THE PLEA OF THE childs OF BELIEVING-PARENTS, for their Interest in Abraham 's Covenant, their Right to Church-Member-ship with their Parents, and consequently their Title to BAPTISM.  
The Cause of publishing this Discourse after so many Learned Men have laboured in this Province, is declared in the Preface to the Reader.  Baptizandos esse paruulos, nemo dubitet: quando nec illi hinc dubitant, qui ex parte aliqua Contradicunt. August, de verbis Apostoli. Serm. 14. 
It will surely be rewarded by Christ at the latter day, as a work of more than ordinary Charity, to have pleaded, and maintained the Right of these poor Members of his, who want a Tongue to speak for themselves.  
Dr. Tho. Goodwin, in his Preface to Mr. Cotton, of Infant-Baptism.  
By GILES FIRMIN.  1 Cor. 7.14.— Else were your Children , but now they are Holy. 
LONDON, Printed for Tho. Simons, at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate-Street, near Ludgate, 1683.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
IF the Reader demands a reason, why after so many Books written by other Men (far more able than myself) upon this Subject, that now I should appear? my answer is ready. I had as few thoughts of writing, as any Man could have of reading any thing of mine upon the Subject. But hearing of a Book against Infant-Baptism, very much cried up, and observing some discourse about Anabaptism this Spring, more in the Town then ever I heard before, I sent to borrow the Book, I took a brief view of it, and the Book was sent for again. To spend the Lord's-Day so much as one Exercise upon any Controversy, I did much dislike it, yet I thought I was bound to say something to it, and did borrow a little time, before I went on my other course.  
About 〈◊〉 We●ks after I had done, come● down an An●●aptist from London, to a Town Seven 〈…〉 Miles distant from me, and writes me ● Letter, informing me, That he was one that ●●d walk in Gospel-Communion with Col. Danvers, (sometimes he styles him Esq Danvers) then writes to me thus. You have cast the Odium of Falshood and Fergery upon his Book to your Auditory: If it was to deter your Hearers from reading his Book, it doth demonstrate the badness of your Cause, in that you are not willing it should be inspected. If you design thereby to degrade the Gentleman, as infamous, though unknown, you have therein greatly erred,— therefore I request you on the behalf of Col. Danvers, that you be pleased to do him the common Justice, as to publish to the World in Print, what you have spoken in your more private Meetings, by way of detection of his Forgery,— and not only to Print what you have traduced him with, but also any other new things you have Preached, that will lend any assistance to your Infant-Baptism, that this Gentleman doth endeavour to throw down as a spurious thing;— several of your own Party have written against him, but he, with others, have so answered them, that they have set down silent under— The Colonel hath a better Character than you give of him,— he hath a large Portion of this World's goods, etc. Thus he runs on in commendation of the Colonel, and ends it in such a way, that neither I, nor others that read the Letter, could understand his meaning.  
As to this Letter, the Reader may please to understand, the Book which I borrowed had in the Title Page, only H.D. I could not tell whither D. stood for Den (whose name I had seen) or del, or Danvars, of whose name only I had heard, but never saw any thing of his; but whoever was the Author, I found fault with him. 1. For his Falsehood in the Historical part (which if my Memory fails me not, took up above half his Book.) 2ly, His fraudulent dealing. 3ly, His raising a dust upon the Scriptures he quotes, to trouble his Reader. 4ly, For his Logic. But for any other Opinions, or any thing concerning his Conversation, I speak not one word: for how could I, when I knew nothing of him, and only heard three times (as I remember) there was one Colonel Danvers, an Anabaptist, and that was all; nor was I certain the Book was his.  
It was never my intent to answer every particular in his Book, partly because I would not spend the Lord's Day in Controversies, and partly because Catechising was the thing I intended, being far more necessary, so that I did grudge the time I spent about this Book; out of which I only wrote the most material things, and the Book was sent for away.  
For the new things, this Epistoler would have me publish. Doth he mean new Scriptures, or new Arguments, or both?  
1st. Why new? since the old are not yet answered; it is one thing to write against Men, another to answer them.  
2ly, Why new? since my Author borrows so much old out of Mr. Tombes' Book, which I look upon as instar omnium, and is the only Anabaptist Book I have.  
3ly, Why new? since my Author opposes old Texts, and I must take the part of a Respondent.  
4ly, Why new? my Epistoler should tell me what Controversies are there, which have been handled so long, by very able Divines as this hath been, that he that comes last, hath wrote all new?  
5ly, To conclude then, as to these new things, I am forced to take up the old Texts, because of my Author's opposing them: I do but touch other Texts, and not insist upon them, where others have been before me: for other men's Arguments, I borrow but one from Mr. Baxter, and tell you whose it is, and improve it my way. If I have hit upon other men's notions, it is unknown to me, as I see I have upon Mr. Wills, in answer to the old Britain's: but I had given the answer in the Congregation, and wrote it in my Copy, before I saw Mr. Wills.  
For his crying Victoria, telling me our Divines sit silent under the Answers the Colonel, and his Party have given them. If this Epistoler, read Mr. Baxter's Second Defence of Infants, etc. he may read a full answer to this, and the reason of their silence, p. 211. We may allow some Honour to a Colonel, but why do they sit silent? not because the Colonel, or any other Anabaptist have put them to silence, by Arguments from Scripture, by Truth in History, or Strength of Learning, the contrary appears to judicious Readers: but who will care for dealing with unreasonable Men? They have other work to do of higher concernment: Let the Anabaptists indulge themselves in their Opinions and Practices, 
Redgness. 24. August, 1682.  if they please, I have performed that common Justice my Epistoler requires of me, only for brevity's sake, I left out several things I would have added; if this may do the Church of Christ any service, I shall have my end, and bless God,  
G. FIRMIN.   

THE PLEA OF THE childs OF Beleiving-Parents, etc.  
THE Right of the Children of Beleiving-Parents to Church-Membership with their Parents, and consequently to Baptism, was never so strongly opposed, nor better defended, than it hath been within these forty yearts in this English Nation. I think there is enough Written to satisfy the minds of sober Christians; but the Enemy of the Church is not yet quiet, nor will be, till the Church Militant becomes Triumphant.  
A difference we may observe between Christians now, and those in former times in England, since I can remember: How wary were they then, what Doctrines they received: Tho' they would not pin their Faith upon any Man's Sleeve, yet they would consider what Persons they were for soundest of Faith, and Holiness in Conversation, from whom they would receive any Doctrine, which hath made me wonder many times how this Doctrine of Anti-Pado Baptism, which was first hatched in the Brain of that Notorious Heretic [for so upon search I find him] Auxentius, Chereshed by Pelagius, and afterwards revived by Men of corrupt Minds, and lewd Conversations; as that Learned and Pious Martyr, Mr. Philpot, tells his Fellow Prisoner in Newgate, That this wretched Doctrine as Mr. Thomas Hooker calls it, should fi●● entertainment in the Hearts of any truly Godly as it hath done in England of late: At this, as I said, I have wondered! For this was not the frame of the Right Old English Puritans, they would have abhorred the Doctrine for the Author's sake, Good Mr. Jessey, I knew between 50 and 60 years since, but then I heard of no Inclination this way: and one I have met with, truly Pious, sound in all other Points humble, made no noise of his Opinion, [whither Re-baptised, I cannot tell] with him we held Communion in the Holy Supper.  
To me it seems strange, and so strange, that I will never believe it, That Christ should Promise his Spirit to his Church, and that good Spirit should suffer both his Martyrs and choice People to err in such a Point [if it be an Error] from the Apostles days to this day. Since the Reformation, I believe England, Scotland, and Ireland, have, through God's Rich Grace, afforded as many Holy, Heavenly, Gracious, and Learned Men, as any Nations under the Sun; As smart Enemies to Mystical Babylon, [of which the Anabaptists tells us, Infant-Baptism is a Relic] as any Anabaptists can be; and have done more against that Babylon, than all the Anabaptists that ever were or shall be, have done, or can do: and till of late years, I never heard of one [what others have done I know not] that did approve, but did detest this Doctrine, till our unhappy Wars: in which time, and since that time, this Doctrine is much spread.  
May I have leave to inquire what should occasion the spreading of this Opinion in this Nation, [besides the Sovereign pleasure of God, who for wise ends, may suffer a Gracious Man to err in some particular] I have thought of these Causes.  
First, The first and chief Reason was, even good Men did not improve their Father-Abrahams-Covenant, nor their Infant-Baptism Covenant, as they ought. Hence not improving these, they did not experience the goodness of God in them, and our advantage by them; Then no wonder tho' Men in times of Dispute and Temptations, be at a loss, and come at last to deny that, which others, who have improved and experienced, have found to be a greater privilege, advantage, and support to their Souls, under their fears, and other temptations.  
Experiences (you say) unless well grounded upon Scriptures, are but deluding Fancies; I know it very well, therefore the grounds have been well weighed. On the other side, tho' the Scriptures be plain, yet the Gospel, and things apprehended only by Faith, are such, and Temptations about them [especially in some Men] so strong, that if a Man hath not attained to some experience of what he doth believe, if his Faith hath not brought in some Spiritual Sense, in the Hurricanes of long and strong Temptations, a Man's Faith will be terribly shaken in the very Gospel itself. The wind having blown at that Door before. I could not but take special notice of what the worthy Author of the Book, Entitled, The fulfilling of Scriptures, hath told us concerning that Holy Man, and Eminent Servant of Christ, Mr. Bruce, telling his People, I think it to be a greater matter to believe there is a God, than people judge, p. 430. The same Author speaking about Experience [from his own Experience I doubt not] how it helps to Witness that great Truth of Godhead, p. 111. in the next Page, 112. speaks thus, It is not the Contemplation of Nature in its highest flight, can answer such an Assault of the Devil, which may try the most Established Christian Adult in the being of a God, etc. but then he shows how Experience of God helps the Soul. Whether these be not Truths, I leave it to those who have been long exercised with these Temptations; now if in that Point, as to the being of a God, than much more as to Gospel Truths: that no wonder the Apostle Prays, that Beleivers may abound in all Knowledge and Sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Phil. 9 we read Judgement, but the Greek word, and so the Margin tells you, is Sense. The Arabic word is very significant, Grotius and Gomarus, understand by Sense, Experience: Hemmingius and Zanchie, opens the word excellently.  
Some Men are exercised with Temptations exceedingly more than others, and God is pleased to be more Dark, or exceeding Dark to some over he is to others, which hath made me often think and say,  
It is only Divine Teaching, and the experimental Sense of what is taught, that can make a sound Christian bear up and hold to the Word in the time of long and sore Temptations. I could here give a very sad but true Story, the like scarce ever heard before, pertinent to the Point in hand; but I fear the Devil would make ill use of it among tempted Christians, and therefore I will not commit it to Writing.  
To return to the Head I am upon. If the Anabaptists say, How can a Man improve a Nullity, and get Experience of it? Abraham's Covenant with the Seed of Believers, now is Null, Infant-Baptism is Null. True, I do not know how a Man can improve a Nullity. But I doubt not there are many Anabaptists in England, who lived several years before they drank in this Opinion of Anabaptism, and in that time did not think Abraham's Covenant, nor their Infant-Baptism to be Null; many of them also had Parents not only visible, but real Christians; I appeal to their Consciences, did you in that time before you drank in this Opinion, improve the Covenant, and your Infant-Baptism? did you mind these? did you meditate well upon them? did you believe them upon these Meditations and Faith? did you follow God close and earnestly in Prayer for the benefits of them? and tho' you met with Temptations, yet did you hold on? and what, did God give you in nothing, no support, no relief, no comfort from these? did you find no advantage to your Souls by these? I will never believe it. God is gracious, God is faithful, what ever we think of him in our dark hours I will rather believe they did not follow close their improvement of these, for I meet but with very few, even good Christians, tho' they hate Anabaptism, that do improve them as they ought. No wonder then tho' Men cry out, Abraham's Covenant is Null, and Infant-Baptism Null, when they never improved them, so found no good by them, and now turn Anabaptists.  
I know Christians that lie under some Temptations, may, and do expect more from the Covenant, Promise, and Sacraments, than God intended, or the Scripture holds forth, they would make one Scripture contradict another: If God gives in but a little, and will suffer us to lie under our Temptations, but yet will supply us with so much from his Covenant, that we are able to hold up our hands in the day of Battle: that our Hearts are kept close to him, and do not in the least depart from him; If we cannot get the fatted Calf, and Music, etc. Luke 15.23. [which some Christians have] if we can but get a Kid, and have a Father to own us at last, 'tis worth our Believing, Praying, and Writing.  
What it was that Woman [a noted Midwife I knew] expected to find at the Lords Supper, I know not, but it seems she found it not: whereupon she forsook the Lords Table, with this blasphemous Speech, A Man may find as much good by a Loaf in the Baker's Shop, as by the Bread in the Lord's Supper, for she had been often there and could find no good. Hearing of this Speech, I inquired after her, by those who had been long acquainted with her [I know not whether I saw her after I heard it] they took her always for a civil Woman, but did not think she was acquainted with the work of Regeneration; but that made me to wonder the more, for such persons commonly take up their Priest in the work done, in above partaking of the Ordinance.  
If Christians be at this Point, we expect so much from Promises, so much from Ordinances, or we have nothing, than we may do as she did, throw off all Ordinances, and Promises too. Tho' I am far from attaining what I have sought and desired, yet I bless God, so much I have attained from my understanding, and improving of Abraham's Covenant, and my Infant-Baptism, that I have but a light esteem of all the Anabaptists Books against them, they signify nothing with me: but of this, more hereafter.  
Disputing without experiencing, signifies little in Divinity to a tempted Soul. But this I doubt not to affirm, Did Christians set in earnest to their work, and labour to improve Abraham's Covenant, and their Infant-Baptism, they should find as much profit, advantage, and support to their Souls, as any Anabaptists do by their Dipping when Adult. But if Ordinances be not improved, how can Men expect any good by them?  
When God made that Covenant with Abraham, to be the God of him and his Seed, and appointed the seal of his Covenant to be Administered to the Infant on the vl day. Might not? aught not all the Jews, and did not many of them when they came to years of discretion, and were taught the meaning of them, improve them to their Soul's advantage? why then may not we as well improve the same Covenant, and our Infant-Baptism, when we are come to years of discretion, to our Spititual advantage, when we understand them by our Pastors and Parents teaching?  
If there be such an advantage in Adult-Baptism, over there is in Infant-Baptism, what is the matter that some of them could say, they found no such good by it? and I do believe them by their Conversation; but especially, what is the reason that so many hundreds of them cast off both Infant and Adult-Baptism, and deny Baptism altogether, for which they were sometime so zealous? if there had been such advantage in it, they would not have done so wickedly to cast away such an Institution of Christ.  
Secondly, A second thing which might occasion this, is, That so many Children of Godly Parents, who were Dedicated to God in Baptism in their Infancy, and Parents have bestowed great pains in their Education, yet prove wicked.  
The deeper the wounds of such Parents, and the sorer the damnation of such Children without Repentance.  
But first, We may observe the greatest number of visible, yea true Christians in the visible Church, consist of the Children of such Parents.  
Since the Flood of Iniquity of late years broke in upon this Nation, it hath risen so high that it hath flown into the Houses of Godly Parents, more than ever it did since England knew the Gospel. This is a Lamentation.  
