'/&1 4 &^ / st- £ «->* /V && d_ 9 -r COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE t LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Division.. Section... , c. » ft f^/ Plain Scripture Proof OF Infants Church-memberfliip AND BAPTI #EING The Arguments prepared for (and partly managed in) the-publike Difpute with Mr.Tombes at Bewdley on the firft day offamarj,i6ty. With a full Reply to what he then Anfwered, and what is cqntained in his Sermon fince Preached, in his printed BookSjhii^fXon i Corq. 14. which I faw, againft Mr. Afor/W,againft thefe Arguments, With a Reply to his Valedictory Oration at Bewdley • And a Corrective for his Antidote. . / . By Richard Baxter A Minifter of Chrift for his Church at Kederminfter* Conftrained unavoidably hereto by Mr. Tombes his importunity ; by frequent Letters, Meffcngers, in his Pulpit, and at laft in Print , calling out for my Arguments, and charging the denial upon my Conscience. Hereto is added an Appendix , againft the Do&rine in the other extream, coptained in a Tractate of Mv.Tb. Bedford's, adorned with the great Names and pretended Concent of famous 3 learned Dr. Davenant, and Dr. vjher ; ana with an Epiftle of Mr. Cranfords, and a Tractate oHDr.Wards fon which alfo fome Animadverfions are added.) London, Printed for Robert White j and are to fold by Thomas Vnderhil, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church- yard , and Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleetftreet a near the Temple Gate. 16$ 1. Mark. 10.14. WHen Jefus faw it,he was much difpkafed , and faid unto them; Suffer the little children to come to me,and forbid them not; for of fuch is the Kingdom of God. cJ^r^.Q.36,37. And he took a child, and fet him in the midfl: of them ; and when he had taken him in his arms, he faid unto them ; Whofoever (hall receive one of fuch children in my Name, receiveth me, &c, Orgien. Horn. 8. in Levit. £lmdcaufa eft cum Baptifma Ecclefia in remijfionem peccatorum de* tur , fecundum Ecclefise obfervantiam etiam parvuli* r Baptifmus <&- tur f &c. It a Hom.14. in Luc, & lib.*}, in cap. 6. ad Roman* Auguft. de Bapt. conu r Donatifi. 1. 4.C. 2 3 . If any man ask for Divine Authority in this matter, although we moft rightly believe, that what the Univerfal Church holdeth, and was not inftituted by Councels, but hath been ever held, was not delivered but by Apoftolical Authority ; yet may we truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Baptifm performeth to Infants, by Circumcifion which the former people did receive. Auguft. depeccat. Merit>& Remif.l. 3.C.5. All Antiquity hath firmly held that Believers Infants do reciere Re : miffion of Original fin by Chriftian Baptifm. Jfiftin Maruin Epift. adZenam. (Women; ought to look to their Children , becaufe of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. a 3 Cyt r '* m Cyprian and 66. Bijhops in Councel ( Epifl. 59. operttm. Edit. Goulartii, pag. i6$.) fully determine, that Infants may be baptized before the eighth day ( which was Eidus doubt:) There being then no qucftion or doubt once raifed, whether they (hould be At all baptized? Of which lAagufi.Epift.iS. ad Hieron. faith [ Qprian with his fel- low Bifhops judged that a new-born Infant might be Baptized, (for correction of them that thought they might not be baptized before the eighth day,&cj Not making any new decree, but keeping the tnoft con- stant belief of the Church. Let any man think what he pleafe againft any Opinion otCyprian , where perhaps he faw not what he ftiould have feen •* Only againft the moft manifeft Apoftolical Belief let no man think.] The like he hath lib. 4. ad Bonif c. 8. cited by Goulartitts on Cyprian. Now Cyprian was Bifliop of Carthage 150 years after the death of St. fohn at the utmoft ; and fo was like to live within neer 100 years of fohn : And could a whole Councel, and all the Church be ignorant whether Infants were wont to be baptized io<* years before ? when fome of themfelves or their Fathers were thofe In- fants? Yea, could t it be fo forgotten, as that none (hould once doubt of it? The Currant Concent of HiftoriansalTures us, that Hyginus Biihop of Rome did firft ordain God- fathers and God-mothers, at the Bap- tizing of Infants (GQttips&sDr.Prideaux cals them,#r ^Patrinus & Ta- trina Infant em fufciperent in Bap if mo jtt FafcicuLTempor.vel'Patrimos &?atrimas utPlatina in vitaHygini:)Mdik\ng no queftion of their Bap* tifm it felf, but mentioning itasaufual pra&iceand undoubted duty. (Nor doth any other Hiftory fpeak of any beginning of it fince the A- poftles times. JNow Hyginns lived 2&Dan>Farms faith, Anno Dom.154. as Helvicusj. 5 2. as Trideanx, 1 50. as Eafciculus Tempor. 144. as Onu- phritts, 1 5 2. But as T^icephorus before them faith ( Ecclef. Hi/tor. 1. 3. c. 25.^ in the firft year of the Emperour Anto.^pius ; which was accord- ing to Helvicus himfelf 137. And Jrenaus rehearfing the Catalogue of the Romane Bifhops , faith that Eleutherius was in his time, the twelfth from the Apoftles 1 and Soter, Anicetus and fins all after Hyginns Hygintts ; who was therefore the fourth that had been from Irenes writing upwards ; and yet Iren&m himfelf lived in Toljcarpus time (who was St. fohn 3 s Difciple) all which he recordeth lib, 3. adv. hare/, cap.}, where he faith, that the faid Polycarp converfed with thofe that had feenChrift, and was by the Apoftles themfelves madeBifhopof Smyrna, ; fo that Hygintts and the Church in his days living but about 40. years after St. John* and converting if not with the Apoftles them- felves (as fome did) yet at lead: with the Apoftles Difciples and Fami- liars, is it poffiblethey fhouidfo generally be ignorant, whether the Apoftles baptized Infants ? I know that in a doclrinal point a rniftake is eafier : or a bare Narration of fome one Fad, (as Irenes rniftake of the length ofChrifts life:) But in a matter of if acl, and of fo publike notice, and which fo many thoufands were partakers in , as Baptifm was, how could they be ignorant ? were not many hundred then alive that could tell what the Apoftles did as having feen them ? and knew whether themfelves and their Parents were baptized in Infancy or not? Suppofe it were a queftion now among us , whether men were bapti- zed at age only, or in Infancy alfo 40. years ago ? or 50. or 1 00, were it not eafie to know the truth? And is it poflible all the Kingdom could be ignorant of it, and take the contrary for unqueftionable ? Let Mr.T. (hew but as much againft Infant- baptifm. T^on eft tenuior tranfgrejfto in Interpretation quam in fconverfatione. Tertull depudicit. e.g. edit, fPamel. pag.708. Tranfgreffion in Interpre- tation is not lefs then in Converfation. Mr. Tombes felf-condemnation.Treat.of Scandals,^, 32 3. (ad hominem.) With the fame fpirit at this day, do many feducing Jefuits and Seminary Priefts bred of the fmoak of the bottomlefs Pir,fcan- dalize many ignorant or corrupt fouls, dec. And no better are the ends of many other Hereticks,as Socinians, Anabaptifts, Famiiifts, Se- parates, and the reft of the litter of grievons Wolves, as St.T^/cals cals them, «/*#. 20.30, that enter among Chriftians and fparc not the Flock. And A7V*/pag.34i 34*. he faith [And others who out of crafty reaches and fuhdolows in- tentions, for worldly advantages apply the mfches to fcducc others. Of which fort no doubt are many Emiffaries out ofPopifh Seminaries , Agents for Separation, and other Scedfmen of Tares, Shall 1 taty up the Apoftles wifh Gal. 5.12. I would they were cut off that trouble us ? So indeed we wi(h ; but my Text puts me out of hope tf attaining it in this life 5 and therefore 1 can do'no more buz only read their doom 3 that a heavie direful wo hangs over their beads 4 which will as fur ely fall on them as God is true. For how can it be otherwise , but that Gods wrath (hou!d break forth agamfl thofe that continue f radices again ft him as his Enemies? Can any Prince brook the Sowers ef Sedition? the Se- ducers of his Subjecls from their Allegiance? the Vndcrmincrs of his Authority ? jr/ Claudius Cxfar werefo blocl(i[b } we [hallfeldom meet with (itch another. Certain it is t God. will notfo put it up : he hath proclaimed himfelfto be a God that will by no means clear the guilty $ that he will repay them that hate him to their face : Let no man de- ceive him/elf God is not mocked : There is a treafure of wrath refervedfor allfuch Faclors for Hell.The fame cup that Balaam and Jeroboam, and Jannes and Jambres, and Elymas drank of , (hall all Seducing Jefuits and inveigling Se&aries, and promoters of Licen- tioufnefs , drink of The fame judgement abides them j the fame Hell mufl hold tl>cm. Andpzg.ny. Remember that o/'Solomon^ Vrov. 14. 1 ?. The fimple believeth every word 5 but the prudent man looketh well to his goings. Be not eafily credulous then of v.ens cotmfclsi truji not lightly to their judgments. Try their pints ; examine their Counfells and Opinions before thou embrace them. Forget not St. Pauls rule, Rom. 1 6.17. To mark them wheh caufe divifions and offences contrary to the Doclrine which is delivered to usi and avoid them. For they that arefuch 3 fcrve not our Lord Jefm Chrifi , but their ewn beUy 5 and by good words and fair fpceches deceive the hearts of the fimple, Andpzg. l op. Let not thy %eal be equal for the fmaller and the greater matters of the Law, Mat.zj. z$. z. Be not rafh or too (liffe in thf Opinion, when it is about dilutable points , fuchashoneft and learned men do vary in , fo that it can hardly be difcerned who is in the right. Let thy conceits of thy felfbe modeft, and be willing to learn from any one that which is Truth* $.Be not apt to fufpccJ another s unfonndnefs. Judge not that thou be not judged,Mat.7, i.Rom.14.4. 10. ^.n'herein thou agreefi with thy brother, profifs that, practice that with concord, and wait till Godfhalljoynyou together in one mind, and one way for ^jrftPhil. 3.1 5,16. And in his Epi(ile .* Errors in C°nfcience produce many great Evils, not only ad intra in mens own fouls, but alfo ad extra in humane affaires. Few there be that heed the terrible Combination of our Saviour cgainfl Scandali^crs, and therefore are affeftcd as if by tranf migration they had Cains fprrit, when hefaid, Am I my Brothers keeper ? whence it is that offences arc multiply cd daily , many fouls peri (h; alienations of 'mind , Schifms, jars and Wars too arife. ^/^pag.103. As a lame hor/e when he is heated will go well enough, but when he cools wit halt downright : Even fo an Hypocrite though for a time he may go on fairly in his way > yet in the Conclufion 3 likely when he hath attained his ends ^he fals fouly. (Compare this with my Expofition of Mzt-7. 16. which he gain « fay es.) Andpzg.i-??, The Ordinances whereby the J \ws were reflramed inthe're Lwerty,were a yoak which they were not able to bcar 3 A&, 15. 10. But it is removed from our necks by Chrifis death 3 &c. So pag. 1 90. And in his Exam. pag. 101. Now I pray you what was this yoak Aft. 15.10 but Civcumcifion ? asyourf elf declare, and all the Legal Ceremonies? &c t ( compare this with his Anfwer to that Ter f - ' m Tb the Qourch at Ke- devminftet y ?ny dearly ©e?- loved^ • my Crown^ and my Joy, Lefled be God, the Father of our Lord Jefus Shrift, who hath called you with a holy cal- ling 3 and confirmed you in his Truth, and led you not into temptation 3 but delive- red you from the evil,who hath gathered you to his Son, and kept you yet in him : and taught you to feek after knowledge, without the quenching of Zeal •> and to maintain Zeal without defpifing knowledge 5 to feek after Truth in the way of Peace, and after Peace in the way of Truth: To the Church at Bewdley y my unfaignecU • ly beloved friends in the Lord. S my felf and the people of God, who are committed to my over fights did heartily con- gratulate your fupfofed felicity in your choice of your late Leffu- rer Mr. T.fo were we conflrai- ned to be very fenfible of your danger , when we Jaw our hopes fruflratedy and the (parks of er- j rour and difcord break out into a, \ flame • being blown by that breath 9 which fhould have helpt to kindle your heavenlinefs, and unanimous love. To this fen [i- bility we were engaged by many ( a ) obli- To theChurch at Kederminfter. Truth : as knowing how neer they dwell together •, that when other of Chrifts Miniftcrs more deferving then my fdf, are made by their people even a weary of their lives , I fhould yet be comforted in your con- ftancy, unity and Peace : that my greateft danger lyeth ino- vcrvaluing my condition, and being more c©ntented in the en- joyment of yon, then is meet on earth. And if the behold- ing of your fledfaftnefs be to me fuch a folace , what a blef- fing muft k be to you who do pofTefs it. May not your expe- rience of the happinefs of {labi- lity, unity and Peace, perfwade you to hold on in fo fweet a way , though other Arguments were wanting i Is it a fmali mercy that you meet in one fo- ciety, when others arc parcelled into many i and that you can meet in Love,& take comfort in one another, when others look ftrangely, and with jealoufie on their brethren ? and that your jfolemn Affemblies are not em- bittered, but you can publickly praife the Lord with an unani- mous joyfulnefs,when others do vili- To the Church at Bewdley. obligations. You are ear Anci- ent , our neerejl and decrefl neighbours : of/ tve arefeated neerer together then an) two fuch Towns that I have feen in the Landjfo have tve formerly held as neer familiarity and love. We were bound to lament the danger of our dear friends , and to be fomervhat fenfible of ahr own danger s when the flames and infettion was broke out fo neer us •, but efpecially to lay to heart the danger of the whole country, the wrong to the Reli- \gton, Go/pel and Interefl of our [Lord : Tetdtdl not fir for the quenching, of this fire, till I was called forth by God and you: I had no reafon to thrufi on my felf to fo ungrateful a work .Tour Magi- f rate, Mini f errand many of your people did again& again impor- tune me to the under taking: your mi fled neighbours more importu- ned me to write : / expefted no worldly advantage by fuch a la- bour : efpecially in thefe times when he that is againft feparati- ons andErrors,is by many judged to be againfi theCommonwealth. If you find any thing difp leafing in the manner of my writing>re- member that it was labour under- TotheChnrch at Kederminfter. vilifie, or depart from the fo- lemn worfhip ( where God hath the higheft honour, and returns the higheft bleflings, ) or elfe theylofe all their comforts of it by thepecvifli fcrupuloufnefs of their conferences, through miftakes. Is it a fmall bleffing, that when others are a re- proach to their profeffion, and harden the ignorant about them to their mine, that your (labili- ty and unanimity Ihouid be convincing and winning ? and make way for your counfels to the hearts of the ignorant ! Not for your worthinefs hath God done this, butbecaufehe hath fet his love upon you. Yo|jarc fons of Adam, and have naturally as erroneous and con- tentious difpofitions as others. I doubt not but you feel by the ftirrings of thefe corrupti- ons upon perfonal provocati- ons and difcontents, what pub- lick difcords you might have been guilty of, if God had given your natures their own way, and had but plucked up the floodgate of temptations. I look upon you as I do on my own foul ; I rejoice that God , hathl To the Church at Beivdley. taken for your [elves: My great Affliction in fo long diver [ion from more profitable ft udiesf^and -perhaps fome fmall lofs to the Church hereby ) hath been oc- cafioned by your necefiities. It is I that may complain. Ton may bear with a crack in freely givenCoin, 1 have been large in a Preface, to let you fee fully the occafien of my writing : the ufe whereof is known to /#, that know how much mif- reports, and Mr. Ts. reputati- on have taken with men .-though fir angers may ask^ To what pur~ pofe is all this i It is no delight- ful work to Paul, to withflani Peter to the face before the fa- mous Church of Antioch : and alfo to tell him of his difiimuU- Uon, and walking not uprightly 9 and to publijh in an EpiftU U the Galatiansi 2.1 1. 14 )both his,andbitmbas difiimulation, that even -other Countries might know of their perfonal faults, who were menfo famous and he- now able in the Churches : And- yet the increafe of errors, the pre- valency of falfe teachers, and the flrange backfliding of the Gdlmznsfrom the truth y as if they had been bewitched, did ( a 2 ) make To the Church at Kederminfter. : hath done fo much for me : but yet account not my felf to have attained ( the race end ) but prefs on, forgetting the things behind, and looking to the du- ty and the Crown before : I dare not fit down in an Amino- mi an conceit, that I have no- thing to do but cxprefs my Joy and Gratitude. So do I rejoyce m what God hath done for you : yet dare I not conclude that you are paft all danger, and that I have now no more to do for you but rejoyce in your felicity. You are yet but in the way : The Crown is not yet on your heads .- You are yet but in fight: Overcome and you are Blefled indeed. If you conti- nue in Chrift, then are you his Difciples indeed: if the Apoftles had need of fuch cautions, and to have their comforts given out with the limitation of tuch con- ditions , how much more we ? what glorious Churches hath Apoftacy demoliflied ? How many, many 3 many of our deareft friends, that feemede- very way as good as our felves, hath God fuffered of late to be the flume of their profeflion ? efpecially To the Church at Bewdly. make all this both lawful and ne- eejfary. If when you have impar- tially fludied this example, with the ordinary language of the Prophets , of Chrift and the A- pofiles, and the occafion of my (peecheS) you f\) all yet fee caufe to blame me for fliarpnefs, I refufe not to bear the blame : lam like enough to be faulty .when I think it my duty. Only be intreated to lay no f aid's of mine upon the Caufe of Chrift 9 and then I care not. I am not very ambitious of ftanding right in your t- fteem,fo that Chrifl s truth may butfo fland right. Remember that the queftion is not, Whether M r . T.orl be the more learned, or godly { or which of us m^re time-ferving, and which more faithful to the truth? nor which of us hath done or fuffered more for iti nor which of us hath the more clear and piercing under- (landing? or which is the loth- er to mi [guide you, or tbe likeli- er to be mi f guided? nor which aimeth more at advantageinthe world? $udge of allthefe, as you pleafe,forme ; Or rat her judge them not at all : But the queftion tiff the Church -member jhip and Bap* TothcChurchatKcdczmin&ciL. / To the Church ztBewdly. Baptifm oflnfants. He confeffeth that QAll flioul'd be admitted Churchmembers byBaptifm] butdenyeth only that Q Infants are Church-members] and yet confeffeth that [_ once they were] and that Qof the univer- fal vifible Church ] examine well how he proves this Repeal- ed, i. 1 challenge him here, to name me one particularChurch fwee Adam, either of Jews or Gentiles^ where infants were not Church- members ( if they had any Infants) till 200 years ago. 2. And I challenge him to name me one man that was again ft , or dtd once qtiejlionhrfantsChurch- membcrpjip from the Creation, ( till 500 years ago according to his own falfe computation or)till 200 years ago andlefs, ( accor- ding to the truth.) As far as will ftandwithmodejty^ Imakethefe two challenges to him. And for you ,/ defire you but impartiallyto confiderjfehrift hadrevokedln- fants Churcb-memberfhip, whe- ther it be pofible that no word in Scripture [hould once men- tion it ? nor one Apoftle either queftion or discover it ? or that the lews 3 1 .Who were m prefent po([efi- efpecially if the judgement be once perverted, what fin fo hai- nous that will not feem a vertue? the killing of the Saints will be doing God fervice : Yea and the cafe feem fo clear, that they will wonder that all men think not as they : and think them fpleeoifli or ungodly that will not offer a facrifice to Mars^ and keep holy-days for it. Yea e- ven thofe men, whofe Fathers killed the Prophets, and they built Tombes C in honour of them) and faid, If we had li- ved in the daies of our fathers, we would not have been par- takers with them in the blood of the Prophets ( tjMat. 23.29. 30. ) Yet themfelvcs will at the fame time out-go their fore- fathers. Yea, a lehu who is raifed to deftroy a perfecuting family, will be prefently par- taker of their fin / Oh dear j friends, be very jealous of your ! underftandings, for if thofe be loft , all is loft with you. : If the eye be dark, how great is that darknefs ? If my own brother did but think he were bound to kill me, he would do it without fcruplc , and thank To theChuuh at Kederminfter, thank God. for his fuccefs. And fo ftrangely uncurable is this difeafe , that be there never fo much Zeal, Yet nei- ther Arguments nor Miracles will convince men 5 as the Pharifes example (hews you. Abhor the impenitent opinion of them , who think the un- demanding uncapable of fin. You are yet but learners in the myfteries of Chrift : un- able to deal with manyafedu- cer .-There are Devils abroad in the fhape of Angels of Light : and wolves within, that are fheep without. O let it be known when I am taken from you, that it was the in- tereft that truth had in you, and not meerly which I had, which kept you in the truth : and that the Lord of Peace himfelf was the foundation of your Peace. The laft Epiftle which I wrote to you, I thought would have been my laft. In it I gave you that advice which I beg of God to write upon your hearts. Part of it was ill taken by CMr. T. which hath occafioned the Utter part of this Treatife. You To the Church at Bewdley, poffepon of it) 2. And were fo hainmjly offended at the not-cir- cumciftng of their Infants ( A<$. 21 21.) would not once of en their mouths to object again ft the * total unchurching of them >w hie h was a hundred times morel That neither the bclievinglews jhould oncefcrupleit, nor the unbelie- ving charge it on Chrift : nor the Conned, hSt. 15. reveal it. Even when thofe that taught Circumcifion, did take it for granted that Infants wereChurh- membersy er elfe they could not have faid, they mufl be Circum- cifed. is there apofibilitj in all this jf Scripture beperfetftNay, that the Apoftle fhonld tell them, Their children were Holy^andthe Lord lefus leave as his willjhat we fuffer them to come to him & forbid them not^ becaufe of (uch is theKingdome of God? andwas much diff leafed with thofe that kept them from him:whichjhews that it was then a known truth that Infants were members of Gods Kingdome, and therefore vifibly members of the Church ; and that on this ground the Di- fciples (hould have admitted them.Twn over your Bible s^and find To the Church at Kederminfter. You arc fully acquainted with the occafion of the whole. For your prefcrvation and our dear neighbours of Bewdley, did I engage in this unpleafing bufinefs. You importuned me to it: you folemnly fought God before our Difpute for ftrength to my weak body, and difcovery of his truth .- By the hearing of it you are confirmed : For which bene- fit you thought it your duty to return as folemn thanks to God. If temptations fhould be renewed, I doubt not but the remembrance of thefe will be confirming to you. But left it ftiould not fuffice , fee, God hath compelled me ( a- gainft my ftrong refolutions and refiftance ) to prepare you this prefervative and leave it in your hands, that it may teach you when my mouth is flopped with the duft. The Lord who hath forced it from me, make it a bleffing. But let me ftill intreat you, that you make thefe the (mailer parts of your ftudy. Read far more the laft book ( of Reft ) which I wrote for you. Gee To the Church at Bewdley. find where Chrifi or his Apoftles have [aid as milch , or the hun- drethpart fomuch, again fl our admitting infant sChurc h-mem- hers :and then consider which way you may fafeliejl venture on. Its irue y he faith to the aged Jf thou believe , thou maift be baptised : Andfo he faith ,He that believeth fhallbe faved, and he that be- lieveth not (hall be damned : If yet this extend not to Infants* why [houldthe other? What great comfort would follow this conclu- fion y [ that All your Infants' are out of Chrifts vifible Church ] that men fhould bend their wits fo to prove it ? Do you not know that to be vifibly in or out of the Churchy is all one as vifibly ( or to our judgement) ^belong or not belong to Chrifi and Hea- ven* Is it worthy your fo hot di- lutes, as to turn the Church into fuch doleful diflempers by it y only to prove that your dear children are no Chrifiians? And can yon prove that Chrifi will fave thofe that are no Chrifiiansf no Difci- plest notfo much as vifibly or feemingly fub]efts of his King, dome? Prove it if yon can. When I behold the fcandals and inhu- mane To the Church at Kedcrminfter. Get to heaven well, and you will fee through all difficul- ties in a moment. To this end , prefs on with painful- nefs and patience : fpend not all your time (as fome do ) in feeking for aflurance, and comfort : but far more in mor- tification, and advancing of your graces. As delighting in God is a duty, be much in it : but as Joy is part of the Reward , leave it more to God , and commit your fouls to^him in well-doing. It is not ingenuous to look more after the Reward then the work : and to complain more of God for not doing his part in giving , then of our felves for not doing ours in obeying. Love more, and fin lefs, and make that your daily ftudy, and you will find it a fpeedi- cr way to comfort , then to fpend all your time in enqui- ring after Marks of Grace. The prevalency of Chrijls attual Inierefi in your fouls above all the interejl of the flejh, is ( al- moftj the only Mark of Grace , as being the very point wherein fincerity doth con- To the Church at Bewdley. mane dealings of the aged, and their wilful ohduratenefs therein {even th at feem godly) it maketh me almofi conclude as Bucer on Mat. i^.Qthatnoone ageaf- fordeth Heaven fo many Citi- zens as Infancy. ] At leafl if probability in this mil not ferve, you muftfbut out alitor you have no certainty of the fincerity of the aged .But all this ismoreful T ly opened in this Book .♦ which as for your fakes it was written, and the firfi occafion of it under- taken, fo to you 1 commend it, be- feeching the father of Lights to Jhew you whether it be true or falfe • that if it be found, you may receive it , if not, you may rtjefl it : if you cannot reafh to difcern ; that you may have fome modejl regard to the judgements of Gods Mimflers and Churches in all ages of the world • and may in the mean time maintain the Churches unity and Peace, and not dare to venture on new dividing courfes in uncer- tainties. Sure I am that when you come to heaven, you will not ■find one there that was againft the Baptizing of Infants Jill lefs then 200 years agoe, for ought that TotheChurch at Kederminfter. wnfift. I« ftould be thcrc ' fore the chief ftudy and la- bour of your lives, to weak- en the flefhes intcreft , and ftrengthen Chrifts. If I had j but one word of counfel to give j you while I lived, that fhould be it. The three Princes of the kingdom of the fleftvare Pride, Senfuality .and Covetoufnefs 5 whofe ohjetts are, Honour, Pleafure and worldly wealth. Get down Pride and you have got down the chief. Think not him the beft Chriftian that can talk beft : but him that can love thofe that fleight, defpife and hate him; andean caficft put up ill words and ftroaks-, and hath learned of Chrift to be meek and lowly. This is a hard leflbn to the car- nal - 7 but it muft be learn'c .• and will fweeten the life of him that hath learnt it : when the proud are tormenting thein- fclves by their pafTions, Vo- luptuoufnefs is brucifhnels : yet a fin that millions are undone by. There's no one way, by which men are here more deeply guilty. .» and with- out remorfe, then by pleafine the To the Church at Bewdley. tbatMz.T.orlhave yetdifcove" red in any credible Hiftory.lfthc book feem tedious to yon , Read but the two firjl parts. The reft are butfuch vain contendings, which if we fhould write again ft one another twenty times , we werejlill like to be guilty of. It is the honour of a Scold, not of a Chriftian to have the la ft word : I am not ambitious of that ho- nour. If Mr.T . write again ,if I be alive and he convince me, you jh all hear of mj recantation* If 1 judge it vain, like the reft of his writings , you jh all know by my ftlence. 2 have heard al- ready what he can fay. 1 doubt not but he can get more Ink and Paper, which is the beft part of his books : and when one angry woman can find words again ft an- other from morning to night, much more may a man of learn- ing find [omew bat to fay ft 1 11^ as you may fee by the ft ill unwearied writings of the Papifts. If this much will not undeenve the mi fi- led^ let them for me he deceived ft ill : for multitude o f words are unlike toprevaiLFor my part, 1 have fat is fed my Conference in this muck: andl know the root- le bj ed To the Church at Kederminfter. the tafte in meats and drinks. Make no provision fortheflefli to lath-fit its lulls. And for the love of the world, I hope your low eftates, and the af- flictions of the Church, will lo imbitter it to you, that you will never feek great things for your felves. And for fetting up the imereft of Chrift, Take but God in Chrift for your only Happinefs and End , and Chrift as tJMedmtor for jour only Saviour and fupream Lord, and you are happy forever. I have fully proved to you, that the faith which is the condition of Juftification and Salvation, is your hearty Accepting Chrift for your Soveraign, as well as for your Saviour. And that the Gofpel or New-Teftament, is his new Law, containing pre- cepts and threatnings, as well as promifes and narratives. Thefe are not idle notions : but truths which have mighty in- fluence into heart and life. Though I would not have you take oldersour forttew Light, yet muft every true fparkfrom heaven be welcomed with gladncfr . The Lord be your Tea- Tothe Church at Beivdlej. ed will ft and f aft, and the ap- proved will be made mamfeft; and for the reft I have them to God. I hear Mr. T. blames me for publishing this without acquainting him, and asking him whether he would own his words in the di flute. But i. -Hath he not called for tt, till I could in Conference be ft lent no longer ? and is it not as eafte for me to write for all men to pcru fe it, as him ? 2 . If he had recanted any thing, he fhould have told me. 3. And have recanted as pub likely as he f educed. 4. Did he not thank God ( in your Pulpit ) , that he had delivered Nothing but found ^Argument. j. K^And in Print require me to (hew his abfurdities f The Lord of Truth and Peace y who is Love it [elf, reduce you all to Truth and Peace, and Love, and maintain the integrity of thofe who are yet /led/aft $ and keep you gui/tlefs of the fcandals and dtviftons of this age . that we may enjoy the comfort of unity and amity accor- ding to our vicinity with you to the Church at Kederminftcr. Teacher : And for me 3 I de- firc no higher preferment on earth , then in Faithfalnefs and fuccefs to be imployed under him in promoting your Faith, Obedience, and Sal- vation. Tours ( while your Prayers can continue my Com- mission) Richard Baxter. To the Church at Bewdley. jon on perfefi Glory. Earth , and a more unity and amity in So heartily prayeth An unfeigned defirer of your happinefs., Richard Baxter. b % 1 i*i # i*£i*£ iHm mm The true Hiftory of the Conception and Nativity of this Treatife ; being the Authors Apology for his attempt of this unpleafant task. Hough to acquaint the vorld with the pajfages of my pilgrimage (even thofe that are of far more remark? able quality ) Would favor of vanity, it beingnot wor- thy their notice f hat ever there was fuch a per f on as I in being : Tet Air, Tombes his fluent mifreports, and his accufations of ' Venome, incogitancy, unadvifednefs , fpleen, not loving the truth, norhim&c. require me to make a faithful report of what may concern the prefent contr over fie, and to let the world fee how it comes to pafs, that I who have Written, and preachtfo much for peace, and againft the furious quarrels of this Age, and bend all my fiudies to find out the Way of peace (with truth) andamfo much for toleration of all tolerable differences, Jhould yet be draw en into this contentious work^ quite contrary to my ftrongeft refolutions • to the wafting of my Jhort and pretiopts time , the grieving and wearying of my oWn mind, and in all likelihood the exafperating of moft dtffev ten. fVhen I was fir ft called forth to the J acred Minifterial Work^ though my zeale was ftrong, and I can truly fay, that a fervent defire of Winning fouls to £W 5 was my motive : yet beingyoung and of fmall experience, and no great reading (being then aftranger to almoft all the Fathers , and moft of the Schoolmen) I was a Novice in knowledge, and my concep- tions were uncertain, fiaUow and crude : Infome miftakes I was confident j and of fome truths I was very doubtful and fupicious. Among others , by ( b X ) that that time I had baptised but tWo children (at Bridgnorth) I begun to have fome doubts of the lawfulness of Infant -Baptifm. Whereupon I filently forbore the practice > andfetmyfelfl as I Was able, tothefludy of the point. One part of my temptation was the doclrine of fome Divines, whs) run too far in the other extream. I had read Dr. b urges a$d (fome yeers after) Mr. Bedford for Baptifmal Regeneration, and heard it the common prayer, that God would blcfs Baptifm to the Infants Regenerati- on {Which I thought they had meant of a Real , and not a Relative change) J foon difcerned the error of this doclrine ', when I found in Scrip - ture that Repentance and Faith in the aged were ever prerequifite, and that no word of God did make that the end to Infants Which was prerequifite in others ; and that figns cannot by moral operation be the Inftruments of a Real change on Infants \ but only of a Relative ; and that to dream of a c PhyficalInflrumentality i wasWorfe then Topijh, and to do that in Bap- tifm % Which Tranfubftantiation hath done in the Lords Supper ; even to tye'Cjodto the con ft ant Working of 'a miracle : Tor as kmetws faith, Bel- lamy Enerv. To. 5. 1. 2. c. 3. [external "Baptifm cannot be the Thyfl* call Inftrument of the Infujion of grace ; becaufe it no Way hath it in it felf.'} oslndas Danasus cone Cellar, ad To. 2. Cone 4. p. 238. \[Bj the commoneft rule in Thyflckj , corporeal figns cannot tvork^ and maJ^4n imprejfion upon incorporeal fouls. ] aAnd I knew that tbey.wMd faldtkey workt Hyper phytic ally {as if that had been a tertiumas to the nature of the caufality ) were men that under flood not the diftinclion of Thyfical and Moral caufation, as Suarez, Ruvio, Schibler and all explain it. This error therefore dif covered , made me the more jealous of the reft of the doclrine (as I fee many ignorant ones do at this day • When they do but think, they find men mi flaking in one things they are ready to fluff? eft that they err e in almofl all ; and flo they turn their ears tofleducers } andlofle their Faith through prejudicial/conceits of their Teachers.) And I was un- happy a! flo in my acquaintance (as to this) converflng with thofle only whofle hearts were better then their heads > fluflpefting things becaufe impofled, and Were greater helps to my affetlions then to my under flanding. Tet did I fcarceopen my doubts to any , leaft it might caufe them tofnatch up that inconfiderately, which I Was but confidering of ' Vpon my firft ferious ftudy t Iprefenth difcerned, that though Infants were not capable of What « before expretfed, nor of every benefit by bzptiflm as are the aged, yet that they were capable of the principal ends : That it might be a flgn to enter themChurchmembers^vnifolemni^e their Dedication toChrifl, anden-^ gagrthem to be his people y andto tak£ himfor their Lord and Saviour, and J* fo to confer on t'hem remijpon of fm , and what Chrifl by the Covenant pro. mifeth to the Bdpti^ed (Though yet themfelves underftandnot this ; even . as we put. the names ef Infants in Bonds and Leafes which they can neither read nor know of,) zsfnd withall uponfearch itfoon appeared to rne undeny * able, That it was the will of God, that th£ Infants of believers fhouldbc admitted members of his Univerfai vifible Church .* Thefe difcoveries did quick!] ft*y we, and/hew me more probability for Infant- Baptifm, then was aqainfl it ( And the feparating, dividing, fcandalous courfes of all the tsinabaptift s that I Wa f acquainted With, with their Ignorance and proud felfefteem, anddefpiftngthe pretioufeft Minifters of (fhrift.did deter re me from ajfociating with them, and fo kept me out of the way of further temp- tation.) Yet did I remain doubt f til fome time after, by reafon that Scrip- ture [poke fo fparingly to the point, and becaufe my apprehenfions ofthofe things Which in themfelves Were clear and certain , remained crude and Weakjill time had helped them to digeft and ripen, zsfnd the many weak. Arguments Which I met with In the Words and Writings of fame Divine s{to which I formed moft of the fame anfwers as Mr. T. now doth) Were not the leafi ftumbling blockjn my way. Irefolved therefore filently to forbear the pratlice, while I further ft udyed the point. And being more in doubt about the other Sacrament then this^ Idurft not adventure upon a full P aft or all charge, but to preach only as a Letlurer, till I were fully refolved; In Ifrhichftate I continued Where InoW am y till I was removed by the wars ; ftill thinking and fpeaking very favorably of *meer Anabaptifts. Being at Glocefter when Mr. Winnels bool^againft them came forth, Ifpokefo much in extenuation of their error ,t hat my confeience hath f nee checked me for it ; left Ifljould be a means thereby of drawing any from the truth* though I diddifcover my oWn judgement to be againft them : As Dotior Talyors Arguments de lib. Prophet, have done by too many. Thefe my former weakness, I acknowledge to my Jhame ; and therein do but imitate Paul,** better man, who confejfodhimf* elf fometime foolifh, and dif obedient, *&c. and that he verily thought he ought to do many things againft the name of JefuSy&c. And I admired to find that learned holy Reformer, Zuingiius (afterWard the mall of the Anabaptifts) to deliver his expe- rience in the very like kind, and that his cafe and mine werefoneer the fame, that by arguments giving too much to Baptifm, he was driven quite to deny Infant 'Baptifm (there he went beyond me ; but thenfo he did alfo afterward in his powerful oppofition to that error) as you may fee in Tom. 2. pag.63. as I have transcribed it before my Appendix. aAndwhy jhouldmt I as freely confefs my infirmities as he f Who yet afterwards fpo\e fpoke more fiarply againft their dotlrine , praclices , and perfons, then ever I mean to do, for allfome willfo much cenfure me as bitter (As aU fodid Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Rhegius, Wigandus, Schluflelburgiusy with the reft of thofe holy learned Reformers, whofe Jharpnefs I do pro- mife to come Jhort of, where I am judged mo ft /harp . ) I faW then Ana- bapiftry but in the feed and egg; and Who then could difcern what the tree and fruit would prove ? 'But they that now fee it at the (laturc of Ranting (againft Which an ^All Was lately made) may eaftlyer know it. He muft be a good Thyfitian that knoWs fuch difeafes in the fir ft degree, and can difcern a Cancer When the tumor is no bigger then a peafe • but When it devoureth the found contiguous parts y then any man may know it. The Gar if on and City of Coventry (where I lived next) was almoft free from them when I firft came thither^ and a good While after : But while Weflept^ the envious man fowed the fe Tares : and our tendernefs of them, as godly people, caufedus at firft the mere remifsly to gainfay them, and fo their number to increafe : Till at loft they got a feparatedfociety, anddefpifed the Minifttrs, and got themfelves a heap of teachers, fome of which We before efteemed godly men ; but knew to be filly men to be^ come Teachers. e J f had no Treacher*, they would have too many , and the Countrey Would favour of the Field Dotlrim Q And I am Mt ajhamed nor afraid to fay, that the dif charge of my Confidence in doing my befi to prevent the Evil which in this hath befaln us, was not the lafl or leafi of my ends therein * And though there were far more cafe and fafety, and content, and gain (then) to be found in (fitiet and peaceable habitations ; yet I doubt not if others of the Mini- firy had done as much in time {as fame did) our calamity inandbj this might have probably been prevented; and our eyes might never have feen thofe Effects of Error : Alas, to fit at home and accufe poor Soldiers of Errors, when they had few or none to teach them better ; was not the way of prevention or of cure ! They are men , as We are ; and not bred up in Learning and Academies : nor capable of refifting the temptation them' J elves, andofrefolvingallthe Romifh fcruples which Jefuiticai Wits had hatched and differ fed through the Land : and when queftions come among t hem ) and they have not able Teachers at hand, they muft learn of fuch as arc next t hem } and have mo ft inter eft in them. Some wilt jay, They Were violent, and would not hear nor regard ! which for many I cannot deny : But, alas, we meet With many fuch in our oWn Congregations, and yet "toe dare not give them off: And for my own part, for thofe two years that I Was among them, I found all friendly acceptance andrejpeti, and never fell out With one man among them* slnd though many that &onv erf ed with were againfi Infant Ttaptifm, and I had frequent occafion of arguing With them, yet did I never fall into any pafiionate contentions With any ■ and for the mc ft part, chofe weightier points to conferre on. So that hitherto I was not fo Violent and Rajh as Mr.T. accufeth me. 'But to draw a little nearer the occafion of my trouble : ^Before this, be- ingin great weaknefs, and forced to repair to London to theThyfitian, JWr.l ombcs came into my Quarters (at the Houfe of my dear friend (fo- lonel Sylvanus Tfiylour :) and having greedily read over his Exhortation and Examen a little before, I was glad of that opportunity for my further fiatisfatlion , fuppofing that What more was to befaid againfi Infant bap- tifm> I Was as likely to hear from him as any J urged him therefore With the very fame Arguments which in the Dilute at Bewdely I managed againfi. him (from Infants (fhurch -member fhip :) to which he gave me fuch feeble Anfwers , and I found him fo confident when he had nothing to fay which feemedto me of any moment, that I quickly gave over \ being much con- firmed, When I underfiood that the Champion of that Caufe had no more to defend it .And yet though Ihadufedthis Argument with him and none but thujo many years ago, Mr. T. was not afraid to tell them in the pulpit, that he could never know my Arguments till the Difpute , and that I hid my weapons till I meant toflrike-,yea,though he had alfo feen feme Notes of ( c2 ) my my Arguments in the forementioned Leclures, Where this was the firfi. When the Wars Were ended, and I returned home to vijit my friends, the feople 0/Bewdeley Were deftitute of a Preacher for their Chappel y and cJ^fr.WiUiam Hopkins (noW with fhrifi) came to me to askmy advice therein ; telling me they were motioned to Afr.Gette,and Afr.Tombes, but the later he was fcrupulous about, becaufe he was againfi Infant Baptifm ' My anfwer was, that I judged Mr.T. a pious, able man ; and though he Were againfi Infant -baptifm , yet being Orthodox in all things elfe {as I then thought he was) and the point but finally and I hoped he was a peaceable temperate man, I Was perfwaded it Would remain but as a dif- ference in Opinion , and that he would not make any difturbance about it y nor (as the ignorant fort of them do) labour to propagate his Opinion, and to make parties and divifion among the people : which I told him, I the ra- ther believed, in that I had heard that he had promifed in London to be filent in that point, except any came into his place to preach againfi him : and therefore I doubted not but he Would do fo with them : and that his parts and piety would be more advantagious to them, then his different Opinion (thus filenced, by temperance) would be hurtful. This Was the great eft wrong that. : ever I know I did to Bewdely .; and if I be guilty (as Mr.T. charged me) of makings Sc hi fm among them, it was only by this : (though yet I believe not that my words had any great influence into the bufinefs') When I was returned home, I more rejoycedin Mr.Ps 1S(jigk> bourhord, and made more ufe of it , then of mo ft others : and accordingly de fired and enjoy eh his afiifiance,for Which I return him unfeigned thanks. Andwhenfome godly Divines that Were acquainted with his carriage of the bufinefs in London, did tell me he was a man very proud, and had far higher thoughts of himfelf then was meet , / did not believe them, but fiill defended him. tS$nd leafi my touching that (fontroverfie, though at a diflance, might irritate him to fall upou it, I never (pake one Word in my Congregation of it (to my 'be ft remembrance) to this day, for fear of gi- ving any occafion of difference. Tet he writes in his Letters to me, that [jjMany told him of my by -flings at him,'] Which I never ufed either di- reclly or indiretlly.' The only pajfage objected that lean hear of, is this; that I once told men the danger of thinking themfelves found Chrifiians becaufe they are baptized again, or are of this Church or that Opinion. And is it not hard that I may not fay this much to my own Hearers f I had hoped Mr. T. Would have faid as much himfelf - Be hath an illcaufe or an ill mind that cannot bear thofe Words •* therefore he Jhould firfi have taught the Reporters to ebey the ninth Commandment , before he he had entered them into thefe difputes. Where ever 1 fell into Mr. Vs company, either I fcunned any difc our fe on this point Jeft it Jhouldturnto contention ; or elfe I labored but to perfwade him of the difficulty and fmalnefsofit,that we might be contented to differ peaceably, Where We could not clofe. But 1 could never convince him of either of thefe : but he confidently ft ill affirmed that it was e a fie and plain, and of greater moment, 1 reply ed, that if it were fo eafte, then fo many thoufand learned godly Divines i« England and through the Chriflian World,Would not all be igno- rant in it, Who Were as Willing to know the truth as he, andftudyed^and frayed daily that they might krioW it. Though they may erre ; yet hard- lyfo generally in fo eafie a cafe. To which he anfWered } that they all erred through wilfulness or meer negligence : as the Lutherans did about (fonfub* ftantiation. Let the Reader judge of this anfwer as he fees caufe. For my oWne part, as I toldhim , 1 Would I Were as able to fee the truth as lam willing (then fhould I think^ my f elf the wife ft man in the World, without the leaft fcruple of arrogancy.) 7 'et I perceived that my conftant fpeech for P 'eace , was interpreted as if I were loth to own the truth for fear of breaking Peace. 'Being once preaching for Teace (Which is the very drift of my doclrine and life, though I fpeak Jharply againft Teace breakers) among other caufe s of the breach of the Churches Peace, I mentioned this \_Men thinkjhat no Truth is to befufp ended for l>eace~] andfo W hat fo ever they judge to be truth they muft publish to the World though it co ft the Church never fo dear. To this Mr. T. fends me word by a godly man, that iflfofaidy I fpoke that which is falfe (which fine e he expounds of fufpen* ding truth fo as to lofe it) ^Ind the next time I faw Mr. T. he told me he was writing againft Mr. Marshall andmany others. And becaufe I thought that fur e if any more could befaid then I had heard 7 I Jhould there meet with it, therefore I de fired him to lend it me : So he fent mefome tWo or three Sheets againft C^lr.M- on I Cor. 7. 1 4 which (as my manner is) I quickly read, and wrote out the fubftance, and fent it him again. But I pre fent ly heard that he was offended, that I fent them homefofoon and without my Animadverfions f whenyet he never required any fuch matter at the d( livery, nor Would I have received them on any fuch terms ; and it would have been plain folly in me, fo to have fain a boardwith him in the middle of a buftnefs and on Mr. Marfhals grounds : Beftdes that I had then a fullrefolution to avoid all conteftation with him fo far as eve-* I coxld Without injury to the truth and to the fouls of men; flortly after this Mr , T. comingto our Lett fire (as he ufuallj did) We had hadfpeech briefly about his papers, and he manifeftedto me, that he took it not well that Ifent him not my Animadverfions on them, if I did not ap- prove them : I told him that they Were far from fatisfaclory in my judge - ment get gave him myreafons,why it feemed unreasonable to expetl my con- futation of them {in Which I will appeal to any reafonable indifferent man.) After this day, as I remember Mr. T. never came to our Letlure more •> For what ends he came till noW I leave to his own confcience. By this tinie I began to fee that CMr. T. was no longer a man for the Churches Teace, but was full) and vehemently fet to carry on his opinion, and make him f elf a party . and took^ it ill that his endeavors did no better fucc eed. - 1 did be - fore believe that he Was moderate and peaceable for all his differing judge* ment , and that he truly abhorred divifion and factions in the Church* But when I had occaftbn to try him, I found it otherwife to my grief A while after that I hadfent back^Mr. Vs papers, I received from one of CfrLr, T's hearers, a requeft only in his own name, that I would give himfome Arguments tofatisfie him of the laWfulnefs of /nfant- r Baptifm; for Mr. T« had pr eft the contrary fo hard upon their ccnfciences, that they "Were no longer able to Withftandit, I told him if he Would difcufs the bufinefs with me,! Was ready then or any time to give him the beftfatis- fa&ien I could. But he refufedthat, and Would needs havefome Arguments in writing,and nothing but writing would ferve; ^hereupon I perceived that he was fent by Mr. T. and asked him whether he came not by Mr. 'Vsconfent, and he confeft that he did; J told him, that if he would not argue the cafthimfelf, and yet muft have fat is faction, I thought it the beft "Way to bring Come one elfe that could argue it, either Mr. T. or Who he would. Tet withal that being now quiet I didnotur^e OMr. T. to this, nor would meddle in it Without a better calhbutfor ~Writing,it would be endlefs, and there was enough already. A while after comes five more together and tell me, they could not re ft ft nor bear Mr. T's reproofs any longer \ and if I did not give them my Arguments tofatisfie them, they muft yield. I asked them Whether they had read Mr. Cobbct and fome other books that Were written already ; and they told me they had not, and that they were not able to find out the truth in tedious Volums ; I asked them why then they urged me to write, feeing it Would doubt lefs fWel to fuch volums before We had done, if we once begun > But ft ill they urged me to write, and told me Mr. T.refufedto difpute. By this time I perceived my J elf in aftraight ; and that my forbearing ever to preach for Infant baptifmor to Baptise any, would not ferve turn to continue my peace y but Mr. T. would .♦ : ■ — ■ — ' ■ Would force me to engage whether iWouldor no, or elfe to betray the truth and mens fouls ; if I had refufed to debate it, Mr, Ts hearers Who had turned to him,would have laid all the blame on me, and f aid thej fought fa- tisfatlion and could have none ; my oWn hearers herein no doubt, but yet told me if 1 relinquifhedthe buftnefs^ I Jhould be guilty of betraying the truth of God, and of the great zApoftacy and divifton that was like to follow in the Country about. I now perceived the inconvenience of an un- peaceable neighbor ; and Ifcarce knew Which of the evils to choofe. But fee- ing Mr. T. never de fired any thing as toward his own fatisfatlion .but only his neighbors, I made thefe motions (feeing I muft needs engage in the con- troverfie) 1. That we might preach each of us two Sermons, and fo leave allts the judgement of the people, 2. Or if that were refufed, that in their hearing We might dijpute it. 3. Or that We might difpute it privately before a few that were moft un- fatisfied. 4. Or that We might write together ex tempore. 5 . Or if none of this Would ferve, I offered to Write, fo Mr. T. would give me any affurance of a quickdifpatch , and Jhew me any way to af cer- tain it before we begun, left we Jhould write voluminoufly and Without end or profit. Thefe motions I fgnified to Mr. T. in my letters, but he con « fentednot to any one of them, but ft ill importuned me to write, write, write. J gave him twelve reafons againft writing , that I was weak^, had net time ; his hearers could not ft ay for fatisfatlion till we had done ; they could not examine writings \ hehadWritten With others long, and not yet ended,&c. He gainfaid none of thefe, and yet fill importuned me to Write, and told me that they Would elje take it for granted that I could fay no more then was f aid already by other sin print, and that all that Was an- fwered, unlefs Iwoulh Jhew the weaknefs of the anfwers. I thought this a ftrangccncluftonfromfuchpremifes •* But noW I difcovered, as I thought \ more of the defigp then before. Mr.T. hatha Book^preparing for the prefs. Which in his Antidote he intitleth ^Review , in which at once he intends to knockdown all : and therefore I perceived Would feign have had my Arguments to thruft into the croWd among the reft, that he might fay, he had confuted all at once.I obfervedhoW he had dealt with Mr. Mar Ilia 1 in his Apology, and Mr, Blake in his Apper.dix , and that his friends had fo high an efteein of his ability in Writing, and efpecially he of his own, that a II that he had*Writ againft, Was takfn for anjwered, when yet they con- fefi feft themfelves unable to examine writings, and when I knew that all was flubbered overfo, as it did not indeed deferve the name of an AnfWer : esfnd therefore I expelled to befo dealt "frith my /elf, that what ever he had writ again ft me, it might be faid I was anfWered. And therefore be fides all my other reafons, upon this Irefolvedto put by writing \ And Where it is given out as if I were the provoker to dijfute, it was only as a fhift to efcape a more tedious inconvenience. A while after this,the bufinefs flept, and 1 was in great hope it would be bury ed, and I might yet have peace - But the next neWs I heard, was , that Mr, T. Was refolved to en- tertain a difpute ; Which I confefs I wasforry to hear. Vpon this hefals a preaching only on thefubjecl .' But after a While when his people Were weary of hearing nothing but Baptifm, fome of them fpoke openly to him by Way ofcontraditlion : and among others, one unhappily asked him, IV hy he re- fufed to difpute With me, andyet would trouble them with thofe things ? upon which queft ion he fuddenly was forced for his credit fake to tell them publikely, that he was refolved to difpute with me , but thought good by thefe Sermons to inform them firft of the ftate of the controverfie. This rajh promife mardall, & hinc illse lachrymse. Hereupon he went on and preached eight or ten Sermons again ft Infant- Baptifm, telling them he had anfwered all the arguments ef any moment that by any wereuled. Some would have had me have moved to preach before the difpute at Well as he, feeing one Sermon would perfWade the people more then a difpute which was paft their capacity, much more would eight or ten Sermons prepoffefs them. But I refolved to fit ftilltill I were forced toftir : I fentfometo fetch me the notes of his Sermons exaclly ; and 1 perceived he had culled out the weakeft arguments, and fat is fed him f elf with as Weak anfwers to feme of them, i^lll this while Lflfr. T. had my name up over and over in the Pulpit, and very injur ioujly fometimes. 1 faid nothing to all this, but refolved to let him go on till he *ivere weary. But at laft, the Bailiff and Minifter, and divers of the godly inhabitants, fent to me to deftre me to come and preach with them on that controverfie, on Which Cfttr.T. had preachtfo longjhat they might hear what could be faid on both fides. I told them, I Would not preach in Mr. T's Chappell without his confent( though I had the call of the Magiftrate and his felloW Minifter) and if I Jhould preach, he Wouldfay, he could have confuted all ; and therefore when they further urged me then to difpute- with him, I told them, that if he confuted upon fuch a call> I dm ft not rtfufe it •' whtreupon the people pr ef- fing him to it prevailed for his con fent , and the day fell cut to be the firft of JaKuaryi649. I had importuned God in my prayers as I Was able, long ( d ) before before that if 1 Were m\fiaken,he Would Jbew me my error; and if Air. T. bad the truth on his fide, that he would not fufer me to refifi it or fpeak^a word again flit. And the morel prayed, the more I was animated to the wo>\. ' t had been fo We :ikjindp> lined long before, that I Was fear ce able to wife and walkabout the very diy before ; yet did I refolve to go if I were Me to ride andfpea^ > and when the time came, I Was eafed much of all my pains : And whereas I cap hardly on any Lords day fpeah^ above an hour •without the proftr.ition of my ftrengtb, and extream languijhincr of my body, nor could fear ce take the aire Without taking a dangerous cold; it pleafcd Cjod then in the midfl of winter to enable me to continue the difpute in the open Church ,and th.-itfifiing.from before ten of the clochj. ill between four and five, without any of my ufuall infirmities , and had more ea r e from them a fortnight after then of many monthes : which thofe that knoW me do confidently believe was from the dire^l encouraging hand of CJod; I was knoWn to be fo unable in body, that CPrlr. Good came purpofely prepared (without my knowledge) to have managed the difpute if my firength jhould fail. The main thing that ever encouraged me to this difpute^Was, that I judged Air. T. fo accurate a difputant, that I verily thought he would not have digrejfed one hair from the rules of deputation, and therefore I hoped we might prefently drive it to an iffue -That which made me beyond doubt of this, was, becaufe he hadfo fliiU'ply dealt with Mr. Marshall far non fylh - giz,i,:g) and becaufe he ind fpskfn to me fo much againfl thofe men that would not fricl^clofe to the Laws of ~difputation,*nd in commendation of thofe that Weuld > andbecattfe he had fen t me his refolution before hand to lay by Rhetoric^ and ufe meer Logick;and laftr ,bec.v.ife he had told his hearers in the pulpit (the ufual dealing that had from him) that if I did anything again ft him, it would be by Rhetoric!^ (or to that effeSl ) I found no fault with this publikf infwnatk,i> it pleafed me fo exceedingly to hear that I Was not like to (pen d my f el fin vain babling and roving difcourfe y as with the ordinary igxer ant ones I Was forced to do. But when it came to the try all, to my tfreat ajloni^hment and trouble I found it almofi clean con - trary to all my expectations. I had no fooner brought him to afireght, but he break* over the hedge : and turns all the difpute into a difcourfe : and goes up and down at pleafure. I came thither with a ful refolution fcarce tofpeak^ a word but fyllogifm ; but allwasfrufirate ; Yet did I endeavor ftill to re- duce him as [Was able, but all was in vain ; for the next lofs that he was at, he was gone over the hedge again, and from the argument he Would turnjefome other queftioxs or difceurfe. I intreated him to return to the meer duty of a Refpondtnt, and intreated him again and again , but dli» vain ; vain - When he would propound three or four queftions one after another ■, at the I aft J told him, that was like Catechizing; and not difpnting ; and When he Would turn all to a laivlefs difcourfe,and I intreated him to keep to Logi* call difpnting, he had nothing to fay , but, The people muft be fatisfied^and thereupon fall a difcourfing to the people \ To Which I told him that 1 came not to fat is fie the people (i. e. on that manner by digreffive dlfcourfes, which alas, the people little defired) but te dilute with him : My meaning was, we fljouldfpeakjo each other , and not to them, when he knew not what to fay to an argument. Thefe tWo words are all that Air. T. could find in above fix hours difputation, to mention as blame Worthy (Which I yet fee no harm in) and upon the ground of thefe two words, he chargeth me \_all ahng to have carry ed my felf magiflerially ,fcornfully ,and unbr other ly \ not as one that minded clearing of truth, but to diminifh his eflcem and to gain an opinion to my felf of having the better^ Antid. p. I 2. When Ijert- oufiy profefs, that I know not yet ever any, even of Mr. T J s oWn friends, did to this hour blame me to my face for one unfeemly or pajfionate Word that day, but divers thanked me for that I Wholly forbore it : nor can Mr. T. name any other, or elfe I Should fur e have heard of it : Nor am I ' confci- ous of any paffion ftirring toWards him that dayjjut the great trouble of my mind for the cr offing of my hopes, when I perceived that he would not be held to any Logicall difputing : And When I palpably perceived that he had learned the common artifice, knowing that the people judg much by multi- tude and earneftnefs of words , therefore when ever he Was at a lofs, that the people might not perceive it, he prefently would fall into a Wordy vagary ; a great part of which, to my mo ft impartial! judgement, Was little better then plain non fence : And the Minifters about me concluded the fame, and therefore Would have had me give over, I never blamed Mr.T.forany paffionate words to me that day \\ alas, What great harm would they have done me ? 7 'et he once told them that I Was unacquainted With the School dijputing,and began to infinuate to them as iflfcarce kneW what difputing Was : <±And another time, he told me \_l would be hifi out of the Schools , if I fe difputed there~] and that Ifpoke gibberijh on a meer bravado to take with the people, and to makeup that in confidence Which he wanted in argument, till the Minifters f poke openly, ank toldhim % it Was he that would be hifl out of the Schools J and Mr. Good Would have re • due ed him, andfet him in the School Way, but that he was filenced. If aid only this to him, that I»ame not thither onfo loW an errand as to plead for the reputation of my own learning, nor had I any time tofpareforfo mean a works and therefore was refolved I would not fpeak^ a word to it. I never (di) faW faw lefs difturbance in my difpute then Mr, T. bad that day ; there being not the leafl caufe of offence given,that I coulddifcern,though the multitude and crowd wasfo exceeding great. Only once the people begun to laugh at Mr, T. but ft ere ft opt at a word. And for -what he [peaks, that [the buft- nefs was packt to cry up a Baxter] Antid. p. 30. Iferioufly affirm, that as J never heard of any fuch packing, fo I have caufe to be confident, that it is an untruth, it being the fudden motion ofthofe that did it ; and I per' ceivednot any of my familiar friends , that had a voice in that cry, but en- deavored to ft ill it. zsind it was not till all Vvas done, and the sAffembly difmijfed ; I under -teokindeed before for Mr. T's fecurity, that the people Jhould be ft lent and quiet during the difpute, or elfe I would breakjt off-, But to undertake for the tongues offuch a multitude after wards, was more then I could do. When all was done y Mr. Borafton by the confent offome god' h people {and before this the magiftrate had defer edit) did before the Con* gre gat ion ask ^ r% T. whether he Voould give his confent that I fhould preach one or tfto Sermons there on that fubjetl, feeing himfelf had preach- ed fo many, and that before the difpute toprepojfefs the people (and might do after, and did) But Mr. T. would not grant it, but [aid he could mt give "Way to have me come there to f educe the people. I Vcas glad to hear that he was againft unlimited liberty of prophecy ing-,butl thought 'it no credit to his caufe, that he durft notfuffer me to preach one Sermon againft his lengthen yet he had liberty to contraditl me. Of thefuccefs of that dayes difputati- on IJhallfai nothing ; Only this, thofe that Vcere LMr. T's great eft friends (Minifters and others) did the broadly eft fpeak^ in my hearing of his being foiled , and Mr. T. himf elf frequently confejfed little lefs in private to di- vers ; and laid the blame on me for treading a ne\X> path. Hefhortly after preached a Sermon, which he f aid Was abundant confutation of all I had /aid, Vohichyet overpaft the veryfirft and maine argument, and mo ft of the reft ; his memory is certainly deflorate, and his notaries imperfect. I had anfwerethhat Sermon exatlly, but that it containeth but the very fame (of ttuy^moment) with his Farewell fpeech and Antidote ; What is more, JJhall anfwer. Then he again fals upon me in his Pu Ipit, for uyibr other ly dealings in that I did not fend him my asfnimadverfions on his papers, that is> becaufe I did not put my finger into the fire of contention eafily, and en • gage in a quarrel with him as long as I lived, and that ^hen I had not ftrengthfor ^orksofa hundredfold more excellency \ and that 1 did not all this inaprepofterous, ridiculous, unprofitable way ; for this muft his Pul- pit found Veith my accufations. *As alfo % that I did not fend him my Ar- guments before hand to keep him from erring , When as he never defer ed them them for himfelfbut his people, and We had taken a more expeditious courfe for their fatisfatlion : yea, when he had told me that the (fontroverfte isfo eafie, that ts4ll our Divines that differ from him y do it through wilfulness or negligence : Had I any reafon then to fend him Arguments, as to teach him, that was fo far paft doubt > And yet for this muft my name alfo come into his Pulpit ? After this hefets upon me again by Letters, to fend him my Arguments ,( it feems he thought he Jpednot well in his Dijpute,) when yet he had heard them openly from my own mouth : But in thofe Letters were heapt tspfo many untruths (about matter of fall which he kneW) that I durft never to this day anfWer them , left the very naming to him his untruths might caufe him to fay I reproached or railed, Tet after all this 9 hearing of divers private hulf-confejftons that he was Wor - fted , and Wondring deeply with my felf how fo Learned and god- ly a man could poffibly quiet his Confcience with fuch kind of an' fwers as he gave me on Jan. I, and being ftrongly ajfecled "With the confederation that the Church Jhould not only lofefuch a man while he Was yet living, but alfo have him for fo great afcourge, and what good he might da jf God Jhould but recover him, and wit hall perceiving great caufe to believe the old report of his exceeding pride of fjpirit , and thinking that he might thereforeyeeld more eafily to plain truth infecret,then before a mul* titude ; upon thefe thoughts I had no reft in my mind, till I hadfolicited him to a private conference between us two alone, if yet there might be hope : But upon try all all proved vain. This is the conference that hejpea^ ethfo oft of his yielding to , which I confefs I toc^ well from him, and know no reafon but he had as much caufe to take it as Well from me, who dreW him to it, but in a vain hope of his own good and the (fhurches in him, and for no other end, that my (fonfcience is aware of: Yet after all this he wrote tome again, that at leaft I would let him have my Arguments againft his Ex~ pojition of l Cor. 7. 14. So that I noW perceived that he would force me to breakjny refolution>andto engage in Writing, or elfe to Sarong the caufe of god. About this time my BookjofKeft. being Printed, I Was forced to fend up the Epiftle, in "Which writing to my dear friends and hearers of K eder- minfter (ofwhofe welfare lam as tender as if they were my children) and finding my body almoft confumed, and that my abode on Earth Was like to be veryfhort, and wit hall being fenfible of their danger when I am gone, and ofthedefperate evils that this Opinion doth ufually end in, I durft not in (fonfcience but give themfome warning that might ft and by them When I was gone ; I knew I Jhould di/pleafe Mr.T. and others \ but my Confcience asked me. Whether J durft fear for ofdijpleafwg menjbetray the fouls of my dear dear friends and people into thefnare, and be filent noW when I was unlikely to [peak^ to them by a durable vojce any more ? I kyeWfome Would fay it wo* bitter, and it was againft godly men •' But my Confcience anfwered fbouldft not thou be bitter again]} fin ? is it not a bitter root ? is it not bitter to thy f elf ? to thefmners ? and is it not -now bitter to thefc diftreffed Churches of Chrifi ? Thou hafi fpoken bitterly againfi drunkards, and whoremongers, and Why fbouldft thou (beakjweetly of this , Which is like to do more againfi the Churchy though the foul may f cape that is guilty of it t Was not alt fin bitter to Chrifi ? and worfe then the Vinegar and gall? andfhould it not be bitter to thee f and Jhouldft not thou labor to make it bitter to others ? It muft be bitter to them, either here or in Hell. ^And what though many are godly ? fhould 1 not therefore reprove them , but fuffer them to lie and rot in their fin t & mine the Church % as if I loved them lefs then the ungodly ? What have I done this twelve years but preach biu terly againfi fin? and/ball I now (peal^fweetly of it ? Let them do it that find fweetnefsin it, for I do not ; to me it hath been bitter. . upon thefe confiderations , I fet down thof* lines in that Epiftle* But When it came abroad , what a fearfull paffion Was Mr. T. in ? not able to con- tain himfelf. And be fides the private venting of his ftieen by words and Letters (which I have known of) hefals upon it in the Pulpit. And it fell cut to be the day of his Departure from Bewdley, Where after his Sermon^ he makes that Speech of an hour long againft me, Which 1 have inferted and mfWereA word by word in the third part of this Treatife. When I had an- fwered this, then comes out his Antidote ^containing the fame with fome fmal alteration ; Which therefore 1 havefaid the lefs to, for avoiding repetition. In this Printed Taper he chargeth me publikely over and over for not giving him my Arguments in Writing • So that I am now compelled to it, ^and without for faking the truth there is no remedy. I have done What I could to avoyd it , and was fully refolved never to have engaged in this ^uarrelfome bufinefs; but I fee Icannotdifpofeofmyfelf I take it for one of the heavieft Afflictions that ever befel me , that I have been forced to divert my Studies and Meditations fo long from Subjetls fo much , fweeter to me } and ufeful to the (fhurch ; I hope the guilt will not lie on me^ though I have theforrow and thelofs. I had hopedmy name fbould not have be en found among the (Contenders of this age : But Gods Will muft be done, (find who can refiftit ? / confefs the fubjetl is fo low, and to mefo unplea* fant , that I have little comfort in what I have done , but only in this , I. That lam confident I have written for the truth : 2. And though of lower nature yet through theprefent d 1ft ur banc e of the Church t it is become of great neceffity to defend it. 3. And god hath compelled me whether I Would or no , and he knows how to make that ufeful Which he hath thus forced from me : I go on this mejfage as Jonah to Nineve, againft my will, after a former peremptory refufal When I was dt fired by the (fommittee at Coventry to sprint on this'fubjeEt long ago. 4.. And it cannot be deny ed, bat mo ft Books extant do take in fime rteal^ Arguments and leave out fomeftrong. If the (fhnrch or any foul receive benefit by this Treatife i let them than\enly God and Mr.T. God for the matter,axdMr.T. alfofor the 'Publication, and me for neither : for I confefs they have it againft my will, and could I Well have helpt it , they had never fe en it ; / admire the wife providence of our God, who rather then Schifm Jhall go mtrefifted,will compel the almoft dead to teftifie againft it y and make the Leaders to be the inftruments of compulfion. I knoW Mr. T. Will be angry with me for the writing of this Book; though he have compelled me to it againft my Will. How/houlda man live peaceably With fitch men ? the Apoftle kneW What hefaid, when he put in f If it be pofiible] and\j.% much as in you lyeth,] Rom. 14.18. / defire the Wifeft man that lives to tell me how it ispojfible for me to do it ? when I never preach againft his Opinion, nor praffke In* fant-*Baptifm : yet becaufe it is difcerned that my judgement is not the fame with Mr. TV. / muft be folicited by Mejfengers and Letters af- ter Letters to enter an endlefs quarrel by Writing. When I give tWelve Reafons againft it, no excufes willferve turn : His Followers muft come together to me to force me to it, or elfe I muft bear the blame of their Re - baptizing and Divijions : Ity 'Book* , no per fon muft fat is fie them but I. Alas, that a man may not live neer Mr. T. except he Will write againft his Opinion. Why might not I have denyed this contention and lived quietly as Well as others ? Tea, when all will not do , the people muft hear of it in the 'Pulpit as unbrotherly and uncharitable, becaufe I Will not write : Tea s the w»r Id muft hear of it from the Prefs With loud out~crjes, that I will not write ' And jet When I do Write, it difpleafeth him moft of all. When I wrote but afeW lines in an Epiftle, it caft him into fitch afeaver ofpaf- Jidn s as I would not be in for aH his reveneWsjvere they four times more- So that if the kindled humor had not had a free ventilation in Tulpit and in Prefs, I doubt it might have Jpoiled him , Whatever it may do y et . What courfe Jhould I take to pleafefuch a man, that will neither fuffer me to be filent, nor to jpeakj as Balack did With Balaam. The only Way is to {peak what he would have me. But if no other caufe will advance me into his fa - vour y Iam contented that Cjodfhould keep me from that honour, The truth, as far as I can poffibly learn ,is this : The root of all my fufferings by him, is> the the inter eft that God hath given me in the efteem and ajfeclions of the people of the fe parts, ejpecially in my oWn Congregation, and fomeWhat in his .This feemedto him a great blockjn the way of his face eft ; which if he could re- move ; he might hope the WorkWouldgo on the morefmoethly •* He tels them therefore in the lafl page of his Antidote, of their Temptation in the high efteem they have of me , Which may caufe them to drin\ in my Errors. I do verily believe that 1 am valued far above my Worth ; but whether 1 encourage people therein, or rather faithfully dijfwade them from it ; and Whether I ambit iou fly feek^ for popular breath , or hoW much I value it, further then it tends to the propagation of the Gojpel,and thefaving of mens own fouls, he that fear cheth my heart can tell : Though I know J am far from being free from pride, Which is the mo ft radicated and natural of all fins. And I hope Mr.T. willfinde , that when I am dead and taken out of his way >the interefl of Gods Truth and Peace Will ft ill With- hold the peo- ple from his Schifm, and that it was not my inter eft in them only or chiefly ; (Though I confefs I never \new a happy Church without a good Guide , una a dependance on him, and obedience to him.) And I perceive by one paflage^zg.li. of his Antidotejhat he is offend- ed at me, as if I diminifbed his efteem', for he complaineth, that \my Neigh- bors were his Auditors fill (he imagineth) my oppofetion to him tookjhem off -"2 A falfe imagination. The ftory is thus (feeing the world muft he troubled withfuch trifle s\ ) One of my friends had a deftre to per f wade one at one day , and another another day to go by turns to fetch the Notes of Mt.T's Sermons-, which was done a longtime -,andfome of Bewdley did f* here ; / well liked neither , being to travel, on the Lords day without need : yet I did not dijfwade them, for three Reafons, l. "Becaufe I was willing to hear them my felf, having not the benefit of hearing any ; 2. Becaufe I Would not hinder their profiting, if they found it indeed profit them : 3. Becaufe I abhor that proud humor of Minifters that envie if any man be followed but themf elves. But I found none went Willingly on this bu- finefs, but only to gratifie one man that defired it : and at I aft that man finding Mr. T. deliver fuch Dotlrine as was againft his judgement, and which he durft not repeat when he came home y did of him felf breaks off that practice as he hadfet it afoot, without any knowledge of mine 5 for J mind' dedit not , nor kneW that they had ceafed it, of many a week^after. And this Mr.T. muft complain cfin print I when Cjod hath taken doWn the pride of our hearts, We Jhall learn to be lefs tender of our credit > and lefts value mens applaufe . Two things I loof^ to be queftioned or blamed for in this Treatife : \Whe- 1 Whether 1 have truly reported Mr. T's angers throughout the whole > 7 o Which 1 'fay, I. His valediQory Oration Was taken from his mouth in Short hand by a Scholler and a very good T^otary, who is confident he hath not lofi a word, (except the* name of one Author , which Mr.T. told them he had in the Library at Worcefkr {Which it feems by his Antidote to be Eckbertus Schonatigienfis :) and I believe I could do it mj f elf upon the advantage of Mt.Vsftow delivery : And for the fidelity of the Notary, as he is (f on fci endow, fo he Was at leaft as favorable to Mr. T. his caufe at to the contrary , and the only man of my familiarity here that Was in doubt. And for the reft of Mr.Y'sfayings mentioned in this Book^, they are fuch as 1 had from his oWn mouth mo (I of them in the Dijpute before thoufands cf TVitneffes, (which Difpute I have alfo by me, at taken by the for e f aid No- tary : ) except fome few out of his Boolzj, and a few in conference. In all which I herefolemnly affirm in the word of a Chriftian that J am certain I have fpoken thediretl truth, and delivered his very words, and that I have not knowingly concealed any thing of moment that might make for him, but have delivered all of conference that he anfwered in the Dijpute y and cuRed out of his Bockj that which feemed of great eft ftrength on his fide ; and the ^Papers of his Review which he fent me on l Cor. 7. 14. 1 have an* fwered as far as they have more then is in the reft, ofanj moment. 2. But the main thing 1 fhall be blamed for, is bit t erne fs and harftmefs. To which Ianfwer. I. Sin hath dealt fo bitterly With England,rfW ejpecial- Ij the fin ofSchifm, andjpecia/ly the Schifmofthe Anabaptifts, that I dare not dealjweetly with it. I have before told you the anfwer of my (fonfcience in this. 2. Let anyrftan (peak^as Jharplj m me as I do to them y fo they will but jpeak as truly ; and if I blame them for it J Will give them leave to tell me that I am a proud man^ and unfit to Preach humility to others The plain truth is, the Tride of this and the Reverend, Pious Minifters are many of them fo guilty > that it is a very fiiame to men* tion it. They are fo tender of their honours , and names, that a plain deal- ing man knows not how to fpea^ to them, but they prefently fmart and take offence: Never did any dlffembling Court itrs more bafely ftattsr , then jcme of them muft be fatter ed, and foothed> andftrokfd, and extolled : 7 hough they are ft iled at every Word viri Dodi',Reverendi , Celeberrimi, yet if you do but difcover the weaknefs of their Arguments, they thi«k^yott con- temn them^and trample them in the dirt: It griev es me that the Preachers of 'humility, peace and patience \ havefo little themfelves* Prida hath ma~He us fo tender, that men muft ft their wits on the rackjo find out words that fhall not dfpleafe us : Every lower Scholler in the School of flattery cannct (e) have have a room in our favour : he muft be a Graduate atleaft. He muft he a man ofveryftrong parts, that/ball be able tofuit all his exprjejftons to con- tent us. fVe neceffitate men to learn the School of 'Complements and fuch books of flattery^ which among humble men are thought fitter to be troden in the dirt. Every man that is not a Gnatho we account a reviler : and all plain fpeech we account plain railing ; We teach the people to teS us that we rail in Pulpit and private , When we cannot endure the hundreth part of that plainnefs andjbarpnefs Which we ufe to them, O ur intettecl or fan - tajie is as a "Burning gUfs Which contrafteth the rayes of the mo(t amicable cxprefftons,fo as to fet all our paffions on fire. We have lived fo Ion? a* mongft contentions, and war, till our paffions are become Cjun-powderjind our memories Match, the one to catch fire, and the other to keep it. I fpeak not of all; but I Would the guilty would lay it to heart. As Iwillexcufe no exafperating Words, fo Ifindeit is the excoriation and e x ulcer at ion cf mens fpir its that ufually caufeth the f mart, andmaketh Words to feem in' tolerable which #re either but a duty, or Wholly blamclefs, or at leafl a found mind would never have felt them. 3 . Andlconfefs it is my judgement, that the Truth of onr fpeech lieth in the fitting of Words to the nature of the matter Which they exprefs ; and therefore where they a^c not fofittedjt is a kind of Falfhood ; I confefs it much trouhleth me that I am forced to tell Mr. T. fo oft that his reports are untruths-, but I doubt I fhould fpeak faljly my felf if I didotherWife. DoBrinal untruths J thin\ fitter to be proved fo, then barely called fo j but in matter offatt I muft call that an untruth which is fo. Tofpeakjafily of a hainous crime, is a kind of falfhood 0} "fpeech ; It is an exfrejfing and reprefenting the crime as lefs then it is, I will give you a touch cftWo examples in Mr. T. I . The lying- T^apifts do accufe the Albigcnfes and V Valdenfes (ourfirfl reformers) to' be Witches 'Bugger ers, Sorcerers, and to deny Infant- B apt ifm 3 and hereupon they raife war againft them, and put them to the fWord,md burn their Cities to afhes : Thefe godly men deny thefe accufations, andfbeW that their Mini, ft ers being few,and much abroad to fpread the Gofpel, they kept their chil- dren unbaptized till they came home, becaufe they Would not have them baptized by the Priefts in the ^opip: fafljion ; upon this the ftandcr was raifed,that they would not have Infants baptized ; Which they puroe them- f elves of, and profefs their judgement for Infant- b apt ifm. Now What doth Mr. T. butperfwade the world that the c Papifts> accufations of thefe men were true in this, and citeth the fayings of tWo or three Tapifls as a certain proof that thefe men were 500. yeers ago againft Infant-baptifm. He prefix eth one of their fayings on the Title page of his fir ft book. In the bookhc repeat eth it over again-, OVlr. Marfhai told him of his fault, and he takes no notice of it, but in the pulpit at Bewdlcy With great confidence hat kit up again, to delude the poor people that knoW not the name of a Tapiflfrom another, Teajn his tAntidote he hath it over again^and that mofi confidently, with this tnfulting preface, viz. \Joe Would have me take notice of it that I may learn to order my pen better r\ Now What language fhouldl beftoti onfuch a tricky as this ?■ If a Protefiant Jbould fit in with Cope in his accufation of our Martyrs ,and alledge the Papifts tefiimonies Again fi their oWn published pr of ejpons^ what would you fay tofuch a man f Is it railing to fay, that this dealing is fiarkjbra^en- faced, and unconfcio- nable ? ^Another inflance is this. I mentioned in my Epiftle the ftrange Judgements ofCJod {never to be forgotten) on Mrs, Hutchinfbn and Mrs. Dycr^Antinomians in New England ; Mr. T. miftook^me, and thought I had intended it as againft the oAnabaptifts. whereupon in the P-ulpit, he firfi labors to make the people believe, that it is rather to bethought that God fends fuch Wonders to be fumbling block* to men, and then he will prove to them thatthofe wonders did witnefs again ft my doElrine offufiifi - cation: Now my doctrine is this, That Works in ?m\sfenfe( which make the reward to be not of Cjrace but of Debt) Rom.4.4. have not the lea ft finver in fufiification s but works in James hisfenfe (and in Chrifts in Mac. 2 5", throughout) (Which are the Obediential exprejfions of faith inChrifi) though they have no hand in our fir ft pardon or fufttfication, yet they are conditions (and no more) of the continuance {or not lofing ) of our Jufli- fication, and of 'the confummation at Judgement. Now the <*sfntinomians dottrine W as fl' hat faith is notfo much as a condition of the New Covenant, that it hath no conditions on our part y that no man is jufiified by faith,but it is Legal tofayfo 5 that all are jufiified by (fhrifi within them and not at all by faith, to prove which they lay down this argument \To be jufiified by faith is to be jufiified by workj^nfer ring that therefore no man isjufiifiedby faith.becaufeno man isjufiifiedby Works. Now What doth Mr. T. but name this propo fit ion of their s t to fheW that my doftripe & theirs are alike, when as I am accufed but for being too much contrary to them ? Is it railing to fay that this dealing is fuch as I never found in any ?efuit,fo grofs ? Nay and upon further deliberation he hath printed this in his Antidote. Truly J dare not retraEl my plain reprehenfion of fuch dealings. Indeed his perfonall mifcarriages I never thought to have named, but in that I have done what is done upon the judgement of others, but not again ft my own ; Sfpecially becaufe he urgeth it as my duty firfi in the Pulpit, and noW in his bookj, pag. 27. he faith We have little love to him if we rebuke him not, but- fufferfin on him l And moreover he will needs involve his own credit with ( /• 1 \ *L. the credit of his cAufe, and therefore I thought not unmeet to fay what is done \not a* again ft himfelf, but his caufe. 4. And my judgement t els me without any doubting, that Teace breakers and dividers of the Church, e - jpecially that violently and refolvedly go on in that pracHce t fhouidnot have the fame language atothers. My endeavors are for the p^ace of the place where I live ; therefore if I abufe any, or if I do not part with my even right, andfuffer Wrongs, for peace, / deferve to be blamed : 3ut if there be one man in the toWn that will [pit in every mans face that he meets , or will fall upon them and bent them, orwillfetthetoWnonfire, muft I bear With this man for peace ? muft 1 let him alone to do all themifchiefhe can, and fay, Ifuffcr him for peacetor is not the only Way for the peace of the place to hinder fuch a man from breaking peace ? If Ijhould chide fuch a mandrill any man fay ■ Why are you Jo bitter, and unpeaceable, and ds not rather let him 00 on? If I deal har/hly with any erring brother that is peaceable , and fee kj only the fat is faction of his own confcience, and not the divijion and difturbance of the Church, then let me bear the blame ■ and fpare not. Indeed, Mr- T \ faith in the laft page of his Antidote \_that as for my Wayes how far they are from truth and pe^ce, mty eajily be difcerned by my managing the bujinefs between him andme~^ And in Vchat pajfage of all that bupnejs this mayfo eajily be difcerned, he could not tell the world one Word, but only that I J aid, his turning the dif put e to queftioning, was Catechizing, and that I came to difputewith him^ and not tofatisfie the people (\. t. by overturning the di/pute under pretence of difcourfmg to them) And is this all ? / can truly fay, and without vanity, that the ch : efefl ftudy of my life is the Churches peace^G' that all the controverfal writings Which I have Written, or am about \are all to take men off from extreams^and bring them to Peace' And that to my be ft remembrance, I never fell out with one man in City or Country, Army or Gar if on fine e I Was a Mini ft er of the Gofpel ; and that 1 bear no ill will to any man on earth], nor do I knoW any man that is an ene- my to me, except in general,in reference to National or Religious difagree- ments. J fay therefore as Bezafpraefat. ante Calvin trad. Theol.) fiquis Calvinum cuiquam conviciurn in his fcriptis feciffe, aut in Privata caufa iraeindulfitTcjacmulto magis fiquis cum mendacio patrocinacum fuiflfe convicerit, turn ego plane de fententia deceffero. Sin vero quam a na- tura inficam vehementiam habebac, ea ipfe adverfusperditos fophiftas ufus eft, ut inrerdum etiam modum non tenuiffe videri poflit, rogo mo- deratifsimos iftos homines,quibus nimium incalefcere videntur, quicun* que ipforum more non frigent, ut pro quo & in quern dicatur paulo at- tentius expcridant,neque heroicos iftos fpiritus ex ingenio fuo meciantur. Latt/v. Laftly, Tet Will I not fay or thinks that J have not transgrejfed in this or any of my writings. I confefs my fiile in Writing doth tafle of the natural keennefs , and eager nefs, and ferioufnefs of my difpofition ; wherein I am jealous that I may eafily mif carry ; and am unlikely my f elf to difcern it fo foon as another, which if I have done againfl Air. T. or any one elfe, I heartily crave their pardon, and that they Would take warning by my faults, and avoid them the more carefully themfelves, and joy n With me in hearty requefts to theLord y that he wil lay none of our intemperance or mifcarriages to our charge. To conclude you muft know, that after Mr. T. had denyed me leave to preach in his Congregation, the magifirMe and people would have had me do it Without his confent ,Which 1 would not do : but when Afr. T. was gone from them> and they invited me again , Ihadfome thoughts to yield to them, and therefore begun this Treatife in way of a Sermon to them, but I quickly changed my,purpofe y becaufe Mr. T.Jhouldnotfay, I came to contraditl him When he was gone, and becaufe I eyer judged fontr over fie fitter for the Prefs then the Pulpit: Tet I thought meet to Ih it pafs as I had prepared the beginning of it for that people. I amforry that I have occafion to trouble the World with this Apologetical Narrative^mdfo tedious aftory of our particular matters : But thofe that have dealt With the Anabaptifis y have been ufuallyput to this, witnefs Calvin, Rullinger, Sleidan, Spanhe- mius, Bay \y,&c. The Lord God that hath compelled me to this workj, go along with it, according to the truth of it, (and no further) andblefs it to the recovery of feme of thofe poor Welt meaning fouls , who through the tifu- al gates of fep oration and Anabaptifm, are ignorant ly travelling toward their oWn and the Churches difiurbance or defolation.Amen.July 5.165 0. (n) nt The Contents of the firfl: Part. CHAP. I. W Herein is premifedten things necefary to be kpoton of all that will impartially and fttccefs fully ft tidy thecontroverfie oflnfant- baptifm. m pag. l,&c. Chap. a. wherein are laiddoftvn three more preparatory propofitions. i .That the controvefte about Infant baptifm is difficult, pag. p. 2 . And of lefts weight than many take it to be , pag. 9 . 3. Yet the grounds on Which it ft andeth, and Which uftuaRy are deny ed by thofte that deny Infant- baptifm ^are of very great moment. pag. .1 2 ♦ Some termes explained. pa g . 1 3 . Qiap. 3. Qontainingmyftr ft Argument, from the Medium of Infant s - Difciple-fhip. pag. 15. 1. Infants proved Difciples from A<3. I>. 10. and that Text fully vindi- cated from Mr. Ts miftnterpretation. pag. 1 5, &c. 2. A fecond ^Argument to prove Infants to be Difciples, and the Text Lcvit. 25. 41,42. fully vindicated. . pag. 1 8, &c. 3. A third tArgument from Luk. 9. 47, 48. compared with Mat. 18. 15. Mark 9 4f. pag. 22* The objection \jhat Infants cannot learn^ anfwered. pag. 2 3 . Chap. 4. Containing the fecond and main Argument for Infant -Baptifm, they ought to be admitted vifible Church members, and therefore to be baptized. P a g-2$. The full proof of the Major (that all fuch Should be baptized, who muft be admitted members of the vifible Church) which Mr.T. deny eth not Pag. 24. Chap. 5. The fir ft Argument to prove Infants Church-member Jbip : In- fant severe former Ij (fhurch- members by Cjods appointment ^nd that is not : any where repealed ; therefore they muft befoftill. pag. 26. (Jtfr. Mr. T. confeffeth they Vc 'ere once Church members : He is to prove the re- peal, pag. 27. Mr.T. hi* (lamentable) proof of the refeal of Infants Church member Jhip from Gal.4.1 ,2,3 . examined, and the contrary thence proved- pag. 28. His other proof from Mac. 28. 29, 3 O. examined, andthe contrary thence proved. pag« 2 9- His Arguments from the alteration of the Jews Church confiitution and call examined, pag. 29. Some Diflintlions neceffary for the right underflanding of the queftion,How far the f eft's Church is taken down t pag. 30. The palpable vanity of Mr. T's Argument [from the peculiarity of the fervs Church call by Abraham and Mofes, to the overthrown of their Church-conflitution"\ manifejhd : Andthe Ambiguity of his terms[call and confiitution ]difpelled. ^ pag- 33. His other Argument [from the fjjff^hrow of Temple , SanedrimfPrieft- hood i eirc.