BAP J6SU / * / < :i u to THc Author ofthis Examen being ( as I hcate) a godly man, and of the Presbyterian judge- ment though I am not of opinion with him ( notwithstanding any thing 1 have here read) viz. That Infants are not the fuhjeU of Baptj/me ; yet the end of his writing, as I conceive, being the provoking of others to write, that fo his argu- ments being anfwered , himfelfe and thofe that are of his minde may receive fatisfaaion, I permit it to pane the Prefle : Not doubting but fince now (according to the defire of many) it is knowne where the chiefe ftrength of the CatapMaptifls lies, fome will be tound out in due time to en- counter with ic. fohn ftachikr. fgdf^gl f ••*:- TWO TRE A N D A N ai^PiPfiAf/X TO THEM CONCERNI%3 "*v^. <■ Infant-Baptifmc The former Treatife being an Exerci- cation prefented to the Chair-man of a Com* mittee of the Aflembly of Divines. The later an Examen of the Sermon of M r Stephen Marfhall^zbout Infant+Baptifrne^m a Letter fent to him. Prov. 23. 23. Buy the truth ? andfeU it not, fi Afts S. ^byflyfi* A n d tl,K Eunuch [aid) See here if water, what doth binder me to be baptized ? And Philip f aid, If thou believe ft with all thine heart, 3?«v, thou maifl,or it is lawful And he anfwered, and [aid, I believe that Jefus Chrift vs the Son of God. And he commanded the Charet to ft and ftill, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him* Bernard. Serm. 6 6. in Cantica. Irrident nos quia bapthamui infantes, quei oramus pro mortals, qubdfanctorumfuf- frampoftdamm. , % m Joan. Lodovic Vnes Comment- in Augultm. torn. *. de civic. Dei. lib.*, cap. 17. 'Nemo olim/kcro admovebatur baptifierio, mfi adult a jamttatc, & cum idem ipjc &fcir ret auidfibimyltica illavellet aqua, & fcablui ilia peter et, vccfemclpeteret. Cu]m rei imagine* adhuc in njftris infant/urn baptifmis vidzmiu . Nam rogatttr ctiam , num in- fant lq die ntiut,vclpridie&dim baptizarijdq\ ttr:pro quo fufceptores refpondent, velle. Audio in qxibufda Italia urbibus more vet ere magna ex parte adhuc confervari % — ■ L N 7> 3£ 3 Printed for George Whittington, and are to be fold at the iigne of the BUckmorc in Btfbopfgate-ftMtc. December if. 1 646. a The Contents of the firft Tr e a T i S e. Pafri. {*6t>i.~r m H*fi r fl argument for Infant-Baptifme/rww ffo i»/e- 1 reft in the promifi. Gen ..lV, f/* Infant-Baptifme, confirmed. ?^2yScSLiy.tbeargumentfrm tbepra&ife in the age next the Apo- ftles ^gwiji Infant-Baptifme, confirmed. The Contents. Pag.28.fcft. 1 8. The argument from the wrong original! of Infant-Bap- tifme 5 confirmed againfl it, Pag.29.fe6t. 1 9. The argument againfl Infant-Baptifme//-ri™# overthrowing the Lords day, the Psedobaptifts principle reduceth Judaiime 3 and Topijh Cmmonies, and addes to the Gofiel. Pag M k&^MftbtevilloffeparatingfromtbeMnifieryandCommmi- on of Chrifiians, by reafon of thvs opinion. Pa* 22 fe&io. Of the condition into which the opinion of Antipasdo- baptifme puts the infants of believers, of original! fin^ falvation out rftbe Church and Covenant of grace. Part. 3. Concerning the arguments from Scripture for Infant-Baptifme. Pag q S • k&. I • Of the Connexion between the Covenant and thefeale. Pas 'II. fe& 2. 0/^e W cotic/^o* concerning the identity of the Cove- nant ofgrace,forfubfiance to Jews and Gentiles. Viv.xo.k&A.OftbemeaningofthtfecondConclufion. Pag.48.fea.4- that the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their feede. Pag * 4 .fe&.5. It is not in Gods Church like other Kingdomes. Pag.56.fea6 . Of the texts, which are A&S 2. 38, 39.Luk.19- 9- Pag.62.fe&.7.0/W:>e text,Kom.U. 16. Paz.69.fea.8.0/>/>e*e** 3 iCor.7.i4. v£&$.&&.9. Oftbefaccefum of B&vuTmc, into the place, roome anduje 0/Circumciiion. VAZ.9*.&6t.io.0fthe notion under which and the reafon for which perjons were circumcifed, Jhewing that allperfons that were ar~ cumcifed were not in the Covenant of grace. Pa2 QQ.fc&Ai.Ofthepriviledges of believers under the Go$el,and whether h the want o/Tnfant-Baptifme, be want of a priviledge of thz Covenant of grace, which the Jewes had. Pag.i xo.fca.i2.7&jf theCommandto ciremtcife male infants,^ not vir- tually a Command to baptize Infants. Pag.122.fea.x3.TWMatth.28.19. * not a Command to baptize fa- f ants, but contrary to it. Pag* 1 37' The Contents. Pag.i37.feft.14. Of examples in Serif ture of baptizing infant s^pAtticw* larly of baptizing houfholds. Pag. 1 42.fe£t I $ • Of an infants cafacitie of inward grace f he *«c*,Matth. I p. I ^.andofthe inconfequence ofFtdobaptifme thereon. Fart. 4. Concerning the objections againft Infant -Baptijme. Pag.i $ 1. fett.i . Of the fir ji objeBionfrom inftitution, Matth.28.1p. and thepraBife ef]ohn Baptift,*^ tbe Apofiles. Pag. 1 5 6.fe&.2 . Of tbe fecond objeBion s and therein of tbe condition frt- requifite to Baptffme. Pag. 1 57.fe&3 . Of tbe third fo called objeBion , and tberein of tbe know- ledge requifite concerning tbe perfin to be baptized. Pag. 161 .fe&.4. Of the fourth objeBion^ and tberein of the Stipulation at Baptifme. Pag.i 63.feft.5. Of tbe fifth objeBion^ and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptifme. Pag.167 .fe&.6. Of the fixth objetfion, and therein of infant-Communion by ver'tue of their being in the Covenant y and the Lords Suffer Jucceeding the Faffeover. Pag. 1 70.feft.7. Oftbefirfiufe^ and the Anabaptifts fuppofed bloud] fen- tence. Pag.i70.feft.8.7fo Epilogue , containing fame exprejfions and motions of tbe Author. The Content of the Appendix. Pag. 173. That C0I0C 2.11,12. proves not Infant-BaptKfne. ERRATA. 'TRcatife I. Pag. 7. line 14- rational:, read rationale, p 9. I.2,.i7.r. 7- p.io.I 10. Minor, r. Major, p.irf. L+.put fuch bade,, r.put bacl^fuch. pii- 1 $8.dclc ( ) p 18. margin, r. 18. p.29. ]. 14, baptifme^i. bapffme, may bcfttpplM. p. 34. 1, i^. as?vcll > K.r. lived about anno. pro. 1.7. d^ffcring^.dfer- m£.pz©./?^r.fte*rp.iU^4^ nan p i\\^.cbaracl er,r. charter. ^Ao\.^.[e6tare,x felt iri.^A^. In tbe margin, the margin, ^.r. 79. p.6$.l.tf. invfibk, r.mviSblc l.i 8. viftbU*. invifblc. p.C78.) \.\%. believers x. unbeliever 'j.p.9).l.xi A nalogy,T> Analogy in fome other thing p.97. 1 njort ofr.firt&U of. p.107. Ixt.fecondyC.firfi.^i i l-l.^.l. r.i. p.i 14.1.38. optwfion^.oppojft/on.p itj.[.1,whicbnow,T,whicbisno1w.p ; i i7.1.|9.*to.r.io,rui*. \.i9.dnc x. thcXii. vented j .vented a conceit p.i 17^-*'.^ n//c,r a t itlc. p.i $z, In the margin, B l dcy,r.Baylic.p.i Jj-I.x* f 7 r.iS.l.iy.i t r.U.p.i $5,1.?. doth here x. doth nothere^x^Xiy^. r. aS.p. i$?.U$$.*.r.|..p.i4 l 'I-'5 5 ifcfchf **]***&$*«* A N EXERCITATION ABOUT INFANT-BAPTISME-, Prefcnted in certaine Papers, to the Chair-man of a Committee of the Assembly of Divines, Seized to confider of that Argument, in the ycers, 1^43, and 1^44. With Come few Emendations, Jddhions, and an zAnfaer to one new ObjeBion. Tranflated out oiLatme^ by the Author. Tubliftjed accordingto Order. gttt T LONDON, Printed I by M>S. for George Whittington, 1646. ftii EXERClTATIOSjJ CONCERNING Infant V *V*V*W Baptifme. He prefent Tenent, according to which Infant- Bap- tifme is praSifed, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are univerfally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practice confornuble 3 is made doubtfull to me, by thefe Arguments. Arg, i. That which hath no teftimony of Scrip- ture for itjis doubtfull. But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptifme 3 hath no teftimony of Scrip- ture for it; Ergo, it is doubtfull. The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are thefe: &». 17.738a. Acts 2.38,39. 1 Cor. >j.u r Markka. 14.1 6. AUs 16. 1 $.32. 1 Cor.i. 16. The Argument from GmjjfyjB&l is almoft the firft and laft in this bufineue 5 and therefore is the more accurately to be examined ; but it hath To many (hapes,that I may here take up that Speech, With what kgot jball I bold (hape-changingFro- um ? But in the ilTue, it falls into^ne or other of thefe forms : The firft thus; To whom the Ooipel-covenant agrees, to them the fign of the Gofpel-covenant agrees alfo. But to the Infants of Believers \ . As tie Argument for Infant-bap- tifrr.e s exami- ned from the intercft in the promife, Gen. 17.7. *An Exercitdtion the Gofpel-covenant agrees ^therefore to them the fign of the Gofpel- covenant agrees, and confequendy Paptifme. The Minor is proved from Gen. 17. 7. where God promifeth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy feed after thee. Ianfwer, That we may meet with this Argument, divers things are to be examined, which are takemfor granted : Firft, Whether the Gofpel-covenant,and the Covenant made with Abraham be the fame : Secondly, what feed of Abraham it is, of which it is (aid, I will be a God to thee and to thy feed : Thirdly, whether there be the fame reafbn of circumcifion and of baptifme in figning the Go- fpel-covenant : Fourthly, whether thefe terms be convertible [Fede- rate, and to be figned~]. Of thefe, I fay 5 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gofpel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove -, The Covenant takes its denomination from the promifes > but the promifes are mixt, fome Euangelicall, belonging to thole to whom the Gofpel belongeth, fome are Domeftique, or Civill promifes, spe- cially refpccYmg the Houfe of Abraham&nd policy oflfiael ; Ergo. That was Euangelicall which we reade. Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen. 15.5. /o (hall thy feed be ; in which it is promi(ed,that there (hall be of the Na- tions innumerable that fhall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4, 17,18. It wasEuangelicaIl,whichwefind,(j^.i2. 3. &Ge«.i8.i8. and in thy feed fhall all the kindreds of the earth be bleffed; for in thefe is promifed blelfing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father. Gal. 3, 8, 9. and by Chri(t,whois the feed of A brab am, Gal.%. 16. ABs 3.25. Domeftique and Civill promifes were many; of the multiplying the feed di Abraham, the birth oilfaac 5 of the continuation of the Cove- nant with Ifaac \ of the coming of Chrift out oflfaac 5 the bondage of the Jfraelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence j of poflefling the Land of Canaan, Gen. 15. 13. 18. Gen. 17.7,8. I $.16. Atf.y. 4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. Yea, it is to be noted, that thofe promifes which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward fenfe of the Holy Ghoft, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams Houfe, in the outward face of the words 5 whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called (imply Euangelicall, and fb pertain to Be- lievers,as fuch,although there be Euangelicall promifes in that Cove- iunt 3 pertaining to all Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the concerning Infant-Baptifme. •he Covenant on Mount Sinai, famnWpointing at the facrifice of Shrift, and yet we call not that Covenant Amply Euangelicall, but n fome refpeft. Secondly, The feed of Abraham is many wayesio called : rirtt, Shrift is called the feed of Abraham, by excellency. Gal 3.16. Se- condly, all the Heft, R*». 9. 7- all Believers, Jtoii. 4. "» «*« J£«7j 1 8. are called the feed of 'Abraham, that is, the fpirituall feed, 1 hird- y' there was anaturall feed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance jfid accrue; this was Ifaac, Gm.21. 12. Fourthly, anaturall feed, whether lawfull, as the fonsof Keturab, or bafe, as Ijhmael, to whom he inheritance belonged not, Gen.i 5. 5. But no where do I find,that I ;he Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams feed, of the ;hree former kinds of Abrahams fed, thepromife recited, is meant, •>ut in a different manner thus : that God prornifeth,he will be a God Chrift, imparting in him blefling to all nations of the earth, to the ; fpirituall feed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the naturall feed nheriting,in domeftick and politicall benefits. 2. That thepromifeofthe Gofpel, or Gofpel-covenant, was the Gune in all ages, in refpeft of the thing promifed, and condition }f the covenant, which we may call the iubftantiall and enentiall Dart of that covenant, to wit, Cbrrf, Faith, SanBification, Remifwnof ins, 'Eternal! life ; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which thefe things were lignifled,and various fan &lons,by which it was ;onfirmed: To Adam, the promife was made under the name of the eed of the woman, bruifing the head of the Serpent 5 to Enoch, Noah, n other forms 5 otherwife to Abraham, under the name of his feed, m whom all nations mould be blefled 5 otherwife to UMofes, under the Dbfcurefhadows of the Law j otherwife to David, under the name of i fucceflbr in the kingdome ; otherwife in the New Teftament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3. 6. Heb. 8. 1 o. It had likewife divers fanftions. Thepromife of the Gofpel was confirmed to Abraham by the fign of :ircumcifion, and by the birth of Ifaac, to Mofes by the Pafchall Lamb, and the fprinkling of blood on the book, the rain of Mannaft, md other figns 5 to David by an oath -, in the New Teftament, by Chrifts blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcifion fignified and confirmed the promife of the Gofpel, according to the form and fan- ftion of the covenant with Abraham, Baptifme fignifies and confirms the fame promife according to the form, fan&ion and accomplish- ment of the new Teftament : Now thefe forms andfanaionsdiiter many *An Exerchation many wayas 3 as much as concerns our prefent purpofe in theft : Firfi circmncUlon confirmed not only Euangelicali promifes, but alio Poli ticall ; and if we may believe M r . Cameron, in his Ibefis of the three fold Covenant of God, Thefi. jZ.Circumcifion did primarily fiparate tk feed 0/ Abraham from other nations, ftakdunto them the earthly promifi Secondarily, it did fignifie fanHiji cation: But Baptifme fignities onl Euangelicali benefits. Secondly, circumcihon did confirm the pro mife concerning.Chrift to come out oUfaac 5 Baptifme affures Chril w be already come, to have been dead, and to have rifen again Thirdly, circumcihon belonged to the Church, conftituted inth. Houie of Abraham, Baptifme to the Church gathered out of all nati ons -, whence I gather, that there is not the iame reafon of circumci- ■lion and baptifme, in ligning the Euangelicali covenant; norma] there be an argument drawn from the ad mini fr ration of the one tc the like manner of adminiftring the other. 4. That fome there were circumcifed, to whomnopromifein r.h< covenant made with Abraham did belong ; of Ijhmael, God had faid. 1 that his covenant was not to be eftablifhed with him, but with Ifaao. and yet he was circumcifed, Gen.ij. 20, 21.25. B^m.p. 7 fi 9 9. GaU 29,30. the fame may be faid ofEfau: All chat were in Abraham! houfe, whether flrangers 3 or born in his houfe, were circumcifed. Gen 1 17. 12,13. of whom nevertheleffe, it may be doubted, whether am promiies of the covenant made with Abraham^ did belong to them^ there were other perfons, to whom ail, or molt of the promifes in the covenant pertained, that were not circumcifed 5 this may be affirmed of the Females, coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the 1 eighth day ,of jufl men, living out of Abrahams houfe, as Melchifedech) Lot, Job. It any fay, that the females were circumcifed in the circum- cihon of the Males, he faith it without proof ; and by like, perhaps greater, reafon it may be faid, that the children of Believers are bapri- 1 zed in the perfons of their parents, and therefore are not to be bapti- zed in their own perfons. But it is manifeft that the >m compre- hended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcifed, were nevertheleile not admitted to Baptifme by fohnBaptift, and Chrift< Difciples, till they profeffed repentance, and faith in Chrift. Hence J gather, firft, that the right to Euangelicali promifes, was not the ade- quate reafon of crrcumcifing thefe or thofe, but Gods precept,as is ex- prefled, Gen .17 .23. Gtn. 21. 4. Secondly, thatthofe terms are not convertible, [federate and to be Jigtud']. Where- concerning Infant- Baptifme. 5 Whereupon I anfwer to the Argument: Firft, either by denying the Major^ if it be univerfally taken 3 otherwife it concludes nothing : or by granting it with this jimitationjit is true of that fign of the cove- Bant which agrees univerfally in refpe&of form and fan&ion 3 to them that receive the Gpfpel, but it is not true of that fign of the covenant^ which is of a particular form or fan&ion 3 ofwhichfortisdrcurncifion. Secondly 3 1 anfwer by denying the .Mtf^univerfally taken 3 the rea- (bn i? 5 ba thinks, are limited by the words doling the verfe, as many as the Lord our God pall caU 3 which limitation plainly enough ihewes the promife to appertain to them not limply as Jewes 3 but as called of God, which is more ex- prelly affirmed, A&s 3. 26. Toyou 3 God having raifed up his Son Jefus 3 fent htm to bleffeyou 3 in turning away every one of you from hvs iniquity : or,as B&stf, Every one of you turning your jdves from your iniquities ; therefore the promife here is not faid to be made but with condition of calling, and faith^ which may be confirmed aboundantly from &0W.4. 13, 14. 16. Gal. 3. 9. 14. 22. 3. ThatfVfer, verf. 38. doth exhort to repentance and Baptifme together,and in the iirit place perfwades to Repent ance 3 then Baptifme 3 which fhewes Repentance to be in order before Baptifme. B 2 4. That So zAn Exer citation 4. That mention is made of the promife, not as ofitfelif, yeeldine right to Baptifme without Repentance, but as a motive, inciting toge- thereto Repentance and Baptifme. Whereupon it is anfwered : 1 . That the Major is to be limited, to whom the promife is ma'de they may be baptized, to wit, when they are called, and have (hewed ijgnes or repentance ; If it be taken without limitation, it is to be denied. 2. By denying the Minor, M it be univerfally taken of all Infants of Believers, of wfeofe Baptifme the queftion is % as for the Text,it fpeaks not exprefly of Infants, but of children indefinitely; nor of the chit- v*^ the Gemiles ^ aII > ( of whom we are) but of the children of the JW,and therefore, if that promife be extended to Infants,which doth not appear, the promife is to be expounded fo, as to note fome- thing peculiar to the Jews Infants. THe Argument from the place, 1O.7. 14. maybe thus formed: They who are holy with Covenant- holinefle, may be baptized : But the Infants of a Believer are holy, with a Covenant-h$linefie ; for it is faid in the Text, but now they are holy $ therefore they may be baptized. I anfwer : / 1. The Minor h not true, univerfally underftood, as ismanifeft from Rom. 1 1. 1 6. where it is faid. If the firft fruits be holy, fo is the lump : if the root be holy, fo are the branches. The fenfe is, that Abraham is the firft fruits, and holy root 3 the ele& Ifraelites are the branches and lump; fo that it followes, that the ele& of the Ifraelites not yet called, are holy in refpeft of the Covenant, and are not yet there- fore to be baptized 5 for although they may be faid to be holy in re- gard of the Covenant,of old, entred into with Abraham, and the gra- cious refpeft of God to them,to be manifefted in opportune time,yet in their prefent ftate,before calling they denying Chrift, neither In- fants nor grown men are to be baptized, unlefle we wouMhave the branches broken off to be graffed into the Church ; and therefore, although the fenfe were in the place of 1 O.7.14. your children are holy with Covenant-hoiinefle, by reafon of Gods gracious favour to be manifefted in due time, yet it will not follow, that they are to be baptized, who have not yet yeelded any (hewes of divine grace. 2. The Minor is not proved from the place alledged : For it doth not fpeakof federall holinefle, but of holinefle, that I may fo call it, Matrimonially fo that the fenfe is,your children are holy,that is, legi- timate. concerning Infant-Baptifrne. - II timate. Whether any in the ages before, the age laft palt 3 expounded it, of federall holinefle 3 as they call it, I am not yet certain : as for the expofition of that place, ofthat holinefle, I called Matrimoniall, of it the place is expounded by Aquinas, in his Commentary upon the place, and perhaps by others, whom I have not yet had time to look into, but I think beft to let down the words oijoachimus Camerarius y about this matter, in his Commentary on the new Teftament, lately printed at Cambridge ; [for the unbelieving husband bath been fanBifiect] an ufuall change of the Tenfe,tbatis,is fanBified, in the law full ufe of mar- riage, for without this (ht faith) it would be, that their children fhould be unclean, that is, infamous, and not legitimate, whofo are holy, that is, during the marriage are without all blot of ignominy: Moreover, Lftfe- lanBhon in his Commentary on the place, therefore Paul anfwers, that the marriages are not to be pulled afunder, for their unlikg opinions of God, if the impious ptrfon do not caft away the others and for comfort he addes- asa reafon, the unbelieving husband is fanBified by the believing wife, of which Speech divers interpretations are made 3 but the true and na- turallis this, as elfewhcre, he faith. Meat is fanBified, for that which is holy in ufe, that is granted to believers from God, fo here hefpeaki f ^ e nfe of marriage to be holy, and to be granted of God,[elfe were^ the in- terpretation of the Sept. fo fpeaks unclean, it calls unclean that which is prohibited 5 as wee fay Swines fiefh was unclean by the Law of Moles, that is , prohibited, or a woman brought to bed, is unclean, that is, whofe touching is forbidden. The connexion of the Argument is this : If the ufe of marriage fhould not pleafe God, your children would be bafards, and fo unclean 5 but your children are notbafiards, therefore the ufe of marriage pleafeth God: How bafiards were unclean in a pecu- liar manner, the Law fhewes, Deut. 23. Let not a baftard enter into the Congregation of the Lord, to the tenth generation, that is, Let him be admitted to no funBion in the Church ; therefore this is the moft plain meaning, children are not bafiards, nor to be kept away , as the Law of Moles kept them away, therefore alfo the ufe of marriage plea- feth God. Mufculus Comment, on I Cor. 7. 1 4. hath thefe words ; [ is fanBifted~] this expreffetb the reafon ofthat which he faith, Let him 'tot put her away 5 perhaps , the more unskilfull Chrifiians thought fuch dwelling together to be unclean and unlaw full ; and they did fear, kfi they fhould be made one body with the yoak^ fellow that was an Ido- later , as he that is jojned to an Harlot , is made one body with the. Harlot 9 and fo of the members of Chrifl, Jhould makg them members of an 12 ^ *An Exercitation an Idolater^ which batb more fin then if they fhould makg them the mem* baft. ;if an Harlot j for this caufe, he faith, for the unbeliever U fanBi-\ fed, &C. that is, for the unbelieving husband in the wife, that is* i in the conjunction of the wife) which is by marriage, even long ago hath \ been cleatifed by vertue of marriage \ Jo that his conjunction and copulati-\ on, hath, nothing unclean: fi in like manner alfo, the unbelieving wife s \ by reafon of 'law full , wedlock in which fiee U joymd to the man,\ even long ago is ckanfed, that the believer is not defied, ifjhe live to- gitber with him j for the ward holineffe here , is taken for the clean-' | rieffe of the marriage-bed which he hath by the tradition of God,tbere-\ fan be faiths tlfe your children fhould be unclean, but now they aYe ho- ly- be jhould have faid,but now they are ckan$ if to be holy , and clean^ in this place were not the fame* iKrefore the mo ft plain under ft anding \>fthis place is, firft, in that wz tmderftand not the word holineffe, of that holineffe which is by the cove- nant of \Go d,vr the Spirit of 'faith , by which Believers are fan&ified, as a people of God, but of the holineffe of the conjugall bed; otberwife it will bring forth a troublefome difpute, how an unbelieving husband may be faid to be fanBifted. T'hen, that we attribute this fanliif cation that it cleanneffe, not to the faith of the believing yoakzfellow, but to the mar- riage , by reafon of the appointment of God; with Hierome, who faith, becaufe by Gods appointment $ marriage is holy ; and Ambrofe, who hath it thm, the children are holy, becaufe they are born of law full marriage i therefore , that in the wife and in the husband, is not to be read with thi addition of Believer, as the old Interpreter hath it , but fimply, as thi Greek hath it ; if any thing be to be added, it is better to be added/ the lawfull wife or husband, that we may underftand, that the unbe>\ lieving bus band is cleanfedin his lawfull wife, that is, by vertue of theii lawfull marriage, it not unclean, but clean, as far as appertains to the law oj cohabitation of marriage, although be be impure fo far as appertains h the commerce of Religion, of which the word of Deacons in the Church wot Let the prophane depart, the holy draw mer, [elfe your children ] Ambrof fo expounds this particle [elfe~] that is, if thou the believing hush am fhouldft put away thy unbelieving wife, and marry another, your children fhould be unclean, becaufe you (hould be made Adulterers, but [now] tha' is, if thou retain thy unbelieving wife, they are holy, becaufe they are bon of a lawfull marriage. But it is more plain , that we under ft and th Apoftle, to have rejpeEi to the fanftimony of marriage, even of them wh without the faith of Chrifty are conjoyned in marriage, as if htbadfaia mid concerning Infant-Bapttfme. j jj «wA$ marriage were holy andclean^ even between wibelievers, what other thing would follow, then that all the children ofhtftkls art hazards, and unclean ? but far be it from us to fay fo , they are My, for they are born of ■lawfull marriage. Ambrofe lookg to that which he faid, Let him not cat her away $ the other Expofition to that which he faid^ the unbelieving .husband is fancYirled in the wife. Z have fometimes abnfed the prefent place againfi the error of Anabaptifts, keeping backjlnfants ofChrijlians from Baptifme, thinking that fpeech, but now are they holy, to be the fame, as, they are the people of God, by reafon of the believing parents 5 but although it befurein itfdf, that the children of believers, are both holy , and pertaining to the people of God,hy reafon of the participation of the Coven ant, -and fo' are partakers of Baptifme, as the fign of the Covenant, yet theprefent place makes nothing to this caufe, in which the fantiimony of the Cove- nant andpeople is not meddled with ; but the cleannejfe of lawfull marri- age even of Infidels : for not only to children, to whomperhaps, the boli- nejfe of a believing parent , may fo appertain, that for it they may be $artah s ers of the Covenant, but alfo- to unbelieving husbands and wives is fanBimony ascribed, although they oppofe the Chrifian faith 5 nor is -any other holinejfe or cleannejfe of children meddled 'With, then that winch *jgrees< But in this place the fan&ification is certain and neceffary^ elfe it fhould not take away the doubt, about the retaining the con juri&ion ; nor doth the fenfe pertain hither, the unbelieving husband is fanaified in the wife, that is, the wife, becaufe (he hath faith, hath ufed the unbelieving husband without all fcruple of confcience 5 for the contrary was the occafion of this Difcourfe; nor doth this belong a whit to the impurity or holinefleof the chil- dren - y therefore more rightly [It *f lymjit ] is rendred in Latme in the Dative,[to the wife]for the particle^ is often foufed,asO*/.i.i<5. Mat. 17. u; i#if*o/,tome,2PeM.5. \* *t* *Uu> tofaith, A&s- ^.12. h «>0^ points at the time,by the paiticle[* W]and both Marked Mattbe&jput it after the dihertation 5 with xh&Pbarifes concerning divorce, and theanfwerto the Difciples exception, which Af^teftifies was made in the houfe 3 Luke puts it after the parableof the Publican and the Pbarifeefrut he is wont to relate things out of their right place.But what the holy Spirit doth intimate,by noting the time preciftly,I gueffe not, unlefle perhaps he would have it noted, that an occafion was opportunely miniftred,of amplifying the argument con- cerning making a mans felf an Eunuch for the kingdome of heaven, though this reafon doth not very much like me. As for the fixth,the place is intimated. Mat. 19.1. Mar.io. 1. in the :oajls of Jttdea^ejond Jordan ,in Matthew \ By the fartber fide of Jordan^ Mark - r about which it availeth not to our prefent purpoft to inquire. As for the feventh,the reafon of repelling,is not known,but by con- (caure,it is probable this bringing oflfctle children,was troublefom to iem, either becauft it did interrupt Chrifts Speech about marriage, md fitnefs to the Kingdom of heaven,or becauft they fought reft in the louft, or becauft they did think this bringing would be in vain. As for the eighth,Chrift without doubt, was angry with the Difci- C 2 pics, v4n Exercitaticn plejbecaufc they hindred the occafion of doing good to men 5 whereas i j Chrift went about doing good, AT. 10. 38. And in this bufinefs the j|; faith of phe bringers was to be cherifhed, and the power of bletfing in) > Chrift was to be manftefted, & the excellent doctrine to bedeiivered > lL concerning little childrens being capable of the Kingdome of heaven Ji of the quality of them who receive the Kingdome of heaven 5 but whe- 1| thcr Chrift would that thisfaft mould remain, as a perpetuali rule forMc baptizing the Infants of Believer s 5 is yet a queftion.lt feems/carcepro-ki bable it ihould be fo. 1. Becaufe Bapthme of Infants, being meerly pofitive, foobfcureJj and doubtfull an inftitution,is without example and reafon. 2. Because we find no practice or hint in Scripture^ which may ex-tt pound this fact to this fenfe. ^ 3. Becaufe^if he had given a command to the Apoftles of baptizing Infants, he had rather faid, bring the little children to me 3 then fufferi them to be brought to me, . ,4. He had declared whofe Infants he would have bapti2ed,and notj) have fpofcen fo indefinkely,it is certain,before the command ^Mat. 2$ A 1 9, 20. .There is no Precept .extant, concerning baptizing Gentiles Jj much lefle concerning baptizing the Infants of the Gmtiks. 5. The words, jujfer & forbid not^nd vi imfta/befe little children ^m feza reads, (hew that Chrifts words are meant only of thole children* 6. If this/act pertain to Baptifme,then we muftfay,that Chrift bap-| tized,the contrary whereof is Gadyjob. 4, 2. As for that which is ob-l je&ed,that three Euangeliftsrehearfe this fa&,that thence a perpetuali rule may be drawn* of bringing Infants to Chrift by an outward Qri dinance^ which is not done but by Baptifme, it is weak : For, 1. Three Euangelifts rehear fe the bringing of the paliie man tc Chrift, the accefle of the leprous perfon to Chrift, and many othei things, from which yet no perpetuali rule is formed. 2. If any rule be hence to be formedjthat is to be perpetually obfern ved,this relation will ferve more fitly toeftablifh Epifcopali confirmai tion, by laying on handstand praying,then Presbyteriall baptifme. .Secondly, we muit diftinguifh,concerning bringing to Chrift j" then h a bringing to Chrift, by locall admotion, there is another bringing to Chrift by fpirhuall inftruction > this bringing to Chrift, is th< caufe of Baptifine, not th^ otner : for many were brought by th* command of Chrift,to Chrift,as the blind fon of Tim* m 3 and others; of whofe baptifme, of conversion we reade not ; for not all that weri corporally healed by Chrift, were alfb fpiritually healed, as we arete % of die nine Lepers 3 ^/c&^aftd others* 3 * Th<| concerning Infant-Baftifme. fp $• The Argument fuppofeth they may be baptized, whom Chrift ommands to be brought,but neither is this true of fpirituall bringing; or not thofe whom he commands to be brought Ipiritually, are to be aptiaed, but thofe whom he hath brought ; as for that which is laid, bey are repelled from Chrift, that are repelled from Baptilme, it is a ght thing, for Baptifme doth not bring men to Chrift,unlefTe the per- ms be firft in Chrift;neither is therefore any man repelled from Chrift, ecaufe he is not baptized,but when he is kept back : being fit for baptifm. To the Argument therefore anfwer is made, by denying the Major niverfally taken. SecondIy,the Argument is thus formed : Arg.^ Thofe whom Chrift imbraced, laid his hands on,blef]ed, may e baptized; But Chrift imbraced Infants, &c. Ergo* Anfe* I anfwer,this argument fuppofeth thefe a&s of Chrift^o have een all one,as if he had baptized 3 but this is faid without proof,in very eed, that a& of blefling was more then Baptifme 3 and yet it had not the tme reafon with Baptifme ; it is manifeft out of Job. 4.2. that Baptifme us an a& of miniftry.which Chrift did not exercife by hirnfelf 3 but his >hciples 5 but that blefling was an a&,by which heobtained lbme fingu- r gift from God by prayers for thofe Infants,upon whom he had laid is handsjnor is this benefit faid to be beftowed on them for the faith of idr parents, but out of lingular favour which Chrift beftowed upon any,as Lazarus, with his fillers, John the Apoftle and others, there- ire the Major Proportion is to be denied ;for there is no connexion be- tween this aft, which is extraordinary 5 and the act of ordinary minifte- ywhkh is to be fulfilled according to the Lords prefcription. The third Argument is thus formed. ■Arg. Theymaybebaptized,whofeis the Kingdome of heaven; but Tnfants is the Kingdome of heaven 5 E*go. Anfiv, I anfwer, the Major Propofition is true., if it be underftood of lofe whole is the Kingdome of heaven,when k appears that theKing- Mne- of heaven belongs to them, other wife it is not true. Secondly, it not laid in the Text [of Infants is the kingdom of heaven] but, offach the kingdnme of heaven 5 and Chrift expounds what he means, Mar.io. I Luke 1 8. 17. to wit, of them who in humility of mind,are like little iildren 5 as it is Mat A 8.3,4. but '^[pffucb] be to be expounded,as Beza wldsAnnot. in Mat. 19.14. of thefe and the lik& as above, 1 8. it is not oved from thence 3 that the kingdome of heaven pertains to ail Infants Believers 3 but to them whom he then blefled 3 and to thofe perlbns whe* :her are fo blefied,or arc converted and humble as litjde children. Whence 2d vfn Exercitation Whence it is anfwered; firft by denying the Majorat it be expoundl univerfally and unreftrainedly : fecondly, by denying the Minor^ as t is put indefinitely, for the reafons above put. § 7. Tks Ar- '▼"He Argumentfrom the place, ^#.16,15. 32. 33.^.18.8. 1 Cor\ gurocot from 1 1 6. is thus formed : If the Apoftle baptized whole hou(holds,thi A8s 1 s . 1 6. Infants ; but the Apoftle baptized whole houfholds, Ergo. Ba'ff Infai,t " Anfw. This Argument refts on a fleight conjecture, that there wel amined^ C fafents in thole houfes, and that thofe Infants were baptized, where} the words of the Text evince not thefe things 3 yea, thofe things whiij are iaid^ Affs 16.32. He $ake the Word of the Lord to him^ and to all in / r boxfe } and verf 33. He rejoyced^believing Godwith all his hottfe. A&. 1 8. * Crifpus believed the Lord with his whole houfe, do plainly prove, that uij der the name of the whole houfe&xt underftood thofe only that heard tl| Word of God and believed. Whence it is anfwered by denying tli confequence of the Major Propofition. Some other arguments occur,vvhich make a number without ftrengtj §•8. TheAr- "j-j I r ft 3 it is argued from generall promifes,made to the godly and the! £ST r r£ * feed, Exod.20. 6. P/i/.ii2.2.&c. Whenceit is gathered, that Gc mifcs a for P In- ma ^s a difference betwixt the children of the godly and the wicked fant-baptifmc that he promifeth bleffing to thofe, not to thefe, therefore thcchildre] examined, of the godly are to be baptized, not the other. Anfw, The promifes recitcd,are firft generall and indefinite;fccondl; for the moll part concerning corporall good things ; thirdly, with tl exception of free election 5 fourthly ,to be underftood with the imply* condition of faith and repentance,and fo they ferve not to this purpol $ 9. The Ar- CEcondly, from Ifai. 49. 22. it is foretold that Gentiles mould brir gumentfrom O their fons in their arms, and their daughters on their moulder ZM9- **• for therfore the Prophet forefaw in fpirit, the baptifme of the little on &«& o (the Gentiles. md. Anfw. Firft, little ones might be brought for other ends then bap tifme, d.sMat.19. 15. Secondly, I will ufe the words of Francis Junius in his Annot. on rf place. All thefe things arefaid AllegoricalIy,of the fpirituail amplifier tion of the kingdome of Ghrift, as the Prophets are wont, they are faj filled in the perfwafions in which the Gentiles exhorted their childrc to imbrace Chrift. §< I0 - The *TPHirdly, from 1 Cor. 10. 2. All our fathers were baptized,therefoi h?m*r nt . * alfo Infants. a-Tfer Infim- * an ^ wer ' &&$ this verfe prove that Infants were baptized,the verfi Bapufme ex- following will prove that they received the Lords Supper. smincd. 2. Tf] concerning Infant -Baptifme. ax 2. The fenfe is not that they were formally baptized, with the rite of &ptimie,begun by John Baptift&nd ordained by Chrift •, but that by a like eprefentation, the fea and the cloud flgnified falvation to them by Chrift is baptifme doth to us, and that they were in a like condition, as if they tad been baptized. FOurthly, from Epfof. 5. 26. whereitis faid, that Chrift cleanfed the §-"-The Church with the warning of water through the Word, therefore In- ^ §Umc " c ants either belong not to the Church,and fo are excluded from the bene- /.°^ £ £ r ' it of Chrifts death,or they are to be baptized. Jnfant- Anjw. If this Argument be offeree, the thief crucified with Chrift,and Baptifafe epenting on the crofle. Infants, Catecbwneni, Martyrs, and others, dying examined. efore baptifme, are excluded out of the Church, and from the benefit of thrifts death ; we are therefore to fay, that either the Church is taken for lie more famous part of the Church, or that purification is to be under- :ood of that, which is for the moft part. Fifthly ,from 1 Pttf.2.9.Believers are called a chofen generation^ aholy nati- §• J *«Thc o/z, which things are faid o£the Ifraelites^Exo.i ^.^^xherefore Believers ^ r § umen t f the nations obtain the fame birth-priviledges, which the Ifiaelites had, ™™ \™' rid therefore their children are within the Covenant, and to be baptized Infant- 5 the children of the Ifiaelites were to be circumcifed. baptifme Anfo. 1 . If this Argument proceed,it will follow,that there is fome na- examined. onali-church among the Gentiles &% of old among the Jea?/,which is not » be granted,which I would have under ftood in this fenfe,there is now no ich nationall-church, as amognft the Ifraelites^ fo as that a perfon mould e accounted a member of a church,in that he is an EngUfbman^Scotflutcb- anfitc. In this fpeech I oppofe not them which affirm the outward go- brnment of the Church fhould be fubjeft to nati®nall Synods. 2. Exid.i 9. \ 6. God fpeaks not of a priviledge flowing from birth, but obedience, I The Epiftle was written to the difperfed J ewes ^ and therefore the Ar- ijment lies liable to exception, when it is drawn from that which is laid Fthe Jen?/, as if it were faid of the Gentiles. 4. But letting thefe things life,, the fenfe is, ye which believe , as it is verf. 7. whom God hath called it of darkneflejare a holy nation, whether Jews or Gentiles , by fpirituall generation, as Believers are called a family or kindred, Efhefi 3. 15. the Dumold of faith, Gal.6. 10. the houfe of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15, a people, Pet.2. 1 c. wherefore in this family, kindred, houfe, people, are only Be- avers, whom not carnall birth, but fpirkuall caufeth to be reckoned in at number. I Ixthly, the Church of God fails not, but we muft fay, the Church of $• ** Tne i) God hath failed, if baptifme of Infants be not lawfull, Ergo. fomXT Anfiy, 1, The a 2 tAn Exercitation churches Anfw. i. T The Church of God may confid without baptifme, as in th f ai f ling Y f crucified converted thief,d^. Secondly, neither perhaps, is it neceflary t rifinTbe***" ** ^Ma tnaC tne baptifme of Infants, becaufe not lawfull, is therefore nul notlawfull Thirdly, there was in the Church Baptifme of perfbns grown,in all ages examined. Ludov. Vives in his Commnt, upon Aug. de Civit. Dei. lib. i. cap. 27. hat *Sacr9 bap* t he(e words. No man of old was brought unto * the place of holy baptifme unlet tijtcrw ad- jj e were ^g rdVPn a g e already .and when the jameperfn knew what that my filed 'water meant, and defirrd to be wafted in it y md that more then once,an Image 1 which thing we fee yet, in our baptifme of Infants 5 fir as yet the Infant, thoug born the fame day, or the day before,is askgd, whether he would be baptized, an that thrice 5 for whom the fureties anfwer, that he would. Ibearinfmecitit in Italy, that the oldcuflome,for a great part is yet preferred. §. i4« The O Eventh!y,Hitisfaid, Two, not more then two (hall be one fldh ; fo in like manner it may be here argued , Chrift faid Baptizing them , and not others, therefore thefe and not other's are to be bap- But as for him who gathers from this place, infants are to be bap- tized becaufeChiift commands all Nations to be baptized, verily he is faulty, i , In calling away that reftridion that Chrift hath put. 2. By determining that all men whatfocver are to be baptized, fo that this is not a priviledge of belie vers and their children, but com- mon with them, to all Infidels and their children. And in very deed, however aflertors of Infant- bapnfme, crack of a priviledge cf believers and their oft-fpring, not only the ufuail pra- difeorbaptifingany little children offered, but alfo fay mgs prove, that men have gone far, not only from Chrifts inftitution, but alfo from the principles, upon which,men at this day are bufie to eftabliih Infant- baptifme. I (hall prove this by fome inftances. In the 59. E- piftle of Cyprian to Fidus, from which Auguftine is wont in his di- fputations againft the TeUgUns, to take his proof for Infant-bap- tifme, and to which Writers attribute much, although that I may fay no worfe, without cau(e,this reafon is pur,whyit was not aflented to B'fhopl 7 ^, who thought that an Infant was not to be baptized, afore the eighth day, according to the Law of ancient Circumcifion, m aU rat forjudged, that the mercy and grace of God ts to be denied to none, that inborn of men. •& • %y the vtiWtt of esfngujtine to Bonifacim, Tom. a. Mpfi.23. Enquiring concerning the truth of Sureties, in affirming the un- knowne faith of little ones, and promifing for thsm, it Will appeare to the Reader , that the bap:ifme of any little ones offered to bapiilme, is defended by him, Although they were* not brought, that they might be regenerated to eternall Life, by Spiritual! grace , but becaufe they think* by this remedy{l ufe the Words of Autuftine) to retain or receive temporal! health: John Ger- hard y Loc. Theolog. Tom A de Baptif.Cap. 7. Se£t.± defends the pra- clife or the Ancients b.pazmg the Children of unbeleevers: Ana the words oF Mr. SamtteU Rutherfordjcn, in his Booke lately put forth in the Enahjh tongue,intituLd A peaceable and temperate pica/ ,1 a. or 1 7 teems to me to prepaid too much to this opinion,The wolds are thefe , If then the fats in Pauls time were holy by Covenant* X) 2 ' howpetf n6 An Exer chat ion howbeitfr the prefect the Sens were branches broken off \ for unbelief, much more feeing God hath chofen the race and nation of the Ge?<*les, and is become a God to m and to our feed, the feed mufl be hdy , with holineffe of the chofen nation, and holinejje external! of the Covenant, notwithftandtng the Father and Mother Were as wicked as the fews, who flew the Lord of glory. And the grave confutation of I? mra*/?/, by Kathband, Tart.^. Pag.50. Fourthly, Children may be lawfully admitted to Baptifme 9 though both their Parents be profane, if thofe Who are ivftead of Pa- rents to them do require Baptifmefor them, and give their promife to the Church for their religious Education, feeing they may lawfully be accounted within Gods Covenant, if any of their Ancefiors in any Ge- neraticn were faithful!, Exod. 20. 5. Laftly, if this Argument be not offeree, Chriftcommandeth firft to Difciplf , and then to baptize thofe that are Difcipuled ; to exciuie Infants from Bsptifme -, neither will the argument be of force, from 1 Cor A 1 .28. Let a man examine him/elf, andfo let him eat, to exclude infants from the Lords Supper, for by the like elufion this argument may be re j.&ed by faying, that thz fpeech of the Apo- ftie is not excluftve , and is to be underftood of receiving the Lords Supper by perfons grown only, yea,verily,neither will the argument be of force from the inftitution of the Supper, Afat.26. 26,27.there- fore only believers are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If any reply. But the Apoftle 1 Cor, lo^& i i . hath declared, that the infti- tution is exclu(ive,the fame may be faid of the inftitucion of Bsptifm, from the following Argument. Ar, of which Parker of Ecclefi pclici*, /. 3 . c. 1 6\ 4. The Church-covenant, as they call it, afore the admiffion of members into Church- ftllovvih ; p, t'f which the NtVe-England El- ders in the little beok in EnglithjCalkd Church- Covenant, which in very deed are devifed to fupply the plact of Bipriftne ; for by Bap- tifme,sccording to Chrifts inftftuticm, a p. rfon is exhibited a member ofChrift and- the Church, 1 ^r.xi.ij. GW.3 27, pjhefafi ' *sfr£> 7. HP^ e ^ vcnt ^ Argument : §.20. the ar- 1 That which hathoceafioned many errors, that is defervedly gument a- doubtfuli,whether it be right. gamft infant- Buc the p ra aife of Iriant-baptifme hath occafioi\ed either the theErrors'o™ birth or foftering of many errors; Ergo, cafioned by it, It is proved by inftances : confirmed. 1 . That Baptifme conf erres grace by the work done. 2. That Baptifme is Regeneration. 3. That Infants dying,are faved by the faith of their parents,faith of fare-ties, of the Church receiving into her lap : which is to be a- fcribed alone to the grace of God by Chriii. 4. That fome regenerate perfons may utterly fall from grace. 'Art 8 T He eighth Argument : §.2 1. The ar- 1 That which hath caufed many abufes and faults in Difciphne, gument a- and Divine worfhip, and Converfation of men, that is defervedly pnft Infant- doubtfull. m wSufes m But Infant-Baptifme is fiich, Ergo, cau?ed by it, It is proved by enumeration. confirmed. I. Private baptifme. 2. Baptifme by women. 3 . Baptifme of Infants not yet brought into light. 4. Baptifme of Infants of uncertain progeny, whom we call children of the earth and world. 5. They are baptized in the name of the Lord, who know not thd Lord, nor have ever confented, or perhaps will confent to the con- fcflion of the name of our Lord. 6. It hath brought in the admiffion of ignorant and profane men into the communion of the Church,and to the Lords fupper: for who ^an deny rightly,the right of the Church to the baptized ? 7. It concerning Infant -B apt /fine. * £ 7. It perverts the order of difcipKne, that fitft a man be baptized and after among the catechized. 8. The Sacrament of baptifme is turned into a meet CeremGnv, yea into a profane meeting to feaft together. p. Men forget Baptifme, as if they were never baptfed, fo that it hath the force of a carnill rite, not of a fpiritusli Infticution. 10. It takes away, or at leaft diminiflieth zsale, and induftry in knovving the Gofpcl. *7~HE n/nth Argument. ~ Thatis defervediy doubtfull , that yeeSdeth cccafion to many § . 2 ».?iT»- unnecellary difputes, fettering only contention, and which cannot be pimcnt from determined by any certain rule. unnecetfiry But the tenet or rite of Irian t-bspttftne is fuch, aifpmes caii- Erg-o. fed by it a- ItisproiedbymlhBces 5*J£- i . Or baptizing the Infants of Excommunicated perfons, confirmed, 2. Of baptizing the Infants of Apoftates. 3. Of baptizing the Infants of iuch Parents as are not members in a gathered Church. 