VINDICIAE VINDICIARUM: OR, A Vindication of his Vindication of Infant-Baptisme, from the Exceptions of M. Harrison, in his Poedobaptisme oppugned, and from the Exceptions of M. Tombs, in his chief digressions of his late Apology, from the manner to the matter of his Treatises.  
By Io. Geree M. of Arts, and Preacher of the Word in S. Albans.  ACTS 2.39. 
The promise is to you, and to your children.  
Quod universa tenet Ecclefia, nee concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est; non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditum rectissimè creditur. Aug. lib. 4. contra Don. cap. 24.  
Imprimatur,  
Edm. Calamy.  
LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Christopher Meredith, at the Sign of the Crane in Paul's Churchyard, 1647.   

To the Worshipful the Major and Burgesses of St Albans, with the rest of my worthy and loving Auditors there, grace and peace.  
My loving friends,  
WHat S. James so long since asserted, that the experience of our times hath confirmed: Where strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work, Jam. 3.16. Amongst other evils to which our divisions have been the midwife, corrupt opinions have been one most eminent, and amongst them, that which opposeth the birthright of Christian Infants to the Covenant, and seal of initiation, hath been broached with that confidence, as though the abettors bad hope, that that leaven would leaven the whole lump.  
Not long after my coming to you, there was a book set forth by an ancient friend of mine, which because it was adorned with much art and reading (things formerly rare to be found in the writers for that opinion,) there was almost as much triumph in it, as sometimes by the Philistines in their Goliath. And to say the truth, the camp of Israel was not a little moved with it. Whereupon myself (as having more leisure than many abler) was called upon by divers friends to stand up in the defence of truth. And others with myself quickly made it appear, that the Author in whom there was so much triumph, had rather put a better face on, than added any great strength to that error. For all the arguments brought by him, save those that are ordinary in every Antipaedobaptists mouth, were easily enough, and utterly quashed. The vindication of Infant-Baptisme which I first put forth: was partly Cataskevasticall to confirm the truth, partly Anaskevasticall to refel the objections of the adversary, My learned opponent hath not yet published an answer to either, only in an Apology for the manner of his writing, tanquam canis ad Nilum, he hath here and there given a little touch about the matter. But a neighbour Minister hath attempted the oppugnation of these six arguments, which I made good for confirmation of Infant-Baptisme. His exceptions I here refute, together with what M. Tombs hath inserted material in his Apology. And this Vindication of my former labour, I thought good to present to you. That if providence should hereafter otherways dispose of me, this may remain as a testimony of my thankfulness to God and you. That with you in the time of England's distraction, I found an haven of rest, with good help to a comfortable subsistence. And that by it you may be the better guarded against the Sophisms of those, that cease not to labour to draw Disciples after them.  
The opposition that is made to truth, is to the conscientious lovers of it, an affliction that is grievous. Therefore to make some spiritual use of it, is not only a duty we own to God, but a privilege, which we ourselves have need of to sweeten the bitterness of the cross: for a cross never seems intolerable, after we find it medicinable. There be two special uses that may and aught to arise from the controversy in hand.  
First, to see further into the grounds of, and to be more settled in the truth. The questioning of a good title, though it make it not more firm, yet usually it renders it more clear, because the grounds of its firmitude, are by search found out and laid open. And so hath it been, and so ought to be with us of this present age, in this spiritual title of Christian Infants. And if any new grounds or arguments be added to clear an ancient practice; In vain, and unjustly is that pretended to disparage the antiquity of the thing, which is vouchsafed of God as a fruit of the industry of his servants, whereof the opposition of the erroneous is sanctified of God to be an occasion?  
2. A second use of the opposition of truth should be. That as we hold the right more firmly, so we should use it more holily, to cut off occasion from those that seek occasion. Antipadobaptists do more oppose the use, by occasion of the abuses of Infant-Baptisme. Were it performed with that holiness and solemnity, that it ought, it would carry more beauty with it, and have less opposition against it. We should therefore study by the opposition and vindication of truth, to be excited to, and helped in an holy and honourable use of that privilege for our children. The more the grounds and nature of Infant-Baptisme are cleared, the better may we be enabled to use it in faith. The more may we be moved to consider the woeful condition of our Infants, as they are from us, and we from Adam; and so humble ourselves the more, for that corrnption, that is inharent in us, and propagated from us. The more may we see necessity of virtue to flow from Christ to ours, to restore them to the favour, and Image of God: and so to have this ordinance (of which only in infancy they are capable) sanctified to them, which works not naturally by the deed done, but morally by virtue of God's blessing, which is to be procured by prayer. This would not only quicken parents to cry for a blessing on this Ordinance to their Infants: but engage them to choose the time of most solemn Assemblies for it, when having the most and best prayers, they may more comfortably expect the blessing of God on it. But I would not exceed the limits of an Epistle; Therefore with my daily prayers, that God would bless this and my other labours to you, and glorify his Word among you. I am  
Yours in all Christian affection and service, JO. GEREE. From my Study at S. Albans, Octob. 14. 1646.   

The Preface.  
CHRISTIAN READER,  
HAving some months since published a defence of Infant-Baptisme, by way of answer to a Divine of note; It not long since met with an answer from an obscurer Author: to which I presently drew a reply; But hearing a rumour of an answer in the press by M. Tombs, which was expected to be of greater strength; I withheld my hand from publishing my answer to the first: that I might, if I saw cause, answer both together. But when M. Tombs his book came forth, I found it for the most part an apology for the manner of his writing, not a defence of the matter: and that chief against exceptions taken by M. Martial. And for the defence of the matter, that is promised, not yet performed. I therefore thought it convenient to forbear the publication of my reply to M. Harrison no longer: because he is a neighbour, and a great 
* Leader of the people.  Demagogue: lest by delay of my reply, the Author (as the disposition of such persons is) take advantage to harden his proselytes in error, and reduce more.   

VINDICIAE VINDICIARUM: OR, A Vindication of his Vindication of Infant-Baptisme, from the exceptions of Mr Harrison, in his Poedobaptisme oppugned, etc.  

CHAP. I.  
Mr Harrisons Epistle to his Poedobaptisme impugned, examined.  
IN M. harrison's book there is an Epistle prefixed to the Reader, wherein some things deserve and need animadversion. For first he shows his confidence of a thing as certain, whereof by his leave, he neither hath nor doth produce certain ground, viz. That the end of the last times, 1 Cor. 10.11. are even at our doort: for, for that prophecy, 2 Thes. 2.8. He that shall deny its accomplishment in part in Luther's days, and so on, shall not only be injurious to our worthies, but oppose manifest truth: and how long the compliment of it may be delayed now, Scriptures discover not so clearly, as to give ground confidently to determine it.  
From his assertion he infers a double duty. 1. To departed out of Babylon: which is indeed a duty pertinent to all, since the first discovery of Antichrist: and the more fully Babylon is laid open, and the nearer she is to her fall, the more careful should we be to departed from her. But his proof from Joh. 4.24. is ill applied, as well as weakly expounded. Sith the scope of that place is not against the traditions of men, but against the pomp and shadows of the law, which had their rise from God, till 
* Heb 9.10.  times of Reformation. Which being then at hand, Christ told the woman of Samaria: That Christians were to perform worship spiritual without pomp, and in truth without shadows.  
His second duty inferred is, to impart to others what knowledge we have received: which is also a Christian duty, so we take heed, that we communicate not our own dreams for the visions of God. To the first of these duties (he saith) so fare as thorough grace he had received, his spirit hath freely submitted without consulting with flesh and blood, (The too ordinary hindrances to persons living by faith, etc. Wherein while he seems to declare (that I say not boast) great integrity. I fear he doth bewray no small infirmity: for if in that expression of submitting without consulting with flesh and blood, he, (as I conceive he doth) allude to that of Paul, Gal. 1.16. he dangerously misapplyeth that to himself, as a common duty, which was a thing peculiar to the condition of S. Paul himself. Who in that chapter, afferting the authority of his doctrine, affirms, that he had it not by the ministry of man, but by immediate revelation, Gal. 1.11, 12, 15, 16. And so not conferring with flesh and blood: (i.e. with any man to receive instruction from them) He went into Arabia to preach, etc. Now hence for ordinary men, that receive knowledge of truths by means, to avoid consultation with those men, that are their superiors in grace and years, and run on in divulging novel opinions upon their own heads, (a thing too common now adays) what is it but a plain abuse of S. Paul's peculiar privilege, who having immediate revelation, was without need of consultation with men, which we are not?  
To the second duty mentioned, he makes this book a branch of his abedience, submitting it to the balance of the Sanctuary, wherein if it be found too light, he desires the reader to inform him. And that is the work that by God's assistance I shall now perform.   

CHAP. II.  
Wherein the 4. things premised, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. of my vindiciae, are vindicated from Mr Harrisons exceptions.  
MAster harrison's Answer gins first with exceptions, against four things premised by me in my vindiciae. The first whereof was, that a thing may have testimony of Scripture for it two ways, implicitly, or expressly: this he freely grants, pag. 1. The second was, that there is great difference between an ordinance itself, and some particular circumstance or subject, to which that ordinance is to be applied. Touching this second, he affirms there is somewhat in it true, somewhat false: He confesseth that is true, that there is difference between an Ordinance, and some particular circumstance of it: But he denies that the subject of Baptism is merely, or in any Scripture-sence circumstantial to it. Wherein he hath first foisted in the word merely, to wrest the sense of my words, to countenance his confutation. Secondly he adds in a Scripture sense circumstantial, as though this term circumstance were a Scripture phrase, whereas it's a term of art. not used or defined in Scripture, and so his expression of circumstantial in a Scripture sense is improper, unlearned, and absurd. Then for proof he gives the definition of a circumstance, to be that which doth not of itself destroy, or constitute the substance of that whereof it is a circumstance. But this definition I deny, unless he put in his own foisted word mere, or accidental: a mere circumstance. For who ever doubted to call the person acting in any thing a circumstance, as well as time and place? nay the person is the first in that old verse, comprising several circumstances.  Quis, Quid, Vbi, Quibus auxiliss, Cur, Quomodo, Quando. 