~^ manifefied exceeding vain. * pag. 37. Chap. 6. The fir fl Argument to prove that Infants (^hurch member [hip is not repealed. pag. 3 8. Vindicated from Mr. T'sfirange anfjmers y therein hefeems to give up his caufc. pag. 3S, d°£. Chap. 7. Thefecond Argument to prove Infants Church memberjhip not repealed.but flill to continue, from Rom. II. 17. P a g43» Chap. 8. A third Argument fromRom. 1 1 20. pag. 44. 7 hat Paulyp^^ of the vipble Church ^and that moft dircElly, is fully proved by many arguments. pag. 4^. Chap. p. A fourth Argument draft n from Rom. 1 1 . 24. pag-48. Chap r 10. A fifth Argument fromRom. II. 24, 25, 26. pag-49. Chap. 11. A fixth Argument fromRom. n. 17, jp, 24. pag.50. Chap. 1 2. The feventh Argument from Mat. 23 .37, 38; 35?. pag. 5 1. Chap. 13. The eifhth Argument from Rev. 1 1 . 1 5. pag. 52. Chap. 14. The ninth Aroament from the certainty that believing J efts are no lofers by Chrifi _ as to themj elves or Infants. p3g-5 2 « Chap. 15. The tenth Argument from Heb. 8 6. and 7. 2 2. Rom. 5". 14, 15, 20. The Church under Chrifi now in a better condition then before , therefore all Infants not unchurched. P a S*55* Chap. 16. The eleventh Argument, If all Infants were put out of the Church, the very Cj entiles [bouldbe in a w or fe cafe fine e Chrifi then be- fore. pag. 55. Ohap. 17, The twelfth ^Argument from Deut,2p.iO ; i I, 12. pag. 57. Chap. Chap. 18. The 13. Argument fromRom. 4.11. pag.58. Chap. 1 p. The 14. Argument. Infants Church- member jbip no part of the Cere- monial, or Judicial LaWs, nor of a Covenant ofworkj;therefore not repealed. pag- 59« Chap. 20. The 15. tsfrgument. All Infants that were members of any particu- • lar Churchytvere alfo members of the vifible univerfal Churchy which certain* ly is not repealed, pag. 6o* Chap. 2 1. The \6. Argument from Gods promife in thefecond Commandment ', Deut. 20. pag. 6$. Chap. 22. The 17. ^Argument from Pfal. 37. 25. pag. 65. Chap. 23 > The 1 8. Argument from Infants being Church members vifible be' fore the Jews Qonmonwealth andcircumcifeon, Which is proved by three Argu- ments, pag. 66. Chap.24.77tf 19. Argument from Cjods fever ity to thefeedoftheWicked.pzg.6g. Chap. 2 5 . The 20. Argument from Di\j> 28,4, 18, 32,41. pag. 70. Chap. 26. The 21. Argument. If Infants* fa -riot of the vifible Church of Chrift % then they are of the vifible Kingdom of the devil, whig^falfe. pag. 7 1 . Chap. 27. The 2 2. Argument. If no Infants are members of the vifible Qhurch, • then We can have no found hope/ifihefalvatiotrof any InfaM in the World that dyeth in Infancy. . \ P a g 7 2 » How much better ground ofhope\e have offuchjhen Mr. T. his doftrine would allow us. p x ag. 75. Chap. 28 The ii.zArgument. Chrifi While he was an Infant Was head of the vifible Churchy therefore it is utterly improbable that he would have no In- fants to be members. pag. 79 Chap. 19. The 24 Argument from I Cor. 7. 14. pag. 80. The true fence of the wordS^Holy"^ cleared. pag. t$o. The fame fence proved by many plain Arguments 3 and Mr. 'Vsfenfe overthrown t and all his exceptions an fw ere d. pag.82,^r. Whether we may know who are Baptizable according to my expofition ? AncthoW far we mufiufe a judgement of charity -The nature of that judgement by which Mimfiers mufi deliver Sacraments, is more diftinclly explained. p ag. p 2. The objection from Tit. I. i%.anfWered. pag. 98. Ivir. T's great objeUion anfwered about theftntlifying of an unbelieving Whore. pag.98. Another of his objections anfwered^ that if the Covenant fanBifie , they mufi be Holy as foon as the Covenant was made. pag. IOo. Whether any children of Infidels in Abrahams family were by birth* priviledge Holy .? where the great queflion is refolved .whether any but Believers Infants may be baptised ? pag. 1 o 1 . (/; Chap. Chap, 30. The 25. Argument, Scripture tels us fully oftheceaftng offircnmcp* 'fion, bat not a Word of the ceajlng of Infants (fhurch-memberfhip, which is greater, nor any queftion or doubt about it. pag. 1 2. Chap. 3 1 .77>i 26. Argument from Chrifts plain and frequent expreffionsJAztk. 9. 36,37. & 10. 13, 14,1 5, \6,&c. many Arguments briefly exprejfedfrom thofe Words ^ and the right fence of the Text vindicated again ft Mr. T. his ex- ceptions. pag.103 The Contents of the fecond Part. CHAP. I. A Nother Argument for Infant- bapiifm briefly named, pag. I op jL\.T he great objetlion anfwereaTwhlch is drawn from Rom. p.8.Eph.2.3. < P^g. UP Chap. i. An anfyyr to the Objcttiqn, That Infants are uncapable of the ends of Baptifm. Ci * pag. 1 1 1 Chap. 3. ex/ 3. Objetlion anywered, HoW can children Covenant With (Jod? And by What right do Parents Qwenantfor them ? And whether we did Co* venantwith Cjodin Baptifm or not } pag. x 1 2 Chap- 4» iA\ . Objection anfwered, why Infants may not as Well receive the Lords Supper. pag. 114 Chap. 5 . A % .Objetlion Anfwered,why hath God left it fo dark^andfaid no more ' •cfit\ if it be his will that Infants fljould be baptised ? pag. 115 Chap. <$. A 6. Objetlion Anfwered, draVi^n from the evil confequents that are fuppofed to follow Infant baptifm, as Ignorance, prefumption, and w Ant of folemn engagement to Chr I ft ^c. pag. 117 \d humble motion that theDiretlory may be in this revifed y or the Churches fatis- fled with their reafons to the contrary jn thefefour points. 1 . That the Parent may not only promife to do his oWn duty ; but may alfo enter his child into Co- venant with Gody by promifing in his name, what the (fovenantrequireth. tAndthat the Tarent may profefs his oWn ajfent to the Articles of Faith and his confent to the duties of the Covenant. 2. That the Ancient prutlice of Confirmation may be reduced to its primitive ufe ; and inftead of political and controvertible Covenants, that every ChriftianVvbo was baptized in In- fancy, may folemnly at age renew his Covenant perfonaHy, before he be admit- ted to the Lords Supper. 3. That the Church may have poWer to fee to the renewing of this Covenant often t "token there is necejfary occajion. 4. That the Words words of the Covenant may be (from Scripture) prefcribsd, and no Minifler or Churches have power to alter it, pag^ *2o The duty of Solemn perfonal Covenanting proved from Scripture, againfl thofe that thinkjt a humane invention: And that f his would be far morefblemnly en- gaging then adult b ^aptifm y and more f agreeable to the Will andWord of CjoL pag. 122 Chap. 7. Thefirfi Argument againfl delaying of our Infants Baptifm y in that theft is no word of precept or example in all the Scripture for the baptizing a Chriflians child at age (except it befinfully neglecled before) pag. 125 Chap. 8. The fecond Argument . The baptizing of Chriflians children at ag& ordinarily , is plainly manifefted to he utterly inconfiftent With obedience to Chrifls rule for baptizing. pag. 126 Chrifls Rule is for baptizing upon thefirfi Difcipling, pag. 1 26 Mr. T*s qualifications ofrequifite profe'jfiw % examined, pag. 1 2 8 Ch a p . 9. A thivd Argument againfl delay of baptifm. pa g. 1 3 o Chap. 10. A fourth Argument. Baptizing Qhriftians children at age, will una* voidably fill the Church with contentions andconfufion, or give Minifiers the mofl Tyrannical power that ever Was ufurped>eyen more then Papal, pag. 130 Chap. 1 1. A fifth Argument againfl their ground. Mr. T's arguing from Mac 28. Would tend tojhut out Baptifmfrom the Church. pa^. 132 Chap. 1 2. Ajixth Argument againfl their ordinary baptizing in coldrivers, by dipping overhead) as neceffary. pag. 1 34 Chap. I ^.Afeventh Argument againfl their ordinary baptizing naked, pag. 136 Chap. I-;. An eighth Argument, Anabaptiflry hath been pWrfuea I by gods evi- dent Judgements ever fine e the fir (I rife of it. pag. 1 3 8 I . They have been great hinder ers oft he Gofpel. 2 . And the inlet to mofl horrid opinions. 3. And not or ion fly fcandalom % 4. And pur fued with Cjods ruinat- ing Judgements. pag. 138 The Hiftory of their carriage in Qermany, pag. 139 The doleful fcandals by them in England. pag. 1 43 Chap. 1 5. Antiquity for Infant -B apt ifm. pag. 152 Cyprian and Tercullian acknowledged for us by Ah. T. pag. 155 Further teftimony out 0/Tertullian. pag. 153 ltQneus Tefiimony vindicated* pag. 154 Juftin Ma rty rs Teflimonies for us. pag. 155 Mr.Vs Tefiimony from Antiquity examined : where his mofl horrid vile allega- tions of the (landers of .the Tapifts againfl the Aibigenfes and VValdenfes/* detetttd. pag. 1 57 The conclufion&ith the found judgement of Melan&hon^Camero, pag.160 Teflimonies from Cyprian, ChryToftome, Ambrofe, The Contents of the third Part, A Preface. pag. 165 That I never call Air. T. Heretic^, pag. 167 Of thefeafon ofpublijbing thofe Coords in my Epiftle. pa^ 172 Of the name Anabaptifts, whether Mr. T. dare fuftifie all the prophane, at ha- ving not violated any Covenant in baptifm. pag. 174 Whether usihabaptifts play not a worfe fart then the Devils materially ? And how they are accufers of their own children. pag. 174 Whether CMr. T. keep them out of the vifible Church ? pag. 176 Whether they that plead for Infant- baptifm do play the Devils part as Mr. T. faith they do ? pag. 1 77 Whether Infants may be engagedby Covenant to fhrift ? pag. 178 Whether Mr. T. plead again ft Infants being- Chrifis Difciples andfervants f s \~ Pag. 17^ Of his deny all of Infants Hofaefs by feparation to God. pag. 180 Concerning Lcvit. 25. 41,42. &Dcut. 2p. n ; 12. pag. 182 A6t. 15. 10. vindicated. pag. 1 84 About 1 Cor. 7.14- another exception of Mr. T's anfwered. pag. 187 Of the term Setlary : and cf Judgements onfuch. pag. 188 My doUrine off unification vindicated from LMr. T. his afj erfions\ his matching it with the clean contrary dotlrine of the Antinomifts *#New England, is fuch dealings hat I knoVt no Jefuit matcheth. pag. I po Mr. T. his pleading againft the right ufe ofCjods wonders in New England, ex • amined. pag 197 Mj expofition of Mat. 7. 15. vindicated. pag. ipp Howfarfalfe teachers may be knoVen by their fruits ? pag. 200 Mr. T. not charged" as he will needs fuppofe ' yet not free. pag. 202 Mr^Vs confidence, and hi* mifreports of the dilute. P a g« 2 05 Several Absurdities that Mr. T. maintained in the difpute, Jan. 1. 1649. pag. 207 Many more of his evident untruths about thefaid dijpute. pag. 205? Whether I crowed over Mr. T. or trampled him underfoot. m pa£ .210 More untrue reports of his confuted. pag. 211 More of the carriage of the dijpute. pag. 212 The true Reafon of my /peaking fo much againft Anabaptifts in the Epiftle before my book,. entituled,The SaintsReft. pag. 216 That 7 hat I caft not dirt in the face of Mr. T. but only of bio ill caufe. pag.2 1 7 Air . T / error about the not concealing any Truth for peacejonfuted. pag. 2 1 8 His error [that thofe that are no ^Miniflers may Baptise ^confuted, pag. 2 20 His err or\that private men may adminifterthe Lords Supperjfonfuted^g.zii His error [that Godfealeth not Aftually \but Vchen the Sacrament is admini fired to a believer^ confuted. pag, 2 21. H>s error [that the Covenantjtohereof Baptifm is thefeal, isonly the abfolute Covenant, made only to the Slecf^confuted. pag. 222 His error againfi Magifiratesfubordination to Chrift the Mediator .confuted, andmy doftrine vindicated. CMr. Rutherford, and Mr. Ball are downright for it, That all the Kings and Rulers on earth have their power from,and un- der the C^fedtator. pag. 227 1 ~ ■ , — 1 1 The Contents of che Corrcdive. SOmefayings of others infieadofa preface. pag. 237 Se ft. I . Mr. Ts Epiftle anfwered, and my other writings vindifgted from his mijinterpretation, whether our Minifiers are meer formal Teachers, and Infant bap tifm be a damning error. pag. 2 4 1 Seft. 2. His firft Seftion anfwered About dippings and whether we are officiating priefts ? whether we would have deftroyed or banifhed Mr. T. My own Judg- ment about liberty of confeience. pag . 245 Seft. 3. Hisfecond and third Seftions anfaeredfundrj more untruths detefted. pag. 248 Seft. 4. His fourth Seftion anfwered about Levit. 25.41. pag. 248 Seft. 5. His fifth Seftion anfwered about Deut. 29. pag. 249 Seft. 6. Hisfixth Seftion anfwered about Aft. 1 5 . I O. pag. 252 Seft. 7. His feventh Seftion anfwered about I Cor. 7. 14. P a g* 2 ?3 Seft. 8. His eighth Seftion anfwered, hisfalfe accufation of me about Indepen- dency \mtre about the monfters in New England. pag. 257 Seft. 9. His ninth Seftion anfwered, Of Mat. 7. By their fruitsyefhatlknoW them. pag. 259 Of Here fie, what it is. pag. 2 59 M.V% Authors for the antiquity &goodlinefsofAnabaptifls y eramlned$ig.i6o Fuller proof of the Antiquity of Infant baptifm from Fathers and Count els. pag. 262 Mr. Ts witneffes examined particularly } Bernard , Cluniacenfis, Eckbertus, Schonaugienfis and Walafridus Strabo. pag. 264, (fl) ■ Cyprian C,yyx\2t[t]es falvAtion to the vifible 'Church. pag. 2(6 A deer argument that Chrift never repealed Infants Church-memberfiip.ib'id. ^Admonitions about Schifmfrom Cyprian , pag. % 67 To thofe that diftaft godlinefs for the fcandals of thefe times yfeme^hat em of Clemens A lexandrinus. pag, a 68 The Levellers (and Ranters) fhew m what Anabaptiftry is,when it is ripe (a- gainft whom the State is fain to make tAtls.) pag. 2 69 Stcl.loJliA tenth Settisnanfwered.The Oxford Teflimonj confidered^^ij 1 The trutreafonof my infer ting thofe pajfages in the Epiftle before my Treatife of the Saints Reft, Vrhich Mr. T. is angry at. pag, 272 'Againfl CMr. T's charge ,t hat [7 am become a Ringleader of men that mind not the things of Chrift, nor regard me^but to uphold their repute.'] pag .273 The reafon of my plain fpeech^hich is called k^nnefs. pag. 274 Whether my judgement about univerfal redemption be meer Herejie ? And how many of the moft learned and famous-Divines that ever the reformedChurches had, do maintain it ? pag. 275 Whether my judgement ; that Magift rates hold their po^er under the Mediator, be nee-r Herejiefmore Authors alledgedfor it, and the main obje. anf pag. 276 Whether htj maintaining Infant -baptifm be Herejie. pag. 278 The main ftrength ofCMr. T's anffcer provedvain. pag. 279 Pajfages about the dijpute and my felf. pag. 280, 281. Thertfultof my moft impartial examination of aU Mr % T'S payers and argu- ments, pag. 283 *An advertifment to the Reader. pag. 284 The Contents of tta Appendix. — ' I — r- A premonition to the Reader. pag. 288 The fayings offundry great Divines upon the point. pag. 291 The reafons of this undertaking. pag. 2p 5 Mr. Bedfords opinion laid do^n out of his three books. pag. 2 $^ My dton judgement UiddoVvn in ten propofetions, after fome diftinflions prepara • tory tlxreto. pag, 2^5 About tradition, andhumane additions to Cjods Worfip. pag. 301 'Baptifm only a Morall Inftrument, anb not Natural! or fnpernaturalU Pag- 30* Whether there be a hyperphyfical caufality diftintt both from phjfical and moral. pag. 306 ml* Whether Faith give men only jus ad rem, befort Baptifm^ andnetalfo jus in re. pag. 307 1h what fence Baptifm id a condition of Juftification>&c* pag.309 Againfi the necejfity of Baptifm tofalvation. pag .310 whether God give feminai true grace to thofe Infants that afterward perifb. pag.311 whether there he any third thing infufed bfides the effenCe and Work^tf the Spi- rit ? and which ofthefe it is. ibid. Whether there be any true efecluall fav'mg grace in Infant s, which Will not cer- tainly sAEl when they come to age ? pag .3 1 z What AB it is by Which Godforgiveth andjufiifieth. pag. 315 Thereisfpecial grace from Chrifi r be fore any that flows from Union withhim m pag. 3 16 The Texts that are brought for their tenet Anfwered. pag. 317 Of the nature of our union With Chrifi. pag. 318 Whether experience jpeak^ for the ^enet I oppofe. pag. 319 What for givenefs is ? pag. 321 How far Chrifi dyed for Vnbdiefandlmpenitency^andhowfar he did net opened* ibicU IN the Animadverfions on Po&or Wards TraUate. WHat kind of In fir ument Baptifm is s \\z. moral. pag. 22 \ Bradwardines judgement of effetlual grace, ibid. How far it is true> that (fhrifis death f hough a Efficient remedy ,yet profit eth not except we apply it. pag. 3 2 3 Several points wherein Dotlor Ward is againfi Mr. B. ibid, Dotlor W 's mifiake \jhat baptifm fealeth not to Infants'] confuted. pag. 324 His miftake \jhat the word apply eth not Chri(ls\ merits to Infant slfonfuted* pag. 325 His mifiake \jhat baptifm is thefirft means of pardon, and not the Covenant^ confuted. pag. 326 Some pofitions about fufiification by the Covenant, and by baptifm. ibid. The Dr. danger oufy gather eth from k€t. 2. 37. that common faith is the condi- tion of Baptifm, and Baptifm the means ofremiffion, before true lively faith* pag. 3 27 More proof that the Qovenant fufiifieth before Baptifm* ibid. Dr.W's Arguments againfi Covenant jufiification of Infants before baptifm, anfwered. pag. 330 CaJ vins Teftimony fully againfi Baptifmal precedency, pag. 331 The Doftors found judgement, i , aAbont Cjods fole efficiency in fuflification. *. And about the univerfality of the conditional Covenant. pag. 332 TUe Authors judgement of Do ft or Davenant, and Mr. Owens cenfure of his late excellent Dijfertations. pag. 332 Davenants clear judgement, I . In the point ofuniverfal redemption, 2 . ssind of faftif cation, how far workj concur. ■ P a g» 33 3 ThefummofDwevMMsEpiJilc. . P a g. 334 Whether Bifhop Uftier and Mr. Cranford be for Mr. B. pag. 335 That the parents faith is the condition for the child } proved. pag. 336 Perkins judgement herein plain and full ibid. The judgement of Rivet,Beza,Zuinglius,Twif$,0#r Affembly 9 & Auftin.pag,3 37 N Addition to the twentieth Chap, ofthefirfi part .about the Qatholik^ vifi- ble Church, referring to CMr. Hud fons book^. pag. 3 3.9 A ARguments againfi the Socinians, who deny the ufe of Baptifm to fetled Churches. And againfi the duty of Baptizing twice. pag. J 4. 1 The (fonclufion of the Whole. p3g. 3 44 Errata. for [faculty] 1. i_'"< j y* ^ v ' i 'L viii : fwuHj/iap 4 j, B »*.i.. 3 . #v* L ««oyj I7#r [foi not writing] f.2i6.1.8.r.[i:hat God would] aad [10 review] p.220.1 z8.r."[ancithe rc lt]p.i43.1.i°.r[hopeand believe]p.245;l.penulc for[thcm]r.[then]p.Z46.1.24.for [from] r. [tor] p 25}.U.r.[Relation]&1.3i r.[felf]p.2jy.l.44.r.[nottri]p.26o.I.4o.r. [inltance] p.*(?4.i 37- r. [enough in Pifcatorius & Crifpines Bibliotheca] p. z66A.^.r. [any] p 27$ 1, 29 for.[caUed]r.[Celled]p.277,1.20.ror[p,8o8.] r.£p, 80] p. 181.1.44,1-. [them than] p. 281.1,1 i,r.[Mediolanenfi] Mat. 28. 19. go ye therefore andTtifciple to me all 7%ations> Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holj Ghofl. . — ,. . ■ . » — . — CHAP. I. |Eloved Friends and Neighbours^ I am invited hither by your ftlves, and the providence of God, to perform a work tome fo fad and unpleafing, that no ordinary motives could ever have engaged me to : But the delivering fo many I beloved friends and near neighbours from fo dangerous a li fnare; the preventing of thofe dolefull divifions 3 diftra&H ons, heart-burnings _, and ruins which Anabaptifm hatb introduced where ever it yet was entertained (To far as I can poflibly learn) the quenching a fire fo near my own dwel- ling 3 the curing of that plague which elfe may infect my own Congregation J and cfpecially the vindicating of Gods precious truth,, and his Peoples precious priyi^ ledges^hich I dare not betray by my filence 3 being fo called forth for their defence : Thefeareall Arguments which I cannot gainfay , and have conftrained me to this task, how ungrateful! foever. It can be no pleaflng work to me, the Lord knows , to preach the truth in a way of contradiction : to fpeak againit the doctrine of a Brother; whom I fo much love and reverence ; to amufe the poor ignorant people, while they hear one man preach one thing, 3nd another the contrary; one pleading Scripture for this opinion, and another againft ir$ one interpreting it this way, and- another that way j as if we were all brought to a lofs in our Religion, and fo caufe people to caft away all as uncertain. To be put to defend Gods truth against fuch a frknd and lover of truth -> and.Gods Church and people againft a Builder, a Shepherd, a Guide, a Father in the Chinch i and to heal the wcands that you have received by a friend ', to mm my labours and your artention from matters of greater moment, to thefe tri- viall quarrels i to fee the beginning of that plague broke forth in a Congregation which fo lately were minding Clirift in Lovej and Unity, and Peace, which harh al- ready made fuch havock in England 5 and in. the face of this Congregation to behoki the dolefull ftate of the Nation 5 and by the fight of you; Spark*} to be forced to re- B member Plain Scripture proof of member our publike fiames 3 which have made us a fcorn to our enemies, a wonder to Grangers, a grief and aftoniihment to our friends, a confufion to our felves, a fhame totheGofpel,andaperpetuallreproachtothecaufeofGod : So far is this from be- ing a pleafing imployment, that it makes me begin with an affli&ed heart. I pray God you may have more joy in the end by your Information 3 then I have in the be, ginning from the nature of my work! For if I had not hopes of that , I mould not have come hither. But feeing God will have it fo, and becaufe of your nfeceility there is no remedy, I will here.affure you of thefe two things in ihe pretence of God, the fearcher of hearts, i. That I have not raihly entertained the Doctrine which I come to maintain, nor have I neglected the ftudy of it through carelefnefs and contempt : I never baptized but two Children, and both thofe of godly Parents : Before I pro- ceeded any further in the practice, I grew into doubts of the lawfulnefs of it my felf, and that upon the fame grounds for the moft part,which Mr. T. hath fince publifhed ; This was about ten or eleven years ago j fince which time I havs uied all diligence that I could to difoover the truth, and upon that and ather reafons fufpended my pra- ctice. 1 blefs Godi that gave me not over to a fpirit of ralnnefs and headinefs, to run on new untryed wayes, upon every doubting about the old j and that gave me all along to fee as great probability for the truth, as againft it 5 and that gave me ftill a deteitation of Schifmjand a high efteem of the Churches unity and peace^or elfe I had certainly then turned Anabaptiftffor I think it no fin to take this fname to my fclfjin confefllng my former imperte&ionsJBut^Nil tam ccrtum quamquodex dublo ccrtum efl 3 we are moft fine in thofe points that we have moft doubted in : And I profefs I am far more confident,and beyond all doubt now , that it is the Will of Chrift that Infants (hould be Baptized, then ever I was in my life, notwithftanding it hath been oppofed more of late then ever. 2. And this alfo I here fo'emnly promife you, fo far as I am acquainted with my own heart, that I will not fpeak any thing to you in this bufinefSj fave what inmy judgement and conscience I believeto be the truth : And ke that knoweth my heart,knoweth that I have fo unfatiable a thirft afrer the knowledge cf Truth, that if I did think that it were a Truth of God, that Infants mould notoe Baptized^ I (hould not only entertain it, but gladly entertain it 5 and it is as de- llghtfull to me to difcover even a difgraced truth, as it is to finde the moft-prectous trcufure : I never difcover a Truth in my ftudies, but it is a* fweetto my mind as a feaft to my body : even Nature it felf hath a longing defire to know.I fpend my time 3 and ftrength^and fpirits in almoft nothing but ftudy ing after Truth 3 and if after 'all that I (hould be unwilling to finde it, I were monftroufly perverfe. It hath hitherto been my lot, ever fince I have been a Preacher of the Gofpel, to be on the fufferjng fide. If after fo much contradiction to the corruptions of the times ,and fo many ha« zards of my life, and fo manydolefull fights, ana tedious nights and days which in wars I have endured, when others were at eafe, and after the overthrow of my bodi- ly health, and all for confeience and preservation of Truth , I mould now be un- willing to receive it and acknowledge it, I mould be a moft treacherous enemy to my felf. If a man thgt lives in conftant expectation of death, and daily looks to be fummoned before the Lord his Judge^as I do, Paould yet through pride or any world- ly refpeS be falfe to the Truth and his own foul, and that in a time when error is the more thriving way,fure fuch a man were unexcufably wicked. All which I therfore fay for my felf (though I am confident among you that know me it is els needlefs) be- caufe Afr.r. hath told me in Conference, that the able Minifters generally that differ from him,do err through meer wilfulnefs or negligence fo eafie it is to fee the Truth on his fide. The Lord prefcrve me and all his people from that cenforioufneis and heig!^ Infant Church m. u sr lip and Baptifm. % height offpirit. For my part, I folemnly profefs to you. thai if I deliver you not theVruth, it is through difability and weaknefs rather then wilfulness or negligence: thoueh I know my will alfo is imperfed. Before I come to the proof oflnfant Baptifme dire&ly , I mu ft needs firft lay down feverall Pofitions that muft neceflarily be well underitood before you can undtrftand the point in hand ; when a people are ignorant or rniftaken in the antece- dent,no wonder if they deny the confequents i and if their underftandings have once received falfe foundations and principles , itiseafiet© build up a faife fuperftru- dure. The Pofitions I lajfcdown firft^are thefe. P * option I. IT hath pleafed the Holy Ghofttofpeak of fome things in Scripture more fully, and of others more fparingly : And where God /peaks more fparingly, the thing muft needs be more difficult, and yet his Truth ftill. In Four cafes fpecially Scrip- ture is thusfparing. I. In fpeaking of thofe to whom it fpeaks not : God fpeaks more fully to men of themfelves, but of others he fpeaks lefs : for he is not bound to give us account of his dealing with others 5 Therefore he fpeaks {o little concerniag the Heathen that never had the Gofpel, Whether any of them be faved? or upon what terms he dealeth with them for Life or Death ? Far is it from my reach to difcover his mind in this. And fo for Infants : they hear not the word : it is not fpoke To them 3 and therefore it fpeaks more fparingly Of them : Yet God hathfo much care of the comfort of Godly Parents, that he hath much more fully revealed his mind con- cerning their children , then the children of the wicked and open enemies. i.Scrip- ture fpeaks fparingly of fmaller points 5 and of greater and thofe that are of neceffi* ty to lalvation, more fully. I fhall mew you anon 3 that this is not fo great a point as many make it , and therefore no wonder if it be the more fparingly mentioned. 5. Scripture freaks fully of thofe particular controverfles that were afoot in thofe -times, bat more fparingly of thofe that were not then Qiieftioned. The great Qiie- ftionsihm were., Whether Chrift were the Median? Whether the Gentiles were within the Covenant and to be received into the Church ? Whether Circumcifion, and the reft of the Ceremonial fervice muft be ufed by the Gentiles ? Whether Justi- fication be by the works of the Law, or by Faith in Chrift } Whether the-dead mould rife ? and how ? How fully are all thefe refolved in the Scriptuire ? foaiL thofe leffer Queftions which the Corinthians and others moved about feparating from unbelievers 5 and Sacrament, and things offered to Idols, and meats and drinks, &c. how plainly are all theie determined ? But many others as difficult which then were no controverts, have no fuch determination. And yet Scripture is fufficient to dired: us for the determination of -thefe too ; if we have wifdo rirto apply generall Rules to particular Cafes , and have fenfes exerciied to difcera the Scope of the Spirit. Such is the cafe oflnfant Baptifme. 4 . The New Teftament fpeaketh more fparingly of that which is more fully discovered, in the Old. What need the fame thing be fo done twice 3 except men had ejueftioned the Authority of the Old? The whole Scripture Is the pcrfeft Word and Law of God; and if he fhould reveal all his mind in one part, what ufe mould we make of the other ? How iilent is the New- Teftament concerning a Chrift iari Magiilracy ? wJiich made the A- nabaptiftsof old deny it; where find you- a Chriftian in the New Teftament that ex- ercifcd the place of a King, or Parliament man, or Juftice of Peace, or the like ? fo of an Oath before a Magiftrate 3 of War, of the Sabbotfe, &c. how fparing is the New B 2, Tdh- Plain Scripture proof of Teftament? and why? butbecaufe there was enough faid of them before in the Old? This alfo is the very Cafe in the Queftion in hand. The main Queftion is not, By what fign members are to be admitted into the Church ? or whether by a fign or without ? but. At what Age they, are tobe admitted Members ? Now this is as ful- ly determined in the Old Teftament as moft things in the Bible : and therefore what need any more ? The dcfperate higheft fort of Atit'mormans who to put off this 5 will wipe out all the Old Teftamenyvith a ftroak, are men to be deplored rather then dif- putcd with. They may^s well do fo by the New Teftament too if they pleafe when aay thing in it contradið their conceics : and they are hafting to it apace : when in moft of the Land our Queftion, Whether Infants mould be Baptized, is turned into a higher, Whither the Scriptures be the word of God, or not ? But O how happy were thefe men ,if their difclaiming either the old Scriptures , orihe whole would make them invalid,and abrogate the Precepts and the Threats! Then perhaos they might difpute with God in Judgement , as they do now with us, and efcape by excepting againft the Scripture that muft condemn them. I might be very large here, if refolved brevity did net forbid, and mew you that the degrees of marriage forbiddenfeven marrying with a Sifter)arc not forbidden in the New Teftament, with many the like,which yet are fins, becaufe forbidden in the old. Some fay,It is fufficient that they are forbidden in nature : But tint is a Silly fliift: It tends to make the Scripture fo imperfec~t,as if it did not forbid thofe fins which nature is againft : Befides, it will hoU much difpute,Whether k be directly againft the Law of Nature or no : Whether Cam and Abel did fin in fo doing. And if it be, yet the Law of Nature is fo blotted and impcrfed in the beft, and fo obliterated in othersj that it is no fufficient Rule ; that which Nature teacheth clearly, it teacheth all men; but it doth not teach all men.this, that it is a fin to marry ones own Sifter. You may fay, It is but fome notorious wicked ones that have prevailed againft the very light ©f nature, that know not this. Anf, I think many are in a ready way to it, that little imagine it 5 But I have difputed with fome men of eminency who denyed the Bap- tifme of Infants; that becaufe they would not admit of proofs from the Old Tefta- ment, have told me plainly, that they doubted whether marrying a fcifter , or any thing els which is not forbidden in the New Teftament beany fin > and for their part they would not acknowledge them to be fins. And it deferves tears of bioud, to hear how light fome Chriftians make of the Old Teftament. They look at the Jews with fo ftrange an eye as if they would not endure to be of the fame Church, or body with them : (Juft as the Jews were wont to look at the Gentiles) Let them take heed left next they refufe to have the fame Head and Saviour,or the fame Heaven or Goxlasthey. Thus you fee in Four Cafes,$cripture (efpecially the New Teftament ) fpeaketh very fparingly^And therefore we cannot expert to have fuch points at large. Tofition II. THe great difficulty of a point is no proof that it is not Truth. A thing is not therefore to be rejected as not of God, becaufe it is not eafie, nor the proof fo cleat as we would have it. I find a multitude of filly ignorant Chriftians, if a point be once Queftioned , and they find not prefently an eafinefs torefolveit, but .the Scriptures and arguments brought for it feeem dark, they prefently conceit or fufpeel: it is no Truth : when they never confider that what is faid for the contrary may Ime far lefs evidence or likelihood of Truth, J hofe poor fouls are far gonc^thac will Infants Churcb-memkrjhip and Baptifm. 5 will needs teach God how to deliver his mind : They arcnecr the pics brink,that fay to God in their hearrs^If thou wilt fpeak plainly, and make all the Scripture eafieto us,we will believe it : but if thou fpeak fparingly , and leave it difficult , believe it who lilt. If a man may take the advantage of Scrip' lire difficulties to caft them away, then we mult lofe D.i-ncl y Zachary, T^cvclation, and a great part of owr Bible. Andif dif- ficult doftrmes flnll be concluded tintruths, Farewell moft of our very" Creed and Chriftianity. I am moll confident of it, that if a fubtile Pagan mould come a^mong vou , and difpute that Scripture is not the word of God , and that Chri(l j[cfui$8Q£i God, he would filence ycu m:>re then you are in theprefent controverfie , and yoiv. would be lefs able ro an fvver him, then you are toanfweran Anabaptift. There * : are many weighty controverfies, that are mo're difficult then this : muft we therefore prefently turn from the Truth ? Never did I plead to my remembrance with ana- ble Papift, but he could fay far more for his Religion thenM",?/2,r T. faid for his opi- nion on Jan. I. or his Sermon fince.I wil hazard all the reputation of my Undcrftan- ding on it, that there may Ten times more be faid for Free-will then can be faid a- gainft Infant Baptifme ; yea, that it is of twenty times more difficulty 5 and I here ofFar my felf to manifeft it to any man that will debate it with me : And what ? Muft we therefore believe Free-will ? I think not : (Bmdwardme and Cjibcouf are not ' yetanfwered) Peter tels us many things are hard to be underftood, even in Pauls Epiftles, which the ignorant and unlearned wreft to their own dcftru&ion. And yec they are truths for all that*. Do not therefore caft^way a Truth , becaule difficulty but ftudy the more. Portion III. IF never fo cleare Evidence ©f Truth be produced ,, it wil ftill be dark to them that are uncapable ofdifcerning it. It is one thing to bring fulL evidence and proof, and another thing to make people apprehend and underftand it. We may do the one, but God onely can do the other. I perceive moft people think that when they come with a Queftion to a man, we muft prefently give them an anfwer which may make the Cafe plain to them : and if we could create under ftandings in them, it is poflible we might fatisfie them. They think they are not fo filly and unreafonable as we would make them. God doth not reveal his truth onely or chiefly to the learned : They have the teaching ofthe Spirit as well as we. But alas, that men mould be fo . ignorant againft both Scripture and experience : God changeth the will on a fudden: buthedothnot Infufeknowledgejefpeciaily of difficult points on a fudden. If he do, why are we commanded to ftudy the Scrip:ure, and meditate on them day and night ? Did they ever know any that was fuddenly made fo wife? except it were on- ly in his own conceit. There are feveral ages and forms in the School of Chrift. Men reach not to the underftanding of hard points , i till after long ftudy and diligence 5 and acquaintance with Truth. If you beleive not me , belive the Holy Ghoft>H^. 5.1 1,1 a, 1 j, 1 4. Of whom we have many things to fay 3 and hard to be uttered, feeing ye are dull of hearing : For when for the Time ye ought to be Teachers , ye have need that one teach you again which be the firft principles of the Oracles of God, and are become fuch as have need of milk, and not of ftrong meat : For every one that ufeth milk is unskilfuil in the word of rightcoufnefs, for he is a babe ; But ftrong meat belongeth to them of full age, even thofe who by reafon of Ufe have their fenfes exercifed to difcern both Good and Evil. The plain truth is, this is the very B 3 Cafe 6 rMw scripture proof of Cafe of the mod of the godly among us : They ara children in knowledge , and have not by long ufe their fenfes exercifed in difcerning.Moft of the beft of you have need to read Scripture and Books of Controverfie, feven years at leaft before you will be capable of underftanding mod controverfies. O curfed Pride , that will not fuffer one Ignorant Godly man of many, to know that he is fo Ignorant. I think I fiad eight years agoe j read fome hundred Books more then moft of you and thought my felf as wife as moft of you, and others thought me wifer ' when I now know that in many more weighty points then this, I was a very child s and I hope', if I. lived as much longer , I ihould find 'out many more wherein I am ignorant now. Yet do I not perfwade yon that this point in queftioa is beyond your reach : I fee it eafier now then ever I did. But thus, the generality ot the godly arc very ignorant : And if you deliver the plaineft Evidence of Truth to the ignorant, it will not make it plain to them. You may think you can underftand plain Scripture or Reafon if you hear it; but you cannot : O that Pride would let men know, that they cannot. Read the plaineft Lecture of Geometry or Arithme- tick to one of you,and you cannot underftand itRead the Grammer to a boy in the Primmer, and he underftandeth never a word you fay 5 when another perceiveth it all very plain and eafie. If plain teaching a truth could make every ©ne prefently underftand it, then the boys in the Primmer might be the next day in their Gree6 , when they hear a plain Greek Le&ure. But knowledge will not be hadfo eafily • Therefore I exped not that the more filly ignorant profeffbrs mould apprehend the Truth, though I deliver h never fo plainly and evidently.Otherwife one man (hould know as much as another, and ail as much as their Teachers, feeing they all hear and read the fame word of God. Vofithn I V. T 7X7Hen the Cafe is fo difficult that we cannot attain to a clearnefs and certain- ▼ ▼ ty, we muft follow the more probable way. Now whether it be likelier that Chrift would have Infants of Believers to be admitted Church-members, and fo Baptized, or to be fliut out, I hope I (hall make plaine enough before I have done. To fit ion V. TEnder confeienced Chriftians will not be rafh and venturous in changing their judgement ; They know errors to be dangerous {ins $ and therefore are afraid left they (hould beenfnared. They will therefore wait, and pray, and enquire of all that are like to enformjthem, and read all the Books they can get that will help them, before they will venture. Do not fay, you cannot have while, except you will venture your fouls to fpare you time and labour. Do not fay you cannot un- derftand Books 5 for then you cannot underftand words, nor the ftate of the contro- verfie J and will you venture before you underftand what you do ? 1 f any of you h ave taken up this opinion, and have not read and ftudied Mr. Qobbct 3 Mr. Church and other the chief Books, and been able (at left to himfelf) to confute them , yen have but difcovered a feared conscience, which either taketh error for no fin, or elfe dare venture on fin without fear, and have berrayed your own fouls by your laawaefo rojitwt Infant Church-memberjhip and Baj/tifme. Fofulon VI. THc overthrow of a mans own former weak grounds, is not the overthrow of the Tuuh which he held. I (hall here difcover\to you a moft frequent caufe of mens falling into errors. Almoft all men in the beginning do receive many Tiuths upon. 'weak or falfe grounds, and fo hold them a long time. Now fome men when by others arguments,or their own ftudies they are beaten out of their old argu- ments, do prefently fufpect the caufe it Cdf 5 as a man that leans on a broken ftaffe, who fals when it breaks : fe do they let fall the Truth with their own weak grounds 5 when alas there are far better grounds which they were not aware of. I am peifwaded that there is few among you that did ever receive the Do&rine of Infant baptifm on the bell grounds and arguments ; and then when you are driven off your old con- ceits, you fondly imagine the truth hath no better fupport then thefe. I dare fay } by Mi> T. his Books, that this is his own Cafe. *2 option V 1 1. THe overthrow of other mens weak arguments is no weakning of the Truth which they maintain : I cannot deny but fome Divines have argued weakly for Infant Baptifm, and ufed-fome unfit Phrafes , and brought fome mifapplyed Scriptures: Now it is eafie to v/rke three or four Books againft thefe, and feem to triumph, and yet the caufe be no whit fhaken. Some filly people think when they hear an imperti- nent Text put by, or fuch or fuch a man anfwered, that all is done : when it may be ail the moft plain Scriptures and beft .arguments have never been anfwered with /ence or reafon. V option VIII. ONe found Argument is enough to prove any thing true, if there were never an^ cther 3 and if all the reft fave that one were confuted. Falmood hath no one found Argument from Scripture or Reafon to defendit. It is not number but weight that muft carry it. Therefore I refolve not to heap up many. What if all the Texts were put by that are brought fave one ? Is not that enough ? There muft be two wit- neffes with men ; But Gods (ingle witneffe is as good as ten thoufand* Ifpeak no: this as if I had not many, but to re&ifie the ignorant in their fond conceits. Poption. IX. THe former and prefent cuftoms of the holyeft Saints and Churches,, mould be of great weight witfc humble moderate Chriftians in cafes controverted and be- yond their reach. Whatfoever ZMr.T. may pretend among the limple , I mail eafily prove, that Infant Baptifm wasufed in the Church as high to the A pottles days as there is any fufticient Hiftory extant to inform us: and that the deferring of Baptifm* came in with the reft of Popery, upon Popifli or hereticall grounds. And ever fince the Reformation, who knoweth not that it hath been the Judgements of the moft learned and holy, and generally is to this day. The Apoftle thought there was fome weight in that Argument, when he faid, We have no fuch Cuftem ncr the Churches of Godj of which read Mr, Cradoc\s Gofpel Liberty. Topt'ion 8 Thin Scripture ft oof of P option X. EVidcnt confequences or arguments drawn by Reafon from Scripture \ are as crue proof as the very exprefs word* of a Text. If you have the words without the meaning and reafon, you have no proof : fo the Devil ufed them to Chrift. Arid if you have the meaning and reafon 3 you have enough for evidence. Words are but to exprefs the fence. God writeth his Laws to tReafonsbie creatures , and without Realon they can make no ufe of it ; Reafon is the Efifence of the foul. He that hath it net in faculty, is not a man : And he that hath not the ufe of it,is!a mad man , or afleep, or in fome Apoplexie or the like difeafe : would it not make a man pity fuch fenflefs ignorant wretches , that will call for exprefs words of Scripture, when they have the Evident confequents or fence ? Is Scripture-Reafon, no Scripture t If I prove, That all Church -members muft be admitted by Baptifm,and then prove that Infants are Church- members 5 Is not this as much as to prove, they muft be Baptized? Cut thefe men arc not to be reafoned with, for it is Reafon they difclairn J we muft not difpute with them, for difputing is Reasoning : If they will once Re- nounce Reafon , then they are brute beaftV, and who will go to plead with a beaft ? It is reafon that difVerenceth a man from a beaft : But yet I may a little Queftion with them, and I will defire them to refolve me in thefe two points;, i Do you think the Lord Jcfuskntw a good argument , or the 'right way ef dif- puting? Why, how did he prove the Refurre&ion to the S adduces ? From that Text, r am the GodofAbraham } and oflfaac^and of Jacob. Would not one of thefe men,tf they had ftood by,have chidden Chriftfor this argument, and have faid, Give us a Text that faith, the dead mail rife ? Whats this to the Refurreft ion, that God is the God of Abraham ? Would not one of thefe men have reported abroad that Chrift was not able to confate the Sadduces t or to bring any Scripture for his Doctrines. What fay you ? will you allow of fuch an argument for Infant Baptifm as Chrift here brings for the Refurre&ion ? Will you confefs ir to be a fufficient Scripture proof? Nay, if I bring many Scriptures for that one which Chrift brought > and every one of them more plain and direct? C hrift knew better then you how to make ufe of Scrip- 'ture,and I fiial think it no weak arguing which is like to his- nor mall I take my felf to be out of the wiy while I foilow him. How many confequences muft here be to prove the Refurre&ion from this Text? i, If God be the Godot Abraham 3 then it will follow that Abraham in foul is living, 2. 1 his is not directly proved from this Text 3 but another principle muft be taken into fupport it, vl^. That God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Thefe men would have thought this no pro- ving, 3. l( Abrahams foul be living, thenhisbody muft needs beraifed. 4. If^« brabams body mall rife, then there is a Refurre&ion, and others alfo Aiall arife. By all thefe confequences muft the Refurrectionheacebe proved : And yet I dare fay this was currant Scripture proof. Now I mall goe yet a neerar way to work s and prove to yeu, That 1. It is the Will of God that fome Infants fliouid be Bap- tized. 2. That it is the Will of God that all Infants of Believers ordinarily fhould •be baptized. But before I come to thefe, I will firft prove to you thefe three Propo- rtions. 1. That the Queftion of Infant Baptifm is of greater difficulty then many en both ficfes will acknow'edg. 2. That in it feifcenfidered, it is of lefs moment them many on both fides do imagine. 3. Yet the grounds on which it is dinari- ly denyed , and the errors that are the ground or this their denyal; are of great moment. CHAP. Infant Church-memberjlrip andBaptifm. CHAP. II. Hat it is a Qneftion of difficulty, is evident frqm thefe two grounds, i. Pofitives about worfliip which are mentioned in Scripture but fparingly and darkly, muft needs be difficult : But the point in Queftion is fuck : therefore difficult. All the talk and difputing in the world will not make that cafie which God hath left obfeure. 2. Thofe points which the moft learn- ed Godly, impartial Divines cannot agree in after all their writing, difputing, ftu- dyin<*and praying, are certainly no eafie points : But this is fuch : therefore not eafie. Confidence and felfconceitednefse , may make many think it eafier then it Is, and fpeciaily when they know not what may be faid againft them. But if it be fo eafie why did you not fee into it fooner ? and why cannot fo many humblc^godly, learned men difcern it ;> Mr.T. hath told me that it is an eafie point: and in* anfwer to this ar"ument 3 he faid, That the reafon why all thefe Divines did not difcern it, was their wilfulnefs or negligence : and gave inftance in the Lutheran Confubftan* tiation. But I pray God never to fuflfer me fo far to overlive my humility 'and mo- defty, and confeiencioufnefs, as to fay, that almoft all the Divines on earth , except my felf are through wilfulnefs or negligence, Ignorant of thofe eafie things which I underfhnd.I confefs heartily that prejudice may do wonders in this kind. But that almoft all the humble,godly,leai ned men in the world mould be fo overcome by it in an eafie controverfie, who are fo incomparably beyond Mr. T. and me in holinefs, heavenlinefs, humility anc) underftanding ( very many of them ) I iheuld tremtle to pafs fo high a cenfure. Yet that you miftake me not 3 let me adde this caution 5 Though it be difficult,' yet far from that extream difficulty as feme other points are : And alfo that the grounds of it are very eafie and plain, though to many it be difficult to difcern how it is from thofe .grounds inferred. And therefore, though fome few learned and godly and humble men do doubt of it, yet in the whole known Chriftian part of the world there is but few. And though it be difficult to young ftudents 3 as itjwas about eight or nine years ago to my felf : yet to thofe that have dived into the true ftatc of the con- troverfie, it is far more eafie. I do not therefore by the difficulty difcourage you from Studying it, but would take you off from hafty conclufions, and let you know that you may think you know all when you know but little. And for Mr>T. I can- not choofe but obferve, that if he thinkc it is wilfulnefs or negligence that: keeps o- thcrs from being A nabaptifts, then it feemes that it was thefe that kept him from it fo long till of late years 5 (for fure be wil not fay that he was then more fincere then allhisbrethren^rhQUghhe may be now.) And if he had no better prefervativesa" gainft Anabaptiftry folong then wilfulnefs and negligence , it is little wonder to me that he is now revolted ; for indeed f if foj he was virtuaily one before. z. A/1 Y Second Conclufion was, That this controverfie in it felf confidered, is of lVlj c f s moiricnt then many on both fides imagine. Here 1. Let us fee what men judge of it. 2 What God judgeth ; and then I dial leave you to judge of this Conclufion. B 1. On io Plain Scripture proof of i. On the one fide fome think it no lefs then Hasrefie to deny Infant Bap- cifm, and to require Re-baptizing. Not that the generality of fober Divines dofo: For thonghfome of them do number Anabaptifts amsngH3ereticks,yet they mean no: that they are fo for the meer denyal of Baptifm to Infants, but for the reft of the errors which almoft ever do accompany it : On the other fide , many that are for Re baptizing, or a°ainft\ Infant Bnptifm, do think it a matter "of fc high mo- ment, that whofoever is not Baptized at age, you may not hear them preach, ner receive the Lords ?upper from them, nor with them, nor be of the fame Church with them, no no: pray with them in their families. O what abundance of my own rc- quaintance are of this opinion I Left you (hould think I wrong them 3 I had a dif- pute about this yery point in Coventry with one of the learnedft and ableft Anaban- tifts in £;zg/W,Mr Benjamin Coxe ("that I have met with) Whether it be lawfull to hear a Miniftcr not Baptized at age : And I have oneot his pepers yet to (hew ( for we agreed to manage it a laft by writing) but to my anfwer I could never procure his Reply. I pray God none of you come to this heigh- you; felves' Mr. T. hath confefled to me that he did preach to you in publikc, [ That to argue for Infant Bap- tifm from Circumcifion as Mr. M.T,tiii!ldoih y hBx:cCie 3 and oneof the fiift con- demned Haerefies in :hc Church] lb then Mr. Martiali is an Haerctick with him, and all the Divines in^he world that go his way. Thefe are the men that foftormedat others for calling fome grofler diflenters [Hasreticks] yea, and which is much more (if my notary fail not, and a multitude of hearers be not miilaken ) Mr T. faid, Th3t in this he hath told them the Truth of God,which if they obey not,[their bioud willlye on their own heads.] It feems then he thinks it a matter that mens bloud is like to be fpilt for : by which I conceive he means no leiTe then their damnation. And if fo , then.it muft needs be a fundamentall point and duty, of abfolute ne-" ceffity to falvation; or elfe he is fure that his hearers dificnt is through meer ob- ftinacy and wilfulnefs : but this (for all his means to convince them) he will fure never have the face to affirm $ for then he muft commit no lower a fin , then the challenging of Gods peculiar prerogative, ( to know mens hearts) and the amend- ing his Thronefto judge men for their thoughts;) therefore it feemeth evident to me, that Mr.fi doth take this for a fundamentall point; which the falvation or damnati- on of men doth neceflarily depend on ', or what he means to fay, [ Their bloud be on their own heads] I know not. And yet he blames the Papifts, for making Bap- tifm of neceftity to falvation ; and therefore I know not what he would here fix on. But it is the property of error to contradid it felf, as well as the Truth. Well, but doth God lay fo great a ftrefs on this point ? To them that have read our Divines againft the Papilts on this point , I need to fay nothing. Onely this briefly, i. It was the imperfe&ienof the old Law, that it cenfifted fo much of Cere- monials. 2. Someofitsabolimedceremonies^wereasthe Apoftle cals ir, Hcb- g. iQ.ftaQoecif Cd'TTJicuoti in divers Baptifmes, or wafhings 3 and carnal Ordinances. 3. God is a Spirit, and chofeth fpiritual worlhipers. 4. One main excellency of the tsofpel above the Law is, That it placeth lefs in externals,and freeth Believers from the Ceremonial Yoak 3 Therefore fure it layeth not our falvation now upon Cere- monies, f. Even when the worfliip was fo much in Ceremonies in the time of the Law, yet then did God dif-regard them in comparifon of Morals. Therefore he cals them vain oblations, and tels them he will hare mercy and-not facrifice, &c. Much more now. 6 The Gofpel having taken down Ceremonies , and fet up but two a- aeWj which we call Sacraments, though as duties they are all great which Scrip- ture enjoyneth, and the thing fignified by them is the foundation it felf , yet com- para- Infants Church ^membet flip and Baptifm. It paratively they muft needs be the fmalleft parts of fubftamial worfhip , confidered as in themfeUes, feing the Gofpel excelleth in introducing fpirit and life, inftead of Ceremony and Letter. 7. Even in ceremonious times, God would difpenfe with the great Ceremonies , when they were againft bodily welfare , in feverall ca* f-s. Though he threatned that the uncircumcifed fliould be cutoff, yet in the wil- dernefs forty years together becaufe of their travel, God did forbear the whole Na- tion in this Ordinance ; and doth he lay more^upon Baptifm now? 8. Mark further the language of the New Teftament, 1 Tim.4%. Bodily exercife profiteth little : Yec fome bodily exercife was a duty, 1 Cor. 7. 19. Circumcifion is nothing, and uncir* cumcifion is nothing , but the keeping the Commandements of God. And yet tincircumcifion then was a duty, So Gal. 5.1,2,3,6. Though Paul teftifies to them that, if they were circumcifed, Chrift (hould profit them nothing, andihey were debtors to the whole Law, yet he tels them, That in Chrift Jefus neither circumcifi- on availeth any thing, nor uncirenmcifion ( i. e. of themfelyes) but Faith which workethby love.sSo Col $.11. 2^.2.28,29. He is not a Jew which is one out- wardly, nor it that circumcifion which is outward in the &efh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and < ircumcifion is that of the hearty in the Spirit, not in the letter, &c. fee how meanly the Gofpel fpe.kerh of all meer external things. And when Paulfcw their divifions at Corinth, he rh inks God that he Baptized none of them (fave fome few);for Chrift fent him not co Ba tize, but to preach the Gofpel. But did^not God fend him at all to baptize- Yes j for 1. eifehehad finned in bapti- zing any. 2. The Apoftles were fent to preach and baptize, Mat. 28. and he was an Apoftle. But this was a fmall parr of his work in compai ifon of preaching^ and therefore not named co him at his particular fending, and therefore for the molt part he left it to others to baptize them, though he by preacaing converted them, and was their Father, 1 Cor.1.14 17. & 1 Cor. 4. if. Therefore C hrift baptized none himfelf, thoagh he would preach to one (illy wsman^^.^i. The I'apifts objeft e- fpecially tv.'o tents 3 5M..w. 16 16. He that believeth and is baptized (hall be faved : But it faith only,He that believeth not is condemned; not, he that is not baptized. Hcb.6.z T he Dodrine of Baptifms is called one of the foundations. Anf. 1. That is for its precedency in order of time, becaufe it is firft laid, and not becaufe it bear- eth up the building. Every ftone under the»Sill fupports not the houfe. 2. But the right anfwer to this^ and all other the like is this : When Baptifm is fo extolled, it is the thing fignified by Baptifm, and done in it,and given by it jwhich is chiefly meant, and not the meer externall wafhing : If we engage faithfully to Chrift without that wafhing.it bringeth thofc excellencies. Therefore 1 Ptf.3.21. when he had fpokc of Baptifm faving, left they mould miftake, he adddeth, not the putting away the filth of the flelh, but che anfwer of a good coafcience towards God 5 As faith is hid to Juftifie, when the thing chiefly intended is Chrift believed in. Yet all this extenuates not their (in on the other extream, who are ' above both this and all Ordinances. All C hrifts commands muft be obeyed, both great and imal, fo far as we know them. But this moft evidently you may gather hence that if this be fo dinacult 5 and yet comparatively fo fowl a point;then certainly thofe Chriftians that make it a chief part of their ftudy and conference, and lay out at leaft one half of their zeal about it, are fure deluded by the deVil : and if they were in the truth herein, yet fure that truth is a (hare to them, and like to prove the occaiion of their ruin. They will fay That all truths are precious , and none to be fet light by, or accounted fmall : True, Who knows not chit ? Bu though none be fmall abfolucely, yet many areve- 1 2 Plain Scripture proof of Tyfmall in companion of greater; orelfeour Creed muft be as big as the Bible. Truths are exceeding marty, and our duty very large and weighty ; our capacity is" fmall to underftand them, and our time fhort to ftudy and practice them. Preachers that ftudy all their lives, do yet know but very little, in comparifon of all that which they are ignorant of. Therefore the greateft Truths and duties muft befirft made fare of, and moft of our time bellowed in them. Some Truths are of flat neceflity to falvation, fo are not all, nor moft, nor but few : The moft necelTary, God hath made moft plain 3 He hath not hang'd mens falvation upon difficult fmall controverted points, which poor people are utterly unable to reach. When men are certain that after all their ft uciy they fliall leave moft Truths unknown, is it their wifdomtochofeout thefsnalleft ? and leave the greateft? oris not this a plain betraying of their own fouls ? ? I dare fay, that ordinarily if you lay out but the humireth part ofyour time, your ftudy, your talkj or your zeal upon this Queftion either for or againft it, that- you will never be able to juftifie it : perhaps if I faid the thoufand part. For as there are a multitude of other Truths and duties to be flrft learned , fo fome one of thofe may be of a hunired times more moment % and may require a hundred times more of your time, and ftudy, and zeal. How few did I ever meet with who are the eager difputers about Baptifm and fuchlike, that are able to give a rational account of the great do&rines of faith? or that are acquainted with the daily practice of a profitable and heavenly life , or with that conftant pains that is neceflary for mortifying their flefti, for watching ever their hearts and ways, and for walking with God ? Nay how evidently do thefe difputings deftroy all this, and eat out the very life and power of Godlinefs ? As if they wtre the- great- eft plague and mifchlef in the Church. 3 -\A ^ next P ro P ou ^ on * s this '• Though the point of Infant Baptifm be compa- d-» -"-ratively of lefs moment then many judge $ Yet the grounds on which it ftan- deth, and which wfually are denyed by thofe that deny it, are of very great moment ; And therefore though the bare denying of water to Infants be no great or dangcrcus Error in it feif confidercd.yet as it confiftcth of all its parts,it is very great.I do not now fpeak of all or any of thofe other errors which the feveral forts of Anabaptifts do hold, but onely this about ieny ing the grounds of Infant Baptifme. For example ; They all (that ever I fpoke with,) do deny all Infants their Member mip, and room in the Viiible Church - y and that is another matter then to deny them Water. They de- ny them (ufually)any part in the Covenant of God : (except when they fpeak like Antinemians ©f the abfolute Covenant, calling Gods Election, or his difcovery of an Election ingenetall [his Covenant: j and this no parent in the world can fay that his Child hath intercft in, as themfelves will confefs. ) Aifo they deny the very naturall intereft which parents have in their children, to make Covenants in their name and behalf. They call that common and unclean ( at leaft confequencially ) which God hath made and called holy. They give us a new model of the viiible Church of their own making in the very materials of it. T he/ provoke Chrift to an- ger in forbidding children to be brought to him into his Church. They repeal a con- siderable part of the Old Teftament 3 which they can nev^r prove that God hath re- peai'd:and wh^t belongeth to them that adde to the Word, or take from it, ycu know. They take down the Arguments which parents iliould ufe to prove the Jufti- fication and falvation of their Children. They leave parents no true ground to be- lieve or Hope for the ialvation of their Children which dye m Infancy, according to the Infant Church-inemhtrjhip and Baptifm. i 3 the received definitions of faith and Hope 5 For they deny them any promife of faTration ; and Faith and Hope go upon the ground of the Promife : They deny them entrance into the vifible Church 3 which is far wider then the invifible , and therefore leave but little hope that they ihould be admitted into Heaven ( according to their Doctrine,) where are none but reall Saints, when they may not be admitted in:o the Chirch, which alfo concaineth many workers of iniquity; jtf.2M3.41. They (hut them cut of the Houfe of God : They leave them as much out of the Church as the Children of Turks and Pagans : They make the time of the Law to be incom- parably more full of Grace to Children then the times of the Gefpel : They make the Jews in this refpeft to be exceeding loofers by Chrifts coming, even thofe Jews that believed in him : They make God to tin- Church and dif-franchife men before they have forfaken him 3 and to puniili fome for the fins of others j when they ab- horred and renounced thofe fins : They make God unfaithful in his Covenanted to break Covenant with thofe that kept Covenant with him > They make God more prone far to feverity then to mercy,and to fhew more wrath againft the Infants of the wicked,then mercy to the Infants of his Saints ; They make even the very Gemiles themfelves to l?e in a far worfe ftate 3 inre(pe&of their Children, then they were in the time of the Law, when the Gentiles were Strangers and Dogs. They exceeding- ly derogate from the free Grace of the Gofpel, reftraining and confining its unfpeak- able Riches : They deny our Children thofe mercies which God hath eftated or them in the very Morall Law : They lay dangerous grounds of derogating from the Lord Jcfus himfeif, while he was an Infant. Laftly, they do plainly play the Devils part in accufing their own Children , and difputing them out of the Church and Houfe of God 3 and out of his Promifes and Covenant^ and the priviledges that ac- company them, and moft ungratefully deny, *eje&, and plead againft the mercies that Chrift hath purchafed for their Children, and made over to them. It becometh not a disputant peremptorily to conclude againft his adverfary be- fore proof : Bat this I may fay, That in my judgement they are truly guilty of all this, without any uncharitable or partiall cenfuring them, or any forced wrefting of their fpeeches : And if God will, I lhall prove all thefe to you particularly ; and till then I defire your patience 5 and that you will not conclude that I wrong them till you hear my proofs. I Come now to provemy firft Propofition., z>i^. {That it u the Will of God that fome Iafantsjbouldbe Bapti'^ed'] or [That fome infants ought to be Bapti^d'] And here let me give you notice, that I intend not to meddle much with thofe Arguments that o- thers have already fully managed , feeing that would be but to fpend time and labour in vain j you may read them in many Books } and though I confefs few have im-; proved them as they might have done, or managed them in the moft forcible way 3 yet 1 believe a judicious, del iberate 3 impaniall Reader will foon difcern, that the An- fwers fo much Boaited of. are meerly frivolous : A multitude there are in Latine that were never anfwered that I can learn. And fo are there many in English, especially MrXobbet, which I conjecture will nev j r be fatisfaclorily Anfwered. I mall there- fore pafs over moft that they have faid, fuppoiing that none of you dare venture upon novelty, till you have firft read, and well weighed at leaft the chief Authors and Ar- guments already in Print. And though I fhail ufe many of the Scrip ure proofs that others do make ufe of, yet it fnall be in another way, and to another end : I will not ftand to ufe many Arguments^ but rather drive home a few : And indeed^were it not B 3 that 14 Plain Scripure poof of that I mufl not overpafs that which my Text affordeth, I would fpend all my time upon one only, which is drawn from the Medium of Infants Church.memberfhip ; as being that which doth moft throughly convince my own Judgement : or atleaft, but one more, which is drawn from the duty of their foiemn Engagement to God. But though I refolvc to ftand moft on thefe, yet I muft begin with this in my Text, For the Explication of the Text, I will {pare time and labour, and ftand to moft of that which Mr. T. hath given you already. I fay as he, that the verb y^{jiv Relatively ; as being of the number of thofefthat be- long to Chrift, as Mafter and King of the Church, and deftinated or devoted to his ovcrfight and rule, and Teaching for the future .* Thus Believers Infants are Difci- ples : Of which I lhall give you the proofs anon. 2. Sometime the word is taken in a narrower fence, for thofe who are actually Learners. But commonly applyed to men at age, it includeth Both the Relation and Subordination,and alfo Aduall learning, but the former principally : but applyed to Infants, it intendeth the Relation as pre- fent 7 and aduall learning as one end of it, intended for the future. 2. To the making of a Difciple there muft concur, 1 . Somewhat properly caufall, i.e. Effective j 2. Somewhat Conditionall. The former is Geds part, the later mans. It is Chrift that maketh himfclf Difciples 5 in regard of the Form of a Difciple,which is Relative (vi% His Relation tothj Mafter of the Church before mentioned) fo Chrift maketh Difciples diredly by his Grant, Gift, or Promife in his Law or Co- venant. John 1. it. It is faid of Believers at age.that To them that Receive him be giv?th power to become the Son* of God. To be Gods fons is a Relative Priviltdge : What is the caufeof this ? Why the Text tels you 5 It is Chiifts Gift .- he giveth them Pow- er, or Priviledge, or Title to it j And how doth he give this ? Not by a voice from Heaven, but by his Laws, or written Promife, or Grant, which containeth all mens Legail 1 itles. and according to which their Titles muft be nyed at Judgement. But in regard of the matter of a Difciple, God beftoweth it in a N^prall way ; for it is nothing-bur our Being. 2. The condition of Difciplefiiip, is wharpteafes the free Lawgiver to make. If he had enaded that of S:ones mould be made Childrencr Diiciples to him, it mould have been Cq. But the condition which he requirerh,is but the Confent of every man at age for himfelf and of Parenrs for themfelves and their Children, that they dedicate^ give up. or enter themfelves under him as the only Ra- fter for them and their Children: and upon this condition he will take them and their C hildren (0 devoted fur his Difciples. All this lhall beproY^d anon. In a word j the Parents Infants Church- member [hip and Baptifm. X 5 Parents Faith is the conditionfor himfelf and his Infants. The Caufes of this con* dition of Difcipkfhip, or Church-memberfhip, may improperly be calka the caufes of our Ditcipldhip it felf: but properly thrift by his Law, or Covenanttgrant is the only caufe E ffkient. We do not therefore fay, th3t the Faith of the Parent is the caufe either ofhis own, or his Childspriviledge of Church-membermip. no more then of their Juftification , ©r Salvation , but only the condition 5 And when we fay that Children are born Chriftians, or Difciples , we do not make their Nature or Birth- nriviledge any caufe of it, but Gods gift is the caufe 5 and that they be born of Be- lieving Parents, is but [ to be thofe perfons whom the Law of Chrift judgeth to have intereft in the Condition, and fo in the Priviiedge. ] CHAP. III. Come now to my n\ ft Argument, which (from the TextJ is this. All that are Chrifts Difciples, ordinan'y ought to be Bapti^d : But fome Infants are Chrifts Difciples : Therefore fome Infants ordinarily ought to be Baptised. By [ Difciples ] in both Propofitions I mean as in the Text ; Thofe that are dejure 3 or incompleatly Difciples 5 as a Souldiernot yet lifted or a King not yet Crowned. I put in the word [ ordina-, rily ] becaufe there may fall out feverall Cafes wherein God wii! difpenfe with exter- nall Baptifm to Yong or Old j as he did with Circumcifion to the Jews Children forty years in the Wil dernefs. Morals naturall take place of Politives. God will have Mercy rather then Sacrifice. The Major Propofition is' evident in the Text, from the conjun&ion of the two Commands : Go maty me Difciples , Baptising them. If any mail be Co quarrclfome againft the plain Text, as to fay, It is not all Difciples that they were commanded to Baptize, but only all that were made Difciples, and this Making was only by Teach- ing I anfwer : 1. If I prove Infants Difciples , I fure prove thereby that they were Made fo, or elfe they had never been 10. 2. By Teaching, the Parents and Children were both made Difciples : the Parents Directly, the Infants Remotely,or Mediatly : If they be proved once to be Difciples, it will eafily follow it isby this way. He that converterh the Parent , maketK both him and his Infant Difciples incompleat, or in Title 5 This therefore lies on the proof of the Minor. 3. Bur I would fay more to this, but that Mr. T, (as I underftand) hath in his Sermons profeffeel, That if we will prove that Infants are Chrifts Difciples , he will acknowledge that they ought to be Baptized: the like he granted to me 5 and well he may. That Infants are Chrifts Difciples, and fo called by the Iloly Ghoft, is moftevi- dent t© any that will notgrofly pervert the Text, or overlook ir, in Acl. 15.10. why tempt ye God, to put ayt\e onthenec\ of the Difciples , which neither our Fathers nor vac vaere able to bear ? Now who were thefe Difciples ? No doubt thofe on whom the falfe teachers would have laid the yoke. And what was that yoke > It is plain it was Circii5ncifion,as neceffary,and as engaging them to keep the Law. And whom would they have perfwaded thus to be Circumcifed ? Why both the Parents and Children in that Age, and only the Children in all following Ages ordinarily. So that thus I ar- gue : Thofe on whofe necks the falfe'Teachers would have laid this yoke were Difci- ples : But fome, yea moft of thofe were Infants, on whofe necks they would have laid this *6 Plain Scripture proof of this yoke : Therefore fome Infants are Difciples, and Co called here. The Major is* - plain in the Text. If any will fay,That it is not Alljbutfome of thofe on whom they would have laid the Yoak, that are here called Difciples, that is, only them at Age : Ianfwer,Then it is but fome onely, whofe Circumchion the Apoftle and theSy- nod doth conclade againft, that is, thofe of Age ; For he fpeaks againft laying the Yoak on none but Difciples : And then for any thing the Apoftle £aith, or this Sy« nod, all Infants might be circumcifed ftill : whicltis a raoft grofs abfurdity > when the very bufinefs of this Synod was to Decree againft the neceflity of Circumcifion and the Law. What is further Replyed to this, I fiiall meet with anon. But the Mi- nor is it that Mr. JT. dcnyeth : He faith , it was not on the neck of Infants that they would have put the Yoak. I prove it was the Infants alfo, thus : If it were In. fants alfo whom the falfe Teachers would have had to be CircBmcifed as necdTaryJ and as engaging to Mofes Law, then it was Infants a alfo on whom they would have laid the Yoak : But it was Infants alfo whom they would have had circumcifed, &c. Therfore &c.The Antecedent is undeniable, [7^. That it was Infants alfo that they would have had Circumcifed] in z/^-.i.except ye be Circumcifed after the mancr of CMofesyt cannot be faved.If they would have had them Circumcifed after themaner of Mofes, then they would have Infants alfo Circumcifed : "ut they would have had them Circumcifed after the manner oOMofcs : therefore Infants alfo. For after the manner of Mofes, all the Profelytes Children mould be Circumcifed as well as they * y and ever after , all their Pofterity at eight days old. But it is the coflfequencc that Mr.T. denyeth j for he faith It is not Circumcifion, as neceffary, and as en- gaging to Mofes Law,which was the Yoak, but it was the De&rine of thofe Teach- ers. But was Mr.T. of this mind when he wrote thefe wards? exam. //. 10 1. [Now I pray you what was this Yoak(^#j 15 10.) hut Circumcifion as your felf declare p.3 9. and all the legal Ceremonies which were great priviledges to the Jews? but yet to us it is a priviledge that we are freed ftom them;and if it be a priviledge to be free from Circumcifion,&c.] But I (hall prove to thofe that are willing to know the truth,' that it was Circumcifion as neceffary and engaging to Mofes Law, that was that Yoak. 1. The Text faith fo three times over, vsrft 1. They taught the brethren, Except ye be Circumcifed after the manner of Mofes ye cannot be laved: And vet ft ?. They taught. It was needfull to Circumcife them, and to command them to keep the Law of Mofes : And vtrft 24. faying, Ye muft be Circemcifed and keep the Law. 2. It appeareth evidently from the fame vcrfe 10. the Yeak which neither our Fa- thers nor we were able to bear;That which neither their Fathers nor they were able t -> bear, was the Yoak there meant : But it was Circumcifion as neceffary and engaging to keep the Law, and no: the Dodrine of thefe falfe Apoftl.es, which their Fathers and they were not able to bear; therefore Sec. The Major is m the Tex- ; The Mi- nor is plain; 1. In thar there is no mention in the Scripture of the Fathers being fo burthened with that fa i fed oft line • bu: there is mention enough of their being burthened with rhe Law and Circumcifion as engaging to it. 2. It was true and good doftrine before Chrift, which rhefe falfe Apoftles taught, v'^. That except they were Circumcifed aad kept the Law they could not be faved : I mean as to the Jews it W2S true (for I will not now meddle with th it great Contr-overfie, Whether the Gentiles were bound to keep 7/lofts Law ; I know what Grotius, Fraru^ius, &c\ fay on one fide, an^ cloppenburgius and many more on the other ) Eut Mr^ T. faith, it was the Phi- rifees do&riueef being Juftifiedby the Law, which was the Yoak. But I anfwer. 1. The Pharifees were not of fo leng continuance, as to be the burthen of the Fa- Infant Church member flu f andBaptifm. 1 7 Fathers by their doctrine, x. Thefe in the Text taught but a neceffity that thofe who Believed in Chrift mould be Circumcifed and keep the Law; fo did not the Pharifes. $. The Doctrine is no further a Yoak then as it hath reference to Circumcifion and keeping the Law,in pra Law, J $ flaw Scripture proof of Law, which is here meant; is plain in Ga\ 5.1*1,3. No doubt,either thofe that mif- taught the Galathans were the fame with thefe, or their companions teaching the fame doctrine , and theiefore *?*/// there decideth the fame caufe $ and mark what he cals the yoak : ftanu faft in the liberty wherewith Chrift hath made us free,3nd be not en- tangled again wiih the Yoak cf bondage. Behold I Paul fay onto you, that if ye be Circumcifedj Chrift lhall profit you nothing. For I teftifie again to every man that is Circumcifcd, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Is not he wilfull 3 that yet will fay, that the yoak is onely the Doctrine of the falfc teachers 3 and not Circumci(ion as engaging to keep the Law ? Well but Mr, T. hath one argument for his conceit, v and but one that I have j^pfc heard, and that is like the conceit it feif. If (faith he ) Putting on the Yoak be onelv by teaching, then the yoak it felf is only the Do&rine, and confecjuently it was to be put on none but thofe that could be taught. Auf. I de- ny both the confluences, and he will never prove them. For i By [putting] he confeifeth is m.'ant [an endeavour to put] .• therefore it muft bs more then the bare duetrine : And if by doctrins they prevail to perfwade the people of the necefiTuy of practice,, Tn fo doing they pat on them both the misbelief and the mifpractice. 2. The later confluence is as falfe ; For he that perfwadeth a parent to Circumcife himfelf and his child,doth as properly put that burden of Circumcifion on the child as on the parent. Though he teach onely the Parent, yet by teaching the parens he puts the burden on both. If the Parliament lay an oppreffing taxe, and command only theof- ficers to do it in point ofexecution 3 yet they lay it on all. If they make a Law that you (hall take your children and go out of the Land 5 though the Law fpeak but to you,yet thereby they lay the burthen of Banilhment on your children as well as you. If a man perfwade you to lift and engage your felf and your children among the Turks Gaily flaves : doth not his perfwafion as truly lay this burden on your children as on you ? though on your felves mere immediately (and yet not immediately neither 3 for it is your felves that muft do it) and on them more mediately. It is an illcaufe that muft be upheld by fuch (illy wrangling againft the plain Scripture. I leave it now to any impartial Reader to judge,Whether all thofe whom the falfe Apo- ftles would have burdened with Circumcifion be not here by Peter called Difciples? and whether many* (yea mcftj of thofe were not Infants? It being after the maner of Mofes that they would have theraCircumcifed j and confecjuently, whether thofe In- fants were not Difciples? . Argument . 1 1. MY Second Argument to prove that fome Infants are Difciples 3 's this ; If no In- fants are Difciples, then it is either becaufe they are not capable^ or elfe becaufe God will not (hew them fuch a mercy : But neither of thefe can be the caufe ; there- fore that no Infants are Difciplesjs falfe doctrine : My. T. to this gave this Anfwer^ [That the reafon why they are not Difciples, is, becaufe they have not Learned ] Reply, But, alas., that fueh an Anfwer mould fatisfie fuch a man I Is this any third Caufe ? Or is it not evidently reducible to one of the former > For if their unlearn- ednefs hinder them from being Difciples, either it muft be becaufe it maketh or fhew- cth them uncapable 3 or becaufe God will no: fhew the unlearned fo great mercy. I • (hall therefore prove to you that neither of thefe can be the caufe 3 and confecjuently no ether, and fo there is no fuch thing. 1. If Infants are capable of being fervants of God , then they are capable of being Difciples. For as they fignifie here the fame thing and denote the Kme fotc of per- fon?,' Infants Church member {hip And Baptifm. \ p fons, fo there Is the fame capacity rcquifite to both : Or if you will make a difference, there i< more required to a Servant then to a Difciple. I3u: liafanu are capable of being Gods fervants : This is plains For the Lord God himfelf doth call them his fervants, Lcvit. z<. 41, 42. They are commanded in the year of Jubile to let their brother that was fold to them, and his children depart j and the reafon is added [ for they are my fervants.'] That Infants are here included a- mong [his children] cannot be denyed, or doubted of. {Mr. T. begun to deny it, but he quickly recalled it. ) Is not here then direction enough to help us to Judge of the mini of Giod, whether Infants are his Servants and Difciples or no ? Doth not God call them his fervants himfelf? What more (hould a man expe& to warrant him to do fo ? Men call for plain Scripture 5 and when they have it, they will not receive it 5 fo hard is it to Infoi ma foreftalled mind. It may be Tome may fay, They were then capable of being Gods fervants, but they are not fo now. But this were a wretched anfwer. For their capacity was the fame then and now : Infants then were like In- fants now. (For Gods will towards them, we are next to enquire after it.) Nay, may I not make this a third Argument of it felf ? If God call Infants his Servants, though they can do him no fervice, then we may call them fo too : For we may fpeak as God doth : But God doth call them fo3 Therefore we may. Again, If God call Infants his Servants, though they are uncapable at prefent of doing him fer- vice, then we may call them Difciples, though at prefent they are uncapable of learn- ing .' But God doth fo call them; Therefore we may, &c. Hath lie a good wit now, or a bad mind, that can raife a duft for the darkening of fo exprefs and plain a Text ? And yet ftillcall for Scripture proof? I will deal faithfully in telling you Mr. T. his Anfwer to this, and that upon deliberation in his Sermon after the difpure 1. He di- ftinguilheth of Servants of God dejure &• de facto. 2 Between Servants Actively and Paflively ; and faith that [here the term Servant is meant Paflively and not Actively; That is, fuch as God ufeth : And that they are called Servants here in no other fence then the Heavens and the Earth are, P/al, 1 1 q, 2$ 2 00. They are thy Servants 5 Are they therefore Difciples (faith he ? ) what ridiculous arguing is this. So Mr. 7'] O what caufe have we all to look to the tendernefs of eur Conferences in time, be- fore engagement in a finfuil caufe hath benummed them, and made the word of God to be of no force to us ? I know mallow brains are uncapable to difcern the weaknefs of the fiilieft anfwer 3 they go that way as their affection doth byas them : their ap- probation of an argument or anfwer is no credit to it. But let any man of a telerabie undcriianding and confeience not feared, but weigh ferioufly this anfwer, and f dare warrant he will think it a bad caufe that muft be underpropt by (uch palpable abufe of Scripture. For 1. He faith they are fervants of God de jure', bat not de facia ^ in ri^ht, but not in deed : But a Servant is a Relation^ that is the form of it ; StYvid eii cl- mmifervm. And have they only a right to this Relation ? Who then, or what hm- dreth them from 'poiTsfling the Relation which they have right to ? Is is net God that giveth them right to this Relation ? And is not.thattogivs them the Rela- tion it felf ? I would he would tell us what more he giveth them that have the Relati- on it fetfdefaclo (for I fuppofehe dare not interpret ic of a future Right. ) 2. Wh» - ther they are fervants Actively or Paflively, is nothing to the being or form of the Relation; they are fervants of God ftill. And it feems by this anfwer, that if Go i had called Infants Difciples never fo oft, Mr. T. would have put God eiTwith his di- ftindion, and faid, They are Difciples Paflively, but not Actively. For 3 What rea- fon can he give why they may not be called Difciples in a paflive fence , as well a s Servants ? 4. Doth not God bid his Apoftles Baptize thofe that were Difciples with- D cu: zo Plain Scripture proof of out diftinguifhing ? Or doth he bid them Baptize A&ive Difciples, but not Paflive ones? Where is that diftin&ion in the Command ? 5^Butlmallbe bold to take it for one of Mr. T. his 66 ions, and a mecr faimood,that Infants are here called Ser- vants paflively only, till he have dencfomewhat to prove it 5 to which end he hath not fpokc one word, as thinking it feems that he fpoke to men that wiil take his.word. Why may they not be called Servants from the mecr Intereft of Dominien that God hithtothem? And Authority over them ? Are Infants the Kings Subjefts or Ser- vants in a paflive fence only ? Is it not foundation enough for the Relation of a Ser- vant , it tjed will own them fo, and number ihem with his Family of meer grace though he mould make no ife of them ar all ? Or if there muft be more : May they not befo called , as being deli mated to his feivice for the futu:e i And fo they may have the Relation before the Service : which is common with thole men that buy Children with their Parents for their future fervice. So EccL z. 7. read it. 6. Bur the groffeft is yet behind : (as the wot ft of Error is ft ill at laft 3 and the Arther a man goes that is out of his way, the further hegocsamifs.) Would any man think that fuch a man as My.T. can pofTibly believe that Infants are called Gods Servants in no other fence then the Heavens and Earth are ? L-,t me a little reafon this cafe : 1. Are the Heavens only paflfive Servants of God ? Is that good Pfailoiophy ? 2. What if the Earth and Infants were both called Servants only in a Paflive fence , becaufe God maketh ufe of them ? Is it therefore in the fame fence ? Is it the fame ufe that God roaketh of both ? What if Chrift were called Gods Servant for bis fufTering ? Shall we fay it were in no other fence then the Earth is fo called ? When the ufe and fuffer- ings are fo unlike } What if I p-ove (as me thinks with Mr, T I might eafily dojthat the Heavens are Gods fervants Actively, and Chrift alfo is called his fe vant Active- ly } Doth it follow that they are fervants in the fame fence,, when the A&ion is fo un- l.ke ? 3. Hath not God prev.nted all thefe Cavils, by joyning Parents and Chil- dren together in the fame title ? He faith of Parents and Children both together, They arc my Servants : where it is evident that both therefore have the fame kind of Relation. And will he fay that the Parents are only Paflive] y Servants > 4 Or if all this be not enough, yet lock iurther 3 where God himfelf relsyou the reason why he cals them his Servants (who knows better then Mr. T.) They are my Servants which I brought out of Egypt, &c. Gcds Intereft and merciful! choice of them, and feparati- on to himfelf is the Reafon. When God calleth us his Servants^ it oftnerfignifieth the honour and priviledges of that Relation which in mercy he cals us to,then any Ctivice we do him therein. Art the Heavens Gods fervants becaufe he brought them out of Egypt, and feparated them to himfelf as a peculiar people ? 5. Yctif all this benot enough, he that will fee, may be convinced from this : The Jews and their Infants- are called Gods iervants in a fence peculiar, as chofen and feparatcd from all otherr. The Gentiles at age were not fo Gods fervants as the Jews Infants were. If Gedca'l th:fe Infants his Servants in no other lence then the Heavens and the Earth, then it feems in the year of Jubile men muft rcleafe the Earth from itsfervice to them : But DA,. T. knows th:t e«n the Gentile fervants 3 that were actively fo, were not to be re- leafed in the year of Jubile : And therefore the Jews and their Infants are called G&ds fervants in another fence then Jie Heavens, or the Heathens cither 3 even as • the chofen feparated people of God, and members of his family. Or elfe how could it be a Keafon foi rcleafing them in the year of Jubile.any more then for releasing any othei ? lut no Scripture can befo plain ; but a man that hath a mind fo difpofed^miy find fome words of contradiction. 2. That Infant Chwch -member fhif and Baptifm, 21 T! 'Hat Infants are capable of being Difciples of Chrift, T prove thus. If Infants arc capable of being fubjccts of Chrifts Kingdom, then they are capable of be- in^ his Difciples ; But rhey arc capable of being his fubjtfts 5 1 herefore of being Dffciples. 1 he reafon of the confequencc lyeth here 3 in that Chrifts Church is at leaft as properly called his Kingdom as his School ; and therefore every member of it is under him both as King and Prophet. I fpeak not here of his Kingdom in the lar eft fence, as it containeth all the woild ; nor yet in the ftrifteft, as itcontaineth onfy his i left : but in the middle fence, as it containeth his Church vifible, as it is moft commonly ufed. To affirm that Chrift is their King, and they his Subjefts^nd yet that they are none of his Difciples,, would be Yery grofs. Yet becaufe we muft e x- peft the grofTcft from thefe men, I will prove it by one Scripture Argument^ that All Chrifts Subjects are Difciples 3 thus. If all that are Subjects of Chrift in his vifible Kin CT do!n (or C hurchj be Chriftians, and all Chrift ians be Chrifts Difciplesj then all fuch Subjcfts of Chrift are Difciples : But all fuch Subjects are Chriftians, and All Chrift ians are Difciples j Therefore all fuch Subjects arc Difciples. See Epbef. 5. 24.-TheConfequenceis beyond qucftion. The Antecedent hath two parts. The firft is [ That all fuch Subjects of Chrift areChriftians. ] If any will be fo impu- dent as to deny this, I think them not worth the Confuting : For if Chrift be King in that fpeciali fence ever thofe that are no Christians 3 and if men may be fo his Subjects and members of his Churchy and yet be no Chriftians^then [know not what a Chriftian is. T he fecond part is this [ I hat All Chriftians are Chrifts Difciples.] This is it that more neerly concerns the caufe 3 For then certainly if I prove Infants Subjects, I prove them Chriftians 3 and if I prove them Chriftians, I prove them Dif- ciples 5 And this the Holy Ghoft hath done in exprefs words. Act. 11. 26. The Dif- ciples were called Chriftians firft at Antioch ; So that Difciples and Chriftians in the language of the Holy Gheft is all one. Now for the Antecedent in my Argument [That [nfants are capable of being Chrifts Subjects ] 1 It is evident that they are capable of being Subjects in any Kingdom on Earth 3 and therefore why not of t!ie Kingdcm of Chrift i 2. Nothing can be ihewed to prove them unc3pable. 3. They were actually fubjects of Chrifts Kingdom before h*s coming in the fle:l) 3 and therefore they are capable of being fo afterward. That they were actually Subjects before , needs no proof with thofe who grant thefe two things : 1. That they were members of the jewilh Church (at leaft) before. 2. That the Jewifn Church was part of Chrifts Kingdom : And he that will deny either of thefe is far gone. 3 mall further prove to the full that they were Subjects of Chrift, when I come to the Argument drawn from vihble Church membership. Thus L have proved that it canno; be for wan: of capacity in them,ii Infants be not Difciples. T.Am next to proYe[That it cannot be becaufe God will nor fhew them Uch mercy] -*and then there can be nothing clfc to hinder] nfants froa b:ing . Jr ii1sDifci»->!cs. Asfot thofe that fay, It is no mercy to Infants to be Difciples of Chrift, or Chri- ft hns I (hall deal with them anon, under the Argument from Church memberfhip ; Thou Ji one would think that no msn mould ever affirm fuch a thing , that were not an infi Jell or enemy to '■■ rrift l therefore argue thus. If infants in the Jews Church were Servants and DiicipLs of <. h: ift , and God meweth as great and greater mercy D 3 to 22 Plain Scripture f roof of to his Church now 5 rhen it cannot be becaufe God will not ("hew them fuch mercy if Infants now be not Difcipies } But Infants in the Jews Church were Servants and Difciples of Chrift $ and God ihewetb as great and greater mercy to his Church now 3 Therefore i: caanot be becaufe he wilfnot (hew them fuch mercy., if they are not now Difciples. I hope I need not ftand to prove, That the Jews Church was Chrifts Church, and that they were his Difciples 5 ( though not fo fully and explicitly as now) Chrift was then the King as Mediator , upon undertaking to pay our debrj he that pieferved., juftified, fandiHcdj &c. Abraham faw his day and rejoyced, John 8.56. It was the reproach of Chrift which Mofes furfered in Egypt , Heb. u. 16. Mofes himfelf was a fervant of Chrift, and fubordinate to him ; No man ever performed any acceptable fervice to God fince the fail, but in Chrift ; Therefore all that fervice then was under him. No man ever received any mercy from God fcfpecially faving) fince the fall, but for and from Chrift. I proved before that their Infants are called Gods fervants as 3 peculiar People, Lcv.zj, 41,42. And then they muft needs be Chrifts Servants, and that is all one as to be his Difciples. The Jews fay, We are CMofcs Difciples An op- position to their being Jeius Difciples, J§bn 9- a8. Therefore it is evident they took the word [Difciple] in the fame fence in both. But Infants alio were Mofes Difciples (and fo Chrifts, to whoai Mofes was fubordinate. ) But all this will be yet fuilyer proved anon. 3."\iY Third Argument to prove that fome Infants are Difciples, is this, from -iV A Chrifts own words. If Chrift would have fome Children received as Difci- ples 3 «hen they are Difciples ; Bur Chrift would have fome fuch received as Difciples^ Therefore fome fuch are Difciples. Ail the Queftion is of the Antecedent 5 and that is plain in LulfC 9. 47, 48, compared with Mat. 18.5. and Mar. q. 41. He that rcceivctb this Child in my namc> rccciveth mc H ere obferve, 1 . It was the Child him- felf that Chrift would have received, i* He would have him received [in his name; ] now that can mean no lefs then as a Difciple : When they are baptized, it is into his name : And that which in Lti\e is called [receiving in Chrifts name] is expreflVd in Marl{ [one that belongethto Chrift] and in {Matthew [in the name of a Difciple.] T hough fome of thefe places fpeak of Infants^ and fome of ochers: yet compared, they plainly tell you this • That to receive [in Chrifts name] and [as belonging to Chrift] and [as a Difciple of Chrift] in Chrifts language is all one 5 for they plain- ly exprefs the fame thing intended in all. So that Chrift hath encouraged me to re- ceive Children [in his name] Lu\e 9. 