THE REPLY To a pretended ANSWER To the foregoing Discourse.

IT will not be unnecessary to premise, that this foregoing Discourse in oppo­sition to the Anabaptists, contained at first only eleven Pages in close writing, a Copy of which was transcribed and commu­nicated to a particular Friend; who shortly after upon their confident Boasting, that they would get it answered, did by my Permissi­on, deliver it into their Hands, from whom after almost a Years time, and through fre­quent importunities; I received an Answer in Manuscript, such as it is, consisting of 27 Pages. I think it needful also to premise, that I have somewhat inlarged my Discourse, but not so as to cause the least difference in my ensuing Reply, nor shall I make the least ad­vantage upon any Improvement or Addition I have made, nor is there in truth any occa­sion for it. For I do solemnly, and with all sincerity protest, that I don't find I had need to have had any word, Syllable, or Letter ad­ded, [Page 38] left out, or altered in my Papers, by reason of any thing in the pretended An­swer.

My Argument in short is this: That as Circumcision was the initiating Sign and Token of the Covenant to the Jews: So is Bap­tism to the Christians, and that the Command to keep the Covenant in the Sign of it, what­ever the Sign be, was and is always Obligato­ry; and that the practice from Age to Age answers it.

In the Prosecution whereof I obviated ma­ny Objections, now made use of by the An­swerer (which takes up above half of the afore­said 11 Pages) whereto there is no manner of Reply, save only somewhat about the Sab­bath or Lord's Day, but not to the purpose, as will afterwards appear; and at that rate too, that he dares not condemn the Sabbatarians. This with the Preface takes up 3 Pages of the Answer. Nevertheless that he may seem to say somewhat he turns Opponent.

First, He endeavours to prove, that the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was the sign, was not the Covenant of Grace, as having relation only to temporal Promises, taking a Branch for the whole; and reckoning that God made two distinct Covenants with Abra­ham. And this takes up 2 Pages more.

Secondly, He labours to prove that Circum­cision can give no ground for Infant Baptism, nor bear a suitable Parallel with it; using Ar­guments which have been answered over and over, and in a great Part obviated by me, tho' he takes no notice of it. This reacheth to his 10th Page.

[Page 39]Then he takes notice of my citing Act. 2.39. running out into a large Ramble, which will not bear any Test; and as introductory thereto, he begins thus: You say the Pro­mise in the 39. v. is spoken to those in the 36. v. even the House of Israel, who had crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and their Children; of which I had not said a word. And adds, that by Children he doth not un­derstand them as they are in a state of Infan­cy. But how doth he illustrate it? Why ve­ry profoundly and unanswearably with five or six Arguments, which to give them their full force, amounts to this: That there were none such then present, as he takes for granted; neither could any of them be Children to whom St. Peter Preached, and said, Repent and be baptized every one of you. For were this true, would it follow as he would sillily infer; that St. Peter neither did nor could speak of or concerning Children to them? May it not then be as well argued, that the Promise did not belong to those afar off, that should hereafter be called? Unless we understand thereby such of them as were then present, and had been St. Peter's Audi­tors? Which would be a contradiction in ter­minis. Now this, with some gross imperti­nence and senseless Stuff which immediately follows, comes home to the 14th Page of the Reply. So that there is above half of mine, and within a few Lines half of his past over, and hitherto it cannot be pretented there is any kind of Answer.

As to what follows, he says himself, Pag. 15. that what is written in my 8, 9, 10, 11 Pages, (and I don't remember there were [Page 40] any more in the Transcript-Copy they had) concerning the Covenant and Infants right to Baptism, he supposeth to be answered in what he had written aforegoing. He means, he had framed Arguments, which was not his Province. Moreover in these Pages he omits several Things, which must needs be reckon­ed very material, whereto he answers no­thing. I'll instance in some particulars.

First, That in Christ's Dialect, to belong to him, and to be his Disciple: Is all one.

Secondly, That Infants are called Disciples by the Holy Ghost.

Thirdly, That they are made so by God himself, vouchsafing graciously in their be­lieving Parents to accept them also into his Covenant, and so into the state of Disci­ples.

Fourthly, That the Apostle shews that interest in the Promise, is alone of it self a sufficient ground for the application of Bap­tism.

Fifthly, That the Suffrages and Authorities of the Primitive Fathers are on our side, which he overlooks as insignificant, tho' they are only produced to shew what was their judgment in the Case, and the practice in their time.

Sixthly, That sprinkling or pouring on of Water, doth as well express the Mystery as dipping, and better alludes to the inward Baptism of the Spirit.

And that 'tis very improbable that the 3000 baptized in one Day, and in all likelihood where they heard St. Peter's Sermon, were dipped.

[Page 41]Again he neither denies, nor vindicates their concurrence with the Papists, tho' I had represented it in so many Instances; and whereas I said expresly, that the Fathers in avouching Infant-Baptism to be an Apostoli­cal Tradition, did not understand the word Tradition in the Popish sense, to supply the supposed defect of the Scripture. Yet he positively affirms it is to be believed to do so, and so he runs on for above 2 Pages, prov­ing the Perfection of the Scripture, that is fighting with his own Shadow, for who de­nied it?

Once more I said, we don't read in the New Testament of laying on of Hands on any unbaptized Person, except in order to a bo­dily Cure. But the Answerer, passeth by the exception, and then doubtless he confuted his Adversary, speaking so home to the mat­ter. What hath been hitherto observed, chiefly refers to the Method and Composure of the Answer, and discovers in it so much of weakness and insufficiency, that no judi­cious Person can well allow it that denomina­tion. But taking liberty further to display its imbecility, I shall offer somewhat by way of Reply, to the matter and contents of the pretended Answer, that (if possible) I may provoke him or some one for him to make a Rejoynder, that the point in Controversie may be thorowly sifted, and the truth clear­ed, or left to the World to judge how unable that Party is to maintain their way, or make any tolerable defence.

He saith, Page the first, that he cannot un­derstand that the weight of the Arguments for Infant-sprinkling, but rather thinks that [Page 42] the want of weight in them, is the Cause an Answer hath been so long neglected. It seems he is unfit to answer Arguments tho' they want weight, and others perhaps may think it was very meet and fit he should have let them alone, rather than prejudice his Cause by an unfit Answer, and should not have put himself upon this Tryal of his Skill, unless he could have managed it better. But first an Answer as he saith is expected, that is some­thing must be done towards the giving an Answer, for the amusing the expecting People, who otherwise ('tis likely) would have been more apt to have mistrusted the weakness of their Cause. Secondly, 'Tis presumed that af­ter the perusal of my Discourse, by some of the more learned and wiser Heads, 'twas thought more eligible to leave it to one that is unfit for it, to give an Answer; that the defect thereof may not reflect on any of the Grandees, or rather 'tis suspected that some Chief undertook it, but under the mask of one un­fit, that the lameness of the Answer, (of which the Preface seems conscious) may by those that peruse it, be imputed to the Au­thor; and the strength thereof, which their own Party will suppose, may be ascribed to the presumed goodness of the Cause they have espoused, however tho' he be unfit he will make an Essay. Yea he will (which is more) give an Answer to such things as he thinks may have any thing in them that calls for an Answer.

Now he who will discharge the Office of a Respondent, ought fairly to repeat his Ad­versaries Words, and then to apply his An­swer, either by denying or distinguishing, or [Page 43] both; but how this hath been observed by the Answerer, you will see in the first Para­graph.

The first thing, saith he, that I take notice of is in Page 1. where you endeavour to prove that Infant-Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, although no positive Prescript for it, bringing the change of the Sabbath-Day from the seventh to the first, without prescript.

