CHAP. II.

NOw I come to my unlearned Question, as you call it.

Q. Since God was so gracious to make a Co­venant with Abraham and his Seed, and it did then consist with his Wisdom to constitute his Church of Parents and Children, while the Parents did Believe in Christ to come; why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant, and with his Wisdom still to constitute his Go­spel Church of Parents and Children, the Jews now believing in Christ, come?

I might have added in my Question, that [Page 17]Covenant Sealed Gen. 17.9. Will force it seems to carry, If no Seal no Covenant, the Seal being called the Covenant.; but Mr. Tombs, who is the strongest adversary to Infant-Baptism that ever wrote, he yields that if Children be members of the Church with Parents, then they must be Baptized; for I grant (saith he) that Baptism is the way and manner of so­lemn Admission into the Church, I mean the Re­gular way. And we were told by one of this party, that Baptism is the Form of a Church; and would bear us down that Dr. Owen hath delivered the same, and this he urged with great zeal.

If then no Baptism, no Church: for for­ma est causa per quam res est, id quod est. The same Person denied all Baptism but by Dip­ping: Whence it follows clearly, there are no Churches in the world, but these Dipt Churches; hence they deny Communion with all Churches, for they want the Form.

Let me before I come to consider his An­swer, to adde one Scripture more besides what I have mentioned before, that is, Rom. 11.28, 29. which speaks of these Jews broken off. Touching the Election (I conceive thô it be true as to eternal Election, yet that is not here properly meant, but that choice of them for his peculiar people, which Mo­ses mentions twice together, Deut. 7.6, 7.) they are beloved (with a Love of good will [Page 18]to them still) for their Fathers sake (not me­rit of them, but because he loved thy Fathers, Deut. 4.37. And because he made his Cove­nant with their Fathers to be a God to them, and their Seed, which these Jews are; de­scending from th [...] Fathers, even in the lat­ter daies if they return to the Lord their GodReturn they shall. Rom. 11.26. 2 Cor. 3.16., he will not forget the Covenant of thy Fa­thers.) Deut. 4.30, 31.

For the gifts and calling of God, &c. v. 29. Take the words with respect to the Jews of whom he spake before, choosing and Adopt­ing the Posterity of Abraham, and engaging himself by Covenant to them, are inviolable; their Priviledges shall be as high as ever, not shut out of the Church from their Parents, and denied an Ordinance, as now the Ana­baptists do.

I demanded a Scripture to prove, it doth not consist with the Grace and Wisdom of God, &c. I have given you several Scrip­tures, after the Constitution of the Church in Abraham, and you tell me of a Covenant of grace made with the whole world in the pro­mised Seed to Adam, and that Adam, Noah and all little Children lived under a Covenant of Grace more than 2000. years, during all which time no Infant (you might as well say neither Adam, or Noah) was concern'd in Circumcisi­on or Baptism, and yet were as much of the [Page 19]Church as was needful for their Salvation, &c.

And to what purpose is all this? your learned answer to my unlearned question sig­nifies nothing. Was that my Question, Whether there were any Covenant of grace before this with Ahraham? or whether any were saved before A­brahams Covenant? I pray Mr. Grantham study your Logick better, and understand what that fallacie Ignoratio Elenchi is, which now is yours, before you make such a noise of dis­puting Doctors out of the room.

One word about Noah, then I will tell you what my Question is. If by Noah's Co­venant you understand a Covenant of Grace, I am not clear in that: I take that to be a Covenant with all the Creatures as well as with Noah, that God will drown the world no more: So the Rainbow which common­ly appears with rain, is both a sign and seal of this Covenant. God use to seal his Covenants. But why should God make a Covenant and seal it with Creatures that do not understand it? Read our first Annota­tions on Gen. 9.10. And you shall find this: The Covenant of God may be made with, and the Seal of the Covenant applyed to Creatures that have not the use of reason; which may serve to refute the Anabaptists fancy in deny­ing the Administration of Baptism no Infants.

Hence I put the Attribute of Wisdom, as well as Grace into my question, because the [Page 20]Arguments which the Anabaptists bring a­gainst Infant-baptism, do as much strike at the wisdom of God, in making a Covenant with the seed of Abraham, and command­ing them to be Circumcised on the eighth day. What? to make a Covenant with them that doe not understand it? to Circumcise and seal a Covenant with them at eight days old, when they do not understand it? what to have children members of the Church with parents, when they do not understand it? Let them stay for this Covenant, Circumsi­cion, and Church-membership, till they be rather eighteen years old, that they may un­derstand these things, and see whether they do believe, repent, and walk as their Father did with God; then admit them. This is the Anabaptists wisdom in denying Infant-Baptism.

Now I come to my question, and shall make it appear your answer signifies nothing. You tell me of a Covenant of grace made with the whole world in the promised seed to Adam, &c. I tell you, while Adam, Noah, and A­braham lived under that Covenant made with the whole world, God was pleased to make a Covenant with Abraham, and with none other but Abraham, that he would be his God, and the God of his Seed, and sealed this Cove­nant: by which Covenant God did separate, and Divide all Abrahams seed from the world, living [Page 21]under that Covenant you speak of. Hence we poor Gentiles believing in Christ, are called Abrahams Seed, Gal. 3.29. not Adam's Seed. Hence Abraham is called the Father of all Be­lievers three times in Rom. 4.11.16.18. not Adam, nor Noah. Hence believing Gentiles, are said to be grafted into Abrahams stock, Rom. 11.17. not into Adam's, nor Noah's.

Hence my question is, By what Scripture warrant you Reduce our children into the State of the Children of Adam, or Noah, &c. since we are never called any of their Children, but only Abrahams; whose seed differ from theirs by a special Covenant made with them, and sealed to them? To which of them did God say, I will be the God of thy Seed, and I will seal to it?

Now suppose that were true, which is the great business of your Pomphlet, to prove, That all Infants dying such are saved; that thereby you might take off the Odium which lyes upon you, for shutting the Children of Believers out of the Church, and denying them Baptism, they being all under a Cove­nant of Grace made with Adam, as you say; yet tell me,

1. Is this Covenant of God with Abraham's seed in Vain? does the Holy One make vain Covenants? As to his Seed, they were well enough before under Adam's Covenant; if they dye, or if Isaac dye before he be eight daies [Page 22]old he is saved, so that this Covenant might have been spared.

2. If their seed dye while little ones, I hope they are not further from Salvation by this Covenant, nor have Parents the lesse hope of their Salvation by it, but I think much more. Two strings to a bow are good.

3. Doth God discover his Grace to Sinners more than needs? I am sure this Covenant, and Seal manifest Grace.

4. Can poor, lost, undone Sinners have too many waies to lay hold upon a Holy, Just God, when they are under their fears and sense of Sin? And have not the Seed of Believ­ers one way to lay hold upon God by this Cove­nant made with their believing Parents, when their hearts would be returning to God? I appeal to all judicious Christians, sound in Judgment, and upright in heart. As to the experience I have found, and declared it to others, you make a scoffe at me. p. 6. I will be with you by and by, Mr. Grantham.

Yet again, as to that notion wherein you so much glory, and have made five remark­able Demonstrations, as you call them, to prove it; you must make three more Demonstrati­ons or else these five will not do the feat.

1. That God saves those who are under that Covenant, without any Condition; that Covenant having no Condition in it. Name [Page 23]the Text I pray. Some of yours have na­med Rom. 5.18. but the Righteousness of Christ mentioned in that Text, is the material or meritorious cause of our justification from all Sin, Adams Sin, Original Sin, and Actual Sin. But how this righteousness comes to be Ours, whe­ther with a Condition, or not, it speaks no­thing. So that from that Text an Infant can argue no more for its Justification and Salvation, than an Adult person. It onely tells us there is such a righteousness provided by Christ, by which we are justified, but if it be not imputed to us, neither Infant nor A­dult person is the better. How it comes to be Ours, other Texts tells us. Rom. 3.30. Rom. 5.1. Rom. 10.4. &c. 2. If we be justified from Adams Sin onely, are we then justified to life, as the Text speaks? I think not. I Suppose we shall find some other Sin in Infants tho' Mr. Grantham and his fol­lowers deny it.

Hence Mr. Griffiin, when he had told me, tho' I was an old Man, yet I might learn; very true, Mr. Griffin, but what shall I learn? This? God saves Infants dying such, out of the Cove­nant of Grace. Not by it; or under it, but out of it? This was News indeed, I never heard it before, nor believe it after: But by this, he avoids (if it were true) Faith and Repentance, the Conditions of the Co­venant.

[Page 24]2. You must Demonstrate, that by this Covenant he saves those who have lost the Image of God, and are corrupt by nature, for Infant Regeneration, and Heart Circum­cising is denyed by yours, and you.

3. You must Demonstrate, that tho' In­fants have not actually sinned, against the Covenant of Grace, yet they have not Unbelief and Impenitency seminally, which are quite opposite to the Covenant of Grace.

You ask, at the end of your first Demon­stration, p. 21. As for poor Infants, what evil have they done? but I ask,

1. How are Infants born? [of this after­wards.]

2. Do you ask what have they done? Did you never see Revenge, Wrath, Pride, Envy, Self-Love, Rebellion against, and striking of Parents, acting in little Children? Blessed Austin observed a sucking Child, that was not able to articulate a word, look with a Countenance even pale with envie upon his fellow suckling, which shared with him in the same milk; which made that Holy Man cry out, Ʋbi Domine? quando Domine? Where was the Place, when was the Time, that I was an Innocent Creature?