47. And he expoundeth it to me 3 that this is to receive them [as belonging] to him, and as [ Difciples. ] I know fome frivolous an- fwers are made to this j but they are not worth the ftanding on. Mr. Blades rtrgu- ment hence remained: as good as unanfweied. THus I have proved to you, that Jnfants are Chi ifts Difciples., and Chrift faith in my Text, Difciple me 3II Nations, Baptizing them : iothat being Difciples, we are commanded to baptize them. Me thinks this- is plain to thofe that can lee. And now,what is their common objection worth ? They fay they cannot learn , 3nd therefore cannot be Difciples. An(. But I have fully anfwered this already, and ihal! adde this much more. 1. They can partake of the protection and proviiion of their Mafhr (as the child ten of thofc that the IiVacikes bought; and enjoy the priviledgcs of Infants Churcb-memberjl)i]> and Baptifm. 23 of the family and Sehool , and be under his charge and dominion , and that is e- nough to make them capable of befrtg Difciples. z. ^e^are devoted to learning if they live : howfoever, they are'confecrated to himas"tneir Mafter,who can teach them hereafter^ md that is yet more. 3. 1 wonder you Ihould be more rigorous with Chrift i 1 this cafe then you are with men. Is it not common to call the whole Nation of the Tu:ksbo:h old and young, by thename ofMahomstans or Difciples of Maho- met ? and why not we and our children then by the name of Chriftians and Difci- ples of Chr ift ? And when a man hired a Philofopher to teach him and all hte Thil ♦ t ren, were they not all then Difciples of that Philofopher ? They that are entered im- » der him as their Matter for future teaching , are at prefent in the relation of Difci- ples*' 4 'And truly I wonder alio that it Ihould go fo cuftJlt that Infmts alfe not capable of learning : there is more ways of teaching then%]rpread?lng m a"*Pulpit« The Mother is the firft Preacher to the Infant (inftrumentally) : Do we not fee that they do teach them partly by action and gefture, and partly by voice ? That they c in, di:hearten and take off from vkes s is evident j and teach them obedience:Me thinks we fiiould not make an Infant lefs docible then fome brutes. Nurfes will tell you more in this then I can. And what if they cannot at firft learn to know Chr ift ? Even with men of years, that is not the firft leflbn ; Jf they may be taught any of the duty of a rationall creatare it is fomewhat. And if they can learn nothing of trie pa- rents eitker by action or voice j yet Chrift hath other ways of teaching then by men : even by the immediate inward working*of his Spirit $ Though yet it is not needfull to prove any of this, i! is enough that they are taken by Chrift into fys School and Kingdom. But feeing an Jnfanc can fo quickly learn to knqw Father and Mother;, and whatthey mean in their fpeeches and actions, I fee no reafon that we fhould take it for granted , that they can learn nothing of God :till we are able to prove it.Sure I am, Scripture requirethto teach children the trade of their life in the time of their youth : fas early no doubt as they are able to underftand)and to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and fure this nurture belongs to them as Schollers of Chrift. Moreover I might argue thus. All thofe that are juftified and faved by Chrift, are his * Difciples : (for he faveth none but fuch. J But Chrift juftifieth and faveth fome In> fants : therefore fome Infants are his Difciples. But becaufe the proof of the Minor Fropofition of the next argument will prove this too, I will fay no more of this. CHAP. IV. MtPmm -~j Argument II. YpecojidArgument 3 and the chief IITIall make ufe of, is this. All that oughs to be admitted vifible Church -members, ordinarily ought to be Baptized : But- /fomgjlnfants ought to be acrmitted vifible Church-members : therefortlomjfnfants ordinarily ought to beBaptifced. ^* f^Mr. T. hath gone over and over the terms of this Argument fo oft, as if he could not poflibly find out my meaning in them : when they are as plain as I well know - how to exprefs my felf. A great while he fain would have denyed the major propofi* tion ;but at lafthe is content_tp deny onely the minor : And indeed that is the very heart of the controvcr^KTQueftiongiet^een^is not fajnuch whether Infants 24 fl&in Scripture proof of may beBaptized,as,Whethe | rjj^L are in the number ofChrift tans, and to be added as members to the vifible Churc Ji Mr. T- did grant the.minor ,and not deny our chil- dren Chriftianity and to be members of the Church, I (hould for my part, think his errorCthough foul) yet of lefs confequence in denying them Baptifm. But it is their Church- memberihip that he denyeth, and yeeldeth that all that ought to be admit- ted members (hould be Baptized. But becaufe it is a mutable world, I were bed prove itj though he do now yeeld it, left he (hould upon fecond thoughts deny ita- gainTj a *T3y [a vifible Church member] I mean plainly one that is a member of the vifible f Church, orof the Chur^ as vifible. And by[admitting] I mean folemn admiring: t As jpefor^iilUnguillf^etwcen Difciples incompleat and compleat , foQierjJ I do of ChuYch- members, m Soldier before lifting, and as a King before Crowning and taking his Oath, fo are we and Infants Church -members before Baptifm ;But is every one that rauft be admitted Solemnly into the Army, muft be admitted by lift- ing, as the folemn engaging fign • So every one that hath right to be folemnly admit- ted into the vifible Church, muft ordinarily be admitted by Baptifm. So much to make that plain which was plain before j becaufefome men are loth to underftand anything that is againft their minds. £7Vnd i.- As to Mr. T. his own conceffion is proof enough til he change his mind. HeTaith in the 54 page of his Apology [I grantTthat Baptifm isthe way and jnanner of folemn admiflion into the Church j 1 mean Trie Regular way. JSo there is enough for prove/jttthus. 1. If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture "ordaineelBaptifm, of any other way of admitting vihble members but cnely by Baptifm, then all that muft be admitted vifible members, muft ordinarily be Baptized; But fince Biptifm was inftituted (or eftablifhed^we have no precept or example of admitting vifible members any oiher way, (but conftanz precept and ex- ample for ad mitting this wayj : therefore all that muft be admitted vifible members, muft be Baptized. I kn ^w not what in any (hew of Reafon can be faid to this, by thofe that renounce not Scripture. For what man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor exam- ple to warrant it, from a way that hatha full current of both? Yet they that will ad- mit members into the vifible Church without Baptifm, *io Co. 1. Either members muft be baptized at their admiflion, or elfe tifter they are fta- ted in the Church, or elfe never. But the two later are falfe : therefore it muft be the former way, vi\ at ther admiflion. 1. That they (hould nevei be Baptized , none will affirm but /the feekers, and) they that are above Ordinances ('that is,above obedience to Goc^andiQ GodT3£_ ~ .»• If they fay, They muft be Baptized after they arc ftated in*thf Ghurchl( and that many years as they would have itTp anfwer. 1. Shew any Scripture for that if you can. z. It iscontraiytoall Scripture example, Afts $. The threeithoufand werej>refently Baptized,and the Jaylor at the fame hour of the ni?,ht , and fo of all the rift. And if ycu could (how any that did delay it, ((ince Chrifts comrRanU, Aba. 18. 10. )~Xt would appear to have been finfull as through ignorance or negligent! 5 fo that it rauft needi then be done at their firft admittance according to the conftant courfe of Scripture. $. It is evident alfo from the very nature and end of Baptifm, which is to be Chrifts lifting engaging fign:and therefore muft be applyedwhen we fivft enter his ** — - ^ L_ r jr. " Infants Church mmberfhif and Baptifm. re Chriftians, that is 3 retainers to Chrift 3 or fuch as belong to Chnft (as his own phrafe is) is beyond doubt. 2. That all Chriftians are Difciples. I proved before^it being the plain words of the Holy Ghoft, A61m z6. where they are made all one. The Difciples were called Chriftians firft at Antioch y Co that all Church members being Difciples , they muft Regularly be Baptized at their admiffion, according to the courfe of Scripture, and my \t%i 3 Mat. / 6. Another Argument may be plainly fetcht from £/>£. f. 26. that he might fandifie it anu clenfe it (his Church) by the warning of water through the word ; if the whole Church muft be fanctifled by the wafting of water, then Infants and all others that are particularly members of the Church muft be fo fanebfied Hut the whole Church muft be fofan^ified 5 therefore the individual! members. Mr.T. in hiscxeicit. ofejeð j 1. That then the Thief on the Oofs, &c. were no < hurth- members. AnJ.lt followeth not from[He that is Baptized (hall be faved]that there- fore he that is not baptized fhali not be faved.*fo here/or the former fpeaks but addc- bitum, and the later dc EveMn, it will follow, that it is a duty to baprize all Church- members where it may be done : but not that it ("ha 1 certainly come to pafs 2 He objedetfa,that therefore it muft be undct flood of the more famous part of theChurch, or thac purification is to be underftood of that which is for the moft part. An(. he Apoftle fpeaks plainly of the whole Church 5 and to take it for part, is to Oofs the Ttxtj except ycu lhew a necefifuy for it. .2. It fpeaks of all 3 as I faid quoad EvmLum, in regard of real purifying. 3. And of all quoad debit um ,in regard of the means of it which they are capable of. 4. And ufually quoad Evcntitm of the Ciid means to®. Obj. But fome may fay, that [by the word] is here addcd,which Infants are net capable of. Anf* 1 Infants are fanctified by the word of promife and precept to parents to dedicate them to God, though not by the word preached to Infants. 2. The means is to each member as they are capable : waihing by water to thofe that are capable of thar 3 and by the word to thofe that are capable of that, which blind and fc deaf 26 Plain Scripture proof of deafmenarenotany more then Infants. Obj. But it is the Invifible Church that Chrlft is faid thus to cleanfe. Anf. I. Certainly,thoi"e that are warned with water ,and hearing the word, or either, are ail vifible members, 2. The vilible Church hath the outward priviledges and titles of the invifible : becaufe as'to us they muft in probabili- ty be judged to belong to both. Therefore Vand I prove all in Mt\T. his own judgement; I fay it again,left y&u miftake in your expectations : I pray re*- member that I have nothing more to prove now. but this, that fome Infants ought to be admired Church. members f vilible) : it being aLeady granted me, that all vifible Church-members rr/ift be admitted by baprifm. And this I (hall by Gods help prove to you plainly and fully. Argument i. To prove Infants Church mcmberfh'p. THoughT have many add clear Arguments from the New Teftament to prove Infants to be members of the vilible Church , as I (hall let you fee, God wil- ling when I come to them j Yet btcaufe I think it moft orderly to take them before us from the beginning, I will firft fetch one from the Old Teftament , and that fuch as is fully confirmed from the New (jor 1 hope you are none of thofe that have wi- ped out all the Old Teftament from your Bibles, or that prefently look upon a Text as no Text if ycuhear it come from the Old Teftament: I therefore argue thus, Firft-p • If by the mercifull gift and appointment of God, not yet repealed > {fomejtnfanrs were once to be admitted members of the vifible Churchj then fome Infants are to be Co admwed ftill .* But by the mercifull gift and appointment of God, not yet re- pealed/ome Infants were once to be admitted members of the vifible Church ; there- fore they are fo to be admitted ftill. The Antecedent harh two parts, i. That by Gods mercifull gift and appoint- ment, fome Infants were once to be admitted members of the vifible Church : i his is as far beyond all doubt as yr>u can expect (jn Mr. T. granted it in his publike dif- ptue : And fo he doth in his Apology;, page 66. where he faith [ I acknowledge that in the vifible Church of the Jews, the Infants were reckoned to the Church] yet left any mould beib impudent as to deny it,I briefly prove it tliusji. If Infants were part of them thatentred into Covenant with the Lord God, and into his Oath , that he -might ftabiifh them for a people to himfelf, and he might be to them a God 5 then Infants were part of the Church .• But the former is plain, in Df#f. 29, 1^11,12. to any that will read it. Therefore Infants were part of the Church. 2. If Infants Chwch-mmberftny. andBapifm, zf i. If Jnfan ts were engaged to God bythefeal of his Covenant (Circumcifion J then they were members of his Church: Bi*t Come Infants were fo engaged : therefore they were Church-members j this is all undcniafele. I never yet met with any that cknyed either. $» If Infants were part of thofe that were Baptized to Mofes in the Claud and Sea, aad drank the fpiritiiall drink, even of that rock which was Chrift , then furc they were part of the vifible Church: But the Antecedent is plain in i Cor. 10.1^,3. They All were Baptized^&c, CT 4. Tbe Martyr Stephen calleth that AfTembly, whereof they were members [the Church in the wildernefs] Acl.7. 38. Therefore they were Church- members.! But I will fpend no more words in proving that which no body th3t I know of denyeth. 7 he onely thing which Mr. T. denveth, and which the whole weight of this argu- ment lyeth on, is [ that this mercifull gift of God to Infants,and ordinance for their Church- mcmberlhip is not repealed.] And here yeu fee I have the negative, and the proof doth no: lye upon rae.They that fay it is repealed muft prove it. I will here firfi therefore examine Mr.T- his proof,and then I will prove the negative to you[that this is not repealed] by a multitude of evident Arguments from Scripture • and then leave it to you impartially to judge [ Whether he better prove that Infants Church- membeifhrp bertpeiled, or I that it is not. I have (hewed you Scripture which is not queftioned,that God once beftowed this mercy upon Iufairrj and may I not now jultly expeft , that he who faith G&d hath taken it from them again, arid repealed that Law, mould bring fomc plain Scripture or Argument to prove it? I will not conceal the leaft part of the ftrength of his Argument, but will adde what ever, eife I conceive he might fay, and then an- swer all. ANd firftl confefs , I expected fonie plain Scripture. 1. Becaufe it muft be a ■^plain word of God on?ly that can prove the repeal of any part of his word, and mens reafonings mav as likely prove vain in this as any things if they be not ground- ed upon plain Scripture. ;\nd z. Becaufe I deal with thoie men that call for plain Scripture proof of Infrnt Baptifm from us : therefore did I over, and over, and over, dcfi;" Stor.T-to bring iome word of God to prove the repeal of Infants Church-mem- bcrfliip. But what I ext do you think he brought ? In his publike difpu'C he never once cftlied to name one Text ; Nay 3 in his Sermon which he preached after upon deliberarion, he neve- cfV-red to name one Text in all the Bible , to prove that God lnth repealed Infants Church membership. Is not this enough to make his caufe. fufpicious i Nay, I am confident he cannot bring one Text for it. What i?Wv« T. mould ufe Magiftrates as he doik Infants (as former Anabaptifts have done) ha'h he n>: as good ground ? and would they take it well? May he not as well fiywhsnl mew him Scripture in the Old Feftament for Magiftrates in the Church, and bting Gods pecple- [rhit if. vas from the peculiar Church Stare of the jews: God hath k: up no Magiftrates of Ch r iitians in the Church now ] would not our Magiftrates bid him bang l©m Scripture to prove the repeal, or elfe they Hull take their Old Te- (lament- ommifion for currant? and let him bring me any more Scripture to prove thfi repeal of infants Church- mcmbcr{hip,then is brought to prove the repeal of Magi- ftrates in the Church if he can ; (Ohow juft is it with God,that thofe Magiftrates who favour, countenance and cheriih thofe meg that would keep all Cfuiftians Infants out Ex cf a 8 Pldm Scripture proof of of the Church, mould by the fame men be put out themfelves 3 both of Church aAd ftate >) Yet in private I confefs he cited two Texts to prove the Repeal of Gods ordinance and mercifull gift,:hat Infants mould be Church-members : and I will read the two plaofcstoycu (which p ivate conference I would not mention, but itft it (hould be tfie>t(ght? wrong to him to overpafs his onely proofs.) The firrt was Gal. 4. !,*,$■ Now I fay that the heir as long as he is a child ; diffcreth nothing from a fervant,though he be Lord of all, bur is under Tutors and Governors till the time appointed of the Father : Even fo we wh.n we were children were in bondage under the Ele- ments of the world •' Pu: when the fulnefs of time was come j God lent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption cf Sons. Whenlconfideted th.it fuch a man mould deny all Infants Church-member- fhip, and afErrne that God hath repealed that his ordinance and mercifull gift, and have no more Scripture for it rhen kich as this, and yet be fo confident } it mafctfi me amazed. Hath not he a good wit, that can prove that Chrift h3th repealed his mercifall gifc> becaufe he hath redeemed us from under our bondage and tutorage > or that he hath (hut out all Infants from his Church, becaufe he hath delivered them from the incenveniencies of their minority ? IrThad no better proof then this for Infant Baptifm, I fnould be afharned once to open my mouth for it. Nay,I pray you (Jo but confider whether his own proof be not fu&cient againft him * Doth not this Text plainly tell us, that the heir in his minority is lord of all ? and fo approve of the naturall birth priviledge of our children in civill things? And will God then desiy children to be heirs of any th inland bereave them of their fpiritmll or Lhurch-prjvf- ledge,and neither tell us why he doth it nor that he doth it? Again,more plainly : rf Chrft came to free the keir from his bondage& tutorage onely,and from the fervuude of his minority} is it likely that he came to free them from their Church-memberfhip ? Can any man think, th3t this was any part of the bondage ? I require thofc whofe confeiences are not wholly enflaved to their fancies and conceits, to judge of this foberly, Whether they can pofltbly think it a bondage to be a member both of the univerfall vifible Church, and ef a particular ? Let them not here tell me that Circwmcifion was a bondage, or that the Law was a Tutor; For I fpeak of none of thefe , but of their being members of the Church of God. 3 Yet further, when this Text tels us, rhat Chrift came to redeem us from under the Law 3 and the bondage of minority, is it nor a dear proof that he hath brought us into a far better ftate then we were in before ? and hath advanced us in his family, 'as the heir at age is advanced ? And can arty man of common fence and confeience expound this of his cafting ail their Infants out of his family ? Chrifts Chu ch is his family > and doth the heir ufe robe freed by being caft out of the family ? Why may he not as well fay chat all the body of the Jewtfli Nation are now delivered by being cafl out of the Church or Family of Chrift f Is it not more agreeable to the fcope of the Apattle here to affirm, that certainly they are fo far from being turned out of the family or Church of Chrift, that by Chrift they are now brought into a far higher ftate , and made members of a far better Church, then that particular c hurch of the Jews was ? 4 And if any yet fay, that it is not the Infants, but only the parents that are thus advances by Chrift to a better ftate, is not this Text plain againft him } For the A- poftle extendeth redemption here to thofe that were under the Law 5 and who know- eth not that Infants were under the Law ? And if it did not belong to e :ch individu. allimder the Law, yet it carmot in any tolerable fence be denywd to belong to each (pecks Infants Chttrch-membcrfkip and Baptifm. 29 fpecies or age $ (yet I can prove , that conditionally this deliverance was for each individuall perfon in the [ence as God fent his Son Jefus to turn every one of them from their inquiry ^tf.$.laft.) And now judge I pray whether this he not a pirtifuli ground for men to prove the repeal of Gods mcrcifull gift and ordinance of Infants Church Membership. b: Ut one Text more was named, and that is my Text, Mat 18.10,20. Go Difcipl« ail Nations^ &c. Is not this brave proving the repeal before mentioned? what faith this Text to any fuch matter t Nay , I am confident the contrary will be proved from thisText alfo: For if it be Nations that muft be difcipled and Bapti2ed ? certain- ly alllnfants can never be excluded,but muft needs fomeof them at leail be included. I d« not believe that men were to be made Difciples by force : nor that all were Difciples when, the King or greater part were fo : But that the Apoftles Com- siiflion was to Diicipie Nations: this is their work which they mould endevour to ac- compliih : and therefore this was a thing both pofllbleand defirablc ; therefore whea the Parents are by teaching made Difciples, the Children are thereby Difcipled alfo : As if a woman efcape drowning, the child in her body efcapes thereby : yet this is not by any narurall caufe, but by force of Gods grant or covenant. When all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron were turned to the Lord , the whole Cities, Infant* and all, were Difcipled. How can Chrift bid them 3 Go and Difciple ail Nations , if Infants, and fo all the Nation are utterly uncapafcle of being Difciples ? Or.-, how will Mr*T. expound the word All Nations ? He oft faith, It is here one, and there one cut of a City or Nation that G&d will call : I mail fay more to the jhame of this fpcech after- wards ; yet let me fay this much at prcfent If it be but fotot few , or here an4 there one, yea, or but the moil that Chrift commandeth to Difciple, then we muft endeavour to make but thole few or moft Dit'ciples : ("for our endeavour muft not go beyond ou,r Command and CommiflionJ But this is moil horrid Doctrine^ and notoriotrfiy falfe , [that Apoftles and Mmifters ou^ht not to endeavour the Difciplingof ail, but of fome. ] (For Paul oiz profcfleth his longing and endeavour to the contrary : ) therefore it is as falfe that the Command is not for the DUcipling of all. But more of this afterward •' And thas I have truly related every Text of Scripture that ever I could get from Mr.T. to preve that God had repealed his merer- full gift and ordinance for Infants Church- M-mber/hip If this be not to feign God to fay what we would have him j yea, contrary to what he doth lay , then I am quite miftaken. So you fee now how far I have can yen on the work. i. That all ou^ht to be baptized who mould be admitted Members Or h. viliblc Church : v i> !M .r. de- nyeth not. 2. I ha: fonae Infants were once to be admitted Mvmbe s. and that by Gods ordinance and nvrcifull gift , this he doth not deny : t have put both to him over and over, and he doth not deny them $. And that rhb was ever repealed, you hear how well from Scripture he can prove : Though I detired him again and again to bring fome Scripture for it if he had any. "DUt let us hear whether his Arguments be any clearer then thefe Texts for him ? ■■-'And here I lhall take but theftrength of chem. becaufs vou (hall have if needful 1, a particular anfwer to his Sermon where they are. The fam of all his Arguments thit I can hear, is this : If the Church conftitution, whereof they were Mcmbcis-b- taken were they none of the Church } Yet plaine> j I lemember what Ju\lm Martyr in his Dialogue • with Trypbon faith of M'lthi^d { : e w is King oiSahm, and a Hrieft ©f the moft high God ; And cou'd rtare be a Righuous King, and a King of Righreoufneis, and a Prieft fo excellent as to be theType of Ch ift,?.nd had this King no Righteous Sub- jeds, and this Prieft no R igh'CwUS Ptopk 1 Ic fctms by Job and his Family, and by the language of his three friends and El.hu , chat Goi was not fo ftcarrge to the world then, nor the Ch". ch fo narrow ?s many do imagine : 1 he like may be faid of Candacc Queen of the Ethiopians ( who yet derive their Church from i&fahdSrfi- won.) Soof H'fram King 'Tyf, oftf.-w v't- aao many other. Alas , tVar the Jews Pri- viledges muft needs, unchurch all fhrrcft pfthewoild I 2. Prop/f. If rhe Jcwifii f hutch fead been the whole vifible Church , ye? it would have been conhderable in both refpeds; bo:h as :h? J ■.wifli Church, and as the univerfali. 3. There is no Member of any particular Charch who is no; alfo a Member of the Univerfali Church ; Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 3 1 Church : therefore Infants were Members of the Univerfall vifible Church zs well as ofthejews particular Church j So that if it could be proved that their Memberfhip in that particular Church is overthrown , yet that is nothing to prove that they have loft, their flanging in the Univerfall Church. Eur this I lliall fuilycr improve and Vindicate hereafter. z. You muft diftinguifh between the Eflentials ancUfome Accidentals of the Jewiih Chu .ch 5 The Priefthocd, Temple, Sacrifice, Sec. were meerly Accidental!, and might be repealed without the repeal of the Eflentials, or the Ordinance efta- blifliing the Church it felf. 3. You mull diftinguifh between their Church confidered in it felf.and confidered comparatively as to ethers. The Jews were a peculiar Pccple and Church at Cod j no ether had the like Priviledges. Now if they had believed,they mould have kcr t all their Priviledges abfolutcly confidered : (except it be a lofing them, to change them for greater^ But comparatively confidered, they mould net hive kept fome relative Priviledges ; For they fhould no longer have been a lingular peculiar people, feeing others mould have enjoyed as great Priviledg s as they ; Yet this would have been without any lofs of theirs ; much mo r e without wholly un Churching them or their Children : when a man hath but onefon , hehatH the privilcdge of being his fathers only fon : But when his father hath many more , he hath left that privilcdge, ami yet is not therefore turn'd out of the family j nay, the adding of more brethren incur cafe is an encreafe of the happinefs of each particular : for this h the very cafe cf the jews ; The adding of the Gentiles would have made the Jews no more to be fo peculiar as to be lingular in their Priviledges j and yet they fhould have enjoyed never thelefs. Therefore, mark it 3 the Scj ipture fpeaking of taking in the Gentiles , it ex- prelTeth it as by taking down the partition Wail j and makingcf both one Churchj but it fpeaks not of. un- Churching the Jews firft, znd thcu children, or bereaving them of their Priviledges. And when in his Vifion Tcicy was taught the Docrrine of the Gentiles reception into the Church, AcL 10 it was not by making the Jews unclean, but by cieanfing the Gentiles to be clean as the Jews. So that the Jews would have believed they (heuld have loft only their comparative Priviledges con- lifting in the fingularity of their enjoyments, which is no lofs to them, to have the Gentiles enjoy them as well as they y tut their Priviledges in thcmlelvcs confidered would net have been diminimed , but fome Icffer turned into greater : And therefore certainly God wculd never have turned their Children all out of the Vifible Church. 4 So when we call the Jews [a Nationall Church] and when Mr. T. faith God took the whole Nation to b~ his Church, it may be meant either in regard of the appropriation and reftri&ion to that Nation only as if God hai no: called amy other whole Natron ; and fo it may be true , that the Jews only were a Nationall Church (though yet it is deubfull, as what is faid of M^!cbi\cdcb x before fhewe-h . ) and alio in regard of the L Nationall and Church Unity ( which yet is the excellency and ftrength of all orher Churches :) Or clfe by a Nationall Chuch may be meant, 3S if all were Church- members that were of that Nation, and no more were required to the being a Church member but to be of that Nation • And thus I perceive it is by many undei flood. But this is notcricufly falfc; For it was then as well as row, the Covenant of God, (wherein he took them for his peculiar People, and th- .;. rock him for their only God, the'Parents engaging for themulves and their Chili en) which made them Members cf the Church. For i.No aged pe;fon, no not ftivanrs, much Ids ordinary Prefeiytes , were Members, except tJuy entered the Covenant - y thuiiji. 32 Plain Scripture proof of though they are commanded to Circomcife all in their Houfe, yet it Is fupp©fed that by their Intereft and Authority, they caufed them firft ro enter the Covenant : there- fore they were to Circumcife the Servants beught with money , as being abfolutely their own, wham they had molt Intereft in 5 but not the hired Servants, whom they had no fuch Authority over (except they became Prolelytes voluntarily J 2. And though they were taken intifthe Church in Infancy , yet if they afterward forfook or renounced the Covenant 3 they were to be cut off from the Church , yea to be put to death. $. And in many cafes their children were to be put to death with them. All which I lhall fpeak more of afterward. And therefore their Church was not fo Natio- nal! as that any in the Nation mould be a Member of it who f- rfook the Covenant. Indeed God chofe the Seed of Abraham in a fpeciall manner j but not to be Church- members inamediatly j but firft to enter into his Covenant 3 and take him for their God, and fo to be Church- members. 5. You muft diftinguiih betwixt Breaking off that particular Individual! Church, or feme Members of it, and the Repealing or Breaking off the Species or Effenriall nature of tRe Church. 6. Andfo you muft diftinguifh between the Repealing of the Law or Grant up- on which the very Species or nature of the Church is grounded; and the Execution of the Threatning of the Law upon particular pcrfons or Cha .dies offending. The Re- peal of the Law or Ordinance ^oth take away all Right to the Mercy granted by that Law or Ordinance, even the remote conditional! Right {jus ad rem condhlonalc re* motum :) And that from all men, one as well as 3nother.to whom that Law gave that Right. But the punitive execution of theThreatning doth only takeaway the Abfolute Right To the Mercy 3 and the Ri^he In it (jus ad rem abfslutum 3 & jus in re J ) and that from none but the particular offenders. ) his punitive execution of the Law (or the Curfeofthe Covenant, as it is called D'ut.i?. 10. 11.) is fo far from being a Re? peal of the Law, that it certainly pioverh, it is not repealed : For a Repealed Law /s of no force, and fo cannot be executed. And upon thefe two lift Piftin&ions^I adde this for Application of them : The Individual! Jewifh Church is (tor the mo A part) broke off, for their fin by punitive execution of the Curie of the Covenant or Law upon them , and fo they that are fo broke off,are now no Churcb,and confequentljfhave loft all their Priviledges: But the Law or Covenant on which the species or Effentiall form of their Church (and many of its Accident 1 ^ was grounded is not changed or Repealed. So the Church of Smyrna^ Thyatna Laodicea> and the reft of Afia (for the mufi part) are now un- churched : But this is bat by a punitive execution of the Law for their fin, and no change in the Law or in the nature of the Church ; And fo it is with the Jews alfo in their un- Churching. I hoinh 1 hey are caft orr,yet the Law of nature and Churches is Jiili the fame j and only the Laws about Ceremoniall Worihip,and fome other Acci- dents of the Church are Repealed. So that the caftingeffof them and-their children, is no proof that the whole Spcci;s of Infants is caft out of the Church viable. 7. Again you muii diftinguifti betwixt Breaking off primarily and Mo tally only by Covenant-breaking & Merit (as an adulterous woman doth break the Marriage 3ond, and fo caft out her fclfl or clfe Breaking off in a following ait by punishment (both Morally and Phyfically) ('as a ouri that puttethaway his adulterous Wife :) In the former fence ail the Jews 'hat were un-Churched did un- Church themfelves and their children } And God only un Churched them in the later fence : And therefore the children of believing Jews (*vhu did not aduiceroufly violate the Covenant,,} were never un-Churched 5 God cafteth out none but thofe that firft caft out themfelves. Having Infants Church member fliip and Baptifm, 33 HAving thus (hewed you in what fence the Jews Churches taken down, and in what not, let us review now Mr- Tj.' Arguments.. I. He faith, The Church- con- ftitution is taken down ; and therefore their Memberlhip. To which I Anfwer: i. By [Conftitution] is meant either the Effentiall nature, or fome Ceremonial! Accident : And by [taking down] is meant either [by repealing the Law, 'which takes down the whole Species] or [by meer punitive Execution, taking down that in- dividual! Church :] In the firft fence of [Conftitution and Taking down] I utterly deny the Antecedent, and may flay long enough I perceive before he prove it. 2. By [their Memberfhip ] either he means the individuall Infants of unbelieving un-churched Jews (which 1 grant) or elfe the whole Species of Infants ("which I deny) 3. Befides, the Argument concludeth not for what he lhould bring it : That which it mould conclude is [that the mercifull gift and ordinance of God , that fome Infants fliould be Church- members, Is repealed :] This is another thing from what he con- cludeth. He proveth that [their Church- conftitution is altered I becaufe their Church-Call is altered.] To which I Anfwer: 1. Here is ft ill nothing but the darkiefs of am- biguity, and troubled waters to fifh in. As we know not what he means by [Confti. tution] as is faid before 5 fo who knows what he meaneth by [their Church- Call ?] Is it meant firft of Gods Law or Covenant enafting,making, and conftituting them a Church ? 1. And, if fo, then is it meant of the Effentiall parts of that Covenant or Law, giving them the Effence of a Church : [ I will be to thee a God, and thou malt be to me a People, Deut. 19.11 i u.'] Or is it meant of the leffer additional! parts of the Law or Covenant, giving them fome Accidentals of their Church, as the Land of Canaan* the Piiefthood, the Sacrifice, &c. 3. Or is it meant of Gods im- mediate Call from Heaven to Abraham or any others to bring them into this Co- venant ? 4. Or is it meant of the Minifteriall Call of man to bring them into the Covenant ? J. And if fo, Whether of Abraham only ? or Mofes only & or both ? or whether Aaron and all other be excluded 3 or not ? And>what he means by a Church- Call to Infants that cannot underftand, I know not ; except by a Call, he meaneth circumeifing thtm. And, 6. whether he meane that Call by which particularly they were at firft made a Church ? or that alfo by which in every Generation their Pofte* rity were fo made , or entered Members ? 7. And if fo , Whether that Which was proper to the Jews Pofterivy ? or that which was proper to converted profelyted Members ? orfome Call common to both ? and what that was ? when I can poffibly undeiftand which of all thefe Cals he means that is altered, then it may be worth the labour to Anfwer him. In the mean time briefly thus j I Anfwer : 1. The additional! leffer parts of the Covenant giving them the Ceremonial Accidents of their Church is ceafed, and fo are the Ceremonies built thereon, z. The Elfentiall part of the Law or Covenant is not ceafed 5 God yet offers the Jews to be their God,and them to be his people : If they will heartily confent it may yet be done 3 only the World is taken into this Covenant with them } and neither Jew nor Gentile exeluded,that exclude not themklves. $. Gods immediate individuall Call of Abraham and Mofes did quickly eeafe , when yet the Church ceafed not. 4. And for the Minifteriall Call ; 1. That which was by the perfon of Abraham and Mofes numerically did ceife when their aft was performed 5 yet the effeft ceafed not : nor did the Jews ceafe being a Church When Abraham and Mofes were dead and gone. 2. If he mean it of that Species or fort of Minifteriall Call^then what fort is that ? And indeed for ought I can poffibly F leain 24 Pldin Scripture proof of learn by his fpeeches, this Is it that he drives at .• [God then called by Magiftrates, but now by Minifters : And fecondly, then he called all the Nation in one day, but now he cals here one and there one.] Lee us therefore, fee what ftrength lies in thefe words, i. What if all this were true? Is there the leaft colour for the confequence from hence ? It Is as good a confequence to fay , that when God judged lfrael by Debwaa woman, which before was judged by men, that then ifrael ceafedtobea Common-wealth or the conftitution of the Commonwealth was altered. Or when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings, that then the Eflentiall confti- tution of the Common- wealth was changed , and fo all Infants loft their (landing in the Common- wealth ? what if the King inviting the Guefts to the Marriage Feaft, did fir ft (end onekindeof Officer and then another; firft,a man, and then a woman, doth it follow that the Feaft is therefore altered ? If fir ft a man, and then a chtlde, and then a woman be fent to call you to dinner or to any imploymcnt or company, doth this change the nature of the company or iaiployment ? what if aBimopcall one man to the Miniftery , and a Presbyterie another, and the People a third, is not the Minifteriall work and Office ft ill the fame? what if a Magiftrate convert one man now, and a Minifter another, and a woman a third , doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to, is therefore not the fame ? what a powerfull Argu- ment is here for a man to venture upon to un.church all the Infants in the worl4 ? The efficient caufe enters not the Eflence : or if it did , yet not every lefs-principall infer iour caufe, fuch as the MefTenger or Minifter of our Call is : If you had proved that God had repealed his Law which is the charter of Church- membership, then you had faid fomcthing, elfc you fay nothing to the purpefe. z. I utterly deny that there is any more truth in the Antecedent then in the Con- fequent. God hath not altered the nature of the Call in any fubftantiall point , but in meer circumftances ^ It is faid, it was then by Magiftrates, and now by Minifters. I anfwer : x.' What was by Magiftrates ? the firft Call ? or all after ? For the firft, I know not which er when it was , Let him that can tell, fee that he prove it. I finde when Circumcifion was firft Inftituted in Abraham's Family i But never when their Church-memberlhip begun ; Shall I dare to think that either Abraham ©r his Fami- ly were no Church- members till they were Circumcifed ? 2tyw. 4. would con- fute me. 2«Suppefe it were t ue.that Abraham's Family began then to be a Church .• (which will never be proved) yet did not G«d call them to Circumcifion immediatly I what is this to a Minifteriall Call ? 3. Are you fure that which Abraham did in It, was as a Migiftrate? and not as a Prophet ? nor Prieft ? nor Mafter of Family > prove that i( you can. 4. What was it that Abraham did ? He circumcifed them when God had commanded him; And was circumcifing the Call? then the Infants in theWil- dernefs, nor the whole Camp almoft.had no Church-Call : And then the women had never any, Church-Gall. What was it then that Abraham did more then may now be done? If you fay, He compelled them to be circumcifed by violence without their confent, I deny it as a forgery • And if he had done fo by thofe at age, it had been no making them Church members 5 for their confent is abfolutely neccflary thereto. If you fay, Abraham by his intereft, authority and perfwafion did win all at age in his Family to confent ; dare you fay, that every Mafte*- of a Family and Ma- giftrate ought not to do fo now > So that I cannot finde any more that Abraham did in this Caii,then imy now be done. And then for Mofch what more did he ? Did he make them Members without their confent ? No : He fets before them Life and Death Infants Cburch-mmberflup and Bapifm. 3 5 Death, Blefling, and Curling, and bids them chufe which they would, Dent. 28,19. and 30. Chapters, Doth he circumcifc them ? No, not his own Son. Nor the In- fants forty years, nor the women at all* Doth he command them to obey the Com* mands of God ? And ftiould not every K ing and Magift rate do the like ? Doth he per- fwade them ? Why, you know he was a Prophet 5 and if he had not, yet fure he muft do it as a King, and as a fervant of God. Where then lies this peculiar Call by the Magiftrate ? I think by that time we have fearefct this to the quick, we (hall finde the Magriftracielefs beholding to Mr.T. then was imagined. No wonder that he told the people in his Pulpit that it was Do&rine of a dangerous cenfequence which I de- livered [That Magiftrates had their power from Chrift the Mediator, andnotonely from God as Creator] I doubt by this arguing of his, that he will not allow the Ma- giftrate to call all his people together, and propound the Covenant of God t© them> and command them to obey God. You finde not Mofes by Prifon or Fire forcing any man to confent : And if he had, you muft have a little further work to prove that it was that which made them a Chuirch, or that Magiftrates may not ftill do as much as was done herein then ?. This Argument, if good^ would help the Seekers to prove that we have no Church on earth, becaafe not called by Apoftlef, and fo the Church-Conftitution taken down,and none by God fubftituted.Let them that have better eyes then I finde out this peculiar Church- making <_all, for I cannot. Well , But may it not yet lie in the fecond Point, [That they were All taken in to be a Church in one day?] Anfw. 1. What day was that? I would Mr.T. could tell me. He faith Mofes did it : btit thats no truer then the reft. For fure they were a Church before Mofes time. Did they begin to be a Church in the Wildernefs ? Or did Mofes onely exprefs the Covenant to them more fully, and caufe them oft to re- new the Covenant, and fo onely confirm them a Church ? Was not the circumcifed feed of Abraham a Church in Egpt ? and was the uncircumcifcd Hoft onely in the Wiidersefsthe Church ? This is excellent arguing. But Abraham took all his Family to be a Church in one day, you will fay. I An- fwer, Fir ft, It is not proved when they began to be a Church. Secondly, And would not SMr. T now have a whole Family made a Church in a day ? Is that his charity ? Thirdly, And what if it had been true* of the whole Kingdom ? Either it was with their confent or without : without their confent they could not be made Chinch- Members 5 for they could not enter into Covenant with God. And never was any fuch thing atrempted. hvtnjofuab treads in Mofes fteps, and bids them chufe whe- ther thty will ferve the Lord or not, Jof.%4. And it being with their confent that the Nation were Church Members, may not the like be done now ? What, may not any or all the Nations in the world be added to the Church if they will confent 3nd enter the Covenant? What then, is this making them a Church in one day that Mr.T* fo cloudily talks off ? If he fay it is that then the Infants were taken in ; I Anfwec, That is to prove the fame by the fame, or elfe to argue circularly. As to fay their Church Call did cake inInfants,therfore the taking in of Infants was peculiar to their Church Call^rhis begs the Qwertionjor to fay their Church conftitution is c'eafed,be- caufe their Church Call Is ceafed, or their Church Call confifting in the taking in of Infants is ceafed,therefore their Church conftitution is ceafed; and that Church con- ftituion is ceafed,thereforethe taking in of Infants is ceafed.This arguing is like their Ciufe.I cannot further imagine wha Mr.T.means by taking in All in a day, except: he fhould not fpeak of any ad by Law,Covenant, or Miniftry :but by [Gall]l'hould mean Gods providenial gratious fucceeding thefe Do cventu y bovting the hearts of the whole Nation to confent to take the Lord for their God,and fo to become his Church F a and 3 6 Plain Scripture poof tf and people;But as I hope he doth not envy the extent of the Church, fo he knows fure that the converting or taking in more or lefs makes no fuch alteration in the nature of the Church Call, or Conftitution And if ic did, yet do not all PropheGes fpeak of the inlarging of the Church by Chrift, and multiplying it ? Hath not the barren more children then (he that had an husband ? And what means iHV.T.to talk of here one, and there one ? i o fpeak fo contemptuouf]y,in fuch difparaging language of the Kingdom and Gofpei of Chrift ? Is not the wonderful fuccefs of the Gofpei one of our ftrong Arguments for the truth of the Gofpei and our Chriftian Religion ? And it feems M> : T. will give this away to iht Pagans, rather then admit Infants to be members of the Church 5 was it but here one, an«l there one,when three thoufand were converted at once, and five thoufand afterwards ? and many Wyriades or ten thou- fands, even of the /i^j that continued zealous of the Law didbelieve? ^1.41. and 4.4. and »i. io. befides all Gentiles ? was it but here and there one, when all that dwelt at Lydda and Savon turned to the Lord both men and women ? Acl< 9^, and all that dwelt at Samaria, Acts 8. Let him (hew me when three thoufand Jews were made Church members in a day if he can before Chrifts time : I fay, if he can let him (hew it me. Sure ever fince Abrahams time, (and I doubt not but before too) they were added to the Church by one and one as they were born. And I have (hewed you before, that Chrift fendeth his MeiTengers to Difciplcall Nations ; It is a bafe Expofition that (hall fay he means onely, Go and Difciple me here one and there one out of all Nations, and no more. And what meaneth that in&x/e/.xx.if. The King* doms of the world are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Chrift. Are not thefe Kingdoms added to the Church, as well as Ifrael ? And are not all ProfelTors of Chriftianity in England, as truly in the Church as all in Ifrael were ? I challenge any to anfwer me herein, and undertake to make it good againft them (as far as will ftand with modefty to challenge,) whatfoever any Sepaiatift (commonly called Independents) or Anabaptifts may fay to the contrary (tor I have pretry well tried the ftrength of their Arguing in this J Yet a little further. Either Mr. T. by [Church Call] means that which was the means of entering Infants, or men at age, or fomewhat common to both. The Jews did all enter into the Church as members in infancy, even they that deferred Cir- cumcifion till forty years old, and the women that were not circumcifed. And what Call had thefe Infants that cannot underftand a Call ? The Profelites, who were made Church Members at age, were firft converted to God, and profefTed the true Religion, and fo brought in their children with them : They were converted not all in a day, but by times j not onely by Mofes or fucceeding Magiftrates, but chiefly by Priefts or Levites, or zealous people, or by what way or means God was pleafed to ufe for that end. I did intreat Mr.T. to (hew me any materiall difference between the Call of thefe Profelites into the Church in all ages till Chrift,and the Call of us Gen- tiles into the Church : And truly he gave mean anfwer of meer words for a put off, (wherein he hath a notable faculty) which I can finde no weight nor fence in, nor am I able to tell you what he would fay to it j nor can I conceive what poffibly can be faid of any moment. And as Camera well noteth, {u&Stfliv&v is now ufed in the Gburch, as it were in the place of tspo(m\v\ium : Difcipling now to us, is as Profeliting was to them. So that you fee now what this Church Call is which he layeth fo great a weight on, and how much in the njain « difiereth from ours, But Infants Cbtircb'Wemberjhif and Baptifm. 37 BUc yet one other Argument Mr. r. hath to prove the Church-conftitution altered, and confequently Infants now caft out, or their Church. member(hip repealed ; And that is this j They were to go up three times a year to the Temple j they had their Sanedrim, and High Prieft : now he appealeth to all whether thefe be not altered : And therefore the Church conftitution muft needs be altered $ and fo Infants put out. Alas, referable Caufe that hath no better Arguments 1 Are any of thefe Eflentiall to their Church conftitution ? How came there to be fo ftrift a conjunction between Prieithood, Temple, Sanedrim, &c. as that the Church muft needs fall when they fail ? May it not be a Church without thefe ? I would intreat M.T. or any Chriftian who hath the leaft good- will to truth left in him,confiderately to Anfwer me to thefe: i. Was not the Jewilh People a Church before they had either Temple, or Sanedrim, or High Prieft , or any of ail the Ceremonies or Laws of SHjfes / were they not a Church in Egypt , and in the Families of Abraham , Ifaac and Jacob? 2. Did the adding of thefe Laws and Ceremonies take down any former part of the Church ? Or did every new Ceremony that was added, make a new Church or Conftitution of the Church? 3. If the adding of all thefe Ceremonies did not make a new Church or overthrow the old s why (hould the taking of them away overthrow it * 4. If the Jews Church conftitution before Mofes time was luch as took in Infants, why not after Mofcs time ? Or if Infants were Church- members long before either Temple, or Sanedrim , or High Prieft, &c. Why may they not be fo when thefe are down ? Why muft they needs fall with them when they did not rife with them ? 5. And if the very fpecificall nature of their Church be taken down, then men are caft out, and women too as well as children : If it be faid, that Chrift hath appointed men and women to be Church members anew. I anfwer : What man can imagine that Cnrift firft repealed the Ordinance that men and women mould be Members of the Church , and then fet it up anew ? I will wafte no more time in confuting fuch flender Arguments, but (hall willingly leave it to the judgement of any underftand- ing unbyaffed man , whether Mr. T. have well proved , that God repealed his Ordinance, and revoked his mercifull gift , that fome Infants /hall be Church- members. A Nd now, by Gods help , 1 mall try whether I can any better prove that it is noc Repealed : Though I muft tell you that it is no necefiary part o£ my task, feeing the proof lyeth on him that affirmeth the Repeal , and not on me that deny it. If I bring any Scripture to prove any truth , it is an eafie matter to fay it Is repealed, if that may ferve turn •' So the Aminomians will put by much of the Scripture, and the Ami-Scripturift will deny it all. B 3 CHAP, 38 Plain Scripture poof of CHAP. VI. i Y firft Argument is this. If God have Repealed this Ordinance, and revoked this mcrcifull gift of Infants Church-memberfhip, then it is either in Mercy or in Juftice, either for their Good or for their Hurt : But he hath neither Repealed it in Mercy for their Good, nor in Juftice for their Hurt 3 therefore he hath not at all repealed It. I will hide nothing from you that Mr. T. hath faid againft this Argument, either in our publike Difpuce or in his Sermon. The fufficiency of the enumeration in the Major Propofition, he never offered to deny : nor indeed is there any ground to deny it It muft needs be for the Good or Hurt of Infants that they are put out 5 and fo muft needs be in Mercy or Juftice : for God maketh not fuch great alterations in his Church and Laws to no end, and of no moment^ but in meer indifferency. The Minor I prove in both parts f i. That God hath not Repealed this to their hurt in Juftice , I prove thus : If God never Revoke his Mercies , nor Repeal his Ordinances in Juftice to the Parties huryill they firft break Covenant with him, and fo procure it by their own defert, then he hath not in Juftice revoked this Mercy to the hurt of thofe that never broke Covenant with him : But it is certain that God never revoketh a Mercy in Juftice to the hurt of any that never broke Covenant with him > therefore to fuch he hath not fo revoked it. That this is a Mercy, and of the Covenant, is plain 3 Deut. i9.to 3 t 1,1 i. and fre- quently paft denyall. 2 That God doth not in Juftice revoke fuch to any but Cove- nant-Breakers, Iprove briefly thus : i.From the mercifull nature andconftartt deal- ings of God, who never cafteth off thofe that caft not effhim : i.From his Truth and Faithfulnefs : for elfe wefhould make God the Covenant- Breaker and not man§; which is horrid blafphemy. 3 From the immutability and conftsney of God : His gifts and calling are without repentance. 4 Scripture frequently layeth all the Caufe of all evill of fuffei ing Upon mans finning ; Tor the iniquity of Jacob is all this, and for the fin of lfrael, Mic. 1.5. Thy deftrublwn is of thy fclf Ifrael, but of me a thy hcfp 3 Hef.iJ.o. Hethatwili deny this, is not worthy the name of a Chriftian. Now you know there were many Jews th*t did believe , and did not forfakethe Covenant of God, even moft of the Apoftles themfe!ves,and many thoufands more: Now how then can thefe or their Infants be put out of the Church in Juftice to their hurt, who did not firft break Covenant with God ? I am brief in this, becaufe Mr.T. doth not deny it. But that which he Anfwereth, is, that [It is in Mercy for their Good.] I prore the contrary plainly thus, It can be no Mercy to take away a Mercy , except it be to give a greater in the ftend of it . But here is no greater Mercy given ro Infancs in the ftead of Church-mcnberflup ; there- fore it can be no Mercy :o them that it be revoked. The Major Mr.T. doth not deny 3 and I will fully tell you all that he faith to the Minor r 1. In his Difputehe anlwered , thit Church-membenhip of Infants was revoked in Mercy for their Good 5 and that they had a greater Mercy in ftead of it: And what io you think is that greater Mercy ? Why, it is Chrift come in the flefh. I confefs Infants Church-memberjhif and Baptifm. 3 j I confefs it amazethme to fee the power of errour, how it can both at once be- reave the underftanding of ordinary Light , and the Confcienee of tendernefs $ or one of thefe at leaft. Is it poflible that the judgement of fuch a man as My, r. can take this for a fatisfa&ory Anfwer, or his Confcienee give him leave to deny Church- memberihip to all Infants in the World , and to raife a Schifm in a poor diftreffed Church 1 and to charge their own blood on the heads of his people that yield not to him, and all upon fuch lamentable grounds as thefe ? 1. Was it ever heard before from the mouth of man, that Chrift fucceeded Church- memberihip, as a thing thfc was to give place for him ? Doth Chrift caft any out of the Church only, that he may fucceed them ? Can he prove that their Church-mem- beifhip wis a Type of Chrift, that muft ceafe when he was come ? Why doth he not prove it then from fome Scripture or reafon i Cannot we have a room in the body, without being caft out at the coming of the head ? Arc the Head and Members at fuch odds, that one muft give place and be gone when the other comes ? Why then is not the Church* memberihip of men and women to give place to Chirft s coming in the flefh ? Sure the nature of Church- memberfhip is the fame in both. Why did the Apoftles never fpeak of this among the Types of Chrift that did ceafe, that all In. fantsare put out of the Church or Family of God , that Chrift may fucceed as a greater Mercy to them then their room in his Church and Family ? Is not here com* fort (but by a (illy comforter) to all the Jews themfelves ? though they are broken off from the Church, yet Chrift is a greater mercy to them in ftead of it. But let us confider a little what isthe Church ? Is it not the body of Chrift ? even all the Church fince Adam's fall, and the making of the New Covenant is one body of Chrift : even the viiible Church is his vifible body , as I Cor. iz. and many Scriptures fully (hew j therefore even the Branches not bearing Fruit are faid to be in him, that is, in his vifible body, Job. i+. *>*>}. Now doth Chrift break off all In- fants from his body , that he may come in the flefti to be a greater Mercy to them ? W hat's that> but to be a greater Mercy then himfelf 3 who is the life and welfare of the body ? Again, it feems by this, SMr,T thinks that Excommunication* is a great Mercy ; If all the Jews Infants had been Excommunicate or caft out of the Church by God himfelf 3 it were no more then Chrift did in Mercy- never bringing theminto any other Church in ftead. Againft this ftrange fi&ion I argued thus ; If ordinarily God Ihew not fo great Mercy to thofe out of the Church as to thole in it , then it is not a greater Mercy, or for the parties greater Good to be put our, then to be in •* But or- dinarily God flieweth not fo great Mercy to thofe out of the Church as to thofe in its- Therefore it is not for their greater Good > nor in greater Mercy to be put out. To this Mr. T. anfwered nothing. I argued alfo thus ; If thofe that are Out of the Church fince Chrift, have no fuch Promife or Afluranceof Mercy from him 3 as thofe In the Church had before Chrift, then it is not To them a greater Mercy to be Out of the Church ; But thofe Out of the Church fince Chrift , have no fuch Promife or AiTurance of Mercy from him, as thofe In the Church had before Chrift : Therefore it cannot be to them a greater Mercy. To this ZMr.T- anfwered- That it is a greater Mercy to Infants fince ' Chrift to be Out of the Church, i hen before to be In it 5 and that they have as much affurance of Mercy frcm.ChriftnGV^as then (hcihould fay, more :) To which I Replyedthus; If thofe Infants which were in the Church before Chrift , had God engaged in an Oath and Covenant to be their God , and to uke them for his peculiar People; and thefe 40 Plain Scripture proof of there Infants out of the Church fince Chrift have no fuch thing 5 then they before! Chrift in the Church had more suTuranceof mercy then thofe out of the Church fince Chrift : But the former is true, as I proved out of Dm. 29.10,11, 12. Upon which Text, What vain altercations there were 3 and what words were ufed againft the exprefs letter of the Text,you mall fee in the Relation of the Difpute, if I be called to publifh it. I further add out o(Epbef. 2.12. Thofe that were aliens to the Common- wealth of Jfrael, were ftrangers to the Covenant of Promifes, and without hope, and without God in the world : and there is no Scripture fpeaketh of delivering any from this fad ftate but Church members 5 therefore fure it can be no mercy to be put out of the Church. Again, God added to the Church fuch as fliould be faved : therefore to be caft or put out of the Church is no known way of mercy. Again*, The Church is the Family of Chrift, (even the vifible Church is called the Houfe of God, 1 Tim.$.is) But it is no known way of mercy to be out of Gods Houfe and Family. Agiin,The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth $ therefore no mercy to be taken off it. Again, The Church vifible is the vifible body of Chrift 5 but it is no mercy to be feparated from Chrifts body. Again, The Church vifible is Chrifts vifible Kingdom ; But it is no mercy to be out of Chrifts Kingdom 5 Therefore it is no mercy to be out of the C hutch. Laftly, Do but read all thofe hundred glorious things that are fpoken of the City of God, all thofe high praifes that are given to thefew>(h Chuich, in pe&. and the Pfalms, and all the Scriptures (who is life unto thee Ifrae^&c.) And then read all the far more glorious things that are fpoken of the Gofpel- Church fince Chrift .• And if after this you can ftill believe, that God did in mercy caft Infants out of one Church, and never take them into the other, and that Chrift came in the flem to put them thus out of his Church in mercy, as if he could fitlier faye them out of his Church then in it j I fay, If after reading the forefaid paffages you can believe this, for my part I give you up as forlorn, and look upon your underftandings in this as forfaken by God,! and not oneiy void of fpiritUal illumination, but common reaion : and pray the Lord to fave the underftandings of all his people from fuch a plague,and to refcue yours before you go further. BUt let us fee what ^fr. 7'. anfwers to this in his Sermon, which upon delibera- tion he afterward preached to confute my Arguments, and therefore cannot lay the blame upon his unpreparednefs. And truly in my judgement he doth here plainly throw down his weapons, and give up the whole Caufe (though not direftly confef- ling his error ; he is not yet fo happy. ) I were beft give you his own words, left I be thought to wrong him : they are thefej [As for thofe petty reafons> If it be done, it muft be in Mercy or Judgement, I fay in Mercy in refpeft of the whole Ca:holikc Church ; now Chrift being come, and we having a more fpiritual Church-State thexi they had} Their Church- ftate was more carnal and flefhly, and agreabie to their time of minority : I: is in mercy that it is taken away-; And as for that exception, It cansot be taken away in mercy, unlefs fome priviledge be to them in ftead of it : We anfwer, It h in mercy to the whole Church ; thougk no priviledge be to them.] So far A/r.7\wo:ds« I con- Infants ChuYch-membcrfluy and Baptifm. 41 I confels I never heard a cairfe more plainly forfaken, except a man fhoul J Cay flatly, I have erred, or [recant, i. He much akereth the terms of my Argument, as yon may fee by it before. The Argument is thus j It can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken away from them, except it be to give a greater in its ftead ; But here is no greater mercy given to Infants In ftead of Church membermij) j therefore it can be no mercy to them_,that it be revoked or taken away.To call thefe, [ Petty reaions] is the onely ftrength of Mr.T. his Anfwer.Fof I pray you mark. Si. He never denied the Major Propofition [That it can be no mercy to any to have a mercy taken from them, except that they may have a greater in ftead : ] He could not deny this with any mew of Reafon : For otherwife,if it be a mercy meerly to deprive the creature of mercy, then we (hall turn Hell into heaven, and make it the greateft place of mercies, becaufe none are deprived of mercy lb much as theyjno nor of this particular mercy: for none 2,-c further removed from being members of rhe Church then the damned. 2. And obferve next, That as MrT. deniethnot the Major, fo here he plainly grants the Minor, and fo yields the whole Caufe. For the Miner was [ f hat here ft no greater mercy given to Infants in ftead of Church Memberlhip-] Doth not Mr, •/".acknowledge this? when he faith twice over : I. That it is a mercy to the whole Ca- tholike Church (to have their Infants put out of the Church) And fo if the mercy be onely to the Catholike Church, that they be none of the Church (vifible) then it is not to them a mercy : So that he taketh ic to be a mercy onely to others, but none to them according to this anfwer. 2. Yea, he faith it m&re plainly the fecond time, That it is in mercy to the whole Church, though no privikdge (much lefs a greater mercyjbe to them (to the Infants themfelves:)fo that for my part, I think I may weft break off here, and take the whole caufe as yielded* For if be no mercy to any to be deprived of mercy, except that they may have ageater; And if Infants have no greater in ftead of this, but onely their Parents have a greater : and both thefe be confefled: then it muft follow, that it is no mercy to Infants to be deprived of this mercy of their Church memberlhip > and confequently God hath not taken it from them in mercy for their good (which is the thing I am proving : J And Mr T. yield- eth thit it is not taken from them in Juftlce to their hurtj and therefore it is noc taken from them at all; And thus you fee what is come of the caufe chat hath beea driven on with fuch confidence. But yet let us follow it further. And 1. What means Mr.T. to talke of mercy to others, when our Qiieftion is^Whether it be a mercv tothemfelves to be unchurched? 2. By this arguing he may prove any thing almoft in the world a mercy: For aH (hall work together for good to them that love God, Row* 8 18. And therefore if I fhould ask him 3 Whether it be in mercy to wicked men, that God givcth them over to themfelves, and at laft damneth them > Mr.T. may thus anfwer that it is ; for it is a mercy to the whole Catholike Church j that is, to other men - y but what is this to the damned ? So Mr.T. faith,It is a mercy to the whole Catholike Church : But what is that to Infants who are unchurched > 3. And what a ftrange Reafon is that of &tr T. to fay, [It is a mercy, becaufe their Church State was carnal^ flelhly, and agreeable to their miaority ; but ours is fpiritual :] What is this to them that are put out of that carnal Church State, and kept out of this fpiritual Church State too ? If they had been admitted into this better ftate (as no doubt they are) then he had faid fomewhat. Elfe is not this as great a mercy to the poor ofT-caft Jews > They are put out of the carnal Church State too. But did God give fo many admirable Elogies of the Jews Church 5 And can Mr. T> yet think that it is better to be of no vifiblc Church, then to be of theirs ? G 4. A« 42 Plain Scripture proof of 4. And where did Mr. T. learn in Scripture to call the Jews Church- State [Carnall ?] Or what doth he mean by Church State ? whether the effentiall nature of the Church it felf ? or any carnall Ordinances of Worfhip which were Accident tall to it ? Is not this word [Church-State] like his former ef [Church-Call] devifcd terras to darken the matter with ambiguities , and fignifying what pleafes the fpeaker ? . 5. And how. long might I wake before Mr.T. would prove from Scripture, thu it is a Mercy to the whole Catholike Church to have all Infants put out,or un-churchcd? Thefe are the men that make their Followers believe that we have no Scripture for our Caufe. when themfelves give us but their Magifteriall Dictates. But I wonder whence he fhould fetch fuch a dream. What ? are Infants fuch Toads or Vipers in ccmsarifon of men of yearSjth.it it is a Mercy to the whole Catholike Church to have them caft out: ? Are not the Aged worfe then they ? And were wc not once all In- fants ? If this be true Doctrine , why may we not next expect to be taught, that . Infants muft alio be caft out of Heaven, in Mercy tothe whole Catholike Church ? If it be no carnall Church-State to have Infants in Heaven , why is it a carnall Church State which containeth in it Infants on Harth ? And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have Infants kept out of Heaven 3 nor no hurt to the Church to fee them there \ why fhould it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them, kept out on Eai th ?• or any hurt to the Church,to fee them here Members ? But yet let 11s come a litrle nearer; what ever it may be to enemies, or to man haters,, (of which fort the Church hath none ) yet me thinks to thofe that are Love as God is love, and that are mercifull as :h it heavenly Father is mercifull, and who are bound toVeceive little children in Chrifts Name, and who are converted and become as. children themfelves 5 to fuch it mould feem no fuch Mercy to have all infants un. churched. But fuch are all true Member* of the Church ; and therefore to the Church it can be no fuch -Mercy. But yet nearer y whatsoever ir may be to Grangers, yet me tfiinks,to the Parents themfelves it fliould feem no fuch Mercy to have their children put out of the Church * Hath God naturaMy planted fuch tender affections in Parents to their children > and doth Grace encreafe it *■ and the Scripture encourage ic } and yet muft they take it for a mercy, that their children are put out ? when Mr. T. will not fay, it is a mercy to the children. Yet further 5 why then hath God made fuch promifes to the Parents for their Seed ? as if much of the Parents comfort lay in the welfare of their children 5 if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church , may not this Doctrine teach Parents to give their children fuch a bleffing as the Jews did ? His blood be on as and our children. For their Carfe is to be broken off from the Church ; and if th:t be a Mercy, the Jews are then happier then I take them to be .* And how can we then pray, that they may begraffed in again } 6 Eut what if all this were true } Suppofe it were a Mercy to the whole Church to have Infants put out j Yet it doth not follow that God would do it. He is the God of Infants as well as of the Aged ; and is mercifull to them as well as o- thers 5 all fouls are his ; He can mew Mercy to the whole Church in an eafier way, then by cafting out all their Infants ; And his Mercy is over all his works. I will tell you yet how i%\T. followeth this with Examples. He faith, [That the releafeof the Jews fervants, and the confecration of Nitrites and fir ft born, and the Land of Canaan, were all Priviledges, and yet thefe are taken away] To which I anfwer: There are abundance far greater given in their ftead; And what is that then to thofe Infants Church member [hip and Baptifm. 4 3 thofe that have nothing in ftead ? Befide , if Mr. T. think that the mercy of Church * memberlhip is of as low a nature as to be Na\aritcs 3 or to have Canaan , he is much miftaken But he faith, [ That it was a Privilege to the Jews to be owned as Gcffis People diftinft from the reft of the World, while others were pafTed by^ yet this is repealed in Mercy to us Gentiles.] Anfwer ; In my diftinaions before you may fmde this anfwered. i. Then it was no Mercy to the Jews you think, but to us Gen- tiles ; But oflr Queftion is, Whether it be a Mercy to the un-Lhui chtd Infants ? a. The Jews being a Church and People of God, was a Mercy $ and this God took not from any of them, but thofe that caft it away •• But the reftri&ion of this to them, and the exclufionof the Gentiles , was no Mercy to them, and this only (with the Ceremoniall Accidents ) did God take away by the change of his Laws. It Wwuld have been rather an addition to the happinefs of the believing Jews , to have the Gen- tiles taken in, by taking down the partition Wall; And fo it will be when the Jews are grafted in sgaln , and both made one body. Why elfedotn the Jewifli CTiurch p ay for herjittle Sifter that had no 8reafts ? And Noah pray that God would pe; fwa.Je Jap5et to dwel in the Tents of Sem ? Though the reftriaion there- fore, and the exclulion , (which are no Mercies to the Jews; be taken away, yet no Meicy is taken from them but what is fupplyed with a far greater in Chrift; And though they partake not of thefe , yet that is becaufe of their: jpwn un- belief who rejea it , and not becaufe the new Law doth exclude them .'Tor God hath in his new Law or Covenant made a Deed of Gift of Chrift and all his benefits, to All that will receive him, whether Jew or Gentile , without excluding or excepting any. And for his denying to particular perfons the Grace of Converiion, that is nothing to our prefent bufinefs,as belonging to Decree,and not to any change in the Laws t and it was denyed.to many before Chrift , aad granted to many thou- [mds Jews fince Chrift j and mall be at laft to far more. And thus you have heard all that Mr. T. upon deliberation hath faid to this Arga- ment. And yet (would any man think it?) he concludeth that [this is abundant clear Anfwer to all allcdged from the vilible Church membership of the children of the jews.] O never let my foul be tainted with this errour which fo ftrangely bereaves men of common ingenuity 1 CHAP. VII. The fecond Argument to prove that Infants church. member pjlp is not repealed s and cenfequently they are (lilt to be Members of the vifibie Church. Come now to my fecond Argument to prove [That the mercifuil Gift and Ordinance, that fome Infants mould be Church mem- bers, is net repealed;] and it is, (from Rom.11.17. And if fome branches be broken off&c.) Whence I argue thus : If it be only fome that were broken off from the Church, then to the reft that were ftill in it, the mercifuil Gift of Church mem- bet (hip to them and their children is not revoked : But it is only Some that were broken off from the Church ; Therefore to the reft that rem lined in, the Gift was not Repealed. The Antecedent is the plain words of the Text : The ftrength of the Confc, G 2 Cjtience 44 Plain Scripture poof ef «juence lyethhere: i. For the parties not broken off; The breaking off from the Church is an unavoydable conference of the revoking of the Gift of Church-mem- beShip 5 and rhe repealing of the Ordinance : Therefore where there is no breaking off from the ChurChj there is no fuch revoking or repealing. This is moft evident j and yet Mr. T. denyed this Confequence. 2.1f any fay,;hat the Some that were broken off were [all the Infants,among others] as the whole Lrnpter will confute them 5 fo fpeoially confider, that the'Apoitle faith it of the Jewifli Church whereof Infants were Members with their Parents , that it was but Some that were broken offfrom this Church $ fo far is the whole Church then from being diffolved. Alfo confider that as the Infants come in with their Parents 3 fo they are not caft out while the Parents continue In : Except when they are grown up , they caft out themfelves by their perfonall fins. Who can imagine that God mould caft out the Infant (that came" in for the fathers fake ) while the Parents remain in the fame Church ? But the Anfwer that is here given,ts, that this place fpeaketh of the invisi- ble Church , which I lhall reply to when I have layd down my next Argument , be- caufe it is from the fame Chapter. CHAP. VIII. Y third Argument to prove that this is not repealed,!* from Rom u. 20. {well : becaufc of unbelief they were broken off: ] Whence I argae thus : If none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief ' , then believing Jews and their Seed were not broken ©#5 and confequent- ly the Gift of Church- membership was not to them revoked: But none of the Jews were broken off but for unbelief : Therefore Believers and their Seed were not broken off 5 and confequently the Gift to them is not repealed. The Major or Antecedent is plain in. the words of the Text* The confequence, fc, I think undeniable : For I hope none will affirm that God broke off all the Infants of believing Jews for the fins or unbelief of other men. He that will not puniih the children for the Fathers fins t will much lefs punifh them for a Strangers. I have one other Argument from the fame^Chaptcr y but I will Anfwer the Ob- jections againft altogether here before I come to that. All that I know that Mr. T. faith to allthcfe, is, that they fpeak of the invifibJe Church. But T pray you mark .* He doth not fay, of the invifible only : Nay 3 he col- feffed in our Difpute that it fpoke of the vifible alio : And that is as much as I need, and indeed 3 yeiiding of the Caufe. But he faiih, ft Speaks not of the vifible Church as vifible ; How then ? Doth it fpeak of the vifible Church as net vifible ? This is an anfwer like the reft. He brings many reafons in his Apology to fhew that the snvifib e Church is here meant 3 but not of force 3 though nothing to thepurpofe. The truth is^ it is the fame Church in feverall refpects that ufually is called vifible or invifible. It isfpccially for the fake of true Believers, that all feeming Believers are called the*Ch«rch : And to fay, therefore , that the Jews are L roken offfrom the Church invifible only, and we planted in their ftead , is vain, It is the fame Corn Fierdthat containeth the Corn and the Chaff and Straw ; But the Corn be- fog the more excellent, though the lefs difcerned part , doth give the name to the whole/ Infants Church-memberjlup an d Baftifm. 45 whole. Now if you reap the Corn, and more grow up in the fame Field, will you fay that it grows up in the place of the Corn only , or of the Straw or Chaff only ? Neither : But as before Corn and Straw and Chaff grow up together and make one vifible Corn Field, fo Corn and Straw and Chaff do fpring and grow up together in the place of the former , and make one Corn Field as the former did. So is it with the Church vifible and invifible, of the Jews and Gentiles. But I will give you divers plain Arguments from the Text, to prove that Paul fpeaketh here of the vifible Church. And i.I argued from verf.24.F0r if thou wen cut out off the Olive tree which is wild by nature, and wen grafted contrary to nature into a good Olive tree 5 bow much mote (ball thefc which be the naturall brunches be grafted into their own Olive tree i Hence I argued thus : That Church whereof the Jews were naturall branches, was the vifible Church : But the Church that P*«/. fpeaks of, was that whereof the Jcws # were naturall branches •* Therefore it was the vifible Church ; Here an ordinary man would think there were nothing to be denyed, But Mr* T. denyed the Major 5 whether according to his confeience or againft it,he beft knows. For can any man believe that the Jews are called naturall branches of the invifible Church only ? I prove the Major there- fore, thus : If T^/here fpeak of the main body of the Jewifh Nation, and that body were all Members of the vifible 1 but not of the invifible Church 5 then it is the vifible Church , and that moll: directly , that Paul here fpeaks of; But Paul here fpeaks of the main bocfy of the Jewim Nation , who were all Members of the vifible Church, but not all of the invifible : Therefore it is the vifible Church, and that moft directly, that Paul here fpeaks of. Me thinks this is plain : Can any man imagine that Paul fpeaks only of the Elecl: Jews, who only are Members of the invifible Church ? that they are cut off, that we might be graft into the invifible Church in their place ? This Argument might prove the main by it felf. Further thus : If there be none known to us to be of the invifible Church immediately , but by firft knowing them to be of the vifible ; then it muft be principally or firft the vifible Church where- of *2aul faith the Jews were naturall branches .' But the former is true j therefore the later. Who dare fay that PaulfyoVt here from fome Revelation extraordinary , when he calltth the Jews na.turall branches ? But if it had been of the invifible Church di- rectly, Paul could have known ne man to be a Member of that but by extraordinary Revelation. Further I argued thus : (but chiefly ad hominem, becaufe Mf.t. ftands fo mucfe on Rom.9.7.) If the Jews were not naturall branches of the invifible Church directly, but only of the vifible , then it is the vifible Church that Paul here cals them natural! branches of: But the Jews were not naturall branches of the invifible Church direct-, ly : Therefore it is the vifible that Paul here fpeaks of. CMr. T. denyed the Minor, which I proved out cf Rom. 9-6,7> 8. They aye not aU Ifrael which are of lfrael (but they were all naturall branches) Neither becaufe they are the feed of Abraham are they children, but in lfaacfhaU thy feed be called 5 that is , 7 hey which are the children of the flcjh, thefe are ?iotttM children of God, (Therefore not naturall branches of the im vifible Church,) but the children of the Promife are accounted (or the Seed. To this Mr T. anfwered by a learned diftinition , [That they were the Naturall branches of the invifible Church,but not By nature :] To which I replyed, That the very exprefs words of the Text, verf. 24 officii, confutethhis diftinctiofl., ufing both termes- [Naturall] and [by Nature] G 3 He 46 Plain Scripture proof of — ——■— i»ii ii mi i i n ■ i m i ' • - He then added [That as men,they were oi Abraham, and Co were natural j but not as branches.] Ah, what a pack of poor (hifts are here > x. The Apoftle fpeaks of natural branches, and not natural men ? 2. He oppofeth them to the Gentiles, who were natural men as well as the Jews ; but not natural branches. The reft of the heap of words that were here ufed,had no fence in them that I could understand, and you fhall findethem in the Difpute if publifhed. How well M-.T.agrees with himfelf,I defire yoo to judge when you have read thefe words in his Exam.pag. 108. The Phrafes (faith he) Jto.11.21. [( f the natural bran- ches, iter. 14 of the wilde Olive by nature, thou was grafted in befides nature 5 thefe according to nature] do feem to me to import, nor that the Jews were in the Cove- nant of grace by nature, but that they had this priviledge to be reckoned in the out- ward adminiftration as branches of the Olive by their birth, by verrue of Gods ap- pointment, which the Gentiles had not. And is not* this then to be vifible members of the Church ? But Mr. T. his wit Will finde a (hift to reconcile thefe, as contradictory as they are. Furthermore I add : Thofe that were not branches of the Invifible Churchy all, were neither NaturaUy^ nor by Nature branches of it : £nt many thoufand Jews were no branches of that Church at all 1 And thofe that Paul faithj/to 9.8. [That they were not the children of God becaufe the feed of Abraham] then they were not members of the invi'nble Church, either naturally, or by nature : But vet they were members or natural branches of the vifible Church as the CeedotAbratam} becaufe the Covenant made over that priviledge to his feed. 2. I further prove that Paul here fpeaks of the vifible Church thus. If the breaking off be -vifible, then it muft needs be from the vifible Church (yea, and dire&iy from it alone) But the brcalflig off of the Jews was vifible \ therefore it muft needs be from the vifible Church. The Antecedent (that it was a vifible breaking oft") I prove thus. I. Fona Rom.11 m. Behold ihc goodnefs and feverity of the Lord, on them which fell fevcrity >&.c* That breaking off wherein Gods feverity was tube beheld by the Gen. tiles,was fure vifible : But this was fuch a breaking off wherein the feverity of God was to be beheld by the Gentiles : therefore it was vifible. Paul would not call them to Behold that which could not be feen. 2. That breaking off which the Gentiles were in fuch danger of boafting oft againft the Jews, muft needs be vifible$(forthey would not boaft of that which was undifcern- abie,) But this was fuch, as appears vcr.1%. 20. Boaft not agamfl the branches : Be not high-minded but fear. Yea $. Paul himfelf could not elfe have known that the Jews were broken oft!, but by Revelation extraordinary, except it had been a vifible breaking off: therefore certainly the breaking off was vifible. 2. And then the confluence is evident (that if the breaking eff be vifible, then it mult needs be from the vilible ehurch : ) For to be vifib y broken eff, is to be vi- fibly removed from the Terminus a quo ■ for Cho ch from wh ich they are broken :) But there can be no vilible rcmovall, or diftance from an invihble Terminus : there. tore there can be no vifible removall f:otn an invihble Church and confequently it is the vilible Cfaupda, which tfKy are directly vihbly brckn off from : Though its true, that their breaking off from the invilible Church may from thence in the fecond place be rationally concluded. $. Again, The Conclullon before fiid I prove thus : (vi^ ThatPj«/here fpeaks of their breaking off from the vilible Church -, ) If every vifibic breaking off from the invifible Infants Church>memberjhi]> and Baptifm* 47 invifible Chnrch be alfo a vifible breaking off from the vifible Church : then the breaking eff which Paulhetc mentioneth mwft be from both (if It be from the mvifi- ble 5 ) But the former is certain, therefore the latter. The Antecedent I prove thus : To be vilibly broken off from the invifible Church vis to be vilibly out of Covenant with God, out of his favor, and in a known ftate of damnation ; ( I fpeak not here of calling out of one particular Chu>h onely, or with limitation, or of meernon -Communion ; ) but all that are vilibly cut of Covenant with G^d, and out of his favor, inaftue of damnation, are vifiblv broken cffalfo from the Yifible Church ; (I will not now difpute,whether DifaHo^x only De jure, whether mfe y or alfo qno.-idnos i ) Therefore breaking off vilibly from the vifible Church ii infeparable from vifible breaking off from the invifible : (Nay, it is the fame thing in another notion. ) Further, If God foould break offmen from the invifible Church onely and dired- ly, then it would be by an invihble ad . But this*was by a vifible ad » therefore it was from the vifible C hatch. 4. Again, You heard before from the 17 verfe, That God broke rff but fome of the Jews, and fo the reft remained in the Church : Now. if fome remain in the invi* iible Church, then much more in the vifible : for if God (houU break off All from the vifible Church, and but fome from the invifible: then he (hould take thofe for his true fervants, and in a ftate of falvation, who do neither profefs to be his fervants, nor are in Covenant with him ; But the Conference is abfurd, therefore fo is the Antecedent. That this abfurd Confequence would follow, appears thus, from the nature and properties of both forts of Church members : For vifible being in Covenant, or pro- kffing true Religion (explicitly or implicitly) maketh a vifible member J and fince- rity in the Covenant makes a member as invifible 5 and all thefe are in the ftate of falvation : Now to fay that one is a member of the invifible Church, and not of the vifible, is to fay } he is fincere in a Covenant which he is not known to be in at all ; and that he is in a ftate of falvation before he be in a ftate of common profefiioifv^ any thing equivalent, which is abfurd. And I (hall fhew ycu afterward, that without this abfurdity Mr. T. cannot in his way, affirm that any Infant is faved. 5. Again, You heard before, that they were broken off onely for unbelief : Now if unbelLf onely breaW off from the invifible Church, then it ©nely breaks ©ff from the viable ; and therefore it muff needs follew, both that the viable Church is alfo here meant, and that none but for unbelief are broke off from one (rightly,/ any more then from the other. ( I run over thefe haftily, becaufe I would have done with this which is fo plain already J ©" Laftly, I ague thus. That Church which men may be, and are broken off from, is the vifible Church (for Mr.T, will confefs that no man is broken off from the in- vifible Church ; ) But this Church is it that men (the Jews,) were broken oft from .• therefore this is the vifible Church. Mr. T. hath two anfwers to this. 1* That they are boken off in appearance, as thofe branches in Job, 1 ?• z. arc faid to be in Chrift in appearance : But this is to add error to error It is bold expounding ro fay, that when Chrift faith They were branches in him, The meaning was 3 they were not in him, but onelv feemed Co 5 They were really in Chnfts vifible body, Hut z. This Anfwer in his Apology he after difltkes upon the difcovery of one that bethinks better, vn^. That it is the Colledive body of the Jews, not taken as at that one timc$ but as the river that runs to day is the fame river that ran long ago, though not the fame water. Put this ihifc wiil aeycr ferve his turn. x. For if the Church be Coi ft) 4« thin Scripture proof of ilituted ofincTividual perfons, then if none of thoie individual perfons were broken cff, the Church was not broken off . g ut c he Church is confuted or compofed of individual perfons : therefore if none of them be broken off, then the Church isnot broken off 5 ("but that.is falfe. ) a. Again, If they were broken off for unbelief then for the unbelief of fomeper- tkular per/ons, and confequently it was forne individual perfons that for that unbe- lief were broken off: now fure God would not break off the Church for c he unbelief pf any foregoing age, without their own. $. Again, If but feme were broken off, then thok fome muft needs be individual perfons, and not ail the Nation in a fence containing no individual perfon. 4. According to Mr. T. his conceit, they muft be in breaking off a long time, at leaft an age, vi%, by the death of all the true believers, and the fucceflion of unbe- lievers : But this was not fo ; There was a time when the fame Church, f for the greater part) which was a Church -before, did immediatly ceafe to be fo,^. when Chriil added anew fundamental Article to their Creed, without which they might •^before have been faved,but after could not [if ye believe not that l am be, ye (hall die iayour fins'] They that were of the Church before, Immediatly upon the rejecting of this Article were all unchurched : this being now made effential to their Sonfhip, orChurch-member(hip,andofabfolute neceffity to their falvation, which was not fo before to the fame individual perfons : their unbelief which was but negative, was now privative. j Either they were a Church immediatly before this breaking off, or notr If they were not, then they were broken offbefore this breaking off, and fo this could be no break- ing off.' If they were a Church, then it was individual perfons that were broken off} and confequently it muft needs be from the viiible Church, feeing from the invifible there is no breaking off in Mr. T>. own judgment. And thus, I dare confidently affirm, that I have fully proved, that the Apoftle in Jfcjp.i 1. doth fpeak oi the Church vifibie ; from which it is but fome that he faith are bfcfjcen 0$ and thofe but for unbelief* and therefore all the believing Jews and their children are yet in that Church, as being never yet broken off. I defire you to re- member this too, the rather becaufe I (hail make further ufc of fome. Texts in this Chapter. CHAP. IX. Y fourth Argument to prove that Gods Ordinance for In- fants Church- member (hip is not repealed, is from Rom.11, 24. [How much more {halt tbefe which be naturatt branches begiaffid into their own Olive tree?"] Whence I argue thus.If it be into their own Olive (even the Olive which th^y were broke off from, and of which they were natural branches) that the jews mall be reingraffed at their recovery : then Gods Ordinance for thei infants Church-memberfhip is not repealed. But th-y thall be reingraffed into their own Olive 5 therefore the faid Ordinance is not Repealed. The Antecedent' is the words of the Text. The reafon of the Confequence lie:h here; in chat their mn Qlive is their own Church 3 1 know not any that deniech that : And their Infants Church- member fhip and Baptifm. ^p their own Church did ever contain Infants as members 5 therefore when they are re- ingrafted into their own Church their Infants mull needs be reingrafttd with them. I know nothing that can be faid againft this,' but the old objection of Mr. T. [That it is the invidble Church tkat is here meant.] To which I dare fay, I have given an anfwer fufficient to prove that it is the Church vifible. And one more Argument,to that end let me add from the Text. That Church which is called the Jews own 3 muft needs lie ihe vifible Church : But this Church which Paul fpeaks of was the Jews own; therefore it was the vifible. If I thought any would deny that the vifible Church was more properly called [the Jews svph] then the invifible^ I would wafte fome time to prove it 5 in the mean time X take it for granted. CHAP. X. t Y fifth Argument to prove the Ordinance for rnfantj Church-memberfhip not repealed, is from the fame verfe, with the two following. [They Jball be g< aged into their own Olive Blindnefs in part is hapned to Ifrael, till the fulnefs of the Gentiles be come in,and fo All Ifrael (haW be faved] with a multitude of the. like places in Scripture which fpeak of the calling of the fewi(h Nation. From whence I argue thus. If AH Ifrael (hall be grafted again into their own Olive, and All be faved from cheir off- broken ftate, then Infants (hall be grafted in and faved with the Parents :But the Text faith, That All Ifrael (hali be grafted in again, and faved, from their Off broken ftate ; Therefore Infants alfo lhall be grafted in and faved. I know but two things that can be fa id againft this; Firft, Some may fay that by All Ifrael 3 is meant, fome onely, excluding all Infants. To which I anfwer j i« I had rather fay, as God faith : then as th*:y that thus contradict him : Upon fuchexpofi- tionsyoumaycontradiftany thing in the Bible as well as this. If God fay AH, at ieaft I think it the fafcfl way to believe it is All. But me thinks thofe men fljould not rejeft the plain letter of Scripture, that fo exclaim againft us for want of plain Scripture. z. Paul faith not All believers but \_All ifrael : ] (hewing fully that it will be a Na- tional recovery.Now if you can prove that any are excepted : yet if it be National, 1 certainly Infants are part oftheNationjand it is not the Nation if all the Infants be excluded z. If the old objection (that it is the invifible Church) be brought in by Mr.T.bt* fides, what is faid againft it already, I yet further add from the Text this ftrong Ar- gument. That Church which All ifrael fhall be faved into, or re- ingrafted, or reco- vered into.is the vifible, and not the invifible Church ; But this Church which Paul fpeaks of, is it which All ifraetthzM be faved or re-ingrafted into ; therefore it is the vifible, and not the invifible Church. I can hardly imagine Mr.T. fo charitable, as to fay that AH ifrael, men, women,and children (hall be certainly faved eternally, as they muft be if they be faved into the in* wfittc Church: If he fhould fo judge, yet at leaft this will hold, That if the whole Nation, Infants aad all, be fo vifibly faved into the Church invifible, then they are H muck yo Plain Scripture proof of much more Tared into the Church vifiblc. But according to Mr. T. /UTlfraeLftnll be faved into the Church inviftble, therefore much more into the Church vifible. I would Air.T. would the w aftttletipon thefe plain Arguments. I believe if he know chit AH che Jews Infants at their recovery (hall be faved, he dare not fure deny them to be membr* of the vifible i hurch (except he be grown fo bold, that he dare deny aimoft any thing that is againft his way.) CHAP. XI. W^'$fa^t$$£ ^ ^ xt ^ Argument l$ a ^° f rom ^ fame Text, vcrfe 17. 