Now in Baptism there be two persons considerable: the person administering, and the person to whom the administration is to be applied. Both these may properly be termed circumstances, considerable in or about the action or Ordinance of Baptism; Though the nature of the Ordinance be marred without them. And yet I say it is not necessary, that the whole extent of either of these circumstances must be expressed. Anabaptists must acknowledge it, touching the person administering; or else Baptism by women, and men not in office, used by some of them, (wherein they symbolise with Papists in the thing, though not in the ground) must be left by them as an unwritten corruption. And I undertake to prove it in the other. And that I meant a circumstance, in this sense he might easily have perceived. First because I add, or a subject exegeticè. And secondly because I require for it implicit warrant out of Scripture, where as mere circumstances of time and place require not ground of Scripture: the light of nature and divine prudence, is sufficient to regulate them. And therefore what he hath discoursed about circumstances, pag. 2. is false or misapplyed.  
I added as for the Ordinance itself, as the setring up of Baptism as a Sacrament of the Gospel-Covenant, renewed by Christ. It requires express warrant in the word, which I set down against Bellarmine maintaining the contrary, lib. de saer. nat. & defin. q. 2. Wherein my meaning is: That Christians might not have made use of water, to sign parties to be initiated into the Christian Church, as circumcision was in use in the Jewisn Church, without express warrant from Scripture. But in deciding the extent of the circumstance of the person or subject to be initiated under the Gospel; there implicit warrant may suffice: for of the more weight and importance any thing is, the more clear warrant are we to expect for it. Now the being of an Ordinance in the Church is of more consequence, than a part of that subject to which it is to be applied. And therefore his discourse about John the Baptist, and pag 2. is here useless, as in itself it is to me nonsense. Neither did I add in vain: That when we have Baptism appointed as a Gospel Ordinance, to whomsoever we find by ground in Scripture, that it doth of right belong, there we may apply it. This I say is not vain, unless he can prove it false, which he therefore endeavours, pag. 3. Where he saith by grounds and principles in Scriptures, I mean such as are taken out of the old Testament. But he might have remembered that of all the six grounds, brought by me to clear the title of believers Infants to Baptism: only one of them is fetched out of the old Testament, the other five are out of the New. Therefore I cannot mean only, nor chief, grounds out of the old Testament: that was therefore but a fetch, to put an ill gloss upon a good position; but I say indeed afterwards, That the Scriptures of the new Testament have a sufficieny to direct in Gospel Ordinances, yet not without taking in some grounds and principles from the old Testament, which M. Tombs acknowledgeth in the Christian Sabbath: but for this, M. H. is confident to make me of another mind. But sure his confidence doth exceed his skill. But saith he, this position is so derogatory from the Kingly, and Prophetical office of Christ, pag. 3. But I would know of him whether Christ were not a King and a Prophet to the Jewish, as well as to Christian Churches? And whether that instruction that the Church had by penmen of Scriptures under the old testament, were not by virtue of Christ's mediation, as well as that under the new? And if so, what derogation is it from Christ, to take in some grounds out of the old Testament, sigh these former revelations were from him also? And is not Christ a perfect lawgiver, if he add to the Scriptures of the old Testament, so much as Gospel-administration doth require? Do the Scriptures of the new Testament give sufficient direction about usur●, incest, etc. without taking in something from the Scriptures of the old? It is therefore sufficient to make Christ a perfect Lawgiver, and as faithful as Moses; that he hath added in the Scriptures of the new Testament, whatsoever was needful to be added, to his own revelations in the Scriptures under the Old. And if he affirm that Christ cannot be accounted a perfect Law giver and Prophet, or faithful as Moses, Unless all commands and Ordinances that concern Christians, be as fully and plainly expressed in Scripture of the new Testament, without any light from the Old, as the Ordinances of the Jews were by Moses: Surely he will be found the accuser of Christ, not I For, were the pattern of the Gospel as full and plain as that of the Law, I say not, how should the Assembly of Divines be so long in finding it? But how should those, (that it may be you more respect) be so backward to give in their model? Sure it would neither have required much time nor pains, to have given a model of levitical Ordinances, order and Descipline. And therefore let M. Har. take heed, lest by inconsiderate speaking for Christ, he lay down false grounds to condemn him.  
For proof of my assertion. That we must take in some ground, from the Scriptures of the old Testament, for our direction in the use of gospel-ordinances. I instance in the Christian Sabbath, where M. Tombs confesseth it. pag. 28. He answers, he finds no such thing in that page of M. Tombs his book. But (I say) it is for want of sight: for doth not M. Tombs distinguish there of Gospel worships or Ordinances, that some are positive only, consisting in outward rites, and others are in part moral? And in these later, they allow an institution, or command in the old Testament, as obligatory to Christians. Is not this the thing which I affirmed? But now let us see M. Har. plaster: He saith it maketh nothing for the purpose, whether we consider a rule for one day in seven, which is natural and moral, instituted in paradise. Where first he speaks unscholarly: natural, instituted in Paradise: for natural and instituted worship, are two opposite things; If natural, than it was not instituted: If instituted, than not natural. The truth is, there is a double moral, 1. Naturâ. 2. Ex instituto. That time be set apart for the Worship of God, is moral by nature; But that such a proportion of time, as one day in seven be consecrated to God, that is moral by institution, being instituted in Paradise, before sin or ceremony. But how could we have known this institution, but by Moses his relation? So then we could not know, that it is an Ordinance of the Gospel, to observe one of seven holy unto the Lord, without that Ministry performed by Moses. Again, it being a Cospel ordinance, that every first day of the week be kept holy to the Lord; I would fain know of M. Harrison, where he can find direction for the manner of fanctifying this day, without recourse to the old Testament? If not, I have proved what I intended, that for direction in some Gospel ordinances, we are to fetch light from the old Pestament.  
My second instance is in excommunication, for which we have express warrant: yet some circumstances, as, who may apply it, and to whom, are not so exoresse: but they are colligeable from general grounds of Scripture. Here M. Harrison saith, pag. 5. He knows not what I mean by [so express] But he might know that I am by this instance making it good, that express warrant in Scripture is not requisite in all particular circumstances of Gospel ordinances, but implicit from general grounds, may serve in some: herein paralleling excommunication with Baptism, in the subject or persons to whom they are to be applied. But he saith, be shall easily prove, that Christ hath left direction sufficient for this particular, without sending us to Moses; He should have said without sending us to the Scriptures of the old Testament, or rather have expressed neither here, where indeed the question is only, whether Christ's direction for the persons excommunicating, and to be excommunicated be explicit? which if he can easily prove, notwithstanding the difference of men so learned and godly about them, its pity he had not been Prolocutor of the Assembly. But for the persons in whom the authority of convening, examining, judging, admonishing, and excommunicating resides: our Saviour, saith he, hath determined to be, Disciples as Disciples. Why then are women to do all this, sure they cannot do this without speaking, which is not permitted to them in the Church: yet M. H. will not deny women to be Disciples. For the person to declare it, (says he) it must be him whom the Church shall elect, as he saith appears from, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ: To deliver such an one to Satan. And now what express testimony is here for the person declaring? Just none at all, yea indeed that one person declare the sentence in the name of the rest, is an act of order, to which we are led by the light of nature to avoid confusion.  
For the persons to be excommunicated he finds, he saith, two sorts. 1. Persons after admonition persisting in scandalous sin; But first he must know that we read of no admonition, appointed to be used to the incestuous person, whence some gather, that some sins are so gross, that they deserve excommunicanon ipso facto. Secondly he should remember the difference that is about enumerating scandalous sins, and how that is to be determined by way of collection. Secondly he adds such as after pains taken with them, to convince them, persist peremptory, in holding and maintaining Heresies 
* Tit. 3.10.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. Qui novas sibi eligit opiniones, cum sundamento salutis pugnantes, easque mordicùs defendit. Pasor Graec.: Lexic. Now M. Har. can be content to consult with flesh and blood, when he thinks it makes for him: for he brings a sentence out of Pasor, where, says he, observe, etc. As though his observations were out of the text, when they are but out of Pasers' exposition. I thought he would not have grounded his followers faith, on man's authority. But what are his observations? 1. They must be fundamental errors: but as 
a Zanch. in 4. praecep.  able men as Pasor distinguish heresies into such as are fundamental, and such as are not fundamental. 2. They must be obstinately asserted. That is, after the first and second admonition. 3. They must appear to arise from choice, not weakness: but this is a weak observation: as though, what were of weakness could not be of choice; Whereas many choose many things out of weakness, and therefore this was but a poor collection, to exempt from censure the grossest heretics, Arrians, Antiscripturists, etc. If they hold these damnable Heresies, unless forsooth it appear they do it out of pravity of heart and affection, they shall not be obnoxious to excommunication. That is, they shall not enjoy that remedy to cure their infirmities. Is this sound Divinity?  
Thus I have cleared my second thing, premised from his exceptions. But I must now a little look back, and take notice of some passages, not only false but foul, that have slipped from M. H. pag. 3. Where he tells us, that the writings of Moses and the Prophets, were as their Covenant was, at least the administrations of their Covenant, faulty, imperfect at the best, abstracted from the writings and administrations of the new Covenant. Were the writings of Moses and the Prophet's faulty and imperfect, without the writings and administrations of the new Testament? Then they were so till the new Testament was written, and the administration of it instituted. And what is this, but to exclude all under the old Testament, from complete means of salvation, and so from salvation itself: which how false, horrid, uncharitable, and popish is it? Popish I say, for if this be true, the Saints of the old Testament could not enter into bliss, till Christ were exh bited, and so must be imagined to be in some limbo. Nay how apparently contradictory is his assertion, to many dictates of the holy Ghost? Psal. 19.7. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul. Prov. 30.5. Psal. 12.6. Every word of God is pure. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, &c, 2 Pet. 1.21. Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost; and can these writings be faulty? Is not this to charge the holy Ghost foolishly? which is no less than blasphemy. He saith also, that it could not be said of Moses, thou hast the words of aternall life, as of Christ, Joh. 6.68. I confess the Lord hath somewhat peculiar above the servant. But were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the words of life, yea of eternal life? what then became of those that had no other means of salvation, or what thinks he of that Spirit of our Saviour john. 5.39? But M. H. urgeth Heb. 8. 8, 9 where finding fault with them he said, behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a new Covenant with the house of judah, not according to the Covenant, etc. But the Covenant there faulted, is the Covenant of works, the condition whereof, was the Law given on mount Sinai, which typified the Covenant of works, Gal. 4 24. But had the Jews no other Covenant thinks he, but that? Had they not promises and tips holding forth Christ? Had not Abraham the Gospel preached to him? Gal. 3 8. Did not Moses know and suffer for Christ? Heb. 11.26. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches: M. H. should therefore have considered, that not all that was revealed by Moses and the Prophets was faulted, but the Covenant of works only. They had the Cnvenant of grace also, which God promised at the exhibition of Christ, to reveal more clearly, and dispense the grace of it more plentifully: and this M. H. might learn, if he were as willing to receive instruction from expositors on such places as this, as he was from Pasor, on Tit. 3.10.  
