An Examen OF THE SERMON Of Mr. STEPHEN MARSHAL, About Infant-Baptisme, in a Letter sent to him: Divided into Four Parts. 

1. Concerning the Antiquity of Infant-baptisme.  
2. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists from their miscarriages.  
3. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture, for Infant-baptisme.  
4. Concerning the Objections against Infant-baptisme.   In which are maintained these Positions. 

1. Infant-baptisme is not so ancient as is pretended, but as now taught is a late Innovation.  
2. Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church, or Commonwealth.  
3. Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from Holy Scripture.  
4. Infant-baptisme is a corruption of the Ordinance of Baptism.    
LONDON, Printed by R. W. for George Whitington. 1645.   

Infant-Baptisme Is not so Ancient as is pretended: As now Taught, Is a late Innovation.  
PART I. Concerning the antiquity of Infant-Baptisme.  
SIR,  

§. 1. The prologue Of the occasion, and en● of this writing.  IT is now full nine months since, that being informed by one of the Members of the Assembly, in which you are one, that there was a Committee chosen out of the Members of the Assembly, to give satisfaction in the point of Paedobaptism, and advised by the same person out of his tender love to me, to present the reasons of my doubts about Paedobaptism, to that Committee; I drew them up in Latin, in nine Arguments, in a scholastic way, and they were delivered unto Mr. Whitaker the Chairman of the Committee, about nine months since: to which I added after, an addition of three more reasons of doubting, with a supplement of some other things wanting; which was delivered to Mr. Tuckney, and joined by him to the former Papers. My aim therein was, either to find better ground than I had then found to practise the baptising of Infants, from that Assembly of learned and holy men, whom I supposed able and willing to resolve their Brother in the Ministry; Or else according to the solemn Covenant I have taken, to endeavour the reformation of these Churches according to God's word, by informing that Assembly what I conceived amiss in the great ordinance of Baptising. The success was such, as I little expected: to this day I have heard nothing from the Committee by way of answer to those doubts; but I have met with many Pamphlets, and some Sermons, tending to make the questioning of that point odious to the People, and to the Magistracy. Among others, reading the Sermon of Mr. Richard Vines, on Ephes. 4.14. before the Lord Major: and the Sermon you preached at Westminster Abbey. I perceive there is such a prejudice in you, and it may seem by the Vote passed about the members of the visible Church, in the generality of the Assembly, that he is likely to be exploded, if not censured, that shall but dispute against it: and therefore little or no likelihood that this matter will be argued, as I conceive it doth deserve, in your Assembly. And further, I perceive there is a great zeal in your spirit against the denying of Children baptism, as if it were a more cruel thing than Hazaels' dashing out children's brains; That it were an exclusion of them out of the Covenant of Grace, etc. Which I the more admire, considering the report which hath been of you, as a sober, learned, holy, well-tempered man, that you should be so transported in this matter, as to be so vehement in maintaining that which was accounted heretofore in many ages, but an Ecclesiastical tradition, for which you are fain to fetch a command from Circumcision, and confess no express example in Scripture for it: and go not about to prove it, but by consequence inferred from five Conclusions, which though you call undeniable, yet others do not think so, nor yet see reason to subscribe to your judgement. You are not ignorant, I presume, that Mr. Daniel Rogers, in his Treatise of the Sacrament of Baptism, part 1. pag. 79. confessed himself yet unconvinced by demonstration of Scripture for it. And whereas your Achilles for Paedobaptism, is the Circumcision of Infants, me thinks Mr. Balls words, (Reply to the Answer of the New-England Elders, about the third and fourth Positions, pag. 38, 39) cut the sinews of that argument. But in whatsoever they agree, or differ, we must look to the Institution, and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it; ●or he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure; and it is our part to lea●n of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered; how they agree, and wherein they differ. In all which we must affirm nothing, but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us. And whereas the words of Paul, 1 Cor. 7.14. are your principal strength to prove the Covenant-holines of Infants of a believing parent, Musculus a writer of good esteem, in his Commentary upon that place confesseth, that he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists, but found it impertinent to that purpose. And for my part, after most careful and serious reading and perusing of many Authors, and among the rest, your Sermon, I cannot yet find it to be any other than an innovation, in comparison of many other things rejected late, maintained by erroneous and dangerous principles, having no true ground from Christ's institution, which alone can acquit it from Will-worship, and which hath occasioned many errors in doctrine, corruptions in discipline and manners, unnecessary and vain disputes, and almost quite changed the ordinance of Baptism. Wherefore, upon advice, I have resolved to examine your Sermon, who are a leading man, and in respect of your eminency, either likely to be a very good, or very bad instrument, as you are gui●dd; that you may either rectify me, or I you; and that we may (if the Lord shall see it good) give one another the right hand of fellowship, and stand fast in one mind in the truth of the Gospel, and clear the truth of God to the people, whose eyes are upon us. And so much the rather have I pitched upon your Sermon, because I conceive it contains in a plain way as much as can be well said for Poedobaptisme; and your Epistle seems to intimate your publishing of it to be for the ease of the Assembly, and possibly it may be all I may expect from them. Now the Lord vouchsafe to frame both your spirit and mine, that we may seek and find truth, in humility and love, in this great business, which concerns the souls, & perhaps lives and estates of many millions, yea of all godly persons; and the glory of God, and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that we may trample under our feet our own credit, our own opinion, if it stand not with the honour of Christ, and the truth of God.  

§. 2. Of the stating the question, partition of the Treatise, sum of the Answer to the Testimonies of Antiquity for Infant-baptisme.  LEtting pass the Epistle, and leaving the various Questions, and allowing the stating of the Question, conceiving you mean it of baptising by warrant of ordinary rule of Scripture, without extraordinary revelation or direction. Whereas you affirm, that the Infants of Believers are to be baptised with Christ's baptism, by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule.  
I deny it.  
That which you say for the practice of baptising infants may be reduced, 1. To the testimonies of Antiquity. 2. To the novelties and miscarriages of the opposers of it. 3. To the arguments produced for it. 4. To the answering objections against it. I shall by God's assistence examine each of these. First you affirm, That the Christian Church hath been in possession of it for the space of fifteen hundred years and upwards, as is manifest out of most of the Records that we● have of Antiquity both in the Greek and Latin Churches.  
To this I answer, that if it were true, yet it is not so much as may be said for Episcopacy, keeping of Easter, the religious use of the Cross, etc. which I conceive you reject. 2. That the highest testimonies you produce come not so high. 3. Those that be alleged, being judiciously weighed, will rather make against the present doctrine and practice, then for it. 4. There are many evidences that do as strongly prove (as proofs usually are taken in such matters) Quod ab initio non fuit sic, That from the beginning it was not so; and therefore it is but an innovation. The first of these I presume you will acknowledge, that for Antiquity not-Apostolicall, there are plain testimonies of Episcopacy, keeping of Easter, the religious use of the Cross being in use, before any of the testimonies you, or any other can produce for baptising of infants; and therefore I will forbear mentioning proofs so obvious to Scholars. The second and third thing I shall make good in the weighing of the Testimonies you produce, and the fourth in the close.  

§. 3. Of the pretended Testimony of Justine Martyr.  YOur Testimonies are either of the Greek or Latin Churches. Of the greeks you allege four. The first is Justine Martyr, of whom you say, That he lived Anno 150. which wants somewhat of 1500. years; and therefore you did somewhat▪ overlash, in saying that it is manifest out of most of the Records of the Greek and Latin Church; The Church hath been in possession of the privilege of baptising Infants 1500. years and upwards; and than you say, In a Treatise that goes under his name: By which it is manifest▪ that you know that it was questioned whether it was his or no; and I conceive you could not be ignorant, that it is not only questioned, but also proved by Perkins in his preparative to the demonstration of the Problem, by Rivet in his Critieus sacer, by Robert Cook of Leeds (if my memory fail me not, to which I am enforced to trust in many things, being spoiled of my books) in his Censure, and confessed by Papists, to be none of Justine Martyrs, but to be written a great while after his days; for as much as it mentions not only Irenaeus, but also Origen and the Manichees: Now what doth this bastard Treatise say? You say Question 56. Justine Martyr disputes the different condition of those children who die baptised, and of those children who die unbaptised. The question propounded is. If Infants dying have neither praise nor blame by works, what is the difference in the resurrection of those that have been baptised by others, and have done nothing, and of those that have not been baptised, and in like manner have done nothing. The Answer is, this is the difference of the baptised from the not bapti●●d; that the baptised obtain good things (meaning at the Resurrection) by baptism, but the unbaptized obtain not good things. And the● are accounted worthy of the good things they have by their baptis●●, by the faith of those that bring them to baptism. You may by th●● testimony see (what ever Age the book was made in) what the reason of baptising of Infants was: Not the supposed Covenant of grace, made to believers and their seed, which you make the ground of baptising of infants: but the opinion that the not baptised should not obtain good things at the resurrection (meaning the Kingdom of God, mentioned Joh. 3.5.) but the baptised should; and that by reason of the faith of the bringers, what ever the Parents were, and therefore they baptised the children of unbelievers, as well as believers if they were brought.  

§. 4. Of Irenaeu● his Testimony.  YOur next Greek Author is Irenaeus, who was indeed a Greek, and wrote in Greek, but now only we have his works in Latin, (except some few fragments) for which reason we are not so certain of his meaning, as we might be if we had his own words in the language in which he wrote. You say he lived in the same Century, and it is acknowledged he lived in the same Century with Justine Martyr but not with the Author of the Questions & Answers ad Orthodox●s, who (as hath been said) lived in some Age after. Irenaeus is by Usher placed at the year 180. by Osiander at the year 183. so that though he were of that Century, yet he flourished in the latter part of it, and so reacheth not to your 1500. years & upwards. Of him you say, that l. 2. c. 39 he saith, Christus venit per seipsum omnes salvare, omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infants & parvulo● & pueros, etc. Now it is well known, say the Glossers upon that text, renascenti● nomine, Dominica & Apostolica Phrasi Baptismum intelligi: You might have added what follows. Aperte confirmans Apostolorum traditionem de baptismo infantium parvulorum adversus Anabaptisticam impietatem. But I pray you, whose Gloss was this? Was it any other then Fevardentius (if I mistake not) of whom Rivet. Crit. Sacr. lib. 2 cap. 6. Juniores tantum, qui in opera Irenaei incident monitos volo, ut caveant ab illis Editionibus, quas impudentissimus ille Monarchus Fevardentius, homo projecta audacia et nullius fidei, foede in multis corrupit, & annotationibus impii● et mendacibus conspu●cavit. And for the gloss its false: for no where doth our Lord, or the Apostles call baptism, Now birth, although our Lord speak of being borne again of water joh. 3.5. and Paul of the washing of regeneration. Tit. 3.5. and for the words themselves without the gloss, all the strength lies in this, that the word (Renascuntur) is used for Baptism by the Ancients, which yet possibly was not the word Irenaeus used in his own writing; and how the Latin translation altars the meaning of Irenaeus, you may see somewhat in Rivet. Vossius Thesibus Theologic. de Padebapt. Thesi. 7. intimates, that the proper acception is of sanctification, and that the word may be so taken, yea and that it is not meant of Baptism, the words and the whole scope of Irenaeus in that place show. For the scope of Irenaeus in that chapter is to refute the Gnostics, who said that Christ did not exceed one and thirty years of age; against whom Irenaeus allegeth, that Christ lived in every age, of infancy, youth, old age, that by his age, & example, he might sanctify every age, so that here Irenaeus speaks not of being borne again by Baptism: for it is said, who are borne again by him, that is, by Christ. Not as if he had baptised infants, but because he was an infant, that by the example or virtue of his age, he might sanctify infants, as the whole context will show, which is this. Magister ergo existens, Magistri quoque habebat aetatem, non reprobans nec supergrediens hominem, neque solvens suam leg●m in se humani generis, sed omnem●tatem sanctificans per illam, quae ad ipsum erat, similitudinem. Omnes enim venit per seipsum salvare, omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, Infants, & parvulos, & pueros, & juvenes & seniores. Ideo per omnem venit aetatem, & infantibus infans factus sanctificans infants, in parvuli● parvulu●, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes aetatem, simul & exemplum illis pietatis effectus & justitiae & subjectionis. In juvenibus juvenis exemplum juvenibus fiens, & Sanctificans Domino: sic et senior in senioribus, ut sit perfectus Magister, non solum secundum expositionem veritatis, sed secundum aetatem, sanctificans simul & seniores exemplum ipsis quoque fiens deinde & usque ad mortem pervenit, ut sit primogenitus ex mortuis ipse primatum tenens in omnibus princeps vitae, prior omnium, et praecedens omnes. Which he confirms by the testimony of john the Apostle, from whom he saith, those that conversed with him related, that Christ lived about fifty years, which all sorts of writers do reckon among Irenaeus his blemishes, and thereby show how little credit is to be given to the too much entertained Apostolical traditions.  

§. 5. Of the supposed testimony of Origen.  THe next Greek Author is Origen, who you say lived in the beginning of the third Century, Perkins and Usher place him at the year 230. but for his works, as of old they were counted full of errors and dangerous to be read, so as now they are, we can hardly tell in some of them what is origen's, What not: for the original being lost, we have only the Latin translation, which being performed in many of his works, and particularly the Homilies on Leviticus, and the Epistle to the Romans, by Ruffinus, it appears by his own confession, that he added many things of his own, insomuch that Erasmus in his censure of the Homilies on Leviticus saith, 
Si igitur aliquis ante ●atu● Pelagium vel ante exortum A●ium in Pelagi●●orum & Aria●orum erro●es acer et vehemens, e●sque ex professo quamvis Hereticorum nomine suppresso divexa●s pr●b●bile non est tale Scriptu● esse ●jus Authoris 〈◊〉 nomen pref●rt Rivet. tract●t de Patrum Auth●rit. cap 14.  that a man cannot be certain whether he reads Ruffinus or Origen; and Perkins puts among origen's Sergeant works his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, as being not faithfully translated by Ruffinus: the like is the judgement of Rivet and others, and I suppose did you read the passages themselves you cite, and consider how they are brought in: and how plain the expressions are against the Pelagians: you would quickly conceive, that those passages were put in after the Pelagien heresy was confuted by Hierom and Augustine, who often tells us that the Fathers afore that controversy arose, did not speak plainly against the Pelagiens': and of all others, Origen is most taxed as Pelagianizing. Wherefore Vossius in the place aforenamed, though he cite him for company, yet adds, sed de origen minus laborabimus quia quae citabamus, Graece non extant. But what saith the supposed Origen? In one place▪ that the Church received this tradition of baptising infants from the Apostles: in another according to the observance of the Church baptism is granted to infants, you add, (as foreseeing that this passage would prove that then it was held but a tradition) that then the greatest points of faith were ordinarily called traditions, received from the Apostles, and you cite 2 Thes. 2.15. To which I reply, true it is that they did call the greatest points of faith, though written, traditions Apostolical, as conceiving they might best learn what to hold in points of faith, from the Bishops of those Churches where the Apostles preached, and therefore in prescriptions against Heretics, Tertullian, Irenaeus and others, direct persons to go to the Churches where the Apostles sat, specially the Roman Church which seems to have been the seed of Appeals to Rome, and the ground of the conceit which was had of the Pope's unerring Chair. But it is true also they called Apostolical traditions any thing though unwritten, which was reported to have come from the Apostles; as the time of keeping Easter, and many more, which was the fountain of all corruptions in discipline and worship. And that in those places you cite, is meant an unwritten tradition, not only the not citing any Scripture for Baptising of Infants, but also the very Phrases, Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit & Secundum Ecclesiae observantiam, are sufficient proof to them who are acquainted with the Ancients writings of those times. 
Consuetudo tamen Man is Ec●lesia in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam sper●enda est, neque ullo modo superflua deputanda, nec omnino credenda nisi Apostolica esset traditio. Augustin. lib. 10. cap. 23. de Genesi.  So that yet you have not proved that the baptism of Infants was time out of mind, that it had been received in the Church, or was delivered over to the Church in origen's time, and was of ancient use in the Church afore his time. But these passages prove that in the time when the framer of those passages wrote, it was accounted but an Apostolical tradition, according to the observance of the Church. Like speeches to which are found in Pseudo-Dyonisius in the end of his Hierarchy, and Augustin. lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam. c. 23. and elsewhere, which argue that it was held as an Ecclesiastical tradition in those times.  

§ 6. Of the Testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen and the Greek Church.  THe fourth and last of the Greek Church you name is Gregory Nazianzen, who is by Perkins placed at the year 380. by Usher 370. much short of 1500 years and upwards, you say that Orat. 40. in Baptismum, he calls baptism, signaculum vita cursum in euntibus, and commands Children to be baptised, though afterwards he seemed to restrain it to the case of necessity. But doth he seem only to restrain it to the case of necessity? the words are plain, that he gives the reason why Infants in danger of death should be baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they might not miss of the common grace, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he gives his opinion of others, that they should stay longer, that they might be instructed, and so their minds and bodies might be Sanctified, and these are all you bring of the Greek Church. By the examination of which you may perceive how well you have proved, that it is manifest out of most of the Records that we have of antiquity both in the Greek and Latin Church, that the Christian Church hath been in possession of the privilege of baptising the infants of beleivers for the space of 1500. years and upwards. Whereas the highest is but a bastard Treatise, and yet comes not so high, if it were genuine; the next without a gloss, which agrees not with the text, speaks nothing to the purpose, the third is of very doubtful credit, the fourth which was sundry hundreds of years after Christ restrains it to the case of necessity. But it is wonder to me, that if it were so manifest as you speak, you should find nothing in Eusebius for it, nor in Ignatius, nor in Clemens Alexandrinus, nor in Athanasius, nor in Epiphanius, that I mention not others: to me it is no small argument that baptism of Infants was not universally known in the Greek Church, no not in Epiphanius his days, who is said to flourish in the year 390. because in his Panarium, disputing against the Hieracites, that denied Infants inheriting the Kingdom of heaven, 
Lib. 2. heresi. 47 vel. 67.  because not striving. He brings the Infants killed by Herod, the words of the Lord concerning jeremiah Chap. 1. of his prophecy: Christ's blessing and receiving of infants, the children crying Hosanna: but nothing at all of Infants-baptisme, which had been as proper to his purpose if he had been acquainted with it. But besides the continuance of the questions to baptised persons, and answered by them, in many Authors mentioned, this is to me, and it seemed so to Hugo Grotius, Annot. in Matth. 19.14. No small evidence, that baptism of Infants many hundred years was not ordainary in the Greek Church: because not only Constantine the Great, though the son of Helena a zealous Christian as it's reported, was not baptised till aged, but also that Gregory Nazianzen who was the son of a Christian Bishop, and brought up long by him, was not baptised till he came to be a youth, as is related in his life. And chrysostom though (as Grotius saith) according to the truer opinion, borne of Christian Parents, and educated by Meletius a Bishop, yet was he not baptised till past 21 years of age. Grotius adds, that the Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea held in the year 315. determines that a woman with child might be baptised, because the baptism reached not to the fruit of her womb, because in the confession made in baptism, each ones own free choice is showed. From which Canon, Balsamon and Zonaras do infer, that an Infant cannot be baptised, because it hath not power to choose the confession of divine baptism. And Grotius adds further, that many of the Greeks in every age unto this day do keep the custom of differing the baptism of little ones, till they could themselves make a confession of their faith. From all which I infer, That the Anabaptists need not blush to say (which you seem to make a part of their impudence) that the Ancients, especially the Greek Church, rejected the baptism of Infants for many hundred years.  

§. 7. Of the testimony of Cyprian,  I Proceed to the Writers of the Latin Church, you allege for Baptism of Infants. First Cyprian, one of the ancientest writers amongst the Latins: which is true; He is placed by Perkins at the year 240. by Usher, at the year 250. Yet Tertullian was before him, and counted his master: Now in Tertullia's time, it appears (saith Grotius in Mat. 19.14.) there was nothing defined cencerning the age in which they were to be baptised, that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline, because he dissuades by so many reasons (in his book of Baptism c. 18.) the baptising of Infants. And if he did allow it, it was only in case of necessity, as may appear by his words in his book de anima, c. 39 But you say, Cyprian handles it at large, in Epist. 59 ad Fidum. It is true, he doth say enough in that Epistle for baptising of Infants▪ and more then enough, except he had spoken to better purpose. The truth is, the very reading of that Epistle, upon which Hierom, and especially Augustine rely for the proving of the baptising of Infants, is sufficient to discover how great darkness there was then upon the spirits of those that were counted the greatest lights in the Church. You say, upon this occasion, Fidus denied not the baptism of Infants, but denied that they ought to be baptised before the eighth day. But you might have further observed, that Fidus alleged, considerandam esse legem Circumcisionis antiquae, that he thought the law of ancient Circumcision was to be considered. And, Vestigium Infantis in primis partus sui diebus constitut● mundum non esse dixistì: Thou hast said that the footstep of an Infant being in the first days of his birth, is not clean. Whence it plainly appears, that there was a relic of Judaisme in him, and that he did not well understand the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law: and the truth is, the contentions about Easter, near that age, do plainly show, that judaism was not quite weeded out of the minds of the chief teachers among Christians. You say Cyprian assures him, that by the unanimous consent of 66 Bishops gathered together in a Council, baptism was to be administered to Infants, as well as to grown men; and not to be restrained to any time, which is true, but you add, and proves it by such arguments as these. They are under original sin, they need pardon, are capable of grace and mercy, God regards not age, etc. But the resolution of Cyprian with his Colleagues is not so lightly to be passed over, sith the determination of this Council, as far as I can by search find, is the very springhead of Infant-baptisme. To conceive it aright, it is to be considered, that you are mistaken, about the proof of their opinion; the things you mention, are not the proof, but are produced in answer of objections. The proof is but one, except you will make a proof of that which is in the close of the Epistle, which is, that whereas none is to be kept from baptism, and the grace of God, much less Newborn Infants, who in this respect do deserve more of our aid, and God's mercy, because in the beginning of their birth they presently crying and weeping do nothing else but pray. The only proof is this, the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to none, that are borne of man, for the Lord saith in the Gospel, that the son of man came not to destroy men's souls, but to save them, and therefore as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost, and therefore all infants at all times to be baptised. Whence we may observe: 1. That they thought baptising, giving God's grace, and the denying it, denying God's grace: Secondly, that they thought the souls to be lost that were not baptised. Thirdly, that therefore not only Infants of beleivers, but all infants were to be baptised. Whence Tossanus in his Synopsis, Notes this for Cyprians error that he taught, Infants Statim esse baptizandos ne pereant, quod eis misericordia non sit deneganda Ep. 8. lib. 3. Then follow the objections, which are three. First, That Infants are not capable being so young: this he answers by saying God regards not age, which he proves by an allegorical accommodation of Elisha, his stretching himself upon the little Child, to the applying of God's grace to Infants. The second objection is, But we eat to kiss Infants as unclean in the first days of their birth: to this he answers, that to the clean all things are clean; and we ought not to decline the embracing Gods work. The third objection, was the Law of circumcision, to this he answers, that in Circumcision the eighth day was a figure of the resurrection of Christ: Which is now accomplished, and we are to account now nothing common or unclean: and therefore we are not to account this an impedinent to obtain grace by Baptism. Then he adds further, if any thing could hinder from obtaining of grace, greater sins should hinder men of years from it, now if greater sins hinder not men of years from it, but that they when they believe obtain forgiveness, grace, and Baptism, by how much rather is an Infant not to be forbidden, who being newly borne, hath not sinned, except in that being borne carnally according to Adam, he hath contracted the contagion of ancient death in his first Nativity, who in this respect comes more easily to receive remission of sins, because not his own sins, but another's are forgiven him: So that whereas you say, that Cyprian proves: that Infants are to be baptised because they are under Original sin, they need pardon; You may perceive that the argument is rather thus, they have lesser sins than others, they need less pardon than men of grown years, and therefore there is less hindrance in them to come to God's grace, remission of sins and Baptism: thus have I considered that famous resolution of a Council of 66. Bishops, which for the nakedness of it I should more willingly have covered, were it not that the truth hath so much suffered by the great esteem that this absurd Epistle hath had in many Ages.  

§. 8. Of the testimony of Augustine.  YOu add next to Cyprian Augustine, who flourished about the year 405. according to Perkins, 410. according to Usher, and I follow you to consider him next; for though Ambrose and Hierome are reckoned somewhat afore him about 30. or 20. years, yet they lived at the same time, and the Authority of Augustine was it which carried the Baptism of Infants in the following ages, almost without control, as may appear out of Walafridus Strabo placed by Usher, at the year 840. who in his book De rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 26. having said ●hat in the first times, the grace of Baptism was wont to be given to them only, who were come to that integrity of mind and body, that they could know and understand, what profit was to be gotten in Baptism, what is to be confessed, and believed, what lastly is to be observed by them that are new borne in Ch●ist; confirms it by Augustine's own confession of himself continuing a Catechumenus long afore Baptised. But afterwards Christian's understanding Original sin etc. Ne perirent parvuli si sine remedio regenerationis gratiae defungerentur, statuerunt eos baptizari in remissionem peccatorum quod & S. Augustinus in libro de baptismo parvulorum ostendit, & Africana testantur Concilia, & aliorum Patrum documenta quamplurima. And then adds how Godfathers and Godmothers were invented and adds one superstitious and impious consequent on it in these words. Non autem debet Pater vel mater de fonte suam suscipere sobolem ut sit discretio inter spiritalem generationem & carnalem, Quod si casu evenerit, non habebunt carnalis copulae deniceps adiuvicem consortium, qui in communui filio compaternitatis spiritale vinculum susceperant. To which I add that Petrus Cluniacensis, placed by Usher, at the year 1150. writing to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis, who denied Baptism of Infants, says of him, that he did reject the Authority of the Latin Doctors, being himself a Latin, ignorant of Greek, and after having said recurrit ergo ad scripturas, therefore he runs to the Scriptures: he allegeth the examples in the New Testament, of Christ's curing of persons at the request of others, to prove Infant's Baptism by and then adds, Quid vos ad ista? Ecce non de Augustino, sed de Evangelio protuli, cui cum maxime vos credere dicatis aut aliorum fide alios tandem posse salvari concedite, aut de Evangelio esse quae posui si potestis, negate. From these passages I gather, that as Petrus Cluniacensis urged for paedobaptism the authority of Augustine and the Latin Doctors, So Peter de Bruis and Henricus appealed to the Scriptures, and the Greek Church: Now the reason of Augustine's authority was this, the Pelagian heresy being generally condemned, and Augustine's works being greatly esteemed, as being the hammer of the Pelagians, the following refuters of Pelagianism, Prosper, Fulgentius etc. the Counsels that did condemn it as those of Carthage, Arles Milevis etc. did rest altogether on Augustine's arguments, and often on his words, and Augustine in time was accounted one of the four Doctors of the Church, esteemed like the four Evangelists, so that his opinion was the rule of the Church's Judgement, and the schools determination, as to the great hurt of God's Church Luther and others have been of late. Now Augustine did very much insist on this argument to prove original sin, because Infants were baptised for remission of sins, and therefore in the Council of Milevis he was adjudged accursed, that did deny it: But for my part I value Augustine's judgement just at so much, as his proofs and reasons weigh, which how light they are you may conceive.  

August. t●m 1. Confess. lib. 1. c. 11 & Sig●abar signo Cru●is ejus & con●i●b●r ejus sa●e jam inde ab ute●o matris m●ae, quae multum speravit in te And then follows, how being young and falling sick, he desired, and his mother thought to have him baptised, but upon his recovery it was differred.  First, In that whereas he makes it so Universal a tradition, his own baptism not till above thirty, though educated as a Christian by his mother Monica, the Baptism of his son Adeodatus at 15. of his friend Alipius, if there were no more, were enough to prove that this custom of baptising infants, was not so received, as that the Church thought necessary that all children of Christians by profession should be baptised in their infancy. And though I conceive with Grotius annot. in Matt●. 19.14. that baptism of Infants was much more frequented, and with greater opinion of necessity in Africa, then in Asia, or other parts of the world, for (saith he) in the Counsels you cannot find ancienter mention of that custom, than the Council of Carthage. Yet I do very much question whether they did in Africa, even in Augustine's time baptise children, except in danger of death, or for the health of body▪ or such like reason: I do not find that they held that Infants must be baptised out of such cases, for it is clear out of sundry of Augustine's Tracts, as particularly tract. 11 in Johan: that the order held of distinguishing the Catechumeni and baptised, and the use of Catechising afore baptism, still continued, yea and a great while after, insomuch that when Petrus Cluniacensis disputed against Peter de Bruis, he said only, that ther● had been none but infants baptised for 300. years, or almost 500 years in Gallia, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all Europe, and it seems he denied not the baptising of grown persons in Asia still; whence I collect, that even in the Latin Church, after Augustine's days, in sundry ages the baptising of persons of grown age did continue as well as baptising of infants, till the great darkness that overspread the Western Churches, spoiled by Barbarous Nations, destitute of learned men, and ●uled by ambitious and unlearned Popes, when there were none to Catechise, and therefore they baptised whole Countries upon the baptism of the King of that Country, though both Prince and people knew little or nothing of Christianity, but were in respect of manners and knowledge Pagans still, which hath been the great cause of the upholding of Papacy, and corrupting of Christian Churches, I mean this great corruption of baptising, making Christians, giving Christendom (as it is called) afore ever persons were taught what Christianity was, or if they were taught any thing, it was only the ceremonies and rites of the Church, as they called them.  
2. You may conceive how light Augustine's judgement was, 
Rivet. tract. de Patrum authoritate, c. 9 Augustinus aeternis flammis adjudicat Infantes fine baptismo morientes·s  by considering the ground upon which Augustine held, and urged the baptism of Infants so vehemently; which was, as all know that read his works, the opinion he had, that without baptism Infants must be damned, by reason of original sin, which is not taken away but by Baptism, yea, though he wanted baptism out of necessity; urging those places, Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. continually in his disputes against the Pelagian●, particularly tom. 7. de natura & gratia, c. 8. And tom. 2. ep. 28. he saith, Item quisquis dixerit, quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui sine Sacramenti ejus participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto & contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit, & totam condemnat ecclesiam. And in the close of the Epistle, calls it, robustissimam & fundatissimam fidem, qua Christi ecclesia, nec parvulos homines recentissime natos a damnatione credit, nisi per gratiam domini Christi, quam in suis Sacramentis commendavit, posse liberari. And this, Perkins in his Problem, proves, was the opinion of Ambrose, and many more: And hence, as Aquinas, so Bellarmine, proves baptism of Infants, fro● Joh. 3 5. And this hath been still the principal ground. The ground that you go on, that the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their seed, I cannot find amongst the Ancients. Yea, as you may perceive out of Perkins in the place alleged, although Ambrose, and Augustine in his 4. book de Baptismo contra Donatistas', c. 22. yielded, that either Martyrdom, or the desire of Baptism, might supply the defect of Baptism, and some of the Schoolmen, Biel, Cajetan, Gerson, do allow the desire and prayer of parents for children in the womb, in stead of baptism: Yet we find no remedy allowed by them, but actual baptism for children born into the world: So strictly did Augustine and the Ancients urge the necessity of Baptism for Infants born.  
3. You may consider, that Augustine held a like necessity of Infants receiving the Lord's supper, from the words, Joh. 6.53. as is plainly expressed by him, lib. 1. de peccat. merit. & remis. c. 20. And accordingly, as in Cyprians time, the Communion was given to Infants, as appears by the story which he relates of himself, giving the Communion to an Infant, in his book de lapsis, mentioned by August. epist. 23. So it is confested by Maldonat on Joh. 6. that Innocentius the first, Bishop of Rome, held it necessary for Infants; and that this opinion and practise continued about 600 years in the Church, though it be now rejected by the Roman Church in the Council of Trent.  
4. You may consider, that Augustine held such a certainty of obtaining regeneration by Baptism, that not only he puts usually regeneration for Baptism, but also he makes no question of the regeneration of Infants, though they that brought them, did not bring them with that faith, that they might be regenerated by spiritual grace to eternal life; but because by Baptism they thought to procure health to their bodies, as is plain by his words, epist. 23. ad Bonifacium. Nec illud te moveat, quod quidam non ea fide ad Baptismum percipiendum parvulos ferunt, ut gratia spiritali ad vitam regenerentur aeternam, sed quod eos putant hoc remedio temporalem retinere aut recipere sanitatem: non enim propterea illi non regenerantur, quia non ab illis hac intentione offeruntur; celebrantur enim per eos necessaria ministeria. By which last words you may perceive how corrupt Augustine was in this matter, so as to excuse, if not to justify their fact, who made use of Baptism in so profane a manner, as to cure diseases by it: which is no marvel, if it be be true which is related, of the approbation that was given of the Baptism used by Athanasius in play amongst boys.  
5. You may consider, that in the same Epistle, when Bonifacius pressed Augustine to show how Sureties could be excused from lying, who being asked of the Child's faith, answered, He doth believe, (for even in Baptism of Infants they thought in all ages it necessary that a profession of faith go before) He defends that act in this absurd manner: Respondetur credere propter fid●i Sacramentum, And thence is he called a believer because he hath the Sacrament of faith. Which as it is a ridiculous playing with words, in so serious a matter before God, so it is a senseless answer, sith the interrogation was of the Child's faith before it was baptised, and the answer was given before, and therefore it cannot be understood of believing by receiving the sacrament of faith, which came after.  
6. It is apparent out of the same Epistle, that Infants were then admitted to baptism, whether they were the children of believers, or not; it was no matter with what intention they brought them, nor whose children were brought; yea it was counted a work of charity to bring any children to baptism, and in this case the faith of the whole Church was counted a sufficient supplement of the defect of the parents or bringers faith: So that whereas the present defenders of Infant-baptisme, pretend covenant-holiness a privilege of Believers, it was no such matter in the time of the Ancients, but they baptised any Infants, even of Infidels, upon this opinion, That Baptism did certainly give grace to them; and if they died without baptisms, they did perish. And thus I grant that it is true, the Epistle of Cyprian is cited and approved by Augustine: but neither is Augustine to be approved for approving it, nor doth it advantage your tenet, that you have cited his citation of it.  

§. 9 Of the testimonies of Hierom and Ambrose.  NExt to Augustine you place Hierom, and it is true that he citys and approves Cyprians Epistle, in the end of his third book of his Dialogues against the Pelagians; and he citys, and approves, and commends Augustine's books, de peccat. merito, & remissione, ad Marcellinum, in which he maintains baptism of Infants, and Infant-communion, as necessary to salvation, and the certainty of regeneration and salvation to Infants that are baptised, and receive the Lords supper. So that the same answer is to be given concerning Hierom, which is to be given concerning Augustine. The last you allege, is Ambrose, who lived about the same time, though he be placed some years before Augustine and Hierom; And it is confessed that he was of the same judgement, and many other of th● Ancients of the same time, and in after-ages, but nothing comparable to those already named, and therefore adding no more weight to the cause.  

§. 10. O● the validity of proof by these testimonies, and of the evidences that Infant-baptism is an innovation.  NOw these, you say, you relate not to prove the truth of the thing, but only the practice of it. It is well you added this, that you might disclaim the validity of these testimonies for proof; for the truth is, they rather prove the thing to be an error, than a truth, which was held upon such erroneous ground as they taught and practised it, to wit, the necessity of Baptism to salvation, Joh. 3.5. The certainty of remission of original sin by baptism; The denying of God's grace to none, And the perishing of those to whom Baptism was not given. Whether you have any better proofs, I shall consider hereafter: in the mean time this I add. 1. That concerning the practice, your testimonies prove not, that it was in practice, bu● in case of supposed necessity. 2. That there was still in use a constant course of baptising, not only the converted from infidelity, but also the grown children of professed believers, when they were at full age. 3. That they did alike conceive a necessary of, and accordingly practise the giving of the Lords supper to Infants. 4. That they made no distinction between the Infants of believers and unbelievers being brought to them. 

Chamier panstr. Cathol. to. 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19 Denique hunc morem quis non videt ejus temporis ●sse, cum vix mil●esimus quisque bapt●zabatur non adultus, & in Catechumenis diligenter exercitus.  
H. Hamond, A practical Catech. l. 1. §. 3. pag. 23. And those other fundamentals of faith which all men were instructed in anciently, before they were permitted to be baptised.   5. That your ancientest testimony for practice, according to any Rule determined, is Cyprian, near 300 years after Christ. 6. Lastly, there are many evidences that do as strongly prove, as proofs are usually taken in such matters, That it was not so from the beginning: As particularly, 1. The continued propounding of the ordinary questions even to Infants, concerning their faith, repentance, and obedience, afore they were baptised, which in the Schoolmen was still held necessary, and therefore Sureties thought necessary to answer for them, yea even in Reformed Churches, unto this day: which as it was conceived by Strabo, and Vives in his Comment on Aug. lib. 1. de civet. Dei, c. 27. a clear evidence; so I conceive any reasonable man will think it to be a manifest proof, that at first none were baptised but such as understood the faith of Christ. 2 The examples before mentioned, of the baptising Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Constantine the great, etc. being children of professors of Christianity, is a manifest proof they did not then baptise Infants ordinarily, but extraordinarily in case of necessity. 3. Specially if we join hereto the dissuasions of Tertullian, and Gregory Nazianzen forementioned. 4. The plain testimony of the Council of Neo-Caesarea against it, before mentioned. 5. The silence of the chief writers, Eusebius, etc. concerning it. 6. The many passages in Augustine, and others, referring it only to Apostolical tradition, and that usually proved by no higher testimony than Cyprian, & that brought in upon erroneous grounds, is a strong evidence it came not from the Apostles. To all which I may add the testimony of Hugo Grotius before recited, concerning the Greek Church; the testimony of Ludovicus Vives, Comment. in August. de civet. Dei, l. 1. c. 27. affirming, that he heard, the old use continued in some Cities of Italy, of not baptising, till the party baptised did desire it. Which it seems Bellarmine, an Italian, when he mentions that speech of Vives, did not deny. More testimonies and evidences might be brought out of sundry authors: but these are enough to me, and I think to any that search into Antiquity, to prove, that the custom of baptising Infants was not from the beginning, and therefore is but an Innovation: especially that your tenet, and practise accordingly, is a very late innovation, [That Baptism is to be given to Infants of Believers only, because of supposed covenant-holiness] not elder than Zuinglius, and so not much above one hundred years old, so far as I can find.   

Antipaedobaptisme hath no ill influence on Church, or Commonwealth.  
PART. II. Concerning the prejudices against Antipaedobaptists, from their miscarriages.  

§. 1. Of the fitness of placing the Narration of miscarriages of opposers of Paedobaptism.  HAving examined the first part of that you produce for baptising of infants, I proceed to the second, taken from the novelty and miscarriages of the opposers of it. And here I wish you had remembered the order of the Areopagites mentioned by Smectymnuus that in pleading causes before them prefaces should be avoided, as tending to create prejudice in the Judges. For to what end serves this your Narration of your adversaries, but to beget an Odium, hatred or prejudice at least in your Auditors? which if it had come after other arguments might have been more excusable, but placed as it is, neither suits with serenity of mind fit for judging in you, or your Auditors. Unto which give me leave to add, that the courses taken by too many, as namely by the Author of the Frontispiece to Doctor Featlies' book, which is light and immodest, by Mr. Edward's in his prejudices against the persons of his opposites, as, that none that ever maintained Antipaedobaptisme, lived and died with repute in the Church of God: the history of the Anabaptists, the Anabaptists Catechism, with the invectives against this as an heresy, everting the Fundamentals, as leading into all heresy, over-throwing all government, used in Sermons every where to make Antipaedobaptists odious, and to forestall men with prejudice, though, for the present they serve like Medusa's head, to astonish men, specially the more unlearned, yet are they not right courses, but Artifices serving only to prevent impartial discussing of things which is necessary that truth may appear, and perhaps when truth sh●ll appear will return on the head of the Authors of ●hem. But I resolve to follow your steps.  

§. 2. Of the opposers of Infant-baptisme afore Baltazar.  YOu begin thus. And indeed although some in those times questioned as Augustine grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol. yet the first that ever made a head against it, or a division in the Church about it, was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luther's time, about the year 1527.  
You say, in those times some questioned, as August. grants in his Sermons de verbis Apostol.,. But you do not tell us who those some were, nor in which Sermons, which might have been requisite for your Reader. Upon search I find the 14. Sermon De verbis, Apostol. om. 10. entitled the baptismo parvulorum contra Pelagianos, but it is plain out of that Sermon, and out of Augustine's books of Heresies, ad Quod vult Deum, Tom. 6. Heres. 88 and else where, that the Pelagians did grant the baptising of Infants, because they durst not oppose the custom of the Church, which in those days was accounted Sacred, only they shifted ●ff the proof of original sin from it, by saying that they were baptised not for the remission of sins to eternal life, for they had none, but for the Kingdom of heaven, which shift Augustine doth well refute in that Sermon, and also opposeth some others that taught, that the child not baptised might enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.  
From Augustine's time you make a great leap, and say, the first that ever made a head against, or a division in the Church about it, was Baltazar Pacommitanus in Germany in Luther's time, about the year 1527. But therein you are much deceived. For Cassander in his Testimonies of Infant's baptism in the Epistle to the Duke of Cleve, tells us that Guitmund Bishop of Averse mentioneth the famous Berengarius Anno. 1030. opposing not only the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but also the baptism of little ones. And that a little after sprung in Bernard's time an heresy of an uncertain Original and appellation, and he saith that they were called Cathari or Puritans, and from a Country of France, Albigenses, spread over France and lower Germany, and the bank of the Rhine; of these, he saith, Hireliquis erroribus quos a Manichaeis et Priscillianistis mutuati sunt, hoc insuper addiderunt, ut Baptismum parvulorum inutilem esse dicerent, ut qui prodesse nemini queat qui non et ipse credere, et per seipsum Baptismi sacramentum petere possit, quale nihil Manichaeos', & Priscillianistas docuisse legimus. And indeed Bernard, who is placed by Usher, at the year 1130. just a 100 years after Berengarius, Sermon 66. in Cantica, mentions the Heresy of some, that had no name, because their heresy was not from man, nor received they it by man, but they boasted themselves, to be the successors of the Apostles, and called themselves Apostolicos: Now although he charge them with denying Marriage, and abstaining from meats, yet you may smell out of his own words, that this was but a calumny; but take the Character he sets down of them and weigh it, and you would conceive he had spoken of Protestants. Irrident nos quia baptizamus Infants, quod oramus pro mortuis, quod sanctorum suffragia postulamus, and a little after, Non credunt autem ignem purgatorium restare post mortem, sed statim animam solutam a corpore, vel ad requiem tranfire, vel ad damnationem, And a little after. Jam vero qui Ecclesiam non agnoscunt, non est mirum, si ordinibus Ecclesiae detrahunt, si instituta non recipiunt, si sacramenta contemnunt, si mandatis non obediunt. The same Bernard in Epist. 204. writes to Hildefonsus' Earl of S. Gyles, to take away Henricus once a Monk, than an Apostate, quod dies festos, sacramenta, Basilicas, Sacerdotes sustulerit, quod parvulis Christianorum Christi intercluditur vita, dum baptismi negatur gratia, nec saluti propinquare sinuntur, and it is well known that Petrus Cluniacensis who is placed by Usher at the year 1150. hath written an Epistle to three Bishops of France against Peter de Bruis and Henricus, as defending errors digested into 5. Articles. First, That little ones may not be baptised. Secondly, that Temples or Altars are not to be made, Thirdly, that the Cross of Christ is not to be adored or worshipped, but rather to be broken and trodden under foot. Fourthly, that the Mass is nothing, nor aught to be Celebrated. Fiftly, that the benefits of the living nothing profited the deceased, that we are not to chant to God. He saith that the heresy of the Petrobrusians, was received in the Cities of Gallia Narbonensis, and complains, that the people were rebaptised, the Churches profaned, the Altars digged down, the Crosses fired, on the day itself of the Lords passion, flesh was openly eaten, the Priests scourged, Monks imprisoned, and by terrors and torments compelled to marry wives. All this was done very near 400. years before Baltazar Pacommitanus, or as others write him Pacimontanus.  

§ 3. Of Baltazar Pacimontan●●.  But perhaps you think however, that Baltazar was the first that opposed the baptism of Inf●nts in the 16. Century, which possibly may be true, though herein you follow Cochlaeus and Bellarmine, who adds that Erasmus himself had sowed some seeds of it also, but Gerhard the Lutheran in the 40th Tome of his Common places, where he handles this question, rather derives the Original from Carolostadius, and allegeth Melancthon, Com. on Coloss. and saith, that he is called the father of the Anabaptists by Erasmus Alberus. Now I do not find in Melancthon that which Gerhard saith of him, yet Sleidan saith of him, that he praised their opinion, and Osiander that he joined himself unto them, and I find that Melancthon in his Comment on 1 Cor. 9.24. says of him that he endeavoured to promote the Gospel, though in a wrong course. Arnoldus Meshovius hist: Anabap: lib. 1. §. 2. says that the business of Anabaptism began at Wittenberg, Anno Christi, 1522. Luther then lurking in the Castle of Wartpurg in Thuringia, by Nicolas Pelargus, and that he had Companions at first, Carolostadius, Philip Melancthon and others, and that Luther returning from his Patmos as he called it, banished Carolostadius and the rest, and only received Philip Melancthon into favour again. Now they that know what was Luther's vehemency and pertinacy on the one side, and Melancthons' timorousness on the other side, may well conceive, ●hat as in the business of Images in Churches, and Consubstantiation, so in this about Infant-baptisme the temper of these two men much hindered the clearing of this truth, perhaps fearing that a further reformation than they had begun, would be an occasion of nullifying, all they had done. Surely it hath been the unhappy fate of the reformed Churches, that they have so stuck to Luther, and Calvin, that they have scarce stepped one step further in reformation than they did, but stiffly maintained only the ground they had gotten. Cassander in his Epistle to he D. of Cleve before mentioned reckons the error of Anabaptism to have been revived abou● the year 1622. by Nicolas Stork or Pelargus & Thomas Munzer; but it is not res tanti to search any further into this matter, nor is it of any weight to inquire much after this Baltazar. He is styled Baltazar Huebmer Pacimontanus, Dr. in Waldshuot, in the Epistle Zuinglius writes to him, before his answer to his book about baptism, & in the Epistle Zuinglius wrote to Gynoraeus, he relates how he came to Zurich, and was there demanded by the Emperor, who it seems sought his life, there he made some recantation, but it appears he was afterwards taken and burnt at Vienna in Austria Anno, 1528. For what cause I know not. Zuinglius saith this of him in his Epistle to Gynoraeus. Nos dexteritatem spectamus in homine, ac mediocritatis studium, in eo autem homine (falli cupio) nihil quam immoderatam rei gloriaeque sitim deprehendisse visus sum ipse mihi. And Osiander at the yerae 1528. saith only of him, he was Hom● fanaticus et crassus Anabaptista. But I leave him to his Judge to whom he stands or falls, only I marvel I read no worse, specially in Osiander, said of one that is accounted a leader in so hated a sect.  