Reply, These are so far from being my words, that they contain not the sense of them. For (1.) neither I, nor I think any Body else ever indeavoured to prove, either that Baptism came in the room of Circumci­sion, without a positive prescript, or that In­fant-Baptism came in the room of Circumci­sion, but that Baptism did, which none can justly deny. St. Paul, Coloss. 2.12. affirms as much, viz. That Baptism in the New Te­stament succeeded Circumcision, the initiating Sacrament of the Old Testament, and that as plainly, as in 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. he hath affirmed the Lords Supper to come in the room of the Passover; for the Apostle having told his Colossians, that they had the Circumcision made without Hands, the Circumcision of the Heart; he further signifies by way of implication, that they had as good as the outward Circumcision too, by being baptized, or he could have no occasion to add, [being buried with him in Baptism] and his Argument had been nothing at all, a mere non sequitur, unless he gives them to understand thereby, that Baptism succeeded and came in place of Circumcision. To evidence this to be the genuine sense and intention of the Apostle; know that he was [Page 44] here disswading the believing Christians from the Rudiments of the World and Jewish Ce­remonies, particularly from Circumcision, upon this very ground, that they were com­pleat in Christ; but lest the Jewish Teachers should suggest, that the receiving the inward Grace of Circumcision, doth not make them so compleat as the Jews were, because they had also an outward visible sign. As Abraham, for instance, had the inward Grace, and yet he received the outward Sign; and conse­quently, tho' Christians be made partakers of this great Benefit by Christ, yet they may stand in need of an outward Seal, to assure them of their partaking herein; he would have them know that neither is this Priviledge wanting to Christians, who have as excel­lent and express a Sacrament of it; and that Christ hath not left his People under the New Testament destitute of such an outward Sign and Seal; for however Circumcision be taken away, yet there is another Sacrament substi­tuted and appointed, a more excellent and lively one than ever Circumcision was, a Sa­crament resembling it, and answering to it [ buried with him in Baptism; wherein, &c.] that is sacramentally signifying and sealing up both our mortification and our vivifica­tion. But if they had espoused Antipedo-Baptism, they might have urged their dissa­tisfaction, and have again Replyed, that tho' they needed not to be circumcised them­selves, seeing Baptism is so happily come in the room of it, yet they would still Circum­cise their Children, because according to their Doctrine, Baptism is not to be applyed to them.

[Page 45]In the second Place, the Words have no positive Prescript for it, and without a Pre­script, do shew either that he did not under­stand my Argument, (tho' easie to be under­stood) or else that he wilfully altered and perverted my sense, that he might serve some other Design, than the finding out the Truth, His own Conscience must tell him, he hath fathered on me what I said not. This Addi­tion of his, without Prescript, insinuates as if I had there argued, that the want of a Precept for the change from Circumcision to Baptism, is no more a reason to deny Baptism to In­fants, than the want of a Precept for the change from the seventh Day to the first, is a reason for the rejecting of the Lord's Day. That the Answerer did thus intend to repre­sent me, seems plain; because after he had shewed Reasons for the first Day, he con­cludes, so we have a plain Precedent, tho' not positive Prescript for the first Day, but you want not only Precept but Precedent for Infant Baptism. [Page 3.] Now the obvious meaning of my Discourse there, is, that the general Command of keeping God's Cove­nant in its Sign, as also the general Command of observing the Day of the Sabbath, one Day in seven is obligatory to Christians, as well as it was to Abraham and his Seed. The consideration what is the particular Sign, or whether it be altered from what was first specified; or whether with or without a Pre­script, being not there any part of the Argu­ment; its main strength depending on the general and primary Part of the Precepts; the substance therefore of what I said is, that the general and primary Command to Abra­ham, [Page 46] (thou and thy seed shall keep my Covenant in the sign of it) is of perpetual Obligation; as in the fourth Commandment, the gene­ral and primary Command for sancti­fying the Sabbath, or keeping Holy one Day in seven, obligeth now as well as then; and that if Christians be discharged from obser­ving Circumcision as the Sign, and the last of seven, which was appointed to be the Sabbath at first, (which are secondary positive Com­mands,) yet they are bound to observe a se­venth Day, and to keep God's Covenant in its Sign, (these things being of Primary obli­gation.) And now what is said to all this? Why truly as to the general Command to Abraham above mentioned, he passeth it over at least for the present, and says nothing about it, but as to the Sabbath, doth he deny that the general Command of keeping one Day in seven Holy continues obligatory? Not at all; which he should have done, if he would have opposed the force of my Argument. What doth he then do? Why he gravely says, (1.) He knows no positive Command for the change of the seventh Day to the first. (2.) He knows one Day of seven was commanded. (3.) He gives some account what we have to say for the change of the seventh Day to the first. Lastly, That he dares not blame the Sabbatarians. By all this he confirms my Ar­gument; and that too more than it re­quired. And yet he hath so mannaged the matter, blind-folding his ignorant follow­ers, that those who heard only his Papers when they were read apart in their Congre­gation, doubtless thought that he answered what may be reasonably thought to call for an Answer.

[Page 47]He proceeds, (Page 3.) to observe con­cerning the Covenant, which he saith, I have written several Pages about, supposing that as Abraham's natural Seed were in Covenant, and had right to Circumcision, so the Seed of Believers are in Covenant, and ought to be baptized.

Reply, The word Natural is not in the Text; neither was it put in by me: 'Tis rather their way to add to the Word, the better to gloss over their Error. Provided nevertheless, it be not understood qua tale, as natural, I do admit it, and own the whole; it being that which I have fully demonstrated. But so it is to be accounted for my Conclusion, rather than for my Hypothesis. However it be, he makes two exceptions against it; tho' it be very illogical to nibble as it were at the Conclusion, whilst he tacitly grants the premises. But it must be considered, that he hath ingeniously acknowledged how unmeet and unfit he is to be a Respondent; and he doth but go on to prove it.

The first Exception that he makes is: That the Covenant in the 17 of Gen. is not a Co­venant of Grace: This indeed would over­throw the very foundation of my Discourse, could it be proved, and duly applied. Nei-of which, tho' he Acts here the Part of an Opponent, is done by the pretended Answerer; whereof he is so Conscious, that he dares not depend upon it, fearing he should be driven to his Shifts, should we put the matter in Controversie to this issue. And therefore that he may have a Loop-hole to escape, he saith (Page 8.) neither indeed were it that Covenant, meaning the Covenant of Grace, [Page 48] would it as to that help you: And he is not without a pretended Reason, to help himself in it; because forsooth Grace doth not go, says he, in Generation from Parent to Child. Wisely argued! 'tis as much as to say, speak­ing to the Point, God is not a God to Abra­ham and his Seed too, his Promise in that re­spect went beyond his Performance. Grace cannot go by Covenant from Parent to Child. And who are those that found descent of Grace in natural Generation, or say that Be­lievers Children are in this gracious state, be­cause they are believers Children, that is by vertue of natural Generation. We only say, 'tis by vertue of the Covenant, the Promise that is made to the faithful and their Seed; whereupon are grounded such gracious Privi­ledges and Perogatives descending from Pa­rent to Child. So that the Root being Holy, the Branches are so too Rom. 11.16., yea if but one of the Parents be a Believer 1 Cor. 7.14., the Children are in a Holy Separate-State; not common and unclean with the rest of the World; but in such a State at least, as puts them into a more advantagious and fairer Prospect of Heaven, and greater probability of obtaining saving Grace, than if they had been out of the Co­venant, that Holy State, so as the Promise did not reach them. Hence Christ speaking of the Jews Collectively, calls them the Chil­dren of the Kingdom Matt. 8.12., the Apostle the Chil­dren of the Covenant Act. 3.25., the Margin refer­ring it to that of Gen. 12.3. which himself saith, (Page 5.) respects the Covenant of Grace.

But to Reply to his Exception, as he goes on to demonstrate it here, as his manner is, [Page 49] he Acts the Opponent rather than the Respon­dent, and therefore thinks himself not con­cern'd to meddle with the Arguments pro­duced by me, tho' he pretended otherwise in his Preface, and seemed to Promise to give Answer to such things as call for an Answer, but since 'tis not his mind, I am content to answer his Allegations; and moreover do purpose to take occasion from thence, further to demonstrate the Identity of the Abraha­mical and Evangelical Covenant, that the Co­venant, Gen. 17. is a Covenant of Grace; the more firmly to establish the Scripture Foundation touching God's Covenant with Abraham, on which, as himself says truly, (Page 3.) I found the stress of my Dis­course.

He says, (Page 4.) that he looks upon this Covenant, in the 17th of Gen. not to be the Covenant of Grace, but a Covenant God made with Abraham, respecting some temporal Blessings that God was pleased to bestow up­on him, and his natural Seed, and the same with, Deut. 29.1. and onward to the 9th but adds, that he understands the Covenant in Gen. 12.3. and 18.18. to have a respect to the Covenant of Grace. Now suppose the Land of Canaan be the main matter Pro­mised to Abraham in the said Covenant, it may not follow, that 'tis only a temporal Blessing; because under temporal Promises, Spiritual Blessings were veild and consigned, by a temporal Possession of the promised Land, an eternal Inheritance in the heavenly Canaan, was assured to them. Besides you take a part for the whole, that which is but an Adjunct, or an appendix, for an entire Covenant; as [Page 50] if God made two distinct Covenants with Abraham, when as there is not the least hint for it in the whole Bible, which speaks only of one Covenant made with that Holy Patriarch, even that which Circumcision did consign, which was a Spiritual Covenant under a Veil, but now 'tis one and the same without a Veil, as Doctor Taylor, who is so often quoted by them, expresseth it Discourse of Baptism. p. 37., and so could not re­spect only, as the Answerer saith, God's blessing him with a numerous Issue, and them with the Land of Canaan; there being in that no sensible Blessing to Abraham, seeing nei­ther he nor his Posterity enjoyed the Promise as a mere earthly Blessing for near 500 Years after, doubtless therefore this must be made good to him, as before premised, or there was a Blessing for him, which was concealed under the leaves of a temporal Promise. Be­sides there were others than Abraham's Seed, and Ismael who were to be circumcised Gen. 17.11, 12., to whom the Land of Canaan did not be­long.