Yes, Sir, Mr. Grantham will tell you, In­fants are innocent. p. 13. This is the first part of your Answer.

2. Then you come to a Second, and that [Page 25]is, by putting a Question to me; therein tell­ing me, my unlearned Question is guilty of no more Reason than this: Since God was so Graci­ous, and it did consist with his Wisdom, to give Abraham a Command to offer up his beloved Son, as a sign of Christ to Come; why may it not con­sist with his Grace and Wisdom, for us of our own heads, without any Command from God, to offer up every one his dearest Child, in remem­brance that Christ is come?

Ay, now you stitch it, Mr. Grantham; you tell me, p. 6. That I was asleep when I was Bap­tized: You do so jog me, Mr. Grantham, with these words, Fables, Fancy, Conceit, and your Scoffs, with which you are pleased to fill up your Lines, that I think I shall be awake by that time I come at it, to Answer it: But for the present, you have laid such a Question to mine, to illustrate how much Reason my Question was guilty of, that if when you laid your Pieces together to make up any Gar­ment, you did not lay them more even to­gether, you were but a plain Botcher.

Come, lay the Questions together.

1. My Question is about a Gracious Cove­nant, lay your Question to it, Is it a Graci­ous Covenant? Did God give this Command­ment to Abraham to offer up Isaac, that it should be an Example to us, to cut our Chil­drens Throats when he commands it? Did God ever command others to do it? But God [Page 26]made this Covenant with all Abraham's Seed, and strictly commanded them all to keep the Seal of it, upon the danger of Cutting them off else, as Moses had like to have found it.

2. How do you prove that the end of God in Commanding Abraham to offer his Son, was, that it should be a Sign of Christ to come? the Text saith plainly, Gen. 22.1. The Lord tempt­ed Abraham: The end was to try Abraham's Obedience; whence v. 12. he saith, Now I know thou fearest God. 2. If so, then Isaac's Throat must have been Cut and dye: As all the Sacrifices which did typifie Christ, they were all killed; though it was in his Will, so it was in Christs Will, and Actually done.

3. Gods Act towards Abraham in this Case was an Act of meer Soveraignty, but his Act in my Question was an Act of meer Grace: You say so indeed, but 'tis not true, it was a great Tempting of Abraham.

4. There is a vast difference between a Command and a Promise: In my Question it runs thus, Abraham, I will be thy God and Isaac's God; in your Question it is, Abraham, go Cut Isaac's Throat: A great difference be­tween what God will do and we should do.

5. Come we then to Circumcision, which was a painful Ordinance, and therein the Sove­raignty of God and his Command did appear; yet considering it as it was a Seal added to the Covenant, and did thereby help to con­firm [Page 27]their Faith, in the Grace and Faithful­ness of God, so it was also an Act of Grace; insomuch that,

First, The Jews did glory in it, and did reproach the Gentiles that had it not, 1 Sam. 14.6. and 17.26. Ephes. 2.11.

Secondly, They did so prize it, that it made a heavy stir in the Churches, when the Apo­stles went about to remove it; and to this day they do tenaciously retain it.

To Conclude, my Question is grounded up­on an everlasting Covenant, proceeding from the pure Grace of God, comfortable to Pa­rents, comfortable and advantageous to [...]oor Children, when they come to understand it; with a strict Command to have this Cove­nant upon their hearts, by impressing the Seal of it upon their Children in all their genera­tions; which Covenant was never repealed to this day, and therefore that being in force, there is still a Seal belonging to it; which Seal is Baptism, in the room of Circumcision, as is clear, Col. 2.11, 12.

[As for your Carping at the Word, Com­mand to Circumcise, I have spoken to it be­fore.]

Your Question is grounded upon a Sove­raign Command of God given to Ahraham in particular, without any Command to his Po­sterity to observe; nor ever was observed, but only by Abraham.

Now, how this Question of yours serves to demonstrate the little Reason my Question is guilty of, as you tell me, let all men judge.

The next three Paragraphs afford but little to take notice of: For,

1. As for our keeping our Baptized Chil­dren so long from the Lords Table, I hope they must first be able to Discern the Lords Body, and to Examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. Though the Children were Circum­cised at eight dayes old, yet they were not to eat the Passover till they came to such years of discretion, as to understand the mean­ing of the Ordinance; therefore their Fathers did teach them the meaning of it, when they took up the Lamb. But our Question is a­bout the Initiating Ordinance, we would have our Children under that betimes, under a bles­sed Covenant sealed. God would not have them stay above eight dayes, unless the Child were Sick: And why eight? we let the Jew­ish reasons alone, leaving it with his Wis­dom. God lays claim to them betimes; they are Mine, Ezek. 16.21. I and they are in Co­venant. Sensible things, as their Afflictions in Egypt were, and set forth in the bitter Herbs which they eat, were sooner under­stood by Children, than spiritual things.

2. Whereas he saith, Repentance and Faith were required of those who were Baptized: Very true, of Adult Persons, with whom Peter was [Page 29]Treating, Act. 2. who had Crucified that Christ in whom they now were to believe, and into whose Name they were to be Baptized, well might he call for Repentance. When Philip Baptized the Eunuch, Act. 8.37. If thou Believest, &c. in the Messiah now come: So was Abraham a Believer in Christ to come, before this Covenant was made with him and his Seed: Isaac was reputed with his Father a Believer in Christ, when he was Circum­cised. So I have taught, and it was my pra­ctice, when I claimed the Covenant for my Child, and so dedicated my Child to him; to examine my Covenant-Interest, my Faith and Repentance, as well as if I were going to the Lords Supper; but that actual Faith and Repentance are required of Infants before Bap­tism, I know no Text nor Reasou, more than before Circumcision.

3. He saith, We do not deny Infants to be of the Church.

Yea, that is the Church I would fain have Mr. Grantham define, and tell us where it is: So far as I can learn by his Book, It is a Company of Innocents, without Sin, without Or­dinances; (for so he speaks of Infants, as we shall see anon) but what next, I know not; nor do I know Churches without Ordinan­ces; where the Gospel speaks of such, I keep my self to the revealed will of God, leaving secret things to him.

Let him tell us how the word [...], which comes [...], ab evocando; because the Church is a Company Called out from the rest, as Mr. Grantham knows, being a learned Gre­cian. How this agrees with this Innocent and Sinless Company, to be Called out!

If you ask me, how it agrees with our Bap­tized little ones to be Called? I Answer. By being Branches of such a root as is called out of the World, they are called with him the Root and Branches going together, and they Members of the same Church with their Pa­rents under Ordinances. As Isaac was repu­ted a Person called out in his Father Abra­ham, who was called out from the Idolaters, and was Circumcised under the same Ordi­nance with his Father.

Therefore the Gospel gives to Parents and Children the same denomination: The Church is a Company of Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. and 2 Cor. 1.1. So the Children of these Saints are call­ed Saints, 1 Cor. 7.14. But now they are Saints, [...]: To Interpret this of Legitimacy, is so gross and absurd a Conceit, that I wonder it should come into any rational mans Thoughts: I have spoken to this in my little Treatise, and many other worthy Divines before me, have given the sense very clear and plain; but when God will blind mens eyes, (when be­fore they will shut their eyes against the Light) how shall they see? But this Text will also warrant our Practice.

CHAP. III.

HAving done with my first Question, you say, Let us hear your second Question; you shall Mr. Grantham, 'tis this.

Q. If God hath repealed his Covenant with the believing Jews seed, turned their Children out of the Church, and deny them Baptism, though the Jews truly believe in Christ come; What hath God left in the room of these, that carry any shew of his Blessing, or good will towards their Children during their Infant-state?

Here you tell your Reader, there is Ambi­guity in the Words, Covenant and Church: None at all, Mr. Grantham, you know the Co­venant, and what the Church of the Jews was. You say, That I yield they were in the Covenant, and Church-members, before they were Circumcised: Very true, I hope we do not set our Seals before our Covenants; first Co­venant, then Seal. Also, if they were not Members of the Church, they should not have the Priviledge of the Church; only their Mem­bership is Compleated and Declared, when the Initiating Seal is applyed to them. As it is in Corporations, the eldest Son of a Free-man, [Page 32]born in the Corporation, was a Member, and had a right to Freedom, but not compleat, nor acted till he took his Oath; so the High Priest, Levit. 4.3. was not a compleat High Priest, till he was Anointed.

Then you come to tell me, what Priviledges the Jews Infants have now.

(1.) They were free from their Jewish Church­state, Gal. 5.1.

A. 1. What is this to the Infant that un­derstands nothing of it, but was in as safe an Estate before, yea, and better? that Freedom is nothing to it while an Infant.

A. 2. And they were free from Abraham's Covenant, That God was now none of their God, and also from a Seal of that Covenant: This is a Priviledge with a witness; do you and yours take it for me and mine. O wretch­ed Priviledge! Do you call this Freedom?

(2.) They are devoted to God, by the Prayers of the Church; warranted therein by the example of Christ, when little Children were brought to him, — And accordingly we dedicate them to God, according to our Capacity.

A. 1. If Praying for Children be a Dedica­tion of them, then almost fifty years I have been Dedicating of Children to God; but I read of no Dedication that lasted one Month together in the Word. What, are you the [Page 33]People that only Devote and Dedicate your Children to God? I hope others as well as you, Pray and Fast for them as well as you. Do you think that Abraham, and those Ho­ly Men of old did not pray for their Chil­dren, as well as Circumcise them? A pitiful answer.