§. 4. Of rebaptising.  YOu go on, Since that time multitudes in Germany have embraced his opinion, who because they opposed paedobaptism, were forced to reiterate their own baptism, and thence were called Anabaptists. Afore I proceed, because it goes so currant, that rebaptisation is not only an error, but also an heresy, let me beg of you one good argument to prove it unlawful in se, or intrinsically, I mean without respect to scandal, or the like cause by accident, for a man that hath been baptised rightly, to be baptised again: One baptism Eph. 4 5. is not to me all one as once baptising, no more than one faith once believing, We are regenerated by baptism, and a man is borne but once. But are we not borne again by the Word, and must that be but once preached? Is not sin mortified, the Church sanctified by baptism, and are not these often? And for example, if there were as good for paedobaptism, as that Act. 19.5, 6. for rebaptising, the controversy were at an end with me. But if heresy must be determined by the votes of men, Smectymnuus may be judged an Arian, and the opposers of Pasche Heretics: this by the way, though not besides the matter.  

§ 5. Of the Anabaptists in Germany, and the Antiprelatists in England.  YOu go on, And soon proved a dangerous and turbulent sect, not only working a world of mischief about Munster, and other parts of Germany, but have with this opinion drunk in abundance of other dangerous heresies and blasphemies, and quickly grew into such divisions and subdivisions among themselves, that Bullinger notes that they were grown to no less than 14. Sects in his time which is indeed the common lot of all Sectaries.  
To all which I only answer thus, that much of this is true I make no question, though perhaps vehemency of opposition, hath made matters more or worse than they were, as it is wont to be in such cases, and I find that Gualther in his Apology for Zuinglius, saith of them, veritatis studiosi videri vellent, and Cassander speaks favourably of some of them. But it is no marvel that when men grow into sects, such things happen, especially when the reformation of an abuse is denied men by an orderly Synodical way, and the persons that seek it, declaimed against, accused, and accursed, and persecuted as Schismatics and Heretics; and unlearned and factious men, join with a discontented party for sinister ends, so that the men that hold an opinion have no regular Ministry, nor orderly meetings to debate or conclude of things amongst themselves; and to agree upon a confession of their doctrine, to be by all avouched. But have not the like, if not the same things happened in other matters? Did not the like troubles happen in Q. Elizabeth's days in seeking to remove Episcopacy & Ceremonies? Did not some of them grow a dangerous and turbulent Sect? was not the practice of Hacket and his companions like that of john a Leyden at Munster? Did not divisions and other miscarriages and persecutions, bring the Non-conformists of England as low as the Anabaptists? Did not Whitgift long ago compare the Anabaptists principles with the Nonconformists of England, and Hooker in his preface to his books of Ecclesiastical policy, their proceedings, manners & pretences together? and yet Episcopacy is now found an abuse and so may in time be Paedobaptism. Indeed these miscarriages were argumentative if they did arise from the nature of the doctrine taught: but when they come only from the weakness, or rashness, or malignity of the assertors, or from the violence of opposers, we must not jumble things together, but by sifting the matter to the bran, sever the nature of the doctrine from the quality and actions of the teachers, else we shall as soon loose truth as find it: Now whether the nature of the Doctrine that denies Paedobaptism, infer any such turbulent effects, I shall consider in examining that which follows.  

§. 6. Of Anabaptists opposing Magistracy.  And because this opinion and divers others which depend upon it, begins unhappily to take place, and spread among ourselves in this Kingdom.  
You do not express what those opinions are which depend upon it, Mr. Richard Vines in his Sermon on Eph. 4.14. pag. 13. Having said what heresy ever came abroad, without Verbum Domini in the mouth of it? and then after the Arians plea, he saith the Anabaptists from Matth. 28.19. Go ye therefore and disciple all nations; and when we shallbe thriven to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or full stature, he will undermine Magistracy by that Rom. 12.19. Avenge not yourselves.  
But how knows Mr. Vines this? I do not take Mr. Vines for a Prophet & to infer this by reason, The Anabaptist urgeth Matth. 28.19. against paedobaptism, Ergo, he will urge Rom. 12.19. against Magistracy, is in my slender apprehension a baculo ad angulum. I do not fear to averie, and doubt not but to be able to make it good, that the principle by which he proves paedobaptism, from the reason & equity of the rule of circumcision, doth by just consequence undermine, I will not say all Magistracy, but much of the Magistracy and Laws of the Kingdom of England, as they are at this day. Perhaps he may say the Anabaptists heretofore have opposed Magistracy. I reply, Have none of the adversaries of the Anabaptists undermined Magistracy? Since the actions of Muncer and Munster I find not either in writing or action any opposition but the Battenburgick after mentioned (which what they were I know not) made by the Anabaptists against the Magistrates or Magistracy. I cannot but think it necessary to insert the words of Cassander a Papist in his Epistle to the Duke of Gulicke and Cleve. Hujus quem dixi Memnonis cui nunc hic Theodoricus successit, sectatores fere sunt omnes, qui per haec Belgicae, & inferioris Germaniae loca huic Anabaptisticae heresi affines deprehenduntur, in quibus magna ex parte pii cujusdam animi argumenta cernas, qui imperito quodam zelo incitati, errore potius, quam animi malitia a vero divinarum literarum sensu, et concordi totius Ecclesiae consensu descrverunt. Quod ex eo perspici potest, quod Monasteriensibus, et hinc consecutis Batenburgicis a johanne Batenburgo, post cladem Monasteriensem excitatis furoribus, Novam quandam restitutionem regni Christi, quod in deletione impiorum per vim external positum sit meditantibus acerrime semper restiterunt, et in sola cruce Regni Christi instaurationem et propagationem consistere docuerunt, quo fit ut qui hujusmodi sunt, Commiseratione potius et emendatione quam inse●tatione et perditione digni videantur. How unlike is Mr. Vines his speech to the Lord Mayor & City of London, to these words of Cassander a Papist, to the D. of Clev●●●●pist ●●pist. And for those in these days, that deny or question Paedobaptism, as I know them not, or very few of them, so I cannot say what they do, or hold, as being not privy to their tenets or proceedings, only understanding by one of your assembly, that there was a little book pu● forth entitled the compassionate Samaritan, upon perusal I found that that Author, who ever he were, accounts it a calumny to charge th● Anabaptists with opposing Magistracy. But concerning this, the confession of faith, lately put forth in the name of 7 Churches of them Artic. 48, 49. will give best information. But if you mean not this but some other error depending on the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme, when I meet with them in your Sermon, I shall in their proper place, consider whether they do depend on it or no, and for the opinion itself, I say, if it be not truth, the spreading of it is unhappy, if it be truth, the more it spreads, the more happy it is for the Kingdom.  

§. 7. Of the hindering of reformation by Anabaptism.  YOu say further. And so the work of reformation without God's mercy likely to be much hindered by it.  
Sir, you now touch upon a very tender point, in which it concerned you, and it in like mann●r concerns me, and all that have any love to jesus Christ, or his people, to be very considerate in what we say. I have entered into Covenant to endeavour a reformation as well as you, and though I have not had the happiness, (as indeed wanting ability) to be employed in that eminent manner you have been in the promoting of it (in which I rejoice) yet have I in my aff●ctions sincerely desired it, in my intentions truly aimed at it, in my prayers hearty sought it, in my studies constantly minded it, in my endeavours seriously prosecuted it, for the promoting of it greatly suffered, as having as deep in interest in it as other men. Now b●gging this Postulatum, or demand, that Paedobaptism is a corruption of Christ's institution, which upon the reading of my answer, and the 12 reasons of my doubts formerly mentioned, will appear not to be a mere Petitio principii begging that which is to be proved. I say this being granted, I humbly conceive that Paedobaptism is a Mother-Corruption, that hath in her womb most of those abuses in discipline and manners, and some of those errors in doctrine that do defile the reformed Churches; and therefore that the reformation will be so far from being hindered by removing it, that indeed it is the only way to further reformation, to begin in a regular way, at the purging of that ordinance of jesus Christ, to wit Baptism, without which, experience shows how insufficient after-Catechizing, Excommunication, Confirmation, Vnio reformata, solemn Covenant, Separation, & the New Church-Covenant, invented or used to supply the want of it, are, to heal the great abuses about the admitting visible professors into the privilege of the Church, from whence spring a great part, if not all the abuses in discipline, receiving the Lord's Supper, and manners of Christian people. And therefore, I earnestly beseech in the bowels of jesus Christ, both you, and all others, that engage themselves for God, to take this matter into deep consideration. I am sensible how inconsiderable a person I am, and how inconsiderable a number there be that are affected with this motion, I do consider how much against the stream of the Reform Churches, such a reformation would be. Yet when I consider how far fetched the reasons for Paedobaptism are, how clear the institution of Christ is against it, how happily truths opposed with as much prejudice as this, have been in process of time vindicated, of wha● moment the knowledge of this point is to every conscience, how exact a reformation our solemn Covenant binds us to endeavour; I do not despair but that this truth also may take place upon second thoughts, ●here it hath been rejected at the first, nor do I doubt bu● in time God's people will consider what an influence baptism had of old into the comfort and obligation of consciences, and how little it h●th now. And truly Sir, though it may be but my weakness, yet I suppose it can do you no hurt to tell it; I fear you want much of that blessing, which was hoped for by your Assembly, in that you do waste so much time about inconsiderable things comparatively, and hastily pass over or exclude from examination this which deserves most to be examined, but rather seek to stop the bringing of it to any trial. But having told you thus much, I follow you in your Sermon.  

§. 8. The Antipaedobaptists principle overthrows not the Lords day; the Paedobaptists principle reduceth Judaisme, and Popish Ceremonies and adds to the Gospel.  You say, I shall God-willing handle this question more largely than I have done any other in this place, and the rather because of three other great mischiefs which go along with it. First I see that all that reject the baptising of Infants, do & must upon the same grounds reject the religious observation of the Lords day, or the Christian Sabbath, viz. because there is not (say they) an express institution or command in the New Testament.  
Give me leave to take up the words of him in the Poet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, What a word hath gotten out of the hedge of your teeth! They do, They must. Though I doubt not of your will, yet I see you want some skill in pleading for the Lords day, that others have: the truth is that it is neither so, nor so, They neither do, nor must reject upon the same ground the Lords day. That they do not I can speak for one; and your own words delivered after with more caution, Verily I have hardly either known, or read, or heard, intimate that though few, yet you cannot say, but you have heard, or read or known of some, that have not with baptising of Infants rejected the Lords day; but you have, I presume, heard or read of whole, and those reformed Churches, that have upon such a ground rejected the Lords day as not of divine institution, who yet are zealous for paedobaptism. Nor must they, And to make that good, let us consider their ground as you mention it. Their ground you say is, because there is not an express institution or command in the New Testament: this than is their principle, that what hath not an express institution or command in the New Testament is to be rejected. But give me leave to tell you, that you leave out two explications that are needful to be taken in; First, that when they say so, they mean it of positive instituted worship, consisting in outward rites, such as Circumcision, Baptism and the Lords Supper are, which have nothing moral or natural in them, but are in whole and in part Ceremonial. For that which is natural or moral in worship, they allow an institution or command in the old Testament as obligatory to Christians, and such do they conceive a Sabbath to be, as being of the Law of nature, that outward worship being due to God, days are due to God to that end, and therefore even in Paradise, appointed from the creation; and in all nations, in all ages observed: enough to prove so much to be of the Law of nature, and therefore the fourth Commandment justly put amongst the Morals; and if a seventh day indefinitely be commanded there, as some of your Assembly have indeavourd to make good, I shall not gainsay: though in that point of the quota pars temporis which is moral, I do yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suspend my judgement. Now Circumcision hath nothing moral in it, it is merely positive, neither from the beginning, nor observed by all nations in all ages, nor in the Decalogue, and therefore a Sabbath may stand, though it fall. 2. The other explication is, that when they require express institution or command in the New Testament, they do not mean that in positive worship there must be a command totidem verbis, in so many words, in form of a precept, but they conceive that Apostolical example, which hath not a mere temporary reason, is enough to prove an institution from God, to which that practice doth relate. And in this, after some evidences in the Scripture of the New Testament, they ascribe much to the constant practice of the Church in all ages. Now than if it be considered, that when Paul was at Troas, Acts. 20.7. the Disciples came together to break bread, and Paul preached upon the first day of the week, and Paul, 1 Cor. 16.1.2. as he had appointed in the Churches of Galatia, so he appoints at Corinth collections for the poor the first day of the week; & Revel. 1.10. it hath the Elogium or title of the Lords day; and it was so Sacred among Christians, that it was made the question of inquisitors of Christianity, Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lords day? to which was answered, Christianus sum, intermittere non possum, I am a Christian, I may not omit it: it is clear evidence to me, that either Christ or the Apostles, having abrogated the old Sabbath, Col. 2.16. subrogated the first day of the week instead of it. Now if a moiety of this could be brought for Paedobaptism, in the stead of Circumcision of infants, I should subscribe to it with you. But Paedobaptism not consisting with the order of Christ in the institution, being contrary to the usage of it by John the Baptist, & the Apostles, there being no footsteps of it, till the erroneous conceit grew of giving God's grace by it, and the necessity of it to save an infant from perishing, some hundreds of years after Christ's incarnation; I dare not assent to the practice of it upon a supposed analogy, equity or reason of the rule of Circumcision, and imaginary confederation with the believing parent in the Covenant of grace. For to me it is a dangerous principle upon which they go that so argue: to wit, that in mere positive things (such as Circumcision and Baptism are) we may frame an addition to God's worship from analogy or resemblance conceived by us between two ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without any institution gathered by precept or Apostolical example. For if we may do it in one thing, why not in a nother? where shall we stay? They that read the Popish expositors of their Rituals, 
Vid. Rainold. Confer. with Hart, c. 8. §. 4.  do know that this very principle hath brought in Surplice, Purification of women, etc. that I mention not greater matters. I desire any learned man to set me down a rule from God's Word, how far I may go in my conceived parity of reason, equity or analogy, and where I must stay; when it will be superstition and will worship, when not; when my conscience may be satisfied, when no●? That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jews, and appointed to us, we receive as they have appointed: bu● if any other man, if a Pope, or Occumenicall Council take upon them to appoint to men's Consciences any rite in whole or in part, upon his own conceived reason from supposed analogy with the Jewish ceremonies, it is an high presumption in such against Christ, and against the Apostles command to yield to it, Col. 2.20. though it hath a show of wisdom, v. 23▪ And the Apostles example, Gal. 2.3.4 5. binds us to oppose it, when it is likely to bring us into bondage. And for the other pillar upon which at this day paedobaptism is built, it is to me very dangerous, viz. That the Covenant of Evangelicall grace is made to beleivers and their seed, that the children are confederates with the Parents in the Covenant of grace. Which without such restrictions or explications as agree not with the common use of the words (which in the plain sense import this, that God in his Covenant of grace by Christ hath promised not only to justify and save believing Parents, but also their children) is in my apprehension plainly against the Apostles determination, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. makes an addition to the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 9 and draws with it many dangerous consequences, which I abhor. You add, Now God hath so blessed the religious observation of the Lords day in this Kingdom above other Churches and Kingdoms, that such as endeavour to overthrow it, deserve justly to be abhorred by us. Upon occasion of which passage I only desire to intimate to you, that from happy events it's not safe to conclude, that a thing pleaseth God. You know it is the way the Monks and Prelates use to infer that their institution is of God, because their Orders have yielded so many pious Confessors, Martyrs and Saints; & it too much countenanceth the way of arguing for Independency (by which it hath prevailed) in Letters from abroad, and suggestions at home, still harping on this string, that it is the way of God, because they that are in that way thrive & grow more spiritual than others. And if this arguing be good, It prospers, therefore it pleaseth God; than it will follow on the contrary, It prospers not, therefore it pleaseth not God: And if so, we might infer Infant baptism is of men, not of God, sith if conscience and experience may speak, there are but few Christians that have tasted the sweet & comfort of their baptism, as Mr. Shepard, in his Epistle before Philip's vind: of infant-bap. The other note is this, that when you say, that such as endeavour to overthrow the religious observation of the Lords day, deserve justly to be abhorred by us, it must be taken cum grano salis, with cau●ion, of such as do it against clear light, with a malicious spirit: Otherwise your words reach to foreign reformed Churches & their teachers, yea in a sort to yourself, who may be said interpretatively to endeavour to overthrow it, while you build it on the same ground with paedobaptism. But I proceed.  

§. 9 Of the evil of separating from the Ministry and Communion of Christians by reason of this opinion.  YOu say, Secondly the teachers of this opinion, where ever they prevail, take their Proselytes wholly off from the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and all other acts of Christian Communion both public and private, from any but those that are of their own opinion, condemning them all, as limbs of Antichrist, worshippers and followers of the Beast.  
This is indeed a wicked practice, justly to be abhorred, the making of sects upon difference of opinion, reviling, separating from their teachers and brethren otherwise faithful, because there is not the same opinion in disputable points, or in clear truths non-fundamentall, is a thing too frequent in all sorts of Dogmatists, and yet so contrary to common charity, which teacheth us to bear all things, to the rules of heathens, who could say, Non eadem sentire duos de rebus iisdem incolumi licuit semper amicitia, It hath been always allowed that friends should differ in opinion about the same things, & yet continue friend's, much more against that near concorporation of Christians: that I look upon it as one of the great plagues of Christianity, you shall have me join with you in showing my detestation of it. Yet nevertheless, First, It is to be considered, that this is not the evil of Antipaedobaptisme; you confess some are otherwise minded, and therefore must be charged on the persons, not on the assertion itself, and about this what they hold, you may have now best satisfaction from the confession of faith in the name of seven Churches of them, Art. 33. and others following. Secondly, It is fit when such things happen, that godly Ministers should look upon it as their affliction, & take occasion excutere semetipsos; to search themselves whether they have not by their harsh usage of their brethren, unjust charging them, misreporting their tenants, stirring up hatred in Magistrates & people against them, ●nstead of instructing them, unsatisfying handling of doubtful qu●stions, and by other ways alienated them from them. And I make bold to let you understand, that among others you have been one cause at my startling at this point of Paedobaptism, remembering a very moving passage which is in your Sermon Preached and printed on 2 Chron. 15.2. Concerning the hedge that God hath set about the 2. Commandment, that you admire that ever mortal man should dare in God's worship, to meddle any jot further than the Lord himself hath commanded.  

§. 10. Of the condition into which the opinion of Antipaedobaptisme puts the infants of believers, of original sin, salvation out of the Church, and Covenant of grace.  I Come after you. Thirdly, this opinion puts all th● Infants of all believers into the selfsame condition with the Infants of Turks and Indians.  
And so doth the opinion of Cyprian with his 66. Bishops, that would have God's grace denied to none. And so do the words of the grave confutation of the Brownists, put forth by Mr. Rathband, Part. 3. pag. 50. Children may be lawfully accounted within God's Covenant, if any of their Ancestors in any generations were faithful. Exod. 20.5. But it may be you do not so. I pray you then tell me, wherein you make their condition different? Possibly if you open yourself plainly, there will be no difference between us. I will deal freely with you herein. 1. Concerning Gods Election, I am not certain any more, concerning the election of a believers Infant, than an unbelievers. I rest upon God's words, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, Rom. 9.15.2. For the Covenant or promise of grace, that is, righteousness and life in Christ, though I acknowledge a peculiar promise to Abraham's natural posterity, mentioned Rom. 11 27. Yet I know not that God hath made such a covenant to any, much less to all the natural seed of any believing Gentile; if you can show me such a Character, I sha●l count it a treasure: but I dare not forge such grants. 3. Yet I grant that the present estate of a believers Infants hath a more comfortable likelihood that they are in God's election, than the infants of Turks and Indians, both because they have their parents prayers, and the Churches for them, they have some promises, though general, indefinite, and conditional; & we find by experience, God doth very frequently continue his Church in their posterity, though it often happen that the children of godly parents prove very wicked, But this I dare not ground upon any promise of free grace, made to the child of a believer as such, for fear le●t I incur blasphemy, by challenging a promise which God doth not keep; nor upon any pretended law of friendship, lest that objection reflect on me, Is there unrighteousness with God? Rom. 9.14. which the Apostle thought best to answer by asserting to God the most absolute liberty, v. 15.18. 4. That the condition in respect of future hopes of a believers Infant is a thousand times better than of a Turk or Indian, because it is born in the bosom of the Church, of godly parents, who by p●ayers, instruction, example, will undoubtedly educate them in the true faith of Christ, whereby they are not only as the Turks children, in potentia Logica, in a Logic possibility, or in potentia remota, in a remote possibility, but in potentia pr●quînqua, in a near possibility to be believers, and saved. And surely this is a great and certain privilege enough to satisfy us, if we remember the distance between God and us: Nor do I fear to be gored by any of the three horns of your Syllogism, of which one you say must unavoidably follow. The first is, That either all are damned who die in their infancy, being without the Covenant of grace, having no part in Christ. But this follows not; there is no necessity from any thing said before of their condition, that all of them should be damned, or be without the Covenant of grace, having no part in Christ: God may choose them all, or some, take all, or some into the covenant of Grace (which is, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, that is, mine Elect, Rom. 9.8.11.) into communion with Christ (who died for the Elect, Rom. 8.33, 34.) notwithstanding any thing I have said of their condition. The second is, Or else all are saved, as having no original sin, and consequently needing no Saviour, which most of the Anabaptists in the world do own, and therewith bring in also all Pelagianism, universal grace, freewill, etc. This I imagine is the error you conceive depends upon Antipaedobaptisme. I find Mr. Blake stands much upon this in his Birth-right-priviledge, pag. 17. where he saith, The Anabaptists in this present age, well see, that all that join in this tenant sail between those rocks, either to affirm, that infants die in their pollution, or perish in their birth-sin, or else to deny this original pollution, or any birth-sin at all. But for my part I see no reason of this, unless it be granted that no infant can have sin forgiven, unless it b● baptised. May it not be said, that some, or all infants are saved, notwithstanding their birth-sin, by the grace of God electing them, putting them into Christ, uniting them to him by his Spirit, forgiving them their birth-sin through Christ's obedience, although they be not baptised? As corrupt as the Schoolmen were, they could say, Gratia Dei non alligatur Sacramentis, The grace of God is not tied to Sacraments. If most of the Anabaptists hold universal grace, and freewill, there may be as much said of most of the paedobaptists, taking in a great part of the Papists, almost all the Lutherans, and Arminians, and if they denied original sin, it is their dangerous error, but it is not consequent on their denying Paedobaptism. But the late confession of faith made ●n the name of 7. Churches of them in London, Art. 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26. will abundantly answer for them in this point of Pelagianisme. The third is, Or that although they be tainted with original corruption, and so need a Saviour, Christ doth pro bene placito, save some of the infants of Turks and Indians dying in their infancy, as well as some of the infants of Christians, and so carry salvation by Christ out of the Church beyond the Covenant of grace, where God never made any promise. Nor doth this follow: for it may be said, all that die in their infancy are not damned, nor all saved because they have no birth-sin, nor some of the Indians saved. For the some that may be saved, may be the infants of believers, to whom God may forgive their birth-sin, without baptism. Thus you may perceive, how the push of all the horns of your horned Syllogism may be avoided. But you conceive it a great absurdity to say, That Christ doth pro bene placito save some of the infants of Indians: it is true, it is a bold saying, to say he doth save them, but ●is as bad to say that God may not save them pro bene placito, according to his good pleasure. He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. Bu● then salvation by Christ is carried out of the Church, where he hath made no promise: if you mean by the Church, the invisible Church of the elect, the Church of the firstborn that are written in heaven, of which Protestant Divines, as Morton de Ecclesia, and others against Bellarmine understand that saying, Extra Ecclesiam non est salus, without the Church is no salvation: than it follows no●, that if the infants of Indians be saved, salvation is carried without the Church, for they may be of the invisible Church of the elect, to whom belongs the promise made to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. But if you mean it of the visible, though I disclaim Zuinglius his opinion (who was a stiff assertor of Paedobaptism, and I think the founder of the new way of maintaining it, by the new addition to the Covenant of grace) that Hercules, Arist des, Socrates, Numa, and such like heathens are now in heaven; yet I cannot say no persons without the communion of the visibl● Church are saved: He that could call Abraham in Vr of Chaldea, Job in the land of Us, and Rahab in Jericho, may save some amongst Turks and Indians out of the visible Church. You will not call Rome a true visible Church, nor will you, I think, say, that all are damned that are in Rome. You add, That God hath made a promise to be the God of believers and of their seed, we all know. If you know it, yet I profess my ignorance of such a promise; I read indeed of a promise made to Abraham, That he would be his God, and the God of his seed, and I read That they that are of the faith of Abraham, are the children of Abraham, Gal. 3.7.29. Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 16. But I am yet to seek for that promise you speak of, to be the God of believers and their seed. You say, But where the promise is to be found, that he will be th● God of the seed of such Parents who live and die his enemies, and the●● seed not so much as called by the preaching of the Gospel, I know not. Nor do I. Only I know this, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion, Rom. 9.15. which is the Apostles answer in this very case. Thus have I entered your outworks, I shall now try the strength of your walls, I mean the third part of your Sermon.   

Infant-baptisme cannot be deduced from holy Scripture.  
PART. III. Concerning the Arguments from Scripture for Infant-baptism.  

§. 1. Of the connexion between the covenant and the seal.  YOu say, My first argument to ●his, The Infants of believing parents are foederati, therefore they must be signati. They are within the Covenant of Grace belonging to Christ's body, Kingdom, Family, therefore are to partake of the seal of his covenant, or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace, and them who are not. The ordinary answer to this argument, is by denying that Infants are under the Covenant of grace, only some few deny the consequence, that although they were within the Covenant, yet it follows not that they must be sealed, because say they, the women among the Jews were under the covenant, yet received not circumcision, which was the seal of the Covenant.  
They that deny the consequence of your argument, do it justly, for the consequence must be proved by this universal: All that are foederati, must be signati, all that are in the covenant of Grace must be sealed, which is not true. If it were true, it must be so, either by reason of some necessary connexion between the terms, which is none; for it is but a common accident to a man that hath a promise or a covenant made to him, that he should have a special sign, it may adesse, vel abesse a subjecto, it may be present, or absent from the subject: God made a special promise to Joshuah, that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan; to Phineas a covenant of an everlasting Priesthood, without any special sign or seal distinct from the Covenant; or else it must be so by reason of Gods will declared concerning the covenant of Grace, but that is not true. The promise made to Adam, which you confess was the same in substance with the covenant of Grace, had no special sign or seal annexed to it; Noah, Abel were within the covenant of Grace, yet no special sign appointed them, therefore it is not God's will that all that are foederati in the Covenant, must be signati, Sealed; if they had been signati, though they were foederati, it had been will-worship, God not appointing it to them. But you will say, all that are foederati should be signati, since the solemn Covenant with Abraham. But neither is this certain, sith we find no such thing concerning Melchizedeck, and Lot, that lived in Abraham's time, nor concerning Job, that it's conceived lived after his time. You will say, but it is true of all the foederati in Abraham's family: but neither is that true, for male children before the eighth day, and women, though federate, yet were not to be signed. So that you see it is so far from being universally true, that all that are foederati, must be signati; that this is all which is true, all the male children of Abraham's family if they were eight days old, must be signed with the sign of Circumcision, which never will be able to prove the consequence of your Enthymeme according to true Logic.  
But you say this receives an easy answer, the women were circumcised in the males, else God could not have said, that the whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh, else could not the whole Nation of the Jews be called the Circumcision, in opposition to all the world besides, who were called the Uncircumcision.  
'Tis true, the answer you give is an easy answer, because easy to be answered, but it is not a sufficient answer, to tak● away the exception against that universal proposition which must prove the consequence of your Enthymeme: The answer is, That women were circumcised in the males. You express it thus, pag. 28. where you repeat the same thing. This sign was actually applied only to the males, yet the females were virtually circumcised in them: So this is your meaning. The women were not circumcised at all, yet that the males were circumcised, it was all one as if they had been circumcised in their persons. Now then let us scan this answer: the conclusion to be proved was, that Infants were to be sealed actually, not virtually. For if a virtual sealing, or baptising were all that you would prove, we might grant it; we may say infants are virtually baptised in their parents, and yet it may be unlawful to baptise them actually; as it would have been unlawful to have circumcised women actually, notwithstanding their virtual circumcision. For it had been a will-worship, there being no command to do it. And indeed, to speak exactly, women were not circumcised virtually in the males; for he is said virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxy, or Attorney, that might receive it by himself, yet quoad effectum juris, according to the effect of Law, another's receiving is as if he had received it: but so the males did not receive circumcision for the females, for the females might not be circumcised in their own persons, it had been their sin, if they had received it, God not appointing it: As it had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore or after the eighth day, in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God: Now than this being the conclusion to be proved, That infants of believing parents are to be actually signed or sealed, the proposition must be meant of the same signing or sealing, and the Syllogism thus framed. All that are foederati, must be actually signati. All the infants of believers are foederati, Ergo, All the infants of believers must be actually signati: If you do not thus frame your Syllogism, but put in the pr●position virtually signed, and in your conclusion actually signed, your Syllogism hath four terms, and so is naught. If you do not put actually signed in the conclusion, you conclude not that which you should prove. Now this also occasions me to note another fault in your argument, to wit, your concluding that which was not the question, which was not of any sign indefinitely, but of baptism. You cannot say it is all one, for there are other signs of the Covenant besides baptism, as circumcision of old, so the Lords Supper now. If then I should grant the conclusion, That infants of believers are to be signati, yet you would say they are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper, because it is not appointed for them. So in like manner if it were granted you, that infants of believers are to be signed, yet it follows not that they are to be baptised unless you can prove it is appointed to them; and the truth is, if it were granted, that children were foederati, yet it were a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be signati, without God's declaration of his mind, and if it were granted they must be signati, it were in like manner a high presumption in us to say, therefore they must be baptised, without God's declaration of his mind concerning that Ordinance. Though it may be good to argue thus, it is God's mind, therefore it is to be done; yet it is a great pride of spirit for us to argue, This should be, therefore God hath appointed it. As for the reasons you bring to prove that women were virtually circumcised in the males, they prove it not, for when it is said The whole house of Israel were circumcised in the flesh, the sense is not, every person is either actually, or virtually circumcised, but all the house of Israel is put for a great part, or the greater, or the most eminent, as it is frequently elsewhere, 1 Sam. 7.3. Act. 2.36. Act. 13.24. as the whole Church is said to come together, when the most of them come together. And in the like manner the people of the Jews may be called the Circumcision, from the greater or more famous part, though the women be neither actually nor virtually circumcised. As a field of wheat may be called from the greater or most eminent part; as a Church of believers, from the greater or most eminent part, though the rest be neither actually nor virtually believers. And for your other reason, pag. 28. It was Gods express order, Exod. 12.28. No uncircumcised person might eat of the Passeover, which we are sure women did, as well as men, therefore they were virtually circumcised; Neither is this cogent. For, the Proposition is thus to be limited, pro subjecta materia, according to the subject matter. No uncircumcised person might eat thereof, that aught to be circumcised: Now women were not appointed to be circumcised at all, therefore they need not either actually to be circumcised, or to have any circumcised for them, or in their stead, which you mean (I think) by virtual circumcision. Now I have dwelled so long on your Consequence, because I still stick at this, That no reason of ours in positive worship, can acquit an action that is performed, from will-worship. Nothing but Gods will, manifest in his institution, gathered by some command or example now in force, can do it. Nevertheless, because I conceive the Antecedent of your Enthymem● is not true, though your Argument be overthrown by showing the inv●lidity of your Consequence, I shall proceed to examine your 5 Conclusions, by which you endeavour to make good both your antecedent, & whole argument.  

§. 2. Of the first conclusion concerning the identity of the Covenant of grace f●r substance to Jews and Gentiles.  YOur first conclusion is this, That the Covenant of grace for substance, hath always been one & the same to Jews and Gentiles.  
This conclusion I grant: but on sundry passages in the proof of it, I think it necessary to make these animadversions. 1. You carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. as if it did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ, whereas it is apparent ou● of the Text, that the Covenant was a mixed Covenant, consisting of temporal benefits, to wit, the multiplying of his seed, v. 6. the possession of Canaan, v. 8. the birth of Isaac, v. 16. and the spiritual blessings, v. 5 7. Yea, Cameron th●sibus de triplici foedere Dei, thesi 78. saith, That circumcision did primarily separate Abraham's seed from other Nations, sealed the earthly promise, it signified sanctification secondarily. And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture, that the Psalmist calls the promise of Canaa●, the covenant made with Abraham, Ps. 105.8, 9, 10, 11. He hath remembered his Covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, which Covenant he made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant; Saying, unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance. If you should say that these promises were types of spiritual and heavenly things, the reply is, that though it be true, yet the things promised were but carnal and earthly, as the Sacrifices were but carnal things, though shadows of spiritual. 2. When you say thus:" The manner of administration of this Covenant, was at first by types and shadows, and sacrifices, etc. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision, that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant. But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon. 3. Whereas, pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abraham's seed," Proselytes, that were selfe-justitiaries, carnal and formal professors: it behoved you to show, where in Scripture they are called Abraham's seed, which I think you cannot. Yea, the truth is, you herein join with Arminius, who in his Analysis of the 9 to the Romans, makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture, that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned, Romans 4.9, 10. and Galat. 3. & 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam & salutem consequuntur, Who follow after righteousness and salvation by the works of the Law. To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5. p. 139. answers. Beside, though the sons of the flesh may signify such, who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law; yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoined, is never so taken. But it is yet stranger to me, that which Mr. Blake hath, pag. 9 where he saith, That there yet remains in the bosom of the Church, a distinction of the seed of Abraham, borne after the flesh, and after the spirit. And that now by virtue of being born after the flesh, some have a Church-interest. And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now, to children born of believing parents after the flesh▪ as having there by title to Church-interest. Which passages are very gross, though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument. For, first, whereas the Apostle, by being born after the flesh, means not infants born of believing parents, but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai, that is, who sought righteousness by the law, and not by faith: Mr. Blake means, by being born after the flesh, birth by natural generation of infants born of Christian parents. 2. Whereas he saith, that such are in the bosom of the Church; the Apostle saith, they persecute the Church, and are cast out. 3. Whereas ●e makes such Abraham's seed, he therein joins with Arminius, against the tru●h, and against the Apostle: for though the Apostle makes Ishmael to be the son of Abraham, and speaks of him as born after the flesh, whom he typically makes to represent legal justiciaries; yet doth he not call Abraham's seed simply such justiciaries. 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptising infants, by alle●ging this place for baptising of infants; To be born of Hagar, that is, to be in the covenant of works, should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part, I can see no other consequence than this, of that cloudy argument. The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion, I let pass without any further animadversions, as being unwilling sectare minutias, to insist on small things, or to stand upon matters of expression, where I think you mean right, and your words are likely to be so taken.  

§. 3. Of the meaning of the second Conclusion.  YOur second Conclusion is this. Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world, to be his Kingdom, City, household, in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the kingdom, city, and household of Satan; He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him, to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils.  
This Conclusion you express so ambiguously, that it is a Cothurnus, a buskin that may be put on either leg, right or left, which should not have been in the main Proposition, upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs. You say, The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God, are to be accounted his; but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood. For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his, either before God, or in fancy Ecclesiae visibilis, in the face of the visible Church; 1. Before God, either in respect of his election from eternity, or his promise of grace in Christ, congruous to it; Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ, or the future estate they shall have. 2. In fancy Ecclesiae visibilis, persons may be said to be accounted God's, either as born among his people, and so potentially members of the Church, as being in a way to be in time actual members of the Church of Christ, or who already inquire after God, and profess Christ, though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion, such as the Catechumeni of old were: or they are to be accounted his, in respect of actual participation of Baptism, and the Lords supper. 3. The accounting of them to be God's, may be either an act of science, or faith, or opinion; and that grounded on a rule of charity, of prudence, or probable hope for the future. You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects, 
The answer of the Assembly of Divines to the reasons of the 7 dissenting brothers, p. 48 praecog. 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one, made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the preaching of the Word, to profess the faith of Christ▪  the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God, are to be accounted his; so that I am almost at a stand, what to deny, or grant. It cannot be denied, but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his, to belong to him, his Church and family, and not to the Devils, (which expression I fear you use in this and other places, ad faciendum populum, to please the people.) It is true, in fancy Ecclesiae visibilis, the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods, to belong to his family and church, and not to the Devils, as being in a near possibility of being members of the church of God, by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future: But to make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, that Protestant writers give, particularly the Church of England, Art. 19 who make the visible Church a number of Christians by profession: to make a member of the visible Church, ●o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree, to make them visible members that are only passive, and do nothing, by which they may be denominated visible Christians. Yea, it will follow, that there may be a visible Church, which consists only of Infants of believers; for a number of visible members, makes a visible Church. It is also true, that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God, before God, in respect of election from eternity, or promise of grace in Christ, or present estate of in being in Christ, or future estate by any act of science or of faith, without a particular revelation: for there is no general declaration of God, that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all, or some, either are elected to life, or are in the covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in being, or future estate.  
Mr. Cotton, [The Covenant of God's freegrace, p. 15.] Fifthly, it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given, Gal. 3.16. It was given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17.7. and in every godly man to his seed; God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever.  
Against this passage I except, That when he saith, that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed; he expr●sseth himself in an unusual phrase, so obscurely, that his meaning is not easily conceived. For when he saith, it is given in every godly man; If he mean it as he said in the words next before, in Christ to every godly man, that every godly man should be to his seed, as Christ to every godly man; this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed, as Christ is to every godly man, which would be blasphemy. If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant, as Abraham, it is most false, sith this is proper to Abraham●lone ●lone, to be the father of the faithful, Rom. 4.11. And the root that bears the branches, whether natural, or engrafted, Rom. 11.16, etc. And when he saith, it is given to his seed, he speaks indefinitely, which may be understood universally to all his seed, which is most manifestly false; or else particularly, as the words following seem to import: But neither is this true, as shall be presently showed. Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly man's seed, absolutely as his seed; which if he affirm, than he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of ev●ry godly man: for, Quatenus ipsum includes de omni, That which is said of any thing, as such, agrees to all that are such. Or whether it be given conditionally. Now it is true, that some promises do suppose a condi●ion, as justification presupposeth believing: and if this be the meaning, the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man, and in every godly man to his seed, if they do believe, than it is no more than the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man, and then it is but trifling to add, and in every godly man to his seed, sith nothing more is expressed, but what was said before, nor any thing conveyed from the godly man to his seed; some promises have no condition, as the promise of writing God's Laws in our hearts, for if any condition be put, we shall fall into Pelagianisme, that grace is given according to our merits. 2. That which he saith, he saith without any proof at all, yea, contrary to the express words of the Apostle, Rom. 4.11, l2, 13. Rom. 9.6, 7▪ 8. Gal. 3.7, 14, 29. who limiteth this promise, Gen. 17.7. to the seed of Abraham, and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect, and believers only, whether of Jews or Gentiles, and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant, not to be in that Covenant, because Abraham's natural seed (though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abraham's natural seed, then to any other godly man's natural seed that hath been since) but as his seed by calling. And for that which he saith, God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever, meaning this, as I conceive, of election and covenant of grace, or some state consequent upon these, it is but a bold dictate without proof, imposing on God's counsel and covenant, especially sith God hath declared so expressly after the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Exod. 33.19. whence the Apostle infers, Rom. 9.18. an unlimited freedom notwithstanding his Covenant to Abraham, to show mercy on whom he will, any other being passed by: and therefore that promise w●s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles, Rom. 9.24. Rom. 4 16, 17. yea, John Baptist saith, That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones, Mat. 3.9. And for the thing itself, it is not true, That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever. For millions of godly persons die childless, as Abel, etc. millions that have children, yet their posterity are rooted up. Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah, besides th●se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah, and some of his. Is it not more likely that none of Elies. children, or samuel's stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense? Besides, if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true, how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people, and the natural branches broken off, and the branches besides nature, even of the wild Olive, graffed into the true Olive? Then, suppose a godly man have but one child, that child must infallibly stand before God. It is said indeed Jer. 35.19. and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it, Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever. But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternal life, and the covenant of grace, but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem, and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes, as Junius annot. in Jerem. 35.19. gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55. and for ever is in many places meant of a temporal duration for some ages. This digression will not be thought unnecessary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such men's dictates without examination. But I proceed.  
Nor are we to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence, by which the Sacraments are to be administered, to belong to God in fancy Eccl●siae visibilis, in respect of outward profession, as the Catechumeni, or participation of baptism and the Lords Supper, as complete Christians. And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God, it hath no place in this matter. For judging of men's present estate by a rule of charity, is when men judge of others the best, that their words and works may be interpreted to signify, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 13.7. Charity believes all things: But infants do not show any thing by words or works that may signify their thoughts, and therefore in respect of them, whether they be good or bad, we can have no judgement, but must only suspend our act of judging them. But if by judgement of chariry be meant, as some express it, conceiving a thing to be so, because we know nothing to the contrary, then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God, yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity, because for aught we know to the contrary, all may be elected. Wherefore I must either here stop, or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon, and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concur in opinion; and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning, you are to thank yourself, but not to blame me. This is then that which I conceive you mean. That in the promise which God made to Abraham, That he would be his God, and the God of his seed, as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings, the infants of believers are comprehended, and therefore they are foederati, taken into Covenant with their Parents. And yet I am at a stand, whether, when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents, and that the promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings, you mean it in respect of saving graces, or the privilege of outward Ordinances, though the latter is no more true than the former, yet it is less dangerous, and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more, especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly, All true believers are Abraham's seed, Gal. 3.29. These only are made partakers of the spiritual part of the Covenant, nevertheless, because the most of your expressions carry it thus, that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, to be the God of the natural seed of believers, in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ, and your proofs tend that way. I shall oppose that assertion. But that I may not be thought to wrong you, or cum larvis luctari, to fight with a vizour, the reasons why I conceive you mean, or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so, are these, you say pa. 8. My first argument is, They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christ's body, kingdom, family, therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant, or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace, and them who are not. Pag. 9 You express your second conclusion thus. God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him, to be accounted his, as well as their Parents: You set down the substance of the Covenant of Grace. pag. 10. to consist in those benefits, and then you often say, The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents: and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers privileges peculiar to some, and assert the privileges belonging to the Covenant of grace, which all that are in Covenant may claim, which you say, God made to Abraham, and all his seed. Besides, your Texts you produce tend to prove that, as Acts 2.39. etc. and you say, pag. 15. They shall be made free of God's City, according to Abraham's Copy, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, which in respect of us Gentiles, can have no other meaning, then in respect of justification, sanctification, and salvation, & p. 16. speaking of Zacheus, you say, Let him profess the faith of Christ, and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house, for now he is made a son of Abraham, that is, Abraham's promise now reacheth him. And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause, if the Covenant b● the same, and children belong to it, than they are to be owned as Cov●nanters. pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace, containing all the promises, whereof this is one, viz. That God will be the God of believers, and of their seed; that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents. This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham, and the Apostles were to baptise them, that is, to administer baptism as a seal of the Covenant, to all those who received the Covenant. And Master Vines in his Sermon, pag. 19 calls them confederates with their believing parents, and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promises to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed, which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit. Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory, which directs the Minister at Baptism to teach That the promise is made to believers, and their seed, which promise's, what it is, appears by the words following make this baptism to the infant a seal of adoption, remission of sins, regeneration, and eternal life, and of all other promises of that Covenant of grace. And the truth is, although in some passages, (especially Mr. Blake) you speak more warily, as if you would avow only a Covenant for outward privileges, as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birthright entitles only to outward privileges, yet in applying thos● Texts, G●n. 17.7. Act. 2.39. Mat. 19.14. and others, you are enforced to express yourselves, as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ, as knowing that those Texts you produce, do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose, bring plainly meant of saving graces'; and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward privileges, as the mixed Covenant made with Abraham wa●, and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants, they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace, and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace, remission of sins, etc. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptised, the seal is put to a blank, as some use to speak: And if that there be no covenant of saving grace, to no end is so much weight laid on this for the comfort of parents, and such an Odium cast on Antipaedobaptists for denying it, and therefore I see not but your assertion, if you do not revoke your plea for paedobaptism, must be conceived thus: That God hath made a Covenant or promise of saving grace in Christ, not only to believers, but also to their seed, whom you baptise for this reason. The Author of the little book entitled Infants baptising proved lawful by Scripture, pag. 3, 4, 5. Int●rpr●ts the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, thus, I will be the God of every believer, and the God of every believers seed in respect of outward Church-priviledges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of baptism, etc. to the natural seed, in respect of inward and merely spiritual, to none but true Saints, in whom the new creature is form. But I say again [Abraham] or [thee] in that Covenant is put only for Abraham, and not for ev●ry believer. For sith the Apostle plainly interprets believers to be Abraham's seed, Rom. 4.13, 16. Gal. 3.29. to say Abraham is put for any believer, makes the speech to have an inept tautology, I will be the God of Abraham, that is, of every believer, according to that Author's sense; and I will be the God of thy seed, that is, of every believer, according to the Apostles sense. And that in that Covenant should be a promise to us believing Gentiles, That to our seed should be conferred visible Church-priviledges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of baptism, etc. is but a dream, the Scripture no where explaining it so, and being so understood, were not true, there being many of the seed of believers, that neither de facto, in event, nor de jure, of right, have those visible Church privileges, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of baptism, etc. and if there were such a promise, God could not take away the Candlestick from the posterity of believers, which he threatens, Rev. 2.5. George Philips, vind. of Infant bapt. p. 37. Calls the Covenant, an offer to become their God, and all along supposeth infants under the Covenant, because grace was offered in circumcision; and they sealed, because it was offered. But the Covenant is not an offer, but a promise; nor is a man under the Covenant of grace, or in the Covenant of grace, because an offer is made, for then refusers might be said to be under the Covenant, but because God hath promised, or performed to them. And if infants are to be baptised (which is his ground) because the Covenant is offered to them in baptism, then in effect, it is to argue, they are to be baptised, because they are to be baptised, which i● nugatory. I h●ve discussed this matter more fully, that I may show you how doubtful your speeches are, and give you the reason, why I set down this as your conclusion to be denied by me. That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ, expressed Gen. 17.7. In th●se words [I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed] is made to believers and their natural seed. Now I will show you the reason why I take this to be an error, and that very dangerous.  