10. 24J \8^/~^ [.iff owe of the branches be broken ojf 3 , ^\ = \W^/~1^! Uffowe of the branches be broken off 3 and thou being amid OHve " treewerty.ijf.dwd*>ong(l them and with thsm partake ft of the root andfatntfs oftk Olive tree, &c] The branches were broken [ offrhat I mi^ht be graft in &c. fo vcyf,2+. Whence I argue thus; It it were tru fame Church that the Jews were broken off .from which we Gentiles be graffed in, then our Infants have right of memberfhip as theirs had : (and confequently the Or- dinance that f-me Infants Should be Church-members isnot repealed :) But it is the fame Olive or Church which they were broken c ft" from, that we Gentiles are graffedin: therefore our Infants have the fame righr of member(htp 3 c>t. If their Church admitted Infant- members^ and our Church be the fame, then ours muft ad- mit of Infant- members. 1 his Argument condudcth not only that the gif. and Ordinance is nor repealed to believing ]ews 3 but alfo that it continutrh to the Gentilesj what may be faid agahift it is aniwered before. I purpofely omit thofe othei Arguments which Mr Cobbet, and others ufe, to prove thit the Apoftle fpcaks of the vifible Church > becaufe I will not ftand to fay much of that which, is {umciently faid by others already in print. Another Argument I might bring here from the fame Text : in that it maketh the Olive, that is 3 the Church it felf ro remain fttll, and only.fome branches broken off, and others of the Gentiles ingrafted in their ftead:And if the church it felf were not broken, but onely fome branches 3 then it is not taken d.-wn, except onely the Cere- monial Accidentals : therefore the Apoftle faith, Blmdnejs in part is hapned to lfrael 5 that is, to part oiJJrael, But this Text 1 (hall dilmiis, and go to another. CHAP. Infants Churcb-memberjhip and Baf/tifm. 51 CHAP. XII, Y feventh Argument fliall be drawn from that of Mat.z$, 3 7, 3 8, ?9> [0 Jirujalem, Jerufalem, horn oft would I have gathered thy children together as a Hen gather eth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not / Behold your houfe is left unto you de± fblatc 3 &c.'] From hence I argue thus : If Chrift were fo tender over Jdiijalcm that he would have gathered them as a Hen ga- rhereth her chickens, then fure he would not have put them or their Infants out of the Church : (or repealed the merciful! gift and Ordinance of their Chutch-membermip") But Chirft was fo tender of them, that he would hive fo gathered Jerufalem ^c. Therefore fure he would not have un- churched their Infants. The Antecedent is the words of tHe Lord Jefus ; The reafon and ftrength of the conf quence lyeth here. 1 . It is net fome particular jews that Chrift would have gathered to himfelf ( and fo into his Church as accomplished with higher priviledges thai before ') but it was Jerufalem, whole Jerufalem^ (which is ufually puc for all Judea arid the Jewifti Nation.) Now if Jerufalem were gathered, then Infants muft needs be gathered. 1 know nothing of any moment that can be faid atgainft this ; but leave it to any tender confeience to judge , whether it be likely that Chrift would have un-churched all their Infants, when he would have gathered to himfelf the whole Nation, or whole Jerufalem J If that contemptible anfwer mould here be again returned , [that Chrift would hare gathered them only into the invifible Church :] I hive anfwered it before 5 They that are vifibly or apparently gathered into the invifible Church, are gahered alfo thereby into the vifible ; And if all Jerufalem had been gathered, it hid been doubtlefs a vifible gathering. O that I could fee as clear evidence for many other controverted truths^as I fee in chefe words of the Lord Jefus, to convince me, that he . would have gathered all Jerufalem into his vifible Church, and confequently not have un-churched all their Infants ; I mould tremble to think of refilling fo plain teftimo- niesofGod. ItChrifts own words will not ferve , I know not what will. If any fay, that by Jerufalem is meant only the aged of Jerufalem \ I anfwee : It is Vain to call for Scripture if they dare contradict it a: pleafure , or fo make it fpeak only what they lift. It is not fully a Nation, or City without the Infants. Befide,5P; mfakm had un-churched Infants when Chrift fo fpake; therefore how could hts words be otheiwife underftood by them , unlefs he had excepted Infants } x Yet further, Chrift doth not in vain ufe the fimilitude of a Hen gathering her chickens 5 a he Hen gathererh the youngeft moft tenderly ; Yea, how long will me fit the very eggs ? Now who dare expound this thus ? As a Hen gathereth ber young ones under her wings, fo 1 would have gathered the aged of you, but none of your young ones vifibly. 3 A. id doth not the leaving of their houfe defolate, mean the Temple, and Co the unchurching them, till they fay, Buffed is he (hat cometh in the name of the Lord : and then Jeyu ahm (a'ld therefore Infants,) fhall be un-churched again ? So Chrift Jefus himfelf hath made me believe that fee would have gathered all Jerufalem^ but un- churched none of them. Hi CHAP. 5* Plain Scripture poof of CHAP. XIII. Y eighth Argument is from Reviuij. If the Kingdoms of tkis world, either are or (hall be the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Chrift 3 then Infants alfo muft be Members of his Kingdom. 4 (and confequen ly the Gift andjOrdinance for their Cburch- membeifliip is not repealed.) But the Ancecedent is the words of , the Text. What can be faidagainft this that is fence or reafon > If they fay, that by [Kingdoms] is meant [f>me part of the Kingdoms] excluding all Infants : I fay, fuch men need not look into Scripture for their faith .- They may make their own Creed on thefe terms, let Scripture fay what it will : 1 know fome places of Scripture may be produced where the word kingdom and Jerufakm^ &c. is taken for a part - } but if we muft take words always improperly, be- caufethey are fo taken fometime, then we mall not know how to underftand any Scripture, and humane language will become ufeiefs : and by this any man may put by any Teftimony of Scripture , though it were to prove the mod fundamental! Truth : As the Adrians pat off all Teftimonies for the Godhead of Chrift^ becaufe Magistrates are called Gods. But the circiimftances of this Text do fully evince to us, that Chtift fpeaketh pro- perly of whole Jerufalemi and not improperly of any part only. z. If they fay, that by [Kingdom of Chrift] is not meant the Church of Chrift, they then fpeakagainft the conftant phrafe of Scripture, which cals Chrifts Kingdom his Church, & converfim : Chrift is King and Saviour of the famefociety. What is Chrifts Kingdom, but his Church? I know the Kingdom of Chrift is more large, and more fpeciall ; but here it cannot be meant of his Kingdom in the larger (ence 3 as heis^;;///'<:,only King ( in regard of voluntary obedient fubje&sj nor asheover- "ruleth common focieties and things : For fo the Kingdoms of the world were ever the Kingdoms of the Lord and his Chrift, and it could not be faid that now they are become fo. So that for any thing I can fee, this Text alone were fuffi cient to decide the whole controverfie, whether Infants muft be Church-members. CHAP. XIV. »Y ninth Argument is this : If the believing Jews children (and confequently the Parents in point of comfort) be not in a worfe condition fince Chrift , then they were before , then their chil- dren ought ftill to be Church- members. (And confequently the Gift and Ordinance is not repealed.) But certainly the believing Jews children (and confequently the Parenrs in point of comfort.) are not in a warfe condition fince Chrift then they were before : Therefore their children ought ftill to be Church- members. The Antecedent I fcarce take him for a Chriftian that will deny. Chrift did not come to make Believers or their children miferable,or to undo them, or bring them Infants Church-wemberjbip and Baptifm. 53 them into a worfe condition. This were to make Chrift a dcftroyer, and not a SavL our: He that came not to deftroy mens lives but to fave them, came not to deilroy menshappinefs, out to recover them. He that would not accufe the adulterous woman will not caft out all Infants without accufation. z. The conference a man would think fhouid be out of doubt : Ifitbenot 3 I prove it thus : i t is a far worfe condition to be out of the vHible Church then to be in it : Therefore if the believiagjews children be caft put of the Church,then they are in a far worfe condition then they were before : (and fo Chrift and Faith fhould do them a mifchief, which were blafphemy to imagine.) Can you imagine what ftiift is left againft this plain truth ? I will tell you all that M/.T. could fay (before many thoufa/id witneffes I think) and that is this, He faith plainly, That it is a better condition to Infants to be put of the Church now,then to be in ft then. Which I thought a Chriftian could fcarce have believed. 1. Are all thofe glorious things fpoken of the City of God, and is it now better to fee out of any Church, then in i: > . *" z. Then the Gentiles, Pagans Infants now are happier then the Jews were then 3 for the Pagans and their Infants arc out of the Church. But I were beft argue it a little further, g. If it be a better condition te be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himfelf to be their God , and taketh them to be his peculiar people, then to be out of that Covenant, then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then, then to be out of that and this too ; But it is a bet- ter condition to be in the afortfaid Covenant with God , then out of it : Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then, then to be in neither. The Antecedent is undeniable: The confequence is clear in thefe two CondufionsV 1. That the un churched Jews were then all in fuch a Covenant with God x This I proved. Dw/M^.i 1,1 2. Ye ftand all before the Lord your God ; your Captains, Elders y Officers , with all the men oflfrael 3 your little ones } your wives, &c. That thou fbouldcfi enter into Covenant with the L&rd thy God, and into his oath which he ma\eth with thee this daj t that he may ejiabiifh thee to day for a people unto himfelf , and that he may be to thee a God, &c, What Mr-T. vainly faith againft the plain words of this Text you may fee in the end. 2. There is to thofe that are now out of the Crmrch no fuch Covenant, aflurance 3 or mercy anfwerable. If there be, let fome body inew it , which I could never get Mr* T. to dr. Nay, he feemeth to confefs in his Sermon, that Infants now have no priviledge at all inftead of their Church- memberihip 4. 1 argue from Rom. j;l. what advantage hath the Jew,' and what profit the circum m ciftonl fMuch every way ,&c. If the Jews circumcifed un- churched Infants had much advantage every way, and thofe without the Church have none j then it is better be in their Church then without the Church : But the former is plain in the Text 5 therefore the latter is certain. 5. Again, from Rom.9.4. 1 argue thus ; If then to the Jews pertained the Adop- tion/] the Covenants, the Promifes , &c. but no fuch thing to them without the Church : then it is worfe to be out of the Church, then to be in it as they were ; But the former h the words of the holy Ghoft 5 therefore the confequent is certain. 6. If it be better to be in Gods Houfe and Family then out, and in his vifible . Kingdom then out: then it is better to be in the Church (though buj as the Jews were) then out *• But the former is evident 5 therefore the later. 7. If it be better to be a fan&ified peculiar people to God, then to be none fucfc '. (but an excluded, common, unclean people :) then it is better to be in the Church H 3 (though:; 54 Pi** Scripture proof of (though but as the Jews were) then out of the Church ; But the former is moft cer- tain ; therefore the latter. The confluence is plain, in that all the Church both Jews and Gentiles are properly a peculiar people feparated or fan&ified to God i and foare they ft ill called in the old Teftament and New : And therefore thofe with- out the Chuich muft needs be an excluded people (even as eledion of fome, imply- cth pafling by or rejecting of others :) and therefore arc called common and unclean fre^aently. 8. If God do not ufually beftow fo many or greater mercies out of his Church as he doth in it : then it is worfe to be out of the Chu ch, then to be in it (chou°h but as the Jews were.,) nut certainly God ufeth not to beftow fo many or greater mer- cies out of the Chuich as in it : therefore it is worfe to be out then in (though but as the Jews.) 9. If Chrift have made larger promifestohis Church vifible then to any in the world that are nut of the Church ('nay, if there be no fpeciall promife at all, nor fcarce common to any without the Church, but the conditionall , upon their coming in) then it worfe to be out of the Church,then to be fo in it .* But the former is truej therefore the latter. 10. If Chiift have promtfed his prefence to his Church to the end of the world and do walk among its golden Candlefticks, and take pleafure in her $ but not fo to thofe without the Church ; then it is better being within (chough but as the Jews) then without. But the former is true ; therefore the latter. Did I not refoive on brevity, it were eafier to cite multitudes of Texts for all thefe. But upon this much I fay to the contrary minded,as Joshua in another cafe, choofe you what Society you will be off, but as for me and my houfhold, we will be of the Church of God (and had I children , I mould be loth God mould (hut them out:) For without are dogs, extortioners, lyars. &c. Even Chrift cals the woman of Ca- naan that was without, a dog, though when he had admitted her into his Church , (he became a daughter. I fay therefore as Peter, whither fhatl we g§e , if we forfake the Church ? It is good for us to be here : Thofe that will needs think it better to be out of the Church, then in it 3 let them go 5 they need no Anathema , nor Excommunicati- on } feeing they think it fuch a mercy to be without the Church • I will not fay of it as Paul ot his (hip, Exceot ye abide in it, ye cannot be faved* Andfo I conclude, Chrift did not come to Believers hurt, by un-churching their children. J ; CHAP. Infants Church-memberfiip andBaptifnt. 55 CHAP, XV. ; Y tenth Argument is thisfiomHeb,$.6. [fcfus is thcMcdlator of : < a better Covenant JlMiJh id on baiter promt f^s fleb 7. 22. And \ the author of a better Tefiamcnt, Rom. f.14, 15,10. inhere ftrt abounded } pace much more abounded.Epha j 1 g . zo. That ye may comprehend the height,and breadth ,and length. .a-.d depthand tyon the love of'Chrifi which patfeth ^norvled^e j J with a hundred the like places, from whence I 3rgue thus. If the Church of Ch: ift be not in a worfe (late now (in regard of their childruis happi- nefSj and their Parents comfort therein) then ic was before Chrifts coming, then our children ought to be Ghurch-raembers : (and confequent- ly that Ordinance and mercifall Gift is not repealed.) But all the laid \ ex;s and many more (hew, that the Church of Chrift is not in a worfe condition now rhen it was then vbut unconceivably better;) therefore cur children ought to be Chu: ch- members^ as weli as theirs were then. I have before proved that it is worfe to be out of the Church then in it 3 and then nothing elfe can be (aid againft this Argument, that I know of. Further, I might prove it out of Ephcf z.iz. They that are out of the Church are faid to be ftrangers to the Covenant, and without hope, and without God in the world, in companion with thofe within the Church O how little th^n do they ap- prehend that height and depth I &c. Or know that Love of Chrift that paffeth knowledge, who think that Chrift willun-chuich all the Infants of Believers now,' that took them in fo tenderly in the time of Mofcs l How infenfible do they appear to be of the glorious rich*.* of the Gofpel,. and the free abundant grace of Chrift, who have fuch unworthy thoughts of him, as if be would put all our children cue of his Church ? How little knew they the difference between Chrift and Mofcs 3 thzt think they might then be Church- members and not now? And ye: (oh the blindnef$j)thefe men do this under pretence of magnifying the fpidtuality of the Gofpel priviledges ! As if to be a member of Chrifts L hurch , were a carnall thing > or as if the vifibie Church were not the obje& and recipient of fpirituall as well as common mercies! 1 he Apoftle in Gat faith, The defolate or ba.ren hath more chiicren then flie that kid an husband > andthefemen make all her children caft out. The apoftle faith, God had provided better things for us, (then for them,) that they without us mould not be made perfect Hcb. 11.40. and rhefe men make us info much worfea condition then they he Apoftie faith, Chrift hath taken down the partition Wall, and made loth ^ne^&c. £/>&.** 1 4«by letting thcGontilts into theChurch-priviledges of rhejews, (and much more 5) and thtfe men think the partition Wail is i'b far Handing ftul as tokeepomcur children, yea,, and to unchurch theirs that were in before: his is not to take down the partition Wall between Church and Heathens. Jew and Gentile , but to pluck up the Wall of the Chu.ch or Vineyard it felf 3 and as to our children, to lay all wafteto the Wiidcrnefs (except CMr. 7'. vv ill yet again bethink him and fhew us that the mercies without the Church are greater then within, and that Infants have fome greater mercy inftead of their being in the Church and Tamily and Kingdom of God j which he will never well do, CHAP. 5* Plain Scripture f roof of CHAP. XVI. Y eleventh Argument is this : If the children of Believers be now put out of the Church, then they are in a worfc condition then the very children of the Gentiles were before the coming of Chrift : But that were moft abfurd and falfe 5 therefore fo is the Antecedent. The Confequent would plainly follow , if the Antecedent were true , as is evident thus: Before Chnfts coming any Gentile in the world without exception, if he would, might have his children to be Members of the vifible Church : But now (according to Mr.T. ) no Gentile may have his child a Member of the Church • Therefore according to this Doctrine the very Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are in a worfe condition now : and Chrift mould come to be a deftroyer, and do hurt to all the world, f which is moft vile doctrine.,) That the Gentiles might have their children Church members before, if they would come in themfelves, is not denyed , nor indeed can be : For it is the exprefs letter of Gods Law, that any Stranger that would come in might bring his children, and all be circumcifed and admitted Members of the Jews Church; Thitwas the cafe of any that would be full Profelytes 5 God in providence did deny to give the knowledge of his Laws to the Gentiles, as he did to the Jews : but he excepted no man out of the mercy of his Covenant rhat would come in and take it, ('except fomefew that were deftinated to wrath for the height of their wickednefs , whom he commanded them prefently utterly to deftrcy.) tt any fay, that the Gentiles were admitted with their Infants into no Church but the particular Church of the Jewsj I (hall anfwer him: i.That it is falfe 5 for they were admitted into the vifible univerfail Church, as I (hall fhew more fully afterward. x. If it werefo, yet the Church of the Jews was a happy Church of God, in a thou- fand-fold better ftate, then thofe without- So that he that will be of the Faith of our Op^ofers, you fee, muft believe that Chrift hath come to deny the very Gentiles that priviledge which for their children they had before. Yea, that you may fee it was not tyed to'the Jews only, or the Seed ©f Abraham , even when Abraham 's own Family was Circumcifed (and as Mr.T. thinks then firft admitted all into the Church :) there was but one of the Seed of Abraham Circum- cifed at that time (for he had no Son buzlfhwacl) but of Servants that were not of his Seed there were admitted or Circumcifed many hundred , Gen. 14. 14. He had three hundred and eighteen trained men Servants that fought for him; and how nr.ny hundred women anddiildren,and all, you may then conjecture. And all thtfewere then of the Church, ani but one of Abraham's Seed, and th3t one 3 ljhmael : There- fore certainly thou b h the greateft priviledges were rel'erved for ifaac and his Seed , of whom Chrift was to come , yet not the priviledge of fole- Church- membership • for the very children of Abraham's Servants were Church-members. And fo I think this is plain enough. CHAP. Infants churchmemkrjhip and Baptifm, 5 7 CHAP. XVII. Y twelfth Argument is from the forementiofledText la Vcut* 19 io, 11,11. Where all the Jews, with all their little ones were cntred into Covenant with ood.Ftom whence I argue thus ; rf'thc Covenant which thofe Infants who were then ^Church-members were entred into with God, was a Cove- nant of Grace (or a Gcfpel Covenant J then it is not Re- pealed,(& confequently theirChurch-memberlhip is not re- pealed, as being built on the Covenant. or infaparably con- junct >) l - uc r ^ e ^ a,c * Covenant which the "Infants who were then church- members did pafs into, was a Covenant of Grace (is diftind from chc Law.which was repealed ;) ihcsrerore neither it 5 nor their Church memberftip is repealed. Here I (hall p-wve, i. I hat all the Infants did pafs into ;his Covenant, i. That th:y were'Chirth membeis that did fo. 3. ■ That it was fuch a Covenant of Gra^e. 4 And then it will follow that it is not re- pealed. 1. Mr. T. denied long togerh?r in the face of many thoufand people, that the In- fants were entred into any fuch Covcnanr^gainft 'he plain letter of tt.e Text : yet he perfifted to deny it, without any reafon (as you m-y fee in the Difpute, if out.; If plain'Scripture will not fuisfie thefe men 3 why then ao they call for Scripture ? The words arej TV Hand this day ell of you before the Lord y»ur Gnd y your captains of your Tribes, your Offkers>E'd:rs i and all the mm of Jft'aelj yu> lime ones, your wives, and the fit anger that u in thy Camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy wa- ter > that thou (hould.j} enter into Covenant wUh the Lord thy God, and into hx :th which the Lord thy God ma^ah-wuh thee this dy, that he may efud-.fb thee to day for a people unto himfelf and that he miy be to thee a God- &c He that fai;h Infants did not pafs into this Covenant, 1 queftion whether he belkve this to be the Word of God : For how hould it pcflibiy be fp^keri p\ainer ? 2. Mr.T. denied in our Difoute, That thefe Infante were vlfible Church-Mem- bers ; for when h. hi;i maintained that [none weie Church-members but tWe ihac w ire Cfacumcjfdti] and that [Chucch- membership was not then without Cicum- citn: ] Eroldhitr, that the Infants for fortv years in the Wildernefs were not Cir- cumcifedj and ye: wc;e Church- members, ana proved it from this covenant 3 yet did herefciu c.y deny it- that 'he Infants were Churcn-members : whereupon feeing he waftei time in wrang'ing, I was bold to fay, I did vt-rily believe that (contrary to ou' rli it agieemfut^ hedifpa:ed againfHis own conference, feeing he coi.id not be- lieve himfelf, That the Infants then were no Church- members, and that none but the circu-nciied were Church members: But he took it ill that I mould fo charge him to go a^ainft Conscience 5 And yet when I told him chat women were Church- membe s, theu^h not ciicumcifed. he confeffed all, and yielded that the Infants were fotfto. And indeed, elfeGoahid no Church, or almoft none in the Wildernefs, when ail but Ca-cb and Jofua were" dead of the old fteds ; and all of forty years old were u srfrcumcifed ; yet Steven ca!s it The Church in the Wildernefs. Atts 738. But I think it vain to f; ove that thofe were Church- members that entred fuch a Co- venant. He that will deny this, is fcarcc fit to be difputed wiih. I 3. That 58 Plain Serif ture poof of 3. That this was a Covenant of Grace is all the Queftion. And that I mall quickly put out of queftion thus. x. That which promifeth [To circumcife the heart, and the heart of their feed, to lore the Lord God with all their heart, and with all their foul, that they may live] rauft needs be a Covenant of Grace : But this was fuch, as is evident, DeuU^o.6. That this is a Covenant of Grace, the Apoftle (hews, Heb.io. 16,17. Here is no violence, but the plain words of Scripture for both, a. Yet more plain. The Apoftle in Rom. 10. $,6,7,8,9. (hews it in exprefs words j Tor when he had (hewed, That the righteoufnefs of the Law lieth in perfect obedi- ence [He that doth thefe things (hall live in them]he then fheweth the difference thus, [But the righteoufnefs which is of faith fpcaketh on this w#fe, Say not in thy heart, who (hall afcend up into heaven (that is, to bring Chrifl dswn from abov?) Or who (halt defcend into the deep ? {that is to bring Chrifl again from the dead) But what faith it ? The Word U nigh tbee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is } the word of Faith vohich we preach.^} Now thefe words of faith the Apoftle citeth out of this very Co- venant, Dcul.$o.i 1,1 a, 1 3,14. Mr.T. faith, That it is ufual with the Apoftle to allude to Scriptures thus. But what Text fo plain that he may not fo put off if he will ? When the A'poftle plainly faith., This is the word of Faith 5 and fpeaketh thrice in way of expounding the Text. When you have read my Anfwer to Mr. T. his Defcant on this Text, I am per- fwaded you will wonder at the vanity and wilfulnefs of his exceptions. CHAP. XV m. Y thirteenth Argument is from Kern. 4. almoft all the Chapter wherein the Apoftle fully fheweth, that the Pro- mife fupon which his Privileges were grounded) was not made to Abraham upon Legal grounds, but upon the m ground of Faith : From whence I might draw many Ar- guments, but for brevity I defire you to perufe the Chap- ter y onely from the n.verfe [And he received the fign of Circumcif\on i afca.t of the Righteoufnefs of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcifedi that he might be the father of all them that believe \ though they be not ci ft hy,this is-all that he faith to the whole ; [That their Membcrlhip in the Univerfiil Chuch was only by realon of their Membership in the particular 5 and therefore ceafed with it] And how is this proved ? Why itfr.T.faith it is fo, and that is the beft proof and all that I could ger. ' But let me try whether I can difprove it any better. 1. I think I have furficiemly proved,that even the nature of the Jews Church was notiepcaledj but only the Accidental! Ceremonies -, and the individual Church that then was , is broken off fur unbelief j but the Olive ftiil remained. 2. I f the Jews Church were repealed, yet he that will affirm that the whole Species of Infants are caft out of the Univerfall vifible Church, muft prove it well .* For if I finue that they were once in it, I need -no more proof that they remain in till fome one fnew me where it is revoked, which is not yet done by any that 1 know of. $ The Univerfall Church is more excellent far then any particular, and fo out flan ling in the univerfall Church is a far higher priviledge then our ftandingor Membership in any particular : Therefore it will not follow, that Infants lofe the greater , becaufe they lofe the leffer j and that they are Caft out of the Univerfall, be- eaufe they are caft our of the particular. 4 Perfons are firft (in order of nature,or time, or bock ) members of the Univer- fall Church before they arc Members of any particular : bo was Noah, Lot, Abraham* and all men before Chrift , and foare all (ince thrift. The Eunuch in A£l%. was baptized inro ihe Univerfall vifible Church,and not into any particular. It is fo with all others : It is*he general! ufe and nature of Baptifm -, They are baprfzed into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, and fo into the Catholike Church ; but . not into any particular Church : If any i'ach thing be, it is [econdary 3 and acciden- tally and additionall, and no proper end of baptilm. S3 that it being fa ft in order that we are entred into the vihble Univerfall Church 5 it is likely to be ofno.c durable continuance. * 5. It is no' good confequence that is fetcht from the removal of a particular Church,orofthe Jews particular Church to breaking efffrom the Unive rfall : There- fore this will not prove that Infants are broke off. If a Jew had been forced into a firange Countrey, yet there 3 both he and his children had been Church m<*mbeis of the Univerfall Church, When all the Jews were Scattered abroad in Captivity, fo that they had neither Temple, nor Altar, nor Prieft 3 but perhaps one live in one Town, and another in another, as they do at this day ; you could not la^that thefe wereofthevifible particular Church of the Jewsi though yot: might by it.i' that they were Abrahams Seed j and they and their child:en were Memb«s of the Yinble Univerfall Church. I I So 6% Plain Scripture proof of So* when Keturab'i children left the Church of Abraham *s Family i yet they continued Members of the Univcrfall vifible Church ft ill. If a Jew then, or a Chriftian now, were call upon the Coafts of America where he fhould never be a Member of a particular Church more , yet he mould be a Member of the Univerfail ftill. Neither jfofefh, Mary , nor Jefm in his Infancy were un- churched, becaufe they lived in Egypt. ( Though I confefs it is difputable whether Chrift were ever a Church- member properly ; but I pafs that by.) ' 6. Again, to lofe their ftanding in the vifible Univcrfall Church, is to lofc their place in the vifible body,( i.Cor.iz.i $ Jand in thehoufe of the livingGod s i Tim.z.i* ' the pillar and ground of truth:But to be removed from one particularChurch or from every particular Church, is no calling out of Chrifts body or Gods houfc : Therefore It will not follow upon the removall from a particular Church, that they are removed frem the Univerfail : Efpecially, when we are not fpeaking of individuall Infants,but of the whole Species. So that I think this Argument is unanfwerable ; Infants were Members of the Univerfail vifible Church (as Mr.T. confeflech.) This is the Church that we are now baptized into .* and this Church-conftitution is not altered or taken down : Therefore Infants Memberfhip of this Church is not taken down , what ever it be of the Jews particular Church. THus far my Arguments have chiefly tended,to prove that Gods raerclfull Gift and Ordinance/hat fome Infants mould be Church-member*,' s not repealed.-Though many of them will alfo dire&ly prove the Chirch-membcrfhip of all other Believers children,as well as the Jews. Yet if any mould be hereby convinced., that the believing Jews children are ftill Church-members , and yet deny that the Gentiles children arefo j I fuppofe (if it were worth the labour to Difpute with men fo weak) we might quickly bring them Arguments enough from plain Texts of Scripture to con- fute them. As where the partition Wall is faid to be taken down, Epb.z. 14. and both Jews and Gentiles made one, and reconciled by removing the enmity, verf. 16. And the Gentiles to be deanfed as the Jews were before, Acl. 10. And that there is but one Body,one Lord,one Faith,one Baptifm,&c. Epb.4. ?,6. And where it is faid 3 that there is neither Circumcifion nor uncircumcifion in Chrift JtC\is 3 Gal.6. 15. with multi- tudes of fuch places : Indeed it is much of the fubftance of Pauls Epiftles to prove the taking in of the Gentiles, and grafting them into the Olive which the Jews were of. And Chrift commanding now the Difcipling of Nations t and the Kingdoms of the world being now become his Kingdoms, (of which I have fpoke before) it proves die fame priviledge herein to the Gentiles, as to the Jews, feeing Infants are part of our Kingdoms as well as theirs. Yet the reft of the Arguments which I (hall now add , Hhall dire&ly prove that Infants of Church- members in generall,muft be Church-members : or that this was no priviledge proper to the Jews ; Though I think it is proved fufficiemly already. CHAP, Infants Cburch-memberjlrip andBaphfm. CHAP. XXI. ■He Sixteenth Argument then is this: (from the fecond Com- mandment) vifitwgthe fins of the Fathers upon the children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me, and [ (hew mercy to thousands of them that Love me and tyep my Command* ments:2 From hence I argue thus ; If God have made over this Mercy (of Church-memberfhipJ in theMorall Law, to th« children ofall that Love and obey him, then it is not proper to the jews children, nor is it ceafed ; But God hath made over this Mercy in his Morall Law, to the children of all that love and obey him ; There- fore it is not proper to the Jews children, nor is it ceafed. Nothing but the Antecedent here needeth proof. Every man I think among us will confefs^that the Mdrall Law was not proper to thejews, and that it is not ceafed. Even the moft ot the Antinomians confefs the Ten Commandments- are in force as the Law of Chrift, though not as the Law of Mofcs. However,, if they be againft the preceptive part of the Law , yet fare they will not be againft the promiflory part. Though there be fome claufes that were futed to the Jews peculiarly, yet I never yet met with man that would fay , this was fo. If the Ten- Commandments be not currant proof, there is no disputing with thenrout of Scripture. Let me try therefore whether this fecond Commandment in the words cited do not prove the Minor : To which end I argue thus. If God have here allured his Mercy by promife to the children of all them that Love and obey him , then he would have them be taken for Members of his Church. But he hath here allured his Mercy by promife to the children of them that Love and obey him : Therefore he would have them be taken for Church-members. ThcMinor is plain in, the Text. The confequence of the Major I prove thus." (vi\. That all thofe muft be taken for Church members on whom God hath thus ftated or arTured his Mercy by promife) ('the word [Mercy] I (hall explain anon:^ If God have eftated and allured his Mercy by promife to no other fociety of men in the world but the Church, then all thofe are Members of the Church on whom his Mercy is thus eftated and allured ; But God hath eftated and afturcd his Mercy on no other fociety : Therefore, &c. Here let me a little explain my meaning. Sometime when God promifeth Mercy, if is firft to fome particular perfon or^amily : Sometime to a whole Species or fort of perfons. i. Sometime it is fome pJBcular named Mercy, and fometime Mercy in the generally naming no fort or individuall Mercy. 3, Sometime it is upon a fpeciall ground, proper to fome one perfon, or to few 5 and fometime it is upon a common ground. 4.vVh"en the Mercy is fpecified^ it is fometime mecrly. corporall ; and fome- time fpirituall. 5. And of fpirituall Mercies, fometime it is common to others be- fides the faved ; and fometime fpeciall, and proper to the faved. 6. Sometime it is Mercy limited to a fliort or certain timej and fometime eftated and aifured for continuancej while the Law ftandeth. Now you muft underftand firft , that God may bellow on fome particular perfon or Family, on the ground of fome fpeciall fcrvice which they .or their Fathers have ' cWe, 64 Plain Scripture j> roof of done> or of meer mercy, Com? fpeciall corporal I tlefllng or priviledge , efpeciaily li- mbed tdfomeihort or cerrain time : And that his common preserving, fultaining jnereies are over all his works j, anri yet none of this will prove men Church-members. a. But when God do h not name a sy particular perfon or Family for hi* Mercies , but eftates them on a Specie* or fort of perfons 5 and when it is not a meer corpotall Mercy that is fo ftated , but either a fp.rituili Mercy (common or fpeciallj or elfe Mercy in the generall without fpecification ; and when this.is not on any ground of any particular action or fervice done by any particular man, but upon a ground (or condition) common to others, not named j and ail this not limited to any ihort or certain time, but fhted to continuance, and that by. a legaH promife alluring it, and not only a meer offer of it ; in this cafe it will certainly piove them Members of the Church. Now that it is the priviledge of the Church only to have God thus engaged W be mercifull to them, (and that in a way of diltinction from oihers,as it is in this Com- 'mandment promife ) is to me a truth beyond difpute And if any do doubt of it, I argue with them thus. i.Ifnofuch Promife of fuch M^rcy to any fort of men out of the Church can be me wn inrhe Scriptu e, then we mult take it as proved thit there is none : But na fuch Promife can be {hewn , tfhting^fuch JV'iercy on any others: Therefore, &c. They that can (hew any fuch Promife, let them pro- duce it. , a. Briefly confiier to the contrary : 1. Thofe without the Church are faid to be without Hope, without God, (hangers to the Covenant of Promifes, Ephef. 2.1 2. z. The Promifes are aH Yea and Amen in Chriit 2 Cor. I. 20. And Chrift is the Head Over all (indeed but only) to tfie Church^E^/.i.aa. Io his called he giveth the precious promifes, 2 Pet.1.4. j. By Faith it is that Promifes were obtained, Htb. H. 3$. 4. To Abraham and his Seed were the Promifes made,Gf/ $• 16. both common and fpeciall : The children of the Promife are accounted for the Seed, 7{gm. 9 8. Therefore if thofe without the Charch were children of the Promife, then they mould be the Seed. I he Promife is fure to all the Seed, Row, 4. 16. 1 he Promife is "to you and your children, and as many as the Lord mail call Aft.z.tf. The Seed archeirs of the promife. 5. i he Church is the Houfe and Family of God , and the Promifes are his Trea- furc, and Chriita Legacies, ano^the Word of Promife is his Ttftament : Therefore not for thofe without, i he Church is the pillar and ground of Tiuth, and the Word is the Truth. In the middeft of the Churcn are Gods praifes Htb.i. 1 2. 7 herefore in the Church are his Mercies and Promifes. It is by the Church that 'the manifold wiidomof God is known, Ephef. <.io. The Chu.ch only is that l3ody,whcreof the Lord of the Promife* is Head, Cohl. .8. ^ 6 hey thit are not in Govenant,are not un™ the Promifes of this Mercy, or have not this Mercy fitted on them by Promife: But thofe that are without the Church, are not in Covenant. , * his Aigument is pift contradiction. No man dare fay but thefe are Covenant ^'.erctes in this Promife mentioa^d. Wicked men in the Church are within the Covenant, as I have proved in the Appends of my Aphorimrj but thofe without are not in Covenant, though th y may have fome conditionall Promifes offered. The Covenant and fuch Promifes as thefe goe together : Therefore it is called The Cove venant of Promifes ,Epbef. 2. 1 i.Kom.-p. <,2. fo is toercy only allured by the Covenant, Dml.7'9> 1 *" an fuppofing ftill that they are the children of fuch. z. But I further anfwer : What if this were not underftood ? muft we therefore reject that which may be underftood ? There is fomewhat doubtfull in the Text x/;r. what Mercy it is particularly ? and to how many Generations ? if ungodly Progeni- tors intervene ? And there is fomewhat beyond doubt In. the Text ; that is that God eftateth his Mercy on the immediate ofF-fpring of his people. NownuiftI throw away that which is paft doubt, becaufe of that which is doubtful! ? So we may throw away . The Apoftleap- plieth that to all believers which was fpoken onely to Jo(h ix t 1 will never fill thce 3 nor for/alp thee 3 So Hcb. 1 3 6. from BJal. 11S.Hib.10.16.1j> Rom. 10 6, CHAP. XXIIJ. He eighteenth Argument is this 5 If Infants were Church-members before ever Circumcifion was inftituted, then certainly it was not proper to the fews, and confequently is not ceifed, according to Mr T hisowndoarine: But Infants were Church-raembeis before Circumciiion was inftituted; therefore it was not proper to the Jews, nor is ceafed. Here at our difpute Mr. T. feemed to v\AA all if I would prove Infants were Church- members before Circumcihon : But fa Ms Sermon fince among much of the fame fluff, he made the poor deluded people £li ve/l mean thofc that will believe him) that by Infants being Church-members, I mean nothing elfe but that they fuck of the brefts of godly Parents and are brought upTthe Family of godly Parents jjuft as in our Dilpute he would have faced me Sown before thoufands of people, that by Churck-memberftip I meant nothin ? but Qn 1 1 told him I did not, and he told the people ftil that .is «c any bSc or harflmefs upon fuch dealings to fay, that ic is fad that (I will not fay minel holinefs, butj a ve/y little tendernefs of conferee and fear of Gc > , and low of Truth, or charitv to a Brother, yea, or common modefty footed not reft ram Infants Church-member fiiy and Baptifm. 6j this ! but that Mr T. durft , firft, Take on him to fearch the heart, and know a mans thoughts to be contrary to his profeflion j fecondly, And contrary to the plain fence of his terms of fpeech ; thirdly, And perfwade multitudes of people that it is fo.What hope can I have that ever Mr.T. ftnuld be brought to the truth, when he hath not ability enough to underftand what is the meaning of [a member of the viliblc Church] and that after I had fo fully told him i I was long before I could get him to confcfs,thatCircumci(lon and Churdi-memberihipwere two things and leparable,till I give him an Inftance in women. And now muft I be fain to mew him that Church memberfhip is neither fucking the brel\of a godly woman, nor being brought up in the Family ? What a hard word is this [Church-member?] when I knew notpoffibly how to fpeak it plainer. Why Sir, where is the difficulty ? Is it in the word Chuich ? I fuppofe we are agreed what a Church- vifible is ? at leaft you underftand it ? Or is it in the Term [ Member?] Why, do you not know what a [Member] is ? How un- derftand you Tattls difcourfe about the members and body i Do you underftand what is Totum aggregatum& pars tetim?T)o you underftand what it is to be a mem- ber of a City, or of a Family > and why not of a Church ? If[ fay children are mem- bers of this Kingdom for (to pleafe you,) Common wealth) or if I fay children are members of every City in the Land j and of every Family where they are, this is all true } and me thinks a man of your parts (hou'd underftand it. And why not when I fay, that Infants are members of the Church ? But if yon will not underftand^there is no remedy. I come to prove that Tnfants were Charch- members before Circumcifion : i.From MaI. x.i f . And wherefore one ? that he might fcek a godly ktd 3 or a !ced of God. Thofe that are a feed of God are Church members : But fome Infanrs before the in- ftitution of Circumcifion were a feed of God : therefore they were Church members.' 1 hat the term ^Cced of God] do:h comprise Infants, Mf. T. confeffeth, and I need not wafte time to prove. That to be a feed of God is to be members of his Church , (and fo to be a known feed is to be known or vilible members,) this is the thing which is denied : Now I finde but two Interpretations which our Divines make of thephrafe [feed of God] (for that third of the Jews, is followed onely by ivigandm^ and a very few more) The one is that which I fuppofe to be the plain truth,amt which the words themfelves moft directly fignifie > that is [to be a feed belonging to God in a peculiar fpecial manner, as diftinS from the reft of mankinde:] and that is plainly [to be of his Church] And fo the Sons of God, were in thofe times diftind from the fons and daughters of men 5 which clearly fheweth that there were then two diftindfoctetics 5 one which was the Church, called the Sons of God ; the other which had forfaken God (for almoft all flelli had even then corrupted their wayes) and fo were out of the Chuich, and called the fons of men 5 (for I hope few will en- tertain that old dotage which Percriu4 and other Papifts are alhamed of, vi%, that by the Sons of God is meant the Angels* who fell in love with the daughters of men.) Now doth not this phrafe plainly agree with thefoimer, vi^ [Seed of God, and Sons of God,] fas DrufiiM and others who incline to the other Interpetation acknowledge.^ I think therefore I ihall futficiently eftablifa this Interpretation, if I do but belides this prove the fa'lhood of the other. 1 Now the other Interpretation is this, That by a feed of God is meant a legitimate feed, and fuch as are not baftards ; This Mr. T. chufeth. Now that this cannot be the meaning I prove thus; If by £afeed of God] be meant, fuch as are no biftards, then it would follow that if any then had more wives then one, that the children of the fecond were all baftards : But that Confequence is falfe j therefore K x that 58 fUin Scripture poof of that cannot be the meaning. Jofephy Benjarntn % or any other born of Polygamy were not baftards \ even before the Flood they had more wives then one, as appears in tamech* a. ^PHatfome Infants were Church-members before inftitition of Circumci- 1 (ion, I further prove thus. If the Infants in Abrahams Family were members of the vifible Church before Cir- eumcifion, then fome Infants were Church- members before Circumcifion : But the Infants in Abrahams Family were Church members before Circumfion : Therefore &c. All the doubt is ofthe Minor. Now that the Infants born in Abrahams Family were Church-members before Circumcifion is proved thus. I. They were Church* members (by Mr- This own ccnfefTion) after Circumcifion 5 and Circumcifion did notmake them fuch 5 therefore we are ro judge them fuch before. That Circumcifion maketh not members ^ is evident : 1 . Abraham was a Church, member long before he was Circumcifed ; as is plain, x. In that he was a true wor- shipper of God before : 2. And was juftified by faith : 3 And had the Covenant made and renewed again and again. 2. It is but a fign of the Covenant^ yea, and not chiefly of that Covenant which maketh Church members, but which promifed Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing. a. Circumcifion prefuppofeth Church memberihip 5 therefore the Circumcifed were fuch before. The Apoftle (hews this in Abrahams own Cafe, Rom A- If the Pro* mifewent before Circumcifion then Church memberfhip went before it. Betides, The Infants not Circumcifed were to be cut eft* as breakers of the Co- venant from their people, Gen. 17. therefore they were of that people, and in the Co- venant before ; elfe how could they break it > 3 . The Scripture fpeaketh not a word fo much as intimating that Abrahams Fami- ly was then firft made a Church, or Infants then firil admitted members) therefore we have no ground to believe it was foj But it fpeaketh of giving them the fame fign of the Covenant then renewed^ which Abraham himfelf fan ancient Church-mem- ber) did receive ; therefore it gives us ground to judge that they were before Church- members. I do not think that any confiderate foberman will think, that Abraham and his Family were not as much Church members before Circumcifion as after. 3. That Infants were Chutch members before Circumcifion, I prove moft likely thus. If God had before the fame tender love to the faithful and their feed 3 as he had after, and there be no mention in Scripture when the Church member/hip of In- fants did begin (fince the firft Infants) then we are to judge that it did not begin at the Inftitution of Circumcifion (but rather with the firft Infant of faithful Adam t though he after fell eft) becaufe Gods Love to the faithful and their kedj was as great before as after ; Bnt the Antecedent is true, therefore the Ccnfequent- He that will prove a beginning of Infants Church memberlhip fince the fiift Infants, let him bring any Scripture, or good Reafon for it, and I will believe him, f which I never exped to fee donej 4. Laftly,I leave it to the judgement of any confiderate Chriftian, whether there be any likelihood that God (hGuld deny that mercy to the children of Setb, Enoch y tfoab, (whom he would prefcrve fo wondroujjy when all the world was drowned,) which yet he granted to the children ofthe poorett fervant in Abrahams Family 5 and to the poortft jfractite till Chrifts time, and to any Heathen in all the world that would Infants Church-memberj\nj> and Baptifm. 69 \vool3 become a Profelyte ? what man of common fence can believe this ? efpecially, 1 When there is not a word in Scripture tending that way. i. And Gods Love was as great to Noab,$€m,&c. and their Seed, as to others, and manifefted by that famous deliverance from the Deluge, j. And when all thefe Church mercies are beftowed up- on the landing Gofpel grounds of the Covenant of Grace, entred with our firft Parents prefently upon the fall. 4. And when the very terms of that Covenant are to [the Seed of the wonifrn] which compriteth Infants as well as others •* And we fee in the Serpent (who was the Devils inftrumem, and fo partaked in the Curfe) that there is an enmity, even between them and Infants, as well as the aged 5 the very nature of man being averfe to them , though they have not power fo to exprefs it as men. Yea, and Satans enmity is againft the whole Seed of the woman ( as Rcv.11. 17. ) a°ainft our Infants^ no doubt •• And therefore it is evident that even Infants were comprized in that firft Covenant of Grace, in the term [the Seed of the woman.] I have not leifure to (land upon thefe fo largely as to improve them, as they deferve. CHAP. XXIV. .Rgument the nineteenth. If God be not more prone to fe- verltythento Mercy, then he will admit of Infants to be Members of the vifible Church. But God is not more prone to feverity then to Mercy : Therefore he will ad- mit of Infants to be vifible Church-members. All that needs proof here , is the confecjuence of the Major propofition, which is made evident thus : God hath cut off multitudes of Infants of wicked men, both from the Church and from life (for the fins of their Progenitors:) Therefore if he mould not admit fome Infants of faithfull men , fo much as into the vifible Church, then he (hould be more prone to feverity then to Mercy j ('except it be proved that God giveth them fome greater Mercy out of the Church, which is not yet 'proved:) Ail the children of Dathm and Abiram and their Accomplices, were fwallowed up with them for their Rebellion, and fo cut off both from the Church and life. Achans Sons and Daughters were all ftoned and burned for his fin,and fo cut oflf from the Church and life, Jof.y.r^iG. Yea, it W3S the ftablifoed Law of God con- cerning any City that mould ferve other gods (by the feducement of whomfoeveij that is, If they ihould break the Covenant ffor the Covenant is that they take God only for their God,) then that City mould wholly be deftroyed , and not fo mucfc as the Infants fpared Dcut. 13. 12, 13, 143 &e. And God condudeth it in his Mo- rallLaw, tbit he will vl fit ike iniquity of the Fathers on the children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate him. All the Infants oiAmalecli are flam with the Parents by Gods command. So are all the Males among the little Ones of the Midianitcs, and that by Gods command, Num.11.17. They that dam the children of Babylon againft the ftones are blefled/P/tf/. 137.9. The children of Daniels Accufers are caft unto the Lyons, Dm. 6. 14 Yea, God commanded Ifrael to fave the life of no one Infant of all the Nations that were given them for inheritance | the -Hittkes; Amorites, Cananites i Perc^ites^ the Uittites and Jebufites, Dcut. 20.16, 1 7. (How all this is reconciled with that of E^k [The Son (hall not bear the ini^ui. < W 7 o PUht Scripture proof of ty of the Father] is (hewed by our Divines that write on the fecond Commandment.) And if God will not admit the Infants of Believers fo much" as to be Members of his vifible Church or Kingdom, then he fliould not only (hew more feverity to the Seed of the wicked, then Mercy to the Seed of the faithfully but mould even caft out all Infants in the world from being in any vifible ftate o£ Church mercies. And how that will ftand with the tendernefs of his companions to the godly and* their feed , and the many promifes to them ; and the enlargemem of grace in Gofpel- cimes, I know nor. CHAP. XXV. He twentieth Argument I draw from Deut. 28.4, i3,ga,4^' Tho.fe that keep the Covenant are [E'.efjed in the fruit ofthei/ body,] and of the Covenant breakers it is faid, [ Cur fed (halt thou be in the fruit of thy body : Thy fons and thy daughters (halt be given to another people, and thy eyes jhall {08^ and faik. with longing for them 3 &c. Thou fh alt beget fons and daughters ^but thou, (halt not enjoy them, for they (hall go into Captivity. The Argument that I fetch hence is this. That Dodrine which maketh the children of the faithfull to be in a worfe con- dition (or as bad) then the Curfe in&ait.i%. .doth make the children of Covenant- breakers to be in, is falfe Dodrine ; But that Doctrine which denyeth the Infants of the faithfull to be vifible Church members , doth make them to be in as bad or a worfe condition then is threatned by that Curfe, Dcut.il. Therefore it is falfe Dodrine. The Major is undenyable. The Minor I prove thus,- The Curfe on the children, Deut.iS. is , that they goe into Captivity : Now to be put out 6F the whole vifible Church of Chrift is a forer Curfe then to go into Captivity ; Therefore that Dodrine which puts Infants out of the Church, doth make them in a more accurfed flare then thok in Deut.1%* They might be Church-members in Captivity as their Parents were •, or if they were not, yet it was no worfe then this ; To be in Captivity, is but a bodily judgement dire&lyj but to be out of the Church is diredly a fpirituall judge- ment : Therefore to be out of the Church , is a greater judgement (which I mult take for granted^ having before proved that it is far better to be in the vifible Church then out.) Another Argument this Text would arFord,in that the judgement on the children is part of the Cu< fe upon the Parents, {Cur fed fh all Thou be in the fruit of thy body.'] Now God doth net Curfe the faithfull j but hath taken off the Curfe by Chrift ( chough corporal! afflictions are left.) But I muft hafte. -- CHAP. Infants Church-memhtrfl>if andBaptifm. 71 T CHAP. XX VI. He one and twentieth Argument : That pocVlne which makcth all Infants to be Members of the vifible Kingdom of the De- vill, is falfe DocVine. But that Po&iine which denyeth any Infants to be Members of the vifible Church , doth make them all Members of the vifible Kingdom of the Devill. Therefore it is falfe Doctrine. CMr.T taketh the like reafoning halnoufly from Mr. Mwjh.ifl, ^V+t^3*h< as if it were injurious fo to charge him : And he(aith,i. con- sequences remote muft not be fattened on men when they deny them. 1. Many un- bapcized are not in the vifible Kingdom of the Devill $ and asketh, whether children be in, or out of that Kingdom before Baptifm. If otit, then by not baptizing he leaves them not in it, &c. To this I anfwer : 1. He that faith, Infants are all (hut out of Heaven, may well be charged for teaching that they go to Hell, becaufe the conference is not remote^ but direft , among thofe that acknowledge not a third place. 2. I will only lay a true charge on the DoSrine , and not the perfons .* The Do&rine fure may be charged with the confequenees, though the perfon may not. 3. It is not your denyall of Baptifm directly, that leaveth Infants in the vifible Kingdom of the Devil - y but your denyall of their Church-membermip : 1 herefore to thpfe vain Parages, I anfwer, That its true, that many unbaptized are in the Kingdom of Chrift, and fo many Infants alfo 5 and fo not in the vifible Kingdom of the Devill : But that no man who is known to be out of Chrifts vifible Church or- dinarily, can be out of Satans vifible Kingdom , I mall now prove ; and fo that your Do&rine is guilty of making (I mean not really, but doctrinally making) all In- fants to be Members of Satans vifible Kingdom , in that you deny any Infants to be Members of the vifible Church. For if it be certain ( as you fay) that no Infants are Members of the viiible Ckurch, then rhey are out of it : And then 1 argue thus. If there be no third ftate on Earth, but all the world are either in the vifible Church of Chrift, or in the vifible Kingdom of the Devill : then that Do&i ine which puts them out of the vifible Church of Chrift, doth leave them in that vifible kingdom of the Devill. Bu: that there is no third ft3te , but that all the world is in one of the two Kingdoms, I prove thus. The common definition of the Church afrlrmeth them to be a people culled out of the world ; and Chrift fai h, he hath chofen them out of the world, and that they are not of the world, and in the fame place divers times cals the Devill [the Prince of this world"] Joh.11.31.8t 143° ■& 16, 11.& 15.19. & 18.36. & 17 6,16. And theApo- ftle calleth frlm the god of the world, 1 Cor 4.4. So then, If the Devill be the Prince and god of the world as it is diftinft from the Church,and out of which the Church is taken: then all thofe that are not taken out of the world with tht.Church,are frill of the world, where S2tan is Prince : But the Antecedent is before proved ; Thereforethe confequent is true. The world and the Church contain all mankinde according to the ordinary Scripture diftribution. If it befaidj that yet they are not Yifibly in Satans Kingdom ; I anfwer , If no In- fants 7* Plain Scripture proof of fants be of Chrifts vifible Church, and this be a known thing , then they are vifibly cut of it : And if thty be vifibly out of that Church , then tlfcl are vifibly of- the world? which is Satans Kingdom 5 feeing the World and the ChujL^ontain ail. If it bsfaid, They may beef the invifible Church, and yet notolthe vifible, nor of Satans Kingdoms lanfwer, 1. Itisviiibly, and not invifibly that the foreiaid diftribution is to be underftooc\ 2. I fhall anon prove, that the vifible Church is wider then the invifible, and that ordinarily we may not judgeany to be of the invi- sible Church, who are not of the vifible. 2. Again, It appears that Infants generally were of Sacans Kingdom vifibly, till Chrift fetcheth them out : Therefore thofe 1 hat are not fetcht out are in it ftill ; And no man can fay they are fetcht out, except by forae means or other it be vifible or difcernable. Hcb. 2. 14. Chrift deftroyed by death him that had the power of death a that is, the Devil. Satan had this power of death vifibly over Infants as well as others. Therefore feeing Mr, 7. buildeth fo much onihiSjApdi.pag.66. That Infants arc neither in the Kingdom of Chrift, nor Satan vifibly till profeflion, either hemuft prove that God hath left it wholly in the dark, and not revealed either that any In- fants are of Satans vifible Ktngdcm_,or of Chrifts/the contrary whereof is abundant- ly proved)or he muft find cue (ome third Kingdom or Society,and fo finde out fome third King befides the King of the Church, and the Prince of this Worlds and its like lie will be put to finde out a third place for them hereafter befides heaven and hell. 3. Sure the Apoftle calls the world [them that are without] as diftind from the Church vifible, who are within, C0/.4 y 1. Thcf.+. 1 2. And he fpcaks it as the dread- full mifery of them, thofe that are without, Godjudgeth, 1 C0/.?.i2,ij. Now In- fants are either within or without j and to be without, is to be of the world^which the devill is by Chrift faid to be Prince of. CHAP. XXVII. He two and twentieth Argument. That Dodrine which leavcth us no found grounded hope e-f the Juftification or Salvation of any dying Infants in the world, is certainly falfe Dodrine. But that Dodrine which denieth any In- fants to be members of the vifible Church, doth leave us no found grounded hope of the juftification or falvarion of any dying Infants in the world 5 therefore it is certainly falfe Dodrine. No reafonable temperate Chriftian will deny the Ma- jor, I think. The Minor I know will be pafiSonateiy denied, Mr.T. takes it hainoufly ac Mr.MarJhal 3 znd Mr. Blal^s, that thty pinch him a little in this point, as if i: were but to raife an odium upon him : And ytt when he hath done all for the mitigation of the Odium ( which he faith was his end, Apoi peg. 61 ) yet he doth fo li:tle towards the vindication of his Dodrine, that he eonfefteth, [It fulpendeth any Judgement of Infants, we can neither fay they are in fthe Cove. nant ot Grace) nor out, Apo[-.pag.6i.2 He labors to prove that there is nofuch Pro- mife or Covenant in Scripture as alfures falvation to the Infants of Believers ; but thar God would have us to fufpend our judgement of this matter, and reft on the Apsfties determination . ftw.p.i?. Hi will have mercy on whom be wiH have mercy; Ytt Infants Church-memberjlrif and Baytifm. 7$ Yet that there is a hope, though not certain, yet probable and comfortable, taken from fome general indefinite promifes,ofthe favor of God to the- Parents, and expe- rience that in all ages hath been had of his merciful dealing with the children of his fervants. ApoLpag. * ™ J " I will firft profecute my Argument, and then confide* of thefe words. Understand therefore that 1. 1 do not charge their Doctrine with a Pofitive affir- mation, that All Infants do certainly perifti ; but with the taking away of all pofitive Chriftian well grounded hope of their falvation. 2. That the Queftion now is not of particular Infants of Believers, but of theo- ries or whole fort that fo diejNot whether this or that Infant be certainly faved,or we have any fuch hope of it ? but the queftion is whether there be a certainty, or any fuch hope that God will juftifie and fave any Infants in the world, or any Infants of Be- lievers at all ? Now I affirm, i. That there is a ground of Chriftian hope left us in this, that God'dothfave fome Infants (yea and particular ones, though that be not now the queftion,) 2. That they that put them all out of the vifible Church, leave us no fuch hope. I will begin with the latter, which is the Minor in the Argument. And 1. 1 take it for granted, that to be a vifible member of the Church, and to be a member of the vifible Church, is all one. He that denicth that, will but fhew his va- nity j And that the in vifible Church, or the fincere part is moft properly and prima- rily called the Church and the body of Chrift jand the Church,as vifible containing alfb theunfincere part, is called the Church* fecondarily,and for the fake of the invifi- ble,and fo it is called the body,becaufe men feem to be of the invifible Church, there- fore they truly are of the vifible j If we were fully certain by his own external difcove- ries, that any man were not of the invifible Church, that man mould not be taken to be of the vifible. Therefore the properties and priviledges of the invifible Church, are ufuaily in Scripture given to the vifible, (as to be Saints, holy, all the children of God by faith, Gal. 3 16. to be Chrifts body, 1 Cor. 12. 15. to be branches in Chrift John 1 5.2.&C.) becaufe as the fincere are among them, fo all vifible members feem in the eflentials of Chriftianity to be fincere j therefore if any converted Jew or Pa- gan were to be taken into the Church upon his profeffion,we ought not to admit him, except'hisprofeflionfeem to beferious, and 10 fincere j for who dm ft admit him, if we knew he came but in jeft, or to make a fcorn of Chrift and Baptifm ? fo that to be a member of the vifible Church,or of the Church as vifible,or a vifible member of the Church are all one, and is no more but to feem to be a true member of the Church of Chrift (commonly called invifible) or of the true myftical body of Chrift. Therefore even Cardinal Cufanus calleth the vifible Church, Ecckfiacon- jcfturalii^s receiving its members on conjectural figns. And our Divines generally make the unfound hypocrites to be but to the Church as a wooden leg to the body, or at beft as the hair and nailes,&c.and as the ftraw & chaff to the Corn; And fo doth Bellarmine hiinfelf, and even many other whom hecitethef the Papifts (Aquinas, Petr.a SoLOjfoh.de Turre Cremata^Huga^ Alex.Alenfis, Canm») And when Bellarmine fcigneth Calvin and others to make two Militant Churches, Our Divines reject it as a Calumny, and manifeft fiction, and fay, that the Church is not divided into two forts, but it is a two- fold refpect of one and the fame Church ; one as to the internal Efllnce, the other as to the external manner of exifting, as Ame(. fpeaks. Again, You muft under ftand, that to be a member of the vifible Church, is not to be a member of any particular or Political B^dy or Society, as Rome would have it. And to be a vifible member j doth not neceffarily import that he is actually known to be a member j for he may live among the blinde,that cannot fee that which is vifible : L But 74 Plain Scripture proof of But that he is orc To qualified, as that he ought to be efteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the church of Chrift : Therefore a man living alone in America may yet be a Vember of the vifible Church. For he hath that which conftituteth him a vifible Member, though there be none to difccrn it. Thefe things explained, 1 proceeded prove my Minor, thus. They that are not fo much as feemingly for vifiblyj in a ftate of falvation, of them fo dying, we can have no true ground of Chriftian hope, that they fhall be faved •" But they that are not fo much as feemingly or vifibly of the Church , they are not fo much as feemingly or vifibly in a ftate of falvation : Therefore of them fo dyingiive can fcave no true ground of Chriftian hope, that they (hall be faved. The Major is evident 5 and confirmed thus: 1. Sound Hope is" guided by judgement, and that judgement muft have fome evidence to proceed on : But where there is not fo much as a feeming or vifibility, there is no evidence : And therefore there can be no right judgement, and fo no grounded Hope. 2. Again, to judge a thing to be what it dcth not any way feem or appear to be, Is (likely a&ually, but al- way,) Virtually and iBterpretatiyely a falfe judgement ; But fuch a judgement can be no ground for found Hope. 2. The Minor is as evident, vl\. [That they that are not feemingly or vifibly of the Church,are not feemingly or vifibly in a ftate of falvation.] For 1. If they that are not of the true Church are not in a ftate of falvation, then they that feem not to be of that Church, do not fo much as feem to be in a ftate of falvation : But the An- tecedent is true : Therefore the confequent. The Antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture. It is the body that Chrift is the Saviour of, and his people that he redeemeth from their fins, and his fheep to whom he giveth eternall life , and thofe that lleep in Jefus, that Ood .(hall bring with him,and the Dead in Chrift that (hall rife to falvation, and thofe that die in the Lord thit reft from their labours , and the Church that Chrift will prefent pure and unfpotted, &c. He that denyeth this , is fcarce fit to be Difputed with as a Chriftian 5 Even they that thought AH (hould at laft be brought out of Hell and fa- ved, did think they ihould become the Church, and fo be faved. The confequence is beyond queftioning. a. I next argue thus : If there be no fure ground for Faith concerning the falva- tion of any cut of the Church, then there is no fure ground of Hope " (' For Faith and Hope are conjunct > we may not hope with a Chriftian hope, for that we may not believe.) But there is no fure ground for fuch Faith : ( 1 hey that fay there is, let them (hew it if they can J Therefore there is no fure ground of Hope. 3. Again, If there be no promife in Gods Word for the falvation of any without the vifible Church , then there is no grotand of true Chriftian Hope that they (hall be faved : But there is no fuch promife, (as I think they will confe fs :) Therefore there is no ground for any fuch Hope. That Chriftian Hope muft reft upon a word of promife, me thinks (hould not b'edenyed : It is plain, flow. 15.4,1 3. Ephcf.i.il* &4.4. C0/.1. 5*13,17. iThe/.i.i6. 1T1m.11, Heb.6. 18,19. Eeb.7.19. 1 Pet. i.3,ai.& ?•!$. Rom 4.1%. & 5.2. Tit. i>* 3 i. Hcb.ii.iSic. PJaf. ii^4?,74, 147. &c. Innaturall things we may have a common naturall Hope upon natural! grounds : But in fupernaturall things,, as are justification and ialvation,we muft have the ground of a Divine Revelation to fupport ail true Chriftian Theologicail Hope. 4. A gain , 1 f God do adde to the Church fuch as (hall be faved , then we can have . m true ground of Chriftian Hope of the falvation of any that are not added t§ the Church: Infants cbnrck-memberjhip and Baptifm. 7 5 Church : But that God doth adde to the Church fuch as fhall be faved , is the plain words of Scripture, A 61. i. laft. Therefore we have no true ground of fuch Hope of the falvation of thofe that are not fo added to it. If any fay, that the Text fpeaks of the Invifible Church. I anfwer : I. Then ic would hold ofthe vifible much more 5 for the vifible Church is far larger then, the invifible, and contains the invifible in it. z.But theText exprefly fpeaks ofthe vifible Church.Forit was fuch a Church:i. As were baptized ; 2. And as the three thoufand fcals were in one day added to i g. And as continued in the Apoftles Doarine, Fellowfiiip, breaking of bread, and prayers 5 4. And were together, and had all things common ; 5. And fold their pofTeffions and goods, and parted them to them that needed 5 6*. And continued daily in the Temple, and breaking bread from houfe to houfe, did eat with gladnefs, &c. 7. And as did praife God, and had favour with all the people. And doubtlefs this was the vifible church : To this, fuch as (hould be faved were added 5 yet not only fuch: for many falfe Teachers and others did after go out from them -, and fuch as Simon Ma- gus were baptized 5 and falfe brethren was one caufe of their fufFerings. So that I doubt not but it is clear^that they that deny any Infants to be Members ofthe vifible Church, do leave us no "true ground for any Chriftian Hope of their fal- vation. Next let us confider how far their own Arguments will exclude all Hope of the falvation of any Infant. If it were true which Mr- T. fo much ftandeth on, That the only way now appointed by Cfarift to make Church-Members , is by teaching the perfons themfelves 5 and that none elfe may be Members of the vifible Church, but thofe that have learnt •' Then 1. It will much more follow , that they are not of the invifible Church, as I have (hewed j or at leaft that we are not to judge them to be of the invifible Church at all. 2- And if from Mat. 18.20. they may argue , that none but thofe that are taught are difciples,and are to be baptized; why may they not as well argue from Mar.16. 16. [VVhofoever btlieveth not (hall be damned ] that all Infants are certainly damned ? wherein lyeth the difference in thefe two Arguments ? Sure the latter feems to me to have more (hew from Scripture, though but little. I dare invite Mr. T. to prove to me from Scripture, that any Infants in the world are juftified and fanctified, and try if I fhall not in the fame way prove that fome Infants are Members of the vifible Church ? Or let him anfwer the Argument from Mar.16. 16. that is brought for their damnation , and fee if it will not afford him alfo an anfwer to that from Mat.iS. againft their being Difciples, and to be baptized ? But why do I e*pe& this, when he fufpendeth his judgement ? If he mean it of particular Infants, it is not home to the Queftion ; for fo he muft fufpend his judge- mnt concerning the falvation of every particular perfon, as certain, feeing he is uncertain ofthe fincerity of any : And yet I hope he will not conclude it uncertain, whether any man be faved ? But if he mean it of all theSpeciesof Infants, then I muft fay, he fufpendeth much of his Faith, Hope and Charity; and that Doctrine which fufpendeth our belief of God , and Charity to our own children, mall be none of my Creed. And where he thinks we muft take up with that, Rom. o. 1 8 . He will have Mercy en whom he will have Mercy. I anfwer : 1. This is no other ground of Hope, then of any Heathen in America we may entertain. 2. It is no ground of Hope for Infants at all : For it neither directly nor indireclly promifeth any Mercy to them, nor faiih any more of Mercy ,tJien of hardning s and rather would afford fuch Difputers an Ar- L 2, gument jS Plain Scripture proof tf gument againft Mercy to any Infants^ becaufe it is Mercy put in oppofition to hardning, which Infants in that fence are not capable of. Yet Mr.T. tels us [there is Hope for all this, though not certain, yet probable and comfortable,] and he fheweth us three grounds for it : If this be fpoken of the Species of Infants, as if there were no certainty, but a probability that any of them (hall be faved, then I will prove it falfe and vile anon : If it be fpoken of parricular Individuall Infants • then i. It is as much as can be faid of any men at age .' For bo other man hath any certain, but a probable Hope of their lalvation. z. It is as much as I defire 5 for if their falvation be probable , then they are vifibly or feemingly, or to our judgement in a ftate of falvation : and fo muft needs be vifible members of the Church. How dare Mr.T. refufe to take thofe for vifible Church members,whofe falvation is probable, when he hath no more but probability of the falvation of the beft man in the world ? 3. But doth not this contradid what went before ? And I wim he do not con- tradict it again in his proofs. His firft proof of the probability, is from fome generall indefinite promifes 5 but what thefe promifes are ; he tels us Apel.$.64$>y generall and indefinite promifes he means fuch as determine not thekindeofthe good promifed, nor the particular perfon 5 and therefore are true, if performed to any perfon in any fort of good 5 and conditionally upon condition of Faith and Obedience. Anj-w. 1. If it determine not the kinde of good formally, nor virtually , nor con- tain it genericaliy $ then how doth it make it probable ? x. And if it neither deter- mine the perfon, nor give us ground to determine , how then doth it become probable to that perfon ? 3. And how then can that promife give hopes to the faithful! of the falvation of their Infants, which is verified, i( performed to any perfon in any fort of good ? as If it were but to one Infant in a Nation in reprieving him a day from dam- nation ? If it intend more then this , then it is not verified or fulfilled in this muck : If it intend no more, then how doth it make their falvation probable ? 4. And fure the conditional! promifes which he mentioneth,requiring Faith and Repentance,are little to the benefit of Infants, if thefe conditions are required of themfelves in their Infancy. And for his other two grounds of Hope, v'17^ The favour of God to the Parents, and experience, they are comfortable helps to fecond the promife } but of themfelves wittout a word, would give us no ground of Chriftian Hope in fuch matters as JuftL fication and falvation are. ANd now let me proceed to the next thing promifed, and (hew you, that we have grounds of hope in Scripture concerning the faivation of fome Infants •' And I will ftand the more on it , becaufe Mr. T. cals on us fo oft , to (hew what we have to fay for their falvation more then they 5 which Khali here (hew him once for all. And, 1. We have a ftronger probability then he mentioned^ of the falvation of all the Infants of the Faithfuil fo dying, and a certainty of the falvation of fome, in that God admitteth them vifible Members of his Church. For Chrift is the Saviour of his Body 3 and he will prefent his Church cleanfed and unfpotted to the Father ; and if God will have them to be vifible Members of this Church, then he would have us take or judge them to be Members of it : And withall there is lefs danger of miftake in them , then in men at years 5 becaufe they do notdiffemble, nor hide any hypocriticall intents under the vizor of profeflion,as they may do. And it is cer- sain alfo, that if God would have fome and many to be of the true body of Chrift, Infants Cbmb-memberjlip and Baptifm. jy and fo be faved, then he would not have all to be vifibly out of that body. That he would have them Church- members, is proved, and lhall be, God willing, yet more. If God adde to the Church fuch as ("hall be faved , then there is ftrong probability of their falvation whom he addeth to the Church. 2. And the promifes to them are fuller then Mr. T. exprefleth,and give us ftrongei groHnd of Hope. I. God hath, as I have proved, allured that he will be mercifull to them in the generall, and that in oppofition to the Seed of the wicked, on whom he will vint their Fathers fins : Now this givetha ftrong ground of Hope th3t he will fave them. For if the Judge or King fay, I will hang fuch a Traytor, but I will be mercifull to fuch a one, it is an intimation that he meaneth not to hang him. If your friend promife to be good to you and mercifull, you dare confidently Hope that he means not to deftroy you. 2. God faith (as I have Ihewed) that the Seed of the Righteous is bleffed. Now is not thata ftrong ground of Hope , that fo dying, they (hall not be damned ? It is not likely that God would call them Blefled,whom he will damn eternally^after a few days or hours life in a ftate of Infancy , which is capable of little fenfc of Bleflcd- nefs here. j. God entereth Covenant to be their God, and to take them for a peculiar peo- ple to himfelf,Pe/tf.25.ii,ii.i$. And this giveth ftrongHope of their falvation. For as if the King promife to be your King,and take you for his Subject, it is likely he intends all the benefits of Kingly Government to you : Or , if a man promife a woman to be her husband, it is likely that he intendeth to do the office of a husband: And fo when God promifeth to be their God. 4. And Paul i The/. 4. 1$. would not have the faithfull mourn for the Dead as thofe that are without Hope ; Now what Dead are thefe ? And what Hope is it ? 1. He faith the Dead in generall, which will not ftand with the exclulion of the whole Species of Infants. 2. He fpeaksof thofe Dead for whom they were apt to mourn * And will not Parents mourn for their children ? 2. And for Hope j it is evidently the Hope of Refurreft ion t© Life. For Refur- reftion to Damnation is not a thing to be Hoped for. This feems plain to me. 5. David comforteth himfelf concerning his Dead Child, becaufe he (hould go to the Child, but the Child mould not return to him. To fay this was meerlythac he mould be buryed with it, is to make Dmid too like a Pagan, rather then ajChrifti. an : However, it feems he was confident that he mould not be damned : orelfehe would not fay, I (hall go to him. And to fay David knew his falvation as a Prophet, is a groHndlefs fid ion that cannot be proved : Prophets knew not all things, nor or- dinarily things of another world by fuch revelation. Therefore what ever ground of . Hope David had, other faithfull Parents have the like. 6. Again , If there were not far more Hope of their Salvation , then fear of their Damnation, It would never be faid That Children arc an Heritage of the Lord , and ' the fruit of 'the womb his reward 3 And the man bleffed that hath his quiver full of them^P fail 17.3,4.5. 7. And, why (hould children be joyned in {landing Church-Ordinances, as Prayer,Faftiag 3 &c. if there were not ftrongHope of the Blefling of thefe Ordinances tothem? 1chron.10.13. The children that fuck the breaft , were to be gathered to the folemn Fail, Joel 1.16. (This will prove them alfo ftand ing Church members, feeing they muft joyn in (landing Ordinances*) fo, why received they Circumci- fion, a fcal of the Righteoufnefs of faith, if there were not ftrong probability that they L 3 had . 78 Plain Scripture proof of hid the thing fealed and fignified ? God will not fail his own Ordinance where men fail not. 8. Why elfe doth God fo oft compare his Love to that of a mother or father to the child? 1 Tbef. z 7. Num. 1 1.1 z, Ifa.49> 1 ?• Pfal. 103 1 $ . 9. We have that encouraging us to receive children in his Name, and himfelf taking them up in his Arms and Bleffirig them , and angry with them that kept them from him, becaufe of fuch is the Kingdom of God : And certainly, thefe that Chrift Bleffeth are bleiTsd , and (hall be faved 5 and if your felves interpret the Kingdom of God , of the Kingdom of glory, you pat it paft doubt : And we are fure it was not men at age that Chrift took up in his arms and bleffed - 3 and therefore have caufe to believe it is Infants that belong to the Kingdom alfo. And that this was no extraordinary cafe , nor (hofcld have been unknown to the Difciples, is evident, in that Chrift was offended with them for keeping them from him j which proves that they mould have known that it was their duty to admit them> which they could not know of thofe Infants, as having more right to this bleffing then others that (hould be fo brought. 10. We read of fome that have been fan&ified from the womb, and therefore were in a ftate of falvation 5 and Jacob was loved before he was born , and there- fore before he had done good or evill , was in the like ftate of falvation. 1 1. We flnde promifes of falvation to whole houiholds, where it is probable there were Infants,^?. 16. $4. 1 z. God cals them Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. Which I (hall prove is by feparation to God as a peculiar people. Now it isexcecdiag probable, that where God himfelf hath feparatedany to himfelf, fo from the world, that he will roc afterward rejed them, except they reject his grace afreih, which Infants do not. It cannot be faid that thefe promifes are verified according to their fence, if any Mercy be given to any Infant : Here the perfons are determined, that is , All the Seed of the faitbfitll ; and we have large ground given probably to conclude, that it is cternall Mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again rejed it, but that either at age keep Covenant, or die in Infancy before they break it : And we have certain ground to conclude, that this falvation belongeth to fome Infants, and vifible Church-membedhip to all of the Seed of the faithfull. And I think this is more then Mr. T. doth acknowledge them. tfth&Mat. 18. xo. be well confidered, it may make another Argument full to the point. If little ones have their Angels beholding the Face of God in Heaven, then they (hall be faved : For that is a mercy proper to the people of God. And that the Text fpeaks of Infants, others have fully proved. If any will go further, and fay, that Gods afluring Mercy to them, and calling them Bleffed, and Covenanting to be their God, with the reft of the Arguments, will prove more then a probability , even a full certainty of the falvation of all Believers Infants fo dying, though I dare not fay fo my (elf , yet I profefs to think this Opini- on far better grounded , then !M,\ Ts. that would (hut them all out of the Church. And I think it ten times eafier to give very plauiibie, probable grounds for this Opi- nion then for his : And it is not meerly a blind charity that draws me to this, which maketh men apt to judge the beft i but I mean, there is far more Shew of proof for it in Scripture, that all Believers Infants are of the true body of Chriit, then that none are of the vifible Body : and if I mufi turn to one of thefe Opinions^ 1 would far fooner turn to the former. I would urge another Argument here from the Universality of Redemption , Chrift Infants Churcb-memkrfhif and Baptifm. 19 Chrift dying for All a for every man , for the fins of the whole world , as the Scrip- ture (pe3keth; but that it would p quire more time to explain my ft If in it 3 then I can here fpare .* However, me thinks no man mould deny that Chrift dyed for every fort of men, and every age ? and to for Tome Infants. CHAP. XXVIII. Y twenty third Argument is probable 5 If an Infant were head of the vifible Church, then Infants may be Members : But Chrift an Infant was Head of the Church ; Therefore Infants may be Members. That Chrift was Head of the Church according to his humane nature in his Infancy 9 I hope is not questioned-* What acclamations of Angels , and Travell and Worfhip from the Wife men 3 with many other glorious providences, did honour Chrift in his Infancy 3 more then we read of for many years afterward I The confequence of the Major dc. pendeth on thefe two grounds : i.This proves that the nonage of Infants makes them not uncapable, fuppofing Gods will .* 2. And then it (news God would have ic fo, thus : becaufe Chrift paffed through each age 3 to fan&ifie it to us : This Ircnaus fpeaks in exprefs words ( An Author that lived neer the Apoftles times 5) ideo per omnem venit atatem> & infantibus infans f aft us fanftifieans Infantes, hi pawn! is parvu- lus fanftificans banc ipfam babentes atatem, fimul&exemplum illis petaiis effeftits , & juft'tia&fubjccJioms : That is , therefore he (Chrift) went through every age , and for Infants he was made an Infant, fan&ifying Infants 5 in little children, he being a little child fan&ifying them that have this very age ; and withall being made to them an example of piety, and Righteoufncfs,and fubjedion. Is not here clear proof enough from Antiquity of Infants Church- Memberfhip ? If they are fandi* lied by Chrift, and he himfelf became an Infant to fan&ifie Infants, then doubtlefs they are Church- members. (For I hope Mr%T. will not interpret Ircmem fandifying, as he doth S.Paals of Legitimation.) Now let any judge whether it be probable, that if Chrift the Head of the Church were an Infant , whether it be his will that no In- fants mould be Members : For my part, when Icbnfider that Infant- ftate of Chrift our Head, and the honour done to him therein , it ftrongly perfwades me that they know not his Will, who fay he will not have Infants to be vifibly his Members, GHAP, So Plain Scripture proof of CHAP. XXIX. Y twenty fourth Argument, is from that full plain Text, i Cor. 7.14. againft which men do fo wilfully cavill in vain, as if they were forry that God fpeaks it fo plainly, and wererefol. ved to yield neither to^ark exprdfions nor to plain. [Elfe were your children unclean, but now are they holy.] It is undenyable , 1. That it is only Believers to whom Paul giveth this comfort , and of whom he faith , that their children were Holy. i. And that it was fpoken as a common Priviledge to ail Believers children, and not as proper to the children of thefe C°- rintb'ians. J All this is confeffed : But what is meant by Holinefs here, we arc not agreed. Three E*pofitions are commonly given of it ; 1. Some, very few think,'it means that Holinefs which is the true Image of God on the foul , and confifteth in its inter- nal! fpirituall Life and re&itude, and accompanyeth falvation infcparably. 2. The common and (I doubt not) true Expofition is, That it is meant of a ftate of feparation te God, as a peculiar people, from the world, as the Church isfepara- ted •* wherein^ becaufe the Covenant or Promife of God is the chief caufe , therefore they oft call it [Federall Holinefs.] 5. Mr*T. thinks that it is taken for Legitimate, that is [noBaftards] as if Paul (hould fay, The unbelieving Husband is fanctified to the Wife, &c Elfe were your children Baftar ds, but now are they Legitimate. Moreover, we are not agreed what is the meaning of [the unbelieving Husband being fancllfied to the Wife, and thfc unbelieving Wife to the Husband.] tMr.T. faith it is fpoken Catechreftically, by an abufe of Speech , and by [San&ified] is meant [as if he were Sanctified,] that is [he or (he may be lawfully enjoyed.] 2. Again, he thinks that it is no Priviledge proper to the Believer which the Apoftle here mentio- neth, in the fan&ifying of the unbeliever to them: But that he tels them only of a common Priviledge of all Heathens marryed, that they may lawfully live toge- ther, becaufe they are Husband and Wife 5 and that in mentioning the unbeliever fanciified, the Apoftle means but this [though he be an unbeliever, yet he is law- fully ufed or enjoyed.] Now on the contrary we affirm, 1. That by [the unbeliever being fan&ified 3 the Apoftle means properly as he fpeaks, and as Scripture ufcth the word Sanctified, (fi\. for a feparation from common, to God) and not abufively. 2. And that it is fpoken as a peculiar priviledge of the Believer, and is not common to Heathens. For the fuller opening of thefe to you, let me give you the true meaning of the word [Holy] and fome diftin&ions of it, to avoyd confufion. Whether ay&, Holy, come from *?a to Worlhip , as Janftriw would have it ; or from krm t» ayav, as Aretius improbably in his Problems 5 or from the He- brew word fignifying a Feaft , as Pafor ', or from dyn as Bsda and the moft judge, is not worth the ftanding on now : Thelaft is received by moft : However, it is generally agreed, that the moft common ufe of the word [Holy] (if not the . only) Infants Ghurcb-memberfiip and Baptifm. 81 only,) both/tiv Scripture and Prophane Writers is to fignifie [a thing feparated to God : ] and to fandifie any things is fo to feparate it to God. Omne Janftum eft D:o fanftim ', whatfoever is Holy, is Holy to God. This therefore being the proper fence and ordinary ufc of the Word , Itakemyfelf bound to receive it as the meaning here, till I know more leafon to the contrary. For it is a generall Rule among all found Divines in expounding Scriptures, that you are to take words in the ordinary fence wherein God in Scripture ufeth them 3 except there be a palpable unavoidable neceflity of undeiftanding them otherwife. And if men will not ftick to Gods ordinary fence of words, but raihly venture upon lingular Interpretations, and pin a fence upon Gods Words contrary to his own ordinary ufeof them , it is no wonder ifi'uch men abound with errour 9 and be uncapable of any fatisfadion from Scrip- ture: For they will believe God means as they do, let him fpeak what, and how he will. Now as [Holinefs] thus Ggnifieth [a feparation to God] fo it may be diftinguifh- ed, thus : 1 A Icrfon or Thing m , he Holy or feparated to God, either in ftate and {landing Relation. Or elfe only for feme particular Ad or ufe, whether for fhorter time or longer. In this latter fence, a wicked man, yea a Heathen may be fandified or feparated, when it is to a common, and not to a fpeciall work. But this cannot be the Holinefs that is here afcribed to Infants, while they are Infants / For they be not capable of any fuch work for God. Therefore it is a Holinefs of ftate which is afcribed to them. 2. Thofe that are Holy or feparated to God thus in Gate, are either Holy by meer feparation and Relation ; or elfe they are alfo qualified with endowments futableto the ftate which they are feparated to ;*In the former fence all the Infants of the Faith- full are fanctified y and perhaps fome of them alfo qualified by renewing Grace for their future fervice of God ; In the latter fence every.rrue Believer is fandified. 3. There is a fandifying orfeparating to God, either etireftly and immediately : fo every Believer, and fo their children are fandified .' And there is a feparating or fandifying to God Remotely and[econda>ily y when a thin^ is feparated for his ufe who is feparated to God, and will, (or is bound by his profeflicn to) ufe it for God , and fandifie the fruit of it diredly to him ; 1 hus all our meat,drink, and enjoyments are fandified ; becaufe whether we eat or drink 3 or what ever wc do,it muft be all to hts glo- ry. Thus the unbelieving Husband or Wife is landified to the Believer : bothas being feparated to one that is feparated to God,and alfo who will ufe all for God : Yea.as a Hiuband or Wife they make up that conjugall ftate which is more directly for God : And if they beget a holy Seed, it is one ofcheuks that rhey v v ere fandified to ; Though I will not ftick to the common term of [Inftrumcnnll Sandificarion] which Mr.T. takes fo nauch advantage againft, becaufe it imply ?*h but one cf the ends of this feparation, and that not conftant neither ; Fori doubt not but in fome Cafes it may be lawfull for thofe to marry that are pair child bearing. 4. Again, fometime perfons or things are fandified Actively , that is, feparated to fome Action for God : As thePritfts, Levites,&c. And fometime paftivelVjthat is, feparated to be ufed for God, as the Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, &c. 