CHAP. I. The Authors first Argument, That Be­lievers Baptisme is the only true Baptism, drawn from Christs positive Institution and Commission. Mat. 28.18, 19. Mark 16.16. Examined and Confuted.

THese are the prime Texts, upon which Antipaedobaptists lay the greatest stress, as conceiving they have sure warrant from hence, for their practice, and that from the same places Ours is condemnable. Out of this Armory do they fetch their keenest Weapons and most triumphant Arguments; And indeed all that they say besides is, vox & praeterea nihil, a great sound of words to little purpose. This is the Palmarium argumentum, their victorious and unanswerable Argument, as they imagine so; None are to be Babtized, but those who are first taught, but Infants are not teachable, Ergo they ought not to be baptized; and again, he that Believeth and is Baptized, Infants cannot believe, therefore must not be Baptized. We (say they) follow the Rule of Institution, [Page 2]you who are Paedobaptists cross it, and cannot ac­quit our selves of Will-worship. And I confess this is a plausible way of arguing and very taking with Vulgar capacities, and I wonder, no more of weak understanding and tender consciences are proselyted to their way. They have the advan­tage of us, to gain upon such. Yet notwith­standing their great confidence, that they have both Scripture and Reason on their side, I hope, to make it appear to those who are not over­grown with Partiality and Prejudice that their Arguments weigh light in the Ballance of the Sanctuary. For as Mr. Sy­denham observes the words of Christ in both these places of Matthew and Mark, Sydenhams Christian sober and plain Ex­ercitation on Infant Baptism. do not hold forth the proper Sub­jects of Baptism, or the form or manner of bap­tizing, being delivered in general, and indefi­nite terms — As all Nations, every creature by transitive words, Teach them, Preach the Gos­pel. Wherefore if these be the prime Institution of Baptising, from which they exclude Infants, when Christ useth such universal and compre­hensive expressions, we shall desire (saith he) but to deal with them, on their ground, and the same Text will serve to prove our positions more de­monstratively then theirs. But that we may the better understand the import of both places, I shall a little explicate them by way of Para­phrase, premising only this, that neither of them do contain the first institution of Baptism, but only an inlargement of the Commission in re­ference to the Gentiles, upon the Resurrection of Christ.

First for that in Matthew — Go ye therefore and teach all Nations. Beza observes that in the antient Copies [therefore] is wanting and in­stead of it he finds the particle [ [...]] now, in one of most Antient date, which Circumstance of time is of great remark. For now the Com­mission of baptizing the Gentiles was to be bro­ken up, now Christ was risen, Circumcision, which was the old seal of the Covenant of grace, under the former Administration, was broken and abolished, and the Lord ordains a new one, viz. Baptisme, to take place instead thereof, under the Gospel-Administration [go now] Now I am risen, before which time neither Gospel nor Bap­tism was to be offered them; For the command was, Go not into the way of the Gentiles. [And teach all Nations] [...]. Discipulos fa­cite, Disciple them as Antipedobaptists will have it, and we own it as the right Translation of the word, for it is not [...], which properly signifies Teach ye; and so the Participle, [...], is rightly rendred in the following words added to the charge [Teaching them to observe] Let us now come to see what improvement our opposits do make from hence to exclude the Infants of believers out of Christs Commission to be Baptized, and that the Baptisme of Believers is the only true Baptisme. Their Argument in form runs thus, viz, Ministers ought to follow their Commission: But to make Disciples be­fore Baptizing, is the Ministers Commission. Ergo.

To this we answer, That the Assumption is Ambiguous; for making Disciples may be taken two ways.

First, For an immediate present making only; and so it is not Christs Commission, If you take it exclusively, as if none must be baptized but those who immediately in their own persons are made Disciples.

Secondly, For a Mediate remote making also; and thus must the Commission be understood. The meaning is, Baptize those whom you find to be in a State of Disciples, whether presently by you, or formerly by some body else, whe­ther personally by themselves, or Seminally by and in their Parents. Let them be in State of Disciples, and then, if not baptiz'd before, bap­tize them. It is the State of a Disciple, not the time when, nor manner how, which the Bap­tizer is to look on. Ananias finding Saul in the State of a Disciple must baptize him, though neither he, nor any Minister else before did make him so; however he being a Disciple, though not made by man, must be baptized. Thus then take the Assumption, as it ought to be taken, and we grant the Argument; for it concludes not against Infant-Baptism, for they are Disciples not of mans, but Gods making, vouchsafing gra­tiously in their believing Parents to accept them also into his Covenant, and so into the State of Disciples, and consequently by Christs own Com­mission they are to be baptized.

That infants of Believers are Disciples is evi­dent.

1. Because they were so under the old Testa­ment-Administration, and why not then under the new? The Proselytes in the Jewish Church coming in, brought their Infants into the same [Page 5]capacity or state of Proselytes; therefore believ­ers coming in to be Disciples, bring in their children to the same state too, or else the state of the Gospel is worse in regard of outward privi­ledges then the Law.

2. By conferring that of Mat. 10.42. with that of Mark 9.41. it appears, that to belong to Christ, is in Christs dialect the same with being a Disciple, but Infants of Believers do belong to Christ.

3. To put all beyond doubt, we have an ex­press word for it, Act. 15.10. Where the Phari­sees pressing that it was needful to Circumcise the Gentiles after the manner of Moses, (that is, to be Proselyted by Circumcision) is called a putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples. And since the manner of Moses was to circum­cise Proselytes, both Fathers and Children, and the pressing the continuance thereof among all Gentiles Proselyted to Christianity, is termed the putting a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disci­ples, the children as well as the Fathers must be meant by the Disciples. There is no evasion of this, though I find Mr. Tombes keeps a great stir about it; for as Mr. Sydenham argues, if they say it was meant of the Fathers, and of the Doctrine of Circumcision, yet they must grant the Yoke was on their Children as to the Act, and if the Doctrine was so burthensome, much more the Practice, which the poor Infants are under; And they are called Disciples indefinitely, ei­ther by themselves or with their Parents; if a­ny distinction be made, it must be in the man­ner of laying on the Yoke, viz. on the Parents [Page 6] Doctrinally, on the Children actually, but there can be no Restriction of the word Disciple from these, on whom that Yoak was laid, as is exprest in that Chapter.

But it may farther be objected, The Com­mission it self shews what kind of Disciples Christ means in these words [Teaching them to observe] so as Infants are not concern'd as Disciples in it, being in no capacity to be taught or to observe. But let it be withall considered, That Christ adds those words to his charge in regard of the con­dition of the persons, to whom he was sending his Apostles, viz. to Nations, All Nations, that is, the Gentiles who were Aliens; All Nations here, being put in immediate Opposition to that one Nation of the Jews. They were sent to them that were not in a State of Disciples, and therefore they were to be made so, by present a­ctual teaching. As the Nation of the Jews and the Proselytes that came into them were first taught and then Circumcised, but their children were circumcised before they were taught. So then in this commission we must distinguish the substance from variable circumstances. The sub­stance is to baptize Disciples, but whether by Precedent, Teaching, or not, depends on varia­ble circumstances of the State of the Persons, to whom Christs Ministers are sent, be they such as the Apostles were then sent to, they must be Dis­cipuli facti, made Disciples by Preaching, and then be Baptized: But be they the seed of Dis­ciples, they are Discipuli nati, born Disciples by the Relation of the covenant, and so may have the seal set on them, without any preceding teach­ing.

4. Lastly, not to insist upon that, that Infants are Christs Disciples, because all Nations must be Discipled, and Infants are included in those Nations; we conceive we have no obscure ground for the Baptizing the Children of Be­lievers, because as Mr. Ains­worth on Gen. 17. Mr. Tombes saith in his Examen, pag. 89. That it is well known, Baptisme was in use among the Jews in the ini­tiating Proselytes for many years to­gether, with Cir­cumcision; & quotes Selden and Ains­worth for it. and Mr. God­wyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 10. do in­form us, Baptism was in use as a kind of Initiation among the Jews, though it was not a Sacrament till Christ his Institution, and therefore this Rite seemed no strange thing unto them, as appeareth by their coming to John, que­stioning not so much his Baptisme as his Autho­rity, by what authority he Baptized, John 1. 25. For (as the Learned Dr. Hammond observes) the Institutions of Christ (who came first Messias to that people, was born of that Nation, lived re­gularly under their law, and observed their cu­stomes) were by him drawn from their former practices in the old Testament, and so were lightly changed and accomodated to his own purposes; he instanceth in divers things, and at length comes to this of Baptisme, or Washing; a known right for initiating the Jews and Prose­lytes into the Covenant of the Lord. For he doth abundantly shew out of the Talmud and Rabbies, that the way of entring into the Cove­nant, was by Circumcision and Baptism: so says Mr. Godwyn also in the place before mentioned. And [Page 8]as the Natural Jews were thus entred, so were the Proselytes, and as the Proselytes of age, so also were their Infant-Children Baptized. So the Gemara Babyl. tit, Chetub. c. 1. They baptize the little, or young stranger, or Proselyte, as the Hebrew hath it: And Maimonides in tit. Isuri bia. c. 13. They Baptize the Infant or little Stran­ger, upon the knowledge of the house of judgement. i.e. on their desire in behalf of their Children. From all which it appears that the Jewish Cere­mony of Baptizing, was accomodated by Christ to the Right of our initiation of the Profession of Christ; whereof (saith he) we have as little reason to doubt, as that a Picture was taken from that Face, which it resembleth to the life. And from hence we have (as he conceives, and that very rationally) a clear foundation for our practice, namely, to baptize, not only those who make a profession of their Faith in Christ, but likewise their Children with them. And though some men of late years have denyed the warrant­ableness thereof, and darkned the truth by their arguings against it; yet one may well suppose it was clear and obvious enough to the Apostles (from the knowledge they had of the former ad­ministration, which took-in the Children with the Parents into Covenant) for if it had not been Christs mind, believers Children should be seal­ed with Baptism under the new administration, he would certainly have given some intimation thereof, and given his Apostles some such cauti­on as this (when he sent them to Disciple all Na­tions, and Baptize them) See that you do not bap­tize Children. Lastly, we may from hence also [Page 9]gain light, that the Essence of Baptism doth not lye in being immerst or plunged under water, for it can never be proved that this was the manner of the Jewes Baptizing persons or things. I shall shut up this with a passage of the Learned and Godly Bucer, upon these words, Sane dum non habent locum quo praecipi­tur tantum doctos baptizari nihil, robo­ris suae sententia hinc adferent; etenim nos docemus antequam baptizemus. Ne quid vel his, vel iospiam alibi Scripturarum habetur neminem bap­tizari debere, nisi ille Doctrinam Christi per se quoque perceperit. Bucer in locum. Go teach all Nations Baptizing them. Since the Anabaptists (saith he) have no place of Scripture that com­mands us to Baptize none but those that are taught, they cannot strengthen their opinion from this Text: For we our selves do teach [i.e. Adult-Aliens] before we do baptize, neither can we from hence or any other Scripture prove, that no one ought to be Baptized, unless he shall understand or learn the Doctrine or Christ.

The Evangelist Mark varies the words of the Commission thus; Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature: The one hath it Nations, the other World, and the terms are equipollent, signifying the same, Rom. 11.15. But what must they do in all the World? preach the Gospel, i.e. publish abroad to all without exception, the freeness and fulness of Gods rich Grace in the New Covenant, even that same Gos­pel that was preached long before to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. And this blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles, ver. 14. And this is to be Preacht, [...], to every Creature, i.e. [Page 10]with a distinction to every humane creature, which the opposers of Infant-Baptisme may do well to consider, since they stand so rigidly upon the Syllabical Letters of every word in the Com­mission, so as they will not allow us liberty to draw out the sence of some places that relate to Infant-Baptism, from the Letter, by rational de­duction and consequence, and according to the Harmony of Scripture, but we must superstitiously adhere to the very Syllables of the Text, where­as whatsoever appears truth, from the Analogy of Faith, or by just consequence is as practicable and obliging, as if it were written with a Sun­beam, in so many Capital Letters. It would be a senseless undertaking indeed to Preach the Gos­pel to every individual creature in the World; and therefore it is to the understood restrictively of mankind, poor lost man for whom Christ dyed. Lastly, the Connection too, he, he that be­lieveth and is Baptized, shall be saved; hath some difficulty in it, and the sence is not so obvious to every capacity: for if it had, many of those con­troversies between us and the Papists had never been, as, Whether Baptism be of absolute ne­cessity to salvation; which Protestants deny, and many Papists affirm. And let the Antipaedobaptists well consider that this Evangelist doth as closely conjoyn believing and being Baptized, to Salvati­on as the other doth, teaching and being baptiz­ed; and if we must so exactly stand upon the Or­der of words to prove the Institution. We may (saith Sydenham) argue from Mark, as well as they from Matthew, as none must be baptized but they who are taught, so none but those who [Page 11]believe and are Baptized shall be saved; and consequently our Children cannot be saved, be­cause they cannot believe. The same condition being required to precede Baptism, that is re­quired to precede Salvation. You see whether the Argument may be carried, and what little ground of comfort such doctrine affords in the death of our children. To conclude then, whereas they argue from this place of Mark, we must believe and be baptized, but Infants can­not believe, therefore may not be Baptized; will it not as directly follow, that since they can't believe, they must be damned; let them frame an answer to the one, and then they have an­swered both; for look (saith Mr. Marshall) by what distinction they will maintain the Salvati­on of Infants against this Argument, by the same will I more clearly justifie the Baptism of Infants against this Argument.

Having thus cleared the Texts from the false glosses, Antipaedobaptists put upon them, we shall next examine the passages out of Authors, which my Antagonist quotes for his opinion.

The first he brings is Mr. Baxter, who having so notably wounded their cause in his plain Scrip­ture proof, for Infant Church-Membership and Baptisme, is become the man of their indignati­on; and Indeed I fear the Author, with whom I have to do, is possest with a malevolent spirit a­gainst that Learned and Godly Divine, and is glad of any occasion to wound his reputation, as appears by his dealing with him in his Preface, and divers other places in the Treatise. Mr. Baxter (saith he) doth fully acknowledge in his [Page 12]Book called, the second Disputation of Right to Sacraments, pag. 149, 150. Where he saith, This (speaking of the Commission of Christ to his Disciples) is not like some occasional mentioning of Baptisme; but it is the very Commission it self of Christ to his Disciples, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders. Their first Task is to make Disciples, which are by Mark called Believers. The second work is to bap­tize them, whereto is annext the promise of their Salvation. The third work is to teach them all o­ther things, which are after to be Learned in the School of Christ; to contemn this order (saith he) is to contemn all Rules of Order, for where can we expect to find it, if not here. I profess my Consci­ence is fully satisfyed, that the Minister must expect a profession of Faith before Baptism.

To discover the Craft, and Sinister dealing of our Opponent, I must first acquaint the Reader that Mr. Baxter disputing with Mr. Blake, who was for a large Admission to the Sacraments, ex­plains the Thesis in his second disputation thus, viz. That Ministers must not Baptize the Children of those that profess not saving faith, upon profes­sion of any Faith that is short of it; these are his very words, pag. 53. And after it, nine lines lower, that he might not be mistaken, hath this by way of caution, viz. That he would have the Reader to understand that all along in the discourse of the whole Book, the dispute is about the aged them­selves, whether they may be baptized; so that it is none of our work at this time (saith he) to defend the Subjects [as to their age] against the Anabap­tists, but our present business is to enquire what that [Page 13]faith is, that quallifieth persons to be just subjects of Baptism, or to be such whose children may receive it upon the account of their faith or profession; Disp. 2. p. 4. Moreover in his fourth Disputation he hath this passage; We take it for granted that the Right of Infants is upon the account of their Parents Faith, therefore we manage this discourse with respect to the Adult. P. 351. What could any man in the World say more, to prevent the Ca­vils of unworthy persons? And certainly he had not said so much unless he had known how our opposites lye at the Catch, and yet we see this would not do, for we have found a man of so much dis-ingenuity as to traduce and pervert the sayings of this worthy person to countenance his errour. I have been the larger in setting down Mr. Baxters words, that it may leave some im­pression on the Readers Memory, when he finds any thing quoted out of Mr. Baxters Disputa­tions, about the Right to Sacraments, that so it might be as a Key to open his meaning, in all those numerous passages the Author hath pikt up out of that Dispute, which indeed fills up many pages of his Book.

Next we have Mr. Calvin, introduced as speaking some­thing in favour of their opin­ion, Ergò ut se ritè ad Bap­tismum offerant ho­mines, peccatorum con­fessio ab illis requiri­tur; alioqui, nihil quam inane esset lu­dicrum tota actio. No­tandum est de A­dultis his verba fi­eri, Calv. in Mat. 3.6. Verùm quia docere prius jubet Christus, quam baptizare & tantum credentes ad Baptismum vult reci­pi, videtur non ritè administrari baptis­mus, nisi fides praeces­serit, &c. Eos qui fide in Ec­clesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus, cum sua sobole censeri in Christi membris, & in salutis haereditatem si­mul vocari. Nec mo­dò seperatur hoc modo Baptismus a fide & Doctrina, quia licet pueri Infantes non­dum per aetatem fidem babent, Deus tamen eorum parentes com­pellans. &c. whereas few ever wrote so smartly against them; it is from that same passage of his, on Mat. 6. &c. There­fore that men may rightly offer themselves to Baptisme, Confession of sin is requi­red, [Page 14]otherwise the whole action would be but Sport.

The words indeed are Mr. Calvins, so that I confess my Antagonist speaks truth, but he should have done well to have spoken the whole truth, For Mr. Calvin also caute­ously adds, — It is to be Noted, that these words are spoken of Adult persons. And that we may see his judge­ment, fully take notice of his Paraphrase upon the 28. of Mat. 19. and that other Text, Mark 16.16. But be­cause (saith he) Christ com­mandeth us to teach before he commands us to Baptize, and he would have believers only admitted to Baptism; it seems Baptism is not rightly admini­stred, unless faith goeth before. From this place (saith Calvin) the Anabaptists oppose Infant Baptism. To which he pre­sently answers, That those whom we see by a Profession of their Faith, to be admitted in­to the Church, we are to look upon them (together with their off-spring) as the members of Christ, and to be jointly called to the inheritance of the Saints, nei­ther is Baptism hereby separated from Faith, and Teaching; because though children have not yet faith by reason of their Age. Nevertheless God ta­king [Page 15]their Parents into Covenant, they themselves are also to be imbraced in the same Covenant.

After Calvin, comes Piscator, to as little pur­pose, whose words on Mark 1.4. are these; It is called the Baptisme of Repentance, because John Preached remission of sins to the penitent Believers. But why should this worthy Author be thus cur­tail'd, whenas he farther expresseth himself thus, Baptismus nulli adulto conferendus est, nisi prius ediderit confessionem peocatorum, i.e. We must not Baptize any person that is grown up, unless he first make a Profession of his Faith, &c. If we would know his mind more fully, we may see it in his Comment upon the 28. of Mat. 19. It was (saith he) the Duty of the Apostles to Preach the Gospel all abroad through­out the World, to all Nati­ons, Apostolorum officium fuit Evangelium-prae­dicare passim in orbe terrarum, &c. Verō pastorum illis sucee­dentium est Evangeli­um praedicare apud certam Ecclesiam a quae peculiaritèr sunt vo­cati; & praterea In­fantes qui in illa Ec­clesia noscuntur, per Baptismum Deo conse­crare. Piscat. Observ. in Mat. 28. p. 746. Edit. 2. Herbornae Nassoviorum Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solum a­dulti Credentes ac fidem profitentes, sed etiam ipsorum liberi, ut patet ex verbis Apost. 1 Cor. [...]. Quare dubium videri non debet quin illi quoque (liberi inquam & Infantes fidelium) baptizandi sint, etsi fidei non sunt capaces. and by Baptism to in­corporate them into the Church, who make Profes­sion of their Faith, &c. And it is the duty of all Pastors that succeed them, to preach the Gospel to that particular Church, whereunto they are called, and farthermore to consecrate to God by Bap­tism, those Infants which are born in that Church; And [Page 16]then adds — Not only Adult persons, that do believe and profess their Faith, belong to the Church, but also their Children as appears from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy, where (saith he) the Apostle calls their children holy that were born, though but one of the Pa­rents were a Believer, forasmuch as they belong to Gods Covenant made with his Church, and by consequence they belong to the Church; wherefore we need not doubt, but they also, (I say the Children or Infants of Believers) are to be Baptized, although they are not capable of Faith, even as the Infants of the Jews were cir­cumcised, belonging likewise to the Covenant and to the Church.

And as if all our eminent Divines had heed­lesly spoken something in favour of their way, he hath the confidence to bring in more still. Mr. Perkins (saith he) in concurrence here with these words, Teaching all Nations, Baptizing them, saith, I explain the terms thus; Mark, first of all it is said, Teach them, (1.) make them my Disci­ples by calling them to believe, & repent. Here we are to consider the Order which God observes in making with men a Covenant in Baptism. First of all he calls them by his word, and commands them to be­lieve, and to repent. Then in the second place, God makes his promise of mercy and forgiveness. And thirdly be seals his promise by Baptism. They that know not, nor consider this Order which God used in Covenanting with them in Baptism, deal preposte­rously, over-slipping the Commandment of Repenting and Believing.

Who would not think by this, that the Re­nowned Perkins were of his side, a down right Antipaedobaptist; whereas not a word of what he saith is intended against Infant-Baptisme, but only to shew in what order Baptisme is to be Administred to Aliens and Pagans, as appears by what he saith upon the same Text. Mat. 28.29. Which is disingeniously conceal'd by the Author, Go teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. In these words (saith Mr. Perkins,) the Baptism of Infants is prescribed, and the Apo­stles by vertue of this Commission Baptized whole Families, Act. 16.15, 33. As knowing Gods former Administration to his people, the Children were taken into Covenant with the Fathers, as the Israelites, both Old and Young, were baptized into Moses in the Cloud, 1 Cor. 10.4. As the Nation of the Jews were first taught, and then they and their Infants, being confederates, were circumcised; so saith our Sa­viour, Do you go Teach and Disciple the Nati­ons, and then Baptize them.

The last quoted in this Chapter is the famous Paraeus: and what saith he? he tells us (saith the Author) in his Comment on Mat. 3.5. That the Order was, That confession as a testimony of true repentance go first, Hoc enim damus Ana­baptistis in Ecclesiam fuscipiendos non esse nisi praeviâ confessione fidei & paenitentiae, quem morem, & vetus servavit ecclesia, & nostrae hodie observant si vel Judaeus, vel Turca Adultus, &c. Paraeus in Mat. 3.5. and then Baptism for Re­mission of sins afterward. Ve­ry good, but is this all? No certainly, for he present­ly [Page 18]adds, this we grant to the Anabaptists, that persons are not to be taken into the Church, and be Baptized (speaking of Aliens, or those that are without as the Apostle phraseth it,) un­less a Profession of Faith and Repentance hath gone before; which custome (saith he) the An­tient Primitive Church kept, and ours at this day still observe, when a Turk or a Jew that is grown, is to be initiated by Baptism. Thus Reader, I have given thee a taste of the ingenuity of my Antagonist, and I leave thee to judge of it.

CHAP. II. Containing his second Argument to prove the Bap­tisme of Believers the only true Baptism, and that is (if we will believe him) from the Apo­stles Doctrine teaching the same.

Reply.

ALthough what we have before said to in­validate his main Argument drawn from the Institution of Christ, be sufficient to overthrow whatsoever is brought in the two following Chapters; yet we shall further add, that it is not to be denyed, that the Apostles assert Believers Baptisme to be a true Baptism, but that they teach us that it is the only true Baptisme is ut­terly false, and we have only the Authors word for it. The Texts cited out of Act. 2.37. Act. 8.36, 37. Act. 10.42. Act. 16.29. prove, that [Page 19]grown persons unbaptized ought to be required to believe before their Baptism, which we grant; but to inferr thence, that the Children of Bapti­zed Believers are not to be Baptized, is more then these Texts (or any else that I know) can yeild. We read of none de facto that the Apostles Bapti­zed, A non dicto ad non fa­ctum, non valet conse­quentia: Because it is not exprest in so many words therefore it was not done, is not Logi­cal. but Believers; therefore none but such, de jure ought to be Baptized, is a sorry way of arguing. The words of Dr. Taylor in his Discourse of Baptisme, part 2. pag. 34. are very weighty, viz. A Negative argument for matters of fact in Scripture, cannot conclude, &c. And therefore supposing that it be not intimated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants, it follows not (saith the Dr.) that they did not: and if they did not, it does not follow that they might not, or that the Church may not. The Scripture speaks nothing of the Baptisme of the Virgin Mary, and of many of the Apostles; therefore they were not baptized, is a weak arguing. The words and deeds of Christ are infinite which are not recorded, Joh. 20.30. and 21.25. Many things Christ did, that were not written; and of the Acts of the Apostles we may suppose the same in their proportion; and therefore what they did not, is no rule to us, unless they did it not, because they were forbideen: So that it can be no good Argument to say, The Apostles are not read to have Baptized Infants, therefore Infants are not to be baptized; but thus, We do not find they are excluded from this Sacrament and Ceremony of [Page 20]Christian Institution; therefore we may not presume to exclude them.

Now since all contradiction against Infant-Bap­tism, depends wholly upon these two grounds; The Negative Argument in matter of fact, and the pre­tences, that faith and repentance are required to Baptisme; since the first is wholly nothing and infirm, upon an infinite account; and the second may con­clude that Infants can no more be saved then be bap­tized, because faith is more necessary to Salvation then to Baptisme; it being said, he that believeth not shall be damned; and it is not said, he that be­lieveth not shall be excluded from Baptism; it fol­lows, that the Doctrine of those that refuse to Baptize their Infants is upon both its legs weak and broken, and insufficient. Thus far the Lear­ned Doctor. To conclude this, whereas the Apo­stles Preached up faith and Repentance before Baptism, it was requisite they should do so, ac­cording to their Commission, having to do with Aliens grown up, (as not only the Gentiles, but the Jews were; in reference to the new Admini­stration;) for these being the first subjects of Bap­tisme, it was necessary they should make pro­fession of their faith before they were admitted to it, but not so in their Children to be Bapti­zed, no more then in Isaac and the Children of the Proselytes to be Circumcised. Abraham be­lieved first, and afterward was Circumcised; Gen. 17.24. And why so? Because he was the first subject of that Ordinance, and therefore could not be admitted to it, but by his own faith. But as for Isaac his Son, he was Circumcised be­fore believing, and so was it with the Proselytes [Page 21]and their Children; when any Gentile was con­verted to the Jewish Faith, he had a personal Right to be circumcised, and his Child likewise was Circumcised at eight days old, as was the custome of the Jewish Church, by virtue of Gods Covenant, giving it a parental Right.

The Author is very unhappy at Citations, for usually they serve not his purpose. He acquaints us out of Bede, that men were instructed into the knowledge of the Truth, then to be Bapti­zed as Christ hath taught, because without Faith it is impossible to please God. Magdeburg. Cent. 8. pag. 220. But this, Bede himself tells us was the method used amongst the Inhabitants of this Island, when Paganish — In initio nas­centis Ecclesiae apud Britannos, Beda lib. 2. Angl. Hist. cap. 14. When a Church first of all began to be planted amongst the Britains; and he tells us it was at that time when Gregory sent from Rome, Austin, and forty other Preachers, and afterward Paulinus, who converted Ethelbert the Saxon King; but of this we shall speak more hereaf­ter, when we shall shew how Bede himself was for Infant-Baptisme, notwithstanding the Author so perverts his words.

His other Citation is Erasmus, who in his Paraphrase upon Mat. Observeth (and tis a great Observation indeed,) That the Apostles were com­manded first to teach, and then to baptize, &c.

Every Child that can read observes the same; Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis, &c. but if you would know his judgment a­bout Infant-Baptism, you may read it in his Ratio con­cionandi, [Page 22]lib. 4. where he conceives it probable, that the Apostles ordain'd and practised it.

And truly amongst other probable reasons this seems to be one, if it be not a Demonstrati­on; namely, because we do not read of any chil­dren of believing Parents who were Baptized when they came to years of discretion. That they were Baptized I presume (saith Brinsley) our Ad­versaries will not deny; and if so, Note, No Children of Believing Parents Baptized afterwards to be found from John the Baptist to John the Evangelist ending his Ministry, which was about 60. years. An Argu­ment sufficient, if not to convince the Ad­versary that they were Baptized in In­fancy, yet to stop their mouths: Brin­sley Doctrine and Practice of Paedo­baptisme, pag. 75. 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 about 60 years, during which time thousands of Children of Believing Pa­rents were grown up to ma­turity;) and if in all that time they can but shew any one instance of any child born of a believing Parent, whose Baptism was defer­red till he came to years of discretion, and that then he was Baptized, we will then acknow­ledge there is some strength in their Negative Allegation, viz. We read of no children Baptized, therefore There were none.

CHAP. III. Containing his Argument, that Believers Baptisme is the only true Baptisme, from the example of Primitive Saints.

Reply.

TO this there needs no more then what we have before said. Sydenhams Christian Exercitation, pag. 7. For as Mr. Sy­denham says, all that they urge as to Examples of a­ctual Believers, being baptized all along the new Testament, especially the Acts, (and that if thou believest thou mayst,) We can freely grant without any damage to Infant-Baptism: For,

1. We say as they, Professing Believers, grown men were first Baptized, and so they ought to be who are to be the first subjects of the Administration of an Ordinance; instancing as before in Abraham, &c. he was 99. years old when circumcised, and he must be first Circumcised before he could con­vey a right to his seed; now you may as well argue, Abraham was first circumcised, when so old, therefore old persons are to be Circumcised and none else; as because grown persons were Baptized, therefore not Infants, when they must be first Baptized themselves; for children are Baptized by the promise first to them, and in them to their seed.

Now, for as much as all the Examples brought by the Author out of Act. 8.12. & 18.8. & 22.14. Speak of grown persons that were the first sub­jects of Baptism, and Jews that were Aliens too, as well as the Gentiles, in regard of the new Administration; it makes nothing against Infant-Baptism, that being of another circumstance, and the disagreeing of it from them, argues not the unlawfulness of it, and as the same Author far­ther argues.

2. An Affirmative Position is not exclusive of subordinates; because Believers were said to be Baptized; Ergo, not their Seed, is not true rea­soning; for their seed were comprehended with them in the same promise as before, and as we shall more fully shew hereafter.

Let us now see what his Quotations of Authors or Testimonies will amount unto in this Chapter.