My third thing premised, was to take the state of the question as M. Martial stated it; In which M. H. r. saith, he shall freely join issue. Though he saith, that it is a strange fallacy of the times to Baptise all infants, and to undertake the defence of Baptising some only: Nay, afterwards he saith, I Baptise more than I am able to make good. But the truth is the stating of the question, touching children of believers, is neither a fallacy, nor flows it from disability, but to distinguish controversies, and facilitate the dispute: for he knows well enough, that these are distinct disputes, whether children of any believers are to be Baptised? and what profession of faith doth make a man so to be reputed a believer, as to convey this privilege to his children? And the former controversy being ended, this later may have its due place: and therefore what M. H. dictates here about fallacy or disability, is indeed fallacious adfaciendum populum.  
My fourth thing premised, that I must have liberty to choose and order mine own weapons. M. Har. count●reasonable, and after sets down his purpose and method, to answer me only in his own way, without reference to M. Tombs, whom he hints to have a peculiar way of maintaining his tenant, and then that he will set down the substance of each argument with its confirmation, and so answer it; But I doubt he will be found more fair in promise, then in performance: but to the trial.   

CHAP. III.  
Wherein my first ground for Infant-Baptisme, from Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act 2.39. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions.  
MY first ground for Infant-Baptisme was drawn from Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act. 2.39. Whence he proposeth the sum of the argument thus; To whom the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christians, to them the Sacrament of initiation, appointed for that administration of the Covenant, (viz. Bapt sme) doth belong, Act. 10 47. But to Infants of believing parents, the Gospel Covenant is extended in the Churches of Christ, Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. Act. 2.39. This saith M. H. is the sum, and what is further alleged in reference to M. Tombs his assertions, that he saith he will leave to M. Tombs to make good. But M. H. should have taken notice of those things brought for confirmation of this argument, that concern not M. Tombs in particular, but all opponents in general, as what I deliver at large for the sense of that place, Gen. 17.7. pag 10, 11, 13, 14. Wherein I explain and confirm our sense of children's being in Covenant with their patents, which he hath unfairly passed by without taking notice of: but I will consider his answer which he gives in divers particulars.  
First saith he, I know of no Gospel Covenant, but that spoken of, Jer. 31.31. Quoted by the Apostle, Heb. 10.16,17. But first what thinks he of that? Gen. 12.3. In thee shall all the families of the earth be blest. And the places cited by me, do not they speak of a Gospel Covenant at first? Gen. 17.7. I will be they God, and the God of thy seed: Is not that a Gospel Covenant? No, saith M. H. pag. 8. There is nothing from the 6. to the 15. ver. of Gen. 17. of a Gospel Covenant: but only apromise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed, and a duty to be circumcised, as a token of that fleshly Covenant to be submitted to on Abraham's part, and his fleshly seed. But is this confident assertion true? Is not, I will be thy God, a Gosp●l-Covenant? Are they not the same words which the Prophet useth in expressing the Gospel Covenant? Jer. 31.33. I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Again, is not the Covenant with Abraham? ver. 7. the same with that, ver. 4. of the same, Gen. 17. and that a Gospel Covenant by the verdict of the holy Ghost? Gal. 3.8. As Ames answers Bellarmine disputing just against all Protestants, as M. H. doth against me. Legimus Deum, etc. We read saith 
a Bellar. de sacr. essectu, Lib. ●. cap. 17.  Bellarmine, that God when he enjoined circumcision to Abraham, did promise only earthly things, i.e. propagation of posterity, and the land of Palestine. And again. 
b Ibid.  Ero Deus tuus: I will be thy God, holds forth, saith Bellarmine, only a promise of peculiar protection. To whom Ames answers, proving from, Matth. 22.32. I am the God of Abraham: And whence our Saviour gathers the resurrection to bliss, that in these words I will be thy God: there's a Gospel promise, or Christ should have argue ●● ut sillily from it. Again, is circumcision only a token of a fleshly Covenant? How doth M. Har. again join with Papists against Protestants, nay the worst of Papists? for many Papists acknowledge circumcision to be a seal of grace, but Bellarmine denies it of circumcision, 
Bel. lib. 2. de essecta Sa●r cap. 13.  and all other Sacraments of the Jews, with whom M. Har. joins, in making circumcision in the institution of it, only a token of a fleshly Covenant. Is this to come out of Babylon, thus to side with Papists against Protestants in the doctrine of the Sacrament? And how cross is this to the Apostle, making circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith? Rom. 4.11. Yea, how plainly doth the Scriptures hint, that the circumcision of the flesh was the Sacrament, sign or seal of the circumcision of the heart? See Deutronomy 30.6. Rom. 2.28, 29. Col. 2.11.  
Again, is nothing in Gen. 17. from ver. 6. to 15. spoken of, but only a promise of Canaan to Abraham and his fleshly seed? etc. What thinks he of ver. 12, 13. where others then Abraham's fleshly seed were to be circumcised, which had nothing to do with Canaan? And what saith he of Ishmael, to whom its certain, the promise of Canaan did not belong? It's strange M. Har. will let slip such gross things in a way, that he knows they will be scanned, and that a man who in show is so against Popery, should broach so much of it, whether of ignorance or choice, he best knows. Sure (me thinks) this should startle his followers, to be misled into so apparent breach of their protestation, which is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery: yet here and in other places following, they are taught to speak the language of Rome, against the Protestant doctrine maintained in the Churches of England. But I proceed: Neither were they, saith M. Har. any otherways separated, but externally, and typically. What, was there not still an election among the Jews, that were separated internally as I shown pag. 11? Were not the Jews separated to be Gods visible Church and kingdom, wherein the invisible Church is contained as wheat and the chaff? and by their external separation were they not accounted children, and partakers of all external Church privileges, Rom. 9.45. from which aliens were exempt and counted as dogs without? What is more apparent in the face of the Scripture than these things? And is not thus much held forth? Gal. 2.15. For was not a Jew then a name of Religion, answering in that state of the Church to the name Christian now, as appears plainly from Rom. 2.28, 29? And are there not carnal and external Christians now, as there were Jews then? as I have showed pag. 14. and you must confess, unless you deny the Christian Church to harbour any hypocrites, or carnal Christians contrary to daily experience, and divers parables of our Saviour recorded, Mat. 13. These things I have proved in my Answer to M. Tombs, pag. 10, 11, 13, 14. And therefore to deny them without answer, and affirm the contrary without proof, is very beggarly disputing.  
Now let us see whether Deut. 30.6. be not a Gospel Covenant. Touching which M. Har. first saith, he never heard any account that a Gospel Covenant. But that may be, because perhaps he accounts reading or consulting learned Divines, consulting with flesh and blood, and so shuns it.  
2. He saith, If I had read over the first and second verses, and observed the condition, I would have known it to be a branch of the Covenant made upon mount Sinai. But I tell him more truly, that if he had considered the matter of the promise, he might have seen clearly, that it is a Gospel promise, because it imports renovation by God's spirit, which Christ works on Christians, under, and by virtue of the Gospel Covenant, Col. 2.10, 11, 12. Yea it imports the very same thing with that in Jer. 31.33. which M. H. here confesseth to be a Gospel Covenant. Neither will his argument from the condition hinder, for he should know that there was a double Covenant proposed to the Jews, as is apparent, Gal. 4.17. the one of grace begun to Abraham, the other at mount Sinai 430 years after, and this later is styled by Divines, faedus subserviens, as he might have learned from M. Tombs, pag. 102. A Covenant subservient to that of grace, by discovering sin and misery, and so need of Christ, to draw or drive us to him. So though God in the beginning speak after the phrase of the Law, that was but to make way for the promise in the Gospel, which he adds in the close above temporary blessings.  
But now let us see what he saith to Acts 2.39. He boldly affirms that the promise to children is only with reference to calling, and so holds forth no more privilege to a Christians, then to the child of a Turk. This is boldly asserted, but with little proof, and with how little truth may thus appear:  
1. The promise mentioned, must needs relate to some particular promise left upon record in the Word, else Peter had spoken out of his own head, which the Apostles neither did nor might do, Mat. 28.20. Act. 26.22.  
2. The articlé 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the promise, notes some eminent promise, and from the scope of the Sermon, that promise is evident to be a branch of the Covenant of grace.  
3. That this promise did in a peculiar manner belong to the Jews, and to their children. That is, they and their children were of those to whom the Covenant did primarily belong, and to the Gentiles secondarily, when God should call them according to that, Gen. 12.3. So then, the promise belonged to the Jews, and to their children: They and their children were children of the Covenant in act, and in regard of outward right, as it is, Act. 3.25, 26. To them pertained the Adoption and the Covenants, Rom. 9.4. And so shall the Gentiles when called, as Zacheus, in joy the privileges of the children of Abraham. And thus the Apostle laid before them a good ground of comfort, to find pardon upon repentance, because by their present Church-state, they and their children were children of the Covenant, which God would make good, and upon repentance accept them, so then, here is a privilege of children quâ children, to be children of the Covenant, (else they are to no purpose, nor with good sense here mentioned) and that can be no other than to be faederati with their parents, which all confess in some sense to be so under the old Testament, according to which dispensation the Apostle there speaks.  