Secondly, Was it not so in Isaac's Family, where but two, and one naught.  
thirdly, We never understood that when God made that Covenant with our Father Abraham, and his Seed, that he intended to make all his Seed Godly; but we understand such a Privilege in it, that neither Parents nor Children, who have their Eyes opened, will part with it, let the Anabaptists write what they please against it.  
Fourthly, But do this Disping, 
None deny that Regenerate persons are the subjects of Baptism, he must say only, else he opposed not us Christins Scrip. pract. of Int. etc. p. 147, 148.  and Re-Baptising of Adult persons help it? are they all Godly? If the Elect and Regenerate be the only Subjects of Babtism, [as my Author tells me] I am sure they are not of Anabaptism, to my knowledge, unless drunkenness and uncleanness, be Notes of Regeneration; we shall not need to go to Germany to inquire, England will afford proof enough. Mr. Baxter hath given us a sad account of some of them, enough to make a serious Christian afraid of the Opinion. By a serious Christian who came from New-England, we are informed, That a [Seaman as I remember] one being Baptised, how long the Baptist held him under Water I know not, but so soon as his Head was above Water, he wrapped out an Oath [so I heard it] what do you make account to drown me?  
Thirdly, Another is this, The great Adversary of Christ and his Church, seeing how earnestly the Spirits of good Christians were set for the Reformation of the Church in all Points, according to the Holy Scriptures which we profess, to hinder this work, by dividing of Christians, and raising Animosities one against another, used this for one Engine. Baptising of Infants of Believing Parents, being the Opinion and Practice of such Christians, they must now be thrown by, because in the Scriptures we can not where read that Christ gave command to his Apostles to Baptism Infants. While I was answering this Book, word was sent me, That there was one who would Dispute with me in the Congregation, expecting his coming, and knowing he had thrown away Water-Baptism; for an Introduction to my work, I laid down Ten Arguments to prove that Water-Baptism was still an Institution of Christ, obliging all that professed Faith in him, to practise, to hear what he would say to them, judging it a silly act in him, to come to oppose me in Infant-Baptism, who had renounced Water-Baptism altogether: but that day which he said he would come, he did not. About three Weeks after he did, and this was all he had against me [what concerned others I regard not] Where did Christ give command to Baptism Infants? To this I had spoken several times before, that this was no New thing to the Congregation. There was no such express command in those words I granted, but there was a command to Baptism Infants, employed, included in that command of Christ to his Apostles, to Baptism Disciples, Matth. 28.19. I framed my Argument, but the Man could not tell which Proposition to deny: but after some words [little to the purpose] civilly departed.  
They who desire the Reformation of the Church, do not say every thing must be expressly set down in Scripture; but if it be contained in the Scripture, and by necessary consequence deducted from thence, we are bound to believe, or practise it.  
Our Lord taught us this in proving the Resurrection against the Sadduces; A Point of infinite more consequence, than the Baptising of an Infant. For if there be no Resurrection, to what purpose is our Religion? But according to the Anabaptists Argument, that Call for an express command to baptise Infants, and therefore reject it, our Lord did not prove the Resurrection.  
I will personate a Sadduce, and take their Argument; the Question is, Shall there be a Resurrection of the Dead? The Sadduce denies it, our Lord affirms it, and proves it from Exod. 3.6. I am the God of Abraham, etc. Matth. 22.29.31. v. But what is this to the proof of the Question, Doth God say expressly to Moses, there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead? if so, than we will believe it, else not. Thus the Anabaptist, Doth Christ expressly command the Apostles to Baptism Infants? then we will Practise it, else we Condemn it. But tho' God did not expressly say there shall be a Resurrection, yet he said that, which by necessary Consequence will force it. For tho' Jacob, who died last of the three, had been dead two hundred years, when God spoke those words, yet he saith, he is their God, but he is not the God of the dead, but of the living; Mark 12.28. The people said, He answered them well, and 22 Matth. 33. They were astonished at it. Yet I may say, the necessity of this Consequence, from that Antecedent, is nothing so obvious and clear to many, even good Christians, as the Consequence of Infants of Believing-Parents, being under Abraham's Covenant, and Church-Members with their Parents. But what mischief this Principle and Practice hath done, and how it hath served the Devil's Design, we are sad Witnesses.  
Fourthly, Tho' I do not put so much stress upon this, because the Argument of the Anabaptist cast out all the Posterity of the soundest Believers, and holy Men, as well as the most wicked out of the Church; yet I believe this hath helped on with the rest, to see what ignorant and debauched persons [because it is the Mode of the Nation] require Baptism for their Children, and it is Administered to them. The Anabaptists Principle is, That Regenerate Persons are the only Subject of Baptism, but how far is this Practice from their Principle? This doth a little confirm me in it; because that Man whom I mentioned in my first Page, with whom we held Communion; when those who are esteemed godly, and he did think so, had Children to be baptised, he desired he might know it, and would be present at the Administration, though he was not clear for Infant-Baptism.  
This I will say, I had rather baptise the Children of some Heathen, than of many who are called Christians, their Ignorance is not more, nor Conversations worse, and yet these Christians have lived long under Gospel-light: Had they but the knowledge required in the Catechism in the Common-Prayer-book, and Conversations as civil as some Indians I have known, it were tolerable; but when men are asked,  
Quest. What is God?  
Ans. A good old man.  
Qu. What is Jesus Christ?  
Ans. A courteous young Gentleman.  
Quest. How many Gods are there?  
Ans. Ten.  
Qu. How many Commandments are there?  
Ans. Two.  
Qu. Which is the first?  
Ans. Salvation.  
What the second was he forgot that stood by, and shown the three last Questions, [the first two were another person's] and professed to my Father-in-law, when he came to have his Child baptised, That he answered him as well as he could. For want of Catechising and good Discipline in Church and State: Into what a miserable condition is this Nation fallen? That this hath helped on among these who are godly Anabaptists, I do not much doubt.  
Fifthly, I cannot exclude the holy and just government of God. When people come to be glutted with the precious Gospel-truths, the life of a Christian; these are stolen and common; new things would be welcome. I doubt not to say, God may permit some of his own dear people to fall into some Error, which in them he overlooks and pardons: when others shall take up that Error, and bear up themselves in it, because such godly men were of that Opinion, and that Error to them, shall be an inlet to other Errors, and so fall from one to another, filling their heads with notions, and spending time in dispute about slight matters, and ruin their Souls at last. I thought it was a smart and terrible speech of Tertullian, Nec periclitor dicere, etc. Nor do I think it any danger to say, The very Scriptures themselves to be so ordered or disposed by the will of God, that they should minister matter to Heretics, when I read there must be Heresy, 1 Cor. 11.19. which without the Scriptures could not be. De prescrip. adv. Haeret. p. 86.  
And here I cannot but observe the judgement of God [I can call it no other] That two great Corporations I know, where there were great Assemblies of Anabaptists, [It is the same in many other places in England] the greatest number of them turned Quakers, the Anabaptists Society dwindle almost to nothing. Thus they who threw off Infant-Baptism, throw off the Ordinance of Baptism itself, the Lord's Supper, and the great Gospel-truth, setting up Self, and a Heathenish morality, being now fallen into the Mare mortuum, from which few or none return.  
Sixthly, Another thing which hath prevailed to draw away some honest meaning persons, not able to judge, have been, the great stress and absolute necessity the Anabaptists put upon Baptism, and their Baptism, for so they style themselves the Baptised Congregations, and none baptised but themselves, which strikes divers good Christians with fear; and what great good things they may expect who do come into their way, being Rebaptised, from Mark 16. This Text Peter de Bruis a Waldensian [in great esteem with my Author, for his judgement against Infant-Baptism; though herein, as in other things charged upon him, by his railing Popish Adversary, who took them up by Report from others, he confesseth, it is thought he is abused,] makes great use of, 
neutrum enim sine alteo salvat.  and tells us, Not one of these alone doth save, but jointly; not Baptism without our own proper Faith; nor our own proper Faith without Baptism, is able to do any thing; neither of them without the other saveth. Therefore though Infants be baptised by you, yet because by the hindrance of their, they cannot believe, by no means are they saved. With other strange Tenets, not worthy the Transcribing. If my Author be not of the same Opinion with this De Bran, [if he be not abused] why doth he so much glory of him in his Book, and in his Title-page? And if this be true, That sound Faith in Christ cannot save without persons be of age, and Dowzed over Head and Ears; no wonder though they who believe it, yield to Dipping.  
I intent not to meddle with the Opinion, only this I say, They who do believe Jesus Christ to be God-man in one Person truly Immanuel, do reverence the Institution of Christ, and do acknowledge a necessity of the Ordinance, both a Necessitas modii & praecepti, nor dare we omit it: Yea, some of the Socinians, [which I note because of the Quaquers, some of which I know to be rather worse than Socinians, as to the Person of Christ, and deny Baptism altogether; as also the Lord's Supper, and no wonder] do acknowledge Baptism not to be a thing indifferent, but necessary, as Martin. Crechonicius, and a means of Salvation, as Schlichtingius, That no man is to be esteemed a Member of the Church of Christ without Baptism, as Ostorodus. Therefore he thinks, and Socinus, 
Socin. Proflig. de Baptis.  That Infants may be baptised. All quoted with the Pages of their Books, by Calonius; and tells us also, That in a Socinian Synod, held Anno 1636. in Transilvania, [as I understand it was] the Synod concluded for Water-bapism, In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So that the Quaker as to Gospel Ordinances, and other greatest Gospel-truths, are the worst Enemies Christ hath among them who own the Gospel, which they do after a fashion.  
But though we own the Necessity of Baptism, 
The necessity of Baptism, both for the Adult and little children, but not absolute nenessity.  yet we do not think a sound Believer in Christ dying without Baptism, shall be damned: Our Lord doth not say in the next words Mark 16.16. but he that believeth not, nor is baptised, shall be damned. Sound Believers may be hindered from Baptism, and have been so.  
How the Hopes of spiritual advantage, as to more Grace and sense of God's Love. Upon the Suasions some Sectaries have used to draw honest persons into their way, have prevailed, and how miserably they have complained after of Disappointment, I could give Instance.  
The Learned Reignolds Praeter. 3. de Lib. Apoc. doth assert, with many others whom he mentions.  
I can also instance one Woman reputed for a serious Christian, who hearing an Anabaptist, and after discoursing with him, he told her, she must unravel all again, she wanted this Ordinance of Baptism, put her into such a fright, that the Woman could not be quiet in her mind till she was Dipped, and then fell distracted, and never recovered. I had this from her own relation. The Spaniards drive the Indians to Baptism; and the Anabaptists, scar●e sound Christians, baptised to Anabaptism.  
I wrote to an Acquaintance of mine in a Corporation where were many Anabaptists, to certify me about the Conversation of Anabaptists. He answers me, they are mouldered away to nothing, most turn Quakers. Two that lived the next door to him were the best he knew. The Woman, when Dipped, thought she was in a state of Salvation, [as she said] but threw off that all Ordinances and Prayer. He a little before his Death, slighted the Blood of Christ, and both died Quakers; yet by their carriage drew divers to be Quakers.  

SECT. II.  
As to the Book itself, who ever was the Author, I charged it with falsehood in the Historical part: When I sent to borrow it again, a second Edition was sent me, than I saw the Letter was true, which assured me Colonel Danvers was the Author; and abundance of Authors more added than were in the first: A whole Regiment is drawn up, to the admiration of the Ignorant Anabaptists that now cry Victoria, if he doth not abuse his Authors, and the Anabaptists too, which he hath most grossly.  
For the ancient Fathers, several of them I had read, and knew them to be contrary to his Opinion: But to follow Authors in particular, I thought it a vain thing on the Lordsday, and that in a Country Congregation. His quoting of the old Britain's, and the Waldenses, as being Enemies to Infant-Baptism, I took notice of, answered that and no more. Of which a little afterwards.  
As to the numerous company of Authors he hath quoted, I shall say but two things.  
First, I desire my Author to tell us if amongst them all he can find, who was the Author of Infant-Baptism, if it be an Error; as we can tell him who first opposed Infant-Baptism, Heretics not of the lower rank.  
The Lord Brooks, is a person whom the Anabaptists would persuade us, was one of their Sect, because of some Lines of his, with which I accord: But he tells us what prevailed with him on the contrary; his words are these.  
For aught I could ever learn, it was the constant custom of the purest and most primitive Church, [mark Sir, not mystical Babylon then] to baptise the Infants of believing Parents: For I could never find the beginning and first Rise of this Practice; where as it is very easy to tract Heresies to their first rising up and setting foot in the Church.  
This agrees with what I am upon, why then do you quote him as if he were yours? As for what he saith about Schismatics, Sir, you are the Schismatic, for I have kept Communion with a godly Anabaptist; but one tells me, that he desired Communion with one of your Churches, but they would not admit him to Communion, because he would not be dipped.  
I see my Author hath named Master D. Rogers, as if he did favour his Opinion, when as living in the next Town to him, and having intimate acquaintance with him, I knew him to be a smart Enemy to the Anabaptists.  
2. The second thing I would say to them, is this, That ancient Father, pious, humble, and learned Austin flourished above twelve hundred years before my Author, or any Anabaptist in England was born; then he lived so many years nearer the Primitive Churches, than my Author, or any of our Anabaptists: Whether then B. Austin, or those Anabaptists should best know the practice of the Primitive Churches as to Baptising of Infants, let any sober man judge: He being a person so learned and so famous, no question had all those Authors which my Author quotes, that wrote before him, if not many more which we have not: And did not that learned pious Father understand them as well as my Author, or any Anabaptist now in England? And though he was no Christian himself, yet was not he acquainted with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptists? Now he saith, the practice of Infant-baptism was so universal in the Church, 
Austin. l. 1. de peccat. mer. & renis. c. 26. De baptis. contra. Denat. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 24.  that it could not but come from the Apostles. Ecclesia semper habuit, etc. The Church ever heard it, saith he.  
Had not Austin spoke true, there was one did watch him [Pelagius] who would have told him of it to purpose, for that Practice stood in Pelagius' way, but Pelagius did not deny it.  
And whereas my Author doth not regard the Writers as to this Controversy, that wrote after the Third Centuary; I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three first Centuaries, that have any thing in them to oppose the baptising of the Infants of believing Parents; but on the contrary, some of them speak for it.  
They that read the most ancient Writers next the Apostles, may see the subject matter they treated upon, did not give them any occasion to speak of Infant-Baptism, they had other Points in hand.  
As to the old Britain's, I was a little startled to read them brought against Infant-Baptism, the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus, I did read in him, but I much question the truth of Fabianus, because Mr. Fox, giving us an account what Austin the Monk required of the British Bishops when he came into England; tells us, He required that they should Preach the Gospel to the Englishmen, and that they should among themselves reform certain Rites and usages in their Church, specially for keeping Eastertide, and Baptising after the manner of Rome.  
Mr. Fox quotes several Authors besides Fabianus, for this: But that passage, That they should give Christendom to children, which Fabianus reports, he doth not mention.  
To Baptise after the manner of Rome, to use their Ceremonies in Baptism, and to baptise Children; differ much. I searched what Ceremonies were then used in Rome in Gregory's time, and no wonder though the British Bishops rejected them.  
But that the old Britain's were against Infant-Baptism, is very false, which I thus prove.  
