The rector rectified and corrected, or, Infant-baptism unlawful being a sober answer to a late pamphlet entituled An argumentative and practical discourse of infant-baptism, published by Mr. William Burkit, rector of Mildin in Suffolk : wherein all his arguments for pedo-baptism are refuted and the necessity of immersion, i.e. dipping, is evidenced, and the people falsly called Anabaptists are cleared from those unjust reproaches and calumnies cast upon them : together with a reply to the Athenian gazette added to their 5th volume about infant-baptism : with some remarks upon Mr. John Flavel's last book in answer to Mr. Philip Cary / by Benjamin Keach.

THE Rector Rectified , and Corrected : OR , Infant-Baptism Unlawful .

CHAP. I.

Disproving the Arguments for Infant-Baptism , taken from Circumcision . With several Arguments proving the Covenant of Circumcision no Gospel-Covenant . Confuting also the Arguments for Infant-Baptism , from the pretended Jewish-Baptism .

AS to you Six Propositions , I shall begin with the first , and so speak to them in order .

Proposition I.

Your first is this , viz. That Baptism by Water is a Sacrament of the New Testament , instituted by Jesus Christ , for the solemn admission of the Party baptized into the visible Church ; and to be a Sign and Seal unto them of the Covenant of Grace .

Answ. You and I are thus far agreed ; save only I deny that Baptism is any where in God's Word , called a Seal of the Covenant of Grace ; for if it was , then all Persons baptized have all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace made sure to them . I know no other Seal of the Covenant of Grace , but the Holy Spirit ; I mean , that seals those Covenant-Blessings and Spiritual Priviledges to our Souls ; see Ephes. 1. 13 , 14. Chap. 4.30 .

Whereas you say , the Quakers who disown any Baptism in Water , were once our Proselytes ; is not true of the greatest part of them , tho some few of them might depart from that Faith and Profession we are of : Many others of them ( you cannot be ignorant ) come from you , and some from the Presbyterians , &c. Nor could our Practice of baptizing none but Believers , or such who make a Profession of Faith , midwive their evil and erroneous Principles into the World , as must be own'd 〈◊〉 acknowledged by all . There 's more cause to ●ear●tis your practice of ●●●tizing of Infants might lead them to disown Water-Baptism , because they can find no mention of any such Practice in the Scripture . May not they be mi●●ed to deny any Water-Baptism at all , since they see such a multitude to assert that to be Christ's Ordinance , which the Scripture is ●holly silent about ?

But to proceed ; in Pag. 2. you say , The great Controversy between you and us , li● in your second Proposition , which is this , viz.

Prop. 2. That not only those who do actually prosess Faith in Jesus Christ , but the Infants of such Professors , may , and ought to be baptized .

Answ. Reader , observe , that Mr. Burkitt does grant , that such who do actually profess Faith , may , nay ought to be baptized . It appears , he ●wns our practice of baptizing Adult Person , who actually profess-Faith in Jesus Christ . But he says more , i. e. Not only such Persons may and ought to be baptized , but the Infants of such who profess Faith also . And to prove this hold Assertion , he lays down this Hypoth●tical Syllogis● , viz.

If the Infants of the Jews were partakers of Ci●cumcision , Arg. 1. the Infants of Christians may and ought to partake of Baptism .

But the Jewish Infants were partakers of Circ●mcision , therefore Christian Infants may and ought to partake of Baptism .

Answ. Sir , must we believe it is so , because you speak and write it ? You give no proof of your 〈◊〉 Proposition , which is utterly denied .

Might not I state another Argument as good as yours , nay , may be better , yet both prove nothing ? I argue thus ;

1. If the Jewish Infants had Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan , the Infants of Christi●●s have a Right to the Possession of the Land of Canaan . But the former is true ; Ergo. And if this were so , let us make another holy War , a●d take possession of it for our Children .

2. Take a second Argument of the like nature with yours , viz. If all the Sons of the Priests of God under the Law , had an undeniable Right to the Priesthood , and many other external Priviledges ; then the Sons of the Ministers of Christ have a Right to the Ministry under the Gospel , and many other external Priviledges . But the former is true ; Ergo.

Ob. Your Logick will do you no good , if you Argue no better . I must tell you , that which gave the Male Infants of the Jews a Right to Circumcision , was not their bare being the Infants of the Jews , not because their Infants we●● in that leg●l Cove●ant with their Parents , but rather the express and positive Command of God to Abraham ; for evident it is , no Godly Mar●● Children , before 〈◊〉 days , had any Right to be Circumcised : And had Abraham or the Jews Circumcised their 〈◊〉 Infants without such a Commission or Command from God , ●hey had no doubt been guilty of Will-worship 〈◊〉 and in like m●nner , If God 〈…〉 required Christians to 〈…〉 Infants , 〈…〉 be no Precept nor Examp●e 〈…〉 the Holy Bibl● , it must 〈…〉 worship in them so to 〈◊〉 . But God 〈…〉 or required Christians to Baptize their Infants , there is no 〈◊〉 nor Example for any such Practice 〈◊〉 all the Holy Bible : Ergo , it is Will●worship in them so to do .

Arg. 2. I shall proceed to your second 〈◊〉 , viz. If Baptism suceeds in the room of C●rcu●cision then as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised , so the Infants of Christians may and ought to be Baptized . But Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision ; therefore 〈◊〉 their Children were Circumcised 〈◊〉 , so may 〈◊〉 be Baptized now .

Answ. 1. I answer , There is no necessity that a Gospel Ordinance must succeed in the 〈◊〉 of a Legal or Jewish Ordinance ; therefore I deny your M●●●r . What if 〈◊〉 that no Ordinance succeeds in the room of Circumcision ? Were there not many other Rites and Ordinances under the Law , or Old Testament , besides Circumcision ? And yet you cannot find , or once imagine , any Gospel-Rite or Ordinance to come in the room of them respectively , for that then it would follow , there would be as many Christian Ri●es ▪ Precepts and Ordinances , as there were Jewish Rites , Precepts and Ordinances , which as o●● observes , were more than three hundred .

2. Besides , as Dr. , Taylor observes , If Baptism came in the room of Circumcision , you 〈◊〉 baptize your Children always on the eighth day : and you must not baptize your Female Infants at all , because none but Male Infants were then circumcised .

3. And whereas you say , Baptism signifies the same things that Circumcision did : it is not true , as will appear to all understanding Men , if they consider these Particulars following , which are so many Disparities , viz.

( 1. ) Circumcision was a Shadow of Christ to come : Baptism is a Sign he is already come , was dead and buried .

( 2. ) Circumcision was a Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural Seed : Baptism is a Sign of the peculiar spiritual Priviledges made to Saints , as such , and no others .

( 3. ) Circumcision was a Domestick Action , i.e. to be done in the House : Baptism an Ecclesiastick , belonging to the Gospel-Church .

( 4. ) Circumcision was to be done by the Parents in that respect : Baptism is to be done only by Gospel-Ministers .

( 5. ) Circumcision was the cutting off the Fore-skin of the Flesh , which drew Blood : Baptism is to be done by dipping the whole Body into the Water without drawing of any Blood .

( 6. ) Circumcision belonged to Male Children only : Baptism belongs to Males and Females also .

( 7. ) Circumcision was to be done precisely on the eighth day : Baptism is not limited to any precise day .

( 8. ) Circumcision made a visible Impression on the Body , which the Party might perceive when he came to Age of Understanding : Baptism leaves no Impression on the Body .

( 9. ) Circumcision belonged to Abraham's House , to his Male Infants only , or suc● who were bought with his Money , and not the Male Infants of any other godly Men in his days , unless they join themselves to his Family . Baptism belongs to Believers in all Nation● .

( 10. ) Circumcision bound those who came under that Rite , to keep the whole Law of Moses : Baptism signifies we are delivered from that Yoke of Bondage .

( 11. ) If Circumcision signified the same things , and consequently , particularly the sealing the Covenant of Grace ; then those 〈◊〉 were circumcised , needed not to be baptized , because sealed before with the same seal of that which signified the same thing : but Christ and all his Apostles , and many others who were circumcised , were nevertheless baptized .

( 12. ) Circumcision signified the taking away the Sins of the Flesh , or the Circumcision of the Heart : but Baptism signifies the Death , Burial , and Resurrection of Christ , which Circumcision did not .

( 13. ) Circumcision was to be a Partition-Wall betwixt Jew and Gentile ; but Baptism testifieth that Jew and Gentile , Male and Female ; Barbarian and Scythian , Bond and Fr●e , are all one in Christ Jesus . Therefore there are invers Disparities and different Significations between Circumcision and Baptism .

● . And what tho we deny not but that Circumcision was then the in●●lating Ordinance , and Baptism is so now in Gospel-times , i. e. an Ordinance of Initiation ; yet Circumcision initiated none into the Jewish Church , but such who were by the express and positive Command of God to be circumcised , who were only Male Infants , ( for the Females were initiated without it ) even so Baptism , tho it be an initiating Ordinance , yet none are to be initiated thereby , not only those who by the express Command of God are required to be baptized ; and they are only such who believe , or make a Profession of their Faith . Sir , Precepts that are merely positive , greatly differ ( you know well enough ) from Precepts that are purely moral in their own nature . Laws that are of meer positive Right , wholly depend upon the absolute Will and Pleasure of the great Legislator ; and in all Cases and Circumstances we must keep to the express words of the Institution ; we must venture to do no more nor no less , nor do any thing in any other manner than God hath commanded , as appears in Nadab and Ab●hu , and Vzzah's case ; the first for offering of strange Fire , which thing God commanded them not , ( tho God in express words no where forbid them so to do ) were cut off , Levit. 10. 1 , 2.

When God commanded Abraham to circumcise on the eighth day , did he not virtually forbid him to do it on the seventh or ninth day ? Therefore this sort of reasoning of yours is meer sophistical , and you do but darken Counsel with words without Knowl●dg . You say in Pag. 4. That God hath no where declared that Infants should be excluded . You mean , he has no where forbid in express words the baptizing of Infants ; no more , say I , has he forbid Hony , Wine , Oil , Salt and Spittle to be used in Baptism ; the former was used by some of the ancient Fathers , and the latter is still in the Romish Church . Where are we forbid to baptize Bells , and consecrate Water , as the Papists do to make it holy Water ? Also where are Infants excluded from the Lord's-Table ? If therefore any thing may be done in God's Worship , which you suppose is not forbid , and bears also some proportion in Signification with Jewish Rites ; all Popish Rites and Ceremonies may be let in at the same Door : for the Pope , Miter , Popish Vestures , Candle and Candlesticks , &c. they no doubt will tell you are of like Signification with the High-Priest under the Law , with the Priest's Vestures , and other Ceremonies among the Jews . Whither will this lead you ? 't is dangerous to be led by such a Guide .

But to proceed ; we will come to that grand Proof of yours for Infant Baptism in Pag. 4. which you intimate will put the Matter out of all dispute ; namely , That Baptism doth come in the room of Circumcision , which is Col. 2. 11 , 12. In whom also ye are circumcised , with the Circumcision made without Hands , by the Circumcision of Christ ; buried with him in Baptism . You say , The Design of the Apostle here is to take the Colossians off from the old Sacrament of Circumcision . He informs them that there was no reason why they should be fond of it , because they were compleat without it , Christ having substituted new Circumcision in the room of it , namely , Baptism : and accordingly Christians may now be said , by Baptism , to be spiritually circumcised , as the Jews were said to be spiritually baptized .

Answ. Your Exposition of this Text , there is no ground to admit of ; the Apostle speaks of the Power or Virtue of Christ's Circumcision . His design is to shew we are compleat in Christ without Circumcision , or Jewish Ordinances : and to shew how we are compleat in Christ , and have put him on , he mentions Faith as well as Baptism , or such a Faith that should always attend Baptism ; and therefore Infant-Baptism from hence cannot be proved or inferred , nor the least ground for your bold Conclusion from hence , viz. That Baptism came in the room of Circumcision .

1. For first , the Apostle 't is true excludes Circumcision , but 't is upon another account , viz. by shewing Circumcision was a Figure of the Circumcision of the Heart , as Rom. 2. 28 , 29. Phil. 3.3 . and since they had the thing signified thereby , the Rite or Sign ceased . And as I have lately replied to some of your Brethren in answer to this Text , so I must say to you , all that can well be asserted from this Scripture , where the Apostle brings in Baptism , is no more than this , viz. That where Baptism is rightly administred upon a proper Subject , it represents the spiritual and mystical Circumcision of the Heart , i. e. that the Soul is dead to Sin , or hath put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ ; which may refer to the Power of his Death in the blessed Effects thereof , by the effectual Sin-killing Operations of the Spirit on the Heart . And as being dead to Sin , we are buried with Christ in Baptism , both in sign and token of Christ's Burial , i. e. covered all over in the Water , which is a clear Symbol of his Burial ; also in Signification , i. e. that we being dead and buried with Christ in Baptism , so are to rise with him , by the Faith of the Operation of God ; and both these are held forth in true Baptism . The Apostle doth not mention Baptism to come in the room of Circumcision , but to shew that these believing Colossians had through Christ by the Spirit obtained the Antitype thereof , or thing figured out in the Circumcision of the Flesh ; which Baptism did clearly represent . But since this is so strenuously urged by you afresh , tho so often answered , I will be at the trouble to transcribe once more what Dr. Taylor , late Bishop of Down , hath said to this Argument of yours , and others before you , about Circumcision , viz. That Baptism is the Antitype of it , or that it came in the room thereof .

The Argument ( saith he ) from Circumcision is invalid upon infinite Considerations , Figures and Types prove nothing , unless a Command go along with them , or some Express to signify such to be their purpose . For the Deluge of Waters and Ark of Noah were Figures of Baptism , saith Peter . If therefore the Circumstances of the one be drawn to the other , we shall make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite ; The Paschal Lamb was a Figure of the Eucharist , which succeeds the other , as Baptism doth Circumcision : But because there was in the Mandu●ation of the Paschal Lamb ●o Prescription of Sacramental Drink , shall we conclude from hence , the Eucharist is to be administered in one kind ? To which let me add , Because Children , Servants , and all in the House * * Exod. 12.3 , 4. They were to take to them a Lamb , according to the number of Souls in the House . might eat of the Passeover , must our Children and all in our Houses eat of the Eucharist , or Supper of the Lord ? But , saith the Doctor , and in this very Instance of this Argument , suppose a Correspondency of the Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism , yet there is no Correspondency of Identity ; for though it be granted , that both of them did consign the Covenant of Faith , yet there is nothing in the Circumstances of Children being circumcised , that so concerns that Mystery , but that it might well be given to Men of Reason , because Circumcision left a Character in the Flesh , which being imprinted upon the Infant , did its work to them when they came to Age ; and such a Character was necessary , because there was no word added to the Sign : But Baptism imprints nothing that remains on the Body ; and if it leaves a Character at all , it is upon the Soul , to which the Word is added , which is as much a part of the Sacrament as the Sign it self : for both which Reasons it is requisite , that the Party baptized should be capable of Reason , that they may be capable both of the Word and of the Sacrament , and the impress upon the Spirit . Since therefore the Reason of the Parity does wholly fail , there is nothing left to infer a necessity of complying in the Circumstance of Age , any more than in the other Annexes of Types . The Infant must also precisely be baptized upon the eighth day , and Females must not be baptized at all , because not circumcised . But it were more proper , if we would understand it aright , to prosecute the Analogy from the Type to the Antitype , by the way of Letter , and Spirit , and Signification , and as Circumcision figures Baptism , so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcised shall signify something spiritual in the Adherents of Baptism : and therefore as Infants were circumcised , so spiritual Infants should be baptized , which is spiritual Circumcision ; for therefore Babes had the Ministry of the Type , to signify that we must , when we give our Names to Christ , become Children in Malice , and then the Type is made compleat .

Thus , as I have formerly said ; the worthy Doctor hath given you a full Answer to all you have said concerning your Arguments for Baptism coming in the room of , or being a Figure of Circumcision . But to proceed .

5. If Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time ; then Baptism is not the Type of , nor came in the room of Circumcision .

But Baptism and Circumcision were both in full force together for some time : Therefore Baptism is no Type of , nor came in the room of Circumcision .

The Minor is undeniable . Was not Baptism in full force from the time that John received it from Heaven , and administred it on the People ? and did not Christ , by the hands of his Disciples , baptize many Persons ? nay , more Disciples than John ? as it is said , Joh. 4.1 , 2. And was not Circumcision them in full force too , and so abode till Christ took it away by nailing it , with all other Jewish Rites , to his Cross ?

And as to the sequel of th● Major , that cannot be denied ; for if one thing cannot come in the room and , place of another , till the other is actually and legally removed and took out of the way , which is plain ; then since these two Rites had a Being together , the Major is undeniable . A Type can abide no longer than till the Antitype is come ; therefore Baptism is not the Antitype of Circumcision , or came not in the room and place thereof ; the Antitype of which , or that which came in the room of the Circumcision of the Flesh , is the Circumcision of the Heart , not in the Flesh ; but in the Spirit , whose Praise is not of Men , but of God .

6. And indeed how one thing that was a Figure or Shadow should come in the room , or be the Antitype of another thing , which is a Figure or Shadow , no wise Man can see reason to believe . And thus your great Text , Col. 2.11 , 12. is plainly and honestly opened , ●ccording to the scope and main drift of the Spirit of God therein , and your great Pillar for your Scriptureless Practice of Babes Baptism , razed and utterly overthrown .

Since I wrote this Answer to what you have said touching Circumcision , See Mr. Tomb's Anti-Pedo-Baptism . I have met with an Answer given to the like pretended Proof for Pedo-Baptism , written by a most Learned and Reverend Author : The Argument and Answer I have been at the pains to transcribe , which tak● as here followeth .

The Argument runs thus , viz.

To them to whom Circumcision did agree , The Pedo-Baptists Argument . to them Baptism doth agree : But Circumcision did agree to Infants , therefore also Baptism , &c.

The Major he endeavours thus to prove , i. e. If the Baptism of Christ succeeds into the place and room of Circumcision , then Baptism belongs to them that Circumcision belonged to : but the Antecedent is true , therefore the Consequence . The Minor , he says , is proved from Col. 2.12 . 't is said , the Colossians were Circumcised , because Baptized .

Answ. This Argument supposeth Baptism to succeed in the place of Circumcision ; Mr Tomb's Answer . which may be understood many ways .

1. So as that the sense be , that those Persons may be Baptized , which heretofore , by God's Appointment , were to be Circumcised . And in this sense the Argument must proceed , if it conclude to the purpose : But in this sense it is false , for Females were not Circumcised , which yet were Baptized , as Act. 8.12 , 13 , 14. & 16.14 , 15. and Believers out of Abraham's House , as Lot , Melchisedec , Joh , were not to be Circumcised : but believing Gentiles are universally to be Baptized .

2. It may be so understood as if the Rite of Baptism then began , when the Rite of Circumcision did or was to end . But this is not to be said ; for John Baptist and Christ's Disciples baptized , John 4.1 , 2. before Circumcision of right ceased .

3. It may be understood , as if Baptism did succeed into the place of Circumcision , in respect of its signification ; which is true in some things , but not in others . First , both might signify the Sanctification of the Heart ; and this is 〈◊〉 may be concluded out of that place alledged , Col. 2.11 , 12. To which I think meet to add , that if that Text be looked into , the Apostle speaks not of any Circumcision , but of Christ , because in him we are compleat , and by whose Circumcision we are said to put off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh : nor doth the Text say we are Circumcised , because we are Baptized ; but that we are compleat in Christ , because we are Circumcised in him , and buried with him in Baptism , ( in which ) or in whom ye and also risen together , through the Faith of the Operation of God that raised him from the Dead .

In some things Baptism doth not succeed into the place of Circumcision , in respect of signification .

For , 1. Circumcision did signify Christ to come of Isaac according to the Flesh , Gen. 17.10 , 11. but Baptism doth not signify this , but points at his Incarnation , Death and Resurrection .

2. Circumcision was a Sign , that the Israelites were a People separated from all Nations , Rom. 3.1 . but Baptism signifies , that all that believe , whether Jews or Gentiles , are one in Christ , Gal. 3.28 .

3. Circumcision signified , that Moses his Law was to be observed , Gal. 5.3 . but Baptism doth signify , that Moses his Law is abolished , and the Doctrine of Christ established .

4. Circumcision signified the Promise of the Land of Canaan : but Baptism Eternal Life by Christ .

And indeed , saith he , if this Argument be not warily and restrainedly understood , an Egg is laid , out of which manifest Judaism may be hatched ; but if it be taken restrainedly , 〈◊〉 no more follows thence , but that Baptism and Circumcision , in some things , hold forth the same ; which is more plainly said of 〈◊〉 Ark , 1 Pet. 3.21 . and of the Red Sea , and Cloud , 1 Cor. 10.2 . And yet we say not that Baptism succeeded into their place , much less do we infer any Rite to be instituted in their stead , respecting the same Persons ; yea verily , it is to be seriously thought on ,

1. That by such Arguments drawn from Analogies , not conceived by the Holy Ghost , but drawn out of our Wit , a new kind of instituting Rites ( to wit , from Analogies ) is brought in , besides our Lord's Precepts , and the Apostles Examples .

2. This being once said , by a like parity of Reason and Arguing , it will be lawful to bring into the Christian Church , under other Names and Forms , the whole Burden of Jewish Rites ; yea , almost out of what you will , to conclude what you will . For who shall put a Bound to Mens feigning Analogies , when they go beyond the Lord's Precepts , and the Apostles Examples ? It is well known , that the Divine Appointment of Tythes to be paid , and many other things in the Writings of Divines , are asserted by this kind of Argument , besides the Rule of the Lord's Precept , and the Apostles Example .

3. Hereby will the Opinion of the Papists be confirmed ; who affirm , from 1 Cor. 10.11 . the Sacraments of the Jews , to be Types of the Sacraments of Christians ; which is rejected by Divines that dispute against Bellarmine .

4. This manner of arguing , will countenance the Arguments of the Papists for an Vniversal Bishop , because the Jews had such ; and justify a Linen Garment at Mass , because there was such among the Jews ; and for Holy Water , Purification of Women , Easter , Pentecost , and many more such Ceremonies ; for which the Papists do in like manner argue , as appears out of Durandus's Rationals , and other Interpreters of Rituals among the Papists . Yea , what hindereth , but we may give Children the Lord's Supper , if we argue this way , since Samuel , Jesus Christ under Age , were partakers of the Passeover ? And of right , all the Males were thrice in the Year to appear before the Lord , and therefore it is certain they did eat the Passeover : and it shall be afterwards shewed , that the place , 1 Cor. 11.28 . will not avoid this Inconvenience , if the Text , Mat. 28.19 . may be shifted off , as Pedo-Baptists use to do . Lest any Man take this for a light Suggestion , I will add , that grave , godly , and learned Men , have often warned , that we are to take heed , that we do not rashly frame Arguments from Analogy ; among others , in their late Writings in the English Tongue , John Paget , in his Defence of Church-Government , Part 1. Chap. 3. Pag. 8 , and elsewhere . John Ball , in his Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders unto the Nine Positions , Posit , 2. p. 14.

Lastly , It is to be considered , again and again , how by these Argumentations , the Consciences of Men may be freed from the danger of Will-Worship , and polluting so remarkable an Ordinance of Christ as Baptism is ; especially this Care lies on them , who by Prayer , Sermons , Writings , Covenants and Oaths , do deter Christians from Humane Inventions in God's Worship diligently , and it is to be hoped sincerely .

Thus far that Reverend Divine , who though I knew not what he had said till after I had wrote as before in answer to you ; yet finding him so fully to strengthen what I have said , I thought good to add his Excellent Lines .

In the close of your 4 th Page , you recite an Objection brought by us , viz.

That there was an express Command in so many Words for Circumcision , but there is no such Command for Infant-Baptism . Gen. 17.9 , requires Infants to be Circumcised ; shew us but such a Text in all the New Testament , that says , 〈◊〉 Infants be Baptized . Thus you have stated our Objection , to which you give a threefold Answer .

I acknowledg ( say you ) that in the New-Testament , though it be not wholly silent , yet it speaks very little touching the Case of Infant-Baptism ; and that for two Reasons , 1. Because the Old-Testament speaks so much in their Case , therefore the New-Testament speaks so little — The Old-Testament plainly informs us , that Children in their Infancy were admitted Members of the Visible Church . Now what need is there that the same thing be repeated over again in the New-Testament ? for it is not the Old-Testament alone , nor the New-Testament alone , but both together , that contain the Rule of Faith and Practice , &c.

Answ. 1. You speak an Untruth , for the New-Testament speaks nothing at all touching Infant-Baptism ; if a Man read it over a thousand times , he shall not find one Word , or the least Hint given of it : therefore the New-Testament , contrary to what you boldly affirm , is wholly silent in the Case of Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership . 'T is a shame for a Man , who calls himself a Minister , to speak falsly , but much more to publish Falshoods to the World . In this , Mr. Rector , you must be corrected . If you fly to your pretended Consequences , you shall find , by and by , God assisting , that that Refuge will fail you in the Case ; for Consequences in many Cases , drawn naturally from the Premises to which they refer , we readily admit of , though not in the Case of meer positive Precepts .

2. As to your first Reason , why the New-Testament speaks no more in the Case of Infants ; which is , as you conceive , because the Old-Testament speaks so much , that the Infant-Seed of Believers should be owned as Covenant Servants , as Deut. 29.10 , 12. and were admitted Members of that Visible Church . I must tell you , Sir , by way of Answer , this will do you no good , for the Reasons following .

1. Because Baptism is ( as I have told you already ) a meer positive Precept ; and the Rite thereof , as well as Circumcision , cannot be known but by the express Declaration or Manifestation of the Will and Mind 〈◊〉 God in his written Word . Abraham knew not that it was his Duty , he ought to Circumcise his Children , till God gave him his positive and express Command to do it ; and then also it was none but his Male Children ; and God gave Directions to him , when and wherefore he should Circumcise them : And therefore there is the same parity of Reason , why the Great God should give us under the Gospel the like positive Law for baptizing our Children under the Gospel ; together with the Time when , and the Reason wherefore , as he did to them in the case of Circumcision , had it been his Pleasure we should Baptize our Children : but since he hath not required any thing of this Nature of us under the Gospel , his requiring them to Circumcise their Male Children , will not justify us , nor free us in so doing , from palpable Will-Worship . Were there none among the Gentiles , think you , in the Old-Testament-time , that were Believers and Godly Persons ? And if there were such , I ask you , whether they were to Circumcise their Children , notwithstanding they abode without the Gate or Pale of the Jewish Church ? Nay , I affirm , that it was not the Duty of Melchisedec , Lot , nor Job , ( because not Abraham's natural Off-spring , nor bought with his Money , had they never so many Sons ) to Circumcise one of them , because they had no Command so to do . Read Gen. 17.8 , 9 , 10 , 11. and you will find the express Command of God was to him , and to every Male-Child of his ; or that was born in his House , or bought with Money , ver. 11 , 12.

2. Because the Church-State of the Jews , or that under the Old-Testament , quite differs from the Gospel-Church State ; the Jewish-Church-Constitution was National , the whole Nation of the Jews ; and every individual Person that proceeded from Abraham's Loins , were admitted as Members of that Church under the Law , or in Times of the Old-Testament , and therefore his Infant-Seed were and might be admitted Members thereof . But in the Times of the Gospel , the Church is not National , but Congregational , Shew us what whole Nation or People , none excepted , were by Christ's Appointmen● constituted as a Gospel-Church , as the People of Israel or Jewish Nation were , and you will gain a great Point . Is it not evident , all along in the Acts of the Apostles , which gives an Account of the Nature and Manner of the Gatherings and Constitutions of the Gospel-Churches , that they consisted of none but of such who professed Faith and Regeneration , and so were either gathered out of the Jewish People , or else out of the Nations of the Gentiles , and consisted of no other but such who were called , or did profess Faith in Jesus Christ ? Which if considered , utterly overthrows , not only what you speak here , but all you speak afterwards about Children being once in Covenant under the Law .

3. Whereas you say , It is not the Old-Testament alone , nor the New-Testament , but both together , that contains the Rule of our Faith and Practice .

I answer , That though in part what you say here is true , yet your Trumpet gives an uncertain Sound : for in respect of Practice , were there not many Laws and Precepts given to the People of the Jews , which no ways in the least concern us , or God's Spiritual Israel under the Gospel ? If you explain your self no better , you may soon subvert the People , and carry them away to Judaism with a witness : nay , and instead of Baptizing Children upon such a childish and erroneous Foot of Account , make them think they ought to Circumcise them , as some of late here in England were deluded to do . Therefore we say as to all Precepts of the Gospel that are meer positive Laws , the New-Testament is our only Rule without the help of the Old : Christ alone is our Law-giver , and him , and not Moses , we are only to hear and hearken unto ; though as to matter of Faith , the Old-Testament may be useful 〈◊〉 us in many respects , and also all Precepts that are purely Moral in their own Nature . The Old-Testament is a Rule to us as well as the New , which I might shew in many respects , not only touching the Law of the Decalogue , but also of Prayer , singing God's Praises , Fasting Days , &c. But for you to intimate in the case of Circumcision , that the Old-Testament is a Rule of Practice , or in respect of Jewish Church-Membership , you strangely betray your Ignorance , as will further appear hereafter . For that Circumcision was a meer Legal or Jewish Rite , I shall evidently anon fully prove . But so much as to your first Reason , your Second shall be now examined .

2. So little is said ( say you ) in the New-Testament about Baptizing Infants , because the custom of Baptizing them was common , and the practice constant in the Jewish Church , at and before our Saviour's Time . Whilst Circumcision was the Covenanting Sign , Baptism was the Purifying Ceremony among the Jews ; for when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church , both Parents and Children were first Circumcised , and then Wash'd , in token of cleansing them from the filth of their Heathenism : So that Baptism among the Jews constantly went along with Circumcision till our Saviour's Time .

Answ. 1. 'T is a sign of a bad Cause , when Men are forc'd to try their Wits after such a ridiculous manner , to make out what they have to prove . Pray , was that Custom among the Jews , of Baptizing Infants , when any of the Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church , commanded of God ? Had God given the Jews any such Law or Precept ? or was it not one of their own Traditions , who in their own Wisdom , without any Warrant from their great Prophet and Law-giver , devised that Ceremony , possibly to wash away the Filth of Heathenism , as your Predecessors in like manner , without any Command or Warrant of Jesus Christ , devised the Baptizing of Infants , to wash away the Filth of Original Sin ? Doth not our blessed Saviour say , that they had made void the Commandments of God through their Traditions ? I do affirm , it was never given them as a Law or Precept by the Great God , nor do you attempt once to prove any such thing ; for there is not the least shadow of any such thing in all the Old-Testament ; therefore it was a meer humane Tradition .

2. Can any wise Man , who would do nothing in God's Service without a sufficient Rule or Warrant from the Word of God , think this a good Argument for Infant-Baptism ? I must tell you , ( as I have some of your Brethren , called , The Athenian Society ) That a Popish Tradition is every way as good as a Jewish one . You were better plead thus , The Romish Church , without any Warrant from God's Word , received Infant-Baptism as an unwritten Apostolical Tradition , and in some Councils early . Milevit . Conc. Quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris Matrum Baptizandos esse negat , Anathema esto . Milev . Can. 2. and Anathematized or cursed all who should deny that new-born Infants were to be baptized ; why do you fly to the fabulous and idle Traditions of the Jewish Rabbins for your Childish Baptism , since you have the Testimony of so many Romish Doctors , and General Councils , who positively affirm you ought to baptize your Children ? Sure the Authority of the latter is as good as the former .

3. But is it so indeed , did our Saviour say nothing of Infant-Baptism ? or , as you hint , leave so little of it in the New Testament , because it was the constant Custom among the Jews to baptize the Children of Heathens before they admitted them into their Church ? What Dr. Hammond , Taylor and Lightfoot have said upon that account , is to their Shame and Reproach , rather than to their Honour ; tho I know it was their last Refuge , when they saw your Scripture-Proofs would not prove it to be a Truth of Christ . O how are we beholden to the Jewish Talmud , and Jewish Rabbins for our Infant-Baptism ! Nay , which is worst of all , how is Christ beholden to them for that rare Invention , that had said so much for it , and made it so common a Practice among them , that it saved him the Pains to give the least Directions about it ? But is not this next to Blasphemy ? Can any Man in his right Wits think our Lord Jesus should confirm a vile Tradition and Innovation of the Jews ? or take His great Ordinance and Sacrament of Baptism from the superstitious , fabulous and erronious Custom of their Doctors and Rabbins ? Besides , was Baptism to be preached or practised by none but the Jewish People ? doth it not belong to the Gentiles too ? Did not our Saviour command his Disciples to go into all Nations , and make Disciples and baptize them ? &c. Was it his Mind that Infants should be baptized , and yet say nothing of it , because it was a common Custom and Practice among the Jews ? But , Sir , what must the Gentiles do to know this to be their Duty ? ( I mean those Gentiles who received the Christian Faith ) viz. that they ought to baptize their Children , who did not know nor ever heard of that Jewish Custom ? Or , dare you say , our New Testament is not authentick , or sufficient to teach us the whole of Gospel-Duties and Obedience , without the Jewish Talmud ? You should not ( 't is plain ) only have said the New Testament is not , without the Old , the Rule of our Practice ; but also that the New Testament and the Old , without the Jewish Talmud , is not sufficient , and then you had done your business at once . Are you not ashamed thus to go about to blind and deceive the poor People ?

Is not the whole Mind of Jesus Christ , even all his Laws and Precepts , or his whole Counsel plainly contained in his blessed Word ? But would you have People be wise above what is written , and teach Men to reflect upon the Care and Faithfulness of the blessed Jesus , in leaving out of the sacred Bible one great Truth of God , and leave us to find it out by going to search the Jewish Traditions ?

4. If it was a Custom among the Jews , it must be a sacred Custom , I mean a Custom that God appointed and commanded them to observe , or else a human Tradition or vain Custom : If it had been a Mosaical Rite given by God himself to the Jews , Christ besure abolished it , and nailed it to his Cross , with all its fellows , and 't is gone for ever since he hath not given it out a new .

Take this Argument .

That Custom among the Jews that God never commanded , nor is any where given by Moses unto them , who was faithful in all his House , was no Ordinance of God , but a meer human Tradition . But the Custom among the Jews of baptizing the Heathen and their Children , who were admitted into their Church , was never commanded of God , nor any where given unto them by Moses , who was faithful in all his House . Ergo , That Custom was no Ordinance of God , but a meer human Tradition .

5. Lastly , take what a worthy and learned Author of your own Communion hath said in Confutation of this foolish and absurd Argument for Pedo-baptism , 't is Sir Norton Knatchbull Knight and Baronet . The thing , saith he , is uncertain , that it cannot be said of the Rabbins , that there were not several among them who differed very much about this matter ; for Rabbi Eliezar expresly contradicts Rabbi Joshua , who was the first that I know of who asserted this sort of Baptism among the Jews ; for Rabbi Eliezar , who was contemporary with Rabbi Joshua , if he did not live before him , asserts that a Proselyte circumcised , and not baptized , was a true Proselyte ; for so we read of the Patriarchs Abraham , Isaac and Jacob , that they were circumcised , but not baptized . But Rabbi Joshua affirms , that he who was baptized , not he that was circumcised , was a true Proselyte . To whom shall I give Credit , to Eliezar , who asserts what the Scripture confirms ; or to Joshua , who affirms what is no where to be found in Scripture ? But the Rabbins upheld Joshuah's side , and what wonder was it ? for it made for their business ; that is , for the Honour of the Jewish Religion , that the Christians should borrow their Ceremonies from them . But when I see Men of great Learning in these times fetching the Foundations of Truth from the Rabbins , I cannot but hesitate a little : For whence was the Talmud sent us , they are the words of Buxtorf in his Synagoga Judaica , that we should give Credit thereto , that from thence we should believe that the Law of Moses either can or ought to be understood ? much less the Gospel , to which they were profess'd Enemies . For the Talmud is called a Labyrinth of Errors , and the Foundation of Jewish Fables ; it was brought to Perfection and held for authentick five hundred Years after Christ : therefore it is unreasonable to rest upon the Testimony of it . And that which moves me most , Josephus ( to omit all the Fathers that lived before the Talmud was finished ) who was a Jew , and contemporary with Rabbi Eliezar , who also wrote in particular of the Rites , Customs and Acts of the Jews , is altogether silent in this matter . So that it is an Argument to me next to a Demonstration , that two such eminent Persons , both Jews , and living at the same time , the one should positively deny , and the other makes mention of Baptism among the Jews . Besides , if Baptism in the modern sense were in use among the Jews in ancient Times , why did the Pharisees ask John Baptist , Why doest thou baptize , if thou art not Christ , nor Elias , nor that Prophet ? Joh. 1.25 . do they not plainly intimate that Baptism was not in use before , and that it was a received Opinion among them , that there should be no Baptism till either Christ , or Elias , or that Prophet came ? So far the renowned Sir Norton Knatchbull , in his Notes printed at Oxford , Anno Dom. 1677. with the License of the Vice-Chancellor , a very learned Man , and a Son of the Church of England . Sir , what think you now of your Jewish Custom , of baptizing the Heathens and their Children who were admitted to their Church ? Do you think there is not need that Infant-Baptism should be mentioned in the holy Scripture , had it been a Truth ? Is this uncertain Story of the Jewish Custom sufficient for you to build your Faith and Practice upon , when the Truth of the Story , as to matter of Fact , may justly be doubted ? but if it was true , it is but a rotten Foundation to build one of the great Sacraments of Christ upon , viz. a vile , profane and human Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins .

I have been the larger on this matter , because the Men you mention , as Dr. Hammond , Taylor and Lightfoot , some People have in such Veneration , who were the Persons ( you need not doubt ) the learned Sir Norton confuted ; and also because your Brethren the Athenian Society * * The Athenian Society detected in their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume . , notwithstanding I have lately so fully answered all they have urged upon this account , still insist upon this ridiculous Argument , as appears by their 12 Numbers to their fifth Volume . And what I have now said , may serve for a further Answer to them as well as to you ; but if we hear any more of this , we shall further expose you and them than yet we have done .

In Pag. 6. you seem to answer a Question , viz. Why our Saviour did not particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism in the room of Circumcision ?

Your Answer is , because there was no occasion for it ; What need , say you , our Saviour declare that Infants ought to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them , when it was never denied them ? it had been highly requisite that our Saviour should have particularly named them now : but being all ways included before , if our Saviour had intended their Exclusion now , he would most certainly have declared it , &c.

Answ. 1. I answer , you say the Seal of the Covenant was never denied Infants , and therefore what need our Saviour particularly name Infants when he instituted Baptism ? Sir , but did not our Saviour know there would be just ground for us to deny Infant-Baptism , since he commanded none in the great Commission to be baptized , but such who were made Disciples by being first taught ? And he being God as well as Man , did know from hence it would be denied , as it has been by some godly Christians from the first time it was , as an human Device , introduced into God's Worship ( as hereafter we shall prove ) : sure this being so , there was all the reason imaginable that he should speak of their Baptism in his great Commission , had it been his Will they should be baptized .