The Mysteriousness of this Transaction, we are further instructed in by St. Paul, Heb. 11.13. They all dyed in the faith, having not re­ceived the Promises, as he observes, viz. of a Temporal Possession in Canaan. They saw the Promises, that is the Spiritual Part, afar off: they embraced them, and looked through the Cloud and temporal Veil, and desired a better Country, that is an heavenly; or the same in an heavenly State. This was the Ob­ject of their desires, and the secret of their Promise: And therefore Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which [Page 51] he had before Rom. 4.11., and so must relate princi­pally to an Effect and Blessing greater than the generality of the Jews apprehended, or was exprest in the surface of the Temporal Promise. Wherefore when God promised pardon and forgivness of Sins, he promised to remember this Covenant Levit. 26.42., what stay could it be to Moses's Faith, when God appeared to him in the Bush, in saying I am the God of thy Fathers of Abraham, &c. Exod. 3.6., if it only con­cern'd temporals. Agnoscatur, says Chamier Lib. 5. de bapt.; let it be granted that the Promise of the Land of Canaan, together with the Multipli­cation of Abraham's Posterity is annexed to this Covenant, yet says he, this is not the Co­venant but an appendage to it, as to Godli­ness the promises of this Life are annexed, Earthly things were indeed under that dispen­sation promised more fully and distinctly; suitable to the Jewish Pedagogical Estate, to allure them to the service of God; and hea­venly things more generally and sparingly: On the contrary, spiritual Blessings are more fully and clearly, and earthly Things more gene­rally and sparingly held forth, and promised to us under the Gospel Administration: And the Land of Canaan was more particularly in­sisted on in the first Dispensation; being de­sign'd for the Type of Heaven, and an ex­planation of the Primary grand Promise to be their God: Denoting, that he would as certainly bring them to the Celestial Canaan, and to the spiritual and glorious Rest there; as to that temporal and corporeal Rest from their servitude and captivity in Egypt. Hence it was that Jacob gave such a solemn Charge to Joseph, and Joseph to his Brethren, the [Page 52] one to Bury his dead Body in Canaan, the o­ther for the Transportation of his Bones thi­ther, which they would never have done for an earthly Inheritance, but to nourish in the Hearts of their Posterity Faith and Desire of rest in Heaven, in the Communion of Saints, whereof Canaan's rest was a Type, into which, not Moses the Law-giver, but Joshua or Jesus the Type of Christ was to bring them. So that the whole Tenour of the Ahrahamical Covenant, speaks it a Covenant of Grace; and the Apostle giving us the substance of it in the Gospel, doth it in these Words Heb. 8.10., I will be to them a God, and they shall be my People.

But such is this Man's Confidence, that he prays me to take notice, whether there be any thing else in the 17th of Gen. but temporal Blessings. But what saith he to v. 4. as the A­postle applies it, Rom. 4.27. whereto 'tis referred in the Margin? Or to v. 7. denoting the quality of the Covenant, that 'tis not tem­porary but everlasting, respecting spiritual good Things? Or to the following Words: To be a God to thee and thy seed after thee? Bellarmine indeed says, that God when he enjoyned Circumcision to Abraham, did Pro­mise only earthly Things, i. e. the Propaga­tion of his Posterity and the Land of Palestine, as this Answerer doth; and again, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, holds forth, says Bellarmine, only a Promise of a peculiar pro­tection. But Amesius well observes, in his Answer to him, that our Saviour gathered from thence a Resurrection to Bliss; or his Argument against the Sadducees Matt. 22.32. had not been Conclusive.

[Page 53]In short this Covenant is so much the Co­venant of Grace, that it contains in it the great Mystery of Man's Redemption, as is plain from the Comment of Zachary upon it Luke 1.71., the belief whereof was the justification of Abraham Gen. 15.5, 6. Rom. 4.3., wherefore 'tis expresly said, that when God enacted this Covenant with Abraham, he preached the Gospel unto him Gal. 3.8., that is, he made a Covenant with him, con­cerning Christ and Salvation by him; and he saith further, that it was preached to the Jews as it is to us Heb. 4.2..

Thus we see, what that Covenant with Abraham was, that 'tis substantially the same that we are now under, or by what means else did any of the Jews before Christ came, obtain Grace or Glory? It was before Christ's coming into the Flesh cloathed with many Shadows of now abolished Ceremonies, Types and Sacrifices, in its Administration, having upon Mount Sinai the Covenant of works adjoyned to it, or the first Covenant; so termed, for that in the substance thereof it represented the first Covenant. So that by Reason of these adjuncts, 'tis sometimes di­stinguished from its very self, as it was ad­ministred by Christ after his Incarnation. But if not the same, how are the Gentiles said to be grafted in amongst them Rom. 11.17., as Grotius hath it, or according to Beza and Pis­cator, pro ipsis instead of them, or in their Place; or how doth the same Olive-Tree continue still? It remains then, that there are not two Covenants of Grace, differing in sub­stance, but one and the same under various Administrations.

[Page 54] Camero Thes. 7. makes three Covenants, one of Nature, one of Grace, and one subservient to that of Grace. But ubi unum propter aliud, ibi unum tantum: But lest I be thought too general in my Procedure, I shall further de­monstrate that God's Covenant with Abraham, consists of those very substantial Parts which are assigned to the Evangelical, as 'tis in this 17th of Gen. and elsewhere more fully ex­pressed by Moses, interpreted by the Pro­phets, and applyed by the Apostles.

In Gen. 17.1. he tells Abraham what a God he will be unto him, viz. A God all-suffi­cient. Which Promise you have Gen. 15.1. divided into two Parts; and in other Places among the Prophets, into these Three; first, All-sufficient to pardon the Penitent; secondly, To give his Holy Spirit; thirdly, To give eternal Life. In each of these re­spects, was God lookt upon as all-sufficient in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 55.7. God says, I will forgive and multiply my pardons. Hence the Jews are exhorted to repent Act. 2.39. Ezek. 36.25., for that the Promise of the Pardon of Sins by the Blood of Christ belongs to them, and he pro­miseth further to put his Spirit within them; and to cause them to walk in his Statutes Ezek. 36 27., and as 'tis in Deut. 30.6. to Circumcise the Heart. So Zachary, speaking of God's Covenant, and his Oath to Abraham Luke 1.71, 74., makes mention of this two-fold Mercy, which accrues to us by vertue thereof, viz. First, Deliverance from the Power of our Enemies, Sin and Satan. Secondly, Grace and Strength to serve him, that he would grant, or as the Word is ren­dered Rev. 11.3. give Power, to wit his Grace and Holy Spirit, for the amending of our Lives. [Page 55] See also Psal. 103.3. and Esa. 44.3. And that these Places refer to God's Covenant with Abraham, is yet more evident from Gal. 3.16. where the Promise of the Spirit is called the blessing of Abraham. And tho' the Promise of eternal Life is not any where in the Old Testament plainly expressed, yet it was concealed under the leaves of a temporal Promise, wherein all the Prophets do unanimously declare, there was an ex­cellency of Blessing, far exceeding what Be­lievers outwardly enjoyed in their Peace, Pro­sperity, Kingdom and Temple-Worship, which could be no other than the spiritual and eternal Deliverance of their Persons from Sin and its curse, with the enjoyment of the Favour of God here, and eternal Life in the World to come, as 'tis observed by St. Paul in the eleventh Chapter to the Hebrews. In like manner the Condition on Abraham's Part, is the same that is required of us Christians, i. e. to observe the Evangelical Precepts; to believe and obey that Gospel which was preached to him; as much as to say Faith and Obedience. Not that Righteousness which is of the Law, exact legal Obedience, but that which is of Faith, that which is truly Evan­gelical; as is evident by comparing Deut. 3.11. with Rom. 10.6. and of the same nature with that of a Christian. How otherwise could A­braham be the Father of them that believe, and his Faith the pattern of Faith to others, and we be admonished to walk in the steps of his Faith, and to do his works?

