diftinftly tell me what and 
 where, his Ordinance of Infants being, or to 
 be accounted vifiblc Church-members was , 
 which I mould prove to be repealed; nor 
 what the priviledge was by it, nor what 
 Church he meant, ?wijh or Chrijhant nor 
 by what means they were Church-members , 
 butufed general confufed terms; which be- 
 ing ambiguous, muft of necefllty puzzle me, 
 and make it impoffible for me to Anfwer 
 diftintf ly, he putting me off with a fcoft, that 
 hecamenottoCatechife me, when Idefired 
 him to explain his terms ; which was a 
 proud infolent carriage to me, not fo con- 
 temptible a Brother, but might haveespetf:- 
 ed a better Anfwer ; and contrary to Chrifti- 
 anmeeknefs, and to theendoftheDifpute, 
 which ftould have been to clear Truth to the 
 Auditors; and yet put it into Print before! 
 revifed my Anfwer, though 1 Wrote to him, 
 and went to him 3 andhepromifed I mould 2 
 neverthclefs without my confent Printed 
 them ; which Dr. Rainolds would not do 
 with Hart the Jefnite: which (hewed as all 
 the carriage of the Difpute by him and his 
 Affociates . that the diminution of my Credit, 
 and the putting out the Light which mined in 
 m V Wrighungs about Infant-baptifm, was 
 • 7 their 
 
1 J ' 
 
 their aim. To that which now Mr. Wills Re 
 jprinrs p 71. I Anfwer , vifible Church- 
 memberfhip, is by a Fad: of Divine Provi- 
 dence, not by a prefent Law, or Promife ; 
 and therefore to talk of an Ordinance of In- 
 fants vifible Church-memberfhip unrepealed, 
 is not fenfe: nor doth a Covenant ( which 
 Mr. Baxter fcems to make the caufe of it ) 
 put a thing in actual exiftence, as vifible 
 Church-membermip muft be, if it were fuch ; 
 but aflures only a futurity, and is faid to be 
 broken, if the thing be not brought to pafs, 
 not to be repealed \ that if there were an Or- 
 dinance it might be revoked,neither in Juftice 
 •judiciary, nor in favourable Mercy ; but out 
 of God's Soveraignty as higheft Lord , as 
 when a Matter will one while have Married 
 Perfons , another while fmgle Perfons in his 
 Houfe ; that God may in Juftice take away 
 a Mercy without the actual fin of the Perfons, 
 as upon the Parents fin, or in Mercy, with- 
 out giving a greater Mercy ; as when by ac- 
 cident it may turn to hurt, that this is not 
 contrary to his merciful Nature , which acts 
 not, but as pleafeth him, according to the 
 Counfelofhis own will, JEpb.i. 11. Rom. 9. 
 15. 1 8. 21. That it is not againft Truth to 
 exclude Infants from vifible Church mem- 
 berfhip, fith he hath made no fuch'Promife; 
 that I know no Ordinance of admiffion of In- 
 fants into God's vifible Church, but that of 
 £ircumcifion, which is revoked : nor Cove.- 
 £ 2 lianJ. 
 
T52) 
 nant, but that Gen. 17 which is not to us 
 € entiles till Believers, (7^.1.27,28,29. is 
 only of that blefling which Men had by Na- 
 ture, Gen. z. 15. is only to Believers, Rom. 
 1 r . 7,9. is meant, not of vifible Church-mem- 
 berfhip , but of Election , Covenant, and 
 Calling, according to it} that Mr. Baxters 
 refolutions in his Letters to me about his Or- 
 dinance of vifib-e Church-memberfhip are 
 ridiculous, his Queftions to me venemous , 
 his Arguments frivulous; as is abundantly 
 (hewed in my Review, more than I needed , 
 had not Men either out of fhallownefs been 
 uncapabie of difcerning their error, or preju- 
 dice, or engagements , or fome fuch finifter 
 refpecft, been unwilling to find the futility of 
 them and their own error. 
 
 SECT. XIII. 
 
 No Argument brought from Rom. 11. 17. 
 or any other f lace of Scripture for In- 
 fants vifihle Church-memberfhip , or 
 jBaptifm is invincible > or jo much as 
 Probable, 
 
 HE like I may fay of Mr. Wills his al- 
 ledgrog, Row.\ 11. 17. fox Infants 
 
 vifible 
 
 T 
 
fS3) 
 
 vifible Church-memberfhip in the Chriftian 
 Church: which when Mr. Marfiall in his 
 Sermon had alledged for it. I anfwered part 
 3.fett, 7. of my Examen, to be impertinently 
 alledged* it being understood, not of ingraft- 
 ing into the vifible Church, by an outward 
 Ordinance as Baptifm ; but into the invifi- 
 tie, by Election and giving of Faith, as the 
 whole Chapter (hews : and with eight Argu- 
 ments I proved from the Text there, and one 
 from paralel places, & a truth from Proteftant 
 Interpreters in my Apology, p. 71, 72, 73, 74. 
 fett. 14. and in my Review part i.fctt. 1,2, 
 3,4. againft Mr. Geree, fell. 6,7.8.9. a- 
 gainfl: Mr. Baxter, fell:. 10. againil Mr. Cob- 
 bet y iaComuch y that I thought, that none 
 would any more have urged this Text for In- 
 fant Church-memberfhip in the Chriftian 
 Church, as in the Jewijh, which is not in the 
 leaft: intimated ; and is contrary to this Au- 
 thors own Tenet, fith the ingrafting of la- 
 I fants into the vifible Church Jewifo, was by 
 Circumcifion ; which he will not now hold to 
 be in the Chriftian. And for what the Au- 
 thor of the Book called A Perfwafve to V- 
 nity Writes, although in Writing he had many 
 Years ago my Anfwer to what he then object- 
 ed j yet of late alfo I did upon the fending of 
 that Book to me to perufe by a Doclor of this 
 City in aManufcript , notwithstanding what 
 that Author had faid therein, fhewthat Infant- 
 iprinkling as now ufed is in four refpecls a 
 E 3 nullity. 
 
<54) 
 
 nullity, i. That it is not Baptifm. 2, That 
 it is not the Baptifm Chrift injoyned Preachers 
 oftheGofpel. 3. That it is not the duty of 
 being baptized which Chrift require? of every 
 Believer. 4. That it is not to the ends which 
 Chrift appointed it for, nor with the effect 
 which is to be had by right Baptifm. Giving 
 Infants the Communion is by Bp. JemVs 
 Reply to JIarding,Jlrt. 2. divif.2$. fliewed 
 to be as old as lnfant-baptifm ; and there is 
 as much proof for it, as for lnfant-baptifm; 
 and as much is required to Baptifm in the 
 Perfon to be baptized, as to the Communion ; 
 the very Catechifm in the Common-prayer- 
 Book averring, that Repentanc whereby they 
 forfakefin; and Faith whereby they believe 
 ftedfaftly the Promife of God to be required 
 of the Perfons to be baptized : yea, rather a 
 more ftricl: enquiry mould be into the Repen- 
 tance and Faith of Perfons afore they are 
 baptized , than afore they come to the Com- 
 munion, if it were rightly Adminiftred ; Bap. 
 tifm being Originally , as the firft , fo the 
 moft folemn and important Ordinance of the 
 Chrift Un Church ; and in the firft Ages with 
 molt ftrict obfervance Adminiftred after Ca- 
 techifig at the moft folemn Feftiyals. Mr., 
 Wills p. 91. faith falfly of me, that I inveigh 
 againft the Independants ; becaufe I fay their 
 Church Covenant is indeed devifed to fupply 
 the place of Baptifm ; by which according to> 
 Chrift's Inftitution a Perfon is exhibited a 
 
 Member 
 
rss) 
 
 Member of Chrift and of the Church, which 
 I prove from, i Cor. 12, 13. Gal. 3. 27. 
 Mfh.q. 5. which i meant of the Univerfal ; 
 and consequently upon the continuance of the 
 baptized in that Profeflion he is to be ac- 
 counted a Member of any Chrifiian Church 
 that is rightly Conftituted without fuch 
 Church-Covenant as the Independants re- 
 quire : whofe Churches are not rightly Con- 
 ftituted according to the Platform in the New 
 Teftament, and Primitive antiquity without 
 Baptifm upon Profeflion of Faith in Chrift, 
 both of Minifter and People. We find not 
 any forming of Particular Churches in Scrip- 
 ture by Particular engagement of Minifters 
 and People to each other in Church-Cove- 
 nant as an Ordinance of Chrift, though it 
 may beatfomtimes convenient in fome pla- 
 ces j and fo in Prudence to be ufed. But 
 diftinclion of Churches is in Scripture from 
 Cohabitation, as in the fame City or Houfe, 
 fo as that originally the Chniftians in one City 
 were called the Church of that place, as of 
 Efhefus^ and were governed by the Elders 
 together, as that of fernfalem, Jets 1 5. 4. 6. 
 Acts 21. 18. Of Ephepis. j4tts 20. 17. 28. 
 And if Infant-baptifrr* exhibet a Perfon a 
 Member of Chrift, and of the Church in gene- 
 ral ; and fo confequently to ail the privi- 
 ledges of Chrift, whereof Church-Commu- 
 nion is one ; it follows, as p. 94 That when a 
 Child is Baptized, he is declared to have a 
 E 4 right 
 
right to Church-Communion in particular , 
 that is, in breaking of Bread with a particu- 
 lar Church ; of which he is as much capable, 
 as of Baptifm. For every general includes 
 all the particulars : nor can any particular 
 Church by the Paedobaptifts rule deny jt, 
 when the Parent defires actual admittance of 
 the Infant into her. 
 
 SECT. XIV. 
 
 Testimonies of Baptifm are not as Mr* 
 Wills represents them. 
 
 CTprian lib. 3. Epift. 8. doth not fay 
 £ Infants were Circumcifed, therefore 
 they may be baptized] But whereas Fidns 
 urged Infants were not to be baptized lill the 
 eighth day, becaufeofthe Law of Circumci- 
 fion; the Author in that abfurd Epiftle faith, 
 Circumcifion was but a fhadow , and the 
 eighth day was an Image of the Lord's Day, 
 Circumcifion fpiritual ft not to be hundred; 
 and it is a fhame, rather than a credit to Pae- 
 dobaptifb, that they infill on fuch a piece to 
 Countenance their Baby-fprinkhng. Nor 
 doth Mr. Wills do any other thing than trifle 
 in bringing Tertnllian for it; who afferts j*r 
 wergiunaur , and argues againft Infant-bap- 
 tjfm, except in cafe of neceflicy by reafon of 
 
 immi-. 
 
(57) . 
 imminent danger of death, as did alfo Naz.U 
 anz,en in his qth. Oration. Qrigen's words 
 about Infant-baptifm are by many judged 
 fuppofitions. After him others did abfurdly 
 ufe Infant-baptifm 3 and Communion alfo up- 
 on corrupt grounds ; which rather makes 
 againft, than for Infant-baptifm. Nor do the 
 Antipaedobaptifts unworthily abufe the Fa- 
 thers in faying their ftrongeft Argument for 
 Childrens Baptifm is from Tradition , which 
 they fly to for want of Scripture. To what 
 he faithrthat the alledging theCouncel of Neo 
 Ctfaria after Grains Annot. on Mat. 1 9. 14. 
 is impudence to trouble the Paedobaptifts 
 with it as a filly and ridiculous ftory ] I re- 
 ply, that others as learned as Mr. Marshall, 
 or Mr. Wills have thought otherwife; the 
 Counfel being avowed as antient by Writers 
 generally : and it being determined in it , 
 that the Infant in the Womb of the baptized 
 is not to be accounted capable of Baptifm, 
 though the Child of a Chriftian ; becaufe 
 each ones own free choice is fhewed in the 
 confeflion made in Baptifm, the refolution of v 
 the Counfel is evident to be againft Infant- 
 baptifm in the Parenrs right. I anfwer to 
 Mr. Afarfoalls queftion to me, how doth it 
 appear that Gregory Naz.ianz.en /was the Son 
 of a Chriftian Bifhop when born, though not 
 baptized till of Age .? in the words of Bp. 
 Hall, Honor of the Married Clergy, 2. Book^ 
 feft. 8. His Father Gregory, in Gregory Naz.i- 
 
 an&ens 
 
/S8) 
 
 iwfcwwVeifes of his own Life thus befpeak- 
 ing him, The Tears of thy Age are not fo many 
 as of my Prirfl hood ; Words that will con- 
 vince the moft importunate Gainfayer, that 
 Gregory Naz.ianx.en was born to his worthy 
 Father after the time of his holy Orders. As 
 for Conftantine the great his Mothers being a 
 Chriftian is probable : and Camden in Torkj 
 jhire faith his Father was Chriftiana fietate 
 infignis ; which is by fome thought probable, 
 by that which Enfebius faith of Conftantine in 
 his Life, lib. i.e. x2. yet he was not bapti- 
 zed till Aged. Augnftines Baptifm, notwith- 
 flanding his Mothers Chriftianity when he 
 was young, was not till he was above thirty 
 Years old. Strabo his Teftimony is certain, 
 notwithstanding he or the Scribe were mifta- 
 ken in fetting down the Year of his Age : nor 
 doth he fay, Infant-baptifm began after An- 
 flines time ; but then it was decreed, becaufe 
 of the advantage againfl: the Pelagian Hercfie. 
 We deny not Infant-baptifm were right , 
 if by good confequence it could be proved. 
 But the only rule in the Sacraments, being the 
 inftitution and praclice ; and that not being 
 in Scripture, in whole Houfholds Infants 
 being not meant, John 4. 53. AZs 10.2. 
 1 Cor, 16. 15. nor included in the baptized 
 Houfholds, Acts 16. 32, 34. ABs 18. 8. 
 no good confequence can be thence for Infant- 
 baptifm; which is not according to the infti- 
 ftution, Mat. 38. 19. nor deduced from Atts 
 
 16. 
 
(59) „ 
 
 \6. 15. If the paflage of IrM<eusl.-2.adv.h<i- 
 ref.c. 39. mean Infants to be baptized by 
 Chrift, he oppofeth that which we read, fohn 
 4. that Jefus himfelf baptized not. How 
 unfafe, and infufficient to prove Infantbap- 
 tifm jiHgufiinesRuXz alledged by Mr. Wilis, 
 p. 107. C as little lefs then a demonftration is 
 that which is Universally received and pracli- 
 fed by the Church, and had not its firft inftitu- 
 tion from fome Counfel, but hath been ever 
 retained , may well be believed to be an 
 Apoftolical T/adition ] is (hewed by me in 
 my Pr£Cttr[or,feft. 3. in the third part of the 
 Review, fe&. 88. as better ferving Papifts 
 turns than Paedobaptifts. 
 
 SECT, XV, 
 
 Scripture grounds fir Infani-kaftifm are 
 invalid, as Rom. n. 15^ l6 > l 7\ 
 1 Cor. 17. 
 
 INfants might be of the Invifible Church, 
 yet not qualified for Baptifm^ nor doth 
 Chrifts bleffing little Children warrant to 
 baptize them without his Inftitutlon, and the 
 denying them Baptifm is not with fcorn,bur 
 out of Confcience, which is to be guided by 
 
 Chrifts 
 
(60) 
 
 Chrifts direction, not by Mr. Wills his con- 
 fident infoleut words unfitting - ."" ,t, t ncec j 
 fay nothing of fobn^.$, becaufe Mr. WlMl 
 difclaims it, urging for Pcedobaptifn, thougti 
 it were the miin, if no: the only Text which 
 fome of the Antients, and moil of the Papifts 
 and Prelatical Protectants urge for Infant-bap. 
 tifm, as Regenerating them, and taking a- 
 way original Sin t which how it is unfervice- 
 able is fhew'd in my Latin Refutation oF Dr. 
 Savage his Pofition^.7. and in the id part 
 of my Review, fett. 16. My alleging the dif- 
 ference among Poedobaptifts had no unfit Art 
 ©r Sophiftry : But that I imy view what Mr. 
 Wills alledgeth, Ianfwer, that Rom.11.15, 
 16, 17. demonstrates not the (Covenant Holy, 
 nefs of the Children of Believing Gentiles, un- 
 lefs deft, and ingrafted into Abraham the 
 root by Faith. Such Covenant holincfs as Mr. 
 Wills holds is fhewed before neither to be * 
 taught j45tsz, 38, 39. nor 1 Cor. 7. 14. nor 
 Gtn.ij. nor Jer. 30.20. E^ek. 37. 25,26, 
 \vhjch comes not by natural defcent. If [_ In- 
 herent Grace be not Hereditary] then God 
 is not God to every Believers Child ; which 
 is the only Federal Holynefs due to us 
 Gentiles by the Covenant, Gen. 17.7.. The 
 Jem were by nature diftinguifhed from the 
 dinners of the Gentiles fiaLz. 15. by the privi- 
 ledges they had Rom. 3.1,2. Rom 9.4,5. as 
 cjelcended from Abraham , Rom. 11. 24. 
 though they were out of the Chriftian Church 
 
 and 
 
and Covenant ; Evangelical Children are n6t 
 taken into Gods gracious Covenant Evangeli- 
 cal except Elecl and Believers. Nmon in 
 Refp. ad Apollon, c. 2. p. 30. Objettum foede. 
 ris 'gratia font foli ektti. J[hmael and Efau 
 were never in the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. as E- 
 vangelical, no other Covenant of Grace, but 
 that which is faving is to usGentiles.Holy feed 
 is Legitimate, JEz.ro, 9. 2. It is not faid,QThc 
 Children could not have that Holincfs, 1 Cor. 
 7. 14. if neither of the Parents were a Belie- 
 ve r, or had a fan&ified ufe of the other ] nei- 
 ther can it be true. For then it would follow^ 
 that no Infidels Child could be in Covenant, 
 a Church Member, or have right to Bnptifm : 
 which overthrows Mr. Baxter's Resolution of 
 any Proprietary pntting anothers Infant in 
 the Baptifmal Covenant,and intitling to Bap- 
 tifm. M eere Legitimation doth argue a ycfle- 
 riori the fa notification meant 1 Cor. 7. 14. nc* 
 other way anfwers the Corinthians doubt, but 
 the Expofition and Analyfis si have given be- 
 fore. We make not the Apoftles refoluticn 
 of the Ccrimhians doubt, as Mr. Wills frames 
 it [that they might ftill perfift in fo near a 
 Communion with an unbeliever as Marriage 
 is j for their Children were nojBaftards]but 
 becaufe the unbelieving Husband wasinre- 
 fpect of his own wife to her as if he were a 
 ftnclified perfon 9 difference of Religion not 
 millifyingConjugalRelationjOr ufe of Wedlock 
 they might continue together inConjugal ufe of 
 
 each 
 
each other. But that which Mr. Witts faith, 
 is not true Qthat the Apoftle faith, your belie- 
 ving gives you a holy ufe of your wife though 
 an unbeliever]. For neither doth he fay,that 
 the ufe of the unbelieving wife was holy, nor 
 that his believing gives him a holy ufe, the 
 term believing being omitted, and the term 
 unbelieving twice ufed ; which would not 
 have been, if the lawfulnefs of the Conjugal 
 ufe were afcribed to the Faith of the Believer, 
 but all is afcribed to the lawful continuance of 
 the Conjugal Relation. Nor doth the Apo- 
 ftle thus confirm it, as Mr. Wills faith, p. 163. 
 [as appears, becaufe your Children born of 
 Fuch are holy, and owned by Chrift within 
 the Covenant]. But as Dr. Goodwin in his- 
 Sermon long fince at Bow-Church in Cheap- 
 fide obferved ; it is an Argument from an ab- 
 surdity which they would not grant, if it were 
 riot fo, your Children were unclean , that is 
 unlawfully begotten 3 which you do not yield : 
 but now that is hoc fojito, that your Marriage- 
 relation and ufe have been and continue law- 
 ful, your Children holy, that is, a Legitimate 
 Brood. And therefore Mr. Wills his rcafon is 
 evacuated Q that it cannot be meant of Legi- 
 timation j becaufe, though both had been In- 
 fidels, the Children were not Baftards] which 
 is nothing againft us, who grant it, as knowing 
 that Marriage is honorable amongft all, even 
 Infidels, and thebedundefiled. But he goes 
 upon a miftake, as if the fanclifkation and ho- 
 
 linefsr 
 
linefs were from the faith of the one party, 
 which is only from the Conjugal-relation.And 
 his own abfurdity is retorted on him, that ho- 
 linefs-foederal being owned by Chrift, as with- 
 in his Covenant , cannot be meant j fitb 
 though the Parents were both Infidels, yet 
 the Children, even Infants ( if Mr. Baxters 
 dictates were good) conceiving the fame rea- 
 fon were of Baptifm as of Circumcifion might 
 be in the Covenant and be baptized. How- 
 ever Children being at age are their Children 
 thea \ nor doth the Apoftle reftrain his fpeech 
 ©f Children to Infants, the Children of both 
 Infidels though believers muft be excluded 
 from fcederal holinefs, if Mr. Wilis his Expo- 
 fttion were right. It is falfe Qhat the Apoftle 
 fuggefted any fuch thing to them, as if thofe 
 Children had been to be reputed unclean,had 
 not one of them turned Believer ].For though 
 the fcruple were after Converfton, yet the A- 
 poftles refoiution was from the continuance 
 of Marriage after as be fore;& therefore^thek 
 Children before or after, Infants or Adult,not- 
 withftandingthe unbelief of the one Parent 
 were holy ftill as before one was converted ; 
 that is, were lawfully begotten. They that 
 deny Baptifm to be from Intereft in the Co- 
 venant Gen. ij. 7. and fay, it is from profef 
 fion of faith need not be allured of the faith of 
 baptized, but of his Profefiion : But they that 
 derive it from the faith of the Parent, and the 
 Covenant to Ahdiam and his Seed ^which is 
 
 made 
 
made to none, at leaft Gentiles, but thofe who 
 are true Believers before God,had need krioV 
 before they baptize an Infant , whether his 
 Parent be really a Believer, elfe they know 
 nottH;; ac or his Child be in Covenant, but 
 prophane the Ordinance according to their 
 own Doclrine , the Infant being not 
 known to be in Covenant ; and therefore 
 not to be Baptized. As for us, we are not 
 bound when we Baptize a Perfon , to en- 
 buire whether he be ' in Covenant ; but to 
 to know that he profefiferh himfelf a Difciple 
 of Ghrift. That you take Teftimonies which 
 youalledge from me is done honeftly, that 
 Mr. Wills imputes it to you as vaunting is his 
 malignancie. If he bring ten tooneagainft 
 thofe alledged by me, they are of the later 
 Interpreters, and in following Beza, they do 
 ill, if they make him their Oracle. An exter- 
 nal being in Covenant in Mr. Witts or Mr. 
 Marfods fenfe, hath no footing in Gen. 17.7. 
 as Evangelically underftood, none are in Co- 
 venant as there is meant, but eledt and true" 
 Believers. As for the ufe of the word {holy) 
 for Legitimate, it is unjuftly charged on us, a$ 
 if I and you did wrangle ; it may be more 
 truly faidofhim, and Mr. Baxter , and fach- 
 like who do grofly profane the Scripture, in 
 fpeaking of a fcederal holinefs, no where in 
 their fenfe found in Scripture. Holy Seed 
 is ufed in our fenfe Ezra 9. 2. and Seed of 
 God, Md. 2.i5.andD^f. 23* 1*2. iTkef. 
 