His first Testimony is from Luther, de Sacra­ment. Tom. 3. fol. 168. where he saith Luther hath these words, viz. That in times past it was thus, that the Sacrament of Baptism was Admi­nistred to none, except it were to those that acknow­ledged and confessed their faith, &c. The which when I read, I was not well assured, but that my Antagonist might be guilty of Forgery, knowing Luther to be a most fierce and zealous opposer of their way, wherefore I did very care­fully examine the third Tome of Luther concer­ning Sacraments. I read the 168. pag. and read it again with a friend, and do profess that there is not one syllable to the purpose, for which the Author brings him, no nor in any page thereabout. [Page 25]The next that he Cites, is Bullinger, who (it [...]ns) hath such words as these in his house­ [...]k: 48 Sermon. Baptism hath no prescribed [...]e by the Lord, and therefore it is left to the [...] choice of the Faithful.

I have not the book by me to examine the [...]th of this, but however I am certain there [...]othing in that passage against Infant-Baptism, [...]hat this testimony can do us no hurt; and we [...]w very well how large a book Bullinger hath [...], Contra Anabaptistas, against the Anabaptists. [...]hat I wonder the Author should bring him [...] The Reader may observe how zealous an [...]rtor of Infant-Baptisme this Learned and [...]ly Divine was, by that one passage of his in [...] Compendium of the Christian Religion. de [...]cto Baptismo, ac de Infan­ [...]s Baptizandis, lib. 8. pag. [...] viz. Quoniam autem Chri­stianorum liberi, in faedere Dei suni, & Christus etiam Infan­tium salvator est; cum (que) ad ipsos pertine­at ut, veteris ac novi Testamenti literae te­stentur-Baptismus (Fae­peris figillum) iis ne­gari non debet. That because the [...]dren of Believers are in [...]nant with God, and [...] is their Saviour, and [...]romise also belongs to [...] (as both the Old and [...] Testament do wit­ [...] Baptisme (which is the [...] of the Covenant) is not to be denyed them, [...] And after this, concludes, Hortor autem & [...]omnes pios ac verè Christianos, ut studiose [...]ter (que) sibi, a contentiosa & venenata Ana­ [...] arum sectâ caveant, quae externa specie qui­ [...] & Hypocrisi splendet, reverà autem paestilen­ [...] est haeresis, at (que) plurimas baereses quibus o­ [...]te aliquot secula Ecclesia Chrsti turbata, & [Page 26]lacerata fuit, in se complectitur, illisque plurimos homines inficit; I forbear to English it, out of respect to some which I believe are Godly, and yet opposite to the Baptisme of believers Chil­dren.

Lastly, The Author quotes a great deal out of Mr. Baxters Disputations with Mr. Blake, a­bout Right to the Sacraments; but we have be­fore spoil'd his Market, by giving the Reader a Key out of the same Book, by which he may un­derstand him. So that all those Examples from John, the Samritans, the Eunuch, Paul, Lydia the Jaylor, Crispus, &c. doth but mind us a­gain of the Authors dis-ingenuity in traducing that Worthy Divine.

CHAP. IV. Wherein he labours to prove Believers the only Subjects of Baptisme, from the Spiritual ends of the Ordinance; where he gives us an In­duction of the particular ends of Baptisme, as follows.

1. THe first end of Baptisme (saith he) is, that the Baptized might have that represen­ted in a Sign or Figure, and Preached to his Eye, in the Ordinance, which had been Preacht to his Ear and Heart by the word and Spirit; re­specting the whole Mystery of the Gospel, and his duty and obligation therein. A Sign being (as Pa­raeus observeth) some outward thing appearing to the sence, through which some inward thing is at the same time apprehended by the understan­ding.

Repl. I.

I deny this to be the primary end of Baptism. For not to insist upon that which hath given too great advantage to Antipaedobaptists, That the first end of Baptisme is to give a solemn entrance or admission into the Church, I conceive it to be more true to affirm, That the first and chief end of Baptisme is to be the Initiatory sign or seal of Gods Covenant and favour to us in Christ. For as Dr. Ames observes in his Bellarminus [Page 28]enervatus, Tom. 2. lib. 2. un­less persons are to be repu­ted Members of the Church, Nisi habendi tales es­sent ( viz. fidelium in­fantes) pro membris ecclesiae, non deberent Baptizari: Baptismus enìm suâ naturâ est sigillum insitionis jam factae in Christum, at (que) adeò in Ecclesiam. Act. 10.47, 48. they ought not to be Bapti­zed; for Baptism in its own nature is the seal of our be­ing already ingrafted into Christ, and so consequently into the Church, Acts 10.47, 48. He speaks concer­ning the Baptism of the Children of Believers, and affirms they ought not to be Baptized but under this consideration, that they are members of the Church, which we shall hereafter make good in its proper place.

2. I acknowledge that to Adult persons Bap­tisme reprefents (in a sign) that to the eye which is Preacht to the eare, respecting the Mysteries of the Gospel, &c. Although I see not how it can be so in the way of Dipping, for how can persons under water see, apprehend, or hear any thing during that time, when, and whereby the Sences and Understandings of men are so confounded, that they have no power to exercise their faith, or reason as they should; and since plunging over head and ears puts people in­to such an amazing condition, not without frights (especially in the more tender Sex) some being neer throtled or drown'd, it is to be sus­spected to be none of Christs appointments; for one would think, that at such a juncture of time, especially, when an Ordinance is celebrated, re­presenting so many Gospel Mysteries, it is requi­site the mind should be in a more omposed po­sture [Page 29]then theirs are like to be in, whose heads are under Water. We grant Baptism to be a sign of spiritual Mysteries represented to the eye of such as are grown up, and rightly Bap­tized. As Circumcision was a sign of the same import to Abraham, and it is of present and im­mediate use to the aged, Rom. 4. Abraham re­eived the sign of Circumcision, as the Seal of the righteousness of Faith, and we acknowledge also both the Sacraments are of immediate and present use to the aged, and in this sence we are to understand Paraeus, speaking of Sacramental Signes: but let it be considered that the children of Abraham received the sign of Circumcision as well as Abrabam, and yet they were void of un­derstanding and judgment, and knew no more of the spiritual Mysteries represented therein, then our Infants do in the Ordinance of Baptism. Circumcision represented the same Mysteries that Baptism doth, and yet those poor Israelitish Babes that were Circumcised, knew not that the cutting-off the fore-skin, shadowed out the cor­ruption of nature, and the nature of Mortifica­tion, the blood shed in the act also held out the mystery of Redemption by Christs blood, of all which Baptisme is as proper a sign, when given to our Infants, as Circumcision was to theirs.

3. What though Infants are uncapable of un­derstanding Gospel Mysteries figured in Baptism, as they were heretofore of the same shadowed forth in Circumcision, yet their Baptisme is a Signe of what God will do for the future (to as many of them as belong to his Election,) [Page 30]if they shall arrive to years of discretion.

4. Though it be no Teaching sign at the pre­sent, yet if the Infant live, and be instructed in the use and ends of his Baptisme, it may prove as Operative and Beneficial to him, as if it had been delayed till he came to full age.

Thus David, who though Circumcised in Infancy, yet strengthned his faith by it, when he came to years of discretion, 1 Samuel 17.26.

5. Though Baptisme be not for the present a Teaching sign to Infants, neverthelses it is a di­stinguishing fign to distinguish those that are Within, from those that are Without, as the A­postle phraseth it, 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. And it is even to Infants a sign of Gods Covenant as be­fore is hinted (as Circumcision was to Infants under the Law, and for this reason it is by a Me­tonimy called by the name of the Covenant, and did distinguish the Jewish Infants from Gentile ones, that were without the Covenant, or strangers to the same, Gen. 17.20. Act. 7.8.

5. It is also an Engaging sign (as Circumci­sion was to the Jewish Infants, though they un­dertood it not when they were the Subjects of that Ordinance) whereby our children are ob­liged to the Profession of Christ, into whose name they have been Baptized. I shall shut up this with those weighty words which I find in Mr. Baxters Scripture proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism. pag. 112. Tell me (saith he) what operation Circumcision had on all the Infants of Church-Members formerly. It [Page 31]was a sign of the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, &c. and yet they had no more Faith, nor Knowledge of the Significancy, than ours have now— Christ himself was circumcised in Infancy, when by the course of nature he was uncapable of understanding it's Ends and Uses. Not (saith he) that I am now arguing for Bap­tism from Circumcision; but this fully answe­reth their Objection [that Infants should not be baptized, because they are not capable of understanding its Use, and so being wrought on by it.] They are as capable of Baptism, as they were of Circumcision, and its Ends: They therefore that will yet say, It were better let it alone till they are more capable, do but exalt their own reason against Scripture, and speak as men that would teach God.

The Second End, hinted by the Author, is, That the party baptized might thereby witness his Re­pentanee, Matth. 3.11. called therefore the baptism of Repentance, Mark. 1.

Repl. 1.

It cannot be proved from these places, that all those whom John Baptized, did manifest their Repentance; and we do not find those Pharisees and Sadduces that are branded with the name of Vipers, gave the least indica­tions thereof, which if they had the Baptists would not have spoken so harshly of them, and yet these (for ought we can learn to the contrary from the Text,) were baptized.

2. Grotius in his Annotations upon the nine­teenth of Matthew 14. Speaketh well to this, whose Words are these— Neither ought that to be any hinderance to the Baptism of Infants, Neque obstare debet quod non omnia quae itidem per baptismum significari solent, in istam aetatem propriè congruerint, &c. that all things which in like manner are fignified by Baptism cannot agree properly to that Age; for Repentance also (which we know is signified by Baptism, &c.) had no place at all in Christ, when John baptized him; who as Tertullian notes, was not baptized as a Debtor to Repen­tance, because he never sinned.

3. The End of Baptism nominated by the Au­thor, is, to evidence present Regeneration, whereof Baptism is a Sign, Titus 3.4. John 3.

Repl.

If this Argument were good, it would have overthrown the Circumcision of Infants; for that also was a lively Sign, or Symbole of Re­generation, and it might have been objected (according to our Antagonists phanfie,) Infants are not regenerated, or shew no signs thereof; and (Regeneration being the end of Circumcisi­on) therefore They ought not to be circum­cised.

2. According to such arguing, none ought to be admitted to Baptism; for none know by a judgment of certainty and infallibility, who are regenerated; for Simon Magus made a great shew, and yet was in the Gall of bitterness [Page 33]and no doubt many come up out of the water as rotten hypocrites as they went in.

Thirdly, Mr. Tombes him­self grants that Infants may be regenerated (as John was in the Womb;) and faith, Pet. Martyr. loc. com­mun. cl. 4. c. 8. pag. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos (Infantes) ab eccle siâ, Sed ut ejus partes am­plectimur, benè Spe­rantes, quòd ut sunt secundùm carnem se­men sanctorum, ità e­tiam sint Electionis di­vinae participes & spi­ritum sanctum habent. Ne (que) audiendi sunt qui hâc de re mo­vent scrupulum, ac dicunt, quid si Minister fallatur? quia idem cavillus esse po­terit de adultis. that if he knew such or such an Infant were regenerated, he would not scruple to Bap­tize it, according to which arguing, he must also forbear Baptizing grown persons up­on profession, for he knows not that they are regenera­ted.

4. If the whole Species of Infants be excluded from Regeneration, then are all Infants (so dy­ing) certainly damned; for all Infants are born in Original sin, and by nature unclean, and no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, But I suppose our opposites dare not exclude all Infants from Salvation: Well then, I conclude some Infants are elected, Regenera­ted, and in Covenant with God, or else they are saved without Election, Regeneration, Christ or Covenant; which is most absurd.

5. And whereas nothing can be said against us but this, de occultis non judicat Ecclesia, the Church cannot judge of secret things, but is to act ac­cording to appearance, and it is unknown whe­ther [Page 34]such particular Infants are regenerated, they cannot make any profession, and Baptisme is to be given upon that. I answer, we have as much reason if not more, to look upon the Infants of Believers to be sanctified, then we have to e­steem grown Christians to be such; because our owning of these, as such depends upon their own testimony only in a visible profession, which may be counterfeit. But such Infants are to be accounted Saints upon a Divine Testimony, for we have the word for it, 1 Cor. 7.14. else were your children unclean, but now [...], they are Saints or holy, it being the same word the Apostle useth in his Dedications and directions of his Epistles to the Churches of Rome, Corinth, &c. where he stiles them Saints, and our Savi­our tells us that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are to be no other then Saints, and we are warranted by a Divine Testimony to look upon them as such, which in their pre­sent Infant-state they cannot be liable to any suspicion of defeating by Hypocrisie, as grown persons may.

The Author brings in Dr. Taylor (whom he looks upon as his dear friend, and he hath rea­son for it, having helpt him to a great part of his Book;) The said Dr. (saith he) tells us very elegantly in his Lib. of Prophecy, pag. 242. That this is truly to be Baptized, whatsoever is less then this, is but the Symbole only, a meer Ce­re mony, an opus operatum, a dead Letter, an emp­ty shadow, an Instrument without an Agent to ma­nage, or force to actuate it.

Repl.

The Dr. wants not words, but this signifies nothing against Infant-Baptism, for all this may be as truly said of those that are Baptized when grown up, that have not truth of grace. But be­cause I observe with what Reverence this Doctor is mentioned (as if all were Canonical which he saith in their behalf, and I find the Authors Book to swell with his Sesquipedalia verba,) I shall (for prevention of delusion) inform the Reader with some news which may be worth his hearing. Know therefore that the said Doctor put forth a Book about 20. years since, entituled, The Ly­berty of Prophecy, in which he pleads for a Tole­ration, as for others, so also for those that dis­sent from Infant-Baptisme. There he personates an Anabaptist, and tells us he will draw up a Scheme or Plea for them, and (saith he) though they be deceived, yet they have so great excuse of their side, that their Error is not impudent, lib. of Proph. p. 223. and therefore may be tolerated. Then doth he shew what they may say for them­selves — and concludes, Thus far the Anabap­tists may argue, and they have been incouraged in their Error, more by the accidental Advanta­ges we have given them by our weak arguings, then by any Truth of their cause, or excellency of their wit. The Doctor therefore having a mind (it seems) to shew the excellen­cy of his own wit, A worthy Testimony to be brought against Infant-Baptisme. hath said more for them then ever they [Page 36]could before or since say for themselves: so that his strong arguings for them, hath eventually proved a greater encouragement to them then ever any of our weak arguings did before. And yet after all the goodly Harrangue he makes in their behalf, he at last shuts up with this, viz. The use I make of it (never dreaming what use H.D. would make of it) is, That since there is no direct impiety in their opinion, they are by all means Christian, fair, and humane, to be con­vinced and instructed; but if they cannot be perswaded, they must be left to God, (and I am of his mind.) And lastly adds, for his own part he believes Infant-Baptism to be a truth; but because some have thought the Doctor had spoke more in their behalf, then he himself could well answer (as Conjurers sometimes raise spi­rits they cannot lay,) he hath since put forth an Excellent piece, stiled, A Consideration of the practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants of Believing Parents, and the Practise justified: Printed by J. Elesher, for R. Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-lane, M. DC. L. II. in the Pre­face to which we have this account, That as for those Arguments which in The Li­berty of Prophecying, Sect. 18. are alleadged against Paedobaptisme; and in the opinion of some, do seem to stand in need of answering, he had it once in thought to have answered them: but upon these considerations he forbore.

1. Because those Arguments are not good in themselves, or to the question precisely consider­ed, but only by relation to the preceeding Ar­guments there brought for Paedobaptisme, they [Page 37]may seem good one against another, but those in the Plea for the Anabaptists, have no strength but what is accidental (as he con­ceives.)

2. Because in this Discourse (for Infant-Bap­tisme) he hath really laid such grounds and pro­ved them, that upon their supposition, all those arguments in the Liberty of Prophecy, and all o­ther which he ever heard of, will fall of them­selves.

3. Because those Arguments to his sense are so weak, and so relying upon failing and de­ceitful Principles, that he was loath to do them so much reputation as to account them worthy the answering,

4. Because he hath understood that his very worthy friend Dr. Ham­mond, Dr. Hammonds Let­ter of Resolution to 6 Quaeties, Printed by J. Elesher for R. Royston at the An­gel in Ivy-lane, 1653. hath in his Charity and Humility descended to answer that Collection. I have transcribed all this, that the Reader may mind this Information when e­ver he meets with any thing quoted out of Dr. Taylor, as he shall at least eighteen times, and sometimes very largely whole pages, nay two pages and more at a time by our Antagonist in his Treatise of Baptisme. And truly a man would wonder at his weakness, that since the Doctor in his Lib. of Proph. doth profess himself for In­fant-Baptisme, notwithstanding all that he says against it, personating an Anabaptist as he con­fesseth, and since he doth so villifie them for their error and weakness, the Author should un­dervalue [Page 38]his cause so much as to make use of such fallacious reasonings, as the Dr. himself calls them.

Next, we have him again at Mr. Baxter, wronging both him and his Reader in what he citeth out of his Disputation with Mr. Blake as formerly; Mr. Baxter (saith the Author) in his [10 Argument, pag. 117, 118. speaks to the same purpose, viz. Christ hath instituted no Baptisme, but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration, &c. Here he curtailes Mr. Baxters words on purpose to blind the Reader, for Mr. Baxter adds [at least to men of age.]

The 4. End is signally to represent the Covenant and promise that the Believer enters into here­by, viz. to dye to sin, and live to Christ, for which he cites Mr. Perkins, Baxter, and Dr. Tay­lor; the two former we have spoken enough of, in the first Chapter, where we find them most professedly for Infant-Baptisme, and have condemned the Author for wresting their sence, they speaking of Adult persons or Aliens, and not in opposition to the Baptisme of Believers children, and for that of Dr. Taylor, That Bap­tisme is called the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1 Pet, 3.21. which saith he, can by no means be applyed to the Infant, since they are not capable thereof, till they know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Repl. I.

To this Dr. Hammond answers, namely, This is as true of that Baptisme which belongs to chil­dren [Page 39]as to any other, only the duty of it is not required till they come to years and ability to perform it, and then if they keep not a good con­science it will be little available. And if this be of any force against Baptizing Infants, it will be of the same force against Circumcising them, since S. Paul, Rom. 2.28. doth as much invalidate the exter­nal part of Circumcision, as St. Peter here doth that of Baptisme.

2. 'Tis therefore a meer Parologisme so to ar­gue; for the Apostle Peter speaks of the Adult that could give a reason of their faith, and not of Infants; for the Apostle had then to deal with such, who upon their being Baptized were to make profestion of a good Conscience. And this (as we shall hereafter shew out of the Mag­deburgenses) was the practice of the Primitive Church in this Case; for having to deal with In­fidels, they first Catechised and Taught them the first Elements and Principles of the Christian Religion, whereupon they were called Catechu­meni ( i.e. persons that were to be Catechised;) that being done, and they brought to some compe­tency of knowledge, they then openly declared and testified their Repentance and Faith, before the Congregation where they were to be bap­tized: And this they did by answering to some questions proposed by the Minister. To this the Apostle seems to allude when he calls Baptism, [...], i.e. The an­swer of a good Conscience towards God, so our Translation renders it, though (as Beza notes upon the place) not so fully expressing the force of the word, [...], which proper­ly [Page 40]signifies an Interrogation or questioning; so the vulgar Latin renders it, Interrogatio bonae consci­entiae, The Interrogation of a good Conscience. Be­za translates it, Stipulatio bonae conscientiae, The Stipulation of a good Conscience. Now Stipulati­on is properly an Answer to a Question, when one being demanded concerning a thing, he re­turns Answer, and by his answer engageth him­self to do somewhat that is required. Now this practice of giving an account of ones faith, by way of answering to questions (as Beza notes upon this place of Peter) was drawn from the Primitive use in after ages, out of a [...], Beza Annotat. in 2. Pet. 3.21. a per­verse imitation, and apply­ed to the Baptisme of In­fants, not so fitly (as he conceives,) they being not able to answer for themselves.

3. Nevertheless though children cannot per­sonally and actually answer for themselves, I see no reason to the contrary why they may not be said to Stipulate passively in and by their parents who accept the Covenant, not only for them­selves, but for their little ones. The people of Israel did by Gods appointment enter their chil­dren into Covenant with God, as appears from Deut. 20.10, 11, 12. and doubtless the interest of Believing Parents in their Children, Dr. Taylorr considera­tion of the Church in Baptizing Infants. is as great now as then, and God as gracious to accept such co­venanting under the Gos­pel, as he was under the Law.

4. In Civil Contracts it is usual with Parents [Page 41]to Covenant and engage for and in behalf of their Children, and they are obliged to the per­formance of the Agreement when they come to years of discretion, though they did not give their actual consent whilst in their Minority, when the Agreement was made. The very law of Nature teacheth Parents to Covenant for their Children, when 'tis for their good. Mr. Eaxter.

5. Let Dr. Taylor in his latter discourse, wherein he justifies the practise of Baptizing In­fants of Believing Parents, confute what himself says in his Liberty of Prophecy. He speaks his judgement concerning the point, page 53, 54. thus. It were well saith he, speaking of the engagement or promise made for Infants in Bap­tism,) if men would rather humbly and modest­ly observe that constitution of the Church, then like scorners deride it, in which they shew their own folly, as well as immodesty; for what un­decency or incongruity is it, that our Parents should stipulate for us when 'tis agreeable to the practise of all the Laws and Transactions of the World, an effect of the Communion of Saints, and of Christian Oeconomy: For why may not Infants Stipulate as well as we? All were in­cluded in the Stipulation made with Adam, he made a losing bargain for himself, and we smarted for his folly: And if the faults of Pa­rents, and Kings and Relatives, do bring evil upon their Children, and Subjects, and Corre­latives, it is but equal that our children may have benefit also by our Charity and Pi­ety.

But concerning making of an agreement for them, we find that God was confident concern­ing Abraham, that he would teach his Chil­dren. Further Joshua did expresly undertake for his houshold, I and my house will serve the Lord. And for children we may the better do it, because till they be of perfect choice, no Go­vernment in the world is so great as that of Pa­rents over their children, in that which concerns the parts of this Question. And it is a rare art of the Spirit to engage Parents to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord; They are persons obliged by a superinduced bond, they are to give them instructions, and holy Principles as they give them meat, &c.

The 5 End of Baptisme, is to be a Sign of the Co­venant of Gods part of washing away a Believers sin, by the Blood of Christ, and to give spiritual Life and Salvation, Act. 2.38, 39. Act. 22.16. 1 Pet. 3.21.

This also is as true of that Baptism which be­longs to the Children of Believers, as that which is given to Believers themselves. Repent and be Baptized every one of you, for the Remission of sins, for the promise is to you and to your seed, &c. And Baptism (even to Infants) is a seal of Gods par­doning grace in doing away the guilt of Origi­nal sin, in regard of those that belong to Gods Election (if not also actual, which afterward shall be committed if they live to age.)

The 6. End mentioned by the Author is, That it might be a signal Representation of a Believers Ʋ ­nion with Christ, called therefore, a being Baptized [Page 43]into Christ, and a putting on of Christ; for which we have Dr. Taylor quoted, Which cannot be, (says he) of those who remain in their incapacities, &c. Which he saith, is the case of Children. But we shall see by and by the said Dr. confuting himself in his latter discourse of Baptism.

1. To this I reply in the words of Wendeline, Wendelin Christ. Theo. lib. 1. c. 12. p. 166. upon the Text, viz. Apostolus lo­quitur tantùm de Baptizatis fidelibus tùm enim Adulti, ex Judaismo; & Gen­tilismo recèns conversi baptizabantur; i.e. The A­postle speaks this of Believers that were Baptized; for then Adult persons, newly converted from Ju­daism and Paganisme were Baptized.

2. Though children cannot put on Christ by an external Act, yet they may be an infused seed of grace, and we have good ground to be­lieve all elect Infants dying, have in their infant-State, done so. And farther, if Adams sin be imputed to them for sin, why may not Christs Righteousness be also imputed to them for Righ­teousness? Surely it must be so, or else there is no way how Infants can be saved.

3. Dr. Taylor in his last discourse of Baptism, gives a good Rule for the understanding Scrip­tures of this sort, which if attended to, would bring us and Antipaedobaptists a little neerer to­gether: which is this, viz. That when the Scrip­ture speaks of the effects of, or dispositions to Baptisme, it speaks in general expressions, as being most apt to signifie a common duty, or general effect, or a more Universal event, or the proper order of things: but those general ex­pressions [Page 44]do not supponere universalitèr; that is, they are not to be understood exclusively to all suscipients, or of all the subjects of the propositi­on. And he makes it clear by divers passages of Scripture. There are many Synecdoches in the word, where many only are to be understood, when it speaks of all. The secret effects of Ele­ction, and of the spirit are in Scripture attri­buted to all that are of the outward Communi­on. 1 Pet. 1.2. So Peter calls all the Christian strangers of the Ea­stern dispersion, Elect, accor­ding to the fore-knowledge of God the Father. And Paul saith of all the Roman Christians, and the same of the Thessalonians, that their Faith was spoken of in all the world, and yet among them it is not to be supposed, that all the Professors had an unreproveable faith, or that every one of the Church of Thessalonica was an excellent and charitable person; and yet, saith he, 2 Thes. 1.2. your faith groweth ex­ceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all towards each other aboun­deth. So to the question before us. As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. That is, so it is regularly, and this is the designed event: but from hence we cannot conclude of every person, and in every period of time, This man hath been baptized, therefore, now he is clothed with Christ, he hath put on Christ; nor thus, This person cannot in a spiritual sense, as yet put on Christ, therefore he hath not been baptized; that is, he hath not put him on in a Sacramental sense.

To conclude, We cannot understand the A­postle in those words of putting on Christ, to intend a saving union to Christ, or a putting on of Christ spiritually and effectually, in regard of all that are Baptized; for all these Galathians did not so put him on, and innumerable persons that are Hypocrites (when baptized at age,) do not so put him on. Wherefore the words are to be understood Sacramentally, as 1 Cor. 10.4, 5. Heb. 10.29. And thus Infants put on Christ as well as grown persons.

7th. End of Baptism (saith he) is, that the Bap­tized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible Church, &c. For as Circumcision heretofore was the visible door of entrance into the old Testament-Church— So also was Baptisme such a door, and visible entrance into the New Te­stament-Church, &c. Act. 2.41, 42. They who gladly received the word were baptized, and the same day there was added to them about 3000. souls; and they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. So that after baptisme, not be­fore, the believers were said to partake of all the Church-priviledges.

Posito uno absurdo mille sequuntur. Upon this false Hypothesis do our Opposites build their di­viding Practices. Wherefore we deny that Bap­tisme doth give formality, or make a man a member of a Visible-Church; it is not that which gives entrance into it, as the Author would have it: so, as if only by its Administra­tion, and in their own way too, persons must be Baptized, or else they are not to be reputed [Page 46]Church-Members, or to be admitted into the participation of Church-priviledges. But for this we have divers of our Divines quoted; as Ʋr­sinus, The Assembly in their Catechisme. And lastly, Mr. Baxter, with whom he is again at Hocus Pocus. Mr. Baxter (saith he) in his plain Scripture proof, pag. 24. As a Soldier before li­sting, and a King before Corwning, and taking his Oath, so are we Church-Members before Baptisme. But as every one that must be admitted solemnly in­to the Army, must be admitted by listing, as the so­lemn ingaging sign; so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible Church, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism. But mark (Reader) the Authors ingenuity. Baxters words are, So are we and Infants Church-Members; But being quite out of charity with those Innocent Babes, this man leaves out Infants, and one would think by the partial Citation, that Mr. Baxter also did shut the Church-door against them. It cannot be denyed that Orthodox Di­vines have frequently termed Baptism, the Sacra­ment of our initiation into the Church, and have ascribed our Admission or entrance into it thereunto, and hereby have given the Antipaedo­baptists some seeming ground for their rigidity. And yet I find that they are not agreed among themselves about the point; for Mr. Paul a great Zealot against Communion with any that are not Baptized in their way, doth in his serious re­flections disown the Position, That Baptism is an initiating Ordinance, and tells us in that Di­minitive Volume of his, p. 3. That he knows none that asserts it to be the in-let into praticular [Page 47]Churches, though it prepares them for Recepti­on. Mr. Kiffin it seems is of the same judge­ment, for he bestows an Epistle upon the piece. Of the same judgment is John Bunyan a more moderate Antipaedobaptist, that is, for Ʋnion and Communion with Saints, as Saints, and condemnes the Rigidity of his Brethren, and maintains in his Answer to the scurrilous (not serious) Reflecti­ons of Paul, That differences in judgement about Water-Baptisme, ought to be no Bar to Communion, Printed for John Wilkins in Exchange Alley. which is the Title of his Book, and sees no cause to repent after severe checks from his Brethren, to call them Babes and Carnal, that at­tempt to break the peace and communion of Chur­ches, though upon better pretences than Water, and declares God never made Water-Baptism a Wall of Division between us. And whereas Paul denies Baptisme to be an initiating Ordinance, he re­torts very rationally upon him, that if it be not that, but another, and if visible Saints may en­ter into Fellowship by that other, and are no where forbidden so to do, because they have not light into Water-Baptisme, it is of weight to be considered by all unprejudiced persons. Mr. Tull also, a moderate and very ingenious Antipaedo­baptist, is of Mr. Bunyans judgment; But Mr. Henry Jessey (of precious Memory) hath publi­shed his judgment to the same purpose, ground­ing it upon Rom. 14. v. 1.3.7. such as are weak in the faith, receive you, &c.

From whence he argues most strongly and convincingly, that it was the duty not only of [Page 48]the then present Church at Rome, to whom the Epistle was writ, as also to all beloved of God, called to be Saints at that time, ver. 7. But also of all Churches and Saints, Beloved and called, throughout the world in succeeding ages, to re­ceive into Church-communion and Fellowship, such whom we have ground to believe God hath received into Communion with himself. For that's the Argument or Motive verse 3. God hath received him, and saith he, if it be a good Argument to receive such as are weak in any thing whom the Lord hath received; Then there can be no good Argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them. The like argument we have chap. 15. ver. 7. of Christs Receiving, Receive you one another as Christ hath received us, &c.

Then that holy man breaks out into pathe­tical strains, Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this to have his children in one anothers hearts as they are in his, &c. and 'tis the work of the Devil (saith he) to divide them: Thus much to shew how they differ amongst themselves about this Position, that Baptism gives formality, or makes a mem­ber of a visible Church, which the moderate party amongst them utterly deny; now that it gives neither essence or being, either to a Church or Membership, further appears by these Arguments.