Neither do the Prescript Rules, given to the one or the other, make any alteration therein, so long as they are all of the same [Page 56] Nature and Kind. Now that they are so, ap­pears from the fore-quoted Places; where 'tis said, that the Commandment is not hid, in the Hebrew and Septuagint not too heavy; but as Christ's Yoak and Burthen light and easie. Neither is it in Heaven or beyond the Seas, it will cost no great Pains to come to the knowing and practising of it, very agreeable and consentaneous to every one's Nature, ve­ry nigh and in the Heart, very easie to Learn and Practise; and what this is, is punctually set down Rom. 10.9., to be confessing of Christ, and a Cordial belief of his Resurrection, shewn forth in the Practise of those Rules that he hath left us, and God had before Prescri­bed.

And for that Commandment which Christ calls New, 'twas from the beginning, but be­ing buryed as it were in a Law of Ceremo­nies, it seemed wholly laid aside and neg­lected, insomuch that few attained to so right a meaning of the Commandment, as that Scribe Matt. 12., who our Saviour saith, was not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.

But suppose the Divine Precepts are found to vary in number and perspicuity, or the like, in respect of Abraham and us, yet that puts no distinction betwixt his Faith and O­bedience and ours; for so the Faith and O­bedience of one Christian would not be the same with that of another, when in different Circumstances. We conclude therefore, that Abraham's Faith and so his Obedience is of the same Nature with ours. According­ly runs the Precept, Gen. 17.1. Walk before me and be thou perfect, that is upright or sin­cere as the Margin shews; which implies that [Page 57] tho' he should be subject to infirmities, yet so long as he hath a single upright Heart, there is no more required than such an Evangelical Obedience, the Righteousness of Faith. Hence the Apostle discoursing of justification by Faith Gal. 3. v. 5., instanceth in Abraham, and argues that we are justified on the same Terms with him; and that neither Jews nor Christians are otherwise justified than he was, who was justified or accounted Righteous, not on­ly for that particular Act of Faith by which he believed that he should have a Son which should be his immediate Heir Gen. 15.6., but that ha­bit, that Grace of Faith, (that is chiefly and primarily) whereby he was able to believe that Promise with the same Faith he believed the Promise of the Messiah, that a certain Seed should be given to him, In whom all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed. And 'tis the same Faith to believe that God would send such a Messiah before the Law, as that he hath exhibited and sent him since; and consequently what is now required of us, as the Condition of the Covenant on our part is the same, and no more in effect than what was required by God of Abraham, as the Con­dition on his Part. Forasmuch then as hath been shewn, that God's Covenant with Abra­ham hath the same mercies on God's Part made over to Man; and the same Conditions, on Man's Part required of God with those of the New Covenant, the Abrahamical Cove­nant cannot be denied to be the Covenant of Grace, and so my Foundation stands sure and unshaken, and beyond all doubt will so re­main, notwithstanding the utmost efforts of such Assailants.

[Page 58]His other exception toucheth Circumcisi­on: Which, he says, to repeat his very words, can give no grounds for Infant Bap­tism, nor bear suitable Parallel with it. And thereupon he gives several Instances wherein they differ. But what would he infer hence? That the one succeeds not the other. And so there can be no Argumentum à pari. That therefore Infants should be baptized; because such were circumcised. I answer, the Lord's Supper succeeded the Passover; and yet they differ in many Punctilio's and Circumstances: It sufficeth to make the Parallel suitable, that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation into the Covenant of Grace, and the Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith under the Gospel, as Circum­cision was before under the Law, Gen. 17.11. Act. 7.8. Rom. 4.11. compa­red with 1 Cor. 12.13. 1 Pet. 3.21. and doth as properly and effectually confirm and establish the Covenant betwixt God and us now, as Circumcision did then; Baptism being the only ordinary way of adding to the Church in the time of the Gospel, on which score 'twas instituted. And 'tis as requisite that we should in some such manner seal to the Co­venant now as Abraham before, we being as much unable to give an answerable assurance to Almighty God for our selves and Children, as ever Abraham was for himself and Poste­rity; or if you will, may it not be thought as highly necessary that we should be by some Rite matriculated members of the Christian, as they were solemnly initiated into the Jew­ish Church? Now what other way is prescri­bed to us of Matriculation, than Baptism; the only most proper Rite for this purpose, as it hath been in all Ages accounted; insomuch that all the several Baptisms that were be­fore [Page 59] Christ, were all meant for initiating forms. So the Jews had a Custom long be­fore the coming of Christ, to make proselytes or converts to their Religion, not only by Circumcision but by baptizing, or washing them with Water. The same was the meaning of John's Baptism to make Men Disciples un­der his Administration. And the same was the meaning of Christ's Baptism, to initiate Men into the Christian Religion, and make them Disciples of Christ. Hence baptizing and making Disciples, means the same thing, John 4.1. John made and baptized more Di­sciples, that is baptized them Disciples, which was the form of making them such. All the instances of Baptism in the New Testament were used as initiating Forms; and to no other Purpose, being therefore never repeat­ed; no more than men were twice circumcised or admitted into the Church before Christ. Nor do we find since the coming in of the Gospel, any other Rite or Ceremony of initi­ation permitted, much less enjoyn'd. Sure I am, there was at first no framing of distinct Covenants for each Congregation, according to the fancy and humour of the respective Teacher, a mode which some of our late up­start Sects have boldly introduced without any Divine Authority, or Foundation in the Word of God. And as there is no mention in the Gospel of any Covenant, but one, of Grace, so neither of any other Sign or To­ken thereof, or any other form of entering into the said Covenant, than Baptism; but as Circumcision was heretofore, so Baptism is now the initiating Rite.

[Page 60]But to Reply to his Instances, whereby he would prove the Parallel not suitable: His first Instance or Reason is, because the natural Seed of Abraham, without any token of a work of Grace on them, ought to be circum­cised; but the natural Seed of Believers, without some token of a work of Grace up­on them, ought not to be baptized. For which he cites Matt. 3.6. to v. 10. That some had a sense of their Sins, and were brought to a confession is plain, v. 6. But what token was there of a work of Grace on them, whom the Baptist calls there a Generation of Vipers? And yet of them he says, Matt. 3.7. v. 11. Mark. 1.5. Luke 7.30. I indeed Baptize you. And St. Mark says, they were all bap­tized of him; he refused none of them. So that they were only the Pharisees and Lawyers, that were not baptized of him, who exemp­ted themselves. Or what token of a work of Grace appeared on those that were baptized of Lydia's Houshold; besides what was ob­served on her self? Act. 16.15. Domûs autem no­mine ip­sam intel­ligimus fa­miliam; imprimis vero Libe­ros & ne­potes, says Marl. on the Place. See Mons. le Clerc's, Supple­ment to Dr. Ham­mond on the Place. And yet not she only was baptized, but her Houshold upon her Conversion. And if others of the House were thereupon baptized, much rather her Infant-Children, if she had any such. This is cer­tain, she had a Houshold, a Family, and they were baptized as well as her self. To alledge that some had such a work of God wrought upon their Souls, before they were baptized, proves nothing; for so doubtless had some Jews, and Abraham in particular, before they were circumcised. That interrogative, Mat. 3.7. having there the force of a Negation, implies that they had no manner of Convi­ction, nor could any have taught them, that they should merely by St. John's Baptism a­void [Page 61] the destruction that hung over their Heads, and therefore he bids them to repent. He must prove, if he can, that none else ought to be baptized; for as yet we have only his bare Ipse dixit, his own say so, he may pass for a Magisterial Dictator to his own ignorant Party, who can follow him with an implicit Faith; but his Authority will not sway with any others of sober sense.

(2.) He says the natural Seed of Abraham were commanded to be circumcised, but the Children of Believers are no where, in the word of God, commanded to be baptized. This is that we call a begging of the questi­on. Is not Baptism as expresly commanded now, as Circumcision was then? But Infant Baptism he will say is not. Neither need there to be a new or distinct Command for it: Be­cause their right to be within the Church or Covenant, together with their Parents, is not a new Institution; but as old as Adam, for ought I know, says Dr. Wallis Defence of Infant Baptism, pag. 14. Printed Anno 97.; but the solemn Rite of admission into this Church, (to which the Children of Believers have a right to be admitted) is a new Institution. Then by Circumcision appointed to Abraham: And Now by Baptism upon a new Institution, ap­pointed by Christ, as the same Author expres­seth it.

