This book made available by the Internet Archive.

||?.V|^f|^f|^f|^tf^^^^^^

TO THE

Reverend AfTembly cl*-D^^

and Commiffioners ot the CftutCht^/^^%

Scotland nov^ dtUDg^tWefiminpri^ ^^

/:

Reverend Sirs,

Hereon all of yon in generail dri gj eowerned^andfome of you par^ ficularly named in the Bvoke I deal mthj the u orld might happily ha<ve expeSied a joint- en^ dea^our^ where there was a common intereU : T/w/ 1 therefore (whilft yon are otherwife fully employed)pwuld undertake this taske^ I deftre may not bee imputed by you or any to an 0'z/er7(Peenmg conceipt of mine own abilities: for had it faSen tojome of your lots^ IJhould ha^e hoped the Cljurch of QjrtP^ might haz^e reaped more fruit, then it i^ liJ^e to doe by my , f00re and weake endea<i/ours^ But ^y perfo-nail ingagement to ajfcrtthat truth of God • which! fjad held forth in a Printed Sermon^

^^

whii^

The Epiftlc

which m> Learned Ant4gmi0 Cf^ffi^g i>y

Hher booties written by other men on the fame,

argument) was pleafed to ftngle out to combate

withy and to layout his ftrength upon^ hath

called me forth to Jiand Hp in this controver-^

fiCy not as your Champion^bnt as an affeSti^-

nate friend to i he truth^ whii h we are all cat-

J"'^^^- led upon earnefily to contend for'-^ in Tl^hich

confitSi as I cannot but feare thaty oh will ^4-

fily difco<ver my weal^nejfei fo I cannot but

hope that you will notjinde me either fo foiled

by mine adverfaryy ordefertedby God^whofe

canfeJ pleady as not toha<ve fufjiciently an-^

MrMn Gocd- f^^^^d that bookg^ which hath obtained to bee

r^ins anfwer called in frtut^ Thc ftrongeft Shield and

wiTdsQan^r. BuckleF whcrcwith that caule was ever

PfUV^.s! protc^cd i hut in Salem God of old brah^

both Sword and Shield^ and if be hath done

the lik^ now J the weah^ hand which het'hath

made ufe of ferreth onely to point at that

mightie arme ofhis^ which hath gotten him*

felfethe 7/i^ory. Truths trinmph and^the

Churches peace I ha^e had in mine eye^ WH

}>a<ve defired to carry meehjteffe and U^e e*ven

to him^whofe opinion 1 fght with^ all along

in my heart and pen : what ever meajun my

former

Dedicatory.

former writing wet with from him^ I have endeaz/oredto loo kg upon bis with a neither hloodjhot nor Ivftte eye ; paffion blinds tlje one^ and pride makes the other oftMmes overlook^ that truth which a lowly eyefeeth clearly at a nearer diflance : fure I amy the wrath of man work^th not the righteoufnejife ofGod^ whilji /imes j so. the meekg been^ili guide in judgement^ ^^^ ?u]2<. teach his way. V^hat herein God hath ina^ hied me to doey I willingly fubmit to the Chur-ches cenfure^ and humbly prefent to you , not as any way worthy ofyou^ but onely as a pub^ lich^ teJHmony of my reverence and gratitude for all the refrejhings ofjpirit^ and that abundance effpiritnall grace I have found from the hand of God^ whilfi I have had the hap^ fineffet^JitamongyoHifor a yet more phnti^ fuUeffufion where4>fupdnyou^to the happy fet-ling dt lenph ofthefe dijiraBed Churches in truth and peact^is the prayer of

JfrlU t. Your unworthy brothcih,wid

164^. fcrvant in chc Lords vrdrk

Steven MarJhdM,

A Table of Scriptures vindicated

and explained.

ri^^* 17.P.105145 p-p2.

^^ Deut.-^0.6.^.1 28. I>^»r.23«3.vindicated3p.i45^

Bfaj 19. 34. explained,2 io.

£:/4y44. 2>p.l28 Efay^^.ii. p. 128.

(iMalac, 2.15:. vindicated, p. I5<^

c^4^. 28. explained and anfwered> p.209,22^,^^^^

cJW^r. 10. vindicated,p. 221 ^(fhn 15. 2.p^. i38»

J0S 2 . 38,39. vindicated, p. 124. Proves InfanA-

baptifmeby conftquence, p. 218. Affs 15.10. explained and vindicated, p. 217. u^^/!p. 5 .^.vindicated, p. ^p. Rdm,ix.6. vindicated, p. "l^^I- \ - ;-iCpr,-]. i4vvirtdicateid,p. 14?>%5^ 154^1^^75 (^^

m3i.intained againft,pa48. Verfei7,p.i5i.vet"*

34. vindicated,p. 15 !• I Cor. 16. J, 4. explained, p. 199. z Cfin j* ic^ ^vindiiated, t88i"' '.^^'^ ^^•••;-'^--^ -^-^Vn\^ -^^^X Gal 3. 27,28. opened;plM8)^.\AHi^.l5t<*i\ It^.-^i.tX Ephef. 6. 1, 2. cxplained,p. 200. . ...^'v „. ,h,-Colfflf. 2. 8, ^510. vindicated, p. 1 6p, 1 74, H^f, 8,

vindicaj:e4yi83. * s'V»v

1 riw», 4. J* vindicated^ p^ iJ2. " >^^ ;> ^

^v.f\\'

> i

Kf.

^Vt

A Table of Authors cited or vindicated, atid other

materiall things cited in this Trcatilbw

tnaj be ohainedwithout i/^p. 52,50. Wbethir it mty be repeated^p.^y^^S, Saceeeds Gircnmcifion^ p. 164, Pa^ raUelledwithit^ip,id{'^. Inufeamong the lewjy and i^ptyed to Infants at Tvell as to men^ 1 70. ffow it may be pleaded^ p. ^^^,

Beza cited againH his ownt judgt' ment^p, 147, 150.

Bal&mdn vindicated^ P* 31 j3 2.

Bayne vmdicstedi p. i o r^i o2. '

Berengarius no Anabaptifi^ p. ^ 5 • C

CateGhumeni,p. 50.

Chryfofiome mt baptized in his Ja-fancy, p. 27. vindicated, p 177.

Circumcifion^ n'omen not c^pabk of ^h P- 93' ^^^^^J the fpirituallpart of theCovenant^ p. ^S, Baptifme fue^ ceeds f/5.p.i64. ParalUled'rpith&ap^ tifme^ p. 1.45. Why ChriH wot cir-^ cHmcifedandbaptized^p. i6%JHy Jeives infants circUmcifed, paSo. Hoof thi Jews received it^ p. 182.

Chriftianity how it may bee calkd a birthright^p,iig, .

Chamlcr often cited to no purpofi^i^S. A^ainfi his owne judgment^ p. 147.

Co^nftantine M. whynotbaptizjtd in hit infancy^p^l*}, ;U*ii .^

Cottjon viodieat^^p. it^yHttt^ith rO Mr.

ABrahanvi[?e Covenant with him no m^re ndxt then with us-^p.^j* Profilytes were his feedylQO» Sawere civiU Judiciaries reputed^ p. loi, 104.

Adcodatus why not baptized in his in^ pnty^p.j^S,

Alipias why not hjiptizedin his infan-cyj Ainfworth, p» 171.

Albigenfes no Ansbaptijis^ p. 64,

Anabaptifts mt like the Non^Confir-milij^p,j2. Zheir ancimt errours nen>Iy firing up againe^ p. 73. Op-pofed Mjgiftracy ^ P* 75* ^*^ ^^ difftrtnce between Infants oj Chrifti-ans andTurk^Sy p. 86387.

Arsthis vindicated ^ P**75* Proves Baptifme to fncded Circttmcifion by the Ancients^ p. 176.

Athanafius mentions Infam-haptifmey

p. 2C.

Hdga^mtvindioated^ p» 43» &c. Why not baptized in hvs infancy^ P'4^?

47-

B Ball vindicated^ p, 6. Baltazzar Lydius, p. 64, Baptifiils eaUed a new birth hy the

Scripture; and the Ancients^ p. 12.

Ancitmty deferred^ p^ 22. Salvation

The TabU.

circumcifed^ p. i8o. Ifhuher 7«w fdnts may be faid to hie beleever/^ p, i J I. Op(ghi i§ be baptizedtbuugh r^e k^ow not tb^ tbtj bane grace^ p. 2 3 2. H^yp ihcir Bapti/mt is commanded i«Matth.28. p.207, Capable ofibe grace whereof Baptijme if afignty p. 21^, 224,2ad. Infant-baptifhie^ Antiqititf of it vhi-dicattdy p. 7, f^c. p. 44,45. Epifco-pacjnot fo ancient at it^ p. 8. J^bj fime Ancitnts fpeak^ not of it^ p. j ^, Athanafius, p 2 o. Andb) Epipha-niiis, p. 21545. ^of difpnvid be-caufe of quefiiompHt to the partj that TV as to he baptized^ p. 2jl • &e, Gro-tiiis HQt to he relyed upon in it^ p. jp^ The Greek, Chnrcb received if^ p. 3 2, j4fft rted by TertulJian, P- 3 5 • A^d Cyprian,p.38,39. &c. By Augii-ftine3p,43.€^c. "By Fiilgenti»s^p!50 How it it caUed atradiiiim , p. 44, Wh) not mentiomd in Cottnceh before that of Cartlvagej p. 49. Ssill ac-howled^tdin the Chnrcb, p. 6^. 7le nyeCiiRg of it not the way to K^formj-tioHy p. 76. Example J of it by confe-qtttnee^ p. 218. "Noi a Will rporfinp-y p, 195,2 2 5 ► BeiiifitJ of hifajit-hap" tifmey^6. No occjfiun of bttmcmt inventions^ &t\Tt^l. ]ohnB?,pti^ initiated to theCbrifihn \igitrted by the Ancienu, p. 14^ • ^^' c^, p. 171.

I Ircn«iTS vindicated^ p. i o^ 11^12. > '

Infints/^i5f« intocovenjm with their Juftine Martyi^ vindicattd, 9^ lo./. Fa^inf/y,iQ*y,oJ^beUeverjleftbyMr. , L .mv -i'\

Tomb^stobeunderthe^^^vilskj^g" LudoyicasVhcsexamimd.p.^j^^^, d9me:,p^ii2* ^^hy Jemjb /w/j«// ' Lwds-day^p. 8o^8rj82. Fnned ^j

€mife»

Mr. Rutherford reconciledyp. 123.

Cyprian vindicated^ p. 38. &c.

Coyenznt and Sealconne^iei together^ p. 89, lyhat if meant by being in the Covenant^ p. 89. Covenant of grace aba? ay rs one and f be fame, p. 97. Infants tjk^it2t9 the Covenant with ibeirTdrentSip- 105. Men may bee mtder it feverall rvayej^p, 106. Fri-vikdges of them who arennder the ex* temaM Covenant^ p. 108. A^j ixter-nail right to it pr^ed^ p. 140. The fromife in it not peculiar to Abraham p. 127. D

Difcijf^cSj Tphat h is to msihiDifciples^

p, 2i>j2J352l43&C.

E Epiphanius mentions infant-haptifme^

p. 21,45 ^

Seed of Fle(h whai,pJOi»

G Goodmnvindiiiatedj p. i43' Grotmsnottohee relyed onahout in* fatit-baptifme:, p. 29. Mifnports

iheGr^ekS^tirch, p. 32333,34. Qoipdhorv iirnditianahy p. 23^.

H

U^icVahk Story.p.yi,

Hcnriciis Stephanus mif recited:, p.

Holiiicffe derivative and inherent not ofedi p. X4I. Fed.rall bolinejfe

The Table,

Comparijon kivcecn ivitknca forrt^&

Lords Supper not eaten kj nnhaptized

N Na2ianzeni^i«<j//>«/f^3p-l8. not baf»

tizid in his Infancy^^. 26. Nation ivhen it k to ht reputed Chri-

ftianyp2il. "^cocxhrczn Ccumell vindicated^ p.

5O531. o

Oiigen vindicated^ p. 15 516^ 17.

Parents helemng are roots of their chUdren.p, 142. . ^

Paireovcr, our Sairament cenies in pjdofit^p.20^,

PrivHedges ohtj-^ not flraitmd^ hut inlargedip. 185. J great ahridgi-mtnt oj ihem to have ifcr children left 6Hi ^f the Covenant, p. i C3.

VhoiiasPatriarchy p. ^3.

Qiveftions ptit to the baptisfi^d dif pfijve n9t bapiJjmt.yA I >vay tbtj prove ii,p.52.

R

Rogers vindicated^ p. 5-

Sclden^p, 170.

Stv^hoeXJmined^p.^y.

Sacrament nob it it feales ahfolately^ and conditiunallj ^11 J. Horp tb*J are Sealefy p. 201. our ruh tn admini^ firing ;^tW;p.'2 35. hdrp ne may argne from Jems Sacraments to 0Mrp,p

J^8.20U

Tombcs hit way ofresfink^p. 3 • i oJ"

125.134. Vnjkftlj chargej the Af*

fef»hlj,p*J9. ibinl{efjemi may he fa*

zed out of the communion of the vh

fhle €hurch,p, 8^. He joynej with

Servctus^p. 105, QranH^r^j^i ifjn

controverjie.^p»i 8J .By conjeauehce di'

ni^j Circumcijiontobee a Jeah of any

thing^p,\%l, makes it a priviledgc

not to have Infanti hap tzfd^ p.lSj,

He mah^j thiCoVinznt Heb 8. to vt

the Covenant of n^ori^/^p* X &8« Mif^

interpret J the 2 Cor. 3.10, p. l8S.

Leaves all Ir^anis of heleevers to he

under the VeviBs h^gdeme^ p. 112.

S^mbolizith mtb Arminius^ p. 144.

compares Friefis and Minifiers to no

purpofiyp. 168. condemnes his oWne

opinioncf Infants conditiimpPn2^^,

Tertulhsinjpeaklfir Infant'Bapiifm^

P«35-Talmud, p. 171.

V Vines vindicated^p.y g 4 Uilicr de fncceffione Chr, Ecclef^p.^^

Voii\iTbefej,p.6^,6^,

W WaldcnfeSjp. 64. no Anabafiifis^p^

Hifiorjf p/Waldenfi$:p.^4.

Women not capable of Ciretttncifim% p.^^.bofpCirffumeifedin the men^ p,94. ifihiy had mi been eftumed as circHmcifed they oould not hava f#-tentbe Pa^egver^^%

Errata,

pAge 11 o. Line 11. re»d,you will not doe, p. 14 4.1, $ 4 for where r. were p 14 5.J- 3 5.r.*

-t/?r4/?-,p.i57J.iJ,<iclenot,p.i64.l22.r/e^H?fMr,p.i65.|.,;.r.part 2. P.167.I 6.r.C<i-

■/f<^^MW<f«/,p.i<73 l^j.r.imputeto youa renfe,p.i7 5.i.i6.r.fo vrifta^;.^^;^;, p 176.I.1 3.

^•fnferimyU6s,tempBri,^A7%X^^A.fatJm^ 199.I.1.

4ckcommaafrerom«i*W,p.2i3.1.I.r.'!1>Dvn p. ^ij-^. 5.r. pn^DlD P i^i-^-T^r.asfor sa.p,226.1.I9.ferBaptifnieand prayeraUonejr. baptizing into the mmeofde ^athir^ SonneandbolyGhcfi,iindjpi3LycrA\lor\e,Ui2.iorf his baptilme and prayer was aj^ one^read^that Andnias his baptizing TauIJnte the name ofchrifi^ or into the mm of ihi y^ther^ Sonne and holy Ohofljmd Pauls calling upon the name of the LordgWas all one. v ,

it^Vi^^V.) >u

'.^•^c'^^-^-;!'

INFANT -BAPTISME

LATE INNOVA^rQ^^-^':!^ But cleared to bee as Ancient 'a:?^^

is pretended. ^C]^

Received your Book about the time mentioned by your felf: whick when I had read over 5 and thereby perceived how meane an efteem you had not onely of my Sermon, but of all other things extant, in defence of Infant-Baptifine 5 and indeed of all Men whoie judgement differs from your owne, and how highly you value your own performance in this piece: I conclu* ded you would have no reft in yourfpirit untillitfawthe light '-i and the rather^ because you fo carneftly prefTe mee Ta call in to my ajjifiance all the reft n>ho are ingaged in this Cauje yth^t fo you might have an adverlary fit to deale with, that as a mighty man you might incounterwithan Hoft» But when after fome friendly conference with you, you declared to me, that if you might enjoy liberty to exercife your Miniftery, in fome place where you (hould not be put upon the pradice of baptizing of Infants, you could (yea,

B and

l»fa<it'Baftifme Tio late JnncvMton^

and intimated to me that yon would ) kcepe this Opinion private to your fclfe, provided cnely , that ifany fhould preach in your Pulpit for the Baptizing of them, yoii ftould take your felf bound in the fame place to preach a-gainft it, otherwife Mens preaching or printing abroad^ riiouldbe no provocation to you. (In hope whereof, my fclf endeavoured to help you in to the place where now you-arC) deiirhig the Church might not lofe the benefit of thole good gifts which God hath bellowed upon you.} And thereupon I tooke no further thought of any prelent Examination of your large Treatife, having my hands full of other employments 3 becaufei I verily thought you would have fate quietly dowujpreached Chrift^kept your Opinion to your felf, and not have any farther appeared ( efpecially at this time) tolacreafe the flame of our Diviiionsand con* fiifions.

But lince you think itnecelTary to deprive the Infants of Bcleeversj of that which wee conceive to bee their glorious priviledge, yea^ andlooke upon all other endeavours of Reformation, as things which will come to nothing 5 till this opinion of yours prevaiie (lb dearely are you in love with your own Babe ) and come out into the field ib bra-vingly, andgiant-Iike^ to tread Ao^n all who ftand againft your way: I have (with the Lords alliftance) undertaken your pompous Treatifeand as farre as my impaired health, and other Services would permit^indeavoured to bring your Examtn to thetryall, with as much brevity and cleai'enelTe as I couldpoflibly; and I hope al/b^ with fo much evidence of truth, that there (hall be no need of a Colledge to make any fiuther answer unto you. Wherein I (hall not (as you have done) carpe at every phrafe or exprelTIon, nor digrefle into impertinent Diftourfes, thereby to fivell up a volume; jQor amufe the Reader with multitudes of Quotations of Latine and Greek Authors, and then turn them into En-gli(h; nor frame as many ien(cs of an exprcflion as \s polli-ble, and then conftite them, andfb fight with men of ftraw of mine own letting up j nor Ipend a whole (beet of Paper together, in confuting what was never intended by my Ad-

vex'fa-

hut clurtd t0 he as Anciem as it pretended.

verfary, as the Reader fhall clearly perceive you have deak with nie: but plainly grapple with you, and inliAoncly upon wha.t properly belongs to the cau(e in hand*

But firft give me leave to obfcrve your defiru&ive Arth ficc. It is the ^vcwzjw/way to elude all Texts of Scripture which are urged again ft theruj if they have been differently expounded by Learned and Godly men, ancient or modern: to queftion all conclufions infer'd by consequence from Scripture: to deride the teftimouies of any of the Ancients, by di/i:overing the nakedneflejerror^and overfight of thole Keverendmen: and by making them (elves merry by turning the Orations, Epiftles, or allufions of the Fathers into Syliogifmes; andby infer ting of ^r^<7, now and then, to make all their Rhetoricall palfages feem ridiculous. I appeal to the judicious Readcr,whether this plot be not carried through your Examen 8cExercitation.ElpeciaIly I obferve yourmaine faculty to lye in framing ipecious anfivers to Arguments brought to prove any thing. Your great Argument in your Exercitation is, if / can anfiiPeraU Arguments for baptizing Infants^ then&c. And then you form the Argument into feverall (hapes, and feek to elude th«m5 and herein I confelTe you are dextrous. The reft of the Arguments wherein you doe aO[ert,orgoe dire£^ly to provcialade how inconsequent are they, as will appeare when they come to bee examined. The like cour/e you take in your Examen:, laying out abundance of ftrength in the anafccun-' fiicaOputj waving and eluding the dint of an argument, by difiinHionj and Jeverallfenfes, and finding/ww men of note tj conflrne a Text othern>a^es^ and the like. So that the Reader may fee what you doe not like, but he may ftay long enough before you bring fatisfying arguments to fettle him in that which you wouldhave^^^h.a\yon have ftartlcd him, in what you voould not have. But this kind of diiputing never edi-ties the Church : what one book was ever written by any of our Divines, even in the great point of Juftiiication, or Faith; which fome learned andfiibde Papift hath n ot beca ^ble to cloud and flur in fuch a way of anfwcring? Well, however I proceed to your Exatmn.

B 2 And

Replete the And I begin with yoviT Prologue 5 wherein you declare

^^yoH mak^ to 6*v ibif* Firft , jm pm (<» yo^ fiy ) Nine *' Argument J drawne up in Latim io aCommiitce appnntfd( as ^^yoH rpere informedjto give Jatisfa&ion about points oj P^do" ^^ ^apiifme-^ after jvard Three Arguments more^ vpitb a Juppk--^mefit of fame other things in "writing y nrhich were delivered i^ to Mr. Tuckneyj^/z^^j himjoyned to thd ether Papers'^ year ^^ intent being either to givs or receive fatisfaBion in this ^^'great point'j but to this day (much contrary to your expelfd' ^^ & at inn) you have had no returne from the Committee* Se" ^* conily^you are more provoked ify fomcpaffages in a Sermon of Mr, *' Vines. Thirdly^ and by a cvmparifon in my Sermon^ betrveen ^' Hazaelscrae/zy to the Infants of the Ifraclites, and the prin* ^^eiples efthe hnabiptlAs* Fourthly^ you finde mee too ve-** hewent in maintaining of this point , of tvhich yu and others ^fe'e no ground, fifthly^ yea Mr. Dan. Rogers confejfej ^'^ himfilfe unconvinced by demonfiration of Scripture for it, ^^ Sixthly^ that Mr, Bd\l cuts the fineries xif the Argument ^ dratPnfrom Circumcifion, Sevcntbly^ihat Mufculiis at length ^^ found I Cor. 7.14. imperttne?itto prove this point. Eighth' ^ly^ to conclude, upon your befi fearch^ yott are confirmed that ^Ht is an Innovation maintained by dangerow principles, a ^ thing not to bee acquitted fiom WiU-rvorfhip'^ that it hath ^ occafioned-rnany errors in Vo&rine, corruptions in Vifciplim , ^ and mannerSy unnecejfary and vaine dijputes^andalffioji quite ^*^: thanged the Ordinance ofBaptifme^ &c.

This is the fiitn of your Introdu6i:ion5 to which^ becaufe it is but a pompous dumb fhew, I fhall returne a very briefe an(wer. ,

Firfl^i, for your Latine bufinefTc fent to the C bmmittee^ 1 thouglit you had not been ignorant, that the worke of Committees^ is but to prepare matter for the AfTembly, but neither Committees norAffembly have power to anfwer any thing,fent from' aiiyCexcept from the hotiorableHoufes;with-out leavfc from* th^ P^rlianient!/^rtd if you pleafe now to take nBtice oHtjyou W1IJ hb Itmgernvbnder why the Committee hath made no return to your private Paper 5 this I thirike

ht ckdredu be as AncUn^ as ispmended,

is fuflSdem to remove your fii^ft ftumhling block: onely I amfiirrfiertotell you from OWr. Twc^wey^ thatheedelires you to getbetcer evidence for what you relate concerning him 5 fbr the truth is, he neither mediately nor immediately received any Papers from you^nor joyned your 3 laft Arguments to your 9 firft.

Secondly, your oifence at a paflage in Mr, Vims his Ser-mon^ fliall bee coniidered in the place where you againe repeate it, and aggravate it to the utmoft, V.tn 2. SA 6.

Thirdly^as to your exaggerating my allulion to Hazaels practice* I answer, I compared not their inientions-wkh hisy but the fruit oif their principics 5 cafting all beleevers Children as much out of the Covenant of Grace^ as they do the Childi'en of Turks and Pagans,and therein you your felf joyn with them.Now whether fiich a comparison might not be u(ed with out any further Apologie, I leave the unprejudiced Reader to ] udge.

Fourthly, whether my proofs for this Doftrine are weak^ uncertaine, far-fetch't, (hall God willing appeare to them^ who wil impartially read and compare your book and mine together.

Fifthly, as for what you fuggeft from my Reverend and Learned Friend, Mr, "Dan. Rogers^ although enough might be taken out of his words in that book, to declare his own meaning ^ I rather chufe to fet it downe in the very words which he wrote tome in a Letter^ bearing date the 29 of J^-nuary lafi: pal^, in way of anfwer to a Letter which I wrote to him '■> wherein I requeued of him to know, what in his name I fliould anfwer to this paiTage of your book: his words are thefe* If I were to anfrrer that- Ariabaptifl ^ I jhofild anfwer ^fwt filentio & cbntemptu:/or wh)Jhould 1 noti fince 171 that very place of my Saoraments^psirt l*p,y^^yg. where I confute thofe Schifmatickl^he fnatches my jvords from their own defence^ My words are^ I confeffe my jelfe unconvinced by any dtmonpration of Scripture for P^do-Baptifme^ meanings by any pofitive Tcxt'j what is thiit to helpe him ? Except I thought there were no other arguments te evince it: NomfwhatTthinke ofthat^ my TtePQf words y^e»7,pag. 77. lin. 435 »f>^']*l need not ttanferibe

B 3 tbem^

them. Inavpordythkl fay^ though I kfjoiv none,y€t that k no argument for the non-Bapttzivg of Infanti . Jinoe fa many Scriptures ate fufficieJitly convincing for it. Therefore this want §fapofiPlve Text ffftift no more exclude Infants^ &c. thentht lik^ reafon jhoulddifjTmll a Chriflian Sabbath^ or Wcmen-kind riot to be partakers of the Supfer : The quoting of mine ovpn Text were enough.

6.1f Mr.Ball cut the finewes of the 'Argument from Cir^ cumcifion to Baptifhie, himfelf was very much miftaken in his owne meaning and intentions^ who in the very fame place alledged by you^ufes the fame Argument^ & makes the parallel to lie in the fame things which my Sermon doth: you might have done well to have informed the Reader fb much, when you ufed his authority to overthrow that Argument: his words are thefcj, ^^ Circumciiion and Baptifme '^ are both sacraments of Divine inftitution , and To they ^^ argree in the fubllance of the things lignified^ the Perfbns ^^ to whom they are to be adminiilredj and the order of ^^'adminiftration, if the right proportion be obferved; as " Circumciiion fealed the entrance into the Covenant, the ^^ righteoufnede of Faith, and Circumciiion of the hearty ^*^fbdothBaptifhiemuch more clearly 5 as, Abraham and ^^ his Houfhold, and the Infants of belecving Jewes, were *^ to bee Circumcifed; fbthe faithful], their families, and '^ their feed are to be baptized. Circumciiion was to bee ^^ but once applyed by Gods appointment 5 and the fame ^^ holds in Bapti/hie, according to tlie will and good plea-"fureofGod.

Seventhly, I perceive you gloiy much that MnfcHlw hatfi dcferted i Cor,j. 14. as an inipemncnt proofe for baptizing of Infants, and you repeat it at leati three or foure times in your book: and I obfer ve throughout your whole Treatife,thatwhenany Authour joynes with you in any particular, you improve his authority to the utmofl j which makes me conceive, that it would be a great glory to you, to be able to prove aconfcntof Learned men to concur v;ith you in your way. And therefore I cannot but wonder that you fhould fo much flight and undervalue

die

but ckdred to be as Artcient m is frtundtd. j

the Judgements of Fathers and Councells^ Harmonics and Confeflions of whole Churches, when they differ from you. As for MnfcnluSi whether he changed his Judgement upon I Cor^ 7. on good grounds, (hall be examined in due place: In the mcane time I informe the Reader that in the fame place Mufculw acknowledges that there are Arguments enougIi,andfiifficieiitIy llrong to prove baptiziiig of Infants, though this i Cor. 7. be left out. And i^ Mufculm Opinion (way in the one, I hq)e it's not to bee rejefted in the other.

Eightly^whetheriDigw^w tanto tulitblc pr9mifforhiatt(\\^\\^ ther your roaft be anfwerable to your great boaft5 Whether your Arguments and Anfwers will make good this high charge that Paedo-Bapti/hic is an Innovationj maintained upon dangerous principles, &c. we proceed now to examine. .

And fi-ift wee fhall inquire concerning the Hiftoricall SeCl, j. part, jy^ketherV^do'Bapiifme sfitisnow taught^ be hut a late Pvep/yrorhe Innovation : n^ktber it bee not as ancient of if preten'- Hlftorical parr, ^^, vindicating the

Becau(e many of the Anabaptifts fliame not to fay. That f n^rn^r Bimifiii, thf AncientSjcfpecially the Greek Church,rejefted Infant-Baptifme for many hundred yeares; I faid in the beginning of my Sermon, that the ChrilUan Church hath been in the pofTeilion of it for the (pace of 15 00 years and upward,and * named a few teftimonies out of the Greeke and Latine Fathers, in little more then one page, to make this good ; no wayes intending to make the weight of the Queftion to hang in any degree upon humane teftimonies or confcnt of authority, but onely upon the evidence of the Word, upon this you have beftowed two or three (heets of your book, andjas if all Antiquity run on your fide you confidently ^ affirme:

«« I. Aj much may hee faid fir Epijcopacjy keeping of Eafier^ ^* (he reUoioui ufe of the Crojje.

2 . ^^ That my highefi Tefiimonies nacb not fo high

g JnfAnt'S^pifmi no late Jnmvation^

: s. ^^That being rightly mi^d^ they ma^^ rather agaitifi cc ij^g prcfent VoCtrine andprMice^ then fir it. : A.^' Thatilxreanmanj evidence j» tpbicbdoeofftrmglj frcrve^ <c tbatfromthe beginning it i^as nrtfo^ ^r2dtherefore if but an Jn^

innovation* Thefirltofthde yoiT fcippofe fo cleare to t« Scholars^ that it is needlefTe for you to bring any proofej «^ the other three you undertake to make good in your fub-€<^ fequentdifcourle.

Truly Sirj your undertaking is very high and confident:^ and I (hall diligently weigh with what ftrength you perform itj and (ball therefore more fully inquire into the pra<^ice of Antiquity in this point, then elie I fhould have judged convenient to doe. As for that which you tooke for granted. That there are plaine teftimonies for Epifcopacy, the Religious ufe of the Crolfc, &c. before any teftimonies can be produced for the baptizing of Infants, pardon mee that I forbear to beleeve you till you have made it good. I have already alledged fome^ and fhall now (God willing)alledge more teftimonies to prove that in the Judgement of the Ancients, the baptizing of Infants was received in all ages,and from the veryApoftles,as a divine TnftitutionJ read no fiich thing for Epiicopacy, as a dirtinc^ order from Presbytery^ your £d^c may read in Dr. Reynolds hisEpiftle to Sir Francis KnoUs^ that in the Judgement of Ambrofe^ Chryfojiome^ Au^ gu^im^ Theodorei^ TheopbyhU:^ Otcumenitif^ Primafim^Sc dHlim^Grt^oriM^andmanypthtr^ that Bifhopsand Presbyters were all one by divine Infiitmiorj^ and that EcckfiafiicaU fo«/^i/»/wK made the difference between them. Much leife doe I read among them,that the Religious ule of the Crofle was received in all ages, and that as a divine Inftitution. Ifyoucan make it out that theie things were fo, you will do a very acceptable iervice to the Papifis^^Anabapiifts^^ Fre-laticall Tarty^-who no doubt will return you hearty thanks^if your evidence be correlpondent to your confidencc.Ifyou cannot, you (l^ould doe well to revoke this bold afTeition, In the meajie time I (hall examine your Examen^ of the Antiquity produced to make good the praftice of the Ancient Church in Paedo-Baptifme. The firfl whereof was taken frotii Juftim Martyr. Your

Your firft exceptioti put in againft this teftimony is con- Mln^Mdrt)?^ cernin^the year in which he lived; I faid 150; thereupon ,^^^^*^^,^j^^^^^^^ you ch^arge me with oierlafiiwg^hcc^ufe I aBrmcd.the Church vindicated. had been in poffiffion of the priviledge of bapiizing Infants 15 00 yeares and ifpn^ardf. Yet my ovcrlafliing herein, is not fo much as you would have the world believe* though my teftimonies had pleaded for no higher time then i$o after Chrilt: Neither have I overlafhed fo farre in this C ^s God willing hereafter (hall appeare) as you havfi done more then once. I faid the Church was fo long in poflelfion of it j and if you bee plea-fed to (iibtraft 150 from 1^4$. I hope the remaining numberwillfhew the miftake was not great, as appearesin the margent.Tf the Church was not all the while in pofJeIIi= on of it 5 it had been your part to have informed your Rea* i ^ 4 5 der of the time, wherein the Churches quiet polieilion was 150

difturbedj and by whom. It is true, I named Baltazzar ?a^

commitanm with his aflbciates^who to their own ruine ftar- 14 9$ ted up to difturbe this pofleflion: but the claim of an unjufl: intruder to juftlc out the true owner, will not carry the Title in any Court where equity takes place. In pleading the Churches poffeifion of this truth for fo long time,! faid not fo much as others have affirmed before me 5 Learned Aw gufiine (though his judgement bee (lighted by you") affirmed as much in his time^and yet I read not of any then that excepted againft him for it: Ihe Church (fiith he) ever had it^everbeldity they received this from the faith of their Ance* f^ocEcckpi ^ fiors^snd this vpiU it n>iih perfe-verance keep unto the end^ ^^^^^Z7rte£\* might fay that the Church before his time ever had;,& main- f,^ca majomm tainedit, and if after his time it was more clearely held out, fide iccepitjb$e then I hope I did not overlafh in faying the Church had bin «/?''« finem 1500 years poffeffed of it. And it were an ealie task to pro - ^^n^^^^^T^'' duce abundance of teftimonies, giving evidence (not one- Scrm.'iT.dc ly for their own age,b(it)that it was the received cuftome in verbis Apoft# all ages even from the Apoftks time>& that this evidence waf truey t»e may hence %7n?3(faith Learned V^Jfitu') hecaufe the Pc-lagians never durft deny it^ when the Orthodox Divines ufed topreflcit, who certainly wanted neither Learning nor

D will

will to have gainfayed their, ifthey could have found the"! abufing Antiquity: nay, they not onely not denyed this, bur concurred in it, fb faith Atigujiine^ lib, i . contra C£!ift. & Felag, C^lifius (flxkhhe^ in a book which hee fet forth at Kome^ grants, That Infantj tpere baptized for the remijjion' of fifij^ according tot he rtik of the tmiverfall Church^and according to she fnte nee of the G of pell.

In the next place you tell me I know th^it hool^ from whence this tefiimonj was tak^n^ was quefiioned whether it was Jufiine Martyrs er no. Truly I was not ignorant thereof? therefore I faid, iff a Treatife that goes under his name 5 I did not confi-dently averre that he was the Author of it,,yet you plainly G ill it a baftard Treatife, and never prove it.but whofefb-ever it was, it is well known to be ancient; and both Pro^ teftants and Papifts aflerting Psedobaptifme cite it..

Thirdly, I take notice that you aniwcr nothing againft the taith of the teftimony it i^cVc ; onely you fay 3 that by it 1 may fee that the reafin of baptizing Infants was^ not the . Covenant of grace made to beleevers and their feed ^ tfhhhyon mah^ the ground of Baptizing Infants at this day. You cannot be ignorant that this tellimony was not alledged by me to prove the ground why it was adminiftred; I onely made ufe of it to beare witaeffe to the matter of faft, that Infants were baptized in that age in which MMrUQH $6 ^hat booke jwas written , which is plairiely held out in the aniwer to the queftion^you may alfo remember what Ifaid of alltheteftimonies quoted by me, that I did not relate them to prove the truth ofthething, but onely the practice of it; and fo much it doth notwithftanding the aniwer which yet you have brought unto it: what ground theCovenant of Grace made to beleevers and their feed, gives to BaptifmCj (hall bee manifefted hereafter, and whether the Ancients ufed not ( at leaftt) fome of the Arguments which we doe. p. ^. Come we now to cpnfider what you anfwer to Iren^us his

irenms fefti- teftimony j here you fpeake, i. Of his Countrey. 2. Of mony "f^^^^'^^^^' thc^geheliy^dm, 3. i ouqueftionhistranflation. 4.And inthelaft place you fpeakia little againfl the teflimonyit mf^. Before

Before you fall upon the examination of the teftimony, you fay, Hee rv49 a Greek^^ andtProte m Greece ,* bf*t wee have his IVorks in Latlm ^ except feme fragments: this you conceive to be a reafon why rve cannot be fo certain of his meanings as we fijould be^ if wee had hU owne words in the language in which he wrote: and may not this Objeftion lie againft any Tranfla-tion ivhatfoever ? and upon thatground you may flight it. I cannot guefle why you adde this ^ P^p^op^ that hee was a Greeke^ &c. unlelle it were to intimate to your Reader that I could not difcern whether he were to be numbred in the Catalogue of Greek or Latine Fathers: yet you know that I mentioned him in the firft rank of thofe Renowned Lights of the Church, which wrote in the Greek tongue^ to which afterwards J added tv/o other: and when 1 came to ipeake of any of the Latine Fathers j Cyprian was the firft in whom this queilion did occurre. But whether his words in the teftimony alledged bee truly tranflated into Latine, (hall by and by be confidered.

As for his age, you acknowledge with me, that h>e lived rn the fame Cemttry with Juji, Martjri theyearein which he flourifhed is varioufly related by the Authors named by yourfelfe, onefayesiSo, the other 1833 I may adde a thkd who varies from them both, and fayes 175, and may Trithem, not others point at other times alfb ? For ought I know, you needletly trouble your felfe, and your Reader, in naming particular years in which thefe famous Lights of the Church lived, which I thinke can hardly with exa6i:nefle be done : it i s (afe to fay, about fuch a time^ or m fuch a Cen^ tury^ fuch and fuch livedo which cannot bee prejudicial] to the Reader, when wee know a Century Includes many years: neither can any man warrantably reftraln it to any one year alone wherein fiich a man flourifhed, as if he had flourifhed one year and no more.

But I proceed to what you fay of the teftimony it felfe, it is extant, 7re^. 2,39. Chrifittsvenit falvateomnes^&c. Your exceptions againft it aremany.

'' Firft, you queftion whether rensfcuntur there Gg^ *^ iiifies baptifme or no, as Feuardentiuf his gIofletafcc« it;

C 2 Se-

^^ Secondly^ You fay, that neither Chrift nor his Apoftles ^^callBaptifmea new birth* Thirdlyj poUibly.this was ^^ not the word uftd by Ire»£m m his own Writing. *^ Fourthly, that the Latine alters Iren^m his niinde, a5 '^^^ learned Kivei (ayes. Laflly, that hett^m meant not ^^Baptiihieinthis place^ you goe about to prove by his fcope therein. Thefe arc your exceptions which now wee come to examine.

To begin with the firft of them, when Iren^us faith, Chriftus venit falvare omnes qui per eftm rtnafcuntur^nfantes & parvulos. & pueroj^ &c* Fird you gut-ftion the meaning of p, 5 ^ the vjordrenafitmtur , whether Baptiime Js meant thereby, and you ask me, vpheihtr this ivas any other then Fetiardcmtiut his glojfe^dnd adde RzW/cenfiire of him. Anfn>. ^ ^^'^^ ^^^ "P^^ "^^ ^^^ defence ofFeuardenttus 5 let hiai,

gpe for fiich a one as Learned Kivet relates him to be, A cor-' rupierpflnnaus in many ih'ings: yet that judicious Man (ays not that he corrupted Irm^m his (enfe in this place. And that he did not,it's manifcft to me, because Bapti(hie ufii-ally is (tiled by the Greek Fathers a new birtk Learned VoJ^" jif faith upon that very plac?, that to call bapti(me renafan^ tia^'WSLS ujitata veterihw loqnendi firma 5 which» a few in-fiances will make good. Jufiim. Martp (peaking of the ma^h^r ofadminiftration of Baptifme, faycs of the baptized party. He U hron^t t» ^ jHfl*Mart. ap. %iitm a^vitti vf tjfjuav \v^a> thefUce rvhere tht "Water if. v<^y^^)^7elfTnf^v<Ky^vh(ricoih^m"iiA^rl^^^^ andk reeenerated in the rame iTy ^ -rfi'c»>.eK«r7tt/1^ c.o/.ct7©- t. m- ^^^„^^ wherein wee wJe re-

7f^><b*

generated: [and to put it out fi^Ef Qntroveriie,he is there fpeaking of BaptKm under the-name c^fRegenerationjhe 2Ldds:Xhey are then Wa^ed in wMter m the nc^me ofoHr Lord God Creator ofaU things^^andofour Lord-and Saviour Jtfus Chrifi^and the holj GhofiMcrc he tcls us what he meant by Regeneration mentioned before; viz. When the Party was in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft wafhed with water, that is, baptized- Vionyfiuf Areo'" fiigita (but you will (ay he is queftioned, yet no man can qucftion wheth^ he expreft Baptifme. by regeneration)

§>caki0S

faking of BapdfmefaycSjDiV^eJi^ifi/ ofth divint gtne" ration^ an^ what is that (I

pray you) but a new birth? To, ^m rns k^ywinaf cv^l^oidy tHonyf. Arc-yea in the fame Chapter he op. Hicrarch.ca.2. 7h t%ik^j nhnnf -dso-addesforthercfit. rheSa- >^-^^^ccj^.^.^flA«. crament of our divide generation oi ma figne. And in the beginning of that part 5 hee-calls the Font^or place in which Baptiime was adminiftred, riiviMiTieSf' 7"^ uio^iffizi , flj( rnother of our adoption, Athmafim De Sab, (^ *ayes5«^«t' Ktvl^v dvxyivvauivcj^ we are borne again by wafh- ^^^(^^^ncif* ing: and doth not BafiUdiWit'^^^yyivifr.a.v'^v'^i^ the re-Bifi].exbortati» generation of the foHle> Greg.Nazianz*Orat. 40. amongft ^^(^dbapuf-many other titles he puts on Baptiihic, this is one5'^^'»*''«^- '"^"* CT*v 4v')^f, Now I demand of you ^ do not all thefe Authors call Baptifnie a new Birth, which }yc 11 would faften onely on Feuardentins ? yea doth not Ambrofe call thcFon: Bapi-fteriffmregsneraUonislaVacrHmy the lava ere of Regeneration ?-^/^-^"^ initian" Whatfoever you fay of mcj I hope by this time you will^*'^*''** ^ not think that both Latine and Greeke Fathers learned of Feuardentiw his gloiTe to call Baptilhie a new birth.

Secondly, you fay^w^Jrj&^rt* doth our Lordorthej^pofilejyP,6, call Baftifme a ntw birth. I defire to know of you the meaning of that place, T^^ 3*5. I thought the Apoftle there had called Baptilme ^^^f •«' Tm-heyyiHi^ai, the v^afhing €f\ihe new hirth^ or Regeneration: and what that is^^but Baptifme^yet' I know not. To me the Apoftle feemes plainely to parallel the wafhing of regeneration^ and the renewing of the holy Ghoft^ as type and counter type. And the Analogie between wafhing in Baptifme, and Regeneration, lies in that cuftome of wafhing Infants from the pollutions [of the wombe when they are firft born. A learned Critick o£Mr. Meek, our own in his Diairiba upon that place,thinke8 none will deny that in thefe words the rvajhing of Kegeneratioriy the A* poftle is fpcaking of Baptifme: fure I am, moft of the Interpreters which I have feen upon that place agree that he either argues direftly from Baptifiiie, or at|leaft alludes to ^ it.

Thirdly, you grant, though the word renafcmtur is nfid

C3 /r

for Baftifme by the Amients (which before you feemed to pin on Femrdemiw his Uceyc) yet pojjibly it rvoi not the word ufed by lren<euf in his owm rvriting, 11 fems^ now you dare not ftand upon the ftrength of the word renafiuntur ^ becaufe you confefle it was ufed by the Ancients for Bap-tifinej therefore your conjecture here is. That pojfibly it TPOtnotthe wordufedbyIren£m for Baptifme inhu ovpn writing. I (hall goe further then you (and yet not wrong the truth) and fay, undoubtedly, renafcuntur was not the word afed by Iren<eus in his owne writing, for he wrote in Greeks and therefore it may well be conceived he faid not nnafmu"-^wr^though he might fay ^wy^v^vrat : But to that which you anfwer, I adde, you know 'tis commonly faid in the Schooles, forte ita^folvitur per forte non : you fay, poffibly it was not Iren^m his word. I anfwer, pofTible it is that Irendsw might ufe the Greek word, which is well tranflated rmzfcuntur : for why might not hee being a Grecian, fpeak of Baptifme in the phrafe and (lile as other Grecians did? yea, that he did ipeake fo, is moft probable, becauft that other Greek Fathers ufe the word'^^O >->'-<"««, amrv hit thy in the fenie in which I alledged it.

As for the altering o{Iren£m his mind by the Latin Tran-flatlon,not having his works in his owne language, I dare not fayfb much:when you bring forth Irendsus his words in Greek, r (hall the better be in abled to judge of it; in the meane time I accept of the Tranflation, having made it good by parallel phrafes in other Greek Fathers. P,6* ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^l^iCQ you labour to prove^ That it is not meant

of Baptifme from Iren£m his fcope in that place. To th is I an-iwer, albeit that bee granted which you (ay was his (cope there, yet his words prove the que(i:ion in debate before us. Ihopeyouwillnotdeny, but that the (cope of afpeech may tend to prove one thing; and yet the expreilions ufed may give light to otherthings ; wasnotthe Prophet Eze^ Ezek. 3 7. kid his (cope by the parable of dry boms rJfing again^ to prove the reftauration of the Jews (who then (eenied to be dead) to their former ftate? that no doubt was the drift, yet Dfr^y'wr.ftf.ji. heelay^sitfoithby that parable: and TertuHian by the

feme

fame proves tb€ Refurreftion at the laft day, if hee had not beleeved that dead bones were to rife againe (faith the father ) how could hee by that Simile taken from them prove the Refiirreftion of the Jewes? So may I fay here^ let it be fuppofed that Inn^us his drift is, as you (ay, to prove that Chrift was an Infant to fan^^ifie Infants, yet hee fayes they were renewed when they v/ere baptized. As for Inn£us his Judgement of Chrills living upon the earth about 5 o. yeers, it was not alleadged by me, therefore I leave it to you to helpe Irfn<eus therein, becaufe you alledge it. Now I delire the Reader to caft his eye back upon all that you have faid about this teftimonyj and fee whether you have brought forth any thing to ob-fcure the light that it gives to our queftion: all the ilrength ofwhatyoufaid lay in the word renafiuntnr^ whether that fignifiedBaptrfmeorno: which by the ufuall language of the Grecians I have made good againft your exception, and-ib I pafle from your examen of this Author and follow you to the next.

In the third place you come tofift Origens teftimony: OrigensTc^k^ ^^ Wherejfirfl,you queftion the authority of the booke; fr* vindicated. ^^ condiy, you fay, if it be Origens^yet hee calls Pi3Bdo*^bap-*' tifme but an Apo frolic all tradition, and from thence ^^ youdrawfordifonieconclufions. In all which I hope ^^ to manifeft yourmiftakings,and foto discover the weak-^ nefTe of your premiies, that they (halliiot in any indifferent man his judgement be able to draw thefe conckfioni after them.

Firli:, youqueflionthe authority of thefepaffages cited out of Origen whether they are his or no: and you call the Author ohhtmjuppofed Origm : It had been -yotir part before you had fo branded them, firllto have mad€ it niani'* feftbyfomeundenyable evidence or other, that they were not Origm J ^ youqueflion but prove not, and lam not the firft that hath produced thcfe teftimonies to piX)ve In- • fant-Baptifme, many learned m^ handling- this ^tjcfiion • have done the faWteb^ore me. " t ■; r ^ v..

You feek alfo to weaken the audtdrity of thife teftimonies

by

Hitron. ad FammAchinni,

ratio in Ep. ad Rom.

Kuji» profit, idR.om%

The Greek Church receivedInfam-Bdpufme.

by the Cenfiircs of two judicious mtViyErafmiM and Terklns: the former of them (who was vzr emHn&£ narii in giving judgement of the writings of the Ancients) faithj that rvkn a man reads hU Homilies m Leviticusy and on the Epifik 43 P.omanf^ tranfijted by K^ffinufy bee cannot he certaine whether he reads Kuffinm or Origen. Yet Era/muf faith not that thefe Homilies fee forth under his name were Ruffinm his Homi-lies^and not Origms, If Kuffinui had wronged Origtn in that point now in queftion, why (hould not that have been laid in his di(h by fome of the Antients di/courling on this queftiouj who no doubt would have been forward enough tohavetakennoticeofit toKnffim^ his prejudice, as well as other things which they objeS: againft him? .. To this you adde Reverend Perl^ins his teftiniony^ who puts his commentary on the Komaus amongfi hU sounterfeit works^ as being not faithfully tranjlated hy Kuffinttt, It may be • Origen might fufFer by his Tranflatoi^5 for Tranflations arc various^: (ome affe^l in their Tranflations to follow their Author jtjPTw 7:o</k^ tQ ti^ace the very footlieps of the words they tran-flate: other Tranflations are metaphrafticall^ or by way of paraphrase,they expound as they tranflate i thus leverall men have their feverall fancies, though they adhere to the Author which they tranflate,even when they keep not in all things to his words: Hierom gives inllance in the Septua-gint Tranflators, who(e telHmony I need not name to you. Kuffnm ,acknowledgeS3 in .tranflating Origms Homilies on Levitict4i^ that hee added fome things to what Ori--gen Mdj and what they were hee exprefl^s: ea qu£ ah Ori-gene in auditorio Ecclefi^ ex tempore non tam explanationis quam adificationpf intentione perorata frnt-J the things which were fpoken by Origen to his auditory, he tranflated them by way of explanation,pr did more fully lay them forth in a popular way and therein Ruffinm dealt candidly, te^ ling us what were the things hee added 3 in this Eraf-7«j<f_ acknowledges his faire dealing. But as for his Commentary on the Remans^ Ruffinus confefTcth fe hoc opm to^ turn ad dtmidium traxi^e^ there wa^ no addition ofRuffi' nm^ Er^/wwf here blames him for cutting off what Orig^

delivered

ThtGritk church received InfMnt-Bdftifmtl fj

delivered more at large, but neither doth Kuffinus confeilc, nor ErafriiU challenge him here for any addition to what Origmiaxd: I (ball oncly defire the Reader to take notice that none of theteftimonlesby me cited oat of Origerij are denyedbyEr^/^^/wf to be Origenj : neither can they be conceived to bee any of the additions mentioned before by Kuf-finuf: therefore yonr exception is not proved by Srafmuj nor Terkj^J teflimony.

Youzddeyifithepjjfagifwhich I cite^there areplaineexpref' fioTis in them againft Tdagians^ which mak^j jou thinke they tvert put in after the Pelagian herefie vpm confuted by Hierome and AHgufiine'^ though they make againft the Pelagians^ yet who can neceflarily inferre^ that all thefe Homilies in which thefe paflTages occurre were written after the Pelagian Herefie was broached ? iufl* Martyr maintaines the Di-vinitieof Jefiis Chrift, yet we know hee lived long before -^rij^f the ring-leader ofthatcurfed Seft which denied it; can any man conclude that lufl. Martyr did not beare wit-nefle to the divine Nature of Chrlft, becaufe hee lived before Arius ftarted up ?

Then you tell us Origen caSs Infant'-bapMing an Apoftoii" caS tradition^ according te the obfervance of ibc Church. This cavill I prevented when I quoted the teftimony, which ftcmes to have (bme weight in it^ for you grant what I (aid about Traditions, which is warrant enough to me to adde no more to juftifieit, otherwife (beiidcs the teftimony of Sa'ipture which I named in 1 Theff.2, 15,) many other out ofAntiquitie may be added^where Tradition is taken in that (en(e. E;>ipi^j;zi«/calls Baptifme and other myfteries ob-£/»//*./«/«?• (erved in the Church, which are brought forth out of the *^^^^' CSofpell and fetled by Apoftolique authority, ^e^'^'wf. Tvherebythewayyoumayfee that hee grounds the Bap-tifmc^'then innle in the Church, (and even then Infants were Bapti2ed ) on the Scriptures and authoritie of the Apoftles, as wdl as other myfteries of the Ckriftian Religion. Buc I follow you, BecaufcyCsiy you, in neither erf' thefeplacej tak^n notice of hy mee Origen cites any Scripture fir ffapiizi7iglnfantSy thtrefordtmttfihee underfioad&fanu^nfrit- .

D ten

Un 7'r4^i*ifl«:had it appeared as a n^w notion not heard of in the Church bsforcjthfn had k b?en fit he (liould have confirmed what he faid: but it beiug a pofitionj vvhkh (as he fayes the Church obferved) hee needed not to prove it. Ignatius prefles upon Hkro to attend to reading and exhor-4fl.r^ ad^Jfkr. tation^and cals thofe things <ricSia.yfiii;cty tradition.syet addes no Scripture to confirni what he ^ayes, becauie they were things well knownto the Church to bee confonant to the Scripture. So Origen tells us Infant-Baptifhie was generally obferved by the Church; and had any appeared to plead againft the lawfulnefle of it^ he would no doubt by Scripture have maintained it, as well as affirmed it^tocome from the j^poftles^which he did.

Theie are your premife which now behig anfwered^your concMona infer d from thenccj of themielvesmuft fall to the ground: forif Infant-baptifme came from the Apo-flles^ and was generally obferved in the Church in Orh gem time, then you have no reafbn to challenge it of a thing not k^OTPn before his time^ nor delivered over to the Church in bis time: albeit he expreft it under the name of an Apofto-lacall Tradition. 6reg' 9rdt, 40. The laft Greek Author alledged by me was Gregory Na^ jnBApt. zSariz£?7^who€alsBdptifrnfignjcHlHmvit£curfumirieuntihm:

i^«c7tf?j. vindi- 2g^}jjft whicKtefiimony you have nothing to objc6i:;oneIy ^*^^ ' whereas I added^ hee feemed afterwardj te refiraine baptizing

« « h^ants t§ the cafe of mceffliy: You ask of nie, Voth hefeeme onely to retrain it to the cafe of necejjitjl He givej(J[kyyou)hik^ reafonwhy theyjhould be bapizjtd^ but xvithall declares his opinion that othas pouldflaj longer : but what of all this, what follows hence more then this^ thatinhisdajej Infants were hapiized^ though his advice xvtff, that thejfhould defer it^ unkffe there tvere danger ofdeatl:^,

Thefe are the Greek Authors alledged by me^ none of ' which are denyed by you to teftifie the practice of the Church in this point in their ieverall ages, onely your exceptions have been all on the by, not againft the teftimo-niesthemlelvesj which yet (notwithftanding what you Iiave,anrwered)Idoiibtnotwill by any Judicious Reader bee

rh Greek ChHtchmuvtdlnfm-Sdptifmi. jtp

bee allowed^ for dearc proofes of the praftiee of Paedo-haptiihie in the Greek Church.

AfteryoLir examination of the former Teftimonies^you P, p, adde 3 Argimien ts to Qiew that Infant-Baptifme was not known in the Greek Church.

Firltjifit had been known among them. 7o« rponder mhy I finde noihlngf^rit in Eufebius^ Igrutiw^ Ckmerts Akxsn-drinusy Athitnafiufy and Epiphanius ? To this I fay, they ipake to the clearing of iiich qiieflions as were atbot ia their times: had any qiieftion been ftarted when they wrote about P:«do-baptiime3 no doubt they would have cleared it, as C)';>rijn didj and as it was done in the Councell of Neoc£farea. It is enough to niee that none of the Authors named by you Ipeake again ft it, can wee fay that the Fa* thers Jiving before the Pelagians troubled the C hurch^de--nyedthetradudion of original! fin, becaule they (pake .not clearly of it^ before it was denyed by thofe curfed He-retiques. Nor is it any glory to you that your Error was liotancient enough to be confuted by Eufebiuf^ Ignatiufy Clemens Akxandrinmy Athanafim^zxid Epiphaniw: yet whether any of thefe named by you (pake for Infant-Baptifinc, (hall now bee coniidered. I finde even in fome of them which you have named5exprclIions which doth induce mce to bekeve that they were farre from reje<^ng of PaEdo-baptifme.

I will notifearch into them ail, for if anything were brought out of J^«^tf»f, you would tell mee that you did not know Ignatius when you (cehim, (as you have done with others named before) and 1 haveno time to wrangle. You deiire to know what Clemens Akxandrinuf faith.^ why, T'^^ Clem.A* furehehadnonebut great Infantsto.hisScholars 5 if you ^'^'^^ *^^* (who pretend to beacquaintedfaniiliarly with the fecrets of antiquity) be acquainted with him, you'll know what Jmeane: He defired (as it is likely more Greekc Fathers who were converted from Pagani(medid) to fetforthRe-Ugion in liich a way as might move other Pagans to come andmake confeifion of the Chriftian faith, that fo they might be added to the Church by Baptifine in (iich a way

D 2 ag

as was proper td the bapti2iiig of grown men. The next (whofe teftimony yoii mi He) is Athanafius : you defire mee to quote any thing out of him to prove the Greeke Church did admit Infants to Bapti/me, if that will make you ceafc wondering^rUdoeit: what fay you to that paffage in AthanafiM > where hee is (hewing how we are buryed with Athan.diUddy CXvc'A'm BaptifniCj and rife p.gaine; hee fayes, the mterpmatio dttpbig cf the Infant quite

Script. W. 94* 'TTf yfi(^T<f/b<rm7r> mi^io!^ . Sj^ \^^ */ -^ j •

^Jn.iF^gives I.7?x^Vaffc.,e^.. «''^^''^ ^^'^^ thnceandrai^

teftiir.ony ro . fi^g^f ^^ *^P agatn^ doth fiztit^

InimtB^^uim, fie the death of Cbrifiy and his refnrre^ion upon the third day : is not that teftimonyplaine? In his Queftions ad Antio" ch, in the lecond queftion of that booke, it is defired to beknown^ how ftiaJIwe know that he was truly baptized, and received the holy Ghoft^C^'f ^v y nm^hra oiyicd Batttiu • Aww yinholy Baptifm when he tfos a Child {(it feenis then it was a cuftome for Infants to receive Bapti(me:}He lets down an aniwer to itjthat is to be known(faith he)by the motions of the Spirit in his heart afterwards ^ as a Woman knows (he iiath conceived^when (he feels the child to flir in her womb; ov^a. pjjmTWJ' jijffc^y, not becaufe his Parents fay fo. If that place doth not plainly3 and in an Orthodoxall Way beare witnefle to Paedo-baptifine, I know not what can doe it. ... IcouldoutofthefameBookeadde another teflimony, TiA. ""^^ butyou will perhaps tell me, the words next following thofe that I (hall cite are queftioned. But I fhall then reply, !• The words that follow may bee erroneous, and yet vftiXtcnhyAthanafins. 2. The words which I (hall cite may be the words of Athanafins^ and the words which follow, hone of his^ but added by fome other. 3. How dot youprovethat7Vr*«i?7V;7, or Grtg, N.rzianzen wrote thofe words which you cite out of them. 4. You can ( more then once) make this a plea for yoar lelfe Cthat your alle-p. ^, gatijonsmay gaine a favourable con(tru£tion ) That ymr proefiff ukpi oat if Aiiti^HHy dot as ftwigly prove- the point in hand^ as proofesare ujhuUj fallen in fitch matters, I doubt not but all iwipartiali Readers will fouchfiife me the fame

faTQtf-

Jhe Greek Church receivedInfanu^dfYifme. ^ ,

ftvourablegraines of allowance 3 and then tkis teflimorvy ^Ifo of AthanapHS may paiTe for currant.

Thefe words then which are fafe & ft>iind3grounded upon the fame Scripture which I have much infifted on^ are read in the works of Athanafitts : where the queflion is about Infants dying, requiring a refolution that might clearly '^tt forthj whether they goe to bepunilhed;>or to tbe Kingdom? AtUr, \ 4 Theanfwer is, S^nng the Lord /aid y Suffer little children to tkck. "qn, \i^' (orne unto mzy for of fitch is the Kingdom of Hiazen, And ^'''

the ApoJ^U fayts ; tionp jour children

mhoiy\ (obferve'thatGofpel ground, ^''^"/^jsji'ct ^i^Zv A-)ia k*.', t^^^/h thefamethatIbuildupon)i^i5/«^-. ^Tr^z^Llir'^^''^'''^^':'^"' nifefithat the Infants ofbeleevers T^hicb ^.^T'^l]:: ru^^^^fc.fi^:^^ are haptJzedy doe as Hnjpot ted and faith-full cnttr into the Kirjgdome. Thi? aifertion 15 owned by aH the Reformed Churches.

Epiphanius you fay, faya nothing of it in aplace^-whidiyoa cite: and are you lure he fayes nothing any where ej/ei' admit he doth not, forme a Syilogiihie, and fee how your argument will run, &c» but I defireyou at your Jeaftfe to caft your eye upon that exprclTion of Epiphanius ^ which doth induce mee to beleeve that hee did notrejefl Paedor baptifine: where hee tells us, Thzt Circumcifion had its time^ untiU the great Circutncifon came^

that is. the rpajhing of the nen? hirth^ as "^^^ ^(^K^v meip^h 'm^iymro^. ismanifefitoeverjcne. What's the ^'!?J^^;^L'^%Tr''^'''^ waftimg of Regeneration but Bap- Cerimhiams. tifme ? which he would Icarcely have

calledCircumciiion, if heehad re]e6led Infant-Baptifrne, Epiphanius^ anddenyedthatthechildrenof beleevers (who are hope- o^n^d the ar, follycapableof Circumdlionmade without hands, may crcumcifio^n lavTfulIy partake of this great Ciraimcifion : and addes, roBaptirive. That this was notorioufly knowne to all jfurely then none dcnyed it In his time-

Secondly, you reafon from the continuance eftht ^cfti' Thequeftiona onj^ pHt to perfons when they rrere to he baptized^ and anftve-^ put to the red by them: whicli I think becaufewc muft conceive chil- Baptizer^i^ drenwerenotabfetoretumeaaanfwertothem, thereby rn^Lwifm?"

you ^

you would inferre they Were not baptized: Bat I anfwer, when the Gofpel went firft abroad into the world:, luch as being of age were firft taught> were then baptized, A&, a. 41. & A&, 8» 13, 37. After that timefiich as were taught V<^dig. are faid to be catechized: for K^T^X^^f *'? '^hv 'mei^yin^ the

Catechifme leads men to faith 3 faith C/ew. Akxandrinus, When iiich were prepared and made tit to be baptized, certain queftions were propounded to them concerning tl"ieir faith in Chrirt, their refolution to forfake the Devil, &c» which are related by many of the Ancients: when thole of age aftei-wards brought their children to Baptifme^thele queilions were likewileputto them (though of themielves they were not able to make anfwer to them} but how war-ra ntably I will not goe about to prove; yet that they were ufed at Infants B^ptifme, as well as at'the baptifme of/uch as were of age, it appeares by Balfamon in Can. 6, Cone, Netjr cafar^ Aug, Ep. ad Januarium^ &c^ To all which queilions atChildrensBaptiiine, fuchas undertooke their education made'anfwer on their behalf Thejfefore you cannot by thefe queftions infer that Children w^e not baptized,(ceing thefe Authors certifie that queilions Were put to them, and alio tell us who aniwei-ed for them.

Thirdly, you conceive hccaufe mwy children borm ofChn^ fi tan parents jvtre not baptized when they vPtre jemg'-i Therefore it was not their cuilonie to baptize Infants. For the making good hereof you bring forth inllances of Cw/jJ^w.. tine the Great, Greg, Nazianz. and Chryfifiome. Of oU fome Before I fpeak of thefe inllances, it will not be imperti-

defer'd their ^ent to fpeake ibmewhat of the pra^lice of fome among the ?in "e^as wdi as ^^^cients in deferring Baptifme h and here I ^nde that fome their Infants. Ancient Chriftians deferi\i their owne Baptiihie many times 3 (aS-well as their Infmcs) but upon no good groundjHS may appeare by many iharpe inve6livcs againft them for it, which are extant in the Greek Fadiers: iee Ba" fil. exhortat. ad Baftifmt^m^ Greg Nazienz. erat, 40, inhanB, Bapt,Chryfofl,Hom,2.inA&.Apo. v.,--= .

From thefe feverall Authors and others, may be gathered the grounds upon which th^ defer'd Baptiihie. Sometimes

Thi Gmk Churchrmtvid InfmU Baftifrnt* aj

times they would doe u iiumitation of Chrift>whowasnot baptised till he WAS about thirty ycaixjs of agej they would Vbifrm, put off their baptifme untill they came to the like age. Gng* Ndxianz* disputes a^aiuttthefe, Confiamim the Great put ^«/^Mf wi. offhis Baptifme untiU hce (hould come to the Rivor Jordan ^'"'^' ^^^ ^' ifi which Chriil was baptized^ though he never attained to that defired place^ for he dyed at Nkomesiia. Some agaitie 'Vbiprius, deferred Baptifme^ untill they fhould have opportunity to be baptized by fbme fpeciali Biihop of fome eminent places thefe GrcgMazian reproves at large. Some al^ put off their Baptifme upon another ground , they conceived it did wa(h away all finifo thought 0/jt^. Hym, i$,m Ihefl^Mom, Aug.Confef, i, 5. /'« Ex, Cypr. lib, J. ad ^ir'num. & lib* 4. ep.j, Whereup- ^ ^' upon it was a common fp^ech^when they law one to follow his iinfull courfes, fine illum^ faciat qnod vuU^ nondum baptizatuj eft: to the famepurpoleGr.'^. N;j7e«Kjin his exhortation to Baptifme^ brings in the very fame ipeechcs of themj whoput off their Baptifme upon this ground] faying, Sirte^ came ahutar^ & turpi libidine fr^ar^ in c£no vo» hptatHm vdutjhor^ mxnns fanguim poUu^m 5 aliena attferam^ ddofc amhulabO'ipe'jeraboymmtiar: bjptifmam turn demnm fu" fiipiam^ cum k vitiU & iniquitatibus dcfiftam, Hce fpeakes much moretothatpurpofeinthatplace^ to which I refer the Reader: all which teftifies what they thought of Bap-tifmcj that it waQicd away all their fins^ therefore they de-fcr'dit, for'they would have none abridged of their fin-full delights untill they were baptized. Epiphamus tells us that Mircion gave order to have Bapti/me thrice admi-niftredj firfi when a man had committed any great finne, after that in his judgement^ hee might bee baptized for the doing of it away: Againe, if after that Baptifme hee had renewed his finne, hee was the fecond time to bee baptized^ and fo the third time, if after the fecond he had renewed his fin again. This opinion of the efficacy of Baptifme to doe away finne, might induce them to defer it untill they were ready to leave the world 3 that by baptifhie then 'admini-ftredtothem^ in their opinion, all their finnes might bee done away. But Naz, confutes fuch ^ tcUing [them all

timu '•

^^ 7i)e (srttk Charch received Infant-BAftifme,

timas mre jit frr Baptifme-, feeing no time was free from deaths So did Greg. Nyjfenuf alfo. They were alfo Jed into this error by anotherj Tome thouglit that baptized perfonS might live and not (in, for if they did finne after Bap-tifmc (in their conceit) there remained no repentance for them, inifunderftandiiig that place of ffeb. 6, 4. which placei'iiowasabufedby the Novatians^ denying reniiffi-on of fins to Chriftians ,finning after baptifme.

It is cleare upon thefc and die like grounds(but how juft-ly, I leave it to you to judge) many put off their owne baptiitiie. Neither doe I fee why that others alfo may not be thought (even npon no better grounds) to have deferred the baptiime of their Infants 5 which yet doth no wayes prejudice the commonly received , ahd conftantly prafticed ordinance of fnfants-Baptiime ^ no more then the above-named prai^i/e may bee brought to prove that it was not the received praftifeof the Churcli to baptize

iiichaswere converted from Paganifme to Chriftianity, at their fir (1 converfion.

Yet here I cannot but adde further 5 that fometimes it might fall out thatChriftians might not have the opportunity of bringing their Children to Baptifme, becaufe ^ they dwelt among Infidels^ or Paynims^where they could not enjoy the benefit of the Word and Sacraments for themfelves or their chdldren : therefore in fu ch a cafethcy were necefJitated to put off the baptizing of their Children. Greg.Naz. fayesexprelTely, thatfomemaybehin-ri^ / ^o ^ered from Baptifm by fome violence,' or fomeunexpeaied (/ '^f. 4^' accident;,'? ^'^ ^^^ ^^Koyhondviui J7n}^t tj^I^ T^yetei^rixctiO-i

that though they would, they could not enjoy the Grace (of baptifme whereof he h fpeakingO if by €yxc\\ accidents they themselves might be hindered from Baptifme, why might not the like accidents hinder them alfofrom receiving Baptifme for their children^

Againe, fometimes their lot might fall out to live a-mongHeretiques, which corrupted the Faith, and therefore would not have their Children baptized by them : might they not do herein as that pious mm Mofis^ who re-

fufed to receive impofitionof hands from bloody Lucius So^cm.4*i9, that Arian Bi(hop. Neither would Antiochm bee ordained ^^^'^•4.14. by Jy^^/wzJWj who adhered fometimes to the-^rw^j: aflii-redly, fiich as fcrupled to bee ordained officers in the Church by fuch^niay upon the like grounds bethought rather to chufe to deter the bapti2ing of their childrcn^then to have them baptized by fuch. Many queftions were moved in the Church <ibout Baptifmc adminiftred by (iich as were not found in the Faith ; which were agitated €0 farre by Cypriavy and other Africans^ that they held their Bap-ti(me to be null, and therefore conden^ning their dipping, or wafliing, ordered that fuch (hould be baptized.

Some other caules might be found out, why men might defer both their owne, and their childrcns Baptifine, which yet T will not juftific; they might herein doc^ as holy Mofesy Exod. 4. dcfer'd the Circumciiing of his fbn , q^^ ^ yet il/o/ej well knew it was an Ordmance in IJrael^ that every fon of eight dayes old (hould be circumcifed* Holy men in this might ali^uid humanum patu^ I will neither ex-cufe nor aggravate their fault: onely 1 thought good to (peake fbmewhat in general! of the cuftome of fome in deferring Baptifhie.

I come to the ihftances here given by you: the firft lis Coffiatttine^ " Confiantim the Great^ (jhough thefonm oj Helena ^ nho is Bap.noArgn-reported to have been a zjealouf Chrifiian ) rat baptized till jpentthitln-het rvas aged. You (hould have done well to have proved , J^^ baptized, her to have been fuch , when Conflaniine was borne, o-therwi(e what gaine you if (hee were converted afterwards? The true caufe why he received not Baptifme at his Infancy (fo neare as I can gather it from the dory of bis life} was this : Confiantiw his Father^ albeit a man of afivcet temper, and a Prince wonderfqll tender of the welfare of all his Subjeftsi firft out of the mildncfTe of his nature favoured Chriftians; (feeing and obferving their unblamc-able converfation and faithfulnefle in all their employments t ^ therefore he did not in an hcftile waypuriiie their Religion^ as others Emperors did : yea, at length he grew to a good efteem of it, cfpecially tcwards the latter

E end

^ end of his life: in this time his Ton Cdnflantlne the Great y / • livM mVmkfian his Court, froniwhence (his life being i / twice in danger) he iiiddenlyefcaping, came to his father thenfick, and prefently upon his death, hcc was by the Army faluted Emperour: Thefe things confideredj it is no marvaile if hee were not baptized in his Infancy j when, for ought I read, his Parents had not then embraced the Chriftian Religion when he returned at his Fathers death, he was3oyearesof age: and whether ever his Father was baptized/ the ftory is filent. {Neither is Helena her aflfeftion to Religion in his Infancy, related in the Story, though afterwards it is often mentioned. You need not then wonder, why when hee was an Infant hee was not baptized: inafmuch as it appears not that his Parents were then become Chriftians, yea, and himfelfe alfb was an un-beleever many years, as is apparent in the ftory. Kor angory ' The next mentioned by you, is Gng, Naz. the fome of a Niu^tan^en. Chriftian Bijbop^ and brought up long hj him^ rt>4S not bafti-zjsd till hee came to be a youth. You fay he was^i^e Jonne of a Chriftian Bifhop^ but how doe you prove it? he that writes his life ,tells us, there was a time when his father was not a Chriftian j yet afterwards, rr>hen hee had caft of the fuper-^ 4» , , , , ftition and deceit of the Hypftfiariafij^

^^^ifT^'^'^^'^'.T?^?^^'* hee appeared a true fiUomr , or difci^ Z-^m&fifiy^-^^ :^^1&><^c. pie of the.-Dtvm grace. a„d fo firfi - i-' . . beehecame a bmepe^and ajterwardj a

s^lfuU Skphardro the Church, What was the Hjpftftarian crr6ur, Grsg, himfelfe explaines in his Funerall Oration for his Father. Whether hee was converted from it before Gregory vj^s born, it is notexpreft: Yet the Hiftorians tell iis When N^x. was but youngs he with Bafil were bred in humane literature at Athens , from thence he paft to uin^ 'iiocby all this while we read not of his ftudying the Chri-So fr. 4. i J« i^iail Religion till afterwards. For it is to bee remembred, Sqi, 6.16. that when he with Bafil\\2id fpent much timejand well pro-fietl Ml; humane literaturej ibme would have perlwaded ^ tfiem to tecomcTeachers of that kinde of learnings others .inoVed them to betake tlwrnfelves to publike pleading of

caufes;

The Greth Church received It^fam-Bdptififti

caiifes; but rcfafing that way of ftudy y they beg-thinke how to order their lives holily, as the rule of CI jftian Religion did direft thcnij whereiw they proi much; in the knowledge whereof ^/'%t>«/ books were help-ivHH to them. Greg. Nazianz. having ipent 30 yeares in /jftit^fuL tho(e (ludieSj he returned to his Father and was baptized: ' his education was not under his Father^as you reiatejand if his parents were Chriftianswhen he was borne, I wonder they (hould (end him to Athens to be trained up under Heathens, and why hee was not baptized as foonc as hee was converted to ChriiHanlty, if you can lay downe the true caufe, I defireyoutodoeit; i dare goe no further then I havewarrantfromthe/tory, and the relation of his life: Yet I may hint my conjecture from hrs own words; where he fays there were three forti of men(belades jthole which I Orau 4 o.J named before) who deterred Baptifme. i. Some pur-pofely put it off, becaufe they would live in fin i there were others living more temperately, taking in as it were the meane between vertue and vice, who though they finned, yet approved not of their fins, but were over-power'd by them. Laftly, (bme defer*d their Baptifines that they might the better prepare themielves to receive it, and polu-blyheefora while might bee ranked in the third fort of . them, that for fuch a thing put off tjicir Baptifine: yet jhimfelfe reafbns ftrongly againft delayes of that nature,in that Oration, which peradventure was after hee was b tter informed.

Thirdly, you bring in Chryfiftemc among your Inllan- Nor Ckr)fift» C€Sy Educated byXj^ektm a Bijhep^ yet not baptized tiH hee jfot paft 2 1 yeares of age: ■■, If you can make this out, you fayfomewhat, thoughitwillfallihortofthat you intend to evidence thereby. Chriftian birth, and Epifcopall e-ducatiou might juftly give occafionto a man to wonder how iiich a one came to efcape the priviledge, which other In&ntsfo borne, hadi if ii were the cufionic to bnjDtize ftich. Butftay a little, herein you have adhered too farre to your friend Grotii^^ upon whofe credit you have a-vouched all this, though neither he, nor you tell us from

E 2 w-i.^nce

wiience you fetch this relation. I being loath to be led by aTi impllGice faith, without fome groundj after fbnie /earch I have found that which makes nie think you are deceived both in Chryfofiome his Parents and edi|cation. The Eccle-fiafticall Story (the Penman whereof undertakes to fct forth the place of his birth, his parentage, his call to his

E^fcopall dignity, and his removail from it) fayes he Was S^^i 1 ^ ** 1^^^" ^^ a prime family in Antioch^ and names his parents, ^* * * butnotawordof his Religion nor of his Baptiftie. I could here tell you that fome others (peaking of his Parents and of himfelfcj fay, -mv-ni'^nauvir^mu^ he and they were Heathens, (for fb is the word s'^jfygj there to bee ta* ken) and they that fay fo are Grecians. But however, by Chryfofiome his mothers own words it appeares that his father dyed tvithin a very (hort time after his birth;fo much is nianifeft from his mother, fee Chryf, de Sacerdotiolih.i, ^ , . , , , , ^ the death of thy Father prefemly foil

^eu&c. ^''^j' ^^'•'^3 ^^^<^^ ttnfeafonablymade

thee an Orphan y and mee a Widon>: and thisfelloiit when Chrjfoflome vimQ-ry^ war young and could o^tjpeak^y asfheefayes, there (hee puts him in minde of her care of his education^ and of the charge ihe had been at to improve it; but not a word of his Religion. 1 confeiR fotf.d^i/7V«rfm -^gppgaresfromC^O'y^j^^we, that about the 20 yeareofhis Mlf^e^' age his mother was a Chriftian: but whether his Father or his mother was fo at his birth, it appeares not. His education in his younger time was under Lihaniuf^ who was ;an enemy toChriftianity,andafcofFerat it, untill he was a-bout 20 years of age: then changing his former fludies.ha-bit, andprofe(Iion,he came to MeUttnf^ by whom being inftru6ted in divine knowledge, within 3 yeares afterwards he was baptized of him. After his mothers death, he betook hhnfelfe to a Monafticall life, in which time hee was much furthered in his holy ftudies by Carteriuf and Viodoruf^ to whom he often repaired.

Thefe things conficlered(whichC^r;(/o/?d»ie his own Words anak? out)you can hardly pcrfwade your Reader that diere

is

The Greek Church received Infant-Baptifmel ,2^

is any (Ircngth in what y011 bring forth from his example to plead again ft PiEdo-baptifme^ for y oil neither prove his Parents were Chrifriansathisbiithj neither was he educated under Me ptiuiy yet both thele you have affirniedybut without ground of evidaice.

To all the forenamed inftances you adde fbme^vhat more Graius nor to out of Grotiti^^ which before I doe examine^ I have fbme- be rcivcd up-thing to fay to you c jncerning Grotiuf^ whom \ lee you fol- *^".'" f*^'^ Jow in leverall pallages of your Examen. I cannot but ^^*"^* wonder^ why you (vi^ho pretend to bee familiarly acquainted with the fecrets of Antiquity) fhould have fo much correlpondency with them who are not likely to help you with any certain intelligence. Hugo Grotim is the ftrongeft ftake to Support your tottering hedges and liire I am Gro-tim was a friend to the SociniamjBjid k is well known what they thinke of Baptifine. I have learned from Reverend Do^^orKive/j that Gr£)/i»/was perverted by Cardinall Pe- ^i'^ft-Apolpro rm^ who pleaded the caufe of the Anabaptifts in his an- '^ckllT^r' -fwerto Ya\\% James, ^.£ turnprotukraf^cmgejjit^(ikith Do- /wJorX;^*' Aor Rivef of the Cardinal]) in fuam refpgnfiomm ad Kegtm M, Britan, & Ana^aptifiarum cattfam egit^ quantum potttit^ firenue. Video etemfatisfeciffe D, Grom^ qui in talibm fatis eti liber alia. Doftor Kiz/e/told i^rwiw/, that learned /^<?^wf had fet forth 8 Arguments in Prints to prove the lawful! ufe of Infant-Baptiime, and defired him to anfwerthem firftj and then Doftor Kivet promifed to vindicate P^ojfius ^ but Grfjfin/niadea poorexcu/ein his f'^otumpro pace Ecckfiafiica^ Rivet, exam.a-and returned no anfwer at all. Grotins that hee might com- "^^'^^. Orotic, ply with the Papifts^ grants that Infant-baptilme ought to be received upon the authority of the Church ofKome: and topleafethety^w»ij»/al/b5 (for it feemes hee intended to gratifie both) he puts forth this qu^ftion: AnChititij Grotii vetum abjojnm baptizatus fttit in mmen PatrU^FHii^& S .fanHil pro pace Ecclef, ' If any man defire a full chara<^er of Grotiuj^ let him read *^'*'^'?^»<^k^F. his Piety, fuch as it is, in that fubtle peece, entituled, Hugo-' niiGrotii Pietas^ or his Annotations upou Caffander^ and his defence of thole Annotations, and his Votum pro Pacr, and he will acknowledge that Grotius was no fit man to bee

E 3 t^uftcd-

trufted, nor likely to deliver the true fenfeof the Ancients in this or any other point. I will not ftand to tell you what Lartrentiur^ and Marefius fay of him, but fure they prove enough againil him; and tkerefore I will put an end to this difcourfe ^ with that cenftlre which learned Kivet hath pafled upon Grotiuj^ in Gretius own words ; Judicat prout amat^avit odit- amat & odit proui lihet, InhUverifis exa&ijfime defcripfit ingenium fuum^ faith D. VJvet hpologet^ fro vera pace Ecckf, Sir. I (hall deli re you may have a more fiire friend to relyeupon then Grotius: how far he hath deceived youi and you following him, hath wronged the tmth, and both of you your Reader; I will now God willing open, P, Q. Io. ^^^^%3 GrotHS (in Annot.in Matth, 19.14.) addesjT^j^

The Councell *^2 Canon of the Synodof Neoctefarea determines^ That a Wo* o^tNeoc^f.not man with Chi!de might bee baptized ^ hecaufe the baptifme againftbaprirm reached not td the fruit of her rvomhei BecAufeinihe cQnfeffion Qi Infanrs. ^^^^ -^ Baptifme^ each ofiesorpn free ek^ion ps Ihevpzd : from

ipbich Ca 7cny yQti fay, Bajfamon, and Zonaras doe inferre^ that an Infant cannot .he }?aptizjtd^ he attfiithath no ponder to choofe the confeffionof divine Baptifme* Your inference from the Canon^ gives me jufl: occaiion to thinke that you never read Bj//drw(?« whom you name; for if you hadj yuu would not affert what you doc. That this may appeare, I will fet downethe words of the Canon, the occaiion of it, and what the GlolTator (mentioned by you) fayes of the fame. The words of the Canon arc theft:

Of her that i^ with Child^

n^e^Ki;oTopi5^?,?77/eip4)7iCf^/,owfiTi^^A£^- that fljee may bee baptized

■r^s^^^Avyf^a^j^hm^^^^^ r^hen (hee tmlli dr Jhee

ii^KoyU i^iUyv^.Un.e. Con, Neoc4arJtnfis. ' ^h\it bnngefb fortk^ in this

doth not communicate with the birth that if broughtforth^ hecaufe every one mamfejis hij oTPn free choice in eonfeffion.

Thefcccafion of thisCanon was this, as both your Gloflators obferve^ it was propounded to the Fathers in that Councell, to know whether a Woman whcnfhee is with child might be baptized or no? Tome oppo^d it^

be-

beeauft (as they thought^ in her Baptilmej the chiMe in her

wombe v/as alft) baptized * and this they held could not

bee, because there is required of him that would profefle

himfelfe a follower of Chrift (^2LsZo?iarM expounds thelaft-

words of the Canon) a free ekBion : or (as Baljamon hath

it} there is required of every one in BaptKhie his own pro -

niife, which an Infant in its mothers wombe cannot doe:

at length it is determined in the Canon ^ the woman in

that condition might bee baptized when (hee would^ &c.

from whence your {ntndGrotius infers, That the Mde nfeth Proles kpn:^ari

net to bee baptized hut of its owm proper mil and profiffiim: and non file ret mfi

to back this aflertion^ hee addes fome words from 'Baljamon f^^P^^^ ^rnh^'

and Zonaras^ as if Balfamon had denyed that any were xo^^^^^^^^^^-^ '"^*

be baptized, but fiich as were able of themlelyes vto • raaloe j

confeifion of their faith in Chrift/, x^ i i ^A.'r.. 1

To vindicate the truth here from ^rotius falfe inference^ and yours alfo inconairring with him therein ^ I defir^. the Reader to takeinto his confideration thefe two thingsvt

1. Of what kinde of Women the Canon ipeakes of.

2. What the Gloflator mentioned by you ipeakes in the> fame glofle of Inputs baptized in their Infancy* =Tiie firft wHl \tt us iee, that what you Ttrotrld infer horn die Ca-'j non» is nothing to the queflion before-us. ; The fecbnd wilP letaU men fee that you deale not fairely with your; Reak dcr. h

H emember our Queition is >, Whaher Infants of heUtveri. p, ^^ are to hee Baptized with Chrifts BapiifihCy ^i . buc thiscCiaJ^j non^ fpeakes of children of Women as come, ode froiiii i*.-mong Infidellsj being then converted when they are:.wiiik childe 5 for B^/^mo« fayes. Such Women-ca rfere w.ii^

,.-, , U, \. . cUlde^ and come from thkChuYth

cre^^Wim^i?cp^^«^ • ^-^'f^P^W^ of tinbeke^kri: mdi

what is this to 6ur'Qtteftioni> which is about children bom in the Cluirch: of beleeving) Parents? ;':;>•. ; !.:rnfc:i:; '■::] Lrr^ib

Secondly^ Balfamon diflinguifhtt bi^difldteny' ftrflfeat^ -rih/^iVA yctiih the wdmbe, ^aiid not breugfait forth jinn to the world,'Othtrs are^«^"»^^ young^ but bdniiiW ' • the

the wo rid, for the firft of thefe he fayes^no man can under-takcjChe meanes in Baptifnie) but as for children that are borne ^^rafAvct^'^^fAiva^v y^Tctji^vTU, they affirme by fuch as undeitake for them, and they being aftually Baptized are accounted worthy of divine illumination: your inference by ^j//j/»(7;7j teftimony isdire^^ly contrary to Balfa-mons words, for hee roiundis verbis affirmeth that children born^do in Baptiihie anlwer by fuch as undertake for them: which words are mentioned neither by GrotitM nor your k\(Q : herein you wrong the truth, and labour to deceive thePvcader:in the beginning you charged me widi over-' hjhing (which yet was your hafte,and not my errour) but here I may fafely put you in mind oi docking or Curtailing the Author cited by you.

Laf Uy, in this Paragraph you tell us that Gfotiw addcs that maay of the Greel{j in every age unto this da) doel^eepethe Pag. 10* cufiome of deferring, the Baftiffne ef little ones, till they could

themfelves make^confejjion of their faith: yoH bragge much of Th G ic the Greeke Church, but I willnotdealewith the Greeke Church mifre- ^^urches as you deale with the Fathers, I will not put the ported by Gro- Latine Ghtuth, Augt^fline and thole Fathers and Coun-tius in this cells which accord with him in one lcale,and the Greeke point. Church in the other, fuch companions are odious: But

thisIcanandmulHay, that when you have fearchedinto the Greek Church to the utmoft, that you and all the Ana-baptifts in England cannot prove that the Greeke Church did for many hundred yeers reje6i: the Baptiihie of Infants, which is the aflertion which I faid might well put the Anabaptifts to the blu(h,and(now I adde) your ik\i alio for juftifying them in lb faying. ^ To returne to Grotimhis Annotations, who layes, that

many of the Greeks, &c. What fbrhe of the Greeks may doe at this day I know not, but againfi his teftimony of the Greeks in every age I will produce fbme teftimonies (gathered by a learned Grecian,to whom the cuftomes of the Greek Church Were, better knowne then to Gsotiut^ or the Anabaptifts who rclye on Grotius his relation) whereby it Mcvidait that baptizing Infants was held e-

vcn

The Greek Church received Infdnt'Bdptipne. j j

even neceffary to be oblerved iii the Greek Church.

P/&o»«f (thatlearned Grecian) gathering together the ^^ot.patriarch, Greek Goancells and laws for ordering of Church affaires, ^^'^^^' '*""^> ** and reconciling them one with another, hath many things JJIJ^/^g ^^'' ** forlnfant-Baptifme: asfirft^ hee brings in an Imperiall ' ^^'

Conftitution, wherein it was provided^ that all baptized SamaritansandGrecians (hould be puniihedy wha brought not their voives and children

in their families td holy hap- ^ Wi'!^9Qd)j>V'jTt.^ yaivntti }^7va!tJki7^4hf rue tifme. Here was a Law *^^'^ *^^^' "^^ ^^"'^ ^a.TvQij.a.v, Tib. i. defide which required Grecians

that were baptized to procure baptifmc for their children, otherwile they flhould be punifhcd.

Again, 7z>. 4.0^.4. he brings forth another Imperiall Conftitution concerning Samaritans ; foch among them as areof ageniuftnotra(hIy bee baptized 3 but requires they (hould bee trained up in' good Do^iirine, and then admitted to Baptifme; but their children, though they know not the Doftrine^jare to bee baptized. So (o\: Grecians^ it's required tliat all their little ones without delay be baptized. Cone, in Trullo^ Can* 84. Whereupon it was appointed in that Councell, when there were no (iire Wit-neffes to be produced, who were able to teftifie little Children (whofe baptifme was doubted of) were baptized,nei-ther for their'tender age could teftifie it themfelves,without $^tl Ty,v ymmm any offence fiich (hould be baptized.

Balfamon in his glofle upon that Canon, relates a ftory how Children comming from a Chriftian Countrey,were taken by the Scythians and Agarens^ and bought by the ilo-mans: the queftion was, whether the Children (hould bee baptized or no? though fome pleaded, they came from a Countrey where Chriftians dwelt, and therefore it is to be prefiimed that they were baptized hvn^mTi^ in their In-tancyj Some pleaded it was the care of their Mothers to procure baptifme to them: and others pleaded other Arguments for their Baptifme : yet if they could produce no witneffetomakeitgood, they were to bee baptized. Allwhid>ckarelyteftifies that Infant-baptifme was then

F gene-

j^ The L atine Church for Infant'Bdpifme.

generally in ufc among Chi iftiansj feeing they were fo carefiill to have itlellified that they were baptizedj and did prefanjetvhcrcCJhriftiansdweltitwasinure. '

Now (ee what from thefe teftimonies may bee held out for Paedo-baptifme among the Greeks^ if fiich among them as brought not their Children toBaptiimewere punifhed: tflmperiallLaws^aswellas Synodlcall Canons required Infant-baptiime 5 which they held fo fit^ that if there were any Children (of whoie Baptifhie it was doubted,) they required they (hould be baptized^ may not I from all this wonder why Grotiin^or you from him^do afBrme, C^nc* Carth. 1 hat in every age they deferred the baptifrm of their children f;<, 14, iiU they csuld makl them/eke J a anfeffton of their fait hi

Whereas the former Conftitutions about Infants Bap-tifme teit ifie that among them in thofc ages it was held an undoubted truth.