'A he unbelieving Husband or Wife is both ways fandified. All thefe diftindions are but from feyerall ends and degrees of feparation . The common nature of Holinefs is one and the fame in all : that is , a feparation to God 5 And fo both children of Believers, and alfo unbelieving yoak- fellows are here faid to be Holy and Sandified. And now I come to my Argument. M W 82 Plain Scripture poof of IF the children of Believers are holy in ftate, then they ought to be admitted vifible Church- member s ; But children of Believers are holy in ftate : Therefore they ought to be admitted vifible Church- members. The conference of the Major I prove thus : If Holinefs of ftate here be a ftated feparation of the perfon from the worlds to God, and the Church vifible be a Society of perfonsfofepaiated, then thofe that are Holy in ftate, are to be vifible Church- Members : But the Antecedent is • true : Therefore the confeqaent. Whether the Greek word sm^w* were before^ ufed for any Affembly , as Camero thinks ; or whether it be fpoken hm ix \*x&h*ir as Mufculus on Rom. 1-7.it much matters not. For certainly all Divines in their definition of the Church are agreed, that itjis a Society of perfons feparated from the World , to God , or called out of the World, &c. z. I prove it further thus. If this Holinefs of ftated feparation to God , be the conftant attribute of the Church, but never of any perfon without the Church , then ail that are fo holy muft be admitted Church-members ; But the former is true : Therefore the larter. 3. Again If thofe that are thus Holy by ftated feparation to God,did not belong to the Church as Members, then there were a holy Society) or Generation without the Church : But the confequent is abfurd 3 for there is no holy Generation without the Church : Therefore the Antecedent is unfound. 4. If God argue fromfuch Holinefs of the Jews to the un- churching of them, then the fo holy muft be un-churched : But the Hoty Ghoft doth fo argue Rom. 1 i,i6.&c. So the Confequent is proved. The Antecedent is plain in the Text, [that children are holy by ftated feparation toGed:] And for the vindicating of the fence of the Text againtt Mr.T. his fence of Legimation, I argue thus. 1. If the conftant meaning of the word [Holy] be for a feparation to God , then we muft fo underftand it here, except there be a palpable neceflity of understanding it othewife •" But the conftant fence of the word [Holy] is for a feparation to God j and here is no palpable oeceftity of understanding it otherwife ; Iherefore we muft fo underftand it here. To this Af/.r.anfwered thus .' i.He denyed not that the conftant meaning of the word Holy was as I faid : 2. But he affirmed that there was a palpable neceility of underftanding it otherwife here : But what that palpable neceflity was he (hewed not. He faid alfo that the word l£* Is it aot here apparant now how falf this is, and that Ae cafe is clean contrary ? l MY fecond Argument is this ; If Infants of the Faithfull were Church-members before Chrifts time, and fo-Holy 5 then it is utterly improbable, that the Apo- ftle (hould fpeak of no other Holinefs here, but Legitimation (which is common to the children of Pagans) and mod probable that he fpeaks of the fame kinde of Ho- linefs, which was the ordinary priviledge of the Seed of the Faithfull before. But that fuch Infants were vifible Church-members before Chrifts coming, is confefled, (and fully proved before ;) Therefore , &c. They are alfo called the Holy Seed, B^ra 9. 2. The Antecedent ftandeth on thefe two grounds : 1. If the Apoftle by [Holy] (hould have meant [that they were not Baftards] then he Ihould have fpoke in a phrafe which they were unlikely to under ftand > and fo his fpeech might tend to draw them into miftakes, and not to Edifie them. For if the word [Holy] were conftant- ly ufed ('even neer fix hundred times in the Bible) for a feparation to God, and never ufed for Legitimation (all which Mr.T. depyeth not,) then what likelihood was there that the Apoftle fhould mean it for Legitimation, or the people fo underftand him ? If I (hould write an Epiftleto a Chriftian Congregation now, and therein tell them, that their children are all by nature [ unholy, ] would they ever conjecture, that I meant that they were all Baftards? Or, if I told them, that by Grace they were Holy , or that they were Church-members , would they think that either of thefe words did mean only that they were lawfully begotten ? If when you fpeak of Bread you mean a Stone, or if by a Fifh you mean a Scorpion, who is like to know what you mean ? If the people (hould miftake you in fuch a way of fpeech , are they not more excufable then you ? But certainly, it was the intent of Paul to Edifie , and not to feduce the people, z. Alfo would not the Chriftians think it utterly improba- ble, that Paul mould here tell Believers of that as a glorious Priviledge, which every Pagan had? and which themfeivas had while they, were Pagans ? and knew they had it ? 3. And might they not well exped that the priviledge of their children ihculd be as great as tbofe befofe Chrift ? feeing Paul had told them, that the Jews were branches broken off, that they might be engraffed ? and that the partition Wall was taken down, and the two made one body ? and the Gentiles become fellow Citizens, M * and 84 Plain Scripture proof of and ofthehoufholdofGcrd ; of which Gity and Houfe Infants were before Mem- bers^ and therefore called Holy > This being all fo, would not the Chriftians think that fare Paid did fpeak of no other Holinefs, and no lower priviledgc then others before had ? 3. TF to be Holy in Pauls fence here, be no more then to be lawfully begotten^ Athen we may call all perfons Holy that arc not Baftards : But that would be abfurd5 Therefore the Antecedent is fo. The Minor I prove thusj If it be not the phrafeof Scripture to call all Pagans "Holy that are not Baftards, or any other, becaufe they are not Baftards, then it is ab- furd for us to call them fo ; (for it is a contradi&ing of the conftant tife of the Scripture words ) But the Scripture doth nowhere call Pagans Holy, or any other, meerly becaufe they are not Baftards •' Therefore we muft not do fo. For my pajt I had rather fpeak according to Scripture, then according to the fancies of men. If SMr. T. his fence be right, not only aimoft all our Congregations are Holy (in a fence aot known in the word,) but we may fay, I think, that aimoft all the World is Holy, $or I hope that Baftards are a fmall part of the World. Two things Mr.T. pleadeth for himfeif here : 1 . They are called in Mai z\ 1 $. a Seed of God, and that he thinks is meant, that they are no Baftards. To which I an- fwer; x. This is nothing to the word [Holy.] 2. He will never prove the one or the other. I have proved before that by a Seed of God , is not meant Legitimate j for then Jofepb, Benjamin, Solomon^ and a great part of the Holy Seed Ihould be Baftards, and fo (hut out of the Congregation j which is a known falihoodt But why mould not Gods Word be underftocd as he fpeaks it? and a Seed of God be underftood properly ? For God will fooner choofe and blefs the Seed of the temperate 3 then of wandering, infatiate, licentious luft , and the temperate and fober will alfo fooner educate them for God. And this feemeth the plain fcope of the place : Though fome other I know do otherwife Expound it. But Mf.T. objeð for his fence thus : The direft end of Marriage is Legitima- tion of Iflue : Therefore this is here meant. To which i anfwer •' 1. There are other ends as direct ; as that the man might have a help meet for him, &c r z. The confequence is denyed .* For it is not proved that the Prophet fpeaks here of that dire&end. 3. If by the direct end, he mean the ultimate end, which is firft intended: Then 1. either the ultimate end of God Inftituting Marriage (but then his Aflertion as maniftftly falfe, for Gods glory is his ultimate end ', and many other -greater there are then Legitimation) or elfe he means the ultimate end of Man in Marrying, (bur that is nothing to the Text, and is alfo plainly falfe.) Or if by the direct end he mean the next efFecT, this is neither true, nor any thing to the matter. z. His fecond Objection is this: If Baftards be called unclean, then by confe- quent the Legitimate may be called Holy. To'which I Anfwer j The confequence is ungrounded; All uncleannefs is oppohte to eleannefs, but not All to Holinefs ; The Beafts that chewed the Cud and had cloven kct were clean leafts , and yet every Ox or Sheep was not Holy. Again, you muft diftinguim of uncleannefs; 1. Either it was Ceremoniall , z. Or Morall. The uncleannefs of Baftards. then was only or chiefly CeremoniaH or Typicall , God did deprive them of the Jewifh priviledges^ as thofe were for a time that had touched the dead, which yet was no tin, God doth sot now (hut fuch out of his Church toTo many Generations as he did then out of that Congregation in fome rneafure. So that Baftards are not now fo unclean as. then they Infants church- member fbip and Baptijm. £5 they were, and therefore the Legitimate not foHoly ; when Legall or Jewiih Cere- moniall cleannefs and uncleanefs areceafed : therefore this could be none of the Apoftles meaning here. And if God did yet call Baftards unclean, as he did then , it will not follow that we may call all them that are no Kaftards, Holy j till God have warranted us fo to do. But fee how th.fe men will truft to groun d I efs 3 far fetcht con. fequences when it fits their turn 1 w I Proceed to my fourth Argument for my fence of the Text againft Mr J. his. Ifthefan&ifying of the unbelieving Husband or Wire, be not meant of making or continuing the Marriage lawfull in oppofition to Adultery 3 then by Holinefs of the children cannot be meant their Legitimation in oppofition to Baftardy. But the fan&ifying of the unbelieving Husband or Wife cannot be meant of making or con- tinuing the Marriage lawfully in oppofition to Adultery (or fcortation) Therefore by Holinefs of children cannot be meant their Legitimation, in oppofition to baftardy. To this Afr.T. anfwereth by denying the Minor. Which I proved thus ; (z/i^.That by fan&ifying 3 is not meant fo making lawful!) If God do nowhere in all the Scrip- ture call the meer making of a thing lawfull, [chefanctifying of it j ] (but many hundred times ufe the word in another fence) then we muft not focall it, nor fo in- terpret him here : But God doth nowhere in Scripture call the meer making of a thing lawfull [the fan&ifyifig of it*] Therefore we muft not do fo 3 nor here fo interpert it. To this Mr.T. in our Difpme anfwered : 1. Granting the Antecedent : 2. But denying the Confequence.faid that though God did not fo ufe the word,yet we might 3 and though he ufe it five hundred times otherwife, yet we muft fo interpert him here, To which I Replyed : 1. 1 am refolved to learn of God how to fpeak^ rather then of you j and to follow Scripture phrafe as neer as I can, leaft I be drawn from Scripture fence. 2. You muft (hew fome palpable neceflity then for leaving the conftant ufe of the Word ; which he faid he could do : and I will believe it when I hear it.Bur at laft Mr, T. denyed alfo my Antecedent,and affirmed that the word fanftifying was ufed for [making lawfull] and proved it (as he ufeth) out of 1 Tinh 4 $. All things are fandtified by the word and prayer. To which I replyed : That the Text could not mean it of a meer making a thing lawfull ; which I proved thus ; If it were lawfull before, (even to Pagans to eat and drink though they fin in the manner and ends 3 ) then this cannot be meant of making it meerly lawfull • But it was lawfull before •' Therefore^ &c. To which he gave not fo much as any denyall, but yielded all 5 whereupon $ could nor but defire the people to obferve,, that when as thefe men would make the world believe, that we have no Scripture for uSj but they have all ; now Mr. T. con" ■ feffeth before them, that the Scripture fpeaks many hundred times in rhat fence I al- ledged it 3 and he could bring but one place which he would fay did favour his fence, . and now he plainly giyeth up that one alfo. He that will follow fuch Difputers, and build his Faith on fuch proofs, is fureled by mens intereft in him, more then by God,, or the evidence of truth. 2. 1 proved my Antecedent further thus, fthat [by fan&ifyingthe unbeliever] is not meant the making or continuing them lawfull in oppofidon to Adultery 5 J. If by fin&ifying be meant [making or continuing lawfwll] then both this and all other lawfull Relations of Pagans are fin&ified $ Bu: the oonfequent is ablurd ' There- fore the Antecedent. M 3 W&\ $6 Plain Scripture proof of Mr. Ti anfwered to this, That their Relations may be faid to be fanftified In this fence ; but when Scripture faith fo, I will believe him. 3. I further argue thus ; That which is common to all Pagans lawfully marryedj cannot be mentioned as a priviledge proper to Believers : But Paul mentioneth fan- edification of the Unbeliever to them, as a priviledge proper to Believers : There- fore this Is nothing common to Pagans (or which they enjoyed whileft they were Pa. gans, as that lawfulnefs of ufe is which Mr. T. mentioneth J Mr. T. in his Books de- nyeth the Minor of this, and faith it is not proper to Believers to have the Unbeliver fandified to them > but that the Apoftle fpeaks of it as a common thing which they enjoyed while both were Uubelievers. But the fcope of the Apoftle fully fatisfieth me of the fallhood of this ; And againft it 3 I argue thus : If neither in this nor any other Text, the Holy Ghoft do ever fpeak of fancying to the Unbeliever, but to Believers only , then it is not to be underftood of a thing common to every Pagan that is lawfully marryed : But the Antecedent is undenya. ble. For here Paul faith only to the Believer, that the Unbeliever is fan&ified to them , and not to any other. And no other Text can be produced that faith 0- . therwife. Whence another Argument may be added : 4. That cannot be faid to be done to the Believer as his proper privilegde which he enjoyed before while he was an Unbe- liever ; But the lawfull ufe of his unbelieving Wife he enjoyed before ? Therefore it is not his priviledge as a Believer j and confequently not the thing here meant in the Text. If it be faid that it is not the making, but the continuing lawfull that is here meant : I anfwer, That which firft made it lawfuil 3 will continue it fo 5 If both had continued Unbelievers 3 their marriage would have continued lawfull. 5. My next Argument is this ; If by fan edifying were meant making lawfull, then the Apoftle could not argue as a Notion (from a thing more known) from the chil- drens Holinefs to. the Uunbclievers being fo fanftified ; But the Apoftle doth argue a Notiore : $0 faith Mr.T. ft ill, and Apol. p. 1 20. he faith they were certain their children were Legitimate. I do unfeignedly admire how Mr.T. can fatisfle his own confeience in the Anfwer he giveth to this Argument 3 or how he can make himfelf believe that it is either farif- fa&ory or rationall. But I will hide none of his Anfwer from you.j as it is, you (hall have it, and fo judge of it. I confirmed my Major propofition thus (for the Minor is his own.,) i.Ifno man can rationally know that his children are Legitimate, till he firft know that his Marriage is lawfull ( as in oppofion to Adultery,) then the childrens Legitimation is not a thing better known then the faid lawfulnefs of Mar- riage. But no man can rationally know that his children are Legitimate, till he know firft that his Marriage is fo lawfull: Therefore the childrens legitimation is not a thing better known then the lawfulnefs of the Marriage. The Minor I prove thus: If the childrens Legitimation be a meer confequent of the faid lawfulnefs of the Marriage, receiving all its ftrength from it /then no man can rationally know that his children are Legitimate till he firft know that his Marriage is fo lawfull : But the Antecedent is certain(and confefled by Mr.T. Apol* p. 1 23.) Therefore fc is the confequent. 2. Or thus ; If every man that doubteth of the lawfulnefs of his Marriage^ (as be- ing Adulterous) muft needs rationally doubt alfo of the Legitimation of his chil- dren^then the faid Legitimation is not a thing better known.But every man that doubt- eth whether his Marriage be Adulterous, mult needs rationally doubt alfo whether his children are Legitimate ; Therefore the faid Legitimation is n« better known. * r Now Infants Church-memberflrip and Baptifm. 87 Now what faith Mr.T> to all this ? why In otir Difpute he faith, over and over, that the Cmmhians were certain that their children were no Baftards, and yet they were not certain whether their continuing together were not Fornication. And this magifterially he affirmed without any reafon : To which I reply, x. Then were the Corinthians certainly mad, even ltark wad men, if they doubted that they lived in Fornication, and yet were fare that their children were lawfully begotten in that ftate. But Mr T. hath no ground in Reafon and Confcience, to make fuch a Church as this of Corinth to confift of mad men : nor will I believe him, that they were fo befides themfelves in this, who had fo much wifdom in other things. 2.I reply further : He feigneth them to know a thing not knowable,and fo an|im- poffibility j for it is not knowable that the'ehild of an Adulterous or Fornicating Bed is lawfully begotten j and if they were in doubt of their living in Fornication, though it were not fo, yet it would afford to them no more afTurance of their childrens Legi- timation, then if it were fo indeed : For who can raife a Conclusion from unknown premifes ? Indeed, if there were any other premifes to raife it from, then it were fomething 3 but there is no other ground in the world on which a man can know that his childe is lawfully beg6cten, but only to know that he was no Fornicator or A- dulteror. Therefore I would Mr. T. would tell me, upon what ground they were certain that their children were lawfully begotten, while they doubted whether their living together were not Fornication. Doth he think they knew it by Enthufiafm or Revelation from Heaven ? If not, then it muft be rationally by deducing it from fome premifes : And what are thofe premifes ? If he will teach an incontinent perfon, how to be fure that his children are lawfully begotten , he will deferve a fee y efpecially fome great men, that would fain make their Baftards their Heirs 5 mould not all men do as they would be done by ? And would Mr. T. take it well to be fo cenfured himfelf^ as he cenfureth thefe Corinthians ? CmtMr.T. be fure that his children are lawfully begotten, when he is not fure whether he live in Fornication, or no, that is, whether he lawfully begot them ? Why {hould not I think the Corinthians as rationall as Mr.Tf I am fure they had better Teachers then he among them, and lived in better times; (Though fome think that many now know more thenT^«/> and! think fo too j but with fuch a knowledge as Adam got by his Fall.) But i. Mr.T.hiih in his Sermon on deliberation, that this is net abfurd to imagine of underftanding perfons, feeing even learned men do not at all times fee the con. fequences of things at the prefent. To which I anfwer : (if it need anyjj i.Far fetcht or difficult confequences they may not fee > but fuch as this, I dare fay,he is neer mad,if not ftark mad, that cannot fee. 1. Then Mr.T. being a learned man will take it for no wrong it feems., if a man tell him he is not able at prefent to fee this confequence , that his children are law- fully begotten $ therefore he did lawfully beget them, or he did not beget them in Fornication- 3. But if fuch a learned man mould not fee the confequence of the faid antecedent; yet I would fain know how he comes to know the conlequent, without firft know- ing any premifes or antecedent. This is the Quefticn that Mr. T. mould have an- fwered. How they came to be fo certain, that their children were lawfully begotten, when at the fame time they knew not whether they begot them lawfully, or in Forni- cation. Did not fo able a man as Mr T. know , and that after fo much Difpute, that this was the Queftion which he (hould have anfwered ?■ Arcd yet he faith nothing to it : And yet he faith. He hath abundantly anfwered all. W hac fhould a man fay to fach dealing I ■ 88 Plain Scripture proof of dealing ? and that from a man of learning and piety ? and that dare on thefe grounds deny Church memberlhip to all Chi iilians Infants in the World ? (hall I accufe his und'erftanding ? Why he thinks his caufe fo plain; that he fmiies and wonders at all the learned men in the world that diflent from him • (hall I accui'e his Confcience., and fay : he doth thefe things wilfully ? No ; but I leave it to God the righteous Judge. Only I am ft ill more confirmed, that a vifible judgement of God doth (till follow Anabaptiftry where ever it comes. 3 . But one thing more Mr. 7. hath both in his Difpute and Sermon ; and that Is ejufdem farina } of the fame nature with the refi. tie fpeaks as if it were their children begotten before converfion of the Believer 3 that they were certain to be. Legitimate, and their Marriage- ftate afterward which they doubted to beunlawfull 5 (Though in his Sermon he fpeaketh darkly and ambiguoufly.) But it is flrange to mej if he believe himfelf in this : And if he do 3 I return him this anfwer. Is it not enough that he feign the Chriftian Corinthians to be beiide themfelvesj but he mull charge little lefs on $.Pau' 3 and on the Holy Ghoft } As if the Sprit of God by the Apoftle, did prove their continuance in Marriage with Unbelievers to be no For- nication, becaufe their children before the converfion of the Bell ver (and fc before the time doubted of ) were Legitimate. Is this good difpuung , to fay you are certain that your children which you begot before your converfion are Legitimate : Therefore the Unbeliever is fanttifiedtoyounow, and you may now continue the Matrimoniall enjoyment of them ? And fo the Apoftle mould tell them nothing of the Legitimation of the children begot (ince their converfion 3 v. hen yet the doubt was only of the lawfulnefs of their Marriage fince then^and not before.If one of Mr. 7. his Hearers fhoiild doubt (as many do) whether he may lawfully thus continue and proceed in the Miniftry 3 and whether they may miintain him in this way : were it any good Argument for me to ufe, to fay , His Labours before he Preached againft Infants Baptifm and Church- memberfhip were Orthodox j Therefore he may go on now,and you may maintain him ? who would not laugh at fuch a foolijh Argument? And dare you faften fuch on the Spirit of God ? Thus I' have (hewed you whar Mr. T. hath to fay againft this Argument. My fixth Argument is this ; If it were not the unlawfulnefs of their Marriage as ^ornicatingj-but as impious or irreligious directly,, which the Corinthians fufpe'eted, then it is not the lawfulnefs in oppofition to Fornication, that is here called fanctify- Ing : But it was not the unlawfulnefs as Fornicatory , but as impious directly which they fufpected : Therefore it was not the lawfulnefs as oppofite to Fornication, which is he; e meant by fanctifying. The Minor only will be denyed, which I prove thus ; If they doubted not of the I .pyrimaticn of their Seed , then they could not rationally doubt of the lawfulnefs of their uie of . v ' arriage, as Fornicatory : (but they might doubt of the lawfulnefs of ir, as being Impious ;) But th^ Antecedent is Mr.% his cwn : Apol.y.i 2.0. Therefore the confequent' he cannot well deny. 2. riefides, to any unprejudiced man , it will appear from the very fcope of the Text 3 th^t this was the Corimhi.vas doubt, whether it were not Irreligious to live with Unbelievers } and not, whether it v/ere not directly Fornication ? My feventh Argument is this: When thep cper fence of a word may be taken, aucialf< 'hat fence wherein it is ufd many hundred times by the Hcry Ghoft 3 and this with .u* any palpable i neon ver. ience ; then it <& {infull to reject that fence, and prefer an u^ufive Catech cfticall fence ; and which is difagreeing from all other Scripture ufe of that word .' But here the proper itnee of the word [fanftified] may be taken, Infants Chtirch-mmberfbif and Baptifm. 89 taken, wherein Scripture ufeth it many hundred times , and that withouc any palpable (yea the leaft) inconvenience 5 Therefore it is finfuil to prefer before it an abufive fence, wherein Scripture never ufeth the word 3 (by his own confeflion.) The Major was' not denyed : The Minor was deny cd ( that the proper ufuali fence m3y be here taken without inconvenience; ) 1. I defired him to fliew any in- convenience in it •* And you (hall anon hear an that he hath (hewed, then c: fmce. 2. 1 proved the Negative thus ; If the Scripture fay exprefly, that To the pure all things are pure andfantttfied, (and here be nothing againft that fence; then it bein^ a cer- tain truth, we may fo underftand it here. But the Scripture faith exprcfiy, that To the pure all things are pure and fanclified'i (in the proper fence:) Therefore it being a certain truth (and here is nothing againft that fence,) we may fo take it here. What Mr.T. faid to this , it is a fhame to hear from the mouth of a Chriftian -, but you may fee part of it (if it be worth the feeing) afterwards. In brief, he affirmed, and long contefted, that all things are fanctified to Believers only while they are afting Faith; yea, only while they are actually praying (in the fence of that Text.) And fo brings in an old condemned Hcrefie (fo called by the Fathers) that nothing is pure to us longer then we are praying. Then his Difpute was unfanctified ; and fo is his preaching, though it be againft Infant Baptifm, and though he pray before and after; yea then his very mearand drink isunfanctified (which Paul faid were fanctified by the word and prayerj ) and then what good will prayer do as to the fan&ifying of any thing, when itfan&ifieth no longer then we are praying ? would any man believe that fuch Doctrine (hould fall from Mr.T, a man of learning, and fuppofed judiciouL nefs ? If he had not long inhfted on it,and that before about 50 Minifters and Schol- hrs, and fome thoHfands of people , I (hould not expect that any one (hould believe me. And is it any wonder if he that will or dare plead thus 3 dare alfo plead againft Infant-Baptifm ? Yea, when I argued againft him thus, [If it be only in the very exercife of Faith and Prayer that things are pure, then fleep is not pure or fanctified to you j (for you do not exercife Faith and Prayer in your fleep.) But fleep is fanctified : Therefore iris not only in the very exercife of Faith and Prayer.] Here Mr.T. denyed that fleep is fanctified > (would any man believe it ?) which I proved thus : If All things arc pure to the pure, then their fleep is ; But the Text faith , All things are pure te the pure, Tit.i.if. ^pierefore their fleep is pure to them. Here Mr. T. anfwered , that by all things were meant fome things. And thus you fee, what grounds the moft learned go on againft our Baplifmj which would make a tender-heart even tremble to repeat. Before I come to give you his reafons againft my Expofition of this Text , I will add my eighth and laft Argument , becaufe it is drawn from this lame Text 5 and it is thus : If theHoiy Ghoft fay exprefly, that ro Unbelieves Nothing is pure, then you muft not fay that their Husbands or Wives are fenctified to them (nor expound this Text, of any fuppofed ft aerification common to them:J But the Holy Ghoft faith exprefly that Nothing k pure to unbelievers '• Therefore it is not a fanctificatron common to them, that is here mentioned. If the Scripture do not only ufe the word Holy and Sanclifie many hundred times in another fence, and never in your fence, but alfo (peaks the direct contrary, v'r^ that Nothing is pure to unbelievers 5 then let Mr.T fay, if he pleafe, that their Wives are fanctified to tliem ; buz I wiil not fay fo. But 1. he faith, (but Magl&erialiy without the leaft proof,) tfcat the Apoftle fpeyks N Acu. 9° Plain Scripture proof of Acurologrcally and abufivcly > and by fan ct i fi ed, m fans quafi, as if they were fan. dified. Anf But befides that this is both unproved>yea J and fully confuted J would further know what he meaneth by \_qiiafi fanctified *f] Is it [as good as fanctified ?] 1 hen it is apparently falfe .♦ For to be unfanctiiied, though lawfull 3 is not as good as though they were fanctified. And if the meaning were only that it was lawfull that they continue together : then, 2. It would be but a proving idem per idem ; as if the Apoftle fhould fay ? ft is lawfull to live together, becaufe it is lawfull $ whereas he argues that they may lawfully live together 3 becaufe the one is fanctified in, or to the other. 3. And why mould a thing only lawfull be faid to be fand ified , or as it were fanctified., when it not fanctified ? Lawfulnefs is a condition prerecjuifite in the fubject of fanctification 5 for God never fanctifieth fin. It may be long lawfull 3 and never fanctified. 4. And how would this refolve their doubt, which it is apparent was, whether it were not directly Impious or Irreligious to live with Heathens ? would it beany fatisfa&ion for the Apoftle to anfwer, that,It is not Fornication ? It may be unlawfull as Impious,though lawfull as not Fornication. 5. And who mould be here believed in their Interpretation? Mr.T.that expoundcth by adding to theText? Or, thofe that fay no more or Iefs then the Tex faith ? We fay as the Apoftle faith, that the Unbeliever is fanctified in, or to the Believers tMr.T. faith, He is as it were fanctified: That is, He is not fanctified , but either as good, or fomewhat like it : who (hall be believed here ? S.Paul ',or Mr.T . ? I believe S. Paul, that the Unbeliever is fanctified. Let Mr.T. believe that he is but as it were fanctified. He tels usthat> 2 cor. 10. 2,3. to be baptized in the Cloud and Sea , is quafl baptized. And what of that? What is that to this ? Becaufe in Metaphors , Similitudes , Types, &c. the name may be given from the thing fignified, doth it follow that it is fohere. where Mr.T. doth not fo much as affim any l'ype'or Similitude } I am refolved on (and neceflitated to ) brevity, elfe I might add more Argu- ments here. I will only hint one more thus : The Apoftle here argueth from this as a^ horrid confequence, containing much evill in it [elfe were your children unclean, J and from the contrary as a happy confequent j [But now are they holy :] But ac- cording to Mr.T. his Expofition, there is no great good in one, nor evill in the other : Therefore Mr.T. his fence is diffonant from the Apoftlcs. Por the Major, it is undeniable : The Minor, Mr. T. will confute, when he hath wjP anfwered me$ what great evill is it according to his opinion to be a Baftard ? 1 It is no fin (in the child,) that is certain, z. And what evill of fuffering is it ? 1. Though the Parents ihould be impenitent, yet according to Mr. T. it would be no punimment to the *hild to be out of the vifible Church. For he thinks that even the Seed of the Faith- fullare all. without, and yet it is no evill to thera. Anfd for the place he urgeth, (be will bw: mercy on whom be will bave mercy J they may be concerned in it as well as others. So that except meer (hame among men, or the effect of humane Laws, what harm doth he leave ? I Shall now proceed to anfwer all that ever I could know that Mr. T. hath brought againft my Expofition of this Text. a. He faith , If I do overthrow his fence, and prove not my own , it is nothing : for pofsibiy neither of us may be in the right. Anfw.i. I wonder not that be feeth a poflibility of his own erring } but rather that he feeth not that he certainly trjreth. z. I have fully proved my Expofition alreadv: Is 1 mm Infants Chnrch-memberjbi]) and Baptifm. 91 1$ it not proof enough that the Scripture neer fix hundred times ufeth the word in my fence, and never in his ? g. When there is but thefe three fences urged by any of un- derftanding,l think the overthrow of his third is the eftablHhingof one of the former; and if either of them ftand , his caufe muft fall. For the other fence of the word [Holy] which is for Qualitative real 1 Hoi inefs , makes againft him more then mine. And I fay again I had rather fay as they that would have it a Holinefs of feparation, fuch as certainly faveth, then as 6dr. T. that it is only to be no Baftards. For I know no one Scripture againft their judgement that (hall affirm , that all Infants of Belie- vers fo dying are certainly fa ved: nor any Argument, but only this, that then the children of the faithful 1 that prove wicked, do fall away from Grace. And were I ne- ceflitated to the one (as I am not,) I had rather believe that fuch Grace as confifteth not in perfonall qualifications, but is meerly Relative, grounded on the Covenant, and having only the Parents Faith for its condition,I fay, that fuch Grace may be loft when they come to age, then to believe with Mr. T. that God hath denyed all Infants in the World to be fo much as Members of the vifible Church. For I fee twenty times more may be faid againft this Opinion of his, then the other. But in his Papers which he (hewed me againft Mr. iMarfhats Defence,he mentioneth fome Scriptures where Holinefs or Sanctifying is not taken for feparation from com- mon to facred ufe,as / then it is common eftimation that fandifieth : For it may be without Faith, but not without common eftimation. And if it be the Holinefs that is mentioned Tit. W$. iTiw.45,6. then it is only when one perfon is a true Believer , and alfo when true Faith is ex- ercifed. This is the very ftrength of Mr. T. his Arguing againft the plain words of Scrip- ture : And be not thofe du&ile and tradable fouls , that will be drawn from the plain words of God with fuch a maze of words ? But me thinks to the Judicious, there fliould be no difficulty in the untwifting of all this which Mr* T. hath fo ravelled, I give him therefore my Anfwer plainly thus. t. Faith is no caufe (not fomuch as Inftrumcntall properly) of a mans own Juftification or Salvation, but a meer condition, (Mr.T. and 1 are agreed in this, though the moft Divines are againft us both ;) Therefore it can be no caufe but a condition (which is an Antecedent, or Caufafine qua non) of childrens Holinefs. Let others plead for its caufality 5 I plead but for its conditionality. x. How Logically he contradiftinguifheth the Prefence of Faith from the Exercife of it , I leave to our betters to judge. By the Prefence of Faith, he may mean either the prefence of the Habit, or of the Ad / If the latter,, it would be a filly queftion : But I think he means the Habit only. 3. If he had notdiftinguimed between Prefence and Exer- cife 9 but between Prefent and Paft, and fo demanded whether it were the pre- rvnt Exercife only , or the PafV, or former Exercife y it had been a more ufefuli Quere. 4. I anfwer therefore fully: If this be the Queftion, what is the Condition on which God in Scripture beftoweth this Infant Holinefs ? It is the Aduall Believing of the Parent : For what Faith it is that hath the Promifcof perfonall Bleflings , it is the fame that hath the promife of this priviledge to Infants: Therefore the promife to us being on condition of BeIieving,or of Aduall Faith, it were vain to fay, that the promife to our Infants is only to Faith in the Habit : the Habit is for the Ad. Yet is the Habit ofneceflity for the producing of the Ad t Therefore it is both Faith in the Habit (or potcntiaproximaj and in the Ad that is neceffary. But yet there is no neceffity that the Ad muft be prefently at the time performed; either in aft 11 pro* cfcr,ndi,vel tempore nativiwuy t/el baptifmatis. It is fufficient that the Parent be virtually and difpofitively at prefent a Believer , and one that ftands in that Relation to Chrift as Believers do : to' which end it is requifice that he have adually believed formerly (or elfe he hath*no Habit of Faith,) and hath not fallen away from Chrift, bur be ftiii in the difpofition of his heart a Believer, and then the faid Ad will follow ia'f.afon - y and the Relation is permanent which arifeth from the Ad, and ceafeth no: when the Ad of Faith intermitteth. As a man may be your fervant when he intermit- reth his fervice 5 and a Difciple or Schollar when he is not Learnings a Tradefmanj or Husbandman, or Soldier, when he is not working at his Trade 3 or Husbandry, or is not in Fight j the Relation (and fo the Denomination^ from the Ad remai- ning when the Ad ceafeth for that time , and she profeflion alfo remaining. It is not Infants cbHrcb-memberjlup and Baptifm. 93 j»ot therefore the meer bare profeftion of Faith which God hath made the condition of this gift, but the former Ad and prefcnt difpofition in Realhy : Yet the faid pro- fefTion will, and neccifarily mufl accompany, fo far as the party hath opportunity and ability to profeffe. This is my plain full Anfwer. And now let's fee what Mr. T. can fay againft it. 1. He faith, then it will follow that without Reality of Faith, there it no fandificationj which confequence feems not fo dreadfull to me, as that I mould be afraid to admit it; nor do I fee any inconvenience that will follow upon it, nor any reafon to avoid it. His feeond confequence about falfe Faith I have nothing to do with 5 yet (hall anon a little further diftinguifh of Faith. His third is, that if it be Faith in the Exercife , then it is uncertain to the Bap- 1 tizer : If he mean the prefent Exercife , it is nothing to me 3 If he mean the Aft paft or prefent , and the difpofition prefent, then 1 yield that thefe are necefia- ry , and I mall here a little flay on the consideration of this confequent. Mr.T. told me alfo in Conference, that if it were the Reality of Faith thit was re- quifite, then the Baptizer could not know It, and that this was abundantly fufficient to confute all that I had faid. Wonderfull Confidence! what an eafie Faith hath Mr.T? and what a fmall matter feems to him abundant fatisfadion? would a man believe that fuch a filly contemptible Anfwer mould feem of fuch weight to fo lear- ned a man ? Who can think hereafter that he fees more then almoft all the Divines to Europe in the Dodrine of BaptKm, who is not able to fee the vanity of this An- fwer, but doth fo admire any thing that is his own, though fuch as a young Divine might beafhamedof. Yet was this Argument almoft all that he brought againft my Expofition of this Text. Lee us here then joyn iflue. 1. 1 muft tell Mr.T. that here are four diftind Queftions to be Anfwered ; 1. What is that Faith which God hath made the condition of Infant-Holinefs? 2. Whether Infants are Holy thereupon, as feparated from the World to God? 3. Whether all that are fo Holy or feparated to God , are to be folemnly admitted by Baptizing them > 4.Who they are whom the Church is to Judge Holyj or to have the conditions of this granted Priviledge ? Now it is only the firft of thefe Queftions that I anfwered before. It is only the feeond which the Text in hand afhrmeth. The third I proved towards the beginning of my Argument (affirmatively.^ The fourth I (hall come to next. So that let it be uncertain to the Baptizer who hath real! Faith: Yet 1. It is certaia to him that Believers Infants are Holy as feparated to God from the World. 2. It is certain to hira,that all fuch (hould be baptized. 3. And he hath a certain Rule to know whom he is to judge or take to be Believers 5 not a Rule for an infallible JHdgement of their Faith 5 but an infallible Rule for his judge- ment. The judgement which he pafleth of the perfons Faith may be fallible 5 but the Rule is infallible by which he judgeth : And the judgement which he is boucd to pafs according to that Rule, as his duty, is infallible too. The Rule is, That a ferious Profcfibur of the Faith, is to be taken by us for a true Btliever. Now here are included feverall Affertions : 1. That a ferious Profeffion is a probable fign of true Faith s this we may be certain of. 2. That we are therefore bound to judge fuch Profeflbrs to be in probability true Believers. 3. That we are bound therefore to receive and admit them^and ufe them as true Believers. Thefe three Ads (two of the judgement, and one of the whole man,) are infallible Ads, and are included as certain, having certain Objcds : So that thus far both Rule and Ads are infallible. 4. Eut then that Profefiion is an infallible Evidence of fincere Faith. 5. Or that this perfon hath certainly and infallibly a fincere Faith 5 the Ruje giveth us no warrant N 3 thus, . 9^ Plain Scripture proof of thus to judge. We are not called to any fuch judgement, it is none of our duty 5 . and therefore no wonder if we be here uncertain, and may be deceived. So that he who is miftaken in his judgement of the perfons ftate or tiue Faith, is yet not miftaken Jn any one Ad of that judgement which God bindeth him to, and which his practice proceedeth on. He neither is in danger of believing a Lie, nor of fealing to it. For he is bound to believe that Profeflion is a probable iign , and fo it is j and that a Profeflbr is probably a true Believer j and that is true, whether he prove fo or not ; and then he is bound to admit him among Believers j and this being matter of meer practice, is not faid to be tr-uc or falfe ; only, that it is our duty fo to do, that is true. I anfwer this Queftion the more fully, becaufe I finde our own Divines many of them at a lofs in it 9 whether in adminiftring the Sacraments of Baptifm and the Lords Supper, we are to go upon judgement of Infallibility, or judgement of Chari- ty. I have named feverall Ads of judgement that are infallible 5 and the phrafe of [judgement of Charity] is ambiguous. A fallible judgement we are not bound to; yet it may be called a judgement of Charity ; Though indeed Love being an Affe- dion cannot rightly lead the judgement ; yet we are to manifeft Love in our judging (not aggravating failings, but hoping all things, and obferving the beft to inform our judgements,) and yet more clearly are we to manifeft Charity in our admitting, receiving, and ufing fuch perfons : For it may be our duty to receive them as if they were true Believers 5 and yet none of our duty to judge them certainly true Be- lievers ; but only to judge them probably fuch. God bindeth no man to believe a falfhood. I know it is ordinary with Divines to fay concerning judgement of Charity, (and I have oft faid it my felfj that [It maybe a duty to believe that Good of a man which is not in him,and a fin to believe that which is the truth : ] But then the mean- ing is only this ; It is a duty to believe it as probable (and fo it is}) but not as cer- tain (God bindeth none to that) and then if he prove worfe then he feemed, I was not miftaken in my judging his fincerity to be probable : And on the other fide : If the fincerity of a man be probable , he that (hall judge either that he is certainly un- found, or that he is not probably found, he finneth againft God , though the man prove unfound $ becaufe i.He had no ground for his judgement, it being not a truth therefore to him, which proved true in the iffue. 2. And he is forbidden fuch judging. 3 And the fincerity of the party was probable, which he believed improbable , and fo in that believed falfly. Well, but Mr.T. thinks, that feeing we are uncertain who are true Believers Seed, therefore we may not by Baptifm admit th.m among the Holy, or into the vifible Church. Anfiv, But is it not enough that we know whom we are to judge in probability to be Believers ? and whom we are to admit and receive among Believers * though we know not who are infallibly fincere ? But Afr.T.objeded laftly to me thus, [however (faith he) this Text will not war- rant you to admit them ; for it te!s you of the Holinefs of none but Believers chil- dren, and ycu knew not who thofe be.] To which, and the reft before, I Anfwer ; 1. I bring not this Text to prove directly either that Infants muft be baptized, or that this or that particular Infant is Holy or a Church- member : Bu: I bring it only to prove that all the Infants of Believers are fo Holy : I have proved befoie,that thofe that are fo Hely orfeparated to God, muft be b.iptiaed : 1 his 1 proved from other Scriptures^ 2nd not from this : And I am proving novv # that ferious Pcofcffors-are to be Infants Church- member [hip and Baptifm. 95 be judged probably robe true Believers, and fo their Seed judged the Seed of Be- lievers, and both received on this judgement, without any judgement of certainty about the undoubted fincerity of their Faith. And this Rule for our judgement I fetch from other Scriptures , and not from this. So that whv Ihould Mr.T. expc<5t to have more proved from this Text then I intend ? Let him acknowledge but as much, and 1 exped no more : that Is, that all Believers Infants are Holy,3S being feparated from the world to God : (in which fence the vifible Church is Holy J Jf I prove only my Antecedent from one Text, will he fry it's in vain, except I prove my confequenc from the fame Text ? who would expect fuch arguing from fuch a man ? For the concluding the whole therefore I would ddire Mr. T. to anfwer rae thefe Queftions following : i. How doth he know himfelf whom he mould Baptize? whom doth the Scripture command him to Baptize ? If he fay, as Apol p.94. that it is thofethat makeafober, free, ferious, undei ft.anding profeflion; I would know whether it be the profeflion it felf, the bare profeflion which God beftoweth this priviledge on ? or whether it be the Faith profefled ? If it be Reall Faith, Habitual! or A&uall, then without Reall Faith there is no vifible Holinefs, Church member- ihip, or Baptifm. If it be bare profeflion or (as he cals ix) falfe Faith,then falfe Faith (or profeflion without Faith) hath the reall efteft (or is the condition of) making vifible Saints or Cfmrch members. Again, if it muft be Real Faith, in Habit or Aft, the Baptizer cannot know if. If it be faid , that in common eftimation they are Believers , and fo Holy, then common efttmation doth it without Faith. This is his own arguing ; when he hath anfwered it for himfelf, he hath anfwered It for me. Is it not ftrange that he could not fee, that it is as much to himfelf to an- fwer it as me ? If he C3n tell me how he knows a man hath Faith enough for his own admittance or vifible Holinefs, then let him prove it , and his proofs (hall ferve me to prove that the fame Faith is it that Is alfo the condition of his Infants admittance andHolinefs. If he fay, that it is not on Faith that God giveth to men at age this vifible Holl- nefs, but upon a bare profeflion. 1. 1 ihould defire kim to prove it,and then when he hath proved foundly that by Believers are meant Profeflbrs, and that is the dired condition of the gift, he (hall prove it for me alfo , that it is fuch Profeflbrs children that on the fame condition are Holy. 2. But yet I do not Believe he can prove it. Though he may prove what I am proving, that the Church is to take Profeflbrs for probable Believers . and fo admit them among Believers; yet he will never prove that the Prom-ife or Grant is made direftly or properly to Profeflion, but to Faith 5 nor that Profeflion is the Conditi- on, but the fign to us to judge of thofe that have the Condition 5 and therefore ad- mitteth not into this vifible ftate of Holinefs for it felf , but for the Faith which ic profeflsrh and (lgnifiethA Though Mr. T. feems to deny this, and will fly further from the Independents* then I dare do in this, in his Apol. p. 1 37. where he feemeth to deny , [that the Hoi L nefs which is the ground for the Adminiftrator to baprize,muft be real! either indeed, or charitably believed.] If by [charitably believed] he mean , [judged as probable] I am againtt him, and will not runaway from 1 ruth and Chriftianity for fear of Independency. For 1. 1 would know where it is that the Promife or Grant is made direclly to a fcic, bare Profeflion ? a. I would know whether he will baptize any man (or give him the Lords Supper, all's one J upon a Profeflaon which fiath no .■ fi^nification of piobable Faith and fincerity ? If he fay no ,• then iiis evident thaa the,.- N*. $6 Flan Scripture proof of the Faith muft be probable. If he fay that he would : Then I. I fay he would make Chriftianty a fcorn, and baptize a man that he knew came in derifion to make a jeft of Chrift. Who dui ft baptize fuch a man, whofe profefllon he knew to be fcornfull or counterfeit ? Then the Jews that put on him the Robe, and cryed , Hail l{wg of the Jews, might have been baptized, z. And then he would contradid his own rule, Apol.$-94. that Profefllon muft be free, fober, ferious, and underftanding. And why fo ? but becaufe thefe are probable figns of Faith : Therefore how to reconcile Mr. T. withhimfelf in the two laft cited places, is beyond my skill. Perhaps fome may think that! argue againft my own practice, in that J admit fo many hundred co the Sacrament. But I anfwer : Whether it be that God hath given me a better people then ordinary, or whether I take that profeflion for a fatisfadory mark of probable Faith, which fome others do not, (or indeed both together,as I am fuse the Truth is,) yet I adminfter to none that I know to be unbelievers ; nay, nor that I judge not to be probably or hopefully Believers. For if they openly profefs their Faith in Chrift, and contradid it not by wicked obftinate lives, I yet can finde no reafon to conclude againft the probability of their Faith. Yet if Mr. T» or any other mould infift on it, that it Is bare profeflion, and not Reall Faith that hath the Promifej I mail fatisfie it In my fecond Queftion. 2. I would defire Mr.T. to anfwer his own Queftlons concerning thefe following Texts •* How will he do that ? even fo will I anfwer him to this. ^.8.36,37. What doth f hinder me to be bapti^i? (JPhilip doth not fay , If thou profefs, but) if thou believeft with all thy heart thou maift, (Here is that which was the condition of his rightto Baptifm before God- ) And hefaid, 1 believe thatje- fm Chrift is the Son of God: (Here was Philips ground to judge him a Believer.) Now I would ask Mr.T. is it Reall Faith, or a bare profefllon , that was here meant by believing ? If reall Faith (as certainly it was 3 when it muft be with all«he heart]) then how could Philip know it ? Even as we may know. ( For I hope he will not plead a Revelation to Philip J All his own Queries may here be pur. So Att.16. 30,3 i.Believe in the Lordjefus^zs the condition,on profefllon whereof the Jaylor was baptized. Now how did Paul know he believed ? As Mr.T. anfwer- eth, fo will I to him. So Att.z. 38,41. Repent and be b.ipti^d every one of you in the name of the Lo?dJefus y &c. They that gladly received the word were baptized, &c. about 3000 fouls.' It was not here a bare profeflion thai was the condition, but Re* penting j and Peter baptized them becaufe they gladly received the word. But how knew Peter that they Repented, and gladly received the word? Mr.T. will fay, the Baptizer is uncertain : and fure Peter knew not the hearts of 300a men. Is it not evident then, that true Repentance and Faith is the condition (and not a bare profeflion,) and yet that the Church is warranted by the conftant example of all the Scripture, to take a profefsion> but not for it fejf diredly as if it were the very condition,but as being the difcovery of thofe that probably have the condition ; and fo the way that God would have all Minifters take in judging and admitting ; and there- fore no profefllon muft fatisfie that doth not probably fignifie Faith. (Yet we have ex, ample ftill for taking the firft probable p:ofeflion, without further delay or fearchj Yea,even Simon himfelf was baptized becaufe he believed.and not becaufe he bare- ly profeffed, or at ieaft becaufe by profefling he feemed to believe,^ 8.13 .So Acl. 8. x>.&u.zi.&i3.ia&i8.8. Alhhat dwelt at Samaria , and at Ljdda> andSaron 3 believed, and therefore were baptized* But what mould I cite more places to M>.T. who himfelf confeflah that it is Belie- vers that are Difciplcs , zn&Difciplcs only that muft be baptized, according to Mat. Infants Cburch-rncmberjhip and Baptifm. pj M.it. z8.\ 9 10. Now here I might run over all his own Queftions ; and ask,Is it Be- lieving in prefence or in exercife ? is it reall Faith or bare profefsion ? If the latcer, then falfe Faith maketh Difciples .' If the former,then who can know it? Let him an- fwer thefe for himfelf and me. Yea, I might refer him to all thofe Scriptures which fpeak in the like language, or dired to perform any Ad: towards men ©n Condition of fome internall Ad of theirs; and put Mr. Ts Quell ion, how (hall we know , when they do it fmcere!y,or at all ? And that we are not to pafs any judgement on mens Faith as certain, and on that to admi&infter Sacraments , but only on the forefaid judgement of its probability: and that ferious profefsion is to be takenasfucha probable fign , not only Jail the Scriptures before mentioned, but all others that exprefs or intimate the grounds of Baptizing will fully prove : (for man knoweth not the heart ,) Mat. J. 6. Ma/.i %. Mr,.\6.i6. Aft.\6'l%,$l.& 18.8. iCw.iz.lj. Gal.$.z6.i7> Mat.18.i9. But perhaps Mr.T. will fay, that then it is only our judgement of the probability of their Parents Faith which maketh the children holy, or elfe we Baptize the unholy. To which I aafwer > Where there is not the condition of this Holinefs, that is, reail Faith, there no judgement of ours can make them HoJy j and fuch by birth-priviledgc are not Holy 5 whether any other having intercft in them afterwards may dedicate them to God, and fo help them to this priviledge, is a further Queftion, which I will not now ftand to debate. And for our baptizing thofe that are unholy, or that have in themfelves no right to it, it is no more our fin then it was the Apoftles iin to bap- tize Simon Magus, who doubtlefs had no right to Baptifm, and yet the Apoftle had right to baptize him. And thus I have anfwered Mr. Ts. great Objedion according to my own judge- ment. Bit now let me adde this much here ; There is a Reall undiffembled Faith, which yet is not juftifying or faying* Who can deny that ? Now fuppofe fuch a Hi- ftoricall, Temporary Faith, that hath not deep rooting, nor prevailed againft the la- tereft of the fleih, mould be faid to be the condition of thefe common priviledges of vifible Holinefs ; how would Mr. T. confute it ? It is apparent that unfound Belie- vers were admitted Church-members, (as Simon Magus) and were partakers of the Ho'y Ghoft, fo far as to work Miracles and caft out Devils in Chrifts Name, that yet muft depart from him as workers of iniquity , Mat. 7.Heb'Jy. And why may they not have this common priviledge alio for their children ? Why Mr. T. faith, then a falfe Faith would fandifie : I anfvver : No, It is not properly a falfe, that is, a coun- terfeit Faith 3 but then, an inefficient temporary Faith which cannot fave, may yet have common priviledges. Object. But he faith, that the Apoftle faith, that every creature is fandified by the word and prayer to them that believe. Anfrv.i. How oft are common unfound Chriflians faid to believe (as Simon Ma- gus is) and called Believers ? a.Whether it be only by the Word and ^rayerjthat Text ipeaksnot, efpecially 01 other things befides the creatures for ufe. 3. Nor whe- ther it muft needs be the prayer of the party ufing them. 4. There is a common pray- ing as well as a common believing,which is no more counterfeit then Ababs humilia- tion. 5. But for my part I take it in that proper fence, and fay it is true Faith and Prayer that is here meant, and fo anfwer it as before; where no difficulty arifeth againft it. 6. But I fhall not think as Mr.T. that it muft needs be prefent prayer, and that prayer paft will not ferve ; for then the efficacy of prayer mould laft no longer then we are praying. O The £8 F lain Scripture proof of THe fccond Objection of Mr-T. why this Text cannot be meant of fuch holinefc as TV*'. 1. 1 j. is this, becaufe the Apoftie there faith that nothing is pure to fuch un- believers as yet profeffe thev know God, but deny him in works 5 and therefore the children of ungodly ProfefTors by this mould be unholy. To which I anfwer ; 1 . This is nothing againft me who fay it is Reall Faith that is the condition. ». I doubt you are like the Engifn-man that King C bar Is mentions out of Chancer, That which he would not know he cannot underftand ; Oreifeyou might fee, that the A poitle fpeaks there of Jews and Infidels only ; For i. heex- prefTeth them of the Circumcifion, that is, Jews, vcrf.io. 2,. He calleth the Heathen Poet one of their own Prophets. 3, The thing he fpeaks againft,is Jewiih fables and commands of men that turn from the truth. 4.He exprefly calleth them unbelieving 5 and you know who thofe are in the Gofpel phrafe. $. He faith only ? they profefs to know God (as the Jews and many Philofophers did,) but not that they profefs to know Chrift. 3 . But fappofe they were profefled Chriftians, yet they were fuch whofe profefsioa was no probable fign of their Reall Faith ; nay, it was evident that they had no true ¥aith, and therefore ought to be caft cut , or not reckoned among Profefiors 5 for the very effence of Faith lyeth in A iteming that Chrift is King and Saviour, and con- fenting that he be fo to us j Now thefe men were fo far from this, that they denyed even God himfelf by their works ,* being abominable, difobedier.t 3 and to every good work reprobate. From a Church compofed of fuck Profefiors , 1 will be a Se- paratist." I Meet but with one more Objection of Mr. T. againft his Antagoniftsj about this Text, that is worth the noting 5 and that in his printed Books and his iManufcript sgainft Mr- Mai (hall, he gloryeth in more confidently then all the reft , as if it were unanfwerable : But to me he never objected it 3 as feeing it was of no force (I con- jecture) againft my exposition. And it is this ; He faith , If Holinefs or San&ifying were the effect or refult of the Faith of the Believer , then an unbelieving Fornicator might be faid to be fan&ified by his believing Whore, as well as a Husband to his heliving Wife, A$oU pag. 2.2.. And then it would follow they might live to- gether. To which. I anfwer ; 1. It is only the free gift or grant of God in his Law or Co- venant which fanctifieth J Faith is but the condition. If Faith, as fuch 3 or from its own nature did caufe or procure this fan&ification, then indeed all fuch Faith would fo do ; But when Faith is but the condition of it {pr if it were a morall caufe,) and io the procurement dependeth on the will, Law , or gift of him that made this to be the condition, then it can procure n<7 fur r her then he hath extended its ufe, and an- nexed to it his gift. Now God hath not made it a condition for fanctifying For- nicators one to another as fuch j as he hath done of fan&ifying lawfuil Marriage. A Eelierer m3y have the Word of L J romife , and may pray for the fan&ifying of lawfuil Marriage, which he cannot do of Fornication. A thing maft be £rft lawfuil } before it be fanclined * y God fancVifieth not nn in or to any (though he may bring good out of it •*) Where All things are faid to be fanctined,and pure to the pure, it is.meant o£ All things good and lawfully but no: of fin ^ which is not of God»Therefc>re Mr.T-his arguing Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptzfm. 99 arguing is mod vain, [where one party is fandified co the other for the begetting of a Holy Seed, these they may lawfully continue together. But the unbelieving Whore is fin&irled to the believing Fornicator : Therefore they may lawfully live together.] To this I anfwer ; i. The Major propofition is his own fidion \ and is not in t that is, before they were born ? Then fair fall the Antinomians* Or, what alteration is there in, or of the Covenant, or Promife when the effed is attained ? Is not the Law of the Land that was made long ago the caufe of a Delinquents condemnation, and the righting of the Juft many years after ? and of every mans right in the Tenure of his Eftate ? And what change is in the Law ? or what containeth it, more then be- fore ? If a Deed of Gift be made of ioool. to you to be enjoyed at the end of twenty years; was not this Deed any caufe of your enjoyment? Or did you enjoy it as foon as the Deed was in being ? Or what alteration was in the Deed at the pro- d'udionof the effed \ If the like Deed of Gift be made upon a condition by you to be performed, fo that you mall not enjoy the Gift, till you have performed the condition ; muft it needs follow,that either this Deed is no caufe of your enjoyment, or elfe you muft enjoy it as foon as the Deed Is made ? If a man fet the clock to ftrike two or three hours hence, is he no caufe of it except it ftrike fuddenly? Or doth he perform any new Ad after to produce thej effed > It is fure therefore the Can fa proximo. asZ^^rtfwff^hat the Canon fpecially concerns^/z pcfid ponitur ejfe£ii#,znd IOC that always neuter without the ufuall diitindion , That quantum adcntitatemab- folutam Infants Chnrch-membirfotf And Btptifm. 10 1 fotutam,& vim agenda vel tn Aclu prim, cauja efficient -per fc pote ft tffccfilclufuo tempore prior : ctfinon in Attn fecund* effect**/ prodncente. But this is not a lit Difpute for them to whom I intend this Labour ; Therefore I referre you to Snarc^r>}jp tl 6, Srft.z p.4lo. and Schibltr. Topic cap.i. Nnmb.6%%*. with others, that I know Mr. T. hath read ' And then leave it to the meaneft Scholler, that is rational, whether it be a good conference, that if the Covenant be the caufe of Infants Holinefs , they muft then be Holy as foon as the Covenant (or Promife) was made } ONe thing more /'for I am loth to conceal any of Mr.T. his ftrength,) he hath an Obje&ion againft Mr. Bhlp Ap*l p. 1 24. which may Teem to have more weight with it; and that is, that in our fence, children maybe Holy though born of Infidels; for he faith, [according to Mr. Blades Opinion it is falfe , that [unbelieving Parents never beget children by Birth priviledge Holy:] for children born of Infidels brought into Abraham's Family had right to Circumcifion, and fo were by Birth* priviledge Holy in Mr. Blades fence. Anfa. I am the willinger to take notice of this, that I may have opportunity to refolve the great Queftion , whether only children of Believers ought to be Baptized ? 1. 1 anfwer therefore : If a man fay that this was proper to Abraham and the Jews, he may have far more to juftifie it, then Mr.T. hath to prove that the Church-mem- berfliip of the whole fort of Infants was proper to the Jew*. 1. 1 anfwer according to my own judgement, thus : 1. I deny it as moll untrue, that the children of Infidels brought into Abraham's Family, were by Birth- priviledge Holy , as Mr. Blaise expreffeth it. For thofe children that he means were cither thok born in Abraham's Hon fe, or thofe bought with his money* For the former, they were no children of Infidels : for Abraham kept no Infidels in his Houfe, nor muft do: For the Parents were to enter the Covenant as well as the Children , and the Father was to be Circumcifed : And I have fully proved before (and a multitude of Texts more might be brought to prove it,) that men were not to be Circumcifed, whileft rhey were profefled Pagans, but were to enter into Gods Covenant as well as the Jewes -, even the Hewer of their Wood and the Drawet of Water, Deut. 29. 1©, 1 1. When God commandeth Abraham to Circumcife every Male , it is fuppofed he bring them to enter the Covenant, whereof it was the Seal. And 2. If he mean the Infants bought with money, I fay , They were not by Birth- priviledge Holy: For then they mould have been Holy as foon as they were Iwrn, and (o before they came into Abraham's Family. 2. You muft therefore diftinguifli between Infants as born of fuch Parents, and Co they were unholy ; arid as after becoming Abrahams own, the Parents having gi- ven up their Title to him ; and fo Abraham had power to bring them into the Cove- nant, and make them Holy by feparating them to God : But this was by no Birth- priviledge. 3. And for my part, 1 believe that this is a {landing Rule and Duty to allChrifti- ans : Only the children of a Believer are Holy directly as theirs , or by Birth privi- ledge (in fubordination to the Covenant,) and from the womb : But when we ei- ther buy Infants, or they are left Orphans wholly to us, fo that they are wholly ours and at our difpofe, the Parents being either dead, or having given up their Intreft to us, I doubt not though they were the children of Jews and Turks, but it is our duty to lift them under Chrift, and enter them into his School, Kingdom, or Church by O 3 Baptifnaj 102 Plain Scripture poof of Baptifm * and that Gods Law to Abraham will prove this. Why clfe were the Jews to Circumcife all bought with money ^ (even meer flaves) but becaufe thsy were wholly their own and at their difpofc ? but not hired Servants , becaufe they could not by their Authority fo certainly prevail withthefe, as whji the other ; but mult ftay till they voluntarily would be Profelytes. I know fome will think it incredible that even flaves or any mould be compelled to enter Gods Covenant : But I need not tell them that the good King oijuda appointed that whoever of his people would not enter the Covenant, fhould be put to death. ( Indeed this Covenant contained not circumftantials, but that they (hould take the Lord only for their God, and re. nounce all Idols that were dire&ly fet up as Gods 5 and he that will not take; this Covenant , I think ought not by any good Prince to be fuffered to live in his Kingdom.,) This is my judgement ; in which I am the more confident when I confider, how freely Chrift inviteth all commers , and that he never refufed any that came , or any Infant that was brought : And that it ill befeemeth Chriftians without plain grounds to ftraiten Chrifts Kingdom^ or to keep out any that he would not have kept out. So much for the Vindication of, 1 Cer 7.14. CHAP. XtfX. Y twenty fifth Argument is probable at Ieaft,and proceeds thus: If the Scripture frequently ^nd plainly reil us of the ceafing of Circumcifion, but never give us the leaft word concerning the ceafing of Infants Church membership , then though Circum- cifion be ceafed,we are not to judge that Infants Church-mem- berfliip is ceafed : But the Scripture doth frequently and plainly tell us of the ceafing of Circumcifion;but never fpeaks one word of the ceafing of Infants Church membership; therefore we are not to judge that it is ceafed. He that denyeth the Minor, let him bring one word of Scripture where the ceafing of Infants C hurch»member(hip is mentioned 3 if he can. The confecjuenceof the Major is denyed by Mr.T. and he gave me only this reafon : The freeing of Servants in the year of Jubilee, the Dedication of all the firft born, and the like are ceafed,_and Scripture mentioneth not the ceafing of them. 1 o which I anfwer : The year of Jubilee was one of fheir Sabbaths, which the Apoftle faith plainly were (hadows of things to come, and Chrift is the fubftance : The dedication of the firft born was evidently a Type of Chrift and the Church un. der him. Of both thefe many Scriptures are plain 5 and therefore we can (hew that they are done away. But let it be proved that the admitting of Infants into the vifible Church is a meer Type or a meer judiciall Law proper to the Jewifh Com- mon-Wealth, any more then the admitting of men or women into the Church. I have examined what proofs of this they p-.etend, already; and have proved the contrary : Let me adde now but this much : 1 1 is evident to me, that it was not proper to the Jews Common-wealth or Church befides the reft, for thefe two reafons ; 1. Becaufe it was a vile and difgracefull thins w Infants Churchmember[})ip and Baptifm. 103 thing Then to the whole Nations about them, and to any particular perfon 3 to be unCircumcifed, and confequcnly to be without the Church : The uncircumcifed were mentioned then by them as Pagans now by us ; Therefore it is evident that to be circumcifed and To to be Church- members , was a thing that they judged both defirable and attainable, by all the Nations about them (if not their flit duty.,) Now if all the Nations about fiiouM have become Church members ( as no doubt they ought,) then it feems they (hould or might be all Circumcifed 5 and if fo, then it mutt be after the manner of the Jews, that is, Infants and all Males 3 for there is no other rule or manner of Circumcifing mentioned in the Scripture. And then fure this would not have been peculiar to the Jews. 2. And let Example fpeak ; when Jacob zn<\ his Family were but few in number^ yet he joyned with his Sons in treating with all the Skhemnes, to have them Circum- cifed, Infants and all 5 and it was done .* ( For it was Jacob and his Sons that they communed with about it , though Jacob had no hand in the deceit and cruelty J Gen. 34. The thing no queftion was good, if it had not had "wrong ends. Now no man can fay, that the Sichcmites were to become fubjed to Jacob, and fo to be one people, as being under one Government. But rather Jacob was to take up Pof- fions among them, and joyh to them, as Allies to them at beft : he being but few in comparison of them. So alio when the Jewes in Eflhcrs time proffered in Captivity, it is faid that many of the people of the Land became Jews : Now to become Jews, was to be Circum* cifed as the Jews were, and fo to be of their Religiqn : No man can fure dream that it was to be of the Jews peculiar Common- wealth,and under their Civill Government when the Jews were difperfed in Captivity in a ftrang Land, under the Governmcns of a Heathen King. -Is not all this plain to thofe that are willing to fee ? CHAP. XXXI. jY twenty fixth Argument, (which I will but touch, becaufe every one that treats on the fubje&hath it,) is drawn from the many plain fpeeches of the Lord Jefus with his owft mouth ; fully fignifying, that he is fo farre from repealing the priviledge of Infants , and cafting them out of his Church , that he hath exprefly afliired us of the contrary. Mar 9. 36 , 37. And be too^ a child and fct him in the midfi of them, and when he had ta\m him in his Arms he [aid unto them : iVbofocver [hall receive me offuoh children in my Name receiveth me : and who/bever {hall receive me, re- leivsth not me, but him that fent me. ^ Doth Chrift take them in his Arms 1 , and would he have them all put out of his Tfifible Church } would he have us receive them in his Name > and yet not recn've them into his Church, nor as his Difciples? How ca^i Infants be received in Chrifts Name, if they belong not vifibly to him and his Church ? Nay, doth Chrift account it a receiving of himfelf^and (hall I then refufe to receive them or.aeknowled°e them the Subjfi$s of his vifible Kingdom ? Will it not follow chen 5 thac whafbever'refafeth them*. 104 Plan Scripture frooftf them, rcfufeth Chrift, and him that fent him > For my part, feeing the Will of Chrift is It that I muft walk by, and his Word that I muft be judged by, and he hath given me fo full a difcovery of his Will in this point , I will boldly adventure to follow his Rule, and had rather anfwer him (upon his own encouragement,^ for admitting a hundred Infants into his Church , then anfwer for keeping out of one. I do not believe that Chrift would fpeak fuch words to feduce us , or draw us into a fnare. And it is not once f but oft that he hath thus manifefted his will : In the very next Chapter he doth k more fully yet, Ma;\. 10.1$, 14,15,16. And they brougte young children to him that he fhould touch them > and his Difciples rebu\ed thofe that brought them : "But when Jefns faw it 3 he was much difpleafed, and (aid to them % Suffer ye little children to come unto me and forbid them not , for of fuch is the Kingdom of God. yerily, I fay unto you, WbofoeverjhaU not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child y he (ball not enter therein : And he tooli them up in his Arms , put his hands on them, and bleffed them. And is not here enough to fatisfie us yet , that he doth not caft all Infants in the world out of his vifible Kingdom or Church ? but tint it is his will they Ihould be admitted ? Will any fay, that it was not Infants in the former Text and this that Chrift that fpeaks of? Did he take any but Infants into his Arms ? was it not plainly them, that he bid them receive (in the former Chapter ?) and was it not them that he would not have to be kept from him ? and was it not them that he bid ihould be fuftered to come ? (that is to be brought ,) and was it not them that he Blefled? Hence I argue thus : x. If Chrift would have us receive Infants In his Name, then we muft receive them as belonging ro him, and his Church. But he would have us receive them in his Name : Therefore &c. — 2. If he that receiveth an Infant in Chrifts Name, receiveth himfelf, then fome Infants are to be received in his Namejand thofe that refufe them fin : But the former is true ; therefore the latter. $. If Chrift was much difpleafed with thofe that kept particular Infants from vifible accefs to him then, (though they could not keep them from his invifible Graced then he will be much more difpleafed with thofe that keep ail the Infants in the world from vifible accefs to him in his Church now : ( Though they cannot keep them from the invifible Church : ) But the former is true : Therefore the latter. 4. If Chrift command us to fufferthem to come and not to forbid them, then thofe fin againft his exprefs command that will not futfer them to come, but do for- bid them ; (For it is a ftanding commandj and fpeaks of the fpecies of Infams,and not of thefe individuals only ; and there is now no other vifible admittance to Chrift, but by admitting into his Church, and to be his Difciples:) But &c. therefore &c. 5. If of fuch be the Kingdom of God, then of fuch is the viable Church : But the former is true ; therefore &c. Here they have two cavils againft the plain fence of the Text. 1. By [fuch] is meant [fuch for dociblenefs and humility ] To which I anfwer ; 1. Then it feems They are fo docible and humble that the Kingdom belongs to them. For if it belong to others becaufe they xefucb as them,thcn it muft needs belong to them alfo ,2. DothChrift fay, To fuebzs them in this or that refpeel only, and not to them ? «r fiUch he not in generally fitch i even to fuch as he-took in his Arms and BleflTed? He , ■ Infants Churcb-memberjhip and Eapttfw. 105 He would not have taken up and bleffcd any for a mecr Emblem of fuch as were Blef- fed ; He would not have taken up and Blefltd a Lamb or a Dove, as Emblems of Hu- mility and lnnocency.. If Chrift fay 3 [Of fuch] is the Kingdom, I am bound to take Scripture in the moft extenfive fence, rill there be a plain reafon to neceflitate me to reftrain it. And therefore muft underftand it : [To fuch] both of dm age, or any other age. Who dare think that the word, [To fuch] is not rather inclulive as to them, then exclufive ? If I love humble poor men 5 and my Servants keep them from my Houfe be- cause they are poor,and if I chide them for it, and fay fuf&r fuch to come to me,and forbid them not, for my delight is in fuch : Who would fo interpret this Speech, as to think I would exclude them while I command their admittance ? and that 1 meant other humble ones, and not thefe ? 3. When Mr. T. maketh their doclblenefs the thing intended by Chrift , he forgot that he judged them uncapable of being Difcip/es.'Why may not thofe be Difciples, who are not only Docible, but Examplayy, for their Teachablenefs ? Their fecond Objedion is, that by the [Kingdom of God, ] is meant the King- dom of Heaven. And I think fo too : But then if the Kingdom of Heaven belong to fuch, much more a ftanding as Members in the vifible Church : For what is it to be a Member of the Church vifible^ but to be one that in feeming^ or appearance , or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invifible Church, or the Kingdom of Heaven ? For the Church is but one, and the difference refpedive as I (hewed before : There- fore both vifible and invifible, both military and triumphant, are called in Scripture [the Kingdom of Heaven or of God ] If a man be l(aown> (or any fort cf men) to belong to the Church invifible, then they vifibly belong to it : and then they are vifible members of the Church : So that this proof is more full for Infants Churcb- membermip, then if it had been faid, They may be vifible Church- members. For ic faith much more of them, which includeth that. 6. Hence I further argue thus .* If Chrift were much difpleafed with his Difciples for keeping Infants from him, then he took it as part of their revealed duty, that thty fhould not forbid them : But the former is true, therefore the latter. Whence I further argue : If it were the Difciples known or revealed duty, not to forbid them to come to Chrift > then they muft needs t3ke it alCo for a revealed truth that Infants in [peck (and not thofe numerically only ) mould not be forbidden to come/ (for they could not know that thofe individuals ihould be admitted, bur by knowing that Infants (hould be admitted: ) But 3 &c^ Yec further : 7. If it were the Difciples revealed duty^to admit Infants to come to Chrift for this very reafon 5 becaufe of fuch is the Kingdom of Hcavm 3 then it was no fecret, but a revealed truth,' That of fuch was the Kingdom of Heaven : But the former is true : For Chrift would not be angry fo much with them for not knowing that which was never revealed , or for not admitting them when they had no means to know them to have right of admittance. The confequence is evident therefore 3 and fo it follows: That if it were then a revealed truth, that of fuch is the Kingdom ef Heaven j then they were vifible Members of the Church, f-or that fort of men that are Known to belong to Heaven, (though it be not known of the individual^) do vifibly belong to the Church 5 (as I think none dare deny.) 8, But the chief evidence in the Text lyethhere.* If, bzcaufeihciL of fuch u the Kingdom : Therefore it was the Difciples fin to keep rhem back ; then it muft needs be the very fpecies of Infants that Chrift means are of the Kingdom , (and not only the Aged humble.) But therefore it was the Difciples fin to keep them back (and their P duty io6 Plain Scripture proof ef duty to admit them, or elfe Chrift would not have been much difpleafed with them,) becaufc that of fuch is the Kingdom : Therefore it muft needs be Infants themfelves that are of the Kingdom. Thereafonoftheconfequence Iyeth here: It could be no fin in the D>fciples to keep away from Chrift thofe that were but meer Emblems of the faved : But it was their fin to keep away Infants : Therefore it was not becaufe they were meer Emblems of fuch as mould be faved. For elfe it would have been the Difciples fin to have for- bidden all the Sheep or Doves in the Countrey to have been brought to Chrift to lay hands on. This is plain and convincing to me. 9. 1 hofe that Chrift took up in his Arms , laid his hands on, and Blefled , were vi- fible.Members of his Church, and not meer refemblances of fuch : But fome Infants Chrift took in his Arms, laid his hands on, and Blefled : Therefore fome Infants were Members of the vifible Church.* (and confequently Chrift hath not re- pealed the Church-membermip of Infants.-) and they were not meer refemblances of fuch. For would Chrift have Blefled fo a Sheep or Dove? Or, are theyBlefTed of Chrift, and yet not fo much as vifible Members of his Church ? Sure there are none vifibly bleft without the vifible Church. And it was not thefe only , for I have proved , it was the Difciples duty to admit others to the like Bleffing. And it is yet moreconfiderable, that all the three former Evangelifts make full mention of thefe paffages of Chrift 5 and therefore it is evident that they were not taken for fmall circumftantials, but Do&iines of moment for the Churches informa- tion. They are recorded alfo in Mat. 18. z, 3,4. &c. Mat. 10. 1 j, 14. Lu\. o. 4, J. 1^.18.16,17. I defire any tender confeienced Chrift ian, that is in doubt whether Infants (hould be admitted Members of the vifible Church , and would fain know what is the pleafure of Chrift in this thing, to read over the Texts impartially,and confiderately, and then bethink himfelf 3 whether it be more likely that it will pleafe Chrift better to bring, or folemnly admit Infants into the Church, or to (hut them out } and whether thefe words of Chrift fo plain and earneft,will not be a better plea at Judgement for our admitting Infants, then any that ever the Anabaptifts brought will be to them for refufing them ? But what faith Mr. T. againft this? Why, 1. He faith, it was fome extraordi- nary Bleffing to them, that Chrift intended, Apol.y. 1 49- An fa. 1 . It was a difcovery of their Title to the Kingdom of Heaven : It was fuch an extraordinary Bleffing that included the ordinary. U extraordinary Bleffing , then much more ordinal y. 2. It was fuch as the Difciples mould have known that they fhouU be admitted to, or elfe Chrift would not have been difpleafed. But ^^.r.faith,^/?fl/.p.i5i. That [thereafon of Owifts anger was their hindring him in Ms defign, not the knowledge they had of their prefent vifible 1 itle * this is but a dream] To which I anfwer : 1 Mr. T. is as bold to fpeak of Chrifts thoughts without Book, and to fearchthe heart of the Marcher of hearts , as if he werercfolved to make Chrifts meaning be what he would have it. 2. What defign was it that Chrift had in hand ? was it any other then the difcove- ry of his Mercy to the fpecies of infants^and to thofe among others? and the prefenting them as a pattern to his Followers, and to teach his Church humility and renovation, and to leave them an affurance againft Anabaptifts, that it is his pleafure that Infants mould not be kept from him ? 3. How did the Difciples hinder Chrifts defign ? not by hindring him im- mediately j but by rebuking thofe that brought the Infants. 4 If Infants Church-member flip and Baytifm. 1 07 4. If this were no fa&'t in them, why Ihould Chrift be difpleafed, and much dif- pleafed at it ? And how could it be their fault to hinder people from bringing In- fants to Chrift, if they might not know that they ought to be admitted ? Andcould they know of Chrifts private intent* and deligns ? Were there but this one confederation hence to be urged, I durft challenge Mr. T. to anfwer (as far as modefty would permit a challenge :) that is, If Chrift had inten- ded only that humility.or dociblenefs fliould be commended from theje Infants as an Emblem j to his Difciples, then it could be none of their fault to forbid the bringing of them to Chrift ; for how could they know what ufe Chrift would make of them ? or by what Emblem he would teach them ? or when he would do it ? All the Crea- tures in the World may be Emblems of fome good > and muft they therefore permit the bringing of all to Chrift? Chrift had not told them his Defign before hand to teach them by thefe Emblems; and when they knew his mindc they defifted. f, If ic had been only for the prefent Defign, then Chrift would have fpoke but of thofe individual Infants, and have faid, Suffer thefe now to come : But it ap- pears from the Text, 1. That it was not thofe individuals more then others that the Difciples were offcnded at, or difliked mould be brought: but the [pedes , or thofe Infants becaufe Infants. 2. And that Chrift doth not only fpeak againft their hindering thofe individuals^ but the [pedes : and laies them down a Rule and Command for the future as well as for the prefent » that they fhould fufFer little children to come to him, and not for- bid them. 6. And he doth not command this upon the reafon of any private defign, but be- caufe of fuch is the Kingdom of Heaven. • 7. And where Air.T. faith, It was not from any knowledge they had of their pre- fent vifible Title ; I anfwer : Who faid it was ? did Mr. Blaty ? no : but it was a thing that the Difciples ought to have known, that Infants are welcome to Chrift,and that of fuch is his Kingdom , and therefore becaufe of fuch is his Kingdom , they mould not be kept from him ? God will not be much difpleafed with men for being ignoran: of that which they ought not to know. I blefs the Lord Jefus the King of the Church, for having fo great a tendernefs to the Infants themfelves, and fo great 3 care of the information of his Church concer- ning his Will , as to fpeak it thus plainly , that plain-meaning men may well fee his mindj even as if he had therefore done this becaufe he forefaw,that in thefe latter days fome would arife that would renew the Difciples miftake in this point , and think it unfit to bring Infants to Chrift. And for my parti I gladly accept his information and fubmit to his difcovery ; Let them refift it that dare. And it is not unworthy obfervation , how that to teftifie that Chrift rejeð not this Age from his Church, he doth call his Difciples by the name of [little children] as an expreflion of his tendernefs and love, even as Parents are tendered of the leaft, /<>&. i?.J$. And fo doth the Holy Ghoft by his Apoftles Yeiy frequently, Gal 4. 19. 3 7^.2,1,12,18,28, & 3.7,18.6c 4.4-& 5-11. P * And. io8 Plain Scripture f roof of ANd thus I have fufficiently proved, that Infants ought to be admitted vifible -frVChuch-members : having before proved that All thac ought to be fo admitted, ought (ordinarily) to be baptized 5 there being now under the new Tt foment, no other revealed way of folemn admiffion or entrance into the vifible Church but by deny it, I proved it in the beginning fully, though briefly. And fo X have done with this fecond Argument , drawn from Infants Church- memberftilp 5 whichldefiretheLordtoblefs to the Readers information , but ac- cording to its truth, and plain Scripture itrength. Part. Infants church- member jlnp and Baptifm. iop ®1 ?ff= Par> II. CHAP. I. Anfwering the Objections again ft Infant- Baptifm^ and, confuting the Anabaptifts way. Intended to have handled but one other Argument to prove the Baptizing of Infants a duty $ which is drawn from the neccflity of Parents folcmn engaging their children to God in Covenant j thus ; If it be the duty of all Chriftian Parents folemnly to engage their children to God in Covenant (wherein they are engaged to the Lord as their God In Chrift, and God again doth covenant to take them for his people ) then they ought to do it in Baptifm, which is the mutuall engaging (ign ; But it is the Duty of all Chriftian Pa- rents folemnly to engage their children to God in the forefaid Covenant : Therefore they ought to do it in Baptifm* which is the engaging fign. The Antecedent (that Parents are bound fo to engage their children ) befidesthe exprefs Tex^ De/tt. 29.10, ii, 1 2. & 16. I would have proved from many other Scripture Arguments. The conference, (that therefore they muft do this by Baptifm,) I mould alfo eafily and fully have proved 5 there being no one Example in all the New Teftament of doing it without $ and Baptifm being as Mr. T. confefleth appointed to that very cnd$.t//\. to be a mutuall ^engaging fign between God and his people. But my painfull ficknefs commands me to cut ftiort the work : And I know men love not to be tired with large volumns : And it is not the number of Arguments that muft do it, but the ftrength. If there be ftrength but in any one, it is no matter if all the reft be weak or wanting. And befides, there is enough faid already by men more able then my felf : Therefore I (hall add no more of thefe 5 but briefly anfwer the moil common objections. Objection. 1. THe great and moft prevailing Objection which I have heard in London meft A confidently infiftcd on in the Pulpit 3 and feen moft ufed in their printed Books, is this : P * It no rla'w Scripture proof of It is faid Rom. 9. 8. They tbtt are the children of the flc(b , thefe are not the children of God} but the children of the Promife are counted for the Seed* And,£pb.i.j. we Are all by nature the children of wrath. To which I anfwer : 1. There is no ftrong appearance of contradiction in this to what we have taught. For I willingly acknowledge that all are not Ifraet that are of ifrael- and yet they areo/*//Wftill. And they are not therefore the children of God, becaufe they are the Seed of Abraham , or others that are godly , butbecaufe they are children of the Promife. < ». But for this fir ft Text, I pray you obferve thefe four things ; 1. That which the Ap,ftle here plead eth,is,tbat falvation was not by the Covenant tyed to all Abraham's Seed : but yet he denyeth not but Church -member fhip did for the time paft belong to the generality of them. Now it is not the certain falvation, but the Church-member- fhip of Infants that we are difpnting for (in regard of the individuals.) z. The Apoftle difputeth not againft the falvation or Church- membership of every oneof^^feWsSeed ; (for many of his Seed were after this faved :) but againft the falvation of the whole Seed or Pofterity cmjunclm. But now Anabaptifts Difpiue againft the Church'memberihip vifible of any Infants. 3. That which the Apoftle mainly drives at^is, that men are not therefore faved be- caufe they are Abraham's carnall Seed, (and consequently not becaufe they are the car- nail Seed of any other.) And I fay fo too with all my heart.But theApoftle doth not fay or mean, that Abrahams Seed mould not be faved : (for they (hall again be called, and fo All ifracl be faved, Rom, 1 1 J But only that they are faved, not becaufe they are his Seed, but becaufe they are children of the Promife. And fo fay we, that the Seed of the faithfull arc Church- members and Difciples and Subjects of Chrift, not properly or directly becaufe they are their Seed, (for fo they are no better then others :) but becaufe they are children of the Promife j God having been pleafed to make the Promife to the Faithfull and their Seed 5 and having promifed, that the Seed of the Righteous (hall be Bleffed : and that he will be mercifull to them j and will take them to be a people to him, and he will be to them a God 5 and hath pronounced •Hem Holy, lfaac was Abraham's Seed, and Jacob his : and yet not faved becaufe his Seed directly and properly (yet remotely they were :) but becaufe they were children of the Promifei 4 And obferve further, that Paulhtrt fpeaks nota word againft the Priviledge of the Infants whofe Parents deny not God, and violate not his Covenant , and fall not away. If a man mould affirm , that all the Infants of the Faithfull fo dying are certainly (iwcd , there is not a fyllable in this Text againft him. For Pnul only pleads, that if men fall away and prove unbelievers , God will not fave them becaufe Abraham (or any other remote Progenitor,,) was faithfull. The Covenant never in- tended this.But yet the children of thofe that fall not away,or be not broke offfor unbe- Hef,do lofe none of their Priviledges,but may belong to the vifible,or irivifible Church. If any now mould deny Chrift , and yet think to be faved becaufe they are Engliftv* men,or becaufe their Progenitors long fince wereFaithfull; I mould ufe to them Pauls words here : But what is this to thofe that do not deny Chrift, and therefore are both children of the flelh and of the Promife ? Befides,thofe that the Apoftle here excludeth were aged unbelievers. So that this Text hath not any colour, either againft Baptifm, or their Church -memberfhip. a. And for that of Ephef. 2 5. I fay the fame 5. what though we are by nature the cHildren of. wrath > doth k follow that we may not be otherwifeby Grace i The itete of wrath goethfirft in order of nature, and whether in time alfo, is notwortb the Infants Church-memberjlup and Baptifm, ill the difputing : But may not a ftate of Grace immediately fucceed ? Jeremy that was fanftified in the womb, and John Baptifl, and the Infants that Chrift Bleffcd • were all by nature the children of wrath •, and yet by Grace they were in a better ftate. As they come from old Adam, they are children of wrath ; but as they receive of the Grace procured by the fecond Adam, fo they are not children of wrath. If a Prince (hould entail fome Honours upon all your children 5 you might well fay, that by na- ture , or* as they -were your children* they were not Honourable or Noble 5 and yet by the Favour of the Prince, they might be all Honourable from the womb. The godly at age may ft ill fay. That they are yet by nature children of wrath, even when they are fure that they are the children of God by Grace : And they ufe in their con* feflton, to fay,that by nature we are Enemies to God, fire-brands of Hell^&c. 2. Again, they may be Church-members vifible, and yet perhaps children of wrath too. All the children of Church-members among both Jews and Profe- lytes were alfo Church. members, as will not be denyed. And yet as we are children of wrath by nature, fo were they. So that if you will anfwer, [How all the Seed of Church- members then, could be both by nature , children of wrath 3 and yet by Grace vifible Church-members ?] you have then anfwered your felf. CHAP. II. Objection 2. Ut it is obje&ed further, That Infants are not capable of the ends of Baptifm: For it is an engaging fign; and fignifieth alfo the warning away of fin in the blood of Chrift ; both guilt and ftain; %£ ISaVrV anc * ' ts ver y °P erai ' on * s by a morall way of fignifying : and there- mw IF fore Infants being uncapable of the ufeofReafon, are alfo unca- pable of the operation of Baptifm : and therefore mould defer it till they know what it fignifyeth 3 and what they do. To this I anfwer : i. Baptifm hath more ends and ufes then one .