1. If there be a Church, ¹ and so Members be­fore [Page 49] Baptism, then Baptism cannot give the for­mality or essence, because forma is causal, and so is in nature before formatum.

But the Church considered as totum essentiale, is before Baptism, for Ministers are before baptism. And there must be a Church of Believers to chose a Minister lawfully; for none but a Church can give him a call, and without a call he can­not administer, as Mr. Hooker argues in his sur­vey of the sum of Church-discipline, cap. 5. part. 1. pag. 55. adding moreover, that if Baptism can­not be without a Ministerial Church, nor that before a Church Congregational, which must make choice of a ministry, then such a Church is much before Baptism. Besides let it be sup­posed (saith he) that at the coming of some God­ly Zealous Christian and Scholar into the Coun­try, and a company of Pagans (many) are con­verted to the Faith, I ask whether these may not joyn in Church-Fellowship, and choose that man Pastor, and whether that choice was not lawful according to God? Therefore here is a Church before a Minister, and so before Baptism. The demand which Mr. Jessey makes upon the same arugments is somewhat like this; if Bap­tism (saith he) be the manner of forming Chur­ches, how would it suit a Country, where ma­ny are converted and willing to be Baptized? but there being no Church to be baptized into, how shall such a Church-State begin? The first must be baptized into no Church [that is parti­cular] and the rest into him as the Church, or the work stand still for want of a Church.

2. A Church may be without Baptism, and [Page 50]yet as real a Church as the Israelites were so long in the Wilderness without Circumci­sion, which without dispute was the initia­ting Ordinance, according to Divine Instituti­on, Gen. 17.13.

3. One Argument I shall borrow more from Mr. Hooker, and that is, If Baptism give the form to visible-membership, then while that remains valid, the party is a visible Member; for where the form is, the formatum must needs be, if the prin­ciples of reason may take place.

But there is true Baptism resting in the party who hath no visible Membership: as in an Excommuni­cate, in him that renounceth the fellowship of the Church, or when the Church is utterly dis­solved, then all Church-Membership ceaseth; for Relata mutuò se ponunt & tellunt; And yet Baptism is valid. And as it is an undeniable position, That, that which gives the form or being to a Church, must cease when the Church ceaseth, or when a member ceaseth to be a member, it must cease with it; so it follows that that must be renewed, namely Baptism, as often as Membership is renewed, so shall we have a multiplication of Baptisms, as often as the per­son is cast out of the Church and taken in again upon his repentance.

As for those two Scriptures which the Author brings for his opinion, they will hardly be found to serve his turn.

1. The main place stood upon is, Act. 2.41, As many as received the word gladly, were bapti­zed, [Page 51]and there was added that day about 3000. souls. Hence they conclude they were added by Baptism, and that they were only added this way.

Sol. 1. It is more then the Text affords for to conclude that they were added by Baptism, much less can it be argued from thence, that they were only added this way, the words say not, they were added by Baptism, but puts a full point or stop after that sentence, As many as glad­ly received the word, were baptized. There that sentence ends, as Mr. Sydenham notes upon the place: And the Apostle goes on a new account, and saith, There were added that day 3000. souls, but doth not at all shew the manner of their ad­ding; so that these words are rather a recapi­tulation and summing up the number of Church-Members added that day, then any description of the way of their taking into the Church, and the former reasons prove it cannot be interpre­ted as our Author would have it.

The other place that he urgeth for his o­pinion is, 1 Cor. 12.13. We are all baptized into one body; hence 'tis concluded Bap­tism imbodies Members.

1. In answer to this, let it be considered what those of their one party say, that are for Dip­ping. The Text (saith Mr. Bunyan, that treat­eth of our being baptized into one body) tells us expresly it is done by the spirit. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body. Here is the Church presented as under the [...]tion of a [Page 52] Body; here is Baptism mentioned, by which they are brought or initiated into this body; Now that this is the Baptisme of Water, is utterly a­gainst the words of the Text; For by one Spirit are we all Baptized into one body. So Mr. Jesse, The Baptism intended in the Text is the Spi­rits-Baptism, and not Water-Baptism, and the Body the Text intends is not principally the Church of Corinth, but all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, being Baptized into one Mystical Body, and the reason why it cannot be meant of Water-Baptism, is, because all the Body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, par­took not thereof. Thus here we see how they clash amongst themselves as touching the sense of the place.

2. We add, That, (as we conceive) the Apostle speaks there primarily of the Baptism of the Spi­rit, not of Water; so by one spirit we are bapti­zed into one body, is not so much of Baptism by Water; and yet supposing it to be meant of Baptism by Water. Yet (as Mr. Sydenham ob­serves)it proves nothing that Baptism is the form of that body, Sydenhams Christian Exercitation, cap. 20. pag. 168, 169. which hath its matter and form, holiness and uni­on before Baptism; baptized into one body, doth not here shew the essential constitution of a Church, but the confirmed union, and the argu­ment is inserted more to prevent Schism, then to express the way of first imbodying or consti­tution of Churches, as the whole context de­monstrates.

CHAP. V.

THe Argument is taken from the New-Te­stament-Dispensation, so different from the Old. The Old Testament-Church (saith the Author was National, consisting of the Natural and Fleshly seed of Abraham, therefore were In­fants by Circumcision added thereto; but the new Testament-Church was by Christs appointment to be a separated people out of all Nations, consisting on­ly of the spiritual seed of Abraham, and therefore Believers upon profession of Faith by the Ordinance of Baptism were added thereto.

Repl. 1.

What of all this? If there any ground from hence that Believers Baptism is the only true Bap­tism? 'Tis true, the Church Dispensation is altered, Mr. Baxters plain proof for Infants Church-Membership and Baptism. but the Covenant of Grace is not altered. The Dispen­sation differs under the new Testament, only in regard of Ceremonial acci­dents, as Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifice; but the Essentials of the Covenant still remain, viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and [Page 54]this is the grand Charter of Church-Member­ship, which takes in the Child with the Parent, and consequently entitles it to Baptism, as shall be hereafter shewn; for if their Church relati­on can be made good, their Baptism will fol­low upon it. If therefore the Author could have proved that the covenant had been altered as to its essentials, he had said something worth a hearing.

2. Whereas he says the old Testament Church was National, it is a Truth; and yet the Na­tion of the Jews was not the Church of God, as they descended from the Loyns of Abraham by Natural Generation, according to the Flesh, but only with reference to Gods gracious Co­venant, made with Abraham and his seed, (which I wish the Opposers of Infant-Baptisme would consider:) and as this Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed after the flesh, so likewise is it still the same with Believers, and their na­tural seed under the Gospel-Dispensation, by vir­tue of the same gracious covenant made to them and their seed, Act. 2.39. For the promise is un­to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off: [the Gentiles.]

3. Antipaedobaptists may do well to consider yet farther, what Mr. Baxter makes good in his plain proof, viz. That Infant Church-Member­ship did take place as an Ordainance of God, be­fore Cirscumcision was enjoyned, or the Ceremo­nial law Instituted, and why then it should cease with it, is more then ever yet could be shewn. He makes it appear it was no part of the Typical Administration of the old Testament; [Page 55]but a moral Institution of God, even from the beginning of the World. God ever made a di­stinction between the seed of the faithful, and the seed of the wicked, as visibly belonging to two several Kingdoms, the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Sathan, Mal. 2.15. therefore are they called a Holy Seed, and a Holy Seed are Members of the Church, and so consequent­ly the Subjects of Baptism, the Seal of Admission thereunto.

4. Notwithstanding the Dictates of H. D. that the Baptism of Believers is the only true Bap­tism; we shall retain our practice in Baptizing our children, and thankfully own and acknow­ledge it as a Gospel-priviledge, till the opposers thereof can produce some clear proof out of Scripture, that the Old Ordinance of the Church-Membership of Believers is repealed. We see how imperiously another sort of people do im­pose their conceits, and how confidently they call for our subscription to their Light as they term it, as if it were a duty to deliver up our Reason captive to their absurd imaginations. We respect Antipaedobaptists as a more sober people, yet strangely over-grown with self-conceited­ness, as if the word of God came out from them, and it came to them only in regard of the true knowledge of the spirits mind in it.— Let them produce but one plain Scripture that. God hath made void the Antient Charter and Grant, and we will readily yield up the cause. But we have Scripture and reason, as well as they, and are the more confirmed in what we hold by observing how weakly they dispute a­gainst it.

All the Reason the Author brings to make good his Assertion is,— Because under the New Testament dispensation, Christ hath appointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Na­tions, consisting only of the spiritual seed of Abra­ham, and therefore believers only upon profession of faith are to be admitted to Baptism, and so ad­ded to the Church.

To which I answer, First, That under the New Testament-Dispensation, Christ hath ap­pointed the Church to be a separated people out of the Nations, is a certain truth; but that this Church consists only of the spiritual seed of A­braham is false. Qui benè distinguit, benè docet, He that distinguisheth well, teacheth well. What our Antagonist says is true, in regard of the In­visible Mystical Church of Christ, which is a com­pany of real Saints, that have spiritual Union and Communion with Christ, and with one a­nother, but not so with respect to the outward visible Church, which is the Society of those that profess true faith, for the exercise of Church­union and Communion among themselves, and ma­ny of these are Hypocrits and shall perish. Dr. Ames (an excellent person that understood what the New Testament-Church was, a little better then our Author) Med. lib. 1. c. 32. art. 9. tells us the same. And such, saith he, was the Church of Corinth and Ephesus, wherein all held not Communion for life, and of such Christ spèaks, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. And hath these words in Opposition to what Bellarmine falsely chargeth on Protestants, viz. Falsum est internas virtutes recuiri a nobis [Page 57]ut aliquis sit in Ecclesia, quoad visibilem ejus sta­tum; It is false that inward vertues [Grace] are required of us to put a man into the Church, ac­cording to the visible state of it. The Lord Du­pless is in his Excellent Treatise of the Church distinguisheth aright — The Invisible Church, containeth none but good [or in the Authors Dialect, the Spiritual seed of Abraham] The Visible both good and bad; that only the Elect, this all those indifferently that are brought into her by the Preaching of the Gospel. By all which it is evident that the Author stragles out of the Road of Protestant Divines, and is fal­len upon the confines of Thomas Colliers General Epistles. or the wild Notion of Mr. Dell, who in his Book intituled, The way of Peace, pag. 6. gives this definition of the Church, viz. The New Testament-Church is a spiritual Invisible Fellowship gathered up into the Unity of Faith, Hope, and Love, and saith, it is no outward vi­sible society gathered together into the consent and use of outward Forms and Worship. Now although both are out, yet I acknowledge the Author is more sober then Dell, for he is for an External Visible Church under the New Testa­ment-Dispensation; for he tells us, Believers up­on the profession of faith are to be Baptized, and added thereunto, and yet take him in his own sence he cannot be excused from error and con­fusion, for by Believers, he means the Spiritual seed before mentioned, not such as are Believers Equivocally, or Analogically, by profession on­ly, but in reality, or truth, as appears by the fol­lowing words [upon Profession of Faith, by the [Page 58]Ordinance of Baptism were added to the Church] As if when mention is made in the Acts of so many thousands that believed, it did imply they were all of the Spiritual Seed Regenerated per­sons, Annanias, Saphira, Symon magus, [who is said to believe;] whereas it denotes no more then a visible profession of faith, which is all that the Apostles and Primitive Churches had cog­nizance of, and this is seen in Hypocrits who are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham. And this H. D. might have learnt as well as other things from Mr. Tombes, who in his Examen, pag 159. tells us, Profession of Faith and holyness is a suffi­cient warrant to Baptism. And in good earnest one would think (by observing the lives and con­versations of some of their Proselytes) they took them in upon easier terms.

2. Sydenhams Exercita­on, c. 3.p. 25. We further argue, That if none but the spiritual seed of Abraham be the subjects of Baptism, then visible be­lievers, or such as make a profession of Faith are not the Subjects of Baptism; for they may not be more the spiritual seed; i.e. Godly, then infants.

3. Nay according to this Reasoning none must be Baptized at all, for who can tell who are the spiritual seed, who belong to Christ according to Election and saving Faith. Nor will that eva­sion serve their turn, we have charitable ground to believe they are such, because of their profes­sion, which is enough to satisfie the Church; for if according to the Author the New Testa­ment-Church is made up only of a spiritual seed, [Page 59]it is necessary the Church should not only have a judgement of charity, but infallibility to deter­mine who are the spiritual seed.

4. And since the Author and those of his way disclaim all pretence to Infallibility, and are con­tented with the judgment of charity, to distin­guish of the spiritual seed, knowing nothing to the contrary, Hanc veniam petimus, pray give us leave to act a like charity towards the children of Believers. For first, they may be capable sub­jects of Election, Jacob was such a one in his Mothers Womb, Rom. 9, 11, Neither was it his singular priviledge, but what is common to all that are Objects of Election, which is free without respect to any thing wrought or to be wrought. 2. They may be capable of sanctifi­cation; Christ himself whilst in the Womb is termed [The Holy thing] which proves the non­age of Infants makes them not incapable of grace, supposing Gods will, and it shews God would have it so, that some of them should be sanctified because Christ passed through each age to sanctifie it to us. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus sanctifi­cans Infantes, in par­vulis parvulus sancti­ficans hanc ipsam ha­bentes aetatem, simnl & exemplum illis pie­atis effectus, & justitiae, & s bjectionis. As Irenaeus that lives neer the Apostles, speaks; John was filled with the Holy Ghost, and what is that but the graces of the spirit, although he was no more enabled to exert or put forth any act of Grace, then he was able to put forth an act of reason, nevertheless his soul wanted not the faculty of reason, from his Mothers Womb; and what [Page 60]though we may not say all Infants of Believers are a like filled with the Holy Ghost, as John was, yet may we truly say that are all as capa­ble thereof as John. 3. They are also capable of Glory, of Salvation, or else it would be sad, but Christ hath told us of such is the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, Specifically as you shall see proved hereafter. 4. God calls them holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. and so may we. By what hath been said I suppose it is evident to the impartial Reader, that the Infants of Believers are as much the spiritual seed of Abraham, as visible profes­sing believers, and we have as much ground if not more, to look upon them as such, as we have for grown Christians, untill they manifest the contrary; for as for the former we own them as Godly, and admit them into the Church up­on their own Testimony only in a visible profes­sion, which may be deceitful; but the Infants of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents, and are visible Church-Members, and hereby come to have right to Baptism.

For the two former, we have an express Di­vine Testimony, and that they were once ac­counted such, and the Covenant being the same as to the essential spiritual priviledges of it, none of which can be made appear to be repealed; It will follow that Believers Children must not be denyed the sign and seal of the Covenant, they having altogether as warrantable a Right there­unto as grown Christians or Believers. This is Bu­cers arguing on Mat. 19.13, 14. ²

Let us now hear what is said to the con­trary, in what follows. He conceives the seed of Believers have no right to Bap­tism; Why?

Because, (saith he) Though the Jews had right to circumcision, as Abrahams natural seed under the old Testament, yet this would not serve the turn under the new, Mat. 3.9. John Baptist dis­chargeth them of that priviledge ( of Abrahams Natural Seed) that admitted into the Old Church, from any such right in the new. Think not to say that ye have Abraham to your Father, that ye are the Children of a Godly Parent, That which serv'd their turn under Moses, would not avail under Christ. Nothing now but the fruits of Repen­tance give right to the Bapisme of repentance, &c.

And must we take all this for Gospel? We shall upon examination find no weight in it, and nothing prejudicial to the Baptizing the children of Believers. For

1. Let it be considered, that these Jews to whom John spake were to come under a New Administration of the Covenant, and the first subjects of this Administration must be persons able to give an account of their faith and repen­tance, and Christ the Messiah was now come who was the chief blessing of the Covenant, yea the substance of it; and therefore 'twas necessary that as these Jews relyed on the Covenant of Abraham, so they should hold forth their rely­ance on Christ in whom the Covenant was con­firmed [Page 62]to them and their seed. Cottons Dialogue of Childrens Baptism. p. 130. For as Mr. Cotton ob­serves, The Axe was laid to the Root of the Tree, even to the stock of Abraham, and all the Branches that grew upon it, and were ingrafted into it, so that now if they brought not forth this good fruit, to believe in Christ who was then come (whom the Jews generally reje­cted as an Impostor) they and their children were cut off from the Covenant of Abraham, and must say no more, We have Abraham to our Fa­ther, but if they held forth Repentance and Faith in Christ, then the Covenant that was made to them and to their Children before, did still continue to them and to their children; and thats the ground and meaning of Peters exhor­tation, Act. 2.38, 39. Repent and be Baptized e­very one of you in the Name of the Lord, for the pro­mise is to you, &c. Now what prejudice can this be to the Baptisme of Believers Infants, who are admitted in the right of their Parents, laying hold on the Covenant for themselves and their seed, now under the new Administration, as Members of the Church of Christ and in Cove­nant with God.

2. Neither will we take the Authors word, for what follows, — Nothing now but fruit meet for Repentance gives right to Baptisme, without some qualification. For first, I de­mand what fruit of Repentance John saw in that great multitude which he then Baptized, viz. Je­rusalem, Judea, and all the Regions round a­bout Jordan, ver. 5. which could not be less [Page 63]then some thousands of whom he could have no cognizance, as to their fruits of repentance. 2. I farther demand whether he could judge this great multitude which were strangers to him to be all the Spiritual seed of Abraham? And since the Author observes from Johns words, they had no right to Baptism from being Abrahams natu­ral seed, neither could he look upon them all as the spiritual seed; let him tell us on what ac­count he baptized them? 3. It is like he will tell us they confessed their sins, ver. 6. and so were Baptized. But will any man think they did all do so, or is it said he baptized no other but such? It will be hard for any man to prove that John did impose this upon them. We find, as Mr. Marshal notes, that he Baptized them, [...], to Repentance, not [...], as state in Actual Repentance, and his calling upon them for Repentance, and Preaching the Baptism of Repentance, shews, that this was the lesson which they were all to learn, not that they all manifested it before he Baptized them. For ought we can find from the Text, the Pharisees and Sadduces were Baptized by him, and had they been such Penitents, it had been great un­charitableness to call them Vipers.

We have the Author over-lashing again in the next words, for he lies open every where. No­thing (saith he) short of the spirits birth can or­derly admit to Water-birth, and Spiritual ordi­nances.

But since you are not Infallible, let it be sup­posed you have been mistaken in your judgment, and have baptized a person, which afterward ap­pears [Page 64]to be unregenerate. Did you admit him orderly or no? you will say you did, because he was Baptized under the apprehension of being regenerate: The Church lookt upon him as such, and saw nothing to the contrary. Very good, now you are come about to what I would have; and indeed if the New Testament-Church did consist only of the spiritual seed [real God­ly ones] how abominably is the Ordinance pro­phaned, when it so happens (as it often doth) that any Hypocrites are Baptized, and when it appears that the Title which they had to Bap­tisme was but seeming, will it not follow that all that was done in reference to them was a Male-Administration, and Null ab initio; Mr. Blakes Covenant sealed. and as God looks upon them as unbap­tized (though they have been dipt) so ought the Church to look upon them, and if these Hypocrits shall repent and be converted, are they not bound to offer them­selves a-fresh to Baptism, and can the Church re­fuse them, and thus according to the Authors principle there will be need of a Multiplicati­on of Baptisms.

He concludes this Chapter with the sayings of two Doctors as wide in judgement from each other as the two Poles, yet it seems he can make them meet to serve his purpose. The first is Dr. Owen who is much engaged for his Elo­gy, but nothing at all for wresting his sentences from his intention. 'Tis well known the lear­ned Dr. (like to the rest of his Brethren of the Congregational way) is a zealous Assertor of In­fant-Baptism, [Page 65]and the import of what he says in his Catechisme, is no more then what all Congregational men hold; namely, That the matter of the Church is a Society or Fellowship of visible Saints, and this, according to the sin­gular dexterity of this Antagonist, (who beats us still with our own Weapons) is found to be point blank against Infant-Baptism. But we shall clear this point in the next Chapter, under which it falls properly to be spoken of. The other Gen­tleman is Dr. Taylor: we have said enough of him before, how much he was for Infant-Bap­tism, notwithstanding he plays the Orator, and tells us he will act the part of an Anabaptist, and shew what may be said for them though they are in an Errour; but let us hear what he says, for according to the Author he doth rarely accomo­date that which he thinks is truth, when as it is only by bestowing a few complements upon an error; we shall seldom meet with such a par­cel of affected words, delivered in such a strain as did notably fuit with the Genius of the times when he writ them; that is, before the turn of times, when men were high flown, and above Ordinances. The Baptism of Children (saith he) is an outward duty, a work of the Law, a Carnal Ordinance; it makes us adhere to the Letter with­out regard to the spirit, to be satisfied with sha­dows, to return to Bondage, to relinquish the my­steriousness, the substance, the spirituality of the Gospel, &c. This is brave stuff indeed, high towring language; I never met with the like, un­less it were in Mr. Saltmarsh his shadows flying away, and beams of Glory. And is not the [Page 66]Baptism of Believers think you bravely acco­modated with these Rhetorical Flowers? Is there one grain of Logick or Reason in all he saith? And then at last the Doctor doth so well accommodate that which H.D. calls the truth, that he attempts to maintain it by two gross errors delivered in one breath; for, saith he, if the My­stery goes not before the Symbol, yet it always accompanies it, but never follows it in order of time. But first I would fain know who told the Doctor that Grace always accompanies Bap­tisme? (for that I take to be the plain English of Mystery and Symbol without the help of a Dictionary.) No doubt he learnt this good Do­ctrine from the Schoolmen, who maintain, that Baptism conferrs grace: We may know the mind of them all by that pas­sage of Suarez, Suarez in tertiam par­tem Thom Tom. 3. quest. 68. Disp. 24. Art. 4. sect. 2. pag. 250. Per Baptis­mum datur gratia, si aliquis est rectè dispositus ad effectum Baptismi consequendum, in in­stanti quo receperit Baptismum recipiet gratiam. By Baptisme grace is given, if any man be rightly disposed to receive the effect of Baptisme, in the in­stant that he receives Baptism he shall receive grace. These men speak as if they were acquainted with the Cabinet Councel of Heaven. They can tell (if you will believe them) the Punctum temporis, the very moment when the spirit will breathe, and quicken a soul. And then again the Doctor is as peremptory in that which fol­lows — Grace, (saith he) never follows Baptism, which at first found is enough to scare tender souls from medling with it; for if the Doctor [Page 67]says true, you that are for Dipping upon the pro­fession of Faith, look well to your selves: for, if you have not grace when you are baptized, you are never like to have it afterward; grace, saith he, never follows it, you are like to live and die graceless.

This we deny not but God may (if he please) make use of Baptism to confer grace; but look upon it as a Popish errour, that grace is in sepa­rably annext to it, and a grosser one that Bap­tisme confers grace ex opere operato. The An­cients themselves as highly as they speak of it, did not hold that grace was an inseperable com­panion of it. Austin lib. 4. contra Donatistas, hath this saying — Quid prodest Baptismum, &c. What profits Baptism to them that receive it, unless they be inwardly changed? And yet though it may not profit at the present, yet it may for the future, and not only the Adult, but Infants too may receive good by it.

To conclude this, I shall oppose to what the Doctor speaks in derogation of Infant-Baptism, the judgement of a more Orthodox Divine, viz. Mr. Daniel Rogers, who speaks more wa­rily thus — I see no cause to deny that even in, and at, and by the Act of Baptisme the Spi­rit may imprint grace on the soul of an In­fant.

CHAP. VI.

LEst we should contend in the dark, it is ne­cessary we agree upon the terms. By [Con­stitution] must be meant the essential nature of the primitive Church, and in this I suppose we are one; and whereas he saith these Churches were not formed of ignorant Babes, that is, of those alone; for so we must understand him, in regard of the Antithesis which follows, viz. [but of Men and Women] it is very true, the pri­mitive Churches were not of this make, that is, formed only of ignorant Babes; for if they had, they would have been but sorry Churches. But whatever sence his words may bear, we know his meaning is, that Children are not included as Church-Members in the Constitution of the New Testament-Churches, these being formed (as he imagines) altogether of professing men and women; which he attempts to prove by Christs Commission, where Teaching goes before Baptizing: By the practice of the Apostles in planting Chur­ches, and by the Dedications and Contents of the Epistles, &c. To which I reply.

1. That we must mind the Author with what [Page 69]is before said in the first chapter, namely, That the import of Christs Commission to his Apo­stles was, de Ecclesia colligendâ, to direct them how, and in what manner they should gather Churches; they being at first sent out to preach only to such as were Aliens in respect of the New Administration: And we acknowledge all persons under such a Circumstance, are to be Taught before they are to be Baptized, or ad­mitted into the Church. But in Ecclesia col­lectâ, a Church actually gathered, wherein there are Infants, the Case alters; for such are to be esteemed as Portions of their Parents, as being one with them in a moral account, and belong­ing to the Church, of which their Parents are Members. And to avoid repetition, the same answer may serve for what is urged from the example and practice of the Apostles, in planting the New Testament-Churches at Jerusalem, Acts 2.41. Samaria, Act. 8.12. Caesarea, Act. 10.47, 48. Philippi, Acts. 16.14. and elsewhere. But I must follow him, having to deal with a sort of people, who take all of theirs, which is not particularly answered, for unanswera­ble.

By which Scriptures (saith he) it manifestly appears, that the New Testament-Churches were formed only of Baptized Believers, wherein we neither find one ignorant Babe, &c.

But what demonstration doth he bring to make this good? The Argument (if he had us'd any) must have run in form thus, viz.

If we have no examples of any other that were Members of Churches, under the New Testa­ment-Dispensation, [Page 70]but professing believers, then no others are to be accounted Church-Members but such: But we have no examples of any other, &c. Ergo.

The consequence of the Major proposition is unsound, and the Minor proposition is false.

1. The consequence is not sound; for, sup­pose it be granted under the Gospel, the Scrip­ture makes no mention of any childrens being Church-Members: Yet to conclude from thence there were none, is no good argumentation. Be­cause mention is made of the Apostles taking in professing men and women into the Church, Act. 8.12. to argue thence that therefore the chil­dren of such belonged not to the Church, is childish arguing. But this is a more Masculine, or Logical way of argumentation, namely, The children of the faithful were Members of the Church before Moses time, before the law, and why not after Moses, now under the Gospel? God took them into his Covenant with their Parents, and for the space of 2000 years, from Abraham to Christ, they were Church-Members, and since Christ is come in the flesh, we find not this gracious Ordinance repealed. There is not the least hint of any such thing in the New Testament, therefore it is not repealed, and the children of Believers continue Members still.

2. The Minor also is false; for we have intima­tion given us, that the children of Believers are Church-Members, and the Apostle writes to them as such, as appears Eph. 6.1, 2, 3. Col. 3.20.

And to make this yet more evident, I shall [Page 71]produce an Argument or two. The first shall be that of Mr. Baxter, in his plain Scripture-proof of Infant Church-Membership, and Baptism, viz. If God have repealed the ordinance, and revoked this merciful gift of Infants Church-Membership, then it is either in mercy or in justice, either for their good, or for their hurt. But he hath nei­ther repealed it in mercy for their good, nor in justice for their hurt, Therefore he hath not at all repealed it.

The sufficiency of the enumeration in the major Proposition, even Mr. Tombs himself could not deny in that famous dispute at Ke­derminster; for it must needs be for the good or hurt of Infants that they are put out; and so must needs be in mercy, or justice; for God maketh not such great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end, and of no mo­ment, but in meer indifferency.

The minor, Mr. Baxter proves in both parts: 1. That God hath not repealed this to their hurt in justice: for, if God never revoke his Mercies, nor repeal his Ordinances in justice to the parties hurt, till they first break Covenant with him, and so procure it by their own desert; then he hath not in justice revoked his mercy, to the hurt of those that never broke Covenant with him. But it is certain God never revoketh a mercy in justice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him: Therefore to such he hath not revoked it.

1. That Church-Membership is a mercy, and of the Covenant, is plain: Deut. 29.10, 11, 12.

2. That God doth not in justice revoke such to [Page 72]any, but Covenant-breakers, may be proved. 1. From the merciful nature, and constant deal­ing of God, who never casteth off those that cast not off him. 2. From his truth and faith­fulness, for else we should make God the Cove­nant-breaker, and not man, which is horrid blasphemy. 3. His Immutability and Constan­cy, his gifts and calling being without repen­tance. Now this is also certain that many Jews did believe and not forsake the Covenant of God, even most of the Apostles themselves, and many thousands more: and how then can these or their Infants be put out of the Church in justice to their hurt, who did not first break Co­venant with God. Mr. Tombs was hard put to it, how to extricate himself from the difficulties of this Argument, although a man of great Dexterity, and a very Oedipus in the contro­versy, yet it is said he was near to a nè plus ul­trà, but at length took Sanctuary in this An­swer; and mark it well, Reader, viz. [That the Ordinance was in mercy repealed for their good.] To which Mr. Baxter gives a neat reply — It can be no mercy, to take away a mercy, except it be to give a greater instead of it: But here is no greater mercy given to Infants instead of Church-membership: Therefore it can be no mercy to them that it is revoked.

Other Arguments besides this, that are in­vincible, may be drawn from that place, Rom. 11.17. A Scripture, which I perceive was too hot for the Authors fingers to meddle with, and therefore he gives not one touch upon it, through­out all this Treatise of Baptism; whereas he [Page 73]knows very well, that this is the principal Text that gives clear evidence that Children are yet Church-members with their parents; and if they have a Church-relation, they must not be denyed Baptism: because the same thing which qualifies any persons for Church-membership, qualifies them also for Baptism. But to the Text be­fore us.

There are three things which the words do plainly hold forth.

1. That though the Collective body of the Jews or the generality of that people were bro­ken off from the Church through unbelief, yet all of them were not broken off; for it is said, [If some of them were broken off] not all of them: for as was said before, most of the Apo­stles and thousands of Jews believed.

2. The Believing Gentiles are ingrafted in their place — [...], in amongst them, so Grotius hath it, positus es inter ramos illius arbo­ris, thou art set amongst the branches of the Tree, referring to those words, if some be broken off. implying that some remained still, and the be­lieving Gentiles were inoculated amongst them, or [...] according to Beza and Piscator, pro ipsis, instead of them, or in their place and room, in ramorum defractorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off.