§. 4. That the Covenant of grace is not made to believers and their seed.  MY first reason is taken from the Apostle, Rom. 9 6. etc. in which place this very Text that is now the apple of our contention, was brought into question; Beza thus expresseth the question. Qui fieri possit ut rejectus sit Israel, quin simul ●onstituendum videatur irritum esse pactum Dei cum Abrahamo, & ejus semine sancitum. I deny not, but there was also some other promise included in that objection, to wit, some promise made to Israel, or the house of Israel, probably that Jer. 31.33 36.37. for so the words ver. 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel, do intimate.  
But without question the promise made to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. was one which was included in that objection. Beza, Twisse, Ames, and others, answering Arminius, call it the Covenant of God with Abraham, which was that Gen. 17.7. and the very phrase of Abraham's seed, 

Twisse vind. Grat. cont. Armin. lib. 1. pa. 1. digr. 7. Hujus autem promissionis (Gen. 17.7, 8.) fides confestim apparet in discrimen ad●uci ex rejectione Judaeorum & exclusione eorundem ex foed●re Dei, cum fint ex Abrahamo s●cundum carnem prosminati; sic inquit apparet primas rerum facies intuentibus.  
Walae cont. Corvin. cap. 15. pag. 377. Apostolus ostendit, ideo verbum foederis & divinarum promissionum Israelitis factarum, non excidere aut irritum fieri, licet magna Judaeorum pars esset incredula, quia promissiones illae foed●ris factae sunt a Deo, non iis proprie qui ex semine Abrahami secundum carnem erant orituri, sed iis qui secundum election●m gratuitam Abrahami familiae ex vi di●ina promissionis erant inserendi.   In Isaac shall thy seed be called, ver. 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed, ver. 8. Sarah shall have a son, ver. 9 do evidently show, that the promise objected to prove, that if the Jews were rejected from being God's people, than God failed in making good his word, was, that promise to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. Whereto I may add, that the Answerers of Arminius, and the cited Remonstrants, to wit, Baine and Ames do say, It was the word of promise, not of the Law, as Arminius conceived, for the word of promise saith Ames, Animadv. in Remonstran. script. Synod. de praedest. cap. 8. Sect. 4. Is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law, Gal. 3.17, 18. Now the word of the promise there, is to Abraham and his seed, ver. 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis, the word of the Covenant. Now let us consider how the Apostle answers it. He denies that God's word made to Abraham did fall, though the Jews were rejected: because that promise, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it comprehended saving grace, was never meant by God of all Abraham's posterity, or of any barely, as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation, but of the Elect, whether descended by natural generation from Abraham, or not. And this is apparent both from the words, v. 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, etc. v. 8. It is expounded thus: 
The new Annotations on the Bible, Annot. on Rom. 9.8. The children of the flesh, &c] Not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made; but the children of promise, that is▪ those who were born by virtue of the promise, those who by God's special grace were adopted (as Isaac by a special and singular promise was begot by Abraham) they only are accounted for tha● seed mentioned in the Covenant, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.  That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed; Whence it is apparent, that the same are not always the seed by calling, which are the seed of Abraham by natural generation, and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of promise, and that the Apostle conceived this the right way of answering those that objected, the falling of God's word upon the rejection of the Jews, by restraining the promise, of being God to Abraham's seed, only to the Elect, whether of Abraham's natural posterity, or not, with so little respect to any birthright privilege, that he not only rejected Ishmael, and took Isaac, but also loved Jacob, and hated Esau, by prophecy declaring his mind, the elder shall serve the younger, and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousness, in that He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens, notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel, or any birthright privilege they could claim. That I may not be thought to go alone in this, I will recite some others concurring with me in this, Dr. Twisse vind. Grat. l. 1. part. 3. digr. 2. Argumentum Apostoli ad probandū foedus dei initum cum Abrahamo, non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituendū esse censemus: Esavus & Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae, at horum ut●ūque non complexus est Deus foedere suo, cum Abrahamo inito: ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami. Probatur autem Deum non complexun fuisse utrumque foedere gratiae, quiae non complexus est Esavun majorem, sed Jacobū minorem. Bain on Eph. 1.5. p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism, by distinguishing of Israel & children, denying that all Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth, or that all Abraham's seed are those children whom God adopted to himself, v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac, first begotten by a word of promise, and partakers of the heavenly calling. The reason is to be conceived in this manner, the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel, nor belong not to the number of God's adopted children cannot shake God's word spoken to Israel and Abraham's seed; but many of the Israelites, and Abraham's seed, a●e such to whom the word of God belonged not, ergo, the word of God is firm, though they be rejected. Pag. 139. A child of the fl●sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh. For it is most plain, that these did make them think themselves within the comp●sse of the word, 

Estius annot. ad Gen. 17.7. Colligit hinc Calvinus ●o ipso quo quis est semen Abrahae ad cum pertinere pr●missionem Abrahae factam: sed responsio manifesta pr●missionem illam de benedictione spirituali intellectam, non ad carnale semen Abrahaemi pertinere, sed ad spirituale, quemadmodum eam ipse Apostolus interpretat●● est, Rom. 4 & 9 Si enim carnale semen intelligas jam ad neminem ex gentibus illa promissio pertinebit sed ad solos ex Abraham & Isaac secundum carnem genitos.  
Paraeus Comment. in Mat. 3.9 Docet quoque promissiones Dei non alligatas esse carnali origini: sed pertinere tantum ad posteros fideles & spirituales. Non enim sunt filii Abrahae qui secundum carnem sunt ex Abraham, sed qui secundum spiritum.   because th●y were Israelites, and the seed of Abraham, in regard of bodily generation propagated from him; and Arminius doth decline that, in objecting and answering which, this discourse consisteth. Beside that, though the sons of the flesh may signify such who carnally, not spiritually conceive of the Law, yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoined, is never so taken. The assumption which is to be proved is this, That many of Abraham's seed are such to whom the word belongeth not. The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau, but to Isaac and Jacob only, and such as were like to them; that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites: But the word showing God's love, choice, adoption, blessing of Israel and Abraham's seed, belonged not to Esau, Ishmael, and such as they were, but to Isaac and Jacob.  
Amesius Animadv. in Remonstr. citat. scripta Synod. de Prae●estin. cap. 8. §. 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope. Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami, ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat, ut Ishmael, & Ismaelitae, si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami, ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat, tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum, qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis. Out of all which I gather, if the natural posterity of Abraham, were not within the Covenant of grace, by virtue of that promise Gen. 17.7. then much less are our natural posterity: but the former is true, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8 9, 10, 11, 12. therefore the latter is true: and the contrary, delivered in that which I conceive your assertion, false. A second reason is this, The Apostles Exposition of the promise shows us best what is the meaning of it, but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, as it was a promise of saving grace, to wit, justification, and life, expounds it as belonging to Abraham, not as a natural Father, 
Ainsworth ann. on G●n. 12.7. Thy seed] That is, to all the children of promise (the elect) who only are cou●ted Abraham's seed, Rom. 9.7, 8. and in Christ are heirs by promise, as well the Gentiles as the Jews. Gal. 3.26.28.29. Ames. Coron. art. 5. cap. 2. Seminis etiam inculcatio solos electos & efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc titulum interpr●tante, Rom. 9.8. Gal. 3.16. & 4.28.  but as Father of the faithful, whether of the Jews, or the Gentiles, and his seed, not his natural, but his spiritual seed, Christ, and believers, Rom. 4.11, 12, 13, 14 15 16, 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29. Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. §. 4. speaks thus. The other promises concerning his seed are two: The former concerning the multiplication of his seed, that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations, namely, in Christ, and that he would be a God to him and his seed, he doth not say to seeds, as of many, but as of one, to thy seed, which is Christ, Gal. 3.16. that is, Christ mystical, 1 Cor. 12.12. Containing the multitude of the faithful in all Nations, both Jews and Gentiles. This promise therefore implieth the former, that in Christ, the promised seed, Abraham himself, and his seed that is, the faithful of all Nations should be blessed: And in confirmation of this promise, he was called Abraham, because he was to be a Father of many Nations, that is, of the faithful of all Nations, for none but they are accounted Abraham's seed, Rom. 9.7.8. Gal. 3.7.29. Thus he opens the Apostles meaning, and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings. Now if only believers are in that promise, as it was a promise of saving grace, than it is not made to the natural posterity, as such, of any believer, much less of us Gentiles.  
My third reason is this. The Covenant of grace is the Gospel, and so you call it, pag. 37. when you say, This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham. Now the Gospel preached to Abraham, the Apostle thus expresseth, Gal. 3.8, 9 And the Scripture foreseeing, that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all Nations be blessed: so then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham, and ver. 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident, for the just shall live by Faith, it is Hab. 2.4. By his faith. And generally, when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace, and of works, they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith. They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers, but also to their natural children, whether believing or not, these add to the Gospel, and the Apostle saith of such, Gal. 1.8, 9 Let him be accursed.  
Fourthly, I thus argue: If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ, not only to believers, but also to their seed, or natural children, than it is either conditionally, or absolutely; if conditionally, the condition is either of works, and then grace should be of works, contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 11.8. or of Faith, and then the sense is, God hath promised grace to believers, and to their seed, if believers, that is, to believers, and believers, which is nugatory. If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute, then either God keeps it, or not: if he do not keep it, than he breaks his word, which is blasphemy; if he do keep it, than it follows, that all the posterity of believers are saved, contrary to Rom. 9.13. or if some are not saved, though they be in the Covenant of grace, there may be Apostasy of persons in the Covenant of grace, by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne, in his Perpetuity, and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated, and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified. The truth is, generally to be in the Covenant of grace, and to be elect, and to persevere in grace, are meant of the same persons, according to the Apostles doctrine, Rom. 9.7, 8. etc. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants. And on the contrary, Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum, pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasy of Saints, puts this as the seventh. Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei (quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati) ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini, Ego sum Deus tuus, & seminis tui post te. And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Do●t, and Arles reduced to the practice, Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words. For to every person whom they baptise, they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace, clean contrary to their own doctrine, which saith, that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world, Dr. Twisse answers, that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptised, to be elect, yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elect, which he proves at large, by showing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace, as of regeneration, circumcising the heart, writing the Law in their hearts, Jer. 31.33. which must needs be absolute. For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises, but that it will follow, That grace is given, to wit, the grace of faith, according to men's works, which is plain Pelagianism. Whence he concludes. Now than who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration, but God's Elect? And accordingly Baptism as it is a Seal, and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe, so it is a seal and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart, and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. We are ready to maintain, that all who are under the covenant of grace, are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion, Rom. 6.14.  
Besides, he that shall hear you preach, that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace, and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away, may be apt to conceive himself within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith, and that he shall be saved without obedience, and so lay a groundwork for Antinomianism, and consequently Libertinism. And may not on the other side believing Parents, when they see their children vicious, and ungodly, doubt whether they themselves be true believers, because they see not their children in the Covenant of grace; and so while you think to comfort parents about their children, you may create great discomfort concerning themselves.  
Lastly, if this were true, that the Covenant of grace is a birthright privilege, than the children of believers are children of grace by nature, for that which is a birthright privilege, is a privilege by nature: and if, as Mr. Black saith, pag. 6. of his book, Christianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Noble man is Noble, the child of a freeman is free, the child of a Turk is a Turk, of a Jew a jew, the child of a Christian is a Christian; then Christians are born Christians, not made Christians, and how are they then children of wrath by nature? which whether they may not advantage Pelagians, and deniers of Original sin, it concerns those that use such speeches, to consider.  
But the Author of the writing entitled Infants baptising proved lawful by Scripture, mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7. to wit, Deu. 28.4. Deut. 30.2.6. Isa. 44.3. Isa. 59.21. Exod. 20.6. Psal. 112.2. and such like. To all which the answer is plain, if men would conceive it. 1. That according to the Apostles own determination, Ro. 9▪ 7, 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation, must be restrained to the Elect, whose children soever they be by natural generation, and this is agreeable to our Saviour's applying the promise Isa. 54.13. to them that are given of his Father, john 6.45. And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6. Isa. 44.3. 2. That the text, Isa. 59.21. is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews, Rom. 11.27. and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely. 3. Th●t the promises, Deut. 28.4. Psal. 112.2. are expressly meant of outward blessings, and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6. doth plainly include a condition of obedience, and it is expressly mentioned Psal. 103.17, 18. as included in other promises of like kind, which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer, but the elect, nor is Christ surety for any but the elect; and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers, it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by virtue of these promises.  

§. 5. It is not in God's church, like other kingdoms.  I Now return to your Sermon. You tell us thus: As it is in other kingdoms, corporations and families; the children of all subjects born in a kingdom, are born that Prince's subjects: where the father is a freeman, the child is not born a slave: where any are bought to be servants, their children born in their master's house, are born his servants. Thus it is by the Laws of almost all nations, and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdom and family: the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents; if he take a father into his covenant, he takes the children in with him; if he reject the parents out of the covenant, the children are east out with them.  
This passage I might have passed over, as containing nothing but dictates; Yet I think it necessary to observe, 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civil corporations, as if persons were admitted to it by birth, whereas in this all is done by free election of grace, and according to God's appointment: nor is God tied, or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church, to any such carnal respects, as descent from men. Christianity is no man's birthright; The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise, or other engagement bound himself, but he was free, as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham, to have mercy on whom he would, Rom. 9.15. Yea, to conceive that it is in God's Church, as in other Kingdoms, and after the laws of Nations, is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors. Dr. Rainolds, in his Conference with Hart, hath showed, that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarches, Metropolitans, etc. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints, that I mention not more of the like kind? 2. When you say, if he take a father into his covenant, he takes the children in with him; If he reject the parents out of covenant, the children are cast out with them. If you mean this taking in, and casting out, in respect of election and reprobation, it is not true, neither if you mean it of the Covenant of grace, for that is congruous to election, and reprobation. Nor is it true in respect of outward Ordinances; the father may be baptised, hear the Word, 
Cotton, Way of the Churches of Christ in N.E. c. 4. §. 6. Infant's cannot claim right unto baptism, but in the right of one of their parents, or both. Where neither of the parents can claim right to the ●ords supper, there th●ir Infants cann●t claim right to Baptism. A● therefore we do not receive an he●●hen to the fellowship of the supper, nor their seed to Baptism, so neither dare we receive an excommunicate person (who is to us an heathen) to the Lords supper, or his children to Baptism, But after, ● 7 §. 2. Or where either of the parents have made such profession; Or it may be considered al●o, whether the children may not be baptised. where either the grandfather or grandmother have made su●h profession, and are still living to undertake for the Christian education of the child. For it may be conceived where there is a stipulation of the Covenant on God's part, an● a restipulation on ma●s part, there may be an obligation of the Covenant on both parts. Gen. 17.7. Or if these sail, what hindereth but that if the parents' will degagne their infant to be educated in the house of any go●ly member of the Church, the child may be lawfully baptised in the right of its household governor, according to the proportion of the Law, Gen 17.12, 13.  and not the child; and on the contrary, the father may be deprived, and the child may enjoy them. Nor is it true in respect of Ecclesiastical censures; the father may be excommunicated, and the son in the Church, and on the contrary. And about that which you say, there is no certainty in the Paedobaptists determination. Rutherford [The due right of Presbytery, p. 259.] saith, The children of Papists, and excommunicate Protestants, which are borne within our visible Church, are baptised, if their forefathers have been sound in the faith. But others will deny it. But it is true as well of Paedobaptists, as of Anabaptists, that like waves of the Sea they beat one agninst another.  
You tell us, That it was without question in the time of the jews, Gen. 17.9. And when any of any other Nation, though a Canaanite, or Hittite, acknowledged Abraham's God to be their God, they and their children came into covenant together.  
That when Parents were circumcised, the Children were to be circumcised, is without question, God's command is manifest; Whether this make any thing for baptising Infants, is to be considered in its place. But that which you say, It was in the time of the jews, if God did reject the parents out of the covenant, the children were cast out with them; is not true. Parents might be Idolaters, Apostates from Judaisme, draw up the foreskin again, and yet the children were to be circumcised. But in all this there is no Argument.  

§. 6. Of the Texts, which are, Act. 2. 38, 39 Luk 19.9.  THe first Text you dwell upon, is that, Act. 2.38, 39 and thus you speak. And so it continues still, though the Anabaptists boldly deny it, Acts 2.38.39. When Peter exhorted his hearers, who were pricked in their hearts, to repent, and to be baptised for the remission of sins, he useth an argument to persuade them, taken from the benefit which should come to their posterity; For, the promise (saith he) is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: if once they obey the call of God, as Abraham did, the promise was made to them and their children. Whether they who obey this call, were the present Jews to whom he spoke, or were afar off: whether by afar off, you will mean the Gentiles, who as yet worshipped afar off, or the Jews, or any who were yet unborn, and so were afar off in time, or whether they dwelled in the remotest parts of the world, and so were afar off in place; The argument holds good to the end of the world, Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, for the promise is made to you and your children, they shall be made free of God's city according to Abraham's copy. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed.  
It is a very irksome thing to Readers, and especially to Answerers, when they that handle a controversy, give a text for their assertion, and make a paraphrase of it, but show not how they conclude from it, by which means the enemy is more hardly found then vanquished. I wish, if ever you write any more in this kind, you would distinctly expound, and then frame your arguments out of the text you produce: for the present I shall devorare taedium, swallow down the tediousness of this defect as well as I can. You do not distinctly tell us what that promise was, only I gather it is, that which you after express, calling it " Abraham's copy, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, But than you do not distinctly tell us, under which part you comprehend the promise to them, whether under the first part, I will be thy God, or under the second, I will be the God of thy seed. It may seem you thus paralleled them: I will be thy God, with, the promise is unto you; and, the God of thy seed, with that, the promise is to your children. But I must see better proof than yet I have seen, afore I assent to this construction, I willbe thy God, that is, of every believer: though the Author or infants baptising proved lawful by scriptures, page 4. s●ith, It is plain and manifest by the Gramaticall construction of this promise▪ I profess that I neither know rule in Grammar, Logic, or Divinity for that interpretation, and yet I think all the strength of your proof lies in this imagined parallelisme. Nor do you tell us of what thing this promise was, which you parallel with Abraham's copy, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed; whether it was a promise of saving graces, or outward privileges; Only that which you bring in of Zaccheus to interpret it, let him profess the faith of Christ, and the covenant of salvation comes to his house, seems to import that you conceive the meaning thus; if you once obey the call of God as Abraham did, the promise of salvation is to you and your children: and sith you answer the second objection, which you call a shift, by rejecting the limiting of [too you and your children] with those words [as many as the Lord shall call] the sense must be this: The promise of salvation is to you and your children, whether the Lord our God call them or not. But this proposition I know you will not stand to, though as you handle the matter, this is made the Apostles assertion. But it may be you mean otherwise, thus: If you once obey the call of God, as Abraham did, the promise of outward church-priviledges, that is, to be members of the visible Church, partakers of Baptism, etc. is to you and your children. Now what an uncouth reason is by this made in the Apostles speech, that if they did repent, and were baptised, the promise should be made good to them and to their children, (I use your own words, expressing what you conceive the strength of the argument lies in) that you & they shallbe members of the visible church, partakers of baptism, etc. So that the Apostle is made to say thus: If you will repent and be baptised, the promise is to you and your children, that you & they shallbe baptised. What I conceive is the meaning, I will show afterwards: in the mean time, because (though on the by) you allege that Text, which Mr. Tho. Goodwin also at Bow in Cheapside urged and insisted on for this purpose, I shall by the way examine what you say. You say, Let Zaccheus the Publican once receive Christ himself, be he a Gentile, as some think he was, be he a great sinner, esteemed as an heathen, as we all know he was; let him profess the faith of Christ, and the covenant of salvation comes to his, for now he is made a son of Abraham, i.e. Abraham's promise now reacheth him. Upon which I note, 1. Though it be of little moment, whether he were a Gentile or no, yet I conceive it more likely he was a Jew, partly because his name is more like the hebrew, than the greek or latin; and partly because if he had been a Gentile, Christ had plainly discovered the calling of the Gentiles, which he did not till afterward: & it would have caused in likelihood greater offence in them to hear a Gentile called a son of Abraham, who already murmured that he was gone to be a guest to a man that was a sinner. 2. You thus expound [a son of Abraham.] that is, Abraham's promise now reacheth him. But Bez● more truly, Filium esse Abrahae nihil aliud declarat quam gratis electum esse, Rom. 9.8. Et vestigiis fidei Abrahae insistere, Rom. 4.12, Et opera Abrahae facere, Joh, 8.39. Ex quibus demum recte colligitur certa futurae salutis expectatio, Rom. 8.29. 3. You only express [this house] by [his] as if you would have it conceived that salvation came only to his children by his believing, whereas Mr. Tho. Goodwin (if my memory deceive me not) comprehended the whole family under the term house, discoursing thereupon that a houshold-Church was prima Ecclesia, the first Church, which I marvailed to hear from him, as conceiving it to overthrow the way of Government they call the Churchway, which is mainly grounded on this, that the first Church (as Parker held) is a single congregation out of many families, and is primasedes potestatis Ecclesiasticae, the first seat of Ecclesiastical power. But I know no reason why, when it is said, Salvation is come to this house, it should be stretched any further than Zaccheus his person, in that salvation was come to him, salvation was come to his house, and the whole Narration favours this Exposition, and Beza saith that Theophylact, and some others understand by house Zaccheus himself. I omit the conceit of Erasmus, and Camerarius, as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thee, did refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hous●, for I think with Beza, it is absurd to say, This house is a son of Abraham. 4. Although it be true, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often a Causal particle, yet it is true, that it is sometimes a restrictive particle, as Acts 2.45. and Acts 4.35. and therefore may be rendered by quatenus as, or in quantum in as much, or secundum quod, according to what, as well as by eo quod quoniam, or quandoquidem, because, or forasmuch. 5. In your paraphrase, you put instead of salvation, The Covenant of salvation, which is not right, what ever Author you may follow herein. Now let it be considered what an erroneous inference is made, by expounding it of all the posterity or family, and making the particle Causal, as if his believing alone did bring salvation to his house or posterity; from whence this may be gathered, a man's whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing, and you will see a necessity to make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a restrictive particle, and to expound this house of Zacheus, his family only, in reference to his person. And so what you take in by the way for the credit of your conclusion, from Luke 19.9. is answered by showing the faultiness of your paraphrase.  
But you return to the Text, Acts 2.38 39 You say, neither can the evidence of the place be eluded, by saying the promise here meant i●●f the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, to speak with tongues, etc. for we all kn●w, that all who then believed and were baptised, did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost; and beside, this argument remained still in force, to be used to the end of the world, who ever believes and is baptised, shall receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost, which was not true, if by the holy Ghost was meant only those extraordinary gifts.  
Though I do not so expound the words, [the promise is to you and your children] of the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, yet the words next before, and that which is before, verse 33.17, 18. of the same chapter might very well induce men to conceive that this is the promise of which Peter meant, verse 39 nor do I conceive your reasons sufficient to overthrow it: For what though all who then, believed and were baptised, did not receive those extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, yet Peter might assure them that it should be so for the future, to them, their children, and all that are afar off, as many as the Lord should call: though I do not say, the thing was true in this sense; I only say it might be so true, notwithstanding your argument. And whereas you say this argument remains still in force to be used to the end of the world, Who ever believes and is baptised, shall receive remission of sins, and the gift of the holy Ghost. Neither doth this follow from the exposition of the words, verse 39 by the words, verse 38. of receiving the gift of the holy G●ost: For there is nothing in the text to prove that this argument still remains in force as you speak, sith it might be only a particular benefit to them on their repenting, and baptism, for ought you can infer from the text.  
You go on. Nor secondly, can it be avoided by that shift of others who interpret it thus, to you and your children, as many of them as the Lord shall call, that is (say they) whether yourselves or your children, or any other whom the Lord shall call, if they repent and be baptised, they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. If you put in stead of, [they shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost,] these words [the promise is to you and them,] it is no shift, but the genuine and necessary explication of the text. For let the promise be what ever you can make it, you must put in that limitation if you will have it true. If the promise be of saving graces, if of Christ sent, if of the outward ordinances of baptism, etc. If of the holy Ghost in extraordinary gifts; it is none of these ways true without that limitation. For neither God promised saving graces, nor outward ordinances, nor extraordinary gifts, nor sent Christ to them, their children, or all that are afar off without calling them and every of them. But you tell us, it is plain, the strength of the argument lies in this, That if they did repent, and were baptised, the promise should be made good to th●m and to their children: and what comfortable argument can this be taken from respect to their children, if the Apostle must be interpreted as these men would have him, viz. you and your children h●ve hitherto been an holy seed, but now, if you believe in Ch●ist yourselves, your children shall be in no better condition than the rest of the Pagan world, strangers from the Covenant of God; but if afterward any of them, or any of the heathen, shall for their parts believe and be baptised, their particular persons shall be taken into covenant, but their children still left out; had this think you been a comfortable argument to persuade them to come in, in relation to the good of their children after them.  
You suppose here, that the Apostle used this argument only in relation to the good of their children, whereas the main matter was concerning themselves to erect them, who being told that they had crucified jesus who was both Lord and Christ, verse 36. and had said, Matth. 27.25. His blood be upon us and our children, were pricked in their hearts, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren what shall we do? and was it not a comfortable argument for men in that case to be told, that notwithstanding all this, the promise of Christ, and remission of sins by him, was yet to them and their children, on whom they had wished Christ's blood to be, and to all the Jews that dwelled afar off in the dispersion, as many as the Lord should call: and a great incitement to repent and be baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins? However you conceive now, sure if your soul had been in their soul's stead, you would have conceived it a very comfortable speech in this sens● that I now give. As for that witless descant you put on your adversaries, I know not whether it be their meaning or not, sure I am no such thing follows on the applying the restriction in the end of the verse, to them, their children, and all that are afar off. And that which you would burden your adversaries tenant with, as if they put beleivers infants out of the covenant, into the condition of Pagan's children, it is a coccysme answered before, and therefore I may well let it pass in this place.  
You add, The plain strength of the argument is, God hath now remembered his Covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed, in whom he promised to be the God of him and his seed: do not you by your unbelief deprive yourselves and your posterity of so excellent a gift.  
In this passage I think you hit the mark, it is the very interpretation I gave in the reasons of my doubts before mentioned, in answering the argument from this text: only the alleging the promise, Gen. 17.7 〈◊〉 that expression, do not you by your unbelief deprive your posterity of so excellent a gift; have a little relish of your interpretation of the promise concerning the natural seed of believers: But letting that pass, in the main you expound it rightly. The promise is to you and your children; that is, 
Annot. on the Bible, edit. 1645. on Acts 2.36. The promise is unto you] Christ is promised both to jews and Gentiles: but the jews had the first place.  God hath now remembered his Covenant to Ab●aham in sending that blessed seed, in whom he promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed, and the sense is plain. T●e promise which is made to Abraham is now fulfilled in sending Christ to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call, that they might be turned from their iniquity, ●nd baptised in his name for the remission of their sins; And this agrees with the Apostles exhortation to the same purpose; Acts 3.25.26. Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, unto you first God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. And Acts 13.32, 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in th●t he hath raised up Jesus again.  
You add. And except in relation to the covenant, there was no occasion to name th●ir children; it had been sufficient to have said, a promise is made to as many as the Lord shall call. Though I deny not their children are mentioned in relation to the covenant in the sense I have given, or rather in allusion to the form of expressions in the covenant, and predictions of the Prophets: yet there was other occasion, to wit, their imprecation, Matth. 27.25. and especially because Christ was, as it is Acts 3.26. first sent to the Jews and their children, and to be offered first to them, as it is Acts 13.46. But it was not to intimate that which you would gather, that the promise is such to them, if they did believe that their children, even their infants upon their father's faith, whether the children were called or not, were taken into the covenant, either of saving graces, or visible church-membership; which you should have proved, but never will prove out of this Scripture. But taking your Hypothesis, that these to whom Peter speaks were within the covenant made to Abraham, and cirumcised rightly, and yet the Apostle requires these to repent, afore they are to be baptised; the Antipaedobaptists have hence a good argument against baptising infants, because Peter required of such as were in the covenant, repentance afore Baptism. I pass on to the next proof you bring for your Conclusion.  

§. 7. Of the text. Rom. 11.16.  YOu say, as plain it is out of the 11. Rom. 16 etc. where the apostles scope is to show, that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had; and our present graffing in, is answerable to their present casting out, & their taking in in the latter end of the world, shall be the same graffing in (though more gloriously) as ours is now. Now all know that when they were taken in, they and their children were taken in; when they were broken off, they and their children were broken off; when they shall be taken in, in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in; and that because the root is holy, that is, God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, extends yet unto them, when their unbelief shall be taken away. The root being like Nebuchadnezars' tree, the tree hewn down, and the root bound with a hand of iron, until seven times were passed over it, and then the bands should be broken, & the root should spring, and the tree should grow again: So their present nation like this tree is cut down, and this holy root the covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, bound with an iron bar of unbelief, blindness being come upon them until the fullness of the Gentiles were come in, and then all Israel shall be saved. And mark, that in all this discourse, the holiness of the branches there spoken of, is not meant of a personal inherent holiness, but a derivative holiness; a holiness derived to them from their ancestors, the first fruit is holy, the lump holy, the root holy, the branches holy, that is, the father's holy, accepted in covenant with God; the children beloved for their father's sake, and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away, the children and their posterity shall be taken in again, because beloved for their father's sakes. Now than if our graffing in be answerable to theirs, in all, or any of these three particulars, we and our children are graffed in together.  
Your argument needs a swimmer of Delos to bring it out of the deep. I will dive as deep as I can to fetch it up; the thing, it seems, you would prove, is, that we and our children are graffed in together; but the words are Metaphorical, and therefore obscure, they may be true in a sense, and yet not for your purpose. The insition you speak of may be either into the visible, or inusible church; the graffing in, may be either by faith, or by profession of faith, or by some outward ordinance. Children may be either grown men or infants, the graffing in may be either certain, or probable; certain, either by reason of election, covenant of grace made by them, or natural birth, being children of believers; probable, as being likely, either because frequently, or for the the most part it happens so, though not necessary & so not certain. The thing that is to be proved is, that all the infants of every believer are in the covenant of free grace in Christ & by virtue thereof to be baptised into the communion of the visible church: now it may be granted that infants of believers are frequently, or for the most part under the election & covenant of grac● (wh●ch whether it be so or not, no mere man can t●l) and so in the visible church & yet it not follow that every infant of a believer, in as much as he is t●e child of a believer, is under the covenant of grace, & therefore by baptism is to be admitted into the visible church; now let it be never so probable, that God continues his election in the posterity of believers & accordingly hath promised to be th●ir God in his covenant of grace, yet if this be the rule of baptising children of beleivers, no other infants are to b● baptised, but such as are thus: the practice must agree with the rul●; & so not all infants of believers are to be baptised, but the elect in the covenant of grace. If it be said; but we are to judge all to be elected, & in the covenant of grace, till the contrary appears. I answer, that we are not to judge all to be ●l●cted, or in the covenant of grace; because we have God's declaration of his mind to the contrary, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. and all experience proves the contrary to be tru●; nor is the administration of an outward ordinance instituted by God, according to such a rule as is not possible to be known, but according to that which is manifest to the ministers of it; & therefore sith God conceals his purpose of election, and the covenant of gr●ce, which is congruous to it in respect of the persons elected; it is certain God would not have this the rule according to which outward ordinances are to be administered, because such persons are in the election and covenant of grace & not others. You say, our graffing in is answerable to the Jews, and their infants were graffed in by circumcision, therefore ours are to be graffed in by baptism. But in good sadness, do you think the Apostle here means by graffing in, baptising, or circumcision, or insition by an outward ordinance: if that were the me●ning, then breaking off must be meant of uncircumcising or unbaptizing. The whole context speaks of election of some, and rejection of others; of the breaking off by unbelief, and the standing by faith, and yourself seem to understand the phrase so, when you say, pag. 43. to cut miserable man off from the wild olive, and graft him into the true olive. T●e engraffing, to me, is meant of the invisible church by election and faith; which invisible church was first amongst the Jews, and therefore called the olive, out of Abraham the root, who is therefore said to bear them. And because Abraham had a double capacity, one of a natural father, and another of the father of the faithful, in respect of the former capacity, some are called branches according to nature, others, wild olives by nature, yet graffed in by faith; and when it is said that some of the natural branches were broken off, the meaning is not that some of the branches in the invisible church may be broken off: but as when our Saviour Christ saith, using the same similitude, Joh. 15.2. Every branch in me not bearing fruit, he taketh away; The meaning is not, that any branch truly in him c●uld be fruitless, or taken away; but he calleth that a branch in him which was only so in appearance. So the Apostle speaking of branches broken off, means it not of such as were truly so, but in appearance: For similitudes do not run with four feet; but vary in some things. Now if this be the meaning of your words, that the insition of the Gentiles is the same with the Jews, and the insition is meant of engraffing by faith into the invisible church; it only proves this, that now believers of Gentiles are by faith in the church of the elect, as the Jews: but neither the believing Jew's Infants were in the covenant of grace, because their children; nor are our children. But let us consider the three particulars you speak of, that we may examine whether there be any show of an argument for your purpose in this text. You say, as plain it is out of the eleventh of Rom. 16, etc. where the Apostles scope is, to show, that we Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true olive which the Jews formerly had, and our present graffing in is answerable to their present casting out; and their taking in, in the latter end of the world, shall be the same graffing in (though more gloriously) as ours is now.  
The Apostles scope in the whole chapter is plain to answer that question, v. 1. Hath God cast away his people? which he doth, 1. by showing for the present in himself, and others, perhaps unknown, That God had then a remnant according to the election of grace. 2. For the future from ver. 11. to the end, that he intends a calling of all Israel when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, and ver. 16. is one argument to prove it. It is not the scope of the Apostle, as you say, To show that the Gentiles have now the same graffing into the true Olive, which the Jews formerly had; but to prove that the Jews, notwithstanding their present defraction, shall be graffed into their own Olive. But for the thing itself. You say, That the Gentiles hav● now the same graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had. But you must remember your own distinction, pag. 10. of the substance of the Covenant, and the administration of it: It is certain, that in respect of the substance of the Covenant, we have the same graffing into the Olive, the Church of the faithful, of which Abraham is the root, that the Jews had. We by faith are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive tree. ver. 17. or in plainer terms, as the Apostle elegantly, Ephes. 3.6. that the Gentiles should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ through the Gospel. In respect of which all believing Gentiles are Abraham's seed, the Israel of God, one in Christ Jesus. But if you mean it of the outward administration of this engraffing by Circumcision, Baptism, etc. nothing is more false. For indeed the outward administration is utterly taken away, as separating the Jews from the Gentiles, of very purpose, that the enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles may be removed, and they made one in Christ by his death, Eph. 2.14, 15, 16. and if you mean this, when you say, we have the same graffing in with the Jews (which your whole arguing tends to, and your expression in those words [for these outward dispensations] import you mean it) you evacuate the blood of Ch●ist in this particular. You say, Our present graffing in, is answerable to their present casting out. It is true, our present graffing in is answerable to their (or rather for their) casting out; that is, God would supply in his Olive tree the Church, the casting away of the Jews, by the calling of the Gentiles, so much the Apostle saith, v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, in ramorum defr●ctorum locum, into the place of the branches broken off, as rightly Beza; if you mean it in this sense, I grant it. You add, And their taking in (though more gloriously) as ours is now. It is true, their taking in will be by faith, as ours is now; concerning other particulars; as I doubt not but it will be more gloriously, as you say, so for the manner, I must confess I am at a stand. I look upon it as a mystery, as the Apostle calls it, Rom. 11.25. You go on. Now all know that when they were taken in, they and their children were taken in; when they were broken off▪ they and their children were broken off; when they shall be tak●n in in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in. I grant it, they were taken in, and broken off together, in respect of God's election and reprobation, and when they shall be taken in, in the latter end of the world, they and their children shall be taken in. Yea, I think, that as at the calling of the Gentiles there was a fuller taking in of the children of the Gentiles, than ever was of the children of the Jews afore Ch●ists coming, according to th●t Heb. 8.11. So at the calling of the J●ws, there shall be a more full taking in of the children of the J●ws, then is now of the Gentiles, according to that, Rom. 11.26. and so all Israel shall be saved. But all this proves not, that God would have either all Infants of believers counted his as elect persons, or in the Covenant of grace in Christ, or in the face of the visible Church admitted to baptism: which was to be proved by you.  
You go on. And that because the root is holy, that is, God's Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob extends yet unto them, when their unbelief shall be taken away; and then after an illustration from Nebuchadnezars dream, Dan. 4.14, 15. you say of the Jews, their present Nation like this tree is cut down, and this holy root, the Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, bound with an Iron bar of unbelief, blindness being come upon them till the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and then all Israel shall be saved. In this passage you somewhat alter the Apostles resemblance, who doth not make the Jewish Nation to answer the tree, but the branches, nor doth he say the tree is cut down, but the branches broken off; and here you make the Covenant the root, but a little after your words import, when you say, a holiness derived from their ancestors, etc. that by the root you mean their Ancestors. And you say, The Covenant made with their forefathers is suspended, which in some sense may be true, that is thus, the effects of God's love to Israel are for the present suspended from those generations, and so in our apprehension the Covenant is suspended; but in exact speech it cannot be true, sith God's Covenant according to his intention and meaning, cannot be suspended or stayed, but doth always take effect irresistibly. In that wherein you alter the resemblance of the Apostle, by putting in the cutting down of the tree, instead of breaking off th● branches, you much pervert the Apostles meaning; who makes the tree, that is, the Church of believers, still standing, and some branches broken off, and others graffed in. And for that of the root, it is true, it is variously conceived by Interpreters, some understanding with you the Covenant, some Christ, some Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and some Abraham only, which last I conceive to be genuine, for the expressions of some branches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according, to nature, 
So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16  and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides nature: Some natural, some ingraffed, our not bearing the root, but the root bearing us, are plain evidences to me, that by the root, Abraham is meant; Nor know I how to make the resemblance right, but by this Exposition. Now to say, the root, that is, Abraham, is bound with an Iron band of unbelief, cannot have any handsome construction. But you tell us: And mark that in all this discourse, the holiness of the branches there spoken of, is not meant of a personal inherent holiness. Then Master Thomas Goodwin is answered, who in urging 1 Cor. 7.14. for Paedobaptism, saith, in the New Testament, there is no other holiness spoken of, but personal or real by regeneration, about the which he challenged all the world to show the contrary: whereas here is according to you, a holiness which is not personal, or as Mr. Blake speaks, qualitative, and inherent. But to go on. You say, But a derivative holiness, a holiness derived to them from their Ancestors, the first fruit is holy, the lump holy, the root holy, the branches holy; that is, the Father's holy, accepted in Covenant with God, the children beloved for their Father's sake; and when the vail of unbelief shall be taken away, the children & their posterity shall be taken in again, b●cause beloved for their father's sake: Now then, if our graffing in be answerable to theirs in any, or all of these three particulars, we and our children are graffed in together. Object. But here is no mention of our Infant's graffing in. Answ. We must not teach the Lord to speak, but with reverence search out his meaning; there is no mention made of the casting out of the Jewish Infants, neither here, nor elsewhere, when he speaks of taking away the Kingdom of God from them, and giving it to the Gentiles, who would bring forth fruit; no mention of the Infants of the one, or of the other, but the one and the other, for these outward dispensations are comprehended in their parents, as the branches in the root, the infants of the godly in their parents according to the tenor of his mercy, the infants of the wicked in their parents according to the tenor of his justice.  
There are sundry things in this passage you would have to be marked, that deserve indeed to be marked, but with an Obeliske, not with an Asterisk, as 1. That you oppose personal inherent holiness to derivative, as inconsistent. The truth is, the holiness the Apostle speaks of, is, first in respect of God's Election, holiness personal and inherent, in God's intention, He hath chosen us that we should be holy, Ephes. 1.4. Secondly, it is also holiness derivative, or descending, not from any Ancestors, but from Abraham, not barely, as a natural father, but as a spiritual father, or Father of the faithful, and so derived from the Covenant of grace, which passed in his name to him and his seed. And lastly, it shall be inherent actually, being communicated by the Spirit of God, when they shall be actually called. But this is such a kind of holiness, as is more than you mean, to wit, not only an adherent, or relative holiness, which they have by enjoying outward Ordinances, but also inherent, by faith, whereby they a●e holy, as the root, that is, Abraham the father of the faithful.  
2. Whereas you make it the case of any believers to be a holy root, to their posterity, especially in the following words, when you say, The infants both of the Jews, and Gentiles for these outward dispensations, are comprehended in their parents, as the branch in the root, the infants of the godly in their parents, according to the tenor of his mercy, the infants of the wicked in their parents, according to the tenor of his justice: Master Blake pag. 8. more plainly, The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity, being made a holy branch in reference to their issue, they now become a holy root. This is not true, for in the Apostles resemblance, Abraham only is a holy root, or at most, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, in whose names the Covenant runs. No other man, though a believer, is the father of the faithful, but Abraham: And the body of believers is compared to the Olive, and each believer to a branch, that partakes of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, not in outward dispensations only, as you speak, but also in saving graces, which is mainly here intended. I remember Master Thomas Goodwin, who hath handled this matter of Paedobaptism, by spinning out similitudes and conjectures (fit indeed for the common people, that are more taken with resemblances than Syllogisms) rather then with close arguments: endeavoured to infer a kind of promise of deriving holiness from believers to their posterity, out of the similitude of an Olive, and its branches, compared with Psal. 128.3. etc. but it is dangerous to strain similitudes beyond that likeness the Holy Ghost makes. It is a tedious thing to Auditors that look for arguments, to be deluded with similitudes and conjectures.  
3. Whereas you alluding to the words of the Apostle, v. 28. that the Jews were beloved for their father's sake, carry it, as if this were true of any believing parents; the Apostle means it of those father's only, in whose names the Covenant was made, especially Abraham called the friend of God, Jam. 2.23. and the father of the faithful, Rom. 4.11. and in reference to the promises made to them, they are beloved, and therefore it is added, ver. 29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.  
Lastly, you say That the infants of the wicked for these outward dispensations, are comprehended in their parents, according to the tenor of God's justice. I entreat you to consider, 

Arminius l. 1. Antiperk. p 3. Sect. 6. Infants in parentibu●, avis, abavis atavis, tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt, quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi, etc.  
Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentib●● comprehendantur & censeantur. Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem. Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet, adipisceretur gratiam & sibi & posteris; contra si non crederet & sibi & posteris suis gratiam amitteret; cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt.   whether this speech do not symbolise with the tenet of Arminius in his Antiperkins on the fourth Crimination, and in the end of his Treatise, where he maketh the cause, why the posterity of some people have not the Gospel, to be their forefather's fault in refusing it. Against which you may see what Doctor Twisse opposeth in both places, and Moulin in his Anatomy of Arminianism, cap. 9 And thus it may appear, that you have very much darkened this illustrious Scripture, by applying that holiness and insition to outward dispensations only in the visible Church, which is meant of saving graces into the invisible by faith, and made every believer a like root to his posterity, with Abraham to his seed.  
I Am now come to your principal hold, you say. 
§. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14.  And yet plainer (if plainer may be) is the speech of the Apostle in 1. Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now they are holy.  
By the way. Because you acknowledge in the Margin page 24. that" signifies to, as well as in, and you conceive it may be here read [in] or [to] as well as [by] and though our translators following the vulgar read [by] yet Beza dislikes that reading; it might have done well in the citing of this text by you, to have given some hint of that variety. But to follow you. You say, the plain scope and meaning thereof is this. The believing Corinthians amongst other cases of Conscience, which they had sent to the Apostle for his resolution of, had written this for one, whether it were lawful for them who were converted, still to retain their Infidel wives or husbands. You do rightly here express the scope of the Apostle, but you make another scope, page 25. when you say; We must attend the Apostles scope, which is to show, that the children would be unholy, if the faith or believership of one of the parents could not remove the bar, which lies in the other being an unbeliever, against the producing a holy seed; which I shall show in its place, not to be the scope of the place; but only this which you first give. You than say, their doubt seems to arise from the Law of God, which was in force to the Nation of the Jews, God had not only forbidden such marriages to his people; but in Ezra's time they put away, not only their wives: but all the children that were borne of them, as not belonging to the Commonwealth of Israel: and it was done according to the Law, and that Law was not a particular Edict which they did agree upon but according to the standing Law of Moses, which that word there used signifieth, and in Nehemiahs' time the children who were born of such marriages were accounted a mongrel kind, whom Nehemiah cursed: Now hereupon these Corinthians doubted whether their children as well as their wives, were not to be accounted unclean: and so to be put away according to th●se examples. You declared rightly the scope before: but the doubt is not rightly put by you. The Corinthians had no doubt whether their children were unclean, and to be put away; for the Apostle, argues from the uncleanness of their children, as a thing that appeared absurd to them, they took it as a common received principle, that their children wer● holy, as rightly Master Thomas Goodwin at Bow-church. And for the occasion of the doubt, though I deny not, but the Corinthians might know that fact of Ezra 9 and 10. yet that the reading of it was the cause of their doubt I see no evidence o● likelihood, though Master Blake pag. 12. takes it as granted, joining with the relations, Ezra 9 and 10. that resolution, Hag. 2.12.13. as the occasion of the doubt, and Mr. Thomas Goodwin seemed confident of it that it could be no other upon a supposed agreement of matter and phrase. But for matter I see very little agreement, the cases being f●r different of two persons not under the Law marrying in unbelief, and of two persons under the Law, the one a jew by profession, the other a stranger. And for phrases, except the word [holy] I observe no other phrase used in Ezra which is used by the Apostle; not the phrase of unbelieving husband or wife, or sanctified to, in, or by the wife or husband, nor the phrase of unclean children, 

Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem. cap. 3.  
Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat, & arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi n●c cibum sumendum.   and for the term [holy] the Apostle doth not use the phrase [holy seed] as Ezra doth. In my apprersion it is far more likely that ●●e doubt arose from the Epistle he wrote before to them mentioned, 1 Cor. 5.9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●. 10 Not to keep company with Fornicators or Idolaters, which might occasion the question, whether they were then to continue with their unbelieving Yoke fellows?  
But let us examine the Apostles resolution, you say. To which the Apostle answers, no, they were not to be put away, upon what special, reason soever, that law was in force to th● Jews, believing Christians were not in that condition. The unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed. Were it with them, as when both of them were unbelievers, so that neither of th●m had a prerogative to entitle their children to the covenant of grace, their children would be an unclean progeny: Or were the children to b● reckoned in the condition of the worse parent, so that the unbeliever could contribute more to Paganism, than the believer to Christianity, it were so likewise. But the case is otherwise; the believing husband hath by God's ordinance a sanctified use of his unbelieving wife; so as by God's special promise made to believers and their seed, they were invested in, and to the most spiritual end of marriage, the continuance of a holy seed, wherein the Church is to be propagated to the world's end. And the case is he●e in relation to posterity, for spiritual privileges, as in other marriages for civil privileges: as, suppose a Prince or Noble man marry with a woman of base and mean birth, though in general it be true, that the children of those that be base, are born base, as well as the children of Nobles are bor● noble, yet here the issue hath honour from the father, and it is not accounted base by the baseness of the mother. This I take to be the plain meaning of the Apostles answer.  
And must your Readers, think you, take it on your word, without showing that the terms are so used else where, or connexion of the words, or the analysis of the text lead you to it? But it is necessary that I discuss this matter more fully, then by returning a bare denial, to a bare affirmation. Concerning the answer verse 13. there is no difference, all the difference is concerning the reason of the resolution delivered ver. 14. and the meaning of it. There are these terms doubtful. 1. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the wife; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the husband. 2. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sanctified. 3. What is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean. 4. What by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy. It is agreed, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read, in, to, or by. It is agreed, that to be sanctified, hath many senses, and t●at the sense wherein sanctification is taken for renovation of mind, is not here meant, for so an unbeliever is not sanctified, and the speech is in sensu composito, in a compound sense to be understood: An unbeliever, though an unbeliever, is sanctified. Nor is it true of any kind of Ceremonial sanctification, or sanctification for enjoying religious ordinances; for such could not agree to an unbeliever. Therefore there remain only two senses, the one of an instrumental sanctification, as Mr. Goodwin calls it, for the begetting a holy seed; The other of matrimonial sanctification, whereby the one is enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by another, without fornication. The former of these, your words intimate, you embrace, when you say, the unbelieving wife was sanctified in the believing husband, quoad hoc, so far as to bring forth a holy seed. But against this are these reasons, 1. This could not have resolved the doubt in the case of those, who by age could not be sanctified to this end, or by reason of accidental inability for generation, they might depart each from other, notwithstanding this reason: whereas the Apostles resolution is, of all husbands and wives; The unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, every unbelieving husband is sanctified. If meant of Instrumental sanctification, it were true only of those that are apt for generation, yea that do actually generate: whereas the Apostles determination is concerning any husband or wife that were of different religion. 2. If the Apostle, by being sanctified, meant instrumentally sanctified to beget a holy seed, than the reason had been thus: You may live together, for you may beget a holy seed. And so their consciences should have been resolved of their present lawful living together, from a future event, which was uncertain; It had been taken from a thing contingent, that might be, or not be: whereas the resolution is, by a reason taken from a thing certain, a thing present, or past; and therefore he useth the preterperfect tense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified; yea, in probability he speaks of a sanctification, even when both were unbelievers: for he saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the preterperfect tense, and he mentions the unbelieving, distinctly; but the believer, without the expression of his, or her faith, under the title of husband, or wife; and saith, your children, indiscriminatim, without difference, as well those you had before one of you was a believer, as since. However, it is manifest the Apostles reason is taken from a thing not contingent, but certain, not future, but present or past, and therefore not from instrumental sanctification for the begetting of a holy seed, which was a future thing, and that contingent.  
This was so manifest to Chamier, that, tom. 4. Panstrat. Cathol. lib. 5. c. 10. §. 46. he proves, that sanctification here cannot be understood of sanctification by conversion of the unbeliever through the diligence of the wife, from this reason: Primum quia incerta ratio est, etsi enim nonnunquam ita factum, tamen plerumque etiam aliter, which I may apply to your instrumental sanctification, in the same words. And after, In praeteritum dixit; sanctificatus est non autem sanctificabitur, rem jam constitutam, & peractam non autem in futurum rem incertam, aut optandam, aut expectandam. 3. When any person is said to be instrumentally sanctified for a purpose, this sanctification is ascribed to God, as Jer. 1.5. Isa. 13.3. as selecting some from others to such an use, but here the sanctification is common to all unbelieving husbands in respect of their wives, and comes from that common relation, not special designation. 4. According to this Exposition, the words following could not be true, Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: For in this form of reasoning, this Proposition is included. Their children could not be holy without that sanctification, but that had been false, understanding it of instrumental sanctification; and of foederall, or of real inherent personal holiness. For their children might be in Covenant, and be regenerated, though their parents by reason of their unbelief had been neither of them sanctified to the other, for the begetting of a holy seed. The children of Infidel-parents may be in the Covenant of grace, and be sanctified. It remains then that the sanctification which I call matrimonial, is here meant, which I express in Beza's words, thus: Fidelis uxor potest cum infideli marito bona conscientia consuescere (cur enim aliena conscientia eam pollueret) idcirco dicitur infidelis ille non in sese, said in uxore (id est uxoris respectu) sanctus esse, idem quoque de altero membro judicandum est. That this may be the sense, I gather from the like use of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.5. where the creature of God is said to be sanctified, that is, lawfully used, in opposition to that which is to be refused; so here, the unbelieving husband is sanctified, that is, lawfully enjoyed as a husband, by, or to, or in respect of his wife, whether believer, or unbeliever, in this case there is no difference. And this your own words import, pag. 24. When you thus speak. He saith indeed, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband, or to the believing husband; that is, to ●is use, as all other creatures are, as the bad he lies on, the meat he eats, the clothes he wears, and the beast he rides on are sanctified to his use. And this sense is the more confirmed, in that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sanctification, is the same with chastity, 1 Thess 4.7. So that the sense is, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to his wife, that is, lawfully or chastely, used as a husband, without fornication in respect of his own wife, whether believer or unbeliever, and therefore not to be refused. And this sense only serves for the purpose of the Apostle. The words are a reason why they might lawfully live together: the reason must be taken from that which was not contingent, but certain, as Chamier saith truly, tom. 4. Paustrat. Cathol. l. 5. c. 10. §. 66. Haec est meus Apostoli, ut doceat fideli non discedendum a conjuge infideli, consentiente in habitationem; cui rei conficiendae ineptum ●st aeque ac paul● ante argumentum ab eventu incerto ac per accidens, hinc refutatur illo sententia quae imaginatur tandem cum etiam infidelis conversus erit, generatum iri filios sanctos: Nam quid si nunquam fiat? Take it then in your sense, it had been no satisfactory reason. You may live together, though one party be an unbeliever, because you may beget a holy seed; but this wa● merely contingent, uncertain, and by accident, not arising from their present estate, but from something future, which might not be, possibly they might have no children at all: how shall persons than be satisfied from this reason? But in the other acception of matrimonial sanctification, the reason is plain and satisfactory: Let them, if they will, live together, though one be a believer, the other an unbeliever; for though there be difference in Religion, yet marriage continues still, they are husband and wife, and are so sanctified to each others use, in respect of their chaste enjoyment of each other, and it is no sin for them to accompany together, notwithstanding the unbelief of the one party; for marriage is honourable among all, even unbelievers, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. And Holiness and Honour are terms of like sense in this matter, 1 Thes. 4.7. And the like resolution the Apostle gives, vers. 17.20. concerning circumcised or uncircumcised persons and servants, they might continue circumcised and uncircumcised persons and servants to their masters, notwithstanding their Christian calling, it did not dissolve those relations; so that to me it is very clear, that the sanctification here spoken of is matrimonial sanctification. As for instrumental sanctification, for the begetting a holy seed, I know not of any before Mr. Thomas Goodwin that hath so expounded it; But Beza and many others expound it of matrimonial sanctification. Which is further confirmed in that the Apostle when he speaks of the believing party saith not the believing wife or husband, but the husband or wife, which is to me a plain evidence, that the Apostle placeth the reason of their sanctification, not in the faith of either party, but in the relation of husband and wife. But of this more in the answering of your second argument. Now let this be granted (as of necessity it must) than the uncleanness must be understood of bastardy, and the holiness of legitimation; for no other holiness follows necessarily to the children, in that their parent's marriage is lawful, and they borne of such parents, but legitimation nor any other uncleanness follows upon the denying of it but bastardy. And therefore who ever they be that interpret it of legitimation, they do it rightly, call them how you will. And that I may clear it, let the Apostles reason be resolved.  
To conceive it we are to consider, 1. That the words [else were, etc.] are not a resolution of another doubt, but an argument to prove that which was said last, as the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shows; for the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were, are argumentative, as much as quoniam tum, because then, used so, 1 Cor. 15.14.29. Rom. 11.6. to prove that which went before. 2. That here the argument is ab absurdo, from an absurdity, which would follow, if the thing to be proved were not granted, and the speech must needs be Elliptic: and somewhat is to be repeated to make the speech full, as when it is said, Rom. 11.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If by grace, it is no more of works, else grace were no more grace: To make the sense full, you must add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because if of works: So here, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. For if the unbelieving husband hath not been sanctified to the wife, your children, etc. So that this is the argument of the Apostle entire: If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife, then were your children unclean, but they are not unclean, but holy, Ergo, the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife. Now the Major of this Syllogism is a conditional, and the sequel of it were not true, if this proposition were not true: All the children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are unclean. Now if the sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial sanctification, as I have proved it must, and the uncleanness be meant of federal uncleanness, so as to exclude them out of the covenant, whether of Saving-graces, or Church-priviledges, the proposition were most false, sith that children of parents, whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other, but came together unchastly, as Pharez and Zarah of judah, and Tamar, jepthe of Gilead, and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces, and Church privileges, and therefore to make the Proposition true (without which the Apostle speaks that which is false) it must be understood of uncleanness by bastardy: for it is true of no other uncleanness, that all children of those parents, whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are unclean. And that this is the force of the Apostles reasoning, Chamier saw, Panstr. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 10. §. 67. when arguing against the conceit ascribed to Augustine concerning Ceremonial holiness, he saith thus. De ceremoniali illa sanctitate quid dicam? venit in mentem Augustino, sed Deus bone! quam aliena? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur. Euge. Dixit Apostolus, si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore fideli futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri, ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apostolus. Quid ergo? Omnesne nati ex iis parentibus quorum alter non santificatur in altero geniti sunt in menstruis? Nunquamne Infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis? ita oportet sane aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem. I may apply the same words to Chamier his interpretation of federal sanctity. De faederali illa sanctitate quid dicam? venit in mentem Chamiero, Calvino, etc. Sed Deus bone! quam aliena? profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur; Euge. Dixit Apostolus, si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri, ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri, aut falsum dixit Ap●stolus, quid ergo? Omnesno nati ex iis parentibus quorum alter non sanctificatur in altero sunt extra foedus gratiae? Nunquamne parents infideles aut fornicantes gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae futuros, ita oportet sane aut ridiculam han● esse interpretationem. As for the other words, but now are they holy; the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now, is not an adverbe of time here, as Beza rightly, but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bu● now, is a particle of reasoning used in the assumption of arguments, which shows it is the assumption of the Apostles argument, and therefore it must be understood of holiness opposite to the uncleanness mentioned, but that being no other than bastardy, the holiness can be meant of no other, than legitimation. Nor is this any whit an unlikely sense, sith bastards were reckoned among unclean persons, Deut. 23.2. and the Apostles expression may be allusive to the jewish speaking or estimation. And why it should be thought strange, that holy should signify legitimate, I know not, when as Mal. 2.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seed of God, rendered by yourself, page 19 a holy seed, is all one with a legitimate seed, as Calvin rightly expounds it, 
Grot. annot. in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior ami●itia quam mariti & uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum, corporis, prolis vitae denique totius: quam rem esse vere sacram, id est, non humani●us, sed divinitus, repertam magno consensu g●ntes ●●ed: derunt.  and the words must be understood; for they speak of the first institution of marriage, which was not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked (for it is spoken of the general end of all marriages) but a lawful seed: whereto I may add, that marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate, as the Liturgy calls it, and as that excellent book entitled, The union of Christ and the Church in a shadow, by R. C. prov●s. As for Mr. Blakes quaere, pag. 11. whether we will give the like interpretation of Gal. 2.15. which is, saith he, every way parallel, and answers in either of the branches? Doth the Apostle here mean we that are by birth legitimate, and not bastards of the Gentiles. I may apply to him the words of him in the Poet. Cernimus, an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt? Do we see? or do they that love, feign dreams to themselves? for I cannot tell how to interpret this passage, that 1 Cor 7 14. and Gal. 2.15. are very way parallel, and the one to be interpreted by the other, any otherwise then as a conceit in a dream, like as when the fancy from gold and a mountain compounds a golden mountain. And for his argument which he draws from the text, on which his discourse is builded, in that the Apostle contra distinguisheth, Jews by nature, and sinners of the Gentiles, (which the phrase shows the Apostle useth after the vulgar manner; for otherwise Jews are by nature sinners, as well as the Gentiles) to prove that the Infants of believers are in the Covenant of grace, and have a birth-priviledge for baptism, it is a riddle to me. The meaning of the words is plainly this; we are born Jews and not Gentiles who are reputed sinners, yet we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, to observe which by birth we were tied, and therefore Peter did ill to compel the Gentiles to Judaize, to keep the law of Moses, thereby dissembling the liberty they had in Ch●●st, and bringing them into bondage; so that it is plain he mentions Jew's by nature, to show their obligation to the law by their birth, and he calls the Gentiles sinners, according to the common expression of them, as not observing the law of the Jews, and therefore when Mr. Blake saith, That he contend● to have the seed of believing Parents under the Gospel, to be under the first member of the division in the text. It is a strange speech, that he should contend to prove this, The seed of believing Gentiles are Jews by nature, born to be circumcised, and to keep Moses law. But let it be granted, that they are called sinners in the sense he would have it, tha● is, out of the Covenant, as it is said, Ephes. 2.12. the question is, in what sense the Gentiles were without the Covenant, and the Jews in. It is certain the Jews had by God's appointment the privilege of circumcision, and the Covenant made with Abraham did belong to them in special manner, and the Oracles were with them, Rom. 9.4, 5. and the Covenant of Saving-grace was among them, till they were by unbelief broken off, and that the Gentiles were dogs, unclean persons, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, without God, without Christ, etc. And so it may be granted that the Jews had a birth priuledge, though it is certain, that their birth did not entitle them to the Covenant of grace, and that the common privilege of circumcision belonging to the Jews, did not arise from the Covenant of grace, accotding to the substance of it, but according to the administration that then was, nor was a fruit of the faith of the parents, but of God's appointment according to the dispensation of his will, in that time of the church's minority; but he that will prove, that therefore our children have such a birth privilege, because the Jews had, must make our case as the Jews, and so bring us under the Ceremonial law. But of this we shall have occ●sion hereafter to speak more fully, only by the way I thought it necessary to say so much, because Master Vines refers us to Master Blakes Sermon as a learned treatise, and I heard it in like manner magnified by Master Calamy, and therefore have thought it necessary some where or other to examine what hath any seeming strength in it. And for the same reason I take notice of that speech of Master Blake, page 11. Singular opinions put men upon singular interpretations; which may as truly be verified of himself, as of his adversaries, in that which occasioned him so to speak. Another book lately published, being the treatise of one Mr. William Cook, and commended by Master Francis Woodcock, one of your Assembly, as I conceive, in the 62. page of it saith. Whoever before (but B●llarmine, or such jesuitical interpreters of Scripture) took it so, putting unclean for bastards, or holy for legitimate. And in the Margin, Note Reader, that this is Bellarmine's interpretation, and after, whether A. R. borrowed this answer of Bellarmine, or invented it of himself (as it is the happiness of the good wits, and holy affections of jesuitical and anabaptistical heads and hearts to jump in the same thing) let others judge. Mr. Woodcock had done well to have left out this passage: For, first, although I have not now Bellarmine's book by me, to examine whether it be his interpretation or no, yet I perceive by Chamier, Panstr. Cathol. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 10. §. 55. who saith thus, Hoc observato Bellarminum e tribus quas enumerat, non iudicare quam cui praeferat, quasi nihil interess●t, This being observed, that Bellarmine, of the three senses which he reckons, doth not show which he prefers, as if it were of no behoof; That that Author did not well heed Bellarmine, when he makes it his opinion, because he numbers it amongst other opinions. Secondly, that Author not only erroneously, but also otherwise in an unfitting way, makes it a Jesuitical interpretation only, whereas he might have perceived that Bellarmine citys others then Jesuits for that interpretation; and if he be not to be believed, yet Chamier might be believed, who saith in the same place, §. 50. Sic Ambrosium, Thomam, Anselmum exposuisse, & hunc Suarez appellat literalem sensum: That Ambrose, Thomas, Anselm, so expounded it, and this Suarez calls the literal sense. And before Bellarmine, Musculus in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 7.14. allegeth Ambrose and Hierome so expounding it, and confesseth that though he had abused formerly that place against the Anabaptists, yet he found that of matrimonial sanctification and sanctity, to be the right sense. And Melancthon, and Camerarius do expound it of legitimation: Gagnaeus Parisiensis, in loc. also so expounds it: and Osiander, Enchir. controv. cum Anabap. c. 2. q. 3. Mariana schol. in loc. And as for that of Foederal holiness, I have rather reason to conceive it to be a new exposition, the Ancients expounding it otherwise, None that ever I met with, expounding it of federal holiness, till the controversy of the Anabaptists in Germany arose.  
You say, But this cannot be the meaning, I clearly prove by these four arguments. First, uncleanness, and holiness, when opposed one to the other, are never taken for civilly lawful. Nor do I like the calling of it civil holiness, for it is not from the laws of men, but the institution of God, and therefore I rather call it matrimonial holiness. You say, Uncleanness, indeed, when opposed to cleanness, may be taken in several senses, An unclean vessel, an unclean cloth, an unclean garment, when opposed to clean, may signify nothing but dirty or spotted: but when uncleanness is opposed to holiness, it is always taken in a sacred sense, referring to a tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church; and holiness is always taken for a separation of persons or things from common to sacred uses. It is hard for you to make good, nor is it material for me to disprove that which you say, That when uncleanness is opposed to holiness, it is always taken in a sacred sense, referring to a tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church. For if it were true, yet the sense I give might stand good, sith uncleanness for bastardy might be taken allusively to the tabernacle, if the exclusion of bastards from the congregation of the Lord, were an exclusion from the tabernacle; and so the sense might be good, that uncleanness is bastardy, though that which you say were true, that uncleanness, as opposed to holiness, refers to a tabernacle use. Howsoever it is enough, that I have proved, that the word uncleanness must be taken here for bastardy, if the Apostles reason stand good. Yet let me entreat you to look a little on that text, 1 Thes. 4.7. and tell me, whether uncleanness there be not opposed to holiness, and whether it be taken in a sacred sense, referring to a tabernacle use, to a right of admission into, or use in the tabernacle or temple, which were types to us of the visible church. Me thinks, by uncleanness is meant fornication, and by holiness, chastity; and that comes very near the adjectives for bastards, and legitimate, which are consequent on fornication, and lawful generation. And the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 7.1. opposing filthiness of the flesh, to holiness, makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech, when you say, In that opposition, uncleanness is always taken in a sacred sense. And when you say, that Holiness is always taken for a separation of persons and things, from common to sacred uses. Me thinks you might have considered, that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus: This is the will of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your holiness, i.e. saith Beza, that you abstain from fornication. Now, abstinence from fornication, you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses. And when the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 7.34. that she may be holy in body, is it not meant, that she may be chaste?  
You go on. Even the meats and drinks of believers, sanctified to them, serve for a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost. Is it a religious end and use, to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost? Then the godly, in eating and drinking, do an act of religion, because they refresh themselves. It is true, when their meats are sanctified to them, they use them religiously, but not because they refresh their bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Ghost, but because they use them with the word, and prayer. If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost, be a religious use and end, than the inordinate eating of a godly man, or the feeding of a godly man by a profane person, is a religious use and end. You add, So that they have not only a lawful, but a holy use of their meat and drink, which unbelievers have not, to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawful. This is true; but how this proves, that unclean may not be taken for bastard, and holy for legitimate, I see not.  
You go on. And whereas some say, 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5. that Chastity, a moral virtue found among heathens, is called b● the name of Sanctification: Let every one possess his vessel, not in the lust of concupiscence, but in sanctification and honour. I answer, Chastity among heathens is never called sanctification, but among believers it may be called so, being a part of the new creation, a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God, a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost. But this is bu● a shift; for why may not an unbeliever he said, as w●ll to possess his vessel in holiness, is to be sanctified? Besides, are not sanctification, and cleanness, and honour, all one in these passages? And doth not the Apostle say, Heb. 13.4. that Marriage is honourable among all, (even Infidels) and the bed undefiled? And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holiness, be not found among the heathen writers, as being (so far as I can find) a word used only among Ecclesiastical writers; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for c●st●moniam servo, I preserve chastity: as Stephanus, in his Thesaurus, observes out of Demosthenes' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where a Priest of Bac●hus speaks thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am holy and pure f●om the company of man. And the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chaste, to be chaste, to make chaste, chastity; coming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy: whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire, as Grammarians conceive, are used for holiness and chastity, very frequently, both in Scripture▪ and in all sorts of Greek writers. 
Gr●t annot. in Ma●. 5.8. So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So that what you say, that [holy] cannot be taken for [legitimate] but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church; I● is so far from being true, that notwithstanding any thing you have said, yet that sense both may and must be, if the Apostles reasoning be good. But you assault it with a second Argument.  
Secondly, this being so, had this been the meaning, Else were your children unclean, but now they a●e holy; Else had your children been bastards, but now they are legitimate: The Apostles answer had not been true, because if then one of the parents had not been a believer, and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife, their children must have been bastards: whereas we know their children had been legitimate, being borne in lawful wedlock, though neither of the parents had been a believer. Marriage, being a Second Table-duty, is lawful (though not sanctified) to Pagans, as well as to Christians: and the legitimation, or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith, but upon the marriage of the parents; Let the marriage be lawful, and the issue is legitimate, whether one, or both, or neither of the parents be believers, or infidels: Take but away lawful marriage betwixt the man and the woman, and the issue is illegitimate, whether one, or both, or neither of the parents are believers, or infidels. Withal, if the children of heathens be bastards, and the marriage of heathens no marriage; then there is no adultery among heathens, and so the seventh Commandment is altogether vain in the words of it, as to them.  
This is indeed the principal reason that hath prevailed with many, to interpret this passage of federal holiness, not of matrimonial; because they conceive here is a privilege ascribed to the believing wife, or husband, in respect of the faith of the one person, not common to such with infidels. Whereas the holiness here expressed is not from the quality of faith, but from the relation of husband and wife. For that only was agreeable to the Apostles purpose: to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still, because the unbeliever, though an unbeliever, notwithstanding his infidelity, is and hath been still lawfully enjoyed and sanctified to his wife. So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulness of marriage amongst infidels. This was so plain to Chamier. tom. 4. Panstr. Cathol. lib. 5. cap. 10. sect. 63. that he writes thus; Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione, nam ab ista peni●ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli. Haec enim incerta est: nôrunt enim omnes, & docet experientia, neque omnes viros lucrifieri, quod etiam innuit Apostolus, neque omnes liberos obsecundar● sanctae educationi. Praeterea si qui obsecundent, tamen hic effectus est accidentalis, non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ. And this is confirmed, that the sanctification of the husband, and the holiness of the children, comes from the nature of marriage, because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party, names him or her, under the term of unbelieving husband or wife, because the doubt was of the unbeliever, in respect of his unbelief; but when he speaks of the believing party, how ever the vulgar Latin thrusts in [believing] twice, and one old copy Beza found, that had in the Margin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. believing wife and believing husband, and a copy of Clermont had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the husband a brother, yet all the copies besides read simply without that Epithet [to the wife, to the husband] without believing. The reason cannot be conceived rightly to be any other, but that although the person meant were a believer, as well as a wife or a husband; yet in this passage they were considered only as husband or wife, and not as believers; to intimate that the sanctification did not come from the faith of the party, but from conjugal relation. So that whereas you say, that upon the interpretation given, it would follow that there would be no lawful marriage amongst heathens, or legitimate children, because you conceive the sanctification & holiness here proper to believers and their children, the contrary is most true, and most agreeable to the Apostles meaning, who doth not here ascribe the sanctification, either of the unbeliever, or the children, to the faith of either party, but to the conjugal relation, and mentions here no privilege, but what was common to all married persons amongst the heathens. Thus is your principal argument answered; I pass on to the next.  
You say besides St Paul's reason had no strength in it, supposing the text were to be interpreted as these men would have it. Their doubt (say they) was that their marriage was an unlawful wedlock, and so consequently their children bastard's. You do not herein rightly set down your adversaries explication of the Apostle; the doubt was only, whether the believer might continue with the unbeliever in conjugal use: the Apostles resolution was they might, for they were sanctified each to other, notwithstanding the unbelief that was in the one party; for if it were otherwise, their children were bastards. There was no doubt, as you say, of their children's bastardy; the Apostles reason supposeth it was out of doubt with them. You add. Now mark what kind of answer they make the Apostle give. Were you not lawful man and wife, your children were bastards; but because the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband, etc. because your marriage is a lawful marriage, your children are legitimate. What strength of reason is in this? if this had been their doubt or question, whether their marriage were not a nullity; the Apostle by his Apostolic authority, might have definitively answered, without giving a reason, your marriage is good, and your children legitimate. But if Paul will go about to satisfy them by reason, and prove them to be mistaken, it behoved him to give such a reason, which should have some weight in it, but this hath none. Set their doubt (as these men frame it) and the Apostles answer (as these men interpret it) together, and you will easily see the invalidity of it. We doubt (say the Corinthians) we are not lawful man and wife, and that therefore our children are bastards. No, saith Paul, you are mistaken, and I prove it thus; Were you not lawful man and wife, your children were bastards, but because you are lawful man and wife, your children are not bastards. Is there any argument or proof in this?  
As you frame your adversaries meaning, it may be thought ridiculous, but your mistakes must not be charged on them for their error. All this passage of yours is built on this, that you make that the doubt which was not the doubt, to wit, whether their children were bastards, and make that the conclusion, which is the medium to prove the conclusion by; for it was so far from being a doubt whether their children were bastards, that the Apostle argues from this as an absurdity he knew they would not grant, and therefore supposed this to be without doubt with them, that their children were not bastards, but legitimate. And herein Mr Thomas Goodwin spoke rightly, that the Apostle supposed it to be a received principle with them, though his paraphrase, but now are they holy, that is, you see your children baptised, is his own comment, and that not only a very bold, but absurd one, that I say no worse of it. And whereas you say, the Apostle might by his Apostolic authority, have definitively answered, 'tis true, and so he did, as appears from ver. 12. and yet he might give a reason ad homines, to the men, to convince them, which it may be, as you make it, is invalide, but rightly conceived, as the Apostle framed it, is convincing and cogent.  
You say. Fourthly, according to this their interpretation, the Apostles answer could no way have reached to the quieting of their consciences; their doubt was whether according to the example in Ezra, they were not to put away their wives and children, as not belonging to God, as being a seed whom God would not own among his people. Now what kind of quiet would this have given them, to tell them that their children were not bastards? We know the Jews did not put away their bastards, as not belonging to the Covenant of God, Pharez, and Zarah, and Jepthah, and innumerable others, though bastards, were circumcised, and not cut off from the people of God.  
All this argument is grounded on a mistake, as if the question were, whether they were to put away their wives and children, as not belonging to God, and that according to the example in Ezra. Whereas that is but a conjecture, that they had any relation in this matter to the action mentioned in Ezra: and some other occasion is as likely, if not more likely, as hath been showed, and it is certain there were no doubts at all about the putting away of their children; for the Apostles argument proceeds upon this as a thing undoubted with them, that their children were not unclean, but holy. What their doubt indeed was, and how the Apostles answer fits it is showed before.  
You go on. And whereas some object out of Deut. 23.2. that bastards did not belong to the Covenant among the Jews, because God there forbade a bastard to come into the Congregation of the Lord. I answer, that is meant only of bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing; and not of being under the Covenant belonging to the Church; as is manifest not only by what hath been now said of Jepthah, and others, who were circumcised, and offered sacrifices, and drew nigh to God, as well as any other, but the very Text alleged gives sufficient light, that it cannot be meant otherwise, because in that place who ever is an Eunuch or wounded in his stones, hath the same exclusion from the Congregation of the Lord, and I hope that none will dare to say, that none such are holy to the Lord; if they should, the Scriptu●e is full enough against them; that putting away in Ezra was of an higher nature than illegitimation, and therefore it behoved the Apostle to give another manner of satisfaction to their doubtful consciences, then to tell them their children were not bastards: Therefore I conclude, that this holiness being the fruit of one of the Parents being a believer, must be meant of some kind of holiness which is not common to the seed of them whose parents are both believers, and that is enough for our purpose.  
What others object I know not, the Text, Deut. 23.2. was produced by me in my papers in Latin, abovementioned, in these words, Et quidni simili allusione ponatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro spuriis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro legitimis, nam spurius inter impuros, Deut. 23.2. And why may not b● a like allusion, unclean be put for bastards, and holy for legitimate? for the bastard is put among the unclean, Deut. 23.2. By which you may perceive, that I produced it not to prove, that bastard's did not belong to the Covenant among the Jewe●, or were to be denied circumcision, or to be put away, and therefore in what respect they are to be excluded from the Congregation of the Lord, is not to my purpose material, but only to show, that bastards were reckoned among unclean persons by the Law; which I think, you will not deny, sith you confess they were excluded from bearing office in the Church, or some such like thing; and therefore the Apostle might fi●ly by allusion put unclean for bastards. Against this there being nothing in your answer, nor any thing else, which hath not been replied to before, I pass to the two objections you bring in against your interpretation.  
You say, Yet there remain two Objections to be answered, which are made against this our interpretation: First, the unbelieving w●●e is here said to be sanctified as well as the child is said to be holy; and the original word is the same for both, one the Verb, the other the Noun; if then the child is holy, with a federal holiness, then is also the unbelieving wife sanctified with a f●derall sanctification; and so the wife, although remaining a Heathen, may be counted to belong to the Covenant of Grace. I answer, indeed there would be weight in this Objection, if the Apostle had said, The unbelieving wife is sanctified, and no more, as he simply saith the children are holy; but that he doth not say: He saith indeed, the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the believing husband; or, to the believing husband, that is, to his use, as all other creatures are; as the bed he lies on, the meat he eats, the clothes he wears, the beast he rides on, are sanctified to him; and so this sanctifiednesse of the wife, is not a sanctification of state, but only of use, and of this use to be sanctified to the believing husband, whereas the holiness and sanctification that is spoken of the children is a holiness of state, and not only a sanctification to the parents use.  
These words in your Margin [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greek Preposition, signifying to, as well as in, as Gal. 1.16. 2 Pet. 1.5. Acts 4.12. 1 Cor. 7.15.] being the Texts I produce in my Latin paper, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] may be translated [to] as well as [by] give me some occasion to think that this Objection is produced in reference to these words in my Latin paper, where arguing against the rendering of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by] as if the faith of the wife were the cause of the sanctifying the unbelieving husband; I say thus: Nemo enim dixerit fidem uxoris sanctificare virum infidelem foederaliter, ita ut baptismi capax sit infidelis maritus propter fidem uxoris (quod tamen pace tantorum virorum dictum sit, tam benè sequitur ex hoc loco, quam filium sanctum esse foederaliter, & baptismi capacem propter fidem parentis●) for no man will say, the faith of the wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband federally, so that the unbelieving husband should be capable of Baptism for the faith of the wife (which yet, with the leave of so great persons be it said, doth as well follow out of this place, as that the son is federally holy, and capable of baptism for the faith of the parent). In which words, when I say, it follows out of this place, my meaning is, so translated and expounded as before; that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by, that is, by the faith of the wife, as the child is holy, it would follow, that the unbelieving husband should be in the Covenant as well as the child, and so be baptised: for the faith of the wife is said to sanctify according to this reading and exposition, the one as well as the other. And so much I conceive you acknowledge, in saying in this Objection, there would be weight if the Apostle had said the unbelieving wife is sanctified and no more. But this only I put in by a parenthesis, as not building the main of the interpretation I gave on it, knowing that Beza renders it [in uxore, in the wife] and then the Objection hath no place. And seeing you do render [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in, or to, and expound the sanctification to the believers use, as all other creatures are. I confess, against you that Objection is not in force, and therefore your answer may be acknoweldged right in this particular. I pass to the second Objection.  
That holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other; which is the force of the Apostles arguing, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, else were not the children holy, but unclean; but federal holiness of children may be where parents are not sanctified, one in, or to the other: as in bastardy. David's child by Bathsheba, Pharez and Zarah Judah's children by Thamar, the Israelites children by the Concubines, Abraham's son Ishmael by Hagar, etc. in which case the children were federally holy, and accordingly were circumcised, and yet the Harlot not sanctified, in, or to the Adulterer, or Fornicator, though a Believer.  
This Objection I own, having first proved that the santification of the unbeliever, is meant of lawful conjugal copulation, only where you say, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, I would say as the Apostle doth, to the wife or husband. Now to this Objection you say, " I answer, but I pray you tell me where you answer it, I find no answer to it here, except it be an answer to an Argument to deny the conclusion. In the Argument you neither show faultiness in the form nor matter, which was the way of answering I learned in the Schools where I was bred. You say, we must attend the Apostles scope: true, but when we are to answer, we must attend to the Objection, and show the weakness of it. You say, which is to show, that the children would be unholy if the faith, or believership of one of the parents, could not remove the bar which lies in the other, being an unbeliever, against the producing of an holy seed, because one of them was a Pagan or unbeliever, therefore the child could not be a holy seed, unless the faith or believership of the other parent could remove this bar.  
You made the scope at first right, to resolve them whether they might lawfully retain their Infidel wives or husbands; but the scope you now give, is but a mere figment, not the Apostles.  
You say, now this can have no place of an argument in any case where one of the parents is not an Infidel.  
I know not what you mean in this passage, unless it be you would answer thus; the Apostles scope is otherwise then the objector takes it, therefore he can make no argument, nor objection, and so I need not make any answer, which is a kind of answering I am not acquainted with.  
You go on: But this was not the case amongst the Jews, Hagar and Thamar, and the concubines, however sinful in those acts, yet themselves were Believers, belonging to the Covenant of God, and that bar lay not against their children, as it did in the unbelieving wife.  
This passage is indeed a grant of the Minor in the objection, that children may be federally holy, where the one parent is not sanctified to the other; and that the Major is true, which rests on this, that the children could not be holy, unless one parent were sanctified to the other, you will not deny it; you do yourself frame the force of the Apostles reason thus; both pag. 19 when you say, were it with them, as when both of them were unbelievers their children would be an unclean progeny: and pag. 21. when you say, the Apostles answer had not been true, because then, if one of the parents had not been sanctified to his unbelieving wife, their children must have been bastards.  
In these and other passages, you acknowledge the force of the Apostles reason, to consist in this: that holiness of the children is here meant, which could not be, unless one of the parents were sanctified to the other; wherefore the conclusion stands good, that the holiness here is not federal holiness.  
But you add, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a wise remedy. Indeed, if a believing man or woman should adulterously beget a child, upon a Pagan or Heathen, or unbeliever, there this objection deserves to be further weighed, but here it comes not within the comp●sse of the Apostles argument. This is just nihil ad rhombum, nothing to the point; as if you had said, I will not answer the objection which is made, but if you make it thus or thus, I will answer it; and thus I have at last gotten your chief hold, which you had best manned, but in the close you quitted it.  
You add as over-measure, certain Reasons:  
1. From God's will, which were enough, if you could prove it.  
2. From God's honour, in which you say, so i● i● with the Lord, he having left all the rest of the world to be visibly the Devil's kingdom, will not for his own glories sake permit the Devil to come and lay visible claim to the sons and daughters begotten by those who are the children of the most High; which speech, if true, well fare Cain and Cham, and Ishmael and Esau, and innumerable others, whom the Devil hath had visible claim to by their works and profession.  
3. For the comfort and duty of these who are in covenant with him. Indeed it were a very great comfort, if you could make it good which you say; but we must be content with that comfort God is pleased to give, and not for our comfort speak that of God which is not true.  
You say, you have been the larger upon those two first conclusions, because indeed, the proving of these gains the whole cause, and so I have been the larger in answering, as conceiving by losing these you lose the cause.  
You say, The most learned of the Anabaptists do profess, that if they knew a child to be holy, they would baptise it. It is likely they that said, or professed so, did declare in what sense, and for what reason they so spoke. But because these are but Rhetorical passages, I leave them, and pass to your third Conclusion, which you ●hus express.  