2. As for the example of Christ, it seems he will bless them; and blessed be his name he will do it. But one thing here, Mr. Grantham, I must put you in mind of, which I forgot, when you answered my first Question; Viz. Christ did not appoint those very Infants who were brought to him, to have his Ordinances im­posed upon them, say you.

A. Very true, Mr. Grantham, because they were under Ordinances already; these were Jews Children, not Gentiles, he was not sent to them as yet, nor must his Apostles go among them yet: As for Christian Baptism it was not yet instituted, and would you have him impose it before the institution.

3. You tell me, by the Blessing of Education, some Children of 7. or 8. years old, have at­tained to more knowledge, and experience of the Work of Grace, who yet were never sprinckled, than multitudes of 70, or 80 years who were sprinkled.

Ans. As for your word sprinkling, I will talk with you anon.

1. And of those Children who were cir­cumcised, [Page 34]multitudes of them, thô they at­tained not to such a knowledge of Christ; (he was not then so clearly revealed to their Fathers) yet for Knowledge and saving Grace, they had it as early as yours every whit; for all that we read of, that were godly in Scripture, were so from their Childhood; we read only of Manasseh, that was convert­ed when Adult. So among us, many In­fants baptized, before and since your Errour rose up to trouble the peace of the Churches, and to be an inlet to other Errours; I say many Instances might be given of Children that before the age you mention, have discove­red the sparklings of Grace. Old Mr. Blacker­by that man of God, when he preached the Funeral Sermon for his own Daughter, Mr. Faircloughs first Wife, gave this Testimony of her, That from three years old, she did sincerely fear God. A Child of four years old of a Neighbour by me, when it went to School to learn its letters, when it came from School, would often go to the Father with these words, Father, I Love God, I love my Father, I love my Mother; but always first, I love God; the Child falls sick, the Mother asked it, Art willing to dye? Yes, said the Child, I will go lye in Abrahams bo­som. A Minister dining there, and return­ing thanks after dinner, the Child lying in the Cradle by, of its own accord lifted up [Page 35]its hands, while he was speaking, when he had done, let fall its hands and died. You that tell us, God does not circumcise the Hearts of Children, because they cannot love him: God confutes you.

2. I deny not but God doth overlook the Infirmities of his People, and his Grace is Free, and so works in what Children he please.

3. But still you declare a slighting of the Grace of God in that Covenant of God with Abraham and his Seed, which we do reve­rence, and bless his Name for; you take a­way that which is comfortable to godly Pa­rents, and to poor Children be sure a great advantage; reducing the Children of the soundest believing Jews, into the same state with their Children who are the haters of Christ at this day.

(3.) The third Priviledge you tell me, is this, Our gracious God by Jesus Christ hath left us an open Declaration, that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Infants; in which Declaration he hath not excepted so much as one of them.

A. 1. What is this to the Infant state of the believing Jew, when as the Jew that hates Christ at this day may say, This is as much Comfort to me; thô I hate and abhor to be­lieve in your Messiah, and my Child is in as hopeful state as yours: yea so are all Pagans and Mahumetans.

[Page 36]2. What, doth our Lord d [...]are, That all the Infants of the World dying such, are members of the Kingdom of Glory? It is not all one to say, the Kingdom of Heaven consists, as of Adult Persons, so, of little Infants; and to say, All Infants are members of the Kingdom of Heaven; these two Propositions differ, Mr. Grantham.

3. If it be true, it was true before God Covenanted with Abraham to be the God of his Seed; surely there was some benefit to Abrahams Seed, more than was in that Cove­nant you talk of, else the Covenant was in vain. Did God say to Adam, I am the God of thee and thy Seed, and I will Seal my Cove­nant with thee, and thy Seed?

4. What Comfort is this to the Seed of a believing Jew, when grown up, and hath the Sense of Sin and Apprehensions of the anger of God against him? Comfort? O what a Torment doth this prove to think, When I was an Infant if I had died, I had been sav­ed: O that I had died then, but now I am grown up I shall be damned! so that 'tis a great misery to mankind, that God lets them live beyond the state of Infants; for let them dye while Infants they are all saved, and what Parent that wisheth the happiness of Children, would not say, Let all my Chil­dren dye while they are Infants, for then they are Innocent; if Mr. Granthams Do­ctrine be true; they should never sin against [Page 37]God, and certainly be saved. But the Child of a Believing Jew grown up, and his Con­science awakened, now repenting hath a God in Covenant with him by Abrahams Cove­nant, to lay hold upon. Only Mr. Granthams Wisdom scoffs at it.

These be your privileges; and now you adde, From all which you may see, God hath left us in the room of Circumcision (and of the Co­venant of being their God; why is this left out and Circumcision onely put in? This is Taylour-like indeed, when they carry home a Garment, and stolen out cloath, that is kept behind. So you are summing up your discourse, and tell your Reader of a Legal Rite, and keep back the Covenant, the main of all, this is base Theft indeed:) a far more excellent Testimony of his saving Pleasure concerning Infants, than that was or any legal Rite whatsoever.

And I say, by all which your Reader, if he be not blind, may see, how you labour to delude your silly People with words; pretending to shew your great learning in answering my two unlearned Questions, when as they stand unanswered; and I doubt not but the Seed of a believing Jew in Christ may well say, If this be all we get by our Pa­rents believing in Christ come, which this Ana­baptist talks of, give us the old Dispensation again: When we had a God in Covenant to go [Page 38]too, and a Seal of his Covenant to help our Faith; for now we have neither, and so our state is more miserable by Christs coming than it was before.

As for your Book of your Anti-Quaeries, to which you refer me; I will not give so much as a small Needle for it, I have enough of you, by what I read in this.

As for Bishop Barlow, if he be of your Judgment, as you present him, yet I Question whether he be Dipt: Ask him I pray, and bid him not reject the Counsel of God against himself, as you tell me I do.

CHAP. IV.

I Thought I had done with you, when you had answered my Questions, but it seems no: There are several other faults you find with me, and the first is about Election in my Sense.

I do not find the word Election mentioned in the p. 90. which you direct me to; how then can you know my Sense of it? nor do you tell me what is your Sense; this would run us into another controversie, and then my Book would swell into that bigness, which I resolve it shall not.

Then you tell your Reader, Whilst his Book [Page 39]may cause many weak Readers to think that Cir­cumcision did, and that Infant Baptism doth great things towards their Salvation, &c.

I do not make your Baptism by Dipping to be of that concernment to Salvation, that none shall be saved without it: but a few words to both.

And first for Circumcision, because your par­ty told me, God circumcised the Heart of no In­fants, and will not have them to be included in the Seed, Deut. 30.6. but onely Adult persons; for Infants cannot love God, as it is there set down. No more can you, thô you be Adult, answer it, Legally. But that God did not circumcise the Hearts of any Infants, then, this I do not believe, upon this ground.

I cannot conceive, how it can consist with the Wisdom, Holiness, and Goodness of God, to Institute an Ordinance in his Church, for Spiritual and Saving Ends, and strictly to command this Ordinance to be administred to such subjects (as Children of eight dayes old) which are not capable to understand the ordinance, nor Co-work with God in the ordinance; and he himself not to work with his own Institution, when and where he plea­seth, to the good and benefit of that Sub­ject to whom it is Administred, this Subject having need of the Spiritual good Signified and Sealed thereby. It doth implicitely charge the Institution with Vanity: And I [Page 40]am confirmed the more in it, because all the godly mentioned in the old Testament, ex­cept Manasseh, were such as from their Child­hood grew up in the service of God; so that I Question not, while man did circumcise the Flesh, God did circumcise the Heart. I gave you an instance of a Child that died before it was five years old, that did express this love to God. Your reason hath thus much strength in it, Because Infants express not the Acts of Rational Love, therefore they have not the principle of Rational Love in them.

The same I may say for Baptism, being Christs own Institution, this in the hand of his Spirit accompanying it, when and where he pleaseth, shall be the mean to convey spi­ritual blessings to the Hearts of some Infants, and prove to them the true washing of Re­generation; which I ground upon, Eph. 5.26. Tit. 3.5. 1 Pet. 3.21. Where Sanctification, and Salvation twice, are given to Baptism as an Instrument in the Hand of the Spirit. How he doth it, I do not trouble my self to answer, I leave that to him that Institutes: If you can tell me how the water of Jordan cleansed Naamans Leprosie, then possibly I may tell you. The word [...], I do not now trouble my self about the signification, meerly because I aim at brevity. How of­ten do we meet with Christians educated un­der [Page 41]godly Parents, troubled, because they could not tell the Time, when God first be­gan to work upon them; it hath proved to them a great objection against the soundness of their Work. But if God did begin his Work in their Baptism, and Parents follow­ed God by Prayer, for the blessing of his Ordinance, and remembrance of his Cove­nant, how could they know it, by reflecti­on upon themselves?

As for that Joh. 3.5. Whether Baptism be meant by the Water there, is a Question very much controverted; I marvel to read Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, &c. All that lived next the Apostles, yea Totus chorus An­tiquitatis, as Marlorate saith, understanding Baptism by it, and yet all to be mistaken, our first Annotatours upon the Bible seem to speak well upon it: This I am satisfied in, that the common answer given to it, that it is but of the import with Mat. 3.11. Ho­ly Ghost and Fire, is no answer to it. For God did never institute Fire, as he hath done Water to be an Element to constitute a Sa­crament. But of all men the Anabaptists that put Salvation in Dipping, (whence that silly woman, who told a Friend of mine, Had I died before I had been baptized (by Dipping she meant) I had perished;) they had need un­derstand it so; then tho' Faith come by Hearing ordinarily, (I hope all born deaf [Page 42]shall not therefore be damned because they cannot hear, and so not believe) yet God hath not so tied up himself to one Instrument to work Grace by, because a Carpenter is tied to his Axe if he will hew his Timber.