2. And why should the baptizing of Believers be so clearly and so often spoken of in the New Testament , if a being in the Covenant was a sufficient ground to baptize them , without a positive Precept , or express Command to baptize them ? since they were always from the beginning of the World look'd upon and known beyond doubt to be in Covenant : and so you cannot say of Infants , ( tho you say the Seal was never denied them ) for there is no mention of their being in Covenant , as to have any Sign or Rite assigned them of it till Abraham's days ; and that that Covenant then , viz. of Circumcision , was not a Covenant of Grace , we shall hereafter , God assisting , clearly prove . Therefore , say you what you please , there was more need for our Saviour to have Infants Baptism , and Church-Membership particularly mentioned , than that of Believers , had it been the Mind of Christ they ought to be baptized and made Members of the Gospel-Church .

3. Besides , the Dispensation of the Gospel requires it , since it differs in Nature , Rites and Priviledges from that of the Law , or under the Old Testament . The Church-State of the Jews being National , and that of the Gospel Congregational , had Christ only confirmed old Covenant-Rites and manner of Priviledges , Membership and Initiations , &c. there might be something in what you say ; but evident it is , that the Matter and Form , Rites and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church , according to the Constitution , Laws and Ordinances of Christ , Here the Athenian Society may see their first Query fully answered , of Infants being once in Covenant , and never cast out , are in still . quite differ , and are of another sort to those of the Law . Think not to say within your selves , We have Abraham to our Father , &c. Now the Axe is laid to the Root of the Trees , Mat. 3.9 , 10. [ Now ] as if he should say , the case is altered ; your being the fleshly Seed of Abraham would do then , or give you a right to Circumcision ; but this will not do now , this will give you no right to Gospel-Baptism , the Dispensation is changed ; actual Faith , and Fruits meet for Repentance , are required of all who have a right to Baptism .

4. Moreover , 't is evident that Christ in bringing in and establishing of the second Covenant and Gospel-Church-State , dissolved , and for ever took away the old Covenant , and Church-State of the Jews , with all their Rites , initiating Ordinances and Priviledges whatsoever .

Suppose a Man should make his Will , and bequeath such or such Legacies to such and such Persons ; and yet afterwards he abrogates that Will , and makes another , which is his last Will and Testament , in which he leaves out the Names of those Persons , and doth not bequeath those Legacies to them ; Can they recover those Legacies by virtue of the old abrogated Will ? The case is the same here ; If Infants have right to Baptism and visible Church-Membership , it must be found in Christ's Gospel , which is his last Will and Testament , or they have no such Right you may be sure , nor ought to be baptized ; He took away the first , that he might establish the second , Heb. 10.2 .

Your second Answer to this Objection , viz. That Infants are no where commanded to be baptized , is this , viz. Altho they are not , say you , particularly named , yet are they necessarily included in the Commission , Mat. 28.19 , 20. Infants being a very considerable part of all Nations ; surely the universal ( all Nations ) does include the Individuals , tho our Saviour does not particularly name them . To clear this , you make use of a Similitude . Suppose , say you , the King should grant his Royal Charter to make this your Market-Town a Corporation , and all the Inhabitants of it Free-Men , would any be so idle as to suppose that this Royal Grant doth not include your Children , because it doth not particularly name them ? Is not the Son of a Free-man a Free-man as well as his Father ? Thus in the Sacred Charter and Royal Patent of the Covenant of Grace , which is sealed by Baptism ; all the Priviledges and Promises of that Covenant granted to Believers , concern their Children as well as themselves , Acts 2.38 . The Promise is to you and to your Children ; the Promise of the Covenant belongs to you and to yours . The Infants then of Believers are included together with themselves , tho not particularly named .

Answ. 1. I reply , that you argue not only sophistically , but also very weakly ; for are not Pagans , Turks and Infidels , with the profane and ungodly Men and Women , and their Children , All Nations takes in Pagans , &c. and their Children . a very considerable part of all Nations ? nay , the far greatest part of all Nations ; for Christ's Flock comparatively is but a little Flock : And are these included in the Commission , tho not named ? You must say they be , or else confess there is nothing in what you say in the least upon this account .

2. If that Universal does include every Individual in all Nations , all these are included as well as Infants of Believers . Sir , you must be corrected here for your bold and daring Abuse of the Sacred Commission of our Blessed Lord ; for I appeal to your Conscience , or to the Consciences of all impartial Men , whether , by virtue of the Commission , any one Person ought to be Baptized , but such who is first Taught ? 't is not said , Go , Baptize all Nations ; mark , but go ye therefore , teach all Nations , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; that is , disciple , make Disciples in all Nations , baptizing them , that is , such who are so taught or made Disciples . And this is according to Christ's own Practice , Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John , &c. John 4.1 . first he made them Disciples , and then Baptized them , and thus runs his Commission . Therefore since none are expressed , as required in all Nations to be Baptized , but such as are first taught and discipled ; Infants of Believers , as well as Pagans , and Unbelievers and their Children , are excluded . As when God commanded the Male Children to be Circumcised , he thereby excluded all Female Children : Or when he commanded Abraham to Circumcise on the eighth Day , he virtually forbad him to Circumcise on the seventh or ninth day , as I said before ; or as when he commanded the Ark to be carried on the Priests Shoulders , he forbad them to carry it on a Cart ; and for their presumption so to do , it provoked God , and cost Vzzah his Life : So and in like manner , all that are not expressed , as injoined or required to be Baptized by the Authority of the Commission , are excluded .

3. And as to your Simile , there 's nothing in it ; for you should first prove , that the Nature of the Sacred Charter of the Church about the Royal Grant of that Spiritual Corporation , runs Parallel-wise with the King's Charter of making a Civil Corporation : make that appear , and you do your Business . But , alas , Sir , you beg , and instead of arguing , take that for granted which is utterly denied . 'T is not the first Birth that brings us into the Covenant of Grace , but the Second ; not Generation , but Regeneration ; not being born of Believers , but by our being born of God : See John 1.12 , 13. To as many as received him , to them gave be Power ( Gr. Priviledg ) to become the Sons of God : Which were not born of Blood , nor of the Will of the Flesh , nor of the Will of Man , but of God . If ye be Christ's , then are ye Abraham 's Seed , and Heirs according to the Promise , Gal. 3.29 . The Children of the Flesh , these are not the Children of God , Rom. 9.8 . Thus the Royal Charter of the Gospel , or Spiritual Corporation of the Covenant and Gospel-Church-State runs ; i. e. You must be a Believer , you must be born again , be a new Creature , and so must your Children , before you or they either can be free-Men and Women of this Corporation , or be Fellow-Citizens with the Saints and Houshold of God , Ephes. 2.19 . And indeed the Covenant of Grace ran thus , as it was made with Abraham ; though he was in it , yet all his Children were not included , though Circumcised . Was the Royal Grant made so , that it included Ishmael and Esau ? Were the Promises and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace belonging to them ? doth not the Apostle positively deny it , in Rom. 9.7 ? Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham , are they all Children ; but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called : that is , they which are the Children of the Flesh , these are not the Children of God ; but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed , Ver. 9.

4. If all the Priviledges and Promises granted to Believers , so concern all their Children , they must all be saved , for that is the Promise and blessed Priviledg of all Believers ; He that heareth my Words , and believeth on him that sent me , hath everlasting Life , and shall not come into Condemnation , John 5.24 . If this were true Doctrine that you teach the deceived and blind World , the Priviledges of Believers Seed were great indeed , and their State happy : but alas 't is no such thing , they are , as born , and as they come into the World from the Loins of their Parents , in the same woful condition , and alike polluted as the Children of Unbelievers ; and many of the best of God's People have now-adays , as well as formerly , wicked Children ; and many die in Sin , and perish eternally , which they could not do , had they the same Promises and Priviledges their believing Parents have ; therefore you teach false Doctrine , and ought to be rectified and sharply corrected .

5. If they have the same Priviledges their believing Parents have , and that by the Royal Grant and Charter of Christ given to his Church , Why do you not , as the ancient erroneous Fathers did , give them the Eucharist ? I affirm , they have as much right to that Sacrament , ( as they have to the Sacrament of Baptism , as I shall prove in its place ) by your Arguing and Argument .

6. And lastly , As to that Text cited by you , to prove what you say in Acts 2.38 . For the Promise is to you and to your Children , doth not refer to their Children quatenus as Children , but to such of their Children , or Off-spring , God by his Word and Spirit should call , ( as the Sequel of the Verse clearly shews ) for the Promise is to you , and to your Children , and to all that are afar off , even to so many ( mark ) as the Lord our God shall call . To you Jews , and not only to you , but to the Gentiles also , which were said to be afar off , as the Apostle speaks , Ephes. 2.17 . And came and preached Peace to you that were afar off . But then 't is with this Restriction or Limitation , even to so many of you , and your Children , and them afar off , which the Lord our God shall call : and when Children are , by the Grace of God effectually called , we deny not but that you may Baptize them .

In pag. 7. upon the Popular Objection , as you call it , against Infant-Baptism , from the Silence of the Scripture in that Case , you argue thus , viz.

That which by a just and necessary Consequence is deduced from Scripture , is as much the Mind of Christ , as what is contained in the express words of Scripture . To confirm this , you bring in the Arians , who rejected Consequential Proofs , &c. And ( say you ) if you of the Anabaptist Perswasion do the same , know , that if you deny evident and necessary Consequences from Scripture , then , first , you deny your Saviour's way of Arguing ; and , secondly , you condemn your own Practice , &c.

Answ. 1. You basely misrepresent those you call Anabaptists ; for we do not deny , nor never did , necessary Consequences deduced from the Scripture , or such Consequences which naturally and genuinely follow from those Texts they refer to , or are drawn therefrom .

Though , Sir , I must tell you , Consequences that are genuine , or are naturally deduced from the Scripture , to prove and demonstrate Matter of Faith , ( as in the case of the Resurrection , or about the Deity of the Son of God , or any thing of like nature , are one thing ) and Consequences brought to prove a Positive Law or Institutions , are another thing . Pray , did God by Moses give forth any Law , or positive Rite or Precept so darkly , that it could not be proved but by Consequences ? for that is the case here between you and us . Moses delivered every Law , Statute and Ordinanance so plainly to the People of Israel , that he that ran might read it . And shall any Man think that our blessed Saviour , who declared all things plainly from his Father , and was faithful as a Son over his own House , would leave any positive Law or Precept of the Gospel so dark , that there is no way to understand it but by Consequences ?

2. But secondly , our main Objection lies against your pretended Consequences ; for we positively deny that any of your Inferences or Consequences which you bring to prove Infant-Baptism , do naturally follow from the Scripture-Texts , to which you refer , or from whence you draw them : and blame us not , since your own Brethren ( such too as Dr. Hammond , Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down , &c. ) do affirm , that those Scriptures from whence ▪ you draw your Consequences for this Practice , are not naturally drawn therefrom , but are very uncertain and doubtful : if you know not this , it will appear you have read but little of them .

3. As touching Prayer , that is a Branch of Natural Religion , or a Moral Duty , and therefore quite different from this the Controversy is about ; yet that it is positively enjoined and commanded in the Gospel also , 1 Thess. 5.17 , 18. we deny not ; Pray always , pray without ceasing , and for every thing give Thanks . What can be more plain ? Besides , we sin not if we pray thrice a day , or seven times a day ; therefore Prayer is unadvisedly and improperly mentioned by you upon this account .

4. As touching Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper , that is proved more than by Consequences : Let a Man examine himself , i. e. Man or Woman , for so the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Greek , and Adam in the Hebrew signify . There is one Mediator between God and Man . Is not the Woman comprehended as clearly as the Man ? Are not Male and Female all one in Christ Jesus ? Gal. 3.28 . And , as we have lately told your caviling Brethren the Athenian Society , did you never read of the Figure Sylepsis or Conceptio , that comprehends the less worthy under the more worthy , indignioris sub digniore ? As for Example , Quid tu & soror facitis ; ego & mater miseri perimus ; tu & uxor qui adfuistis testes estete ; and is no less true in Divinity : See that full Text , 1 Cor. 6.16 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , they two shall be one Flesh . Mary the Mother of Jesus , and the other good Women who were Christ's Disciples , were of the number of the hundred and twenty Disciples who brake Bread with the three thousand that were added to them , Acts 2. 'T is said Acts 8.12 . They were baptized both Men and Women . Now such a Consequence as this we deny not , viz. Women were Disciples , Women were baptized , and therefore broke Bread : for all who were true Disciples of Christ and baptized , had an undoubted Right to the Lord's-Supper . Bring us such Grounds and Consequences for your Infant-Baptism and Church-Membership , and we will contend with you no more . But to satisfy the Reader more fully as to this , I desire him to see Mr. Danvers Answer to Mr. Blindman .

5. As to the first day of the Week , being the day appointed for Christians to observe under the Gospel in the Worship and Service of God , we have Proof enough without Consequences . Sir , we always affirm an Apostolical Practice , or a Gospel-Precedent , is of like nature and of equal Authority with a Gospel Precept . Do we not read , Acts 2.1 , 2. that when the day of Pentecost was fully come , the Disciples were all gathered together with one accord in one place ; which was the first Day of the Week ? And was not this their assembling on that day , as the day of the Christian Sabbath , ratified and confirmed from Heaven , by that wonderful Effusion of the Holy Ghost , or extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit ? And is it not said , Acts 20.7 . the Church came together on the first Day of the Week to break Bread ? And doth not the Apostle exhort the Church at Corinth , 1 Cor. 16.1 , 2. upon the first Day of the Week to make Collections , or to gather and lay in store for the Poor , as he had given Orders to the Churches of Galatia ? this they could not do , if they met not on that Day . And what tho we cannot prove without Consequences , that he who was the Lord of the Sabbath did change the Day , &c seeing we have such plain and express Examples or Precedents for the Observation of the first Day of Week , and none but that in the times of the Gospel ? Therefore now we say ,

6. Could you give us but one Example , one Precedent in all the New Testament , that any one Infant was baptized , we would give up the Cause : but as you can give us none , so you cannot give us any Consequences , that without the abuse of the Scripture naturally flow from the Texts to which you refer ; therefore all this stir in mentioning these particular Cases , are remote to your Business , and prove nothing , they being not like parallel Cases to yours .

But to come to your Argument for Infant-Baptism , which you would have to run parallel with that , for Womens receiving the Lord's-Supper : I will repeat them both , and then reply to the last .

All Christ's Disciples ought to partake of his Supper : Women are Disciples , therefore to partake of his Supper .

You proceed ; All Christ's Disciples ought to be baptized ; but some Children are his Disciples , therefore to be baptized .

1. I deny your Minor ; you say some Children are Disciples , the Scripture you bring to prove it , is Acts 15.1 , 8 , 10. Answ. That Scripture proves no such thing : the Yoke that was laid on the Neck of those Disciples were Men , or Adult Persons , or Gentile Saints ; they were such Disciples those false Brethten would have laid the Yoke of Circumcision upon .

2. A Disciple is one taught or instructed , as the genuine and proper Signification of that word holds forth ; but Infants have no Understanding , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and therefore are not able to be made Disciples by teaching .

Your second Proof , is their Parents Dedication of them to Christ .

I answer ; Parents have no Warrant from God's Word to dedicate their Children to Christ by Baptism , nor doth that Dedication infuse any Divine Habits into them , or the least Light , Knowledg , or Understanding ; therefore that Dedication cannot render them to be Disciples .

Your third Proof is Christ's gracious Acceptation of them at their hands .

Answ. I answer , Christ only laid his Hands upon some Children who were brought to him , and blessed them ; but this doth not prove they are Disciples , or that he baptized any Infant . But more of this hereafter . I proceed to your second grand Argument , Pag. 8.

CHAP. II.

Wherein the grand Argument for Infant-Baptism taken from the Covenant made with Abraham , is fully confuted . Proving the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace , wherein both Mr. Burkit and the Athenian Society are clearly answered . The Legal Covenant and Fleshly Seed being under the Gospel both cast out , the Plea for Pedo-baptism from the old Covenant-Right is vanquished .

I Come now to examine your second grand Argument for the Baptism of Infants , which you in Pag. 8. laid down thus , viz.

Arg. 2. If the Infants of believing Christians under the Gospel are in Covenant with God , as the Jewish Infants under the Law were ; then the Seal of the Covenant , which is Baptism , may and ought to be administred to them .

But the Infants of Believers under the Gospel are in Covenant with God , He should have mentioned Circumcision in his Propositions . as well as the Jewish Infants under the Law were .

Therefore Baptism , the Seal of the Covenant , ought to be applied to these , as Circumcision was to them .

Answ. Tho this Syllogism is not perfect in Form , yet I will pass by that Oversight of yours , and consider it in each part , and finding it sophistical , must deny the whole Argument .

1. For first , as to your Major , If the Infants of Christians were in Covenant with God , as the Jewish Infants were , yet Baptism cannot belong to them , unless God hath commanded them to be baptized , and made it also a Seal of the same Covenant : for as much as Baptism , ( as I have told you before once or twice already ) is a meer positive Law or Institution , 't is not Man , but God himself must make it their Duty to be baptized , and a Seal of the Covenant , if it were so indeed : but God hath neither enjoyned them , or made it their Duty to be baptized , nor appointed it to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace to them ; Ergo. Also you mistake , in calling Circumcision a Seal of the Covenant made with Abraham ; for 't is only called the Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith he had , ( that is Abraham ) and which he had , being yet uncircumcised . 'T is not called a Seal of the Covenant , but of Faith , and that too of Abraham's Faith only , because none before they were circumcised had such a Faith but himself only . Nor can you prove Christ's true Baptism is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel , the holy Spirit is the only Seal of the Covenant of Grace mentioned in the Scripture , Ephes. 1.13 , 14. chap. 4.30 .

If therefore I should grant , that the Infants of Believers under the Gospel , as such , were in Covenant with God , which I must deny , yet it would not follow in the least that they ought to be baptized , from that ground : for , were not , think you , all the Children of the Godly before Abraham's time , or before he received that express Command to circumcise them in your sense , in Covenant with God ? If you do not say this , why do you affirm , that the Children of Believers were always , or ever in Covenant as well as their Parents ? but if it were so , Do you think it was their Duty to circumcise them ? If you should say , no , because they did not know to circumcise them was the Will of God . But you might say more , viz. it was not the Will of God they should do it ; 't is God's Command only , and not their being in Covenant , made it their Duty to circumcise their Children : and had God given us such a Command , or any Authority to baptize our Children , we ought and would baptize them ; but must not , dare not , without such positive Command or Authority .

2. We utterly also deny your Minor , and say that the Infants of Believers ( as such ) under the Gospel , are not in Covenant with God .

We will therefore examine your Grounds to prove that which you affirm upon this account , Pag. 8 , 9. and thus you argue , viz.

They who by Circumcision were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God , and never since were solemnly cast out , do undoubtedly continue in a Covenant-State .

But Infants under the Law were solemnly by God's Appointment taken into Covenant with himself , and were never since by any Command of God cast out ; therefore they do still continue in Covenant .

Answ. 1. I answer first of all , that your Argument is not true in form ; Is Circumcision in your Minor ? Sir , if you are a Logician , speak like one ; Mr. Burkit's Syllogism not true in form . your Minor should run thus , viz. But Infants were once by Circumcision , solemnly by God's Appointment , taken into Covenant , &c. But I 'll pass by that , and must tell you your Argument in another respect is lame also ; You do not tell us what Covenant 't is you here intend ; ought you not to have added , They who were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision , &c. but Infants were once solemnly taken into the Covenant of Grace by Circumcision ? If you do not affirm that , you say nothing that concerns our Controversy . If the Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace , you will and must give up your Cause : and if you say that , you ought to have put it into your Syllogism . 3. There is yet another fault in your Argument . If you would include the Controversy , ought you not to have said , All they who ? &c. Can your Conclusion be good , when your Propositions are bad and defective ?

But to the business ; If you say Infants , as such , were solemnly taken into the Convenant of Grace by Circumcision ; then I deny your Minor : Infants , as such , were never by Circumcision , nor any other ways under the Law , taken into the Covenant of Grace . Moreover , I affirm , that tho they were once solemnly taken into Covenant with God by Circumcision , yet that Covenant , and that Covenant Seed , viz. the natural Seed of Abraham , are both solemnly cast out ; and this I shall , God assisting , prove , and afterwards take off all those pretended Absurdities you in the 9 th and 10 th Pages of your Book mention , and give a full Answer to your Reasons and Arguments you bring to prove the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Grace .

1. And now to proceed , to raze and quite overthrow this main Foundation and Pillar of Pedo-baptism ; I shall argue as Mr. Tombs hath done , whose Arguments could never be yet answered .

We are first of all to consider , whether the Gospel-Covenant , and the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham be the same . Secondly , Inquire what Seed of Abraham it is , of which 't is said , I will be a God to thee , and to thy Seed , Gen. 17.7 . Thirdly , Whether there be the same Reason of Circumcision and of Baptism in signifying the Gospel-Covenant . Fourthly , Whether there is the same Parity of Reason for the one , as for the other .

First , The Covenant God made with Abraham proved to be a mix'd Covenant , partly Gospel , and partly Legal . The Covenant made with Abraham we affirm is not a pure Gospel-Covenant , but a mix'd Covenant , partly made with his Natural or Fleshly Seed , and partly made with him and his Spiritual Seed ; and therefore we thus argue .

Arg. 1. If the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises , and the Promises are mix'd , some Evangelical , belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth ; some Domestick , or Civil Promises , specially and absolutely respectin● the House and Natural Seed of Abraham , and Policy of Israel ; then 't is a mix'd Covenant .

But the Covenant takes its Denomination from the Promises , and the Promises are mix'd , some Evangelical , belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth ; some Domestick , or Civil Promises , specially and absolutely respecting the House and Natural Seed of Abraham , and Policy of Israel . Ergo , 'T is a mix'd Covenant .

To make this clear , 't is evident that that Promise was Evangelical , belonging to those the Gospel belongeth to , Gen. 17.5 . I have made thee a Father of many Nations : And so is that Gen. 15.5 . So shall thy Seed be . In which it is promised , that there shall be of the Nations many , or a great Number , that shall be Abraham's Spiritual Children by believing , Rom. 4.17 , 18. Also it was Evangelical , which we find in Gen. 12.3 . And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the Earth be blessed . These , 't is evident , respect all Gospel-Believers , who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham ; see Gal. 3.8 . And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith , preached the Gospel unto Abraham , saying , In thee shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed . And more directly to Christ , who is the Seed of Abraham , as Gal. 3.16 . Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made . He saith not , And to Seeds , as of many , but as of one , And to thy Seed , which is Christ ; that is , to Christ as the Head and Surety of the Covenant of Grace , and so primarily and directly to him , and then in him to all who are his ; according to that in Gal. 3.29 . And if ye be Christ's , then are you Abraham 's Seed , and Heirs according to the Promise . See also Acts 3.25 .

2. Moreover , that the Domestick and Civil Promises were many , is plain : As , See Mr. Tombs Exercit. p. 2. 1. Of multiplying the Seed of Abraham . 2. The Birth of Isaac . 3. Of the continuation of the Covenant with Isaac . 4. Of the coming of Christ out of Isaac . 5. The Bondage of the Israelites in Egypt , and their deliverance out from thence , and of their possessing the Land of Canaan ; Gen. 15.18 . Gen. 17.8 . And I will give unto thee , and to thy Seed after thee , the Land wherein thou art a Stranger , all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting Possession ; and I will be their God . So Gen. 15.18 . In that same day God made a Covenant with Abram , saying , Vnto thy Seed have I given this Land , from the River of Egypt , unto the great River Euphrates . Can you be so ignorant as to affirm this Covenant and Contract made with Abraham , was made with the Natural Seed of believing Gentiles ? Nay , or that it was made to Abraham's Spiritual Seed ? Compare these Scriptures with Acts 7.4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. And thus it appears , the Covenant made with Abraham , is a mixt Covenant , or a two-fold Covenant , one made with ●●s Natural Seed , the other with his Spiritual Seed : And this is fully signified by Sarah and Hagar , the Free-Woman and the Bond-Woman ; and their Sons , Isaac and Ishmael , Gal. 4.22 .

Secondly , The Seed of Abraham i● many ways so called .

1. Christ is called the Seed of Abraham , as I said before , Gal. 3.16 . by way of Eminency , as he is the Head and Surety of the Gospel-Covenant .

2. All the Elect , Rom. 9.7 . all Believers , Rom. 4.11 , 12 , 16 , 17 , 18. Gal. 3.29 . If ye be in Christ , then are ye Abraham 's Seed , and Heirs according to the Promise .

3. There was a Natural Seed of Abraham , to whom the Inheritance did accrue , this was Isaac , Gen. 21.22 .

4. We read of another Natural Seed of Abraham , to whom the Inheritance , it is positively said , did not belong , as Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah , Gen. 15.5 .

But now can the Infant-Seed of Believers , as such , be said to be the Seed of Abraham in any of these four respects ? add , if you can , a fifth .

1. As the Promise refers to Christ , ( so they cannot be included ) who is Abraham's Seed in a special manner , to whom God promised he would be a God to , and impart all Blessings of the Covenant unto , according to that glorious Compact or Covenant of Redemption made between him and the Father before the World began , upon the account of his blessed Undertakings , as our Mediator and Surety , that so he might impart all those purchased Blessings and Priviledges to all who believe in him , or where given to him by the Father .

2. As ●●e Promise refers to the Elect Seed , or such who have the Faith of Abraham , and walk in his steps , it cannot include the Infant-Seed of Believing Gentiles as such .

3. As the Promise refers to Isaac , who was Abraham's own natural Son according to the Flesh , as well as according to the Promise , they are not the Seed of Abraham .

4. As Ishmael and the Sons of Keturah were the Seed of Abraham , so the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles , are not the Seed of Abraham . If you can add a fifth sort of Abraham's Seed ( I mean , such who are so called ) from the Scripture , pray do when you write again .

And from hence I thus argue ;

If the Children of believing Gentiles , as such , Arg. 1. are not the Natural Seed , nor the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , then they can have no right to Baptism or Church-Membership , by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham .

But the Children of believing Gentiles , as such , are not the Natural nor Spiritual Seed of Abraham : Ergo , they can have no right to Baptism , nor Church-Membership , by virtue of any Covenant-Transaction God made with Abraham .

Your Brethren , called the Athenian Society , in p. 2. of their Athenian Gazette , affirm , The Children of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , till they by Actual Sin , unrepented of , are otherwise .

1. To which I answer , The Athenian Society confuted . Then some of the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham may perish eternally , and the Promise is not sure to all his Spiritual Seed ; which is directly contrary to what St. Paul affirms in Rom. 4.16 . Therefore it is of Faith , that it might be by Grace ; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed ; not to that only which is of the Law , but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham , who is the Father of us all .

From whence I argue :

All they that are in that Gospel-Covenant which God made with Abraham , Arg. 2. or who are his true Spiritual Seed , have the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them .

But all the Infant-Seed of Believers , as such , have not the Promise of everlasting Life made sure to them : Ergo , The Infant-Seed of Believers , as such , are not in that Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham , nor his true Spiritual Seed . Take another ;

Arg. 3. If all the true Spiritual-Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham , and walk in the Steps of Abraham , even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised ; then the Infant-Seed of Believers , as such , are not the Spiritual Seed of Abraham .

But the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham have the Faith of Abraham , and walk in the Steps of Abraham , even that Faith Abraham had before he was Circumcised : Ergo , The Infant-Seed of Believers , as such , are not the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham .

As to the Major , see Rom. 4.11 , 12.

The Minor cannot be denied ; no Man in his right Wits will affirm , the Infants of Believers , as such , have the Faith Abraham had before he was yet Circumcised , nor do many of them ; nor can they walk in the Steps of Abraham , having not his Faith .

If any object and say , If Infants of Believers are not included in that Covenant made with Abraham , How can any of them , who died in Infancy , be saved ?

I answer ; 1. Cannot God save dying Infants , unless they were included in that Covenant made with Abraham ? How then could the dying Infants of the Godly , who lived before that Covenant was made with Abraham , be saved ?

God has a thousand Ways , through Christ's Undertakings , to save dying Infants , as Dr. Taylor notes , which we know not of : Secret things belong to God , and revealed things to us .

2. Were they in any sense included in that Covenant made with Abraham , though not accounted counted for his Natural or Spiritual Seed , yet it would not follow from thence that they ought to be Baptized , because the Females , who were truly Abraham's Natural Seed , and some of them might be his Spiritual Seed too , yet were not Circumcised , no more than the Male Children of the Godly were before Abraham's Time . And ,

3. Were they in Covenant , as they are the Natural-Seed of Believers ? then Baptism however does not bring them into the Covenant : and if so , their State is good , whether Baptized or no. And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace , then they have not right thereto , because they are in the Covenant : And if Baptism brings them into the Covenant of Grace , and makes the Covenant sure to them , then it would follow , that 't is in the Power of Men , either to bring their Children into the Covenant of Grace , or keep them out ; and that it is in effect to say , Parents have Power to save or destroy their Children : and how absurd that is , I will leave to all impartial Men to judg .

I shall , in the next place , prove , Covenant of Circumcision no Covenant of Grace . that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace , or Faith , and therefore doth not concern the Infant-Seed of believing Gentiles .

1. I argue thus : Arg. 1. That Covenant that was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World , and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan , could not be a Covenant of Grace , which concerns the Infant-Seed of Believers under the Gospel .

But the Covenant of Circumcision was made to separate the Natural Seed of Abraham from all other Nations of the World , and made sure unto them the Earthly Promise of the Possession of the Land of Canaan . Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision could not be a Covenant of Grace , which concerns the Infants of Believers under the Gospel .

The Major cannot be denied , because the Gospel , or second Covenant , is established upon no such earthly Promises as the Covenant of Circumcision was , not that we should have an Earthly Kingdom , or possess the Land of Canaan , but it is established on better Promises than these , as Heb. 8.6 .

Also if that Covenant concerned us , or our Children , who are Gentiles , then the Gentiles had equal Right to that Earthly Inheritance ; and then were not the Natural Seed of Abraham separated from all other People upon the account of that Earthly Blessing as their Possession only .

As to the Minor , see Gen. 17. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee , v. 7 . And I will give unto thee , and to thy Seed after thee , the Land wherein thou art a Stranger , all the Land of Canaan , for an everlasting Possession ; and I will be their God , v. 8.

This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you , and thy Seed after thee ; Every Man-Child among you shall be cirumcised , v. 10.

1. There were some who were circumcised , to whom the Promise of the Gospel-Covenant God made with Abraham did not belong , as Ishmael , Esau , &c. God expresly said that his Covenant , ( i. e. the Covenant of Grace ) was not established with Ishmael , but with Isaac , and yet the Covenant of Circumcision belonged to Ishmael as well as to Isaac .

See Gen. 17.20 , 21. As for Ishmael , I have heard thee , behold , I have blessed him , &c. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac , whom Sarah shall bear unto thee . Compare this with Rom. 9.7 , 8 , 9. Not because they are the Seed of Abraham , are they all Children ; that is , Children of the Covenant of Grace , or the Children of God ; but the Children of the Promise are counted for thy Seed ; see Gal. 4.29 , 30. Nay , all that were in Abraham's House , whether born there or Strangers , or such who were bought with his Money , were circumcised ; but will you say , all these were in that Gospel-Covenant God made with him ?

Moreover , there were other Persons in Abraham's House , who , no doubt , might some of them be in the Covenant of Grace , and had the Promises belonging to them , who were nevertheless not circumcised , namely , the Females ; also Male Infants dying before the eighth day coming from Abraham . Moreover , other godly Men who were not of Abraham's Family , yet lived in his time , as Melchisedec , Lot , Job , &c. none of these had right to be circumcised . But if any object and say , the Females were circumcised in the Males ; I answer with Mr. Tombs , it is without Proof ; and by like perhaps greater Reason it may be said , that the Children of Believers are baptized in the Persons of their Parents , and therefore are not to be baptized in their own Persons .

Also 't is apparent that the Jews comprehended in that Covenant made with Abraham , Being the Children of Abraham , as such , gave them no right to Circumcision and circumcised accordingly , were nevertheless not admitted to Baptism upon that foot of account ; which had the Covenant of Circumcision been a Gospel-Covenant , i. e. of the same nature , I see no reason why John Baptist should deny their Argument , i. e. We are Abraham's Seed , &c. Hence it plainly appears , that the right Evangelical Promises were not the adequate Reason of Circumcision : But as I have before said , the Precept , or express Command of God to Abraham . And from hence I shall infer this third Argument .

Arg. 3. Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham , belonged to the ungodly as well as the godly . That Covenant that was made with , or did belong unto the fleshly Seed of Abraham , and ungodly ones as well as the godly , was not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant . But the Covenant of Circumcision was made with , or did belong to the fleshly Seed of Abraham , as Ishmael , Esau , and all the lineal Seed of Abraham , who were ungodly , as well as to the godly .

Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant .

Arg. 4. If all who are in the Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant , do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them ; All in the new Covenant need not be taught to know the Lord . then the Covenant of Circumcision could not be the Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant . But all who are in the Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant , do know the Lord from the greatest to the least of them .

Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision was not the Covenant of Grace .

This Argument is fully proved by that in Jer. 31.32 , 33 , 34. Speaking of the new Covenant which God would make with the House of Israel , which should not be according to the old , he goes on and tells us what God would do in that Covenant-day ; that he would put his Law into their inward parts , and write it in their Hearts . And they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour , and every Man his Brother , saying , Know the Lord ; for they shall all know-me , from the least ▪ of them unto the greatest of them , saith the Lord , &c.

And indeed in this very respect the Gospel-Covenant is not according to the old , as the Lord said it should not be , as well as in divers other cases ; for many of those who were in the old Covenant ( to which Circumcision did appertain ) were Infants , tho all of them were not taken in by Circumcision : for Female Infants were received into that old Covenant without it . Now these Children who were taken into that Covenant , did not know the Lord . Infants having no Understanding , know not their right Hand from their left , it is therefore impossible they should know the Lord ; A necessity that Infants be taught to know the Lord . and therefore also there was a necessity after they were in that Covenant , that they should be taught to know the Lord : First , that God is , and what a God he is , and so to know him , as to fear him and serve him in Sincerity .

But in the Gospel-Covenant God promised it should be otherwise ; all who were received into that Covenant , should be Adult Persons , or such who did know the Lord , which plainly implies no ignorant Infant should be taken into that Covenant , and be a Member of that Church-State ; for if so , then it would follow , such would have the like need to be taught to know the Lord , as they had in the old Covenant Church-State . And remakable it is , that this Text doth clearly intimate , that all who should be taken into the Gospel-Covenant , or Gospel-Church , should be discipled or taught , first to know God : for to be taught or discipled , is all one and the same thing , which agrees with Christ's great Commission , Matth. 28.19 , 20. where he gave Directions who , or what kind of Persons they were to be , that he would have his Apostles receive into his Gospel-Church : and that they should be all of them first taught or made Disciples , and as such be baptized , is clearly declared . Now that this Text in Jer. 31. refers to the Gospel-Covenant , is evident ; see Heb. 8.7 , 8 , 9 , 10.

That Covenant that was a part or branch of the old Covenant , or Covenant of Works , Arg. 5. was not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant .

The Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Works . But the Covenant of Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant , or Covenant of Works . Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant .

The Major cannot be denied .

The Minor is easily proved . That which bound or obliged all those who were under it , or did it , to keep the whole Law , and was also abrogated ▪ or taken away by Christ , with all the other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant , was a part or branch of the said old Covenant . But Circumcision bound or obliged all who were circumcised to keep the whole Law , Circumcision obliged Persons to keep the whole Law . and also the same Rite of Circumcision was abrogated , with all other Rites and Shadows of the old Covenant by Christ , Ergo , Circumcision was a part or branch of the old Covenant . See Gal. 5 ▪ 〈◊〉 testify to every Man that is circumcised , that he is a Debtor to keep the whole Law .

Arg. 6. That Covenant which was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as the Covenant made with Adam , or the Sinai-Covenant , Covenant of Circumcision of the same nature with the Sinai-Covenant . was not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant , whereof Christ is the Mediator . But the Covenant of Circumcision was in its nature and quality as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant made with Adam , or the Sinai-Covenant , Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision wa● not a Covenant of Grace , or Gospel-Covenant , Read Reverend Mr. Philip Cary's Desence and Proof of the substance of this Argument , in his just Reply to Mr. John Flavel , p. 59 , 60.

Thus he says ( and doubeless speaks the truth ) viz. That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works , cannot rationally be denied ; for as much as Life was implicitly promised unto him upon his Obedience , and Death was explicitly threatn'd in case of his Disobedience ; upon these terms he was to stand or fall . And that the Sinai-Covenant was of the same nature , he hath in the said Treatise clearly proved , both of them requiring perfect Obedience , and neither of them admitting of Faith in a Redeemer ; the Sinai-Covenant commanded perfect Obedience , under the pain of a Curse ; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that is written in the Book of the Law to do them , Gal. 3. 10.

It accepted ( as he shews ) of no short Endeavours , nor gave any Strength , and is called a Ministration of Death and of Condemnation , 2 Cor. 3. And moreover , 't is called in express terms , the old Covenant which God made with the Children of Israel when he brought them up out of the Land of Egypt , Heb. 8.9 . Also the new Covenant is said to be directly contrary unto it , or not according to it , but opposed thereto , and that there was no Righteousness by it , nor Life : for , as the Apostle shews , if there had , Christ is dead in vain ; and besides , the Apostle says 't is done away . Now all these things being considered , Mr. Flavel , 't is evident , doth but beat the Air , and darken Counsel ; and all that he hath said in his last Book in answer to that worthy Gentleman Mr. Cary , deserves no further Answer .

Now , saith he , that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp , is evident ; for tho God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed , Gen. 17. 7 , 8. as he did also in the Sinai-Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness ; yet still it was upon condition of Obedience , with an answerable threatning in case of Disobedince , ver. 9 , 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore , thou , and thy Seed after thee in their Generations . This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you , and thy Seed after thee ; Every Man-Child shall be circumcised . And , ver. 14. The uncircumcised Male-Child , whose Flesh of his sore-Skin is not circumcised , that Soul shall be cut off from his People ; he hath broken my Covenant . The same terms , saith he , with the former . Besides , 't is evident that Circumcision indi●pensibly obliged all that were under it , to a perfect universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will of God , as I hinted before , Gal. 5.3 .

And as the Terms were the same , so were the Promises ; that which was the great Promise of the Covenant of Circumcision , was the Land of Canaan , and God to be their God , in fulfilling that earthly Promise to Abraham's Natural Seed , upon the Condition of the keeping that Covenant on their parts .

That which Mr. Flavel hath said in his last Reply , Mr. Flavel answered , in what he says in his Book , p. 217. ( in his Book called , A succinct and seasonable Discourse ) to Mr. Cary , is mainly to prove that there is but one Covenant of Works , pag. 217 , 218 , &c.

To which I answer , by way of Concession , yet must say , that Covenant had several Ministrations and Additions , as had also the Covenant of Grace ; because the Covenant of Works was made with Adam , by which he stood in the time of his Innocency , justified and accepted by virtue thereof .