4. Of baptizing the Infants of thofe, whofe Anceftors were be- lievers, the next Parents remaining in unbelief; Thefe things (hew that men have departed from the Rule, when they know not where today. *J"H E tenth reafon of doubting is, A , That in the midft of the darkneile under thQ Papacy the fame men § z 5 .The & I oppoied Infant- baptifme, whooppofed invocation of Saints, prayer gumema- I for the dead, adoration of the CrolTe, and fuch like ; This is manifeft S ainft Infant - ! out of the dd.Sermon of Bernard^ the Canticles, where of the He- b u a?tlfm r° m I retiques (as hecais : them) who he laid boailed themfelves to be Sue- t o^nT IOD iceflorsof the Ap ftles, and name themfelves Apoftolique, he hath middeftof I thefe Words, They deride us, becaufe We baptUe Infants, becaufe we P°P er y> con- Wfirtht dead, became *, ^ the fuffr ages of the Saints, and in his firmcd ' i I40 tpiftle to H%ldtfa*(tu> Earl of Saint Giles 3 he complains of Hen- \rkmtheHemique, formerly a Monke, that He tooke away holy - Myts, Sacraments, Churches, friers, that the lifeof Chrifi kfapned ^othelittleonesofchnflians^hihtbe^ace of Baptifme v denied, ! *nd they are not fv fend to draw neer tofalvation, E From An ExercHation From the Epiftlf of Yes by all means, if any danger urge ; for it is better that they bofanfofied Without perceiving it, then to go aWay unfealed or unaccomphfled. And the reafon of this, to us, i* Circumcifion on the eighth day, being a certain typical feal& offered to them that had not jet the ufe of reafon; as alfo the anointing of the fop, which by things without feeling pre- concerning Infant- Baptifme. | : j firved thefrfi born. But for others, I give my opinion that the] Jtij three yeares, or a little within this,or bey end it, when they may he abb toheareand anffter fame my flic aU points, if thy cannot ttndtrfiM* ferfetlly,yet being thus jlampe^they fhallfanVufe both foules and oo~ dies with the great mjftery of confecration. THe eleventh reafon of doubting, is, Becaufe the Alienors of A n# Infant-Bsptifme little agree among themftlves, upon wnac § . , +> The foundation they may build Infant-B,.ptifme. Cyprian and others of Argument a~ the Ancients draw it from the university of divine grace, and the §*™^ neceflity cf Baptifme to falvation. Auguftine, Bernard, and others, ^^ ^ bring the faith of the Church as the reafon of bapiizmg Infants : f:rence about Others, among whom is the Gatechifme in the Englifh Licurgie, pu the ground o£ as the reafon of Infant-Baptifme, the promife of the Sureties, in the it, confirmed place of the faith and repentance of the baptized. The Lutherans, the faith of the Infant ; others>the holinefle of a believing Nation; others, the faith of the next parent; others, the faith of the next parent in covenant in a gathered Church. This difference of the maintained of Infant- B>.ptifm,defervedlycaufeth doubt concerning the thing it fclf. THE laft ,and that a weighty reafon of doubting is,becaufe Infant- Arg. 12. Baptifme feemes to take away one,perhaps the primary end of §. 25. The Baptifmjfor many things argue that it was one end of Baptifm, that Argument *i it fhould be a Ggne that the baptized (hews himfelf a difciple, and g^^ confcfleth the faith in which he hath been inftru&ed. i ts VO yding 1. The requiring of confeffion by John Baptift and the Apoftles, the chief end was wont to be before Baptifme, Lu^.io. ^^.8.35. ^^.16.31. of Baptifm, 2. The frequent manner of fpeaking in the new Teitament, which conhrmed, puts Baptifm for Doftrine, ^#.10.37. ^#.10.3. foews this. Bez& in his Annot.on ^#.19.3. The anftoer is moftappofite, in which they fignifie that they profejjed in Baptifm the do Urine propounded by John, ml confirmed by ufe of B aptifme with which they had been baptized, whereby they had acknowledged Ch> ifi but very fienderly. 3. The form of Chrifts initiation, Mat. 28. 10. compared with the phrafe as it is ufed 1 Cor. 1 . 1 3 .O: y ^ereyou baptized into the name ofTaul ? implies the fame. On which place Bez,*, The third reafon is taken from the form and end of Baptifme, m which Vpc give our name to Chrifi, being called upon, with the Father and Holy Spirit. E 2 4-TIwt 54 An Excrcitdtion, (jrc. 4. That which is (aid, Joh. 4. 2. He made and baptized more difii- fles. And Mm* 2 8. 1 p. Goings make difciples in all nations baptizing them ; Intimate this. And if, as fome iffirme, Baptifm was in ufe with the Jews, in the initiating cf profelytes into the profeffion of Judaifme; this opinion is the more confirmed. But in Infant- B^ptifme the matter is fo carried, that Baptifme ferves to confirm a benefit, not to fignifie a profeflicn made: and fo one, perhaps the chief end of Baptifme is voyded. And here J think it is to be minded, that the ufuall defcription of a Sacrament, and fuch as are like to it, That it is a vifible figr.e of invifible grace ; hath occasioned the mif- underftanding of both Sacraments, as if they figned a divine benefit, not our duty, to which in the fitft place the Inftitution had refpedh It feems to fome,that Infant-baptifme fhould be good,becaufe the Devil requires Witches to renounce it. Which reafon,if ought worth, might as well prove Baptifme cf any Infants, Baptifme byaMid- wife ? good jbecaufe thefe the Devil requires them to renounce,as well that which is of the Infants of believers, by a lawfull Minifter. But the true reafon why he requires the Baptifme of Witches to be re- nounced by them, is not becaufe the Baptifme is good in refptcl: of the adminiftration of it, but b^ caufe the Faich mentioned in the form of Baptifme, is good ; and they that renounce not their baptifme, do {hew their adherence to that faith in fome fort, which cannot ftand with an explicite covenant with the D. vil. Nor is the aiTuming of baptifme in ripe yeares by thofe who were wafhed in infancy, a ' renouncir g of baptifme , as fome in their grofie ignorance conceit 5 but indeed a firmer avouchirg of baptifme according to Chrifts mind This more likely might be inferred from the Devils pra&ife in re- quiring Witches to renounce their baptifme ; That the profeffion of Faith is the main bufmefle in -Baptifrrir, which fhould be before Bap- tifme, if it were rightly admimftred after the firft pattern- FltilS, An Examen OF THE S E R M ON Of M r . Stephen Marshal, About Infant*$aptifme,in a Letter lent to him : Divided into Foure Parts. f i . Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptifme. 2. Concerning the prejudices againft ^Antip<&dobaptifs \ from their mi fc am ages. i! j;> Concerning the Arguments from Scripture, for In- fant-baptifme. 4. Concerning the objections againjl Infant-baptifme. In which are maintained thefe Pofitions. f 1 . Infant-baptifme is not fo ancient as is pretended, but as now taught is a late Innovation. 2 . K^intip&dobaptifmc hath no til influence on Church, • or Common- wealth. I 3. Infant-baptifme cannot be deduced fro?n Holy Scrip- tur^j. 4. Infant-baptifme is a corruption of the Ordinance of L Baptifme. LONDON, Printed by R.W. for George Whitington. 164?- Infant SB aptifme h not fo Ancient as is pretended : As now Taught , Is a late Innovation. Part I. Concerning the antiquity oflnfant-Baptifme. S I R 5 T is now full nine moneths fince , that being in- §, s . formed by one of the Members of the Affembly, The prologue in which you are one , that there was a Com- oftb€ ? cc * fl ; mittee chofen out of the Members or the Af- Ss "S. iembly, to give fatisfadion in the point of P#do- baptifme , and advifed by the fame perfon cu: of his tender love to me , to prefem the reafons of my doubts about Paedo-b&puf me, to that Committee ; I drew them ap in Latine, in nine Arguments^ a fcholaftique way, and they were delivered unto Mx.fVhitaker the Chair- man ot the Committee, about nine moneths fince : to which I added after,an addition of three mors reafons of doubting, with a fuppkment of fome other things want- s ing ; which was delivered to Mr, Tttckney, and joyned by him to the former Papers. My aim therein wa? 3 either to find better grownd then I had then found to praftife the baptizing of Infants, from that Membly of learned and holy men , whom 1 fuppofcd able and wii- Z ling hifant-Bjifvfme u not fo ancient as is pretended. ling to refolve their Brother in the Minlftcry ; Or elfe according to the folemn Covenant I lave taken, to endeavour the reformation of thefe Churches according to Gods word,by informing that Atlernbly what I conceived amifle in the great ordinance of Baptizing. The fuccefle was fuch, as I little expe&ed : to this day I have heard no- thing from the Committee by way of anfwer to thofe doubts ; but I have met with many Pamphlets, and fome Sermons, tending to make the queftioning of that point odious to the People, and to cheMagi- ftrsae. Among others, reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines, on Ephef.q. 14. before the Lord Major : and the Sermon you preached at Weftminfier Abbey. I perceive there is fuch a prejudice in you, and k may feem by the Vote paiTcd about the members of the vifible Church, in the generality of the Affcimbly, that he is likely to be ex- ploded, if not cenfured,that (hall but difpute againft it : and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued, as I conceive it doth deferve, in your AiTembly. And further, I perceive there is a great z^ale in your fpirit againft the denying of Children bapiifme, as it it were a more cruvli thing than Haz,aels dafhing out Childrens brains; That it were an exclulion of them out of the Covenant of Grace,&c. Which I the more admire, confidering the report which hath been of you, as a fober, learned, holy, well- tempered man, that you (hould be fo tranfported in this matter, as to be fo vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages, but an Ecclefiaiticall tradition, for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcifion, and confetti no exprefie example in Scripture for ir : and go not about to prove it, buc by confequence inferred from five Concluiions, which though you call undeniable, yh others do not think i o, nor yet fee reafon to fubfcnbe to your judgment. You are not ignorant, I prefume, that Mr/Z) aniel Rogers, in his Treatife of the Sacraraent of Bsptifme,/><*r/- 1 . fag. 79. conrefled himfelf ye t un- convinced by demor'ftration of Scripture for it. And whereas your Achilles for Pado-b'ipcifme,ts the Circumcifion of Infants, me chinks Mr. Balls words, (Reply to the Anfwer of the New-England Eiders, about the third and fourth Poiitions, fag. 3 8, 30.) cut the fine ws of that argument. But in whatfoever they agree,or differ ', V?e mufi looj^ I to the lnflitnti-.-K. And neither fir Infant-Baftifme U not fo ancient as is fntcndcd. the lawfhll Minifter according to ordinary rule* I deny it. . . That which you fay for the praftife of baptizing infants may be reduced, i. To the teftimonies of Antiquity. 2. To the novelties and mifcarriages of the oppofers of it. 3, To the arguments produced forir. 4.Totheanfweringobrdionsagainftit. I (Ml by Gods af- fiftence examine each of thefe. Firft you affirm, That the Chriftta* Church hath beeninpofijjton of it for the $ ate of fifteen hundred years and upwards, a* is manifefi out ofmoft of the Records that me haveofiAntiqmtybothinthc Greek, and Latine Churches. To this I anfwer, that if it were true, yet it is not fo much as may befaidforEpifcopacy, keeping of Eafter, the religious ufe of the Crofle,&c. which I conceive you rejed. 2, That the bighelt testi- monies you produce come not fo high. 3 . Thofe that be alkaged, be- ing judkioufly weighed,will rather make againft the prefent dottrine and pradife, then for it. 4. There are many evidences that do as ftrongiy prove (as proofes ufually are taken in fuch matters ) g**d. ab initio nonj uit fic> That from the beginning it was not fo; and therefore it is but an innovation. The fitft of thefe I prefume you, will acknowledge, that for Antiquity not-Apoftolicail, there are plain teftimonies ot Epifcopacy, keeping of Eafter, the religious ufe of the Crotfe being in ufe before any of the testimonies you, or any. other can produce for bspiizing of infants >; and therefore I will for- bear mentioning proofts fo obvious to Scholiars. The fecondand third thing I (hall make good in the weighingof the Teftimonies you produce, and the fourth in the clofe. $• f \TOw Teftimonies are either of tin 3 Greek or Lirine Churches. ° f i hC x e A- * ° f tIi: Gr eekes you alieage four-. The firft is faftine mony a o^!- Martyr, ot vi houi you {ay, That he lived Anno 150. which fiinsMawT. wants fomewh at of 1500. yet s\ and therefore yon did fomewhat over- lajhy in faying that it ismanifeft out ej mft of the Records of the Greeks and Latin* Chttr, h : 3 he Church b.th b&n Wfof ' Jpo* of the priviledge of baptising < fonts 1 $00. years *.nd upVca- ds ; and then you (ay, In a Treatijl < aut ?oes under his n ;me 1 By which it is m|r iiiftft.tha: you know th?.:ic was qu ftioned tfteiher it vas-his or no$ and I conceive yor. ecu inotbeii ior»nt,?li titi nc ••i'i- ftioned,, but alio proved by ?e* ki ■■ t >■ ■ fas P ^ rj *' ' 1- ftration of the Problems by R \ vt t m in* * - c As now taught^ is a late Innovation. ' ^ Cooke of Leeds (if my memory faile me not, to which I am inforced to truft in many things, being fpoiled of my bookes) in -his Cenfure, and confefled by Papifts, to be none of fufiine Martyh;buz to bee written a great while after his dayes ; for as much as it mentions not uniy Irenausy butalfo Oriom and the Manichees : Now what doth this baftard Treatife fay ? You fay gueftion 56. Juftine Martyr di- lutes the different condition ofthofe children who die baptised, and of thofe children who die unba ft ized. The queftion propounded is. // Infants dying have neither praife nor bUme by works, Vvh~t is the dif- ference in the refurreftton of thofe thithve been baptized by other s y tind have done nothing, and ofthofe that have not been buptiz, d y and in like manner have done nothing. The Anffter hfhis is the d.ff- rence of the baptized from the not baptized ; that th? bap tat, d obtatne good thmgs (meaning at ihe Rtfurredion) by baptime, but the w^uptizsd obtain not good things. And th'j are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptifm*, by the faith of thofe that brmg them to bapti;me. You may »y this u ftinony fee (wha* ever A^e the book was made in) wnat the rtafon of b*p: zing or Infants was:Not the fuppofed Covenant of grace, Kiade to bdkVers and their feed, which you m ke the ground of baptizing of infat.rs : but the opinion that the not bap* ized ih aid n r obtain good things at (he n iur.edli- on (n,ean»ng the Kingdome or Cod, mentioned foh. 35) but the baptized (hould ; and that by restart of the faith of trie bringeis, What ever the Parents were, and therefore they baptized the children of unbelievers, as well as believers if they wue brought. YOur next Greek Author is Iren&tu, who was indeed a Creeke, §. 4. and wrote ir. Greek, but now only we have his Works in Latine, Oflrenetet (except fome few fragments) for which reafon we are not fo certain hi$ T eftimo/: of his meaning,** we might be if we had his own words in the ian- "*' guage in whicn he wrote. You fay he lived in the fame Century, and k is acknowledged he lived in the fame Century with fufiine Martyr but not with the Author of the Queftions & Anfwers ad Orthodoxes, who fas hath been faid)lived in fome Age after. Irendus is by VJher placed at the yeare 1 80. by Ofiander at the yeare 1 8 3 . fo that though he were of that Century ,yet he flouriflied in the latrer part of it, and fo reacheth riot to your 1 $oo.years & upwards. Of him you fay, that /.2.c.3p.he faith ^hrtftus venit per jeipsu omnesfalvare^mnesinquay qui per eum renafemtur in Deu y infantes & parvulos & pueros, &c. ¥2 NoW &. > Infant-Baptifme is not fo ancient at is fret ended: Now it is well knoWne^ fay the Glowers upon that text % renafcentU nomine, T>ominica & Apoflclica Phrafi B aptifmum intelligi : You might have added what follows. Aperte conformant Apoftolornm tra- ditionem de baptifmo infantum parvulorum adverfus Anabaptifiicam impietatem.Butl pray you, whofe GloiTe was this ? Was it any other then Fevar dentins ( if I tniftake not) of whom Rivet . Crit.SacrMb.2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum, qui in opera Irenai incident momtos volo, ut caveantab Mis Ediiionibus, quas impudentiffimvu iUe Monachm Fe- vardentiuS) homo project* audacia et nuUius fidei, fcede in multis cor» rupit, &• amotationibus tmpiis et mendacibus confpurcavit. And for the glofle its falfe : for no where doth our Lord, or the Apoftles call baptifme,New birrh,al though our Lord fpeakeor being borne againc of water J^.3.5. and Paul ok the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3. 5. and for the words themfelves without *he gloiTe, all the ftrength iyes in this, that the word {Renafcuntur )\% ufed for Baptifme by the Ancients, which yet poflibly was not the word Irenaus ufed in his owne writing ; and how the Larine tranflnion alters the meaning of Irenaus ,you may fee fomewhat in Rivet, foffius Thefibm Theologic. de Padobapt.Thefu 7. intimates,* W the proper acceptton is offantfi- ficatio^and that the Word may be fo tak,en> yea and that it is not meant of Bsptifme, the words and the whole fcope of Irenaus in that place ftiew.for the fcope of Ire* ant in that chapter is to refute the GnofiicksyWho fay d that Chrift did not exceede one and thirty yeeres of agejagainft whom Irenaus alleigeth,thn Chrift lived in every age, of infancy,youth,oid age,that by his age, & example,he might iancli- fie every age, fo that here Irenaus fpeakes not of being borne againe by Baptifme : for it is faid, who are borne againe by him, that is, by Chrift. Not as if he had baptized infants, but bcciufe he was an in- fanf, that by th? example or venue or his age, he might fanctirle in- fants,as the whole context will (hew, which is this. CMagifter ergo txifienSy Afagifiri quoque habebat atatem, non reprobans neo fuper- grediens hcmmem, neque folvens fuam legem in fe humani generis y fed omnem ataiem fantlificans per Mam, qua ad iffum erat, fimifitu- dinem* O mnes enim venit per feipfmqfalvare y omnes inquam, qui per eum renafcuntur in Deum, Infantes >& parvulos y & pueros y & juvenes &feniores* Ideo per omnem venit atatem, & infanttbusjnfansfaclus fantlificans infantes, tnparvulis parvu^m, fanBificanwhanc ipjam habentes at at em, fimul & exemplum Mis piet at is effect as & juftttia & fubjeflionis* in luvenwus Iuvenis exemplumluvenibmfiens i & Santtificans As votv tdught is a Lite Innovation. Z 7 Sanfaficans T>om\m : fie et fenior in femoribus, ut fit perfeB us Mr fifter, non folum feemdum expofitionem veritatis, fed feenndum ttatem, fdnftffcans fimml & feniores exemplum ipfis quiquef^s ideinde & n f que ad mortem per venit,ut fit fimogemtus exmonuis ipfe primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vita, prior omnium, et l&cedens omnes. Which he confmnes by the teftimony of Iohn the Ap-ftle, from whom he faith, thofe that converfed with him related, thatChrift lived about fifty yeares, which all forts of writers doe reckon among Irenaus his biemifhes, and thereby (hew how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apoftoiicall traditions. ^I^Henext Greeke Author is Origen, who you fay lived in the § ^ X beginning of the third Century, Perkins and VJher place him ofthefuppo- at the yeare 230.but for his works, as of old they were counted fed ttflknpny, full oferrours and dangerous to bereade, fo as now they are, we oiOngen. can hardly tell in fomeV them what is Origins, Whatnot : for the originall being loft, we have only the Latine translation, which being performed in many of his works,and parciculaily the Hom'ili s on Leviticus, and the Epiftle to the Romanes, by Rujfnus, it ap- peals by hisowne confeflion, that he added many things of his own, infomuch that Erafmus in his cenfure of the Html H on Le- viticus (iithythat a man cannot be certaine whether he reads s Rurfinus Siighttr ott- er Oiigen-, and Terkins puts among Owens Counterfeit woks h s jggJJST .Comentary on the Epiftle to the Romans, i$&in« not txidvull AnU ^ mim tranflated by Ruffinus : the like is the judgement of Oioet an i others, Ar i un # p e u- and Ifuppofe did ycu reade the paflages themlelves you cke,md gionorum & confider how they are brought in: and how pUine the ^P reffio ^ s ^^^ areagainft the Pelagians: you would quickly conceive, that thofe ^ J gm paflages were put in after the Pelagun herdie was confuted by €X p^e^y Hierom and dugufiine,who oken t Us us that the Fath<§rs,afbre qumvis Here- that controveiiic arofe, did not fp:ake plainly againft the Pelagtens : ticorum mmine and of all others, Or' K en is moft taxed as P ela t ianUing. Where-/; ZtebMLe f ore VofiM in the place aforenamed,though he cite him for company, mn >j£ ule yet tddts, fed de Ortgene minus lab or abimm quia qua citabat»M,scriptume]fc Grace non extant .But what laith the fuppafed Origen ? la one place, ejus Author* thattheChurch received this tradition of baptising infants from the A- ™ j J?™™et pofiles: m another according to the obfervmce of the Chxrch } baptifmeJ r J^ tdep ^ is wanted H infants, you adde, ( as foreseeing that this paflage Would mm AutMt - * F 3 prove wpx-4. ; \ % - Infwt-Bdptifme is notfo ancient as is fret ended. prove that then it was held but a tradition) that then the greateft pints of faith Were ordinarily called tradition*, received from tkt csfpofties, and you cite 2 Thef. 2.1 J. To which I reply, true it is that they did caU the greateft points of faith, though written, traditions Apoftolicall, as conceiving they might beft learne what to hold in points of faith, from the Biihops of thofe Churches where the Apo- ftles preached, and therefore in prefcriptions againft Heretickes, TVr- tuUianJrenaus and others,dkecl: perfons to go to the Churches where the Apoftles fate, fpecially the Romane Church which (eemes to have beene the feed of Appeals to Rome, and the grou id of the conceit which was had ot the Popes unerring Chaire. But it is true alfo they called Apoftolicall traditions any thing though unwritten, which was reported to have come from the- Apoftles; as the time of keeping Eafier, and many more, which was the fountaine of all corruptions in difcipline and worfhip. And that in thofe places you cite,is meant an unwritten tradition, not only the not citing my Scripture fol Baptizing of Infants,but alfo the very Phrafes, hoc et Eclefia ab ^ffoftolu tradittonemfufcepit & Secundum Ecclefie 'bfervan- Confuetudo to- tiam^it fufficient proofe to them who are acquainted with du* An- men Matrk Ec- cients writings of thofe times. So that yet you have nor proved chat clefm in bapi- the baptifme of Infants was time out ofminde, that it had beene Idndu parvulis received in the Chu> ch,or was delivered over to the Church in Ori- 1 mA^^mS nu time, and was of ancient ute in the Church afjie his time. But ulio modifier- thefe P»fl*g« P rov? thac in tht ci ne when th e f ram -r of thofe paflages flu* deputanda, wrote, it was accounted but an Apoitolicali tradition, according to nccomnino ere- the obfervance of the Church. Like (petches to which are found in denda nifiApo- pf eH do-DjonifiHs in the end of his Hierachy.and Auguftin. Ub.io.de dithAutitfin Genefiadliteram.c2s.md elft where , which argue that it was held tib.io. c%.ii. as an Ecclefiaftx*U tradition in thofe times. AtGcmju o/' *TpHe fourth and laft of the Greeke Church you name is Gregory Tcftimonics 6 * Naztanzen, who is by Perkins placed at the yeare 380. by of GHgvry ^fi er 37°» truch ^ 0it of 1500. yeares and upwards, you fay that ltai(i*nt$nin& Orat.ip.in Bayt'ifwumjoc caUs baptifme y fignaculum vitA curfumin the Greeke tuntibuiytnd commands Children to be baptized, though afterward* Church. hefeemedto reftrainett to the cafe of necejfitj. But doth he feeme onely to reftraineit to the cafe of neceffity ? the words are plaine* that he gives the reafon why Infants in danger of death fliould be baptized *>& W JW^'eaV m mrfs xwl&> that they might not mijfe As ww taught^ is a late InmvMion. 9 miffe of the common grace } but w?t w 'tyw £i&>iM yv&m^fo gives his opinion of other s % that they fhouldftay longer >t hat they might be inftrfttled, and fo their minds and bodyes m'ght be Santlified^rA. thefe are all you bring of the Greek Church. By the examination of [which you may perceive how weR you have proved, that it ismanh- fefi out ofmofi of the Records that We have of antiquitie both in the \Greeke and Latine Church, that the Chrifiian Church hath beene \inpo(frjfion of the priviledge of baptising the infants of beleiversfor \thejpace of 1 500. jeares and upwards. Whereas the higheft is but a baftard Treatife, and yet comes not fo high, if it were genuine ; the aext without a glofle, which agrees not with the text, fpeakes no- riling to the purpofe, the third is of very doubtfull credit, the fourth which was fundry hundreds of yeares after Chrift reftraines it to the cafe of neccffity.But it is wonder to me, that if it were fo iuanifeft as you fpeake, you (hould finde nothing in Eufebius for it y nor in Ignatius, nor in Qlemens Alexandrinuspor in AthanaJius>nor in Epiphamus, that I mention not others: to me it is no fmall ar- gument that baptifme of Infants wasnotuniverfally knownein the Gceek Church^no not in Epiphanius his day es, who is faid to flidurifh in the yeare 39o.becanfe in his Ttf»r Ql ,^ racitesy that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdome of heaven, be- v \i^, ^' 47 jcaufe not driving. He brings the Infants killed by Htrod, the words of the Lord concerning Ieremiah Chap.l. of his prophefie \ Chrifis- bleffing and receiving of infant s, the children crying Hofanna : but nothing at aU of bifants-baptifme, which had beene as proper to his purpofe if he had beene acquainted with it. But befides the con- tinuance of the qatftions to baptized perfons, and anfwered by them,in many Authors mentioned,this is to me,and it feemed fo to Hugo GrotittS) Annot. in ^Matth.19. 1 4.N0 fmall evidence,that bap- tilme of Infants many hundred yearts was not ©rdainary in the Grseke Church : becau'e not on* ly Conftantine the Great, though the fonne of Helena* zealous Chriftianasks reported, was not b prized till aged but alfo char. Gregory Naz,ianz,zn who was the fonne of a Chnftkn Bimop, and brought up long by hiun,was not baptized till he came to be a youth, as is reltccd i 1 h* life. And Chryfoftom* thou b b(a$ Grotius iai:h)aecordir.g «r> u u r opinion, bo; ne of Chfiftitn Parents, snd educited by M> I • im p , yet was he not baptized till pait 21 yeai es of sg*. Grotim it the Canon of the S j nod of Ncocafarea held i»i - b * i o Infant-Baptifme is not fo ancient as is pretended : that a woman^ith child* might be baptized, becaufe the baptifme reached not to the fruit of her Voombe, bee we in the confejfion made in baptifms, each ones oXVn free choice is [hewed. From which Canon, Balfamon and Zonaras do inferre, that an Infant cannot be baptized, becaufe it hath not power to choofe the confejfion of divine bapttfme. And Orotic adds further, that many of the Greeks in every age unto, this day 'do keep the cuftome of differing the baptifme of little ones /ill they could themfelves make a confejfion of their faith. From all which I inferre ? That the Anabaptifts need not blufb to fay (which you feern to make a part of cheir impudence) that the Ancients, efpeeially the Greeks Church, re jetted the baptifme of Infants for many hundred yeeres. Of th/'tefti- TPrcceed to the Writers of theLatine Church,you atledge for Bap- meny the Latines: which js true; He is placed by Perkins at the yeare 240. by Vfher, at the yeare 250. Yet Tertu'Uan was before him, and counted his mafter : Now in TertuRians time, it appeares ( faith Grot ins in Mat. 19. 14) ther -e was nothing defined cencerning the age in Which they were to be baptized, that were confecraied by their pa- rents to Chriftian difcipline, becaufe he dijfwades by fo many reafons (in his book ofBaptifm c.\%.) the baptizing of Infants. And if he did allow it,lt was only in cafe of necefiity,as may appeare by his words inhisbook^«/ff^,f.39. Butycufay, Cyprian hmdhs it at large, inEp ; f^9. adFidum. Icistrue, he doth fay enough in that Epiitle for bipt zin : ^ of Infants, and more then enough, except he had fpokentobeuerpurpofe. The truth is, the very reading of that E- piftle, upon which Hierom, and efpeeially Auguftme rely for the proving of the baptizing of Infants,is fufficient to difcover how great darknefle there was then upon the fpirks of thofe that were counted the greateft lights in the Church. You fay, upon this occafon,¥id\i% denied not the bapufme of Infants, but denied that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. But you might have furtner oofervr d, that Fidm atteadged, cenfiderandam effe legem (fircumci fonts anti- qua, that he thought the law of ancient Circumciflon was to be con^ fidered. And, VejUgium Infant is in primis partus fui dicbus conflituii mundum non effe dixifii : Thou hafifaid that the footftep of ^ an In- fant being in thefirfi dayes of his birth, is not clean. Wnence it plain- ly appeares, that there was a relique of Judaifme in him, and chat he did As now taught^ is a late Innovation* 1 1 did not well underftand the abrogation of the Ceremonial I Law: and the truth is, the contentions about Eafter, neere that age, do plainly fhew, that Iudaifme was not quite weeded out of the mindes of the chiefs teachers among Chriftians. You fay Cyprian a fares him,that by the unanimous confent of 66 Bifhops gathered together in a CounceU, baptifme Was to be adminiftred to In'antes, as ^ftell as to groyne men ; and not to be retrained to any time, which is true, but you adde, and proves it by fuch arguments as thefe. The j are under originall Jinne, they neede pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age,&e. But the refolutlon of Cyprian with his Colleges is not fo lightly to be paifed over,fith the determi- nation of this Councell, as far as I can by fearch finde, is the very fp.ing-head of Infant- baptif me. To conceive it aright, it is to be confidered, that you are mifhken, about the proofe of their opinion ; the things you mention, are not the proofe, but are produced in anfwer of objections. The proofe is but one, except you will roake a proofe of that which is in the clofe of the Epiftie, which is , thu whereas none is to be kept from baptifme, and thf grace ofGod,much leffe Nsw-b-jrne Infants, who in this re- fietb doe deferve more of our ayde, and Gods me pcirent parvuli ft fine remedio regtnerationis gratia defungerentur % ftatuerunt eos baptiz,ari in rermjfionem peccatorum quod & S. Au'Tufiinus in libro de baptifmo parvulorum oftendit, & African* teftantur Concilia, & aliorum Tatrum document a quamplurima. And then adds how God-fathers and God-mothers were invented and addes one fuperftitious and impious confequent on it in thete words. Non ant em debet Pater vel mater ds fonte fuam fufcipere fobolem ut ft difcretio inter jpiritalem generationem & carnalem % Quod ft cafu evenerit, non habebunt carnalis copula deniceps adin- vicem consortium, qui in communui filio compaternitatis fpiritalc vinculum fufceperant. To which I adde that.P^r«* Cluniacenfis 9 placed by VJher, at the yeare 1150. writing to three Biihops of France againft Peter de Bruis, whodenyed Baptifine of Infants, fayes of him, that he did re je ft the Authority of the Latine Dob~iors> being himfelfe a Latine, ignorant of Greeh, and after having faid recurrit ergo ad fcriptur as, therefore he runnesto the Scriptures: he alkageifa the examples in the New Teftament, of Chrifts curing of perfons at the requeft of others, to prove Infants Baptifme by and then adds, Quid vosad ifta? Ecce non de Auguftino, fed de Evangelio protuU, cui cum maxime vot credere dicatis ant aliorum fide alios tandem po^e falvari concedhe, aut de Evangelio effe qua pofui ft potefiis , negate, from thefe pailages I gather, th*z is Pctfm Cluniacenfis urged for paedo- baptifme the authority of Auguftine and the Latine Doctors, So c* did reft altogether on Auguftines arguments, and often on his words, zy£ Auguftine in time was accounted one of the foure Doftor^of the Chu ch,efteemed like the foure Evangelifts, fo that his opinion was the rule of theChurchesJudgement,and the fchooles determination, as to the great hurt of Gods Church Luther and G 2 others 14 * Infants tftifme is not fo ancient as is pretended. others have beene of late. Now sAuguftine did very much inffit on this argument to prove originall finne, becaufe Infants were baptized for remiflion of (innes, and therefore in the Council! of Mileviste was adjudged accurfed, that did deny it: But for my parti value Auguflines judgement iuft at fo much, as hisproofes and reafons weigh, which how light thev are you may conceive. -. j4ugujl.tcm i. Rrft, In that whereas he makes it fo Univerfsll a tradition, his A Conffiiib. i x. owne bsptjfh^not till above thirty , though educated as a Chriftian }l^mleZ b y hls matter Monica, the Bsptifme of his fonne nAdeoda- S cc!i lubJ tits at 1 5 .of his friend Alifius, if there were no more, were enough ejus [ale jim to prove that this cuftome of baptizing infants, was not fo received, indeabmero as t hat the Church thought neceffary that all children of Chnftians Mafrmrajm by p ro f e fli on fhouldbe baptized in their infancy. And though f^AiSXn I conceive with Grotius zrrnot. in Mattki9M^hat baptifme of l!l It A.I :U IUCM ' . • . . ■ ' t followes,how Infants was much more frequented, and mth greater opinion of ne- being young cejjitj in Africa, then in Alia, or other farts of the V?orld % for ( faitH and falling ht) inthe Councellsyou cannot finde ancienter mention of that tcVte ckfired, cu fl 0Mti then the Comce u ,/ Car thage. Yet I doe very much qua- rter thought ftion whether they Mm Africa, even in Auguftines time jbap- to have him tize children,except in danger of death, or for the health of body, baptized, but or f uc h like reafon : I do not finde that they held that Infants muft upon his recc- fc e 5 S p t j ze d out f fuch cafes, for it is cleare out of fundry of dl?rrcT S *sfH u ft ines Traas,as particularly traft. 1 1 in Johan : that the order ^ S held of diftingutfhing the C*t* chtmeni and baptized, and the ufe of Catechizing afore baptifme, ftill continued, yea and a great while af- ter, tnfomuch that when Petrus Cluniacenfis difputed ^againft Peter de Bruis,ht(*idorAy,that there had beene none but infants bapti- zed for $co.yeares>or almofl $00. yeares *» GalIia,Sp:iine,Germany, Italy, andaU Europe, and it feemes he denyed not the baptizing cfgtowne perfons in Afia ftill ; whence I colled, that even in the Latine Church, after tAuguftines dayes, in fundry ages the bapti- zing of perfons ofgrowne age did continue as well as baptizing of infants, till the great darknes that over-fpred the Wcfterne Churches, Spoiled by Barbarous Nations,deftitute of learned men, and ruled by ambitious and unlearned Popes, when there were none to Catechize, and therefore they baptized whole Countries upon the baptifme of the King of that Country, though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Chnftianity , but were in refpeft of manners and knowledge Pagans ftill, which hath beene the great -~ *: caufe As novo taught is a late Innovation. 2 j aufe of the upholding cf Papacie, and corrupting of Chriftian Chur- hes, I mean this great corruption of baptizing, making Chriftitns, jiving Chriftendome (as it is called) afore ever perfons were taught /hat Chriftianity was, or if they were taught any thing,it was only he ceremonies and rites of the Churches they calhd them You may conceive how light Angufiines ju igement was, by Kjvct.t>aSI.4e Dnfidering the ground upon which Augufiine held, and urged the %%™T aptifme of Infants fo vehemently; which was, as all know that A ugufti had his works, the opinion he had, that without baptifme Infants twkflmmk liuft be damned, by reafon of originall (inne,which is not taken away djudua* in- ut by Baptifme, yea, though he wanted baptifme out of neceflity ; f™ u P ne . ba P' rgingthofe places, f^.5,5. Rom. 5. 12. continually in his difpuees ttjm mrmUs I'ainft the Pelagians, particularly torn. 7. de natura & gratia, c, 8. jid tom,2.ep*i$. he faith, Item quifquis dixerit, quod in Chrifiovi- ificabuntw etiam parvuli, qui fine Sacramenti ejus participation de it a exeunt, hie profefto & contra Apoftolicam pradlcationem venit, r tot am condemnat ecclefiam. And in the clofe of the Epiftie, calls I robnfiiffimam & fundatiffimam fidem, qua Chrifii ecclefia, nee trvulos homines recent ifii me natos a damnatione credit, ni/iper gra*i lam domini Chrifii, quam in fuis Sacramentis commendavit, pojfe berari. And this,?* rkins in his Probleme, proves,was the opinion f Ambrofe^nd many more : And hence, as Aquinas ,fo Bettarmine, roves baptifme of Infants, from Joh. 3 5. And this hath been ftill le principall ground. The ground that you go on, that the covenant f grace belongs to believers and their fced,I cannot find amongft the mcieists. Yea, as you may perceive out of Perkins in rte place al- jadged, although Ambrofe,md Auguftine in his 4. book de Bapttfmo ontra Donatifias, c.22. yielded, thit either LMartyrdome, or the de~ re of Baptifme, might fupply the defect of Baptifme, andfomeof he School-men, Biel, Cajetan, Gerfon, do allow the defire and pray- y of parents for children in the wombe, in fiead of baptifme: Yet we ;nde no remedy allowed by them, but a&uall baptifme for children •orn into the world: Softn&ly did Augufiim and the Ancients urge he neceflity of Baptifme for Iuf ants born. 3. You may confider, that Auguftine held a like neceflity of In- ints receiving the Lcrds fupper, from the Words, fob. 6.$$, as is lainly exgrefled by him,lib.i.depeccat. merit* & remifi c, 20. And ccordingly, as in Cyprians time, the Communion was given to In- *nts, as appears by the fiory which he relates of himfclf, giving the L 3 £ om ~ j 6 Infaut -Baptifme is not [9 ancient as is pretended. Comrrunion to talnfant,in his book de /^mentioned by Augufi^i epifi. 23. So itisconfefledby Maldonat 00 fob. 6. t\\K Innocentim. I the Sift, Bilhop of. Rom> held it neceffarj for Infants ; and that this, f opinion and practife continued about 600 pares tnthe Church though I itbenowrej«&ed by the Romane Church in theCouncel of Trentif 4. You may confider, that Auguftinehdd fuch a certainty of ob-| taining regeneration by Baptifme, that not only he puts ufuaily re- i generation for Baptifme, but alia he makes no queftion of the rcge- neration of Infants, though they that brought them, did not bring j] them with that &ith, that they might be regenerated by fpmtutU j grace to eternal! life ; but becaufe by Baptifme they thought to pro-;! cure health to their bodies, as is plain by his words, epift. 23. ad B*$ mf actum. Nee Mudtemoveaty quodquidam non ea fide adBaptiM mumpercipiendum parvulosferunt, ut gratitjpiritaliadvhamre-] genereniur Aternam, fed quod ens putant hoc rtmedio ttmporalem reti*\ nere tut reciperefanttatem X non enim propterea M non regenerantur, \ qui* non ah Mis hac intentione ojferuntur ; celebrantur enim per to* \ leceffariaminifteria. By which laft words you may perceive how j corrupt Augufiwc was in this matter,fo as to excisfeyf not to juftifie I their tad, who made ufe of Baptifme in fo profane a manner, as to 1 cure difeafes by it : which is no marvaile,if it be be true which is re- lated, of the approbation that was given of the Baptifme ufed by A4 rto^inplayamongftboyes. I 5. You may confider, that in the fame Epiftle, whenBonifacjus preffed Augufline to (hew feoW Sureties could be excufed irom lying, who being asked of the Childs faith, anf wered, He doth believty (fori even in Baptifme of Infants they thought in all ages it neccflary that] aprofeffion of faith go before) He defends that ad in this abfuri manner : Refpondetur credere propter fidei Sficramcntum, And thence? is he called a believer, becaufe he hath the Sacrament of faith. Which! as it is a ridiculous playing with words, in fo ferious a matter beford God, fo it is a fenfleffe anfwer, fith the interrogation was of thej Childs faith before it was baptized, and the anfvver was given be-i fore, and therefore it cannot be anderftood of believing by receiving the facrament of faith, which came after. 6. Itis^pparentoutofthefameEpiftle, that Infants were theri admitted to baptifme, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no matter with what intention they brought them," norwhofe children were brought; yea it was counted a work of j charity to bring any children to baptifme, and in this cafe the faith of As now taught^ is a late Innovation. ij f the whole Church was counted a fuffickRt fuppleinent of the de- ?& of the parents or bringers faith : So that whereas ttyp prefent de- leters of Infant- baptifme, pretend Covenant- holinefle a priviledge if Believers, it was no fuch matter in the time of the Ancients, but (ley baptized any Infants, even of Infidels, upon this opinion. That ^apttfme did certainly give grace to them j ani if they dyed with- iut baptifme, they did periih. And thus I grant that it is true, the Spiftle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Auguftine : but neither is 4uguftine to be approved for approving it, nor doth it advantage [our tenet,that you have cited his citation of it. NExt to Auguftine you place Hierom> and it is true that he cites §. 9. and approves Cyprians Epiftle* in the end of his third beokjofhis of tae t ^ 1 "- r... - n. t n r • j t ' j J monies of Dialogues againjt the Pelagians ; Kid-he cites, and approves ,and com- Hierm ^ sends Auguftire's books > depeccat.meritG,& remiffione y ad cMarcel- jmbrofe. mum, in which he maintains baptifme of Infants, and Infant-cem- nunion, as neceiterv to faivatiop, and the certainty of regeneration nd faivadon to I r. fonts that are baptized > and receive the Lordsfup*- >er. So thai the farce anfwer is to be given concerning Hierovs, Vhich is to be given concerning ^Auguftine. The lift you alkadge, > Ambrofey who lived abrut the fame time,thc ugh he be placed foine 'fares before Auguftine ani Hiercm; And it is jconfciled that he vas of the fame judgement,and many other of the? Ancients of die ametime, and in after- ages, but nothing comparable to tfcofc al- eady named, and therefore adding no more weight to the cauf?. NO W the(e,you fay, you relate not to prove the truth ofth? t hing, §. I0 ; but only thepratlife of it, It is well you aaded this, cftii \ou o r thevalioi- night difclaime the validity of thefe teftimonies for proof; for (fee *y of proof by ruth is,they rather prove the thing to be an error,than a truth,which *^ c !^ n ^" vas held upon fuch erroneous ground as they taught and pra&ifed iz, the 8 evidences Wit, the necefjit) 1 of Baptifme to falv.it ion, Joh.3.5 . The certainty that Infant- fremiffion of originall fin by baptifme ; The denying of Gods grace baptifm is an none, And th; perijhmg ofthofe to whom Baptifme Vvas not given, innovation. Whether you have any bater proofs, I (hall confider hereafter : in he mean time this I adde. 1 . That concerning the prs&ife, your te- fcimenies prove nor, that it was in pradlife, bu: in cafe of fuppofed uceffity. 2. That there was (till in ufe a conft ant courfe of bapti- sing, not only the converted from infidelity, but aifo the grown :hildren of profeffed believers, when they were at full age. 5. That hey did alike conceive a neceflity of, and accordingly practiie zhQ gi- ving of the Lords fupper to Infants. 4. That they made no diftinfti- on 1 8 Infant-Baft'ifine is not fo ancient as is fret ended : Cbmicrpoiftf. on between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being broaght Ci»W.tt.4./.$. to them. 5. That your ancienteft teftimonie for pradife, according <;.!>-.§ 19. to any Rale determined, is Cyprian, neer 300 yeeres after Chrift. Vauquchw* 6 UD\y, there are many evidences that do as ftrongly prove, as 7e T ™ida"jus proofs are ufuiliy taken in fuch matters, That it was not fo from th« um$«*cjjt beginning : As particularly, 1. The continued propounding of the cum vixmiEf ordinary queftions even to Intants,concerning their faith,repentance, fm l ui fi ue and obedience, afore they were baptized, which in the School-men bap Y haw was ftill held neceflary , and therefore Sureties thought neceflary to £*At3»^ anfwer for * hem -y ea even inReformedChurchef,unto this day.whidi mi di igenter as it was conceived by Strabo y and fives in his Comment on Aug, exeram /^, j . fa c ivit.Dei y c. 27. a cleare evidence ; fo I conceive any reafon. h. umoni.h. % ^ man m ^ thin k K co fo t ml nifcft proof that at firft none were Tcctl i 11 §X baptized but fuch as uuderftood the faith of Chrift. 2 The example! pig. '25 And before mentioned,of the baptizing Gregory Nazianzen y Chrjfcfloim\ thofc other Augufiine, Conftantine the great &c. being chil iren ofc protelfon fundamentals f Chnftianity, is a manifeft proof tney did not then biptize Inrantl °[. faith " blch ordinarily, but extraordinarily in cafe of neceffity. 3. Specially il inftJnded e 7n Wr joyn hereto the diflwafions of Tertullian^nd Gregory Nazianzet anciently, forementioned. 4. The plain teftimony of the Councel of Net before they c*f*rea*%*i ft it, before mentioned. 5. The filence of the chief were permit- wmtrSj Eufebius; &c. concerning it. 6. The many paflages in Ah tize? bC baP " g u ft ine > and others jefcrring it only to ApoftolicaU tradition, and ths ufually proved by no higher teftimony thunCyprian, & that brougi in upon erroneous grou ids,is a itro g evidence it came not from th Apoftles. To all which I may add t&e teftimony of Hugo Gronu* bi fore recited, concerning ihe Greek Church ; the teftimony of Lud't vicus fives. Comment, in A#guft. decivit. Dei, I l.c.ij.tf&t mnj that he heard,the old ufe continued in fome Cities r b*p izing of ufanrs, I proceedeto thefecond, of placing the taken houa the novcltie artf mifcarriages ot the op- Narration of pofers of it. And here I wifh you had remem- mifcarriages bred the order of the Areofagites mentioned by ™ ff* r A?f SmeClymnuHs that in pleading caufts before them ^ C ^W^ prefaces fhould be avoyded, as tending to create re judice in the Judges. For to what end ferves this your Narration your adverfaries, but to beget an Odium, hatred or prejudice at tit in your Auditors ? which if it had come after other arguments ight have been more excufable, but placed as it is, neither fuites ith ferenity of minde fit for judging in you,or yeur Auditors. Unto hich give me leave to adde, that the courfes taken by too many, as jmelyby thex\uthorofthe Frontifpice to Do&or Feat lies booke, hich is light and immodeft, by Mr. Edwards, in his prejudices a- ' linft theperfons of his oppofites^ as, that none that ever maintained 'ntipadobaptifmc, lived and died with repute in the Church of God : e hiftorie of th^Anahaptifis^hQAnahptifisCitQcMtn^with thein- H veftives Jnth^dobapifme hath no ill influence veaives againft this as an herefie,everting the Fundamentals, as lea- dine into all herefie,over- throwing all government ,ufed in Sermons every where to make Antipfidobapnfts odious, and taforeftall men With prejudice, though, for theprefent theyferve like Medufaes head, to aftonifh men, fpecially the more unlearned, yec are they not right courfes, but Artifices ferving only to prevent lmpamall difcuf- fing of things which is neceflary that truth may appeare, and pemaps when truth (Mi appeare will returne on the head of the Authors or hem. But I refolve to follow your fteps. ccyOn begin thus. aAnd indeed although fome in thofe times que- Ofthecppo- « I (ttoned^ h^uilmt grants in kuSe^^s^ fen of Infant- « t he fr-ft that ever made a head again ft it, or a divifion in the Church baptifme c^£ ,„ t ftjm Mxsm Pacommitanus ^Germany m Luthers time, a- *foKBdui*- uhoHtthcjear6l5i7% « You fay, in thy} times fome qu'ftioned, as Auguft. grants in his « Sermons de verbis Apdwi.>. But you doe not tell us who thofe fome were, nor in which Sermons, which might have been requifi.ee foryout Reader. Uponfearch I finde the 14. Sermon De verbis, ApoftoL $m.io/m\\v\A*Adtb*fti:m* fvvulorum contra Pe la gia- nor but it isplaine out. of that Sermon, and out of Autuftines bookes of Berefies, ad Quod vult eum,Tcm. 6 Heref 88.and eife where, that the Telagtansiid grant the baptizing or liiants,be- caufe thcyduift not oppefe thevuftome of the Church, which in thofe dayes was accounted Sacred, only they flwf ted eft theprcofe of origin; 11 finne from it, by faying that they were bamivd not for the remtfrn offices to eternall life, for thy had none, but for the Kinodome of heaven, which jhtft Augnftme doth well re- fine in that Sermon, and alfe eppofeth fome others that taught, that the child net baptized might enter into the Kingdome of " "From Auguftine* time ycu make-a grf-aticape, and by, the fir ft « thit ever maS ahead agahft, or a divifion in the Church about it, « was BaUazat P.comndroiius in Germany in Luthers time-out the yem 1 5 27. But therein youare#*ach deceived. For Ctjfander in • his TaUmonks of Infants $>*r*lfme in the Epiftle to the Duke of Cleve, tefis us. that Gmtmund B.ihop oi tAvcrfe mentionetll the famous Berentarifss, AtmoAoio. c .ppofiog not only 'the .coipo- rall prefeuce of Chnitin the tuchanft, bu£ alfo the bapafme of r little $n Church or Commen-wtdth* 2.x little ones. And that a little after fpmng in Bernards time an herefie of an uncertaine Originall and appellation, and he faun that they were called (fathari or Puritans, and from a Country of France, Albigenfes, (pxtid over Frane and lower Germany , and the banke or the'Rfaiw; or fhdCe; he fai.h, Htreliquis er*o-ibns quos a Mxnkhais et Pr*f radiant ftls rnutuati funt, hoc infuper ad- dderunt, lit taptifmum parvulorum inutiltm effe dicerent, ut qat p. ■ dejfe remiti queat qui non et tfje areitre, et per fcipfum B*pti- r mt fac amentum peter e p Jfir, quale mhtl Mink ha s, & P?ifcniiani(ra$ dccuijfe legimus* And in ted Brn^d, wi»o is pliCcd by Vjher^ a* uie yeare 1 1 30. juit, a 100. yeares atr^r Bcrcr- ga tps, Sermon 66. in Cantica, mentions the Hercluof fonv, that fead do name becattfc ; their he; cfie wa* not from man, nor receiv d U • v ii by rat .