Obj. If so, then baptize all Children, yea and Men too.

Ans. I deny the consequence. For Baptism is a Priviledge belonging to the Church, whereof the Children of visible Believers (being Saints, 1 Cor. 7.14.) are Members with their Parents; and therefore have a right to this initiating Ordinance, which Children out of the visible Church have not.

Next you fall upon me for the Experience I have found of the benefit of the improving Abrahams and my Baptismal-Covenant (which I never thought the World should know, nor ever should have known it, had I not contrary to my own thoughts been drawn forth to appear publickly in this controver­sie,) your Sentence upon it is this.

It would make a well man sick to see what work he makes of it, for after all his shifting from Post to Pillar, he only gets stomack to re­ject the Counsel of God against himself, Luke 7.30.

For my rejecting the Counsel of God, the Holy God shall judge between you and me; and for what you scoffe at, I leave it to [Page 43]learned, sound, and holy men to judge. But did all Children under Abraham, and their Baptismal-Covenant, improve them, and feel the advantage they have by them, in the time of their fears from sin, they would slight all the Anabaptists Books against In­fant-Baptism as much as I do; and they might sell their Books to the Tobacco Shops for other uses.

Come on then, Mr. Grantham, I will take your Sentence into pieces, and consider your words, Sickness, Post, and Pillar.

Mr. Grantham is Sick, how shall we get him Cured? After some years Study of Physick, I have been a Practitioner of it thirty years, and tho' I have not attained the skill in it some men have, yet if you dare trust your self with me, I will assure you I will do you no harm, if I cannot do you good. But what is your disease, Mr. Grantham? I search­ed your writing to find it out; and at first I thought the signs did not agree; for in one place, p. 11. you write thus: Infants, have no Iniquities for God to Remember, but only Ori­ginal Sin to Pardon; and in several places you tell us, Infants are Innocent; now he must be a more cunning Taylour than I am, who can stitch these two words, Innocency and Par­don together. I never knew Innocency need­ed pardon before; that Adam needed it before his Fall while he was Innocent, is a New [Page 44]Notion to me; but notwithstanding you would have us think you acknowledge Ori­ginal Sin, that Infants are guilty of, yet this is only Peccatum Originans, by Imputation, but for that which is Peccatum Originatum (as Divines do distinguish) the inherent Corrup­tion of our fallen Nature; this you plainly deny, by telling us they are Innocent, and corrupting that Text, Ephes. 2.3. And were by Nature the Children of wrath, most grosly and absurdly; so that I find your disease ly in your head, and you are very sick of the Disease called Pelagianism. A proud disease, to lift up sinful man, and debase the Grace of God; for you tell us that Text, Ephes. 2.3. p. 30. Is best Interpreted of the Adult, and quoting the verses before, with some variation from the Text too, which ought not to be in Quotations, then you adde, and so were by Nature Children of Wrath. I have not yet met with a man so audacious to put a word into a Text, which quite varies the sense of the Text; yea and makes the Text speak absurdly. This is sure, they cannot be Children of Wrath by Nature, who are not Children of Sin against God by Nature; Sin onely causeth Wrath: But I pray tell us, Mr. Grantham, what is Nature? I thought Natura had been a Nascor, Natus. Which is first I pray, Nature, or Walking, and Work­ing, which the verses before speak of? Can [Page 45]any Creature move from place to place, un­less it be first an Animal, hath not an Ani­mal a Locomotive Nature or Principle, and so this nature be the cause of the walking? The Child in the Lap hath a locomotive facul­ty, tho' as yet it cannot walk, it hath the nature; and so the corrupt nature is the cause of its walking Corruptly: this is excellent Logick, the effect to be before the cause. If you consult learned Men, they tell you, That Nature, [...], the word in the Text, Primo fignificat generationem ipsam, seu nativitatem. Ephes. 2.3. Secundo ipsam rei essentiam. Gal. 4.8. Tertio significat proprietatis rei essentiales. 2 Pet. 1.4.

This is your Diseale Mr. Grantham, and I will give you a Receipt for the Cure of it, infal­lible I warrant you.

R. Gen. 5.3. Adam begat a Son in his own Likeness, after his Image: The Hebrew words for Likeness, and Image, are both the same in Gen. 1.26, 27. God Created Man in his own Image, &c. These words, His own, in these two Texts are quite opposite.

Gen. 17.12. No need of Circumcising Isa­acs Flesh at eight days old, if his Heart needed no Curcumcising at the same time. Deut. 10.16. & Ch. 30. v. 6. Add to these Job 14.4. Job. 15.4. Job 25.4. Psal. 51.5. John 3.6. Eph. 2.3. This is Divine Authority, Mr. Grantham.

As for humane Authority, Grotius on Luke 2.22. names several of the Learned Greci­ans, and their sayings, which shew they were not ignorant of the Corrupt nature of Man; other learned Men, quote many places out of Plato, where he speaks the same thing. So Stobeus, yea Aristotle, tho' a great Friend to corrupt nature, yet acknowledge, there is in us somewhat [...], na­turally repugnant to right Reason. As for the Romans, there are Tully and Seneca, who speak so clearly of it, that I can but won­der at that Judgment of God, in giving up Christians now, to such Blindness, that they cannot see that Evil which the Heathen who had onely the Light of nature, could see, and leave their Testimony against it; yet these men did not know that Original Sin by Im­putation, which is all you acknowledge.

One word more, Mr. Grantham, and so I will leave you as to this point; you have been a great Professor so long, a Teacher, a great Writer: I doe but ask you, Were you never sensible of, humbled, and abased un­der the sense of this corrupt Nature? Then God keep me from the Conversion of those men, who never were so convinced of their vile nature, as to abhor and loath themselves before God, under the Sense of it: as also from them, who are the chief cause of their own Conversion.

I know well, you will allow Gods Grace and Help some room in Conversion: but there must be something of our own above that, else no Conversion, this Similitude will shew it clearly. After the House of Commons have been a long time consulting about a Bill, read it over three times; sent it to the House of Lords, they have done so too, both Houses met in the Painted Cham­ber, and agreed; yet here is no Law, it must now be carried to the King, and if he saith, Le Roy le Veut, now it is a Law, and carri­eth power with it, before it had no power; by this we see where the Supream Power lieth. Thus let the great God set himself to convert a Sinner, use all his moral Argu­ments, from Himself, Promises, Threats, &c. yet if it doth not please the Imperial High­ness of the Will, to declare and give her Consent, all Gods Actings come to nothing; if it doth, then Conversion is wrought. Let God heal the understanding of its Blindness, (which is done by a Physical act) and now lay Divine objects before it clearly, that it seeth them as they are, God, Christ, Holi­ness, in their adequate goodness, Sin in its evil, and now work so sweetly and rational­ly, affecting the Will also by his gracious Presence with it, that now Sensu Composito, there is a consequential Necessity for the Will to follow the Judgment, else it were Brutish; [Page 48]to talk of any kind of necessity, it is such an affront offered to the Perogative, and in­tollerable breach of the Priviledges of the Will, that there must be a Liberty left to her, to admit, or reject all Gods workings, else our ears are filled with out-cries. The way of working I speak of, gives too much Honour to Grace; and that God doth ma­nifest Grace to one man more than to ano­ther, and consequently it would argue an Individual personal Election. Hence these men deny Regeneration to Infants, because the Honour of their great Diana, the Liberty of the Will, would be Eclipsed; for their Wills are not thought to act in their Regenera­tion. We shall hear you speak plain anon.

Now for the Post, which is that, Mr. Grant­ham? you name this first, and it stands first in my Book, Gods Covenant with my Father Abraham; tho' you scoff at it, yet you spake very true, it is a Post indeed, not an Egyp­tian Reed, 2 King. 18.21. on which if a man lean, it will goe into his hand. No, Mr. Grant­ham; I will venture still to trust and lean upon it, a very strong Post to lean on, when a Man is weak.

Which is the Pillar? The next is my Baptismal Covenant, of which the Post was the ground: then this Post and Pillar, in which the Grace, Goodnesse, Faithfulnesse and Truth of God are engaged; the Blood and Spirit [Page 49]of Jesus, signified and Sealed unto my Faith embracing both, shall be to me as Jachin and Boaz the two Pillars in Solomon's Porch, 1 King. 7.21. to help bear up my infirm weak Soul in times of Temptation, for to them I hold. Now, mock on Mr. Grantham.

One of your Tribe, a young confident A­nabaptist, tells me, If you have nothing more to shew for your Covenant Interest in God, as being your God, than that, (he referrs to that experience I declare in my short Treatise, which made Mr. Grantham Sick;) it would be no better than a Lie in your right hand: but I have better hopes of you. What are the sure Notes of our interest in God, I shall not come to you to learn; but I look upon those notes as good as your Self-Regeneration and Better.

Next he falls upon me for being asleep when I was Sprinkled and Crossed, and desires to know of me, what ground any man hath, his Parents or himself, to Baptize any person when they are asleep? this is no idle enquiry, but calls for the Consideration of all serious Christians. Thus Mr. Grantham.

You forgot your self, will you allow us to Baptize, I was Sprinkled, you tell me: but was I asleep? Why would not you wake me? Say, I was not born then. Your excuse is suf­ficient, but how doe you know I was asleep then? I presume so; but remember your Book, [Page 50] Presumption is no proof: and sure I am all Chil­dren are not asleep when they are brought to be Baptized. The last Child I Baptized was awake, so might I be.