Could not God give forth a second Ministration or Transcript of his Righteous and Holy Law ; though not to Justification , yet to aggravate his Sin , and so to his just Condemnation ▪ And doth not St. Paul assert the same thing , Rom. 3.19 , 20. compared with Rom. 7.13 . That Sin by the Commandment ( or Law ) might become exceeding sinful ? So Gal. 3.19 .

Nay , I will affirm always generally , when the Scriptures of the New-Testament speak of the Old Covenant , or first Covenant , The Sinai Covenant , called the Old or first Covenant in the Scripture . or Covenant of Works , it passes by in silence the Covenant made with Adam ; and more immediately and directly applies it to the Sinai-Covenant , and to the Covenant of Cirrumcision , as all careful Readers , who read the Epistles to the Romans , Galathians , and to the Hebrews , may clearly find . But to proceed , Though we say there is but one Covenant of Grace , yet it is evident there were several distinct Ministrations or Additions of it ; yet we say , the Promise of the Gospel , or Gospel-Covenant , was the same in all Ages , in respect of things promised , with the Nature and Quality thereof , which is a free and absolute Covenant , without Works , or any Conditions or foreseen Acts of Righteousness , or any thing to be done by the Creature , Rom. 4. 5.

The Substance and essential Part of this Covenant , is Christ , Faith , a new Heart , See Mr. Tombs . The New Covenant had divers Additions or Transcripts , or divers Ministrations . Regeneration , Remission of Sins , Sanctification , Perseverance , and everlasting Life . Yet this Evangelical Covenant had divers Forms or Transcripts of it , which signified those things , and various Sanctions by which it was given forth and confirmed . To Adam the Promise was made , under the name of the Seed of the Woman bruising the Head of the Serpent ; to Enoch , Noah , &c. In other Forms to Abraham , under the name of his Seed , in whom all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed . To Moses , by the name of a great Prophet of his Brethren like unto him ; and it was also signified to him under dark Shadows and Sacrifices . Unto David , under the name of a Successor in his Kingdom . In the New-Testament , in plain words , We all with open Face , beholding as in a Glass the Glory of the Lord , &c. 2 Cor. 3.18 .

But now , because there were so many Additions of the Gospel Promise and New-Covenant ; are there so many New Covenants ? this being so , Mr. Flavel hath done nothing to remove Mr. Cary's Arguments , but they stand as a Rock . Take another of them .

Arg. 7. Faith not reckoned to Abraham ●● Circumcision . That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness , could not be a Gospel-Cov●●●n● , or a Covenant of Grace . But the Scripture is express , that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was Circumcised , but in Uncircumcision , Rom. 4 ▪ 9 , 10. Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant , or a Covenant of Grace .

Arg. 8. That Law or Covenant which is contradistinguished , or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith , could not be a Covenant of Faith , or a Gospel-Covenant . Covenant of Faith , and that of Circumcision , contradistinguished . But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is , by the Apostle plainly opposed to , or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith , Rom. ● . 1● . Ergo , The Law , or Covenant of Circu●●ision was not a Gospel-Covenant . And from hence , Mr. Cary argues thus , By the way ( saith he ) let it be observed , in reference to the two foregoing Arguments , which I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith , must needs be a Covenant of Works , there b●ing no Medium betwixt them , and consequently must be the same for substance with that made with Adam , and that on Mount Sinai with the Children of Israel .

Arg. 9. That Covenant that is plainly represented ▪ to us in Scripture as a 〈◊〉 - Covenant , in and by which there was imposed such a Yoke upon the Necks of the Jews , Circumcision a Yoke of Bondage . which neither those in the Apostles ●●me , nor their Fathers were able to bear , could be no other than a Covenant of Works , and not of Grace .

But the Scriptures do plainly represent , such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision , Acts 15.10 . Gal. 5.1 , 2 , 3. Ergo , The Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant , but a Covenant of Works . Thus Mr. Cary argues also . And thus we have proved from God's Word , and sound Arguments , that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Gospel-Covenant .

Object . But lest any should think , that we shut out all dying Infants from having any Benefit by Christ .

I answer ; Infants saved by the Covenant of Redemption , or by Christ's Vndertakings . I doubt not but God might comprehend them in that glorious Covenant or Compact made between him and our Surety in the Covenant of Redemption ; but as I said before , Secret things belong to God .

But let me here add one word or two further , i. e. Circumcision , you say , was a Priviledg ; so we say too ; but not such a Priviledg as you do imagine .

1. It doth profit as a Priviledg , because it was given as a Token or Sign to Abraham's natural Seed , that they should have the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession .

2. As a Token or Sign to them of the giving forth of the Law on Mount Sinai . He dealt his Laws and Statutes to Israel , he did not do so to any other Nation . This Rite therefore could not be a Gospel-Rite , nor the Covenant it was a sign of a Gospel-Covenant , in which the Gentile Christians are concerned : And thus the Apostle argues , Rom. 3. 1. What Advantage then hath th● Jew ? or what Profit is there in Circumcision ? ver. 2. Much every way ; chiefly , because unto them were committed the Oracles of God . You may soon know the Nature of that Covenant made with Abraham's natural Seed ; and of Circumcision , which was a Sign of it : The chiefest Priviledg which attended it , was the giving to them , i. e. the People of Israel , the Law of the Ten Commandements .

Circumcision a Priviledg , on condition of keeping the Law . 3. Circumcision by the Doctrine of St. Paul , was a Priviledg if they kept the Law 〈◊〉 for , Circumcision verily profiteth , if thou keep the Law ; but if thou break the Law , thy Circum●ision is made Vncircumcision , or a Nullity , and profiteth thee nothing , that is , if thou keep not the Law perfectly . And thus speak our late Annotators on the place ; If thou [ Jew ] keep the Law perfectly , to which Circumcision obligeth , Gal. 5.3 . If otherwise thou transgressest the Law , thy Circumcision avails thee nothing , it gives thee no Priviledg above the Uncircumcised . What is now become ( this being so ) of that mighty Priviledg Abraham's Infant 〈◊〉 ( as such ) had by Circumcision , if the chief Profit or Priviledg was , because unto them the Law should be given , which could not give Life , but was a Covenant of Works ? then the chiefest Profit lay not in it , as it was an Ordinance of Initiation into the Church : Sure , had Paul been of your Judgment , he would have rather past by that Priviledg , when he spoke of Circumcision , which he calls the chief , and have said , chiefly in that it was a Seal of Infant Church-Membership . But since he speaks the quite contrary , who shall we believe , you , or the great Apostle of the Gentiles ? And evident it is , he confirms the same Doctrine , Gal. 5.3 . For I ●●stify to 〈◊〉 Man that is Circumcised , that he is a D●●tor to keep the whole Law . And ,

Hence 't is said to be a Yoke of Bondage , which neither they nor their Fathers could bear , Acts 15. because it obliged them to univer●●l Obedience , or to keep the Law perfectly , and brought them under a Curse if they did not , Gal. 3.10 .

These things considered , fully shew of what stamp and nature Circumcision was , together with that Covenant to which it did appertain .

I come now to what you further assert in the 9 th Page of your Book , viz.

That Infants were in Covenant under the Law , and by special appointment of God , Gen. 17.7 . but are not now cast out by Christ under the Gospel . This differs but little from the old Argument of Mr. Baxter , Sidenham , &c. the latter speaks thus , Infants of Believers were never cast out of the visible Church of which they were once .

Answ. 1. Infants being once Members of the Jewish Church , Infants the Members once of the Jewish-Church , yet not of the Gospel-Church . doth not prove they were ever Members of the Gospel-Church : the Male Infants of God's Priests under the old Covenant , when grown up , had other Priviledges : If we must call Circumcision a Priviledg , which the Sons of Christ's Ministers have no right to under the Gospel , and yet no where in express words in the New-Testament excluded from that Priviledg .

2. But I have proved the Covenant for Infants , in Covenanting under the Law , was no Gospel Covenant , and so concerns not our Infants .

3. According to that Maxim , Ownis privatio intimat habitum ; you know that every Dispossession implieth a Possession . Infants therefore cannot be cast out of the Gospel-Church , before it can be proved they were ever admitted . If Mr. Burkitt , or the Athenian Society , or any Men living , can tell us in what visible Administration Children were admitted visible Church-Members before Abraham's days , which was above 2000 Years ; and you say somewhat , you affirm they were always in Covenant .

Mr. Sidenham makes mention of a two-fold being in Covenant ; 1. In relation to Election . 2. To be in Covenant , In faci● visibilis Ecclesiae .

To this I answer ; The Covenant of Circumcision belonged to the Children of the Flesh , to Ishmael and Esau , as well as Jacob , who were not in the Election of Grace : therefore those who were Circumcised , were not so in Covenant . Children of Unbelievers may be in that sense in Covenant , as well as the Children of Believers ; as many of them afterwards prove to be , nay , may be more of them than of the Children of Believers .

2. As touching Infants being in Covenant , In facie visibilis Ecclesiae , in the face of a visible Church . I answer , Though they were so in the Jewish Church under the Old Covenant , some with Circumcision were brought in , and some without it ; yet that Covenant , and Covenant-Seed are ( as I have and shall yet prove ) cast out , which will be a final Answer .

Thus I argue ;

Arg. 10. The Old Covenant , and Old Covenant-Seed both cast out . If the Covenant for incovenanting of Infants was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar , and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael , are cast out , then the natural or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out , or not to be admitted into the Gospel-Church .

But the Covenant for Incoven●●●ing of Infants , was the Old Covenant signified by Hagar , and that Covenant-Seed signified by Ishmael , are cast out .

Ergo , The 〈◊〉 or fleshly Seed of Believers are cast out , or not to be admitted into the Gospel Church● see Gal. 4.22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26. For it is written , that Abraham had two Sons , the one by a B●nd● woman , the other by a 〈◊〉 woman . Ver. 24. Which things are 〈◊〉 Alleg●ry ; for these are the two Covenants , the one from the Mount Sinai , which g●ndereth to Bondage , which is Hagar , &c. Ver. 30. Nevertheless , which saith the Scripture ? Cast out the Bond-woman and her Son ; for the Son of the Bond-woman shall not be Heir with the Son of the Free-woman .

By Hagar is meant , all agree , the Old Covenant ; and by casting her out , is held forth the abolishing or taking away of the Old Covenant ; He took away the First , that he might establish the Second . Heb. 10.9 .

2. By Ishmael is meant the natural Seed of Abraham ; and so the natural Seed of all Godly Men of his Race that succeeded him , who were Members of that Church ; and as the late Annotators note by this place is signified , The total Destruction of the Jewish Church , which consisted of Parents and their Children , or the whole Nation of Israel , this Church and Church-Seed , and manner of Church-Membership , is cast out and gone for ever .

Pray read Mr. Cary's Solemn Call , and what I have formerly said in that Book intituled , Gold Restn'd ; or , Baptism in its Primitive Purity , p. 113.

Mr. Cary and we all say , That Children were once admitted Members of the Jewish Church : The Old Church-state of the Jews is gone . But evident it is , that God hath now quite pulled down and razed that House to the Foundation thereof , I mean that National Church of the Jews , and broke up House-keeping , and turned the Bond-woman and her Son ( i. e. the fleshly Seed , or natural Off-spring of Abraham ) out of Doors ; the natural Branches are broken off , and God hath now built him a new and more glorious and spiritual House under the Gospel , into which he admitted none as his Houshold-Servants , to dwell in this his Spiritual Family , or Gospel-Church , but Believers only , or such as profess themselves so to be : Yea , 1 Pet. 2.5 . ( saith St. Peter ) as lively Stones are built up a spiritual House , &c. And that the Old House , the Jewish Church-State , with all the Appurtenances , Rites and Priviledges of it , are abolished , or pulled down , and a new one built and set up , into which Infants are not to be admitted ; is very evident ; Heb. 7.12 . For the Priesthood being changed , there is made of necessity a change also of the whole Law ; which must needs include Circumcision , with all the Appurtenances and Priviledges belonging to it . Infant Church-Membership came in with the Old Covenant , and is gone with it . And therefore as Infant Church-Membership came in with the Law of Circumcision , and as a direct Part of the Old Covenant , or Old Law , so likewise plain it is , that it went out and was disannulled with it .

Take again my former Simily , viz.

What Priviledges soever are given to any Person by an Act of Parliament , which said Law was to continue in Force so long and no longer ; then when that time is expired , and another Parliament makes a new Law , where many things are contained that were in the first Law : But those divers Priviledg●● given to those Persons in the former Law , are left out in this latter Act ; would it not be a piece of Folly for any of them to plead those Priviledges , by virtue of a Law that is gone , and now not in any force ? But to come a little nearer the case , in a more apt Simile ; I had this Simile once before , but because it is so full I repeat it . Suppose a Man should have a Legacy bequeathed to him , by the Will and Testament of his Friend , and yet afterwards his Friend sees good to make another Will , which is his last Will and Testament ; and in this last Will and Testament he leaves him quite out , not mentioning his Name , bequeathing no such Legacy to him ; would it not be folly in him to sue for that Legacy left him in the first Will and Testament :

Sir , the Case is thus in hand , we read of two Covenants or Testaments , an Old and a New , a First and a Second : Now in the Old Will , or Old-Testament , Infants were admitted to the Priviledg of Church-Membership , in that Legal or National Church of the Jews ; And National Church-Priviledges are now made null and void by the Gospel-Covenant , which is Christ's last Will and Testament , in which Infant Church-Membership is quite left out , their Names not being mentioned , as having right to any Gospel-Ordinance , as Baptism , the Lord's Supper , &c. If we would know the Mind of God herein , we must of necessity have re●ourse to Christ's last Will and Testament , since the Gospel is so called , and that the first , or old is taken away , and there is no Man can prove any one old Rite that did appertain to the natural Off-spring of Abraham , or Believers , remains to them , which is not mentioned in the new or last Will and Testament of Jesus Christ ; 't is plain they had ( or least wise ) some of them other external Priviledges besides that of Circumcision ; and yet I see no Man contend for any one Rite but only this they call the Seal of the Covenant . Why might not Ministers plead for all their Sons to have right to the Ministry , The Athenian Society's first Query more fully answered . since that Priviledg was given them in the Old-Testament ? And for all Male-Children that open the Womb , to be holy to the Lord ? which Blessing belonged to them under the Law , and also plead for the Tenths and First-fruits ? &c.

I desire you and the Athenian Society carefully to consider this , and weigh what we have said ; we have shewed you and them how Infants who were once in Covenant , that is , in the Jewish or old Covenant , are cast out , or left out ; for indeed they were never admitted into the New-Testament-Church ; but since they are not put in , and the old Covenant and old Church-Membership being cast out and gone , in vain is it for any to plead their Right by an abrogated Law .

Besides , you say Circumcision was the Seal of that Covenant , by virtue of which Infants had a Right to Church-Membership ; if so , 't is evident that Covenant is gone , because 't is cancelled ; for the tearing off ; or breaking off the Seal , we all look ●pon the cancelling the Covenant : That Circumcision ( the Seal , as you call it ) is broken off , I am sure you cannot deny : Sir , what is then become of your Covenant for incovenanting Children ?

Object . But may be you will object , and say , that you do not contend for that particular Rite or Institution , but of a visible Church-Membership of Infants perpetual in all Ages , and an indefinite Seal .

1. Reply ; How doth it appear the Infants of the Godly before Abraham's time , had any right to visible Church-Membership ? or what Seal had they ?

2. Such a Right is a meer Figment , like Idea 〈◊〉 ; all Institutions merely positives , are of such a Rite in particular ; and an initial Seal is meerly positive , as Signs that are not natural , but by the Will of the Appointer ; and therefore there is no initial Seal indefinite .

Sir , now you have no way left , but to see , since the old Covenant is cancelled , whether you can find the Baptism of Infants in the New Testament , and there taught , laid down and prefix'd to it , as Circumcision was to the old ? Do that , and you do all ; do not that , and all you do is just nothing .

But you in Pag. 9. raise up many Absurdities that follow this , that Infants are cast out , or not taken into the Gospel-Church .

Then Infants , say you , are in a worse condition since the coming of Christ than they were before , and are Losers by him instead of Gainers , altho the number more , & ● .

Answ. You should , before you brought this pretended Absurdity upon us , have shewed what Advantage did accrue to Infants by Circumcision , and how that added to the goodness of their Condition ; it put them , 't is plain , to a great deal of Pain ; and the Apostle says , it was a Yoke of Bondage , which neither they nor their Fathers could bear .

Being Members of that Church , did not save them , nor purge away Original Sin , &c. tho I doubt not it served for the end God appointed it ; yet I say , how did it add to the goodness of Infants Condition ?

2. Then , say you , the Privileges of the Gospel are straiter and narrower than those of the Law .

Answ. If you once imagine , that the outward or external Privileges of the Gospel are larger , External Privileges under the Law greater than ours under the Gospel . or so large as those were under the Law , you are greatly mistaken . The Jews and Jewish Teachers or Priests had many external Privileges which Christians and Ministers under the Gospel have not ; they had a lovely Country promised to them , a Land that flowed with Milk and Hony : outward Peace , Riches , and gathering of Wealth , were Privileges belonging to them ; but we under the Gospel have no such Privileges , but are to expect Persecution , and what not .

Yet our Privileges are better and greater , tho more spiritual , 't is a Covenant established upon better Promises : our Children , when grown up , sit under the clear and glorious Light of the Gospel which they and theirs then had held forth but in dark Shadows .

Moreover , Then the Church-State was confin'd to the natural Seed of Abraham , &c. But now all in all Nations who repent and believe the Gospel , the poor Gentiles are now become Fellow-Heirs indeed : our spiritual Priviledges do infinitely excel theirs , but not in Externals , now greater Infusions of the holy Spirit .

O Sir , what Priviledges had the Gentiles or their Children then ? is not the case mended with us ?

3. You say , If it were the Will of God Infants under the Gospel should be reckoned as out of his Covenant , who were in Covenant , then it follows , say you , that our Saviour was unfaithful , or forgetful to his Church , in that he never acquainted her with this Alteration ; but not one word by way of Prohibition do we find in all the New Testament , from whence we may conclude , that Christ's not repealing the Practice of initiating Infants , nor forbidding their Admission into the Church by Baptism , &c.

Answ. 1. I answer , had it been the Will of God , that Infants should under the Gospel be admitted into the Church by Baptism , Christ you might rather say , had been forgetful or unfaithful in not giving the least intimation of his Mind and Pleasure therein , who declared all things plainly from the Father , and was faithful as a Son over his own House .

2. That which is not contained in his last Will and Testament in this and other matters , is sufficient to declare his Mind and Will in the Negative . And so you know 't is in all last Wills and Testaments among Men , if it be not expressed in the Affirmative , it needs not be expressed in the Negative ; and if not because 't is not forbidden it may be done , so may a hundred things more ; nay , many Jewish Rites and Popish Innovations too , for where are they forbid ? The sum therefore of our Answer to all you say upon this account , is this ; The Privileges which are Rites , Ordinances or Sacraments , are not so many as you would have , or so many as the Jews of old had , nor are they to be administred according as you fancy or approve of , or according to your Reasonings , but according to God's express Appointment . Rightly doth Mr. Ball in his forementioned Book speak , Posit . 3 , 4. p. 38. But in whatsoever Circumcision and Baptism do agree or differ , Mr. Ball 's Posit. 3 , 4 ▪ p. 38. we must look to the Institution , and neither stretch it wider , nor draw it narrower than the Lord had made it ; for he is the Instituter of the Sacraments according to his good Pleasure ; and it is our part to learn of him , both to whom , how , and to what end the Sacraments are to be administered , how they agree , and wherein they differ : in all which we must affirm nothing , but what God hath taught us , and as he hath taught us .

Were it not thus , how could we deny or oppose the Papists seven Sacraments ? or condemn Salt , Oil Spittle to be used in Baptism , which they use in it , seeing these are not forbid ? But well saith Tertullian , Is it lawful , because it is not forbidden ? 't is therefore not lawful , because 't is not commanded .

You say , Pag. 10. before you end this Argument , Let me suggest one thing more to your Considerations , namely , What a mighty Stumbling-Block this Doctrine of the Anabaptists lays in the way of the Jews Conversion to Christianity ? Will this , say you , encourage a Jew's Conversion to embrace the Religion of Jesus , to tell him of the high and glorious Privileges that he shall be interested in himself upon his believing on him , but for his Children they are cast out ?

Answ. Did this stumble them in the Apostolical Days , who were told , that Circumcision availed nothing , nor Vncircumcision ? the truth is , if Circumcision availed nothing , but was a Yoke of Bondage , then why should that stumble them ? It might be a greater Stumbling-block in their way , to tell them their Church-State , and all their Privileges are now gone , and now they must not look upon themselves better than the Gentiles ; no more Scepter in Judah , no Land of Canaan , no Temple , no High-Priest , the Levites Sons , as such , now no more Ministers , no Succession of Priest-hood : What of all this , when they hear of better Privileges for them ? And that their Infants who die , may go to Heaven , tho not circumcised nor baptized ? and if they live to be Men and Women , and do believe , ( or God doth please to call them ) the Promise of Pardon of Sin , and of the holy Spirit is to them , and that they shall be saved , Acts 2. 39. Are not they and all others told , that old things are passed away , and all things are become new ? The old Covenant and Church of the Jews dissolved . &c. 2 Cor. 5.16 . Wherefore henceforth we know no Man after the Flesh : it seems then that heretofore there had been a knowledg of Persons after the Flesh ; and 't is plain there was , that because the Jews were of the natural or fleshly Seed of Abraham , and were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of external Church-Membership , while others were exempted : But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Value , Esteem , Preference or Knowledg of them , or any others , upon the account of meer fleshly Descent . And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse , Therefore if any Man be in Christ , See Mr. Cary's Solemn Call . he is a new Creature ; old things now are past away , and all things are become new : the old Church and old Church-membership , Privileges , Rites and Ordinances , and a new Church-State , new Ordinances , new Rites , a new Seed , and a new way of Introduction unto the participation of Gospel-Priviledges and Church-membership ; and if this should stumble them , who can help it ? We know they have stumbled upon as bad Rocks as this . Moreover , denying Infants any right to Gospel-Ordinances , cannot fill the Mouths of Jewish Children with clamorours and passionate Complaints against Christianity , because they could not see Jewish Children had such benefit by Circumcision as you intimate : no , no , they must yield to the Soveraign Will of the great Lord , and plead for no more Privileges , nor any otherwise than he sees good to ordain and appoint .

I am sure , if what you say was true , Pedo-baptists Argument for Believers Seed , &c. of ill consequence . it is enough to fill the Mouths of poor Unbelievers Children among us who are Gentiles , with clamorous Complaints against their Parents , if they did regard what you say : and doubtless there are more of them , I mean more Children born of Ungodly Parents , than such born of Godly Parents : And what may they say , and how may they expostulate their own Condition ? Alas ! alas ! sad is our State , our Parents were wicked and ungodly People , and we are by that means left of God ; to us belongs no Covenant , no Sacraments , nor hopes of Mercy ; God hath taken none but the Children of Godly Persons into Covenant ! We were baptized , alas , but had no right to it ; our Condition is as bad as the State of the Children of Pagans and Turks ! Sir , if People did consider well the Purport of your Doctrine , they must needs have their Hearts rise against you : Nay all or most Children may be in a doubt , whether their Parents were truly godly , and so in Covenant or not ; for if not , you must fly to some other Argument to prove their Baptism and Church-Privileges , than that of their Parents being in Covenant . True , the case under the Law was another thing ; for if their Parents were Jews , or the natural Seed of Abraham , whether godly or not , yet they knew they had right to those external Privileges . And so much to your Absurdities , and they are returned on your own Head .

In pag. 11. you lay down your Arguments to prove the Covenant made with Abraham was a Covenant of Grace . 1. From the Language and Expression of it . 2. From the Duration of it . 3. From the Blessings by it .

Mr. Burkits first Argument to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Gospel-Covenant . 1. Your first Note is this ; The Language and Expression of it , Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God unto thee , and to thy Seed after thee . Now ( say you ) is not this a pure Gospel-Phrase , and shews it to be a Covenant with Abraham in Christ ? I pray , how comes the Almighty God ( who upon the Breach of the Covenant of Works made with us in Adam , became our enraged Enemy ) to be a God unto fallen Man , any other ways than by a Mediator ? &c.

Answ. 1. I have proved that Covenant made with Abraham , was a mixt Covenant ; and I deny not but the Covenant of Grace made in Christ was promised to Abraham , which takes in only the true Spiritual Seed , and to all those God is in a special manner become a God unto .

All God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall , are by means of the Mediator . 2. Evident it is , all manner of God's Covenanting Transactions since the Fall , of what nature soever , have been no other ways , than through the interposition of a Mediator ; as that with Noah about the Flood , &c. Gen. 9.8 , 9. in that God shewed himself to be the God of the Old World ; and so he is by Creation and Providence , &c. Yet it doth not follow , that Covenant was the Covenant of Grace , or that God hath received them into special favour with himself . So when God gave out that fiery Law on Mount Sinai , he told them , Exod. 20.2 . I am the Lord your God , &c. This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stone ; which nevertheless the Apostle expressly calls it , A Ministration of Death and Condemnation , 2 Cor. 3.7 , 8. and that it killed , The Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works . and could not give Life . Now must this be a Covenant of Faith or Grace ? How is it then that the Apostle Paul says , The Law is not of Faith ; also the Covenant of Grace giveth Life ?

But I argue thus , The Law could not give Life ; Ergo , The Law was not a Covenant of Grace .

And so much to your first Note , or Observation .

2. Your second Observation is , Mr. Burkits 2d Arg. The Duration and Continuance of this Covenant made with Abraham , the Lord calls it an Everlasting Covenant , &c.

Answ. You might have left out this , only it helps to add to the number ; you have answered this your self , in saying , The Hebrew word for Everlasting , sometimes signifies no more than a long continuance of Time . Sir , We know it very well ; and those Mosaical Rites that ended in Christ , are said to be for Everlasting . But when the Lord saith , he will be a Person 's God , for ever and ever , or everlastingly , it denotes his being so to all Eternity : But God never said he would be the God everlastingly , or to all Eternity , to all who were concern'd in the Covenant of Circumcision : Nor was he Ishmael's God so , though Circumcised ; and has he not cast off that whole Nation of the Jews , with whom he made that Covenant ? and is not so their God now , though he is , I confess , to all Eternity , or everlastingly , the God of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed , viz. all true Believers in Christ .

3. Your third and last Argument or Note , Mr. Burkits 3d Arg. to prove the Covenant of Circumcision a Covenant of Grace , is taken from the Benefits and Blessings conveyed by it ; To be a God unto him , and to his Seed , and that everlastingly , is a most comprehensive Gospel-Blessing ; for hereby God gives a Person an Interest in all that he is , and in all that he has , so far as can be communicated to a Creature . This Blessing promised to Abraham , comprehends Christ , Grace , Holiness here , and Glory and Happiness hereafter . And accordingly we find the Apostle , Heb. 8. uses the same Expression with this of God's to Abraham ; I will be to them a God , and they shall be to me a People .

Answ. This is idem , & bis idem , culpandum est , the same again which is already answered . Sir , Is God everlastingly a God to Abraham , and to all his fleshly Seed ; and to Believers , who are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham , and to all their fleshly Seed ; I say , is this so ? Does God give himself , all he is , and all he has , to every Believer , and to all his fleshly Seed ? Have all their Children , or every one of them , Christ , Grace , Holiness here , and Glory and eternal Happiness hereafter ? Or are you not to be justly blamed thus to jumble things confusedly together ? 'T is true , The happy State of all in the Covenant of Grace . the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham , and all his true Spiritual Seed , ( who are the Elect ) have Interest in all God is ; and has so far as it can be communicated to Creatures ; and we know they have Christ , ( as well as are Christ's , as Paul notes , Gal. 4. ) and Grace here , and shall have Glory hereafter : But a multitude of Abraham's natural Off-spring , and the natural Off-spring of Believers , have neither Christ , nor Grace , nor shall be saved , but perish eternally . Therefore this may serve for an Answer , with what I have proved before , touching the Nature of that two-fold Covenant made with Abraham .

To what you speak in the second place , pag. 12 , 13. as also in your third Reply , viz. If the Covenant which God made with Abraham , be one and the same with the Covenant of Grace ; then our Infant-Seed have right to Baptism .

Answ. You had this before , and I have already answered it , only I shall add a Passage or two of Martin Luther .

Paul therefore concludeth with this Sentence , ( saith he ) They which are of Faith , Mart. Luther on Gal. 3. p. 115. are the Children of Abraham : That corporal Birth , or carnal Seed , make not the Children of Abraham before God : As if he would say , There is none before God accounted as the Child of this Abraham ( who is the Servant of God , whom God hath chosen and made Righteous by Faith ) thrô carnal Generation , but such Children must be given before God , as he was a Father , but he was a Father of Faith , was justified , and pleased God ; not because he could beget Children after the Flesh , not because he had Circumcision under the Law , but because he believed in God , He therefore that will be a Child of the believing Abraham , must also himself believe , or else he is not a Child of the Elect , the believing and the justified Abraham ; but only the begetting Abraham , which is nothing else but a Man conceived , born and wrap'd in Sin , without the forgiveness of Sins , without Faith , without the Holy Ghost , as another Man is , and therefore condemned : Such also are the Children carnally begotten of him , having nothing in them like unto their Father , but Flesh and Blood , Sin and Death , therefore these are also damned . This glorious boasting then , we are the Seed of Abraham , is to no purpose . Thus far , and much more to the same purpose he excellently dilates upon .

Mr. Perkins on the Galatians , Perkins , Vol. 2. cap. 3 on Galat. p. 242. concerning the Covenant made with Abraham ; The Seed of Abraham ( saith he ) is the Seed , not of the Flesh , but of the Promise : And this Seed is , first , Christ , and then all that believe in Christ ; for all these are given to Abraham by Promise and Election of God . Moreover , this Seed is not many , ( as Paul observeth ) but one . It is objected , That the word Seed is a Name collective , and signifies the whole Posterity of Abraham Answ . It doth sometimes , ( saith he ) but not always : for Eve saith of S●th , God hath given me another Seed . Again , ( he saith ) this one particular Seed of Abraham , is Christ Jesus ; here by the name Christ , first and principally the Mediator ; and then , secondly , all Jews and Gentiles believing , that are fit and grafted into Christ by Faith . St. Paul saith , The Children of the Flesh , these are not the Children of God ; but the Children of the Promise are the Seed of Abraham , Rom. 9.8 .

Now this Covenant we grant thus made with Abraham , is one and the same with the Covenant of Grace ; but what does this signify to the Infants , or fleshly Seed of Believers , as such ? And thus I shall pass to your next Argument , pag. 14.

CHAP. III.

Wherein Mr. Burkitt' s other Arguments are answered , viz. ( 1. ) Infants are capable of the Spiritual Benefits by Baptism . ( 2. ) Also that they have habitual Faith . ( 3. ) That Christ has Lambs in his Fold , therefore Infants . ( 4. ) Infants are capable of Christ's Blessing ; they were brought to Christ , and received by him . ( 5. ) Infants are in Covenant with a federal Holiness , therefore may be baptized .

YOur third Argument , to prove Infants ought to be baptized , is this , Mr. Burkits third Argument to prove Infant Baptism . viz.

If Infants are capable of Spiritual Benefit by Baptism , then Baptism may and ought to be administred to Infants ; if they are capable of the inward visible Grace , sure they may partake of the outward and visible Sign ; if the Word of the Promise doth belong to them , surely the Seal of the Promise ought not to be withheld from them .

But , say you , the former is true , viz. That Infants are capable of Benefits by Baptism ; therefore the latter is true , they ought to be Baptized . There are , amongst others , two special Blessings , and spiritual Benefits which Infants are capable of by Baptism , namely , Remission of Sin , and Regeneration .

1. Remission of Sin ; this being an Act of gracious Favour in God , discharging a Person from his obnoxiousness to Wrath upon the score of Guilt contracted , an Infant is certainly as capable of this Act of Favour , as a grown Person . To prove this , you bring in a Simile , That an Infant of a Traitor is as capable of the benefit of the King 's gracious Favour , as the Father himself . Suppose the King should send for a Traitor's Child out of the Cradle , ( say you ) and before all his Courtiers declare , That whereas the Blood of that Child was attainted by its Father's Treason , and therefore , according to Law , it s whole Inheritance became forfeited to the Crown ; yet , says the King , I will pardon this Infant freely , and restore him to all his forfeited Rights ; and in token thereof , I command one of my Ministers to wash the Infant in pure Water , signifying thereby to all my Subjects , that he is cleansed from his original Attainder and Corruption of Blood , and that I am perfectly reconciled to him .

I demand , ( say you now ) whether any one can truly say , that this Action was insignificant to the Child , because he did not understand it ? &c.

Answ. Were not the Male Infants of Believers before Abraham's days , as capable of the Priviledges and Benefits of Circumcision , as Abraham's Male Infants were ? If so , why were not they Circumcised ? If you say it was , Because God did not require them to be Circumcised , they were not commanded to do it : Even so say I , God hath not commanded Believers to baptize their Infants ; therefore whatsoever Benefit or Blessing they are capable of , it signifies nothing in the Case , unless there was a Command or Law given us to baptize them .

2. Might you not as well argue , that Infants are capable of the Benefits or Spiritual Blessings signified by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper , therefore may partake of that also ? Are not they capable of Redemption from Sin and Wrath , by the breaking of Christ's Body , and shedding of his Blood ?

3. And are not Infants of Unbelievers , nay , Turks and Pagans , capable of the Spiritual Benefits signified in Baptism ? sure , as considered in themselves , they are : and why then may they not be baptized also ?

4. Sir , 'T is not such are capable of receiving a Favour or Priviledg from God , but rather who he hath in his Sovereign Wisdom granted that Privilege unto : And let me tell you , your Simile quite overthrows your own Argument ; for if God , because he is graciously pleased to acquit our Children who die in their Infancy , from the Original Guilt they brought into the World with them , through the Atonement made by Jesus Christ , and in token thereof had commanded us to baptize them , the Case was clear , and our Controversy was at an end : but since he has not required us to do any such thing , whatever Grace or Favour he is pleased to afford to any of our Infants , we have no Warrant to baptize them ; his Will and Law , and not our Fancies , being that which gives us Authority to do all we do in his Name or Worship . If God had commanded us to baptize our Infants , we would no more say that Action would be insignificant to our Children , no more than Circumcision was to Children under the Law , whom God required to be Circumcised .

5. Besides , in the last place , Baptism doth not , by God's appointment , belong to them who are capable of the Benefits or Blessings signified thereby , as Remission of Sin and Regeneration , &c. but only to such who are capable to repent and profess Faith in Christ ; these we say , and none else , ought to be baptized , if the Royal Charter , or Grant of the Lord Jesus , be observed in the case of a regal Right to Baptism , Suppose the King should grant to you , and to all in your Parish , ( who have been Traitors to him ) who are skilled or learned in the Mathematicks , and understand the Law , to be Officers in some of his Courts , and will then also upon submission pardon you and them of all your horrid Crimes : will you upon this , carry up several ignorant unskilful Persons who are in your Parish , tho as guilty of Treason as your selves , and offer them to the King to be Officers and Clerks in his Courts ? who indeed , as they are untaught in that Art , so see not their own Guilt , nor submit themselves to the Mercy of the King , and say yet they are capable of Pardon , and to receive the Sallary also . Sir , All that are to be baptized , are , by virtue of the great Commission of our Saviour , to be first taught and made Disciples by teaching ; and take heed you add not to his Word , nor attempt to invert the Order of the Charter and gracious Grant of the King of Heaven and Earth ; nor go about , as you do , to make void his Commands by your own Traditions .

2. In pag. 15. you say , Infants are not less capable of Regeneration of their Nature , than of Remission of Sins , it being certain that no unclean thing can enter into Heaven , that none can be saved whose Natures are not renewed ; either the sanctifying Grace of God ( say you ) must be allowed Infants , or Salvation must be denied them . Regenerating Grace is called by St. John , the Seed of Grace , 1 John 3.9 . No way hinders , but that the Soul of an Infant may be as capable of this Seed , as of a grown Person : for , say you , I argue , thus , ' If the Image of God , consisting in Holiness , was received by the Soul in the first Creation , without the Soul's Contribution to the Production of it , Why may not the same Image of God be restored to the Soul in the second Creation , without the Soul's Concurrence and Co-operation to the Restitution of it ? for why may not the Spirit of God produce in an Infant that imperfect ●egeneration whereof we are now speaking , as well as he did that perfect Holiness in which our first Parents were originally created ?

1. I answer , Were there not a dangerous Sting in the Tail of some of your impertinent Interrogations , I might pass them all by without any further Answer than I have before given you . Sir , who questions the Power of God , who is a free Agent , and may do what he pleases ? He may , 't is true , regenerate an Infant , or change the Nature of a Child in its Mother's Womb ; and may be doth change , or regenerate the depraved Nature of those Infants who die in their Infancy : but who knows what Infants they are he thus works upon , and fits for Heaven ? Secret things , I tell you again , belong to him .

2. But should God tell us which Infants Hearts and Natures he hath thus renewed , yet that can be no ground or warrant to us to give them the Sacrament of Baptism , no more than the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; and you know well enough the first Fathers of the declining Church brought in Infant-Baptism to wash away that Pollution of their Nature , or free them from the Guilt of Original Sin ; Infants had the Lord's Supper formerly given to them . and also those Fathers gave the same Infants the Lord's Supper , and had indeed as good Authority from God's Word to do the one as the other . And assure your self they shamefully erred in both , because both were done without any Warrant or Allowance from God .

But , Sir , how inconsistent are you with your self ? even just now you tell us that the Infants of Believers are in Covenant with God , ( as well as their Parents ) and are therefore holy , and from that ground ought to be baptized : But now it seems as if that Argument was gone with you , and notwithstanding that federal Holiness , they are unclean ; and unless they have actually sanctifying Grace , and their filthy Natures are changed , they cannot be saved : You just play the part of a Fencer , and resolve to try your Skill with every Weapon , one while you are a Presbyterian , another time a Church-of - England-Man . But , Sir , speak , doth Baptism change the Nature , or regenerate the Child , or doth it not ? the Seed which St. John speaks of , he affirms remains in those Persons in whom it is wrought , sow'd or infused : see 1 Joh. 3.9 .

And no doubt , was there indeed such a Divine Habit , Seed or Habit of Grace remains where infused , and its Effects will appear . or Seed of Grace infused into Infants in their Baptism , but it would appear in their Lives when grown up . Such as is the Cause , such is the Effect , or Product that is produced , i. e. if Regeneration was wrought in all the Infants you Rantize , Holiness would be the Effect of it , when they come to Age of Understanding ; but all Men see the contrary , i. e. they shew their evil and unclean Natures as soon , nay , before they can speak plain ; therefore you preach false Doctrine , if you affirm that Baptism renovates or changes their Nature . Nay , and were it so , all that are baptized would be saved ; Shall one Soul who passes through Regeneration miss of Salvation ?