* Its firft ufe is to be Chrifts lifting fign for the admitting of Soldiers under his Colours 3 or of Difciples into his School , or Subjects into his vifible Kingdom : And this I have fully proved Infants are capable of. A further ufe of it is to be a mutuall engaging fign, whereby they are by their Parents, or thofe that have full power of thern^ engaged to God, and God engageth himfelf to them : And this (with the grounds and nature of it,) Ifhall prefently fhew you that Infants are capable of. And then for the operation on his foul by its fignificancy , I fay $ it is but a fecondary end or ufe, which the Sacra- ment may be without ; though it be a very great end in thofe that are capable of it. For 2 A Leafe, or Covenant made betwixt a Land-lord and a Chiid 3 or the Te- nant and his Heirs, may be of ufe to the Child,though he underftand it not \ even as much as his livelihood comes to. So a Legacy or Deed of Gift made to a Child. Now will any bcfofoolimas to fay, It is better leave out the Childs name till be unfterftand the fignification of this Leafe , or till he be capable of enjoying the be- nefits of it * 5. It may be operative by its fignification as foon as he comes to the ufe of Reafon, (which will not be fo long as Anabaptifts ufe to defer Baptifm :) He may then be taught 112 Plain Serif ture proef of taught what the duties and benefits of the Covenant are : what he is engaged to be, and do toward God; and what God is engaged to be,and do towards him. 4. In the mean time 3 as his intereft is upon :he condition of the Parents Faith and as he is received as it were a Member of them, fo the Parents /hall have the actuall comfort of it .' As the Faith is theirs , and the Child theirs, fo God would not have them without the comfort. God , that hath implanted fo ftrong a love in the hearts of Parents to their Children; that they cannot but take the Good or Evill that befals them as if it were their own, hath alfo a tender regard of his peoples comfort herein. A Parent hath the actuall comfort of the Leafe that afiureth an Inheritance to his Child. 5. Baptifm may be adminiftred to thofe that are capable of fome ends, though they are uncapable of other. Chrift himfelf was Baptized, when yet hewasnotca- pable of many of the ereat ends of Baptifm: For Baptifm was not to Chrift a fign of the warning away ofhisfins (for he had none :) nor of purifying his foul 3 ( which was perfect before^ ) nor of his being buryed with Chrift 3 no nor of his entrance into the vifible Church, nor of any Covenant that he folemnly engaged in with God. 6. And how uncapable were the Infants that Chrift laid his hands on,and took up in his Arms,ofunderftandingthe meaning of what he did, or receiving any im- preflion by the fignifications of thefe Actions ? And yet fhall we fay , that Chrift fhould have let it alone till afterwards ? 7. But yet more fully : Tell me what operation Circumcifion had on all the In- fants of Church- members formerly ? It was a Seal of the Rigbteoufnefs of Taith : Rom.+.i 1. And yet they had no more Faith nor knowledge of the fignificaney then curs have now. It was an engaging fign 5 and yet they were as incapable of under- ftandingeicher the fignificancy or engagement, as ours are: Yea,Chrift himfelf was Circumcifed in Infancy, when in the courfe of nature he was uncapable of under- standing its Ends and llfes. Not that I am now arguing for Baptifm from Circum- cifion : but this fully anfwereth this their Objection, [that Infants fhould not be Baptized becaufe they are not capable of understanding its Ufe, and fo being wrought on by it :] They are as capable ? of Baptifm as they were of Circumcifion , and Its Ends : They therefore that will yet fay, it were better let it alone till they are more capable, do but exalt their reafon againft Scripture , and fpeak as men that would teach God. CHAP. III. Objection 3. Ut fome Object : How can an Infant Covenant with God, or be engaged by this fign? And where doth God require the Parent to engage his children ? or to Promife or Vow any thing in their names ? Or, how can it be faid, that we made any Covenant or Vow in Baptifm ? Could we vow or Cove- nant, when we could not underftand ? ■itofa. lam the more engaged to anfwer this, becaufe I was once fo ignorant of it my felf , that I adventured in my Ignorance to tell ethers, (long ago) that I did not perceive that we could be faid to make any Vow in our Infant baptifm : Therefore J am bound to unfay it, and - - — ■ m l Infants Church-memberjlnf and Baptifm. 113 and right thofc that heard me : (young and unftudyed Preachers will be venturing to fay that which, when they have ftudyed, they will fee muft be unfaid.) x. It is agreed on both fides , that Baptifm is ordained to be a mutuall engaging Sign between God and the Baptized. And that this engagement is a covenanting with God j and fo Baptifm is called a Seal of the Covenant. Now that Parents have Authority to engage their children in this Covenant , and to Promife in their names that they (hall perform the conditions that they may enjoy the benefit, is evident chefe two ways : i . From Nature : 2. From Scrioture. 1. Parents have naturally fo great anintereftin their children, that by this they are authorized to make Covenants in their bdhalf. The Law of nature is the Law of God.. Nay, it is a plain naturall duty of Parents to Covenant for their children when k is for their good. May not a Parent take a Leafe or other Covenant for his child ? and engage the child to pay fuch yearly Rent ? or do fuch homage ? May he not engage his child to take fuch a man for his Landlord, or elfe to be turned out of his Houfe ? and to take fuch a man for his King, or be hanged as a Traytour ? Nay^ were it not a fin in that Parent that would refufe to covenant in behalf of his child 3 when elfe the child mould lofe the benefit of it ? Nay, in fome Cafes a Parent may engage his child to an inconvenience. Much more may he engage him for his Good. Who buyeth not Lands for himfelf and his Heirs ? And the Scripture attefteth this natu- ral! intereft of Parents in their children 5 in that a young woman that was not at her own difpofe, but her Fathers, could not make a binding Vow without his iileac confent. . 2. But particularly Scripture fully meweth,that all the people of ifiael did by Gods flat appointment enter their children into the Covenant of God. For 1. They were to circumcife them, which God calleth, [his Covenant,} and [the Sign of this Cove- nant :] Therefore they were to enter the Covenant. 2. It is as plainly fpoken as the mouth of man can fpeak it, in Deut. 20. io 9 i i a i % % 1$. Yea, even for the children that were unborn they were to Covenant^ (as moft expound thofe words [and with him that ftands not here with us this dayj ] though it may be meant of any Heathen that would be converted :) And this Covenant was, that the Lord would take them for a people to himfelf, and would be to them a God. So Deut. 26. 17,18. And no queftion a Parents intereft in his child is as great now as then 5 and God as willing to Covenant with the children of his people. But this needs no peculiar proof, in that all that I have faid hitherto in proving them Holy and Church Members, doth prove that they are in Covenant with Chrift, to be his Difciples and t3ke him for their Lord : and therefore they muft be entered by their Parents or others that have authority and intereft in them. But it may be then obje&ed, that ic canot be lawfull for a man to promife that which he cannot perform : How can we promife that another (hall take the Lord for his God , and Chrift for his Redeemer ? So we may become Covenant- breakers up- on their default. To which I anfwer : There is no ftrength at all in this Objection. For we pro- mife not in our own names but the Infants •, nor to perform the duty our felves, but that he mall do it 5 (and that we will contribute our beft endeavours thereto*, ) nor do we promife abfolutely that it fhall come to pafs ; but we engage him to it as bis duty by Covenant (which alio would have been his duty , if he had not covenanted ') and we promife that he ihall perform the conditions as a means to attain the benefits of tne Covenant j upon this penalty, That if he perform them not, he (hall lofe the be- nefits of the Covenant and bear the punilhment threatned. So that we only promife Q_ that 1 14 Plain Scripture proof $f that he (hail keep the Covenant y or if he do not, we leave him lyable to the penalty. And if it be not kept, it is be that breaks it, that was bound to perform it, and not we that bound him by our promife , and not our [elves j and it is be that muft bear the punilhment, and not the Parent. Who doubteth but a man may lawfully promife for himfelf and his Heirs that they (hall pay almall yearly rent to a Landlord for the enjoyment of fome large and com- modious PofTeffions ? and fo bind them to it by Leafe ? Will he fay , How can I promife for my Son , when I know not whether he will perform it ? and fo I may break Covenant, He that mould deprive his Heires of the Inheritance for want of fo engaging them, or promifing in their behalf,were both unwife and unnatural!. For nature bindeth him* fo to engage his Heirs when it is fo much for their own benefit e and if they break the engagement or Covenants by not paying the Rent, it is their fault, and not the Fathers j and they (hall be turned out of the Houfe and fuffer for it, and not he : The Leafe is made in this Tenour, That he (hall fuffer that perform- ed not what he is bound to 3 fo that where the Son was bound to duty or payment, the Father is in no fault that bound him. And if the Covenant be not performed, the Landlord can require no more but the forfeiture and DhTeifure, and that muft be from him that (hould have performed and did not ; So is it in the prefent cafe. I f the Covenant which we make for Infants be not performed by them, when they come to age, God will claim the forfeiture at their hands, and diffeize them of the benefits, but we are quit. CHAP. IV. Objection 4* T is. yet further objected thus : If Infants muft be baptized, why may they not as well receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper e To which I anfwer : 1. It is unmannerly and unfafe to de- mand a Reafon of Chrift's Inftitutions : May not he eftab- lifh this or that Ordinance without giving us an account of his reafons of it ? If I finde in Scripture what he hath ordained , I will leave it to others to enquire why he fo ordained it. 2.. I Jiave fully proved that Infants muft be baptized 5 Let them prove that they muft receive the Lords Supper if they can : If they bring but as good proof for this as I have done for the former, I (hall heartily yield that they ought to receive both: Till then, it lies on them, and not on me; they that affirm that Infants fhould have the Lords Supper, muft prove it; they cannot expect I (hould prove the Negative. If they fay., that there is the like reafon for both 3 I deny it : but yetlworfhip not God according to the conjectures of humane reafon, but according to his In- itiation. If they fay that there is the like grounds in Scripture for both , let them (hew as much for one as I have done for the oilier, and I will believe them. j. Bui; if they mufUieeds. have,reafon, me thinks Chrift hath fatisfied them in the very Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. H5 Yery external 1 nature of the feverall Sacraments : He hath appointed the firft to be fuch as Infants are capable of ; for they may be waflied as well as the aged ; they are net to be agents but meerly paffive in it ; But the other is fuch as they are naturally incapable of in their firft Infancy, vl^> eating bread and drinking wine; and they muft be agents in what they can do , and having not the ufe of reafonj perhaps will not do it. 4. Moreover, hath not Chrift fully fatisfied us in this by the ends and ufes of the feverall Sacraments ? The firft Sacrament of Baptifm being chiefly and primarily but to enter them into his Kingdom (which they are capable of : ) the fecond Sacra- ment being for the a&uall doing of homage and rational acknowledgement and re- membrance of the benefits we have from him (which they are uncapable of.) The firft is to enter them into his School) that hereafter they may learn , and in the mean time be of the •umber of his Difciples ; The latter is the work of actual I Learners. The firft is but the putting their names In the Leafe or entring them into Covenant with him : The latter is the a&uall recognizing of the Covenant, and remembring and acknowledging the mercies of it. The former Is Inftituted plainly for all Difciples as foonasthey are Difciples; but no Scripture faith fo of the latter, vi% That all Difciples as fuch^ mould prcfently receive the Lords Supper : but it is reftrained to thefe that can examine themfelves firft, and can difcern the Lords Body, and keep in remembrance his death. Shew where the Scripture faith ., Go, Diiciple me all Nati- ons , giving them the Sacrament of my Supper. So that this Obje&ion is of no force. CHAP. Objection *?. Ut fome fay , It is ftrange that If it be the will of Chrift that In. fants mould be Baptized, that he hath left it fo dark 3 and faid no more of it in Scripture then he hath done. To this I anfwer : 1. We have not much caufe to complain of the darknefs of that which hath fo much plain Scripture as I have here produced to you. It is dark only to men that are no: able to draw the conclusion from Scripture premifes. That all Church-members muft be admitted by Baptifm, Mr, T. denyeth not : and therefore I hope that it is not dark nor doubtfull. That In- fants muft be admitted Church-members,l have provedfrom fo many Scriptures,that I dare confidently fay that Scripture is not dark or fparing in that ; and MfT. con- feff th that they weri once Church-members ; (and how well he hath proved the repeal, let all judge :) So that what difficulty is here but in railing the conclusion from thefe premifes ? Yet I coafefs to the Vulgar fort of Chriftians even that is a great difficulty ; but that is not long of the obfeurity of Gods Word. Again, that all Difciples mould be baptized, is the plain command, Mat % i%. 10,20. and confeiftd by Mr. T. And that Infants are Difciples, the Scripture is not fo dark, as I have fully proved. a. I anfwer further ; Scripture dealeth; fullyeft in the controversies which in thofe times were agitated : Now it was then no controverfie Whether Infants were to beMem. bcrs of the vipble church : The Jews aUhjieff this, and too\ it for unqiteflionable 5 for all Q_z their 1 1 6 pl a l n Scrt pure f roof of their infants had acluall pojfefsion 3 and that upon Gods own Grant and Ordination : And what unprejudiced man of common reafon can imagine } but that if thrift would have difpofTeffed them 3 hefnould fomewhere have difcovered it ? yea, that it would not have had very great difputing and debates 5 and that the Jews would not have argued much againft the parting with this priviledge to all their Infants ? Is it likely that they would let it go as eafily as MrT. doth ? and fay. It is a benefit to the whole Church, that all our Infants are put out , or their Chufch-memberthip repealed flike a houfe that is quiet when the children are put out of doors,) though they have no priviledge in ftead of it. What a ftir was there about the repeal of Circumcifion, and how hardly could the many thoufand believing Jews be fatisfied in this, that they ihould not Circumcife their children ? (for it was their childrens Circumcifion that the quarrell was about, as is faid AcJ.zi. 21. they were enforaied that 'Paul taught the difperfed Jews not to Circumcife their children:) And do you tlfrk then, that if Paul had taught thtm that they were not to efte^m or admit their children Members of the viable Church, (which was a far higher matter then the not Cir- cumcifing them,) that Paul mould never have heard of this ? nor the Jews have difputed it ? nor been much more unwilling to acknowledge it ? I conclude there- fore that it is a moft evident truth that Chrift did not fpeak about Infants Church- memberfhip, becaufe it was a Ipiown truth , beyond contr over fie 3 nor was there any one man found in thofe days (chat we read of) that ever denyed it : and all the Jews ,yea and all ether Church' members were in a flu a 11 pojfefsion ofit 3 and Chrift never que (limed their pojfefsion. Indeed, the Difciples did queftion the bringing of Infants to Chrift perfonally for his further aftuali blefling : but Chrift quickly refolved their doubt eren in that, and fatisfied them of his pleafure by the manifeiting of his great difpleafure againft them for hindring it. And yet can men fay , that Chrift hath left the matter fo uncertain > yea, and take the conttary for certain ? 3 . Moreover what if it were more obfeure then it is ? and the Scripture had not faid fo much in it as it hath ? May it not be for all this a neceflary truth ? Peter faith, that there are many things in Paul's Epiftles hard to be undet ftood, which the Igno- rant and unlearned wreft to therr own deftru&ien , as they do the others Scriptures ; And are they therefore no truths ? Is not the New Teft ament as filent about Chi. ftian Kings, or any Chriftian Magiftrates, or about an Oath before a Magiftate, and about war, and about the degrees of Marriage forbidden, and about the fcabbathj&c. and yet who will fay, that thefe are not revealed ? It is enough that they are revealed in the Old Teftament j and fo was Infants Church- memberfhip by Mr. T. his own confeflion. So that here is no fuch difficulty as may caufe us to doubt whether it be Chrifts mind that Infants mould be Baptized. CHAP, Infants Church member jhip and Baptifm, 117 CHAP. VI. Objettion. 6. Ut M. T. ftandeth much on this Obje&ion drawn from the evill confequences of Infant Baptifm, and the benefit that would enfue upon deferring Baptifm till years of difcretion. He faith that [che grofs Ignorance of the peo- ple is much occaiioned by their baptizing afore they know ; that if they were not baptized till they knew Chriftian Religion, as it was in the fr. ft Ages, grofs Igno- rance in Chriftian ProfeflorS would be almoft wholly re- formed i and for Chriftian walking,if Baptifm were admi- niftred with a folemn abrenunciation , proftfllon and pro- mife by the baptized in his own perfon, and upon that were baptized,I doubt not but It would have more aw on mens Confidences then many other means ufed or devi- fed &c. on the other fide. Infant Baptifm is the ground upon which innumerable people ignorant and profane harden themfelves, as if they were good Chriftians, re- generate, and mould be faved without holinefs of life, never owning or confidering any profeflion or promife made for them as theirs, ^#/.p.o4.] To all this I (hall return a plain and full Anfwer. ' x. The Lord Jefus himfelf is theoccafionofthe ruine and damnation of multi- tudes of fouls 5 for he is fet for the fall as well as the riling of many, Lu%. z 34. And heisaftoneofftumbling, and rock of offence, &c. But is this long of Chrift>or muftChrift therefore be negle&ed? or had it been better the world had been with- out him ? furely no. The Gofpel is to many the favor of death to death , and to the Jews a ftumbh'ng block, and to the Gentiles foolifhnefs : And muft the Gofpel be blamed for this £ or were it better let it alone > I think nor. What is it that wicked men will not take hurt by ? and make an occafion of their deftru&ion ? Godly education, and hearing Sermons^ and acuftomof praying, oc- cafions many to delude themfelves, and think they are good Chiftians, when it is no fuch matter : And muft thefe therefore be cafhiered or negle&ed ? I h3ve heard many fay fo about the Education of children , that to teach them words of Prayer , or Scripture, when they do not underftand them, is but to make them hypocrites, and therefore it is better let them alone till they can underftand. But though this be as good an Argument as Mr.Vs. yet is it not point blank againft the will of God ? that would have children brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord , and taught the trade of their life in the time cf their Youth- 3 and chargeth men to teach his Word diligently to their children , lying down and ri- ling up, at home and abroad, &c. Dent. 6.6 ?£. Multitudes among us do think they are good Chrift«'ans,meerly becaufe they believe GodsWordtobetrue by a bareaffent, and profefs themfelves Oriftians .- And fhall we fay, that this is any caufe of their deluiion > Or, becaufe it is an occahon, chat it were beucj: caft it off? Or, muft Minifters never perfwade them to believe CL I ihas 1x8 Flam Scripture proof of that Gods Word is true, or to profefs themfelves Chriftians , left it (hould tend to their delufion ? what kinde of Doctrine were this I i. Let ML'. T. (hew if he can what there is in the nature of the thing that mould be hurtfull of it felf to any. If a child rhat can read never a letter be entered into the School that he may learn to read, is there any thing in this that tends to Jus delufion? or if he fhould be fo'childifh as to think, that now he is a Scholler fufficient becaufe he is in the School : would any man therefore think it needfull that they muft be know- ing Schollers before they come to School, left -they mould run into the like miftake ? And why then muft they needs be feowwg before they are Chrifts Difciples ? If a childs name be put in a Leafe, is there any thing in this to do him hurt ? And if af- terward, he (hall be fo fooliih as to think that it is fufficient that his name is in the Leafe, and that he needs no more to fecure him the Inheritance $ though he do no homage , nor pay the rent , but forfeit his Leafe by breaking the conditions j Will any man fay , that it is not meet therefore that children (hould be put into Covenants and Indentures, they (hould ftay till they can underftand what they do? What hurt can it be to be in Chrifts Family from our Youth > or to be in his School ? or to be in his vifible Kingdom as his Subje&s ? any more then it is for all the Infants in England to be the Subjects of the King? If they (hould think that it were enough to be born in a Kingdom, and fo be the Subjects of a King, though they never cordially acknowledged him , nor obeyed him, but after proved Traytors ; would any fober man therefore conclude that it were better let no Infants be the Kings fubjects ? I think not. And I would intreat Mr.T. to tell me how Baptifm of it fclf tends to hinder knowledge < cannot he be as diligent to teach the Baptized, as the unbaptized, if he will ? and may they not learn as well ? except he think that there is ho teaching thofe that are in the School, but thofe only that are out of it 5 or that they will learn the better for being out of Chrifts School , and the worfe for being in it. Or, may they not be taught to know their King Chrift , and their duty to him, becaufe they are born his vifible Subjects ? How doth that hinder ? j. I intreat Mr.T. to tell me whether Infants being Worn the vifible Subjects of Gods Kingdom (and of Chrifts, I doubt not) before Chrifts com ming, and their being folemnly entred into the vifible Church and. Covenant ,were fo great a wrong to them as is here pretended ? was that the reafon of the delufion and grofs Ignorance of the Jews, that they did not ftay till they were at age before they were entred into the Church and Covenant? How dare he fay 1 o ? and fo make God the deludcr and blinder of the jews ? and accufe his famd Laws and Inftitutions of errour ? and of fo great errour as to contradict their own tnds ? yea, and fo much ro hinder the attainment of their ends? was it not rather their high priviledge to have God fo near them , and to be born and bred up in his School under his Doctrine ? and in his Kingdom among his Laws ? And if it were a high favour and no wrong to them to be entred in Infancy into the Church and Covenant , how comes it to be a hurt and wrong to us now ? He that can anfwer this, hath ekher a better wit, or a worfe then I have. 4 And I would gladly know alfo of M<\ T. whether the cafe of the Profetytes among the Jews were fo much better then the Cafe of their own children, and the Cafc of ai the Jews and their children ? The Profelyres were all entred then , as Mr. T. would have all the Difciples now, vl\. at age when they knew what they did j and the Jews were not j nor the Profclytes children were not : And dare Af.r.fay, thatth.fe , Profelytes Infants Cburch-memberflup and Baptifm. 1 19 Profelytes, who were brought over to partake of the Jews mercies, were in a better ftate ? or that their way of covenanting was a better then Gods ordinary eftablifhed Church way? and that Gods own people the Jews had leis mercy then thofe that were thus adjoyned to them ? or that their own children had iefs mercy then the Parents ? or that by turning Profelytes, they brought all their children into a more dangerous way then themfelves came in by ? or rather would they not fay of them-; felves as Paul of his late knowing Chrift, that they were as men born out of due time ? what can be faid to this ? ?. And what iiMr.T. had his defire in this ? and all fliould profefs their Faith in Chrift before they were entred ? were it likely to prove fuch a cure as he imagineth ? I think it is but a meer imagination.. For he is fo far from the New England, way, that I fuppofe he would require no furthcr'profeflion orCovenanting,then he hath warrant in Scripture j fuch as the Apoftles when they bapcized men did require,and as Chrift warranteth in the Commiflion, Mtf.a8, 19,20. And were not this as likely to be- come Cuftomary and formall and confiftent with Ignorance, as the prefent courfe ? How quickly might the multitude learn fuch a profeflion as SMr. T. could not rejed upon any Scripture ground } .They that will make no confeience of the folemn Promife which their Parents made in their names, will fcarce make ever the more confeience of it, if they had made it firft in their own names ; feeing the violation of either will alike forfeit their falvation. And is it not daily evident how forward the aged are in any (icknefs to make promifes to God, or any wicked man when a Mi- nifter lhall deal with them for their (ins convincingly, and yet how eaiily and fre- quently they break them ? 6. And is it not the conftant endeavours of Minifters in England to take men off from fuch formality and felf delufions ? and to let themloiow that their meer Baptifm (whether in Infancy or at age,) is infufficient ? 7. I would fain know areafonof Mr.T> why that folemn abrenunciationj and promife which he fpeaks of, may not be as effectuall at the Recognizing and perfonall renewing ©f their Covenant openly in the face of the Congregation when they come to age, though they are Baptized before, as if they had deferred their Baptifm till then? For my part, it is my conftant Do&rine, that though Infant Baptifm is Gods ordinance, and Baptifm not to be reper formed, and though the Covenanting with God by Parents may be fufficient to Infants , whofe intereft is on the conditi- on of their Parents Faith, and not their own at prefent 5 yet when they come to the ufe of reafonj as every man is bound to have a perfonall explicite Faith of his own, fo is every man bound to enter a perfonall Covenant with Chrift, to take him for their lord and Saviour, and give up themfelves to him, and renounce all other j and to take God for their chief good and their fupream foveraign; and that the very nature of Faith lieth, as in Aficnt partly , fo chiefly in this Confent and Covenant of the heart; and that as he is not a Chriftian whofe heart doth not thus Confent and Covenant, fo he is not to be taken for a Chriftian by the Church who will not vilibly , by him- felfwhenhe comes to age, (as he did by his Parents in Infancy) publikly profefs both his Afient to the fundamentall Articles of Faith, and his Confent that the Lord only flial.l be his God,aad Chrift only his Redeemer andfo his Saviour and Lord,and promife in heart and life to be true to him accordingly; And I deliver the Sacra- ment to none that will not thus profefs and'promife. Fof as with the heart man be- lievethunto RiglueoufnefSj fo with the mouthis confeiTion made to falvation. Now what if this v/ere every where done, that when children come to.age, they mull all fo- lemnly in the face of the Congregation thus perfonally own and renew their Cove. nam, 120 Plain Scripture proof of nam, why may not this engage them, as well as if they were baptised then i And Come foot-fteps of this courie have remained in England j partly in [the pro- felfionboth of Affent to all the Articles of Faith, and the abrenunciation of the World, Flefli, and Satan, and the engagement of the Child to be Cfcrifts faithfull Servant to his lives end j] which every Parent is to make for his Child in Baptifm ; and partly in the folemn profeflion of the Articles of Faith which every man at age was bound to fignifie by his ftanding up at the repeating of them (to avoid the in- convenience of fpeaking in the Congregation 5 even as the Covenant was taken by lifting up the hand :) and partly by the old order of Confirmation by Bifliops, which was to be done upon Profeflion of the Faith ; and laftly, by the Confelfions and Profeflions to this end which every one was to make at the receiving of the Lords Supper. All which though by Cuftomarinefs of people and negligence of Minifters they were abufed 3 and degenerated into formalities, (the* common bane of facred things,) and fo had loft their life j yet were in themfelves fo excellent and neceffary, that it had been far fitter to have renewed and revived them , 3nd reftored them to their Primitive vigor and luftcr, then co have laid them down. And here (though I have little hope of being heard and regarded in this deaf and felf-conceited age (for it is not only the Anabaptifts that are wilfully intemperate, prejudiced and partiall,) yet I will fatisfie my own Confcience in a word of intreaty, both to the Magiftracy and Miniftry of England > I mean , the ruling and advifing part, [That they would bepleafedin the forementioned particulars to revife the Directory, and if they know no more Reafo'n to the contrary then they have made known to the word, that they would Direct and Ordain .* 1. That the Parent may not only Defire that his Child may be Baptised, and Promife to difchargc his own Duty in the Education, but may alfo Covenant in the name and behalf of the Child (which is either omitted or obfeurely implyed at mod , in the Directory) there be- ing no other known way of engaging a Child in Covenant with God that cannot Covenant for it felf, and it being the way of the people of God in Scripture to enter their Children into the Co venant,De/*£ 29.10,11,11. (and they being no more guilty if their Child keep not Covenant, then of his forfeiture of a Leafe, or like Covenant into which they engage 4iim with man ■) And that the Parent may alfo profefs his own Belief of the fundamentall points of Faith into which he would have his Child baptized 5 that fo we may not baptize the Children of Pagans inftead of Chrift iansj which we the rather defire, for that to our forrow we know fome that have been former Profeffors of Religion , that are fallen to that Libertinifm and Familifm which is flat Hcathenifm; and have given us caufe*to fufpect ftrongly, if not co be flatly cer- tain that they believe not the Creation, or the truth of Scripture, or Incarnation of Chrift , or his living or being vifibly on Earth : Who yet for the meer avoyding of obloquy will fend their children to be baptized , but will not there profefs the Articles of Faith : And we know not why fuch children ( as theirs ) fliould he baptized. 2. I further humbly propound, that the ancient practice of Confirmation may be reduced to its primitive nature, (as Calvin earneftly defireth, Infiit. I.\.cap. 19 ) and fo confirmcd 4 that all perfons when they come to age may be brought folemnly in the face of the Congregation to enter or renew and own that Covenant perfonally which they cntred by others in their Baptifm,and that in fo doing they may profefs their Affent to the Fundamentals of Faith, and their Confent both to the Naturall and Supernaturall parts of the Covenant, vi% [That the Lord only (hall be their God,] and [that they take Chrift only-fa: their Redeemer, to fave and Rule them,] and their Refolution to be Infants Church-memberfhip and Baptifm. j 2 1 be faithfoll in this Covenant to the end of their lives : And if they did enter or fub- fcribe their names to it (in a Book containing the names of all the Members of that Church,out of which the dead,the removed,and the excommunicate mould be wiped ) it weuld be the more engaging, and not want either Scripture or reafon to war- rant it. $. And further, that the Church may have power frequently to renew this Co- venant as there {hall be occafion, or to call any particular perfon to the renewall of it : 1. In cafe of juft fufpition that the faid perfon is fallen into Herefieor Prophanefs j 2. Or, at the reftor ing of fuch a perfon afcer SufpenHon or Excommunication : And the whole Chur.h may renew ic, i . after any publick defection : z. or grounded fufpition of the defection of any confutable part : 5. and at the receiving the Sa- crament of the Lords r upper which is a Seal of the Covenant ; and at what other times mall be judged neceffary : And that this may be folemnly done , that fo the cuftome of {landing up at the Creed may alfo be reduced to its primitive nature and vigor. 4. And laftly, that the exprefs words of this Covenant ( no more then what is of flat ncceffity;) may be prefcribed to all Churches, out of Gods Word 3 and that no particular Minitters may have power to impofe any other Covenants upon the Churches, nor to alter any word in the Covenant, (feeing fuch alteration may intro* duce that which will fubvert the whole :) And that no other Covenants containing fmaller and controvertible points (as Is that of Epifcopacy in theNationall Cove- nant.,) wherein even Godly and Learned men may differ, may be rafhly impofed upon the Churches. But this unquestionable Covenant of God may Hand and be^ renewed. (Yet though this bare profeflion of Fundamentals mull fuffice in this Cafe, yet I intead no inlet to Errors thereby : For I conceive that the Church mould have three diftin&Confeflions : The'firft, fuch as I have faid 5 rcontaining only Fundamentals (like the Apoflles Creed J which is to be impofed on all the people as is faid : The fecond, containing all points next the Foundation that are evident in Scripture, and beyond controverfie among Gedly Divines, and of neceffity for the clearing and maintaining of the Fundamentals : And this to be impofed on all Minifters. (And both thefe former to be in the very words of Scripture.) The third , to contain lower controverted points that are fit to be debated^ and this to be impofed for fubfeription on none, nor any tycd from a peaceable modeft gain-faying: But to ftand as the judgement of the Synod, which mould fway much with ail modeft men, and may be a Rule to the younger fort of Divines that are not able to drfcern in fuch Cafes , and alfo that the moil able may not unpeaceably or intemperately contradict it.) Farre be it from me to propound thefe things in a way of quarrelling with the Affembly (whom I unfeignedly reverence and honour) or as if I were wifer then they , and can mend their work ; far from me be fuch arrogancy. I doubt not but they have debated all this among therm and concluded againft ir, upon reafons that I know no: of: And fome may think that they are not bound to give a reafon of their Decrees to others. But yet I remember the cafe oi V af-knutim • And I judge as ftwwf-wd many other Learned Divines, that the Authority of Synods in matters of Faith is Doctorall and declarative, and not decisively Judicially and therefore they are as our Teachers to give us the evidence of Truths, and not to give us Truths on their bare word 5 and fo to give a reafon of their Injun&ions and Di- rections in ail doubtfull matters, that fo our obedience may be more rationall, cheerfully and to cur fclves comfortable ; efpecially they mould thus far condefcend R to 1 21 ?Uin Scripture proof of to their Brethren of the M iniftry, who mull not only ad in Faith, but alfo fatisfie the peoples doubts concerning their Decrees ; And yet more efpecially , when it is in matters of Co high moment as the Covenant of God, and the visibility of mens Chriftianity : And yet more s when they take from" us what we were in a&uall pofleffion of : For the fubftance of thefe (as is faid) was in the Common- Prayer Bock : And, though 1 were never a.Conformift to the old Snperititious Ceremonies, yet I would not have plain duties wiped out,and the Directory be more defective then the Common- Prayer Book, nor the world made believe that it is iuch things as thefcthat we found fault with, and would have changed: Efpecially alfo when there are fo many Learned and Judicious Oppofers obferving our alterations and offended at them. Therefore, I think it but modeft and rationall to defire, either the eftabliih- ment of the fore- mentioned particulars, or the publication of farisfactory Reaibns againft them BUt to return to Mr.T. I make no doubt but this courfe would as folcmnly engage men to Chrift, and have as much aw on their ccnfciences, and be as fumcient a cure of grofs Ignorance, as his deferring of Bapcifm , and much more 5 for God will not blefs men in the contradiction of his Ordinances. But the great Objection is, that it feems our Infant Baprifm is defective , or elfe what need we fupply the defect with thefe inventions of our own? And it maybe others will demand my proof of the lavvfulnefs or need of what I propound. i o both which I anfwer ; 1 . It was no £gn of the defectiveness of Infants Church admiffion, and entering into Covenant by their Parents among the Jews, in that they were to renew the fame Covenant perfonally afterward •* Indeed , the age and capaci. ty of Infants is defective, and therefore they cannot do what men of years at Baptifm mould do : but the Ordinance is no whit defective. You may as well fay 3 that our Doctrine of Infants Juftification is defective, becaufe their capacity for believing is defective ; or that the practice of teaching children as foon as they have ufe of reafon is defective, becaufe their capacity is not fuch as it will be afterward. This therefore is but like the reft of their arguing. 2. And for the Scripture warrant I have for requiring a perfonall renewall and t .vningof the Covenant at age, I /hall give it you plainly $ (for L have already proved the neceflity of the Parents entring the Infant into Covenant.,/ 1. It hath been the conftant pra:ice of the Church of God in all the belt times of the Church, to be frequent in publike folemn renewing their Covenant •' (not any poiiticall or controverted Covenant, but this Covenant of Fundamentals) Co that all the people both old & young did enter it and renew it •* How oft did Mofcs caufe them to enter and renew the Covenant ? as Dent. 16. 17 ^ 18. Thou baft avouched the Lord ibu day to be thy God, arid to waty in his ways and fccp his Statutes and Commandments and his Judgements , and to hearken to his voyce : And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be bis peculiar people , as he promjed & c. So Dcitt.19. io 3 i 1, 1 2. & 30. 15. 19 &c. And yet aii thefe were entered into Covenant before in their Infancy^ who now folemnly renewed it at age : For Circumcifion was a Seal of the Covenant which they entered- (And thofe that were difpenfed with in f h: Wildernefs for Cir- cumcilion, yet were not difpenfed with for Covenanting ) And when Mofcs was dead, Jo(hua takes the like courfe with them. Jojh. 24. and fo effectually dealeth with them that he bringeth them to promiie pubiikcly three times together, that They would ferve the Lord only as their God 3 and fo engaged them in Covenant with him Infants Church-memberfbip and Bapttfm. 123 him, vttf. 16, ai, 24,2 5. Yea, and he wrote it in a b6olj 3 verf.z6. And yet thefe had all entered the Covenant in their Infancy before. Good Jofahdid engage himfelf and all the people publikely and folemnly in Covenanted all the people flood to the ' Covenant, 2 Kjng.i$.l,l. And Afa in his beft days, and as one of his b.fl works caufed all the people,, and Grangers that fell to them, to enter into a Covenant to feek the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart and with all their foul ; And that whofoever would not feek the Lord God of lfrael s lhould be put to death, whether fmall or great, whether man or woman : And they fware with a loud voice, and whh Shouting 3nd with Trumpets and with Cornets ; And all Judah rejoyced at the Oath : "For they had fworn with all their heart , and fought him with their whole de- fire 3 and he was found of them , and the Lord gave them reft: round about, 2 chrtm. 15. iOjii, 12^$ 14,15 . If our National! Covenant had been ai (imple as theirs, and contained nothing politicall or controverlall , we (hould as well have rejoyced in it, and never had caufe to repeat it. £0 did He^iab, 2 Qiron 1$ 10. & 50. So di#M©. 5. We mtift be alway ready to fender a reafon "of our hope to others tint demand it ; much more to the Minifters and Church. 6 But moft fully is the duty and neceflity evinced thus. Every man in the A^oftles time that was Baptized at age, was neceffarily to profefs that he believed in _ ill wi:h all his heart, (and that containcththe fum ot the Covenant,) yea, im- plicitly or exprefly , that he believed in Father, Son and Holy Ghoft, ('for elfe how could rhcy be biptize-d into the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghoft }) And the mefage Chrift fent to the rebellious 3 was, that they' would take him for rheir King to rei^n over them, as appears by their refufall for which rheyare condemned ,1^.19. 27. Now though Infants cannot perform thefe by th:mfelves at then- Baptiim, yet it fol- lows not that they are therefore excufed from performing them at all. Here are two duties that with the aged went together: i.Baptifm. 2. To engage themfelves by fJ.emn Covenant in the expreftion of that Aflent and Confent which ( as 1 have fliewed in my Aphorifms of Jnflification, ) are the two principall parts of Faith. Now both are duties , vi\ to be Baptized and to Covenant 5 and both muft be per- formed. They bind not alwayes conjunci'w^ fo that they muft needs be performed R 2 * both 124 Plain Scripture proof of — — — — — — — — — — — —— — — — ■ y. — 1 both together j but yet they bind.either as conjoyned or divided.lt doth not follow,as the Anabptifts would have it , that they muft forbear Baptifm till they are capable of that and perfoaall Covenanting together ; Nor doch it follow, as others would have it, that becaufe they were baptized and entered the Covenant by their Parents in their Infancy, that therefore they are excufed from perfomll engagement 3nd profef- fion afterwards. Therefore t conclude that the conftant Example of Scripture in requiring a perfonall proftflion of the Fairh in thofe Baptized at age. doth bind us fliil disjunctively (who by Gods Law are to be baptized in Infancy, ) that we per- form each duty as we are capable of it : In Infancy we are capable of Baptifm, and Church enterance , and Covenanting by others ' And therefore our Infancy pro- hibits not the duty : But not till years of difcretion are we capable of a perfonall open profeflion of the Faith .* And therefore then it muft be performed. 7. And indeed without fuch a profeffion and owning the Covenant cither ex- plicite or implicite, (yet fo zs may be difcerned,) how mail we know a Pagan from a Chriftian? Indeed the vulgar fort of Chriftians do perform that (in owning the Creed, and Scripture, and conftant fubjecting themfclves to the Ordinances) which is a profeflion perfonall and publike; but were it performed more folemnly , parti- cularly, and engagingly, \t would be much better,and tend much to the killing of for- mality, and binding menfafter to Chrift and duty. And fo I have mewed you Scriptwre enough for this practice. And what ne- ceflity then can Mr.T. (hew for delaying Baptifm ? or what benefit by thflt delay ? But yet my anfwer to this Objection hath two btanches more behind. 8. I would know fain of Mr.T. whether his way of baptizing be like to engage men half fo folemnly as this courfe that I fpeak of ? 1. In regard of the place : If he would have it. in a River (as the Anabaprifts that I have known do ufe 5 ) then it will be in a manner private, and fo not folemn nor fo much engaging, z. For the manner: If he will do it on them naked or neer naked (as is commonly by them-ufed) then people of any modefty will befo taken up with fhame,that they will be the lefs ferious injhe bufinefs : and will be willing to be as private as may be, and not to have all the Congregation gaze on their nabcdnefs 3 and fo it will be no publike etf- gagement. g.And in. regard of the Age : For according to his own profeflfed principles , Mr. T. will likely admit them about five or fix or feven years old. For if he require no more then a free, ferious, fober, underftandingprofeflion (of fundamentals only I fuppofe, which are very few) then every diligent Parent will teach their child fuch a profeftion which he is bound to take for fuch , and that likely before they are feven years old. And how will this engage them more then the way mentioned ? or th^. common way ? yea, if it were fuppofed that they ftayed till nine or ten, or twelve years old ? o. Laftly, I anfwer to this Obje&ion, that it being but the fpume of humane reafon , I needed not to have given any other anfwer but this .* God would have Infants to be Church-members and fo entered by Baptifm : And feeing , as I have proved, God would have it fo , then all thefe Objections are againft God •' and a carping at his way 5 and finding out a fuppofed unreafonablenefs or inconveniency inhislnftitutions ; which, how well it becomes the Creature, let MT. judge. My anfwer is, trtat it is Gods will it (hall befo 5 who needeth none of myreafons to juftifie his Ordinances 5 his own Authority and will being fufficient. And yet I have (hewed you, that the reafonablenefs of them is evident enough too. And fo much in anfwer to the Objections. CHAP. Infants Chttrch-memkrfitp and Baptifm. 125 CHAP. VII. Arguments to prove the both from the Com miflf Suppofing the matter proftfled to be extenlively fufficient. If a man profef* all the Fundamental Articles 6f the Faith, and his Willingnefs to receive Ch rift for his Lord and Saviour, and to truft and obey him , and do this underftandingly and ferioufly, I think it is pad dcubt that he doth it fincerely. If I ask a man, Whether he thus Believe,and thusConfent 5 and whether hew.illftand to this Covenant to the end of his life, and continue Chrifts faithfull fervant and Souldier ? and he feri- oufly and underftandingly fay that he will , I think he is undoubtedly fincere. For as it is prerequifite to the fincerity of his profefsion, th3t it befober, free,under- ftandingj fo in the ferioufnefs I think lies all, or much of the very fincerity. Now if the fincerity be it that is looked after , who knoweth what day or year the child began to be fincere in his profefsion ? Or,what Chriftian (not one of many J knoweth it themfelvcs ? For my own part I aver it from my heart, that I neither know the day nor year when I begun to be fincere , ( no nor the time when I begun to profefs my felf a Chriftian:) How then (hould others know it? And when Mr. T. would have baptized me I cannot tell. And as large experience as I have had in my Ml- niftry of the ftate of fouls > and the way of converfion, I dare fay, I have met hot with one of very many that would fay that they knew the time when they were converted : And of thofe that would fay fo , by reafon that they then felt fome more remarkable change yet they difcovered fuch ftirrings and workings before, that many I had caufe^ijhink were themfelves miftaken. And that I may not tell men only of my own experience, and thofe of my acquaintance^ I was once in a meeting of very many Chriftians moft eminent for zeal and holinefs of moft in the Land, of whom divers wereMinifters, (and fome at this day as famous and as much followed as any I know in England J and it was there defired that every one fhould give in the manner of their converfion, that it might be obferved what was Gods ordinary way : and there was but one that I remember of them all 3 that could conjecture at the time of their firft converfion 5 but all gave in, that it was by degrees 3 and in long time. Now when would Mr- T. have baptized any of thefe ? But if by ferioufnefs, he mean any thing befide fincerity, as I would know what ic is,fo I doubt not but it will be uncertain too as well as fincerity. If he mean a feeming ferioufnefs ^i I conjedure he doth,) then it is all one with a feeming fincerity: And even ihis feeming underftanding and ferioufnefs comes in children by lon<* and infenfible degrees : It may be at four years old or fooner % there may be fome^little feeming of ferioufnefs and underftanding : and at five years old a little more ; and at fix yet more. But when it will feem to be ferious to the fadsfa&ion of the Church who knoweth > Chrift hknfelf encreafed in wifdom and knowledge : but when he was at that degree as M. T. would have admitted him into the Church, who could tell ? So that to me it is quite beyond doubt, that neither the time of childrens firft profeffion, nor of their feeming ferioufnefs or fincerity can be known by others, nor ufually by themfelves, no not the moneth or year, or perhaps In many years: And * their i 3 o Plain Scripture proof of their reall fincerity can never be known to others at all , by ordinary means 5 So that this practice therefore of baptising Chriftians Children that are born and bred in the Church at years of discretion 3 is utterly inconliftent with the Rule of Chrift , that would have all Baptized at their firft Difcipling. But now with Pagans and Infidels, and their children, it is far other wife. When the Apoftles went to preach among them, it was eafie to know when they begun their prcfeilion^ who had been enemies, or no profeffors before. CHAP. IX. Third Argument , drawn from what is already here laid rdown, is this ; That practice which goes uponmeer un- certainty, and hath no Scripture Rule to guide it 3 is not according to the will of Chrift. But the practice of Bap- tizing the Children of Chriftians at age, goes upon meer uncertainties , and hath no Rule in Scripture to guide it •* therefore it is not according to the will of Chrift, The Minor only is questionable ; (for the Major can- not, fuppofing that it [peaks not of things meerly indiffe- rent or Civill, but of matters in Religion , and that neceilary to be lmown, as no doubt this will not be denyed to be by them that contend fo much about it :) And the Minor is clear from what is faid already under the laft Argument, of the uncer- tainty of the time of ChrifHans firft being Difciples, if they be not Gfcin In- fancy. CHAP. X, Fourth Argument from the fame ground,is this; That pra- ctice which will neceffarily fill the Church with perpetual! contentions, (as being about a matter that cannot be dete:- mined by any known Rule, ) is not according to the minde of Chrift : But the practice of Baptizing Chrifti- ans Children at age urjon their profeftion , is fuch as will neceffarily fill the Church with perpetuall contentions: therefore it is not according to the minde of Chrift/ I hope none will be fo V3in as to object , that the Go- fpel occafioneth contentions, and yet is of Chrift. For 1. it doth but occafion them, and not neceffarily caufe them : i.It is againft its own mature, through mans perverfnefs ; but this doth it naturally: 3. And the contenci- -oas that the Gofpel occafioneth,is between the Seed of the woman 3 and of the Serpen^ between Infants C hur ch -member jh if and Baftifm. 131 between the godly, and wicked/ but this will nectffarily produce it among the Churches and beft Minifters and Chriftians. And that is proved from the uncer- tainty of the time of children? firft being Difciplcs, which I have proved before. Fair Mr- T. faith the profeffion moft be undemanding, andieiiotis ; And how ("hall ic potTibly be known, or when will ever the Churches or Minifteis agree upon it, when this understanding or feeming ferioufnefs is arnved at that degree which muft fatif- fie ? or when it is begun fo that they may no longer delay ? For my own part, I make do doubt bur that if Mr.T. had his will, and none ihould be Baptized but up- on ferious profeflion,it would be the grcateft fire-brand of contention in the Church, (to be fitisfied when this profusion mould be taken , and when not,) that ever the Church yet endured ; while the Pjrents would have their children Baptized fooner, and perhaps the Minifter would ftay longer, and one Minifter in the Church will be for one time, a»d another for another time. All the contentions about admitting to the Lords Supper in likely hood would be nothing to this; for there we have a certain Rule to guide us that All Church members are to be admitted except there be juft caufe brought againft them for to fufpend them while they are under tryall. Moreover, it is evident that it would either turn all into confufion, and make Bapcifm contemptible and ufelefs, or elfe put the grcateft power and opportunity for Lordiincfs and Tyranny into the handsof the Minir\ery > that ever did any Do- ftrine in the Church ; For either private men muft Baptize, and be judge who fhall be baptized,and who not; or elfe Minifters only muft judge and Baptize. Afr.T. thinks that they that convert may Baptize, whether Minifters or not: And iffo, then where will be the folemn engagement and awfulnefs ofBaptifm * Where will be the purity of the Church > when every man may Baptize, no doubt every man that will may be Baptized J whether he be an undei (landing ferious Profeffor, or not 5 whether he come in earnt ft, or in jeft ; whether he come to fubje& himfelf to Chrift, or to fcorn him : For it will certainly be ( as it is now among fame lawlefs Curats in marrying people :) every one that will give them 1 id. may be Baptized ; and if one will not, another will. And many no doubt, would Baptize as many as they could,whether fit or unfit, that they might boaft of the nimb^r of their Converts. And would not this be a fearful! Reformation ? aad a dolefull ftate for any Chriltian to fee the C hurch in ? But if any be in this more judicious and moderate then Mr. T. and would have none Baptize and judge who ihould be Baptized, but Minifters, then fee what power they put into Minifters hands, even to judge of all perfotis, Noble and Ignoble, Princes or People , whether they ihall be taken in among Chrlftians, or not 5 and whether they fhali be admitted into the Church ? or when ? how long they mail be kept out ? fo that if the Minifters be not farisfied and pleafed, neither Prince nor People (hall be Chriftians. Did ever any Pope at Rome chim fo great a power as this? Tlw power of Excommunication is nothing fo great. And yet thefe men cry down the afpin'ng and ufurpation of Minifters ; when they would have every Mi- nifter, ifnot every man, to have a power incomparably greater then any Orthodox Minifter doth defire. We muft then all ftoop and couch to Minifters, and give them what they would have, left we Ihould be no Chriftians, nor be Baptized : If the fable of Purgatory drew fo much Lands and Revenews to the Clergy, how much more would this be like to do it ? What would not dying men give that they might be S a Chriftians 32 * Plain Serif ture proof of Chriftians, and be Baptized and admitted into the Church before they go out of the World? And how would baptizing Priefts quickly learn to delay and referve their Patients for fuch an advantage ? If any (hall fay j That this all makes as much againft the Baptizing of Pagans when converted, at age, becaufe there the Baptizer is judge of his profeffion 5 L anfwer : No fuch matter. For where there is no doubt, difficulty, or controverfie, there needs no judge to decide it. I have fully proved before , that Chrifts Rule is, that at their firft profefling themfelves Difciples , and deliring B3ptifm, they are to be baptized ; and that is ealily known.lf they ihould apparently do it in tcorn,it were eafily difcern- ed. It is eafily known to all, and can be no controverfie , when a man begins to pro- fefs hirnfelf a Difciple,that was before a Pagan. But when one is born in the bofom of the Church , and brought up in the profefsion of Ghriftianity , and fo comes to it by infenfible degrees J and . alio when the baptizer muft try and be judge when it comes to fuch a degree as (hall be accounted ferious and underttanding 3 then the cafe is far •therwife Then Minifters would indeed, be as men that carryed the Keys of Heaven and Hell: ander their girdle** CHAP. XI. Aving given you thefe Arguments againft the practice of their Baptifm 1 let me give you the fift Argument againft their ground of this practice. The great Argument that Mr. T. pro- duceth, and moft others,is from Mat. 28-. 19,20. From whence they would infer, that Chrft hath taken down I nfantXhurch- memberfliip , and now ordained thac none (hall be Baptized ■ or admitted vilible Church-members , buc thofe that are firflb made Difciples according to the fence of that Text : And withall they is no Ordinance of God, but amofthainous fin: But the ordinary pradice of Baptizing by dipping over- head in cold water, as neceflary . is a plain breach of the fixth Com- mandment*' Therefore it is no Ordinance of God, but a hainous fin; And, as Mr. Craddoc^ in his Book of Gofpel liberty mews, the Magiftrate ought to reftrain it, to fave the lives of his Subjeds 3 even according to their principles that will yet allow/ the Magiftrate no power dire&ly in matter of Worihip. That this is flat mu»*der, and no better, being ordinarily and generally ufed,i's undenyabie to any undcrftand* ing man : For, that which dire&ly tendeth to overthrow mens lives, being wilfully ufed, is plain murder : But the. ordinary or generall dipping of people over -head in the cold water,doth tend dire&ly to the overthrow of their health and lives* and therefore it is murder. Here feverall anfwers are made,fome vain, and fome vile. i.M.T. faith, that many arc appointed the ufe of Bathing as a remedy againft difeafes. To which I reply .• 1. Though he be no Phyfitian, me thinks his reafon fhould tell him that it is no univerfall remedy. 2. Few Difeafes have cold Bathes appointed them. I have caufe to know a little more then every one in this j and I dare fay, that in Cities like London, and among Gentlewomen that haveb^en tenderly brought up, and ancient people, and weak people , and Shop-keepers , efpecially women that take but little of the cold ayr , the dipping them in the cold weather, in cold water, in the courfe of nature, would kill hundreds and thoufands of tlum , either iuddenly, or by cafting them into forae chronicall Difeafe. And I know not what trick a covetous Land-lord can finde out to get hisTenants to die apace,that he may have new Fines and Heriots, likelier then to encourage fuch Preachers, that he may get them all to turn Ana* baptifts ; I wiih that rhh device be nut it that countenanceth thefe men. Arad covetous I hyhtians me thinks mould not be much againft them : Catarrhes and Obitru&bns , which arc the two great fountains, of moft mortall Difeafes in mans body a could fcaree have a more notable means to produce them where they are not, Infants Church membtrjlnp and Baptifm. 135 not, ortocncrcafc them where they are j Apoplexies, Lethargies, Palfies, and all Comatous difeafes would be promoted by it. So would Cephalalgies, Hemicranies, Phthifes, debility of the ftomack, Crudities, and almoft all Feavers, Dyfentei ies^ Diarrhoea's, Colicks, Iliake paffions, Convulfions, Spafmes,Tremores, &c. All He- patick,Slpenetick,l ulmoniack perfons 3 and Hypochondriacks would foon have enough of it. In a word, It is good for nothing but to difpacch men out of the world that are burdenfome, and to ranken Church-yards. But Afr.7\will falve all this) for he faith,Thcre is no neceffity that it be in cold wa- ter 5 To which I reply, i. But then he forfaketh the generality of his Parteners in this opinion, fo far as we can learn, who ufually Baptize in Rivers or Ponds." And if they can no better agree among themfelves, we have yet no reafon to be hafty in believing them. z. And his warm Bath would be alfo dangerous to very many perfons. 3. And where mould this Bath be prepared > If in private, it will fcarcehe a folemn engaging ad:. If in the meeting place of the Church, then i. It will take no fmall room,and require no fsnal ftir to have a Bathing place,and water wherein to dip people over head. z.And if they do not run home quickly before they are well engaged, the hot bath will be turned to a cold one to them , and make them repent this badge of repentance, except they will hare all things j?eady, and be brought to bed alfo in the Church before the people. 3. And it will be long before Mr. T. will (hew out of his reading of Antiquities^ what Church had fuch a Bathing place in it. 4. But me thinks they that call for Scripture for Infant- Baptifm, fliould alfo bring Scripture for their Bathing in warm water. But fome fay, They may flay till the heat of Summer,when the water will be warm. To which I reply : Where have you any Scripture for that ? I have proved before, that the conftant Rule and Example of Scripture is clean contrary, and requires that men he Baptized when they are firft made Difciples , and not ftay till Summer. Others fay, that dipping was the cuftom in the Scripture Times. To which I reply. 1. It is not yet proved by any. The Jaylor was Baptized in the night in his Houfe, therefore not likely over. head in that Countrey where water was fo fcarce. 'The Eunuch might well be faid to go down into the water 5 forthe Countrey was mountanous, and the Brooks were down in the bottoms. Even the River J£non > where John Baptized, becaufe there was much water, is found by Travellers to be a fmall Brook that a man may almoft ftep over, a. The word fignifieth to warn as well as to dip, and fo is taken when applyed to other things, as Mar\. 7. 4, 8. &c. 3. The thing fignified, is fet forth by the phrafc of wafhieg.or fprinkling • and the fign need not exceed the thing fignified. See 1 Coy. 6.11. Tit,$.$. Heb.10,2.2 lfa.4*>1* Joelz.iS.E'^c^.^6.i6. 1 Pet. 1.1- Hcb.i2.14* 4.1fit were other wife, it would be proved but occafionall, from a reafon proper to thofe hot Countrtys. $. Chrift hatjh not appointed the meafureof water., nor the manner of warning, no more then he hath* appointed in the Lords Supper what quantity- of Bread and Wine each mult take. And as it would be but folly for any to think that men mutt needs fill thenw felves full of Biead and Wine,, becaufe it beft fignifies the fulnefs of Chrijl 5 So it is no better to fay that we mutt needs he warned all. over, becaufe it beit fignifics our buriall with Ohrift,&c, Chrift told Peter, that the wafhingcf his feet was enough to cleanfe all. A little may fignifie as well as much; as a clod of Earth doth in giving potfeflion of much Lands,and a corn ©f pepper figni£eth our homage for much, dec. But 136 Plain Scripture proof of But fome defperately conclude, that if it be Gods way, he will five our lives, how probable foever the danger may Teem. I anfwer : 1. Euc this is to beg the Queftion. Nay, I have (hewed, and am Ihewing, that it is not Gods way. God hath appointed no Ordinance contradi3ory to his great Moral 1 commands. i.God muft not be temp- ted : This was the Devils trick^o have drawn Chrift 3 under pretence of Scripture and of truftingGod, to have caft himfelf into danger of death. 3. So you might have faid to the Difciples 3 that if it were Gods command to keep the Sabboth, then they need not rub the ears of corn ; for God could fuihin them without. 4. Ifitwerea duty, yet when it is inconfiftent with a greater duty, it is at that time a fin : For it is aiwayes a fin to prefer a lefs duty before a greater : But the duty of felf-prefervatioa is a Morall naturall duty; and Baptizing is but Pofitive,- as Mr Cr a ddoc fchath (hewed you : Efpecially the manner and quantity of water in Baptifm. If you had learned what this means, ivoiti have mercy, and not Sacrifice 3 ye Would not have con- demned the guilt lefs, faid our Saviour to thefe mens Prcdeceffors, Mat.11.7. God hath not appointed Ordinances in his Church which will deftroy them except they be pre- ferved by Miracles- for*then it were a tying himfelf to a contlant working of Miracles, which he hath not done, except the Doftrine of Tranfubftantiation be true. So that I conclude, If Murder be a £n 3 then dipping ordinarily in cold water over- head in England is a (in : And if thofe that would make it mens Religion to Murther themfelves, and urge it on their Confciences as their duty, are not to be fuffcred in a Common-wealth any more then High- way Murderers 5 then judge how thefe Ana- baptifh that teach the neceflity of fuch dipping, are to be fufTered. CHAP. XIIL Y feventh Argument is alfo againft another wickednefs in their manner of Baptizing, which is their dipping perfons naked, as is very ufuall with many of them ; or next to naked , as is ufuali with the modefteft that I have heard of. Againft which I argue thus: If it be a breach of the feventh Command- ment, [Thou (halt not commit adultery,"] ordinarily to Baptize the naked, then it is intolerable wickednefs, and not Gods Or- dinance: But it is a breach of the feventh Commandment or- dinarily to Baptize naked : Therefore it is intolerable wickednefs , and not Gods ordinance. Ail the Qaeftion is of the Minor: which is evident thus, The feventh Com- mandment forbids all incitements to undeannefs and all immodeft actions : But to Baptize women naked is an insmodeft action, and an incitement to uncleanefs : there- fore it is there forbidden To this Mr.T- made me this anfwer in conference 5 That in former times it was thought no immodefty: To which I reply 1. Cuftom in fome Countreys,like B'-aftle, or other parts of America, where they go ftill naked , may make it feem no immodefty there ; but among thofe that are not Savages me thinks it fhould. z. If M*T. could Baptize naked all the Maids in Bwdcley and think it no immo- d.ily, he hath loft his common ingenuity and modefty, with the truth. 3. Is Infants Churcb-mcmberfhip and Bajttifm. 137 g. Is not every good man fcnfibleof the deceitfulnefs and wickednefs of his heart > and that he needs all helps againft it j and is it not his daily buiincfs to watch over it ? and his prayer and endeavour that he be not lead into temptation ? And wouU it be no fnare or temptation to Mr. T. to be frequently imployed in Baptizing Maids naked ? Let him fearch and judge. Me thinks the very mention of it, could I avoid it 3 is immodeft. If there were no danger to the Bipeized , yet me thinks Minifters (hould have re- gard to thcmfelves. For both thefe laft Arguments make more againft the Mlnifter, then the people : For the former> it is evident , that if the Minifter muft go into the water with the party ; (which is the ufe of moft that I have known of them ) it will cer- tainly tend to his death though they may fcape that go in but once.For weak Students to makra frequent pradice of going into the water, will cure their itch after novelties, and allay the heat of their intemperate zeal. And (o in this laft cafe , for a Minifter to be frequently imployed about the naked,will be as bad. And what it may be to all forts of SpedatoiSj I will not itand to expiefs. Befides all this, it is likely to raife jealoufies in Minifters Wives, and others, and fo to foment continuall dilTentions. And it will (upon the very probability that it mould prove a fnare) no doubt bring a conftant fcandall upon the Miniftry, and make the people look upon them but as fo many vile incontinent men. If Auricular Confemon brought that infamy, no wonder if ordinary naked Baptizing do k. Furthermore, It would certainly debauch people, and bereave them generally of common modefty ; If it once grew into a Cuftom to behold each others nakednefs, they would quickly be like the Indian Savages in this. And fure that practice is not of God, which fo diredly tends to bereave men of all common civility^ modefty, in. genuity, and humanity. ■ Moreover, That practice is not of God, which would turn Gods worfhip into con- tempt, and make it meerly ridiculous : But this pradice would certainly bring Gods worihip into contempt, and make it meerly ridiculous : Therefore it is not of God. Would not vain young men come to a Baptizing to fee the nakednefs of Maids , and make a meer jeft and fport of it ? And where then will be the reverence and folemnity of Worihip ? Moreover, that pradice which would bring a generall reproach upon the Chriftian Profeffion among all the Enemies of it, & that upon fo probable grounds, is certainly not of God : But undoubtedly the pradice of Baptizing naked would bring a generall reproach upon the Chriftian Profeffion among all the Enemies of it 5 yea, among the moft fober and difcreet ; and fo would keep men in their Infidelity, and hinder the propagation of Chrifts Kingdom, and the converfion and falrationof millions of fouls : For what hinders this more then prejudice, and the difcredit of the truth ? When Chriftians havi once the repute through the World, as Adamites have with us, who will turn Chriftian ? L think there is few fober men among Chriftians who are not fo far offended with this pradice , that they would be loth to take a woman to Wife that hath the Impudency to (hew her felf naked to an Anembly^ and would efteem it next taking one from the Stews. If they fhall fay to all this , as Mr. T. did in his Sermon, That it is not neceflary that they be naked, I reply : i. If they be next to naked, yet the difference is not great, and the former inconveniences would in great meafure follow : And I leave it to any fober Chriftian to judge, whether it be likely God will be pleafed with fuch Wor/hip, when he would not have men among the Jews go up on his Altar by T fteps, 138 PUtn Scripture proof of fteps^left their nakednefs (hould be discovered thereon. Exod.zo> and when Cham was curfed for beholding his Fathers nakednefsj and not covering it without behold- ing ? and when Chrift telleth us, that he hath committed Adultery that looketh on a woman to luft after her ? and Davids example will tell you , that looking on them naked is an incitement to luft ; and when the Scriptures even forbid all filthinefs and foolifh talking,and jefting^as things not comely, and faith, that the very naming of uncleannefs becometh not Salnts 3 as£/?k/^J.34 5. z- Thofe that would have them covered wholly or moftly when they are dipped, do differ from their Brethren and Partners herein $ whofe arguments to the contrary I leave them to anfwer 5 and when they are agreed better among themfelves how to Baptize, then let them try their ftrength with others. J. To dip them cloathed, will overthrow their own Argument,for the neceflity of warning the whole body : For this will be no warning^ but a foaking or fteeping, (if they ftay in long enough.) It may waih the garment, but the body will be but infufed in likelihood. And fo I leave the mention of this unfavory practice, which were it not neceflary to confute, I mould not have medled with. But in both thefe laft Cafes, we difpute not againft bare words, but experiences and known pra&ices. For their naked Bap- tiling is a known thing, and the wickednefs that hath followed on fome, and that fome have dyed on it 5 and I would have others be more wife, and efcape both dan- gers. Only let me fay this much more, that it is very fufpitious, and to me unfavory 3 that M, .T. mould fay no more, but , That it is not Neceffary that they be Baptized naked, and in cold water 5 as if he took it to be lawful, though not necefTary. Me chinks he mould rather have given his teftimony againft it as finfull , and expreffed fome diflike, if he do indeed diflike and judge it finfullj and if he do not,I dare bold- ly fay he is very far gone. CHAP. XIV. |He laft Argument that I will ufe, is this ; That party and practice which hath been ftill branded and purfued by Gods eminent judgements, but never evidently with Ms bleflingj fince the firft known appearance of it, is not likely to be of God* But the Anabaptifts party and practice is fuch ; Therefore not likely to be of God. The Minor only requires proof, which I mall (hew to be true in tbefe parti* culars. 1. It hath never helped on, but hindered the work of God 'A here it comes: Nor hath God ordinarily bltlTed the xvliniftryof the Anabaptifts to the true converfion of fotels as he hath done other mens; but .rather they have been Inftruments of the Churches fcandall and mifery. a. Anabaptiftry hath been the ordinary inlet tomcft o:her vile Opinions 3 and tew ftop ac it, but go much further. 3. God hathufualiy given up the fecieties of Anabaptifts to notorious fcandalous wicked conventions, more .then others that profefs godlinefs. 4. And God hath ftill purfued them with Infants Church- member {hip and Baptifm. 139 ruinating Judgements, and never profpercd them fo far as to have any eftablifhed Churches which mould credit the Gofpcl. So that (as Mr. Roushhh, in Oylcf Scorp. of our going towards Rome, fo) I may fay of drawing towards Anabaptiftry, •: is to run from God-pieferving to God-deftroying. Whereas Mr. 7*. would have the world believe that the primitive Fathers were againft Infant- baptifm,the contrary is fully proved, as I mall briefly mew you anon ; J n the mean time Jet any man finde out any Society of men that were againft Infant- Biptifm in any currant Hiftory, that were not branded wi;h all or moft of the foreiaid Judgements of God. I know fome falfly infinuate,that the Albigenfes and K'aldcnfes were againft Infant-Baptifm, which I fhall alfo fpeak of anon. i .What a hinderance the Anabaptifts were to the Gofpel in Germany >by refitting the moft painfull godly Minifters, and reproaching and vilifying them, by their wicked lives, by their hardening the Papifts, and fcandalaxing the Ignorant, and hindering the cenverfien of multitudes that begun to have fome liking to the Gofpel, is too evident in the moft of the Writers of thofe times, there being few Divines of note who do not bear witnefsof it frequently in their writings; as Lutber, Melanftbon, Itiericus.Zbingliiii, Bullingcr, Leo fud. Calvin, with multitudes more. How they hindered the Gofpel at l'Jmburge againft Juriim , you may read in his life : How they hindered it at Aufpurgepndwhit ftirs and oppofition they made againft Vrbaam, Regius &nd Mufculus afterward,and other Minifters,is to be feen,as in the Hiftory of the Lives of the faid Divines, fo in many others •* Slcidans relation of their carriage )ments 5 prifon,and death 5 not now as againft Anabaptifts, bun as againft men perjured, difobedient and feditious. The head of them was Ealthazer Hubmer 3 viho was an Apoftate again and again 5 who being delivered by the benefit of zuinglius, returned that thanks which the world ufethto do. For the knave did not flick to load the man (that had fo well deferved of him) with fo great reproaches,that he was fain to fatisfie the brethren by an Apology. When poor Muf cuius was put to fhift for himfelf, and labor for his living, he bound himfelf to an Anabaptift Weaver, who kept a Teacher in his houfe ; but when Muf- culus would not fay as they, but reprehended the Hypocrifie 3nd floath of the faid Tcacher,his Anabaptift Mafter put him away, quite contrary to Covenant, and left poore Pdufculu-s in fuch a ftrait,that he knew not what to take to, but was fain to hire himfelf to dig in the Town ditch, accufing the Anabaptifticallperfidioufnefs, and complaining that he was thus thruft out contrary to promife. Alas poor Mufculus I But God had provided better things for thee then to be an Anabaptift's Journey man,or Apprentice. When the fame Miifcidus was Minifter at Augujltty and the Anabaptifts had brought that Church into a troubled and afflift- ed ftate ('faith the Hiftorian) by their fury - } who as they ule to infinuate themfclves every where like Serpents into the tender(new planted^ Churches/o they had alfo crept into that , and in it had both feduced many,and dealt very impudently and rafhly.For now they taught not privately, but openly ; and fo far went the audacioufnefs of fome of them, that they entered the temple at the hour the people were wont to meet to hear Gods word, and wens up into the Pulpit, and publikely profefled their errors. And when the Magiftrate, to heal the tumult and fedition, had imprifoned fome,and fome would have had them put to death, yet Mufculus aifwaged the Magiftrates rigor, and told them, that was not the way to reduce the erring 5 and himfelf went daily to the prifon to vifit them, never fpeaking a word to them of Religion, but bringing them relief, and fpeaking kindly to them; yet did thefe Anabaptifts fet up- on him with reproaches when he came to relieve and vifit them, calling him the pro- geny of Vipers, and a falfe Prophet, that nourifhed a Wolf under fheeps cloathing, and that fought their blood&c. till by long patience, and bounty, and kindnefs to- ward them he had won their afkdions, and then they defired conference with him, and did patiently hear him, and one after another forfake their errorsj whereof one of them became a Minifter j And fo by the convidion of thefe nren J> theChur.ch was after- ward at more peace from the Anabaptiftick fury,faith Mdcb.Adamcts.inv'ita. Mufcull. Which I the fullyer relate,becaufe Mr.T. boafteth fo much of Mufculus 's expofition o£ 1. Cor. 7.14. that the fimple people are ready to think that he hath at leaft one fober, god!y,lcarned Divine on his fide. Calvin hath wrote a Treatife againft them, which he faith in his Dedication, he did for this reafon, to admonilh all godly men that were not well experienced herein, how mortall a pouon the opinion of the Catabiptifts is. He begins his Treatife thus; If I would write againft all the errors and falfe opinions of the Anabaptifts, I mould undertake a long work, and mould enter into a deep, from whence 1 mould have no paflage out. For this puddle doth herein differ from all other Seds of Hereticks, that they do not only err in feveral things, but are as it were a vaft Sea offtupendious dotages j fo that there can fcarce be found the head of one Anabaptift which is not pofllffed with fome opinion different from the reft. Therefore there would be no end of Infants Church member fiip andBaptifm. 141 of my work, if I (lieu Id difcufs, yea or but rehearfe all the wicked Dodrines of this Seftj&c. So he goes on, and fhews that they were thendividedj efpccially into two Sects-, Cne more moderate and (imple v ihat did boaft of Scripture, and plead Scrip- ture with great confidence for all they held (which was firft, that Infants were not to be baptized z. That there fhould be ftricter and popular difcipline in every C hurch, and the wicked more feparated from Sacrament and Communion, &c. ) The other fort were called Libertines, who pretended to be fo fpiritual, as to be above Scripture, and had amyftical ambiguous way of fpeaking, proper to themfelves 3 confounding good and bad, God and Satan, and darkning all thlngs,&c. Againft the former and better fort, he (hews the vanity of their boaft ing of Scripture, and anfwers their argu- ments; and among other things to the point in hand, he hath thefe words , The Divel himfelf was armed with the word of God, and girded himfelf wirh that (word that he might invade Chrift 3 and we have experience, that he daily ufeth this art by his inftruments,that"he may deprave the truth, and folead poor fouls to deftru&ion. As for thofe miserable fanatick pcrfons,that fo boaft that the word of God is for them, whether that be fo, the matter it felf fhewcth plainly. We have been endeavoring this long time by our daily labors to reftore the holy word of God 5 for which caufe we bear the opposition of all the world. But how much have thefe men promoted it ? or what help have they afforded us? They have troubled us rather,and vehemently hinder- ed us. So that how they have prevailed (againft the work) cannot beexpreffed 5 buc thus, that how much the word of God was by us prbrnoted,or helped on, fo much was it by thefe men retarded, and fo went backward, &c. If I fhould heap up all the Teftimonies that fuch unquestionable witneflfes do give us of the Anabaptifts carriage and manners,, I mould fill a larger Volume then 1 in- tend,or am able for j I will therefore add but one more, and that is a witnefs (as all the reft) for learning, godlinefs, and faithfulnefs in his report beyond exception,even H. Buliinger in his Dialogue againft the Anabaptifts. He begins his book with a lamentation at Gods Judgments on Chtiftians for their not profiting by the word, for which God gives them up to follow novelties, as if they were given over to a reprobate fenfe, and all kind of filthinefs and difgrace, the common people being fo blinded, as not to fee how great calamities follow, where once the Anabaptifts fet foot. And when fome were fo blind that they faw no harm in them, as if they were an innocent 3 zealous, godly people (no wonder if fome will deny their wickednefs , now fo long after 3 when the partiall did not difcern it then) Eutlingcr undertakes to (hew what a wicked people they werej from particular inftances,in thefe words. [ I will (Taith he) make all this manifeft to you. This Ss£t hath wholly fubverted waldfhut (where Hubmer was Teacher) they bantthed many of the Citizens that were good men and lincere, and drove them from their poffeflions (this was their liberty of confeience; by which means tfie Gofpel,which did there ex-. cellently flouriih, was utterly rooted out. (This is the fuccefs of their labors) The very fame they wanted but a little of doing at v/ormes. At jtugufl&Bafi', and in Mora- via 3 there were Anabaptifts that affirmed Chrift was (but) a Prophet, and affirmed that the devils and wicked men fhould be faved (This is the progrefs of their Doctrine) At Scvgall one cut offhis brothers head, as he faid ; at his fathers command. What filthinefs they commit under pretence of fpirituall marriage, thofe Towns and Cities can teftifie who have often fharply punilhed them for thefe wickednefTes. And this no man can deny, that moft of them do foifake their wives and children r and lay. ing by all labor,do live idly, and are fed by other mens labors} And when they abound with filthy and abominable luft, they fay it is the command of their heavenly father 5 J 3 rer= 1 42 Plain Scripture proof of perfwading women and honeft Matrons, thar it is impoffible they (hould be pirtakers of the Kingdom of heaven,unlefs they filthily proftitute their bodieSjalledging that it is vvritten^hat we muft renounce all thofe things which we love beft,and that all kinds of infamy are to be fwallowed by the godly for Chrifts fake, and that Publtcans and Harlots go fir ft into the K ingdom ot heaven. Of the Treachery, Lying, and Sedition wherewith thefe difobedient people do every where abound, there is no end or meafure. An dJ pray,are thefe (and more which in prudence I filence) their vermes ? Do you yet think th3t they delign nothing dtfhoneft ? Or can you deny the truth of thefe things ? Objccl. Sure many things are charged on them faifly, and fame addeth fome- what. Anf What things have hitherto been mentioned, may be all proved by figned Letters,, and by certain Teftimonies. For my part, I have in prudence (ilenccd thek- crimes,and fpoke lefs then they have committed > fo much the more doth it grieve me, that men are fo blind.that thev do not obferve thefe things. or lay them to heart; Yea, that a great part of men do embrace and follow thefe erroneous men, even as though they came down from Heaven, and were Saints among mortals, who preached no- thing but what is Divine and Heavenly , whereas they far exceed the Nicolaitans and Valentiniansiw filthinefs. Objeft* I have not found thefe things fo : nor do I think that all are thus defiled. And if a few among them are fuch, what is that to the godly ? There was one Judas among the Apoftles, &c. And they teach fo excellently of God, and of avoiding fin, that I cannot conceive they are fo bad. When they are ap- prehendedjthey praife God,and give thanks ; when they are fhin ,tUey conftantly en- dure it, and gladly and cheerfully undergo death j This you cannot deny •, and therefore I would you had heard them as I have done. Anfw. Perhaps I mould have littie to fay againft you, unlefs I had long ago throughly known this kind of men. But I am not ignorant how much by guile and dcceit,Hypocrifie can do. As to youi* anfwer; it is true,that the wickednefs of a few fhould be no difparagement to the inno- cent 5 but you have not yet proved the Anabaptifts caufe to be juft and good. Nor can you jhew me one man of thorn, who is not blemished with fome of the fore/aid wickednefs es 5 I mean, Lying, Treachery, Perjury, Defobedience, Sedition , Idlenefs , Defertion ( of their Ytiyes) F i fthinefs. Of thefe,al though all have not all of them,yet every one hath fome; in the mean time, I fay nothing of their Herefie and Se&s, their pertinacy and falfe er- roneous Do&rine. And for that which they fpeak rightly, it is but the fame that we fay. Thus Butimger goes on in his teftimony of them, which I may not be larger in tranferibing. It is not againft their Doctrine that I bring thefe Teftimonies 5 for that would be but to alledge one mans judgement againft another ; But it is concerning their qualities and behavior,and open wickednefs ; in which cafe (being about matter of fad) if fo many learned, holy Divines, who broke the Tee in the work of reformation^ and did and fuftered fo much to accomplish it, and /ived in the countreys and times where arid when thefe thiags were a&ed> I fay, if thefe be not to be taken for credible witneffes^I know not what humane teftimony fcarce may be cre- <2ited s and whether all Hiftory be not meerly vain. And I doubt not that Mr.T. knows that Peter SMrrtyr, zanchius, Danaus, Fa-ret us, Be%a^ Chemmtius, To (j anus, Grynaus, Bucer,Chrytr*uSiArctius, Remminguts, Gcrrhard, with multitudes more, do all give the like teftimony of the Anabaptifts, giving them commonly the titles of Furies, Taaaticks, Perjured, Filthy,Tumultuous, Scd itious.&c. And the bufinefsof Munficf I need not reiare; Sieiian,S$anht:mMs> and lately Mr* Baily and others have faid enough of it. So that by this you may safily perceive how God hath followed them with his jtulge. menus abroad in all the four foremenrioned relpe&s. 1. How Infants Church-memberflup and Baptifm. 145 1. How they have been fo far from being profperous in the Miniftry , and fur. therers of the Gofpel, that they have been the great fcandals and hinderers of its fuccefs. 2. And that they feldom flopped at the denyall of Infant-Baptifm., but have pro- ceeded further to the vileft opinions ; and feldom any came to notorious Herefies but by this door. 3. And that God hath ufuilly given up their Societies to notorious wickednefs in life, in fo much that Bu Winger challenged to name a man that was free. 4. And how they have withered every where,and come to nought, is too evident to need proof. So that when the light of the Gofpel once broke forth, and the true work of Reformation was fet afoot, God profpered itfo mightily to the aftonifhment of the very Enemies , that in a fhort fpace it over-fpred a great part of the Chriftian World : But Anabaptiftry, which fet out neer the fame time and place with Luther s Reformation, did only make a noyfe in the World , and turn Towns and Countreys into feditions and mifery, and fo die in difgrace , and go out with a ftink : And in what Countrey foever it came, after fome fhort ftirs, it had the fame fuccefs : excepc where a few of them are in fome places tolerated,as Jews and Hereticks 3re 3 for meet- Policy or compaffion j yea,and ftill the moft learned and godly Divines were the in- ftruments of fupprefling it. And doth God ufe to deal thus by his truth in a time of Reformation ? I deny not, but fome Truths may be long hid before the time of Difcovery : But this is no New Light 5 for It broke out long ago, and hath been put out again and again. And I deny not but godly Divines may refill a Truth with much steal while they think it an Error: But then others will maintain it, and it will likely get ground ftill j or at kaft God will not fuffer it to be extinguished in a time of Reformation ; much lefs will he follow it with fuch heavie Judgements, and make it the inlet of fo much Error, and wickednefs,and calamity. At Geneva (a Church that God fo wonderfully bleft , and where there were able Divines to encounter it,) it no fooner broke forth, but a few Difputations didfilence its Patrons , and by convincing them did extinguifh the fire. Thofe places that have entertained it throughly, it hath been as fire in thethatch 3 and proved their ruine. But alas, what need we look into other Kingdoms to enquire whether the fire be hot,when we are burning in it ? or to know the nature of that poyfon that is working in our bowels, and which is flriving to extinguifh the life of Church and State. England is now the ftage where the doleful 1 Tragedy is acting j and the eyes of all Reformed Churches are upon us, as the miferable objects of their companion. Cer- tainly,he that will net know and acknowledge fin in the very time of Affliction, and that when fo many heavie Judgements 3reonour backs, yea, and when we fmart by that Cm for which wefmartj fo that it is the means as well as the Meriter of our mife- ry , this man is fearfully blinded and hardened. To love and plead for the fin for which, and by which we fmart, even while v/e fmart, is no good fign. I have had coo much opportunity to know very many of thefe called Anabap:iils 5 and to be familiar with them, and having firft examined my heart 5 leaft I mould wrong them out of any difan\.ction,through difference of judgements I clear lydifcover that 1 bear no ill will to any one man of them, nor ever did, nor finds any paffion but companion moving me to fay what I do ; f o 1 do impartially and truly affirm concerning the moft of them that I have converfed with, concerning theforementioncd particulars, as follow- ■ eth ; i. That I have knewn few of them fo much as labour after the winning of fouls 1 44 Fla in Scripture proof of fouls from fin to God, and bridging them into love with Chrift , and holinefs, and heaven ; but the main fcope of their endeavoiirs in publike and private, is to propa- gate their Opinions ; and ffthey do Preach any plain wholfom Dodrine,it is ufually but fubfervient to their great Defign $ that the truth may be as fugar to fweeten their errors, that they may be the ealilyer fwallowed : And fo ftrangely are they tranfported with a itCwc to bring men to their Opinion, as if they were never in a happy condi- tion till they are re- baptized, or as if there were no hope of the falvation of the holyeft men till then ; and as if there were little more then this required to make men happy : For this is the Doftrine that they moft eagerly prefs ; and if they can get the prophaneft perfoas to imbrace their Opinions , and be re«b.rptized, they ufually make much of them, and (hew more affeftion to them then to the moft godly that differ from them. Nay more, they are the greateft hinderers of the wort of God in the converting of fouls, and reforming the Church, that I know in the Land -, what others have done I will not fay 3 but I know none of the moft prophane or malignant, that are half fo bitter Enemies to the Miniftry, and fo great hinderers of the faving of fouls. Alas I how oft hath it wounded my fpirit with grief, to fee and hear men profeffing to be more godly then others, to make it the very bufinefs of their lives to difgrace the Minifters of the Gofpel,and make them vile and odious to the people! If they come into company of the prophane, that hate a godly painfull Minifter for feeking their falvation, thefe men will harden them in it, and fay far more againft the Minifter then the moft notorious fcornerswerc wont to do; and that not in a bare fcarn, which is lefs flicking, but in ferious flanders, perfwading the poor peo- ple that their Minifters are Hypocrites, and belly-gods, and meer felf-feekers , that ftudy bat to feed their own guts, and to make a prey of the people, and to advance themfdves, and be matters of all men 5 and that they are cruel blood-thirfty p^rfr- cmorSjBaals Priefts, and AntichriitJan feducers, and that they preach falfhood to our people, and tell lies in the Pulpitj with the like accufations. O how this confirmeth men in their enmity to the Do&riae of the Gofpel and the Preachers of it ! When poor people hear thofe defpife the Miniftry that once were conftant hearers 5 and hear thofe deride family-duties , and holy walking, aad the Lords day, who once feemed godly, they may think that fure thefe men that have tryed this ftrid way, fee fome evill in ir, or elfe they wculd never fpeak againft it fomuch. Nay, [never heard any of the old fcorners that would fcorn half fo bitterly and reproachfully as fome of thefe men. Read but the Books called Martin Mtf-priejls, and then judge. And ufual- ly when they run up into a Pulpit , or Preach in private, the chief fcope of their Do- ctrine is to perfwade the people that the Minifters are Seducers and Liers , and faff Prophets. &c. As if the poor people were in the fure way to falvation^if they could but have bafe thoughts of their Minifters •, and as if the firft thing that they have, need to learn to make them happy, were to fcorn their Teachers , whom the Holy Ghoft commands them to obey, Heb. 15.7, 17- and highly to efteem them for their works fake, and know them to be Over them in the Lord, 1 Tbefy 1 z. 1 J. How could all the Devils in Hell have found out a more efFeSuall means to make all the people dif- regard and diipife the Gofpel , and fo to perim certainly and fpcedily/then by thus bringing them to vilifie the Meffengers of theGofpd,and think it a vertue to reproach and forfake their Guides ? Moreover, the moft of them that I have known, have made their DoSrine of Anabaptiftry a ground of feparation, and perfwade the people that it is a fin to hear our pretended Minifters fas they call them,) becaufe they were never baptized: And thus when they can make them believe that the Minifters are Seducers, and 'that Infants Churcb-fnmberjhif and Baftifm. 