3. The Jews shall be restored again to the Church at the latter end of the world, they shall be in statu quo priùs, become the Church and peo­ple of God again, as formerly, but in a more glorious manner. From all which issueth three unanswerable Arguments for the Church-mem­bership [Page 74]of believers Infants still continued.

The first we have already insisted upon, namely, That the same Jewish children which were visibly of the Church immediately before their Parents became Christians at the first, continued to be so after. And the reason is, be­cause they were not under the dis-churching Cause of as many of the Jews as were discharged, and that was unbelief, of which they could not be guilty by any Act of their own, More of this may be seen in a late Book called A Perswasive to Peace and Ʋnity among Christians. Sold at the Three Pi­geons in Cornhil. or of their Parents, as imputed to them. Be­cause of Ʋnbelief, saith S. Paul, they were broken off. If it be said (saith the Author of that ingenious and pious piece, intituled A Perswasive to Peace and Ʋnity) they were dis-church'd in the disso­lution of the Jewish Church-State in general: it is but an evasion which will not help them: for the fore-cited Text is flatly against them. For all that were not broken off by unbelief, did continue unbroken off; that is, they still kept their place and standing in the Church of God. And therefore to assign any other cause of dis-churching any, than the Scripture hath assigned; or at least, any other without this here assigned, and determined by the Apostle, is too great presumption, and such as will not satisfie an impartial mind; and, as Mr. Baxter enforceth the Argument very strongly, They who kept their Station, kept also their priviledges for themselves, and their children, if they were not broken off, their children were not broken off; [Page 75]for, as the Infants came in with their Parents, so they are not cast out whilst their Parents conti­nue, except when they are grown up they cast out themselves by their own personal unbelief. It is not to be conceived, that God should cast out the child that came in for his fathers sake, while the Parents remain in the same Church.

2. Those Jews who were broken off from the Church, their children also being before Mem­bers, were likewise broken off; therefore it fol­lows, Believing Gentiles and their children are ingrafted in: for the ingrafting must be propor­tionable to the breaking off; they succeeding in the place of the former, must enjoy the priviledge they lost.

3. If after the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, the Jews shall be grafted in again, not with a diminution, but addition to their glory, and one part of their glory was, that they and their seed were Gods visible Church, then so shall it be with them when they are called. This we have ver. 26. All Israel shall be saved. Which cannot be understood but from their broken off State, they shall be grafted into the Church again as before; for as Mr. Marshall notes in his Defence of Infant Baptism, pag. 134. At their first grafting in, they and their children were grafted in: at their casting out, they and their children were broken off; and when they shall be taken in again, they and their children shall be taken in. This Mr. Tombs himself grants, that the Jews and their seed were rejected together, yea, and that they shall be taken in together, pag. 66. of his answer.

Thus then we argue, if it must be so with them, [Page 76]it must be so with believing Gentiles now, or else there will be a Schisme between Jew and Gentile in point of priviledges; else there will be too distinct estates in the Christian Churches; one of the Jews, holy Fathers and children; ano­ther of the Gentiles, who have only personal pri­viledges, none for their seed, which is an absurd conceit (as Mr. Geree speaks) and would set up or keep up a partition-wall still, contrary to that, Eph. 2. I shall say nothing of other absurdities, which are very numerous, which come from the denying the Church-Membership of the In­fant seed of believers.

The Author adds; It is incongruous to reason and sense to imagine, that little Children are any way concerned as Church Members, either in the Dedications of the Epistles sent to the Churches, or the Epistles themselves, for they were dedicated to those who were called to be Saints, &c.

I answer, First, that this is a meer Paralogism; for what if we confess the Apostle directed his Epistles to such as were profest Believers and Saints by calling, were none other but those, or such like them, concern'd in the Epistles? What shall we think of carnal persons and unbelievers, are they unconcerned in them? This minds me with a passage in Mr. Paul's serious Reflections, such another rigid Antipaedobaptist as our Anta­gonist. He tells us pag. 9. That the Epistles were writ to particular Churches, and that it will be difficult to prove they were also directed to par­ticular Saints; but saith Bunian, a more moderate man (although an Antipaedobaptist) If this be true, there is vertue indeed, and more then e­ver [Page 77]I dreamed of in partaking of Water-Bap­tisme. For if that shall take away the Epistles, and consequently the whole Bible, from all that are not Baptized (he means, after their mode of dipping, being grown Christians) then are the other Churches and also particular Saints in a ve­ry deplorable condition. Would to God (saith he of his Brethren) they had learnt more modesty then thus to take from all others, Nè autem existiment Corinthii, hanc Episto­lam, ita ipsis propriam esse, ut ad alios non per­tineat; addit, Cumomni­bus qui invocant nomen Domini nostri Jesus Christi in quovis lo­co tum ipsorum tum no­stri. Piscator in locum. and appropriate to themselves, and that for ob­serving a circumstance, &c. But he better instructs Mr. Paul, and turns him to St. Paul, Rom. 16.5. and to the first Epistle written to Co­rinth, and shews that the first Epistle of John was wrote to some who at that time were out of Fellowship, that they might have fellowship with the Church, Joh. 1.1, 2, 3, 4.

Secondly, we grant the Epistles were directed (some of them) to professing Believers joyn'd in Fellowship, directly and immediately, and to their children (if they had any) and the children of all Believers in succeeding ages, remotely; and the contents of the Epistles concern both the Parents at present, and the children when come to years of discretion. A Father that hath se­veral children, some grown up to understand­ing, others Minors or Babes, may direct a Book or Epistle to them all. Whatsoever was writ, was written as much for our instruction as the Primitive Christians, We know Moses and [Page 78]the Prophets directed what they writ to the Church under that Administration, whereof their Children were a part, and yet they were ignorant Babes, and could not understand any thing or perform any duties. But let it be con­sidered, that though they understood nothing of those divine Exhortations, yet being within Gods Nursery and School, they were in a near­er capacity to be taught their duty, than Aliens; and their Parents were injoyned to teach them the Ordinances of God, and God gave this Testi­mony concerning Abraham, that he knew he would teach his children: and in the New Te­stament it was the commendation of Lois, that she had instructed Timothy [...], ab In­fantia, when he was an Infant or little Child.

3. Whereas the Epistles are inscribed with those Titles [To the Saints, Saints by calling, san­ctified in Christ Jesus, chosen, adopted] which can­not (saith our Author) be spoken of Infants. To this it may be thus replyed,

1. Some of those titles may be predicated of children, some not.

2. The Apostle calls the Churches Saints, ei­ther as looking upon them all as such. i.e. true­ly regenerate; for this is the famosius significatum of the word Saint: but this could not be, for he pointed at some that were sad Saints in the Church of Corinth and Galatia, or else he calls them Saints Synechdochically, because he jud­ged [Page 79]the most of them to be such, and so the whole Communion were judged Saints à Potiori, from the better part.

3. He calls them Saints by calling, i.e. by the preaching of the word, and so we acknowledge Infants are not, and yet the same Apostle calls the Infants of Believers Saints. 1. Cor. 7.14. Else were your Children unclean, but now [...] they are Saints, or holy: and 'tis the same word the Apostle useth in his inscriptions of the Epi­stles to the Churches [ [...]] [to the Saints:] and being he maketh use of the same word applying it to the children of believers, it hints thus much to us, that in Saint Pauls ac­count (who was guided by the Spirit of God in what he speaks) the Infant seed of Believers are as much Saints as any who are such by calling. Nor are they only foederally holy, but they may be also inherently sanctified, saith Mr. Tombs in his Examen. They may receive the new birth, and we say more, they must receive it, if saved, Job. 3.5. It is much controverted concerning the Text, whether it intends grown persons, or any persons of whatsoever age or sex; but the Original, if heeded, would put an end to it. [...], Except one be born, including all ages, all sexes. Children are so polluted in their first birth, that they can never get to Heaven by that, and therefore what the first birth cannot, a second must, saith Dr. Taylor. And if it be obje­cted, that to the new birth is required dispositi­ons of our own, which are to be wrought by, [Page 80]and in them that have the use of Reason: besides that this (as the Learned Doctor speaks) is wholly against the Analogy of à New-birth, in which the person to be born is wholly pas­sive, and hath put into him the Principle that in time will produce its proper Actions. It is cer­tain that they can receive the new birth, and are capable of it. The effect of it is salvation, if in­fants can receive this effect, then also the new­birth, without which they cannot receive the effect; and he illustrates the point by a Similitude thus.

As the reasonable soul and all its faculties are in children, Will and Ʋnderstanding, Passions and Powers of Attraction and Propulasion, yet these fa­culties do not operate, or come abroad, till time and art, observation and experience have drawn them forth into action. So may the spirit of grace, the principle of Christian life be infused, and yet lie without action, till in its own day it is drawn forth — and then he goes on — Who is he that understands the Spirit so well as to know how or when it is infused, and how it o­perates in all its periods, and what it is in its Being and proper Nature, or how, or to what purpose God in all varieties does dispense it?

Then again, if Nature, saith he, hath in In­fants an evil principle, which operates when the child can choose, but is all the while within the soul; Why cannot Infants have a good prin­ciple [Page 81]through Grace, though it works not till its own season, as well as an evill princi­ple?

4. Though Infants are uncapable of perform­ing such duties as are incumbent upon profes­sing men and women, yet this hinders not but that they may be Church-Members. Pray tell us what duties could those Israelitish Babes per­form, who notwithstanding their incapacity, were, asis before, Members of the Church with their Parents. And though they answer not all the Characters Christ gives his Adult Disciples (which the Author objects against them) yet they are capable of union to the Church, and Fel­lowship in the priviledges thereof. They are capable of her prayers and other pious offices, and for whom the Church hath a more special care and obligation of tenderness for their souls, than for others that are Without; and why should this seem strange? since they are Members of the Common-wealth, and of the family, and are capable of union with both estates, and the pri­viledges thereof, and yet cannot perform obe­dience to the State and Orders of either. In like sort, Infants are admitted Tenants, but the Fealty or Homage is respited till they are of age.

5. Lastly, Christ himself (as Mr. Baxter notes) was head of the Church, according to his humane nature in his infancy, and this proves that the nonage of Infants makes them [Page 82]not uncapable of being Members. And let a­ny judge whether it be his will that no Infants should be Members. For my part, saith he, when I consider that Infant State of Christ our head, and the honour done to him therein, it strongly perswades me that they know not his will, who say they will not have Infants to be visible Members.

He farther Objects the Church of England, who in their 19th. Artiele do acknowledge that the visible Church is a number of Christians by profession.

This is down right Mr. Tombs's Examen, part. 3. pag. 41. only Tombes hath more charity for the Infants of Believers, though not without some contradiction. For he there acknowledg­eth that in facie Ecclesiae visibilis, Infants of be­lievers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his Family and Church, and not the Devils; And what do any of us say more? But mark Reader how Mr. Tombs doth esteem them such; why, saith he, it is so, as being in a near possibility of being Members of the Church of God, by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the fu­ture. But to make them actual members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, that Protestant writers give, particularly the Church of England, Art. 19. To which Mr. Marshall answers, If overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors; as Infants Male and Female [Page 83]too (least you say that Circumcision made them Members:) I add also saith he, Baptisme now (as well as Circumcision of old) is a real, though implicite profession of the Christian Faith.

Next we have Dr. Owen (whom he cites no less than four times in what follows in this Chapter) whose judgement is sufficiently known to be against our Opposites. And notwithstan­ding the misinterpretation the Author puts upon some passages in the Doctors Catechisme, we have a particular account of his judgment in Print, in a Book called, A Declaration of the Faith and Order owned and practised in the Con­gregational Churches agreed upon and consented un­to by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658. where to my knowledge he was present, and the principal man of that Assembly, and concerning the point be­fore us, we have it chap, 29. Art. 4. thus ex­prest, viz. Not only those that do actually profess Faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized, and those only. And in complyance herewith, we have the judgment of the Synod of Elders Assembled at Boston in New-England, appointed by the Court, 1662. who strongly maintain by several Arguments in that printed piece, That the Insant Seed of Believers are Church-Members, and that being according to Scripture, Members of the visible Church, they are consequently the Subjects of Baptism.

See also the Presbyterian judgement upon the point in the larger Catechisme of the Assembly of Divines. Baptisme, say they, is not to be ad­ministred to any that are out of the visible Church, and so strangers to the Covenant of pro­mise, till they profess their Faith in Christ, and obdeience to him. But Infants descending from Parents, either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him, are in that respect within the Covenant, and to be Baptized. we see here who they take to be of the vi­sible Church, and within the Covenant, and to be baptized.

As for the Authority of particular Authors we have them on our side in great abundance. Piscator hath it thus on the 28. of Matthew; Porrò ad Ecclesiam pertinent non solùm adulti, fidem profitentes, sed etiam ipsorum liberi; Not only grown persons who profess the Faith ap­pertain to the Church, but also their In­fants.

Theodore Beza in his Absters, Cat. Heshuii pag. 333. hath this passage — Meritò arbi­tramur Infantes fidelium in peculio domini cen­seri; We rightly judge the Infants of the faithful to be of the Lords Flock; and he speaks of them there before Baptisme. And in our Margent Bible we have this Note upon the first of Corinthians 7.14. They that are born of either of the Parents faithful, are also [Page 85]counted Members of Christs Church, because of the Promise, Act. 2.39.

Peter Martyr. loc Commun. cl. 4. c. 8. p. 821, 823. Non excludimus eos [Infantes] ab Ecclesia, sed ut ejus partes amplectimur, &c. We exclude not Infants from the Church, but imbrace them as parts.

John Calvin, (to whom we should have gi­ven precedency) upon Acts 22.16. [ Eos qui fi­de in Ecclesiam Dei ingressi sunt videmus, cum sua sobole in Christi Membris, &c.]

The Episcopal Divines fall in with the rest, I will name but one, instàr omnium, and that is the famous Doctor Ʋsher in his Body of Divini­ty, pag. 415. The outward Elements (saith he) are dispensed to all who make an outward profes­sion of the Gospel; for Infants, their being born in the Church is instead of an outward profession, &c.

Lastly, the Author is at Mr. Baxter again, quoting something out of his tenth Argument to Mr. Blake, as if he had intended those words against Infants Church-Membership, when he clears himself so fully in the point, as when he stated the Thesis in the said Book of Dis­putations, and hath written particularly a large piece whose Title is Plain Scripture-proof of In­fants Church-Membership and Baptism.

To conclude this, I cannot but pitty the Au­thor, because of that self-conceited scornful Ge­nius that appears in what follows, altogether unbecoming a Christian; and I think all modest and sober spirits, cannot but be extreamly scandalized to see a man (pretending to be for the truth of Christ) so proudly to trample upon all that differ from him. Surely he must needs be furnisht with more than an ordina­ry measure of self-conceit, that doth so Magi­sterially condemn not only the Ancients, but those of the Protestant Reformation of latter days, sparing none, neither Prelate, Presbyter, nor Independent. Have patience Reader, and thou shalt hear a little of it.

How childishly ridiculous it was in those first Inventors of Baptism, for six hundred years, &c.

Have a care Sir, since you swell at this rate least you burst. Austin tells you Ecclesia sem­per habuit semper tenuit, The Church always had it, always held Infant Baptisme. And Doctor Taylor, a person whom you seem to honour much, says there is no Record extant of any Church in the World, that from the Apostles days in­clusively to this very day, ever refused to bap­tize children, excepting of late amongst your selves.

So well to observe the Order, [viz. first to Baptize, and then to Com­municate] and yet so miserably to miss it in the Subjects, apply­ing the Spiritual Ordinances to ignorant Babes.

This of the six hundred years giving the Communion to Infants, he hath taken from Master Tombes his sixth Argument against Infant-Baptisme, Exercitation, pag. 29. for there it is, and Tombes as is conceived took it up from Maldonate the Jesuite, who reports that the giving of the Com­munion to Infants continued six hun­dred years in the Church. But Master Geree well òbserves, that is not, nor ought to be taken of the first six hundred years, for it appears. by Maldonate's expression, calling it Sententiam, the opinion of Augustin and Pope Innocent, that it had, if not its rise, yet its force to become common from them. Not only Pro­testants but Papists themselves con­demn that of communicating Infants [Page 88]as an errour, yea (as I remember) the Councel of Trent it self. And yet Doctor Taylor doth profess in his discourse of Baptizing the Infants of Believers; that, page 59. certainly there is infinitely more reason why Infants may be communicated then why they may not be Baptized.

The Protestant Reformers are more blind, and do worse in his opinion then those who gave Infants the Lords Supper —

And how much worse, saith he, in the Protestant Reformers, that so lamentalby miss it, both in the due Order and right Sub­jects also, which the Prelate and Presbyter doe in admitting chil­dren to Baptism and Membership, but not to the Supper?

A little more modestly would do the Author no hurt, and let him know, that neither their Baptism or Church-Membership, are inconsistent with the Word, but so is Infant-Com­munion [Page 89], not only because God re­quires a particular qualification to the Ordinance which Infants are not capable of, namely, the exercise of actual grace in examination, discern­ing the Lords Body, and remembring the death of Christ; but because they are not capable in any certain way of the Elements used in that Sacra­ment, as to take and eat the Bread, and drink Wine.

Lastly, this Hagio-Mastix lasheth the Independents, which do worse than all the rest, and doth more grosly erre in point of Order, in admitting them to Baptism, but neither to Membership nor the Supper.

But I find the Proverb is true, Bernardus non videt omnia, even that great Doctor called Saint Bernard, is ignorant of some things.

Wherefore I crave leave of the Au­thor tó tell him he is ignorant of the grounds or principles by which the Independents walk. And for his [Page 90]better information I refer him to Doctor Nathaniel Holmes his Answer to Mr. Tombes his Exercitation and Examen, where he shall find the In­dependents Judgment jump with Master Jesseys, in his discourse upon Romans 14.1. you have it reprin­ted at the end of Master Bunians last piece in answer to a Book entituled, Some serious Reflections on that part of Master Bunyans Confession of Faith, touching Church-Communion with unbap­tized Believers.

Consider saith Master Jessey, whe­ther such a practice hath a command, or example, that persons must be joyned into Church-Fellowship by Water-Baptism; For John Baptized many, yet he did not Baptize some into one Church and some into ano­ther, nor all into one [particular] Church. And then afterward into what Church did Philip Baptize the Eunuch, or the Apostle, the Jay­lor and his house? This he speaks in opposition to those who hold that a particular Church is consti­tuted [Page 91]by Baptism, and formally u­nited as Master K. did many years since in his answer to Doctor B. and is no changeling, as appears by his Epistle to Master Pauls sorry Refle­ctions, lately Printed. So Master Tombes of old in his sixth Argu­ment, Exercitat. where he inveighs against the Independents, as the Au­thor doth here; and saith, That by Baptism a person is exhibited a Mem­ber of Christ and that Church. To which Doctor Holmes an Indepen­dent Pastor makes this reply, — viz. But what Church doth Master Tombes mean? If he means of the U­niversal Church I yield, that he is ex­hibited a visible Christian. But if he means a Member of any particular rightly constituted Church, according to the platform of those in the New Testament and ancient antiquity, I altogether deny it, for these rea­sons.

1. Those Baptized, Matthew 3. were in no particular Christian Church, there being none gather­ed [Page 92]till a good while after that Christ had given the Holy Spirit to the Dis­ciples.

2. Cornelius his, and the Jaylors Families, after the gathering of Churches were not by that num­bred to any particular Churches, or thereby made particular Churches that we read. Now that which ex­ists afore, or after a thing without that thing, cannot be the form of that thing.

3. That which is common cannot be proper and peculiar: But Baptism is common, to make men only visible Christians in General; Therefore it is not proper and peculiar to make them of this or that particular Church, And then he farther adds, therefore though Godly men or Infants have been Baptized, yet the Churches think according to Scripture, there must be somewhat more expressed to make such to own this or that Preaching Officer, to be their Pastor or Teacher, Whom they must obey in [Page 93]the Lord, and have in singular respect for the works sake, Heb. 13. And to cause the Minister to own them as his Flock, Acts 20. if he mean not to take upon him a power Apostolical for Latitude, to ex­tend to all Bapti­zed one. Doctor Homes's answer to Ma­ster Tombes. So page 193. The same Au­thor saith, several Churches of us do hold, that we may Baptize them [the Infants of the Godly] though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches, Baptism being but as we conceive an Admission into the Universal visible Church. We shall add for a con­clusion, That as Baptism is no actual admission into the Communion of a particular Church, as before appears in the examples of the Eunuch, Corne­lius, &c. who were Baptized without any relation to a particular Church. 2. It is into Christ, and so into the priviledges of the Body of Christ in general. No mention being made in Baptism of any restraint to this or that particular Church. 3. One act [Page 94]of Communion in the Lords Supper, doth not state a person admitted as a Member of that particular Church; no more doth Baptism, which is but one act of Communion.

4. By Baptism a person being ex­hibited a Member of Christ, and of the Church in general, and so conse­quently to all the priviledges of Christ, whereof Church-Communion is one: it follows that when a Child is Baptized, he is thereby acknow­ledged or declared to have a right to Church Communion in particular, [that is, in breaking bread with a par­ticular Church] when he becomes capable thereof. For, Omne Ʋniver­sale continet particulare, Every general includes all the particulars. Nor can any particular Church deny it, when such a one actually desires admittance into her, and undertakes to walk in it in performance of all duties, as a Member thereof, provided he be free from scandal, and visible crimes com­mitted since his Baptism to the time of his desired admittance: for what­soever [Page 95]may be just ground to cast out of Church-Fellowship and Communi­on, is also sufficient to keep him out that was never in.

CHAP. VII.

HE begins thus; The Magdeburgen­ses in their Excellent History, do tell us, that as to the Business of Baptism in the first Century, they find only the Adult or Aged whether Jews or Gentiles that were Bapti­zed, and give instances in the 2d, 8th, 10th, 16th, 19th, Chapters of the Acts, and have no Examples of Infants being Baptized. Cent. 1 Lib. 2. Pag. 496.

1 first In examining this Cen­tury, Ʋt Christus Infan­tes ad se ven [...]re jussit, ita nec Apostoli eos excluserunt a Baptis­mo & quidem dum Baptismus circum­cisioni aequiparat Paulus, Colos. 2. a­perte indicat, etiam Infantes per Baptis­mum Ecclesiae Dei esse inserendos sicut in veteri Testamen­to Infantes circum­cidi oportebat, ut in Dei faedere essent. Cent. 1 L. 2. C. 4. P. 354. Baptizatos esse aedultos, tum Judae­os tum Gentes, Ex­emplae probant. Infantibus Bap­tizatis Exempla quidem annotata non leguntur, sed Origenes, & Cypri­anus, & alii Patres autores sunt Aposto­lorum etiam tempo­re Infantes Bapti­zatos esse, Cen. 1. L. 2. C. 9. P. 496. I find Lib. 2. Chap. 4. Pag. 354. that touching Baptism they say, that as Christ com­manded Infants to come unto him, so the Apostles after­ward did not exclude them from Baptism: and truly since Baptism is compared by Paul [Page 2]to Circumcision, Col. 2. it plainly shews that Infants are to be admitted to the Church by Baptism, as in the Old Testament they were by Circumcision.

2 In Century the first Lib. 2. Cap. 6. Pag. 496. which is the place the Author refers un­to, they do not say, that the Apostles Baptized only the A­dult or Aged, but only this; We have Examples of Adult persons both Jews and Genti­les that were Baptized-Farther they say concerning Infants, we have no particular notice given us, or Examples that they were Baptized; yet pre­sently add, that Origen and Cy­prian and others of the Fathers that lived near the Apostles, do affirm that even in the Apostles times Infants were Baptized. But let it be sup­posed that they did not Baptize any Infant, yet it follows not that it is unlawful for us to Baptize them, because they did not; for (as Dr. Taylor says, whom the Author so much admires,) a Ne­gative Argument as to matter of fact cannot con­clude; and therefore supposing that it be not inti­mated that the Apostles did Baptize Infants, it fol­lows not that they might not, or that the Church may not. The words and deeds of Christ are infi­nite; and the Acts of the Apostles we may sup­pose the same in their proportion: And therefore [Page 3]what they did not is no rule to us, unless they did it not because they were forbidden.

3. Moreover the Magdeburgenses speaking of the subject of Baptism, answer an Objection which might be made against Infant-Baptism, Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 154. Whereas it is said they were Baptized in Jordan confessing their Sins, Mat. 3. and Iohn Preached the Baptism of Repentance, Mark. 1. and Luk. 3. therefore only they that repent are to be Baptized (which is the sum of all our adversaries can say;) To this Objection they thus reply; such Confession was necessary from those Adult Persons (being as be­fore the first Subjects of the Ordinances.) And then they come to state the Question; An sint Infantes quo (que) Baptizandi, are Infants also to be Baptized? Which they hold affirmatively, gi­ving several Arguments for it, one of which is grounded upon Matt. 19 viz. They to whom the Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven doth be­long, to them belongs the Ceremony or Seal of the Promise. And then they roundly tell us, that although the Apostles (before they were rectius edocti, better learned) would have kept Infants from Christs Benediction; yet being so severely rebuked by Christ, and guided or directed by his Spirit, they did (say they sine dubio) without all doubt Baptize them: informing us again, that the Fathers who lived near to the Apostles, do witness that the Practice of Infant-Baptism was derived from the Apostles, and transmitted to Posterity. Cent 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Pag. 153.

4. The Author fathers that upon the Century-Writers, which they speak not. They (saith he) [Page 4]tell us, that the Custom of Dipping the whole Body in Water was changed into Sprinkling a little Water in the face, whereas there is not the least hint of this matter in this Century, nor the following; but they tell us that the word [ [...]] signifies abluo, luo, i.e. to Wash, and that the Christian Baptism was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewish Baptism, of which the Apostle speaks Heb. 9, 10. [...] i.e. Divers Baptisms, it is rendred Washings, and these Bap­tisms we know, were not Dippings. Moses in the Ceremonial Law did not prescribe different kind of Dippings, though he did several kind of Washings, or Baptisms as it is in the Original.

CHAP. I.

If (saith he) Infant-Baptism had been any Appoint­ment or Ordinance of Jesus Christ, there would have been some Precept, Command or Example in Scripture to warrant the same; but inasmuch as the Scripture is so wholly silent, there being not one syllable to be found in all the New-Testament about any such Practice, it may well be concluded to be no Ordinance of Jesus Christ.

THe Argument consisting of two Branches, must ac­cordingly be answered in Parts. First then, to that which hath ever been objected by them, there is no Precept or Command; We answer:

1. A thing may be said to be commanded in Scripture two wayes.

First, Expresly, or Liter thy and Syllabically, that is, to­tidem verbis, in to many plain term, or words. Thus we [Page 36]acknowledg Infant-Baptism is not commanded; it is no­where said, Go, baptize Infants: if it had, there would have been no controversie.

Secondly, A thing may be commanded in Scripture Im­plicitly, and by good consequence; and what is thus com­manded, is as valid and obliging, as if it were in so many letters and syllables; and thus we affirm Infant-Baptism is commanded. There are in Scripture clear Grounds and Principles. from whence by just and warrantable Consequen­ces it may be deducted, that the Children of Believers have right to Baptism; for, if they belong to the Covenant, and are Holy, if they are Members of the visible Church, &c. then they ought to be baptized. So then the Argument a­gainst our Practice drawn from a want of express Precept, is built upon a false Hypothesis; That no direct Consequences from Scripture are mandatory and obliging, contrary to the Judgment of all Orthodox Divines, and the Method of Christ and his Apostles in their Arguings. Christ proved the Re­surrection of the Body against the Sadducees not by any ex­press Text, but by Consequence, Mat. 22.31, 32. So Paul proved the Resurrection of Christ by Consequence, Act. 13.33, 34.

2. There needed no express Command in the New-Testa­ment that Infants should be signed and sealed by Baptism, when the Covenant is not abolished that took in the Seed with the Parent: as there needs no express Command for the Lord's- Day, or First-Day Sabbath in the New-Testament, because the fourth Commandment for substance is still in force: So there needs no new Command for Baptizing the Infant-seed of Believers, because the Command for sealing such, is for substance still in force. It is also well noted by Mr. Gerce, that there is a great difference between an Ordi­nance it self, and some particular Circumstance, or Subject to which that Ordinance is to be applied. As for the Ordi­nance it self the setting up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant renewed by Christ, this requires express warrant in the Word of God; but when we have such warrant for the Ordinance it self, to whomsoever we find by grounds and principles in Scripture that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it, though we want express Command for it, if we have none against it.

3. We farther add what is well argued by some Divines: That if the Children of Believers have a right to be Baptized by the word of Pro­mise, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Sydenham. then they have a right to be Bapti­zed by the word of Command; but the Children of Believers, have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise: therefore they have a right to be Baptized by the word of Command. Now that Children have a right to be Baptized by the word of Promise, appears from Act. 2.39. For the Promise is made to you and to your Children, &c. The exceptions which the Antipaedobaptists make against this Text shall be removed in its proper place.

Now for the other Branch, there is no Example of Infants being baptized; therefore it is no Ordinance of Christ.

The Consequence stands upon a lame Leg: for, as is be­fore shewn, a negative Argument in matters of Fact is not valid. For Christ did many things that were not recorded, and so did the Apostles, whereof this was one for ought we know, the Baptizing Infants: and it is the more probable upon a twofold account; First, because we find such frequent mention of their Baptizing whole Families, as Stephanus and his houshold, Lydia and her houshold, and divers others, as soon as we read of the head of the Family to believe, the whole houshold was baptized. As when Abraham believed, he and his whole Family were circumcised; and so when the Head of a Family became a Proselyte, ordinarily He and His were Circumcised. Now in so many Families. as were baptized, it cannot rationally be supposed that there were no Children, and if there were any, they were baptized; for they are a part of the Family or Hous­hold. And secondly, Because we never read in Scripture of any Children of Believing Parents who were Baptized af­terwards. Our Opposits will not believe the Apostles bap­tized Children, because we can give no particular instan­ces of it; but this Negative Argument may be thus retorted against themselves. The Children of Believing Parents were baptized in their Infancy, for they cannot find in Scrip­ture, any of them that were baptized when they came to [Page 38]years of discretion, and not before. I urge not this as a concluding, though probable Argument, that in the Apostle's days Children were Baptized; however I am certain, that to say Infant-Bap­tism is no Ordinance of Christ, because we have no examples in the Scripture of any that were Baptized, is a pittiful Argument.