But by the way, pag, 7. M. Har. drops us a distinction; The Gospel Covenant, saith he, may be extended to persons visibly or invisibly; and he denies Infants to be visibly within the Covenant. But I answer, if he mean by visibly, knownly, or that which we know to be so by evidence of Scripture, than I say, Infants are known to be within the Gospel Covenant with their parents, which I have proved by those testimonies, that yet speak aloud for all his gag, which was either too short, or too weak: but if by visible, be means that which is known to the eye only: then his positions are false. For why should not any demonstrations to reason, evidencing a persons being within Covenant; be as good a ground for Baptism, as those that are ocular only? As for that which he saith, that Infants before Baptism, are not of the visible Church by confession of all: Whence he would gather a contradiction in my words, pag 7. It's but a weak fancy, for all but Anabaptists acknowledge Infants of Church-members to be of the visible Church in regard of right, and so the seal may be challenged for them, as well as for those grown up that are converted, to whom the Covenant belongs. Baptism being a seal to confirm that right, which we are supposed to have, in and by the Covenant. And thus I have done with M. Harrisons reply to my first argument.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Wherein the Argument for Infant's Baptism from their being confederates with their parents, is cleared from exceptions taken against it by M. Tombs in his Apology, pag 40.— 47. and the expression of the directory vindicated.  
BEfore I pass to the second argument, I shall think it needful to examine some things published by M. Tombs in his late Apology, to puzzle this argument drawn from those places that show children to be confederates with their parents, pag. 40. to 47. Where M. Tombs affirms, that the argument which M. Martial, D. Homes, and M. Geree, being for Baptising Infants, is either a tautology, or equivocation; The proof he promiseth he eafter, when he shall have liberty to examine their entangled discourses. Great words, but how just, I shall show in my own particular, which will be a clearing of my brethren also. Having pag. 10. produced the place, Gen. 17.7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations: for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. To find out the meaning of this place, I inquire first, what the privilege is? Secondly, what the extent of it is? For the matter of the privilege I show out of Calvin, that the Church was settled in Abraham's family, and the Israelites, (Abraham's posterity) became the house, and sheepfold of God, and had the privilege of adoption belonging to them in common, Rom. 9.4. To whom pertained the adoption: And so by a birth-priviledge they were severed from others, Gal. 2.15. we who are Jews by nature. But now among those that had this privilege of common adoption to be reputed children; there were always to be some separated by the secret election of God, made partakers of sanctifying, and saving graces, and so really the children of God; In comparison of whom, the other I sratlites are sometimes spoken of, as no sennes of Abraham, Rom. 9.6, 7. though externally they were the children of the Kingdom, and in reference to the Gentiles are so styled, Cant. 8.11, 12. So then, the privilege is, that he would be a God to Abraham, and all the seed, in regard of external denomination, and internal privileges of a visible Church, and to the elect in regard of spiritual Adoption, grace and glory. After pag. 12. I examining M. Tombs his exammation of M. Marshals second conclusion, which M. Tombs desputes against as though it held forth, that all infants of believers, are so in Covenant with their parents, as to have saving graces entailed on them: which I say is not only against Protestants principles, but believed by M. Tombs himself, not to be M. Marshal's meaning from pag. 142. of his examen. And then pag. 13. I plainly and distinctly lay open our meaning, when we say children are in Covenant with their parents: That as it was with the people of Israel by virtue of the Covenant made with Abraham: That the fathers with the children became Gods visible Church, and so entitled to, and enjoyed the visible privileges of adoption, oracles, seals, Rom. 9 4, 5. And the elect among them enjoyed the visible grace, which was to be presumed of all in charity, till they discovered the contrary: So now we conceive that under the Gospel, by virtue of the same Covenant, (into the participation of which Christians are assumed) believers with their freedom ●ake up the visible Kingdom of Christ, and enjoy outward Church-priviledges; And the elect among them, enjoy those things in truth, which others only have externally, and in profession. And this is to be presumed of all Infants of believers, till they discover the contrary: And thus have they right to the seal of initiation. And in this sense are you to take the passage quoted by you out of the Directory: That the promise is to believers, and to their seed, etc. Thus were my expressions in my vindiciae. Now I refer it to the judgement of the learned, whether M. Tombs had any cause to complain for want of distinctnes in expression, or whether he doth deal ingenuously in taking part of my words? (pag. 43. of his Apology) to make them found harsh and absurd, or had cause from my words, to question whether making a Covenant were all one with a charitable presumption; with such like groundless expressions, for want of solid matter of confutation. Neither had be ground to say, that none would expound the words of the Directory as I do, but he that would make men's words like a nose of wax: if he take my exposition whole, as I have laid it down above; not lamely, as he hath unfairly represented it. For I conceive the expressions of the Directory, were used with reference to the expressions of Scripture: Now the expressions in Scripture, Gen. 17.7. Rom. 9.4. to whom pertained the Covenants, Act. 3.25. Yea are the children of the Covenant, must, and usually are expounded, as I have expounded them. And then it's no violent, but a charitable, yea a rational interpretation of the words of the Directory, to give them that sense, which we give to the places of Scripture whence they are drawn. The Covenant that the Jews were under, none deny to be a Covenant of grace, and of a Covenant of grace speak, Rom. 9.4. Act. 3.25. and this Covenant being in these places attributed to visible Churches, all were under the Covenant that is truly styled a Covenant of grace; But all are not under it in the same sense, nor to enjoy thereby privileges of the same quality: but some only externally, and reputatively, and enjoy thereby external Church-priviledges, a name to be sons, a name to live, Revel. 3.1. and others to enjoy inward graces really. And therefore Infants of believers may be said to be under the Covenant of grace, and yet no necessity to take it in that sense, that it is in regard of saving graces. But in that sense as it would, and must have been taken, if it had been uttered touching children of believing Jews, (when I think none would have stumbled at it) that they are so under that Covenant, that is the Covenant of grace, as to be reputed children, and to be accounted of God's visible Church, entitled to his seals and other external Church-priviledges. The Argument that M. Tombs urgeth, to prove that the words of the Directory mean, that children are so under the Covenant of grace, as to have a promise of saving grace. pag. 42. of his Apology, are as strong against the true, and necessary interpretation of the Scriptures cited, therefore they be but mistakes. For Gen. 17.7. is meant of natural seed, not soirituall only: and then God was in one sense the God of Abraham, and in another the God of his seed, at least some of them. M. Tombs confesseth, pag. 76. of his Apology, that the same word is used in divers senses, Rom. 11.17. & Joh. 15.2. so that the taking of one word in divers senses, in one and the same sentence need not so much offend him. And the instruction for doctrine, and the instruction for petition may well be thus accorded. That those to whom the Covenant of grace doth externally belong, for as they are reputed of the visible Church, and to have adoption belonging to them, Rom 9.4. and so to have right to the seals, may by the goodness of God in blessing his Ordinance, be really partakers of the saving graces promised, and so enjoy the highest privilege of the Covenant of grace, internally and really. But, saith M. Tombs, the whole series of the direction in the Directory carries the meaning thus, to wit, that the Covenant that children are under, is the Covenant of saving grace.  
I answer, It's true that the Covenant that belongs to children, is the Covenant of grace, but so is the Covenant mentioned, Rom. 9.4. Act. 3.25. But the query is, in what sense, and in what respect they are said to be under this Covenant of grace? that is no otherwise then Jewish children were, all to receive a visible Church estate, to be of Christ's visible Kingdom: the elect to partake of grace indeed. And therefore I see no cause why this part of the doctrine of the Directory should cause disquiet to the Church of God: when the offence may be removed by a fair interpretation: whereto good reason may lead us, and charity bind us. I think with M. Tombs, that it is great honour to acknowledge and amend errors that are indeed such. But this is an honour, that I think few will conceive M. Tombs ambitious of, (not with banding his good counsel to others) that shall read his Apology: wherein he shall scarce find any acknowledgement of error in the manner of handling his controversy, though I may boldly say, genera singulorum, if not singula generum (for he tells of one in this Apology, pag. 16, that told him his sharpness was useful) of such as look into Books, judged him not a little faulty in the manner of prosecution of this controversy with M. Marshal and others.   

CHAP. V.  
Wherein my second Argument for Infant. Baptism, from Rom. 11.11, 12, 13, 17, 18. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions.  
TOuching my second Argument drawn from Rom. 11.11, etc. M. Harrison first complains, that it is confused, not syllogistical. It's rare for a man of his quality, to complain for want of syllogisms, being usually they have the better scope to evade. Then he examines my four principles laid down as the ground of my argument thence.  
First, That the Jews did once belong to God as his visible Church. This he grants to be true externally: and that visible imports, for what is visible is external; But why he adds typically I know not: if he mean it that they were not so really, but a shadow of visible Churches under the Gospel, it's apparently false, if they were so really, though therein they were a type, weakens not the edge of my principle at all.  
Second principle, Though some elect among them, 
Ver. ●, 6. to 17.  (which were but a small remnant) obtained mercy, yet the body in general was cut off, and cast out of the honour and relation, to be the people and kingdom of God. This he grants.  
Third principle, That the Believing Gentiles are received into the place of the Jews cut of, and so taken into the fellowship of believing Jews, to partake of their privileges, and to be God's house and kingdom with them. This pincheth, and here he adds qualifications.  
1. That as all the fleshly seed of Abraham were with reference to Canaan, externally the visible kingdom of God: so now all the spiritual seed of Abraham with reference to the new Jerusalem, are spiritually the people of God, and through profession of faith the visible kingdom of God, 1 Pet. 2.4, 5.  