-;, bile cnev fcoafted ihtmieives, to be the (hcctHors or th r nd called tbeoaCbtaes ipoflelicos : Now although he ch; . , c»> ' u denying Mil ciagr, and abstaining from meates, yei v u m%) t»jcii out of h:s uwnt words, that this was but a c i" .ny ; but take the Character he fees downe or them and Wt.^h i , and y-u would conceive he hid fpnkenof Protectants, Irndrnt nos qnU b«Qtiz,-mu5 Infante*? quod oramus pro mortuis, quod Jan Sir/ um faff ragia p>fiulamus,\\\\ a Itt'le after, Non ere- dunt autem ignem pnr^.torium reflate prfi morum, fed fi-itm animam folutam a corp: ?> vet ad ;equiem tranfire, vel ad dtm- nationem, And % little after, f«r*iverc qui Ecclefiamnon agnofcunt^ non efi mirum, fi ordinibm Eccltfia darahunt^fi infiuuta non re- ctpiunt, fi facr amenta contcmnunt,fi ma d*tis non obtdiunt* The fame Bernards Epift. 204. writes co BUdtfmfus Earie of S. Gyles, to take away Henricus once a Monke,thcn an Apoftate, quod dies fefios, facramenta, Bafilicas, Sacsrdotes fuftulerit, quod parvulis Chnfiiamrum Chrifii intercluduur vita, dum bapiifmi negatur gratta t necfaluti propinquare finuntur, snd it is well known that, Petrus ClunUcenfis who is placed by VJher at the yeare 11 50. hath written an Epiftls to three Bithops of France agaifift Veter de Bruis and Henricus, as defending errors digefted into 5. Articles. ¥i\ft,That little ones may not bt baptized* Secondly, that Temples or Altars are not to be made ,1 IaxqX) , that the trojfe of ' hrifi is not to be adored or worjhipped, but rathe* to be broken and trodden under foote. Fourthly, that the U^Uffe is nothing, nor ought to be Celebrated. Fiftly, that the benefits of the living nothing profited H a the 2i Antif&dobaptfrne hath no itt, influence the deceafed, that we are not to chant to God. He faith that the herefie of the Petrobrufians, was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbanevfis, zx\& complaines,fW the people were rebaptized, the Churches profaned, the Altars digged downe, the Croffes fired, on the day itfelfe of the Lords pafton,fleJh Was openly eaten, the Pr lefts fcourged, Monks imprifoned, and by terror s and torments compel- led tomarrj Wives. All this was done very neare 4oo.yeares be- fore BAltaz.tr Tacommitanus^ot as others write him r Pacmontanus. T>ut perhaps you thinke however, that Baltaz>*r wssthefirft OfBaltaw JDthat oppofed the bap ufaft of Infants in the 16. Century, Primonum. which pcllibly may betraej though herein you follow CochUus and Bellarmine, who iddts hat Erafmm htmfetfe M (owed feme (eedes qf it al(o, but Gerhard che Lutheran ki'the 4oca Tome of his Common places, where he handles, his queft o->, r,nhcr derives the Originall from Caroloftadins, andJleag^th MelmUhon, Com. on Calofft and faith, that he is called ifte father of tht Ansbsptifts by Erafmw Alherus. Now I doe not iinde in MelanBhm that which Gerhard faith of him, yet Sleida^hnhof him,that he praifed their opinion y snd Ofiander th*t hejoyned himfclfe unto them,and I finde thttMelanEthon in his Comment on i Cor. 9. 24. fayes of him that ht indeavoured to promote the G°fpel,t hough in a Wrong courfe. Arnold™ Mefhovim ' hift : Anabtp: lib.i,§. 2. (ayes that the bufineflc of Anabaptifme began at Wittenberg, Anno Chrifti, 15 22. Luther then lurking in the Caltle of Wart pur g in Thuringia, by Nicolas "Telargus, and that he had Companions at fi&,Carolo- ftadiut, Philip CMelantthonmA others, and that Luther returning from his PMmos as he c lkd if, banifhed Caroloftadius and the rtft, and only received Phdi? MelanZlhon into favour againe. Now they that know what was jUr/^r j vehemency and pertinacy on the one fide, and Melanfthws ticueroufnefle on the other fide, may well conceive, hat as in the bufinefle of Images in Churches, and Con- ^fubftantiation, fo in this about Infant- baptifme the temper of thefe two men much hindredthe clearing of this trutb,perhaps fearing that a further reformation then they had begun, would be an occafionef nullifying, ail r.heyhr>d done. Surely it hath beene the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches, that they have fo ftucke to Luther, and Calvin, that they have icarce lapped one ftep further in reforma- tion thai they did ? but ftifly maintained onely the ground they had gotten, m Church er Common-wealth. 23 gotten. Cajfander in his Epiftle t© he D. of fleve before mentioned' reckons the error of Anabaptifme to have bin revived about the yeare j6z 2. by Nicolas Stork or Pdargus & Thomas Munz,er ;but it is not res tanti to fcarch any furtfv r into this matter ,nor is it of any weight to er quire much after this Salra^ar. He is (tiled 3altaz,ar Huebmer Pacimontanus, Dr. in Waldfimot^ in the Epiftle zuingliH* writes to fcim,before his anfwer to hi* bookc about bspufme, & in the Epiftle Zuinglius wrote to Gy nor am. .he relates ho «v he came toZurich,zn& was there demanded by the Emperor, who it feemes fought his life, there he made fome recantaticn,but it appeares he was afterwards ta- ken and burnt at Vienna in Auftria Anno, 1528. For what caufe I know not. Zuinglius faith this of him in his Epiftle to Gynoraus. Nos d'Xtcritatem fpetlamus in homine,ac mediocritatis ftudium, in to AHttm homine(faliicupio) nihil quamimmoderatamrei glorUquefi- tim deprehendiffe vifus [urn iff* mihi.AndOfiander at theyerae 1 528, far h onlyof him,he was Horn-* fanaticus et craffus 4nabaptifta&uil le*ve him to his Judge to whom /ie Hands or fails, onely I marvaile I reade no worfeipecially in pander , faid of one chat is accounted * leader in fo hated a fed. «yOa goe on, Since that time multitudes in Germany have im- s- 4 • « JL braced his opinion, who becauje they offofid pMaftifme&cre 9* » b »P«- M forced to reiterate their oftne baptifme, and thence Were called Ljnabaptifis. Afore I proceed, becmfe it goes fo currant, that rebspiz*aonis not only an errour, but alfo an herefie, let me beg of you one good argument to prove it u lawfull infe, or intrio- fecally, I meane without rdp d to fcancull,or the like caufe by ac- cident, for a man thit ha- h becne baptized rightly, to be baptized agame : One baptifme Epk$ 5 . s not to me all one as once bapuzing, no mere then one faith once beieiving, We are regenerated by bap- tifme,and a man is borne but once. But are we not borne agsine by the Word and muft that be but once preached ?Is not linne mortified, the Church fanct.ricd by bapc*fme,and are not ihefe often ? And for exampi ,tf there were as good for pxiobaptiime,as that Act.19^^; for rebaptizbg, the concroverfie were at an end with me. But if hetefie mult be determined by the voces of men, Smettymnuus may be judged an Arian, and the oppofers of Pafche Heriticks : this by § $ the way,ttemgh not befides the matter lt h1 fCn S^- M y Ou goe on, Andfoone proved a dangerous and turbulent felt, ^ -^ apd thc " X not only tyorhjngaworM of mtfchetfe *bont\^fcx x and other Anxiptd&xifr h 3, ;; ^ibEnitai 24 Antipddobaftifme hath no itl influence "parts of Germany, but have With this opinion dritnke in abundance " of ether dangerous here fits and bU(phemies>and quickly orexointo \ "fuchdivifions andfubdivifions among themfelves, that Balli ;ger , " notes th*t they were grownc to no lejfe then 14 Setts %n his time *' which is indeed the cemmon lot of all Settart.s. To all which I only anfwer thus,that much 1 f \ nis is true I make no queltion,though perhaps vehemency of oppoli jon,hath made matttrs more or worle then they were, as it is woiu to be in mch t aies^ I j finde that Gualterm his Apology for Zm»gUmMii\ o* u^ was not the practuW ticket and his companions liKe that of Iohn*\ Ley den at Munfier > Diu not divifions and other mifcan.a^es and periecurions, bring the Nen-conformiit$of England zs owas c^e Anabaptiits? Did not whitgift long agoe comp.1 e the Anab*ptiits principles with the Nonconforming of England^ and Hooker in iiis\ preface ro his bookes of EcclefuftACail policy, their proceedings, manners & pretences together? and yuEpifcofacy u now found an &-.] bufe and io may in time be Paedo-bsptifme. hiked thefe mifcarriagts were argumentative if thty did arife horn the nature of the doctrine taught : but when they come only from the weaken s,or r (hies, or malignity of the alienors, or from the violence or oftpofets,WS mutt not jumble things together, but by fif ting rhemu-erto the bran, fever the nature of the d.&rine from the quality nJadionsof the teachers,elk we (hall as foone loofe truth as rinde it : Now whether the nature of the Doctrine that deiue? Pkdobaptifee, u.ftrre any fuch turbulent efttds,I (hall confidei W fcxaaatoing c^at which folio we?. And on Church or Common-wealth. 2$ I A nd because this opinion and divers others which depend upon it, Q r ^ n f bap j -obaprifrn ,*rom the reafon & equi- ty of the rule or circumcifion,doth by juft confcquence undermine, I Will not lav all Migiftracy, but much of th Mig;ft acy and Lawes of the Kingdome of b ngl/nd^s they are at this day.Perhaps he may fay the Anabaptifis heretofore have oppoied M*giftracy. I reply, Have noneofthcadverfancs of the Anabaptifis undermined Magistracy ? Since the actions of Muncer and Munfier I finde not either in wri- ting cr a&ion any oppofition but the 'Batter, burgick. after mentio- ned (whicli what they Were I know not ) made by the Anabaptifis igamft the Magiftratts or Magiftracy. I cannot but thinke it ne- ceflary toinfert the words of (faffander a Papift in his Epiftle to the Duke of Guticke and Cleve. Hujus quern dixi ^Memnonis cut nunc hie Theodoricus fuciejfitje fiat ores fere funt omnes^qui per h oribus .Novam quandam refti- mtionemregni Lh ifii^quodin deletioneimpiorumpervimexttrnam p r ;[iiufnfitm*hznbusacerrime femp:rrefiiterunt, et infolacruce Rtgni i. hrifti inflanrationem et prcpagationem c orftfi ere doc uer tint > qnofit tit qui hujufmtdi fnnt\ Commiferatione potius et emendttione <\uam injetta.ione et per di: ione digni vide ant ur, HoW unlike is Mr. Vines 2 5 Amifkdobaptifme hath no ill influence fines his fpeech to the L©rd Major & City of London, to thefe Words ofCatfander a Papift,to the D. of Cltve a Pipift. And for thofe in thefe dayes,thatdcnyorqavftionP3edo-b3pafa3e,asIknow them not, or very few of them,fo I cannot fay what they do, or hold, as being not privy to their tenecsur proceedings, onelv undeifhnding by one of your aflembly,that there was a little book put forth intitled the com- Mjfionate Samaritane, upr>n perufall 1 found that chat Author, who ^ver he were, accounts it a calumny to charge th- Anabapnfts with oppofing Magiftracy.But concerning this.the conftilion of raith,late- ly put forth in the name or 7 Churches of them Artie, 48,49. will give belt information.Rut if you mesne not this but fome other error de- pending on the opinion of Antip&dobaptifme, when I ineetevvich them in your Sermon,I fliaU in tht preset pUce, confider whether they do depend on it or no, and foe the opinion it felfe,I fay,if k be not truth, the fpreading of it is unhappy, lfk be truth, the more it fpreads^the more happy it is for cfie Ktngdome. §•?• ti \7 r ® u f a y further. *And [0 the voorke of reformation without Gods Of the hinde- u \ mercy likely to be much hindered by it. ring of rdfor-] sir^you now touch upon a very tender point,in which it concerned Awbmifm. y ou > and il in l ^ e manner concernes me, and all that have any love *o Iefus ChrifiyOt his people,to be very confederate in what we iay.I have entred into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you, and though I have not had the happines,(as indeed wanting ability) to be imployed in that eminent manner you have beenein the promoting of it(in which I tejoycej yet have I in my affcdtions fincerely defired it,in my intentions trudy aimed at it,in my prayers heai tiiy fought ir, in my ftudies conitantly minded ic,in my indeavours ferioufly profe- cutedit,forthepromoti gof ic greatly fuffered,as having as deepe n intereft in it as other men. Now begging this Tcftttlatumyor de- mand, that Psedobsptifme is a corruption of Chrifis inltitution,which upon the reading of my . anfvver, and the i2reafonsof my doubts formerly mentoned, will sppeare not to be a mere ? etitio principii begging that which is to be proved.I fay this being granted,I humbly conceive that P^iobaptiime is a Mother- Corruption, that hath in her wombe moll of thofe abufes in difapline and manners, and fome of thofe errors in dodrine that doe dt file the reformed Churches ; and therefore that the reformation will be f > far from being hindred by removing it,that indeed it is the only way to further reformation, tp begin on Church or Common-wealth. 27 begin m a regular way, at the purging that ordinance of Ufa CW^towitofBiptifmejWithoucwhich^xperience fhewes how infutficientafter-Catechfzing,Excommunication 5 ConHr!2iation,r«w 'tformatafokmne Covenant, Separation^ the New Church- Cove- Mnt,invented or ufed to fupply the want of it, are,?o heale the great ibuies about the admitting vifible profeitors into the priviledge of the Church, from Whence fpring a great pm, if not all the abufes in dif- cipline,receiving the Lords Supper ^nd manners of Chriftian people . And therefore,I earneftly befeech in the bowels of Ufa Chrififroih you,and all others,that ingage themfelVes for God, to take this mat- :er into deeps Consideration. I am fenfible how inconfiderable a per- fon I am,and how inconfiderable a number tht r : be that are affe&ed with this motion, I do confider ho w much againft the ftreame of the Reformed Churches ,fuch a reformation would be. Yet when I confi- ier how far fetched the reafons for Paedobaptifme are, how cleare :he inftitutionof Chrift is againft it, how happily truthes oppofed with as much prejudice as this^ have beene in procefle of time vindi- oated, or what moment the knowledge of this p*int is to ev.ry con- fcience,how exaft a reformation our folemne Covenant binds us to endeavour; I do not defpaire but that this truth alfo may take place jpon fecond thought$,where it hath beene rejected at the firft, nor ioe I doubt but in time Gods people will confider what an influence wptifme had of old into the comfort and obligation of confeiences, md how litcle it hath now. And truely Sir,though it may be but my iYeaknes, yet I fuppofe it can doe you no hurt to tell it; I feare you want much of that blelling, which was hoped for by your Auembly, n that you do wafte fo much time about inconfiderable things com- saratively, and haftily pitTeover or exclude from examination this — , which deferves moft to be examined, but rather feeke to ftop the ringing of it to any tryall. But having told you thus much,I follow The Ami- /ou in your Sermon. psdobaptifts principle o- '< VTou (kyJfiaU God-witling handle this queftion more largely then verthrows not ' JL I have done anj other in this pl*ce>and the rather becattfe of three ^^^0*^ ' other gre*t mifcheifes ^htch go along With it.Yirft I fee that all that baptills prin- ( rejtttthe baptizing of Infints^do & muft ttponthc fame grounds re- ciplereduceth ' jefl: the religicus obfervation of -the Lords day, or the Chriftian Sab- Judaifme,and 'bathyV.z.becatife there is not (fay thej)an exprejfe inftitution or com- Vo ? lih Ce ^ e " c mand in the New Teftament, a£ i £lcs t0 the I Give Goifcll.. « Jntiptdobaptifme hath no ill influence Give roe leave to uke up the words of him in the ?oet>™w en l-mi (pvyiv Ipw Mvmv, what a word hathgotten out of the hedge of jour teeth ! They doe, They muft, Though I doubt not or your Will, yet I fee you want forne skil in pleading for the Lords day, that others have: the truth is that it is neither fo,nor fo, They neither doe.nor muft reject upon the fame ground the Lords day. That they doe not I can fp.ake for one ; and your owne words delivered after with more cau- tion, Verily I have hardly either knowne, or ready or heard i m\(nttQ i that though few,yet you cannot fay, but you hive heard, or read or knowne of fome,that have not with baptizing of Infants rejected the Lords day ; but you have,I prefume,heard or read of whole,and thofe reformed Churches^that have upon fuch a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine inftitution, who yet are zealcus for pardobap- tifme. Nor muft they, And to make that good,let us colder their ground as you mention it. Their ground you fay xs^ecanfe there is not m expreffe infiitution or command in the New Teftamenr.tbis then is their principle,that what hath not an expreffe inftitution or command in the New Taftament is to be rejcacd.But give me lwve to tell you, that you leave out two explications that are neederull to be taken ins Firft, that when they fay lo,they meane it of pofuive inftituted wor- (hip,conftfting in outward rites, fuch as Circulation, £iptifme and the Lords Supper are,which have nothing morall or oaturall in them, but are in whole and in part CewmoniaU. For that which is narurall or morall in wor{h:p,they allow an inftitution or command irnhc old Ttftament as obligatory to Chriftians, and fuch doe they conceive* Sabbath to be, as being of the Law of nature, that outward worfoip being due to God, dayes are due to God to that end, and therefore even in Paradife y appointed from the creation ; and in all nation?, in all ages obferved: enough to prove fo much to be of the Law of nature, and therefore the fourth Commandement juftly pat amongft the Mo- ral*; and if a feventh day indefinitely be commanded there, as fome of your Aflcmbly have indeavourd to makegood,I (hall not gainfay: though in that point ok the quota pars temforis which is moral,! do yet wx :iV fufpend my ju igcmenr.No w Circumcifion hath nothing moral in it, ic is meerely pofitive,ndcher from the. beginning,nor ob- ferved by all nations in all ages,nor in the Decalogue, and therefore a Sabbath may ftand, though it fall. 2. The other explication is, that when they require expreffe inftitution or command in the New Te- ftamenr, they doe not meane that in pofuive Worfhip there muft be on Church or Common-wealth. , 29 a command widemverbujn fo many words, in forme of a precept, but they conceive that Apoftolicall example, which hath not a meere temporary reafon, is enough to prove an inftitution from God, to which that pra&ife doth relate. And in this, after fome evidences in the Scrip?ure of the New Ttftamenr, they afcribe much to the con- stant pra&ife of the Church in all ages.Now then if it be confidered, that when They that viKi - toli read the Popi(h expofitors of their Rituals, doe know that this c l n 'fJ**l t h very principle hath brought in Surplice, Purification of women, hm, c. 8 §.4. &c. that I mention not greater matters. I defire any learned man to fet me downe a rule from Gods Word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reafon, equity or analogy, and where I muft I 2 ftay; jo AntifAdobaptifrne hath no iU influence ihy ; when it will be tope; Ibtion and wrli worfhio,uhen not ; when my confcience may be tetbfied,when no r ? That wnich Chrjft and his Apoftles have taken from the Jewes, and appointed to us, we receive as tney have appointed : buc it any other man, if a Pope,or Occurae- nicall Councel take upon them to appoint to mens Conferences any rite in whole or in part,upon hisowne conceived reaibn from fuppo- fed analogy with the Je Willi ceremonies, it is an high preemption in fuch agairoft ChriiV, and againft ihc Apoftles command to yeeld to it,CV.2.2o.though it hath a fhew of wifedome,t/.2 3 And the Apo- ftles exampte,GW. 2, 3 4.5. binds us to oppofe it. when it is likely to bring us into bondage. And for the other pillar upon which at this day p^dobaptifme is builr,ic is to me very dangerouSjViz.TW the Co- v en ant of Evangelic all grace is made to beleivers and their f cede y that the children are confederates With the Parents in the Covenant of grace. Which without fuch reftri&ions or explications as agree not with the common ufe of the words(which in the plaine fenfe import this, that God in his Covenant of gtace by Chrift hath promifed not only to juftifie and fave beleiving Parents, but aifo their children,) is in my apprehenfion plainly againft the Apoftles determination, Kom^,6{j y S.makes an addition to the Gofpell mentioned 6W.3 .8 o.and drawes With it many dangerous confequences, which I abhorre. Youadde, c - c Now God hath fo blejfedthe religious obfervation of the Lords daj c< in this Kingdome above other Churches and Kingdomes y that fuch M « indeavour to overthrow it,deferve juftly to be abhorred by us. Upon occafion of which paflage I only defire to intimate to you, that from happy events its not fafe to eonclude,that a thing pleafeth God.You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates ufe to inferre that their inftitution is of God,becaufe, fcheir Orders have yetlded fo many pious Conft iTorSjMartyrs and Saint$;& it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency (by which it hath prevailed ) in Letters frcm abroad, and fuggeftions at home, (till harping on this ftring,that it is the way of Gpd,becaufe they that are jn that way thrive & grow irioie fpirituall then others. And if this arguing be good, It profpers, therefore it pleafeth God; then it will follow on the contrary, It pro- fpersnot,therefore it pleafeth not God : And iffo,we might inferre Infentbaptifme is of men,not of God, fuh if confcience and experience may JpeakeJhere are but feW Chrifiians that have tafiedthefweete &■ comfort of their b*ft'tfr#e>as Ht.Shepard, Epiftle before Philips vindis of infant-bapt. The other note is this, that when you fay, that fuch as on Church or Common-wealth. 3 1 as indeavour to overthrow the religious obfervacion of the Lords day, deferve juftly to be abhorred by us it muft be taken cum grand fa/is, with caution of fuch as doe it againft cleare lighr, with a malitious fpint : Otherwife your words reach to forraigne reformed Churches & their teachers,yea in a fort to your felfe, who may be faid inter pre- tatively to indeavour to overthrow ir, while you build it on the fame ground with pa? Jobaptifme. But I proceede. "V^ u foy, Secondly the teachers of this opinion tyhcre ever they pre- § €< JL vaile,take their Trofelites wholy of from the Mint fiery of the Of theevill ,c Word and Sacrament s y and all other aQs of Chrifiian Communion of a feperating ? both pub lique and priv Non eadem fentire duos de rebus iifdem in:o- lumi licuit femper amicitia^x. hath bin alwayes allowed that friends; ihpuli differ in opinion about the fame thin b s,& yet continue friends, much more againft that ne are concor potation of Chriftians : that I looke upon it as one of the great plagues of Chriftianity ,you (hal have xne joyne with ycu in (hewing my deteftation of it. Yet nevertheU fie, Firft, It is to be confidere J, tfcat this is not the evili of Antipadobap- tifme \ you confefle fome are otherwife minded, and therefore muft be charged on the perfons,not on the afTertion k felfe, and about this what they hoid,you may have now beft fatisf action from the confef- fion of faith in the name of feven Churches of them, Art.^ 3. and 6- thers following. Secondly, It is fit when fuch things happen, that jgodly Miriifters fhculd looke upon it as their affliction, & cake occa- sion excutere femetipfos ; to fearch themfelves whether they have not by their harih ufage of their brethren ,unju(t charging them,mifrepor- ting their tenents,ftirring up hatred in Magiftraces & people againft them,inftead of inftiufting them, unfatisfying,handling of doub> full queftions,and by other wayes alienated them from. And I make bold to let you underftand, that among others you have beeneone caufe at my ftartling at this point of Pxdobapcifme, remembring I 3 * Antip&dobaftipne hath no ill influence a very moveing paffage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron.i 5.2. Concerning the hedge that God hath fet <*- bout the i^ommandetnent, that yen admire that ever mortal man\ Should dare in Gods worjhip, to meddle any jot further then the Lord himfelfe hath commanded. §. 10. 4t JCome after yovL.Thi?'dly,this opinion puts all the Infants of all be. Of the con- M Jilievers into the fclf- fame condition with the Infants of Turkes\ dition into « an & Indians. which the o- An( j f £ oth t jj e pi n i on of Cyprian with his 66. Bifliops , that £p l *3cw n " wonld have Gods i race ^ n y ed to none - And fo dothe wordsof tiime puts the the grave confutation of the Brownifts, put forth by Mr. %athband, infants of be- Parc3.pag.50. Children may be lawfully accounttd within Gods Co- lievers,ofori- V enant t if any of their Anceftors in any generations werefaithfulL ginali fin, fal- e xoc [, 2 o.j. But it may be you do not fo. I pny you then tell me, Ihe ChuTch wherein youmake their condition different >Puflibly if you open yoat and Cove-' felfe plainly, there will be no difference between us.I will deale free- nant of grace, ly with you herein. I. Concerning Gods Election, I am not certains * any more, concerning the ekdion of a believers Infant, then an un- believers. Ireft upon Cods words, l^illhave mercy on whom I will have mercy, Rom.o.i 5. 2 For the Covenant or promife of grace, that is, righteoufnefle and life in Chrift , though I acknowledge a peculiar promife to ^r^w naturall pofterity, mentioned R cm. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made fuch a covenant to any,much lefle to, all the naturall feed of any believing Gentile;ir you can (hew me fuch, aCharader, I (hall count it a treafure : but I dare not forge fuch grants. 3. Yet I grant that the prefent eftate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in Gods election, then the infants of Turks and Indians, both becaufe they have their parents prayers, and the Churches for them,they have fome promites, though generall,indefinite, and coditional ; & we find by experience, God doth veryfrequecly cotinue hisChurch in their pofterity,though it often happen that the chtidie of godly parents prove very wicked, But this I dare not ground upon any promife of free grace, made to thechildofabeUevcrasfuch,forfearelelt I incurre blafphemy, by challenging a promife which God doth not keep; nor upon any pre- tended law off riendfhip, left that objection rt fled on me, Is there unrightcoufnejfeWithGod} Rom. 9.14. which the Apoftle thought beft to anlwer by aflerting to God the mod abfolute liberty,tM 5.18. 4 That the condition in refped of future hopes of a believers In- T * v, faot on Church $r Cwmm-wdth. 33 **£! !l * t~~™ !in^5 better then of a Turk or Indian, becaufe it is j^ninthebofomeof the Church, of godl> parents,who by prayers, nftru&ion, example,will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith rf Chrift, whereby they are not only as the Ttsrks children, in poten- tia Logica, in a Logick poflibility, or in potentia remote in a remote wftft&xx ,bx\tin potentia proquinqua, in a near pofsibility tofce be- lievers, and faved. And furely this is a great and certain priv,ledge jnough to fatisfie us, if we remember the diftance between God and as: Nor do I feare to be gored by any of the three horns of your " Syllogifme, of which oreyoufaj muft unavoidably follow. The firft " is, That either all are damned Who die in their infancy, being with- ,c ont the Covenant of grace, having no part in Chrift. But this fol- lows not ; there is no necessity from any thing faid before ot their :onditior, that all of them fhouia be damned, or be without the Co- renant of grace, having no part in Chrift : God may choofe them all, jr fome, take all, or fome into the covenant of Grace( which is,/ will \e thy God,andthe Godofthy feed, that is, mine Eled, £o?w.o.8.ii.) into communion with Chrift (who dyed for the Electa**. 8. 3 3,34.) notwithftanding any thing I have faid cf their condition. The fecond :t is, Or elfe all are faved, as having nooriginallfin, and confequently t( needing no Saviour. Schick mo ft of the Anabaptifts in the World do \ owne, and therewith bring inal/o ad Felagianifme,univerfall grace, tc fee- will ,&c This I imagine is the etsor you conceive depends up- mi Anti-paedobaptifme. I finde Mr.5/4* ftands much upon this in kis Birth- right-privildge,/> ^.17. where he faith, "The Anabaptifts \ in this prefent age, well fee, that all that joyn in this tenent faile be- t{ tween thofe rocks,either to affirm,that infants die in their pollution I or ferifi in their birth-Jin, or elfe to deny this originall pollution, or I any birth-fin at all Buc for my part I fee no reafon ot thiF, unleiTe it be granted that no infant can have (in forgiven, unkfle it be bapti- zed. May it not be faid, that iomc,or all infants are faved, notwith- standing their birth- fin, by the grace of God elc ding them, putting them into Chrift, uniting them to him by his Spirit, forgiving them their birth-fin through Chrifts obedienevkhough they be not bapti- zed? As corrupt as the Schoolmen were,theycould ivjfiratiafDeinon alligatur Sacramentis, The grace of God is not tyed to Sacraments.' Ifmoftofthe Anabapufts hold univerfail grace, and free-will, there may be as much faid of moftof the pasiobaptifts, taking in a great part of the Papifts, almoft all the Lutherans ,and esfrmimans, and if 34 AntipdMaptifwe hath no ill influence they denyed originall (in, it is their dangerous error, but it is not con- .'< fequent on their denying P* iobsptifme. But the late confefsion ci faith made in the name of 7. Churches of them in London, Art, 4, 5. 21,22,23,24 26. will abundantly anfwer for them in this point ol 'Pelagianifrzc. The third is, " Or that although they be tainted witli cr originall corrupt Ion, and fo need a Saviour ,Chrifi doth pro bene pla- " ckc, fave fome of the infants of Turks and Indians djihg in their in. t( fancy, as well as fame of the infants of Chrifiians, and fo carry fal- i2,i3 i i6. But I am yet to feek for that promife vlu fptake of , to be the God of believers and their feed, You fay, '< But Where the promife is to be found, that he will beth( 1 c God of the feed of fuch Parents Who live and die his enemies, and theL. "feed not fo much as called by the preaching of the Gofpel, I know not* Nor do I. dily I know this, / Will have mercy on Whom I Will have, mercy , and I will have compaffion on whom I will have compaffton y Rom. p. 15. which is the Apoftles anfwer in this very cafe. Thus have lcntied your out- works, I (hall now try theftrengthofyour walls, I mean the third part of your Sermon. Jnfant-baptiJ?ne cannot be deduced from holy Scripturt, Part, III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-bapifm. Oufay, My fir ft argument t* .his, The Infants of § - '' believing parents are f which you confefle was the fame in fubftance with th< covenant of Grace, had no fpeciall fign or feal annexed to ir ; Noah Abel were within the covenant of Grace , yet no fpeciall fign ap pointed them, therefore it is not Gods will that all that are fader at in the Covenant, muft befignati, Sealed j if they had been fignati though they were faderati y it had been will- wot (hip, God not ap ; pointing it to them. But you will fay, all that *xz feeder ati fhould b< fignatifincc the iolemn Covenant with Abraham. But neither is thi: certain, fith we finde no fuch thing concerning Melchiz*deck> anc Lot, that lived in Abrahams time, nor concerning fob, that it's con ceived lived after his time. . You will fay, but it is true of all the fa derati in <*Abrah*ms family : but neither is that true /or male chil dren before the eighth day, and women, though federate, yet wen] not to be figncd. So that you fee it is fo far from being univerfall; true, that all that are fader ati, muft b? fignati 5 that this is all whicl is true, all the male children of Abrahams family, if they wereeigh dayes oVj muft be fig.ned with the fign of Circumciuoa, which neve will be able to prove the confequence of your Enthymerne iccordinj to true Lcgick. w But you fa f. this receives an eafit an fiver, the women were circum " cifed in the males , elfe God could not havefatd, that the whole houj §t 0/Ifiael were circHmcifed in thr f'fli y elfe could not the tyhole Nati] Cc on of the fews be called the Circumcifion , in ofpfitton to all th *' world btfidesjtoho Vvere called ih$ ZJncircumcifion. 'Tis truo, rhe anfwer you give is an eafie anfwer, becaufe eafie to b anfwered, but it is not a fufrkient anfwer, to take away the exceptio: again! from Holy Scripture, 37 eainft that univerfall propofition which muft prove the confequenc* IvourEnthymeme: The anfwer is, That women were circumcifed n the males. You expreile it thus,psg.28. where you repeat the lame bine. This fan was actually afflyedonly to the males, jet the females nrtvirtJuj circumcifed in them-. So this is your meaning. The vomen were notcircumcifed at all, yet that the males were circum- ifed it was all one as if' they had been circumcifed in their prions, tow* then let us fcan this anfwer: the conclufion to be proved was, hat Infants were to be fealed adually,not virtually. For if a virtual! ealing, or baptizing were all that you would prove, we might grant tj we may fay infants are virtually baptized in their parents, and yet t may be unlawfull to baptize them actually ■> as it would have been mlawfuli to hive circumcifed women actually, notwkhftanding their irtuall circumcifion. For it had been a will-worflbip, there being no lommandcodoit. And indeed, to fpeak exadly, women were not ircurrxifed virtually in the males; tor he isfaid virtually to have a hingby aro her, as by a Proxie, or Attorny, that might receive it >y himLlfr, yet quoadeff Hum jurUy according to the tffvCl: of Law, mothers receiving i* as if he had received it : but fo the males did not eceivecircuircfionfor ihe females, for the females might not be rircumciftd in their own perfons, it had been their (in, if they had re- lieved it, God not appointing ic: As it had been a (in for a childeto >e circumcifed afore or after the eighth day, in them that altered or \verved from the appointment of God ; Now then this being the :onclu(u>nto be proved, That infants of believing parents are to be icluilly figned or feaied, the propofition muft be meant of the fame igningor fealing, and the Syllogifme thus framed. All that are foeJe- >ati> nLuft be aftuiilyy5|»tff*. All the infants of believers are fxderati 9 Ergo, All the infants of believers muft be adually fignati : If you do [lot thus frame your Syllogifme, but put in the propofition virtually [igned, and in your conclufion a&ually figned, your Syllogifme hath Pour termes, and fo i$ naught. If you do not put adually figned in the conclufion, you conclude not that which you fhould prove.Now this dfo occafions me to note another fault in your argument, to wit,your condu^ng that which was not the queftion, which was not of any fign indefinitely, but of baptifme. You cannot fay it is all one, for there are otrei fignesof the Covenant befides baptifme, as circum- cifion of old, fo the Lords Supper now. If then I (hould grant the conclufion, That infants of believers are to be fignati, yet you would K2 fry jS Infant-baptifnie cdnnot be deduced fay they ire not co be pa takers of the Lords Supper, becaufe it is noi ; appointed for them. So in like manner if it were granted you, that infants of believers are co be figned, yet it follows not that they arc to be baptized uniefle you can prove jt is appointed to them ; and the truth is, if it were granted , that children vitxzfaderati , yet *t were a high preemption in us to fay, therefore they muft be JignatK without Gods declaration of his minde, and if it were granted thej muft bejignati, it were in like manner a high preemption in us to Cay, therefore they muft be baptized, without Gods declaration of his minde concerning that Ordinance. Though it. may be good to ar- gue thus, it is Gods minde, therefore it is to be done; yet it is a great pride of fpirit for usto argue, This (hcuki be,therefore God hath ap- pointed it, As for the reafons you bring to prove that women werd virtually circumcifed in the males, they prove it not, for when it ii x laid The Whole houfe of Ifrael Were circumcifed in the fiejb, the fenfe is not, every perfon is either actually,** virtually circumcifed, but all the houfe oflfraelis put for a great part, or the greater, or the moft cminent,as it isfrequentlyel(wh6re ) i^w.7.3.^^.2.3<5.^^,i3.24i as the whole Church is faid to come together,when the moft of them come together. And in the like manner the people of the Jews may be called the Circumcijion, from the greater or more famous part,' though the women be neither actually nor virtually circumcifed. As a field of wheat may be called from the greater or moft eminent part; as a Church of believers, from the greater or moft eminent part, though the reft be neither actually nor virtually believers. And for your other reafon, p^.28. (i It was Gods exprejfe order,ExddA 2;28. H No uncircumcifed perfon might eat of the Patfeover, which we are "fure women did,as Well as menjherefore they were virtually circum- fifed ; Neither is this cogent. For,the Proportion is thus to be limi- tedyprofubjeBa materia, according to the fubject: matter. Noun- drcuincifed perfon might eat thereof, that ought to be circumcifed : Now women were not appointed to be circumcifed at ail, therefore they need not either a&ually to be circumcifed, or to have any cir- cumcifed for them, or in their ftead, which you mean (I think) by virmall circu nation. Now I have dwelt fo long on your Confe- querxe, becaufe I ftill ftick at this, That no reafon of ours in pofitive worfhip, can acquit an action that is performed from will-worfhip. Nothing but Gods will, manifeft in his inftuution,gathtred by fome command or example now in force, can do it. Neverthekffe,becaufe 7>W« Holy- 'Serif tare. $$ iconceire the Antecedent of your Enthymerni is net true, though your Argument be overthrown by fhewwg the invalidity of y cur Cenfequsnce,] fhal proceed to examine your 5 p>nclufions,by which you endeavor to make good both your antecec e;, & whole argument. ,yOar firtt conclusion is this, ^ That the Covenant of grace for §. 2. I "Cubftwctjuuk always bin one & the fame to fews and Gentiles, Of the feft This conclufion I grant ; bucon fundiy pa&ges in the proofe of it, ^ c „^ n I chink it neceilary to make theie animadverfions. 1 . You carry the the identity of narration of the Covenant made with ^Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did the Covesani; only contain the covenant of Grace in Chriit, whereas it is apparent of grace for cu/of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant , confiding )f„™l t0 of ten pcrall benefits, to wit, the multiplying of his feed ,v.6. the pofc G nalts fiflionof Canaan, v. 8. the birrh of Ifaac, s/.i6.andthefpirituall bieflings,^, 57. Y&,C am(rQn thtfbmde triplicifosdere Dei, theft 78. iaith. That circumcijion did primarily feparate Abrahams feed from 0- Sher Nations, fealed the earthly promife, it Jigmfied fanclification fir •condarily.And indeed this is fo plainly deiivexed in the Scripture, that the Pfalmift cals the promife of Canaar, the covenant made with A- braham J flo^%9>io>ll.He hath remembred his Covenant for ever, tht ftord which he commanded to, a thou} r and generations , which Cove- bant he made With Abraham, and his Oath mto I faac, and confirmed the fame to Jacob for a Law, and to Ifrael fox an everlafiing cove- nant 5 Saying, unto thee Kill I give the Land of Canaan , the lot of jour inheritance, if ycu iliouLd fay that thefe promifes were types of fpiritU'JI and heavenly things, the reply is, that though it be true, yet the things promifed were but carnall and earthly, as the Sacri- fices were but carnall things, though (hadowes of fpiritualL 2. When you fay thus : " The manner of adminifiratioh of this Co- venantywasatfirft by types and jhadowes^and facrifices^c, It had been convenient to have named Circumcifion, thit it might not be conceived to belong to the fubftance of the Covenant. Bat of this there may be more occafion to fpeakat pag. 35. of your Sermon, 5. Whereas,p*f . 14. ycuplace among the third jort of Abrahams feed, "Profeljtcs, th-it wtre [cife-juftitiartes, carnall and formali profeffors: it behoved you co ihc w,whcrc in Scrip:ure they are called Abrahams feed, which I think ycu cannoc. Yea, the tvuch is, you herein joyn with Arminws, who in his Anaiy (is of the p.to the Romans, makes this as the ground or his wrefting that Scripture, that there is a feed of Abraham mentioned, Romans 4. 0,10. and Galat. 3. &4 r caf. Qui ^o Infant-baftifme cannot be deduced gui per opera tegis juftitiam & falutemconfequuntur, Who follow after righteoufneffe and falvation by the works or the La w.To whom Baine on Eph.i,}. />.i30.anfwer3. B eft 'de,th*ugh the font of the pjh mayfignipfuch, who carnally, not JpirituaUy conceive of the Law; yet the feed of Abraham Without any adjoyned, ts never fo taken. Bhc it is yet ftranger to me, that which M- SB lake hath, fag,?, where he faith, " That the*e yet remaines in the bofome of the Church, a di- l ftinttion of the feed of Abraham, borne after theflejb, and after the 1 fpirit. <*And that now by vertue of being born aftn the pjh> feme ( hive a Church- inter eft. And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even fo it u t now i to children born of believing parents after th< pjh ashaving there c by title to Chnrch-intereft. .Which paflag*s are very gt onV,thoi>gh he makes this the medium of his fou th Argument. For, fi> ft, whereas the Apoftle,by being born after the pjh, means not infants born of believing parents, bu: thofe that are under the covenant of Mcu;it Sinai ,city, dufioa. " *#d houjhold of Sathan j He would have the Infants of #11 Vvho are "" . * ; taken from tfcly Scripture. ^f $< taken into Covenant with him, to be accounted hU , to belong to him] u to his fhurrh and family , and not to the 'Devils. This Conclufion you exprtffe fo ambigujufly, that it is a Cothur- nus, a buskin chat may be put on either leg^e, right or left, which (hould not have been in the main P opofition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hf ngs. You fay, "The Infants of all Voh* are sf taken into covenant with God, are to be accounted his ; but you tell us not in what fenfe this is to be underftood. For whereas perfons may be faid to be accounted his, either before Gad, or in facie Ec- elefavi/ibilis/m the f ace of the vifible Church; i. Before God, ei- ther in refped of his election from eternity,or his promife of grace in Chrift, congruous to it; Or of their prefent eftate of inbeing in Chrift, •r the future eftate they (hall have. 2. In facie Ecclefia vifibilis, per- fons may be faid to be accounted God's, either as born among his people, and fo potentially members of the Church, as being in a way to be in time aduall members of the Church of Chrift , or who al- ready enquire after God,and profelTe Chnft, though they do not well undeiftand the dodrine of Chriftian Religion, fuch as the Catechu- weni of old were : or they are to be accounted his, in refped of adu- all participation of Baptifme,and the Lords fupper. 3 . The account- ing of them to be God's, may be either an ad of fcience, or faith, or opinion ; and that grounded on a rule of charity, of prudence, or pro- bable hope for the future. You do not declare diftindly in which of T , , f thefe fenfes or refpeds, the Infants of all who are taken into covenant of ^Aff ? with God, are to be accounted his ; fo that I am almoft at a ftand, f em bly of Di- what to deny, or grant. It cannot be denied, but God would have vines to the the infants of believers in fome fort to be accounted his, to belong to tc ^ s °f thc him, his Chutch and family ,and not to the Devils, (which expreffion £ r t ^ c e ntl ° 8 8 I fear you ufe in this and other places,*^ faciendum populum, to pleafe p r2C og. 1, the people) It is true, in facie EccUfta vijibilis, the infants of be- The whole lit vers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his family and church, < ( Gal. 3. 1 6. It was given to fhrift, and in Chrift to every godly man. Gen. 1.7 7. and in every godly man to his feed-, God will have fome of the feed of every godly man to ft and before him for ever. Againft this paflage I except, That when he faith, that the cove- nant of grace is given in every godly man to hisfeed;hz eiprcfleth him- felf in an unuliill phrafe, fo obfeurely, that his meaning is not eafily conceived. For wfien he faith, it isgtven in every godly man; If he mean it as he faid in the words next before, in fhrtft to every godly man, that every godly man fhouid be to his feed, as Chrift to every godly manjthis were to make every godly man a mediator to his feed, as Chrift is to eveiy godly man,wca would be blafphemy. If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant,as Abraham jt is moft falfe,fith this is proper to Abraham alone, to be the father of the faith- full, Rem. 4. II. And the root that beares the branches , whether na- turally ingrafted, /tow.i i.i6\&c. And when he faith, it is given to his feed, he fpeaks indefinitely, which may be underftood umverfally to all his feed, which is moft manifeitly falfe ; or elfe particularly, as the words following feem to import : But neither is this true,as fhall be prefently (hewed. Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans feed, abfolu:ely as his feed ; which j if he affii m, then he muft affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the feed cf tvtry godly man : for, ^uatenus ipfnm includes de omni, That which is faid of any thing, as fuch, agrees to all that are fuch. Or whether it be given conditionally. Now it is true,that fome pro- mifes do fuppofe a condition, as juftification prefuppofech believing: And from Holy Scripture. ^ and if this be the meaning, the Covenant of grace is given to every godly mm, and in every godly man to his feed, if they do brieve, then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man, and then it is bat trifling to adde, and in every godly man to hU feed, fith nothing more is exprdled, but what was fatd before, nor a- ny thing convayed from the godiy man to his feed ; fome promifes have no condition, ss the promife of writing Gods Laws in our hearts, for if any condition be put, we (hall fail into TeUgianifme , that grace is given according to our merits. 2. That which he faith, he faith without any proofe at all, yea, contrary to theexprefle words ofthe Apoftle, Rom.q. 11, 12, 13. £&c. millions that have children, yet their pofterity are rook- ed up. Were there not other godly perfons from Seth to Noah, be- (ides thofe mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5, yet it is certain that none of their feed flood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah, and fome of his. Is it not more likely that none of Elies chil- dren, or Samuels ftood before God in Mr. Cottons fenfe ? Befides, if that which Mr, Con on faith were true, how is it that the Candkftick t i* 44 Infant -bafti {me cannot be deduced is removed quite from fome people, and the naturall branches broken eff, and the branches befides nature, even of the wilde Olive, grafoo into the true Olive ? Then, fuppofe a godly man have but one chude, that f childe mull infaliiby ftand before God. It is (aid indeed 7rr.35.1p. andMr.Comwfeemstoalludeto it, fonadab the Jon of Kechab Jball not want a man to ftand before me for ever -.But this (lan- ding before God is not meant of ele&ion to eternall life., and the co- venant of grace , but of prefervation in the deftruftion of Jerufalem, and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes, as Junius annot. inferem. 35. 19. gathers from 1 Chron. 2. 55. and forever is in many places meant of a, temporal! duration for fome ages. This digreflion will not be thought unneceffary by thofe that know how apt many are to fwallow down fuch mens dictates without exami- nation. But I proceed. \ Nor are we to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence, by which the Sacraments are to be adminiftred, to belong to God in facie Etc left a vifibilis> in refpecT: of outward profeflion, as the Catechumeni> or participation of bap- tifme and the Lords Supper,as compleat Chriftians. And as for be- ing accounted by an aft of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God, it hath no place in this master. For judging of mens prefenteftate by a rule of charity, is when men judge of others the beft, that their words and works may be interpreted to fignifie, ac- cording to that of the Apcftie, 1 Cor. 13.7. C harit y believes all things : But infants do not fhew any thing by words or works that may fignifie their thoughts, and therefore in refped of them, whe- ther they be good or bad, we can have no judgement, bu: mud onlv\ fufpend our ad of judging them. But if by judgement of chariry be meant, as fome exprcfle it* conceiving a thing to be fo, beexufe. we know nothing to the contrary, then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God, yea almoft all men in the world by the juigement- of charity, be caufe for ought we know to the contrary, all may be, eleded. Wherefore I muft either here ftop, or elfe gather your mea- ning byyour exprtflions in other parts of your Sermon, and the ex- pressions of thole with whom 1 conceive you concurre in opinion; andthrrotoreitliiiouldnotexadiylighton your meaning, you are to thank ycur it lie, but not tc blame me. This is then that which. I (Conceive you meane. That in the promife which God made to Abraham > That heWculd be his God, and the God of his feed> 4C from Holy Scripture. 