Reverend Stephen Charnock , tho a Pedo-baptist , speaks more like a Divine and Logician than you do . See his Book on Regenerat . sol . p. 75. saith he , Many Men take Baptism for Regeneration ; the Ancients usually give it this term ; one calls our Saviour's Baptism , his Regeneration * * As if Christ passed through Regeneration , or change of Nature . : this confers not Grace , but ingageth to it : outward Water cannot convey inward Life : How can Water , an external thing , work upon the Soul in a Physical manner ? Neither can it be proved , that ever the Spirit o● God is tied by any Promise , to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation , when Water is applied to the Body . If it were so that all that were baptized were regenerated , then all that were baptized should be saved , or else the Doctrine of Perseverance falls to the ground . And again he says , That some indeed say that Regeneration is conferred in Baptism upon the Elect , and exerts it self afterwards in Conversion : But how so active a Principle as a spiritual Life , should lie dead and asleep so long , even many Years , which intervene between Baptism and Conversion , is not easily conceivable ? So far Mr. Charnock .

'T is well you call it an imperfect Regeneration , Abortive , or a Monster no doubt ; for Baptism forms no Child of God : if it did , how come Simon Magus , who was baptized , to miss of Regeneration ? Acts 8.13 . And indeed this is an easy way to Heaven ; I mean if there is no need of further Regeneration than that poor Babes have in Baptism . I know your Church saith , that an Infant is made thereby a Child of God , a Member of Christ , and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven . Sad Doctrine ! Baptism makes no Persons Christians . God deliver England from such Guides as teach the common People : Nay , all who will be led or taught by them , that Baptism makes them Christians , and so never teach them to look after any other Regeneration , tho such whom you baptize , as you call it , if they live , when they are grown up , prove wicked and ungodly Persons , or carnal Worldlings . Sir , take heed what you do , lest the Blood of your deceived and miserable People be required at your hands . Is not this to heal the hurt of your People slightly , and to cry , Peace , Peace , when there is no Peace ? This is the Sting I saw in the Tail of your Argument .

You ask many Questions , Why may not this be so : and , Why may not that be so ? Who taught you thus to argue , what do you prove ? But that which troubles me most is this , viz. That after you have put forth these unlearned and weak Questions , you draw Conclusions therefrom , with daring Boldness , after this manner , viz. What an high Affront then do these Men give to the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit , who affirm , that it is as vain a thing to hope and pray , that Almighty God should regenerate an Infant with his holy Spirit , as to expect that he should illuminate a Stone or a Tree ? * * These words be cites were wrote by Dr. Taylor . pag. 16.

But , say you , if Infants are found capable Subjects of regenerating Grace , and Remission of Sin , as , I hope , appears , then surely they are capable of Baptism ; for the outward visible Sign ought not to be denied to such as are capable of the inward spiritual Grace .

Answ. 1. Sir , you are to be rectified , Do we deny the Omnipotency of the holy Spirit ? none of us never doubted of the Power of the Spirit in regenerating an Infant , if he pleases so to do ; but you are to prove God doth do it , and that by Baptism too ; for that 's the thing you seem to contend for , which we deny : we say , God can of Stones raise up Children to Abraham , if he pleases .

2. We do affirm , you have as much ground of Faith from any Promise of God , to pray that God would illuminate a Stone or a Tree , as you have to pray God by Baptism he would regenerate one Infant . If you pray not in Faith , you sin ; and if you have no Promise of God to ground your Faith upon , when you pray God by Baptism to regenerate an Infant , then you cannot pray in Faith . Two things you are to prove ;

( 1. ) That God doth require you to baptize Infants .

( 2. ) Prove that Baptism is appointed of God to regenerate Children , or the Adult either , if you can .

3. I do say that Baptism doth not belong to them who may be said in a remote sense to be capable of Regeneration ; for Unbelievers are capable of Regeneration ( or else sad is their condition ) and are they therefore capable of Baptism ? Baptism is not an outward Sign of what a Person is capable of , or may have hereafter ; but of that thing , or inward spiritual Grace the Person baptized hath at present ( or gives some evidence of ) before , or at the time when he is baptized ; and for this I could cite you divers of the Ancient Fathers , and Modern Divines .

You may be as capable to be a Justice of Peace ( as far as I know ) as you are to be a Preacher ? may you therefore give forth Warrants , and exercise that Office ?

4. And lastly , I must tell you , Infants are not in an ordinary way capable of the Image of God , tho they may be capable of Grace and Salvation by Christ ; because the Image of God consisteth in Knowledg , Col. 3.10 . And have put on the new Man , which is renewed in Knowledg , Pool's Annotat. after the Image of him that created him . Hence our Annotators tell you , that in Regeneration , or in restoring the lost Image of God , the Understanding must be enlightned ; and are Children capable of an enlightned Understanding , who have no Understanding at all ? or do you pray God would work Miracles ? Would it not be a miraculous thing to see a Babe of two or ten days old , to have such Knowledg of God and of Jesus Christ ?

Obj. But in Pag. 16. you argue upon us thus , viz. Circumcision was instituted for the same end that Baptism is ; and the Party circumcised , was under the same natural Incapacity with the Person baptized : And from hence you charge us with Arrogancy , as if we would make our selves wiser than God .

1. I answer ; We have proved Circumcision was not instituted for the same end that Baptism is , but for several other Grounds and Reasons ; therefore what you say is not true . See our Answer .

2. And does it follow , because God commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male Infants , that you may command Parents to baptize their Infants , both Males and Females , who are not the Subjects Jesus Christ has commanded in the New Testament to be baptized ? And do not you herein make your selves wiser than God ? O how justly may this Arrogancy be retorted back upon your selves !

Your Brethren , Athenian Society say Females were circumcised by some People formerly . the Athenian Society , in two or three of their Mercuries , tell us , in some parts of the World they circumcise their Females ; and no doubt of it , they have as good ( or better ) Authority so to do , as you have to baptize Children . See Vol. 7. Numb . 7. Where they say , The Creophagians , Arabians , some of the Descendants of Ishmael , did judicially circumcise not only Males but Females . Also the Ethiopians , especially in the Dominions of Prester John , circumcise Females . And for further Information , they direct to Bartho . de Antiquit. Puerperi , Bellonius , Caelius Rhodoginus , and several other Histories and Authors . May be they argue as you do , the Females are capable as the Males , of the Benefits of Circumcision , and therefore may Circumcise them .

3. Our Argument , I must tell you again , Infants may be capable to be saved , and yet not capable Subjects of Baptism . lies not so much in that Infants are uncapable of any Spiritual Benefit by Baptism , ( had it pleased Almighty God to have commanded them to be baptized , as he did the Circumcision of Infants ) but in that first we cannot find , directly nor indirectly , I mean either by Precept , Example , or good Consequences from all God's Word , 't is his Mind or Will they should be admitted to Baptism .

Secondly , Because they have not those previous Qualifications , which according to the positive and express Law of Christ , is necessary in all that ought to be baptized ; therefore in p. 16 , 17. you set up a Man of Straw of your own making , and then fight with it . Had God required Infants to be baptized , who could argue against their being capable of it ? However since actual Faith , and the profession of it , is required of all that are to be baptized ; we say , Infants who are uncapable to act Faith , are not , cannot be proper or fit Subjects for that Sacrament .

2. Because none are to be baptized by virtue of Christ's Law and Commission , Matth. 28. but such who are made Disciples , by being first taught . Infants who are not capable so to be made Disciples , ought not to be baptized . And to these two Arguments , we will now see your Answer , pag. 18. of your Book , which is as followeth , viz.

That a Profession of Faith is necessarily required before Baptism in all Adult Persons , that is , Persons grown up to riper Years , who are ( say you ) the Persons whom our Saviour meant when he said , He that believeth , and is baptized , shall be saved ; as most evidently appears by the words following , He that believeth not , shall be damned , Mark 16.16 .

What! must all that die in their Infancy go to Hell for an Impossibility ? The Text only intends such , as by hearing the Gospel preached , are capable of actual Faith : such as enjoy the Means of Faith , and yet live and die in neglect of Faith , and contempt of Baptism , shall certainly be damned ; 2 Thess. 3.10 . says the Apostle , If any Man will not work , neither let him eat ; that is , such as are capable to work , must not eat : But must Children be starved , because they cannot work ? Thus say you here , Children lie under a natural Incapacity of professing actual Faith ; therefore the first Text doth not concern them any more than the latter .

Answ. I. Sir , You have given away your Cause now for ever . If this Text , Mark 16.16 . does no more concern Infants than that in 2 Thess 3.10 . then be sure , as they having nothing to do with Faith , so have they nothing to do with Baptism ; for all the Learned generally , as one Man , do and must confess , the Commission of our Saviour is our great Warrant and Rule for Baptizing ; Therefore ( saith Mr. Baxter ) if we find it not here , where have we it ? Now this in Mark contains the Commission of Christ , viz. who they be that he would have to be baptized , and they are such who believe , ( Matthew says in repeating the words of the same Commission ) such who are discipled , or made Disciples : And you say , Infants are no more concerned in this Text , than in that , where the Apostle only intends Men , who will not work , which all know doth no ways refer to Children , so that the Dispute might well here end . By your own concession , Infants are not concerned in the Commission .

2. You say , the Adult are here intended ; we say so too : Whither then will you go for your Infants Right to Baptism ? We can prove , from many Texts , Infants ought to eat , though they cannot work . But how will you prove Infants ought to be baptized by any other Scriptures , if not from the Commission , though they do not believe , or have not actual Faith ?

3. May you not as well argue thus , viz. If Children have mortal Bodies , they must be fed at their Parents Table , and eat Bread , though they cannot work . So because they have immortal Souls , therefore they must be fed at the Lord's Table , and eat the Lord's Supper , though they can't believe nor discern the Lord's Body by Faith . The Apostle saith , Let a Man examine himself , and so let him eat ; but this is only required of Adult Persons , and 't is such St. Paul means : But Infants who are capable to receive spiritual Benefit by Christ's Death , they must have the Medicine also ; may you not argue thus as well ? Pray , Reader , observe what a kind of Doctrine this Man asserts .

I demand , ( say you ) Whether according to the Mind of God , gathered from the words of the Commission , the Remedy prescribed should be administred only to grown Persons , because they only are capable of understanding and believing the Virtue and Efficacy of it ? Sure every rational Man among you would conclude his Child capable of the Remedy as well as himself , altho ignorant of the Virtue that is in it , and only passive in the Administration of it ; and that it would be Cruelty , yea Murder in the Parent , to deny the Application of it to all his Children .

Reply ; I stand amazed at your Ignorance and Folly . Does it follow , because Children are capable to receive a Medicine against the Plague or bodily Distemper , are they therefore capable of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ? If capable of one , say I , of the other also ; for as a Man is required to examine himself , and to discern the Lord's Body in the Lord's Supper , so he is required to repent and to believe in Christ ▪ that comes to Baptism .

4. I would know how you prove Baptism to be the Medicine appointed to cure the Soul of the Plague of Sin ? Is not this to blind the Eyes of poor People , Baptism cannot save the Souls of Infants . and make them think that an external Ordinance saves the Soul ? If not thus , how can it be Cruelty , yea Murder , in Parents , to deny the Application of Baptism to their Children ? The Ancient Fathers , from that in John 6.53 . Vnless a Man eat the Flesh of the Son of Man , and drink his Blood , he hath no Life in him ; gave Infants the Lord's Supper , thinking our Saviour ( like as the Papists do ) meant that Sacrament , when indeed he meant only of 〈◊〉 by Faith on Christ crucified . But however , their Argument for giving Infants one Sacrament , was as good as yours for giving them the other : But when they are as capable to repent and believe , and are helped so to do as they are , and do eat Bread , let them have both Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; and till then , if God's Word be the Rule of our Faith and Practice , ( and not our own Fancies ) they ought to have neither ; yet the Remedy or Medicine , which is Christ's Blood , we deny not , but dying Infants may be capable of .

5. Sir , You seem to be no true Son of the Church of England , for they it seems positively affirm , Repentance , whereby a Person forsakes Sin , and Faith , whereby he stedfastly believes the Promise of God made to him in that Sacrament , is required of those who are to be baptized ; nay and of little Babes too , therefore the Sureties answer for them , that they do believe and repent , or forsake the Devil and all his Works , &c. the Child answers by Proxy . Your Church baptizes no Child but as a Believer , and a true penitent Person . What is this your Argument good for ? even nothing . How now , are you wiser than the Church ? no doubt she believes as we do . All that are proper Subjects of Baptism , are comprehended in the Commission , and must be as such , whether Adult or Infants , who profess Faith and Repentance : But you it may be foresaw the Snake in the Grass , viz. that God-fathers and God-mothers is a Tradition , and none of God's Appointment ; nor are they able to perform those things for the Child , which they promise for him , and in his Name . And therefore make use of another Argument , and would have them baptized without Faith , or upon their Parents Faith , of which your Church speaks nothing .

As to your Comparison , 't is not worth mentioning : Baptism ( as I have told you ) doth not cure the Soul of Sin , but 't is the Blood of Christ applied by Faith : And now do we say , no Child can have the Benefit of that Sovereign Remedy , because not capable to believe , by reason Men and Women must receive it by Faith , or perish . God ( as Dr. Taylor observes ) may have many ways to magnify his Grace , through Jesus Christ , to them , which we know not of , who die in their Infancy , yet have we no Authority to baptize them , any more than to give them the Lord's Supper .

6. Sir , You talk at a strange rate , as if you regarded not what you say or affirm , while you bring Similitudes to teach People to believe Baptism is the Balm to cure the Contagion of Sin ; and as if the application of it saved a little Babe from Hell , and they guilty of murdering the Souls of their Children , who deny to baptize them . I had thought you would not have lain greater stress upon Childrens Baptism , than on Childrens Circumcision , since you would fain have them run parallel-wise .

Pray , what became of the Jews Female Infants , were they damned ? And what became of their Male Infants , who died before eight days old ? for they broke God's Law , if they Circumcumcised them , ( though sick and like to die ) if they were not full eight days old . Blush for the sake of your precious Soul , and take more care for time to come , to what you Preach and Write .

But to proceed : In pag. 19. you say , Tho Children have not actual Faith , yet they have habitual Faith , Faith in Semine , and so are potentially Believers . As for Instance , Infants have not Reason ; yet because they have a Principle , we call them reasonable Creatures . Thus Infants , whilst such , have not the Use and Exercise of Faith , but have it in the Root , and so may be called Believers initially .

Ans. 1. Dr. Taylor clearly confutes this Conceit of yours ; Some there be ( saith he ) who argue stiffly for Infants having habitual Faith ; but ( saith he ) is there any Precedent , Concomitant , or Consequent to this pretended Habit ? This strange Invention is absolutely without Art , without Scripture , Reason or Authority .

Answ. 2. Why may not the Infants of Unbelievers have the same habitual Faith , as well as the Infants of Believers ? Also may not Pagans , especially those who may come where the Gospel is preached , be potentially Believers , and be baptized , before they believe upon the same Argument ?

3. If they had the Habit of true Faith , that Habit would appear afterwards , and they would need no other Sacred Habits to be infused into them ; but we see in Infants baptized ( as you call it ) when grown up , the Evil Habits of Sin , but no Sacred Habits of Grace , or Divine Faith , or Seed of Regeneration sown into them at all . What is in the Root , will shew it self in the Branches and Fruit ; but we having fully answered this weak Assertion already , shall say no more to it now .

You add , That Infants born within the Bosom of the Church , of believing Parents , tho Faith of the Parents is to them at present , instead of an outward Profession in their own Persons ; for ( say you ) though no Child is saveable by its Parents Faith , yet the Child is baptizable by virtue of its Parents Faith , because the Parent receives the Promise of God , both for himself and his Seed , Acts 2.39 .

1. I answer ; Let all Men judg of that Confusion which attends your Arguing and Arguments for Infant-Baptism : One while the absolute Ground and Plea you bring to prove it , is the Covenant made with Abraham . Sir , If that will do , and be sufficient , stand by it : but alas you dare not trust the whole Structure on that crazy Foundation ; therefore now you go to the immediate Faith of the Parents , and thus without any Ground or Authority from God's Word , you build your childish Practice upon your own Dream : Why not , as your Church teaches , upon the Faith and Profession of the Sureties ? why the Faith of the immediate Parents ? Those Texts you mention , Acts 2.39 . 1 Cor. 7.14 . as we shall hereafter shew , prove not what you here affirm , nor any thing like it .

2. If the Parents Faith will serve for the Child , The Parents Baptism may serve for the Child , as well as the Parents Faith . why not the Parents Baptism serve for the Child as well ?

Take again what the Bishop of Down hath wrote on this Argument of yours ; Some say ( saith he ) Infants have an Imputative Faith ; but then so let the Sacraments be too ; that is , if they have the Parents Faith , or the Churches , then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them ; and as in their Mother's Breast , they live upon their Mother's Nourishment , so they may upon the Baptism of their Parents , or their Mother the Church : for since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism , ( and they themselves confess it , by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to daub the Matter ) such as is the Faith , such must be the Sacrament ; for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament , and an imputative Faith , this being immediate and necessary in order to that . ' Thus far Dr. Taylor .

3. I wonder ( as I have formerly said ) what Faith 't is you suppose to be in Infants : When will your Trumpet give a certain Sound ? Is it the Faith of the Church , as Thomas Aquinas asserts , which is intailed upon all who are within the Pale thereof , or in her Bosom , to use your words ? Or is it an imputative Faith from the Parents , as Musculus , you , and others maintain ? Or is it the Faith of the Gossips or Sureties , as your Church says , Various thoughts among Pedo-Baptists , what Faith Infants have . i. e. others believe for them ? [ Wonder , O Heavens , and be astonished , O Earth ! are these thy Teachers , O England ? ] ; Have they a justifying Faith , as Mr. Baxter intimates ? Or a dogmatical Faith only , as in Mr. Blake's sense ? Some say 't is a Physical Faith , some a Metaphysical , and some a Hyperphysical Faith . Some say they are born Believers , See Mr. Danvers . others say they are made Believers by Baptism .

See what Confusion you Pedo-Baptists are in . An actual Faith you dare not say they have , because they have no Act of Understanding : Besides , how can any Man know they have Faith , since he never saw any sign of it ? neither was he told it , by any that could tell .

Object . But then , Pag. 19. you bring in our Objection : Infants are not capable of Ministerial Teaching , therefore not of Baptismal Washing ; because Teaching must go before Baptizing , according to the order of the words in our Saviour's Commission , Mat. 28.19 . Go , teach all Nations , baptizing them , &c.

Your Answer is , That it is a mighty Weakness to infer from the order of the words , the necessary order of things . St. Matthew sets Teaching before Baptizing ; but St. Mark sets Baptizing before Teaching , Mark 1.4 . so that no conclusive Argument can be drawn from hence either way .

Answ. I answer , you discover a great Abuse of the sacred Scripture . Sir , doth St. Mark , Chap. 1.4 . set Baptizing before Teaching ? Pray , good Reader , observe the Text , John did baptize in the Wilderness , and teach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins .

1. Doth this Text , in the order of words , say , John taught Persons to be baptized , and then to repent ? if what you say were true , so the order of words must have been ; and then he had indeed taught contrary to our Saviour's Doctrine in the Commission in order of words , as recorded by St. Mat. 28.19 . 'T is called , saith our Annotators , the Baptism of Repentance , because Repentance was the great thing he taught : nay , and taught Repentance absolutely necessary in all who came to be baptized by him . The order of words are very conclusive here , and must not be inverted without palpable danger of God's Displeasure . John called upon all who came to his Baptism to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance , and the order of words here do not contradict this ; for because Repentance was pre-requisite to Baptism , it is called the Baptism of Repentance ; and so the order of the words , if understood , shews , 〈◊〉 that Repentance went before baptizing , which directly agrees with St. Mat. 28.19 . Go , teach all Nations , baptizing them ; that is , such who have been taught or discipled ; and this was according to Christ's own Practice , Joh. 4.1 , 2. Jesus made and baptized more Disciples than John , ( mark Reader ! ) they were all Disciples which John and our Saviour baptized ; Jesus made them first Disciples , and so did John , and then baptized them .

Had John Baptist , our Saviour , or his Apostles baptized one Infant , or one Adult Person , who made no Profession of Faith , the order of words were not so conclusive and demonstrative , but that they never did ( as we read of . )

Where therefore the order of Words , and order of Practice go together , and exactly agree , they ought not to be inverted ; and he that doth it , is greatly culpable before God , as I might shew in the Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; the order of words are , Christ first took the Bread , and brake it , and then the Cup : Would any dare to invert this order of words , and first take the Cup , &c. they may as well attempt so to do , as to put Baptizing before Teaching .

Perkins 2 vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Take what Mr. Perkins hath said concerning the order of words in the Commission : saith he , I explain the former thus .

First , teach them ; that is , make them my Disciples by teaching them to believe and 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 Spirit to believe and repent : then , in the second place , he makes a Promise of Mercy and Forgiveness ; and then , thirdly , he seals his Promise by Baptism . They ( saith he ) 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 , and is the cause of so much Prophaneness in the World . This Divine Order Christ signifieth , when he saith , make them Disciples , and was always observed of God .

Mr. Perkins as he was a very learned Man , so you know he was a Member of the Church of England , and how fully does he confirm what we say , and teach , and how does he confute your Notion and Practice ? Moreover , Mr. Richard Baxter , speaking of the Order of the Commission Christ gave to his Disciples , saith , Baxter's Right of Baptism , p. 149 , 150. viz. Their first Task is to make Disciples , which are by St. Mark called Believers . The second work is to baptize them , whereunto is annexed the Promise of 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 , is to contemn the Rules of all Order ; for where can we find it , if not here ? I profess my Conscience is fully satisfied from this Text , that there is one sort of Faith — that must go before Baptism , the Profession whereof the Minister must expect .

2. You say , Mr. Burkit's sense of the order of the Commission , Mat. 28.19 . The true reason why Christ bid his Disciples first teach and then baptize , was , because he was sending his Apostles forth among the Heathen to convert them to Christianity , in which work we all know , that preaching of the Word must go before the Administration of the Sacraments , Pag. 20. Should , say you , the King of England send his Ministers into Foreign Plantations to convert the Indians to Christianity , they ought not to be baptized before they are taught , and instructed ; but when the Parents are proselyted , and make a visible Profession of their Faith , their Children may be baptized , and afterwards instructed ; as the Children of the Jewish Proselytes were first circumcised , and then taught : for tho Abraham was first taught and then circumcised , yet Isaac was first circumcised and then taught : so that the sense of our Saviour is this , teach such as are capable of teaching , and baptize such as are capable of Baptism .

Answ. I answer , first , how inconsistent is this with what just before you asserted ? Do you not plead for Faith in some sense to be in all such , who by virtue of the Commission ought to be baptized , and therefore pretend that Infants have Habitual Faith , Faith in semine , &c. but now plead they may be capable of Baptism without Faith ; you also contradict what you before said about the order of words . Do you not positively now confess by the order of the words in the Commission , Teaching ought to go before Baptizing ? Sir , 't is a sign of a very bad Cause that puts you thus to try your Wit , and after all confound your self .

2. I ask you how Abraham ( who God commanded to be Circumcised , as a Seal of the Righteousness of that Faith HE had before circumcised ) could know he ought to circumcise his Son Isaac , &c. who had no such Faith , had not God given him an express Command to do it ? Had it not been in the words of his Commission , durst he , think you , have done it ? Be sure if he had , he had sinned in doing that which God commanded him not : So , and in like manner , since our Lord Jesus expresly in his Commission , commanded none to be baptized but such who are first taught , unless he had added , as in Abraham's Case , viz. when an Heathen is converted to the Faith , and baptized , you may baptize his Infants also ; how dare you add such Additions to Christ's Commission without his Authority , and so make the World believe , if you could , our blessed Saviour gave forth an imperfect Commission to his Disciples , which all Men must confess is the only Warrant and Rule of all Ministers to act by in the case of baptizing to the end of the World ? And doth he not say , Add thou not to his Word , lest he reprove thee , and thou art found to be a Liar ; by fathering that on Christ which he never said nor intended ?

Suppose the King should send you with a Commission into a remote Plantation , and command you to act and do exactly according to the express words of the Commission , not to add to it , nor diminish from it , upon pain of being cast out of his Favour , and incur his Wrath and Curse ; durst you to do otherwise in any thing , under pretence it was his meaning , whereas he plainly and fully in his Commission expressed in the Affirmative , how and what you should do in all Matters and things , and forbad you to add thereto ? Read Rev. 22.18 . For I testify unto every Man that heareth the words of the Prophecy of this Book , If any Man shall add unto these things , God shall add unto him all the Plagues that are written in this Book , &c. Who told you what you say is the sense of our Saviour ? Can any Man once think , since the Commission of Christ is a pure Gospel-Commission , and contains meer positive Laws and Rules , no ways referring to , nor depending on the Law or Command God gave to Abraham , that what you say can be true , and the Conclusions safe , certain , and warrantable ? May not another say , with as good Authority , that our Saviour commands his Disciples to baptize all Nations , both Parents and Children too , whether they will or not , whether they believe or not , whether Jews or Gentiles , Turks or Pagans ? I wonder you are not afraid , who take liberty after this sort to sport ( as it were ) and play with , invert , alter and add unto the sacred Commission of the jealous God , and great King of Heaven and Earth .

3. We will examine your Similitude , of which you seem very full ,

Suppose , say you , a Person , Owner of a great Flock of Sheep , should command his Shepherd to shear all his Sheep , and give them an Ear-mark to know them , and he leaves out all the Lambs ( which perhaps made up half the Fold ) unmark'd ; Can the Shepherd be suppos'd to have done his Duty ? Suppose he says the Lambs were very young , and uncapable of shearing : True , says the Owner , but were they not capable of marking .

Infants , say you , are not capable of teaching , but are they not capable of Christ's Ear-mark [ Baptism ] by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats ? But according to your Principles , Christ's Fold has no Lambs in it , but all Sheep , such a Fold as the World never yet heard of . See Isa. 40.11 .

Answ. 1. I answer ; this is as weak an Allusion or Similitude as ever was brought to illustrate a matter :

For , first , it supposes that Christ gave a very obscure , dark and doubtful Commission ; for if all were to be sheared that the Shepherd was to mark , the Shepherd could not err in refusing to mark the Lambs , because not capable of shearing ; for so it is here , all are by Christ's Commission to be first taught who are to be baptized .

2. You suppose in Christ's Fold there are no Lambs , if no Infants are admitted to be of his Church or Flock ; which is absurd : Were they Infants that Christ commanded St. Peter to feed , when he bad him feed his Lambs ? Joh. 21.15 . Or , were they Infants that Christ is said to carry in his Bosom ? Isa. 40.11 . The Scripture you cite , He shall feed his Flock like a Shepherd ; he shall gather his Lambs with his Arms , and carry them in his Bosom . Do not all Expositors tell you , by Lambs in these places are meant young Converts , who are by St. Peter called new-born Babes ? 1 Pet. 2.1 , 2. and who denies but many such are in Christ's Fold ; and these Lambs we say may and ought to be baptized .

3. Who told you Baptism is Christ's Ear-mark , by which Christ's Sheep are distinguished from the Devils Goats ? I affirm this is no certain and distinguishing Mark to know the Sheep and Lambs of Christ from the Devil's Goats . Was not Simon Magus baptized ? was that a Mark to know he was a Sheep of Christ ? Thousands may be baptized , have that Ear-mark , and yet be in the Gall of Bitterness , and in the Bond of Iniquity , and be the Goats of the Devil . Christ himself in John 10. lays down divers distinguishing Marks of his Sheep , but makes not the least mention of this . True , when a Believer is baptized , and doth all other things Christ had commanded , that is no doubt one mark that he is one of Christ's Sheep , but the distinguishing Mark is Regeneration , and that of having his Spirit in our Hearts , and leading a godly Life . Now if any Man have not the Spirit of Christ , the same is none of his . Nom. 8.9 .

As to Infants who die in their Infancy , who doubts but they may be happy , since Christ says , of such are the Kingdom of Heaven , i. e. Kingdom of Glory ? but this is no more ground for you to baptize them , than ( as I have often said ) to give them the Lord's Supper . Does it follow because some Infants may belong to the Kingdom of Glory , they are Members therefore of the visible Church , and so Lambs of Christ's Fold on Earth ?

And this brings me to your next , which is your fourth Argument , viz. If Infants be capable of Christ's Blessing on Earth , and of his Presence in Heaven ; if they be Subjects of his Kingdom of Grace , and Heirs of his Kingdom of Glory ; then they have an undoubted right to the Priviledg of Subjects , amongst which the Seal of the Covenant is not the least .

Answ. 1. We answer , and argue thus to the first part of your Proposition , viz. If many of the Jews , and others who were ungodly Persons , were capable of Christ's Blessing , i. e. of being healed of their bodily Diseases , they were Subjects of Baptism : Is this sound arguing ? What further Blessing Christ did vouchsafe to Infants when he laid his Hands upon them , we know not , for that was the way Christ took oft-times in the healing the Sick ; and so he blessed many Persons that never were baptized as we read of .

2. We ( as I just now told you ) do deny Infants are Subjects of the visible Church ; therefore if by the Kingdom of Grace you intend not that , you beat the Air ; you beg , and prove not ; besides it doth not follow . I say again , tho Infants may be Heirs of the Kingdom of Glory , therefore they have an undoubted right to the Privileges of the Subjects of God's Church ; for then it would follow they have right to one Privilege as well as another , and are to have Fellowship with the Saints and Houshold of God , as well as Baptism .

But , say you , or take the Argument thus , viz. Those whom Christ invites to him , and are received by him , his Ministers may not refuse , nor put from them . But Infants are by Christ invited to him , and were received by him ; therefore the Ministers of Christ may not , ought not , durst not refuse them into Communion with them , p. 21.

Answ. Christ invited Multitudes to come unto him , and he received them so far as to feed them with Barley-Loaves and Fishes , and to the Blessing of healing them of their bodily Distempers : May his Ministers therefore receive all such into their Communion ?

2. In the days of Christ when he was on Earth , there were many who are said to come unto him , whom he might receive into his Presence and Company , yet his Ministers might not baptize them , nor receive them into their spiritual Communion : Other kinds of coming unto Christ in the days of his Flesh , than what may be said now , Matth. 22.23 , 35. nor indeed so you dare not receive Infants , I mean into your Communion of the Eucharist , &c. We read of some Pharisees and Lawyers that came to Christ , and he received them into his Company , who , it appears , came to tempt him . Also the Sadduces are said to come unto him , who said there was no Resurrection ; may Christ's Ministers baptize such and receive them into their Communion ?

Therefore in opposition to what you say in Pag. 21. of your Book , I affirm there was then other ordinary ways of coming to Christ than by Admission into his Church ; Christ invited the worst of Sinners to him , who nevertheless did not receive him , therefore there are some who must be excluded whom Jesus Christ graciously invited .

Your Appeal for Proof of this Argument to St. Mark 10.13 . Suffer little Children to come unto me , for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven , doth not your business ; they do not belong to the Kingdom of Grace , i. e. the Church ; for if they did belong to , or were of the visible Church , as such ; then you need not by Baptism make them belong unto it : If Christ owns them Subjects or Members of his Visible Church , you by Baptism have no need , I say , to add them to it ; for if as they are the Seed of Believers , they are already ( fidem soederis ) not only in Covenant with God , but also belong to his Kingdom or Church upon Earth ; All the World may see you go about but to give them that very Right or Privilege which they had before , and without Baptism .

Doth Christ ( say you ) take Children into his Arms , and shall his Church cast them out of her Imbraces ?

Answ. May I not argue thus , i. e. Doth Christ receive all sorts of Persons into his Arms of Mercy , to heal their bodily Distempers , of which some were wicked and ungodly ? and shall the Church refuse to receive all such into her Imbraces ? Besides , all those pretended Consequences make no more for Infants to be baptized , than for their receiving the Lord's Supper , and all other Privileges that belong , as well as Baptism , to Adult Persons who believe or are Disciples .

Does Christ ( say you ) own them for Subjects of his Kingdom , and shall we allow them no better standing than in the Devil's Kingdom .

Answ. Does Christ own Infants to be Subjects of his Kingdom , and yet did not baptize them ? ( for that he did not ) and shall we attempt to Baptize them , An Argument against Infant-Baptism , from that Text , Little Children were brought to Christ . as if we were wiser than he ? I must again turn the E●g of the Sword against you ; If little Children were brought to Christ , and he did not Baptize them , then we must not . But little Children were brought to Christ , and he did not Baptize them , therefore we must not : Here is both Truth and Reason in this Argument , as Dr. Taylor confesses , but none of both in yours . You your self confess Christ did not Baptize those Infants that came to him , and whom he took in his Arms , and blessed ; because with his own Hands he baptized none at all , Joh. 4.1 , 2.

Therefore since Christ , who was God , foresaw what Contention would arise about the Baptizing of Infants , had it been his Will they should be Baptized , would he not at this time put the Matter out of doubt , have Baptized them , or have given Command to his Disciples so to have done ?

If therefore Infants be in so good a Condition as you say , i. e. Subjects of Christ's Kingdom of Grace , let us let them alone , for we cannot , by baptizing them , put them in a better state than they are , without any Warrant from Christ ; and by baptizing them not , we cannot put them into any worser state or standing than they are in without it .

Well , you are angry with us , because we know not but that the Children of Turks and Infidels may be in a good condition , as well as Children of Believers , though we deny not , but that the Children of Believers have greater Advantages than the Children of Infidels ; namely , by the Prayers , good Education , and the good Examples of their Parents , &c.

In pag. 22. you say , Can any wise or good Man believe , that our Saviour would speak such favourable Words of Infants , and his outward Gesture manifest so much good-will towards them , only with an intent to ensnare and deceive us ? doubtless it was to encourage his Ministers to perform all charitable Offices towards them .

Answ. 1. You mistake , our Saviour speaks very little concerning Infants , and that which is said of them was accidentally spoken , being occasioned by those who brought little Children to him , which the Disciples forbad ; and from hence he spake what he did . Moreover , the Cause why our Saviour spoke those words , might be more for the sake of Parents , that they might not be afraid touching the Condition of their dying Babes , than to shew any Ordinance belonged to them : for had it been so , doubtless the Disciples would not have forbad those People to bring little Children to Christ . 'T is therefore an Argument against Infant-Baptism , and not for it , because the Disciples were appointed by their Master to be the Administrators of that Ordinance , on such to whom it did of right belong ; and had Infants been the Subjects , would they have forbid People to bring Infants to him ?

2. You therefore may rather conclude , had they been the Subjects of Baptism , Christ , by not hinting any such thing in the least on this Occasion , might rather have left us in a Snare , in speaking nothing of it , neither here , nor at any other time .

3. Therefore Christ speaking so favourably of Infants , and yet baptized them not , may teach us to judg favourably of them , and do any charitable Office towards them , but not to presume to give them holy Baptism without Christ's Warrant , no more than any other Gospel-Ordinance . 'T is no matter what Calvin spoke , 't is no Sin to keep such out of Christ's Fold , which he has given no Authority to take in : nor have any People a more charitable Opinion of the state of dying Infants , than those you call Anabaptists .

4. Those who are capable of some kind of Blessings of Christ , we have shewed , are notwithstanding not capable of Baptism .

We read not , the Disciples baptized these little Children , nor none else .

Object . To this you answer ; Perhaps they were Baptized before : But ( say you ) it doth not follow that the Apostles did not baptize these Children , because no mention of it : the Scripture no where tells us , that the Apostles themselves were baptized ; shall we conclude therefore that they were never baptized ?

Answ. 'T is no matter whether we read , or read not , that the Apostles were baptized , since we find it was his Precept and Practice to baptize Disciples , or such who did believe in him . We read of multitudes of Disciples that were baptized , and we know the way of Christ was one and the same ; that which was the Duty of one Disciple , as a Disciple , was the Duty of every Disciple . We read but of two or three Churches who broke Bread , and celebrated the Lord's Supper ; could you shew us but a Precept for Infant-Baptism , or but one Example or Precedent where one Infant was baptized , we would not doubt but those little Children might be also ; but this you cannot do .

And whereas in pag. 23. you say , That there is not the same Reason why Infants should be admitted to eat the Lord's Supper , as there is for them to be admitted to Baptism .

Answ. We deny it utterly . What though the one be a Sacrament of Initiation , and the other of Confirmation ? Yet pray observe , Like Reason for Infants receiving the Lord's Supper , as to be baptized . that Repentance and Faith is required of them that are to be baptized , even actual Faith and Repentance , as well as actual Grace and Examination , &c. to discern the Lord's Body in those who are to receive the Lord's Supper . If all that were to be Circumcised , had been required to repent and believe , as in the Case of admission to Baptism , you had said something ; but the contrary appears , Male Infants , as such , had a Right to that , but have no Right to this . And thus I pass to your fifth Argument .

If the Infants of Christian Parents are s●dorally Holy , then ( you say ) they are Subjects qualified for Baptism : but the Scripture pronounces such Children federally Holy ; therefore they are qualified for Baptism , and may be admitted . You cite Rom. 11.16 . If the Root be Holy , the Branches are also Holy : where , by the Root ( you say ) we are to understand Abraham , Isaac and Jacob ; and by the Branches , their Posterity , the People of the Jews . Now forasmuch ( say you ) as the Jews , the natural Branches , are for Unbelief broken off , and the believing Gentiles are grafted in their stead , and succeed in their Privileges , in the sense that they were Holy , not with an internal and inherent Holiness , passing by natural Generation from Parent to Child , but with an external relative Covenant-Holiness , grounded on the Promise made to the Faithful and their Seed .

Answ. 1. I deny your Major , and say , If Children of Believers were federally Holy under the Gospel , yet they are not qualified for Baptism , because 't is not what you imagine gives them right thereto , External federal Holiness , gives no right to the Sacraments . or qualifies them for it ; but what Christ hath ordained and appointed , as the alone proper and meet qualification , which is not that external relative Covenant-Holiness you talk of , which the New-Testament speaks nothing of , as I shall shew by and by , but actual Faith , Regeneration , or Inherent-Holiness , which is the thing signified by Baptism ; therefore a thousand such Arguments will do you no good , since Baptism is of meer positive Right . 'T is Christ's own Law must decide the Controversy , viz What Qualifications are required of such who by his Authority and Law ought to be baptized : prove if you can such an external Federal-Holiness , qualifies any Persons for Gospel-Baptism ; for if such federal or external Holiness , qualifies Persons for Baptism ; then the Jews , before cast off , might have been admitted to Baptism , since they had then such a kind of federal Holiness ; which kind of Holiness you cannot prove Believers Children are said to have under the Gospel ; but if it qualified them not for Baptism , it cannot qualify our Children for Baptism . And that is did not qualify them , is evident , see Mat. 3.9 . where some of the Branches of this Root came to ▪ John Baptist to be baptized ; and he refused to admit them with these words , i. e. Think not to say within your selves , we have Abraham to our Father ; for I say , God is able of these Stones to raise up Children to Abraham . Ver. 10. And now also is the Ax laid to the Root of the Trees . From whence it plainly appears , that that external relative Covenant-Holiness , which qualified under the Old-Testament , Persons for Circumcision , and Jewish Church-membership , will not qualify Old nor Young under the New-Testament for Baptism , and Gospel Church-membership .