 4.3- 
 
(65) 
 4 4 3*4* ?• yid& fomwhat to make it ap- 
 pear not fo ftrange as is fuggefted ; add if ic 
 were, yet it is no fuch ftrange thing to ufe a 
 word in a different fence once from what it 
 commonly fignifies, as •<««'« i Cor. u. 15. 
 for a veile j nor was my expofition from a 
 miftake of the fcope of the text, but moft 
 appofite to it , as I have cleared it againft all 
 that Mr. AJarfljall, Mr. Geree, and Mr. Bax- 
 ter have faid againft it in the firft part of my 
 Review from [eft. 11. to the end, againft Mr. 
 Sidenham and Mr. i?/^ , in the third part 
 of my Review [eft. 76. againft Dr. Hammond 
 part 2. of my Review fett. 26. part 3. of the 
 Review JcB. 91, 92, 93, 94,95. To amply 
 and rightly , that Men might have been fatis- 
 fied, had they without prejudice and with due 
 consideration, perufed thofe Writings. But 
 I find Men have been fo prepoffefled againft: 
 what I do, or Write- that be what I fay, or 
 do, never fo right, they will oppofe it* 
 Which the Lord pardon. 
 
 F sec t; 
 
SECT. XVI. 
 
 I'he Argument from the Covenant an& 
 Seal for Infant-baft tfm, isjheveed te be 
 of noforcej^^ — ■ — "-^_^-~— ~" ^r-H 
 
 THat which you faid in Anfwer to the: 
 Argument from Gen. 17. ( which p. 
 178. Mr. Wills acknowledged was rightly 
 formed by you) that it was fallacious and; 
 falfe reafoning, was truly faid. And I fay 
 that after the dTicovery of the fallacies of it 
 in my Exercitation and Examen and Review^ 
 flill to infift on it fhews a Brafen-face, or ai 
 Leaden.heart. The firft exception you make 
 was right to prove that the major Propofition 
 was faifc ifUniverfal, if it be not, the fyllo-j 
 gifm is inconcludent; and Mr. Genes An-, 
 f.ver is in effecl a grant of the falfhood of this 
 Propofition Q All thofe to whom the Gofpe! 
 Covenant belonged, to them the Seal there-t 
 of belonged] wnich is,and was,the bafis of it ; 
 and ye: is manifedly falfe; For it did not be- 
 long to Lot or h:s Seed, no nor to the Fe- 
 males of Abraham's Home , though of his. 
 Szed to whom they alTert the Gofpel Cove- 
 nant did belong, as the Seed of Believers;. 
 snd that after the Inftitution of Circumcifioni 
 which they make the Seal of the Gofpel Co- 
 venant. Befides there is ambiguity in the, 
 
 terms 
 
(6 V 
 
 refms of the fyllogifm, which though they, 
 are not the fame, yet are ufed as if they were 
 fynonymous, to wit, the Seal of the Gofpe! 
 covenant and Circurncifion, the Gofpel Co- 
 venant, and that Gen. 17. 7, arc made equi- 
 >oHerit; and the proper reafon of each Per- 
 Ohs Circurncifion to have been his Intereft iri 
 he Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. which is exprefsly 
 cnyedto have, belonged to IJhmael, Gen. 17. 
 °> 21, 25. Rom. 9. 7, 8. Gal. 4. 29 30. 
 if he was to be Circumcifed ; fo that to in- 
 lude Jjhmael in the Gofpel Covenant is ex- 
 refsly to gainfay the Apoftle. Which being 
 rged by me , Mr. Marjhall yet does in his 
 nfwerto my Examen of his 4^. condufion 
 182. That the formal reafon of the Jews 
 -ing Circumcifed was the Command, 
 lough the Covenant were the Motive to it. 
 ow they that know what the formal reafon 
 ► to wit, that which is the conftitutive and 
 (criminating reafon, epH fofoS,res fonitnr^ 
 anonfofita, resnon pnitHr, which if put, the 
 5 thing is put, if not, the thing is not put, 
 Jft acknowledge, that though it were grant- 
 I that the Covenant, Gen. ij. were a pure 
 )fpel Covenant, that it were made with all 
 'rahams Natutal Seed, that it belongs to all 
 (ievers and their Seed, that each ones Cir- 
 ncifiom was the Seal of die Gofpel Cove- 
 it to him, and of his neareft in it; that 
 riftian Baptifm fucceeds into the place, 
 rn, and ufe of fewijh Circurncifion • that 
 £ 2 our 
 
f68) 
 
 our Children's Church priviledges arc the 
 fame , or equivalent , or greater than the 
 Jews ( which are falfe ) yet it would not fol 
 low, that Believers Infants are to be baptized, 
 becaufe fems Infants were to be Circumcifed , 
 unlefs there were a Command for Infant- 
 baptifra, as there was for Infant Circumcifion, 
 Befides there is another ambiguity in the ma- 
 jor Proportion , which makes it fallacious 
 For it puts [the Seal of the Gofpel Cove 
 nant ] for Circumcifion , as appears by the 
 conclufion Q therefore the Seal thereof Cir 
 cumcifion,fo called, Rom. 4. 1 1. did apper- 
 tain, 6V?z. 17.10.] and the minor being, tc 
 the Children of Believers the Gofpel Cove 
 nant doth belong, the conclufion is, that tc 
 Believers Infants Circumcifion doth belong 
 which is to prove againft the Gofpel to be 
 Hill in force the Command of Circumcifion 
 But if the major Propofition be thus , Tc 
 whomfoever the Gofpel Covenant belongs 
 every Seal of the Gofpel Covenant belongs 
 But to Believers Infants the Gofpel Cove 
 nant belongs, therefore to them every fuel 
 Seal belongs, it follows they are to be Cir 
 cumcifed , have the Pafibver, Baptifm, am 
 the Lords Supper, according to their owi 
 Doclrine, which makes thefe Seals of th< 
 Gofpel Covenant ; if they reftrain it to tb 
 initial Seal indefinitely , then it conclude 
 that they fhould have Circumcifion as wel 
 as Baptifra, if it be limited to the initial Sea 
 
 
 
of the New Teftament the alledging, Gen. ij. 
 io. is nothing to it, which faith nothing of 
 Baptifm , but Circumcifion. And therefore 
 fry alledging, Cert, 17. 10. Rom. 4. 11. is 
 fuppofed the Seal of the Gofpel Covenant 
 and Circumcifion to be all one ; and that the 
 ufe of Circumcifion was to be a Seal, and on- 
 ly of the Gofpel Covenant, and it alone to be 
 fo ; which is contrary to their own Doctrine 
 of making all Sacraments to be Seals of the 
 Covenant of Grace; and the Scripture ex- 
 preflion. Gen. 1 7. 1 1. of Circumcifion being 
 a token of the Covenant as it promifedC*- 
 tidan rather than as it was Evangelical. In a 
 word, either the major Propofition proves In- 
 fants are to have the PafTover and Lords Sup- 
 per, or they are to be Cireumcifed, not to be 
 Baptifed; or elfe Gen. 17. io* Rom. 4.. 11. 
 •are impertinent : yea, no others Circumcifion 
 is meant there, but Abrehams , and therefore 
 from the term Sea! can be only inferred, thac 
 they are to have Abrahams Circumcifion ; 
 which is not termed the Seal of the Gofpel 
 Covenant, but of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, 
 mor faid to belong to any, but thofe that be- 
 lieve as he did. The Speeches therefore of 
 Mr. Wills {_ The federati were to be jigxati y 
 thofe in the Covenant were to have the Seal 
 of the Covenant] are true only of Circum- 
 icifion} and only of thofe to whom it was 
 [commanded , and the major Propofition 
 proved from Gen. 17. 10. can only be this. 
 F 3 Ail 
 
AH thofe t© whom Circumcifion was coin 
 rnanded were to be Circumcifed in token o: 
 the Covenant God made with Abraham. Ane 
 it is falfe which Mr. Wills faith [ therefor* 
 by confequence it naturally follows, that ii 
 Circumcifion the Seal of the Gofpel Cove- 
 nant belonged to the Seed of Believers undei 
 the Lawj then doth the Gofpel Seal Bap. 
 tifm much more appertain to the Seed of Be- 
 jievers under the Gofpel, which comes in the 
 place, room, and ufe of Circumcifion : other- 
 wife the priviledge of the Gofpel would be 
 lefs than that of the Law, fhpuld Children be 
 denyed fuch a benefit ] there being no con- 
 fequent from Circumcifion of Infants to Bap 
 tizing cf Infants without the like command 
 for the one, as for the other. But againft his 
 and other Psedobaptifts Diclates you except 
 juftly, that Abrahams Covenant was a mixt 
 •Covenant; to which his Anfwer is {_ The 
 temporal bleflings of the Land of Canaan , 
 Eirth of Ifaac , &c. were not the fubftance, 
 oreiTence, but ouly an accidental Appendix 
 to it : there was no more mixture in the Co- 
 venant, than in ours under the new Admini. 
 firation, ftr Godlinefs hath the promife of 
 the life that now is, i Tim. 4. 8. j which is 
 directly contrary to the Scripture, Pfal. 105, 
 $,9,10,-11, 12. which doth exprefsly make 
 this the Covenant to Abraham ', unto thee wi& 
 1 give the Land of Canaan, the Let of pur Inhe- 
 wanes. Which fure he ha|h not promifed to 
 
 any 
 
(70 
 
 any of our Seed j nor any fuefi temporal 
 blelTing as he did to Abraham. Your next 
 exception is, that the Seed, Gen. 17.7. to 
 which the Gofpel belonged, was not the car- 
 nal, but fpiritual only : and Mr. Wills faith 
 it is mine, p. 185. Which I own in this 
 fenfe 5 that the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. as it 
 was Evangelical, or the Gofpel Covenant, 
 promifing fpiritual bleflings, or Gofpel Gracc r 
 under the expreflion of being a God to him 
 and his Seed , was not made to Abraham's 
 Natural Seed univerfally, nor to the Naturaj 
 Seed of any Believer as his Seed ; but only 
 tothofethat are Elect, and true Believers * 
 whether of Abraham's^ or our Natural Seed' 
 or otherwife. To prove which are alledgcd> 
 (7^.3.16,29. Rom. 9.7,8. ^^.4.13,14, 
 and many more Proofs from Scripture reafon 
 and Interpreters in my Exer citation Arg. i. 
 JLxamen part 3. fett.4.. Review fart $\ fett. 
 28,29. which with all that was then produ- 
 ced (hewed fo fully that which is faid of the 
 Covenant and Seal with Gen. 17. to be in- 
 efficient to inferr Infant-baptifm ,, that were 
 not Men veritati cedere nefcij they would , 
 as fundry of the moft Learned Paedobaptifts 
 have done, have let fall that] Argument in this 
 Caufe, as being too grofs to be maintained. 
 Yet Mr. Wills rhinks to hold this untenable 
 Fort (till; and moft (hamcfully and wickedly 
 faith [ thefe Scriptures arc grofsly miftaken, 
 and wrefted to a quite different fenfe from 
 F 4. what 
 
(7^ 
 
 what the ApofUe intended] let's view what 
 he faith. Hepremifeth, i. [that the Cove- 
 nant of Grace contains in it , only fpiritual 
 good things : temporals are more properly 
 additional , than of the elTence of it ] which 
 if meant of that Gen. 17. 7, 8, is not true. 
 2. [that the Covenant of Grace is but one, 
 or the fame,both to Jews and Gentiles ~] which 
 I ftill confefs in this fenfe, that the Covenant, 
 Gen. 17.7. as it contains aPromifeofbeing 
 a God to Abraham and his Seed, in refpecl 
 of Juftification, Adoption, Sanclification, and 
 eternal Life, to be one and the fame, to Jews 
 and Gentiles , that is, to the Elect only ; and 
 to Believers as Abraham was. But 1 deny,, 
 nor hath he proved it [ that any is in this 
 Covenant, only by partcipation of external 
 Church Priviledges ] nor is it true [_ that the 
 whole Body of the Jews, as they defcended 
 from the Loyns of Abraham by propagation .• 
 and before they were regenerated were ac- 
 cording to Scripture Teftimony taken by God 
 into Covenant ( meaning this Gofpel Cove- 
 nant) and were fo efteemed by God him- 
 felf in this refpecl ] nor is it true [that it is 
 faid that God made His Covenant Evangeli- 
 cal with them all, Dent . 29. fpeaking there 
 of the' renewing of the Covenant of Grace ] 
 but that the Principal Officers of the Nation 
 ofjfrael, as was in like manner done before 
 at Horeb, did for the reft by Oath, or Curfe, 
 engage themfelves to take God 9 for their 
 f 4 • God* 
 
i7l) 
 
 God j and not to ferve Idols: and God d\$ 
 make the Covenant with them, by proofing 
 bleflings to them, as Dent. 28. 9. &c. Buc 
 this is not the new Covenant, or Goffel Co- 
 venant which was made with Abraham i Gen.i r 7 
 7. The Apoftle, Gal. 3, 15, 16. GaL 4. 24. 
 tfeb. 8.10. determines the contrary. Thajt 
 which is faid Rom.g.$, Eph* 2. 11, 12. is 
 meant of the Nation of the Jews in the fenfe 
 in which it is faid, ^6^3.25. that the Jews 
 were the Children of the Prophets, and of" the 
 Covenant God made with our Fathers, faying 
 to Abraham, And in thy Seedjhall all the Kind- 
 reds of the Earth he ble/fed : which can have no 
 other fenfe but this, that they were the Po- 
 fterity of that people to whom the Prophets 
 were lent, and to whom the Promife of fend- 
 ing Chrift yyas made, as ver. 22. Rom 3. 1, 2. 
 which the Gentiles were not, Ifai. 24. 5. they 
 that are faid to break the Everlafting Cove- 
 nant, are faid to break that par,t of the Cove- 
 nant which they had made to God, not that 
 which God made to them. And they of 
 whom it is faid , The Children of the Kingdom 
 foall becaftout, Matth. 8. 12. were only the 
 Jews, fo termed , becaiife the Kingdom of 
 God was firft preached to them, as Matth. 2 1 . 
 43. Luke 17. 21. Matth. 12. 28. diftindt from 
 thofc that (hould come from the Eaft and 
 Weftj^r, 1 1 Heb. 10. 29. they that are faid 
 to be fanclified by the Blood of the Covenant, 
 are faid to be fo in refpeft of their Opinion 
 
 or 
 
(74) 
 orProfeflion, as Lake 15. 7. Gat. 5. 3. Not 
 is it denied that in fome fenfe a Nation, as 
 the Jews were, may be faid to be in Covenant 
 with God, by their making a Covenant, or 
 Gods Promifes to them ; nor that Hypocrites 
 may have external Covenant priviledges, or 
 common-Graces : But that Infants now are in 
 Covenant in thefe refpedls is not true; 
 they neither by their Profeflion, nor any o- 
 ther way are faid to be in Covenant as 
 a Nation, that by folemn Oath , or by ha- 
 ving Prophets fent to them , or by any Re- 
 velation of Gods Promife in the New Te* 
 ftament are Children of the Covenant. But 
 if they had this external being in Covenant, 
 yet it is not that which gives intereft in the 
 Covenant of Grace, by Gods promife to be a 
 God to Jbrahams feed 5 Gen. 17. 7. nor is it 
 that which is feared by the Sacrament oftBap- 
 tifm, and therefore it is in vain alledged to 
 prove Infants to have Intereft: in the Covenant 
 of Evangelical bleflings, and fo right to the 
 Seal. But there is yet more juggling in the 
 Argument for Infants being in the Covenant, 
 Ge ;;• 1 7. 7. and that to them, as Believers na- 
 tural Children 5 which is contrary to Gal. 3. 
 16. which appropriates it to Chrift, and thofe 
 that are in him by faith. Which Exposition • 
 is no corrupting or abufing of Scripture. For 
 even in Beta's fenfe, taking Chrift for the 
 Members with the Head, as 1 Cor. 12. 12. 
 yet fonone are the feed, but fuch as are 
 
 Chrift 's 
 
< 7> ; 
 Chrift's by his Spirit, ver. 1 3 . Gal. 3 . 29. none 
 arc faid to be ^Abrahams Seed, and Heirs ac- 
 cording to the promife, but fuch as were all 
 one in Chrift Jefus ; and thofe are faid to be 
 the Children of God by faith in Chrift Jefus 
 v.26.and to have put on Chrift^. 27. which 
 cannot be faid of every Infant of a Believer 
 .nor of any meer vifible Profeffor of faith ; yet 
 this makes nothing againil: us, asifwemuft 
 then afore we baptife , know a perfon to 
 be a fmcere Believer , and in Covenant re- 
 ally and internally. For we do not nor 
 need to dofo,who baptife perfons according 
 tp the Inftitution as being Difciples of Chrift 
 not as being in Covenant by Gods Promife.Irt 
 like fort, when he faith, pag. 194. [that the 
 oppofcrs of Infants Baptifm have always pre- 
 vented the fcope of Paul, Rom, 9.7,8. as if 
 he intended it of outward Church priviledges 
 not to be had by being born of believing Pa- 
 rents, which the Text hath nothing to do 
 with ] he faith falfly of us. For we bring it 
 rothis purpofe as Paul doth, that Infants of 
 Believers are not in the Covenant of Grace 
 as their Children : even Abrahams Children 
 as by Generation natural, his Seed had not 
 that promife,GV».i7. 7. as it affured fpiritual 
 bleflings to his Seed,made to him and his feed 
 univerfally ; but they only that are the Eiecl, 
 and Believers, are the Seed in thatPromife' 
 as Evangelical; which is the fame with that* 
 Rom.%%. though denied by Mr. Wills. Who 
 
 alfo 
 
c 7°; 
 
 alfo p 298. faith untruly of me, that I named 
 not Mr. Blake's Book, when exprefsly,though 
 not in that Page } yet in my Examen, part 2. 
 ■feSt* 10. f. 3 3. are thefe words ; Mr. BJake 
 stands nipich Hjon this in his Birth-yriviledge 9 
 which was fuificient to acquaint Readers 
 what Book I meant , when f. 53. part$.fe&. 
 4. of my Exanien ( not my Extrcitaxiw. 
 as Mr. Wills Entitles my Book I faid Mr, 
 Blake faith Chrifiianitj is hereditary. Where 
 in that I did Mx*BU\e no wrong • nor ( as 
 Mr. Wills chargeth me ) fought to matce him 
 odious : but to (hew the evil confequenc on 
 Jits Do&rine, cited his words according to 
 their meaning ^ as will appear by his words, 
 as they are Birth-priviledge,p. 6. The privi- 
 leges, or burdens, which in Family or Nati- 
 on are hereditary, arc conveyed from Parent 
 to pofterity, from Aoceftors to their IfTue : 
 As is the Father fo is the Child, as refpecling 
 thefe particulars, The Child of a free Man 
 with St. Paid is free born. The Child of a 
 Noble Man is Noble. The Child of a bond 
 Man ( where Servants were wholly their 
 Matters to difpofe > is a bond Manlikewife. 
 So the Child of a Turk, is a Turk* The Child 
 of a Pagan is a Pagan. The Child of a J-ew 
 is a few. The Child of a Cbrifiian is a Chri- 
 film : As by vertue of the grand Charter of 
 Heaven among the People of God this privi- 
 ledge doth defcend , foitis of the nature of 
 thofe things that are defcendable. Sure he 
 
 that 
 
(77) 
 that reckons being a Chriftian among privr- 
 ledges hereditary, faith Chriftiany is heredi- 
 tary; as alfo when he faith the Child of a 
 Chriftian is a Chriftian, and makes it of the 
 nature of thofe things that are defcendab!e» 
 But I fee as Mr. Blake did, fo Mr. Wills takes 
 any occafion to except againft me, though 
 without caufe ; and would unchriftianly have 
 us to be thought at irreconcilable diftance. 
 But to goon, it is rightly alledged by you, 
 as it was before by me ; that if Infants as the 
 Children of Believers are in the Covenant, 
 Gen. 17.7. which as Evangelical is determi- 
 ned by the Apoftle, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. to be 
 made only to the Eled, and that all are not 
 Ifrael that is the Ifrael of God, as the term is, 
 Gal. 6. 16. which are of Ifrael , then are 
 Children of Believers Children of Grace by 
 Nature, then they cannot fall away, that they 
 are all Eleft Perfons, are in the Covenant of 
 Grace afore believing contrary to Gal. 3. 6. 
 7,8. neither Gen. 17. 7. nor any other Text 
 which fpeaks of the Gofpel, or New Cove- 
 nant of Grace mentions external priviledges 
 of the Gofpel as from it, or any benefit to our 
 Children as Abraham's Seed, till they believe 
 ashedid. And if it be true that I Cor. 7. 14. 
 be meant of Federal Holinefs derived from 
 the Faith of the one Parent, this Proportion: ; 
 being included in the Apoftles reafoning \ all \ 
 the Children whereof neither Parent is a Be- , 
 lievcr are unclean ; that is according to their' 
 