4? is this promife comprehends Evangelictll blefsings, the infants of believers are comprehended, and therefore they txtfcederati, taken into Covenant with their Parents. And yet I am at a {tand, whether, when you fay they are taken into Covenant with their Parents and ►hac theproiife, Iwillbethy God, andthe Godsf thy feed, belongs : o them in refpea of Evangelical! blefsings, you mean ft m relpeft of faving graces, or the priviledge of outward Ordinance;?, though the lattei is no more true then the former, yet it is lefle dangerous , and [bmetimes your exprefsions ncline me to think you msan no more, Specially that which you (ay pag. 13. Secondly, Ail true believers tre Abrahams feed, Gal.3.29. Thefe onh are made partners of the hirituall part of the Covenant, neverthek fie, becsufe the moft or your 'xprefsions carry it thus, that you conceive Jiac God hath promiled iccording to the Covenant with Abraham, I will be thy God, and the Gcd of thy feed, to be the God of the natural! feed of believers, in :efptd ot the faving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Chritt, and your proof es tend that way. I frail oppofe that aiferciob. But that I may not be thought to wrong you, or cum larvts luttart, to right With a vizour, the reafons why I conceive you mean, or at leatt your readers are likely to take your meaning fo,are thefe,you fay pa. 8. My fir ft argument is,They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Chriftsbody, kingdome, family, therefore are to partake of the feal of his Covenant, or the dtftinguijhingbtdgebetweenthem who are under the Covenant of grace, and them^ho are not. Pag. 9. You exprefle your iecondconclufion thus. Godwill have the Infants of juch asen- ter into Covenant Kith him, to be accounted hts, as well a* their Pa- rents : You fet downe the fubftance of the Covenant ot Grace, pag. 10 to confift in thofe benefits, and then you ofcen fay, The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing ?arents:%vA pag.3 1. You rejed the afferting to the Infants of believers privileges peculi- ar to feme, and aflerc the priviledges belonging to the Covenant ot erice,whichallth4tare in Covenant may Lime, Which you lay, God made to Abraham, and all his feed. Bellies, your Texts you produce tend to prove that, as AEts a.#>. &c. and you fay, pag.15. Thtyfhallbe made free of Gods pty , according to Abrahams Coy> I Zl bee thy God, and the God of thy feei , which in refceft of us Gentiles, can have no other meaning, then mrefpedof juitin- cation,fanaification,and falvation, & p.Kupeaking ot Zachm, you l 2 wy 4.6 Infm-bapttfrne cmnbt be deduced fay, Let him profejfe the faith of Chrift, and the Covenant offahatU on comes to his kcufe,for no^c be is made a fin of Abraham, that i] vcnantof wa s brought into qucftion ; "Be^a thus expuileth the qudtion. jg«i> grace is not r gr j p jjj. ut rf jeft m fit Jfrael, cjuinfimul ^onfiimendum videattir ir- j lH-ers^nd 6 ' TitU9#ejfepaEtttm1>e*cum Abrahamo, & ejus femine fancitum. hi thei/fecd. deny not, but t iiere was alfo fome other ptomiu. inciu Ld in chat ob- 1 jc&ion, to wit, feme promife made to liratl, or tpe hcufc.cf Israeli] probably that fe*. 31. 33 36 37. tor. fo the wotds ver. 6. Theyare not all Jfrael which are of Jfrael, do intimate. But withouc qutftion the proinife made co ^Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. was one which was included in that obj. ebon. But a, T.wjjje, Am*s y and others, anfwering Armimus, call it tht Covenant of Goa wLh Abraham, which Was that Gen.ij 7. Twifie vind.Grat.com. Armin. Hb. 1. pa. 1. and the very phrafe of Abrahams feedJ digr.7. Hujus mcmpromijfionis ('Gen. 1 7-7-3.) j n Jf aa c fhall thy feed be calied y Vc\ .7. The fides confeftim appim in difcrimen aduci ex rife- Md > ren of the promife are counted (or the. ftitHetfudimum&exchipmeoTundemcxIcederc r . 6 o 1 n m ' r W, cumfintex AbnUmo jeeundum ctrneln pro- fi'i ver.8 Sarah fball have a fin, £a£J fmimi , fie inquit tppmt primas return f a- do evidently the W, that the promife ob- ciesimmilm. jefted to prove, that if the J jws were Walas cont. Corvin. cap. 1?. pag. 377. rejc&ed from being Gods pa pie, then ^j)o/tctos ortcii^, i/«i wfa^Jferfcr» ^ rf/xiir^ God f ai l ec | in ma king good his word* f*mpromi}rmmlfiaelttfsfaStarum,n incrcduia, quit profniffitnes ilia feeder* fdtf a tmt a thy God, and the God of thy feed. Where- UeCyMnwmprie qui ex femine Abnhmife- to I may adde, that the Anfwerers of cundumcarncmerantoriwi fed lis qui feemdwn' ^ rm \ n ivu, ;and the cited Remonftrants,! SSHPSftfe?** ex y ' - » <* *-~ «» #* d ? fr * ** • £#* \fc0rfl cj promife, not cf the Law, as ^Arminim conceived, for the word of promife faith Ames, Animadv., inRemoniirafi.fcript.Synod.de pradtft.cap.8.SecT.4. Isdifiingmfb- ed and oypofedto the words of the, Law > Gal.3.i7,i8. iVoW the word, of the promife there , is to Abraham 6na his feed, Vcr. \6, and this is\ there tailed by him ver bum badfitisfc the word fthe (foven^nu NoW t let us confider how the Apeftle anfwers it. He denies that Gods word made to Abraham did fall, though the Jews were rejected? be- caufe that promife, I will be thy God, and the God of thy Jced, as it com- from Holy Scripture. 4 :> cprehended firing grace,was never meant by God of all Abrah^s Verity; or of any barely, ^yp*(WW##« ,y natural generation,but of the Eka,whecher aefcenced by natural iteration from Abrahams* not. And this is apparent both from the irords, v.7. Neither becaufe they are the feed of Abraham an they all KfrenMtinlfaac^ , The new Annoutbns on the Bib!e,Annct t d,&c.vA. It is expounded thus . That ^ Rm ^ ^ The childreno f th encm,&c] r, they which are the children of thefiejb, HotaUt ^ ey w fo, m carnally born */ Abraham hefeare not the children of God, but the by the courfe of nature are the children of God to Mr en of the promife are counted for the whom tbepmfe of grace was made 3 but the cbtl- T wllJit d am>arent that the drm of mmifc,tkxus^bofe»hoi»ere born by ver- ted; Whence it is »PP"£™> ™t "« ^ ^ ^ byG9dsJp jalgr26e ime are not alwayes the feed by calling, ^^ ' ^ ir ^ a<: ^ tf ^ *j /^u/ar vhich are the feed of Abraham by natu- frmi f ewl6 begot by Abraham) ifoy •*(? ^ *" all generation, and that the children of counted for thr. feed mentioned in the Covenant, I he fle(b are not the fame with the chil- will be thy ©&; and the God of thy feed, ren of promife, and that the Apoftle onceived this the right way of anfwenng thofe that objected, the idling of Gods word upon the re jidion of the Jews, by reftraining he promife, of being God to Abrahams feed,only to the Ele^whe- her of Abrahams naturall pofterity , or not, with fo little refped to nv birth-right priviledge, that he not only rejeded Ifmael and took yL,butalfoW?^, and hated Efau, by prophefie declaring lis minde, the elder fljall ferve the younger, snd in this the Apoftle ac- nuts God from unrighteoufnefle, in that He hath mercy en whom he Pill have mercy, andvhem he Will he hardens, notwithstanding his >romife made to Abraham and Ifrael, or any birth-right priviledge hey could claime. That I may not be thought to go alone in this, X will recite fome others concurring with me in this, Dt.TmJfe pnd. Grat. Li. part. 3-digr.2. Argumentu Apoftoli ad probanda fcedus dei •mtuVum Abrahamo,nonvmnes A braha p.fteros fimbria \fua comprc- benaere fie [implicit er inftitueno.u *{[e ccnfemm:EfavM& jacobus c- *ant ex pofteris Abraha,at hori utrUq; non coplexus efi Deusj cederc fuo,cum Abrahamo imtoiergo non cmncspofieros AbrahamuFrobatur mum Deum non complex ufuiffe utruqjoedere gratia, quia non com- thxus efi Efa%umajorc Jed jacoiu minor c.^inonEph.l.S^.l^. He anfwereih the gumption of the Utter Syllogtfm, by diftingmfhing ofljrael & chi(dren,dtnying that al Ifrae lite s. are thatjfraelto which Gods wora bt ongethyBr that all Abrahams feed are thofe. children who Cod adopted to hi?»fcif*S n^hutfuch only who Were like lfac, fi ft be- gotten by a Word cf promife, and partakers of ths heavenly calling. 5© Infant -i apt ifme cannot be deduced "'The rcafori is to be conceived* in this manner , the re jelling of fuch Who are not the true Ifrael, nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot /hake Gods wordjpoken to Ifrael and Abrahams feed; but many of the Ifraelttes, and Abrahams feed, af e fuch to Whom tin word of God belonged not, trgo, the word of God is firm , thugh they berejetled. Pag.i3p. A chllde of the flefi h being fuch a, one who dc- fcendeihfrom Abraham according to the jiefij. For it is mo ft plaint, that thefe did make them thinkethcm" Eftius annex.*! G.r.i 7 . 7 . CoUtghbixc Cal- r e [ ves „ it fc n t he compare of the word.be- vintu co ipfo quo fUh ejt emen Altw& adewaiptt- "M ■ r . m rr * r* J t r j l tinereprmijwmm Ahrktftfm ! fed ft&f* ""'"J 3 ' 7 *' &?7' ?"* thc f eedo f marifeflapomilfw?umiUumdebenediel/oneJpiri Abraham, #« regardtf bodily generation tuali inteUeftam, pon ad untie femen Abrabami propagated from him; and Arminius doth pmime,ftda4Jpimiulc } quemadmodm earn ipfe decline that, in ebjetling and anfwering Apoftolnintty«fmfft,lo m .4& > 9 . Sicnim whlch t hU difcourfc confilhth. BeUt cirraUemeninteUigasiamadnminem ex gam- , , i ~i r r tn „ V bn iUpromiffto periinebttfed ad fobs ex Abraham tha J> **»& *}*f™ 5 of the $>jh may fig. O Jfaacfaunium carntrn genitos. xifie fuch Who carnally , not fpirituatty Parous Ctmment.in Mar. 5.5) Vccetqtioque conceive of the Law, yet the feed «>/Abra- prmiJfwcsTeimHaUigatMege camaliortgini: ham without any adioyned, isneverCota- fd.pminerctantum*dpoft^ ^ n * . ^ y ' ScnenimfuHfiluAbrdba qui fecundum camm > .. .■*' r . /» L 1 ^ , pint ex Abraham, fed quifecundum^mtum. ts *his, That many of AbrahsmsyW art fuch to Whom the word belomrcth not.Tht ward which belonged not to lihmatl and Eiau, bat to Ifaac and Jacob; only , and fuch as were like to them; that Word belonged not to many of thofe who are the feed of Abraham and Israelites ; But the Word' JheWing Gods love, chotce, adoption, bleffing c/" Ifrael and Abrahams feed, belongednot to Efau, Ifhmaei, andjuch as they Wtre> but to Ifaac and Jacob. lAmefins AnimadvAn Remonftr.citat. fcripta Synod, de Tr&deftin* cap.$.§.6. thus exprefTeth the Apoftlcs fcope, Multifunt ex femim Abrahami, ad quosverbum promt ffionisnonJpettatyUt Jfmael, & Ifr maelita, fi autem multifunt exfemtne ^Abraham'*, ad auos verb urn prom'ffionis nonfpetlat, turn rtjettio multorum fudtorum, qui funt exfemtne abrahami non irritum facit ver bum promifftonis. Out of all which I gather, if the naturall pofterity of Abraham , were not within the Covenant of grace, by venue of that promife Gen, 17.7.' then much lefle are our naturall pofterity : but the former is true, 1 Rom.9,6,yfi ?,io,i 1,1 2. therefore the latter is true : and the coo; trary, delivered in that which I conceive your alTerticr, falfe. A fe- cond reafon is this, The Apoitks Expofnion of the promife {he ws us btft from Holy Scripture. 51 bcftwhatis the meaning of it, but the Apoftle when he expounds the promife of God to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy feed) as it was a promife of faving grace, to wif , juftifkation, and life, expounds it as belonging to tAbrakam,mie& a naturall Father, Ainfwertk but as Father of the faithfully whether of the Jews, or the Gentiles, *" n *°^ G fcJ/i and his feed, not his natural!, but his fpirkuali feed, Chrilt, ^^VbZ^xllll believers, ^w.4.11 12,13,14,15 16,17. GW.3.7. 16.20. Whence the children of George Dcwnham of Juifotication lib.d.cap.6.§.4. Ipeakes thus. The promife(tke e- other promife s concerning his feed are t"too : The former concerning the ^ w ™ f l * multiplication of his feed, that he fhouldbe a father of a multitude °f fofimsfced " Nation s , namely y in thrift, and that he would be a God to him and hut Rom 9.7,8*. Ceed> he doth not f&y to feeds, as of 'many , but as ofone,to thy feed,which and in cbriji isChrifi, Gz).ll6.thatis, Chrift myfticall, I Cor.12.12. Contain- atbeirsby \ng the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations, both feVts and Gen- {JJ^^J *iles. 7 'bis promife therefore imply eth th former, that in Chrift, the t j fe ^ ewSt Q 3 ] i tromifedfccd) Abraham himj 'elfe, and his feed, that is, the faithfull of 3,26.28.29. til Nations fhouldbe bleffed: ^And in confirmation of this promife, Amef.Coron. be was called Abraham, btcaufehewasto be a Father of many Nati' arM.cap.i. 9ns y that is, of the faith full of all Nations, for none but they art ac- ^/**JwJJ, letted Abrahams .feed, Rom.9.7 8. Gal 3 7. 29. Thus he opens the e i e ^ os &> ^ Apoi ties meaning, and thus frequently do ProtelUnt Divines in their cachet vacates [writings. Now if only believers are in that promife, as it was a pro- nmr } dceet A- rnife or faring grace, then it is not made to the naturall pofterity, as ^faffa hm9 fuch, of any believer, much lefTeof us Gentiles. *r!"^R^m. My third reaion is this. The Covenant of grace is the Gofpel, and 9 .8,Gai.3. is. fo you call it, pag.37.when you dyfThis is apart of the Gofpel preach- 3c 4.28. rd unto Abraham. Now the Gofpel preached to ^Abraham, the A* [>oftle thus expreifeth, Gal. 3 8 ,o. And the Scripture fore feeing, that God would juftifie the heathen through faith, preached before the Gof- telunto Abraham, faying, in thee fhall all Nations be bleffed :fo then, they which be of faith, are bleffed with faithfull Abraham, and ver.l I. But that no man isjuftified by the Law in the fight of God,it is evident, f or thejufi fhall live by Faith, it is Hab. 2.4. By his faith* And ge- nerally, when Divines diftinguifh of the Covenant of grace, and of Workes , they fay the condition of the Covenant of grace is Faith. They then that fay the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers, bu:alfo to their naturall children, whether believing or not, thefe adcie to the Gofpel, and the Apoftle faith of fucfj. Gal. 1. 3 9. Let himbeaccarjed. M Fourth^ 52 Infant-baftifme cannot be deduced KurthlyJ thus argue: If God have made a Covenant of grace in Chrift, not only to bdievers, but alfo to their feed, or natural! chil- dren, thtn ic is either conditionally, or abfolutely ; if conditionally, the condition is either of works, and then grace fhould be of works, contrary to the Apoftle, Rom.i 1 .8. cr of Faith, and then the fenfe is, God hach promifed grace to believers, and to their feed, if belie- ver r, that is, to believeis, and believers, which is nugatory. If this Covenant of grace to believers feed be abfolutely, then either God keeps it, or not : if he do not keep if, then he breaks his word, which is bhfphemy • if he do keep ir, then it follows, that all thepo- fterity of believers are faved, contrary to Rem 0.13. or if fome are not faved, though they be in the Covenant of grace, there cnay bee Apoftalle of performs in the Covenant of grace, by which the Argu- ments brc ught by W .Prime, in his Perpetuity, and others for perfe- verance in grace are evacuated, and Bertius his Hymen2j. and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the po* ' iterity of any believers at any "time indt finitely. 3. Tint the pro- mifes, "B^.jS, 4. Pfal. 112.2. ate exprefly mean; of outward blef- fing-s and therefore cannot prove % covenant of grace ip Chrift. 4. That £A:^.20.6.doth plainly include a. condition cfobedieccejand it is exprefly mentioned Tfal. 103. 17, 1 8, as included in other pro- mifes of like kind, which condition God doth not undertake for <*any children of a believer, but the ekct , nor is Chiift furety for any but the elect; and therefore till it can be proved that the EU&Uncf grace belotigs to the children of believers, ic cinnot be proved that che Covenant of grace belongs to them by venue of thefe promifes, §• *• TNow return to yoor Sermon. You tell u* thus : As it is in other G l £k°\ ^ h ^kingdomes corporations and families 5 the children of all. fnb jells Hke/oth^ ' borndn # kingdom, are born that Princes fabjeSts: Vohcrethe faker is kiagdomes. *f roc-man, 'the cbHde is not born a fltve ; Vchere any are bought to be fervants , their children born in their mafters houfe , are born his fer- vants. Thvu it is by the LaWes ofalmofr all nations^ and thus hath the Lord- ordained it /hall be in his kjngdome and family : the children follow the Covenant- condition of their -parents ; if he take a fat her inr to his covenantee takes the children in with him ; if he resell the par rents out of the covenant •, the children are eaft. out with them. This pailage I might have palled over, as containing nothing but dictates; Yetlthink.it neceflaty to pbfetve, 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations, as if perfons were admitted, to it by birth, whereas in this:all is done by free elect ion ©f grace, and according to Gods appointment: not is God tied, or doth tie himfelf in the erecting and propagating his Church, toany fuch camall refpects,as decent from men. Chnfti- ankyis no mans birth-right; The Apoftle knew, not that God had fo by promife, or other mgagement botind himfclf, buthe was free, as he faid to Mofeiifoet the promife made to Abraham, to have mercy on whom he Vvould, Rom. 9. 1 5. Yea, to conceive that it is in Gods Church, as in other Kingdomes, *nd after the laws of Nations, is a feminary of dangerous fuperltitions and errors. "Dt,Rainolds^ntii$ Conference with Hart) hath (hewed, that hence arofe the frame of government from Holy Scripture, ^ ^oYsrnment by Patriaschs, Metropolians, &c. And is not this the very reafon of Invocation of Saints, that I mention not mere- ©f the uke kind. ? 2 . When you fay, " if he take* fatter in/9 ku covenant, " he takes the.chiUren in with him ; If h rejfft the parents out of 'covenant-, ths children are caft out Mfifa them. If you mea'ri • this" :aking in, an4 calling our, in refped; of ele&k>n and reprobation, it s not true, neither ifc you mesn tt df the- Covenant of g'facey ror that Is congruous to election, snd reprobation. Norte it trWiri t&g&X r afoutWcd Ordinances- the.f«her*iiy be&aptized,he*re the Word, ^ctoSw u>d noc&hexhiid; and en the contrary, the father' may be deprived, 'of Cfarifl in jud the, child may enjoy them. Nans it true in refpJcTof Eccleii- NE - ca.%.6. jfticail cenfur.es- • the father may be excomLnuriicated?, -.arid* the- tonne In f ant3 c * nm i^the Churchy and on the contrary. And about that which yon fay, fj m f ight b mt$ Nereis no certainty in the PsJobaptitts determination. Rutherford tblrTbt of^ne The due right cf Presbytene, p.259 j faith, The chi'ldr^ofPapifts, tfib ir parens, tnd excommunicate Proteftants, which are borne within our Vifibte * both. When Church .are.bafttKM, if thtir forefathers have-been (oun£in the faith. ndthcr °f tbc But others will cfeny it- Bat it is true as well or PadobtpHifts, "as of '*£?" - c f ' Anab3p:ifts,that like waves of the Sea th -y beat one agninft another. \hTi owfup- . You tell US, i -That it wm without queftion in the time of the lews > per, there th.it c ; Gcp,.l7-9:dnd when. any. of another Nation^ though a Canaanite, ^fmscamu4 M or Hitoite-i/acknotolcdgeA Abrahams God to be their God, the) and. cUim . ri & ,; * i0 (f th^,ire^ldrencameintoc^venxnt together, - ' ; ! tESeF* /do That when Parents were CHWmciied^e; Children were to be cir- roTrildvTan ° cumcifed, is without qae(tion,Gods comttiand lVrrianifeft ; Whether heathen to the this make any thing for baptizing Infants, i**to be cdnfidered in [t$ ftlowftip tftbe place. But thaowhich yoa fay, tbtrc may be an obligaionc] 'the Ctmmtn both tarts. Geo,i 7 j. Or tftbefcfatlc, Mat hindtrtth\but tbut if the partus mil de: gne their iuftnt to be educated tntbebouje ef any go ily manner of the Qimh % the ctiUwaybc lawfully hattbtd in the right of its bcufe Hdgmnmr i aciordingtothspopmnnofrbsLaw } Q^i' 7 :\i-zi. M $ The 0' y5. lnfwt'baptifmt cannot be deduced §. 6. 'TPHefirft Text you dwell upon, is that, Att.2. 38, 3$. and thus )f the Texts, X youfpeak. " aAndfo it continues fiill, though the Anabaptifts vhich are, a £,/^ fay it, Ad$ 2. 38 3P. JP Jbr* Peter exhorted his hearers,Who 48- % -l s >59 "were pricked in their hearfs, to repent, and to be baptist d for the re- tf * l "' " miffion of fins, he ufeth an argument to ferfwade them, fallen from ** the benefit Which fhould come to their fofterity ; For, the promife lt (faith he) is to you and to your children, and to a& that are afar off, u even as many as the Lord our Godjhall call : if once they obey the eak romife of Caving graces, or outward priviledges ; Onely that which rou bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it , i( let him profeffe the faith ' of Chrifi>and the covenant of falvation comes to his ko*fi,kettK$ to mport that you conceive the meaning thus; if you once obey the call >f God as Abraham did, the promife of falvation is to you and your hildren:andfithyouanfwerthe fecond objection , which you call a hift, by rejecting the limiting of \joyou and your children} with hofe Words [as many as the Lordjball call J the fenfe muft be this : r ke promife of falvation is to you and your children, Whether the Lord ur God call them or not. But this proposition I know you will not tandto, though as you handle the matter, this is made the Apoftles flertion. But it may be you mean otherwife,thus: If you once obey the all ofGod y as Abraham didjht promife of outward church-priviledges^ hat iiyto be members of the vifible Churchy partakers ofBaptifm,&c. t to yu and your children. Now what an uncouth reafon is by this n*de in the Apoftles fpeech , that if they did repent, and were bap- ized, the promife fhould be made good to them and to their children, ( I fe your own words,expreffing what you conceive the ftrength of the rgument lies in)*W yon & thej fhalbe members of the vifible church, Jrtakersofbaptifm y &c. So that the Apoftie is made to fay thus : If r u will repent and be baptized, the promife is to you and your chil- Iren, that you & they fhalbe baptized. What I conceive is the mean- ng,I willfhew afterwards : in the mean time,becaufe (though on the* >ie) you alleage that Text, which Mr. Tho. Goodwin alio at BoW in Zheapfide urged and infifted on for this purpofe, I (hall by the way ixamiiie what you fay. You fay, "Let Zaccheus the Publican once re- ceive Ckrift himfelfjbe he a G entile ->as fome thinly he was y be he a great ' [inner efteemed as an heathen y as We aUknoW he was ; let him profejfe c the faith of Chrift, and the covenant of falvation comes to his, for ,Rom.p. 8. Etvefi'ws fidei Abrah& infifiere, Rom. 4, 12. Mr opera Abraha facer e Job. 8. 39. Ex qmbiis demum re Eli colligitur Strta future falutts expeftatisjR&m.S.ip ; 3. YcU only txpreffc \this houfe ^ by X^J as if you would have it conceived that iahatipn came only to hiscnildren'by his believing, whereas lAi.Thol Good- Vr>t»(if my memory deceive me not) comprehended the whole family under the term houfe, cMfcomfing thereupon that a houfaold- Church yvis prima Ecclefia, the fiift Church, which I marvailed to hear from liiro, as conceiving it to overthrow the way of Government they call the Church- way , which is mainly grounded on this , ' tftat the fitfl Church (as Parker hdd) is a fingle congregation out of many fami- lies, and is prima feJesfoteftatii Ecclefiaftica, the firftfeat or Eccle- fiafticali power. But I know no reafon why, when it is faid, Salva- tion is come to this houfe > it fhould be ft retched any further then Zac- chetis hisperfon, in that falvation was come to him, fslvationwas come to Ims houfe, and the whole Narration favours this Expoiltiotv and Bez,a faith that Theophylatt, and fome others underitand by houfe Zacchttb himfelfe. I omit the conceit of Erafnfas, and (fame- 1 rariuty as if dvm thte, did refer to pW* houfe, for I thinke with Bez J a s it is abfurd to fay, This houfe is afon of Abraham. 4. Although ft be true, that w$*w is often a Caufoil particle, yet it is, true, that it is fometimes a reftri&ive particle, as Ads 2. 45. and Acts 4. 3?. and therefore may be rendred by quatenus as, or in quantum in as much, or fecundum quod, according to what, as well as by eo quod quoniam, or quandoquidem, becaufe, ot forafmuch. 5 . In your para^ phrafe, you put inftead of falvation, The Covenant offalvation y vfhkh is not right, what ever Author you may follow herein. Now let it be cqnfidered what an erroneous inference is made, by expounding it of all the posterity m family, and making the particle Caufall, as if his believing alone did bring faivation to his houfe or pofterity; from whence this may be gathered, a mans whole houfe or pofterity may be faved barely by his believing, and you will fee a neceflity to make k3&>t* a reftndive particle, and to expound this houfe of Zacheus, his fanHly only, in reference to his perfon. And fo what you take in by the upy for the credit of your conclufion, from Luks *9 9- is an- fwered from Hcly Scripture. 5£ fwered by (hewing the faukinefc of your paraphrafe. \ Buc you returne to the Text, Acts 2.3839. tt You fay, ftpVfcr can H th* evidence of the plate be eluded,by faying the promife here meant U " eft he extraordinary gifts of the My Ghoft, to. jpeakwith tongues &r. li for we all know, that all Vvho then beleeved and were baptized,iid not **' receive thofe extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoft; and 6efid? y this or- et gument remained ftill in force, to be ufed to the end of the world , who Ci ever beleeves and is baptized, JhaB receive remijfi ->n of fins , and the "gift of the holy Ghoft , which was not true, if by the holy Ghoft was u meant onely thofe extraordinary gifts* Though 1 doe not fo expound the words ; [thr promife is to you and your children'^ of the extraordinary-gifts of the holy Ghoft , yet the words next before,and that which is before, verfe 3 3. 17,18 of the fame chapter might very well induce men to conceive tnat uiis is the promife of which Peter meant , verfe 39, nor doe I conceive youc reafons fufficient to overthrow it 1 For wnat though " aU Who then, iC beleeved and were baptized , did not receive th-jfe extraordinary gifts " of the holy Ghoft , yet Peter might aflure them that it fhoula be fo for the future , to them , their children, and aU t hap are afar re off, at many as the Lord Jhould cafe though I doe not fay, the thing was true in this fenfe ; I ontiy fay it might be fo t!ue,riOf!withftanding your ar- gument And whereas you fay " xhSs argument remaines ftill in for it " to be ufed to the end of the Worldjvho ever beleeves and is baptized, " Jbali receive remiffion of ftnnes, and the gift of the faly Ghvft; Nei- ther doth this follow from the expc fiaon of the vJoxds,verfe 30. by the words , verfe 38. or receiving the gift of the holy Ghoft t For there is nothing in tne text to prove that this argument ftill remaines in force as you fpeake , fich it might be onely a particular benefit to them on their repenting,and baptifme,tor ought you can inferre from the text. You go on. ho interpret it thus, to you and your children,as many of them as the « Lord JhaH call , that is (fay they) whether your felves oryourchil- " drtn, or any other whom the Lord jh all call, if they repent and be bap- " tizedythey JhaU receive the gift of the holy Ghoft. If ycu put in ftead of, \jhty /hall receive the gift of the holy Ghsft, ] thefe Words £ the promife is to you and them, ] it is no ihifr, but the genuine and ne- ceflarie explication of the text. For let the promife be what ever you can mike it , you mult put in that limitation if you will have it tru*. N If £o lnfant-btfiifme cmnct be deduced If the promifc be of favbg graces, if of Cfctift ftp&f of the outward ordinaticesofbaprijfme, &c. ; It of the hoiy CJhoft in txtraordinarie gifts; it is none of thefe wayes true without tha' limitation . For nei- ther God promifed (av^ng graces, nor tuxward ordinances,, nor. eatr*- ordinariegifts^ior fentChtift.ro : them,theircilldjtn-, or all that are afar off without calling thern and every of them. . But yen aeiLus, it fc plaine, " theftrengthaf the argument ,Ues in this, That .if -they. did re~ « penty and yceri baptised , thepromife fh */. the Affile muft be interpreted ^04 jjoefc men .wotdd,hav,e him : viz*jP/4 and your children have hitherto l^ee^nlfplf^d\ v lbm!^iM^^M f ^ in Chrift your ftlvefy Ci yoHr cfjUdre^jhaltbein no better condition then the reft of the Pagan 1 'World, Jlrange/;s.from the Covenant 4 God\ but if after war dumy of < c them, or any of the heather*:, JhaU forthtir parti beleeve andbebap* 6t [ii\e4\.tjiqippa$ti?^^ covenant , i/tf their u clji$ren\jiig lefc out\hadthii thtn^y'ouketna. comfortable argtt- (i ment to per food* them to come w> in-relamntfithe good of their Ml* c< dren. after thzw~ -« - • <' : Youfuppofe here , ; that the Appftle ufed this argument ©nety in relation, to the good of f thei* children., whereas die maine matter was concerning themfelvestq ereft *hiem , who* being told dia& they had ^^Iw^^^)^^ Chrift, vetfe^.and hadfaidi Matth. 57. %faHk blood be. upon utAndwr children , were pricked in their hearts &n& faid to Peter and the reit of the Apoltles , Men and feefhrfx. what fialltyedoe > and was jt not arotttfortable argument foLnj^hin that cafe to be told, chaciiocwkbftandingall this, the pro* g^feJb)fChrift,and remiflionof finnta bythaii^ was yet tothemand their children, on whom they had wiihed.Chrtftsblood to be, and to all trie Jewes that dwelt afarre off in the di prrfion , as many as the Lord fhould callijind a great inciteuient to repent and be baptized in tr^.Nape;of the Lord Jefus for the remiffionxf finnes? HowtAi^ you conceive now , lure if your fouk had been in iheir fbules ftead, you would have conceived it a very ■ comfortable: fpeech in this fen(e\ £hat I now give. As for thatwitlefle detcant you put on your sdver* faries, I know not whether it be their meaning or not , fure I am no fiich thing, follows on tiie applying the reftu&ion in the end of the verfe, to them, their children , and all that are afarre jf. And fchaE which you would burden your adverfarks tenent with , as if they "V put from Holy Smptm* Bi out beiefrers infants out of the covenant , I info the I conditio of fr Jans children, it is a coccy fme anfweted befof e > and therefore I may well let it pafle in this place. f* Yoazdd^ThepUineftrength of the argument u y God hath now re- « membredhis Covenant to Abraham in fending that ble(fed feed , ** « *&*** fa protmfedto be the God of him andhis feed : doe not pa frj « r 0*r jm**/^ deprive your felves and four pojhritkof fo exceSent u a rift. In this paffage I thinke you hit the marke, it is the very interpret*. tion I gave in the reafons of my doubts before mentioned, in ani wer- ing the argument from this text: onely the alieadging tM/promtfe; Gen. r7.7.and that expreflion,^ not you by yourunMkfe deprive you* toflentie of fo excellent a gift; have a little relifti of your incerpreta- tion of the promife cVJncernifig the naturall feed of bekevers : Bat lectins that patTe , in the maine you expound it rightly. "The pro- An „ ot on the « mifeisto you and your children; that is, &»<£ hath new refriembred Bible, edit. «< his Covenant to Abraham in- finding thatbteftdfied, inwhomhee i6tf. on Ads « ™/M to be the god of Abraham and his feed y aficT the fenfe is £* ^ plainer. The promife which is made to Abraham K now fulfilled m^ ^^ fending Chnft to you and your children , and to all that are afarre oft, ^omifed both as many as thtrLord our God (hill call , that they might bee turned toievesand from their iniquity,and baptized in his name for the remiflioDot their OmUn but finnes* And this agrees with the Apuftles exhortation to the fame % T ^*£ purpofe, Ads 3 . 25 .26; Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the f covenant Which God made With our fathers , fajinz unto Abraham, *a*d in thy fttdfitU all the kindreds of iheeartfrbe blejfed , unto you * fir ft God having raifednp his Swn< fefus, fent him to bit f[e you m 'turning aftty every one of you from his iniquities* And Ads 1 3 . 3 2, .'heir an- « ceftors, the fir jl fruit is holy, the lump holy 3 the root holy, the branches V holy, that is,the fathers holy, accepted in covenant with God; the chtl- " dren beloved for their fathers fake, and when thevuil of unbehtf JhaU "be taken aw ay, the children and their plenty Jhal be taken in again, fi becaufe btLvedfor their fathers fakes, Now then if our grafting in be « anfwerable to their s,in all , or any of thefe three particulars, We and ^ §nr children are graffed in together* y 0A r font Holy Scriftun. 6} Your argument needs a fwimmerof Dehs to bring it out of the eep I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up; the thing,it feems,y oU irould prove, \s, that we and our children are graffed in together; but he words are Metaphoricall,and therefore obfcure , they may be tiue i a fenie,and yet not for your purpofe. The infition you fpeak of may « either into the vifibie, or invfible church; the grafting in, may be ei- her by f aith,or by prortflion of faith,or by fome outward ordinance, "hildren may be either grown men or infants, the grafting in may be ither certain, or probable ; certain, either by reafon of ekaion,cove- lant of grace made by them, or naturall birth, being children of be- ievers; probable, as being likely, either becaufe frequently, or for the he moft part it happens fo,though not neceflary & lo not certain/The hing that is to be proved is,that all the infants o* every believer are m he covenant of free grace in Chrift\& by vertue thereof to be bapti- sed into the communion of the vifibie cfcurch: bow it may be granted Chat infants of believers are frequently, or for the moft part under the Ae&ior & covenant of grace (which whether it be fo or not, no mecre nan can ttl)and to in the vifibie chut ch, & yet it not follow that every infant of a believer, in afmuch as he is the child of a believer, is under :he covenant of grace>& therefore by baptifme is to be admitted into •he vifibie church;r?ow let it be never fo probable,that God continues bis eledion in the pofterity of believers & accordingly hath promifed i to be their God in his covenant of grace, > et if this be the rule of bap- tizing children of beleivers , no other infants are to be baptized, but fuch as are thus : the pra&ife muft agree with the rule;& fo not all in- Earns of believers are to be bapHzed, but the deft in the covenant of brace. If it be faidjbut we are to judge all to be eleftecSfc in the cove- nant of grace,till the contrary appeares. I anfwer, that we are not to judge all to be tided, or in the covenant of grace: becaufe we have Gods declaration of his mind to the contrary,K-?w.o.6 ? 7,8.and all ex~ iperience p oves the contrary to be tru?;nor is cne admmilration of an I outward ordinace inftiru:ed by God, according to fuch a rule as is not ! polTible to be known, but according to that which is manifeft to the minifttrsof it; & therefore fi.h God conceals his purpofe of election, and the covenant of gnce , which is congruous to it in refped of the perfons elefted ; it is certain God would not have this the rule accord- ing to which outward ordinances are to be adminiftred , becaufe fuch petfons are in the election and cc verant of grace & not others. " ton ft faj, cur gracing in is anfwerabU to the Jews , and their infants Wer* "traffedin fa ctrcii.ifi^xhtrefore ours are to begmfedin by baptifnt. * * y N 3 ^ ut 6^ f lnfo ot others, of the breaking < fFhyunbe-* liefe r and theftanding by taich, and your iclFc tr me to uru^iftand the phraiefo,whenytu fay,p-*g<43 tocut vfaMe man cf from the wilde dive, and grafe h*m into the true olive. Tfce irigraffegjCO m?, is meant of the invifibie church by election and fiir* ; which invifible church was firftamongft the Jews, and h refoie calted the ukv^out. of Abraham the root , who isthavfort fwd eo bra e the r» And be-- caufe Abraham had a double cap xirt ■■', one of * o^ urali f rhtr , and; inorherof the father of the fattfefeuU , in'rcfpcd or the fc mer opaci- tie, fome are called branches ace aiding to nature , ether; , wilde olives* by nature, yet gr fifed in by faith; ana when it is faid that fome of the natura/l branches were broken of, the meaning is not '"tfaki fome'orr he branches in the inviiibie church may be broken off -utis when our Saviour Chritt faith,u(ing the fame (imiiitude, foh.i prove it. It is not the fcope of the Apoftle, as you fay , 7> fbew that the Gentiles huve now tied fame graffing into the true Okve, which the Jews formerly had; but to prove that rhe Jews, notwith- [Handing their prefent defra&ion, (hall be grafted into their owne O- hve. But for the thing it felfe. You fay, " That the Gentiles have :< noVo the fame graffing into the true Olive which the J e^s formerly cC had. But you muft remember your own diftinclion, pag; 10. of the, Gibfttnce of the Covenant, and the adminiftration of it : It is certain,^ that in reaped of the fubftancaef the Covenant, we have the fame graffing into tht Oive, the Church of the faithfull, of which Abra- ham is the root, that ;the Jews had. We by faith are partakers of tht root find fatnejfe of the Olive tree, ver.17. or in plainer termes, as the Apoftle elegantly, £(^3. 6 that the Gentiks fhculd be n&ttowfa* *} y* xj w-id o'/*> Fellovp'heirs>andof the fame body, and par- takers of his promife in fori fi through the GcJpeL In refped: of which all believing Gentiles art Abrahams feed, the Ifrael of God, one in Chriftfefuf. But if you mean it of the outward adminiftration of this ingrafting by Circumoiiion, Biptifme,&c. nothing is more falfe. •For indeed the outward adminiftration is ucu rly taken away, as fepa- rating the J ws from ch Gentiles, of very purpofe, that the enmity betwixt J cws and G-ntiles may be removed, and they made one in Chrift b, his death 2i?6.2. 14,15 , 16, and if you mean this,when you [fay, we have the fame grafting if) with the Jews (whicftyour whole " arguing -ends to, and your expi tffion in thofe words, [for theft out- ward di/penfations^tmyort you mean it) you evacuuc the blood of Ghrift in this particular. You lay, «' Our prefent graffing in, is an- # ^fwerabh to their prefent cafimgout. It is tiUf, our prefent grafting in is apivverable to thur (or rather for their jcaltmg ouc; that is,God would fuppiy in his Olive tree the Church, the calling away of the ! Jews, by the calling or he Gentiles, fo much the Apoftle faith>v,i7. Thou being a wilde.0 live, wrsmlpifrti wdtfoify that i$ y in ramorum defr tt'p um locum, into the place of the branches broken cheir chillren were broken oj^ % k when they Shall be taken in in the Utter end of the World, they a% " their children Jh all be tuktn in. I grant it, they Were taken in, ar btoken cfftogeih.r, in refped of Gods A d;on and reprobation, an when they Hull be taken in, in the latter end of the world, they an their children (hall be taken in. Yea.., I think?, that as atthecallin of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of th Gentiles , then ever wasof the children of ,ht Jewes afore Ch? ill comming, according to that Heb&i 1. So at the calling of the Jew; there ftiall be a more full taking in of the children of the J wj, the is now of the Gentiles, according to th*t,Rom. 11. 26. andfo*//// rAcljhall befaved. But all th/s proves not, that God would fuv either all Infants of believers counted his as eled perfons, or in th Covenant of grace in Chrift, or in the face of the vifible Church ad mitted tobaptifme : which was to be proved by you. You go on. " And that becaufe the root is holy, that is, Gods £o "venant with Abraham, Jfaac, and Jacob extends y a untqthem\ « wh«n their unbeliefefhallbe taken away ; and then after nptiluftra ''tionfromNtbuLhtdnKZZttsdreame, Dan 4 14, 15. you fay of M "fetos, their prejext Nation like this tree is cut doWn, and this holl " rooty the Covenant made with thdr forefathers is Jujpended, boun^ " with an Iron barre of unbelief, b/indneffe being come upon them til "thefulnejfeofthe Genttlej be come in, and then all Ifrael Jhall be fa « ved. In this palfrge you fomewhat alter the Apoftles refemblance who doth not make the Jewifti Nation to anfwer the tree, but th<( branches, nor doth he fay the tree is cut do wn,buc the brant h-s br o ken off; and here you make the Covenant the root,, but a little afte ycur words import, when ycu fay, aholweffe derived from their an- ccfltrsy&c. that by the root you mean their Anceftors. And yen fay, The Covenant made with their forefathers isfujpended, which ir fome fenfe may be true, that is thus, the t ffeds or Gods love to Ifrae are for the.prefent fufpended from thofe generations,and fo in cur ap. prehenfion the Covenant is fufpended ; but in exad fpeech it cannoi be true, fith Gods Covenant according to his intention and meaning, cannot be fufpended or flayed,, but doth al wayes take erred irrefifti- from Holy Scripture. *7 blv m thit wherein you .Iter the refemblance : of the Apoftle, by „lcinlio the cutting down °f tt* tree, wftead of breaking of the r 2 voumuchi-tverttheApoftlesmeaning; who mikes die hr *l rh« s the Chu«h of believers, Rill ttanding.tnd fome branches ?*£ ff a ni «he"s entTed in. And for that of the roo", it is true, broken off, and oth ^ r ' b y Interpreters , fome undemanding wkh * ::r^veCnfforneChr lft> fo ? rne iy^^!«W Fl >ri£K5, Which Uft I conceive to be genuine, for the fe ^ ^ fome^'j'w ;» ^ according to nature, and new Annot. 2Ef5 fft5K« •• Somenaturafomeingrafed,^,,* lit blarin, the root, but the root bearing us, are plain evidences ST™ t £&& Zo-: Abraham is meant , Nur know Ihowt* ^etheSwance right, but by this Expotaon. Now to fay, Bia*euc ,, . ' is bound with an Ir on band of unbelief e, ! £?£, in all thudiCcourfe, the holineffe of the branches there ftokfn of, •V^^SnrfLaiubermlumSre. Then l*fetrU« '*?' ^ "rLJd who in urging iCw.7.14. forPadobaptrfme, ' rlJZZllhmeneratUn, about the which he challenged all i ?hf world to ufw I contrary : whereas here is according to you, a " £Se which is not wfonallfiT as Ut.BUke fpeakes, f *^-««*. 1 J rJ»V But to so on. You fay, - Sut a derivative holtneffe * 1 «< * ffil hol h theroothdj, thcbranrheshoy ■ that u he Fa- ■ «« %\rshT accepted in Covenant with God , the children beloved for 1 «« ZZ he children & their p /fcHfy J*-// *» r<%« *« ajamMau'e h- VZvedlr Zeir flhersfa(e\ Now thenar grtfing* be «&*- «*blet»t»»r J > Object. -Bar here urn mention of our « If* h relLefearch out h* meaning ; there * no mention made .< ofhecafing out the J.ViJb Infants, neither here, nor efewhere, « Thenhelpeakes of taking away the Kingdome of Godfrcm them, and «• %g!tothe LiUes, »lJ*onid bring for th fruit; no mention of « g Z Infants of the one,oro} the other, but the one and the other , for I branches in the It the injantsofthegodljin the* jaunts accord *g £g Infant'baftifmc cannot be deduced «' t > the tencr of hi* mercy, tht infants of ths wicked \n thsirparentt " according to the tenor of his juftice. There are iundry things in this pafoge you woul J have to be mark- ed, that deferve indeed to be marked, but with an Obdiske, not with an Alteriske, asi.That yew oppafe perfonall inherent holinelle tc derivative, as irxonl ; .tbnt. Tiie cruch is, the hchncile the Apoftk fpeaks cf , is, firtt in refptd of Gods Hkftion, holincffe perfonail anc inherent, in Godstendon, Hehnh chofen us tb*t we jbtuldbcholj Ephef. i 4. Secondly, it is aiCo hclincfle derivative, or defccnding,no from any Anccftors,' but horn Abraham, no: barely, as a naturall fa- ther, but as a fphkuaH father, or Father of the fait hf till, and fo deri ved from the Covenant of grace, which pitied in his name to him anc hii* feed. And hiUv, it (hall be inherent aftually, being communica- ted by the Spirit tf God, when they (hall be aft u illy called. Ba this is iuch a kinde or hclinclTe, as is more then you mean, to wit, no only an aaherent, or relative hulinelTe, which they have by enjoyinj cutward Ordinances, but alio inherent, by faith, whereby they ai holy, as the root, that is, Abraham the father of the faithfull. 2. Whereas you make it the cafe of any believers to be a holy root to their pofterity, tfpeciaily in the following words, when ycu fa> u The infants both of the JeVcs, and Gentiles for thefe outward differ, "fations, are comprehended in their parents, as the branch in ik " root, the infants cf the godly in their parents, according to theteno " of his mercy, the infants of the wicked in thtir parews, According t <' the tenor efkU juftice : Mifter Blake pag. 8. more plainly, Tk «'- branches of Anctftors are roots of fcftenty, being made a h.li branc " in reference to their ijfue, they noK become a holy root. This is nc true, tor in the Apoftles refemblance, Abraham only is* holy roo trf at mdt, ***/*&»*, Ifaac, and Jacob, in witefe names the Ccvi nant runs. No ether man, thcugh abelitverjs the father ofthefnid fki, bu: Abraham : Arid tht bedy of believers is compared to tt 'Olive, and each believer to a branch, that partakff oft he root and fa. r,efs of the Olive rrr*,not in outward difpenfations only ,as you fp.aj bat alio in feving graces, which is mainly here intended. I I'ememb Matter Thomas Goodftin, who hath handled this matter of Pad* bsptifme, by (pinning out fimilitudcs and conjectures (ht indeed f the common people, thac are more taken with refemblances th< Syllogifmes) rather then with clofe arguments : indeavoured to iirf: a kincte of promife of deriving holinefk from believers to their pelt* from Holy Scripture. 69 t jtv caf of the fimiUtude of an Olive, and its branches , compared Wfch/W.i*8 3 .&r. but it is dangerous to team (uml.ru.es He- JSS Su fate* lie the Holy Gtoft makes It » a tedious t hinj ; to Au" .tors that look for arguments, to be deluded w.th frm.luudcs and C ° r - W r h«ea, vc u ajfofag to the words of the Apolte, WaK that t h'\,v S ^tebelovedfortleir fathers fal^c^yl', as i it th.s were Serf my believing parents ; the Ap file rrpnes it rfthdefctfa-ts £fy inwhofename/rhe Covenant was made , e penally ^aharn J&tkfrundtfGtl Jam. 2. 23. and tj*f«her of tbefghf*?, Rom 4 1 1. and in reference 10 the promifes msae to them, they are beloved, and therefore it is added, ver, 29. For the gift 1 «M calling of &od are without repentance. ■ r^f Lalttv y ou C«y That the infants of the kicked for thefe oM^ar A dif- « penfa 'ions, are comprehended in their parents according tc \^t tenor i.%G.Jsj»ftice. I mtreat you to confider, whether th.s fpeech do Amm.«J.a not fymbolie with the tenetot^r^^ id his 4*f^«**5TO£ f urth Crimination, and in the end of his Treat.fe, where he mane h ^W.. the caufe why the pofterity of fome people have not the Gofpel, to ^.^tirA bTtheir forefathers fault in refufwg it. Againft which you may fee «**,«*** whatDoaorrvWflVoppofcth in both places, vAMouli* in his A- E««* tgt- Soa?o?Si!nifmUp- And thus it may sppeare that you ~«£ hive very much darkened this iliuftncus Scr.pture, by applying that ma £ mm t halineffe and irfiiion to outward difpenfations only in the viliWe Pw j^,™. Church, which is meant of faving graces into the invisible by faith, m**—* and made every btl.ever a like root to his potency, w.th Abraham mj,^ to his feed. tftfiderhTti T Am now come to your principal hold you fay, "Mjf H oe*?U* L « plainer ( if plainer may be ) « the fteech of the Apoftle m Cor .'I Cor 7 1 4. The unbelieving husband tsfanZfedbj the »,/*, and "the unbelting Kifeisfanfofiedh thehusband, elfe were your chil- « c d**n uncleane, but norv they are holy* B the way. Becaufe you acknowledge in the Margin page 2*. that vfiLifus voUmUvra, andyouconceiveitmay be hereread [»Q 7© lnftnt-baftifine cannot be deduced orZt»7 as well as [ty] and though our tranflators following thevulgar reaa [_by ] yet to** diflikes thtt reading ; it might h ve done well in the citing of this text by you, to have g»vcn fome hint of trnt varie- tie. But to follow you. You fay, " thr plain fcope and meaning there- * efts this. The believing Cormth'ans amon^ other cafes of Confcu " ence.whch they hadfent to the A po file for his refoUtion ofhadWrit- « ten this for one, whether it we lawfull for them Whj Were convert- " ed , fiillto retame their hfidell Wives or husbands. You doe right- ly here exprcfTe the fccp j of the Apoftle, but you make ano her fcope, psge 2 5 . when you fay ; " We mufi attend the Jpo/J-lesfcope, whichis " tofhew, that the children would be unholy, if the faith or believer/hip *'". *" «* S»*£ mrm« * «^*47j*«,r.lo. tf.f* keep company with wfw.w.te: ZZorlor Maters, which might occaiion the q^ «£ 5^7 * ther tfeey were then to continue with their unbebeyrog XoKet, l^w-. ^^ af) ^ • "But let us examine the Apoftles refolution, you lay. To vch*» cmmmicai whereby the ore] is enjoyed as a chafteyoke-feKow by another, Without fornication. The formerof thefe, your words inttmate r you imbrace, when you fay, the t( unbelieving wife wasfantlified in the believing h us b an d,quoid hoc, u fofar at to bring forth a holy feed. But againft this are thefe reafons, 1 . This could not have refolved the doubt in the cafe of thofe. who by age could not be fandified to this end, or by reafon of accidentall in- ability for generation, they might deparr each from other , notwith- ftanding this reafon : whereas the Apoftles refolution is, of all huf- bands and wives 5 7 he unbelieving husband r is fan Bified, that is,every unbelieving husband is fandified. If meant of Inftrumentall fandifi- cation, it were true only of thofe that are ape for generation, yea that doadu-'lly generate : whereas the Apoftles determination is con- cerning any husband or wife that were of different religion. 