Another Reason that he gives (which is the only one more that I need consider here) is, because there is a sore Punishment threaten'd on the Man-Child that is not circumcised Gen. 17.14., but no Punishment threaten'd in the whole Word of God, on an Infant for not being baptized. Answer, This Argument, were it [Page 62] of any force, doth militate against the Lord's Day succeeding the Sabbath Exod. 31.14., which never­theless he himself hath granted, and in some measure made good. Moreover the Punish­ment threaten'd, doth not affect Infants want­ing Circumcision, but Persons neglecting or contemning that Ordinance. The words in the Original import no more, Praeputiatus Mas, the uncircumcised Male, (so Junius con­ceives the word to be there taken, with re­ference only to the Sex, not to the Age) shall be cut off, not in his Infancy, but afterwards when he comes to Years of Discretion; if then he approves his Fathers or Guardians neglect, and neglect Circumcision him­self. Which Junius makes good by two Ar­guments. First, From the Original which may be rendred as well, and rather actively than passively, according to the different Ra­dix it may be derived from, thus, who shall not circumcise his fore-skin. Secondly, From the Reason that God himself there gives; for he hath broken my Covenant. Which is not in­cident unto Children, and therefore the threaten'd Punishment was very unlikely to be inflicted on them, who could not commit the Offence: We read that Moses was in dan­ger of being slain by the Angel, for neglecting to circumcise his Son Exod. 4.24., but nothing is said of the excision of his Son, but that afterwards he was circumcised though the eighth Day was past.

I have already observed in the beginning of this Reply, how absurdly he has gone a­bout to prove, that by Children, in Act. 2.39. are not meant Children as they are in a state of Infancy, making no difference between [Page 63] the Persons the Apostle spoke to, and those he spoke of, but implying that all those whom the Apostle asserted to have an interest in the Promise, must necessarily be only the ve­ry same Persons he was discoursing to, and therefore the Children, as the Answerer ex­plains himself, must be such as should be able to imbrace the precept to repent. A Conclusi­on that can in no wise follow from his premi­ses, and 'tis impossible it should from any other, since it would argue the Apostle himself to be guilty of vain tautology and imperti­nence, if no more were meant of their Chil­dren than of all the World. Besides there was no occasion for naming Children at all, but the sense had been as full without it. But this Answerer, not contenting himself with such absurd Arguing, as I have already noted, begets here a superfetation of absurdities, and further to shew his excellent faculty of quid­libet ex quolibet, closeth as it were every Pa­ragraph of this long Ramble, of almost three Pages with this fancy'd Inference: So from this, Infants ought not to be baptized, re­peating it no less than six times, without hardly varying one Word; not weighing how 'tis reduced, or brought in Head and Shoulders, so long as it may serve any way to amuse that poor ignorant misguided Sect. There is a parcel more of the like impertinent Stuff, for almost a Page and half immediate­ly following; which seeing it don't so near­ly touch the main matter in controversie, that I may not be too tedious, I will pass o­ver in silence, though he has deserved other Returns for his groundless Censures and Up­braidings, [Page 64] which he is forced to make use of for want of Reason.

In the next Words, Page 14. he brings me in saying, so that excluding Children from the Covenant, and debarring them of the Sign, puts a sacrilegious restraint there­on, and excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation. Whereto he returns this Answer, You put more stress upon it, than it will bear; but what doth he mean by that? Doth he deny the Proposition? That it doth not put a sacrilegious restraint upon the Co­venant? No such thing. Or doth he deny the Consequence that it excludes them from the ordinary way of Salvation? Not at all. What then! Doth he instance in any ordinary means, whereof they are capable? Not so neither. He mentions that of Rom. 10.14, 15. but himself hath observed, Page 11. that that goes beyond their capacity to make use of. And 'tis yet he says to prove that Baptism is an Ordinance of Christ for Infants. What then? Why he even makes the matter of no consequence at all, whether there be allowed them any ordinary means or no; tho' at the same time they allow them to have original Sin. There is then, according to him, no ordi­nary way left for the Salvation of Children. For as he intimates, in the beginning of this Page, a believers Child hath no Priviledge more then the unbelievers to any Ordinance of Christ: But how contrary is this Doctrine to that of our Saviour Mark 10.14? Where he says, of such is the Kingdom of God; which signifies their having an interest in Heaven hereafter, and consequently must imply their capacity of being of the visible [Page 65] Church here. And it must be primarily meant of Children, and not such only as are humble and innocent like them; otherwise the sense cannot be coherent: For what is the in­nocency and humility of such to Children, that they should be suffered more than Lambs, or the like humble and innocent Creatures to be brought to Christ, to be received into his Arms? Who might better have been propounded, as patterns of more perfect In­nocency, having no original Guilt; unless Christ had meant to be thus understood, Bring little Children to me, for to them, and such as are like them, belongs the Kingdom of Heaven Talium dicit non horum, quia com­prehendit tam pu­ellos quam eorum similes, saith Musculus, hac ergo voce Christus par­vulos & horum similes ad se pertinere testatur. So Calvin giving for a Reason, which St. Mark and St. Luke add, verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God, as a little Child, &c. insulse enim, as Marlor, sets down further. Anabap. pueros excludunt à quibus initium fieri debebat. And elsewhere, piorum liberos di­cimus Ecclesiae filios nasci & ab utero reputari in Christi membris, quia hac lege deus nos adoptat ut sit etiam seminis nostri pater..

Again what ground of comfort can such as he give to their Parents, in case of their Death, that they sorrow not as Men without hope? Seeing they don't appear to such to belong to Christ. And if withal they have no means to bring them to Christ, they may well be thought to be in a desperate Estate, while in their Infancy. Certainly it hath been lookt upon as a great advantage, to be in God's ordinary way of Salvation. In the time of the Jews, before and under the Law, 'twas a great preference to be of the num­ber of God's People, members of the visible Church, Branches of the Olive-Tree; and is [Page 66] it not now as great a Priviledge and Advan­tage to be in a like Covenant-relation, grafted into the same Olive-Tree? Or can it be rea­sonably supposed that God would so often, and so emphatically make Promises to the Righteous and their Seed, to be a God to them and theirs, if there was not somewhat of peculier preference intended them beyond those of the Wicked, or those that are out of God's visible Church? But if no more be intended, but upon condition of Faith and Repentance; this is equally true of the Chil­dren of the most profligate, and of Heathens, as of Jews and Christians: And Christ's coming must have rendred the condition of Children worse than before. Whatever then be the Priviledges of being within the Pale, and the Promise of the visible Church, they must belong to the Children of Believers now, as they did to the Seed of Abraham here­tofore: By being such, they have jus ad rem, a right thereunto; and by being baptized, they have jus in re, and are as it were put into the possession of the same. So that denying them Baptism, we do as much as lies in us de­bar them of the outward means, the enjoy­ment of the Priviledge of being in the Church, and the benefits thereunto appertaining.

Should a like Question be put concerning a baptized Christian, a member of Christ's Church, with that which the Apostle pro­poseth, Rom. 3.1. touching a circumcised Jew, What advantage— the Answer may be the same with his. v. 2. Much every way: And in Rom. 9.4, 5. are reckoned up no fewer then eight Priviledges or Prerogatives be­longing to a Jew upon the score of that Re­lation. [Page 67] The same advantage that there was then to the Jews, (as God's visible Church) is now common to the Gentiles also; and if Children were sharers therein with their Pa­rents, during the former Administration, how are they excluded now? Those Chil­dren more particularly, whose Parents kept their Station Rom. 11.5, 17.; and if some Children continu­ed within, because their Parents so continu­ed; what hinders but others should be ad­mitted, whose Parents are re-instated, or have gained a like Priviledge with those that are?

The Prophet Elisha wept when he look­ed upon Hazael; because he foresaw he would dash the Infants of Israel against the Wall; and even Hazael thought himself wor­thy to be esteemed a Dog, if ever he should do such a thing. But certainly to dash all the Infant Children of Believers out of the Cove­nant of Grace (as much as in them lies) and to deprive them of the Seal of it, is in a spiri­tual Sense far more heavy; and I dare appeal to the tender Bowels of any believing Parents, whether it were not easier for them to think that their Children should be dashed against the Stones, and yet in the mean time to die under Christ's Wing, as visible members of his Kingdom; rather than to have them live, and behold them to have a visible stand­ing only in the Kingdom of the Devil. We read of Herod the Tyrant, that he destroyed all the Children in Bethlehem and the Coasts thereof, from two Years old and under: But is it not a far more cruel sentence, to set these in no better state than Pagans and Infi­dels, without Christ, Aliens from the Com­mon-wealth [Page 68] of Israel, strangers from the Covenant of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the World? How far Hea­ven extends its mercy to those that are with­out means, and cannot use them, is a Myste­ry hid from us, and known only unto God. 'Tis our Happiness, that he hath not left us destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation, with respect to our Children as well as to our selves; and therefore whatsoever means of Grace God has appointed, as Instrumental to that end that they are capable of, are to be afforded them; unless God hath made any particular exception in the Case. And Bap­tism being appointed by God as such a means, we cannot well Administer it too early to our Children; for tho' it doth not confer Grace, ex opere operato, yet it always doth so, when God is pleased to vouchsafe the concur­rence and co-operation of his Holy Spirit with it. And we know not how soon the operation may be, how soon God may by his Grace pre-dispose their Souls to an aptness for good through the means; it may be long before they are in a capacity to Act any, and therefore the Ordinance ought by no means to be withheld from them or neglected.