I might alfo addeto thefe one of the eight Canons concluded in Carthage againft the felagianj-^ wherein was QSRvmtdiiThatvpbfifotver derryed Baptifme for the remijfion of finne^ to a new borne Infant^ &c, ftiould be anathematized. All which being duely weighed, it will eafily appeare^ Whether the Anabaptifij need to blujh^ in faying., that the Ancients^ e/pecialljf the Greek^Church^reje&edtheBaptifmeof In-famj for many hundredyeares. Let the feverall teftimonies of the Ancients in the Greeke Church aliedged by mee, Ipeake whether the Greeks rejefted that ordinance or no: And fo weepafifc from theGreek Church here, though af^ terwardsyougiveme occalion to fearch further into the Grecians.

Come we now to examine whether the Writers of the Latine Chupdn will be more propitious to you in oppo-(ing Paedo- baptifme? then the Greeks have beens here Cy prian is thefirlt that comes under your Examen;, and calatr^ lating his age, you tell iisVJher places him in anno 240, Per-kjns 2 5 051 might tell you that others take notice of him in otlier yeares, as Trithemiut 245?, Henr, Vc^ta 245; fo liard a tiling it is^ to fct down precifely the particular yeaf^

yet,

yet all (as I faid before) agree in the Century in which he lived.

You acknowledge with nie^ that he was one of the an-cienteft Writers among the Latine Fathers; onely TertuUi" an, you lay, ivai befdnehimhand who denies that ? here upon your Semi-Sociniaa Gtotim his credit you fay^ That no^ th'mg was determined in TertuU. his time^ concerning the age in which children were confecratedby their Parents to Chrifiian Difcipline 5 becaufe hee dijfvpadeth by fo many Reafoni in hk BookeefBaptifmey c. i8. the baptizing ^f Infants. And you adde^ If he did aUowit^ it Was onely in toft of necejpty '^ as may appeare by his words in his book'^ De Anima, ca» 39, Though my task in this ex amination of your Ex^men^ bee ^

onely to make good what I faid before in my Sermon-^ yet you fhaJl have my aniwer to this place quoted by your (elf; whereby it may appeare there are- more witnelfes to confirm the fame truth^which I avoiithed but onely by the te-fti monies of a few.

Tertnllian indeed in the former of thefe places, is perfwa- ^^^^- ^'^ ^^P^» ding men to defer both the Baptifm ofchildren^^nd others i^j^y^i^inans who are of age. Yet I befeechyoutellmei doth he tiot dayes Infant? therein intimate that it was the cullbme of the Church in were baptized, his age to baptize the one as well as the other ? otherwife I fee no reafon why he fhoulddefire that they would defer the one as well as the other. And whafs the reafon of his delay? fiich as did undertake or promife for children were in danger; whilfl they promi/ed on their behalf, that which by reafon of their own mortality, and increafc of evill difpofition in children, afterwards might make them breake, or deftroy their promife 5 his words are thefe, ^^ Pro cujufque perfons conditioner ac difp^fitions^ etiam dsta" te^ cunUatio Baptifmi utiliorejl: pr£cipmtamen circa par^ 'uulos. §Hkl enimnecejfe efi^ finon tarn necfjfe^ fponfores ^^ etiam periculo ingeri ? qui et ipfi per mortalttatetn de-* ^^iflruereprBmijfiomsfHOfpeftmty & prav^ntu maU indolit ^^faUi, Is it not evident by that place, that Baptifme Was adminiftred in all ages, even to little ones ; and that there were (om^ who undartooke that they fhould

F 2 per-

cc

j5 The Latini Chttrch for Infant-Edftifme.

perform the promises made by them on their behalf? onely thiscuitome of baptizing them did not very well pleale JertuUian: wherefore he feeks to dillwade from it^ but never pleads againft it as an unlawfull things or an abufe of Chriits inftitution^ as yon doej yet how difpleafing a delay of that nature was to others (famous in the Church) hath been cleared by leverall tef cimonies before: here may you take notice of one, even before Cyprian in the Latine Church, that beares witneiTe againft you, that in his time ^ children were baptized. This truth is fo perfpicuoufly laid down by him, that you cannot deny it; and therefore you Ten, de Ani' come with an [//J and fay, Ifhee did aUow ity it u>as omly in ^^ c. 13 • cafi cf nficiffity 3 for this you refer me to his book dc Ani-^ ma^ e. 3 9, where having reckoned up the idolatry, and fo-pcrftitious fooleries of the heathen at the birth of their children, he/peaks of children, one of whofe Parents is holyj and confefles both by the priviledge of their birth and profeilion they are defignati fanlHtatU^ ac per hoc etiam falmis^ noty^iw^/, till they be born of water and the Spirit: Cyprians^ tcfti- but in that place is altum fikntium^ of his allowing baptifm mofiy f indica- ^^ ^^^^ • ^^ ^^^^ of neceffity,a5 you lay:wherein if a tnan told you that you did <7i/cr/j/?7,he fhould not wrong the truth.

But before wee part with Tfr/^i/i^^ , give mee leave to aske the queftion, whether the diflwafion which you cite out of ttrtnUians booke de/Baptifino^ may not reafonably bee interpreted of the Infants of I nfidells? becaufe in that Chapter Termi?ij72fpeakes of the baptifhie of fuch as were not born of Chriftian Parents, ((Iich as the Eunuch^ and St, Paul-^ } and therefore hec dcfires that the Baptifine of fiich Infants fhould bee deferred, till they came to yea res, and were able to make confeiHon of theirfinnes, andprofeffion'of their faith, their Parents being Infidels, and their Sponfors Hiortallj for what (faith hee) though thefe Infants may havefbme Sponfors to undertake for thei. Chriftian education .** yet their Sponfors may die before they are capable of inftriiftion; and then that promife is void and of none effe^

Ai^d.I am very much inclined to bclecvep that this is the

true

7he LdtineCht^rch firlnfant-Baptifine. yjr

true meaning of the place, becaufe it is cleare andevi-dent by the 39. Chapter of his book de Animaj that Ter^ tuUian did acknowledgethatthc children of beleevcrs had a kipde ofprivtkdge (rvbich he calls prerogative^ by their birth ^ befides that of their education: and therefore in cafe the Sponfors who undertook for the education of the Infants of Pagans did live, yea, and give thole Infants due education j yet there was a great difference between them andthe Infants of beleevers, who had fiich a birth priviledge as gave them right to Baptifnie, and by Baptifme, and the Spirit, faith he, they are made (what they were by God defigned to be) holy indeed. Bccaufe I will give you^and the learned Keaderslight enough, I will tranfcribe the^ paifage at large, and give you leave to judge, for I hope . you will make it appeare that you are pius Immicus , and pafTe j udgement upon my Mc , when you have received fome new light, if it bee new to you: but truly, I fcare, that you 6w fbmething in this 39 Chapter, whkh made againftyou: and therefore you doe barely cite the Chapter, and not fet down the words of the Author, which was not fo fairly done: be pleaded then to perufe the teftimo-ny in words at length, and not in figures. Him enitn A-^ poftolus ex fafj&ificato alterutro fexft fatiBor procreari ait^ tamexfcminis pi-aerogativa, quam ex inftitutionis dilci-plina; c^terum^ inqnit^ immundi nafcerentur^quafi Defigna-tos tamen (an6tttatis, ac per hoc etiam fzlutis intelligi vokns fidelium filios, m hujus fpei plgmra matrim^niu^ ^M£ reti-nendacenfiteraty fatrocinarentur, Alioquin meminerat 'Demi-' ttica definitionii^nifi quU nafcatur ex aqua & fpiritu^non intro^ ibit in regnnm Vei^ id efi:,non erit fan^ius. Sir, are you nor now convinced that TertuUian did conceive that the Infants of beleevers had (iich a (andity (as I called Cove-nant-holinefle) by the prerogative and priviledge of theii^ birth, as gav€ them a right tobaptifhie? I would not a-huCeTertHUian^ as you did Origin and other Reverend and Learned men, and therefore have given you a faire interpretation out of his ownc words: I beleeve by this dme you are ficke of TmuUian-, let us confer with Cyprian

^^ The Ldtine Chmch for Infant-^Biftifnfe,

and kis 6 6 Colleagues^ upon whom you have paffed a Ma-giileriall cenfure. P. 10. CyprianyilsLyyoii^fattb enoHgh^ and more then enough ^ ex--

cept heejpal^ to better purpofe : if that which hee hath ipo* ken be weighed in the ballance of your judgement 5 his words, though many will be found but light: yet you Iky tba^ Hierom^ andzfpectally AHgufline reiyed upon that Epiftle for the proving of baptizing If^fants: for my part ^ I s^m more ftrengtheticd in my Opinion of the worth of Q'pri-<«w'swords in that Epiftle by this your confeffion: for had - there not been folidi ty and truth in what hee faid ■, learned Hierom^ and Reverend Augnfiina (two eminent men in tltie Church, thoHgh you thinly great darl^nejfe vp^ upon their Jph riis^ would not have relyed on that which hath no weight in iti they were well able to ponder the weight of words, before they would relyeupon them, or applaud them. And what faith Augu^ine of that Epiftle? 'that Cyprian wof

?i^t devifing any nen? decree^ but CyprUms non novum aliqiiod decrcfum con- folloived the mofl fure faith of the dens,fedEccJcfiaehdcm ftrminumm fervans. Church: doth he not therein &c. Au^. np. .8. adHier, ^ ^^^^.^^ ^^^^ ^^^^.^^ maintain-

ing that Infants] might bee baptized before the eighth day, diddeviie no new decree,butob(erved faithfully what the Church did before him: whereby it feems, though Augu-fiine approved Cyprians judgement, yet he relyed not upon his reasons to make good Infant-baptifme; this to him is no new do(9frine, hehadanothereyeupon the conftant and fure faith of the Church, which in that point hee followed faithfiiUy.

You tell me, IfaidFidns denyed not Infa?itr Bapiifme:^ hut thought they ought not to be baptized before thejighth day: to this you give no anfwerj and may I not thereby thinke that ic appeareth evidently to your felfe, as well as to mee, that P^do-baptifme in that age was in ufe? for this youde^ nynot : and indeed, that this was the qncliion wHerein /'iafiKj-craved relblution of C;/>rf^«: ftil, whether Infants werejto be baptized before the eighth day, it appears by the words of the Epiftle: '^ ^mtum ad can]am pertinet 3 qttoJ

« dixip

fS

7'he Latine Church for Infant- Baptifme. ' 55^'

dixifii intra fecundnm^ vel teriium diem quo natifant^cO^T^ ^' fiitfitoj haptizari non oportere^ & confid^rajidam ejfe legem '^ circumcifionis antiqtt£^ ut intra o&avum diem^ turn qui na-*^ tw efi baftizandum & fan^ificandumnonputara^&c, Fiduf qiieftion therefore was, as I faid before: this appcares alfb by Augiij^, his teOiniony, who adBonifaciumj lih^ 4. contr. a,' Ep, Pelag, c. 18. fayes the fame.

So fari-e then we agree: but you fay^ I might have gone further i and obprved YiAvx^ hU reafins'^ one rvhfreof jvas drarvn from Circumcifion^whtch vpof done upon the eighth day after the birth of the childeiT he other is drarvn from the chlldes nnckannejfe in the fir ft dayes of its blrth^ which makes men ab-horre to kife it^ &c, both which are related by Cyprian^ not VeflJiiHrnm-as his owne judgement 3 biit as reafons of Fldnf his (cru- fi^ntpt mprimis pies, whereof heefoughtrcfolution from him: to both Situti'lmtt^' whieh he gives the judgment of the Councelljaffurin jj him^ ^^;„ „o« ^z*/ '^e that none of them agreed with him herein JfF/Wwi did J u-daize in both thefe, or either of them, what's that to mee^ who fay he denyed not Baptifhie to bee adminiftred to Infants ? if the ground hee went upon to tye it to the eighth day^wasunfound, Ifeeknottojuftifie him in it. Yet let me tel you^that Fiduf was not the onely man that reafbned from Circumciiion to Baptifme, though they doe^ not tye Baptifrne to the eighth day, as Fidus did. Befides the te - Ath. dc Sab,.. Simonies brought outof Athanajtus before^take notice that & circunaf/, hee Calls Circumciiion a type of Baptifme, Gieg,Nazia7iz* 0^<?^ 40. proves that Children are now to be baptized, as under the law they were circumci/ed. Auguft, alio faith the iame,//^. I. centra Grefion, Grammaticum^ c. 30. & deBapt.contr, D^-natiftjtb,4i.c»2^. Where he fayes^Baptifnie is as profitable to children now, as Circpmcifion was to children of old. Chryfnfl, alio Horn, ^o.tn GeneC, calls our Circum? cifion Baptiftie. But none of all thefe holy men tyed Bap^ tifme to a certain day, as Circumciiion was^ a? Cbr^faftome (peaketb in the fame place.

How far thefe worthy men Judaized in that age, in faying Baptifm now comes in ftead of Circumcifion, is not now to be confidered by us j therefore I leave it.

^Q The Ldtine Charch for Tofant'^Baptifme.

P* xr; In the next place, yoii (ay^ The refolution of this Conneeff

is not to bee flighted^ hecaufe upon yonr fearch^joti finde it the ff ring-head of Infant-Baptifme, It feemes when you caft your lead into the fea of Antiquity to finde out the depth of this ordinance, your line was too Qiort, and your pkinimet too light, that it could not reach beyond this Epiftle : are there not divers inftanees among the Ancients which make it nianifeft, that before that time Infant-bapti(iiie was in afe, as hath been riianifeftcd to you already? therefore that was not the firft time in which it fprung up in the world.

You fay further^ I am miflak^n about the proefes of their o^ ptnioTj^nrhich yoH call not reafint or proofes^but anfivers to obje* Bions, I will not wrangle with you about words^ call them what you pleafe^ Arguments or Anfwers: this is c-nough to me, what I have produced is recorded in the E-piftle: and all of them doe juftifie the lawfulnefTc of baptizing Infants, which was the thing which I went about to cleare: neither doth any of them enforce Baptifine to be tyed up to the eighth day, as Fidus thought.

From the words of that Epiftle, you alledee 3 things ; I. They thought baptizi?2gygiving Godsgrace^ denying it^de-' '*V nyingGodsgraci, 2- They thought the JohUs to bee hfiy which were mt baptized. 3^ That all Infants (not Beletvers ontly^ were . to bee, baptized, Tb« 2 firft I grant are rightly colle-fted from the words of the Epiftlej you mightjifyou plea-led, havecollei^ed divers other things, as that Baptifme comes in ftead ofCircumcifion^&c. But fuppofe all their grounds which they plead be not to be juftitied: yet they doe not darken the light which the pi ace gives to our que-iUon. Ifa man were to make good any ailertion of a ne-cefTary truth, anduiefeverall arguments to make it out; if one of thefe arguments be not good, or be weake, that may bee rejeded, and yet the truth ftand firnie, feeing the other arguments are good and ftrong to evidence the truth. It is true, ivhen the Ancients (aid that Children were to be baptized, fometimes they ftood peremptorily for the ne-celfityofBaptiimej as if without it no ialvation were to

bee

be excepted 5 yet they made it out by other Arguments then that: why ftiould then the truth juflified and cleared up by them, be rejec^d for this ? When they were to prove that men of yeares inftruded in the truth, (hould receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made that good by ieveral Reafonsjas fometimes from the neceffity of the command which Jeiiis Chrifi: laid upon all the Difciples of the Golpel,^/^^/ thty might remember his cUath tiU hU coming again. At other times they urged it, left men (hould brand them* iclveswith unthankfulnefle in notcomming to the feaft when they are invited Sometimes again theypreft theianie duty upon the people to come to that ordinance^that they might have the inward Grace fignified and exhibted in the Sacrament, to bee lealed up and confirmed to them. Th^efe three wayes did they ufe to prcfTe their Hearers to the frequent receiving of the Sacrament; yet at fome other times alfo they pleaded the necelfity of that Sacrament ^ as if no man without the u(e thereof could be faved. No maa can deny the firft three Ai:guments to be good, though the laft is not: and notwithftanding the weakneile thereof^this isaliiretruth. That the Sacr^ament of the Lords Supper it to he received. So it is here, divers Arguments are brought ta prove that child ren are to bee baptized; and amongft many, this is one. They conceived the want of it might bee prejudicial! to the falvationof Infants, which I will not juftifiej yet Idarenotrejeft the truth made out by other media^ reafons or arguments. And it is to bee remembred that this Argument was moft frequently u(ed by the Ancients in theheatc of dilputation, when they had to do with them that denyed the traduftion of originall fin from ^^ dam to I nfants: howsoever, at fome other times they con-teilewith Angujkine.^ that fome doe receive rem Baptifmi Lih.^.e.iu ahfque Sacramento^ a man may have the grace given in Bap- ^'>^^^*^^'^^^ tifme, and not be baptized.

As for the third inference made by you from his words, thatnot onely Infants of beleevers^ hut ail Infants are to ke haptiztd : though he layes it down in generall termes, that Rone are to be liindered from comming to Chrift: yet what

G het

he fays ought to bee undcrftood of the Church5becaufe he i^eaks of fich as God hath cleanfed or purified, who were common»

You conftrue fome paflages of the Epiftle as anfwers to fome objeftions, which doe no wayes weaken, but ftrcngthen what I have faid from thence. Onely in the cloftreofthisSeftion^you would find fault with my gathering up of Cyprians mind;) as if hee had meant that infant j are to hee b^ptizid^ becaufe they are under OrigindU fiftne^ and medpardon* You fay the Argument is rather, that they ' Mve lejfer finnes then other j^ and therefore there is leffr bin-

deranceto them to come to this Grace , remiffion of finne , and Baptifme, Cyprian indeed iayes, if Baptifhie be not denied to men of yeares, who hath committed more hainous fins then Infants,why (hould Baptifm be denyed to Infants, . who are onely guilty of Original! fin derived to them from Mam : doth hee not there mention Original] finne , which he fayes is remitted to Children when they are baptized : which in his judgement is Iciik then the grievous ad^all fins of men of year$,added to their Originall fin. In the farewell of your cenfure of Cyprians judgement, yoH caU it nak^d^ and Qiy ^ycu would have covered the nakedneffe P. 12. thereofy hut that the truth ffffered fo much thereby : and fb can at your pleafiire put upon it the title of an abjnrd Epi-file. Sir, for one man to flight the judgement of 66. men, <cminent in their generation, doth not well become a mo-•deft diipofitlon taught in the Gofpel, to thinke better of others then himfeJf. I am afraid^^ that when Cyprians Epi-)flle, and your anfiver (liall bee compared together; the na-kednefle of your anfwer will rather appeare; yea, remember what the Philofopher trampling upon Pl^to his neat Czx\)tt,fd.idyCalceVlaionis ftiparhiam: yet hceipylngahofc in his flovenly cloakej anlwered, & ego per rimam pallii tw am videofftperbiam^ &c. I cannot but account it your na-kcdnelTe, that if it be naked, you have not in your anfwer laid open the nakednefTe of it.but though it be abfurd iiv your eye, yet in the judgmento^mcnremrpnedfor learmng' and pitty^ it hath ever hten accepted in tbt Churchy notwith-^ flanding fome miftaj^es in It. Next

The Lathe Church for Infam-Baptifme. ^ j

l^lextto Cyprian conies Augufilm under your Examtnt P, 12.

IVhofe authority ivofit (as you fay) that carryed on Baptifm Mitiflm vin-oj Infants in thi follon)in2^agej almo^ without controuk: For ^^^*f^<^-whicfi you bring forth IValjridm Straho^2Lnd ^etrut Clunia-cenfis tellimonieSjwhich I here mean to pafle overjand take notice of them in another place.

Iconfe(relearned^«g//jJ/7ze his authority was great m the Church, both whilft he livedo and ^ncc^ and that worth ily ;n ot onclyfor his defence of the truth which you now oppofe, but of other greater and more ncceffary truths al-fo, which hee folidly maintained againtt the adverfaries who laboured either to iuppreffe or corrupt the fame: albeit you (eeme not much to iland upon his judgement: which with you is of no more value^ then hisproofes and reafons can addt weight thereunto.Thns you flight hiniathough what he (aid is approved by divers Fathers and Councels named by yourfelfe > and how far your barefingle judgement and cen{ure will out-weigh Auguftine^ ProJper^Fulgentinf^ and the CdunceSjyQwhich you mention in this Ciueftion)let the Reader judge.

It hath been an ancient juftifiable courfe in the Church in examining of controverfies in Religion? to look back upon the writings of famous men who fiourifhed in the Church before: was not Sifinnius his counfell to good pur-pofcjwhich he presented to Theodofius (then ftudying how to put an end to the unhappy differences w^^ troubled the Church in his time) when hee perfwaded him, dmV^y^iv n i $6^, 7«12. ©e^V TK? l-nfoJh^ns cOctAif«f: and to demand of them whope-titioned him? whether they would not ftand to the judgement of iuch as were Teachers in the Church before it was divided ? cipeciallyl when their judgement diflented not from the Scjjptures: his counfell no doubt was good and wholfome j yet I defire that herein I may not bee mifta-ken. This I fpeake not, as if I attributed more to Antiquity then to Ferity, I have long lince re-folved ( by Gods aflifiance) with Hierom^ Antiqua legtre^ probarcfinguljy retinere qu£ bona fnm ^ & a fide Catholics Ecclefis nonrecederej it were happy for the Church among

G 2 uSj

The Ldtm church for Infrnt-Baptifme.

uSjif in this unruly age, many (who not content with for-^ raer ti'uth:, are carryed on with an itching diipofition after novelties) would doe the like.

I return to judicious Attgufiim : Here I expefted your ac-m.T2iUExamm would have canvaft the feverall teilinionics in the places quoted by me 5 but lam deceived: Whereby it feemsyou havenothhig to fay againft them, but that they evidence what was that Churches praftice in his time about our queflion (which was the tme andonelyend ■why I named any teftimonies from Antiquity:) for if they did notj I doubt not you would have faid fo much : onely here you tell us what your account is of his proofes and reafons of his judgement in this controvcr fie: all which to you feeme to ^ee but light : this you labour to prove in 6 following Seftions, which I will now view, and lee whether your rpn^hty anfwers wil fatisfie his light rcdfbns in the judgement of any indifferent Reader. f wA 'f'ourfirft exception againft his judgementis^ becaufe he

makes it an unlverfall Traditiofs-y a ftirewd fault, or a dangerous pofition;which wil nc^ down with an Anti-paedo-bap-tifhie. And firft you rcalbn againft it to this purpofej // the Church had thought it neceffary that all children of Chriftians by frofejjion fhould hie baptized in ihir Infang ; then none born within the pale of the Chuixh fliould have mifs'tof it. But fo it is that many did. Urgo^^s-c, Your Minor you prove, j^ugtifiinehiwfdk^ Meodatuf his Ton, zndy^lipii*^ his friend were not lb baptized; and thus you labour to prove againft Augujiine^ that Infant-baptifm was not univerfally received in that Church as he laid, which you thinke to evince by the indu6lion of thefe inftan-c^s.

Fifft, that it was univerfally ufcd in the Church, teftimonies of good Witneffes recording thepra6liieof the Church make it manifeft; and wee have heard of fome of them before in their leverall ages 5 as, lrm£ui lib, 2 . cap-,-^ 9. (notwithftandingthebaryouput in agaiiift him • ) hee tells us that Chrift came to fave all forts of people, whether young or eld^^forthey are regenerated by him in Baptifme.

Qfigen

The Lathe Church for Infant-Baptifme. Af

Orlgen in feverall places , as^ i« Luc, 14. /i^ 5. in Ep, ad Kom, & in Lxvit, Horn. 80. in which places he tells us, it was the cuftonie of the Ch»rcb to give Baptifnie to little ones 5 and rayeS5notof this or that Church: which by a conftant courfe they had observed:therefore in his time we find it u^ niverfally praftifed in the Churchy otherwife he could not. lay that the Church obiervcd it. Qpr,Ep,:^cj, provcs(as we have heard) that Baptifme is to be denyed to no ageithen hee Siddcs^^ quant0 magis prohibertnon debet Infans^ d^c.ihis he lets down as no new Do^iirine, but faithfully adhearing to the order of theChurchjas we heard Ironi Angnftine be-foreimay wee not now from all thefc fiy^ k was in his time the univerfaUcuftome of the Church to baptize Infants?

Shall I adde other WitnelTes who lived in the fam^Cen- q,^^^ znckni tury with him ? Chtyftfiome Horn. ad. Neephytos, Amhifs reftimonies for £p,ad Dif^^triadem Virginem, Hkron. adL£tam^ &lib.l, Infanc bapifm; adv, PJjg. all which I now pafle over:and are not all theie WitnefTes of the pra£li(e of the Church? which being weighed^ who can deny that Auguftme might well relate Paedo^baptifmtobeeuniverrallypraiftiiedj having fuch a cloud of WitnelTes to confirm it-

And to manifeft It further^ this is fomewhat to mee; S-/?z^^j«iwf(whofeteilimony you looked for) in the end of his worke relating what was generally oblerved in the Church tells us, TheBjptipm adminiftred in the Church in his tim?5 was performed ace ordin ^ to th e Tradition o f t he Gofpel, and the authority of the Apoftles; as well as other myfteries then in uft. And we knowthat in his time Bap-tifine was adminiftredt(? Infants, therefore in his judge-mcntj what the Church did therein^ they had authority for ittrom the Golpel and the Apoftles: to make that good> lie (ays afccrwards,T/;j^ ^aptifim came infiead ofCircHm:ifi-^ on^vphich then was not in uje.

Furthermore, femetimes Hiftorians relating particular aiftomes in fome things which were not in ule in (bme Churches and Countreys^ (upon which arofefome debates in the Church) doe not mention that of Infants Baptifme xs one of thcfe particular cuftomes obfervedinfomeChur-

G 3 dies

ches^ and not in others See Socrates Hift. lib, 5.22. it's true, he relates fome diverfities of Overall Churches about per-1fbns that had power to baptize, and about thetimcin which Baptifme was commonly adminitlred; but he mentions none that excluded Infants from Baptiftne, whilft o-thers baptized them; which no doubt he would have done if there had been any flich cuftome then afoot in the 5'^<. 7.19 Church. Sozom. likewise feting down the feverall cuftomcs of leverall Churches (though they were of the fame Opinion) among all which Angular cuftomes, baptizing Infants is not named for one, yet in ufe in that age: therefore it is to be conceived as the gencrall praftife of the Church. Indeed there was a different cuftome^ ( elpecially in fome after ages) in the manner of b?.ptizhig both Infants and

frown menj in fome places they dipt them thrice, in fome ut once: and of tliis very cuftome Gregory the great So^. 1.17- nieanes, when he laith^ In jma pdc nil officii eccltft£ diverja conjmtudo. But in none of theft Ancients doe I read any luch diverfity of cuftomes that fome Churches baptized Infants, others baptized them ncr.if you know any, I pray you produce them in your next.

Now I come to /peake to the particular inftances, by which you goe about to difprove this univer/all praffiie of the Church: yo\\tt]lmcAugHJline rr^ not baptized till a-^ P. 14* bove ^ojeares, though educated as a Cbrifiian by his Mother Mguflrncf Monica. Firft, I might anfwer you with the Proverb, uxa baprifin, no ar- hirundo non faclt zer, or that one exception takes not away fnfams^wefc ^^^ generallrule : if after ages come to read the ftories of norrhcn bap- theChurch,aftertheLordwaspleafedtobegin the Rcfor-rized. mation thereof in Luthers time: and then find that even

in that time BaJiazzar Tacommitanvs with fbme of his /educed brethren did withftand Pasdo-Baptifme; or if after generations among us fhall find that when God begun fb happily to advance that blefled work of Reformation beyond the pitch it was brought unto in our Anceftors dayes, if they fhould meet with Mr. Tombes Examcn of this queiii-on , and therein fee your Judgement again ft the conii^ant and univerfall pra6the of the Church at this day: if fuch

fhould

/boiald from a few particular Examples infer that this Was the Doftrinccommonly received in the Reformed Chur-ches('i^^/ children fifouJd not be baptized:')Or dsny that this was the common received Doftrine that children fhouldbe baptiaedi aflirredly:, a man that knows the Do^b-ine and present pra6tife of the Church, might with all reafon deny the confequenccj becaufe fome among them did not (land for Infant-Baptifme; therefore the generality of themdenyedit. So it may be here though r^ peradventurc fome (though born of Chriftian Parents)were not in that age baptized in their Infancy^ yet that is no way prejudicial! to the univeriall pra^life of the Churchy in which Px-do-baptifme was received.

But fecondly^ I anfwer more particularly: I grant Ju-guftine wot not baptis:^d till hee n^as^oyears old. And I will not take upon me to determine (belides the generail ob-fervation of the reafons, upon which Baptiime in tho/e dayes was deferred by fome, which formerly have been hinted) what the particular reafon was of his not being baptized in his Infancy: but I will hold forth unto the Reatlerfb much as (ball clearely fliew that you have no caufe from that example to fay^T'^^/ children oj Chrifiians by profejfionin that age rpere not bafiizedin ikir Lfancy-^ becaufe you flioidd firll: prove that Au^ufiine his parents were Chriftians at his birth; otherwife you fpeake not to the queftion before us; What was the profellion of his Parents when he was borne? take it from AHguftimhimr (elfc : who fayes (though Vojfidonim in his life ieemes to fay otherwi/e) when he was Pwfr, a child grown^ hee fell cxtreame fick. which put him in feare of death, (then hee and his mother alio were both troubled that hee was not bapti2ed:)he fayes of his Father at that time, ^yet he beke- Aug. Conf, 1. 1 .• ved not in Chrift, When Augufiine was about 1 6 yeares of ^-' '^' ^^^. "^*" age, his father was but catechumenuf^ Conf, lib. 2 . ca. 6, Ii> ^^" ^rediderat, another place ipeaking of his mothers peaceable cohabi' tation with him, (though he was a man of a haftie difpo-l fition, and fomctimesuled her unkindly) yet he fayes of her, mrnmjmm in extr^ma vita ttmporali ejus literata eU Cmfc^^,^^

tibi

^ The Lathe Church for Infant^34ftifme.

tihi (i, €.Veo^^ &c* Dotii not that'tcftimony plainly hold outjtiiat hee was not gained to the Chriftian faith iintill hecdrew nearethe endof hislife ? and if it was Co long before he was truly gained to the Lord ^ how can it feeme ftrange to any, that he whobeleeved not in Chrift himleli"^ fhoiildneglecl^ or it may bee hinder the baptizing of his Childe in the name of Qirift ?

It isalfo faid oiMonica^ that when, fhee was but i ^ yeares old^ (he was marryed; her mother taught her to pray, but we read not ofherbaptifme when fhe was young: or if (he were baptized when hee was borne, how ftiail wee know that her husband would give way to her to have Baptifmeadminiftredtoherfon, (he differed many things of him whilft he continued an I nfid€ll5as Auguftine conki^ feth. Nay more, it (he were baptized herfelf at his biith^ why might (hee not be conceived*to be carry ed away with thcenoroffomein thattine of deferring Baptilme till deathj that they might not (inne after it ? it appeares not, his Parents were Chriflians (it is out of doubt his Father was not) at his birth: therefore nothing for the ftrengthe-ning of your adertion is gained by this inftance. Aft-erwards Aitguftine put off his ownBaptifm till he was r^ffiJ. de via about 30 years, and upward, and what marvailc? He was Aug. a, poyfoned with the Mankhdsan herefie, in which hee conti-

nued almolt 9 years, Conf. lib, 3, c 11. in which time what ,C<?»f, 4 3» account hee made of Baptiihi, may bee (een in his deriding of it to his deare and intimate friend (who was baptized in his (ickiiefTe) by whom hee is fhaiply rebuked for it. I might alfoadde what hee confeiles^ that the ilrength'of hislu(tfiill difpoiition airryed him on to many fins, which Conf. I. X I.' made him make no hade to bee baptized, quia poji lava-crumiUud^ major & periculofior in jordihui deli^oram Hatm foret: fomuch may be read in Augufline himfelfe, of the caufes of deferring his bapti(mc5which yet can be no prejudice to the general praftiic of the Church in that age^as it is mentioned by himfelf, and others.' Norhisfonnc Neitheris itany wonder why Adeodatw his fbnne was AdcedAius, not baptized in hisliifancy: for how can wee fceke for

his

his Baptifme in Infancy when as his father was unbaptized? he being borne when his father was about fome 15. or 16. yeers of age. When Angufiim hinifelfe was baptked^ hee cauffd him to be baptized with hinifelfe^ Adeodatus being Conf.9,6, almoft 15 .yeers old. Indeed iCAdeodate had continued un-baptized after Augufiim his baptifine, your objeftiort drawne from him might have had fome colourable pre-tence^which now it hath not; much lefle any weight in ic to confirmewhat you (eeketo ilrengthen thereby.

hsior Alipius^tMts his fcandalous converfation, hee ^<'"/^ t. wasalfopoyfoned by the Manichees: and further it ^V^^^f'Vr^'. peares alfb what miftakings he had concerning the doftrine '' ^^'^' taught in the Church about Chrifts (bule^ whereupon ic is faid of him, ad iplam Chrifiianamfidem tardius movSatur : therefore confidering how long he continued in his errors, it is not to be wondered at that he al(b was (b long unbap-tized. So much for your three inftances.

Afterwards becaufeyou feare thefe inftances will not bee fufficient to make good youranfwer, therefore you grant with GrotitfSy thjtT^ado-baptifme was much more frequented^ and with greater opinion of necejfiti€ in Afriat^ then rn Afii^ or otberpartsofthe world: I take what you grants that it was ufed both in Africa and Afia : and may I not then with Ah' gftftintfzykwas univeriall^ both among Greekes and La-tines?

And when you (ay it t»ai more frequented in Africa then in Apah I know you would intimate that the received cu-ftonie was, that fome did^ others did it n it^ each doing rvhat hee thought be^^ hut that the Greekes kffe regarded it then the La-tines: for fo I findeboth (jrotius^ and the Arminians in their book Cenfura cenfHr£fiaP,2^,to affirmeconfidently^but neither you nor they muft be belecved upon your bai^e aflertion againft fo many witneffes: yet this Iticks with you, that in the C^uncells QsisGrotiui fdiith)you cannot find ancienter mtn^ ^^i* ^^* tionofthat cufiomethen thecounceU of Carthage-. I have formerly told you why Fathers and Councells mention not all things which are controverted in our age, which was this: bccaufe their care was to refolve the doubts which trou-

H bled

JO The LMine Church for Infant-Baftifme.

bledtheChurchin their dayes : if there bee no Canon concerning it^ why may it not be thought that they did not mention itjbecaufc in tlieir times none did fcruple it >yct when any thing relating to childrens Baptifme was ftarted, then the Church maintained it, witnefTe the 66 Bifhops afTembledinaCouncellanfivering Fidm about that quefti-on. I might alfo put you in mind that Confiitutiums Cle-tneniis make mention of it laying. But baptize yce jour Children i^^-n^^'T^ ^ Ci^^vTnvii'^ct albeit for niy part I conceive dieleConftitutions not to be his, under whoie name theygoe^ yet with the beft Criticks I may aifirme this^ that they relate the ancient cuftomes of the Greek Church, gathered into one volumcj the Compiler of them defiring to put credit upon them would have feverall Conftitutions to come from leverall Apoftles. FulgentJe fide And aliboHgh it vpas more ufedin Africa then el/e-jrhere^jei ad Petmmya, jqj^ queftion n'hether they did in jifrica baptize Infants hut in csfe ^®* ofnecejjitieyorfor healths fak^ : I pray remember what TertnUi-

«iw that learned African faid de Anima. Fulgentim tells us baptifhie is fufficient to walh away originall finne from In-idLnt^:foHilarius Ep,2* ad AuguftinHm mentions it;, yet neither of theie (peake of Baptifme in the danger of death : to which you fay they retrained it.

7OH mention the difti?2Eiion ofCatechumeni andperfonj JBap-

nzed:,andthe uje of catechizing before Baptifme^, that even after

jiugufin^his dajex the baptizing of perfons ofgrovpne age did

Continue as vpeU m of Infant s^&c. Doe you not forget the que-

Hion before us ? you fhould have proved that Infants were

not baptized, and now you (peake of baptizing of men

of yeers, which gives you occalion to mention the di-

lUnc^ion ofCatechumeni and others, and that is nothing to

ourqucftion, for who ever doubted that even in Augw

/^fwe his time many ftill adhered to Paganifme? and when

any of them had embraced the faith, why might they not

be catechized, and fb prepared for Baptifme, and when

they were found fit baptized? Ajigu^im tould us befbre,thal

his father was Cateahumenns when hee was lixtc^neyeers of

TJien

Then you come to cenfiire bipti<$ng oft»bole Conntries upm thi baptizing of thtir King^ &c» which h nothing to our queftion, otherwile I might relate unto you feverall examples where you might fee^ what a notable preparation for theconverjlion of Nations it hath been to have their Gover-nours ibew them the way^ut I forbeare.

Inyourfecond Seftion you except againft ^ugufltm his p judgement, hccdiXX^Q he heldtbat Infants mtbout baptifme mnfi ^^' Ine damned by reafan of origlnall fimuy rpbich it not fallen away bm by baptifme. I grant that Augujiiney and fbme others of the Ancients prefled baptizing of Infants upon that ground, but not onely upon that ground : and they did mod prede that ground when they had to doe with He-retiques, denying originall finne to be conveighed from parents to their children : yet they maintained Paedo-Bap-tifine upon other found grounds^as formerly I have pro-vedi therefore this exception is of no vilidity, nor was this Augtufiintf conftant Doftrine : yea it was a Do6lrine which hee retraced as an errour^ as (haU afterwards ap peare.

Againe you faysthatj'^?^ cannotfinde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon : that the Cavinant of grace belongs to her leevers and t heir feede. What if you have not found it, will you therefore fay it is not to be found in their writings ? Ber-nardus non vidit omnia: why may not fbmc things in the vaft monuments of Antiquity palfe unfeene by you > though you have feene mnch^and thinke that you have feene more truth then all the Ancients did, and can cenfure what they lay atyour pleafure: But if you did find this in the writing^ of the Antients, it would make nothing for, or againft me, who have not placed Infant-baptifme upon that ground^ becaufe they placed it fb : I have aflcrted that ground from' the Scripture, as afterwards, God willing, (hall bee made good. But that they alfo, (even many of the ancients) prefled Baptif me upon the found grounds which wee doe, I have made it appeare out of feverall writings.

As for the judgement of 5e//jrwiiwf5 Aquino and others quoted by you,I will not trouble my felfe in an(wering for

H 2 -them:

them: they were not allcdgcd by me, neither will I (land to their iudgement.

In your third Section you bid mee confider of Jufftfihe his judgement, holding it neceffary for Infants to recede ibe Lords Sufptr ^ t'^at opinion is nothing to our qucftionin debate before us^ therefore you canexpe6\: no anlwcrfrom meetoit^ for I never pleaded it.

But what is your Argument from htncc^ hugufiim held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper^ ErgOi What? draw a conclufion to hurt me if you can, onr qucftion being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes. Fag. 16. Fourthly you tell me that Augufiim held a certainety of

"Regeneration by Baptifme^ and ht makes no qtieftion of the Rege^ mration of Infants^^c^ I confefle that fometimes hee fayes foy yet at other times ( as I told you before) hee fayes there are (bme qui rem haptifmi ahfqtte Sacramento b^ptijmi confequentur^So alfo did Ambrofe comforting Valentmhn his fifters upon his death (for hee died whilft Ambrofe was on his journey comming to Baptize hini)where he faid of him, §lmm in Evangelic geniturM eram^ amifi : fed iUe non am'ipt

gratiam quam popefcit vifajamfruitur sterna qui ha'

buitfpeCHlum tuum San&e pater^quomodo non accepit gra tiam tU" am > hee fpeakes confidently of his eternal] eftate, though unbaptized : yet Ambrofe a.s well as Augu^ine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptifine.

Fiftly^youfcorne his judgement in defending queftions putto Infants at their Baptifine, and anfwerd by others. That's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized, though I will not take upon me to juftifie that cu-\ Home of putting forth queftions to them, who by reafon of their age were not able to returne an anfwer: polfiUy I could tell you how,and that many other cuflomes crept into the Church, but becaufsit is not to our purpofe, I forbeare.

Laftly, you fay,it is apparent out of that Epifllc of AugU" fti^e^ T^hat Inj ants ^whether horm ofBfk<i\rs^ or offfteb 09 had not received the Cbriflian f^ih-, VP^rc haptizedi neither doe I in that juftifie him: you may take.notice that here againe

you

The Laiine Church forlnfant-Baptifme. -^j

ycHi confefle the queftion that Infants were baptized.

But bccaufeyou make fiich a great matter of it that it mttjl needs follow that they reje^ed covenam-bolinejfe or the hmh" priviledge of beleeverj l^fanis^ hecaufe they baptized other J/j-fantj if hroj^ght unto fhcnt . I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny thisconfequencej becaufe they conceive that not onelyfuch as are borne of Chriftian parents might bee baptized^ but that other Infants aJfb if any Chriilian would undertake to traine them up in Chrids Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptilme5 you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this la w-tulljwho yet plead covenant-holineflc:, as. further warrant why beleevers children not onely mayjbut ought to be Baptized : and TeriuUiajj pleads both thefe grounds in the place I quoted at large, both prerogative of birth, and benefit of education. Furthermore many of the Rab* bines fay^ that the children of Gentiles niiglit bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion, yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children, forCir-cumcifion; I alledgc all this to fhew that you (hould not thus vilifieand fcorne their praftlfe and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made: whether that which hath beene fpoken out of Cyprians E-piflle,and Jingujiines approbation of it^doe not advantage jnycauie,whether they have not proved as much as I alled-^ ged them for,I leave to the judicious and impaitiall Reader,

To all the forenamed Authors I added Hier(?»8<? and Am- i /r^/ehis teftimonies to prove the fame: here you confeiJe that they were of the fame judgement with Augupne in our quei^lon^ thereforej^w conceive your anfwer to Augujiine hh teftimony to he aftffficientanjjver to them alfo : in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former anfwer.

Your lafl Seftion of this Chapter is a Recolleftion of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the pra6li/e of In-fanc-bapti(me^ as alio of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no iiich thing praftifedin the firft and beft Antiquity. You muft give me leave to recollect

H 3 what

£^ Yhe Zatirte Cfmrcb for Infan^-Bdftifme,

what I have already anfwered to thefe exceptions and allegations 5 as for your Vives afid Strabo'^ I iliall give you my thoughts of them anon.

Youconfeflel brought thife teflim^nhs onely to frovt the prMije of Infant-Baptifiney and that you cannot deny they provcj onely you adde they rather pnrve the thing an errour then a truthy becanfe praCiiJed upon fetch erromojn groundj. As the necejjitie ofBaptijme tofalvaiion : The certsinik of the Kemifjion of original! fenne I the denying ofBaptifme unto none. But are thcle the onely proofes by which the Ancients did aflert the baptizing of Infants 5 Ihavcproved, that notwithftanding lomc of them owned that corrupt ground (and pleaded it efpecially in the heate of disputation) yet they baptized them upon the fame grounds which ive doe. Doe not Zcr-tuUianfyprian^&c. argue from Circumcifion unto Baptifnie asweenowdoe, and others of them from Covenant-holi^ ne(re>(but this and our other proofes you threaten to confi-der hereafter.)

In the meane tim^ this you adde ^ (you fhould have faid re-peate) foryou adde nothing to what you had ipoken before.

That the T ifilmonia produced prove not that it wjsinpraBife^ hut in cafe offitpfofed xtecejjitie*Lct the Reader judge whether thefe Teftinionies have not proved it an univerfall pra6li/e, and fonot onely in c:if€ ofliippofcvl necefiitie 5 and kt Mr. T'tf/w/'ej but conluk that Booke, which I perceive hee hath made great ufe of in this Controverfic^ an Armiaian Book commonly known by the name of Gen fur a Cenfur^^ and that will tell him that Angufiine may bee faid to bee the firft that ^grounded Infant-baptifnie upon neceffitie^ Ct». Cen, cap.2^.

Secondly;, you fay there n?a^ fiill in pra&ife a eonjlam cottrfi of baptizing the growne children ofprofefJeJ bektvas when they were at/tillage :yi)i\ha.yeieene already how much you are miflakenin thofeinftances yougiveof fuch a pra^life^ and how nuidi this praclifc was difavowed by the Fathers of thofetimeSj could you butfinde as much in Antiquitie a-gainft the baptizing of Infants as there is againft the

defer-

The Lathe Church for InfanU Baptifme.

deferring BaptUme, how would you triumph?

Th\vd\y^you.f3.y they did conceive alih^ necejjitie pf^ andac* eordinglj didpradtife the giving of the Lords Supper to Infants, But did all the Fathers fore-mentioned judge and pra^^ife fo? you cannot but know that all that plead for them doe not plead for the other, nor can you (how that all that pra^ifed the one pra6i:iied the other 3 I confeiTQ fome of the Africans did fo.

Your £Quvth:,thai they made no difference beivp^m^ the Infants ofbeUeverj and unhekevers brought unto them^ if it vvere true^ doth not di^rovethepractife of Baptizing Infants^ onely it proves an errouria that pracliie. But (if by unbclee vers you meane Pagans) it is not proved to be^ their general! pradi^e, I thinkeit was praftiied by fome of them upon the grounds above mentioned, but not found in their conltant and generall praftiie.

In your fifth yon fpeake cauteloufly that the Ancienteft of Teftimomes for praSitfe [according to any Knk determined'^ is Cyprian mere ^00,yeers after Chrifl. Here I muft needs take notice of your overhfhing^ who before calculating his age acknowledged him 10 live but 250. yeers^ and here you £ay hec lived almoft 3oo.yeers. I fee that the Teiiimonies oi InfiineMartyryIren£JiS-y Origen^ TertuHian^ (who all lived neerer the times of Chrift then Cyprian") are made good againft your exceptions, you finde onely this'evafion^that their Teftimonies doe not prove the pra6lire of Infant-bap-tiCmQy^cdrding to any Rule determined. But Sir remember our controverfie at pre(ent is concerning the praftife^ not the Rule.

In the next place you undertake to prove that it roasnit fo from the begi!»ning:,znit\i^t by many evidences. Now I cannot but conceive it likely^that Aagujiines Ecclejiafemper habu-it^ fempir tenuity fhould fway as much with the intelligent impaitiall Reader, as Mr. Tombeshis Non femper hahiiit^non femper tentiit':, efpecially confidering that you bring not in all the Antiquitie you have produced one manthat dotbtither derjy the Baptizing of Infants to hdve heene the ordinary praUife of the Church or that condemne ify onely two you cite that doe ,

advife

^ . n^he Lmffe church fdrIafant'B4fflfme.

advifeAe deferring of it, as they doe alfo tkc BapUfiae of growne men.

As iivO:,tkfropoundwg of qnefiiom um Infams, which at Strabo andVm^^idy Jo any reafonahle mctn fay yon wiUthinkt a ma?iifcft proofe that at fiifi nom ivere baptized but fncb m u adeyft :wd the faith of Cbrift,

Thisruppofethtliere gueflionsto bee of as Antient ufe in the C^iurch of God as Baptifme k Celfe, which certainly you !C3n never prove from Scripuire, and how can a«y rcafonableman thinke that a nianifeli proofe to whom Baptifnie was, or was not at firft adminillred.that was not in ufe in thetiriladniiniftration. I have produced teftimo-nies bearing witnefTe to the bapti2ing of children, which plead for it,before you can bring any to witneiTe that thofe formes of quellions and anfwers, had any beincr in the Church. ^

Secondly:,your examples of Greg,Naz.Chryf)ft. Auguft, Cok-ftantinethe Great^hsLvc been already aniwered. Yourmi-ftafces in their parents, educationjreafons of their deferring Baptifme, fo made manifeft,as it is abundantly evident they are farre from proving the BaptizingoWnfants ofChrifti-an pa'ents not to have been the received and conftant pradcife of the Church of Chrill.

Thirdly, Greg. Nazianzem and TmnUian nhom yon cite or diffrvading 5 you have heard even in the phccs cited to you, the one bearing witnefTe to the prafti/e of Infant-baptifme the other commanding it. ■*

Fourthly, the Teftimony of the ComceS of Neoc£farea which you fay 14 plaint agai?2ft if, of the teftimony of this Councel/, Jet the Reader lookebacke and judge, but the glofTe upon that Canon to which you referred us, lamfureis aplainc Teftimony for it.

Tikljythe^lence whichyOH impute to the chiefe Tvriters^Eufe-biuf^&c, is your miftake,not their fault j for Ek,/^^;W, what thereafonofhisfilenceisyou have heardiaiKlforyour,&c. if you mcane 7mnllian^ Athanafim^ Epiphaniw^ whom be-' fore you charged with filcnce in this caufe, I hopcyou may now heare them ipeaking and witneffing for us.

Sixtly,

Thi Latipt Chwrch for rnfafit-Rdptifme. ^^

Sixtly, for the mzny pAJfages in Attftim andvotfws that eaU it an ApflfiolicallTraduiony inwhatfenfe cheyarcto^eun-derftood Uiave already (Iiewed^ and am loath to detains the Reader with Tautologies.

For your Triwrnwi that bring up your reere and fhut up this tiril part of your Battalia, Gmitff,Vives^B.nd Stxaho^ (to whom I wonder you did not adde Cerjjura Ctnjkr^y for ciwprer t|. you are more beholden to them for your Teftimonies of -Antiquity, iuch as they bee,then to all your other three^and I dare fay, without dilparagement to your- reading, whoever lookes in Grotiuf and them, (hall find almoft ail that y oi< havefpoken in this ControveHie from Antiquity collefted to your hand.) One of your three Champions I have en-countred, and I hope dispatched already* and for the other two rives and Strabo^ I lee they are men of great account with you. F/z;e/you quote five or fix times, and adorn e your Frontifpice with a peece of his, and Strabo yoli men-tiotiofi:en. But Ibefeechyou Sir, muft wee take the bare word of Vives a man of yefterday,or of a^SsiSfibo in matters offaft in things cbnefb many hundred jSfers before they wereborne, and that againft the exprefle witneflc of io many worthy and learned men who lived in thole times:' what evidence doe either of them produce out of Antiqui-tleto make their aflcrtion good? You know well enough that learned Voffittf did take notice of Strabo and yiva^ and proves out of Authors that lived many hundred yeers before i^/r^^o (for hee lived but about 850) that Infants were bapti2ed in the Church of old^ and wonders that -S/rji^oftouId rely upon foweake an argument as hee doth, and I as much wonder that you knowing all this (hould boaftfomuchof fiich broken Reeds. And fo I leave you and your men, and (hall expert to fee what reliefe you will bee able to give them, for they can give none to you.

MoreTeftimoniejyoufajyoHCou^d have added ontoffundry Author J :vih\ch I hardly belcevc feeing you are forced to rjj^ up an old ufecontinfted in fome Cities of Italy onely upon the hearefay of ^/VfX. But thefe you fay are enough -to you, and you thinkc to any that fearch into antiquity, to prove

^^ The LatineChureh ferlnfanuBdpifmt.

th$t the cuftoitie of Baptizing of Infants ^as not froitt the beginning, and therefore is but an innovationj 1 verily beleeveupon your next fearch into Antiquities you willbc of another n-ind.

And for your confident aflertion that the VoUrim that Bipufme if to bee given to Infants of Bektverj omly hecaufc of Covenant-holinejfe , u not elder then Zuinglius : Zmn-glim I confefTe was a great Patron of this caufe ^ who in a publike di/pute did fo convince and ftop the mouths of the Anabaptiftsj that they appearing to the Magiftrates ^nreajfona&ly obftinate were baniflied the Citie. But wh^^^25 you fay hee is the firft that you can finde that main-t^iaed theBaptilme of Infants upon this ground, I (hall be glad to helpeyou j perufe but what is before your eyes, and you Chall find 7'er/«i7ii«» and Athanafiuf pleadfing the right of Infants to the Kingdome of heaven upon Covenant ho-linefle : you may finde Eprphanius^ Cyprian^ Nazianzen^ Augujiine^ Cbryfoflome^^nd others pleading Baptiime to come in the roome of Gircumcifion^ and divers of them pleading Infants right tol6apti(me from the Jewes Infants right to CircumcjJion, which to mee is all one as to plead it from Covenant-holincfle: you may aKb finde even the Pelagians acknowledging a Divine Inftitution for it, fecundum fen-tentiam EvangeliL And now I hope it will not offend you if I iay> I am fbrry you difcover ib much either igno-rance^ or negligence in the fcarch of Antiquity^ as to fay, The Tenet and PraQ:ifc of Infant-baptifmc accordingly as wee hold and praftife^is not much above lOo. yeersold^ fo farre as you can find.

To conclude this part of my Treatife about the Antiquity of Tnfant-Baptiftie, give me leave to adde thefe few things. Firfi:, that I (hould not have judged it convenient to have madefo muchfeanch into tliepraftife of antiquity^ if you had not fo confidently undertaken to fhcw that the ancients were of your mind, and that I perceive your faire Ihowes make many begin to thinke it was as you affirme, and therefore tnking my felfe bound to give the beft- account I could with truths I have not onely made what diligent fcarch I

could

Thi Ld^im Church for InfarU-Bdfiipne. ^

could my felfjbuc have airo(which I willingly acknowledge that no man may thinke of my reading above what it i^) made u(e of my friend who is better verfed in their writings then I am, Ictt the truth in this matter of pradife might fitfer through my weakneile, who have but juft leafure e^ nough to looke into thelc Authors now and then, and con-fult them upon occaiion. Yet had it been need&llj I could have added many other tefiimonies out of the Antients to let you iee that they approved Infant-Baptilme, and affirmed that Baptifine came in the place of Gircumcifion, as the Author of the Booke Ve Vocatione Gentium^ 1x9. l^cap.y Cyrill, Akxandrin. in Levit. lih, Ifychiur Ffeshyttr in Levity /i/?.2,cdrp.6. and many more.

Secondly^in thisfearch I find that the Ancients- did not thinke that all who died unbaptized were damned, as you ufiially charge them,

Theyconceived that Martyrs were baptixed;With their blood, and therefore might bee faved though they were not baptized with water. When great Bafil dilcourfed of this point in his Homily of the4o« Martyrs, he faith of one

vJhiTtS.}^' c¥ T« i^stj<^«ft7?5 He washaptiztd imby another(^or the fdith tf another) hut bj bif ovpne faith: not in plater^butinbis owmhlood. Here Baptifine by water was dcnyed, and yet ialvation attained by a twofold Baptifme, by faith, and in blood.

Yea I alfo obfcrve that they Who Were n<i Martyrs, were in the judgement of the Aricients luffidently baptized by the holy Ghoft, without blood or water: and torproofe of this point, I (hall produce a teftimony out ofAugHfiint^ whom I cite tlie rather, becaufe upon fecond thoughts hee did rctra^ his opinion, and acknowledge that B%>tifme was not Absolutely neceilary to (alvation, Martyrdome might fuffic^ without Baptifmc, nay faith and convcrfion of the heart might fufEce without Martyrdome, or Baptifine, in cafe a man were caft into fuch ftraights, that hec could not be made partaker of Baptifine, Etiam atque etiam eon^deram m*ifenio (faith hcc)nmttintu?npaJfiQnemfro nomine

Sq The L atine Church for Infant-BApifme.

Chriftl^ id^uod ex Bajjtifmo ^eraty foJfefupplerCy Jed efiam fi^ dim convcrfiommque cordis^ fi forte ad ccUhranttitmAiyjitrium Bapiijrnt in angufiiij Hmf^ntm fuccurri nm potcfi^ in his fift bookePe Baptijmo contra Vonaiifias , obftrve that hee faitB^ etiam atqtte etiam confrdirafif^ &c, and therefore I told you this was his judgement upon fecond thoughts^ and more mature deliberation.

And when this point came to be debated in after ages^ the Church tooke notice of this Rctraftation, Bernard difcour-fis upon this fiibje^: at large in his 77. £piftle> pnd proves clearely out of Amhrofe and Augu^ine that invifible fanftifi-(ation waslufficient to falvadon without a participation of the vifible Sacrament. IrrvifibiUm fan&ificathnem quv' bufd'am ^j^^jfe, & profuiffe fine vifihiUbus Sacrjmentis

Solam interdumfidemfufficere ad falutem^ ei fine ipfJt

fitffictre nibil^&c. Faith alone faith hee3(that is,faith without Marty rdome ) u fitfficient to fizhation^ and nothing bnt faith', for though Martjrdome, faith Bernard there, majfupply the defeU of Bapiifme^ ivee nmfi not conceive that the pumfh-ment or fi^eringprevailes^ hut the faith of him thatfttffers, Suf-ficiet fpirituifolu6 (faith Bkfenfis^ one tliafs as ancient as Birnard^ more ancient then your Walafrldws Strahoy quia ipfiwtefiimoniumponduiba^a* It js aliocleare and evident, that after this opinion prevailed^ Tnfant-Baptifme was not rejected;, and therefore you are extreamely miftaken in this point. Now if (in the opinion of the ancients) men of growneyeers might bee; faved without Baptifme^ if they were either converts, or Martyrs, why may not eltft Infant*^ who are certainly fanftified, bee made happy without ikiptiTme, when they have been made holy by the fpirit of hoiinefTe? could any of the aacients reafonably grapt the one,andd^ny the Qther ^ •?" > >;;. .

Thirdly, you mav fee that in pleading for this univer-lall pra£life I Ipeate no louder then other Reformed Divines, for the antiquity of Infant-Bapdfme. Judicious Cahin who was well verfed in Antiquitie, in his inftruftion againft the Anabaptifis hath theic wordsi I affirme that this hoi) Ordinance jof I?fani'Baftifme; hatb

tbtLattne Chftrch forIr?fanUBaptifm€. $g

ken perpetuallf oi^firved in the Chrifiian Church y for there it no ancient VoUsr^ that difth mt ack^orpUdge that Infant'-. Baptifme was eonftantly adrmmftred hy the Apojiles,

4, That notwithftanding all this evidence I have brought from Antiquity, yet I build as little upon Antiquitie as any other man. I acknowledge what learned Rivet faith to be very tmtyihat Tradition is in mofi points unctrtaim^md therefore he that will build fme rmfi huild u-pon the Scripture: Troinde TseceJJario veniendnm erat ad argument a ex Scriptufli ;. ^uxfiremnm evincaat^frHflra traditionem advocabimus, Ani" tnadv.inAnmt^ Grotii inCajfandrum^ Art.^,Pag,ji, And I would have you and every Reader to remember, that I doe not build my faith upon humane Traditions in this Argument, nordid the ancients buiJd upon humane traditions in this thing; the very Pelagians themlelves acknowledge it upon this ground, FarvuloJ baftizandoTeJJe conce-dunt (fi\i^ Augufline of the Pelagians} qui contra authorita-tern Mniverf£ EcckJidS procul-dubio per Dom'mutn et Apofiolos traditam^ veniremnpojfmi^ lib. J/depeccat, merit, et Remiffi cj^.26.Nay5they were forced to their owne prejudice to acknowledge that Infants were hsLpdzedJeeundum regulam uni" verfalii Eeclefi£ &'Evangelii fintentiam^lib, cont, Cakft. e^Pe-lag. Now that which was preiled from the fcope of the Gof-pell was not preflcd as a Tradition, and that which was acknowledged by the Pelagians to be the pra6tile of the uni-verfall Churchy according to the rule of the Gofpell^was not built upon tradition. I will therefore cloie upmyte> ftimonies produced out of the ancient writers, with that fivourypalTage of learned Calvin^ in his Inftru6tions a* gainft the Anabaptifts; C^terum minirm petOy ut in eo pro-bmdo nos Antiqnitas ftUo modojuvet^c. I doe not defire ((aith hcc) to borrow any helps from Antiquity for the froofe of this pointy , any whit farther then the judgement of the Ancients fhaU be found to bee groundid on the Word rfGod :for 1 know full weU^ that as thecufiome of men doth notgiv^i aufhorhy to the Sacrament^ fo the ufi of the Sacrament cannot mfaid to berigbf^ andregtdafy be" csufe re^latedhy cuflopie*

*The middle Pmes between Augufiine and Lnther,

♦♦»»♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦»♦♦♦♦=♦♦»♦♦♦♦=♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

P ART 11.

; Aving made good the pra£Ufc of Antiquity for the Bapti2ing of Infants, I follow you in that which you arepleafed to make the fecond part of my Sermon, which you call prejudices again ft Anti-psedo-baptifts 3 from their noveltie and miscarriages. «^ JVhere^firJt, ym blame me for fit king by prefacing and fitting ^^ duwne a hriefe touch of the Anabaptifij carriage in Germa* ^^ ny^ to create prejudice in my Auditors, Anfvp, To which 1 anlxver, that I yet never learned that a briefe

fettingdownethe Original! Hifiory and State of a Contro* verfie, or th'i rveigbt andconfequcftce of it^ thereby the more to ingage the Readers attention, was^ againft any Rule or Law of Art either divine or humane- but in cafe it were a fault,^w tulerit Gracchoj} You who begin your booke with telling, bow nim monithtfinceyoufrm thus mjiny ArgU" mentsinLatine^drarvneuf in a SchoUfiiqHe way^&c. andne^ ver Jet received any Anfrptr^ andin the end of jour beoh^ mtima-ted that though^ joh allovced me but a tnoneth^ yet I have i^pt your book^a rpbokyeere unanfrvrnd: and throughout your whole Treatiie/?w^ to mak^ an ofieTiiatspn. of rfading^ and put abundance ofjcoffes and jW^J upon thpn "wfeo are of a cofttraiy mind to you, ^nd feke to loade the opinion you write againft' as if it carried all kind ef mifchkfif in tbe vpomhe of it* All which things yoii know well cuoqgli kre apt to take the people 5 but have no weight with them who ufe onely to weigh Proofe with Proofe,^d Argument with Argument: you 0 fay) of all other (Jiould pardon fiich a peccadillo, and migiit very well have pafled over what either my felfe or Dr. Featliii Frontilpice^ or Mr, Edr^ardj

his

wtre for Infafa-Baftifrnf* ^*

his expreffions might fecmc to bee lyable to, of exception in this kind.

In your fecond Scftion you blame mee for two things j Reply to firft that *^ Igaviyou no mm Hght out of Auguftimy to k^oxv ^^^' *• *^ vpho they mre that qm^ismd Tsdo-Baptifme in hU dajes^ ** you have fearched and cannot finde any^ the Telagians you jc ^^ k^omkdge oppofeditnot^ihe cufiome rpoffo unwerfaU^andefied'-*^ medfofa:redthaitheydurfin0t oppofe it.

All the further light I fliall now give in a nutter of no ^nfi^* greater conlequence is, that if you cannot finde any in Jh-g«^iw/dayeswhoquellionedit, I am contented you (hall beleeve there were none.

Secondly, ^^ jote blame me for making fncb a kape from Aw *^ gffftmej thne^io Baltazzar FacommitartutySf if be n^eretkefirji '^ vphoeppofedity whereatyou aUedge many n>ho oppofed it/^oo, ^^ yeereJ before his iime. To whichi anlwer, I fayd not hee Anfv^ was thcfii-ft xvhofe judgement was againft it, but the firft that made an head againft it^ or a divifion (or Schifme) in the Church about it. It is polTible men may hold a private opinion diiFering from the received doftrine, and yet never make a rent, or divide the Church into fa6i:ions a-bout it. "^^^! themld-

But let US examine your inftances; you ^^ affedgethefa- f v^^een^rhe fI-^ mouf Berengjtrztis a§ one. 2. The Albingenjej. 3. OutofBer- rhcrsandLx-*^ nardyou mention another namekfft Sett, 4. Fetrw Clunia" Jherv,-ere tor ^^ cenfis^ charges the fame upoa thefeiro-Brufians, Baptizing Jn-

1FoaUwhichIan(wei^firft5in'generaB^^hat (thefein- ^^^^V fiances of yours having occafioned mee to make a more dil- ^'^^'^ ligent (carch into^thedoftrine andpraftife ofthofe middle-times between the Fathers,and the beginning of Reformation in Luther J time) I dare confidently think,that you will have an hard taskcto prove out of any impartiall Authors, that there were any compny of men before the Anabap-tifts in Germany, vpho reje&ed the baptizing cf Infant j out of the cmfepon of their faith 5 poffibly fbme private man might doe it, butlfhalldefireyouto (hew that any company or Seft(if you wilifb call them) have ever denied the law-fulnciTeof baptiabg of Infants: produce if you can any

£^, The middUtimes between AHgufiin$ Aid Lmher^

of their ^ronfcflions, alledgc any Afts of any CouncelU •where this do(^rine was charged upon any, and condem* ned hi that Councell; youknow, the-gcneralitieof thevi-fible Chriilian world was in thofe dayes divided into the followers of the Beaft:> and the ftnali number of thofe who followed the Lambe, who bare vvitnefle to the truth of the Gofpel in the times of that Antichriftian Apoftaiie, thcfe were called by feverall names, Bere/fgarians^Jf^a^denfdS^poQre mcnof Ljdtis^AlbingenfeSy Catharifij^ Vetr-Brupam^ and feverall other names, as may beefeene in Bifliop Vjbers book of the Succcllion and State of the Chriftian Churches. Now all grant that the Church of Koim even in thofe dayes, owned the baptizing of infants, and (o .did all thofe perfeciited Companies or Churches of the Chriftiansy for any thing I can find to the contrary. Several! Catalogues of vP)?r dcfuc- their confeifions and opinions I foide in feveraJi Authors, cejfme,ccip'6. and more perticularly in that forcnamed booke DifucceJJio-SeU. ^^-^^' ne Chriflianarum Ecclefiarum, But not any one of them de-cap.S.s>^tt.i4r' Yiyi^nr this pointjthey indeed denyed any Sacrament to con^ deburgfenf,12 prre grace ex opere operato^ and thereupon lome oi their ad-Cap.^ col, verfaries would lay to their charge that they denied grd-12 05. tijtn Baptijmi^ thegvzce ofBaptifme: And others of them

denyed the trumperies that went along with Baptifiiie in the Church of Rome: And thereupon fome of their adver-faries charged them that they laughed at the Baptifme of Infants: but I can finde none who layd to their charge fim-ply that they denyed the lawfuh^efTe of Baptizing of In-fants,except onely fuch who alfo charged them with Ma-nicheKmeand other abominable doftrlns & pradifes, which we all beleevethey utterly abhorred; Nothing tcndcs more fully to manifeft their doclrine then their o^vne confeih-EdtdT^znr Li- ^us, one whereof was publiihed by Baltazzar Lidiw wh ich dii^j'om.ii, was prefented to Vlaiijlam King of Hangarj : In their Apo-Fag,^S<f.(!^c. ]ogie and defence of their doctrine, they have a vrhok Chap-of the *^''wherein they aflert and prove Paedo-Bapti/rne largely. midelfes. lib. Theconfellioii ofthe Taborites hath not a woi\J founding I cap. ^.p,10. againft it. I tinde alfo in the Hiftory of the Waldenfisy this 25 fet downe amend the calumnies unjufrly cafl upon them,

rhat

mrt for Infdm-Baptifim. ^^

^yi they reje^ the Saptifme of Infantf^ for wHich Bernard is

cited in his 66. Horn. inCmt. but of this they arc purged ub.i.e^p ^,

out of their orvne rvridngSy and there the ground and occa- pag, i j.

fion of imputing tliis errour to them is expreiledline 15. LiKcap, 6pag,

True it U^ that having been conftrained fome iQO^yters^&c, "^l*

The fame Author in the third part of his hiflory^ profefTed-

ly lets downe the do6i:rine of the IValdenfes^ and ^lUgznfij^

and among other things concerning Baptilme, he exprefles

this; Andrvhereai Baftifme isadmintjlredin a fallCongrtgati-

en ahdfor this caufiit U that fPe prefent our children in Bap"

iifme^which they ought t9 doe^ to whom the children are neareft^ as parents^ &c, Waldenfs againft the IVichfevifis and H«#f/^-^^ ^ 3-/,^^^ imputes this herefie to ibnieof the LoHardj^ that beleeverj cap.%i^ children rvere not to bebaptt2:^dy and that Baptifme was to no purpofe adminidred to them, fiCmdHm ritum qii^m fervat , Ecclefia^ but he imputes it not to fKfc%/> followers ingc-nerally onely afcribesittoibme LoBardj erf the Highlandj in Scotland^d.nd (bme few of the Vhcejfe of Norwfc^jand yet in the fame place confefles hee hadfeene none of their writings to that purpofe, nor knew what their grounds were, but onefy had tranfientij heard that they ufed to produce I Cor. 7, SanBificatus efi^ &c,

2.1 anfwer to your particular inftonceffirR;,^or Berengariuf^k VfherdeSuc-is true that Veoduinus Ltodienfej tooke it up as a common (^^f^P-T.Se^' famcj and upon his credit Gnitmund Archbifhop of Averfe ^ygniarim relates it: But faith Bifhopt/jZ^er, info many Synods held a- cleared from gainft Berengariitf^ wee never find any thing of this nature Anabaprifme, Iaidtohischargc:andtoi?jwit appeares that they who in thofe dayes were charged to hold that Baptifhie did not par-zm^projicereadfaliitem^ held nothing bat this^that Bjrf/i/w* doth not conferregrace ex opere operato.

The fame anfiver ferves for the Albigenfes and H^aldmfes'^ Waldenfes.Al^ clcareit is that neither Mneai Sylvian in his booke de Ori^e bj^enfesy (jrc Bebemorum^ when he fets downe their opinions^ nor the cleared from Magdeburgenfejj who out of an ancient Manufcript relate Aoabapnfme. their doftrines^no nor WiUiam Reynolds in his Calvho-Tur^ c//wwf jwherein he indeavoursto reproch them, layes any fuch thing to their charge. Surclamjthc confeffion of the

K faith

^^/h.ubifuph CA, faith of the Alhlngenfis recorded by H9vedm doth enough^ ^.5f^,34. andniorcthen enough owne the baptking of Infants. Tis trntj^emard in the place cited by you fayes of thofe Anonymous people whom he wrote againft,(who were no other thenfomeofthe l^alilenfej')Imdetfi nesquia hapt'tzamwlir' fantej^ and the reft of the Doftrines which you mention, but withall in the fame place charges theni with Mancchifrac, and relates how the people threw them into the water as if they were witches, and when they would not iinke they fell upon them with ftones and killed them 5 and if you beJeevc Bernard flandered them in theic trro laft^ you will forgive the Reader if he beleeve that he did no lefle in the rtber. iVndasfor whsit FetrufClMniacefifij writes againft Feter di Brtm and his iiicceflbur Henryy the truth is, thefe two men, did for 20, ycers tjogcther €0 much fpread the Doftrine of the pyaUefffify and Co plague the Biihops Miters, and the Monks bellies, that I wonder not though they charged any thing upon them which might make them odious to the people. He who reads that ray Dug booke of Petrttf ClMniacenfij^ will find that he acknowledges moft of what he layes to their chivgetobe upm the report afotinrfy and layes this for one of their Articles,thatCibi/^r«72»»A^ died before they eMilda^usl^ ly beleeve rpere damnedy and that they would have all Chnr" ehes demolipedy snd incoMraged people topuU them djwnt'-, and that common fame gave out that they condemned all the Latine Fathers, and not onely excluded the latine Do6l:ors € Cathedra VoBorum^ but e regno C^krum-y that they did oof altogether beleeve the Prophets^ Afoftks^ nor Chrift hinr-ielfe. And no marvaile that thefe opinions fhould bee charged upon them, though they held them not, feeing wee find this particular charged upon Luthtr^ Calvin^ Jof.Vkecem. ^"^ Beza^who did all in (peciall mannerojyole thiscrrour; iiffeuEccL Vcl, So that untUlyou or ibme other doe outoftheir ownecon-Xz^.i.w/?. i.;^. feffion^orfome other impartiall and authentique Regift«r 10^. give better evidence then yet you have done, I fliaD beleeve

that this doftrine of oppofing the baptizing of the Infant! ofbeleeverSj is an Innovation no ancienter then the Ana-baptifts in Germany ; concerning whofe pra6Wc$ wee now proceed to inquiry. In

In your third Scftion you take great paincs to (hew Out of To ScH. 5 • your reading who firft in Girmany ilirrcd this queftion. I (hall not ftay the Reader long about it, bccaule your felfe grant that it is not/«wii 5 I deny not but Nieholaw Storch^ Marcm Sm^ner^ and Thomas Mtmcet did bring it firft upon the Stage about 15215 or 1522. and that by Munc^s do-ftrinc^ a iad (edition was raifcd in the upper Germany^ anK)ng the Country people, but bccaufe this Baltazzar Hub' mir^ acommuamt^Pmor o{ the IValdjhnt^ a Towne neere the HthetianjpW^s a man of greater note for learmng> of an a3:ive uu-bulent (pirit, one who both by preaching and writing much fomented their way^Sc was in very great repute among them, I feared not (as others have done before me) to name him as the Antefigmtmif of that unhappy Sedl: of whofefeditiouspraftifcs, dodrine^ recantation, Apoftafie, and miferable death, for which he was cfteemed a Martyr by his followers, I might out of many Gerfii<««e writers ea-filyinforme the Reader, iflafFefted aneedleflc oftentation of reading.

InthisSeftion upon occafion of the name of Anabap-r^i « « tifme, and reiterating of Baptilmc, " yoH defiredto have it ^ '^' ^ proved unlMpfuU to repeate Bapifint^ or for a man tkat hath *^ bfine baptized rightly to be baptized agaiffe : and afterti^ard " hi jottr third part Seel, 12^ you profejfe you m-t mt frttjfied^ ^* but that both Circumcipon might have beeii^ and ^aptijme majf ^^ htrtittrattd'.andhtrtyouddde tbattht Argument ufed againfi ^^ the repetition (fBsptifineare infitfficiem • andthat if there pfere ^^ but at mufh for baptizing of Infimtj^st Ad:$ 19.'yi6.affords for ^ ^ r^ap^tKAtim^he cantroverfit pptre at an end rpitbyou*.

I aufwer, you here clearely difcover your itch after new AMfp^» opinions, your joyning with the Marchmtes and JEtianSy who allowed it to be done atleaft thrice. I (uppofc in your next wee (hall have your Arguments to prove the lawful-fiilneffc of it, which if you doc, I befeech you alio to (hew how oft it may bee done, whether as oft oi the Fharifees ufed to wafh; atka(t (bccaufe your anfwers here (ceme to imply fo much) whether it may not be repeated at oft as wet P^uld attend upon the preaching of tbt word^ or at oft at wee

K 2 fhould

Jbonld tndeavour to moriifie our corruptions / In the nieane time Vide VcJJii I (hall tell you fome of the reafons which have hitherto Ta-Tbfesde Am- tisfied the Orthodox Church in all ages. ^ftifi. FirftjBaptifme is primarily and properly the Sacrament of

rebaprizacion ^ur new birth, thewalhing or regenerauon^which is done of fuch as are but once^the Sacrament of our inlition into Chriiljwhich is rightly bapti- done but once 3 the Sacrament of our admiflion into the ^^^* new Covenant, and partaking of the benefits of it;> and(al-

though many ofthofe benefits and priviledges are repeated and augmented;, yet) we have but one admiflion to them.

Secondly, in no place where the Inftitution of it is named is there anymentionjdireftly orby confequence^ of any re-' peating of it, nor any order taken about its whereas in the other Sacrament, 'Weh^Yea.qj^otiefeunque in the very Inftitution : nor in any of the thoufands baptized in the Scripture is there the lead hint of any example of rebaptization of fuch as were rightly baptized, no not though fome of them had played the Apoftates, as the Galatiansfiymc of the Corinthians and many others. And niee thinks this Argument (hould mowcjeu whofeprinciple is,that nothing fhould be done about the Sacraments, but what wee have either inftitution,or example for.

Thirdly,Baptifine iiicceeds Circumcifion,^^^ ivas but once adminiftred nor to be adminiftred any more^ as is cleare to mee not onely from thetotall ftlence ef the Scripture^ but out of J(jp, 5* 4.&C. where the holy GhSft is pleafed to give this as a reafbn, why Jojhuah Circumcifed the Ifraelites m GilgaV^ viz, hecaufe all the Circumcifed r^ere dead-^ intimating that had they been CL'oimcifed already, it fhould not have been done againe. Befide, by Gods inftitution it was tied to the eighth day and unlefle you can find another eighth day after the birth befide the firft, you will never bee abkto juflifie it from being a breach of the inftitution.

Fourthly, to this I might adde the uncontr'adi&d cu-fromeofall the ancient Church, with whom it was num-bred among Herefies to reiterate a Baptifme, which was acknowledgedtojbe valid: Indeed Cjfrian and his jfellow

Bidiops

rightly Bapi^d^f roved unUwfull. ep

BKbops baptized fiich as had formerly been baptized by He-reticks^but it was onely becaufe they thought the Baptifmc adminiftredby Hereticks not to bee true Bapciime. What ivdght thefe things have with you I know not 5 the judicious Reader will confider ot them.

But whereas you adde *^ tbat if you fan? but oi muchfor bap^ " iizivgof Infants as Ads ip-^-^^t-'v (Jprds for rebaj>tization, ^

'^ the cofttr over fie n^ere at an endmtbjoHy give me leave to tell '^^J'^* you that I perceive a (mall Argimient would fatisfie you if wee could but once gaine your good will* As will eafily ap-* peare by a (erious examination of the (enfe of that place, ^(5. I9»which it(eemesfatisfies you for rebaptization. I Aa.19.5,6. acknowledge. Interpreters differ very much concerning the vindicared meaning of that Text, but none of their expofitions doe in ^'^,"^ favoring any degree favour that opinion , that fuch as were once ^^^^i?^^^^^^^-r/glf/y baptized may be rebaptized; which I thus manifeft^ viry many Interpreters doe judge that thofe twelve Difci-pies were not baptized in that place, and they make the iikhVerfcyfi^henthey heardthii they nere baptized in the name of the Lord Jefuf^ to bee a part ofPaulj fpcech, not of Lnkes the Hiftorian, and then the fenfe is this, when thofe twelve men had told uPW that they were baptized with JohniBap^ y^ j/^jjj^ j;.^. tifme, Pj»/t()oke upon him to explaine to them what f^/^e B^;»/;j^wo yoZ7;7xBaptifmewaSj namely that Jv^ni miniftry did firft J^han.fag.^oi, exhort men to repentance; and theit that they ftiould be- ^^* leeveinChrift, who would give all them who bcleeved in him the gift of the holy Ghoit, which after John had fiif-ficientlyinftrufted them in, he then baptized them in' the name of the Lord Jefus, which lay they is a paraphrafti-call interpretation of this fifth Verie: and ib Paul having approved the doftrine and Baptifme of Jokn^ which thefe twelve Difciplcs had received, hee did not rebaptize them, but laid his hands upon them, and then the holy Gholb im-mediatly came upon them. Other Interpreters thinkcjthat thcle words in the fift Vertare the words of Lnke the Hifto-rian,and that thefe twelve Difciples were then baptized af^ ter Pi2«/ had done his fpeech>and of thefe fome conceive that thefe were firft baptized by fome Gilobns Difciplcs into lohns

K 3 xiaa^c.

To Se&,S'

RjtbAftUMhn effuchasdfe

namCjaiKl not into Chrifts: and fo their baptifin was a nullity, or at leafti if they were baptized into Chrifts name^yet they were not inftm^ed in the right faith of the Trinity^ ofJefusChrift, his perfon^ gifts j and offices; and focon-fcquently that their faith and BaptJfme were deficient ift Ibme fundamental! and eflentiall things y and this way go many of the Fathers, and Schoolemei-u Others thinke they were rightly baptized with Joif^s baptiinie, and yet were baptized againe by the Apoftle Taut*, becaufe* they think that jf^Ws baptifme^ and Cbrifi*s did really differ ; and that the Lord would have them re baptized^) who were baptized with Johr^s baptifme onely 5 but not them who were baptized with Chrifts. And this way generally goe the Papiftsmow whichfoever of thefeyou take, here is no colour of rebaptizing of iuch who were rightly baptized with Chrifts baptiftne : and indeed, whoever conliders the Text, muft needs grant that if they were re-baptizedjit was becaufe of the 'deficiency of the baptifm which they had re-cieved.P^*/demands of them. Have you received the holy Ghoft fincc you were baptized?They anfw-The holy Ghoil! what meane you by the holy Ghoft ? wee never (b much a« heardjwhether there be an holy Ghoft:No?((aith ?^//)what \vcre you then baptized into ? what ftrange kind of bap* tifine have you received ? what Do<^rine, or Faith were you inftrufted in before your baptifme ? if you never fo much as heard that there is an holy Gkoft. Doth not this plainly hold forth, thac if they were re'baptizcd,it was be-caule ^W thought their former baptilm to be infufficient? Truly Sir^ I conceive joumighteaiily be perfwaded, that thercareatleaft as good grounds for Infants h^ptiftne, as this ^&J 19. affords for re-baptizing of (iich as have been rightly baptized.

^^ In this 5. Se<^ion,I very much wonder a« your Ipiritithe *^ iumme ofkiSyTbat aithugb much of what I Jptak^ of the ^^ Ansbaptifij in Germinj(^efpiciaUj about Mttnjieryt true'^Yct ^* you (ay, i. Perhaps vehemtng of off option hath made mat" ^^ tersmore or worfe thin they ipere^ 2 . JV* marzaile thougb

''fuch

rightly bapt^d^ fr^vedunUwfulL Y^r

^^fiich things happen^ tvbm Keformation of. abufts is denied men ^' by an orderly SynodicaU way-^ and tbeferfonj voho feek^ it , de-^^clAymedagiinfi^andperficmedaiHeretiquts^&c^ 5, Ty^^ '* the Hkl things^ if not the fame^ hapfemd among the Noft-con* ^^formifls^ andfuch ^feugbt to remove Epifcopacy and Certmo" ^^nia in ^eene Elizabeths dayes-^ that fome of them gretv to bee ^'a dangerotif and tHrbtilentSe&i the pra&ife ofHackn^and ^^ his cmrpanionrproved like that of John a Leiden at Muni^cn '^ That mifcarriagfj^ divyionSy and perfecutions brongbi the ^'Non^confirmifis of England as lon> as the Anabaptipj, That '*• Whitgift j;7d?Hooker havt longagoe compared the Non- cun-*'^ formifisprinciples andpraHifej vpitbthe Ana^aptifts^ &c.

To which I an(wen Firft, I am confident you (hew more Anfp^^ good will to the AnabaptiftSjthen yoii intend ill wil againft th ofe worthy men who have wriaen thefe Stories: but t he things havebeen done fo lately, and ib many agreeing fto-ries are written of them^ and by men of mch undoubted faith and honefty, that the things are not to be queftioned. And I think you are the firft of our Divines who have fu-ipeftcd them to ovcrlafh in their relations.

Secondly, what you meane by denying Reformation to them who feek it in a SynodicaU way, &c I can hardly guefle: whether you intend it to excufe the Anabaptifts in part, and to blame the Reformed Churches, as laying that Humbling blocke in their way, by refiifing to heare them, or whether you hint it as a warning to our felves. Asforthem^I never read that they fought Reformation in a regular way, or were dcnyed it, before they fell into thcle furies. And as for our (elves, you arc the onely man, ^o hath pretended to feek Reformation (if it may befb callf^i) in this point h the reft of bttr Anabaptifts leek not ^hc old Noo-toourAflembIy;unlefleitbetoreproach| and load them ^^^^^'"^'^^^ '" with fcoffcs, libels, threatnings, &c. S^s.^St

Thirdly,butthc reft of this Seftionistomc extreamly againft Epifco-

f fcandalous, when I read your odious comparifons between pacy and Cac-

the Non-conformifts in Queene Elizabeths dayes, and the n^onics^J com-

Anabaptiftsin Germany'^ it even grieves mce to coniider, ^^^baptift/m

whither affcftion to yourcauft doth carry you. Sir^ are o"^^

you

you perf^jvaded in your own confcience thefe things are ro> The Anabaptifts in Germany rofe upland with fire and fword pulled downe Magiftracy, Schooles,8cc. wrought wofuU Tragedies in upper Germany^^ in UHsravh^ ^Uefia^Hdvetia^ and elfewhere; did the like if not the fame things happen herc? What did the Non^confurmiris ever endeavour to doe beyond prayers and teares? what turbulent Seft was e-verfound among them? what were thofe diviiions and niilcarriages which brought them fo low ? the perfeaui-ons of the Prelates indeed brought them low j but f pro-feile I am wholly ignorant of any diviiions and mifcarria-gesof theirs in that kind: Hacket hideed was a blasphemous wretch, and hee and h is two C ompanions (for no more there were of them that I can find:)Cof fiwger^and Ar^ thington made a noile in the City oiLondon for a few hours. Hackft was taken and hanged for his blasphemy, his two Companions laid in prifon, where one oi them dyed, and the other (I thinke) was (pared in hope of his repentance But what is this to yourpurpole? what had Racket to doe widi theNonconformifts, who (you know, if ever you read that Story) abominated him, and would have nothing to doe withhinij even before he fell to thofe prankes he plaid in London ? Or wherein was Hack^t to bee compared with John of LezVcs, who overthrew Magiilracy 2.tMunftiy-^ fttupaKingofhis owne Seft; plundered the Towne> gave up all to Polygamies, Adulteries, &c. And laftlvfor the parallel which you fay Whitgift^ 2ind Hoo^r made between them and the Anabaptifts both in principles, and praftifeSj(under which reproach you leave them,witli= out fpeaking a word inrfMsir beh alfe to vindicate them ) I anfvver onely this, than J am perfwaded your iclfe beleeve, thditWhitgift and Hook<^T abuled them in thefe Corapari-fbns: and what your ayme (liould bee in Setting it downe^ I cannot tell, unlefle it bee to inlinuate> that as the good NoiKonformifts were thus abufed by their Adverfaries 5 io Sleidm^ BuUingery Calvin^ &c» are not too much to bee credited in their relations of the Anabaptifts^ to whom they were profefled adverfaries.

In

mtb the Andhaftifis in Germattj. ^»

In this Seftyour quarrcll is againft Mr. Vintiy for foA To Sc^, ^ pcftingthe Anabaptiftswillindeavourto undermine Ma-giftracy, if they could once get ftrength,To which you an* ^^ iwer: !♦ Y oh take not Afr4 Vines for a Prophet. 2^ It ^^ fol^QtPs not^ that becaufe they rppnfe Txdo- Baptifmet out of Mat* ^^ 28. 19. that ihtreforc they will oppofe Magiftracy out of '^ Roni. 12.19. 3. ThatyoH will undertake ta make good " that to prove P£do-iaptifmefrom the equity andreafon ]ofCir-^ ^^ cumcifioTT^ doth undermine much of the Afa^ifiracy and *^ Lawej of this Kingdome. 4. That fame of the enemies of ^'^ Anahaptifit have oppofed Magiftra(^. 5. That fince the 5^ anions of Mnncer and MHn]ler , you finde neither their ^^ writings nor anions oppofing Mtkgtfiracj. 6* 1$tt ^' bring in CafTander 4 Fapiftj fpeak^ng moderately offome ^^ of them. And to mak^ your Reader thinke charitably of them ^^ in this point'y Tou 7, referre them to the Compajfionate Sama^ ^^ titan^ and the London Anabaptifts late confejfion,

I fee how diligent and willing an advocate you are for /w/5r. your friends^ but few of thefe things will either help you. To i, 2, or indure the tryall. 'Tis true, Mr. Fines is no Divining ^f- ^»«'' ^«' Prophet. And 2. it follows not by Logicall argunientati- **^^*^^^-on, that becaufe they have oppofed the one,therefore they will oppofe the other» But Sir, without a Spirit of Divination, or neceffaryconfequence of reafon, when wee fee clouds gathering, wee may (ufpeft rainy weather; when we tlro^fof tt* (ee multitudes of our Anabaptifts, especially thofe of the Germane Am-laft edition,to have drunk in almoll alkhe reit of the dregs baprifts, Urcif of the (7erm j;7e Anabaptifts; G^^y) in a manner all, ex-'^•"""'^^•^ *« cept that of oppofing Magiftracy; may we not feare that ^"S^^^* even that alfo would bee imbraced if they were fit for it ? Read over the whole Gangrene of their opinions recorded by BuUinger, Calvin^ and others; and lately epitomized by Cloppenbergitis^ and fee whether among our Anabaptifts in E;zg/j«^, they are not almoft all to be found: Doe not fomeofours,aswellas they, hold blafphemous Opinions about the ficfh of Chrift ? Have not multitudes of ours f wallowed down all Arminianifm, as well as they > Plead not fbme of ours for the mortality of the foule, as wellas

•74 TheAnah/iptifiscfGerminj

m they? have not ibnieofours kid doivnc their Arrnes out of

opinion that even in a jutt caiife warre is unlawfiill^^have not miiny of ours drunke in the conceits of immediate revelations and Enthyfiarmes as much as they?do€ not many of ours conceits perfeftion of grace ? doe they not oppofe the Chriftian Sabbath? doc they not cry downe our Miniftry as no Miniilry ? our Churches as no Churches ? Verify one cgge is not more like another then this brood of ntvv opinions (lately hatched hi Englandj and entertained among them who are called Anabaptiih) is like that Spawne which fo fuddenly grew up among the Anabaptifts in Germany j and ours plead the lame Arguments which theirs did'jand if they flow not from the fame Logicall or Theological] principJeSjit is yet their unhappy fate to be ltd hy the :^me (pirit. I confeffe I yet heare not much of their denying the Magiftrates authoritie, but if thefe men fhould in-creafe to much ftrength, I will not take upon me to divine^ but I {hallpray that Mr.Kiwc/ prove not too truea Prophet^ efpecially confidering the nature of erroneous and hereti* Gall (pirits is to grow woHe and worfe, and not at firft to vent all their poyfbn 5 even the Anabaptifts of Munfler in the beginning of their Schifme fet forth a confeflion of faith every way as Orthodox as that which you mention of the fcven Churches of the AnabaptUls o^Londony in their Confeflion mentioned in the latter endofthis^Seftion^as I Mr. "DHty, am credibly informed by a Reverend and Learned Divine, who hath many y^ers agoe both feene and read it in Germany. Ti; 3.4. Toy our third and fourth I anfwer^onely this^that I (hall

ivafteuntUl you cleare them, as being not able out of my fmall judgement and Reading to conjefture either what proofesyou^can bring for the one^or example forthe other: you who make your /elfe merry with Mr. Fwes his Logick, will fhew your ^wne to bee fupereminent when you make this con fequt nee good, that pleading baptizing of Infants from Circunicifion of Infants, o\«rthrows much'of the-Magiliracy and Lawes of England;. \ i - uvv'oh bs'^ ' '-^.. But your fifth ktm^^ very (trange^ tha« you cannot findc^

that

that fincci^ww^er and iW«<«ctfr the Anabaptifts in Germany have cither by writing or a^ion made any oppoiition againft niagiftracy : as for .their actions, they have of old paid fo deare for their infiirreftions, that wee have not lately heard of any new ones i but for their writings it is mofl apparent that their bookes written by them, even tochisday, do conftandy defend^ that though Magiftra-cy bee an Ordinance of God, as to them who are not under the kingdome and dominion of Chrift^ yet Chrift hath put an t\\^ to it among his owne people, taken away all iWfa-giftracy from among them, that no Ghriftian can be a Magi ft rate with a good confcience, and that if Chriftians doc live under any fuch, they are to beai-e them but as other plagues and judgcments are to be borne.