2. if the Apoftitjby being fand?fitd,meant inlirumentsliy fandified to be- get a holy feed, then the reafon had been thus : Y?u may live together^ for you may beget a holy feed. And fo their confcienccs fhoul d have been refolved of their prefent lawfull living tcgetfv r, from a future evenr, which was uncertain ; It hid been taken from a thing contin- gent, that might be, or not be : whereas the refolution is,by a reafon taken ftoma thing certair, a thing preienuor paft ; and therefore he ufeth the preterpeifed tenfe, fyf&i hath been fan ft r fed; yea, in probability he (peaks of a fandification, even when bovh were un- believeist from Holy Scripture. 73 ^Ufit^ifiatioafor thebegsuingof.holy feed, which w« ■fu-'ute thine, and that contingent. ,"„»,„/ Th s was fo manifcft to a*»i«r, that, torn. 4. P**/^- C«*»/. ;,? e To § Xhe proves, that fanaification here cannot be under- ^ rf fa, aificarion by ccnvttf.on cf the unbeliever through the gpxUf^Stornth.sreafon-. »**»** kg*™ aihcationisaiciiucu^ > / ^aification is common co ESI^SSSBCKS ^ the begetting of. ^ fed The Ken of Infidel-parents may be in the Covenant cf holy feed The chiWien urn 1 v ^ fanaificstion whKh X,Tg«her from the like uteot the word, «*«£«"' ^tfc „ . Infant- baptifme cdnnot be deduced Where thf.C'eatureofGod is j aid to be fanttified, that is, lawfully ufed, in oppolition ro that which evi^ghusb^nd\ that is,to his ufe y as all other creatures are, as the bed he lies on, the meat he eats, the cloaths he Wears, and the beafi he rides on arefantti* fied to his ufe. And this fenie is the more confirmed, in that, Jyta&m fanbl fixation, is the fame wnh chafticy,i Thell 4.7. So that the fenfe is 9 the unbelieving husband is fanttifitdto his w>fe, chat is, lawfully of chaftiy, ufed as a hu-band, without fornication in refped ot his own wife, whether believer or unbeliever ,aod therefore not to be refufed. And this fenfe only f erves for the purpofe of the Apoftle. Tne words are a reafon why they mighr lawfully live together : the reafon muft be taken from that which was not contmgent,but certain,as Chamier faith truly, torn. 4. Panftrat. CatM. I.5. c. 10. §.66. Hac eft mint. Apoftoli, ut doc eat fide li non difcedendum a conjure ixftdeli, conftenth' ente in habit at iontm ; cut rei conficienda ineptum eft aque ac paulo ante argumentum ab eventu incerto ac per accidens, htnc refututur ilia fententia qu// ^«^] arc not artfolurion of anocher doubt, but an argument to prove taac vatch was faid lait , as the particle 'M 4& (h-- WS; for the tearmes iTpa a 0. eU were, are argumentative, as much as cjnomam mm , be- c*uie thei ,uird fo, 1 Cor. 15 i4- »P. Ksm.n.f.to prove that Wi i c h wem before, *. That neretheaigumcntis^^^/wr^troman ibiurdittf.wmchWrouldfolkiw, i> the thing to be proved were not erant-d, and the fpeech mull net ds be 1 llipcick: andfomwhatts xm be repeated to m-ke the fpeech full , as when it is faii , Rom, i 1 6. * 4i &c - F-jrtf thiunbe- Uevinz h^and hath not bten fanElifid to the wife y yourchM ; en, &c. So chac thi, is me argument o* the A.olrle entire : Ir the «*£« husband were not land ft d by the wife,then were > our children un- dcan,bu; they are not u 4 iOau,but holy, Ergo, the unbelieving hus- «5 hifanubapifme cannot be deduced bind is fanfltifisJ to chi wife Nov the Major of this Sy Hog ifin is a conditional,^ the (t q\xA of it were not true,if this prorxfi.ioa were not tru*. : Aii the children of chofc Parents whereof the one is not fan- clrlcdto the other are tuclean.Now if the fandification be here meant of Matrimonial fanctificatio, as I have proved k muft,and the uuclcan- fieffe be meant of federail uncleanniffc , (b as co exclude them out of the covenant, whether of Saving-graces, or Church-priviledgts , the proportion were oil ft faMe, 6th that children cf parents .whereof one was not Matrimonially fan&ified to the other, but came together unchaftly, as Phare^md Zarab of Iudah , and Tamarjepthe of Gi-j lead , and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces, and Church priviledges , and therefore to make the Propoiiaon true (without which the Apoftle fpeakts that which is falfe) itmuftbe underftocd of uncleanneik by bsftardy : for it is true of no other un- cleanneffe, that all children of thofe parents, whereof the one is noi frn&ified to the other are uncleane. And that this i$ the force of tht Apoftles reafoning, Chumier {VN,Panfir. Cat hoi. torn. 4. lib. 5. c.io §. 67. when arguing againft the conceit afcribed to Auguftine con- cerning Ceremonial! holineile, he faith thus. c De ceremonial! ilia fan' &kate quid die Am ? venit in mentem Augufiino.fed Dens bone\ quam alitna ? profetto qntdamfunt tarn abfurdU ut rejutari non mereantur Euge.Dixit Apcftolus,li non fanftificetur maritus infidelis in vxon fidelifuturum ut filij inds nati fint impuri , ergo omnes fie nati fum impnriautfalfumd um ut fihj inde nati fint tmpuri ergo omnes fie nuttfunt impuriy autfalfum dixit Ap ftolus^qufder^o I Omnefne nati ex -js pareKtibus queru alter non fanttifieatur in altert funt extra f oedus gratUl N unquane parentes infideles aut fornicante, gignunt liberos intra joedus gratia jut uros M a oportet fane aut ridicu- lam b^n e^t interpret at ionem* As for the other words, but now. an thej holjiihc parucle f-? A but now,is not an adverbe of time here,ju 77 from Ho!y Scripture. # ■ legitimate, I know not, when as UJaW.ja-i 5 • =F ?K jn ^ God, rendred by yc ur felfe, page 1 9 . a ^l^J^T^X be Or*. «-.. « ■ ... r»«4 Lr*lvin riehtlv exeouncs it, and the woras u.ua M 5 -B1( j- S T< ™S , . itil p g wasnottofeekafeedot God diftm ^ f '°"^S?Sfeed -.where- «*,,/ er k ken of theeenerallend of all marriages) butalaWtu^ le ea ,,,»»««*• to I rnav aide, that marriage hath had the reputation ?* « W *f™£ JL «pW ,w;.Mr ie«:lsit and as that excellent booke intituled, Them* ,.„_ » s * ^turgie ^'rfcJ!^ ,/Unr , by R. C. prov.s. As for ^ u w - r * on of C^'ft and,he Ch ' *3 , . 3 1" iLile the like interpretation intii ut Ntte) Mr. Slakes quaere, pag.i a . *W«r ** wZgtve »e ^""J ■ • . ^ , tM ^ if Gal a I S. W* W u, faith he,everj *ay parallel, *™*"{"'? V, \ m /«„«. ther of the branches JJotKf* fh ^ [(!i j may apply to him the '.^ ^ 4.W Gal. a, i J. «. "W.W^«SS3£S like as when rS^oi&3^ nature finners, as well as t&t ^™"J * ' , , fatb-priviledge .. Wfe^ri -r. » rfa c rT£gT itfS fog of the words is plainly tftis; we are bom Jews anano ^ "■ W o:ksof the law, U U webwjt^ S^dtLrS %r. did ,11 to to obfet ve Which by birth w e were ucu,» r oonpeU 78 lyifant-baftifme caff not be deduced compel the Gentiles to Judaize,to keep the law of //^thereby dif- fembllng the Lbertie they had in Chrift, and bringing them fare bon- dage; fo that it is plaine he mentions Jewes by naiure, to ftiew th it obligation to the law by their birth,and he calls the Gentiles Turners, according to the common cxpreflion of them,as not obferving th* 1 law of the Jews, and then- fore when Mr. £/^ fakir, "Thxthtconttids Cl to have the feed of believing Parents under the Go/pe^tobe under the tl firft member of the divfi-n in the text* It is a ftrange fpeech, [hat he flk uld contend to prove this, The feed of believing Gt ntilesare Jews by nature,born to be circuincifed, and to keepe Moies law. But let it Be gr*nted , that they are called finners in the fenfe he wi old have it, tils': is, out of the Covenant, as it is faid Ephef. 2. 12. thequeftion is, in what fenfe the Gentiles were without the Covenant, and the Jewes in. Itisctrtainethe Jews had by Gods appointment chepri- viledgeof circumclfion, and the Covenant made wirh Abraham did btlorgfo them in fpeciail manneiymd the Oracles Were with them, Rom. 9. 4, 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them, till they were by 'unbelief? broken off, and that the Gentiles were dogs, uncleane ptrfons, aliens from the commonwealth ofKtitljtoithofrt God,\xhhout Chrift y &c. And fo it may be granted that the Jews had a birth privledge, thcugh ic is certaine , that their birth did no- intitle them to the Covenant of grace, and that the common priviledge of circumcifion belonging to the Jfrtis, did not arifs from [he Covenant of grace, according to the fubfUnce of it , but according to the ad- mirifttation that then was, nor was a fruit of the faith of tfee parr n- s, but of Gods appointment according to the ctifpenlscion of his will, in that time of the churches minoricie ; but he that will prove, that therefore ow children have fucha birrh priviledg^becaufc the Jews had, muft mske our ca-e as ihc Jews, and fo bring u\ u~d« r rhe C re- moniall law. Bu of vhis wee ihail have occasion h rc*rtei co p j akc more fully, on 1) by trie way I thought it nectfUry to fry fomuvh, becaufe Mafk-r fWxttferrts us ro Matter B lakes Sermon as a learned trearife, and I heard ir in like manner rnagi ifkd by M4ter CAamy, and therefore havr thought- it nexdlsry feme where o; ocher to exa- mine what hath any feemingnVng h in v. And for the Ca*ne reafon I take notice of thit fpeech s of ScrrptJe) tooke it fo ,pmmg uncles -.for bafttrds, « Z Mr for lUiml. And in the Margm , Note Reader that thu* <^Lfe?fomerly thu place* ag S inft the Anabaptifts , m he found £t of matrimAniall taa^cation and fand.ty , to be the right C^fe And MelanV.h ■» . and Camerarim doe expound it of le- Ration : Gagr.^ Parifienfis, inloc. alfo fo expounds it : and ^Ind^Enchircontrov.cumAnabp.c.i.^.MananafihoUnloc. And as for that of Fcedefal hohrxLle , 1 have rather reafon to conceive it to be a new expofition , the Ancients expanding it otkrw.fe, None that ever 1 met with, expounding it of federal go, InfAnt-baptifme cannot be deduced hollncfle , till the controverfie of the Asabsptifts in Germing arofe. CJ YtHl fay, #/tf this cannot be the mzaninv, I clearly prevs bj theft «•>* vu»^yourMine$e^ faith Bm, that yon abftain from fornication. Now, abftmenee j rom fornication, you will not fay is fcpirttion from common to ficred ufcs. And wh.n the Ap^ftle faith, i Cmr+fr that fit may be holy i7i^;,isitnotmeant,thit{hemayhechaft^? ^ -. You go on. " Even the meats and drinks of believers, fanttyed to * them fe'vefor a religious end and ufe y to reftefb them Kho are the * temples of the Holy Ghft. Is it a religious end and ufe, to rerrclh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghoft ? Then the godly, in eating and drinking, do an aft of religion, becaufc they rtr cih chem- (elves- It is true, when their meats are fanftjfied to them, they ufe them refeotfly, bu; not becaule they refrtfti their botes, which are the temples of the Holy Ghoft, but becaufc they uie thrm Wfth the Word,and prayer. It refilling the temple of the Holy Gho$, be a religious ufe and end, then the inordinate eating of a go "lymin, or the feeding of a godly man byaprophane pcrfon, is a rcligi. us ufe and end. You adde, " So that they have not only a lawfully but a b dy « ufe of their meat anddnn^ Vhich unbelievers have not, to Mom «L their meat and drink is civilly U»f*L This istme -bur how this proves, that unclean may not be taken for bafturd, and hoij for leoitfmateliet not. ,*,,*> You go on. " And whereas fome fay ,i Thef.43 4 5- 'bat Chaftity, " a morad vert He found among heathens , is coiled by the nameofSan- « ttif cation : Let every one poffeffe his veflell, not in the lull 0* con- "cupifcence, but in ianft.fication and honour. I anfwer, Ckiftity " among heathens is never caUedfanfofication, but among believers it f may be called fo, being a part of the ne*> creation, a branch of their "fanftification wrought by the {pint of God, a part of the inWarda- •doming of the temple of the holy Ghoft. Bat this is but a thift ; tor why may rot an unbeliever be fatd, as Well to po&fle his veflU in holiness to be fanftified ? B\fi ies, are not fanftification, and clean- ntflk , and honour , all one in thefe paflage* ? And doth not the ApoiUe fay, Heb. 13 4- that Marriage is honourable among ally (even Infidels) and the bed unified} And though the word awcru©- holinefle , be not found among the heathen writers, as p r beu>g g InfaM-baptifwt cannot be deduced being (fofarre as I can finde) a word ufed only among Ecclcfi- afticall wtiteis; yet *#Wtw is ufed for c«fiimoniam fervo, I pie- ferve chaftuy: as Stephana, in his Thefaurus, cbfcrves out of Demofthcnes &1* N«~V&kS where a Pried of Bacchus {peaks thus: jj^&* £ ^9a^. «£* ij6 ft*^ fciiftfrfi, I am holy and pure horn the company ok man. And ttte words, Ji f®S #y*iva,dy> i>, a>f^,| ch&fte , to be chafte , to make chsltc , chaftity ; comming from the fame root with *y& holy : whether &« to reverence , or ayo-juuu to admire, as Grammarians conceive, a-e ufcd for hohnefle and chifti'.y, very fitcjuerirlj; both in Scrip lire, and in all (oits Cm anmt. w^f Greek writers.. So thac what you fay, that [holy ~] cannot be Nat. 5 .3. taken c ox [i e ^ t jrnate2 but mull be taken rot pettdus admiifi- dTlrmi ble into the Church; lc isfofirreftom being tru that notwith- dypoi & {landing any thing you have faic, yet that ftnfe both may and mult u z*f o<. -5 e> ^ ,he Apdftlcs reasoning be good. 'But y uu Sffaftih it with a fe- cond Argument. « Secondly, this being fa h*d this been the meaning, E!fe Were « your children uncleanfc , but now they a e holy ; Elfe had « your children been baftards , but now they are legitimate : thetoifa to the husband] with- out believing. The reafon cannot be conceived rightly to be .any o- ther, but that although the perfon meant were a believer, as well as a wife or a husband ; yet in this paflage they were considered onely as husband or wife, and not as believers \ to intimate that the fan&i- fcation did not come from thefaith of the party, but from ccnjugall relation. So that whereas you fay, that upon the interpretation gi- ven.it would follow that there would be no lawfull marriage amongft heathens, or legitimate children, becaufe you conceive the ian&ifica- tionk holinefTe here proper to believers and their children, the con- (?") trary ( j$) Ififant-Baptiftne cannot be deduced trary is moft true, and moft agreeable to the Apoftles meaning, who doth not here afcribe the fanftification, either of the unbeliever, or the children, to the faith of either partie, but to the conjugall relati- on, and mentions here no priviledge, but what was common to all married peribns amonaft the heathens. Thus is your principal 1 argu- ment anfwered ; I pane on to the next. « Toufiy befides S* Pauls reafon had nofirengtb in it,fuppoftng the text cc were to be interpreted at thefe men would have it. 'Their doubt (fay they) cc was that their marriage was an unlawfull wedlock^, andfo consequently * c their children bafiards. Ycu doe not herein rightly fet downs your adverfaries explication of the Apoftle ; the doubt was onely,whether the beleever might continue with the unbeliever in conjugall ufe: the Apoftles refolution was they might, for they were fan&ified each to other, not with (landing theunbeliefc that was in the one partie; for if it were otherwise, their children were baftards. There was no doubt, as you fay, of their childrens baftardy 5 the Apoftles reafon fuppofeth it was out of doubt with them. Youadde. "Now marh^ cc what h^nde ofanfwer they make the Apoftle give. Were you not lawfull cc man and wife,your children were baftards 5 but becaufe the unbelieving cc wife is fan&ifted in the husband, &o. becaufe your marriage is a law full cc marriage,your children are legitimate. What ftrength of reafon is in this? iC if this had been their doubt or queftion, whether their marriage were not cc a nuUitie 5 the Apoftle by his Apoftolikc auihoritie,might have definitive* ^ly anfwered, without giving a reafon, your marriage is good, and your cc children legitimate. But if Paul will goe about tofatisfte them by rea- "fen, and prove them to be miftahen, it behoved him to givefuch a reafon, ~ €< which fhould havefome weight in it, but this hath none. Set their doubt cc (as thefe men frame it ) and the Apoftles anfwer ( as thefe men interpret cz it) together, and you wiUeafily fee the invalidity of it. Wee doubt (fay €C the Corinthians) wee are not lawfull man and wife , and that therefore itbafederaUholineffe, then is dfo the unbelieving wife *CmWUwith afederallfanmficamn, andfo thewtje, ■**«**»• "lanfwir, indeed there wotdd be wight in urn Oration, u \Mffk "had [aid, The unbelieving wife U fanUifted, and no more,* befimply « faith the children are holy ; but that be doth not fa) I He ,aith indeed, « the unbelieving wife is fznciif.edinUle bcikvmghvvand; or. U » btlievinghusband, that fqft his ufaat all ether creatures- are; K he ties on, the meat he eats, the clothes be pears, the be aft he rides on, arc "(aniUfiedtobim; and fo this fanluftedne^of the wife, isnotafmcu* "Heation of ft ate, but only ofnli, and of 'rbu uje to be (an&ifcdtc the^e- "lieving huibandy-whereas the nolmeffe and fmGhftcaiion w « H I. "oftbeclnldren u aboliTveffe of ft ate, and not K the parents u'i, ■ . . .,. Thefe words in.your -Margin [«, the ureekfrepofmon^gn^rngto, 0*&-mini*G&ut& 2P*t,i,5- Afts 4 . is. iCor.7. 15.J j£ ine the Texts! produce In my Latin p-aper, that [ V J nttj be tranUr- ted fwl as well as |>] Rivem^fonis ■ occcahon to think -that this Objcftionis produced in reference to thefe words in my Ljtttn paper, wife were the caufe of the (biflafying the unbelieving husband 5 1 lay thus : Nemoenim dixem fdemuxonsfanBifcare viruminiiaelenifzdera- ■titerJta at baDtifmi capax fitinftdelis maritus propter ftdem tmns (quo* ^tZnpMetanmmivimumdilxumfn^ihentftqmutrex^ mumCan[iumei\efxderalher,&baptifmicapMcmpr,^ lir no man will fay, the faith of the wife fanftihes the unbehevmg i husband federally, To that the unbelieving husband lhoyld oe capable of Baptifme for the faith of the wife < which yet, with the leave of fo great perfons be it faid, doth as well follow out of this - place, as -that the fonne is federally holy, and capabb or -bap- tifme for the faith of the parent). In which words when Hay, it follows out of this place, my meaning is, to transited and ex pounded as before; that the unbelieving husband is fanning \ bT that is, by the faith of the wife, as the child is holy, .t wou.c i follow, that the unbelieving husband fnould be in the Covenanta: well as the child,and fo be baptized : for the faith of the wife is la,.;. S tofanftifie according to this reading andapofeton, the one as weL as the other, And fo much 1 conceive you acknowledge, mlayuy. ( 80 ) Infant-Baptifme cannot be deduced in this Obje&ion, there would be weight if the Apoftle had fafc the unbelieving wife is fan&ified and no more. But this only I put if by a parenthens, as not building the main of the interpretation*] gave on it, knowing that Beza renders it [inuxore, in the wififj and then the Objection hath no place. And feeing you do rendeij [ if ] in, or to, and expound the fan&ification to the believers u(e,a* all other creatures are. I confcfle, again ft you that Objection isndj in force, and therefore your anfwermay be acknoweldged right w\ this particular. I pafle to the fecond Objection. cc That holineffe of the children is here meant, which could not beun* ct kffe one of the patents were fan&ified to the other 5 which is the force oj cc the Apofiks arguing^ the unbeliever is Jan&ifiedto the believer , eHk cc were not the children holy, but unclean ; but federal! holineffe of children K may be where parents are not fan&ified,one in, *or to the other* as in Cc baftardy. Davids childe by Bathfheba, Pharez and Zarah Judah's cc children by Thamar, the Israelites children by the Concubines, Abra- cc hams fin Ifhrnael by Hagar, &c. in which cafe the children were fe- cc derally holy, and accordingly were circumcifed, and yet the Harlot not "fin&ified, in, or to the Adulterer^ or fsrnicator^ though a Believer. This Objection I own, having firft proved that the fan&ification of the unbeliever, is meant of lawfull conjugall copulation, onlyi where you lay, the unbeliever is fanUifed to the believer, I would (ay, as the Apoftle doth, to the wife or husband: Now to this Object on you fay, "Ianjwer, but I pray you tell me where you anfwer it 3i I finde no anfwer to it here, except it be an anfwer to an Argument to deny the conclusion. In the Argument you neither fhew faulti- nefie in the form nor matter, which was the way of anfwering I learned in the Schools where I was bred. You fay, CQ we muft at- cc tend the Apoftle s fcope : true, but when we are to anfwer, we muft attend to the Objection, and fhew the weaknefle of it. You fay, cc which is to fhew, that the children would be unholy if the faith 5 or cc believer (hip of one of the parenrs, could not remove the bafre which Iks cc in the other, being an unbeliever, againft the producing of an holy feed, cc becaufe one of them was a Fagan or unbeliever, therefore the childe could u not be a holy feed, unlejfe the faith or believerfhip of the other parent \ cc could remove this bane. You made the fcope at firft right, to refolve them whether they 1 might lawfully retain their Infidell wives or husbands 5 but the fcope you from H*b Serif ture. ( 8 1 ) i „bere one' of > h ?t" m "^X£* d Am "fc* " ** ^ WOuW ^ n °h TrhlKK^ otherwiie'then the objeftor takes mfwer thus j the ^T^Xument, nor objection, and folneed ^utooni "But this vasnot the cafe anmfthe]^, E i&t *WThamar, W *&e cncubines, bower finfuU mthofi aUs yet < ZmXTmre Believers, belonging to the Covenant ,f God, and that *blne lay not againji their children, as tt dtd m the mbelwmg ' TOs paffiwe is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objeftion, that •hild en may g be federally holy, where the one parent «s not fcnftt- W £dXer , and that the Major is true, wh.ch refts on dm, hat the chUdren could not be*oly, unlefle one parent were fan fti- , ^d to he other, you will not deny it; you do your felf frame the brc of he ApoMes reafon thus; both pag. 19. when yon fay, £^1 them, as »ben. both of them rme unbehevers thetr cbt- Z lould be an unclean frogeny and pag.il. when you fay, t»e ZiTanteer had not been true, becauje then,tf m :oJ the parents had Zbeenf^ijied to his unbelieving rrife, thetr chtldnn muft bav* Intend other paffages, you acknowledge the force of the Joftls reafon, to confift in this: that hohnefle of the children » ere m ant, which could not be, unlefle one of the parents were knlSo the other; wherefore the concluhon ftands good, that 'fi^nlman or lonun jhould adulteroufly beget a chid, upon a Pagan «S», or unbeliever, there this objeBton deferves to be further Cekltd% he.eitco.nes „ot mthin the compafr of the Apo files ar- vmgnea, rhombum, nothing to the pomt; as 'gument. This mutt objeftion which is made, Syou Se i thu!o n r thus, I will anfwerit; and thusl have !tkftgo«enyour chief hold, which you had bell manned, butm he dofe you quitted it. Yob *l * ) fnf*Ht*&apiifme cawtnot he deduced You adde as over-meafure, certain Reafons s i . « F^w, CWr »i// 3 which were enough, if you could prove it, 2. cc From Gods honour, in which you fay, fi it is with the Lori "he havingkft alltherefi oftbeworldtobevifiblytheVevilskingdome. cc mil not for his own glories fake permit the VeruiU to come and lay tf. cc fible claim to the fans and daughters begotten by thofe who are the chil* "dren of the mo fi High; which fpeech^f true, well fareC^ an d Cham, and Ifimael and Ejau, and innumerable others, whom the Devm hath had vifibie clainie toby their works and profefTion. 3. « For the comfort and duty of thefe who are in covenant with him. Indeed it were ajery great comfort, if you could make it good which you fay .5 but we muft be content with that comfort God is pleated to give, and not for our comfort fpeak that of God which is not true. rr , Y ° U r fa y , J "J™, have hzm the lar & er u P m fho fi *™ M concfofions. * becaufe indeed, the proving of thefe gams the whole caufe, and fo I have been the larger in anfwering, as cofceiving by loofing thefe you loofe the caufe. ° J Yob fay, «Bw mafi karned of the Anabaptist do profeffe, thai ij 1 ! h /y ty™ * ch * ld *° h hol -?> the J ™»M baptize it. It is likely they that faid,orprofefredfo, did declare in what fenfe, and for whatrea- fon they fo fpake But becaufe thefe are but Rhetoricall paflages, I leave them, and paffi to your third Coneliifion-. which yoy thus exprelfcc J fbi from Holy Serif tare. 85 ^T HeLord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or S.alofinitia- f ^efoccef- tion,to be adminifiredunto them, who enter into covenant with him\ fion of Circumcijionfor the time of that admmif ration which wot before Cbrijts tifme . nwthe incarnation, Bap tifme fwee the time of bis incarnation. place, room, The conclulion, as you here fit itdown, may be granted, that the and u fc ©f Lord hzth appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation, to be Oreumcihon. adminiftred to them that enter into covenant with him, circumcifim for the time of that administration, which was before Chrifs incarnation, Bap- tifme fince the time of hi* incarnation. But this is not all you would have granted 5 for k would ftand you in no ftead, and therefore, in Head of it,/wg.33. in the Repetition,you put this conclusion for your third 5 that our Baptifme fucceeds in the room and ufe of their Circumcifi- on ; and your meaning is, that it fo fucceeds, that the command ofcir- cumcifing Infants fbould be virtually a command to baptize Infants,^ you expreffiyourfelfj/ug.35. Now this I deny. That which you al ledge for this is^irft, the agreement that is between Cicumcidon and Rap- tifme : Secondly, the Text, Col 2. 8, 9, 10, 11,12. I (hall examine both 5 and confider whether they fit your purpofc. You confefle they differ in the outward Elements, and that is enough to (hew that the command for the one, is not a command for the other, except the Holy Ghoft do fo interpret it. But you fay, they ! agree in five or fix particulars. The fir ft, that they are both 0} them the fame Sacrament for the ftirituall part 5 which is to be granted, but with its due allowance: For, though Baptifme fignifie in part the fame thing that Circumcilion did 1 namely, fantYification by the fpirit, judication and falvation by Jefus Chrift, and faith in him 3 yet it is ^rue that there is a vaft difference betwixt them, becaufe Circum- cifion fignified thefe things as to be from Chrift to come, and therefore it was a fign of the promife of Chrift to come from Jfaadj but Baptifme fignifies thefe things in the name of Chrift already ma- nifefted in the flefti, crucified, buried, and rifen again. And becaufe Circumcifion did fignifie Chrift to come out oilfaac, therefore it did alfo confirm all the promhes that were made to Abrahams naturall Pofterity, concerning their multiplying, their bringing out of Egypt, their fettling in the Land of Canaan, and the yoak of the Law of Mofs, which was to be in force till Faith came, that is, till Chrift was manifefted in the flefti. Gal 3. 19. 23, 24, 25. Gal 5. 2, 3. The fecond agreement you make, is that both are appointed to be Q^ aiftngmfh- 84 fnfant-Baptifme cannot he deduced Mwguijbmgpgptj betwixt Gods people and the Devils people. Thia mull be alio warily understood ; for though it be true they are both di- ftinguifhinghgnes, yet not fo,but that they may be Gods peopIe,who were not circumciiecl, nor are baptized. God had a people in Jobs and Lots families, who were net circumcifcd,nor to becircumcifed •,. and there may be a people of God, who are not baptized, as the thief on the erode, the Catcchumeni dying afore baptifme, many martyrs, and others,that have dyed without Baptifme.And in the fignes them- felves there is a great difference, both in the afting of them 5 the one of them was wkh blood, the other without 5 the one took away a part of the body, the other not : and after the a&ing, the onewas a permanent ligne, the other left no impreflion or footfteps of it that did remain. The third agreement is, both of t hem the way and means offokmn entrance and adm^fon into the Churchy which may be granted 5 yet in the folemmty there was a great difference : the one to be done in a private houfe, by a private perfon, the other openly by theMinifter thereto appointed, The fourth agreement i^both of them to be adminjlred but ^ce,which I conceive true thus 5 to wit,that there is no neceflity of adminiftrinff either of them above once; but ademonftrative Argument to prove it an herefie, or unlawful! in it felf to rebaptize, I yet expeft. Yet this parity hath itsdifparity : For Baptifme is not retrained to any fet day,but Circumciiion was limited to the eighth day in its inftitution. Your hich. And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes, untill they were circumcifed, nor into the communion of the Church of the Chrtftians, untill thej be baptized. If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot aflent unto you: Fornot only the children ^vere accounted hi that Church who were not eight dayes old, but alfo all the uncir- cumafed m the time of the travell through the Wildernetfe, untill they cam* to GUgal, and all the females were members, though thev werenot to becircumcifed. The reafon was, becaufe God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Ifrael ; and therefore he would have the fervants born in the houfe.and that were bought with money of any ftranger that were not of Abraham* frt E? ^ Andif y° ume ^bythecommunionoftheChurch of Lhriflians ? the accounting of them as vifible members, it is not true uut nonemight be received into the communion of the Church of the from Holy Serif tare, 85 the Cbriflians uhtill they be baptlzed,unlefle you will with BeUarmim deny the Catecbummi to bea&uall members of the Church, and op- pofe IFbitaker, and others of the Protectant Divines herein. The laft agreement is,that none but the circumcijed might eat of tht fafcbal Lamb ;which is true of tho(e that ought to be circumcifed,but it is not true (imply taken : for the females were to eat, though not circumcifed.On the othtr fide you fayy^e may but tbofi robo are bapti- • zed be admitted to eat the Lords Supper. This you amrm,but you bring no other proof for it, but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcilion and the Pafleover,and Baptifme and the Lords Supper, which can make but a Topick argument, and that a fimili, which is of all other the weakeft Place to prove by, proportions are weak proba- tion^ faith Rutberfwd, Due right of Presbyteries, Cb. 2. Sett. 2. p. 37. Tis true, we find perlbns ordinarily upon their firft call were bap- tized, and then after received the Lords Supper \ and it is true, that 1 Cor. 10. 2,3, 4. and 1 Cor. \2. 1 3. baptizing is put before eating and drinking, and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering ic ibiyet I make queftion,whether,if a peribn that profefleth the faith of Chrift fincerely , and is not yet baptized, fuppofe for want of a Mini- fter,or out of fcruple,at the way of baptizing only allowed,or becaufe thecuftome is not to baptize but at Eafier or Wbitfuntidey as it was of old, or the like reafon, (hould come to a Congregation ofCbrifii- ans receiving the Lords Supper, and there receive it with love to Chrift,whether he (hould fin,becaufe not baptized,as the 'jews (hould (in, that did eat the Pafleover not circumdfed : For in the ftvpes cafe a command is broken, not here, and Co no tranfgreflion. If he come without examination of himfelf, not difcerning the Lords bo- dy,he fins, he breaks the command, 1 Cor. 1 1. 28. But where is the command that hemuft be baptized firft It And for the fame reafon,I queftion, whether a Minifter can juftifie it before God, if he rejefit i'uch a Cbriftian from the Lords Supper, becaufe not baptized/or the aforefaid reafons. By this which I have faid, you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are, and how many difagreements there are between Circumciilon and Baptifme ; and therefore how poor a proof, or rather none at all may be drawn from the fuppofed agree- ments you make between Circumciilon and Baptifme,for the making a command to circumcife Infants, a command to baptize Infants, without the Holy Ghoft declaring Gods minde to be fo. Allthefe agreements ; y«a,if there were an hundred more, cannot make it any Q_ 2 other %6 Infant-BAftifme cannot be deduced other than an humane invention, if the Holy Ghoft do not fhew that they agree in this particular. But to make the weaknefle of this Ar- gument the more apparent,Iet me parallel the Priefts of the Law,witfo the Mini iters of the Gofpel, as you do Circumcifron with Baptifme. As God appointed Aaron and his Tons to Minifter in the time of the Law, fo the Miniftery of the Gofpel now ; the Apoftle makes - the Analogy expretly, i Cor. 9.13, 14. and* far more plainly then the Text you bring for the fiiccetlion of Bapdfme to Circumcifion, and they agree in many things: As the Priefts lips fhould prefer ve knowledge, Mali.']. Vent. 33. 10. fo muft the Bifhop be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.2. As the Prieft by offering the facrihees held forth Chrift to them,He&. p. fo the Minifter by preaching, GJ, 3. 1. As the Prieft was for the people of God, fo the Minifter of the Gofpel : As the High Prieft was to have the people on his breaft, fo the Mini- fter in his heart ; as the one was to blehe,fo the other was to pray for them : As the Prieft had a confecration,fo the Minifter is to have an ordination: As none was tothruft himlelfinto the one without a calling ; fo neither in the other : And many more fuch agreements might be aftigned ; will it therefore follow, that a comrmnd to a Prieft to offer a faerifice propitiatory, is a command to a Minifter to offer a faerifice propitiatory, or a command for a Prieft to wear a li- nen Ephod, fhould be a command to a Minifter to wear a Surpfice,a8 the Papifts- do juft in your manner argue from Analogy or refem- blance j or, that therefore tythes are due to Minltters. jure diving by divine appointment, as Bilhop Car let on^ D r . Shtafer s and others^ from Analogy of Melchifidecs and Aarons Priefthood would" infer : or that ordination may be by the people 5 becaufe the children of Ifrael laidhands on the£ez>i/tv,as M*. Mather in anfwer to M r . Her'e$ or that there muft be an imparity in the Clergy-and fo Biihops above Presbyters,as the Prchtes^Bilfin^Vavenant^ Veterminjt.6hteft.47. and others were wont to argue ; or that a Do&or in Divinity may be a Juftice of Peace, beeaufe Eli and Samuel were Judges, as the Prelati- call Do&ors; or that there muft be a Pt it is but our colleaion,that thereby theLord would SSe anend-of the Paflfeover, and fubftitute the other in w room. Sother placeswe rather finde the Lords Supper to anfwer the Man- S and the Rock, or water out of the Rock m theWilderneffe, ,Cor 10 ?,4. Ids true, the Apoftle, r Cor. ic. 1 6, 17. argues from the bating of ■ the facrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper. But Sat wis not only from the Paffeover, but from the reft of the peace- offerings as well as it , yea, from the Heathens feafts upon their facn- S-. Iti S c.ue,iC^.5.8.wearerequiredtokeepthefeaft, andthe allufionis to the Pafchal Supper i but whether the keeping the feaft bemeantoftheLordsSupper,orasB^paraphrafethit,^^»w^ in iuftiti* & integritateconfumamuf, let t» fiend our whole Rfe in Jice and integrity, or fomething elfe, fubjudiceltfeft^contto- verfie undetermined. But let it be granted, that the Lords Supper fenkatesCI will not fay fecceeds into the room of the Jen>,(b Paffio- ver for that was a facrifice, and Chrift offered, is only in (lead of it) the PafchalSupper,which becaufe of the time,and the form of words nfedin the inftitution, and fiichlfc circumftances, is very probable, and therefore there is great Analogy between them ; yet he that ftould argue, therefore wemuft receive the Lords Supper with wi- dened bread, as the P^ 5 or that the bread and wine muft be firft confecrated on an Altar, M was the Pafchal Lamb , or that the LordsSupperisnottobeadminiftredbutina Church, gathered af- ter the Chtrrch-way , as the Elders of M*»£«Hj « ™ [ ™ to * e ninePofitions; orthat we muft keep an Eafier and then have the Lords Supper, as in aneient and later times hath been conceived, you would reject thefe things as ill gathered, and perhaps call them Lerft'dous. But whether thefe, and more like to them, do not as wdlfollov V ,asbaptizingofL>fant S} from circumc.hon ofJnfants,be- «ufe of their Analogy, I leave to your felt toconhder. You adde, And this our Lord himfilf taught * by. \mmn example, f°™ ar- cumcifed* a profejfed member of the Church of the Jews, Men he fit qfanmchfii* Church, he would be intuaud mtoit by the Sacra- "k itcoSSrfhat Chrift was circumcifed and baptized,but that k wasto teach us by his example,eitheryourconcluGoB,orthe agree- men "between Baptifme and Chcumcifion which you fit down, or Zwhich nextgoesbeforeyourfpeech, the '"f^*^ Supper to the Pafleover, remains yet to be proved, much more that "S& Infant-Baptifme cannot be deduced which you drive at, that there is fuch a parity, or rather identity be* tween Baptifrne and Circumcision, that the command to circum- cife Infants, is a command to baptize Infants. The circumcifion of Chrift was undoubtedly as his prelenting m the Temple, and the. offering for him to accomplilb the Law, under which it pleated him to be made of a woman^ GaL^ .4, 5. and it had a fpirituail u(e to allure our circumcifion inputting off the body of the fins oftbefhjh^ C0/.2.1 1. This is certain, we have clcare Scripture for it ; if you (hall fhew the like Scriptures for thelinferences you make from Chrifts circumcifi- on, I (hall imbrace tfeem with both arms. The Baptifrne of Chrift was that Chrift might fulfill all righteoufneffe. Mat. 3.15. But how to expound this fpeech, hath not a little difficulty. Various conje- ctures there are about the meaning of it : this ieems to me moft like- ly jthatrighteoufnefle is there taken for that which was appointed by God,either in tecret inftru&ions, or fome particular Prophecy from God. But then if it be asked why God did appoint it, this feems moft likely,iith it is plain that this was the time of Chrifts anointing with the Spirit, as appears, Luke 4. 18. that Baptifrne was ufed to fignifie his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was .then to enter on, which me thinks,the ftory it felf, and the fpeech of Pet er, ABs 10. 37, 38. do evince. That which you (ay, 7 bat being to fet up tbe new Cbrifiian Churchy be would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptifrne) feems not probable; partly, becaufe Chrift did not Cct up in his own dayes on earth a vifible Church, Dilcipline and Wor- ship diftinft from the Jewifo ; partly, becaufe his Baptifrne was of a far higher nature then our Baptifrne, If bo was anointed with tbeoyl of gladneffe above bis fellows , Heb. 1. 9. and therefore his Baptifrne was of a tranfeendent nature above ours. But if it were granted that Chrifts Baptilme were to teach us, that he that is a member of the Church, muft be initiated by baptifrne, it will rather disadvantage your caule then advantage it,(ith Chrift, who was/&'£# v (hew, that Chrift is in ftead of Circumcifion, and all the reft of the Jewifh ceremonies, and the truth is by this doctrine, that Baptifme is in ftead of Circumcifion, the Apoftles argument for the difanulling the Jewifh ceremonies, both here,and Hebr. 9. & 10. 1. & 1 3. in the Epiftleto the Galatians, chap. 3. & 4, and Epbefi 2. is quite evacua- ted, who ftiilufeth this argument to prove the abolition of the ce- remonies of the Law, becaufe they have their complement in Chrift, not from Holy Scripture. pj : not in ibme new Ordinance added in ftead of them ; for if there be need of other Ordinances (betides Chrift) in ftead of the old, then Chrift hath not in himfeh fulnetfe enough to iupply the want of them, and this abolition isnotbecaufeof Chrifts mlnerle^ but other Ordinances that come in ftead of the abolifaed. And indeed. Bap- itifme and the Lords Supper, though they be Ordinances of Chrift (that may imitate or referable the Ordinances ot the Jews, yet it can- not be faid they fucceed into the roome, place, or ule of them : For Chrift only 3 and that which he did, doth fo iucceed : So that if things be well weighed,tfrs Text isagainft your Pofition, not forit 3 and fo your Ordinance is turned againft you. You go on 5 cc And cc the Analogy lies between two facramentaU types of the fame fubftance cc [regeneration] to both Jews and Gentiles. I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcifion and Baptifme, and fo there is be- tween the Deluge and Noahs Ark,or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptifme, 1 Vet. 3.21. they do refemble each other in fome things. But we are not to conclude thence, that Baptifme fiicceeds into the roome 3 place, and ufe ot "Noahs Ark, or that therfore we are to bap- tize married pcrfons only, becaule in Noahs Ark only married per- lonswere faved : For in the adminiftration of an Ordinance,we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy,either framed by us,or delivered by the Spirit of God,but the inftitution of God. But the truth is, in this place, Col. 2. H 3 12. the Apoftle rather refembles buriall to circum- cifion a then baptifme, and fo makes the Analogy not between Cir- cumcifion and Baptiime,but circumcifion and Chrifts buriall. And (oChryfoftome on the place, and after him Ibeophylaft, j^o T€f/fy/flr &h£i vrcthi9 ra'pov ngHHy and what he calls circumcifion, he again calls bu- riall. "Y ou proceed thus : cc And in truth, had not baptifme come in (C tberoome of it, the Apoftle could not have pitched upon a worfeinftance f c then Circumcifion, which was Jo much valued by them, and was Jo great cc andufefull apriviledge to them. It is true, circumcifion was a great and ufefull priviledge to theiri , in that eitate they were before Chrifts incarnation, in companion of Heathens, who had not a •School-mafter to bring them to Chrift, yet abfolutely it was a burthen agd fyeavieyoal^ , A£b 1 5 . 10. 28. and it would be a burthen, not a pri- viledge, for us to have an Ordinance in the roome, place, and u(e of itj now Chrift is come, in whom we are compleat. And it is true, the Apoftle pitched on circumcifion, verf.i 1 . becaule the Jews much va- lued itg but not toihew 3 as you fay, that Baptifme is in the roome % R 2 "place 94 Infant- Baptifme cannot be deduced place , and #/e tffifjbut tofhew, f/u* i» C&ri/? «?e &^e circumcifiony and arc compleat in him. You clofe up this conclusion thus : cc No* cc bad there been any reafon to have here named Baptijmejbut that be meant cc to ftew Baptifme to Chriftians was now in the roome of circumcifion to cc the Jewes. This is faid with more confidence, then truth : For another rea- fon is plain from the context 5 that therefore Baptifme is named, be- caufe icis one of the means by which Chriftians come to have com- munion with Chrift, and to be complcat in him ,which was the thing the Apoftle intended in the 12 th verfe, and therefore he joynes faith with Baptifme, they being the two fpeciall means whereby we come to have communion with Chrift, and to be compkat in him- And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures : Gal 3. 255265 27. the Apoftle fpeaks thus: But after faith is come$ we an no longer under a S choolm after ^ meaning Circumcifion^ &c. For we are all the children ofGod by faith in Chrift Jafus : For as- many of you as have been baptized into Chrift J) ave put on Chrift ; which Text is appa- rently anfwerable to C0/.2.8,9,io,u,i2. And again,Rww.6.3, 4, 5. Know younot that fo many of us as were baptized into Jefus Chrift) were baptized into his death I therefore are we buried with him, //* 7 » fUmU fia7©-, by baptifme into death s that like^ as Chrift was raifed up from the dead ^ by the glory of the Father ', even fo we alfo jhould walk in newneff of life: For if we have been pla?ited together in the likenejfe of his dead Psefball be alfo in the likenejfe of his refurreBion. In which places yot may eafily perceive, that by putting on Chrift, we come to be ex- empted from the Schoolmafter, that is, the Law, and fo from Cir- cumciiion ; that being planted into Chrift, we walk in newneiTe of life, that is, as Rom. 7. 6* that now we are delivered from tbe Liw* that being dead wherein we were belcL, that we fhould ferve in newneffe of fai- nt y and not in the oldneffe of the letter 5 and that the means hereof, is by Baptifme by which we put on Chrift, and.are baptized into his death, and by faith, whereby we are no longer children under age, but fons c*>me to their inheritance. Thus have I at iaft, waded through your third Conclufion, and the Text, Col. 2. 11,12. the mifunderftanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus^ foolilh fire, which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs. Your from Holy Serif ture. 95 CurfourthConclunonfollowes; « Ibat ^Gods own expreffior. j^^ I « der, Mants as well as grown men rrere m the time of the Jews to ^ ^^ At initiated and feated with tbefigneof Circumcifim, whether Jews h, & the fons "n.ture or Profelytes of the Gentiles, 0«e Law was for them aB; if forwhichper- «Lnceiv*tUCovenant, they and their children-were ctrcumcifed. ^^<^ Sue,this was Gods expreffe order, an it is as Mtelte -g^, expreffe order of God is now revoked, or repealed, ASs 1 5. 10. 20. ^ ^ ^ ; Gj/ < 1,2,?. as belonging to that adnvmftration, which was th ^ W eredr- hrfore Chrift came. That w hkh you zdde of the females virtual! ar- cumcifedwetc «S* in the males, hath been examined before. I pafle on to that not i. the co- Xcn foCes: " And whereas Come, who fee which way the Strength «-£«* "of this Ccnclufion tendeth, do alledge, that though Circumcifim was to « beapplyedto their Infants, yet it vasnotasafealoftbefpirituall part , « of the Covenant of Grace, hit as a nationaO badge, a feal of fame tern- "torallandearthlybleffingsandpnviUdges a, of their right to the Land «ofCan*m,te. And that Nhmael, though he ivas ctrcumcifed for f me « Lporall Ms, yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of « Grace, which was exprefly faid to be made with Abraham, inrelation to "liaac and bis feed. ■ They that thus objea/peak thatwfoch is truth,only whereas yon make the obie£ors by, That it was not a feal of the fpmtuall part of the covenant ofGrace,\ would fay ,to all that tvere circumcijed,md when yon fay, but as a national! badge, &c. that Iihmael was ctrcumcifed forfme temporallrefpeBs, I would leaveout thofe words, and fay, becaufeGod tommmdedit. Thus did I expreffe my felt in my Latin paper,aftirm- ine that not riebt to EuangelkaU promifes, I now adde, nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham, was the proper and adequate reafon, why thefe, or tbofe were ciratmcifed, but Gods Precept : for as rmxb as terfons were to be eircumcifed, who had no right, either to the Euangelicall promifes, or any other in that Cmnanlwlncbwascon- Armedbytircumcifion; and I named Khm^l, concerning whom, though God beard Abraham in giving him f,me bleffingupon Abrahams/-^, when he mderfiood the promife was not intended for Iftunae*, but to llaac, Gen 17 19,20. , 8 Ixfant-Baptijine cannot be deduced either as they were temporall bleilings or types of fpirituall things, and fo 3 as you Cpddk^adminiftrations of the covenant -of Grace^but in this refptc"t.only 3 andfor this reafon 3 andno other ^becaufe God had fo com* manded ; though I deny not circumctfed perfbns were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through thefe adminiftrations 3 yet therea- ion of being circumci(ed was barely Gods command - y Co that if you abftraclc Gods conanrnd^ notwithstanding the covenant 3 or any other adminillration of it 3 they were not to be circumciied : You goon: cc Sure I amjhe profelyles and their children could not be circumcifed in any cc relation at all to the temporall blejjmgs of the land o/Canaan, as they cc were temporally becaufe notwithftanding their circumcifionjhey were not cc capable of receiving or pur chafing any inheritance at all in the land^fe" cc journe they might as other grangers alfo did y but the inheritance of cc the land) no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the fever all QQ bribes to whom it was diftributed^ as their Pojfefjion by the moft High : cc For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes yand they were not any one cc of them allowed to fell their lands > longer then till theyeer ofJubilee y cc Lev. 25 . v. 3- &c. Tea, I nuy boldly fay y that their circumcifion was fe QQ far from fealing to them the outward good things of the land y that it cc occafioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporal! bleffings y * c by their long and frequent and chargeable journyes to worjhip at Jerufa- cc lem : This which you (ay may be granted 3 and the thing which you would prove by it 3 That they which received circumcifion^ did not receive it in relation only to thefe outward things^ yet this overthrows not this Propoiltion 3 That the covenant made with Abraham had promifes of temporall blejjings^ and that feme were to be circumcifed, who hadno part in the covenant of Grace, You adde : cc And as for what was alledged con-' u cerning fthmael 3 the Anfwcris eafie', God indeed there declares 3 that cc lfazcjbould be the Type of Chrift^and that the covenant of Grace pould cc be eftabli(hed y and continue in hi* family y yet both fthmael and the reft of cc Abrahams family were really taken into covenant untill afterwards by cc apoftafie they dife oven anted themselves ^ as alfo did E(au afterwards^ cc though he were the fen of Iiaac 3 in whofe family God hadpromifed the cc covenant fhould continue. When you fay 3 that Ilhmael was really tahgn into the covenant^ meaning 3 ofGrace y mentioned in a few words be- fore, you oppose both the Apoftle 3 Rom. p. 7 3 8. Gal. 4. 