?78) 
 cxpofition out of the Covenant of Grace"; 
 all unbelievers Children are excluded from 
 God's Covenant of Grace. Which fayings 
 we charge on Mr. Wills and others* not as ex- 
 prefsly aliened by them, but as following on 
 their tcnents, though they grant them not t 
 which Mr. Wills avoides not, till he (hew how 
 they can be avoided according to the mean- 
 ing of Gen. 1 7. 7. 1 Cor. 7. 14. which they 
 give to prove Infants of Believers to be in the 
 Gofpei Covenant , and none other. As for 
 Pfal. 44. 17. it is impertinently alledged, the 
 meaning not being of the Covenant of Grace, 
 which is made by God} and he only can be 
 faid to deal falfly in it , when he breaks it : 
 but of Mens Covenant they make to God , 
 in which they may deal falfly, as in breaking 
 the Covenant of the Lav/ by Idolatry, eating 
 Swines-flefh, or the like, yeilding to renounce 
 the Jcwifh. Religion, and embrace Gentilifm 5 
 as was done in Antiochus Epipkanes his time, 
 of whom the Prophefics , Dan. 11. 30,32, 
 As for Mr. Wills his difm'al confequences he 
 v iid fatten on our Doctrine, who deny the 
 Cnildren cfBelieversto.be taken into Cove- 
 nant with them in the fenfe we expound, 
 Gen. 17. 7. they are falfly charged onus. 
 For neither is by it any facriligious reftraint 
 put on the Covenant, nor any elTential vari- 
 ation in it, without warrant. But by Mr. 
 Willshls Doc/trine, the Covenant is magifte* 
 rially without proof \ yea, contrary to the 
 
 Ai 
 
( 19) 
 Apoftle, Rom, 9. 6, 7, 8. prefumptuoufl* 
 altered. Nor do we exclude Infants of Be- 
 lievers from the ordinary way of Salvation. 
 For though we fay not they are in the Gof- 
 pel Covenant by their Parents Faith ■ yet 
 ' we fay they may be by God's Election faved, 
 and may be fanclified by the Spirit of God ; & 
 I Parents may have [ground of comfort in theis 
 death, as much or more than by Mr. Wills his 
 Dotfrine, which only tells them their Chil- 
 dren are certainly in the Covenant, only in 
 refpecl of outward Priviledges, and thefe af- 
 fure not falvation. And therefore Mr. Witt* 
 doth but in jurioufly flatter people with that 
 which he connot prove, that there is a certain- 
 tainty of Salvation to the Children of Belie- 
 vers, when they die ininfaacie, and malici- 
 oufly incenfe common people againft us ; who 
 do fay truly, we have no certain grouads of 
 our Infants Salvation, and therefore teach 
 men tofufpend the judging their cafe either 
 way, and to leave them to God. Yet we de- 
 ny what Mr. Wills fuggefts to make us odi- 
 ous , as if their condition were alike with 
 Turks ; which inference is removed from our 
 Opinion by me in my JExamen of Mr. Mar- 
 jhalls Sermon, fart 2. Sett.io. As for Att$ 
 2.38,39. I agree that the Promife is not ,of 
 extraordinary gifts ; for they were notpro- 
 mifedtoall God mould call, noris it meant 
 of God's being a God to them and theirs as 
 Children of Believers, for then they were not 
 
 Be. 
 
(8o) 
 
 Believers, being exhorted to repent : But the 
 Promife was of railing upChrift, as jicts 3, 
 25. and was, that is, fulfilled to them ancf 
 their Children, as ./#h 13. 32, 33. forcom> 
 forting them againft their fears, Aftsz. 37. 
 becaufc of their fad, ver. 36. and their dire- 
 ful wim ; Mattb. 27. 25. as Jofefh did, Gen. 
 50. 20. nothing to the proof of this Pofition, 
 rhat the Children of Believers are in the Gof- 
 pei-Covenant. And [ for raifing a ftorm in 
 the Jews, if they had not Baptifm for their 
 Infants in ftead of Circumcifion] it is but a 
 foolifh dream of Mr. Witts\ which if Pete* 
 had then told them of, they 'vould have con- 
 ceived rather that they were mocked, than 
 that their perplexed Spirits would have been 
 thereby calmed. 
 
 SECT. X VII. 
 
 the conceits of Sacraments being in their 
 nature Seals of the Covenant of Grace y 
 the nfe of Sureties at B apt i fin: Sue- 
 ceffion of Baptifm to circumcifion 
 are vrourtd/efs. 
 
 AS for your fourth Exception againft their 
 alledging Rom. 4. 11. whence they 
 would gather a definition of Sacraments, that 
 
 they 
 
they are Seals of the Covenant of Grace,that 
 I Circumcifion of Abrahams Children was to 
 them a Seal of the Covenant of Grace in their 
 Infancie ; and in like manner fo is Baptifm to 
 us and ours, it was right. For there is no 
 mention Rom. 4. 11. of -any ones Circumcifi- 
 on m his flefli, but Abrahams in his own per- 
 son ; and therefore that which is there faid 
 of being a Sea! cannot be proved to agree to* 
 any others Circumcifion but his ; yea, it is re- 
 markably appropriated to Abrahams Circum- 
 cifion m refped of the time in which he recei* 
 Vedit,andthe end was peculiar to him. And 
 therefore no others Circumcifion can be faid 
 to be a Seal to him as Abrahams was; much 
 Jefs any other Sacrament of the Old or New 
 Teftament, it being ineptly faid of all Sacra- 
 ments, and moft unfitly of Baptifm: nor is 
 Abrahams Circumcifion faid to be a Seal of the 
 Covenant, that is, of Gods promife of a thing 
 future- butoftheRighteoufnefsof Faith he 
 had before he was circumcifcd : much lefs 
 jsiMaid to be a Seal of the Covenant inre- 
 pcci of. outward Church-priviledges, nor in 
 my kc\{t can it be faid to be a Seal to an Lir< 
 ant that hath not faith : nor is ittrue, that 
 his belongs in common to all the/poi^, as 
 fdrem fpeaks. VVc deny not that Circumci- 
 ion of others than Abraham was a token of 
 he Covenant by God with ^r^Wbutwe 
 feny that every ones Circumcifion was td 
 Urn a token of his right to any of the Promi- 
 
( 82) 
 
 fes, Gen. 17- 4, 5 A 7, 8. much lefs ef the 
 rignteoufnefs of faith, which Abraham ha-d ; 
 r.or could it be a Signe or Seal to them of the 
 righteoufnefs of faith who had not faith v 
 norinlnfancie a Signe or Seal of the Cove- 
 nam in any refpeft afore they had under- 
 Handing : yet Circumcifion in Infancie, be- 
 caufe the Marks of it remained might bt 
 a Signe or Seal to them of the Cove- 
 nant Gen. 17. when they came to under- 
 ftandthereafon of it: But this cannot be faid 
 of Infant-Baptifm, which leaves no imprem- 
 on in the flefti. tteverthelefs we make not 
 Circumcifion or Baptifm a bare Sign or Mark 
 of diftinclion from others v but it hath a ufe 
 toatlmonimof duty,yea,and to afTure of Gods 
 favour, and to beget holinefs, to confirm faith 
 and heighten confidence in God, when there 
 is a frame of Spirit anfwerable to our engage- 
 ment thereby. What Mr. Wills faith p.. 21$. 
 of the Author and his Party, is but a paflio- 
 nate fpitting out of his venom on them un- 
 iuftly. What is faid fag. 216. of thofe If*. 
 8.2. cannot be applied to Circumcifion ot 
 Baptifm, or to the ufe of Sureties as now they 
 are,theteftimony being of that which was 
 done afore the Child was born, and not by 
 way of promtfng by them, but by atpeitlngj r 
 what the Prophet did, or was to be done. As 
 for the Antient cuftome of Sureties or Wit- 
 nefTes in baptizing Children, it is truly faid to 
 be crown now into a meer formality, or ra- 
 ° ther 
 
ther worfe,into an undertaking of that which 
 God only can perform ; nor is it ufually with- 
 out fpeakingfalfely ; nor was it our miftake 
 that it is the intendment or Doctrine of the 
 Church in the Catechifm to baptize Infants 
 upon the Covenant or Profeflion of Sureties, 
 nor is Mr. Baxter againft it. As for your 5th 
 Exception , It is true > Circumcifion was 
 appointed to Abraham as a mod exemplary 
 Believer, to feal the Righteoufnefs of Faith he 
 had yet being uncircumcifed, that he might 
 betheFatherof all that believe, though un- 
 circumcifed, that Righteoufnefs might be im- 
 puted to them alfo. But this was his Pre- 
 rogative, not communicated to others. Clear 
 it is, that to all other it was inftituted not as 
 to Believers, or Believers Seed, but to all in 
 Abrahams houfe, and the whole of the Ifrae- 
 licesr, even when Idolaters, and the Children 
 of them thatferved other Gods, even when 
 the word was not mixed with Faith, but they 
 had an evil heart of unbelief, yet by reafon of 
 the Covenant at Mount Sinai, and that Dent. 
 19. 1. and thofe Priviledges Rom. 3.2. and 
 Rom. 9. 4, 5. were a people near God, PfaL 
 148. 14. called by his Name, 2 Chron. 7. 14. 
 and becaufethey were brought out of Egypt, 
 redeemed by him his Servants, Levlt. 25,43, 
 55, andfo might not be fo*d as Bondmen. 
 But they were not all Abrahams Seed,as Gen. 
 17. 7- as born of him in a Gofpel-fenfe, nor 
 in the Covenant Gen. 17, 7 , as Evangelical, 
 G z bus 
 
(*4) 
 
 but as Elect and Believers, Rom. 9. 6,7, 8. 
 nor ojcumcifcd by virtue of their Intereft, 
 but by Gods Command. And it is true that 
 is faid that Circumcifion did belong to the 
 Males of eight days old of the Linage of J- 
 braham good aqd bad, were their Parents 
 'fuu- as offered them to Moloch, Ezech. 16. 20, 
 2J. they are neverthclefs faid to be born of 
 God, as of right his, not as vifible Members 
 fas the Text was fowiy abufed by the AfTem- 
 bly of Divines at Weftminfter in their Confef- 
 . fion of Faith, ch.Zy Sett. 2,) nor as in Got- 
 pel-Covenant, but by reafon of the Com- 
 mand, Want of which Mr. Wills rightly 
 faith was the reafon why Females were not 
 perfonally circumcifed , though jbme fay it 
 was not oy reafon of incapacity. However 
 if that were it, yet it mews the proper reafon 
 of circumcifing fome and not others was the 
 Command not Interefr, in the Covenant, fitb 
 the Females had that, and yet were not to be 
 circumcifed, or otherwife fealed. If the Jews 
 did not circumcife their Males who were im- 
 penitent excommunicates, it was more than 
 God appointed, though he fufpended Cir- 
 cumcirion in the Wildernefs, becaufe of their 
 Travel. Whatever be faid of Circumcifion r 
 certain it is, that Faith is pre-required to Bap- 
 Atts 8. 37, 38. nor is any pafTage that 
 limits this unto the firft Conversion ; yea, if 
 then Jews Children were not baptifed with 
 them when converted,Baptifm was not asCir- 
 
 cum- 
 
cumcifion 3 w<* at firft Adminiftration required 
 Infant-Males of 8. days old in Abrahams houfe 
 to be circumcifed. Abraham was a publick 
 common Father of Believers, Jews and Gen- 
 tiles, not, as Dr. Sclater faith, becaufe from 
 him the blefling of the Covenant is derived as 
 an Inheritance pafTeth from the Father to the 
 Son, <$r becaufe in him the Covenant is made 
 with all Believers and their Seed : but as Rom. 
 4. 11, 12. becaufe he was the Pattern of Be- 
 lievers to walk in his fteps, and to allure Righ- 
 teoufneis to them by faith. 
 
 SECT. XVIII. 
 
 SucceJJion of Baft if m to Circumcifion , and 
 Infant-baptifms deduction thence, by 
 Analogy j is groundless. 
 
 X7 Our 6th. Exception is right, that Chrifti- 
 X an Baptifm came not in the room, place, 
 and ufe of Circumcifion ; fo as that the infti- 
 tution of it mould be bur Rule about Bap- 
 tifm; For then Infant Females fhould not be 
 Baptized. AsforMr. W/7// hisevafion [they 
 were virtually, and reputatively, Circumci- 
 fed, in the Circumcifion of the Males 3 itis 
 frivolous. For if fo by Analogy, the Females 
 G 3 fhould 
 
f86) 
 
 {hould be only virtually and reputatively , 
 not actually Baptized j and if Infants out of 
 Abrahams Family were not Circumcifed , 
 though the Parent believed in God as a Pro- 
 felite of the Gate, e. g. Cornelws> then nei- 
 ther fhould an Infant ot a Believer in Chrift 
 not in a National or other Conftituted Church 
 be baptized ; and if Circumcifion were to the 
 ufe as Baptifm,the Circumcifed Infant need- 
 ed not to be Baptized. £ That fomthing 
 fhould be of the fubftance of an Ordinance, 
 fome other thing of the accident] when both 
 are alike appointed is gratis dittum \ and a 
 bold prefumption to diftinguifh ubi lex non 
 Jiftinguit. It appears from Col. 2.. 17. that 
 a principal ufe of Circumcifion, was to figni- 
 fie Chrift to come of Abraham ; which Bap, 
 tifm not doing, hath not a principal ufe of 
 Circumcifion. No where that I know, Cir- 
 cumcifion is faid to fignifie and feal, the re- 
 million of fins, by and through the blood of 
 Chrift to be died ; which was the ufe of Sacri. 
 pees propitiatory. And though Baptifm di- 
 ftinguifh between Believer, and unbeliever ; 
 yet it doth not make a Partition- wall between 
 Nation and Nation , as Circumcifion did - 7 
 which was not to be imparted to all believing 
 Males of the Gentiles, as is manifeft in the 
 Cafe of Cornelias; who though fearing God, 
 was not Circumcized,nor to be Circumcized ; 
 unlefs joyned as a Member to the Jevpijh Peo- 
 ple. Mr. Wills p. 225. breaks out into his 
 
 bitter 
 
(S7) 
 bitter Language, when he talks [of our 
 ccnforious, felf-conceited, contentious Spirit] 
 which may more truly be charged on them 
 that oppofe Antipcedobaptifts, and are fo vio- 
 lent, as he and Mr. Baxter have been for In. 
 fant-baptifrru which cannot be to them a fpi- 
 ritual Ordinance. Th3t the Jewifo Church, 
 is termed a carnal Church is right } and no o- 
 ther than what is faid, when that People are 
 termed Ifrael after the fkfh, iCor. 10. i8« 
 and Circumcifion is meant, when it is faid, 
 Rom. 4. 1. what fhail we fay then, that 
 Abraham- our Father, as pertaining to the 
 Hefli hath found f fure Infant-Circumcifion 
 which mewed nothing to the mind, could be 
 but a carnal Ordinance. But the life of Bap- 
 tifm is, 1 Pet. 3. 2. the Anfwcr, or Demand 
 ■of a good Conference towards God - 7 and 
 therefore in its ufe fpiritual, which cannot be 
 in Infant baptifm. And if Circumcifion 
 pound Men to keep the whole Law, or elfe 
 was unprofitable, Rom 2.25. Gd. 5. 3. it had 
 not the ufe that Baptifm hath. And whereas 
 Circumcifion was without profeffion of Faith 
 in Chrift, it cannot be faid to have the fame 
 ufe with Chriftian Baptifm 5 which as hata 
 been (hewed, is required by the expreflion of 
 baptizing into the name ofChrift: which is, 
 to baptize the Perfon into the Faith of him 
 whom he hath profefTed. And if the ufe of 
 Circumcifton was to affure the Promife of 
 the Land of Canaan, Chriftian Baptifm cer- 
 G 4 tainly 
 
f88; 
 
 tainly hath not that ufe, A Seal of the Righ- 
 teoufnefs of Faith is faid of no Perfons Cir- 
 cumcifion, but Abrahams. I acknowledge 
 not the Particulars true, which Mr. Wills y p. 
 229, fets down in his Scheme of the Analogy 
 between Baptifm and Circumcifion. Yet if 
 I did, it will not follow thence, that the one 
 fucceeds to the other. I find not any thing 
 to fucceed to the Ceremonies of the Law, but 
 Chrift, CV. 2.17. nor doth Analogy in fome 
 things prove it right to introduce a Rule in 
 the obferving ©f an Ordinance of the New 
 Teftament in like fort with it, becaufe of fome 
 refemblance with an old Rite abrogated. I 
 have largely proved the Arguments from 
 Analogy of the Mofaical Judicial, or Ceremo- 
 nial Precepts to the likeintheChriftian fer« 
 vice, to be infufficient, Examenyart 3./^. 9. 
 Review part 2. fett. 3,4. Durandtis his rati- 
 onal Divimrum^ and other Books of their 
 Rituals fhew a great part of Popifh Rites to 
 be thence derived. And lAx.Wills \vi\\ follow 
 this way of arguing fromlnfant-Circumcifion 
 to Infant-baptifm by Analogy, he muftfall 
 back, not only to Popiih and Prelaticacl 
 Cuftomes, but Jewijh alfo , it being certain 
 that Circumcifion is wholly abrogated as well 
 as Sacrifice, Prieft-hood, &c Nor can Mr. 
 Wills conclude out of a Particular , but in 
 thefe and other Rites by his Principles hold 
 that they are fomwhat ofthefubftanceofthe 
 (Covenant , and fo bind us as they did the 
 
 Jem; 
 
fews ; as Mr. AfarfhaM in his Sermon on i Pet. 
 3.21. of baptizing Infants, p. 35* afTerted, 
 which is ex pre fs Jiidaifm againft theGofpel 
 ofChrift ; nor is that Plea fufficientto avoid 
 it, to fay they bring not in a new Rite,if they 
 ufe it not as Chrift appointed; fo they might 
 fay of Bell-baptifm, and the Pharifees of 
 their warnings of Hands, Cups, and VefTels 
 ©fBrafs; yet condemned by Chrift, becaufe 
 not commanded, but after Mens Traditions 
 taught. Papifts fay they bring not in a new 
 Rite in their Mafs } yet we charge them with 
 a great fin, in making it a Propitiatory Sacri- 
 fice , and the Prieft a Sacrificing Pried, as the 
 Jews* The Corinthians did not bring in a new 
 Rite, yet when they ufed it otherwi'fe than 
 Chrift appointed, it was not to eat the Lords 
 Supper, 1 Cor. 1 r. 20. it being the Apoftles 
 Rule to ufe it as it was received by him of the 
 Lord. They that gave Infants the Commu- 
 nion, orfhali do it, may fay as much as Mr. 
 Wills for his Infant baptifm H tne y ^° on ty 
 app'y an inftituted Ordinance by way of pro- 
 portion ] And this Anfwer Mr. Tombes gives, 
 September 21. 1674. and trembles to con- 
 fid er the obduxation of Mens hearts, that 
 fwearing to endeavour Reformation in wor- 
 ftiip according to God's Word, feeming 
 jealous againft humane inventions, fufFering 
 for Nonconformity, praying for pure Ordi- 
 nances fhould yet upon fuch palpably falfe 
 pretences fo fairly difcovercd thefe thirty 
 
 Years 
 
(90) 
 
 Years they have been, by my Writings to 
 the moft Learned, fo obifrnately perfiit in fo 
 gre^t profaneneis of the moft lolcmn Funda- 
 mental Ordinance of Chriftianity,Baptifm of 
 Believers; to which the Holy 5cnpture af- 
 cnbes, fo much as to make it a means of Sal- 
 vation, Mark^i6.l6. l Pet. $.21* andout 
 of Jevpi[h Principles avouch intant-fprinkling, 
 which is no Bsrptifm-j nor was ever appointed 
 by Chart, or uied by his Apoftles ; but cor- 
 ruptly arofe with Infant-Communion, from 
 conceit of neceility ; and was oppofed by 
 fome of the mult Pious Chnitians in times of 
 Papal Anticnnhian Dominion , the rhoft 
 bloody and tyranical that ever was in the 
 World. As tor what priviledge Infants lofe 
 by not being baptized, let Mr. Witts (hew it , 
 I know none. The talke of Infants vifibk 
 Church-memberfhip is fabulous: fure the 
 Church of God is much corrupted by it, in 
 that men content themfelves tnercwirh, as if 
 Chriftned by it; the antient Method of Cate- 
 chifing and Preaching the Gofpel, and then 
 Baptizing Believers; and fo admitting to 
 Communion is almoR quite forfaken, and the 
 Churches termed Chriitian,confift for a great 
 part of Ignorant and Prophane Men and Wo- 
 men, of Heathenifh and Un-chnftian fpirits f 
 bating thofe who contend for the Truth. 
 