Pag. 16. He questions what a Disciple is, whether he be not a Scholar or one taught, and whether Infants can be said to be Disci­ples, till they are taught? To this I Answer, That a Disciple in the New Testament is the same with Christian Act. 11.26., any one that hath a Relation unto Christ, and so of as large an extent as the word Israel in the Old Testa­ment. Infants therefore having a Relation unto Christ are of his Body, not Heathens [Page 69] but Christians, and so consequently Disci­ples infieri; not for that they are actually taught of God, but because they are, as I may say, retainers to Christ, and designed for his School; into which when they are ad­mitted or initiated by Baptism, they are more compleatly Disciples, Disciples in facto esse, having then not only a right to, but are invested with the Priviledge of those that are properly and actually Scholars or Disci­ples, not as being personally instructed, but as consecrated and set apart for the service of Heaven; placed so, as to be reckoned Scho­lars of Christ, being entered into his School, tho' they be no Proficients. And thus, they are commonly reputed of the number of the Scholars or Disciples, who are admitted in­to a School, and only entered there to learn, tho' they have not learnt a Lesson or a Letter. As John the Baptist baptized to Repentance, or in order to it. Who should limit God? May not he make Disciples several Ways? By the Administration of the Ordinance of Baptism, and so by putting on them his Livery; or by teaching them by his Spirit from the greatest to the least; by writing his Laws in their Hearts; or by graciously accepting them into his Covenant with their Parents; or bringing them under a Religious Govern­ment?

Page 18. He would know, whether I can tell Lydia was a Maid, Wife, or Widow, or whether there were any Infants in her House? I answer, 'Tis plain she had a Family, and that upon her Faith alone they were brought into God's ordinary way of Salvation, and [Page 70] were forthwith baptized Act. 16.15.; unless they'l understand by her House the Stone-Walls.

By Salvation coming to Zacheus's House, he understands (Page 19.) the Messiah. Answer, Christ would have rather said I am the Messiah, which had been true, whether Za­cheus was the Son of Abraham or no, and so there had been no occasion of giving that Reason, that the Covenant of Abraham reach­ed him: But why doth he so perversely un­derstand by Salvation, the Person only of the Messiah, but purposely to avoid the Argu­ment; which yet is no other but what the whole Current of the Scripture holds forth, viz. That the blessing of Abraham immediate­ly descends to an House or Family, upon the Conversion of the Head or Chief thereof. But none are more blind than they that will not see.

In the forementioned 18 and 19 Pages, he endeavours to render it probable, there were no Infants in the Housholds I had instanced in; but there is enough said in these instan­ces, that the blessing of Abraham, viz. Sal­vation, came to an House, especially to the Children, if any such there were, upon the Faith or Conversion of the Chief; that 'twas usual for the whole Family thereupon to be put into the ordinary way of Salvation, ad­ded to the Church to be saved; and especially Children that have not committed actual Sins, nor could reject the Counsel of God against themselves. Whereas there might have been perchance some others in the Families, who with those Pharisees and Lawyers might have so done, and so have rendred themselves un­worthy [Page 71] of the blessing; but this could not have been incident unto the Children.

The stress then of the business lies not in this: Whether it can be proved there were Infants in those Families, where 'tis recorded whole Housholds were baptized; but the truth of the Case is this, That in all Families whatsoever, were there never so many In­fants they were all baptized, when their Pa­rents were baptized. Which shews the va­nity of this repeated saying, Not one word of an Infant in this House, Not one word of Infants in all those Housholds, and the like.

Now to retort this their negative Argument upon themselves, let it be demanded, where they find mention in Scripture of any Children of Christian Covenanting-Parents that were baptized, when they came to Years of Di­scretion, and not before. That they were baptized I suppose they'l not deny; and if so, let them shew where and when, for this let all the sacred Register be searched, from the time that John the Baptist began his Mi­nistry, to the time that John the Evangelist ended his, (which was above 60 Years, during which time thousands, if not millions of Children of such Parents were grown up to Maturity) and if in all that time they can but shew any one Instance of any Child so priviledged, whose Baptism was deferred till he came to Years of Discretion, and that then he was baptized, it may then be acknowledg­ed, that there is some strength in their Ne­gative Allegations. In the mean time hav­ing such general Instances of baptizing whole Families, surely we have more reason to believe that Infants were comprehended, and [Page 72] are to be reckoned in the number, than they have for the contrary. I said we read of none laid aside or excluded Baptism upon the Account of their Non-Age. To this he answers, Page 20. We never read in the whole Word of God, that ever any Infant was commanded or offered to be baptized, and if so, how should we read of any laid aside or excluded, that were Non-sense. But I say again, Is there any Direction given in the Gospel to lay them aside, in case they be of­fered to Baptism? And who can say they were not offered? Where then is the Non-sense? Can it be imagined, but that the Jews brought their Children with them to the Bap­tist, to save them as well as themselves from the wrath to come, who were so tender of their Children, and so zealous for their Cir­cumcision, they who had been always used to have their Infants admitted into the same Co­venant with themselves, by vertue of a Di­vine Law, would have raised great Argu­ments against the Divine Authority of Christ, if he or his Disciples in his Name, had refu­sed to admit their Children together with themselves into this Covenant, of which they taught God's Messiah to be the Mediatour. So that 'tis no Non-sense, to suppose that we should have heard in the Gospel of Children being excluded, if they had not been of course admitted. I ask therefore again, shew us in any place of Scripture, where any one was excluded Baptism upon the account of Non-age, particularly such a one whose Parents were admitted thereto; for if in that sacred Book, such are not expresly excluded, we are to take it for granted, they are not to be ex­cluded [Page 73] at all; since it hath been God's con­stant Method to take Children into his Co­venant, when he took in the Parents. Thus for instance, the Covenant made with innocent Adam included his Infant Children. The Co­venant made with Abraham (which hath been already proved to be the Gospel Covenant) included his Children. So the legal Cove­nant of which Moses was Mediatour, included the Jewish Infants also: Therefore they should shew us, where God hath altered this Method in the Gospel; or else we are to take it pro­confesso, that God hath not altered this his constant Method. And the Abrahamical Co­venant which included Infants (seeing it could not be disanull'd by the legal Covenant) conti­nued till Christ unrepealed. Gal. 3.17. If therefore they can't shew, that 'tis repealed by Christ, we are to conclude that 'tis not repealed at all.

Wherefore our negative Argument is more cogent from Scripture, for Infants being in Covenant with their Parents, and that they have a right thereupon to Baptism, than theirs is against it, and proceeds on the fairest and most credible Grounds. As first, That there were Children in some at least of those Housholds that are said to be baptized upon the Conversion of the Chief of the Family. Secondly, That if the Jewish Converts In­fants had been forbidden Baptism, they would have made such a noise about it, that the sa­cred History of those times must needs have taken notice of it. And lastly, It having been God's constant Method, when ever he made a Covenant before Christ came, to include the Infants in it, and particularly God having by [Page 74] an express Law commanded Infants to be admitted to the sign and seal of the Gospel Abrahamical Covenant, it must be supposed that God, if he had intended to exclude In­fants from the sign and seal of the Gospel-Co­venant under Christ, would have signified his Pleasure, that his former Method of dealing with Infants was altered, or that the afore­said Law in the Covenant with Abraham was as to Infants repealed. Whereas the Anti­paedo-Baptists negative Argument proceeds upon all the contrary improbable Grounds, and therefore their objecting, that we have no certain instance of the Baptism of any such, and that we don't read that ever they were offered to be baptized, is of no force; for it shall be presumed by vertue of that Law which is unrepealed, viz. That Children should keep the Covenant in the sign of it, that they were both offered and admitted of Course. How highly had the Jews been scandalized, if the first Planters of Christianity had deny­ed an admission of Infants into the Covenant under the Gospel despensation, when they had ever been allowed it under the Mosaick oeco­nomy, and had wholly shut them out like the Children of Infidels? This must in all proba­bility have galled them, to see their Infants so treated, to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that embraced, and those that resisted the Faith, having al­ways reckoned upon Pagans Children as com­mon and unclean, but their own as separate and holy. St. Paul makes the same distincti­on, that tho' but one of the Parents be a Be­liever, yet they are so far sanctified each to other, that their Children are thereby entitled [Page 75] to the Covenant of Grace, which they had not been, if both the Parents had been un­believers. Had St. Paul taught a contrary Doctrine, or any other of the Apostles, viz. That the Children of Christian Parents had no more right to Baptismal Initiation, than those of Heathen Idolaters, it would cer­tainly have offended them more than all they preached against Circumcision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law.