2. I also deny your Minor , and say , the Scripture of the New-Testament doth not pronounce the Children of believing Parents federally Holy : The Text Rom. 11.16 . speaks not one word of Infants , nor one word of such a kind of federal Holiness . Mr. Tho. Goodwin , * * This Passage of Mr. Goodwin I have out of Mr. Tombs his Book , called , Two Treatises , p. 67. who was a very Learned Man , urging that Text 1 Cor. 7.14 . tho a Pedo Baptist saith , in the New-Testament there is no other Holiness spoken of , but Personal or Real by Regeneration ; about which he challenged all the World to shew to the contrary .

And , Sir , with your Favour , if you cannot from any place of the New-Testament prove there is any such Holiness spoken of , you are to be blamed for bringing in a private and an unwarrantable Interpretation of that Holy Text. I find there are various Interpretations of what is meant by the Root in that place . ( 1. ) Some understand it of the Covenant . ( 2. ) Some of Christ . ( 3. ) Some of Abraham , Isaac , and Jacob. ( 4. ) Some of Abraham only .

What if I agree with the last , and say , Abraham is the Root ? but what Root ? Why the Root of all his true spiritual Seed : And if so , the Holiness of the Branches was real , in word , and spiritual ; for such Holiness as is in the Root , is in the Branches . And indeed , for want of Faith , or of that real and spiritual Holiness in many of his natural Branches , ( for he was a two-fold Root , or Father , as I before have proved ) they were rejected , or broken off for their Vnbelief ; and the Gentiles by Faith were grafted in , they having obtained the Fatness of the Root , or the Faith and Righteousness of their Father Abraham , who was the Root or Father of all that believe . The Truth is , as Mr. Tombs observes , the Holiness here meant , is first in respect of God's Election , Holiness , personal and inherent in God's Intention , Ephes. 1.4 . Secondly , It is also Holiness derivative , not from any Ancestors , but Abraham ; not as a natural Father , but as a spiritual Father , or Father of the Faithful ; and so derived from the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham .

And thus it appears you have darkened this illustrious Scripture , thinking to prove a Holiness that the New-Testament knows nothing of ; applying the Holiness and Insection to outward Dispensations only in the visible Church , which is meant of saving Grace● , into the invisible , and make every believing Parent a like Root to his Posterity with Abraham to his Seed , which we deny .

But let the Jews Covenant and standing before they were broken off be what it would , I am sure no Gentile is grafted into Christ , but by actual Faith ; nor can any be grafted into the Gospel-Church , without the profession of such Faith , therefore you do but beat the Air.

The Jews , 't is true , were broken off by their Unbelief , and were also no more a Church ; nor is there any such kind of Church constituted under the Gospel as theirs was , viz. a National Church ; for they amongst the Jews , who were the true Spiritual Seed of Abraham , receiving Christ by Faith , were planted into the Gospel-Church , and between them and Gentile Believers : Now there is no difference , Jew and Gentile stand in the Church now by Faith , not by external Covenant , Privilege-Right , or Holiness . Thou standest by Faith , O Believer ; mark , not by Birth-Privilege , Mr. Cary's Solemn Call . but by Faith . Thy standing is by Faith , ( saith one ) yet not thy Seed by thy Faith , but thou thy self by thine , and they by their own : Faith is that by which ( thou standing , and not thy Seed ) hast right to stand in the Church , and not they : but if thy Seed have Faith , and thou hast none , then they have right in the Church , and thou shalt be excluded . And though under the Law we deny not , but that the natural Seed or Progeny or Abraham , were all Holy , with an external Ceremonial or Typical Holiness ; and consequently they were then admitted to an external Participation of Church-Privileges : Yet now 't is otherwise , Old things are past away ; now we know no Man after the Flesh , 2 Cor. 5.16 . That Church-State is dissolved , and manner of admission into it , by external Birth-Privilege , &c. so that this Text doth not help you . I shall further open this place of Scripture .

1. 'T is evident the Apostle is in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Romans , Part of Chap. 11. of the Romans opened . a treating of the Election of Grace , and of that Covenant of Grace and Election God made with Abraham : these were his People which he had not cast away , chap. 10.1 . and of this sort God had 7000 in Elias's Days , This Scripture is to be understood by the main Scope and Drift of the Holy Spirit therein . ver. 4. Even so saith he at this present time also there is a Remnant according to the Election of Grace , ver. 5. Hence he says , What then Israel hath not obtained , &c. — But the Election hath , &c. ver. 7. He further shews that abundance of the natural Seed of Abraham were broken off . How were they broken off ? Why , by their Unbelief , they not receiving Christ , but rejecting the Gospel and New-Church-State , were broken off : but that the Gentiles might not boast over them , the Apostle shews there is ground left to believe all those that belong to the Election of Grace , shall in God's due time be brought in , and so partake of the Blessings of the Gospel-Covenant , or Covenant of Grace made with Abraham . And to prove this , Meaning all the elect Seed , or those Abraham was the spiritual Father of , were holy . in ver. 16. he lays down an Argument , For if the first Fruit be Holy , the Lump is also Holy ; and if the Root be Holy , so are the Branches , ver. 16. By the Root I understand is meant Abraham , Root and Father , signifying here the same thing , Abraham being the Root or Father , as God represents him , of all the Elect , or of such who believe , or the Root of all his true spiritual Seed .

2. By the first Fruits may be meant , Isaac , Jacob , and the holy and elect Patriarchs , for they were given as the first Fruits to Abraham , of that Covenant and free Promise of God ; and these were holy , with a true spiritual and internal New-Covenant-Holiness .

3. By the Lump he may mean the whole Body of the Elect , or the spiritual Seed of Abraham , from the time the first Fruits were given him , until the Gospel-Days , or whole Body of the true Israel of God , who were holy , as the Root and first Fruits were holy .

4. By the Branches may be meant the true elect Seed that were living then in that present time , as ver. 5. and these were holy too , The Holiness of the Root and Branches both one , viz. true spiritual Holiness . even as all the rest , both as the Root , First-Fruits , and whole Lump or Body , were holy ; that is , all the true spiritual Seed of Abraham were like himself , viz. holy in a spiritual Sense . And now observe , he speaks of some Branches that were broken off ; these seemed to be Branches , or the Children of Abraham ; and so they were according to the Flesh , but were like those Branches , in Christ who bear no Fruit , and therefore taken away , John 15.2 , 3 , 4. He alludes to the natural Seed of Abraham , to whom he stood not as a spiritual Father or Root , but as a natural and legal Father , as they were a National Church , and sprung from him , and these Branches were all broken off , viz. for rejecting Christ ; ( 1. ) Not broken off from the Election of Grace , for to that they did not belong , ( 2. ) Nor were they broken off of the Gospel-Church , for they were never grafted into that . But , ( 3. ) broken off from being any more a Church or People in Covenant with God , the whole old State and Constitution being gone , and they not closing in with Christ in the Gospel-Dispensation , Grace , and Church-State , are said to be broken off as a lost People ; because not replanted or implanted into Christ , and the true Gospel-Covenant ; the old being gone , quite removed and taken away , they have now no Root to stand upon , having lost their legal Priviledges , as Abraham was their Father upon that foot of Account ; and they not appearing to be the true Branches or Seed of Abraham , as he was the Father of all the elect Seed , or of all that believe in Jesus Christ , they must of necessity from hence be broken off from being the People of God , or belonging to any Head or Root in a Covenant-Relation to God at all , the Dispensation being changed ; 2 Cor. 5.17 . old things being gone , and all things being now become new . But this new State , Blessings , Rites , Church , and Church-Priviledges they rejected ; and thus were some of the natural Branches broken off , and the Gentiles , who were wild by Nature , that is , never were in any visible Covenant-State with God , nor in any Sense related to Abraham as a Root , were grafted into the true Olive Jesus Christ , and into the true Gospel-Church , and so Partakers of the Sap and Fatness of the Root , and of the Olive , that is , of the spiritual Blessings and Priviledges of Abraham , and of the Covenant of Grace made with him , and of the sweet Blessings and Priviledges of the Gospel-Church , and this they receive and partake of , as being first grafted by saving Faith in Christ , and so united to his mystical Body . But since there are a great Number of the old natural Branches that are beloved for their Father's sake , that is , for the sake of Abraham , as the Root and Father of all the Elect Seed ; they shall in due time be grafted in again , and so become a People visibly owned of God , and in Covenant with him , as all the true Seed now are , and formerly were . And if this be considered , what doth this Text do to prove the natural Seed of Believers are in the Gospel-Covenant ; for if the natural Seed of Abraham can lay no claim , nor have any Right to Gospel-Priviledges , but are gone or broken off , what ground is there for us to think that our natural Offspring ( as such ) should be taken in ? The Apostle speaks not of such Branches , or of being Holy with an external federal Holiness , but of such a Holiness as was in the Root , viz. Abraham , who believed in God ; and thus all his true spiritual Seed ( who are actually Branches and in Covenant , being grafted into Christ by Faith ) are holy : and also all the elect Seed of Abraham , not yet called , are decretively holy , or in God's Sight so , who calls things that are not , as if they were , they are all holy , The Jews not called according to the Decree of God and his purpose , who are in the Election of Grace , are holy . and beloved for their Father Abraham 's sake , with whom the Covenant of Grace was made for himself and all his true spiritual Seed ; and 't is from this Argument the Apostle argues for the calling of the Jews , and the grafting of them in again , who belong to the Election of Grace .

They therefore who would make every believing Parent to be the Root to his natural Off-spring , as Abraham was to his true spiritual Seed or Offspring ; or a common Head or Root of their natural Offspring , as he was to his , know not what they say or affirm ; But one common Root or Father of Believers . for then there would be so many common Roots and Fathers , like as Abraham was called a Root and Father ; and then also there would be a Knowledg still of Men after the Flesh , which the Apostle Paul disclaims , 2 Cor. 5.17 . Moreover , the Jews who were broken off , are still the natural Seed of Abraham ; and if therefore this Holiness was an external relative federal Holiness , they are still in that Sense holy as far forth as any Children of a believing Gentile can be said to be ; but this 't is evident is not that Holiness of which the Apostle speaks , nor is there any such Holiness under the Gospel-Dispensation spoken of .

We shall come now to consider your other Proof for federal Holiness , which is 1 Cor. 7.14 . The unbelieving Wife is sanctified by the believing Husband , &c. else were your Children unclean , but now are they holy .

Which Words ( say you ) are St. Paul's Answer to the Corinthians Scruple : Whether such as had Heathen and Infidel Wives , ought to put them away with their Children , as in the Days of Ezra ? The Apostle resolves them , that they ought not ; for , saith he , The unbelieving Wife is sanctified to the believing Husband : how sanctified ? not in her Nature , but in her Use , say you ; so as that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together . And for your Children they are holy , not with an inherent internal personal Holiness ; for the holiest Man-child is born in Sin , and by Nature a Child of Wrath ; but with an external relative federal Holiness ; they are not common and unclean , like the Children of Infidels , but fit to be Partakers of the Priviledges of the Church , which the Children of Infidels are not .

1. I answer , you can't be ignorant but ▪ that you know well enough this Text hath been fully opened by divers Learned Men , as well Pedo-Baptists as Anti-Pedobaptists , who prove the Holiness here spoken of , is no such external relative federal Holiness you dream of . In the first Place you speak right , it was about that very matter that the Corinthians wrote to St. Paul , viz. whether the believing Husband might live or cohabit with the unbelieving Wife , &c. So that the Scope and Coherence of the Text opens the matter , The Holiness of the Vnbeliever and Child , all one and the same . and shews what Holiness 't is the Apostle intends , viz. only a matrimonial Holiness ; for should he make their Marriage void , their Children would be unclean or illegitimate , i. e. Bastards : for though 't is true the Case was not as you say concerning Men and Whores , but about Husbands and Wives ; yet you honestly say , It was about the Lawfulness of their Marriage , as in Ezra's time , when some were commanded to put their Wives away , because the Marriage was unlawful : such , say we , as is the Sanctification or Holiness of the unbelieving Wife or Husband , is the Sanctification or Holiness of the Child ; and that you grant to be a matrimonial Sanctification ; so as they might lawfully cohabit together as Man and Wife . And indeed if the Children had from hence an external relative federal ●●liness , it would follow also that the unbelieving Husband and Wife had such an external relative federal Holiness likewise , and that would open the same Door to baptize the unbelieving Husband or Wife : for may not another Person argue thus , The unbelieving Husband is holy , or sanctified by the believing Wife , and therefore by virtue of her Faith may and ought to be baptized ? you read [ to ] the believing Husband , and indeed I find the Greek word else-where so renders it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

Let us consider how the Apostle speaks , viz. with respect to a thing present , or past , therefore he useth the Preterperfect Tense , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , hath been sanctified : yea , See Mr. Tombs . in probability he speaks of a Sanctification even when both were Unbelievers or Infidels ; for he saith , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 twice in the Preterperfect Tense , and he mentions the Unbeliever distinctly ; but the Believer without the Expression of his Faith , under the Title of Husband or Wife , and saith , your Children in Discrimination , without Difference , as well those they had before , one was a Believer , as since ; and if so , then the Children born to them , whilst both were Unbelievers , were as holy as such born after one became a Believer ; and what Holiness was in the Children then think you ? even no other than that which is in all Children born in lawful Wedlock , whether their Parents are Believers or Unbelievers .

And this sense is the more confirmed in that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sanctification is the same with Chastity , 1 Thess. 4.7 . so that the sense is , the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to his Wife , that is , lawfully or chastly used as a Husband , without Fornication in respect of his own Wife , whether Believer or Unbeliever , and therefore not to be refused . And this sense only serves for the Apostle's purpose . The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together ; the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent , but certain . Therefore let them live together ; for though one be an Unbeliever the other a Believer , yet Marriage continues still , they are Husband and Wife , and sanctified to each others use in respect of their chast Ejoyment of each other , and it is no Sin in them so to company together notwithstanding the Unbelief of one Party ; for Marriage is honourable among all , even Unbelievers , and the Bed undefiled , Heb. 13.4 . and Holiness and Honour are terms ( as one observes ) of like sense in this matter , 1 Thess. 4.7 .

Now this being granted , which inddeed must of necessity , then the Uncleanness must be understood of Bastardy , and the Holiness of Legitimation , as Mat. 2.15 . for no other Holiness necessarily follows to their Children in that their Parents Marriage is lawful : See the Apostle's Conclusion , Else were your Children unclean : you leave out [ Else ] for you mention Children as another Doubt which was in the Corinthians about them , which cannot be gathered from the Text nor Scope of it , but [ Else ] were your Children unclean , is brought in as an Argument to prove that which he saith last ; as the Particle 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 shews ; for the terms 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 else were , are argumentative as much as quoniam tum , becaus● then used . So 1 Cor. 15.14 , 29. Rom. 11.16 . to prove that which went before .

That here the Argument is ab absurdo , from an Absurdity which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted , and the Speech must needs be Elliptick , and somewhat is to be repeated to make the Speech full , as when it s said , Rom. 11.6 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; and to make the sense you must add , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because of work ; and so here 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; for if the unbelieving Husband hath not been sanctified to the Wife , your Children , &c. so that this Argument of the Apostle is entire , viz. If the unbelieving Husband were not sanctified by the Wife , then were your Children unclean ; but they are not unclean , but holy ; Ergo , the unbelieving Husband is sanctified to the Wife . Now the Major of the Syllogism is a Contradiction , the Sequel of it were not true if this Proposition were not true : All the Children of those Parents , whereof the one is not sanctified to the other , are unclean . Now if the Sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial Sanctification , as I have proved it must ; and the Uncleanness be meant of federal Uncleanness , so as to exclude them out of the Covenant , whether of saving Grace , or Church-Priviledges , the Proposition were most false , sith the Children of Parents , whereof one was not matrimonially sanctified to the other , but came together unchastly , as Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar , Jepthah of Gillead , and many others , were within the Covenant of saving Grace and Church-Priviledges : therefore to make the Proposition true , ( without which the Apostle speaks that which is most false ) it must be understood of Uncleanness by Bastardy ; for it 's true of no other Uncleanness , that all Children of those Parents , whereof the one is not sanctified to the other , are unclean , but now are they holy : the Particle 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but now , is not an Adverb of time here , as Beza rightly speaks , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , else were . So 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but [ now ] is a Particle of reasoning used in the assumption of Arguments , which shews it is the assumption of the Apostle's Argument , and therefore it must be understood of Holiness opposite to the Uncleanness mentioned ; but that being no other than Bastardy , the Holiness can be meant of no other than Legitimation . Nor is this any more an unlikely sense , sith Barstards were reckoned among unclean Persons , Deut. 23.2 . and the Apostle's Expression is allusive to the Jewish speaking and Estimation , and why it should be thought strange that Holy should signify Legitimation , I know not , when as Mal. 2.51 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 a Seed of God , is rendred by some Pedo-baptists a holy Seed , we read it a godly Seed , which were such Children ( you cannot deny ) born in lawful Marriage . And that we are not alone touching this sense of the Words and Matter , pray take the Testimony of divers Learned Men , who yet held Infant-Baptism , but found this Text remote to the business of proving it .

Jerom , as I find him quoted by a Learned Man , Divers Fathers and learned Men assert , the Holiness of the Child is meant of a Matrimonial Holiness , the Child is legitimate . saith , Because of God's Appointment Marriage is holy .

See Chameri , § . 50. Sic Ambrosium , Thomam Anselmum exposuisse , & tunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum . That Ambrose , Thomas , Anselm so expounded it , and this Suarez calls the literal sense .

Melancthon in his Commentary upon this place , saith thus , Therefore Paul answers , that the Marriages are not to be pulled asunder for their unlike Opinions of God , if the impious Person do not cast away the other . And for Comfort he adds , as a reason , the unbelieving Husband is sanctified by the believing Wife . Meat is sanctified : for that which is holy in use that is granted to Believers of God , things prohibited under the Law , as Swines Flesh , and a Woman in her Pollution were called unclean . The Connexion of the Argument is this , If the use of Marriage should not please God , your Children would be Bastards , and so unclean : but your Children are not Bastards ; therefore the use of Marriage pleaseth God : and how Bastards were unclean in a peculiar matter , the Law shews , Deut. Thus far Melancthon . Camerarius gives the same sense , as Chamier observes .

Musculus in his Comment on the place , confesseth , that he had formerly abused this place against the Anabaptists .

Camera on the place saith [ For the unbelieving Husband hath been sanctified ] an unusual change of the Tense ; that is , sanctified in the lawful use of Marriage : for without this , saith he , it would be that their Children should be unclean , that is , infamous , and not legitimate ; who so are holy , ( that is , during the Marriage ) are without all blot of Ignominy .

Erasmus upon the place saith thus , Infants born of such Parents , as one being a Christian , the other not , are legitimately holy ; for the Conversion of either Husband or Wife , doth not dissolve the Marriage which was made when both were in Unbelief .

Nay , I find a very learned Divine to affirm the Ancients expounded this place no otherwise . None , saith he , that ever I met with , expound it of federal Holiness , till the Controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany arose .

And , Sir , since you are so ingenuous , as to confess in Pag. 25. that the unbelieving Husband is sanctified in respect of Conjugal Relation to the Wife in a way of Marriage , in which , so far you agree with these learned Men ; and this being so , how come you to assert 't is federal Holiness , that is said to be in the Children ?

What we say , it appears , is not a racking of the Scripture to maintain a private Opinion , therefore what you speak is not true ; and tho the word [ holy ] refers here to what we affirm with others , yet the Apostle speaks truly . Tho 't is granted the Children of Heathens born in lawful Wedlock , are no more Bastards than the Children of Christians : for if the Marriage were made void it would render their Children to be unclean , or base born . And what tho the Greek word doth signify in so many places you mention , spiritual Sanctification and Separation to God ? shew us where it signifies external relative federal Holiness in the New Testament . Yet , Mr. Tombs as one observes , the word is not bound up to that sense , as you seem to intimate ; for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is used for Castimoniam servo , as Stephanus in his Thesaurus observes out of Demosthenes ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , where a Priest of Bacchus speaks thus , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; I am holy and pure from the Comp●●● of Man : and the words 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , chaste , to be chaste , to make chaste , Chastity , coming from the same Root with 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 holy ; whether 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to reverence , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to admire , as Grammarians conceive , are used for Holiness very frequently , both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek Writers : So that what you say as to the Signification of the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , holy , that it cannot be taken for [ legitimate ] is fully cleared , and we justified from your unjust Accusation , viz. that we wrested the word to favour our private Opinion : neither are we out in our Logick , as you infer ; but now the Inference may be , that you are weak in your Greek . And to conclude ; But if it doth signify holy , as you say , why might not the Children of such as the Apostle speaks of , be said to be holy , as well as the Infidel of unbelieving Wife is said to be sanctified ? what is the difference between Holy and sanctified ?

CHAP. IV.

Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptism , taken from the constant and universal Practice of the Church in all Ages , which is Mr. Burkit 's last Argument , is fully answered , and Antiquity proved on our side .

YOur sixth and last Argument for Infant-Baptism , is this , viz.

That which has been the constant and immemorial Practice of the Church of God in all Ages of the World , is unquestionably an Ordinance of God , and agreeable to his Will. But Infants Initiation , or the Admission of Infants into the Jewish Church by Circumcision , and into the Christian Church by Baptism , has been the immemorial Practice of the Universal Church from the Days of Abraham to this day . Therefore it is undeniably an Ordinance of God , and agreeable to his Will.

Answ. 1. Though this Syllogism is not good , You forgot all Ages of the World in your Minor ; may be you thought of the Ages before Abraham's time . I mean true in Form , yet I shall pass that by , and give you a full Answer . But why do you confound things together , I mean , Initiation and Baptism ? as if no Children were initiated into the Jewish Church without Circumcision ; for 't is not so , the Females were initiated without Circumcision , or Baptism , or any other external Rite so far as we read of .

But as to Infants being admitted Members of the Jewish Church we deny nor , and all your Arguments from thence I have already answered ; your Business is to prove they were admitted into the Gospel-Church , and that by Baptism . The Church of Christ under the Gospel , is more Spiritual than that under the Law , I tell you again , 't is not National , not Members by Generation , but by Regeneration ; not those born of the Flesh , but those born of the Spirit .

And pray read what Reverend Dr. Owen hath said in his Catechism about Government , p. 106. Our Lord Jesus Christ ( saith he ) hath laid down as an Everlasting Rule , Dr. Owen , A Passage worth noting . That unless a Man be born again , he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God , John 3.3 . requiring Regeneration as an indispensable Condition in a Member of his Church , a Subject of his Kingdom ; for his Temple is now built of living Stones , 1 Pet. 2.5 . Men spiritual , and savingly quickned from their Death in Sin , and by the Holy Ghost , ( whereof they are Partakers ) made a meet Habitation for God , Ephes. 2.21 , 22. 1 Cor. 3.16 , 2 Cor. 6.16 . which vital Supplies from Christ its Head , encreaseth in Faith and Holiness , edifying it self in Love .

Dr. Taylor Libert . Proph. p. 242. And ( saith Dr. Taylor ) they that baptize Children , make Baptism to be wholly an outward Duty , a Work of the Law , a carnal Ordinance ; it makes us adhere to the Letter , without regard of the Spirit , to be satisfied with Shadows , to return to Bondage , to relinquish the Mysteriousness , the Substance and Spirituality of the Gospel ; which Argument is of so much the more consideration , because under the Spiritual Covenant or Gospel of Grace , if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol , ( which it does , when the Symbols are signations of Grace , as the Sacraments are ) yet it always accompanies it , but never follows in order of Time . And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture . — The Lord open your Eyes , Sir , I am perswaded you speak as you believe .

But to proceed ;

You come , in pag. 26. to the Gospel-Church . ( 1. ) From the Command of Christ . ( 2. ) From the Practice of the Apostles . ( 3. ) From the constant usage of the Primitive Church after the Apostles .

1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Christian Church , you say , appears from our Saviour's express Command in the words of the Commission , Mat. 28.19 . Go , disciple all Nations , baptizing them ; that is , go and proselyte all the Gentile Nations , without distinction of Country , Sex , or Age whatsoever , make the Gospel-Church as large as you can .

Answ. 1. Who is so blind as he who is not willing to see ? It is evident to all Men who understand what they read , that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commission , but such only who are first made Disciples , ( as I have proved ) or as St. Mark renders it , such who believed . And that 't is so , I have already proved ;

( 1. ) From the Practice of Christ , John 4.1 . he first made Disciples , and then baptized them .

( 2. ) From the Practice of the Apostles , who always required Faith and Repentance of such , they by virtue of their Commission , did baptize , as Acts 2.37 . & 8.27 . & 10.47 .

( 3. ) From the Nature of the Ordinance it self , it being a sign of that inward Grace the Person baptized ought to have .

( 4. ) From the Nature of the Gospel-Church , it being only built up of living Stones , and to be no larger than Christ appointed it .

But ( say you , pag. 27. ) doubtless had our Saviour here intended the exclusion of Infants out of the Visible Church , he would have acquainted her with this Alteration , Christ being faithful to him that appointed him , as was Moses in all his House , Heb. 3.2 .

Answ. I must retort it back upon you with much better Reason : Doubtless , say I , had our Saviour intended the admission of Infants , he would at this time have acquainted his Disciples , ( and so us ) that it was his Will they should be received , since , as you well say , he was so faithful , and the rather , because he commanded his Disciples to receive into his Church such who were taught or made Disciples . When he commanded Abraham to circumcise his Male-Infants , Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumcise his Females , though he received no Negative Law in the case . What is not commanded , I say again , is forbid , especially in all Instituted Worship , or else whither shall we run ?

Thus your first Proof is gone , having nothing in it ..

2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Christian Church ( you say ) from the Practice of the Apostles , who baptized whole Families , i. e. Lydia and her Houshold , Acts 16.15 . the Jaylor and all his , &c.

Answ. 1. If there were no Families or Housholds but in which there are some Infants , you might have some pretence for what you infer from hence ; but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age ; There are many whole Housholds in which there are no Infants . and this being so , what certain Conclusion or Consequence can be drawn from hence ?

2. Besides , you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche , a part is put for the whole , as Isa. 7.2 , 5 , 8 , 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Israel : 'T is said , All Jerusalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan . In 1 Sam. 1.21 , 22. the Text saith expresly , The Man Elkanah , and all his House , went up to offer unto the Lord ; yet in the next Verse 't is as expresly said , That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up ; and yet 't is said , all his House went up .

3. As touching the Jaylor's House , 't is positively said , Paul preached to him , and to all that were in his House , ( do you think he preached to his Infants , if he had any ) ? And to put the Matter out of doubt , 't is said , He rejoiced , believing in God with all his House ; as well as 't is said , He was baptized , and all his .

4. And as touching Lydia , we still say 't is uncertain whether she was a Maid , Widow , or Wife ; but if she was married , and had Children , 't is very unlikely ( if Babes ) that they were at that time with her , because she was far from her proper Dwelling , nay many Miles from it , for she was of the City Thyatira , Lydia was far from her own dwelling when she was baptized . vers. 14. but when Paul preached to her , she was at Philippi , where she was merchandizing , being a seller of Purple ; Can we suppose she carried her little Babes so far to Market ? Besides , those of her House were called Brethren , who were baptized with her , therefore sure Children cannot be here meant , vers. 40. Will you , Sir , build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from such uncertain Conclusions , when 't is uncertain whether she had Children or no ? or if she had , whether they were with her at that time or not ? Our denying of it , is as good as your affirming it ; yet 't is plain she had Servants , or some who are called her Houshold , therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28.

And thus it appears to all impartial Persons , that there is nothing in your second Proof touching the Practice of the Gospel-Church ; here 's no mention made of one Infant baptized , nor the least Colour of Reason to conclude there were in those Families .

A Negative is not to be proved , 't is unreasonable to desire it . But you in the next place put us upon searching the Scripture to prove a Negative , i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy ; you might as well bid us search and see if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread , or were not ordained an Elder or Pastor of a Church . How can we prove they did not make use of Honey or Oil in Baptism , which some of the Ancient Fathers used , as Mr. Perkins notes ; or Salt and Spittle , which Practice is still ( as I said before ) in the Romish Church ? Where is the extream Vnction forbid , Popish Rites not in the Negative forbid . or Auricular Confession , or to use Beads in Prayer , and a hundred more such Romish Popperies ? may these things be therefore done ? Because we read not they are forbid , I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden , Rev. 22. But we will repeat your Words to see the Strength of your Argument . Search the Scripture , and produce me , say you , one Instance if you can , from the time St. John the Baptist , to the Death of St. John the Evangelist , which was more than threescore Years , during which time many thousands of Infants were grown up to Maturity , and make it appear they were not baptized in their Infancy , or that their Baptism was deferred till riper Years ; or that there is any Divine Command for the delaying the Baptism of Children of Christian Parents until they are grown up , and I will frankly yield the Cause . Bravely spoken !

Answ. I must retort this Argument back again upon you also , and shew 't is a great Argument against Infant-Baptism , and not for it . For , say I , let it be considered that since there was such a long Space of time as 60 Years , and much longer , between John Baptist and the Death of John the beloved Disciple , or John the Evangelist , Multitude of Infants born to baptized Believers in the Gospel-Days , yet we read of none of them on their Parents Faith were baptized . during which time many thousands of Infants were born of baptized Believers , both Jews and Gentiles . Now Reader , pray observe Mr. Burkit says in the Gospel-Day , and when our Saviour sent his Disciples first to preach , they were to teach or make Disciples of those they baptized ; but upon the Parents believing and being baptized , he says , their Children were admitted to Baptism also . Now say I , since many Parents thus taught and baptized , had Multitudes of Infants born to them ; How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized ? no not from the time of John Baptist , to the Death of John the Evangelist ? Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized , that God would not have left some account of it , to put the matter out of doubt , especially since it was never taught doctrinally , or commanded ? certainly , it could not stand consistent with the Care , Wisdom and Faithfulness of Jesus Christ , to have hid and concealed such a Practice , had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized . But since the Scripture is silent in it , we may assure our selves 't is not the Will of God Infants should be baptized . Also if those who were to be baptized , were first to be taught , were first to repent and believe ; then it follows clearly that Baptism must be deferred till Children were of ripe Years , and able so to do .

We come to what you say in pag. 28. where you tell us of a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism in the Churches after the Apostles time .

Answ. And so you may if you pass the first 2 or 3 hundred Years after Christ ; and many Errors besides which crept amain into the Churches . But pray remember , Sir , now you are without Book , you are forced to quit the Holy ▪ Bible , that sacred History , and great Charter of the Church : and therefore all your Proof out of humane History , which may be true , or may not be true , signifies just nothing . But you had best take heed lest we carry the Cause against you here too , i. e. for the first Centuries ; we will examine your Authors and humane Testimonies .

The first is Vossius , a later Writer , I know not but you may have Ireneus and St. Cyprian , out of him : I do confess Ireneus lived not above 200 Years after Christ , or in the second Century . Thus you and others cite him , viz. Omnes venit Christus per semetipsum salvare , omnes qui per eum renascuntur ad Deum Infantes & parvulos juniores & seniores . In English thus , Jesus Christ came to save all by himself , all who by him are born again unto God , Infants and little ones , Young and Old .

Mr. Burkit's Proof of Infant-Baptism from Ireneus , is by uncertain Consequence . Answ. Reader , pray observe here is not a word of one Infant baptized , but Mr. Burkit infers it from his Words ; so that we have nothing but Consequence yet , neither from God's Word , nor the Words of Man . Christ no doubt came to save some of all sorts of Men ; and who doubts but he came to save Infants and little ones , young and old ? But why must those Words , who are born again , be applied to Infant-Baptism .

The Scope of Ireneus in that Chapter is to refute the Grosticks , who said that Christ did not exceed one and thirty Years of Age ; against whom Ireneus alledged that Christ lived in every Age , of Infancy , Youth , Old and Age ; that by his Age and Example , he might sanctify every Age. So that here Ireneus speaks not of being born again by Baptism : for he saith , Omnes inquam qui per eum renascuntur in Deum ; i. e. I say all which are born again by him to God , i. e. by Christ ; not as if he had baptized Infants , but because he , ( i. e. Christ ) was an Infant , that by the Example or Vertue of his Age , he might sanctify Infants , as the whole Discourse in Latin plainly shews , viz. Magister ergo existens , Magistri quoque habebat aetatem , non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem , neque solvens suam legem in se humani generis , sed omnem aetatem sanctificans per illam , &c.

2. As to Cyprian , he lived , as I find it in History , about 248 , or 300 Years after Christ : and should I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time , he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptism : yet we have Cyprian against Cyprian . It is true , as far as I can gather , in his time Infant-Baptism was first introduced , without any Ground or Warrant from Christ , and it was as strongly opposed , which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it .

3. The third humane Authority you bring is that cursed Decree of the Milevetan Council , Some say this Council ordained it first . that all who denied Infant-Baptism , should be Anathema , accursed . If you come but a little lower , you have Proof enough in the Popish Councils , Decrees and Canons . But 't is to be observed , that those Fathers pleaded for Infant-Baptism , as that which took away Original Sin , and gave Children the Eucharist too ; in the first Sacrament abusing that Text , John 3.5 . and in the other , that in John 6.53 . These are all your humane Proofs from the Churches after the Primitive Apostolical Days , which you bring ; and I doubt not but to give you better and more Authentick Authority from some of the ancient Fathers against Infant-Baptism , than you have brought for it , and some of them nearer the Apostles Days too . The first is Justin Martyr , though I have him not , 150 Years after Christ yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxter's Saints Rest , Cap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God , after that we are renewed through Christ ; those amongst us that are instructed in the Faith , The Fathers that writ against Infant-Baptism . and believe that which we teach them is true , being willing to live according to the same , we do admonish to fast and pray for Forgiveness of Sins , and we also pray with them : And when they are brought by us into the Water , and there , as we were new born , are they also by new Birth renewed ; and then in calling upon God the Father , the Lord Jesus Christ , and the Holy Spirit , they are washed in Water , &c.

This Food we call the Eucharist , to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine , being washed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remission of Sins , and so liveth as Christ hath taught ; and this ( saith Mr. Baxter ) is , you see , no new way . 'T is said Justin Martyr was converted about 30 Years after the Apostle John : and by the Order then used in the Church , it appears there was no Infant-Baptism thought of .

Walaf . Strabo . Eccl. Hist. c. 16. Vicecom. l. 1. c. 30. Walafrid Strabo , as I find him cited by a great Historian , says , That there was no Children , but aged understanding Persons , baptized in this Age ; that is to say , in the 2 d Century . Walafrid Strabo , Eccl. Hist. c. 26. Vicecom. l. 1. c. 30.

Tertullian in his Book of Baptism , speaking of that Text , No Infant-Baptism in the second Century . Tertul. in his Book of Baptism , cap. 18. Tertul. lived 200 Years after Christ . Suffer little Children to come unto me , saith , Indeed the Lord said , do not hinder them to come unto me : Let them come therefore while they grow to Years , and while come let them be taught , let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ ; why doth innocent Age hasten to the Remission of Sins ? Men will deal more warily in worldly Affairs : So that they who are not trusted with an earthly Inheritance , are trusted with an heavenly one : Let them ask for Salvation , that thou mayst appear to have given it to him .

Dr. Taylor saith thus , Dr. Taylor , Lib. Proph. p. 237. The Truth of the Business is , as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the Susception of it ; so the necessity of Pedo-Baptism was not determined in the Church , till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council , a Provincial in Africa , never till then . I grant , saith he , it was practised in Africa before that time , and they or some of them thought well of it : And tho that is no Argument for us to think so ; yet none of them ever pretend it to be necessary , nor to have been a Precept of the Gospel . St. Austin was the first that ever preached it to be necessary , and it was in his Heat and Anger against Pelagius . Thus Dr. Taylor .

Ignatius in his Discourse about Baptism , asserts , Ignatius . That it ought to be accompanied with Faith , Love and Patience , after preaching . H. Montanus , p. 45. and Jacob Dubois , p. 16 , to 22. and Dutch Martyrology , where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralensis , to them of Philadelphia .

Dr. Taylor saith , Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive against Popery , p. 118. in his Disswasive against Popery , pag. 118. printed 1667. one of his last Pieces , thus , viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants , relies but upon two Witnesses , Origen and Austin ; and the latter having it from the former , it lies upon a single Testimony , which , saith he , is a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apostolical : He is the first that spoke of it , but Tertullian that was before him , seems to speak against it , which he would not have done , if it had been an Apostolical Tradition ; and that it was not so , is but too certain , if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives , who says , Ludovicus Vives . That anciently none were baptized but Persons of riper Age.

And as touching Origen's Works , and many more of the Ancient Fathers , there is great cause to doubt about them , because , as Mr. Perkins notes , Perkins's Prepar . of the Probl. p. 491. no Greek Copies thereof are extant ; and many other Books said to be written by such and such Fathers , are spurious , and never wrote by them . See Perkins .

Great Basil in his Book of Bapt. cap. 12. Great Basil in his Book of the Holy Spirit , Chap. 12. saith , Faith and Baptism are the two Means of Salvation inseparably cleaving together ; for Faith is perfected by Baptism , but Baptism is founded by Faith ; and by the same Names both things are fulfilled : for as we believe in the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit , so also we are Baptized in the Name of the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit ; and indeed there goeth before , a Confession leading us unto Salvation ; but Baptism followeth , sealing our Confession and Covenant .

The same Churches Teacher , ( saith the Learned Dr. Du-Veil ) in his third Book against Eunomius , speaketh thus , viz. Baptism is the Seal of Faith , Faith is the Confession of the Godhead ; it is necessary we should first believe , and then be sealed in Baptism . Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278.

Zonaras . Zonaras saith , The Babe will then need Baptism , when it can chuse it .

Greg. Nazianzen . Gregory Nazianzen , in his 4 th Oration , saith Dr. Du Veil , Of those who die without Baptism , gives us an Instance in those to whom Baptism was not admitted by reason of Infancy . And the same Nazianzen , though he was a Bishop's Son , being a long time bred up under his Father's Care , was not ( saith the said Doctor ) baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner ( saith he ) Basil the Great , that was born of devout Parents , and instructed from his Childhood , was not baptized until a Man , p. 280. Also saith John of Antioch , called afterwards Chrysostom , was born of Christian Parents , as the truer Opinion is , tutored by the famous Bishop Meletius , was not yet baptized till he was one and twenty Years of Age.

Hierom , also Ambrose and Austin , who were born of Christian Parents , and consecrated to Christian Discipline , even from their Childhood , were not baptized before thirty Years of Age , as Dr. Taylor Bishop of Down asserts , in his 12 th Section of the Life of Christ .

Now , Sir , here are Examples enough that do prove , in the Primitive Times , Children of Baptized Believers were not baptized , but had their Baptism delayed till they themselves believed , and gave an account of their Faith . Had it been the constant Custom of the Godly to baptize Infants , would not these , think you , have been in their Infancy baptized ?

Grotius ( as I find him quoted by Dr. Duveil ' ) saith , Grotius's Notes on the Gospel Dr. Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 282. The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants . See Grotius his Notes on the Gospel .