 SECT. 
 
(9i) 
 
 SECT. XIX. 
 
 Immcrfion not Sprinklings is the Baptifm 
 Chrifl appointed. 
 
 AS for Dipping or Plunging in Water 
 that S«jr7i$> in the conitant ufe of the 
 word in Greeks Authors fignifies immergo t and 
 thatimmerfion was the ufe ofBaptifm in the 
 time of John BaptiftjChrift and hisApoftks $ 
 and after for following Ages, tilitheabufeof 
 the perfufion and afperfion of the Clinlci and 
 Infants began is fo apparent from Scripture, 
 and Tertullians ter mergitawur^ and other wife 
 that it ismeerly out of a gainiaying Spirit to 
 deny it. To thofe you have fet down as ac- 
 knowledging it, I have added fome in the Ad- 
 dition to my Apology, Sett* 23. To whom N i 
 might add Heinfius, Ariflarch. on Nonnus , 
 c. 13./?. 96. & crebro & ex more Orientes n- 
 niverfum abhiijfe corpus ratio ac confaetudo di- 
 Bat. Quod gsLTni&dtu Scriptura Sacra dick, 
 Exercit. Sac. in 1 Cor. 15. 29. u fit at um ut 
 mergerentur, acdeindeex aqua toller entur bap- 
 tizati j quorum alteram v^d^m, alter um cL.d* 
 fujtv tnm dittnm. Which to have been thrice, 
 to (lie w iheir ProfeiTion of believing Chrift's 
 death by their immerfion thrice into the wa- 
 ter, as he was three nights in the earth, and 
 by emerfion his Refurrec/Hon 5 he fliews out of 
 Cyril of Bkrnfalem , Thomas Gataker , Ad- 
 
 ver- 
 
(9*) 
 
 vtrfkria Miftd. c. 4. p. 30 Inter bapt izjin* 
 dwn in aquas defcendebant : & e v eifdem de- 
 91 no aft en 'deb ant : cnjiis ygflaCdnwt ^ dvi£A7*ae 
 in Ennuchi v£thiofis tinElione ncntio evpnjfit 
 rcpttimr. A<ft. 8. 38, 39- £mu & ficuti in 
 ritti Chriftiano qtium immtrgerentnr^ aqttis obnt- 
 tl & qnaji ftpdti & Chri&o ipfi conftpulti quo- 
 dammodo videbantur, rurfufque cptm emergerenty 
 a ftpulchro qttodammoda refturgere ac cum Chri* 
 Jfo refuftitari prt ft ferebant, R m . 6 . 4, 5 . & 
 Colof. 2. 12. Ita % &c. moft fully Sir Norton 
 Knkchbttll) Animad.in Pet. 3.21. where he 
 brings many of the Antients averting Baptifm 
 to have been by merfion and emerfion to (hew 
 the belief of Chrifts Death and Refurredli- 
 on and Profeflion or Promife of Conformity 
 thereto, in dying to fin, and rifing to newnefs 
 of life, and that Saint Peter means it, when 
 lie terms Baptifm the flipulation of a good 
 Confcience towards God,by theRefurreftion 
 of Jcfus Chrift ; nor do I find that Dr. Feat- 
 ly in the place cited by Mr. Wills cites Hefy- 
 cbius y Stephanas, Scapula, Bud<zus \ nor if they 
 -did, do they term any warning without dip- 
 ping Baptifm. As for that in the LXX. Dan, 
 4. 3 3 . arm 7ijV <^^<th tc v£pvx ICdpn, it is not 
 i'GATTijSti ' and yet his bod y might be faid to 
 be dipt by the dew of Heaven, in that the bo- 
 dy. did wade in the water which was from the 
 dew of Heaven, or lie down .in it, which 
 fcems to be likely, in that the fame thing is 
 
 e»> 
 
5 93) 
 
 CXprefled ver. 1 5. h> rn f&cry t« *&v* Kctizfa 
 mvu. ver. Z^.ifTn ^^oro t& a^f* duKi^vicn," 
 leu. Sure it is, that in no Greek Author 
 GdLojiipas is the fame with paj/770^. And 
 if it beevil in Papiits not to break Bread, 
 nor to eat, but to lift up, mew and fwaliow 
 ( down whole the Hoft, when Chrift^did break 
 Bread, and bid eat it j it is evil when he bids 
 baptize, not to do it, but to rantize, and in 
 ftead of baptizing into the Name of Chrifl 
 dead and rifen, for us to water him who hath 
 no underflanding thereof. So that when he 
 faith, J baptize thee, to an Infant, and doth no 
 more, he fpeakcth untruth, and deceives thofe 
 that take it at his w T ord for Chriftian-Baptifrn. 
 As for the inconveniences to fome perfons,and 
 feme Countries^ they are without much diffi- 
 culty avoided by baptizing in w r arm water, at 
 ■fit times, in fit VefTels, and fit feafons. As for 
 the conceit, that it muft be prefently, it is 
 from the Error of pcriihing without it. As for 
 Mr .Wills his Anfwer of Original and Secon- 
 dary perfoos to be baptized it is without Scri- 
 pture, which makes no fuch diftinflion. Be- 
 lievers are rightly by you termed the right 
 materia cirea qHam } or Subjecl of Baptifnv, the 
 form of the Action, dicing, by which it is di- 
 ftinguifhed from rantifm or perfufion.In Bap- 
 fcifm aperfon is to be aclive, by yielding his 
 body. The words ufed arc not the form of 
 baptizing. Col. 2.1 1, 12. itisnotfaid, Chri- 
 flian Baptifm fucceeds Jewifh Gircumcifion* 
 
 SECT, 
 
a* 
 
 my 
 
 SECT. XX. 
 
 Some Notes on Parages of My, Wills 
 bout Waldenfes and others^ with 
 Concision of tbefe Animadverfions. 
 
 MR. Wills, chap. 7. pjig. 45. faith of me! 
 [two Reverend Divines, Mr. Mar- 
 fjd and Mr. Baxter rebuked me for endea- 
 vouring to defend my Opinion by Popifh For 
 geries and Slanders.] Had there been any can 
 dour in Mr. Wills, he would have alfo ac- 
 quainted his Reader, that I have anfwered; 
 this rebuke in my Pr achy for y Sett. 9. and not 
 have revived the Memory of their Calumnies 
 of me. Eut in recompenfe of his kindnefs^ 
 to me in publishing Mr. Alarftals and Mr.. 
 Baxters rebuke of me; I pray you put himi 
 in minde of his Saint-like dealing with you, ini 
 leaving outp.47.of theConfeflion cited by you^ 
 Article 7. thefe words [] By which alfo we 
 are received into the Holy Congregation of 
 the people of God, there proteftmg and de-; 
 daring openly our faith and amendment of 
 life] which agree not with ?iis darling of Baby, 
 baptifm. He faith, pag.6o, that our citing! 
 Bernard and others about Henrkus and -o-j 
 thers, astf no convircing proof were to be 
 fetcht from thence, becaufe they were theirs 
 Enemies. But others, as WjricHs in his Ca« 
 
 talogucj 
 
v 95 ; 
 
 talogueof WttnefTes againft Popery,concerve 
 good proof fetcht from them when they dis- 
 pute again ft them and anfwer their Allegati- 
 ons, as when from their Teftimonies we 
 prove they denied Tranfubftantiation, Prayer 
 for the dead, and other Points of Popery ; nor 
 is that any better Signe of a vifible Saint 
 which we meet with in Mr. Wills, ^£.94,106 
 &c. about Principles of Anabaptifts, as if 
 their Doctrine of baptizing at age, their con- 
 ftitution, &c. were ufually attended with 
 grofs Mifcarriages as arifing from them,which 
 might have been as juftly charged on Presby- 
 terians from the difordersof H^eket and o- 
 thers in Queen Elizabeths days ; on Indepen- 
 dents from Wheelwrights, Hutcbinfons, Dyers 
 and others Mi (carriages in New- England. For 
 my part, my TheodnlU and other Writings 
 and Converfation are my Plea againft fuch 
 barkings and bitings as I Made in this and o : 
 ther Antagonifts 5 and 1 ftill pray God to a- 
 waken thcm,that they m ay fee their fin w op- 
 pofing that neceffary duty of Believers Bap- 
 fifm ; and for your felf, that God would de- 
 liver you from every evil work, and preferve 
 you to his Heavenly Kingdom. For which 
 end I defire to acquiefce my felf, as • 
 
 Sarisbnry, Tour "Brother ,and to aU the People 
 Sept .2 1 , of God, a faithful Servant 
 
 1 674. inChrift, 
 
 JOHN TOMBES. 
 
(9<>) 
 
 Pofifcrtyt. 
 
 IN the Efayby Mr. Blindman^ the (hi ft for 
 avoiding Example and Command forwo- 
 mens receiving the Lords-Supper, from Act's 
 2. 46. Acts 20.7. 1 Cor. n.23, 28. becaufe 
 it is by confequence, and the Subjects are ex- 
 prcftin the M'afculine Gender, is vain. For 
 we are not againft Proofs by Confequences in 
 this matter, which are as this is, from the ufe 
 of words, which (hew women reckoned a- 
 mong Difciples,believers,baptized,as part of 
 theCnurch,Jfth 1,14. Acts 5.1. Arts S.n.Afy 
 9, 1,6. Acts y.26. Acts 21.9. and the baptized 
 Believers brake Bread, Albs 2. 40. the Difci- 
 pies came together to break Bread, Alls 20. 
 7. the whole Church, 1 Cor. r 1 . 29. Let a 
 Vh^tL*&$<*7&; 9 examine himfelf, and fo lee 
 him eat. Where although it be ittoffot in the 
 Mafculine Gender,, yet it comprehends wo- 
 men, as *' *i«, Mat. 2$. 19, 20.0 wf&tel, Mar^ 
 1 6 1 6, as in other matters common to both 
 Sexes, the Mafculine comprehends both, as 
 li >« *&c9vn%y*t ui fit PrifcilU and AqnilLi y Rom. 
 16. 3.4. Alls 18. a6. .that I omit other pla- 
 ccsvery many, as 1 Cor. 15. 22, 2;, 32, 3?, 
 51. Rom. 5. 12. And ail Members of Cfififts 
 body are faid to be partakers ol the fame 
 bread, I Or. 10 17, 1 Cor, 12. 13, B\lt it is 
 
 not 
 
ftotfo; for Infants, who are never reckoned 
 as Believers or Difciples baptized, Jftsi$. 
 io. is perverfly applied to Infants, the Difci- 
 ples being the Brethren, who were taught $ 
 and the putting the yoke by teaching thene- 
 ceility of Circumcifion, ver. i. 5. whereby 
 they tempted God ; but this was not done to 
 Infants. As for JBs 16. 15. 1 Cor, 1. 16. it 
 is manifeft, that Perfons of Age and Believers 
 are meant from the fame. Books, Jots 16. 3 1 , 
 32, 33. jifts 18. 8. Jits 10 2. 1 Cor. 16, 
 15, 19. ^O-tiTsuoaTB, Matth. 28. 19. fignifies 
 no more then making Difciples or Believers 
 By preaching the Gofpel, as is manifest from 
 Mm\\6. 15,16. John\. 1,2. and then to 
 be baptized. There's no colour for the con- 
 ceit of eonititutmg Gofpel Churches , and 
 putting converted Souls into Gofpcl-CcngrG- 
 gations, that they might orderly enjoy all 
 GofpcUOrdi nances among themfelves. 
 Though this were a duty, yet it is not expref- 
 fed by that word, which is manifeft from Jets 
 14. 2 1. where It is faid hkyyKi'avimn^ prea- 
 ching the Gofpel ntBerbe^ and ^i^tX't^/Is* 
 wkvxs f making many Difciples, they returned 
 to Ljjtia and Icbriiim, and Jntioch^ and there 
 confirmed i\^ Souls of the Difciples, ver. 21. 
 and after ver.ii. in each Church ordained 
 Elders; ether Acts than Difciplinp, for con- 
 'touting Churches, confirming [ordaining El- 
 tiers come after, and are expueiTed by other 
 Kofds; '(Mi$ti1s*$eif 9 Matth, 13.52. cannot 
 
 H : %t 
 
beunderftood of being put into a particular 
 Gofpel. Church, fith it is meant of the Apo- 
 ft!es,who were not to be in any particular 
 Church, but to go into all the world, and 
 preach the Gofpel to every Creature, Mark. 
 1 6. 15. And for Ifuflititvn aJ i^S", it can- 
 hot be meant Q in Churches in a particular 
 Congregation] Suh it isfaid, John 19. 38. he 
 
 ro V : which (hews he was a Difciple or Belie, 
 ver in Chrift, yet not openly profeffing him ; 
 which mud have been if joyned to a particu- 
 lar Church. Befides, John exprcfTing by ©V 
 fw3»T»* t$'Ik0-», what is faid Afatth, 27. 57. 
 IixaMuvo* t$ 'I«o-», (hews that it is no more! 
 than that he was a Difciple of Jefus, that if, 
 was one that had received Chrift's Doclrine, 
 believing that he was theChrift, Matth. i<5. 
 16. and did wait for the Kingdom of God 
 by him, a s the Son of God, the King of Ifrar 
 */, John 1. 49. Mark^l^. 43. Lake 23.51. 
 as Luke 2. 25. Luke 24. 21. Afts 1. 6. which 
 being conlidereu, it is apparent that what the 
 Author fancies of Infants being mediate Di- 
 fciplcs and vifible Church-Members, as be- 
 ing parts of their inchurched Parents, is a 
 meer Dream, if not alfo a fraudulent fiction. 
 And that which is deduced by him from 1 Cor, 
 7. 14. of Infants holinefs,as Church-Members 
 by Parents faith 5 hath all its ground from the 
 foyfting into the Text twice [believing] and 
 rendring Q» by] which is better rendreu £tol 
 
 acv 
 
ecording to thcufe, Mattb.ij. 12. Com- 
 ared with AJ4rk..9.*$* and Col. 1.29. 2 Ptf.i . 
 5,5,7. with fundry more elfewhere produced. 
 As for his talk of Chriftians by Nature , the 
 Church-feed of Abraham by the Faith of the 
 Inchurchcd Parent Intituling to the Initiatory 
 Seal, fo as to be ChrifVs Ecclefiaftical, Vifi- 
 ble Church Members of Chrift, as head of the 
 Vifibte Church, Children of the Promife, in 
 the Covenant Gen. 17.7. externally thereby 
 having Title to the Seal of the Covenant 
 ( which Baptifm is faid to be as fucceeding 
 Circumcifion ) by vertue of Parents Cove- 
 nant for them, with whom he cites God as 
 Covenanting,!^. 29.14- whereas the Per- 
 fonfpeaking there is Mojes , making God to 
 have externally Confecrared Inchurched Pa- 
 rents and their Seed, to be his People, com- 
 prehending them within the External and 
 Ecclefiaftical Difpenfation of his Covenant ^ 
 and thereby Intituling them to the Initiatory 
 Seal thereof, as promiling to be a God to 
 them and their Seed externally at leaft, it is 
 New-minted Gi.bberim, and meer Prattle, 
 without any deduction from Gen. 17. Rom. 
 4. 11. Rom. 11. 17, 2,3. Col. 2. ii,i2. or 
 any other Scripture, however importunately 
 urged in Pulpits and Books by fome Divines 
 fince the Controverfie arofe about Paedobap- 
 Xifm in th.efe two lad Ages : who have feign- 
 ed a Command from Analogy of Circumcifi- 
 on and Baptifm 5 and Believers Infants of the 
 H 2 Gentiles 
 
(ioo; 
 
 Gentiles being in Covenant as Abraham's 
 Seed, Gen. 17. 7. though neither in the New 
 Teftament is there any ground for it, nora- 
 riy proof of the praclice of Infantbaptifm 
 therein, or in the Age next after the Apoftles ; 
 nor in tjie next to that ; but from a fuppofed 
 neceffity in cafe of imminent danger of Death, 
 . from John 3.5. as there was likewife of 
 giving them the Communion from John 6. 53. 
 Nor hath Dr. Howes, Mr. Cobbet, or Mr. 
 Sidenham, done that which may be juftly 
 Pleaded for Infant-baptifm out of Scripture 
 or antiquity: But theirs and many more's 
 miftakes are fully fhewed in my Exercitation, 
 Examen y Afologj y Pr<ecnrfir, Preview, and 0- 
 ther Writings : which is enough to mew, that 
 the Author of the Effay hath not brought 
 fuch proof for Infantbaptifm as you have for 
 Womens receiving the Lords Supper. And 
 for his fhifc of avoiding your proofs for im- 
 merfioa in ChriiYs Baptifm, by alledging it is 
 Mat. 3. 16. M not i« he might have dif- 
 cerned , that jitts 8. the Defcent v. 38. 
 «r to vtyf and v. 39. the Afcent lu. to vfe-m 
 prevent that Evafion, and both thefe Texts, 
 and John 3. 23. the Commodioufnefs of 
 miich, or many Waters for Johns Baptifm , 
 befides Chriftian Baptifm , as refembling 
 Chrift's Death and Refurreclion exprefled, 
 Rom. 6. 3,4. Col. 2. 12. with the conftant 
 life of the Word in all forts of Authors, Ter- 
 iHUUns 9 and others Expreflions • the fayings 
 
(IOI) 
 
 of the moft accurate and skillful in Greeks 
 Language do fo fully prove , that Baptifm 
 ought to be with Dipping ; that were not 
 Perfons refolvcd to wnhftand plain Truth 
 they would not plead for Infant-fprinkling,' 
 inftead of Chriftian-baptifm , nor miflead 
 People with their Impofrures. Concerning 
 which, if any be deceived by them, after fo 
 full Difcovery of the Futility of them, I may 
 fay, that they are deceived ; becaufe they 
 are willing to be deceived. 
 