Next, saith he, That there is neither Precept nor Example for any such thing, as Infant-Baptism in the Scripture, we have the ingenuous Confession of the parties themselves. The Magdeburgen­ses do say, That concerning the Baptising the A­dult both Jews and Gentiles, we have sufficient proof; but as to the Baptizing of Infants, they can meet with no Example in the Scriptures.

Very good Sr. now you have learnt to set down things right, but why did you say in the 56 page of your Treatise referring to the same place Cent. 1. L. 2. pag. 496. That the Magdebur­genses as to the Subjects of Baptism tell us, that in this Age they only Baptized the Adult; was that lapsus calami or mentis? And do you not know that in the same place they tell us, notwithstand­ing particular instances cannot be found, (as all the Paedobaptists confess); yet 'tis evident from the Writings of the Apostles, that they did not ex­clude Infants from Baptism, and then bring Argu­ments for the lawfulness of it, as before?

For that of Luther in his Epistle of Anabaptism, I have not the Book by me to Examine it, yet I am sure by what the Author cites it hurts us not. The Scriptures (saith he) do no where clearly [Page 39]and plainly with these, or the like words say, Bap­tize your Children for they believe: and we must needs yield to those that drive us to the Letter.

This is still no more than what we all say: we all acknowledg it is no-where written, Chil­dren do believe (as Lutherans hold they do); and again we say as Luther did, it is no-where written clearly and plainly, with these words, Baptize your Children for they Believe. Nor have Antipaedobap­tists any command in so many words, Go and Baptize actual and visible Believers. If they say such were Baptized, we may reply with Mr. Sy­denbam, that is not to the purpose: for it is a verbal command, which they require to give warrant to an Ordinance, and for ought we can learn from Christ's Commission, Matt. 28.19. Whosoever are taught (be the parties never so wicked) they must be Baptized (if they will) for there is no mention made of their entertainment of the Gospel.

Next he Fathers that upon Erasmus, which was never spoken by him in his Comment upon Rom. 6. Namely, That Baptizing of infants was not in use in St. Paul's time. There is no such word, I assure thee, Reader, there.

Again, in his 4th Book de Ratione Concionandi, he saith, That they are not to be condemned that doubt whether Childrens Baptism were Ordained by the Apostles.

But why, Sir, did you not speak out all? You know Erasmus his words are these: Probabile est tingere Infantes institutum fuisse ab Apostolis, non damnaretur tamen qui de hoc dubitaret. It is pro­bable the Baptism of Infants was instituted by the [Page 40]Apostles, nevertheless if one doubt thereof he should not be condemned. In this Erasmus speaks like an honest, moderat-Spirited man, that would not have weak Christians Anathematized (as the Papists use to do) for their dissent in Circumstan­tial and Disputable points.

Calvin in his 4th Book of Institutes, Chap. 16. con­fesseth, that it is no-where expresly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any one Child was by the Apostles Baptized: to the same purpose are Staphilus, Me­lancthon, Zwinglius quoted; to which I only say, That whereas they all tell us, there is no express Command or express Example, an Implicite one is sufficient; so that in this long train of Authors which our Antagonist quotes, he doth but magno conatu nugas agere, take a great deal of pains in trifling. But that which he cites from Mr. Daniel Rogers seems to have more weight, who in his Treatise about Baptism, Part 29. Confesseth himself to be unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. This is taken from Mr. Tombe's Examen, Tombes Exa­men p. 2. pag. 2. To which I answer, one man may be fully convinced by Scripture-demon­stration, when another is not: but 'tis fit the Reader should know all that Mr. Rogers saith there upon the point; for it is unhandsome to bring in scraps out of Authors. He tells us, he no less doubts of the warrantableness of Infant-Bap­tism, than he doth of the Creed, saying that sun­dry learned men have undertaken to stop their Schismatical mouths that oppose it, and to answer their peevish Arguments; and though he saith his scope tends another way, yet gives his rea­sons for it.

1. Because Circumcision was applyed to the Infants on the 8th day in the Old-Testament,

2. There is no word in the New-Testament to infringe the liberty of the Church in it: nor spe­cial reason why we should bereave her of it.

3. Sundry Scriptures afford friendly proofs by Consequence.

4. The holiness of the Child (External and Visible) is from their Parents, therefore the seed being holy, and belonging to the Govenant, the Lord graciously admits them to the Seal of it by Baptism.

Farther he brings a passage out of Mr. Baxters plain Scripture-proof for Infants Church-member­ship and Baptism, Where he confesseth, pag. 3. That Infant-Baptism is not plainly determined in Scripture.

Hear what he saith Reader, and then judge what he gains from Mr. Baxter: all that he saith is as follows viz. The Scripture speaks fully of those particular controversies that were on foot in those times, but more sparingly of those, not then questioned, and then names divers questions, which the Scripture fully and plainly determines.

But (saith he) many others as difficult, which then were no Controversies, have no such deter­mination: and yet [mark it] the Scripture is sufficient to direct for the determination of these too; if we have wisdom to discern the Scope of the Spirit, to apply general rules to particular cases: Such is the Case of Infant-Baptism, Af­terward in the 9th page we have this, The grounds ( saith he) upon which Infants are Baptized are very easy, and plain, though to many it be diffi­cult [Page 98]to discern how it is from those grounds infer­red: and therefore though some few learned, and Godly and humble Men, do doubt of it, yet in the whole known Christian part of the World there is but few.

After this we have something brought out of Dr. Taylor's Lib. of Proph p. 239. concerning Previous dispositions that are requisite to Baptism, of which Infants are not capable. But to prevent transcribing I refer the Reader to his latter Piece of the Consideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptizing Infants; where he himself confutes what he had said in his Liberty of Proph. you have it pag. 25, 26.

Here also we have a parcel of Authors introdu­ced, who do all, are rolundo, express fully their judgments: That nothing must be done in Gods Worship without Scripture-Warrant. Mr. Ball is one of them whose saying our Antagonist fetch­eth out of Mr. Tombes. Exerc. pag. 9. M. Tombes Ex­ercit. pag. 9. so it is also in his Ex­am. p. 2. Tombes Examen p. 2. joyned to that of Mr. Rogers before-mentioned. Mr. Balls words are, We must look to the Institution, and nei­ther stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it: For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good plea­sure; and it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end, the Sacraments are to be administred &c. But why doth he not set down all that Mr. Ball hath in that place— Circumcision, and Baptism ( saith he) are both Sacraments of Divine Institution, and so they [Page 99]agree in the substance of the thign signified, the persons to whom they are to be administred, and the order of Administration, if the right pro­portion be observed: as Circumcision sealed the entrance into Covenant, the Righteousness of Faith and Circumcision of the heart, so doth Baptism much more clearly. As Abraham and his Houshold, and the Infants of Believing-Jews, were to be Circumcised, so the Faithful their Families, and their Seed are to be Baptized.

At last he thinks to rout us quite with a say­ing of Bellarmin's, whose very name gives us an Allarm and sounds Bellum & Arma, War & Arms. The Anabaptists, saith Bellarmine, call for plain Scrip­ture-proof for the Baptizing of Infants, and their Argument from defect of Command or Exam­ple, have great force against the Lutherans, for­as much as they use that Principle every where viz. That the Rite which is not in Scripture, having no Command or Example there, is to be re­jected. Yet it is of no force against Catholicks, who conclude that Apostolical Tradition is of no less Authority with us, than the Scripture; but that this of Baptizing Infants is an Apostolical Tradi­tion &c.

To which I Reply, that the Author might well have omitted this of Bellarmin, since it is but acun­ning insinuation of that Jesuitical Sophister, to set. Protestants at greater distances amongst themselves & to advance the esteem of their adored Tradition. And yet he himself speaking elsewhere of Infant-Baptism saith, satis aperte ex Scripturis colligitur, &c. Infant-Baptism is plainly enough gathered out of Scripture.

CHAP. II.

In this Chapter he presents us with the History of Infant-Baptism, and tells strange news, if you will credit him of its Original since the Apostle's days. Thus he begins:

1. From the learned Authorities before given, we have gained thus much; that as there was no Precept in Scripture, for the Baptizing of Infants, so neither was there the least Practice to be found there­of in the Apostles days, as was so ingeni­ously before Confessed by the Magdebur­genses, Luther, Calvin, Erasmus, Rogers.

1. BUt we have made it appear, Sr. that you rec­kon your gains too fast, and have much erred in casting up the Sum, as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter. I question not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a [Page 101]farthing, but are rather a loser hitherto. For a­mong all those Learned Authorities before given, there is no passage (although never so much strai­ned) that saith any more than this: There is no Express precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants, and this every Child knows, but in saying there is no Express one, they intimate thereby, there is an Implicite one. I love not to repeat, the Reader may, if he please, reflect upon what they say. And in asmuch as the point re­lates to matter of Fact, notwithstanding the con­fidence of the adverse party, unless they can pro­duce one Express place of Scripture, where it is said, No Infant was Baptized, or some Express Command not to Baptize them, their calling for an Express Command, concludes nothing a­gainst our Practice.

2. Moreover we affirm against their Practice, that there is no Express Command in all the Book of God, to plunge persons Head and Ears under water: nor can they by any convincing Circumstance about the manner of Baptizing, make it appear (though thousands were Baptized in a day) that any one was so severely dealt with in the primitive times: we shall shew, when we come to it, that the word [ [...]] among Heathen and Ecclesiastical Writers doth promiscu­ously signify to dip into, or wash with Water by pouring on of it; and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Washing, than dipping.

3. They have no Express Command or Ex­ample to Baptize, or plunge themselves as they do with their Cloaths on; which is rather a Bapti­zing Garments, than Bodies. Since they are so [Page 102]much for Express Command and Example, let them first justify their own Practice by it, before they condemn us for want of it.

2. He tells us, That the approved Practice and known custom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult, as all Ages acknowledg, and only they, at least for the first, as is so fully attested by Eusobius, Beatus Rhenanus, Lud. Vives, Bul­linger, Haimo, the Neocaesarian Council.

Look back Reader to that saithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgensian Century-Writers, and thou shalt be able to judg of the truth of what he speaks. I am necessitated to touch upon it again, what Eusebius speaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptism, refers to the Pagans; what that Old Popish St. Beatus Rhenanus saith of the Ancient custom which was to Baptize those that were come to full growth, with the Bath of Regeneration, if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpose than the for­mer out of Eusebius; but if we are to understand him so, as if no Children were anciently admit­ted to Baptism, no, not those of Believers, then we plead an older custom, even as old as Origen and Tertullian, that Children were Baptized in the Church: and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Instru­ction against the Anabaptists; The Holy Ordi­nance of Infant Baptism hath been perpetually observed in the Christian Church, for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original, even from the Apostles; which [Page 103]was the Reason why Austin hath that Expression concern­ing it, namely, Nullus est Scrip­tor tam vetustus, qui non ejus Ori­ginem ad Aposto­lorum saculum pro certo referat. Cal­vini Instit. cap. 17. part. 8. pag. 227. Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit. The Church always had it, always held it. And for Lud. Vives his saying: That they Baptized the Adult in some Cities of Italy, his Testimony hath been always looked upon as very incompe­tent, because he was but of yester-day, and we have nothing but his bare word for it, and not to be compared with Austin's, a man of great integrity, and that lived above thousand years nearer the Apostles, who affirms it was not only Practised in his day, but before, and quotes Testimonies for it. Then for Haim [...], all that he sais upon Matt. 28, will not prejudice us, his words are, Here is set down a rule how to Baptize, that is, that Teaching should go before Baptizing &c. which we confess ought to be so, when we have to deal with Pagans, and he speaks of such. And as none of the Popish School-men are for the Au­thors turn, though we have many passages quo­ted out of them, to no other end but to blind the Reader, and make the Book swell; so I am mistaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer, be much for his turn: you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatise. And lastly for the Neocaesarian Council, that bu­siness is of a very ridiculous nature, and imper­tinent to the question; for the matter under debate in that Council, was about a Woman that was pregnant, who being an Infidel came to be Bap­tized, and the Canon speaks of such a one, and [Page 104]not of a Woman that was within the Church, & of a Child born of a believing Parent, as is fully shewn before in Cent. 4.

3, Whereas, he saith, not only the Children of, Pagans were to be Instructed, and taught in the Faith, in order to Baptism; but the Children of Christians also: as those famous instances given from the 4th Century. We have shewn in our discourse upon that Century, the corrupt and silly grounds upon which they deferred Baptism till they were grown up, in those days, and some of the instances there given had Parents that were Heathens, when they were born, and so conti­nued till they were come to Maturity, and that was the reason they were Baptized, though 'tis true, their Parents were at last converted to the Christian Faith.

4. He farther saith, that as there was no Scrip­ture-Authority for it, so no Human Authority, till above 400 years after Christ; though to justify that injunction, Apostolical-Tradition, to supply the want of Scripture-Institution, was pretended.

I may almost say truly of this Quot dicta, tot maledicta; so many words, so many foul reproa­ches, Calumniare fortiter & aliquid adhaerebit, said Machiavel, and our Author follows the Rule exactly, he thinks he can never throw dirt e­nough upon Infant-Baptism, hoping some will at last stick. I shall Reply to this,

First, To say there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptism, and that Apostolical Tradition was on purpose brought in to supply the want of it, are presumptuous, weak, and false dictates: Since the same Men, viz. The Fathers, that call [Page 105]it an Apostolical Tradition, do upon the matter all of them, plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambros, Epi­phartius, who argue for Infant-Baptism, because it came in the room of Circumcision, and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circum­cision; and of latter days Protestants own no­thing for truth that comes un­der the notion of Apostolical-Tradition, Proinde necessa­rio veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis: quae si rem non evincant, frustrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad. in annot- Grotii in Cassan­drum. Art. 9. p. 71. unless they see ground for it in Scripture; they are of Rivets mind, that Tra­dition is in most points uncer­tain, and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we must see the foot-steps of it in the word.

And Mr. Calvin speaks to the same purpose in his Instructions against the Anabaptists. Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet &c. I do not in the least desire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point, any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients shall be found to be grounded on the Word of God. For I well know that as the custom of men, doth not give Authority to the Sacrament, so the use of the Sacrament cannot be said to be right, because regulated by Custom.

2. What though there was no Human-Autho­rity for it till above 400 years after Christ, is this any Argument against it? The Author bor­rows this from Dr. Taylors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to speak from him: the Drs. Words are — as there was no Command [Page 106]in Scripture to oblige Children to the susception of it; so the necessity of Paedobaptism was not de­termined in the Church, till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council. This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reason why it was not established sooner by Councils under an Anathema, was because it was rarely, if at all questioned or opposed till then, by any person of note, as to its lawfulness. Hear what Dr. Hammond says in answer to Dr Taylor, about this matter: It being granted by the Ob­jecter, saith he, that Paedobaptism was by Canon Established in the Milevitan African Council, Ann. Ch. 418. yet, as long as it is also confessed, that it was practised in Africa before, there will be little concluded against us. For what stood by Apostolical Practice and known Custom, need­ed not to be prescribed by Canon, as that which prevails by force of a greater, need not be assisted by a weaker Authority. And indeed while the foot-steps of so Authentique a Tradition were so lively and no Adversary, or Disputer started up­no question or opposition yet made against a Com­mon usage, 'twere ridiculous for Councils to convene, and fortify it by Canons: and so the only thing reasonably deducible from the lateness of those Canons, is, that all that while it was universally received without Opposition: I mean not, saith the Dr, that no Infant, or any Christian was unbaptized through the space of those first (4) Centuries, but that the extending of the Institu­tion to Infants, was not Opposed in the Church till about Pelagius's days, whose opinion of Ori­ginal Sin (utterly denying the guilt of it on [Page 107] Adam's posterity) was such, as might consequen­tily produce some change in his opinion of Paedo­baptism: for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Eusebius Emissenus, de Pasch, a passage intimating that Pelagius himself asserted the Baptizing of Infants, though not propter vitam, for life, yet propter regnum coelorum for the King­dom of God (i. e.) entrance into the Church, as is conceived.

3. Whereas he saith Apostolical Tradition was pretended. Let not the Reader be afrighted with this word Tradition, or because Origen, and Au­stin calls it a Tradition of the Church; for when the Fathers so call it, they do not intend it in such a sence, as if the Church were the Author, but the Subject of it, Magdeburg. Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines & Cyprianus & alia Patres Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore In­fantes Baptizatos esse—both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Bapti­zed in the Apostles days: and Austin's Rule is a reason for, it little less than a demonstration, quod universa tenet Ecclesia &c. that which is univer­sally received and practised by the Church, and had not its first Institution from some Council, but hath been ever retained, may well be believ­ed to be an Apostolical Tradi­tion. August. contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24. Moreover when the Fa­thers call thi [...] [...]n Apostolical Tradition ( [...] do other O­pinions) it is (as our Divines usually answer the Papists) in regard points of this nature are not expresly in terminis in the word, but may be fairly gathered thence by consequence. Chemnit. [Page 108]Exam. Concil. Triden. par. 1. p. 68, 69. To the same purpose we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tra­dition is the continued Practice of such things as are neither contained in Scripture Expresly, nor the Examples of such Practice Expresly there de­livered, Though the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of such practice, be there contained: of this sort is the Baptism of Infants, which is there­fore called a Tradition because it is not expresly de­livered in Scripture, that the Aposties did Baptize Infants &c. nor any Express Precept there found, they should do so, yet is not this so received by bare & naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. Thus we see, both the Fathers and Protestant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different sence from that the Romanists usually take it in, who equalize the Au­thority of Tradition with the Scripture, yea indeed give it the preheminence above it. And now judg Reader, what the confident assertions of our An­tagonist do amount to, whether dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu; whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry, and a little Wooll.

CHAP. III.

1. The first and Principal ground (saith he) that hath been asserted for this Practice is Ecclesiastical and Apostolical Tradition.

THis is a false suggestion, and exceeds all modesty: for although the Church of Rome ascribes too much to Tradition, as in many other things; yet the Ancient Fathers, as Cypri­an, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, with divers others, as is before shewn, plead Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision, and that Infants have right thereto, from the Infants of the Jews hav­ing right to Circumcision, whereby 'tis evident that Tradition hath not been primarily asserted to be the ground of Infant-Baptism.

2. He farther saith, The Protestants since the Re­formation, have chose to fly to some consequential Arguments deducted, as they suppose, from the Scriptures, to prove the same: both which in this Chapter are brought forth, and duely weighed in the Ballance of Truth.

We doubt not in the Process of the discourse to shew, that after we have weighed what she saith, we shall find it too light, and to be but chaff in stead of Truth. The Protestants, he saith, have chose to fly to consequential Arguments, deduced as they suppose from Scripture. But the Antipaedobaptists are of another mind, and suppose themselves to be Men of deeper Reason, and more piercing inspection into the sence of the Scriptures, than all the Godly and Learned Pro­testants since the Reformation. They see the mistaken conceits they have of Scripture, and how ungroundedly they draw their consequences from thence. An Argument indeed it is of much modesty, for the Author to speak at this rate: I would ask any of these Men, who are so highly conceited of their Scripture-Knowledg, why Pae­dobaptists, that are humble, searching, praying Christians, may not understand so much of God's mind in Scripture as they? Doth the Word of God come out from them? or doth it come to them only? John 17.14. 1 Cor. 14.37. or have they only the Spirit of Illumination? or are they the only Masters of right Reasons? Or dare they say 'tis unlawful to make use of Consequences? Or may not we be permitted to use them for Infant-Baptism aswel as they against it? Do not they argue from Matt. 28.18, 19. and Mark 16.16. None ought to be Baptized but such who are first taught, and consequently that no Children ought to be Bap­tized, because they be not capa­ble of teaching. Vide Tombes. Is not this. their constant way of Arguing? [Page 117]Now how unreasonable is it for men to practise that themselves, which they will not allow of in o­thers. I remember Mr. Staltmarsh in his sha­dows flying away, doth much condemn Consequen­ces, and saith Prudence and Consequence are the two great Engins of Will-Worship: good Do­ctrine indeed, and a fine preparative to an Impli­cit Faith! But Mr. Baxter chastiseth the folly of these men in his Plain Scripture-Proof &c. Position 10. pag. 8. Evident Conse­quences, Quae colliguntur ex Scripturi [...] sacris, perinde habenda sunt ac si in illis scripta essent. G [...]eg Naz [...]anzen. L. 5. Thelog. or Arguments drawn by reason from Scripture, are as true Proof, as the very words of a Text — would it not make a man pity such senseless, ignorant wretches (saith he) that will call for express words of Scripture, when they have the Evident Conse­quences or Sence? Is Scripture-Reason no Scripture? If I prove that all Church-Mem­bers must be admitted by Baptism, and then prove that Infants of Believers are Church-Mem­bers, is not this asmuch as to prove that they must be Baptized? I suppose no man of sound judgment will deny that the sence, or meaning of Scripture, is Scripture as well as the Letters, and Syllables in the Bible: For the sence, and meaning of the Letter of the Word must be drawn out by rational Consequence, as the conclusion from a Proposition by a fit medium; and if this were not so, the searching and studying of the Scriptures were a needless undertaking, and so would all Preaching and Expounding be. It is a good observation of Dr. Sclater in his Comment [Page 118]upon the 5th verse of the 4th Chapter of the Ro­mans; That God's Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth, as what he expresseth; as well what by Consequence is deduced, as what in summe of Words he uttereth: And instan­ceth in that of James, 4.5. saith the Scripture in vain? &c. It is usual for our Adversaries to cavil against this Theological Axiom. Say the Pa­pists, and Anabaptists (for in this like Sampson's foxes they are joyned together by the tayls, whilst their heads look several ways) where have we it taught, that Infants should be Baptized in all the Scripture? To which we answer, we have it not in Express terms, but by just Conse­quence. Where find we that Christ's Righteous­ness is imputed to us for Justification? saith Bel­larmine. Why, in Express terms we have it not, but Virtually and by just Consequence we have it; 2 Cor. 5.21. In the Equivalent we have it, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19. You are wont to boast, saith Bellarmine, of the Word of God, and to reduce all your Opinions to this one head, but in the Case of Justification by Faith only, that help fails you; for you were never able to shew in the Scripture that particle [only]. To this we Reply, that if we have it by Consequence from Scripture, and if we have it in the Equivalency, we have it in the Scripture.

That Tradition hath been the first and principal ground of Infant-Baptism, he would prove from Austin, and Chrysostom's sayings.

But how, and in what sense do they call it a Tradition of the Church? why certainly not as if the Church had been the Author, but the Sub­ject [Page 119]of it as before, as continued therein all along down from the Apostles. And if any of the Fathers speak too hyperbolically of Tradition, what is that to us who plead Scripture as its pri­mary ground for it? Besides Anciently the great­est points of Faith were called by the name of [...] (i. e.) Divine Doctrines or Ordinan­ces, for so it is rendred 1 Cor. 11.2. and the same word is rendred Traditions, 2 Thes. 2.15. So that Austin's Intendment by that expression of Apostolical Tradition, is nothing else but Apo­stolical Ordinance, or Doctrine, as appears from his own words; saying, The Custom of our Mo­ther the Church in Baptizing little Infants is not to be despised, nor to be judged Superfluous, nor to be Believed unless it were an Apostolical Tradition Lib. 10. de Gen. c. 23. (i. e.) an Apostolical Ordinance.

What follows from 153 p. to the 155th, is mostly borrowed from Mr. Tombes his Praecursor, Sec. 20. p. 86, 89.

As first, The Assertion of the Cardinal Ragusi, in his Oration in the Council of Bazil. Tombes indeed hath it in Latin, but the Author is at the pains to translate it. And since it is so notori­ous, and intolerable a piece of Plagianism, thus to take and conceal from whence he had it, contrary to the Laws of ingenuity provided in that behalf, we shall make discovery thereof by a Paralel.

H. D (i.e.) [The Au­thor] In the Council of Bazil in the Oration of [Page 120]of the Cardinal of Ragusi, It is asserted that in the beginning of this Sa­crament of Baptism, they only were to be Baptized, who could by themselves answer In­terrogatories concern­ing their Faith; and that it was no-where read in the Canon of Scripture, that a new-born In­fant was Baptized, who could neither believe with the heart to Justi­fication, nor confess with the mouth to Sal­vation; yet nevertheless, saith he, the Church hath appointed it.

H. D. Whereas some Object, that Bellarmine, and others do also bring Scripture for it; Becan. Lib. 1. c. 2. Sec. 24. answers, that some things may be proved out of Scripture, when the Church's sence is first heard about the In­terpretation (thereof; for so, he saith, it is concern­ing Infants-Baptism, [Page 121]which is proved from John 3.5. But the sense whereby to prove it, is only manifest by Tra­dition.

H. D. and it is con­firmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men, that Infant-Baptism was not reckoned perfect till the Bishop laid on hands which was called Con­firmation, viz. of the imperfect Baptism in In­fancy: and therefore saith Caistans secun­dum Jewel, that an In­fant wanting instructi­on in the Faith, hath not perfect Baptism.

H. D. Dr. Field. Lib. 4. p. 375. saith, That Infant-Baptism is therefore called a Tra­dition, because it is not expresly delivered in the Scriptures, that the Apostles did Baptize In­fants or that they should do so. Here the Au­thor stops and goes no [Page 122]farther being afraid of the next lines.

H. D. Prideaux con­trov. Theol. Sec. 392. Infant-Baptism, saith he, rests upon no other Di­vine right than Episco­pacy. viz Diocesan E­piscopacy in use in these Nations. Here he adds as before he substracted from what Mr. Tombes said out of Field.

I. T. (i.e.) John Tom­bes. In the Council of Bazil, in the Oration [Page 120]of the Cardinal of Ra­gusi, it is asserted, Item nusquam legitur in Cano­ne Scripturae S. quod par­vulus recenter Baptiza­tus, qui nec corde cre­dit ad justitiam, nec ore confitetur adsalutem, in­ter fideles & credentes computetur; & nibilomi­nus, Ecclesia ita determi­navit, & statuit &c. And, in principio hujus Sacramenti Baptizaban­tur solum illi qui per se sciebant fidem interro­ganti respondere.

I. T. And whereas it is Objected that Bel­larmine, and others do bring Scripture for it; Becan. Manual. Lib. 1. C. 3. Sec. 24. answers, aliqua possunt probari ex Scriptura, quando con­stat de vero, & legitimo Scripturae sensu. So he saith, it is concerning Infant-Baptism, which is proved from John 3.5. [Page 121]but that the sense whereby to prove it, is only manifest by Tra­dition.

I. T. Which is con­firmed in the Canon-Law and School-Men; an Infants-Baptism, was not reckoned per­fect, till the Bishop layd on hands, which act was called Confirmati­on viz. of the imper­fect Baptism in Infancy. Jewel alledgeth it as Caistans Tenent, that an Infant, for that he want­eth instruction in Faith, therefore hath not per­fect Baptism.

I. T. Dr. Field, of the Church 4th Book Chap. 20. of this sort is Infant-Baptism, which is therefore called a Tradition, because it is not expresly deliver­ed in Scripture that the Apostles did Baptize In­fants, nor any express Precept that they [Page 122]should do so. [ Tombes is so ingenious as to set down the rest] yet is not this so received by bare, and naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver un­to us the grounds of it.

I. T. Dr' Prideaux, Fasci. Controv. Theol. Loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 2. Paedobaptism rests on no other Divine right than Episcopaey.

Now to all this we have said enough before, as to the Substance of it, and I love not needless repetitions: only let me mind you with this, That though Papists and others, attribute too much to the custom of the Church, or Tradition, yet all sound Protestants when they use that word they do it in Sensu sano, quite different from the cor­rupt sense of the Romish Church.

And because the Author saith Dr. Taylor doth so fully and strenuously argue against us in his Lib. Proph. p. 237, viz. Tradition, saith he, must by all means supply the place of Scripture, and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, That [Page 123]Infants were Baptized: I think it not amiss to bring in Dr. Hammond to cope with him, in his Letter of Resolution, Quaere 4th of the Baptizing of Infants, Sec. 104. pag. 277. where, having before spoken of what sort of Traditions, have been rejected by the Reformed Churches, he then adds, Having no necessity to descend to any more minute Considerations, the whole matter will be resolved into this one Enquiry, whether the Bap­tizing of Infants, doth sufficiently appear to be of the Institution of Christ, or Practice Apostolical? And if it do, we have all that we pretend to, upon the score of Tradition; and if it do not, we are obliged to disclaim that means of maintain­ing our plea, or inferring our conclusion.

And because the way of satisfying this enquiry, is but the saying over again all that hath been formerly said on this subject, this whole Discourse having laid the weight of all upon this one Basis, the Institution of Christ, and Practice of the A­postles, it will be unreasonable to do this any farther, save only upon a brief Recapitulation, to refer it to the judgment of any sober Christian; Whether first, by Christs found­ing of the Institution of this Sacrament in the Jewish Cu­stom of Baptizing of Proselytes, Baptism in use in the Jewish Church and applyed to Infants aswel as grown men. The Learned Mr. Selden & Light-foot speak the same. which appears to have belong­ed to the Infant Children of the Proselytes, as is be­fore shewn out of Goodwin Ainsworth & others, Chap. 1. and Secondly, by his being so far from excepting against the Age [Page 124]of Children as a Prejudice, or hinderance to their coming to him (that is to their Prosely­tism) that he affirms them to be the pattern of those, Though Children are brought to him by others, yet they are sayd to come unto him in Mark 10.14. [...] the very words of which Proselyte is made. of whom his Kingdom is to be made up; and though he be not affirmed in the Gospel to Baptize such (for he Baptized not at all) Mark 10.16. (Which being the Ceremony usual in the Church, for those that were fitted for Baptism, and distinctly Prepa­rative to it, they that were by Christ afforded that, cannot be thought by him less capable of ( Baptism than of that): And Thirdly, by the ex­press Words of the Apostle, that their Children are Holy, interpreted by the Context, so as to infer from the Apostles way of Arguing, that it was the Custom of those Apostolick times to Baptize the Children of the Christian Parents, and so interpreted by the Christian Writers of the First and Purest Ages; And Fourthly by the Testimonies of all the Ancients, that are found to speak of this matter, without any one pretend­ed to dissent, that this was the Practice of the Apostles; Whether I say, these four things being put together (the truth of each of which, hath been before more largely evinced) it be not sufficiently Evident, That the Baptizing of Children is of the Institution of Christ, and Pra­ctice Apostolical. Thus far Dr. Hammond.

Next the Author saith, he will give us some ac­count of the insufficiency and Weakness, if not [Page 125]wickedness of those first Authorities, that have been leaned upon to prove this Practice to be an Apostolical Tradition &c. and he reduceth it to these following. Dionysius the Areopagite, the Decretal Institutions, or Epistles of several Popes (as he calleth them) Justin Martyr, Ori­gen, and Cyprian.