You oppofe Ca£j*iderj moderate teftimony of fomc of 6. them to the Duke of C/e^i'e a Papift, againft Mr. Vines his (peech betbre the Lord Major and City of London\ Caffander indeed fpake favourably of fome of their perfons,but doth not cxcufe or plead for their dodrine or principlesj and Mr. P^res Ipealces againft their doftrine or principles, but ipeakes nothing againft theperibns of any of them: fo that Icanfeenocaule of your bringing in this long teftimony qwto^ Cdjf^nder^ in the favour of ^e»;2/7 and his followers, but onely to ftiew your good-wii] to the Anabaptifts,and[ your diipleaftre againft Mr. ^i«f/,who differs from your opinion. One thing morel adde concerning this Mmno (whom you pleade for by Cajfanders pen) that his whole dofltrine is as full «)f blafphemy about our Saviours taking flefti of the Virgiu Marj ^ and other Heretical! and abominable ftufie, as the reft of his fellcwes, though Ithinke his fpirit was not fo leditious as many of theirs;

And as to your allegation out of the companionate Sa ^,

maritan> which indeavours to fpeake all poffiblegood of fiich as oppofe Presbyteriall government : pleading to ob-taine an univerfalllibcrtie for all their opinions, andprafti-ce3, and indeavors to brand as infamous^and caft all manner of filth ir^ the faces of fuch, as indeavor to promote it, I leave fuch Lettice to their lips who like it. And for what

L 2 you

•J6 M^'^f-^'pff'/ieiodkngtrettiDeitrm.

knowledge «the n.ofi Onhodox of any AnabS^s con" fetlion that ever i rea^(a]though there are funcK Lem' dox opm,onsink)andii,chanoneas I beleeveThoSi of ournew Anabaptifts U'ill be farre frorownina as "nt

^^* « , V^y°'"^^«venth,youfirft exprelTeyour good afFeftion

WilJingly

willingly adchowlecfgeyour learnlhg^and other abilities.and arc no whit fbrry your booke is extant, (bccauft they conceive this controverfie may thereby receiYc a fuller (canning} are extremely icandalizcd at your high and fcornefuJi Q)irit. " You propound what you conceive is the beft way to ^^ promote Reformation, and your thoughts are, that the Z,

^^ onely way to further Reformat ion is to hegpn with this yom *' darling, the caftirj^ out this point of Infant^ B apt ifmeya point *^ vhkhyoH conceive to bee a mother corruption^ which carries in *' her vponAe mop of thoft ahnfes in dlfcipline andma^werf^and ^^ feme of the errors in do^rine rpbich difite the reformed Chur^ '*^ cheSy rvilboui which all after Cathechizing^ CmfhreJ^fepJirat:-' ^^ on^ChHrch-Covenant^&c, are altogethef* infufficientto fupply '* the want of it. Scx:ond\y,thai Baptijme therefore hath not that •**■ influtnce into the comfort and ^^Ugitions of Confciences at it ** had of old. And thirdly, that the Ajfemhli^s fwt beginning ** Vfith this point is one great catife why Gads bkjjing do^ no more *^ accompany them^ whilfi theywafte much time ahoMthin^j in* *^ confiderable in comparifoncf this^andeither hafiHyp2jfe over^ *' or exclude from eXiminettimy this which defervej moft to ^e ** txamined.

Ah Sir, Howdeareandlovclyarc our owne children in our eyes!did ever any before you conceive fo many and j ^ great evills to follow npon the bapti2ing the children of ^•^***^ beleevers ? that fiich Monftcrs fhould be bred in the wombe of it, or conceive that the removing of this would be« the healing of all ? I verily thinkfj (hoald another have fpoke fuch things of farre greater points, you would have called, them dilates^ ChimdraeSy hold^ affertions , and what not? Whether your Examen of my Sermon, and your twelve Arguments in your exercitation will prove it to bee a corruption of Chrifis inflitution 5 whether the reafbns for Paedo-Bapdfmebe far fetched 5 whether there be adeere inftitutionof Chrift againft it, (as here you aftirme) wee (hall have leifare(God willing)tb examine in their due places: but for the prefent, ftippofe mee to grant your populatum^ that it is an applying of an inftkution to a wrong fubjeffc, yet I would faine learnc of you, how ail thcfe odious

y$ Tjtf4tit-BAfti[mt no dangerous p$9riffjs.

, confeqiiences will bee made good, how diefe abufes in doctrine,diicipline and manners (which you mention) would -be taken away if Paedo - Bap tifme were removed; nay wouldnotthcfeJfe fame things ftillbec found as grounds or oG€a(ions of the fame differences, while fbme profefle they would baptize any, whether Turkes or Hcathens5who oneiy would make a profeflion of their.faith in Jefiis Chrill, and then admit them to all other Ordinances,and not have them Excommunicated c fjcris:,(hut oticly aprrvato conjortio) though their lives (hould prove lcandalous;Cand I am mifinformed by good friends who know and love you vei7 wellifyour lelfe incline not this way) others woilld take the fame courfe before Baptifme j which now they doe before admitting men to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, and would proceed to. exccMnmunication dSacris as well as privately withdraw froni fiichl as prove icanda'*' lous and obftinate 5 yea and take themftlves bound to (epa* rate from mixt communions with them3, as much as they doe now, notwithllandingtheiradniiniGn by Bapti.me in your way. /.nd in this various manner of admitting men to Baptifme, and dealing with men in other ccn/bres^every Church or Elderfhip proceeding according to the largenefle or ilriftnefTe of their p>wne principles, lean fee nothing butthatthe Gme abufes in difcipline and manners which are nowfound among Chi iflian people, the fame contro-veriics aljout inch aslhoi4dbe admitted t© the Lords Sup-? per, the fame divi(idns-^nd ie pa rations would }>e found in theChuf^chjwhich nowCalas.!)takcitpo much place ampngft us. This I (ay^fiippofing your Pdfjulatum were a truth; But on the contrary luppofing it not to be,a truth, what a Ve-format'wn indead of 4 Kef^rmat'vm flpuld wcc bring 1% in cafting the^hildrcn of Bcjeeyers out of the viiibkChurchy reputing them no better th^n Xur*^kis?,viA IndianT^ ^nd e/pe^ cially doing ieupon iuch'grounds, as are pleaded by'you and others; which even alter the ftate of iht Covtnant of graced i^sfbr your.lecond, I know i)ot what influence of ^ornfprt or pblig^vtion: iipon ci^^/ciencc;. Bpptifipe. j>ad of oldjivhichifeirtpi: np,w toh^Q fe«*iH)r?^P'Jfo»§i^H<tlA.'vv;h'>: ^re i • 1 truelj

traely baptized *, who in)oy not onely 'the putting away the iifch of the ilcfh, but' the anfwer of ^ goodxonicience towards God byrfic refurrc^oh of Jefus Ghrift. ^

And laftly^for what you fpeake of the AfTeniWy, I impute it to your prejudice^ and extreamc doting upon your owne opinion^ that you thinke this Fei??^,. moll worthy of their examination^ and to your mifwforhtjtmi (to fpeake no \vov£ei)fhJtthijJvaj}emHch time about thhi^/ mcfwjiderjbk in comp<2rifon^ or that they exclude thit from Examination^ or fiek^ to fiop it from any Try all^ or that they haflily pajfe it over . This is a very bold charge which yon give upon the Aflem-hly in the face of the world: What evidence have you for ^lis? unlefTc your^ Compaffienate Samaritan bee. Authen-tick with you? The'Apoftie commands Timothy not to receive anacoifation agaittfl anEl)der unhfe* it bee under two or three witnejfes. But for one man to call thus much filth in the face of an AflembJy of;Minifters is very high^ and favours little of thatmodeftyor meckhefTctowhichyou did fometimes pretend. Howf^rrcihebkffingofGod fwho hath hot hitherto altogether left us^notwithftanding oar unworthincs} doth and will accompany the endeavourj of the AJfemhly^it is fit to leave to himfelfe^who gives increase to P^w//. planting and ApoUo'i wateringaccording to his good pleafiire. Butas for their {hutting out the due examination of this Pointy yoii are wholly miflaken C though they h^ive returned no answer to your paper.) It i^ true (as I told you in the beginning) that wee are fbut up by Ordinance of Parliament from an-fwering any private mens Papers or Bookes without leave from the Houfcs; but I dare fpeake it in the name of the rvhole Afemblj^ that they would bee glad you were admitted to difpute all your grounds among them.

In your next P^r^^r^/'^ which containes a comparifbn Se£i^%, betweeve the evidences held out in the ISlerv Teftament for the Religious obfervation of the Lords day^ and this of Infimt-Baptifme^ you firft make your felfe merry with my expreifions, that aUwhonjeU the baptizing of Infants^becaufe then ii not an (.xpreffe hifiitution or Command in the Nen^-Tefia^ mmty dotandmu^ upon the fame grounds rejel^ the ohfirvatien

'go The cvti^nctf^tht L^rds^Ajy

df the hofds'day, . But I am iio whit alhamed ofthofe words. They dot^zrxA ihey wKJluponi t^acfamt Trhtcipla (if they be true to their 'Principles^ rejcft die .one as well as the other. And though I want the skiU whichfomt others have to plead for tb> Lord-dayy yet I fuppofe you fhall find I have skill enough to make this^ good. That there is mrmore expreffefnftitutinn cr Command in the New^Teftamentfor the Lords day then there ar fur Infant-Baptifine, And whereas you alledgethat fomc of th reformed Churches re)eU the Lords day^ and yet entertaine Irfani-Baptifrne^ and thence inferre thxt theje two mufi mt mceffa--ri'yfl and and fall ^ bee received and reje^ed together* I an(wer» Tho^CWc/;^j which doc fb conceive that there is an in* ftitution for the Baptizing of Infants, but none for the ob-fcrvation of the Lords day, although herein I humbly conceive they are miftaken, J doubt not but it doth and will appeare to impartial! and unprejudiced Readers, that there is fufScient evidence of an "Inftitution for both of them, though not in iuch cxpreffe Texts of Scripture in the New-Tcftament as the Atiabaptiftsrequire, and I (hail now examine whether you bring any better evidence for the one, then is to be found for the other.

FM^yonOiyitheymeaneit ofpnfitive worfl/rp^ conffiingin outward rites^ and not of wor/hlp which is natHtali er morale.

Ar?far. But this but a blind^msraU and natttraU are not to be confounded; whatever worfhip is naturall may bee indeed acknowledged to be morall, but not whatever is morallis to be efleemed naturall: I know you cannot bee ignorant of the received diftinftion of .M?r j/e N/imrWt;^ znd Mora* k pnfitivttm^ and I befcech you, though a Sabbath be gran-t:d to be Nauirall, yea if I Qiould adde, that one day in the revolution of ieaven (hould bee fo, yet that this or that fc^ vcnth day in the revolution of a weeke (hould bee obferved, ^11 grant this depends upon an Inftitution, and hath no more moralitie in it tlien ivhat can bee made out from an Inftitution, and ronfcquently, that the firft d^y of the weeke fhould be the Chriitian Sabbath, or that that one day of feavcn! A^bich God hath (cparatcd to him(elf and had once cxprefly fixed upon the (eventh or laft day of the week,

fhould

AndSaptifme ef Infants companJ. §^

Hibiild be tranflated from the laft day to the fii^ft day of the weeke, muft depend wholly upon an Inftitution, and con-(cqaently they who rejeft that whkh depends upon po6-tive Inftitution^ unlefle its Inftitution can bee cxprefly found in the Neiv-Teftament are as much at a loffe for the Lords day, as for thcbaptizing of Infants. y>: ^Nay give me leave to adde, that in this pouit in qucflionv -the advantage lies more ontlSlhandX^ nieane for Infant-Baptifeie) because there h more neceffitie of cle.7.ring the Inidtution for the Lords day, then for baptizing of Infints, becauieinthe one the ordinance itfelfe, and its inftitution is queftioned, but in this 6{ Infant^Baptifme, the que-ilionishotofthe InlHtution oi the Ordinance ufelfe^ but onely of tbefubje& to whom the Ordinance is to be applycd. If the queftionbee betwixt Baptifiiie and the Lords day, allgrant that we have clearer Inftitution for the Sacrament of Baptiline, then for the Lords day: Baptiime is clearly in-ftituted in the New-Teftament to bee the Sacrament of our admillion into the Covenant of grace, and to fucceed iti the roome of Circumciiion, ^as your fdfe grant.) Now the onely queftion is, whether (taking this for granted) thatbaptifm focceeds in the roome of Circumcicifion, and to bee applycd unto all perfons by the will of God who are in Covenant with him, whether the lame perfons may partake of this Sacrament, as might partake of the other, unlefle thole perfons bee expr^flyfct downe in the New-Te-mentj I hope in the judgement of all indifierent men, a queition about the perfons to whom an ordinance is to bee applyedjis a queftion of a farre inferlour nature to that queftion, whether ftich a thing pretended to be an Ordinance have any Inftitution at all or not. It's one thing to invent a new Ordinance of worftup, another (and that of inferiour rank) to miftake in fbme of the perfons to whom an Ordinance is to be applyed. In fome of the ancient times the Lords Supper was given to Infants, and carried to fick perfons when abfent, to teftifie their communion with the Church; I take them both for errourSj but yet not for errors ofth? like nature with inventing a new Sacrament; I

M lav

§£ The evidence for the Lirds ddj^

fey againcj there is a gicat difference betweeiiie bringing in a new Ordinance^ and applying it to thefe orfthefe pei> fonj, efpecially, when thequeflion is not of the perfons in generallj who are the fuh]cdc matter, ( as whether men or Angels^ men or beafts)but whether men of fuch an age or of(uch a Sex.Sir^^to my bcft imderftanding, thefe t\v6 queftions are not parallcllj ajuft parallel! queftion to diis of Infant-Baptifme would tPfcich a one as"was oncediipii-ted betwixt Mr. Bipeld and Mr. Brerewood^viz. Taking it for granted^ that by a cleare Inftimtionj the Lords day liicteeds in the roome of the old Sabbath 3 whether yet thefame perfons are tied to keepe the Lords day, who of old were tied to keepe the Sabbath, unlcfle thofe parties were mentioned in the New-Teftament, as whether ler-vants as lyell as their mailers, the fame holds here.

All thislfpeake not as any whit doubting that there is as cleare evidence for Baptizing of Infants, as there is for the religious obJlervation of the Chriftian Sabbath, not-withftanding the latter feemes to require fuller evidence then this dotk

Your fecond explication gives you as litde advantage,you fay thai ApcflolicaU example v^htch bath not a mz&re temporary reafin^ is tmHgh io proze an Infiitwun from Cody to nUch ihatpraBife doth relate ^ tjpeciaUy tvhen fuch examples come to he hacked with ths confiampra&lfe of all Churches in all ages. jind then joHbring m Panls preaching at Troof^ the CoUiUions ttpontlefirftdayofthe n>eeh in the firfl of the Corinthians and the fixtesntby the mentioning (fthe herds daj^y Revel, I*

SiTj I except againll none of all this to bee a part of that good csddencewhich wee have for the religious obferva-tion of the Lords day;, but I dare confidently fpcakc it, that out of thefe you can never evince more (laying aU thins^s together) to prove the Inilitittion of the Lords day, then I have done f(»r the lawfulnefleofbaptizing of Infants; and I appeale to all learned Readers, whether the manv bookes written of late againft the Inflitutlon of the Lorcls day, give not as fpecious and plaufiblc anfwers to thefe places alledged by you concerning the Chriftian Sabbath,

as yours are againft Infant-baptifmc (although they have received fiiflicient cleare and folid anfwers) yea and tread under their feet all arguments taken from thefe examples, with as much confidence and icorne, as your fclfc doe that which I and others have named for Paedo-Baptifme. And as for the (iipplemcnt which you bring out of the conftant praftife of the Churches for the religious obiervation of the Lords day in (lead of the old Sabbatk: I eameftly defire you in your next to produce as many of the ancients to bearcmtnefle to that truth, as I have done in this point for P2edo-Baptiime> and I promife you, you fliall receive my hearty thanks among the reft of your Readers 5 in the nieane time the Reader (hail judge whether I have not broi^ht a moity of that for the Baptizing of Infants, which you have done for the Lords day.

Further^ whether you have notabufed your reader info confident averring th^ there are no foot fiefs in Amiqmty fgt P^do'Bapitipne^tillthe trromotts ccmeit offing Godfgrace by it^ f^ the fiecejpty ofit^ to five an Infant from perifbing^fome hundreds of jeers after Chrifis Incarnation^ is eafily to bee leene by \rfiat I have at large produced in the former part of this trcadfc.

Laftly, your tedious dilcourie of that dangerom principk of framing additions to Gods tporjbif by Anahgks of our 0rj?se making ^tthofit v^arrant from Gods H^ordU delire you to apply it to them who do foj no fiirther make ule ofit,then I find <5ods Word to goe along with me: Whether ^e/liwT/i«fj«/ are eonfedtrates rwith their parents inthe Covenant ofGrace^comtB afterwards to be examined, the reft of this Seftion being carping at a phrafe or exprefSon which your fclfe grant be^ inguken cttmgrano falify may paflewith a candid Reader, I pafle over as worthy of no fiirther aniwer, onely I adde this one word, that though it bee not (ate to reafbn barely from events of things, yet it well becomes us thankfiil-ly totake notice of Gods blelling upon his owne Ordinance, and the more earneftly to contend for that which God k plea(ed fb mercifully to accompany with his grace.

In your ninth Seftion you concurre with mee in condemn To SeS*^*

M 2 nini

j^ AnU'fdd0'bafU[lsleAvt Infants ^f Bdeevers

ningit as amckldptaUilt to/eparatefrom minift'ry andcormnu-mon in Ord'man€es^ hy reafon cf thii difference in opinion^ and that the wakingof Seas upon thefe groundj ps contrary unto Cbri" jiian Charitie: and I as willingly eoncurre with you in what you fay in the latter part of this Seftion, that gpdfy Minifiarj andmber Chriflians fh^^uld not by harfh ujage of their brethren infitrringup hatred in MagiflrateS and peopk againfi ihem^ cafiprHmhliKghkck^intheirrpay^ thereby to alienatedif-ftnting brethren from them: but for what you fay in the middle of this ScdLioiiyihat this is not the evill of Anti'p£d.'bapiifmy I anfwer, I conceive it flowes from the principles which moil of the Ahti-psedo-baptifls do conceive (though pof-fiblyall (and your felfc for one haVe not wholly Embraced them) for ifyou pleafe to take and to compare thele three principles of theirs together, Firft, members are added to the Church by Baptifmejand not otherwife. Secondly^ that fuch as arc not baptized according toGhrifts In-mtutiouj their Baptifine is a nuUitic. Thirdly^ that because the Baptifiiie of Infants is not clearely heldf out in the New Teftamcntj it is therefore not warranted by Chrifts Inftitution, but contrary to it^ and theii tellmee what fol-lowes lefle then this^ that none fo baptized arc Cfe&rclfi; members, Scconiequently canpcrformenoafts of Church-member Sj and that therefore our Churches are no true Churches, our Miniftry can bee no taic Miniftry, aiid therefore a neceilitie ofieparation from us.Whatyou add in the end of this SefUon^that apaffage in one of my Sermons about/k hedgewhich Gad hmbfet about thi ficonaCom^' mattdement hath bun oke caufe of your ftartling at this point' ofPddo-Baptifme,! anftvefjOnely thiSjhadyou not bin ftartled before^ there is nothing in that (peech could have moved youj and when once you have manifefred that Baptizing of iTifants doth breakedowne the hedge which God hath mide about the fecond Commandcment^ I (hall bee frartled wkh }^u> and not till then^ HoSfB lo In your tenth and laft Seftion, wherein you undertake ' to anfwer that palfage in my Sermon^ that the opinion:; of the Anabaptiits puts all the Infants of belecvers into

the

/> the fame CBrnUtm with Pagans. g ^

the leJfefamecondition ivithTurkes and Iiifidells, you an* fwer feveraU thini^s: wherein I plainely perceive you can-notdeny what I affirme, and yet you arc loath to grant it ; you fay, firllj Cyprian withhii 66, Bijhopj doth the fame^which 1 have formerly (hewed will not follow out of the words of ofthatEpiftle : fecondly, you fay, Mr» lUthband pleading that fuch Children whofe Anctjhrt in any generation rvere faiih-full ff>ay UvpfuUybee accmnted n^ithin Gods Covenartt-^grarns the jumealfo. But this no waycs foliowes widiout extreame wracking thofe words in any Generation, I fuppofe your iclfedoth notthinke thofe words, Exod, 20.5. were intended to intimate that ail die children in the world, who came froni ^dam or Nj^^ were included in the Covenant of grace^,. nor doe I conceive youbeleeved Mr. Kathhandto thinke ib» Foryourowneopinion you declare it thus; i. Toukn&w no vparrant to thinki ekliion to reach kleevcrj children more then imbekeverschildren. 2. Touknovp no more fromifi for itmn then fir tlje childrm of ttn^ekeveri, 3. All the likelihood there, is^ that they belong te Gods ele&ionraihtr then lurkes and Infidels^ lebcy becjHJe they havi their parents and the Churches prayers^ fome gmtrall and conditionaU fromifes^ and enjoy tl?e. b^efit of good infi-ruUion and exampk^ which puts thtmtntd a nearer pgffibility 10 bee hditvers and faved^ and experience fherves God fa-^tfentiy continues hit Church i?j theirpof^trity* Btfi this you dare not grmnd upon any promife made unto bekevers as fnchy for fiart yon &oHld incurre ^lafphemy by challenging a promifi which God doth net keepeiin that many of thz pojieritie afgodh pannttprovi very ji^ick^ed,

-'■toaUwhichlanfwer, firft, in general!, that to rayun-dcrftanding you here clearely yeeld the Infants ofbclee-vers to bee in the fame condition in reference to the Cove-Tiant of gracc,^ which the Infants ofTurkes and Indians are in, no morepromiiefor the one then for the other: which (b oft as you confider, mee thinkes your fatherly bowels to your owne children fhould t>ce moved within you. Secondly, I answer, firft, to that of ekftion, your oTvne fpeeththattxperiince fiemvg that God frequently (omimtes hid Church among bikevirspofteritito fhould bcpnc argument to

M 3 . make

, make you thinke Gods elcftion lies mor« among them then among others, though wee can bee ccrtainc of no one b{ ' them ill particular. Secondly^ what promifea are made to beleevers children more then to Turkes, and whether Ahtd" 6jw/promi(e reach thenijihall God willing bee fcand in its proper place- Thirdlyjasto that which you fay, tliat the children of beleevers are in a more hopeliill Way, bccaufe of their parents prayers, inftruftionsj examples^ Sec. and fome general! and conditioniall promiies which puts them in a more pofTibiliticj I anfocr, this i^ nothing to the children which die in their Infancy, nor Secondly, any more then children of Pagans enjoy", whofe lot may fall to be educated by Chriflians, but no more promi/e by your doftrine for the one then the other. Thirdly, whereas you aftirme thtt GtmraU^ Ifidefimte^ and CortStionall promjfei doe prove tbat.tbire is a more cmfortabk lik^lihjcd that the cbil-dnn of bdeevert a.e eh^ed bjGod ra:her then the cb'ddrm.of 7'urkis, I reply^ i. You doe not expreffe what thofe pro-mlft s are. 2.1 wonder that you fhould inferre elcdion from cx)nditionall promifo. Did God ever (ay that if you will pcrforme thefe and thefe conditions, tiien I wiU regenerate you, give you a new heart, and put my fpirit within you? 3. Ifthepi'omife of regeneration bee not conditio-nall then youmuft fay thatthere isibmc comfortable likeh-hoodthatfuch Infants may bee elcfted though they arc not regenerated, for if there be any thing lefle then regeneration promifed, fure there can be n o comfortable likelihood of theekftion of a child gathered from aproraiic of any thing which leaves a chiM in an unregcnerate ellate. ftutl much admire that fpeech of yours, where you feare you (hould incur blafphemy by challenging a promiie which God doth not keepe, bccaufc many of the children of beleevers prove wicked j I befecchyou tell me, was it not fo among Abrahams pofteritie? and yet you grant Abraham had a peailiar promifc which wee have uotj might not they without blafphemy plead that promile^ notwith-ftanding that promife, / tviU be the God of thee mui thy fiedy was not made good to every one of them? for it is moll

clearc

in the fame cdndition mth Pagans. Zy

cleare by the Apoftles difcourfein the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Ramar7i,tlut God was not the God ofthou-fands of Abrahamj fecd^ either in relpeft of (aving grace, or outward priviledges, for he caft off the Jewes from b> ing his people, and ftificrcd them not to enjoy fo much as outward priv jjedges, but made choice of the GcntiJes in their Ileadjand yet I iiope you will not fay that God broke his Covenant with thole that had the feale of the Covenant in their flefti, and yet were reje6:ed not onely from faying grace, but from outward priviledges.

Next let us lee how you avoid being goared by the three Kornes of my Syllogifme. I faid, all being left in the fame condition, l^AUmufikfaved. Or 2. allmufi bee damned. Or g. Godfavejfome of the Infants of the Turli^s , and fume of the Infams oj beleev&s pro ^enephcito. After fomc difcourle of the two firfl of thefe,youdeny the conlequence: It fol-hffis not (fay you) God mjjffavefsme^ and thofe fome may bee tb( Infants of bekevers^ and none of the Infants of Turkl and Indians, I^s true, a man that will may venture to fay fo; and if another will, he may venture to lay, Ihat thojefoms^ are the Infant J of Pagans ^ and net of Chriftians: and heethac fhould fay fo, hath as good warrant for this, as you have for the other, according to your principle. But what's this to the qucftion before us ? I lai d, This opinion hx^^s them all in the like conditionjO/fe hwing no more reference to apromife then anorher. Now if you will avoid being goared by any of thele three horne6,you fliould have (hewe^ that according to your opinion,thereis Comepromife for fome of the Infants of beleevers, though there be none for the Infants of Pagans. But in frcad ofIbewing h ow your doftrine and opinion leaves them: you tell me what God may poflibly doc in his fecret Counlell, which is altogether unknowne to us. But! perceiveyourfelfe lii^efted this anfwer would not endure the tryall: and therefore you quarrell at that ex -prcflion of mmt^Tbat ifanj cf the Irtfants^ offuch as live and die fagans he faved by Chrifi'^ thenfalvationiy Chriftiscar-. rjed oHt df the Cburcb:^ whereof Cod hath made no pomife. A--gaiixft this you except 5 1. Thatfahmion is not carrytd oHt of

the.

tJje invifihle ChurcJy^ though fame InfanU offagani fhouU hez Javed by Cbrift, 1 anfwcr, it's trues and I addcj That if a ^ ny man (hall fay, the Vevils pould k faved by Chrift ; even that Opinion would not carry falvation out of the invili-ble Church. But Sir, wc are enquiring after the falvation cf them to whom a proniife of iaivation is Hikde* Now when you can prove that God hath mad€ a promift, that he will gather a number, or hath a. number "Whofe names are written in the Lambs book^-alth ough their Parents ne* verknew Jefus Chriftj nor themfelves ever live,to bee in-ftru6:ed ^ you may then perfivadeyoar Pveader to beleeve^ thatevenfome of thelnfantsof Pagansdying ijiithcir In-far cy belong to the invitibic Church j ar.a till: then, you mull give him leave to beleeve that this anfwer is brought in as a (bift, onely to lei-ve your prefent need.

Secondly^ you unCwer^Xkjtmenmjjbe9 J^ed out of the commuTJimof tbevifible Church- and you in fiance Abraham called QHt oj Chaldeaj Job;« the L^nd^f Vz; Rahab in Jericho; andyoit Jay ^ Hce that called tbefe^ may javc- jifm a* mongfi Tnrkej and Indianj mt of the vifihk Cburcb. I anfwer, I hope in your next^ you will a little better explaine your meaning: The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning: that as Akraham, Job^ and Rabab^ wereia-ved out of the communion of tha vifible Church in their dayes: fo fome among the Tmkes and Indians may bee faved out of the communion of the viiible Church in our dayes. But furely this is not your meaning, you doe not beleeve, that Abraham^ Job^zxid Rahab were out of the communion of the vifible Church, though polfibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary ^ as afterwards St. Pauls was. Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunucli when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the viiible Church; though his habitation (at leaf! for af while) was not among Chriftians but Infidels* lam perfwaded that you thinke all vifible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the vifible Church, though poflibly the^^'may be hindered from being a&iali Members of any particular Church. I will not Co much as imagine that you

men-

mentioned thefe three examples, as a Blinde to deceive youp uncautelous Reader: and therfore I only dSve you in your next, to let us know your meaning plainely: and difcover tousthismyllery^ how men may bee called to fellowfbip with Jefus Chrift, and yet have no communion with the vifible Church of Chrilt.

The reft of this Sedion^ wherein you enquire what thofe promiiesare which are are made to the feed of beleevers, I (hall (God willing) give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon, whither now you call mej onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the dole of this Se^on, how manfully ym bavi entred mj (rttf-tvorl^s^ and thereby inemrage ydur fclje to Jcale tny walls : You indeed entred, and fetup your flag, but! hope it appeared to the indiiferent Reader that you are in no great proba-bilitie of getting any great Ipoile, unlefle my walls prove weaker then the outwoi:ke,\diich as yet are farrc from being taken by you.

PART III.

NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed ;hc Defence of the ftrength of my cmCt^tht evidence rphicb the Scripture gives third parr of for Infam-'Baptifmei^hich. before I proceed in theexaminati- Sermon. on of, I briefly propound to the Readers confideration, ^^^^l ^° that you have this advantage to make your worke have Of the'con-a Specious probabilitie, in that the queftion is concerning nexion be-Infants, concerning whom there is much filence in the fweenerhc Scripture, andfliould any man argue againft the juftifica* Covenant, and tion of Infants, by the Theologicall doftrine that is to bee ^ ^* found clearein the Scripture^ how fpecious a plea might he make, elpecially if his deputation fliould bee carried as yours is altogether in the way of making exceptions againft ar^ments, but not poGtively affirming any thing? But notwithftanding, by the heipe of God, I hope clearely to vindicate my arguments from your exceptions.

My firft Argument was, tbe Infants (f beUeving parentj are fisderati^hereforethey mnfi btfignatij^ arc wUhinth Covenant

N (f

^ InfanuBapifm€fr9vedfr§m Scripture;

gf Grsa^ thenfon an toparial^e of the Stale oftheCevenant, ■

This Argument^ becau(e I knew the tearmes of the pro-pofitions and the reaibns of the confequents would not be deare at the firft propounding, I therefore made no further The confe- proftcution of untill firft I had cleared five conclufions quenccotthe from whlch it receives not oncly its light, but ftrength, argument made ^nd front which it ought not to bee ieparatcd, becaufein good, ^^gj^ J jj^^l^ prove a Covenant and figne initial!, this, firft

you affault fingly, and denying both the propofition/ you try your ftrength in this Seftion againft the confequence^ and affirme that th^ who diWj the cmfiquence doe it jftfify^ becauje (fay you J if they rpho aref£derati muji he fignati^ it mttfi bee jo either byreafonof fome necejfary connexion bettveene the tearmes^ qjr by reafbu of Gods will declared concerning the Covenant ofGracti hut for neither ofthefesaiifes j firfi^tbire is no neceffary cenjequeme that God gives a promt fe^ ergo he mufi give a feale^ or a fpeciall figne ^ Jofi?Hah had none for his prnmije of bringing Jfiael into Canaan'^Thinehas none for hk^ for the Prlefihood to continue in his family ; norfeccndly^by any declaration of Godi v^iti^Adam^ andaUiberefl to Abraham hj^?mjey yea^ and in Abrahams time Mdchifedecki Lot^ J obi, and fur Abrahams family there vasno filch HnivtrfaU order or declaration of Gods will if or children under tight dayesoldy and all the females had no fuch command^ and therefore to h^vefealed them^ wou'd have heme wiU'Worfljip^ and foyou conclndihtre and in many »ther places of your booke^ that it is not heiffg foederati in Covenant i^hlchgives title to the feak.hut ondy the declaration of Gods will to have hfo^

TowWch lanfwer cleareiy, and firft in generaU. That Th^^^c fe- concerningthc truth of diis<:^«/^«e//ce, the difference be-qucnte proved twcenc you and me is not fo much as you would make the byMr.Tom^V wofld bfclecve, wee diifcr iride^d in the interpretation o{ the owne princi - -wordf^dtratiy about what is meant by being in Covenant, i?^' 1 affertj that n^any are to b^e reputed to belong to the Co-

venant of grace, and in fome feijfe to bee Covenanters thoughtbty'be not partakers inwardly of the favijig graces of the Covenant, for the Covenant of grace contaijfcs not onely faving grace, but the ada}ia]fi ration of it ahb in outward Ordinancss, and Church privljedges, and that according to Gods owne word many are; Covenanters with

him

him, orinibmefenic under die Covenant of grace, who are partakers oncly of the outward adminiftrations and Church priviledgcsjj'<7» allow none to be under the Cove-nant of grace in any true Gofpel fenle, but onely foch as are inwardly beleevers, juftified, fenftified, and partakers of the (avxng graces of the Covenants Whether of us are in die right, (hall (God willing) be tryed out in thisdiP pute; but as to the trudi of the confequence, Th^t ail wba are in tbt Covenant of^raciy aught therefore to be partakes of tin fiale: you acknowledge more then once, or twice, or ten timesj for though you every where difpute that God hath made no declaration of his will concerning baptizing of Infzms^yetrotfmJfisverlflf^you profefle that if you knew an Infant to bee regenerates you would baptize it. And when I faid. Such ^ baiJe the inward grace^ ought not to hec dtnjedtheoHtwardfgnt : Youanfwer, There is none of the yintTpitdohjptifif hut Ml grant th at prepofition to bee trucy pag. 142. And theprefentfiatt of apzrfon Uihat rphlch gives ri^ to b^ptiftneyipsLg.i'^^' Usgranttdthat (iuchInfants) fuch as arcmwsLvdly fan&ifiedare difciplef^ and may not he debarred frombaptifme* mark. Infants difczples^ and is not this in plain Englifh^Tto fucb as are Covenanter jy ought not to be deny ed the initiallfeale sfthe covenant'^ Now then, if I can prove that not onely (iich as are inwardly regenerate^ but others alfo, whether Infants or grown men are to bee reputed to belong to the Covenant, and that anexternall vifiWe right (in facie vifbilis Eccleji^'^ms.y be made out for any perfbn or perfbns, to be by us owned Sc received as Covenanters with God, you your ielfe grant that the feale may be applyed to themj and whether this bee fo, or not, {b^l C^od willing) -afterwards fully appeare. . o • i o

Secondly^ I anfwermore particularly^ i. I grant with you that there is no neceflary dcpendance beuveen a pro-mife and a feale^ the addition of a (eale to a promife is of free grace, as well as thepromifc it felfi & if God had never given any Sacrament or (eal of his Covenant, w^fhouM have had no caufe to complaine of him, he well deferves to be believed upon his bare word. Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this Propofition was tree m all

N 2

^|e/of the Church; All Covenanters mufi bee fiakdf Icarry-- cd it no higher theri-4i»r^^^wa/time, when God firft added this iiew mercy to his Chiuxhjvouchiafing afealto the Covenant: And 3. from Ahrahams time and fo forward, I fay it wa Gods mU^ that fiich as are in Covenant (hould bee fealed with the initiall ftale of the Covenant 5 fuppofing them onely capable of thefeale, and no ^eciall barre put in againftthemby God himlelfe^ which is apparent in the very firft inftitution of an initiall feale, Ge». 17.73 p, 1O3I4. Where die very ground why God would have them fealed^ is becaufc of the Covenant^ I will eflablijh my CvVtnant hetwan me and thee and thy feed after thee in their generations for an everUfiing Covenant to be a God to thee and thy feed after thee: thou fhalt keepe tny Covenant then-fore • and this it my Covenant n?hich yee fhall k^ep 5 every man cbilde among you fhall kee ci-fcumcifed'j and afterward in the 14. the feak is 5 by a Metonymia called the Covenant^ for that it's apparent not onely that God commanded them who were in Covenant to be circumcifcd^ but that they fhoiild therefore be circnmci(cd becaufe of the Go" venantj or in token of the Covenant bctw^eene God and them 5 and he that rejefted or negleftcd the feale, is faid not onely to brcakeGods commandement^ bat his covenant : fo til at becaufe the initial] Scale was added to the Covenant, and fuch as received it, received it as an evidence of the Covenant, or bec^ufe they were in Covenant: I therfore con* cluded,that by Gods own will,fuch as enter into Covenant ought to receive the feal, fuppofing ilill that they were capable of it* So that to lay Circumcifion upon Gods command, and the Covenant of grace too,are well confift-enttogether;forthe command is the caufc of the cxificnGC of the duty? but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it* Anfw, 10 J^U 4* Wkreasyou dMtdgtcmcermng Melchifdeck,, toty Jol^-^ fbifedtik^i Jib, n>e find m ffich thixigthat ibey either received this feak ofcir^ and Let. ciimcifion^ €r nrertiyedto it, J reply, it's very hard for yoii

to prove that Mekhifedech, was then alive? and had he been aiive^fre was of an higher Order .and above that Paedagogic Or in what age of the world Job lived , though hee bee thought to be of thepofterity of Efau^ and fo might have

Tnfant'taptijtne f roved from Scrifture. j^3

a right to it (even in your fen^e) as defending lineally from Abraham ^ however this is a meere negative Argu-nient in matter of hdi^ whichyourfclf knowtobee of no validity; Negative arguments from Scripture are good in matters of faith. I am not bound to bcleevethis or that, unlcfTe it be found in the Scriptures; but they are not good in matter of faft; this or thatfa^t is not recorded in the Scriptures therefore I am bound to beleeve it was not done, is no good consequence; Anon fcrtpto ad nm faliummn 2;j/e/c^;2/e^«f«/iANo Scripture! faith they were circumci/ed, (though very good Authors thinke that Lot and loh were circumcHed,) npr doth any Scripture fay they were not circumciied.

As to that you fay of Infants mder eight dajes old^ and ^/And ro luCinrs all the females in Abrahams family. lanfwer to that of 7«-under eight fants 3 there was a pecnliar exemption of them by ^jd himfelf^ <ia>es old. whether for any typical! reafon, or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergoe fo (harp a paine as was to bee induredin Circumdfion, before .the ieventh and criticall day was paft, or whether for any other cauie, I di.'pute not; it is fufficicnt, God forbad them to have the feale till they were eight dayes old. For the n^omen , they were'not Women not fubji^um capax eircumcifionp!^ ther£ was in them a naturall ^P^^^^ o^ Cir-impediment againft itjtherfcre could net be injoyned them: *^"*^^' *°"* and fuppofe iamt men among them^ or fome who turned profelytes to them had not had a praptttium (as fbme ibrt of Eunuchs) this Ordinance had not reached them 5 whether the wifdome of God purpofely chofe a figne that Women might not be capable of receiving it,for feme typicall ufe, as fome conjefture:! cannotteli^itis fuffident that they were not capable of it^Sc were cxempced from it by (Sod^himfelfe: lb that ifyou pleafeto fiatethegenerall Propcfition, as you needs muft. That all Tvhofince Abrahams time arefctdera, ti^ «r tevenaniers with God^mufi hy Gods own appointment receive tbejeale of admijfion into covenant^unlejfeihey he either nncapa-hk of it^or are exempted Bj a particular difierjation: This pro* pofition will indure all the {hock of your arguments, and remain unmovablc.

y^ Infant'Baftif?ne fr0vedfr$m Serif ture.

Women cir- Next yoii reply to my anfwerconcerning f^omen among cumcifedinrhc^l^g jg^yg^ Jfaidtbf^ vperc drcumtifed in thtmaki\ this you men ,vindica • ^^^ ^^^^ ^^j^.^ fcorae, affirming it to be ^n eafie anfmr , ^e-eanfi iCj eafie to bee anjvpertd. Indeed Sir^ you anfwer it as caiily as ht: who undertooke to aniwer BeUarmim in one wordj and faid^ Bellarmme thou Ijefi : fo you, it is an irfetffi-cient anfker to tak^ away the axcefticn agair/fi the propofitiony and thatyoH might have a little matter to worke upon, you goe to another part cf my Sermon^ and thence you fetch thc^NOvdvirtualfyy with which you make your lelfe meny putting my propofition into feveraUpapes and formes 5 and in pne form (you fay) it concludes not the.thmg inquefiknh in another, it haih 4 termes-^ in another^j^^^e msjor is falfi.\^hec-' as my plaine meaning was, and is, that the women being uncapable of it in thcic own perfbn, becaufe of their fix, wherein was a naturall impediments as to this Sacrament, God impofed it onely upon the Males, and yet the women-were not efteemed as uncircumci^d, being (as Divines ufe toeXprefTe in this point) viris annexe & in iis cenferentur ^ui fimiliarum Capita debebanteffe- and whether this will not be jnftified:, we fhall prefcndy inquire. But firil give meleavetoobferveby the way how you pinch me with a point oflatp^Thatno man canine frid virtually tobavethat hy his Prcxk or AttHrney^n^hich he might mt aCtuallj naive hlmfelf in his on^n perfon. I queftion whether this be goodlaw ^ but I am confident it is badVi'vimty , fure we fin'd virtually in Adam^ yet We could not aftualiy, though that fin of Mam be onrs by imputation* The fun is virtuaDy hot, yet Philo-Ibphers fay its not a(ftually. And the Jews of old offered to God fuch things by the hands of the Priefts who were their Proxies in that work which they might not offer in their own perfons: yea, and received fuch things by the hand of the high Prieft(who bare their names in themoft holy place) which they might not receive in their owne pcrlbns immediately: and the Saints now in this world do virtually,and quoadeffeciumjuris, receive fbme iiich pri-i^iledges in Chrift their Advocate, who in their right^is at Godi right hand, which here they ai'e not capable of recci*'

ving

ving immediately in their own perfbns. I alio obiter dtCvt you to remembpr this exprelHon ofyours, Ihat itbadheene a pmje for a child to have been ctrcumcifed after the eighth day w(K pafi. And try how you will reconcile this with an opinion of yours delivered ellcwherej viz. That circumcifion might bee adminiftred oftmr then once j furely thoie other times muft be after the 6rft eighth day.

The other fault you note in my argument;, is:> Thit I conclude of a figne of the Covenant indejinitel)^ and not of Bap" tifme onefy'y whereas the Lords Supper is alfo a figne ef the Covenant'^ whichjetyouthinke I mllfaj isnot to Let delivered to tbem^ bscauje not appointed for them: I anfu-erj I clearely in my Sermon (hewed this Prcpofition onely to be meant of the i«i^w/i^^^5 and notoftheo^feerjandl am confident your fel^whodurit baptize an Infant known to you to be regenerate, durft not yet give the other Sacrament to if, becaule more is required to make one capable of that Sacrament, then is required to make them capable of Baptifhie : a regenerate infant you thinkeis capable of this: but befides regeneration,! am iiireyou will grant. That an examinati-enof amansfelje^ and an ability todifcerne the Lords hody^ is required to make one capable of that.

Now let us fee how you avoid my proofes. That the Women were circumcifed in the mm. My firft Was^That/^e whole boufe of Ifrael are in the Scripture faid tohg circumciftd. You anfwer^ that hytben>l ok bouje of Ifrael mufi net he meant allf hut thema'^or party or the moft confiderahlepart* But Sir, CircumciTed doc you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can nor pur for tiie beiatisticd with thir- anfwer, when (you know well enough) J^^^^*" ^^ "^' that the Gircumoiji^n is pu5 for the Church andfeopk of Godwin ^^ ^^"' oppofition to the uncircHmcifed-xhdX. is,al the reft of thewor Id who are not the people of GodAVhen P«er was to go to the Circumcifion^ P.^ul to tb e Gentiles to preach die Go^h, does not circumcifion include the Women Jews, as much as the men, in oppofition to the ^«?/^i/^j;as well as the word Gmtiles in- Cai. 2. ^., eludes the Women Gentiles as well as the men , to -whom Paul w^s fent? GjL 2,8.9. Surely it mutt needs be granted, that not onely the major,or nobler part, but thfi whole

Nation

Nation of the JeweSjboth men and women are there meant byCiraimcifion, which could not have been, if in Tome fenie they were not to bee ac-counted Circumciied^

Secondly^ I argued thus , No HncircHmcifed perfon might

^ eate the Pajjeover : Ergo, Their ipomen might not have eaten i^ , x

if in fome Jenje they had not been circumcifid. Your an^er is,

Thia vi to bee limited profubjeftamateria, none that ought to

be circumcifed might eate the PaffeoVery unlejfe they werf circum^

!Kep!j, cifed. But this anfwer is altogether iniiifficient. For,

I. Where is thisdiftin£lion of yours found> or founded in

the Word of God ? other diftindions about eating the

PaflTeover, are clearely found, the c/^j»eniight eate it, the

unilean might not eat itjthe circumcifid might^the umircHm-'

eifed might not: but of your limitation there is altumfilen-

tium.

No warrant for *• I demand fiirther, where is there any commander

women ro eate inftitution for women to eate the ^PafleOver, (more then

rlu P^iTeovcr, for Women now to eate the Lords Supper, ) unlefle it bee

imicife (hey founded upon Circumcifion? yet in praftice we know they

wtrero bee e- ... • j t t • • t ^ r

fteemcd cir "^^ ^^^'^ ^^ 5 ^^^ " ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ circumciied pcrfons,

cnmcik'd. tell me by what right they did it. If you fay they were

included in the houlhold, E^<?^. i2. 5,4. Every hottfiold n>a9

to eate the Pafcball Lambe^ and there was no exception of jr#-

men, I reply, far ft , grant but the fame con(equence, that

when wee read fb frequently in the newTeftament, that

whole houfiiolds were baptized ^%cm exception of children^that

therefore all the children in thofe houfholds were baptized,

and this controverfie is quickly ended But I adde further,

it is not faid that the whole houfhold (hall eate it, for all

iincircumcifed perlbns were forbidden to eat it, & n one but

circumcifed perfons had any warrant to cat it. Yea further,

fuppofe fome words in the inftitution Ihould reach the /<?»-

ifb Tfomeny yet how doth it reach the vpomsn Gentiles , who

fliould prove Proiclytes to them? for Exod. 12.48,49,there

is order taken for the ma!gfir anger^ Let all hit males be circum-

clfed^andthen let him com^neare and kee^ //jbut there is not any

word that takes order for the grangers females J hope by this

time it appears that your exceptions again ft thecoiiiequence

of

of my Argument have.np wei$ht, .tb^jare foderatij tkr^re tifej ani9 be {igmlU ■•=*;;- IT ^r--::

Next come wc to examine the truth of the Antecedent RepI/ to ■which I manifcfted inthofe five Conclufions opened in my Sea. x. Sermon: The firft whereof is thif^ That the Covenant of <Jrace^for fithjiance, hathaltvajeJ heen one and thefame^ both to The Covenant the Jetvet and Gentiles, Jhisfirfl CQftAufion jou grant ; and «f grace always therefore there were no need to have flayed the Reader any ^^^^^^ ^"® further about it, were it not that fome of your exceptions doe almoft recall your grant: If it bee in fubttance the fame, though youfhould feckon up a thoufand accidental! and locall differences, it were nothing to the purpofe: but the firfl doth almofl recall it 5 wherein you charge me t9 carry the narration of the Covenant made rvith Abraham, G&x. Jj, Of ifitdidpnelyamtainetheCovenant of Grace in Chrijf^ Tvhereas it U apparent ( fay iyou) wf of the Text^ that the Co-* venam wm a mixt Covenant ^ confifiing of tempor all benefit s^ the multiplying j/ Abrahams feed, pQ^f^jf^on of Canaan, the birth ^/Ifaac, befides the fpiriiMallhUffingjf To which I reply, I meant/(7 inde^, :and fp I plainly exprefTed my fclfcj that all ,the difference betwixt the Covenapt then made with Ah<t^ ham^dciyi the Covenant made With us, lies onely in the man-ncr of the adminiflration ofthe Coven ant, and not in the Hrithi4^rX*'»'^ Covenant it fclfe. The Covenant it fclfin the A/'/^^we of'„© more mixc it holds out the fame mercies, both fpinituaU and temporally for fubftance to them,, and to as: ; Godlinefle. having all the'promifes ^^^" rhcCovc-both of this Iifc,and that which istp come V and that thcy^. "*"*^*f^ ^* and we^have our right tp all thefe proinife? upon! the felfe fame conditiqnjearthly things indeed Were to them promi-fed more diftinftly andfoUy^ heavienly -things more generally and fr^nngly then they are now to us; and on^ the contrary, Ipirituall things are more fully andclearely ^ro-. mifcd to us thai to them5 and earthly promifes more generally and fpar^ngly: And that thefe temporall benefits which you mention, viz» multipljdng of Abrahams ictd^ the birth oilfaac^ and pofleflion of Canaan were all of them «fo«l«i/Jrj//Var of the Covenant of graces they were

jg Infdpt-Bdftijme framed fr$m Smfture.

fgHref^ pgncs^ and tjps of (pirituall things to be enjoyed both by rficm and us. Thcfe things I not onely affertaii, but f roved in mj/ Sermon, If you think otherwise of thefc earthly bleflingSjI defirc you to explain your meaning in your ncxt.lf yon mean no more then this that all thcfe temporall blcflings were promifed and given as flowing from the promife of Chrift, and were fubfcrvicnt to it, or were but types and ftadowea of it^ you meane no more then what wee all grant, who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for* the fobftance of it then there is in that made with us: and that the difference lies onely in the manner of adminiftration. But I confelle I fulped you have a forther meaning, iiot onely becaufe you here mention the temporall blellings before the (pirituall, and call the land oi Canaan the Covenant made with Abraham^ but cipecially that expreffion which you owne from Camt" Ton^ that Circumctfion did primarily Je ale the temporall promtfe^ andpgnifitd janUtfication but feeondarily ; what your meaning is in this expreffion, I cannot tell^it hath an untoward lookc^asifthemeaning were, that God did primarily and chiefely, in a Covenant of Grace founded in Chrift( wherein himiyfe promifes to bee their portion) Intend in the fealeofit to ratifie temporall bleffings which onely con-ctsne&viiam animatem-, now that ihe Scale (I fay) of this Circumcifion Covenant fhould primarily, and chiefly give evidence to fcaledthc fpi- ftch a portion which a people may enjoy, with whom Ged noiaii part of ^gygj. j^^de a Covenant tol>e their Go A l8 (b grofic a thing ihe Covenant. ^^ imagine of Godjand fo expreflfely contrary to the word, rfiatuntUl you owne it,I will not impute it to you,aIthou2h IknowtheAnabaptiftsinG^erwiiijTy iharac not to fty^ tbat ihe Cffvcnant made with Ahabam was ameere eMrnaD things itnd had mthingtd d&ewith etemail life. As for that expreffion of the learned Cameron thjtCiramcipmdidprimarilj feak the earthly promife^&c. if by primdrily hee meant immediatly^ though nut chiefly^ that it icaled theft things/r/i wor^r, m thy were types of ipirituall things, it may then pafle etm grano fali/!^ \>vx\^y primarily be intendedprincipally, that Circumcifion did cbiefyfiale earthly bieffmgr^ the opinion is

too

InfoHhtdftifme provedfr6m Serif ture. ^|t

too un&vory to be received: and whereas he3(and you with him) (ay that Circumcifim did thus primarily fiak ibt earthly part §f the Covenant^ I defirc to know of you what Scripture ever made Circumcifion a Scale of Canaan', wee have exprefle Scripture that it (ealed the righteoufmjje of faiths, whereby he was juftified, but I no where read that ii fealed theLand of Canaan, Whereas you (vfythsugh thepromifes were typts ofJpifituaU and heavenly things^ yet the things pfomifedwere hutcarnaU and earthlyj as the faerifices were hut camaU things^ though jbadotpeJ ofJpiritHall: I reply, all thii U true^ but this belongs to ^cadmittifiraticn of the Covenant C^ Was iaid before) butmakesit never a whit the more a mixt Coye-T\a.nt for the fitbftance of it', the Covenant then was more ad^ miniftred by carnall things then it is norvy and yet the ad-miniftration of the Covenant even now alfo hath Ibmecar-nall promifo, andpriviledges as well as then, as the external! ordinances of the Gofpell^ Baptifiiie and the Lords Supper; and wee as well as they have in the Covenant of grace, the promiie o£jhis lifey and of that which is to come i and fo you may^ifyou will,call ours alfo a mixt Covenant, con* fitting both of tcmporall and foirituall bleffings ; and as among them fome who were in Covenant did partake onely of the temporall part, and never were partakers of thcfpi-rimall, others of them were partakers of the (pirituall partalfoj evenfomw^ fbme partake oftheexternall and cai^ nail part mely^ whilft others partake of bothi this you muft grant to be true, unlefle you will maintaine that none are now members of the vifible Church, but onely EleQ: ancf true beleevers»

Secondly,y ou except againft mee that when Ifaidtbe man" jftrcfadmimfirationoffhis Covenant tpos firfi By types^ fia-dowet^andfacrzfices^&c, it hadbeme convenient to have named Circmncifionythat it mghtnot he conceived in belong to the fkh" fiance of the Covenant: I reply, firft, this is a very finall quar-rell,I added, &c. which fupplics both Ciitumcifion and other things. Secondly, you know the Covenant of grace was adminiftred by faerifices and other types before Circumci^ ponifminfiitmcd.

Pfofelyfcs were Abrahams feed.

This is nor to joyn with Jir rnin'm.

Infant'BapifmeffOvtdfrtim Scripture. Thirdly^ whereas I /aid there were yowf Profefytej in tU Jem/h Church who were but felfe-juflidarht^ cartiaU and for mall profeffofS^rvhoareytt in tlye Scripturt called Abrahams feed^ you znfwer I caU them fo without the warrant 0f Scripture^ as you conceive: to which I reply, my words 'wercthat there wm another fort of Abrahams feed who were onely circkmcifed in theflefh andnot in the hearty who though they Were home of Abrahlrns feeiy $r profejfed Abrahams fatth^ and fo were lewes fafti ihoHgh not nati, jet thej never made Abrahams God their portion hut reftedinfonHwbat which wot not Chrifl^&c, and fo were to perifiwiththe^Hcircumcifed, This you doe not'here deny to bee true, olnely you would liave me (hew where the Profe" lyteswerec^UcdAbrahamsJeedylreply^ had I mentioned no profelytes at all,but onely faid there were fame in the Church of the lemsi^who were vijibk members y and part^tk^rs of outward Ghkrch-priviledgej ^ and yet were not inwardly godly^ nor partakes of the fpirttuail party and that ihe/e were called Abraham fied' ai Well as otherj^ it had bcea enough for my purpofe. I named not PrOfelytes to adde anyftrength to the argu-mcnt5 and becaulfe they are called Godj peopley I feared not to caH them Abrahams children by profejfiony and never expelled to have met with z quarrell for calling them who j.oyned to the Church of Ifrael by'that common name whereby the Church members were called, viz. the feede trf Ahfoham or the children of Ifiael: and could no place of Scripture be produced where profelytes are exprefly called by this name, the matter were not tanti. But if it were a thing of any moment, it would be no hard matter to produce evidence fufficient to prove that profelytes were called liraelites and the feed of Abrahamy as AS^s 2, 10. and22» compared, A&. 13.26. compared with Verie 43. but I for-beare.. You go on and accufe me^ that herein I jojne with ArminiuSywho Jaithy there is a feed of Alrabdm mumi^edy , Kom* 4.9. 10* Gal 3. GaU 4. tpho Jeeke jufiifeat ion and falvati-on by the worlds of the LaiPy and that bee maf^s this the ground of wrefting that Scripturey and that Mr, Bayne upon Ephef r. fayes that the feed of Abraham without any adyowd fs never fo tak^n:. I reply, you give an high chai'gc, but a Weake

proofe 2

jj^fanhBAftifmefroveifrom Serif ture. loi

proofe h I f*aid there was a fort of profelytes who we re the Jeed of Abraham hy profefjon omly^ or outward cleavhig to thcCovcnant^ who though they profefTed Ahrahamj faith, yet did not place their happinefle in Chrift, or make choyce of Ahfahams God for their aJI-fiifficientportion. Sir, is this to joyne with hrmimnsm his interpretation of the ninth to the Komofis ? i. How doe you prove that Arminiu^ nieanes the "words which you cite, of JewL'h Profelytes > NnUifiln carnU cenfintur infimney faith Arminiufy doth hee meane that no profelytes were the feed o^ Abraham according to the fielli? if fo, I beleeve acute Mr. Baym would ^^^ ^jf ^ °^ have been more wary then to have oppofed him in that mem,.Thar^cj-point. Nay Mr. Bajnt in the very felfefame page which viii /unkiarits you quote, having fct downe Arminiuf his two conclufions. ^^^tf called A-(I. The children of the promife are reckoned for the feed. ^I'^hamsMd, a. The children of the fielh are not reckoned for the feed-,) pafles his judgement upon them in thefe words. Page 140. The Conclufions are trne^ Ifut not prtlnent to this fenfe^ for the chMen ofthejkfif bere^are thofe omlj n>ho in courfe of nature came from Abraham, But you very wifely mention neither of thefe Conclufions of Arminius^ you thought it more for your advantage to faflen upon fbme other propoiition laid downe by Armtniuf^ and as you fet it downe it runs riius: There is a feed of Abraham^ quiper opera kgU pflitiam & fa-Intern confeqfttmtur}, I was much amufed at the words* I know Armtniuf faith, De»f ex promip ac debito dat v'uam aternam operanti^ but he meanes it not of the workes of the t awi and therefore I wondered to fee operalegis in your pro-pofitionj but the word which puzled me mofl, was confe-qmmtur. Sir^ let me intreat you to correct your booke, there is no fuch word as confequtmtur m Arminita his expofi-^ tion, and it doth not agree with your own expofition, for confeqwrntur jufitiam^ is by you tranflatcd. Follow after rightcoufiieffc. I have perufed Arminius^ (with whom you fay I ] oyn) and Mr. B j) «f,from whom you fay I fay I differ, and I (hall give an account of both to the reader.

Firft fcr Arminiut^ his words are thefe, Filii camis hpo-folohdcUcofunt^ qni per opera legit jufiitiam & falutem con^

Infant'Bdftifmef roved from Scripture.

{cduvitur:,notconfi(juuntur: fo that die ^ucftion between t\xmii^m and Mr. B^ne^ is> whether in that place; namely, in the Qto the RomanSj the Apoftle by children of the flcfh, ^QQ nieanefuch as fedc rlghteoufnefle by the Law ^ Hue in loco^ {aith krmmim.ihe phrafe is to beefo interpreted in thi^ place* NojfaithMr.B^we, itia not to bee taken fo in this place, though it niay be taken fo in other places: I (hall fct down Mr, iajnej his own words, that the Reader niay fee Bayne in E- bow groffdy you have abufed me; For ihougb ( faith Mr. phefp.ii'^ Baynff^ ohildrm of thefiipj in form other Scripture^ deth mte cap, 1.5 • out judiciaries^ finking fdvation in the LaWy )et here the liter aU

tmdningiito(fitak^^achildef the fiep^beingjuch a ene as de^ fcerid^ihfrom Abr2Lh3.m according to tkflefh* Good Reader obferve,!. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Ro-niansjandtherforedidnot at all meddle with the quei^ioR l>erween hrminius and Mr. Bajfne,

2. I am cleared by Mr. Bafne himfelf^whom Mr. Tombes produced againft me. 3 • The words which cleare me, arc within fix lines of thofc words which Mr. Tombes cites a-gainft me: whether Mr. Tom^ej be guilty of negligence or iaKhoodj I leave to your judgement. 4. The errours of ArminiiM are many in the place cited, and I joyne not with him in any one of them. Firft, I doc not conceive that by [Word] Row.p. 6. the Jews meant the fcgall Covenant, but the word of promiie, or elic the Apoftle had not anfwe-red direftJy, v* the 9• Secondly, by the word [Seed]was meant the children pf thepromife, the eleft. Row. 9* 8. as Mr.^i«jwe,nay/4rwi«;wfconfefleS5 ontly Arminius fd^Ai that they were elefted upon Gods forcfight of their faithjan Opinion wch I deteftjas being injurious to the free Sccffeftu-all grace of God. I need not inftance in any other errours, only draw this Corollaryjif God did ^y\Si his promife made to the {eed of Abraham^ though God did rejcft fo many of his feed (that had the token of the Covenant in their flefti) not onely from ialvation, but from the partaking of outward privilcdges, from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer: then God may rejcft ma,ny of the ftcd of bcleever^ now under the polpcl^ though baptized,

not

ftot oncly from falvation, but from all Church-priviledgcs beiides baptifrae, and yet make good his promile iealcd m baptifme, in which he engagcth himfclfc to be the God of bclceving Chriftians and their iced.

Fourthlyj Mr. Toniba (peaks of Abrahams/ee<^^<:ji7/»^3 and faith that promife^QI will be the God of thy feed] was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles^ pag. 45. Now A/r.TiJwj^jei will not fay that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling, the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling, arc the feed of Abraham onely^y ^r«!/^j(^(?»layl,becaufethey are of the fame profeffion with the fpirituall feed of Abraham, who are inwardly called. If Mr. Tomhes fay that it is better to term them feed b7 calling, then feed by profeffionj if it bee but an outward call^ where lyes the diiFerence ?

Fifthly ,Mr. Bayne and Arminim are agreed, that by the feed of Abraham, Kom. 9,8. is meant the eleft oncly, Omnes flit promijjiofiis cenfentnr in /emine^nuliifilii carnii cenjefitur in fiminty (aith Arminiuf*

Sixthly, the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and hrminiufy is, that this eleft feed was elefted upon Gods forefight of their faith, as hrmimuf would have it; but I joyne with Mr. Baynt in detefting this opinion, as injurious to the free and ^e6ball grace of God: and Mr. Baym joynes with me, in confeiling that in Ibme places of Scripture they who feek to bee juftified by the Law, are termed children of the flcfh. To conclude this of hrminiw^ I ^J^'J'"^^^ wonder you fhould feck to caft an odium upon my expreffi- sermw!^ on (asyoudohere and ftverall othertimcs) by %ing it's a joyning with Arwi«ii#f jwhcn you know wellenough that you joyne not oncly in an cxpreflion or two, but in this your very doftrine of oppofingPaedo-baptifme, with that monfter Servetw^ and others liKe him.

Laftly, you are much more ftumbled and offended rfiat jvir. Blake yin-Mr. BlahQiouid Cay ^7 here yH remained in the Church a di- dicated, ftin&ion ^ hhrzhTimsfetJyfime home after the fiefh^ f&me of' terthefpiriti and that hothtbefe have a Church intereft ^ or a birthright Uf Church privihdgesy and that hee f^r this aUedged

Gal,^* 29. evenfiitisnom^&c, I reply, for my part I a« much wonder atyourcallingthefe paflages very groflc, for though it bee granted, i. That the Apoftle (hews IJhmaeI to be intended as a type of civill jufticiaries who fought righ-teoufneiTcby thelaw. Yea^ and 2. that thefc -perfecuted the true Church, who fought juftification by Chrift. And 3. That they are caft out from being heires, never to partake of the fpirituall priviledges of the Covenant, yet because it is apparent that even thefe (who PW faid were typified by the fon of Hagar) had a viiible ftanding in the Jewifh Church, and were partakers of outward Church priviledges, and were the fame of whom P^«/ipeaks, JRew, 10.3^ Who bei?ig ignorant ofGodsri^teoHfmjJe^ and going a* bout tyefiahlip their own righteoufnejje^ have not Jkhmittedihem-' fjvu unto the ri^teoHJneffe of God, And that in the fame place ?aul himfelffaith^ez/ewyS it if «tfm»(even in the Church ofGallatia it was fo) and Paulhy this Do%ine laboured to make them better.) I fee not why Mr. i?/(rj^e might not ule this as an argument, that fbme have a vHible Church niemberfbip, and ought to partake of outward Church priviIedges,notwithftanding they will not have the inheri-tance of children, unleffe they regent. The thing which I conceive offends you in his expreflion is, that hec thinkes .there is a flelhly feed of Abraham: but 1 know no reafon of flumbling at that phrafe, fince by flefh is there intended any thing which is our ownjwhatever we put confidence in,and Icane upon, as that which may commend us to God 5 wjier ther our birth, or parts, our underllanding, or morall ver-tue, yea, or our Religious dutie5, and perforpiancfls^ all are ^^cLl '"'^'" but tie(h;andthis St. F^^«/plainly fignifies,^ii/.3.3 2<G,Weare ^^^^^ ' theCircHmcifion nbich w,)rJhip^Gfidinthe/pjrityandput,.no

What meant cgnficlence in the pjh^ and i|Q the vf rfe following he tells you by feed of the what he meant by/e/2?^z'/«. his birthright ^ his circumcijion^ flefh. his unbiameab/d converfation^ &c. And might not Mr. Blak^

fafely fay, there is flill a feed of thefe who are vifible members?

Reply to i^j fecond conclulion was to this effcft, Ev^r fince God

^'^•^ gather

gathered a difiinB number mt of the tforld^ ta be his Kingdom^ Minx% raken Cuk.UoufMd, in Off option t$ the rsft of the tvarld, Vfhichi, '^■^^^J,''^^''' the Kwdornc^ Citie And Hjufehold &f Satafi ; Hec nrvuld have re^tj^ InfanUof alltphjare taken,intoCoveriam rv^ith h'lm^ to htC jc* • counted hify to hlong to h'lmy to hU Church andfimily^ and not ta tieVeviUj'

So much weight lies upon this Condufioii, and it fo neerely concernes you to make at leait a (hew of overthrowing it, that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wtrs^ and artifices to fhake the ftrength of it, 'by fcornefuti. fpe^" ches^hy clotiding and darkling what was cxprefledplainely, by framing fenfej^ and confuting rrhai was never afferted nor intended^ by Bringingin at the byyOpiniofis of other men, andds^ fpHtinj againfl tbemfy alkdging ibe Tefiintonies of fome emi" nently learned men] when they are nothing to the pnrpefe in handy and bjfeeking to elude the firength of my argnments : In all thefe I (hall attend you, and endeavour to cleare what you would feeme to have obfcure, briefly to pailc over what is impertinent, and chiefly buckle with you in that which •

concernes thecaufe in hand.

Firft, you tell me this conclufion is a bnsklnythat nuy het put on either kg^ right or left^ exp^efi fo amhigHoufiy that yon l^orvnotinrvhatftnfetotak^it,

Truely Sir, you take a courfe to make it ^eme fo: I knew R^F -y a man in Cambridge that Went for a great Scholler, whofc remarkable facultie was, fo to expound a Text, as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation^ even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclufion, you bring firftj three forts of lenfes, then you fiibdiviJe thetu, and under each of them bring feverall Imaginable fenfes^ foure or five under one head, £ve or fix under another head, and then blame me that 1 have not diftinUlyfit downe in mhtch of theft fenjts^ Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant^ whether in re^eft of Eliiiion^ or of afromife of grace in Chrtfiy ' whe-^evpoten^i^Ujy or.aS^itaUy^ whether they are fo to bee accounted by an zGt o^ fciencey or faitby or opinion, and that grounded on a rule of ebaritie^ or prudence^ or probable hopes firthefntttre; thus you expreffe your skill in multiplication

lOtf

The fence of this fecond propoftrion cleared.

Men ma> bee

andertheCo-vtnanr fevcrall

fpincuailyyand fotne under the

f'/ifdnuVAfufine frcttdfiem Scrip$fre.

of fcnles ; But I reply, that hce that runs may rcademy ftnfe^ and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fatten a Tenfe upon it, which I never thought upon^ might confidently have concluded that I meant of m vifihk priviledgeinfacievifibilisEeelejray or have their (hare in the feduf externum, which my words plainely enough held forth when I fpake of Gods iepar ating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome^ Cicie, Hpufehold in oppofition t9 ib^ refi of the nrgrld which ii the J)mUs Kingdome : and afterwards in the (ame Concluiionj Godbavtngleft all the refi of the world to beevifiblj the Vtvills Kingdome (although among them many belong to his invitible kingdome as being of the nunibcr of his eh^^ he will not permit the Devil! to come and lay viable claime tg the off-Jprivg of thofi rvh^ are hegotten of the children of the mfi High^ h not this plainc enough ? that as all they who by extcrnall vocation, and profellion joyne to the Church of God, (though few of thofe many fb cal* led are elefted)have a; vifible right to bee elicemed members of the Church U Kingdom of G6d5(which iS a vifible Cor-porationidiftin£^5 and oppofite to the reft of the world,w*^^ is vifibly the corporation and kingdom over which the De-vill doth reign;) So God would have their children^ even whiiethey are children,to enjoy the lame priviledgc with them:, what Velian Vivtr is there any need of^ to fetch up the meaning of this ? But that you may no longer complaine of not under (landing myfenfej I fay plainly. The Covenant of grace is fometime taken firiBlj^ fometime lari^ly ; as it is conlidered/^ri^/y^it is a Covenant in which the ipii-i-tuall benefits of juftificationj r^eneration, perfeverancc, and glorification are freely promifed in Chrift. Secondly, as the Covenant of grace is taken largely^ it comprehends all Evangelicalladminiftrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God, and this admiaiftration is fulfilled accx>rding to tlK: cQunfell of Godswflk fometimes. it was adminiflrtd by his appointment in/;/''/, j^<«^.'^»'<?/:^^«''''^^^%^^^ Ordinances*:, this Covenant of adminiilratioit^God faid, ZjcWj 11. ID. hec did hnak^ mth ibs feofie of the JtWh and at the death of Chrift

hee

InfAf^^Baftifme pnvedfkom ScrifiuH. t^7

h<€ did wholly evacuate and aboiifti, and in ftcad thereof brought in the adminiilration which wee liveunder^wherc alfo hee rcjefted the Jews or broke them ofFfrom being his people in Covenant, and called theGcntileS3 and graffed , them in ramsmm dtfrjCiorum lifCf^m^mtg the fUce (f the branches broken off', as yourfelfe page 6$* doe with Beza rightly cxprefTe it. Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently faid to bee in cavenant tPlth God^ or to be members of his Church andfamilj, fome are my-fiicalimcmbtrs by inward grace, the inward grace of the Covenant being beftowed upon them, being made new creatures, &c. others are members in regard of the extemall and vijible ^conomj ; accordingly among the Jewes fome T^vere faid to bee Abrahams feed according to the fromife^ and not onely after theBe(h, who had the Circutncifion of the heart 2ls Well as that which was (?«/wjf^, others were Jewes inpirofatulo^ ]ewes oncly in fjrovifibilii ccclefi^e: and in like manner is it under the Evangdicall admhiifiration in the Chriftian Church, fome are in Chrift by myfticall nnion^ fo as to bee regenerai;e,&c. i Cor^S. 17. aC^Tr.j.iy. others are laid to bee in Chrift by vifi^le anul externallproJejfi(ftr^ as branches whichbeare no fruite, iifhn 15.3. and thefe alfo are called bi'anches of the Vine, though fuch branches, as for uniruitfuIneiTe (hall at laft bee cut off and caii away5and oftentimes tells us many on calUdjbutferp are chofeni[Xnio both thefe do belong great priviledges, though the friviledgcs of *

the one be (avingaSt the other not,as (hall fay and by appcarc. Furthermore, according to this different notion of the Covenant groundedupon the different mstmer of mens be** ingin Chrift, there are alfo different i?ej/(fi belonging unto the Covenant v f<hne peculiar and proper onely unto thofe who arc in Covenant fpirituaUy^ ei ^oad fifhftanthm €t gratimnfederps, as the teflimony and Scale of the Spirit, 2 CorA'2%, Upbef i. I3, 14. 30. Kom. 8.16, others common and belonging unto all, who are in the vifible body and branches of Chrift the Vine in any relation, and Ip in QtQi^cxaxit quoad exteraam dcontmuam^ till by icandalous finncs which are inconfiftcnt with that very outward dig-

P 2 nitie

joS I»fapt^B4ftijm€ f roved from SmfPure,

riitieand profeilion they cut themfelves off from that relation, and fiich are the yifible and cxternall Scales annexed to the externall profcflion among Chriftiansj as the Jewifti Scales were to thofe who were Jewes externally.

When therefore I Tay, they are vilibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents^ I meane looke what right a vifii^lepr'fijforhsith to bee received and reputed to belong to the vifible Church, ^tf^ vlfibk frofejf»\ that right hath his child ib to bee efteemcd : now all know the fpirittiall part and privjiledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to vifible profefTors as z;/^/«3but onely toluch among them who are inwardly fuch as their externall profeilion holds out, but yet there are cutrpard Church-privi-Grcat priv'r ledges which belong to them as they are vjfifk profeiTors^ viiedgcs belong 4S.tok/,r9pHiedjkefonms 6fCiodfim,6.i* thefonms lof God>Pin^x to them who th^daugkers. of min^Vettt. 14. i,- -je dre^ihe Mdrea of the herd cxreTrluCo! J^«rG<j^i andP^?//,Writing to ^vlfibk Church, Ga',^.z6. vcnanr. feithjje* are all the children of God ^j faith in Chrift Jefus^{ytt

Gcn.6.i, I fuppofe you doe not thinke that all the Galatiam were in-Deiir. 14.1. warcUy fo) fo likewife to bee reputed children of the 'b^gJomey Ga! 3.26. J'/^«i.8.12, the children of the kingdom jhall hie caft mty tlte>

children of the Covenant, M$. 5. 25. yre are the children cfthe Covenant rphich God made unto our fathers, and many other of their priviledges which belong to them, who are Ifraclites-in this fenie, viz., being by fuch a feparation and vocation * the profcfTcd people of God! T though they were not all

heires of the ipirituall part of the Covenant) Saint Taiil r\ofTi.9.4* reckons up in leverallplaceSj as Kom, 9.4^ to them pertaineth the adoftion, even to the body of that people (not a fpiri-/«Jii/ adoption, but the honour of beitig icparated and reputed to bee the children pifiGod,i>t;«f. 14.;!♦) and thcglorj^ andthefoz;ew^»//3andthe^iZ'i«g of the haw, and thefervice of God, andthepn^wi/e/, yet of thefcP^«i faith, they were not all children of A^raham,'wken he fpeaks of the foirituall Iced. Solikeva(cKpw.3.i» after F^^e/. had fhewed Ko;».2. ihztnothingbut f4iitha?idi^vpardhelinejfe^d.yc right.to the fpiritHall pai tof the Covenant, and that all the cxternall priviledges of the Jewcs, who were oncIy Jewes, in propar

tnlo^

fttlo^ Jewcs outwardiy^were nothing to jurtification before God, hce then propounds this quclii6n5Cap-3. i Whdt advantage then bath ihejerv^ or nphatprefith there of Circumci^ fi,m>- vjhzz privikdge or gaine is it to bee a viiibie profe/Tor, a viiibie member of the JcwifhChuixh > hee aiiliverSi the zdy^ntSLgeisgreat manjwayes^ andinftanceshi this one particular, that the Oracks of God were djpofitcd to them^ the cu-, iiody and difpenfation of his Ordinances^ which they might u{e as their owne treaftire, and thereby learne to know andfearehim, (therefore it is called thiir Ltiv^ Johft 8. 17, hp5 alfi Tpritten in yoHr Lotp) when the red of the nations all that while were without God in the world^and re- John 8. t 7, ceivcd the rule of their life from the Oracles of the DevilJ;, Deiu.3 j, 4, according to that of the Pfalmiftj P/aL 147.19^ 2 o Hepjfmd ■ hit word to lacoh^hptjiatuteJ andbis judrtneTits to Ifraely hue hathvotdealt jo rvitbanyrjatkn^andai for his JHdgenie^f4jtbey --■. have not k^un^ne them : So Veut. 3 3.4. The Latv a called the in- P^al. F47« 20* heritance oftht Congregation of lacoh. And although it bee true that theie viiibie ahdcxternall priyHedges-will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and dit in, the, abule of thei^ wliile they reft in Coriice^ m tl^e outward^ thing it felfe, and labour not after the /pzW/?^^//part, yec the priviledges themfdves arc very great. It is no fmall mei^ cy to have a mcmberfhip or viiibie ftanding in that focietie where (alvation isordinaryj this our bleffed Saviour told the woman ofSamariay hhni^.22. Salvation ii of the ler&es^ John 4. 22. this was the pririledge which the Church c^ the Jewes had above the Samaritans, that ialvation was to bee found in their way^ and God in his wi/edome hath {o ordained it to have his viiibie Church made up of fuqh^ I meane fo, as to have iome of them inwardly holy, and ethers of thejm hy cxternall profeflion onely^ for this reaibn among many others, that there might bee fbmc who (hould from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances difpenied in his Churchjaswell as others, who (hould be built up, that the, Paftors which hee fets up to feed his flocke, (hould not one-ly bee nuriingfathers to ^«i/^ up, but alfo fathers to beget, fonnes and daughters to him: and though all are bound

P de '

Srtb

An extein^ll riglitto rhe Covci-umrpro' ved. Kom 11.

Tht« proved from Mr, Tombes owne princifles.

Infant'Bdfufme pr^tdfrBm Scrifturi.

^juntobc^intfiofdlyholj^ whojoyneto the Cliurch, yet would hee have his Church admit thofe who profefle their willingneirc to bee his, that hee by his difcipline might i^iake them inxp^rdlj fuch as they extcxnaSy profejji them-Mv€S and as yet are not in truths as into a Schoole are admitted not onely fuch as are al^naUj learned^ but fuch as are ^c^icoi/efi/to^belearnedj not onely quiadoHi^fed ut fint do^i: and who ever will deny thiSj tliat thive are fame rightly ad-miiud by the Church to vijihk memberfhip^ uho onely p^tske of ihevifibleprhjiledgef yumik denyy that any are vilible members who are not inwardly converted:> which I thinke you will doe, but left you or any other (hould, I (hall at the pre-fent back it onely with that (peech of the Apoftle, Kom.ii. where P^/*/ipeakes oi [onHbramhesgraffedinto theOlive^aful aft^WJfds broken off, not onely the Ien>es whom hee calleth the naturall branches w^ere broken off, but the Gentiles al(b 5 the Gentile Churches who weregraffed in in their roome, and were made partakers of the roote andfatnejle of the Olivey even they alfo may bee broken off if they beleeve not, and God will no more ipare thefe branches then hee did the other, now this cannot bee meant of ai>jr breaking off from the i»i^i/?^/e Churchy from partaking of the fftrituall roote and fatnefle of the Olive 5 from this neither Jew nor Gentile arc ever broken off, it were Arminianifme to thepurpofetoaffirmethe contrary, it nxift therefore bee meant onely of a vifible flanding and externall participation of Church-priviledges; and if you thinke othcrwayes, that none of old were, nor now are viiible members of the Churchj or had right to externall Church-priviledgcs, unleffe tliey were inwardly fan^tifiedj \ bdfcech yoi^ in your next, to cleare this, and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may lee it with you, and in (lead of leading your Reader into a maze by framing multitudes cf fenfes & the like, produce Ibme fblid argumentstofhew, and prove that no other but true beleevers, may inforo vifihilifKccU' J7<f, bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God. But I fuppofe in this particular, you will hardly deny a lawfulncfle of admitting men into a vifible communion

niunion upon a vifible profeffion^ and that rightly, even by a judgement of faiths though their inward hoJineffc be unknown to us; for fo much you grant,/)^. 159. and if by a ludgement of faith a Miniiter as Gods Steward may di--fpcncethcfeale of the Covenant ofgrace, and not ftay from applying the feale to him, who makes an oanA^ard profellion^ becaufe wee have not a Spirit of difccnline, to know them tobeereallbeleevers 5 then it undeniably follows, Thatfome may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of Godj and Covenant of grace a befide reall beleevers, which is as much as I need;, to make my {^nik and -meaning in this Propoiition to pafle for currant. And truly Sir, whoever will grant that a Minifter in applying the fcalcjumft doe it ^ej^^j in faith, being afTured he appiycsit according to rule; muil: eithef grant (iich a right as I plead for, that many have right to bee vifible members^ and bee partakers of the externall admjniftration of Ordinances, though they be not inwardly fan^bified; or elfe hee muft by revelation be able to fee and know the inward converfion of every one hee applyestheiealcunto^ for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon, for the ftate of this or that man. And for my own part, when once you have difproved this, that there is fiich a vifible mcmberfiiip and right to externall adminiftrations a? I have here infiftedupon, I fhall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants, but the adminiftration of the externall feale to any, what profeffion fbever they make3 untill I may bee d/e fide aiTured, that they are inwardly regenerate. This then was and is my meaning, when I fay. That Infants of believers are confederates with their TarcntSy that they have the iame vifible right to be reputed Church -members, as their Parents have by being vifible?mfijfors'^^nd are therefore to be admitted to all ftich external Church-priviledge* as their Infant age is capable of^and that the vifibk Cbnrcb is made up of fuch lifihk Profcflors and their Children^that ^eirrvifffe takes in neither all of the one, nor the other,buc fome of both. Whereas therefore you fay you arc at a fiand to finde out nhui my maiming it^ and know not n>hat ta

diTiyi

g J ^ Ufant' Baptifmi f roved from Scripture.

* denj, or rfhat to grant: and agaifi^ pag. 45. 'Tou are at ajkand whether I mamihey arc-to Bee taken in with their Farentsinto Covenant^ in refpe£i §f faving graces-^ or the outjvard frivikd^ , (}/ Ckuvcb'ordinanrts, Ibeieech youftandno longer doubt-fiiU of my meaningj I meanc ot* theni^ as I nieane of odier viiible Profcflbrs, they are taken into Covenant both ways ?e/pe5fi^e)5 according as they are eleft^ ornotel©^^, all of them are in Covenant in relpe^t of outward priyiledges.the ele^ over and above the outward priviledges, are in Covenant with refpecl to favinggracU'^ and the lame h to bee faid of viiible members, both T^arentt and Infantsjumitrtht 'New Tcflament^ in this point of being in Covenant, as was to be faid of vifible members^ in the former adminifrration, whether y^we/and their ct;i/^r^;2 3 or iPr^/>'/ej-and their children, I endeavour in alkhis to fpeak. as clearly as I can .poflibly, not onely becaufe you iay you are oft at a (land to pick out my meaning, but becaufe this miilakeruns through your wholeboqky that none are tobe reputed to have a viiible right to the Covenant of grace, but onely luchaspartakeofthefaving graces of it. Now I proceed with you.

When I iay^That God would have bclcevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family^ and not to the dcviUs. You anlwer^ Thatje/</<^re 1 ufethat exprejjion (of not hdongz»g to the Devils Kifjgdame^ to. pjeajc thepceple. But Sir, why doe you judge my heart to intend amiilej in uiing an expreili on which your felf can not miflike? I have more caufe to think you ufe all thefe words (i*.c^«« 7^i^j denyed ktn Godopoitld have the Infants (>fMkever^lp$Jotne fori to Jps^ac'' counted his^tobdlongtohlm^bii ChuYchmdftmily^ and not to the Veviilj, Andagainej ?//jjf>'^ein facie viiibHis Eccleiisej the Infants nf'B^Levers aret'ohee acc>mnted Gjds^ &c^^ onely ' ad Ml. Tomks faciendumpoptelmny to pjeafe the people , becaufe this is not leaves all In. your judgement 5 for When you tpeake your full-meaning ^vcntohcim-' '^"4^»fe of thispoint^ you profefrej'(?« %i>a7 Z2^ more pro-dcr the vifiblc fnifefortbetn in reference to the Covenant^ then to the children of kingdom of the Tarkes: And evenj^eft' ypu onely grant them a nearer pajji*-'Ocvii aaiuii7.4/?/>tobeIongto the Covenant of gracethenthe children

of Infidels have: therefore in your judgement they are noc now actually belonghig to it, but oncly in a pdfibility: €o th at though they m ay be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially^ yet (by your do£irtne)they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill a^hialty 5 andall tfiischaritable opinion which here you exprefle toward them , con* taines no more then 1$ to be allowed to the child of a Turk, if born among Chriftians; efpecially, ifaChriftian will take itj and bring it up in Chriftian Religion^ and by what may w*e ground any probable hopes they will aftually receive die profellion of Ch rift, fince by your rule there Is no promife, no exremalfCovenant ? lyhy may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children^ if Godspromiie helpe nothere^ Butfayyou^Tawj^ them aCftully memhersaf tke vifibk Churchy is to overtbron^ the difinitions cf the vtfihk Churchy that P rote ft ant fVr iter sufe togwe-^ becaufe tliey mafit be allChriftians by profijjlon. I reply, it overthrowsit not at all, for they all include the Infants of fuch Profcflbrs j as the vifible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants^ wj/eCand/cwj^/etoo, left you fay that Circumcifion made them members:) I adde alio, Baptiirae now (as wcU as Circumcifion of old) is a really though impliciU Profcffi-on of the Ch riftian Faith. But (fay you) Infants are &mfy pijpvey UKd dee nothing Vfherebj tb^ may ^ee denominated vtfihk Chriftians. I anfwer^cvenasmuch as the Infants of Jewcs could doe of old, whoyet in tlieir dayes were viiible members. Tea (fay yo\x) fiirther it vptllfollowy That there may bee a vtfihk Chttrch nphich osnpfis onely of Infants of heltevers, 1 anfwer> no more now then in the time of the Jewifti Church; it's pofliblc, but very improbaUe, that aUtnemen and Women fhould dye and leave onely Infants behinde themjand it's farre more probable that a Church in the A-nabaptiftswaymayconfift onely of Hypocrites. Againe^ you affirme, IF'e are not to account Infants to bikng toGody e*-ther in rejfe& of eleSion or promije of grace^ erprefim fiafe ef inrSeingJn Cbiifty or fuittrt eft ate by mj it£i of fcimce or faitk^ mthoHi a particuUr rtvelaiiony becaafe there it m gtimiU de* cUration of God^ that the 2rfams<f prefim beknferi mi^fmtt^

f 14 itffAn^^Baftifmef roved from Scripture.

dS or fontiy either are eUtted to Itfcy or in the Covenant of grace mCbrifiy either in refpeH of prefent in-hein^^ or future ejiate* To which I anfwcr briefly, though all this bee granted, if Rieant of the fpirituaUpart of tlie Covenant onely., yet this makes nothing ac^ainft that vilible meniberfhip which I plead for. Yea, I retort t!ie argument upon your felfe, and dare boldly aiBrme, that by this argument, no vifbh Church:, or all the vifibk Profefforj cf anj Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in refpc6: of eleftion from eternity, or promi(e of grace, or pre(en4: ftate of in-being in Chrift,&c. without a particular revelation, becaule there is no dedaration of God that the prefent vilible Pro-fcffors arc indefinitely all, or fome, either ele£l:edto life, or are in the Covenant of grace in Chrift, either in rtfyth of prelent in-being, or future eft ate: look by what diftin6Uon you will anfwer this, for vifible ProfefTors^ who arc growne men ^ the fame will ferve for the Infants of be-leevcrs. Mr. Ccitm v*m- In the next place,y ou make a digrefion againft an expreffi-dkated* On of Mr* CottonSyn>hich you thinly necefjarj to do ^ Uoaufi

ymfind^ many are apt to fhaliow the ai&ates cffuch men as Mr, Ootton ifyWishoutexamination^ he affirmed, the Covenant of graceiigivinto Chrift^ and in Cbrift to every godly many Om*\'j.j, andin every godly man to hii fee d'^Cod mil have fome ofthejeed efewry godly mantofiandbeforebimforever:2(^z,i\\^ this you except many things, and according to your ufuall courfe , you frame many CtnCt^^nfihe Covenants 6eing pven t9 every godly man andhis feed*^ fome whereof are (b abfurd, as no dbaritable maa can imagine ever came in Mr. Cot'* /wi thoughts, T^ every gedly man fbould betohis feed^ as Cbrift to every godly man ^ which in truth (as you fay)would belittfeiefJe then blafphcmy. But I (hall give you this (hort Reply, that I take Mr, Cottons meaning to be, that looke as Abraham^ I/aac^ aod Jacck^ and other godly Jewes were to their feed, in refpcft of the Covenant; th at is every godly man to his feed now; except onely in fiich things ^herein thofe Patriarchs were types of Chrift, in all other things wherein Godgromifcdto be ihc God of diem and their

fcc4

Infant' Baftifmcf roved from Serif mre n j

feed, godly parents may plead it as mudi for their feed nom^ as they could/^e;/; and whatever inconvenience or abiur-dity you /ecm to faften upon Mr. Cottmy will equally reach to them alfo : as for example, (uppoie an Ifraelitc (hould plead this promilc for his feed, you'll demand // hit plead it to his fad miverjally^thai*J fal/cy and fb oftherefiof your inferenceSj look what Satisfying answer an Ifraclite would give you^theiame would Mr. Cotton give, and as fatisfying-ly. As for what you fay concerning Abraham, that by the feed of Abraham are meant onely dcdc and beleevers; I have fiifficiently anfwered to it before, and fhall have occafion to meet with it again in its due place, therefore I now fay no more of itjbut the chief thing you grate upon againft M.Co^-ton^ is that exprcili on in the clofkyThat God mil hapefome of ^ everf godly mans fetd fi and before him for eoer.Yo\x aggravate this to the utmoft,as a bold diSlate^impofing on Gods cormfel ani Covenantythe abfiirdity and faliity whcro^you indeavour?to nianifeft at large: to which I anfwer in two or three words, that iiippoiing his meaning to be as you fit it downe. That it is in reference to ele&ion a^d everlaftiTig life, that every godlf maapallba^efome oj hU fied infallibly Jazed. I confeflc the cxpreflion is not to be jiiftifiedi nor doe I thinke that that fenfe ever came into the mind of fo learned and judicious a man as Mr, Cottnn Is: for my part, T think be onely allu* dcd to that promife made to Jonadabj children^ Jer, 3 5, thai God would alwayes beare amerciflillrefpe&unto thepo* flerity of his feivants, according to that promife, Exod.20, ^ . I rptll fifew mercy to ihoujandi of them that love mee and k^ept my commandements. And that being his fcope, ( as I thinKe it was) you need not have kept fuch a fiirre about it.