28 3 29. as I haveihewed before 3 and Gods own fpeech, 62/2.17. 19, 20. To which I may adde 3 th it Jjaac and Jacob only are faid to be coheirs with Abra- ham oftbejamepromife 3 Heb. 1 1 .9. And when you fay s t hat be and Efau from Holy Scripture. $p were difcovenanted by apoftafie : yen plainly deliver' apoftafie from the covenant ofGrace y which I will not call in you Arminianifme, but in others it would, and that juftly be fo centered. But you will fay, you mean that Ifhmael and Efau were Abrahams feed by profeffion^ and outward cleaving to the covenant &$ you f peak, pag. 1 4. But this is not to be takgn into the covenant of Grace really &$ you fpeak 5 for taking re- ally into the covenant of Grace 3 is Gods a ^either of election -or pro- mife, or fbme aft executing either of thefe ; but profefiion and out- ward cleaving to the covenant is mans a& * and therefore, how to (alve your fpeech I know not. As for the objec*tion,I lee not that you have anfwered it, but that ftillit frands good, -th at perfons were to be dnumcifed) who were not in the covenant ofGrace, that Ifhmael was ap- pointed to be circumcifed) though it were declared Gods covenant did not belong to him ; and therefore the reafon of circumcifing perfons •, was not the covenant ofGrace^ but only the will and command of God to have itfo. Your fifth Concluiion followes. cc T2lfibly) and laflly^ the priviledges of believers under this loft and be$ §* 1 ri cc |T adminiflration of the covenant of Grace , are many wayes inlarged, P , ?l!*^ cc made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of j iev ° rs un ^ c cc the Jews adminiflration. the G ofpe J, This Concluiion, with its Explication and Application, have all and whether their vigour in ambiguity of fpeech, as the ftrength of the Coney is in the warn of its burrow 5 which, that I may uncover, I muftdiitin&ly declare, ^"bewant what is to be held in this matte r, and then examine what you fay. ©fapriv-ilecfae Priviledge is a Law term, the Etymologic is, Puvilegium quafi priva of the cove- kx 3 quia veteres priva dixerunt^ qt£ nos fingula dicimus ; Priviledge^ as iwnt ofGracc it were aprivate lawjhecaufe the ancients called thofe things private^whicb wmen the '&ecaUfingHlar y Gd.na{kAtti€.lfai0.C2Lp.2O* Job. Calvinus Wei t. in * cws ia ' his Lexicon Jurkiicuni voce privilegium.Pm;i/egz«tfS alii ftc definiunt, jus fi?i'JuUi\ hi cert £ perfon benefit , becaufe it benefits thofe to whom it is granted, againfl the common law. If it do not benefit, it is not a privi- ledge *, Priviledges therefore may be priviledges at one time, which are not at another time : and in companion of fbme which are not S priviledges 1€> o infant-BApttfme cannot he deduced priviledges in companion of others. To have Chrift perfonally pre- lent with the Difciples, was a priviledge for the time, but it was a priviledge that he was abfent, when he went to heaven, and (ent his Spirit to them : The Lawes delivered to the Jews were priviledges in companion of the Heathen^ but not in comparifon otCbriftians. Pri- viledges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived, either in refpeft of the Tub fiance of the covenant of Grace, or the adminiftration. Now, when you fpeak of priviledges of the covenant of Grace, (ome paffages feem to mean it in refpeft of the promife of grace in Chrift 3 as when ycu (ay, Our covenant is efiablijhed upon better promifis^ we as well as they are called a holy nation^ &c. not only in the ckamejfe of the adminijlrationy but alfi, &o And thofe efpecially which you have when you fay, pag. 31.^ are inquiringfor priviledges ^phich are bran- ches of the Covenant of Grace , which every man that is in covenant with God, may expeBfrom God s by venue of the Covenant , which cannot be underftood but of the promifes. Now the promi(es of the covenant of Grace,are of the fubftance of the covenant,not of the adminiftra- tion : But other paffages refer to the adminiftration. Tbatyoal^ , that hard and cofily way of adminiftration^ which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear , is taken off from our poulders^ the glory of theirs had no glory in refteft of ours ^ they were under the bondage of Infants under age y in comparifon of our freedome 5 which things belong to the admi- niftration, pag. 10. 1 2 . Now, if you mean your conclusion of privi- ledges oi the fubftance of the covenant of Grace, k is to be denied : For fo the priviledges of believers are not now inlarged man) wayes^ or made more honourable or comfortable. Your (elfj/ug.?.. 10.12. (ay ,f hey art the fame to both Jews and Gentiles : but in refpeel: of the adminiftra- tion, it is granted they are many wayes inlarged, made more honourable ; and in this (en(e, I grant itj that many Scriptures jpeak^ of the hilar ge- ment of our priviledges ^ and particularly -, tbofe that Jpeak^of the remo- ving the bard yoak^) A&s 15. 10. and bringing us into liberty to full *ge, Gal. 4. 1 . and greater glory , 2 Cor. 3*10. And it is true that thofe things were priviledges to the Ifraelites, but it is a benefit to us,that we are freed from them, and fo no priviledge for us, either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them, but Chrift already come, who is in ftead of all. Now the thing that you drive at, isthis : that where- as you conceive that you have proved before, that the Infants of tbofe that are in the covenant of Grace^ are covenanters with their parents ; that Baptifme Jucceeds in the roeme and nfe of their cirewncijion^ that by Gods exprejji from Holy Serif tare. lot expreffe order, Infants were to be circumcifed. You laftly conclude, that our priviledges for our fehes and children, are at leaf as honourable, large and comfortable, as than, and therefore out Infants are to be baptized. Theanfwertoitisthis: It is true, our priviledge is the fame with theirs in refpefl: of the fubftance of the covenant,but neither was that ImadetotheW/naturallpofterityasfuch, nor is it made to ours. As for Circumcifion,it was indeed a priviledge, but belonging to the manner of adminiftration not to the fubftance of the covenant which is invariable,a priviledge to the Jews in comparifon of the Heathens, but a burthen in comparifon of us ; and it is fo far from being a pri- viledge to our children, that they mould have either it or any other thing in the place and ufe of it,but Chrift manifefted in the nefh,that the truth is, it is a great priviledge to us and our children, that they have neither it,nor any other thing in the ftead of it but Chrift mani- fefted in the flelh: And fo parents loofe nothing by denying Baptifm to Infants in the place & ufe of circumcifion £ut it is indeed, if right- ly confidered, a benefit to them to want it, God not appointing it, nor making a promife of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers. Having premifcd this,I (hall examine the proofs of your conclufion, and fee whether they make any thing againft that which I have delivered. The thing you mould prove,is one of thefe two : ei- ther that circumcifion did belong to the fubftance of the covenant cf Grace, or, that the want of Circumcifion, or fome Ordinance in the place and ufe of it, is a loffc of priviledge of the covenant of Grace to us and our children. That which you alledge is this: "ManySmp- K turesfpeakjfthe inlargement of their privikdges, not one for the dimini- shing or deprefingor extenuating of them\that yoak^that bardandcofly "way of adminifration, which neither they nor their fathers were able to « bear, is taken off from our fboulders. True,and by this,you yeeld that it may be an inlargement of priviledge to have fomewhat removed that was a priviledge formerly. The Scripture to which you allude, k that, ABs 15.10. Now I pray you , what was this y oak, but cir- cumciiion,asyourfelfdeclare 3 ^g.39- and all the legallceremomes which were great priviledges to the Jews ; but yet to us it is a privi- ledge that we are freed from them,and if it be a priviledge to be free from circumcifion, it is a priviledge to be freed from any ordinance in the roome, place, and ufe of it. Laftly, in that Circumcifion is ta- ken off from our necks, it appears, that it belongs not to the cove- nant of Grace, which is invariable, and belongs to Gentiles as well as S2 P xo2 Infrnt-Baptifme cannot be deduced to Jewes, according to your conclufion. The next Scripture you bring, is Heb. 8.6. "where our covenant it [aid to be eft ab lifted upon cc better promifes. If this Scripture ferve to your purpofe, then the co- venant ot Grace now hath better promifes then the covenant of Grace the Jews had : but this I know you will deny,who hold that the covenant of Grace is the fame both to Jews and Gentiles. But that you may fee how confufedly you thruft thing6 together in this place, I pray yon confider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrews fpeaks there, that it had not Co good promifes; Is it not exprefly faid to be that which God made, when he took tbelfva- elites by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant tbeybrake,verf.cj. Now, although D T .Crift>, vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Prieftood a covenant of Grace, though of left} or ace \ ■ yet you fay thus, pag. io. and four hundred and thirty yetrs after the Law was added, with great terror upon Mount Sinai, not as a part of this covenant 5 and after, plainly in that giving of the Law there was fomethingof the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradife, &c. So that you do grant there was a rehearfall of the covenant of works; though you domakeitalfo to have fomething of the adminiftration of the covenant of Grace. The truth is, the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works, Rom. 10. 5. Gal 3. 10. 12. Gal.^. 24. Heb. 12. 18. though I deny not that which you fay, that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Chri ft, 'and therefore niav not unfitly be called fcedus juhferviens, afubfervient covenant, as Cameron in his Ihefes de triplici feeder e. But this being fo, to what purpofe do you tell us, that our covenant is eftablijhed upon better promifes ; as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai, or as if the companion concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now, and the covenant of Works then 5 whereas the queftion is, as you fay, page 3 1 . which are branches of the covenant ofGrace,zn<\ a little after, but were no part of the covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham andhis feed. Now the covenant of Grace is that m ide with Abraham, Gal. 3.15. & c . as your felf alitdge, /u£ 10. andyoufay there, that covenant was forfubjiance alwayes the fame, and the fubftance as you recite it> the promijes and the condition-So that out of your own words it is clear, that we have no better promifes in the covenant of Grace now,then they had then, only the adminiftration of the cove- nant of grace is now better then it was to them ; then it was mixt with ether particular promiies^which beeaufe they arc not comon to al be- lievers from Holy Scripture. 103 [levers in the covenant of grace,t her fore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Chrift purely taken,fuch as the promife of deliverance from Egypt filling in Canaan jkc. For though it is true,that godlineffe bath \the promife of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, yet the pro- Imile of the life that now is, is not a particular promife of pofieflion of fuch or fuch a land to us or our feed, or the coming of Chrift out of our pofteririe, as it was then, but only a generall promife of Gods providing for his children with persecution, Mark, 10. 30. Then it was with expectation of Chrift to come, now with affarance of Chrift already come in the flefti, and accomplifhing what was fore- told of him j then Chrift was fhadowed in darke types, now wee fee him unveiled in a plaine hiftory. So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in fome re- fpe&s,yet (imply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in refpeft of the fubftance of it, the promises of Grace and the condition , they are ftill belonging to the Eleft and believers , and to no other. The ec next Scripture you thus exprefs.Tk glory of theirs bad no glory in re- cc jpeB of ours 5 for this you quote 2 Cor.^. 1 o. But this paflage is plain- ly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which is called the letter, %cr.6Me minifiration of death written and ingraven inftoneffi glorious, that the children of Ifrael could not ftedfaftly heboid the face of Mo fes for the glory of bis countenance ,wbicb glory was to he done away,ver.j. Ih mini- fir ation of condemnation, ver. 9. Which I fuppofe you doe not under- ftand of the Covenant of Grace,and therefore it is impertinently al- cc ledged. Your next is, they were under the bondage of Infants under cc age in comparifen of our freedoms For this you al ledge. Gal. 4. 1 . &c But this is faid of the adminiftration in types and fhadows and cere- monies, called the rudiments of the world, ver. 3 . Concerning which it is confefled our priviledges are enlarged:but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man who is in Covenant with God may ex- cc peBfrom God by venue of the Covenant. You goe on, We as recti as they contrary to this in the text is chare. Firjl, by CC bo%ig bac^to the words that there precede : It is meant ofalltbofe who ' cc do notprojejfedly with the unbelieving Jewns rejett Chrift. I have look- ed backe and finde no fuch thing there. It is true 3 there is mention of fome who d''d reject Chrift, ver. j, 8. But that when Peter fayes, yee are a chofen Generation^ rojall Priefbood,&c. it mould be meant of any other then true believers* who alone can offer fpirituall facrifice ac- • ceptable to God through Jefus Chrift, is an interpretation which I difclaime, much more that it mould be meant of all tbofe who do not profejpdly with the unbelieving Jewes rejetf Jefrn Chriji.For then it may | be laid, not onely of Simon Magus, and other hypocrites,but alfo of all the falvages in the world that never heard of Chrift, that they are a chofen Generation, a royaU Priejihood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people y that they [houldjhew forth the praife of him , who hath called them out of cc darknefi into his marvailow light. WBlahe addes. Which willyet more "fully appeare by comparing the words ofS* Paul, Rom. 9.32,33. I de- fire M' Blake to revife hisTreatife, and to examine whether this and many other pafTages anfwer to M r Vines ^xA others commendation of it. To me the Text he cites Rom. 9.32333. compared with 1 Pet. 2. 9. doe as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2. 9. is meant of all thofe who doe not profeffcdly with the unbelieving Jewes rejett Chrift&t* harp and a harrow doe confort to make muiique. But perhaps wee may fee cc more by looking forward. Secondly, faith M r Blafy, by looking for- cc ward to that which followes in the char after which the Apoftle ( before cc be ends his defection ) addes : which in times paft were not a people, cc but now are the people of God. Afpeech taken from the Prophet to fet forth cc the cafe of the Gentiles, as it is alfo by S* Paul hiterpreted, Rom. 9. 26. cc but the Gentiles thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a " Qovenant-holinefs, and not alw ayes inherent holinefs. Sure the word nation and people, did fo run in M r Blokes mind, that he could thinke of nothing but a nationall Church like the Jewes-, whereas if he had weighed the words, z*r. \o.oihaving obtained mercy, and confidered that both Rom. 9. 25. & 2 6. are meant of the fame, of whom he faid ver. 21.thattbeyweretheveffelsofmercy,whicbbehadaforepreparedun- to glory, he would have plainly perceived the people and nation tobe meant of the invifible Church of the Eleft, and fo nothing in that Text for the holinefs of a believingNation, as fome Jpeake, communicating apriviledge ofthefeales to the infants of that Nationwhich how abfurd a conceit itls, may be (hewed perhaps more fully in that which fol- "lowes. from Holj Scripture. 105 u l owes You adde to whom as well us to thembehngs the adoption, the Covenantee promifes. You allude doubtlefs toRom. 9.4. but had you alledged the whole Text, ver.3, 4, 5- you would then have feen that it fpeakes of peculiar priviledges of the Jewes, to wUm the adoption, tenants, thatis, as Be** thinkes, the *^ki/tbt tenant, the pro- Lifes of their multiplying, having the Mjfiab from them &c were pecu- fcar in the fenfe the Apoftle there fpeakes i And fo W Rutverfisrd due right of ?resbjterks,Chap.*0.%.pag.l 9 2. that they had prerogatives Mveusisckare, Rom. 3 - 1>2>3- P-*°*»- 9-4- ™d that in other refteZs far more exteUent we have prerogatives above them u ts as chare, 2 Oor. 3. 7 8p Mat. 1 3 • 1 6, 1 7 • So that even in refpeft of the Covenant made withAbrahamitis platnethe>w had fome prmledges above us, and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclulion, and that the want of fome prmledges tfley had , may be recompenfed by fome other priviledges we have :. And therefore you may fee how fee- ble a reafon this is from theJewiOi priviledge of infant-males circum- Cifion to prove infant-Baptifme. But to follow you in your way. You I Cay, we as well as they injoyhim tobe oar father , and with hv dearest « Sonne oar Lord are made co-heiresoj the Kingdome of Glory . All this sis wanted, but to what purpofe it is produced I fee not. You adde, « we have all thefe things with advantage, not onely in the clearneffe of the « adminiftration, but in fome fenfe in greater extent to perjons with us; there U neither male nor female. This is true alio, we have theiub- ftance of the Covenant of Grace, that is, imitation, &o with ad- vantage not only in the clearnefs of adminiftradon^uc in iome fen.e in "rearer extent to perfons with us. For now not only tne imall War don of the lewis, batalfd of all Nations , believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace. But this proves not your conclulion, or any «ofthofe things that may ferve for your purpofe. You adde. And * there is neither male nor female. Why you adde this I know not, ex- cept youmean to infmuate,that in thejewifti Church there was male and female, becaufe Circumcilion was onely of Males. But neither doth the Apoftle, Gal. 3.28. inumate , that wee are better tnan the lewes, as if their females were not within the Covenant cf Grace, nor will you fay it. Now that which you were fpeaking ot, was the fabftance of the Covenant of Grace, that wee.aremaae co-hems of the ■Ksmdome of Glory , &c . not of the adminiftration of it, and to there W s nomorediftinftionofmaleand female with thefaw then with as, nor more priviledges of ours then of the Jam in this F 1 "^- lotf Infant-Baftifme cannot be deduced Thus have I examined all theproofes you bring for your fifth Con clufion, and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped toge* ther many places of Scripture, without any ufefull order or diftin&i* on or pertinency to the thing in hand. You bring in next an objecYi- cc on thus j Some indeed goe about to ffoew^ that infome things the Jewes cc bad greater priviledges then we have^as tbat Abraham bad the priviledge cc to be called the Father oft he Faithfully that Chrift foould be borne of bis €c fiejb ; Mary had the priviledge to be the Mother of Chrift 3 and the whole " Nation this priviledge^ that God will call in their feed againe- after they cc had been caft off for unbeliefe many hundred year es ; which prtv Hedges ,J ay Ci they^ none of the Gentiles have or can have. It is true, that in anfwer to the argument from Circumc*tfion,as it* is popularly framed ( which yet I perceive many that either are or! mould be (cholars to examine things more fcholafiically, d * or pre- tend to iatisiie their conferences with) thus; If the children of believers* be not to be baptized^tbenwe have lefs priviledge then the Jewes ; then the\ Grace of God under the new leftament^ is ftraitned more then in the oldA To this argument as being an argument of no weight, butonely a-* mong vulgar and non-fyllogizing capacities, among other rhings I (aid thus in my Latin paper above mentioned. Nee abfurdum eft dicere tefye&u aliquommprivilegiorumgratiam'Dei contra&iorem in novo left a mento^ quam in veteri^ v. gr. Nulla familia habet privikgium quod Abra hami famili£ conceffum eft^ ut ex ea nafceretur Chriftus , nullus virpr£t* Ahrahamum pater fidelium^nulla famina pr£ter unicam mater Chrifti 3 &c. Tet it is not abfurd to fay , that in refpett of form priviledges the grace ofi God is more contra&ed in the new Tejiament^then in the old : For inftance ;■ no family hath now the priviledge that was granted to Abrahams family y that out of it Chrift fhould be borne : no man be fides Abraham U called the Father of the faith full ; no woman befides om , the mother of Chrift. By which I would (hew, that it is no abfurdkie to grant that the Jewes may have more priviledges fecundum quid* infome things^ then wee, and yet our cafe and condir ion 3 to fpeak (imply^better then theirs,by, reafon of other priviledges we have above them, which rccompencc the defect of thofe priviledges, whether real or fuppoied,which is thd very lame which as Robinfm did alledge, fo Rutherford grants in the place above-named, and cites two Scriptures to prove it 3 Rom. 3. l % 2, 3. Rom. 9 1 4. And the truch is, priviledges are fo arbitrary and va- rious, that God gives them as he thinkes good, oft times without a(- figninganyipecial reafon, fo that no argument can be drawne thus. God = cc from Holy Scripture. 1 07 God gave fuch a priviledgc to the Jews, Ergo, we muft have fuch a privilege too, except we can prove it is Gods will it mould be fo. And therefore this Argument is of no force, but rather an argument of arrogant prefumption,without an inftitution to attempt to prove, that becaufe the Jewes had a priviledge to circumcife infants , there- fore we muft have a priviledge to baptize infants, nor doe any of the nuny Scriptures you have alledged, prove that Baptifme of infants is a priviledge granted by God in lieu of Circumcifion : But you take upon you to anfwer this obje&ion. cc Toufay,but theft things have no cc weight : we are inquiring for priviledges which are branches of the Co- cc venant ofGrace,which every man who is in Covenant with Godjnay ex- cc pe&from God by vertue of the Covenantee he a Jew or aprofelyte, not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular mm or woma?i,or fa- mily ^ or tribe : All thefe forementioned things, and many other of the /z'% - J hand (as the miniftery of the tabernacle & temple to belong to one tribe, " the Kingly office to one family, fuch and fuch men never to lacke a man of cc their houfe to fiand before God) proceeded indeed from free grace,but were to no parts of the Covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham and all cc his fed. For could every man in Covenant challenge thefe things at Gods « hand,andthat by venue of 'the Covenant? Could every one ofthempro- « mrfe that Chrift (hould be borne of his ftefh ? or every one of their women £ thatjbeefoould be the mother ofCbrifi? Couldevery one whom Godow* <« ned to be in Covenant with him,promife by vertue of the Covenant, that « their Children, if c aft off by mbeliefe, fhould after many hundred yeares be « agame called in ? We freak onely of fuchpriv Hedges as were miverfall and « common to all who werein Covenant , for which by vertue of the Cove- "nant they migntrehe upon God. Though you fay, the things objected have 710 wcight,yet itmay feeme they are fo heavy & prefTeyour con- ^cluhon fo hard, as that you cannot well eafe it of them. The things objected, you deny not : bur you anfwer, that they are impertinent: you cell us why, becaufeyou enquire for priviledges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace;common to aU in Covenant, which they may chal- lenge at Gods hand by vertue of the Covenant, and iuch are not thefe. It is not materiall what you inquire after, men may feBari Aquilam in nuhibu^ follow after an Eagle in the Clouds, slut fure I am tne Scrip- tures you bring, prove not that believers now have more pnviledges be- longing to the Covenant of grace, which all may change at Gods hands* then the Jewes had.Yca. your fecond conclufion contradifts your nrtn, underftood in this fenfe. Befide, Circumcifion was not a priviledge T common S o8 Infants aft ifrne cannot k deduced common to all in the Covenant of Grace : For befides all the faith-* full before Abraham, and thofe of his time, Melchifedeck, and Lot , and their houfeholds, and Job after his time 3 there wasa fort of pro- (elyteSj called grangers, or of the gate, who were not circumcifed 3 yet the Scripture reckons them among the worfhippers of God. Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his difcourfe on gbt to the Cove- * nant 9 or to thefeale of the Covenant. And you adde two ■ reafonsofit. You are now on your advantage ground, in veineo, Jx^ory,and on a fubje&,of all others, apteft to move anions, to wit, parents tendernefle to their children. But wee mutt not facrifice truth to ei- ther of thefe. You infinuate that Antipaedobaptrts goe about to de- prive infant-children of believers of the Covenant of Grace. They may tell you, it were a madnefs for them to goe about fuch an im- poffibilitie,as the putting out or putting into the Covenant of grace, and that they hope fo well of you, that you come not fo neere the Papifts,or Auguftines opimon&s to thinke infants dying unbaptized, are out of the Covenant of Grace. And as for cutting off a great part of the comfort of believing parents, I pray youtell us what comfore is cut off by it, you cannot fay that either an infant is certainly re- generated or faved by Baptifme,nor can you fay, he is loft for want of it. What comfort then doe you give them indeed which the An- mxedobaptifts doe not give as well as you > Or, what diUomfort hi truth, do they give them, which you do not > All the comfort you can indeed give them, is that according to your Hjpothefis, they do their duty : But if it be proved that they prophane the Ordinance ok BaptKme bv bringing Infants to baptifme (which there is great caufe to think they do) it may rather bring difcomfort to their confcience in tine, then comfort. But to Believers indeed, Gods glory will be more deare ;hen their own comfort § and therefore they will be content to pari: with that which diihonoured God,though it teemed caufe of complaint to themfelves : they will imitate Abraham, who quieted himfelf in the will of God concerning lfrm>el, though deare unto him; and Ifaac, whe^perceiving Gods rejecting of tjau, yet fobmittedtohiswill. And for your two reaions, becaute they are only a piece of pathetic* oratory, I pafTe over. For though there be feme drains that Logically examined will not endure the tett, yet T 2 having §. 12. That the com- mand to ck- curacifc male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize" In- fants* Ho lnfanWBaptifme cannot he deduced having learned the rule about reading the Fathers,not to account all their Rhetoricall expreflions their Dogmaticall rcfolutions, I am willing to conceive the fame of you. And as for your recapitulation of your conclusions and your inference thereupon, how lhort they areofyour conceit of them, I leave it to your felf to confider, and proceed to that which you fay is the. main and only Objection re- maining which hath any colour of weight in it. YOu fay the Objection is this : fC There is no command,™ expreffe in- cc ftitution, or clear example in all the new Teftamentof baptizing of c< Infants ; and in the adminifbratinn of Sacrament s, we are not to he led cc by our ownreafon, or grounds of feeming probabilities but by. the expreffe cc order of Cbrifl, and no otherwife. This you juftly count the main objeftion 5 which if you could an- fwer clearly,all the reft of your Difcourfe might befaved, and with- out anfwering it,all that you have faid dfe is to little purpofe. For 3 though it were proved that the children of Believers were in the cove- nant of Grace, Baptijme fucceeds to Circumzifion, our priviledges greater then the Jewes, yet all this cannot acquit the practice of baptizing \ Infants from will-worfhip, without an inftitution, by Precept or Apoftolicall example. And therefore, as it concerns SmeBymnu^s 3 fo almoft all the Divines of the Aflembly, and Preachers of the City, that have fo often delivered in their Sermons at Wefminfer, now in print, and in the City, that in Gods Worfhip we muft not meddle a jot further then God hath commanded, to (hew fome inftitution of Chrift, or example of his Apoftlesfor it, otherwhe the Prelatifts will tell you, that they can (hew virtuall command from Analogie of the Ce- remoniall Law of the Jews&nd tradition EccIefiafticaJI as ancient as yours for Paedobaptifme, for their Prelacy, Holydayes, Surplice,^, againft which there have been fo many, and thofe juft Declamations. It then you do not ftand to it here you may yeeld up your weapons. Let us then try it out on. this ground: You begin thus ; «If by mftitution, command and example, they mean an expreffe fyUabkaU com- mand,^. I grant that info many words it is not found in the new Teflament that they fhould be baptized : No expreffe example where "children were baptized. Sure this is a (hrewd figne that you are not likely to make good your ground, when you have yeelded lomuch. ButI grant, that if you make it good, bygoodconfe- quence, you may recover all. Let us then confider what you % of that frm Nolj Saipture. Ill that. w But i <# <*#«* that l ^ the Mnfitp"* 10 ** dM *f ™fi cc many words it be not commanded in the new lefiament, it ought not cc to be done • this if not true Divinity, that Chrifiians are nottyed to ob- • "Jerve that which U not exprejly info many words fit down in the new cc Teflament. True, but whole confequence is this? Infants are not to be baptized, becaufe that which, is not in fo many words com- manded in the newTeftarnent, ought not to be done> Theconie- quence rightly framed is this : In meer pofitlve worfhip that ought not to be done, which hath not Precept* or Apoftolicall example equivalent to a Precept, gathered by plain words 3 or good inference out of the new Teftament: For* if it have none ofthefe, kiswii- worfhip. And Baptifme of Infants is fuch, therefore it ought not tobedone. The ground of it is this, becaufe all the ceremoniall or meere pofitive worfhip of the Jewes is now abrogated ; and there- fore a Precept of God to them is not a warrant to us now, it it were,it muft be in one thing as well as another, and fo we muft bring on our necks the yoak of bondage of the Mofaical Law.Now let us fee how you encounter this Argument:you anfwer by telling us; fiC there cc U no exprejfe reviving of the Lawes^ concerning the forbidden degrees of ■ a marriagein the new Teflament, except of not having a mans fathers cc wife, 1 Cor. 5.8. No exprejfe Law againft polygamie ; no exprejfe com- cc mandfor the celebration of a weekely Sabbath -, arc therefore Chrifiians "free in all thefi cafes . ? I anfwer,no, but withall I fay, that the firft inftance is about a morall command, and yet there is for one branch ofinceft, an exprefTe cenfure in then2wfeftament,proving theun- LvwfulneiTe of it ; whereas the bufinefle is now about a point of meer poiitive ceremoniall worfhip, and fo theres not the like realon. Se- condly, the fame may be kid of Polygamie, that it is a fin againft a morall Precept, and yet there is good proof againft it in the new Teftament, from UHjt.19. 5. 9. And for the third, enough hath been faid above, P*rM . SeB.%. to fhew how little advantage you have in this inftance. But you adde, "yea in the point of Sacramems K there is no exprejfe command, no example in all the newleftament, where cc women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, there is no exprejfe "command, that the children of Believers, when they are grown, fhould be * inftmfcdandbiptizedby their parents 5 exprejfe comma, id there is, that €C they fhould teach the Heathen, 2nd the Jews, and make them Vifiphs, K andthen baptize them, but no command that the children of th and that hundreds of places from Hob Scripture. 113 rtlaeee there be, where the Mafculine Gender is put, the matter fo re- £SforbothSexes,Idonotfufpea. And for your other ,n- ftancefae I do not remember any brings it but your felf, fo it is as Uuleto the purpofe as the other : For that which you fay,^* there t„oexpre/ command that the children of Belters jhould be baptized Iben they are grow men. It is true, except they profeflTe the faith j but there is an expreffe command, as your ft If grant, to baptize Spies, and fo to baptize the childeofa Believer that profeffeth the faith not otherwife ; fo that thefe your inftances are brought to prove that which isnot denied,and yet the inftances areimpertinent Sproveit. You lay further: « So bout numdah wdp- « ahk confequence, fufficient evidence for the baptizing ofcmldren, both « commands and examples. This afierdon is full, if you meanby chil- dren, Infant-children of Believers, prove this, and you need prove no more. But your fetching fuch a compafle about, makes me mu- rine vour attempt will prove but a Tarturiunt rmntes, the mountains % -iJ forth, efpecially, when your proof is but from Analogy ; .con- cerning whichV the rule holds, a, M'. Bmks in ,h,s &rmon on Job. 2. ^Mezorka Ibeologia, (unleffe the Lord hnnfelf make the appli- cation) non efi ■ argumentativa, AUegorUallVivinitj * not argument a- tlve; but itisfityouthouldbe heard. You fay, "For, firfl jm km « Gods command to Abraham, « he veat the father of all covenanters, that « he Should fed hit children with thefeal of the covenant. I grant we have Godscommand to Abraham, whois indeed called, the Father of the faithfull,no where that I know, the father of all covenanters, tocir- tumcifenismalesofeightdayesold; andldeny not, but thatth.s was a feal, that is, a conhrming figne of the covenant God made With Abrahams whence Gods covenant W as fad to be m their fiefb, Gen i" 12. md'thcslkd the covenant of circuinafion, Att.j.V. but Vou have need of the Philofophers ftone to turn this into a command to baotize Infants of Believers, which you thus attempt. You tell us, « commands and infiitutions about the Sacraments of the Jew?,*"** m "Tmucbm they did them in all things which belong, to the fubfiance of « tbeC the received definitions of a facrament, all the Sacrifices that were propitiatory, were Sacra merits, that is, vifibk fealing fignes ofinvifibk grace in Chrift appointed by God to that end. Se- cond!y 3 you fuppofe, cc that ofthofe commands and inftitutions of God, " fome did belmg to the fubftance of the covenant, fome were accidentally cc them. This laft expretfion is very ambiguous,whether you mean by [ them J the Jewes, or the Sacraments, which feeni3 mod likely ; or, whether you would, as the law of orponon requires, fay accidental! - to the Covenant, Again, you here conaadiftinguiih the fubftance of the Covenant from Holy Scripture. I x 5 cjvenant^and that which is accidental! to i ?,which I conflrue tn the fame fenfe that you diftinguifh between the fubftance of the covenant and the adminiftration ofit^ pag.io. Conceiving by your explication that yon call the fubftance of the Covenant that which is invariable, and that which is accidental that which is variable, Subftance doth not agree to Coven an t,which is an a&ion in proper fenfq but in Schooles it is uftull to diftinguilh between the fubftance of the a£r,and the cir- cumftancesof it, the eflence and the accidents, but I do not remem- ber that Logicians do oppofe the accidents of an aft to the fubftance of it, and Co yourexpreiTion of the fubftance of the covenant , and that which is accidentally is not in my apprehenfion, after the ufuall fpeech of the Schooles, and therefore I cannot well tell what fenfe to make of it. If [thivf] referre to the Jewes, then it is faid, fometbing of the Sacraments was accident all to the jewes, but I know not how to make any handfome fenfe of this. If you referre [them'] to the Sacra- ments, you make fomething commanded by God, accidentall to the Sacraments, which may be yeelded you in this fenfe ; that there might fomething have the eflence of a Sacrament without fuch ac- cidents, as it might be true Circumcifion, though it were not the eighth day 5 it might be a true Pafleover, though not on the right 4 n'ght. Yet, in th ; s fenfe it cannot be yeelded that it was fo acciden- tal!, that it might be omitted without iin, any more then the thing it felf : For, it was as well a fin,not to circumcife the eighth day, or not to keep the Pafleover on the night appointed by God, as not to do thefe a&s at all, iince a command was broken in one as well as the other: For thefe reafons, I cannot well tell how to d§ny or grant that which you fuppofe, that fime commands of God about the Sacra" meats of the ]t\vs 9 were accident aU to them. But that which is fup- pofed, cc thai fome of the commands of God about the Sacraments of tbt iC Tews, did contain things belonging to the fubftance of the Covenant , meaning, of the covenant of Grace, I can in no wife aflent unto it : For, if either you mean by fubftance the eflence of the covenant, I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the tC- fence of the covenant, Gods Covenant was, and might be without them : If you mean by fubftance, that which in no cafe might be va- ried, I deny it in that fenfe alfb ; Nothing of the facraments of the Jews was morall and invariable.And it is moft true,that as thefacri- fices, fo Sacraments (according to the common diftin&ion) were be- longing to the adminiftration of the covenant for the time,but never- V of il6 fnfant-Baftifme cannot be deduced of the fubftance of the covenant -■> for that confifts only in the things youexprefie for the fubftance, pig. 10. And for the maxime which you father on all our Divines, which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered, as you have done, 1 utterly deny it, to wit, cc that all Gods commands and inftitutions about the Sacraments of cc the Jews bind us as much as they did them 3 in all things which belong to u the fubftance of the Covenant , as being contradictory to thole words, Art. 7. of the Church of England. Although the Law given from God by Mofes, as touching Ceremonies and Ri/ej, do not bind Chriftian men y and on the contrary, I affirm, that they are all abrogitedy fubftance and circumftance^whok y andpart 5 and I thus prove it : Fir ft, thofe things bind us not which had their complement in Chrift, but all the Sa- craments of the Jews had their complement in Chtift, Ergo, The Major is the force of the Apoftles prohibition 5 and the reaion of it, Col 2. 1 6, 17. the Minor is delivered, 1 Cor. 5. 7. C0/.2.17, ^ e ^- 9 '•£■• Heb. 10. 1. And Bezain Annot. U1C0/.2. 1 4. Hoc refpe&n ut Euan- gelic£ gratt£ adhuc exhibend£ 5 rpfotyta 3 ceremoniis finis er at impofitus iffius Chrifti id eft veritatis 3 qitam antea adumbrarant exhibition^ by the exhibition ofChrift himfelf that is the truth^ which before theyfha- dowedy there was an e?jdput to ceremonies in this reffietf^ as being feals of Euangelic all grace yet to be exhibited. Secondly, thole things bind not us now, which were taken away by Chrifts death 5 this I ilippole you will not deny, left you evacuate the effeft of Chrifts dc.^th: But Chrift hath by his death aboliftied all the facraments of the Jews, comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites, Ephef.2. 15. Col. 2. 14. therefore they bind not. Thirdly, thofe commands which were only to continue till faith came, thole bind not now faith is come : But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were fuch, therefore they bind not now : The Major and Minor are delivered, Gal.3.2^ 24, 25. Gal^ i, 2, 3, 4. A&. 1 <. o, 10* Fourthly, thofe commands bind us not, wrnch were a par- tition wall between Jews and Gentiks \ but all the Sacraments of the Jewes'm wholeandin part, were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles , therefore they bind us not. The Major and Minor are de- livered, Ephef.2. 14. Fifthly, thofe commands which were unprofi- table,and weak rudiments ofthe world, contrary to Chrift, beggcr- Jy rudiments, thefe bind not a Chriftian now ; but fuch are the Jews facraments, Heb.j. 18. Col. 2. 8. 20. Gal$. 3.9. therefore they bind not. Sixthly, thofe commands that belonged to another Priefthood then from Holy Scripture. 117 then Chrifts, bind not ChrilUans', but the Jmt facraments be- longed toanother Priefthood then Chrifts, therefore they bind not. TheW»andM»orare both delivered, He*. 7. 12. itf. ft*.?. 10. Seventhly, thofe commands that belonged to another covenant then ■that which now in force, bind not; tatfocharetheconmandsof the W facraments, ftly 8. 13. HeE 9- 1. therefore they bind not. i Eiehtlv, thofe commands which were proper to the Jmt t bind not lu'chriftians; but the facraments of the Jerps were proper to the Wfo wasCircumcifion, the Paffeover, the Sacrifices 5 therefore they Wnd us not. Ninthly, If onepart bind us, then all the com- ; mands bind us ; and if we be obliged to any one rite, then to all, ; for they had all the fame authority ; nor hath that authority drool- vedany onepart more then another. Now it is a fore rale, that ! M lexnon dtjlinguit, non efr difringuendmt , where the lav d.jltn- auilheth not^em^notdifring^; therefore, either none binds us, orelfe we rauft revoke Judaifme. And indeed, to fay, fo far acorn- I mandofGod binds, and fo far not, without a plain declaration of Gods will, is an high preemption, whereby man takes on him to releafe or difpeafe with Gods Law,which is ot equall authority with ! thetnakingof a law. Laftly, thole commands bind us not, which he Apoftk would not have us uibj^to, no not m part, but fuch are the commands of the Jewifh facraments,^/ 2.1 6.20.^/5.1,2,3. andvourfelfiay, tug. 27. the Apofllevou'd tavern off wholly from SJ« ; ther'eforl they bind uYnot : Yea, it is to overthrow ut- terly our Chriftian Sibert/by Chrift,which the Apottle was fo ft.de in maintaining that be would not yeeld, no, not one hour, and I blamed PeferfordUTemblingthisliberty,^/.2.5. 14. to maintain that all I the commands and inftitutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews « bind m at much as they did them in all things which belong u tbejxb- « (lance oftheCovmant, and were not accidental! to them. But you en- deavour to rnakegood your Maximeby inftances, and accordingly vou fav thus : « As becaufe Circumcifron is called a Jeal of the covenant, therefore our Sacraments are feals of the covenant ■ though crcumci- fion no where that I know, be called the fealofthe covenant, but only " & feal of the rigbteoufneffe */<**** f » yet, becaufe it Sled afigne or token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. i.i. it may well be wiled a feal or confirming figne of the covenant with Abraham, and foofthe covenant of Grace; and our Sacraments may be fo called 1,8 'nfant-Baptifme cannot be deduced Mis 2. 38. but not beeaufe Circumcifion was called fo, bat beeaufe that phrafeexpreireth the tnjth of the thing. But what is this in- itancetoyourpurpofe? Is there a command or inftitution of God, boding tne Jem, to call Circumdfion fo ? or a command or infti- tiicion torus by venue of the command to the W to call it fo* though I ftould oppole him that mould deny our Sacraments to be teals of the covenant, beeaufe he fliould deny a truth, yet I mould not fay he did on that did not call them fo. Your next in (Wis, be:aufi Circumcifion might be adminijlrcd but once, being the fed of in- « ttlat T\ l herefore Bf'fi" bdng alfi the fid of initiation U to be ad- mmifiredbm once. However I conceive no neceifuy of circumcinotr or feapufme above once, yet I profefle my felf unfatisfied in this, that there is either a command, that a perfon be but once circumcifed, or a perfon once only baptized : However,if there were a command that a perfon mould be but once circumcifed,and it could be Proved thata perfon mould be but once baptiaed,yet I utterly deny, that the com- mand to circumcumcife but once, is a cammand to baptize butonce - and therefore what ever any Divines may didate Materially, yet i donotthmkmyfelHnP^g^hisSchool^hat 9 Wl f m, befiaidit t ftouldbemyrule Youadde: « but that circumcifion w *s to beadmC mjlred on the eighth day ml^a, an accidental! thing,and therefore bin- dethnot. i fee no reafon why once circumcifing mould belong to the lobltance of the covenant, and to be circumcifed on the eighth day (houldbe accidental! ; yea, ifreafon may rulethe roaft^hereis more reafon thatcircumcifing on the eighth day mould belong to the fub- ftance of the covenant, being commanded by God exprefly, and as many or theAncientsconceive,particularlyCj*rM«,E6. 99 . a d fimm typifying Chrifts refurrreftion on the eighth day, then that to be crcumcifedbut once, ftould be of thefubftance of the covenant, which is neither commanded , nor is found in Scripture to tv- pifie any thing belonging to the Covenant : So vaine are mens- conceits, without the light of the Word. But you go forward in the other Sacrament. "TheJewifoPafiio. VPt binding us cc in the uje of the Lords Supperfit's but a di&ate. The Evening of the Pafleover is no more accidentall then the day it ieife , they being commanded both together. And for the Lords Supper, how we can be loofe to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper, when the Apoftle doth fo diftinfrly mention in this relation of the Inftiru- tion, 1 Cor. 1 1. 