What year God first sent the Gospel into England, the Learned do not agree; there seem to be strong grounds to believe, that it was before King Lucius sent to Eleutherius B. of Rome; some say it was, An. 156, others 169, others 170, others 180. The Contest between Austin and Pelagius, was about 417, in the 63 year of Augustine's life, as Bucolcerus gathers. Pelagius denied Original Sin; upon that denied Infant-Baptism as being superfluous: not because Infants cannot believe, which is the sole Argument of our Anabaptists, Pelagius a learned man would have slighted such an Argument as this. Austin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin, from the universal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin, they did baptise Infants: Now this Infant-baptism saith Austin, The Church ever had it, ever held it, 
De verb. Apo. Ser. 10.  they received this from the faith of their Ancestors, and this will it keep with perseverance to the end. Let Pelagius who was a Britain, answer this: Britain had received the Gospel 240 years before this Contest. Pelagius knew the practice of his own Country, and if it had been true, that the old Britain's did not baptise Infants, as my Author saith, why did not Pelagius Confute Austin, charge him with falsehood; the Britain's do not baptise Infants, ergo, it is not the practice of the Universal Church: This being an Argument Austin did so urge, and put so much stress upon it, Pelagius would have removed it if he could.  
But so far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Austin affirmed, that Celestius a Pelagian, in a Book which he put ●orth at Rome, hath these words, which Austin quotes out of it; We do confess that Infants ought to be baptised for remission of sins, according to the rule of the Universal Church, and according to the sentence of the Gospel, ●hough Caelestius do not mention the Text, ●et by the following words, we may plainly see he means, John 3.5. Except a man be ●orn again of Water and of the Spirit. So that according to this Pelagian, here is Scripture ground, and the Rule of the Universal Church for Infant-Baptism.  
So then for the old Britain's, they were not against Infant-baptism: Now then for the Waldenses, were I to charge any Opinion or practice upon other Churches, I should first look to the Confession of their Faith, than I may boldly charge them or not. As we have a few Anabaptistical Writers in England, should their Books a hundred years hence fall into the hands of Anabaptists in foreign parts, should they then affirm that the Church of England, [or the Churches in England] were Anabaptists, would not this be false, and take it as a wrong done unto us? View the Confession of Faith of the Church of England, of the Assembly of Divines, of the Independents in England, in New England, all their Confessions declare for Infant-baptism. Thus should my Author have done, if he would deal honestly with the Waldenses, produce their Confession of Faith, and the Article in which they condemn Infant-baptism. In the Articles which I have read over, I find no such thing, but that Baptism ought to be Administered only with pure Water, without any mixture of hallowed Oil.  
The Ministers in the Valleys of Piedmont, in the year 1532, when the Anabaptists in Germany were risen up, in the 17th Article of their Confession, declare for Infant-baptism: The Churches in those Valleys, kept chaste to Christ from the Apostles times, and were long before the Waldenses were named; they were called Waldenses, but this was a Nickname put upon them by their Adversaries, to make the World believe, that their Religion was but a Novelty. [Morland. p. 12.]  
In the Confession of the Faith of the Waldenses in Bohemia, (so Vergerius three times calls them) the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptism, Anno 1535. As the Anabaptists risen up, so the Churches drew up their Confessions against them: The Ministers in their Preface to their Confession, writ, That some malicious Spirits, because they would cast all the Odium upon them that they could, did reckon them amongst the Anabaptists. But they answer, Nos ex factione Anabaptistarum non esse, nemini ignotum est. All men know they were none of that Faction, nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptists. The Doctrine they confessed in their Churches, they held and owned, before the name of the Anabaptists was so much as heard of.  
So that my Author hath plainly abused both the old Britain's, and the Waldenses.  
Observing how my Author and Mrs. Tombs insulted over Mr. Baxter, and he that gave me the Challenge to Print, telling me, All my Party were silent, and I living in a Country small Town, and not hearing what Books came forth, I could not tell what to think of it; but when I wrote my Copy for the Press, I left here a space, till I wrote to Mr. Baxter, to know whether he had met with any Arguments to change his thought. I thank him, he sent me down his Book in answer to them both. Than one lent me Mr. Wills. I heard also of Mr. Whitston, but I saw none of these Authors till my Copy was written, but I see they have answered Mr. Danvers to purpose, discovered his gross falsehood and forgery. Another Divine I met with that knows Mr. Danvers, though he hath not written against him, yet he hath so traced him, that he told me, never did Jesuits abuse Authors in their Quotations, more than he hath done.  
That the Jesuits practice lies this way, we may see in Bellarmine, who quotes Ten of the Fathers to justify his Doctrine of Christ's preaching to the Spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3.19. when as Six of them (I may say, Eight of them) give that Interpretation of the Text, which Bellarmine himself condemns. See (saith that pious and learned Reignolds) With what Conscience these Jesuits handle the Controversies of Religion; which may well be applied to Mr. Danvers, abusing so many Authors as he hath done. [Reignold. Praelec. 86. de lib. Apochr. p. 1044. See him again, p. 1083.]   

SECTION III.  
Leaving then the Historieal part, by which Infant-baptism is much confirmed: Let us come to the holy Scriptures, out of which our Divines who have laboured in this Controversy, have produced so many, that I know not how more can be well added; where therefore others have been large, I will be brief.  
One man I knew (though I had no inward acquaintance with him) about fifty years since, a Mechanic, and Head of a separate Company in those days; he had none but his Mother-tongue, but a very good head in Polemical Divinity. This Doctrine of Anti-paedobaptism then being propounded to him, he rejected, though he had other Arguments against it, yet I took notice of this: I observe (saith he) ever since God had a people upon the earth, he made a difference between the families of his servants, and of wicked men, even before the flood, Gen. 6.2. There is not only truth, but strength in it,  the Anabaptists scribble against it.  
Two Texts especially my Author pitch upon, because he thinks we build much upon them; Gen. 17.7. & 1 Cor. 7.14. and so we do: these he labours to take from us. That the children of the Jews were Church-members with their Parents, the Anabaptists acknowledge: Then they were made so, by this Covenant of God with Abraham and with his Seed, and the Commandment to Circumcise them; here than we must begin.  
From the 17. Gen. 7. I lay the Argument thus.  
A gracious Covenant made, signed, and sealed by God, with a believing Person and his Seed, and never repealed by God; that Covenant remaineth in force, and is to be signed and sealed unto his Seed.  
But that Covenant of God with Abraham (to be his God, and the God of his Seed, was such a Covenant, and never repealed, Therefore  
This we premise, There is a great difference between the outward Administration of an Ordinance, and the inward Efficacy? This is clear in the Lord's Supper, preaching the Word, and so in Baptism; the Scripture is plain for this, and the Anabaptists cannot deny it.  
Or, if you please to take Mr. Tho. Hooker's distinction, There is an Inward and an Outward Covenant. [Cou. of Grace, p. 2.3.]  
Inward, standing in a spiritual Institution of it between God and man.  
When God calls a people, and with his Call gives them Faith to answer his Call: So that now he is indeed their God, becomes theirs by Faith, and they who are thus in Covenant with him shall never fall.  
2ly, The outward Covenant is more large; The Dispensation of this God gives on his part to Christians, and their Engagements on their part, is Faith in him, subjection to him: He doth engage himself to them, and if they answer the outward Privilege, he will make them a choice people, Exod. 19.5. Deut. 26.17, 18, etc. too long to transcribe.  
By virtue of this Covenant, God was said, To know them above all the Nations in the world, Amos 3.2. God set up his Tabernacle amongst them, and dwelled amongst them, Exod. 25.8. Psal. 135.1. Chose Israel for his peculiar treasure, Psal. 135.4. Gave them his Ordinances, Psal. 147.19, 20. God wrought for them wonderfully; and though they provoked him exceedingly, yet he bore with them, and did not for Abraham 's sake cast them out of his presence as yet, 2 King. 13.23. Thus was he a God to them, the whole visible Church of the Jews; by it God gave them a great advantage to lay hold upon God, to become their God, in an outward Covenant, in Efficacy, as well as in outward Administration: This I say, by virtue of this Covenant with Abraham, till, they dealt most wickedly with God in Covenant, rejecting Christ, the promised Seed in Abraham's. Covenant, in whom they should be blessed; then God broke Covenant with them, and cast them off, Zech. 11.10, 14.  
As a people may besaid to be God's people, so God their God.  
1. When they acknowledge God to be the only true God, and their God.  
2. When they worship him with his own Worship only.  
3. When they profess his Truths, Doctrines, and take his Word for their Rule.  
4. When they do Covenant and engage themselves too God. Yet among these may be many Hypocrites, and but formal Christians; as Branches are said to be in Christ, John 15.2.  
My Author moves six Questions here to raise a dust, and trouble the Reader, when things are plain; he might have reduced them to Three, what is considerable in the rest I shall touch.  
First, I call it a Gracious Covenant: We read of several Promises God made to Abraham, Gen. 12.2, 3, 7. and Chap. 13, 14, 15, 16. and Chap. 15.1, 4, 5. But the word Covenant we read not of till this 17th Chapter, here we have it several times: and this Covenant between Abraham and his Seed, being the last branch of the Covenant [for Canaan in the next Verse, was promised three times before] God now adds a Sign, verse 11. which the Apostle calls a Seal, Rom. 4.11. So that now all the former Promises, God binds them up, and seals them up in a Covenant. The great Promise of all Chap. 12.3. In thy Seed shall all the Nations be blessed, is not mentioned in this Chapter, since God began to speak of a Covenant; but this was a part of the Covenant, the Apostle Peter tells the Jews, Acts 3.25. Ye are the Children of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers, saying to Abrabam, And in thy Seed shall all the Kindred's of the earth be blessed.  
Hence that this was a Covenant of Grace, no man can rationally deny. The Apostle is so clear for it in Rom. 4. and Gal. 3.  
1. How can God after the breach of the first Covenant, now Covenant with any to be their God, but by a Covenant of Grace?  
2. A Covenant in which Christ is promised, and it is confirmed in Christ, Galat. 3.17.  
3. A Covenant wherein God preacheth the Gospel to Abraham, Gal. 3.8.  
4. A Covenant, the Righteousness whereof is the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11.  
5. A Covenant made 430 years, before the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which Sinai Covenant could not disannul, Galat. 3.17.  
Our Divines have cleared this so, that I say no more of it; and therefore being confirmed in Christ, it must be the same with the new Covenant. But as Christ was first revealed but obscurely in a promised Seed, but afterwards by the Prophets there was a clearer revealing of Christ the nearer the time this Son of Righteousness should rise: So the new Covenant was comprehended in this Covenant made with Abraham, but by the Prophets afterwards God revealed it more fully, after the Jews had so violated the Mount Sinai-Covenant. Hence that which Divines-call the Anima faederis, the Soul of the Covenant, I will be their God, was also in Abraham's Covenant.  
My Author denies that Abraham's Covenant and the new Covenant are the same; he tells us, it was a mixed Covenant; there were two Seeds, and so Promises, and of two sorts, which must he applied right to the two Seeds.  
Ans. 1. How many Covenants shall we have in the Bible, by this Author? Camero is blamed by some Divines for making Three Covenants, but by this Author we shall have Four. 1. Adam's Covenant, or Covenant of Nature; 2. Abraham's Covenant; 3. The Israelites Covenant at Mount Sinai; 4. The New Covenant.  
2. Are there not outward Promises also annexed to the New Covenant, as well as to Abraham's? Do we not read them plainly?  
3. Are there not two Seeds in your Administration of Baptism, to Adult Persons by Dipping; Real, and Formal? I am sure they are not all Real Christians; and do not your Baptism belong to the New Covenant, a Sign and Seal of the Grace threof? Yet this you Administer to such, as prove Notorious Hypocrites.  
4. Did not Abraham's Seed by this mixed Covenant, enjoy besides outward Corporal Blessings, those Blessings I mentioned before, in the Church, with more I might have mentioned?  
5. Did not God engage himself to be the God of all the Seed? and did not Circumcision Seal up his Covenant and Engagement to them, if they did perform the Condition? and had they not a great advantage by God's engaging himself thus to them to lay hold upon God, for their God and Eternal Portion?  
2ly, This Covenant was made with Abraham as a Believing Person, and the Father of Believers; it was not made with him as a Man, nor with his Seed as Men, but as the Seed of a Believing Father. Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. Rom. 4.11. in which Chapter twice he is called, The Father of all Believers, both Jews and Gentiles; and Gal. 3.29.  
Here a Question might be moved, why Abraham should be called, The Father of Believers; my Reason is, were there no Believers before Abraham? was he the First and Eldest Believer? The Father in the Family is the first in the Family; so Abraham, if the Father, should be the first. But was not Abel a Believer in Christ, Enoch, Noah, etc. surely there were Believers in Christ a Thousand Years before Abraham was Born, what may we think of Adam and Eve in Charity, may we not think they Believed in the Promised Seed? why then should Abraham be the Father?  
Aquinas Answering to a Question, Why Circumcision was commanded first to Abraham, and to none before? [Serm. Doct. 3. q. 70. Act. 2.] Answers, That Abraham was the first that received the Promise from God of Christ to be born out of his Seed, and the first that separated himself from the Society of Infidels. If this were true, it would serve to Answer our Question. Tho' A Lafoy i'd labours to defend the Vulgar Transaction, Gen. 3.15. She shall bruise thy Head; yet he saith it come all to one. For it is the Woman by her Seed, that is Christ, that bruised the Serpent's Head; Do we think the Lord did not teach his Servants then the use and end of the Sacrifices? So that Christ was promised before, and there were Believers before, if there were a little more revealing of Christ to Abraham now, that is all. I do more admire his Act in sacrificing his Son Isaac, though that is given to his fear of God, Gen. 22.12.  
I cannot think of any better reason than this, though there were Believers in Christ, and Abraham might be a stronger Believer, but with none did God make an express Covenant, a Believer and his Seed, and seal the Covenant to his Posterity, but with Abraham only.  
I shall add a few more words presently.  
3. This Covenant was made also with, and sealed to his Seed.  
The great Question is, who are this Seed? my Author tells me, His Spiritual Seed: Whence I meet with this once and again, That Abraham's natural Seed was a Type of the spiritual Seed; Elect, Regenerate. Thus in answer to the question, Whether not baptising Infants makes not the Privilege under the Gospel, less than under the Law? He answers, The natual Seed of Abraham was a typical shadowing thing— as the Antitype exceeds the Type, the spiritual birth the carnal birth; so much are we better.  
Ans. 1. What do you mean by, so much are we better? Were none of these who were Circumcised being Abraham's natural Seed, also his spiritual Seed? Your words carried it as if not. Besides here would be a question, How the Elect-regenerate, the spiritual Seed, are Abraham's Seed; how is he a Father to them, as such? I am sure they are Christ's Seed, Isa. 53.10, 11. And we can give reasons, why they should be called his Seed. he is the meritorious and efficient cause of them, but Abraham neither way: You would have done well to have shown us this. Abraham is not so much a Father to us, as Paul was to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 4.15. neither I am sure in this respect he was Father to Isaac, he did not convey Faith in his Generation of Isaac; how then is he a Father to us now? That there were Believers before Abraham, the Apostle, Heb. 11.4, 5, 7. Instance in Abel, Enoch, and Noah; (and more I doubt not) but yet in the History written by Moses, Abraham is the first person who is called a Believer, upon a special Promise given to him, Gen. 15.6. if any cause, he was but Causa exemplaris, which is Causa adjuunans to the principal: By his example we should be stirred up to believe the Promise of God, as Abraham our Father did; 
(a) An example how God will justify us.  but he had such an advantage as we have not: he knew the Promise was made to him immediately, without any discourse, which we cannot know, but must first prove the Condition. But this I think also is a reason, He was the first person sealed, that received the Seal of that Promise or Covenant, and all his Seed after him commanded to receive and observe the same. This Sign and Seal being visible, I conceive Abraham is to be considered, as a visible-believing Father, and all his visible Seed must be sealed as the Father.  