Nay ( saith the same great and Learned Writer ) it doth most plainly appear , by the right of baptizing used in the Romish Church , for Baptism is to be asked before the Person to be baptized do enter into the Church ; which the Surety does in the Infant 's Name ; a clear distinct Confession of Faith is required , which the same Surety rehearseth in the Infant 's Name , i. e. A renouncing of the World , its Pomps , the Flesh and the Devil . We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church-Catechism came . But this is a clear Argument , saith the Doctor , to prove of old the Persons who were to be baptized , asked themselves Baptism in their own Names , of their own choice , and profess their own Faith .

In the Neocesarean Council it was framed thus ; Anno 311. Canon 6. As to those who are big with Child , they ought to be baptized when they will ; for in this Sacrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth , and that which shall be brought forth from her Womb , because in that Confession , the Liberty of every one's Choice is declared .

Whence we may infer , 1. That in that Age there seemed to be that aversness from baptizing Children , that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptism , lest it should be thought that the Child was baptized with them .

2. That in those Times , in the Confession of Faith , in the Death , Burial , and Resurrection of Christ , which was done in a publick and solemn manner in their Baptism , a liberty of Choice and Consent was required as preparatory to it : for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb , to declare this Choice and Consent , is the reason why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother .

3. That it was then judged necessary to have the Consent and Choice of those who were to be baptized .

Dr. Du-Veil citing the same Synod on this Passage , Dr. Du-Veil , on Acts cap. 8. p. 279. ( viz. That concerning the Baptism of a Woman with Child , that her Baptism concerns not her Child , for every one is to give a demonstration of his own Faith and Confession ) saith , — However the Interpreters draw it to another purpose , it does appear , that the Question was made of a Woman big with Child , because it did seem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother ; which notwithstanding ought not be used , nor to be baptized , except of its own proper Election and Profession .

Dr. Barlow late Bishop of Lincoln , in his Letter to Mr. T. saith , I believe and know that there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-baptism , nor any just Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Christ . Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom ; and Nazianzen a good while after dislikes it : Sure I am ( saith he ) that in the Primitive Times they were Catechumeni , then Illuminati or Baptizati , and that not only Pagans , and Children of Pagans converted , but Children of Christian Parents . The truth is , I do believe Pedo-Baptism , how or by whom I know not , came into the World in the second Century ; and in the Third and Fourth began to be practised , though not generally , and defended as lawful from the Text , John 3.5 . Grosly misunderstanding upon the like mistake , John 6.53 . they did , for many Centuries , both in the Greek and Latin Church , communicate Infants , and give them the Lord's Supper ; and I confess they might do both , as well as either , &c. Thus Bishop Barlow .

Curcaeleus saith , Curcaeleus Institut. l. 16. c. 1. Poedobaptismus duobus primis à Christo nato saeculis suit in cognitus , &c. Pedo-baptism was unknown in the two first Ages after Christ , but in the Third and Fourth it was approved of by a few , in the Fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received . And therefore ( as afterwards he saith ) this Rite is indeed observed by us as an ancient Custom , but not as an Apostolical Tradition .

The same Learned Author , De peccato Originis , Numb. 50. saith , Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepisse ante tertium à Christo nato saeculum , &c. That the custom of baptizing Infants did not begin till the third Age after Christ , but in the two former no foot-steps of it appear . And afterwards saith , Sine ipsius [ Christi ] mandato introducta est ; It was introduced without the Command of Christ . Athanasius in Serm. 3. contra Arianus .

Athanasius in Sermone 3. contra Arianos , saith , Our Saviour did not slightly command to baptize , but first of all said , Teach , and then Baptize , that true Faith might come by Teaching , and Baptism be perfected by Faith .

Haimo , Doctrina Baptismus praecedere decet . Haimo in Postilla upon the Text , Go teach all Nations , Fol. 278. In this place ( saith he ) is set down a Rule rightly how to baptize ; that is , that Teaching should go before Baptism ; for he saith , Teach all Nations ; and then he saith , and baptize them ; for he that is to be baptized , must be before instructed , that he first learn to believe that which in Baptism he shall receive : for as Faith without Works is dead , so Works when they are not of Faith , are nothing worth .

Apostoli jubentur prius docere , baptizare . Super 19 cap. Act. ●●dem in Annotationibus in Mar. The Apostles were commanded , first to teach , and then to baptize : The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledg of the Truth , but Christians must learn to know them first .

Beda ; All those that came to the Apostles to be baptized , were instructed and taught , concerning the Sacrament of Baptism , then they received the holy Administration thereof .

Inde cretis de consecrat. distinct. 4. cap. Antebap . Rabanus . The Catechism , which is the Doctrine of Faith , must go before Baptism , to the intent that he that is to be baptized , ( i. e. Catech●●●nus ) may first learn the Mysteries of Faith .

Arnobius . Thou art not first ( saith he ) baptized , Arnob. on Psal. 146. and then beginnest to effect and embrace the Faith ; but when thou art to be baptized , thou signifiest unto the Priest what thy Desire is , and makest thy Confession with thy Mouth .

Jerom. 400. Jerom upon Matth. saith , The Lord commanded his Apostles , that they should first instruct and teach all Nations , and afterwards should baptize those that were instructed into the Mysteries of the Faith ; for it cannot be , ( saith he ) that the Body should receive the Sacrament of Baptism , till the Soul have received the true Faith .

Sir , What think you now of the Testimony of the Ancient Fathers , and of the Practice of the Churches after the Apostles days ? Sure the Reader must needs conclude we have it here too , and you must yield whether you will or no , and give up the Controversy .

But to proceed ;

Your first Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism in the days after the Apostles ( in pag. 30 , 31. ) is this , Mr. Burkit's first Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism in the days after the Apostles . viz. Because that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority .

Answ. This signifies nothing , for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptism from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes , so they changed Imposition of Hands ( which I own to be a Principle of Christ's Doctrine , Heb. 6.12 . ) to such young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Christian Faith : But clear it is , in the Primitive Apostolical Times , none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of Laying on of Hands , as Acts 8.14 . & 19.6 . witnesses .

You do well to acknowledg , in the same 29 th Page , That anciently there were such called Catechumeni , Persons taught or instructed , and afterwards baptized .

You say indeed that there were two sorts , the last you bring for your purpose ; but I know not where you have your Testimony , and therefore shall pass it by .

So much to your first Demonstration from the 〈◊〉 Fathers .

Your Second to prove Infant-Baptism is this , Mr. Burkit's 2d Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism . viz. Because ( say you ) Infants in the Primitive Times were admitted to the Lord's Supper , therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptism .

Answ. And they had , say I , as much ground , as Dr. Taylor says , for the one as for the other ; and there is the same Parity of Reason to conclude , as they err'd in the one , so they did in the other .

Why do you not from hence give Infants the Lord's Supper ? the reason you give I have before proved insignificant .

Mr. Burkit's third Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism . As to your third Demonstration , it is not denied her that Infant-Baptism was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century ; with many other Fopperies , but that does you no Kindness ; the Church was adulterated from the true Apostolical Faith and Practice in many respects in those and after Times downward .

Mr. Burkit's fourth Demonstration to prove Infant-Baptism . Your fourth Demonstration is this , viz. Pag. 33. If it was a gross Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptism , then they in suffering such an Error to pass uncensured and uncondemned , were guilty of the greatest Impiety , &c.

Answ. What then ? I ask you , whether you do not believe for several Centuries those Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without censuring or condemning it , were not guilty also of as great Impurity ? Besides , did not the same Fathers hold other Errors ? see Mr. Perkin's Demonst. of the Problem , pag. 488. these are his words , viz. And whereas some Fathers , viz. Ireneus , Justin , Clement , Tertullian , held that the Law of Nature had Power to save the Gentiles without Christ . And again he saith , The Fathers have Errors , yea , and that sometimes gross ones . Doth not History tell us the Fathers used other Rites also , and that in Baptism ? See Perkins , p. 549. The Fathers , saith he , used some other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted , as kissing of the Child which was baptized , in Cyprian , l. 3. ep. 8. use of Milk and Hony , use of Milk and Wine . Hierom. in Isa. cap. 55. It was an use for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the baptized , and the Party baptized used to exufflate the Devil , whom he renounced . What Credit is to be given to such Fathers ? They gave the Eucharist to Children likewise .

You say the Church of England is for Infant-Baptism , Article 27. also the French , Dutch , Bohemian , Helvetian Churches : What of all this ? why did you not put in the Church of Rome with them ? 't is clear the Church of the Hebrews , The Gospel-Churches did not own Infant-Baptism . a Church at Rome in the Apostles days , the Church of the Corinthians , Galatians , Philippians , Ephesians , Colossians , Sardis , Smyrna , Pergamus , Philadelphia and Laodicea , owned it not . We must go to the Fountain , and not to the muddy Stream , to drink pure Water . From the beginning it was not so .

But , say you , Mr. Burkit's Argument for Pedo-baptism , from its long continuance in the World , answered . if now the Anabaptists can believe that Almighty God has suffered all his Churches Ancient and Modern , and that in all parts of the World to fall into one and the same destroying Practice . They have a Power which I shall never envy , namely , of believing what they please , pag. 34.

Answ. 1. You take that for granted which you prove not , viz. That all these Churches who hold Infant-Baptism are true Churches of Christ . Sir , I must tell you , we have not such a Power of Faith as to believe that .

2. Doth not the Apostle declare , 2 Thess. 2.3 . that a general Apostacy from the true Apostolical Faith and Doctrine would after his days ensue ? And hath not the Church of Rome , that Mother of Harlots , made all the Earth drunk with her Cup for near 1200 Years , or more , and corrupted all those Churches , more or less , with her poisonous Errors and false Doctrines , Rites and Ceremonies ; and yet Almighty God hath suffered her for so long a time ? and many other Errors among Protestants .

M. Tomb' s Anti-pedo-baptism , p. 757 , 758. 3. See Mr. Tombs his Answer to this . For if the whole Church might err ( saith he ) in one Age , it may also in all Ages , collectively considered , the Promises being no more to the Church in all Ages , collectively considered , than in each Age distributively considered , nor any means given to them after the Apostles , collectively considered , to keep them from Error , than to each distributively : yea the Churches nearer the Apostles had more means to keep them from Error than other Ages , yet they err'd in Doctrine and Discipline , as many Writers shew . As for the Promise , Mat. 16.18 . it is not true of the whole Church visible , the Gates of Hell have and do prevail against her so ; but of the invisible ; and yet the Promise is not to the invisible , that they shall not err , but they shall not err finally to Damnation , which if they did , then the Gates of Hell should indeed prevail against them .

4. Your Church , and all those other Churches mentioned by you , No Church infallible . have other Errors besides this , and yet God suffers you and them to continue at present in those Errors , for Reasons best known to himself ; nor do we say we are without any Errors , or any Church on Earth , we pretend to no Infallibility : But in the Point of Baptism we are right by your own Concession , I mean , as to the baptizing of Believers .

Infant-Baptism , tho a great Error , yet not a damning Error ▪ 5. And lastly , We do not say this Error of yours about Infant-Baptism , is a Soul-damning Error , God forbid ; tho it doth tend to destroy too far the nature of the holy Sacrament of Baptism , and so also a right Gospel-Church according to the Apostolical Constitution , making your Church National , when the Gospel-Churches planted by Christ and his Apostles were Congregational .

So much in Answer to all your Arguments for the lawfulness of Infants-Baptism .

CHAP. VI.

Shewing Infant-Baptism is of no use at all , in opposition to what Mr. Burkit affirms , but contrariwise sinful , i. e. it being an Error , hath also many evil and bad Consequences attending it . With some Reflections on Infants Baptismal Covenant , as asserted by Mr. Dan. Williams , as well as this Author Mr. Burkit .

YOU say , the Anabaptists assert Infant-Baptism is unlawful , because 't is unuseful , Children understanding no more than Brute Beasts what is done to them ; therefore you may as warrantably baptize a Beast as a Child , Pag. 34. And then say , pag. 35. That Infant-Baptism is greatly advantagious as an Act of Initiation into the visible Church .

Answ. 1. You have no Warrant to baptize a Child ; but who of the Anabaptists ever said such words as you here mention ? dare you accuse your Neighbours falsly ? 't is a bad and unseemly Comparison . But 't is no marvel we meet with it from such as you who are prejudiced against us : some of your Brethren formerly charged us with baptizing naked . God will judg between us and you in his due time .

Answ. 2. You should have proved it an Institution , or an Appointment of Christ ; but that you have not yet done , nor never will . True , were Infant-Baptism ordained by Christ to be an initiating Rite into the Gospel-Church , doubtless it had been useful .

3. But what good doth your baptizing them do them ? what Priviledge of the Church do you allow them ? I know not one ; if indeed it did adopt the Child to be a Son or Daughter of God , you say something ; or if God had appointed it to be a Sign or Token of it ; but this he hath not done , and 't is not in your Power to do it .

1. But you say they have hereby Interest in all the Prayers put up in and by the Church .

Answ. If you so pray for them , viz. as Members of the visible Church , what ground have you to believe God will hear you , since he never made them Members thereof ? Besides , the Church prays for all her Members , and for the Children of them who are Members , that they in due time may become Members , and have equal Right in all the Blessings of God's Church , if it be his Will to bring them in . But what ground have you to deny any who are true Members of the Church , the Eucharist , or Lord's Supper , or any other Priviledge whatsoerver ?

2. You say , by virtue of this Admission they have an Interest in that special Providential Care which Christ exercises over his Church .

Answ. No doubt but Christ exercises his Care over poor Infants , but not the more , assure your self , for your baptizing them without his Authority .

3. You say , hereby the Church stands nearer to them than to the rest of Mankind , &c. mentioning that Text in Isa. 54.13 . Thy Children shall be all taught of God , &c.

Answ. You cannot bring Infants to stand nearer to God , nor his People by any Act done by you , without a Rule left by Christ . Besides , that Text in Isa. 54.13 . does not refer to Infants , not to our Children as such , but to those godly Christians who being born in Sion , are indeed truly her Children .

4. ' You say it is an Act of Dedication , &c.

Answ. Who commanded you this way to dedicate your Children to the Lord ? Will you teach him Wisdom ? or , are you wiser than he ? doth he require you so to do ?

5. You say , 't is greatly advantagious to them , as 't is an Act of Restipulation ; that is , say you , a Child at Baptism enters into Covenant with God .

Answ. Poor Babes ! 't is without their Knowledg or Consent , or God's Appointment , which is worst of all , or being able to perform it then , nor many of them ever after , God never giving them his Grace so to do .

But wo to them , if they do not perform this Covenant , if you and Mr. Daniel Williams say true ; Mr. Dan. Williams in his Book called , The Vanity of Youth , p. 131. he says in his Catechism as followeth , That those Children who perform not their Baptismal Covenant do , 1. Reject Christ . 2. They renounce the Blessings of Gospel . 3. That 't is Rebellion against their Maker . 4. That 't is Ingratitude and Perjury to their Redeemer . 5. Gross Injustice to their Parents . 6. That 't is self-killing Cruelty to their own Souls . 7. He saith , 't is a damning Sin , nay , it 's the damning Sin , and Heart of all Sin .

Is this indeed the Love you Pedo-baptists have to your poor Infants ? What , bring them into such a Covenant , without their Knowledg or Consent , or God's Appointment , and then threaten them , if they break it , with Hell and Damnation , and what not !

Do you know they are all Elect Persons , and so such that God will in time call , give Grace to , and so change their evil and depraved Natures ? If not , do you not heap up a Multitude of Evils upon them , and hereby make their Condition worse , or aggravate their Sin and Misery for ever ?

I know not whether you be of this Pedo-Baptist's Mind , or not ; but I think this Doctrine does not fit a Christian Catechism : if God had required Infants to enter into such a Covenant , some reason he might have thus to speak : Mr. Williams worthy of blame as well as Mr. Burkit . But since he nor you either can prove it , this to me seems a daring boldness in a Minister of the Gospel to assert , ( who I hope is a good Man ) . God I grant expects , that all true Believers should perform their Baptismal Covenant , but then know they are required of God actually to enter into it ; they freely of their own choice enter into it , they are such God hath given habitual Grace to perform it . And he hath promised them also a further supply of Grace to enable them so to do ; but nothing of this you can prove , in Infants covenanting in their Baptism , ( but more of this by and by ) ; nor will their Sureties help the matter , for if they cannot perform those things they promise for themselves , how should they be able to do it for others ? besides 't is an humane Invention , and not appointed of God , as Mr. Perkins himself confesseth .

But truly Mr. Williams's Doctrin afflicts my Mind : Strange ! is this Sin the damning Sin ? I thought the damning Sin ( by way of eminency ) had been the Sin of Unbelief : Suppose your own Child should not believe he is bound by virtue of that baptismal Covenant you brought him into , but when grown up , disowns that ( you call ) Baptism , &c. not believing it is a Truth of Christ , must he be damned ?

But to proceed ;

You having shewed the Advantages of Infant-Baptism , without giving one Scripture-Text to prove what you say is true ; you , in pag. 38. come to shew , that Baptism is more useful and beneficial to a Child in Infancy , than to omit it till riper Age ; Because no Infant-membership is capable of Hypocrisy , which Persons grown up are .

Answ. 1. Then give them the Lord's Supper also , for doubtless if they receive it , they will not eat and drink their own Damnation , as may be some , that have it given to them , do . I tremble at what you dare to say and write , in which you seem to arraign the Wisdom of the ever-blessed Jesus ; Hath he appointed Believers , or Adult Persons , who are gracious , to be baptized , and none else ? and do you say , the Ordinance better suits with ignorant Babes ? Should you dictate to your earthly Prince , would he allow it ? much less to contradict and correct him , as if your Wisdom was more than his .

2. You say , 'T is more advantagious to Infants , than those of riper Years ; as it is a pre-engagement upon them to resist Temptations .

Answ. You may after this rate bring them under an hundred Engagements and Covenants , nay , may be more plausible ones too , may you not ? When they know what they do , make them take a solemn Oath , or enter into Bonds , upon pain of severe Punishment , that they shall not yield to Temptations , and pretend 't is God's Law they should do so ; and if you can deceive their Judgments , they will dread as much ( nay , may be more ) the breaking those Oaths and Covenants , than this you bring them into , without any Authority from Jesus Christ .

3. You say , Baptism in Infancy is more advantagious than at riper Years , as it is an early Remedy against the Malady of Original Sin .

Answ. Speak ; Doth Baptism take away Original Sin , or free them of that Malady , or not ? You know , some of the Ancient Fathers were carried away with such a Dream ; how comes it to pass then , that that Contagion appears so soon , and to be as strong in your Children as in ours , who never were baptized at all ? But does not St. Peter tell you , ( 1. Pet. 3.20 . ) Baptism washes not away the Filth of the Flesh ? Or is not Original Pollution a Filth of the Flesh ? what Stuff is this you would force upon us , and the World ! We affirm Infants are no more capable of this Ordinance than any other . Why do you say of no Rite but this ? We challenge all the World , by God's Word , to prove they are capable of Baptism , any more than of the Lord's Supper .

4. You say , Baptism administred to Infants , has this Advantage , That it puts the Christian upon more bitter mourning for actual Sin , from the consideration of that shameful Perjury and wilful Apostacy that is found in such Persons Sin .

Answ. 1. I find you are one of Mr. Williams his Brethren , i.e. you are of his Belief it seems : but tremble at the thoughts of the Consequences of your Doctrine . The Danger of Infants Baptismal-Covenant laid open . Have not your Children , when grown up , enough Sins to mourn for and bewail before Almighty God , but you must bring them into a Covenant which you knew they would break when they come to riper Age ? and such is the pravity of human Nature , there is no avoiding of it without a supernatural Work of Grace ; their Burden is heavy enough , you need not add to it .

2. Is it not sad , that you should give cause to your Children to think they are guilty of Perjury ? when in truth they never were , nor of Apostacy from God upon that account : our first Apostacy was bad enough , you need not go about to make them guilty of another . Alas , their pretended Baptism never brought them one step nearer to God , than those Children are who never were baptized in their Infancy at all : where then is the Apostacy you speak of ?

3. You hereby bring them under a necessity of committing of the Sin of Perjury , and of Apostacy , at leastwise in your own conceit , and in theirs too , if they can believe what you say , and so to cause them to mourn for that , or those Sins most , which may be ( if all things were rightly considered ) are no Sins at all . I do not mean that any of their actual Transgressions may not be Sin ; but that they are not guilty of Perjury and Apostacy by breaking that you call their Baptismal Covenant : for if God brought them not into that Covenant , nor into any Covenant-relation with himself thereby , I cannot see how there should be such a Sting in the Tail of it , as you affirm and imagine ; and indeed , had they themselves , of their one accord and consent , entred into an unlawful or an unwarrantable Covenant , which they were no ways able to perform , it may be doubted whether it would be Perjury in them if they kept it not : besides , I hope they have not forsworn themselves , how then is it Perjury ?

4. Moreover , Parents , observe this well . I desire all those Parents who baptize their Children ; and you also , to consider , in the fear of God , the natural Tendency and Consequences of your bringing poor Babes into such a Covenant .

1. That you force them to enter into this Covenant without any Authority or Command from God : for I challenge you , and all Pedo-Baptists in the World , to prove God hath any-where , directly or indirectly , required any such thing at your Hands .

Pedo-Baptists say , Infants in their Baptismal-Covenant , promise Regeneration , Faith , &c. 2. Consider that 't is not only a Reformation of Life , or a bare refraining from the gross Acts of Sin , that you assert is comprehended in this Baptismal Covenant you cause Infants to enter into , but it is Regeneration it self , i. e. a change of Heart , and savingly to believe in Christ ; this you oblige your poor Babes to perform . Now what Arminianism is here fomented , if once you say or think they are capable to perform this Obligation ? but if they do not do it , woe be to them ?

Moreover , what guilt do you bring the poor Sureties under , unless they stand obliged no longer then the Child abides in Infancy ; and if so , what need of their Obligation at all , if you intend no more ?

3. Consider , you brought them into this Covenant without their Knowledg or Consent , they never subscribed to it , nor knew any thing of it , nor were they capable so to do .

4. Consider , whatever you think , that such is the pravity of their Natures , by means of our first Apostacy from God , or Original Sin , that they do and must of necessity break it , as I said before , unless God should by supernatural Grace change their Hearts and Natures , and remove the vicious Habits thereof , which you had not the least ground to believe he would do , or leastwise to all or the greatest part of them , God having made no such promise ; and by woful experience we daily see many or most of those Children , are never converted , but from the Womb go astray , and are guilty of almost of all manner of abominable Sins , and so live and die .

As to the Adult .

1. Consider , as I said before ;

( 1. ) That all Believers God himself doth require or command in his Word to enter into this Baptismal Covenant .

( 2. ) And they , before they enter into it , have a Principle of Divine Life infused into their Souls , or Grace implanted in their Hearts , having passed under the Work of Regeneration , being dead to Sin , ( of which Baptism is a lively Symbol ) or is , as your Church says , an outward Sign of an inward spiritual Grace . Not as Mr. Baxter observes , a Sign or Symbol of future , but of present Regeneration ; which is confirmed by what St. Paul teaches , Rom. 6.2 . How shall we that are dead to Sin , live any longer therein ? not , may be dead , but are dead , and so are buried with Christ in Baptism , vers. 3 , 4. If you say , all Adult Persons baptized are not converted , &c. I answer , They appear so to be , and as such , voluntarily enter into this Covenant : besides , God does not require them without Faith to do it . Baptism doth not only represent the Death and Burial of Christ , but also signifies our Death to Sin , or that blessed Work of Mortification of the Body of Sin and Death ; by which means Believers who enter into this Baptismal Covenant , are put into a gracious and meet capacity to perform that sacred Obligation ; but so are not Infants .

( 3. ) That every true Believer baptized , considers , ponders upon , and weighs with all seriousness and deliberation imaginable , the Nature of this Covenant before he signs it . And ,

( 4. ) That he doth it freely , voluntarily , and with his full liking , approbation and consent : neither of which do , nor can do those poor Infants you force to enter into this Covenant . These things considered , it appears , as it is a sinful Act in you to bring them into this Covenant ( since 't is done without Command or Authority from God ) so 't is cruelty also towards your own Babes , by making them to be come guilty of Perjury , and thereby damning ( as Mr. Williams says ) their own Souls .

( 5. ) Consider , every true Believer that is listed under Christ's Banner , by entring into this Baptismal Covenant , is by Christ compleatly armed , i. e. he hath the Christian Armor put upon him , Ephes. 6. he has the Breastplate of Righteousness , the Shield of Faith , and for an Helmet , the Hope of Salvation ; and the Word of God , like a Sword in his Hand , to cut down all his Enemies . Thus by the help of these Sacred Graces of the Spirit , he is enabled to fight against Sin , the World , the Flesh , and the Devil . But alas , you list your poor Babes into this War , and make them covenant and vow to forsake the Devil and all his Works , the Pomps and Vanities of this Wicked World , and all the sinful Lusts of the Flesh — but arm them not . Did Baptism confer Grace , and arm their Souls , it was something ; but who dares assert that ? or if he does , who will or can believe him ?

( 6. ) God hath also promised to assist , stand by , help and enable all Believers baptized , with further supplies of Grace ; nay , they being actually united to Christ , have his blessed Influences flowing to them , besides the Promises of God , the Death , Resurrection , and Intercession of Christ ; and the everlasting Covenant of Grace , which is ordered in all things , and sure , firmly secures all their Souls : But thus it is not with those poor Babes you bring into this Covenant ; you are like Pharaoh's Task-masters , command the making of Brick , but allow them no Straw .

4. Again , consider how hereby great part of the Nations are perjured : I will appeal to the Consciences of all thinking and understanding People , whether , according to your Principle and Practice , it is not so ; Mourn O England and lament , sad is thy Case ! If these Men speak right or truly , what a Multitude in thee have been made to enter into this Covenant , who never performed it ? O Perjured Nation ! Perjured People ! and Perjured Pastors ! for so are all thy debauched , drunken , swearing and unclean Teachers . Are not these perjured also ? Have they kept their Vow and Covenant ? Alas , Sir , instead of mourning for this Sin , we may conclude they never thought of it . But let them break off their Sins by Righteousness ; I mean , repent and leave those gross Acts of Wickedness , of which many , both Priest and People , are guilty , and get renewing Grace , and never let them fear this new devised Sin of Perjury . For if God's Word convinces of all Sins , and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury , this is no Perjury ; ( I mean the simple breaking of that Covenant , though those Sins by which they are said to break it , are horrid Treason and Rebellion against the God of Heaven , and provoke him to Wrath every Day . ) But God's Word doth convince of all Sins , and doth not convince of this sort of Perjury ; therefore it cannot be Perjury , as is affirmed . 'T is not this which is the Self-killing-Murder , the damning Sin : No , no ; but 't is their Unbelief and Contempt of God's Grace , or neglecting the great Salvation offered by Christ in the Gospel .

5. Baptism administred in Infancy hath ( you say ) this singular Advantage above that which is administred at viper Age , in that it gives the pious Parent a good ground of hope that his Children dying in Infancy , are certainly saved , it makes ( say you ) that Ordinance a Channel of Grace , &c.

Answ. 1. This is like the rest : But , Sir , by what Authority do you assert all these things ? You know what wonderful Vertue the Papists say is in many of their Popish Rites , Ceremonies and Relicks , i. e. in their crossing themselves , and in their Holy Water , especially in their Agnus Dei : but how do they prove it ? even as well as you do what you speak here upon this Account . And we have the same reason to believe them , as to believe you in what you speak without Proof or Authority from God's Word .

2. Pious Parent ! But alas , how few are there of that sort ? what hopes hath the impious prophane and ungodly Parent of the Salvation of his dying Children ? Mr. Burkit leaves impious Parents without hope of the Salvation of their dying Infants . But , Sir , I thought all the pious and believing or godly Parents Children , were born in Covenant with God ; and that the Parents Faith would have secured them , whether baptized or not . Were not the Jews Female Children saved ? they were not circumcised ; and were not their Male Infants saved , who died before the eighth Day ?

3. From what Scripture is it these pious , though ignorant and deceived Parents , may have hope that their Children that die in their Infancy shall be saved , and none but theirs , who are baptized or rather rantized ?

4. Will you make Baptism their Saviour ? can Baptism save them ? And is it so indeed ? is it then in the Power of Parents to save or damn their Children ? And how came Baptism to have such Power in it ? or who made that a Channel of Grace to dying Infants ? Do you not place that Vertue in an external Rite , that only belongs to the Blood of Christ , and sanctifying Grace of God's Spirit ? Perkins on Gal. cap. 3. p. 256. Mr. Perkins saith , That Baptism indeed saveth ; but saith he , that is not the Baptism of Water , but the Stipulation of a good Conscience by the Resurrection . Again he saith , The outward Baptism without the inward is no Mark of God's Child , but the Mark of the Fool that makes a Vow , and afterwards breaks it .

5. May not this Doctrine of yours clearly tend to scare and afright poor Parents with fear that all their Babes that die in their Mother's Wombs , or before baptized , are damned ? And O in what a sad Condition are all the Children of ungodly and impious Persons , whose little Babes you dare not , cannot baptize , if you are true to your own Principles ? But that Text may give us a better ground of hope a thousand times concerning the well-being of our dying Infants , where our Saviour saith , of such are the Kingdom of Heaven . And that which you mention , I shall go to him , he shall not return to me ; together with the infinite Mercy of God , through the Virtue of Christ's Blood , who can convey Help and Healing to dying Infants and Idiots in ways we know not of ; nor are we to trouble our selves about such secret things that are not revealed .

6. You say , The Practice of Infant-Baptism appears most beneficial ; because it prevents such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism , to the Blemish of Christianity .

Answ. Is it then a shameful Scandal to neglect a Tradition of Man ? ( for so I have proved Infant-Baptism to be ) Where is the Shame that ought to be in Christians , Greater Zeal shewed for the Traditions of Men than for Christ's Institutions . Micah 6.16 . that Christ's Laws and Precepts are neglected , and his precious Ordinance of Baptism exposed to Contempt and Shame , as it is by you and thousands more , whilst the Statutes of Omri are zealously kept and observed , as the Prophet of old complained ; I mean , humane Rites and Traditions , or Statutes ( like those of Omri , instituted by him and Jeroboam ) which the Wisdom of your Church , and many corrupt Churches have been zealous for to this Day .

And thus I have ran through and examined your fix Particulars , which you bring to prove the Usefulness of Infant-Baptism above the Baptism of Believers , which our blessed Saviour instituted : And now shall shew you further that Infant-Baptism is so far from being more useful than that of the Adult , that it is a dangerous Error , and therefore of no Use at all , but the contrary , viz. a very sinful thing .

Infant-Baptism no ways useful , but hurtful . 1. Reader , can that be useful , or any ways beneficial , which Christ never commanded or required to be done in his Name , but is unrighteously fathered upon him , to the utter making void his own Ordinance of baptizing Believers ?

2. Can that have any Usefulness in it , that brings Guilt upon the Parents in doing it , making them guilty of Will-Worship , or of a humane Tradition ?

3. Can that be useful that brings poor Babes into such a Covenant , which Christ never ordained for them to enter into ; and to which they never directly nor indirectly consented nor approved of ; and which they are utterly unable to keep ; and which giveth them no Strength to perform ; nor is there one promise of God made to assist or help them to do it ; and yet for not keeping of it they are charged with Perjury , with Self-murder , nay , with Hell and Damnation ?

4. Can that be of use to Infants , that basely beguiles and deceives them , causing them when grown up to think they were thereby made Christians , and become the Children of God , Members of Christ , and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven , nay , regenerated ; and from hence never look after any other Work of Grace nor Regeneration , but conclude all is well with them ?

5. Can that be a useful thing , which the doing of is a palpable Alteration of the Words of Christ's Commission , and so inverts that holy Order left by him for baptizing , who requires none to be baptized before they are first taught and made Disciples ?

6. Can that be of any Use to an Infant , which you , nor no Man else can prove from God's Word to have any Use and Blessing in it to them ?

7. Can an humane Rite or Tradition , think you , save poor Children , or a little Water sprinkled on the Face , wash away Original Sin ?

8. Can Water beget Children to Christ , or can that be useful to them , which they have only the bare Sign of , and not the thing signified , viz. the Sign of Regeneration , but not Regeneration it self ; a Sign of Grace , but not Grace it self ; you give them the Shell , but no Kernel ; the Name of Christian , but no Nature of a Christian ; making that you call Christ's Baptism , as Dr. Taylor saith , á Sign without Effect , and like the Figtree in the Gospel , full of Leaves , but no Fruit ?

9. Can that be useful that tends to make the Gospel-Church National , ( and confounds the Church and the World together ) which ought to be Congregational , a holy and separate People , like a Garden inclosed ?

10. Can Baptism be more useful to Infants than to adult Believers , notwithstanding the Scripture saith , that the Person baptized doth not only believe , but call upon the Name of the Lord , Acts 22.16 . can Infants do that ?

11. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers , and yet Baptism an Ordinance of the Soul's Marriage with Christ ? And is not that , as Mr. Baxter saith , a strange Marriage , where there is nothing signified of Consent ? And are Infants able so to do ?

12. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers , and yet Baptism called the Answer of a good Conscience ? Can a little Babe answer a good Conscience by being baptized in Obedience to Christ , and to shew forth his Death and Resurrection ?

13. Can Infant-Baptism be more useful than that of Believers ? Whereas the first has no Promise of God made unto it , and yet the other hath many , as Acts 2.36.37 , 38. Mark 16.16 .

14. Can that be a useful thing that frustrates the sacred and spiritual Ends of Baptism ? which we have shewed are many , but as administred to poor Babes , 't is rendred wholly of none Effect , and an insignificant thing .

Perkins on Gal. p. 265. Lastly ; Mr. Perkins hints that Baptism signifies two things : ( 1. ) Our Union with Christ : ( 2. ) Our Communion with him . Now how doth this appear in Infants as such , as it does in Believers ?

CHAP. VII .

Shewing that the Baptists are falsly called Anabaptists , they being as much against rebaptizing as Mr. Burkit , ( or any other Men or People whatsoever ) shewing that Infants who have only had a little Water sprinkled or poured on their Faces , &c. are not baptized , but rantized : Proving Baptism is Immersion , ( and without the Person 's Body is dipped or covered all over in the Water , he is not baptized ) from the literal genuine and proper Signification of the Greek Word Baptizo .

1. IN Page 42 , you say , That you will endeavour to satisfy such who were baptized ( as you call it ) in their Infancy , that they were rightly baptized .

2. And that such who have been once duly and rightly baptized , ought not to be rebaptized , or baptized again .

Answ. That which you say in the first Place we do utterly deny , though we readily grant you what you say against rebaptizing , for we are as much against it as you can be .

But to prove your first Proposition , you proceed to shew the several Requisites necessary to : denominate a Person rightly baptized .

1. The Person baptizing ought to be a lawful Minister , authorized and commissioned by Christ , and the Governors of his Church .

2. The Party baptized , you say , must be a Subject qualified for Baptism , &c.

3. That the Element made use of , must be Water .

4. It ought to be done before credible Witnesses .

5. Lastly , Baptism ought to be administred in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost .

Answ. 1. I grant all you say here , though how you can prove there were Witnesses by when Ananias baptized Saul , or when Philip baptized the Eunuch , I know not ; yet I believe 't is necessary there should be in all ordinary Cases credible Witnesses by .

2. But , Sir , how doth this comport with the Rantism of Infants ?

For , 1st . That they are not Subjects fitly qualified for Baptism , I have fully proved , and have detected your Argument concerning Baptism coming in the room of , or succeeding Circumcision .

2dly . I shall now prove your sprinkling or pouring Water on the Subject , either on the Face , or any part of the Body , is not baptizing but rantizing : Then answer you Allegations , Objections , base Reflections , and false Calumnies cast upon Mr. Tredwell , and indeed on the Baptists in general .

And in order to the effectual doing of this , take a Passage or two out of the ancient Fathers , &c. St. Gregory saith , Gregory l. 1. Ep. 7. That that is not said to be reiterated , which is not certainly demonstrated to have been rightly and duly done . And in another Place saith he , If there be an Offence taken at the Truth , it is much better that Offence be taken , than that the Truth should be deserted . The Custom of the Churches ought to submit to the Words of Christ , Dr. Du-Veil on Acts , p. 86. not the Words of Christ to be wrested to the Custom of the Church ; in regard the Words of Christ are the Foundation upon which all Customs are to be built . See the famous Dr. Du-Veil on the Acts.

Tertullian says , Whatsoever savours contrary to Truth is Heresy , Tertull. though it be an ancient Custom .

These Maxims , saith Du-Veil , Dr. Du-Veil on Acts , 2. p. 86. so agreeable to Reason , whosoever intends to follow , will never question but that they ought to be baptized , if they have not received that Baptism ordained by Christ , but only Rantism , that is , Sprinkling , substituted in its room by a vulgar Use , or rather Abuse .

Mr. Perkins saith , Perkins , Vol. 1. p. 74. if the external Form of Administration be observed , a Person baptized by an Heretick , must not be baptized again .

Nor is it to be doubted , saith that famous Divine , John Forbes , Instruct . Hist. n. 10. c. 14. n. 13. but that they are again to be baptized , who before have only received a vain Washing , and not the true Sacrament of Baptism .

Sir , To baptize a Person , a Believer , again , who was baptized before , we say is sinful and unlawful . But since yours is no Baptism , but meer Rantism , I need say no more to this ; and that 't is so , I shall first prove from the proper genuine and literal Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , baptiso ; that comes from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Scapula and Stephanus . to dip , signifies mergo , immergo , submergo , obruo , item tingo quod fit immergendo ; that is , to immerge , plunge under , over-whelm , as also to dip , which is done by plunging . We grant in a less proper or more remote Sense , because things that are said to be washed , are commonly dipped or plunged all over in Water , it is put for washing , Luke 11.38 . Heb. 9.10 . Mark 7.4 . You say , pag. 52 , as for the Derivative word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , sometimes it signifies to dip or plunge ; sometimes to wash or cleanse , citing ver. 9 , 10. Yet we say it no where signifies to sprinkle . You know the Greeks have another Word to express Sprinkling , viz. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , rantizo , as Heb. 9.19 . and sprinkled , ( 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) both the Book and the People ; 't is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ▪ So Heb. 9.13 . Sprinkling the Vnclean , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. 1 ▪ Pet. 1.2 . And sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ , 't is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The like in many other Places : And so that we dare modestly assert that no Greek Author of any Credit , whether Heathenish or Christian , has ever put Baptizing for Sprinkling , or used those Words promiscuously : for as in these Scriptures we have cited Heb. 9.13 , 19 , 21 , &c. 't is always translated Sprinkling : So there is not one Place in Scripture , wherein the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , rantizo , is rendred to baptize ; nor is there one Scripture wherein the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , baptizo , is rendred Sprinkling . And whereas you say , the word sometimes signifies Washing : We say , notwithstanding it does , yet 't is such a Washing as is by Dipping or Plunging , as I said before : Wilson . Thus Mr. Wilson in his Dictionary renders baptizo , derived from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , bapto , ringo , to dip or plunge into the Water : and signifies , saith he , primarily such a kind of washing as is used in Bucks where Linen is plunged or dip'd ; though in a remote Sense he hints it signifies other kind of Washing .

You say , Pag. 49. That we ought to distinguish betwixt that which is of the Essence of Baptism , and that which only is accidental in Baptism ; the Word and Element say you , are of the Essence of Baptism .