Concerning the two first of these we look u­pon them as broken Reeds and we lean not on them at all: and to produce an Argument for the Apostolicalness of Paedobaptism from these is (as Dr. Hammond speaks of some which he likes not) to be look upon of the number of the Blind and the Lame, that are of more use to betray and lose, than defend and secure that Fort in which they are placed. Know then, Sir, that we except against them as much as your self, and you know you have taken all your exceptions against these Romish Forge­ries, from the learned Pens of Paedobaptists. 'Tis by the elaborate pains of the Magdebur­genses, Osiander, Perkins, Reynolds, Rivet &c. that they are detected, who (as you observe) have laid open the Bastardy both of the one and of the other. From these Mr. Tombes gleans what he hath to say upon this point in his Praecursor, Mr. Tombes his Praecursor. where you have them collected to your hand, and from whence you fetch what you present us with: and here I am tempted again to draw another Paralel, you do so exactly tread in his [Page 126]steps, as first, beginning as he doth, with Osi­ander, then follows Rivet, afterward Perkins, then the Decretal-Epistles, which pass under the name of Clement, Hyginus &c. All which are condemned as Spurious by Mr. Perkins, and he gives undeniable Arguments for it.

But I observe your little design, to render In­fant Baptism the more odious by that appel­lation you give Clement, Hyginus, with the rest of them; namely, Pope say you, the Decretals and Institutions of several Popes in this Second Century, as that of Pope Clement, Pope Hygi­nus: and is it not strange [...]hat the Pope should appear so early? 'Tis not handsome thus to impose upon the weaker sort, that are not read in Church-History: As for others that are more learned they know that Hyginus, (the Verus or true one of that name) is numbred amongst the first good Bishops that succeeded the Apostles; for so we find him in Dr. Pride­aux his Catologue, and to be the man that set Justin Martyr at work to frame his Apology for the Christians, and was no Pope in the sence it is usually taken, viz. An Oeconomical Bishop challenging unto himself, and usurping Authority over the whole Church. Euseb. Lib. 4. c. 9. He is calculated to be the 8th Bishop of Rome, liv­ing in the dayes of Antoninus Pius about a hundred and fourty years after Christ and very near to the Apostles.

Having thus discarded the feigned Dionysius, and the Personatus Hyginus (as Mr. Tombes observes he is called by Ostander) with the rest of the cheating Tribe; laying no stress at all upon what they say, as touching the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism, we shall notwithstanding, by the Author's good leave, still retain a Vene­rable esteem of the other three that follow. For honest Men are nevertheless honest, for being rankt with cheats, though I confess, they are the more lyable to suspicion, by such as do not examine things.

First for Justin Martyr, we shall not alto­gether quit our claim to him, though there be so litle left of him, as Mr. Baxter notes, that we cannot expect that he should speak expresly to the point, Justin Martyr, is supposed to have li­ved in St. John's days. Scultetus saith he flourished Anno 140. both because he is brief, and treat­eth on other (Theams, to which this did not belong, and because the Church then living amongst Heathens had so much to do in converting, and Baptizing the Aged that they had little occasion to treat about Children, especially it being a point not Controverted, but taken for granted by the Christians, who knew God's dealing with the Jews Church; yet nevertheless, saith Mr. Baxter, Justin Martyr gives such hints, by which his Judgment and the Pra­ctice of the Church, Baxter, plaint Scripture-Proof. p. 155. even in those dayes may be discerned.

Touching what is said in Justin Martyr's Responses (against which the Author levels his discourse) and especially what is said in his 56th Question ad Orthodoxos, the Author sayes right, that many of the afore-said Learned Writers that are Paedobaptists do disown it as spurious — And Mr. Baxter himself Acknow­ledgeth the same that though the Book be Ancient, yet it was either Spurious or Interpolate: True, but withal gives divers passages for our turn out of other Works of his, as that in his Dia­logue with Tryphon, Part 2. Propos. 3. Nos certe qui hujus ope ad Deum accessimus, non carnalem istam Circumcisionem, fed Spiritualem — Hanc, nos per Baptisma, ut pote peccatores nati, a Deo miserante accepimus; eam licet omnibus simi­liter accipere. (i. e.) It was Lawful for all to receive the Spiritual Circumcision, which he saith was done by Baptism, and if all might receive it, even so Infants (who were the sub­jects of the Legal Circumcision) for they must be a part of the All and not excluded.

Another touch we have in that Passage of Justin, importing Baptism to be the only way to Re­mission of Sins and Salvation; and he judged that Infants are forgiven, and saved; there­fore he judged that they might be Baptized. As for the places, I refer the Reader to Mr. Baxter's Plain Scripture-Proof, where we have them quot­ed, pag. 155.

2. For Origen we shall with greater confi­dence adhere to him, notwithstanding the fri­volous Cavils of the Author which are redu­cible to these 6 Heads.

1. His First is, That Origen is but one single Testimony for the practice of Infant-Baptism to be Apostolical.

Reply.

This will not pass for a Truth, because we have also the Testimony of Irenaeus, Irenaeus lived in the 2d. Century with Justin Mar­tyr, in the Age of those that saw the Apostles, and there­fore could not be ignorant of their Practice. who lived in the Second Century with Justin, even in the Age of those that saw the Apostles; within the first Century after them. Dr. Hammond in his Letter of Re­solution Sec. 40. pag. 212. where also we have quoted that Common, though Famous passage of his Extant in Lib. 2 Adv. Hae­res. C. 39. Omnem aetatem Sanctificans per illam quae ad ipsam erat similitudinem. Omnes enim ve­nit per semet ipsum salvare, Infantes, & Parvulos & Pueros — Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum. (i. e.) Christ did Sanctify every Age, by his own susception of it, and Similitude to it — All I say, who by him are born again to God: where the Infants being Regenerate, and born again into God, must needs be interpreted after the Scripture-Notion of [...], being born [Page 130]again, or Regenerate by that laver of Regeneration. 'Tit. 3.5. The Apostle ealls Baptism [...]: and Mr. Mede in his Diatribe saith, none will deny but that he means by the Washing of Re­generation, Bap­tism. And as Vossius upon the place, saith, to call Baptism Renasce [...]ia, is usitata veteribus loquendi forma. By being born again all the Ancient Church-Writ­ers understand Baptism, and that they took it in this sence, is evinced from that of Justin Martyr (noted by Mr. Mar­shal) who speaking of the manner of the Administration of Baptism useth it in this sence.

The Baptized party, (saith he) is brought to the place where the water is, and Regene­rated in the same manner, wherein we were Regenerated; And that he is there speaking of Baptism under the name of Regeneration, Justin Mart. Ap. [...], &c. appears by what is added — They are then Washed in Water in the Name of our Lord God Creator of all things, and of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, & the Holy Ghost. This is taken out of Justin Martyr's Apology, which no man ever questioned for Authentick.

2. A Second exception, is, That Origen's Writings are very Corrupt as the Magdeburgen­ses do affirm.

And is there not much Corruption in the Writings of all the Fathers? and do not the Magdeburgenses set down the Naevi or Errors of the rest of the Eathers? and particularly is not Tertullian (one of the Authors Witnesses whom he cryes up as Opposite to Infant-Bap­tism, when 'tis no such matter) branded by them, for abominable foul errors concerning God and Christ? and do they not charge him to be infected with Montanism, and to be the first inventor of that filthy Ceremony of Chrysm? And notwithstanding Origen's errors, there are very precious and Golden Truths in some of his Works, particularly in his Comment upon the Galathians, which seem not to be coined in a Popish Mint: So that what hath been long spoken of him is very true, — Ʋbi bene nemo melius, ubi male nemo pejus. Where he speaks right, none better, where wrong, none worse.

3. A Third charge against Origen (which the Author borrows from his old friend Mr. Tombes) is that of Erasmus who passeth this Censure on him, That he that reads his Homilies, Mr. Tombe's Exercit. p. 28. knows not when he reads Origen or Ruffinus: and Perkins puts his Homilies u­pon the Romans among his con­terfeit Works, Mr. Tombe's Examen, p. 7. as Erasmus Cen­sureth those on Leviticus.

To which we Reply,

1. It is to be noted that neither the Author, nor any one else hath any thing to say against Origen's Homilies upon Luke, where he is ex­presly for Infant-Baptism, even Mr. Perkins lets this pass without the Censure of being spu­rious.

2. All that Mr. Perkins saith of his Homilies upon the Romans is, That they were not fide­liter redditi a Ruffino (i.e.) not faithfully Tran­slated by Ruffinus, which comes not up to a con­cluding them spurious.

It was then in his account Origen's own work, but errors were committed in the Translation, of which that of foisting in Infant-Baptism is but a weak conjecture; for why should that be thought? since it was so universally practised, and owned in those dayes.

3. He saith, They may well be rejected as spu­rious if we consider the Story the Magdebur­genses tell of this Ruffinus, Cent. 4. De illis quae ex Origine aeb Hie­ronimo translata, [...] videantur E­rasmo, Magd. Cent. 4. C. 10. de E­pisc. & Doct. p. 1218. c. 10. p. 1218, 1219. and I find there is something add­ed to the Story in the carriage. The Sum of all is that Ruffi­nus was a naughty man, whose wickedness (saith the Author) was discovered by Jerom, espe­cially his abusing Origen's [Page 133] Works, many of which he translated out of Greek into Latin, Sophisticating them at his pleasure, and for which Jerom. writes several pieces to de­tect and reprove him.

Reply.

This is something more than the Magdebur­genses speak of him, and they have only Je­rom's word for what they say; who was his mortal enemy, and they report none of the best neither concerning Jerom, as they have it from the Pen of Ruffinus. No doubt Ruffinus was no better than he should be; but for certain the Author is too partial for an Historian, laying all the blame upon Ruffinus, when the Magdebur­genses do condemn them both for their Enmity and unchristian-like carriage to each other, and in some things do vindicate Ruffinus and blame Jerom.

I shall therefore take the freedom partly for diversion, and to rectify the Story, to give a brief account of the matter. In the first place the Magdeburgenses do inform us, That there was at first a more than ordinary friendship, and familiarity between these two, how they were as Brethren and Companions in Study; but at length there happened to be vehemens dissidi­um, a great breach between them, in so much that they became great enemies. But what was the cause hereof cannot be found in any of Je­rom's Writings: after this they became friends again, at least in appearance.

But the wound was not thorowly healed, but only skinned over, for a while after there arose a new quarrel, and they were set at a farther distance than ever; they fall to calumniating and writing bitter invectives against each other, and they are both accused by the Magdebur­genses for the virulency of their Pens.

First Ruffinus chargeth Jerom to be infected with Origen's Heresies, and put him to the trouble of an Apology; and besides he accuseth him that he had not rightly translated the Scrip­tures, instancing in several places. Then Je­rom recriminats and accuseth him for translat­ing Origen's Works with his Naevi or Errors, to the blemish of Origen, and danger of infecting the World thereby. And here let me tell you the Magdeburgenses interpose and speak their sence of the matter, that though Jerom charg­ed him so highly, yet it was nimis languida ut videtur ratione, without sufficient ground for ought that they could find: For say they, Ruf­finus, neither defended nor asserted Origen's er­rors, nor was the first that translated his Works; nor did he undertake it arbitrio suo by his own inclination, but ad Fratrum preces at the desire of his Brethren, as he fully shews in the Apology which he made to Anastasius for his Faith, a confession whereof they also set down, which is very Orthodox. Cent. 4. Cap. 10. p. 1202, 1203.

4. The Author is again out in saying, There is only a corrupt Translation of Origen by Ruffinus, who ingeniously confesseth that he took so much li­berty in his translation as to add and alter at his pleasure &c.

It is a great mistake to say there is only a corrupt Translation of Origen by Ruffinus, and he might have learned the contrary from the Magdeburgenses Cent. 4. cap. 10. p. 1218, 1219. where they say — extant inter Ori­genis opera Latina facta quaedam, quorum inter­pres fuit Hieronimus, Erasmi judicio; Divers of Origen's Works are Translated by Jerom. This is the judgment of Erasmus, as his Homi­lies upon Jeremy, Ezechiel, his Homilies upon Luke and the Romans, to both which Jerom affixeth his own Preface as Erasmus observes, and in both these, have we the point of Infant-Baptism asserted; and so we see the Author might have spared the pains of telling such a Story of Ruffinus, for we give the places which are for our turn out of Origen according to Je­rom's version, and if Ruffinus hath no credit with him, I hope he will allow a little to Je­rom.

3. Lastly, for that other ancient Father Cy­prian, he cannot let him pass without some ex­ceptions such as they are, though me thinks that of Vossius should silence all Cavils viz, That the Testimony of Cyprian for Infant-Baptism, both in his time and before, is beyond all ex­ceptions. And Grotius likewise tells us that the Epistle of Cyprian to Fidus, makes the matter plain that there was then no doubt of Infant-Baptism, for Fidus did not deny their Bap­tism, but only denyed they ought to be Bap­tized before the eight day. But let us hear what he hath to except against Cyprian, which is;

1. Because he doth not urge the Practice from any Apostolical Tradition or Precept, but from his own and the Council of sixty six Bishops Arguments.

Reply.

But what though no men­tion be made here of Aposto­lical-Tradition, Origenes & Cy­prianus Authores sunt Apostolorum etiam tempore In­fantes Baptizatos esse. Magdeburg. Cent. 1. Lib. 2. c. 6. p. 496. yet it follows not that he held it not as such, and the Magdeburgen­ses have before told us that both Origen and Cyprian that lived near the Apostles affirm that even in the Apostles time Infants were Baptized.

But to see how inflexible and stiff this Anta­gonist is — if saith he, he had Asserted it [Page 137]for an Apostolical Tradition, his word would have been no sooner taken than when he tells us that Chrysm was so.

To which I Reply,

And why then shall Tertullian's supposed Word against Infant-Baptism be taken, and pass for currant, who was as the Magdebur­genses inform us the first inventer of Chrysm; and Cyprian 'tis like learned it of him who was as the Author calls him his great Master. Judg Reader whether this be fair and equal deal­ing.

2. His other Exception, which he never learned from his great Master Mr. Tombes, (who was too wise to urge it when he opposed the Testimony of Cyprian. Examen, Sec. 7. pag. 10.) is, because there is good ground to question whether this was Cyprian's and sixty-six Bishops Conclusion.

And why so?

1. Because we meet with no such Council, (and that is strange for one that hath launched as he hath done into the vast Ocean of Antiquity) neither yet can it appear where it was held.

Something must be sayd, though it be but meer wrangling; Well I perceive the Anci­ent Fathers that lived next after Cyprian were dim-sighted, and could not see what good ground there was to question, whether ever Cyprian had such a Council. Had they had the perspicacity of this Author, they would never have retained so venerable an esteem of it, as is evident they had in their frequent and respective quotations of it. As Nazianzen O­rat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Chrysost. Hom. ad Neophit. Ambros in Luc. and Hieronimus Lib. 3. Dialog. Contr. Pelag. and Austin in very many places; and no less weakness is there in what follows, viz.

And if Austin's Argument before mentioned be good to prove an Apostolical Tradition, because no Council had determined it, it concludes against any such Council.

Reply.

A pittiful mistake, or misunderstanding Au­stin's Words, which are, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia &c. That which is universally receiv­ed, and practised in the Church, and had not its first Institution from some Council: (The Au­thor should have markt that) but hath been ever retained, may be believed to be an Aposto­lical Tradition: which indeed is an undenia­ble Position, and being applyed by Austin to the point in hand seems to be a Demonstration [Page 139]of the Apostolicalness of Infant-Baptism: Au­stin therefore calls it an Apostolical Tradition, because it was alwayes practised in the Church, and had not its first Institution from Councils, neither in Cyprian's Council nor any one else, being of greater Antiquity than any of them. Neither can any man name when it began since the Apostles: and for that reason we cannot o­therwise conceive rationally of it, than that it had its first Original from them.

I shall only add those remarkable Words of Mr. Philpot, the Martyr, in his Letter to his fellow-sufferer that scrupled Infant-Baptism; which with the Scripture-Arguments he used, proved so effectual, that (as Mr. Fox in his Book of Martyrs tells us) the dissatisfied Person came thereby to be established in the doctrine of In­fant-Baptism, and dyed in the Belief of its war­rantableness. I can declare (saith Mr. Philpot) out of Ancient Writers, that the Baptism of In­fants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours; and then cites Origen and Cyprian out of Austins 28th Epistle to Jerom: where are these words viz, Cyprian did not make any new De­cree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church, judged with his own fellow-Bishops, that as soon as one was born, he might be law­fully Baptized — These Authorities (saith that famous Martyr a little before his death) I do alledg not to ty the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men, but to shew how Mens [Page 140]Testimonies do agree with God's Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them, and new-Imaginations, which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Command­ment. And so I shall leave the Author to his Boasting in what follows, and the impartial Reader to judg whether our Testimonies from Antiquity be forged and fabulous as he would render them; only I must not let pass an Ob­jection which he starts, and which is usually made by us, which he had better have left Dor­mant than to give so slight an Answer to it.

Objection.

It is sayd, That by Tertullian's opposing it, it may seem that there were some that practised it in the 3d Century, and can it be supposed that any did so, except it had been warranted by such A­postolical Tradition. Observe, Reader, the an­swer which he gives.

Answer.

It is granted, Tertullian did oppose it. But who it was that did assert it, and whether upon any such account as supposed, is not mentioned, it will be on their part to prove the one and the other.

Reply.

1. We gather from this Answer that the Author cannot have the face to deny it was practis­ed in the 3d Century, for if Tertullian did Op­pose it, it must be supposed it was Practised, else how could he oppose it.

2. But we must give the names of those that were for it, as before he must know where Cyprian's Council was held, or else he could not assent to the being of it: But how many names will suffice him I know not. What if I say Origen was one, for I hope by this time he may stand rectus in curia and not be excepted against for a Witness, he speaks point blank to the Case. Ecclesia ab Apostolis Traditionem accepit parvulis dare Baptismum. The Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles, to give Baptism to little Children; as we have it in his Comment upon the sixth Chapter of the Romans. And though Ruffinus riffled his works as is said, yet Jerom Translated that out of Greek, and so also his other Comment upon Luke, where he is express to the same purpose; and this is at­tested by Erasmus, and Jerom's Prefaces to both Books puts it beyond doubt. Let me add what I find in Mr. Baxter for farth­er satifaction. You, saith he, Baxter plain Scripture-proof. p. 157. to Mr. Tombes think the worse of it, because it is pleaded by Origen as a Tradition, from the Apostles; I think very much the better for it, both because it the more fully resolveth the que­stion [Page 142]concerning the matter of fact, and A­postolical Custom, and shews that it was no late invention, or Innovation. And the Fa­thers (as is hinted before) took not the word Tradition in the Popish Sence, for that which hath been delivered in Doctrine from Age to Age, above what is delivered in Scripture, as to supply the supposed defect of Scripture. But for the very written word it self, by which the Apostles delivered the Truth, and for their Ex­amples and the report of it, and of some other passages, especially in matter of Fact, tending only to the explication of their Doctrines, and not to the adding of new-Doctrines, as if the former were defective.

What if I name once more Irenaeus; Qui proximus fuit temporibus Apostolorum, S. Basil de S. Sto. Cap. 25. That was next to the Apostles; who is calculated to live within some fourty-three years of St. John.

I find the Author hath passed him by, and yet as hath been before shewn he was for In­fant-Baptism, otherwise what sence shall we put upon those Words of his, Lib. 2. C. 39. which are before spoken to; and which occasioned Dr. Taylor to say, The Tradition of Infant-Baptism passed through his hands, in his Con­sideration of the Practice of the Church in Baptiz­ing Infants. Sec. 29. pag. 55.

3. We shall by no means grant that Tertul­lian was against Infant-Baptism, we have given some hints why already. But shall reserve our discourse about that till we come to its proper place, that is, the Examination of the Witness produced against Paedobaptism, whereof Tertullian is the first.

CHAP. IV.

SInce the Author hath thought meet to appear thus as a Witness against Infant-Baptism, it had been well if he had followed the good old Rule injoyned Witnesses, that is, to speak the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; and for want of which he hath given such a partial and lame account hitherto. We are now come to a main point, upon which they place very much confidence, viz. the signi­fication of the Word Baptism, and the Author undertakes to prove, that the Manner and Cere­mony thereof ought to be by Dipping or Plung­ing the whole Body, and not by Sprinkling or pouring Water on the Face or Head.

1. From the proper and genuine signification of the Word, which according to the Greek Lexicons, and the most eminent Criticks, he saith, imports [Page 242]nothing less than to Dip, Plung, or cover all over. And that Scapula and Stephens, two as great Masters of the Greek tongue as we have any, tell us in their Lexicons, that [...] from [...] signifies mergo, immergo, obruo, Item tingo, quod fit immergendo, that is, to dip plunge; overwhelm, put-under, cover-over, to dye in Colour, which is done by plunging.

Answer.

To this we Oppose Dr. Featly in his [...] pag. 37. who saith, that Hesychius and Stephanus, and Scapula, and Bu­daeus, the great Masters of the Greek Tongue, make good by many instances and allegations out of Classick Writers, that the Word [ [...]] importeth no more than Ablution, or Washing, which may be done without Dipping. Now what a case is the illiterate Reader in? who shall he believe, the Author or the Learned Dr.? For my part being not willing to take up the matter upon trust, I was the more curious to examine the Criticks.

First, I consulted with Stephanus, and he saith the Word [...], signifies not only mergo, im­mergo, (to dip, or plung) but also abluo, lavo, (to wet, or wash) and in the same place in his Lexicon he brings in Cyprian (who flourished a­bout 1500 years since) translating the Word [...], Tingentes, following therein his Master Tertullian; Corpus tingere sparsâ aquâ Ovid. 4. Fast. p. 558. and saith Stephens, Tingere apud prophanos Autho­res, idem est quod aspergere, the Word tingere, among Hea­then-Writers [Page 243]signifies Sprinkling, as he shews out of Ovid and Cicero.

For Passor the Author tells us, Nec enim Hercu­li nocere Deianira voluit, quum ei tu­nicam sanguine Centauri tinctam dedit, Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 98. he Translates the Word by Immersion, Dipping, Sub­mersion, but he hath left out Ablution, or Washing, which Passor there adds, [...], saith he, is Immergo, Abluo, either to dip, or to Wash.

After him comes Vossius, who is most expresly against the Author's Opinion. The Word, saith Vossius, signifies to Wash, and Washing is not only by dipping as he hints, but by pouring out of Water, or sprinkling it on the Body, and re­presents the washing of the Soul, according to that in Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you; and therefore it seems Baptism may be celebrated either way, by Dipping or Sprink­ling.

Then for our own Country-men Mr. Leigh, Rogers, Taylor, Mede, Hammond: 'tis tedious to examine them all. We will only bring one of them to the test which is Mr. Leigh, who is instar omnium, for profound knowledg in the Greek and Hebrew. This Man the Author glo­ries in: Mr. Leigh, saith he, in his Critica Sacra, tells us, its proper and native signification is to Dip into Water, or to plung under Water, and that the proper signification was such a Dipping or Plung­ing as Dyers use for dying of Cloathes.

True Mr. Leigh says this, but he saith more, and 'tis disingenuously done of the Author thus to pick out what serves his turn, and leave the Reader in the dark as to the rest. When-as Mr. Leigh saith in the very beginning, as soon as he names the Word [...], that although it be derived from [...], to Dip, or Plung, and sig­nifies primarily such a kind of Washing as is used in Buks, where linnen is Plunged and Dipt; yet it is taken more largely for any kind of Washing or Cleansing, even where there is no Dipping at all: and he quotes these Scriptures for it, Matth. 3.20, 22. Mark. 7.4. [...], They Baptized themselves, it is rendred Washed themselves; and so did eat. So Mark. 10.38. Luke 3.16. Act. 1.5. and 11.16. 1 Cor. 10.2. It is put generally for Washing saith Mr. Leigh, as Luke 11.38. Heb. 9.10. Christ no-where requireth Dipping, but only Baptizing, as he quotes out of Dr. Featly.

Thou seeest, Reader, how little he hath gotten by these Authors. I shall add a few more of great renown in the Church, who are opposite to the conceit of Baptizing to signify only Dipping. The first is Cyprian, Baptizare etiam morbis laborantes in lectis solitos. Cyp. in Epist. ad Magnum. L. 4. Epist. 7. indicat, & pro Baptismo probat. & sic Bap­tizatum Corneli­us Novatum scri­bit apud Euseb. L. 6. Cap. 43. qui sic autem Baptiz a­blantur, inquit Vo­ssius, non immerge­bantur nec perfun­debantur, sed aquâ solâ aspergebantur, &c. Vossius de Baptismo. p. 358. who in his E­pistle ad Magnum L. 4. Epist. 7. acquaints us that it was u­sual in those dayes to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds, and the said Father proves by di­vers reasons the warrantable­ness of such Baptism; and that persons are rightly Baptized although only Sprinkled, and [Page 245]he grounds it upon Ezek. 36. I will Sprinkle clean Water upon you &c. In like manner Vossius cites out of Eusebius, L. 6. C. 43. That it was the Custom of those times to Baptize sick Persons in their Beds. Cornelius writes that No­vatus was so Baptized, upon which the Learned Vossius makes this Observa­tion; That those who were thus Baptized were not doused or dipt under Water, but only Sprin­kled. This is Vossius whom the Author brings to be for Dipping, according to the signification of the Word, as if that were the only way of Baptizing; but you see what a false Suggestion it is.

Estius another very Learned Man, and great Critick, declares his Judgment, Probat Estius modum ablutionis, scilicet aspersionis exemplo Apostolo­rum, Act. 2. Sane interalios Thomae Aquinati verist­mile est aquâ persu­disse, ob Baptizan­dorum multitudi­nem, Vossius de Bap. p. 359. grounding it on Act. 2.4. which is this, That the Apo­stles did Baptize by Washing or Sprinkling, for, saith he, it is altogether improbable that the Apostles Dipt 3000 Per­sons in one day, and 5000 at another time. Non est verisi­mile propter Multitudinem im­mergi omnes potuisse, sed vel perfusos, vel aspersos fuisse a­quâ. He conceived that they were rather wa­shed, or had Water Sprinkled on them.

Walfridus Strabo, (an Ancient Ecclesiastical Writer, though since Austin many hundred years) saith in his 26th Chapter, It is to be noted that many heretofore were Baptized, not only by Dip­ping, but also by pouring Water on them; and that the same way of Baptizing may be still re­tained. This is he whom the Author quotes to be for the Baptizing of grown Persons only.

Lastly, the Magdeburgenses (whose History of the Church the Author much applauds, and that justly being a rare work indeed) tell us that Bap­tism signifies Tinging, or Washing, and for this they bring Mark. 7. when the Pharisees come to the Market except they Wash [the Word is Baptize] they eat not, and yet it was but a part, their hands only, and not the whole Body that was so Baptized or Washed. They also quote that place Luke, 11.38. That Baptiz­ing is meerly Washing, and not only Dipping, The Pharisees wondered at Jesus [...], that he was not Bap­tized before Dinner, that is, that he did not Wash. Now this must be by all means (accord­ing to some men's fancy) by Dipping and not pouring Water upon the hands; yet what more common than to Wash ones hands this way, or by holding them under a Cock or Spout or Youre, 2 Kings 3.11. Here is Elisha the Son of Saphat, which poured Water on the hands of Elijah: that is, who was his Servant as 'tis noted in the Margent. It is a very poor Supposition that Washing of hands must only be by Dipping; what if the Pha­risees had had a mind to have Washed their [Page 247]Faces when they did their Hands, as is common; must that have been by Dipping? But the afore­said Text in the Kings puts the matter beyond exception, where by good hap we have found a place, to prove that a Man may Wash his Hands without Dipping.

In a Metaphorical sense the Word (Baptize) is used for Pouring out the Spirit. But to go on with the Magdeburgenses, they tell us that the Baptism of Christians was taken a judaica lotione, from the Jewish Custom of Washings: which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 9.10. Their service stood in divers Washings. The Greek is Baptisms. Now those Baptisms or Washings were not all of them Dippings; although some 'tis confest were. Mr. Goodwin in his Jewish Antiquities shews, that the Jews had (amongst other Baptisms or Washings) a three-fold Baptization for the Dead; one of which was named [...], that is, Baptization or Washing the Dead Corps: 'tis like this was done with some Odoriserous Water, to keep off ill scents. Thus likewise the Graecians had their Ablutio mortuorum, Homer saith, Jupiter: bid them do so to Sarpe­don. [...] Il. 11. they Washed the Corps with Oyntment, and poured Am­brosia upon the Head and Face. 'Tis said of Tabitha, that she dyed and when they had Washed her, they laid her up in an upper Chamber, Act. 9.37. I hope when they washed her, they did not Dip her under water.

2. It appears to be so, saith he, from the Practice and usage we find thereof in Scripture.

1. In the Story of Christ's Baptism, Mat. 3.5. Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptized of him; and verse 16. when he was Baptized he went up straight way out of the Wa­ter.

Answer.

We may be said to come up out of the water, when we have not been under it. Men usually go down into the water to bath themselves, and and yet keep their Heads above water; but the Words in the Text which are [...], as Mr. Sydenham notes, may be better translated, went up from the water; [...] sig­nifies more properly; ab from, than ex out; be­cause Rivers for the most part lye low, and in Vallies, in coming to which usually there is a descent, and coming from them some ascent.

2. A Second Scripture, which he urgeth for his Opinion is that of John 3. verse. 23. And John was Baptizing in Aenon near Salem, and the reason why he pitcheth on this place, is given to be, is this, because there was much Water.

Reply.

The aforesaid Author gives a sufficient Answer to this, viz. John's Baptizing at Aenon, name­ly because there was much water, is a good reason why he chose that place, for the Coun­try to come in and be Baptized, because they might go many Miles in those hot Countries, and not meet with a drop of water, and it was a [Page 249]great priviledg to those places that banked on Jordan, that they had much water, but this is no Argument to prove that John plunged all he Baptized, The Argument, saith Mr. Syden­ham, must be this, John Baptized in Aenon be­cause there was much water: ergo Baptizing is by Dipping all the whole Body. This is a dan­gerous and ominous way of arguing, to those who deny Consequences and Deductions for to warrant duties, without express syllabical Pre­cept — None of our Consequences for In­fant-Baptism are so strained and far-fetcht. It was necessary for them, that had so many of several parts to Baptize, to go where there may be much water, when they could get hardly a drop many miles. You may in England go twenty miles in some Countries, and not find a River to plunge a man's whole body under water, what would it be in Spain and other hot Countries, where Water is sold as Wine and beere with us, how far might they go ere they could get a River to plunge themselves in? &c.