2. As to what you say, the natural Seed are the Type of the spiritual Seed; was not Isaac his natural Seed, and was he not also his spiritual Seed; than it seems Isaac was a Type of himself. So all the godly Jews after, that were Abraham's Seed after the flesh, were Types of themselves. I pray tell us how the Type and Anti-type meet in one individual person? To what Topick in Logic will you refer the Type and Anti-type?  
2ly, When the Anti-type comes, the Type cease: When then Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites, that are the natural Seed, come to be the Spiritual Seed, than they must cease to be his natural Seed: But how is this possible? When Christ came, the Types ceased.  
3ly, When you Dip your Regenerate persons; actual Believers you think they are: then they are the Seed of Abraham you judge; then Abraham is their Father; then God is their God: but divers of these are Hypocrites, we know they have proved so, and we shall hear an Anabaptist anon acknowledge it: they professed they took him for their God, and worshipped him, etc. while they then lived in your Churches, and did not as yet openly discover themselves; was God in no sense their God?  
4ly, To whom Christ is a Head, to them God may be said to be a God: But Christ is the Head of the visible Church, in which are many unsound Members; Branches in him that bear no fruit, John 15.2. Then God in some sense is their God, if Christ may in some sense be their Head.  
5ly, Is there not an external and an internal Adoption? Rom. 9.4. to them pertained the Adoption: Were they not called God's children? Deut. 14.1. Is not God than the God of his children? Do not God say, They are mine? Ezek. 16.20, 21. and yet is God no way their God?  
6ly, If the spiritual Seed be there only meant, than all the Israelites in the Land of Canaan were the spiritual Seed; which I answer is false. That they must be so according to your interpretation, the next Verse proves it; Gen. 17.7, 8, 9 At the 8th verse, I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the I and wherein thou art a stranger, all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God: Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. Can the Holy One speak plainer than he doth? Doth he not tell you, that that seed of Abraham which shall inherit the Land of Canaan [where his Tabernacle and all his Instituted Worship was set up] and there kept the Seal of his Covenant, that he will be their God? Doth not God speak the same, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. to the men, women and children, who then entered into Covenant with God. That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself: And that he may be a God unto thee, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn to thy Fathers, etc.  
When Peter would draw the Jews to believe in Christ Crucified, who as yet were Unbelievers, and not turned from their iniquities, Acts 3.25, 26. Do he not use this Argument, You are the children of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers; Abraham in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. This part of the Covenant was most proper to the thing Peter had in hand. But if they were now the children of that Covenant God made with Abraham, than God was their God, though as yet they were not a spiritual seed.  
As to this Seed the Jews tell us, The Seed of Ishmael is excepted from Circumcision; as it is written; For in Isaac shall thy seed be called to thee, Gen 11.12. And Esau is excepted, for lo, Isaac said to Jacob, and he give to thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee and to thy seed, Gen. 28.4. Ishmael was cast out of the Church. Profane Esau despised his Birthright, and is cast off.  
As to the Sons Abraham had by Keturah, though the Scripture doth not say they they were circumcised, yet we may rather think they were. But whether after Abraham had sent them away, they kept up Circumcision in their Families, [Ishmael and Esau kept up Circumcision we know] and taught their Children the spiritual meaning of it, the Scripture is silent. So that from them we can draw no Argument pro or con. This is enough for me, that when God saith, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee,— To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And the very next words, God promiseth to give the Land of Canaan to his seed, and will be their God there. And these were the Seed of Isaac, the Seed of Jacob; and as the Martyr Stephen calls them, Acts 7.38. the Church of God in the Wilderness, [that is, Ecclesia instituta, vel organica, though God might have some belong to him that sprung from the other Sons of Abraham.] This is plain and clear, but I am sure all these were not the spiritual seed.  
7ly, Elect-regenerate stand upon even ground with Abraham, but here God puts some honour upon Abraham, that his see shall have a blessing for his sake.  
8ly, If Elect-regenerate be only mean by the Seed, than there needed not th● word Seed to be put in, unless you will say, God is not the God of Elect-regenerate, unless they be Abraham's Seed; wa● he not of Abel, Enoch. Noah, etc.  
9ly, This Covenant with Abraham and h● seed was signed and sealed, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12. What Moses calls a Sign, or Token the Apostle Rom. 4.11. calls a Seal.  
My Author tells me, Circumcision was ● Seal to Abraham only, not to Believers, no● their seed. To Infants it was a sign put i●● their flesh, etc. too tedious to transcribe all.  
A. You tell us, it sealed to Abraham only the Truth of that Promise, That in his see● all the Families should be blessed. But the same Promise was made to Isaac, Gen. 26.4. and to Jacob, Gen. 28.14. Did it not seal to them as well? Yea, the Apostle Peter, Acts 3.25. tells the Jews, they were children of the Covenant God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Did dot Circumcision seal this to them as well? The end of Seals is to confirm Faith: had not they, have not we need to have our Faith strenthned? Is the Anabaptists Faith so strong, that they need no Seals?  
2ly, I took God's Signs to be Seals, by the Apostle's Authority: I look on the Rainbow which God calls, Gen. 9.12, 13. the Token, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [the same word used, Gen. 17.11. of Circumcision] of his Covenant, to be not only a Sign, but a Seal of his Covenant, that he will not drown the World.  
3ly. But why do you say, it sealed that Promise; What did it seal nothing but that? That Promise is not mentioned in this Chapter, but in the 12th, and 22th; but in this Chapter, so soon as the Lord had made the Covenant between himself, Abraham, and his Seed, immediately the the Lord adds this Circumcision, and calls it his Covenant. I am sure it seals this, and I doubt not but the Jews did so look upon it, as a Seal of the Covenant between God and them; that God was their God, and they his people.  
Sir, you must give me better grounds than these, or else I must still be of the opinion of the great body of the most learned and pious Divines; viz. That all the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament, were and are Signs of the Covenant, sealing up the Grace of God to Believers. My Author hath more Notions about Circumcision: but of them afterwards.  
In the Child, Circumcision left a signal Impression, saith he.  
A. 1. That which you call a signal Impression, God calls his Covenant. But  
2ly, Though there were a signal Impression left in the Infant, yet if when it came to years it were not taught the spiritual meaning of it, the Child would get no benefit by it.  
3ly, What signal Impression is left upon those whom you baptise by Dipping, when Adult, more than upon those who are baptised by pouring of Water upon them when Infants? True, you can remember better you were dipped; but Children, tho' they have but a moral certainty from their Parents and others, and the Testimony of the Book in which they are recorded, yet being taught the meaning of it, and especially if as some Parents who compose short Prayers for their Children, put in that Petition, for the blessing of their Baptism, as some Parents do; Children may keep it in mind, and in time come to make as good use of it, as those who are dipped when Adult; and Experience I hope will prove it.  
4ly, If that be true which Mr. Tom●●s is willing to believe out of Mr. Selden, that the Jews admitted Proselytes, by Baptism the female kind, the same Author Mr. Selden, and so Baxter tells us, the Children also of the Proselytes were admitted by Baptism; to what purpose saith the Anaba 'tis, since they understand it not, and there is no Impression left? Let the Jews answer that.  
5ly, Abraham's Seed being so numerous as the Stars in the Heavens, how could the Infants circumcised, when they came to riper years, and living only in Canaan, know that there was any Signal Impression made upon their flesh, unless their Parents or others told them: might not they well think al● men were as they, or it might be proper to their Nation? If they then were certain by their Parents and others informing them, cannot we be as certain by our Parent's Information, that we were baptised?  
6ly, May there not be a Conveyance of a great Estate to a Child that lies in the Cradle, and understand nothing many years; but when it comes to ripe years, and see its Name in the Conveyance, and the Witnesses, now it can sue for it. Two things are very desirable, if there were nothing to trouble the Conscience [a thing to be lamented] and other things concur. First, That Baptism should ever be administered in the face of the Church. Secondly, The Names of all baptised Recorded; [both which I have known the constant practice in Independent Churches:] By both which, and Parents Education, a Child when it comes to years of understanding, may be as sure of its Baptism, though it makes no Impression as Circumcision did in the flesh, and now sue out the Blessings which there the Lord did signify, and conditionally seal to be mine.  
7ly, Were our Churches in that order they ought to be; and were that laudable Practice [which certainly is our Duty] taken up, viz. That special care b● taken, that Children baptised be diligently Catechised, and when they come to fit years, be called before the Eldership, there to own their Baptismal Covenant, and give an account of their Faith; solemn Prayer made for them, and the Church now to take care of them, and inspection over them, as being their Members; there would be no room for this Objection, and less ground for Anabaptists to cry down Infant-baptism. If we will keep Churches [so far as our Duty can reach] for Christ, it is not preaching a Sermon or two on the Lord's-Day, will do the work, there is more required than so.  
Though the Anabaptists strength lie in the incapacity of Infants to believe in Christ, yet because this notion hath been a trouble to me heretofore, therefore I speak the more to it.  
5ly, This Covenant never repealed by God. Now I come to the Pinch: Mr. Tombs the greatest Adversary that ever the Seed of Believers had, yields two things.  
1. That the Children of the Jews were Members with their Parents in the Jewish Church. [But then, say I, it must be by virtue of this Parental-Covenant God made with Abraham; else how they should be Members with their Parents, I know not.]  
2ly, That if the Children of believing Parents, be Members of the Church with the Parents, than they must be baptised. For I grant, (saith he) that Baptism is the way and manner of solemn Admission into the Church, I mean the regular way.  
Then the Question must be thus stated.  
Quest. When the Jews believed in Christ, come, crucified, risen, and ascended, as the five thousand in Acts 4.4. Did the Lord now repeal his Covenant which he made with Abraham and his Seed; admit only the Parents into the Gospel-Church, but bar the Doors against their Posterity, or Children?  
I think I have stated the Question right, and if this cannot be proved, than I hope believing Gentiles shall find a way to bring in their Children too with the Jews, and find a Title to Baptism by Mr. Tombes' Concession.  
Affirmanti incumbit probatio; This lie upon the Anabaptists to prove. And here though I am far from that absurd, irrational Principle of Veronius, who lays down this for a Rule in our Disputation with the Papists; That we must bring express Scriptures to confute them, yet this casting all the Posterity of the Godly out of the Church, is so wretched a Doctrine, [as Mr. Thomas Hooker calls it] against the poor Infants, that as yet want a Tongue to plead for themselves, that the Anabaptists must bring Scriptures, if not express, yet as clear and strong as express Scriptures, else I shall little regard their Writings. And this I require upon these grounds.  
First, The Anabaptists require of us an express Command from Christ to the Apostles, to baptise Infants. This was put upon me in the Congregation: Now it is meet the Anabaptists should be honest men, buy and sell by the same measure. If they require of us express Scriptures, we may well require of them the same.  
Secondly, All the Arguments which the Anabaptists draw from Scripture against Infants Church-membership, and Baptism, do strike at the Grace and Wisdom of God in his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and his Constitution of the Church of the Jews, as if the Lord had not done wisely, but they will teach him how to Constitute Churches better. We shall hear their Arguments anon.  
Thirdly, The holy Page tells us, how much weight the Jews and false Teachers put upon Circumcision, what a stir it made in the Churches, while the Apostles laboured to remove it, though it was a painful bloody Ordinance. We read Acts 21.21. This was the great Objection against Paul, and this was 21 years after Paul's Conversion: I am apt to think till the Temple [the head of all the Ceremonies] was utterly demolished; the believing Jews did Circumcise their Children; But had Paul told them, the Reason was, that Christ is come, and now the Covenant with Abraham as to his Seed, is repealed, and their Seed are all cast out of the Church, and therefore they must not Circumcise their Children: Should we not have read the Jews Clamours and Out-cries against the Apostles, in the Acts, and in every Epistle, and what a bar had this been against the reception of the Gospel; I appeal to the Consciences of the Anabaptists. But though we read of Circumcision in several places, both in the Acts and the Epistles, there is not one word of this.  
Fourthly, God did expressly repeal his Covenant with Israel made at Mount Sinai, Heb. 8.13. That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. This Covenant of God with Abraham and his Seed, is a Covenant much noted in the Scripture, and long before Sinai-Covenant: Now if the Lord doth indeed repeal this Covenant with Abraham, why should we not expect clear Scripture-ground. The Jews quarrelled with the Apostles, because they changed the Customs of Moses, Acts 6.14. & chap. 21. v. 21. but if they had taught the nulling of the Covenant of God with Abraham their Father too, the Apostles should have heard of it with both ears, and we should have read it. God tells them when he repealed that Covenant, He would make a new Covenant with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah: are not Children a part of the House? They were so when God made that Covenant with the House of Israel, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. then they are in the House still, than they are capable of the Grace of the new Covenant with their Parents; then the want of actual Faith doth not exclude them from Baptism.  
Fifthly, God tells Abraham, he will establish his Covenant,— and it shall be an ever lasting Covenant, Gen. 17.7. If God establish, it must stand: If he saith, it is everlasting, the Entail is not cut off: Nor do I doubt in the least, but as when they rejected Christ, and said, Let his blood be upon us and our children, Mat. 27.25. God did cast away Parents and Children: so when God receives them again, Rom. 11.15.26. the Parents shall not be received, and Children remain cast out, but they shall come in with their Parents.  
If they say, the word Everlasting, is spoken of their possession of Canaan, verse 8. and Circumcision, v. 13.  
Ans. I know well how the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for ever, or everlasting is taken in Scripture, but it doth not at all hinder the Argument.  
1. For in this Covenant is nothing Typical, it is pure Grace; and we have other Scriptures in the Gospel will confirm it.  
2. As to Circumcision, it was a bloody Ordinance, as was the Passeover, all Ordinances so, till Christ came with his Blood fulfilling all, removed them: No more blood in any Ordinance after Christ. Zipporah calls Moses a bloody Husband, at the Circumcising of her Son, Exod. 4.25, 26. At this time when the Jews circumcise their Children; they say they may do it from Sunrising to Sunsetting, any hour on the Eighth day: but they choose the Morning, because the Child then being empty, it will not bleed so much: The Mohet, or he that circumciseth, sucks the Wound three times, and use other means to stop the blood, but no bloody Ordinance now. [Buxt. Synor. Isid. p. 81.86.]  
3. For the Land of Canaan, that was conditional, their abiding in it; but however, though they are now cast out of possession, yet they have jus ad rem, a just Title to it at this day. Hence Ezek. 37.14.21. & Ezek. 36.24. Three times the Lord promised to bring them into their own Land, ver. 28. the Promise runs for them. It is their own; then now to departed from the literal sense, without some eminent absurdity that will follow upon the literal sense, we ought not.  
6ly, If God will not bring an unclean Creature forbidden, into a believing Jew's House, without an express word to warrant it, will God cast a holy Seed out of his House, and not give as clear a ground to the believing Parent to know his mind? The unclean Creatures signifying the Heathen of several sorts, [the Hebrews say, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans] not eat; that is, not to have communion, Acts 10.28. Compare Levit. 11.5, 6, 7. with Acts 10.11, 12, 13, 15. and must now the holy Seed be cast out of the Church, and looked upon as the Swine were then? We must have clearer grounds and Texts, than ever yet the Anabaptists have brought, I say as strong as express Scriptures.  