145 It is a fin to hear thcnyhen judge what good they are like to receive by that Miniftry ? and what a cafe the Land were in if all men did believe thefe mens Do&rines ? T his is the Papiftsonly ftrength among us ; to make the people believe, it is a fin to hear us, or joyn with us, and then they are out of all ways of recovery j they may make them believe any thing when no body contradifteth it. And it is not only the vulgar fort of the Anabaptifts that hence plead a ncceflity of Reparation 5 but the moft Learned of their Teachers : As Mr. Benjamin Cox did at Coventry , whofe firft en« deavors (when he had made them believe that Infant- Baptifm was finfull) were to perfwade them, it was finfall to hear and joyn with their Teachers, being unbapttzed men 5 which cafe when I had awhile difputed with him, it was agreed that we mould profecu:e it by writing, and that the people (hould hear each writing read. But when I had fent in my firft, in confirmation of my Arguments, I could never get his reply to this day j At firft, he exopfed it by his imprifonmcnt (whereof I was falfly accufed to be Author, when indeed I perfwaded them to releafe him;) but yet never fince could he have while to do it. Moreover, the very fcandall of thefe mens Opinions and practices have been an unconceivable hinderance to the fuccefs of the Gofpel,and the falvation of multitudes of fouls. O how it ftumbleth and drives off the poor ignorant people from Religion, when they fee thofe that have feemed Religious prove fuck ? and when they fee us at fuch difference one with another ? and when they fee fo many Sect s and Parties that they know not which to turn to ? They think that all ftri&nefs doth tend to this > and fo that the godly are but a company of giddy,proud,unfetledj lingular perfons,thac know not where to ftop till they are befides themfelves. O how the Papifts alfo are hardened by this I I have fpoke with fome of them , that once begun to be moderate, and could fcarce fay any thing for their Churches forbidding the common ufe of the Scripture , andieaching people an implicite Faith 3 who now upon the observation of thefe Sefts and their mifcarriages, are generally confirmed in their way, and fay to us , Now you may fee what it is to depart from the unity , and bofom of the Church; and what it is to make the Scriptures common , and to forbid filly people taking their Faith upon truft from the Church ; and fct them all a ftudying for that which is beyond them , till you are cut into (hredsj and crumbled to duft ! The Epifcopall Party are far more confirmed in their way by it , and fay , Now you fee what it is to cut up the hedge , and pluck up the banks of Govern- ment. There was none of this work under the Government of the Biihops ; you fee how you have mended the matter , by extirpation of them root and branch ; Yea , thofe that were offended at the Prelates cruelty, in filencing and fufpend- ing, &o do now upon the fight of thefe Se&s and abufe's think they did well , and that it W3s needfull for the quenching of this fire while it was a fpark .* And many that begun 10 ftagger at the Kings late caufe and Wars , are now many thoufands of them perfwaded of the lawfulnefs of it, meerly from the mifcarriages of thefe men .' Yea, and if report (too probable) do not lie, thoufands and millions of Papifls in all Countrcys of Europe where they dwell, are confirmed and hardened in their Religion, by the odious reports that go of the mifcarriages of the thefe men in England : Thefe ( £ay they) are your Reformers : And this is your Reformation ! O that our heads were fountains of water, that we might weep day and night for this wound to the Go- fpel,this difhonor to God, and this grievous injury to the fouls of multitudes! It muft needs be that offence cometh, but wo be to thofe men by whom it cometh $ it were better for them that a milfione were bang'd about their necfo, and they vrzrc cafl into the depth of the Sea: And happy is he that is not offendefrin Chrift. This is the V help 1^6 Plain Scripture proof of help that the work of Reformation, and of mens falvation hath received from thefe men. Furthermore, it is evident how little they help on the work , in that they labor for the moft part to work upon thofe that are or feem Religious already , and not thofe that have moft need of Inftruction : (though yet they will welcome thefe too if .they will be of their wayj) They make a great ftir to pervert a few of the weaker unliable Profeflbrs, but the great work of converting fouls is little endeavored by many. How many Sermons do they fpend in venting their own Opinions? till they have ' brought poor fouls ( which is too eafily done ) to place their Religion in holding thefe Opinions^ and in being Rebaptixed , and then they think they are good Chri- ftians indeed, and of the higheft form : An eafie Religion, which will prove a de- fperare deiufion. If Mr.T. do challenge me here as being free from this exception himfelf. I fhould be loath to meddle in fuch perfonall applications; but i.One Swal- low makes no Summer, z. I mould have been loath to have fpent fo much time and zeal in the Pulpit for Infant- Baptifm, as he hath done againft it, and to have had the names of Mr.Marfliall, Mr.Bla^e t and Mr. Baxter, oftner in fo many Sermons 3 then of David, or Teter, or Paul. And j. though I unfeignedly acknowledge myfelfa moft unworthy wretch to have been the initrument of converting one foul _, and that I have deferved God mould rather blaft all my labours^ and that the fuccefs he hath given mchath been meerly of free-mercy, yet I would not for all the gold ami glory ki the World,that 1 had no better fruit of my Labors to (hew then Mr.T. hath fince he came amongft us ; and that I could difcern the probable figns of converfion (from prophanefs to fincerity ) upon no more fouls in my charge lately wrought , then for ought I can learn is difcernable in his 3 as wrought by his Miniftry ; unlefs the per- verting of five or fix Profeflbrs, be the work of their converfion 5 Yet I know that better men then either of us, have labored long with fmall fuccefs 5 but that is not ufuall. But in my own experience, I never knew the Labors of any zealous Ana- baptift, that ever God blelTed to the true converfion of many fouls 5 but many they make meer talking, cenforious Opinionatifts, and ufually there leave them. Nay , I defire any fober Chriftian but to look impartially through all the Land, and tell nae where ever *ny fuch Teachers lived, but the place in generall was much the worfe for them ? Wk'l* the Gofpel before profpered, and Chriftians fpent their time and conference in the edifying of each others fouls, and in heavenly duties, and mutuall affiftance, and lL r ed together in unity and love 3 according to the great command of Chrift j they ordinarily turn all this to vain janglings 3 and empty, windy,unprofitable DifpureSj which he that is moft gracious, doth rafte the leaft fwcetnefs in s and they turn their unity intc divifions, and factions, and their amity into jealoufies and con- tentions 5 one is for this fide, and another for that J and they feldom meet but they have jarrings and contendings j and look on one another with ftrangenefs/if not With fecrec heart-burnings and envyings 5 ftudying all they can how to undermine each other, and every man to ftrengthen his own party. And thefe arc the ufuall fruits of the Doctrine of Anabaptiftry where it comes. It may be they will fay, that Chrift cams no: to fend peace,and the Gofpel it felf occafions divifion. Anfwer 1. Ic doth cccafion it 3 but not directly produce and foment it of its own nature, as this *ioth. 2. The Gofpel occafions divifion between good and bad ., the Seed of the woman and of the Serpent , but not between the godly, and the godly, as this doth. Chrifts Doctrine and his ways lead all to peace, and to deareft love among the Bre- thren. He leaves them his peace as one of his chief legacies 3 and makes it his new commandment* to them^that they love one another, ar.d faith 3 that by that — ■ ■ — — ■' — ■ Infants Churcb-memberjlup and Baptifm. 147 that ftall all men know that they arc his Difcipfes. But of this before, a. And as Anabaptiftry hath been no greater a friend to mens falvat ion with us, fo every man knows that it is the ordinary inlet to the moft horrid Opinions. How few did you ever know that came to the moftmonftroas doctrines, but it was by this door ? And how few did you ever know that entred this door, but rhey went on further ? except they dyed or repented fhortly after ? I"eonfefs, of the multitudes of Anabapciits that I have known, at the prefent I cannot call to mind any one that hath ftopt there. Moft that I have met with are Separatifts,^wWfl»j,or Antinomians y or both (for they have found out a way to joyn thefe extreams , which a man would think impoflible) Socinians, Libertines, Seeders, or Familifts. But becaufe men may refufe to credit my experience of them., (O that moft parts of England had not ex- perience of them as well as I, though perhaps not fo much,) I appeal to the writings of all of them that I can remember that ever wrote. Whether Mr. Denis arrived by this way, his writings ihew, and his late confeffion when he was to be put to death for Rebelling with the Leve&ers. What horrible things Collyer is come to, his writings againft Ordinances witnefs. Mr.Saltmarfh his writings teftifie the like too openly. Paid Hobfon (one of the Subfcribers of the Churches Confeffion) publifheth himfelf a Socinian to the Wot Id, teaching that God was never at enmity with men,but only men with God, and that Chrift did not reconcile God to man, but only man to God^and did not purchafe Love , Life and Salvation, but was fent to manifeft them , &c. Mr. Cox (another of the Subfcribers) taught them at Coventry, th&t ourMinifters might none of them be heard, as being unbaptized men, and that they might not ordinari- ly Preach in the ordinary Affemblies,and that the errors of their calling and Do&rinc. were greater then that of the Priefts and Pharifees in Chrift's time, when there were two High Priefts, and when they were annually chofen , and that by the Romans , and held it not by fucceffion and for life as they ought ; yea, when they corrupted the very fundamentals : Alfo that the very office of our Miniftry is not from God, no more then the Call*, and that we are all uncapable of any Office in a Church of Chrift, becaufe we are unbaptized. All this I have under bis own hand • Betide what he taught about Redemption, the Law, Liberty of Conference, &c. Whither Mr. De£ is arrived, let his Sermon againft Reformation , and his Treat ife againft Uniformity witnefs. How far SMLrMUiams in Netv Engand went by this way, that Plantation can fadly witnefs, but England far more fadly , who giving him kindlyer entertain- ment then they, have received far more hurt by him, when he became the Father of the Seekers in London. Even Mr.Bladpvood hath as much for his Liberty of Confcienceas for Anabaptiftry. For Mr. Erburyjet the Oxford Conference teftifie of him* What Ihould I tell you of all thofe hideous Pamphlets againft Ordinances, and for the Mor- tality of the foul, and that the foul is God himfelf, and againft the truth of Scripture, and down-right Familifm, Libertinifm, and Paganifro/uch as R.wilf^infons , The mad mans difle&ion of the Divinity, &c. with a multitude more, which all fp 1 ing from this root of Anabaptiftry : I remember four years ago, when Anabaptiftry had not been long in the Countrey, about ZMarsfieldt and Trubridge, and thofe parts, they maintained that Chrift took our fin into his nature,as well as our fiefh,and fo had ort- ginall corruption as well as we : and that mens fouls are bat a beam of God , or God himfelf appearing in feveral bodies,and when men die the foul is in God again. I cannot but think how mencryed out againft Mr-Edwards his Gangren at firft, as if he had fpoken nothing but lies ; and now how they have juftified it with a fearful! over- plus. I will not ftand to name any more, to you, but only one, which being late, is frefh in our memory , and being not far off us, is nearer our knowledge, and being V a moft 148 Plain Scripture proof of moft dKadful^ftiouldbehcardwhhtrcmbling^asoneof Gods moft fcarfull Judge- ments '> and that is of Mr* Coppe, and his Followers, called by fome the Ranters , by others, the High-attainers. This man was a zealous Anabaptift, when I was Preacher to the Garrifon of Coventry, he was Preacher to the Garnfon of Compton-Wowk in the fame Countrey a and I heard of no Opinion that he vented or held , but, the Neceflity ofRebaptizing, andlndependancy, and was a (harp Reproacher of the Miniftty , (which is the common Character of all Schifmaticail Subverters of the Church : They fmite the Shepheards,that they may fcatter and devour the (heep the more eafily,) This man continued a moil zealousRe-baptizer many years,and re-baptized more then any one man that ever I heard of in the Countrey, witnefs warwicltfhire, Oxfordfhire, part oiwoYcefUr(hir€ % &c* (So far was his Succefs beyond Mr. Ts in this work .) Till ac laft God gave him over to a fpirit of delufion, that he fell into a Trance, and Profef- feth himfelf that he continued in it three or four days , and that he was in Hell, and that he received thofe Revelations which he hath published in his Bock, in which he Blafphemoufly arrogates to himfelf the Sacred name and Titles of God, and crys down Duties and godly Life , by the name of [plaguy holinefs] and fweareth moft vilely 5 and profefleththat it doth him more good to run on men, and tear them by the hair, and curfe like a Devil, and make them fwear by God, then to joyn in Family Duties, and in plaguy holinefs : And that he can fwear a full mouth d oath, and can kifs his Neighbors Wife in'Majefty and honour, which if a Prediian do, that knoweth fin, he (hall be damned for it : He pleads for Community , and againft Propriety j and faith, he went up and down London Streets with his Hat cockt,his Teeth gnafhing, kis eyes fixed, charging the great Ones to obey his Majefty within him 5 This and abundance more fuch hideous Blafphemies his own Book contains. And his practice is anfwerable to his Profefllon. For he went up and down teaching this to the poor Profeifors in the Countrey , and fweareth moft hideoufly in his Conference and Preaching, and Curling, and filthy Jafcivious pra&ifes, not to be named, are his Re- ligion. It may be fome will fay that he is a mad man : But it is otherwife,as may be known by thofe that will fpeak with him, (he is now in Coventry Joal, where he was once before upon his re-babtizing, for which they were taken to be Perfecutors by thofe that now are approvers of his fuftering,) but doubtlefs he is worfe then mad in his delufion : But O the dreadfulnefs of Gods Judgements I would any Chriftian ever have believed that fuch a man (hould have had any Followers ? and that men and women profefling the zealous fear of God mould ever be brought to place their Religion in revelling, roaring, drinking, whoring , open full-mouthed fwearing or- dinarily by the the Wounds and Bloud of God, and the fearfulleft Curfing that hath been heard, as if they were all pofleffed with Devils ? (as for my part, I think they are, ) yet fo it is : Many of his People fall into Trances as well as he, and go about like walking Devils in this language and carriage. Some were fet in the flocks at Stratford upon Avon for their Oaths,which came to. a great number .* About Soutbam and Compton fide among thofe that were Anab3ptifts before, divers, as I am moft credibly informed, are brought to*th is fearful 1 ftate: And fome moderate hopefull Anabaptifts nearer us, are inclined to it. One faid, that when (he firft heard him fwear,her fle(h trembled, but when (he heard him fpeak for himfelf, /he faw that be had ground for it : (or to that fence ;)■ And in London it is by impartiall teftimony re- ported that he hath abundance of Followers j whereof one woman was lately Carted through the Streets for ordinary Whordome, and gloryed in it , who was formerly judged godly,and mockft. And is not theplague of blindnefs upon his underftanding that will not fee the hand of God in this?Tbe Lord is known by the judgements which he Infants Cburch-memkrjlup andBaptifm. 149 he executeth , Ffal.$.\6. And is not that man a fecond Pharaoh that yet will not fee nor ftoop to God ? Is not the name of the fin legible in the judgement > and doth not God teftifie from Heaven againft Anabaptifm plainly by all thefe ? Are they not even as vifible Characters of Gods difpleafure , as the Moafters in Ncrv England were ? The Lord grant that neither 1, nor any friend of mine may be ever fo blinded and hardned , as to run upon the face of fuch vifible judgements , and to over -look the apparent finger of God , and to flop our ears when he thus fpeaks from Heaven. O poor England ! what Vermine are bred in the carkafs of thy glory ? Did we ever think when we were reproached by the Enemies, as having our party compofed of Anabaptifts and Separatists, that fo many of them would have proved fo much wotfe, and made their Accufations true, as Propheticall, which were then falfe, as Hyftoricall, and de prefente > And is this it that our eyes muft behold inftead of our io- much- defired and hoped-for Reformation ? O what heart is fo hard in any true Chriftiansbreaft, that doth not rend and relent to think of the dolefull cafe of England.'- How many thoufand Prorelfors of Religion are quite ruined in their foals, and turned into Monfters rather then Saints ? How many fad, diftra&ed, divided Congregations ? Minifters lamenting their people , and people reproaching their Minifters ? what dividing, and fubdividing, and fubdividing again, and running from Church to Church and from Opinion to Opinion, till fome are at fuch a lofs, that they affirm that Chrift hath no Church, nor- Miniftry on Earth, nor any currant Scripture -, nor (hall have till he fend new Apoftles or Mira- cles to reftore them's and others placing their Religion in Curfing, Swearing and Blafpeming ? How many a diftra&ed Family is there in England that were wont to worth ip God in unity and joyfulnefs ? One will prayymd the other will not pray with him a becaufe he is unbaptized,and a third faith. that Family Duties are not command-: ed in Scripture : One will fing prayfes to God, and another fcorneth it,as if he were finging a J ig, and a third will fing Pfalms from the di&ate of the Spirit only. One will crave Gods blefling on his meat , and return him thanks ; and another derides him for it. One will devote the Lords day to facred imployment, and the other thinks the obfervation of it is fuperftitious. One will be of one Church, and another of another 5 envying and ftrife hath taken place, while unity and love are laid afide 5 becaufe that truth is jofied out by error. J. And for the judgement of a wicked life,to which God ufually gives up the grofly erroneous, and fpecially this Se&. 1. We have made it evident from unqueftionable witnefTes, how this hath ftill followed them in other Ages and Countreys. a. And for thefe now living, we have not feen their end, and therefore know not yet how they will prove : Moft perfons that end worft of thefe forts do begin fairly. It is the end of wicked men that muft give us the true eftimate of their condition. When Chrift faid, [by their fruits ye Jhall tyow them } ] he doth not fay [by the fruits of the firft year,or fecond,or feventh,] I heartily wilh they do not grow worfe and wor(e,de- ceiving and being deceived. 3 . 1 do hot fay or think that every particular perfon of them is fo vile in their lives j Chrift did not tie himfelf to give every man of them up to fuch a converfation,when he faith, [by their fruits ye Jhall l^wtv them.~] It is fuffi- cient that it is fo with them ufually : Even as when he faith [ The feed of the righteous are ble(fed 3 '] he doth not tieJiimfelf,to make every one blellcd with his fpeciall bleffing, though he do it ordinarily. We may know an Orchard by the fruit ; Though fome one or two Trees may have none, yet if the generality be Crab-Trees, the rule will hold. We may know a Flock of bheep to be fuch a mans by his mark, though two or three among them may have no mark. 4. But for the molt of them that I know , this V J « t 150 Plain Scripture proof of is the moft dlfcernable judgement upon them of ail the reft ; what a multitude do I know that are moft notorious for pride, thinking themfelves wifer then the ableft Teachers, when they have need to be catechifed ? Tome of them run up into the pulpits to preach, and chalenge the ableft Minifters to difpute, and openly contradid what Minifters preach, when they neither underftand themfelves nor others> and no man can perfwade them that they are ignorant^though it be as palpable as the Egyptian darknefs to all knowing men that know them. Others that will not come in publike j are conftant Teachers in private , where they vilifie the Miniftry, and make poor fouls believe, that the Minifters are ignorant of the truths of God in comparifon of them. As if the moft learned and godly were all but fools, and there were a flat ne- ceflity that thefe men muft take on them the inftru&ing and guiding of the people,or they were in apparent danger of being miflead. any perilling - y When, alas, the filly wretches have need to be taught the very principles themfelves j Family duties, and the Lords Day, and many other duties they negled -, All the Herefies in the Land they make themfelves guilty of by their Do&rine of Liberty for all. In a word,let thofe that have tryed them, judge how many of Pauls Characters appear upon them,i. Tim. $, 1, i 3 $ . In tm latter days (hall come perillous times, for men (h ill be lovers of themfelves , covetous, boaftcrs, proud, blajphcmers, difobedent to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affetliom truce breakers, falfe accufers 3 incontinent, fierce t de/pifers of thofe thjt are goody traitors, heady,high minded, lovers ofpleafures more then lovers of God j Ha- ving a form ofgodlinefs, but denying the power thereof , from fuch turn away. O that England were cleer from the guilt of thefe fins I and thefe kind of men had not brought this infamy upon us 1 For my own partj all the am* i&ions that ever I endur* ed from the wicked in my body, ftate, or name, and all the fuftcrings and dangers that I have gone through in thefe evill times, are nothing tome in comparifon of 1. The doleful fcandal that thefe men have brought upon Religion. 2. And the fruftrating of our expectations hitherto of thefo much defired Reformation, and the power,and plenty, and purity, and peaceable enjoyment of the Ordinances of God. Had they brought me and all the friends I have into fervitude,to be their bondflaves, it would have been nothing to me, if I know my own heart , m comparifon of thefe. Had they brought the whole Kingdom into a far greater flavery or jwverty then ever was before endeavored, it would have been nothing to thefe : Had our taxes and op* preflions been as great as the Ifraelites in Egypt, yet it would have been comfortable, had it not been for thefe. But O the wound that Gods caufe hath received '. Othe horrible fcandal that hath been caft on our Religion ! the hardening of Papifts and Atheifts 1 the opening of the mouths ef all the Lords enemies, and caufing them to Blafpheme, and to reproach his truth! What heart can hold to think of thefe ? To fee the powder-plot buried in oblivion by their mifcariages?and to hear the Proteftant Religion charged with perjury, perfidioufhefs, prevarication, and fins that may not be named. It makes me almoft ready with Jeremy to lament the day of my birth, and to fay, wo is me that my mother brought me forth, to be a man of forrows, and did I think to have lived to hear thefe reproaches caft on the people and wayes of the Lord? The prefent times may palliate them with vain diftindions, and cover thtm with filencing all that openly may mention them j But truth is the daughter of time j when we are dead,Chronides will fpeak plain,and other Countries fpeak plainly now. Othat God would find out fome way to vindicate his own honor, and dear his caufe, and then no matter what becomes of us fo much. Why, the vindication is at hand, and that moft true and unfeigned,apd I do charge all men that look upon the a Sions of thefe times,to take notice of it, and in the name of the moft high God I re- quire Infants Church- member jhip and Baptifm. 1 5 quire them, that they mif- interpret not his providences, and impute not the fins of men to him or his truth : And thofe that (hall write theHiftory of this Age to Pofte- rity , if thefe lives fall into their hands , I adjure them to confiderand declare this truth; [That it was not the Orthodox godlyProteflantsjhat were the Authors or approvers of the horrible w\c\edneffes of thefe times, but the Anabaptifts, and other the life Sectaries, whom the Orthodox more ^ealoufty and confiantly oppofed 3 then any others did^ who (lander them as guilty j yea t and how far they have gone tofuffi-ring in their oppofition, the world is judge: And though all be not Anabaptifts that have been guilty cf thefe fins, yet the leading ad ive party are > and the reft are but drawn or driven by them : So that Gods Caufe and People are hereby fully vindicated : And Blefied be the Lord that hath kept his Orthodox people from the guilt,that his Caufe may be fo vindicated. What are Anabaptifts to us ? and why mould we be charged with their mifcarriages, any more then with the Papifts ? If Papifts were Covenant- breakers, and deftroyers of Authority, and Self- exalters, and Captivaters of the belt of their Brethern, and Abetters of, or Conni vers at the vileft Herefies and rendings of the Church; what were all this to us ? what were the ftits at Munfter to the Proteftants of Germany ? Did not the Proteftants there do more againft them then all the Papifts ? Yea, did not the Papifts firft occafion all by their pollutions and cruelty ? And did net the Prelates by their Superftitions, Innovations, and Perfecutions,occafion all this among us ? which me thinks mould make them filent and blufh for ever >] And for the difappointing of our hopes in point of Ordinances and Reformation^ it is a moft heavie burden and grief to our hearts ; The divifions and havock of the Church is our calamity : we intended not to dig down the banks 3 or pull up The hedge >and lay all waft and common,when we defired the Prelates Tyraany might ceafe : We prayed for Reformation and peace , and the progrefs of the Gofpel j we fafted, and nfturned, and cryed to God j we waited, and longM for it more then for any wordly poffefljon : Indeed, we over-valued it, and had too fweet thoughts of k 3 as if it had been our Heaven and Reft : Therefore it was ju ft with God to fuffer thefe men to deftroy our hopes ; And if they do root out the Gofpel quite out of England , (as Bullinger faith the Anabaptifts did from Waldfbut where Hubmer was Teacher,) it is juft with God : But yet we hope that they (hall be but our fcourges, and not our utter deftroyers 5 and that God is but teaching us the evill of their Doctrines & Schifms by this experience,which all the teaching elfe in the world would hardly have convinced us of. I have wondered formerly why P<2#/fpeaksfo much againft HereGes and Schifms: and what made even all the primitive Fathers fpend moft of their zeal and painful writings againft Herefies and Errors ? as doth Ignatius, Clemens Alcxand. lrenxus y JuftinZMmyr, Tmufcan, Cyprian , and almoft all 5 When we in thefe days were ready to think thefe tobefcarce fins? But now we begin to know their meaning ; and I can fay as good Dadianus (before mentioned} I nerer knew what Herefie or Schifm was till now. I conclude this with afolemn adjuring of every fober Chriftian that reads thtY, to confider, and again confider, whether it be any whit lively that God would revealc his truth to filch men as tbcfe, and hide it wholly from all the mo(iholy, ^alotis , judicious Reformers ? even from Zinglius and Luther to this very day ( yea,and fufter thofe moft Learned, Godly Divines to be the chief instruments in all times tc opprefs and ex- tinguifh i:, if it had been his Truth ? I do not fay that all this evill followeth only the Anabaptifts ; for other Seer* (efpeciaily the Antmomifts,}' have alto their fharej Butufually Anabaptiftry is the door to all, and the compnmon of all. Mr. T. faith otherstae mifcarryed as well as they^- To which I anfwer* It is too true : But then confider < IJ2 PUm Scripture proof of confider, that the vulgar will be carnall, who are of that Religion which is moft in credit : and that Tome few of the zealoHs have been alway fcandalous : But for fo great a part of the zealous Protefibrs of Religion to mifcarry, and that avowing it, as thefe before mentioned, is a thing that the moft malicious Turk or Paptft could never yet make good of the Orthodox Party. The Lord grant that men may fee how judgement: purfueth the dividing, Church.deftroying Se&s of thefe times, that th-y may not run in blindnefs like ' Balaam } on the drawn Sword. CHAP. XV. Will conclude with a little try all of the ftrength of Mr.T's caufe in point of Antiquity, which indeed in this cafe is of fome moment, not dire&ly to teach us, whether Infants (hould be baptized; but defafto> whether in the times next after the Apoftles they were Baptized or no j which will much help us to know whether the Apoftles did Baptize them. And I alfo build the more on this , becaufe God hath promifed that he will never fail us or forfake us j and Chrift hath prayed that his Church may ty fan&ificd by the truth, Job. 17.17. and promifed that he will be with them alway to the end of the world, OAat. 28.20. And God will teach the meek his way, and reveal Ws fecrets to them that fear him, P/*/. a 1.8,9,1 2. And the Apoftle faith, If fo far as we have attained, we mind the fame things , and walk by the fame Kule',then if in anything we be otherwife minded, God mall reveal even this un- to us' Vhill.x 5. And God faith. That furely he will do nothing, but he reveakth his fecrets to his fervants the Prophets, Amos 3.7. And that we need not that any teach us, but as the fame annoynting teacheth us of all things,and even as it hath taught us we (hall abide in him, 1/^.2.27. And we (hall be all taught of God, Heb. 8. 11. 7/4.59.20 21. And Chrift promifeth to fend the Spirit to teach them all things, Job. 14. 25. and promifeth, That when the Spirit of truth is come, he (hall guide them into all truth,/©/;. 16. 1 3. Now, how all thefe Promifes can be fulfilledjif God have given up his Churches ever fince the Apoftles days into Errors in this point (efpeciaily if it be of fo great moment and confequence as many mak? it,) I cannot underftand. Now that In- fants were baptized ever fince the Apoftles days,as far as the Church hath any currant Hiftory left for her Information, I ihall prove , 1. By producing the Teftimonies 5 2. And then require Mr-T. to (hew where, or when the Church fpoke again ft it ? or when there was ever an Anabaptift in the Church uncondemned > or when Infant- Baptlfm had its beginning ? Yea,or how many he can prove that ever denyed Infant- Baptifm, till the late Reformation in German t And i. for the later Fathers, as Aulhttjiierom, Baft!, the Gregories.Scc I need not mention th.m, AaV.T. will not deny but they were for lnfaiu-Baptifm, and it was then practiced? Infants Church- member fhip and Baptifm. 1 5 j practiced : All the weight lies on the Tcftimonies of their Predcceflbrs. And for Latiantius that lived as BuUinger faith g 20. years after Chrtft, ( though Baronius and Hclviciii fay, he wrote his Inftitutions in extream old age, about the year j 17. and fo was like to live within about 200 years of Chrift, ) he is known to be for us, in jnjiitut.lib 4.cap t <\* And for Cy? rian (who lived as B//iZ/»ger about 255, or rather as HelvtCMS faith, he read Tertulltan being himfelf then £ilhop of Carthage about the year 247. andfo was likely to live within 200. years of Chrift,) he in his Epifl. 50. ad Fi~ dum 3 is known to be openly for it , and a whole Councel in his lime. And they do not mention it as a thing newly begun, but as a granted cafe. And is k likely that the Church in that perfecuced time, when they were fo tenacious of the Apoftles ways, mould within 100. years after S. Johns death, fo fouly forget the Apoftolicall . practice ? Yea, in TcrtuUians time Mr.T. confefTeth it was in pra&ice , (tor he told me TertuUian was the ancienteft that we could alledge for it.) And do we need any more ? TertuUian as Helvicus placeth him, wrot his Book of Prefcriptions about the year 10? .which was about 07. years after the death of S.John t 2nd we cannot imagine that himfelf could be lefs then thirty or forty ; So that by this account he lived about (ixty or feventy after S John (though Pamelius fay he flourished about 200 ann.Dom.) And could the Apoftles practice in fo remarkable a thing be unknown within feventy, or eighty,or a hundred years after their death ? Is it not eafie to know whkher Infants were Baptized in England or no 3 a hundred or two hundred years ago ? And here it was as eafie. As for Origin, others have (hewed out of his Comment on Rom. & Levit. That it was then taken as delivered from the Apoftles. But it is needlefs to infift on •him, as being fomewhat later then TcrtuUianJNon for Mr.T, to expe& any Ancienter Record, is ftrange, when he cannot but know that there are but very, few fmall Books which are of unquftionable credit before TertuUian -, and thofe few are upon other theams. And yet we (hall find fomewhat even from them. And becaufe Mr.T. feemslnhis Apology to put by TcrtuUians Ttftimony , I (hall make it evident that Infant Baptifm was practiced in his time , and that his judgement was for it. And firft^if it had not been then practiced, why {hould he perfwade them not to make haft ? lib.de Bap.cap.%. Cunftatie ittilior, pracipue circa pa,-vulos 3 &c. z. Why (hould he fpeak offponferes elfe rather thtnfufceptores? j.He evidently excepteth the cafe of necefiity 3 that is, when they were in danger of death, when he faith, \_jmon tarn ncceffe, ] as Pa- melus truly expoundeth him. $0 that defaclo (which is all that we enquire after now,) it is evident that Infant-Baptifm was then practiced : And for the queftion de Jure about delay ,1 doubt not TertuUian erred, i.not confidei ing that in Scripture It was ever adminftred at the firft entrance without delay , and yet TertuUian would have even the adult to delay, when himfelf and orher Fathers call Baptifm [Initiation.] 2. And the weaknefs of his reafons are evident. i.Quidenim ncceffe eflfpovfsrcs pcrkulo ingeri, qui & ipjipcr mortalitatem deftitucre promifiiones fuaspojjunt^ & provaitu mdit indolis plli? 2. cQuidftftinat Itmoccns atas ad ' remifiioncmpeccaiomm ? 3- Canines agetur in jccularibiis ut cuifubjlantia tcrrena non creditur 3 divina credatur ? Be not chefe poor reafons ? And yet I believe with Famelius , and many others , that it were only Heathen* children that TertuUian herefpeaks of, becaufe he fpeaks only de fponfon- bus & non de parcntibus j and how could the Sponfors be indangered while there were Parents ? 4, But further, it is evident that TertuUian was for Infant- Baptifm, in that he argues for the neceflity of Baptifm to Salvation , and anfwereth the Arguments to the contrary,/;/?, de bapt.cap.iz. Quum-ucrbprafcribitur nemim fine Baptifmo compiler e JalMttm&S. Now he oft expreffeth himfelf for the falvation of Infants ; and the e- fore mult needs be for their Baptifm, ( The grounds we now flick not on 3 but the X matter 1 54 ?lain Scripture froof ef matter of fad and that it was then in life. ) So lib. 4. adveyf. Marciori.cap.il. Sed ecce Chrislus diligit parvulos, talcs cjfe docem debcre cfuifemper majores vclint r/T^&c. Qua -ucro bonus ( Dcas ) adco diligit parvulos 3 ut apud u£gyptum benefecer'rt obfictriabuj protegentibus partus Habrcos pcricl'tantts ediclo Pbaraems j lta & bxc affMio cbrifii cum creatore eft. Immo nunc Dens Marcimis qui connubium aver fat ur^ qusmodo vidcri potefl- paivulorum dileftor&c. Quifcmcnodit, fruftum qno^ s €xecretur mceffc eft. N* iHefev'w babendus t^Egyptiorege^c. Hence I gather i» That h€ took Infants to be Church -members, which with Mr.T. will infer their Baptifm. Or clfe how could God and Chrift be faid.fo to love them ? 2. That he concludeth the faivation of Infants, and confequemiy their Baptifm, feeing that he took ttaptifm to be of flat neceffity to faivation. As for that lib. de Anima, where he cals fidclium films fanftitatu candi- datos & fanftos tarn ex fem'mis prterogativa^&c. Others have fully ftiewed his opi- nion from it. And whereas Mr. T. i$ rather confirmed he faith, becaufe Cyprian and others al- ledge fuch weak grounds for Jnfant-Baptifm. I anfwer : 1. 1 care not much for their grounds , as to our prefent Difpute, but whether the thing were then in ufe ? And certainly, that a Councel of 66. Biftiops mould determine about it (not men-, stoning it as any new thing) who lived within fome no. or 12c. years of S.John (for fo it will appear) is no fmall confirmation to any impartiall man, that it was the A- poftles pra&ke. 2. And I may better argue againft delay of Baptifm from the weak, nefs of Turtulliani reafons. 5. And Cyprians reafons are not fo filly as is preten- ded? if well weighed h but I will not ftand on that. And though the Books before TcrtuUian be fmall and few that are currant, and meddle not dire&ly to this Queftion, yet their judgement may be gathered plain enough, lrenaus who lived a Bifhop in France in the year 170. according to Helvicus and others, and fo was a Bifhop within 7$. years of S. John, and confequemiy muft needs live within fome 4$. or thereabout of S.John ( for its like he would not be a Bimop much before 30. years old J his Teftimony in that commonly alledged place , feems plain to me ; Lib. 2, adver. haref. cap.if. Magi(ler ergo exifiens , magiftri quo% babebatatatemjton rep-robans nee fupergrediens bominemjicfyfolvens fuam legem in fehumani generis s fed ornnem atatem fonclificans per illam qua ad ipfam erat fimiUtudi- nem. Omnes enim venit per femetipfurn falvare^ omnes inquam qui per eum renafcuntur in t>eum 3 infantes & parvulos & pueros&juvenes &feniores.ldco per omnem venit atatem, & Infant ibus In fans f actus fanclificans Infantes jn parvulis parvulos/anftificans banc ip- fam babentes atatem- &c From thefe words of lrenaus ,it is evident. 1 .Thatlnfants were then taken for Members of the vifibk Church For if that Age be faa&tfied,& the In- fants fan&ified, and if Chrift did of purpofe become an Infant that he might fan&ifie Infants &.fave them,then fure there is nothing in the Age to hinder them from being yifible Church-members : Nay, they are actually fuch .* For what can be faid more of any, but that they are fan&ified, and that Chrift became of the fame Age to fan&ifje theirs ? If any fay : that this is meant of intcrnall reall fan&ificationonly 5 I anfwer; 1. That cannot be, for he fpeaks of Chrift* fanftifymg the very Species or Age, by becomming of that Age ; And 2. Then according to their Expofition of Renafcuntur , k mould be but a tautology, q. d. [he fan&tfieth all that are fan&iiied, or new born.] 3. And the word [fanctifie,] will be feldom (if at all) found to be ufed for a meer Infufkm of the Seed of Grace without any actuall holinefs : But for a Relative feparation to Godj it is moft frequently ufed. 41 However* this was a fanctification which was known to the Church,or elfe how^ould lrenaus fpeak of it ? and if it were known that fome were fcn&iSed, the very Age of Infancy being fan&ified/then there are Infants Church-member flip and Baptifm. 155 are certainly fome Individuals whom the Church is bdtpd to judge to be probably fuch, and tcrreceive as fuch : For to fay that Chrift by being an Infant hathiandified Infancy and Infantsr,and yet there are no Infants in the world whom we are bound to judge probably fandified, and to receive as fuch, is a contradiction. Nor will it follow that then all Infants are fandified : No more then that all the Parvuh & Juvcncs, though Chrift became Pa; vulus & Juvems to fandifie them. And for Mr. T. his faying, that A judgement of Charity is no ground to waft by in this; I have fully anfwered it before. x. And further, as it is hence evident, that Infants were then taken for fandified, and fo for Church- members (as Infants among the Jews were,) fo alfo exp^cfly that they were Baptized : For in Jufiin Martyr y Tertulllan^ and all the firft Writers then, Renafci is an ordinary term to fignifie Baptixjri : Nor do either the words or fcope of Iroums here lhew his meaning to be otherwife, for all that Mr.T. faith. For as his fcope is to (hew that Chrift went through all Ages to fandifiefome of all, and Infants among the reft, fo here he puts this in to mew who thofe fome were, that we might not think he meant all of every Age ; And Baptifm is the Cognizance by which he would have us difcern them. And [per eum^ ] may be meant [by his command,] or [by him, as the way to the Father,] feeing they were Baptized into the name of the Fa- ther, Son, and holy Ghoft. The truth is, Rcnafcentia is not ufed by the Fathers ordi- narily, fo far as I remember, for either meer Baptifm, or meer regeneration ; but for Baptifm as fi°nifying Regeneration (or as many thought,efTeding it,) or Regenera- tion as (ignified (given) by Baptifm. For thofe that they judged probably Regene- rate (or to be fitted for it,) rhey Baptized 5 and thofe that were Baptized they cailed Regenerate. So that calling Infants Regenerate, was a certain fign , according to the language of the Amienrs , that they were Baptized. For Mr.T. can never (hew (I think) where they called any Regenerate, that were not Baptized, or fit to be Bap- tized. The reft of Mr. T$ exceptions againil Irenoeus > Mr. Mar(haU hath an- fwered. r The next Teftimony which I will produce , is from $uftin Martyr 3 who lived in all likelihood in S. Johns days, (and therefore could not be ignorant of the Apoftles pra&iceinthis:) For he was a Philofopher , and converted to Chrift ianity in the year of Lord ntf.and wrote his firft Apology i$o.as Helvicus from his own Tefti- mony gathereth •' And therefore if he were a converted Philofopher before thirty years of age, or thereabout, it is ftrange : (And S.John dyed,anno 98. ) Scultetus faith, he ftourilhed 140. Par*us,th*t he was beheaded 168. You cannot exped that he mould ipeak exprefly to the point, both becaufe he is brief, and treateth on other Theams, to which this did not belong, and becaufe the Church then living among Heathens, had fo much to do in converting and baptizing the aged, that they had little occafion to treat about children, efpecially it being a point not controverted.but taken for granted by.the Chriftians, who knew Gods dealings with the Jews Church,that children were Members with the converted Parents j efpeciaily when the very Gentiles children were Members before Chrift j and it was the Jews that were in part broken off, but no talk in Scripture of Breaking off the Gentiles or their children: (\( there be, Mr.T. would do well to fhew it better then yet he hath done, if he mean to fatisfie men with Scripture, and not with his own naked affirmations.) Yet doth Jufiin give us fuch hints, by which his judgement and the practice of the Church in thofe days may be difcerned. The commonly alledged place in Refponf.Quefi. 56". ad Orthodox. I will not infift on, becaufe though the place be moft exprefs for Infant Baptifm, and the Book ancient , yet it is either fpurious or interpolate. 1 have not the Greek X a Copy 156 Plain Scripture proof of Copy now at hand, andtWeibre muft 'ufe Tranflations. In his Dialogue with Trypbon, part, z-Propof. 3 . he faith (according to Gelenius Tranflation.) Nos arte qui hujus ope ad Deum accefiimusjion carnalem iftam Circumcifioncm a(pumpfimus 3 fed fpiritu- alcm Mam quam Enoch & [males obfervaverunt : Hanc nos per baptifma } uipote peccaiores natiji Deo miferante accepimm > earn tket omnibus fimilitcr accipere. Or as Scultelus iranflates.it. Pofic zquam vero per Chriftum aditum ad Deum natlifumus> non carnalem [ufcepimus circumcifiomm^fedfpiritualem, quam Enoch & fimiles cuftodierunt. Earn verb nos per Rapt if mum, quiaXoquidem peccaiores fuerimus , propter mifericordiam ipfius Dei accepimus: Omnibuffj adeo Mam ex aquo accipere integrum e/2.Now if i.this be the way by which the heait-circumciiion is received,that is,by Baptifm, then furethey did Bap- tize Infants. For they knew that Infants had the Premife of that heart-circumcifion, Deut.$o.<) ) 6tf.8£c 2. And if All might receive it, even fo as they, (which by was Bap- tifm,)then furethe fort of Infants muft be part of that AH, and not wholly excluded. Again, in the fame Dialogue Juftin faith , Sic & praceptum Circumcifionk qua ab omnibus nupe-r natis cxigitur oclavo die, figura erat vera Circumcifionis , &c. This is but a leaf before the other 5 and fo he maks it plain, that the heart- circumcilion which he before faid they received, by Baptifaijand All might even fo receive as well as they, is it which fucceeds this Circumcifing of children the eighth day , and fo children are part of the All that many receive it. And therefore a few lines after he going on with thisjn expounding a faying of ifaiahyhithiQuoi autem dicitur pluralita Annunciamus y in confpcclu cjus y ac mox fingularitcr, Vt pueri, fignificat mu'tos converfos a malitiaper 0- bedienUm feciffe iwperata illius, atj. s ita univerfos faftos tanquam unum puerum : Jicut videre licet in corpore cum multa membra numerentur, &c. And if the whole Church be> made of God as one child, and fo called , then fure they did think that children were not themfelves excluded from being Members of that Church; Again, juftin makes Baptifm to be the only way to Remiflion of fin, and falvation ; and he judgeth that Infants are forgiven and faved > therefore he judgeth • that they muft be baptized. The former he lays down a little after the forecited place; Studendum eft ut cognofcatis viam remifiionis peccatorumfo fpem hareditatis promijforum honor um-jn nulla eft enim alia, prater hancjiagnito hoc Cbri(lo y abluti in remifiionempecca- torum lav mo ab Efaiapredicato, fine peccatis vivatis inpofterum. Its true, as fpeaking , to the adult, he )oyntth agnition of Chrift, which all are not capable of 3 butaddeth Baptifm which Infants are capable of. So in Apolog. a. Renafcuntur modo renafcendi quo & nos renatijumus 1 nam in nomine Patris omnium dominie^ Dei y & fervatoris noflri Jcfu Cbrifti & fpiritus fancli in aqua tunc lavmtur : dixit enim Chiftus ipfe, Nifi renati • fueritis, non intrabitis in regnum calorum. So that he thought Baptifm neceflary to falvation; And a littleafter: Ad quod (alimentum Euchariflia) nifi qui credit veram effe noftmm dottrinam, ablutus regenerations lavacro in Rcmifiionem peccato?im,& tie vivens ut-Chr'iftus docuit,hnd a little before he giveth it as one reafon why they muft be bap- tized for the obtaining .of Remiflion of fins ; Quoniam prima nativitas ncc fcientibus nee volentibus nobis obvenit ex complexu parentum ,&c And that he judged Infants to be pardoned and faved, is undoubted , from what is alledged before. AndEpift. ad Ze- nam. Oportet autem pueros attendere, talium enim efl regnum calorum. And if he thought that they belonged to Heaven , fure he thought they belonged to the vifible Church. Fori hope Mr.T. will not fay that Juftin by [fuch] did mean only humble oerfons of Age, as excluding children , (as Chrifts words ate ufuaily abufed.) For this would have been a ft range reafon for Jufiin to urge Mothers to look to their children, becaufe of humble perfons at age is the Kingdom of Heaven. So in Diabgp cumTryphoW) he fahh^ Nam ffifj merfationes illas inutile s qua in pife'mis Infants Chttrcb-memberjhip and Baptifm. ijy pi f tin' 1 * & aquis puteaiibus fiunt, reclpiunt : Nihil funt cnim collate ad hoc v'UtelavU" crum&cc. Vos imarne circumcifi opus habctis noftra circumcifione 3 8zc. Whence I gather, i. That he took Baptifm to fucceed Circumcifion (as the Anycients generally did:) 2. That he took Baptifm to be the ordinary enterance or way to Life and Salvation, in that he cals ic the Uver of Life ; and therefore doubtlefs took it to belong to Infants whom he judged before to belong to the Kingdom of Heaven, g. And he thinks thofe that were circumcifed in the flefti mould ufe our Circumcifion, that is, the lavec of Life before mentioned : But Infants were Circumcifed in the flefh, and therefore it is Infants alfo that he would have to be Baptized, For the latter Fathers, I need not to produce their judgements in thisCiufe :It will be eafily confeffed fure that all after Tcrtullian and Cyprian were for Infant- Baptifm. Vofcus in Thef. and Pamclius in his Annotations on Cyprian, and on Tey- tuUtan de Baptif. and many more will direct you to proof enough of this. 2.TN the next place therefore I fhall defire from ZMr> T. againft the next, fome proof •lout of the Antients,againft the Baptizing of Infants^ as good as we have brought for it : And when it firft begun ? Or } who did oppofe i: for many hundred years ? He thinks it crept in among other corruptions : I think contrarily$ that the delay of Baptifm which Conftantine and fome others were guilty of, did creep, in among other corruptions , and was grounded on the falfe doctrine of thofe Hereticks that denyed forgivenefs of fin to thofe that .fell after Baptifm , which affrighted poor people from that fpeedy ufe of it which the Scripture prefcribeth. He thinketh the worfe of it , becaufe it is pleaded by Origcn as a Tradition from the Apoftles , I think very much the better of it, both becaufe it the more fully refolveththe Queft ion concerning the matter of Fad, and Apoftelicall Cuftom,and fliews that it was no late Invention or Innovation $ and the Fathers then took not the word Tradition in the Popilh fence for that which hath been delivered in doctrine from Age to Age above what is delivered in Scripture,as to fupply the fuppofed defect of the word: But for the very written Word 'it felf, by which the Apoftles delivered the Truth, and for their Examples,and the report of it , and of fome other paflages, efpecially in matter of Fact, tending only to the explication of their Doftrines, and not to the adding of new Doctrines , as if the former were defective. Formy part,in my fmall reading, I cannot find that any one Divine or party of men certainly oppofed or denyed Infant-Baptifm for many hundred years after Chrift. The Pelagians in Aujiins days were accufed of it, but how }u ft ly, though, Hereticks,I cannot tell; Anabaptifm I find condemned,but not the denyal of Infant- 3'aptifm-, inEufebius^ even Cyprian that Mr.t. thinks was the fpring of Infant Baptifm i (or the Councell he mentioneth) is called an Anabaptift for defiring and urging the Re-baptizing of thofe that were Baptized by Hereticks: The like kind of Anabaptifm NicephorusJib.i7^2^.$Azi(hiht Synod of Conjlantinople condemned one Scverus Petrus-, and Zoeras for ; but no other that I findc. But5W/'.T. will prove that there were fome that denyed Infant-Baptifm 500. years ago j and that out of Bernards 66.. Serm.in Cant, a faying which he ftands much on , and putteth it in the, Front ifpeece of his Exercitation y that all Learned men may fee how little verity is in his Caufe that muft be upheld by iuch dealings the faying, is this, brident nos quia bapti^mus Infantes , quod or am us pro mortuis } quod fantlorum fuffragiapo(iulamus : So the like out of Bernards i40,EpUt. And from Petrus Cluniacenfis. And here, though I would fain believe that <$, T, his. Conference .is not fa . X 3 depraved. 158 rla ; n Scripture proof of depraved as his judgement , yer I cannot tell how ro defend either the tenderncfs of his Confcience, or common ingenuity againl* th§ force of this .plain Teftimony againft him 5 if any man hence gather, that he is a man that will itrike in. wkh any party, or take up any the falfeft fhnder , to defend his Caufe with, I know not how to confute him. For I dare not think but Mi .T. his reading is far more then mine 5 and confequently, that he is not ignorant, that thcfe fuppofed Hereticks that Birnatd & Clumaccnfu did thus accufejwere Henncus and t:ter kruis the tirft great Preachers of the Alblgcnfcs and nhildcnfes, and that their Accufers v/ere Papifts, and Cluniacenfls a railing lying Abbot, laying many other falfe charge* againft them , and confeilitig he took them upon report 3 and though Bernard were d-^Yout, yet a Popiih Abbot,and took up this with other faifeaccufations agaiaft them (as tilt they wereManicbees) up- on lying fame: And chat (jus Mr. Mar [ball hath truly tola mm.) ihzAlbigcnfcs & waldcn^ fes own writings and confeflions mentioned by vfber , Hrocdm- the Aiagdebwgeni'es, Baltaiyr Lydius y 8(.c- do acquit them from this falfe accusation. And if Mr.T. had been glad to rake up fuch lying accufation agaicft che Saints of God/or the furthering of his Caufe, and to ftrike In with the Accufer of the Brethren, he might have found more of the like flinders and lies, if he had read Albert us de Capitaneis of che Origi- nall of the Valdois. R.unerius de forma bareticandi harUicos: <& fiimnu. Claud. Rub'it Hiftor.Lugdun. &c. Where he might have found thefe godly Reformers to be accufed of many Hereiies,and to be R.ibalds,Buggerers, Sorcerers (as Bernard aKo t9& much doth) and all as truly as to be againft Infant -Baptifm. Yet that it may appear that fome Papifts, yea, a Pope himfelf dealeth more confcionably and honeitly, then Mr.T. with them, you may finde that many of thofe their bitter A dver far ks do free them from thofe falfe Accufations. Rainerius himfelf mentioneth them as reported to have continued from the Apoftles days, and frceth them of many falfe Accufations .* And fo doth Baronius 3 an.117Z.vol.1z.art.ij.z1, And Jacobin de Riberia in CeHeci. de urbe Tholof. giveth them high commendations, and doth not charge them with this : Yea, 7{aineriits when he reporteth their Do&rine maIicioufly,yet chargeth them in point of Baptifm but that they would not hive it adminftred in an unknown tongue, becaufe the Godfathers underftood not what they anfwered or promifed a Is it not hence plain that they were for Infant. Baptifm ? And ^€neas Sylvius, after- ward Pope Pius the Second, in bifior B0bem.cap.3y. reporteth all their Doctrines,and in particular about Baptifm, and never chargeth them with denying Infant Baptifm, but only that they would have Baptifm done with common water without the mixture of Oyl ; And would not he that fearched rhemfo narrowly have mentioned more if they had held more ? And Frederick the Second, in his Decrees againft therr^ did never charg- them wi:h any fuch thing,as appears in the Epiftles of Peter de Vmeis 3 his Chancellor, [b.\..cap.z% z6, 17. Many more Authors, both Protectants and Pa- pifts that Vindicate 'he A 'higenfes zad tfaldmfes from the forefaid flinders, you may feeinP/z«/.Prm«'sHiftoryofthem, and in the Lord du Plep:s My ftery of Iniquity and others. I wdl only add what they fay themfelves of their own belief in the point of Infant-Baptifm. In their Book called The [pir'ituall Almanack Jol. 4?. they fay againft this {Under : The time and place of thofe that are to be Baptized is not ordained , but the Charity and Edification of the Church and Congregation muft ferve for a Rule herein &c. And therefore they to whom the children were neareft ailyed brought their Infants to be Baptized, as their Parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind True it is that being cenftrained for fome certain hundred years ^ofufFer their chiidren to be Baptized by the Priefts of the Church 01 Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could poflibly, becaufe tbey had Infants Church -member frif and Baptifm. 159 had in deteftation thofe humane inventions which were added to that hoJy Sacrament, which they held to be but pollutions thereof. And forafmuch as their Paftors were many times abroad,imployed in the fervice of the Churches , they could not have the Sacrament of Baptifm adminiftred to their Infants by their own Minifters > for this Caufe they kept them long from Baptifm, which the Priefts perceiving, and taking notice of, charged them hereupon with this impofture , which not only their Advcr- faries have believed, but divers others who well approved of their life and faith in all * Thus vcu fee what cccafioned the Papifts to flander the WMenfes, as being againft Infant -Baptifm and their own Vindication. So in a Confetti on of their Fahhabout the Sacraments in Vermis Hiftory./^.i.of £ff*|4*ft. they have thefe words. And whereas Baptifm is adminiftred in a full Congregation of the Fr.ithfull , it is to the end that he that is received into the Church , mould be reputed and held of all for a Church brother, and that all the Congregation might pray for him, that he maybe a Chriftian in heart, as he is outwardly efteemed to be a Chriftian. And for this caufe it is , that we prefent our children in Baptifm, which they ought to do to whom the children are neareft, as their Parents , and they to whom God hath given this Now "afcerall thefe clear Vindications of thefe godly men from the malicious Ac- cufations of the Monks and Fryers , who would have thought that fuch a man as Mr.T or any other Proteftant that hath any profeflion of Confcientioufnefs, lhotdd ever darefo openly to make the world believe that the malicious Papifts fpeak truth in accu(in<* thefe men ? and that all our Divines Vindication of them is falfe ? Yea, and that their own Vindication of their own Faith is falfe ? and all this to have fome- what to fay for his own Caufe. What a caufe is it that muft be thus defended ? Why may not Mr.T. as well itrike in with Cope's and others Teftimony againft our Book of Martyrs, or with the Papifts in their other foul Iks and flanders againft Lu- tbcr,Calvm>Bc'y,Zti?ngl!US)&c. as well as he doth here ? Nay,would not this make the world believe that all other the Papifts flanders of the Waldenfes, fas to bcAmans, MdHiffattjWitcheSjBuggererSj&c.) were ttue,as well as this > For if the Papifts Te- ftimonies be better then ours,yea or the mens own in one thing, why not in another ? But yet worft of all is this, in that, when Mr. Marfhall in his Defence had faid enough one would think to have convinced Mr.T, of the horrible foulnefs of this dealing, yet he goes on in it, and publikely in the Pulpit in his VdcdiBory Oration to the People of Btwdeley (only againft me,) did with mighty confidence repeat the fame paflages out of Bernard and CLuniaccnfis. He that dare do thus, what dare he not do ? and what Teftimony will he not think valid, that will leant on fuch as thefe ? and how fmall a matter will fatisfie him that will take up with this ? and upon fuch like grounds , dare venture his life yet upon the truth of hjs Caufe ? I pray God con- vince him j for bare evidence and realon, and Scripture will never do it, while fuch reafoning as this feems facisfaftory or honeft. For the reft, he faith about Antiquity, and the Teftimony of miftaken Strabo and Vivesy I refer you to Mr, Mar(h*js funicknt anfwer;. Haying 160 Plain Scripture f roof of HAving thus to the fatisfa&ion of my own foul, difcovered the duty of admitting Infants into the Vifible Church by Baptifm , and the (infulnefs of denying them this admittance, I would here have concluded with a ferious advice to all men that have any fear of God and tendernefs of Confcience left, to take heed of running into fuchhainous and manifold guilt as the moft lie under that are our Oppofers in this point 3 or if they are already under it, to bewaile it, and feek to get out. And here I had prepared to (hew twenty particular hainous fins, which they are guilty of. But my time will not permit me to be fo large, and men that feem godly love not to hear of their faults. Only thus in brief. Moft that turn Anabaptifts pretend only tendernefs of Confcience, which if it be true> me thinks they mould make confcience of all thofe grievous evils that they run into. Befides thofe which I mentioned in the beginning,me thinks it mould lie heavie on a tender Confcience, to add to Gods Word, to affirm the repeal of his Ordinances which no Scripture affirmeth - y to fay he hath revoked his mercies when they cannot prove it 5 to put fuch a fcorn upon the moft high God, as to fay he hath revoked his mercies in mercy witnout giving any greater or other mercy in ftead of it j and that It is in mercy to the Church and Parents to have their children all out of the vifible Church, and to have this Ordinance and mercy revoked, though it be no mercy to the children j As if Infants were fuch creatures that it is a mercy to the whole Church to have them all kept out ; Thus to deprave and pervert the Sacred Scriptures,- againft the minde of the Holy Ghoft : To teach falfe Doctrine : To defile the Church, and make work for more Reformation : To break the Second Commandment by taking down a part of the Ordinances of Chrift ; To corrupt their own and other mens un- derftandings :To draw poor fouls into error,\vhom they cannot recover again .\To run upon a way that God witnefftth againft from Heaven : To be guilty of the Churches dolefull Divifions j and the great grief that hereby oppiefleth the hearts of the godly 5 and efpecially the faithfull Miniftry : To hinder the ialvation of multitudes of fouls, by being fuch a fcandall to them, and ufualiy by vilifying a painfull Miniftry that fliould do them good, and doing more to the difgrace of them, and fo to the hindering of the Gcfpe.1 then the prophaneft fcorners ; To vilifie Gods Ordinances and fcorn them, as moft of them do by Infant.Baptifm : To hinder the blefied work of Refor- mation, and fo help to deftroy the hopes of fc many thoufand Chriftians : To open the mouths and harden the hearts of the Enemies , and make them fay of the godly, You fee what they will come to arlaA : To life up themfelves in the pride of their hearts, and cenfure (if not un- Church) all the Churches of Chtift,fince the times of the Apoftles, or almoft all : To difcouragc godly Magiftr2tes,and bring them into fuch a fnare that they know not what to do ; If they reftrain thefe men , they are afraid of perfecuting or being injurious to men for fuch differences 3 if they do not, they are afraid of being guilty of all this evill : To wafte fo much pretious time, in thefe Difputes and vain Jangiings, which fhould be fpent in helping one another to Heaven 5 contrary to Rom.14 1. it/w.i.^i & *• 3,4- T^. J 8,9. withmany more the like fins: O what tender confcience can bear them? much kfs rafhly and violently ru(h into all this guilt? And all this upolMio neceflity. What is it that they fo earneftly ftrive for ? but to prove that their own children are all out oi Chrifts vifible Church ? And what excellency is in that conclufion if iKwere rrue,that (o mould make men break the Churches peace to vindicate it ? M.T. ^onfefieth that if they oueht Infants Church-?nemberjhip and Baptifm. \6i ought to be admitted Church- members , they ought to be Baptized. So that all the Queftion is y whether they ought to be admitted vilible Church- members ? And is it not a dolefull cafe that any Chriftians ftiould be (o xealous to difpute their own children out of Chrifts Church ? and to plead that rhey have no right to be admitted Members ? that they arc no Difcjples of Chrift 5 and fo no Chriftians ? Can none be found in Earth or Hell to do iuch an office againft our children , but Chriftian Parents themfelves ? Doth Mr. T. take it fo ill , that I call this the Devils part ? I mall (hew you now that it is far worfe then the Devils part. I fpeak foberly, with- out paflion ; I believe it h materially far worfe. I conclude in the words of holy, ' judicious, peaceable- Micfanclbon, (who as Mr.T. would fain make the world believe, was inclined in this to the Anabaptifts, ) as they are cited by Conradm Bcrgim in kk moil excellent Pacificatory ( though hitherto much unfuccefsfull, ) Trcatife, called Praxis Catbol. Divini Canonis Viffcrt. 2. pag.&H. Ita n&s pronwiciamtu- dc baptifm* Infantium. Habemus tejiimonia in Scrip turn manifefla qua affirmant , extra Ecclefiam ncn e(fe falutem : Ergd inferimm Ecclefia Infantes. De'mde & prima Ecclejue teftimonm juvamur. Ita Judex eft vcrbum Dei, & acceditpura antiquitatu confcflio. Mclancl, in Corp. deSrina edit. Argenior. 1 580. p. 479 ie. So we pronounce of the Baptifm of Infants : We have in the Scriptures manifeft Teftimonies which affirm,that out of the Church there is no falvation •* Therefore we ingraff Infants into the Church .♦ And then we are helped by the Teftimonies of the firft Church, So the Word of God is the judge and the confeflfion of pure Antiquity is alfo added. The Lord Jefus, who being yet an Infant was Head of the Church, forgive mens contefting againft their Infants membermip,and himfelf vindicate their priviledges ,' that they may befuflfered to come to him, and not forbidden, becaufe of fuebit the Yjngdem ef Heaven. And the lord recover all his own that ar« fallen into this de- ceitfull error, and deliver his poor Church from the mifchiefs that it.hath already brought, and is yet bringing on it. Amen. Camero in Difputatione cum Courcellio,referentc P. f eftardo. fiuodidlt camera Infantes fervdri ut appendices parentum 3 ad fozluApertineMes. ^^Quol *t MuJlraret^AriJlotelem adduxit in Ethicis difputantem^n Infantes Civium ejufdctn CivitatU Cives did & cenferi debeant? ac Civium privelcgiU fruiycum Civet vut- go cenfeantur 11 tantum qui Principi fidelitatis fufijurandum prafliterunt, aut certis of- ficiis erga Civitatem velprincipem defunmitur , qua nondum valent per atatempraflarc Infantes? Qua difficultateficfe expedit^ut dicat,Civium Infantes effe a^^SivT^^oc eft, wluti appendices quafdam Parpitum, & reputati Cives , quia cum ex civibm nati fint, iamdiu Cives in benefcio emfentur ^quamdiu opere &faftis eofenonprodiderunt indigios* Exemplum ad remfic auommodavit Comer o,ut dicer etjnf antes par iter fide Hum parent urn effe G&si^rivnVtac in faierc cenferi, quia nafcuntur inter feeder atos.cx feeder atisi *c proinde tamdiu baberi pro fcederatis quamdiu ipfimet fosdus non deferunt, &patiam Chrijli qua eft fade; is fundamentum per incredulitatem non rejiciunt, quodnifi adulti facere non pof.tnt. Ita% ft meriantur antequam ad atatcm pcrvener'mt in qua pofimt bonum a. malo difcerneye y eodem loco a deo baberi acfi credidijfenhpreindeftfatvarh If you would fee more of the probability of the perifhing of all Infants without die vifible Chinch, and of the true Expofition of 1 Ur.7.14. and the dole* X rence \6% Plain Scripture proof ef rcncc between Holinefs Typical and Real, and that Relative or by Renova- tion, and the true meaning of the Promife in the Second Commandment, with more of this fubjed, Readout the reft of that Difputation. Iknow4>y what Afr.7*.hath borrowed concerning y'tvcs 3 Strabo,&c.\tizt he is not un- acquainted with theTeftimoaies Y/hichfoflius bringeth for Infant- Baptifm,not on* ly out oiHierom,Auflin 3 Pauliws i Tbeodoiret i Concil.MelevaGe'fundenC.& Bracacenf.&c. bat alfo from lertnu* 3 Origcn>Cypriant Tertul. Na^ian^ I will therefore pafs them over: And what Grotius hath in his Annotations^ ith which I fee alfoAf.Tis acquaiated.To which it were ealie to add manyTeftimonies gathered by others,as Pamelim in Cyprian, Joan Arboreus mTheofopb.lib.i. cap.%.9. Bullmger in Dialog, Vigucr. Inftitut.cap.i6, fol.i$6.E. Calvin, Chamier B Zancbiui 3 with many more. And the Fathers Argu- ments from the Remiflion of fin,and falvation of Infants (ufed alfo by (olid modern Divines, as Cbemnit.Examen.Concil Tridcnt.part. z .pag. (mihi) 86\ 87. and others,) are not fo light as fome judge them- And BafUs many Arguments (m concione exbortator. ad Baptifmum) againft delaying Baptifmj are of coniiderable weight to Infants as well as the aged , it being once proved that they are Dilciplcs > Church membess, or Chriftians. Though I know many of the Fathers placed too great a neceflity in Baptifm (as appears by Greg. • Nyjfens Arguments in Oratione Catecbet. cap. 3 3 ,3 4, 3 ?. Ter tuition ltb.de Baptifmo,) (yet that it was not generally taken for absolutely neceflary 5 fee Arboreus proving out of Au[iin i Amb'rofe 3 Cyprian 3l &c») Yet it was warrantable which they generally held , that where it might be had, it was Gods ordinary way of Re- miffion and Salvation, and fo far neceflary ; So that according to the generail Do- ftrine of the Fathers, he that will fay they were againft Infants Baptifm , muft needs fay alfo they were againft their falvation Vid,Vo$ium de Bapt.dift). 1 Tbefi.pag.$4z> 343,344 Thence the Fathers called it Baptifmus flummis>inveflitura cbrifliamfm'h Sacramentum nova vitcc i ^oytvvmi*fLV*fyvnoia.iSicAugu{lin.(depeecat.me , f.& remif. contra Pelag.c 24) Optime Punici Cbriftiani Bapiifmum nibil aliud quam Salutem njocant. Vnde? nifiexantiquautexifiimo&Apoflolica Trtditione. AndD.Cafaubon Exerc.\6. ad Aymai.Baroniiy pdg.417 . Invenias & Bapiifmum in fcriptis antiquorum appellari\itzm.& pag^6^. paTiajxct, Mutmnationcm. And Lutber calsk (referente L> Crocio) Puerperom regni calorum And many Scriptures hint the like 3 £/>/;.f .a6.Ti/.$. %.Han.i6 t \6. Ac r t.^t.& 21.16.8cc Therefore ^Parl^er de Defcenfu Cbri{ti,Ub.4. pag.iS. mews that Credo unum Baptifma, h&bebatur olim in quibufdam Symbolis : & Baptifmus Cbrifii olim ey at inter articulos Fidei } p.i7. &c. So that doubtlefs this being the Fathers judgement in generaljhe that can prove out of them (as I have done out of Juftmey and TertuUiau) that they judged Infants were ordinarily faved, doth thereby prove (if there were no more) that in their time, they were Baptized. Of the ordina- ry falvation of Infants by vertue of the Covenantee the fentence of Junius (too large to transcribe,) inlib.de Nat. & Grot.ad rat. 28. referente etiam DoClif Conrad. Bcrgio in Praxi CathoU Canon, Ditfert. 6. Ssft. 1 7 i$ag 8 47. 848 . AN A N S A T W E R M r . Tombes HIS Valedidtory Oration to the People o£ < BEJV c DELSY: In Vindication of the fifth Direction, which I give my Hearers of t^ederminfier, in the Preface of my Book, Entituled The Saints Bverlafting Reft. WITH A brief Confutation of fix more of Mr. T* Errors. AND A Corre&ive for his Antidote, and Confutation- SERMON. Being the third Part of this Treatife. Extorted unavoidably, from one that abhorreth Divifion and contention , and bendeth his prayers and ftudies for the Peace of the Church. Rom. 1 6. 17,18 ibefccchyou Brethren* mar\ them which caufe divifions and offences con- trary to the doclrine which ye have learned y and avoid them. For they that arc [uch> ferve not our Lord Jefm Chrift, but their srvn belly, and by good av^rds and fair jpo.ches deceive the hearts ofthefimple. Rom. 14. 1. Him that is wea\ in the faith receive you ; but not to doubtfulldifputations. Lendon^ Printed AnnoDomJi 65 1 . Infants Churcb-memberjhif and Baptifm, i*J mmmMMB^HM^UMM Mr. T. Should have faid little more, had not an unexpected occafion en- forced me to add fome thing further -, the loft Lords day hand- ling the point of Here fa , becaufe 1 {new there were not a few in- temperate Spirits, that were ready to cenfure the holding of that Dohrine that I have taught ; [of denying Infant.Baptifm to be lawfully ] to be Here fie ; I did therefore the laft Lords day abun- dantly (as I fuppofe ) \clear my felf a and thofe that hold that which I conceive truth , and do yet affure my f elf it is truth* far from holding any Here jie. But it feems others theyfiic\ not to reckon them that deny Baptising of Infants mo(i Hercticall : and the next day after unexpectedly I lighted upon a Book of my Neighbour Mr.Richard Baxters making, to which he hath prefixed a Preface, or an Epifile Dedicatory to his Neighbours of Kederminfter , in which he commends to them ten Direftions, in the fifth of which, after a very (hort touch upon Antinomianifm, Socinianifm 3 Arminianifm,Separation 3 Jndependency 9 he then pes out upon the Anabaptifts, whom he cals Hereticfaand meddles with fomewhat more fully t and particularly names me y and reckons me among them whom he calls Heretics, as any man may eafily perceive, that if he did not lay at me only, yet mainly, andfo it feems it is ta\en ; and accordingly that faff age hath been had up in pubU\$ by the Parfon of your Pari(h the lafi Lords day: and Per- fons are grown infolent in their jpeeches upon it. And I cannot but obferve it to be only ufed 9 partly to ma\e me mo-re odious , or contemptible to you, and partly to divide your ajfefiions from me j and it is not unli\ely to be the beginning of a Schifm^ or rent amongyou j and it is lively to be injurious to me throughout the whole Xjngdom* R. B. l\ R, I am forry that your Spirit (hould be fo moved at thofe few lines in my Preface, as I underftand it was : I folemnly profefs, that I neither then was , nor to this day am confeious to my felfof any Paffion towards you, but only ofcompaflion for your exceeding liigh and paflionate difpofition,and that you (hould be an inftrument of fo much hurt in the Church of God, who otherwife might have done much good. Me thinks that ordinary ingenuity might have reftrained your paflion : You know it was not in any caufe of my own that I fpake 5 It is the Caufe of God and his Church,.* in which as no man mould dare to mifcarry by intemperance/o no man ought to frees or be remifs. I hate both ignorant violence, and lukewarmnefs. Sir, I can fay (what ever you accufe me of,) Before him that knoweth my heart, that I know my own heart , I bear you no more ill will then I do the neareft friend I have ; but heartily long that God would recover you from the Yi fnare, J 66 Plain Scripture proof of fnare, ( though I confefs my hopes do now much languish ;) and that it was the mecr enforcements of Confcience that caufed me to write thofe words. Sir, I am as a dying man ('being almoft confumed,) my people of i^ederminfler are very dear to me ; My affections to them,and theirs to me are very ftrong ; I have laboured much among them, and God hath given me that fuccefs which binds me to be everlaftingly thankful! to God, and to be very tender of them. And (hould I betray their fouls after all this by my filence, for fear of difpleafing you ? You know I take your Opi- nion to bean error ; and its confequences to be dangerous ; Are you angry at this j will you be angry with all that are not of your Opinion ? And I wrote thofe Directi- ons to them as my dying counfell, that they might have 'fomewhat to preferve them,' and might be minded of the fnare when I am gone : Had I not fpoke now, for ought 1 know I might never have fpoke fo more. And do you take your felf to be fo bound In confcience to Preach fo many Sermons together againft Infant Baptifm ? and may not Lwritea few lines to defend them againft the Infection of your Doctrine ? If the plague were at Bewdeley , had not Ifyderminfler need to watch ? when our Pariih joyneth to your Town, and our converfe 2s fo frequent ? You know or might do, that I meddle not with you in the Pulpit ( nor ever did in my life, though you wrote to me that you were informed that I had often girds at you : which is a notorious falf, hood .* So well have you taught your few Dilciples to fpeak truth: ) And may I nei- ther in Pulpit nor Prefs fpeak any thing againft your minde ? All that I was wont to difpute with about Liberty of Confcience, would grant a liberty to fpeak againft error, though not to ufe force againft it. And by how many Letters, and Mefleagers, and Sermons have you urged me, and called upon me to write ? and are you now fo angry at a few lines ? If I have offended 3 it is againft my will, for it is without my knowledge > and no one hath fo much caufe to be troubled at it as my felf j foe if it be evill, it is unconceivably more injurious to my own foul then to you. I am- drawing apace to the time of my account. Truly Sir, without vanity I may al- moft challenge you to name a man that hath proceeded lefs rafhly and more caute- loufly in this point of Infaat-Baptifm then my felf j I never yet Baptized but two m my life ; and thofe were children of godly Parents, which is near eleven or twelve years ago. I had prefently after Come doubts about it, and I endevoured to get them refolved as impartially as I could 5 while I have been fearching, I have forborn the practice till this day -, I have heard all that I could hear agairtft it in Army and Coun» trey; I have read all that I could gee againft it : And though I have been long fatisfied, yet becaufe I was to be your Neighbour^and you were judged the moft able that way, 1 was wiHing to hear the utmoft that could befaid before I practiced. And though I ftronned Difputes of this nature as much as I could, yet when ycu had forced me to It, I entertained it with much difadvantage 5 for a man of my extream weaknefs of body, and weaknefs in Learning, and unread inefs offpeech oft-times to Difpute be- fore thoufands of people, and fome thirty Minifters and Schollars with a B. of Divi- nity of fo long (landing, and fo perfectly verft in this Controverlfe, having written againft, and flighted far abler men then my felf,' nothing but. neceffity and love of truth could have forced me to k : In the mean time, I daily prayed the Lord as heartily as I cou.ld , th3t if you were in the right, he would not fufter me to oppofe you, but convince me, and bring me over to you. And when the timecch, that a few lines in my book to my own people is like to make a Schifm among 170 Tlain Scripture proof of among themjbecaufe I hinder that fearful Schifm which by preaching and private deal- ing he hath been long a working. It is a fine world when fuch men as Mr.T. (hall cry out againft making a Schifm among them,becaufe I warm my own people to take heed of his error. As if he had been fecring Bcwdcley on fire,and I bid Ksdvminfict take heed of it, and therefore he would perfwade them,that by fo faying I were like to fet Bewdeley on fire. It is paft the reach of my underttanding how thofe lines can caufe a Schifm ; Will it £t them againft his Opinion? So they were all before he came thither, for ought I can learn ; and almoft all yet. Will it fet them againft his perfon ? 1. 1 fpeak of him as the moft learned and moderate of them in the Land ; and he taketh the Anabaptifts for the righteft people in the Land ; and is not that as honourable a title then as he can defire ? I have heard him oft accufed to be very proud : And if this title be too low for him, I doubt he will ftill more verifie it. a. He is going from them, and this is his Farewell-Speech, and what danger then, that dif-affe&ion to him (hould make a Schifm in Bewdeley i j . If he be fo intangled in an ill caufe , that his credit muft ftand or fall with his caufe, 1 cannot help that. I muft fpeak againft his ill caufe , though he take it a difparagement to himfelf. 4. If the true Relation of the Di- fpute be a difgrace to him , I think it is no fault of mine Therefore to relate the truth. 4.Thac I call the Anabaptifts Hereticks , is another untruth : Though moft of our moft learned godly Divines beyond-Sea do frequently Co call them, who write againft them. f. And that I reckon Mr. T, among thofe whom I call Hereticks, is another untruth. I mould know my own meaning better then Mr.T, and therefore am fitte&^o be my own Expofitor. If he had faid that I feem to mean fo,it had had fome fhtw of truth, and not much. The Analyfis of my own words therefore is this. Having named the particular Sc&s , as erroneous, 1 then fpeak of them ingenerall. 1. As teftified againft by God*5 more particularly the Antinomians in New England, by the Monfters. r. By being given up to evill lives : Where mentioning that Mat.j.by their fruits ye (hall know them,I proceeded to vindicate it from a ufual mif interpreta- tion,^ thofe words [Hereticks may for a while feem holy,&c. J which I added i.Leaft any mould think that I applyed that of Chrift to every SeS or erroneous perfon, but only Hereticks. a. And of thofe named,! intended in that Speech only thofe Animo* tftifis of New- England jvhh their like , whom I had pointed at in the fone-going lines, and againft whom only I brought the Example of the Monfters (for whom elfe can it belong to?) Hence I defcend to ftiew,that as this Text is true of Hereticks,fo the judge- ment of a wicked life hath light fo vifibly alio upon the Anabaptifts that may deter: us from joyning with them; which I exprefs,not of every particular Anabaptift,but of Societies of them only -> and that not of a Society begun 3 or yet in progrefs, who may poflibTy repent and recover j but I fpeak only of former Societies, whofe end bath been known. From hence 1 proceed to foitine men againft their Opinion/rom my experience of the weaknefs of their Argumenrs, which particular, and no other (in expreflion or intention) I applyed to wM/.T. with the two ad joyning,?//^. ab- furdities which they are driven to, and little tender confeienrious fear of erring : my thoughts never were to charge him here publikely with any more : f and whether this charge be juft you (hall fee anon : ) And withall,I ftile him the ableft of them , and •ne of the moft moderate : And this is the true meaning of my words. If I did feem to call you Heretick when I never intended it, I hope I have now made you amends by disclaiming that fence of my words, as publikely as I mentioned you. And yet you might have been better able to have underftood my words, in that you heard rr.C more then once profefs that I took not the denyall of Infant- Baptifm for Hcrefic j no nor Re-baptizing neither 5 and that I was none of thofe that would call a meer Anabaptlft Infants Church-mtmberfiif and Baptifm. 171 Anabaptift an Herctick : I told you I thought that Herefie muft be againft Tome fundamental!, which I thought this was not. (Though I confefs,l face queftion upon Vofiius, Gathers, and others definition of Herefie , and the weight of their reafons, whether I were not miftaken in that point ; and whether an error not againft the foundation maintained with reparation and faction, may not make a Heretick ; and whether the difference between Herefie and Schifm be fo wide as I have thought.) 6. But I pray Sirconfider, whether you above many others mould not have been filent here, as being an unfit man to take exceptions at this ? which upon thefe two grounds I (hall convince you of. 1 . Are not you the man that Preached publikely that [it is Herefie to maintin In- fant- Baptifmjon the grounds from CircumciCionj&Mr.Marfhjl doth ? ] And not only CMr.MarpjaU, but Calv'm i Zu'mglius i BuUmgcr&n/* "the Church and Covenant of Chrifl, and af- firming them to be no Difciples, no [ervants of God, nor holy as feparated to him. Yea* God faith the contrary^ Levit. 2J.41, 4*. Deac 29. 10, u, n,&c. Aft. if. 10. Col. 7. 14. 1 cannut digrefi to fcrtifie you againft thefe Seels. You have feen Godfpeal^ aga'mfl them by judgements from heaven 5 what were the two Monfters i#New England but miracles ? Chrifl hath told you by their fruits, &c] Mr. Baxter faith Anabaptifts play the Divels part w,8cc. \. Anabaptist, is a name that Mr. Baxter might havekriown is unjufily afenbedio thtfe perfons that are Baptifed at the confeffion of their faith , when they come to fntt ysei syand they are not Baptifed again 3 their Infant Baptifm beingno Bap' tifm. if he would give us a title meet for m {but that he is willing to give us a title that might mafe us mo(l odious) he might have called us Antipadobaptifts, as being aga'mfl In- fant- Baptifm,as indeed we are. z. He faith [we play the Divels part in accufing our own children] Accufing is either before God, or before men, or elfe in their own conjeiences. 1 amfure I am one ofthofe he means, being named- And I challenge Mr. Baxter to men- tion wherein lever plaid the Devils part. Re faith [we accufe our own children] what is that i to accufe, is to lay fome crime or charge to them. Ityiow no faults, or crimes I ever charged upon my children but that which Stor. Baxter doth himfelf (l beleeve) that is withoriginaH corruption. It is language that T under (land not, to call the denying of Baptifm to Infants, accufing of them, g- He faith [play the Devils part in difputing them out of the Church and Covenant of Chrifl] The Church of Chrifl is either Vifible, or invifible j no difputation of mine did ever difpute them out of the Invifible Church of Chrifl, any more then I think he doth. I am fure CMr. Marfliall faith as much concerning them as I do [that none can certainly conclude if they be elected, or reprobated] Concerning the Viable Church to difpute them out of that by my difputation, it muft be either to \eep them out t or to cafl them out-, no difputation of mine did ever \eep 'them out of the Churchy or tended to any fuch purpofe, that by my difputatim they fhould be \ept out. "But only this I fay, they are no Vifible Members till they profefi their faith in Chrifl -, no difputation^ of mine tended ever to \eep them from learning the will of God, or from (mowing of thofe things that might bring them into the Church- By my difputation and pains I blefi God, 04 s ! have endeavored, fo have I brought many, though not Infants, into the vifible Church. And iftilL hold that an Infant is not a member of the Vifible Church : neither is any perfon a member of the Vifible Church, till he profefi the faith of Chrifl 5 Nor is it the Devils part to affirm this, but the contrary is more li\ely (being an error) the Devils part to affirm it, and efpecially con fidering the pernicious events that follow Infant- B apt if m $ whereby it comes to pafi, that many thou/ands do thin\{ themfelves made chriftiam by their Infant fprinl{!ing, and do reft in it as the ground of their hopes for everlaflingfalvationi and this thing holding thoufands in carnatt prefumption,wc ought rather to thinly thofe that maintain Infant- Baptifm play the Devils part. Z z R. B t 74 Plain Scripture proof of M. T. is offended that I give them the title of Anabaptiftsj and he thinke it un- fit for them. Buc i. Fie or unfit cuftome commandeth in the ufe of words and names ; many know what that word means, that cannot tell what an Antipardo- baptift Is, that is a hard word for fome of his own followers to pronounce, much more to underftand, were it not one of the chief that they are taught. 2. What unfit- nefs is there in the fignification of the word ? Doth he think that I underftand sot that [Anabaptift] fignifieth one that is baptized agaia ? And (hall we believe him becaufe he barely affirms that they are not baptized again ? and that Infant-Baptifm is no Baptifm ? This is poorly to beg the queftion. If he could prove that it is no duty to Baptize Infants 3 yet I little doubt to prove that it were a Bapifm, though not regular. But he is earneft with his people to be now Baptifed ; and we know they have been baptifed once already, though he fay they have not ; if warning into the name of the Father, Son,and Holy Ghoft, as an engaging, dedicating, initia- ting fign be baptizing. But fee what a couctefie Mr. T. will do all the finners in the Chriftian world ! when we tell them what a hainous aggravation of their fin it is, that they commit it after Baptifm, and after their folmn vow , Covenant and engagement there made to God • Mr. T. fteps in and eafeth them all of the burden of this aggravation, without a Sa- viour 5 and telieth them that it is no fuch matter, they were never baptifed, and there- fore they never finned againft their Baptifm, and they never fo engaged to God, and therefore never finned againft that engagement. But Sir, dare you undertake to bid all thefe finners never repent for their finning againft their Baptifm an4 Covenant then made, and you will warrant them and bear the blame ? As for giving you a title to make you odious, it is another of your untruths i it is none of my purpofe j but to call you by that name by which only you are commonly known. I am fain to ufe the name of Lutheran, Calvinift, Arminian^c. though I could wifh the.Church had never known thofe names ; but when they are commonly ufadjwemuft ufe them if we will fpeak to common people. I will call myfelfa Proteftant, becaufe it i$ the common title ; but T like not the name Proteftant, as being too privacc and occafionall to affix to the Church $ I like theanfwer that the King made when they enquired of his Religion, and hetold them he was a Chriftian .* orif. you. will have any more of me, I am a Catholike Chriftian, or an Orthodox Chriftian, or a Chriftian of that Religion as was held in the Apoftolicall and Primi- tive ti.«nes. And yet 1 muft ufe other names, though I utterly diflike them,as being the fomenters of faction. But now we come to the main bufinefs ; Mr. T. thinks I fpeak hanioufly, to fay, they^ play the Divels part. But let me tell him, that truly I fpeak not thofe words in- confiderately,6ut upon moft fer icus coniideration ; nor in that bitternefs of paflion, but in judgement and companion j and in the fame fort (hall now fay this much more 5 that I do verily believe that the matter or fubftance of your fad (feparated frQm the malitious intention) is not only a playing of the Divels part, but worfe, yea very far worfe in feverall rtfpe&s then if it were the Devil that did it. I pray ex. amine firft deliberately whether this be true or no 3 and if it be not, then balme me j but * ' ■ I 1 11 I I ' I , Infants Church-memberjkip and Baptifm. 175 but if Ic be true, its time for you to repent , and not to be angry with thofe that tell you of it. And now I (hall manifeft it to you, in anfwer to your Challenge, thac you are the man that play this hainous part. And i. Is it not pitty that fo able and learned a man doth not underftand, that acculing contains more then laying any crime to ones charge ? As the Law hath two parts, the mandate and the fan&ion; and as the true nature of a Law is to be \_An Authoritative Determination de debito, of Due] fo each part of the Law determineth of afeverall Debitum : The precept (of doing or forbearing) determineth of, and produceth theduenefsof Obedience. The promife determinech of the duenefsof the reward. The threatning determineth of the duenefs of the Penalty. Now Sir, as there is a various debitum, fo is there a divers accufation. As there is a twofold Reatus, Guilt; 7fyatus fafti vel omijponis ut cu/pa t & reatus poena, guilt of fault, and guilt of punifhment, fo is there a twofold work for theac- cufer : And as the Reatus poena vet ad poenam, is the chief thing which is commonly called guilt (and therefore the common definition of guilt is, that it is obligatio adpoe- nam, an obligation to punifhment) fo the chief part of the accufers work is to charge that guilt, rather then that meer guilt of fad ; tor this is his end in charging the for- mer > What cares he- for mentioning our faults, but that he might prove us by them to be obligati adpeenam, that we have forfeited our rewarded incurred the mifery? And this is mod evident by the contrary work of justification wherein Chrift doth acquit from the guilt of penalty, when yet he muft acknowledge us guilty of the fa#. And juftification is oppofite both to accufation and condemnation. Now you know that either all penalty (as Barlow in Exercitat. And many Schoolmen fay) lieth in priva- tion of fomegood > at leaft a great part of it. Now Sir, by this time me thinks you might fee plainly,that the work of an accufer is 1. And principally to plead the debitum poena ,and fo the non debitum boni conditionalitcr promifli againft the defendant, to plead that he ought to fuSer^ and fo to be deprived of fome good, and that he hath not right to the good that is pleaded for him - 3 and then 2. As a means to this, he pleads his guilt of fad or fin. Now Sir, I mall firft (hew you that you playthe accuferof your own children, 2. And that your fin is aggravated more hainoufly in feveral re- fpefts then the Devils. 