After your digreflion to meet with Mr. Cotton^ in (lead of returning to my Sermon, you wander further out of your ^^ TVm^l** wayi for after a (hort difcourfe of judging children to bee deaVours to fix within the Covenant (byotimon) accordingtoa w/^o/Z'w-afcnfcupon dence or cbarityQknCcs whicn I meddle not withrand therfore *'^ Pfopoiki-need not flay the Reader in defcanting upon them. My tended by roo^ ruleof judging their condition, being limited to the Rule no, ownc4 jiy of Gods revealed will in his ivord ) you then proceed in «ec.

an iiideavoiir^ wherein you doe but lofe time ^ and wafte paper for many pages together ^ endeavouring to confute whatwasneveraflertedbymejw^:. That the Covenant of favwg grace is made to beleevers and their natural] Cttd; that the Infantsofbelcevers are fb within the Covenant of grace^ as to be elcE^ed^ and to have alJ theJpirmaUprivilecigej ofthe Covenant belonging to them^ this you would needs have to be my meaning: and I alnioft fufpeft you would faftenthislenleuponmee^ againft your owne light; for fag^ 142. you doe as good aseleare mee of it; where you fay, ToH JHpfofeihat 1 due not hold^ that the Infants of ht^ ieevers indifferentlj have a&tially the thingfigmfied by bapHfmt^ fmidnitvlthChnfl^ adoption^ pardon of finm^, regeneration^ &c, Sothatinallthisdi/courfej you doe but InUari cumhrvis^ according to your owne expreflionj/jg. ^ j*. my plain meaning was as is before expreiled; nor doe any of the ex-preffions uied by niee , and here brought by you as Arguments to prove this to4>e my meaning, hold forth any fiich thing; as^ they are rvltbin the Covenant of grace J)ehngmg to Chrjfis hodj^ ks^gdome^ houfio'd^ therefore are to partake of the feaie. True^ asvifibleprofeffbrs are^ ^///«vifible» Againe, they are to hie accounted to belong to him ai rpeli as ihdr pa^ rents. Tme^ as well as their parents doe by a vifible pro-feffion. Againe3*% are made free according to Abrahams topy^ Truca according to the promife made to Abraham^ I wiUhe a God to thee andthy feed*^ that looke as Ahraham and his feed^ the Profelytes and their feed^ upon their vifi-bleowning of God and hisCovenantj had this vifible prf-viledge for their pofterity^ that they fhould be accounted to belong to;Gods kingdom and houBioM with theii'parentsj fo it is here.

One Aliment more you bring ( befide laying of my words together ) to prove that this muft needs bee my fcn% becau(e you doubt not but my meaning is agreeable to the Direfifarx, which holds forth, That the promi'^ fusre made io beleevers amd their feed: and direfts Mini-fters to prayj That God would mak^ *Baptifme to the In-fant a feaie of adoption^ regeneratitm;, and etem^U life. And

^ you

you GOncltlde^ if^^* if there he not a promifi of thefe fttving graCij What theSa* to Infants^ invainearethey^aptizedy and the feale is pttt to a <=f2"i^nr fea/es blank'. To which Ifeply^my meaning is indeed according to ^h^^/^^^^^^ thcrenrcoftheDirc^ory^'andaccdrdingto that diref^ion, nally.^°" ^"° I doc pray that God would make baptifme to bee a feale to the Infant of adoption^ and the reft of thefaving graces of the Covenant; yet I utterly deny your confequence^ that unleffethei'c bee abioliite promifes of faving grace to InfantSj the Seale is fet to a blatlk^ for give mee leave but to put the fame cafe^ firftjforthe Infants of the Jcwes^was thefealeputtoablanke withthenij or had they all promifes of faving graces^ Secondly^ let mee put the fame cafe in growntmen^ who make an externall viiible profeffion^ and tiiereuponaie adrtutted to baptifinej can any man fay^ that alltheiavinggraces of the Covenant, or the fpirituall part of it, is promifedto all vifible profeflbrs? is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages^ even in the b^ft times^ even intheApoftlestimeSj multitudes were baptized, to whom G©d yet never gave faving graces^ and therefore never pro-mifedthem? for Had heemadea promife^ hee would have performed it. But I (ball defire you a little to confidertlie nature of a Sacrament^ in what fenfe it is a feale, and then ^ounecdeflumble at this no longer; thefe three things are neceflarily to be diftinguilhed^firftji^e truth of the thingj^gnifi" ed in a Sacrament? 2Lnd{econdly^mj interefi in that thing-j And thirdly, mj obligation^ to doe what is reqHired in or by that Sacrament: I fay therefore^ that in every Sacrame^nt, the truth of the Covenant in it felfe, and all the promifes of it are fealed to beYeajand Amen ■, Jefus Chdft became a Mi-niikr of thedrcumciiion, to confirme the promifes made unto the Fathers, & fo to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptiline, according to the rule which God hath given to his Churchj to admlniftcr that Sacrament^ there Isfiakd the truth if ^U the promifes of the Goffely that they are aUtruein Chrift, and that whoever partakes ofChrift, (hall partake of all thefe faving promifes j this is fealed abfb-lutcly in Baptifme, but as to the fccond, which is interefft meum^ or the receivers intereft in that fpirituall part of die

0^3^ Cove-

Covenant, that is ftaled to no receiver ahfolutetyy but condi--iionalljj in this partiailar^ all Sacraments arc but y^j^jww-ditionalia^ condition all (eales, (ealing the (pirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver y upon condition that hee perjforme the (pirituall condition of the Covenant: thus our Divine ufe to anfwerthc Papifts^ thusDoftor Ames anfwers to BeUarmlne^ when BtHarmtne difputing again ft our do6i:rines that Sacraments art fesla^ alledges then they an falfely applyed ofientimej; hee anfwers to B Uarm'tm^ Sacraments are conditional! Scales, and therefore not feales to us but upon Condition. Novir for the third thing, the ohliga" W(7ff which is put upon the receiver, a bond or tie for him to performe, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third 1 fay is alio abfolute, all Circumcised and Baptized perfbns did or doe (land abfblutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on theirpart, and therefore all ctrcum-cifed perfbns were by the circumcifion o^lieged t» J^epe the Law, that is, that le^all and typicall adminiftration" of the Cpve-nant which was then in rorce, and Infants among the reft Werebound to tliis, though they had no underftanding of the Covenant, or that adminiftration of the Covenant, when this Seale was adminiftred to them. Now then, fince in Baptifme there is firftan abfolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it felfe, a condicionall feale of the receivers intercft in the Covenant, and an abfolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part, is there any reafbn that you (hould fay, that the feale is put to a blank, where the fpirituall part or faving grace is not partaked of?What you further fay here, that by Abra-ham who is the father of the faithful! is meant Ahrahamf perfbn, and not every beleever, that it was a perfbnali pri-viledgeto Abraham^ and not a common priviledge to be-leevers as beleevers, whicli thingyou repcate very often, it fhallbee confideredin a more proper place. So that, you havingthus wholly miftaken myfenfe, and undertaken to difputc againft afenfe which I never owned, I may therefore pafle over your fix arguments which you bring to con-futethisfenfe which you have (et downe; I joyne with

you

yoH that it is an crrour to fay that all Infants of beleevei s indefinitely ^XQXxrxd&ri^tfavinggracef of the C(wmmt^ for al -though I finde abundance of promifcs in the Scriptare, of Gods giving faving graces unto the poftcritie of hispeople^ and that experience teacheth us that God wfes to condnue his Church in their poftcritiej and that Gods ele^ion lies more among their feed then among others , yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant (o made at any time^that the ipirituall part and grace of the Covenant ihoald Bee conferred upon them all^ it is iufficient to mee that they »ay have a vifible ftanding in the Churchy partake o^ the ■ outward priviledges of the Church j and bee trained up under that difcipline, or adminiftratlon of the Covenant which God ufes to make efFe6hiaII to /alvation, in the meanetime all of them to bee vifible members as well as their parents, and ibme of them invifible as well as (bme of their parents. And therefore although in fbme of your fix rcafons there are divers exprclHons which I cannot fwal-low, yet I (kail not here ft ay upon them, but examine them when you bring them elfewhere to c^fpute againft mee, as here you doe nots onely give mee leave to touch upon the AaJ? of your fix arguments, becaufeinfomeicnfe it militates HowGhriftia-againft my Thefts, Ifthis n?ere trug^ fay youy that the Cove^ nirymaybcc nam 6f grace is a birthrightpriviUdge^ thm the children ofh^ called a birth-Ueversarethicbildnn of grace by natan^ then Cbrifiiatjr art ^'^ * horm Chri^ians^i net made Chrifiians 5 if the child of a Chri^i-an he home 4 Chrifiiart^ as the child of a Turk^is borne a Turkt^ and if fo^ horp are they bonrne the children of wrath 6S wiU as 0^ iberj ? I anfwer. According to the Cenfe which lowne I mairf iainethtsafferuontoheetrHe^ that the child of a Chriftian Is borne a Chriftian, it is his birthright to bee fb efteemed j I meaneto bee reputed within the Covenant of grace,' <!)^ia member of the vifible Church* enct. I am fine it was^ fb, the child of a lew watborma hw^ and it was his birthright U bee an liraelite, a 'vifible member ofthe C hnrch of Ifraef, and the Apoftle Vauli' uck not to uie the word Jew?/ by no-iure^ GM, 2 J 5. ^e who are lewt S hf natttfe^ and not ftnntrs nf

%hc, Q%ntdii^ hec thereoppofcs the naftiralJ priviledgebfthe

meoir.-

?2« ^*>f'«'-'BiHifmeffOvedfym Scripture.

members of the Chiireh to the condition of the heathpnc and Korx. 11 .hee calls the r>hok nation of the lewes the natt raBbfaachej if the Olive tree, becmCe they were the vifihu

ChurchofGod.Wmyoufayof them aTfoX^^^^^^^ tben.fe chUjnn J r^aihh «««^, j ^ j ^t^

Rom. xMt. confidfertheApoftlEsdjflmaion, Rom.2Mft. betwixt a W trtfrofaud, mfaciemfibiUseeckf,^, a Jewwithout.and a Tew m ffc'ndao, a Jew within and your objedfon is aiifwered; inthefirftfenfe, everychild of a beleevec isbomeaChri-ltian,that K, hee is a member ofthe vifible Chnrchj i„ thefecondfen^, nonecan clainie it as a biithrighe, men mult be made Chnftians in that foift, and not boFne Chri-ftians; thasthisMichisa weake objeftion ofthe Lmheram agamlttheC»fo»,/^j,is eafily anfwered, to bee^ children of \vrath by nature, andyetto bee holy in an external] Covenant jbemg borne of belecving parents,do no whit oppofe oiieanother; thusitwasnotonelyaraonsthe Teweiwbo hadavifibleftandingunder the Covenant of grace, and m muItKudesofthem were the children of wr«hj but even thusit IS unto Ais day among grawne men, who are admitteAtobeClmlbansin your way, fomeof them are fitt^iCalIedandl>oljm±eficeofthtvifMe Church, and vet notrocaramfacicde!, whiift others are fo both in the fpfrit and in theJetter. Your great errour and miiiake is, d,at you fpeakenot diftinftly of tlie Covenant of grac^, fo. whereas the Covenant is to beelargely iJnderftood for the whole difpenfauonofitin outward Odmijnees as wefl a, favmggraces, you ufuaUytake itftriftjyfor faving graces which belong onely to the eleft,- Youc/nnot bee igntrant howourDivinesowne the outwarf adminiftration of the VOMenant, under die notion of fadm txtermm, and the IpwiWallgraceof it under the notion of fi^m Mnw?, ■ youftiUreftrainetheCovenanttothefpirituaUpart onelv' jind would perfwadeyour Reader, that they who fteake of the Covenant ofgracemuftmeaneitthusitriaiy, andvet youbrfcg not arguments todifprove a true vifible memt^r-J^ Upon a vifibfcprofeffion, whether the inward faving grace beknown or not. *

' ' Now

Ufm-BAftifmtfro'OtdfrmSmpme. ' lu

XT I ...„n,e with you to my Sermon, where yOur TbSe*. j exam": LoS I Si for iUu/ration fake a .n^V^n '^^^ ^r«OT c'eer -f^"? ' '^, ff^e mnt children art hrne dom a„Hoth

"ir vi^tk c2«.«« cWi«» ./•'/'«> /""»"; this

Sverfarvtwoin the feven at diaatir^you who call my oSySracomparifonorallafiontobee a diftat.ng can Sle nthis very place, ChrijiianitU fay jou u no m.mt toS^th s wal but even juft now the queftion betwixt vo7S M.- 8/.%, and you here;^ without any proofe f°t downe this peremptory conclufion ( wh.ch was the very q^ftion bLixt you) ChriJHam^ u no m^shrth-7^t,L the thing is true, caU it what you riafe, and wflnotbeeblowne away with a fcornefuU pirffe. butfay

accvrdml toGods .fpointmtnu I reply, you carnally and fin-fulTy Sge of Gods wayes in this particu ar for is it not Iv Znt that the Tewith Church was m this like civill cor-^Sns> we.: lot children then admitted in by birth. Sht andyetwasnotgracethenas freeasit is now? had the Kesby birth no feale ofgrace, and that by Covenant, Suft Go'd was the God of them and th«r fte^ o was there no grace accompanying the Jewilh iacra menti > I fappofe you are not fo Popifli as to deny r And fiiXlprayyoH tellmee, was not all done a-^Bgttm as muchly thefreeeleaion of gra^.as^^^

„,> are vouof ArminiMhis mind,thatl^oiandE/^Cboth

XciS Frfons) are not propofed to us R»«. P. as fuch

XCldforthtousthefoYeraigntieofGodin eleftion

i^r,nrohation> Secondly, what meane you n./;e«j:»«P>,

Tis true if you nieane it of the ehitnb mufihle, alt is theie Sic l5 th/free cleaion of grace, bur wee are fpeaki.^.

of the vifihhChnvdi', and I hope you will not fay^ all is there done by free eleftion of grace, you will not fay that none have any iiitereft in the viiible priviledges, but onely they who are ele£led. You adde, jea to conceive ib.it it ^ in Gods Churchy a* in other h^mgdomes^ is a fiminarj of dangerous fuperjlitions and errors 3 25r. Reynolds in hii conference xpith ' H^rt hath Jheriped that hence aroje the frame of government bj^ f atriarchs^ Metropolitans^&c. andthit pf (f^iy you) the reafon of invocation^f Saints^&c, I reply, true, for men to fay thm it muft be^ or thw it may bte in Godj kingdome, because it is fo in other kingdomes, is the very Seminary which Dr. 'Reynsldj /peaks of j but to mention Ibme things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes, when God him-felfe hath made them To, it is obedience andnotprefump-tibn. Yea, it is a greatfinnetocall that a cai nail imagination which is Gods owne doing. Next when I fay, ifke iakl a father into Covin ant ^ hee takes the children inrfith him^ if heenje^the pmnts^the children are cafiouirp it h ihem^You mi-iwer^ if I meant this in refpeSt ofekEilon and reprobation^ it is not true^or in refpeB of the Covmant of grace ivhich is congruom ie ele^ [iionorreprohation,\ anfwer^ you judge right,! meant it not of election or reprobation 5 nor that the faving graces of the Covenant arealwayes made good, either to Infants or grownemen, who are taken into Covenant; I meant it as before I cxprelTed it, of taking in, into a vifible Church-Handing, "^ut^fkyyoxx) neither is that true, it is not true in refpe^ of cutrvard Ordinances^ thefuthir may hce baptized and mtihechildy andecontra^ the father may hee deprividy and the child m^y enjoy thm, I anfiver, but this is th-e '^ aezymvoy^ the -thing that is in queft ion betwixt us, the contrary where-untol undertake to juftifie; Indeed de fa5foy the one may enjoy them, and the other bee deprived of tbem, a father may bee baptised, and his child die before it bee baptised; but our quefiionis dejure^ whether a Parent, being a be-leevcr, his child hath not right to Baptiime, and other Church-priviledges, asitgrowes capable of them, as the Jewes children had to Circumcifion, &c. Ve fa&o^ it fell Gutfoiiietimesfo^imong the Jewcs, Vavid^ the father cu*-cuiiKifcdj and not*, the child borne to him by Bmhfbeboy

which

Infmt'Bapnfme proved from Scrtptme. ' 12 3

which dyed the feventh day 3 and was not Circumciiedj and many multitudes more in the fame condition^ but is this any thing againft the right of Infants to bee Circum-cifed?

Next (^fay you) In this poht there is no certaintk or agree^ ment in the pdsdohaptifij determiTuiiiori^ becaufi Mr, Rutherford faiei^ the children ofPapifij^ and eXcommuHicJte Protefiants which arc home within our vifibld Churchy are baptized if their forefaihtrshavebeenfoundin the faith'^ but others will deny it, ^ » ? r . and you cite Mr-Cotton m theMargin^ who fayes that if both ^ndMrfccuon the ftearefl parents bee excommunicated^ the child is not to hee bap- reconciled. tizfd^becaufe the parents,are to us as heathens^ and thttf^ fay you, ?£dijhjptiflj as well m Anahaptip^ lih^ wazes of the Sea^ beat one againfi another : To which I anfwer^ This peculiar controverfie betwixt fbme Psedobaptiih, by whofe right the children are to bee baptized^ whether by right of their neareft parents only, or by the right of their remoter forefathers, who have been found in the faidij is very little helpefuU t) your caufe, nor is it any very great controverfie betwixt thofeparties whom you mention, for Mr. Cotton in the very words citeil, doth al mo ft, (if not altogether) reconcile it, while hee faith, when the ncarejl p.zre?2ts are cxcommuni-cate^ it may hee conjidered whether the child may not bee baptized either if the Grandfather or Grandmother make profejfion^ or in the right of the Honf^ldGovtrnour , who prom tfes to educate the child in the faith, at by proportion of thi Law may hee gathered from Gen. 17. 12,13. Here is little or no beating of one wave againft another, but both of them beating Ana-baptifts; and I wiQi^ that your anfwer did no more beate againft the very reafbn of the holy Ghoft, CPe^.ij.y. who makes this his Argument why hee would have the male children circumcifed, and thereby reckoned to bee in Covenant with him, becauie their parents are in Covenant with him; this in mee you call a carnall imagination, take heed you dalh not againft the Lord Jehovah himfelfe. Laftly, whereas I adde thw it was in the time of the lewe/^ both Jewcs and Profelytes, ihey and their children came inta Covenant together^ and when Gud rejected the pare?2tj om of the Covenant^ the children were cafl out mth them. To this you

B. 2 anfwer.

J24 Infapt'Baftijme proved (rem Smpture.

aniwer^indeed when parents rvere tak^n into Covenant^ their children tvere circMmcijed with them^ hut whether this make any thing for baptizing of Infants ymfl:>aU confider in due p'ace^sind there (God willing) I (hall meet with you. But for the fecond thingjthat when the parents were cafl: out of Covenant the Children were caft out with them j this (fay you) if not true^-parmts might bee Idolaters, ^pofiates^ &c, yet their children were to bee cu'cumdfed; I anfwerjfirft. Is it not evident in the Jewes at this day, that they and their children are catt out together? and (I adde}ifyou would (hew the faliitie of it^ you fhould have given fome inftance, not of parents ^ who reniaine Gods people in externall profelfionj not having received a Bill of divorcement, though their lives might polUbly bee very wicked, but of fome who were caft off from being Yiiible profeffors, and yet their Infants remaine in the vifible focietie of the Church, or of fome who were vifibly thus taken in, and their Infants left out^ but in ftead of this, you ftill goc on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace, taking it onely of the Covenant of faving grace, not including the externall way of adminiftration with it. ■Jo Se!} 6. Now(God willing)! (hall try what ftrength there is in

Vindicaring your exceptions againft thofe Texts I brought to prove A0.1.3S.59- .that Infants of Bcleevers do belong to the Covenant now as a proofc ot ^5 well as the Infants of Jewes did under the former ad-leevc" to^bc-" "^Iniftration. The firft whereof was taken out of ASls2. long ro rhe 3^- 39- where ^ei^r exhorting his bearers to beleeve and bee theCoven>int baptized^, ufed this as an Argument taken from the bene-ot grace. fit whidi fhould come to their poftericie, ^he premife i^ made

to you and toyjur children^&c. Thefirft branch of your anfwer is according to your nicrhod'o?an'> ^^^^^^^^^^diod, to throw dirt in the face of an Argument iwcring. which pinches you, fleighting and fcorning that which you

know not how to anfwcr h and then to frame fcverall fen-lesjjand raife a duft about it j To^complaine how irksome it i^ to Readers and Anfwerersy tofinde them who alleadge a Text ioparaphrafeupmit^ hut Jhow not how they conclude from it ^ If ^ harder fir yoH to fi/jdeyoHr enemy then to vanqmfh him^ and

ym

you rvipj that I would firft di^Mly exfimnd^ and then frarm my arqnmznts oh t of th T^xU

I anfwer, I hardly can tell whether it were bcft to ftiile at or pity this grievous troublp you are put to, that your patience (hould bee thus compelled devgrare udiurn'M (eemes yoiiexpecledl (hould make lyllogifhies in nioode and figure, in a Sermon adpopnlum^ it you dk\ not, I wonder why you (liould bee thus troubled, fince as plainely as I could I exprefled the meaning of the Text: I firft Ihewed where the llrength of the Argument hj^vlz. That not or. ely tbewfilvu Hpdn tbeir faith and Baptifme Jhould rcceivafncb an InvahtiihU t^enefit^ hut thfir childrm jbouldalfo (^ H?ider the former admmijlration they rrere') bee taken into a heiier adminifira^ tion^ the Covenant being now exhibited in the befl and juUeft manner^ and all they whether neere orfarre off^ who would owne this (hoTtldthtmfeheJ and their children with them^ bee under this heft CdVtnant^ oi formerly they were when the Covenant t»i9 more dark^, Andinthc progrefTeof my dilcourfe I both proved this to bee the meaning, and answered the exceptions to the contrary.

Next follows yourfeveralllenles : You doubt whether I-Ms.Toidejhh fetch ch'ildrenin und:r thefirft part^ I will be thy Gud^ or whe- *' r in mulri-tha under the fecond^ I will be the G§d of thy feed. Or whe- P'>'"S ^'^w^c.c. thcr \ meane if offavinggrjce J y or Chureh-priviltdgej. One while you doubt whether my Jenfe bt^ thai God will be the Qod sf their clnldren if they oBeyhii call: then you rather guefTe it. That if the Vareras obey ItU call, bee will be the God of thim^and their children, though thi children doe not obey hit call. Yea further (because here are not yctienfcs enough ) you proceed and fay, If by thtfromife to them and thiir children^ be meant of outtpard Cherch-frrviledges j then the fenfe muft bee, If yon win beUeve^repent and Be bjptizMd^ ft hen ym and your children jhall btha^izjtd. Yet another ftnfc you make out of that which I ipakc (at the by) of Z^cib^w/, L«% 19. that Salvation came to his houle upon his belceving 5 that thence m^yhe'gdXhtYtdi^lhat the meaning is^ a mans whole houfhold may be faved barfly hy his heleeving: and not content with ;dl thcfefcnfo^ you ftcp out of your way to bring in Mr.

R 5 Goodwins

ji6 InfAHt-Baptifmeprovedfr$]n Scripture.

Gjodiv'vu interpretation of Zjcheus^ that he meant it nf tbe rrbole hjufioid-^ and that thence he collef^ed that an houfe-holdwdS Ecclefiaprirru y which you conflite, and then you Tec down your own fenle of lalvation coninihig to Zjchetkt Jii^honji j that by Zacheud bis hmje is meuni o?ie!y Zacheus himjelf*

What multiplicity of imaginary lenfes, and confcquen-

ces of fences are here poured out on an heape? could the

rareft Chymick have extrafted any more? The Reader

would hardly iwallowdowne the tedioulnefTe of my dil-

coui le 3 if I fuould take them all Ungly, and lliew what I

own or reject of each of them: It is better to lit down the

plaine Icnfe together^ and make ic goodi and then he v. ill

difcern how you have indeavourcd to cloud an argument^

and wrangle againlt it, when you cannot aniwer it. I

Tli: pl.iinc plainly exprelTed the Apoftles argument to be fetched from

fenfcSci'copc the beneht, which Would not oncly come to themlelves,

of fhis argil - but to their children by their beleevjng in ChriO: *, and aP

n>em opened ter added, that the cleare ftrenath of the Argument lay

and vindicatca, , /-- j l i i 11 • r^ ^;

* tnus3 Crodnatnnowremembredhis Covenant to AUrj"

^ bar/i^iw lending that blelled (a^d in whom hce promifed ^ to be the God ot him and of his Iced; doe not ycu by ^ your unbeliefedeprive your leivcs and your pofterity of *^ ib excellent a gift; In which paiFage you acknowledge I bjut hit the marh^^axidgiven tb.it very irjtirpntatbn rvblch yon orvne. And whe^reas you addeas afurther illuftration_, that th.epromile is nowfultiiied to them and their children, according to ^^cl/ 3. 25. ICe arethe children of the fre-phets^and cf theCjVinaiit^ whicbGodnudeniibourfjthirs^&c, Icou-leiTe that is true, but not alltliat is meant-^ and yet even that Irrengthens my Argument, theCovenant which God made with their Fathers 3 Tl^jt bee rvdnld hee tbt God of themy and 0} their feed^ and tbej n?ire the children or heires of that Co-ven27?t'^ that look as God was the God of Abraham a,nd his iccdj fo he would be the God of them and of their feed, if they did beleeve and were baptized;and therefore he would not have them by their unbelief deprive theniTelves and their children of that priviledg^:this I then made my argument.

ment, and this you fav/ well enough^ afid therefore fay, that this expreflion, doe not by your Htiheliefe deprive your pojie-rity cffo txcelknt a gift ^ hjith a little re Up of my interpretation ef the promife concern ing the natur all feed of beleevers. But Sir, why doc you call it a little reliih ? it is the very fcope of my Argument, that look as God did when hce made the promise of grace in Chrift to Ahraham upon his beleeving, and took alfo hispofterity^/^o/e that vpert borne ef him^ into Covenant with him, in the fenfe which I before alledged; and not onely the naturall Jews, but even among all Nations, whoever became followers of Abrahams ^^itk^ did inherit Abrahams promise, That he ypouldbe the Godof them and their feed; and by vertue of that promife, their children were taken into vifible conamunion: Co this bleded feed [in whom this promife was founded] being now come, would according as heretofore,make it good to aljwhether Jewes or Gentiles, thatfhould beleeve in him.

This claufe of the Covenant of grace, and the interpretation of it, viz. That it belongs to all believers, and that by vertue of it their children are to be received into vifible communion, you often difputc againft, and fometimes fay that it was a promife pecitliar to Abraham at other times, it wastf/ tht Htmoji to be extended no further then to Abraham, rfaacj, ani^ J^icoh^tobave their pojierity (as born of them)to belong to the vifible Church, though in this place where it was moft proper, you fay little or nothing abo^it it, onely make wrangling exceptions againft my interpretation? but becaufe it moft pertinent to the bafinefle in hand, I fliall here take it into confideration, and manifeft that it was not zptrfenallipvmkdge to Abraham*, no nor to Abraham^ /- lytn^^I^vJ^jl^ faac and Jutcob^ to have their pofterity taken into Covenant rhy^GocUnd by vertue of that promife, 1 will^e the God of thee and thy fhc God of rhy feed fccd,norpc-

For firft^ though Abraham was the father of the faith- h7rl!lte and' fullj and fo in fome fenfe [the root, as you eliewhcre call Jaa>'b, proved him:] yet the Covenant was made with him for bis faiths'by three Ar-/i%3 and ^/t<?z^^er/are his children and heires, and partake g"'"^'^ s. of thofe priviledges and promifes which were made to

T him:

g Infant'BaftifmefrevtdfromScrifture.

him: and therefore look as Jhrahami faith juftificd him before God^Sc gave him intcrcft in theipirkuall graces of the Covenantjand nom bnt himfelfi yet it was fo bencficiall and advantageous to his children^ that for his fake they (hoiild be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and houlholdj and partake of the externall priviledges of itj and thereby be trained up under the dilciplinc of it^ and fo bee fitted for fpirituall priviledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon theniwho are thus trained up; fo fhallic bee with them who become followers o^ Abrahams faith. Secondly, had it been a peculiar priviledge to kbrabams naturall feed, Profelytes of other Nations could never by vertuf of their becomming followers oiAbrahams faith.have brought their children into Covenant with them, fo as to have a vifible Church-mcmberfhip, as wfee know they did. Thirdly, and weknow alfo that this promife of being the God of belcevers and their feed, was frequently renewed many hundred yeers after Abraham:,IfaaCy^nd Jacob were Dcut.3o.«. dead and rotten, asZ^e«/. 30. 6. The Lord wiU circumcife thy Efa-44-^>v heart^a?id the heart of thy feed^ &c. fo E/^. 44, 2,^. Feare not 0 Jacob mj fervant^ and thou Jefhurun whom I have chofm-y 1 will poure mj fpirit upon thy feed^ and my bkffing fspon thine (^ff-Jpring^ and they JhaU fpring up as among the Efa.5p, 21. grajfe^&c. So likewife E/ay 5p.2i As for me this U my Govt-nant with t hem ^faith the Lord^my Spirit that if upon tkcy and my , wdrds^ p[?hichl have put in thy mouthy /ball not depart out ef thy moHthynor out of the mouth of thy feed^ nor oh t of the mouth of thy feeds feeds Jaiih the Lor d^ from Inncefrth and for evcr^ and this laii promifeyour fdk acknowledge, page 5 4. to bee intended chietiy of the nation of the Jewcs at their laft calling in : and whereas you iife to elude theie Texts by yindi<a^cd.*^ %i^g ^be(c: things belong onely to the elcft, when they come to beleeve, and reach not to any priviledge which is externall? I reply, by the fame anfwer you might cut off the . (ecd of Aibraham^ Ifaac and Jacobs for to bclecvcrs /teaswell as to belcevers mrpwere theic promifcs made j andlfh^llAiJefireyou, to thinke how by this Anf\vcr you will avoyd that which page 42.1 you call aWiirditie and

trifling

trifling in Mr. Cotton,Fov Inftanccj God made this promift (iiyyovi) to Ahrskt^m^lfaac SLud Jacob ^ to bee the God of them and of their feed, in all generations; fee how you will anfwer your ov/nc ob;e£lion , if it bee iindcr|lood ?/»/-Z'trfall) t9 all bps jkd^ that is rnani/eftljfalfe, all hi^ jeed bad not God to be their Ood', or ifi( h'^ meant Conditionally^ if tha bt-/eiVe^ then the meaning mufl bee^ that God rvautd bti the Godoj Air ah am and bU feed if the) did btke've ; and th. n it fgnifes m more then tbufy that GodmilbtcthcGudof cv^ry belecver^ and then it is buttrifiing to adde^ to bee the God of him andoj bis feed^ becaufe nothing is more cxprefj^d in tbi laft rv'ordf th. n whatU faidin the firmerj therefore this promife made to Abraham^lfaac2i\-\dJacoh^ muft bee retrained toe/e<5?and hikevtrs oneljy net to the nit fir all feed of Abraham y Ifaac^ and lacobybtfttobeleeverty at they and their feed bj calling: thus by your owne Argument you cut off all the Jewes but fuch as wereele^l and inwardly holy, as much as you doe the Gen-tilcSj 'from having any vilible communion in externall pri-vikdges. Confider what you will anfwer to thefe things, I nothing feare but by what di(lin6tion you will fetch off the Jcwcs, wee (hall fetch off the children of belecvtri^ whether Jewel or Gentiles, This I adde to make it more cleare, that that promife, Gen^ 17* -^ ^i^^ bee the God of thee and oftby Jeedy (^to which the A polUe here relates) is a Gofpell promife, which from age to age holds forth fbme benefits even to the natural! feed of beleevers. So that when the Apo-ftleprelfeththcmtobeleevein Chrifl, and by being baptized to come under this new and befl: adminiflration of the Covenant, by an Argument reaching to their pofleri-tie; the fenfeis no more then thus, you have indeed crucified the Lord of life, and deferve that his blood fhould bee required of you and of your children, and that that Vineyard (the heire whereof you have killed) fhould bee taken away from you, but if yet you will receive him offered to you in his Gofpell, it fhall not prove fb,but you fhall receive the holy Ghofl, you fhall bee juiHfied, accep-tedjyoufhall f^ill bee a chofen generation, the Church and people of God, yea and your pofleritie fhall be under this

S bcfl

Mr. Totnl^es hi exceptions a-gainft thisar-gunienr anfvv*

I Exception.

r^fam-Baptifme frovedfrom Scripture.

beft adminiftrationj they (hall be accounted by vemie of tills promifeftill tobeehis^ and be trained up for him^ iii hisSchoole, in hishoufe, as heretofore they have becne, yea and widi greater advantage, becaufc a greater abun* dance of the fpirit is now poured and to bee poured out,Try what abfurdities you can make to follow from this Ai'-gument.

After I had opened the fcope of the Argument^ I proceeded to examine what exceptions are made againft it» Firft, (bmc fay the promise here mentioned is meant of extraordinary gifts ofthe holy Ghoft, this I confuted, in this you Goncurre with mee» onely (that you might debafe as much as is poffible what ever I goe about to prove) you adde, my najons are not jujjicient to confute it^ for though aU who then bileived and were iaptiz>fd did not receive thofe extraordinary gifts ^ yet Feter might ajfure them that it fljimld Be fofor the future | Anfmr* This deferves no reply; is it imaginary that Pet^r might promile what never was to bee performed ? was it to be true at any time, that all who beleeve fhould receive the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoft ? Your felfe % elfewhere, you (hould incurrc blasphemy to challenge a promife which God (hould not make good. And whereas you adde fur-ther^ihat it doth not fiSon^ that th^ prmife mufl bee true in all agesy that whoever Btkeves and is baptized^ fljalJ receive remijjir »m offinneSi and the gift of the holy Ghofi s bcVauft there, w nothing in the Text to prove that this promifepou/dhe in force in all ages. But Sir is there not in the Text, all that are afar re of^even at mary as the Lord our God fball call-^ and doth not that reach to all ages?

The other fhifi: which I faid was infufficient to a-voyd the force of this Argument, is their interpretation who Jay ^ Tojm and your cbildrtn^muji ^ee ihm limited^wiz, at many oft hem as the Lord pall call^ that is, when any of your children come to bee caUedy this promise fhall bre made good unto thcmj now I laid this was but a fhift, becaule the Apoftles Argument is taken from the benefit which Ihould come to their children, which would bee no Argu-snentat^Ib becaufe j^^ith this limitation, it holds forth no

niore

a. Exception,

Ifffant'Bdftifme pr$vedfrom Scriptme. f ^ i

more to the children of heleeverjthcnto Vagans^ the promises is made to as many as God (hall call^ that i%y to youy t9your childrefi^and to PaganSy and their children as rmch as to you and yotir children'^ what argument can this afford from a benefit which their childrenjhould receive if they beleeved>

But this iay yon is thegertuine andneceff'jry explicaiion of the Text^ for let the fromife bee pphat it can hec^ whether of fnving graces^ of outvpard privikdgesy of extracrdifiary gifij^ it is no wayet true withoHt that limitation^ as many as the Lord pall call.

But this is but a deceiving of your Pvcader with an equivo- j^c^ Cation in the word call^ forifyou nieane o£inward effe^ttall Callings of true faith wrought in the hearty and then fay^, what ever is meant by the promi/e, whether inward graces or outward priviledges^ none partake of any of thefe things, without this inward call: I mull tell you, this is one of the things you ufe to call dilates^ ^old ajjertions without proofe^ thefal/ehood whereof is abundantly manifeftedaIready:Do you not know and grant that outward priviledges are common to ekd: and reprobate ? But if you meane it of outward calling, then I not onely ajferty but have already ^r(7z;e«^their Infants in joy this calling with them. But because you cannot deny that the Apoltlc here meant to fetch ?• Exception, an Ai'gumenttaken from the benefit which fliould come to their children, you have found out another ji&i/>5 and fay, the maine matter wot concerning themfelveJ to treEl them^ hccaufe they hadfaid^His blood be upon us and upon our children^ and thi§ was a Comfortable Argument^bkiCaufe they might hereby underfiand^ that notmthflanding ihis imprecation or execration^ they and their children mi^tyet bee faved by this JefuA whom they had erudfied^ i/tcajetbtfypouldbe/eeve inhim.

But I reply, firft, there is nothing in the Text to evince it, Anfw. that all thefe men either uttered that curie, or were privlc to it: for though Peter iaid they had crucified him, he meant the Scribe J and Pharrfees had done ity and elicwhere hee (aics, die Jen^es rtblzh di^elt at hrufakm h-id dene i/: it is moii , probable that many of thefe ftranger Jewes knew nothing of it. Secondly, let it bee granttS that they both knew it

S 2 and

and were parties in it, and fo confequendy that the ap|^i-cation of the promife was the more feafonable to them, yet becaufe it was the promife of the Covenant^ which belonged to every Covenanter, that God in Chrift would bee a God to them and to their (ccd, and that hee prefled it to them as to thofe who were children of the Covenant, AEls^ Chap« 3. Verfe 25. this Argument taken from the Covenant had been of ufe, though that fpeech had never becne uttered.

As for that which you call the witlefTe dcfcant I put upon my adverfaries, while I fay the Argument muft run thus^ that if the Apoftle nnifl: be interpreted, (as thefe men would havehim^ to you and your children, fo many of them as the Lord fhall call, viz^ you andyonr children have hitherto heenanholjffeed. But now if you beleeve inChrifiyoptr felves^ your children jh all bee in n<) better condition then the refi of the Pa--gan worlds hut if after ward any of them or any of the heathen fhall believe and be baptized ^ their f articular per fans fl>all be tal^j jn-' io CovenAnt^ hnt their Children^illleft out^ this (faid I) would not have been a very comfortable Argument to perfuvadt them to comein^ ifi relation to the good nf their children. To this your anfweriS) that thii rvitkffe defiant fillowej not on the applying the refiridlion in the end ej the verfe^ to them^ their children^ and all that are afarre off^ and thai which I burden my adverjaries Tc« net with^of putting bileever J Infant J out if the Covenant into the condition of Varans children is a Co:cyfme anfwered before. But Sir, bee it witlefTe or witty, they muft owne it whofe it is, and 1 perceive you can more eafily put it off with a fcoffe then give it a folid arif%ver, and it is a thorne which will not fb eaiily bee plucked out of your fide j the flrength of it is, fe/tr could not have ufed this as an Argument to perfwadethem to come under tF?is adminiftration of the Covenant, whereof Baptiime was a ieale, from the benefit which fhouldcomcto their children if your interpretation bee true, becaufe by tl-is heir childrenp^^^uldhe in a worfe-cendltion^ in relation io the Cozm^nt^ihen they trere hefere', all grant in xhtformer they w:re included^you fay in this latter^ ypukm-;i>nomorepnmjefi,rthn9^henf'.Tibe ^hildrm ofTptrke/:

How

How Aen eould this argument be fit to be ufed? t^ me I pray yoa, fiipjpofe a man held fonie Farm or Office under fome great man, and that in his Grant or Patent^thcre were (bme apparent priviledgQS or benefits included concerning his pofterityjif now the Lord of whom hee held it^fhould offer him a new Grant in which his children fhould beexprefTeJy leftout, andnomore. priviledgcsforthemdten for meere ftrangers^ could an Arjgument bee taken from the benefit that{houldcometohisChildrcn,ta perfwadehim to give up his former, and accept this latter Grant? I thinke not. And whereas you call that expreflion of putting of the children of bcleevers intothe famefrate with the children ofTurks^* Coccjfme ivhichyoH have anfevered htfore. I pardon your fcornfuU exprcflion^you doe but ^c^ar that which hitej yoit, it is a truth which you have no caufe to delight to heare of j you have anfwered it indeed, by granting the truth of it) as the Reader may plainly fee in my Anfwer to your io Section of the fecondPartj and to Seft. 3.of this part.

Whereas I further ftid in my Sermon, except in reldtim to the Covenant^ there rp4s no occafion to name their children:, ilhaei httnfmfficienttoljavtfaid apromifi is made to Of many st the Lord fballcalI,Youanfwer^T heir children indeed are named in relation to the Covenant: But there mds another reafon thin that which Ialledge'^ not onely their imprecation ^^ Matth. ij.'S^* hnt ejpeeially hcaftfiChrift was firfi fefit to the feivj and their children^ aUs 3.26. I Pveply,, .but this realbn which you allcdge affords no Argument for them now, tobeleeve and repent from any benefit Ihould come to their pofterity by Ycrtue of that promiie, 1 mU bee tbpGody and the God of' thy

To do&'this Se^on, you fay, Tht AMp^idoh4ptifis hwih htnce a good Argument againfi baptizing of IirfantJ^ becaufe Vg-^ tcv required of fiicb as were in Covenant repentance brfere bafp^ tifme, I anfwer, juft as good an one, as becaufe Abraham Was in Covenant, and an a^iiiall beleever, and juftified by the faith be had in ancirciimcifion, and received it as a feaJ of the righteoufnefle of faith j therefore all thcfc muft go

S 3 before

before Circumcifion; and becaufe all who turned Profe-lytes to the Jews> muft firft make profedion of their faith; therefore none may bee circnmcilcdbutfiichastheyare. But more of this when we confider this Argument in your Exercitation.

r» $e^. 7. Next, let us try whether your fuccefle bee any better a-

gainft the next Text of Scripture which I brought to prove Rom. 11.6 &c. this Conclufioni viz, Rom, 11.16. &c. where I faid. The vindicated, j^pofiles fcope vip^ to ^tw that we GcHtilcf have now the fame graffingintothe trueOiivePPhicb the Jerpes formerly had'^ and our prefent graffing in U anjmrabk to their prejent cafling oui'^ and their taking in at the latter end of the World^ fiatl bet the fame graffing in [though more glorioujl/] as mrs is nerpj and it is apparent that at their firft graffing in^ they jtnd their chi'.dnn were tal{en in-y at their caft ingmt thy and their children were hrok^ off\ and when they fballhe taken in again at the end'of the VPorld^they[and their children jhall be taken in together'^ and all this by zertPte cf the Covenant^ Ero Deus tuus, &c. Which is the fame to tts and to them^ we and they making up the Church of God.

Inyour£A?^»K» of this Argument you flill proceed in y our <?/^ method- firft to caftfcorne upon it) as fuch an obfcurc Argument, That none but a Diver ef Delos can fetch up thi meaning of it : and indeedj ftioiild you not pretend difficulties, you could have no colour to bring in fo many imaginary fenfes, thereby to darken an Argiiment, which is thefccond branch of your Artifice: ^s whether this in-graffing he meant of the vijibky or invipbk Churchy by faith^ or profeftion of faith certainjby reason ofeleBion^or Covenant of grace made to them^ or probable and likely^ becaufe for the mo ft part it happens fo^ &c. Alas Sir^ why doe you thus ftrip your felfe to dive under the water^ when the (enie fwims upon the top: Look how the Jewes were Gods pe ople j fo are the Churches of the Gentiles 5 looke how the Jewes children were graifed in^fo are our children;we are taken in^in ftead of them who were caft out, and become one vifible kingdom of Chrift with the reA of them who kept their ftati-

on;

^^:

on; this is the plaiiie fen/e of my Argument. Now if youpleafebutto apply all your imaginary fenfes to the' Jews and their children, and/ay, if they and their children were graffed in together, was it into the vifible, or in-vifible Church > was it by faith, or the profeffion of faitW was it certain or probaole? Doe you not thinke your Reader would fniile at the vanity of thefe quelnons^

When you have fet downe your fences 3 next you thus proceed, the thing that Is to be proved is. That all the infants of tvtry bde^ver are in the Covenant of Free grace in Ckrifly andhj venue thereof to bee baptized into the Communt-of the vifible Churchy No Sir, the thing to bee proved froni this Text, is. That o«rzz7/^»// have the fame right rp-hlch thz infants of the Jews had^ and your Arguments fight againft the Infants of the Jcws^ as much as againft the Infants of the Gentiles j for [to apply your own words fpoken of be^-leevers now, to the Jewesthen,^ Though it may bee granted that the infants of the Jeivs vpere for the mofi part under the ele&im and-CsVenant of gra€e^ and fo in the vifibh Church ytt it rvill not follopp that every infant o[ a J«i9?, i» Of much Of hee^thc child of a Jen^^ or a hekever^ ii imder the Covenant of grace ^becauje rve have Gods exprejfe declaration to the contrary^Kom, 9. 6,7,8» and all experience proves the contrary; is not this as much againft the one as the other >

Towhatlfaid, the Jewes Infants were graffed in by Circumciuon-thereforeoursarctobe ingraflTedin by Bap-tifrne. Youan(wer, by demandingn>hether ingood. fadnejfe I doe thinke ibe Ap(file here nkanej by graffing i»j baptizing ur Oircttmcifion^ or incifion by outward Ordinances -^ for if that Were the meanings then breaking off mufi be meant ofuncircumci-fing or mbaptizing. To which I reply, that in good fober fadneflel do think that grrffing in isadmiffion into vifible mcmberfhip, or viible communion with the Church of Chii't; and that theext mall icale of their vifible graffing in WasCircHmcifiiyrK an i of ours B rptifme ; and yet it follows a ot J that breaking off is onely unciraioicifing, or unbaptlzi»?;; but breaking o5f is a C-^i^ing out from that vifible m*:0\b?r'^:up whereof this Sacrament is a Symbole.

E4lt.

j^^ fnfanUBapifpit frdvedfrom Scriptnrt.

But to yon it fccms that wgrafing here,if meant of the inviji* hie Church &y sleftion and faith: I Reply, if It be meant of the invifibie Church onely 5 and that all who ai'e grafted in, in the Apoftlesfenlca whether Jews or Gentiles^ are onely e-le(^ones 5 I will fblemnly promife you never to plead this Scripture morcj for any Infants, either of Jews or Gentiles^ no nor for vifible Profeffors of cither of them^ provided onely if you cannot make that good , you will [ as indeed you muft] yeeidthatfbmearetobe reputed viiible Church-members^though not eleft, whether Jews or ©entiles, and that our grarang in, is as theh's was, they and theirchildren,weand our children 5 andif youpleale, let us a little try it out. The Text is plaine, fome of the branches were broken off, fiich branches whofe naturall growing in the Olive yeelded them that privilcdge which they now partake of who aregraffed in in their ftead^ were thcle broken ^ff from the invifibie Church ? you dare not fay fo: if then the Olive from which they were broken off, bee the vifible Church, I have enough j and I wonder that any but an Armmia?2fi\ould make any queflion that the Apoftle ipcaks onely of rejefting the Nation of the Jewes from being the vifible Church, and taking the body of the Gen-tiles in their ftead, to be Gods vifible Kingdom • in that it is meant of fuch an ingraffing as maybe broken off which cannot bee from the invifibie Church. But Ictus fee how you feek to evade this, and how you prove that it muft bee meant of the in vifible Church: hhraham (fay you) had a adoHbk capacity^ omof a naiur all Fatherland anoilxr the fa-iher of the faithful/ ; in refpe& of the former capacity^ feme are called branches according to nature-^ otlms rvildc O'ives by na-iure^yet graffed in hy faith : and n>hfn it is faid that fome of the naturall brmches n^re hrol^n cjf^ the meaning if not^ thai fome of the branches of the invifihh Church may he broken off.^ but onely fucb OA T^erefo in appearance^ according ai our Saviour exprejfes it Joh. 15.2. But I Reply, I profefft I underftand not how thisdiftin^^ion gives you the leaft helpe^ for tell me I pray you,were nottheie whom you cal naturall branches as truly ill the Olive as they who being wilde by nature were yet

grsiffed

TnfdnUBi^tlfme provedfr^m Scripture. rj y

graffed in^in the (lead of them who were b/oke off? If they were, how doth this diftiiK^ion help you? You fay indeed, Yhat the Infants of kkevingjeivej were net in the Covenant of grace^ becaufe thy rvere iheir children : if by thh you meand^' they were not members of the inviiible Church ,' you fay the truthj but nothing to the pnrpofe. But if your meaning bcj that they had not a vifible membtrlhip/uch an m-graiting as gave them a right to outward Ordinances 5 you notonelycontradid the Scripture, but your ielk:, who plead this. That it wai a piculiar pivikdge u Abraham, th^t his children fhiuld have fnh a vifihle patidi?2g as ours have UQt : plainly,the Jcwes were the natural! braneheSjfome of them were ele6l:3fome notj the body of them were the branches ipoke of in this place; many of thefe were broke off, o-thcrs of them kept their ftation ; yet Gods eleffcion failci not; even (b is i t now, the Gentiles were graffed in, that is, their vifible faith gaye them a vifible iagraffing,their invifi-blc faith gave them (who have it) an invifiblc member-(hip: yea, ro me your felfefeemto fay as much, when pag. 6^. you affirme,fwri/io» may he either im& thi vifible or invifi-bkChitrch', grjffngin^maj he either by faith ^ or profejften of faith* And pag. 65. It is true that our prefent groffing in^ is anfivera(fleto[or rather for tlmf\cafiing out ^ that ii^Godrpould f»fply in his Olive tree the Churchy the casing away of the leivr by the calling of the Gentiles-^ fo much the Apofile Jaith^ ver. 17. thou being a ivilde Oliveywe?t graffed iny in ramorum defra-ftorum locum, w/o the place of the brtmches broken off^tfyeu mean it in this fenfe(fayyou)I grant it.And truly Sir.in thefc word*> to my underftanding, you grant not onely my interpretation of this place, but even the queftion controverted betwixt us. Firftjyou grant my interpretation, that it is not meant of the invifible, but the vifible Church: for I know you will not fay that any of the eleft Jewcs were broken ''off, and the Gentiles ele^ed and put into their place. It muft therefore be meant of the vifible, and of the vifible Church of the New Teftamentj and that thofe Jewes who kept their ftation, and we who are in the roome of thofe that weubroke off^ doe make that Olive which die Jewes

T cude

, 2 g Ipfdpt-Baptijme f roved frm Scripture.

made before* Yea Secondly, you by neceflary coniequcnce grant, that our chUdren are taken in as theirs were, wc are graffed in, in ramorum defraSomm htnm-^ Wit fitpplj in ibi Olive trei ibc Churchy the casing away of the Jfrps. Now if wc thus fuppfyy our children ftjpply the place of their children which were broken off 3 and befide^we are one with the reft of the Jews who remained in this Olive; and their remaining in the Olive, did not (I hope) deprive them of that priviledge which before-times they had for their children, and therefore wcmuft have the fame with themjand a grea« ter then they had for their children, none of us ever plea-dedj though ours be clearer, and a greater meafiireof grace accompanying it.

Yougoeon, andiay, n>hen feme of the naturaU branches

were cHt off^ it if not minnt any otbermje then our Savisur Chrift

Joh 15.2. m^J/je/, Joh. 15. a. Every branch in me nut beafing fruit hee

proves the in- takeJaa>^'^ ibnisy not that any branch truly in him could bee

tcrprctation ^o fruitkjJe,ortakenarvayyhHi07iely thofi branches which rrere Jo

^ ^''^^' in appearance, I reply, that this is my very meaning, that

this ilanding as branches of the Olive, is not to be limited

to the inviiible, but takes in the vilible al/b^ not retrained

to fiich as have a ipirituall union with Chrift by faith, but

takes in al(b the external] profeffion of faith, which oh

times is not in truth, that which it appears to be.

^beredisy on (iiy^ the hpoftles fcope in therphok chapter it $0 anftfer that quafiion • Hath Godcafl away his peopUy&c, and not to jherp that wpee have n9vp the fame ^raffing into the trite Olhenfhich the Jen^sfirmerIjf bad. I aniwer, I undertook not ^o Anali 2e the whole Chapter, but to open the fcope of that matter or argument which begins at the I6ver. and that you cannot gainfay, but that there the Apoftle makes an ArgLinientfrom our graffing in in their ilead. Andyou mindi me alfo of my onme difiin&ion of the fetbflance of the O-venmtiandthe adminiftrationrf it. Sir, I thankyouforre-membdng me of it, it is of very good ufe in this place^. though not of that ufe which you bring it for, we have the fame Covenant with them for the fiibitance^which Covenant ^onliflsof^iefameblcffin^s, and is applyabfc upon the

iame conditions, belongs to the fame forts of perfons, but the adminifiration of it> is dean differing from their§. Yfqu grant, That by faith tvee partal^e ef the fubfiance of the Cove* nant^inreffeU^of n^hich^ allbekeving Gentiles are AbvahsLXm feed. Yea, and you may adde, vifible beleevers are his vifi* ble feed: But if you mean U (fzy yoii)^/ the outward admini-ftration of this ingraffing by Circumctfiori^ Baptifme^ &c, nothing is morefalfe^ the oHtppard adminifiration is utterly taken away^ aad to affirme that it is not , vptre to evacuate the blood of Chrifi in ibis particular. But Sir, this is at the befi but cunning dealing, and in part, a confident falfe affertioa ; it is cunning to fay by Circumcifion,Baptifme, Sec as if both thefe belonged to one adminiftration. Indeed to afiirme that ingraffing into the vilible Church, (hould now bee by Cir-cumcifion, were to evacuate the death of Chrifl: in that particular but to (ay [as you ought, if you would fpeake plainly] that to have our initiation now by Baptiiine into t he viiible Church, as formerly by Circumciiioiij or to (ay that all outward adminiflrations of the Covenant are now utterly taken away, [though the old one is vanifliedjis not onely a confident, but a falle affertion, and if you fay no€ this, you apply my dlftinftion to no purpbfe.

You goe on, whereas I iaid their taking in in the tndofth^ World rvilbe as mrSythey and their children',yoii grant thit is true^ If it be true^ that their children by being the children of beleevers (hal be accounted to belong to the Church^you grant my Argument J ifyoumeanenotfo, but think that at their lall and beft reflauration, their children (hal not enjoy tliat priviledge which they had when they were Gods people be* fore, why doe you not (ay fo 3 that all the world mayiec that you think in their beft condition they (hall bee deprived of that glorious priviledge which they enjoyed in their non-age? and yet you grant, Ihat they and tlmr children jbaEbee takffi in^y^a and a morefuU taking in of the children rf the Jews^ then it mrv of the Gentiks^ according to thaty Rom. 11.2^. And fo all Ifratl jhaU h faved. But ((ay you) aS thit proves noty that God would have either all Infants ofbeke" vtrSf oomtudbis at eUU perfons^ or in the Covenant of g^acz mi

T % Chrifi

Chrifiy or in the face of the vifihk Church admiiudto Baptifme, I anfwer, the thing to be proved was, our Infants have the fame privilcdge with theirs.and that it proves abundant-lyj as for election 5 wee are not tocfteem all vifible members,, whether Infants or grown men, to bee ele<^ed, God having declared the contiary, this being true in all ages of the C hu; ch, A<fany are called^ and hut fin? chofen. Notwith* Handing, when we /peak of particulars, ivee have the fame ground of charitable hope for one as for another. As for your other exprellion, That this proves not that ihc^ are to bee looked upon at vijibk members 9f the Ohurch^ and to be admitted k) omwardOrdinances-^ this is oncly to deny the Conclufion, whether this being proved, that our Infants have the fame right to bee reckoned to the Church of God, as well as the Inknts c f the Jews, be not a juft ground, and as good a foundation to prove, that therefore they mult bee admitted to that Ordinance which is the initiall fealej (hall in due timeappeare, when I have made good the next con-dufion, That Baptifme fucceeds in the roome of circumcifion to that «/e; in the meane time let the Reader j-udge.

I iiirther faid of the Jews, they fiall by vertue of Gods Co-%'€na23t hse takfin in againe in the end of the world^ becaufe the root is holj^ becaufe Gods covenant with Abraham, Ifaae, and Jzcoh exiendsjet to them^ andpai againe bloffomCy and mU taki flace^ when the Nations nrhleefi fhaU bee taken aTPay , and theirprefentnationaJI c0?:-dition I padorred out in the compari" fonof Nebuchadnc22ars dreame^ Van, 4.I4. of a tree that was cut doWae^ and tU root hound rviih an iron chaine^ and yet afters* ward did grow again. The thing it felf you deny not^ nor go about to anfwer my argument drawn from the Jewes^ viz» We, as they, were taken in 5 tliey, and ther/ children ft>all be at the lafc taken in againe, as they were atthe firft t and therefore we and thev making up the fame body, are taken ifi upon the fame ground, our children with us, as "wtW as theirs with them: this Argument (I fay) you go not about to anlwer,bnt in ftead of anfwering,you pick^qnarreliagainfi my comparijon tah^n from Nebuchadne22ars dreame. Why Sir^ I never thought a Scholar would have expelled a com *

pari&a

paiifon {houldrunne upon foure feet 5 nor Have wrefted it beyond what was intended by it, I never intended to make Neifttcbadne^f^nrJ drcsLme an argument to prove, butoncly toilluftrate, that as that tree for a while was cut downe, and the root bound with an Iron chaine, was kept from growing, yetin the end the chainc was removed, and the tree grew againe ; fo the nation of the Jewe5 was for a while caft ofF/rom being the people of God^during the time of their blindnefle and unbekefe, but in the end thcvaile fiiould be removed, and their nation taken into their former Church-iianding, yea and moreglorfouflyj and that by reafon of the Covenant, But from this yc u feeke to-draw many aWiirdities, and to Ihew wherein my compari-(bn holds not j asthiftreeii mt cut don>ne of thatfpjs^ omly form branches broken off^ and that to muh^ Abraham tke rootyto hie ^9iindwith a chAne is unbandfome , and tliat in this allu-fion, / fomttimes maJ^e Abraham the roote^ fometimei the Co* ■ ii'nant the roet^&c. all which are worthy of no aniwer; no* thing being held out in the allufion but what I now faid, nc vertheleffe, were it pertinent to our controverfie it might eafily enough be (hewed, how in a found /enfe the Covenant is the root upon which Abraham and all the reft of the branches grow, ainl alfb how by vertne of the Covenant-* Abi^abam is al(b a root from which his feed grow,yea; and Overall beleevers are roots from wlilch their pofteritle springs, and how in one found fenfe Ahaham^ Ifaac and la-cob^^nd all vifible beleevers make up this one tre«|thts Olive, and yet in another fcnfe] ths j are all but branches of this Olive.

Whereas I faid tnaltihlf difcfttrfe^ the hoHmjfe efihe bran--chesthae/p0^of^ is mt meant of a perfonall inherent hoUnejJc^ hnt an holinejfe derived to them from their Aneefiffrfj afedcrall bolinejfe, Againft this you except many things. Firft, Mr, Goodwin expounds it otherrpifti 'i M\\ Goodtvin meane thar there is no other holines whidi may make men eftcemed (6 in facie dei according to Kom, 2.»//. I concur with him,but if he fay there is no other hoiinefle^or that the profeilion of ^K)iincflc may not make him pafTc as holy mfacie vifibili^Ec^

T 3 fflifijS:

InUnt'tdftifme froudfrm Saipture.

c^jJafjwhen I heare him fay {o (as yet I never did) I (hall diflcnc from him though hce be my loving friend. Second-

ly, fay yovL^here are divers thingj to- ife marked indeed^ hut rsfith an J?eliske : indeed Sir that brand is alwayes ready at your handj let us fee whether you have let it juftly or no in this Derivative and pi^^e, and whether your impartial Reader will not take ^cStop'" icoffandfet it upon your felfe. 1 epppfe (f^yyoM) perfmall "^j^ inherent holimjfe^ to derivative hoUmffe ai imonfiftent: but Rea-

der looke into my Sermon^ and fee whether I did Co or no; I confidently deny this charge^ I onely (hewed the meaning of the word in thUflace to bee of derivative holinefle common to the whole nation^not excluding perfonali inherent liolinelTe in true beleevers among themj andl fay agaiujthe whole nation was called bolj:^ not perfonally inherent, but federally^ and you acknowledge here a derivative holineCIe from Ahraham as a ipirituall father, yet I fuppole you will notundertaketo juftifie that true inherent holinefle is derived from any, but from our Lord Jefus Chrift, and his holy^irit. Next fay you, tb^ hslinejje ii derived not from any Ancejlers^ hut onelj from Abraham, But I befeech you ift your next not onely todi6late this, as in this booke you doe very often; but cleare and prove it by forac good arguments, why it does not defcend from other immediate parents, who are beleevers, as "well as originally from Abra-* ham", for parents who are branches from Ahraham their father, areyetrootes to their children who ipring from themj Doe wee not read of the root efLjfe^ Efay 1 1? though heewasbuta branch from Abraham^ might not every parent among the Jewes, at leaft every beleeving parent apply that promife made to Abraham^ I mil bee the Godofthee^and thyfeed> if you thinkc hee may not, diforovc the Arguments which I have brought for it, in anuver to your Sxt Scftion. I demand fuither, was not fiich a holineffe derived from Ahraham to his naturall feed, orpofteritie, where all ■ ^ Abrahams pofteritie, who are called the holy fced^ true he-r cs^^rc^oots havers ^ and inwardly hnly> No (fay you') othtr parents are not rarhcit chil- roots^ Abraham onfl) if an holy roofey or at the mofl^ Abraham^ drcn. Ifaacy and Jacob^ in vfkofc names the Covenant runs* T# which

Ireply^firftathisisto fay and xaiCzyh Ahr^am onely is an holy roote^ yet Ifaac and lacoB arc holy roots too. Second-lya the ApoftJc names none of them at aH but fpeakcs of tbt fatherj^v/hich includes all their Anc€ftors,at leaft more then Ahraham oncly. Thirdly, how often did God (as I fhew-cd before) renew that promife, I will bee the God of thee and of thy feed, after Abraham^ Ifajc and lacolf were all dead? Fourthly, your felffay, the body of beleevers is compared to the Olive tree, and each beleever to a branchy andtherL> fure Abraham^ Ifaac 2ind lacohomly^^are not the root or tree which bare the branches, but the body of beleevers is the tree, and fo (by your owne grant) it foliowes, beleevers in oneferife are the tree, in another tiie branches. I%ly5ladde,that the body of beleevers, who make this Olive tree and branches, /nuft neceflarily be underftood of v/^^/eprofeiTors, and not retrained or limited to /rw beleevers onely, othcrwife the branches could not have been broken ofi^as is aforefaid.

Next you ftcp out of your way, to reproach Mr. Tkjmof Us.Gscdmn 4j00dmn:^Xvho(fayyouyindeav(n'edtoinfirreaklKd ofpromife Vmdicated. cf deriving holimjfefr^m beleevers id their pofieritie out ofihefi^ militudi rf anOtivt^ and its branches ^compared with Tfal, 128, 3 .&c. And then yon vilifie him,as a man who by [pinning tut findlisndes aud^mje&Hrts^ deludes his Anditery with fuch things y rather then fatisfie them xpith arguments: what hi« difcourfe was, you fct not downc, nor in what fenfe he al-Icdgedholinefletobe derived from beleeving parents to their pofterity,but why lflceJ/??«^/your iword (hould bee thus againft every man, I cannot t«ll? as for Mr. G^wdivin (notwithftanding his difference from me in fbme paints of Chorch-govcrnment) I can doe no leffe then teftiJie that I know him to be a Learned godly Divine, and an eminent Preacher of the Gofpel of Chrift, and his worth not to be Wafted by your j[cornfullQ)cech. and for the things you alledge againft him, he aflures mce, ICoh have Jet dowm his notions in jour Book^ sthtrmje then hi f reached thtnty and that in due iimehee intends to pubUfb his Sermons^ and then the world (ball fee whether you have done him right or not. jUftljb,

ChiMrcn fol - Laftljj to that which I aflerted, 7bM the Irfants both of

ding ; norofhlijufikeiyou upon this demand whether I da not in this Jjmbolize with Kvmimm^vpho mak^s thif the caufiwhythepojie--ritj offome people b.zvenot the gofpeljbccaufe thJ^ forefathers rtfu-* Mr Tombes fi^ /Vjand yoiibnng in the learned Do6lor Twiffe^and Mou- , fy mbolizmg lin dtfputing againji him in that point. How faine would you with Arminm fay feme what which might reproach this Argument? But his cxpoim- jj^^y j^Q|. |3Qt-|-^ thefc things be trucjthat God (hews mercy to ng ^'"'^i* ^j^om he pleafes, and hardens whom he pieafes^ and yet (hews mercies to thoufands of generations that feare him> and viiit the fins of parents upon their children ? may wee not lay truly when God caft out the nation of the Jewes from being his people^ that for their fins he gave the Bill of Divorce to them and to their children, that they (hould no longer be his people in Covenant, as they were in time paft, and yet his grace remain free> I fpake expreflely of outward adminiiiration of the Covenant, That when Parents are taken into Covenant, their children alfo with them have a vifible right, and when God gives a bill of divorce from a viiible Church franding, (for to true belce-vers hee never gives any) their children are caft out with them^as appeares in the Jewes at this day h is this to fymbo-life with ArminiM^ ordoth Do6lor Trpijje or Moulifj^ or any otlier of our Orthodox writers gainefay this? I appeale to every learned Reader to judge, But e regione^ I defire you to (hew how you will zyoydfymholMng with the ArminianSy who indeavor to prove falling away from true grace and holineffe,fi'omthis i !• of the Romanf^ becaule the branches were broken off, when you with them faj, the graffing into the Olive here is meant of true beleevers graffed into the in-vilible Churchy yet of the branches growing in, or graffed into this Olive, it is exprefly f^idfome rvere broken rj^j and otliers will fare no better if they beleeve not. Bert us in his relation oj the conference at the Hague^ urges this very place^ f(t frofiie that it is f^Jj' blefor the Saints to fall Mfa^ from irace, hf^

caufe

InfM'Baptifme pnvtdfrom Scrifmri. j^^

cjufe we are advlfed to tak^ t^jming hj the J^wts 'EfXmfU^ tt^kt^ were hol^n off for tbtir unbeUeft . I know that you thiofee not that true beleevers may fall away, but how you wiUavpid the Arguaicntjinterpreting this place as you doe^ Iprofelle I cannot tell.

And now I leave it to.every judicious Reader, wheth<e you or I havcdarkned this Scripture, whether you in faying this Text, is meant of the mvifible Church otitly^ and the graSin^'m IS by ek^Kn andfaith^ or I who fay the rejeding is of the Jewes from being of thi vipbk Churchy and i/igrai-fing is meant of the taking in of the Churches of the Gentiles to bee the vifibUChnrehj kingdomcj and people Qf God in their roomes 5 whether (in a word) I who interpret ic of ftich a growing ia the Olive, or ingraffing into ky as may endure a breaking off, and yet none fall from laving grace who once had it, or you who mafee fiich a grafting Jn, as that if any branches bee broken off, k mult ne^ffir rily follow, that branches may bee reni: off from the if^^-ble Church, and fall away from inward holinefle, havQ iu-terprcted this Text, moft agreeablcto the Analogy of faith, and the Apoftles fcope: and to conclude^ let the Reader aj-fo judge, whether this Text (notwithftandingi^ll y(HV" in-deavcrs) remainenotftillin myhands^asOncofqi/ftrQng holds, to defend this conclufion. That tbcchildrpK^btU^ff' WW, have the fame right t9 the Corvmant wltk ffcjr tos^H^ ^tk^^ childten of the Jtwes had mth their ?artmu, > "i,. r I - [; . / ^ ^ >

Now (fay you) you are come to my principal! hold, 'ToS & S I Car. 7. 14. I perceive at firft you thinke there is fome i Cor'y/vin-ftrength in it, for you have brought a huge army againft dicatcd.' hy anddrawnea long line about it, raifed abundance of batteries, and in a very long difcoiu-fe fay romcthingalmoft to every fentencc of mine concerning this Scripture^ and after all your (hot is (pent, you cry 7^ trtHmpbiUy I havi got your chkfe bold which you bad befi manned, Trucly Sir you fpeake like EpicomporthrojfL-hombomachides^ qui diffiavit omnei in csmfk CftrgmPidfrAir. But the beil i$,all the ground is not yours thatyQu lialkc ovcrjuor every man kiucd ibat you

U (hoot

llhootat. I have no fearc that your great fwelling words will give any (atisfa&onto your judicious Readers; wee will come to what you have done, and tiy what frrength there is in this long Sedionj and that I may make my an^ (wer to it as briefe as is poffible^ I (hall bring all the matter of your difcour/e to three beads. Firft^ ilich thi^igs as ivherein you and I doe agree, and muft necelfarily agree. Secondly fiich things as wherein whether wee agree or diia-gree it matters not much to the point in controverfic, thefc two I (hall but touch upon. Thirdly:, fuch things whereii;, wee differ, and which really concerne the controverfie betwixt us. And thefe things (God willing) wee will try out hand to hand.

Firftj wee agree, that findified may have many fcnfcsy

and that of tho(e manyj two onely are applicable in

this place, either the matrimJmaUJantnficciuoTiy which you

infift upon^viz, Chafiitie in the wife and bus hand^ or lavpjuU

matrimony hetxpem ihemJ and legitimation of the children. Or

elfe Ittftrftmcntall fan&ificationy in the husband and mfey and

fedifoM holimffe in the children^ which I iniift upon. Wee

agree aUb, fecondly, that fy may fignifie by as well as

in^ Wee further agree thirdly, that theTc^^f and meaning of

theTex^is, that the Corinthians having writ for the ApoSles

refolution whether it were lawfiill for them who were

conyertedj ftill to retaine their Infidell wives or husbands 5

the Apoftle here refolves that cafe upon the affirmative. And

I will further 4gr^e\vith you fourthly, that thefe words elfi

wtre your Children uneleane^&c, are a medium or arpiment

whereby the Apoftle proves the former fcnteiice> the Hnk--

heving husband isfanaifiid in the mfe^&c, I yet fuVthcr agree,

chamitr oficn fiftly, that all the places which you cite out of the Icanied

cited to no Chamier zre Orthodox^ and cleareJy prove that for which

purpofe. |j^ brings them, viz. 7haifanBification cannot bee underfioad:

oftbecQnveTfioaoftbetmbeUevtr^throHgb the diligence of the fe-

ietver^page 73. j^ndtbsi the Argttment is not fetched from a

iofttiogentthingjfag^y^m And that holineffe is not meaniif cf-

TimoniallbolineJIeXy/hkh Cenfe was afcribed to Afffftfiine)

f^'7^* And that the hglheffi of Children kert^ k ncf tba.

tsUtb :•

i»hicb they receive from their eclucation,fag, 75. And I am iurc

you nmft agree with mee, fixtly^ that in all thele CefUmo*

nies you have cited out of Chamiery there is not one Word

againft my Interpretation, or for tlie Juftilication ofyoursj And againft his

yea and I know alfo that you will agree with mee ftvcnth- ownc ;uc(g-

Jy^ that the learned Cbamier'm a large difputc doth con- ^^^^

futeyour interprctation^and vindicate my interpretation, as

the onely true and proper meaning of this Text, even in

that very place where you quote him. And therefore I know

the Reader will agree with mee (whether you doc or no) ^^^ffi-^nllratl

that you doe but abufe your Audior and Reader,both in wj^^'i.^^iOj

making a flourifb with Cbamierj name nothing to thepur-

po(c,and thereby would make the Reader conceive Ci&jwier

to bee of your dde when hee is point-blanke againft you..

I yet farther agree with vou, eighthly, thatfrme Interprc

Un both antkm and modirne doe interpret this Text as you

doe, and I am fure you will alfo agree that it were

cafie for mee to bring ten for one, who interpret thii

Text as I doe 5 chough I forbearc to bumbaft my bookc

with them, no wayes deiiring that this caufe ftiould bcc

Carryed by number of fuffrages.

Secondly, tliere are many things In this Seftion wherein ^-^cifcdby wee differ, but the caufe depends nothing at all upon them; Mr.ram^/ firli,you feveraU times cite the kam^dBxZa as if hec were contrary to hit of your mind in the interpretation of this Text* to con- owne;uagc»^ ftrueit of matrimmiall Mimjp, I confelTc the caufe depends ^^^*' not upon Bcza*j judgementj but your reputation depends much upon making this good: That you (hould dare to cite an author as interpreting it for you who txprofeffo inter* prets it againft youi Bej&j indeed acknowJedgeth this Text warrants a lawfuU ufe, but withall ikts himfelfe to prove that that's not all, butTaith it's iuch a (an£Uhcation as I contend for, and faith, ho mm mufy interprtt it otbertvift them I doe of federaB holimffe : according to the Covenant, Er§ Deus tuufi&e* And out of that very Text doth (in his annotations upon thatplace) aflert Infant-Bapttfme, Secondly, you thinke this Text was never Interpreted offeJerall holimffe until! the dayes of Lmher : thecauie I coilfefle de«

U a pcnda

pcnds not upon this, but it difcovers feme defeft in your reading, fince it is apparent that Athanafiuf^ one of the Tertumn^nd nj^ft ancient of the Greek Fathers, and Tertttllian one of

potndfhfs^''' ^^^ ^^^ ^"^^^"^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ Fathers bring this Text to Ttxtfor feder prove the prerogative of the Infants of beleevers, which raUiioUncfle. certainly they could not have done if they had interpreted asyou doc, that their children werclegitimatej nor have given them any title to the kingdome of heaven, if to their u ndcrftanding it had not related to the Covenant of Grace. Thirdly^ whether Mr. Blakfi pai^alleling this place with Gala. 15. (upon which you fpcnd almoft two whole pages) bee good or no, or whether thefe places doe interpret one another^iB notraueh niateriall to the prelent controverfie about this Textj although it be plaine^ that hy Jewes bj na-' inn the Apoftlc intends ihz Chpfrcb-privikd^e of the lewet in bppoiition to the Gemilej^zs I have eliwherc (hewed.Fourthly, whether Bellarmhe was the firft who expounded holy for legit/wf^rtTj in confuting whereof you ipend another page;, and alledgefundry Authors before him who founderllood fc this is not to ourbufineffc though you take occafion to fhew your reading in it*

Thirdly, this therefore onely remaines to bee tryedout between us, whether this bee meant of lan^fulmffe oftPtd-t0ckJ>ttr»^enmanandwifiy and kguintation of chiUref?) as you affirme; or of Jrrprumt.'f2ta!IfanSificaiion^ betweene husband and wife quoad hor^ and ftderall bdimjp of childnn^ as I affirtnc 5 wherein I fhali,firft,make it plaine that your Interpretation cannot hold, (econdly, that mine muft ftand.

The icnk which you undertake to juftifie is, that it *f ^

MiitrimmiallfanB'^cdthn^vjhcn. the Apoftle faith the nnU-

kevmg hmhmdiffanBifiedhythe n>ifiy&c. the meaning i?^

their mardage Is lawful], and their children are not unclean^

,. Ni/5ro^; the meaning is, they are not baft a rds,but lawfully

inrerp^rera/icn'^^o^^' Againft this ! difputc. Firft, in making good

ofrhisText tliefoHfe Arguments uftd in my Sermon againft this in>

©verthrownc tttprctauon 5 the firft whereofwas this, unclean ncfle and

byeighrAr- holineflcwhen oppoled one to ar^other, are never mcjnt

«oraems. of civilly lawfoU Or unlawful 1, butarcalwayc* ufid in «

Sacred.

faefei[mfettXloAmg to a right ofadmifiw into ornfe in thet4-i Arinmcnt **^r«jp/eorre«pfc5whkhwcreO'A^^ofthevifibleGhurch, & ^'n^icared. holimfft is always taken for ^feparation of PerTons or things from common to facred u(e. To this you except many things. Firftjyou like not t^^Qtcrmchill holimjfe^yoa rather would call itmatrlmnmallholinejpf^ becaufeits inflitiition is of Ged^ not from the laws of i^^fl. 1 Reply,this is a poor fhift •, by holy and cit^i//wee diftinguifh things belonging to the firjh ^wd feeondtable. All fecend Table duties are civill things, though their inftitution be of God; ciz/ii/ Maglflracy though inftimted of Godj obedience of children to their Parents^ though inftituted of Godj andallthcj«^/c#ji// larper given to the Jews about menm and fuum ; were they not therefore civill, becauie they were Gods inftitutions ? Or is marriage a bulinefle-niore concerning Religion, then thc(e are? is it a Sacrament T or how el(e, is it more holy then thefe other civill things?

You except (econdly, unckannejft may bee taken for ha-^ardy^m an aSufion to a Taifermck ufe: BaJtMrds being num-bered among the uncleane, I Reply^this is fpoken without any proof, for although the Lord {kkhyl>ettteronorK.2^:2. ^^^^^ *? '2. Tt?Jtt a ksftard jhall not come into the congregation of the Lordy ^^»i«^^«^»'^<^^' it cannot be meant that ^jj^W/ (hall bee numbered among the ww/tf^w, or having nothing to doe about T^^erw^/c or Temple fenrices; for there was the fame law for Etmnchs who were not excluded as unclean; no nncle4n perfbn might cate the f affeaver^xai^t no Eunnch or Bayardtztt the Pafleover? Bcfide, when yon thus conftrue,c//e wereyour Sildren uncltAn^ youmaketherca^ia/?jr^andundean,tobe termlm convert iihiks^ confequently every unclean child muft bee a bayard. Now if any man would fuppofe that bailardj might bee reckoned amongft ifwc/^^n, yet all i»^c/e^ children niuft not bee reckoned amongft hsftards , all the children of the Gentiles were »cc/ej«, but they were not bayards. It is needlefle to enter into a further difcourle about that ^\dsxJ)tHt,^ 3. Jhow or in what ienic a baftard might not come into the Congregation*, whether by the Congregation be meant the Ssm-hedrln^ m famej or whether his not entriiig, bee of bearing

Y J Office,.

Officc^as others; or of not marrying a wife an Ifraclitefle, as others. it matters not, itfs fufficientthcy were not numbrcd among the unclean.

Thirdly, you refer me to the iThef.^.j, God hath mt called us toun^kanmff Jftauntaholimffe j and defire me to tell you^wbiitberuncleanfgejje be not there meant of fornkatimy and ij hJineJfeychaftttj, lanlwer, I prevented this in my So^ nion; and (liewed that cbajlity among the Heathens, is ne-rercaJledfan&ificatlon^ the holy Spirit onely is the Spirit of fan^tification, and the bodies of the Heathens are not the temples ot the holy Ghoft: but among belecvers it may be called fb, becaufe it is apart of the new creation , a part of the inward adorning of the Temples of the holy Ghoft; andthoughthechaffityof beleevcrs is onely amorallrer-tue in re(peft of the objeQ;^ yet in rclpeft of the root, prin* ciple,end,i(^s a Chriftian vertuejand itfs an aft of pure Re-^' ligion^to keep a mans (elf unfpotted from the flefti, as well

as from the world5ljm.i.27.BefideS5l now ^ddejtherc is no ^!^jl^^« 4* reafbn that that place, i Theff*. 4.{houId be reftrained to fornix &Vnot iarer- ^^'^^"^ becaufe many other finj are named in that place, be-prets this Text ^^ f(/rHicatimM^rk the words in the 3 ver, the Apoftle tels as Mr. Tmbes them. That the WiU of God U thdrfsn^Hficationy that every one ^ould fecni to fiojild ah^aine from fornication*^ that no mmgoe beyond anddf make him, ^^^^ ^^ brother in any matter. And then he gives this as a rcafon common to all the particulars, bca^x^t God hath not calltdptftouncLanrnffeybut to bjlineffe. So that by holineflc dicre, is meant not onely chaftity but jnfiict: al(b i and what kind of confequence were there in fiich an Argument; let no man goe beyond his brother in bargaining, becaule God hath not called us to fornication, but to chaility? Whereas you alledge Beza thus interpreting this Text,verf 3. Tbii isthemliof GodyevenjioHrfanbification^i. e. faith Be2a, that you ahflain from fornication • and upon this id efty you build much; therefore I (liall confider it. Sir.f^ eft put in by Bcza^ hath reference not onely to that which doth immediately follow, n^LTnclyythatjou abfiaine from pmication ; but to the 6 vcrfe aUb, that no mm goe beyond and defraud his brother: MezaisLitb^idePyUtabftimatisy nt nt qttis ofpritnat& habeat

jHsfui,

mi^nu It being ordinary to have inftances given in the fecond Table, when the duties of the firft Tabic arc included, ifnot principally intended 5 that the holyGhoflmi^t meet with Hypocrites, who are apt to put all their holineflTe in outward performances.Yea5Be2:ui in the fame place in his Annotations upon the word*?'*^^, referres him to hb. 17. 17. and his note upon loh. 17.17. is this, SanBum anttm dicititr , qnod Deo peculiariter devotum ac conJe:ra'' tKmtft'j an exprelfion agreeable to the Hebrew notion, and therefore Bezi addeth, eji atttem hoc vocjhHlum profeUum ah Hihrdis:io that by Bez^ we are brought back to the n oti-on oiconfecrating and devoting things to God. But you yet endeavour further, and turneand windethe words every way, and run over all w^ords that are of the fame Tribe or kindred^ ct>*««C''''j ^Va'^oH^^'j iyi^iva^ becaufe you cannot find jjen. Steph, aytafj^^ among the heathen; and in the end you have mifrecked. found an inftancc in Stepbanm^s TbefaHrw-i'whcre ^yt^'i^va fig-nifies ca^imonUmfervOy [I am chafte, ] But firft, Stephanm fpeakes but doubtingly, he puts in vidtiur^ which you leave out. Befides, i^^kva isufually meant, ^ '^ ^ix-.iyTi^m-th 'm7ni^(ntii\'7mi>A<T<tvTii^ foSuid^ ^ and the veryinftance which you from Stepbantu have brought out; of Demoflbemf:, makes direftly againft you: for the Prieft faith, I offer Sacrifice, and I am in cafe to doe it, for I am pure from the company of :fmanp «k»^*Vo iCvakkw tZv » j&^fivo97a>p^ and all other things which might pollute me. That is, I am holy accormng to my order, and therefore fit to doe my office. Thcfe laft words which give the fiJI Ccnfc of the place 3 you have (not very fairly) left out of your Quotation. Yet you make another (upplement out of Corinth, 7, 1 Cor. 7 '^4, ' 34. Thatj&e r?iaj k holy in body and fpirit ^ and demand whi' ^''^VT^^P'^I^'^ tber the meaning he not th^fiee may be chip, I aniVer, the ^ ^' ^^' plainemeaningi9,that (he being free 'from worldly dirtra-^on^, is at more liberty to give her (elf wholly to godli-nefTe, then others can, who have thefc worldly avocationsj and in trath it is a pretty odd (cnfe which you have invented of this place, ttennmarriedeareJ for the thinjis of Ood^ that finm^bf cbafie-^ bmjbe thatis marriulcaresf§r the things of tkt

ff% InfdiH'Sdftifm pr$vedfr0i» Serif turf 0

ffiorld hoopfiee m^j fleafe hgr bmband^ I wonder what learned man concurs wit;h you in dm: I doubt in this rai-e in-I Tim. 4 f. terpretation you arc all alone. When I added 5 That tvtn rindicatcd. ^^g ^i^at and drink ofheUcverj/anEiijied ia tbem,ferV(jfQr a rdi-^ glow endandufiy torefrtp thm wha are the Jempla ofthi bolj Gb^fi^ Yon^inCvJCc^tbenu fsemj in eating and drinking they da dn aU of r4igioa 5 tawhich! need no other reply then your next wordsj^/^ti/ tbey are fanCliped to them by the word andpra^er^ they receiving them after an holy manner^ with faithjfupplication, and thankelgivingj&c And that this place of Timothy doth holdout more then a lawful! ufe, is moft apparoitj becaufe it is fiich a aie of the cieatures^ as th e heathen h ad not, who yet had a I awful! uie of the creatures; and it is ftich a ufe gs is appliablc onely to beleeverS; and fuch a ufe as is procured by the Word and prayer; and althou2;h wielded men doe not doc an adi of Religion in feeding thebodies of tlie Saints, becaufe^aU their anions arc uncleanejyct beleevers have an holy ufe. of thofe creatures which heathens feed them withihaving the Word not onely to warrant the ufe of them , but prayer to procure Gods bleffing, to that end for which they ea^e and drink>which ii toliveunioCjod, .^ .•,-,=

iyir^.vindica- My fecond Argument was, had this been the meanings red. Elfc rpcreyoHT children unclean^ hut now are they holj;^ elfe bad

yonr children binhafiardj^ ^Ht nan? they are legitimate'^the Apo^tes anf^er had not been true'y becaufe then if Pne of the parentj had not been ahtkever^ and fi by bdnga hekever^ bad fan^ijiid, the unbekeier^theirchildrenmHflbave b^e/i bafiards y rvhereas n;ei hgotv ihildrenhrn in law/nil wedlock are legitimatej though hjth the Parents were urJekeverj, To which you aniwcr, this pri-viledge ccmej not from the faith of the kletver 5 but from the re* latioH of marriage \ and your reafon is, becaufe the Apofk faith not^the ui^cUeveris fanUi^edby thebekevtr-^ but from the hwr band or the tfiife^ although ofje or two old Copies have the word be^ Lever ^ yet the ftfi haze it not j and the reafon fannet be conceived rightly to hi any otheryhut that although the perfon meant were a bekeveriswei as an hw^andorwife'^ yet in this paffage ih^ were conjidered onely 4S hmband andmfe^ and not as bekeversyta

intimate

imma*t that tbtfatjBificatiBndidHot come from i be faith of the party^httfdmeonjHi^aU relation, ' . rr ■

\ r^ly> fhis-expreil^ly 'CroiJes die Aportlds..cqnft/IoH (cope, fodtiie qaeftion'was not, iviiahcr^ti luisbarid mi^bt leave his wife, or a wife her husband, the Apoiile had re-fblvedtluticafc before, «ir, io. bat whethera ^i54?2>i«f hui^ band might leave or fcparate from an unbeUev^ ; no C^aith tbe ApoftIc)tf «^(j «w^( /c^r beamtejit*c dmlltagether^^(Wnoty let thcmgo, a biother or a fifieri« not ifv hoftdagc irt feb a C2&yn>ytfofthunbekezerpff^^ n^ifil but

now in your fenfe, the Argument had been as goodj-to fay, the HHbtkever h Tand: tied in^ ^r by >tke unkleevcr^ or the ie-kever is (anftificd iiK or by the »7i^ei««^^, wfiicii hadi beene nothing to the queftion in hand. ' Agalncj fee Apoftler^ eX-preflely naracs the iiitbeleevG' in oppdltion to the wife Or husband who is a belcever; of which there had been no uie, if he had intended onely niatrimoniail fanftificacion, he might have(aidkdie husband^is fan6\aiied bf the wife,-and the wife by the husban(i, Jetthem bee what th^y will, vvhich cannot be ipoken truly, when the Scripture plainely fayes , Nothing is pure or holy to the unbelcever, as Bezd well obferves upon this place: ^nd though the word belee-yer be not in the Text, [_ yet it is neceflfarily intplyed, and therefore fonie Copies have it in the Margin, not onely one old Copy, andaCopy ofC/en«t;?7f^ and the Vulgar Latine Co reade it, but Attguftine alio in his book, wherein hee expounds the Sermon o!i the Mount 5 and terttiUian mUhrit ficmukadux^et7if\ for as Beza rightly obferves, tfhequefti* on is concerning a beleever, what he is to doe with an un-bclccvcrj and when he fayes the unbeleeving pai ty is fan5:i-ficd in c^rby the other party,it plainly implyes the one party ianftifics the other, viz*the beleever fan6tifies the uribc* leever,(notrrtro)wliich needed not be faid of matrimoni-all ranftificadon, asyoucallit,for in that fcnfc both par-tics were fanftified in themlelves, not in or by one anodier, marriagebeing honourable among all, and the bed fthc ccitw') undefiled. Befides, there are words which plainly denotata it a little before, a br erh^ or fift^r^ which are taken

f j4 Infdnt'BaftiJmefrcvtdfrom Scrifturi.

for beleevers, vcr. 12, if a brmhtr have an nnhtkeving or infdd wife^ ver. \^» ab) other or affier U not in bondage in fitch a cafe: Andifyou fiiould fay the belceving party fanftifics the un-belecver, not qua beleeverj but by the Word and prayer. I anfwer, this would make the Argument ftronger 5 for it is therefore fuch a fanflaikation as heathens'are not capable of. •< My Third Argument wiSytbt Afojikf argument had had no firengfhiniiyfHppofingtbetextrferetobe interpreted at theft men wsuldhave it : their doubt (fay they) wmi'their marriage 79 M an unlawful! wedlacl^', and jo confiquently their children ba^ fiord J ^ andthej maki th$ Afofiki anfwer to be^rvereyonnH law-full man and wifely our children jpenbaflardil which k^de of Argument (laid 1) tf>ere but idempet idem* Your anfwer to this is fuch a one as I know not what Co make of its you fay J doe not rightly fa downe my Advcrfariei explicdtion of the A-pofile^ the doubt (fiy you) n>ai oneljy whetbtr tkey might live in conjugal! ufe *y but there was no qutfiim of their children^ nkf ther they r»ere legitimate or noi-^ they v^re ajfurtd their children jvertn&t hafiards^hut legitimate^ and this the Apofile nfts as bis^ medium^ to prove they might lawfully live together. To which 1 Reply^ take this for granted which you fay , and (if I want not common fenie ) you plainely and fully aniwcr your felfe, for if they were out of all doubt, that their children were not baftards^ then it was n ot pofli ble for them to doubt whether their owne marriage were Jawfullj take this to be his Argument, your children are legitimate, this you all grant: ErgOy your marriage is lawfully of which you doubt:Ilf/»w^«»K^^JrjMici>they received th€ one as a fiip-pofed principle, that their children were lawfully begotten, which could not be but in a lawfull wedlock, yet had not light enough to know,that their wedlock was a lawfull wedlock; if they doubted not of thclatter, how could they of the former? -4r^wnt4 My Fourth Argument was according to this interpretation^

the Apofile J anfiver could no way have reached so the quieting of , the ir confcienca^y their dou^t wasy whether they were not to tmt a^ K^aytheir wives and children at nothelongingtoGody m icing a'

feed

fiedwhom Qod would not oame among bps people^ andthtt anfmr could never have quieted their cmfekncet^ to tell them thtir marri" Mge TV as UwfuB^ andthcirchildnnlegumatu

To which you anfwer, this Argument itgrenndeddn a ml" ftaksi *he ^tufiion rv4S not (fay you) ^bout putting aw ay of their Ifives and children M net hdon^ngto God^butfomeihingelfe.

I Rq>ly3 but if it be not grounded upon a niiftakc, and that (as BiZa faycSj) Paulif not here arguing ahmtcivill policyy hut arguing a cafe of conjcience. Whether becaufe of the idolatry of the wife or husband. Religion did notrcquire they fiiould be put awayj becaufe God would not have his holy leed mingled with cliem, ihen by your owne confclfion ^he Argument (lands good, which whether it will uot be made out, ihall (God willing)by and by appeare,

Thefe fourc Arguments I u(ed before; and whether the firft three be not a&eady vindicated, let the Reader Judgc^ * the fourth comes to bemade good afterward, when I come toconfirmetheinterpretationwhichlraadeof it, I (hall. briefly adde foure other Arguments, to fhcw diat this Text ' cannot be interpreted as you'would have it.

Firlt, you (ay. The wibekeving husband iffan^ifiedfy the ^ ^^^ ^^gji^,^ n^rfe , and fan6ification you here take for cha^ipf : which is Mr. Tombes in-a mo(t incongru ous (peech,to (ay that the one party makes terprecacioo. the other chafle; if he or fhc were not unchaft, how are they made chaite by the husband or wife ? and li they bee un-chafte, how doth this make them chafte ? marriage is then honourable or chafte when the bed is undcfiled: this Argument is onely from the un(eemline(Ie of the cx-preflion.