7ly, The New Testament doth give us clear Texts to prove the Church-membership of believing Parents; you cannot give us clearer Texts for their unchurching, unless you give us express Scriptures.  
8ly, Let me take up one of Mr. Baxter's Arguments, and improve it my way.  
If God hath repealed his Covenant, and cast the Seed of the believing Jews out of the Church, than it was either in justice or in mercy.  
But neither this nor that; therefore not cast out, etc. thus Mr. Baxter.  
For the first, not in justice, I prove thus. Let Parents be never such sound Believers, walk in the steps of their Father Abraham, keep close in the Covenant, yet the Anabaptists cast out all their Seed; but this cannot be in justice: for the Text saith, Psal. 25.10. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his Covenant. But these Jews, believing Parents do so; yet God repeals his Covenant with their Seed, and cast them out of the Church.  
2. In mercy the Lord doth it not; For then God gives a greater mercy in the room of that which in mercy he takes away, saith Mr. Baxter.  
This is true what Mr. Baxter saith, I prove what he saith, the believing Jew shall say, though God hath repealed his Covenant with my Seed, and cast them out of the Church, yet he hath given my Seed a better mercy, both myself and my children, if they could speak, would say, We would not be under Abraham 's Covenant with our Parents, nor Church-Members with our Parents, as we were before Christ came, for Christ hath left us Infants a better Blessing in the room. As it was a great favour to the Israelites, that God gave his Oracles to them, Psalm 147.19, 28. That God was in Covenant with them, Ephes. 2.12. But God will null that Covenant, Heb. 8.13. It shall vanish away: But God will make another Covenant, new, a better Covenant, having better Promises in the room of that old vanishing Covenant: So that if Israel's eyes be opened, they would say, they would by no means be under the old Covenant, this new is so much better. Thus let the Anabaptists tell us what God hath left better for the Infant-Seed of a Jew now believing in Christ, that now it would not be Church-member with the Parents, nor under Abraham's Covenant, nor would now be baptised, as before Christ they were circumcised: For my part I can conceive nothing; keep to the state of the Question.  
9 There is so much evil in this Doctrine and Practice of the Anabaptists, that we must have clearer Scriptures than ever were produced as yet to prove it, and clear it from that evil.  
As 1. For the blessed God; How doth 〈◊〉 dishonour him in straightening his Love and Grace now under the Gospel, over it was under the Law. Moses tells the Jews, Deut. 4.37. The Lord loved thy Fathers, Chap. 7.8. & chap. 33.3. So it appears, that he would not only take the Fathers, but their Children also into Covenant, and constitute his Church of them also. But now whatever the Gospel saith of the philanthropy of God, Tit. 3.4. and God so loving the world, Joh. 16.3. when that Seed promised to Abraham is come, in whom all Nations shall be blessed, he nulls the Covenant with his Seed, cast them out of the Church, and leaves no blessing for their Infants, when their Parents believe in the promised Seed come.  
Before the Lord calls the little children under the Covenant, and in the Church, (Mine) Ezek. 16.20, 21. But now the Jews believe in Christ, God calls none of their Children Mine, though now they do more gladly bear them unto him than they did before.  
2ly, It dishonours Christ; He took upon him indeed the Seed of Abraham, Heb. 2.16. and turned the Seed of Abraham out of the Covenant, and out of the Church, if the Anabaptists Doctrine be true.  
Though he seemed to have an affection to Children, and was much displeased with his Disciples, when they rebuked the Parents when they came to seek his blessing for their Babes, Mark 10. 13, 14. and bade them bring their children to him, and told them, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. If our sweet Lord meant as he spoke, and we believe he did, than they are still Members of the Church, he doth not shut the Door against them, now he is come. But the Anabaptists tell us a contrary Tale to the dishonour of our blessed Saviour. When the believing Jews now carry their children to Christ, Dedicate them to him with earnest Prayer in Baptism, and engage to bring them up for him, the Anabaptists forbidden them, and tell them, the Kingdom of Heaven doth not consist of such little Ones.  
Per absurdum vero est, ut per Messiae adventum imminutum sit foedus sanctu, Vossius. Gen. 17.7. That the blessed, and blessing, Messia, by his coming, should null the Covenant with Abraham, it is not only absurd, but very absurd, a great reproach is cast upon Christ.  
Doctor Thomas Goodwin pleading the Infant's case against the Anabaptists, saith, In a manner half the Church of God, the purest part of it; Elect Infants die in their bud and infancy, and grow not up to partake of the dews and influence of any other outward Ordinance; and were they deprived of this, [i.e. Baptism] should go out of this world [into which God only sent them to receive that which should make them meet for the common Inheritance of the Saints] without any outward owning them, or visible way of blessing from him, etc.— yea and the other half that grow up to glorify God in their riper years, whereof many also are holy from the Womb; these also should, during their years of nonage, want an outward badge, and any outward acknowledgement of what they are, even Fellow-heirs of the Kingdom with their Brethren, which even in the Infancy of the World, whilst all were under Tutors and Governors was their privilege. Thus this Gospel-Divine speaks, and that to the purpose.  
3ly, As to Parents, be they never so godly, what grief must it needs be to them, if their children die out of the Covenant and visible Church; what hopes can they have of their Salvation, more than an Indian hath of his being both in the same state? An Indian-child may be Elected as well as a sound Believer. 2ly, nor can a believing Parent pray for his children upon any grounds more than an Indian: the Covenant and Promisies scattered in the World to the Godly and their Seed, they cannot plead upon them. 3ly, Whereas the Covenant and the Engagement of the children to God in Baptism, is the Infant's Circumcision, might be Arguments to whet upon their children, and encourage them: now no such Arguments are in date. 4ly, The Jews before Christ came, in the day of their circumcising their Infants, did use to give thanks to God, and bless him for Abraham's Covenant, and his Ordinance of Circumcision, the Seal of his Covenant: but when the Jews believe Christ's come, now Thanksgiving and blessing of God cease; for the Covenant is nulled, children cast out of the Church.  
4ly, As for the Children of believing Parents, if they come to years of discretion, and God bless Parent's instructions so as to keep Conscience awake, though they play the wretches, and have cause to be humbled all their days; yet I say, if Conscience be kept awake, and God begin to open their Eyes more, and make them in earnest to mind the Salvation of their Souls, than they will understand what a wretched Doctrine, this Doctrine of the Anabaptists is, by denying that to them by which they may take hold of God in the time of their fears. Quare patet non prorsus vanum esse atque inane ex pio genere nasci, saith Peter Martin, [Hoc Com. p. 8.] It is not a vain empty thing to be born of godly Parents: this is true which he saith.  
Here, tho' it was far from my thoughts to speak, much less to write what benefit I have experimentally found from a Parental-Covenant, and Infant-Baptism; yet because the Lord's Providence hath engaged me in this Controversy, which I never intended, and because it may be a help to others, Children of good Parents, I shall declare.  
God blessed my godly Parent's Education of me, to keep my Conscience awake, as I said, though I have cause to abhor myself all my days; but above fifty years past, I began to have more serious thoughts about an eternal state, and how to get an Interest in Christ and the Promises. I found several qualifications that did prepare hearts for Promises, Isa. 61.1. Isa. 55.1, 2. Mat. 11.28. Luke 19.10. My trouble for some years, now how to make out these qualifications: I would have them, prayed for them, but could not satisfy myself that I had them as I ought to have them. While I was writing my Copy, these very words, there comes to me a good christian woman, who I know for many years had walked with God, and she puts this Question to me, How she might know whether she ever had these qualifications, in Mat. 11.28. and engaged me to send one Exercise upon it, as I did: I could not but take notice of this Providence.  
While I was thus troubled about making out these qualifications, there comes a motion into my mind; What say you to your Father's Covenant? You know your Parents were godly, and God promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed; will you stand to your Father's Covenant, and choose your Father's God for your God? I began to think of it, my heart answered, Yes, I will stand to my Father's Covenant: But how do you take your Father's God to be your God? I answered, As he was my Father's God. My teaching ●od, my heart-humbling God, my reconciled God, my justifying God, my sanctifying God, my God to lead me all my days; for thus he was my Father's God. Here my qualification was the choice of my Father's God, who was mine before by an external Covenant-administration; but now to have him my God, my portion, by an internal Covenant and efficacy? Here now I was penned up; Will you choose him, or refuse him? Blessed be God who gave me this advantage to lay hold upon him, by virtue of this Parental-Covenant.  
Further, to clear my meaning, Ido not by this Discourse about Qualifications of Promises, intent that Christians should not regard them. I am far from that: if they be sound Christians, I'll warrant them they shall regard them. Nor do I think but Christians reflecting upon themselves, the good Spirit assisting, may find them certainly wrought.  
But this I mean, Young persons brought up under the droppings of good Education, upon whom God works more gradually; that cannot tell the time when, nor the manner how God works; as some Adult persons upon whom God many times breaks in with his Terrors; these use to be much troubled about the making out the qualifications of Inviting Promises, because they cannot find them so sensibly as they would, though they have them in truth, but cannot discern it: the question is, Whether now Abraham 's Covenant may not do such a Soul a pleasure?  
Quest. When God made this Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, did not God intent good to Abraham 's Seed? If not, it was a vain Covenant? God forbidden.  
To say, it signifies no more than that, when he gave them his Oracles, Rom. 3.2. Was not that a Privilege, if his Seed would improve them?  
But this Covenant was distinct from the Oracles, made before the Oracles were given: and may not Abraham's Seed? aught they not to improve it to their spiritual good and advantage: who will deny it?  
God in Isa. 56.4. speaks of taking hold of his Covenant. I say, by this Covenant God puts forth his hand to Abraham's Seed to take hold upon him, so as to become their God for ever.  
1. Suppose we two sorts of persons under the Conviction of a miserable state: One sort is under Abraham's Covenant, the other not; There are Inviting Promises to all sorts, whether without, or within the Covenant. They who are within the Covenant, can make use of all the Inviting Promises offered to others, and Abraham's Covenant too: But they who are out of the Covenant, cannot make use of, or lay hold upon God by Abraham's Covenant.  
2ly, God is nearer to his Covenanted-seed than to others, Psalm 148.14. Israel a people near unto the Lord: Israel is in Covenant with him: God loved their Fathers, Deut. 4.37. By this he puts forth his hand to them to lay hold upon him more immediately, than to others out of Covenant. The choosing of their Father's God for their God in sincerity, is the Condition, and he becomes their God, and his Covenant gives them a ground for the assurance of it.  
3ly, This Covenanted-Seed may plead with God in Prayer for many Promises made to the Upright and their Seed, Psal. 112.2. Prov. 20.7. with divers other Promises, fetching the strength of their pleading from the Covenant and Promises, which others out of the Covenant cannot do. And since God hath promised blessing to this Seed; the Seed may choose their blessing, any spiritual blessing in Christ, and have his Promise to warrant it.  
4ly, When their hearts are in fears, troubles, doubts, and cannot make out the qualifications of other Promises, as they would, they may come hither: here is no winding out, but answer Catagorice, will you have your Father's God, or refuse him? You see he offers himself, and is in Covenant with you one way already, by an external Covenant-administration; and if you will stand to that Covenant, and take him for your God indeed, and yield up yourself to him, he will be your God in a saving manner, and portion for ever.  
5ly, Since all the Word and Promises are then efficacious when the Spirit will please to work with them; and it is free for him to make this or that Word efficacious to us: I doubt not to say, Abraham's Covenant, is as fit as any inviting Promise, and it is as rational for the Seed of godly Parents to lay hold upon God by it, as by any other Word.  
My Parents then looking upon me as being in Covenant, and a Church-member with them, they did Dedicate me to God, and brought me under the Seal of his gracious Covenant in Baptism. And what our Lord said to Peter when he washed his Feet, John 13. 6, 7. What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter: Was truly verified of me. What the Lord did then, when he poured clean water upon me in my Baptism, I know not, but now I do know, and did many years since. What was the opinion of the ancient Fathers, and many Divines now, about the Efficacy of Baptism, I did not then know, nor do I now concern myself about it, to discourse it. But this I took for a Truth, It doth not consist with the Infinite wisdom and holiness of God, to Institute any Ordinance in his House that is of trivial concernment, whatever they seem to be to a carnal heart: they are things of great weight; Where the great God engages himself to a Creature, and therefore to be attended with great reverence, and as diligently improved. Now when I came to reflect upon my Baptism, how God was first with me, before I understood him, he was aforehand with me, took hold of me, brought me under the Seal of his blessed Covenant; and when I read over the several Texts, which tells us what blessings are there signified and sealed, God was engaged for his part; if I will look to my part, to answer the Condition, than these should be mine; this gave me encouragement. As for my Dedication to him, I was willing to stand to it, I did like it very well: but both for the Condition, and to answer my Dedication, I went to him, whose Covenant it is, and who was first with me, that he would please to perform his part, and in the strength of his performance, I would perform my part. Why would that blessed One be first? Why did he begin with me, when I did not know him? But since he will be a God, and Triumph in his Grace, since I came to understand it, by his Grace I have held him, and will hold him. And though as I said, I have not attained what I seek after, yet I have found in my dismal Temptations, wherein I have had as deep a share as most Christians ever had, when I could not tell where to lay hold, my Parent al-covenant and Infant-baptism, which I am still improving now my Head is grey, have been a support unto me. So that I bless God, 1. for Abraham's Covenant, 2ly, I bless God that I had godly Parents: 3ly, I bless God my Parents were no Anabaptists, but that while I was an Infant they brought me under the Seal of the blessed Covenant, a stay and comfort to me in my old age, and I hope improved, as well as they who were Dipped yesterday.  
When people do either not understand things, or if they do, yet they do not mind and improve them, so get no good by them; no wonder though they talk against them, when others bless God for them, and daore his grace in them.  
Let the Children of Godly Parents look to themselves, they have a price in their hands, if they have wisdom and hearts to improve it; it is a fearful thing to hear of the Child of a Godly, Praying, Parent to die in an unconverted State.  
Only a word, some may think you had Godly Parents, mine were not so; it may be I had a Godly Grandfather, or a Mother: had you so? no doubt but you may improve the Covenant from him. The second Commandment will help you.  
David pleaded 86 Psal. 16. Save the Son of thy Handmaid: he pleads the Parental- Covenant (saith Mr. Hooker.) Born thy Servant of Godly Parents, who were thy Servitors (saith Ainsworth?) Insignis est priorum praerogativa, qua etiam David, hic animum suum in precibus fulcit, quod sciunt se in Ecclesia a fidelibus Parentibus, qui fuerunt servi, & ancillae Domini, natos esse. Saith Gesnor on the Text, and stirs up Parents to learn this Treasure to their Children; and Children of such Parents to make use of it. Junius also speaks well to this Head.  
Others it may be will say, Baptised I am, but my Parents bad enough. Well, art awake, and art in earnest for Christ, and the saving Blessings come by him? you may improve your Baptism. When the Gibeonites by Craft got Israel into a Covenant with them, and confirmed it by an Oath. 9 Josh. 15. the God of Israel would not suffer them to destroy them; They were made Servants indeed; the breach of this cost Israel dear. 2 Sam. 21.1, 2, 3. If you be got under the Seal of the Covenant, it was not by Craft, but God's Providence ordered it; and now you are under it, prise it, and improve it; do not you fear, the God of Israel will hold to his part.  
These being the Evils that arise from the Anabaptists Doctrine, we must have very clear Texts, for the nulling of Abraham's Covenant, and casting Children out of the Church.  