Page the 17. He hath these Words: The nearer you are to the Truth, the further off you are from the Papists, and the further off from the Truth the nearer to them. Which is so false, that 'tis not in the least deserving a confutation; since they hold most, if not all the fundamental Articles of Faith, how e're they may endanger the Foundation by their building Hay and Stubble thereon. But it sig­nifies nothing it seems, to retort upon them for symbolizing with the Papists, tho' in points diametrically opposite to the Prote­stant Religion; it don't affect them, as he gives us to understand in the Words just be­fore; neither will they be concern'd to take notice of any such charge. At this rate they themselves may fall into the grossest Principles of Popery, and yet be nearer the Truth, and it must pass for sound Protestant Doctrine. And no reflection must be made, as if they had a Prerogative peculiar to their Sect, that whatsoever opinion they espouse (they are so infallible in their Tenets) though it be never so Erroneous and Popish, it immediately commenceth Orthodox.

To my saying and proving that Antiquity is on our side; instead of answering the [Page 76] Authorities, he says, Page 23. that 'tis my great Mistake, and wonders how I could assert such a thing; since they can go back as far as John, and Christ, and his Apostles. Now I must and do acknowledge, that no Argument or Antiquity is equal to the Scrip­tures, when the Interpretations are not doubtful; yet when they are so, I appeal to any sober Dissenter of whatsoever Sect or Par­ty, whether the harmonious Practice of the an­cient Churches, and the undivided consent of A­postolical Fathers, be not the most sure and au­thentick Interpreters that can be betwixt Men and Men; they thought Infant Baptism law­ful and valid, and no abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism. And let any modest or mode­rate Man judge whether it be likely that those famous Saints and Martyrs, so near the Apo­stles times, should fall into such a delusion, as as to conspire in the Doctrine and practice of a Mock-Baptism, and of making multitudes of supposititious Christians and Churches? Or whether it be not more probable, that a little Sect, repugnant to all the Ancient as well as modern Churches, should be in an Error. The very Scriptures, whose sufficiency we admire as well as they, cannot be prov­ed to be the Word of God without Tra­dition; and though they are sufficient, where they are understood, to determine any Controversie; yet the right Understand­ing and Interpretation of them in many Points, the practice of the Church is as requi­site, as the practice of the Court is to under­stand the Book of the Law.

I may further observe to them, that they themselves cannot defend, according to their [Page 77] own Postulatum, the baptizing of such grown Persons, as were born and bred in the Church, from the Scripture; for that the very Insti­tution there, of Baptism, hath a special regard to Proselytes, who from Judaisme or Genti­lisme were coming over to the Christian Faith. Neither can they produce a Prece­dent of such an one baptized in the New Testament, but all the baptized Persons we read of in it, were Jews or Gentiles of an ex­piring or false Religion newly converted; and therefore according to their own de­mands, if to justifie their own practice, they must produce such a particular Distinct Pre­cept or Example; they cannot defend them­selves against the Quakers, who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism; nor against the opinion of the Socinians, who use this very way of Argumen­tation for the Non-necessity of Water-Baptism. Though they think good in their present Cir­cumstances to practise it Vid. Johannis Vol­kelii, Misnici de verà Re­ligione Lib. 6. Cap. 14. de Aqua-Baptismo ab Apo­stolis Usurpato, pag. 663..

In the same Page he saith, 'tis strange rea­soning to Argue, that 'twas not likely that St. Paul was dipt when he was baptized, seeing he was Sick and Weak, having fasted three Days, &c. Methinks he should rather have said strong reasoning, being it would be so unsuitable to the easiness of Christ's Yoak; who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice. Ay, but saith this Answerer, he being command­ed to be baptized, closed with the Command; and did not consult with Flesh and Blood. Very good, it would ill become him to di­spute God's Commandment, but was the manner prescribed? That it must be by dip­ping [Page 78] the whole Body under Water, or plung­ing it as they do with their Cloaths on, which would be rather a baptizing of Gar­ments than of Bodies; nothing of this ap­pears. All Circumstances agree, that he was not so baptized: Such a penance to St. Paul in his Condition, had perhaps been more Unsup­portable than Circumcision, and more dan­gerous than whatever the Ceremonial Law required; to those therefore who are such stubborn Assertors of the Doctrine of dip­ping, that of St. Peter may be well applyed: Why tempt ye God to put such a Yoak on the Necks of Christians, that are not able to bear it? And let them fear who submit there­to, that God say not unto them at last, who hath required this at your Hands?

What he saith to the Instance of the Goa­ler, is in short this: If they had not gone forth out of his House, how could he say, when he had brought them into his House? As if the Keeper had not, or might not have an Apartment in the Prison peculiar to himself, and distinct from that of the Male­factors?

He is again with my strange reasoning, Page 24. about the manner of Philip's baptiz­ing of the Eunuch. It seems 'twas too diffi­cult for him to Answer to any purpose; and therefore he bids me to leave off such Carnal Reasonings. But what doth he seem to say to it, he endeavours to shew that Philip and the Eunuch's meeting could not be accidental, as I had observed, for this very Reason: Because it was eminently Providential, which argues that he is so very Simple and Ignorant, that he understands not what accidental Means, or [Page 79] that he most erroneously thinks that some things may happen or fall out without the Divine Prescience, and in which the Provi­dence of God is not concern'd. He hath a mere Figment of his own Invention, though he don't apply it, which would argue, that their Meeting was not altogether accidental, but that Philip at least had some previous Knowledge thereof; for he says, Act. 8.26. The Angel of the Lord bids him, arise and go to meet him: When as there is no such thing in the Text. And therefore he may justly fear, lest that Curse he more than once causelesly alludes to Page 22. as of so tremen­dous and dangerous a Consequence, should light upon himself, for having so palpably and so grosly added to the Word, and to the be­lying of the Angel, making him say what he did not.

But he saith 'tis hard for him to believe, that I really think that they were baptized so by sprinkling, though I so write, and ap­peals to me, whether the word Baptize doth not signifie to dip or plunge and not to Sprin­kle? I have shewn that the Word signifies not only to dip, but to wash or pour on Wa­ter, or to Sprinkle, and is often so used in Scripture; and gave instances of which he takes no notice. Christ no where requires dip­ping but baptizing. And as to the method or manner how it should be done, the Scrip­ture is silent; nor can there be an Example produced absolutely for dipping: I believe that some were baptized in Scripture, by pouring on of Water, or by Sprinkling; o­thers by dipping: But I question, whether after the manner of our Anabaptists. We [Page 80] don't deny dipping as in it self unlawful, as they do pouring on of Water, or Sprink­ling; but we say, the practice is Schismatical when done in opposition, and dangerous in such a cold Climate, and in some seasons of the Year. And when too the Party is of a, weak and sickly Constitution: And troubled with Catarrhs, Consumptions, and the like.