Baptism, is in the Application of the Wa­ter, and its odds (to use your words) but the Water did wake me, if I were a­sleep. If Isaac were asleep when he was brought to be Circumcised, its odds, but the cutting of his Fore-skin did wake him; but suppose he had not, was it therefore no Circumcision, did it take away the efficacy of the Ordinance? This is a profound Question, where shall we have a place to dispute, and determine it? The Theatre at Oxford, is not worthy of such a question; it shall be Merchant-Taylours Hall in London.

Then you fall upon me, about falling a­way.

I do not remember any word I had about it. But this shortly I say, If it be true what yours prate about here, that a Person truely regenerate may fall away totally and finally; I would never preach Comfort to any regene­rate Person, till I see him Dying, and sure he could not live; now I see he hath perse­vered to the end, now I will preach Com­fort: So that all the Exhortations of Chri­stians to Rejoyce, Phil. 4.4. 1 Thes. 5.16. &c. all the Consolations of the Gospel, may be laid by, for they all depend upon my Will. [Page 51]Suppose I have walked fifty years with God, and have but one month to live, whatsoere temptation to sin may befall me in that month, I cannot tell; and what my Will may do I cannot tell; Grace with Mutability would not keep me in my Innocent estate, then Grace, Mutability, and Sin, will not keep me in fal­len estate; take away Mutability out of the first Covenant, fix the Will, there will be no need of a second Covenant; and if this Covenant doth not provide some help against Mutability, we are but miserable under it. Alas, what tormenting fears do many Chri­stians live under for fear of Non-perseve­rance, notwithstanding all the Promises of the Gospel for their support!

The Doctrine of Damning of Infants, you cry out upon, and ashamed you are, you say, that the Presbyterians and Independents should be of that opinion, for others it seems 'tis no matter.

I have read eight Opinions about the state of Infants after death, Baptized and Unbap­tized, but I have not spoken one Word about them: I leave secret things to God.

Then you are ashamed of my Conceit, and Dr. Ames Fancy, about the Soul being Passive in Regeneration. I shall let it alone to ano­ther place: How do you look when you are ashamed, Mr. Grantham? do you Blush? If you make me one of the Adulterous Gene­ration, that will not believe without a Mi­racle, [Page 52]as you speak, yet I will not be asha­med to say, Regeneration is a Miracle.

Some indeed do abuse, Ephes. 1.19, 20. to uphold this false Opinion, that none can believe without such a power as by which Christ was rai­sed from the dead; whereas the Apostle onely shews that the Faith of Christians doubts not at all, but that the same God which had power to raise up Christ from the dead, has power to raise us up also; this Power is irresistible that raised Christ from the dead, Men and Devils cannot resist it. But the Power of Gods Grace by which God works in men in an ordinary way is not irresistible, Act. 7.51.

Indeed and indeed you abuse the Text in restraining the sence to the Resurrection of our bodies onely, for Paul puts himself in [...]. Considering himself as a Believer in Christ, but Paul was a Phari­see, and the Pharisees did believe the Resur­rection of the Dead, Acts 23.6, 8. So that Paul did believe your Interpretation, before he was a Believer in Christ; but to make him a true Believer, yea to make Jews and Gentiles to believe in a crucified Christ sa­vingly, to raise us up from the Death of Sin, to the Life of Holiness, it will require as great a power, as that power which rai­sed Christ from the Dead. Col. 2.12. speaks the sence clearly. For the resistance spoken of, Act. 7.51. A man hath many Children, [Page 53]he commands them things just and good, he exhorts them to obey him, he promiseth, he threatens, he corrects, still they resist him, and will not obey; thus did God with these Children, and they resist; what then, what do you infer hence? Tho' God intends the Conversion of a Soul, and works to attain his End, yet mans will may so Resist him, that God shall fail of the end he intended: This must be the thing you would maintain, else the Text will not serve your opinion; but God saith, Isa. 43.13. I will work, and who shall let it? who? any mans Will: Take you him, Mr. Grautham for your God, whose will you can so resist as to make him fail of his end, when he Wills and Intends a gracious work upon the Soul; and by this Resistance of yours, Demonstrate (to use your own word) that God is not most Blessed: to fail of ones Will and Intention is the want of a degree of Blessedness: my Will is Crost, I cannot have my Will. I will say with profound Brad­wardinDe causa Dei, l. 3. C. 29., Illum nolo, &c. I will not have him for my God, who cannot most omnipotently make me both to Will, and do, what he Wills.

The following Paragraph speaks strangely; This strange Doctrine of damning the greatest part of the World, and that before the World was, is so pernicious, that it makes God the Author of all Sin; and more such stuff, that I care not for tran­scribing it.

What did you find in my Book, that you write at this rate? you run into other Que­stions, that have no ground for them in my Book.

I shall not concern my self to give you any Answer: Only thus,

I know none that say, that God made Men to Damn them; that Damnation was the End wherefore he made them.

As for the greater part of the World being Damned, this offends you: I pray whose Opi­nion are you of? Huberus? The Promiscuous Salvation of All: Or are you of Caelius Secundus Curio's Opinion, That the number of the Elect and Saved, is much greater than the number of the Reprobate and Damned? whether you, or these, or Christ be truest (Math. 7.14. Few find it;) the Day of Judgment will determine.

CHAP. V.

NOw for a few words about Sprinkling, which about ten or eleven times you mention in your four leaves against me: Twice you tell me, I Sprinkle Children; and I tell you Once, it is very false, I never Sprinkle any: If you prove it; either you Sprinkle or Dip; but you do not Dip, Ergo, you Sprinkle: I deny your Disjunction, so your Syllogism is [Page 55]false: Datur Tertium; there is a third: I do alwayes in my Administraction, pour such a quantity of Water as may clearly hold forth Washing, which is the largest signification of the worp Baptize; we Wash by Dipping, and we Wash by Fowring of Water. When you Baptize your Tables, Mar. 7.4. do you car­ry them to your Ponds or Rivers, and there dowze them under Water? I never saw that Practice yet; but to Baptize them, by Powring Water on them, is common: So did Elijah Baptize his Hands, when Elisha Powred Wa­ter upon them, Luk. 11.38. with 2 Kings 3.11. Had the meaning of Baptize been only to Plunge under Water, the Spirit would not have directed his Pen-men to use the word to Tables, (or Beds,) Hands, Vessels, which I see often cleansed without Plunging under Wa­ter: The Greeks are no so scanty for words that signifie Washing, as [...], which word the Pen-man used Mar. 7.3. [...] yet in the 4^th v. he uses [...]; the Spi­rit of God is not so nice as you are. Hence Castalio, a Learned Critick, whom Arminius did much Honour, therefore you have cause to honour him; he on Math. 3.13. saith, Beza rejects the words Baptizo, and Baptis­mus, used by holy Writers, and useth Lavo, and Lotio, Washing; for which he blames him; not because Beza denies the word Bap­tizo [Page 56]to signifie Washing, but because he depart­ed from other Writers in that place. Thus we read, Heb. 9.10. [...], Di­vers Baptisms: Dipping was but one kind of Baptism; there were divers others, but still they were Baptisms. We have then Divine Authority for our signification of the Word.

Nor do I see how that 1 Cor. 10.1, 2. which your admired Plagiary, Mr. Danvers, makes so much of, serves his turn for Dipping. Two things we are sure of from Scripture: 1. They walked through the Sea upon dry ground; this is four times recorded: Is the ground dry when you Dip? 2. It is said, Exod. 15.8. The Floods stood upright as an heap, the Depths were Congealed, (like Ice;) whence, Chap. 14.22. it is said, The Waters were as a Wall unto them, &c. Then the Waters did not touch them: Do you Dip, and the Waters not touch them whom you Dip? As for the Cloud Powring down Water, that agrees with our Baptizing.

One Question, I Pray; Were there no Chil­dren passed thorough the Sea at this time? Yes, no question, thousands; then Children were now Baptized: Were they then Bapti­zed with their Parents unto Moses, and shall they not now unto Christ? Baptized they were; that's the Question.

But you tell me in your Preface, how Christ [Page 57]was Baptized by Dipping; and so others.

I Pray tell me, for I profess seriously, I could not tell how to Baptize by Dipping; for a little Child I could tell, but not an Adult Person: Did they go into the Water, be it half way, or what you please, and then the Baptist dipt the other part? I would never thus be Baptized my self, nor would I so Baptize. When you Bury, do your Dead co­ver themselves half way, and then you cover the rest? If I were to Baptize, being the Ad­ministrator, I must take the Person, and Plunge him wholly my self under Water, but then I must leave him at the bottom, for my strength could not take him up.

Again, Though I know we may Bury a Man in his Cloaths, are you sure they Dipt them all in their Cloaths? these things are material to know: Because we know that in Chysostom's time, as Vossius tells us, upon a tu­mult that rose about him, Women that were to be Baptized ran away Naked; (your young Rustick Anabaptist tells me, What if Chryso­stom tells a lying Story? though it were Vossius tells it, but you may judge the Man by his Language,) so that they then Baptized Men, Women and Children Naked; (something be­fore their Shame we conceive.) The Lord would not allow the Priest to go up by Steps [Page 58]to his Altar, That thy Nakedness be discovered thereon, Exod. 20.26.