10ly, If Blessed Jesus upon his coming doth repeat Abraham's Covenant, and so the Children of the Believing Jews be no Church-Members, than Jesus Christ by his coming doth null the Promises made to the Fathers. But the Text saith, Rom. 15. 8. He confirms the Promises made to the Fathers. I am sure this was one made to the Fathers, I will be a God to thee and thy Seed, than it is not nulled, but confirmed. Christ confirms Abraham's Charter, Act. 3.26. God sent his Son Jesus to the Jews first, to Bless them: one great Blessing he mentions, but it seems by the Anabaptists, Christ, takes away a Blessing; tell us I pray what Blessing doth Christ leave the Seed of the Believing Jews, while Infants in the Room of it.  
11ly, We read Gal. 3.16. of Promises made to Abraham and his Seed; Promises in the Plural Number, Seed in the Singular, not Seeds; the Jews a part, and the Gentiles a part, not so, but Seed; that is, Christ Mystical, not Personal: the Promises were not made to Christ, but Christ was Promised to Abraham; So that it is Christ in Aggregato, the Jews and Gentiles make up one Body, and one Seed.  
There were several Promises made to Abraham, some concerned him alone, some concerned himself and his Seed, according to the Flesh alone; The Gentiles had nothing to do with them: That all Nations should be Blessed in Abraham's Seed; This belongs to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, This is one Promise. But we must have Promises in the Plural Number made to Abraham, that belong to the Gentiles, if you take away this, I will be the God of thee and thy Seed, I know not how to make the Text true.  
But if this be granted, than this Verse and the fourteenth Verse are both true; now the Blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.  
I have insisted long upon this Branch, because the pinch of the Controversy lies here, and these Grounds are to me so strong, that unless the Anabaptists bring Texts as strong as an express Scripture for the Repeal, I shall not regard them: nor am I come yet to the Texts in the New Testament, to prove the Church-Membership of Infants, though it may be inferred from some I have named already.  
The last Branch in the Sillogism is, That if this Gracious Covenant be not Repealed but stand firm, than it must be Signed, and Sealed to them who are under it; this I suppose will not be denied. The Blessed God makes no Covenants, but he Seals them.  
That the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, were Sacraments and Seals, belonging to the first Covenant, I see is the Opinion of very Learned and Godly Divines. When God makes a Covenant with Noah, and all the Creatures, God Seals it; when with Abraham, God Seals it; and though the Seal be changed, yet it hath another Seal added in the Room of it. Our weak Faith hath need of strengthening, and all too little, if God's Spirit doth not step in.   

SECT. iv  
NOw let us come to the Anabaptists, and hear how they prove the Repealing of the Covenant, and the un-Churching of the Children of Believing Jews.  
About a quarter of a year after I had finished my Discourse, a Neighbour brought me Mr. Edward Hutchinson against Paedopabtism, to read it, but it was sent for again, so that I did but read his Epistle to the Baptised Congregations; and a Letter, which I think concerned Mr. Wills, and the beginning of his Book, p. 3. he states the Question, and proves, That the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham; so that Infant Church-Membership and Baptism falls to the Ground.  
Ans. But he must prove that the Infants of the Believing Jews, are not the Seed of Abraham, or else Infant's Church-Membership does not fall. I had reason to state the Question so, as to the Believing Jews; but if he will yield the Infants of Believing Jews to be Members, and have a Right to Baptism, I will prove the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Church-Members, and have a Right to Baptism. There is neither Jew nor Greek, etc. Gal. 3.28. no difference now but of this more hereafter.  
Again, we shall see whether his Arguments do not cut off the Infants of Believing Jews, as well as Gentiles.  
1. Argu. His first Sillogism, If none be the Children of Abraham, but those that do the works of Abraham, than Infants are not the Seed of Abraham, but the Antecedent is true. Joh. 8.39. Therefore,  
Ans. If none be rational Creatures, but those that can Sillogize, as Mr. Hutchison doth, than Infants are not rational Creatures. But, etc.  
If you say my Antecedent is false, so is yours; but it shows how strong your Argument is.  
2. If Isaac at eight Days old, when Circumcised, do not the works of his Father Abraham, than he is not Abraham's Seed; you argue from no Doing, to no Seed. A strange Argument Sir!  
3. If any of those Jews, to whom our Lord spoke these words, had any Male-childrens born that day, they had been reputed Abraham's Seed, Members of the Church, and must be Circumcised the eighth day, or Sin.  
2. Argu. His second Sillogism, If those who are Christ's are only Abraham's Seed, than Infants are not Abraham's Seed, but the Antecedent is true. Gal. 3.3.19. they are not Christ's by Calling.  
Ans. Is there no way to be made Christ's, but by Calling? can he that made the Ear and the Heart, come no way to the Heart, but by the Ear? what Divinity is this? cannot he that infuses the Soul into the Body, infuse Grace into the Soul, but by the ●ar?  
2. Christ commands little Children to be brought to him, and none to forbid them. Mark 10.13, 14. etc. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, than they must be Christ's; we believe Christ, Sir, before you.  
3. Because Isaac at eight days old, cannot answer a Call of Christ's, therefore he is none of Christ's, a good Argument. Was John none of Christ's, when he leapt in his Mother's Womb, when Mary came to Elizabeth? Luk. 1.44.  
Argu. 3. His third Sillogism, If none be Blessed with Abraham, but those that are of Faith, than Infants are not the Seed of Abraham, but the Antecedent is true. Gal. 3.9. Therefore,  
Ans. Does the Text say Actual Faith?  
2. Alas, poor Infants! by this Author ye are Cursed, no poor Infant dying an Infant, can be Blessed. Yea, those Infants whom Christ Blessed, Mark 10.16. were Cursed though he Blessed them, for they could not Act Faith upon Christ. Did Isaac when Circumcised the eighth Day, put forth an Act of Faith upon Christ to come?  
3. Believers in Christ are so, either 

Actually  
or Siminally.    
4. Actual Believers in Christ are so, either 

Visibly and Really,  
or Visibly only.    
Visibly only, such were those, to whom in your Preface to your Baptised Congregations, you thus speak, they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. I know there is dross mingled with your Silver, Chaff among your Wheat, and the Canaanite is still in the Land. It seems than you find Dross, Chaff, Canaanites, and not true Israelites in your Baptised Congregations; but you did look on them as visible Believers, when you Dipped them.  
2. Seminally so, and they first; such as are Reputed so by God's Covenant, with Believing Parents and their Seed. 2ly, Such, who besides this Reputation, are regenerated by the Spirit, which is not without Faith Seminally.  
Argu. 4. His fourth Sillogism, If the Children of the Flesh are not the Children of God, than Infants now are not the Seed of Abraham, but the Antecedent is true. Rom. 9.8. Therefore, etc.  
Ans. I deny the Consequence.  
2ly, It seems then, no Infants are the Children of God, by this Argument; a very bold and wretched Assertion.  
2. There is a double Adoption, External, Ecclesiastical, and Internal, Heavenly Saving, that hath a Heavenly, Eternal Inheritance belonging to it; they who had only the first, these were called the Children of God. Deut. 14.1. and 16. Ezek. 21. to these pertain the Adoption. Rom. 9.4.  
Our Question is not who are the true Children of God, that have that Inheritance prepared for them, but who are to be Reputed the Children of God, in foro Ecclesiastico, Visibly; so that they are Members of a Visible Church, and have Right to a Visible Ordinance, in the Visible Church. The Dross, the Chaff, the Canaanites, the false Israelites, which you tell us, are in your Baptised Congregations, are none of the Children of God, in a saving Sense; but your Baptists did judge them to be Believers Actually in Christ, if so, than Children of God, than you admitted them Members of your Churches, and so Baptised them by Dipping. They were looked upon as Abraham's Seed, when you admitted them.  
The next thing he falls upon is, Act. 2.39. of which after.  
I could go no further, the Book was sent for, nor did I intent to make any large Discourse, though it had continued with me: by these four Arguments we have a taste of the Man's strength.  
By these Arguments, [and the next which follows, which is in all their mouths] let the Reader judge, whither they do not all strike as much at the Grace and Wisdom of God, in his Covenanting with Abraham, and his Seed; Constituting the Church of the Jewish Parents, and their Seed, and Circumcising of the Infants, as they do prove, that now the Infants should not be admitted into the Gospel-Church, nor Baptised. So that the Anabaptists tells God, that if he will Constitute the Church of the Jews right, he must let their Children be grown up. First, Learn to know the God of Abraham. Second, Put forth an Actual Faith in Christ, the Promised Seed to come, as Abraham saw his Day and rejoiced. Joh. 8.56. Thirdly, Let them do the works of their Father Abraham. Joh. 8.39. Fourthly, Let them manifest that they are really the Children of God, then admit them Members, and Circumcise them. Does not all their Arguments tend to this? they will teach the Holy, Wise God, how to Constitute Churches better. I will not be afraid to say, That all the Anabaptists that ever were, or shall be, shall never be able to cast the Seed of Believing Parents out of the Church, by any Consequence drawn from any Text in the Bible, therefore they must give us clearer Texts, before we shall believe them.   

SECT. V  
BUt come we to the great Argument, which all use, and that wherewith I was assaulted. Matth. 28.19. and Mark 16.16. Only Believers are to be Baptised. To which I Answer,  
This took with me in my Meditations, I thought there was strength in it.  
Had the Gospel-Church been first erected amongst the Gentiles, and had Baptism been first Instituted in the Gentile-Churches, than the Anabaptists Argument from hence, would have carried me. But the first Gospel-Church was erected among the Jews, in Jerusalem, and Baptism was Instituted in the Jewish-Church first, where the Anabaptists cannot deny but the Infants were Members with their Parents, and under the Seal of the Covenant. So that they must first prove that by this Text, the Children of the Believing Jews in the Gospel-Church, were not Members with their Parents, which I am sure cannot be forced from this Text, nor doth it in the least prove the Repealing of Abraham's Covenant with his Seed.  
Circumcision did Seal up the Promised Seed, in whom all Nations should be Blessed, or Christ to come; and surely required, therefore their Faith in the Messiah to come. After Christ's Ascension, in the Gospel-Church Baptism seals up this Promised Seed, or Christ now come, with a full and clear Revelation of him; the difference of the Faith as to the Object of it, is only Christ to come, and come. If then the Children of the Jews, while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come, were under a Covenant, Reputed Members of the Church, and Circumcised; should, when their Parents believe in Christ come, be cast out of Covenant, out of the Church, and not Baptised, I know no Reason, nor Warrant from God's Word; this would have made strange work.  
If the Anabaptists say the Jews did not believe in the Messiah to come, they must prove it; the Messiah ran much in their minds, we may see by the Woman of Samaria. Joh. 4.25. Read Acts 26.7. and by the Jews. Joh. 1.19, 20, 21. If Christ were then clearly revealed, why should this cast the Infant out? the Infant is not therefore guilty of the more Sin, when Christ was clearly revealed, and so deserve to be cast out.  
We are to consider Ordinances in their Institution, wherefore God appointed them, what they carry in them, in their own Nature, and what Men ought to do who partake of them, not what Men do; we know what Baptism signifies, what it implies, and what they ought to do who partake of it, though Men abuse it. The Case was the same as to Circumcision.  
That this was one thing it Sealed up, as I said, the Promise of Christ to come, the Anabaptists cannot deny, and it is the true Answer which Pererius gives, from Aquinus, to that Question, what was the difference between the Circumcision of the Jews, and of other Nations? for that other Nations did Circumcise besides the Jews, not only Cyprian, de ratione Circumvis, & Hierom. on Jer. 9 ult. [who upon that Text I think well;] but also Herodotus, who lived some hundreds of years before Christ in Xerxes' Time, tells us, insomuch, that Herodotus saith the Jews took it up from the Egyptians; among whom it was in so much esteem, that there was no entrance into the most Honourable Offices amongst them, unless they were Circumcised. Now Pererius makes this difference: Other Nations used it, taking it up as a custom and right, transmitted to them from their forefather's, whom they had in Honour. But the Jews used it, as it was a Sacrament containing in it, the Profession of their Faith and Obedience towards God, and the Divine Promise of the Messiah to come; he adds, And Expiation of Original Sin, as the Ancients speak of Baptism, and so many do now.  
That other Nations do not use it as a Seal of God's Covenant, it appears by the time of Circumcising; the day God appointed, was the vl day, but Ishmael's Posterity, Circumcise in the thirteenth year of their Age, than Ishmael was Circumcised; so that it is merely in Honour of him, so Josephus tells us. l. 1. c. 12.  
To go on, If then the Seed of the Jews believing in Christ come, be still under the Covenant, and Church-Members with their Parents, and if so, aught to be Baptised, by Mr. Tombe's Concession; Then let the Believing Gentiles and their Seed come in also for now no difference between Jew and Greek, Gal. 3.28. And for more full proof, the Apostle tells the believing Ephesians, and so all believing Gentiles, Ephes. 2.19. We are no more strangers [from the commonwealth of Israel, v. 12.] but Christ having broken down the middle Wall of Partition between the Jews and us, v. 14.] we are now fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Household of God.  
For the word Fellow-citizens, in the City or Church of the Jews: I pray, who were esteemed Citizens? Were not the Children put into Abraham's Charter: were not they then Citizens with their Parents? What, hath God sent his Quo Warranto, and taken away Abraham's Charter, when the Parents, the Citizens, believe in Christ sincerely, and keep Covenant with him, and walk in the steps of Abraham: will now God take away their Charter, and cast out their Seed from being Citizens? What, hath Christ by his blood made us both One, taking down the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, v. 14. And doth he now set up the partition Wall between the Jewish believing Parent and his Seed, bringing now the Seed of the believing Jews into that condition the Gentiles were in before Christ came, Ephes. 2.11, 12. Shall the Anabaptists make us believe this, unless God hath said so in express terms? What a Bar had this been against the Jews ever receiving the Gospel: Did they any where make this Objection against it? Now we Gentiles believing, are Fellow-citizens with them of the same Household of God with them. Are not Children part of the Household? Were not the Jews Children part of the Household of God? then the Apostle tells us, we also are Fellow-citizens, and of the Household of God, as the Jews are.  
As for the Texts, Matth. 28. and Mark 16. Blessed Jesus, the Promised Seed to Abraham, in whom all Nations should be blessed, is now come; fulfilled the Law, Crucified, Dead, Ascended: Salvation is only to be had in him. Now this was the great Doctrine the Apostles were to preach, first to the Jews, than to the Gentiles, and call all Nations to believe in this Christ, that they may be blessed, according to the Promise made to Abraham. True, none but Adult persons, or persons of understanding, can understand this Doctrine, and actually believe in Christ. No more could any but Jews Adult, or of ripe years, understand the Promise of Christ to come, in whom all Nations should be blessed; but yet the Jews Children were reputed with them Believers in the Messiah to come, by God's Covenant with them, and the Church Constituted of them. So now Believers in Christ come, their Seed are Reputed with them.  