 S#V, 
 
 I Meeting with thefe words in a Book Inti- 
 tuled, Primitive Chriftiamty , part I. c.^o. 
 fag. 302, 303. [Bow far the baptizing of In- 
 fants is included in our Saviours Inftitution, 
 is not my work to^difpute 5 but certainly, if 
 in controverted Cafes, the conftant practice 
 of the Church, and thofe who immediately 
 fucceeded the Apoftles be (as no man can 
 deny it is) the beft Interpreter of the Laws 
 of Chrift, the Difpute one would think 
 mould be at an end. For that it always was 
 the Guftom to receive the Children of Chri- 
 ftian Parents into the Church by Baptifm, wc 
 have fufficient evidence from the greareft part 
 of the moft early Writers, Irenes, TertullUn^ 
 Orige*, Cyprian, ckc. whofe Teftimonies I 
 
 do 
 
(ioz) 
 
 do noUwoduce, bccaufe I find them colletfei 
 by othfrs,?. G. Vofs. dehaft- WW'Jf-tft 
 178, &fa Forbes Infra*. Hifl.Tbef. Ub 
 
 fyfam.Saftifm. c.4. Seel. 2- and the Argu- 
 ments thence fo forcible and concluhve, that 
 the moft zealous oppofers of Infant-Baptifm 
 know not how to evade ir, the Teftimonies 
 being fo clear, and not the leaft ftadow that I 
 know of in thofe times of any thing to mike 
 againft it] by William Cave, D. D. Printed for 
 Richard Chisel, the Author, I fuppofe be- 
 ingof account about London; if you think 
 fit either by word or otherwife, you may iig- 
 nifie to him or others, that if thepraftice of 
 the Church interpret the Laws of Chnlt tor 
 Infant-Baptifm, it doth as much for Infant- 
 Communion, and Immerfion ; he himfelt,p4f . 
 105. confeffing, thofe who made up the mam 
 body of the Baptized in thofe days were A- 
 dult perfons ; ufually they were for fome con- 
 fiderabie time Catechized, fag. 31 5; with 
 Interrogations to the Baptized , and his An- 
 fwers: fag. 320. the Party to be baptized 
 was wholly immerged or put under water, 
 which was the almoft conftant andumverfal 
 cuftom of thofe times.whereby they did more 
 notably and fignificantly exprefs the three 
 great ends and effeds of Baptifm, reprefent- 
 ingChrifts Death, Burial, Refurredion , and 
 our Conformity to it, as the Apoftle clearly 
 explains the meaning of this Rite, Rom. 6. 3, 
 
 4, 
 
4,5A p. 329. till Confirmation was done the 
 Baptized were not accounted compIeatChri 
 (bans, nor admitted to the 'Holy Communi- 
 on, nor could challenge any actual right to 
 thofc , <great Priviledges of ChrifHanitv • 
 whence it is that the Ancients fo often fpeak 
 of Confirmation, as that which did perfect 
 and confummate Baptifm. ch. u.pag 3;* j 
 take no notice in this place of their gfviri the 
 Euehanft to new-baptized Infants, the°cate 
 . being fo commonly known and obvious p a <r 
 349. they dipt the Bread in the Wine in trie 
 cafe of baptifed Infants, to whom they admi 
 mftred tncEuchariftin thofe Primitive n mcs 
 and to very weak dying perfons. tag; *c ' 
 their Sacramental Wine was generally dilu- 
 ted and mixed with water, which arefufficf 
 cnt toihcw (that I mention not other CiT 
 ftoms by him cenfeffed about Eafitr baptf 
 Zing then and at WhitCmnide, their Clothing 
 and other Rites.Geftures at Prayer, the Com*' 
 mumon^jthattheprafliceofthe Church 
 is no good Interpreter of Chrifts Law for Jn« 
 tants Baptifm. Nor was it always the Cu- 
 Cuitom to receive the Children of Chriftian 
 Parents into the Church by Baptifm, asthc 
 cafe of StazJemun and otheri fhews, But 
 they did only baprize Infants in cafe of ' fitted 
 nent danger of prefent death, nsTertul.^d vfe 
 JVazjeu. words (hew, nor did they deny Bab 
 tifm to any Infant of any Parent at any rimt 
 conceiving erroniouily they faved it thereby as 
 
Cyprians abfurd Epiftle to Eidns (hews ; which 
 is fo frivolous, as (hould rather be laid afide 
 than urged by an undemanding Proteftanr. 
 There are no words of Ireruus that make for 
 Infant-BaptJfm : Thofe 1.2. c. 39. Chriflus 
 vevit Per fiiffum omnes falvare, if they prove 
 Infant baptilm, prove Chrift himfelf to have 
 baptized, contrary to John 4. 2. Tmullian 
 diffwadesfromit \ Voffins himfelf exprcfieth 
 his uncertainty about Origen , what he hath 
 produced for Infanr-Baptifm, is anfwered 
 in my Latin Refutation of Dr. Savage^ 
 what Dr. Hammond hath written for ir, 
 hath been fo fully refuted m the later 
 Sections of the Second and third parts of my 
 tleview , that were not mens hearts hard- 
 ned in Error they would take heed of Print- 
 ing fo palpable fallhoods, as to fay, that the 
 mod zealous oppofers of Infant- Bapti fin , 
 know not how to evade the Arguments of 
 thefe men for Infant-baptifm, and to afTert 
 them to be forcible andconclufive, and the 
 teftimonies fo clear, and not the lead Ihadov* 
 in thofe times of any thing to mike againfl it j 
 whcnb»th thelnftitution of Ghrift, and the 
 ApoftlcspracVeare againft it, and the Te- 
 itimonics he produceth do make againft it it 
 ssnowitisufed out of the cafe of ncceflky*, 
 without Immerfion.andAnfwcrs of the bap- 
 tized. 
 
 Animad- 
 
(iqj; 
 
 4"V~ 
 I « 
 
 Animadveriions on fome 
 PafTages in the Book of 
 Common -prayer, about 
 Baptifm and Confirma- 
 tion, tending to fhew 
 Reafons of Non-fub- 
 fcription, and Noncon- 
 formity to that part of the 
 Book, and the need of its 
 Reformation. 
 
 THE firft Anirhadverflon, is on the words 
 of the Catechifm, wherein this Quefti- 
 >n is asked, What is required of Per font to bi 
 tapti&edr and the Anfwer is, Repentance 
 vhereby thejforfa^e ftn i and Faith whereby thtj 
 ftedfafllj believe the protuifes of Cod made I* 
 hem in that Sacrament* This is againft ln- 
 ant-baptifin which the Book appoints , as 
 1 is 
 
is thus proved. They who want the condi- 
 tion required of Perfons to be baptized accor- 
 ding to the Lyturgy, are not to be baptized ; 
 but all Infants want the condition required 
 of Perfons to be baptized according to the 
 Lyturgy, therefore no Infants are to be bap- 
 ttzed. The major is mariifeft from a Rule in 
 Logick, that the condition required being not 
 -put, the thing conditioned is not to tap/tf ,negata 
 conditione ( five qua non > res conditionata 
 effe non poteft, Schirb : Top.c.q. n.q.lO. 
 The minor is thus proved. They want the 
 condition required of Perfons to be baptized 
 according to the Common-frajer Bookj, who 
 want Repentance whereby they forfake find 
 and Faith whereby they ftedfaftly believe the 
 promife of God made to them in that Sacra- 
 ment. This Proportion is plain, fith that is 
 the condition prefcribed in the Catechifm, ac- 
 knowledging according. to Truth, that by 
 Chrift's Inftitution , and the Apoflles , and 
 Primitive Teachers Commands, Declarati- 
 ons and Praclife, thefe things are prerequi- 
 rcd to Baptifm of them that are to be bapti- 
 zed, Mat. 28. 19. Marh^j6. \6. Jo. 4.1. 
 slttsz. 38,41. ^^8.12.13.37. j4tlsio, 
 47,48. jittsu. 17, 18. J5ts 16. 14, 15. 
 31, 32, 33, 34. Ad;s 1$. 8. Ms 19. 5. 
 Gal. 3. 26, 27. Eph. 4. 5. ef-ci And there- 
 fore they that want it, mull needs want the 
 condition required of them that are to be bap- 
 tized j but all Infants want this Repentance 
 
 and 
 
and Faith, which is tatcen as granted in th e 
 Catechifm ; fith in the Anfwer to the nex c 
 Queftion it is not denied, which is in th c 
 Jg ue ft ion \ that Infants by reafon of their tende r 
 Age they cannot perform them : and is proved 
 by fenfe, there being no figns^ whereby fuch 
 Repentance and Faith in Infants is percep- 
 tible ; but figns of the privation of them, and 
 reafon , which fhews them uncapable of un- 
 demanding what they mould repent of, and 
 believe: therefore all Infants want the con- 
 dition required of Perfons to be baptized. 
 
 The Anfwer to this in the Catechifm ls y 
 ( Yes, they do perform them by their Sureties, 
 who Promife and Tow, them both in their Names, 
 which when they come to Age, them ft Ives are 
 "bound to perform) which is untrue, and in- 
 efficient to folve the Objeclion. For, i. 
 It faith that ( the Perfons termed God- Fathers 
 and God* Mothers, are Sureties for the Child ; 
 and that they Promife and Vow Repentance and 
 Faith in the Name of the Child ; but in the 
 Anfwers made by them in the Common- prayer 
 Book ( I for fake them all, all this I fledfaftly 
 believe, thai ismj deflre ) there is no Promife 
 or Vow ( which is of a thing future to be 
 done after thc Promife) but a Profcflion of 
 a thing in prefent being already do*re ; and 
 therefore they arc rather to be termed Attur- 
 r.eys, or Proxies for the Child, than Sure- 
 ties. 2. Irisfaidthat ( their Sureties do Pro- 
 \mife and Yow Repentance and Faith in the 
 I> 2" Name- 
 
f jc8; 
 
 Name of the Children \ which may be undep- 
 ftood two ways. i. That the Sureties do 
 Promife and Vow by Deputation, or Com- 
 miflion from the Children, as when the 
 Prophets arc faid tofpeak^in the Name of 'the 
 Lord, Jam. 5. 10. but this fenfc is not true 5 
 there is no fuch Commifiion, or Deputatioa 
 from any Child. 2. That the Sureties do 
 Perfonate the Child, as when in a Play one 
 Afts the Part of another ; but this is too 
 light a thing for fo fcrious an Aclion *, and 
 yet what other fenfe to make of that Ex* 
 preflion I know not : furc it cannot be that 
 by ( in the Name of the Child) fhould be 
 meant in the power of the Child, as when 
 the Pfatmifi faith, PfaU 118. 10. In the Name 
 of the Lord I will deftroy them; not in the 
 Name of the Child ; that \s to that honour, 
 fervice,or owning of the Child as Lord and 
 Matter, as when Peter commanded Cornelius 
 to he baptized in the Name of the Lord Jef*s 9 
 Jill j. 10. 48. And therefore I cannot imma- 
 gine any fenfe of that Speech which may be 
 true} and fitting that bufinefs. 3. Itisfup- 
 pofed that Per Jons may Lawfully become Sure, 
 ties for a Childs Repentance and Faith, for his 
 admijjion to Baptifm. But this feems ro me a 
 thing that may not be granted. For, i.How. 
 ever a Man may Promife and Vow forhim- 
 felf, that which is in his power to do ; yet as 
 in theCafeofMonaftick Vows ofContinen- 
 cy, it is determined; that a Man cannot 
 
 Law- 
 
4 J09 ; 
 
 lawfully Vow that which is a Peculiat Gift, 
 which God promifeth not to all, and fo is not 
 in his own power ° y fo we may much more 
 refolve, that a Man is not by Vow, or Pro- 
 mife to undertake that for another, much lefs 
 for an Infant, which is not in his power to 
 perform : nor hath aiTurance from another, 
 that it (hall be performed. 2. It is in Chrift s 
 Peculiar Title, Heb. 7. 22. To be the Snretj 
 of that bttter Covenant', and therefore it is a 
 iiigh arrogant preemption in any,befides 
 Chrift, to undertake for another the perfor- 
 mance of the condition of that new Cove- 
 nant, to wit, Repentance and Faith j it is 
 in eifecl to make himfelf, Mediator between 
 Cod and Man : which is a moft hainous U- 
 furpation of Chrift's Office, 7. Tim. 2. 5. 
 4. It is fuppofed, that the Child is hound to 
 perform the Condition when he comes to Jige \ 
 which is granted to be true, in refpeel of his 
 Perfonal Obligation ; but that Sureties from 
 whom he defcends not, -nor derives any 
 benefit, nor are fuperiours to him, mould 
 oblige him by a Peculiar Engagement through 
 their voluntary undertaking, it may be jullly 
 doubted It is the refolution of the Learned 
 Dr. Sanderfon now Bijhop of Lincoln dejnr** 
 merit i pr<tlel~b. 4. feci. 9 In perfonalibtu nemo 
 kgatur fne propria Confenfu obli^ationcmfpiri. 
 tualem qna eft in confeientia neceffe eft efie per- 
 fonatem ficuteftfaa cniqnc Confeientia propria , 
 & qn& non foffit tranfirc in aliam perfomm. 
 I 3 In 
 
(110) 
 
 In Perfonal Anions no Man is bound without 
 his own confent. It is necejfary that the fpiritual 
 Obligation which is in the Conference be Per fi- 
 nal, as to each Man is his own proper Conscience, 
 which cannot pafs unto another Per [on. King 
 James in hh defence of the Rite of Kings, p. 1 5 . 
 c. 4. Nor is it material to reply , that a King 
 Succeeding by Inheritance, takes an Oath in the 
 Perfon ofhis Pradecejfor, for every Oath is Per- 
 fonal, proper to the Perfon by whom it is taken ; 
 and to God no living Creature can fwetr , that 
 his own Son, or his Heir apparent jhall prove an 
 honeft Man. 5. It is fuppofed in the Anfwer 
 that this Promife and Vow in the Childs Name 
 by Sureties, is fnffcient to Intitle an Infant to 
 Baptifm^ by fuppljing the Defect of Perfonal 
 Repentance, and Faith in the Child : and with- 
 out this, the Objection againfi Infant- baptifm 
 could not be well folved. But the firftisnot. 
 true. For 1. Neither by any Law of Nature 
 of Chriftor his Apoftles is thisDifpenfation 
 granted , that the Subftitution of another's 
 Repentance and Faith ( who is only a volun- 
 tary Surety^ mould fupply the defed of them 
 required in theperfon to be baptized ; nor is 
 there power in any Council or Prelates (term- 
 ed the Church) in this manner to anfwer 
 ChrirVsInftitution. 
 
 2. If there be a neceflity of Sureties to 
 fupply the dcfecl: of perfonal Repentance and 
 Faith, then is private Baptifm (in which are 
 no Sureties afore the baptizing of the Infant 
 
 to 
 
to promife and vow Faith and Repentance 
 in his "Name, and only fomeone is to name the 
 Child ) are unwarrantable and infufficient 
 for dcfecl of Sureties, contrary to the order 
 and appointment of the fame Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, which only requires, that if the 
 Childe live and be after the Baptifm brought 
 to Church, the Minifter mould then demand 
 in the Childs name concerning Repentance 
 and Faith ; but allowing the Baptifm as fuffi- 
 cient and not to be iterated. 6. This Anfwer 
 varies from that which Anguftin^ Epift.23. 
 ad Bonif actum gave, when Bonifacim demand- 
 ed of him, how it could be true, that the In. 
 fant mould be faid to believe • he did not an- 
 fwer that he did it by Sureties, but by recei- 
 ving the Sacrament of Faith, Sacraments, re- 
 ceiving the Names of the thing fgni fed by Rea- 
 fon of thelikenefs they have to it ; which mews 
 that the Anfwer made to the Objection in the 
 Catechifm is not Antient, or at lead not liked 
 by -dngu. 7. The Anfwer in the Catechifm, 
 fuppofeth the Baptizer may take the Sureties 
 promife , inftead of the Childs perfonal pro- 
 feiTion for the admifiion of him to Baptifm, 
 but (hews no power given to him to make 
 fuch a commutation ; nor indeed have Chrift 
 or his Apoftles (who only could) given them 
 any fuch power, but as in the Lords-Supper 
 we are tied toChrifVs Inftitution, 1Or.11. 
 23. So by parity of Reafon we are in Bap- 
 tifm. And if a Minifter, a Council of Bi- 
 I 4 mops 
 
(hops may authorize a Subftitution of one man* 
 Faith for anothcr's^hcy may allow one's Bap- 
 tifm for another's, as fome conceive bapti- 
 zing for the dead meant iCor. 15.29. yea, 
 baptizing any though Infidels, and fo bapti- 
 zing perfons by droves, as the Spaniards did 
 in America ; and in this thing the baptizing 
 of Infants by reafon of a Sureties promifc 
 hath lefs of right then fuch an Indians Bap- 
 tifm, who hfmfelf profefleth not faith, if he 
 do but agree they (hall fpeak for him, which 
 an Infant cannot do,nor do any thing towards 
 fuch a deputation, nor can give any affurance 
 of his performing what the Sureties promifc 
 for him. 8. The Catcchifm makes the thing 
 required ( no doubt by ChrifUnd his Apoflles) i 
 to be the repentance and faith of the per/on 
 to be baptized. Now the Sureties are not the 
 perfons to be baptized, therefore their aft is 
 not the performance of the condition required 
 of perfons to be baptized. 9. A pro* 
 mife or vow of a thing future, if it were cer- 
 tain, much more if it be contingent and un- 
 certain, cannot be the performance of a con- 
 dition required to cxift in being before the 
 thing conditioned to be done } therefore the 
 promife of future believing cannot be the 
 right performance of that repentance and 
 faith, which was to go before Baptifm. 10. 
 If this Difpenfation or Commutation were 
 allowed in Baptifm, it might be alfo allowed 
 jin the Lords-Supper, there being no more re- 
 quired 
 
quired to go before the LordsSuppfcr, than Is 
 to go before Baptifra nor perhaps fo much, 
 at lead the Minifter is not (o exprcfly tied to 
 require them before the Lords-Supper, as by 
 Philips anfwer to the Eunuch , A&s 8.36, 37, 
 38. and Feiers fpeech of Cornelius, Ads 10. 
 47, 48. A&s 11. 17. he is to require 
 them before taptifm ^ nor is at leaf! fo ex- 
 prefly and plainly made a Minifters duty 
 to give the Bread and Wine to Communi- 
 cants, as it is the Preachers to baptize, Atatth, 
 ZS. 19. Mark: 16. 15, 16. And therefore 
 with greater rcafon Infants-Communion 
 (which many Writers acknowledge to have 
 been ufed 600 years at leaft in the Chriftian 
 Churches, and was not condemned that I 
 know ti}Uhc7Vr«- Council) fhould be revi- 
 ved. 
 
 The Second Animadverfion is upon the 
 Queftions propounded in the Common-Pray- 
 er Book to the Infant to be baptized, Whether 
 it renounee the Devil) and Believe in Chrifi, and 
 Will be baptised: Thefe Queftions are pro- 
 pounded to the Infant to anfwer, which is a 
 plain evidence, that at firft, and of old, none 
 were to be baptized but fuch as could anfwer 
 to thofe Queftions ; and thus it was concei- 
 ved by Ludovicui fives in his Comment, on 
 Augufiine deCivit* Dep, lib. I cap* 27. The 
 CuTtomof propounding Queftions to Infants 
 to be anfwered by them bejng of jt felf an ir- 
 rational thing, but that thereby the Primitive 
 
 ufe 
 
ufe of baptizing none but thofe that could 
 anfwer, is fomewhat recorded ; now that 
 which is from the beginning is right, and is to 
 be the Rule infuch Inftitutions as our Lord 
 Chrift determines about Marriage, Matth. 19. 
 8. qnodyrinmmverum\ Innovations are Irre- 
 gularities : whence I argue, That Baptifm 
 which is an Innovation from the Primitiveln- 
 ftitution and praclife is noc regular, but an 
 aberration from the Rule, and to be reformed 
 by reducing it to the firft Rule and Pattern ; 
 this Proportion is grounded on our Lord 
 Chrifts determination about Marriage, Matu 
 19. 8. and P^«k rectifying the diforder of the 
 Coritithians, by reducing them to Chrifts In- 
 ftitution and Primitive Practice, 1 Cor. it. 
 23. there being in this the fame reafon of Bap- 
 tifm as of the Lords-Supper;nor is there any 
 power given to the Minifter to fwervc from 
 Chrifts Inftitution,or to any Prelate, or Coun- 
 cil-General, National or Provincial, or to any 
 after the Apoftles, under the name and pre- 
 tence of the Authority of the Church, to alter, 
 or to vary from Chrifts Inftitution , as Protc- 
 ftants juftly plead againft Papiftsin the points 
 of the denying of wine in the Eucharrft to Lay- 
 perfons, Refervation, carrying about , adora- 
 tion of the Hoft; as the 28th Article of the 
 Church of England urgeth, That being not to 
 be done which was not ordained. But bapti- 
 zing of Infants is an Innovation from the Pri- 
 mitive Inftitution and Praclife, and there- 
 fore 
 
fore it is irregular. The Minor is proved thus, 
 That Baptifm is an Innovation from the Pri- 
 mitive Inftitution and praclife in theMini- 
 ftration,of which the perfon baptized doth 
 not anfwer to the Queftions. This is proved 
 from the ufe of propounding and anfwering 
 Queftions by the baptized , Acts 8.36,37, 
 38. 1 Pet. 3.21. and many places in 7m///- 
 lian^ Cjfrian, Auguftin % &c. and the continu- 
 ed ufe of after-ages, of which the propound- 
 ing Queftions in the Common-prayer Book 
 to the Infant to be baptized is a manifeft foor- 
 ftep,or fign & proof.But in the miniftration of 
 Iufant-Baptifm, the Perfon baptized doth not 
 anfwer to the Queftions, therefore it is an In- 
 novation. If it be faid, the Sureties, or Pa- 
 rents anfwer for them : I reply, Sureties 
 themfelves are an Innovation, & it is an Inno- 
 vation that Suicties or Parents anfwer for the 
 Infant to be baptized,, and however it be in 
 Civil Cuftoms, Lords of Mannors take one's 
 Anfwer for another's ; yet it is not to be fo iri 
 Sacraments without Chrift's allowance and 
 acceptance, or the Apcftles Declaration ; and 
 Sureties do undertake that which they cannot 
 perform, and intrench upon Chrift's peculiar 
 Ofhce,Heb. 7. 22. 
 