Secondly, my (econd I take from your own words, psg. ^ ^^^,„^ y^. WhQVcyon(xyyThefanUijicatim of the unbekever bere^ is fucb a fanEhlocation at is parallel with that^ iTim.4#5. vfibtre the treatures are Jan^tficdto the pure by the word and prayer':, therefore there muft be more meant then the Hea-tlicns arc capable of 5 therefore another fanftification then matrimoniallfan&fication, for that the heathens had: if therefore this muft be (iich a (anftification as that place in Timothy munts^ it muft be a fanftification peculiar onely tob«l«ever8. X 2 • Third-

fjirffimDi* Thirdly^yet a third Argument I take from your owne words: you have endeavoured (though in vaine) to (hew that^^JJjr^jmay,he called«wciejw,and bal^rm,y be called chafie-^ but you doe not^ and I beleeve you cannot produce out of the Scripture the lead fhew of a proofc, that holi-ncfle iignifies kguimationh you are holj^ id cft^/<?i< are Uwfnl^ Ijhegothn'y ifyou can, pray Ictus have it iii the next: fure I Mai, 2.15. am, thatplacCj Mai, 2.15. Tkat man might feek^ a holy feed , expounded or rather^ ajeedof God^ Vi'ill give you no help; for though and vindicated. ^y^e^^/G^i^Jintliatplace^might be interpretedCas M, Calvin would have it) for legitimate^ becaufe (as he fayes) that uies tobecalledDivine,which is excellent, a legitimate feed is in comparilbn of (purious, yet this is nothing to holi-^ neile. The word in the Hebrew there ufed, is not a holy feed, but a feed of God, an eminent or an excellent ieed, as • all eminent or notable things ufe to be called j great Armies arecalled the Armies of God-, great and high hills, are called the hills of G^d 5 great and tall trees, are called the trees of G^d: fo that take a feed of God in that place for a legitimate feed, yet there is nothing to prove that h olinefle may figiwhe legitimation ; though for my owne part (i'^ce *<jw/zt;iri)i himibly conceive the Prophet in tended, not a legitimateieed onely, (as Mn Calvin would have it) but to ftiew what was Gods chieie end in the inftitution of^ marriagcj viz* The continuance of a feed of God, whercia the Church is to be propagated to the end of the world j-now according to your interpretation of holineife for cha-^ ftity, the Apoitles Argument muft run thus, Jjy^nr marri* age n^erenotlarvfiiUyyonr cbi/drftijt?ouidbe ifjfiardj^ hm mj» ihijai't citf/^wbich fenfe were too ridiailous which to avoid you are competed in ftead of chafte to iay legidmate,u Jdi-out any example offuch a ufe of the word ^<;/^. 8 Argmm. Laftly, yet one Argument Qiore 1 propound, your fcrtle

n>akes the Apofties Argument wholly lncon(equent> if the unbelccving party wtvt not fanftified by the bekevcr, (yiz^ matrimonially) then were your children unclean, that is, (in your fenie) Baftards, which follows not 5 fdr if they ■ were both unbelecvers;>ycttheir children were not bai^ards;

and if they were both chaft^ (yet being Infidelb^ their children were undeanc, id efl^ Infidells and Pagans, (o that to clofc this I retort your owne words^page the7$. That Ut thft beff'aated (that it if meani ofmatrimonioQ fimHificatiffn^ M of mcefitie it mnfi^ then the tmcleantnejfe tnuft bee megn$ cf Bafiard^y and hothiejft of Legitimstiin ; but I iay, i centra^ let this bee granted, (a« of neceifitieitmuft') that it i« not ineanc of matrimoniall fan6lifieation , or lawfulncfle of wedlock,then undeannefTe muft not bee meant of Baftard/, nor holinefle of Legitiniation, but of fonie other holineile, vvh ich what it is, is next to be enquired.

Having thus plaiaely overthrowne your interpretation, ^, it remaines that I make good my interpretation a^^ainii r^J/J^!^ '"^^'* yoarexceptionsiliaid, their duuptjetma to artjejrom the Law dicaredfrom ofGodj Tphicbvpoi in force in Ezraes time, vphere Gods peopk ^r.Tombes n>ere arderedtofttt oT^jy their InjideU valves and children^ at a ^^c^prions. pliuiedfied^ Tvhicb God Would not have tningled with hisowne:^' ^^"P"on* ycu aniwer, firi^^TouJee very little agreement^ beitveene this cafe and that 5 and that thteajks art very farre different of tpfo per-^ fins not under the LatP mdrryingin unbeleefe^ and of two per^ fins under the Lan>^ the one a lew hjf profijjion^the other a ftrapf^ ger^ fccondlyyandthatn9ne oftbefhrafes^tXceptthe word(J)olj\ are ufedin the one place which are not nfedin the otheriihirdiyjoH rather tbinke their dcnbt an>fe frmn a former Epiflle which bee had wrote t^ them^ntioned I Cor, j'.p, wherein he commmded them not to k^ company with fimicators^ or Idolaters^ thereupon they might douht whether they Jhouldcontinuevthb their unheke' zingy9kefeUowes*

I reply, firft, that thecafe Were the very feme when their fcrople arofe, for though they were both unbeleevers when they were married, and at that time neither of them both belonged to the Church of God, yet when one of them was converted, and the other remained an InfideD, one of them was now become a Church-member, the other remained an alien, their cafe was the very fame, and they Hading their conc^tion parallell with that in Esj'a might very well apply that cafe to themfel ves, and make this their doubl. Secondly, although the fhrafij ufed in Ezra differ from thoft ufed here^ that makes npthing againft this col-

X3 ' kaioii,.

J. g Infant'BAftifmi frovedfrem Scrifture^

leftion, becauie phrafts are ufed according to the different adminiftrationSjCach fpeaking according to the received dialcft belonging to the adnuniitration they lived under. Thirdlyjand as to that,you iay that it might arife from J Cor. 5.9J aniwer, (hould that begranted;yet my fenfe remaines as ftrong as before, for if this fcruple now rofe, that if be-Iccvers becauie of the unbelecfe or InSdell condition of the husband or wife, might not by the rule of the Gofpel continue in marriage focietic with them, it muft bee from fame rule of Religion, which muft ilrike upon their conlcicnce, and from what rule could they gather, that their marriage which before was lawfull was upon their converlion turned into fornication^ and ii their doubt were ( as your {di^

trant) whether it were lawfull for a converted party, or a eleever ftill to retaine their Iniidell wife or husband, (not of unbeleevers whether they bee fanftityed matrimonially one to another) the doubt muft neceflarily arife from fomc-thing in Religion, fomecaie which was peculiar to belee-vers, now (as Mr. Beza iaies truely) the doubt being in their conlciences^ of an unla wfiilnefle to continue in their married condition from fome thing peculiar to Gods peu-ple,the Apoftle (hould have ufcd a moll indircft argument to paciiie their conicienccs in referring them to thecivill Lawes of other nations jby which their marriage is proved lawiuU; and to what purpole (hould hee diftourfe of Baltards or the like, when their confcicnces were (crupled in fomething which begun to concernethem upon their convcrfion, and to tell them they were fan^Ulied in their unbeleefejcould never have reach t the (cruple arifing, after they begun to bee belecvers, bccaule their marriage might be firme and good, while they remained unbeleevers 5 yet the Iniidell might now become impure in that relation of marriage to the other, which was converted. And therefore it remaines, thatitmuft bee relblved from forac rule which muft reach belcevers, as they were the people of God, and not bee common to Infidels with themjnow what is that Argument which ?atd here ufes to fatisfie them? ( which nuiii reach them as they were belecvers) your k^iz grant it is this, tifi

twert

Tf$fanuBdptifmefr6n^dfrpmScriffure. | ^^

T^erefmr children unckmey n^hichU the meiium^ Uoaufejour thimen art not uncleane httt holy^ therefon the mheleever mitfi kegranted to beefau&ifiedto themfeor bwbmd^ this Argument muft therefore neceflarily infcrre fonie kind of holi-Bc0e which is appliable onely to the State of Religion,^ therefore it muft befedcrall holinefle.

^. Butagainftthisyoucxcept many things. Firfi:, fhi9 emld i. Exceptloni nnt hav9 rejolved the doubt in thf cafi of thofe nbo ^ A-^t could not heefan&ified io this endy or By rtafon of accldtndall ina-' hilitiefor gtmraiion^ tbej might fiiU difart each from other mt" mtUffianding this rtafon. I anlwer, it foUowes not, this is a "^«/^' laying downe of their right, which they raay clainie when ever diey are capable of it, this is their priviledge, which rcmaines firme though it (hould never come into Aft> as if a freeman of a Citie (hould have right to have all his children borne freemen^ itoistobcenumbred among hispri-vilcdges, though hec fhould never have a child, this reaches to men and women, married, and unmarried, yea even to children yet unbome: befides, the firft part of ic reacheth to the bed^even the coitm is not onely undefiled, butfanfti6ed. Secondly,fayyou3 thi resfon would then nm^* Exception, thw!^ you may live together^fdryonmay hgef a holy feed^ and fi their eonfdmcesfhould hAVe been refolved of their prefent lan^fnU Irving together from a future event tphkb was nmertaine^ and here (as I toncht before) you bring in C^^wiVr nothing to thepurpolej I anfwer,it is not from a future event, but from Anftv, a pofitive reall truth. ifPauh reafbn bee framed thus, tbi children rvhichheUtvtrjkeget upon their Jnfidell yoktrfeUet^ej are a 6oly feedy thenfiri beleevers have a fan^ifyed ufe $f their In* fidtll huf bands or rpivfj^ had this been a reaibning from a fimire contingent.As for what you here cite out of Chamier^ I airiwer onely this, I perfwade my icMe you are by this time afhamed of your impertinent quotation, I aflure my felfc, ifyoubee not, your friends are. Thirdly, lay you, ^ Exccpti©»» fanUificationis here not afcrihedto God at feU^ing feme from others to fueh an a/e, But it common to all unlfi:keving hwbands in rejfetl of their wives^ and Cumesfrom that eammon relation^not ffcciaHdififfiaHou. lawfircr^thisArgupicatiiaplaincfetting ^nfr^,

downe

vjIo I»fMiiuB4ft}fmefr$vedfr9mSjCriftmre.

downc die qucftion in concroverfie 5 as an Argument t« prove ic felf&> and I have already proved the eontnuy, that it is a priviledgc not common f^ ^l who arc marri-* ed^bnt peculiar toi»i;/ett/er/. Fourthly^ iay,you^ ;/f*fW/»g/^ thS^ expojifion tlje WirdsfoHomngcsuld itot be true^ tlft were JMW children trndeane^ but nprp Jbej^t ixUji B^tSkfe in ihif fwnie 6f rtafsning ibis pr^p/ffitim ii Mtcludsd^ ikiht . ckL^drm cottld not bit holy mtbtmi thatfan&ificafi^nj which (^faj J0i) Ufalfe^ bccjuft children may bee in "Covenant ^ Had bee regenerated ^ thsH^ their parent J had never been tbuf funUlficd the one n> the other ^ the ehildren of Infidel parents may bee fanUified. I reply, not while they arclnfants^ they arc not by any biit^ priviledgeco bee accompted as belonging to die Church of Chrift, which is the onely thing about which wee are di-fputing, no nian ever went about to prove out of this Text that none can ever bee conrertcdj whole parents are not ianftified the oneunto the other,

5. Exception. Next (after another impertinent bringing in of Cbjpikry

you reaibn thus, tak^ itinfuj ftnfe-^ &nd it is no fatifjaHory reafon jqh may live together^ for you may beget a holy fyd, I ani[w€r 9 this is the iatne with your iccond A'gunient j^jf^^ anfwered before 5 and wherein I pray you lies the weakenefle of it, you may live together^ and have a hdy ttfe of youf nnheieevingyok^rfeUertes^ firGod efteemej the feed of fueb to bee an holy feed as sruely as if both were belfevfrjy h this a llighior unfetisfyingan%er? nay I adde furtlier, had the Apoftle gone about to prove, that a bdecving wife and a beleeving husband have not onely a lawful! enjoyment one of another, (as heathens have) but a (anSificd, as they have of other creatures^ because elfe their children were uncleane, but now they are holy, all your exceptions would lieasftrongagainft this laft as againft the former, for you might have faidj this reaches anelythofethm are of 0gei'j ftcondly^ thU depends Hp4>n a future contingent 5 thirdly^ this depends upon their common relation*:, fourthly^ and children may behalyy that ^, afterward rtgetttrate ihmgh thu he deriytdy

6, Exception, jcf jj^g Readerconlider of iCiYougoe on,iiw^/5r, that in

your fenf the r&tfm is.plaint and fatisfuQ^y k$ ^hem irve /^-e-

ther

InfMt'Bapifme prwtdfrom Serif tun. MSt

ther^ though omhec a hekever^the tther €n unhekever'^ far not*' tvithflandmg their difference in Religion^ they are hwband and rpifey marriage being honorable amo^g all^ and the LedHr.defiledj I reply, but this had been no fatisfa<^ion to their fcniple^ Arjfn^* their doubt was Kot whether their marriage were lawful] while they were heathenS;» but whether now their conscience would not bee defiled, in remaining joyned to Idolaters, and the Apo^lesrefolutionmuft remove thatjWhich yourfenfc doth not; you granted, they doubted not the ■ legitimation of their children J and therefore your foile could not have removed the fcruple, .as is above ftie'wed. And whereas you adde thelik^ reJdHtion bee gives verje the 17. 7. Exccprieni concerning eircftmclfed and tmcircwncifedfervantSy thy mightfiHi continue rvith their majler, iheirChrifitan calling did notdi^olve thofe relations, \ anlwr'er in one word, this /%, hath no Anfvip, likenefle at all in it, there is no parallel betwixt theie two cafes, hee fpeakes not one word about beleeving iervants continuing with unbeleeving matters, but of fervants in generall, whether their matters were beleevers or unbe-Jeevers^ hee tells them that they might continue fervants though they were Chritts free men, yet if they can fairely obtaine their freedome, let them choofc that rathei%

One Argument more you bring againtt this ineerpretati- 8. Exception, on, if ibe Jan&location were meant of matrimmiallfan^ijija* ti9n^andtheHncleanmjfeofftderall uncleanneffe^ f? of to exclttdt thcmoHtof tbfi Covenant^ nrhether of fiving grae-es or Church* prrvtkdges^ then the prop^^ption rvas mofi fdfe^ hecaufe children of parents not matrimonially fmUifUd one to the othtr^ jvere within the Covenant^ as Fharez^Jeptha, and others, I anfvver, Aftjiv, firft, I defire the reader to take notice that you take the Co* venani here in thi^ place as I doe for CImrch-priviledgef, Secondly, indeed if fanSification bee taken for matfimoniall fanCfifieation or lawfulnelie of wedlock, and undeanneffe of federal! (anSification, the propolition may bee granted to bee falfe, and let them who fb take it, undertake the defence of it if they can, but let it bee meant of that other fanaffication which I have juftified, the propofition is mofk trac3 I fay againc, all the children of thole parents^ the

one whereof is an unbeleever^ are iincleane^ that is^ federally uncleane, excluded out of the Covenant in regard of Church priviledgeS;, at leaft if not of faving graces5(wbich is a fecret left to God) unlefTc the one bee fanctified in the others this Argument I anfwered in my Sermon;, and framed it thus, that boUmffe is hen meant^ which could not bee un-lejfeoneofihe Parents tvere fanliified to the othtr^ ^»t fiderall . holinejfe of Children may hee^ ifphere Parents are not jan^iified cm in or to the other^ as in Bafiardj^ Davids child hj Bathfieha &c, invphich cafithe children rrere federally holj^ and yet the harlot notfan&ifisd in^ or to the y^dnlterer or fornicator though a helee?jer: my SLnfwerwsiSf that the Apojlks fcope in thu Aran-ment is^ to pen? that the children home of an unbtUever r»ould notheeholj^ unlejfe the other Tarent could remove that harre^ hut hath no force of an Argftmmt tvhere both the Parents are ^eh tvers which TvasihecafeoffheJeWeSj the cafeof Hjgar^BathJheba €^c. All the reply you make to it page the 80. is to beftow a few fcofRs upon it;> that my anhver is to denj the eonclufion that lfher!i> nofMUlt either inthe matter or the forme of the Arau-ment^ that thtfcope n^hich I mention is hut a meere figment^l that \ doe a< g9edasfay^ that the obje&or can make no Argnment mt of h^ andthat therefore I need make^ 710 anfiver-^ And that z» c^e ^place J grant the minor^ then the major^ and thus you mo fl gallantly vapour upon me; I reply, were it not that fonae Readers arc prone to thinkehlmto have the truth, who fpeakcsmoft bravingly, I durfi: (without adding a word more) leave all Schollers to judge whether my anfwcrde-(erves all this fcorne; but left you goe on in your vaine boaftingjlfhallapplymyanfwermore particularly to this * Argitment which you acknowledge to bee your owne^ and I fay plainely that the major propofition is not true if taken miiverfaUy^iI. Ihathdineffe of children is here meani^ which €Quld not bi unlike one of the Partuts hee fanBified in or hj the tther^rvhattvefthofefarents bee^ tbimgh both of them ^ee htlek-mrs.

This propofition ( fa^ I) is not true, bccaufe when both the Parents are beleevers, there is no fiich barrc to tcerc-mostdy by the oacs being fanftificdin thie^ other .quoadhoc^

fb faiTc as to make them capable to bring forth a holy feed, they being both in the Covenant^ and that finfiill defiling ot one anothers body, doth not deprive them of that pri= viledgeof the Covenant to have their children accompted to belong to the Church of God, but when one of die Parents being an unbeleever or Infidell, muft have their children accounted out of the pale of the Church, unlefle that ^ barre be removed, to them it's true, that unlefle the one bee fandiried in the other, (the unbeleever in, or by the be-leever) their children would not be holy, if thcretbreyou make not your major Co univer fall, but limit it as^the Apo-flle doth, and make the Argument thus, T^hat holiaejje of children U here meanty which could not 6ec unlfjfe the one wtrt fanBifiediny or to the other^ the one of the parents being an Infi" deU^ but this noas the cafe rf Hagar^ 'Bathjheha^ feptha^ Pharez^ &e, Nowyour w/«orisfal(e, this was not their caie^ neither of their Parents were unbekevers^ though finfuU in thata£l: and now I pray you, where lies the abfurditie or weakneffeofmy anfwer , all this I faid before, onely you would not lee it, and thought to carry it with more advantage to you by (coffing then by fblemne refuting. In the <;lole I added^ indeed if a btkever ponld AdtiUtronJfj hsgtt a child upon a Pagan^ thit obje^ion in that Cafe deferves to bee ftiV" iher weighed^ hut here it comes not within the compajje of thiApO' pies Argument j upon this alio you beftow two or three IcofFes, you call it ^ wife remedy nothing to the purpofe-^ and you conftrue it as if I laid, I rviS not anfwer the obje&ion which it madey hut if you will make it thus^ and thtiSy then 1 will anfwer it. Ti'uely Sir, I am perfwaded, all learned men, either laugh at or pity this vanity of your dilputingj in fober iadnefle tell me, was this the icruple of the Corinthians^ or doth the Apoirle here meddle with this cafe of beleevers^ and Z«/i^ei7W^^j>doth he not confine himlelfe to anlwer cafes betwixt beleevers^ and their unheleezing wizes and hmhandst or doe both thele cafes require one and the fame anlwcr > To Ipeake plaincly,! could name Divines,who are no whic inferiour to your felfe, who conceive that a belecver, even when he commits fornication with an Infidcll, doth To far

Y 2 lemove

g^ Infant-d^fUfme frovedfr0m Scripture.

movctliebarre, intlieunbeleeying party, as that the child is (in the belecving Parents right) to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant of grace, and Church of God, but becaufe I knew th at queftion fell not within the Corinthians cafe, and was a queftion which the Text and controverfie in hand did nottiemetogivea refo'lution to, I purpofely baulked it, not once (ulpefting I (hould have met with an adverfaiy founhigenuous^tofay noworie, who would have fiiid>the baulkhig of this queftion had been thcyeelding of the caufe; and I fay againe, this cafe of Baftards concernes not the Apoftlescafc/whofpeakes not of parents adulterers, but of husbands and wives, the one abeleever, the other not, yet this advantage may bee made of thole Inftances, that if among the Jewes, the tme Church of God, the children of one parent a Jew, the other a Gentile (forbidden to bee married) were federally holy, as in the cafe oi Pharezzvid Thamar, then may one party a beleever intereft their children in the fame Covenant, and if Baftards among the Jewes were partakers of Church privilcdges, much more reafonable may it feeme, that the children of both chaft parents, whereof the one at Ie*aft is a beleever, (hould be federally holy, it being Gods rule in this cafe, partuf fetptetur mi^ liorem partemc And now Sir, I leave the reader to judge, whether you have taken this which you call my ehiefe hold, you have indeed fet up your flag, but I hope your Reader will take it downe againe.

Thus I have vindicated the truth of thefe two Conclu-

fions, and I doubt not but I have evidenced the truth of

them with fatisfa8:ion to the unprejudiced Readers^th'ough

not with that ability which fome others might have done:

Your felfe acknowledge, that if thefe two Concluiions

could be proved, the caule is gained; as well as loft, if thefe

Concluiions be loft.

€<mclufit>n J. }Jly third Gonclulion was this, God hath appoinied and or--

Baprifme fnc- ^j,lritd a Sacrammt or Sealeofimtiatidn to hie adminifired Unto

<ificMi ^^^^ ^^^ ^^*^^ ^^^^ Cozienafjf with him : Circumclfion for tbi

time ef that adini^ijiration rphicb jvas before Chrifls Imarnati'-

^/?, Baptifmt fince the time of hU incarnation: This (fay you)

may ^e granted. But whereas I adde. That our Baptifm coma in the roomandufeofCircumcifim : againfl this you except many things,

Firft you fay^this I deny. I wonder how you could grant myConcluliontobetrue, and yet deny this. Nor would you deny this, ifoneJy the baptizing of grown men were intended to be proved out of it, 'tis for Infants iake you thus labour to invalidate this Argument.

Secondly^ ; m make a large parotid betn^eene them , wherein they are lih^:,tvhereinunlih^y and ^HW hotv farre you Come upy andrvhereyoH di^r,

I Reply^ your felf fay fimilitndes are weak proofs^be fure the (hewing of diflimilitudes is the weakeft way of anftver-ing when the agreement holds in that whereto we apply ic. A Lievtenant may be loc$tm tmens to a King, though there be many things unlike between them* Let us make the bufi- -^z . « neflTeasfhortasmay be : I agree with you in th.:t ipeech tifaian^rcir-' which you cite out of Mr. Ball^ we may ftretch the paral- cumcifion are lei no wider, nor 'draw it narrower then the Lord hath parallel by d jne it; and in this point to alledge nothing but what God ^^^ hmifelf. hath taught usj and as he hath taught us; and xvhatever parallel men make between them^i f the Spirit of God make not the fame, let it be reje£led. And I iay againe. That the Spirit of God has made parallel in thefe particulars.

Firft, Circumcifion is the fame with Baptifme for the fpirituall part; Ciraimcifion was the (ealc of the nex);> Binh^ Veut. 30. 6. Co Bnptifmey Tit, 3.5. Cel2, Circunicifion was a ieale of the rightcoHpujfe of faith^ Ksmt %: 1 1. fo Baptiftii^ A£is 8. and many other places. Ciraimciiion was the feal of the Covenant ofGrace^ Gen, 17. fo Baptifincjit being the nature* of every Sacrament,

Secondly^ Circumciiion Was the R'i*)'<>/e;jfr^wce and ad", mittance into the Churchy during the time of that admini-ftration, fb is Baptifrac during the tiriie of this adminiftra-tion, Matth. a8. AHj 2. and throughout the whole Stoiy of the -4(^/5 Circumciiion xvasthe dtfiin^ififing badge between them who were Gods people, and the reft" of the world 3 fo is Baptifme now? all wfab arc not belonging to

the

the Churchy (the folemn way of entrance whereinto is acknowledged to be by Baptilhie) are faid to bee v/idioiic, I Cor, 5.12. Ctrcumcifion was to be but \0r2cc adrftmiflredy nor Baptifme any oftner, as I have largely prov^^ before, in anfwer to your 4 Se[i. Part 4. None might eate the Paffe-ov^r till they were circumci^d, Exod.tz, nor of any to bee admitted to the Lords Supper^ ?i///^ey be baptized^ as appears ^t^/2.41342. And throughout the whole Story of the NewTellament, all examples are tor it, not one again ft it, and the reafon isplaine, because none might partake of the Lords Supper, but luch as were in vifible Comniunion^and your iclfe know and grant, that Baptifiiie is the doore and cHtrance of our folemne admittance into vifible comni|ini-[ on, rvee are by'Bjftifmd (fay you) according to ChrifiMmpi'

tution eoihihited mtmhers ufChriji and his Churchy Exercit\p.^o, Exerc.p.30. Thefe parallels you fee are made by the Spirit of God, and your exceptions againft the comparifons between them, or Mr.Tomke/cx- rather your adding of more comparifons, £militudes, and ccptions an- dillimilitudes becw^een them, by them to d eftroy theie, are Twercd, {tich as arifefromtht diverfe admtniftration oftbe Covenant^zx\A

d® indeed manifeft that they belong to feverall adminiftra-tions, but doe not prove that they had not the fame general fl:ate,(ignitication and ure,as Sacraments, which feale the Tame thing in their diverle adminidrationsiChrill to come^ and Chrift already come, is the cauie of difference of ad-miniftration, and fb of Ordinances, but hinders not the fuccclfion of one ordinance into the place of another, and therefore all thofe differences hinder not the inference of the one from the other. As for your exceptions, 1 hat Cur-cumcifioH did csnftrnie the promifi made to Ahrabamj naturaU pth-fieritie concerning their mitltip^ing^ bringing out BfEgjpt^ the J'oal{e efthtLarp of MofeSy fit ling in Canaan^&c, I anfwer, if this were granted, it hurts not me, thefe things concerning the manner of admhiiftration of the Covenant. Secondly, howprove you this which you fay? Thirdly, did circum-cifion confirme thefe things to all Abrahams naturall poiie-riticHvasthc pofieritie of i/»we/and Ejau to come out of £^';>/;pofleflc Canaa?!^ bee yoakcd with the Law?- Fourthly,

iy^ what is theienie ofthefe words, Circumcifion confirmed the yoake of the Law> it was indeed a part of the yoake^ and obliged a perfon toit.Secondly^ to that ofrpomens being not ciratmcijed^afid children under eigkt dayes old^ I have at large fpoke to them in the firft Se£^ion of this third part. Thirdly, the catechmini/:, though they were members, yet they were not received into vifible and Sacramentall communion of the Lords Suppc«-till baptized- the cafe of the I(-raelites travelling in the wildernelle was an extraordinary one. Fourthly, for that which you except againftCir-cuniciiion being a difiingnifiing badge^ becaufe otherj were Gods fcrvants who had not this badge ; I anfwer, that of Melchij^dech^^ Lot^ &c. was anfwered brfore: beiide, may. not a livery bee a dirtinguKhing mark of fiich a mans fervant, and yet haply every fcrvant not under the livery V the Sabbath was a figne to Gods people, yet it may bee you hold that all Gods people till Mojes did not kcepe a Sabbath. Fiftly, and for what you adde that you Vnbaptized tnak^^quefiion n^hetheran unhaptized perfon wight not eate the P^^^onsmay Lords Supper) thoughyouconfijfeyotsfinde no example vfit^ '''^'^ Sacrame^^^

nt or

that in I C*r. I0.2.3.4. and\ Cor, 12.I3. Baptizing ispmbe^ the Lords Sup-fore eating and drinking j I reply^this I muft number among per. your freakes, and out-leaps, and is a ipicc of your itch after lingular opinions,and inconfiftcnt even with your own errant, that Baptifme ^ the n^ay and manner of fokmne adm'rfjion into the Chuteh^ and that nothing h to bge done about the Sacra--ments^ fphtreof'me have not either injiitmion or example^ and yet here for oppofitionsfeke you will allow men to come to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though unbapti2ed, and I thinke it never yet was a queflion in the Church whether an unbaptized perfon might receive the Lords Supper . but fay yon, tiifefe and a hundred man cannot tnah^ ft other then a humane invention^ if the holy Ghofi doe not fhew that \ they agree in this particular ofBaptifLtng as rveU sx Circumcifing of Infants, I anfwer, but when thefe Arguments and parallels made by God himfelfe, are added to the parity of Jewes and Chriftian TnfantSj in being comprehended with their Parcnti in the Covenant which is to be fealedp it^s a vitin^

0U

all warranti it's not meere analogy we reaion from, for wee have acommand to Baptize, and wee have the competency of infants to receive baptilnie liifficiently proved ehe-where, your felk grant right to Baftifme arija from the prefej7tfiAte of a ptrfin ^ and therefore wee apply this leale, which fucceeds that feale, to our Infants which fucceed their Infants, in the priviledge of being f^d^rati with their Parents, there being not tlie leaft hint in-the word,that they (liould be left out. Comp.ulfon To flurre this Argument from Cireuniciiion to Baptifhie of Pncfts, and yQ^ frame i^/^r^g and needlejfe compdrifon ktween tha Fricfij blmlX^'in by of old mder the Jewrfi admimfiratiorr^ and the /l^imjierjofthe ■Mrjombes, Gofpd mw^ and joH demand^ art M'tnijiers thin)ore VrUfiyi 2iX\d (hewhon^mjnyabfarditiej 4jid dangerous eonftjaencej wiU follow if xvee give rvjiy to fuck kind of CDmparijonJj hence the Pjpift J have pleaded for an tmiverfall Bifhop^ and the Tnlates To no pur- firfitperioritieofMimfterj,

pofe, Afhortanfwerwillferve all this, you demand xvhether

therefore Miniders be Pricfls, and fo mak^ fimile to be idem

againft all fen^ and reafon, as if I had gone about to prove

Baptifinetobe Ciraimcifion. Secondly, wee onely apply

things let up by God bimfelfe^ and make the parallel! as God

hath mack it, when any can prove that God hath fet up an

univerfal Blfibop, or appointed fuperioritic ofMinifters one

above another, and Iiath made flich parallels betiveen theni

as you (peakeof, let them plead thofe comparifbns and

fparenot, they had in their minifrery many things which

were typicall of Chrift, which we have nothing to do with,

but in other things where the Scriptiii^e hath made aeom-

' parifon, wee may doc it fafely, and may plead from the

one to the other, as that they mftftbave a call to their i>ffice^{o

raiift n'fe^they that Ccrve the altar mitfilize tfpon the Altar^ fb

they who preach the Goipell are to live upon the Gofpek they

niuft bespHre xrho hare the veffds of the faa&uarj/, and the

7rieftslipJmuftpreferve^norpledge^ fo our Minifiers muft be

oi hQlyiifeyfit toteach:,&c. And all this wee may plead by

^^^Qr'umci- ^^^ Warrant; and whereas I added in my Sermon that our

it^and bapri- if^rdtaught Mtbif ^j kif o^netXampk (m<. thai Ciicu/nci-

'xej. ''. fio*

Bon initiated inco that adniiniftratiotij and Baptiftrte into this) larbowsfCir^^afeiiM aprtfeff^d member of the Jewet '■Chtrch^ and vphvil^afit up the CbrJfiianChurch^ bet yo.mldbee initiated into it by the Sacramem of Baptijme., herciipan you runne into divers things, as vpky Chrifi ivou d bee CircMmciJed^ trhy Bapfiz/tdy and in vch^fmft Cbriji' n^ben he vpo! to be bap" tizjed^ faid thdt hie vootdd he baptixgd 'that hie.might fulfill all righteOHfueffe^butyoH thinke it mtprohabUyibjt it rv^ any part of hpf meaning to be initiated into the Chrifiian Church by hapiifm?^ the Chrifiian Church jvai noiyetfet ffpyivith voorjbip & dtjcipline • dipinB from the hvptjhyand hecaHJehn Baptifme vrot of a higher nature then mr Eaptifme-j I rcply^thatth^Chriftian Church was not fully fet upland compleatcd with all Ordinances of worlhip, governmenta officers till afterward^ is readily granted^ but that it was not in^ri^in erecting and framing, and-tiut Baptiihie was adminiftrcd in referciKe to the Chriftian Church, and that by Baptifmemen were initi* ated into tliis new adminiftration or bcft edition of the Church, I diinke no found Divine did ever queftion. I grant Chriffs Baptifme was a tranlccndent one, and differs fromowrsin manything«, and fb was his Gircumcilion alfo a transcendent one, and differed from the Jewes in many things; can you thence frame an Argument that hec intended not by his conformity to our Ordinances, to ex-prefle the iarae favour to us as he did to the Jewc« in con- ' forming to their Ordinanccs^but that you fhould hence fetch anArgument,thatbecauieChrift was not baptized till hee was thirtic yeers old,(which was within lefle then thirtic weekes after Baptifhie was made a Sacrament) is I confeflc a moft transcendent ftraine of wic>yct you boaft of it, as if by it you had broke one of the firings I have to my bow#

And proceed to try, whether you cannot crack the other coKj.S 9,10, alfo, ihetviden^nhicbColofii.^.&c, gives to prove Bap^ 11.Vihdicarcd, tijme toJucc€ei in the roonH ofCircumcifioB : but before you fo prove Bap. come to the examination of this place, you make enquiry f'^n^f rofac-iwjr^j/ye/j/e Baptifme [moceeds im the roome of Circumcipon^ ^Itotu '^^""^ and you firft obftrve that in (peaking cxaftl}^, Baptifme w(K a concomitant of CirsHmeifim^ if rm amientcr^ tbM it n^at in ^

Z ufc , .

Baprifnx in cfc in the Church of the J ewes, and applied to Infants as well as gFOwnc men.

Ffored from

hfdMt-BapffJwe frwed (rcmScriptHrf.

ff$ amotjg tbi Jims for man) jeers together tutth Circumcifim^ th)Hgh not Of a Sacramem 5 and for this jou cite the learned Gendcman Mr. Selden^ and Mr. Ainftvortb on Gen, 17, and Mr. Ligbtfootej Elias KedivivHi : I confeflcj you arc in the rights Baptifme was aknowne rite hi the Jcwifli Church longbeforcit wasmade a Sacrament, and therefore when Johnczmc baptiiing, none of the Jewes were ignorant of the u/eof Baptifine, they never asked him what he meant by bapti2ing, they knew well enough that it was a rite ufed in admitting of Pro(eIytes or new Convens into the Church, they onely wondredj why hee did Baptize if hee were not the Mefliah.But Sir, this exception of yours is fo farrc from being any argument againft mee, that it affords me a good argument for Infant-Eaptifme, because the fame authors, which mention this as an Ecclcfiafticall rite, in admiffion of Pro(elytes,doe teiUfie that the Infants of Pro-fclytcs were bapti2ed as well as circumcifed, and wherelb* ever Circumciiion was applycd, Baptifme went along with it, fb that theufe of Baptifme was the fame-before^ v'lz^ to bee a rite of admitting growne men and Infants into the Church, onely it begun to bee a Sacrament of divine in-ftitution, when M» wasfentto Baptize into the name of Chriih andirisin this Sacrament as in the other Sacra-nient of the Lords Supper, tht pj^iihmdiBuf:, and the cup were u(ed before in the Sacrament of the Pafleover, as an Eeclefiafticall rite, but our Lord at the laft Pafleover, infti-tuted the bread and wine to bee Sacramtntdll Elements, which before were only an Ecj/e/zi/^ir^i^rite^nowfeeing that Baptifine which was in ulcbeforcj was onely turned jfito a Sacramentall ufe,to (iicceed Circumciiion ,with whom before it was a concomitant, and alwayes applyed to the fame perfons. Have you not helped us to a good Argument, that Baptifme belongs to Infants as well as grown men^e/pecial-Jjj^iince there is not the leaft hint given in the Word,that when it was thus advanced to bee a Sacrament, it (houldaot bee applyed to thofe peribns to whom before it was, viz. Infants as well as growne men? the truth of thi?, that i( wasfo, may appeal epaitly by Mr. SMa who te^i^^^ that

the

Ififimt-BApifmfrtV€4frmS€fift9^^^ ,yj

the Itifents of the Gentiles were made proieijrtes by this rice among othera, both the male children and thrfemak-fo likcwiie Maimmides [Ijjurei hiah^ Cap. 13.) tdJs ii^ fy Maimomdcf. three things Ifrael entred int9 CovenoTity hy Cmumci^on^ bf Eap^ iifmey and offering, and that Bspifim vpck intht fVildermfe hi^ Jere the giving of the La^^ ^ it if/aid, A»d thou pah Jan6ijfie ihem to day and to morroVP^ and kt ihem najh their garmentj\ and in another place^ when a Gentile will inter into the Cove^ t\TWT7 nanty and gather himfelfe tmdtr the wings af the Divine majifly^ bee mnfi he Circumcifidy Baptiz/edy and bring an fffferim^^ if it hee a fimaUy baftifim and offerings and againe, a Troftlyte that it circHmcifedand nothaftizedyOr baptized and not circumcijedy it not a Frojeljtey untiUhetheebothcircnmcifedand baptized-^ and tLgzineyalittlcFrofefyteythey bapii^i bj the appointment of the Confifftt, There arealioipcciaUteftiniofiics in the Talmud^ TheTaim J which dedarcj that Infants both of letves and Gentiles^ rvert thut admittedf the male children by cireumcifion and ^aptifmey thefimalej hj baptifhte^&e. Many teftimonics of this nature to ftiew that Infants as well as growne jpcn, were baptized among the Jewes are to be feene in Mr. Ainfivorth upon Gen.ij.verf 11,13. I was willing to give this little taftcj that the Reader may fte^ that baptiHne ever fince it was in ufcj was applyable to children as well a? growne men. You ^ddcyeven the Sacrament of Baftifme tpos before circumcijion ceaftely andyou inflame with Johns Baptifmcy vphichwas a eon" comitant Sacrament mih the Sacrament of cireumcifion'^ I an-iwer as before, /<7i^J Baptifine and Miniftery,was a Pralu-JohnfBzptlCmt flfi«w» to Chrift, and was wholly in reference to the Chri-'""'^^^'^'^f** ftian Church, which then begun to bee moulded 5 and g^^.^il'^'*** ^ though there was not a new dilUnS Church of Chriftia-nitie (et up, yet all this was preparing the materiails of it> and Joifwi did not admit them by Baptiifne, as members to thcJewi(hF^</dtg<7^^3 which was then ready to bee taken away, but into that new adminiftration which was then in preparing, but this is no argument againft baptlfme tofeo cecd circumcifionj as a Lord Major cleft fiiccecdsthe old, though the old continue after hiselefUon for a time. Yet farther, 7 oh in^juin in T^baffrfff BaptifmefHCCeeds to the n>»me

Z a and

lAr.Tmbet Ex- ^pl^f ofCwcumcifimyajidfy if by roome and placi^ i mtan'e^

€€p»ions. loQii communis ct propriuSj fo Baptifme being an aBion,

hathmroome orplaceat aU proj^eriy: andtfbyromie andflace I

meant tkbatiizedandbaptizirSj ihstis true but in party feme

TvhoTf^ere toiehafiized twere im id bee circvmdfed^ as rvomen.

Thirdly^ if by r^tme andplact 1 meane the fame fociety^ that if not

trtte^ CircHmcifien admitted into the Jemf^y bapHjmi imo the

Chriftian Chnrcb, FoHrtbly^ if of the CPmmandement pfoh nhich

k^h artfealtdy thai u net tnte neithify Circumcijion n^as com"

manddlong before Baptifme. Fiftlyjf of the faim ufe^ that if

mofnntrHty fffrtbettjk ofCircumcifim obhgtd to kiepe the Lan>y

to be a partition betrvem lerpej aad Gentilejy and to initiate into

the letpip Chnrch, or ratbtr into Abrahams famVy, Then laftly

you (ay, i£l meane it ofconfirmingaKdffaling the fame Cove-

nanty veither is that true fave en fly in party beCaufe timr Cove-'

nant v^as a mixt Covenanty snd although Circumcifion did con^

firme righeoufheffff by fait by andfigrdfitd bolinejfe of hearty fo a Ifo

did the Cloudy Sea^ Mannay the Koch^ the Vehge or Jirke : and

the fame are slffcon^rntedhy the Lords Supper y and therefore to

fay thai Baptifim fucceeds in the roome atid place of Cirmmci^

fiony is apcfttionemnefHSitndvBry dangerow.

Anfti>, ^ am prone to thinke that time as well as p;^cr and

Inke are very chcapeWith you ^ who thus rtfecdlefly

ivafte them j this poore quibblmg about fticcefllon and

roomc;, placcj&c^ is too PedanticaJl for a grave Divinc^what

Reader will not at the firft view (ee this to bee my meaning,

of Baptifme liicceeding in the roome and place of Ciraini-

cifion, thzt Baptifime Ju'ccudj Circumcifion as a figne fubfiitu*

tedy in the place and f^tad of Circum^Afion^ to fgntfie and fealt

the fameCovenant of grace which Cirtamcifion didy Circumci-

cilion more darkely fealing, Chrift being not yet exhibited,

baptifme more clearcly, the fliadow being taken aw^y and

theiabfiance come?&aJiBoft all your diifcrences refer onely

to the (everall manners of adminiftration of theCovenant,

lEx e • "*^^ ^^ Covenant it felfe, or thing admlniftrijd, yet

dcfervcfno" ^ ^^^ ^^^^^ "P^" ^^^ particular, Fii'ft, yOur fafncy of Lo-

Anfw'cr. ^^ propriut & communisy is too idle to require any an(wer.

Secondly, that of the hmjb rponten h«th been fiifficiently

(poken

(pokcntoihthe:firft&^ion of this third jart. Thirdly^ i Exce prion when you fyyyCirCHmcifion admitted into (meCimrch^ haptifme ^"twcr'V be-into anotbef'^dl ani very^loath to impatcto your fenfc which a^EJ^ceptlon you intend aot) if you meaneonely the ftveraU admmjtra^ anfucrcd. tionj^i the Church of the Jcw^is being Chrifts Church under one adminlflrdtioUj the Chriftian Church the fame Church of Ghrift under another adminilh'ation; you {peake truth, but nottopurpoft, my conclufion never faid, CircumciiionandBaptiunedoe initiate into the fame Ad-niirtiftr^tion of the Covenant: but ifyou nieane, that the Church of the Jewes and wee are not one and the lame Church, you Ipeake pure Anabaptilliie indeed^ and contr^dift the Scripture cxprefly 9 which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Geiniles, one and the fame Church^though under divers adminiftrations. I count it needlcfle to annex any proofe?, becaufe I thinke you dare not deny it. Fourthly^ you fay the command of ^y,^cvHon eircumcifioa wM longhefiretbe command of Bap$ifme^ butliow anfwered, this followcs that therefore Baptiftie doth not fucceed in the roome of Circumciiion I cannot guefle, the Lords day fuccceds diefeventhdayin being Gods Sabbath, but certainly the inflitution of it was long after the other. And (i(tly^;is£orthcf€veralitifij mentiotted hyyou^ they all referre l^^^^^l^^ to the manner of adminiftration peculiar to the Jewes 51 have often granted there werefbme legall ufo of CircHm-cifion it obliging to that manner of adminiftration, and ft) they werepart of the Jcwifti paedagogy, which is wholly vaniftied, and therein Circumcifion hath no fiicceflion, but baptiftnc fticcccds it as a Scale of the fame Covenant imder a better adminiftration,a5a'fe:and conftant initiating Ordi-dinance: onely I wonder that you fay, Circunicition did iaitiJie intotUGbnrcbof ib9 leofesy or rather into Abtabams JA" miiy ; I pray you explainc this, rather into AbroHamsfa" mliyh if by Mrahams izsmiy you meane the Church of the Jewes, why lay you ratbit into Abrahams family ? if you nieanc anything elft, tdH us what it is, andhow Circum-cumcifion initiated Proiclytcs into Abrahams fiimily any otlierwifcthcnas it was the Church of the Jewes. Laftly,

Z 3 you

$ S^ep. Anfiv, jou hit upontheTightAingintended, Ti^ bt h9ib fealej of fb€ farm, cuvtnAnU^ hut (fay you) the covenant rt>ar not the famcj exctpt in part^'which hath abundantly been confuted before, and juftified to be one and the famcand the difference to lit cncly in the manner of adminiftration. 7 £x:ef, Aafw, Bat fay yoiyhe Cloud^Sta^Mama^ivaUr of the rocl{.^&c.fi^ nified rigbteoHfmJfe hj jaitb^ and holinejfe ef heart , as wcU of bapt'ipnc doib'^ and rrhy thenJboHldtremtfay that Bsptifm fnc-ceedsihtfe^ at rvell as it doth Circftmcifion} lanfwerjthefe were extraordinary figncs, not ftanding Sacraments to bee ufed in all generations, much lefle were they iet and tran-ding Sacraments of initiation: And yet fo farre as God hath made the parallel^what hurt is therein (aying baptifm I Pet. 3. tX. fucceeds them \ iurc I am, the Apoftle Pettr compares baptifm and the Ark, the like fiffire nhertunta Baf^ifmcjaveiftf, S Ex$ep » Anfrtf' But whereas you adde, ^»d why alfo fbouU not the Lsrdi Supper Jk-ccetd CirCttmcifion as vpeU as B^pifme'l I aniwer, what ever diiparity may bee ;nadc betwecncCircuracilion andBaptifme, yet herein certainly they agree, and you often grant it. That both of them are initiaUpgms ; and there-foi'c this is moft wildly faid of you. That the LerJs Supper may he as rvell faid to fucceed CircHmcifion.dld ever any thinke the Lords Supper to be an initiall jfigne? And now let the Header judg of that expreffion of yours in th^^lofe, which you ib boldly ufe againll all Divines and Churches (incethe Apoftlcs time, who allconcurre in the ianic truth, ^except onely the Anabaptiits) That to fay Bjpti/mie fncceedj in the roome and place of Circumcifion^ is a propofnion erroneous^ and zery dangerous, >)',[. .

Toconfirmetliisof Baptifin fucceeding Ciraimcilion, much may be gathered out of many places In the New Te-(lament, which hold out the things wherein they are paralleled : I ufed onely that clear place, CoL 2. 8. to 13. whence I made it evident. Not onely that n?# have the fame thin^ figni^ fed Irf Cirtumciforiy while we are httryed nfith Clmf in baptifm^ ^'cr tion a- ^a« alfi that the Apofile plainly ftj Biptifme in the'fame flate^ gainft Gfl/*r.. 2« ^^ mak^i it efihe fume ufe to w^ as CircHmcifkm nm to the tnfwtrcd. Jev}?s^^ Cbrifi onelj to them and us alfi^ if the amibor (f jpirituaU

circumr

Uftmt-BaftifmeprMtdfr0mS(riftitre. ryy

Ckctimifon, TheCkaimcifion oftf/efiefhj wm the SaCra^ menJtofit to ibtm ; Mnd ntiW that it ahelifitdt xre have haftifmt to feale the fame thing.

Let us fee what your exoepdoas are ajzainft ir, Fivf^yfoM ack^awkdgewubme^ihcyJpofilesJcope is to foew that n^et are €ompleat in Cbri^, and therefore needed not Circumdfiun : And you addejhis/cci^e wat not to teach them that we have another ordinance inftead of Circumcifi§n^ I reply, it is very true, he leaches them wee arc compIeatinChrift, and n«cd not CiiTcuniciiion; but it is as true, that he further enlarges this comfort^by (hewing them that we have a vilible (eale of this compleatnefle in Chrift, and Co it is more evident wee have no need of Circumcifion.

Secondly, fay you, Aretius in hi^ Csmmentaty Jajtei^ That Aretm alled-tJ^ thing itfelfe it affertedto the Saints^ without an outv^ardjym' Bf^ ^^ ^^ holeywhiehjet the adverjariejincejfantlj urged' andfor\«^ich |^^,^' who is ^^ jiretius his helpe, y^« conclude it if utterly agzm^ the Apojiks cxprdTcly a-whole ar^ment^ to fay^ that they needed not Circumcifiony kcattfe ga^nrt him. they hdd another ordinance in the room ofit.But Sir,why do you thus frequently abufe your readers with the names of Learned men, inferting iome onefehtence of theirs into your book,and thereby infinuating to your Readerjthat they are of yom' Opinion in the point wherein you cite them?I aiTurc youjit concenies your Confcienc?, as well asyour Caulc^to be thus often taken tardy. The Learned Aretius in that very place where you cite him acknowledges indeed, That ws mre compkat in Chrifty without an externall Jymboleh and thai he ifsperfe&organofeur Jalvation^ you needed to have cited no man for this, we all conavre with you in it; the onely thing controverted is, whether the Apoftle intend al(b in this place to d^tWithat our haptijmJHcceedt in the room and ufe ef Ciratmcifion'y and doth not Aretim concurrcin this?let him-ielf ^eak lOi'jervert^r e^iam fuccefjio B aptifmi iu locum Circutrt-cifi0nify quand* aferte bune vocat CircHmcijiotttm Christ : Hee plainly tells us, that the Apoftle calls Baptifmfthe Circnmep-fionofChrijl. But fince you have put mc upon Areti^r, I (hall make bold to inform the Reader, that tiic fame Aretnte m his Problemes^ a&er the Hiftory of V^hntint (kntilie ,

hath

Ancient Authors cited by AretiMto pi&ve that Baptifmruc-cccds Circiim-cifion. Jkfiin Martyr coH:raTrj/ph,

A than, in Luc,

cmJa mi hi tra-dita»

Epiphm, €ontr<

Bpicureos,

Idein.contH'Ce-rinthnm.

Aug inEpiJi,

InEpifi.ad

Dardaru'Ti.

. Infdnt'Boftifmlfr^^idfrtnn Serifture.

JiathanintircDifcoiirre to prove that Baptilmeiuccecdt Ciraimcifion, aadbrings thisTecond of the CoL there alfi^ at a maim evickace-^ d.nd cites m^ny notable teftimonies oiit of the Fathers, both Greek and Latinc, for the confirmation of it.

Accepimus non iUam fecundumcarmm circ^amd^onent^fedfpi" rituakm^^HamEmcb & pmilts cufiodisrtmt^ mj tamttt per hap' tifnmm accepimus, ' <

Circumctfio fg^rs erai exuvisrum cftt£ per hdpnfmum dep^ tmntur,

Abraham fi^i Deo ereduierat circumciponem aecepit pre not a ejuf regentrati(misqu£ pirbaptifmHmcor^citur,

micfuitcjrcHmcifioearnalisqrus injtrvit Umpori adman gnam drcumcifinum^ h, e, Bapt, qui circumcidii noj a pecta-' its & obfiguat TiotV^.

Vuravit circumcifie tempore infervlenS do?2ec major circumcifio acCejJit^h, e. lavacrum regeneration^*

AfirmatChrifiumin ecclefia fud d€di£epro cirCHm:i[ione carrnfyBaptiJmum, -i i*y^^-»•'

'Saptifmi & circumei^nU ejufdemeft natura.

All thefe the Reader (hall ^ndt in Aretiw^ whom yoa bring in, as ifhe concurred with youj.nioft of thefe tefti-monies are before alfo alledged by me. . < '

Thirdly^ but you goc on and fay, Tht in trmh it would evacuate the ApofileJ argument H[.d bothbtre^ und Hebr. p. 11. p-13 ♦ rvho flillprovej the abolition of the ceremoniej ef the LarVf becaufe we are compleai in Qbrifi-, not in fomt new tfrdrnancei addedinfieadof them \ for if there bee need of other Oidimanm ceSy (befidts Cbrift) infleadofthe old^ then Cbrifi himfelf hath not fulnejje enoughy and though mr Ordinances mAy Ue Jfaid to imitate theirs-^ yet C hri^ onely fucceedj them,

I anfwer, it is very true, that whoever (hould plead that we have any of oar compleatnefi in any outward Ordinances would evaaiate the Apoftlcs Argument. But Sir, is there no drftin6Uonto be made betwixt our c$mpLatmfft in Chrif}, and Ordinances which by his own appointment helpe us to apply this compleatnelTc: doe the Sacraments of Baptifmc and the Lords Suppec, and other Chriftian Ordinances

hin-

hSiderjor argue that all our compleatneflc h not in Chrift, I adde liirtiier, that Chrift onely fuccceds all the Jcwifh ordinances, as the body liiccceds the (hadow: we plead not as thePapi^s doe, that the Jewifti Sacraments were types of ours, they were types onely of Chriftj but yet oots fiicceed them to be like ligncs of the Covenant of grace^ and fo the Apoftle doth in this place.

Fourthly, lay you^ Idenjf im hut there is an analogy hetPfixi ^'«^ J^ivtufw haptifmeand circHmcifion^ Of thereif alfo betwixt the Ark^ and^^^*^^* Baptifme 5 hut we are m't to cmdude thence^ that Baftifme Juc" ceeds in the room and ufe of Noahs Ark^^ &c, for in the aJmini" ft ration of an Ordinance^ we ate not to bee mkdhj bare analogic framed by our felves^ er delivered by the Spirit of God^but bf tht inftitHtion of God, I anfwer, but when thofe analogies framed by the Spirit of God^ are agreeable to the ufe and end of Gods inftitutiouj we are to bee ruled by them; and the Apoftle (hews that^s our cafe here.

Fifthtyjfayyou, T^e-^/)^jJ/e in this place rathtr refimbles bfsriallto circHmciponthen bapiijme : and fo makes the analogit between circtfmcifion and Ckrifts bHriaH-^znd you bring in Chry* fofiome and IheophylaS con€Hrrtng withyou, I anlwer, this I wonder at, where is Circumcifion compared to burlall,and wherein I pray you lyes the analogic between tliem? Be-fides, whoever will look into this Text, fhallfinde that this (pirituall circumciiion containes both our death to fin, and riiing again to ncwnefle of life, by the death and rclurre-ftion ot Jefus Chrift, both which are here fuUy fignified in our baptifine, ver. II. & 12. cmjepulti fumiAs ; the analogy lyes plain between our buryall and baptifme. And Chryfi* ftome whom you cite, faith plainly, wee are fpiritualiy circumcised,^///jv^^tf ^jw^ where-^ atid^nfwersinBaptifmo*

Sixthly, fay you, Cz>c«?wci/?5» rvat not onely a priviledge ts Chryaa^fjie d-the JewSy hut it was alfo a burthen to thetn^and it would be a bur' red by Mr, then^?iot a priviledge^ to have an ordinance in the roome and ufeTo'jibesy\%^-\ of it, I anfwer, Circumcifion was a burthen, as it was a S*^^ ^^^ painfiiU Sacrament,and as it obliged them to that painfully coftly and burthenfomc manner of the adminiftration of the Covenant, which was before Chrifls incarnation y but

A a n

Ufant'3^ftifme fr9^edft$m Scrifttire]

^^ ll v^as iio burdeiij but a great privaedgc, as it was a (ealc of

the Covenant* And in this laft reipcft onely is baptiTm fab-ftituted into his room and place, „ ^ ,

IntheclofeofthisSeftionj I hkc your fareweII,though Mr. Tom^fjhis ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ lyj?et«fe rpitb more Confidence then truth 5 1 [aid bap^ifmTs there had^een no reafon to b^e named haptifmeM that hemesnt there na«ed, tofhetv haptifme noi now to Chrifiians m the room 0} circumcifi^ ^ coi^rmes my f^f^f^the Ji^eJl YouOLy^baptifrntiinamed^heeaHfe it is one of inrerptetatioa. ^^^ f/teaneshy which Chriftians come to have cemtpunion mth Chfiftj <ind to be eomfkai in hint-^ vphich n-of the thing the Apofik intendedinthe 12. xtvCt. And therefore faith is joyhedn^ith it^thty hnni, the twofieci^U means nfherei'y we have 9ur eommtmion mth Cbrift^^to whichyoHadde^ Gal 5.25526. Kom. 6. 3,&4- But is not this the fame fenfe with mine, who have hitherto undertaken to juftifie that, though our compIeatnefTc ht in Chrift onely^ who is now exhibited, and no longer to bee fought in the types and (hadows of the Jewifh adminiftrati-on^Cto which manner of adminiftrations Circumcifion did oblige themj) yet Baptifm is now the feal of our initiation, and a meanes to apply this Covenant to us, as Circumcifion wasto them, though the manner of their adminiftration be wholly ceafed. If I have not taken you right, make a iyllogifme, and make all Logick quake before your mighty confequcnce. Baptifme is named, becaufe it is one of the meanes of Chriftians being exempted from the Schoolma-iler, and come to be ingraffed into Chrift, and to bcecom-pleat in him^therefore it doth not fucceed in the roomeand place of Circumcifion: nay, rather, it therefore doth. I pray you put together thcfe words,T* are eemfkat inChrifi^ infPbomyearealjo cireumcifedy king bury ed with him in haptifme j and fee if it fpeake not tliis^ plainetyj that baptifrac fuccecds into the ufe of Circumcifion: &rely, it hence ap-pcarcb Circumcifion and Baptifine arc nearer of kin then you would make them*

In the clofe of this Se^ion, according to your wonted

manner, you triumph, and tell me that you have at lift wa-

did through tbi^cmchpon^ andthetext^ Col, 2,12. & 10. the

vtifmd^r^anding offfbicbhatb beentkigm%hmhf^ol'fhfire^

■ whiS

vMch hatb led men out of the vP(t^ in thU matter^ tntobsgf. Truly Sir^wcre thcfe (corns of being led by tboJifti fire into bogs, &c caft upon my fclfc onely , it were nothing; but when they are thus caft in the faces of all Divines, ancient, and modern^ all Harmonics and Confcffions (except onely ahandfiillof upftartAnabaptills) asif they were all luchi fimple oneSj that aa igfji* fatftHfy a fooles tire 5 might lead them into any bogs^ I can hardly forbeane to tell you it is an argument of an arroganc Spirit.

There is alfb in the end of your bo okc, a fhort difcourfe The deTcant of upon this Text, which I read over to lee if there were any Mr. Tombe/ thing which might weaken my Argument, or ftrengthen up'^n rhis Teo«: your exceptions j but in it I finde not any one fentcnce that ^-sb^ok brief-hurts mcjor helps youjonly Ibme ofthoic things which you ly eximiied, call di(9;atcs5 bold aflertions^ Ibme of them contrary to the plain Text of Scripture, all of them raagifterially fet down without proof: ^s^circumeifion rpm not a tok^ of the Covenant to the lews cbildrtn'-iyNhidx is contrary to the very Text, Gen, 17. That the promifis of the Covenanty were not the reafin that the) vPite circumcifsd. Yet any Reader may fee that the Cove-nantis there fet downe as the reafon why they lliould bee circumcifed, Thsitthe Je^rs children n>ere not therefore in cove^ nant^becaftfe thj vpeft Abrahams naturall feed^ thjt heleeverf children are not in covefunty htcafije hekeVers children', and divers other Conclufions of the lame nature, which arc already anlweredj and therefore I (hall not ft ay the Reader any whit about them.

Hitherto I have followed you foot by foot, bccaule the gaining or loling the caufe, depends upon thele former conclufions, thefam,m£e of the Govenant both to Jews and Gen^ tihSythef(fmtTieffeofmr Infants right to ths Covenant with theirs j 3indbaptifme fitcceedingchrcHmcifiony as to the ufeof an iaitiall (eale to them who are in Covenant- In that whick renuines, I ftiall more coiTtra6i: the m itter of your large Difcourfej par tly, becaufe many diings in it are upon by-matters5 partly^ becaufe chat which is material!, is but the repctitljn of that which hath been anlwercd already.

A a. 2 My

♦9a mfanUBApifmef roved from Scripture,

My fourth Conelufion n^at^ That by Gods cvptie cxfnjft or-tUr^ Infants as wtU of griflevne mm^ were in the time of the hn?es to be initiateda?id fealed mth the fi^ne of cirmmcifion , whither Jetvs ffy natnrf^ or Frofelj tes of the ^entiles^ om larv wen for them all^ if they receive the covenant^ they and their children were cir-cumcifed, Co cIhC vin- This Conclufion you granttobetme;onely,becaureyou dicared. wil fay Ibmewhat to every thingryou :m{\\'cr^FivO:^That it is

as certain that thk ^prejje ordyr of God ts 7iow repeakdhYcry true^ and you might have added_, That by his order likewifc,Bap-tiftie fiicceeds in the room of it. I added, v.- hereas Come al-Why Infants ledge. Though circuntcifion wai to he ap^lyed to their Infantj^yet ©f jcwcs' were'j^ j^as not af afeale of the fpiriiuall part of the Covenmt , hut as eircumcifed. ^ JSIationallb^dge^ cr feale of fome temporall and earthly ^lejfmgs andpriviledgejy as of the right to the land of Canaan, &c, and that lihm^ei:, though he was circmncifd fir fome temporall re" fpeUs^ was tJot thereby brought under the Covenant^ &c. You anfwer, t-hey who thus ohjcityfpejl^e the truth: and here you rc-ferre to your Latine Paper. I reply,' to my underftandingj you here fpeafe pure Atlabaptifnic indeed, juft JLke the;A-nabaptirts in Gtrmany^vaho fay. The Covenant which eircum-tijionfealedy n>as a carnaU covenant : and thai whm God com* mandedthelfraelites tocircumcifeihdr children^ wee are not to underfiand that he obliged them to have their hearts circumcijed^ nor aimed at any thing which touched the inward manj that the condition required by God in circumcijioK^ cannat bee drawne to a fhirituall bujineffe-^ that the circumcifed by clrcumcifion'were not houndtohokg for falvatianby JefusCbrifit how very neare are you come tothele carnall conceits of the German Ana-baptifts,which have been a thoufand times confuted by our Orthodox Divines^ yet you bring not one (hadow of a proofe for what you lay, or\c\y yeu alledge, Ifhmael had no pan in the covenant^ihe covenant w^ to beeefiahlijhed with IfaAe^ and not with IJbmad^ &c. But I have made it abundantly cleare, that not onely Ifitnael and Efau^ but millions of j<j-co^j feed, did never partake of the fpirituall graces of the Covenant, yet were reckoned by circumcifion to belong to the Covenant, and were obliged to fceke after the fpiritu-

al^

all part of it^ and whereas you (ay ^ w'^en IfhmMl vom circHm-^ cifedy Abriiham undtrflood the promife was not intended for Ipmadhntfor Ijaac,that ip?mailomlyn>Ms to have Mpare infime i^mporallllt^ffiftgj I I anl^^erjfiippofiiigthat were true, you have given a very good inflance toprote that fome may receive the outward figne of the Covenant^ and have a vifibk ftandingin the Church, though heewho adminifters the Sealcj might by revelation know that the inward grace is wanting. Secondly, I anfwer, how doe you prove tliat no part of the (pirltua]! Covenant made with Abraham did ap-peareto belong to 7/7^/wje/when he was circumci(cd^ or not to Efaii when hee was circumciied? God indeed did then declare that Ijdac was he in whole family the Covenant fliould continue^ but not a word that Ifhmad'iho\\\6, have no part in it: prove (if you can^in your next that Ifimael and Efau were notby their circumcifion bound to have their hearts circumciled 3 and to belecve in the Mefliah that was to come of ^^r^^w/(eed. And whereas you fay^i againe and zs,3.ine:)t bat no benefit of the Covenant rvas 1 be proper reafin why ihefc or thofe tvert circumnfid^ hut o»eIy Gods precept : I have already cleared it out of the Text (jemfis 17.that though Goc}s command was the caule of the exiftence of the dutie ofCir-cumcifion^ yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it, and thefe two are well confiftent together.

Whereas I anfwcred to that carnall obje(!lion of the Ana-captifts, that nothing is plainer then thai the Covenant rphere-ofCircumcifion was a figne was the Covenant of grace ^ you re-^h-^ firft^it was a mixt Covenant^ which is before taken away^, inanfwerto your exceptions againft my fsk conduSon, Se6^. 2.Part3. Secondly, you fay, all circumclfed ptrfons ^ were not partakers of thefpir'ttuaB part:, it's one thing to hee undt^r oramVwhuris ikoutward adritiniftration^ another thing to he under the Cove- incentrovtr-^ nam of Grace'^ Sir, I thanke you for this anfwcr, you grant ^^e. as much as I have been proving all this while, viz. that men may have a vifiblcmemberfhip though they bee not t\edi,tdi and that there ever was and will be (bnie liich in the Church to whom the outward adminiftration and external] privi-ledges doc appertdne, though they are not inwardly (an-

A a 3 aiiied^

^fic4 and I hope you -will not deny bat that thefe are called, in thatfenfewhi^h our Saviour meaneswhen hce fayes, Afzny are caU€d:,hutftjv are chofen, I added Abraham re-ciived CircH/niifinnafigmofthenghteonfreffenffaith: triif, lay yo\ifitrcumcifi$n woi afeale of righteoujne^e^ but not to all er mly circHiHcifidfirfons^hutto all hektvin^vphtber lews er Gentiles though they n^verare or maj htfeakd in thir oron perfim, I reply, firftjthis is but a peece of oddcDivinitic, that Circunicihon fhouldfealerighteoufncflc to them who never are circum-cifed^nor reputed fo^ nor capable of being circunicifcd, nor might lawfully be circumciied^but let that pade. 2^r Indeed none but belcevers have the fpirituali part of Circumcifion, but vilible profefTors had a vifible right to it, and were ob-jigedtoleeke the fpirituall grace of it, and though they who arc externally called, and not ele^ed, never come to attaine the Iplrituall part, yet are they in foro vipbilis Ec c/^J?<e to be reputed Church members, and they have as Au^ jlinfdiiby virhatemfacramenti^theugff not fruBufft Sacramtnti^ they receive thetruth of the Sacrament, though they partake not of the beft part of it? ^ndthelen>es ((aid I) recei^ mdit mt ai a nationj^ut ai a Churchy as a people feparated from the rvorld^and take^ into Covenant with Gody again ft which yoii objcft, if Ital^i^af^jviihrediiplication^they received it nd^ (her Of a natioti^ nor at a Church : for if 06 a nation^ then every nation mup have been circumcifedy if a a Cbircb^ then e-ary CUtircbmnfi be circumcifed^ they received it as appointed them 'from God ^under thatformjUnoiion^t>$dn6cther,But'wh'a.t poore exceptions are thefe? my plains meaning was, the Jewes were both a civill Ibcietie or Common-wealth, they were alfb a Church or a people in Covenant with God 3 Circum-cifion Was given them in reference to their Church StatC;,not in reference to their civill ftate, and was in ordine to the tfeing"? of Gods kingdome,; and though the formall rea-fbn of their being circumciied was the command of God, yet the Covenant of grace or their Church ftate was the motive to it, andthe thing it related to, as is moft cleare out of the I'j.oiiOen'eJls and many other pkces where their Gircumciiion dcnotates their religious ftanding, as hath often been (hewed before. Bm

"But what haUthis^ fayyou> U ths anfrvering of the ehje&ion^ which npos^that Circumcifion vpas mi the Seale cf the jfiriinaU fart 0fthe Covenant ofgraee^ to all cireumcifedferfinf^ and that CircHmdfion wdt appointed toferfons not under the Covenanty&e, I^nfwer^Ithinkeitvery fully anfwcrsthc objeftion, for ifit was comnaanded and obferved, as that which was a priviledge and dutie belonging to the Covenant, and they ufcd it as being in Covenant, theobje^ion is wholly taken off. Your frequent bringing in of the manner of admini-ftration^by types, {hadowes,&c. hath been abundantly an-£weredin my vindicating my firft concluiion,and eKcwhere. Next you much troubley oar (elfe^ how I wili eleare that ex-prepoH of mens conformity to temperall bleffingi and pumfiyments^ htcaufe hkjfmgs and pttftipments, are Gods a5ij and not tnms: I deiire you to require an account of it from them who af-lcrtic> I faid^ Circunuifonhowzdthem K^ho receivedit to conforms-to that manner of admimftration of ihd Covenant n^hicbwasear-rkdmmhhy axpay of temporal! ^lejjingj and ptinifhmentj^ they ^eing types of fpirituallthingi: is this all one to conformeto temporall blellings and punifhments ? I added ^ no man can pew, that any rvera to receive Circumcjfion in relation to thefe out--rpard things onely^or to them at all, further then they were admi-mftrationj of the Covenant of grace j you ;infwer^ they received Circumcifion neither in relation to thefe oHtivard things onefy no nor at ally either as they were tempor all bkpngs or types offpi-- Mr^Tombej by-ritnaU things^ and fo adminifiratlons of the Covenant of grace^ confequcnce hntforthisreafon and mother^ hecaufe €§dhadfo commanded'y ^.^"i^s circum-I reply, here had beenethc fit place for you to have made c^'^° ^^^^ ^ ' good what you have fb confidently afferted heretofore ; ij^^g.^ ^^^ that IJhmaely Efan^ and others were circumciied for fome tcmporallrdpe^fj that Circumcifion fealed the temporall or politicdll promi/eSjSic, but in ftead of proving this^ you , doe here as good as deny it, fok- if they were not circumci-(ed, in any relpcftat all to their temporall bleiling«, how I pray you did Circumcifion ieale their temporall bleffings>; Nay fti ther, you by conftquent deny that Circumcifion fcaled either teliporall or (pirituall blelTings, and confe^ quently it wasnofeale atalJj or a feafe of nothing at al]>

for.

for if tliey were circiimcired with refpeft to nothing, but onelybecaiifeGod commanded them to bee circuniciied, how was Gireiuncifion any Scale to them? If a father give a cjlild a Ring, and command him to weare it^ onely to (hfevv his ofeedienct to' his fathers command^ what doth the ' wearing of this Ring iealetothe child? it declares indeed the childes obedience to the father, but feals nothing to the child from the father, Nor doth that which you adde any whit helpe this, you fay^ Ton d,ny not that circumcifedfer^ Jens "Pfitreby faith to lodk^ on the covenant of grace^ through thefe adminifiraticm^ but by what warrant could their faith look upon the Covenant of grace through circumcifion if the command ofcircumcifion were not in reference to the Covenant of grace? Iprofeflel cannot underftand i^ nor doe Ithinke it poffiblefor youj to rcconci'e this^ either with the conftant doftrinc of the Scripture ccnceraiug the end and ufe of Circumcifion^ or with your ownc grant, that 'Circumciiion was the initial] Scale of the Jewes Covenant with God.

To cleare it further that Circumcifion was not a feale of the land of Canaan^ or the temporall bleflings of it, I flaew-ed the Fro/eljtes and their children could not bee circumcifid in relation to Canaon^&c* becattfethey were not c.tpahk of any inkt" ritanct there ; ye'a^ that it tied them to a greater expcnce of their temporall hleffingsby their long^frcqmnt^ and chargeable journies to vporfloip at lerufakm 5 you anfwer onely this, all this may bee granted^ yet this overthrorvcs not this pr^^pafition-y that the Covenant made mtb Abraham hadpromiles of temporall bkjfwgs^ and thatfome rvere to htcircttmcrfid nho had no part in the covZ'^ nant of grace', but Sir, the thing I am' here proving is that Circumcifion was no Seale of the land ot Canaan, net that there were no temporall blellings belonging to the Covenant ; I know the promifes of temporall bleifmgs belong" to the Covenant of grace, as well as the promifes ofipjri-tualh godlineffehaving ihtpromift ofthit life^ andfifthatrrhich U to come : nor was I proving that all who were to bee cir-curaciftd had part in the fphimall graces of the Covenant, my drift being onely to prove, that all who were to be cir-

cuniciied

iP^fsM- Bafti[mefr9vedfr6m Scrifture. l g j

cumcHed hada viliblememberftip and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Churchy againil which in this place you fay juft nothing. Lalily, whereas I added that IjhmM and the njl of Ahrjibums familyy Efau and others were really tahn into Ciwenant uniill afterwards by apaflafie they difcovcnanted themfeivfjy you anfwerthat If>laiml^ deliver ^ij\aftefremthg covenant of grace, nnhich in ethers won d bee called Armiamfmey bee jttfi ta^ng int* th^ covenant of ^race^ argms eUUion or fmt tf^ir/&/c^cA:ef«/e/ci^(5ii7«: freply^ I have no doubt but that afl indiiferent Readers \4tVL enough underftand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace, even loch a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in, in rj-mnumdefraBorumloCHm^in^eadofthelttiPts^ whotfiere brokgn of: your felfe grant, it is one thing to bee under the fpiri^ tuall grace of the Covenant, and another thing to bee under the outward adminiftration; in this later fenfe were Ijhmaef^ EfaH^ and the reft taken in, they were viliblc profeflbrs had an exteruall calling, and are all viiibl^ profefTors ele6i:ed,and is not externall vocation Gods aft, though a common one ?

The fifth andlaft conclufion which I laiddowne in my r Conclufion Sermon was thhythi friviledges ofbeleevers under this I aft and vindicared, our he(l adminiff ration of the covenant ofaraCe are many wayes «*- pnyilcdgcsisor largea^ maae more honorable and Cjm/ortable then ever they jvere inJarged in the time of the lerves adminljirationy many Serif inres fpah^ efibeirinlargementj rtnt one for the diminimfiing or extcnttsting of ihem^ I could hardly have imagined that you could have fpent ten or eleven whole pages in excepting againft this, I (hall very briefcly examine what you have ^id 5 firft, you (hew your skill in the de(cription of apriviledge out of the civill Law, and I concurre with you, tl^af a priviledge muft beefomenphat which is a i^enifity and that the fame thing may bee a priviled^ at one time:, rvhich is not at ancthtr, that that may b'H a priviledge in comporifin of the he^.thenj which U not in comparifon efChriftians : but whaf* all this to the purpole? further (ay you,f&e/>n2;iA?^^e/^//i^ covenant of grace belonging te the Ihh^aji: e tf it^ are not now more enlarged or more honorable Or comfortabk t,jenihey ivere in tb^ time of the IctPeJ 5 I anfwer,

Bb firft.

firftjthough this were granted it hurts not nice, ii^s ftffici-ent if the adminiftration be now more comfortable to be-leevcrs and their children, S eeondly^if thei^ be no more ho-norablenefleinthofc priviledges which belong to the fub-ftance of the C ovenantj how comes it to pafle^that in your Our fpiriruall anfwers to thofe feverall texts which I ana others bring to priviledges prove the enlargement of priviledges under this laft admi-howinlarged. njftrajion^ you interpret them of thofe privUedges which belong to the fubftance of the Covenant or the fpirituall part ofit? Thirdly^ though I willingly acknowledge that the fpirituall priviledges are the fame both to the Jewes and Gentiles^ the fame under both adminiftrations, yet feeing that under this laft adminiilration, the/e priviledges arc communicated not onely with morecleareuedejbut in greater meafiire and abundance^ floods in ftead of drops: wil-dernefles made like L^^anon and Sharon^ I wonder you fiiould fay they are no more honorable and comfortable now then they were then; is not abundance of grace more honorable and comfortable then a little grace ? But fay you,f« nfpi^ oj the admimjirmhn it i^ granted they are many wayes enlarged and mademore honorable: this will ferveour turne well enough, for this was a privilcdge belonging to their adminiftratxon, that their Infants were under it as well as themfelves? yeeld that for ours^and the ccntroverfie isendedj wee^fxy V) are freed from that hard and copy yd ah^ 0fthiir TPoy of adminiflrathn : true fay you, it vs not onely our prrvikdgeto bee free from that, htt it is our priviledge alfo to hitvcnothingi?2 lieu of that yojikcf To have nothing in liew of them as they were fhadowes of the fubftance, which is Chriftjis very right, but to fay it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them^as they were externaU Ordinances to apply Chriii, isto fay it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Chriil to us^and thereby to make us corn-pleat in him, which were a mofl abfurd thmg to affirme. Whereas I added that our priviledges for onrfelves and our chil--dren^areat leafl of honorable, large ^ and comfort able m theirs^ your anfwer to this is very remarkable, but whether "^vith an obeliske or afteriske the Reader fhall judge 5* firft fay you,

circHmcifion

^ircumeifion hekngs tothe admimfiratiok ofiheCov^ndnf^ nstid ihefubfianceof it. I reply^ ic was indeed a paiT of their aci-miniitratioiij and obliged them to the reft of that manner ofadminiftrationj as Baptiffiie now doth to ours, but did it not alfo belong to the (iibftancc? xvas it not a feale of the ngtiteoufneireof faithyofcircnmcifion of heait;, &c. doth not the feale belongto the thing (caled? the conveyance and ieal annexedto it^are no part of the purchafed inheritance, Mr. TSmbrr but doe they not belong to it? Secondly, your next is as nukes it a pri. remarkable > viz, 7h^t h^s jo fane from being a privikdge to vi.'edgcnor ro our children to have them hptized-^ to have Bjpiifme fkcceed x;^ ^^^^.^^^"fs ihejieaiof Circumeifion^ that it is a hem fit to n?ant ity God not ^^'^^^ * having appointed it^ I anlwer, then belike our prrviledges of the Covenant of grace are fb farre from being inlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptifine, that it had been ourpriviledge to have wanted Baptifmc if God had not appointed itj and by as good a realbn at leafi: y you might have faid^thatCircumciiion was fo farre from being a privikdge to the Jews and their children^ that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it, if God had not commanded itj fure, that is a ftrangc kinde of priviledge, of which I may truly fay ^ that it had been a greater benefit to them who have it, to have wanted it^ if the Donor had not com-Hiandedit.

Next, you come more particularly to examine the proofs of my Conclufion, and^iay you)/^e thing I fiould provty 'is one ofthefi two^ either that circumeifio/t did hdong to tbifubfiance of thtCoVe?iant of grace: or that the want of clrcHrncifion^ or fame Ordinance in the place and ufe of it^ is a lojfe of privikdge of the ' Covenant df grace to uf and our children. Sir^ die thing I was to prove was this 5 Conclufion, viz* that oHrprivifeJ^er are ' hiUrged^not extenuated: and as for the(e two particulars, I 'have already proved, that Circumcifion, though a part of their adminiftration, did yet belongto the (ubftanoe; belong to it I fay, not as a part of it, but as a meanes of applying it. And I have alio proved, that though it be a pri-viledge to have nothing fucceed circumcifion, as it bound CO that ounner of adnuniilration; yet it is a priviledge to

Bb 2 have

have fomewhat fiicceed it as a feale of the C OYcnant, in ^ much as a Covenant with a ^ale, is a greater benefit then a Mt Tomles Covenant Without a (eale. More particularly, Ifaidoar makes«he Co- enlargement of priviledges appeares3 partly, in that wee to"bec t£^Co' have frcedome, in what was burtheaft)mc to them in their venanr of manner ofadminiilration 5 partly, because our Covenant Worksjcrrone- iseftabliflied upon better promifes, Htk 8.6. Whereupon ouOv. you enter upon aDi/courfc of that Covenant there mc«-

tioned5andyoupofitivelya(Tert>T'W2>w^//:'c Ccz/cnant of tporkes, Alaife Sir-, why doe you nin into this ntedlcffc and erroneousdigrcflion? I faid indeed in my Sermon^that the moi allLaw was added foure hundred and thirty yeares after the Covenant was made with AbrahamyXiot as a part of that Covenant 3 but as a Schookmaderto whip them to Chrift; that they finding the impotlibility of keeping the t.aw, might more earneftly long after Chrifi:, exhibited in dioie (hadows of Rites and Sacri ^cts^ &c. but toiay that this Covenant mentioned in the eight of the HtBrewj^lwaiS the Covenant of works, is a moft erroneousdoftrinqlook into the Text, andyou fhali find that the Covenant which is there mentioned, (which God finds fault with, and calls the prfl Covenant; in oppofition to this l^ater Covenant) had Ordinances of divine Worfhip, had a San^hiaryj a Tabernacle,. Priefts, and Hi^h Prielrsj Sacrifices, and other Rites bel onging to the a<lminiilrati,on of it. Sir, was this . the Covenant of works?I hope you will not own it in your 2 Car, 5.10. next. Next you fay. That place, 2 Cor. 3.10. th,' glory of 6iyf-inierprc» ikeirf^bad no glory in rejftB nj onrs* Thfj ii not m^ant of the led by Mr. Covtnant uf grjit^ but of the Covinant in Mount Sinai 5 thtn-.fmPes^ y^^g impcrtinentlj allcdgad hj me.. Sir, I wonder ai your con-

jfldencc in iti the Reader will eafily difcerne that the whole icope oi that Chapter dearly holds foi th theprehemincncfc . of the MiniJrery ol'the Goi^ptl^ above theMiidueryof ]\dofe^ his vailed Ceremonies : belike then with yon, Mo-fa Ceremonies were the Covenant of works. Next, I thcwed in n^y Sermou^that as our priviledges are better then theirs, in being kt^'d frcm their burthens'-, 'fo ure aj rpiU as ^k^Jj ^^joy ff^^ bonoUT of king called a bolj Natisff^ a peculiar peo^

pk

*/ej a chofen gentratUn^ &c. Vpon this you difcourfe at large, cfpcdally againft Mr. Biake , and yoH undertake to prove that all thek things arc meant of the invilible Church. I answer very briefly, none of us ever doubted 5 but that the {^kituall part belongs onely to theinvifible Church , and didfo rnthetimeofthc JewSiaswellas now? but yetwe as well as the Jews partake of diatpriviledge, and ourvifible landing gives us the honor to be (b reputed.as wel as theirs gave it unto them 5 and w«re all the J^ws who had the honour to bee called a holy Nation^ really (iich ? were they all inwardly holy, or effc6hialJy called? the like anfwer ferves to your difcourfe upon "Ryw. 9. the Apoftle (jreakes there of adoption as a priviledge of the body of that Nation, their whole Nation had the Honour to bee called the children of God, according to Vvt^t. 14.1. Te are the-chil-dnn of the L^^rdyour God^ yet they were not all the fpirituall children of God ^ the Reader may fte more of this in the vindication of my (econd Conclufion, and you fi;!all doe well in your next, fbJidly to prove that thefe were riot pri-viledges which the vipbk Qhurch of the Jewes enjoyed (though many among them had the kerncll without the fhell} rather then thus to triumph in thefe feeble exceptions. I added , Wee have all iheje things with advantage^ not onely in the clearneje fff the adminiji rat tony hut in fonie finje^in greater txtetit toferfons^ with mt-here if tieithermale nor female, \yhy 1 adde this of male or female, you fay ' you knoWBot, except I meaiie toinfitiuate that in the Jew-iih Church there was maleand female, becaufc Circumcifi-on was oncly of the males, &c. I reply, I acknowledge that opened/' ^ though it bee true, that among true beleevers^ among the Jews there was neither male nor female, all equally did partake of the ipirituall part of the Covenant, as well as now with us, y :t for the comforcablc manner of admini -, ilration of it, even this diftin&on*of maleand female, is a priviledge tnla^ged under this laft and beft adminiftration, and the Apolie in that place. Gal 9, 28. doth plainly intimate the ealargemcnt of this priviledge in this re(peft,and (bl think the words plainly hold ont^Aj many afyon ai have

B b 3 km

been baptized into Ckrifi^ have put on Chrifl'j there is neither Lr^

nor Gneke^y bond mr freeymaknor female^ for j'€ are all one in

Cbri^Jcfmh^difye heChrijlj^ then are ^e Abrahamsfied^

andbsires aecerdingtopromife. ■ To mc the Apoftle here doth

plainly l)old oatji:h:|t now.under the New Telliament:,bap-

dfiiie-istheviiibleple^^eoF our being Abrahams feed ^ as

cjrcum^ifion was the pledge of it under the OldTeftamentj

'& that here is the enlargement of our priviledgq in the New

Teftamcntj that whereas Circumcifion of old was applyed

to one Nation^ and not to others^ now out of all Nations^

luch are called in 3 as are made ^^>'^/7^?»j feed , whether

Jew or Greek. And whereas of old the feale was apply-

cd onely to the malefy in this reipe6^ the differences of fexes

is now taken away. And although it be true that the fpi-

rituall part of all this be made good onely to t; ue beleevers^,

who likcwife alone have the inward baptisme 3 yet vifible

profcffors enjoy thevifible priviledge.

Next you proceed 10 reply to an Objeftlon which I propoundedi» my Sermon^ and aufweirfd^ (viz*.') In fame things thff fea?s bad greater priviledges ihen.n^e have*^ at that A-^ hrabam had the frivikdge io bee called the father of ihefuithfuU : that CbriftjhoHldbe hrn of ^w/ep 5 the Virgin Mary had the privikdgetobethe Mother of Chriji '^ the whole Naiim of the Jtrvj hadthii privikdge^ that GodmlleaB in their fiedagaine^ after the^hid been caft o^fir U7ibeliefmany hH?idredy^ars-^which priviledges none ef the Gentiles.have^ or can have. And my an-fwer waSa That our quefiion is about fuch priviledges as belong to all rpho have afianding under the Covenant^ vphich every one who is in cove?iant with God might expe^ hy vertue of the covenant 5 Tphetherf hee were ajti^or a Profelyte^ not fir any peculiar or perfonaU pfivik.dge to any One man or xvoman^ or family^ or Triha. That itnovpajs derogates from tti that fome particular perfon or^ Iribefhould enjoy fome peculiar primledges\ bptt if any of the common priviledges^ vphkh they aU enjoyed by vertue of their Church ^andingfbmldbt abridged^ then the priviledges of the Nerv *fiftament vpoitld bee more reflrained^befi thofeofthe Oldy this^faid I^is againft the word oi God. Your anftver b^Tbat , thpt Argument hath no rf eight Jbut antly amotngfi Vulgar^andnotir

JyHogifing

^llogifing capacUitJ: andthtreforeinyonr Latim Taf^rjoumm--tknthereinfioTKefeftbeFtrginMarj/y&c. AndtheiKCwould ^tVfflhMtkc hvps m'l^ have more pr'wUedgts in fime nJpeB^ inform things^ then »v^ and jet otft condition 6etier then theirj by reafin ef fime other frivikdges T^ehave ahve them^ which re-eompenee the defeU cfthofe privikdges'^ and ihtTtTortrioiood ArgHtnent can bedraa>ne ^ That becaufi God gave juch a privi-hdg^ to ih Jtrvs^ therefore n>'e mufl have/ucb a priviledge too-.y^a^ it would hte an jirgurmnt of arrogant prefumption^ ^ofay^ the lews had fuch apriviledge^ ikerefore tPe mnft have it : They bad a priviledgt to circumcife Infants^ her fore i^e mafl baptife Infanu, I Anfwerj I thinke indeed it would take with nolbber Chriftian thus to argue : The Jewes had it^ therefore wee mufc have ic. But Sir^, to argue thtis, God gave fuch a pri • vilcdge to the whole Church of the Jev/*^ that their In-fantsfhould be reputed tobelongto his Cliarch, and have the initiall £eale: Therefore if hee have not granted to Chriftians» that their Infants ftiall alfo bee reputed to belong to his Church, and partake of the initiall feale, then his grace to belcevers under the New Teilament is ilraitned as to their pofl"eiity. This Argument appeares fo cleare to niec^ that I maft confeflc my fclfe one of thofe Dull onesj who know not how to deny the consequence, In the meane time I obierve, that though you v/ouldmakc your Reader beliere^ that thefe pcrfbnall priviledges of ^-hraham^to have Chrift born of his flelh; the Virgin Mary to be the mother of Chrift^ 8cc. doe prejfe my Conclufion, yet you ipake not oncword to vindicate them from my anfwer:

"And thcreforcl colleft that by this time you fee,: that now 'tinder this adminiftrationaibme perfonal priviledges which a few of the Jews had over and above what belonged to the /eftj may be denycd us, and y«t they make nothing againft this Argument-, That if the common priviledges which every one ofthem had were denycd us^ our priviledges were ^inin^ion of

.' flraitned. Your other exception which you make concer- f^^Q^^^^^ °^ ning Melchifedeck^p Loty and Job^ have been often anfwered of chcCove^" before. That which you adde concerning one k^de of Prcfe- nanr, helps not

'fyies amdTfgfht'IcTPSyti^ov^erecalied FrofefyteJ of the ^e^ wha ^T.jomks.

though

though they ivere not circumcifyd^ rvcre jet reckoned anutnj^ the JFerjhi^perj of God^ (^fftch as were GorneVms and others J aud xvere dljojvitbia the Covenant of gra€i, Iknovf not whac yot« intend to gather from itj unletie you would intimate, that they were Church-members amon^ the Jewes^ although they were not circumGifed • but had youiaid fo, that the priviledgcs and Church-memberlbip of thefe Profelytes of the Gate, were as honourable as thofc of the Prolciy tes of the Covenant, your learned Pveaders would have (miled at you > ^re there would have been no need for God to have inftru£led Peter by a Vifion from heaven, that he fhould not call them (to whom he was to be fent) uncleane 5 nor had , Feter been ever put to have made hi^ apologie for going m to Comelif^ 2ind his company, if thefe uncircumci/ed Pro-fclytcs of the Gate had been reputed Church-members a-niongthe j€ws. Next you grant, T^2 lea^s indeed hud that privikdge to have their children reckoned in the outrvard admini" ftration^of branches of the Olive hy their hinh^ vvhkhthe Gentiks have not. But if we Gentiles have it not, then are not wee I pray you^ ftraitned in that particular? And I demand fui-ther, when we are grafFed in, and To naturalized with them^ doc we not partake of all the fatnefle or priviledges of th e Olive with them? wh at Scripture ever denyed it? f demand yet further, did the many ten thoufands of Jews who wtie. baptized in the Apoftles dayes, by their comming under this bett adminiftration of the Covenant, and thereby kept theif former growing in the Olive with advantage \ did they thereby deprive their Children of that which you fay was their naturall priviledge? if you thinke lb, pro- * duce your evidence to prove it 5 if they were not, then it fccmesthc Jewes who beleeved in Ch^ift, andkfpt their ftation, had a greater priviledge for their children, then t\\t Gentiles who grow together v;ith them, have for their '• children.

I added* L^t any man fhew out of the Serif tttre , n^her^ onr priviledges under th Gofpel are cut Jhort in any oj thefe things ^and in particular for the cafe in hand^ concerning our Inftmts right tt^ the Covenant and feale of it^ oficen^e are fun the Infant-chil"

drtn

dnn of aU Covenanterj rvere noitbm the ^jvenanty and the feale alfe longed to themi and by venue (fthe Covenant {whidh itfiiHihefame) ive plead their mereft init-^ kt any p€T9 rphen and ivhere this was tal^en away^ You andver^ it is unreajons" bk to require ibit at your handi^to (hejv rvhatym doe not avouch: you goe not about to expunge Infants of believers ottt of iki Covenant of Grace'y and yoft fee no cauje to bekeze me ^ r^ho affifme that onc^ fhey tvtre rvitbin the Covenant^ &c, I reply3 bucddc not you avouch, Thzztke Infants of the Jewes had this peat' liarpriviUdge^andhirih-righttubeundtr the adminifiration of the Covenant which ours have not ; which you know is the onely thing controverted betwixt us: may not I boldly fay^ That once the Infants of all Covenanters had this pri-viledge? niaylnotalfo cxa£t of you ta flicw when and ^^^ where this was taken away? who though you goc not a-bout to expunge them out of the book of life, yet you ex-preflyesq^ungcthem out of vifible mcmberfhip, while you fay 5 the Jews In fants had it^ and ours have it not.