Musculus [whom my Author hath put in his Catalogue of Authors, [hoc. come. p. 603.] which makes the ignorant Anabaptist think he is on their side; but ranks the Anabaptists in a second, or lower degree of Heretics, for denying Infant-baptism, and an Oath.] In answer to an Argument of the Anabaptists, there was a Command for Circumcising, but no express Command for Baptising. Thus writes, Facit hoc non contra nos, sed pro nobis, etc. [ibid. 338.] This doth not make against us, but for us, saith he, the sum of his answer [being too long to transcribe all] is this. Since God hath plainly declared his Will, that the Infants of Believers, whose Father Abraham is, should be Partakers of the Grace and Sign of the Covenant, and no where do we read that this Will of God is Repealed; what necessity is there, after such a clear expression of his Will, to desire another Command in the New Testament? Since therefore Christ gave no special Command, what should be done with the Infants of Believers, he did sufficiently intimate to his Apostles, who were Jews, and brought up among the Jews, that he did not take away that Grace, by which God declared himself to be the God, not only of Believers, but also of their Seed, and that he will have them Sealed with the Sign of his Grace. To which, do but add, Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. we may see Christ hath not taken away this Grace from them. This Answer of Musculus, is full and clear, and runs upon that I have been calling for, an Infallible proof of God's Repealing of Abraham's Covenant. I have rather wronged Musculus, by not Transcribing the whole Paragraph, for brevity's sake, I desire the Reader to view him. For my part, I do not yet see any absurdity, if I should say, as in the fourth Commandment, the morality of it being, that a seventh part of time be set a part for the Worship of God; therefore let God please to change the day, yet that Commandment binds us to sanctify that day. So when God shall please to make a Gracious Covenant with Believing Abraham, and his Seed, and gives Command to have that Covenant Sealed, and never declares his Repealing of the Covenant, and its Sealing; the Covenant standing still in force, though God may please to change the Seal, and bring in another Seal under a new dispensation, yet God's former Command may well warrant us to administer the Sign and Seal of the Covenant to Abraham's Seed, as before.  
Sure I am, this express Command the Anabaptists require for Baptising Infants, will cast out the Lord's-Day, and Magistracy out of a Christian Commonwealth, Women from the Lord's Table; For though there were divers Women attended Christ, Luke 8.2, 3. yet there was not one of them with him at his Institution of the Lord's Supper: nor do we read expressly, that Women were at the Lord's Table in their Churches; For him that would prove it from the words, 1 Cor. 11.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there tell us, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the Epiceen Gender, and includes Male and Female.  
I answer, If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did always signify Male and Female, and not the Male only, than it were a good proof: but I told twenty places in Matthew's Gospel [I looked no further] where it signifies only the Male. Besides, what Gender is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of, which is joined with it? Nor can we have ground to Excommunicate Women, if they walk impenitently scandalous in the Church.  
Partly upon their Principle, who call for express Command, and partly because the casting out of the Seed of Believers, and Repealing the Covenant, are so strange, that it cannot be proved by any Consequence I have yet met with, therefore I call for Srciptures as clear at least as express Commands, or signification of God's Will.  
To return to Infants, They must be regenerate, and have Faith some way, else they must all perish; what should make the thing so impoisible they should have the Habit or Seed of Faith, and of all saving Graces in them? I hope it is not because Christ is known only by Revelation. I pray, what Act of Faith in God, what Act of Love to God, or Fear of God, etc. did Isaad or John put forth towards God, when, being Infants they were Circumcised? yet I am confident they had the Seeds of all these at that time they were sanctified then, and why not then a Seed of Faith in Christ? had not John it when he leapt? etc.  
In the first Synod held in New-England, this was one question discussed; Whether we be justified by the Habit, or the Act of Faith? Arguments were brought pro and con, some were for the Habit of Faith, then why not Infants justified by a Habit of Faith? Dr. Ames in his proofs for Infant-baptism, makes this his first Argument; That in the very beginning of Regeneration, the Soul is a mere passive, the Infant is as capable of a passive reception of Christ and Grace, as another Man: but Baptism Seals to our Regeneration. [modul. theal. c. 4. th'. 12. Got. of grace, p. 27. etc. Socin. pro. flig. p. 781.]  
That servant of Christ Mr. Tho. Hooker, proves that Children may have Faith, and hath a pretty large discourse upon it; The Socinians say it is a Dream [if they mean Actual Faith, who do not say it] Caelonius in answer to them, proves by ten or eleven Arguments, that Children may have Faith, to be sure, we may observe that they whom the Holy Page Records to be Godly [except Menasseh] were so from their Childhood. Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, Hezekiah, Josiah, David, Obadiah, Jehoshaphat, where do you read of the Saints first running a course of wickedness, and then Converted? How many Children may we observe, that we may say as Dr. Thomas Goodwin said, are sanctified from the Womb. What is the matter then, that all Infants are cast out of the Church, and must not be Baptised?  
Object. If you say, If you could tell which they are, they should be Baptised.  
Answ. Can you tell who have saving-Faith and Grace, though they make Actual Profession, and tell you they have it? they who you say are Dross, Chaff, Canaanites, no true Israelites, in your Baptised Congregations, they told you they had Faith, when you Dipped them, but you were mistaken.  
2. If that be yielded, that Infants may be Regenerate, may have Faith and Grace Seminally, than this Text which you do so talk of does not cut them off from Baptism.  
3. By Abraham's Covenant, let the Parents be visible Believers, by their competent knowledge of Christ, profession of their Faith in him, and Conversation in some measure becoming Christians, giving up themselves to the Ordinances, and Rules of Christ's House, prove themselves thus to be visible Christians: and we can as regularly Baptism the Children of such Believers, as you Baptism your Adult persons, though as to the reality of saving Faith, we are mistaken, and so are you.  
Once more take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mat. 28.19. as Dr. Hammond saith it ought to be Translated, Disciple ye all Nations, or make Disciples. Hence the Argument.  
All they that are Disciples ought to be Baptised.  
But the Children of Believing Parents are Disciples.  
Therefore the Children of Believing Parents ought to be Baptised.  
This Argument I gave to him who opposed me, but he could not tell which Proposition to deny; a fit Man to dispute in a Congregation.  
For the proof of the Argument.  
The Major, is the plain Text, there is no opposing of that.  
The Minor, that such Children are Disciples, our Divines have so cleared it from Acts 15.1. and 10. v. compared, and other Texts, that I will not say what they have said before.  
I give my thoughts thus, They are Disciples.  
1st. By God's Reputation he esteems them so; they are mine saith God, born to me. Ezek. 16.20, 21.  
2ly, They are so by their Parent's Dedication of them to Christ.  
3ly, They are so by their Parent's Education of them for Christ.  
4ly, They are so, as I may say, jure Gentium, or rather jure Religionum, all Natitions, all Religions, take their Children to be the same that the Parents are.  
Did not the Jews take their Children to be Moses' Disciples, as well as themselves? John 9.28.  
Do not the Turks take their Children to be Mahomet's Disciples, as well as themselves? Should you deny it, you should hear of it, if not feel it.  
Yea, go the Indians whose Religion [i● I may call it so] is very Devilish and Superstitious, were it not too good a word. When the English first began to dwell in New-England, Massasoit the Sachem of Mount Hope, made a League with the English at Plymouth to live in Amity with them; The Articles were Seven; he kept the League well: A little before his death, he comes to renew his League for himself and his two Sons, Alexander and Philip, this was on September 25, 1630. But in his Treatise he urged this, That the English should engage never to attempt to draw any of his people to the Christian Religion: he insisted upon it very much; but the English were resolute, and would make no League upon such terms. But this we see by this Heathen, that he would have his Posterity to be reckoned as he was, though his Religion was Devilish.  
If then the Children of Jews, Turks, Pagans be reckoned with the Parents, why must not the Children of Believers in Christ be reckoned Disciples of Christ with their Parents.  
The Reader I suppose will pardon me, though I make a little Digression: The Wars between the Indians and the English in New-England, I suppose must have heard. This Philip the Son of Massasoit, , was he that began the Wars with the English, 1675. which lasted till 1677. The English when they saw Massasoit stand so upon that Article, then said, That God would root out the Posterity of that Massasoit; and so now it is come to pass.  
That Story which my worthy Friend Mr. William Hubbard gives us of Passalonaway, [the most noted Paneaw or Sorcerer; and I believe the oldest man in the Country. When I saw him, he was reckoned one of the oldest men of the Indians, but I perceived by the time of his dying, he lived about thirty years after] is worthy the observing. About Merimach River, Anno 1660, several Sagamoors meeting together, there was a great Dance: These Solemnities, are the Times when the most Ancient tell Stories, and transmit them to their Posterity. Passalonaway being present made his last Speech, and took his Farewell: thus,  
I am ready to die, and not likely ever to see you meet any more; I will now leave this word of Council with you; That you take heed how you quarrel with the English, for though you may do them much mischief, yet assuredly you will all be destroyed and rooted out of the Earth if you do; for I was as much an Enemy to the English at their first coming into these Parts, as any one whatever, and did try all ways and means possible to have destroyed them, at least to have prevented their sitting down here, but I could no way effect it. Therefore I advise you never to contend with the English, nor make War with them. Accordingly his eldest Son Wonnalancot, as soon as he perceived the Indians were up in Arms, he withdrew himself into some remote place, that he might not be hurt by the English, or their Enemies.   

SECT. VI  
TO return to my Author: His Sixth Question is, Whether Baptism did succeed in the room and use of Circumcision? He saith, By no means.  
But the Body of our Learned and Pious Divines say, It doth, and our Divines have spoken to it so often, that I am loath to say any thing to it. Shortly my thoughts were these:  
1. Circumcision came in upon Faith: Abraham believed, than he was Circumcised: And so doth Baptism.  
2. Circumcision did sign Christ to come in the flesh. So saith my Author; and Baptism signs he is come in the flesh.  
3. Circumcision did signify [you may say Seal] the Righteousness of Faith: So doth Baptism.  
4. Circumcision signified Sanctification: so do Baptism.  
5. Circumcision signified and sealed the Covenant between God and the Seed of Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. So doth Baptism.  
6. Circumcision did oblige Israel to walk with God: so Baptism obligeth us.  
7. Circumcision did distinguish Israel from other Nations: so Baptism distinguisheth us.  
Circumcision respecting Christ to come, and Baptism Christ come. Hence the Jews though circumcised, yet coming under a new Dispensation, aught to be baptised: much more reason for this, than for Timothy, who being a Disciple, Acts 16.1. no question was baptised, and yet after that circumcised by Paul, v. 3.  
Circumcision (saith my Author) was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses: but Baptism is contrary.  
Ans. 1. For the Moral Law, the Rule of our Obedience, Baptism doth not solve us from that, but bind us to it: for Sanctification is held forth in our Baptism.  
2. As for the Ceremonial Law where Christ was set forth in shadows, no wonder, though when Christ is come, and the shadow's gone, that Baptism was contrary to it. Evangelium relatum & Revelatum. But what doth this hurt us?  
3. Paul did not Circumcise Timothy, with that respect to Circumcision; the Jews did. The Jews did look to be justified by the observation of the moral and ceremonial Law both, Gal. 5.3. the 4th verse unties the knot. The false Apostles urged Circumcision, Acts 15.1. according to the Law of Moses. [But Circumcision is not of Moses, but the Fathers, saith our Lord, John 7.22.] If you Circumcise thus, and seek Justification thus, you are fallen from grace, Gal. 5.4.  
My Author goes on; Circumcision initiated the carnal Seed into a carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances: But Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church.  
Ans. 1. These Carnal Ordinances had their Spiritual significations as well as ours.  
2. The Element in Baptism, Water; do but wash the flesh, and may be said to be Carnal too in some sense, 1 Pet. 3.21.  
3. There was a Spiritual Seed admitted also into that Church by Circumcision, as well as now by Baptism, how many Saints were in that Church?  
4. Chaff, Dross, Canaanites are no Spiritual Seed, yet such have been admitted into your Spiritual Church, by Dipping. Mr. Hutcheson writes true and can testify it.  
5. Define a Church, and you shall find all the Causes in that Church [a difference only between a Church, and such a Church] take it in the strictest notion. 1. The efficient Cause is God, that is here. Deut. 7.6. Ezra 9.21. 3ly, The formal Cause joined in Covenant, with God and one with another, Deut. 29.12. Zech. 11.10, 14. Exod. 24.8. [Besides their Circumcision.] This some Brethren make the form of a Church: here it is. 4ly, Final Cause, To walk with God, and keep his Ordinances: it was here, Exod. 24.7. Mr. Baxter hath spoken so much to this, that I say no more.  
Women were not circumcised, saith my Author.  
Ans. No, how could they? 1. The Apostle gives you an answer, 1 Cor. 11.3. 2ly, Rivet saith well; Sed quia in viris actinum, ut loquuntur, generationis & propagationis hominum est principium, quo transmittunt corruptionem in posteros, signum ideo obtinuit in praecipuo sexu, ita tamen, ut foeminae viris annexae & in iis censerentur, qui familiorum capitae debebant esse.  
For Acts 38.39. which my Author opposeth, and brings in Bishop Taylor, [a man cross to the Doctrine of the Church of England in point of Original Sin.] And Dr. Hammond on his side, telling us, It is an Vncludent Argument to infer Baptism from hence. [I do not wonder that Anabaptists make so much use of Dr. Taylor.]  
Answ. With the Bishop's favour, there is a difference between these two Phrases, The Children of Israel, and this; You and your children. Here is a Copulative Conjunction which is not there. They were the wounded Persons to whom Peter speaks, that asked him a question, but their Children did not ask, nor were present with them most likely.  
Calvin saith, Notandi autem, etc. But the three degrees are to be noted, to whom the Promise is made, 1. To the Jews. 2. To their Children. 3. To the Gentiles.  
As for Dr. Hammond, though I honour him much for his great Learning one way, yet I think as to an Argument, whether it be Concludent or not, other men may know as well as he. Vossius, Rivet, Calvin, Gerhard, Aretius, and the Assembly of Divines, [though slighted by him] do all conclude Infant-baptism from hence; they could judge of a Concludent Argument.  
1. What this Promise is, I see there are very different Apprehensions. Some take it to be that in Joel 2.28. So Dr. Hammond, and divers others. The Dutch say, Joel 2.28. & Gen. 17.7. Ahapide saith, The Promised Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed. Thus Aretius, The Promise of the Messiah, and the benefits that come by him, made to Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 13. To which the Apostle, Rom. 9.4. hath a respect, the Promises belong to them. Thus Aretius, and Horino inclines this way.  
2ly, whatever the Promise be, it was that which the Jews and their Children were now under, [For to you do the benefit of that Promise appertain if you will lay hold of it, saith Dr. Hammond on Text.] The Promise did appertain to them, both Parents and Children, but not to the Gentiles as yet till they be called.  
3ly, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a general word I grant, seven or eight times used for little Children in the New Testament. Fit mentitio liberorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine discretione aetatis, saith Vossius. Let your Children be little or great, to your Children the Promise doth belong, as well as to you. Matth. 27.25. His Blood be upon us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and upon your Children; were not there the Children distinct from the Parents? and do not Children there signify their little ones, their posterity, of what Age soever? would Bishop Taylor deny it? and 'tis probable that God brought this Imprecation to mind, and Peter may aim at that.  
Be the promise what it will then, I would try for one Argument from hence.  
They that are Church-Members ought to be Baptised.  
But Children of Believing Parents are Church-Members.  
Therefore, they ought to be Baptised.  
The Major, the Doctor, nor any else will deny.  
The Minor, I prove thus.  
They to whom Promises do appertain, they are Church-Members.  
But to the Children of Believing Parents Promises do appertain. Therefore,  
The Major is plain, no Promise belong to any person out of the Visible Church. Ephes. 2.12. while the Ephesians were out of the Visible Church, they were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise. Rom. 9.4. the Promise did belong to the Jews, not to us Gentiles, till grafted into Abraham's stock.  