§. 9 Of the succession of Baptism into the place, room, and use of Circumcision.  THe Lord hath appointed and ordained a Sacrament or Seal of initiation, to be administered unto them, who enter into covenant with him; Circumcision for the time of that administration which was before Christ's incarnation, Ba●tisme since the time of his incarnation.  
Th● conclusion, as you here set it down, may be granted, that the Lord hath appointed and 〈…〉 a Sacrament or Seal of initiation, to be administered to them that enter into covenant with him, circumcision for the time of that administration, which was before Christ's incarnation, Baptism since the time of his incarnation. But this is not all you would have granted; for it would stand you in no stead, and therefore, in stead of it, pag. 33. in the Repetition, you put this conclusion for your third; that our Baptism succeeds in the room and use of their Circumcision; and your meaning is, that it so succeeds, that the command of circumcising Infants should be virtually a command to baptise Infants, as you express yourself, pag. 35. Now this I deny. That which you allege for this is, First, the agreement that is between Cicumcision and Baptism: Secondly, the Text, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. I shall examine both, and consider whether they fit your purpose.  
You confess they differ in the outward Elements, and that is enough to show that the command for the one, is not a command for the other, except the Holy Ghost do so interpret it. But you say, they agree in five or six particulars. The first, that they are both of them the same Sacrament for the spiritual part; which is to be granted, but with its due allowance: For, though Baptism signify in part the same thing that Circumcision did; namely, sanctification by the spirit, justification and salvation by Jesus Christ, and faith in him; yet it is true that there is a vast difference betwixt them, because Circumcision signified these things as to be from Christ to come, and therefore it was a sign of the promise of Christ to come from Isaac; but Baptism signifies these things in the name of Christ already manifested in the flesh, crucified, buried, and risen again. And because Circumcision did signify Christ to come out of Isaac, therefore it did also confirm all the promises that were made to Abraham's natural Posterity, concerning their multiplying, their bringing out of Egypt, their settling in the Land of Canaan, and the yoke of the Law of Moses, which was to be in force till Faith came, that is, till Christ was manifested in the flesh, Gal. 3.19.23, 24, 25. Gal. 5.2, 3.  
The second agreement you make, is that both are appointed to be distinguishing signs betwixt God's people and the Devil's people. This must be also warily understood; for though it be true they are both distinguishing signs, yet not so, but that they may be God's people, who were not circumcised, nor are baptised. God had a people in Jobs and Lots families, who were not circumcised, nor to be circumcised; and there may be a people of God, wh●●re not bapti●ed, as the thief on the cross, the Catechumeni dying a●o●e baptism, many martyrs, and others, that have died without Baptism. And in the signs themselves there is a great difference, both in the acting of them; the one of them was with blood, the other without; the one took away a part of the body, the other not: and after the acting, the one was a permanent sign, the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain.  
The third agreement is, both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church, which may be granted; yet in the solemnity there was a great difference: the one to be done in a private house, by a private person, the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed.  
The fourth agreement is, both of them to be administered but once, which I conceive true thus; to wit, that there is no necessity of administering either of them above once; but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresy, or unlawful in itself to rebaptize, I yet expect. Yet this parity hath its disparity: For Baptism is not restrained to any set day, but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution.  
Your fifth, And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jews, until they were circumcised, nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians, until they be baptised. If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews, I cannot assent unto you: For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight days old, but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travel through the Wilderness, until they cam● to Gilgal, and all the females were members, though they were not to be circumcised. The reason was, because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel; and therefore he would have the servants born in the house, and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abraham's seed, circumcised. And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians, the accounting of them as visible members, it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised, unless you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actual members of the Church, and oppose Whitaker, and others of the Protestant Divines herein.  
The last agreement is, that none but the circumcised might eat of the Pasch●● Lamb, which is true of those that aught to be circumcised, but it ●s not true simply taken: for the females were to eat, though not circumcised. On the other side you say, none may but those who are baptised be admitted to eat the Lords Supper. This you affirm, but you bring no other proof for it, but the Analogy conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover, and Baptism and the Lord● Supper, which can make but a Topick argument, and that à simili, which i● of all other the weakest Place to prove by, proportions are weak probation, saith R●●therfu●d, Due right of Presbyteries, Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'Tis true, we find persons ordinarily upon their fi●st call were baptised, and then after received the Lords Supper; and it is true, that 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13. baptising is put before eating and drinking, and therefore there's is ground enough for ordering it so; yet I make question, whether, if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely, and is not yet baptised, suppose for want of a Minister, or out of scruple, at the way of baptising only allowed, or because the custom is not to baptise but at Easter or Whitsuntide, as it was of old, or the like reason, should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper, and there receive it with love to Christ, whether he should sin, because not baptised, as the Jews should sin, that did eat the Passeover not circumcised: For in the Jews case a command is broken, not here, and so no transgression. If he come without examination of himself, not discerning the Lords body, he sins, he breaks the command, 1 Cor. 11.28. But where is the command that he must be baptised first? And for the same reason, I question, whether a Minister can justify it before God, if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper, because not baptised, for the aforesaid reasons. By this which I have said, you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are, and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptism; and therefore how poor a proof, or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptism, for the making a command to circumcise Infants, a command to baptise Infants, without the Holy Ghost declaring God's mind to be so. All these agreements; y●a, if there were an h●ndr●d more, cannot make it any other than an humane invention, if the Holy Ghost do not show that they agree in this particular. But to make the weakness of this Argument the more apparent, let me parallel the Priests of the Law, with the Ministers of the Gospel, as you do Circumcision with Baptism. As God appointed Aerg●s and his sons to Minister in the time of the Law, so the Ministry of the Gospel now; the Apostle makes the Analogy expressly, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. and far more plainly than the Text you bring for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision, and they agree in many things: As the Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, Mat. 2.7. Deut. 33.10. so must the Bishop be apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3.2. As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them, Heb. 9 so the Minister by preaching, Gal. 3.1. As the Priest was for the people of God, so the Minister of the Gospel: As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast, so the Minister in his heart; as the one was to bless, so the other was to pray for them: As the Priest had a consecration, so the Minister is to have an ordination: As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling; so neither in the other: And many more such agreements might be assigned; will it therefore follow, that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory, is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory, or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod, should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice, as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance; or, that therefore tithes are due to Ministers, jure divino, by divine appointment, as Bishop Carleton, Dr. Sclater, and others, from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aaron's Priesthood would infer: or that ordination may be by the people; because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites, as Mr. Mather in answer to Mr. Herle; or that there must be an imparity in the Clergy, and so Bishops above Presbyters, as the Prelates, Bilson, Daven●nt, D●terminat, Quest. 42. and others were wont to argue; or that a Doctor in Divinity may be a Justice of Peace, because Eli and Samuel were Judges, as the Prelatical Doctors; or that there must be a Pope, because there was an High Priest, as Bellarmine and the Papists. If the consequence be not good in the one, neither is it in the other. You say in the next words, that the Lords Supper succeeds in the room of the Passeover. This, I confess, goes current, but the Scripture doth not say so, that I know. The Scripture expressly saith, that Christ our Passeover was sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5.7. It i● true, the Lords Supper was appointed after the Paschal Supper, but it is but our collection, that thereby the Lord would make an end of the Passeover, and substitute the other in its room. In other places we rather find the Lords Supper to answer the Manna, and the Rock, or water out of the Rock in the Wilderness, 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. It is true, the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. argues from the eating of the sacrifices to the eating of the Lords Supper. But that was not only from the Passeover, but from the rest of the peace-offerings as well as it; yea, from the Heathens feasts upon their sacrifices. It is true, 1 Cor. 5.8. we are required to keep the feast, and the allusion is to the Paschal Supper; but whether the keeping the feast be meant of the Lords Supper, or as Beza paraphraseth it, totam vitam in justitia & integritate consumamus, let us spend our whole life in justice and integrity, or something else, sub judice lis est, is a controversy undetermined. But let it be granted, that the Lords Supper imitates (I will not say succeeds into the room of the Jewish Passeover, for that was a sacrifice, and Christ offered, is only in stead of it) the Paschal Supper, which because of the time, and the form of words used in the institution, and such like circumstances, is very probable, and therefore there is great Analogy between them; yet he that should argue, therefore we must receive the Lords Supper with unleavened bread, as the Papists; or that the bread and wine must be first consecrated on an Altar, as was the Paschal Lamb; or that the Lords Supper is not to be administered but in a Church, gathered after the Churchway, as the Elders of New-England, in answer to the nine Positions; or that we must keep an Easter, and then have the Lords Supper, as in ancient and later times hath been conceived, you would reject these things as ill gathered, and perhaps call them superstitious. But whether these, and more like to them, do not as well follow, as baptising of Infants, from circumcision of Infants, because of their Analogy, I leave to yourself to consider. You add, And this our Lord himself taught us by his own example, who was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews, and when he set up the new Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism.  
It is confessed, that Christ was circumcised and baptised, but that it was to teach us by his example, either your conclusion, or the agreements between Baptism and Circumcision which you set down, or that which next goes before your speech, the succession of the Lords Supper to the Passeover, remains yet to be proved, much more that which you drive at, that there is such a parity, or rather identity between Baptism and Circumcision, that the command to circumcise Infants, is a command to baptise Infants. The circumcision of Christ was undoubtedly as his presenting in the Temple, and the offering for him to accomplish the Law, under which it pleased him to be made of a woman, Gal. 4.4, 5. and it had a spiritual use to assure our circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, Col. 2.11. This is certain, we have clear Scripture for it; if you shall show the like Scriptures for the inferences you make from Christ's circumcision, I shall embrace them with both arms. The Baptism of Christ was that Christ might fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3.15. But how to expound this speech, hath not a little difficulty. Various conjectures there are about the meaning of it: this seems to me most likely, that righteousness is there taken for that which was appointed by God, either in secret instructions, or some particular Prophecy from God. But then if it be asked why God did appoint it, this seems most likely, sith it is plain that this was the time of Christ's anointing with the Spirit, as appears, Luke 4.18. that Baptism was used to signify his anointing by the Spirit for his great function he was then to enter on, which me thinks, the story itself, and the speech of Peter, Acts 10.37, 38. do evince. That which you say, That being to set up the new Christian Church, he would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism, seems not probable; partly, because Christ did not set up in his own days on earth a visible Church, Discipline and Worship distinct from the Jewish; partly, because his Baptism was of a far higher nature than our Baptism, Who was anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows, Heb. 1.9. and therefore his Baptism was of a transcendent nature above ours. But if it were granted that Christ's Baptism were to teach us, that he that is a member of the Church, must be initiated by baptism, it will rather disadvantage your cause then advantage it, sith Christ, who was the holy One of God, and the Angel of the Covenant, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, to whom the promises were made, in whom the Covenant was confirmed, Gal. 3.16, 17. yet was not baptised, till he began to be about thirty years of age, Luke 3.23. So that you see how little help you have from your parities, or Christ's example to prove a like reason of circumcising and baptising Infants. But you have yet another string to your bow, out of Col. 2.11, 12. I will follow you to try the strength of that also.  
You say, of this conclusion, there i● no great doubt▪ but because some of the Anabaptists do deny the Sacrament of Baptism to succeed into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, be pleased to observe how plain the Apostle makes it, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12.  
It is necessary that I should first consider in what sense your Position is to be taken, before I examine your proof for it. The thing that you say the Apostle makes plain, is that the Sacrament of Baptism doth succeed in the room, place, and use of Circumcision: Succession properly notes a coming after another, as we say, Kings succeed one another, High priests one after another. To speak exactly, Baptism (I do not say the Sacrament of Baptism) was a concomitant of Circumcision, if not ancienter; For it is well known, that Baptism was in use among the Jews, in the initiating of Proselytes for many years together with circumcision, as may be seen in Selden, de jure naturali, & gentium juxta discipl. Heb. lib. 2. cap. 2, 3, 4. Ainsworth Annot. on Gen. 17. There is much of this in many Authors beside. But I suppose you cannot be ignorant of what Mr. Lightfoot hath in his Sermon, entitled Elias Redivivus, pag. 11. where he makes it as ancient as Jacob. Gratius Annot. in Mat. 3.6. hath these words: Cum verò peregrini abluti & non circumcisi solis legibus tenerentur, quos Deus toti hominum generi dederat, intellectu facile est ablutionem hanc fuisse inter vetera instituta orta, ut arbitror, post magnum diluvium in memoriam purgati mundi: unde illud celebre apud Graecos, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, certe baptismum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse diluvio etiam in Petri Epistola legimus. But it may be the Sacrament of Baptism came after; neither is that in exactness of speech true, sith Circumcision was a great while in force after John began to baptise, which you will not deny to be the same Sacrament with ours. But let it be granted it succeeds, that is, comes after Circumcision, sith it continues now circumcision is taken away, yet the sense in which you can rightly make it succeed into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, will be brought into a narrow room, too straight to settle Baptism of Infants in it.  
Room and place are properly either the same, or differ only as locus communis & proprius, common place and proper; so Baptism, which is an action, hath no place or room properly. If you mean by the room and place, the subjects to be baptised, or baptising, it is not true, except in part; some of the baptised and baptizers only were circumcised, and to be circumcised; some that were not to be circumcised, as women, were to be baptised. If you mean by the room and place the society into which both persons were to be initiated, it is not true: For by the Sacrament of Baptism, persons were to be baptised into the Christian Church, by Circumcision into the Jewish, as your own Conclusion saith. If you mean it of the commandment upon which both are seated, neither is that true: the commandment of Circumcision was many age● before Baptism was instituted as a Sacrament. And for the succession into the use of Circumcision, that is yet more untrue. Yourself say a few lines after. The use of Circumcision engaged men to the use of the rest of the Jewish Ceremonies. And page 29. It is true indeed, that circumcision bound them who received it, to conf●rm to that manner of administration of the Covenant, etc. And if you had not confessed it, it might have been proved out of Gal. 5.2, 3. Acts 15.10. from the custom in circumcising Proselytes, to bind them to the Laws, not only common to all the Noachidae, but also to all the Laws of the Jews, as Selden, ubi supra, Ainsworth on Gen. 17. But I hope you will not dare to say, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in this use, if it do, then are we still bound to keep the Law of Moses. Another use of Circumcision, was to signify Christ to come out of Abraham's family, I think you will not deny it; if you should, I might plead against you, Col. 2.17. Gal. 3.23, etc. the institution of it to be in the males only of Abraham's family, by whom the Genealogy was to be reckoned, in the member for generation, the expressions of the Covenant confirmed by it, and the consent of innumerable learned men, both of the Jews and Christians: And I think you will not say, Baptism succeeds into this use of Circumcision: Another use of it was to be a partition wall between the Jews and Gentiles, to distinguish and divide them, whence the one were counted unclean, as uncircumcised, the other clean, Eph. 2.11.14. but you will not say, that Baptism succeeds into this use, sith the use of Baptism is to the contra●y, Gal. 3.26, 27, 28. and surely these were the main uses of it. But you will say, there was use of circumcision for initiation into the Church of the Jews, and so of Baptism. But then, though Baptism do initiate as Circumcision, yet not into the same Church: For Circumcision did not initiate into any Church, but into the Church of the Jews, or rather into the family of Abraham; but so doth not Baptism. If it be said, that the one confirms the Covenant, and so doth the other; still I answer, that Baptism doth not confirm the same Covenant in every part that circumcision did: For the Covenant was a mixed Covenant, a great part whereof Baptism doth not confirm. This is all that can be said, that they agree in that, as circumcision did confirm the spiritual part of the Covenant, to wit, righteousness by faith, Rom. 4.11. and signified holiness of heart; so doth also Baptism, the like whereof did the Cloud, Sea, Manna, the water out of the Rock, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. the Deluge or Ark, 1 Pet. 3.21. the sprinkling of the blood of the Sacrifices; and the same are confirmed by the Lord's Supper; and why then should we not say, that Baptism succeeds the flood, sprinkling of blood, as well as Circumcision; and that the Lords Supper succeeds Circumcision as well as Baptism? Wherefore I conceive your Proposition so generally delivered, That the Sacrament of Baptism succeeds into the room, place, and use of Circumcision, erroneous and very dangerous. But how ever you think, the thing is plainly delivered, Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. let us examine that Text then.  
You say thus: Where the Apostles scope is to dissuade the believing Christians from the rudiments of the world, and Jewish ceremonies and observations upon this ground, that we are complete in Christ, and that in him, as in the head, the Church hath all perfections. All this is very right, and the thing very well expressed by Beza, Addendum fuit istud ut non tantum sibi, & in sese, said in nostrum etiam usum statuatur Christus esse talis & tantus, ut nihil in ipso desideretur, & in eo uno omnia nanciscamur ad veram, & salvificam Dei notitiam requisita: Co●plementum igitur in Christo adeptis quorsum vel humana sapientia, vel vanis hominum commentis, vel ceremoniis, ullo denique extra Christum ascito sit opus? Annot. in Col. 2.10. where mark that Beza rightly makes us so complete in Christ, that there is no need of any thing added out of Christ in stead of those ceremonies. You go on; and because he would take them wholly off from Circumcision, the use whereof engaged them to the use of the rest of Jewish ceremonies; he tells them that in Christ we are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, a better circumcision than the Jews was, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ. You say rightly: First, that the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision, therefore not teach them that they had another Ordinance in stead of it, by virtue of that command: Secondly, That the use of circumcision, engaged them to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies, and therefore that Baptism succeeds not in the use of Circumcision: Thirdly, In Christ we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, a better circumcision than the Jews was, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, and therefore we have circumcision not in another Ordinance, but in Christ and his circumcision. You go on; and whereas the Jewish teachers would be ready to object, that the receiving of the inward grace of circumcision, did not make them so complete as Abraham, and his seed was, because they also had an outward sensible sign whereby they might be further persuaded, comforted and confirmed. This is but a conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to object, or the Apostle intended to answer such an objection. The intent of the Apostle is to declare in what way and manner, and by what means they became complete in Christ, to wit, Baptism and Faith, whereby they had communion with Christ, and so were complete in him. But you say, To this he answers, vers. 12. that neither is this privilege wanting to Christians who have as excellent and express a Sacrament of it, being buried with Christ in Baptism; the effect whereof he there sets down, and therefore they needed not circumcision as their false teachers insinuated, thereby directly teaching that our Baptism is in stead of their circumcision. It is true, the Apostle teacheth them that they needed not circumcision, but not because they had Baptism in lieu of it, but because all was in Christ now, who hath abolished all these rites, or taken them away quite, vers. 14. as being but shadows of good things to come, and the body is of Christ, vers. 17. in whom, and in that which befell him all was accomplished. And Aretius therefore in his Comment on Colos. 2. saith rightly in this; not a rem ipsam vindicari sanctis sine externo symbolo; quod tamen indesinenter urgebant advers●rii; s●c Rom. 2.29. & Phil. 3.3. Atque hoc beneficium in Christo habemus: est igitur perfectum organum salutis, note that the thing itself is asserted to the Saints without an outward symbol, which yet the adversaries incessantly urged: so Rom. 2.29. and Phil. 3.3. and this benefit we have in Christ, he is therefore a perfect organ of salvation; so that it is utterly against the Apostles scope and whole argument to say, that therefore they needed not circumcision, because they had another Ordinance in the room of it. For the Apostles intent is plain, to show, that Christ is in stead of Circumcision, and all the rest of the Jewish ceremonies. and the truth is by this doctrine, that Baptism is in stead of Circumcision, the Apostles argument for the disannulling the Jewish ceremonies, both here, and Hebr. 9 & 10.1. & 13. in the Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 3. & 4. and Ephes. 2. is quite evacuated, who still useth this argument to prove the abolition of the ceremonies of the Law, because they have their compliment in Christ, not in some new Ordinance added in stead of them; for if there be need of other Ordinances (besides Christ) in stead of the old, than Christ hath not in himself fullness enough to supply the want of them, and this abolition is not because of Christ's fullness, but other Ordinances that come in stead of the abolished. And indeed, Baptism and the Lords Supper, though they be Ordinances of Christ that may imitate or resemble the Ordinances of the Jews, yet it cannot be said they succeed into the room, place, or use of them: For Christ only, and that which he did, doth so succeed: So that if things be well weighed, this Text is against your Position, not for it, and so your Ordinance is turned against you. You go on; And the Analogy lies between two sacramental types of the same substance [regeneration] to both Jews and Gentiles. I deny not but that there is Analogy between Circumcision and Baptism, and so there is between the Deluge and Noah's Ark, or deliverance from the Deluge and Baptism, 1 Pet. 3.21. they do resemble each other in some things. But we are not to conclude thence, that Baptism succeeds into the room, place, and use of Noah's Ark, or that therefore we are to baptise married persons only, because in Noah's Ark only married persons were saved: For in the administration of an Ordinance, we are not to be ruled by bare Analogy, either framed by us, or delivered by the Spirit of God, but the institution of God. But the truth is, in this place, Col. 2.11, 12. the Apostle rather resembles burial to circumcision, than baptism, and so makes the Analogy not between Circumcision and Baptism, but circumcision and Christ's burial. And so chrysostom on the place, and after him Theophylact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and what he calls circumcision, he again calls burial. You proceed thus: And in truth, had not baptism come in the room of it, the Apostle could not have pitched upon a worse instance than Circumcision, which was so much valued by them, and was so great and useful a privilege to them. It is true, circumcision was a great and useful privilege to them, in that estate they were before Christ's incarnation, in comparison of Heathens, who had not a Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, yet absolutely it was a burden and heavy yoke, Act. 15.10.28. and it would be a burden, not a privilege, for us to have an Ordinance in the room, place, and use of it, now Christ is come, in whom we are complete. And it is true, the Apostle pitched on circumcision, vers. 11. because the Jews much valued it, but not to show, as you say, that Baptism is in the room, pl●ce, and use of it, but to show, that in Christ we have circumcision, and are complete in him. You close up this conclusion thus: Nor had there been any reason to have here named Baptism, but that he meant to show Baptism to Christians was now in the room of circumcision to the Jews.  
This is said with more confidence, than truth: For another reason is plain from the context; that therefore Baptism is named, because it is one of the means by which Christians come to have communion with Christ, and to be complete in him, which was the thing the Apostle intended in the 12th verse, and therefore he joins faith with Baptism, they being the two special means whereby we come to have communion with Christ, and to be complete in him. And this is further confirmed by comparing this with other Scriptures: Gal. 3.25, 26, 27. the Apostle speaks thus: But after faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster, meaning Circumcision, etc. For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ; which Text is apparently answerable to Col. 2.8, 9, 10, 11, 12. And again, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Know you not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? therefore are we buried with him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life: For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. In which places you may easily perceive, that by putting on Christ, we come to be exempted from the Schoolmaster, that is, the Law, and so from Circumcision; that being planted into Christ, we walk in newness of life, that is, as Rom. 7.6. that now we are delivered from the Law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter; and that the means hereof, is by Baptism by which we put on Christ, and are baptised into his death, and by faith, whereby we are no longer children under age, but sons come to their inheritance. Thus have I at last, waded through your third Conclusion, and the Text, Col. 2.11, 12. the misunderstanding of which hath been the ignis fatuus, foolish fire, which hath led men out of the way in this matter into bogs.  

§. 10. Of the notion under which, & the reasons for which persons were circumcised, showing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace.  YOur fourth Conclusion follows; That by Gods own express order, Infants as well as grown men were in the time of the Jews to be initiated and sealed with the sign of Circumcision, whether Jews by nature, or Proselytes of the Gentiles, one Law was for them all; if they receive th● Covenant, they and their children were circumcised.  
It is true, this was Gods express order, and it is as certain that this express order of God is now revoked, or repealed, Acts 15.10.20.26. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. as belonging to that administration, which was before Christ came. That which you add of the females virtual circumcision in the males, hath been examined before. I pass on to that which follows: And whereas some, who see which way the strength of this Conclusion tendeth, do allege, that though Circumcision was to be applied to their Infants, yet it was not as a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant of Grace, but as a national badge, a seal of some temporal and earthly blessings and privileges, as of their right to the Land of Canaan, etc. And that Ishmael, though he was circumcised for some temporal respects, yet he was not thereby brought under the Covenant of Grace, which was expressly said to be made with Abraham, in relation to Isaac and his seed.  
They that thus object, speak that which is truth, only whereas you make the objectors say, That it was not a seal of the spiritual part of the covenant of Grace, I would say, to all that were circumcised; and when you say, but as a national badge, etc. that Ishmael was circumcised for some temporal respects, I would leave out those words, and say, because God commanded it. Thus did I express myself in my Latin paper, affirming, that not right to evangelical promises, I now add, nor right to any other benefit by the Covenant made with Abraham, was the proper and adequate reason, why these, or those were circumcised, but God's Precept: For as much as persons were to be circumcised, who had no right, either to the evangelical promises, or any other in that Covenant which was confirmed by circumcision; and I named Ishmael, concerning whom, though God heard Abraham in giving him some blessing upon Abraham's prayer, when he understood the promise was not intended for Ishmael, but to Isaac, Gen. 17.19, 20. yet he expressly added his determination to hold, vers. 21. that he would establish his Covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael: and on the other side, all the females in the Covenant were uncircumcised, though some of them had right to all the promises in the Covenant; and the Text expressly makes the reason of what Abraham did to be God's appointment, v. 23. and no other. Wherefore those that say, that Circumcision did not seal the spiritual part of the Covenant of Grace to all, and that Ishmael was not by circumcision brought under the Covenant of Grace, say no more, than what the Apostle saith, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. and yourself, pag. 13. where you say, only true believers are made partakers of the spiritual part of the Covenant. Now the end of this objection, is to prove that it follows not, because a person was appointed to be circumcised, therefore he was within the Covenant of Grace, or that because persons were within the Covenant of Grace, therefore they were to be circumcised. Let us now see what you answer to this. You say, I answer there is nothing plainer, then that the Covenant, whereof Circumcision was a sign, was the Covenant of Grace.  
It is granted, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. was the Covenant of Grace, though not a pure Covenant, but a mixed covenant. But what then? Doth it follow, that every one that was circumcised, was in the Covenant of Grace? It is true, the sacrifices did confirm the Covenant in Christ's blood; but it doth not follow, that all that did offer sacrifices were partakers of the Covenant. The like may be said of Baptism, the Lords Supper, Manna, etc. which they that did partake of, yet were not all of them in the Covenant, as the Apostle shows, 1 Cor. 10.5. Heb. 3.18, 19 It is one thing to be under the outward administration, another thing to be in the covenant of Grace. This is proper only to elect persons, the other is common to Elect and Reprobate, and depends merely on God's appointment without any other consideration. You go on, Abraham received circumcision, a sign of the righteousness of Faith: Very true, and the Apostle expoundeth this, when he saith, which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, Rom. 4.11. So that the Apostle makes Circumcision a seal of righteousness, but not to all, or only circumcised persons, but to all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles; so that according to the Apostles doctrine, Circumcision, in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousness of faith, which he had, being yet uncircumcised, i● a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousness of faith, though they be never circumcised. So that it is so far from being true, that persons have the promise, therefore they must have the seal in their persons; that it follows, persons have the promise, therefore they have the seal in Abraham, though they never are, nor may be sealed in their own persons. You go on, and the Jews received it not as a Nation, but as a Church, as a people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God. If you take [as] with reduplication, it is true, that neither the Jews received circumcision as a Nation, for then every nation should receive it, nor as a Church or people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God, for then every Church or people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God should receive circumcision, which is false, but they received it as appointed them from God, under this formal reason, and no other. But what is all this to the answering the objection, That it was not the seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant of Grace to all circumcised persons, and that circumcision was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of Grace, and that the reason why persons were circumcised, was not because they were under the covenant of Grace, but only God's appointment? But you yet add, It is true indeed that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporal blessings and punishments, they being types of spiritual things. It is right which you grant, that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant, but than it is to be considered, that circumcision was a part of this administration; and that though temporal blessings, as of the land of Canaan, and rest in it, were shadows of the rest of God's people, and so in a sort of administrations of the covenant of Grace, yet they were also part of the things promised in the covenant made to Abraham; and when you say, circumcision bound them who received it, to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried much by a way of temporal blessings and punishments; it is hard to show in what sense they were bound to conform to temporal blessings and punishments: they were bound to conform to the sacrifices and offerings, and washings, etc. For these were their acts to be done by them, but how they were bound to conform to the administration by temporal blessings and punishments, it is hard to understand, sith they were God's acts, not theirs. You add, but no man can ever show, that any were to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision, in relation to those outward things only, or to them at all, further than they were administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The truth is, no man was to receive the Sacrament of Circumcision in relation to these outward things only, or to them at all, either as they were temporal blessings or types of spiritual things, and so, as you speak, administrations of the covenant of Grace, but in this respect only, and for this reason, and no other, because God had so commanded; though I deny not circumcised persons were by faith to look on the covenant of Grace through these administrations, yet the reason of being circumcised was barely Gods command; so that if you abstract God's command, notwithstanding the covenant, or any other administration of it, they were not to be circumcised: You go on: Sure I am, the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporal blessings of the land of Canaan, as they were temporal, because notwithstanding their circumcision, they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in the land, sojourn they might as other strangers also did, but the inheritance of the land, no not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the several Tribes to whom it was distributed, as their Possession by the most High: For all the land was divided into twelve Tribes, and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands, longer than till the year of Jubilee, Leu. 25. v. 3. etc. Yea, I m●y boldly s●y, that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land, that it occasioned and tied them to a greater expense of their temporal blessings, by their long and frequent and chargeable journeys to worship at Jerusalem: This which you say may be granted, and the thing which you would prove by it, That they which received circumcision, did not receive it in relation only to these outward things, yet this overthrows not this Proposition, That the covenant made with Abraham had promises of temporal blessings, and that some were to be circumcised, who had no part in the covenant of Grace. You add: And as for what was alleged concerning Ishmael, the Answer is easy; God indeed there declares, that Isaac should be the Type of Christ, and that the covenant of Grace should be established, and continue in his family, yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abraham's family were really taken into covenant until afterwards by apostasy they discovenanted themselves, as also did Esau afterwards, though he were the son of Isaac, in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue. When you say, that Ishmael was really taken into the covenant, meaning, of Grace, mentioned in a few words before, you oppose both the Apostle, Rom. 9.7, 8. Gal. 4.28, 29. as I have showed before, and Gods own speech, Gen. 17.19, 20. To which I may add, that Isaac and Jacob only are said to be coheirs with Abraham of the same promise, Heb. 11.9. And when you say, that he and Esau were discovenanted by apostasy: you plainly deliver apostasy from the covenant of Grace, which I will not call in you Arminianism, but in others it would, and that justly be so censured. But you will say, you mean that Ishmael and Esau were Abraham's seed by profession, and outward cleaving to the covenant, as you speak, pag. 14. But this is not to be taken into the covenant of Grace really, as you speak; for taking really into the covenant of Grace, is God's act, either of election▪ or promise, or some act executing either of these; but profession and outward cleaving to the covenant is man's act; and therefore, how to salve your speech I know not. As for the objection, I see not that you have answered it, but that still it stands good, that persons were to be circumcised, who were not in the covenant of Grace, that Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised, though it were declared God's covenant did not belong to him; and therefore the reason of circumcising persons, was not the covenant of Grace, but only the will and command of God to have it so. Your fifth Conclusion follows.  

§. 11. Of the privileges of Believers under the Gospel, and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a privilege of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had.  FIfthly, and lastly, the privileges of Believers under this last and best administration of the covenant of Grace, are many ways enlarged, made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration.  
This Conclusion, with its Explication and Application, have all their vigour in ambiguity of speech; as the strength of the Coney is in its burrow; which, that I may uncover, I must distinctly declare, what is to be held in this matter, and then examine what you say. Privilege is a Law term, the Etymology is, Privilegium quasi priva lex, quia veteres priva dixerunt, quae nos singula dicimus: Privilege, as it were a private law, because the ancients called those things private, which we call singular, Gel. noct. Attic. lib. 10. cap. 20. Joh. Calvinus Wet. in his Lexicon Juridicum voce privilegium. Privilegium alii sic definiunt, jus singular in certae personae gratiam favoremve, others so define a privilege, a singular right in favour of a certain person; so that a privilege is a particular law, whereby some persons have benefit different from common right. Calvin ibid. Item beneficium dicitur privilegium quia benè facit iis quibus conceditur contra legem communem, likewise a privilege is called a benefit, because it benefits those to whom it is granted, against the common law. If it do not benefit, it is not a privilege; Privileges therefore may be privileges at one time, which are not at another time: and in comparison of some which are not privileges in comparison of others. To have Christ personally present with the Disciples, was a privilege for the time, but it was a privilege that he was absent, when he went to heaven, and sent his Spirit to them: The Laws delivered to the Jews were privileges in comparison of the Heathen, but not in comparison of Christians. Privileges of the covenant of Grace may be conceived, either in respect of the substance of the covenant of Grace, or the administration. Now, when you speak of privileges of the covenant of Grace, some passages s●em to mean it in respect of the promises of grace in Christ, as when you say, Our covenant is established upon better promises, we as well as they are called a holy nation, etc. not only in the clearness of the administration, but also, etc. And those especially which you have when you say, pag. 31. We are enquiring for privileges, which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man that is in covenant with God, may expect from God, by virtue of the Covenant, which cannot be understood but of the promises. Now the promises of the covenant of Grace, are of the substance of the covenant, not of the administration: But other passages refer to the administration. That yoke, that hard and costly way of administration, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, is taken off from our shoulders, the glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours, they were under the bondage of Infants under age, in comparison of our freedom; which things belong to the administration, pag. 10.12. Now, if you mean your conclusion of privileges of the substance of the covenant of Grace, it is to be denied: For so the privileges of believers are not now enlarged many ways, or made more honourable or comfortable. Yourself, pag. 9.10.12. say, they are the same to both Jews and Gentiles: but in respect of the administration, it is granted they are many ways enlarged, made more honourable; and in this sense, I grant it, that many Scriptures speak of the enlargement of our privileges, and particularly, those that speak of the removing the hard yoke, Acts 15.10. and bringing us into liberty to full age, Gal. 4.1. and greater glory, 2 Cor. 3.10. And it is true that those things were privileges to the Israelites, but it is a benefit to us, that we are freed from them, and so no privilege for us, either to have them or any other thing in lieu of them, but Christ already come, who is in stead of all. Now the thing that you drive at, is this: that whereas you conceive that you have proved before, that the Infants of those that are in the covenant of Grace, are covenanters with their parents; that Baptism succeeds in the room and use of their circumcision, that by God's express order, Infants were to be circumcised. You lastly conclude, that our privileges for ourselves and children, are at least as honourable, large and comfortable, as theirs, and therefore our Infants are to be baptised. The answer to it is this: It is true, our privilege is the same with theirs in respect of the substance of the covenant, but neither was that made to the Jews natural posterity as such, nor is it made to ours. As for Circumcision, it was indeed a privilege, but belonging to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant which is in variable, a privilege to the Jews in comparison of the Heathens, but a burden in comparison of us; and it is so far from being a privilege to our children, that they should have either it or any other thing in the place and use of it, but Christ manifested in the flesh, that the truth is, it is a great privilege to us and our children, that they have neither it, nor any other thing in the stead of it but Christ manifested in the flesh: And so parents lose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants in the place & use of circumcision; but it is indeed, if rightly considered, a benefit to them to want it, God not appointing it, nor making a promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers. Having premised this, I shall examine the proofs of your conclusion, and see whether they make any thing against that which I have delivered. The thing you should prove, is one of these two: either that circumcision did belong to the substance of the covenant of Grace, or, that the want of Circumcision, or some Ordinance in the place and use of it, is a loss of privilege of the covenant of Grace to us and our children. That which you allege is this: Many Scriptures speak of the enlargement of their privileges, not one for the diminishing or depressing or extenuating of them; that yoke, that hard and costly way of administration, which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear, is taken off from our shoulders. True, and by this, you yield that it may be an enlargement of privilege to have somewhat removed that was a privilege formerly. The Scripture to which you allude, is that, Acts 15.10. Now I pray you, what was this yoke, but circumcision, as yourself declare, pag. 39 and all the legal ceremonies which were great privileges to the Jews; but yet to us it is a privilege that we are freed from them, and if it be a privilege to be fre● from circumcision, it is a privilege to be freed from any ordinance in the room, place, and use of it. Lastly, in that Circumcision is taken off from our necks, it appears, that it belongs not to the covenant of Grace, which is invariable, and belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jews, according to your conclusion. The next Scripture you bring, is Heb. 8.6. where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises. If this Scripture serve to your purpose, than the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had: but this I know you will deny, who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles. But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place, I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrews speaks there, that it had not so good promises; Is it not expressly said to be that which God made, when he took the Israelites by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, vers. 9 Now, although Dr. Crisp, vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aaron's Priesthood a covenant of Grace, though of less grace; yet you say thus, pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty years after the Law was added, with great terror upon Mount Sinai, not as a part of this covenant; and after, plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise, etc. So that you do grant there was a rehearsal of the covenant of works; though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace. The truth is, the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works, Rom. 10.5. Gal. 3.10.12. Gal. 4.24. Heb. 12.18. though I deny not that which you say, that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ, and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens, a subservient covenant, as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foed●re. But this being so, to what purpose do you tell us, that our covenant is established upon better promises; as if the Jews covenant were no better than that on Mount Sinai, or as if the comparison concerning privileges were between the covenant of Grace now, and the covenant of Works then; whereas the question is, as you say, page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace, and a little after, but were no part of the covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham and his seed. Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham, Gal. 3.15, etc. as yourself allege, pag. 10. and you say there, that covenant was for substance always the same, and the substance as you recite it, is the promises and the condition; so that out of your own words it is clear, that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now, than they had then, only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better than it was to them; than it was mixed with other particular promises, which because they are not common to all believers in the covenant of grace, therefore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken, such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt, settling in Canaan, etc. For though it is true, that godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, yet the promise of the life that now is, is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed, or the coming of Christ out of our posterity, as it was then, but only a general promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution, Mark. 10.30. Then it was with expectation of Christ to come, now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh, and accomplishing what was foretold of him; then Christ was shadowed in dark types, now we see him unveiled in a plain history. So that though it be true that the privileges of believers are now many ways enlarged in some respects, yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not enlarged in respect of the substance of it, the promises of Grace and the condition, they are still belonging to the Elect and believers, and to no other. The next Scripture you thus express. The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours; for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10. But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which is called the letter, ver. 6. The ministration of death written and engraven in stones so glorious, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, ver. 7. The ministration of condemnation, ver. 9 Which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of Grace, and therefore it is impertinently alleged. Your next is, they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedom. For this you allege, Gal. 4.1. etc. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies, called the rudiments of the world, ver. 3. Concerning which it is confessed our privileges are enlarged: but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by virtue of the Covenant. You go on, We as well as they are called a holy Nation, a peculiar people, a chosen Generation, separated to him from all other people: It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation, etc. doth it therefore follow, that the privileges of believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many ways enlarged? You allude to that place, 1 Pet. 2.9. and Mr Blake, pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright privilege of Christians, equal to the Nations of the Jews. But it is answered, this passage is meant of the invisible Church, the living & lively members of Christ. To which he saith. The contrary to this in the Text is clear. First, by looking back to the words that there precede: It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jews reject Christ. I have looked back and find no such thing there. It is true, there is mention of some who did reject Christ, ver. 7, 8. But that when Peter says, ye are a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, etc. it should be meant of any other then true believers, who alone can offer spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, is an interpretation which I disclaim, much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jews reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said, not only of Simon Magus, and other hypocrites, but also of all the savages in the world that never heard of Christ, that they are a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praise of him, who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light. Mr Blake adds, Which will yet more fully appear by comparing the words of S t Paul, Rom. 9.32, 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise, and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines, and others commendation of it. To me the Text he citys Rom. 9.32, 33. compared with 1 Pet. 2.9. do as well agree to prove that 1 Pet. 2.9. is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jews reject Christ, as a harp and a harrow do consort to make music. But perhaps we may see more by looking forward. Secondly, saith Mr Blake, by looking forward to that which follows in the character which the Apostle (before he ends his description) adds: which in times past were not a people, but now are the people of God. A speech taken from the Prophet to set forth the case of the Gentiles, as it is also by S t Paul interpreted, Rom. 9.26. but the Gentiles thus called, and of no people made a people, have all a Covenant-holiness, and not always inherent holiness. Sure the word nation and people, did so run in Mr Blakes mind, that he could think of nothing but a national Church like the Jews; whereas if he had weighed the words, ver. 10. of having obtained mercy, and considered that both Rom. 9.25. & 26. are meant of the same, of whom he said ver. 23. that they were the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, he would have plainly perceived the people and nation to be meant of the invisible Church of the Elect, and so nothing in that Text for the holiness of a believing Nation, as some speak, communicating a privilege of the seals to the infants of that Nation: which how absurd a conceit it is, may be showed perhaps more fully in that which follows. You add to whom as well as to them belongs the adoption, the Covenant, the promises. You allude doubtless to Rom. 9.4. but had you alleged the whole Text, ver. 3, 4, 5. you would then have seen that it speaks of peculiar privileges of the Jews, to whom the adoption, Covenants, that is, as Beza thinks, the tables of the Covenant, the promises of their multiplying, having the Messiah from them, etc. were peculiar in the sense the Apostle there speaks: And so Mr Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries, Chap. 4. sect. 5. pag. 192. That they had prerogatives above us is clear, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. Rom. 9.4. and that in other respects far more excellent we have prerogatives above them it is as clear, 2 Cor. 3.7, 8, 9 Mat. 13.16, 17. So that even in respect of the Covenant made with Abraham it is plain the Jews had some privileges above us, and therefore this place proves the contrary to your conclusion, and that the want of some privileges they had, may be recompensed by some other privileges we have: And therefore you may see how feeble a reason this is from the Jewish privilege of infant-males circumcision to prove infant-Baptisme. But to follow you in your way. You say, we as well as they enjoy him to be our Father, and with his dearest Son our Lord are made coheirs of the Kingdom of Glory. All this is granted, but to what purpose it is produced I see not. You add, we have all these things with advantage, not only in the clearness of the administration, but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us; there is neither male nor female. This is true also, we have the substance of the Covenant of Grace, that is, justification, etc. with advantage not only in the clearness of administration, but in some sense in greater extent to persons with us. For now not only the small Nation of the Jews, but also of all Nations, believers are brought into the Covenant of Grace. But this proves not your conclusion, or any of those things that may serve for your purpose. You add. And there is neither male nor female. Why you add this I know not, except you mean to insinuate, that in the Jewish Church there was male and female, because Circumcision was only of Males. But neither doth the Apostle, Gal. 3.28. intimate, that we are better than the Jews, as if their females were not within the Covenant of Grace, nor will you say it. Now that which you were speaking of, was the substance of the Covenant of Grace, that we are made coheirs of the Kingdom of Glory, etc. not of the administration of it, and so there was no more distinction of male and female with the Jews then with us, nor more privileges of ours then of the Jews in this particular. Thus have I examined all the proofs you bring for your fifth Conclusion, and thereby you may perceive how you have heaped together many places of Scripture, without any useful order or distinction or pertinency to the thing in hand. You bring in next an objection thus; Some indeed go about to show, that in some things the Jews had greater privileges than we have, as that Abraham had the privilege to be called the Father of the Faithful, that Christ should be borne of his flesh; Mary had the privilege to be the Mother of Christ, and the whole Nation this privilege, that God will call in their seed again, after they had been cast off for unbelief many hundred years; which privileges, say they, none of the Gentiles have or can have.  
It is true, that in answer to the argument from Circumcision, as it is popularly framed (which yet I perceive many that either are or should be scholars to examine things more scholastically, do or pretend to satisfy their consciences with) thus; If the children of believers be not to be baptised, than we have less privilege than the Jews; then the Grace of God under the new Testament, is straitened more than in the old. To this argument as being an argument of no weight, but only among vulgar and non-syllogizing capacities, among other things I said thus in my Latin paper above mentioned, Nec absurdum est dicere respectu aliquorum privilegiorum gratiam Dei contractiorem in novo Testamento, quam in veteri, v. gr. Nulla familia habet privilegium quod Abrahami familiae concessum est, ut ex ea nasceretur Christus, nullus vir praeter Abrahamum pater fidelium, nulla faemina praeter unicam mater Christi, etc. Yet it is not absurd to say, that in respect of some privileges the grace of God is more contracted in the new Testament, then in the old: For instance; no family hath now the privilege that was granted to Abraham's family, that out of it Christ should be borne: no man besides Abraham is called the Father of the faithful; no woman besides one, the mother of Christ. By which I would show, that it is no absurdity to grant that the Jews may have more privileges secundum quid, in some things, than we, and yet our case and condition, to speak simply, better than theirs, by reason of other privileges we have above them, which recompense the defect of those privileges, whether real or supposed, which is the very same which as Robinson did allege, so Rutherford grants in the place abovenamed, and citys two Scriptures to prove it, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. Rom. 9.4. And the truth is, privileges are so arbitrary and various, that God gives them as he thinks good, oft times without assigning any special reason, so that no argument can be drawn thus. God gave such a privilege to the Jews, Ergo, we must have such a privilege too, except we can prove it is Gods will it should be so. And therefore this Argument is of no force, but rather an argument of arrogant presumption, without an institution to attempt to prove, that because the Jews had a privilege to circumcise infants, therefore we must have a privilege to baptise infants, nor do any of the many Scriptures you have alleged, prove that Baptism of infants is a privilege granted by God in lieu of Circumcision: But you take upon you to answer this objection. You say, but these things have no weight: we are enquiring for privileges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, which every man who is in Covenant with God, may expect from God by virtue of the Covenant, were he a Jew or a proselyte, not for any particular or peculiar favour to a particular man or woman, or family, or tribe: All these forementioned things, and many other of the like kind (as the ministry of the Tabernacle & Temple to belong to one Tribe, the Kingly office to one family, such and such men never to lack a man of their house to stand and before God) proceeded indeed from free grace, but were no parts of the Covenant of Grace, which God made to Abraham and all his seed. For could every man in Covenant challenge these things at God's hand, and that by virtue of the Covenant? Could every one of them promise that Christ should be borne of his flesh? or every one of their women that she should be the mother of Christ? Could every one whom God owned to be in Covenant with him, promise by virtue of the Covenant, that their Children, if cast off by unbelief, should after many hundred years be again called in? We speak only of such privileges as were universal and common to all who were in Covenant, for which by virtue of the Covenant they might rely upon God. Though you say, the things objected have no weight, yet it may seem they are so heavy & press your conclusion so hard, as that you cannot well ease it of them. The things objected, you deny not: but you answer, that they are impertinent: you tell us why, because you inquire for privileges which are branches of the Covenant of Grace, common to all in Covenant, which they may challenge at God's hand by virtue of the Covenant, and such are not these. It is not material what you inquire after, men may sectari Aquilam in nubibus, follow after an Eagle in the Clouds. But sure I am the Scriptures you bring, prove not that believers now have more privileges belonging to the Covenant of grace, which all may challenge at God's hands, than the Jews had. Yea your second conclusion contradicts your fifth, understood in this sense. Beside, Circumcision was not a privilege common to all in the Covenant of Grace: For besides all the faithful before Abraham, and those of his time, Melchisedeck, and Lot, and their households, and Job after his time, there was a sort of proselytes, called strangers, or of the gate, who were not circumcised, yet the Scripture reckons them among the worshippers of God. Such is Cornelius conceived to be by Mede in his discourse on Acts 17.4. by Selden lib. 2. de jure not. & Gent. c. 4. who is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a godly or devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always, Act. 10.2. and therefore within the Covenant of Grace. Besides the privileges alleged in the objection do some of them at least belong to the Covenant of Grace as well as Circumcision, as to be Father of the faithful, to be the Mother of Christ, and the last belongs much more to the Covenant of Grace then circumcision. And those Rom. 9.4. are privileges which you allege as belonging to the Covenant of Grace, to which I may join that Rom. 3.2. that to them were committed the Oracles of God, which yet were prerogatives of the Jews, as Mr Rutherford rightly and according to truth. Lastly, the phrases, Rom. 11.21. of the natural branches, ver. 24. of the wild Olive by nature, thou wast graffed in besides nature, these according to nature, do seem to me to import, not that the Jews were in the Covenant of Grace by nature, but that they had this privilege to be reckoned in the outward administration, as branches of the olive by their birth, by virtue of God's appointment which the Gentiles have not. But you go on. Let any m●n show out of the Scripture, where our privileges under the Gospel are cut short in any of these things, and be saith somewhat, and in particular for the case in hand, concerning our infants right to the Covenant of Grace, and the seal of it: Once we are sure the infant children of all Covenanters were within the Covenant, and the seal also belonged to them, and by virtue of the Covenant (which is still the same) we plead their interest in it. Let any man show when and where this was taken away, when the infant children of believers were expunged out of the Covenant of grace. It is unreasonable to require men to show what they do not avouch; it were equal to exact this task at the hands of those who do expunge the infant children of believers out of the Covenant of Grace: we neither write in nor expunge out; but leave that to God only, from whom we learn, Esau have I hated, Jacob have I loved. Though you think yourself sure, that all the infants of Covenanters were within the Covenant of Grace, yet I see no cause to believe you, for as much as I think God never showed you the book of life, that you may see who are written in, who expunged out of the Covenant of Grace, and St Paul who was as well read in that book as you, saith Rom. 9.8. They which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, which how to spell I have showed above. But you add. Certainly who ever will go about to deprive them of it, to cut off such a great part of the comfort of believing parents, must produce clear testimonies before they can persuade believers to part with either of them, either right to the Covenant, or to the seal of the Covenant. And you add two reasons of it. You are now on your advantage ground, in a vein of Oratory, and on a subject, of all others, aptest to move affections, to wit, parent's tenderness to their children. But we must not sacrifice truth to either of these. You insinuate that Antipaedobaptists go about to deprive infant-childrens of believers of the Covenant of Grace. They may tell you, it were a madness for them to go about such an impossibility, as the putting out or putting into the Covenant of grace, and that they hope so well of you, that you come not so near the Papists, or Augustine's opinion, as to think infants dying unbaptised, are out of the Covenant of Grace. And as for cutting off a great part of the comfort of believing parents, I pray you tell us what comfort is cut off by it, you cannot say that either an infant is certainly regenerated or saved by Baptism, nor can you say, he is lost for want of it. What comfort then do you give them indeed which the Antipaedobap●ists do not give as well as you? Or, what discomfort in truth, do they give them, which you do not? All the comfort you can indeed give them, is that according to your Hypotheses, they do their duty: But if it be proved that they profane the Ordinance of Baptism by bringing Infants to baptism (which there is great cause to think they do) it may rather bring discomfort to their conscience in fine, than comfort. But to Believers indeed, God's glory will be more dear than their own comfort; and therefore they will be content to part with that which dishonoured God, though it seemed cause of comfort to themselves: they will imitate Abraham, who quieted himself in the will of God concerning Ishmael, though dear unto him; and Isaac, who perceiving Gods rejecting of Esau, yet submitted to his will. And for your two reasons, because they are only a piece of pathetic oratory, I pass them over. For though there be some strains that Logically examined will not endure the test, yet having learned the rule about reading the Fathers, not to account all their Rhetorical expressions their Dogmatic resolutions, I am willing to conceive the same of you. And as for your recapitulation of your conclusions, and your inference thereupon, how short they are of your conceit of them, I leave it to yourself to consider, and proceed to that which you say is the main and only Objection remaining which hath any colour of weight in it.  

§. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptise Infants.  YOu say the Objection is this: There is no comm●nd, no express institution, or clear ex●mple in all the new Testament of baptising of Infants; and in the administratinn of Sacraments, we are not to be led by our own reason, or grounds of seeming probability, but by the express order of Christ, and no otherwise.  
This you justly count the main objection; which if you could answer clearly, all the rest of your Discourse might be saved, and without answering it, all that you have said else is to little purpose. For, though it were proved that the children of Believers were in the covenant of Grace, Baptism succeeds to Circumcision, our privileges greater than the Jews, yet all this cannot acquit the practice of baptising Infants from will-worship, without an institution, by Precept or Apostolical example. And therefore, as it concerns Smectymnuus, so almost all the Divines of the Assembly, and Preachers of the City, that have so often delivered in their Sermons at Westminster, now in print, and in the City, that in God's Worship we must not meddle a jot further than God hath comm●nded, to show some institution of Christ, or example of his Apostles for it, otherwise the Prelatists will tell you, that they can show virtual command from Analogy of the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, and tradition Ecclesiastical as ancient as yours for Paedobaptism, for their Prelacy, Holidays, Surplice, etc. against which there have been so many, and those just Declamations. If then you do not stand to it here you may yield up your weapons. Let us then try it out on this ground: You begin thus; If by institution, command and example, they mean an express syllabicall command, etc. I grant that in so many words it is not found in the new Testament that they should be baptised: No express example where children were baptised. Sure this is a shrewd sign that you are not likely to make good your ground, when you have yielded so much. But I grant, that if you make it good, by good consequence, you may recover all. Let us then consider what you say of that. But I also add, that I deny the consequence, that if in so many words it be not commanded in the new Testament, it ought not to be d●ne; this is not true Divinity, that Christians are not tied to observe that which is not expressly in so many words set down in the new Testament. True, but whose consequence is this? Infants are not to be baptised, because that which is not in so many words commanded in the new Testament, ought not to be done? The consequence rightly framed is this: In mere positive worship that ought not to be done, which hath not Precept, or Apostolical example equivalent to a Precept, gathered by plain words, or good inference out of the new Testament: For, if it have none of these, it is will-worship. And Baptism of Infants is such, therefore it ought not to be done. The ground of it is this, because all the ceremonial or mere positive worship of the Jews is now abrogated; and therefore a Precept of God to them is not a warrant to us now, if it were, it must be in one thing as well as another, and so we must bring on our necks the yoke of bondage of the Mosaical Law. Now let us see how you encounter this Argument: you answer by telling us; there is no express reviving of the Laws, concerning the forbidden degrees of marriage in the new Testament, except of not having a m●ns father's wife, 1 Cor. 5.8. No express Law against polygamy; no express command for the celebration of a weekly Sabbath; are therefore Christians free in all these c●ses? I answer, no, but withal I say, that the first instance is about a moral command, and yet there is for one branch of incest, an express censure in the new Testament, proving the unl●wfulnesse of it; whereas the business is now about a point of mere positive ceremonial worship, and so there's not the like reason. Secondly, the same may be said of Polygamy, that it is a sin against a moral Precept, and yet there is good proof against it in the new Testament, from Mat. 19.5.9. And for the third, enough hath been said above, Part. 1. Sect. 8. to show how little advantage you have in this instance. But you add, yea in the point of Sacraments there is no express command, no example in all the new Testament, where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, there is no express command, that the children of Believers, when they are grown, should be instructed and baptised by their parents; express command there is, that they should teach the Heathen, and the Jews, and m●ke them Disciples, and then baptise them, but no command that the children of those that are Believers should be baptised when they are grown men; nor any example where ever that was done: will any man therefore say, that Christian women are not to be partakers of the Lords Supper? I think none will be so absurd as to affirm it. If it be said, though these things be not expressly and in terminis in the new Testament, yet they are there virtually, and by undeniable consequence, I confess it is true. You do in this perioch, give two instances of practice, warranted by command, or example, gathered by consequence in the new Testament, in the positive worship of the Sacraments, to wit, women's receiving the Lords Supper, and the baptising of children of Believers, when grown persons, which you grant are virtually, and by undeniable consequence in the new Testament, though not expressly and in terminis, in terms. Now this thing you need not have proved, I readily grant it, that what ever in positive worship is commanded in the new Testament, though it be not in formal terms commanded, yet if it may be gathered by virtual consequence, aught to be done. Nevertheless, I observe: First, that you do well express the institution of Christ, Matth. 28.19. when you say, express command there is, that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews, and make them Disciples, and then baptise them, of which I may make further use afterwards. Secondly, that when you say, there is no express command, no example in all the new Testament, where women received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, you imply there is for males. Now, herein you, Mr. Vines and Mr. Blake, and generally others follow Zwinglius, whose conceit this was, if he were not the first inventor: And Mr. Blake expresseth himself thus, pag. 22. No particular precedent more than for this of Infant-baptisme. But I pray you tell me, is not that, 1 Cor. 11.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup, an express command in formal terms? And doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comprehend both Sexes? When the Apostle says, vers. 23. I delivered unto you that which I received from the Lord, was not that a command, and that to the whole Church, women as well as men? when he saith, 1 Cor. 10.17. We being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread, and are not women as well of the body as men? And if so, here is an express example in formal terms for women's receiving the Lords Supper? The like may be said, of 1 Cor. 12.13. Acts 20.7. unless you will say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, himself, all, Disciples, comprehend not women, because they are of the Masculine Gender, which from you that have learned that Logica non curat sexum, Logic regards not sex, and that hundreds of places there be, where the Masculine Gender is put, the matter so requiring it, for both Sexes, I do not suspect. And for your other instance, as I do not remember any brings it but yourself, so it is as little to the purpose as the other: For that which you say, that there is no express command that the children of Believers should be baptised when they are grown men. It is true, except they profess the faith; but there is an express command, as yourself grant, to baptise Disciples, and so to baptise the child of a Believer that professeth the faith, not otherwise; so that these your instances are brought to prove that which is not denied, and yet the instances are impertinent to prove it. You say further: So have we virtually, and by undeniable consequence, sufficient evidence for the baptising of children, both commands and examples. This assertion is full, if you mean by children, Infant-childrens of Believers, prove this, and you need prove no more. But your fetching such a compass about, makes me imagine your attempt will prove but a Parturiunt montes, the mountains bring forth, especially, when your proof is but from Analogy; concerning which, the rule holds, as Mr. Bowls in his Sermon on Joh. 2.17. Allegorica Theologia, (unless the Lord himself make the application) non est argumentativa, Allegorical Divinity is not argumentative; but it is fit you should be heard. You say, For, first you have God's command to Abraham, as he was the father of all covenanters, that he should seal his children with the seal of the covenant. I grant we have Gods command to Abraham, who is indeed called, the Father of the faithful, no where that I know, the father of all covenanters, to circumcise his males of eight days old; and I deny not, but that this was a seal, that is, a confirming sign of the covenant God made with Abraham; whence Gods covenant was said to be in their flesh, Gen. 17.13. and 'tis called the covenant of circumcision, Act. 7.8. But you have need of the Philosopher's stone to turn this into a command to baptise Infants of Believers, which you thus attempt. You tell us, Now this truth, all our Divines defend against the Papists, that all God's commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews, bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental unto them. This is your foundation for your undeniable consequence, it had need then be very undeniable, and so you conceive it, because it is a tru●h all our Divines defend against the Papists. But this is no undeniable Axiom, that what all the Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable, I do not think all the Divines in the Assembly will subscribe to it; I for my part do disclaim it, I give that honour only to the Holy Scripture, and have learned from Art. 21. of the Church of England, that General Counsels have erred, and may err, and consequently all the Divines in the world: And one Paphnutius is to be heard against a whole Ecumenical Council sometimes. And for this which you call a truth, all our Divines defend against the Papists, I marvel how you can aver it, unless you had read them all, which I think neither you nor any one else hath; and for this Maxim, I question whether any one leading Author have delivered that which you charge all our Divines with, because you direct not where they deliver it, it is in vain for me to make search; it were to seek a needle in a bottle of hay; but I will examine whether it be truth or no. You suppose, that there are comm●nds of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, which is granted: But then let me tell you, I do not assent to this, that Circumcision and the Passeover are all the ordinary Sacraments of the Jews; I do approve of the words of R. C. that is, as I learn from Mr. Selden, de anno civili veter. Judae. c. 2. Mr. Ralph Cudworth of Cambridge, (whom he there commends) in that book of his, which is of the true notion of the Lords Supper, chap. 2. styled by Mr. Selden, A witty and very learned book, where he saith, I know not what warrant there is for that divinity so magisterially imposed upon us by some, that the Jews had but two Sacraments, Circumcision, and the Passeover, and that it should thence follow by inevitable consequence, that the Lords Supper must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, answer only to the Jewish Passeover; sure I am, the Jews had many more; for not to instance in that of Paul, 1 Cor. 10.2, 3, 4. nor to examine all the other Sacramental ceremonies which they had, that were almost as many Sacraments as Ceremonies, these feasts upon the sacrifices which we have all this while insisted on, were nothing else but true and proper sacraments joined with sacrifices. I add, that according to the received definitions of a sacrament, all the sacrifices that were propitiatory, were Sacraments, that is, visible sealing signs of invisible grace in Christ appointed by God to that end. Secondly, you suppose, that of those comm●nds and institutions of God, some did belong to the substance of the covenant, some were accidental to them. This last expression is very ambiguous, whether you mean by [them] the Jews, or the Sacraments, which seems most likely; or, whether you would, as the law of opposion requires, say accidental to the Covenant. Again, you here contradistinguish the substance of the covenant, and that which is accidental to it, which I construe in the same sense that you distinguish between the substance of the covenant and the administration of it, pag. 10. Conceiving by your explication that you call the substance of the Covenant that which is invariable, and that which is accidental that which is variable. Substance doth not agree to Covenant, which is an action in proper sense; but in Schoole● it is usual to distinguish between the substance of the act, and the circumstances of it, the essence and the accidents, but I do not remember that Logicians do oppose the accidents of an act to the substance of it, and so your expression of the substance of the covenant, and that which is accidental, is not in my apprehension, after the usual speech of the Schools, and therefore I cannot well tell what sense to make of it. If [them] refer to the Jews, than it is said, something of the Sacraments was accidental to the Jews, but I know not how to make any handsome sense of this. If you refer [them] to the Sacraments, you make something commanded by God, accidental to the Sacraments, which may be yielded you in this sense; that there might something have the essence of a Sacrament without such accidents, as it might be true Circumcision, though it were not the eighth day; it might be a true Passeover, though not on the right night. Yet, in this sense it cannot be yielded that it was so accidental, that it might be omitted without sin, any more than the thing itself: For, it was as well a sin, not to circumcise the eighth day, or not to keep the Passeover on the night appointed by God, as not to do these acts at all, since a command was broken in one as well as the other: For these reasons, I cannot well tell how to deny or grant that which you suppose, that some commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, were accidental to them. But that which is supposed, that some of the commands of God about the Sacraments of the Jews, did contain things belonging to the substance of the Covenant, meaning, of the covenant of Grace, I can in no wise assent unto it: For, if either you mean by substance the essence of the covenant, I utterly deny that any of the Sacraments of the Jews were of the essence of the covenant, God's Covenant was, and might be without them: If you mean by substance, that which in no case might be varied, I deny it in that sense also; Nothing of the sacraments of the Jews was moral and invariable. And it is most true, that as the sacrifices, so Sacraments (according to the common distinction) were belonging to the administration of the covenant for the time, but never of the substance of the covenant; for that consists only in the things you express for the substance, pag. 10. And for the maxim which you f●ther on all our Divines, which I can hardly believe any one of our Divines have delivered, as you have done, I utterly deny it, to wit, that all God's commands and institutions about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them, in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, as being contradictory to those words, Art. 7. of the Church of England. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, and on the contrary, I affirm, that they are all abrogated, substance and circumstance, whole, and part; and I thus prove it: First, those things bind us not which had their compliment in Christ, but all the Sacraments of the Jews had their compliment in Chtist, Ergo. The Major is the force of the Apostles prohibition; and the reason of it, Col. 2.16, 17. the Minor is delivered, 1 Cor. 5.7. Col. 2.17. Heb. 9.9. Heb. 10.1. And Beza in Annot. in Col. 2.14. Hoc respectu ut Euangelicae gratiae adhuc exhibendae, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ceremoniis finis erat impositus ipsius Christi, id est veritatis, quam antea adumbrarant exhibitione, by the exhibition of Christ himself, that is the truth, which before they shadowed, there was an end put to ceremonies in this respect, as being seals of evangelical grace yet to be exhibited. Secondly, those things bind not us now, which were taken away by Christ's death; this I suppose you will not deny, lest you evacuate the effect of Christ's death: But Christ hath by his death abolished all the sacraments of the Jews, comprehended under the law of commands in ordinances or rites, Ephes. 2.15. Col. 2.14. therefore they bind not. Thirdly, those commands which were only to continue till faith came, those bind not now faith is come: But the commands of the Sacraments of the Jews were such, therefore they bind not now: The Major and Minor are delivered, Gal. 3.23, 24, 25. Gal. 4.1, 2, 3, 4. Act. 15.9, 10. Fourthly, those commands bind us not, which were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles; but all the Sacraments of the Jews in whole and in part, were a partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, therefore they bind us not. The Major and Minor are delivered, Ephes. 2.14. Fifthly, those commands which were unprofitable, and weak rudiments of the world, contrary to Christ, beggarly rudiments, these bind not a Christian now; but such are the Jews sacraments, Heb. 7.18. Col. 2.8.20. Gal. 4.3.9. therefore they bind not. Sixthly, those commands that belonged to another Priesthood than Christ's, bind not Christians, but the Jews sacraments belonged to another Priesthood than Christ's, therefore they bind not. The Major and Minor are both delivered, Heb. 7.12.16. Heb. 9.10. Seventhly, those commands that belonged to another covenant then that which now in force, bind not; but such are the commands of the Jews sacraments, Heb. 8.13. Heb. 9.1. therefore they bind not. Eightly, those commands which were proper to the Jews, bind not us Christians; but the sacraments of the Jews were proper to the Jews, so was Circumcision, the Passeover, the Sacrifices; therefore they bind us not. Ninthly, If one part bind us, than all the commands bind us; and if we be obliged to any one rite, then to all, for they had all the same authority; nor hath that authority dissolved any one part more than another. Now it is a sure rule, that ubi lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum, where the law distinguisheth not, we must not distinguish; therefore, either none binds us, or else we must revoke Judaisme. And indeed, to say, so far a command of God binds, and so far not, without a plain declaration of God's will, is an high presumption, whereby man takes on him to release or dispense with God's Law, which is of equal authority with the making of a law. Lastly, those commands bind us not, which the Apostle would not have us subject to, no not in part, but such are the commands of the Jewish sacraments, Col. 2.16.20. Gal. 5.1, 2, 3. and yourself say, pag. 27. the Apostle would take them off wholly from circumcision; therefore they bind us not: Yea, it is to overthrow utterly our Christian liberty by Christ, which the Apostle was so stiff in maintaining that he would not yield, no, not one hou●, and blamed Peter for dissembling this liberty, Gal. 2.5.14. to maintain that all the commands and institutions of God about the Sacraments of the Jews bind us as much as they did them in all things which belong to the substance of the Covenant, and were not accidental to them. But you endeavour to make good your Maxim by instances, and accordingly you say thus: As because Circumcision is called a seal of the covenant, therefore our Sacraments are seals of the covenant; though circumcision no where that I know, be called the seal of the covenant, but only the seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4.11. yet, because it is called a sign or token of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. it may well be called a seal or confirming sign of the covenant with Abraham, and so of the covenant of Grace; and our Sacraments may be so called likewise, they being confirming signs of the new Testament, Luk. 22.10. Acts 2.38. but not because Circumcision was called so, but because that phrase expresseth the truth of the thing. But what is this instance to your purpose? Is there a command or institution of God, binding the Jews to call Circumcision so? or a command or institution for us by virtue of the command to the Jews to call it so? though I should oppose him that should deny our Sacraments to be seals of the covenant, because he should deny a truth, yet I should not say he did sin that did not call them so. Your next instance is, because Circumcision might be administered but once, being the seal of initiation, therefore Baptism being also the seal of initiation is to be administered but once. However I conceive no necessity of circumcision or Baptism above once, yet I profess myself unsatisfied in this, that there is either a command, that a person be but once circumcised, or a person once only baptised: However, if there were a command that a person should be but once circumcised, and it could be proved that a person should be but once baptised, yet I utterly deny, that the command to circumcumcise but once, is a cammand to baptise but once; and therefore what ever any Divines may dictate Magisterially, yet I do not think myself in Pythagoras his School, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said it, should be my rule. You add: but that circumcision was to be administered on the eighth day only, was an accidental thing, and therefore bindeth not. I see no reason why once circumcising should belong to the substance of the covenant, and to be circumcised on the eighth day should be accidental; yea, if reason may rule the roast, there is more reason that circumcising on the eighth day should belong to the substance of the covenant, being commanded by God expressly, and as many of the Ancients conceive, particularly Cyprian, Ep. 99 ad finem, typifying Christ's resurrection on the eighth day, then that to be circumcised but once, should be of the substance of the covenant, which is neither commanded, nor is found in Scripture to typify any thing belonging to the Covenant: So vain are men's conceits, without the light of the Word.  
But you go forward in the other Sacrament. The Jewish Passeover being to be yearly repeated, binds us to have a repetition of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which came in room of it, because this belongs to the substance of the Covenant; both of them being Sacraments for spiritual nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant: (as the other was, for birth and entrance) but that their Passeover was to be e●ten in an evening, and upon one set evening in the year, was accidental, and so binds not us. Here is a heap of dictates without proof. I grant the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated, because God so commanded it, but tha● either this belonged to the substance of the Covenant, or that this command binds us to the frequent use of the Lords Supper, I deny it: if it did, it were a very good plea for the superstitious custom of keeping Easter, and receiving the Communion once a year on that day, which I think you will be ashamed of, though you lay the egg out of which it may be hatched. I grant the Lords Supper is to be repeated often, not because the Jewish Passeover was to be yearly repeated, or because it is the Sacrament for spiritual nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant (as the other was for birth and entrance) but because it may be plainly gathered from the Institution or Command of Christ, and the Apostles declaration thereupon, 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth imply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as oft doth imply, not obscurely but plainly, a frequency, and if example must be a rule, as it is conceived in many cases less clear, and that have less reason; that example Acts 20.7. should bind that on the first day of the week, when Disciples come together they have the Lords Supper, for the which the meeting than was intended, and that action gave denomination to the whole service; and by the relation of Justine Martyr (if my memory deceive me not) and others, it was so in the primitive Church of Christians; but I desire to be sparing in matters of command on men's consciences. As for that you make the Evening accidental to the Passeover, and so not binding us in the use of the Lords Supper, it's but a dictate. The Evening of the Passeover is no more accidental than the day itself, they being commanded both together. And for the Lords Supper, how we can be loose to receive it in the Morning or Evening after Supper, when the Apostle doth so distinctly mention in this relation of the Institution, 1 Cor. 11.23. that it was done in the night; and vers. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after he had supped; I leave to your Assembly to consider; Especially those of you that are so stiff for the sitting together at the Table, which is not mentioned or hinted in the Apostles relation, and therefore may seem as much occasional as the other. And for that which you intimate, as if Baptism were not the Sacrament for spiritual nourishment, growth, and continuance in the Covenant, as well as for entrance; I take to be but a dictate like the rest, which upon exact examination will not hold: it seems to me somewhat near of kin to that of Bellarmine and other Papists, that the efficacy of Baptism extends not to the remission of the sins of our whole life, but of original sin only.  
But you have yet one more Instance, and thus you speak; The like Instance I give in our Christian Sabbath; the fourth Commandment binds, as for the substance of it, as much as ever it bound the Jews, there God once for all, separated one day of seven to be sacred to himself, and all the world stood bound in all ages to give unto God that one day of seven, which should be of his own choosing. Now until Christ's time, God chose the last day of the seven to be his Sabbath; and having by the death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus, put an end to the Saturday Sabbath, and surrogated the first day of the week instead thereof to be the Lords day, we need no new Commandment for the keeping of the Lords day, being tied by the fourth Commandment to keep that day of seven which the Lord should choose; the Lord having chosen this, the forth Commandment binds us to this, as it did the Jews to the former; so in like manner, I say in the Sacrament of Baptism. What I conceive about the Lord's day, I have before declared Part. 2. Sect. 8. where also I showed you how different the case of Paedobaptism is from it, which I shall not now repeat; Only whereas you bring the Sabbath for an Instance of a Command of God, about the Sacraments of the Jews, binding us as well as the Jews; you forget the mark at which you shoot, the Sabbath or Lords day being not to be reckoned among the Jews Sacraments, or ours, according to the usual Ecclesiastical acception and definition of the word. You see now your maxim, which is the foundation of your undeniable consequence undermined, I presume you may see quickly the superstruction itself overturned: one blow more will do it. You piece things together thus; When God made the Covenant with Abraham, and promised for his part to be the God of him and his seed; what God promised to Abraham, we claim our part in it as the children of Abraham, and wh●t God required on Abraham's part for the substance of obedience, we all stand charged with, as well as Abraham; We as Abraham are tied to believe, to love the Lord with all our heart, to have our hearts circumcised, to walk before God in uprightness; to instruct our children, and bring them up for God, and not for ourselves, nor for the Devil, to teach them to worship God according to his revealed will, to train them up under the Ordinances and Institutions of Gods own appointment. All these things God commanded to Abraham, and charges upon all the children of the Covenant, though there were no express reviving these Commands in any part of the New Testament. And therefore consequently, that Command of God to Abraham, which bound his seed of the Jews to train up their children in that manner of worship, which was then in force, binds the seed of Abraham now, to train up their children in conformity to such Ordinances as are now in force. Supposing you mean by what God promised to Abraham, the spiritual part of the Covenant, and the persons claiming to be believers: I grant this passage to be truth; for these duties are moral duties, and bind at all times; but that which follows, I cannot tell how to take for any other then plain Judaisme. You say, And the s●me Command which enjoined Abraham to seal his children with the seal of the Covenant, enjoins us as strongly to seal ours with the seal of the Covenant, and that Command of God which expressly bound Abraham to seal his with the sign of Circumcision, which was the Sacrament then in force, pro tempore, for the time, doth virtually bind us to seal ours with the sign of Baptism, which is the Sacrament now in force, and succeeds into the room of the other by his own Appointment. This is your undeniable consequence, inferred from a Judaizing principle, without so much as one Scripture to prove either the principle or conclusion; Whereas ● have brought ten arguments most of them out of the Scripture against your principle; and for the Conclusion, what construction can be made of it, but this, that the Command of God to Circumcise, binds us still? for that was the seal of the Covenant God enjoined to Abraham, and so the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and rites, binds Christian men, contrary to Art. 7. of the Church of England. Then must we Circumcise our Males at the eighth day, as they did. But you say, it binds us virtually only to seal ours with the sign of Baptism; I pray you then what mean you by this virtual binding? The opposite Member was expressly, and in Terminis, in terms. Is this then your meaning, that it doth not bind expressly and in terminis, but virtually, that is, implicitly, and by Interpretation? Tell us then, I beseech you, by what rule of Divinity, Logic, Grammar, or Rhetoric, is a man to conceive this Command, Cut off the foreskin of the secret part of all the Males in thy house the eighth day. That is, let a Preacher of the Gospel wash with water at any time after birth the young Infants, male and female of Believers all over, or on the face. You call this undeniable Consequence: if so, it's either Demonstrative from the cause, or effect, or definition, or property, or the like; or it's only Topical, and then not undeniable; you say, 'tis by clear consequence, you may as well say, this is good consequence, Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock; Ergo, the Pope is Monarch of the Church; or with Baronius, Arise Peter, kill and eat; Ergo, the Pope may deprive Princes; if you can apprehend clear consequence in it, you may enjoy your conceit; Nos non sumus adeò sagaces, we are not so quickwitted. I pass to the next Command, which you thus express.  

§. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptise Infants, but contrary to it.  ANother you shall find, Mat. 28. where our Saviour bids them go and teach all Nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Where you have two things; first, what they were to do. Secondly, to whom they were to do it; they were to preach and teach all things which he had Commanded them; that is, they were to Preach the whole Gospel, Mark. 16.15. The whole Covenant of grace, containing all the promises, whereof this is one, viz. That God will be the God of Believers, and of their seed; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents; this is a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham. The Gospel which was preached to Abraham, is delivered Galat. 3.8, 9 And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel to Abraham▪ saying, In thee shall all Nations be blessed; so than they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. And Rom. 1.16, 17. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation, to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith. The like may be proved out of Rom. 10. and elsewhere; but it is no wrong to say it, that it is a new Gospel, to affirm, that this is one of the Promises of the Covenant of grace, that God will be the God of Believers, and of their seed; that the seed of Believers are taken into Covenant with their Parents. I cannot derive its pedigree higher than Zuinglius. But you go on: And they were to baptise them, that is, to administer Baptism as a seal of the Covenant to all who received the Covenant; this is a dark Paraphrase, you express it clearer, pag. 35. Express Command is there, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jews, and make them Disciples, and then baptise them. If your meaning be the same in both places, I am content you should Comment on your own words; you go on; Secondly, We have the persons to whom they were to do this, all Nations, whereas before the Church was tied to one Nation, one Nation only were Disciples, now their Commission was extended to make all Nations Disciples, every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jews had been in time past. In a word, Nations here are opposed to the one Nation before. I grant that Nations are opposed to one Nation, and that th● Commission was extended to all Nations; which you express well, pag. 44. Whereas before they were to go to the lost sheep of the house of Is●ael, now they were to go unto all the world. But what sense those wo●ds may carry, Every Nation which should receive the faith, should be to him now as the peculiar Nation of the Jews had been in time past is doubtful. For either it may have this sense, Every Nation that receives the faith, that is, Believers of every Nation, shall be to me a peculiar people, as the Jews were, in the sense that Peter speaks, 1 Pet. 2.9. and so the sense is good; or thus, When a Nation shall receive the faith, that is, a great or eminent part, the Governors and chief Cities, & representative body, shall receive the faith, that Nation shall in like manner have all their little ones capable of Baptism, and counted visible members of the Church, as the posterity of the Jews were in the time of that Church administration. This I guess is the business that is now upon the anvil, by observing ●undry passages in latter Writers, with whom your Sermon agrees, as if it came out of the same forge. Mr Blake, pag. 20. hath these words. In the same sense and latitude, as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God, when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating-Sacrament was restrained to that one only Nation, where their Commission was first limited: in the same sense it is to be taken (unless the Text express the contrary) now this Commission is enlarged. This cannot be denied of any that will have the Apostles able to know Christ's meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission. But Nation then, as is confessed, did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant, and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary, therefore it is to be taken in that latitude, to comprehend Infants. Mr Rutherfurd in his peaceable and temperate plea, Ch. 12. Concl. 1. Arg. 7. hath these words; Seeing God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, and is become a God to us, and to our seed; the seed must be holy, with holiness of the chosen Nation, and holiness external of the Covenant, notwithstanding the father and mother were as wicked, as the Jews who slew the Lord of glory. And indeed those Paedobaptists are forced to say so, who justify the practice of baptising foundlings, infants of Papists, excommunicate persons, Apostates, if they be borne within their Parish; thereby directly crossing their own tenant, That this is the privilege of a believer from the Covenant of grace, I will be the God of a believer, and his seed; And the Apostles words, 1 Cor. 7.14. according to their own exposition, which is, that the children whereof one of the parents is not sanctified by the faith of the other, are federally unclean; nor considering that this practice of baptising all in the Parish, arose not from any conceit of the federal holiness of a Nation, but from the conceit of Cyprian, with his 66 Bishops, that the grace of God is to be denied to none that are borne of men: upon which ground, and the necessity of baptism to save a child from perishing, as of old, so still among the common people, and officiating Priests, children are baptised, without any relation to covenant-holiness, particular or national. But I leave this to the Independents to agitate, who have in this point the advantage; and return to the Text, Mat. 28.19. Concerning which the question is, what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or [them] refers too in our Saviour's words: whether all Nations must be the substantive to it, without any other circumscription, or the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men and women, as the Author of infants baptising proved lawful by Scriptures, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Disciples, included in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which may be translated, make Disciples. That Author denies not , but that the verb may signify to make Disciples, yet by the subject matter, which it is here taken and used to express, it must be taken for to teach, and not to make Disciples: because to m●ke Disciples was not in the power of the Apostles (upon whom the command lay) it being the peculiar of God to frame the heart to submit unto and embrace the Apostles teaching, and to cast them into the form and obedience of it, and so to make them Disciples: but to teach and thereby endeavour (as much as in them lay) to make Disciples, was in their power and duty: and is all the whole meaning of the word here, therefore properly, and rightly rendered teach, and not, make Disciples. But that the word doth not signify only simply, to teach, whether with effect or without, but to teach till they become disciples, is plain by the use of it elsewhere, in all the places it is used in the new Testament. Mat. 13.52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Every Scribe that is so taught, as to become a disciple. Mat. 27.57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendere●●y Beza, Vulgar, ours, etc. who also himself was Jesus disciple: where the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciple, is included in the verb, and expressed by John, Cham 19.38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being a disciple of Jesus. Act. 14.21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which though our translatours render, and had taught many; yet Beza renders it, Discipulos multos adjunxissent, and had joined many disciples. So plain it is that the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples, is included in the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make disciples; and that it is put not for simple teaching that is without effect; for then the Apostle might be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when he did preach to the Athenians who mocked, Acts 17.32. and the unbelieving Jews, Acts 28.24. for they were taught: but for teaching, cum effectu, with effect, so as that the persons taught became disciples. And Mr Edwards lately at Christ-Church averred in all the Dictionaries he could peruse, it did not signify simply to teach, coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to learn, he might have added coming from the noun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a disciple. As for the objection; Christ should command them that which was not in their power. I answer, it was in their power, and their duty not only to teach simply, so as to propound things to them, but also so as to bring them to be disciples, which they could do, not as principal, sole, supreme agents, but as workers with God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is 2 Cor. 6.1. subordinate instruments to him they could, in which respect they are called wise Master-builders, that beget men by the Gospel, save and convert them, espouse them to Christ; etc. Even as the knife cuts, though not without the hand; as an Ambassador makes peace, though not without his Prince. And this might be rightly charged to them, as it was charged to Peter, to feed Christ's sheep, and to strengthen his brethren, though he could do neither of himself. But that Author hath another exception, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples, is of the masculine gender, and if that were the substantive to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, than women should be excluded. To this I answer, that there be hundreds of places, where the masculine comprehends both sexes, as Joh. 3.16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every one that believeth, though in the masculine gender, yet comprehends women. Rom. 5.12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon all men, comprehends women too: and women are comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disciples, Acts 1.15. etc. Besides that Author did not consider it seems, that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men, were the substantive, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, in the masculine gender were the adjective, women if this reason were worth any thing, should be excluded however. And for that which he saith," that some say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, cannot agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nations, because of a different gender, though it may be a reason, an● Piscator made use of it thus far, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 syntaxi refertur ad sensum, non ad vocem: nam praecessit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, in the syntaxis is referred to the sense, not to the word, for nations went before: yet I fasten nothing on it, sith it cannot be denied that Enallage, Heterosis, or change of gender is frequent. But for my part, I conceive that the sense includes both, neither separately, both conjunctly, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, them, refers both to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples, and to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nations; thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples of all Nations, and must be thus expounded, make disciples of all nations, baptising them, that is, the disciples of all nations. And this is agreeable to your Paraphrase, pag. 35. teach the heathen, and Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them; and pag. 38. make all nations disciples. And Beza annot. in Matth. 28.19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, discipulos mihi f●cite ex omnibus gentibus, make disciples to me of all nations: and a little after▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ergo hoc loco, non neutropassiuè pro dis●ipulum esse, sed actiuè accipitur quasi in Conjugatione Hiphil, ac si dicas discipulare, to teach therefore in this place is not taken neuterpassively for to be a disciple, but actively, as if it were in the Conjugation Hiphil, as if you should say, to make to learn. Some do make the substantive credentes, believers, and that parallel place, Mark. 16.16. may lead us to it; but disciples and believers being all one in this matter, it comes to one pass. I rather, as I said, make the substantive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciples out of all nations, for these reasons; first, because it suits with the expression, Joh. 4.1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he maketh more disciples and baptizeth; where making disciples is put before baptising, and baptising of Christ by his Apostles is of disciples: they that were baptised by John, or Christ's disciples, are every where called the disciples of John, and of Jesus, and the doctrine they taught them, their baptism, Acts 19.1, 2. and elsewhere. Secondly, because usually hearing and believing are put before baptising, Acts 2.41. Acts 8.12.38. Acts 10.48. Acts 16.15.33. and so were called disciples, which shows that the Apostles so construed the precept of Christ to baptise disciples. Besides, if [them] were referred to nations or men, without due circumscription of disciples or believers, as a limitation, directing whom to baptise, it would follow, that either they might baptise any man or nation in the world, whether taught or not, and if so, than the Spaniards practise of forcing droves of Indians to baptism, and that practise of baptising a Kingdom upon the King's conversion and command, without sufficient precedent teaching, were justifiabl●; or else they must baptise none till all men or all nations were to be baptised together.  
There hath been vented lately, in a little p●per, a very absurd one, though it be licenced, entitled, A Declaration against the Anabaptists; in which the Author saith, that making Disciples, is to be done by baptising them; which if true, than the Apostles needed to have done nothing else, in observance of that command of discipling, but to baptise, and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching, or mere officiating Priests: whereas in Mark. 16.15. which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this, Matth. 28.19. Disciple all nations, is preach the Gospel to every creature. But this conceit is so absurd, that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it, though the paper be licenced. That which I have hitherto discoursed, tends to this, to prove, that when Christ saith, Teach all nations, and baptise them, his meaning is, by preaching the Gospel to all nations, make them Disciples, and baptise those that become Disciples of all nations. Now, concerning the Position, which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd, you seem to embrace, concerning the federal or external holiness of a believing or chosen nation, giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptised. Give me leave to argue a little: First, if Infants may be baptised, because they are born in a chosen nation, or a believing nation, than there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing, or chosen nation, when not; otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptism, when not: and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule, and no direction how to make use of it. But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing, chosen, or discipled nation, giving right to baptise Infants of that nation, when not; Ergo, If it be said they may be known, in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham. I reply, than God would have lef● us a note to know such a nation by, as he did Abraham's posterity by Circumcision: But there is no such note, nor any such nation marked out; this were indeed contrary to the appointment of admitting all nations. If it be said when the king of a country is a Believer, this is no rule; for it may be he may be a Believer, and all the rest unbelievers, and then the practice of baptising Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes: As when Charles the great fo●ced the Saxons to be Christians, were to be justified. If it be said, the nation is a believing nation, when the representative body believes, and so the children of that people may be baptised: I answer, the representative body may be Believers, and the greatest part Infidels, Papists, etc. these Infidels children must then be baptised; yea, the Infidels themselves, by virtue of an implicit faith in their governor's faith; for they are a part of the nation. And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good: The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation, and the nation where they came was to be discipled; and therefore the Infants to be baptised: the same reason holds for Infidels of age, for they are a part of the nation. If it be said, it is a believing nation, when the greatest part are Believers, how shall that be known? How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it? must he stay till they be counted by poll, as the Sheriffs do at the election of Knights of the Shire, and upon Certificate that the major part is believing, then baptise? Why did not the Apostles so, nor any other Ministers to this day? How ill would it far with some poor Christians, who are but a handful in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation, as in the Primitive times, when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity? If it be said, when all adulti of ripe years are believers, than such a right is asserted as never was, nor perhaps ever will be, except when all Israel shall be saved; and so no Infants shall be baptised on this ground. Secondly, but, if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation, giving title to Infant-baptisme, yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing, which might denominate a believing or chosen nation, having federal or external holiness, such as may create title to the baptism of Infants of that nation. There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers, which yet are misbelievers, as Heretics, for instance, the nation of the Goths, who were Arians; or grossly Idolatrous, as the Spaniards, shall they give title to their children to baptism, when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ? Thirdly, if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptism, because born in a believing nation, than this privilege agrees to them, either in respect of their descent, or the place of their birth, or both. If in respect of their descent, then either their descent within man's memory, or their descent beyond all the memory of man. If of their descent within memory and knowledge, than Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptism, of whose parentage there is no knowledge, nearer or remoter, who are nevertheless baptised: If of that beyond memory, it must be upon such a ground, as is common to all Infants in the world, which are descended from some Believer, in some precedent generation; or else such a rule must be set down, as hath no certainty in it, by which to administer that Ordinance: If from the place of birth only, because the Church of God is there, than children of Turks or Jews are to be baptised, because born in London: If by reason of both, when they concur, and not otherwise, than the children of an English Ambassador at Constantinople, or Agent at Aleppo, supposed to be wicked, as the Jews that persecuted Christ, lose this privilege, because born out of England: If there be any other national respect upon which this supposed privilege may be fastened, it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it. Fourthly, if there be such a federal holiness of a chosen, discipled, or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation, though their parents be openly wicked, capable of Baptism; this right must come from some grant or charter or other. We find indeed, God would have the posterity of Abraham, and all the males in that nation circumcised: So God appointed it, what ever their parents were, for reasons before rehearsed; but there is no such grant, promise, covenant, or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles, as was then to the posterity of Abraham, because the reasons now cease, the Messiah is now come, and the prerogatives are now personal, not national, not one nation hath privilege above another as a nation, but personal, as a Believer in any nation. As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd allegeth, to wit, Rom. 11.16. it hath been examined before, and showed out of the Text, that holiness of the branches there, is meant personal by faith; and the objection against it which he makes, to wit, that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified, whereas the contrary is manifest: as in Absolom, the son of David, proceeds upon this mistake, that by the root and first fruit, are meant any Ancestor; whereas it is meant of Abraham the Father of the faithful, as Deodate in his Annot. on Rom. 11.16. or, at most, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in whose names all the elect are comprehended, when God calls himself The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as our Saviour intimates, Luke 20.37, 38. Mat. 22.32. Mar. 12.26, 27. And for that which he saith, that the Jews in Paul's time were holy by covenant, howbeit for the present, the sons were branches broken off for unbelief, if it be meant of the Jews broken off through unbelief, in respect of their present state, they were not holy by covenant. Only thus f●r the Jewish nation in Paul's time is said to be holy, either in respect of the remnant, according to the election of Grace, mentioned, vers. 5. of which he was one; or in respect of the posterity that should afterwards be called according to the promise of God to Abraham, in which sense they were federally holy; yet this did neither give right for the baptising of children of unbelieving Jews in Paul's time, nor now. And for that which he saith that God hath chosen the race and nation of the Gentiles, it is not right: For God hath not chosen simply the race and nation of the Gentiles, but a people to himself, out of the race and nation of the Gentiles, as it is said, Rev. 5.7. Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation. As for Mr. Blakes Argument, because it falls in with your reason, I shall answer them together in that which follows. You say; Now we know, that when that one nation of the Jews were made Disciples, and circumcised, their Infants were made disciples (made to belong to God's School) and circumcised with them, when that nation was made disciples in Abraham's loins, and circumcised their seed also was the same, when that nation was taken out of Egypt, and actually made Disciples, their children were also with them. This is your first Argument to prove a command by clear consequence, from Mat. 28.19. for baptising Infants. Now the strength of it lies in these suppositions, First, that Christ did bid them baptise all nations, after the manner that the Jews did circumcise one nation. And Mr. Blake doth conceit this so strongly, that he saith, this cannot be denied of an●, that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christ's meaning by his words in this enlarged Commission. Secondly, that the nation of the Jews were discipled when they were circumcised. I do not impute it to Mr. Blake through defect of ability to understand, but through the strong hold which these points have in his mind, that Baptism succeeds Circumcision, in the place, room, and use of it, and the covenant of the Gospel is all one, with the covenant made to Abraham, that he imagines there should be such an allusion to circumcision, as that the Disciples must understand Christ's meaning, whom to baptise from the Precept of circumcision, Gen. 17. but in mine apprehension, there is no colour for such a conceit. 'Tis true, he enlargeth their commission, and bids them, Go and make Disciples of all nations; or, as it is in Mark, Preach the Gospel to every creature, and then to baptise the Disciples of all nations; but this enlargement of commission was not in opposition to the restriction about circumcision, Gen. 17. but in opposition to the restriction, Mat. 10.5, 6. as yourself rightly express it, pag. 44. And for that expression, that the nation of the Jews were discipled, that their Infants were discipled, that the nation was made Disciples in Abraham's loins; it is such a construction of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make Disciples, as I believe no Lexicon, nor, I think, any Expositor to this day made of the word, which plainly signifies so to teach, as that the persons taught do learn, and accordingly profess the things taught; and our Lord Christ in Mark expresseth it by preaching the Gospel, and accordingly, the Apostles by preaching, did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disciple, Acts 14.21. which how it can be said of Infants that can neither understand, nor speak the doctrine of the Gospel preached to them, without a miracle, I know not. I make no question, but Abraham did teach his children, and make them Disciples, and that the Israelites did teach and make Disciples of their children, as soon as they could understand the things of God; but that they should be disciples in Abraham's loins, is such a piece of language as I never read in the Bible, nor in any Author, but such as torture words to make them speak what they would have them. And sure, if the Apostles had understood our Saviour's command thus: [Disciple all nations baptising them; that is, Admit the infants of all nations to baptism, as the Jews did the male Infants of that one nation to circumcision] they might have saved themselves a great deal of labour of preaching afore baptism, and of baptising females, and would have left us some precedent of such a practice. But you add further: And we know, that in every nation, the children make a great part of the nation, and are always included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatenings, privileges or burdens, miracles or judgements, unless they be excepted: So are they in families, in cities, it being the way of the Scripture, when speaking indefinitely of a people, nation, city, or family, to be either saved or damned, to receive mercies or punishments, expressly to except Infants, when they are to be excepted, as we see in the judgement that befell Israel in the Wilderness; when all that rebellious company that came out of Egypt was to perish by Gods righteous doom, their little ones were expressly excepted, Numb. 14.31. and in the covenant actually entered into by the body of the nation, Nehem. 10. it is expressly limited to them who had knowledge and understanding: And the Disciples who received this commission, knew well, that in all Gods former administrations, when any parents were made disciples, their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school; and therefore it behoved the Lord to give them a caution, for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his mind, had be intended to have them left out, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in Scripture. The Lord hath plainly given a caution in Scripture for the leaving out Infants in this administration according to ordinary rule: For, in that he directs them to baptise disciples upon preaching, he doth exclude Infants, who are not such disciples, nor according to ordinary providence can be. And this the Apostles could easily understand, as knowing that under the term Disciple, in common speech, and in the whole new Testament, those only are meant, who being taught, professed the doctrine taught by such a one, as John's Disciples, Christ's Disciples, the disciples of the Pharisees, Luke 5.33. the disciples of the perverters, Acts 20.30. and accordingly they administered Baptism. And in that Christ appoints these to be baptised, he excludes others: For the appointment of Christ, is the rule according to which we are to administer holy things, and he that doth otherwise, follows his own invention, and is guilty of will-worship; and thus we construe the meaning of the Holy Ghost in other appointments: As, because it is said, 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, therefore Infants are excluded, though Infant-communion was held lawful and necessary for six hundred years in the Church: Wine is appointed in the Eucharist, therefore not Water mixed with Wine, as the Papists contend: 
Master Bal●y. A dissuasion from the error of the times, ch. 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner, to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily.  Water in Baptism, therefore not salt, chrism, spittle: the Preacher to baptise, therefore not women, or private persons: Males to be circumcised, therefore no females: two shall be one flesh, therefore no more than two, against Polygamy, Matth. 19.5. So that unless you will alter the definition of will-worship, according to Mat. 15.9. in point of worship, that is excluded which is not expressed. And therefore, whereas you say, [it behoved the Lord to give them a caution for the leaving out of Infants in this new administration, that they might know his mind, if that be intends to have them left out, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in Scripture]. I may more truly invert thus; it behoved the Lord to give them a Precept for the putting in of Infants in this (which you truly call) new administration, as being not the same with Circumcision, that they might know his mind, if that he intends to have them put in, which that ever he did, in word or deed, cannot be found in the Scripture. Certainly, you may as soon extract water out of a flint, as draw a command to baptise Infants out of this Scripture, by any express terms, or virtual consequence: but the ordinary baptising of Infants is, and may be proved from this Text to be a will-worship, if this Scripture be the rule of administering ordinarily that Ordinance, which it indeed is, and hath been still taken to be. As for that which you say, The children make in every nation a great part of the nation, so do the Infidels that are adulti, of ripe years; and yet are not therefore included in this speech, Teach all nations, and baptise them; and as for that which you say , the children are always included under every administration to the nation, whether promises or threatenings, privileges or benefits, mercies or judgements, unless they be excepted; therefore here Infants are included, when it is said, Go teach all nations, baptising them. I answer: Fi●st, that this speech in so universal and ample expressions, if understood of temporal judgements and mercies, is contrary to Ezek. 17.20. Jer. 31.29, 30. Isai. 6.13. and 10.22. if of eternal, as it seems you mean, when you say, [to be either saved or damned] it is contrary to Rom. 9.13.27.29. Rom. 13.5. Secondly, if it were true, yet makes nothing to the purpose, sith this Precept is not an appointment to baptise all nations as nations without a● further circumscription, for then every person in the world might be baptised, but disciples of all nations; and therefore it is not a national privilege, but a personal, belonging to Disciples or Believers of every nation. And for that which you say, The disciples who received this commission, knew well, that in all Gods former administrations, when any parents were made disciples, their children were taken in with them to appertain to the same school; if it be thus understood, that God required that parents being called, should instruct their children, and so the children in potentia propinqua, in a near possibility, were disciples, it is granted, according to that which God speaks of Abraham, Gen. 18.19. and requires of the Israelites, Deut. 6.7. But if you mean it thus, that the Disciples knew, that when any parents were made disciples, barely and precisely for this reason without any other, the children were actually disciples, and so to have Baptism administered to them, it is an untruth, that hath no ground for it. But you have yet somewhat more to say for Infants being disciples; and therefore you thus answer an objection. If it be said they are not capable of being disciples, I answer, as capable as the Infants of the Jews and Proselytes were when they were made disciples. It is granted, but neither were the Infants of Jews or Proselytes capable of being actually disciples in an ordinary way, nor are ours. You go on: And besides, they are devoted to be disciples, being to be trained up by their parents, who are from their Infancy to teach them the knowledge of Christ. It is hard to say, that parents are to teach Infants from their infancy the Knowledge of Christ: For, though it is said of Timothy, Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2 Tim. 3.15. yet our Translators would not render it from an Infant, but from a child. But however, if their parents be to teach them from their infancy, and the parents devote them to be disciples, yet this doth not make them disciples actually, but potentially, they may never be disciples for all that. But you tell us: And at the present, they are capable of his own teaching. I deny not but Infants are capable of Christ's own teaching, yea, of actual faith, yea, of actual profession of faith. The same power that could make John Baptist in his mother's womb sensible of the presence of Christ's mother, and to leap for joy, that could open the mouth of Balaams' Ass, can out of the mouth of babes and sucklings perfect praise. But then this is done in an extraordinary way, and extraordinary accidents make not an ordinary rule. But you add: And su●e I am, in Christ's own dialect, to belong to Christ, and to be a Disciple of Christ, or to bear the name of Christ, are all one; and that such Infants do belong to Christ, and bear the name of Christ, I have sufficiently proved already, and in the margin you cite Mat. 10. 42. Mar. 9.41. Mat. 18.5. Mr. Blake pag. 21. seems to triumph in this Argument, when he saith: Who then is not afraid to refuse them, who will receive Christ? Who will not baptise them, that is willing to baptise disciples in the name of Christ? But this is a triumph afore victory. The plain truth is, there's never a one of all the three Texts, speaks of little ones in respect of age. The first, Mat. 10.42. is meant of the Apostles; and as Beza in his Annotations says rightly, Parvos vocat per concessionem suos discipulos, homines nimirum coram mundo viles & abjectos, He calleth his Disciples little ones by concession, to wit, men vile and abject before the world; so that they are called little, in respect of their outward estate in the world, not in respect of age. The second Text, Mar. 9.41. hath not the term little ones, or children at all, and it is expressly meant of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because ye belong to Christ. The third Text, Matth. 18.5. is as little to the purpose. For, first the word is not Infant, but little child, who may be one able to speak: secondly, one such little child, is not meant of a little child in age, but a little child in affection, though an old man in age, resembled by a little child, as appear out of vers. 3. one that is converted, and made as a little child, vers. 4. one that humbles himself as a little child, vers. 6. one of those little ones that believe in him. And therefore Beza rightly on vers. 5. hath this Annot. Puerulem talem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, quempiam ita se demittentem, ut puerum referat: nec enim proprie de pueris agit; such a little child, that is, any one that doth so humble himself, that he resembles a little child: For he doth here properly deal concerning children: And so the Syriack Interpreter, qui sit sicut puer iste, who may be as this boy. But you have yet one place to prove that Infants are disciples, which you thus express. And I desire it may be seriously weighed, whether that expression, Acts 15.10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples, do not necessitate us to give the name of Disciples to Infants, as well as to grown men: For I reason thus; All they upon whose necks those false teachers would h●ve put the yoke of Circumcision, are called disciples, and to be called disciples; but they would have put the yoke of Circumcision upon Infants, as well as grown men; therefore Infants ●s well as grown men are called disciples, and to be called so. The Major is undeniable, the Minor I prove thus: They who pressed Circumcision to be in force according to the manner of Moses Law, and would put it upon their necks after the manner of Moses his Law, they would put it upon Infants of those who were in convenant with God, as well as upon the necks of those who were grown men; for so Moses Law required: But these false teachers pressed Circumcision to be in force, as is apparent, Acts 15.1. I have seriously weighed this Text, Acts 15.10. as you desire, and I find no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the name of Disciples from that Text. And in answer to your Argument, though you say, it is undeniable, yet I have the boldness to deny the Major in your Prosyllogisme; For, though it be true that they are called disciples upon whose necks they would put the yoke of Circumcision, yet it is not said, they would put it only on Disciples, it is more probable they endeavoured to put it on the necks of all, whether Disciples or others, as universally necessary to salvation, v. 1. And therefore your Mayor is not certain, that all they, upon whose necks those false teachers would have put the yoke of Circumcision are called disciples: The Minor likewise in your Prosyllogisme, I deny and in your latter Syllogism, framed to prove it, I deny the Major: For, though I deny not that they would have had Infants as well as converted Gentiles circumcised; yet the putting the yoke of Circumcision is not actual circumcision in their flesh, for that they were able to bear for many ages; and at this day mahometans and Abassine Christians do still bear, as well as Jews; bu● the yoke of circumcision is the necessity of it on men's consciences, and therewith the whole Law of Moses, vers. 5. and that as necessary to salvation, v. 1. and therefore Peter having said, v. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Disciples? adds, v. 11. but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they, plainly implying, that the yoke he meant, was the necessity of Circumcision, and keeping Moses his law to salvation. Now, this yoke was not put upon Infants, but upon brethren taught the necessity of it, vers. 1. And thus, like another Sisyphus, the stone you roll returns upon you: Volvendo saxum sudas, nec proficis bilum, you sweat in rolling a stone, and yet profit not a whit; and you are so far from proving by virtual and undeniable consequence, a command to baptise Infants of Believers, according to ordinary rule, that on the contrary, this Text, Mat. 26.19. clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary rule to be baptised, because Disciples of all nations, and no other, are appointed to be baptised; and therefore baptising of Infants is besides the institution, and so will-worship. But yet Mr. Blake hath one Text for a reserve, which he thus puts in array: Let that Text of the Prophet be well weighed, where speaking by the Spirit of prophecy of the rejection of the Jews, and the glorious call of the Gentiles in their stead, in that ample way, as it is there set out, hath these words: Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my Standard to the people, and they shall bring thy sons in their arms; and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders, Isai. 49.22. If there were but such an hint, as that by way of prophecy to have left them behind, we should from some have heard of it with a noise. It may be truly said, the alleging this Text for Infant-baptisme, is but a noise, vox & praeterea nihil, a voice, and nothing beside, as the Spartan said of the Nightingale. To it I answer, that the allusion is to nursing-fathers' and mother's, carrying children on shoulders, and in their arms, and the speech is metaphorical, as Junius saith in his annot. in locum, Haec omnia allegoricè dicuntur, all these things are spoken allegorically, and may be either understood, as he speaks, of the spiritual amplifying of Christ's Kingdom; and so children were brought on arms and shoulders among Gentiles by preaching and instruction, as when the Apostle saith, he was gentle among the Thessalonians as a nurse that cherisheth her children, 1 Thes. 2.7. or, it may be understood of the return of the Jews from captivity; and that the following verses make more probable; nor is there a word in the Text that I observe, of the rejection of the Jews, as he says, but of their restitution. But if it must be understood properly, which hath no likelihood, it may be as well conceived of bringing their children to have laying on of hands, as baptising of them. I go on to that which follows in your Sermon.  

§. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infant's Baptism, particularly of baptising of households.  ANother command by good consequence for the baptising of infants, you shall find in the forementioned place: when the Apostle exhorteth them to repent and be baptised, etc. because the promise was made to them and to their children, which as I showed clearly proves that the children of such as believe and are baptised, are taken into Covenant, and therefore by good consequence they are to receive the seal of the Covenant, the Text not only showing that they are within the Covenant, but also that a right to Baptism is a consequence of being within the Covenant. This text hath been examined before, and it hath been proved that the promise there is the sending of Christ, who was raised up to bless them and their children first, than those that were afar off, being called, and that the promise doth not belong to their children, as the children of believers, but as called, and that the promise is not alleged as of itself giving right for them or their children to be baptised, without any other consideration, but as a motive and encouragement for them to repent, and so to be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus; for the remission of sins, notwithstanding they had crucified the Lord of glory, and wished his blood to be upon them, and their children; which being thus rightly understood, is so far from proving a command to baptise infants, that on the contrary, it proves they are not to be baptised. You say further; Thus for Commands: for examples, though there should be none, there is no great argument in it, when the rule is so plain, yet we have examples enough by good consequence. It is true, if the rule were plain, there would be no need of an example; and on the other side, if we had regulating examples, we should thereby know how to interpret the rule. But whereas you say, we have examples enough by good consequence, it may be well suspected, these examples will prove like the commands, by consequence mere conjectures and conceits of men that would have it so. But let us hear what you say. For you shall find, that the Gospel took place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together; when Abraham was taken in, his whole family was taken in with him; when any of the Gentiles turned proselytes, ordinarily their whole families came in with them; so in this new administration, usually if the master of the house turned Christian, his whole family came in and were baptised with him; the whole household of Cornelius, the first converted Gentile, Act. 11.14. the household of Stephanus, the household of Aristobulus, the household of Narcissus, the household of Lydia, the household of the Gaoler: These are examples not to be contemned. True: nor any part of holy Scripture which is written for our learning, but in all these, there is no example of an infants baptising in the Scripture. You say, the Gospel took place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together. By the old administration, you mean circumcision. But we do not find the Gospel or Baptism took place just in the manner or circumcision; for in circumcision, it was but in one family singled out, of the males only, whether in the covenant of grace or not, children or servants, elder or younger, at eight days old, in the house, by the Master of the family, or others in his stead. But in Baptism it is clean otherwise, so that you might more truly have said, the new administration of Baptism is just opposite to that of circumcision, yea in respect of that one thing wherein you make them agree so well, the bringing in of whole families together, it was but contingently so, not always so, nor constantly so, according to any promise or prophecy, and when it did so happen, we find not any infant baptised, nor any intimation of baptising households, in conformity to the administration of circumcision. And this may appear by going through the examples of baptising in the new Testament. Concerning John the Baptist, it is said, Mat. 3.5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Luk. 3.29. And all the people that heard him, and the Publicans justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him. Concerning Christ and his disciples, it is said, Joh. 4.1, 2. When the Lord knew how the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than john (though jesus himself baptised not but his disciples.) In these examples the practice of baptising, is not by taking in a family, but by admitting all that would become disciples over all the Countries. After the ascension of Christ, the first example of Baptism, is that Acts 2.44. and there it is said, They that gladly received the Word were baptised; and these were they to whom he had said, ver. the 39 the promise is to you and to your children; and there were added unto them about three thousand souls, and yet never an infant baptised, unless we shall take Mr Thomas goodwin's conceit for an Oracle (possibly the more willingly taken up, that it might seem the more credible, that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single form Congregation in a Church way) that therefore it is said, There were added three thousand souls; to intimate, that there were men, women and children added: he might have observed how ridiculous such a conceit is by that which follows, ver. 42. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer, and fear came upon every soul, etc. Which if he can apply to infants, Erit mihi magnus Apollo, I shall take his words for Oracles. Now sure these three thousand souls were not one family. The next example is of the Samaritans, of whom it is said, Acts 8.12. That when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised men and women. Where it is plain, that in a manner the whole City were baptised; for ver. 6. it is said, The multitude with one accord ga●e heed to that which Philip spoke; ver. 13. Simon himself that did before lead them, now believed; and ver. 14. Samaria received the word of God, and yet not an infant mentioned to be baptised, but those that believed, and received the word of God; nor was this administration by taking in of a family, but rather of a City. The next are of the Eunuch, Acts 8.38. and Paul, Acts 9.18. which were single believing persons, not a whole family. The next is of Cornelius, of whom you gather from Acts 11.14." That his whole household were baptised. But it is true withal, that his house was not an ordinary family, but a garrison of Soldiers. 2. That he called together his kinsmen and near friends, Acts 10.24. 3. That ver. 2. This whole house feared God. 4. That no other are nominated to have been baptised, but those who had heard the word, ver. 44. which spoke with tongues, and magnified God, ver. 46. which received the holy Ghost, ver. 47. who were saved by Peter's words, Acts 11.14. which I presume will not be affirmed of infants." Than you mention the household of Stephanas, which is said to be baptised, 2 Cor. 1.16. and also Chap. 16.15. is said to addict themselves to the ministry of the Saints. To this household most aptly may be adjoined that which you omit, the house of Crispus, concerning whom 'tis said Acts 18.8. And Crispus the chief ruler of the Synagogue believed on the Lord, with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptised. Where under the term household, those only are meant who believed, and those that among the Corinthians were baptised, are said first to hear and believe. You put in the household of Aristobulus, the household of Narcissus, and you do allude to Rom. 16.10, 11. but these are only brought in to make a number. For though our translators in the Text, read of Aristobulus and Narcissus household, yet in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which cannot well be translated of the household of Aristobulus and Narcissus, but rather as Beza, ex familiaribus, and as our translators in the Margin, of the friends of Narcissus; and if it were translated household, yet proves not that the whole families were Christians, but some of them. The next you mention, is the household of Lydia, of whom it was said, that she was baptised, and her household, Acts 16.15. But this must be understood by other places, which when they express the baptising of the household, they express also the believing, or receiving of the Word by the whole household, and by the frequent use of the Word, which is to put the house for the people of growth in it; as, Mat. 10.13. Mark. 3.25. & 6.4. Luk. 11.17. Joh. 4.53. Acts 10.2. 2 Tim. 4.19. The last you mention, is the household of the Gaoler; concerning whom it is said, that he was baptised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Act. 16.33. I remember Mr Edwards at Christs-Church endeavoured lately to gather from this expression, that because it is said, [all his were baptised] therefore his young children or infants, but this is but a light conjecture, and the Text sufficiently refutes this gloss: for ver. 32. immediately precedent expresseth who those [all his] were, to wit, all those in his house to whom Paul had spoken the word of the Lord; and ver. 34. immediately subsequent, which saith, that he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his household. But Mr William Cook, pag. 46. hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a wise remedy to cure this: he tells us thus, I conceive it might be rendered more agreeably to the signification of the words, the scope of the place, and the avoiding of ambiguity. And having believed in God, he rejoiced, exulted, or testified his joy openly by words and actions in all his family, or through his house, or all his house over. But it is not worth while to refute this conceit at large, it is agreeable enough to the scope, order, meaning and signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all his house, to join it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, believing, and to expound it as Beza, cum universa domo, with the whole house, and the Vulgar, cum omni domo, with all the house, rather than in domo, in the house, and to make it answer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all his house, Acts 10.2. to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with all his house, Acts 18.8. so that a● yet it doth not appear that either one infant was baptised, or that the Gospel took place just as the old administration, by bringing in whole families together. Yea the contrary appears out of the 1 Pet. 3.1. & 1 Cor. 7.13.16. that the husband was converted sometimes without the wife, and on the contrary, 1 Cor. 7.21. & 1 Tim. 6.1. Phil. 4.22. in the house of infidel Masters were converted servants, and on the contrary, Philem. 11.12.14, 15, 16. And our Lord Christ foretold it should be so in the preaching of the Gospel, Mat. 10.35, 36. Wherefore I much marvel at the speech of Mr Blake, pag. 22. We have examples not to be contemned of the baptising whole households, and whether infants were there or no, as it is not certain, though probable, so it is not material, the precedent is an household; He that followeth the precedent, must baptise households; It appears not that any wife was there, yet he that follows the precedent in baptising of households, must baptise wives, and so I may say servants, if they be of the household. Which speech, though it contains only dictates, and might be let pass, yet it is not fit to leave it without some animadversions. For if it be true, that the precedent is an household, and we must baptise households, I ask whether we must baptise wife and servants, because they profess the faith, or because they be of the household: if the first be said, than the precedent is not of baptising households, but baptising a professor of the faith, which is the thing the Antipaedobaptists contend for; if because of the household, whether professing faith or not, than an unbelieving wife or servant should be baptised, because they are of the household, unless it be supposed, that in an household when the Master or a husband is a believer, the wife and servant cannot be an unbeliever, the contrary whereof hath appeared above: But this I believe, none will deny to be absurd, and heterodox, and consequently that speech of Mr Blakes is very absurd, that I say no worse of it. To which I add, that Mr Blake gives no reason, nor I think can, why the baptising of households, Acts 16. should be the precedent for baptising rather than the baptising Samaria, Act. 8.12. the 3000. Acts 2.42. all Judea, Mat. 3.5. So that in fine, it appears that the administration of Baptism is not just as the administration of circumcision, and that though it be true, that sometimes households were baptised, yet it is said, those households received the Word, and the word household, is often put for the grown people of it, and therefore as yet there is no example in Scripture to justify the baptising of infants, according to ordinary rule. As for the objection of the household, eating the Passeover, and the answer to it, I shall let it pass now, because it will come again in the last objection of the fourth part of your Sermon. And thus I have at last examined your first and main argument. Your second, it seems, you make less account of, and therefore I shall sooner dispatch the answer. Thus you frame it.  

§. 15. Of an infant's capacity of inward grace; the Text Mat. 19.14. and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptism thereon.  THe second argument: to whom the inward grace of Baptism belongs, to them belongs the outward sign, they ought to have the sign, who have the thing signified, the earthly part of the Sacrament must be granted to those who have the heavenly part: but the infants of believers, even while they are infants, are made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism, of the heavenly and spiritual part, as well as grown men: therefore they may and aught to receive the outward sign of Baptism. The major proposition, that they who are made partakers of the inward grace, may not be debarred of the outward sign, is undeniable: it is Peter's argument, Acts 10. Can any forbid water, that these should not be baptised, who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And again, for as much as God gave them the like gift, as he did unto us, what was I that I could withstand God? And this is so clear, that the most learned of the Anabaptists do readily grant, that if they knew any infant to have received the inward grace, they durst not deny them the outward sign, and that the particular infants whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed, might have been baptised. The Question between us is, whether the infants of believers universally, or indifferently, are to be admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism, according to ordinary rule. Now I suppose you do not hold that the infants of believers indifferently have actually the thing signified by Baptism, that is, the Holy Ghost, union with Christ, adoption, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and everlasting life: for than they are all sanctified, and are all believers, and if this could be proved, there would be no question about Paedobaptism, the texts, Act. 8.37. Act. 10.47. Act. 11.17. would undeniably prove it, and therefore there is no Antipaedobaptist, I think, but will grant your Major; That regenerate persons united to Christ, whose sins are forgiven, adopted persons that have received the Holy Ghost, are to be baptised. But I conceive, though in the laying down the Major, you use these phrases [who have the thing signified, who have the heavenly part]: and in your Minor [are made partakers]; yet you do not mean in this Assumption, actual having, and being made partakers of the inward grace of Baptism; concerning which, the Antipaedobaptists do so readily grant the Major: but a potential having, or, as you after speak, being capable of the inward grace; and so you use the fallacy of equivocation: in the Major, [having] being understood of actual having, and in the Minor of potential, which makes four terms, and so the Syllogism is naught: Or, if you do mean in both actual having, you mean it only of some Infants of Believers, not of all, of whom the Question is, and so your conclusion is but particular, that some Infants of Believers, who are sanctified actually, are to be baptised. But this will not reach home to your tenet or practice, concerning the baptising of all Infants of Believers, in as much as they are the children of Believers, without the consideration of actual faith or sanctification. It is true, the Lutherans do teach, that Infants have actual faith, and are regenerate in Baptism, and therefore, in Colloquio Mompelgar●ensi, upon the fourth Artic. de Baptismo, they put these among the Positions they reject, as contrary to the Scripture: Non omnes infantes qui baptizantur gratiae Christi participes esse, & regenerari, infant's career fide, & nihilominus baptizari; that all the Infants which are baptised, are not partakers of the grace of Christ, and regenerate; that Infants want faith, and nevertheless are baptised. And I remember, when I lived in Oxford, there was a book published in English, of Baptismal initial regeneration of elect Infants, the Position whereof was opposed, as favouring the doctrine of conferring grace by Baptism, ex opere operato, by the work wrought, and intercision of regeneration, sith according to that doctrine, a person might have the Spirit initially, in infancy; and though it could not fall away finally, as being an elect person, yet might run out in a continued course of sinning gross and scandalous sins with full consent until his dying day; which doth enervate the urging of that Text, 1 John 3.9. against Apostasy of regenerate persons, when out of it is proved, that reigning sin is not in the regenerate, and the like texts, which in that Controversy are urged against Arminans. With that book Dr. Featley in his late feeble, and passionate Tract against Anabaptists, and Antiprelatists concurs, pag. 67. in these words: Nay, so far are they from excluding faith from Infants that are baptised, that they believe, that all the children of the faithful, who are comprised in the covenant with their fathers, and are ordained to eternal life, at the very time of their baptism receive some hidden grace of the Spirit, and the seed of faith and holiness, which afterwards bears fruit, in some sooner, in some later. And since I came to London, I met with a Book, entitled, A Christian plea, for Infant's Baptism, by S.C. who holds positions somewhat like to the Lutherans, that though children of believing parents be not all holy and righteous, they may degenerate, apostatise, yet the Infants of believing parents are righteous by imputation, are believers and confessors imputatively, etc. pag. 10. and elsewhere. And he hath this passage, pag. 3. It is a sure truth, that the sins of the parents, being forgiven, the Lord will not impute the same unto their Infants. Original sin, I say, taketh no more hold on the Infants then on their parents; and touching actual sin, they are as clear as their parents. Many more like passages there are in that Book, these I mention, that you may see what stuff Paedobaptists do feed the people with. But I suppose you do not hold, that all Infants of Believers, either actually or initially, or imputatively, are sanctified, regenerated, adopted, justified, as knowing how contrary this is to Rom. 9.6, etc. to daily experience, to the doctrine of Beza and his Colleagues, at Mon●pelgart, to the reformed Churches of Geneva, etc. and what advantage it gives to Papists, Lutherans, Arminians, and those that follow the way of Tomson in his Diatribe, of which I suppose you are not ignorant; and therefore conceiving you orthodox in this point, the answer to your Syllogism is either by showing it doth not conclude the question, if your Minor and conclusion be understood of actual having the inward grace, and they be particular only. If you understand them of actual having, and they be universal, than I deny your Minor. If your Major be understood of potential having, I deny it, if of actual, and the Minor be of potential, there be four terms, and so the Syllogism is naught. Take away the ambiguity of your terms, and the answer is easy. But for the proof of your Minor, you say thus: And for the Assumption, or Minor, That the Infants of Believers, even while they are Infants, do receive the inward grace as well as grown men, is as plain, not only by that speech of the Apostle, who saith, they are holy, but our Saviour saith expressly, Mark 10. That to such belongs the Kingdom of God, as well as to grown men; And whereas some would evade it, by saying, that the Text saith not, To them belongs the kingdom of God, but of such is the Kingdom of heaven, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such like, that is, such as are graced with such like qualities, who are humble and meek, as children are: and that Luke 18. is parallel to this in the meaning of it: whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of heaven as a little child, be shall not enter therein. But I answer, though it be true, that in other places this is one use that Christ makes of an Infant's age and condition, to show, that such as receive the Kingdom of heaven, must be qualified with humility, etc. like unto children; yet here it cannot be his meaning, because his argument is, Suffer them to come to me, and forbid them not, because of such is the Kingdom of God, that i●, my Church and Kingdom is made of those, as well as of others. This was the very cause, why the disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Christ, because they were little, not fit to be instructed; and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled about them; this Christ rebukes in them, and tells them, that the littleness of children, is no argument why they should be kept from him: Suffer them, said he, to come, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God; and what kind of argument had this been, if the Text should be interpreted as these men would have it; Suffer little children to come unto me, that I may touch them, take them up in mine arms, put my hands upon them, and bless them, because the Kingdom of God belongeth to them, who have such like qualities, who resemble children in some select properties? By the very same ground, if any had brought doves and sheep to Christ to put his hands upon them, and bless them, the Disciples had been liable to the same reproof, because of such is the Kingdom of God, such as are partakers of the Kingdom of God, must be endued with such like properties.  
The Minor to be proved is, that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers in as much as they are Infants of Believers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptism, else your Argument will not serve for your purpose, as hath been showed. Now neither doth the Apostles speech, 1 Cor. 7.14. prove it, as hath been showed above; nor doth this Text, Mar. 10.14. prove it. For, first, it is doubtful, whether these were Infants or no. I presume you are not ignorant, that Piscator observat: in Mat. 19.14. doth maintain that the speech of Christ, is not of Infants, but of children which were capable of instruction, which he gathers from this, that Christ called them, Luke 18.16. And whereas it is said in Mark, he took up in his arms, the word so translated, is used Mark 9.36. For the embracing of those that were of some growth, whom he placed in the midst, and of whose scandalising he there warns; nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used Luke 18.15. translated in English Infants prove it, for it signifies a child capable of teaching, as when it i● said, Timothy knew the sacred Scripture from a child, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, ever sin he was a boy, not an Infant; nor doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated brought unto him prove that they were Infants: For the same word is applied to them that were guided, though they were not carried, but did go by themselves, as the blind and deaf Daemoniake, Matth. 12.22. and the lunatic child, Matth. 17.16. To this purpose Piscator. As for Mr. Thomas goodwin's reason from Julius Pollux, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify one that is madidus, moist or sappy, it is of no force to prove that they were Infants: For besides, that not etymology, but use must expound words; if it were so, yet we know children are moist, till they be adolescentes, youths; we say, till they be of good years, they are but a gristle, tender, green; so that notwithstanding this, the children brought to Christ, might be of years sufficient to be catechumeni, and yet fit enough to resemble humility and harmlessness by. Secondly, It is yet doubtful whether our Saviour said, of them is the Kingdom of heaven; for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of such, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of these: And Luke 18.17. Mark 10.15. both add this speech, Verily I say unto you, whosoever doth not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein; like to which is that Matth. 18.3. But you have two exceptions against this: First, because this had been no reason why they should suffer these little children to come to him, because, of such is the Kingdom of God: Secondly, he might as well have said, suffer sheep, or doves to come to me; for of such is the Kingdom of God. To these exceptions it may be replied, the reason may be thus conceived; therefore you should not despise that age as profane, and keep them from me, for even they that are my Disciples, must become children again, in putting off their vices, being converted, unlearning what they have learned, becoming humble and docible, which things could not be resembled by sheep and doves. Thirdly, but let it be granted, that these were Infants, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to be expounded as Beza in his Annot. on Mat. 19.14. horum & similium, 
Grot. annot. ad. Mat. 9.18. notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem, ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces, quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio. Ad Mat. 19.13. pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14, 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum, ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent, ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: qui mos body & apud ipsos manet. Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati pr●desse aliorum fidem ac preces.  these and the like, yet there is no certainty, only conjecture, that they were believers Infants. For, though Christ was in the coasts of Judea then, yet it might as well be, that the children were brought by others as parents, and that without faith in Christ, as the Messiah, upon the fame of his miracles, and the conceit he was a prophet, and so they might bring children to him to be blessed, as Jacob and Esau, by Isaac, joseph's children by Jacob, etc. Fourthly, but let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers, and that it is said, of these is the Kingdom of God, it may be, as Piscator observes, referred not to thei● present estate, as if for the present they were in the kingdom of God, that is, believers and justified; but that they were elect persons, and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God: Now that which gives right to Baptism, 〈◊〉 the present estate of a person. Fifthly, but let that be also granted, yet all this proves not your Minor, unless you can prove, that the reason why the Kingdom of heaven belongs to Infants, is common with these to other Infants of Believers, and the reason why their● is the Kingdom of God, is, because they were the Infants of Believers, that ●o it may be true of all the Infants of Believers. But this cannot be true, being contrary to express Scripture, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8.13. and inferring this error, that a child hath right to the Kingdom of God, in that he is the child of a Believer: And experience proves innumerable of them have no interest in the Kingdom of God. Besides, this reason may be given, why these Infants did belong to God's Kingdom, because they were such as Christ would bless, and then all that you can gather from hence will be, that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth, is the Kingdom of heaven. But this will never prove your Assumption, except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers. Lastly, Christ's action in this business is proper to him, as the great Prophet of the Church, and extraordinary, and therefore yields no ground for an ordinary rule of baptising by the public Ministry. And, if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation, of it, it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation, which Art. 25. of the Church of England puts among things, grown from a corrupt following the Apostles, than Baptism. And in all probability, if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible sign in the new Testament, as Mr. Thom●s Goodwin at Bow dictated, he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptised these Infants as a sampler. For which reason, it seems to me, that this example rather shows Christ would not have Infants baptised, then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptism. But you will prove your Minor by reasons, and thus you reason:  
Beside, what one thing can be named, belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian, whereof Baptism is a seal, which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men; they are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost, of union with Christ, of adoption, of forgiveness of sins, of regeneration, of everlasting life; all which things are signified, and se●led in the Sacrament of Baptism. I may apply to you the words of Horace, Amphora coepit institui, currente rota cur●●recus exit? A barrel began to be made, why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth? The thing you should prove is, that all the Infants of Believers, are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptism; but in stead of this, you prove, they are capable of it; they may have it, but doth it therefore follow, that they actually have it? It was once an Axiom in the Schools; a posse ad esse non valet argumentum, from it may be ●o it is, an Argument holds not; and I think it is so still. Besides, must children be baptised, because they are capable of Grace? Then may all children be baptised, for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptism. But you have yet something more to say.  
And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace, of which Baptism is the sign and seal, all who partake of that grace, are but mere patients, and contribute no more to it then a child● doth to its own begetting, and therefore, Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men; and the most grown men are in no more fitness to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance, which they yet have, than a very little child, it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to show what free grace can, and will do to miserable nothing, to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive, and graft him into the true Olive, to take away the heart of stone, ●o create in them a heart of flesh, to forgive their iniquities, to love them freely; what doth the most grown men in any of these more than an Infant may do, being only passive in them all? and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptism properly a seal. That which you say, it is true, is further considerable; but to what purpose it is here brought in, I cannot readily divine, whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogism; or that which you said immediately before, that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptism; or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus: Baptism is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men; and the proof of this seems to be, because Baptism seals properly the first grace. But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men, and the proof of this seems to be, because all who partake of that grace, are but mere patients, etc. Therefore Infants are to be baptised as well as grown men. If this be your Argument, the Major is to be denied: For, a person is not to be baptised because he may have grace, but because he hath it. And for the reason, that Baptism seals properly the first grace, it is obscure, what you mean by the first grace is not clear. If the free favour of God, mentioned before, when you say, [to love them freely] this indeed is the first grace simply God's eternal love and election; and I deny not but Baptism seals it in some sense properly, and so doth the Lord's Supper as properly; if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace, which is the first transient act of grace, that also is sealed properly in Baptism, and as properly in the Lord's Supper: if you mean the first grace in execution, it is uncertain which you put first, justification or regeneration, or, as some, adoption: And than which is the second grace is uncertain, whether after-sanctification, cooperating, concomitant, subsequent grace, sustentation against temptations, remission of sins, hearing prayers, or eternal glory. Now, I do not well understand in what sense, or why Baptism seals properly rather the first grace then the second, sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace; and therefore of all the promises in it; Nor can I tell, why it should be said, that Baptism seals the first grace properly, rather than the Lords Supper. I confess in exactness of speech, Baptism seals no grace, first or second, properly, taking it for propriety of speech, but improperly, because metaphorically, as sealing is taken for assuring. And if properly notes propriety of right, or title, or possession in opposition to another's; or that which is alien, I see not how Baptism doth seal, that is, assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more than the second, or more than the Lords Supper. And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous: And for the Minor, as I conceive, you frame it, that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men, it is true, and so they are of the second, or at least some of them; but both by extraordinary working. As for receiving grace by ordinary means, they are not capable of one or other. And for the speeches which you heap together, though I grant that in the first conversion, in the sense that some learned men understand it, we are merely passive; yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse, and such as have most acutely handled the controversy about the irresistibility of grace in the first conversion, will subscribe to those speeches of yours, when you say, all who partake of that grace, are but mere patients, and contribute no more to it, than a child doth to its own begetting; and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them, as grown men, and the most grown men are in no more fitness to receive this grace when it is given them, in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have, than a very little child. What doth the most grown man in any of these, more than an Infant may do? being only passive in them all. If my memory deceive me not, the Divines of great Britain at the Synod of Dort in their suffrage, did set down some things which might be done in respect of faith or repentance, when grace is given, by grown men, more than an Infant can do, and so doth in like manner Mr. Rutherfurd, The Trial and Triumph of Faith, Serm. 14. pag. 109, 110. And though you say, The most grown men are only passive in them all, yet D ●. Twisse in his Vindiciae gratiae, lib. 3. errat. 9 Sect. 3. thought this subtlety necessary, that the will in the first conversion, is merely passive, as the willing of the will is taken formally, as being in the subject; but as it is taken efficiently, it being a vital act, so it is not merely passive in the first conversion. And Dr. Preston in his acute Exercitation, De irresistibilitate gratiae convertentis, hath these words: Nos sustinemus voluntatem in primo actu conversionis, partim passiuè, partim actiuè, id est, prius passiuè, dein actiuè se habere, ideoque cum Deo cooperari; We hold the will in the first act of conversion, to be partly passive, partly active, that is, first of all to be passive, then active, and therefore to cooperate with God. It is true, the acts of taking away the heart of stone, creating a heart of flesh, forgiving iniquity, loving freely, as they are acts of God, a man is neither active nor passive in them, they are not in man as the subject, nor from man as the agent; only we may be said to be passive, or active, in respect of the terminus, or effect of them, a new heart, faith, or repentance, produced by them; and in respect of this, in some sense, we are merely passive, in some, partly active, and partly passive in the first conversion, according to the doctrine of the two learned Doctors forenamed. You conclude this Argument with this speech: And whoever will deny that Infants are capable of these things, as well as grown men, must deny that any Infants dying in their infancy, are saved by Christ. Concerning which speech, if you mean that Infants are capable of these things as well as grown men simply, in respect of the things, it is true that Infants are capable of them as well as grown men, and he that denies it denies their salvation: But if you mean it in respect of the modus habendi, the manner of having, than it is not true: for Infants are not capable in the same manner of a new heart, faith and repentance, by hearing, and outward ordinances, as well as grown men. But what is all this to prove your Minor, which is not of potential having inward grace, which is not denied, but of actual having? And so still it remains unproved; that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers as such are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptism.  
And thus have I at last, examined the third part of your Sermon, containing your Arguments from Scripture for Paedobaptism. I proceed now to examine the last part, which follows.   

Infant-Baptisme, is a corruption of the Ordinance of BAPTISM. PART. FOUR Concerning the Objections against Infant-Baptisme.  

§. 1. Of the first objection from institution, Mat. 28.19. and the practice of John Baptist, and the Apostles.  AGainst this argument several things are objected, which I shall endeavour to remove out of the way: First, it is said, that although infants are capable of these things, and they no doubt are wrought by Christ in many infants, yet may not we baptise them, because according to the Scripture pattern, both of Christ's Command, Mat. 28. in his institution of Baptism, where this was enjoined, and John the Baptist, Christ's disciples and Apostles, they always taught, and made them disciples by teaching, before they baptised any.  
It is true, the institution of Christ, Mat. 28.19. and the practice of John Baptist, and the Apostles, are the great objections against Paedobaptism; This principle being laid down as a truth avouched against the Papists, by Protestants generally, that it is a sin of profaning the Sacraments, when the institution is altered, by substraction, as when the cup is denied to the lay people, or by addition, as when chrism and spittle, etc. are added to the elements: and by the non-conformists conformists of England, that it is will-worship to administer the Sacraments any other ways, by addition of any thing to them, but circumstances, which are alike requisite to civil actions; now the persons to be baptised cannot be conceived a mere alterable circumstance, but to belong necessarily to the administration or worship, as the person baptising, and as the persons receiving the Lord's Supper, and therefore there must be warrant from institution for it, else it is a sinful invention of man. But neither Christ's institution, or John the Baptist, 
Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap 4. sect. 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles, holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptised them and their children, Mat. 28.19. Now a disciple is a Scholar in Christ's school, and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples, before they did baptise them, they were not only to convert them to the faith, but also to gather them as disciples or scholars into a school of Christ.  or the Apostles practise, do warrant the baptising of infants, therefore it is will-worship: that the institution, Mat. 28.19. doth not warrant the baptising of infants, is proved. 1. Because the institution appoints only disciples of all nations to be baptised; but infants are not such: therefore the institution doth not warrant their Baptism. The Major and Minor of this Syllogism have been made good, Part. 3. Sect. 13. 2. Because the order Christ appoints is, that teaching or preaching the Gospel, should go before Baptism; now the order of Christ, is a rule of administering holy things, as we argue in like manner, 1 Cor. 11.28. The Apostle appoints that a man is first to examine himself, then to eat of that bread; ergo, Children are not to have the Lords Supper; so in like manner we may argue, we must first teach persons, and then baptise them; therefore children that cannot be taught by us, are not to be baptised; To that which Mr Edwards answereth to this argument, that John is said, Mark. 1.4. to baptise and preach, I oppose the words of Beza annot. in Mark. 1.4. Quod autem Erasmus subjungit Joannem prius baptizâsse, deinde praedicâsse baptismum, ejusmodi est ut ne refutatione quidem videatur indigere. Quid enim? cum diceret Joannes, Poenitentiam agite, appropinquat enim regnum coelorum, non docebat quos erat baptizaturus? Imò ve●ò nisi prius docuisset in quem finem baptizaret, quis tandem ad ejus baptismum accessisset? Certe cum sacramenta sint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, necesse est ut praeeat doctrina quam obsignent. 3. Because the institution is to baptise into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, with invocation of the name of the Lord, as Acts 22.16. Paul is bid arise and be baptised, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Which infants cannot do: with devoting themselves to the service and adherence of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, which may be gathered from this, that Paul said, 1 Cor. 13.15. he had baptised none into his name, that is, he had not caused them in their baptism to devote or addict themselves to him as their Master, but infants cannot so devote themselves to Christ, therefore they are not to be baptised according to this institution. 
Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap. 1. sect. 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist, such as were received into baptism they did first make confession of their sins, and therewith of their repentance, and of their faith also in him who was to come after him, Mat. 3.13. Act. 19.4, 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received ●he Eunuch unto baptism, not until he had made profession of his faith in Christ Jesus, Act▪ 8.37 Cham. Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19 Hiritus omnes professionis fidei, etc. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem: nec debent omitti, tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari.  4. Christ bids the Apostles presently after baptism teach them to observe what ●ver he commanded them; but infants cannot do this, therefore they are not to be baptised. Likewise baptising, infants, doth not agree with the primitive practice of John Baptist, and the Apostles, who required expressions of repentance and faith afore Baptism, Mat. 3.6. Mark. 1.5. Luk. 3.10. Acts 2.38. & 8.12, 13.37. & 9.18. & 10.47. & 11.17, 18. & 16.15.31, 32, 33. & 18.8. & 19.5.8.22.16. in which places, profession of repentance and faith is still made the antecedent to Baptism: but this doth not agree to infants, therefore they are not to be baptised. Of these arguments you answer only to the two first from institution, and to the last from example; to the first from institution, you answered before, and there I examined your answer, part. 3. sect. 12, 13. To the second from institution, and to the last from example, you make some answer here, not denying that the order appointed by Christ is first to teach, and then to baptise: for that is so manifest, that yourself page 35. do so paraphrase the words, when you say, express command there is, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them: nor by denying that John Baptist, and the Apostles required expressions of faith and repentance afore Baptism, nor by denying that the institution of Christ, and the Apostles example, are our rule in the administering the Sacraments, so as that we cannot vary from them without will-worship, and profaning the worship of God by our inventions: for that is so confessed a truth, that there hath been a great while, scarce a Sermon before the Parliament, but hath asserted that rule, and pressed it on the Parliament, and our solemn Covenant supposeth it, the Churches of Scotland, New-England, etc. The Sermons in the City continually a vow it, and urge it, and upon this ground former and later reformations are urged. But you have two miserable evasions; You say, I answer. First, that of Mat. 28. is not the institution of baptism, it was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant, it's only an enlargement of their commission, whereas before they were only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, now they are to go unto all the world. Whereunto I reply, 1. If this be not the first institution of baptism, yet it is an institution, and the institution of baptism to us Gentiles, and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptise, there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practice by, but such as is gathered from John Baptist, the Apostles practise and sayings. 2. If institution or appointment of God must warrant our practice in God's worship, which you once held in the Sermon cited before, part. 2. sect. 9 then you must show another institution, else you cannot acquit paedobaptism from will-worship, and yourself from breaking the hedge God hath set about the second Commandment. But you add further; And beside it is no where said, that none were baptised but such as were first taught, and what reason we have to believe the contrary, you have before seen. Yourself say presently in the next words, It is said indeed, that they taught and baptised, and no express mention of any other, then of the baptism of persons taught, and you assign a reason of it. And page 35. yourself paraphrase the institution, Mat. 28.19. Express command there is, that they should teach the heathen, and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them: and consequently, there is no express command for any other; and for the reason you have to believe that others are to be baptised which are not taught, it hath been examined in the weighing your virtual consequence, which is grounded upon such a principle, as in time you may see to be a dangerous precipice, how ever for the present the great consent of Doctors in the reformed Churches dazzles your eyes; for my part, I cannot yet discern, but that your grounds for paedobaptism, are worse than the Papists and Ancients, who build it on Joh. 3.5. Rom. 5.12. But you yet add. Secondly, it is said indeed, that they taught and baptised, and no express mention made of any other: but the reason is plain; there was a new Church to be constituted, all the Jews who should receive Christ, were to come under another administration: You say right, therefore none other were to be baptised, but taught persons, because though the invisible Church of the Gentiles were joined to the invisible of the Jews, Rom. 11.17. Ephes. 2.14, 15, 16. by faith of the Gospel, as Ephes. 3.6. it is expounded: yet the outward estate of the Church is new, and as you say, even the Jews who should receive Christ, were to come under a new administration, even those who were Jew's by nature and not proselytes, were to be baptised as unclean persons, contrary to their former administration, in which they were only circumcised; and this is a plain evidence, that the administration of Circumcision, is not the administration under which we are now, but that it did belong to that administration which is now abolished, which is enough to overthrow all your virtual consequence from circumcision, to baptism, and consequently all the former dispute of your first argument, in which circumcision of infants is indeed the alone prop of baptising infants. As for that which you add," And their infants were to come in only in their right. This overthrows your second argument; for that is grounded upon this, that infants of believers, and particularly infants of believing Jews, such as those are supposed to be Mark. 10.14. were partakers of the inward grace of baptism, and if so, they came in by their own right. But that one man's right to baptism, should give another right to baptism, is a position that the Scripture doth not deliver, and enwraps sundry errors, which I now omit, because it comes in only upon the by. But you go on. And the heathen nations who were to be converted to Christ, were yet without the covenant of grace, and their children could have no right, until themselves were brought in, and therefore no marvel though both John and Christ's disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptised, because than no other were capable of baptism. In this perioch, you grant many things which do yield the cause; for, 1. you say, that both John and Christ's disciples and the Apostles did teach before they baptised, because than no other were capable of baptism; now by this reason you confess, 1. that baptising of infants is not according to john's and Christ's disciples and Apostles practise; 2. you say, than no other were capable of baptism: Now this is true, either because then there were no children of believers that might be baptised: but that is absurd, that in all the time of Johns and the disciples and Apostles ministry, believers had no children to be baptised, and contrary to the allegation of Mark. 10.14. and other Texts, or because they had no Commission; I cannot conceive how else your speech can be true: But if John, the disciples and Apostles had no Commission to baptise infants, neither have we, and so to do it neither have our Ministers any commission, for we have no other commission to baptise than they had. But you think to salve it thus; But when once themselves were instructed and baptised, than their children were capable of it by virtue of the covenant. Upon which I observe, 1. If the children were capable when once parents were instructed, and baptised, than they were capable, in john's, and the disciples, and Apostles times, and so this speech overthrows that before, that then no other but taught persons were capable of baptism. 2. When you say, the children were capable by virtue of the covenant, it seems you could produce no institution in the new administration, but the institution of circumcision, the validity of which hath been considered before. Besides, the covenant being the same at all times, as your Conclus. 1. holds, the children of believers were as capable in John's time as after. So that your words plainly enterfere. But you put a case to be resolved. If any in the Jewish Church had received commission to go and make other City's proselytes to them, their commission must have run thus, Go teach and circumcise, would it therefore have followed, that none might be circumcised, but such as were first taught? To this I answer, in this commission the precept of circumcising should have had reference in the execution of it, either to the old institution of circumcision, Gen. 17. and then they had been appointed to circumcise males at eight day's old not taught, or to a new institution, and then it would have been told more plainly, what they were to circumcise and whom, and so they might have resolved themselves. But what this makes for baptism of infants, I see not, unless it be supposed that baptism and circumcision are all one, which like the string in the Lampry is an error that runs along through your whole Sermon.  

§. 2. Of the second objection, and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptism.  THe next objection you thus express; But it is expressly said, That he that believes and is baptised, shall b● saved; faith in Christ is the condition upon which men may be baptised; and this is the most common objection among the Anabaptists, unbelievers may not be baptised; children are unbelievers, therefore they may not be baptised; we have, say they, clear evidence that faith is a condition required in those that are to be baptised, no evidence of any other condition that makes them capable of baptism. Others of them add, that under an affirmative command, the negative is to be included, believing is the affirmative, unbelieving is the negative, therefore where believers are commanded to be baptised, unbelievers are forbidden to be baptised: this objection they much glory in, and some of them dare all the world to answer it. The objection framed in this later way I own not, and consequently I may well let pass the answer; for the truth is, Mark. 16.16. is not a command, but an enuntiation; only that text, with others, specially that, Acts 8. 37. where when the Eunuch asked Philip, What letteth me to be baptised? Philip answered, if thou believest in the Lord Jesus with all thy heart thou mayest; and thereby intimated, that faith professed is a prerequisite to baptism, and the defect of it an hindrance, confirm the objection as it is the first way form, which may be further strengthened from the baptism of Lydia, the Jailor, Crispus, etc. and is confirmed in that in the subsequent practice of baptising a Confession of faith was made by the person baptised, as appears out of plain passages in the Ancients, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Videatur Chamierus Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot. on Mat. 28.19.  and Augustine, lib. 8. confess. c. 2. where speaking of one Victorinus, who was to be baptised, Denique ut ventum est ad horam profitendae fidei, quae verbis certis, retentisque memoriter de loco eminentiore in conspectu populi fidelis Romae reddi solet ab iis qui accessuri sunt ad gratiam tuam, etc. Lastly, when it was come to the hour of professing the faith, which is wont in certain words, and gotten by heart to be rendered from an higher place in the sight of the faithful people at Rome by those that shall have access in thy grace; and when it was offered him by the Presbyters, that if he would he might then make his confession more secretly, he refused it and made his confession publicly, with great acclamation. But this is a thing confessed by you, pag. 47. and it is usually answered, that this was only in the baptism of grown men: but infants might be baptised without such a confession. I reply, this answer might serve turn, if either by institution or practise primitive, there could be proved any other baptism then of confessors of faith: in the mean time, till that be done, the argument is good, sith primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum; The first in each kind is the measure of the rest; and this was a prerequisite condition in the first practice, therefore it ought to be so still, especially considering that God in his providence hath still preserved in all ages an image of the first practice in the interrogatories propounded to the baptised, even to infants, and thought necessary to be answered by some one for them, and the altering of it hath been a great cause of many corruptions in the Church of God, that so men might see what evils have followed the swerving from the rule: and might be directed what is necessary to be reform. And so I pass to the third (as you call it) objection, which you thus express.  