Laftl3j51 zddcd^i^ho ev^r milgoz abont to deprive them tfit^ iocut ojfjucha great part gf the comfort of hdeeving FarentSj mupproduce clear iejlimonies before they can perfsvade bekevers to part vpith eithzr of them^ either right to the Covtndnt , or ta^ the feale of the Covenant ; hecaufe next to the glory of God^ and the jalvatim of their ovme fouks-^ their Infants interefi in the Cove^ nantj is one of the greatefi benefits belcevtrs have from the Cove - n,en7 of o«'^^" naniof grace^ evmto have their Children belong to Cjfods family privifedgcs to and Kingdfnfe^ and not to the Dev ills-^ Cbildrmheingthe grea^ h;ave oar chil-~ ic^treafure of their Tarmts^and the Jahationof their childrens drcniefr oarol" p;Hles,thegreatefi tredfure in their children' and thereforetoeoi^ ^'^ -ovenaRt, tbtde them oHt of thitjociety or vifible jlaading n^here falvation ^4f ordinary^ is fo great alojfe^ or eclipfing of their comfort^ at whoever would m^k^e themyeeldto it^had need produce very firong evidence* and much more I iaid in my Sermbn to this pur-pofe. Voa anfwer, Here I am upon my advantage grotmd^ in a veine of Oratory^and on a fubje&^<f all other jy ap^efl to move afftSimS'^ to wit^ Varems tenderneffe to their children. I confcfle in this point, I ftand upon a vantage ground (not in Gra-tory^ to which I pretend not^ but) in point of troth, ha4

I only ipoken words without weight, you could and would hav€ discovered their cmptinels^ and fcoffed at them fuffiei-ently;you make revcrall fmall exceptions wliich I fbal briefly toach : as, Firft, l^hat 1 touch Jomething tm mare upon the Tffjnp Ofhionhss if I might hgiiefi'^dto jjmbo.ize nhh that Obi-mm if the TapflSy who judge all unifaptized i7ifants io perijhi which is not worth the anfwering. Then you demand 'What cmnfort doe Tfetgi^ifanntSy rpbich ike Amip^dobaptiflj doe not give them as rvtU Of we-^ or what dijcomfortt in truth doe ibeypveihem^ which r^tdiitnott I anfwer, the diitercnce is very great, you leave them in the ftate of InfidelJs^we in the eondSion the Jews children weie in while they were the people of God; wee account them ^'aftually belonging to thevifiblekingdomof Chrift, you actually to belong to the vifible kingdom of the Devill; wee leave them under the benefit of thatpromife, IrviUbt the God of ties avdofthj ■ ' fi^s y^^ acknowledge no more pro niiie for then;, then for

the children of Turks: k may be thele things are of no account to you, but I doubt not but they will bee with your unprejudiced Reader.

I next proceeded to themaine and onely Obje6:ian made ^e^» 11. Anf. againft this whole Argument, which is this. There is no com-«?^A-*'"^ WtfW^, n9 expr^Jle mfHtution^ or clear e example iu all the Nejv Tc je ion, flatnentyoj baptizing ef Infarzt J', and in admin ifl ration of Sa--cramenis^vpee arenottobelMy our owmreafm^ or grounds of fetmingpT oh abilities^ hut by the cxprejfe order of Chrifi^ and no a^ thermfe* You fay, this is indad the maine OhjeUton , and mthout anfwering it^ all that I have faid is to little furpofe. But Slr,didnotyouforiMerly grant, that upon the proving of my two firftConduiioHS the whole caufe depended?if therefore thofe Conclufions remainefirme, there is enough al-^ > ready faid to the purpofe.

You addej Vnltfje this OhjeBion be removed , the praCiice of baptizing infants mU never be acquitted frvm ^ill^rv0rpipy and that the Frelatifij n>ill perp vertuall commaTtds from analo* gy of the Ciriwiontall Law of the ]ews^ and Traditipns Eeclefi^ s^icdUy Of ancient at mrs for F^dotapiifme ^ for ibiir Bfelacy^ H^lj dajeJySurflice^ &c. And iUrefore iflftanttnet to it here^ I

Miifiyceld tfp my weapon s. Sure you think you are here like to get fome advantage, you ^eakc fb big , but by this time I have had fuch lUfficient experience of your flrcngth, that I much feare not your great words.

Firft, for the point of Will'worlhip^ I (hall defire you to prove this Conclulion, That all things belonging t» Chfifiimi rporjblp^ eVen in tk eircumftjnccs of h^ even the ages and fixes of the Terfons to whom theOrdifidnCes are to bee applyedy Mufihee expreJJj fit down m the mw Teflamertt:^ If you prove not: thi«j you lay nothing to the purpofe, for thii h our very cafe* I have already (hewed the falienefle of it, in the point of the Ghriftians Sabbath; for though the perenioniall Wor(hip> which was a type of Ghriil, be wholly aboli(hed> yet note-very thing which concerns all Worfhip which niuft have an inftitution, is aboli(hed» And for the plea which the Bi-(hops and others may pretend from the analogy of the Ce-remoniallLawj when you (hew how they will raifc theii-,' Arguments(which pollibly you have more skill and experience to doe then I have) as plainly as I doe for lufant-bap-tifnie, you may pofSbly prevaile with the Reader in their behalfl And when you (hew as much Ecclefiafticall Antiquity for Prelacy:^ Hoiydayes, Surplice, &c. I fliall beleevc your Reading to be greater^^then I can yet be periwaded ofj that you have ieen fome fiich Monuments of Antiquity> which the Prelaticall Party could never yet light upon. But I proceed with you-l firft granted^Tto there nmzxprefft fyUabicaUcnirtmandforhaptizini^of Infants^no expreffe examftk where Children were baptized. Sure ((ay you)^!^^ is a f»rerpd figne that I amnot lik^ tomakeQjod mygroum^having yeelded thus much. And why Co I pray if your very next words leave me ground enough^ when you (ay^ That if it kei made gQod hy goodconfeqtienceyitisjiifficient: whatn«ed Was there then of this idle (coffe? I added, Jdj&y other points of high eotf cernmmfyarenotexprtfiylaiddoTPPnin the Nem Teftamem^ a$ forbidden degrees (fmarriaaej Laws againfi Folygamy^ the Law efa vpeehjy Sabbath, &c. Y ou anfwer^ /» mterepefitkfe iVvf^ fiyipy it mufi he fo^ it mufl have either Prfcepi 0^ JftfftolkaU ex» ample ^ t quivalent to a precept found in the Net^ Tejiamtt^y elfi if

C c 2 ii

r InfmH'ditftiJint fr^veiftm Scriftwn.

is wU''rm)Tprf:, snd thk fay y©u is (ntr cafe in band* I ;sin(wer as before, there is no abfoliHcnccdlirie that every circumftaijce of an Ordinance^or the feYcrdtt Sexes or ages to .whom an Ordinance ought to bee applyed, niuft bee thusletdowncin the New Teftamcnt, this fs fufSciently cleared Part 2. Seft. 81. and part 3. Sc6t i. As for the forbidden degrees of marriage , you fay, there U ont hamh mmii9nedandcenJkredir2theNerp Teflament^vlz* th irjcejiif §W Corinthians cafe^ and that isy(ky you^^a firine agdmfi a mo^ rail comf9t4ndemem'y but how would you laugh at fuch a confequence in another 5 d man majnot tmrry bis fathers rvifi$ mthingwhich by the light of nature tvai abhorred anion gft the Heathens, Erg^jallthe degrees of forbidden marriage inMn-pj Lawes ftand firme?The like fay you agatnfl 7^iljgjm)\, thireiiproofeagjinfi ity Mattb. 1^.^.9- But is this an ex-prefle prohibition of it? mud: you not bee compelled to goe by a conlequence to bring it in, which is all I contend fori For that of the Sabbath you referreymr Keader tffSc&.S.Part 2 . whither I alfo moft willingly fend hini^ and leave it to his impartiall judgement whether- the advantage lie not dearely on my fide. I addfd, there is no eicpreffe command fgr ehiidren of Beleevers^ rcben thy are grrnvne^ that they fjould ie infruUed and baptized^ noexprejfe Command or example'n^here wmtm rtceived th<: herds Supper^ gocd confequence I ach^pp-ledge there isy but rtdJyllabicaU or exfrejfe mention of it , but fay yoH^, there is cxprefle mention of wo/nens receiving the Sacrament^Le/^ manexamim himfelfey i Cor, 11, S. whtre the Griei^ r^ord comprehends h-ih fexeSy but doth that Greeke word, where ever it is ufed,fignific both fexes? you will not offer to (ay it^ Idelivirto yon ivbat I receized fr(mitbeL>>rd^ Verf 23, J^^jfay you^» a cemmandto the jopbok Churchy which coniiit«?d of w omt-n as well as meh,&c. But Sir, if any man wcrfi di/polcdto wrangle with you, might hee nOt in your *wnc words doe it, and ia^, all thefe exprejfw^j muft be limh-ted fraffd^Mam iierial I grant all this is good by conft-ijueikcj^butriOtin cxpreffe termes^ the fame (ay * for In-fentsV J&tf grant all difctpUs way tee baptized^ fot that yott &y there ieaTi exprtfe cvmmand^ your felfealfogran^ that

regenerate

ngtnermlffmtsmdyk caBed difcipksf l^Esmt^^is a good Argament by eanie^enee^ thstxftich Inifants may bee baptized 3 and if I have proved or can prove, that Infants of hclcevers by tlieir birth priviledge have a right to bee eftee-nied vifible Dllciples, then by your owne grants by a good eoniegaenee they alio may bee baptized, and I undertake to jurtiiie that Infants of beleevers are vifibJe DiicipJeS) as truely as regenerate Infants are invilible difciples. I adde further, they who are vifible Covenanters are to receive the viiible figne, Ergff^ Infants ( who have been at large proved to bee vifible Covenanters) are to receive Baptifm which is the vilibie (igne of it: thefe things are fiilly cleared already, it is apparent there is as cleare a command for Baptifnic tobe theinitiall ^ale under this adminiftra-tion.as everthei'e\»as for Circumcifion under that admini-ftrationi and as good evidence that our children are to ht reckoned to the Covenant^as there was for theirs^ artd no exception in the word pat in againft them. Is not here then good confequence^that therefore they are to have the Seale adminiilred to them^ fuppoic when Paulfrnd let a mm examine himfilfe^andfo lef bimeaie^ that there had been no women there then amongft them,would not this command by confequcnce have reached women as well as men? if this qualificati >n was foand in theai that they could have examined themfclves, muft the command neccffarily ex-prcffe all fcxes, ages or conditions, or elfe not reach them? thefe things I niendonj as confequenoes parallell to thcfc whichyourfelfcii^fiftapon. I added, »>e^ ^|W c^/e^/wiwe' havtjf^cknt command snd example fifr Infant Baptijmez to ^he command which you anfwcr, I fliould have faid jeere, I fetch fitcb a efCircamci-€{mf iffe^ thztyOH imagim my attempt n>ill prove hnt a Mmfi fion re^cberh from the MMntames trsvellh I perceive you know not iww "^^^ analogy. you (hould pofleflc your Reader ti^ith pixjadkcy if you (bould not now and dicn interline a confident fcofie, but left's try the particulais, my firfr was, Abraham wh received tha Cgvtnsnt h^d a commmd toftaU bis children with the initi-all fuUj kecanje hif childrm were in Covenant whh him, NoTt' bccaofcwbat concerned the febfiance of the Covenant is

Cc 5 alwayes

alwayes the fame, and what concerned them then who were in Covenant as tliey were Covcnanters^the iame concernes us equally with them as we are Covenanters^ what concerned them in reference onely to their adnfiniftration was peculiar to them felvesj^ as^ that which concernes the manner of our adminiftration is peculiar to us- it thence follows that the fame command which was laid upon them in their ad-miHiftration in all thofe things which properly related to theiubftance or fpiriaiall thing intended in that adminiftration, byajuft analogic and prgpcrtion^ binds us as well as them, I fud^tbis ourVivmsnuimaim againflth FafifiSy that Gods commands and infitutions ahout tha Sacraments of the Jexres bind us as much oi tbey did thm in all things vphicb hehngtoth fubfiancc of the Covenant^ oftdr^en not accidentall ta them^my meaning being plainly this^that all Gods Commands and Inftitutions about the Sacraments of die Jewes as touching tlieir generall nature of being Sacraments and fealcs of the Covenant, and as touching their ufe and end, doe bind us in our SacramentSj becaufe in theie they are the fime. To Ipeake yet more plaiuely, if I can, there arc in the Sacraments thefe two things to bee difungmfhed, the generall nature, end5and life of a Sacrament to (eale the Covenant of God by fome fenfible fignei and ftcondly^ the manner of adminiftration of thefe iignes, as they re-ferre to Chrift to be exhibited, or to Chrift already exhi-bited.The firfl concernes remi/'/i/w,the thing it ielfy which I called in my Sermon the Subftances the other W^^ concernes the peculiar way or manner of doing it in reference toChrift not jet come^or to Chrift already come'jth^t in my Sermon T called Accideutall^now when I fay that Gods commands about their Sacraments bind us, my meaning never was to aflert, that the.rituall part of their Sacraments doe rea'aine in the leaft particIe,or that we arc tied to pradife any of thofe things, but onely that there is a generall and analogical! nature, wherein the Sacraments of the Old and^New Te-Ch^mJerdeSd- ^^^"^^"^^0^ agree; and that in thefe things, our Divines aatmntifjVctf ^^^ argucfromtlicir Sacraments to oar Sacraments; thus 7efl,cap, I , Chamierfiatholiei do^cm convenin Sacratmnta v€t€ra cnm noviJi

cmnihw

omnihif^ iU capitibm ^<« funt de Sjcramenti naiura'y Pro-teft ants doe teacbthM the Sacramffnts of the Old Teftament doe a tret wltbihs Saoramentsofthe Nei^ in all things fphich concerns the nature ^f a Sacrament^ and yet faith he^ our very fenfes teach ti/s that the externall rites of their Sacraments doe differ from our/. Amef.Bellar. So Amefiufy qu^cUn^He de Circumcifione dicuntur & fpe^iant Enervnde Sa-ad SaCramentaUm ejus nau^^m qnam habet in communi cum ^ramcns, in reliqaii Sacrdmentis^ iUa relie applicantur ad omnia Sacramenta^ lener^, andadclesimniediatly5r^/iw/r72.^;7^ie^ talis in circtimeiji&ne: atidyou know mukitiides of our Divines fpeake to the fame pnrpolc ; their Sacraments were Seales of the Covenants:, fo are ours^ their Sacraments had a Divine inrtituti-on, fo have ours, their Sacraments were not empty Sacraments no more areours^ the grace accompan}'ing their Sacraments was not included in their Sacraments, Qtanquam contenmm in continente') nor in oursy their Sacraments were tobecadminiflredonelyto them who were accounted to bee in Covenant, fo are ours- they had one Sacrament which mofcimmediatly and properly, was a fianding Sacrament tor admitlion into the vifibic Church, fb have wee, now in thefe things doe our Divines ufe to argue by analogy and proportion from thcii' Sacraments to oursi this was that which I'intended in my Sermon, namely, Thatlooke whatdutie they were tyed to by their Sacraments, in feeking after the ipirimalj part of it^ looke what graces ,they were bound to beieeve to bee iealed unto them in their Sacraments, the fame are we tied to belecve in ourss thefe things concerneus as much as they did them 3 but for thole things which were the accidental], or (if you like not that expreflion) which concerne onely the rituall part of their Sacraments, thcfc doe no wayes oblige us ^ Rites and Ceremonies, ttrhich Were peculiar to them, areceafed, the duties,obligations, comfortsandbenefits whichehey were led to in their adminiftration, doe alj rcmaine the fame to us under our adtniniftration, when the Apoftle fayes, ^ C*r.io.3,4*-i(Eor. to. That all our fathers did eate fhifame fprimaU meat^ explftincd. ani^fanhithfam fptrituaU drinl^ . our Interpreters generally doe agree, thai Jby the fame ffiriPHaU meatey and tU

famt

'i^o Infam-Baftifme proved ftBm Scripture^

famtjfjjtttualldrink^ hme^LiiZ the fame r^itbmrs; So Cdmrty Beza^ ChimUr^ and who net, becaule fay they, Eadem fuit VeUrum SacTamentotum & mflrorum fnhfantia^ Their Sa-cranieilts and ours were the fame in fiibfiance^ yet no man is foabiurd, as to thinkc that either theMannaorthe wa-

Eflv.f^ r,i. tcrofthctlockdoe remaine to lis : fiich in analogical!

expiaifted. Argomentas this the Apoftle F^?//himfcffc urcS:> Epbef6. from the fifth Comniandcment which in the Jexvcs time was backt with a particular promiie oi^ living hmg in the Land tvbich the Lord thdr God would ^ve ihm 5 and bclcevers now have no promiie of living in the land oi Canaan^ yet Paul there prellcs a proniiie to us from thie generall fcope of th at promiie. Honour ihjf father and mothr^ vphich ii the firjl Cemr mandcrmnt withprumifiyihat it may be vptU with thee^ and that thou mM^filivehn^ on the earth : I inde^vour the more fully to expreffe my fcnlein this particular^ becaufe after your iifuall manner you endeavour to make my aflertion fenfe-leiTe^and abfurd, and then come to reafon againft a ftnft ofyourowne making, and cannot bee acknowledged to be mine. Now I proceed to fee what you fay againft this Argument, Firft, fay you, it ii no undcnidh argument that this mufi beegosd^hecattje all TronfiSf^tj ufeit^ nor did I lay the weight of this upon their number or confent 3 but onely intimated, that it is obvious and uftallj if you take away the ftrength of the Argument, I (hall not leane upon the men. Secondly, you confent not to this, that there were no other ordinary Sacraments among the Itxves^ then Circumcijjtfn and the Fajfeover ; you raiier cmcurre with Mr, Cudworth, thai ibij hadalmoft as many Sacraments as Ceremonies 5 I reply, whether this bee right or Wrong, it is nothing to the bufi-neffe in hand, Mr. Cudworth denies not the lawfulnefTe of fuch an Argument as reafoning from the Jewes Sacraments to ours, in that fenfe which I have here fet downe, yea in that very Treatife he acknowledge* the Lords Supper to fuccecdthcPaffeover in that notion of being a feaft upon a Sacrifice. Thirdly, you take a great dealc of paines to put a fenfe upon my Words' which f never thought of,(z;/«.) 7hjfihe letPip Sacrament J are fiill inform ^ Wf, that I make

fome

jfgf4Mt-3dftlfmefr0V€dfr0mSfrifme. ^^j

fmethiviis in the hwlflf Sacramenti t9 het fithfianiiallt fim tbinn to bea ateidctaaliy that tk aCcidemalU I Would bavt ak»^ liflxd ibifMantiallJtd remaine, tbatlpenfbta little si^Im Uiick iTioffofirfgthefubpnceifan Aa, and tb^ Accidents of it thai Ifvouldmaksjemthings commanded by God in the Sacraments accidcntaU, and not to bee of the fame weight #r 9blj^i-m M other things wificb arefubftarttiall ^ and finally J'i^ bring no lefe then ten Arguments t$ prove that aUtbz lej^s Ceremmies^ jUtejandSacrdmentt^^treallabrsgaiedi fukftafke and circnm-Ponce, whole and part. In all your ten Arguments I folly conairrc with you, and in that conclufion which you con-fotebythofc Arguments, I never undcrftood by the Tub-fiance of their Sacraments, the feniible fignes uTed in the Sacraments, but rem Sacrammtii the iplrituall part of the Sacrament, or the rejfi^af a >^ and my Argument was never intended to bee any other then that analogical! Argument which is above fet downe, and none of your Arguments meddle with. You proceed to thofe particular inSances I eavcjin which you might havx; knowne the meaning of my Argument if you had pleafidjand fpared %hdn2 with your owne (hadow by your ten Arguments. The firft, is Circum^ cnmcifionifCilleda Seale eftbe Covenant^ ihend our Divines fUad^ 0Hr Sacramentjare Scalesofihe Connant, To this you except, ^^^mkrummtwbereCircfmeifim iicaUedtb* Seak eftbe Cov9nam, tkngh you ach^wledge it is called the ftgne of the Covinant in one place, andbothtkfi^eandfealerfiberigh-tftmfnejfe of faish in another place'^ truelySir, I thought that the comparing of thefe two Scriptures together, had been fufficienttoftiewthatCimimciiion .yasa (ealingfignc. Secondly, you except, rif^^^j^g^ Circtmcipon bee caUed fo^ yet that is no Argument t4} caB mr Sdcraments fo^ thotigbytmaremUiug theypould bee called f9^ and you fay our Sacraments are Sealtf eftbe Covenant, I reply, lay afide but this analogical! Ar-gament, and prove if you can that our Sacraments arc Scales^ our Sacraments a»'c neither called fignes nor fealcs in the New Tcftamcnt, all the world mull grant indeed that they arc fi^fy but when the Papifts deny our Sacraments to be Soaks of the Covenant, how will you bcc aWc

Dd to,

to prove it, if you lay afide thi5 Argument^ .CzVc^wci/?^ r^» a^Seala^ thnfarrour Sj^amems <a}^e Saaksy oijrS agree: ing with their in ihe generaII nature of a Sac^-amcnt^ Next I faidj Circumcifion wight hee adminifired but g?icp., it he-ingtheSeakrf admiffian : thereforeBapti/mn hdng aljo the Sea/e (if aimiffim m^beeadmimjirediutdtice ; you anfwe;^, ^t«)izzg both amecedtnt andconftquetit^you kn^vp nothing^you faj^ but that heth Circumcifion y and Baptifme might ^ee adminifired more then onety which I hope I have (ufBciently confuted in an-{wertoSeft,4. Part. 2. And fecondly, fay you^had there been a command to circumcife hut enceyit ryould not fuEon> :h^t therefore aperfonmay bee baptized hm once, but when thi^ is proved tharBaptifme fiiccccds Gircumciiion to bee the initial! Scale, which your fclfe cannot deny, itrauft thenfol-low, that a man may bee baptized but once, no more then hee may be circumciled but once^ becaufe where there is the fame reafon of a command or praftiie, there piuft bee the fame pradi(e>^ I added, thji Circumdfim rv^f,to. be -admi" nifindtipon the eighth day onelj^ wai an -acsidentall ; thi^gy and therefore binds noty meaning that it had /bnic peoiiliar relation to that manner of adminiftration, and had , no" thing common either to the nature of a Sacrament in gene-:ralI,or' to the end and nfe of that Sacrament as k -w^s-, me Seatle of jadmiifion; 'you anfiver, if re^fon'^may -rttle the rofiy there ps more reafon that Circumcifing en the el^yth da^' fijould rather belong ta the fu-^fiance of the Covenant^ then kut once circHmcifing^ both hecaiife.it rvat commanded by G^dy ar^d tjf>ifed^€5 foms: conceive^. Gkriflsrtfi&m^ion.oajiht.eigh^ day, 1 replyjifyou please but once to underfiand, that by the fubftance I underftand the resfgnata^ the /piritiiaJl part pf the Sacrament, you will no longer infifl: upon, making every thing a iubftanti all part of the Sacrament whicii God hath made a part of the outsvard adminiftration oiiely % Indeed if Circumciling upon die eighth day had had any fiich (pirituall meaning of Chrifts refiirrcftion upon the eighth day, you had fpoke fomething tothe purpofe^.but had I pleaded any fucli Type In it, as thatvdiccumeifion wasto^beuponthe eighth day, b^cau/e Ijcfus Ghrift was to rife the firft day of the wceke, you wou Id have laughe

at

at me though C>yr;a?« had joyned with me'c, amt'told niee as^you doe here, mem conceits Are vairn withoUi^tBe Ughi &f the 'W6rd\ Myiif^xtinftance WpIj fronithe Vaffi^ey^vphichh" ingyeard) to bee repeated binds un» a^fefztitionoftbe Sacrameni of the Lords Suf>per^ whichJkcceedsiM^FaJlhveri^itbem^the Sit-crament of fpmtuallnoHrJjhmerji afklgroWlfi M'ikk oihtr rvasfhr ^irth and enterance ■) hut that th6 fsffeivcfwa^to he eaten in an rutning^ and upon one fetevtmjtg iniheyeer^ rvdf aCeidenlaU and foh'mds not uf- You anfxver, hae are a beape of diSidtef^^ and 'you as confidently dictate the contrary, ydu grant tha« the ■PalTeover was to beeyearely repeated^ but that this yccrly repetition belonged to the fiibftance df the Covenant^ or that this binds us to a fiequent ufe of the Sacrament of the Lords fupper^you utterly deny, but I doubt notj that the Reader who knowes that by belonging to the iubftance of the Covenant I meant nothing but the end and ufe of it^ Co bee a (landing menioriall of that deliverance, and a ty-picallreprefcntationof Jefiis Chrift, and our deliverance by hiiu^xvill not rejeft this^ becaufeyou magifterially deny it. That our Lords Supper comes in the roome and ftcad of it, there isiiich a cleare demoniltation of it, from the Very manner of the firftlnftitution, and the ends and uies of it 5 Chrift our Pafleover being then to bee fiicdfeed for us, and wee in this fervice (hewing it forth^ and in this :^arallellthcreis(ucha harmony of conient, that I intienfd •not to lead the Reader into a digreiiion about it:. As for the maintaining of Ea(ler and fuch fuperftitious ctiftomes^ my difcourie gives not (b much as one hint for it; yea in my Sermon I expreflely fliewed. That that Circumftance of once a yeerc belonged onely to the Jewes adminiftration. And I pleaded for a frequency of ir^but because you love to knit knots, for others to untie, you demand, fiaee Wu have Jo cleerean Examplt^A^s 20.7. of the cUfeipks eomtning together the frfl day of the tpeeke i9 eMte the L§rdf Supper^ and that that A&ion gave denomination te tin whole fervice^ and by the relation 0/ Juftin Martyr and others^ this rpat the received pra&ifeiniheprimitive Cburcbesy T»beih?r vpee are not tied to have the Sacrament every Lords day in the rreeJ^ : I aniwer,

Dd 2 though

though I conceive no abfolute tie to have k fo^ yet when k can l>ec with convenience^ 1 know no reafon why it may notbeefoi'butyou making this one of your great Arguments, to prove the Iniatution of the Lords day, (yi^,^ An Apoftolkall example, and pra^^if? of the primitive Churches, whethpr you bee not further engaged in this point to a Sacrament every Lords day, I leave to your iclfe to consider. You demand further, Jz«<:e the Apofik docs fg txprejlyy anddiftin^ily in hit relation of the Infiitution tnemi^ enthe time of h^ y^ would k^ovt? of the Afjkmhlj/ of VivinUy e/pg-ciaUy fitch of thnty at haz^e heene earfieji for fitting at the Sacrament^ hotv Tx>i0 Can be Icofi to receive it at mother time 5 I aa-fwer, certainly the AflTembly would anfweryouj as Cyprian did in the like cafe, that the time was an occafionall cir-furaftance 5 and that the cicere examples recorded in the New Teflament of the Difciples partakiiHg of the Lords Supper at any of their Church-meetings, whether by ni.^ht or by day, doth abundantly manifeft.it: norcaulconaive why you put this qucition to the Aflembly^unlefTeitbeto fliewyouare notpleafed with the difpute about fitting at the Copimunion, it (eemes you ftill like kneeling better, for the thing it iclfe, you either judge thus of it, that it was an occauonall circumftance, and fo you pick quar-rells even againftyour owne light and principles, or if you thinkeit a binding circumftance^ whence comes it that you ufe it not? You have yet another quarrcll about that exprefr fionofmine, incdXiing'Bjptifme the feak-efour extrattce and new bifth^ and thence you would infinuate, that I deny Bap-iifmt tofia Sacrament of our nouri^meni and cominuame^ and ^ou tell me thafj but a diBate like the refi^ ^nd fomervhat ah^ to BeUarmine and the refi of the Fapijls^ who make the efficacy ofBaptifrae to extend nottotheremilfion of the finnes of our whole life, butoforiginallfinneonely. I anlwenthat Eaptifme is a Sacrament of our Birth and entrance I have proved, and your felle grant, that it is not of u(e atter-ward I never fpake, never thought; but as for my being akin to EtUarminej adcrtion, if your affertions were no movi^ siantoS§cinMyServttmiMarcicn^&e* then miacareto she P^ifts,ic were better for you. My

My next Inftance was from our Omfiian SJfhatby th$ The fame At-fourth Commandemtni hinds w for the fuhfianc^^ at mHcb as {ver g«meiM which ithoundthejepoj--, there God once for all fparafid one d^y of'^ S^"^ ^X fe-ven to he famdio himiM^^ atJ a& the n;orld flood hoHrid /.i7''"^''^c'"'^ zertueoj ihatCommmdmCnt inaUages^ to give unto ijod that baih,iseoo<i omd^jeffeven^ whichjhmldbeofhu on^nechoafing^thoitgh oneJy for Infanr. the fevcnth day of the week be named in the fouith Com- Baptifnie. mandemenc. NoVf (faid I) ^od having put an end to the Saturday Sahhath:, andfurrogated the firjl day of the Tpeii^ in (itad thereof to he the Lords dojfy rvei need no netp Commmdement for keeping of the Lords day^ heingtyedhj the fourth Commander mint to ksep that day of jeven which the Lordpould ehjofe: And though no day bee mentioned ia the fourth Command* ment^ but onely the feventh from the Creation, yet our Divines think ic no abfurdity to rcalbn thus^ Thou ftialt keepe the Sabbath, thou (halt reft the feventh day, that is, thou fhalt reft the feventh day from the Creation, while the Lord continues that day to be his Sabbath, and thou fhalt reft the firft day of the weekj when the Lord choofes that to be his Sabbath; in like manner I (ay of the Sacrament of Bap-ti fme. To th is you anfwcr, Ton refirreyow jdje to n>hat jou have before declared^ Tart 2, SeB. S. And thither alfo I referre the Reader, when I bazf0 vindicated tbi^ anfwer from you, I further adde, you neither there nor here deny this Argu-ment from a confequence to be fufficient for pra£life of fbnie things in the Worfhip of God, which are not exprefly laid downe in the NewTeftament. onely you adde here, I forget the marke at which \/b»ot^ the Sabbath or Lords day he* ing not to be n cl^pned amone^ the lews Sacraments, 1 reply, firfi", I might as well reckon the feventh day from the Creation, among the Jews Sacraments, as you may fay the Jewes had as many Sacraments as Ceremonies. Secondly^ I never nunibred the Sabbath amongfl Sacraments, but becaufc the Sabbath belongs to thcinftitutcd Worfhip of God, as well as the Sacrament, and requires its iniatution to bee at fcaft as cleare as this about Infant- Baptifnic, which touches but acircumfianceofagei this Argument from the one to th«

<.it ;M'i :\,>it.\?cr^

206 ., l^f^f^i'-BAftifm ^r&vMftm Serif ture,

otlierjwyiappearetothe inipartiall Read^f^ tb^B^e too ilrong for yoil to answer.

Next follows^ tbt blow which rviU tumble downtAU^ it yonr id^t may be believed; Mark Reader how heavie a one it is. ^^ I (aid when God made the Covenant with Abraham^^nd ^^ promiled for his part to be the God of him and his feed, ^^ what God promiied to Ahr/iham^ wc claime our part in ^^ il^ as the children of Abraham § and what God required *^ on Abraham J part for the fiibftance of obedience wee /^ ftand charged with as well zs Abrahatity to beleeve, to ^^ love the Lord with all our hearty to walkc before God " inupriglitnellejCoinftru^andbrlng up oiir Children ** for Godj not for our fclrcs, nor for the Devill- to beach ^^ them to woi[{hip God accordiiig to his'revealed will^ to ^' trainc them up under Ordinances and Inititutions of **, Godsownc appointment; All thefe things God coni-^^ manded Abraham ^ and wee by vertue of that CoveiTant ^^ (beingCovenanters with Abraham^ i\^t\dbound to all '•^ thefe duticSjthough there were no cxprefle reviving thefe ^^ Commandementsin any part of the New Teftament^and " therefore confequently that comiliand of God to Abra^ ^^ ham^which. bound his fted of the Jew5 to traine up their ^^ children in thatmanncrofWodhip which was then in ^^ forccj binds beleevers now to traine up their children in ^ ^ conformity to fuch Ordinances as are no w'iifi, force.

^To all this you SLntwer^fhppoJing Hrfteafjethcfpirimal! part of the Covenant to be that which Gjdpromijed to Ahtdham ^ and tbeperfinjclaim'mgto beebdevarj'y ibispaffage)oU grant to bee irHeybe^aHfi thefe are fnorall d;itks. Well then, the deadly blow is not yet given • I meane this: which you fup-pofe: and I meane more then this^f mcane that "^hat Abra-ham might claime as an inviiible beleeverj we may clainie as invifible beleevers : what he might claime as a vifible be-leever or Profeflbr^ wee claime the fame as vifible Pro* feffors J and fo what he flood obliged n nto as a vifible be-Icever or profeflbi;'^ the fame are wee obliged to 5 I meane allthisj and you fay nothi^ig againft it;but the next palfage is that which kills all. " I faid^ and the fame command

'^ which

^^, whkh erljpy Hcd Ahraham^o. (cal his children withthe fcaJ ^^-pf the Covenant:;,rnjoyns uato feal ours with the^fealc of ^^. theCovenantjand thaj eonimain] of God which exprefly *^ bound y^^r^/:'^w to feal his withthefignofcircumcifionj ^^ which was the Sacrament then in force pro tempore^ for "^^ the time 3 doth.ver^uallybindustofealeours with the **^ fignofBap.tifraejWhichls.the Sacrament now in force^ ^* and fucceeds intothe room of the other by his owne appointment. Your anlwer is,T^^ CoTifiquence is inferred from The reft of a'JudaizhJgprmcipky without Scrifturtproving either pr'wei' ^ Z^^^^ra-pk or Comlufim y whereof )OHhjJvehroHght ten Arguments ^«^ ^^^n,reach us. of the Scriptvtre againft it-^ arid that the meaning nfthe Co^iclu-■Jufion mnjl ^Cy iljjt wa are fiill bound to circftmcife , that our males mufi he circumcifed at the eighth djy 5 that by no rule oj Vivinity^ Logic\^ Grammar^ or Khetorique^ any man cjnccnftrue thh Commind^Cut ejf the foreskin of the males upon the eighth djy ;, that,is.y Ift a Treacher of the.Gofpcl baptize young Infants^ male or fernaki by as gosdConfequ'nce I anight fay ^ thou- art Vc ter, and uponthps roch^ 'EvgOy the Pope is Monarch of the Church-, Qr^arijePeter kill and eate:,'EtgOy the Tope may deprive Vrinces. So thcujthe dint of your mortall blow lyes, jn this^that you maglfteriallycallit a Jadaizing principle ^ that you have ^ brQught ten Arguments to prove that Mofij Ceremonies & R.ites do not bind Chriftiannienjbut that they are all abrogated, fubftance and circumftance, whole and part^that this vertuall confequenee from the command of Circumcifion to . baptifm canaot be made good either hy Divinity or Logick; butfure^ ifthis be all you can lay again ft iCjtheCpnlequcnt and Conclu fion will eafily rec over of this wound. W hen I iaid but juft nov/jThat Gods Command to Abraham and the JeVPSy to trains ftp their children in that manner ofU^orfnp whi(:h ..was thin in fou^e^ ., hinds m tjow to traine up oar-children in con* . fo-rmity iofu^h Qfdinancts as are mw in force'. You granted this rule was tme^ if meant of believers, I pray what difference is there betwixt this confequenee and that^ c/peciallys it being cicare in theScripCurc, thatBaptilme (iiccecds Circumcifion as the initial! leale of the Covenant 5 and pur .children have the fame right with theirs .-to. bee.reckoned to

she

j^ J Ufsnt-idftifme frovcdfrdm Strlfturtl

the Covenant: ifkbcagoodconfeqiient. That ^cjw/c A-bi aham was kound to traine up bk Chitdnn in conformity to thofi vi^iimisns which potnthtn in for et^ hcaufe their children had right t^^efo trained up'y thertforewt anhmnd to traine up our children in eonformitj to the present infiitutiom , ^tcaufe our children have right to bt fo trainedHpy is not this other confe • quence I fay as good. That ^ecaUjk God commanded Abraham ■to adminifttrtohis children^ tbefeakof admijjiotttnto Covevdnt, hecaufebUchildren wen to he acefuntedts hdongto that admini-f ration^ ire are to dot the Uki to 9ur children norv^ ^ecaufe they Be" iong to thii adminrfiration* T fay further, becauis Abraham and the Jews were to traine up their children to celebrate the ie-venth day ofthewcektobc Gods Sabbath, we therefore are bound by vertae of that Commandment to ti'ainc up ours to keep the firft day of the weeke as Gods Sabbath: which confequencc your felf grant to be good^though the thing be a patt of inftituted Worfhip, and no exprefle command or example of it in the nelvTeftament.I appeale to al Divinity ScLogickiVvhether this confequence from the command of Circumcifion to Baptifme be not every way as ilron§ & clear, As for your ten Arguments to prove the abolition of the Jewifh Sacraments 8c ceremonies, they are al agreed to, Sc are brought nothing tohe purpofe in hand.l h;ave already (hewed that this argument from the Analogie betwcene Ciraimcifionand Baptifme, and the reafon, end, and ufe ofthem both ftandsftillin force, though Circumcifion it felfe be aboliOicd 5 and I doubt not but rfie impartial] Reader will acknowledge this argument to be as good, Circum-cifijour chi/drevy hcatifijottr children bavf ri^ht to thu initiaU feaJi J Ergo, hy analogie Id Cirifiianj baptize their chldren^wha have tht ptme right to the inltiaU fiale 5 as thjj , ye lewes keepe the Sabbath on th feventb orlafi day of tht weekly Ergo,jre Chriftians l^epthe Sahhatbontkefirftofthe rree^e. As for your ridiculous confequcnces which you put upon me^ of^^ihou art Peter, Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Chttreh^&c, I anfwer onely this, I fhall defineyouin your next, to deal with your Adverfary by folid Arguments, rather then feek to render ^im ridiculous by jccres and fcoffes, left in die end you meet 1 with

with f&me adverlary who may drefleyou in your own kiiidy which I have no niindc to doe j whether I have not mad& good this command of Circumciling In'ants to prove bap--ti2ingof Infants, bygoodconfsq'jenccllu'ave tiie Reader to judge J and proceed to cry your Itrcngth again it the next.

Another command by gocd confeqnence I gathered out of 0 ;; , .

T»hreour Saviour bids hk Vrfcip!c$ goe and teach all Ni ionfy com*n7and for haptvcmgthem^&c, Vf^hemnIobfirved tix^Q tb'wgf, Firfly Infant Bap-wh.Jt they were to doe'j viz. to teach the n?hoU Covenant^ the Cgrue" fi''^ ^X ^^**' nAntmAdemth N(Xdh^m^ vphereof this vp^ am branchy I vpIH f^^l"^*i^^* he the God of tbney and of thy fend , they rvere atfo to baptize^ that isy to adminifier Bap:ijme as afeale of the Covenant ^ to all wf^ received the Covenant, Secopidly^ wee have the perfom to whom i hey n^ere to doe this:) all Nations', where Jf before the ChUrchwas tj ed to one fSlatton^ ont Nat in onely were difc'tples-^ now their Com* mijjionwof extended to mak§ all Nations Vifcipks, ezerj No--tion which jlnmidreceive the fAith^ Jhou'.d beto him now ^ Oi the peculiar Nation of the Jew J had been in t: mes paff^ now fPe h^ox^ when that one Njtioziof the Jews wefe madeViJciples , and cir'^ cumcijtd^ their Children were made Difcipks (made to Ifelong to Gods fchoor)4ndcirc/tmcifed with themy&cTo this you anfwer, Firila thatpromife^ I will be iht Godofth:e and thy feedy that it fhouldbt thus interpreted^ the fed of bektvcrs afitakm into Co* venant with their Fareffis^ if a new Gofpely no older thenTjwingli'* t^* But 1 have fiifSciently proved that this was good Gof-pel in the Apoftlcs dayeF, and in the times of the Fathers of the Primitive Church. Secondly, concerning the per-(bns who were to be baptLred, every Nation, or all Nati-^ tions: to this, bccaule it is like to trouble you, you bring ' forth your old artih'ce of framing many fences, whether by every Nation, be meant b^k^verj of every Natior?^thcn you grant the (cnCe is good: or,whether by Nation be raeant a great or eminent part of the Nation ^ the QjvernoHrSy and. cbiefeCiiiejy the reprefintative body of a Nati .«, Then you fly outj and ulke o( baptizing all wuhin the Freeing s of a Parifi,

Ec a

a conceit which you fallen upon Cyfrian^ andtdke ofmcef pty of baptizing fjofficiaiing Prhfij-j, and bring in tk Ifide-fm^nts^ nothing to the purpofe, and enquire whether •^*S or \thtm] referre to Jslations^ or Difiip/ej^ iathofc words of our Saviour; then you vent your Critici/mes a-gainfttheauthor of Infant-Baptifnie^ and undertake to ftiew thiat i^^TivQa,7i^ fignifies to teach cum effe&fty or teadi dll ihey be made Scholars 5 and after a long Difcourfe upon theft things^your reiult is^that ^'7«f [jhemjnizy be meant of Vifeiphs^ and Nations refpc&ively^ Vifcipks of "Nationjy or Nations who be DifcipleSy hut not to kaptize any of ihem till ihey r^re Vifcipiif. But Sir, what need all theie things? the meaning is plainer by Nations , I neither meane the major part of a Nation, nor reprefentative body of a Nation^, nor the King of a Nation; but whereas before^ onely one Nation of the Jews were Gods people in Covenant, now other Nations fiioiildbetakeninJikewi(c: and whereas be fore their Com-miflion to preach and baptize was refti 'iCdve , Goe not to th Gentiles orSamaritans^ now he enlarges their C ommiffion to all Nations ^ and wherever their Miniftery fhouW bee {6 blcfled^as to have any Nation accept the GofpeI,they fiiould bchis people now, as the Jewes. had been in times pafl, ae-Efayig*2A'' cordingtothatEvangelicaIlpromi(e3Era.i9»r4. Inthatday e^plaiacd. fialllfiaelbe a third rpith t^gjpt and Afiyria^ even a bkffina in the midH of the Land xphom the LordofHoflsfiaL l^kffc^Jaj^ iftgy*SlejfedbeEfypt my people^ and Afryria the rrorj^cfmy y4nds,a7uilfrael mine inheritance. Here is the Nation of S-0ty and the Nation of Afsyriat2kcn into Coven am as wdl as Ifrael Godsinherjtance3and now Abraham indeed became ^cFatherof ww^N^?i>«J5 fo that the emphafis of this Text is in the word [Nations^ in oppofition to th e ove ATj-iim of the Jews; that whereas the Apoftles thought they were never to go to thofc vile nations who were efteemed a5 Dogs and Swine^ our Lord inftrufted them, Th at n o w hee would pluck up thepartitionwalJ, and that the reft of the Nationsfiiould be brought within the verge of his Churchy and partake of the fame Covenant, which thejeweshad before enjoyed as their peculiar treaftre (a wonder of wcr-

cy, as the Jews themfeJves judged, when they camcfirft to underftand it, AQ, 11. 8 ) aiidconfequently when odicr Nations fhould thus by receiving and profcffing theGofpel come under liis wing, they fhould enjoy the (ati>e benefit of the C ovenan t with the JewSj He would henceforth he the God of them and their fetd^

Agalnft this you except many things: Firft^&yyoUjffee* there may hee a rule ajfisned to kftor^ urixn a Nation maj^ he called d heUefving Nation^ hia there it none: And to prove this minor, you run out atlar^e, not when a Kinginhaptiz^d^ ttot when the refrtfetttath'c bsay^ tjot when thigreate^fart arekekeuers^and fttrther^if the children of rvickedparents in a nation mof he hapth' zidjt mftff he either from their defctm^orflau ofhirtb^ hath^ if h} defientyitmufi he either from their imrnidiatepgrtntSy (frfonfa^ thtrj within memory ^or biyond memsry •, if from *the place %f Atf bhrth^then the chil iren ofiurks horn iwEngland may be haftized^, andiif the children of wkkldparents may cl/nme isjtt mt^ie from fome Chartery hhoLhzm indeed had a Charter tothramtife hii^ how tvickidfoever they fhould ptovey but other parent t have nme^, And here againe you bring in Kom. 11. to be meant of j per^ fonaliprivHedge ^y faith , which hath been before confated. I an(wer to all this in a word or two^there is a known rule, viz, when a whole Nation conlifts of viiiblc Profeffors^thafe Nation is to be reputed a Chriilian Nation > and when the major pare of a people may by a figuradve cxprcffion bee called a Nation, that major part, if they bee vinbk ProfeP-fors,may by the fame figurative cxpreffion be called a Chri-ftian Nation, a holy Nation, a (eparated people, whether any who having been vlfible Profeflbrs , and afterwards prove apoftatcs, or be excommunicate^ may have their children baptized, or whether childrei^ in right of their forefa-thersjor remote anceftors (when their immediate Parcntt arecutofFfrom theChurch)maybebapmed,or whether the Infanu of infidels brought up by Chriftians,and fo adopted into their Families, may be initiated into Chrifiianity by Baptlfine, whether upon the ground offcderaU holineife or other warrant of Scripture, are queftions notbefoD^g to our prcfcnt Ixifincflfejdiareforcl paffc them over.

Ec 2 I

^j^. Jnf/mi^Biipifme frorvtifrom Scriptm,

Whar it is fo .-, ? I addedj whrn that me Nitiemof the JewJ were made Vijct-make difciplcs. pjcs andc'trcHmcifedytheir Infants were made Difcip!es (made to belong td Gods Sthoole) and cifmmcifed vptthihem^ wi en that Nition vpas madi Vifciplesin Abrahams loynes ^ ar^d circMmci-jfciy their jted was alfo the fjtne v^hm thejtvere tak^n out ofE^jpf^ and a^tHjUy made Vifcf'iSytbeir chi drnntre alfo with ihem. Yoa anfivcr, Ftrff, this jtiPpjfeth that Chrifi hidik m hapfiz£ aft ^fitiuns aft^rthe mamier that th^ Icvfisdidcircumci(eone liMion, Secoadlj^ that the Nation ofthi lervs were dijcifUd nhen they vpfrt eifcHmeifed, And you fay to the firft Suppofitionj there U n9 'ground for it^ tbe^pcfile tijtevp Chrifts meanifjgwdlenough^that ^^jUpertto preach and then to ^aptizeh and that there was m allH-fiofifromtircumcifiontoBaptifme^ asMr^'Blake conceives. But .Sifj-fince it is apparent that here is no commiflion for any new Method in their work^ but one]y an enlargement of th eir commiffion to apply their Miniflery to new perfons, ^w could they uiKifrftand our Saviours meaaingto proceed anypcher wayes to the Gentilcs^then among t^*". Jews? How among the ]iws and Profelytes, it is apparent^ that childr^^n receive the initiall feale with their parents;, yea, ^ndypuyourrekc grant that their infants were baptized ^eh they werccircumciied^though baptifrae ivas notthen S Sacrament, and when it was taken into the honour of be^ ing aSacfament:,thereisnotOHe word in the Scripture of jefir^iniijg it from being applyedto infants as in times paft, \1^ ref fo;! i^f the iileuce of the new Teftanicnt about bapti--suhj^ t^i^ntSjicomes afterward to be, confidercd^ when your .OJi-(Mon fromiccomestohand. ^

To the feqojid Suppolition, That the lews were difdpkd^ andibnr childrMn neredifcipkdwben they were circHmcifcdXcm Qyyiik^ fficl^ a confirH^ionof the wordH-^^Tivoa^ t^ [make dij-^ipies^-'OSycH bek^ve\nq^exicoii^ mrany E-xpofitor to tbk dayjoath iijier madi^eftbatnerd^whi^hplainly fiiinijiejfo to teacb^as that the perfons taught do karn^ and accordingly frofeffe tbd things taUfibt. Sir, IpretendiiottobeaCritJckj though you doe, but I have learpt from better Criticks then your ifeli\ that ^^^^'^^^ 1? aRabbinickphraft^^nd from thejr uie of itjitish^ttobeuiadfcrftopdj and with them it%nifics to

admit

Infmt'Bapiijme f raved from Scriftme. % tj

admit Scholars T>Qbn H^V is a familiar manner of ipeech among them for to admit Scholars, and a*^ HTC?]^ to get or retaine a Mafter; cow this admiffion of Scholars was not quia ttjnt dMi^jtdy at ejfent 5 and there is this ditfe-rence with them about this matter 3 that t3''1'\bn Ti'Vy is toadmit Scholars to be taught, and On'^Q^bn yWj} is to breed Scholars^or to make them learned. And it you pleale to consult the L,earned Spanhetniuf^ in his Vubia Evangelia^ ^* upon this very place, wherein he vindicates it from the <V.Anabaptiils, he vi'ill tell you that tz fit^T-.v'ifi'^ fignifies «^ notoncly to teach, but to make difciples; which (laich ^^ he in this p!ace)isdoncby baptizing and teaching^there-<^ fore(iaith he}the fending forth ofdifcipks in thisplace,i§ ^^ (hewed or laid down^ Firft, from the end of their fend-^^ ing. Secondly, from the fevcrall a6i:s they are to doe to '^ toattainethisend* The end of their fending is rojia,^-cc T5U€/j'jtomakeDiicipleS5 the anions whereby they are *^ to attabc this end, are baptizing and teaching : and he ^^ gives this good reafon for this his Analyhs , becaufe if ^^ TV fxu^nviipy (hould fimply fignifie onely to teachj there *^^ would be found a tautoiogie in Chriils words; thus^ Go " teach all Nations, baptizing them, teaching them. The *^ Icnfc therefore (faith he) of Chrils words, is thiSj Goe *^ ye, make disciples t6 me out of all Nations by baptizing '^ and teaching j and this making dixipkj^ fito modo infan-^ *f tiM ettam apfdri p^itcrat . sfamdj mim partaUJ^ &c. For *^ when parents doe give their names to Chrift for them-^^ fclves and their families, their whole houfe is diicipled , ^ their children as well as themselves. By this time I hope you may be perfwaded that baptizing may well bee rendred difcipijng. And among; the Jews, to become a difciplc, was not by being firft taui^^ht, and then initiated into a Mafter, but is meant of being initiated into a Mafter, to bee taught by him^ fo^ll ^frael was baptized into Afo(t.>^ i Cor,iQ-not as already inllrufted, but to bee in ft rufted and guided bj him fo. the future; fo hfephoi Arimtthea^ kf^bUlivoi -iZ r^tt, Mjt.zy.'^y. diicipled in himfelfe, cntred himielfe into Chiri*.s icboole 5 fo the blind man to the Pharifces^ lobn 9.

Ec3 will

will ye bee hi$ Difciples, willyeprofeflehini, wiH" vebee initiated into him? the veryfirft day any one initiated thenifelves to learn, they were called Difciples.

FHriher you (ay, if the Affiles had under food snr Saviouri command tbHSy,Vifc'ipU aMnations baptizwg them^ thatis^^^-mit the Infants of all nations to bapt^mepOt the Jems did the malesofthat me nation to Circumcifbn, thejf might have faved themfelves a great deak of labour of frtaehing before Baptifmt^^nd of baptiK,iHgfimales^ and tvould have left usfomt prefrdifrt offuch a pra&ife* I reply, why the baptiaing of rnfants of Bdcc-ving Parents (hould fpare any Preachers the paines of teaching growne men, who are infidells before tliey are converted, doth wholly tranftend my capacity3*becau(e the Infants of Profelytes tvere to bee Circumci(ed with theirParents, therefore thcjeives might (pare the labour of preaching to grownc men before they circumcifed them, this is a moft wild confcquence. or why the vertuall and analogical! arguing from circumcilion to baptifine, (hould be brought as an Argument againft bapti2ing of women, hath as little reafbninit; there being no w under the Gofpell, in reference to this Seale of admilli on, neither male nor female, Wlereoi you diddsjhadihey done it they Vfculdharve left feme pre^ fident offuch a prallife^ whether by good confcquence they have not left us fome evidence of it> "is the que/iion wee are now debating* I added, in every nation the children make a great part of that nation^ and are alfvayes ireUded knder every admriijirati m to the nation^ rrhcther promifes or ibreatningSj)Ti-viledgef erburthenf^ mercies or judgement j^ wilejje they beeexcep--tedy whereof I gave divers inftances in my Sermon 5 you an(wer, the Lord hath plalmlj given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infanis in this adminifiratum^ according to or-dinarfTHle^ in that hee dire&s them to baptize Difciples ttpon preachir7^yheeexcludes lafa?stSt&c, andrvhtn Chrift and John ^^izedonelyfuchj this pv2idd&vxdudzs others, I anlwer, by what rulethendurft you baptize an Infant knowne to you to bee regenerate, fince they cannot bee Difciples upon preaching, ifyouiayyou cannot doe it by ordbiary rule, (hew us (1 pray) your extraordinary 5 if you aniwer they

are

are Diiciples, therefore they may bee baptized 51 aniwer^thc Infaiics of beleevers are vifible Difeiples^ they viiibJy belong to the kingdome, femily^ ichoole of Chrift^ as I have abim-dandy proved already • any manifeftadon of Gods that perfons Dclong to his Covenant is to your felfc a lu£5cient ground of accounting them fuch, either a promiiejor poW' ring out the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghoft> (though they are no infallible fignes of inward lanftification) or confe^on of faith or of repentance, are warrant fuffieient for us to bapti2e them^ now the promifeof God to belee-ving parents to bee the God of them and of their fed, and his owning them as perfons belonging to his Churchj is as reall a manifeftationof it as the other fignes of receiving extraordinary gifts, externall profeffion^Scc either are or can be. And whereas yon adde that Chrifts and Johns Baptizing fuch^ and no other as wWe a vifihleprofefjion^ U exdnfizt to aU other J J anfwerjfirfti it is no where faid they baptizecj no othorsjfecondlyj deny that confequence^this is not an exclu-five rule, the pra^^ife and example of Chrift, and Joh» is fuffieient to make an affirmative or pofitivc rule,/^ baptized fuchjtherefire wee may h^tize/uchy but it's not exclufive, that ' therefore wee may baptize no other^and the reafbn is plainc, diey poffibly might not meet with all perlbns and occafio-ons, andfo their praftife is a good rule, not a full rule; I fhall give one inftance, wee read not before the tenth of ilie AHjthdt either Chrifts Apoftles or lohn the Baptift baptized any profelytes of the gate, or that they baptized any (as you fay) until! they made aftiiall eonfeflion of their faith and repent an€«, or that there was any rule given, that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy (Shoft (hould wifhout any other confcffion bee a fuffi'cient warrant to Baptize any, yet Peter upon the veiy powring out of thofe gifts, without requiring any fiirtker confeilion either of faith or repentance, baptized Cornelius and all his company: in one word, any word or z^ of God declaring that fuch and fuch belong to his vifible Church, is a fuffieient warrant without any danger of wil-wor&ip, and tliis wee have abundsmtly for the infants of bclccving pa-

rent«>

aitf Infant-Bapifme prQved fr$m Scripture.

rents, wcc have therefore here nothing to doc with a mixture of wine anc^ water, (ak and creame and fpittle, they are impcftinentto our buhnefle, and you bring them in to no purpofej all your difcourfe of wil-worffiip which you thus ofce« repeate, reaches not the point in hand in the leaft tittle; the Sacrament of Baptiihie is an ordinance of his ownc appointment, and by his appointment may bee applyed to all iuch as himfelfe doth manifeit to bee in the number of thoie who belong to I'is vilible Churdi, what courfe fbever himielfe picafcs to take to maiiifelt it^ whiles wee keep within thefe bounds, we are therein out of the danger of will-worfhip. 1 added, n behooved ihe Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out qj^ Infsntj in this new ad" minif ration^ that thsy might h^oT» his mind ifhee bad intended to kave them out^ rvhich that ever hee did irz rvord er deed^ cannot he found in the Script areata this you aufwer^zV behooved the Lord tcgiye a precept to put thtm-ininto this new adminifiraiion if he intended to haz^^ ibem in^ n>hich thai ever he did you c47inot find'-, J reply, but I have abundantly proved that they alwayes had a right to bee accounted as belonging to his Church, to bee reputed vifible members, and therefore need no new putting in : if God once beftow upon a people a Sabbath to bee a (igne between him and them, they may lay claime to that Sabbath upon what day of the week foever he plea(e to appoint it: the like is to bee faid here,while the Lord wUi own any to be vifible members of his Church, they have right to the adminiftration, bee it new or old, if they bee capable of it, and no barre put in again ft them by him-iclfe.That which followcs in your booke, page 133. about Cbildrens ^eing tak^n in with their parents ^ and included unlcjf: excepted, and of being under the former admimjlratim^ and founder this ^ by par it ie of re afonyhsith been abundantly (poke already. I added, onr Infants are capable of being Di-fiiples as r^ell as the Infants of Jerres and Profelyie/j you grant it to bee true, andlaske no more for ours then they had for their?, and though they bee not capable of receiving acluall inli:ru6:ion from men, yet they are capable of Gods oivjie teaching even in their Infancy as much as the Jewes

' chil*

Infm-tdpifmifnvedfrmSitiftm. ^if

Children were, which is fiifficient for my puqjofe; I addedf, in Qhrifls dialed: to hlmg to Chrifiy and to bee a Vi{dp!e it aH mt^:, and cleared it by fome Texts in theMargent^ you an-fwer onelythif, th^t though Mr, BUk^e triumph in thii notiony vet it if a triumph before vi^orj^ and that the Text citedhj m (Pale not (f little ones in refpeU ofage^ and firm oj them menil-on not littkoms at aO^ but what^s this to the purpofe, when the intent was onely to prove tliis notion or exprefTion that to bee a Difciplc and belong to ChriO: is all one. I altlyj I Afts 15. lo. art'ued from AB, 15.1 ©♦ to ftiew that Children may hze caiied ex piamcd ini Vffeiplefi kcaufetheyufanwhofeneckltho[efalJ£ teachers ivould ^indicmd. have put thejoa^ of CircHmcifion^are called Vijcipkf^ and to bee cAiledVlfiipkSy and it h apparent that they would have put it upon the Ififants ofheletversat tvellas upon the beleevers themfe'ves^ bscaufe they would have impofd if after tf^ manner of Mofes Lax9^ andprefitbatLaV^ flill to bee in fores.^ you anfwerjy^a feem nectfttie from ihin to call Infants Difcipkf ^ and you firft deny the majory that all are to bee called Difcipks upon v>hnfe neckl they would have put thatyoake. To which I anfwer, without any further reply I leave it to the Reader to judge, onelylthanke yoii for the rcafon you aJledge why you deny the major, ^ecaufe it is not fiid they would pat it upon Vjr fciplesonelyi I hope you will receive the fame law you give, and therefore will reft fatisfied, when your (^Ife doe plead, Johns and Chrifts Difciples required confellion of faith and finncsofthofe whom they baptized, and when Chrift bid hisApoftlesandDifcipl'-stirftto teach, then to baptize, I fhall aniwcr, it is no where faid, they baptized omlj (uch,or were to baptize ««e/yfiich. Secondly, you anfwer that t^»f yoak^ofCircumcifton which necefjitated them to keep Mofes L<tw to falvatim was not put upon Infants^ but upon brethren n^hoiverc taught tbeneceptieof it, 1 anfwcr,thcnF.i«/hinifelf was much miftaken, who faid, that every one that was Circumeifed was bound to kcepe^/'/e/Law; and certaincly P<i«/meant t^at which thcfefalfe teachers alledged,evca Circumcifion impofcd after the manner of Mofet, Laftly,you make your fclfe merry with Mr. B/^fte, as if hec alluding to Efa. 49.2«. of kringingfoTints and daughters upon thiirfi^tsldersto Chriftf&e.

F f had

hadalledged that Text nothing to the purpofe^ I confe^Tc lam not Satisfied, that that Text is cleare to the purpofe, biit lam fully fatisfied;, that you often make a noyfe "with Texts leflcto th^puipolcp as in bringing Alfj 19. for re-bapdzation,! Cor.y. 34. to prove holinefle to bee meant of Chaftrde:kand many others. My next inftance was from the forementioned place, Se^, 14. ^Hs 2, whence I fhewed th Children offuch as hthtz e and art Arts 1,39. hjFptized are takerj into Covenant^ andtherefnre ^,jgoodconfcqttenct holds forth a are fo receive the Stale of the dmnant^ and that that Jextnoi Inianr B^iprifm f^^^jp^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^J ^^ T^fthin the Covenant^ hnt alfo that a right hy good iohapfifmtfs aconfeqncfjce of being within the Covenant'^ Your

confcquciKc. anfwcr is to this cSeS:, that you h^ve already anfrpend thif flaeCy ssid thzt it if fofar from provingthii^ for nhich I afledge il^that it proves the cdntrarj:, I cheerfully referrc the Reader to my vindication of this place, Seft 6. Part 3. I added, wee jlxamples of have likewifc examples enough by good confequence. Firft, In&nr Baptifm J Qieigired that the Ge^U teol^place by bringinff^ in whole bgupJds fcq«encc^" ^ li[?f/c^/«€r admkiflrstim alfo did j you alledge to the con-' trarjr feverallexamples page i ;8j 13p. that it was not cen^ ftantlj fb^nor did I ever fay it was fb alwayes or conftantly cither among Jcwes or Chriftians; you alledgc the th»H-fands cmvtrtedmihe AUs^ the Ciiie of Samaria^ and others, jet no mention of the whole himfhold^ yet poflibly their whole houfholdsdid come in with them, the Scripture fpeakes nothing to the Contrary, how ever I allcdge it not, nor doth the caufe depend upon it 5 I alledged many houlholds who were baptized, Corneliti^ ^i\d his houfhold, the f^ylor and his houfbold, the houfhold of Stephantn^oi Crijpuf^of jiri-flohfth(§^o(NarciflM and feverall others 5 to all which you anlwer, thii tmefi ^ee interpreted bj other places^ rrhich when they expre£e the haptizSng of the honpold^ they expreffe alfo the be^ kevingor nceivwg ofthevpord 4^j the vrhole hot/fiold^ and that fommmis the houfe v put for the people of gremb in the huje-^ but who taught you it muft bee fo interpreted? hee that will may force fuch an interpretation upon himfelfe, and k is hard t© open the eyes of a pr«judiced man, but I fore not, tiyit when you willj that you (hall never findc fo good evidence ' out

out of the houQiolds eating the PafleoTtrj Exod. I2, there* by to prove that women did eate the Pafleover, as this proves that the Infants of tlie houfe were baptized, be-canle according to your pi-inciples wome-n might not bee numbred amongft the Circumcikd j and the Law was plain that no uncircumcifed perfon might eate the PaBeover, whereas on this liand for Infants bapciline, it i« not to bee doubted^ but that there were Tome Infants amongft thefe lioufholds who were baptized^ and no Law made again ft the baptizbg of them. And for your cvafion that though it b^t fimetmesfaidhoujhuldjtverelxd^tizedy jefit ii faid tbofi ifimj-holdj received the rvord^ though diis mig^ht be pleaded conoei^ nnig fame of them, yet there is no evidence why you (hould ipcake it of a/^ of diem. And whereas you further allcdgc, tnat a boHJl isfimttimes tal^n for the gronme perfonj in thtH boiifet Cthough all theScript^ires which you mention a^e not fit in* llances) it may very well bee granted, and hurts not nief,un-lefle you can prove that it muH bee lb meant: 1 hayc better Warrant to affirme concerning the Jaylors hou^, of whom ItisfaidFj/^/preachtf^^i/i^j/^^/^-zf ffere in bis bouje^ that eidier there were no Infants in that houfe, or that the prea* ching of the word to all in the houfe is to bee limittd fr§ fiihjcdtd mjteriato themuho were capable of prcaching^and yec the reli received baptiiine wh o were capable of it. And thus I have cleared and vindicated my firft and great Argument, Infanuare (ctdcr^Uytbcrefore ibey mafi fefignati> tbzy dre in Covenant J ibtrefon the initial! Jeak 9f ibc C^enant be longs unto them, I proceed to the (econd.

My (econd Argument was to this efied \ the lufantt tfhtUt' vers even while they are Infant j art m^defjcrtak^rs (f the inward ^ « . -gra^e ofBiptifrne at weBof grofPn^ mm r»bs are vifbU pr<f(^rd^ > * 5 tberefurc they may and gh^ to receive Bjptifme ^ nbicb it the i^^^^j^^ ^^ oHtwardfgne of this invfard grace. In your an(wer you grant p^bJc of 4ie the wjjor, that aU who partake of the inward grace rAoy partMke grace whcrco< Ota of the outward figne^ and thit no Antipxdohaftifi will denf Bapti&ueist «^H, but then you enquire what I meanc by i^<2Vi>»g ffc^^iag ^* ' fignifiedy andymfuppoftl doenothold that aU InfmtS rfklee-Z'erj itjve M^uaUy the inward grace fiffiifod by isftifrnty no

F f 2 ifldocd

Infdnt'Boftijfne^fronJcd fnm Scripture.

indeed Sir, nor do I thinke that you conceive that all grown perfons who arc vifibleprofcffors have it. la your anjfwer to the minor propofition that Infant j of vpiU at gron>m mm urepartjkirs of the iriPfatd grace^ according to your ufiiall courfcj you enquire after a great many ienfcSj whether I mcznekoi^potentiallyjvingityor a&nall having it^ whether I meanc oneljform have it aSttmllj^othrs potentially ; in one feftje the ar^ment hatbfonre ferineJ^ in another forme^ the argiment will emc/tfde hut for the haptizang of f&me Infants^ then you enter into SLdiCcouvTc upon the Lutherans^ and about a hookje intitukd^B jpttfmdl regeneration of eltEl Inf^ts 5 with which you fayDoftor Featley concurs^and ofa book written by S,C, Intituled, A Chrifiians plea for Infants Baftifmey which holds pofitions fbmewhat like the Lutherans^ all which you pro-feflc you mention to difcoverwhat fluffc the Pedobaptifts doc feed the people withall, you might have added, to worke prejudice in your RcaderSj andto (hew your owne readingjandto fwell up a volume, otherwife qmrfitm hac > my meaning is as plaine as the high way, that as Infants arc to bee reputed to tielong to the Covenant as well as grown Vifible profcfTors ( which was the drift of my firft Argument) To the fcope of thisisto flicw that they are hi the fame capacitieto partake of the inward grace of the Covenant, while they are Infants, as there is of grown vifiblc profeffors; and that they arc notonely capable ofii^ but mahy of them are aftually partakers of it as well as grown men, and con(equently that wee have the fame ground to lookuponandjudgelnfantsof beleeversto bee regenerate as upon grown men by a vifible profeflion, there being to us no infallible ground of certaintic,butof charity,for the one nor for the other^and that their viiiblc right to the Covenant and the many promises of God made to the feed of the faithful! are as good evidences to ground this judgement upon, as the cxternall lignes which growne men can give, and therefore whereas you fay, that all the Infants of belee" vers J or the Infants ofhfkevtrs in as much they are the Infants of believers^are a&itallj partakers of the inrfiard grace ofBaptifmey ^Ife the Argument i^illn^fervefor my purpoje't-l utterly deny^

that

thatthisistheConclufiontobeproved^ or that my ai^ii^ mcnt is not to the purpoie, unlefle I undertake to prove this5 for I argue in the like cafe from grown men who

are vifible Profeflbrs, thus; M voh) an pjruk^ri of the inward grace of Baptifm^ may and ought io partah^ of the out-rvard figne and feakj, but vifibleFraftjfors are partakers^ &c. This minor is lyable to the (ame exceptions that the other is, for who knows not that many viiible Profrflbrs have not die invisible grace. That many are called 5 when but few are chofetit and yetyour felf doe hold, that we may de fide, om of faith & ajjuranceythat we do it according io Gods will^app/y thd outward pgmt6 them^ though we have nothing but charity to tna^e m conceive the inward graces to be in /iS^ew^Neither can we by the judgement of charity think that all vifible Profeflbrs taken together in a lumpe have the inward grace; the Scripture (which is the rule of our charity) having declared the conu'ary, our charity onely warrants us to judge of every fingle peribn^ when poffibly we may know no more againft the one, then againft the other, though we know there are fomefalfe hearted amongft them :The fame is to be faid for Infants- and this I proved out of the Scripture, Mark^ i o. To fm» ^el$ngs the kingdom of God^ and in my Sermon J Ma)\io. vindicated this Text from the glofTes which the Anabaptifts ^'cated from would pi« upon it: your exceptions againft it are fuch as ^"^^ T'""^^' ^^ thefe, it U p^ffible ibey were not very little ones -^ poffibly our ^^P"*^''^ Saviour meant not of tbim^ but of fuch as they^ for the word' is7i/«7wy 0] fmhynoi^^rtof of theft : poflibly,i&t?r«w & fimiii" urm, of thcfc and the lil^e : poifibly, they were not the children of hiktvcrs: pollibly., it vs meant onejjt of ele^ Infants , that ikfi were ek^yandfhmldin time he called', hutyet^ iky you^grant atf, and it will not hence fallow y that all Infants of beleevers have right to invifihle grace • yea^ it here fuits better for confirmation^ then for baptifme^ yea^that if H rather an evidence Chrifi would ngs havelnfantsbaptizedy becaufihe ordered not thefe Infants to htehaptizid. But Sir, how many of thefe things woold you have called diftates in another,afl[ertionj without proof and to how little purpofe arc all thefe things brought in > jourfclfgrantcnougntofervcmy turnc; you grant thattkc

5 f 3 king-

virr°

kingdom of heaven did belong to tbifi Infantt y and I ia-tended from this inftance not to prove that all Infants of beleerersaremadepartakersof favinggrace, hv\t that In-j&nts in their infantile age, are capable of inward grace^and fome of them aftaally partakers of it; this is enough for nic; and more then this cannot be (aid of growne men who are vifible Profeflbrs. I added in my Sermon^sa one branch of a rea(bn> ibat then ff mihing belonging to the initiation and being of a Chrijiian ^whereefBaptifme is afeahy n^hereof Infants arc not capable^ of well as ^rown men\ as receiving the holy Ghofi^ tmiQn with Cbrip^ pardon offinme^ regeneration^ etcmaU life. Your anfwer isa Icofe out o^Horace^ Amphora c^pit infiituiy &c. 1 fhoH^d provey fay you, tb^it aS I?ffantsof beUeven are aUuaUy partakersy and in peadofthifj Iprsve tbej^re capa^ ble of if. Sir, this is but one part oFmy rea(bn; and I undertook not to prove that all infants, but onely %haxfimi are partakers of it»

I added, and it is further conpderahky that in the rvsrh^g that inx9aYdgrace^ef which baptifme Utbe fimz and ftsle^ all Tvh» p4rtake of tbatgracey are hut meere Patients . and therefore Infants are of ftjuhjMs to hjve it wrcHjJjt in them , ss gron>ne mew, and the mofi growne rm^ art inno morefiinejfe to receive this grace yWhen it is given the/n^ in refpc^ either of faith *r repentance y which they jet have^ then a very little chiN^ &c. You anfwer, by demanding whether I bring aU this as apronfe^ that all infants baVi ity or that they are capable of it • or rpkether I intend it nt afart'ur argument^ th.tt baptlfme is to he given to thofe , tth9 are capable vf the firfi gracey which btcaufe Infants are as nfcU at grown men^ therefore they are to be baptized j hut then ym deny the major^for aperfon it not ta ^cbaptizjidybecaufe he may hive gracty hat becaufe hi h^th it. Sir, I brought it to prove that which was in baud, 27i;s. that Infants are capable of it as well as grown men, and that fome of them are partakers of it as wcU as grown men; and therefore their Infant-age caanotbepleadedagainflthem, as if inward grace could not wwpe^re to theirprelentcondition. And as for that you addc. That bapttjme it tohtadminifiredy net to them who tnayhavt grace^ hut to them who have it* Then it ftcmes they

are

are all wrongly bapuzed who have not inward grace 5 and fo (according to your ownc expreffion^ baptifme tofuch is as a feal fti to a blank; yet youknow^even the Apoftles themfelves baptized many who were in no better condition: and your fclfc afterward grant, 7hat a Mjnifier maj de fid« adminifefihk Sacrament'to fuch as make avijihle frofejjion^ though htUnoi ajpiredef anj ivrpardgrace, I have often proved, that a right to bee reckoned to belong to the viiible Churchy is a uifficient warrant to adniinifter the feal of ad-miilion. Sceondly^youmuch trouble your (elii tofindc out what I meanc hj fie firji grace: whether the free favour of God^ or the Covenant of gra<:e i wbetba if Imeane ihefirjh grace ia txtcutim^ I pitdti Hponjfifiijicatietf,or regeneration^ or adaptim • and then inquire vphich is the fecond gract^ But allthisisbutfeekingaknotinarufh. I am perfwaded all other Readers undcrfiood me t« meanc by the firft grace^all thacgrace which is requifite to the being of a Chrillian, u-nion with Cbriftj forgivcnciTe of fin^ tfeeindwelling of the holy Gho^3 as a principle of a ntwlife, and your fclfc fay more then once^ that baptifae is the facrament of our ini-tiation^and that which exhibits us members both of Chrift arhd of his Churchj and therefore thus needlefly to quarrell about things wherdnyour felfconcurre with mee, is too too vain^Laftlyjyou have ibmewhat to fay to that of onr hdng meerjypajjive in enrfirji c^fjverfi§fj^zndyoii tel your reader, what the divines ef great Britaine faid in the ^ymdj of Vort^ of fame preparathfis going htfore converfion : and what Mr, Rutherford^ D^r^Ttpifje^ and Dr. T rep on hive delivered about this point. And after a needlefle fhewing that you have read thcfc Authors 5 you grant as much as I contend foi^, That the tak^gar^aytheheartof flone^ and infujingof a prinr-ciple ofnew lifepi onJy G^ds vporl^and that a nm heart^Jiiijj^^c^ are the effeUsof convertinggrace-^ and that inthefe things rpee are papve: in fummejyou are of my judgement in this point, that Infants are capable of new life, and (bme of them partakers of it: and I likewife confeiit with you, and thofe above mcHttoned Reverend Divines^ that in Godsuliiall way of working upon grown mcn^ there are ibme prepar

ration^

rationJ f» )r cotiverfion, beforeconvcrfion it ftlfe, in which preparations men are not nieercly paflive; but in the receiving of the principle of new life, all men arc mecrely pa(-fiye. I know you will owne that exprcffion of Auguflme^ ^idagitlibirum arbitrinm^, fanatHt. I conclude this argument of baptizing Infants, with a Q5cech of BiUarmlmy there is,faith he, no impediment rvby Infanti may not Bee hap^ .Belk'\ hb,idt fiz^d^ neccx parte prohlbitionis alicujus divine, &e. veh BAftifmoy<i^>% fk^r from ^n^ divimprabibitionynoronthe part of the Sacrament adminiftrtd^ nor on tbeparf ef tbe Minifler^ adminipring^mr on ibe Infant J part to tpbom it it to bee admimflred, nor m the Chttr-chts part in wbich it is admlnifired. Pxdo-baptifme therefore is rightly coatinucd in the Chriflian Church.

PAR T. IV.

Se&. I. ¥ Proceed now briefly to examine what you have (aid a-

Anfwersro Igainftthat which you arepleafed to make the fourth ©bjeaions Part of my Sermon, though I know no reafbn ofthis your againft Infant- Aiialyfis: Had I indeed made this an answer of all the ob-Baptifme, jeft ions which I undcrtooke to anfwcr^you might have called it fo; but you know well enough, that I intended here onely to (atisfiethcleObjeftions which lye moft properly againft this (econd argument, as before I anfwered what was moft properly objefted againft the firft argument jhow-cver, I (hail take it as I findc it, and examine what ftrength you have added to thefe ObjcSions. ChjeS. I. The fir ft Objeftion I undertoofce to anfwer, was to this

t rom Mat, 28. ipurpoic^Tbsugb Infants are capable of tbefe tbin£r , ant^ that tbey arerprougbt by Cbrifi in many Infamr^yet vne may not baptize themy becanfi according to Scrtpture patttrny both of Cbri /?/ command^ Mattb. 28, in bis infiimtim ofbaptifmty and Jobn the Baptip^ Cbrifts Difeiples and JpoJl/eSy tb^ altPayes iaugbty and madetbem difeiples by teaching , before they baptized any . And to make this argument the more plaufible, you adde, Itisapnof prophaningibatSacramcnty when the inpitution is

altered

altered by [uhraBienor Addition^ and that it was fleaded hy the Nort'Coufermifij^ that it if Wiil-'nifrjhip ta adminifler the SaCra^ merits by addition of any thing to thtm , hmt cireumfiances t^hiS are alike reqmfite to dviU aUi§fJS y now the ftrfont to be haptizjed cannot he conceived a metre eircumftance^ hut helongt nteeffarilj fa the adminipration oftvorjhip^ m neU sf the perfm hapttzing^ if theperfovj receiving the Lords Supper,

I anfwer, I intend not needlefly to irultiply words, and therefore doe grant that to apply Saeramenis-toperfons to whomtheybelongnot by the Lords appointment is a pro-phanation of them. Now that it i$ fo in this caie, you goc about to prove out of this 28 Mat. Becauje the inRitutm af points onelj difcifies ofaU Naliens to he baptizjed^ and Infants aremtfftch. Thtejoubave made good (^sls you fsLj^ Se^, i^» Tart 3. XoH adde^ ChriUs order ihtPS appoints it^ vphieh mu^ kil{epf^n this pointy as wcU Ai in examination before the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. I !• 28. &c, and that by the infimtion they art iihee baptized into the name of the Fathery Sony and holy Ghop^ that isy with invocation of the name of the Lerdy which Infants cannot doe -^ mth devoting themfilves to the ftrvice and adberenu efGod^ rvhich Infants cannot doe . tfsat prefently aftir iaptijme^ the baptized are to be taught to oBjerve whatfoever Cbrift command dcdthem^n^hicb Infants are not capable ef-^ that JohnBaptifi and the Jpnfiles alm^ajes made prefeffion of repentance and faith , an antecedent toBaptilm^wbich Infants cannot make^To all this I anfwerjFirrr^thisof iT/^«^. 2S. is not the inftitution of Baptiimc^ it wa$ inftitutcd long before to be the fealc of the Covenant, it is onely an enlargement of their Commlflion, , whereas before they were onely to goe to the loft {heepe of the houfe orifiael, now they were to goe into all the Worki. You rcply^ /fit ^c not thefrfi inftitHtion ofBaptiJmy yet it isanir-^Ltutionof^ptfme to w pcntiks'^ and therefore the rule by rphich Minivers are to baptize^ or if noty n?ee mufiMfeiv another inftitufion^ elfe vpe cannot acquit it from WiU»vp$rfhip. 1 anlwcr^ all this is abundantly anfwered before, SeB,i^. T^t 3. A nd I add this inlargenient of their Commillion is very unfitly called by'you an inftitution ofbapti/m unto MfAthcir CommiiTion at the fame time was ialarged to preach to

G g the

^^f Jnfdm^Bdftifm fr&vtdftpm Scrifttnre.

theGcntilcs, willyoucallthatanlnfdcution of Preaching? and that the method of preaching to us Gentiles muft bee A r c s to o- ^c^^^*^ °"^ of this place ? I know you will not. For the reft a^]^*y Ar-' ofyour.petty reafons abovealledgcd^ they refolve feverall gumcntsor ofthcHi into one and the fame: C^ri/lj Wer ^ ( fay you) tAtJ<irnhs6MX feaebhtfbimidgoe before hjpizhJ^'y is not that the fame \vith of Mar. 18. thisjT w^/ men mufl U made difiipies hj pr^sching^ he/ore they h

hapihiJid} the anlwer to the one doth fully fatisfie the other. • But your third reafon Is a ftrange one, Tbej mufl bee hapti^ zed into the name of the Fathir^ the Ssn^ and the holj GhoU^ that fi^ (iay you) tiphh imocatlon of the 'Name of the Lord: then it iccms if the party baptized call upon the name /of the Lord by prayer, that's ail that is intended b ; baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghoft; that the name of God (liould be invocatcd at the adminiftration of Bap-tifme, and of Circunicifion, and of every Sacrament, is moft true^ but that baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Gh ofl^fliould be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name 5 and fo to make Baptifine and Prayer all onc# is ftrange Divinity ; it is true, Vaul was exhorted to pray or call upon Gods name when he was to bee baptized, Aas 22*16. but doth it prove that his Baptifae andPray-er was all one^ it may be you mcane onely this, that every pcrfon who is baptized, muft be able himfelf at the time of his baptifhie to pray^ if that bee your meaning, prove it by your next; fhew why more at Baptifnic then at Circumci-fion. As for your fourth^ were not the Infents of the Jews devoted to God by Ciraimcifio n, though they could not adual ly devote thei^felve^ To your fifth,T^jf/ they were to tcacbihem as foonofthej^.hadh^ptiz^d them'y and that therefore none wcte to be bapti2ed,unlefle they were fit prefent-ly after their Bapti/me, to leamc the reft of their duty. I anfwer, this alfo is fufficiently anfwered in Se&, 13. Part 3. and I further adde, that baptized perfons ought indeed to be taught all thatChrift commands them, and To likewife werccircumcifed perfons, but not prefently^ onely as they wcrecapableof it, and able to receive it. And as for the ferfinjb^ptizidbfJokn^andChripj difcipkt^^ I have before

an-

Infant'Bdfnfme proved from Scriptutt* ' %Yf

anfw^ered thatic cannot appeare chat they baptizeJi'na of* other biicfuch as made profeffiou of faith and repentance; and if it were granted^ ir follows not, that therefore no 6-thcr may be baptized^ their prd<^ice is a good rulcp tliough not a fill] rule^ as I (hewed, 5e^. 13. ?art^. And whereas you fay, Ioh?ibjftiz/.dno7ji butuprnprafeffion ifrepttitjmt.jo\\ would have a hard task to prove k^ if any man (hould put you to it 5 to prove (f fay) that hh?: did inipofe or require confellion of iin before baptifme, it is faid hee baptized them "^(O^Tctvo/flJ', to repentance; not w^^tk^ f a^ as ftated in a<^uallrepentance5 and his calling for repentance, and preaching the Baptifrne of repentance, fhcwthat this was the Icffon they were all to learn-'j not that they muft all ma-nifcfc that they had it bcfoix- he baptized them; and though fomc did makec{.»nfcffion of their nnnes, yetyou can never prove that all did it* or were tyed to it. Sure I am, I meet with very learned Men who judge thus, ^^ That their con-* ^ felfion of finncs was not becauic confeifion iras a nccefla-** ryweiitf/« to all who (hould receive Baptifme, but be-caufe heretofore Bagti/rne had initiated into Judakfme, and fo to Legal] pertormancfs; and the men who came ^^ to be baptizSl of ]»hn^ were fuch who had been educated ** in an opinion of Juftiiication by works of the Law: '"^ and therefore ]ohn in calling for repentance,did but clear '* his Baptifme from rji/conftru^ionjeil: they (hould think *^ it to be a Baptifme obliging to legoJI performances, as *^ that was of old, he wouLl teach them that his Baptilm ^^ wasaBaptifmeof repentance and faith in Chriit, and *^ (b doth but re^ki fie thoferelyers upon their owne righ-*^ teoufiicfle,inthe right do^rine of Juitification , which ^'^ the Golpel now began tot^rach, contrary to their le-^' gall cpaceited rjghteoufhelTe; and that therefore his ^* calling for repentance and beJiefe iw him .that (hould *^' come afeer, did more (hew the nature of the Golpel, to ** which his Baptifme was the intodu^kion, then the *^ nature of the Sacrament of Baptifme it felfc, or the me-" thod in which it was to be adminiilred ; and i-7ich thefc *^ accords the interpretation faul made of ]obm bapcifme,

Gg 2 ' A^s

<c

« ASs I p. 4. and conftqnmtly that the confeffioa required *' had fpeciall relation to theconditionol: theperfons wha ** came to be bapti2ed5 and was not ntcefiary for all, more ** would be required of a heretick for his admiilion into the *^ bofbm- of the Church,then is reqiiifitcto be required of a child. But however., I thinke it will b« hard fo;- you to confute this. I (hall leave it to the Judicious Readers confi-deration^ and not infift uponit^ but iliall readily grant that all Jews and Pagans fo borne and bred, were not baptiacd till they profelTed their faith and repentance , becaufe the Jewswercallto come under a new adminirtratipn, and the Gentiles till then were wholly aliens from the Cove* nant of grace, and then their Infants came in in their Parents right. But (ay you. This grant that the hrves n^ho «•/. ready were in Covenant^ rtPe^e to make Confiffwn before thy r^ere baptized^ is afufficient proofe that the adm'wijiratipn ofCircum" cifioTZj if not the adminiflration under zphich rve norp are : and that overthrows all virtuafl confequences from Circumcifi-on to Bapti/hic. I reply^ who everfaid that this adminiflration is the fame with theirs? it is the fame Covenant^ but a new admlniftration. Andastothatyoufay^ This 0-verthrows aU virtusU confiqmnces fam Circumcififfn i§ Bap^ fifme^y I have fo abundantly juftified this before, that I fhali not trouble the Reader with it againe, though you repeats this fo often, that I am ready to thinJce you hope your reader will beleevcyou in oneplace^if he doc not in the other. You adde my faying. That their l^^fami were to eome in enely intheirparents right^ doth overthrow my fecoiid Argtifmnt^becaufi that is grounded up9n a right t^hich Infants hadif their orvn^ viz. participatien «f the grace ef the Saeram^m. I a nfwer, belike then if^ny had pleaded thus for the Jewes Infants, That to Infants^ as rt^ell ae groxr>ne men , Gifd commnnica^ fed the fpirituall part of Circumcipon^ therefore thy mi^kt hfe cir^ cMmcifd ^ you would anfwer, that that Argument would overthrow their right from their birth-privilcdge. I rather (hould judge it to be a fecond good Argument for their Circumciiion; the truth is^ they a^^e both grounds of 6ods owncappointing: and thefecomJis a farther manifeftati-

on

on of their right to the Sacrament, God not oncly giving them a viiible ftanding in his Church, becauie they are the feed of the faithfull, but among them, who are Infants as well as among growne men doth worke inward grace by his holy Spirit according to his good plcafiire. Whereas you addc, tff^f you canmt jet difeerne hut that our gr9Hnds for P^dibafiifine are worft then the ^Papifij and ancients^ tpha build it updntbe neceptie of ^aptifme fo fahation • I muft needs tell you, your reipe£^ to the reformed Churches in this is very ifmall, whilityou thinke the Papifts ground of damnation of Infants not baptized is not Co ill as the Proteftants, who baptize them becaule they looke upon them as within the Covenant of grace; I will not aggravate this, I hope in time you will lee it and beron7 for it.

But you glory much in the advantage you thinke you have got J, from that which followes in my Sermon, the Heathen nationj T»ho were to bet converted to Chrift were jet n^ith^ out the Covenant of grace^ and their children coM have no right untiU themfelves rpire brought iw, and therefore no marvaik though both John andfhrifij Dijcifkj and^pofiles did teach before tbej " baptized^hecaHfethennoother rpere capable of haptifmey in this (fay you) 1 grant many things rvhich dse yeeld the caufe : Sir,' 1 (hall not recall any one of them, make your beft of youir advantage, i. Hence you colleft it fgllor^es that baptizing of Infant J is not according to lohnSyand Chrifij VifcipUs^ and the A--p9JllejpraSijfe:lsinfwcr3 it no wayes followes, if you take but that in which immediatly followes, that their Infants cime in in thtir parents right, 2. Hence I grant (fay you) that no other were tapable 0f Baptifme^ but whciehi I belccch you have I granted the caufe in faying their Infants v;FQrG not capable of it till their Parents came in, and when they did come in,their children came in alfo by vcrtue of the Covenant. What need you keepe fuch a coylc in asking n^ht-thrhekever shad then no children^ or nhetlnr the Jpoftles had no cemmiffioni or nhethr wee have a Commiffion if they bad not ? you goe on and fay, I thinks tofalvt it thuf^ when once them' fdves were infirH^ed ^nd baptized^ then their children jvere ca^ fahierfitby vertmoftbe Covenant .; Idocfo^ and what have

you

ajo Inftint'Bdftifme proved fr9)n Scripture.

yon to (ay againft it? why then fty you they wire capshk h Johns time and the Apofilej time^ and thif dej^rcvej thatnhichi fiid before J ihatihen none hut taught perfons vptre capable of Bjp-tifrm-y but where did I fay fo ? I faid there was no exprcffe mention made of any other, I faid alio Infants were not capable till their Parents came in^ becaufe their Parents were, to come under this new adminiilration, but I ne^er laid, w^cn their Parents were come in in Joh/j time and Chriils timc^ that their children then were not capable of it. Yea^ I have (hewedgood grounds by confcquence that thepra-£i:i(e was ctherwife. Further youiayj it/cemes I ccu'd pro^ duce no Infiisuiion in the new adminiftration^ hut the hi^ituti-^ an of Circtftnclfion^ becaufe I fay the ehildrtn were capable by vet-tueoftkeC^venant^ and the validitie of arpting from Circum-^ifion hath been ccnfide^cdhifom: and you further zdAc:, thai the Covenant h^mg the fame at aQ times^ of my f'rft conchficn hdldfy the children of kievers were as capable in Johns time m after'^ and/^»f you (ky my words doeplaimfy interfere'^ lan-fwcr, I have abundantly proved^ that this ground fron) the Covenants being the fame, and our Infants right the lame with theirs to theCovenantj and our Baptiirne fuccecding in the roome and place of Circumcilion, is a ibiicient ground for this praftile^ though there be no exprefle mention of them in this new adminiftration j nor did I ever (ay that Infants of beleevers vftvt not capable of it by vertue of the Covenant in J^c^Wtime, fb that this Diumph of yours is not the fruit of my interfering, but of yourouneblind-nefleor tumbling. Whereas in the clofe of this Section I faid, if any in the Jewip Church had received Commjffion to goe ^ndvn^h^other Cities Trofdjtes to them^ their Comnr.^m mufl have fitnmthtM'^ goe teach andcircumcife^ and yt if rrotfldnof thence ha7;efollowedy thit none might h^e circumdfid Im Jffch as ware firjl taught j you aniwcr the CommiJJ'Cn muji haze had reference in thi execution of it^ either to tbf eid infiifUtion of Cir-Cumcifion^Gcn^ij* or to a new Inffitution^ and then it Wvuld have been toldplaincly nhat and whom they weit t^j circamcjfe, I reply, /uppoiing it had gone according ro the inflitutionj ■Cc/7. 1 y^ which C as you lay ) vv^as to drcumcjic iraltrs at

eight

Infant'BapiiJmi fr0vedfrcm Smftttre* jj i

eight dayes old not taught, I hope you will not % they might ciraimci/e the vndlesoi any at eight dayes old^ although their Parents were not taught, which is the caiQ that I put, you cannot (I perceive) deny this cafe to bee parallcD, oncly this arguing from Circumcifion to Baptifin you cannot away with 5 but Sir, this reafoning is Juftificd to be good, Tftmjnmtur ut iha*

Thefecond obje^ion I thus expreflcd-^ 7/ ^ (^prejlj faid^^^-^-

n?i

ikjt he tbjt hkeves aftdis hptiz,ed fjall biifavid^ fait bin Chrifl y^J^^J* ii the Condition upon vp-hicb men may htc baptized^ And.m aiher bclccverv'-«<'" nxbeltevers ntaj not he baptised \ children are un^ekevers^ *i^^f- noctobe ba^p* fore they may not hee baptized;, they fay the negative if included ih^d, under the affirmative , helteving U the affirmative , unbelee^ ving is the negative^ therefore nhin beleeverj are commanded to be bapi ized^ nnhkcvtrs are forbidden to he hapt iz ed. This Argument i faid the Anabaptiftsdoe very much glory in • my , r anfwer to it was to this tffed: 5 that if this Argument hjvi any "■' ^ ftrenph at all agalnft the baptizing^ it hath mnch morefirength againfi the falvation of Infants^ becaufe it ii exprtftj faid both affirmatively and negaii'^ely^ bee that bekiVdh JhiU bee faved, but bee that beleevesnot (haS bee damned-^ tvhereoi though it bit faid affirmatively hee that beleeveth and ii laptizedp^all bee fa-vcjiy it ii not faid hee that is not baptised fiaU not bee faved^ looke by what diftinftion they will maintaine the (al-vation ot Infants agarinft this Argument, by the fame will Imoreclearelyjuftifie thebaptifine of Infants againft this argument. I adde now further^if they t^e beleevers in a contradiftinftion to Infidells, then I fay Infants of beleevers are beleevcrsi,a6 well as the children of Infidells are Infidells^ if they take beleevers in a more reftrained fenfefor pofitivc andaftuall fiutli, then I deny that this is a ncceffary condition required to bee found and manifefted in every one wh o is t o bee baptized, as I have at large proved before^ aixi your felk cannot deny. To this Argument your an(wer is ondy this, that yon mmnotthi Argument^ ondy thus farre youownc it, viz. that ^frofeffion of faith it a prt^requifite tQ Baptijwep and fo i$ vpis amounted in the dayel%f Jftfiin

Martyr^

Marijfi Tertnllian) Cy^rian^ and Auguftine^ &c.