23. that it was done in the night ; and verl.25. {juIaV Wpmnttu 7 after be bad flipped ; I leave to your AflembJy to coniider ; Especially thofeofyou that are fo ftirTe for the fitting together at the Table, which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apoftl es relation, and therefore may feeme as much occalionall as the other. And for that which you intimate, cc as ifBaptifme were not the Sacrament fir Jpi- " rituall nourijhment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant, as well " as for entrance ; I take to be but a dittate like the reft, which upon pofl examination will not hold : it feems to me fomewhat neace-^f kinne to that of BeUarmim and ether Papifts,thatthe efficacy of Bap- tifme j 10 Infant-Bq>tifrne cannot he deduced tifine extends not to the remiflion of the finnes of our whole life 3 but of originall finne onely. But you have yet one more Inftance, and thus you fpeake ; Cf The cc lik& Inftance I give in our Chrifiian Sabbath ; the fourth Commande- cc ment binds, as for the fub fiance of it, as much & ever it bound the Jewes, " there God once for all , jeparated one day of [even to befacred to himfelfe, cc and all the world pood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day cc of (even, which fhould be of his own cboofing. Now mtill Chrifls time, cc God chofe the lafi day ofthefeven to be his S ibbath ; and hiving by the * cc death and IkfurreBion of our Lird Jefus, put an end to the Saturday cc Sabbath, andfurrogited the fir fi day of the weekjnfiead thereof to be the cc Lords day, wee need no new Commandment for the keeping of the Lords CQ rfay, being tyed by the fourth Commandement to k^ep that day of [even cc which the Lord fhould choofe; the Lord having chofen this, the fourth ec Commandement binds us to tbis, as it did the Jewes to the former 5 fo in cc like manner, I fay in the Sacrament of Baptijme. What I conceive a- bout the Lords day, I have before declared Part .2. Sett. 8. where alfo I {hewed you how different the cafe of Paedobaptiime is from it, which I (hall not now repeate ', Onery whereas you bring the Sab- bath for an Inftance of a Command of God , about the Sacraments of the Jewes, binding us as well as the Jewess you forget themarke at which you (hoote, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be rec- koned among the Jems Sacraments, or ours, according to the ufu- all Ecclefiafticall acception and definition of the word. You fee now your nuxime , which is the foundation of your undeniable confe- quence undermined, I prefuzne you may fee quickly the fuperftrucYi- on it felfe overturned : one blow more will doe it. You piece things together thus j cc When God made the Covenant with Abraham,and pro- cc mifedfor his part to be the God of him and his feed; what Godpromifed cc to Abraham, wee claime our part in it as the children of Abraham, and cc what God required on Abrahams part for the fub fiance of obedience, wee " all fiand charged with, as well as Abraham \ Wee as Abraham are tyed cc to heleeve, to love the Lord with all our heart, to have our hearts circum- cc cifed,to walfy before God in uprightneffe 5 to infiruB our children, and tc bring them up for G d, and not for our felves, nor for the Vevill, to teach * c them to W9vfhip God according to his revealed will, to traine them up un- cc der the Ordinances and Infiitutions of Gods own appointment. All thefe " things God commanded to Abraham, and charges upon all the children cc of the Covenant^ though there were no expreffe reviving thefe Commands cc in from Holy Scripture. % % % « in my p*r* rftke New Tefiament. And therefore confeqttentlj, that Com- 9 s trnnd of God to Abtaham , which hund hU feed of the Jewes to traine \ cc up their children in that manntr ofworfhip , which was then in force, I «" binds the fed of Abraham now, to traim up their children in eonformi* l € ? tie tofuch Ordinances as are now in fdrce. Suppofing you meane by I what God promited to Abrahimjht fpirituall part of the Covenant, ■and the perfons claiming ta be bcleevers: I grant this paffage to be ■truth s for thefe duties are raorall duties, andbinde at all times 5 but ■thai which follows, I cannot tell how totake*for any other then Iplain Tudaifme. You fay , cc And the fame Command which enjoyned QC Abraham to feale his children with the feale of the Coven ant ^enpynes us "afftrnnelytofeale ours with the feale of the Covenant, and that Com- cc mandofGod which sxprefly bound Abraham to feale his with thefgne C€ ofCircumzifion, which was the Sacrament then in force, pro tempore, cc for the time, doth virtually b'mde us to feale ours with thefrgne of Bap- w tifme which is the Sacrament now in force, andfucceeds into the roome Tell us then, I befeech yoiij by what rule of Divinlde, Logick, Grammar, or Rhetoricke, is a man to conceive this Command, Cut oft be foreskin ofthefecret part of all the Males in thy hmfe the eighth day. That is let a Preacher of the Gofpel wafn with water at any time af- ter birth the young Infants, male and female of Beleevers all over, or on the face. You call this undeniable Confluence 1 it fo, it's either Demonstrative from the caufe,or effeft, or definition, or propertie, or th- like ; or k ? s onely Topical!, and then not undeniable ; you fay, l22 Infant-Baytifme cannot fo deduced "tU by clear e confequence,jo\umiy as well fay,this is good confluence, Th es Petrus &fuper banc Pctram , Tbott art Peter, and upon this rock$ ; Ergj,the Pope is Monarch of the Church ; or with Baroniws, Arife Teter, tyl and eate; Er^the Pope may deprive Princes ; if you can apprehend cleare confequence in it , you may enjoy your conceit; Nosnonfumw adeo fagaces, wee are not fo quick-witted. Ipaffeto the next Command, which you thus exprefie. §• *V " \ NotberyoufbaBfinde, Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids tbem gee That ^.28. « J\ and teacb all Nations, baptizing tbem in the Name of the Father^ is not a Com- cc f t (y e Sonne, and of the Holy Gboft. Where you have two tilings \ fir ft, jriand to bap- cc ^# t \ K y we to doe. Secondly, to whom they were to doe it \ they 'were butVomnry " t0 P reac ^ an ^ tejc ^ &*&*& wf7 icb he had Commanded them ± that id, tok< "they were to Preach the whole Gojpel>Ma.rk.i 6 A j.'Ibe whole Cove?iant cc f grace, containing all tbepromifes, whereof this is one, viz. That God cc will be the God of Believers, and of their feed ; thtt the feed of Believers <* are taken into Covenant with their Parents \ this is apart of the Gofpel " preached to Abraham. The Gofpel which was preached to Abraham^ is delivered Galat. 3. 8, ?. And the Scripture forefeeing that God would jufiifie the heathen through faith , preached before the Gofpel to Abraham, ■ faying, In thee fhatt all Nations be bleffed 3 fo then they which be of faith, are bleffed with faithfull Abraham. And Rom. 1.16,17. I am not afba- medofthe Gofpel of Chrift, for it is the power of God to filvation, to every one that beleevetb, to the Jew firft, and alfo to the Greeke. For therein is the rigbteoufneffe of God revealed from faith to faith j as it is written, the jufl foaUlive by faith. The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elfewhere j but it is no wrong to &y it D that it is a new Gofpel. to af- firme 3 that this is one'ofthe Promifes of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of Believers, and of their feed \ that the feed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents. I cannot derive it's pedegree higher then Zitinglius. But you goe on : cc And they were to baptize cc them ,that is, to adminifier Baptifme as afeale of the Covenant to all who cc received the Covenant^hls is a dark Paraphrafe.you expreile it clear- er,/^. 35- Exprejfe Command is there, that they[hould teach the heathen, and t he f ewes, and make themDifdples , and then baptize them. If your meaning be the fame in both places, I am content you mould Com- ment on your own words 3 you goe on ; cc Secondly, Wee have tbeper* cc fins to whom they were to do tkis,allNations y whereas before the Church cc was tyed te one Nation s oneNarion onelywereVifciples 7 now their Com* * c miffion from Holy Scripture. I2? '> or [them] refers to in our Saviours words : whether all Nations mult be the (ubftantive to it, without any other circumfcription , or the word, *pdphr*f, men and women, as the Au- thor of infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scriptures, or f*«3«7«*\ Vifciples, included in the verbe tutSftivaxii, which may be translated, cc makeVifciples. That Author denies not, but that the verbe may fig- cc nifie to make Vifciples, yet by thefubjeft matter, which it is here taken cc andufed to expreffe, it mufi be taken for to teach, and not to make Difci- iC pies : becaufe to make Vifciples was not in the power of the Apo files (up- cc on whom the command lay) it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart cc tofubmit unto and embrace the Apofiles teaching, and to caft them into cc the forme and obedience of it, andfo to mak^ them Difciples : but to teach cc and thereby endeavour (as much as in them lay ) to makeVifciples,was in cc their power and duty : and is all the whole meaning of the word here, "therefore properly, and rightly rendred teach, and not, make Difciples. But that the word doth not figniiie onely fimply, to teach, whether with effeft or without,but to teach till they become di(ciples,is plain by the ufe of it elfewherc,in all the places it is u(ed in the newTefta- ment. Mat. 13. 52. w*V >j*mu«T6lV /u*$»7sudei$, Every Scribe that is (0 taught,ds to become a difciple. Mat. 17. 57. Ui^&vjU \yi*$n7wdifciple,\s included in the verbe,and expre£- fed by John, Cha. 19. 3 8» vv pa&nfc t? iw5, being a difciple of Jefus. AU. 14. 2i.pa3ifTt(/ difcipks, \% included in the verbe ^mtvc, to make difcipks h and that it is put not for fimple teaching that is without effect * for then the Apoftle might be faid f^nrmtp, when he did preach to the Athenians who mocked, Acts 17. 32. and the unbelieving ferns, ABs 2824. for they were taught : but for teaching, cum effea^mth efTe*, fo as that theperfons taught became difci pies. AndM'Ei- wards lately at Chrif -Church averred in all the Dictionaries he could perufc, it did not fignifiefimply.'to teach, coming from ^f^», * learm, he might have added coming from the nounef***irw\ a difa- ple As for the objeftion j Chriftjhould command them that which was not in their power. I anfwer, it was in their power, and their dutie notonely to teach (imply, foaato propound things to them, but al- io fo as to bring them to be difciples, which they could doe, not as principal!, fole,fupreme agents, but as workers with God, «**&****> as it is 2 Cor. 6. 1. fubordinate inftruments to him they could,in which refpe& they are called wife Mafier-builders, that beget men by the Go~ (beCfave andconvert them, eftoufe them to Chrifi, &c. Even as the knife cutithoueh not without the hand 5 as an Ambafladour makes peace, though not without his Prince. And this might be tightly charged to them, as it was charged to Feter, tofeedChrijlsfbeepe, and to leng- then his brethren, though he could doe neither of hiniielfe. Bur that " Author hath another exception,*^ |«*il*ftdilciplc8,w of the mif- cc culine wider, and if that were tbefubfiantive to W tbem.then women « fhouldbe excluded. To this I anfwer, that there be hundreds of pla- ces , where the mafculine comprehends both fexes, as Joh.$, 16. vk I «djiT«r' *oa7 ^ fiitrrltyt, hema- hgth.more difcipks and baptizeth j where making difciples is put before baptizing, and baptizing ofChriftby his Apoftlesis of difcipks: they that were baptized by John, or Chrifts difciples, are every where cal- led the difcipks ofjohn^nd of Jefus, and the do&rine they taught them, their baptifme, A&s 19. 1, 2. and elfewhere. Secondly, becaufe ufually hearing and believing are put before baptizing, A&s 2.41. A&s 8.12. 38. A&s 10. 48. A&s 1 6. 15. 33. and fo were called difciples, which fhews that the Apoftles fo conilrued the precept of Chrift to baptize difciples. Beiides, if [them] were referred to nations or men, without due circumfcription of difciples or believers,as a limitation,dire&ing ^whom to baptize, it would follow , that either they might baptize any man or nation in the world., whether taught or not, and if Co, then the Spaniards pra&ife of forcing droves of Indians to baptifme, and that pra&ife of baptizing a Kingdome upon the Kings conver- fion and command, without mfficient precedent teaching, were ju- stifiable \ or elfe they muft baptize none till all men or all nations were to be baptized together. There hath been vented lately, in a little paper, a very abfurd one, though it be licenfed, entituled, A Declaration againjl the Anabap- tifts ; in which the Author faith, cc that making Difcipks, is to be don e from Holy Scrtfture. 127 * by baptizing them ; which if true, then the Apoftles needed to have done nothing elfe, in obfervance of that command of difcipling, buc to baptize, and it would ferve for a good plea for non-preaching, or meer officiating. Priefts : whereas in Mark- 16. 15. which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this, Mattb.2%. 19. Vifiipk all nations, if Preach the Gofieho every creature. But this conceit is (b ab- furd,that I prefume none that hath any wit will entertain it, though the paper be licenfed. That which I have hitherto difcourfed, tends to this, to prove, that when Chrift faith, leach all nations , and bap- tizethem, his meaning is, by preaching t he Gojpel to all nations, ma^e tfmt Vifcipks, and baptize thoje that become Vijcifles of all nations.. Now, concerning the Pofition, which after M r . Blak^ and M r . K«- therfurd, you feem to im brace, concerning the federall or externall holinefle of a believing or chofen nation, giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized. Give me leave to argue a little : Firft, if Infants may be baptized, becaufe they are born in a chofen nation, or a believing nation,then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing, or chofen nation, when not; otherwife we fhould not know when to make ufe of this title to baptifme, when not : and it were abfurd to conceive God fhould give us a rule, and no direction howto make ufe of it. But no rule can be atTigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing, cho- fen, or dife pled nation, giving right to baptize Infants of that nati- on, when not ; Ergo, If it be faid they may be known, in that they aredefcended from fuch a Believer as Abraham. I reply, then God would have left us a note to know fuch a nation by, as he did Abra-.. - hams pofterity by Circumcifion : But there is no Gich note, nor any fuch nation marked out;this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations. If it be faid when the king of a countrey is a Believer, this is no rule 3 for it may be he may be a Belieyer,and all the reft unbelievers, and then the pra&ice of baptizing Infidels afore they areinftru&ed at the command of Princes : As when Charles the great foiced the Saxons to be Chriftians, were to be juftified. If it be faid, the nation is a believing nation, when the reprefentative bo- dy believes,and fo the children of that people may be baptized : I an- fwer, the reprefentative body may be Believers, and the greatefl pare Infidels, Papifts,e^. thefe Infidels children mu ft then be baptized -> yea, the Infidels themf elves, by Vertue of an implicit faith in their governoursfakh,fortheyarea,partofthenation. And therefore if ° M r . Blakis i 2 8 Infant-Baptifrne cannot bt deduced H^BIak^r Argument be good: The Infants of any nation rntk£ up a tart of the nation, and the nation where tbej came was to be diftipkd$ and therefore the Infants to be baptized : the fame reafon holds for Infidels of age, for they are a part of the nation. If it be faid, it is a believing nation, when the greateft part are Believers, how (hall that be known r How (hall a minifter do when he cannot come to the know- ledge of it I muft he ftay till they be counted by poll, as the SherirTes do at the election of Knights of the Shire, and upon Certificate that the major part is believing, then baptize ? Why did not the Apoftles fo, nor any other Minifters to this day ? How. ill would it fare with fome poor Chriftians, who are but a handfull in refpeft of the mul- titude of unbelievers of their own nation, as in the Primitive times, when Princes and States were adversaries to Ghri (Hanky? If it be faid, when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers, then fuch a right is aflerted as never was, nor perhaps ever will be, except when all Ifrael (ball be faved\ and fo no Infants (hall be baptized on this ground* Secondly, but, if it could be refolved what number or fort of Be- lievers make a believing nation, giving title to Infant-baptifme, yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing, which might denominate a believing or choien nation, having federal! or externall molinefle, fuch as may create title to the baptifme of In- fants of that nation. There are fbme nations that are reckoned among Believers, which yet are mif- believers, as Heretiques, for in- ftance, the nation of the Goths, who were Arians \ or grofly Idola- trous, as the Spaniards, (hall they give title to their children to bap- tifme, when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Chrift ? Thirdly, if Infant? of wicked parents be capable of baptifme, becaufe born in a believing nation* then this priviledge agrees to them, either in refpe& of their defcent, or the place of their birth, or both. If in refpeft of their defcent, then either their defcent within mans memory, or their defcent be- yond all the memory of man. If of their defcent within memory and knowledge, then Foundlings have no title hereby to Eaptiune, of whofe parentage there is no knowledge, ncerer or remoter, who are nevertheleue baptized : If of that beyond memory, it muft be upon fuch a ground,as is common to all Infants'in the w^ < M,which aredefcended from fbme Believer, in fbme precedenr generation 5 or elfe fuch a rule muft be fet down, as hath no certainty in it, by which to adminifter that Ordinance : If from the place of birth only, be- caufe frbm Halj Serif ture, %%$ caufe the Church of God is there, then children of Turks or Jew/ are to be baptized 3 becauie born in London : If by reafon of both, when they concurre, and not other wife, then the children of an JLng- HJb Embaflador at Conflantinople, or Agent at Aleppo, fuppofed to be wicked^ as the Jews that persecuted Chrinyloofe this priviledge, be- caufe born out of England : If there be any other nationall refpeft upon which this fuppofed priviledge may be fattened, it either hath thefe or the like inconveniences confequent on it. Fourthly, if there befuch a federall holinefle of a cholen, difcipled, or believing nati- on as may make the Infants of that nation, though their parents be openly wicked, capable of Baptifme ; this right muft come from fome grant or charter or other. We find indeed, God would have the pofterity of Abraham, and all the males in that nation circumci- fed : So God appointed it, what ever their parents were, for reafons before rehearfed ; but there is no fuch grant, promife, covenant, or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles , as was then to the po- fterity of Abraham, becaufe the reafons nowceafe, theMefliahis now come, and the prerogatives are now perfonall, not nationall, not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation, but per- fonall, as a Believer in any nation. As for the Text which M r . Ru- therfwd alledgeth,to wit, Rom. 1 1. 1 6. it hath been examined before, and (hewed out of the Text 3 that holinefle of the branches there, is meant perfonall by faith; and the objection again ft it which he makes, to wit, C( '''that then the children of a believing parent fiould cc be aU fanffified, whereas the contrary is manifefi : of in Abiolom, the cc fon of David, proceeds upon this miftake, that by the root and firfl fruit, are meant any Anceftor ; whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithfull, as Veodate in his Anmt. on Rom. 1 1. 1 6. on, at moft, Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, in whofe names all the elect arc comprehendedjwhen Godjcalls himfelf The God o/Abraham,Ifaac and Jacob,as our Saviour intimates, Luke 20.37338. Mat.22.32. Mar.\2. 2 6,27. And for.that which he faith 3 cc that the Jews in Pauls time were cc holy by covenant, howbeit for tbeprefent,thefons were branches broken off a 'for unbtliefe, if it be meant of the Jew s broken off through un- belief, in refpeft of their prefent ftate, they were not holy by cove- nant. Only thus far the Jewifh nation in Pauls time is faid to be ho- ly, either in refpeft of the remnant, according to the election of Grace, mentioned, verf<$, of which he was one 5 or in refpe&of the pofterity that (hould afterwards be called according to the pro- mife Q Infant-Baptifine cannot he deduced mife of God to Abraham, in which fenfe they were federally holy ; yet this did neither give right for the baptizing of children of unbe- lieving Jems in Pauls time, nor now. cc And for that which he faith * that God hath chofen the race and nation efthe Gentiles,** » not right : For God hath not chofen (Imply the race and nation of the Msr, but a people to himfelf, out of the race and nation of the Gentiles, as it is (aid, Rev. 5. 7. thou hafl redeemed w to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation. As for M r . Blakes Argument 3 be- caufe it falls'in with your reafon, I (hall anfwcr them together in that which follows. You fay 5 "Now weh^ow, that when that onena- u tion of the Jews were made Vifoples, and arcumc?fed,their Infants were "made difciples (made to belong to Gods School) and circumcifed with cc them, when that nation was made difciples in Abrahams loynes, and cc circumcifed their feed alfo was the fame, when that nation was taken out K of Egypt jmd aBually made Difciples, their children were alfo with them. " This is your firft Argument to prove a command by clcare con-. fequence 3 from-M**.28. C i9« for baptizing Infants. Now the ftrength of it lies in thefe fuppofitions, Firft, cc that Chrifi did bid them cc baptize all nations,after the manner that the Jews did circumcife onena- fc tion. And M r . Blake doth conceit this fo ftrongly, that he faith, "this cannot be denyed of any, that will have the Apoftles to be able to kpow cc Chrifis meaning by his words in this enlarged Commiffion. Secondly, • cc that the nation of the Jews were difcif led when they were circumcifed. P fc do not impute it to M r . Blake through defect of ability to under- stand, but through the ftrong hold which thefe points have in his minde, that BaptifmefucceedsCircumdfion, in the place, roome, andufk of it, and the covenant of the Gofpel is all one, with the covenant made to Abraham, that he imagines there (hould be fuch an alluhon to cir- cumcinon, as that the Difciples muft underftand Chrifts meaning, whom to baptize from the Precept of cireumcifion, Gen. 17. but in mine apprehenfion, there is no colour for fuch a conceit. >Tis true, he enlargeth their commiffion, and bids them, Go and make Difcipks of all nations 5 or, as it is in Mark^, Preach the Gofpel to every creature, and then to baptize the Vijciplesofall nations-, but this enlargement ofcommiffion was not inoppofition to the reftricYion about cir- cumcifion. Gen. 17. but in oppofition to the reftricYion, j^.io.<$ 3 & as your fclf rightly exprefle it, fag. 44. And for that exprefllon, cc that the nation of the Jews were difcipled,^ that their Infants were cc difcipkdy thai the nation was made Difciples in Abrahams loines ; it is J r fuch from Holy Scripture. I31 fuch a conftrucVion of the word *£****> ™k *W«> " Ibe- E no Lexicon, nor,I think, any Expohtor to this ; day n»de of the word, which plainly fignifies fo to teach, as that the perfons taught do le m, and accordingly profeffe the thmgs taught; and ourLord Chrift inWiexprelTeth it by preaching the Uofpel, and accord- Wlv, the Apoftles by preaching, did ^*, dtfciple, Afts 14. 21. which how it can beVaid of Infants that can nather underftand,nor K the doctrine of the Gofpel preached to them, w.thcuta mi- racle I know not. I make no queftion, but Abraham .did each his ch dren, "nd make them Difciples, and that the IfraehtesM teach and make Difciples of their children, as foon as they could under- ftand The tnings P of God , but that they fhould be difciples in Abra- Jhm/loynes, is fuch apiece of language as I never read m the Bible, nor in anv Author, but fuch as torture words to make them IpeaK Xt^eJ would have them, *nd fure, if the Apoftles had under- ftoodotJsaviours command thus: {Vifciple all nations baptizing tbm 5 that is, Admit the infants of all nations tobaptifme, as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcifionj they might have faved themfelves a great deal of labour of preaching afore bapt.fme, and of baptizing tfmales, and would have left us fome precedent of fukapraLe. Butyouadde further: < Andweknow,thatinKry « nation, the children makia great part of the nation, and are alwayesm- "cluded under every adminifiration to the nation, whether promts or « tbreatniws, pnviledges or burthens, miracles or judgements, tmleffetbey « be excepted: So are they in families, in cities, it being the way of the « Scripture, when fpeakang indefinitely of a people, nation, city, or jami- "h to be either faved or damned, to receive mercies or pumfhrnents, «c- «&//• to except Infants, when they are to be excepted, as we Jee in «,b judgment that befell Ifrael in the Wilderneffej. wben all that re- « beUious%ompany that came out of E S ypt was to perifh by Gods righteous "doome, their tittle ones were exprejly excepted, Numb. 14.31- "ndtn « the covenant anally entredinto by thebodyofthenation,Nehati.l0.it « U exprelly limited to them who had knowledge and undemanding: And "tbeViciples who received this commijjion, knew well, that mall Gods « former adminifirations^hen any parents were made difciple s, their cbil- "dren were taken in with them to appertain to the fame fchoo ; and then- « fore it behooved the Lord to give them 1 camion, for the leaving out of "Infants in this new adminifiration, that they might knowhtsmindc, « hadbe intended to have them left out, which that ever he did, m word 13* Infant-B&ptifme cr/rnot he deduced « or deed) cannot be found in Serif \pure. The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this adminift rati- on according to ordinary rule : For 3 in that he directs them to bap- tizedifciples upon preaching, he doth exclude Infants, who are not fuch d Lei pies, nor according to ordinary providence can be. And t'iis the Apoftles could eafily underftand, as knowing that under the tcrmVijaple, in common fpcech, and in the whole new Teftamentj, thofe only are mean t 3 who being taught,profefTed the do&rine taught by fuch a one, as Johns Vijciples, Cbrifis Difciples ^the difciples of the Tharifees, Luke 5. 33. the difciples of the per verier s> A&s 20. 30. and accordingly they admlniftred Baptifme. And in that Chrift appoints thefeto be baptized, he excludes others: For the appointment of Chrift, is the rule according to which we are to adminifter holy things, and he that doth otherwise, follows his own invention, and is guilty of will-worftripj and thus we conftrue the meaning of the Holy Ghoft in other appointments : As, becaufe it is laid, 1 Cor. 1 1 . 2$. Let a man examine bimfdf andfe let him eat, therefore Infants are excluded, though Infant- communion was held lawfull and ncceffa- ry for fix hundred yeers in the Church : Wine is appointed in the Matter Baley. Eucharift, therefore not Water mixt with Wine, as the Papifis con- \ difwafion tend: Water in Baptifme, therefore not fait, chrifme, fpettle : the Tom the error Preacher to baptize, therefore not women, or private perfons : Males A C 8 C tUBeS3 t0 be c * ircumci ^ ecJ 3 therefore no females : two (ball be oneflefa there- iraicf'fr^' fo" no more then m^, again ft Polygamic, Mattb. 1 9. 5. So that un- Ji?s very text k"« y ou will alter the definition of wil-wo: (hip, according to Mai n like man- 1 5. 9. in point of worfhip, that is excluded which is not exprelTed. ner> to prove And therefore, whereas you fay, [ cc it behoved the Lord to give them a th 'R ° r h Ml ~ &?«*, 2Tim*%. 15. yet our Tranflators would not render it from an Infant , but from a child. Eut however, if their parents be to teach them from their infancy, and the parents devote them to be difciples, yet this doth not make them cliuriples actually, but potentially, they may never be difciples for all that. But you tell us : cc And at the present, they are capable cc of his own teaching, \ deny not but Infants are capable of Chrifts 'own teaching, yea, of a&uall faith, yea, of a&uall profeiTion of faith. The fame powerthat could mike John Baptift in his mothers womb fenfible of the pretence of Ghri ft s mother, and to leap for joy, that could open the mouth of Balaams Afle, cdn out of the mouth of babes and fuellings perfect praife. But then this is done in an extraordina- ry way, and extraordinary accidents make not ah ordinary rule. But you adde : cc And fwe lam, in Chrifis own dialed, to- belong to Chrifi, . 10. "Nor* therefore why tempt yee "God, to put ayoah^upon the necks; of the Difciples, donotnecefjita* « us ta ojve the name of Difciples to Infants, as well as to grown men: "Forlreafontlms; M they upon who fe necks thoft falfe teachers woud "have put the y oak of Circumcifion, Are called difciples, and to be called "difciples; hut they would have put the y oak of Circumcifion upon Li- "fonts, as well as grown men ; therefore Infants as well as grown men are " called difciples, and to be called fo. The Major is imdemable, the Minor § I prove thus : they who prefjed Circumcifion to be in force according to i the mmner of Moks Law, and would put it upon their nezts after M h manner ofMoCcs his Law, they ivould put it upon Infants of th,fe who g were in covenant with God, as well as upon the necks of thoje who were f crown mm ; forfo Mofrs Law required: But tbefe falfe teachers pref- " fed Circumcifion to be in force, as is apparent, Afts 1 5. 1. I have feri- ouily weighed this Text, ABs 15.10. as 'you dedre, and I hnd no neceffity nor colour of giving to Infants the name ot Difciples from thatText^Andin anfwertoyour Argument, though you fay, it is undeniable, vet I have the boldnefle to deny the Mzfr m your Pro- fylloeifme ; F or jbougb it be true that they are called difciples upon woof necks they would put the yoah^of Circumcifion, yet it is not faid, they would put it only on Difciples, it is more probable they indeavou- red to put it on the necks of all, whether Dilciples or others, as ani- fefally neceOary to falvafon, v. 1 . And therefore your Major is not certain, that aU t bey, upon wbofe neclytbofe falfe teachers w,utd have put tbeyoa\ofC'ircum:\fion an called difciples : The Mmorl^mkm your Profyllogifme, I deny and in your latter Syllogiime, framed to prove it, I deny the Major : For,though I deny not that they would have had Infants as well as converted Gentiles circumcifed 5 yet the putting the yoak of Circumcifion is not actuall circumcifion in their fle(h, for that they were able to bear for many ages ; and at this day Ma- homet ones and Abajfine Chriftians do ftill bear, as well as Jews ; but the t$6 t Infant-Baptifme cannot be deduced the yoak of circumcilion Is the neceffity of icon mens con (ciences,and therewith the whole Law of Mofis, verf. 5. and that as necefiary to falvation, z>. 1. and therefore Peter having faid, v. 1 0. Why tempt ye God to put ayoa\upon the necks of the Vificiples ? addes, v.ii. but we believe that through the grace of the Lordjefius we jhall be fived even as they, plain- ly imptying, that the yoak he meant, was the neceffity of Circumcifi- on,and keeping Mop's his law to falvation. Now, this yoak was not put upon Infants,but upon brethren taught the neceffity of it, verf. 1. And thus,iike another Sifyphus ,x.\\t ftoneyouroul returns upon you: Volvendo fiaxumfudss, necprofievs hilum, you five. it in routing afione, and yet profit not x whit \ and you are i'o far from proving by virtual! and undeniable confequence, a command to baptize Infants of Believers* according to ordinary rule, thaton the contrary ,this Text, Mat.26. 19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary rule to be baptized : be- caufe Difciples of all nation?,md no other, are appointed to be bap- tized ; and therefore baptizing oflnfants isbefides theinftitution,and fo wil-worfhip. But yet M r . Blaise hath one Text for a referve 5 which he thus puts in array : cc Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed, cc where fie aking by the Spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the ]ews,and cc the glorious call of the Gentiles in their fie adfin that ample way, a? it is cc there fit out, hath thefe words : Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the ** Gentiles, and fit up m/ Standard to the people, and they Jhall bring thy ^ fins in their arms ; and thy daughters (hall ba carried on their jhoulderf, cc Ifai. 49.22, If there were but fuch an hint, as that by way of pro- cc phecy to have left them behind ', we fioould from fome have heard of it with cc a noife. h ma) be truly faid,the ailedging this Text for Infant-bap* tifme,is but a noife, vox & pr£terea nihil, a voyce, and nothing befide, as the Spartan (aid of the Nightingal. To it I anfwer.that the allufion is, to nurfing-fathers and mother?, carrying children on moulders, and] in their arms, and the fpeech is metaphoricall, as Junius faith in his j annot. in locum. He c omnia allegorice dicuntur, all thefe things arefiok^m allegoric all}} and may be either underftood,as he fpeaks,^///^ fi irituah] amplifying ofChrifis Kingdom ; and fo children were brought on arms and moulders among Gentilesby preaching and instruction, as whetij the Apoftle faith , he was gentle among the Theflalonians as a nurfe thali cherifheth her children, 1 The£ 2. 7. or, it may be under flood bfj the return of the Jews from captivity ; and that the following verfes make more probable ; nor is there a word in the Text that I ob- (erve, of the reje&ion of the Jews : as he fayes 3 but of their reftitutioii But from Holy Scriplme* 3*7 (But if it muft be underftood properly, which hath no likelihood, it may be as well conceived of bringing their children to have laying on of hands, as baptizing of them. I go on to that which followes in your Sermon. ANotber command by good confequence for the baptizing of infants, §.14. you pall finde in tbe f or ementioned place : when the Apoftle ex- Of examples u bortetb tbem to repent and be baptized,&c.becaufe tbe promife was made m Scripture :c to tbem and to their children, which as Ifhewed clearly proves that the £ r 1 ™. ants cc children of fetch as beleeve and are baptized , are taken into Covenant, particularly :c and therefore by good conference they are to receive thefeale of the Cove- of baptizing :c nant, the'fext not onely fhew'mg that they are within tbe Covenant, ofhoufliolfo cc but alfo that a right to Baptifme is a confeqmme of being within the ;c Covenant. This text hath been examined before, and it hath been proved that the promife there is the fending of Ghrift, who was rai- led up to blefle them and their children firft, then thofe that were a- farre off,being called, and that the promife doth not belong to their :hildren,as the children of beleevers, but as called,and that the pro- aiife is not aliedged as of it felfe giving right for them or their chil- dren to be baptized, without any other consideration, but as a mo- tive and incouragement for them to repent, and lb to be baptized in me name of the LordJe(us,for theremiifton of finnes, notwithftand- ing they had crucified the Lord of glory, and wiihed his blond to be jpon them,and their children; which bsin^ thus rightly underltood, s fo rarre from proving a command to baptize infants , that on the ;ontrary,it proves they are not to be baptized. You fay further; • c thus for Commands : for examples, though there jlwuld be none, there is :c no great argument in it, when the rule is Jo plaine,yet we have examples :c enough by good confluence* It is true , if the rule were pLiine 5 ch«re iffould be no need oi- an example ; and on the other fide, \'i wee had regulating examples , we mould thereby know how to interpret the rule. But whereas you fay , wee have examples enough by good confer jttence,h may be well iufpetted, thefe examples will prove like the :ommands, byconfequence meere conjectures and conceits of men hat would have it fo. But let us hcare what you (ay. cc For you (lull c finde, that the Gojpel tookg place jufl as the old admimferation, by bring* :c ing in whole families together ; when Abraham was taken iv, his wbnte :c familie was taken in with him\ when any of the Gentiles turned pro fe- ' c lytes, ordinarily their whole families came in with tbem \ fo in this new iib all his houfe , to joyne it with 'snsr/rswwV > believing, and to expound it as Beza, cum univerfa domo, with the whole houfe, and the Vulvar, cum omni domo, with all the houfe, rather then in domo, in the . houfe,^nd to make it anfwer to twv irArii tS olm cum, with all his houfe y - Acts 1 o. 2. to cuvl^a t£ o/jtffl cun&, with all his houfe^hdis 1 8. 8. fo that as yet it doth not appeare that either one infant was baptized , or thac from Holy Scripture. *4 r that the Gofpci tooke place juft as the old administration, by bring- ing in whole families together. Yea the contrary appeares out or the iPet. 3.1. &i Cor. 7. 13. 1 6. that the husband was converted iome- times without the wife, and on the contrary, 1 Cor. 7. 2 1 . & 1 Tm.6. J.TbiL 4.22.UI the houfe of infidel Matters were converted Servants, and on the contrary, Pbilem.i 1.12.1^1^16. And oox Lord Chnft foretold it Ihouid be fo in the preaching ot the Gofpci, Mat. 10.35, 26. Wherefore I much marvaile at the fpeech of M r Blake, pag. 22. " We have eximples not to be contemned of the baptizing whole mu\bolds^ "and whether infants were there or no, of it is not ceriaine, though proba- ta ble,foit is not materialise prefident is an boujbold 3 He that followeth « the prefident, mufi baptize houjholds 5 It appeares mt that any wife was « there, yet he that follawes the prefident in baptizing ofhou^olds,mufi « baptize wives,andfo Imtyfay fervant s, if they be of the bouJhold.Which fpeech, though it containes onely di&ates , and might be let paiie, yet it is not tic to leave it without (ome animadverfions. tor it it be true, that the prefident is an houlhold, and wee muft baptize house- holds,! aske whether we muft baptize wife and fervants, becaufe they profefle the faith, or becaufe they be of the houlhold : it the firft be faid, then the prefident is not of baptizing houlholds , but baptizing a profeflbr of the faith,which is the thing the Antipoedobaptifts con- tend for ; if becaufe of the houfhold 3 whether profetVing faith or not, then an unbelieving wife or fervant mould be baptized, becaule they are of the houfnold, unlefle it be iuppofed,that in an lioulhold when the Mailer or a husband is a believer, the wife and fervant cannot be an unbeliever, the contrary whereof hath appeared above : But this I believe, none will deny to be abfurd, and heterodox, and conie- quently that fpeech of M r Blakes is very abfurd, that I fay no worfe ot it To which I adde 3 that M r Blal^ gives no reafon, nor I thinke can, why the baptizing of houlholds, AZsi6. mould be the precedent for baptizing rather then the baptizing Samaria, ABX 12. the 3000. Acts 2. 42. all Jud:a,Mat.^.^ So that in fine, it appeares that*/* admimjirationofBaptifme is not jufl as the adminifiration of arcumcifi- 071, and that though it be true, that fometimes houfholds were bapti- zed, yet it is faid, thofe hoafijolds received the Word, and the word hoxf- hold, is often put for the growne people of it, and therefore as yet there is no example in Scripture to juftifie the baptizing of intents, according to ordinarie rule. As for the obkaion of the houlhold, eating the Pafleover,and the anfwer to it, 1 (hall let it pane ngw, be- ° z 2 cau fc ward_ the Text Mai. I $.14. and of the in- 142 Infant-Baptifme cannot he deduced caufe it will come againe in the laft objection of the fourth part of your Sermon. And thus I have at lad examined your firft and maine argument. Your fecond, it feemes, you make lefle account of, and therefore I (hall fooner difpaxch the anfwer. Thus you frame it. the texts, ^#.8.37. ^#.10.47. Aft. 1 1 .17. would undenia- bly prove it, and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptift , I thinke, but will grant you r Major ; lh at regenerate per fins united to Chrift, whofi fins are forgiven, adapted per fans that have received the Holy Ghoft, are to be baptized. But I conceive, though in the laying down the Major, you tife thefe phrafes [who have the thing fignified, who have the hea- venly pari]: and in your Minor [are made partakers']-, yet you do not mean in this Afiumption, a&uall having, and being made par- takers of the inward grace of Baptifm ; concerning which ,the Anti- psedobaptifts do fo readily grant the Major; but a potemiall having, or, from Holy Scripture. 1 43 or, as you after fpeak, being capable of tbi inward pace; and Co yon ufethc fallacy of equivocation: in the Major, [^having] being un- derftood of aauall havng, and in the Miner of potentiall, which makes four terms 3 and fo the Syllogifme is naught . : Or, if you do mean in both a&uall having, you mean it only of fome Infants ot Believers, not of all, of whom the Qucftion is, and feyourconclu- iion is but particular, that fome Infants of Believers, who are fancYi- fied actually, are to be baptised. But this will not reaeh home eo your tenet or practice, concerning the baptizing of all Infants of Be- lievers, in as much as they are the children of Believers, without the confideration of attuall faith or fan&ification. It is true, the Luthe- rams do teach, tha* Infants have aftuall faith, and are regenerate in Baptifme, and therefore, in Colloquio Mompef gar tenfi, upon thefourth Artic.de Baptifmn,they put thefe among the Portions they reje£t,a« contrary to the Scripture :Nonomnes infantes qui baptizantur gratis Cbrifiiparticipes e(fe,& regenerari, infantes carere pde,& nibilominus bap- tizarv,tbat all the Infants whUh are baptized, ire not partakers of the grace efChrifl, and regenerate ; that Infants want faith, and never tbekjje are baptized. And I remember,when I lived in Oxfardjheve was a book published in Englifi, of Baptifmal inkiall regeneration of elect In- fants, the Pofition whereof was oppoied, as favouring the do&rine of conferring grace by Baptifme, ex opere operate, by the wort\wr 'ought, and intercifion of regeneration ,(ith according to that doctrine,* per- fon might have the Spirit initially, in infancy ; and though it could not fall away finally, as being an eleS perfon, yet might run out in a continued courfe of finning groffc and fcandalous (ins with full confent untill his dying day 5 which doth enervate the urging of that Text, 1 John 3 . 9. againft Apofrafie of regenerate perfons,when out of it is proved, that raigning fin is not in the regenerate, and the ' like texts, which in that Controverfie are urged againft Armlnans. With that book D r . Feat ley in his late feeble, and patTtonate Tract a- gainft Anabaptifts,md Antiprelatifts concurs, />;£. 67. in thefe words: Nay fo farre are they from excluding faith from Infants that are bap- tized, that they believe, that ail the children of the faith full, who are comprifid in the covenant with their fathers, and are ordained to eternal! life, at the very time of their baptifme receive form hidden grace of the Spi- rit, and the feed of faith and holineffe, which afterwards bears fruit, in fume fooner s in fume later. And lince I came to London, I met with a Book, intituled, A Cbrtfian {lea, for Infants Baptifme,. by S.C. who hold* 2 a 4 Ir/ant-Bapifme cannot be deduced holds petitions fomewhat like to the Lutherans, that though children of believing parents be not ail holy and righteous, they may degenerate^ apofiatiize, yet the Infants of believing pirents are rhjoteom by imput iti- on, are believers and confcfj'o, s imput invely, &c pag. 10. and eilewnere. And he hath this pai%e, p tg. 3 . It is a jure truth, that the fins of the parents, being forgiven, the Lord trill not impute the fame unto their In- fants. Original! fin, I fiy, taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents ; and touching aBuall fin, they are as clear as their parents. Many more like patfages there are in that Book, thefe I mention, that you may fee what (ruffe Paedobapiifts do feed the people with. But I fuppofe you do not hold, that all Infants of Believers, either a&ually or inkial!y,oi imputatively, are fancYified, regenerated, ado- pted, juitiried, as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9. 6, &c. to daily experience,to the do&rine oiBeza and his Collegues,at Mom- Pehart, to the reformed Churches of Geneva, &c and what advan- tage it gives to Papifis, Lutherans, Arminians, and thofe that follow the way of Tomfen in his Diatribe, of which I fuppofe you are not ignorant ; and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point, the anfwer to your Syllogifmeis either by (hewing it doth not con- clude the quettion, if your Minor and conclution be underftood of a&uall having the inward grace, and they be particular only. If you underftand them of attuail having, and they be univerfall, then I deny your Minor. If your Major be underftood of potentiall having, I deny it, if of a&uall, and the Minor be of potentiall, there be four terms, and ib the Syllogifme is naught. Take away the ambiguity of your terms,and the anfwer is eaiie. But for the proof of your Minor, you fay thus : cc And for the Affumpilm, or Minor, That the Infants of cc Believers, even while they are Infants, do receive the inward grace as welt K as grown men,is as plain jiot only by that fpeech of the Apo file, who faith A CG they are holy, but our S aviour faith exprefy, Mark 10. That to fitch f c belongs the Kingdome of God, as well as to grown men 5 And whereas cc form would evade it, by faying, that the Text faith not, To them belongs cc the kjngdome of God, but of fuch is the Kingdome of heaven, tzktup, of cc fitch llki, f k Jt u -> i uc b & are graced with fuch like qualities, who are cc bumble and meel{, as children are: and that Luke iS. is parallel to €C this in the meaning of it : whofoever doth not receive the Kingdome of cc heaven as a little child, he fball not enter therein. But I anfwer, though cc it be true,that in other places this is one ufe that Chrifi makes of an In- ^ fa.nts age and condition, tojhew 3 that fuch. as receive the Kingdome of cc heaven^ from Holy Serif tare. 1 45 « heaven ,mxfi be qualified with humility, &c. like unto children', yet here * it cannot bt his meanings becaufe his argument if, Suffer them to comi to * me, and forbid them not, becaufe of fitch is the Kingdom of God, that cc if , my Church and Kingdome is made ofthofe, as weUas of others. T.bts * was the verycaufe,why the difciples rebuked thofe who brought the cbil- * dren to Chrifi,becaufe they were little,notfit to be infiructed; and there- Kfore not jit that Chrift jhatld be troubled about them , this Chrifl rebuhes cc in them, and tels them,that the littleneffe of children, is no argument w\jy " they fhould be kept from him : Suffer them, (aid he, to come, and forbid cc them not, for of fitch U the Kingdome of God', and what hindeofar- * gument had this been, if the Textjhould be interpreted as thefe men cc would have it , Suffer little children to come unto me, that I may touch " them, take them up in mine arms, put my hands upon them, an dbleffe them, becaufe the Kingdome of Godbehngeth to them, who have fitch like qualities, who refemble children in feme feleB properties ? By the wj fame ground, if any bad br-ught doves and jheep to Chrift to put his "bands upon them, and bleffe them, the Difciples had been liable to the cc fame reproof, becaufe of fitch is the Kingdome of God, fitch as are partakers * of the Kingdome ofGjd, muji be endued with fitch like properties. The Minor to be proved is, that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers in as much as they arc Infants of Believers, are a&uallv partakers of the inward grace of Raptifme, elie your Argu- ment will not ferve for your purpofe,as hath been (hewed. Now nei- ther doth the Apoftlcs fpecch, i Car.?. 14. prove it 3 as hath been (hewed above 5 nor doth this Text, Mar.io. 1 4. prove it. For, hrir, ■it is doubtfull, whether thefe were Infants or no. I preiume you are not Lznorant, that Pifiator obfiroat: in Mat. 19. 14. doth maintain that the fpeech of Chrift, is not of Infants 3 but of children which were capable of inftru&ion, which he gathers from this, chat Chrift cal- led them, Lul\e 18. 16. And whereas it is Grid in Marh^ he too\ up in his arms, the word fo tranflated, is ufed Marl^ o. 36. For the "un- bracing of thofe that were of fome growth, whom he placed in the midft, and of whole icandalizing he there warnes; nor doth the word jS^ ufed Luke 18. i<>- tranflated in Englijh Infants prove it, for it iignifies a childe capable of teaching, as when It is &id 3 7imothy knew the facred Scripture from a childe, &c #tc«* , that i*,ever fince he was a boy, not an Infant 3 nor doth the word vocvwiZzt tranflated brought unto him prove that they were Infants : Fur the lame word is applied to them that were guided, though they were not carried, but rr did t &$ Infant-Baptifme cannot he dtduced did go by themfelves, as the blinds and deaf T>£monia\e y Matth. 12, 2 2. and the lunatick childe, Mattb. 1 7. 1 6 . To this purpofe Pifcator. As for M r . Thorns* Goodwins reafon from Julius Pollux, cc that the cc word fy'vp®- doth fignifie one that is madidtu> moift or fappie 9 it is of cc no force to prove that they were Infants: For befides, that not etymologic>but u(e muft expound words ; if it were fo,yet we know children are moift, till they be adolefcentes, youths; we fay, till they be of good yeers, they are but a griftle, tender, green 5 fo that not- withstanding this, thechildren brought to Chrift, mightbe of yeers {ufhcknttobccatecbumeni, and yet fit enough to refembic humility and harmlemefle by. Secondly, It is yet doubt full whether our Sa- viour faid, of them is the Kingdoms of heaven ; for the word is tuxtw , offnch, not t*t«>, of thefe: And L»% 18. 