But here first to let pass his expression, of visible kingdom with reference to Canaan, and spiritually the people of God, with reference to the new Jerusalem, which are new coined expressions, without warrant out of the Word: as also his misapplication of 1 Pet. 2.5. to the visible kingdom, which expressly note the spiritual house: to pass by these: I say, the verses quoted by me, will make my principle good, for ver. 17. And if some of the branches be broken off: and you being a wild Olive tree, were graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, is spoken to the body of the Gentiles, that visibly professed christianity, many of which were but chaff with the wheat: how can he then say it constrains no more, but that the spiritual seed are by profession the visible kingdom? Sith the chaff had the same external Church-state with the wheat: that is, the formal with the spiritual Christian. It's true that the spiritual seed by profession of faith become the visible kingdom of God: but is it not as true that among the Gentile, yea and Jewish Professors, there were many formalists, yet they also were members of the visible kingdom with the spiritual seed?  
His second qualification is, That as the Jews had right to their privileges by birth, so now all the seed of Abraham, Jews and Gentiles, through faith, have right to their privileges, not otherways. But this is a most false assertion, for privileges of the seed of Abraham are either external, as to be of God's visible kingdom, and to have the outward seals, or internal, as remission of sins, and the internal only they have by faith: the external they have by profession of faith, as he himself confesseth in regard of visible Church-state, here and elsewhere touching Baptism: now our dispute is about external privileges, wherein his assertion is apparently, and by his own principles, false.  
Fourth principle, That the body of the Jews cast off, shall be graffed in again, and enjoy their pristine honour to be the people of God, and the visible kingdom of Christ, though not solely, yet as fully, nay more gloriously than before, Hos. 1.10, 11. & Hos. 2.23. Rom. 11.25.26. This he grants, but denies the conclusions from it.  
The conclusions are,  
1. That when the Jews were in their first estate, their children were comprehended in the Covenant with them. This first he grants, pag. 10. but withsome addition, as they were a fleshly seed, they were in Covenant with their parents: but this is a corrupt addition, for this makes the Covenant a fleshly Covenant only, which is derogatory to it, and the Saints under the old Testament.  
2. Conclus. The Jews that obtained mercy kept their station, and so must needs retain their privileges for them and theirs, ver. 17. That is, that they and their children should continue the visible kingdom of God: Else a Jew should be a loser in his seed, by the coming of Christ: for they that before were within, should after be without, and denuded of that dignity which before they had.  
3. Conclus. The believing Gentile succeeds the rejected Jews, and becomes one visible kingdom with the Jews that kept their station, and so must enjoy their privilege, to belong to God with their seed.  
4. Conclus. The Jews called, recovering their pristine condition with advantage, the promise will be extended to them, and to their seed, as Isa. 59.20. And so must it be with the seed of Christian Gentiles, else we make a partition wall under the Gospel.  
Now to the three last conclusions M. Har. answers together, by feigned senses which he knows I intent not, only to delude where he cannot answer: for why should he inquire whether I mean by station, place and promise, Canaan and circumcision, and other ceremonies, pag. 11. that were peculiar parts of the Jewish administration? Whereas I have expressed their station, to be with their seed the visible Church or kingdom of Christ, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and to whom were committed the oracles of God, Rom. 3.2. and to whom were vouchsafed all other privileges of visible Church members. And such among them as had the faith th●t they professed, enjoyed also the spiritual privileges of remission of sins, and sanctification, etc. but not these only. And that the Jews in part standing still, in part breaking of, and the Gentiles graffing in, is meant of a visible Church-state, to enjoy or lose visible privileges, in becoming or ceasing to be of God's visible Church, wherein the invisible is comprehended, but not alone meant, may be evidently demonstrated.  
1. The broken off only fell from being members of a visible Church, and lost visible privileges only, Rom. 11. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew: for members of the invisible Church cannot fall away, they are built upon the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail: nor can their peculiar privileges be lost? Such gifts of God are like the seed, 1 Pet. 1.23. Immortal.  
2. For the Jews that stood embracing the profession of Christ: many were but carnal Christians, as appears in that the Churches received so much disturbance from them, and so kept only outward Church-priviledges, not inward graces.  
3. The Gentiles admitted, were good and bad together, gathered by the draw-net of the Gospel, who all were of Christ's visible kingdom, and admitted to outward Church-priviledges, from which the former were fallen, but not all of them to invisible graces: by all which it appears, how falsely M. Harrison affirms, that here is nothing spoken or meant of outward birth privileges, and that all is of such privileges as belong to the spiritual seed. Indeed there be spiritual privileges belonging to the elect Christian, whether of Jews and Gentiles, and so much the verses quoted by M. H. import, but that's not all, as I have showed, neither should a Christian Infant only lose shadows, to be expunged out of the visible Church or kingdom of Christ. Sith they that are out of that pale, are visibly without God, and without hope: a sad condition to put Infants into, and to the Parents grievous.  
Yet one thing more I must needs touch, and it is pag. 10. If he mean saith M. Harrison, that whereas before they were but externally God's people and children, now the external shadows, viz. Canaan being done away, they were by faith partakers of the substance Christ, and so were the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: I grant they kept and bettered their station. Here M. Harrison speaks as though the Israelites while Canaan and other shadows stood, were but externally the people of God, nor were partakers of Christ the substance, which is a most erroneous and heretical opinion, injurious to the Saints of old, contrary to the express Word of God, that tells us that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ, John 8.56. And how but by faith? and so did all godly Israelites: What faith was it, but a true, living, justifying faith, whereby those worthies did so great things, and obtained a good report? And had not many of the Jews, yea all that were godly, a justifying faith before Christ was preached to them by the Apostles? who thereby had not wrought in them a now grace of faith, but the faith they had, was new circumstanced, directed to look to the person of Christ Jesus, as the true Messiah already come, whereas before, they relied indefinitely on the Messiah promised to come, as is to be seen in Lydia, Act. 16.14. So in Simeon and Anna, Luk. 2. And therefore I shall desire M. Harrison in such points to speak more truly, or more warily, or else to forbear writing books, till he be better grounded in Divinity. And thus I have cleared my second argument.   

CHAP. VI  
Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptisme, from Rom. 11.11, 12. etc. is cleared from M. Tombs his exception, in his Apology, pag. 69-77.  
MAster Tombs, pag. 69. of his Apology saith, I go upon Rom. 11.11, 12. and somewhat more distinctly then M. Martial, yet he complains for my want of syllogizing from it. But that (methinks) is a needle's complaint by a Scholar, when fair mediums for syllogism are held out: neither do I think it needful, so superstitiously to tie a man's self to rules of art, when by reason of variety of mediums, various syllogisms must be made, which if needle's, so much time and paper may be spared: yet sigh he expects it, I will now satisfy his desire. The conclusion which I say, (and he denies not) to be proved, was, that the children of Christians, have the same privilege with children of Jews, as they were comprehended so under the Covenant with their parents, as to be reputed members of the same visible kingdom, and to be sealed with them, this he denies: this I showed ground for by four clear principles and conclusions, from that Rom. 11.11. etc. from which I now syllogise thus.  
That Church-state. and those outward Church-priviledges which the Jews had by virtue of a pure Gospel-promise, that the Christian Jews retained: but that the Jews and their seed should be Gods visible Church, and enjoy cutward Church-priviledges, was a benefit that they had by a pure Gospel-Covenant. Ergo the major is clear from ver. 17. of Rom. 11. whence my second conclusion is proved, that the Jews that obtained mercy kept their station. The minor I prove. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed in their generations, Gen. 17.7. is a pure Gospel-promise. But by virtue of that, the Jews had this Church state: that they and their seed were the visible Church of God, and enjoyed outward Church-priviledges. Ergo.  
Again thus: What Gospel-priviledge the nation of the Jews had before their rejection, that they shall recover with advantage at their restauration. To have their seed to belong to God's visible kingdom with them, and enjoy outward Church-priviledges: was a Gospel privilege belonging to the Jews before their fall. Ergo, The major is clear from Rom. 11.25, 26. Hos. 1.10, 11. & 2.23. By which my fourth principle, which is in effect the major here confirmed.  
The minor appears: For by being Gods visible kingdom, Christ and all his benefits were offered to them all, and made good to the elect: which ordinarily were among them and none else, and therefore this was a Gospel-priviledge: being it conduced to salvation.  
Again thus:  
What Church-state, and privileges belonged to the Christian Jews in Paul's time, and shall belong to the body of the Jews when restored, (degrees only excepted.) That belongs to all Christian Gentiles. But to the former belongeth, to have the Covenant with them and their seed, so that the children belong to the visible kingdom of Christ: Ergo. The major is my third principle, grounded on Rom. 11.17. And thus I have Answered M. Tombs his desire with syllogisms.  
Now what saith he to all this? why?  
1. If I mean by the Gentiles assumed into the place of the Jews, out of the same Church-state, and by partaking of privileges, the privileges belonging to the Church-state, it is denied.  
I Answer, I do mean the same Church-state and Church privileges that are not typical, and this is plainly-proved by Rom. 11.17. they are in their place in the Olive, and so must enjoy at lest what they had: neither hath he, nor can he disprove it: for though he hold the engraffing is more than into the visible Church, yet he denies not that they had thereby a visible Church-state too, pag. 71. Neither saith he, is a believing Jew a loser in his seed by the coming of Christ: Sith this was a peculiar privilege in the time of that Church-state, which now ceaseth to be a privilege: which he saith he hath further discussed. Examen part 3.6, 11. which I have viewed again, and there find that as here, so there he barely dictates without proof, which learned men cannot count satisfactory, thus to defalk the Covenant of grace in the extent of it in a thing where nothing typical is showed or can be.  
For my fourth sectary, if it be understood of pristine Church state he denies it, but he grants, the promise will be extended to them and their seed: as the text imports, Isa. 59.20. Why then say I, he grants that now under the Gospel, children shall be under the promise, (which is but a branch of the Covenant) and what is this, but that which he hath so stiffly denied, and which we assert as the ground of the seal annexed to it. Neither (saith he) will there be two distinct estates, one of the Jews, of holy fathers and children: another of Gentiles who have only personal privilege, none for their seed; But by his leave this will follow, unless he grant that the promise or Covenant is to Christian Gentiles, and their seed too: and if he grant that, whether the seal of initiation will not follow the Covenant, I leave to be weighed by proofs set down in their places. And unless he grant this privilege to Christian Gentiles, there will follow a partition wall thus far, to make distinct conditions of persons under the Gospel, contrary to Ephes. 2.14. where Christ hath made Jews and Gentiles equal.  