But I reply, though you dare not owne this Argument, yet it ftands upon the fame ground that the reft of yo»r arguments doe, and upon the fame grounds that many of your expreifionsdoe, fuch. as this. That men are not tobet hap^ iiztd^ becaufe they may havegracej hntbec^ufi ibey have it. But now you will not ftick to this. That to have true faith, is a pre-requifite toBaptifm^you are contented with an outward confeilion of it onely, and that a vilible profellion gives right to a vifible membcrfbip, and confcquendy that a viable memberfeip gives a right to Baptifme, which is the thing I have been contending for all this while. As for what you adde. That in the dayes of lufiin Martyr^ TertuHian, Cy-frU?7^ and To forward, thisconfellion before baptifme was continued: it is true, it was continued for thofe that had been Pagans and Infidels, that they (hould make fuch a con-fellion before Baptifme; and it is as true, that in their days Sei^. 2. intants of Chriitians were baptized.

VVeknown»t 3' I faid it waS objcfted , Thztthouoh Infants are capdhlesf

what Infants the inward gra<x^ and that God doth ejfeEIuaUy voork^ in fome of

have grace,er^o thtm^yet that is mjufficient warramf&r us to baptize all of tberr^

we may not ^y^^ j^^.^^ ^^ ^y^^ Infants the Lord did fo worke , v^ee tni^t

*"^' baptize thofe Infants^ but that ne cannet k^n^jv hj any ordinary

y^ay of kripwUdgt^ therefore jve may nni baptize any of ihcm^ hut

tpait to fee) rvhen and in xpbom God n?ill rvorhe the thing fignifed^

Anfw» and then apply the figm to them. You anlwer, ibis i^ granted^that

if by Ttvelation it Could bee kncwHe , fiich as have this intpard

grace might he baptized*^ and that tbffe vpho are thu^ imitulcd are

not through tf^ant of an injlitution to be excluded. To my un -

derflandingthis overthrows all which you have hitherto

contended for- for then if Wee can prove that Infants arc

fiieh^ as to whom this Sacrament belongs, by your owne

grant they are not to be excluded for want of an inftituti-

on; now I have proved that Infants of Seleevers arc fiich as

to whom the Sacrament doth belong: yea, and you'' lelfe

grant,tbittrue faith is not a needful! pre requifrte to the ad-

miniftration of Baptifme, Befides, ] defirc before I leave

the

thispafTagetoknowofyouj how you will reconcile this with that which you (pake, pag* 162. Ihat there is a flaint T^xtreqHiringcunfiJfionbeJoreBaftiJhKy tbougb not h^firt Or* cHmcipon, I hope you doc not think a regenerate babe can make a confedion ofits faith; (iireJy thefe two things doc much differ, Gods inward revealing that he hath fanftiiS-ed a child>and the ciiilds own profeffion or confeffionjGod revealed thac Saul was hid behind the fiufie, bui this was not'S'^^/zowneconfeffion ♦ God revealed to the Prophet Ahijab^ that the difguiied woman was Jeroboamj wife^ btH that was not her owneconfclfion* Myaniwertathisobjc-diion was. That our knowledge that Gad bath nffeUually wrought the thingpgnified^ it not the conditian upon which we are to apply thefeakt he never nquiredtbjt we fiouldl^aw that tbey art cer-tainly converted whom we admit to 'Bapt'jfme , we are indeed t$ knoi» that they have in thtm the condition which mnfi warrant ut to adminifter thefigneynotthat whichmak^s themp^jfejfedoftbe thing fignified^fallibk conjt^ures are not to be our \uU in admi' firir^g Sacraments either to In^jints or grownemenyb^ a k^ownt rtJe vf the fFerd^ out of which wt tnu^ be able to make up fucb ^judgtmenty that our admini^f ration may be offaitb^ as wed at out of charity* To all this you aflfent, and consequently that there is nothmg needfuil according to the Word, but a viiible right- and then whatis become of ail your pleading> That btcauje we cannot h^ow that all infants ofb^leevers have toe JnwaridgracCy we may not therefore baptize themi this hold you havenovvquitted; and when once you have proved that they Jiave not a viiible right to bee reckoned and accounted to belong to the viiible Church, I promife you to quit aU mine.

W hereas I adde( 1, That I dct*hted whether in cafi Peter, or -FauJ C9idd by the Spirit gf revdation have Ipottn that Ananiafl^ f f I jAlexander, xj^tfK/^ have prated no ktter ihiuhyposrites^ w^ ther tbey either would or o/fght to have refufedibemjrotn hapiifme^ whiles they made tbatpuhliek^ profeffion, upon which others wtre admitted^ who in the^.tvent provtdnp better then thojt were* Yon think they would and ought, becaufe tin end offucb 4n mir^ wdinary revelation^ would be towamthmmttotdmitfttebper"

Hk fm.

ftns. I anfwerj the caiile depends not upon it, whetheryour con)e£ture or mine be righteft in this particular; and I con-fcffc) (hould luch an extraordinary revelation be made pur-poicly to warne them not to admit (uch perfons^that would be equivalent to a prohibition; but might not fuch a thing be revealed for other ends? Cbrift knew that Judat would provea devill, yet he admitted him not onely to baptiihie, but Apoftle[hip5 and fincc your (elfc doe grant that we have awarrant//e jS^fjOutof faith, and not out of charity onely, to admit men into vilible communion by baptifmc, upon an cxtcrnall confeffion onely- I cannotjunderlland why my private knowledge upon a particular revelation of a mans inward condition, (hould be a (ufticient barre againft proceeding according to the ordinary rule, if I were infallibly affuredthatfome glorious proFedor were no better then an hjqpocrite, were that fufficieut warrant to deny the Sacrament ofthe Loi'ds Supper to him, fo long as his life was unblamable before the Church ?

Laftly, I added. That in thit the rule to direU our k^oivkdgf^ isaspljimfor lafanis of forgrotvm men^ the rule ksving heene altvjyes tbis^ that grown men who ivere Ur angers from the Cove^ nam ef Gud, Fjg^Tis^ or Hiathms (hould np^n their being in' ^ruBed^ andnponprofeffion of their faith , andpromift to tpalki -according to the rule of the Gcfpd^ bee received and added to the Churchy and madepirtah^rs of the Sacrament of admtfjion , and their Infants to come in with them 5 ^otb forts upon their admijji" onto he charitably hoped ofy untili thygive fignes to the contrary 5 ehar'ity hei^QghoHsdfromthijik}n^ eviUofthem^nBthound tocon^ ^ude certainly of any •f them. Your onely exception againft this is, wondering that I dare fay ^ thtrftk to dirM our ^a?-Udge^ is at plaint f^ r Infants of forgrowne men, I anlwcr, truly Sir,.by as pUine^ I intended onely the truth of the irule, sbftt it may be as truly known as die other, thoughpoflibly not fo clcarely. I deny not but \ had ipokcn more fitly in iayingtheruleisplainefor Infants as well as forgrownc lijeOj a«d that I have prQved abundantly.

-- ' My

Jn(m-tdftifinefr^edfr$mS€rifme. ^^j

My fourth Objeftion was. That aU n^ho enter into Cove- Seti. 4. nam mafi fiipHlJfefir their fam of well as God Mh f^r h^-^ tk.y ohje^. 4, fnHJi indent with Gndt(fperforme the heleeverJ part uf the Cove- Infants cannot venant ^ rvell ^ God doth to performe kU part: My anfwcr Covenant, or was, ihe Infants of Jem were ^ much iycd, ^ tk Infants of be- .Clvet' ieeveri under the Gofpel, every one who was arcumcifed was boTind ^^^^ * to keep the Law^jft they knew not what it meanty mr could have the fame ufeofit n>ith their Parents andotkrsofdifcretion. You ovm not thisObjcaion, nor fay any thing agahift my an-fwen onely you except, T^jMi&rw#^^iwF whole booke^ I /«/>-pofe there is the fame re^fon of the mixt Covenant made with A-braham, and that it U the fame with the pure Covsnant of thtGof pet and of every btleever as a/Abraham , and of Baptifme as of Circumcifion. I doe Coj and have juftified thefe thing to bee true againft your exceptions. Y ou adde alfo, God commanded the (fney but tio inhere commandidthe other ; which whether he have or n o by good eonfequence, I leave the Reader to judge, by what is already fpoke n.

I added in my Sermon, Godjeaks to them prefently^u e. conditionally, as I have before tewed, and when they come f* years of dijcretion^theyfland obliged to the performance of it in theirowneperfottSy in the meane time Jefuf Cfjrift why is the furety of iheCovenant^^andtheJurety of all the Covenanters^ if -pleafed to be their fur ety : 8c this I illuftrated from things done amongftmen, tlms^when fever aB parties ft and obliged in the fame bondy they may feale at fiver aUiimes^ and jet be in force af" tertpardtogether^ orevenachiidfealinginiffaTjey, may agnize^ an^recognize thatjealing^ when they come to jeares of difcretion^ if then they tviU renoumt it^ as done when they underwood not^they may f-ee themfelves^^if they pleafe, iftheyfinde the former a& a burden to them^ fo faid I is it here, God U pleafed tofeale to infants while ihtyarefucb^and accptsof fuch as fealeon their pMrts^ as they are able to give in their infant-age^ expe^ing a further rati-paiioft on their party when they are come to riper yeares'^ in the tHeane time affordingthem the frtviledge of being reckoned unto his J(mgdome and family rather then the devils , if when thy are zrorvne wten^ they refufe to ft and to th is Covenant ^ thtre is no hurt ^ H h 2 dm

donicnGodrfart^ let them ferve another God^ and take their lot fir the time f come. To this you anfwer y Firtt;, th is is onely ihe^irmingoutthe pmiknfafeaU*^ "vvhich whether it bee to the purpcHC or no, I as willingly as your fclfe^ leave it to the Reader to judge. Secondly, you fay 5 it U very itmnfidtraJe holdneffe immee^ te wal^eeverj i^jptizedperfin a CoVinamtr , for whom Jefw Chip ij ajnrety • vohcnoi the Scripture maizes Chrifi ibefifrety aieljfor hss redeemed on ts. I aniwer, it is very true that Jtffiis Chrift h the Hxitiy onely of the eleft^ fo farre as to performe all the conditions of the Covenant in them^ but he is alio the fiircty of all vifible ProfciTors, aliqno modoy upon their condition of performing the Covenant; lookc in what re/peft your {tm will acknowledge Chrift undertakes for vifible ProfeiTof-s ^ as they are vifiblc Profeflbrs y the fame williervemy turne, and I lliall ask no raore^

^ „ ■■ The fifth Objeftion waSjf hat m hcmfit corned bj fuch sftaling

J,'*t^* OS this if. My anfwer was, Tbifame n>bich came to the infan$j N b fi * of the JewJy nha received thi feak in thdr infancy. You an-comes of In - ^cr,, Krft, you allow not that cxpreffion , That Ged feaUs ftm-Baptifme. to every on e thit ii htftiz^d^ hefealej on^iJy id beleevers^ to whcm hennd(rtal^es tQmaJ^good bkpromije of writing hit lan> in ibeir hearty &c. And here againc you charge me with jjmhlizing with the At-miniimsy nbo mah^ the Covenant of grace c&mmon i$ elcB and reprobateJ^ andltfttoivtrj manj liberty to frte. ihetn' fives if ibeyphafe^andfomillifieall, Ipaffe by your ftoffe.s of ray frivolousfuppofing of ChimeraeSj and other iiich gocd language; you have pretty well enured me ajfo to receive the reproach of Arminianifme. As to the thing it ftlfc^ I anfwer^ was not Circumcifion Godsfigne andfcale? which by his owne appointment was applyed to siil the Jews andPfofelytes and thekchildrenj did itingagc €od abfolucely to every one of them ta write his law ia their heartj&c And are not the Sacraments jl^»j conditionalta^ conditional! fignes an dfcales? and did any Orthodox Divine before your felfcharge this to be Arminianirnjp to fay that the Gofy6\ runs upon conditions^ I con fefl^ it U Ar-minianifme to fay any thing is conditional! toOOD ^ this

I never aflerted, but that the Gofpell is both pteached and by the Sacraihentsfealed to uS'upon condition offaith, will palle for orthodox doftrinc, when you and I are dead and rotten.

Yoti adde ihH fi>te dot not m^ underhand th^t God required of the Jewes Infamj iojeale intheir Infaftc} ^ I reply, but I hope you underffandj that the Jerves Infantj nrere fealed in their infancy^ and by this they received not ondy a priviledge to bee accounted as belonging to Gods family, but it alfo obliged them to the (cverall duties of the Covenantj as they grew up to bee capable of performing them, I added^ Secondly, Godbath other ends and ttfeJ of applying the Seale of the Covenant to ihemVfhdare in Covenant with him^ then their frzfent gainty it it onhtmMge^ r^orpip^ arjd honour to himfelfe^ and it Moovef w in that refpeH to fulfill all righteoufneffe-^when Cbrifi W3S baptized and eircumcifed bee vpoi as unfit for theor-dtn^nct through his ferfe^ion^ as children through thir imper^ ftBion^ ^eingas much above them as Children are behrfthemi your anfwer is, Bjptifme is Gods rvorfiApJPdsdobaptifme arpil" n>crfi:fip , Chrifis Bjptifme waf of a tranfcendefit nMture^ doil" dren are unfit for this ordinance^ noihecanfe of their imperfe&ion^ but throxgh dffiB of Gods appointment-^ had God appointed it ^ tkerewere no doubt to bee made of their fitnefe ; all this hath been confidercd and weighed againe and againe^ and ! de-fire notto burden the Reader nccdlefly. I added thirdly, the benefit andfruite of it at the prefmt is greaty both to the pa* rents andio the children^ to the parents n^ilfi God doth iherebf honour them to have their Sildren counted to his Churchy and un* der his ipingy n>hilfi all the other Infants in the vporld have their vtfibk Ranking under the 7rince, and in the klngdome ofdark^ nejfe^ arid conf^^mnily vphile others hjve no hope of their chil^ drens {pttituallweifare^ nnitllthtyhecaUedout of that conditi'-on J tkfe needmt htve any donht of their childrens welfare if i key die in their Infancy^ nor if they live nntill they perv fignes to tkt contrary^ Gdhavingbothreik^edthtm unto bis people^ andgi" vent hem all the rmanes of fahation^ rvhichan Infants age is ca^ pable of. You aniwer. Fii'ft, all this paff^ot is but di&^tteSi Secondly, you fay if J meane the unbapti^J children of heltt*

Hh 3 v€rs

•rt Infant^B4fUfrre f roved from Script/ire.

vttJ, dotkhn^tathe klngdomtof iU'devtll^ it U a harp and umharitalflt Jpeecb* Sir, I am glid to hearc you give that cenfure upon your owne judgement/it is your judgement thatall Infants even of Beleevers as well as Pagans though they may potentially belong to the kingdome ofChrili, yet actually they belong to the Kingdome of the devillj but tor my ielte, I meant onely the children of Infidells^ I doe not thinke that beleeving Anabaptifts doe through their ignorance or errour put their children out of this priviledge. You demand farther, JFbat comfort doe I give more to hiUi' Tflngparints that have their childrenhaptizcd^thin belongs to tbem, though their children rvere not hjftized, I aniwer^ if it bee not through the parents fault that their children be unbaptized, but onely by the pt-ovidence of God, they may have the j&me comfort, yet I conceive it a greater inlargement of comfort to enjoy the vifibk Seale, an ordinance which they arc capable of, and which God ufes to blefle according to his good pleafure • but I fiy when parents doe therefore not baptize upon this principle, that their children doe not belong to the Church of Chrift, no more then the children of Turkes and Pagans, and con(equently are without that pale, where ordinarily (alvation is onely to bee had, it is eafie to fay that their comfort can not bee fo much as others: your (elfe doc grant tjjat thii n>huh I plead fork a comfortable condition if it could be made out ^^agQ 8 2. Whereas I added they need not mak^ any doubt •f their ^ ch^drenS rvelfare y if ihey die in their Infancy, &c. You aniwer, J Jpeake like one who halds that Ejptifme doth conferre grace. e9c epere sperato : But why fo ? when I ground it upon the Covenant J upon their cjpacitie both <)f the Seale and the »»-Tpardgrace, and yet leave all to bee done by God, who. hath mercy upon whom hee will have mercy; I feid not that they may e/e^^ bee afliired of their (alvation, but that they need not have any doubt, the lame which may beefaid of growne vifible profefTors. I added^ h^re is alfa rnHchpriviledge and ^e^itjit to childnn when at (befide vphatin-x»a*'d fecret vorh^ ^od is pleafed to n^arl^ in them } tbcy being members of the Church of Chriji ifavc their pare in the commu-

nion

nion of Saints^ are rememhredat the throne of grassy eVfrji day hy ihofi that fray for the tPelfare of the Chnrch^ and particular iy in iffofe prayers which are made for his ^l^Jj^^g ^pon bis ordinan" ca . here firft jeu defire t» k^ovp what I mean hy a fecret npork^ n>hich God i? pleafid to werk^ in them ; ivhether any things exopereoperatoyor haptifmall regentratioa^ I anlWer^ 1 meant onelythi?, thatGodis at liberty^aiid may when hee pleaies let his grace accompany his ordinance: of for their ieing members of the vifible Church^you den^ they are fn^ and 11 lave proved them to bee fb. Laftly, I addcd^i/ is no [mail privi-* ledge to have that Sealehejlowedontkemin their Infancy which they may afterward plead nhen they are gr^wne^ ar.d come to fulfill the condition i you anfwer, rvhen^ where andhdwBap-^ tifme jhould bee pleaded^ you doe not wellconceive^ it is not Bjp'> tijme that willyedd a pUa of any force either in the Court df earth or the Court of heaven^ hut theproniife efGod and the cmjdition of faiih in Chrift ^ And yu never knerv ar^ Saint that pie

tea-

ded his Infant Baptifme^ infuch cafes ^ as the Ap tftles pie s lies for Rom. 8.31,3 2 ♦ I an^er^ as it is a plea for yifible pro-feflbrs all their dayes, foitis a plea for Infants^when they grow up upon the fame condition, and though the pro-mife and faith in Chiift bee our beft ple^, yet Baptiihic the Sealc is no nieane one, andyouiwho (ay^ thai of old the influence of comfort from haptifme was ^erygreat^ I hope did not inttndto limit it to the prefint time of its receiving.^ but extended it to all calesj -which may fall within the compaffe of thofe things for which J^aptiiine was appointed to bee a Scale, and as long as itrcmtines a Seak^ and iVhy yoit.ihoiild (pealui againft the pleading of Infent Baptifme, vrhien they comctoftilfili the condition and to have the anfwcr of a good conscience toward Godj (in which cafe the A|)oftle iajLd BaptifBieiaYeS;us}i J cawiottcUjUakflcyoutteikajutfe the^AnabaptiAsjthat jnfani: Baptifme-is a nuHitie^cVhirft ^you ^oe^ I^prfyyou Icjcus know it Jn.^ouraoQ:*

: ;^<claft Q^t^^Qn'^i^%^xhhpwc^dkiTflnfarHth^^ TK^^^'lf I^' fi^%4^fp^^^ pmmillii^hh them to the eutn^ardfifftiy famsmay^-^'hyji^difiti^Hn^'f^lfi^ (fjthe Lard^ ccivcthcLorst^

-5' ob^)0:> SHpp€rySu.f>i>cr.

^AQ i^diSt'BApufmi proved from Scripting,

Stfpery^hichTft(}e Scale of the Covenant of grjc^y' Of wel! of .the S^cramm of Baptifme ,• and the rather becaufi the Infantj ufthe Jewes dideate the Pajfeover afnfeH afihty tver^ ciratm-cifedt Myanfwer wai to this effeft, Infarai intharinfant^ aga are capable of the grace of Baptifme^ that wf ■^refure of nat furethat they are capiile of the grace figmd and feakd in the Lords Supper^ tve^ know they may ht* mithttd into the Churchy while they are Babcs^ not that they receive nourifigment artd augmentation. And I further addc, there was exprelle order that Infants (hould bee admitted to the initiall figne, not that they (hoiild bee admitted to the other. To this you anlwer^ l[his Argnment is god^d homines j:^jii?z/l titm rt>h0, argue thai to whom the Covenant helvrigSy to thtm the Stale he longs ^ and you fay J thia argumem is confirmed by the praCtife and QpinioH of the ancients^ who gave the Lords Supper to /»-fonts for doo. yeers as well as baptijme, I reply, my Argument runs thus j To whom bdofigs the Covenant^to them belongs tU initiall Seakof the Covenant^ not €2e J' Scale of the Covenant, and the ugh the L.ords ftpper bee a Seale of the Covenant, and iiiceeed the Paflcover as a Sealcof that Covenant, yet neither-the Palleover, nor the Lords Sup* pGT were appointed to bee initiall Seklesj'and though* pap-tifmc, w^ch is the iriifiiill Seafe;,; %ve$ toCohfif me tlie reft of the benefits of the Covenant^ as the-baptLzed grow capable of them,or are made partakers of them, yet the prime and maiue uft of it is to bee a Seak of-lnkiaJtion and reception into Go vena lit. As tor w hat yo^ ^Ad^oiihe laments giving th^hoards Supper to infantipif'^d-jitresy f have bcfoi'eanftvered'toitj, thaltiltcan^R^b^'^-proved to bee fo general! a pra^bife as the baptizing cf Infants was among thcm^nor was it pleaded by'any liich Arguments, as they pLeadedi For Infant Baptiimef \ I ndeid l\\ tfo' AH^iian Chtltr chcs atbout"C^^^rirfwa and A^ik^hiihx\iv^i\\\tlj6)r^i-^^ per wasghrento infatit«y but \ tXn find^ tfo fuch-gehtrifl pra^ife of it as you would inlinuate. Howbcit,! 4m gl^d diatupon this occafion ydui ad5noWledge',--tfeit/«f r^e pr^

i.:ca: :-)vlr' knott not how this ^i^illagr^o Wkh that which76^ haveTd fisici ,i^i^H?> " confident!/

fidently aflerted before, that it was hardly knowne in the Church for the firii 300. yeers. Whereas I added, that though hpiifme and the Lordi Supper are both of tkm Seales of the nea^ Covenant^ yet it is with jomt difference 5 the firfi if for hWih and entrance^ the other h for food and growth 5 you an-fwer, thii is a paradox to yox, keaiife if I ntak^ the entrsnce at tbiremiffiun of finnes^jftfiification^^e. the Lords Supper n^hich ftdks Chrifts diatby fealtJ the entrance into the Covenant^ and Biptijmefeslfs as rvell the pur dm ef other fnnes as of e/riginall [inne-f and therefore this difference which I pHt of the one heing a Seak fir entrance^ the other for grarvth^is a difference n>hicb the Scripture mike J not. I reply, if this bee a paradox, your icife hare yery often owned this paradox, in calling both Ciraimciion and Baptiime the Seales of our admil]ion,and that by Baptifme wee are exhihitad to bee members of Chrifi and his Church : which you yet never faid the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was appointed to bee. And as for what you now adde that the Lords Supper faling the death of Ckrifi doth therefore feak our entrance h I anfwer, it folJowes not, itfcales indeed the whole Covenant in its due place and or-der, as our food is a witneflTe that wee are alive, and 16 ameanes to preferve our life, but yet itmuft bee fuppofed that wee are firft made alive before wee are capable of the benelkof ourfood. Andwhereasyou jerke at that phrafe of the Lords Supper fcaling the growth and augmentation of the C9^e».j;zf, asan unfitexprefTion; truely, I thought every child would have uwderftoodjthat Ly nouriftinient and augmentation I meant nothing but the nouriftiment and growth of thofe graces of the Covenant, which the Coyc- , nant promifeth, and all are tied to feek after. As to.di^t of the JitPes Infants eating the Faffeovi^'^ I anfwtred, there u no fuch thing mentionedin the booke ef (hd: It is ftid indeed that the fever all families iv^e to eate the Lamhe^ and if the Jaml^ ly mere too little to eate a Lambe^ fevtraB families ppere tojojne togethery anM^Hphen thei^ childrtM fhuB as^e them the med^ nin^ (^ it^ thtf 7i>ereto inftru^tbem abmt it^ but not a word of infitHtion appnnting tkm to eate h^er any exantpk witmjpi^ tbMib>gfdUeateit: You zxiSwGCiMAei'nuUeemri^^pwmd

^^^ Infant-Baftifme frovedfrom Scripture,

ihreeUrAesayecri^ appe^re Ufore thi Lord, ofie of which ws^ the Fajfcf^very af^<d^ that time thtre tip of no other food tolfeeeateVy hat unleavened hviad and the Pafcall Supper'y and you ^bferve §ut of hmiv,'OYi\K^hat every child that could hold his father by the hand^ Md amid goe up from Jerufakm gates to the mount aim ,0f ihe^ Tpnpky hii father rvdt hound to Carry him up^ t$ the end hee might catechife him in the Commandtments^ and thg nho tptnt uprvtre houndio keepe the feafi. I anlwer^ were the Jewes boun i to Cuviy all their Babes up with i hem to f-rufalem , oranyol^them, before they had underftanding in thofe rites, and.myfierics? and was there no food among them al! that time, but the Sacramentall food? were the imcleane and aiicircumciied in their families to faft all that time ? produce any Sciipture that witnefifeth thefe ; you indeed A^uot^ two or three broken teftimonies ouc of the Rahhlns^ who lived fonie hundred yeers after Chrift^ but not one text of Scripture^ and yet even your 'B.ahhins fay no more tl\en I am willing to grants that when they could undcr-ft^iH.the fcrvice, they might partake of it; nor doth the Gofpellprohibitfruch young ones to partake of the Lords Supper, whoare ableto diicernc the Lords body. lob-iervs?,airo ,that w^hen a teftimony out of a Jewi(h Rabbi feemes to make any thing on your iide, you draw more cpni^dent concljtijjons-from it, and fetch con(equcnces further-then you will allow mee to do€ out of the holy

SeU, J* {^'The.'application)r;f)f.pi57 Sermon you paiTeover^ as Ofrhe compa- ^q^ l^lng argi^rmcnliai^vei ©fiely in.the firlt ufe you ag^ine

lierolnfanrs ''l?%^h' M'^'^^^Jf''^^^ Snd'lhefrincipkt if the Anahiip:iftfy and the prin- mpt{iti?^^ihechfidven:^.hileekiefj tftUt nf ibe Covenant oj gYac?^ ciplesofAna- a^i^t]3s^^ou.aggj;^xatet946h€Utiiiort^ cailin««it'i^y^^''':ar^-

yjheir^^zntipl^^ .^Ct^jl^^H^alemerj tbildxat^ W' mucb^^t of ^^^""vmamQ^^griid^a^^js^^^ tb^^Mdan if Tttrl^^-dvd fa-

gam

gms\ and this I am ftir^itheyidoe, an^y^ur {tl^t Joyne with them, who ackno\yledjE»;e no more promiie for the children of beleevers, then for the children of Tiirkcs,and kave them to have their a<^u.tll ftandingin the viiible king-dome of the Devill. This I faidin a Ijiirituail lenfe was more heavy to the bowclls of Chrii'cian par€p;ts^ then to (ee < their Infants llaine before their face, while iii the mcane time they mi^htlooke upon their Infan^jodying, to bee within thepale of the Church jWhere falvationis oixiinarily to bee found; this I Icive the Pveader to judge of V» here-^ as you adde that ihisfdUtiWQsntit upen the ddCitine of Ahtip£^ do^jptilme that Injants are tbuf exclndad^ and that i/ to ^^ within the Covenjf2t (fgrace^ lee rightly expounded^ yen exclffde them from the Covenant of grace no more then I doe 5 of the truth of this, without any needlefle repetition, I leave the Reader to judge by ta hat hath been diiputed betwixt you and mee 5 if they find this alTertion of yours to bee true^ I give them leave to charge mee with the ^ame raflmejpy falfe accn-fations^ zndp^jjionjy which here you powre upon mee- if not^I amfurc they wiillayitall at yourdore. - .

I now come to your Epilogue, wherein you intimate 3 r. « g firfl, that you prcfimie you ha.vefaid fo much again^ my Ser- ^^ ♦ * ^ , mon^ that jon hope J fee caufe to confider more exaaly of thi4 y^^-^Iq^^^.^ ^uftnejfetbefj I bad d<me before^ that 1 am nei 710w fo cofifidcm M livn^ that ihiiUGoeis truth : I anftver, as in the prefence of the fame great God to whom you and I both muft give an accounts I havefcdeufly weighed what you have written, or any other who have come to my hands, with a full resolution not to (liut my eyes againft what light hee would cauie to fliinc upOTi mee, an d upon my moft diligent ftudy, accompanied with myweake, yet fincereand earnefl prayers, I am more confirmed in it, and the more I have ituaicd, the clearer it appearcs unto mee» Secondly^ you fay you have endeavored to examine every thing of rveight delivtredinmy Sermon^ and :r>hat you could remember of Mr, Thomas Goodwins, and rphat Mr.Blakcj or any other have nritkn about this thing • and I likcwife have fcriouHy

weighed and not paft over arty thing of weight in this your Bxamcn. Tbirdly^you fayj-e* chofi cat my Sermon^ hir caiifi lam infrintfilled the Antifignima^ the Ev^figne^hearer ; a title which I neither deicrvc nor defire. Fourthly^ you motion that all tpee who have appeared in puhlicjfue in this eanfe rf'Guldp}7ie aur fircngih t(^geiher in a reply to this yottr Examen thai yen might ^(i the jvholf fnngth imbattel'd. that you might mi k put to the reading cf cverj Tamphkt, Truely Sir, this finells a Jitde too rankly^ thus confidently to challenge all men, not contented \\ ith Goliab to fay, Givi mee a man^ that I might fgbt rrith him^ but to defic a whole h^ft^ argues a little too much feiic-con fide nee. But for your fatisfa^ti-on, here is my booke, yoa may try your llrength againft it, and though I find my impaired health and multitude of imploj/nentsis like to bee an apology, for mee, from drawing this faw any longer^ nor indeed is h needfull, there being lio end of writing, all knowing that there is nocokuroverfie of fmh, wherein learned and prejudiced men have not been able to write book« after booke againfl the truth, elpecially wi^en they choofe fiich a way of di-iputingasyou have chofen ', However^ I feare not but it willindnre your utternooft cppofition, and if my booke a-lone bee looked upon, ^s too poore a buf nefle, you iee . there are already two or three other bookes extant already, againft ycu, and I am informed two peeces at leaft come Cut of "NtW'EngUndu^ow the fame fnb-e^t, your ielfe being therein concerned (lor even thither have lome ient your writings, and fufficiently in them, fhewed your /corne of Mr. Th^m^ Goodmn^ Mr. Vjms^ and my felfe, as our friends doe from thence write untD us} you may take us all toge-dicr, and then wee may goefor a pretty Army^ and when yen have done all you can, 1 doubt net but fome will be found who will have leafure as well as ability to cope with you; I oneJy de(ire you in your next not to goe on in this way of making wrangling exceptions, and /etk-ing to furre and blind what is written by your An-. tagoniit, but by folidand cleareaiTumcnts, ice if you Cvin refute that which is alTated, and let jiour Reader al/b

know

know as well what you would have^ as what you would not have, and open your judgement to the fullin this con-trovedie, and (hew whether you take Infant^baptifni to be vilid^ov a nullity jzn<\ if you think it not a nullity^fhew your grounds for it, why all this fhould be true, which you have t hus far contended for^ That l.^f^nts are no more to h accow. * ttd bilngwgto the Chttrch afCbrifl thm Pagans^ and yet their baptifrne fliould be valid^ whether if any man (hould bap-tize a Turk or a lew when he ihould be aficep^or by violence or any wayes againfl his own confent, this baptiime were notanullity^andlknow not what difference you make between the one and the other,

1 f on the other fidf", you doe thinke it a nullity^then ma-nifeft how any at all can now be baptized^ unlefle you will thinke that they may baptize others who are unbaptized themfelves 5 for my own part, I ferioufly profeflc^thatfiip-poling Infant-bapti me a nullit)'-, I cannot nnderftand how any in the world fhould this day be lawfully baptized, unlefle it can be made ^ood that a perfbn unbaptized himfelfe may be a lawfull rvlinitter of baptifme to others: for certainly untill the Anabaptifts aro^e in Germany^ all the baptized world were baptized vvhlle they were Infants- and confecjnently thefirft Auabaptift was baptized by an iin= baptiz-d pcrioup and fo in concrufion We muil all turn See-ker.sand be cortent without baptifine^till ChriH give Tome extraordinary Commillion from Heaven unt) fome men toh^ Apoitles in this bnrmefTe.

Fift[jly,you expreire ih,^ firaightsym are Hk^ to be brought jn-ic by ihe hjje ofjnurJmjU fiipend, as a co!i.lcquent of this your Opinion. Sir, I am perfwaded this is made up a-bundantly in that Honourable Society where nov/you ex-ercife your Miniileryj and \ belecch tiie Lord fo to informe you in his truth in this particular, and to guide your Spi-rir^that you may no longer be a tumbling'block to others, nor others prove frunibling-blocks to you, that thofe good parti which God hath beft owed upon you, may for the time to come be employed in the moll: ferviceable way,that both your worke and wages may bee with and from the Lord. I i 3 Sixthly :j

%^6 Iftfant'Baptifmc proved from Scripture.

Sixthly and l^Mj^you dedareymr vpillingmfey either to have conjerence with mey to confult about a ivay of a brotherly debating of thUpottit^or to receive other anjr^er Tvhhin the/pace of a month. What part betwixtyour Telfe andnie in Conferenccj I have given the Reader an account of in the beginning of my Booke 5 and in truths I verily thought you would quietly have keptyour Opinion as private to your felf, which v/as the true rcafon why I medled with your Book no foonerras icon as it was publiflied^I took nw (kM bound in confcieiice to take it into Examination^ and give this publike account of it; fince which time God hath been pleaied to yilitmee ivith fickneffe and inlirmity of body ^ fo that for a moneth or fix weeks I could very little attend upon this taskjand many other employments have compelled me to go through it^ horisfuccifiviSi Kot being able to atteiic] it many whole days without much interruption. Such as it is you now have it with you^and I make bold to fay again^l am verily perfwa-dQd\t is Gods truth which I maintain againft youjand I fear n ot my account of this Work in the great day; iave onely 1 muft ever acknowledge and bewaile thoie frailties and in-tirmities which cleave to whate^jer I put my hand unto.

A

A Brief

EXAMINATION

O F

M'-TOMBES his Exercitation about INFANT-BAPTISM.

;Onr Exercitation might very well have been fpared in this placcj for any great advantage it is like to bring to your caufe^but f am very glad it is extant 5 becaufe all Learned men will by it plainly difcern how mean and poor your Arguments are ^ when you come pofl-tively to aflert, they will now finde that true which 1 faid in the beginning, that your faculty is farre better in darkening, Gurringj and plundering the Arguments of your Ad-verfary, then in making good your owne. You have here impanelled a whole Jury, and would fainc perfwade a vcr-didi of twelve men to rtand upon record on your fide , as haying found Infant-Baptifme guilty of the crimes which you have laid, to its charge: I (liall very briefly exa^iihc what everyone of them have faid^and only ran them over, partlyjbccaufe thet'e are lately extanr two learned Treatifes againft it, written by Doftor Homes^ and Mafter Geree , the firft of them was publiflied when my Book was almoft half Printed, the other lince , but chiefly becaule almoft every fentence in this your Exercitation which hath any ftrengtft IB by your felfe brought into your oth^r Treatife, which

you.

you call the Examett of my Sermon ^ and there is already tltlly anrwered "

Of your twelve Arguments, the firft is not properly to be calledan ArgHmmt agahfi Infint-Baptifme^ but is rather an « anftv£r to Overall Arguments pretendcd'to bee brought for Infant-Baptifme 5 and upon this you beftowatlealltvvo third parts of your Exercication. twice as much Inkeand Paper upon the foreman of the Jury^ ?^ you doe upon the other eleven.

Vnder the head of this firft Argumentj you have broughfi. in no leffethen fourteen Arguments (as you call thcm)tor thelavvfulnefle of Infiuit-Baptirmcj and then you undertake 'to anfwer them 5 your ielflay truly of many of t hem^ ihijmake a number vpithout firZ'gih i, and therefore as you *have madeaconqucli of them, doe with your pdfbners what you pleaie.for J count them not worth t'at redeeming^ ondy this I fay, we h ave ih. or feven of you r t w( 1 /e^ which 1 think 2t)l the world, and your iklk alio, will grant to be tdr ken Prifoners by U5:> if you pleafe we will exchange them for the other 3 and then in the exchange we (hall lole nothing, being affiired you: s are as weake and limple as it is poffibie for thole to be which you have taken; and for the reft of the arguments brought for Pacdo-Baptiime, you have pro-'; pounded them for, your owne advantage >, io fet them downe as to make them beil capable of the fpecions aniwers you bring unto themj butlliicenot that an enemy (hould have the ordering of riie Forces which hee nieanes to tight againft^you muft give as leave to choofeour own weapons^ and Marfhall our ow^n Forces, and then you may try your skillandvalour againlt them, Do6^or Homes hath made his Annotations upon all the arguments which-you have produced according to your owne method. Mr. Gcre^ hath chofen out onely thole arguments which carry moft evidence, and nottroubled himfelfe to examine every thingjfor my parta I humbly conceive that Infant; b'aptifme is not to be fetched from any /?«£ of theie grounds^?r^^ ^ but is built upon the identity of the Cjnenant^ Infants right to iheCovenafiS^ 4mdtht initiaUfeale-, and conftqucntly thoiigh one Text may

bee

be a ftifficicnt we/:ir«»i or Argument to prove (bme one or twoof thcni) yet to make the evidence full, thefe grotnds njutt not be leparated onc^rom another, but nece/lkry recoil r/e nmit be had to them all h and if alJy our Arguments doe overthrow any one of themj cither the Covenants being the fame in fubftance,or infants right tothe Covenant, or the Lords appointing an initiall lealc to bee adminifrred to all who are reputed belonging to the Covenant, I Ihali readily yeeld the caufc, as I have often told you. All the ^r^.. r. trouble 1 ihal put the Reader to,about this your firit Argu- Anjw. ment or rather your anfwer to Arguments, I-hal be to point himt'ofuch places in my book^ where you have already preOtheiamethmgs^and Ihavegivcnan anfwer to them,

Thefirit Argument from Gr«. 17. hath hetnt examined. Part 3. Seft. 1^2. andelhvhere.

The fecond are^ument taken from Baptiftn &cceeding into the room ot' C^ircumcifionjand Colo^. 2.1131 ajSccis examined Part 3. Sea. 9,

The third arc^umcnt from the pnviledges ofbeleevers under the New TefVament^ is examined. Part 3. Seft. i f. 7.

The fourth argument from A^s 2, 38. is fully examined, Part^SeS'.^.

The fifth argttmtnt from i Cor, j. 14, is examined, Part

5. Sea. 8.

Thefixth argument from iT/jr^io.14, Mattk. 19 8:c

which aho you pat into feverall fhapes, is examined^ Part 3.

Scft. 15.

Thefcventh argument from AU^i6, and leverall o-ther places which pi^ake of baptizing of ho ifholds, is exi-minedPartS.Seft. 14- Aad in theie feverall p'lces you hayo prcflTed whatever is of any Teeming weig?u i.i this your Exi:Jt:it3tion, and added many other things which the reader [hall fittdc to bee examined ia the^lacfS vvhich I have poLntoito , befides in feverall other pUces of my Booke, -where you have again and again repeated many of the fame

thi'nt»s.

Th^ other (even arguments (as you call them.) I looke

not Mpon as argu nents , and therefore will not meddle

wkii tucrn^ ibmc o* tlic Scriptures mentioned in them, as,

)L k ^xod.

Mxod* 20, ^. I Fet, 2.9. &c, fo farrc as they have any ufe m %hU controverfie, are alfo eoniidered of here, and there ia my Book, as the Reader may obfcrve.

Arg. 2, Your fecond Argument againft Infant Baptifme is fetcht

from Mai, a8.19, That which agrees n^t with the Lords injii-iuiienof Bdptifme^ that u defervtdlj doubtful!'^ But the rite of Infant^haptifme agrees not xviththe Lords irijiimtien of BaJ^^

Anfw» ^^f^^ ^^l°* This argument hath received its full examination. Part 3. Seft. 15. and Part 4. Seft. i. whither I refer the Reader, as not willing to trouble hiai with needlefTe repetition of the fame things. ^ 1., 77 a

^ Your third Argument is Xakenfrpm the practice of the

^' ^* Apoftles, and J»htt the Baptift, and runs thus, Ihat tenet and ■pra^ice nhich ieing put^ Baf^tifm cawwt be adminifred as John iapiU and the Apojiks didadmini^er it^ agrees nM vpiththepra-Qiceof John'B.sftifi and the Apoftlesi, But the tenet and pra^ice ef-Infant'Baptifmebeingpufy^jptifmff cannot bee ^dminiSred, as Jo, Baptift^ and the Apojiks adminiUndit • ^rgo &c. This you goe about to prove, becaufe John and the Apnfikj- baptized none bn^fueh oi confuted finnes^ they required jhew^cj of faith and rep9ntanee in all whom thej.haptized, .

A»f^* This Argument relates wholly to matter of faft,whereiu

you put your felfe to prove a negative; and therefore the argument can prove nothing/unlefle you can produce fome one place at leaft otit of the Scripture wherein it is faid no I.nfant wasbapti2ed by them,,or no other then fuch as^ you have mentioned; but what you have here faid about it is fully confidcrcd. Part 5, Sc^» 13, efpecially Part4. Se^. I. . Thefe three Arguments, which alone dcferve to bee called (if yet the fir ft may be fo called} arc fully examined in the places above-mentioned; the reft,,of^ your arguments are fo wholly inconfequent^that I wohdei|yQu(houl4 think them worthy or fit to face an Affembly of Difi^cs^ ?and c»-peft that they (hould joyne their llrength together tx> frame an anfwer to themjw^hen as I verily thjinkethey may all bee routed by the running pen of an ordinary CJei-ke in ai feiy hOures. '■■;..■ •;:;-!-J -■■; . V "

Arg* 4< Your fourth is taken from the next jagf n ^ei? the Apor

files, and ftaiids thus in youc boc^, BecoHfo.. Infani-^hptifiiu

^af0o$

eaTimthefrovidthst it wai inf§rceor ufiinth fiext aft after ^ht Apofflif'j EvgOj the tenet and pra&ice of it U douhtfuU. The nta^ pr (you fay) is manife fi of itjelfe-^ for the minerym alltdge Vi• vcSj and Strabo; and (fay you, it ii confirmedhy exariiimng of places brough to that prerpofe^ &.hy comim^ingquefiions to the fat' tie J baptized in ages JifSomng^ and other tokens from Councetls^ and Scciefiafiieall writers,

I anlwcr, Firft, to your Major^ which you fay is mani- Jnjw^ feft of its felfe, I judge to bee moft falfe, and a moft dangerous pofition : is every tenet and prad^ice doubtfuU^jwhich cannot be proved by historical] evidence co have been received and prifticed in that afc, whereof we havefo few Records? the procclHon of the holy Ghoft, the propagation of origiiralllinne, and many other Tenets, I bcleeveyoU will neither find mentioned in that age nor the next, How would you have laughed at ftich a conclulion let downeby another? And iecondly^for your Minor^ I anfwer i .There werenoCouncells at allaflembledinthatagencxtto the' ApollleSf And 2. as for Ecclefiafticall Writers, I wifli you would name them; Ibeleeve you will find very few Writers of credit in that age, whofc legitimate workcs are tranfmittcd to pofterit^'. Thirdly, how do P'ives and Stra' bs know what was done in the ages next the Apoftles,when the eldeft of them Jived almoft 8co years after that age > the authoiity and skill of theft two men hath been fufficiently fpoken to. Part i. Se£\:. 2. Fourthly, I wonder how the queiiions propounded in ages following to the baptized » doe prove that Infant-Baptifme was not in ufe in the ag^ next after the Apoftles.

Your fifth argument runs thus, That which in fucceeding Arg. % agesinrvhichitrrafintifey n^as in force frfi as a Tradition mf ^

written. Stcondly^ out of imitation of J etwifheircumeijJon.Tkird'^ ly^ ti^ithnnt univerfaU pra&ice. Fourthly^ together with the error cf giving Infants the Lords_ Supper^and with many other b^mane ih" ventionj under the nameof ApiJtolieaHTraditions^that is defer^ '9edly doji^fitll. Btttfetchrvatlnfam'BsptifiheinthoJeage^^Er" ^ v- ^ go, &c. I anfwer, firff^ by denying your Major, the dbfer- ^^* vation of the tbtds day hath beene by fome accounted a, TraditioiHOthers'tiavefaidit is TewKhtoteep any Sabbath

at aH > bccaufe Sabbath dayes were a (hadow of things to comcjbut the body is Chrift^what will you thence conclude again-ft our Chriftian Sabbath? And for what you fay a-bouttheprafticeof it that it was notuniverfali, Idefirc you to remember^ that argumentumdH^um anm faCto admn jusefiabftirdiffirnHm-^ may wee plead thus, fuch andfuch a thing was not generally obicrved. Ergo it was not a duty? the boycs in the Schooles would ftamp and hide at fuch an . ihem. 9i 17, inference -, from the dayes of lojhua^ to the dayes of iVeAg-mtahi, the children of lirael had not kept the ieaft of Tabernacles in Boodis or Tents 5 which was about a thoufand yeares; was it therefore not their duty to have done it> Dr* Ht^lin in his liiiloryof the Sabbath, urgeth this very argument agaiaft the Lords day, in fuch and juch Fatherj dajJ mitny did mtohferve the Lords djiy^ntanj did tipple a7id dance upon the Lords daj-^trgo the Lords day was not generally obferved^ and if it were not generally obferved'm ihoje dajs^fsgo n>e art not hound to cthfirve i/.This kind of arguing is almoft as wilde as that which the Schools Cajl 5 a hacub ad angultt^n , my ftaffe ftan Jsin the corner, Eg it will raid to morrow morning. Your laft Exception under this fourth argument is yet more ftrange^T/^ere wert many other things n>ent under the name ofTraditionSy which were meer humane ittventims^Evs^o Infant* haptifm^which went under the name of a Tradition is alfo a humimc invention. Shall I (hew the naturall face of this argument in a glafic; fiich and fuch men who went under ihe name of honed men were knaves 5 £^1;^ all that goe lioder th^ name of honeft men are knaves. It is true, many things went in thoic dayes under the name of Traditions, which were but humane inventions 3 and it is as true that % many points of faith^ and other divine inftitutions went in

the fame ages under the name of Traditions, as I have made apparent. Part i, Seft 2. Yqu fee what a poorc argument this would prove although your minor vJtrt trus , though the things were as you fet them downe 5 but I have abnn-dafidy proved the contrary : I have (hewed the Ancients rc^ ccivedita$aP^tfi««f Iw'/^v^^^^andiapon^fi^ arguments as wedoe,though (om«5 of tlyerw preil fomc corrupt grounds which wc rejtft: andas for %iit^uimm3Xl^^!^^:^K^6m f^i

k both in the Greek and Latin Chwches I have abundantly

cleared k from all Obie8:ions you make againft it: and you

out of i^ill your reading have not been able topredncg one of$he

unciemJ^who either heieiltunl4TpfHllfOr denyedthat it was in ufe

from the Jpoflles dayes.One ortwo indeed you bringwboad-

vifed the deferring Infant-Baptifm, as they did alio the bap-

tifme of grown men j and fome examples you, produce

of thechildrenof Chrlftiansnot baptized (as you think)ii3

their Infancy; to all which I have fooken at large, Pari\. •

/f^.2.And as forwhatyoualledgeot their giving the Lords

Supper unto Unfants^I havedenyed^ and fhall doe ftili, till

you bring fome evidence for it, that there was any fuch uni-

verfall praftife.indeed in the African ChurcUcs that errour

did obtain in the days of Cyprian and dafiin^ but I finde no

fuchfgenerallpraftice of it; however the Argument follows

not^ That it was their error to g ive hifantsths Lords Supper-^Er*

go it rvQ/i ibeir error to baptizs Infants,.

Your fixth Argument runs thus * that a-hicb hath occafiemd Arg, 6, mjiny humane in-ventionr ] partly hy which hifani-Baptifme it fife may bee tmderproft , partly the dtfeB in the p >licy of the Church fupplyed ; that it defrmdly douhtfuU . Bat the matter if fg in thebufirtiffi of Infaf^t Baptifme: and here you bring iii rvitmffes in B^ptijmiy Epifiopall confirmation^ the reformed uni' on^jCXjmiKa0io?3y cO/ijcffion^hefore receiving the Lords Sufptr^ . Church'fovenam h^ore the admijfton of ChHrcb^members into Chifrcb'fell onefhip^&c,

I anfwer briefly, if by occafionedyou mean« that Infant- jinfn^, Baptiftnc hath exnaturkrei given occaCon tothcfc thiiigs, I deny your minor, Infant-Baptifme is no more anocca> fion of thefe thin^j-sin the Chriftian Church, then circutn-dfing of Infants was an occafion of the like in the Jewifh {

Chu.xh; Inlam-Baptifme may very well (land, and doth very well Hand in many reformed Churches without foch witnedes, without cmfirmjtion^or any ffther txatmnatidnycm-^ fafipn^&c, before the lords Supper, or other Church-di-(cipline>then iuch as might bee in uric to men though they * were not b:pti2ed in their Infancy: but if by eccafimed y^a -mcane nxjt ncc fio daijy but occafi& ttmtre arrtpt^, that the corropc mlnuot nian hath thenoc tooke occafion for other

K k 3 errors

eri'oi^ and iwiftakes 5 if you nieattei ikit which bath '^bus oc^ c0fi(^td many hiim<tfie inmntidns U itmhtfuU^ then I deny your major: there is fcarfe any common place in the body of Di-Virtitybnt hath occafioned humane inventions, the Lords Supper hath occafi6ned kneeling at the Sacrament, and that hath occafioned ftifpenfionj excommunication, reparation* what will you thence conclude againit the Lords Supper ? ^YgB^ the Lords Supper is a humane inrenti011 ? ^^; - 3 I ourieventh, eighth, and ninth Arguments are but fo

^Q^ many branches or rather fo many repetitions of your iixth Argument, poilibly you have thus divided them that you Anfpo might make up a whole Jury. And the felfe lame anlwer

fcrves them as was given to the other j I will conclude as flrongly againft you, out of your owne prcmifles thus* Antipsedobaptiftne hath occafioned many crrours, many abufcs and faults in difcipline, divine worfliip, and con-? verfation of men, together with many unnecelTary disputes, foftering contention onely: ^ge , Autipxdobap-tifineis what you pleale to all Infant-baptifme: I leave out that pafTage onely in the major of your ninth Argument, viz. vphich cannot bee determined by any c€rtaine rf*ie^ bccaufc therein you doe very heartily beg the qucftion. jifaAOn Your tenth argument is framed thiiSj 7 hat in the midft

of the darl^nejjeof Psperyy the fame men nlnj oppofed invocation of Saints^ Frajer far the dead^ adoration of the crojje^ and (uch lil^eyoppofed alfi the baptizing of Infant J y and here you bring in Bernard his 66, Sermon upon the Canticks^ and his 140. Epifiltagainfi-Hinry the Heretick (as you call him) and Cluniacenfij agoing Peter de Bt^u and Henry 5 alfo a paflage ontof OfioHd^j^ccujingibe Albinge7ifef as c^nfenting miih the ^Anfv0^ -^nabaptifli. To which I anfwer, firil, I deny theconie-quchce, becauft they oppofcd invocation of Saints, prayer fortfje dcad^Scc. and al^ <)ppo(€d In fant*-BJaptilmc; Ergo^ thelaft isanerrour as well as the fir ft: for the fame men hare oppofed Popery and the Sabbath, the lame men have denyed Prelacy and the blelTed Trinitie : Is it not poiTible forthefimeman to oppofe a multitude of curled errors, arid yet to oppofe fomc one blefled tnith? Secondly, I alio deny your minor; they who thus opDoled inyocation -

of

©f Sglints, &c did mot oppoft baptiffne of Infants: Be rengariuf ^

the PValdtnfis^ Albingenfes^ Wickhtites^ Huffius ^ and ' Others are indeed flandered by forae of their adversaries, as if they denycd Infant-baptift^c, but arc cleared out of their owne cenfeflions; as I have made abundantly nianifed^Part a. Se<^. 2. What under the head of this tenth Argument yoamention owt oilertuUian^zxid Grezprj Nazlanzm hath beene fully eonfidcred of. Part i.Sect.2,

Your eleventh Argument runs thus 5 The ajferters of Infant-bap- Jrg, 11 .tifme. little agree amongthemfdves upon vphat founddtion to build Infant'* bspt'fme: fonie from ttniverfalitie of divifiegrace^, fome from r.e-ajjitie of Baptiftne to Jalvation^fomcfrom ib^promi/e ofthefureties^ fomefromthc faith eft he Infant j^^ {6m^ kom the faith of the next ■parents, ErgOy What? what conclu^on can you make from this: Anffy* The Antipxdobaptifrs rejcft the Bapti/nie of Infants upon feverall grounds :ibme becaufe Infants have nofinne, ^bme becaufe they have no more to doe with the Covenant ofgrace^ then theinfants ofTurkes; fomebecanfe Infants are not capable of grace^fome becaufc they are unbcleevers, fomc becau/e we cannot know whether they have grace or no, will you therefore fay Antipasdo bap-ti Tme is to bee rejeded ? So for the Lords day^fonie pleade it upon one ground:>others rejei^ that ground, and plead it upon another, have therefore none of them hit upon a right ground ? the like may bee faid of many other points both of faith and praQ:i(e in Chriftianitie, the utmoft that can bee collc(^ed from mens different grounds in pleading for fuch or (iich a truth is, that God hath not left that truth fo cleare as polfible he hath done others wherein there is agre;iter conlent.'buttocoITeft that there-foi e the opinion is to be reje£led,is a ftrange confequence.J add farther that almoii all, both ancient and moderne,doe agree in ths argument from Circumciiion to Baptiirne, which necef^arilylm'^ plies our Covenant to be the fame with theirs,cur Jnfanta right'to it* be the l^ame with theirs, and our Sacnarattit of Baptifnie to be the lame with theirs of CircuniGiiion as to the uSe of an initial] Scale*

Your twelfth and kit Argument which brings up your reere, ^^- j2i which you call a weighty reafbn,runsthu8:£^c^«/e Infant-Baptifme feemesto iak^ an?ay one^ perhaps the primary end of BaptiOne^ 7)?«. that itfhofildhee ajigne that the baptizedfhevp bimfelfe a Viicp/e^ and conftfje the faith in rvhich hee hath b^mi^jf/u^ed^ and this you prove from hbnthiBa^tifiandQtkr paffnga iii fk Ntw lefiament^ jvhichpnt'

ajg A briefe 'exmiyfati$3i of Mr. Tombes^/v (^c.

Ajjh, :nt:de.TQ^\hlc\\ I aniwer: This Argument how weightie focver > bee,is bnc a bi^auch taken ^on^yourfccondargument out of VZ/^f 2S.and from yoirr third argument from the pv^^iiQ of %bn A Chrifis ApoftJes^ and is but a Cram'sc of what you hav f" prert before, and hath received it? fuJ] arjfwerjPart 2 Seft 12'^^^ Part4. Sea i.andladde dirther.thateven that which your felfe here lets dowrc^givesatuUan-rwer to your own Argument. fr»r yon lay that ^ f^cramiUt knot 6nly a vifihkfigve of an invmulrZ orappmtedto figmfii only^druhic hem jit,but uVih,,wiQr^ryiT t6 LniiL b^ dutie n>bo receives the Sacrammih fi^nifies apr^,fji,-.n m.deJJdl a, confirms a i^.w//5 for doth It not thence neceftrily foiJow th^t ^At Infants of the Jewesmadeby theirCircumcihon a nrofell' on as xxz\\ as received the figne of a benefit > and that therefore the Baptizing of Infants doth not fruflrate that tn^ of initl^rJn^ themtobeeDifdpksorProfe(rors?Andthat: which you add-of

r

/iuthors who

wnt<?

about 11^ that Infa/its as well asgrowne men were initiated

the profelTio/i of Jiidaifmebytheriteof Baptifme *^ '"""''^^^"^^ IntheMpJaceyoufhutup your Exercitation ni/^ a dlCcnurfe about the Devillj indentwg nnth witches to renoui^ce their Bapurme ^ if feme woHidihmce argue that'Infant'Bjptifme- is ^nod, hcc^ui ihe DcviUri^midhavethemremHnceit: hmyozf, who it feemesknoiv the DevilJs mind in it, fa^ tbt true reafon n^hy hee requirej witches to re-rmme their Ejptifme, is mt hecanfe th, BaptKme ii go,d in ref^ of the adrntnijiratimafit^buthtcattfeihe fahhrnemi^ned in the firme t ^/^^p/:>7c«g..^formyownepartJani^ JittJe arquainredwiVh the Devilispra&feinrt.and fee fo littJe i^ren^^rh of Argument for oragainft Inlant-Baptifmcfrom the trading betwixt the DeviJJ and the witch tfaat Ihitcnd not to n>eddie with this Argument ^tcht froni hell, 1 reft contented with thcie which I find in die oookc of God.

FINIS.

S E RM O N

OF THE

BAPTIZING of INFANTS;

PREACHED

In the Abbey-Church at Wefiminfier^ at

the Morning Le(9:ure5 appointed by the Honorable Houfeof COMMONS.

BT

Stephen Marjhall^ B.D. Minifter of Gods Word,

ac Finching'field in E([ex*

A c T. 2. 39.

The Promifi is unto you and tojonr Childnn^ and to all that are afarre off^ evm as many as the Lord our GodJhaU call* Rom. II. 16. If the roote hee hofyy fo arethe branches. I C O R. 7. 14. The unheleevwg husband is fan&ifyed by the mfe^ and the unbdeeving npifiisfan&ifyedbjtbehitfbandy elfetpzreyour children unclean^ hut now they are holy.

LONDON, ^

Printediby Richard Cotes ^ for Stephen BowteU^ and are t® be fold at ^ST

the figae of the Bible in Popes-head Alley, 1645. gg

mmmmmmmm

T O

The Reverend and Learnedthe

Prolocutor^ AfleiTors, the Commiffi-

oners of the Church oiScotland^znd the

reft of the Affcmbly of Divines, now

fitting in Weftminfter.

Ome fevpof ns who are of your number^ freely bejiowing our Labours in the Ab-^ bey-ChurchyC'very Mornings we agreed a-mong our fellies to mBru6i our Auditors in aUthe necejfary Truths of that Docirine^which is according to godlineffe j One taking for hi^ SubjeSiy the Articles of Faith , Another the Ten Comman-dements i Another the Lords Prayer, &c. My lot of late hath been to handle the DoBrine of the Sacraments, andcomming in order to this Pointy I inde-soured to cleere it as fully as I could in one Sermojt^ and was thereby compelled to borrow a little more time then is ufually allotted to that Exercife.

Importunity of many Friends^ who co nee i'v edit might gi*ve fome light to that which is now made a great contro<z/erfy^and might through the blejpng of

3

God^

The Epiftle Dedicatory.

Gad^ hec a meanes to reclame fame deceived Sonles^ or present the decerning of others^ hath brought it thm into Fublich^ view.

And although I h^ow myjelfthe tmrvorthyefi^and unableji of many^ yet becapife I am ajfured that it is Gods Tnithwhich I have Freached^ andr&hich hee will bleffe^Iwoo the more eafily overcome by that int" port unity J if it may contribute any thing to the helping forward of the great workjtow under your hands and may ea^eyon of any part of that Labour which fo exceeding prejfeth you^therein IJhallrejoycey And in the opportunity I have by Dedicating this to your Names^ to teSfify that I am

Your unworthy Brother

and Servant in the Lotdswotk^

St EP H B N Marshall.

?f|^^^^^^^ff'^:^^ff'^«f^^lf7

SERMON

OF THE

BAPTIZING of INFANTS.

I P E T. 3. al.

The like figure wheret$m0^ even B apt!fme,doth alfo now five us, (not the putting amy of the filth of the flejhj^ut the anfwer of a go$d confeience towards Cod ) ty the Refurreition of^efns Chrift.

i N this Morning LeftureJ have formerly in my courfe out of feverall Scriptures handled the Doftrinc of the Sacraments in Generally and then proceeded to Ipeak of the Sacraments of the O/dTefament^^nd therein their ;^«;»^fr5 thtiv agreement^ and difagreemcnt^ with thofc of the New Tefta-mem V And now lately have begun to open the Sacraments olthe NewTeftament.

The firft of them is now in hand •, And I have already out of this Text, made fourc or five Sermons, concerning the nature and ufc of the Sacrament of Baptifmc^wherein I

have

A Sermon of the BApi^ing of Infants.

have cleared unto you: Fir ft, Who was thtAHthonr and Inftltutenr of it: Secondly, Who is to be the LMinifier of it: Thirdly, the Effence of it^ the matter and forme of it 5 both the restcrrena, and theresCcelellis^ the earthly, and the fpiricuall part: andnowFourchly, it remaines, that I treat ot the/^i'j^^ofit, or the perfons who are to be Baptized •, and they are ot two fores •, either ^rewn men^v/ho being inftru(fled in the Dodrine of Chrift, and profefling their Faith in hinrijand their willingnes and readines to live according to his will, and do defire to be partakers of this ble-lTed Sacrament-, thefevvhcther Jews or Gentiles, Male or Fcmalcj bond or free, are to be admitted to the participation of this Ordinance; of the Baptizing of fiich as thefe there is no qneftion. The other fort are Infants^ of whofe right to this Sacrament, I fliall(by Godsafliftance^ trcate this day.

And concerning thefc^ there arc two forts of queftions: Firft, Whether any Infants at all are to be Baptized/* Secondly^Suppofing^fome have right to it^yet it's greatly difputed, whojeInidLHts maybe baptized/* viz.. Whether the Infants of £xf^w;w«;?/V^^(?perronS; of Heretifks^ot Profane men, of meerly civillj KtghteeuSy whether Ba(lards, whether [he Infants of H^^/Z'f^j, who are to hee brought up by ChriftUnsi, and whether thefe may not be baptized, with lome €Aution\\{cA^ thereby to make diftin(5tion betwixt the pure and the impure? I (liall for the prefent baulk all thefe latter queftions, and handle only the former,i//^. ^>&^^^^r any at all are to bee baftiz^ed? orjas the Qaeftion ufcs to be ft.ited:

, whether the Infants of beleeving Parents^ the Infants of Saints^ are to be admitted to this Holy Sacrament? And here alfo arifeth another queftion. Who are to bee meant by Beleevers and Saints;^htxhtx only fuch as have the in-ward vertue of faith and holinefle, who arc r^/i^jf beleevers

ami

ro be

A Sermon of the Baptizing $f Infants.

and Sanftifyed ones, or whether by Beleevers ixiA Saim^

may be meant fuch a faith and Sandity as is Mtward/y fro-fejfed^ although poffibly the inward grace it felfc ( which only God can judge of) be altogether wanting ^ Concerning which queftion, although for my own part The infants

I bcleeve we are to underftand it of that which man may ^^^J^''^'^ judge of, and that God hath not made that the condition Bapr/zed, of his ftrvants applying his Ordinances,, which can be infallibly known to none but himfelf, and cha: therefore the profeffion of faith and holineife, isinfficienttomake^mcn pafle for Belcevers and Saints, in the Churches judg^bedt^ yet I Aall at the prefent baulk the handling of this alfo,and will take it in the fureftfenfe, in the Apoftles fenfe^what the ^/'^y?/^ means by Beleevcrs and Saints, when he writes unto the Churches, that I will take to be theftateof the I

Queftion: if by Beleevers and Saints the ^/?^/?/^ mean-z)//?-^/^ profcflbrs of faith and holincffc • then the Queftion is, whether f^^/> Infarcts are to bee bafti'^d-^ if the Jpojilehy Beleevers and Saints mean fuch only as are/^jrW/y holy, mwardly beleevers, then the queftion is, whether their In^ fants are to bee BaptiT^d-^ in a word, whether the Infants of [nch as were or might have been ftilcd Beleevers and Saints in the Apoftles daies and writings, are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptifme. ■ - .

This priviledgc of the Baptizing of fuch Infants the Chri- ThePrimitire ftian Church hath been in poffcffion of,for the fpace of fif- Church owne( teen hundred years and upwards,as is manifeft out of moft *^' of the Records that we have of antiquity,both in the Greek and Latine Churchy which I the rather mention in thfe be-ginning,becaufe many of the Anabaptifts blufli not to fay, that the Ancients, efpecially the Greek Church, rejefted ic for many hundred years.- ^ufiine Martyr^ who lived about t^mo 15o(in a Treatife. which goes under his namej ^e* //>;? 5^, difputes the different condition ofthofcchiidrefl,

B who

AStrmm $fthe Bdpti:{ing $/Infants.

y^hq dye baptized, and of them who dye unbaptized. yjrmusy Yfho lived in the fame Century, Lih. 7.cap, 3^. izkh^Chrifim vmt fcr feipfum omnes falvare\ emnes wquam^ qui fer cum rcnafcuntur in Deum^ Infantes & farvuhs (^ put* ns^&c. Now it is well known, fay the Gloflers upon that TiCxt/enafcentianomine^Dominicadr ApoftoLicapbrap^Baptif-mum intelligi,

Origen^ who lived in the beginning of the third Century, in his Treatife upon Rom.6, X/^.5.faith. The Churehreceived thisTraditionof Baptizing of Infants from the k^po files: and Homily 8. upon Z^t^/V/V^j Secundum Ecckft^ obfervanfiamj Baptifmumparvutis dari concedityHom. i/^.inLucam^Parvuli baptiT^ntur in remijuonem peccatprum: he cals it indeed a Tradition, according to the expreltion of the Ancients, who ordinarily called the grcatcft points oiFaith^y the name of Traditions received from the Apoftles. Traditions being onely fuch things as are delivered from one to another, whether written or unwritten. And fo did the Apoftic him-fclfe, 2 T'hejf. 2. i J. when he charged them to hold the Tra* ditions tvhich they had been taught^ either by word or Bpijlle. However his calling it a Tradition received from the Apo* ftles gives us a fufficicnt proofe^that time out of mind,it had been received in the Church, that it was delivered over to the Church in his time,and was of antient ufe in the Church before his time.

Gregory NaP^ian\en.^ Or at. 40. in Baptijmum^ cals Baptifm figrtaculHm^itacurfumineuntibmy and commands children to b^ baptized, though afterward he feemed to reftrainit tocafeofnecefficy.

, Cyprian^ one of the antlenteft Writers amongft the La-tincs, handles it at large, in Bpifi. 5 6. AdFidum^ upon this occafion^F/^^denyednotthe baptifm ofInfants,butde-.fiyed that they ought to be baptized before the eighth day-, fjf??/K;? affures him that by the unanimous conlent of 65. * Bifliops

A Strmm of the Baptizing pf Infants* «

Bliliops gathered together in a ComceH^ Baptifme was to be '^

adminiftred to InfantSy as well as to grown men, and not to be reftrained to any time 5 and jjrovcs it by fuch Arguments as thefe; They are under originall finne, they need pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age, &c. This tcftiraony of Cyprians is cited and approved byAuguJl. Epi^.i^. &Lih.^. dem^rit.c^Remijf. pecca. cap. 5. S* lib' 3- contraPelag. zndhy Hierom contraPclag. lib, 3« Of the fame judgement was Ambrofejih. 2. cap. 11. De Abraham Patriarchaj and many others of the ancients, which I relate not to prove the truth of the thing, but onely th^praltife of it; and indeed, although Ibme in thole times queftionedit, as -^/^j-^/, grants in his Sermon, De yerbis Apojlol. yet the firft that ever made a head againft it, or a divifioninthe Church about it,was Baltazar Pacommitanus When the 8« in Germany in Luthers time, about the year 1527. and fincc 0/ the Anabaj Ihat time multitudes in Germany have imbraced his opinion, ^^^^*^s»n. who becaufe they oppoied Pddo-BaptifmeyWQvt forced to reiterate their own Baptifme, and thence were called i^na-baptijis^md[oonipvovcd a dangerous and turbulent Sed againft the Reformation; not onely working a world of mifchiefc about CMtinfter and other parts of Germany^ buc have with this opinion,drunk in abundance of other dangerous Hercfies and Blafphemies, and quickly grew into fuch divifions,and lub-divifions among tnemfelves,that BuUen-ger notes that they were grown to no leflc then fourteen fc-verall Secfts in his time ; Which in truth is the common lot of all Sedaries 5 who when once they have departed from the Church, upon every fmall occafion they come to bee divided again among thcmfclves, and one from another :^^f^^^.«>Ji As the Ecclefiafticall Story lets us fee in the N^vatians, Ma- ^.^^ ^ cedoniansy EnnemianSyArrians^C^c. which divifions alfo '^^^ ** ^ opened a way to their totall dcftrudion in the end: their mutuall bickerings among themfelves, being as the beating

AS€rm9n fif^he Bapti^ng ef Infants.

of the waves ot the Sea, one againftanother, till all were changed, as the Hiftorian notes of them. And bccaufe this Opinionjand divers others which depend upon it, begins unhappily to take place and fpread among our felvcs in this Kingdom^and lo the work of Reformation (without Gods mercyj likclytobemuchhindredby it-,Ifhall (Godwil-ling)handlc this Queftion more largely, then I have done any other in this placet,and the rather becaufe of three other great mifchiefes which go along with it,

Pirft, I fee that all who rejeft the Baptizing of Infants, do and muft upon the fame ground rejecS the Religious ob-fervation of the Lords day, or the Chriftian S2hhzx.h^viz. htc%\xk there is not (fay they j anexpreffeinftitutionor com^ mdndm the New Teftamcnt. Verily, I have hardly either known5or read5or heard of any one who hath rejeftcd this of Infants, but with it they rejed that of the Lords day: now God hath fo bleffed the religious obfervation of the Lords day in this Kingdom above other Churches and Kingdoms, that fuch as indevour to overthrow it, deferve juftly to be abhorred by us.

Secondly, the teachers of this Opinion, wherc-evcr they prevaile,take their Profelytes wholly off from the Miniftry ofthe Word and Sacraments, and all other ads of Chriftian coramunion,both publickand private^ from any,but thdfe; who are of their own opinion, condemning them all as limbs of Antichrift, worfhippers, and followers of the Bdaft: And fo not only labour to caft the godly Minifters out of the hearts of thofe people whom they have wonnc to Chrift-, but leave the people whom they infnare with-outany hope of recovery, whileft they impofe upon their confcienccs-y to hear none but fuch as may confirmethem in their errours 5 Anoldtrickof Satan^ which hec taught the Papifts long agonc,a mecire politick device to keep their Biiciples^fafl: untot|jcmfelvcs: which unchriftian'courfe,

:. : how

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants.

how profperous focver it may ftem to be at the firft, cannot bebleflcd by God, nor indeed is it, the Lord giving them up ahuoft every v^here^to other moft dangerous^vile, and abominable opinions. I deny not but fome few who are of this opinion are other wife minded, but all our experience teacheth us that the generality of them do runne this way.

Thirdly,this opinion puts all the Infants oiall Beleevers into the felf-fame condition with the Infants of Turks^ and Indians , which they all readily acknowledge • and from thence, unavoidably one of thefe three things muft follow. 1. Either all of them arc damned who die in their Infancy, being without the Covenant of Grace, having no part in Chrift, Or, 2. All of them faved,as havingno ori-ginall finnc,and confecjucntly needing no Saviour •, which moft of the Anabaptifts in the world doe own, and therewith bring in all PelagiamfmMniverfallgrace^ Free-mil^ (^e. Or, 3. That although they bee tainted with Originalleor-ruption,and fo need a Saviour, Chrift doth fro benepUeitOy fave fome of the Infants of Indians and Turkes, dying in their Infancy,as well as fome of the Infants of Chnjiiansi, and fo carry falvation by Chrift out of the Church,beyon<i the Covenant of Grace, where God never made any pro-mife : That God hath made a promile to bee the God of Belee'vers^znd oitheir Seed^ we all know^buc where the pro-niife is to be found,that he will be the God of the ieed of fuch Parents who live and die his enemies, and their feed, notfo much as called by the preaching of the Gofpel, I know not. Thefe men fay the Covenant of Grace made to i\\Q^eivs^ differs fpom the Covenant of Grace made with «^-, but I dcfire to know whether in the <?;^^, or in the d^^^r, they find any promifc of falvation by Chrift to any Intants dying in their Infancy, whofe Parents no way belonged to the Family of God,or Covenant of Grace.

B 3 The

f A Strmm of the BApti:{ing eflnfdms.

The matter then being of fuch confequence, and many among ft us in fuch danger of being fcduccd,fiirther then is cafie toimagincjthrough the fubtilty5a(a:ivity,and diligence of fuch as with a great (hew of Scriptures^ and under a pre-tence of zeale, doe creep into Houfes; yca,proclaim thefc things openly in PulpiCs: I take my (elf bound upoa this occafion to (hew you upon what grounds the Orthodox Church hath hitherto retained this pra(flire, and (hall bring all that I intend to fpeak of it under two arguments, and under them (hall indevour to anfwer whatfocvcr I have found of any moment objedled to the contrary. My firft Argument is this. The infants ofbeleeving Parents t^cy^l^u^ct^ ^ ^^^ fignati. they arewithm

the Covenant the Co'wenmt of graceyhel(mging te Chrtps body ^kingdomffami^ her€fore muft h 5 therefore are to partake of thefeale of his Covenant^ er the have the feaie dijUnguiping badge betmen them who are under the Covenant of the Core, if grace^and them who are not.

"*''^* Theordinary Anfwer to this Argument is, by denying

that Infants are under the Covenant of Grace • only fome few deny the confequcnce, that although they werewith-I in the Covenant,yet it follows not that thcymuft bee fea-

Icd, becaufe (fay they) the ^<?«jjtf;# among the Jcwes were under the Covcnant.yet received not Circuracifion, which wasthefealeof the Covenant-, but this receives an eafic anfwer, the Women were Circuracifed in the Males, clfe could not God have faid^that the whole houfc of Ifraclvitvc Circumcifed in the flefh, elfe could not the whole Nation of the Jewes bee called the Circumcifion^ in oppofiti-on to all the world befide^who were called r/^^ Uncircum-cifion. ThuArgiimctu Butforthc better clearing of this whole Argument- I wade good by fljall indcvour to make good thefc five Conclufions. five Unciufi' Firftjthat the Covenant of Grace hath alwayes^ for fub-ftancCjbeen one and the fame.

Second-

A Scrmcft 0fthi Baptix^hg of Infants. p

Secondly, God will have the Infants of fuch as enter into Covenant with him, bee counted his, as well as their Parents.

Thirdly, God hath ever fince Abrahms time, had a Sealetobeeapplyedtoftchas emer into Covenant with him.

Fourthly, by Gods own order, the Seed, or Infants of Covenanters before Chrifts time, were to bee fealed with the fealeofadmiffioninto his Covenant, as wcllas their Parents.

Fifthly, the priviledgeof fuch as are in Covenant fincc Chrifts time, areas honourable^ large, and comfortable, both to themfelves and their children,as they were before Chrifts time: and thefe five Propofitions made good, the Argument will bee ftrong and undeniable.

The firft is, That the Cove/pant ef Grace, ferfubflanee^joth ^^e 0"^^^"^^! ahajes been one and the fame ^ both to the ^ewes and to the ofg^racJ^Ifwa"i Gentiles, Which to underftandjknow, that the new and li- 'he fame for vingwaytolifewa's firft revealed to Adam, immediately ^"^'^»"^^' after his fall, and that bleffcd promife concerning the Seed of the woman was often renewed, and the Patriarchs faith therein, andfalvation thereby^ recorded plentifully in the Scripture: but the firft time that ever it was revealed under the exprelTe name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham -, and therefore wee fhall need look no higher then his daycs:who becaule he was the firft expliciceCovenanter,is called the father of the faithfuU- and ever fincc clearly hath all the World been divided into two diftmft bodies, or families-, theonecalled the Kingdome, City, Houfholdof God, to which all who own the way to life, were tojoyn themfelves-, and thefe were called the CA//^/*^;! of God, the Sons of Abnham, the Children of the Kingdom i All the reft -of the World, the kingdom ofthe DevH^ the Seed of the Serpenti Strangers from the Covenant of Grace, mthontGod

to

Wherein lies the fubftance ot the Covenant.

Gen.iy.i.&c. Gal.g 15. Rom. 4.:^,

Joh.

Gaf.3.d.

Gen.17,1.

GeR.18.i9,

GaLj.17.1^,

Though noc the fame for manner of ad-miniftration.

A [Sermon of the Bapti^ng ef Infants, in the mrld^ &c. Now, I fay that this Covenant of Grace hath for fubftance been alwayes the fame- for fubftance I {ay, for we mud diftinguifh betwixt the Covenant it felf,-and the manner of adminiftration of this Covenant .• The fubftance of the Covenant on Gods part was, to bee Abra-hams G$d^ and the God of hUfted^ to bee an Al-fufficientfor-tion^^n Al-fujftcient reward for him^ to give ^efm Chrifl to him^and Righteeufneffe with him^ both oi ^uflifcation and oiSan5f'pMion,z.n^everlaflinglife. On Abrahams ^^x^iht fubjlance of the Covenant was^ to beleeve in the promifcd MefTiah, to walk before God with a perfect heart^to/^ro/^ God according to his revealed wil^to ^>»/?r»^hisfamily,&c. The manner of adminiftration of this Covenant at the firft, was by ^j/'^/, ^indfiadom^ faerifiees^(jrc» And foure hundred and thirty years after, the Law was added with gveat tcrrour upon Mount 5/;^^^, notasapart of this Covenant, but as the Apoftle faith exprefly, it was added becaufe of Tranfgrejsions^ tobecaSchoolemafter to whip to Ckrift : Plainly in that giving of the Law, there was fomething of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradiie ^ yet in order to the Adminiftration of the Covenant of grace, there wasare^^4r/i/? of the Covenant of wcrkes, under which all men lie by nature, untill they be brought under the Covenant of Grace: and this was delivered with great terrour, and under moft dreadfull penalties, that they who were prone to feek juftification in themfelves^ by finding the 7«*c<'c^^p*7Di'T»yo/.ii, thcimpoflibility of their keeping the Law, might be driven to feek for a better Mediator, even the Lord Jcfus Chrift, as was excellently fliadowed out, :Exod. 20.18519,20. D^«^ 5. 24. when they cryed out to Mcfes^thatthey might no more heart this dreadfuEvojce^ which would kill them, but that they might be fpoken unto by a Mediator: and God laid, they had mil /poken, andpre-fently accepted Mofes for their typicaU mediator, and by him •! gave

A Sermon of the Bapiz.wgof Infants. jf

gave them the Gofpel in \ht\x Tabernacle Ordinances* And there was alfo fometbing of the admim(lratlon of the. Cove^ nnm of grace •, partly, becaule all the threatning and cutftng part of it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Chrift-, and partly jbecaufe the direfting part of it containes that i/^r^r/i?/^ whereby Abraham^ and allhisy^^flT were ordered to walk in obedience towards God. .,\

To conclude'tbis;all their excernall promifes in cafe of obedience, all oucv;ard bkffings which were to beeenjoyr ed by them, xh^Lindoi Canaan^ and all the good things in it, all outward punifhments and threatnings, lofTe of their Countrey, goinginto captivity, all their Sacrifices, their Wafhings, their Sprinklings^theirholy pcrfonsjioly Feafts, and holy things, were all of them but fo many Ad-miniftrationsot the Covenant of Grace: Earthly things thcn^ were not only promiled or threatned more diftindly and fully,then now they arc to them who are in Covenant, but were figures,figncs, types, and Sacraments of fpirituall things, to beeinjoyedbothby them and by us ^ as might bee cleared by abundance of par^ticulars; Take but that one inftance of the Land of Canaan^ which albeit in it felf it was but like other Lands, yet was it by the Lord fandifyed to fpirituall ends,where hee would have his Tabernacle pitched ^and Temple built,out of which !and,when the ten Tribes were carried captive, hee is faid to have put them out of his fight: the very Land being figuratively ho- ^King^iyji ly, and a figne of Godsprefcnce, the refting of Gods people there,a figne of their eternal! reft in Heaven^into which miMofesxhQ Law-giver, but ^ojhua, or ^efHs,\X\t type Heb.2.n4,< of their true Jelus^was to bring chem: neitherdidtheLord «• promife them entrance into, or continuance in that Land, but upon the fame conditions upon which hee proi^ifeth ^^Hj^^J^*^^^^^ cternalllife, as true Faith in the Gofpel, wiibthcloveand feare of God, and obedience of bis Contoandements:

C God-

Godlineffe having then, ask hath now and alwayes, the tr* 6^*^^"^' promife of good things for this hfe, and the hfc to come, >eillo.i2r ofcarthlythingSjthcn more diftindly and fully, and typi-3.with ii,i, cally^but of heavenly things more generally and fparingly* t Cw.io!^^,7 whereas now on the contrary, there is a more clearc and I ' * ' full revelation and promife of heavenly things, but the pro-mife of things earthly, more general! and iparing ; Now thiscxt^rmll AdmimJlratio» of the Covenant, is not the fame with u^^ as it was with them, but the Covenant is the fame •, they were under the fame m/fery hy Nature, had the fameChrifi^ the Lambe flaine from the beginning of the World, the iame cenditions of Faith and Refentanee^o bee made partakers of the Covenant, h^id the i^mt gravies pro-mifcdinthe Covenant, Circuracifing of their heart, to love the Lord, &c.Theirs was difpenfed in darker Prophecies, and obfcurcr Sacrifices, types, and Sacraments,ours moxtgloriou^yzxxA.clearel'j^ and in a greater mcafure: the cloathes indeed doe differ • but the body is the fame in both. Thcickivtityof As is apparent,if5 fifft, you look but into the Prophc-*'*^^°''^nd" ciesthatweremade,gP^r.5i.35. 7/3/. 5P. 21. ^oel2. ^7. CcnXs^pro- ^nd many other places,where the fame things are promifed red. tathe Gentilcs^when the Gofpcl fliould bee preached unto

! ' them which were fit fl promifed to Abraham^2^nA to his feed 5

ll^a.V^* 2^1. ^^^ ^^^^ fully,if you look into the New Teftamcnt, where JoeV2.32.* youfhallfinde, 7:«^.i.54,55,69,70,72,73. X^.i'. 2.31.32. ^nk.f.j4.&c. jj^^^ Chrifl, and the Kingdom of grace by him, is acknowledged to bee the fummeoFtheOath and Covenant, which God had promifed to ^ir^-^^w, and to his feed: So cJlf4//^.2i.4i.43. the fame Vineyard that was let to the >*'^ Jews,{hould afterward bee let to the Gentiles: the fame Kingdom of God which was formerly given to the Jewes, fhould bee taken from them, andgivento the Gentiles: So ^«?* II.' the Gentiles were to bee ingraffed into the fame

ftocfc

A Sermon dfthe Baptizing $f Infants. j -

ftock/;!^ which formerly the ^mes\vxdi grown, and from which they were now to bee cut off, and into which in the t.uk.2.51; end they mould bee ingrafFed again: SoG^/.g. 8.14. i5. {^^^J^^Mi Abraham had the fame Gofpel preached to him, which is cli^ijlj/^^ . now preached to us, the fameblcfling beftowcd upono/- p braharnycomcs on the Gentiles through Jefus ^Chrift, that ^^•** ^^' they (as well as he J might receive the fr&mfe of the Sfirit through Faith • they who receive the promife of the Spirit through Faith, have the blcfling of Abraham come upon them: as clearc is ihzx ^Ep hef 2.i3.totheend of the chapter^ • the partition wall which fevered us from the fexviSy is now broken down, and the Gentiles who formerly were a-farrc off, are now taken in, and made Inter-Commoners with the J^ewes: the Apoftle alluding to the manner of the Jewifli woi (hip,where beyond the Court wherein the ^ews did worOiipjthcre was another Court divided from it by a fcptorwall, which was called, Atrit4mgentium (^ immun-doruMy the Court of the Gentiles and of the unclean, nearer thew which none of them might approach unto the Temple •, but now,faith \itt^The partition wall is broken down^ ani rvee are no more ftrangers and Forainers • bm made feU low-Citiz^ns xvith the Saints^ and of the houfhold of God-^and tvith them grow up into an holy Temple in the Lord-^M which (hews that the very felfe-fame priviledges formerly ra^de * psculiar to the Jews, are now through Chrift communicated to the Gentiles. And this will yet more fully appeare, if wee confider how St. Paul to the Galatians^ (hewes that the fame feed o( Abrahawy {bmuch fpoken of in the Covenant made with himjis now found among the Gentile5,as it was formerly among the Jews^thtrcyou fliall finde three forts of Abrahams feed: Firft, C^r//?,(74/.j.i^.therootandftock, thehead,andelderbrotherof all the reft. Secondly, all true beleevers are Abrahams feed, cap. 3. 29. thefe onely arc made partakers o( tht ^irituall pgitt of the Covenant

C z Third-

Thirdly,you fhall finde another feed of Ahraham^vho were onlycircutncilcdinthc j?e/&5 and not in the hearty who though they were cither hornoi AbrJums feed, or profejjed Abrahams hiihy andfo were Jewes/^t"?/, though not 7^4/^/5 madexho\\g\\ not born ^erves^ becomrning Prolclytes, never came to make Abrahams God their All-fufficient portion^ but placed their happincfie in fomewhat, which was not Chrifty either by feeking jufi'ification by the workes of the loiT),ia3. Law.beirjg ignorant of Gods right coufm^e^ and going about to . ejlablifl) their own righte$ujnc([e did not fubmit thewfelves unto therighteoufneffeof Gody or placed their happineflc, in fa-fjing the lujls of the fltfl), going a whoring after the Creature % and lo though they were Abrahams feed by profefion and outward cleaving to the Covenant, yet were to bee caft ofFwith the reft of the uncircumcifed^of whom Ijhmael amd Efau were types, Gal. 4. 22. drc Even fa it is now in the times of the Gofpel, we have now Jefus Chrift, the Elder brother, the firft-borne of the Covenant, wee have alfo true beleevers , who are brethren and Co-heires with him, who are properly the heires by promife, and wee have alfo ' fomc who are onely a holy feed by externa/l profefion^GaL

I 4. 29. who either with the falfe teachers, which PaukhcxQ

I fpeaks of, mingle juftification by the Law a^id Goffeltogether^

\ or with others, a Ttm. 3.5. though they have a forme of

godline^ey yet deny the power of tt in their lives andconverfati-\ ' ons. So much for the firft Conclufion, that the Covenant of

; grace^ for fubftanccjwasalwayes one and the fame.

|! , ^ Ever fince God; gathered a diftinft, feleft number out of Infams^rlk r* ^^^ world, tobeehis KingdomjCity,Houfe-hold,inoppo. thtoCovenant fitiou to the tcft in thc wotld, which is the kingdom, city^ fcntl'^'''*'''' .houfe hold of Satan, hee would have The Infants 0f aU who ^ * are taken into Covenant with him^ to bee accounted his^ to belong

tohim^ to his Church and family^ and not to the Devi Is. As it i% \:iother Kingdoms^CorporationSjand Families, the children

A S er monef the Bapti^ngef Infants. M^

dien of all Subjedls born in aKingdomCj axe bom that Princes Subjc<fts-,where the Father '\sz Free-man^ the childc is not born ajlave -^ where any are hught to bee fer<vamsj their children born in their Maftcrs houfe, arc born hisjer-vants. Thus it is by the Laws of almoft all Nations^ and thus bath the Lord ordained it fliall bee in his Kingdom and Family-, ihtchildren follow the Covenant-condition of their ParentsM hee take a Father into Covenant, hee takes the children in with him 5 if hee rejeft the Parents out of Covenant5the children arecaft out with them-, Thus without all qucftion it was in the time of the Jews^ Gen. 17.9. £^^^^-*'^*o ^c.and when any ofany other Nation, though a Cmaanite ^^"^ '^^''^ * or Hittite, acknowledged Abrahams God to bee their God, ^^)f and their r^//^/-^?^ came into covenant together.

And fo it continues////, though the Anabaptifls boldly deny it: ^^.9.38,39. when P^f^r exhorted his hearers, ^.2.38,59. who were pricked in their hearts^to repent and bee baptized ^f^^l^ *""*' for the remiffion of fins^hee ufeth an argument to perfwade ^ ; them, taken from the benefit which (hould. come to their fa- ' fterity-j {ox the Fromife (faith hee) isunt&yeuand nntoyottr childrenyandto all that are afarre €Jfy even as many as the Lord our God Jhall call: if once they obey the call of God, as A-graham did, the promife was mad^ 10 them and tp their fhjl-^r<f/;, whether they who obey this call were the prefent Jews to whom heefpake, or were afar of: whethtr by afarre offjyouvvi\\ix\Q2inihc Gentiles^ who as yet tporihipped afar fiJ^,or the Jews,orany wlio asyetwcre unlforn,^r\dSo\vtYC Xtarre.off)n s^/w^5, or whether they dwelt in the remotcft pirtsofttie world, and lower^ afarre off in/^//»rtf- the Argument holds good to the end of the world,Repenc and be baptized for the remiffion of fins, andyee (hall receivcthe Holy Ghoft ^ F&r^theFromi[ekmade t'oyouAndta^mr^.cfjtl'' dreny they jhall bee made ^recof 6ods Ciiyv aecording to Abrahams Copy-, I will bee thy God^andthe Giddfihyf^edX^Ai

Q S Zachens

'lg ^A Sermon of the Bdpi^ng ef Infants.