A third Scripture is that, Act. 8.36.38. — And they went both down into the Water, both Phi­lip and the Eunuch, and he Baptized him, and when they came up both out of the Water. &c.

Answer.

I see not how this Text can serve their turn, for there is nothing in it to prove that Philip plunged him over head & ears; if they will prove it from any thing it must be from their going down into the Water, or coming up out of it; but that will not do, for I may go down into the [Page 250]Water, and come up again out of it, and yet not be up to my Ankles: and how can it be proved hence they went any farther, or whether Philip did not flash water into his Face, or cast it over his Head, or whether he dipt only his Head, or his whole Body under water; the Scripture is silent as to this, and Men may conjecture what they please, but must not impose upon others. The Text faith, they both went down into the Water, but their going down into water was no part of the Baptism, for then they had both been Baptized: for they went both together down into the water, but it is said that Philip Bap­tized him after they went down into the water. That the Eunuch was Baptized is clear, but after what manner we are yet to seek. We cannot from hence learn the management of this business, whether Philip took up this great corpulent Per­son (for such Eunuchs use to be) quite out of the water by the strength of his Arms, and so Dip­ped down again or no, or whether so much of him only as was above the water was Dipt, & that of him under the water left alone. And besides, as for this Eunuch, if his whole body were Dipt whether it were in puris naturalibus, altogether naked, or in his wearing cloaths, this latter can­not be conceived for they went presently up in the Chariot, nor could he have any conveniency of shift for such a purpose, for their meeting was accidental as to the Eunuch's part: so that we conclude, nothing for plunging the whole body under water can be pretended to from this Text.

The last Scripture the Author mentions is tha Rom. 6.4. Buried with him in Baptism, &c.

This is a Metaphorical expression signifying partaking of Christ's Death by vertue of Union, but Plunging the whole body doth not hold similitude neither with Christ's burial, nor the manner of burials in the most part of the World: for as Mr. Sydenham notes, Christ's bu­rial, and the manner of it was not by throw­ing under the Earth, for his Body was wrapt up in a linnen-cloth by Joseph, and laid in a Tomb or Sepulchre, hewen out of a Rock, and this was the custom of the Jews, Matt. 27.60. to cut out a place like a Cave, out of a Rock to lay their dead Bodies in; and besides, Christ is said to stay three days so buried, and so must they under the water, if they are for an exact resem­blance to his Burial; but of this we may have occasion to speak more in our Answer to the 6th Chapter.

After this the Author brings divers Learned Authors, who affirm that the ancient way of Baptizing was by Dipping, as Cajetan &c. And amongst the rest he hath a passage out of Mr. Fox his Acts and Monuments who takes it out of Fa­bian viz. That Austin and Paulinus did in the 7th Century Baptize here in England great multi­tudes in the River Trent, and the River Swall, where note by the way (saith Mr. Fox) it fol­lowed there was no use of Fonts.

To this I Answer, there could not well be any use of Fonts, because as Bede says, it was in initio Ecclesiae ubi jam cito templa [non potuerunt [Page 252]extrui, it was before Temples were built, and therefore saith he, passim ad Flumina turba Bap­tizata est, Beda Lib. 2. Angl. Hist. cap. 14. And I shall mind the Reader with a pretty Observa­tion of Mr. Fuller upon this occasion; we have it in his Church-History, p. 66.

That (saith he) which they bring for Dipping, because they were Baptized in the River Swall, makes against it. For Cambden in his Preface of Britain pag. 136. cites a certain Author who reports how in the River Swall near Richmond in York-shire, Austin in one day Baptized above ten­thousand Saxons— Though Bede ascribes this numerous Baptizing to Paulinus Arch-Bishop of York. Now, faith he, if so many were Baptized it may be well urged against the Anabaptists and Papists; against the former, that all these could not be dipt in a day; and for the latter it appears that in that Age the Administration of the Sa­crament was not loaded with those Superstitious Ceremonies, as essential thereunto, of Crossing, Spittle, Oyl, Cream, Salt, &c.

Lastly, the Author frames an Objection or two on our behalf, which he undertakes to Answer thus.

Objection.

But the Word [...] signifies if not to Sprin­kle, yet not only to Dip, and overwhelm, but also to Wash. Mark, 7.4. where there is mention of Washing of Hands, Cups, Pots, Vessels, which may be done without Dipping or Plunging under Water.

Answer.

That Baptism in a sence is Washing, saith he, I no ways doubt, for you can not dip a thing with­out you wash it: But may not Cups and Vessels be washed though not dipt? True (saith he) they may though not from this Scripture, the Word being [...]; for though all Dipping be Washing, yet all Washing is not Dipping in a proper sense.

Well argued Sr. I perceive you are very inge­nious and logical, you are now at your termini convertibiles, where shall we have you next? No wonder that (as some boast) you convert many to your Judgment. But by your leave I will lay a Rub in your way: What think you of that place Luk. 3.16. I Baptize you [with Water] if by Baptism had been meant Dipping, must it not have been said I Baptize you [in Water]?

Once more Act. 1.5. John Baptized [with Water] is not this a very improper speech if it be meant of dipping, for 'tis as much as to say John Dipt with Water— The same may be said of Christ's coming after John, whom, he saith, shall Baptize with the Spirit; is this to be understood of Dipping, or is it not rather of the pouring out of the Spirit which was pro­mised?

If this will not satisfy, I shall offer one Text more, and that I think is beyond exception; it is concerning Nebuchadnezzar; Dan. 4.30. of whom it is said he did eat grass as the Oxen and his Body was wet with the dew of Heaven, [...] as the Septuagint hath it: [...] is here rendred [Page 254]Wet, and that with the Dew of Heaven: It is the second Aorist of [...], from whence comes [...]. So now we have found that which the Author said he could never do, namely, that the word is simply taken for Washing, by pouring on Water, or Sprinkling; for if the Root signifies so, then doth the Branch also. And thus my Antagonist having shewn so much of his Acumen in the Greek, he will also give us a tast of his skill in the Mystery of Huswifry.

I presume, saith he, you will account her but a S [...]lut, and give her no thanks for her pains, that having unclean Hands, Vessels, or Cloaths to Wash, doth only Sprinkle, or pour a little Water upon them as though that would serve.

'Tis a commendable thing to be cleanly, and let all Maids take special notice of this item, and as they would not willingly incur the brand of Sluts, let them be mindful of this that when ever they set about that necessary work of Washing Dishes to look well to their business, and let them be sure they dip them quite under water, or they will never be clean: and I question whether this will do without some rinsing and rubbing, for I have observed your cleanly Huswifes to fetch off the filth that way, and then they will shine like Chrystal, if afterward they scoure them with Sand. But we must be more ferious in a business of this nature, and I hope to be excused, being temp­ted thus 10 Answer our Author in his own kind. I will leave that word of Mr. Baxter to the con­sideration of the Judicious viz. It would be but [Page 255]folly for any to think Men must needs fill them­selves full of Bread and Wine, because it best sig­nifies the fulness of Christ; so it is no better to say, that we must needs be washed all over be­cause it best signifies the fulness of Christ. Christ told Peter that the Washing of his Feet was e­nough to cleanse all.

CHAP. V.

WE were once resolved to have pretermitted this Chapter, being a Recapitulation of the Author's former Arguments against us, and containing nothing that is material and pertinent to the Question, that hath not been already either Actually or Virtually resolved: but had I per­sisted in that resolution, and said nothing, it would have been imputed by some to be, by reason of some difficulties that I found therein, which made me unwilling to meddle with it. I have, to pre­vent all such imaginations, encountered it with assurance, that the ingenious Reader will approve my Husbanding time better, than to make a large repetition of what hath been already said; when in truth it is sufficient only to point to such places in my Book, where the same things are pressed as we find here, and to which answer hath been given. Nevertheless I shall superadd a few things. He begins with Mischiefs.

1. The first Mischief is, by altering Christ's Order in the Commission, Matt. 28.19. wherein [Page 264]Teaching, Repentance & Faith; are required alwayes to precede Baptism, which this makes to follow after.

Reply.

Notwithstanding what is said to this in the first Chapter of my Book, I add, That I deny the Proposition to be Universally true, that Teaching, Faith, Repentance, ought alwayes to precede Baptism. For Persons to be Baptized are, either;

1. Original, which have no precedent title. To such, Teaching, Repentance, Faith, must precede their Baptism; for such having not precedent Evidences of being in Covenant, must put forth some acts of Faith & Repentance of their own, that so they may have evidence of right.

2. Secondary, and derived, viz. Infants of for­mer Believers, and 'tis not requisite, that Teach­ing, Faith, Repentance, should precede their Baptism. This distinction of Primary, Original, or Secondary and Derived Persons in the Title to the Sacrament of Baptism, would answer most of the Author's Arguments for him, if he would please to consider it. We call the Believing Pa­rents Original, and their Infants Secondary and Derived Persons for distinction sake: Not as if the Father were the Original of his Son's right to the Covenant or Seal; No, God's meer Grace in Christ, who at the first Institution of the Cove­nant was pleased to take in both the Believer and his Seed, is the Original of both their Rights; The Seed Deriving it immediatly from the Te­nour of the Covenant, as well as the Father: But because the Relation of that Infant to that Be­liever [Page 265]as his Seed, is a determining Mean, bringing him within the Covenant, from which his Right proceedeth. If you say, How prove you this di­stinction of First and Original Persons, and Se­condary and Derived, out of the Word? I prove it, 1 From the Tenour of the Covenant it self: I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; where there is this distinction of persons in the Covenant, 1 To thee, Abraham, actually believing. 2. To thy Seed after thee, brought within the Covenant, by being thy Seed, and by thy actual Believing, though they for the present are not actual Believers; and so the Seal was to be put on them in that Right even before their actual Believing. 2. So is there ground for it in apply­ing and holding out the Covenant in the same Tenour under the Gospel, as is before shewn from Act. 2.39. There are the same two states of per­sons. 1. You, and others, as many as shall be actually called. 2. The Seed of them and others, so actually called. 3. In the constant Practice according to this warrant, in the taking in of the Proselytes: He who came in, and took hold of the Covenant, was Circumcised on his actual taking hold of it, but then the Original-Persons actually professing, they stayed not for such actual profession in the Seed of such a one, but gave them the Seal, as persons in Covenant, even be­fore actual Profession. I have been the larger, because this is the Key which must open the way to be satisfied in the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism; and to repel all Arguments against it.

2. Those places in the Commission, Go teach all Nations, Baptizing &c. to which he should have added the other, Mark 16.16. He that believeth, and is Baptized, shall be saved, must be taken in the Latitude of Original Persons, not of Derived, for of such alone doth Christ speak there, giving Commission of the planting and first-gathering of Churches, for that the Whosoever in Mark must not be taken in a full Latitude of necessity, is plain from the other clause to which it is convertibly prefixed, viz. Shall be saved: for if the Ʋniversality of the speech reach Infants to exclude them ab­solutely from Baptism; it must also reach them in the same manner to exclude as full from being Saved, as is before noted in the first Chapter of this Book.

2. By changing the Subjects of Christ's appoint­ment, viz. Men and Women of knowledg and un­derstanding, capable to Evidence Faith and Repen­tance, for ignorant unconverted Babes that know neither good nor evil.

This was answered just now, in what was said to the altering Christ's Order in the Com­mission: and there is more in the first Chapter of my Book, Part 1.

3. By frustrating the Holy and Spiritual Ends of the Ordinance.

See what a full answer we have given to this, and how short he comes of making good this charge, Chap. 4. Part 1.

4. By inverting the order and manner from Dip­ping to Sprinkling.

Which is answered Chapt. 2. Part 2.

5. By introducing much Error and false Doctrine, as

1. That it was to take away Original Sin.

Answer.

Although some of the Fathers have spoken too highly of Baptism, and our Authors own Theo­philact, whom he quotes Chap. 7. pag 82. for one of his eminent witnesses for Believers Bap­tism, speaks very Hyperbolically of it, as that all our Sins are drowned in Baptism, as Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the Red Sea; that Infidels dye in their Sins, because unbaptized, for which extravagancies and others, (as that Christ by Baptism had open'd Heavens door, which was shut against us by Adam's Sin) he is censu­red by the Magdeburgenses, Cent. 10. p. 190. And likewise Bellarmine, and the Popish School-men, speak magnificently of it: as Baptismo reipsa tolli peccata, ita ut non solum non imputetur, sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam: which he intends not only of Original Sin in Infants, but Original and Actual in grown Persons; but notwith­standing this error, Infant-Baptism, as to its war­rantableness, receives no prejudice, no more than the Baptism of grown persons.

2. It is also acknowledged that very many Episcopal Divines, and others, who are Pro­testants, hold that Original Sin is done away by Baptism, but in a way quite different from the Papists; for they assert Original Sin to be removed by Baptism ex opere operato, from the Work done; and that it is so done away as that there is an utter abolishment of it, so as not to [Page 268]render the Baptized person obnoxious to God's Wrath and Condemnation: for not only the reatus peccati Originalis, the guilt of Original Sin, but in Baptismate tollitur id quod veram & propriam rationem peccati habet: the very essence or being of Sin is taken away [it is with them annihilated], Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 5. for so speaks the Council of Trent, with a si quis neget Anathema sit; if any one denies it, let him be Anathematized. On the con­trary, Protestants ascribe the doing away only of the guilt of Sin by the Blood of Christ, & applyed by the Spirit in that Ordinance; but they assert the inherence of Original Sin in Infants after Bap­tism, which shews it self early in the fruits thereof, when they are capable of acting Electively. And all that I apprehend they say upon the point, is, that there is a possibility and probability, as some say; o­thers go higher, to a certainty, that in elect Infants, those that dye in Infancy, the Season of God's doing that, which all acknowledg to be done at one time or other before death, viz. the doing away the guilt of Original Sin, is at the time of Baptism; and that Text Act 22.17. Arise and be Baptized, and wash away thy Sins, hath a favorable aspect upon Gods designing and blessing that Ordinance, for the sealing of pardon in reference to grown Persons.

2. To work Grace and Rege­neration, This is Mr. Tombes his 7th Argument a­gainst Infant-Baptism. Exer. pag. 30. and to effect Salva­tion by the work done.

Although the Author knows all Protestants disclaim this, and condemn it for a damnable [Page 269]Error, yet he seems indirectly at least to charge it upon the Church of England, which for my part I look upon it as very unjustly done. What means else those reflections of his pag. 148. upon that passage in the Service-Book in the Rubrick before the Catechism, viz. That Children being Baptized, have all things necessary for their Sal­vation, and be undoubtedly saved; and then after Baptism the Priest must say, We yield thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased thee to Regene­rate this Infant with thy Holy Spirit; just com­porting (saith he) length and breadth with Pope Innocent's first Canons.

Answer.

'Tis fit the Church of England should be believ­ed in what sence she intends those words, Baptism by the Ancients was commonly called Regeneration, or a new-Birth, so 'tis by the Scrip­ture, Tit. 3.5. [...] Wash­ing of the new-Birth or Regene­ration. and we may learn it in her Articles, which speaks her at an infinit distance from the absurd and irrational Er­ror of Salvation by merit, or ex opere operato: and 'tis not for others to put what inter­pretation they think meet, es­pecially, such as are Obnoxious to her Lash. Will you hear what Mr. Cotton of New-Eng­land (an Independant as they call them) speaks in Vindication of the Church of England in this particular matter, and at a place where he needed not her favour; and as I take it at a time, when she could not help him: which are circumstances that will not suffer us to suspect him of flattering [Page 270]or fawning. We have it in his grounds and ends of Children's Baptism. Notwithstanding (saith he) those expressions in the Service- Book, yet the Church of England doth professedly teach the contrary Doctrine, not only in their Pulpits, but in Books allowed by publique Authority: She doth assert that the Scraments do not beget Faith, nor Regeneration ex opere operato; but they are signs and seals thereof: Nor do I find that the publique Prayers of the Church are con­trary hereunto, but as in judgment they do be­lieve that God by Covenant promiseth to pour clean Water upon us and our Seed, Ezek. 26.25 Is. 48.3. and that he Sealeth the Covenant and Promise by Baptism.

3. That it was an Apostolical Tradition.

And for that we have the Testimonies of Origen and Cy­prian as before, Mr. Tombes his 4th Argu­ment against In­fant-Baptism; Exerc. p. 28. Chap. 3. Part 2. who lived near the Apostles days; and in which Chapter we have also shewn how Tra­dition is, both by the Fathers of old and Reform­ed Churches, taken in a safe sence different from that corrupt one of the Papists, and not deroga­tory to the authority of the Scripture.

4. That Children have Faith, and are the Disci­ples of Christ.

Answer.

No Paedobaptists ever held Children had perso­nally actual Faith, for their condition is insuffici­ent for the production of Intellectual Acts, but as for the habit and grace of Faith, the inherent infused power of believing, it is more than any [Page 271]Antipaedobaptist in the World can prove they have not; for 1. Their condition makes them not uncapable of Sin and Corruption in the Roots and Principles of it, (most of them confess it, Anabaptistae ut Paedobaptismum prorsus tollerent, peccatum negârunt Originale, ut non sub esset causa cur Infantes Baptiza­rentur Dr. Prideaux Lect. 22. pag. 331. though some of them deny Original Sin) and there­fore not of the Roots and Prin­ciples of grace of which Faith is one, for the acts of both are Moral and Intellectual: But whether Infants Baptized have any such thing as a distinct ha­bit of Faith or no, this question of their Baptism depends not upon it: It is a hidden thing. The ground on which we give them Baptism must be visible; and so it is, viz. their being the Seed of Believers, and hereby visibly entitled to the Co­venant, and so to the Seal of it. We look not to what they have, but to whom they pertain, viz. to God, as being the Seed of his Servants.

That they are Disciples is sufficiently proved, Chap. 1. Part. 1.

5. That all Children of Believers are in the Co­venant and federally Holy.]

That's abundantly made good Chap. 3. Part 2.

6. By defiling and polluting the Church, viz.

1. By bringing false matter therein, who are no Saints by calling, being neither capable to perform duties nor enjoy priviledges.]

Notwithstanding their inability to perform Duty, yet they are capable of enjoying Privi­ledges as we have abundantly made good, Chap. 6. Part 1. and are as true matter for the Church [Page 272]now under the Gospel, as formerly under the Law, as is there made out.

2. By laying a foundation of much Ignorance and Profaness.]

Cujus contrarium est verissimum. The contrary is most true: for,

1. Infant-Baptism layes a singular good foun­dation for knowledg; for in that Children are taken into Christs School, they are in a near capa­city to be taught, and those who recommend them to that Ordinance are obliged to promote their knowledg, and to see them brought up [...], in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord.

And we know the Liturgy of the Church of England, But the neglect hereof is much to be lamented, the Chil­dren are not lookt after as they should be, nor do Ministers mind them of their duty. gives charge— You must remember that it is your part and duty to see that this In­fant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn—And that he may know these things the bet­ter, ye shall call upon him to hear Sermons, and chiefly you shall provide that he may learn the Creed, the Lords-Prayer and the ten-Commandments in the English Tongue, and all other things that a Christi­an man ought to know and believe to his Souls health, &c.

Secondly, it laies a good foundation for Holi­ness: They are minded by their Baptism to cast of the Devil's service, as soon as they are able to reflect, that they were from their very Cradles dedicated to God, whose Livery they have worn. And some have repelled great temptations, by [Page 273]virtue of their engagement to God by Baptism in their Infancy; hence saith Mr. Ford in his 2d Dia­logue concerning the Practical use of Infant-Baptism, pag. 87. There is a very Prophane Spirit fo­mented under the Wings of Anabaptism; for how can it be otherwise than such which endeavours to extirpate so considerable a means for the ad­vance of Conversion and Sanctification, as he shews Infant-Baptism to be? Hence, saith he, a­rise grievous prejudices against those Ministers, Societies, and Ordinances, in which God hath been wont to scatter saving Grace in this Nation, which are if not raised, yet fomented by Ana­baptism. And their Principle he conceives, hath been very prejudicial to the Conversion of young­ones (amongst whom usually the stream of con­verting Grace runs) because it speaks an actual disingagement from all relation to God, his Co­venant, Church, and Ordinances, till of their own choice they take them up at years of discretion: Now whilst persons live loose from such engage­ments, as in their proper nature and tendency further Conversion, no wonder if the work goes slowly on among them.

3. By confounding the World and the Church to­gether, which Christ hath separated.]

Not so, For Baptism is God's Sheep-mark (as Mr. Ford calls it) to distinguish those that are of his Fold from such as graze in the wild Common of the World; what confounding is there in this Principle? — That not only they who do actually profess Faith in, and Obedience to Christ, but also the Infants of one or both Be­lieving Parents are to be Baptized, and they only.

7. By introducing and establishing many Humane Traditions and Inventions of Antichrist.] This is Mr. Tombe's his 6th Arg. Exercit. p. 1.

Many of which, and some of the worst attend the Bap­tism of grown Persons in the Church of Rome, as Chrism, Exorcism, &c.

And when Mr. Tombes urged this very Ar­gument against Infant-Baptism, Mr. Geree tells him, it was rather a Motive than a Reason a­gainst it to move peoples affections against the in­conveniences following it, rather than to con­vince the unlawfulness of it — But that which is lawful in it self, cannot reflect any scrûple of un­lawfulness upon that which occasions it. And if any corruption occasioned accidentally and se­parable from an act of Worship, could cashier it; then farewel Baptism it self, Prayer, Lords Sup­per, and all that is Sacred: for what a world of superstitious devices have the wanton and su­perstitious Heads and Hearts of Men, taken oc­casion from them all, to devise and practise, it is so clear there needs no instances to be given.

8. By being (saith he) such a Make-mate, such a Bone of Contention, and that among themselves too that own it, as well as with those that oppose it.

The Lord open the eyes of those who are so zealous against Infant-Baptism that they may see their own nakedness, & consider the beam that is in their own eyes; certainly whilst they judg our principle, condemnation is written in their own foreheads. First, how furiously do they con­tend [Page 275]among themselves? What a heat is there between Mr. Bunyan and Mr. Paul, both of them for Baptizing Believers? the former (having pub­lished a little Book whose Title is, Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Commu­nion, or to Communicate with Saints as Saints proved Lawful; of which I have before hinted, complains in the Epistle to the Reader, That the Bre­thren of the Baptized way would not suffer them to be quiet in their Christian Communion, but did assault them for more than 16 years, and (as they had opportunity) sought to break them in pieces, meerly because they were not in their way all Baptized. First, He professeth that he denyed not the Ordinance of Baptism (though they feigned it); but all that he asserted was, That the Church of Christ hath no warrant to keep out of their Commu­nion the Christian, that is discovered to be a visible Saint, and walketh according to his light with God. And for this Orthodox position, they charge him to be a Machivelian, a Man Devilish, Proud, Insolent, Presumptuous; words, saith the poor Man, fitter to be spoken to the Devil than a Brother. He puts out his Confession of Faith upon which Mr. Paul makes reflections, and tells him, he defies all the Brethren of the Baptized way, and Blasphemes them that dwell in heaven, p. 3. That he belyes all Expositors, p. 13. and calls upon the Heavens to blush at his insolency, p. 35. that his Inferences are ridiculous, top­ful of ignorance or prejudice, and deserve no o­ther answer than contempt, p. 43. and then falls to prayer, the Lord judg between us and this accuser, to whom we shall say no more but [Page 276] the Lord rebuke thee. And what sayes Bunyan to this, in his Book of Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism? First, that in his simple Opini­on, their rigid, and Church-dividing, disquiet­ing Principles are not fit for any Age and State of the Church, pag. 1. and I wish there were not too much truth in what he saith: he accuseth them for endeavouring and perswading him to break Communion with his Brethren, tamper­ing with others that their Seeds of division might take, and prevailed so far as to rent and dismem­ber some from them, and that the judgment of God so followed their design, that the presons which then they prevail'd upon became after­ward a stink and reproach to Religion. I find our Author falling upon this good Man, (two to one is odds) and lashing him to the purpose, for his last Book, you have it at the end of his Trea­tise of Baptism: He chargeth Mr. Bunyan with absurdities, contradictions, traducing the Wis­dom of Christ, hainous Errors and fundamen­tal mistakes; whose Principles, saith he, are pre­sumptuous, savouring of ignorance and folly, contradicting the Wisdom & Authority of Christ, ridiculous man of egregious ignorance and self­condemned: and at last, that he is one that plea­seth not God, and is contrary to all Men, which last must be understood with a limitation, (of all Men like himself). But why should Professors of Religion throw so much dirt in the Faces of their Brethren that dissent from them? Tantaene animis caelestibus irae? Sure such language be­comes not Christians: Let it be supposed that they have truth on their side; this is no good way to [Page 277]propagate it, it needs not tali auxilio, nec defen­soribus istis. The Wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable. The Servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all — In meekness instructing those that oppose, if God peradventure will give them re­pentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. But haughty and uncharitable Spirits follow not this Rule, if they be set upon a point (though controvertible) they have such a fire of zeal within, that it breaks out into a flame that consumes the good name and credit of any that dare oppose it. Your Opini­onists if they have Faith, they will not follow Paul's advice and keep it to themselves; but are infinitely desirous to propagate it, and are the severest Censurers in the World.

Two other Antipaedobaptists, viz. Mr. Allen, and Mr. Lamb (being come off from that hide­bound Spirit of having Communion with none but those of our own Judgment) are also lasht in the Authors Postscript. They have (saith he) both declined the Truth; and their Books, which were pen'd with great Judgment, strength of Argu­ment, and Authority of Scripture in his Opini­on shall rise up in Judgment against them (with­out Repentance) for declining the Truth; so con­fident is the Author that he speaks by way of Prophesy, that what they have writ shall not only live as a Witness for God, and his reproach­ed Truths, but as a living Testimony against themselves, in their unreasonable and unrighte­ous departure from the same (except they repent) to all generations: if these Man cannot appeal to [Page 278]Heaven touching their own integrity, so thundring a Sentence must needs trouble their Consciences. Moreover, if I mistake not they are divided amongst themselves about the Admini­strator of Baptism (as unwholsome word because unscriptural, Pastors, Teachers, Ministers we read, of but no Administrators) some holding none but men in Office may give Baptism, others that a private Man may do it, especially in case of necessity; and Mr. Tombes favours this Opini­on, Praecursor pag. 72. and he gives his reason for it, viz. because all, or most of the Ministers ordained in England are against Baptizing of Per­sons of years Sprinkled in Infancy: and there ly­ing upon them that see Infant-Baptism a cor­ruption, a necessity to be Baptized upon Profession of Faith; there is a necessity that they be Baptiz­ed by Persons not Ordained.

I like a man that will speak plainly his mind: & I will be as plain in opening mine; and I think I have hit upon the truth, namely that the Opposers of In­fant-Baptism must hold that unbaptized Per­sons ☞ may Baptize, and a Church with true Ordinances may be of unbaptized persons; or else they must disown their new Baptism, and all their Ordinances, and turn Seekers: For the first of their Administrators must either Baptize himself, or else was Baptized by some Person Baptized in Infancy, that is with them, by an unhaptized Person. Lastly, I want not Instances to shew how impatient they are of having their adored Opinion contradicted, and must prepare my self for the hard Censures of my Antagonist and his Party; and had it not been for the ho­nour [Page 279]of truth, and love that I bear unto it, they should have gone on till Dooms-day (though I believe God will shortly break the neck of their ridged Principle) before I would have disturb'd their quiet, and exposed my self to their ill-will. It is sufficiently observed and deplored by sober Christians that are unaddicted to faction, how turbulent this fort of men have alwayes been, as in forreign parts, so in our own Country, in the propagation of their Opinion, and how distast­ful it is to them to have any thing said against their way. There is a sad passage quoted by the Author himself, pag. 308. of his Treatise, out of Cloppenburg's Gangrene, viz. The Troops of Anabaptists that dwell in Friestand, although they trouble not the Commonwealth, they suffer not the pure Reformed Churches to be edified without daily conflicts; and what a stir they kept in Gemany with those Godly Ministers Luther, Zwinglius, Musculus, contesting with them, disturbing their Churches, you shall hear shortly in our Animadversions upon the Authors historical part at the latter end of this discourse.

9. By being an occasion (saith he) to stir up much bitter hatred, wrath, strife, emnity, perse­cution against those that oppose it. How have they been followed with Stripes, Imprisonments, Con­fiscation, yea Death it self.]

Something of this may be layd at their own door, as before hath been manifested in the per­secution of the Tongue, to which they are so much addicted; but as for those Martyrs he [Page 280]speaks of, that have suffered stripes, imprison­ment, death, we find very few of them in Fox his Martyrologie, and none of them punished pu­rely for opposing Infant-Baptism, but the Anti­christian Tenets of Rome, Transubstantiation, the Mass, &c. for which other Protestants suffer­ed, and some of them, were put to death for asserting dangerous errors, and for sedition here in England, and multitudes for horrid acts beyond the Seas, as shall appear in the Histo­rical Narrative.

10. By confirming hereby the whole Antichristian Interest as made good by the Preface.

An unworthy calumny, and spoken without the least ground of reason; only because Mr. Bax­ter hath declared his single Judgment in some things in reference to Baptism, in some of which he speaks not positively and dogmatically, but as I remember he qualifies it with such expressions, as I think so, or suppose so; and how doth the delivery of his private Opinion about it, render Infant-Baptism it self, a point that confirms the whole Antichristian Interest, that is not derived thence, and hath no reference to, or favour for it, and when many Paedobaptists differ from Mr. Baxter, and are unsatisfied at those pas­sages in his Christian Directory?

Absurdities.

11. By ushering in great Absurdities, viz.

1. That Persons may have Regeneration and Grace before calling.

This is no Paradox to those who have heard of John Baptists being Sanctified in the Womb. [Page 281]I could here turn the Author to several places in Mr. Tombes his Works, where he dares not deny but Infan̄ts may have the seed of Grace, but I have spoken to this before: only take notice of that is his Praecursor pag. 13. It is not doubted, but Infants belong to the invisible Kingdom of the Elect, but how they attain Salvation is not so certain: if by a Seed of Faith and Holiness without actual exercise, the thing is more easie to conceive &c. And again he saith, There are Believers of two sorts, either in the Seed or Fruit, either by Ordinary or Extraordinary Operation, in one of which wayes Infants are, or may be Believers.