From me, M. Tombs proceeds to M. Martial, pag 7. Where he saith, the chief difference is, whether the engraffing be into the invisible Church by election and faith, as M. Tombs affirmed. To which M. Martial replies, that if it be meant of the invisible Church only, and all that are ingraffed in the Apostles sense: whether Jews and Gentiles, are only elect ones. Then will he promise never to plead this Scripture more for Infants.  
This motion M. Tombs accepts: but in the repetition that the engraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith, he leaves out the word only, wherein the whole emphasis of M. Marshals offer lies. He tells us again, that the same people were ingraffed into the visible Church, but the engraffing is more than that which is into the visible Church by outward profession and Qrdinances. But what is this, but what M. Martial and myself have again and again asserted, that it's meant of making all to be of the visible Church that profess, and those to be of the invisible Church that are elect and truly believe? and this is enough to carry the cause, that at least the elect Gentiles by engraffing, obtained the visible Church-state of the broken off: and so they and their children are in Covenant as the broken off were; And therefore I should not be so liberal in my grant, as M. Martial to M. Tombs, in this, wherein he is an adversary. M. Tombs brings many arguments to prove, that the engraffing is meant into the invisible Church by election and faith, which I shall examine and discover, if he put in the word [only] they are too light, if not, they reach not the question, the thing in question: only first I will premise an observation. That it is an usual thing in Scripture, when it speaks of visible Churches, though it is apparent they did consist of good and bad: to give attributes that are to be understood only of the elect, and invisible part: either because of the same profession of goodness that all make, or synechdochically naming the better part for the whole, thus in the inscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles. All the members of visible Churches are termed Saints, and peculiarly, 1 Thes. 1.5. Knowing beloved your election of God. So the seven Churches of Asia, are termed golden candlesticks. May we hence truly gather, that there were none in any of the Gentile Churches but Saints, and that all the Angels and members of the seven Churches of Asia were golden? He of Sardis, and all that had a name to live and were dead, Revel. 3.7? Surely no, but those things are attributed to visible Churches because of the elect among them, yet were not the elect only spoken to, or of: even so many of the expressions from which M. Tombs argues, are peculiar to the elect, not that no non-elect persons had among them a standing in the visible Church, and not in the invisible: but the expressions are used synechdochically, the more noble part put for the whole: but now to the particulars. That the engraffing is into the invisible Church only.  
1. Because it is by God's sole power, Rom. 11.23. I answer, the ground is weak, for no man can give a man power so far to believe as to profess, especially one blinded and hardened of God, but God alone: and was not the visible Church-state of the Jews, when all other Nations were without an act of God's power only, nor could it be by man? So then also their re-ingraffing, though many come to be members of a visible Church only.  
2. He argues, because the engraffing is called reconciliation, opposite to casting away, ver. 15. which is called breaking off, ver. 17. But this also is too weak for the casting away and breaking, being but a loss of what they had, that is, visible privileges; the reconciliation might be, and in many Gentiles was but a vouchsafing them a visible Church estate, no longer to be reputed dogs as they had been.  
3. He argues from ver. 20. By unbelief they were broken, but thou standest by faith. I answer, The elect, by faith and profession, was both in the invisible and visible Church: the formal, by appearance of faith stood in men's esteem, and as members of the visible Church. And to this purpose Calvine, part of whose speech you afterward applaud; Pracipuè notandum Pauli sermonem non tam ad singulos homines quam ad totum Gentium corpus dirigi, in quo multi esse poterant frustra inflat, fidem potius profitentes, quàm habentes.  
4. He argues from ver. 17. That engraffing is meant, whereby the wild O live is copartner of the root and fatness of the Olive tree, and then much stir is kept what the root is? But I answer, If the Olive give fatness, I know no other Olive but he that is the vine, into whom all Christian Gentiles were ingraffed by profession, and the elect of them by faith really also, and hence this expression, ver. 17. in regard of what in profession and show belonged to all, and in reality was verified of the better part, the elect.  
5. He argues because the breaking off is by blinding, but that is weak, for then engraffing may be by illumination to profession, which may be without election, Heb. 6.4, 5, 6.  
6. He argues because reingraffing brings salvation, but that is to some of the ingraffed, not all, unless he thinks at the Jews restauration, there shall be none of them formalists and hypocrites.  
7. He argnes because the engraffing is by virtue of God's election, his love, his gifts of calling, ver. 30, 31, 32. But I answer the election, love, and gifts being such here, as belong to bodies or nations: it is not such as M. Tombs means, which is election unto salvation by faith; Sith that belongs not to whole bodies or Nations, or not to all of them, and so is attributed in regard of the better part.  
8. Lastly, because the engraffing is the fruit of God's mercy, and breaking off by shutting up in unbelief. But neither is this last cogent, sigh there is general mercy to make members of a visible Church, as well as special, to make members of the invisible, and their unbelief was not only want of saving faith, but historical faith to profess, which later if they had had, they had not been broken off, and therefore they that have it are ingraffed into their rooms, to enjoy that visible standing, which for want of it they lost. Thus M. Tombs his army of arguments are routed, and it is to be observed, that in all his conclusions he leaves out the word only, which is the binge of the controversy, for we not only do not deny, but also positively affirm, that in some the engraffing was by faith and election into the invisible, as well as by calling and profession of faith into the visible. So M. Martial, pag. 137. and 138. of his defence; But where M. Martial interpre●s it only of bare admission into visible Church-membership, excluding the engraffing into the invisible, I profess I cannot find, and therefore believe M. Tombs hath in that imputation wronged him. For the places that M. Tombs makes parallel, 1 Cor. 12.13. Ephes. 3.6. Gal. 3.14, 26 28 29. They are so fare in my apprehension from confirming his opinion, that they manifestly confirm my observation, touching the expressions of Scripture, when they speak of the visible Church, in which there are good and bad; they in regard of the profession of all, and the reality in the elect, speak as though all were elect: but it is by a synecdoche. For let M. Tombs tell me, doth he think all and every particular person Baptised in Corinth, or Galatia; were really ingraffed into the body of Christ, or had put him on? etc. Yet this is spoken of all, in regard this was true in all in profession and appearance, and there were some elect among them, of whom it was true really: even so we do, and are to interpret many phrases urged by him in Rom. 11. in this present business.  
The only objection of weight saith M. Tombs is, that then some branches of the invisible Church are broken off, and so election made revocable, and apostasy from grace maintained. This is an objection of weight indeed, but not the only objection: for there is another also as forcible, hinted also by me, pag. 18. where I affirm, that the Apostle speaks not of particular persons, but of the body of the Jews, and the body of the Gentiles that were Christians collectively, received into the room of the Jews broken off: and the body of the Gentiles that received Christ by profession, were not all elect, but good and bad drawn together by the draw-net of the Gospel. But how doth he answer the weighty objection?  
1. He boldly affirms, That the breaking off, was of the branches that were truly such, and of the engraffing that was truly such, into the invisible Church. But may we not change the verse and say?— Pictoribus atque sophistis, Quidlibet audendi, etc. But he brings an allay, That by the branches are not meant singular persons, but the people, why then the people that were ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off so yet the invisible Church was prevailed against in his sense: therefore I know not what help this limitation will do him. That which is said of people in a body, must be true in some particulars of that body: so if the body of the people truly ingraffed into the invisible Church were broken off, this must be true in some singular persons. Besides, how apparently cross is M. Tombs his assertion to the Apostle, Rom. 11.1, 2. Hath God cast away his people? God forbidden. God hath not cast away his people that he foreknew. So you see the people that make the ●nvisible Church are not broken off. What M. Tombs adds afterward touching the body of a people which were once the elect people of God, and ingrassed into the invisible Church, because the generality were such, that it's no error to say they are broken off from election.  
I say first, it is not good sense to say the body of a people is engrafted into the invisible Church, whereas the invisible Church is comprehended under a visible body, as chaff under wheat: and to say a Church is broken off from that election which is special, and to grace which was once elect, and from being the invisible Church that was once the invisible Church, is sure a most grand error. For special election to grace and glory, which makes any people of the invisible Church, is a foundation of God that remains sure, against which, the gates of hell cannot prevail. The thing which occasioneth M. Tombs his error, is want of consideration of a distinction, which M. Tombs very well knows, but thorough eagernes to maintain his tenet (as I conceive) doth not consider. Election is either general or special: so is reprobation general, election and reprobation is of bodies or societies: and this is only in reference to visible Churches, in which is contained the invisible: thus God is often said to choose the Nation of the jews, Deut 4.3 7. & 10.15. That is the body of his people to be his visible Church, in which indeed was contained the invisible. Now opposite to this general election, is general reprobation, whereby a people are cut off, or cast out of the honour of being Gods visible kingdom, and so without hope to be of the invisible: so than the breaking off of the jews, was only from this general election, and their reprobation general, to cease to be Gods visible people; But now there is a special election of singular persons to be the invisible Church, and this is never attributed to a visible body, (unless synechdochically) and oft his we deny the broken off to be partakers of, or to fall from. The Apostle, Rom. 11. divides the Church of the jews into two bodies, one the people that God foreknew, the other opposite: the one were of the invisible, the other of the visible Church orly; Those opposite were broken off, the whole body of them, but it is only from what they had, to be visible members, not from what they had not, to wit to be of the invisible: and therefore here his argute simile from the river Euphrates will not serve his turn, for we inquire not here what the Israelites had been, nor have we to do with the species of Israel, but with these numerical branches broken off; The numerical branches graffed in mentioned by him: for proof, pag. 77. from ver. 23, 24. were not they graffed, in his opinion, into the invisible Church, and then if in the same sense the numerical branches be broken off, they be broken off from the invisible Church, and then they fell from grace. The Apostle shows not there, that the branches were broken off, from what the species of the people had had in former times, but from what they had at the time of breaking off, and that was only a visible standing in the Church, by virtue of God's general election, which then they lost: and by this distinction of general and particular election, used by Calvin himself, lib. 3. cap. 21. instit. and Perkins on Revel. 2.9. you may see the sense of your authors, they speak as you say of the body of Jews and Gentiles, and so the election and reprobation which they speak of is general, to be or not to be a visible Church, and so alterable: not that special election and reprobation which is more  than heaven and earth, of which the question is between you and us. And these words of mine will do you as little good: that holiness, Rom 11.16. is meant of potential holiness in regard of God's election, for thereby I only understand God's purpose revealed, to take the seed of the jews to be his visible Chur●● once again, and no other sense can it have, sigh the present 〈◊〉 were so many of them unholy. Thus have I answered M. Tombs his large dissertation, which I again seriously commend unto him; being not a little grieved, to see so much ability and industry cast away, to darken manifest truth in my apprehension.   