 A Third Animadverfion is upon the Rnbrick^ 
 before publique Baptifm, which faith thus, It 
 appeareth by Antient Writers, that the Sacr*- 
 wtrit of Baptifm in the old time was not com- 
 monly adminiftred but at wo times in they ear ^at 
 Eaftcr and Whitfuntide, at which times it was 
 
 cpwiy 
 
9ftnty mini fired in the prefence of aU the Congrt- 
 gat tort, which Cufiom being now grown out ofufe % 
 M though it cannot for many confederations) be 
 well reftored again j it is thought good to follow 
 the fame as near as conveniently may be. The 
 reafon of this Cufiom was the Catechizing be- 
 fore in Lent, as Bellarmine, Controv. Tow.$. 
 lib. i . de baptifmo, cap. 26. Effe item hanc an* 
 tiquam & univerfalem confuetudinem patet ex 
 Catechefibus Cyriili, ft* ideo in quadragepma 
 habit & pint, quia praparab ant adbaptifmHm t m 
 Pafchate celebrandum. It appears likewife this 
 to be an Antient and universal Cufiom by the 
 Catechiftngs of "Cyril, which were therefore had 
 in Lent, becaufe they prepared to celebrate Bap- 
 tifm at Eafter. Dr. Pearfon's Expofition of 
 the Creed, Article i*f*g. 14. The neceffityof 
 Conjeffion of Taith the wifdom of the Church 
 in former Ages hath thought a [undent ground 
 to command the receiving of that Creed at the 
 firfi initiation into the Church by Baptifm y for 
 which purpofe it was taught and expounded to 
 thofe which were to be baptized immediately be- 
 fore the great Solemnity of Eafter. This Cuftom 
 in fome parts was fo itridlly obferved, that as 
 Socrates in his 5th Book of his Ecclef. Hifio- 
 ry % chap. 21. faith, in Theflaly they baptized 
 none Infants nor others but at Eafter. Now 
 rhis Cuttom, the Common-Prayer Book faith, 
 It is thought good to follow as near as convenient" 
 ty may be\ which is done when the reafon and 
 end of it, the Inftroclion of perfons is fol- 
 lowed 5 whence I argue, That Cuftom which 
 
 was 
 
cm) 
 
 was Antient, and is to be followed as near as 
 conveniently may be, is at leaft fo far 
 to be reftored, as that the end and rcafon of it 
 is to be obferved. But the Cuftom of bapti- 
 zing folemnly at Easier and Whitfnntide is 
 Antient, and to be followed as near as conve- 
 niently may be, as the Rnbrick faith, there- 
 fore it is to be reftored. But it cannot con- 
 veniently be reftored in refpecl of the time 
 precifely fet down, as the fame Rabrick^ faith, 
 therefore it (houid be reftored in preparation 
 to Baptifm, at all times, by Catechifmg firft 
 thofe that arc to be baptized ; and therefore 
 other Baptifm than of Infants fhouldbe re- 
 ftored - 7 arid no man punifhed for being bapti- 
 zed at age, or baptizing perfons at age, nor 
 Infants be baptized, but all perfons firft in- 
 ftrucled afore they are baptized, or however 
 not folemnly be baptized, nor out of the Cafe 
 of imminent peril , of death , nor are 
 Curates to exhort perfons that they defer 
 not Baptifm till the next holy day, nor God- 
 fathers and God-mothers to be required to 
 bcprefent,and theLyturgy in appointing no 
 other Baptifm but of Infants , doth therein 
 quite vary from all Antiquity. 
 
 A fourth Animadverfion, is on the reafon 
 given of baptizing Infants in the Preface to 
 the Adminiftration of Publique-baptifm in 
 thefe words. Dearly beloved, for afrmtch as a£ 
 Aien be Conceived, and Born in fin \ and that 
 vw Savionr Chrtft faith, that none can enter int4 
 
 the 
 
the Kingdom of God; except he be Regenerate, 
 arid Born anew of Water and the Holy-Ghofl. I 
 befeechyonto call upon God the Father, through 
 our Lord ft fas Chrift,&c. And after Baptifm, 
 feeing now Dearlj beloved Brethren, that thefe 
 Children be Regenerate, &c Which Speeches 
 do (hew, that Infants are Baptized according 
 to the L\turgy upon fuppofition, that by 
 reafon of Original fin, without Baptifm they 
 cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ; and 
 that by it they are Regenerate : which two 
 tenents are the ground on which Aagnftin, 
 and others efpecially after him held a neceflity 
 of Infant baptifm, to prevent its damnation .« 
 and that there was a certainty of Regenera- 
 tion and Salvation to the Infant, whether 
 Born of a Believer or not ; whether brought 
 to Baptifm for Regeneration, or Bodily care ; 
 whether baptized by an ordeined Minifter, or 
 other Perfon ; and thefe tenents are the on- 
 ly Reafon urged by Cyprian, libi 3. Ep. 8* 
 ad Fidum, The mod Antient Authority Aw- 
 gullin alledgeth for Infant-baptifoi: and by 
 Anguttin r, Ep. 23. & 28. and elf where , 
 and others of the Fathers, who maintain In. 
 fant*baptifm on no other Reafon • and then 
 only when the imminent Peril of Death 
 makes it necefiTary to fave the Child from 
 periming : upon which Reafon they held 
 alfoa neceffky of giving them the Communi- 
 on. But thefe tenenrs Proteftant Divines d<> 
 rejeel, andconfequently fhouU reject infant- 
 
 'bapiifiiv 
 
(129) 
 baptifm on thofc grounds^ and notAdmini- 
 fter it in thofe Expreflions , or if they allow 
 it only on thofe grounds, are to Practice on- 
 ly in that cafe ; and fo muft ufe only Pri- 
 vate-baptifm : and by others then Lawful 
 Minifters, as it was Printed afore the Con- 
 ference at Hampton-Court) i Jac. And if An- 
 tiquity be to be followed ( which is the 
 chief Allegation for Infant- baptifm ) the 
 Communion is to be given with Baptifm to 
 Infants, 
 
 A fifth Animadverfion,is on that Paffagc 
 of the Lyturgy which direcls, Mark^io.i$ f 
 14, 15, 16. to be Read as the Gofpel on 
 that occafion of Infant-baprifm } and there- 
 upon the Prieft is to afTure thofe prefent, that 
 our Heavenly Father without doubt favourably 
 alloweth their JM as a charitable work^ in 
 bringing the Children to Chrift's Holy Baptifm, 
 But there is nothing in the Text which makes 
 it a charitable work to bring Children to 
 Chrift\j Holy Baptifm, muchlefs to bring 
 them to be baptized by every ordeined Prieft, 
 though unable to Preach the Gofpel , or 
 to give account of the Chnftian Faith with 
 understanding ; and many times fo vicious, 
 as to be the common Reproach of the Mini- 
 dry, and fomtimes fcarce fober in the very 
 Miniftration ; nor is there any thing in the 
 ; Text, to fhew that our Heavenly Father al- 
 loweth of bringing any Infant to Bapt»fm 
 as a charitable work, in the Text there is 
 
 not 
 
(no) 
 
 not a word to fhew, that Chrift would have 
 any Infants brought to any other but him- 
 fclr* ; nor doth he blame any for not bringing 
 them to his Difciples, nor his Di Triples for 
 not baptizing them, ( though Jefits baptized 
 not) but his Difciples did baptize thofc 
 only who were firlt made Difciples, Jo. 4.1.) 
 but for not permitting them to be brought 
 to himfelf ; nor doth he baptize them^ 
 or give any directions to that end, but 
 himfelf laid his Hands on them and blejfed 
 them by Prayer defired , Matth. 19. 13. 
 And if the Apoftles had any intimation 
 from Chrift that it had been a charitable work 
 to baptize them, they had been uncharitable 
 in not doing it, and the Evangclifts untrufty 
 in not recording it as a thing appointed or in- 
 timated by Chrift for an after-Rule or Par- 
 tern; yea, their omiflion of the mention of 
 it then is a good proof, that it was not to be 
 done then, nor by us now, whence I argue, 
 That it is no charitable work, nor to be con* 
 ceived as favourably allowed by Chrift in po-* 
 fitive Rires which Chrift appointed not, nor 
 the Apoftles took to be fuch, but neglecledit 
 without blame, when there was a fit occafion 
 for Chrift to direct, and them topraclife it* 
 But Chrift appointed trot, nor the Apoftles 
 took it to be a charitable work to bring Chil- 
 dren to Baptifm, but neglecled it without 
 blame, when there was fit occafion for Chrift 
 to direct it, and them topradife it; there- 
 fore 
 
fore the bringing of Children to Baptifm is 
 riot by that Text made a charitable work, or 
 favorably allowed by God. 
 
 Sixthly. This occafions alfo a further A- 
 nimadverfion on thofe words in the Lyturgy 
 Donbtje not therefore becanfe of Chrifts Com- 
 mand that thofe Children Jhottld be brought to 
 him, his blame of his Difciples inhibition to it 
 his exhortation to follow their innocencie, his de- 
 claration of his good will towards them, but ear- 
 neftly believe that he will favourably receive thefe 
 prefent Infants, that he will embrace them with 
 the arms of his mercy 9 that he will give unto 
 themtheblejfmgof eternal life, and make them 
 partakers of his everlafting Kingdom t and af- 
 ter , Well beloved Friends , ye have brought 
 thefe Children here td be baptized, ye have pray- 
 ed that our" Lord fefus Chrisl would vouch fafe to 
 receive them, to lay his hand upon them, to bhfs 
 them, to releafe them of their fins, to oivethem 
 the Kingdom of Heaven and Everlafting Life \ 
 ye have heard alfo that our Lord Jefus Chrifi 
 hath promifed in his Gofpel to grant all thefe 
 things that ye have prayed for, which promt fe he 
 for his part will most faithfully keep and performs 
 But firft there is no Promife thac our Lord Je- 
 fus would lay his hands on any Infant,nor can 
 it now beexpecled or hoped for, fince Chrift 
 is gone up to Heaven, and the Heavens muft . 
 receive him until the times of reftitution of all 
 things', Jfts 3.2i. Though he did lay his 
 hands on the Children , which were them 
 K broughr, 
 
brought, nor of rcleafing Children of their 
 fins, blefling them, giving them the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, and making them partakers of 
 everlaftinglife. 2. If there be any promife 
 in thefe words,it is to the Infants he then blef- 
 fed. 3. If it be extended to any other, it is 
 indefinite, and cannot be proved to be made 
 to the Infants now to be baptized, unlefs it 
 were univerfal, and if it were univerfal then 
 it is to be extended to all the Infants in the 
 world, whether of Infidels or Believers, 
 brought to Baptifm and prayed for or not. 4. 
 It was not made to Infants then as Infants $ 
 nor before he bleffed them but after; and 
 therefore though Infants may be thereby pro- 
 ved to be capable of the Kingdom of Hea- 
 ven, yet it is not afTured to any as Infants or 
 Children of Believers, much lefs becaufe 
 brought by perfons out of charity to be bap- 
 tized, but becaufe of Chrifts own perfonal 
 laying hands on them, and bleffing and pray- 
 ing for them; and therefore can be noaiTu- 
 rance of what the Lyturgy faith, which is 
 not there or elfewhere promifed, ^therefore 
 is not to be undoubtedly and ftedfaftly belie- 
 ved,nor Perfons authorized thereby to bring 
 Infants to a Prieft to be baptized by him. But 
 if any Rite there be made a Pattern for after- 
 times (which I conceive is not, fince the Apo- 
 illes never praclifed laying hands on Infants 
 that we finde ) it is laying on hands or 
 Confirmation ( which in the Rnbrkk. is re- 
 
 ftrauv 
 
02 3 y 
 
 ftrained to men of age, or of difcmion) and 
 praying for them : Whence I argue, If the 
 Lyturgy direft the Prieft to give a groundlefs 
 encouragement to perfons to believe , and 
 bring Infants to Baptifm from that which 
 yields no fuch ground, then is the exhortation 
 to be amended, and the bringing the Infants 
 to Baptifm on that ground unwarrantable : 
 But the Antecedent is true, therefore alfotha 
 Confequent. 
 
 A Seventh Animadverfion is on the direction 
 of the Rnbrick, to the Prieft in the order of 
 publike Baptifm, to demand of the God-fa- 
 thers and God-Mothers three Queftions fol- 
 lowing; andtheAnfwer to be made in the 
 fmgular number, as if the Child to be bapti- 
 zed did fpeak (fork would be counted o- 
 therwife an approbation of Anabaptifm fo 
 much inveighed againft, fo'r any of the God. 
 Fathers or God-Mothers todefire to be bap- 
 tized) and in the order of private Baptifm,. 
 it is therefore thus to be demanded ; Dofi 
 thou in the name of this Child for fake the Devil y 
 and believe ? leaving out the Queftion, Witt 
 thou be Baptized t the Child being then fup. 
 pofed to be already baptized ; now this kind 
 of anfwering hath feemed to Grave and 
 Learned men to contain untruth, and to be 
 toofcenical for a holy Rite; Bom face, a Bi- 
 fhop of fome note wrote to Anguftin of 
 Hippo to clear it from untruth, which he cou'd 
 lot cell how to do, but by fuch Anfv/ers, Ep. 
 
23*ai Honif actum ? as are too inept for a man 
 of fo great eiteem, he fuppofeth that the An- 
 fwerer laid, The Child believed, becaufe he is 
 baptized, which is the Sacrament of Faith, and 
 Sacraments fliould not be Sacraments , mlefs 
 thej did bear the fimilitude of that whereof they 
 are Sacraments. But i. Baptifm is not the 
 Sacrament of Faith, becaufe it doth beget 
 Faith -, but becaufe before it and by it faith 
 is profeffed by the baptized, which being not 
 done by an Infant, it is not the Sacrament of 
 Faith to him. 2. It is rightly obferved by 
 Learned Chamiez Panftrat. Cathol. Tom, 4. de 
 Baptifmo,lib. 5. cap.' 15. Sett. 22. That the 
 Anlvverer faith, The Child believed before he 
 was baptized : And therefore it is untruly at- 
 "hrmed, that he believed afore he was bapti- 
 zed by reafon of his Baptifm, unlefs the effect 
 ihould be to be yielded to be before the 
 caufe. 
 
 3. The Sacrament of Baptifm is not the 
 fimilitude of Believing, but either of repen- 
 tance or remillion of fins ; as in Baptifm there 
 is the wafhing away of bodily filth. 4. For 
 the manner of anfwering ; it is rightly obfer- 
 ved by Chamicz. ibidem, Hind durum fuit quod 
 hujufmodi, Sponjwnes fie effent quafi in fcena In 
 dusjieret, non in Ecclefia Sacrament um cdebra- 
 rttur, namf r ofetlo nimiruw fuit fie interrogate 
 Infantem, quad virum refpondere virum quafi 
 infant em, & qnidem hunc de aliena Confcientia 
 torn confidenter : Whence I argue. That Form 
 
 4 
 
of Baptizing \s not to be obfervcd in the ufe of 
 which there is untruth required, and cxpreffi- 
 ons which are ludicrous , or more likefport 
 than ferious holy exereife* But fo i: is 1:1 
 the form of Baptizing, according to that ap- 
 pointment in the Lyturgy, therefore it fhould 
 not be obfervcd as it is. 
 
 An 8th Animadvcrfion,is on that which the 
 Rubric}^ appointeth the Pricft to dip the Child 
 in Water fo it be difcreetly and warily dene ; and 
 if the Child be weak^ it fhallfuffice to power Wa- 
 ter upon it, faying I baptize thee in the Name 
 of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 ghefi ; and in the Rubric^ of Private-baptifrn 
 the Child fo wet is Lawfully and fuffciemly 
 baptized ; and ought not be be baptized again ; 
 and in the Catechifm the outward fign in Bap- 
 tifm is faidtobe Water wherein the Yerfon bap- 
 tized is dipped, or fprinkled with it. But in no 
 Gr^Author is fprinkling,or powring of Wa- 
 ter on a Perfon, termed baptizing without 
 dipping, or plunging into the Water. Too- 
 mit many Learned Men in the GreekJLzn- 
 guage, I will fetdown the words of Dr. 
 Henry Hammond in his view of the Directory 
 p. 44. Baptifm being at firfi in any convenient 
 Pond §r River as that j^ueftion : and after 
 rWJuftin Martyr, Apol.2. in fine tells us a 
 nd is noted by that Veib Cattti^\ which is 
 Literally to dope over Head in the Water, and by 
 that word **^p$*$& t a fwimming or diving place ; 
 by which the Fathers exfreffed the Font , which 
 K 3 mi^ht 
 

 might be confirmed by many Writers, Anti- 
 cnt and Modern ; and therefore without dip- 
 ping the Minifter cannot fay truly I baptize, 
 thee, nor is the Perfon fufficiently baptized ; 
 and thofe that deride or, inveigh againft, or 
 cenfure baptizing by dipping or putting the 
 Body under-water, (hew their averfnefs from 
 Primitive and Antient ufe ; and give caufe to 
 except againft their fprinkling, or profusion , 
 as no Baptifm 
 
 A ninth Animadverfion, is on that which is 
 faid in the Rubric!^, of the Order of Confir- 
 mation ; that it is certain by God's Word y that 
 Children being baptized have all things necsffa- 
 ryfor their falv at ion • and be undoubtedly faved. 
 But i. There is no fuch Word of God that f 
 could yet find, that mentions the Baptifm of 
 Children; yea, Mr. Chilling-worth in his An- 
 fwer to Knots Charity maintained^ fart i.e. 3. 
 $. 44. p.i 52. faith The DoEbrine of Infant-bap- 
 tifm, is of that fin, of which the Scripture is fi- 
 lent. And the Oxford Divines in their Reafons 
 cfihe prefent Judgement of the Vniverjlty of Ox- 
 ford, about that folcmn Covenant ; and approved 
 by general covfent in a full Convocation, June 
 I. 1674. Do fcib.^p.9. fay , that without 
 the confent, judgement, and FraVvke. t of the V- 
 mverfal Church ( which they diftinguifh from 
 the Scriptures; and immagine, though mi- 
 flakingly, that they have ) they fhould be at a 
 lofs when they are called upon for proof of that 
 Point) of baptising Infants, z. If there were 
 
 any 
 
any Word of God for baptizing Infants ; yet 
 it is certain there is more required to falvati- 
 on, than outward-baptifm , i Pet. 3. 21. 
 and that Baptifm doth not fave without Faith, 
 Mtrk.10. 16. for with the fayings of Fathers 
 are cited by Bp. Jewell in his Defence of the 
 Apol. of the Church of England fart 2. c. 11. 
 divif. 3. And Experience mews, that the 
 afcribing fo much to Infant- baptifm, as if it 
 Chriftned, or made them Chriftians, and re- 
 generated them , is that which they prefume 
 upon fo as that they never learn Chrift indeed; 
 and confequently is the occafion of their per- 
 dition, and not of their falvation. 
 
 joly. In the Lyturgy concerning private 
 Baptifm after fome direction what to do in 
 cafe of baptizing in private houfes in time of 
 neceffity and inquiry at the Church, how it 
 was done, if the Childe live and be brought 
 thither, it is appointed to be faid thus by the 
 Minifter, / certife you that in this cafe all is well 
 done, and according to due order concerning the 
 baptizing of this Childe, which being born in 
 original fin & in the wrath of Godjs now by the 
 laver of regeneration in Baptifm received, into 
 the number of the Children of God, and heirs of 
 everlafling life : Wherein it is afTerted that all 
 is well done according to due order concern- 
 ing the baptizing of that Child, if it were 
 baptized at home in a private houfe, upon an 
 opinion of neceflity in hade, and with fear, 
 as in a time of extremity, though there were 
 