Page the 26. He pleads for dipping from the significancy of the Ceremony, referring to Colos. 2.12. I do not in the least deny, but that it seems to follow from thence, that there was such a Custom in those Days as to Baptize by immersion, which carryed a very sensible shew of a Burial and a Resurrection, but the Negative cannot be thence concluded, that there was no other way of baptizing but that, nor is it probable there was no other way; because there are other Texts of Scripture, which allude to sprink­ling in Baptism, as this doth to dipping: And the like Collection must be allowed to be made from the one, that is made from the other; and farther, because there may be and is a Baptismal re­presentation made of a Burial, and of a Resurrection in asper­sion and affusion of Water, as well as in dipping Vossius cites several Authors, who deny any such Representation to be required, the thing being as they say but accidental and not essential to Bap­tism, and in case there ought to be at least some similitude of that Nature, this he tells us, is exprest in aspersione, etiam vel perfusione, quia cujus caput, as he adds, a­spergitur vel perfunditur, is aquis istis quasi sepeli­tur. Theses Theolo­gicae, pag. 360.. He that hath Water poured on him as well as he that is dipt, is put under Water: And the Water falling on him that is sprinkled, fairly represents the Earth fall­ing upon him that is Buried, and speaks the similitude of a Burial. And by the one as well as by the other, we may be said [Page 81] to be buried with Christ by Baptism into Death. The Representation then is made both ways, tho' in the one 'tis more lively and sen­sible than in the other; and the appearing a­gain after, and from under that affusion, re­presents also a Resurrection; so that the Symbol is not spoiled here. Accordingly in the Provincial Council of Colen Sub Her­manno Celebrato, Anno 1530., sprinkling as well as dipping is indifferently spoken of, as expressive of a Type of Christ's three Days Burial, and our conformity to him in that and his Resurrection. Moreover Christ's bodily Actions and Passions must be imitated and re­presented by us after a spiritual way; and 'tis a vain thing to imagine, that every Me­taphorical Expression used in the Scripture, signifying our Communion with Christ and conformity to him, should punctually express the Mystery in the Sacrament, both as to the Letter and Spirit. The Metaphorical Expres­sions are various: Putting him on, buried with him, sprinkling with his Blood. And what hinders but that the Symbolical Ceremo­nies and the Sacramental Signs may be so too, or at least variously used, or accompani­ed with various circumstantial Ceremonies? One Sign after one, and the same way admi­nistred, cannot express our Communion with Christ and our conformity to him in his Death and Resurrrection, as to all the foregoing Metaphors. Our Communion with Christ in his Death and Resurrection, and our conformity to him therein is the sa­cramental Grace, and that being represented as well by sprinkling or pouring on of Wa­ter, as by dipping; it follows, that Water in either way of application is Sacramental. A­gain, [Page 82] our washing and cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ, and the raising up our Souls to a spiritual Life, being the principal effects of Christ's Death and Resurrection represen­ted and sealed in the Sacrament, is truly set out as hath been shewed by sprinkling as well as by dipping. Hence under the Law the sacrificial cleansing was done by sprink­ling in some Cases, and by dipping in others Numb. 19.18, 19. Heb. 9.13., and the purifying by Christ's Blood is equally represented by both, called therefore the Blood of sprinkling, and sprinkling of Blood Heb. 12.24. 1 Pet. 1.2..

In his Conclusion, not to spare me, but to tell me my own, he reminds me of his old Item, formerly given, that we have nei­ther Precept nor Example for Infant-Baptism. So say the Papists as well as the Anabaptists, tho' in other Words: That 'tis a mere Ec­clesiastical Constitution, no Divine Apostoli­cal Ordinance. In this they are not unlike Sampson's Foxes joyned together by the Tails, whilst their Heads look several ways; both asserting the same Position; tho' to diffe­rent Ends; the one to establish human Tra­dition, the other to undermine a Divine Or­dinance. But I reply, nothing is more cer­tain, than that the Ordinance of Baptism is instituted and appointed us in the Gospel. But there is no distinct Precept, that parti­cularly determines us to administer it to those of such or such an Age, or more to Persons of one Age than another, but 'tis left to us to apply the Ordinance to those we find qua­lified, according to the rules and directions given us in the Word of God, without any re­spect to the Age. Neither do I know the par­ticular [Page 83] Age of any one baptized in Scripture. Unless that our Saviour was then about thirty Years old Luke 3.21, 22, 23. Answering therein the legal Type of the Priests and Levites, who ordi­narily en­tered not their Fun­ction till at that Age. Num. 4.3, 23, 30.; but who will say, that we are bound precisely to observe that Time in our reception of Baptism? If you say in general Terms, it must be when we are come to the Age of Maturity or Discretion, let it be prov­ed, that the Scripture either by Precept or Example hath limitted it to that only, or that the adult or grown Persons are declared in Scripture to be the only qualified Persons; or that those in the state of Infancy are de­clared not be qualified or capable, and you have gained the Point. But the Scripture shews that the one sort are in this respect as qualified and capable as the other: And therefore the Precept makes it as much our Duty, to administer Baptism to such as are in the state of Infancy, as to the Adult. We don't Baptize Infants as excluding grown Persons, nor grown Persons as excluding In­fants: Before and under the Law they were commanded Circumcision precisely the eighth Day, but not so as to exempt others of other Ages. For Abraham was circumcised at 99, and Ismael at 13 Years old Gen. 17.24, 25.; and after­wards, if through neglect or otherwise the time laps'd, as in the instance about which Moses Exod. 24.25. was concerned, Joshua 5.2. or that of the Jews, while in the Wilderness, they were not excu­sed altogether from being circumcised.

Now I have demonstrated that that Com­mand of God, to keep his Covenant in the Sign thereof, whatsoever it be, is still of force; and that as Children and others were con­cern'd to keep this Command, when Circum­cision was the Token; so Children and others [Page 84] are in like manner bound to do so, now Bap­tism is the Token. I have also shewed that Children are as fully commanded to be bap­tized, as any others by Christ's Commission. Go Disciple all Nations, baptizing them: Their Discipleship is their qualification for the sus­ception of Baptism. And that Children, whose natural or adopted Parents are Believ­ers, are Disciples, I have aboundantly prov­ed. First, In that they have an interest in the Promise or Covenant. Secondly, In that they are made so, by God's graciously calling them in their Parents. Thirdly, Because they are reckoned as such by Christ, for that they belong to him. And Fourthly, Because they are so called by the Holy Ghost. To all which he hath not returned a word in Answer. Seeing then such are Disciples, who can for­bid Water, that they should not be baptiz­ed? There being nothing in the Commission, as I have observed, to interpose between di­scipling and baptizing.

If it be said the Command don't run to Baptize all Disciples, but to make Disciples: And to Baptize those that they make, and that 'tis not in the Power of Man to make Children Disciples. I answer, this alters not the Case, as appears in the instance of Saul being baptized of Ananias, who yet was not made a Disciple by him, but immediately by God. And they had it in their Commission to Disciple Children, as being part of a Nation; and 'tis not to be supposed that they were commanded Impossibilities. The plain truth of the matter is this, some Infants are and o­thers may be made Disciples, otherwise a Na­tion cannot be discipled, whereof Infants are [Page 85] no small part; or Christ gives in his Com­mission what is impossible. To understand it of as many or few as Men list of a Nation, is against the sense of the Scripture, which plain­ly is, That the whole of the Nations where­ever they came was in their Commission to Disciple Deut. 3.28. Psal. 2.8.72.11.86.9. Mic. 4.1.. To this purpose compare Scrip­ture-Prophesies Qui dixit omnes nullos ex­cludit ne­que par­vulos, saith St. Ambr., with this Commission gi­ven in charge by Christ Rev. 11.15., and what the Spi­rit of God hath foretold in those Prophesies, that in succession of time must be effected; When the Kingdoms of the Earth shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and his Christ Rev. 11.15.. And in Europe, to look to no other parts of the World, it hath been happily accomplish­ed. If they think to evade this by that di­stinction of the Apostle Rom. 9.6., they are not all Israel which are of Israel: That distinction can be no otherwise applicable to the Christi­an Nations, than to the Nation of Israel, and so 'twill still entitle Christian Nations to the Covenant of God, and to the Priviledge of Ordinances, notwithstanding there be a­mongst these Disciples who are called, many that are not chosen. They have then the whole of the Nation in their Commission; and it must be their endeavour in the utmost extent of the Word to Disciple it; yet this Work in no one Nation can be done in an instant. As a Nation cannot be born, so it cannot in a Day be discipled: The meaning therefore is, to Disciple Nations, that is the whole of any Nation, and being discipled to Baptize them; yet they are by degrees to Baptize, as they can Disciple, till the whole of the Nation be discipled and baptized; which can never come to pass, unless Children, [Page 86] who are a considerable part, may be disci­pled.

But if this will not satisfie, unless they may understand too how they can be discipled: I Answer. Some are made Disciples in their Parents; so that in discipling the Parents we Disciple them. Others are made Disciples by adopting them into the Family of Christ's Church; that is bringing them under a Chri­stian Government and Tuition; who are hence forth no more common or unclean, but separate and holy, within the Covenant, and consequently to be baptized; as those that were adopted into Abraham's Family were within the Covenant with others, and to be circumcized, tho' they were not of the Seed, as 'tis noted in the same verse Gen. 17.12., being they were under his Power and Education.

Thus, I hope, I have evinced, beyond all contradiction, that Christ's Commission is as full for baptizing Infants, as any others. Therefore how many untruths may he be just­ly charged with and convicted of, who hath so often said in his Papers, that we have not one Word of God, not one Precept or Pre­cedent in Scripture for baptizing Infants?