CHAP. VII.  
Wherein my fourth Argument for Infant Baptism frons Cor. 7.14. is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions.  
MY fourth Argument ran thus. Saints under the Gospel, have right to Baptism. Children of believers are Saints. Ergo, etc. Here M. H. puts in again his distinction of visible and invisible Saints: But this I put by as before, by informing him, that known is as much as visible, and therefore what a man may challenge because he is visibly so qualified he may challenge, if his qualification be known any other way; And therefore is a Saint judged to have right to Baptism as a visible Saint, because by something discerneable to sense, he is known to be a Saint, and then if by evidence from the Word any be known to be Saints, they may be Baptised: but that Infants are, by 1 Cor. 7.14. So unless M. Harrisons answer to the minor, be more solid than his denial of the major, he must miscarry.  
First, M. H. affirms, that the holiness ascribed to children, cannot be meant of faeder all holiness: as the Nation of the Jews were holy, God's visible Church having right to Church-priviledges as I expound it. Let us hear his reasons.  
1. Because the wise is said to be sanctified to, or by the husband, as well as the children: the word in the Original is the same: Now he thinks I will not call the unbelieving wife a Saint.  
I answer, The unbelieving wife is not said to be sanctified absolutely, but in or to the believing husband, that is, (as he confesseth) as meats which are not made holy in themselves, but to the believer, and therefore cannot be called holy. But the children are said not to be sanctified to another, but to be holy, that is in themselves, as our Divine answers Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Bapt. cap 4. With whom how often do you symbolise? But you say, the word in the Original is the same, but that is plainly false, for the one is a verb with a proposition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that may and do●h signify an act on the unbeliever, in reference to another: the other is an Adjective, a concrete word that imports a quality inhaerent in the party, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So we want both truth and skill in this assertion, that the Original word is the same. And so is the assertion following false also, that we must admit many such, as the Infidel wife in our Nationall Church: for we neither must, nor do admit any, but those that profess faith in Christ, no more then M. Harrison.  
His second reason is, because the unbelieving husband can by generation convey no more to his children, then to his unbelieving wise. But this is just to beg the question, which we affirm, he barely denies: we give reason. The Covenant is with fathers and seed, not with the husband and his wife: and by virtue of that Covenant, the father that begetteth, conveigheth more to his child then to his wife. But saith he, let us seriously consider, doth a believer beget a child as a believer, or as a man? if as a man, then that is born of the flesh is flesh: etc.  
I answer, Did a Jew beget a child as a Jew, or as a man? not as a jew: for then only jews could beget children? Yet did a jew I hope by virtue of God's Covenant, convey to his child Church-priviledges: his child was a jew by birth, Gal. 2.15. So may a child by virtue of God's Covenant, be reputed a Christian by birth, in regard of Church-priviledges. But more closely: A man corrupt doth beget children as a man, or as a corrupt man: not as a corrupt man, for than he could not have begotten children had he stood innocent: but if as a man, whence is his child corrupt? The answer must be, by virtue of the Covenant of works, under which Adam stood in Paradise as the head of mankind, for breach of which every natural branch of Adam is now born corrupt, Rom. 5.12. So though a believer beget a child as a man, nay more as one of the corrupt issue of Adam, and so considered, the issue is corrupt: yet, as the believer is under another Covenant, that imparts privileges to him and his seed: his seed may enjoy that privilege which the Covenant contains, and so may be reputed holy, belonging to the people of God, which an Infidel's child is not.  
Next, M. H. gives us aj●june interpretation of his own, without proof: to wit, That the children are holy to the believing party, as all other dispensations of God's providence are. Whereas here the children are not said to be holy to the parent, but absolutely, that is, in themselves. And according to Rom. 8. which he quoteth for proof or illustration: things unclean, even the sins of the called according to God's purpose, are turned to good to humble them, and fit them for more grace, and therefore this is too low a sense, and reacheth not the Apostles meaning. Thus hath he deserted M. Tombs, who backed his opinion with some probability, that he did errare cum ratione: and without any answer to any of our reasons: he hath rejected our exposition, and proposed one of his own, which he hath left to shift for itself without proof. Doth this become the confidence M. Harrison hath of his ability, to defend his tenet against any opponent? Touching this place, M. Tombs in his Apology adds not much, but only one crank he hath, with which if every man were as well pleased as himself, they would without doubt explode as he saith, the exposition of 1 Cor. 7.14. of faederal holiness: but let us try the validity of it. If the reason, (saith he) p. 96. of the lawfulness of two persons living together in disparity of religion, be taken from the virtue of faith in the one party, not from the relation of husband and wife, as M. Marshals exposition makes it, The medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing wife, with an unbelieving husband, will as well prove the lawfulness of the living of a believing fornicatrix, with an unbelieving fornicator. I answer, if all the reason of the lawfulness of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband, were from the faith of the believer, there were some strength in this consequence: but that we make not all the reason, for the scruple was in the Corinthians, whether notwithstanding their lawful marriage, they might lawfully live together: yes saith the Apostle, the unbeliever (in the use of marriage) for so it must be understood, is sanctified to the believer: else, etc. so that marriage is the groundwork, which satisfied not their consciences, for so were they, Ezra 9 & 10. Yet was the holy seed polluted, but now saith the Apostle, the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer, etc. So then the parties that may lawfully live together on this ground, are supposed to be man and wife. And his major proposition must be: That man and wife may lawfully dwell together: whereof one is sanctified to the other, and so his fornicators will be excluded, not concluded. He saith, it is not necessary to insert, being husband and wife: sigh the sanctification is not ascribed by him to the relation between them, but to the faith of the one. But I answer, this is no good ground, for though the marriage be no cause of this sanctification, yet it is a ground supposed to make the Apostles resolution true, and on that ground it is made. There's two things required, to satisfy spiritual conscience in the use of a thing. First that it be lawful in itself. Secondly that it be holy to us. The former is common to heathens and Christians, (in moral things) The last is the peculiar of believers: if either be wanting, conscience is defiled, and will be disquieted. Now the sanctification here to quiet their consciences, is an addition to the law of marriage, common with them to heathens, and so we ought not to sever the later from the former, which the Apostle supposed. So this new argument is overthrown without denying bastards to be faederally holy, where I should not have M. Tombs an adversary.   

CHAP. VIII.  
Wherein my fourth argument is made good for Infant-Baptisme, from Col. 2.11, 12.  
MY fourth argument for Infant-Baptisme was. To whom circumcision doth agree, Baptism doth agree: circumcision doth agree to Infants. Ergo. The major is proved, because Baptism doth succeed circumcision in the same place, state, and signification in the new administration, that circumcision had in the old, Col. 2.11, 12. Here M. Harrison first denies, that circumcision and Baptism do seal the same Covenant. I answer, circumcision was a seal of the Covenant made with Abraham, and that is the same made with us Christians, or else how can we by faith be made children of Abraham? And how could the Prophet argue from the Covenant made with Abraham, that Christians are justified by faith, not the works of the law, as he doth, Gal. 3.16, 17. unless we had the same Covenant? and of our Covenant Baptism is the seal. 2. He denies circumcision to be the seal of remission of sin. But doth not the Apostle say, that circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith, and that implies remission of sins, as he plainly shows in bringing, as proofs of justification by faith; Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven, Rom. 4 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. M. H. answers, it was to Abraham the seal of the righteousness of faith, but that was peculiar to him. Wherein again, whether of ignorance or of choice, (ipse viderit) he jumps with Bellarmine against Protestant Divines, Bel. lib. 1. de sacr. in grem. cap. 17. But as our Divines answer Bellarmine thus, he enervates the Apostles argument from Abraham's example to us, which is not argumentative in any thing peculiar to Abraham. Secondly I would know of M. Har. if circumcision did not seal righteousness of faith, except to Abraham, what it did seal to proselytes? Title to Canaan they had none: seal a blank it must not: therefore it sealed the righteousness of faith. Again there being in a Sacrament an outward sign and an inward grace, and that under the old Testament as well as the new, (as Protestants maintain against Papists) I would know of him whether the circumcision of the heart, Deut. 30.6. Rom. 2.29. Col. 2.11. were not the grace answering the sign in circumcision? and whether that did not import the putting away the filth of nature by justification, and regeneration? and so included remission of sins? M. H. proceeds, If I mean, that as circumcision was a Sacrament of the old Testament, Baptism of the new, etc. I answer, I mean as I say: Baptism was the Sacrament of initiation under the New, as circumcision under the Old: and therefore as the one was set to all (seleable) within Covenant: so the other. Yet will it not hence follow, that children must therefore have the Lords Supper, because that is the Sacrament of growth.  
To the place, Col. 2.11, 12. M. H. saith it doth no more prove Baptism to succeed circumcision, than Noah's Ark, or the red Sea. But he might have seen my answer to M. Tombs, that there is not the same reason of these, for circumcision was an Ordinance in ordinary use, of the same nature, virtue and state that Baptism, in being the Jews Sacrament of initiation, and so is more properly said to be succeeded by Baptism. But M. H. saith, that the Apostle speaks of circumcision, to show the Colossians that they were complete in Christ by regeneration, etc. I answer, that's true, but that's not all: the Apostle shows they needed not the elements of the world, whereof circumcision was one: and why? not only because they had spiritual circumcision, but had it sealed by Baptism; So Baptism is in the same state, and supplies the use of circumcision, to seal and apply Christ to justification and regeneration: and this is a manifest proof of my collection, from Col. 2.11, 12. and more to the purpose then M. H. hath or can answer.  