 K 4 no 
 
no profeflion of Faith before, no not fo much 
 asbyaGod-fathft or God-Mother, as they 
 are termed -, if there were only water poured 
 on the Child, and thefe words, I baptize, thee 
 in the name of the Father , and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghoft, ufed by a lawful Minifter; 
 which laft was put in after the Conference at 
 Hampton Court, i Jac. nor doth it appear that 
 the lawful Minifter is made eflential to Bap 
 tifm j thofe who have been baptized by Mid- 
 wives haye not been known to have been bap- 
 tised by a lawful Minifter afterwards ; yet 
 that great Ordinance of Baptifm (which was 
 intended to be the great tie of the Soul to 
 Chrift, and was efteemed fo folemn a Bond, 
 that falling into fin by denying the Faith after 
 Baptifm , was counted though erronepufly, 
 unpardonable J though thus (lightly done, is 
 reckoned as fufficienr, yea, fuch as regene- 
 rates and cftates into the number of Gods 
 Children • (o great rooting had that/errone- 
 ous Opinion of Auguflin and fame other of 
 the Antients in the minds of the Compofers 
 and ufers of the Lycurgy, as to account this 
 ChriHening, as if it were enough to make 
 Chriftians ; and Churches are taken to be 
 rightly conftituted, which are thus baptized, 
 and Minifters regular who have had no other 
 baptifm. 
 
 ntU. In cafe of publique Baptifm, when 
 there be Anfwers made by Sureties, there is 
 a Charge given thus : Forafmnch aj thefe chil- 
 dren 
 
dren have promifed by you te forfake the Devil 
 and all his works, to believe in God, and to ferve 
 him, you muft remember that it is your parts and 
 duties to fee that thefe Infants be taught fo foon 
 as they Jliall be able to learn, what a felemn 
 VoW, Promife 9 and Profejfion they have made by 
 you: In which i . it is faid ', the Children 
 made a Promife by theSureties 5 wherein the 
 Anfwers given, contain not a Promife of a 
 future thing, but a profeflion of a thing al- 
 ready in being. 2. They are faid to pro- 
 mife what they cannot perform, nor can 
 aflure it fhall be performed; yea, experw 
 ence fhews that it is fcarce ever mind- 
 ed , much lefs performed. 3. it Is char- 
 ged on them as their parts and duties by rea- 
 fonof that Promife only to fee the Infants 
 taught; whereas if they keep their promife, 
 they mud not only teach them, and call on 
 them to hear Sermons, but alfo make them 
 repenting Believers, which is beyond meer 
 humane power, fo heavy a task is laid on 
 metis moulders by means of this humane in- 
 vention, as tender Con feiences did they con- 
 fident, would tremble to undertake. 4. But 
 if there were no more that is undertaken but 
 to fee the Infant taught the Principles of Chr> 
 ftian Religion, and minded of fome Chriftian 
 duties, for want of opportunities and leifure 
 it may be eafily forefeen, that it either can- 
 not or will not be done ; yea, there are fo ma- 
 ny accidents of deaths weaknefTes, remote- 
 nefs of place, difacquaintance, and other oc- 
 
 cur- 
 i- 
 
030) 
 
 currences, as that not only it is fcarce ever 
 done, but alfo it cannot be done , and many 
 that undertake it are fo ignorant themfelves 
 of the things to be taught , fo unskilful 
 to teach, fo mindlefs of the bufinefs, that 
 they altogether lay it afide ; and it is ufu- 
 alwith many after they come to the Fa- 
 rents houfe to think they may difcharge 
 themfelves of it , after they have gi- 
 ven fomething to the Childe, and feafted to- 
 gether; and thus, whereas in" the Primitive 
 times (as appears by }ufti» A-fanyr's 2d. A~ 
 fology to Antoninus for Chriftians) Baptifnj 
 was ufed as a folemn holy Rite with Prayer 
 and Failing : It is now for the moft part ufed 
 as if it were but a Civil Cuftom among Kins- 
 folks and Neighbours, who mind chiefly play- 
 ing and feafting with carnal merriment, fpor- 
 ting, vain talk, and often wanton dancing, in 
 which Minifter and people ufaally joy n, even 
 to excefs. 
 
 A Twelfth Animadverfion, is on the words 
 of the Rnbrick^ concerning Confirmation. 
 And there fljall none be admitted to the Holy 
 Communion , until fuch time as he can fay the 
 Catechifm, and be confirmed. Why this mould 
 be thus determined I know not , unlefs In- 
 fant-baptifm were conceived to be imperfect, 
 or as the common People ufe to fay that they 
 have not their full Chriftendom till they be 
 Bifhoped ; which is according to the Cannon, 
 difi. 5. de Confecrathnc, in which it is refol- 
 
 ved, 
 
030 
 
 ved ? that without the Sacrament of Confirm* 
 tien no Man is a full Chrifiim, can. omne & 
 fan. fife Jejuni. Lumbar d I. 4. Sem.J.ift. 47. 
 M the faithful by the impofition of Hands of the 
 Bijpops after Baptifm ought to receive in Confir- 
 mation the Holy Spirit , that they may be found 
 full Christians. A yu.pacbe 3. <h fum cju.jz. 
 art. 9. faith, this Sacrament of Confirmation 
 is the perfeSiion of Baptifm, which intimates 
 that Baptifm is imperfect without the additi- 
 on of Confirmation. Bellarmin in his id. torn. 
 of the Sacrament of Confirmation^. 12. Con- 
 firmation is the completewent and perfection of 
 Baptifm* And in the 2. Book^ of the- c feci of 
 Sacraments, c. 8. Confirmation is a certain pr- 
 fe& ion and confummation of Baptifm. Ami Bp. 
 Jewel in his, Defenfe of the Apology of the. Church 
 of England, part z.c. 11. difi, 3. mentions 
 it as blame worthy in Cardinal Cajetan, that he 
 faith, that an Infant for that he wants inftrutti- 
 on in the Faith, therefore hath not perfect Bap- 
 tifm^ which he infers as conceiving Augiift- 
 ines conceits right, Ep. 105. that the Infant 
 believes by the Faith of the bringer to Baptifm, 
 & Ep. 23. that they believe, becaufe they have 
 the Sacrament of Faith ; the vanity of which 
 is (hewed before. Now the Scripture makes 
 all baptized Perfons Communicants in the 
 Lords-Supper, 1 Cor. 11, 13. &■ 10. 17. 
 Stilling fleet Irenic. part 1. c. 7. J. 3. in the 
 difcipUne of the Primitive Church, I find none 
 Admitted to Baptifm, who were not to the Lords- 
 
 fupper 
 
(132) 
 
 fupper\ Confirmation will hardly he 'ever found 
 feperate from Baptifm till the diftinclion of the 
 double Cryfm in venue & peUore came up ; 
 which was about Jeroms time. And Bp« Jewel 
 in his reply to Harding Anfw$r art. 2. divif. 25, 
 hath thefe words , and it appears by St. 
 Hierome St. Auguftine de Ecclef. dogmat. lib. 
 i.e. 52. and other old Writers , that they 
 that were Baptized , as well Children 
 as others immediately received the Holy 
 Mjfleries in both kinds. St Hierome Contra 
 Lucifer ian \ /peaking of one Hillarius, faith 
 thus. Non poteft Baptifhut trader e fine Eucha . 
 riftia\ He cannot Mimfier Baptifm without 
 the Sacrament of Thanksgiving. St . Cyprian's 
 words touching this matter, be thefe ; ubi folent- 
 nibm ad impletis Calicem Diaconis off err e pre* 
 fentibus C*ni y & accipientibm CMeris locus 
 ejus advenit faciem fuam parvula inftintbu di- 
 vine majeftatis avert ere, ckc. After the folern* 
 nity ( ef the Confecration ) was done, and the 
 Deacon began to Minister the Cup to them that 
 Were prefent , and among others that received, 
 her turn was come t the Child by the power of Gods 
 Divine Majefiy turned away her Face, &c. , 
 Hereby we may well gather that likg as the 
 Priest, the Deacon, and the People received, even 
 fo that Child received too without any manner, 
 innovafion, or difference. And Infant Com- 
 munion is fo often urged by Auguftin, both as 
 an Apoftclical Tradition , and Univerfal 
 Cuftome, and as neceflary to Salvation, from 
 Ciirift's words,?#,6.53. And the Praclife con- 
 tinued 
 
U33; 
 
 tinued many hundreds of Years, and not con- 
 demned till the Council of Trent -, that I find' 
 that many Writers Proteftants and Papifts ac- 
 knowledge Infants Communion to have been 
 Antient, if nor as Ancient as Infant- Bap tifm 
 and that we follow the Doctrine and Praclife 
 of Mgnftin, and other of the Antients, we 
 muftaswell give Infants the Communion as 
 Baptifm : I will recite the words of Mr.Tho- 
 mas Pierce Rector of Brington in Northamp- 
 tonfhire, as being a man of much note, in his 
 Book of Vindication of fome Notes from the 
 Cenfureof Sir Edward Reynolds, chap. 15 
 Sell. 1. fag. 153. What greffermifia^ could 
 there be, than even that which Auguftin difco- 
 yeredin his Difpute againfi the Pelagians^* 
 it mofi concerned him to have been wary, lmean 
 his error of belief, that no Infant could be fa- 
 ved without the receiving of the Communion as 
 mil as the Sacrament of Baptifm, and his wrefi* 
 ingof the Text, John 6. 53. to authorize fr 
 great an error, and which is moft to be admired 
 his great triumphs thereupon, as if his Ara Hm ' 
 pom thence were not poffible to be an [veered- U 
 ergo tot & tarn a Divina TefiimonU continent 
 necfdus nee vita sterna fine baptifmo, & corpora 
 & {anguine Domini cuiquam fperanda efifruftrt 
 - fine hie promittitur ptrvulis, Auguft. de peccat 
 merit. & remifT. contra Pelagians, lib 1 .cap* 
 23.pag.670. Midiamus Leminum de Sacra 
 men to finely menf* fadicentem, quo' nemo n ifi 
 rm btptMiu accedit , nifi manduU vtri 
 
 xt* 
 
us carnem mam & bilecitis fanguinem non ha- 
 bebitis vitam aternam , quid ultra qu<erinfus 9 
 quid ad hoc refpondere poterunt, an <vero qnif- 
 quam etiam hoc dicer e audebit, quod ad parvuloi 
 ktcfententU non pertinent, poffmt que fine parti- 
 cipatione corporis hujus & fanguini in fe habere 
 <vitam, Id. 16. c. 20. pag.666. Mr.ChilliH- 
 worth in his Anfwer to Knots Preface, to Cha- 
 rity maintained, Sell:. 10. p, 12. St. Auguftiri 
 1 am jure held the Communicating of Infants as 
 much Apoftolique Tradition as the baptising of 
 them. So that if Antiquity be to be followed 
 (which is the great allegation for Infant-Bap- 
 liivn) Infants mould have the Communion as 
 well as Baptifm,and Minifters after their bap- 
 tifm mould not bereftrained (as they are by 
 the Common-prayer Book,) from giving them 
 the Communion till they can fay the Ca. 
 tecnifm and be confirmed. 
 
 Nor doth] after-Confirmation falve the Er- 
 ror, injury , and evil effects that come by gi- 
 ving Baptifm, and denying the Communion 
 to Infants. For, 1. that 2$th Article of the 
 Church of England reckons Confirmation a- 
 mong fuch thingtas have grown partly of the cor* 
 rupt following of the Apoftles , and therefore 
 the warrantablenefsof it may bequeftioned. 
 2. If it be warrantable from Chrifts exam- 
 ple, Mat. 10. 13, 14, 15. it mould be of In- 
 fants or little Chi dren, contrary to the Rut- 
 brich^o? Confirmation, which requires it to be 
 winidrcd to them that are of perfect age or years 
 ef difcretion, if from the Apoftles laying on 
 
 hands 
 
hands for giving the holy Spirit, j4tt. 8. 17. 
 and 19. 6. fas Hierom. Tom. 2, in his Dia- 
 logue againft the J^uciferians derives itji which 
 feems to be made one of the Principles of 
 Chriftianity , ! Heb. 6. 2. that was done ei- 
 ther immediately or not long after Baptifm, as 
 an Appendix to Baptifm of perfons of Age, 
 as is proved by Chamiez. Pauftrat.Cathol.Tem. 
 4. lib. 5 . cap. 1 1 . Sett. 14. which is alfo aver- 
 ted by Salmafms in his apparatus ad librum de 
 Primatu Pap<e 7 p. 84. where he faith, Difcat 
 igiturin zs£gypto % & in Gracia, & in toto Ori* 
 erne Confirmationem, quafeparata eft a Baptifim, 
 non fuijfe notam y units idemque Presbyter in om- 
 nibus Orient is Ecclefiis fimul & (*mel in Bap- 
 tifmo confer endo etiam Chrifmationm cumma- 
 nuum impojitione ac fignaculo Dominica dab at 
 egregis Epifcina five Baptifterio , which he 
 proves there out of Severus Alexandrine* Cj- 
 villus Hitrofolymitanus, & refers to more tefci* 
 monies in his Treatife de Chrifm. and he fays, 
 p. 1 ia..Primici temporibus in Occident e Chrifma- 
 tio, & mannum impoft'io fequebantur poft baptif. 
 mum, poftea qttam abaptifmo feparata eft con fir- 
 matio aliquanko in fola Chrifmatos , Conftitiu 
 pag. 182. he proves in Tertullians, Cyprians, 
 and others times, that hatreserant baptifm, 
 hoc eft unius Sacramenti partes lotto, unciio, & 
 impofitio manuum : fo that notwithfianding 
 the Conceits of Calvin and Partus in their 
 Commentaries on Heb. 6. 2. and fome o- 
 thers , there was no fuch thing meant , 
 Heb. 6. 2. as Baptifm of Infants , and 
 
 their 
 
f*36) 
 their receiving into the Church, and its Com- 
 munion many years after by laying on of 
 hands, termed C 'onjir mat to ,there being no fuch 
 thing known in the days of the Writer of 
 that Epiftle to the Hebrews, nor fome hundred 
 years after in the Eaftern-Churchcs Ancient- 
 ly, and in the Weftern, only in the declining 
 times ; and therefore if a Rite of ordinary 
 ufe fhould be fetcht from the Apoftles and 
 Antiqaity, it (hould be done by thofe that 
 baptize at baptifm, and the perfon baptized 
 for defed of it not kept from the Communi- 
 on. 3. The learning of the Catechifm(which 
 is all that is required) comes too late toari- 
 fwer the prerequifite engagement before Bap- 
 tifm, and is too little to be done for the per- 
 formance of .that Engagement, or the fitting 
 a perfon for the Communion. 4. Confirms* 
 tion, as it is prefcribed, isalmoft an impofli- 
 ble task for a Bifhop of a large Diocefs, or ha- 
 ving fo numerous a people as are in London 
 Diocefs, eipecially if he be aged and weak ; 
 and as hard it is for the Curates to know 
 whether it is done or no j there being no 
 Record or Certificate appointed, and perfons 
 moving often from one Diocefs and Parifh to 
 another of a remote diftance without any 
 Certificate - 7 yet the Statute requiring all 
 at age to come to the Communion whe- 
 ther confirmed or not, and penalties being 
 great, if either they come nor, or be refufed, 
 though the Common-prayer Book- do exprcf- 
 
 "1 
 
057; 
 
 1y deny their admiffion till their Confirmati- 
 on, it is a rigorous /Egyptian /ask, like the 
 requiring of brick without firaw, toimpofe 
 the ncceflity of adminiftration and receiving 
 the Communion , confidering that both be- 
 fore and fince the late Warrs Confirmation 
 hath been altogether, or very much neglect- 
 ed ; and when done, performed fo irregular- 
 ly, and unfruitfully , without the Curates 
 diligent particular examination, inftruclioa, 
 and ordering of Pcrfons to be Confirmed , 
 or the Bifhops enquiry into their Knowledge, 
 but perhaps in a vifitatiorf, doing it to a pro- 
 mifcuous tumultuary Confluence of old and 
 young, ignorant and knowing Communi- 
 cants before, and non Communicants former- 
 ly Confirmed, or not without a God-Father, 
 or God-Mother, definng it fomtimes fuper- 
 {ticioufly, fomtimes receiving it infport, or 
 for fomc other by-end, rather than for a God- 
 ly-end, and in good earned; fo that it hath 
 neither compleated Baptifm , nor Confirmed 
 the Perfons, nor fitted them for the Lords- 
 Supper, nor advantaged the Curate for in- 
 ftruding the Flock , or exercifmg of Difci- 
 plin, or promoting Godlinefs; and prevent- 
 ing the profanation of the Lords-Supper. 
 But there appears much diforder in the Ad- 
 miniftration of Baptvfm and Confirmation, 
 and Irregularity and admiffion to the Lords- 
 Supper, and to Holy-Orders v and in that 
 regard of regularity and orderitnefs of the 
 L Churrfi 
 
Church e>f England, it's Miniftry and Go- 
 vernment, as it was under the Prelates ; howv 
 ever it were Signified is juftly lyableto ex- 
 ception, and needs amendment. And as it 
 f eems a reproach to the Lutherans when Bel- 
 larmin I 2. de bonis oyer ib us in f articular*, c. 
 17. told Kemnitius, that theCnfleme of bap* 
 tiding Cateckifed Per fans at Eafter was abo- 
 lifted amon^ them, but that among Catholick^s, 
 chiefly in the City o/Rome, there is no Tear in 
 which many Catechifed Per fans are not baptized 
 at Eafter ; ib it fecms a blemiflyf not worfe ; 
 that not only there is not ordinarily any other 
 Baptifm, than of Infants in a Proteftant- 
 Church; but alfo that there is no direclion 
 in the received Lyturgy for baptizing anyo- 
 ther, no place appointed to baptize any o- 
 thcr ; or rather no Veffel to baptize in, but 
 only to fprinklc: and which is mod of all 
 to be laid to heart, tho'fc that endeavour to 
 baptize, or be baptized after Chrifts appoint- 
 ment, the Apoftlcs and Primitive Examples } 
 and that comply not with the aberration there 
 from Infant-biptifm, are cenfured, deprived^ 
 and many other ways evil entreated for doi 
 ing their Duty, or not ycildingto that which 
 is by the mod Learned and Judiciary con- 
 foiTedtobean Innovation. And whereas it 
 was of old counted a principal part of the 
 Bifhops Office to baptize, or not to be done 
 but by his allowance; as might be fhewed 
 out of Tertullian , and other Authors : and 
 
 fomc 
 
feme Churches only had the Priviledgc cf 
 Baptifmal-Churches; Baptifm which is the 
 prime Ordinance, of Chrift of*greateft Mo- 
 ment for obliging Men to Chrift, conferving 
 tiie right Faith, fo as to need the rnoft Grave, 
 and Judicious in the Minifters to do it; fcarfc 
 any Bifhop hath been known to baptize : and 
 ufually the mod ignorant and meancft Priefts 
 and Deacons do perform it in anyChappel, 
 Chamber, or obfcureCorner, at any time. 
 Day, or Night ; flubbering it over without 
 any meet folemnity, altogether unfuitably to 
 fo facrcd and folemn an Inftitution of our 
 Lord Chrift, even then when he was ri fen 
 from the dead, had received his plenitude of 
 power- and was prefently to afcend into 
 Heaven. 
 
 FI A(I$. 
 
fy^&Mffi*^:^" "*. 
 
i9p 
 
 A SHORT 
 
 CATECHISM 
 
 about 
 
 BAPTISM- 
 
 Heb. 6. 2 . 
 Of the Doctrine of $apti[ms. 
 
 Luke 7. 35. 
 But wtfdom is justified of all her children. 
 
 To the Chrlftian READER. 
 
 Any are the things at this 
 day charged on Antipoe- 
 dobaptifts in their Do- 
 ctrine and PracJife y 
 which have been proved 
 to be wjuflly implied to 
 them^ by many large Treatises extant in 
 print. For a more facile understanding 
 of the truth than by reading larger 
 A . " Traits* 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 Tratts, is this Compendium, in a man- 
 ner of a Catechism compofed andpubiijh- 
 ed in this time, wherein, others of diffe- 
 rent judgment, have thought fit to declare 
 their way to the world, -which is done, vot 
 became this pint of Baptifm is judged the 
 only or main pint of our Religion, but be- 
 cause the disagreement in other things is 
 either jmall, or of particular per Jons 
 { whofe caufe is to be fevered from th. t 
 which is commonly held) and therefore re- 
 quires not a diflincl Confeffi$n or Declara- 
 tion from that which is by others fublifl:- 
 ed. nhich I have thought necefjary to be 
 done lecauje of the importance of rejfo- 
 ring r ; gbt Baptifm , the DoBrine of 
 which is one Article of the foundation of 
 Cbr if. Unity, Heb. 6. 2. whereby we put 
 on Chnjl, Gal. 6. 27. are united to hit 
 Members, Ephef. 4. 5. conformed to 
 Chrijl, Col. 2. 12. Rom. 6. 3,4,5. re- 
 quired with faith to Salvation, Mark 16. 
 16. with repentance to remiffton of fin s, 
 Acfts 2.38. with exprefsprofejfion of the 
 Baptized's Faith required, A&s 8.37. 
 upon manifestation of Converfon, A£t. 
 to. 47. Afts II. 17. as the duty of the 
 
 £ap* 
 
To the Reader. 
 