Zacheus the Publican once receive Chrift himfelf^btt hee a Cemile^^S'^omt think hee was-^bee hee ^greatfinner^^ftQcm-ed as a heathen^as we all know hee was Jet him profeffe the 9, faith of Chrift,and the Covenant of falvation comes to his ' houfey (ovnowhcQiSvnidcafonneof Abrah4m:th2itis,Alra-hdms promtfe novo re^cheth him.

Neither can the evidence of this place bee eluded by fay-ingjthe promifc heremeant^ is of the extrayrdmarj gifts of the Holy Gho/l^ to [peak with tongues ^(^c. For wee all know that 4^ who then beleeved and were baptized, did not receive thofe extraordimtry gifts of the Holy Ghofl-^ andbefidej this Argument remains ftill in force to bee ufed to the end of the Woildj who ever heleeves and is bapti^d,[ball receive re?mPion of ftns^and the gift of the Holy Ghojt: Which was not truCjif by the Holy Ghoft was meant only thofe extraor^ dinary gifts. OhjS. Nor^ fecondly, can it bee avoided by that fliift of others

^^f^» who interpret it thus-. To you and your children^ as many of them 06 the Lord fh all call: that is, (fay they J whether _jf(?«r felves^oi your childre/j, or any other whom the Lord JhaU ca/l^ ifthey repent and bee baptized, they lliall receive ihe gift of the Holy Ghoft-, for it is plaine, that the ftrength of this Argument Ueth in this, That if they did repent and were baptizcd,the promife fhould bee made good to them^ and to their children^ and what comfortable argument can this bee taken from refpe(fl to their c/j^/Y^r^;/, if the Apo-ftle muft be interpreted as thefe men would have him ? vi^ Tou and your Children have hitherto been an holy feed, but now if you belecve in Chrijl yeurfelves , yo'tr children Jhall be iif no better condition then the refl of the Pagan world^ fir angers from the Covenant of God-^ but if afterward any of them^ or ^ of the Heathen fhall for their parts beleeveandbe baptizedj thefr particular ferfons pall bee took into Covenant, but their children ftill left out: had this think you been a comfortable

A Strmm of the Baptizing oflnftnts. "^ I -j

table Argument to pcrfwade th^m to c6me in, in relation CO the good of their children after them ? The plaine ftrength of the argument is, God hath now rememhredhis Co- . vemnt to Ahraham^in fending that hlejjedfced^in whom heefro- ' mi fed to bte the God of him and hkfeed ^ do not you by your un-heliefe^defriveyonr felves^ and'^our poferity of fo excellent a ^ gift. And except in relation to the Covenant, there was no Gccafion to name their children^ it had been f ufficienc to have faid^ aproniifeismadeto/^w4;?y a^ the Lord (hall

As plain it is out of the 11 of the Rom. 1 6. &c. where Rom ii.i5. the Apoftlesfcopeistolhew that wee Gentiles have now ^f^"^''* the fame graffing into the true Olive which the Jewes formerly had,and ouvf refent graffing in^is anfwerable to their prefentcafling out, and their fi«ir/>jtg*/> in thekttercnd of the World, fhall bee th^ fame graffing ^>^(though more gloi-rioufly; as ours is now: Now all know that when they were taken in, they and their Children were taken in, when they were broken off, they and thdr children were broken off, when they fhall bee taken in, in the latter end of the world, they ?indthdi: children fhall bee taken in, and that becaufe the roote is holy^thsit is, Gods Covenant with Abraham^ ifaac and^acob, extends yet unto them when their unbeltefejballbee taken aw Ay. The roore being like Nebuchadnezzar s tree, the tree he wen down, and the roote bound with a band of iron untill feven times were pafTed ovei* it, and then the bands fhould be broken, and the roote fhould fpring, andthetree fhould grow again : So their prefent Nation//*^/^AJ tree^ is cut down, and this holy roote the Covenant made with their forefathers, is fufpended^ bound with an iron barre oiunbcleefe^ bltnd»e(fe heing come upon themyuntillthefulneffeofthe Gentiles bee come inland then aU Ifraeljhallbeefaved. And mark that in all this difcourle^thc holineffcofthe branches there fpoken of, isnot meant of a

perloii;

p^rfonall iaherenc holiacfle^but a derivAtive holineflre,a ho-V lihcfTe derived to them from their 4nceftors • The firfl fruite is hly^ the lumpe hol-j^ the roote holy , the branches holy^ that . is, the Fathers holy accepted in Cove^iant with God, the children helovedfor their fathers Jake '^ and when thevaile of unbe-licfc iliall bee taken away, the children and their poftericy {hall be taken in zg^mjbecaufe beloved for their Fathers fakes. , Now then it our graffing in, bee anfwerable to theirs in all, or any of thefe three particulars, wee and our children are graflPed in together. O^. But here is no mention made of ^^^^//?/4.^^/|'r4j^>;^ Anfw. Wtt muft not teach the Lord to fpeak, but with reverence fearch out his meaning, there is no mention made ©t carting out the ^emjh infants^ neit^her here nor elfe-. rvhere: when hee (peaks of eating away the Kingdonlc of• ;God from them, and giving it to the Ger/trles \vho would bring forth fruitejno mention of the Infants of che one^ or of tht other^ but the one arid the other for thefe outward dif^ penlations, are comprehended in their parents,^ the branches in the roote^ the Infants of the godly in their p.^rents^accoV' ding to the tenor of his mercy,the inFants of the wicked in their Parents,according to the tenor of his juftice. And yet plainer, (if plainer may beej is that fpeechof iCor.7.14. the Apoftle, in s Corinth, j.14.. The unbeleeving husband iS 'vMcarcdf fanBified by the wife, and the mbeUeving wife is fanctifed by the husband^ elfe were your children uncleane^ but now they are holy t, the plaine fcopeand meaning whereof is this-, the belpeving Corinthians, among other cafes of confcicnce which they had fentto the Apoftle for his relolution of, had written this for one, whether it were lawfuU for them ' who were converted, ftill to rctaine their Infidell wives, or busbaRds: their doubt feemcs to ari(c from the Law of G4?^, wbich was in force to the Nation of the J^wes j God haci not onely forbidden fuch marriages to his people,but ^^..; rr in

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants. ^^

in Ezra's time, they put away not onely,their wives,-^t Ezra.io^ all the children that were borne of them, as not belonging to the Common-wealth of Ifrael •, and it was done according to the Law^ and that Law was not a particular Edift which they did agree upon, but according to the ftandirig Liwoi Mofes, which that word there ufed fignifiethj a^d |i..H.^j.' in Neiemahs tim^^ 'the children who were borne of fuch marriages3were accounted a Mungrcll kind^whom iV^)&^wi- ^«^hem,i3.i ^^curfcd. Now hereupon the(e Corinthians doubted whc;- ^* ther their childrcn^as well as their wives,were not to beoc-counted uncka/te^ and fo to be put away according to thofe examples 5 to which the Apoftle anfwirs. No, they were not to ie fut ^way. Upon what fpeciall reafbn foever, that Law was in force to the ^ewes , believing Chrijlians were not in that condition, the unbcleeving wife was fandified in the beleeving husband, quoadhec^ fo farre, as to bring forth an holy feed ^ were it with them as when ^(?M of them were unbeleevers , fo that neither of them had a prerogative to iatitle their children to the Covenant of grace, tfecir children would be an unclean Progeny- or were the children to be reckoned in the condition oi the worfer parent,fo that the unbeleever could contribute more to Pagdn^fme^thcn the beleever to Chriftianiiy-^ it were fo likevyii^:^ but ^he cafe is otherwife, the beleeving husband hath by Gods ordinance a fan^flified ufe of his unbeleeving m//^, /(? as by Gods fpeciall promife made to belecvers and their Seed,^^^^^^ they were inverted, in, and to the mofifpintHallendoi^ marriage, the con.inumce of a holy feed^v/htvcin the Churchis to be propagated to the worlds end-, and the cafe is herein relation to the pofterity for y^m W/priviledges, as in ether marriages, fox civili priviledgcs,asfuppofeaP;'/w^3joriV^-bleman marry with a woman oibafeoimeane birth, thougii iZigeneraUit be true, that the children of thofe that be bjj^^ are born ^4/i, as well as the children oi Nobles zx^ borne

D Noble

'^ ^o A Sermon of the Bapti^ng oflnfmts.

' ' Whky yet here the iffue hath honour from the T^her, and is not accounted h^e by the bafencde of the Mother. This I ■ take to be the plaine meaning of the Apoftles anf wer : But becaufethe Anabaptijis do very much endeavour to weaken c the evidence of this Argument, Ifhall indeavourto cleare .„ .H,^ '. \i from their' acceprions. They utterly deny thatthis place is meant of any Foederall holine^e^ but oUcgitmation^ which they call civill holineffe, and fo interpret the Corhthians doubt to be 5 rvhether their marriage mth Unheleeversrvere not now a nullityy and their children thereupon to bee^tf-y/^/^,illegitimate, orBaftards, andthe Apofllcsanfwerto be, that becanfe the Unhekeving wife is JAnlfifiedto the be-leeving husband, that is, their marriage remaines lawfuB, therefore their children are not fpurious, but lawfully begotten. But that this cannot be the meaning;! clearly proVe . by thefe four Arguments. •

uArmnmt ^^^^^^ uncleannefle and holineile, when oppofed one to Becaufe im- the Other, are never taken for civtHy lawful! or unlawfuU -, :ieanneffe and f^^cleanneffe indccd^when oppofed to cleanntp^tmy betaken whe"c wken i^ fcverall fenfes, an uncleane veffell, an uncleane cloth, an forcivuiy law- unclcanc garment-, when oppofed to cleane^ may fignifie no-^"^^* thingbut dirty orfpottedibut when uncleannes is oppofed to

Mineffe, itisalwayestakeninay^rr^rffenfe, referring to a tabernacle ufe, to a right of adminion into, or ufe in, the Tabernacle or Temple, which were types to is of the vifible I *ritn,4*5. = tfehtirch: and holineffe is alwaies taken for zfefaration of per-Jin^ or things from common to {acred ufes: Even the meats 'anddrmkesofbeleeversfan^ifedto thcm,{erve for a religious I'/^f/zri^^/^/^, even to refrefh them, who are the Temples of theholy Ghoftsfothatthcyhavcnot'Onelya lawful!; but AT/&tf/jiufeof their meat and drinke, which Unbeleevers have

^AT^^b whom yeV their meat and drinke is civilly lap-/^JjIfSsd 3i;fi36onik'nt)iolin;/

'mc-^ -- -■•• And

Ti\^\

A SermQn of the Baptizhg of In/dm.' **

And whereas fome fay, i rhe^. 4. 5,4, jAhatri^/^ a Oh]^^. morall vertue found among Heathens,ls called by the name oiSanBificatien, Let every onepofpffe his veffell, not in the luji ofcoy/cupifemeybut in San^tficatton and honour.

I Aalwer, chaftity among Heathens, is never cald ^^;y- -^^fi^* &if cation, but among heleevers ic may well bee called /J, being a part oi the New crearion,a branch of their fandlifi 1

cation,wronght by rhe Spirit of God, a part of the inward adorning of the Temple of the holy Ghoft. So that the ■. , meaning cannot be^your children are holy vthatiSjttow they ^-f^ "; are nothaftards-^ but rather, whereas before^ hothyon and they were uncleane^ and might have nothing to doe with the Temple of God, now both you divAjour children are a holy feed, according as was fliewed to Peter in his vifion, where God lliewed him, that the Gentiles formerly no better then uncleane beafis, and creeping things^ Jhonld upon their con-verjion to Chriji bee no longer ejleemed con^mon or defiled » J,

Secondly, this being f o^ had this been the meaning ,\ elfe xhe /poftic were your Children unclean^ but now they are hol^ . elfe hid anfwcrhadn your children been ^4/?Wj^ but now thty atclegitimtC'^^^^^^^^'^* the Apoftlesanfw^^^md^Pt been ^f/^^, bccaufe then if one ofthe Parents had not been aBeleevcr5and lobyhis being a beleever, fanftifiedhisunbeleeving Wife, their children muft have been Baftards .- whereas wee know their children had been legitimate^being borne in lawfuii Wed-locke, though neither of the Parents had been abcleevcr^: Marriage being afecond Table duty, is Uwfull (though not fan(flified)to Pagans as well as to Chriftians, and the legitimation or illegitimation ofthe iffue depend not upon the Faith\ but upon the w^m^^ of the Parents-, let the marriage be lawfull, and theiflue is legitiaiate,whether oney or- -'^ ;«vt^ bothy otneither ofthe Parents be beleevers or infidels .• take but away lawfull marriage, betwixt the Man and the Wo-

D 2 man^

^^?f'^ ;inah:, and the iflbe is illegitiinate,whcthcr one or both, or

neitherofthe Parents are beleevcrs or infidels; withall, if

the children of ^^^^^f;?;^ beBaftards, and the marriage of

Heathens no marriage, then there is no adultery among

heathens, and fo the leventh Commandeirent is altoge-

I ther in vaine in the words of it as to them.

\.Argummu Befides St. Tauls reafon had no (ircngth in it^ fuppcfing

^or had the the Tcxt wcre to be interpreted as thefe men would have it^

pemhrda'^r'^^^^^^^"^^^^^y ^''^^y)'^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^ maniagewasan un-cafoninir,if lawfuU wedlocke, and fo confequently their children Ba-

ilLv^^^!u'^ ftardstnow mark what kinde of anfwer they make the A policy woaia r,..' 1 r It r i'li *■

lave it, Itle giV^)Vere )ee not tarvfnll man and mfc^ jour chtldrm were

! Baftards^ butbecaufe the unbekeving Wife ufanffifedin the

husbatid^ (ire. becaufeyour marriage is a law full marriage^ your children are legitimate. What ftrength of reafon is in thisf if this had been their doubt or queftion,whether then marriage were not a nullity, the Apoftle b'j his K^poftoliek ah-thority might hzvQ definitively anfwcred, without giving a reafon, 'jOur marriage is goody znd your children legitimate^ but i^Pattl will go about to fatisfie them by reafon,& prove them to bemiftaken, it behoved him to give fuch a reafon which fhould have fome weight in it, but this hath' none 5 kt their doubt (as thefe men frame it)and the Apoftles an-fwcrfas thefe men interpret him)togaher,and you will ea-fily fee the invalidity of it •, We doubt^ fay the Corinthians, we are not law full man and wife •, and that therefore our ^htU dnn are Baft ards. No, faith Paul^ yoti are miftaken^and I prove it thus^Wereyee not Uwfuliman a^:d wife ^ yenr children wen haftArds '^ hut hecaufe yee are lawfuU man a/d wlfe^your ., children are not baftards. Is there any argument orproofe

in this !r;

- ^FwiytKlYj accordihgt<!)///^their interpretation 5 the A-

poftks lanfwer could no wayes have i^eached to the quieting

oi ihtk eonfiiences '^ their doubt was, whether according

t : to

'A Strmm of the Baptizing of Infants. ^ j

to the example in Ezra , they were not [to put away their wives and children, as mt belonging to Cod^ as being a Seed whom <jod would not own among his people*, iiow what kind of quiet would this have given them, to tell them that their children were not Baftards^ We know the ^etvs did not^z/Mtt'/yftheir Baftards, as not belonging to the Covenant of God-, Fhares^znd Zarah^znd^epthah, and innumerable others^though bafiards^vjctc circumcifed^ and not cut off from the people of God.

And whereas fomeobjeftout oiBeut. Q^.-s.that baftards did not belong to the Covenant among the ^ews^ becauie Cod there forbad a baflard to come into the Congregation of the Lord.

lAnfwer, that is meant onelyoi bearing office in the i>«r.25X Church, or fomc fuch like thing, and not of being under the Covenant, belonging to the Church:asis manifeft^not onely by what hath been vow faid oi ^efthah and others, who were circumcifed,and offeredfacrifices, and drew nigh to Ggd^ as well as any other -, but the very text alledged gives fuificient light, that it cannot be meant otherwayes •, becauie in that place 5 who everts anBunuch y or wounded in his ffonesJ[\uh the fame exclufion from the congregation of the Lord : and I hope no man will dare to fay, that none EfA.<,g,3,Ji. fuch^are holy to the Lord-^H they {hould,the Scripture is full e- AO.8.27. nough againft them: that putting away of E:{ra was of an higher nature then bare illegitimation t, and therefore it behooved the Apoftle to give another manner of fatisfacJti-onto their doubtfuU confciences, then to tell them their children were not Baflards: Therefore 1 condudcf, that this holmeffe being the fruits of one of the Parents being a belee-njer^ mujl he meant offome kinde ofho/ineffe , which js not corn-won to the feed of them whofe Parents are both Unbeleevtrs^md that is enough for our purpofe. 'jjA^'

Yet their remainestwo O bjcflions to bee anfwered,

which

f 24 ^ Sermon of the Bd^tlT^ng $f Infants.

which are made againft ;his our incerpretation. ijiS -Eirffjtlie Unbelee'ving wife^ is here (lud to he fanBiped^ as

well as the Child is faid to bee holy , and the Origmall word is the fame for both, one the verhyXhe other the nome:\i then the child is h&ly^ w'it\\^ feeder all ho liffeffe^ then is alfo the u»^ belecvjng wife fancUfledwkh z feeder all San^iificatrofi^ and (b the rv//^5 although remaking a heathen5may be yet counted to belong to the Covenanr^grace. fe'Cihl^Greek ^ Anfwcr Jndecd there would be weight in this objedion j^repoVuion if -the Apoftle had faid th^ UMeeving Wi(e is fandlified, £gnifying faas ^nd no moi'e, as he fimply fays, the children zx^holy^^ but \q2\^!\6^7. ^^^^ he doth not fay, he faith indeed the Unheleeving wife !!Pet.\.5.Aa.4. is fand.fied in the beleeving htdihandy or to the beleeving hus-,12.1 Cor.7.1 J i^^^, that ip^to his ufe^as all other creatures are, as the bed. he lies on, the ;^^^/^ hee eats, the cloaths heeweares, the j; bcaft he rides on^ are ian^Sified to himjand fo this/^A?^/^-

■ ednejfe of the wife is not a fancSification offtate-^ but bnely

, of ufey^nd oithis t^jexo be fandlified to the beteeving husbandry whereas the holines and fandification.that is fpoken of the children, is a hoUnciTc oifiate^ and not only a fandification to the parents/^y^.. 2.0hje&. Thlt holinefle of the Children is /5^r^ meant, which

could not.be, unlefTe one of the Parents were fanftifyed XQ the other, which is the force of the Apoftles arguing ,the unheleever is fanBtfiedioxhtbeleever^ ^//^ were not the children holy,!but uncleane .• but fcederall hohneffe of childixn may be where the Parents are not fandlifiedjonc in or to the other, as in baftardy, Davids child by Bathfheba^ Phares 2ind Zdrah^ 5^W4^/children by Thamarr, the ffraelites chil" drcn by the Conciibines,y4^r4^4;»/ fonne Ifljmaelhy Hagar^ &CC. in which cafes thechildrcn were foederallyW^,. and I accordingly were circumcifecj, ^ and yet the Harlot not (an-

dified in ox to the Adulterer pr Fornicator, though a belce-ver, .. :^' "^ ;

I anfwer,we muft attend the Apoftlcs fcope^Wch is to fliew Anfr?. that the children would be unholy , iisihtfatth ^nd ^elever^ flyip of one of the Parents could not remove the barre^which. lies/;^r)&^^/^£'r, being an unbeleever, againft the producing of an holy kcd^becaufe one of them wa^ a Pagan,or unheletver , therefore the child rsouldnot he an holy feed^ unleffe the faith or beleeverjhif of the other Parent could remove this. bar. N o w t his can have no pkce of an Argument, in any cafe 3 where one of the Parents is not an Infidell: but this was not the cafe a-mong the Jewes •, Hagar, and Thamar, and the Concubines^ ho'^tvtxfin full in thole a^s^ yet themfelves were beleevers, belonging to the Covenant of God, and that barre lay not againft their children, as did in the unbeleeving wife: indeed if a beleeving man or woman fhould adulteroujly beget a childe upon a Pagan^ a Heathen^ or Unbeleever.thQVt this ob-jedion dcferves to bee further weighed 5 but here it comes not within the compaffe of the Apoftles Argument.

Before I pafle from this fecoad conclufion^ let me further R^afon why fliew you why the Lord will have the children of beleeving aichinflnfs''^ Parents reckoned even in their Infancy, to belong to him, accoumcd his. Firft, his ovjn beneplacitum^hisixtt grace and favour which moves him to fhew mercy to whom he will, is a flifficient anfwertoall: Butfecondly, he willhave it for^/^^jr/^^^-ry. It is the honour of other Princes, that all who are born in their kingdome fhould bee accounted borne their Subjeifs-^ and the honour of great Mafters, that the children of their fervantsborn in their hofes, iTiould be born their fervants: Solomon counts it a piece of his glory ^that he had fervants ^^'^^^^•^•7« born in hb houfe. And on the other fide, it is a diihonout-i to a King not to be able legally to lay claim to thofb born in his kingdome,but that another King,yea,an enemy mi^t /e'^4Z^^ challenge them to be d/^Subjeds. So is it;v^ithtb^ •Lordjhe having left all the reft ot the worlid,^ tabi^yifil^ljf the dcvUs kingdome, will not for his ovfnglor^es fake per^

mit

^ ^ A Sermon of the Ba^tiT^ng $f Infants.

mit the Devil to come and lay viiiblc claime to the fonnes

and daughters, begotten by thofe who are the children of the moft High. And thirdly, he doth it both for the com^ formnd duty of tho(c who are in Covenant with him, partly I lay, for their comfort and priviledge, w hile they may lee their chJMre^rt vrfibl^to be prov^idcdfbr by a better Father^ under a Covenant of Grace, to whofe care, and un. der whofe wing they may leave them^whenthemfelves Ihal failc •, and partly to bee an obligation to bring them u^for God, not to them [elves, muchlelTeto the^^W, but ever to look upon themfelves in the education of their children, to be but nurfing Fathers and Mothers, te train them up in the nurture andfeare of the Lor d^ unto whofe kingdom^ family, and Covenant they thus belong.

I have been the larger upon thefc two firft concl-ufions,

becaufe indeed the proving ofthefe^ gains the rvhole caufe ,

if the Covenant be the fame, and children belong to it,then

they arc to be owned as Covenanters^ and to be admitted to

the diftinguifhing or difcriminating fign betwixt Gods pco-

- pie and the devils-, and this the moft learned of the Ana-

baptifts doe profeffe, that if they knew a Child to be holy,

they would baptize it. In the other Conclufions I lliall be

more briefe.

^.Conclufion The Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or

fealeofinitattontobeadminijlredunte them who enter into C$^

venant with hlm^Circtimcifion for the time of that adminiftra-

tion which was before Chrifts incarnation, hapifmefince the

time of his incarnation^both of them the fame facramentfor

tht fpirituall part,though differing in the outward Elements-

both appointed to h^^difiingmfhing pgnes^ betwixt Gods

people,' and the Devils people; both of them the way and

meancs of foclnine entrance & admiflion into the Church;

fc^f^of them to be adminiftrcd but onse^ atid none might be

^cccivcdihto the Commt^nion of the Church of thc^en^es,

until!

iintill they were cir£umci[ed^ nor into the Communion of the Church of the Chriftians untillchey be Bapti:^ed^ none but the circumci(?d might eat of the Fafchall Lambj none may butthofe who are baptized, be admitted to eat tht Lords Supper, which fucceeds in the room of the Paffeoverj and this om Lord him/elf taught us by his own example, who vjdiscircumctfed^ asaprofeffed member of the Church of the Jewes, and when he fet up the new Chriftian Church he would be initiated into it^ by the Sacrament of Bap-tifme.

OfthisConckifionthereisno great doubt, but becaufe fbmeofthe Anabaptiftsdoe deny the Sacrament of Bap-tifmetofucceedintheroom, place, and ule of Circumci-fion, bee plcaied to obfervc how plain the Apoftle makes it5 Colojf. 2 .8,9,1 o, i 1, 12. where the Apoftles fcope is op^'"''* to difTwade the beleeving Chriftians from the rudiments of the world, and Jewifli Ceremonies, and obfervations upon this ground, thztvjc are compleat in Chrifi, and that inhimasinthe head,the Church hath all perfedions,and becaufe he would take them wholly off from Circumcifion, the ufe wherof ingagcd them to the ufe of the reft of Jewifli Ceremonies, he tels them, that in chrijl wee are circumcifcd ^31,5.3. with a Circumcifion made without hands(^ better circumcifion then the Jews was J inputting off the body ofth^.finnes of the fie/1) by the circumcifion of Chrijl. And whereas the ^ewijh teachers would be ready toobjecJl that the receiving of the inward gt^cQ of Circumcifion, did not make them {o com-pleat as (^^r^^^w and his feed was, becaufe they alfo had an outward fenfible figne whereby they might bee farther perfwaded^ comfortedy and confirmed • to this he anfwers ver, 12 .That neither is this priviledge Wanting to Chrijiians who have as excellent and exprefle a Sacrament of it, being buried with Chrifi in Baptifme^ the cfted whereof he there fcts down, and therefore they needed not Circumcifion^

E as

astheirfalft teachers infinuated, thereby dircdly teaching that our baptifmeisinftead of their circumcifion. And the Analogy liesbctween two Sacramentall types of the fame fubftancc {regeneration']tohoi\\^ev;>so.nd Gentiles. And in truth had not baptifme come in the room of/>, the Apoftle could not have pitched upon a worfe inftance then that of Circumcifion, which was fo much vrvlued by them, and was fo great and ufefull a priviledge unto them : Nor had there been any reafon to have here named baptifm^but that he meant to (hew baptifm to Chriftians, was now in the room of circumcifion to the Jews.

That by Gods own exprejfe order^ Infajnts of rve/i as grown men'^voere in the time of the ^exves to bee initiated and fealed with thefigne of Circumcifion: Whether Jewes by nature, or Profelyces of the Gentiles^one law was for them all,ifthey receive the Covenant, they and their children receive circumcifion: andalthoughj as I touched before, thisfigne was aHualiy applyed only lo the rmles^ yet the females were w^^4//ycircumcifedinthem, as is apparent both bccaufc the whole Church of the Jews were called the Circumcifion, and becaufe by Gods e:^preffe order, no uncircumci-fed perfon might eat of the Paffeover, which wee are fure the women did as well as the men. And whereas fome who fee which way the ftrength of this Conclufion ben^ deth.do alledge^that though Circumcifion was to bee applyed to their infants^yet it was not as a feile of the fpiri-tuall part of the Covenant ot Grace^but as a national badge, afeale of fome temporalland earthly bleffings and priviled-ges^as of their right to the Land oiCanaan^&c. and thztJjh-mael though he was circumcif^ed for fome temporalirefpe^Sy >en.i7.i? 19) y^^ heewas not thereby brought under the Covenant of p,2t. * ' grace^which was exprefly faid to be made with Kyibraham^

in relation to Iftacznd his feed. I '*'^'' I anfwer, there is nothing plainer then that the Covenant

^ where-

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants^ :^^

whereof Circumclfion was the figne, was the Covenant »f Grace • Abraham received Circumcifion 2, figne of the Rom'4»ir« righccoufncffe of Faith, and the 3^^ir^^ received it not as a Nation, but as a Church, as a people feparated from the world, and taken into Covenant with God: It is truein-cfted, that Circumclfion bound thenfi who received k^ to conform to that manner of adrainiftration of the Covenant which was carryed, much, by a way ofTemporall bleffings and punifhments, they being types of fpiriCuali thingsjbut no man can ever fliew that any were to receive ' the Sacrament of Circumclfion in rcLition to thefe outward things onelj^ or to them ^f 4//, further then they were adminiftrations of the Covenant of Grace-, fure I am, the Frofelytis and their children could not be circumcifed in any relation at all to the temporallbieflings of the Land ofC4-naan as they were temporall,becaufe notwithftanding their Circumclfion they were not capable of receiving, or pur-chafing any inheritance at all in that Land • fojournc there they might, as other ft rangers alfo did, but the inheritance of the Land, no, not one foote of it could ever bee alienated from the fevcrall Tribes to whom it was diftributed as their pofieffion by the moft High: Tor all the Land was divided unto twelve Tribes, and Deur.n.8. they were not any one of them allowed to fell their Lev.25,13. lands longer then till the year of Jubilee,z:^'z;/>.25.i3.&c. Yea, I may boldly fay, that their Circumcifion was fo farrefrom/^^//;j[g-to them the outward good things of the land,that it occafioned and tyed them to a greater expence of their temporall bleffings by their long, and frequent, and chargeable journeys, to worfliip at Hierufalem. And as for what was alledged concerning Jjhmael, the anfwer is eafie; God indeed there declares that Ifa^c fhould be the tyfeof C/^r//?, and that the Covenant of Grace fhould bee edablijhed^xid continue in his family 5 yet both Ijhmacl and

E 2 the

JO A Sermon of the Baptt^ng of Infants.

the tc^o( Abrahams Family were really tdikcn Into Covenant 5 untill afteiward by Apoftafie they difcovenantcd themfclveSjas alfo did Efatt afterward, though he were the Son of/jQ4^,m whofe family God had promifed the Covenant fhould continue.

Fifthly and laftly, the priviledges of heleevcrs under this laft and beft adminiftration ot the Covenant efgrace^ are nna-ny wayes tnUrged, made more honerablt^ and comfortable^ then ever they were in the time of the Jews adminiftration^ w^;7jf Scriptures fpeake of the inlargement of their priviledges, not one for the dimimfhing^ox deprefsing^ or extentkt-tingoH\{Qm •, thatyoke,that hard and coftly way of adminiftration, which neither they northeir Fathers wereable tobeare, is taken off from our flioulders^ our Covenant is laid to be eftablifhed upon better promifes^tht glory oitheirs had no glory in refped of ours ^ they were under the bondage of Infants under agejin comparifon oiom freedom^vjt as well as they are called a holy Nation^ a peculiar feeple^ a chofen generation^ feparatcd to him from all other people^ to whom^aswellastothem, belongs the z^^^/;/^/?, the Covenant^ the promtfes •, we as well as they, in joy him to be our Father^ and with his deareft Son our Lord, are made Co-heires of the Kingdonk of glory -^ we have all thcfe things with advantage, notonly intheclearneffe of the admini-ftration,but in fome fenfe in greater extent to perfons with usjthereis neither male nor female. :. Some indeed goe about to (hew, that in fome things the Jews had greater priviledges then wet have, as th^t^Abra-ham had the priviledge to be called the lather of the Faith-fnll'^thzx Chrtfifhofdd bee born ofhisfleJb,Marj had the priviledge to be the Mother of chrtfl, and the whole Nation this privikdge,f^4f God mil call in their feed agatn^aitex they had been caft off for unbelief many hundred yeers-, which privi-ledges/ay they, none of the Gentiles havener can have.

An*

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng of Infants. g i

- Jpfafrd But thefe things have no weight: We are im '^iifip. quiring for priviledgcs which are branches of the Covenmt of Graccy which every man who is in Covenant with God, mightexpeft from Cedhy verciic of the CovenanCjwere he a ^evp or a Profeljte^ not for any particular ox peculiar favour x.oz^^xi\c\A'^xnianyOXVPomanflxfa7?nIy^ ox tribe: All thefe forementioned things, and many other of the like kinde (as ihQ Mini fiery of the Tabernacle andTemple^ to belong to one Tribe, the Kingly of ice to one Family . fuch and fuch men never to lack a man of their hoVi^cio fi and before God) ^xo-ceeded indeed from-Fr^^^r4^<?, but were no pares of that Covenant of grace which God made to Abraham^ and all \mSeed\ For could every man in Covenant challenge thefe things at Gods hand^and that by vertuc of the Covenant > Could every one of them promife to himfelfe that Chrifl fliould be born of his flefli < Or every one of their women that (he fliould be the mother of Chrifti* Could everyone wkom God owned to be in Covenant with him, promife by vertueof the Covenant^that their children if cafl off by «;?^^//V/^,fbould after many hundred years be again called in i We fpeak only of fuch priviledges as were univerfally and common to all who were in Covenantjfor which by ver-tue of the Covenant they might re lye upon God •, Ltt any man ihew out of the Scripture where our priviledges under the Gofpcljare cut fhort in any of ^^(/^ tnings, and he faith fomewhat-, and in particular for the cafe in hand, concerning our Infants right to the Covenant of Grace, and the feale of it,once we are fure the Infant children of all Cove-;i4;?^erJ were within the Coverunt, and the (calealfo belonged to them, and by vertue of the Covenant (which is ftilltheiamej we plead their interefl in it Let any man (hew when and where this was taken away, when the Infant-children of heleevers were expunged out of the Co^tf mntoi' grace 5 certainly whoever will goe about to de-

E 3 privet

prive chcm of it^ to cut off fuch a great part of the comfort of kelecvtng varcnts^mw^ produce cleave ceftimonics, before they can ptrfwade beleevers to part with either of them, cither their righc co the CovenantyOxtoxh^feaU of the Covenant.

For, fivft, their Infants intereft in the Covenant^ next to the glory of GodjUnd the falvation of their own foules, is the greateft benefit otthe Covenant ot grace•, eventhis(I Fay J to have their children belong to Gods Family and Kingdom, and not to the Devils; Ccrtainly^thegreateft trealuveof Parents is t'r.eir children,andinthcm thefalva-tionof their foules: Now how uncomfortable a thing were this to Parcncsjto take away the very ground of their hope, for the falvation of their children? and I dare affirm it,that we have no ground of hope for any particular perfon, un-till he be brought under the Covenant of Grace, Allchc world,as I have formerly toiiched,is divided into two king-^(?;»^55the Kingdom of Chrift, which is the Church- and the kingdom of Satan, which is the reft of the World • now io long as any perfon is vifibly a Member of the kingdom ofC^n/, wehave nocaufe to doubt their ^/^J?/^i^and/i/i/4-tton^\mi\\ they vilibly (hew the contrary ^although we know that there are fome reprobate among them • fo on the other iide, although we know Chrift hath many of his Ele6l to be gathered out of the Devils kingdom, yet we have no caufe or ground to hope that any particular perfon is any other :hQnd,reprobatey being a vifible profcfled member of Satans kingdom,untillhec give hope to the contrary; now what a moft uncomf->rtable abridgement were this of the Covenant of Or ace ^ thus apparently to cutoff the Seedo£ Beleevers from their vifible right in the Church of Chrifl, and to^put them in the vifible kingdome of 5atan i

And, Secondly, as really unwilling muft they look to

find

find ParentSj to part with their childrensrtght to the Stde of the Covenant ^ this their right to the Covenant being all the ground of hope that heleeving Parents Q2iVi\\2L\^i\\zi their Infants who die in their Infancy,r:rc faved/ather then the Infants oiTufkes^ had need beejealed^li they live nntill they are grown men, and give other fignesof srace^ they may conceive good hopes of them, though they were not fealed with a Sacranfientali feale: This therefore is apparent, that the cutting offourpriviledges & comforts in the(e two were a great abridgment of the priviledges of the new Covenant,and would put the Seed of Abrahams faith into a farrcworfe condition in regard of their pofterity, then the Seed of his flcfti were in ; And the Jews in A^.2. 39. if thisDodrine had been preached to them, might have re-plycd unto St. Pertfr5when he exhorted them to be baptized for their childrensgood-^Nay^Peter^ even therefore wq will not be baptized, for as yet we are fine our Children are in Covenant with God^and reckoned to his family •, but if we receive your new way, our children muft be counted to the kingdom of the DeviU^ and io might they in Co/off. 2. when P4«/told ^/;^w they need not be circumcifed, becaiife Bap-tifm came in the room of it^ f^^^ might have replycd, that though they need not be circumcifed themfelves^ yet they would ftill circumcife their chi/dren, bccaufe Baptifm was not to be applyedto them according to thcle mens Doctrine,

Upon thefe five Conclufions, i. That the Covenant of grace is always the fame. 2. That the Infants ofthofein Covenant, are always reckoned Covenanters with their Parents. 3. Th^it our Baptifm fucceeds in the room and ufc of their Circumcifion. 4. That by Gods expreiTe order, their Infants were to be Circumcifed; as it was a feale of the Covenant. And 5. that our priviledges for our felvesandour Children are at leaft as hoiaourable, large,

and

andcomfortableastheirswere-, The Conclufion follows uadeniably^thac therefore the Infants of beleeving parents are tehee baftiz^ed,

Againft this Argument: the Anabaptifts objed many things. They fay the Covenant was not the fame - fome of them fay^the children of the ^etves were not under the Covenant m relation to fpirituall things: They fay circtmci-[ion and haptifm^cvvcd not for the fame ends and ufes: They fay Circumcifion was adminiftred as a Natlonail badge^ and properly/^4/^iccmporall bleffings.They fay,whatevcr priviledges Infants oiBeleevers had hefere Chrifts time^thcy have now none at all^ and many fuch like things: All which I have fo fully cleared in this former Difcourle, that I fup-poielneednotaddeany more^ the main and only Obje-ftion remaining,which hath any colour of weight in it, is this. "There is no command^ no expre^e institution^ or clear exam-^ O^/ea. j^^ ^^ ^11 ^fj^ jy^^ Te (lament efbaptiZinz of Infants: And in the

We want a ^ i • -n • t J -' ' ^ '^ i i j i

command and adminiltration or Sacraments, we are not to be led by our example. Q^vn rcafon, or grounds of leeming probability, but by the expreffe order ot Chri(l,and no other wife. ^nfrv. If by inftitution, command and example, they mean

bet°noL^^relre ^^ exfre(fe f)UabicaIl Command^ (^c. I grant that in fo many command or ^ words it is not f ound in the N€.w Teftament*^ no expre(J'e com-cxampie-. mand in the New Teftament^ that they fliould be baptized 5 no expreffe example where Children were baptized •, but I alfoadde, that I deny the coafequence, ihuK in fo many words it be not commanded in the New Teftamentjit ought ]!^c^jfl-ary."°' "^^ ^^ be done,this is not true divinity, that Chriftians are nottycdtoobfervc that, which is notexprefly and info many words fet down in the New Teftament -, there is qocxprefferevivingoftheLaws concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the New Teftament, except of not having a mans fathers Wife, i Cor. 8. no cxpreflc Law a-

gainlt

A Sermon of the Bdftiz^ing of Infants. * j

gaifift Polygamy ,no expreflc command forthe celebration of a weekly Sabbath-,are therfore Chriftians free in al thefti cafes ? Yea, in the Point of Sacraments there is no exfrejfe command^ no example in all the New Tcftament, where Women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; there is no ^x/>r^/Je command that the children oi Seleevers when they are grown, fliould bee injlru^edand baptized, though inftruded by their Parents 5 expreflfe command ' there is,that they fhould teach the Heathemnd thc^ewes and make them Difciples, and then baptize them, but no command that the children of thofe that arc Beleevers fliould be taught and baptized when they are grown men^ nor any example where ever that was done -, will any man therefore fay,thatchriftian i;vomemi:t not to be partakers of the Lords Supper^ nor the children oHeleevers when grown men be hapti'{ed? I think none will be fo abfurd as to affirm irjf it be iaid^though thefe things be not exprefly 2ind inter-minis in the New Teftament, yet they are there vertuafly, Yet by good ^wdhyundeniabkconfequence: Iconfeffeitis true, fo have confcqueHce we vertuallyy^nd by mdeniable confequence hfficient evidence "^^^^^^^^^ ^°"^ forthe baptizing of children,both^#ww4;;^i and examples-^ kothinthc* Voi'fivtt^^QhzvcGodscommaridto {^braham^ as he was the ^'^"^"lan^i'gi-Father of all Covenanters, that hee fhmld feale his children I^;Vwhfchrc* with the feale ef the Covenant, Now this truth all our Di- cherhus. vines defend againft thePapifts^ that 4//Gods commands and inftitutions about the Sacraments of the fem^ binde us as much as they did them^ in all things which belong to. the fuhftance of the Covenant, and were not acctdentaS unto them: as becaufe circumcifion is called a feale of the Covenant^ therefore our Sacraments are feales of the Cove-mm: becaufe circumcifion might be adminiftred but once being the feale of initiation •, therefore baptifm being al-fo the feale of initiation, isalfo to be adminiftred but (?w^ But that circumcifion was to be adminiftred upon the eightk

F day

^ A Sermon ofth^S&ft^tf^g of Infants.

dA*j onelj^vj^iS an accidentaU thing, and therefore bindes not us, thcJcwi(hP/jjf^tfx'erbeingiobe^^4r/)irepeated,bindes us to have a rf/>^f/>/^/^of the Sacrament of the Lordi Suffer j which came in roomc of it, becaufc this belongs to the lub-ftanceof the Covenant, both of them being Sacraments fQt fpirituati fjour/jhmentf grfiwph 'a.nd comintiance in the Covenant ^ (as the o:hcr was for birth and entrance) but that their Paireover was to be eaten in an Evening, and upon mefet Evemnginthcys^vc^vjeisaccidemalltand fo binds not us» Thelikeinftancelgivein our Chnflian Sabb^hi the fourth Commandement binds :^i5 for the fuh^mce of it as muchasever it bound the ^zms \^ There God once for all feparated one day of feven to be facred to himfelfe, and all the world flood bound in all ages to give unto God that one (iiy of feven^which fliould be of his own choofing. Now «;;r///Chrifts tiaie,God chofe the Ufi day of the feven to be his Sabbath, and having by the death and refmrelfion oi our Lord Jelus,put an end to the Saturday Sabbath,and fur-rogated the firfl day of the week inftead thereof to be the Lords day, we need no new Commandment for the keeping of the Lords dajy being tyed by the fourth Commandment to keep that day of feven which the Lord fhould choofejthe Lord having chofen f^^, the fourth Commandment binds us to this^z^ it did the ^ews to the former: f o in the like manner,! fay,in the Sacrament of Baptifm.

When God made the Covenant wdth C^braham, and promifed for his part to be the God of him and his feed, what God promifed to Abraham^ we claime our part in i\ as the children of Abraham^ and what God required on Abrahams paxt for t\itfuhftance of obedience, we all ftand charged with^ as well as if^//^^^/^^ wee as ^^r4^/iw are tyed tOibeleenkj to lovexht Lord with all our heart, to have CUJsh^airtxirjcumciied, to walk before God in uprightnefle,; toviQftrudfc ©UE Childreni and bring them up for (God

and

A Sermm of the BJpti&kg of Infants. \

and not for our felves, nor for the Devill, to teach them toworfliip God according to his revealed will, to triin them up under the Ordinances and itiftitutions of Gods • own appointment: Allthefe diihgs Gods Command to AhrAham c^x^'^^ts upon ^//the Children of the Covenant though there were no exfrei^e reviving th^k Commands in any partot the- Ne^v Tejlamcnt^ and therefore conftquently that command of God to Abraham which bound his feed of the f'cws^ to train up their children in that manner of wor-fhip which was then in force,binds the feed oiAbraham^ narv to train up their children in conformity to fuch Ordinances as ;;i>m are in force.

And the fame command which injoyned ^^r4^4w^ to feaU his children with the/^^/^of the Covenanc3injoynes us as flrongly tofeale ours with the feale of the Covenant, and thatcommandof God which exprejji/y bound Abraham to fiale his with the fign oicircumcijjon^ which was the Sacrament then in force, fro tempore^ doth vertmlly binde us to y^4/^ ours with the fign of ^4pf//fe,which is the Sacrament /?<9«7inforce^andfucceedsintheroom of the other by his Q^^iyjppointment,

fff^feis one command by r/^^r^ confcquence, another you (hall finde, CM at. 2 8. where our Saviour bids them Goe aslj o^ene and teach all NationsyBaptizing them in the Name oftheFa-^ and lxpiaine< ther^ and of the Sonne^ and of the Holy Ghoji: Where you >. have two things ; Firft, What they mreto^doe-^ Secondly, I To whom they were to doe it. They were to preach and teach all things which hee had commandedthem^ that is^ they were v, to preach the whole Gofiel^ Mark, 16. 15. The whole -Covenant of Grace, containing all the promifes^whereof '

ihisisone, viz,. ThatGodwillbectbeGodofbeleevers^andof theirfeedy that the feed of beleevers are takers into Covenant with their Barents.this is a part of the Gofpel preached unto Abraham^ and they were to Baptize them, that is, to ad-^^'' ' F a minifler

|8 ASirmnoftheBafti^ngoflnfants.

iniflifterbaptifinasa Sealeoith^ Covenanc to 4//who received the Covenant. Secondly, wee have the ferfonsto tvhomthty v^txtlo 6ott\\\s,all Nations^ whereas before the Church was tyed to one Nation, om Nation onely were Difciples, now their Commiffion was extended to make ^iSfNations Difciplcs, every Nation which fhould receive the-F^i^^jfliiould bee to him now, as the peculiar Nation of the ^'cms had been in time paft. In a wovd^Natiom here are oppofed to the one Natio^hchxc. Now we know when that (?;^^ Nation of the ^ewes^txt made Ditciplcs, and circumcifcd, their Infants were made Dirciples,(madc to belong to Gods Schooie) and circumcifed withthcna, when that Nation was made Difciples in Abrahams loyncs, and circumcifed, their feed alfo was the fame when that Nation was taken out of Egypt, and aBmlly made Dilciples, their children were alfo with them^ and wee know that in every Nation the Children make a great part of the Nation5 and are alwayes included under every adrainiftration to the Nation, whether promifcs or threatnings, priviledges or burthens. Mercies or Judgements, unleuc they bee excepted; fo are they in Cities, in Families^it being the way of the Scripture,when fpeaking indepriitel'joidkVto^Xty Nation, City, or Family, to bee either faved or damned, to receive mercies or punifhments, cxpreflyto except i;?/^;;^/'^ when they are to be excepted, as wee fee in the judgement that befell Ifrad in the Wilder-neifc, when all that rebellious Company that came out of Bgjft^ was to perifli by Gods righteous doom, their little ones were exprcfly excepted. Numb. 14. 31. and in the Covenant <i^»/i/^)entred into by the body of the Nation, Neh.ioXi is exprcfly limited to them who had knowledge andunderftandmg. And the Difciples who received this Commiffion knew well, that in all Gods former admini-ftrations, when any Parents were made Difciples, their

Mldrcn

A Sermon oftheBapti^ngof Infants, gji

ihildren were taken in with them to appcrtainc to the fame ichoole, and therefore it behooved the Lord to give them zcaution for the leaving out of Infants in his new admini-ftration, that they might know his minde^had he intended to have them left out, which that ever he did in v/ord or deedjCannot be found in the Scriptures. ^

If it be faidjthey are not capable of being Dif ciples: ^>^^'

I anfwer,even as capable as the Infants of the Jews, and ^^^' Profelytes were, when they were made Difciples: and be-fidc, they are devoted to be Difciples, being to be trained up by the Parents^"who are from their infancy to teach them the knowledge of Chrift, and at the prefenr, they are capable of his oxvne teaching : and fure I am, in Chrifts own diale(ft,to belongto Chrifi^ and to be a Bifctfle of Chrift^or to Matth. i a42^ bear f)&^/^^w^ofChrift>is all one^ and that fuch Infants doe Matal;^*' belong to Chriftjand beare the name of Qirift,! havcfuffi-ciently proved already.

And I defire it may be ferioufly weighed whether that cx-preffion,-4tJ.io.i5. Nowtherefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Dfciples jdo not necefliratc uSjtogive the name oiDifctfles to Infants.^s wcl as logrown men.tov I reafon thus. All they upon whofe necks thofe falfe . Teachers would have put the yoke of circumcifion are called D//r///ri,& to be called Difciples: bu: they would have put the yoke of circumcifion upon Infants, as well z.^ grown men: thcrfore Infants as well as grown men are called Difciples and to be called fo.The major is undeniablCjthc^w/;;^/ I prove thus: They who prelfed circumcifion to be in force, according to the manner ofMofes Law, and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Mofes his Law, they would put it upon Infants of thofe who were in Covenant with God, as well as upon the necks of thofe who were grown men, for fo Mofes Law required: but theft falfc teachers prcffcd circumcifion to be j& inforce, as is apparent, Aif^ ij-i.

F J Ano-

Another command by good confequence for the baptizing of Infants, you (hall finde in that forementioned place where the Apoftle exhorted them to repent & be baptized^ ' iLC.Buaufe ihtfremife xv(vs made to them and to theirchildrfn^ which^as I llewcdyou, clearely proves that the Children of fuch vvhobeleeveand are baptized, arc taken intoCo-venantjandthereforeby good confequence they alfo are to receive the fcale of the Covenant. The Text not onely (liewing that they are within the Covenant, but alfo chat a right to Baptifme is a confequence of being within the Covenant. Thus for Commands: for Examples3though there fliouldbenone, there is no great argument in It, when the rule is fo plain,yec we have examples enoughjby good confequence, for you fliall finde the Gofpel cook place,juft as the oldadminiftration^by bringingin whole families together-^ when Abraham^d.% taken in, his whole Family was taken in with him 5 when any of the Gentiles turned Profelytes, ordinarily their Familes came in with them: fo in this new Adminiftration, ufmll'j ifthe>/4//er of the Floufe turned Chriftian,his \N\\Q\t family came in and Were baptized with him •, The wholehoufehold of Cornelms^i\\^ firft converted Gentile,/^^..! i .i4.the houfehold of Stcfhanm^, the houfc- . hold of Arifhbulm • the houfehold of karcifftu*^ the houfehold oi Ljdia • the houfehold of the G4^/^r-,thefe are examples not to be contemned.

And whereas fomeobjeftagaind this Argumenr, taken from whole Families, that the argument is at leaft as ftrong toprove that the Jewifli Infants did eat the Pafftover, bc-caufe not only leverall Families mighc,but did,and that by Gods appointment,eat the PafTeover. .1: I Anfwer, by denying the confeq -ence, the argument is not fo ftrongjfor the one as for thcother, becaufe ho other Scripture fhcws that the PafTeover doth belong to Infants 5 but we have other plain Scriptures proving that Baptifme

is

A Sermm of the Bapti^ng of hfmts. ^X

is in the room of Circumcifion, which belongs therefore to InfantSjOS well as grown men; if any can inftancc of any families of Gentiles who were circumcifcd, the confcqucnce were good. Therefore Infarcts were^\i there were any Infants, becaufe other Scriptures (hew that circumcifion belongs to Infants as well as grown menjbuc in this cafe the argunient is not good. |

So much for my firft and main Argument, they are fcede !

r^^/jand therefore muft ht[ignati^th^y arc under the Covenant of Grace^and therefore are to be figned with the ftalc of admittancelnto the Covenant.

Th^i^conihxgum^nx.^to\^hom\hQinwArdgraceoiBaf^ x Argument tlfm doth belongjto them belongs the outwardfign^thcyought tohavethej^g-;?^, who have the ^/'/3f^/j^;^//y^^-, xht earthly /^; of the Sacrament "muft begrantedto them who have the^^4'z;^/r/Jf^ar^♦butthe 7;?/i;?^^of beleevers, even while they are Infants are made partakers of the in warcj Grace of •Baptifme, of the heavenly and fpiricuall part, as well as grown men .• therefore they may,and ought to receive the outward fign of Baptlfm.

• Thcw/i/tfrPropofition, th2Xtheyrvhoare mAdefarikkers'of the inward grace ymA-j not bee debarred of the out w^ird fign, is i,/ii^*^^* ^ undeniable, it is Peters argument^ A6t. i o. Can any mm forbid water that thefe fhould not bee kipti^d^ who have received the Holy Ghoji04 well os wee? and again, A^. w.Por as much as God gave them the like gifts as hee did mto m^ what wai I that Icoddwithfland God? And this is fo clear,that the moft learned of the Anabaptifts doe readily grant, that if they knew any Infants to have received the inward grace, ihey durft not denythem the outward fign, and-that\the ^^^riS- ^^''•^°' cular Infants,whom Chrift took up in his Armes and^lef-led, might have beenbapti!zpd.And for the iffumptibn or minor ^ That the Infants of Beleevers^ even while they are In-fantSydo receive the inward grace; as well its gronhf mjtn^ fe'as

plain.

plaitic, not only by that {pecch of the Apoftle,who faith, they are holy^ but our Saviour faich cxpreffdy, Mari. lo. That to fuch belongs the kingdam of God^ as well as to grown men: And whereas fomc would evade it,by faying that the Text faith not^ tothe^n belongs the Kingdom ofGod,but of [uch is the Kingdome of Heaven, Tjni-miy^ oi fuch like^ that is, fuch as are graced with fueh like qualities^ who arc humble Viid meek, as children are, and that Luk. i8. is parallel! to this,in the meaning of it, Whofoe'ver doth not receive the Kingdome of Heaven a$ a little childe^ hee fhall not enter therein.

But I anfwer, chough it be true that in other places this is (?;?r ufe that Chvift makes of an Inhnts age and condition, to fliewthatfuch as receive the Kingdom of Heaven, mull bequalifycd with humility, &c. like unto children: yet here it cannot be his meaning,bccau{c his argument is^f^ffer them to come to mee and forbid them not^ bee atifeof fuch is the Kingdome of God^ that is, my Church and Kingdom is made up of thefe as well as of others. This was the very caufe why the Difciples rebuked thofe who brought the children to Chrift, becaule they were Ittle^ not ft to bee infiruFied^ andthereforenot fit that Chrift (hould be troubled about them •, this Chrift rebukes in them, and tcls them that the ' tof/^-^qyir of children , is no argument why they fliouldbc kept from him: Suffer them^ faid he, to come ^ and forbid them not ^ for of fuch is the Kingdome of God: andwhatkindeof w '^-^\ argument had this been, iftheTextiliouldbe interpreted > '[■ M as the(c men would have it. Suffer little children to come unto me, ihzt I m^y touch them^ take them up in mine armesy fut • my hands upon them^ and bleffe them^ becaufe the Kingdom of God belongs to them,who have fuch like qualities,who refemble children in fome feleft properties ? By the very fame ground,ifany had brought doves^ zndJheepe to Chrift, to f tit his bands ufon them^ andbleffe them^ the Difciples had

been

:k

A Sermon of the Bapti&hg of Infants. 43

been liable to the fame reproofey becaufe effuch is the King* domof God/uch as are partakers of the Kingdom of Goa^ muft be indued with fuch like properties.

Befide, what one thing can be named belonging to the ^^t^ 3-^ initiation, and being of a Chriftian, whereof Baptifmeis a Gai!3!27! feale^which Infants are not capable of^as well ^sgrown men^ Titus :^.<^, they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghoft^ of union ^\xh^'^^^'^*^* ChuHyOf ad0ption^o?forgive}7e(fe oiftns, of regeneration^ of everlafltng life^ all which things are fignifyed and fealed in the Sacrament ofbaptifmrand it \^further confiderable,that in the working of that in ward gracepf which baptifm is the fign and teaUall who partake of that grace,are bwtmeerepa' tienPSyXnA contribute no more to it, then a chtlde doth to its own begettirigjand therefore Infants as fit Subjedis to have it wrought in them as grown men.and the moft grown men are in no more fitnefle to receive this grace when it is given them, in [rclped either of ^iny faith or repentance^ which they jv^/^have,then a very little childe, it being the primary intention of the Covenant of Graccjin its firft work^to (hew what Free Grace can and will do to miferable nothing, to cut miferable man off from the wilde Olive, and grafFe him into the true Olive, to take arvay the heart of ftone^ to create in them a heart of flefb^ to forgive their iniquities y to love them freely^ what doth the moft grown man in any of thefe,more then an Infant may do < being onljpa(sive in them all ^ and of thisy?r/? grace is the Sacrament of baptifm properly afeal: and wiio ever will deny, that Infants are capable of the{e things as well as grown men-^ muft deny that any Infants dying in their Infancy are faved by Chrift.

Againft this argument feverall things are objc(5i:ed:which I (ball indevour to remove out of the way.

Firft, It is faid, that although Infants are capable of OhjeS.i thefe things, and they no doubt arc by Chrift wrought in many Infants, yet may not we baptize them, bccaufc^ ac-

G cording

A^ ASermonoftheBapi'^ngeflnfams.

cording to the Scripture pattern, both oi chri(Is command, c>/<i/.^8an[us/>/?/f«^/^»of Baptifm, where this was in-joyned -, and ^ohn the Baptift,Ghrifts Difciples^and Apo-ftles. They alwayes taught and made them Dilciples by teachingjbefore they baptized any. infip. I anfwer, Firft,that of Matth. 28. is not the inflitmon of

Baptilm^it was inftituted long before, to be the Scale of the Covenant^ it is only an inlargemenc of their Commiflion, whereas before they were to goe emly to the left Jheepe of the hotife oflfrael^now they were to gotmto all the worlds And be-fide, it.is no where faidj thaf^ none mre bapti'{ed^ but fiich as v^cvtfirfi taught, and what realon wee have to beleevc the contraryjyou have before leen.

Secondly, It is faid indeed, that they taught and baptized, and no exprefle mention made of any other .• but the reafon is plain^ there was anew Church to be conftitutedj, all the Jews who fhould receive Chrift, were to come unr dQX another admintftration^ and their Infants were to come in only in their rights and the Heathen Nations who were to be converted to Chrift^ were yet wholly without the Covenant of Grace, and their children could have no right untill themfclves were brought in., and therefore no mar-vaile, though both ^ohn^ and Chrifts Difciples, and Apo-ftlcs,did teach before they baptized, bccaufc then no other were capable of baptifm ; but when once themfelves were inftruded and baptized, then their children were capable of , it, by vcrtue of the Covenant.If any in the Jewifli Church had received Commiflion, to go and make other Cities, ProfeljteslothtvR^ their Commiflion muft have run thus. Go teach and circumcife, would it therefore have followed, that none might bee circumcifedj but fuch as were firft taught ? €hje^.2* But it is exprefly faid, That hec that heleeves and is hapti:^ ed,Jhall iee/dved'^ Faith in Chrifi is the Condition, upon

which

which men may be baptized: and this is the mo^cmmoa objedion among the Ambaptifts : Unheleevers may not he baptiz^ed^ chidrenareunbekevers, therefore they r»dy not bee baptized. We have/ay they, cleare cvidence,that Faith ir acondicionrequiredinthofethatarc to be baptized, noe-vidcnce of 4/?j'pf/'^/condition that makes them capable of Baptifm. Others of them adde, that under an affirmative commandjthe negative is to bee included, beleeving is the affirmative^unbeleeving is the negative,therefore where bc-lecvers are commanded to bee baptized, unbeleevers are forbidden to be baptized .• this objection they much glory inland fome of them dare all the world to anfwer it.

lAnfwerfirft, but ifthis argument have any ftrength at -^' all againft the Baptiz,ing of Infants, it hath much more ftrength againftthe/i/i/^f/^;^of Infants-, it is Qiidexprejiy he that be lee vet h ^and is baptil^edjhall befvved • but he that be-leeveth not, fhallbee damned: there ye have both the nega-tive and affirmative fet down 5 Hee that beleeves ihall bee f aved, hee that beleeves not Ihall bee damned •, now I frame their own Argument thus, againft thcfahation of Infants, Allunbeleeversfhall bee damned^all Infants are unheleevers^ therefore they Jhall bee damned'^ now look at what doore they will goe out, for x\\t Jalvation of infants, at the fame will we go out, for the ^4^f/^/>^^ of infants-, how ever they will evade the one^^t fhall much more ftrongiy evade the other-^ if they fay this Text is meant of grown men^ of the way which God takes for the falvation of grown men, Infants arc faved another way, upon other conditions 5 the fame lay we of infants baptifm,the Text means of the condition of baptizing of grown men,infants arc baptized'up-on other conditions?, if they fay, infants though they cannot have 4<5?«4//Faith,they may have virtmll Faith, Faith inthQfeedandroote, the fame fay we-, if they fay, though Infants have not Faith, yet they may have that which is

G 2 And'

^ A Sermon of the Bapu:{jng $f Infmts.

AndogoHs to faith, the fame fay we, they have fomwhac which hath ii;?4A?^/^ to faich^and as effcftuall to make them capable of baptilm^as of falvation.

Secondly, I anfwer, it is no where jaid unhehcvers^ ("or x^\!titi Ndn'htUever5\X'!k\o\\\^h^{'^\^)m£i'j not bee bapized^ it is faid indeed, Heethit hekeveth and is bapti'\edy fhall hel ftved •, and it is faid, That he that hekeveth with all his heart ma) be baptized 5 it is no where faid, that he that heleevetb mt^may not be bafti^d: Therefore I deny the confeqnence, if all beleevers muft be baptized^then no unbeUevers^ or non^ beleevers may be baptized •, thcfe two are not here intended by way of oppofitionjChrift excludes Infants neither from baptifm,nor from falvation for want of Faith, but pojltive unhleevers^^nd fuch as refufe the Gofpel he excludes from both: The ftonc upon which thefe men ftumble, is the ignorance in the oppofition in the Scripture they bring, which is not between Beleevers^ and their Children, but between them, and unbeleeving and profane perfons^ who arc (hut from the Lords Covenant, Baptifm^ and Salva-Hon.

Butfuppofe they arc capable of the inward grace of bap-tifme, and that God doth effectually work it in fome of the Infants oibeleevers^ is that iufficient warrant for us to baptize 4//the Infants o(Beleevers'^ If we knew in what Infants the Lord did work ^^/y, we might baptize/^/'^/^ Infants, fay jomeofthcm, but that he doth not make known to us, we cannot know of any one Infant by any ordinary way of knowIedge,thatthey are inwardly baptized with the Holy Ghoft^and therefore we may not baptize any of them, but wait to fee when and in whci^i God will work the thing fig-mfyed^^nd then apply the fign to them. Anfrr, Anfwer. Our knowledge that God hath effedually

wrought the thing fignifyed,is not the condition upon which we are to apply the figne^ God no where requires that we

fhould

A Sermon of the Baptjzif^g of Irsfants. ^ -.

fliould Icnow that they are inwardly and certainly coiiver-ted, whom we admit to the Sacrament of BaptUm^ the A-poftlcs thcmfelves were not required to know this of thofe whom thej baptizedjif they were, they finned in baptizing Simen Magus^ Alexnndery Bjmensus^ Ananm and Safhira^ with others:we are indeed required to know that they have in them ^torW/>/^;^ which muft warrant us to adminijler thefign^noi that which makes thtm-pc(feft of the thingfigmji^ ed'^ fallible conjectures 2iXtnottoht QUI m\t\n adminiftring of Sacraments,either to Infants or grown men, but a known rule of the word^ out of which rule we muft be able to make up fucha judgement, that our adminiftration may be of faith:, ^s well as out of charity : In baptizing of grown men, the Apofllesand Miniftersof Chrift adminiftred the figne, not becauiethey conjcEnred th^i the parties were inwardly fandifyed, but becaufe they made that profe(?io^ of faith and holinefTe of which they wcrefure^ that whoever had the thing in truth, were received by Chrift into ir^rpard Communion with himfelf, and that whotvtxthm made it ^ that Chrift would have them received into the communion i of his Church,though pofBbly for want of the inward work they were never received into the inward communion with Jefus Chrift:indeed when fuch a confeflion was m.ade,chri-. ftian charity v/hich always hopeth the beft, and thinketh no evill, bound them to receive them, and think of them, and converfe with them,as with men in whom theinward work was wrought, untill they gave fignes to the contrary-, but this then* (r/?4m)>, or charitable conjedure was not the ground of their 4i?»/m>^ them to Che Ordinance, but th^ profeflion and confeflion of the party, made according to the WordjWhich they were bound to r^/in ^ yea, Igreat-ly queftionjWhether in cafe ?cter or pW could by the fpirit of revelation have known that Ananias ox. AlexandSif would have proved no better then hypocrites,whether they either

G 3 would..

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng oflnfaniY.

would,or ought to have rcfufcd them from Baptifm, wliUft they made that fubltkefrifepon andconfejsion^ upon which others were admitted who in the event proved no better then thofe were. So that I conclude: not our knowledge of thdv inward San^if cation^ is reqnifite to the admitting of any tobaptifm, but our knowledge of the will of Chrifty that fuchwhoareinfuchandfuch condition, fhould by us be received into the communion of the Church:and in this the rule to dircd our knowledge, is as plain for Infants^ as for grown men^ the rule having been always thk^ '\\\2X grown men J who were fir angers f om the Covenant of G od^'CLnhclcQ' vers, Pagans,Heathens5(hould upon their being infiruBed^ and upon profejsion of their Faith, and promife to walk according to the rule of the Covenant'^ be received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the fcale of their entrance, and their Infants to come in with them . both forts upon their admiffion to be charitably hoped of, untiil they give fignes to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking of evill of them, not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them^becaufcthey ought to know that in all agts, all are not Ifrael who are of Ifraely and that many are calledJ?iit few are ehofen. . But all who enter into Covenant, and receive the feale of the Covenant,mull: H'lpulate for their parts , as well as God doth for his, they muft indent with God to perform the beleevers part of the Covenant, as well as God doth to perform his part^ as even this Text, i Pet. 3, requires. That Baptifm which faves us muft have theanfwer of a good con-fcience to God: now although it be granted, that Infants are capable ofreceiving the/r/? grace, if God be plealed to work it in them • yet what anfwer of a good confcience can there be from Infants unto God ? they having not the u(e of Rcafon, and not knowing what the Covenant means*?

Anfw.

A Sermon of the BapiT^ng of Infants, £}

Anfw. The Infants ofchej^ejvj'were as much tyed as the jinfw. Infants oi heleevers under the Gofpcl, every one who was circumcifed was boundt& keep the Law.GaL^. and thc(e men profefle thaxlfraelitijh Infants were mthin the old Covenant^ when yet they knew not what it mcantj nor could have the fame ufeof it with their Parents and others of aiicrction. Look what anfwer they will make for r}atJevos infants, if true, will abundantly latisfie for the Infant;s oibeleevers under the Gofpel. ^ V

Secondly, God feales to them prcfently, their name Is' put into xhcdeed^ and when they come to years of dilcrcti- ^ Gnjto be adulti^xhtn in their own perfons they ftand obliged to Che performance of it • in the mean time ^efu^ Chrijt^ Hcb.7,23; who is the furety of the Covenant, and the iurcty of ail the Covenanters, is pleaftd to be their furety -, we know when ieverall parties ftand obliged in the fame bond, they may feale at Ieverall times, and yet be in force afterward toge-ther^ or even a childe lealing in infancy, may agnize and re-cogni^ that {ealing,when they come to years of diicretion 5 if then they will renounce it, as done when they under-ftoodnot,thcy may free themfelvcs iftheypkaie, if they finde the former ad an inconvenience or burden to them: fo is it here,God of his infinite mercy is plealcd to Icaleto Infants while they are fuch, and accepts ot fuch a feale on their parts, as they are able to give in their Infant age, ex-pe(5ling a further ratification on their part, when they are come to riper years, in the mean time affording them the ^

favourandpriviledgcof beingin Covenant with him, of \

being reckoned unto his kingdom and family, rather then of the Devils 5 if when they are grown raef i they refui^r to ftand to this Covenant,there is no hurt done on Gods part, let them ferve another God, and take their lot tor tiaieto come.

But what benefit comes to children by y^^^kin^e of lea- Olji^U 5.

ling as this IS/* itfeemsthen (faychcy) byyourowncon-feffion, that this isbut 3. cof^difionali fealing on Gods parr, ^vi^that they own ir,and racifie it when they come to age, and if they then refiife to ftand to it, all is then nuUifyed., were it not therefore better to defer it to their years of dif-cretion^to fee whether they wilk/&^;^ make it their own voluntary ad,yea3 or no r* jfmr* Anfw. I. This objedion lay as ftrongly againft Gods wifdome in requiring the -"f^ewes Infants, even in their la-fancy thus to ieale •, and therefore argues no great wif-dom or modefty in men,who would thus reafon with God about his adminiftrations. 2. God hath other ends and ufes ofapplying the feale of the Covenant to them who arc in Covenant with him,then their ^r^/^^^ gain, it's a Homage^ Worjhtpy and Honour to himkliy and it behoves us evenin that reipedj/^ fulfill all righteou[ne(je: when Chri(i rv/ts bap-tf\ed and drcumcifcd, he was unfit for the Ordinance, through his perfe5iion^ as Children through their irn-ferfe^ien^ being as much above thern^^%Cmdxm^t^ below them.

3. I Anfwer ^ The benefit and fruit of it at the prefent is very much, both to the Parents and to the children •, to the Parents firft^whilft God doth hereby honour them to have their children counted to his Church, to his Kingdom, and Family,to be under his wing and grace^whileft all the other Infantsinthe world have their vifible (landing under the Prince, and in the kingdom or darkne{re,and confcquently whileft others have no hope of their childrens fpiritual welfare, uncill they be called out of that condition, thefe need not have any doubt of their childrens welfare, if they dye in their/^s^/^/^j', nor if they live untill they (hewfignesto the contrary: God having both reckoned thorn wnto his people, and given them all the meanes of fahation^ which^a//^-

/^i^^j age is capable of.

Second-

Secondly, here is much privilcdgeand benefit tothe chit

I dren,when as (befidc whac inward lecret work Godis.plca*-

fedco work in chem)chey being Members of the Church

of Chrift have their fliarein the Gommunion of SaintS|> are

remembred at the throne of Grace^ every day by thofe that

J pray for the welfare of the Church^and particularly in thofe

I prayers which are made for his blefling upon hisOrdinan-

i ces.

And laflly,it's no fmall priviledge to have that Scale be- Ohja&.i flowed upon the in their/^;/4;?t:;y,which they vmy afterwards plead when they 2ivcgro\v;^ and come to fulfill the condition.

But if their being capable of the fpirituall part^muflin-title them to theoutwardfign, why then doe we not alfb admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is the feat of the Covenant of Grace^2LS well as the Sacrament of Bapcilm ? And this is urged the rather,becaufe(fay they) ** the Infants of the ^ewes did eate of the Paffeover^ as well as were circumcifed-, now if our Infants have every way as large a priviledge as the Infants o( the ^em had, then can wee not deny them the fame priviledge which their Infants bad^and confequcntly chey mud partake of the one Sacra-ment^as wellas the other.

I anlwer, that Infants are capable of the grace of Bap- Anfm tifme , we are fure, not fure that they are capaplc of the grace figned and fcaled in the Sacrament of the Lords Suffers for though both of them are feales of the New Covenant, ycf it is with fomc difference ^ Baptifme properly {j^At^xkittntranceintoit^ the Lords Supper, properly the growth i noun foment znii augmentation of it •^ Baptif m for out birth^ the Lords Supper tor ovvitood-^ now Infants may bee ^^r^ again while they arc Infants, have their OriginaH fm pardoned, h^^ united to Chrift, have his/;»^^^ftampt upon them, but concerning the exercife of thcfe graces and the augmentation of them in Infants, while they arc Infants,

H the

J J ASttmnpfthi Baf tiding $f infrnts.

tbe Scripture is altogether filent, and for what is faid concerning the lafants of the ^ems eating the Pajfeover, to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth fucceed, there IS no fuch thing mentioned in all the Book of God; it is faid indeed that the feverall families were to cate their Lambe, if the houfehold were not too little for it, and that when their children fliould ask them what that fervice meant ,thcy (hould inftruifi them about the meaning of it* but no word injoping , nor any example witnefling, that their little children did eat of it.If they lhy(as fome of them doej that ^A^y? little ones, who s^ttzzHo, to enquirecoticer^ ning the meaning oi that fervice, and capable to receive in-ftruclion about it, did cat of the PaflTeover with their Parents % I anfwer/although the Scripture fpeaks nothingof their eating,yetifthat be granted) it is no prejudice to us, becaufe the Gofpel prohibites notfrch yong ones from the Lords Supper, who are able io examine themjehes^ auddif-cerne the Lords Body,

Thus have I according to my poor ability made good this fccond argument alfo,and vindicated it from all objedions of-any weight which 1 have met withall to the contrary, it remains that I winde up al!5with a briefe Application,

And firft it ferves for juft reproofe of the Anabaptifts, and all iijch as by their ra(h and bloody fenrcnce condemn Infants, as out of the ftate of Gface 5 it's a great finne to pafle ftntcnce upon af>y pxircicular perfon for any one aft, as was that of £//, concerning Hannah^ how much more feeinous. is it to condemns all the Infants of the whole Church of Chrift, a3 having nothing to doe with the Covenant of Grace, or the feale of icr Wee read o? Herod the Tyfanc, that he deftroyed all the children in Bethlehem^ a^dthe Qoftfti'ihereof from two years old and under ^ is hot thi$> fatre more crudl fentence. to fct thefe in no bcttcrfticetheii Pagans and InMd^^Withm Chrifi^diem

frem the Common-w/alth oflfraH, as ftrAngers^mthe Cove^ mnt offrem'tfc^ having no hopCy and without God in the porld } Can any fobcrChriftian think this a fmall fault ? Ourblef-fed Saviour faith, // is not law full to take the Children* bread and give it to ^d^^r^but thefe men take Children^ztiAm their judgement, conclude them for no better thenyiP^^-, ^/rw/wi is the bread of the Lord, which he would have given to his children, and to deny it to them as none of their right, is to make them no better then dogs. The Prophet EIj}\u wept when he looked upon ffal{ael, becaufc he tore-faw that he would dafli tiie infants of//r^^/againflthe wall, and even ^4^4^/thought himfelf worthy to be efteemed a dog if ever he Ihould do fuch a thing. But certainly^thus to dafh all Infant children of beleeversoutol the Covenqint of Grace, (as much as in them lyethj & to deprive them of the feale of it, is in a fpirituall fenfe farre more heavy. And I dare appeale to the tender bowels of any belecving Parents, whether it were not cafier for them to thinic thic their/>?/4/?/ifhould be dafliedagainft the ftones, and yet^ the mean time to die under Chrifts wing^ as viilblc Members of his Kingdome, Church and Family,rather then to have them live, and behold them to have a vifiblc{landing onlj'in the Kingdom of the Devill; Thefe-men kn6v(rnoc how much they provoke Chrifts difpleafure againft them-ftlves •, Hee was greatly difplcafed with his own JDifciples for forbidding liclc children to come unto him-,and one day fuch racn will know, that he is much more difpleafed with them, w^ho with fo great violence oppofe the bringing of bcleevers children unto his holy Sacrament, that with unfpeakable wu*ong, injury, and (lander, they profccutc all the Miniftcrs of Chrift, who give Infants this their due, caaderaoing them for Miniftersof Antichrift, and iimbes of'lheBeafts yea, fame of them proceeding fo farre, as cpndeaming all the Churches of Chrift, to bee l|o Chur-

H 2 chcs.

-. A Sermon of the Bafti^n^ of Infants.

r ^ ches, who Caft not their children one of the Covenant of

Gracc,and the feale of it, and doe cry out upon the Baptizing of Z^/^^^^, asone ofthofe great finncs which bring and continue all our judgements upon us. The Apoftatc Empcrour Julian is juftly cryed out upon for his cruelty againft the Chriftians, for denying to their hddies humane Sepulture •, how nauch more cruell is it to deny to thefouls of Infants the juft priviledge and benefit of the Covenant of Graced Weknowhedid it ©uc of hatred to Chriftianity, which I am farre from charging upon thefe men 5 but if we compare the fentence andfadlof the one with thfeo-thcr, we{hallfinde the latter (bee their principle what it will) farre more injurious to the Church of Chrift then the other; The Lord in mercy give them to fee how unjuft that fentence, and how heavy that doom is,which they thus paffe^not only upon Infant children, bat upon all the Churches of Chrift',and ferioufly to confiderjwhethcr the Lord, who once in his difpleafure threatned to da(h their Infants f .isigainft the Stones, who hajd dafht the Infants of the chil-

Pfai. 131.8,9. drenofi/r/i^/againft the ft ones, willindureit at the hands of any to expunge the Seed of the faithfuU out of his Covc-nantjand to drive them from his City and Kingdom after this audi manner. i , ^

Z//e2. ' Secondly, how much may this comfort the Soule ofc-To Parents. Very bclceving Parent, to behold this great love and good-\ neflc of God in his Covenant of Grace to them and their ^otiheif com- p^jj^^j^j^y^ that nQt oqly themfelvcs, but even their Infiants for their fakes5fl|PMl4 be reckon^dto the houfehold of God, put into the Ark, wrapped up in a Covenant of Love, brought under the wingof God? When God had pfomifcd to Bavidy that hee ihpuld have a Son to whom God would |)eij;j.t^thcr^;and that all his,pofterity fliould after luciha gracious i^arincr be regarded, his heart was even raviflicd 1 witJijtji) ipr^^Gc^;^ what am I, and^wha is mj

A Sermon of the Bapti^ng of Infants. y ^

;/ ^oufcy that thou haft brought met hitherto f 4^d this tv/ff yet a i Samj. I finall thing in thy fight^O LordCod^ hut t^ou haft fpoken alfo f- ofthyfervdmshoujeforagreatwhiktocome^ and is this the ^ manner of men^ O Lord God f And even fo (hould Chriftian •\ Parents break outinto admiration of his goodnelTe, in taking their children into that gracious Covenant, which is not oncly the womb and veflell, but alfo the well-head of fo many mercies, which are terminated, not in thcmfclves, but flow down to their poftcrity from generation to generation.

And this is yet more admirable in our eyes^when wee ie-riouflyconfider, how unclean and filthy, how viperous a brood they are, as proceeding out of our loines, empty of all goodnelTe, full of all wickednefTe, an unclean Leprofic having befpread them from the crown of the Head to the fole of the Foot, fit onely to bee caft into the open Ficld,to Efa.i 6. the loathing oftheirperfons, in the day that they are born, Ezek.16,5. as all the reft of the world are 5 and that God fhould let his heart upon fuch as theft, to take them thus ncere unto Him{clf,whcn he palTes by both Parents and Infants of all the world befide,how would our hearts melt in his praifes^if wee could confider thefe things ? 2. How fhould this ingage all Chriftian Parents to look 2. \ iothe education of their children, to bring them up in the Forrheirdi ' nurture and fear of the Lord 'f Its a wofull thing to conli- \l I'^l^^^ . dcnhQ n^rachedcare/ej/7€fje oi mzny Paixnts '^ yea, not one- forthtirca ( lycarelcfneire^but/^;;^^//;?^//^ of many Parents 5 who pro- If,["e^^a|f'' ftitute their children to the Devi/i and his fervice, aftej? they EzekfiVs. h2LWt confecratedt:hcm to Chrift by baptifm-, trairi them up P^'a^.^o^s: inignorance,profanene{re,&c. To whom God may fay, ashecdidtothatHarlot,£;2:.^Li5.r^^/<jA^/? t^kenmy Sons and my Daughter j.^vffhorn thou haS born unto mee^andthefe thou ifaftfacriftcedunto Devils. A generation of: wi^Jtched; in^n, who take more Cace of their liSii'^^ and X»^^4 Ihcn tbeydoe

of

<| A StrmdH ef the Bjfts\trtg $f Inf4nts.

of tbcit I/ffdntt immorcall foulcs, nourilTiing the former^ murckring the latter j that we may fay of them, as Auga^ flus did ofHerod^ that it is hrttcr to bee Herods Hog then his Son. I have of en heard a fad Story of a wretched Woman who perfwaded her Daughter to yecldto the iuftof a rich \ man^ in hope he woiild marry her, ashee had promifed to doc-, which (hedid, andprefently after fell fickand dyed-, The wretched mother hereupon grew diftraCled, and in her madoeffe cryed out, 0 my Daughters fcule^ my Daughters Jouley I have damned mj Daughters foule : Verily, thus may many Parents cry out upon themlclves for murthcring their Childrens foulcs-, and their Children may wi(h that they had been cither Dogges, or Swine, rather then their Sons or Daughters •, miierable children, of milerable PaTentsJ what will fuch Parents anfwcr God, whenhee comes to demand his children of them i Suppofe a Prince or Nobk man fliould put a Childe to Nurle unto fome mean man,and pay them well for the education of it*, or rather fuppofe a great man (liould adopt the child of a poor man to be hisown^and lliould fay unto this poore man, as i 2..19. Pharadhs daughter faid to Mojes wother^ BringMf tiis ChiUe for me^andlxviligive thee thy wages*, and afterward comming to fcethtschildc,lliould find they had lamed the childe,and txught ic nothing but to fpeak evill of them, and to fight agaiaft them; "think I pray you what they would fay, ordocto this wretched man. How much more abomina* ble is the fin of many Parents, who by their owncarekf-ncffe; and vileexample, leaven theirchildren with princi^ pies, .'md lead them in wayes quite contrary to the Covenant of grace, tending to nothing, but todillionour God, and to their own deftrudion. If any of you have been guilty of it intime paft,bc deeply bunibkdiarit,'Cravien>cr--^y and pardon •, ^nd for time to come^indeavbur to doe tiie part of a mtfn^ FMerot Mother f or Chiift, looking upon

thy

A Sermon efthe Baftizirg of Infants. «-

thy children, as being Chrifts more then thine, yea, as not being thine 5 but Chrifts, to whom thou haft confecrated them^ and therefore (as wife and loving Nurfes ulc to doe; carry them often to their Father for his bleffing, and hee will blelTe them, and reward thee d[o'^ wcfindeinthefecondof^i?^/, that in the day of their Faft, they were to bring their children and fet them before M2.i^. the Lerd^ that hee might bee moved to compailion for the Childrcns fake, whom hee ufed to call his own ^ let thou thy Children often before him, intreate him as Jojefh did \{\s father iox his two fonnes, and as they did our Savi-our, CM ark.10, that hee woMfut his hands uf on them And blejfe them •, Doe it heartily, humbly, frequently,tell him how dcare they are to thee, and the dearer, becaufc heis pleafedtoown them, tell him their wants, and thy own inability to lupply them in any thing, and how eafieit is^ for him to doe it by his Spirit and Grace-, oh that Ijhmad might live in thy fighty fai*d Abraham ♦, Say thou ib alfb^ Lord kt thcfe children live before thee, thine they are^ and thou gave/l them mee to^bring uf fsr thee^ Oh bliffe my labiur amongthem^ aid make them fuch as thou rvouldejt have them to bee.

And doe not onely pray for them, but difcipJine them and »T,m.i.5^?, inflru^ them, acquainting them with the Script.ircs, and *^* Catecbifing them in the Principles of Religion; as the Mother and Graadmother of Timothy did him. Training him Hp from his infancy, in the knowledge of the holy Scriptwe^ and bee afiured, if thy children may learn from thee to knowtht'it heavenly Father, to beleeve in him, to /t^x^^him, and feare him betimes, that being taught the trade inthtir youth,theymAynotfoffakeitmhentheyare eld: they will then more bleffe God for thee,then ifthoucouldcft leave them-all the world for their inhcrkance-, it was for f^i^ that So-/iw^;? gloried in ^/^ father and mothcr^r^Wo.^, 2^3. and for pj© v. 4.2,3;

ihk '

^ ^8 : ASerwonofthe Bafti^ng$fInfants*

■ this will thy children rifeupandcdll thetbleffed. Thus {halt thou approve thy felf a true £or\<^iAbraham'^ Thus fhall thy children be bleffed with faithful! Abraham-^ Thus (hall the Covenant, the fpirituall part and benefit ofit,^ well as the outwardj reft upon thy pofterity from generation to generation. 3* . Thirdly^ andlaftly. This ferves for ufeto all children edone's^^^^" w^hom God honours (o farre, as in their Infancy to bring I. * thus near unto himlclf5 and to ufe them thus as his owne, por comfort and that three leverall wayes •, Firft, to incourage and com-

'€ve"and re^^'/^''^ ^^^ ^^^ upon him, for all the

pent. good things whicti hee hath promifed in the Covenant of

Grace, The Papifts, as in fome things they give and af-cribe too much to Bapdime, making it to take awayorigi-nall finne, exopere operato: So in other things they rob Gods people ofthe comfortable ufe e?//>5 becaufe they fay that when once wee commit aftuall finnes wee make {hip-wrack of Baptifm, and then Penance muft bee fecunda tabula pojl naf*fragwmy a Cockboat after our jQiipw.rack •, but this blcfTed Sacrament ferves for a more durable and comfortable ufe, even to bee an-^^^5 as my Text cals it, to carry to Heaven. Know then that whenfoever thou findeft thy lelf at a loffe, fenfible of thy undone condition, findelt thy guilt, and filth, and bondage, through {inne, and flyeft unto Chrift, and thy Confcience witneffcth with thee, that thouwouldcft walk for time to come, according to the rule of the Covenant, in uprightnefTe^ to make God in Chrift thy portion, and his word thy guide-. So i?//r^;?Ifay, asthoudoefttliis, mayeft thou fiy to thy Baf-tifme^ and plead it for thy comtort,as wee may plead the Rainbow in foule weather againft the worlds deftrudion by water. I have often heard a ftory of a great Queen, who gave a Ring to a Nobleman, while hec was her Favourite, and willed him to fend it to her when hee {hould ftand in

great-

A Sermon of the Baptizing of Infants. ^p

greatcft need of her favour-,who afterward falling Into her difplcafure,fent the Ring, which through the treachery of the bearer was not delivered till it was too late: But it fliall never happen lb to thce^do^ thou in all thy extremity^fliew or fend by the hand of faith thy ^^ii/^, which God hath gi-von thee^plead it confidently,and to thy dying day, it may be an Ark unto thy foule in all cafes oi reUpfe^ dcfertion, temptation, or whatever elfe may betide thee, upon the renewing of thy repentance and faith in Chrift Jefus,

Secondly, This great love of God in taking us thus j^ ,^' ncare into his own Family, as his own Cnildren,(hould fuch"swaifc make many of us blufh, to remember our mworthj conver- unworthy of fmion^ in times f aft'^ yea, it might make our very hearts to ^^'^ priviicdi bleed^ and make us not only will) we had been unhafti^td^ h\Xitvtr\unborny rather then to pollute the holy Covenant, andthefealc of it, as we have done with our unhallowed lives: Can it ftem a light thing in our eyes,that when God hath left the greateft part of the world, as ftrangers from his Family and Kingdomjto be under Satans kingdom, and taken us (no better by nature than they are) to be hispc-culiar oncs,into Covenant with him^thac hec (hould fwear unto us, to be our God, and hitherto to train us up under fuch heavenly Ordinances, and wc to walk in the mean time as rebels and enemies unto him, like the unbaptized world ? can we think our condemnation not to be greater then theirs ^ Let me a little reafon the cafe with you. Doe you know into what a Covenant the Lord hath taken you.<* what he hath done for you, and expcfts from you ^ have not your Minifters and Parents inftrudted you in it < Now tell me what is the reafon of your unanfwerable conver-lation, isitbecaufcyou renounce the Covenant, as being made when you underftood it not? if fo, that you do indeed renounce it^ Jakt jojtr courfe, ferve the Cod yot$ h^ve $t§j0y yettdlmeeClbefeech you) what iniquity is in the

I * Lords

.5o A Sermon oftheBafti'^ngdf Infants.

Lords Covenant cf what hurt is therein ic^ what dtfad-vantagc have you met withall < or r^here and how doe you hope to finde better things^then God to he your Father ^Chri(i ^eftisto bee your Saviour^xht Spirit to bee your Comforter ? CO hnwcyourjins fardonedmd healed^ to be adopted^ juffifjed^ fanBifyedy^ndcvcxYwzycomfortably provided for here, and favedfor ever < Doe the Gods you have chofen to fcrve provide better things then thefe, that you renounce Chrift for their fakes ^r If you fay, God forbid you fhould renounce Chrift, -, N o, y o u hope to bee Cived by Ghrifr, as well as any other : Then tell mc in goofd fadneflfe, doe you e»pe(flthat Chrift ihouldftand bound to perform his fart of the Covenant^and you left at liberty for.your pare ^ that he ikmxldkve you^ znijmJjate him': that^^ fliopid beeyoui; (^Qd^m^you remain the Devils fervant? tha^ )^^i1totdcfpi^6-vidc;Heaven for you, and jf^//walk in the way which fcad^ to hell i O how much are you deceived ! t tell you he hath fworn the contracy,he hach heaped up tribulation and wrath for every foule which doth evill, for th^^ewfr/l^ior die bapti^dfrfi^'md you will one day findejthat /^ hacPbeerr fitter you had never lived in his houfe^ nor been trained uf mder his Covenantythen thus to profane it^andmaketheblood of it ^ as an unholy thing, .. . < = - * • ^ i

ro^voke to Thirdly^this great priviledgefliouldlngagekafl feir time ioi^Hfc for° to come, to make our Baptifma continuall motive to art an-Retocome. fwerable converfation to live as men who aredcadnnrdfin, and alive unto God 5 to account that it ought to bee as ftrange> to lee a baptized man walk in a- finfulh courf^, as to fee a SveBrum^ a walking Ghoft; Wee are bu-0I.1.1** rjedwitbchriji in Baptifme '^ and how can rvee-wh-a are^dedd to finne live any longer therein t We are planted into hirfa-itttly> made his Children, havehis Spirit dwelling in us-yea,, thereby ntado one with Chi\&: AU^hhJ^\ifd^^^ xoy by OUT Es^tifm, (hall riotliHs-mforCe us td Irvi aitf^i

rablyf

^ A Sermon of the Bapti:{ing of Infants.

rably^ X/^^^rtds a Scoryofa gracious Virgin, who iifed to get the viftory over Satan when he tempted her to any finnc, Satan I may not doe it , Baptizata fum, / am Bafti-:{ed^ and muft walk accordingly: So fhould we argue^Lct bale perfonslive bafcly^noble and generous men muft live nobly •, let Turks and Pagans live wickedly, the holy feed muft live holily and rightcoufly: keepe it daily in thy thoughts, what thy Baptifm ingageth the^ unto, and that if thou walk otherwife^it will rife up extrcamly to aggravate thy condemnation in the laft day. It was a cuftome in the latter end ofthe Primitive times. That fuch as were baptized, did weare a white Stole ( a humane Ceremony, to fignifie their purity of life which the baptized was to lead, Fulgentes ammas vejlis quoque Candida fignat.) Now there was one Blpidophorm^ who after his baptifm turned a per-fecutor y CHuritta the Minifter who baptized him, brought forth in publick the white Stole which Blfidof horns had worn at his Baptifm, and cryedunto him^ oElpidopho-rus ! this Stole doe Ikeep againftthjcommingto judgement^to tejiifie thy i^pofiafiefrom Chrifit, doe thou m like manner aC-fure thy felf,the very Font wherein thou waft baptized, the Regifter wherein thy name is recorded, will rife up againft thee,if thou lead not a holy life: The Covenant is holy,thc Sealeis holy,let thefe provoke thee to ftudy to be holy,yea to draw holineffe from them. Gonfider what I fay, And the Lord give yoti mderfianding in all things.

FINIS.