For that proof of yours, that circumcision and Baptism were not to be applied to the same subject, because John the Baptist would not Baptism those that were circumcised without further qualification. I have answered already to M. Tombs in pag. 10. It was because Baptism is a seal in a new administration: and so parties to be Baptised, were to be under the new administration, as well as in Covenant. And therefore neither john the Baptist, nor the Apostles, did Baptism Jews, till by their doctrine they were brought under the new administration. Thus it appears what a feeble answerer M. H. is still found.   

CHAP. IX.  
Wherein my fifth Argument for Infant-Baptisme, because the grace of the new Testament is not less than under the Old.  
MY fifth argument was framed thus. If Children of Christian parents be excluded from the Covenant and seal of initiation, whereby their separation from the world is manifested: then are the privileges under the new Testament, less than under the old: But this is not to be affirmed. Ergo. M. H. returns answer by a long fetch about, premising three things. 1. That the Covenant made with the fleshly seed, as such, under the old Testament was merely fleshly, etc. But I answer, there's no such Covenant extent: no distinct Covenant with the fleshly seed distinct from the spiritual. His misinterpretation of Gen. 17. from ver. 7. to 15. for that purpose I have convinced of vanity in clearing my first argument. There was a Covenant indeed that had divers privileges given to Abraham, and continued to a visible Church of his seed, wherein were parties of different condition: Some carnal, some spiritual. Now to the carnal, though spiritual things were represented and offered, yet they only partook of carnal and external privileges: but the elect partook of the spiritual privileges also. And so is it now in the visible Churches of Christians, where are wheat and chaff, carnal and spiritual Christians.  
M. H. premiseth. 2. That the Covenant made with Abraham, and renewed with Christ in the Gospel, was never made with any fleshly seed, it's wholly spiritual: the sign and sanction spiritual etc. appertaining only to a spiritual seed, etc. But this is a manifest untruth in part, and in part misapplied: for is Baptism any more a spiritual seal then circumcision? Have all that are Baptised put on Christ really, or many in profession only? Are all Baptised (yea in an unquestionable way) spiritual ones? What was Simon Magus? Are there not yet in visible Churches such a distinction of Christians and Baptism, as there was of Jews and circumcision, Rom. 2.38, 29? Do not Simon Magus and daily experience show it? True it is, that those that are not by profession only, but really by faith Children of Abraham, they are spiritual, etc. but this is but the invisible Church under the visible, now, as it was in Judaisme. M. H. himself sets Baptism to men, because they profess, not because they believe, as the title of his book shows, and how oft is profession without faith?  
M. H. premiseth, 3. That the Gospel-Covenant is more glorious, etc.  
Then M. H. answers, If he mean by privileges, fleshly, etc. which, [if] is but to make way for an evasion. He knows I mean not a fleshly, but an external privilege to be of the visible kingdom of Christ, of which he that is not, is without: and in an ordinary way without God, and without hope in the world, Ephes. 2.12. Of which to denude our children, and to make their condition as hopeless as Turks, is a great discomfort, and a straitning the grace of the Covenant: for tell me when a Jewish child did die; was there no more hope of him then of a Canaanites child? See 1 Sam. 12.23. and whence that hope but from the Covenant with the seed? Gen. 17.7. Deut. 30.6. And is that a carnal privilege that gives hope of salvation? So then M. H. by denying Infants to be within Covenant, defalkes or curtails the spiritual privileges of the Covenant: and then his answer is demonstrated to be false.   

CHAP. X.  
Wherein my last Argument for Infant-Baptisme from the judgement of charity, is cleared from M. Harrisons exceptions.  
MY sixth argument was thus. Where we have evidence for judgement of charity, that there is the grace of the Covenant: there we may set to the seal of the Covenant.  
That we have for Infants. Ergo. The minor I make good by three positions.  
1. Children are capable of the grace of the Covenant.  
2. Some are actually partakers of it.  
3. Because the children of believers are externally under the Covenant of grace.  
Here M. Harrison answers not punctually, but in four particulars.  
1. The judgement of charity must be guided by a rule, and he knows none, but Mat. 7.20. By their fruits you shall know them. It seems he hath forgotten 1 Cor. 13.5, 6.7. where he might have read many more rules of charity. It believeth all things, hopeth all things: that is, wherein there is any fair ground, and that I have showed for the grace of the Covenant to be in Infants.  
But saith M. Harrison, The spirit bloweth where it listeth, Joh. 3.8. Where it is not limited to children of believers, more than unbelievers. Answ. The spirit bloweth where it listeth, doth it therefore blow no more in the ministry of the Gospel, then in Philosophical lectures? No more in the Church then out of it? You will not say it; for the spirit that is free, hath limited itself by promise, to blow ordinarily more in one exercise then another, in one society then another, and so to one seed then another, Deut. 30.6. Isa. 59.21. M. H. saith, Simon Magus did appear a believer: but that hinders not my assertion, viz. that profession is only a ground for judgement of charity, not certainty, as appeared in Simon Magus, who by his profession in charity, was judged to have what he had not.  
For his second demanding proof, That the children brought to Christ were of believing parents. Why else were they brought to Christ? would they offer their children to Christ, that did not themselves believe in him?  
That which M. H. saith thirdly, Touching Christ's omnisciency, is besides the point. Sith we in admitting to ordinances, proceed not upon judgement of certainty, but charity.  
M. Harrison adds Fourthly, that though children had grace actually, (which saith he, why children of believers should have more than of unbelievers, I know not, nor I am persuaded doth M. Geree) why then there's no more hope of a Christians child dying in innocency, then of a Turks, which I have showed both false and dismal to parents: yet because they cannot act it by action or profession, it's no ground of administration of Baptism: wherein,  
1. He differs from M. Tombs.  
2. From the truth: for what is the real ground of claim to seals, but being within Covenant, or having the grace to be sealed? Which if it come to my knowledge any way by fruits, or testimony of God's Word; Who can forbid water to those that have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Act. 10.47. As the Apostle argues from evidence of the grace of the Covenant there.  
And thus I have cleared the sixth argument from M. Harrison, who in this last answer doth so needlessly inculcate the hopelessness of Christian Infants (for grace and glory are connex) that if he have no more comfortable divinity, I shall not envy, but wonder at, and pity the multiplicity of his followers.  
M. Tombs takes notice of this sixth argument, pag. 101. and 102. And there denies both the major and the minor: And denies Act. 10.47. to be a proof of the major, which I have already made good to M. Harrison. The Sacrament is a seal of the Covenant and the grace of it. Baptism is not to seal profession of faith, but the righteousness of faith properly: and therefore I conceive the true ground why Baptism was administered on profession of faith, because that profession was an evidence of the righteousness of faith: and being in the Covenant, which it is not in judgement of certainty, but charity: as Simon Magus his case cleareth. If then by any other evidence we have cause to judge in charity, that there is grace, and that they are within the Covenant: this gives title to the seal, because it contains the ground, why profession of faith gives claim to the seal. M. Tombs makes God's revelation of true sanctification a ground for Baptism, for this, he hath neither precept nor example in Scripture, for Judas might dee, all that they Act. 10.47. are said to do. The ground of his assertion therefore I think must be, because true sanctification is that whereof profession is an evidence, and that but conjectural or charitable, not certain, and such an evidence from other grounds of Scriptures, Why should it not be of the same validity?  
For M. Tombs his denial of my minor, he affirms:  
1. That the judgement of charity is to be taken from a man's own actions, because the Apostle saith, charity believeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. But how these words prove his assertion (which I deny) I know not, but have showed in answer to M. Harrison, rule for charity in this point from the following words, hopeth all things. The ground of this judgement of charity, I draw not from any one of my three grounds, mentioned in the laying down my argument: but from all three together; Which M. Tombs saith, can only produce conjectural hope, which often miscarryeth: and so much they do amount to, and that is the thing that I assert, for the judgement of charity is but a conjectural hope, being opposed to demonstrative certainty.  
Thus I have done with M. Harrison, whose book hath given me fit occasion, without digressing from the present matter, to answer all those passages in M. Tombs his Apology for the manner of his treatise, where he takes occasion largely and materially to defend the matter of it: For his boasts what he hath done in this controversy, without answering our reasons to the contrary; I hope none will be moved with them, till they have tried them, by comparing writing with writing, and reason with reason, and then I fear not the issue. Now that he doth make show of more than he performeth: I will content myself to show in one particular which is the first: and of no small consequence, it is in his Epistle Dedicatory, and that to Parliament-men the Authorizers of the Directory. To whom he saith, that the truth hath gotten so much ground, that the doctrine of the Directory is disavowed by two of his most eminent Antagonists: for which he hath (that I know) no other ground, then because we interpret the Directory according to the mind of the compilers; And not as M. Tombs would have it, mistaking the words as (I conceive) to be understood in that sense, which (I believe) he himself conceives was not in the intention of the compilers. Sure I am, that many of the Assembly have assured me in private, that they intended the expressions questioned by M. Tombs, in no other sense than I expound them. Now I will not say— Crimine ab uno, Omnia discite— By one crimination judge of all. But the carriage in this I hope will make all more wary in giving credence to his other confident assertions. O that the Lord would pity us under this saddest exercise of division of judgements, and make us of one mind, one heart, one language, or make this sharp affliction as useful to humble and mortify, as it is in sense bitter to a peaceable spirit. Amen.  
Soli Deo gloria.    

Errata.  
PAge 4. line 28. deal and. p. 9 l. 8. for spirit, r. speech. p. 11. l. 5 for at, r. 〈◊〉. l. 24. deal and. p. 12. l. 21. for and, r. under. p. 15, l. 10. for being, r. bring from the Covenant. p. 16. l. 2. for Cant. 8.11, 12. r. Mat. 8.11, 12. l. 24. for freedom, r. seed. p 18. l. 5. for for, r. so. p. 20. l. 9 for constrains, r. contains. p. 26. l. 18. for Question. r. Quaesitum.