I hear you now Baptize your Females when it is duskish; but why so? Baptism is a holy Institution, I hope they have no Garment appropri­ated to Dipping; bad John so? then a Surplice may as well, &c. fit to be celebrat­ed at Noon-time; why do you not then Baptize your Wo­men, and the Younkers stand and look on? how comely this will be! they must also be some time under the Water, that the Water may soak through their Cloaths.

Yet as to this manner of Baptizing; had the Lord Commanded Baptism to be perform­ed by plunging the whole Body under Wa­ter, in a Countrey cold, and where it was not the Custom of the People to wash themselves, (unless some Boys and young Fellows in the heat of Summer, as in our Country, I never heard of one Woman that did wash her self in this manner in our Nation) then there had been more reason to urge this manner of Bapti­zing; but for the Lord to Institute it first in a hot Countrey, where this dowzing under Water had been in practice a thourand years before his Institution, so that now it was onely his pleasme to make it his Institution, that this plunging under water which hath been in practice so long, shall be done in my Name, &c. the Water having this signification, by my [Page 59]Authority, this alters the Case very much: This washing among them, being, partly for Pleasure, for Coolness, for Health, and fie­quent for Legal Impurities. I read in Levit. 15. three or four Cases in which those Ba­things or Washings were commanded at all times; and the Jews tell us, the whole Body must be baptized, if but a finger were above water it was not rightly performed, (which it seems one of your Baptists observed, ha­ving failed in his Act, tells the man he must be Dipt again, as one that stood by relates; I had it from a Friend who knew the mau a zealous Professor before his dipping, but after it fell into gross Vices, and so died;) had the Lord given those Commands in Eng­land, many men and women must have lost their Lives, in an ordinary way.

Hence though we read twice of being bu­ried in Baptism, yet I deny that therefore we are always bound to Baptize by Dipping; be­cause that Mode in that Country was Practi­sed many hundred Years before the Instituti­on, so that they did but keep their former Practice, it was nothing to them. But the word signifying Washing, as we have Divine Authority for it, which is done as well by Powring as by Plunging; and we read so often of the Powring of the Spirit, and of Wash­ing by the Spirit and Blood of Jesus, Washing [Page 60]of Regeneration, Prov. 1.23. Isa. 32.15. Isa. 44.3. Joel 2.28, 29. Ezek. 36.25. (the Ge­neva Translation,) Eph. 5.26, 27. Tit. 3.5. Apoc. 1.5. 1 Cor. 6.11. He that obtains these Washings, is as well as he that hath the same Blessings by Dippings. That Text Mr. Petto quoteth, Luk. 16.24. [...], is very considera­ble: Besides what is commonly said, the Bap­tizing of the three thousand in Acts 2. it can­not be proved to be by Dipping: these thoughts I have. When there have been a multitude to be Baptized, the Text have told us where they were Baptized, as Jordan Water, Aenon Water; so in Jerusalem, if there were such deep Waters to dip so many thousands, where­abouts was it? The People holding John for a Prophet, and there being such Rivers in Je­rusalem, why do we not read that John Bapti­zed there, as well as at Jordan and Aenon? We read of a contemptible Brook or River, Isa. 8.6. about Jerusalem; a Brook Kidron, 2 Sam. 15.23. After John and the Commissi­on given to the Apostles, we do not read of any Baptizing in the Scripture which do in­vincibly prove it was by Dipping; No, not the Eunuch; the going down to a Spring of Water, does not prove his being dowz'd un­der Water. And for the Baptizings in Hous­es, so often mentioned, that there should be so much Water in their Houses, is unlikely: [Page 61]And the Apostles to take up lusty Men in their Arms, and Plunge them in those Waters, is more than my Strength could do, and more than any can prove they did. The Jaylour, Act. 16. an ordinary Person in a City, to have so much Water in his House, is unlike­ly; we should not find so much Water in ma­ny great Mens Houses in London.

Against this 'tis Objected, Act. 16.34. saith, The Jaylour brought them into his House after Baptism, v. 33.

A. 1. But the Text mentions nothing of their going out of the House, to any other place to be Baptized, that time in the night.

2. The word [...], there used, signifies, to Cause to Ascend; and so is used, Luk. 4.5. Act. 9.39. and in other places: The Syriac word in the Text signifies the same, being the same word with [...] in the Hebrew, which is used, Psal. 139.8. If I ascend into Heaven: So the Arabick word in the Text, which the Lexicon translates, Ascendit per Scalas, to As­cend by a Ladder or Stairs: So that the word may refer to his bringing of them up out of the Dungeon, where he had put them for se­curity.

For my part, I am of their opinion, whom I see to be the most Learned and pious, that the Apostles were Indifferent in the [Page 62]manner of Administration, whether by Dip­ping under water, to hold forth the Bury­ing with Christ, (so am I willing to Admini­ster it, if Parents will,) or by Pouring on of water, to signifie the Washing of Rege­neration and pouring of the Spirit, Tit. 3.5, 6. [...], and Washing with the Blood of Christ: That Blood which cleanseth from all Sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. Onely let me adde this, as we pour upon the Face immediate­ly by which persons are known, so we can pour it all over the Cloaths, which doth more resemble the manner of Burial through the whole world, for ought I know, than the other: When we bury men, we do not use to run them into the Earth, but first dig the Grave, then powr Earth upon them. But for men to be so het upon a Mode of Ad­ministration, when the word signifies but Washing, whether it be by Pouring or Dip­ping, it is but a kind or degree of Supersti­tion.

It is not baptizing this way or that way, but our improving of the Ordinance; and the Spirits accompanying the Ordinance, which must do us good. God hath blessed the Ordinance, when administred by pouring on of water. A Gentlewoman (whom I name not) when the wretched Doctrine, (as that man of God Mr. Thomas Hooker calls it) of [Page 63] Anabaptism first came up in England, hear­ing of it: Is this (said she) the Doctrine now coming up? The greatest Comfort that ever I had from God was from my Infant Baptism: A Gen­tlewoman so eminent in Holiness, that few that are dipt must come near her. One of yours told me it is no Baptism: but we shall not go to Anabaptists, to learn any thing that belongs to God. Water is essential to Bap­tism, not Dipping. Dip a man over head and ears in Milk or Wine in the Name of the Father, &c. here is no Baptism: pour Wa­ter upon the Person, in the Name of the Fa­ther, &c. here is Baptism. This signifies something.

CHAP. VI.

I Have a little Reckoning with one of your Disciples, who makes a great noise about us; brought up to the Plough, but being of good natural parts, hath devoted himself so to the reading your, and other Books, that he never laboured more in sowing his Wheat, than he hath in sowing this Darnell. Infant-Baptism, he tells us, is an Antichristian Cheat.

Help us I pray in this juncture of time, [Page 64]tell us, who is this Antichrist? What kind of Creature is he? where dwells he? There is a great pudder about him; some say he is come: others say he is not come. You tell me of your Judgment, in your scribling; I pray give me your Judgment here. If you say he is come, when was the time he Ap­peared? None of all the Authors, that I have read, and I have read divers upon that sub­ject, say that he was come so long as the Ten Persecutions lasted; no, nor so long as the Emperour kept his Seat in Rome. But we find Infant-Baptism practised above a hun­dred years before the ten Persecutions ended; nor was Infant-Baptism the least advantage to his rising. Irenaeus lived near the Apostles time, and then it was in practice: he tells us Christ was an Infant, and sanctified In­fants. Origen was born about 186. and in the year 203. when his Father Leonides suf­fered Martyrdom under Severus; he wrote to his Father, and encouraged him to suffer it chearfully. He was then about Seventeen years of Age; and he writes, that the Church recived the Baptism of Infants from the Apostles. How then can this be an Antichri­stian Cheat, when Antichrist was not come above a hundred years after it was in pra­ctice, as we read in them, and they write they had it from the Apostles? Cyrpian was [Page 65]Martyred under the Eighth Persecution; if you can read his Epistle to Fidus, you may then see whether Infant-Baptism was not in practice. By this you declare your self to be a Cheater.

You tell me, Your way of application of wa­ter to the body (in Baptism) is a fine flesh-plea­sing way.

A. 1. What do you mean by Flesh? Cor­rupt Flesh? O what a high degree of the mor­tification of the Flesh is this, for a person to be Dipt! Is that the reason that Anabap­tists are such mortified Pervons above others? If it had been so, it had been the better for some of my Relations, which is one reason why I shall not be in love with Anabaptism in haste.

2. Do you mean Natural Flesh? We read in the Scripture, so soon as any were made Believers in Christ, they were presently Bap­tized; why do not you so soon as you have made a Proselyte, presently Dip him, or her, tho' it be a hard Frost and Snow? will you not stay till the season be warmer? and is not this a little pleasing to the Flesh?

I could not tell upon what Scripture ground these Anabaptists denied Communion with all Churches but themselves. I instanced in some, that I am sure there are none such amongst the Anabaptists, nor hath the Sun shined up­on [Page 66]better since the Apostles daies: the Que­stion was not, Why not communion with me? But your Answer which you learned from your Masters, is this:

You are Rantized, not Baptized, and such you admit to your Communion, but the Apostle chargeth us, 2 Thes. 3.6. that we withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly. This Rantizing was brought in by Rome and the Church of England.

A. What a Grecian are you become on a sudden; Rantizing, Rantiz'd, Rantism, I read in your Letters. Decline [...]. For my self first; how do you know I was Rantized? did you see it? It was forty years before you were born, if it were so. For others; how do you know they were Rantized? All your ground is from the Common-Prayer Book. But what if there be no such word as Sprink­ling or Rantizing in the Administration of Baptism? You that can charge the Ancient Fathers with Ignorance, (as we shall hear anon) and Chrysostom with Lying, you should speak and write nothing but Truth; but there is no such word: for in both Editious the words are these; The Minister naming the Child, shall dip it in the water, so it be discretly and warily done. And if the Child be weak, it shall be sufficient to powr water upon it.