Answ. We say with you , that if Accidents , or meer Accessories be wanting in Baptism , yet there may be true Baptism notwithstanding ; but we assert that Dipping or Plunging belongs to the Thing , Act , or Essence of Baptism ; not an Accident , but so essential , that 't is no true Baptism if the Body is not dipped , or plung'd into the Water : therefore the Word and Element are not so the Essence of Baptism , unless there be so much Water used as to cover the Body all over in it ; Rantizing is Rantizing , and Baptizing is Baptizing , they are two different things , and the one will never be the other while the World stands . And tho you dare affirm , that the Child that is only Rantized , i. e. Sprinkled , is Baptized , yet you cannot prove it ; and altho you do assert it , and attempt to make it out , yet a multitude of learned Writers and Criticks in the Greek Tongue do fully contradict you .

Scapula and Stephens , Scapula . Stephens ▪ two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue as most we have , do tell you in their Lexicons , that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , signifies mergo , immergo , item tingo quod fit immergendo , inficere imbuere , viz. to dip , plunge , overwhelm , put under , cover over , to die in colour , which is done by plunging .

Grotius says it signifies to dip over Head and Ears . Grotius .

Pasor , an Immersion , Dipping or Submersion . Pasor .

Vossius says it implieth a washing the whole Body . Vossius .

Mincaeus in his Dictionary saith , Mincaeus . that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , is in the Latin Baptismus , in Dutch Doopsit or Doopen , Baptismus , or Baptism , to dive or duck in Water , and the same with the Hebrew , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tabal , which the Septuagint , or seventy Interpreters , render 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Baptiso , to dip . Casaubon . This Casaubon saith was the Rite of baptizing , that Persons were plunged into the Water , which the very word baptizo sufficiently demonstrates ; which as it does not extend so far as to sink down to the bottom to the hurt of the Person , so it is not to swim upon the Superficies — . Baptism ought to be administred by plunging the whole Body into the Water .

The late famous and most learned in all the Oriental Tongues , Dr. Du-Veil , in his literal Explanation of the Acts , Chap. 1.5 . saith , the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to dip , as if it were to dye Colour ; and any Dyer will tell you , if there is any small bit of Cloth not dipped , it is not dyed .

Leigh's Critic . Sacra . Leigh in his Critica Sacra saith , the native and proper Signification of the word is to dip into the Water , or plunge under Water , Mat. 3.6 . Acts 8.38 . for which also he quotes Casaubon , Bullinger , Zanchy , Spanhemius : he saith withal , that some would have it signify washing , which sense Erasmus , he saith , opposed , affirming that it was not otherwise so than by Consequence ; for the proper Signification was such a dipping , or plunging as Dyers use for dying of Clothes .

Salmasius saith , That is not Baptism which they give to Children , but Rantism .

Beza . Beza on Mat. 3.11 . saith , The word Baptizo signifies to dye by dipping , or washing .

Selden saith , That the Jews took that Baptism wherein the whole Body was not baptized ; to be void .

Ainsworth speaks to the same purpose .

Rogers . Mr. Daniel Rogers says , That a Minister is to dip in Water ( the Party baptized ) as the meetest Act , the word baptize notes it ; For , saith he , the Greeks wanted not words to express any other Act besides Dipping , if the Institution could bear it : what Resemblance of the Burial and Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling ? [ mark that ! ] all Antiquity and Scripture , saith he , confirm that it was Dipping .

If you would , saith Dr. Du-Veil , Dr. Du-Veil attend to the proper Signification of the word , in the Synod of Celichyth , Wolfred Arch-bishop of Canterbury . Anno 816. where Wolfred Archbishop of Canterbury presided . Let , saith he , the Presbyters beware , that when they administer the Sacrament of Baptism , they do not pour Water upon the Heads of the Infants , but let them be always plunged in the Font , according to the Example of the Son of God himself , who was plunged in the Waters of Jordan : thus must the Ceremony be performed according to order . See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts Chap. 2. p. 76.

The said learned Doctor saith in the same place , Dr. Du-Veil . the constant Practice of the universal Church , till the time of Clem. 5. who was crowned Pope An. 1305. under whom first of all the second Synod of Ravenna , approved the Abuse introduced into some Churches about an hundred Years before , that Baptism without any necessity should be administred by Aspersion . Hence it came to pass , that contrary to the Analogy , or intended mystical Signification of this Sacrament , all the West for the most part has in this Age the use of Rantism , that is , Sprinkling , instead of Baptism , as Zepper speaks , Concil. Florent . Sect. 9. c. 9. lib. of Infant-Baptism . f. 693. to the great Scandal of the Greeks and Russians , who to this day plunge into the Water those they baptize , and deny [ mark ] any one to be rightly baptized , who is not plunged into the Water , according to the Precept of Christ , as we find in Sylvester Sguropulus .

Dr. Taylor saith , The Custom of the Ancient Church was not Sprinkling , but Immersion , Ductor Dubit , l. 3. c. 4. numb . 9. in pursuance of the sense of the word Baptizing , in the Commandment and Example of our blessed Saviour .

Salmasius in his Notes of divers upon Sulpitius Severus * * St. Martin 's Life , N. 16. saith , That the word Baptizein signifies Immersion , not Sprinkling . Nor did the Ancients otherwise baptize than by single or treble Immersion in the Greek Church to this day ; ( saith he ) the Person to be baptized is plunged over Head and Ears . The same thing does Peter Avitabolis testify of the Asian Christians inhabiting Iburia and Colchi .

St. Ambrose saith , Lib. de Initiandis . Water is that wherein the Body is plunged , to wash all Sin away , there all Vice is buried .

In a Book inscribed , Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws , printed at London 1641. 't is expressed in these words , viz. While we are plunged in the Water , the Death and Burial of Christ is recommended to us , that we openly testify that Sin lies dead and buried in us .

The Roman Order published by the Writers concerning Ecclesiastical Ceremonies , say the Presbyters , enter into the Fountain within , unto the Water , and the Males are first baptized , and then the Females .

Luther's Latin . Tom. 1. Fol. 71. Luther saith , The Name of Baptism is a Greek word , it may be turned a Dipping , when we dip something in Water that it may be wholly covered with Water . And although ( saith he ) that Custom is now altogether abolished among the most part , for neither do they dip the whole Children , but only sprinkle them with a little Water , they ought nevertheless to be dipt , and presently drawn out again .

The Germans Testimony . Dr. Du-Veil . The Germans also call Baptism T●●ff , from deepness , which they call Tieff in their Tongue , as if it were meer ( saith my Author ) that those be dipt deeply who are baptized .

John Bugenhagius Pomeranus ( both a Fellow and Successor in the Ministry of Luther at Wittenburgh , Bugenh . in his Book printed in the German Tongue , 1542. whom Thuanus and Zanchius witness to have been a very moderate , godly and learned Man ) affirms , That he was desired to be a Witness at Hamburgh , in the Year 1529. That when he had seen the Minister only sprinkle the Infant wrapped in Swathling-Cloaths on the top of the Head , he was amazed , because he neither had heard nor saw any such thing , nor yet read in any History except in case of Necessity in Bed-rid Persons .

Hence in a General Assembly therefore , See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 8. p. 286 , 287. of all the Ministers that were convened , he did ask of a certain Minister , ( John Frize by Name , who was sometime Minister of Lubec ) how the Sacrament of Baptism was administred at Lubec ? who for his Piety and Candor , did answer , That Infants were baptized naked at Lubec , after the same fashion altogether as in Germany , but from whence and how that peculiar manner of Baptizing hath crept into Hamburgh he was ignorant . At length they did agree among themselves , that the Judgment of Luther , and of the Divines of Wittenburgh , should be demanded about this Point . Which thing being done , Luther wrote back to Hamburgh , That this Sprinkling was an Abuse , which they ought to remove . Thus Plunging was restored at Hamburgh , yet is that Climate cooler than ours . Diatrib . on Titus 3.2 .

Mr. Joseph Mede saith , That there was no such thing as Sprinkling , or Rantism [ mark ] used in Baptism in the Apostles days , nor many Ages after . He had spoke more proper if he had said , there was no Rantism used in the Apostles days , but Baptism , ( than to say no Rantism used in Baptism ) since he well knew they are two distinct , and different Acts : It cannot be Baptism at all , if it be only Rantism or Sprinkling , Immersion or Dipping being the very thing , not an Accident ( as I hinted ) but an Essential so absolutely necessary ; that it cannot be the Act or Ordinance without it .

If I command my Maid to dip my Handkerchief into the Water , and she only takes a little Water in her Hand , and sprinkles a few Drops upon it , doth she do what I commanded her ? was that the thing , or is it not another Act ? Even so 't is here , you do not the thing , you Rantize , and Baptize none , unless you dip them into the Water .

Pan. Cathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Chamier also saith , The ancient use of Baptism , was to dip the whole Body into the Element ; therefore did John baptize in a River .

Dr. Hammond in his Annotations upon John 13.10 . saith , That 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies an Immersion , or washing the whole Body ; and which answereth to the Hebrew word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 used for Dipping in the Old-Testament ; and therefore tells us , upon Mat. 3.1 . that John baptized in a River , viz. in Jordan , Mark 1.5 . in a Confluence of Water , John 3.23 . because 't is said there was much Water , which the Greeks called the Lakes where they used to wash : Also , saith he , the Ancients called their Baptisterions , or the Vessels containing their Baptismal-Water , Columbethras , viz. a Swimming or Diving-place , being very large , with Partitions for Men and Women .

Pool 's Annotat . on Joh. 3.6 . The Learned Mr. Pool , ( or those Learned and Reverend Divines concerned in perfecting his most excellent Annotations on the Holy Bible , ) says , A great part of those who went out to hear John , were baptized , that is , dipped in Jordan . On John 3.6 . and on Matth. 28.20 . say they . It is true , the first Baptism of which we read in Holy Writ , was by dipping the Person Baptized .

The Dutch Translation , Dutch Translation on Mat. 3.16 . according to their Language , reads it Dipping .

Mat. 3.16 . Ende Jesus gedoopt zijn de , is terstont opgeklomen vit hit wter . And when Jesus was dipp'd , he came out of the Water . And , vers. 6. Ende wierden van hemge doopt in de Jordan ; And were dipped of him in Jordan . Hence they call John the Baptist , John the Dipper . In vers. 1. Ende in die dayen quam Jonnes de Dooper predikenn in de woeffijue van Judea : In English thus , In those days came John the Dipper , preaching in the Wilderness of Judea . Had our Translators translated the Greek word into our English Tongue , as the Dutch have done it into theirs , it would have been read in our Bible , John the Dipper ; and for Baptizing them in the Name of the Father , &c. it would have been read , Dipping them in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , and then the People would not have been deceived : but they have not translated the Greek word at all , but left it in its Original Language : What difference is there between Baptism , and the Greek Baptisma ?

Ball in his Catechism , doth not only say , Faith was required of such who did desire Baptism : but also , that the Party baptized , was washed by Dipping , &c. Your Church also , in the Common-Prayer , saith , Dipping into the Water , is the proper , ( as I conceive , ) signification of the Word . To close with this , I argue thus , viz.

Since our Saviour sent his Disciples ( to Teach , and Baptize , or Dip , in the Name , &c. ) into all Nations , viz. into Cold Countries as well as Hot ; and seeing Infants tender Bodies cannot bear Dipping without palpable danger of their Lives , it follows clearly that they were none of the Subjects Christ commanded to be dipt , in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit .

To conclude with this , take one Argument , viz. If the proper , literal and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo , is Dipping , or to dip ; then Sprinkling is not Baptizing : But the proper , literal , and genuine signification of the Greek word Baptizo , is Dipping , or to dip : Ergo Sprinkling is not Baptizing .

CHAP. VIII .

Proving , that to baptize , is to dip , or plunge the Body all over into the Water , from the Practice of the Primitive Gospel-Days .

I Have shewed , that John Baptist baptized in the River Jordan , who was the first that received Commission to baptize .

And Diodate , on Mat. 3. says , He plunged them in Water .

Piscator also saith , The ancient manner of Baptizing , was , that the whole Body was dipp'd into the Water . Assemblies Annotat. on Mat. 3.

So saith the Assembly in their Annotations .

Nay , say I , it had been a vain and needless thing for them to go to Rivers to baptize , if it had been only to sprinkle a little Water on the Face , for a quart of Water might have served to have rantized a great number .

And had Sprinkling or Rantizing been the Ordinance , there is no reason left to conceive why they should go to Rivers ; nor would the Spirit of God have given that as the Reason why John baptized in Aenon near Salim , Reader , mark this well . viz. because there was much Water , John 3.23 .

But you strive to contradict the Holy Ghost , by making People believe , there was not much Water in that place , p. 59.

Because the Original reads not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , much Water , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , many Waters ; that is , ( say you ) many Streams or Rivolets .

Answ. What difference is there between much Water , and many Waters ? If they were Streams and Rivolets , though not deep , yet if they were but a little while stopp'd with a Dam , they would soon rise to be deep enough to swin in , as Experience shews ; but 't is enough , there he baptized , saith the Holy Spirit , for there was much Water , or many Waters ; there , [ for or be-because ] intimating plainly , that the Ordinance could no● be administred with a little Water , but that it required many Waters , or much Water , a great deal more than a Bason could hold , or you hold in your Hand .

2. But ( say you ) Sandy's Travels tells us , that they were so shallow , as not to reach above the ●●kles .

Answ. 1. Must we believe God's Word , or a lying Traveller ? the Scripture saith , there was much , or many Waters ; and he says , there was but a little .

2. In some shallow Rivolets , we daily see , that in some Places the Water is deep : and might it not be so in that ? and your Traveller might not so curiously search or examine the Matter .

3. Or might there not be a great Confluence of Water then , ( as Dr. Hammond words it ) and yet but little or shallow Water now , or when Sandys was there ? Time alters Rivers as well as other Things . But for your seeking after this manner to contradict the Sacred Text , to defend your childish Practice of Rantism , you deserve greatly to be blamed .

Take this Argument ;

If the Holy Ghost gives it as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim , viz. because there was much Water ; Then a little Water will not serve to baptize in .

But the Holy Ghost gives this as the Reason why John baptized in Enon near Salim , viz. because there was much Water ; therefore a little Water will not serve to baptize in .

2. But to proceed ; Mark 1.9 . 't is said , Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan . Now saith a Learned Man on the Place , Mr. Sam. Fisher . it had been nonsense for St. Mark to say , that Jesus was baptized in Jordan , if it had been sprinkled , because the Greek reads it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , into Jordan . Could Jesus be said to be sprinkled into the River Jordan ? 't is proper to say , he was dipp'd into Jordan , and that is and was the Act , and nothing else be sure .

3. They went down both into the 〈◊〉 both Philip and the Eunuch , Acts 8. What 〈◊〉 had there been for them so to have done , had Baptism been Sprinkling ? Sure Phil●● would not have put that Noble Person ( who was a Man of great Authority under Candace Queen of the Ethiopians ) to that great trouble to come out of his Chariot , ( if to sprinkle a little Water on his Face might have done ) and to go down into the Water and dip him ; sure Philip would on this occasion have dispensed with Immersion , and let Aspersion or Rantism have served , considering he was a great Person , and on a Journey ; he might have fetch'd a little Water in his Hand , or otherwise , and have sprinkled him in his Chariot , as some Ministers do now in their publick Places of Worship . And thus you and they make void the Command of Christ by your Traditions , to the abuse of Christian-Baptism , and reproach of us that keep to his Sacred Institution .

Mr. Daniel Rogers , a most worthy Writer , says , Treatise of the Sacraments , p. 1. chap. 5. in a Treatise of his , It ought to be the Churches part to cleave to the Institution , which is Dipping , especially it being not left Arbitrary by our Church , to the Discretion of the Minister ; but required to Dip or Dive . And further saith , That he betrays the Church , whose Minister he is , to a disorder'd Error , if he cleave not to the Institution .

O what abundance of the Betrayers of the Truth , and of Churches too , have we in these , as well as in former Days ! How little is the Institution of Christ , or Practice of the Primitive Churches , minded by many good Men ? Where is the Spirit of Reformation ? And doubtless that famous Author , and learned Critick in the Greek Tongue , Casaubon , was in the Right ; take his words .

I doubt not ( saith he ) but contrary to our Church's Intention , Casaubon on Mat. 3.11 . this Error having once crept in , is maintained still , by the carnal Ease of such , as looking more at themselves than at God , stretch the Liberty of the Church in this case , deeper and further than either the Church her self would , or the solemness of this Sacrament may well and safely admit . Afterwards he saith , I confess my self unconvinced , by Demonstrations of Scripture , for Infants Sprinkling .

The truth is , the Church gave too great Liberty ; she had no Power to alter in the least Matter , but to have kept exactly to the Institution . She says , Dipping [ or Sprinkling ] that spoils all , that Addition gives encouragement ; Who will Dip the Person , that can believe the Church that Sprinkling may serve ? And O how hard is it to retract an Error which hath been so long , and so generally received , especially when carnal Ease and Profit attends the keeping of it up , and also when the true way of Baptizing is reproached , and look'd upon to be so contemptible a Practice , and those who own it , and dare not act otherwise , vilified and reproached by such as you , with the scutillous Name of Anabaptist , &c. although we are as much against Rebaptizing as any People in the World can be .

The Learned Cajetan , upon Matth. 3.5 . saith , Christ ascended out of the Water ; Cajetan on Mat. 3.5 . therefore Christ was baptized by John , not by sprinkling or pouring Water upon him , but by Immersion , that is , by Dipping or Plunging into the Water . Musculus on Mat. 3.5 .

Moreover , Musculus on Matth. 3. calls Baptism Dipping , and saith , the Parties baptized were dipp'd , not sprinkled .

To close with this , take one Argument .

If the Baptizer , and the Baptized , in the Days of Christ and his Apostles , wen● both down into the Water , and the Person baptized was dipp'd ; then is Baptism not Sprinkling , but Dipping : But the Baptizer , and the Baptized , in the Days of Christ and his Apostles , went both down into the Water , and the Person baptized was dipp'd . Ergo , Baptism is not Sprinkling , but Dipping .

CHAP. IX .

〈◊〉 Baptism is Dipping , Plunging , or Burying of the whole Body in Water , in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , from the Spiritual signification of Baptism .

AS touching your last five Arguments , against Rebaptizing , I see no ground to except against what you say there ; only I shall take a brief view here of your six General Propositions , p. 49.

And as to you first , I have , Burkit's first Proposition . and shall yet further make it appear , that Dipping is not an Accident , but an essential part of Baptism , viz. 't is no Baptism at all , if not done by Immersion , or Dipping .

2 ly , Whereas you say , His second Proposition . the way or manner of applying Water is not positively determined in the Holy Scripture , cannot be gathered either from the signification of the Word , or from the significancy of the Ceremony .

Answ. This , as to the first part , viz. as to the signification of the Greek word , we have fully confuted ; and as to the significancy of the Ordinance , we shall forthwith in this Chapter make most evidently appear .

3 ly , You say , His third Proposition . There is a probability that Baptism was administred in the Apostles Times by Immersion or Dipping , so there is likewise a probability that it was done by Aspersion or Sprinkling .

Answ. We have , and shall yet further prove , that there is not the least probability , that in the Apostles time Baptism was ever administred by Aspersion , but by Immersion . You confess in hot Countries it was done by dipping ; and that that Country where they baptized , 〈◊〉 which we read , was a hot Country ; so that 〈◊〉 ●hat Reason , by your own Argument , they 〈◊〉 by Immersion and not by Aspersion .

4thly , His fourth Proposition . You say you do not oppose the Lawfulness of Dipping in some cases , but the Necessity of Dipping in all cases .

Answ. We have and shall prove the necessity of Dipping in all cases , and that 't is no baptism at all if not so done , let your Church say what she pleases .

5thly , His fifth Proposition . You say , that none ought to put a Divine Institution upon any Rite at their own ●●easure , when it is in its own nature indifferent ; and consequently lay such stress upon dipping , as to pronounce the Baptism of all the Reformed Churches throughout the World null and void , ought to prove it an unchangable Rite .

Answ. This makes against your self , and all Pedo-baptists in the World . How dare you change a Divine Institution of Jesus Christ ? change his Law and holy Ordinance , and substitute another thing in its stead and room ? And if the Laws and Institutions of Christ in their own nature are not unchangeable , what may not Men do and yet be blameless ? this opens a door to make all Christ's Institutions null and void . But , Sir , we have shewed in this Treatise , that for 1300 Years , in most parts of the World , Immersion was only used ; and some learned Pedo-Baptists have shewed that Rantism is utterly to be rejected , as an Innovation , and an insignificant Ceremony .

6 thly , His sixth Proposition . That in the Sacraments it is not the Quantity of Elements , but the Significancy of them that ought to be attended ; in Circumcision it was not the Quantity of Flesh cut off so much as the Signification of it , &c.

Answ. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we grant 't is not the Quantity of Bread and Wine is to be observed , if so be it be administred in that order and manner Christ hath ordained , viz. to represent his Body broken , and his Blood poured forth . The like we will say also in Baptism , we need not go where there is more Water than what will serve to baptize , or dip the Person all over , so that it may represent the Burial and Resurection of Christ , which was the very thing it was appointed to hold forth , or represent when administred .

2. Should the People of Israel ( as I have shewed ) in Circumcision only have cut a little bit of the fore-skin of the Flesh , and not round , or quite off , or only have paired off the Nails of the Childrens Fingers with a little Skin with it , would that have answered the Mind of God in that Rite ? or they have been born with , in pleading , it might as well answer Circumcision in Signification ? The Vanity and Sinfulness of this Assertion you will see fully in this Chapter laid open and detected . But I shall now proceed to your first Argument against Dipping .

Say you , Mr. Burkit's first Argument against Dipping . such an Application of Water in the Administration of Baptism , as the Spirit of God in Scripture expresly calls baptizing , is lawful and sufficient to the use in Baptism .

But sprinkling or pouring Water upon the Party baptized without Dipping , is by the Spirit of God in divers Scriptures expresly called baptizing .

Therefore it is lawful and sufficient , and Dipping is not necessary .

Answ. That the primary literal , proper and genuine Signification of the Greek word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to dip , we have abundantly proved by a great Cloud of learned Witnesses ; and this indeed I see you dare not deny , saying in Pag. 51. that the Primitive Word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , from whence comes 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , signifies to dye , or give a new Colour . All know that which is dyed in the Dyers Fat is dipped all over ; but whereas you say it signifies also sometimes to wash , we have shewed 't is no other washing than is by a total dipping or plunging the Thing or Person all over in Water . And therefore now , to proceed , I shall further prove Baptism is no other Act but Dipping , or burying the Body under the Water .

You say , Pag. 52. We read of divers Washings under the Law , in the Original it is divers Baptisms : Now , say you , what were those Washings but Sprinklings , no Persons were dipp'd in Blood , &c.

Answ. We deny those Washings which are called Baptisms , were either sprinkling or pouring of Water on them , but total dipping of their whole Body ; Ainsworth his Annotat. on Levit. 11.32 . and so the Reverend Mr. Ainsworth , ( a Man very learned in all Jewish Rites and Ceremonies ) positively affirms on Levit. 11.31 . these are his words , viz. All that are unclean , whether Men or Vessels , are not cleansed but by dipping , or baptizing in Water ; and wheresoever the Law speaketh of washing a Man's Flesh , Hence we read of thin Garments made for them . or washing of Cloaths for Uncleanness , it is not but by dipping the whole Body therein : And whether they be Men or Vessels , there may not be any thing between them and the Water to keep them asunder , as Clay , Pitch , or the like , that cleaveth to the Body or Vessel ; Maim . Mikvaoth , c. 1. §. 1 , 2 , 21. if there be , then they are ( saith he ) unclean , and their washing profiteth them not . Maim . in Mikvaoth .

What can be a more full Confutation of what you affirm ? But , Sir , where we read of sprinkling of Blood , the word is not there baptizing . And now I shall proceed further to prove , that Baptism , or baptizing , is not Sprinkling , but Dipping , or plunging into the Water , in the Name of the Father , &c. and besides all we have already said , clearly make this appear●●rom the spiritual Signification thereof , or what in a lively Figure or Symbol is held forth thereby .

And first , to proceed ; let it be in the fear of God considered , that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper doth in a lively Figure represent the breaking of Christ's Body , and the pouring forth of his precious Blood ; so and in like manner the Sacrament of Baptism doth signify and hold forth the Death , Burial and Resurrection of the same Lord Jesus Christ : and the holding forth and confirming of these two great Gospel-Truths , was doubtless the end of our Saviour in ordaining both these Gospel-Ordinances , that so Christ crucified , with his Burial and Resurrection , might not only in the Ministry of the Word be preach'd to the hearing of our Ears , but by these two Institutions be also preach'd ( as it were ) to the seeing of our Eyes . And that Baptism doth hold forth this , together with our Death unto Sin , and rising again to walk in newness of Life , I shall prove in the next place ; and that ,

First , From express places of Scripture .

Secondly , By the Consent , Agreement and Arguments of a Cloud of Witnesses , both Ancient Fathers , and Modern Divines , and worthy Protestant Writers .

1. The first Scripture is , Rom. 6.3 , 4 , 5 , 6. Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism , &c. The Saints or whole Church of the Romans were to reckon themselves dead to Sin , and bound to live no longer therein , and that because by Baptism , as in a lively Figure , they held forth the same thing .

So that it appears Baptism hath a twofold Signification .

( 1. ) There is in it , when truly and rightly administred , not only a Representation of Christ's Buri●● and Resurrection . But ,

( 2. ) Also it signifies our Death unto Sin , and our rising again to walk in newness of Life . And indeed the Apostle makes use of this as an Argument to press newness of Life ( the thing signified in Baptism ) upon them all — As if he should say , As many of us as are baptized , must know this , that we were baptized into Christ's Death , and therefore must die to Sin , and live a ne● Life : But we have all been baptized , or buried with him in Baptism ; therefore must all of us die to Sin , and live a new Life .

Our late Annotators on the place say thus , Pool's Annotat . He seems to allude to the manner of baptizing in those warm Countries , which was , say they , to dip or plunge the Party baptized , and as it were to bury him for a while under Water .

Cajetan upon the same Text says , Cajetan . We are buried with Christ by Baptism into Death ; by our burying he declares our Death by the Ceremony of Baptism : because he ( that is , the Party baptized ) is put under Water , and by this carries a Similitude of him that was buried , who was put under the Earth . Now because none are buried but dead Men — from this very thing , that we are buried in Baptism , we are assimilated to Christ buried , or when he was buried .

The Assembly in their Annotations on this Text of Scripture , The Assembly's Annotat . say likewise thus , viz. In this Phrase the Apostle seems to allude to the ancient manner of baptizing , which was to dip the Party baptized , and as it were to bury them under Water for a while , and then raise them up again out of it ; to represent the Burial of the Old Man , and the Resurrection to Newness of Life . The same saith Diodate .

Tilenus , a great Protestant Writer , Tilenus in his Dispute , p. 886 , 889. on Rom. 3 , 4. speaks fully in this Case ; Baptism , saith he , is the first Sacrament of the New Testament , instituted by Christ , in which there is an exact Analogy between the Sign and the thing signified . The outward Rite in Baptism is three-fold : 1. Immersion into the Water . 2. Abiding under the Water . 3. A Resurrection out of the Water .

The Form of Baptism , viz. external and essential , is no other than the Analogical Proportion , which the Signs keep with the things signified thereby : for the Properties of the Water washing away the Defilements of the Body , does in a most suitable Similitude set forth the Efficacy of Christ's Blood , in blotting out of Sin ; so diping into the Water , in a most lively Similitude , sets forth the Mortification of the Old Man ; and rising out of the Water , the Vivification of the New Man . The same plunging into the Water , saith he , holds forth to us that horrible Gulph of Divine Justice , in which Christ for our sakes , for a while , was in a manner swallowed up ; abiding under the Water , ( how little time soever ) denotes his Descent into Hell * * Or Grave . , even the very deepest of Lifelesness , which lying in the sealed or guarded Sepulchre , he was accounted as one dead . Rising out of the Water , holds forth to us a lively Similitude of that Conquest which this dead Man got over Death . In like manner , saith he , 't is therefore meet that we being baptized into his Death , and buried with him , should rise also with him , and to go on in a new Life . Thus far Tilenus .

And let all thinking and serious Christians carefully consider , since this sacred Ordinance was appointed to be thus significant , as this and other learned Men observe ; what a sad and lamentable thing it is that the true Baptism should be changed from Dipping into Sprinkling , which neither doth nor can hold forth these great Mysteries , for which Purpose our Saviour ordained it : for 't is evident Rantism or Sprinkling doth not bear any proportion to those Mysteries , nor can they be signified thereby . What Figure of a Burial of Christ , or of the Old Man , is there in sprinkling a few Drops of Water on a Person 's Face ? or what Representation is there in that Act of a Resurrection ? O how is Christ's Holy Baptism abused by this devised Rantism , and the Signification thereof destroyed ! the Lord open your Eyes , or the Eyes of my godly and impartial Reader . This shews you clearly what Christ's true Baptism is , as also the true Subject . But to proceed .

Ambrose . St. Ambrose saith , Water is that wherein the Body is plunged , to wash away all Sin ; there all Sin , saith he , is buried . We suppose he means 't is a Sign of this , i. e. that all Sin is buried .

Chrysostom . Moreover Chrysostom saith , That the Old Man is buried and drowned in the Immersion under Water ; and when the baptized Person is afterwards raised up out of the Water , it represents the Resurrection of the New Man to Newness of Life ; and therefore concludes the contrary Custom , being not only against Ecclesiastical Law , but against the Analogy and mystical Signification of the Sacrament , is not to be complied with .

It has been too long , as I have formerly noted , God grant Men more Light to see their Error , and abhor to do so any more .

Kecker Syst. Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Kecker says , That Immersion , not Aspersion , was the first Institution of Baptism , as it doth , saith he , plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. And say I , where hath Christ , since the first Institution , instituted Aspersion or Sprinkling in the stead or room of Immersion or Dipping , or given Orders to change that significant Sign into the insignificant Foppery of Sprinkling ? Ought not we to keep the Ordinances as they were first instituted and given to the Saints ? Is not God's Word to be our Rule in all Points of Faith and Practice , to the End of the World ? Has Christ given to any Men or Church a Dispensation to change his Laws and Ordinances , or make them void by their Traditions , or to set up their Post by his Post ?

How doth God complain by the Prophet against his People of Old , for presuming to change his Laws , in Deut. 12.13 ? God gave particular Command to make an Altar of Gold to offer Incense , Exod. 40.5 . And he commanded , Exod. 20.24 , 25. that his Altars should be made of Earth or rough Stone . But in Isa. 65.3 . he reproves their horrid Transgression and Disobedience , in acting contrary to his express Institution : A People ( saith God ) that provoke me to Anger continually to my Face , that sacrificeth in Gardens , and burn Incense upon Altars of Brick . You may think that was no great Error , instead of Gold or Stone , to make Altars of Brick : But what saith God , They for this , &c. provoke me continually to my Face . O tremble ye who adventure to transgress God's Precept in as bad or worse a manner ! who commanded you to baptize or dip Believers in the Name of the Father , &c. and you rantize or sprinkle Infants : Alas you know not how you hereby provoke God ; although he is yet silent , and doth not manifest his Displeasure , yet know he is a jealous God , and hath the like Zeal for his Gospel-Institutions as ever he had of those under the Law , and may manifest it too in his own time . But to proceed and call in further Witnesses against your Practice .

Daille on the Fathers , l. 2 p. 148. Daille on the Fathers saith , That it was a Custom heretofore in the ancient Church to plunge those they baptized over Head and Ears in the Water , as saith he , Tertullian in his third Book , De Cor. Mil. Cyprian in his seventh Ep. p. 211. &c. and others testify .

Dr. Cave . Dr. Cave saith , That the Party baptized was wholly immerged , or put under the Water ; which was the almost-constant and universal Custom of those times , whereby they did most notably and significantly express the great Ends and Effects of Baptism : For as in immerging , there are in a manner three several Acts ; the putting the Person into the Water , his abiding under the Water , and his rising up again , thereby representing Christ's Death , Burial , and Resurrection . And in our Conformity thereunto , our dying to Sin , the Destruction of its Power , and our Resurrection to a new Course of Life . So by the Person 's being put into the Water , was lively represented the puting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh , &c. by his being under it ( which is a kind of Burial into the Water ) his entring into a State of Death or Mortification , like as Christ remained for some time under the State or Power of Death : therefore it is said , as many as are baptized into Christ , are baptized into his Death , &c. And then by Emersion , or rising up out of the Water , is signified his entring upon a new Course of Life , that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father , so we should walk in Newness of Life .

Paraeus upon Ursin , p. 375. We are said ( saith Paraeus ) to die , and to be buried with Christ in Baptism . — And further shews , that the external Act of being buried in Water , is a lively Emblem of the internal Work of Regeneration .

Bernard . St. Bernard saith , Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial .

Against all these Testimonies , and multitudes more of the best and most learned Writers , and plain Scriptures , you in pag. 52. bring in your second Argument against Dipping . Mr. Burkit's second Argument against Dipping , ( p. 25. of his Book ) answered .

Arg. 2. If Baptism administred by pouring Water on the Face ( represents the whole Person ) doth answer the Use and End of Baptism , as well as when administred by Dipping or Plunging ; then Dipping is not essentially and absolutely necessary in the Act of baptizing : But the one answers the Use and End of Baptism as well as the other ; therefore the one cannot be more necessary than the other .

What is the Use and End of Baptism but to represent to our Minds the Effusion of Christ's Blood , for to take away the Guilt of Sin ; and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit , for the purging away the Filth of it ? Now ( say you ) the sprinkling of the Blood of Christ , and the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit upon the Infant , are more fully and plainly represented by Baptism , ad administred by Sprinkling , than by Dipping .

If , say you , the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism , be more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping ; then surely Sprinkling is not only as lawful , but more expedient than Dipping : but the inward and spiritual Grace signified by Baptism , to wit , the cleansing of the Soul by the Grace and Spirit of Christ , is more lively represented by Sprinkling than by Dipping : therefore more expedient . And accordingly we find Almighty God himself often expressing that Mercy of Sanctification by this Action ; Ezek. 36.25 . Then will I sprink●● clean Water upon you , and ye shall be clean , &c.

Answ. 1. By denying your minor Proposition : Sprinkling doth not answer the Use and End of Baptism , as what I have said and produced by the Testimony of the Scripture , and almost all learned Men , both ancient Fathers and modern Divines , fully shews the contrary .

2. I thought the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had been instituted by Christ , to signify the Effusion or pouring forth his precious Blood , and not Baptism : Will you confound the Use and End of one Sacrament with the other , to maintain your own Innovation and Abuse of Christ's Holy Baptism ?

3. Might not the Jews , who instead of making Altars of Gold of Stone , made them Altars of Brick , say , that Altars of Brick might serve as well to answer the Vse and end of burning Incense ? Nay , may be they might say they had not the other to do it , and therefore built their Altars of Brick : but would this Pretence do ? No , no. What saith Almighty God ? They provoke me continually to my Face . Also might not others argue thus , about the Sacrament of the Supper , viz. What need we have Wine ? If we use Mum , or some other red Liqour , instead of the Fruit of the Grape , it will answer the Use and End of that Sacrament , as well as Wine . O! whither would this lead us ?

4. We utterly deny that Baptism was ordained or instituted by Christ to signify either the pouring forth of his Blood , or the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit ; and must tell you , that you affirm what you please , without any Proof from God's Word . But by the way let the Reader observe how you go from Sprinkling to plead for pouring Water on the Face of Infants : I question whether you ever do so or not ? but if you should , that would be no more Christ's Baptism than Sprinkling .

You are not to devise new Signs or Symbols of spiritual Mysteries , of which God speaks nothing in his Word , nor ever instituted to such Ends. I affirm he has appointed no Rite or Ordinance in the Gospel to represent the Sprinkling or pouring forth of the Holy Spirit . The Papists have ( you know ) seven Sacraments , and they tell us of the Use and End of them , and how wonderful significant they are ; and yet all their Use and Expediency of them were the Contrivances of their own wicked Hearts . And I must tell you that they prove what they do and say of those Sacraments , as well as you do what you speak of Pouring or Sprinkling . Take what Tho. Aquinas most excellently hath said on this Account . Aquinas . It belongs to the Signifier ( says he ) to determine what Sign is to be used for the Signification : but God it is , who by things sensible , signifies spiritual things in the Sacrament . Christ hath ordained Baptism to be a Sign , Symbol or lively Representation of his own Death , Burial and Resurrection , as I have proved and confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses . Will God endure or suffer men ( think you ) to invent out of their own Brains new Signs and Symbols of Divine Gospel-Mysteries , and then father them upon him , and call them his Ordinances ? Nay , more , be so bold as to say , these are more useful , and answer better the End of God , than those which he himself instituted ? For thus you speak of Sprinkling , viz. 't is not only lawful , but more expedient than Dipping , p. 55. And hereby you seem to teach God Wisdom , or to magnify yours above his . Be astonished , O Heavens and be thou horribly amazed , O Earth ! Was ever any Man thus bold before ? First you contrive a new Rite , and new Significations of it , which God never appointed to represent such things , and then say , 't is more expedient than Christ's Ordinance of Dipping , which was instituted by him for other Ends and Significations ; whereas the whole Body of all learned Men , and Christians , witness to , and testify the contrary .

Sir Nort. Knatchbul in his Notes printed at Oxford , 1677. Pray take what Sir Norton Knatchbul hath wrote , in direct opposition to what you affirm .

Saith he , Baptism , which now saves us by Water , ( speaking of the Text in 1 Pet. 3.20 . ) that is , by the assistance of Water , and is Antitypical of the Ark of Noah , does not signify the laying down the Filth of the Flesh , but the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God , while we are plunged in the Water , which is to testify our Belief of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ ; so that there is a manifest Antithesis between these words , by Water , and by the Resurrection . Nor is ( saith he ) the Elegancy of it displeasing . As if he should say , the Ark of Noah , not the Flood , was a Type of Baptism , and Baptism was an Antitype of the Ark ; not as if Baptism is a washing away of the Filth of the Flesh by Water , wherein it answers not at all to the Ark ; but as it is the Covenant of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ , in the belief of which Resurrection we are saved , as they were saved by the Ark of Noah : for the Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection . So that the proper End [ mark ] of Baptism ought not to be understood as if it were a Sign of the washing away of Sin , ( although it be thus often-times taken metonymically in the New-Testament ) and by the Fathers , but a particular Signal of the Resurrection by Faith , in the Resurrection of Christ , of which Baptism is a lively and emphatical Figure ; as also was the Ark , out of which Noah returned , as from the Sepulcher to a new Life ; and therefore not unaptly called by Philo , the Captain of the New Creation . And the Whales Belly , out of which Jonas , after a burial of three days , was set at liberty : and the Cloud , and the Red Sea , in which the People of Israel are said to have been Baptized , is not washed , [ mark ] but buried , for they were all Types of the same thing , as Baptism , viz. not the washing away of Sin , but of the Death and Resurrection of Christ , and our own : to which the Apostles , the Fathers , the Scholasticks , [ mark ] and all Interpreters agree . The thing ( saith he ) is so apparent , as not to need any Testimonies ; but because there are not a few who do not vulgarly teach this Doctrine , it will not be superfluous to produce some of these innumerable Testimonies , that I may ( saith he ) not seem to speak without book . And ,

First , Let us begin with St. Paul , Rom. 6.3 . Know ye not that so many of you that have been baptized into Christ , were baptized into his Death ? Therefore we are buried with him in Baptism , into his Death , Col. 2.12 . &c. Else what shall they do , 1 Cor. 15.29 . that are baptized for the Dead , if the Dead rise not ?