§. 3. Of the third so called objection, and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptised.  But suppose they are capable of the inward grace of baptism, and that God doth effectually work in some of the infants of believers, is that sufficient warrant for us to baptise all the infants of believers? if we knew in what infants the Lord did work, than we might baptise those infants, say some of them: but that he doth not make known to us, we cannot know of any one infant by any ordinary way of knowledge, that they are inwardly baptised with the holy Ghost, and therefore we may not baptise any of them, but wait to see when and in whom God will work the thing signified, and then apply the sign to them. This that you here put among the objections, is rather an exception to your second argument, grounded on Act. 10.47. & 11.17. In answer to which it is granted, that those who have the inward grace, meaning it actually, are not to be debarred of baptism, for than they are believers and disciples: But than it is rightly added, that this can make no ordinary rule for baptising the infants of believers indifferently; sith there is no certainty that any one infant of a believer, now existent, hath the inward grace of baptism: and it is certain that all have not, and experience showeth very many have not when they come to age, nor can it be known who have and who have not, but by extraordinary revelation, which if given, would be sufficient authority to baptise those infants, though the ordinary rule be not to baptise infants of believers indifferently. As the extraordinary spirit of Elijah, and Phinehas, and Peter, in killing Ananias and Sapphira, were sufficient authority to them to do those things which agree not with ordinary rule. And this I grant to Mr Blake, that those that are thus entitled through want of an institution, are not to be excluded: for according to this supposition, in this case, the institution is clear for them; for they are sanctified persons, and so believers and disciples of Christ, and besides the extraordinary revelation for that end, would be an institution of that particular act. But the thing that he and you would infer from this concession, is that we may then make it an ordinary rule to baptise infants. But that can never be; for extraordinarium non facit regulam communem, That which is extraordinary, makes not a common rule. If it did, James and John might call for fire from heaven, as Elijah did; a man in his zeal might kill a wicked man without a legal trial, as did Phinehas. But let us hear what reply you make to this concession, you say thus; Our knowledge that God hath effectually wrought the thing signified, is not the condition upon which we are to apply the sign, God no where required that we should know, that they are inwardly and certainly converted, whom we admit to the Sacrament of Baptism, the Apostles themselves were not required to know this of those whom they baptised, if they were they sinned in baptising Simon Magus, Alexander, Hymeneus, Ananias and Sapphira, with others: we are indeed to know that they have in them the condition which must warrant us to administer the sign, not that which makes them possessed of the thing signified; fallible conjectures are not to be our rule in administering Sacraments, either to infants or grown men, but a known rule of the Word, out of which rule we must be able to make up such a judgement, that our administration may be of faith, as well as out of charity: In baptising of grown men, the Apostles and Ministers of Christ administered the sign, not because they conjectured, that the parties were inwardly sanctified, but because they made that profession of faith and holiness, of which they were sure, that whoever had the thing in truth, were received by Christ into inward communion with himself; and that whoever thus made it, that Christ would have them received into the communion of his Church, though possibly, for want of the inward work, they were never received into the inward communion with Jesus Christ. Indeed, when such a confession was made, Christian charity, which always hopeth the best, and thinketh no evil, bound them to receive them, and think of them, and converse with them, as with men in whom the inward work was wrought, until they gave signs to the contrary: But this their charity, or charitable conjecture, was not the ground of admitting them to the Ordinance, but the profession and confession of the party made, according to the Word which they were bound to rest in; yea, I greatly question, whether in case Peter or Paul could by the Spirit of revelation, have known that Ananias or Alexander would have proved no better than hypocrites, whether they either would, or aught to have refused them from Baptism, whilst they made that public profession and confession, upon which others were admitted, who in the event proved no better than those were; so that I conclude, not our knowledge of their inward sanctification is requisite to the admitting of any to Baptism, but our knowledge of the will of Christ, that such, who are in such and such a condition should by us be received into the communion of the Church.  
To the assertion here delivered, I assent, that not our knowledge, that the person to be baptised hath inward grace, is necessary; but our knowledge of the will of Christ, and the person to be baptised, his having the condition, which is the profession of faith and holiness, is sufficient warrant to baptise him. And I agree, that a judgement of charity, is not that a Minister is to proceed by in this case, but a judgement of faith, as you speak, and of ministerial prudence: For a Minister in this case is to act as a Steward, who is to deal according to his Lords will, not his own mind, otherwise his own understanding or affection, which are but a Lesbian rule, should be his rule, which would be intolerable. Thus far I agree with you: only whereas in the case by you framed, your resolution inclines to the negative, I rather incline to the affirmative, and conceive they would have refused them, and that they ought; because I conceive the end of such an extraordinary revelation would be to warn them not to admit such persons, and so equivalent to a prohibition; and in that case the baptising them, would be a plain profaning the Ordinance, which is not to be given to Dogs and Swine: And I conceive, that which Chamier tom. 4. panstra. Cath. lib. 5. c. 15. Sect. 13. speaks in justification of the scrutiny heretofore made in examining the competentes so strictly, confirms this resolution. But to keep to the present business, that which is granted, doth neither prove that upon extraordinary revelation of the present inward sanctification of an Infant, that Infant may not be baptised without staying for its profession: For, though it be true that we are not to stay from baptising them that profess the faith, because we have not a spirit of discerning to know them to be real Believers, yet we may, having a spirit of discerning that an Infant that cannot profess the faith, yet hath true faith, or is inwardly sanctified, baptise that Infant without staying for his profession, partly, because of the principle used by Peter, Acts 10.47. and partly, because the revelation of the faith of that Infant to that end, doth authorise that act: Nor doth this concession advantage you to prove baptising of Infants by ordinary rule, which is the thing you and Mr. Blake aim at. But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ, as the rule of baptising, rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists, who know no other rule to baptise by, but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith, and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them.  
But you further say: And in this the rule to direct our knowledge, is as plain for Infants as for grown men, the rule having been always this: that grown men, who were strangers from the covenant of God, unbelievers, Pagans, Heathens, should upon their being instructed, and upon profession of their faith, and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant, be received and added to the Church, and made partakers of the seal of their entrance, and their Infants to come in with them, both sorts upon their admission, to be charitably hoped of, until they give signs to the contrary, charity being bound from thinking of evil of them, not bound to conclude certainly of any of them, because they ought to know, that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel, and that many are called, but few chosen.  
That the rule for baptising Infants should be so plain, as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptising grown men, professors of faith, I wonder you should say it, much more that you should preach and print it; sigh yourself confess, pag. 34. no express command in the new Testament that they should be baptised; no express example where children were baptised: but on the other side, pag. 35. you say, express command there is, that they should teach the Heathen, and the Jews, and make them disciples, and then baptise them. And I hope you do not imagine, that a rule gathered by virtual consequence is so plain as that which is express; it may be as true, but it is not possible it should be so plain. But the truth of that additional rule of Infants coming in with their parents, hath been examined, and as yet it hath been found to me, neither plain nor true.  

§. 4. Of the fourth Objection, & therein of the stipulation of Baptism.  YOu go on to the fourth Objection: But all who enter into covenant, and receive the seal of the covenant, must stipulate for their parts, as well as God doth for his; they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant, as well as God doth to perform his part; as even this Text, 1 Pet. 3. requires, that Baptism which saves us, must have the answer of a good conscience to God. Now, although it be granted, that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace, if God be pleased to work it in them, yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God, they having not the use of reason, and not knowing what the covenant means?  
For my part, I own not this objection taken from the general nature of the covenant, as if it did exclude Infants, or that particular text, 1 Pet. 3.21. For the word used for a Covenant, may be as well translated a Testament; and the Holy Ghost, Gal. 3. and Heb. 9 doth use it in that notion, and it may be, that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law, as their covenant; 
Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England, ch. 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant, but such as profess their taking hold of the covenant.  as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites. And for that text, however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by stipulation, and in his Annotation on that place says, The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists, in which the catechised even then did witness their inward baptism to be confirmed by the outward, as Acts 8.37. whereto, says he, belongeth the Apostles Creed, and that translated from the baptism of grown persons to the baptism of Infants by a greater error, if you consider the Infants themselves: Dost thou believe? I do believe: Dost thou renounce? I do renounce. Whence that of Tertullian, which is, as it were, in the stead of a Commentary on this place, in his book of the resurrection of the flesh; The soul is established, not by washing, but by answering. I say, though Beza do upon second thoughts, and nearer consideration conceive this to be the meaning, yet I build not on it, as being doubtful, and in mine apprehension, it rather notes an effect of Baptism and the resurrection of Christ, than a prerequisite condition; and there are other plain places before alleged which do prove the thing, that the baptised were to profess and promise; or, to use your phrase, seal (which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist, Joh. 3.33.) as Acts 8.37. etc. So that the objection is the same with the second. Now let us see what you answer: you say thus,  
The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel, every one who was circumcised, was bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. And these men profess that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant, when yet they knew not what it meant, nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion; look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true, will abundantly satisfy for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel.  
It is true, this answer serves turn against those that argue from the general nature of a covenant; but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolical practice as our rule. As for that which you here, and all along in your Book, suppose that there is the same reason of the mixed covenant made with Abraham, as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel, and of every Believer, as of Abraham, and of Baptism, as of Circumcision, it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, chief error, which misleads you throughout your Sermon, and makes you speak and write in a dialect, which in the Scripture is unknown. And for that which you say, that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel; if you mean it of common duties, of evangelical obedience, it is true; if you mean it thus (which alone serves for your purpose) that persons to be baptised now, are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptism, than Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision, it is false: For, there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptism, but not before Circumcision. But you say, every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. True, and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptism. You say, and these men profess that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant, when yet they knew not what it meant, and then say, look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants, if true, will abundantly satisfy for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel. If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptised, though the Jews Infants were circumcised, this is a true and satisfactory answer, that God commanded the one, but no where the other; and yourself say, pag. 84. Our knowledge of the will of Christ, is that which is the only direction we are to follow.  
But you add a second answer, which I let pass, because it is but a declaration of your own conceits, how you conceive a child may seal the covenant in his infancy, telling us, that their name is put into the Deed, and that a child may seal, fi●st in infancy, and then after agnize it; and that God is pleased to seal to Infants while they are such, and to accept such a seal as they can give, without any proof, but only spinning out the simile of a seal; as if God's ways were like man's ways, or a simile did g●●deare in omnibus, a similitude were even in all things; only where you say, that in the mean time, Jesus Christ, who is the surety of the covenant, and surety of all the covenanters, is pleased to be their surety; this speech is further to be examined. 'Tis true, Jesus Christ is the surety of a better Testament, Heb. 7.12. he is the surety of all the covenanters, he doth strike hands, and becomes a surety of the whole covenant, and of every condition in it, take it in the largest sense, and this of all, both on God's part and ours, as very rightly and excellently Mr. Thomas Goodwin in his Teatise entitled, Christ set forth. Sect. 3. Chap. 3. And to like purpose, Mr. Rutherfurd, The trial and triumph of Faith, serm. 7. But are any other among men covenanters, but the elect who are purchased by the blood of the everlasting covenant? Heb. 13.20. It is a very inconsiderate boldness in you, to make every baptised person, or at least every baptised Infant of a Believer a covenanter, for whom Christ is a surety, and one to whom God seals, when the Scripture makes Christ the surety only for his redeemed ones, as may be gathered out of sundry places in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but I doubt not but when you have considered it a little better, you will easily espy your error in these dictates, and therefore I pass on to the next objection.  

§. 5. Of the fifth Objection, and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptism●  But what benefit comes to children by such kind of sealing as this is? it seems then (say they) by your own confession, that this is but a conditional sealing on God's part, viz. that they own it and ratify it when they come to age; and if they then refuse to stand to it, all is then nullified; were it no● therefore better to defer i● to their years of discretion, to see whether they will then make it their own voluntary act, yea or no.  
In what sense baptising may be called sealing, I have above showed, Part. 3. Sect. 12. but I cannot allow of this, 
Dr. Twisse: The doctrine of the Synod of Dort, & Arles, &c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confess, that the Sacrament of Baptism is the seal of the righteousness of faith unto us Christians, as Circumcision was un●o the Jews, Rom. 4. which is as much a● to say, that it assures us of the remission of our sins, as many as believe; and I conceive it to be a visible sign of invisible grace, and that not of justification only unto them that believe, but of the grace of regeneration also, but how? not at that instant collatae, but suo tempore conferend●, to wit, when God shall effectually call a man; and it is very strange unto me, that regeneration should go before vocation. S●e more to the same purpose in the same Author, part. 3. §. 6.  to say, that God seals to every one that is baptised. It is true, that Baptism is in its nature a seal of the righteousness of faith, 1 Pet. 3.21. but yet God doth not seal this to every one that is baptised, but only to true believers: For, what is Gods sealing, but the confirming of his promise? But God promiseth righteousness only to Believers; therefore he seals only to Believers. As for the sealing by God upon condition persons agnize the covenant, it is but a notion, the Scripture makes not God's promise in the covenant of Grace conditional in that sense: For God's promise is for those he enters into covenant with, That he will put his Law in their hearts, and in their minds will write them, Heb. 10.16. Nor do I know any but Corvinus in his Examen of Moulins Anatomy, chap. 9 sect. 6. and the Arminians, that do so speak of God's covenant of Grace, as if it were common to the elect and reprobates, and conditional in this sense, as if God left it to men's liberty, to whom he had sealed, to agnize or recognize that sealing, or to free themselves, if they please, and so nullify all; yet so as to afford them a while the favour and privilege of being in covenant with him, as you speak. I appeal to them who have been conversant in the writings of the Arminians, whether these speeches do not symbolise with their language. And therefore this that you make an objection, I look on as a frivolous supposing a Chimaera, and then disputing about it: But yet there are some things I shall take notice of in your answer.  
The question is, What benefit to Infants by such a sealing: you answer thus: This objection lay as strongly against God's wisdom in requiring the Jews Infants, even in their infancy thus to seal; and therefore argues no great wisdom, or modesty in man, who would thus reason with God about his administrations.  
It is true, God appointed the male children of Abraham's family to be circumcised, and thereby they were bound to keep the whole Law, and it were a sinful presumption to reason with God about it; and in like manner, if God had appointed Infants to be baptised, it would silence all arguings about it, though we knew not the reason: but how it is to be understood, that God required the Jews, even in their infancy to seal, I do not well understand; our sealing to God is believing, Joh. 3.33. I do not find that God required this of the Jews Infants in their infancy, nor of our Infants; nor was Circumcision itself the Infant's duty, required by God of the Infant, though it were its privilege, it was the parent's duty, Exod. 4.24.  
You say, secondly, God hath other ends and uses of applying the seal of the covenant to them who are in covenant with him, than their present gain, it's ● homage worship, and honour to himself; and it behoves us even in that respect, to fulfil all righteousness; when Christ was baptised and circumcised, he was as unfit for the Ordinance through his perfection, as children through their imperfection, being as much above them as children are below them.  
It is true, Baptism is a worship of God; but Paedobaptism, for aught yet appears, is but a will-worship. Christ's Baptism, it is true, was of a transcendent nature, as is said before; that children are unfit for the Ordinance, is not to be imputed to their imperfection, but to the defect of God's appointment; if God did appoint it, there would be no doubt of their fitness. But you add further:  
3. I answer, The benefit and fruit of it at the present, is very much, both to the parents and to the children: to the parents, first, whilst God doth thereby honour them, to have their children counted to his Church, to his Kingdom and Family, and to be under his wing and grace, whilst all the other Infants in the world have their visible standing under the prince, and in the kingdom of darkness, and consequently, whilst others have no hope of their children's spiritual welfare, until they be called out of that condition, these need not have any doubt of their children's welfare, if they die in their infancy; nor if they live until they show signs to the contrary; God having both reckoned them unto his people, and given them all the means of salvation which an Infant's age is capable of. All this passage is but dictates; what, or how much of it is true or false, hath been considered before, only that you say; all the other Infants of the world have their visible standing under the prince, and in the kingdom of darkness; and consequently, whilst others have no hope of their children's spiritual welfare, until they be called out of that condition; If you mean by all other Infants, all that are unbaptised, though the Infants of Believers in the Church, it is a very harsh and uncharitable speech; and you oppose those that in dispute against the Papists concerning the necessity of Baptism to salvation, do hold that Infants of Believers are holy, and in the Church afore they be baptised, and join with Lutherans and Papists, denying it; if you mean only the unbaptized Infants of Infidels, what comfort do you give more to believing parents, that have their children baptised, then belongs to them, though their children were not baptised? And when you say, that all others have no hope of their children's spiritual welfare, if you mean it of believing parents that baptise not their children, it is in like manner an uncharitable speech, and doth border too near on the opinion of the necessity of Baptism for Infants to salvation; and when you say, these need not have any doubt of their children's welfare, if they die in their infancy, if you mean it of parents, because their children are baptised, you do speak like one that did hold that Baptism doth confer gratiam ex opere operato, confer grace by the work done; but for aught you can show out of Scripture, a believing parent hath as much ground of hope for his Infant that dies unbaptised as for the baptised, and as much reason of doubt concerning the baptised as the unbaptized. And therefore, what you here speak, doth no whit encourage parents to baptise children, if it be well weighed, except there can be proved an institution and a promise. But you say, secondly, here is much privilege and benefit to the children, when as (beside what inward secret work God is pleased to work in them) they being members of the Church of Christ, have their share in the communion of Saints, are remembered at the Throne of grace every day by those that pray for the welfare of the Church, and particularly, in those prayers which are made for his blessing upon his Ordinances.  
By your parenthesis, you intimate some inward secret work God is pleased to work in the Infants baptised, by Baptism. If you conceive a bestowing of grace, ex opere operato, by the work done: or, baptismal initial regeneration of the elect, supposed to be in the Infants in baptism, notwithstanding till death they live wickedly, speak plainly that we may know what you mean, and then an answer may be framed to your spe●ch. As for being members of the Church, if you me●n the invisible Church, neither I nor you can affirm or deny; it's in God's bosom alone; if you mean the visible, you must make a new definition of the visible Church afore Infants baptised will be proved members. For their remembering at the Throne of grace daily, if you mean it particularly, and by name, I do not find that to be in use after Baptism any more than afore, and I think they are remembered by the godly in general as well afore Baptism as after; and for the praying for God's blessing upon his Ordinances, if Infant-baptisme be not God's Ordinance, this prayer in reference to Infant-baptisme at that time might be better spared. You say; And lastly, it's no small privilege to have that seal bestowed on them in their infancy, which may afterwards plead when they are grown, and come to fulfil the condition.  
When, where, and how Baptism should be pleaded, as you show not, neither do I well conceive. It is not Baptism of itself that will yield a plea of any force, either in foro soli, in the Court of earth, or in foro poli, in the Court of heaven, but the promise of God, and the condition of faith in Christ. And these will be good pleas in prayers to God, and in the court of conscience, when Infant-baptisme will stand in no stead. The plea of the Apostle will hold, Rom. 8.31, 32, 33, 34. which baptism rightly administered doth strengthen, 1 Pet. 3.21. But I never knew any Saint that pleaded his infant-baptisme in such cases.  

§. 6. Of the sixth objection, and therein of Infant-communion, by virtue of their being in the Covenant, & the Lords Supper succ●eding the Passeover.  YOu say further; But if their being capable of the spiritual part, must entitle them to the outward sign, why then do we not also admit them to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is the seal of the Covenant of grace, as well as the Sacrament of Baptism? And this is urged the rather, because (say they) the infants of the Jews did eat of the Passeover as well as were circumcised; Now if our infants have every way as large a privilege as the infants of the Jews had, then can we not deny them the same privilege which their infants had, and consequently they must partake of the one Sacrament as well as the other.  
This argument is good, ad homines, against the party opposite, proceeding upon the Paedobaptists hypotheses or suppositions; to wit, 1. That those to whom the Covenant belongs, to them the seal belongs; 2. That to the infants of believers, the Covenant belongs; 3. That the Lords Supper is a seal of the Covenant as well as Baptism. And these are your hypotheses. Now than if this be a good argument, children are to be baptised, because they are in the Covenant, and the seal belongs to those in Covenant, by the same reason they are to receive the Lords Supper, because they are in Covenant, and the seal belongs to those in Covenant. Now this argument is strengthened from other hypotheses, as that the Lords Supper succeeds the Passeover, as Baptism Circumcision, but children not of years of discretion had the Passeover, therefore they are to hav● the Lords Supper. And this is confirmed by the practice and opinion of the Ancients that gave the Lord's Supper to infants, for 600 years after Christ as well as baptism. To this you say;  
I answer, that infants are capable of the grace of Baptism we are sure, not sure that they are capable of the grace signed and sealed in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
This answer supposeth that there is grace sealed in the Lord's Supper, which is not sealed in Baptism. To me that Sacrament that confirms the covenant of grace, confirms all the promises in it, and therefore if Baptism be the seal of the covenant, it seals all the graces and all the promises in it, and therefore you are as sure that infants are capable of all graces annexed to the Covenant, as of one. But you say; For both of them are seals of the new Covenant, yet it is with some difference; Baptism properly seals the entrance into it, the Lords Supper properly the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of it; Baptism for our birth, the Lords Supper for our food. Now infants may be borne again while they are infants, have their original sin pardoned, be united to Christ, have his image stamped upon them; but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants, the Scripture is altogether silent.  
You spoke somewhat to like purpose before, which I examined part. 3. sect. 15. To me it is yet as a paradox, that Baptism seals properly the entrance into the Covenant, and the Lords Supper, the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of it. If you make the entrance at remission of sins, justification, or mortification; the Lords Supper that seals Christ's death, seals the entrance into the Covenant, Mat. 26.28. And for Baptism, it seals dying with Christ, and rising with Christ, Rom. 6.3, 4, 5. Gal. 3.27. Col. 2.12. 1 Pet. 3.21. and therefore not only the first work of conversion, but also after-growth and exercise of holiness. And the Lords Supper, signifies the same receiving the Spirit, which Baptism doth, 1 Cor. 12.13. And according ●o the doctrine of Protestants, Baptism seals as well the pardon of other sins, as of original sin. And so Peter, Acts 2.38. and Ananias, Act. 22.16. And therefore this difference you put, is a difference which the Scripture makes not; that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth, nourishment, and augmentation of the Covenant. But you say; And what is said concerning the infants of the Jews eating the Passeover, to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed, there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God. It is said indeed that the several families were to eat their Lamb, if the household were not too little for it, and that when their children should ask them what that service meant, they should instruct them about the meaning of it, but no word enjoining, nor any example witnessing tha● their little children did eat of it.  
The Commands were, that all the males should thrice a year appear before the Lord; one of which was the Passeover, Exod. 23.17. Exod. 34.23. Deut. 16.16. And at that time there was no other food to be eaten, but the unleavened bread, and the paschal Supper. Therefore those males that could eat, though not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper, yet were to eat the Passeover. Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26. So both the outward rite, and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children. Touching whom, the Jews hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17. Deut. 16.14.16. that every child that could hold his Father by the hand, 
Cotton: The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England. Chap. 1. sect. 2. To the Passeover all Jews were admitted young and old, unless defiled with some pollution.  and go up from Jerusalem (gates) to the mountain of the Temple, his Father was bound to cause him to go up and appear before God with him, to the end he might catechise him in the Commandments. And who sow as bound to appear, was bound to keep the feast. Maim●ny in Hagigah, Chap. 2. sect. 3, 4. Also they say. A child that is able to eat a marsell of bread, they catechise him in the Commandments, and give him to eat so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread. Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread, c. 6. sect. 10. But you say;  
If they say as some of them do, that those little ones who were able to inquire concerning the meaning of that service, and capable to receive instruction about it, did eat of the Passeover with their parents; I answer, (although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating, yet if that be granted) it is no prejudice to us, because the Gospel prohibits not such young ones from the Lords Supper, who are able to examine themselves and discern the Lords body.  
True; but children that were to appear at the Passeover, and to partake of it, were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service, and yet too young to examine themselves, or to discern the Lords body: so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover, and a rule may be drawn from the Passeover to the Lords Supper, children unable to examine themselves, may be admitted to the Lords Supper.  

§. 7. Of the first use, and the Anabaptists supposed bloody sentence.  THe rest of your Sermon is application, which being not argumentative, I shall let it pass. Only whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloody sentence, condemning infants as out of the state of grace, condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ, as having nothing to do with the Covenant of grace; and then tragically aggravate this thing, as parallel, or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael, in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall, till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists, so determining, I shall take it to be but a false accusation, and a fruit of passion, not of holy zeal. For the thing itself I have showed part. 2. sect. 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme: and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained, to wit, so as to signify the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus, (besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace) yourself will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they. As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace, that is, certainly elected, justified, and to be saved, so neither dare you. Your own words are pag. 48. Charity being not tied to conclude certainly of any of them: because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel, and that many are called, but few are chosen. If you should, you would gainsay the Apostle, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And on the other side, as you will not say they are damned, so neither will they I am persuaded: but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular, leave them to God, who is the sovereign Lord both of them and us.  

§. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author.  THus have I, at last, in the midst of many wants, distractions, discouragements, and temptations, with the assistence of God, who hath never failed me (to him be the praise) examined your Sermon, and thereby showed that it doth not satisfy, and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle, I am assured that it is God's truth which I have preached, and which he will bless. Notwithstanding which confidence, I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer. I dare not think any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seeks the truth. Nor do I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this pains for any ends cross to the finding of truth. My real intention in this work is to discover truth, and to do what is meet for me in my calling, towards the reformation of these Churches according to God's Word: unto which we have both bound ourselves by solemn Covenant. I have endeavoured not to let pass any thing of weight, either in your Sermon, or Master Thomas goodwin's, which I could well remember, or Master Blakes, or any other that have published any thing about this matter of late. It is an endless business to make a several answer to every one. I chose to answer yours, because you are styled the antesignanus, Ensign-bearer in print; and for other reasons given in the Prologue. 
Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex.  My motion is that there may be an agreement among those that have appeared in public in this cause, to join either in a reply to this examen of your Sermon, or in some other work, in which I may see together the whole strength embattled, and not be put to weary out myself in reading every Pamphlet, of which there are too many indigested ones now adays printed, even with Licence: and for the buying of which, as now my estate is, I doubt whether my purse will furnish me. If I may have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, daily bread for me and mine in a narrow compass, it will be as much as I may look for. The small stipend I had is likely to be even now subtracted. If there be any willingness in you to have any conference with me, to consult about a way of brotherly and peaceable ventilating this point, I shall be ready upon notice to give you the meeting, and I hope it shall appear, that I shall not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stiff in opinion, in case truth shining before me, present my error to my view; and I hope the like of you. I shall wait a month after your receiving this writing, to know whether any of these motions take place with you, hoping you will not disdain to let me have advertisement of your mind, by some letter or message. I would fain have truth and peace and love, go hand in hand, if it may be: though of these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is meet to prefer truth, as Aristotle said long since. It will be no grief of heart to you at the day of resignation of your spirit, that you have done nothing against the truth, but for the truth. You have now my writing, as I have yours: one day Jesus Christ shall judge us both. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things. Thus prayeth  
From the house belonging to the Rectory of Gabriel Fanchurch in London. December 7. 1644. Delivered to him Dec. 9 1644. Your brother and fellow-servant in the work of Christ, JOHN TOMBS.   

Inscribed thus; To the reverend and worthy Mr Stephen Martial, B. D. these present.  
As it is now printed, it is enlarged in sundry places, occasioned by sundry Books published since the first writing of it.   

Colossians 2.11, 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme.  
An Appendix to these Treatises, in an Answer to a Paper, framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme, from Coloss. 2.11, 12.  
SIR,  
YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form: That may be said to be written, without which, that which is written cannot be true. This I grant. But that which is said, Colos. 2.11, 12. of the completeness, with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament, could not be true, unless Baptism were to Believers children, as Circumcision was of old; because it cannot be understood of the completeness that Believers have in Christ for salvation; for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament; but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children; Ergo, so they must now, or else that cannot be true.  
Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things, whereof somewhat is true, somewhat false.  
1. It is true, That the believing Jews were complete in Christ for salvation. For so was David, Abraham, etc. who were justified by faith, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11.  
2. It supposeth, that the Apostle, Colos. 2.11, 12. mentions Baptism, to show that we are as complete as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances, whereas the Apostle speaks not, vers. 10. of completeness by reason of outward ordinances, but says, we are complete in Christ without outward ordinances, and that is his very Argument to dissuade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances, vers. 8. yea, it is plain, that the Apostle makes the Jews incomplete by reason of their outward ordinances; and that it is our completeness that we have all in Christ, without outward ordinances, vers. 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptism, to show that we are equal to the Jews in outward ordinances, (for the Apostles assertion is, that we are complete in Christ, exhibited without outward ordinances, and so the better for want of them) but to show how we put on Christ, and so are complete in him, and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptism; as in like manner he doth. Gal. 3.26, 27. Rom. 6.3, etc. Besides, if that by being baptised we are complete in outward ordinances, than we need no other ordinance, and consequently the Lords Supper should be needless.  
3. It is supposed, that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children. But this is ambiguous, in some sense it is true, in some sense it is not true. It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham, to wit, First, that God made such a Covenant with Abraham. Secondly, that God required them to keep the conditions of it. But it is not true in these senses. First, that every person circumcised, or to be circumcised, of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant. Secondly, that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised.  
4. It is supposed, that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now, as the Jews had, that it cannot be true that we are complete as the Jews. But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions: First, that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace, because they were Abraham's natural seed. Secondly, that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace, because they are a Believers children; which things are expressly contrary to Rom. 9.6, 7, 8.  
5. It is supposed, that the Jews having salvation by Christ, had also a completeness by outward ordinances. It is true, that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols, they were complete by reason of outward ordinances: For, their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come, and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles. But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh, so they were incomplete in respect of outward ordinances; and so the Apostle determines, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3.  
6. It is supposed, that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision, we are not complete in Christ, or, at least, not so complete as the Jews. But this I account to be false, and very dangerous.  
1. False, because it is contrary to that which the Apostle asserts, that we are complete in Christ alone, because in him is the fullness of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews.  
2. It is very dangerous, because the same reason that will conclude, that we are not complete without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision, will conclude, we are not complete without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices, Temple, Priest, Altar, etc. and so after the Popish manner, all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names, which would overthrow Christianity.  
As for our completeness in Christ without outward ordinances, like to the Jews, I distinguish of a twofold completeness.  
First, in all the will of God, Colos. 4.12. And thus we are complete without such ordinances: we may do all the will of God believing in Christ, without observing any of those ordinances.  
Secondly, of means, in ordine ad finem, in order to the end, that is, to the knowledge of God, and obtaining salvation: And so we are more complete than the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them.  
First, because they had Christ only promised and assured, we have ●hrist exhibited, and fulfilling all things. And surely they that have a promise accomplished, are completer than they that have it only assured, let it be assured never so firmly.  
Secondly, because they had Christ under shadows, we the body, Colos. 2.17. he is the true Shecinah, or Divine Majesty, in whom the fullness of the glory of God dwelled, Col. 2.9. he was circumcision, sacrifices, all. And the woman is more complete that enjoys her husband in person, then in a picture, messenger, etc. that represent him. The Jews were complete in Christ as we, quoad rem, in respect of the thing, but not quoad modum, & mensuram rei, in respect of the manner and measure thereof. So that in the Argument, these Propositions are to be denied:  
1. That Colos. 2.11, 12. speaks of completeness, with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament.  
2. That it could not be true, unless Baptism were to Believers children, as Circumcision was of old.  
3. That Colos. 2.11, 12. cannot be understood of the completeness that Believers have in Christ for salvation.  
4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children.  
5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children, in that sense the consequence is to be denied, that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now.  
FINIS.   

Latin passages Englished in the second Treatise.  
Partly 1. pag. 2. Achilles' the champion of the Greeks proverbially put for the strongest argument.  
Pag. 5. Christ came to save by himself all; all, I say, who by him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and boys.  
Pag. 6. That Baptism is understood under the name of new-birth in our Lords and the Apostles phrase.  
openly confirming the Apostolic tradition of the baptism of little infants against anabaptistical impiety.  
Only I would have the younger who shall light on the works of Irenaeus●dmonished ●dmonished, that they beware of those editions, which that most impudent Monk Fevardentius a man of large boldness, and of no faith, hath foully corrupted in many things, and bespattered with impious and lying annotations.  
Are born again.  
Therefore being a master he had also the age of a master, not rejecting nor going beyond a man, nor losing the law of humane kind in himself, but sanctifying every age by that likeness which was to him. For he came to save all men by himself; all men, I say, who by him are new born unto G●d, infants and little ones, and boys, and young men, and elder men. Therefore he went through every age, and was made an infant sanctifying infants; among little ones, a little one, sanctifying them that have this age: being also made an example to them of piety, and justice, and subjection. Among young men being made an example to young men, and sanctifying them to the Lord: so also an elder to the elder, that he might be a perfect m●ster not only according to the exposition of the truth, but also according to age sanctifying also the elder, being made also an example to them. And then he went even unto death, that he might be the firstborn from the dead holding the primacy in all things, the Prince of life, before all, and preceding all.  
Pag. 7. But we shall the less trouble ourselves concerning Origen, because the things we cited are not extant in Greek.  
In the margin. If therefore any man before Pelagius was born, or before Arius arose, be sha●p and vehement against the errors of Pelagians, and vexing them professedly, although the name of the heretics be suppressed, it is not probable that such a writing is the Authors whose name it 〈…〉  
Pag. 8. For this also the Church hath received a tradition from the Apostles, and according to the observance of the Church.  
The seal to them that enter into a course of life.  
In the margin. Notwithstanding the custom of our mother the Church in baptising little ones is not to be despised, nor by any means to be accounted superfluous, nor at all to be believed, unless it had been an Apostolical tradition.  
Pag. 11. That infants are presently to be baptised that they perish not, because mercy is not to be denied them.  
Pag. 13. Lest little ones should perish if they should die without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, they determined that they were to be baptised for the remission of sins. Which also St. Augustine shows in his book of the baptism of little ones, and the African Counsels witness, and many documents of other Fathers.  
But the father or mother ought not to stand for their own child at the Font, that there may be a difference between spiritual begetting and carnal. But if it happen by chance they shall have after that no fellowship of carnal copulation, who have undertaken the spiritual bond of co-fatherhood in a common son.  
What say you to these things? Lo I have not brought out of Augustine, but out of the Gospel, which sith ye say ye chiefly believe, either yield ye at length that by the faith of others others may be saved; or deny if ye can those things which I have laid down to be of the Gospel.  
Pag. 14. in the margin. And I was signed with the sign of his cross, and I was seasoned with his salt from the womb of my mother, who much hoped in thee.  
Pag. 15. in the margin. Augustine adjudgeth to eternal flames the Infants that die without baptism. Likewise whosoever shall say, that even the little ones shall be made alive in Christ, who go out of this life without the participation of his Sacrament, he truly goeth both against the Apostles preaching, and condemns the whole Churcb.  
The most strong and founded faith, in which the Church of Christ believes that no not little ones most lately born can be freed from damnation, unless by the grace of the name of Christ, which he hath commended in his Sacraments.  
Pag. 16. Neither let that move thee, that some do not bring little ones to receive baptism with that faith that they may be regenerated by spiritual grace unto life eternal: but because they think that by this remedy they keep or receive temporal health. For not therefore are they not regenerate, because they are not offered by them with this intention. For necessary ministeries are celebrated by them.  
It is answered he doth believe by reason of the Sacrament of faith.  
Pag. 18. in the margin. Lastly, who seeth not that this was the manner of that time, when scarce the thousandth person was baptised afore he was of grown age, and diligently exercised among the catechised.  

Part. 2.  
Pag. 21. These to the rest of the errors which they borrowed from the Manichees and Priscillianists added this over and above, that they said, that the baptism of little ones was unprofitable, inasmuch as it could profit none, who could not both himself believe, and by himself ask the Sacrament of baptism, of which kind we read not that the Manichees and Priscillianists taught any thing.  
They mock us because we baptise infants, because we pray for the dead, because we ask the suffrages of the Saints.  
They believe not that Purgatory fire remains after death, but that the soul loosed from the body doth presently pass either to rest, or to damnation.  
But now they who acknowledge not the Church, it is no marvel if they detract from the orders of the Church, if they receive not their appointments, if they despise Sacraments, if they obey not commands.  
Because he took away Festivals, Sacraments, Temples, Priests, because the life of Christ is shut up from the little ones of Christians, while the grace of baptism is denied, nor are they suffered to draw near to salvation.  
Pag. 23. We perceive in the man dexterity, and a study of mediocrity.  
But in that man (I desire to be deceived) I have seemed to myself to have found nothing but immoderate thirst of wealth and glory.  
A fanatique man, and gross Anabaptist.  
Pag. 24. They would seem studious of truth.  
Pag. 25. The word of the Lord.  
From the staff to the corner. A proverbial speech in Schools, when one thing is inferred from another, which have no connexion.  
They who all along these places of Belgic and lower Germany are found bordering on this anabaptistical heresy, are almost all followers of this Mennon whom I have named, to whom now this Theodorick hath succeeded. In whom for a great part you may perceive tokens of a certain godly mind, who being incited by a certain unskilful zeal, out of error rather than malice of mind have departed from the true sense of Divine Scriptures, and the agreeing consent of the whole Church; which may be perceived by this, that they always resisted the rage of Munster, and Batenburgick that followed after, stirred up by John Batenburg after the taking of Munster, who plotted a certain new restitution of the kingdom of Christ, which should be placed in the destruction of the wicked by outward force. And they tau●ht th●t the instauration and propagation of the kingdom of Christ consists in the cross alone: whereby it happens that they which are such m●y seem rather worthy of pity and amendment, than persecution and perdition.  
Pag. 28. What part of time.  
Pag. 48. H●w it may be that Israel may be rejected, but that together the Covenant of God established with Abraham and his seed should seem to be made void.  
In the margin. The credit of that promise, Gen. 17.7, 8. doth presently appear to be brought into danger by the rejecting of the Jews, and the exclusion of them out of the Covenant of God, sith they are born of Abraham according to the fl●sh, so (saith he) it appears to them that look upon the first f●ce of things.  
The Apostle shows, th●t therefore the word of the Covenant, and divine promises made to Israel failed not, or was made void, although a great part of the Jews were unbelieving, because those promises of the Covenant are of God, not to them properly who were to come from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, but to those, who were to be ingraffed into the family of Abraham by virtue of divine promise.  
Pag. 49. The argument of the Apostle to prove the Covenant of God entered into with Abraham doth not comprehend all the posterity of Abraham in its skirt, we think should be thus simply framed. Esau and Jacob were of the posterity of Abraham, but God did not comprehend both of these in his Covenant with Abraham. Therefore not all the posterity of Abraham. It is proved that God did not comprehend both in the Covenant of grace, because he did not comprehend Esau the elder, but Jacob the younger.  
Pag. 50. There are many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong, as Ishmael, and Ismaelites. But if so there be many of the seed of Abraham to whom the word of promise doth not belong, than the rejection of many Jews who are of the seed of Abraham doth not make void the word of promise.  
In the margin. Calvin gathers hence, in that any is the seed of Abraham the promise made to Abraham belongs to him: but the answer is manifest, that promise understood of spiritual blessing, pertains not to the carnal seed of Abraham, but to the spiritual, as the Apostle himself hath interpreted it, Rom. 4. & 9 For if you understand the carnal seed, now that promise will belong to none of the Gentiles, but to those alone who are begotten of Abraham and Isaac according to the flesh.  
He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to the carnal birth; but to belong only to the believing and spiritual posterity. For they are not the sons of Abraham, who are of Abraham according to the flesh, but who are according to the spirit.  
Pag. 51. In the Margin. The inculcation also of the seed showeth that only the elect and effectually called are noted, the Apostle so interpreting this place, Rom. 9.8. Gal. 3.16. & 4.28.  
Pag. 52. That baptism doth not certainly seal in all the children of believers the grace of God (sith among them some are absolutely reprobated, even by an antecedent decree of God from eternity) and therefore believers are to doubt of the truth of God's Covenant, I am thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee.  
Pag. 58. To be a son of Abraham doth declare nothing else but to be freely elected, Rom. 9.8. and to tread in the steps of the faith of Abraham, Rom. 4.12. and to do the works of Abraham, Joh. 8.39. From which is rightly gathered certain expectation of salvation to come, Rom. 8.29.  
Pag. 69. In the Margin. Infants in their parents, grandfathers, great grandfathers, grandfathers grandfathers have refused the grace of the Gospel, by which act they have deserved, that they should be forsaken of God. For I would to me, etc. For it is the perpetual reason of the Covenant of God, that son's ar● comprehended and reckoned in parents.  
To which D ʳ Twisse thus opposeth in his answer. Nor any where in sacred Scripture is it signified, that God hath made such a Covenant with man fallen, that if he would believe, he should obtain grace to him and his posterity; on the contrary, if he should not believe, he should lose grace for him and his posterity, which kind of Covenant all Divines acknowledge to have been entered into with Adam under the Condition of obedience.  
Pag. 71. In the Margin. It is manifest that the believers marrying with Gentiles are guilty of uncleanness, and to be kept from all communication of the fraternity from the Letters of the Apostle, saying, that with such meat is not to be eaten.  
Pag. 73. First, because the reason is uncertain, for though it sometimes be so done, yet for the most part it is otherwise.  
He spoke in the preterperfect tense, hath been sanctified, not, shall be sanctified, signifying a thing already determined and finished, and not a thing for the time to come uncertain either to be wished or expected.  
The believing wife may with a good conscience keep company with the unbelieving husband (for why should another's conscience defile her?) Therefore it is said, the unbelieving not in himself, but in his wife (that is, in respect of his wife) is holy. The same we are to judge of the other member.  
Pag. 74. This is the mind of the Apostle that he may teach, that the believer is not to depart from the unbelieving yoke-fellow, consenting to dwell together. For proving of which an argument from an uncertain event, and by accident is equally unfit as a little before. Hence that opinion is refuted that then when the unbeliever shall be converted, holy children will be begotten. For what if that never be?  
Pag. 76. Of that ceremonial holiness what shall I say? It came into Augustine's mind, but good God how strange? verily some things are so absurd, that they deserve not to be refuted. Well. The Apostle hath said, that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife, it will be that the children borne from thence are unclean. Therefore all so borne are unclean, or else the Apostle spoke false. What then? Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other begotten in the monthly courses? Do unbelieving husbands never use their wives but in their monthly courses? So it must be verily, or this interpretation is ridiculous.  
Of that covenant-holiness what shall I say? It came into Chamiers, calvin's, etc. minds, but good God how strange? verily some things are so absurd, that they deserve not to be refuted. Well! The Apostle hath said, that if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified in the believing wife, it will be that the children borne from thence will be unclean. Therefore all that are so borne are unclean, or the Apostle hath said that which is false. What then? Are all borne of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other, without the Covenant of grace? Do fornicating or unbelieving parents never beget children that shall be within the Cov●nant of grace, or federally holy? So it must be verily, or this interpretation is ridiculous.  
Pag. 77. In the Margin. But there is no straighter friendship then of husband and wife, which requires communion of affections, body, offspring, lastly of the whole life: which all Nations have with great consent believed to be a thing truly holy, that is not found out by man, but by God.  
Pag. (75) By this argument that sanctity is excluded which so ne have brought from education. For by that the argument of the Apostle is altogether weakened. For this is uncertain. For all know and experience teacheth, that neither all husbands are won, which also the Apostle implies, nor that all children obey holy education. Besides, if any obey, yet this effect is accidental, and not from the nature of marriage it self.  
Pag. 89. But sith strangers washed and not circumcised were held with those Laws only which God gave to all mankind, it is easy to be understood that this washing was among old institutions, arising as I think after the great deluge, in memory of the world purged. Whence that famous speech among the greeks, The sea washed away all the evils of men. Certainly, we read even in the Epistle of Peter, that Baptism is answerable to the flood.  
Pag. 91. It was to be added, that not only to himself and in himself, but also for our use Christ be determined to be such, and so great, that nothing be wanting in him, and that in him alone we may get all things requisite to the true and saving knowledge of God. Therefore having gotten fullness in Christ, wherefore is there need either of humane wisdom, or the vain inventions, or ceremonies of men, lastly any other thing added besides Christ?  
Pag. 146. In the margin. It was known to the Jews that God hath been wont to give this honour to Prophets, that he would bestow his gifts on others at the Prophet's prayers, of which imposition of hands was a sign. It is manifest also from Gen. 48.14, 15. that in that rite prayers were wont to be conceived for children. Thence it hath been always observed by the Hebrews, that they would bring children to those, who were believed to excel others in holiness, to be commended in their prayers to God by laying on of hands: which custom as yet continues with them. Now this custom Christ approving, shows that the faith and prayers of others profit also that age.  
Pag. 152. As for that which Erasmus subjoins, that John first baptised, then preached baptism, it is such that indeed it seems not to need refutation. For what? When John did say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, did he not teach those whom he was about to baptise? yea verily, unless he had first taught to what end he did baptise, who at last would hav● come to his baptism? Certainly, sith Sacraments are seals, it is necessary that the doctrine go before which they sign.  
Pag. 153. In the margin. All these rites of profession of faith, etc. had their original from the very institution of baptism, nor ought they to be omitted, only to be dispensed with respect to age.  
FINIS.