Where is Sprinkling? is powring and sprink­ling [Page 67]the same? I am ashamed, saith Mr. Grant­ham, &c. You have cause to be so, and all the Anabaptists, whose mouths are full of a word to reproach us by, when there is no such thing.

1. As to your Text, 2 Thes. 3.6. Bap­tism is not so much as mentioned in neither of the Epistles: Now it lies upon your party to prove, that Paul left this Tradition with the Church, to Baptize no Infants, and to Baptize onely by Dipping. Which I am sure all the Anabaptists in the World can never do.

2. To walk disorderly here, is not to walk after the Tradition; what the Apostle aims at, you may see, 1 Thes. 4.11. To work with your own hands, as we commanded you. Now compare this Tradition with the 11. vers. of this Chap­ter which you quote against us, and read their disorderly walking, what it was: For we hear there are some walk disorderly among you, working not at all: This was contrary to his Command, and Tradition; this the Apo­stle condemns from his own practice, v. 7. Thus from the 6. vers. to the 13^th v. the Apostle tells you what he means by disorder­ly walking, and this is contrary to the Light of Nature. But the Light of Nature teacheth us, in all Religions, the Children are reckon­ed with the Parents.

For other sins, the Apostle hath given us directions what to do in other places, 1 Cor. 5.11. &c.

3. It is well known, those Churches, do maintain the Ordinance of Baptism, use it reverently, teach the improvement of it; suppose there were some defect in the mode of Administration (here is no Imposition upon you, of any thing humane,) is this a suffici­ent ground to unchurch all the Churches in the world but your selves? The Lord re­quire this at your hands.

When I framed this Argument from Mark 16.16. which was urged against Infant-Bap­tism:

If Children must not be baptized because they cannot believe, then neither can they be saved because they do not believe. Both Baptism and Salvation depend upon one and the same Condition, i. e. Believing.

Mr. Grif: denied the Consequence, telling me that Text speaks onely of Adult persons. So does 3 Joh. 3. & 5. Hence two Positions he gave me.

1. God regenerates no Infants.

2. God doth not Circumcise the hearts of any Infants. By this it seems, no not the heart of John Baptist. I have spoken to this before, onely I add to this, Dr. Homes conceives [Page 65]that Text Deut. 30.6. to have its fulfilling chiefly, when the Jews shall be called. When I observed well the Verses going before, and consider Rom. 11.26. I should not oppose him, then the great Body of the Infant-Seed of the Jews shall experience the truth of the Promise, and Anabaptism shall be exploded.

I asked, If God Regenerates no Children, how shall they be saved? He answered, All Infants dying such are Justified and Saved. Rom. 5.18. (To this Text I spake before.)

The young Scribler was so full with this notion, that thus he writes to me.

The ignorance there was in some you reckon as great Fathers, of the Justification that is by the Blood of Christ for Infants, caused them to invent their Infant Rantism, to take away Original Sin, and they together with the Church of Eng­land, and Church of Rome, if not some of the Presbyterians, do reckon it a Regenerating Ordi­nance.

What stuffe is here! The Reader may judge the spirit of this Anabaptist, how proud, bold, and confident it is; that if he had the Books of these learned, ancient, godly Men laid before him, he could not read one line to understand it, ye the dares charge them with Ignorance, and Lies beside. Could this young [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [Page 70]Fellow that charges these ancient Fathers with Ignorance, but read Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Hierom, Epiphanius, Augustin, Ambrose, Grego­ry Nyss. Basil, Macarius, &c. I would point him to places in their Books, where he should find, they understood, our Justification, I mean of all persons before God, to be onely by Christs Righteousness. As for Dipping, we know it was their practice, thô in some Cases they did allow the Baptizing by Powring of water, (for so the words in Crypian, Eò quod aqua salutari, non loti sint, sed perfusi. So Augu­stin. In those hot Countries, they did ordi­narily use Dipping, we do not deny;) but from the signification of the word, we judge it Indifferent. I add but this, thô I acknow­ledge Christs Burial to be a part of his Hu­miliation, yet our Redemption, Justification, Reconciliation, Mortification of Sin, are all given to the Righteousnesse, Blood, Sacrifice, Crosse of Christ: His Death, before his Burial. It is finished, said Christ upon the Cross, Joh. 19.30. before they Buried him.

As for Original Sin, indeed they were sound and clear in that Doctrine, and the Church of England, in their Homiles and Articles, are very full and clear, thô you be rotten. What God doth in Baptism, we leave to his Wis­dom.

But at this rate doth his Pen run in his Let­ters [Page 71]to me. And this is the Spirit of the Arminian-Anabaptists in other places; as I know the Town, where the Minister gave them a Meeting to discourse them. One that was an Auditor told me, the worst term the Mi­nister used was Friend, but their Carriage to­wards him very unworthy. As to his Con­formity they might have spared him. For he did no more than Mr. Tombes, the Antesigna­nus of all Anabaptists, hath written in defence of it. When they urged him for a positive Command for Infant-Baptism; he told them, If we must have a Positive Command for all things we practise, or lay it by, then we must lay by the Observation of the Lords day: They yielded this, saying, All daies were alike with them.

But since you are so charitable to Insants, how far will you extend your Charity? It must go further than Infants. You tell me, To preach the Gospel to a Child in the Cradle, were ridiculous: and that they are Disciples who hear, learn, and embrace the doctrine they hear. But Children are not capable of these; hence exclude them from Baptism.

But doth Scripture own none other for Dis­ciples? Compare Acts 15. vers. 10. with Acts 21.21. the Question was about Circumcision, [Page 72]Act. 15. v. 1. In the 10. v.—to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples: They upon whose necks they would impose Circumcision were Disciples, this is clear. Now in Act. 21.21. they tell Paul what is reported of him, viz. That he did teach the Jews, they ought not to Circumcise their children. Then Children are Disciples, at eight daies old.

I desire your wisdom would determine, what years Children must or may be of, be­fore they come to that capacity, to understand, learn, and embrace the doctrine they hear, as to an outward appearance.

The word [...], which signifies a Child, Paul useth five times in one verse, 1 Cor. 13.11. He spake, he understood, he reasoned, [...], as a Child. The Jews tell us, a Child is so accounted untill he be nine years old and a day: Sure I am, there are ma­ny Children who before they be capable to understand, learn, and embrace Gospel-Do­ctrine, can rebell against Parents, Curse Swear, speak Filthily, &c. and if these dy [...] under that incapacity, their incapacity it seem makes them to be justified and saved by Christs Righteousness: O Happy Childre [...] who dye in such a State.

But hold a little, are they all justified, and saved? then it must be by the Covenant of Grace, and shall they be under the Cove­nant so, as to be in a justified and saved state by it, and not have the Seal of the Cove­nant? You may say what you please, but give a solid reason why you yield a Person the Covenant, and deny the Seal; when did you ever know it among men? but this we have gained now, that not only the Infant Seed of Abraham, but all Infants in the World have a right to Baptism.

As for your Texts, by which you prove Infants can have no Faith, Rom. 10.17. nor be regenerated, because we are begotten by the Word, Jam. 1.18, &c.

I had prepared several Answers to them, but I saw my book grew too big, and o­mit them. I shall give you but your own answer, which you give to John 3.3. and 5. and Mar. 16.16. The Texts speak only of Adult Persons, but that God can infuse Grace no way into the Heart but by the ear, and that he hath tied up himself to one Instru­ment, this you are to prove. Divers learn­ed Divines, and I believe some of your own party, conceive, that the conversion of the [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74] Jews shall be, not by Hearing, but by Sight, as Pauls was; Christ appearing in the Clouds, Rev. 1.7. compared with Zech. 12.10. Hence Isa. 66.8, 9. Shall a Nation be born at once? However, can you tell how that Wise one frames the Body of the Child, and infuseth (according to most mens opinions) the Soul into the Body, while it is in the womb? If not that, can you tell what he doth with the Soul? Can he not infuse Grace into the Soul, as the Soul into the Body? which is hardest?

To prove then Infants may be regenera­ted, three or four Arguments I shall use, be­side what I spake before of Heart-circumci­sing, from Deut. 30.6.

(1.) If all, even Adult Persons, are Passive in the Work of Regeneration, then Infants are capable of Regeneration: But the Ante­cedent is true.

Some Ladies have their Husbands Pictures drawn at large, these hang up in the Par­lour; they have them also drawn in a Little compass, and hang them upon their breasts: This Blessed Limner draws his Image upon little Children, as well as upon Adult Per­sons. The Shunamites Child lies Dead, 2 King. [Page 75]4.20. Lazarus lies dead, John 11.14. Laza­rus tho' Adult doth no more towards his Quickning, the receiving of his Soul into Uni­on with his Body, than the Shunamites Child did, they were equally Passive; so are all they who are dead in trespasses and sins, Eph. 2.1, 5. Col. 2.13.

To this you answer, What you say of the Adult being Passive in the work of Regeneration, I know that you and others say so; but from what ground I know not; Is not Hearing and Receiving an Active work? is not Faith and Repentance which are the two parts of Regeneration, Acts of the Soul.