As if he had said , If there be no Resurrection , why are we baptized ? In vain does the Church use the Symbol of Baptism , if there be no Resurrection .

The like Testimonies frequently occur among the Fathers , saith he

Ignatius saith , that believing in his Death , Ignat. Epist ad Tral . id . Epist. ad Philadelph . we may be made partakers of his Resurrection by Baptism . Baptism was given in memory of the Death of our Lord ; we perform the Symbols of his Death . ( Mark ) not of pouring forth his Blood or Holy Spirit , or sprinkling the Spirit on us , or the Blood of Christ : No , no ; this that Author says , is not signified in Baptism , but the Burial and Resurrection of Christ ; which Sprinkling no manner of ways can represent .

Justin Martyr saith , Justin Martyr . We know but one saving Baptism , in regard there is but one Resurrection from the Dead , of which Baptism is an Image .

And from hence , say I , we know not Infants Rantism or Sprinkling ; for this is none of Christ's true Baptism . Christ's Baptism in Water is but one , and 't is that of Believers ; and 't is not Sprinkling , but Dipping , to signify Christ's Burial and Resurrection . He goes on , and cites other Authors .

Basil the Great . Hear Paul exclaiming , they past through the Sea , and were all baptized in the Cloud , and in the Sea .

Basil of Silencia . Chrysostom . He calls Baptism the Passage of the Sea , for it was a flight of Death caused by Water .

To be baptized , and so plunged , and to return up , and rise out of the Water , is a Symbol of the descent into the Grave , and returning from thence .

Lactantius . Bernard . Baptism is a Pledg and Representation of the Resurrection : Baptism is an Earnest of the Resurrection : Immersion is a Representation of Death and Burial . Innumerable are the Testimonies ( saith Sir Norton ) which might be added ; but these I think sufficient to prove that Baptism is an Image of the Death and Resurrection of Christ , ( from whence we acknowledg the Mystery of our Religion , saith he , Christ's Deity and Humanity ) and of all the Faithful , who are baptized in his Faith , from death in Sin to newness of Life , which if they lead in this World , they have a most assured Hope , that being dead , they shall hereafter rise to Glory with Christ . — Thus Sir Norton Knatchbul , a worthy Knight , and of your Church too .

Perkins , 2 Vol. cap. 3. on Gal. p. 257. Mr. Perkins saith , The dipping of the Body signifies Mortification , or Fellowship with Christ in his Death ; the staying under the Water , signifies the burial of Sin ; and coming out of the Water , the resurrection from Sin to newness of Life . In another Treatise of his , he saith , The ancient Custom of Baptizing , 1 Vol. cap. 33. p. 74. was to dip , as it were to dive , all the Body of the Baptized in Water ; Rom. 6. Council of Laodicea and Neocesarea .

And here let me add what Reverend Dr. Sharp ( the present Arch-Bishop of York ) hath lately delivered in a Sermon preached before the Queen's Majesty , on Easter-day , March 27 , 1692.

And this in antient times was taught every Christian ( saith he ) in and by his Baptism : His Sermon on Phil. 3.10 . p. 9. When ever a Person was baptized , he was not only to profess his Faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection , but he was also to look upon himself as obliged , in correspondence therewith , to mortify his former carnal Affections , and to enter upon a new state of Life .

And the very Form of Baptism ( saith he ) did lively represent this Obligation to them : For what did their being plunged under Water signify , but their undertaking , in imitation of Christ's Death and Burial , to forsake all their former evil Courses ? as their ascending out of the Water , did their engagement to lead a holy , spiritual Life . This our Apostle doth more than once declare to us : thus Rom. 6. 3 , 4. We are buried ( saith he ) with Christ by Baptism unto Death , that like as Christ was raised up by the Glory of the Father , so we should walk in newness of Life . Thus far Dr. Sharp .

Dr. Fowler ( now Lord-Bishop of Glocester ) on Rom. 6. 3 , 4. saith , Design of Christianity pag. 90. Christians being plunged into the Water , signifies their undertaking , and obliging themselves in a spiritual sense to die , and to be buried with Jesus Christ , in an utter renouncing and forsaking all their Sins ; that so answering to his Resurrection , they may live a holy and godly Life .

Also Dr. Sherlock ( Dean of St. Pauls ) on Rom. 6. 3 , 4. saith , Charity without Vsury , p. 1. Our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour , consists in dying to Sin , and walking in newness of Life : Which , saith he , St. Paul tells us , is represented by the external Ceremony of Baptism , and rising out of his warry Grave a new-born Creature .

And unto these let me add what the Reverend Dr. Tillotson ( the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury ) hath wrote : Sermons preached on several Occasions , 5th Ed●● . p. 188 , 189. speaking of the same Text , Rom. 6.3 , 4. Anciently ( saith he ) those who were baptized , put off their Garments , which signified the putting off the Body of Sin ; and were immers'd and buried in the Water , to represent the Death of Sin ; and then did rise up again out of the Water , to signify their entrance upon a new Life . And to these Customs the Apostle alludes , when he says , How shall we that are dead to Sin , live any longer therein ? Know ye not , that so many of us that were baptized into Jesus Christ , were baptized into his Death , &c.

1. 'T is a hard case , you neither will believe the holy Scripture , the Antient Fathers , and modern Divines , no nor those learned Prelates and Doctors of your own Church , who 〈…〉 living ; but contrary to the nature and tende●●y of holy Baptism , plead for Sprinkling , and condemn Dipping , and cast reproach upon it , and say also , that the thing signified thereby , is the pouring forth of Christ's Blood , or the sprinkling or pouring out of the Holy Spirit , notwithstanding we prove from the Scripture , and with the Testimony of all these great Men , that Baptism signifies the Death , Burial , and Resorrection of Jesus Christ , and not any of those things you affirm , as your own Concein , without the Testimony of any learned or approved Author .

Therefore , Sir , that Baptism is any thing else than dipping , plunging , or washing which is done by dipping , we do utterly deny : For as the cutting off a little bit of the Foreskin of the Flesh , or not the twentieth part round , is not Circumcision ; so sprinkling a little Water on the Face , is not Baptism .

True , you call it Baptism , and will do so , tho 't is nothing less nor more than Rantism ; 't is not the thing , nor does it answer in signification . I may tell you again , that the Jews , instead of circumcising the Foreskin of their Childrens Flesh , might have as well presumed to dispense with that , and only have paired off the Nails of the Finger● of their Male Infants ▪ and have called that Circumcision , as you may call sprinkling or pouring a little Water , Baptism . But may be you will say , in Circumcision they were to draw Blood ; so say I , they might in cutting the Nails of their Childrens Fingers ; nay , and they might better plead , that the things signified in Circumcision , might be as well answered in that new Device , ( the Nails being a sort of Excrement , they might say signified the taking away the Filth of Sin , or Corruption of Nature ) better than the great Mysteries signified by Baptism or Dipping , can be represented by Sprinkling or Pouring .

Furthermore , they might possibly plead the same Pretences you do , viz. the cutting off the Foreskin of the Flesh , put the Infants to great Pain ; nay , may be they might fancy it would cost them their Lives ; nay , call it Murder , and therefore let pairing off their Nails serve ; as you , it seems , fear Dipping would endanger the Lives of Infants , and therefore make Sprinkling to serve instead thereof . But to proceed :

2. I am in a-maze to see these Men speak so fully and clearly to this glorious Truth , ( i. e. that the great thing Christ ordained Baptism to represent , is his Death , Burial and Resurrection , together with the baptized Person 's Death to Sin , and his rising again to walk in newness of Life ; ) that both those shameful Abuses in your Church , and among other Churches also , are not rectified , viz.

1 st. That Sprinkling , which doth not , cannot answer or represent those Gospel-Mysteries , should not be rejected .

2dly . That Infants should be once deemed the proper Subjects of Baptism , sith nothing of a Death to Sin , nor rising again to walk in newness of Life , can appear in them . For as the Learned observe , Baptism is a Symbol of present , not of future Regeneration ; 't is an outward Sign of that inward Death unto Sin , which the Party baptized passed under then , or ought to have done , when ( or before ) he is baptized . They then professed themselves to be dead to Sin , i. e. even when they were buried with Christ in their Baptism : for the Argument of the Apostle lies in that respect , How shall we that are dead to Sin , live any longer therein ? Rom. 6.3 , 4 knowing that so many of us who have been baptized into Christ , were baptized into his Death , both in Sign and Signification : And therefore , as Dr. Sherlock says , rising out of that watry Grave a new-born Creature , denotes not only what they should be hereafter , but what they were actually at that time . So that as this Text , and Arguments drawn therefrom , utterly condemn Sprinkling , as not being Christ's Baptism ; so it excludes Infants from being the Subjects thereof , because in them appears no such Death to Sin , nor can they be said to come out of that watry Grave as new-born Creatures .

To these Testimonies I shall only add one or two more , and pass to your Obiections .

See that most learned Anonymous French Protestant Writer , See Dr. Du-Veil on Acts 8. p. 292 , 293. in his Answer to the famous Bishop of Meaux ; 'T is most certain ( saith he ) that Baptism hath not hitherto been administred otherwise than by Sprinkling , by the most of Protestants : But truly this Sprinkling is an Abuse . This Custom which , without an accurate Examination ▪ they have retained from the Romish Church , in like manner as many other things , makes their Baptism very defective . It corrupteth its Institution , and ancient Use , and that nearness of Similitude , which is needful should be betwixt it , and Faith , Repentance and Regeneration . This Reflection of Mr. Bossuet deserveth to be seriously considered , to wit , ( saith he ) that this Use of Plunging hath continued for the space of a whole thousand and three hundred Years ; hence we may understand that we did not carefully , as it was meet , examine things which we have received from the Roman Church .

Calvin saith , Calvin , l. 4. c. 16. That Baptism is a form or way of Burial ; and none but such as are already dead to Sin , or have repented from dead Works , are to be buried .

1. From whose words I note , that Sprinkling is not the Form of Baptism , because not the Form of a Burial .

2. That Infants are not the true Subjects of Baptism , because not such as are already dead to Sin , or have repented from dead Works ; and indeed , as they are not able , they are not required so to do by Christ .

The last Author I shall quote , Zanchy on Col. 2.12 . is Learned Zanchy , There are two parts ( saith he ) in Regeneration , Mortification and Vivification ; that is called a Burial with Christ , this a Resurrection with Christ . The Sacrament of both these is Baptism , in which we are overwhelmed or buried , and after that do come forth and rise again : It may not be said Truly , but Sacramentally of all that are baptized , that they are buried with Christ , and raised with him , but only of such as have true Faith .

Now we may appeal to all the World , whether Zanchy and all the rest do not clearly and evidently testify the same thing that we assert , viz. That Baptism is , and can be no other Act , than Immersion or Dipping , since Sprinkling , all must confess , doth not represent in a lively Figure the Burial and Resurrection of Christ , nor our dying or being dead to Sin , and vivification to newness of Life , saith he , Sacramentally , i. e. Analogically , in respect of the near resemblance between Baptism , and a Death and Resurrection . And this I say cannot be said of them that are sprinkled only ; for if in respect of Mortification and Vivification , they may be denominated buried and raised with Christ , ( which cannot be said of Infants ) yet that outward Rite or Sign cannot denominate them so much as Sacramentally buried and raised with Christ , for there is not so much as any likeness of such things in it but in true Baptism , viz. total dipping the Body in Water , and raising it again , it is in a lively Figure held forth to our very sight : And as Zanchy saith , It cannot be said of all , nor indeed of any , that they are 〈◊〉 sacramentally dead , buried and risen with Christ , but only of such as have true Faith . Therefore Infants are excluded by his own Argument .

And thus your first and second Arguments against ●ipping are fully answered , in the 52 d and 53 d pages of your Book .

Mr. Burkit's third Argument against Dipping , answered . Your third Argument , or Objection , against Dipping , is this , viz.

If Dipping were essentially and absolutely necessary in Baptism ; then in all the Baptism recorded in Scripture , we should meet with full Proof , or at least with fair Probability , that the Parties Baptized were all Dipped .

But ( say you ) in several Instances of Baptized Persons recorded in Scripture , we meet with no such Proof , but the contrary , Ergo , &c.

The Text● you cite , are first , Acts 9.18 , 19. That Paul was baptized in his Lodgings , being sick and weak , &c.

Answ. 1. Both these things you affirm without any Ground or Authority from the Text.

For , first , the Text does not say , he was baptized in his Lodgings , therefore you strive to make the Scripture speak what it doth not . See , Reader , the 18 th Verse , and you may find Mr. Burkit speaks an Untruth , or that which the Text says not .

2. 'T is false also , in that you say he was sick or weak , tho he might be somewhat weakened and amazed by the good Hand of God upon him . But if he had been weak , yet when God commanded him to be baptized , or dipp'd in Water , In the Name of the Father , &c. he had no cause to fear or doubt of any Harm .

3. I have known sickly and weak Persons baptized in this col● Climate , and yet received not the least hurt thereby .

Your second Text is Acts 16.33 . where 't is said , The Jaylor was baptized the same Hour of the Night ; and Paul newly washed of his Sores by his Stripes .

Answ. This is such silly reasoning , that 't is not worth naming . He was not so sore , but he might go into the Water to baptize the Jaylor and those in his House . And though in the same Hour of the Night it was done also : What of that , might there not be a River or Pond near his House ? Sir , this must be believed , since Baptism is Immersion ; and you are filled with Prejudice and Incredulity if you believe it not .

3. The other Text is that of 3000 baptized in the same day , Acts 2.41 .

Can any Body believe ( in or near Jerusalem , that great City ) there was not Water enough to baptize so many Persons ? And could not the twelve Apostles , and the seventy Disciples , dip more than 3000 Persons in one day ? Sir , 't is enough , the Holy Ghost says they were baptized , that is , Dipped , not Rantized : therefore you do but go about to contradict the Holy Spirit , and fight with your own Shadow .

Mr. Burkit's fourth Argument against Dipping , answered . Your fourth Argument , against the Necessity Dipping , is taken from the difficulty of the thing in some Countries , in regard they have not ( you say ) scarce Water enough to drink , not a River or Brook in many miles .

2. In regard of the danger of the thing , doubtless ( say you ) our Saviour , who prefers Mercy before Sacrifice , allows the Administration of the Ordinance , in such a way as is consistent with his Peoples Lives ; which must in some Countries , especially at some Seasons of the Year , be in extream danger , &c. Mentioning an Act made by the Senate at 〈◊〉 in Switzerland , That if any Anabaptist dipp'd any of their People , he should be punish'd with drowning .

Answ. 1. You should have told us what Countries they are , who have not Water enough to baptize People in . I know generally 't is said by Writers , that those Countries that are without Water , are unhabitable .

2. But if they have Rivers or Ponds , though not in a 〈…〉 , no doubt , such who are convinced 't is their Duty to be baptized by Christ's Commission , How far did some of the Jews go to worship God at Jerusalem ? would never stick at their labour to go forty or fifty Miles to have it done ; for 't is said by some Writers , our Saviour went above forty Miles to be baptized of John in the River Jordan .

3. As to the Danger , we say , what you affirm is ●●lse , 〈◊〉 thousands in this Nation , by their own Experience and Knowledg , can justify there is no Danger at all attending the Dipping or Baptizing the Adult , who profess ▪ Faith in Jesus Christ , 〈◊〉 , although it be done in the sharpest or coldest Season of the Year , many thousands of Persons , of both Sexes , and some ancient , others weak and sickly , have been baptized in very cold Weather ; and yet we do challenge all the World to bring an Instance of any Harm any one Person ever received thereby : And since the Bodies of Infants cannot bear it , 't is a good Argument they were not the Subjects Christ intended , &c.

4. Might not the Jews have pleaded for such a kind of Circumcision as I mentioned before , as the pairing the Nails of their Childrens Fingers , and not to cut the Foreskin of their Flesh , with the same Argument you speak of , viz. God will have Mercy , and not Sacrifice ? for you know who said , A bloody Husband thou art to me , because of this Circumcision .

5. May be there were such wicked Men at Zurick in Switzerland , who might make such an Act , That such who baptized People should be drown'd .

Answ. What then ? we have had as bad Acts here also in England , or worse , who made an Act , That those who held such Doctrine which they call'd Heresy , should be burn'd . And others of later Date , That such who assembled together , above the number of Five , to Preach or Pray , should be Fined , Imprisoned , or their Goods taken away : 'T is no marvel to hear of such a Law , wicked Men always hated Christ's Truth and People .

Your fifth Argument against Dipping is a terrible one indeed , if true , viz. Because it has a tendency towards the breach of the 6 th and 7 th Commandment , Thou shalt not Kill : Thou shalt not commit Adultery .

You positively assert , That Baptism by Dipping of some Persons , and in some Places , may expose to all those Hazards , and infallibly destroy and make an end of thousands .

Answ. As to the Sin of Murder , what I have now said , it appears it has no tendency to that , and therefore you shew a most unjust and malicious Spirit against Christ's Sacred Institution , by what you speak here : not one Soul was ever destroyed thereby that ever you heard of , or I either . True , should you baptize Infants , who are not the Subjects , you may fear it might destroy them indeed ; and it would be a presumptuous Act so to do , because not commanded , but you may be sure God will own his own Ordinance . And us to what you speak concerning Adultery , that shews the like envious , bitter and vile Temper ; who do you charge ? can't you take a Woman by the Hand without having unclean Thoughts in your Heart ? Those whom we baptize , have decent Clothes upon them . Therefore this Practice of ours , according to our Saviour's Institution , cannot endanger our own nor our Neighbour's Chastity , as your slanderous Pen says , Pag. 56. we performing the Ordinance with all Gravity and Modesty imaginable before many Witnesses .

But then , say you , the Clothes are baptized .

What then , were not Grave-Clothes always buried with the Person that was laid in the Grave ? Or , doth it follow , because the Clothes were buried , the Body of the Man or Woman was not buried also ?

If you pour Water on the Face of a Child , the good Women will tell you , you will baptize the Child's fine Clothes also : nay , have you never sprinkled , or rantized the Childrens fine Clothes or Dresses , when you , as you call it , have baptized them ?

But who do you ( by arguing thus ) reflect upon and reproach ? is it not the holy and ever blessed Jesus who gave forth the Law , i. e. to dip Believers , or to plunge them in Water , in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost ? and do you not acknowledg in the Primitive Times , and in hot Countries , Baptism was done by Dipping ? Why then , pray consider , do you think they were in those times baptized naked ; if so , may you not charge them with the Sin of Adultery , as you do in a wicked and ungodly manner charge us ? We read of Women in the Scriptur● who were baptized ( that is , as we have proved ▪ ) dipped .

Therefore , Sir , there is no need to endeavour further to prove they were dipped ; for if the Word had been truly translated according to the literal , genuine and proper Signification thereof , we should have read it , they were dipped both Men and Women , Acts 8.12 . and so the Dutch have translated it in their Language .

Maer do sy Philippo getrofden die Euangeliam van het koninckrycke Godts ende [ van ] don name Jesus Christi verkondigh de wier den sy de doopt begde manan endevrouwen . In English thus ;

When they heard Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God , and the Name of Jesus Christ , they were dipped both Men and Women .

But you say , that which may be lawful and modest in one Country , may be sinful and immodest in another , &c.

Answ. Did not our Lord Jesus Christ send his Disciples to Teach and Baptize in all Countries , not to Rantize in cool Countries and baptize in hot ? And dare you , without blushing , Did Christ institute his Ordinance with respect had to the Custom of the Countr● ▪ say or intimate , 't is immodest and a sinful thing to do what he hath commanded in any one Country in the World , because it may be possibly censured , condemned or accounted so by the Sons of Belial , wicked and ungodly Men and Women ?

Besides , have you not granted the Case so far , that in hot Countries they did dip ? pray , was not that a hot Country ? was it not in Judea , the same Country our Saviour lived when on Earth ? By what you say here , it may appear that you say and unsay the same thing , and seem to deny any were baptized in and about the Land of Canaan by dipping , The Land of Canaan is a hot Country . or any where else , tho you contradict all the Learned , both the Greek and Latin Fathers , and all th● eminent Divines , Bishops and Doctors , I have quoted out of their Writings . I even am sick of such an impertinent Antagonist .

Mr. Burkit's sixth Argument against Dipping , answered . As to your sixth and last Argument , That God hath blessed and highly honoured the Administration of your way ( of Babes Rantism ) to the Comfort and Advantage of Multitudes .

Answ. 'T is wholly without Proof or Demonstration , and nothing but a bold , presumptive and rash Assertion of your own : God has suffered it long 't is true , ( as he hath some other human Rites and Traditions ) but you cannot prove he has blessed either it or them , to any one Soul's profit — . And when did God ever honour Infant-Baptism ? ( for formerly they were baptized , i. e. dipped ) God did honour the Baptism of the Adult highly , when our Saviour being ' about thirty Years old was baptized by John ; Mat. 3.16 . for the Heavens were opened , and a Voice heard , This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased ; Luk. 3.23 . and the Holy Ghost came down upon him .

And so in Acts 8.12 , 14. those Men and Women who believed and were baptized , the holy Spirit was given unto : nay , and so highly hath God honoured the baptizing of Believers , that there is a Promise of Forgiveness of S●● and of the receiving the holy Spirit ; nay , of Salvation made to them that believe and are baptized , Acts 2.37 , 38. Mark 16.16 .

But there is no Promise made to Infants that are Baptized , much less to such who are but only Rantized .

1. As to your Objection ( in Pag. 57. ) about the Dutch rendering baptizing dipping , 't is not their Annotators , but 't is their Translators , and that too from the literal and proper Signification of the Greek Word ; 'T is so read Reader , in the Dutch Testament , they have translated the Greek word , and our Translators have not . therefore you say nothing to weaken what we have said upon that account .

2. And as touching what you speak , i. e. that in Pag. 57. ( ( viz. That Baptism signifies the Death and Burial of Christ , we , and a Cloud of Witnesses therefore say , that 't is Dipping , because that is a most lively Representation of his Death , Burial and Resurrection ) But you say , Baptism may signify the Death of Christ , and be so administred , as lively to represent the Death of our Saviour , without the exposing those who are baptized to the danger of Death ; and may signify Christ's Burial too without sending the Person baptized to his Grave : even in Sprinkling , there is a plain Representation of Christ's Death ; for the pouring forth of the Water not unfitly represents the pouring forth the Earth upon the dead Body .

Answ. If you did pour Water upon the Child indeed until it was quite buried , or covered all over in Water , you had said something ; tho that is not the way of baptizing neither , but dipping , or plunging ; yet that would , I must confess , represent a Burial : But is the dead Body buried so soon as a handful of Earth is poured upon him ? if you should say it , no body would believe you , the Body must be covered under the Earth before it can be said to be buried , and so must the Person baptized be covered under the Water , or 't is not baptized ; for as otherwise there is no actual Burial in the first , so there is no Representation of a Burial in the second .

But , say you , if you will closely follow the Metaphor of a Burial in all Particulars ; then as the Person buried is altogether passive , and laid in the Grave only by others , in like manner the Party baptized , say you , ought to put neither Foot , nor Leg , nor Thigh into the Water , but the Dipper ought to take him up in his Arms , and lay his entire Body into the Water , &c.

Answ. Are you not blame-worthy to write after this sort ? O that you were more wise , and dreaded the holy Majesty of God! Is it not said , They went both down into the Water , both Philip and the Eunuch , and he ( that is , Philip ) baptized or dipped him ? this is the Rule , not to take the Person up into our Arms ; yet 't is the Administrator notwithstanding that buries the Person in the Water : his going into it himself doth not baptize him , tho he should go in as high as his Waste , but the Administrator does it . You know Metaphors do not go ( as we use to say ) on all four , nor must they be strained further than the design and purport of the holy Spirit ; but you by sprinkling destroy and utterly make void that sacred Allusion of the Holy Ghost , which is not to be born with : Baptism is no Representation of a Burial at all , if Sprinkling be it . And if you have heard that some have been kept so long under the Water till ( as you say ) almost choaked , or buried alive ; I suppose 't is not the first Untruth you have heard .

In Pag. 58 , and 59. about Christ's not being baptized till thirty Years of Age , you say , Christ was circumcised at eight days old ; and altho he was not baptized in his Infancy , yet he was baptized in the Infancy of Baptism : also you intimate , that some expound the words for his coming up out of the Water , that the Situation of the River Jordan was beneath the place where John was teaching .

Answ. Circumcision was then in force , now 't is gone , therefore in that Christ could not be an Example for us , but in Baptism ( which is an Ordinance of the New Testament ) he is our Example and Pattern , as his Precept is our Rule , in that we should follow his Steps .

2. And let me tell you , if it was in the Infancy of Baptism , ( you mean the beginning of the Practice of it ) you hereby contradict what you have said about those Jewish Baptisms , which you say were long in use before our Saviour's time , and from hence he spoke so little of Infant-Baptism ; if it were so , how was this in the Infancy of Baptism ?

3. Then was the Ordinance in its Beauty and Primitive Purity , indeed in its Virgin Glory and it was soon after the Apostles time corrupted , as well as other Truths were . We ought to go to the Original Copy , to the Primitive , or first Institution and Practice ; Is not Christ's Precept our only Rule ? and his own Practice our sure and certain Pattern ? 1 Cor. 11.2 . Were not the Saints to keep the Ordinances ( and commanded so to do ) as they were first delivered to them ? As to the Situation of the River Jordan , is a Figment ; 't is not said he came up from the Water , but that he came up out of the Water , therefore had been in it .

4. As to what you say , that John baptized in Aenon , because there was much Water ; that the word signifies many Waters , I have answered that already , but take one word or two more here . True , the Greek word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies many Waters , but not little Rivolets , but rather the tumultuousness and raging of the Seas , which fully signifies the abundance and confluence of Waters , contrary to what you affirm . See Rev. 14.2 . where you have the same original words , so Rev. 19.6 .

5. And lastly , as to your Arguments against re-baptizing , I pass them over , you might have saved your self that Pains , for we ( as I told you before ) are as much against re-baptizing as you can be , or for any to renounce their true Baptism ; your Arguments therefore in that are good . And now from the whole take two Arguments .

Arg. 1. If Baptism was ordained to represent the Death , Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure ; then Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism : But Baptism was ordained to represent the Death , Burial and Resurrection of Christ in a lively Figure ; therefore Sprinkling cannot be Christ's true Baptism .

This Argument we have proved to be true in every part of it .

Arg. 2. If Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin , who is baptized , or his present Regeneration , not future , and his rising again to walk in Newness of Life ; then Infants cannot be the Subiects thereof . But Baptism was appointed to hold forth or represent in a lively Figure the Person 's Death to Sin , who is baptized , or his present Regeneration , not future , and his rising again to walk in ●●wness of Life : therefore Infants are not the Subjects thereof .

Typical Baptisms signify Dipping or Plunging , 1 Cor. 10.2 . 4. There is yet one Proof further to make it yet clearer , that Baptism is Immersion , Dipping , or Plunging , and nothing else , and that is taken from those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Holy Scripture . 1. That of the red Sin , wherein the Fathers were bu●●ed as it were unto Moses in the Sea , and under the Cloud . See Pool's Annotations on the Place . Others , says he ( more properly ) think the Apostle uses this term in regard of the great Analogy Betwixt Baptism ( as it was used ) the Persons going down into the Waters , and being dipped in them ; and the Israelites going down into the Sea , the great Receptable of Water , though the Water at that time was gathered on Heaps on either side of them ; yet they seemed buried in the Water , as Persons seemed buried in the Water were in that Age , when they were baptized .

2. The second typical Baptism was that of Noah's Ark : See Sir Norton Knatchbul , whom I quoted before , saith he , Noah's Ark and Baptism were both a Type and Figure of the Resurrection , not a Sign of the washing away of Sin , though so taken metonymically , but a particular Signal of the Resurrection of Christ ; of this again , saith he , is Baptism a lively and emphatical Figure , as also was the Ark of Noah , out of which he returned as from a Sepulchre . From hence I infer this Argument following .

Arg. 3. If those typical Baptisms spoken of in the Scriptures , signified Immersion , or an overwhelming , or a Burial ; then is Sprinkling no true Baptism : But those typical Baptisms , &c. did signify Immersion , or an Overwhelming , or a Burial ; therefore Sprinkling is no true Baptism . Metaphorical Baptisms signify Dipping or Plunging , Mat. 3.11 .

5. And lastly , That Baptism is Dipping or Plunging , or a being buried in the Water , appears by those metaphorical Baptisms we read of , which are two-fold . 1 st. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit . 2 dly . The Baptism of Afflictions .

1. Saith John Baptist , I indeed baptize you with Water ; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and Fire . Now 't is not the sanctifying Gifts of the Spirit which every godly Person receives , that is the Baptism of the Spirit ; but as the Learned observe , the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Spirit , like that at Pentecost , Acts 1.4 , 5. shall be baptized . The Greek word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , saith Casaubon , is to dip or plunge , Casaubon . &c. in which Sense , saith he , the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized , for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost . So that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it , as in a large Fish-Pond . 'T is not a Sprinkling of the Spirit that is the Baptism of the Spirit , for so doubtless the Apostles had the Spirit before they were said to be baptized with it .

Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith , A Wind filled the whole House , that it seemed like a Fish-Pond , See Philologia sacra , p. 190. because it was promised to the Apostles , that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost .

2. We read of the Baptism of Afflictions : I have a Baptism to be baptized with , Matth. 20.22 , 23. and how am I straitned till it be accomplished ! From the literal Signification of the word baptizo , immergo , plunge under , overwhelm , great Afflictions come to be called Baptism , and signifies , as Vossius shews , not every light Affliction , but like that of David , Psal. 32.6 . he drew me out of deep Waters : Hence great Afflictions are called Waves ; Thy Waves and thy Billows are gone over me , Psal. 42.7 . 'T is spoken of Christ's Sufferings , who was as it were drowned , drenched or overwhelmed in Afflictions and Sufferings : every small Affliction is not the Baptism of Afflictions , but great and deep Afflictions , suffering even unto Blood and Death .

Pool's Annotat . on Mat. 20.22 Pool's Annotations say , to be baptized is to be dipped in Water , metaphorically to be plunged in Afflictions .

I shall close this also with another Argument .

Arg. 4. If those metaphorical Baptisms which we read of in God's Word ( as the Baptism of the Spirit , and of Afflictions and Sufferings ) are taken from the literal Signification of the Greek word baptiz● , which signifies to dip ▪ then Sprinkling is not baptizing , but th● former is true . Ergo , Sprinkling is not baptizing .

CHAP. X.

Containing some brief practical Vse of the whole ; with seasonable Counsel to Parents , &c.

1. FRom hence I infer that those who have only been sprinkled or rantized , who are baptized afterwards when they believe , are not rebaptized , as you affirm ; nor do they renounce their Baptism , though they do renounce the Practice and humane Tradition of Sprinkling .

2. All you pious Parents , bless God for Christ and the Gospel , and for all those Priviledges he hath bestowed upon you ; and be sure make God's Word your Rule , and tremble to do any thing in his Worship , without lawful Authority from him , I mean Precept or Example from his Word ; and do not adventure to baptize , much less to rantize your Children , whatever Mr. Burkit or any Man on Earth says , unless you can find it written in your Bibles ; God hath not commanded you to bring them into a Baptismal Covenant , not made any Promise of Blessing to assist them to perform it : If you do so , consider what I have said in this Treatise about that devised and unwarrantable Covenant by which you may heap up Guilt upon your selves , and lay such a Load and Burden on your Children , that you are not aware of , and frighten them with the Thoughts of Perjury , &c. sufficient to drive them into Despair , when indeed God never will charge them with Perjury , since he never commanded them to enter into any such Covenant .

Can any Body think when your Children are grown up , and they by Light received from God's Word , should be convinced they were never baptized at all , and so renounce their Infants Rantism , that they thereby become guilty of Perjury , and must be damned ? Do not these Men teach such a kind of Doctrine as that is ?

2 dly . Train up your Children in the Fear of God , and set them a good Example , and pray for them , and over them , and give them good Instruction , or godly Counsel and Admonitions ; but dread to sprinkle them in the Name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , because 't is not done by his Authority nor Appointment . Know 't is not in the Power of Man by any external Rite to make your Children Members of Christ , or visible Members of his Body . Baptism is not Bread for Infants , but for Christ's new-born Babes ; not for your Children as such , but such who are the Children of God , who are born of his Spirit .

3dly . Don't deceive your poor Children , and make them believe they are in a good Condition , by reason they are the Seed of believing Parents , and baptized ( as these Men call it ) and so look out for no further Work of Grace nor Regeneration ▪ but think they by that pretended Baptism were made Christians , even Children of God , Members of Christ , and Inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven , when in Truth 't is no such thing .

Nor have you any Cause to doubt but that your Infants who die ( though not baptized ) are happy , as it appears from what we have said . Neither be ye so ignorant to believe Baptism can save your Infants or the Adult either ! nor let poor Children cry out against their ungodly Parents , as Mr. Burkit intimates they may do in pag. 62. Take a Taste of his strange Doctrine , thus he says . Before your Children are born , ( 1. ) Make sure , as much as in you lieth , that they may be born within the Covenant , and under the Promise , by your being in Covenant with God your selves ; See that the Lord be your God , ● God in Covenant with you , and then you may comfortably hope he will be the God of your Seed in their Generations .

Answ. This is a way to bring poor Souls into Covenant , that God speaks nothing of in his Word . You may be in Covenant , and your Children never in it whilst they live , nay die out of the Covenant , as doubtless many godly People● Children do . Nor hath God made such a Covenant with every Christian Man and their Seed , as he made with Abraham , who was the Father of all that Believe ; but so are not you , nor I , though we are in Covenant with God , and walk in Abraham's steps .

Those who are in the Election of Grace of your Seed , never fear , God will interest in his due time with all Covenant-Blessings and Privileges ; but if any of them are not comprehended in that Election of Grace , they being born of your Loins , will not , cannot bring them into Covenant with God .

Your Business and your Childrens too , is to make your ( and their ) Election sure , by special and effectual Calling .

'T is not the first Birth , but the Second , that brings either you or your Children into the Gospel ▪ Covenant , that God may be your God , and their God .

But mark Mr. Burkit's next words , p. 62.

O! were but Infants capable of Knowledg , how much would they dread being born of wicked Parents ? Make it your Endeavour , before your Children are born , to sanctify your Children ; this is done by Prayer , &c.

Answ. : 1. This is enough to set Children against their ungodly Parents , nay , to 〈◊〉 them in their Hearts . Alas , the Children of wicked Parents ▪ I see not but they may be i● as good a Condition as the Children of Believers ▪ for doubtless God will not destroy poor children for the F●●●t and Sins of their Parents . 〈◊〉 by your begetting them , ( though gracious ) you cannot live them , so you by begetting them , ( though wicked ) cannot damn or destroy them .

Perkins on Gal. 3. p. 264. There is no reason ( saith Mr. Perkins ) that the wickedness of the Parents should prejudice the Child , in things pertaining to Eternal Life .

2. But if it be a● you say , that when you are in Covenant , your Children are in Covenant , doubtless they are in a safe Condition ; and Baptism to them is 〈…〉 cannot bring them into the Covenant beca●●● they were in it be●●●e , and therefore 〈◊〉 enough .

3. But may not th●● Doctrine pu●● just Rebuke ●●on Unbelievers , or Ungodly Persons , for once attempting to Marry ; and beget Children , that are in such a sad Condition , by reason their Pare●●s were not ●n Covenant w●●● God! Ought 〈◊〉 , nay , may they lawfully M●rry , this being considered , and such drea●●ul 〈◊〉 following ? ●●●sider how far doth th● Covenant ▪ Blessing ex●end ▪ If my Grand ▪ father in Cov●●●nt , ●ho my Fathe● 〈…〉 b● very wic●ed and ungodly Persons , am I not still in Coven●●t , and are not my Children i● Covenant too ? Nay , if 〈◊〉 was by my Great-Grandfather , will not that do , as well as if my mo●● 〈◊〉 Father was ▪ in Covenant with God ?

Sir , The Opposers of Pedo-●●ptism do not creep out of Darkness and 〈…〉 , as you scandalously affirm ; but God hath graciously brought us out of the Darkness you are in , and hath given us ( blessed be his Name ) the Knowledg and Light of his Word , and what his Good-will and Pleasure is in this Matter , and mercifully vouchsafed to us a gracious Freedom and Liberty to worship him ●●cording to our Light and Consciences , which ●ou seem troubled at ▪ and we are not ashamed to shew our Heads on the House-top ; nor do we scandalously dip our deluded Proselytes , as you with Envy and Prejudice enough say , but do at Noon-day , to the Honour of God , a●● in justification of his Wisdom and Holy Institution ▪ Baptize or Dip such who believe and are discipled by the Word ; which is a joyful Spectacle , no doubt , to the Holy Angels , and all enlightned good Men , who see this reproached and contemned Ordinance in its Primitive Purity .

And as touching your Reflections , Burkit's Reflections on Mr. Tredwell , answered . in p. 66. on ●●y Faithful and worthy Brother Mr. Tredwell , whom you pretend to pity , as one misled by prejudice of Education , undertaking an Office to get Bread ; and as if he was no ways qualified to preach the Gospel , because he understands not the Original Tongues .

I answer ; On my Knowledg , he had a good and warrantable Call to go and preach the Gospel where he is ; and was sent down also , as being approved as one able to teach , to the Profit and Edification of the People . And truly you , and those of your Brethren , have the least reason of any Men to talk as you do , about Preaching for Bread , for that will not serve your turn , you must have Fat Benefices . God hath ordained , that they that preach the Gospel , should live of the Gospel ; and the Workman is worthy of his Meat ; and would you not have him have Bread to eat ? I doubt not , 't is the Honour of God , and the bringing of Souls to Christ , my Brother Tredwill 〈◊〉 a● ; and had you no more for Preaching than he has , you might be the more justified in something ( I am informed ) you have done , or are about to do . And as for the Knowledg of the Tongues , I hope you do not make that an Essential Qualification of a true Minister ; I am sure God's Word doth it not ▪ the Spirit 's ●●●aching is above all H●●ane Learning .

And now , Sir , by this time I hope you will see more cause of blushing ( than he hath ) at your Attempt , and rash Censuring and Condemning , and in a bad manner reproaching of Christ's 〈◊〉 Ordinance , and Sacred Institution , and his poor and despised People , who wish you and all Men well , and did not , nor do intend any Evil against you , nor had troubled our selves with you , had not you begun with us . The Lord give you Repentance to the acknowledgment of the Truth , and grant more Love and Charity one to another ; For who art thou that judgest ●●●ther Man's Servant ?