 Baptized) and not a, meer Priviledpe^A&s 
 22.16. mofi folemnly adminiflred in the 
 Primitive times, witbftrict examination 
 andgreatefl engagement of perfons bat- 
 tized, accounted the chief evidence of 
 Christianity^ of as much or more moment 
 than the Lords Supper - infomuch that 
 fome conceived from Heb. £4. that fal- 
 ling after it irreparable. But the pre- 
 tended Baptifmof Infant % as now fifed 
 flight ly, and profanely done^ quite diffe- 
 rent from Chrifis Institution and the A- 
 poflles pratfife by Minifters and people in 
 fo unholy and carnal manner as that, it 
 is upon and with grofs untruths and per - 
 vertings of holy Scripture , obtruded on 
 unwary Souls with a pretence of a B apt if 
 malVow^whichis a meer ficJion, and fo 
 many ill confequents both in chriflian 
 conversation and Communion and Church- 
 Confitution and Government- that were 
 men fnfible of their evil as they ft)ould 
 be^ they would tremble at fuch mockery of 
 God) andabufe of fo holy an Ordinance of 
 God's wor\hip and mens Souls by it, and 
 with fuch arrogant frefumption in a- 
 vouching fuch awanifeft invention of men 
 A 2 as 
 
F r , , To the Reader. 
 
 as Gods Precept, And to [peak truths if 
 the Hifiory of this corruption were fully 
 cleared^ it would be found that the un- 
 due Minifiration of this Ordinance 
 was the Inlet to the Antichrifiian 
 darknefs and tyranny which over [pre ad 
 and opprejfedthe Chrifiian Churches. The 
 aim of the Composer of it is the manife- 
 fiation of the truths wherein he doth re- 
 joyce, and de fires thou mayefl re Joyce with 
 him. His motion is that of the Apofile^ 
 Phil; 3. i5 5 16. As many of us as be 
 perfect let us be thus minded, and if ye 
 be otherwife minded, God ihall reveal 
 even this unto you. Never thelefs 
 whereunto we have already attained, 
 let us walk by the fame rule 5 let us mind 
 fhe fame thing. 
 
 FareweL 
 
A fhort Catechifm 
 sbQut Baptifm. 
 
 Queft. I. 
 
 \S Baptifm with Water an Or- 
 dinance of Chrift, to be con* 
 tinned by his Difciples till the 
 end of the World? 
 
 Anf Baptifm with Wa- 
 ter is an Ordinance of Chrift, 
 which is to be continued by his Difciples till 
 the end of the World; as appeass by his com- 
 mand, Mat. 28. 19,20. Mark. 16. 1 $,16. 
 it being to be joined with Preaching of the 
 Gofpel, andnnaking Difciples, by Preaching, 
 and teaching them to obferve all that Chrift 
 commands ; and fo to be continued while 
 thefe are to continue, which is proved to be 
 til! the end of the World, by Chrifts promife 
 of his being with them till then, which were 
 vain, if the things appointed were not to be 
 done fo long. 
 
 Quell. 2. Is not the end of the World, 
 as much as the endgf$&at Age ? 
 
 Anf It appears that Matthew means by 
 the end of the World 9 the laft time, or day , 
 
 where- 
 
i Afbort Catechifm 
 
 wherein there will be a reparation ofgood 
 and bad, the one to be burned with fire, and 
 the other to fhine as the Sun, in that in the 
 places wherein Matthew ufeth the felf-fame 
 formoffpeech ( to wit, «.-7«x»J» •£ < »»c Mat. 
 13. 39,40,49. Mat. 24.. 3.) hecannot be 
 imderftood to mean anyother. 
 
 Qjeft. 3 . May^ not the Baptizing in Mat. 
 28. 19. Mark 16. 16 be underftood of fome 
 ether Baptifm, than that of Water ? 
 
 Anf. The Baptifm there, mull needs be 
 underftood of Baptifm by Water, fith Bap. 
 tizing , where ever it is made John Baptifts, 
 or the Difciples Act, which they did or were 
 to do, is meant of Baptizing with Water, as 
 john^.. r,2. and in many other places it ap- 
 pears- and the Apofties by their practice 
 and command, A&s 2. 38. 41. AcisS. 17. 
 13. 38. Acts 10.47,48. (hew that they fo 
 imderftood Chrift's appointment. Mm. 28. 
 jp, MarJ^ 16. 16. 
 
 Q^ieft. 4. May it not be meant of Baptizing 
 hj the Spirit, or ajfiiftions ? 
 
 Anf. It cannot be founderftood, fith Bap- 
 tizing with the Spirit is no where afcribed to ' 
 any other than Chrift, Mat. 3 11. Luke 3. 
 i 6. M or is Baptifm with the Spirit a duty for 
 us to do, but a free gift of Chrift; not com- 
 mon to all Difcipks of Chrift, but peculiar 
 to fome : and to appoint them the baptizing 
 by affliction, had been to make the Apofties 
 perfecutors. 
 
 Queft. 5/ 
 
dbcut Baptifa. 3 
 
 Quell. 5. Why did Paul then 'fay, Chrift 
 fern him net to Baptize ? i Cor. i. 16. 
 
 jtnf. Not becaufe he was not appointed at 
 all to Baptize, for iffo, he would not have 
 Baptized thofe he did Baptize, 1 Cor. i. 14. 
 16. &c. But becaufe it was not the chief 
 thing he was to do, as when the washing of 
 Water is faid not to fave, 1 Pet. 3. 21. be- 
 caufe it is not the only, or principal means of 
 faving. 
 
 Queft. 6. What is the Baptijing appointed 
 bjjefus Chrift? 
 
 Anf. The Baptizing appointed by Jcfus 
 Chrift, is dipping of the whole Body in wa- 
 ter into the Nan? V the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghoft, a^> manifeft from the term 
 Baptifing, and the ufe of going into and 
 coming up out of the water, A/at. 3. 16. 
 jitis 8. 3?, 59. the ufe of much water, fah# 
 3. 23. TherefembJing, by the Baptifm ufed, 
 the Burial and Reiurrcclion of Chrift, Row. 
 6.4. Col. 2. 12, and the tcfh'monics of the 
 Ancients of the hrft Ages. 
 Queft. 7. May net the fpr inkling or pourine 
 "Water en the Face, he the Baptifm oj Chrift ? 
 
 j4nf. Neither the S,criptme, noranyanti- 
 cr.t Author call fprinkling, or pouring wa- 
 ter on the Face, Baptifm, nor any uk of inn 
 the primitive times doth countenance ir, and 
 therefore fuch fpriokiing or pouring water is 
 not the Baptifm which Chrjit appointed. 
 Queft. 8. What u it to Baptise intothe 
 
 Name 
 
4 Afbort Catechiftnl 
 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ? 
 
 Anfa. It is not to baptize only with the 
 naming of thofe pcrfons, but into the pro- 
 feflion of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 as our Mailer or Teacher, as appears by the 
 words of Panl y i Cor.1.13 . Which (hew that if 
 the Corinthians had been baptized into the 
 name of Paul , they had profefled him to be 
 their Matter. 
 
 Queft. 9. Are they rightly Baptized, wh* 
 are baptized into the name of jefm Chrift, 
 though no other perfon he named ? 
 
 Anfw. They are, it being all one to Bap- 
 tize into the name of Jefns Chriftiand to bap- 
 tize into the Name of t' Father, Sen, and 
 Holy Ghoft, as appears v the precept, Atts 
 2. 38. and practice, J&& 10.48. Afts 19. 5. 
 Though the exprefti on of each perfon be con- 
 venient. 
 
 Queft. 10. Are the per font tohe baptized aU 
 together pajfive in their Baptifm ? 
 
 Anfw. No : For Baptifm is their duty re- 
 quired of them as well as the Baptizer, Acts 
 2. 38. and Panl is commanded to arife and 
 be baptized, and warn away his fins, calling 
 ontheNameof theXord, Attsiz. 16. 
 
 Queft. 1 1 . Who are appointed to Baptize T 
 
 Anfw. They who are appointed to preach 
 the Gofpel, Matth. 28. 19. Mark.16* 1 5, 16. 
 
 Queft. tz. Whom are thej appointed to Bap- 
 tize f 
 
 An fa. Thofe who repent of fin, believe m 
 J Chriflr 
 
*bo*t Baptijm. 5 
 
 Chrift Jefus, and are hisDifciples; Mttth.28. 
 ip. Mark, 16.16 Attsz. $8.A£ts8. 37. 
 
 Queft, 13. Were not Infants baptized, when 
 
 whole houfholds were baptized, A els 16. 1 5. 3 3 ? 
 
 -^*/k No : For it appears not there were 
 
 , any Infants in the houfes, and the Texts fhew 
 they were not baptized, fitfa the word was 
 fpoken to all in the houfe s <ver. 3 2. and all 
 the houfc rejoyced believing God, sw.34. and 
 eifewhere the whole houfe is faid to do that 
 which Infants could not do, Alts 18. 8. Acts 
 10.2. 1 Cor. 16. 15. compared with 1 Or. i* 
 16. johnq. 53. 
 Queft. 14. It not Chrift s fptech a?td allien to 
 
 little Children 9 Matth. 19. 14, 1 5. Mark 1 o. 
 14, 15, 1^. Luke. 18. 16, 17. * .warrant t9 
 
 baptize Infants I 
 Anfw. No: but an Argument againft if/ 
 
 fith Chrift did neither baptize, nor appoint 
 
 tthofe little children to be baptized. , 
 
 Queft. 15. Whyfliould not Infants be bapti - 
 
 UAyftththej were Circumcifed ? 
 
 I Anfw. Thereafon why Male-Infants were 
 
 to be Circumcifed,' was a particular Com.; 
 
 mandof God to Abrahams houfe for fpccial 
 
 ends belonging to the time before Chrift, 
 
 which Baptifm hath not , nor is there any 
 
 Command to ufe Baptifm according to the 
 
 rule of Circumcifion. 
 Qi^ft. l6j_Did not Raptifm c*we in the room 
 
 of \CiYCiimG9jfon } Col. a/ii, iz. and fi to in 
 
 WdMiiWMJ 
 
 B Anfw: 
 
$ ^J jbert Catecbtfm 
 
 jlnfw. The Apoftles words import not that 
 our Baptifrn came in the room of the Jews 
 Gircumcifion • there is no mention of any bo- 
 dily Circumcifion but Chrift'SjWhich our Bap- 
 tifrn cannot be faid to fucceed to, as there it is 
 made the caufe of Spiritual Circumcifion, 
 without arrogating that to it which belongs to 
 Chrift alone^ and Baptifrn is mentioned with 
 faith,- as the means whereby we are in Chrift, 
 and compleat in him. 
 
 Quell. 17. May we be faid to be com fie at as 
 the J-cws without Infant baptifrn I 
 
 Anfw. Our compieatnefsisin that we have 
 tiot Ordinances as the jews had, but we are 
 compleat in that we have all in Chrift with- 
 out them, CV/. 2. 8;,Q, 10. 
 
 Qieft. J 8. Have not our Children then left 
 friviledgc than the Jews had ? 
 
 Jnfw. No : For Circumcifion was a privi- 
 ledge only for a time, and comparatively to 
 the eftate of the Gentiles who knew not 
 God j but of it felf was a heavy yoke, jQfts 
 35. 10. Cat 5. 1/2, 3. 
 
 Queft. 19. Why did the Jews then fo much 
 cent end for it. Acts 1 5. 1, 5. 
 
 Anfw. Becaufe they too much efteemed 
 the Law, and knew not their liberty by the 
 Gofpel. 
 
 Qu eft. 20. Had it not been a difcomfort U 
 the believing Jews to have their Children unbap* 
 tiz.ed, andfo out of Covenant t 
 
 Anfw. The want of Baptifrn to Ijnfants 
 
 was 
 
about 'Baptsjm. j 
 
 was never any grievance to Believers in the 
 New Teftament, nor were they thereby put 
 out of the Covenant of Grace. 
 
 Queft. 2 1 . Was not the proper reafon of Cir* 
 cttmcifing the Infants of the Jews the interefi 
 which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, 
 Gen. 17. 7. to be a God to him and his feed ? 
 
 Anfw. The end of Circumcifion was in- 
 deed to be a token of the whole Covenant 
 made with Abraham 3 Gen. 17.4, 5,6,7 8. 
 not only the promife, ver. 7. But the formal 
 proper diftinguiftung reafon why fome were 
 to.be Circumcifed, and others not, was Gods 
 Command alone, nor the interefi in the Cove- 
 nant; fith Ijhmael who was not a Childe of 
 promife, Gen. 17. 20, 21. Rom, 9. 6, 7, 8,9, 
 and thofe who were in Abrahams houfe, 
 though not of his Seed, were Circumeifed, 
 but no Females, nor Males under eight days 
 old. 
 
 Qjeft. 22. Was not the Covenant with A- 
 braham, Gen. 17. the Covenant of Grace ? 
 
 Anfw. It was , according to the hidden 
 meaning of the Holy Ghoft, the Evangelical 
 Covenant, Gal 3. 16. But according to the 
 open fenfe of the words, a Covenant of fpeci- 
 al benefits to Abraham inheriting natural po- 
 fterity, and therefore not a pure Gofpel-Co- 
 venant. 
 
 Qucft. 23. Are not Believers Children com- 
 prehended under the promife, to be a God tat A- 
 brahamW his feed? Gen. 17.7. 
 
 Anfw. 
 
Anfv* No : unlets they become Abra- 
 hams feed according to Election of Grace by 
 Faith. 
 
 Qujeft.24. Did Circumeifion feal theGof- 
 nel Covenant} Rom. 4. ji. 
 
 Arfw^ ThatText fpeaks not of any ones 
 Circumcifion but Abrahams, which fealed the 
 righteoufnefs of faith he had before Circum- 
 cifion, and afTured thereby righteoufnefs to all, 
 though uncircumafed, who fhould believe as 
 he did. 
 
 Queft. 25. Are not the Sacraments of the 
 Chrifiian Church in their nature , Seals of the Co- 
 venant of Grace ? 
 
 Anfw. The Scripture doth no where fo 
 oil them, nor doth it mention this as their 
 end and ufe. 
 
 Quell:. 26. Doth not Peter, Acts 2. 38, 39. 
 exhort the pws tobaftize ihemf elves and their 
 Children, becaufe the fromife of Grace is to Be- 
 lievers and tbtir Children $ 
 
 Anfw. Thofe he then fpake to were not 
 then Believers ; and therefore the words, Afts 
 2,. 39. cannot be underiteod of a promife to 
 Believers and their Children as fuch, but the 
 promife is to ail, Fathers and Children, as cal- 
 led of God: nor are any exhorted to Bap. 
 tifra without fore-going repentance : nor is 
 the promife allcdged ss conferring right to 
 Baptifm, but as a motive to encourage them 
 to hope for pardonjthough they wj flier- Chrifts 
 blood to' be on them and their Children. j& 
 
 Matth. 1 
 
Abmt Bapn[m. 9 
 
 Mirth. 27. 25. In like fort as .Jofiph did, Gen. 
 50.19,2.0,21. 
 
 Queft. 27. Are not the Children of Believers 
 holy with Coveriant-holinefs, and fo to be bapti- 
 zed, 1 Cor. 7. 14. 
 
 Anfw, There is nothing there afcribed to 
 the faith of the Believer, but to the Marri- 
 age-relation, which was the only reafon of 
 their lawful living together, and of which a- 
 loneitistrue that all the Children of thofe 
 Parents, whereof one is fanclified to the o- 
 ther, are holy, the reft unclean, that is, ille- 
 gitimate. 
 
 Queft. 28. Are not the Gentile-believers 
 Children to be ingraffed by Baptifm with their 
 Parents, as the Jews Children were by Circum- 
 cifionf Rom. 11. 16, 17. 
 
 Anfw. The ingrafting there is by giving 
 Faith according to Eleclion ; and therefore 
 not meant of Parents and Children by an out- 
 ward Ordinance into the vifible Church. 
 
 , Queft. 29. Are not Infants of Believers 
 Difciples , by their Far ems Faith to be Bapti- 
 zed? Mat. 28. 19. Acls 15. 10. 
 
 Anf. No ; For the Difciples there are on- 
 ly fuch as are made by Preaching the Gofpei 
 to them, nor are any termed Difciples, but 
 thofe who heard and learned: and the put- 
 ting the yoke, Atts 15. 10, .was by teaching 
 Brethren, v:r. 1 . and therefore the Difciples, 
 v&) 10. not Infants. 
 
 Queft.. 30. Are not the Infants of believers 
 
 vifi- 
 
lo A fhort Catechifm 
 
 vifible members of the Chriftian Churchy by 4 
 Law and Ordinance, by God's promife, to he 
 God to them and their feed, and precept to dedL 
 cate them to God, unrepealed ? 
 
 Anf There is no fuch Ordinance or Law 
 extant in Scripture, or deducible from the 
 Law of Nature , nor are Infants any where 
 reckoned as vifiblc members of the Chriftian 
 Church in the Ne w Teftament. 
 
 Queft. 31. Hath not God prcmifed, Gen. 
 22. 16, 17, 18. tomakp every believer a blef- 
 fittfy fo as to casl ordinarily El eel: Children on 
 Eleft Parents , and thereby warranted Infant- 
 B apt iff). 
 
 Anf Thepromife doth not pertain to any 
 believers ked but Abrahams, who are Heb. 
 6. 12, 13, 14, GaL 3.8,9. AftTs 3.25. ex- 
 pounded to be Chrift and true believers only, 
 who are to be baptized, not their Infants, till 
 they thcmfelves believe in their own perfons. 
 
 Queft. 32. Did not Chrift appoint , Mat. 28. 
 19. the Difciples to Baptize Children with Pa- 
 rents , as the J e w s did Profelytes ? 
 
 Anf If the Jewijh Bapiifm had been the 
 pattern for Chriftian, the Apoftles would have 
 fo pracli fed, but their not fo doing, fhews 
 they underftood nor it to be Chnft's mind. 
 
 33. is not the Iufam-baptifm fujficient if it be 
 avouched at age ? • 
 
 Anf. h is nor a fufficient difcharge of their 
 obedience to ChrifVs command, which re- 
 quires each. Perfcn to be Baptized after his 
 
 own 
 
avout UApttjm. II 
 
 own Repentance and believing in Chrift, 
 MarK 16. i<5. Mat. 28 19. Atts 2. 38. 
 Ephef. 4- 5- 
 
 Queft. 34. Wfcrff ^5" rta chief end of Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 Anf To teftifie the Repentance, Faith, 
 Hope, Love, and Refolution of the Bap- 
 tized to follow Chrift, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6. 
 3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name 
 of the Lord, Afts 22. i& 
 
 Quell. 3 5, How came Infam-baptifm to be 
 common in the Chriftian Chnrches ?. 
 
 Anf As Infant-communion came from 
 miftake of John 6. 53. So Infant-baptifm be- 
 gan about the third Age of the Chriftian 
 Church, from miftake of JoJ;;* 3. 5. the opi- 
 nion of its giving Grace, and the neceffity of 
 it to favc the Infant dying from perifhing, and 
 after Angnfiins ■ time became common, which 
 before was not fo frequent. 
 
 Qli eft. 36. Is there any evil in it> 
 
 Anf. Infant-baptifm tends much to harden 
 People in preemption , as if they were 
 Chriftians afore they know Chrift, and hin- 
 ders much the Reformation of Chriftian 
 Churches, by filling them with ignorant and 
 fcandalous members, befides the great fin of 
 profaning God's Ordinance. 
 
 Queft. 37. Have not oppofers of Infant- 
 baptifm, been wicked in the end ? 
 
 Anf BlefTcd be God, experience proves 
 the contrary, jhough fome heretofore proved 
 
 fe- 
 
12 A jhort Catechtfm 
 
 fcditious, and entertained great errors. 
 
 Quefti 38. Is there any good bj Baptizing 
 Per fens at Age> which might net be, thottih ln- 
 fant'haptifm were continued ? 
 
 Anf Yes, For thereby they would be 
 ( folemnly engaged to adhere to Chrift, which 
 is a ftrong tye on the Confciences, when it is 
 .done by a Perfon underftandingly, according 
 to ChriftVmind,43efides the aiTurance thereby 
 of Union and Conformity to Chrift,and Rjgh- 
 teoufuefs and life by him, Rom. 6. 3, 4. GaU 
 3.26. 1 Pet. 3. it. 
 
 Queft. 3 9. What are Chriftians to do when 
 thej are Baptized ? 
 
 Anf. To afTociate together in Church- 
 Communion, and to walk according to their 
 engagement, in obedience to them, who are 
 over them in the Lord. 
 
 Queft. 40 Are Perfons fo jvined tofeparate 
 from thofe they have joined to upon defetb in out- 
 ward order and Ordinances^ or variation from 
 the Rule therein by Paslors or People } 
 
 Anf. No, Unlefs the evil be fuch in Faith, 
 Worihip, or Difcipline, as is not confiftent 
 with Chrrftianity, or the eftate of a vifible 
 Church, or is intolerable oppreflion, maintain* 
 eel with obftinacy, after endeavours to cure 
 them, to which end each member fhould keep 
 andaclinhisftation. 
 
 FI?s(JS<