A. Your false Grammar I let pass, and for brevity sake, let Hearing alone. But for Faith and Repentance, the two parts of Re­generation, are Acts of the Soul; but tell me, whether of a Soul Dead or Quickned? If Quickned, how comes this Soul to be Quickned, that it might have a Principle or Power to put forth these Acts? Were you Active or Passive in the work of Quickning? It seems by your Answer you were Active; then you were never Dead, or else Death is active to Life, Corruption to Grace, Hell to Heaven. Much good may your Self-Regenera­tion do you: So your Self-Creation; for so the [Page 76]work is called, Ephes. 2.10. and 14. v. [...] 2 Cor. 5.17.

You tell me, Seminal Faith and Repentance, which I affirm, is but the Fiction of mens brains, and so of my brain; let me try it.

They who are regenerated have Faith and Re­pentance.

But all Infants saved, are regenerated. There­fore, All Infants saved, have. Faith and Repen­tance; but these do not show themselves in Act, then it must be but Seminal.

The Major is clear from your own Con­fession, who tell me, they are the two parts of Regeneration, now where the whole is, the parts must needs be.

The Minor, I prove.

They who are born unclean, that are sinful and corrupt by Nature, must be regenerated before they can be saved: But so are all Infants born. Therefore, &c.

The Minor is the part to be proved. For this I gave your Master Divine Authority, and Humane Authority, read the Texts.

To this you Answer, Children being Justi­fied from Adams Sin, (which is not yet prov­ed) no other Sin they are guilty of, (say you in another Letter;) What other Sin have they committed, that should hinder them from coming to Heaven?

How finely you answer! Does my Argument speak of Committing Sin? tho' as I have told your Master, Children do that too. I argu­ed from their Birth Sin; our Lord laies the necessity of Regeneration, from our Birth Sin, Joh. 3.5, 6. That which is Born of the Flesh is Flesh. If we are born Clean, Spiritual, Sinless, then give all the Texts I have there mentioned the Lie.

As to Seminal Faith, Repentance, and so of all Graces; if of any Grace, then of Faith and Repentance as well. I thought alwayes, that Seeds or Roots had been before Fruits; Prin­ciples before Operations, Habits before Acts. I read indeed of one Act without a Habit, but it was Miraculous, Numb. 22.28, 30. Balaams Ass speaks, and Discourses with Balaam, a Rational Act; but it hath no Rational Soul. When God regenerates an Adult Person, he doth first infuse the Principles, Seeds, Habits, of all the Graces of the Spirit, before he can act and bring forth the Fruits of the Spirit: [Page 78]When the Sower went out to Sow, Mat. 13.3. it was but the Seed of Faith, Repen­tance, which he did sow, and which was first received; and these Seeds grow up, Mar. 4.27. It is the Seed which remains, 1 Joh. 3.9. Peters Faith failed fadly as to the Act, but the Seed remained.

Since then this is but a Fiction of my brain, do you Twi-fallow and Tri-fallow your Ground, but Sow no Seed, for according to your Doctrine you may have a Crop with­out it: If you do cast in Seed, look for the Fruit next day, according to your Doctrine, for if God sow in the Hearts of little Ones the Seeds of all the Graces of his Spirit, they must show themselves presently in Fruits.

(2.) Argument. No unclean Person shall ever see God, Heb. 12.14.

But Infants by Nature are born Ʋnclean, if the Scripture may be believed: they must bear that Image in which they were created by God, that ever see the face of God.

All the members of the Kingdom of Heaven are Holy, but Children are mem­bers of the Kingdom of Heaven: There­fore [Page 79]Holy, but not by Birth, it is by Re­generation.

The Foundation of Anabaptism, lies in de­nying Original Sin, as did Pelagius, and he was against Baptizing Infants upon this Ground.

(3.) If Adam had continued in Innocency, his Children had born the Image of God from the Birth: I never heard it denied, that which I infer hence, is, That Children are capable of the Image of God, and re­ceiving the Seeds of all Grace; it was so then, why not now? Shall the Sin of one Person be so mischievous to deprive Adam, and all his Posterity of the Image of God, and bring the Seeds of all Corruption into their Nature; and shall the Grace of God be denied to renew his Image in little Chil­dren, when and where he pleaseth? Children being a great part of the World, shall the Spirit of God have nothing to do in their Hearts? Adams Disobedience far exceeds the Obedience of Christ, which the Apostle compares in Justification, Rom. 5.16, 17, 18. For his Disobedience could defile all his Posterity, but Christs Obedience doth not cleanse and regenerate one Child: Our Rege­neration is as truely the purchase of Christ [Page 80]as our Justification. The Spirit of the second Adam repairs that Image in those Subjects which the first Adam hath defaced, when and where he pleaseth; but he hath defaced it in Infants, if the Scriptures may be believed, before this kind of Anabaptists, which you and your Master are of: I do not think all Anabaptists, deny Original Sin, or Sin of our Nature.

(4.) If all Children dying such are justifi­ed and saved, then there will be Millions in Heaven in whom the Spirit of God, as the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, had nothing to do in their Salvation: That Rule, Omnes Operationes ad extra, &c. does not take off my Argument. For the Distinct Subsistences, have their Distinct Manner of Working; and I speak of the Spirit under that Consi­deration. The Father Decrees Redemption. The Son (assuming our Nature) works out, and laies down the Price for our Redemp­tion. The Spirit Applies Redemption. The Consummation of things is given to the Spi­rit: so Regeneration is given to the Spirit, Joh. 3.5, 8. Tit. 3.5. 2 Thes. 2.13. So 1 Cor. 6.11. There is Christ for Justification, and Spirit for Sanctification.

I adde no more, these with what I men­tioned before are enough.

Because you find I am not for sprinkling, you hope I may be brought over to be Dipt, and tell me, you should therein greatly rejoice.

A. If you do not rejoyce before, you shall not rejoyce in hast. For, (1.) Were I waver­ [...]ng, I know no right Administratour: for, [...]ake up your Principles. 1. Baptism is the Form of a Church. 2. No Baptism but by Dipping. 3. You grant Pastours must be [...]alled by the Church, then there must be a Church onely by Dipping to call these Pa­tours; now according to Scripture, these Pastours must be Able men, 2 Tim. 2.2. And [...]o Ordination, there must be a Presbytery (or Bishop over Presbyters, but the Bishop Dipt, I will yield that too,) of Able Men Dipt: Now where were there such Churches [...]t first, with such Presbyteries, or Bishop [...]ver Presbyters to call, and ordain, is more [...]an ever I heard of; and if not such, I know [...]o right Administratour, and if not so, I [...]alue all your Dipping not worth a Rush.

(2.) Thô God overlooks the Infirmities of [...]s, and I doubt not some are sound in [...]her points, and Conscientious, yet to very any, it hath proved a Blasting errour. How [Page 82]many have proved Corrupt in Doctrines, and Immoral in their Conversations, who were not so before Dipping. Major Packer, thô an Anabapist, yet a sober Man, complained to a worthy Friend of mine: 'Tis our unhap­piness, that a man cannot be an Anabaptist, but presently he must be an Arminian. So it seems by you. And now men have Repentance pinn'd upon their sleeves. A friend of mine discours­ing with an Anabaptist, asked him, If you sin can you repent when you list? Yes, said he. Sin he could be sure, for he could be drunk: for his Repentance, which he found so ea­sie, let him look that it be as found. That is very observable which Dr. Winter relates, of that Anabaptist, executed for a Capital Crime, who confessed, That from the time of his going under water, he sensibly found God Departing from him. I spare to write what Corrupti­ons in Doctrine I have heard among them be­sides these: Out of whose Hive the Quakers swarm'd for the greater part, is well known, going from Gospel Light to Natural Light, and further they cannot go.

That Hypocrites, and Apostates may be found in other Churches, who doubts it? but when men put such a stress upon a Mode of the Administration of an Ordinance, as i [...] Salvation depended on it, and keep such a [Page 83]stir to make Proselytes, and joy so if they get one, and tell us they must be Regenerate, Israel according to the Spirit, Saints by Call­ing, they must do the work of Abraham, that now are Abrahams Seed, these must be the Baptized ones, and hence exclude all Infants; yet after these, to prove so corrupt in Do­ctrine, as very many of them are, and too many vitious in Conversation, I may well call it a Blasting Opinion.

3. I shall be wary of that German Errour, which made such work there, and would make little better here were the Power in your hands, if all be of the same spirit with those who by Marriage bear some Relation to me; and I am confirmed in it the more from that passage of Mr. Hutcheson to Mr. Baxter, calling upon him to Repent of that absurd and Heretical Position of a Baptismal Covenant of Grace, running in a Fleshly ('tis false, for 'tis a Believing) Line, &c. If Infant-Baptism be a Heresie, let Ministers look to themselves, if Anabaptists get the power.

To conclude: When Mr. Tombes's book first came out, and made such a noise in the King­dom, two other Ministers being with me, we got his Book, laid it upon the Table, but they would not open it, till first we bow­ed [Page 84]our knees to the Father of Lights, begging of him that he would please to enlighten us, that we might know his Mind, and if he had revealed his Truth to this Man, that we might see it: Engaging to God, that what­ever had been the Opinion of our Fore-fa­thers, or our own Opinion to the contrary; and tho' this Doctrine was a Novelty, odi­ous, and would render them contemptible who did practise it, yet if it were his Truth, his Mind and Will, we would yield up our selves and practise it. Prayer being ended, we opened the Book, the first thing we met with was Abrahams Covenant, this we liked well. We read him with great Intention of mind, examined every line, and found him fall very short of proving the Repeal of Abrahams Covenant; failing here, we laid by his Book, and regard him no more. They persisted in their practice of Infant-Baptism to their Dying daies, and so shall I.