The Minor is proud from the words of the Apostle, The Promise is to you, and your Children, we are under the outward dispenpensation now; you nor your Children shall lose your Title to it, by Repenting and Believing, but than you shall feel the saving benefit added to pour outward Title. Again,  
Will you restrain the promise to the gift of the Spirit, as the Verse before; Dr. Hammond moves the Question? what kind of gifts these were, inward or outward, for both these are promised indefinitely to Believers. Joh. 7.38, 39 there the inward gifts, enabling humble sincere Christians, for the Duties of a Christian Life, called, The Renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. 3.5. joined to the Laver of Regeneration; he concludes 'tis best to comprehend both. Thus Dr. Hammond on the Text.  
Let me add, If the Spirit be here meant, it must be so understood, that it may be the benefit of as many as ever God shall call to the World's End, be they never so many Millions; the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will force it. The Promise is to All, as many, be they never so many, if called. There are many called, few chosen, but if called, there is an outward Title to it, and to their Children, else the Sentence is not full; and I proved before we are fellow-Citizens of the same household, grafted into the same stock, Jew and Greek all one: The Jews and their Children were under it, when not effectually called. The Promise is to you and your Children, now they were Children of the Covenant. Act. 3.25. nor can there be any reason given, why the Children of the Believing Gentile should not be included, and meant here, as well as of the Jews. Hence, since the Doctor thus interprets the Promise of the Spirit.  
They to whom the Promise of the renewing Spirit doth belong, they may be Baptised.  
But to the Children of Believing Parents, the Promise of the renewing Spirit doth belong, as it did to the Jews. Therefore the Children of Believing Parents may be Baptised.  
That there can be Regeneration without the Spirit, no Christian will affirm. That there can be a Heavenly Inheritance without Regeneration the Scripture denies. That the Spirit of God cannot Regenerate an Infant, he must be a strange Christian, [if any at all] who dares say it. If John was filled with the Spirit, from his Mother's Womb, God can give his Spirit to other Infants, though in a less measure.  
As to the Text 1 Cor. 7.14. that Text hath been so cleared by our Divines, that I wonder my Author should not be satisfied, but to come up with his Ligitimacy, as if that were the sense of Children being Holy. When as  
1st. The Apostle is not writing to a Corinthian Husband, that had two Wives, but only one Wife; as 12, 13, 14. v. so that if that Text, Mat. 2.15. could be brought to prove a Matrimonial-Holiness, than they were Holy, and Children Holy, before the Gospel came; but this is a Holiness arising from one of the Parents, being a Believer: Besides, Joseph, Benjamin, Solomon, and divers others, were never called Bastards, or thought to be so, though Jacob and David had more Wives than one.  
2ly, Then all the Children in Corinth, though the Parents were lawfully Married, were Bastards, before the Gospel came.  
3ly, When then the Apostle writes to the Saints in Corinth. 1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1.1. the meaning is, to you that are Legitimate, and not Bastards in Corinth. What difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here? Neither do your examples from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help you at all.  
For 1st. By an Antiphrasis, or Euphemismus, the words signifies the quite contrary, Bless, and Curse, Holy, and ; [or Sodomite, as we Translate.]  
2ly, The words are so used in an opposite sense, in several other Scriptures, that prove one another.  
3ly, The sense of the Text forces us so to render their signification.  
1. But than you must Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by some word which is quite contrary to Holiness, so that one expel the other: Contraria sunt pellentis naturae, but Legitimacy and Holiness are not contraries in respect of this Subject, for he may be Legitimate and Holy too, I know: you must then read else were your Children unclean, but now they are unclean. This is good Sense.  
2. As the word Holy, is never taken in the Holy Page for Legitamacy, nor can you justify it by any Text, as we can the former, clearly by several Texts. A Seed according to God's Institution in Marriage, according to his appointment, Ordination in Mat. 2.15. and the Holy Seed. Ezra. 9.2. differ very much: besides, as I said, the Children of the Corinthians were Holy, if that were the Sense before the Gospel came.  
3. Nor is there the least pressing necessity why it should not be taken, as in the Scriptures I mention. Nay, there is a presing necessity to force that it cannot be meant Legitimacy, because it follows upon the Faith of one Parent, which Legitimacy doth not.  
For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say always signifies Authority, yet 1 Cor. 11.15. [I suppose you mean the tenth] it signifies a Veil.  
Ans. Who translated the word so? I have viewed nine Translators, and they render it Power as we do. A Metonimy of the Subject, we know there is the meaning being, a covering in sign that she is under the Authority of her Husband. Gen. 24.65. A Phrase whereby the thing signified is ascribed to the Sign, the propriety of the word is here meant and intended; that she show herself to be under Authority. The Acthiopick Translation, to give the Sense, turn the Substantive into a Verb; but hour, this doth not at all suit your design. In the word Holy, here is no Metonimy, Sign, or thing signified.  
I see nothing of moment more to answer, and I doubt not my Author hath been better answered by others, though I saw none, till I had done.   

SECT. VII.  
THen my Author proceeds to the manner of Baptising, and tells us what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies; quotes Bishop Taylor, Doctor Hammond, and many that say it signifies Immersion; and who is so ignorant, that knows not this? but is my Author so knowing, that he can prove it signifies only Immersion, or dowzing a person over head and cars? did Bishop Taylor, and Doctor Hammond Baptism so, and only so? let him inquire. Why did not my Author prove that the word signifies only so, in Heb. 9.10. 1 Cor. 10.2. [something you would say to this, but 'tis pitiful] Mark 7.4. Luke 11.38. the Pharisee marvelled that Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not first Baptised before Dinner; How the Jews use to wash hands, you may guests, by 2 Kings 3.11. when Elisha waited on Elijah; He poured water on the hands of Elijah, did not Elijah then Baptism, or wash his hands? was not the Basin and Ewer, and the little Cisterns with Water, common in England, and in some places still to this day? and do we not wash by letting of Water run upon our hands, or pouring upon them.  
That the Holy Ghost is signified you tell us; and threetimes Baptising with the Holy Ghost, is expressed by powering of the Holy Ghost.  
What our Authors have said about their practice in hotter Countries, where Baptism was first Instituted, you know; there they did commonly wash, you were bound by the Law to wash. 2 Sam. 11. ●. 4. with Levit. 15.19. and 18, 19 So Pharaoh's Daughter. Exod. 2.5. but in our cold Climates, this is not so common.  
However, to me it seems strange, that there should be so much stress put upon Baptism, and so much upon the manner of Baptising, as the Anabaptists lay, and yet the Holy Page hath not Recorded how it should be performed. To Baptism an Infant, I could do as Mr. Chancy did in New-England, and as of old they did in England; as an Ancient Gentleman, of good quality in Suffolk told me, He remembered the practice, by a good token, One Infant was so fouled with its green Excrement, when it came to be Dipped, [a handsome sight in a Congregation, when we are about Holy Things] that he could not forget it; but how to Baptism an Adult person, and heavy Body, I cannot tell. If they go into the Water, into the Element, they Baptism themselves so far as their body is in the Water; The Baptist doth not Dip that part.  
As for their Clothes, I hope they do not go in with them, to Baptism, or Wash them. certainly there ought to be an immediate Application of the Sign, [the Water] to the Body; that our Baptism hath a reference to the Ezek. 16.4. I see several Men conclude, and have shown us how this Custom of Washing new born Babes was derived almost to all Nations, but neither then, nor now do our Women put on a Shirt, or any thing upon the Infant, and then wash it, but they apply the Water immediately to the Body; I am sure it should be so in Baptism. Vossius gives us large Testimonies out of Ancient Writers, how that Men, Women, and Children, in those Countries, were all Baptised. [De Baptis. p. 350.] [I wonder the Anabaptists should be so angry with Mr. Baxter] because he saith they Baptism naked, the Women only had a little covering before them, (yea they had a Mystery in the pulling off their Clothes, to show their pulling off the Old Man, some where I have read,) after their Dipping, they were Anointed. When a tumult arose in the City about Chrysolstom, how the Women that were about Baptising, ran away naked; with other things there we may read.  
Certainly God's Institutions are such, that we may Celebrate them at Noonday, before all Men, let them be Spectators; and if this must be the way, let them Baptism for me, and Anoint too if they please.  
So that Modesty and Life, be preserved, I am of Cyrian's, and Austin's mind in this Point, who left it indifferent, so you do not absolutely tie us up to one, and deny all Baptism by Dipping. [Cypr. 249. Aust. 10.3. p. 207.]  
Other Divines have answered this more fully, and therefore I break off.  
Here a Question falls in, which I never did so much as think of, till now I say Mr. Mode, That Water in Baptism, he saith, hath no respect to the blood of Christ; that it doth concur in the Mystery by way of efficacy and merit, he grants, but not as the thing there figured, for that is the Spirit? This may help as to the manner of Baptising.  
I thought both Spirit and Blood, he denies the latter, and saith the Church of England doth so also, as he thinks.  
The Question is new to me, I shall hardly propound my thoughts.  
1. If cleansing of the Soul from Sin be the thing Baptism holds out, then, what doth primacily, properly, and effectually cleanse, is there signified, but the Antecedent is true: Cleansing is as much given to the Blood of Christ, as to the Spirit. 1 Joh. 1.7. Apoc. 1.5. Hebr. 9.14.22. Almost all things were purged by Blood.  
2ly, We read three times, Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. Acts 2.38. that Remission of Sins is signified and Sealed in Baptism; but how can this be, if there is no respect to his Blood in Baptism? Without Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9.22. Why is it called Baptism for remission of sins?  
3ly, Why are we said in Baptism to have Communion with Christ in his Death, and buried with him in Baptism? Rom. 6.3. It should rather be said buried with the Spirit, if the Spirit only be signified. Doth not the Death of Christ comprehend in it, the effusion of his Blood?  
4ly, It is certain, that in the Types of the Old Testament, by Water the blood of Christ was signified. Numb. 19.9. The Water is said to be a Purification for Sin. In the Hebrew it's a Sin, the word often used for a Sin Offering, the Dutch render it, It is an Expiation. Have not that Fountain, Zech. 13.1. set open a respect to the blood of Jesus? all the Interpreters I see, respect both his Blood and Spirit: Why not then so in Baptism.  
5ly, As we are filthy, are we not as guilty? Is there nothing in the Ordinance to respect our guilt? then it were sad, yea, guilt being upon us, can God give out the blessing of Regeneration to us, till in order his justice be first satisfied? though Regeneration and Pardon are simul tempore?  
To say it concurs by way of efficacy and merit, so it doth in any Ordinance to make it effectual. But Remission of Sins being in a special manner sealed up in this Ordinance, which is only by Christ's Blood, methinks the Element should have a respect to his Blood.  
The utter Abolition of Sin, both guilt and power is given to the Blood of Christ alone: but taking away guilt, is not given to the Spirit.  
6ly, Out of the side of our Blessed Lord when he was pierced, came Blood and Water. Joh. 19.34. There is our Pardon, and Sanctification: If both these be signified in our Baptism, why is not that Blood and Water of his signified in this Water in Baptism?  
Hence Alcinus' Baptism was signified in the passion of Christ, by the Water and Blood which came from his side; Several Verses he hath upon it. [Cent. 6. p. 112.]  
In That Tract which go under Cyprian's Name. Baptizabantur in nube, & mari Hebraei, & jam Spiritu sancto & sanguine Christi, mundatur a peccatis populus Dei. [De Resur. Chri.]  
Hence Ambrose speaking of Baptism— Ideoqque legisti, quod tres Testes in Baptismate unum sunt, aqua, sanguis; & spiritusqui si unum horum detrahas, non stat Baptismatis Sacramentum: quid enim est aqua sine cruce Christi? [Deris qui c. 4.]  
Hence Luther, Baptizari nihil aliud est quum reseo illo, & precioso sanguine Christi, lanari, & mundari.  
Res significata in Baptismo est sanguis Christi. Walaeu. to. 1. p. 84. I could produce more Authors.  
The Application of the Blood of Christ, and the renewing of the Spirit, without both which our State cannot be happy, I think may both be signified, and these either by Dipping, or powering of Water: The sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus [set out of old by the Ceremonial sprinkling] is a famous Sentence in the Gospel. Heb. 12.24. and 1 Pet. 1.2. so the powering out of the Spirit, Tit. 3.5, 6. Ezek. 36.25. Isa. 52.15. Joel 2.28, 29. Prov. 1.23.  
The Abolishing of Sin, is the end of all; [Lord what a do is here before we can be delivered from the misery we have brought ourselves into! what an Evil is Sin!] now this is not set down one way, but several ways in Scripture, sometimes by mortification, or the Death of Sin. Dipping sets out that, Buried with Christ, sometimes by cleansing, and by purging. Heb. 9.14. 1 Jo. 1.9. Apoc. 1.5. But the grave do not represent that, we do not use to purge, and cleanse, by Burying, but this we do by pouring Water upon our Hands, upon Rooms, Tables, etc. we can cleanse that way, purge me with Hyssop. Psal. 51.7. How was that? Levit. 14.6, 7. Numb. 19.18. not by Dipping.  
Whither then you Dip, or pour Water. Here is, 1. The same Sign, or Element. 2ly, Here is the same thing signified, the Spirit, and Blood of Christ. 3ly. The same end aimed at, the taking away, or purgeing of Sin; nor did I ever contend with any Man about Dipping, but to deny all Baptism, unless by Dipping, and so set up Rebaptising, and to administer Baptism only to Adult persons, excluding all the Children of Believing Parents; This I could never yield to.  
To conclude, though I was moved to publish my Notes by some Friends, yet had I not received this Challenge, (for so I may call it) by this Letter, I think I should never have done it, because I knew Men far more able than myself, had done more service, than I could do in the Controversy.  
I wish the Anabaptists, before they had Condemned, and wrote against Infant-baptism, had well studied, and well improved their Parental, and Infant-baptismal Covenant, followed God close for the benefits, and waited, though they found temptations, and did not meet with all they would, and reproved others for neglecting, and vigorously stirred up people to the serious improvement of them; Then had they done good service to Christ and his Church: Whereas by the course they have taken, they have increased our Divisions, (a thing deeply to be lamented) which I shall never live to see healed.  
I shall only desire the Anabaptists to give me answer to these two Questions, clearly from Scripture.  
Quest. 1. Since God was so Gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and it did then consist with his Wisdom, to Constitute his Church of Parents and Children, while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come, why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant, and with his Wisdom, still to Constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children, the Jews now believing in Christ come?  
If God hath plainly declared his pleasure to the contrary, tell us where, and we are satisfied: but you must produce other Scriptures than you have done yet.  
Quest. 2. If God hath repealed his Covenant, with the Believing Jews Seed, turned their Children out of the Church, and deny them Baptism, though the Jews truly Believe in Christ come, what hath God left in the room of these, that carry any show of his Blessing, or good Will towards their Children, during their Infant State?  
As to their Internal and Eternal State, the Infants were in as good a State then, as now? Christ is Yesterday, to Day, and the same for ever, the Lamb slain for the Foundation of the World. Apoc. 13.8. But as to their visible State, how come they to be in the same condition, that we Gentiles, and our Children were in. Ephes. 2.12. Before Christ came, and we believed in him?  
I state the Question, concerning the Jews Believing in Christ come. As for the Believing Gentiles, I shall let them alone, till I see how you prove the casting out of the Seed of the Believing Jews.   
FINIS.