2. That Persons may be visible Church-members before Conversion.]

And is that such a wonder? We have proved that Chapter 6. Part 1. They were Church-members under the Law, why not under the Gospel? when were they excluded?

3. That Persons may Repent, Believe, and be Saved by the Faith of another.]

We own no such thing.

4. That Types and Shadows profit after the An­titype and substance is come, introducing thereby the Birth-priviledge.]

The weakness of this is discovered before, pro­ving the Covenant made with Abraham still to continue to Believers, and their natural Seed, as you may see towards the end of the 3d Chapter, Part. 2.

5. That the better to exclude Believers-Baptism, new Church-Covenants are invented.] &c.

This is directed only against one sort of Paedo­baptists called Independents, whom he saith in point of order, do err more than Prelate or Pres­byter, owning Infant-Baptism and yet denying them the right of Church-membership: this is answered Chap. 6. Part 1. by shewing that they own the Infant Seed of Believers to be Church-members, that is, of the Universal Visible Church before Baptism, and the reasons for it; as also why they admit them not into their particular Churches when grown up, till they make a seri­ous Profession of that Faith into which they were Baptized, and claim the priviledg of Commu­nion.

Contradictions.

12. By the manifold Contradictions that attend the Practice.]

1. By asserting, that Baptism is a Symbol of present Regeneration wrought, and yet apply it to ignorant unconverted Babes, so uncapable of Regene­ration.]

This is a crambe bis cocta, answered again and again, but especially in Chap. 4. Part 1. a­bout the ends of Baptism, of which this is named for the third.

2. That it truly figures and represents a Death, Burial, & Resurrection, and yet do nothing but sprin­kle or pour a little Water on the Face.]

This is another repetition, being brought by the Author for the 4th End of Baptism, and answered Chap. 4. Part 1. likewise again, Chap. 4. Part 2.

3. That Faith and Repentance are required in Persons to be Baptized, and that it is ridiculous, [Page 283]yea impious and prophane to do it without, and yet confess that Children, to whom they apply it have neither.]

Say no more of this for your honours sake, which hath already suffered much for abusing Authors; you know Baxter, Piscator, Perkins, Paraeus, Calvin, all speak of grown Persons, and the last with an Asterisk — Notandum haec verba fieri de Adultis. Therefore, saith he, that Men offer themselves rightly to Baptism, Con­fession of sin is required, otherwise the whole action would be but sport. But you must note, saith he, that these words are spoken of Adult Persons, but as for the Infant Seed of Believers the case alters there; for they being taken into Covenant with their Parent, it is instead of Pro­fession; Calv. upon Mat. 19.28. and Mark 16.16. look to the first Chap. Part 1. There you have a Vindication of our Divines from the Infa­my cast upon men, as to their sayings about Bap­tism in contradiction, as he would have people believe, to their own Practices.

5. That the Baptismal Covenant enters into the visible Church, and yet deny Church-members the priviledg thereof.]

This is co-incident with what we have before, and spoken to already.

6. That separate from Rome as a false Church, and yet own their Baptism the foundation thereof.

A little before he hath this Odious Reflection upon infant-Baptism, that it confirms the whole Antichristian Interest] and now the Assertors of it are condemned for owning their Baptism. I [Page 284]conceive it therefore fit that something be briefly said for our Vindication. First then, I take this to be the common Judgment of Divines: That Parents ought not to tender their Children to be Baptized by Hereticks, or by Romish Priests in a Superstitious way; yet being done, Baptism so Administred, ought not to be reiterated. For even Austin himself, as zealous as he was for Baptism, Danaeus ex lib. 1 August de Bapt. contra Donatistas. is express upon the Case in his first Book de Bap­tismo against the Donatists — Non damnari Baptismum Christi ab Haereticis Pastoribus, ut nullus censeatur, sed damnamus illos qui scientes illic accipiunt; That Baptism is not to be condemned for a Nullity, which hath been received from Hereticks, but such are to be condemned, who knowing them to be such, do yet receive it of them. Bucan states the Case in his 16 Question de Baptismo, Bucan: Institu­tiones Theolog. Loc. 47. Quest. 16. p. 614. thus, Anne qui vere Christianam Religionem edocti sunt, parvulos suos sacrificulis pontificiis Baptizandos bonâ con­scientiâ offerre possunt? Whether they who are truly taught the Christian Religion may with a good conscience tender their Children, to Mass-Priests to be Baptized? he holds it negatively for divers weighty reasons. As,

1. Because by that Act we own their false and Antichri­stian Ministry, Quia corruptelis tum Doctrinae, tum Sacramentorum & superstitiosis Cultibus, falsae item & illegittimae vocat [...]ni Antichristi Ministrorum, exemplo nostro probandis & con­firmandis, nullam occasionem praebere debemus &c. and confirm [Page 285]them in their Superstitions. Whereas we are bound to abstain from all appearance of evil, and not to partake with them in their sins.

2. Because we are not to do evil, that good may come thereof.

3. Because we are to depart and go out from a­mongst them, and touch no unclean thing, Is. 52. 11. and to abstain from Idols, 1. Joh. 5.21.

4. Because if our Infants dye unbaptized (we refusing to have them Baptized in a Superstitious manner, which is best) they are not thereby de­prived of their interest in the Covenant of God's Grace [and Salvation is from the Covenant and not the Seal] for it is not the want, but the con­tempt of Baptism that is damnable.

It was on this account that the Waldenses kept their Children from Baptism; for Perin in his History of that people tells us, Paul Perin, Hist. Walden. Cap. 4. p. 15. That they delayed the Baptism of their Children until their Pastors came home who were imployed abroad in the service of the Church; because they had in detestation those human inventions, which were added to that Holy Sacrament, which they held to be but pollutions thereof: which the Popish Priests observing, stigmatized them with that calumny that they were against the Baptism of Children, [and from their Mouths the Author hath taken up that false report, and published it to the World; but God will not bless such unjust courses.]

On the other hand the Rule holds true in many Cases: Fieri quod non licet, factum valet; A [Page 286]thing which ought not to be done, yet being done, it may be of force and valid; as in other Cases, so likewise in this of Baptism: though none should tender their Children to be Baptized by Romish Priests in a superstitious way; yet being done, Baptism so Administred ought not to be reiterated. Austin gives divers Reasons in his first Book of Baptism against the Donatists that were for Rebaptization; shewing most con­vincingly, that because Baptismus ex personarum & Ministrorum dignitate non pendet, ne (que) dantis aut accipientis Baptismum error delet & mutat id quod a domino constitutum est. Because Baptism depends not upon the dignity of Persons or Ministers, Danaeus ex L. August. contra Donatist. p. 674. the Er­ror of him that gives or receives it doth not nullify the Ordi­nance of Christ; yet this is al­wayes to be remembred, that if the essential form of Baptism hath been corrupted in the Admini­stration thereof, the Baptism becomes invalid, and is a meer nullity, and persons taking up the Ordinance de novo, in a right way, cannot be said to be rebaptized, because the former was not Christ's Baptism but a Nullity: for as Zanchy speaks, he that Baptizeth, but not in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, but is corrupt in the Doctrine of the Trinity, as the Arrians and Manichaeans were] such a Baptism is none of Christ's Baptism. Decst enim vera Bap­tismi forma: the right forme of Baptism is want­ing. I shall conclude this with the Judgment of two Divines of the Congregational way: The [Page 287]first is Mr. Cotton of New-England in his Grounds and Ends of Infant-Baptism, where he answers this Objection: How can we think that Baptism Valid, and not Null, which is Administred by Dumb-dogs &c? viz.

Answer.

Though God delighteth not to make use of such instruments, yet I dare not say that their Administration of the Seals, which are given not for Conversion, but Confirmation of Grace are meer Nullities, or that the Baptism Administred by them is to be reiterated. Take an instance in the Circumcision of the 10 Tribes after Jero­boam's Apostacy, and the casting out of the Priests and Levites, 2 Chron. 11.14, 15. It was gene­rally Administred by wicked Priests, and Men that had no regular call thereunto: when the Priests and Levites were cast out of Office in the 10 Tribes, Jeroboams Priests came in their room, which were as ignorant and unskilful to expound the Law, as those ye call Dumb-Dogs; 1 Kings 13.33. 2 Cor. 15.3.

2. We must put a difference betwixt the Essen­tials of an Ordinance, and some Circumstantial Additions, and Corruptions: if there be a Cor­ruption in the Essenee, or substance of the Ordi­nance, as for Instance, if Persons be not Baptized in the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost, but into the Name of a Creature, then such Baptism is void and null, and the party ought to be Baptized again: But if there be a Corruption only in the External Administration [Page 288]of the Ordinance, though every Christian should labour to avoid such Corruption, and if he hath been intangled therewith, humble himself deep­ly before God for it; yet such Baptism is valid for the substance of it, and should not be reite­rated. At this day the Protestant Reformed Churches do hold it unwarrantable to Rebaptize those Persons who were Baptized in the Church of Rome, which being administred in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy-Ghost, is held for true Baptism, for the substance of it.

The other is Mr. Bartlet in his Model of the Congregational way, pag. 70. Those Christians, saith he, which of late days (calling into questi­on the Truth and Lawfulness of their Baptism) have fallen upon the Practice of Rebaptizing, and taking up the Ordinance of Baptism de novo, are utterly void, and altogether to seek of a true and just ground from the Scripture, for their Pra­ctice herein; and so this latter Baptism of theirs, will be found as unlawful, because unlawfully Administred. For if the Administration of the Seals be now tyed to ordinary Officers, and those to a particular Church, since the Apostles times, that give them their lawful and right Call to Administer the Ordinances; then it will follow that there is no Lawful Baptism, but by him that is an Officer of some particular Church, and he that is an Officer of some particular Church, must have a Lawful Calling from the Church to which he is an Officer; for all extraordinary Offi­cers that had their Call and Commission immedi­ately from Heaven are ceased. Now those that Rebaptize cannot prove the taking up of that [Page 89]Ordinance again after this manner; but are en­forced to hold that a Disciple in Common, that by the exercise of his gifts doth convert a Sinner from the evil of his ways, may also Baptize him: [which Doctrine Mr. Hooker calls a Frenzy of the Anabap­tists, Mr. Hooker of new-England, in his Survey of Church-Discipline, C. 2. part 3. p. 9. which begins to labour with the loathsomness of itself]; For if that were true what need of Christ's Ordaining Officers in his Church for these purposes? or why may not a Godly Woman (by her good exhortations and chast conversation, Converting her Hus­band) Baptize him?

CHAP. VI.

THus he proceeds — That it is no-way safe for any to rest contented with that Baptism, which they received in their Infancy, may appear, because such their Bap­tism is a meer Nullity. How doth he make this out?

Why thus:

Because, saith he, as the right matter, so the true Form is wanting; for the External Form, as before is shewed is not Sprinkling, or pouring a little Water upon the Head or Face, but a Dipping the whole Person under Water, and raising him up again, to figure out Death, Burial, and Resurrection, as before: if then Matter and Form be wanting which is so essential to its Being, it must needs be a Nullity.

Although enough hath been said already to confute this in the 6th Chap. of the first Part of our Book, to prove In­fants of Believers fit Matter for the Church, and consequent­ly Subjects of Baptism, besides what hath been said in the [Page 90] 4th Chap. Part 2. concerning the Ceremony of Baptism: yet being willing to give the Author full measure, pressed down and running over; We shall say something more to evince the weakness of his Assertion in this Chapter.

First 'tis observable, that he who hath undertaken to write a Treatise of Baptism, [mark well], should mistake both the Matter and Form of it; for certainly he is out in both.

1. First for the Matter of Baptism, all Divines hold it is Water, meer, pure Water without mixture. Take the Judg­ment of two very eminent Divines: The first is the Learned Zanchy, Tom. 1. Lib. 1. pag. 404. Materia Externa Baptismi est Aqua, Interna, Sanguis & Spiritus, Christi; The External Matter of Baptism is Water; the Internal, the Blood and Spirit of Christ: The other is Bucan, Professor of Divinity in Academia Lausanensi: He in his Theological Institutions or Common places, answereth several Questions concerning Baptism, & this is the 18th, Quae est Materia Bap­tismi? What is the Matter of Baptism? To which he gives this answer; it is two-fold, Externa & Interna, External and Internal; the External is, Aqua pura, munda & natu­ralis sine discrimine, simplex, vulgaris, non prius peculiari­bus Consecrata, non mixta, non Oleum, &c. That is, it is pure, clean, simple, common Water without mixture of Oyl, Spittle, and such kind of things as the Papists add to it: de Baptismo, locus 47. p. 616. The Materia Interna, the Inter­nal Matter of Baptism, is Sanguis & Spiritus Jesu Christi, the Blood & Spirit of Jesus Christ; de Bapt. loc 47. Quest. 22.

2. For the Form of Baptism they agree in this, that it is those Words of Institution, I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So saith Zanchy in the afore­mentioned place, and he brings the Words of the Apostle for both Matter and Form, Ephes. 5.26. That he might Sancti­fy and cleanse it by the Washing of Water through the Word; citing that famous speech of Austin, Accedit verbum ad Ele­mentum & fit Sacramentum; The word joyned to the Ele­ment [ (i.e.) the Word of Institution] makes the Sacrament. So Bucan Quest. 22. Quae est igitur forma Baptismi [scil. Externa?] what is therefore the External Form of Baptism? Ans. The rehearsing the words of Institution, by a Mi­nister of the Word of God, viz. I Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, &c. which he cals aspersio aquae, and then Intern [...] Baptismi Forma est Interna illa actio, quae Jesu Christi ipsius per Spiritum Sanctum agentis propria est; The [Page 91]Internal Form is that Internal action of Christ working by his Spirit, &c. Take notice, Reader, what a pittiful mistake it is in the Author to call Dipping the Form of Baptism, for if that were it, then any man may Baptize himself, and every Boy that baths, and dives under Water may be said to be Baptized: But one would think he were conscious to him­self of a wilful mistake, by the Objection he frames for us.

Object. But 'tis said, there was the right words of Bap­tism, it was done in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy-Spirit.

Answer.

So there was, saith he, in Baptizing Bells, Churches.

But doth he take this for a sufficient Answer? Are Bells Subjectum capax, a Subject capable of a Sacrament? Quia in ipso ini­tio Regenerationis, cujus sigilium est Baptismus, homo se habet merè passive; undè etiam homines vel Circumcindendi vel Baptizandi nul­la actio Externa re­quiritur — sed tan­tum receptio pass [...]a [...] Infantes igitur sunt capaces hujus Sa­cramenti respectu praecipui ejus usus at (que) Adulti. Children were heretofore, and so they are still, as Dr. Ames in his Medulla Theologiae Lib. 1. c. 11. p. 186. Baptism, saith he, comes in the room of Cir­cumcision, Col. 2.11, 12. and belongs as much to Chil­dren of Believers, as Circum­cision did formerly; for at our first Regeneration, saith he, of which Baptism is a Seal, Man is meerly passive. As it was in Circumcision so is it in Bap­tism, he is not Active, but Passive; and there­fore Infants in respect of its chief use (of being a Seal) are as capable of the Sacrament of Bap­tism as the Adult.

Now though this may suffice, yet having pro­mised to be liberal; We will suppose Dipping to be of use in the Apostles days, yet it will not fol­low [Page 92]that it is essential to the Sacrament of Bap­tism, so that in the want of it, Baptism is a Nul­lity. For the clearing of which we must know:

1. That in every Ordinance there are some things essential, which failing, the very being of the Ordinance is destroyed. 2. Some things requisite because enjoyned, but yet not essential; but only needful to the compleat and well-being of an Ordinance. 3. Some things meerly in­different, as being the determination of some Circumstances (left undetermined in the Institu­tion of it) As in the Lords Supper, the hour when, the kinds of Bread and Wine, the posture, and number of the Partakers, either sitting or standing or the like. So in Baptism, whether the Person be Baptized by day or by night, in Rivers or Pools, or Vessels (so he be able to bear it), whether the Water pass on all his Body or some parts, & the rest unwashed. And so for this of Dipping, it comes under the nature of an indiffe­rent Circumstance, although some place Super­stitiously such necessity in it. I say it may be accounted an indifferent Circumstance; so that Baptism in other things right, is true Sacramen­tal Baptism, whether done by way of Sprinkling or Dipping, which is thus proved.

1. That which equally represents the grace signi­fied, is of indifferent use, but the Baptism either by Dipping or Sprinkling, doth equally represent the grace signified.

The first Proposition is clear; for in a Sacrament are but two things necessary, viz. (1) The matter or Element. (2) The use for representation of the Grace. The Minor, or Assumption is evident, [Page 93]by considering the Grace of Baptism, which is principally two-fold, viz. First our putting on of Christ, our Ʋnion to, and Communion with him, in which respect we are said to put him on there­in, and to be Baptized into him, Gal. 3.27. into his death, Rom. 6.3. that is, by Baptism we are Sacramentally enrighted into him and his death, and the fruits of it, in which respects we are in the same place v. 4. said to be buried with him by Baptism into death. Now this putting on of Christ is as fully signified, by putting on of water on us, as by putting us into water. Application of Water to the Person, either in one way or other is a Sign of our Union to him: and so of our putting him on, our burying and rising with him, and Communion with him, in all the effects of his death, which flow from the Union.

But it is Objected, that Sprinkling doth not represent our burying with him, as Dipping doth. Ans. It is a fancy to imagine that every Metapho­rical ☞ expression used in Scripture signifying our Communion with Christ, should be punctu­ally expressed in the Sacrament; for the expressi­ons are various, putting him on, burying with him, Sprinkling with his Blood: one sign cannot repre­sent our Communion with him in all these Me­taphors. A partaking a Communion with Christ, and his death is the Sacramental Grace intended by those various expressions, & that being repre­sented, as well by Sprinkling as Dipping, it fol­lows that water in either way of application, is Sa­cramental. 2dly, Our washing or cleansing from Sin by the Blood of Christ, this is the principal effect of Christ's death represented, and Sealed in the Sa­crament, [Page 94]which is equally set out by Sprinkling as by dipping. First in asmuch as washing may be done by both, and indeed it is the application of Water under the formality of Washing, not ei­ther of Dipping or Sprinkling, which is the ☜ Sacramental use of it; so that were Washing with Water, though neither by Dipping nor Sprink­ling, yet it were a Sacrament as well as either: for the Sacramental consideration in the use, is the Washing. 2. Numb. 19.18. Heb. 9.13. Under the Law the Sacramental cleansing was done by Sprinkling in some cases, and by Dipping in other; and the purifying by Christ's Blood equally repre­sented by both. 3. The Blood of Christ in respect of this purifying and washing virtue and use of it, is called the Blood of Sprinkling, Heb. 12.24. and the Sprinkling of his Blood, 1. Pet. 1.2. All which are abundant proof, that the Grace of the Sacra­ment is as well, and as fully represented in the use of Water by Sprinkling, as by Dipping.

2dly. Those Ʋses of Water which are equally includ­ed in the Scripture-acceptation of the Word under the word Baptizing, are of equal and indifferent use; but both these, Dipping and Sprinkling are so: ergo.

The Major proposition is undoubted: the Assumption is confirmed from Texts of Scripture, where the Word is used to signify Washing, by Sprinking, as Mar. 10.38. where is a washing by Blood, which could not be by Dipping, but by Aspersion. 1 Cor. 10.2. Is a Baptism by Sprink­ling, but not by dipping. So Mark. 7.48. Heb. 9.10, where all the Ceremonial Washings under the Law are called Baptisms; now we know [Page 95]some of them were done by Sprinkling, and some by Dipping.

3. That which in all the examples and instances of Baptism, we find not restrained or defined, that is in this Sacrament of indifferent and arbitrary Ʋse; But this manner of Baptizing in Scripture-examples and practice, we do not find restrained, or defined either to Dipping or Sprinkling.

We read of many Baptized, but no-where spe­cified by which of these ways; whereby we may gather that the H. Ghost hath no in­tent ☜ to bind, and determine our Practice to this or that; for seeing the word he useth, is indiffe­rent for both, he would have left us some light ei­ther from precept, or example which way he would have Sacramental. This Assumption is confirm'd by this, that no-where is it expressed, that it was done by Dipping: yea in some, it is more than probable that it was not, viz. Act. 2.41. there being in one day 3000 Baptized; which might well be done by Sprinkling but not by Dipping. So Act. 10.47. there be many Baptized at a time and place when there could not be accom­modation of water and other conveniences for total Dipping. Yea Peters phrase, can any Man forbid Water? imports a bringing in of Water to the place for the use which might well be done for Sprinkling, but not for Dipping. Also Act. 16.33. There is a Man & all his Family straight-way Baptized in a Prison, and in the night, at which time and place Water for Dipping so many could not be had, but easily for Sprinkling.

CHAP. VII.

THe first that we shall mention (saith the Author) is that Excellent Testimony Tertullian bore against it upon the first appearance of it in the 3d Century.

Reply, 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the first Writer of note in the Latin Church, hath divers passages seemingly against Infant-Baptism; but yet withal it must be considered, that his Testimony (such as it is) is but the Testimony of one single Dr. in opposition to the ge­neral custom of the Church, and even from this instance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptism, that it hath been in use above 15 hundred years, as it appears upon record; for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Prescriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death; and 'tis probable, Mr. Baxter, of Infant-Baptism. when he wrote his Book, he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty; so that according to this cal­culation he lived about sixty or seventy years after St. John, and yet as early days as these were, Children were then Bap­tized; for else why should Tertullian be so earnest in disswa­ding them not to be over-hasty in the doing it: Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos; he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants, aswel as those of riper years; which shews that it was then the custom of the Church to Baptize Children aswell as grown Persons.

Reply 2. Whereas the Author saith, Tertullian lived in the 3d Century, Irenaeus contra Haeretic. Lib. 2. c. 39. this is true, but that the first appearance of Infant-Baptism was in this Age is certainly false; for Irenaeus (who lived in the second Cen­tury) makes mention of it.

Reply 3. Tertullian's Testimony in this case, is so far from being excellent, that it is contemp­tible, and not to be regarded, as may appear by two Reasons.

First, Because he was very corrupt, and un­sound in his judgment. P. Martyr loc. com. Clas. 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is observed by Peter Martyr in his Common places, that when Ter­tullian wrote his book de Bap­tismo, he was fallen from the Church, and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Monta­nism. Had he been sound in the Faith in all other points, it had not been enough to scruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptism, because of his dissent; because he only was the man we read of that seems to be against it, how much less is this authority to be valued, when so corrupt, that Jerom counted him little less than a Heretick? The Magdeburg Divines, (whom the Author makes so much use of) give us a Catalogue of his Naevi, or errors. As

1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere, ascribe unto God, Grosseness, or Fleshiness.

2. That he did speak concerning Christ incom­mode & periculose, unsafely and dangerously.

3. That he condemned second marriages, ut stupra, as Whoredoms.

4. That he brought in and augmented, many filthy Ceremonies in the Church, which he bor­rowed from the Montanists, as anointing the body after Baptism. &c.

5. And lastly (though they mention many o­ther gross errors) he affirms in his Book de Bap­tismo, [Page 38]that it is the peculiar pre­rogative of the Bishop to Bap­tize, Dandi Baptis­mum jus habet summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. and none must do it but by his leave: Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority, and in case of extremity (that is when one is like to dye, and in the want of a Minister) it may be lawful for a layman to Bap­tize, not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church, by which passage it is more than probable he was for Bapti­zing Infants, rather than that they should dye without it); now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witness the Author hath singled out to lead the Van against Infant-Baptism.

A second Reason why Tertullian's Testimony deserves not to be stiled excellent, is this; because his arguments are so poor and weak, that they will sooner administer occasion of laughter than conviction. I acknowledg the Author hath drest them up very handsomly, and shewed so much artifice herein (leaving out somethings that are most gross) that some (who have weak heads, and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptism) will think Tertullian and he were of one mind, both against it, and that on very good grounds.

1. Because saith the Author out of Tertullian, The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the mistake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not &c. It is true (saith Tertullian) the Lord saith do not forbid them to come unto me: let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come &c. upon [Page 39]which the Magdeburgenses have this sentence seutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. &c. Ter­tullian was of a strange opinion, & then they re­peate those weak passages before mentioned; As before inti­mated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage, the Disciples did wisely in forbidding Chil­dren to come, and Christ did weakely in rebuking them for it, & inviting them to come Let them come (saith Christ) though [...], little Children; the wise men found [...] the young-Child, or Infant with Mary. [...] (according to Luke the exact­est Historian) new-born Babes, or sucking Chil­dren that are carried in Arms, and such wore those whom Christ invites to come unto him, brought in all likelyhood, by their Parents that did believe or made some profession of their Faith, as appears by this, because they brought their Children for a Spiritual end, to receive some special favour or blessing from Christ; and for this, Christ would have them come, but saith Tertullian, let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come: &c. What pittiful stuff is this? what ingeni­ous person would not be ashamed to introduce such a witness that paraphraseth at such a rate upon this Scripture? Christ had a mind they should come presently as the words plainly shew, but Tertullian would have them stay longer, till they were elder. It seems by the Argument that this Father, and the Disciples were much of a mind, and it must arise from some such mistake as this, which is still retained by the Antipaedobap­tists, that Children are not capable of any good by the Ordinance, and must first be taught; and [Page 40]that only grown Christians and Professors of Faith, are fit and capable subjects of Christ's Kingdom. But what resentment had Christ of the morose carriage of his Disciples, the Evan­gelist tells us [...], he was much displeased; the word signifies to have the Spirit moved with indignation against a base unworthy action; and Christ would have them know how meanly soe­ver they might think of them, yet they had a right to the Kingdom of Heaven aswell as grown persons who can profess their Faith: For let us take the Kingdom of Heaven either for that of Glory, or for the visible Church, it amounts to the same thing; for if they have a right to the for­mer, much more to the latter, for what is it to be a member of the visible Church, but to be one that in appearance belongs to the invisible Church, Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptism. or the Kingdom of Glory; for the Church is but one, and the difference only Respe­ctive. As for the Cavils that are made against our improving this Text for Infant-Baptism, we have before refuted them.

2. A second Argument which the Author ci­tes out of Tertullian is, because they that under­stand the weight of Baptism will rather fear the attaining of it than the deferring it.

Reply 1. If this were a good reason against infant-Baptism, it lyes as full against infant-Cir­cumcision, as a sign of God's covenant, which they did not understand, and it may be never would. 2. Nor do I see how this can have any reference at all to Infants, who are void of un­derstanding; and the Argument is asmuch levied [Page 41]against the Baptizing grown persons, who upon consideration of the weight of the Ordinance, may rather fear to attain it, than defer it; for it is well known that ancient Father was so shy of Bap­tism (as I said in C. 7.) that he disswaded young-men as were innupti unmarried, & those that were newly married & young-widows, from being Baptized, until the lust of concupiscence was quite extinct, and then to take up the Ordinance, Risum teneatis amici! For verily if persons in this capacity must forbear Baptism till then, for ought that I know it will be long enough before they will meddle with it, and one would think they should have less need of it when freed from lustful appetite, than before.

3. A third Reason brought out of Tertullian is; because we must not give Holy things to Dogs, and Pearls to Swine, which sure must be under­stood of grown Persons that were Pagans or their Children; for this is too gross to be spoken of the Children of believers, and Tertullian himself speaks more charitably in his Book de Anima Cap. 39, 40. upon those words, else were your Chil­dren unclean, but now are they Holy, 2. Cor 14. from whence he thus infers, hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexum sanctum procreari ait, tum ex seminis praerogativa, Vossius in his Thes. 11. de P [...]do­baptismo. Pars 2. quam ex Institutionis disciplinâ &c. i.e. from hence also the A­postle affirms that of either sex sanctified, are procreated those that are holy, a [...] by the prerogative of the Seed, so by the Disci­pline, or Rule of institution: so that Tertullian could not without self-contradiction call Believers Children Dogs.

4. A fourth Reason (which is a sorry one too) is, Because we commit not earthly or secular things to Children, by reason of their incapacity, and therefore should not commit Heavenly things; Which is also as strong an Argument against Gods Ordinance to Circumcise Children, as to Baptize them: And we need not look farther than the Text before us, to confute this Argument; for 'tis said (notwithstanding their incapacity) Christ laid his hands upon them and blessed them; to denote unto us, that though Children are unca­pable of laying hold on Christ, yet they are ca­pable of being laid hold on by Christ, and of par­ticipating Spiritual blessings, whereof, as imposi­tion of the hands, so Baptism is a sign.

5. A fifth Reason hath respect to the promises which the Sureties made in Baptism in the behalf of the Infants that were Baptized; for if it should so happen that they should dye before the Infant was grown up, they should then frustrate their pro­mises. Now this speaks nothing against Infant-Baptism, but only of the inconveniency of ma­king such promises.

6. Lastly the Author would have us take it for granted that the Adult were the only proper Sub­jects of Baptism, because Tertullian saith Fasting, Confession, Prayer, Profession &c. is called for from them.

Reply. We have shewn before out of the Mag­deburgenses, That though the Infants of Believers were Baptized, of which we have instances given by them, in several Centuries, yet they required Fasting, Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417. Confession, of Aliens &c. before they were admit­ted [Page 43]to Baptism; & therefore having spoken so much to this before, I shall only add one passage out of Athanasius in Lib. de passione Imaginis Domini, where he speaks concerning-some Jews, who prostrated themselves at the feet of the Bishop, and desired Baptism; so after they had been instructed several days in the Doctrine of Christianity, and had Fasted three days, they were Baptized. I shall add one Reason more of Tertullian's against the Baptism of Infants, and it is inserted between his fourth and fifth, and therefore the Author could not be ignorant of it, but hath purposely omitted it, and it is this; Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum? &c. Why should innocent Children hasten to be Baptized, for the remission of sins? 'Twas his error (as of other of the Fathers) that Baptism did away the guilt of sin; and either he owned not Original Sin, as his words seem to imply, or else he thought it more prudential to defer Baptism, till the Child had contracted, or heaped up more, that so it might be washed away altogether. This the Author took notice of, but was so subtle, as not to give the least hint of it, for that would have quite spoiled his excellent Testimony. And besides what we have said to invalidate what is brought from Tertullian, let the Reader know that though he would have Infant-Baptism delayed, yet it was not because he judged it unlawful, but inexpedi­ent as before: for even this Father himself allow­ed of their Baptism rather than they should dye unbaptized. And thus we see the Author hath made a great cry of a little Wooll.