17. Ma\ 10. 15. both adde this fpeech, Verely I fry unto you , wbofoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe, jhall not enter therein 5 fcke to which is that Matth .1%.$. But you have two exceptions again ft this: Firft, cc hecaufe this hadbeen no reafon why they fhould fitffer the fe little children <* to come to him^ becxufe, of fach is the Kingdme of God: Secondly, ht cc might as well have f iid^ fujfer peep, or doves to come to me; for offucb &c Fourthly, but let it be granted they were the Infants of Be- lievers* from Holy Scripture. 147 lievers,andthatitisfaid, ofthefeit the Kingdome of God, it may be, as PifiatorobCevveS) referred not to theft prefent eftatc, as if for the prefent they were in the kingdome of God, that is, believers and ju- ftifiedj but that they were ele& perfons,and fo m time of them ihould be the Kingdom of God : Now that which gives right to Baptifme,is the preicnt eftate of a perfon. Fifthly, but let that bealfo granted, yet all this proves not your Minor, unlefle you can prove, that the reafon why the Kingdome of heaven belongs to Infents, is common with thefe to other Infants of Believers, and the reafon why theirs is the Kingdome of God, is, becaufe they were the Infants of Belie- vers, that (bit may be true of all the Infants of Believers* But this cannot be true, being contrary to exprefle Scripture, Rom. 9. 6, 7, 8. 13. and inferring this error, that achHde hath right to the King- dom of God, in that he is the childe of a Believer : And experience proves innumerable of them have no intereft in the Kingdome of God. Befides,this reafon may be given, why thefe Iafants did belong to Gods Kingdome, becaufe they were fuch as Chrift would blefle, and then all that you can gather from hence will be, that of the In- fants of Believers whom Chrift Weffeth, is the Kingdome of heaven. But this will never prove your Anumption,except you can prove that Chrift blefiech all the Infants of Believers. Laftly, Chrifts a&ion in this bufinene is proper to him, as the great Prophet of the Church, and extraordinary, and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Miniftery. And,if an ordinary rule fhould be made in imitation of it, it would ferve better for the pro- ving the Sacrament ofconfirmation, which Art. 25. of the Church of England puts among things, grown from a eorrttpt following the Apo- Jlles, then Baptifme. And in all probability ,if Chrift would have this accident * to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to bim by avi- cc fiblefigne in the newT^ammt, as M r . Thomas Goodwin at Bow dicta- ted, he would have appointed his Apoftles to have baptized thefe In- fants as a faroplar. For which reafon, it fecms to me, that this ex- ample rather (hews Chrift would not have Infants baptized,then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptifme. But you will prove your Minor by reafons, and thus you reafon : C€ Befide, what one thing can be named, belonging to the initiation and t€ being of a Cbrijlian, whereof Baptifme is a feat, which Infants are not cc capable of as well as grown men ; they are capable of receiving the Holy * Gboft, of mionmtb Chrift, of adoption, of forgivenejfe of fins, of re* A a "generation, j ,g Infant-Baptifine c&nnot be deduced eo cooper or i ; We hold the will in the firfi ait of converfion, to be partly pajpve, partly aUive^ that *f, firfi of all to be pafc five, then aVtive, and therefore to cooperate with God. It is true, the a& ? of taking away the heart of ftone, creating a heart offlefh, forgiving iniquity, loving freely,as they are a&s ofGod,aman is neither active nor paflive in them,they are not in man as the fubjecl:, nor from man as the agent ; only we may be faid to be paflive,or acYive,in refpeft of the terminus, or o&dt of them, anew heart, faith,or repentance, pro- duced by them; and in refpeft of this, in ibme fenfe, we are meerly paflive, in fome, partly acYive, and partly paflive in the firfr conver- fion, according to the do&rine of the two learned Doctors fore- named. You conclude this Argument with this fpeech : cc And who- €t ever will deny that Infants are capable of thefe things •, as well as grown ts men,mufi deny that any Infants dying in their infancy,arefaved by Chrift. Concerning which fpeech, if you 5 mean that Infants are capable of thefe things as well as grown men fimply,in refpe& of the things, it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men, and he that denies it denies their falvation : But if you mean it in refpeft of the modus habendi, the manner of having, then it is not true : for In- fants are not capable in the fame manner of a new heart, faith and repentance^ by hearing) and outward ordinances, as well as grown men. from Holy Scripture. 1 5 r men . • But W hatisallthistoproveyour^r,wl,kh«notofpo. Sail havinginward grace, which isnot denied, but°f*auallha- S£> And fo ftill it remains unproved ; that all the Inform of Be- Uevers 5 or the Infants of Believers as fuchareaftually partakers of the comafnS your Arguments from Scripture for Psdobaptumc. I proceed nowto examine the laft part, which followes. Infant- Baptifme, is a corruption of the Ordinance of BaptiSME. Part. 1 1 It Concerning the QtytRtons againft Infant-Baptifme. \Gainfl this argument fwerall things are objetfed, which I 51. (bailindcavour to nmove out of the way : Firfi, it is fad, Of the^ fi.ft ibat altkugh infants are capable ofthefe things , and they ^'^n « It S no doubt are wrought by Cbrifi in many infants, yet may not ^ . g> [^ "^Tbmife them, becaufe according to the Scripture pattertie, both of an d ,hepr»- « Cbrifis Command , Mat. 28. in hu inyliwion ofBaptifne where this ftife oCJob* -Aoyned^dlohntheBapnf^ "dwayettemghhandmade them dijctples by teaching, before tbtybafn- neceffe eft ut pr^eat dotfrina quamobfignent. 3. Becaufe the inftitution is to baptize into the name of the Father,Son,andHoly Spirit, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, as ABs 22. 16. Paulh bid arife and be baptized, andwafh away his finnes, calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot doe : with devoting themfelves to the fervice and adherence of the Father , Son , and holy Spirit , which may be gathered from this, that Paul faid, 1 Cor. 1 3 . 1 5 he had baptized none into his name, that is, he had not caufed them in their baptifme to devote or addift them- felves to him as their Mafter,but infants cannot fo devote themfelves to from the Ordinance of Baptifme. 153 to Chi ift .therefore they are not to bebaptized according to. this in- ^ tins, tnereiorc uicy cue i.w t V ^ ^ r - - t ^*™ -~ fants, doth not agree with the primitive pra^e of John Baptift, and New-EngLwd. the Apoftles, who required express of repentance and [faith afore J^^- BaptiLe 5 ^. 3 ^-^^ 1 ^- L? <-3- 10 - ^^38.^8.12 13. W-^J 27! ; ^9.18.^10.47. dru. 17,18.^16.15.31,32, 33- ^i8-8 ,kB^#, #•19^8 22 1 6. in which places, profelfion of repentance and faith f uc has were is ftili made the antecedent to Baptifme : but this doth not agree to "M** infants, therefore they are not to be baptized.^ Of thefe arguments *^jg f yem anfwer onely to the two firft from inftitution, arid to thelaft CGr}fefim f from example •, tothefirlt from inftitution , youanfwered before, their fins, and and there I examined your anfwer, part.$. fe&* 12, 13. To thefe- therewith of cond from inftitution, and to the laft from example, you make fome f^^ anfwer here, -not denying that the order appointed by Chrift is firft *&}£% to teach, and then to baptize : for that is fo manifefi, that your Utfe m hlm wbo pace 35 . doe fo paraphrafe the words,when you foyfxprejfe command was t0 come there is, that tbeyfvoM teach the heathen, and the Jewes^and make them after to,Mar. difiiPles, and then baptize them : nor by denying, that John £;/tfi/r,and *• ■*• ^9- the Apoftles required expreiuons of taith and repentance afore Bap- t ^ t]m$ ^ tifme, nnr by denying that the inftitution of Chntt , and the Apo- ^^/„ phj- ftl«s example, are our rule in the adminiftring the Sacraments, lo as \l ? received the that we cannot vary from them without wUl-worfhip, and propha- Eunuch unto hing the worfhip of God by our inventions : tor that is fo confefTed JJgJ** hid a truth, that there hath been a great while, farce a bermon before ma j epro f c p id the Parliament, but hath afTerted that rule, and prefled it on the Tar- f his faith in liament, and our ibiemne Covenant fuppofeth it, the Churches of Cbrifl Jefm» Scotland, Ne»-England, the Apoftles pra&ife and fay- ings. 2. If inftitution or appointment of God muft warrant our pra- &i(e in Gods worfhip, which you once held in the Sermon cited be- fore, part. 2.fi&. 9. then you muft (hew another inftitution, ehe you cannot acquit paedobaptifme from will- worftup, and your felfe from breaking the hedge God hath fit about the fecond Commandement. But you adde further •, w And kefide it U no where fiid, thxt none were baptized cc but fuchat were firft taught, and what reason wee have to believe the con- cc trary,you h ave before fane. Your felfe fay prefently in the next words^ (c It if f aid indeed^ that they taught andbaptized^indnoexpreffe mention and you ajfigne a rea- cc Jon of it. And page$ 5 .your felfe paraphrase the inftkution,/l^.28. 1 9. Exprejfe command thereif, thit they (hould teach the heathen, and the fewes,andm$h them difcipkfy and then baptizethem : and confequent- ly, there is no expreffe command for any other , and for the reaibn you have to beleeve that others are to be baptized which are not taught, it hath been examined in the weighing your virtuall confe- quence, which is grounded upon fuch a principle,as in time you may fee to be a dangerous precipice , how ever for the prefent the great content of Doftors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes; for my part, I cannot yet difcerne, but that your grounds for psedobap- tifme, are worfe then the Paplfts and Ancients,who build it on Job.%. 5. Rom. 5.12. But you yeC adde. " Secondly, it if fazd indeed , that they cc taught and baptized^ and no exprejfe mention made of any other : but the cc reajon if plaine ; there was a new Church to be confiituted, all the Jewel cc who fhould receive Cbrijl, were to come under another adminijiration : You fay right, therefore none other were to be baptized, but taught perfons, becaule though the invifible Church of the Gentiles were joyned to the invifible of the Jewes, Rom. 1 1 . 1 7. Ephef. 2 . 1 4, 1 5 9 1 £. by faith of the Gojpel, as Ephef 3. 6. it is expounded : yet the outward eftate of the Church is new, and as you fay, even thejewes who fhould receive Cbrijly were to come under anew adminiftration, even thole who were Jewes by nature and not profelytes, were to be baptized as un- cleane perfons, contrary to their former adminiftration, in which they were onely circumcifed ; and this is a plaine evidence, that the adminiftration of Gircumcifion , is not the adminiftration under which wee are now 5 but that it did belong to that adminiftration which is now abolifbed, which is enough to overthrow all your vir- tuall confequence from circumcifon, to baptifme, and confequen try all of the Or Ji nance of Baptifme* 155 all the former difputc of your firft argument, in which circumcifion of infants is indeed the alone prop or" baptizing infants. As for that which you a.dde, u And their infant J were to come in cmly in their right. This overthrows your fecond argument \ for that is grounded upon this, that infants of believers, and particularly infants of believing Jewej 3 tuch as thofe are fappoled to be Marl^ la x 4- were partakers of the inward grace of baptifme, and if fo,they came in by their own right. But that one mans right to bapti{rne,(hould give another right to baptifme, is apofition that the Scripture doth not deliver, and in- wraps fundry errors, which I now omit , becaufe it comes in onely upon the by. But you goe on. cc And the heathen nations who were to cc he converted to Chrifl, wereyet without the covenant of grace, and their cc children cpuld have no right y WitiU themselves were brought in,md there" iG fore no marvaile though bothj'hn and Chrifis difciples andApofles did cc teach before they baptized, becaufe then no other were capable of baptifme. In this perioch, you grant many things which doe yeeld the caufe 5 for, I. you fay, that both John and Chrifis difciples and theApofiks did teach before they baptized, becaufe then no other were capable of baptifme \ now by this reafon you confefle, *.. that baptizing of infants is not according tojohns and Chrifts difciples and Apoftles practifej2.you fay, then no other were capable of baptifme : Now this is true, either be- caufe then there were no children of believers that might be bapti- zed : but that is abfurd, that in all the time of Johns and the difciples and Apoftles miniftery , believers had no children to be baptized, and contrary to the allegation oiMark. 10. 14. and other Texts, or becaule they had no Commiffion 5 I cannot conceive how elfe your fpeech can be true : But if John, the difciples and i\poftles had no Commilfion to baptize infants, neither have we,and fo to doe it nei- ther have our Minifters any commiflion, for we have no other com- miflion to baptize then they had. But you thinke to falve it thus* ec But when once themfelves were inji ruffed and baptized, then their cbil- the cat echifed even then did witnefje their inward baptifrne to be confirmed c ^ * ?'J' by theoutward,as A&s %.^.whereto,fayes he,belongeth.the Apofiks Creed, ^dmeweth and that tranjlated from the baptifrne of grown perfons to the baptifrne of none l0 t ^ g Infants by a greater error jf you confider the Infants themfehes : t>ofi thou felle»fhip ' believe ? I do believe : Vofi thou renounce ? I do renounce. Whence that of tkejeals of he Tertullian, which is, as it were, in the fiead of a Commentary on this eov ? 1 ™' ' "?- place, in his book^ofthe refurreBion oftbejkfh; The foul is efiablifoed, t fa f tlfyl not by wafhing, but by anfwering. I fay, though Bez* do upon fecond bold of the ?*- thoughts, venant. l6i Infant -Baptifme is a Corruption thoughts, and necrer confideration conceive this to be the meaning yet I build not on it, as being doubtful!, and in mine apprehenfion,ic rather notes an effeft of Baptifme and the refurre&ion of Chrift then a prerequifite condition; and there are other plain places be- fore alledged which do prove the thing, that the baptized were to profefle and promife ; or, to life your phrafe, feal (which I deny not to be the phrafe of John Baptijt, jGh.3.33.) as Acts 8.37.&C. So that the obje&ion is the fame with the fecond. Now let us lee what you anfwer : you fay thus, cc Tie Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Be* cc lievers under the GofielyJeverj one who was circumcifed, was bound to cc k&p the whole Lire, Gil 5 . And thefe men profeff that Ifraeiitifh In- a fants were within the old covenant, when yet they knew not what it cc meant L , nor could have the fame ufe of it with their parents and others cc of difcretion 5 loohjvhat anfwer they will mike for the Jews Infants CQ if true, will abundantly fatisfie for the Infants of Believers under the * c Gufj>el. It is true, this anfwer fervesturn againft thofe that argue from the general! nature of a covenant 5 but it is no anfwer againft thofe that only urge Inftituton and Apoftolicall practice as our rule. As for that which you here, and ail along in your Book, fuppofe that there is the famereafcn of the mixt covenant made with Abraham as with the pure Covenant of the Gofpel, and of every Believer, as of Abraham^nd of Baptifme, as of Circumcifloivt is the n 8 nP 4^©- chief error ; which mifleads you throughout your Sermon, and makes' you fpeak and write in a dialed, which in the Scripture i< unknown And tor that which you fay, « that the Infants of the Jews were as' much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Goflel; ifyoumeanit of common duties, of Euangelicall obedience, it is true ; if you mean it thus (which alone ferves for your purpofe) that perfons to be bap- tized now, are no more tied to make profelTion of faith before Bap- tifme, then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profeflion of faith atore Circumeifion, it is falfe : For, there is now plain Text for the requiring ofit before Baptifme, but not before Circumeifion. But l°r ^ i €Verj r e that Was circ » mci fi d »"" bound to keep the whole L**>,GaI. 5. True, and therefore circumeifion was in the ufe ofit diametrally oppofite to the ufe of Baptifme. You fay, « and theft « menprofejfe that the Ifraeiitifh Infants were within the old Covenant* whtnyet they h& w not what it meant, and then fay, koj^ what anfwe\ "thej of the Ordinance of Bdftifm* i£j ^thty will make for the Jews Infants^ if true, 'will abundantly fatisfie cc for the Infants of Believers under the Gojpel. If you mean this con- cerning the reafon why the Chrijiians Infants fhould not be baptized, though the Jews Infants were circumcifed, this is a true and fatif- fa&ory anlwer, that God commanded the one, but no where the Other 5 and your felf fay 3 pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will efChrift, is that which it the only direction we are to follow. But you adde a fecond anfwer, which I let pafle, becaufeit is but a declaration of your own conceits, cc how yon conceive a childe may feal c<; the covenant in his infancy , teUing us$ that their name is put into the f. this is ? it feems then ( fay they) by your own corifeffion, t bat this qI- L^ n "is but a conditional! fealing on Gods part , viz. that they own it and J chCTei*Na£ the benefit that comes by Infant-BaptUhia. Cc "and I64 Infant-Baptifine is a corruption fc and ratijie it when they come to age 5 and if they then refufe to fland "to it > all is the* nullified >, were it not therefore better to deferre it to <* their jeers of 'difcmion, to fee whether they will then make it their c: own voluntary ali, yea or no. In what f^ufe baptizing may be called fealingj have above (hewed 3 DhTwiJfei Thedoftrineof the Synod of Part. 3. SeB. 12. but I Cannot allow of Bon ,8c Aries ,&c, Part i. §'.3 ./>. rz £ 1 w .l- this, to fay, that Godfeals to every one that- Lmgly cenff,tb,t the SacrammtofB^me is U bjpti £ j - h Baptifme is in thefeaUoftbcriihteoufnc(feoffauhunt9us • r ' r , c , 3 . , £ 1 Z." , Chriftiansi as Orcumcifon was unto the Jervs, ! " nature *M oftht right eoufneffe of faith, Kom.^.whichisas much at to fay, that it af- l \ et - 3' 2l ' Duc yet God doth not feal furcs m of he remifiwn of our fins, as miny .ts this to every one that is baptized, but on- believe; and I conceive it to beavifiblc fignc Jy to true believers: For, what is Gods tnly unto them that beUve, bat of the grace of v ,-P 3 , , r . . . ft w "«>£*«««**• regeneration alfe, but how? not at that *- ^"i- P romlle th righteoufnefle only to #*»f collate, but fuo tempore conferenda;, Believers; therefore he fealsonlyto Be- to wit, when Godjhall cfeftuaUy call a man 5 lievers- As for the fealing by God upon and it uvcry toangc unto mc that regmcrati- condition perfons agnize the covenant, it •n would to before vocation, bee more to rhc i. l m . „ *• 1 c • t fam C DurporeintherameAuthor, /) ^.3§.6. » but a notion, the Scripture makes not ^ods promile in the covenant of Grace conditional! in that fenle : For Gods promife is for thole he enters into covenant with, That he will put his L*w in thei*bearts,and in their mindes will write them, Heb. 1 0.1 6. Nor do I know any but Corvinu* inhh Examen of Moulins Anatomy, J.u/7. 9. feB.6. and the Armi- nians, that do fo fpeak of Gods covenant of Grace, as if it were com- mon to the eleftand reprobates, and conditionall in this fenfe, as if God left it to mens liberty, to whom he had fealed, to agnize or re- cognize that fealing, or to free themfelves, if they pleafe, and fo nul- lify all -, yet fo as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him, as you fpeak. I appeal to them who have been converfant in the writings of the ^rwi«;j«/,whether thefe fpeeches do not fymbolize with their language. And therefore this that you make an objection, I look on as a frivolous fuppofing a Cbim*ra,an& then difputing about it : But yet there are fome things 1 Inall take notice of in your anfwer. "Ibequefiionis, What benefit to Infants by fitch a fealing: you an- fwer thus : « This objection lay asfirongly againfi Gods wifedome in re- quiring the Jews Infants, even in their infancy thus to feal 5 and there- fore argues no great wifdome, ormodefy inmrn, whowould thwnafon mth bod about his adminiftratiom. & of the Ordinance of Btpiifmt. l£y It 13 true, God appointed the male children oiAbrahims family to be circumqfcd,and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law, and it were a finfull preemption to rcafon with God about it ; and in like manner, if God had appointed Infants to be baptized, it would filence allarguings about it, though we knew not the reafon : but how it is to be under flood, that God required the Jews, even in their infancy to feat, I do not well under ftand ; our fealing to God is be- lieving, Job.$. 33. I do not finde that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy, nor of our Infants ; nor was Circum- cifion it felf the Infants duty, required by God of the Infant,though it were itspriviledge, it was the parents duty, Exod. 4. 24. You fay Secondly, cc Gad hatb other ends and ufes of applying thefeal K of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him, then their prefent cc gain, its a homage worjhip, and honour to himfelf; and it behoves m "even in that rejpett, to fulfill all right eoufneffe-, when Chri ft was bap- cc tizzd and cirenmcifed, he was as unfit for the Ord'mance through bis per- "feBion, as children through their imperfettion, being as much above cc them as children are below them. Itistrue,Baptifmeisawor(hipofGod-, but Paedobaptifme, for ought yet appears^ but a will-woHhip. Chrifts Baptifme,it is true, was of a. tranfeendent nature, as is faid before \ that children are un- fit for the Ordinance, is not to be imputed to their imperfeftion,but to the defeft of Gods appointment ; if God did appoint it, there would be no doubt of their fitnefle* But you adde further : 3. I anfwer, K the benefit and fruit of it at the prefent, is very much, By yourparenthefe, you intimate fame inwjard fecret worh^Godu pleafed to worh^ in the Infants baptized, by Baptifme. If you conceive a beftowing of grace, ex opere operato, by the wor\dme : or, baprifmali initial! regeneration of the elect, fuppofed to be in the Infants in bap- tifme, notwithstanding till death they live wickedly, fpeak plainly that we may know whatyou mean, and then an anfwer may be fra- med to your fpeech. As for being members of the Church, if you mean the jnvihblc Church, neither I nor you can affirm or deny -, its in Gods dftbe Ordinance of Baptifme. 167 Gods bofome alone ^ if you mean the viiible, you muft make a new definition of the vifible Church afore Infants baptized will be proved members. For their remembring at tbefhrone of grace daily > if you mean it particularly, and by name, I do not finde that to be in ufe after Baptifme any more then afore, and I think they are remembred by the godly in generall as well afore Bapcifme as after $ and fur the pwiy'mgfor Godsbkffing upon bU Ordinances^ if Infant-baptiime be noc Gods Ordinance, this prayer in reference to Infant-baprifme at that time might be better fpared. iC You fay ; Andlaftly , it's no fmallpri* cc viledge to have that fiak bejlowed on them in their infancy , twitch cc may afterwards plead when they aregrowne^ and come to fulfil the con~ K dition. When, where, and how Baptifme mould be pleaded, as you fhew noc, neither doe I well conceive. It is not Baptifme of it felfe that will yeeld a plea of any force, either inforofolijn the Court of earth pi infiropoli in the Court of heaven , but the promile of God , and the condition of faith in Chrifl And thefe will be good pleas in prayeis to God, and in the court of conference , when Infant baptifme will ft and in no ttead. The pica of the Apoftle will hold, Rom,% . 51,32, £3, 34. which baptifme rightly adminiltroi doth (trengthen, 1 ?&%'• 21. But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-bapdfme in (uch cafes. cc VTOu fay further ; But if their being capable of the jbirituaH part, §• 6 ; cc X mufi intitk them to the outward figne^ why then doe we not alfo ad- ,. * lX ^\ 6C mil them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper $ which h the ftak of the therein of In- a Covenant ofgrace^as well as the Sacrament of Baptifme? And this is ur- fani-c6muni- c * ged the rather, becaufe (fay they) the infants of the Jewes did eate of the on, by vc> tue cc T.jjfeover as well as were circumcifed ; Now if our infants have every way ot ^\ b <; - cc as large aprivikdve as the infant s of the Je-rves had y then can we not de- in ° in l * t °J cc ny them the fame privikdge which their infants had b and confequentbf Lord's Supper * they muf partake of the one Sacrament as well as the otheV. fucccediug die This argument is good, ad homines, again ft the par tie oppofite, Pafledro* proceeding upon the Pasdobaptifts hypotheses or fupp6iidorrs$to wit, l.T'hat.thofi to whom the Covenant belongs, to them tbifealt belongs \ 2. lhat to the infants of believers, the Covenant belongs $ 3. That the Lords Supper is afeale of the Covenant as well as Baptifme. And thefe are your hypothefes. Now then if this be a good argument, children are to be baptized;, becaufe they are in the Covenant, and the feale belongs to thofe 5$, Infant-Bdpifme is a Corruption thofe in Covenant, by the fame reafon they are to receive the Lords Supper, becaufe they are in Covenant, and the feale belongs to thofe in Covenant. Now this argument is ftrengthened from other hypo- thefes, as that the Lords Supper fucceeds the Pafleover, as Baptifme Circumcifion, but children not of yeares of difcretion had the Pane- over, therefore they are to have the Lords Supper. And this is con- firmed by the pra&ife and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lords Supper to infants, for 600 yeares after Chrift as well as bap- tifme. To this you fay ,; ^ leut. 1 6. 1 6. And at that time there was no other food to be eaten, but the unleavened bread, and the pafchall Supper. Therefore thofe males that could eate,though not come to yeares of difcretion fit to receive the Lords Supper, yet were to eate the Paffeover. Ainf- worth notes on Exod. 12.26. So both the outward rite, and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children. Touching whom, the Jewes hold from the L*w in Exod.2 3.1 4. 1 7. Deut. 1 6. 1 4. 1 6. that every child that could hold his father by the handy and goe up from Jerufalem(gates) to the Cotton : The momtaine of the Temple, his Father was bound to caufe him to goe up and ^ °[ *^ f appeare before God with hbn,to the end be might catechize him in the Com- ^"ft f n ° mandements. And who f> was bound to appeare, was bound to keep thefeaft. New .z n ojand* Maimony in Hagigah, Chap.2. feci. 3,4. Alfo they fay. A childe that is able chap. 1 .fetta* to eate amor fell of bread, they catechize him in the Commandements, and To the Paffeo- aive him to eate Co mud: as an Olive of the unleavened bread. Maimony z er dlfewes £-.,«„, »; r r ■ 1-' jf r rf t> r were admitted 7reatife of leaven and unleavenei bread,c. 6. felt. 10. ixit you lay 5 yomg md old> cc If they ft] as fome of them doe, that thfe little ones who were able to un ie{fe defiled iC enquire concerning the meaning of that fervice 9 and capable to receive ivitbfomspoi- cc inftru8ion about it,dideate of the Paffeover with their parents ;I anfwer, &?»»« cc (although the Scripture (feds nothing of their eating,yet if that be gran- cc ted ) it is no prejudice to us, because the G ft ei prohibit es not fitch young cc ones from the Lords Supper, who are able to examine ihemfehes and dif- r iC cerne the Lords body. True 5 but children that were to appeare at the Paffeover, and to partake of it, were many of them fuch as might be inftru&ed con- cerning themeaning of that fervice , and yet too young to examine them- 17° Infant-Baptifme is a Corruption themfelves, or to difcernethe Lords body : fothat if the Lords Sup- per fucceed the Pafleover, and a rule may be drawne from the Pafle- over to the Lords Supper, children unable to examine themfelves, may be admitted to the Lords Supper. % • 7- " I He reft of your Sermon is application , which being riot argu- ?l 'an/the cc mentat . ive ^ l foaH let it pafle. " Onely whereas you charge An *- Anaba^tifts Rom, 4. Gal, 3. Heb, 1 1. D d 2 2. k $74 Coloffians xo. ix,i2. 2. Ic fuppofeth, that the Apoftle, Golof.2. H, 12. mentions Bap' tifme, to fhew that we are as compleat as the Jews in re$e& of outward Ordinances, whereas the Apoftle fpcaksnot, verf. 10. of compleatnefie by reafon of outward ordinances, but fayes , we are compleat in Chrift without outward ordinances, and that is his very Argument todiflwade them from embracing the Jewifh ordinances, verf 8. yea, it is plain, that the Apoftle makes the Jews incom pleat by reafon of their outward ordinances 5 and that it is our compleatnefie that we have all in Chrift, without outward ordinances, verf ij. Nor doth the Apoftle mention Baptifme, to fhew that we areequall to the Jews in outward ordinances, (for the Apoftles aflertion is, that we are compleat in Chrift 3 exhibited without outward ordinances, and fo the better for want of them) butjto fhew how we put on Chrift, and fo are compleat in him, and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptifme 5 as in like manner he doth, Gal.%.26,zj. Rom. 6. 3, &c. Befides, if that by being baptised we are compleat in outward ordinances, then we need no other ordinance, and confe- quently the Lords Supper fhould be needlefle. 3. It is fuppofed, that Circumcifion was atohgi of the Covenant to their children. But this is ambiguous, in fbme fenfe it is true, in fome fenfe it is not true. It was a token of the Covenant made to Abra- ham, to wit. Fir ft, that God made fuch a Covenant with Abraham* Secondly, that God required them to keep the conditions of it. But it is not true in thefefenfes. Firft 3 that every perfon circumcifed, or to be circumcifed, of right had a title to the promifes of the Co- venant- Secondly, that this title to the promifes of the Covenant was the reafon why they were circumcifed. 4. It is fuppofed, that if our children have not a tnkgn of the Cove* nant now, as the Jews had, that it cannot be true thai we are compleat as the Jews. But there is not a fhadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on thefe falfe aflertions : Firft, that the Jews chil- dren wereinVie Covenant of Grace, becaufe they were Abrahams naturall feed. Secondly, that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace, becaufe they are a Believers children ; which things are expreffy contrary to Rom. 9. 6,j, 8. $ . It is fuppofed, that the Jews having falvation by Chrift, had aU fo'a compleatneffe by outward ordinances. It is true, that compared with the Gmtiks that ferved dumb Idols, they were compleat by reafon of proves not Infant-BAftifme. ITS of outward ordinances : For, their outward ordinances did fhadow Chrift tocome, and fo did not the Rites of the Gentiles. But com- pared with Chriftians fince Chrift manifefted in the flefh, fothey were incompleat in refpefc of outward ordinances j and fo the Apoftle determines, <3j/» 4. 1,2, 3* 6. It is fuppofed, th at without a fuccefion offome ordinance instead »f Circumcifion> we are not compleat in Chrijl, or, at leaf, not fo com- pleat as the Jews. But this I account to be falfe, and very dangerous. 1. Falfe, becaufe it is contrary to that which the Apoftle aflerts, that we are compleat in Chrift alone, becaufe in him is the fulnefle of all that was lhadowed in the ordinances of the Jem. 2. It is very dangerous, becaufe the fame reafon that will con- clude, that we are not compleat without a fucceflion offome ordi- nance in ftead of Circumcihon, will conclude, we are not compleat without a fucceffion of fomething in ftead of facrifices, Temple, Prieft, Altar, &c. and fo after thePopifh manner, all Jewifn Rites may be reduced under new names, which would overthrow Chri- ftianitie. -As for our compleatnefle in Chrift without outward ordinances, like to the Jewes, I diftinguifh of a twofold compleatnefle. Firft, in all the will of God,Colof^. 12. And thus we are com- pleat without fuch ordinances : we may do all the will of God be- lieving in Chrift, without obferving any of thofe ordinances. Secondly, of means, in or dine ad finem, in order to the end, that is, to the knowledge of God, and obtaining falvation : And fo we are more compleat then the Jews without thofe outward ordinan- ces or any anfwerable to them. Firft, becaufe they had Chrift only promifed and allured, we have Chrift exhibited, and fulfilling all things. And furely they that have a promife accompliftied, are compleater then they that have it only afliired, let it be aflured never fo firmly. Secondly, becaufe they had Chrift under fhadows, ye the body, Cohf.2. 17. he is the true Shecinah, or Divine Majefiy, in whom the fulnefle of the glory of God dwelt, Col 2. 9. he was circumci- (ion, facrifices, all. And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in perfon,then in a pi&ure, meflenger, &c. that repre- fent him. The Jews were compleat in Chrift as we, quoad rem, in refbeft of the thing, but not quoad modnm, &menfuram rei, inreflett ij6 Coloflians io^ u,i2w ef the manner andmeaftire thereof. So that in the Argument thefe Proportions are to be denied : i. That Colof. 2. i j,i 2. fpeaks of compleatnefle, with refpeft to Ordinances in the new Tcftament. 2. That it could not be true, unleffe Baprifme were to Believerg children^ as Circumcilion was of old. 3. That Colof. 2. 1 1 3 12. cannot be underftoodof thecompleat- ..nefle that Believers have in Chrift for falvation. 4. In fome fenfe it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children. 5 . In what fenfe it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children, in that fenfe the confequence is to be denied, that we muft have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now. FI J\LI S. Latin paffages Endiftied in the fecond Tteatife. Pi Art I . pag. 2. Achilles the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for ibeftrongejl argument. Pag. 5 . Chrift came tofave by himfelfaU; all, I fay, who by him are born agai?i unto G,d, infants, and little ones, and boy es. Pag.' 6. That Baptifine is nude f sod under the name of new-birth in om Lords and the Apofllespbrafe. openly confirming the Aprftolique tradition of the baptifme of little infants again ft Anabaptifticall impiety. Onely 1 would have the younger who frail light on the worlds qflre- nSCUS admonijhed, that they beware ofthofe editions, which that mofl impudent Mo? ;l{^ Feuardentius a man of large bo Idneffe , and of na faith-ihatb foully corrupted in many things 'yandbefiattered with impioui ana lying annotations. Are born again* Therefore being a mafter he hadalfo the age of a majler , not n jetting nor going beyond a man,nor loofing the lawof humane kind in himfelf % hut fantJtafying every age by that likeneffe which was to him. For he came tofave all men by bmfelf; all men, I fay, who by him are new born unto God) infants and little ones> and boy es, and young men, and elder men* Therefore he went through every age,and was made an i?ifant fanUifying infants^ among little ones, a little one,fan&ifying them that havethis age : being alfo made an example to them of piety, andjuftice, and fub- jeQion. Amongyoung men being made an example to young men , and janUifying them to the Lord :fo alfo an. elder to the elder, that he might be a terfeU mtfter not onely according to the exposition of the truth , but alfo accord'mgto age JanUifying alfo the elder, being made alfo an ex* ample to them. And then he went even unto death >,tbat he might be the frfl-bomfrom the dead holding the primacy in all things , the Prince of life; before all, and preceding all. Pag. 7. But we pall the lefje trouble ourfekes concerning Origen j be" caufe the things we cited are not extant in Greeh^ In the margin. If therefore any man before Pelagkis was born , or before Arius arofe, befharp andvehement againfl the errours of Pelagians, and vexing themprofejfedly, although the name of the beret i que s be fupprefi fed, it it not probable that fuel) a writing u tfa Authors wffjje name ip bears. "Ee Pag.8. <¥: /?$■ Latin PaflTages p „ 8 Forlhiialfi the Church hath received a tradition from theAfo- JhefealtotbemtbatenlerintoacoHrfeofhfe. In ,b margin. NotmtbQandingtbe cufrome of our mother the Church tn J^erfm^norat all to he bekeved, unleffe u had heenm Afofio- ^t"iba%f*nt> are ^ntly to he baptized that they ferifi not, .L of the y fcw r^VsS T y tfye tholethinaswhichlhavelaiddowntobeoftheGo^el. , Pat 4 Inthemargin. Andlwatflgnedwithlhefrgneofh^cro^and ill frafonedwithhu fait fromtbe wombe of my mother, who much H'f n f e - . Aum MneaJjudgetb to el email flames &%» AtaMes weachinz, and condemns the wholeChurcb. ...... thtmfCgand founded faith,in which the Church of Chnji be- leZ hit no not little ones mofi lately born can be freed from damna- tion^ by the grace of the name ofChrifr,whch he hath commended Pat" U 'fi££ that movethee, that fome do not bring little ones to fceive baptifine with that faith that they may be regenerated by $in- tuZaTJto life eternal.but became theythinkthat h d~™»* Englifhed in the fecond Treatife. * mtaU,beeaufe they are not offered by them with this intention* For «e- ceffarie mmifteries are celebrated by them. It it anfwend he doth beleeve by reafon of the Sacrament of faith. Pag. 1 8. in the margin. Laftly, whofeeth not that this was the m mner of that time,when fcarce the thoufandth perfon was baptized afore he was of grown age, and diligently exercifed among the catechized. Part. 2. Pag. 2 1 . Thefe to the reft oftho erreurs which they borrowed from the Ma-* nkhees and FrifciSianifts added this over and above , that they faid, that the baptifme of little ones was unprofitable, inafmnch as it could profit none,who could not both himfelfbeleeve,andby himfelf askthe Sa- crament of baptifme, of which kind we read not that the Manichees andFrifciUianifts taught any thing* they mockj* becaufe we baptize infants, becaufe we pray for the dead} becaufe we as\the fujfrages oft he Saints. They beleeve not that F itrgatory fire remains after death , but that the foul loafed from the body doth prefently paffe either to reft, or to damna- tion. \ But now they who acknowledge not the Church* it i* no marveU if they detraU from the orders of the Church, if 'they receive not their appoint- ments, if they dtftife Sacraments, if they obey not commands. Becaufe he tookjway Feftivals, Sacraments, Temples, Friefts , becaufe the life ofChriftisfhut up from the little ones of Chriftians , while the graceofbaptifmeUdenied,norarethey fuffered to drawneer tofahar tion. c . Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity, and a ftudy o\ mediocrity. But in thai man (Idefire to be deceived ) I have feemed to my felf to have found nothingbut immoderate tbirft of wealth a?id glory. Afanatiqueman, andgrofje Anabaptift. Pag. 24. They would feemftudiow of truth. Pa g . 2 5 . The word of the Lord. From theftaffe to the corner. A proverbial! fteecb in Schools, when one , thing if inferred from another, which have no connexion. They who all along thefeplaces of Belgicl^and lower Germany are found bordering on this AnabaptifticaU here fie, are aim ft all fiUowers of this Mennon whom I have named, to whom now this Theodorick batbJKc- ceeded. In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain cpdly mind, who being incited by a certain unskilful! zeal, out nrerrour rather then malice of mind h ave^lep arte d from the true fenfe of Vivme Ee 2 benpuresy f?P- Latin Paffagcs ScntinreSy and the agreeing confcnt of the whole Chunk ; which may he ■perceived by this, that they alwayes refifted the rage of Muniler 3 and Batenburgick that followed aft er D fired up ^John Batenburg*/- ter the taking of 'Muniler, mho plotted a certain new reftitution of the kingdom of Chrift^whicbfbould be placed^? the deftruciion of the wick- ed by outward force. And they taught that the inftauration and propa- gation of the kingdom ofCbrifi con ft ft s in the crojje alone : whereby it haptens that they which arefuch rwy fcem rather worthy of pity and ameiidment-y then perfection and perdition. Pag. 28. What part of time. Pag. 48. Mow it may be that Ifrael may be reje&ed 9 but that together the Covenant of God eft ablifotd with Abraham and hu feedfiould feem to be made void* Jn the margin' The credit of that promife^ Gen. 17. 7,8. doth fr eftntly ap- pear to he brought into danger by the re jetting of the Jem* and the ex- clufim of them out of the Covenant cfGod^ftth they are born of Abra- ham actor ding to the f*fi>fo( faith he ) it appeared to them that look^ upon the fir ft face of things. The Apoftlejbews, that tJmcfre the word of the Covenant 3 and divine, promifes made to Ifrael failed not ^ or was made void , a 'though a tyeat part of the Jews were unbelieving^ becauje thofe promifes of the Gove- nant are oj God^ not to them prpperly who were to come from the feed of Abraham according to theftefr^but to th r .fe 9 who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by venue of divine promift. Pag. 49. Ihe argument oftbeApoftle to prove the Covenant of God en* tred into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the pofterity af Abra- ham in its skirt i we think fhoul'd I e tbusfimply framed. Efau and Ja- cob were of the pofterity of Abraham 3 but God did not comprehend both ofthefe in his Covenant with Abr ah a m . Therefore ?iot all the po- fterity of Abraham. It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of 'grace 3 bee aufe he didnot comprehend Efau the elder 3 but Jacob the younger. Fag. 5°« There are many of the feed of Abraham to whom the word of promife dsth not belongs as Ifmael, and Ifmaelites. But if fo there be many oj the feed of 'Abraham to whom the word of promife doth not be- long) then the reyHion of many Jews wfo are of the feed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promife. la the margin. Calvin gathers bence^ in that any U the feed of Abraham the promife made to Abraham belongs to kirn :. but the anfmrit mani- fih- Engliftied in the lecond Trcatifco feftjbatpromife under fiood of fpirituaUblefJing,pertaines not to the car- nail feed of Abraham, hut to tbe fpirituall, as the Apofile bimfelfe bath interpreted it, Rom. 4. & 9. For if you under fand tbe carnallfieed,now tbat promifiewill belong to none of tbe Gentiles, fat to tbofe alone who me begotten of Abraham and Ifaac according to tbeflep. He zeacbetb slfo tbat tbepromifies of God are net tied to tbe carnall birth; but to belong onely to tbe believing and fpirituall poflerity. For they are not tbefons ^/Abraham,*?/™ are of Abraham according to tbe flejh, but who are according to the fyirit, Pag. ji.In tbe Margin, Ihe inculcation alfo of tbe feed jbewetb tbat one- ly tbe eleU and effectually called are noted, tbe Apofile fo interpreting this place, Rom. 9. 8.GaI,3.i6. & 4.28. Pag. 52. "tbat baptifme dotb not certainly feak in all tbe cbildren of belie" vers t be grace of God (fit b among them fome are abfolutely reprobated, even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity ) and therefore belie- vers are to doubt of the truth ofGsd* Covenant , I am thy God, and the God of thy feed after thee. Pag. 58. H be a fin of Abraham dotb declare nothing elfe but to be freely ele&ed, Rom. 9. 8. and to tread in thefeps of tbe faith of Abraham, Rom. 4. 1 2. and to doc tbeworkes ed or expeBed. Tbe believing wife may with a good confidence keep company with tbe unbelieving husband (for why jhould anotbers confiience defile ber I) Therfore it isfaidjbe unbelieving not in bimfielfbut in his wife (tbat is, in refteB of bis wife)!* holy. The fame we are to judge of tbe otber member. Pag, 74. This is tbe minde of tbe Apofile tbat be may teach, tbat tbe belie- ver is not to depart from tbe unbelievingyokefellow, confinting to dwell together. For proving of which an argument from an uncertain events and by accident U equally unfit as a little before.Hence tbat opinion is re- futed tbat then when tbe unbeliever (ball be converted, holy children will be begotten. For what if tbat never be? V^.y6.VftbatceremoniallholinejfewhatfhallIfay ? It cameinto All- guitines minde, but good God '! how fir ange ? verily Jome things arefo abfurd,that they defervenot to be refuted. Well. Tbe Apojlle bath fiaid, that if the unbelieving husband be not fanBified in tbe believing wife ; it will be tbat tbe children borne from thence are uncleane. Therefore all fi borne are uncleane, or elfe tbe Apofile ft akefalfe. What then ? Are all borne of tbofe parents whereof one is not fanBified in the otber begotten in tbe monetbly courfesWoe unbelieving husbands never ufe their wives but in their monetbly courfes ? So it mufi be verily, or this interpretation is ridiculous. Of that Covenant-bolineffe what jballl fay f It came into Chamiers, Calvins, &c minds ,but goodGodl how fir ange ? verily fome things are fo abfurd,that they deferve not to be refuted. Well ! Tbe Apojlle bathfaid, * tbat if the unbelieving husband be not fanBified in the believing wife, it will be tbat tbe children borne from thence will be uncleane. Therefore all that arefo borne are uncleane, or the Apofile bathfaid tbat which is falfe. What then ? Are all borne of thofe parents whereof one is not fan- Bified in the other, without the Covenant of grace ? Doe fornicating or unbelieving parents never beget children that fball be within tbe Cove nant of grace, or federally holy ? So it mufi be verily, or this interpret a- tion is ridiculous. p a p # 77. l n the Margin. But there is no praiterfriendfbip then of husband and wife, which requires communion ofaffe&ions, body, off- ftring, Uft- Ij of the whole life : which all Nations have with great confent believed to be a thing truly holy 3 that is not found out by man, but by God. P*g«(75) fy f h** * r g mm thatfan&ity is excluded which fo.ne have Engli Acd in the fecond Trcatife. /*& brottlht from education, For by that the argument of the Apoftle is alto- gether weakened. For this is uncertaine. For all know and experience teacheth, that neither all husbands are wonne, which alfo the Apoftle implies, nor that aU children obey holy education. Befdesjfany obey jet this effett is accidental!, and not from the nature of marriage itfelfe. Pag. 89. But fith grangers wafhed and mt circumcifed were held with thofe Lawes onely which God gave to all manl^nde, it is eafie to be un- der flood that this waging was among old tnftitutions,arifing as lthin\ after the great deluge, in memory of the world purged. Whence that fa- mous (beech among the Greeks foe fea wafhedaway all the evils of men. Certainly, we reade even in the Epiftle of Peter, that Baptifme is an- fwerable to the flood. Pag. 9 1 - 1* *> as t0 be added, that not onely to himfelfe and in himfelfe, but alfo for our ufe Chrift be determined to befuch,andfo great, that nothing be wanting in him, and that in him alone we may get all things requi- re to the true and favingknowledge of God.Therefore having gotten ful- neffe in Chrift, wherefore is there need either of humane wifdome,or the vaine inventions, or ceremonies of men, laftly any other thing added be- fides Chrift? Pag. 1 46. In the margin. It was kgowne to the Jews that God hath been wont to give this honour to Fropbets, that he would beftow his gifts on others at the Fropbets prayers , of which impojition of hands was afigne. hismahifift alfo from Gen. 48. 14, 15. that in that rite pray- ers were wont to be conceived for children. Thence it hath been alwayes obferved by the Hebrews, that they would bring children to thofe, who were believed to excel! others in holineffe, to be commended in their pray- ers to God by laying on of hands : which cuftome as yet continues with them. Now this cuftome Chrift approving, [hewes that the faith and prayers of others profit alp that age. Pag. 152. As for that which Erzimmfubjoynesjbat John firft baptized^ then preached baptifme, it is fuch that indeed itfeems not to need refuta- tion. For what ? When John did fay, Repent, for the kingdom of hea- ven is at hand, did he not teach thofe whom hewasabeut to baptize? yea verily, unleffe he had firft taught to what end he did baptize, who at laft would haze come to his baptifme? Certainly, fith Sacraments are fiales,it is neceffary that the doUrine goe before which theyfigne> Pag. 1 53-I» the margin. All thefe rites ofprofejfion of faith, &c. had their originaUfrom the very inftitution of baptifme, nor ought they to be omit- ted* onely to be difpenfed with refibeUto age. FINIS. I i