1. One of the mercies that God beftoweth in this life to his people,is to be members of his Vifible Church, and fo to be in all probability mem-* bersoftheinvifible,tobe fubjects of the vifible fpeciall Kingdom of Chriffc, to be Difciples of Chrift 3 to be folemnly engaged by the Parents into Covenant with Ghrift, taking him for their Lord and Saviour,and binding themfelves to obedience if theylive 3 to have the benefits of the condiiionall Covenant of grace fealed up to them > to be baptized for theremiflion of fins, as the Scripture phrafe is, and to be Baptized into the name of Father, .Son,and Holy Ghoft,to be dedicated to God, or holy as feparated to him. Now Sir, did not you zealoufly difputc againft all thefe "^ abovefix hours together with me before thoufands of witntiTes ? and plead that In-? fants were no Difciples, no vifible Church- members, nor foholy? Surely you did. And is not he an accufer of you that would plead that you are no fubje& of King or State 5 no Citizen of a City where you are enfranchized 5 no member of the Church Vifible, no Difcipleof Chrift,^ ? If you ftill fay that thefe are no Triviledges to Infants, and therefore ic is no accufation, I come to, that in my next. 2. And herein jou hainoufly exceed the Devil. 1. Ic is moienaturall to the Devil, then to men, and godly %ien ; therefore you fin againft nature more. 2. You are neerly related to your own children, they are yours whom you are bound to love dear- ly j but they are not fo related tothe Devil, they are not his 5 It is more hainous fo t Z $ a fa* . 176 Plain Scripture proof of a father to plead his own childeouc of his inheritance, then foe an enemy to do it. 3. The Devil is moved by his own defperate condition to be malicious; but you cannot fay fo. '4. And which is yet far more* the Devil for ought we ever finde,doth never accufe any as deferving the penalty and forfeiting the mercy , but for fomc faulr j he proveth the guilt of fin,and fo the guilt of puniihment for that.But you accufe your children, as having no right to the faid holinefs,Church-memberlhip,Difciplemip,e^. without alledging any iin asthecaufe, which is a fouler injufticethen the Devil is found guilty of; Indeed you fry here they have originall fin, but do not fay that for that they are bereaved of thefe priviledges. $. Nay, as the complement of your er- ror, you do plead that it is no priviledge to be of the Vifible Church for them, and that God leaveth them all out in mercy; though it was a mercy that once Infants were in the Church , yet now it is a greater mercy that they are out 5 and to whom is this a mercy ? why to Infants ? to all Infants, thofe that are faved, and thofe that are condemned, and to their parents, and to the whole Church; Thefe are your own words; And is not this to adde fcorn to accufation ? as Julian did by the Chrifti- ans when he buffeted them, and took all from them, and then told then it was Chrifts will, and it (hould turn to their good. Find where ever the Devil is guilty of this. • And yet you fay, It is language that you underftand not, to call the denyall of In- fants Bap tifm [Accufing them], Anfw. i.It is pitty you ihould trouble the Church fo much with your do&rine,and vaunt fo againft all the Divines that are againft you, and yet cannot underftand fuch a thing as this. 2. Do you underftand that denyall of their right to Baptifm, and to Difciplefhip, and Church-memberftiip, and Chrifti- anity, is an accufing them ? Thefe are the things that we are upon. Doth not he ac- cufe a Prince that denyeth him his Coronation, and all right thereto ? 5. You fay, you difpuie them not out of the Invifible Church. Anfwer 1. But will you yield that they are fo much as feeming probable members of the Invifible Church ? If you do, then they are members of the vifible , which you deny : For to be a vifible member of the Church, or a member of the vifible Church, as fuch, is no more then to be a feeming member of the Invifible Church, or one that we ou^ht to take in probability to be of the Invifible Church. Now if you deny this, thenfure you deny more then I. A poffibility is not fo much as a ftrong grounded probability. And whether I fay no more for Infants falvation then you, I leave you to judge by my former Arguments. But you fay that no difpu- tation of yours tended ever to keep them out of the vifible Church. To which I Anf. It is not in your power to keep them out dire&ly, therefore it is no thanks to you if you keep them not out. The Devils falfe accufations of the Saints,as having no right to heaven, doth not keep them out of heaven ; for which they may thank God, but no thanks to him. 2. But you plead that they are no vifible Church-members, nor ought to be admitted or intiated fuch, nor have any prefent right to it. And what can Satan do more in way of accufation in this cafe, then plead that they have no right to thefe priviledges ? Indeed you are more favorable then to plead dire&ly that they ought to be all damned, or certainly (hill be 5 but you plead withall againft the chief grounds of th: probability of their falvation. You deny them to be in Covenant with the Lord as their God 5 and the engaging of them to be his ; You deny that title to falvation which upon promife they have in point of Law(as Hiave ("hewed before) and you might know that eledion giveth no legal title, and withall that all (hall be judged by the word, and according to the Laws of God ; even Infants as well as others; and fo their title to mercy muft be pleaded from fome promife of God in. his word. j. And Infants Church-memberjlup and Baptifm. 1 77 3. And fare To far as It is in your power , in my judgement you do as much as any man in England that I know, to keep them out of the vifible Church ; For you are very zealous and induftrious in preaching, difputing, private foliciring men not to engage their children ifl Covenant with God j not to bring them as Members into the vifible Churclyiot to initiate them by Chrifts initiating fign, yea , not to believe that they are 3 or that Chi ift would have them to be Members of the vifible Church till they come to age J yea ; to believe that it is better to be out of the Church then in it. And Cure If the Parents refufall can do any thing to dif-franchife the child, and keep him out of the Church, you have done your part to keep them outj for which I think Chrift will give you as much thanks as he did his Difciples for keeping fuch from him. But what a ridiculous paflage is this, to profefs your judgement that they arc no Members, nor ought to be admitted, and yet to fay that you do nothing to keep them out ? But you refolve you will yet go a higher ftep 5 and what is it that you will not fay to maintain your caufe ? when you dare tell your people in the Pulpit that it is the Devils part to affirm Infants are Church- members vifible, and to mantain their Baptifm. I blame my hard heart that doth no more tremble and lament fo horrid ex- preffions > and to fee howfar godly men may be given up. Mr> Blackwood would have made the world believe that lnfant-Baptifm,and reftraint in matters or* Religion were Anti-chirfts two laft Garrifons ; and the Socinians fay that it is Anti-chrift that firft taught that Chrift is God ; and the Dodrine of the Trinity 2s of Antichrift; and others fay thit the Dodrine of the fouls immortality is Ami- chrift ian ; (as Mr. Blaise in his Preface to his confutation of Mr. Blacfaocd, which I would have fome others to think on too that deterr thoufands of Ignorant Profeifors from truths with the name of Anti-chrift ) But fee how far Mr.T. goes beyond them all $ he faith, that it is the Devils part to fay that the Infants of Believers are Members of the vifible Church 5 and ought to be initiated by Baptifm. How long hath the Devill been fo charitable to Believers Infants , as to ceafe being their Accufer,and become a Pleader for their Priviledges < And how long hath he been fuch a propagator of Chrifts king- dom, as to be forward to bring him in Subjeds and Difciples ? It the Devill would bring them into the vifible Church , I am fure he would bring them the next door to the invifible, and intoaftrong probability offal vation. Iwifhtheydo not next fay, that it is the Devill that brings people to Chirft^and makes Chriftians, and that brings them to Heaven. .But let us hear M/.T's proof for this 5 for he proves it too > but with a pittiful Ar- gument^ almoft as bad as the caufe for which he brings it. It is this 5 Becaufemany thoufands think themfelves Chriftians for their Infant-fprinkling, and reft in it as the ground of their hopes for fal vation. I have anfwered this before 5 but this much now. 1. If they think themfelves Chriftians^ as all Difciples are called Chriftians*, A&11. 16. they think truly ; For they are Chriftians vifible that are Baptized into the name of Chrift, if they have not fince by word or works renounced him. 2 I doubt whether Mr. ,7 fpeafc of thefe many thoufands by experience, or at random. I have not met with many perfons fuch. g.If they do make this the ground of their hope for fal- vation, (that is, the very Baptizing, and not Chrift into whom they were baptized,) no que ft ion that error, and to reft in it, is from the Devill ; but doth i: follow that therefore their Baptifm is from him? 4. What horrid confequence would follow upon this arguing ? Multitudes make their belief of Scripture,and believe that Chrift dyed and rofe again,and is the Saviour of the world,and the profeffion of his name^to be the ground of their hopes of falyation : [and I think thoufands more then truft to their , 178 Plain Serif ture f roof of their meer Baptifm.) And Will Mr.T. fay that the Belief of Scripture, and of Chrift, and the Profeflion of his name are from the Devil ? Multitudes truft to their Hearing, and Praying, and Alms- deeds 5 Are thefe thereforethe works of the Devil? What if i know many that think to be faved becaufc they are Baptized again > Will Mr.T. confefsthat it is therefore from the Devill? Alas, what poor fouls are they that will be led about by fuch filly , nay fearful! Arguments as thefe I But when the poor fi(h is ftruck, and the hook faftned in his jaws , a fmall line, will draw him any whither. Mr. T. ANd for the Covenant of Chrifl, it may be underwood, either that Chad made to them, or that they have made with Chriji. I never by any Deputation did Difyute them out of the Covenant of Chrift, as if he might not mafe a (Covenant to them of Righteoufnefs, and Salvation : befedes which I tyow no Covenant of chrifl that doth affure forgivenefi ef fins, fanttification, adoption , and eternall life. And I fay as much as Mr. Baxter can o-r dare fay, that Infants may have an inter e ft in the Covenant of Chriji, being elecled by God > but whether they have 3 or not, neither I, nor Mr.Baxter can certainly affirm, it being unknown to us, or any body clfe, feeing it is hidden in the purpefe of God, and tyewn only to God. And for their Covenanting with chrifl, for my part I tyow not how any perfon (hould Co. venant with Chrifl, till he promife to Chrifl that be will be his child, and ta\e him for his Lord , and I thinli Mr. Baxter can no yvhere prove that Infants do Covenant with Chriji fo. NExt you fay that you keepthenvnot from the Covenant of Chrift which he makes; for they may be Ele&,and fo in Covenant 5 but you deny that they can Cove- nant with Chrift. Anfwer 1. That is no thanks to you, it being not in your power to make the promife of Chrift of none effed. Satan may fay the like, that he keeps not God from making promifes to his people. 2. Election is not a Covenant, nor are they in Covenant, becaule Ele&ed. 3. You deny that God covenanteth with them to be their God in Chrift, and to take them to be his peculiar People, which is the Covenant that he formerly made with Infants, and which we affirm. 4.H0W much we have proved to belong to them by Promife , more then you acknowledge, I have (hewed before. And then their Covenanting with God you flatly deny, and you diflwade the Pa- rents from fo engaging their children in Covenant ,, and promiling in their names, which yet they ever did in the Church before Chrift , and it was their -duty to do , as Deut.z$. and other places fhew. And yet you know not howany ptrfon ("hould Co- venant with Chrift, you fay, till he promii'e, &c. It feems then you know not how a f athtr mould engage his child in Covenant, by covenanting in his name. Nor you know not how todiftinguifh betwixt the Phyficall and Morall nature of the Action; or elfe you wculd know that it may be thechilds Action Morally, and in Law- fence Infants Church-mmbcrjhip and Baptifm. 1 79 fence, when it is only the Fathers A&ion Phyfically. I marvell whether you know how a man ihould put his childs name in a Leafe, and bind himfelf and his Heirs, and how his child is thus cntred into Covenant and Bond , and the Law takes it as his ? If you had rather fay, that the Parent engageth the child, then that the child en- gageth himfelf by the Parent, I will not flick with you for the phrafe of Speech, when the thing is the fame.But you would have no Parents to engage their children folemnljr to God in Chrift 3 by covenanting in their names. And I pray you how well then do you free your felf from his charge ? Mr. T. Nd he faith, T afi'm them to be no Difciples i no-r Servants t§ God, nor holy as fe pa- rated to him.'] This pafjage hath reference to the Dis~pute> and then I affirmed this >tbdt they were not Difciples in that fence that Chrifl appointed Difciples to be Baptised, Mat. 18.19. and this I fay (till, is no playing the Devils part 3 but according to the word* of the Lord Chrift. A R. B. NExt you fay, you deny them to be Difciples in that fence as Math* illj 9^0. Anf. x. But did you then diftinguifh. of Difciples ? or yeeld ihem to be Difci- ples in any fence > No^;^xnrdenyed them abfolutely to be Difciples without diftin- ction. And if you do not fo yet, why do you not fpeak out, and fay fo ? and tell us plainly in what fence you acknowledge them Difciples ? This is therefore but a confeflion of your fa& 3 and not any coyer to k. Mr. T. ANd in that fence they a-re no Servants of God y as Mr. Baxter produced to prove they are to be Difciples. For ajervantto God in that fence is one that voluntarily and freely ycilds obedience to Gods commands^ and Ithin'i he cannot prove any Infant is futh a fervant of God* R. B* T\TKxt you confefs you denyed them to be fervants of God in that fence as I pro < L ^duced to prove they are to be Difciples : But you fay, a fervant in that fence is* one that voluntarily obeyeth ! But this is another of your miftakes : I took fervant A a and 180 Plain Serif ture proof of and Difciples according to their Relative Formal! nature, and not either with the Accidentall consideration of Active or Paflive. And I have before confuted your vain conceit in this. Mr.T. n^O/ b°fy <** fepMted to God,"] this muft be by Etcftion, or by Calling ; Now by l^jpeciall office heretofore the High Prieft among the Jews, and others then were feparated to God i but as the cafeftands now , 1 {now no way a perfon is holy by feparati- on, but by Election, or by Calling : Now, I never denyedthat Infants may be elecledjand fe- parated id God by vertue thereof: in that fence he falfly accufeth me therefore , as faying and denying Infants are holy 3 or feparated to God, if he under (land it in that fen fe. And for Infants feparated to God-by calling > if he under (land it by an extraordinary* immediate calling, as John the Baptift was fan&ified from the womb , lean neither af- firm, mi deny > nor I thinly he neither- if he underftand it by ordinary catlings fo thy are not feparated to God \ for they are not capable of hearing thewordofGod,mrofrecei* ving it by faith >, which are the ways offeparation to God. £. B. ¥Ou come next to their holinefs : And indeed can a man of your parts know of no feparation to God,but by election or by calling ? Me thinks Gods Grant or Deed of gift in his Covenant is the moft immediate ufuai caufe of fuch holinefs of fepara- tion. Indeed 5 you may ftretch the terms Election and Calling fo far, as to comprehend this .* but that you feem not to do. I queftion whether Election be a proper fepara- ting orfanctlfying, or to be called rather a Purpofe of fandifying in time, if you fpeak of Actuall fandifying,and take not fanctifymg as Terminus dminuens : For elfe that which is not , cannot be fanctified ; and the confequence would be valid, ah eft tertii adjecli, ad eftfecundi \ fanclificatm eft y ergo eft. But this I regard not , as little to our purpofe. But what do you think of Gods feparating perfons to himfelf, by his own Law and Covenant ? The Law determineth of all Duenefs / Now if God fay of the firft born among the Jews,Thefe (hall be mine : is not this a feparation of them to himfelf ? and if he fay of all the Infants of the Jews,They mall be to me a people, or a peculiar people : is not this feparating ? I know no more proper and direct way of feparation, then when God (hall lay claim to aoerfonor thing by his Law, and artlx on it in Scripture the note of hfs Intcreft and propriety, or by Covenant or Scripture G ift make fuch a perfon or fort of perfons his own. He therefore that hath faid that our children are Holy , and that they are bleffed , and that he will be to them a God, &c. hath feparated them by his Law or Covenant^ and fanctified them by this word of truth. And yet Mr. T. can underftand no feparation but by Election or Calling ! How can you teach the world to underftand more then other Divines., as if they were all no body to you, when yet you cannot underftand fuch eaiie things, which a very weak Chriftian may underftand ? If that a Landlord make _ it a Con- dition with his Tenant in his Leafe, that his firft born Son mall be his Savant : Doth not this Covenant or Lcafe here feparate that Son to be a Servant? I think all our Infants Churcb-membcrfiip and Baptifm. \%i our Fore-fathers that did make over their Lands, or devote any thing elfe to the main- tenance of Gods worftiip, did by that gift or dedication feparate them to God. Therefore forthefenfeoffeparation by Elc&ion or extraordinary Callj or ordinary perfoaall calling as to the ear (which are all the ways of feparating that you could or would underftand or finde outj) they are all your own fancies; I mean none of them 5 and fo I gave you to underftand frequently and fully in the Difpute:bur what you would not know, you cannot underftand, or remember : Nay, in private I ftill told you that I afcribed this fan&ification to the Law. or Covenant of God enly. Therefore the fatte accufation which you lay to me, returns into your bofom* Mr.T. BVt he faith [God, faith the contrary ] let us fee thefe Texts, which he faith God faith the contrary for they are all the Texts he concludetb any thing out of,faving Rom. U. 19- Tbefirfl Text he brings tb prove Infants are Servants of God, out of Lent. 2 J. 4 1,42.' where he faith God faith the contrary to what 1 fay •* J fay they are no Servants, and God faith they are ' (faith Mr. Baxter) M.ar\ that 5 The Text faith » And then {hall he depart from thee ,both he, and his children with him, and [hill return unto his own family, and unto the Voffeflims of his Fathers (hall he return 5 for they are my fervants, which t brought forth out of the Land of Egypt, they (hall not be fold as bondmen. They are my fervants, that is it he would have. Are thefe our children ? The Text fhews plainly they are the children he brought out of the Land of Egypt 5 and brings this M a reafon, why the Hebrew chi'drenjhould have more privilcdge then any other children : Therefore this is fpofcn peculiarly of the Jews children : [they are my fervants, 1 ] that is,thofe that I brought 9Ut of the Land of Egypt: Tea, and $ Jth verfe is more plain : For unto me the children of ifrael a-re fervants , they a-re my fervants whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt : 1 am the Lord your God. Now I befeechyou what is this to prove, that God faith contrary to me, that when 1 fay my Infant is not a fervant of God, in hisfenfe, fo as to be a Difciple,when that a fervant in this fenfe, is one that freely and voluntarily gives fcrvice to God ? But be fides, when the ifraelites children are catted fervants of God, to men that can under der (land, any thing, the meaning is not, that Infants are acJually fer- vant s , but in right to me; and therefore they (h all not be fcrvedas Bond~fcrvanis -, he doth not fpea\ what they did, but of Gods right, and intcrejl he had in them. So that the term [Servants] cinnot be under flood any otherwife then pafsivefy; they are my fcr~ vants, that is, becaufe of 'my right to them, and becaufe I do my Will upon them, and not becaufe they do my will aft natty ; and if this be enough to prove Infants God fervants, /fcaPfal.i 19.91. They continue this day accm ding to thine ordinances , for all are thy fervants : That is, the Heavens mentioned, verf.89. and the Earth mentioned in verf. 00, if this be a good Argument, Infants are called the fervants of God, therefore they are Vifciplcs, and muft be Baptised ; by the fame reafen it would follow, the Heavens and the Earth are callcdihe fervants of GodyVhl-ug.gt. Therefore the Heavens,and the Earth are Difciplrs, and arc to be Baptised. Judge 1 pray you: Nebuchadnezar, Jer. 4J.10. is called Gods fervant : what then ? is he therefore a Difciple ? what a Heathen, an idolatrous K,ing ? and therefore to be Bapti-^ed ? Beloved* I am loth tofpea^ 1 might more freely give my cenfure, but if pare. A a i R.b, i8z -?/*/# Scripture froofef R. B. WHen you fay thefeare all the Texts that I conclude any thing from, except Rom.i 1. 1 9. it is another of your palpable untruths,as they know that were hea- rers, and is to be feen before. To that in Levit.z^. 41141,5 j. you fay 1. Itwasonly a Priviledge to the Jews children, and not ours ; To which and all the reft 3 I have fully anfwered before 3 and defire the Reader to turn back to it. But thus much now briefly. 1. The Jews Infants were Infants , and our Difpute you know was of the fpecies : 2. I have proved that our Priviledges are greater then theirs (and you deny it not 3 ) and that this was not peculiar to them- 5. It proves that there is nothing in the Age to make them uncapable , or elfe the Jews Infants would have been uncapable. a. Where you Ml urge that a Difciple and fervant muft be meant of one that volunta- rily ferveth God, you do but go on to beg the Queftion , which you never yet did any thing that I know of to prove, of any moment. 3 When you fay the fence oiLevit. a>f* is 3 that Infants were fervants [in Right to God] if you mean, [Related to him as a peculiar people feparated to himfelf from the world,] I grant it 5 and fay , that that is the meaning of Infants being fervants, and Holy,and Difciples ftili. But your ridiculous additions of being Difciples Paflively, and as the Heaven and Earthy and Nebucadnc^ar^c. I have confuted before in vindicating this Text. I concluded not 3 that whofoever is called Gods fervant may be baptized, much lefs that wbatfoever is fo called may be baptized. Where did I argue in either of thofe Vf ayes ? But you are fo accuftomed to miftakes, that you feem to underftand little that is faid to you 5 no wonder if you lead others into miftakes. My conclufion was this, that if notwithftanding their Infancy they are capable of being Gods fervants as Relatively feparated to himfelf from the world, then they are capable of being J3ifciples in Infancy too. Whereupon you denyed that they were called Gods fer- vants, and I brought that Text to convince you. But can you think indeed that thofe Infants were called Gods fervants but as the creatures or as Ncbucadne-^av i why then God mould have commanded the fetting free of their Bond flaves 3 and of all their Cattell , for they were his fervants Paflively too $ yet its ftrange to fee, when you have plaid your felf with your own abfurd fi&ions , how triumphingly you con- clude how you could cenfure me 3 but you fpare me , and you are lo:b. Iti>, lam confident, for your fake, and not for mine, that you are loth, as 1 mall prove anon. But were it not for your (inning by fallhood or reviling^I fhould not wilh you to fpare me a jot : So little do I regard to be cenfured by you. But I fee here upon what filly grounds you. can pafs a confident judgement , and freely cenfure the generality of Divines that are far more learnedand godly then me or your felf- And when judi- cious people wonder at you, and think you have half renounced your Reafon, and talk as if you Were between fleep and waking, yet do you roufe up yourself, and glory that the day is your own, and boaft what you can do , but that you fpare and are loth / A. companionate conqueror you are indeed 3 you hurt not,becaufe you fight but with a bulrufiV Mr.T\ Infants Church-member flrif and Baptifm. x %^ Mr. T. His fecond text is out of 20. Deut. 10. 1 1, 12, &c. that is another place -wherein "Mr. Baxter faith that God affirms contrary to that which I (ay, the words are thefe, Ye ftand this day all of you before the Lord your God,youi Captains of your Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Ifrael_, your little ones, your wives, and thy ftranger that is in thy Camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water 5 that thou fhouldeft enter into Covenant with the Lord thy Gcd and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day,?efo. Is there any word here of our children ? here is no mention made of any but of the children of Ifrael. And that which ifaidin the Deputation, though Mr. Baxter fcemed Jo confdent that it is jo deer in that Covenant y that every one of the little ones did enter mio that Co- venant, andfaid if the Papijis had but as good plain text of Scripture to prove their Re- ligion> as this is to prove that every one efthc little ones of the Children of Ifrael did en- ter into Covenant with God , he would be a Papift; yet it moves me not, but jitU I fay it cannot be cleerly proved, that every infant did then enter into Covenant • and there, are two reafons (liH in the text. 1. From the phrafe of entering into Covenant. Entering into Covenant fay fome, was by pajftng {for fo the Hebrew word is) by pajfing between the parts of the beafl that was failed, now this was fare done by fome in the name of the reft,and not by the little ones themf elves. And 2. it is [aid, Ye ftand this day all of you b efore the Lord your God, that thou ftiouldeft enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God vtr. 14, if. Neither with you only do I make this Covenant, and this Oath,but with him that ftandeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and alfo with him that is not here with us this day. Marfc he that is not here with m this day, is not aH one with verfe 1 2. That f thou] (hod deft enter into Covenant. So I conclude [thou'] in the twelfth verfe, is diftincl from the re fl that flood there, among which the little ones were comprehended- Yet 1 deny not but God didmafe a Covenant with the children of the Ifrael ites j but then they were a peculiar people, diftincl from the whole world, to whom God did ingage himfelf in many efpcciatl ref peels ; as to bring them into the Land flf Canaan* and do other things for them. And for our Children, if any Magi (irate did enter fo into Co- venant, I^now not. but he may do it. But according to the Confiitution of the Church of Cbrijiians, hence to infer > becaufe the little ones did there fo enter into Covenant with God, therefore our thildren do enter into Covenant with God, and are to be accounted vi- fible members of the Church, and confequently to be Bapitfcd : 1 confefs for my part it is a far fetcht reafon ; and indeed hath nareafm, but is a great mi(la{e which Mr , Baxter holds, as if the fame confiitution of that Church which was then is now , when that God never fent preachers fo to teach people and gather the Church of the Jews, as he did when that he fent the Apojiles to gather the Church of Chnftians 5 this different way of gather- ing them,doth fhtw plainly the different confiitution of the Jewifh and Christian Church, and the/ efore Mr. Baxter doth mo ft impertinently alledge this text for that bufinefs firr which the difputewas,to prove Infants to be Baptised, let him alledge it as oft as fc pliafe. Aa 5 ft.B. 184 Plain Scripture f roof of R. B. Concerning that in Deut. 20. I have anfwered your vain fencelefs cavils before, andAartdo the reft in your confutation-Secmon afterwards, and thither refer the Reader. Only I fee, and fay, the people are in a poor cafe that truft their judge- ments implicitely on your guidance, and take their opinions on your wordj for I fee the exprefs words of Scripture are nothing to you,when it is againft your fancy. And thofe that will take fuefc an anfwer as you here give for fatisfa&ory or rational^ think them uncapable of prefent underftanding the truth, till they have got their Reafoa more ftrcngthened, or their prejudice and wilfulness more weakened. Mr. T. Mr. Baxter* third Text, wherein be faith God faith contrary to me, is Act- 1 5. 10. where Peter in his fpeech faith thus. Now therefore why' tempt ye God, to put -a yoafy upon thenec\ of the Difciples, which neither our fathers nor we arre able to bear? The yoal^faith \Mr. Baxter was circumcifion, as binding to the ceremomall Law r/Mofcs .* they are called Difciples upon whom this ysalf was put , (ome of thofe were In* fonts 5 therefore they are Difciples. nhatfirange arguing is this? The pa\ is but a. SMetaphor, and it is uncertain whether it be Adoption, 0? the aft of circumcifion. It is true by confluence, the Doclnne of the falfe Prophets and Circumcifion which they would have put upon the Difciples, they would have put upon the Infants : but they did not 3 nor would they immediately talte away the forcstyn of their flc(b. But the putting on the yoal( is plainly manifejied to be the teaching of 'the falfe Prophet sy and the Difciples were called Brethren in verf. 1. and in ver.9. of the former Chapter , they are J aid to be thofe whofe hearts were purified by Faith , and can this be faid of Infantf? Shall we from fuch an obfeure inference as this is, contrary to the ufe of the word throng}?' out the whole Nevt, Teftament, gather that Infants are Difciples .? when as all along the whole New Teftament, the word\T>ifciplc r \ fignifies nothing clje but thofe that being taught , profc/s the Gofpel. I may well fay here as Mr.Baxcer m another cafe, (hall we take a wirrd that is ufed five hundred times in another fence, and leave-that 'interpretation, and chufe an interpretation where the word is ufed nowhere elfe,but here? no nor can it be ufed fo here. The putting on theyoafy is by teaching : I would at\{ any man that hath common reafon, if Infants were taught to be arcumcifed; or if thofe falfe Teachers did go about, either aclually to crrxumcife them, or teach them ? So that the Difciples were thefubjefts of putting they oa\ on their nec\s. They were Difciples uponwhom they would have put theyoal(. And what was thisyoa^ which they would have put on them ? by teaching Mr. Baxter confeffed I thin\ in the difputc publicly , but however 1 am fur e he did in private conference with m. And if it was put upon them by teaching, it was not then put ufxn Infants, for they were not capable of teachings it was therefore put orly upon thofe that were taught, and not on Infants.Formy part, though Tconfefi Mr. Baxter feems confidently to retain this text after our private conference,] admire his holding a text brought fo g'o(l)$ *nd impertinently. I would appeal to any man that hath common fenfe^f putting on theyua^ bo by teaching^ f tbefe Difciples can be any ether but thofe that were taught ifos Doftrine ? R B. Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptrfm. i8j R. B. FOv that Acl . i f io. I have fully vindicated it before ; and /hall adde this much now. x. You before faid you denyed Infants to be Difciplesinfuch a fenfe; but here you deny it abfolutely, faying, the word fignifieth in all the New Teftament only fuch as are taugkt and profefs (which is a begging of the queftion) fo that you plain- ly here accufe Infants to be no Difciples of Chrift. And If no Difciples, then no Chriftians; for the word maketh Difciples and Chriftians ail one (The Difci- ples were called Chriftians firft ac Antwch) And if not Chriftians, then what ground to believe or hope that they are faved ? For what ground have we to hope for the fal- vationby Chrift of any that are no Chriftians? But Mr. T. will fay, I believe that it is better that Infants are no Chriftians then that they were 5 But believe him that rift for me. z. Your main vain argument againft this plain text is this. The putting on the ^oakwas by teaching, therefore it was put on none but thofe that are taught $ And here you talk ofmygrofs impertinent alledging this text and appeal 1. To common Reafon, and then to common fenfe. To which I fay but this now, that if you can fpeakin your fleep, you may triumph as rationally as this in your dream. For to jfour Argument, 1 . Teaching is that Aft by which the falfe Apoftles would have put hi the yoak,'and not the putting on actually. There was more to concurre to produce the effect. You confeiled (for you muft whether you will or no,) that Teaching was but their endeavoring to put on the yoak 5 And when this teaching prevailed not for the hearers aflent and confent, the yoak was not put on j And indeed fo it was in the cafe in Aft. 1 J- the putting it on was prevented. 2 • Your confequence is meerly n:ouadlefs,though you think that common Reafon and fenfe may difcern it. If you Jiould teach people that they ought to fubjeft themfelves and their children to the Turk or to fome tyrant, or to fomc cruelll^aws or cuftoms 5 here the Aft whereby fou would bring them into bondage, is your Teaching ; but doth it follow that there-, fore it will enflave only thofe that are taught ? Sure if your Teaching prevail with the >arents, it will lay the yoak on them and their child ren; if it do not, it will lay it )n neither. You know the offence taken againft TW, Afi. 21. was, that he taught, rhat they ought not to circumcife their children. And if your arguing were good, it wuld prove that Mofcs did never fubjeft the Jews children to his Law,nor to circum- ;ifion.For Mafes \f aft whereby he laid the yoak of circuincifion.& the Law upon peo- >le,was by Teaching and commanding 3 therefore according to your confequence it houid be only on thofe that are taught and commanded, but that is not Infants. It vas God that fen: Chrift into Egypt in his Infancy, and that called him out again [Onto/ Egypt have I coiled my Son) But God did it by Teaching and commanding jfofeph to take the child and flye into Egypt, &c. now you will argue it feems, that jod fent not Crnift by that wordj becaufe it was not Chrift but Jofeph and Mary hat he taught and commanded. I am forry that your common Reafon and common enfe is no better, then to rent the Church of God, and abufe plain Scripture, and nifiead poor people, and defpife the moft Divines,and mo ft learned and godly ths ver the Church had fince the Reformation, and all upon fuch filly grounds as-thef nd that you (hould fo glory in fuch infipide arguing. * M» 7 1 86 Plain Scripture proof of Mr. T. 'T'He lafltexthe brings where he faith God faith the contrary '> ts i Cor, 7. 14. The «■> unbelieving husband is fanclified by the wife, fo we read it (but I would read it in the wife, for [0 it is in the otiginall)andthe unbelieving wife is fanclified ih't be husband, elfe were your children unclean, but now they are holy. It is truest is f aid children are holy, but not that they are holy as ina fiate feparated to God a but faith Mr. Baxter, that is the common acception, in fix hundred places it is fo tafcn. iPe anfwcr. Mr. Baxter cannot I thinli (hew in any one place where the word [Htf/y] is ta\en in his fenfe 3 for a fiate or per fen feparated to God, in that way that he would have a per fon feparated to God, nei" they by eleclwn, nor outward caUing,nor any other way that I tyow of, in which holinefs is ufedfor a fiate feparated to God. if Mr. Baxter wiU tell us how children are feparated t9 God 3 we (hall quickly 1 believe [hew him that there is not a text (hews that [Holy] is tafcn in his fenfe > but beloved, he was then willing and flill is to carry things in the general and not diftinclly teU us how Infants are f aid to be holy, and m a fiate feparated to God. • And for that fenfe he gave of the former part of the vcrfe 3 the unbelieving husband is fanclified in the wife; that is 3 fanclified to the ufe of the wife, byvertue of the wife 5 faiths as in I. Tit. i.j. To the pure all things are pure, then this is on'y true of thofe wives that have true faith before God, and they only have their husbands fanclified to them > who by prayer and faith have a holy ufe of their husbands, what if it be granted ? then it follows that only the children offuch parents are holy\ for elfe, that is, if the unbe- lieving husband were not fanclified in the wife, then your children were unclean, but now they are holy, or clean, elfe were your children uncle any that is, if this were not fa, your children were unclean ; then itfollows>that if there beany child whereof one parent is not a true believer before God, that that child is unclean, that is 3 in a fiate not feparated to God. And what will follow hence? if this fiate of reparation gives them right to God 9 then it will follow that no child ought to be Bapti^d, but the child of one parent which is a true believer before God, and foIwouldas\ Mr. Baxter, or any body elfe 3 how they dare B^pti^ any Infant? he will fay they ought charitably to judge of them', but I fay, a judgement of charity is no rule m this cafe, neither ought we to proceed without ground from Scripture. Neither he nor I do fyiow that the parent of any child is a true believer be- fore God, andfo neither he nor Any Mimficr upon earth may according to this cxpofttion prcfume to Baptise any Infant, untiU Godvouchfafes by a peculiar Revelation to tell them, this is the child of one that is truly fancl'fied. A judgement of charity hath no ground here , neither can it be a. judgement of Charity 3 but when I conceive the befi of another s facls, or words. Nor is a ground for a judgement of Charity a Rule for us, that muft follow the Rule of thrifts Infiitution. I tytow who Are Difciples in Chrifis fenfe : thofe that pro fefs the faith of Cbrifli and accordingly we &ught 3 and I wiU proceed. And this text in Mr* Baxters own interpretation will not ferve the turn. But concerning my interpretation, however Mr. Baxter conceives ofit i 1 do not doubt but if he would let me fee his arguments for his interpretation,but when I have weighed them, my Interpretation may (iand when his mtlfatl. And thus have I gone through the four texts that Mr, Baxter hath given outfuch high words of 3 as if the denying of thefe Texts to prove that which Mr. Baxter brings them for, were to fay contrary to God* I am loath to fpeak what I may ; mm as they are affecled tb^fpeafa l perceive. r. a* Sx fants Church- member fhip tnd Bapifw. 187 A R. B. Bout if^.7.14. you have nothing that is not anfwered before more folly then >it deferves^ j fave a new crochet of the nature of the r'.ft, where you fay that I cannot (hew where the word Holy is taken in my fence for a ftate or perfon fepai attd to God in that way,&c. Anfwer i- Is it not enough that I prove it is alwayes taken for a reparation to God , but I muft (hew that the Word fignifies a feparation by this or that way or means effected ? Muft every denomination of an ad or a Re- lation , fignificalfo the particular efficient caufe of it, of means, or Antecedents ? Here's arguing fit for your caufe. Shall I tell you of an Argument juft like your ex- ception here ? A man was out of love with his wife, and refolved to put het away j and to this end, (being one of thofe that could believe almoft what his lift,) he was refolved to believe, (or at leaft to maintain) that it was lawfull to put her away. When the Scripture was produced that forbiddeth putting away a wife, he anfwered, that the word [wife] in Scripture did fignifie another thing, and not fuch as his wifej and challenged them to (hew where the word [wife] in Scripture is taken for one that was marryed with a Ring and a Common- prayer-Book , as his wife was j andbe- caufe no fuch Scripture could be (hewn, he triumpheth, and concludeth, that Scripture forbiddeth not putting away fuch a wife as his: And is not this the fame kindeof Reafoning as yours ? So I prove that Holinefs is always taken for a feparation to God j and you muft have it fignifie a feparation by this way,or that way. z But are ycu fure that what you fpeak is true? that no Scripture fpeakcth of Holinefs in this fence? you wHl confefs that the Jews Infants were feparatedto Gods they are called the Holy Seeds and was not this dire&ly by the Law or Covenant of God, by which he legally ftated them in this relation, and appropriated them to himfelf, and gave them a Legall right to the priviledge ? It was not by E- lection in the ftrift fenfe only, for all men were not fo Elec"ted,but all were the Holy (ccd 5 It is true they were elected to this Relation from eternity 5 and fo are our In- fants to the relation that they ftand in, as Holy 5 but the Law or Covenant did actually give them that Holinefs and Relation to God 3 to which from eternity they were deftinated. And by calling they were not feparated 5 except you will under- stand it, that the Infants are called in the call of their parents, and fo ours are called as well as theirs. Yea,fo far areyoubefides the truth in this, that it is more doubtfull whether all feparation to God, or Holinefs be not by vertue of feme Law 5 or at leaft whether moftiy it be not fo , where God is the fan&ifier j For Eh&ion and calling exclude not this, bin rather ufually include it. God cals us to be fons 5 and jiet it is his Covenant that confers the Relation and dignity of fonihip on the called j To as many as believe he giveth power to become his fons j fo that as calling goeth before Believin?, To Believing in order of nature goes before fonfliip, as being the condition on which it is given -, And where is this given on this condition , but in the Cove- nant or Law of Grace ? fo is it in the prefent cafe 5 It is the Covenant that gives the title and P.elationof Hoiy or feparated to God,even to thofe that are called ', and (c it doth (tiii as it did formerly to the feed of the called. And yet when I fo fully explained this to be my meaning to Mr, T. both in pub- like and private, he eels them here moft confidently, that I was then willing, and ftill B b am 1 88 Flaift Scripture proof of am to carry things in the general , and not diftinftly tell him how Infants are fat<£ to be holy,and in a ftate feparated to God. To which what can I fay, but lament that Mr. T. hath fo far laid by confeience and common modefty $ For I. multitudes of wittnefles heard me explain my felf, and I did it at large to him in conference alfo % and never was unwilling to do it. a. He accufeth my will, both as then it was, and asftillitis ; And doth he^know my heart? will he ftill ufarpe the prerogative of God ? I folemnly profefs that if Mr. T. know not my will better then I do »my own, that this charge is a moftgrofs fallhood. The nature of it will allow me no eafier language ; for if I mould fay, it is true, I mould my felf be untrus in fo faying; And is this fit for a preacher of truth ? and that for the Pulpit? and fo many of thefe ? And will not thefe juftifie the charge of [having little tendernefs of confeience, &c\ which Mr. T. took, as fpoke of himfelf ? And for his great exception about going upon a judgment of charity Xn baptizing, I have fully anfwered it in its place already. I have (hewed that we go upon a judge- ment of certainty as to our duty, though we have but a probability of the perfons fin? cerity ; and that this fmites himfelf full as much as me y For he will take no pro- feffion but what is a probable fign of fincerity. And here he tels them again, that he will not fay what he may. If he mean [what lawfully he may] I give him no thanks.lf he mean [what unjuftly and finfully he may] I thank him for not wronging God and himfelf, efpecially if he had been as confeion- able throughout, as here. Mr. T. I Go on \l cannot d'grefito fo/tifieyou again fi thefe Setts'] Seftarifts be chargcth as we are. Jt is ea/yfor bim> and any others to write what they plea[e } they have the liberty* That Jam a Scclary, or do hold with any Seel, he cannot prove. R. < E. YOu have little caufe to be angry if I had called you a Sectary; You know it is a fin that the Holy Ghoft condemns, and therefore no godly man (hould make light of it. And may I not almoft as ealily know you to be a :>ecVmafter,a$ to be a Chriftian? I would you would judge patiently and impartially your felf. Your Jnfant-Baptifmyou fay was no Baptifm 5 And though I hear you are ii-nce baptifed, it is more then I know, or ever met with any that did know. And you fay your felf that Baptifm is the regular way of admiffion into the vifible Church, fo that whe- ther you be fo admitted or not into the Chriftian ftate I know not, yet I am confident that you are of the Chriftian faith : But I know it but by your preaching,and fpeech, and a&ion, and fo I do the other. For do you not preach, difpute,taik and endeavor as zealoufly to promote your opinion, as you do for the Chriftian faith? I will be judged by your hearers whether you ever laid out among them more 2eal againft any fin or for the Chriftian faith, then you have done lately in this caufe of Anabaptifm ? Have you not charged their blood on their own heads if they yield not } And have you not written more for this caufe, then for the Chriftian faith ? fothatl have as good evidence (I fpeak it with grief) that you are a Sect-matter, as that you are a Cht iftian. Mr. T. Infants Church-mmberfhip and Bajttifm. 1 8p Mr. T. £y it have feen God fpeafy againft them by judgements from Heaven; what were the A two Mongers in New England but miracles f] You havefcen : who ? heffeaty to the people of Kederminftcr ; what judgements from heaven they have feen, whereby God fpea^s againft thefe Seels, is unknown to me : 1 wifh they nould tell m y that we may know alio. For the Monjlers in New England, there is mention made in ajiory of Mr. Weldes", intituled the Rife an d FaH : Sec. and thefe are the Monjlers he means i the one Was a cer- tain grange find of thing that wa* bred in the womb of one Mrs. Dyer; and the other Jome flrange things that came out of the womb of one Mrs. Hutchinfon. It is true Mr. Weldes, and others in New England conclude that God did from Heaven do it to fhew the err on thefe women held. But what is this to Anabaptifm ? I have read over the eighty two er- rors that were condemned in an Affembly in the Church of New England at New Town j o. Auguft 1637. and of thefe eighty two errors, there is not one of them that doth in the leafl manner hint, that thefe pcrfons did hold the DocJrinc of denying Infant-Baptifm, there are befides fever all unfavory fpeeches that fell from them put not one of them againft Infant - - Babtifm. There are twenty nine Doctrines of Mrs* Hutchinfons, but none of them a« gain ft Baptifmof Infants. R. B. THe judgements that I mean they have feen, are iuch as this Land is full of ,and now groans under, giving up thefe Sefts to fuch vile opinions and practices, as might be a terror to any confiderate man that followeth them, unlefs he will go on as the Egyptians into the Red Sea. For thofe in New England, they are apparent and undenyable wonders wrought by the finger of God Almighty. Sir, God doth not ordinarily, nor every day work wonders, and crofs the courfe of nature ; and therefore his wonders are not to be flighted, nor overlooked. I wifli all Divines and Chriftians in England that are too favorable to the Antinomian principles,would a little more fadly and ferioufly confi* derof thofe wonders; and whether they mould not above all errors decline thofe that God hath fo vifibly teftified his deteftation of. Certainly God would never have done it, if he did not expect we (houid obferve it, and give him the glory. It is a def. perate thing to be hardened againfl wonders. But you fay, that this was not againft the denyers of Infant. Baptifm^eto. Anf. 1. 1 intended only the Antinomies in mentioning that example, z. I have had ac- quaintance with fome of them that left New England when Mr. wheeler and Mrs. Hutchinfon were difcarded, and they were againft Baptifm. }. Your language about the abfolutnefs of the Covenant of Grace is too like many of their tenets. Bb x Mr.T* i$o Plain Scripture proof of Mr. T. ANd if God did declare mth~ judgments from Heaven againfl the r e errors ; one of them is the twenty one [To be juftifUd by faith is to be juftified by wo>\s j do but coyjfider h,w necr this is to Mr. Baxters own Doclrmc, in his Aphonjms of fufcfuoti- on 3 7i.Jpvyrifm, and ethers'] from what hath been [aid , it ap:earetb in what fen fe faith on'y juftifietb, and in what finfi "worlds off* jufli fie. Faith only jufiifieth as the great Principal/ Mafic/ duty of the Gofpell, or chief part of its condition 3 to which alt the reft are fome way reducible- fforjfs do juftifie as the fecondary y lefs principal!, parts of the rendition of the Covenant; andafte;tvards he cxprcfly maintains ft om the (eco/idof James (wh; eh mufl not be under Hood faith he by a Metonymy as Mr. Pemble and others explain it) andiffo, then ^r Baxter holds that James teacheth that we arc juft'fiedby wo>\s of Charity , and giving to the poor* and if this be not one of the errors that were condemned in New England, which God from Heaven declared again fi, I leave it to be. confdered. R. B. BUc that which follows about my Doctrine of juftification is the very height of all, I know not what is in your heart 5 but a hearer would think that it were the vile ebullition of rancor and malice in a moft evident falfhood that hath left no room for blufhing. I do not remember that ever I met with the like from any man in a black coat ; and I may well fay 3s you did to Mr. Ma/fbiU, I fhould fooner have expe&ed this from a Jehut then from you, and efpecially in the Pulpit, and before a flood of tears The 21. Article condemned in New England was this [to be juftified by Faith, is to be juftified by works] This was one of the Antinomian arguments againfr jufti- fication by Faith : For their opinion was, that the CoveHant of Grace had no con- dition either of Faith or obedience, and fo that no man was juftified by Faith, but by Chrift only dwelling -nthem. even as our Antinomifts fay, that we are juftified be- fore Faith, either from eternity, or elfe immediately on the death of Chrift. Now to prove this they bring this Reafon againft juftification by Fahh becaufe [to be juftifi- ed by Faith is to be juftified by works] therefore they think none is juftified by Faith or works. Now what doth H, T but bring this as the fame tenent with mine ? when Ms even diretily contrary. Thar this was the meaning of the Antinomifts is evident. In the twenty f°venth error they fay, It is incompatible to the Covenant of Grace to jcyn faLh thueto. And the thirty feventh error is, that we are compieatly united to Ch;ift before. &c- without any fimh wrought in us by the Spirit. The twenty eighth error, is that To affirm there muft be faith on mans part to receive the Covenant, is to uniermine Chrift. Error thirty eight is, There can be no true doling with Chrift in a promife thru hath a qualification or condition exprefied. Error fourty eighty is, Thatconditionall promifesare legall. See error 44, 45.47> $0, 62, 64, 67, 68,7^ 18. where rhe fame is evident. Now what is the doftrine that I maintain? why it is this in plain terms j That raith only jullifiethas the condition of cur firft juftification ; Butfincere obedience to Chrift as afecondary part of the condition of our continued and con- fummate Infants Chnrch-memherfiip and Baptism. ipi fummate juftiflcation at judgements Yet that neither Faith nor obedience is any caufc of our juftiflcation j nor the leatt part of that Righteoufnefs which the Law rccjuirts, and which we mull plead for our justification J nothing but the fatisfaction of Chrift is that which Divines call the matter of our juftiflcation, cr the Righteoufnefs which we mull plead to acquit us in judgement! That works in Pauls fenfe a that is 3 fuch actions as have relation to thereward,nbt as of grace but of debt, Rom. 4. 4. are no conditions of justification at all 5 for lo woiks are put in opposition to Chrift 5 no nor if they be put in co-ordination 5 Buc works in James his fenfe, as they ate Sub- ordinate :o Chrift, are conditions without which juftiflcation lliall not be continued or confumtnate at judgemear. And herein I life none but the plain Scripture expref- fions for proofe, and fay no more then James 5 and hive cited the plain words of 3 multitude of Scriptures, which I would Mr. T. wcu'd rationally anivver. I fliould deal with him more cheerfully and gladly then in this loud quarrell of Infant- Baptifm- And I undertake to manifeft, that I afcrfte no more to works then our Divines of greatcft note ufuallydo, that is, to be fuch a bare condition of the Covenant as afore- laid j only I give lefs then they to faith, not thinking it meet to call it an Inftiumtn- tallcaufe, and yet am rtfolved nor to quarrel with any about that phrafe. And in this OA-t. T. hath in my hearing expreffed himfelf of my judgement. And yet he would have made his people believe, that this is one of the dodrines condemned in the An- tinomies in New England, when it is as dire&ly contrary to theirs as can be imagin- ed. Prob pudorjjxc pietas ? Yea, when I wrote that book efpecially againftthe An- tinomians , And do here folcmnly profefs that I am confident no adverfary to the main dodrines of that book (for— fraaller collaterall points I Hick not at) is able to confute the Antinomian dotages $ but he will build them up with one hand as he puis them down with the other. And here let me take in what Mr. T. biings in after on the fame fubied. He faith^ 1. 1 hold that works Juftifie as part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace. Anfw. 1. So doth Jame s fpeak fullyer, that a man it juftified by works and not by faith only. And is not Saint James Orthodox ? And Chrift faith, If ye forgive men their trefpafles, your heavenly Father will forgive you: but if ye forgive not men 3 neither will your heavenly Father forgive you ; And is not Chrift Orthodox ? Alfo, Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will eafe you, Take my yoak upon you, for it is eafie, and my burden, for it is light 5 Learn of me to be meek and lowly, and ye frail finde reft to your fouls. Reft ? from what > from that which they were weary and heavy laden under. What is that ? One rhing fure is the guilt of fin, andaccufation and condemnation of the Law (though I am told that Mr.T. doth interpret it of the Pharifes doctrine;but if he mean only that, it is a foul interpretation,) And to be eafed of the burden of guilt and condemnation isjuftifying, I think * And fo to come to Chrift in wearinefs, as to take his eafie yoak and light burden, and to learn of him, to be meek, &c. is thecendition of this benefit. So 7\cv.i 1. 14. BlcJJ'cd are they that do hu cornmandemrnts^ that they may have right to the tyce of Life, and may enter in by the- gate into the City : And Mat. z$. well, done good andfaithfull Servant , &c. Come ye b'cjjl d, inherit the Kjngdom : for I was hungry and ye 6cc, with a hundred more fuch plain Scripture?. z. Buc yet i fay only that thefe are conditions of Juftibcation at judgement, and the continuance of it here 3 buc not of the firft Ad : which Mr.T. paffeth over. And I ufe to explain my felt by this comparifon A Prince offers to marry a beggar^ he requireth no Dowry with her , not a penny, but only that fhe conient or accepc him for her Husband 5 yet it is implyed that (he both continue that cenfent, and perform the Offices of a Wife to a Husband, and be faithfull to him ,* Which if ilie be B b y rot., 1 9 a Plain Scripture proof of not, but cleave to another, and prove a Whore, he will turn her off. Now this woman is poffeffed of this Prince and all that he hath, upon meer content or contract at firft, without any thing elfe 5 but yet (he (hall not continue fo poflefled, but on .condi- tion (he continue faithfull (though for particular failings that violate not the marri- age Covenant, ihe (hall not be caft off.) So we are poiTeffed of Chrift with all his benefits upon condition of our Faith alone, or meer Belief and Confentj but we (hill not continue it , but on condition of faithfull Love and Subje&ion to the death. Yet this hath not the nature of a dowry , as it were , as if we mud bring any thing in our hands to Chrift 3 either for firft participation of him,or continuance ; For faithfulnefs is no meriting work. It was included that we rnuft be faithfull when we confented and covenanted to be faithfull 5 and that to attain the ends of the Cove- nant. Or thus, As a man that freely Redeemeth a condemned Traytor,on condition that he take him that Redeemed him for his Lord , and acknowledge the benefit, and receive it-, here the accepting -the offer is the only condition of his prefcnt delive- rance ; but if he perform not the condition promifcd,he forfeiteth it again. So with us in the prefent cafe. Or as Sbimei that was freely pardoned, but his pardon was to continue in force only on condition he did not go'beyond the prefcdbed limits. Mr,T. chargeth me that I hold, that justifying Faith doth include Acceptance : Anfwer s A hainous Error indeed. Such as is deliveredj Joh.i.n^iz. As many as 'received him>to them gave he power to become the Sons ofGod^even to them that believe in his name Doth he think that the reje&ing or refufall of Chrift is any part of the fin of Infidelity ? Doth he think that Faith is in the Will as well as the underftanding ? If he do not, Davenant in his Determinations . and Dr. Hall, and Amcfius , and M.C- lantlhon , and moft of our Divines are againft him J and Johan. Crocius and many more againft BeUa-rm'me do affirm it to be the common Do&rine of Proteftants : But if he do think that juftifying Faith is alfo in the Will (as doubtlefs it is) then how can he exclude the moft immediate Elicite Ads, which Rifpettu eornm qutfuntad fifScm t irQ Eliger e ^onf entire, in i, as Aquin. and others generally?) And I would fain know what is the danger of either of thefe points ? Is it leaft hereby we rob Chrift of any of the honour of his office? O that any man would man ife ft that in the leaft degree ! Hath the Covenant of Grace which promifeth and giveth Juftification, Adoption, and Salvation,any condition, or hath it none? I know no man that is not of the Antinomian Faith will fay it hath none* And if it have any condition ,is it any cjueftion whether Obedience and perfeverance be a fecondary part of it? Is not Chrift the Author of eternal falvationtoall them that obey him? H^.Oif.And I would know whether Chrift do perform this condition for us ? or whether he require that all of usfhoulddo it our felves? and enable all his Eled to do it accordingly? Doth Chrift repent and Believe in himfelf , and obey himfelf in our ftead > or will any fay fo fave a crazed brain ? why then if it were not of Chrifts part to fulfill thefe conditions of the New Covenant for us, (butherecjuirethandenablethustofulfil themj is it any wrong to Chrift tfi3t we fulfil them? or to know and fay that we fulfil them ? or to call them the conditions of his Covenant, when he hath made them fo ? What ? is it a wrong to Chrift to do as he bids us ? and as he requireth us upon pain of damnation to do ? and will condemn all that do not ? When Chrift hath bought us, is it any wrong to him that we obey him ? and that to the ends he hath propounded,?/^, as the condition of our participation of himfelf and his benefits t Jf I give either to Faith or Obedience the leaft part of that honour which is due to Chrift, then blame me and flume me, and fpare me not. But Mr,T, faith that [he thinks I have not perfwaded any one fcilnifter in Eng'andto be Infants Cburchmembcrjlup and Baptifm. j ^ j be of my Opinion,] To which I give him this Anfwcr : i.Icisnonc of my en- devors fo to do. When I had once put forth my Arguments in that tractate though briefly, I was fatisfied : Let any Minifter ftep forehand witnefs againft me that can, that I have folicited or importuned them to my Opinions Nay, let my own Hearers fpeak whether ever I folicited them or any one of them, to the entertaining ofmy Doctrine in thofe controverted points I Much lefs did I ever preach and pio^ jed to promote it, and make a faction for my Opinion fake. I leave that which I have written to God to fucceed as he pleafe 5 for my part, I look not after i: t Nay, as weighty as fome points in that Book are, if I had thought that the publishing of them would break the peace of the Church , I would have kept them in :'So far am I from your judgement.about the not filencing of any truth for Peace. Truly Sir, Gad hath given me fich a deteftation of Schifm and Church disturbances, that I keep a jealous eye upon mine own heajt againft it continually : and you mould net blame me for being (harp againft it in you ; for I think I mould abhor my felf, if 1 found my felf guilty oflr. When I fiift fet forth that fmall book , as the Truth waspretious to me, and I could noteafily (upprefs it ; So I reckoned what 1 might expect in its en- tertainment in the World 5 and experience of the cafe of excellent Mr. n'otton* Brad' fbaw> Gatafor, Amyraldus , Conrad. Bcrgius, Lud. Crocim, Junius, Melanclhon y and almoft all that have done any thing considerable for truth and peace , againft the high extreams of the times, who were all cenfured as decliners or erroneous (with the leaft of wKomTxonfefs ray felf unworthy to be named, ) I fay, their example bid mi? expect the cenfure of many hotfpurs 5 which I refolved upon ; But withall I rook my heart in hand and mewed it the temptation to Schifm and Faction and proud con- rendings that lay under thefe expected Cenfures , and charged it to take heed and avoyd them as death • and what ever provocations 1 undergo, 1 refolve never to make a party or rent in the Church; I may crrd but I will be no Heretick. Though 1 have caufe enough to be diftruftfull of my own heart,yet fo ftrong is my hatred of Church • divifions, and making parties for Opinions, that I dare promife you in the ftrength of Chrift to avoid It And if I be {harper then fome thinly meet againft otbcrs 3 it is only againft fucb Church-renter s^and grofi errors, and not againft any peaceable man.! hearti- ly love thofe that receive not my doctrine, but placidly diftent^as well as thofe that do receive k» And though by fome ftirrings i have felt that its very naturall to love thofe that are of oar own Opinion, yet knowing fuch motions to come from pride and felf- been undone by the fame temptation, were and are as pillers of fait in mine eyes. And I refoive to do as Learned Gatafer , to differ from my Brethren of the Miniftry in peace and love ; and whereto we have attained to walk by the fame rule and mind in the fame things 3 and then if in any thing any be otherwife minded , God will reveal even this unto us. i. And where you think I have not made^ne Minifter of my judgement, I know but one that you made of yours, nor have he&A^Ut of one. 3 . Perhaps they were of my judgement WR , and then how could I make them fo } But if that be the intent of your fpeech,that there is none in England of my judge- ment, I muft tell you, that in every thing no two men in the world' are of one judge- ment j but in the main of that book, I could name you divers Mlnifters, fome that now do live among us here in thefe parts, and fome that lately have done, that approve itj yea, divers of greatcft note for Learning in Oxford ,and Qambrid^ and London, that have 1^4 Plain Scripture proof of have teftilied their approbation, and indeed do overvalue it ; yet others cenfure it I knows procaptulecforis 3 8cc. Yea more, let me tell you, that for ought 1 know, every Minifter in the Countrey may be of the fame judgement , (though I conjedure othi*wife 3 and am not folicitous to enquire:) for though I have had fpeech wi;h many Mmiff ers of this Countrey iince I wrote that book (L think thirty o • forty) yet to my beft remembrance never a man of them did either mention his diflikeof it, or diifent from me ; Or, if any h3ve difputed any point of it , they have quickly either been fatisfied, or by their filence feemed lb. And how can Mr. T. have ground to think that no Minifter in England is of my judgment? England contained! more Tvlinifters then ever did manifeft to Mr. T. their judgements. 4. But I can tell Mr.T. of a great many Divines of greateft name and efteem in the Church , that are of the fame judgement in thefe points that he excepteth againft, as I am. (Though I confefs I knew it not when I wrote that book.) For Juftification by works, Conrad. Bergius in his excellent Book called 1 Praxk Cathol. Canon t &c and Jjtdovi. Crocius in Syntagm. & Johan. Crocius de fuftificatione, & $ohan. Bergius m Job.%.x€. with divers others do affirm, that fincere Obedience is the condition of not loofing or keeping Juftification when we have it : And is not that all one as to fay, it is a condition of Juftification as continued, as I do ? Yet the fame Divines fay, that we are juftified by Faith only without works ; but then they fpeak of Juftification as in the fiift Ad> and fo I fay to. (For it was not fo clearly difcerned by Divines till T>:.Downam had evinced it, that Juftification is a continued Ad, and not any In- ftantaneous ad,fo ftmuKs* femelas to be ceafed, as was before taught,) z. And for my Definition of Faith,not only as it takes in Acceptance of Chrift, but even of Chrift as Lord, into the form and definition, M. T. may fee that Dr Preflon is peremptory for it, and large upon it : And VAr. Norton of New-England In his judicious grounds of Divinity gives the fame in fence as I do [juftifying Faith is a receiving Chrift as our Head and Saviour, according as he is revealed in the Gofpel,] fo doth godly Mr.CulverrveU in his Treadle of Faith : and Mr.'lhrogmonon in his Treatife of Faith fix or feven times over. But why fhould 1 name more, when the Learned, godly Di- vines of this Land in the Affembly have agreed on the like definition in their Ca- techifmSjto which I wholly and heartily fubferibe, [juftifying Faith is a faving Grace> wrought in the heart of a (inner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he being convinced of his fin and mifery, and of the difability in himfelf, and all other crea- tures to recover him out of his loft condition, not only alTentethto the truth of the promife of the Gofpel , but receiveth and refteth upon Chrift and his righteoufnefs therein held forth, for pardon,&c] And better in the fmall Catechifm , they define Faith in Jems Chrift to be [a faving Grace, whereby we receive and reft upon him alone forfalvation as he is offered to us in the Gofpel.] This definition is the fame in fence with mine ; and i heartily embrace it. For any man may fee that by [Receiving] (which is fomewhat Metaphorically they mean [Accepting] for it is related to the Offer of Chrift in the Gofpel; And it is Chrift himfelf that they fay mult be received : Audit [as he is* offered in the Gofpel,] then certainly, as Chrift the anointed, or as our Ld^Hus ; or as King, Prieft, Prophet, Head, Husband. ^^ Yc? , and in the very main point they are of the fame judgement as I am,ihat more then Faith is required to JAiftification ; for they f ly in anfvver to this Queftion, What doth God require of us that we may efcapc his wrath and Curfe due to us for fin ? To efcape the wrath and curfe of God due to us for fin, God requireth of us Faich in Jeia;, Ckrift, Repentance unto life , with the Diligent ufe of all the outward means Infants Church-mcmbcrjhip and Baftifm. 195 means whereby Chrift communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption. And they prove it from Aft.io.u. Prov.z.i. to 6. & £ . ;;. to the end. if a. f y. g. and in the great Cacechifm they have the fame proved from Mai.ijfl* 14.13.3,5. Att.16. jo, 1 1. John j. i6,i8.Now though M/-.T. perhaps make no great reckoning of the judge- ment or the Affembly , yet thofe that do, me thinks mould not cenfure them in cen&ring me. And for thofe that will not believe that Obedience is any condition of our continued or confummate Juftification , I would know of them, whether they tMnkthat God will j«ftifie them in judgement, though they feed not, cloth not, vifitnot, &c. and will he continue their Juftification here, though they take their brother by the throat 3 and fay pay what thou oweft ? or though they live in Whore- dom, drunkennefs,marder J &c.If they fay,No : then,how can their obedience be de« nyed to be fu.h a condition ? And I would know alfo, To what end they do abftain from thefc fins^nd obey God? Will they fay,Only in thankfulncfs for forgivenefs and deliverance, as the Antmomlans fay> or alfo as a means or condition of their ob- taining falvation^as all our Divines fay ? And how can it be a condition of our falvai tion, and yet no condition of our fina4l Juftification , or of the continuance of it here ? And is it not as great wrong to Chrift^to fay that our Works 5 or Gofpel-Obe- dience is a condition of our falvation, as to fay, it is a condition of our finall Juftu fication ? fure it is Chrifts Office to be our Saviour; and he that makes his own works to be his Saviour, doth wrong Chrift as much as he that makes them his jufti- fiers ; but he that maketh them but fuch conditions of both as aforefaid, doth no whit derogate from any thing of Chrift j Except it be an honour to Chrift to have hts fervants wicked and rebellious: They that will lay that all their obedience hath no other tendency to tljeir falvation and finall Abfolution, but as meer figns , and that they Obey only that they may have a bare fign which is not fo much as a condition of Life, I Inall expect they mould flag in their obedience ere long. I am fure the end of Pauls bringing his body in fubje&ion,was,leaft himfelf mould be a caft-away : and he ftrove for the high price of our calling ♦, and he would have us run to obtain the Crown -.And Chrift will condemn men at laft eo nomine, becaufe they would not that he mould reign over them, and becaufe they did not improve their Talents j and they mall be made Rulers of many Cities that have well improved many Ta- lents. But 1 have brought proof enough of this in the Book it felf that is accufed. I will only add this , Though it be unmannerly to challenge my Senior, yet be- caufe I know no mild or modeft way will prevail, I do here challenge Mr. T. and by challenging provoke him to confute the Doctrine of that Book which he accufcth % and I (hail thinfc my felf as able to defend it, as almoil any controverted point in Divini- ty ; and (hall think it a fubjecx more worth my labour then this of Baptifm. And if Mr.T. will not anfweu this challenge , nor by all this be provoked to undertake it y let all men judge whether he be not a meer empty Calumniator, that will preach againft that in the Pulpit which he cannot confute. And let himnotputit off by faying that others enough will do it, and therefore he need not: For 1. So others enough have wrirten againft his Doctrine, and yet he ftill urgeth me to it. 1. I have importuned other Diflenters to produce their Arguments^ and cannot prevail with any one (favc one friend that at firft of himfelf did fomewhat, which is not unanfwer- ed :) 3. Becaufe I am a confuming man 3 and like to die quickly, therefore fome will delay till I am dead, that they may have the laft word , and feem to conquer when none (hall |ain-fay them Therefore I would fain provoke Mr.T> who is at hand, to do it fpeedily, and I (hall thank him for it as a high favour. Cc And J96 Plain Scripture proof o) And for that pafTage of Mr. T. [I am fure in his Letters to me, he faith, he was hified at from all parts of the^Kingdom,] Ianfweri. Mr.T. having publifhed in the Pulpit what paffed privately in Letters between him and me , hath now fully [et me freetopublimthe reft, and neceflnated meto fome. So I leave it to the judgement of all, whether I may not do it without blame. 2. The relation of this is like the reft, as from a bitter root, fo moft falfly - y when yet he had my Letters which might have dire&ejl him to fpeak the Truth, the words [from all parts of the Kingdom] are his own falfe addition, whkh is become fo ordinary with him, that it were a wonder if he mould be a revealer of extraordinary Tmrk j. The occafion of that paflfage in my Letter to Mr.T-vfzs this; I p'erceive-d,bec'*ufe I never medled in the Pulpit againft Anabaptifts,'and becaufe L had preached that fome Truths muft be fufpended for peace, therefore it begun to be taken for granted that I took Anabaptiftry for Truth, but only becaufe it was a difgraced way 1 would not be for it. Therefore to convince M.T. tha: 1 did not go againft my confcience, but would entertain the moft difgraced Truth, I ufed teverali Arguments, whereof this was one, That I had voluntarily been more prodigall of my reputation in putting out that Pamphlet of Juftification, which I knew was Uke to blaft my reputation , &c. and that I was fo hifled at, that I felt temptation enough to Schifm (and he need not add more.) (If he urge furrher,I will publim the Letters as they were written on both fides.) This paltage was true, as from mrny hot contentious fpirits who fpake againft what they could not confute : And I.fpoke it alfo to let Mr.T. know,that though my temptations to Schifm were greater, yet I was fortified i thatpcim •* Yet what doth he, but thinking he had me at fome advantage, in his next Letter fals in with me, and offers me his help, for the defence of m^ Book wherein we agreed, hereby to draw me to a combination* with, and en- gage me to him, for dividing ends > But 1 abhorred the temptation, and made him no anfwer to that part of his Letter. For as I thought I had no need of his help , fo I was refolved not to engage with a renter of the Church. "For as I will not meddle with Controverfies, till I am forced fowhen I do, it fhall be in unity and love, as far as lean. And Co much to Mr. T. his fhamelefs charge againft my Doctrine of Juftification, as if it were the fame with the Anunomifts in NewEn^and^hizhlx. is direitly con- trary to. Mr. T. YEt I will add tbtu much further , that it is very unfafe fotany inmto fudge of Do* cTrr'me byfuch accidental^ flrtnge things. Many in fiances cou'd-be given^ wherein people have been led to Error, upon afuppefall that God hath determined again fl any opinion by fimeftrangc accident. I will name but one. ire read in \ the Stwy of a great contention that there was in England a little before the Conquefl^ whether married Pricfls were more acceptable to God, then Men^s that vowedafmgk life 5 At /aft they mt at Caw in Wilt- shire in a Synodjhere to difpute tbebufmefs 5 and that pa-rty that held for married Priefts fate on one fide of the room where they met together 3 andthat party that -were for Monies fate on the other fide the room j it hapned in the Difpute , that part of the houfe , where the party that were for married Priefts fate Jell down, and many were hurt , and many loft their lives 5 upon this tbey prefently concluded that God was better pleafcd with Monies, then Infants Church -Tneinberjhif *nd Bapifm. 197 then married Priejis - 3 andfo it was ta^en that Pr lefts were net to 1 j married. Now judge •f the- ilLconCequcnces that fell upon thin to conceive that .'/ Accidents people Should determine of Doctrine. Nay 5 give pie leave to tcllyou we may rather thml{ we ought to deter mine, that God may oder accidents fo, as to become ftumbling bioc^s,that people fbould not receive the* truth; rather then by any Accidents to determine a truth to be an un- truth. Therefore I conceive the-c is no fafety of judging what Voclrine is true, orfalfe, but by going to the Law, and to the Te (I i many, and try thereby. And I would wifh Mr. Baxters Followers of Kederminfter to u\$ heed how they follow him in this direction, and learn vhatthe Scripture (hews them, and to ta^e heed of fuch mongers wrought from Heaven, as he tallp of i but to cleave to the word of God, animate that their only Rule, feeing we have Scripture to guide us, and no warrant to judge of Accident s 3 as Miracles from Heaven to /way us. R. B. NExt 3fr. 7. gives- his judgement and advice that we judge not of Do&rines by fuch accidentall ftrange things, and tels a ftory of a houfe falling down (I conjecture he means the ftory of Dunflane, ) and concludes that it is rather to be thought that God may order accidents fo as to be (tumbling blocks^ &c. J To which I .Vifwer : 1 . Will not this man rather fight againft Heaven, and difpute againft Mi- racks then he will let go his Error ? (If the nature of the (in againft the Holy Ghoft be well ftiuiyed, it will appear to lie much in an Infidelity againft the convincing teftimony of Miracles) Muft God witnefsof Hereticks by wonders from Heaven, and (hall the Sons of men be fo vile, as not only to (hut their own eyes, butalfo to la- bour to weaken the credit of the Teftimony of God , and to bring his wondrous providences into a mean efteem , and to darken the light that mines from Heaven In their faces! O that God would make you feel with ttueremorfe, how far you are fallen,when your Opinions and credit have fo much intereft in you,and God fo little, that you can fo freely facrifice his Glory to your fancies I God worketh Miracles fofcldom, that when he doth it, men mould obferve,and admire, and learn, and not ecclypfe his Glory manifefted by them. 1. He cals them only ftrange Accidents / z. He compares it to the falling of the houfe, which might eafily come from a niturall caufe. 3 He difiwades from Judging of Doctrine by fuch Accidents. 4. Yea, would rather have us judge that they are ftumbling blocks that people mould not receive the truth. Anf.i. -All mongers arc not Miraculous I know : Some come from a meer defed in naturc,and fome from.er- ror: But thefe in q-ueft ion are fuch as muft havera fupernatuial caufe ; When there (hall be the parts of birds, of fi(hes,of beaft, (as horns) of man : I could willingly en- ter a Difpute with Mr- 7V how far- nature may go- in this , but for tedioafnefs. And then this.. Yea A and rather judge tha • . .G'£ t * ^. contrary? Plain Scripture proof of contrary ? It feems if he had feen the wonders ofEgyft, he would not only have been hardened as Pharaoh, but jrdged God laid them as ft umbling. blocks. Who would not tremble to hear the holy God to be thus accufed by man ? as iFEe led people int» Brill by his wonders ? 1 know wonders thit are not Miracles^re not to be interpreted or trufted to contrary to the word; for Satan by Gods permiffion may perform th«m, and Antichrift may do lying wonders : But yet i. True Miracles are never to be diftrufted, but believed whatfoever they teach: For they are only the Teftimony of God s and God cannot lie ; nor will he ever give the Teftimony of a Miracle to any thing that is againft his Word : Crherwife how fhould Chrift himfelf have been believed to be God ? Doth he not fay himfelf, if I bad not done the worlds that n* man elle could do, you bid not had fin, but novo you have no cloa\ for your fin, *. And fome wonders that are not propermiracles in their nature,may yet have a plain difcovery of a finger of God in the ordering of them^and fo when they are not againft Scripture. but according to it, mould exceedingly confirm us. It was no Miracle for a aian to fall down fuddenly, nor for two or three, or four to fall : Yet for fomany Jews that came to take Chrift to fall at once, and fall juft at that time,was fure a con- vincing wonder of God.Would A/?-.T if he had been one of thefejews have perfwaded them not to regard k , but rather to take it as ordered by God to be a ltumbling block ? So } if ic were no Miracle for Miftrifs Dyer and Miftrifs Hutcbinfen to bring forth thefe Monfters, yet to fall out on the leading Sec"fcaricS| and not on one only, but both, and that in fuch a time when the Church was in perplexity , becaufe of thole Cuntroverfies, and for one to have fuch variety of births , and the other aMonfter, with fuch variety of parts fuitable to their various monftrous Opinions ; thefe are fo evidently the hand of God, that he that will not fee it when it is lifted up, (hall fee and be aftiamed. How oft doth the Pfalmift call on the Saints to remember trie wonders of God,and not to forget his works ? And I hope Odr.T. his tongue will fooner cleave to the roof of his mouth, then thefe wonders of providence mall be forgotten by New- Er.gJand. And the forgetting them among us,is no fmall aggravation of #ur fin j That ever old England mould become the dunghil to receive the excrements of all thofe abominations which were purged out of New.EngUnd by wonders from God 1 I &iYe the people of ^edtrminfter therefore ft ill the fame advice, i.e. that they take Scripture for the only rule, but flieght not the judgements of God on the corrupters of it, nor fhuc their eyes againft. the Commentary of fuch "providences. Mr. T. eHrlft bath told you, by their fruits you (hall front them > we misinterpret when we fay he means by tbeir falfe doclrine 5 that were but idem per idem.} And Chrijt bath faid t Mit-7. 1 f . Beware of falfe Wophets which come to you in meeps clothings but inwardly they are ravening wolves, ye (hall know them by their fruits ; be faith it is-amif-interpretation-to fay thefe fruits are falfe doftrine > contrary raParastiSjPifcator, Perkins,*?* Sermon on the Mount 5 and ifrow not why thefe mens interpretations fbould not bold for the truth, iffo be that wefrall know falfe Prophets by their fruits y then their fruits are notes, and notes do difiinguifh 5 and ft they mufi be then fuch cu agree to all of 'them, or none of them 5 but the note of unbolinefi dotb not agree to all falfe Prophets, or to them only J therefore that cannot be that by which the} [hould be frown to be falfe prophets, For there Wire nwtr falfe* Prophets , thai not only feermd holy for itime i but Infants Cburch*nemberf\)ip and Baptifm. j pp but if rve will believe (lories , many of thofe that Ijavs been accounted Heretic fa have lived, and died holy lives. And thcyfore this is vay unfafe to judge of men to be falfe Prophets by their unholmcfs of lives. Nay, and I -think thm aU thofe cannot he acquitted, that Baptise infants, as if they were all holy men j yea, and I thinly it may be fafctyfaid, that th.re are as many unholy men for their number , of that party, or feci that he is of, if he be ofafeft , or of that Opinion that be is of, as there are of the contrary Opinion. R. B. NExt Mr.T. contradi&fith my Expofirion of Mat, 7.1 j, [By their fruits ye (hall \nowthemf\ Hisreafonsarethefe: I. Ic mult agree to ail or none 5 but a vi- cious life doth not agree to all : Anfwer, This I have anfwered before, and (hewed that it is fuffident that it be ordinary or agree to moft. Chrift tels them how to difcern the whole parties of falfe Prophets, and not how to difcern every particular man that is fuch ; It is fufKcient that enough of the men may be discovered to im* peach the Doctrine. You may know fuch a mans Flock of Sheep by the mark 5 when yet perhaps fome may be unmarkc. You may know Spaniards from Englifh men by their colour j and yet fome few Spaniards may look clear , and fome Englifh more fwarthie. You may know a Crab-tree by the foure fruit ; yet not every Crab-tree ; for fome may have no fruit , and fome grow where you cannot know them. 1$ there no ufuall character of a faction , but that which is a ftrid property of each individuall partie ? It Is enough that by the lives of the generality of them, Hereticks may be known. 2. Many have lived godly that have been called Hereticks by the angry Fathers, (for the Church hath ftill been too liberall of this title even to thofe that dif&rred in nothing fundamental.) But what reall Hereticks can Mr.T.namc that had holy lives ? The beft have made nothing to facrifice the unity and peace of the Church to their fancies, and rent it in pieces- to ftrengthen their party. 2. Mr.T, faith s that there are proportionably as many unholy of that party that I am of j . To which I Anfwer ; x. I never meant that meer Anabaptifts were Hereticks j therefore my fence of that Text were neverthelefs good, though all the Anabaptifts had holy lives, 2. But for the comparifon Mr. T. makes , I have faid enough before. Lay by the common people who are confeientioufly of no fide , but will be of that fide which is in credit , and then compare thofe on each party that are carryed to it in judgement and conscience, and experience will quickly «onfure Mr. T. his re- proach : And it is no fmall degree of evill that a man is fallen to, wr.e-a he dare /lander or make infamous the whole or greateft part of all the holy Churches on Earth to maintain the reputation of his own Opinion. I know we have fome Davids (in fin) and Peters, yea, and fudas's too; but let him either (hew any that ever came to the height as Cop and his Followers, or any number of zealous Profcflbrs that lived as the Anabaptifts mentioned by Bullinger 3 Calvin, &c. ot have been guilty of the fin that in this age hath accompanied the Anabaptifts* Cc3 Mr.T. 200 Plain Serif tare ft oof of Mr. T. ANd for that be faith \_that were but idem per idem] it is very ftravge; Falfe Prophets wer.e tbefubjetts, and their do&rine the fign , and is this idem per idem ? this is but a conceit of Mr. Baxters^ and (iconfefs to you) beyond my s)(ilL to conceive. R. B. IF your capacity cannot reach to conceive a thing fo ea(ie 5 Iwouldadvife you to think your felf unfit to lead the world out of error. A man would think that your Logickihould be better, though your Divinity be fo bad. Falfe Prophets you fay were the fubje&s, and their do&rine the fign ; But there are three things in this fub- je& confiderable, and the queftion is which of thefe is the figiatum^ the thing fignifi- ed by this fign. i. As they were men 3 and fo Chrift never intended, that we mould know them to be men by their fruits* a. As they were Prophets , and fo Chrift in- tended it not neither. 3. But as they were falfe Prophets, and fo Chrift intended that by their fruits they (hould be known. Now what is a falfe Prophet, but one that preacheth falfe do&rine? are not thefe Synonima's? Now Mr. T. faith their Do&rlne Is the fign ; Not their Do&rine as Do&rine, but as falfe* So that this were plainly according to M. T. Beware of thofe that preach falfe Do&rine, you (hall know them to be preachers of falfe Do&rine, by their preaching falfe do&rine, oryou (hall know their do&rine is falfe by the falfhood. And doth a Philofopher of Mr. Ts. ftanding fay it is beyond hi* skill to conceive that this is idem per idem ? and call it one of my conceits ? Let better Schollars judge. ■ Yet I was not ignorant that more then he names did fo interpret its But magis arnica Veritas. Mr. J. [TJJy pocrites may feem Holy for a little whilc y but at laft all falfe Doctrines li\ely end in * ■*■ wicfed lives] See what a pretty odd mincing bufinefs is here ; he doth not fay they do alwayes do fo y but lively \ lively, and probably, and perchance are fine Rules for per fons to examine truth by. And what a pood Rule is here for his people 0/Kederminfter to follow, they may judge men to be falfe Prophets, becaufe they may \udgctbemli\elyto befol R. B. "DEingnotabletounderftandanufuallphrafe^ you fuppofeit to be ridkulous,and •O play with ir [.probably and perchance] arc terms of your own, -and therefore the fitter for you to jeft wkh. But by [likely] Imean [ordinarily or for the moft part,or - ufualfy] Infants* Church-memhrfiip and Baptifm. 201 ufuaHy] it being our ordinary fenfe of that phrafe. And this is no other wife pro- pounded as a Rule then Chrift himfelf doth propound it 5 not to be inftead of Scripture, buc'as a confirmation and explication of it. cvv Mr. T. 'Here huh thee been \nown a fociety of Anabapti '(is fince the world firfi knew them ,tkit proved not wkfed?'] H'hy, I will tell Mr. Baxter if he dot knot hnow. 1 . In London there is \nown at this day, and 1 doubt not but there are in this c they be but trifles in companfon that they charge them with. R. B. THofe now in London are not yet come to the proofj when they have reached to the end of what they are tending to, then it will be.feen what they will prove, if they do not repent and return. 2. Tt is hard with your caufe when you cannot name one fociety of them, that ever lived in the world, that proved not wicked) except thofe now alive,whofe ends we yet fee not. 3 . If I were never fo able to anfwer this, yet as the world goes it is not fafe to fpeak all or half that wickednefs of the Anabaptifts now living, which the Hiftory of this age will fpeak to pofterity. 4, Yet if you had named that fociety, that are not guilty of Schifm, and demolishing the Church by divifion, and contempt, and reproach of the godly mfniftry, and difobedience to thofe in Government further then they pleafe them,and Covenant* breaking.and neg- lect of the Lords Day 5 e^. You would credit that particular fociety if you make ic good. In the mean time I fee them rolling down the hill fo fa ft that I think many have but one ftep lower to go., when they place their Religion in full- momhed Oaths. and blafpheming the moft high God, and Curfing, and Whoredomes : and when ewn the Army begin to boar them through the tongue for Blafphemy. 2. And for your inftance five hundred yeers ago, I have anfwered it before- 1. Ic bewrays your caufe to be new and naught"when you can go no higher then five hun- dred yecrs ago, and yet you except againft the witneffes that we produce neer fifteen hundred ycers 3go, if not full out. 2. 1 know men are fo tender of their own names-, through pride, that they think him a r*iler that doffe but name their faculty ; and they look to be ftroaked 3 and fmoothed^and reverenced while they fpeak molt wickedly ■ fo did the Papifts Biiliops when they were condemning the Martyrs, and flandering the truthjyet (though I abhor reviling) I take my felf bound to rell you of the quality of your offence^thacit is in my Judgement a moft unconfcionable Jefuiticall trick to feduce. 202 Plain Scripture proof of feduce poor ignorant fouls, for you to cite the lyes and flinders of Papifts againd the godly Reformers, and go about to make your people and the world believe that they are truths^and fo to fet in with thofe flandcrers, and fet up their credit 5 I have told you before how the Waidenfcs and Albigenfes are acquit from thefe (landers, both by their own writings and their very advetfaries j lou may upon the fame ground make them witches and buggerers.arrd whatnot, for their adverfaries report that of them too. And yet you will take it ill to be called an Accufer of the brethren, you know whofe part that is. 3. And for thofe in Germany ,efo. I have told you before what they were, out of more credible and knowing witneffes then your feif > and as godly as the world hata had fince the primitive daies. Mr. T. HOw many of thefe Antimmifls&c. have you \nown who have not proved palpably guilty of lying, perfidioufnefs a covetoufncfs, malice 3 contempt of their godly Bre- thren ^ licentious, feared consciences ?] J tyiow not how many the men of Kedermlnfter know of thefe : I know not if they tyiow any that u palp ably guilty of lying, pcrfidioufnefs, covet oufnefs, malice s contempt of their Godly Brethren, licentioufnefs, or feared consci- ences* I am the only man that U here named in this paffage. And if the men o/Keder- minfter \(aow anyfuch thing by me as lying, pcrfidioufnefs, covetoufncfs 3 malice, contempt of the godly Brethren, licentioufnefs > or a feared confidence, they may do well tofoltow the Rule CMr. Baxter hath given in his Sermons, fir ft to tell me of it, between me and them , and if they do not win me,to taty two more with thcm y and if I hcAr\en not to them, to tell it to the Church. But I love not to recriminate^ for that were tofcold, I abbrrfucb doing. My life is \nown to you , if lam guilty of lying, pcrfidioufnefs, covetoufncfs, malice, con- tempt of the godly Brethren , licentioufnefs, or of a feared confciencc, whether I am guilty of thefe, I appeal to you that Imow my convcrfation. R. B. T Hey know fo many that makes them the more abhor the way that leads to it. And for yourfelf, 1. 1 never intended the acculing of you in thefe, but named you with the honor of being the mod able and one of the moderated If you will iuppofe your felf accufed when you are noti you may. 2. Yet becaufe you charge it as my duty to tell it you, and that firft privately,^. I (hall fay this much, x. I would thefe publike Orations did not too frequently manifed howeafily untruth will fall from your month °, as I have (hewed in that which is faid already, and your letters and confutation Sermon fay too much. 2. Pcrfidioufnefs lies moft in breaking Cove- nants and Oaths, and this I charge you not with : it is a great quedion in this age, whether it be a fi«. J. Covetcoufnefs is bed known by mens practices* and I am Aire it was wont by the honed old Divines to be accounted a fin,anda fign of Coveteouf- ntfs to have many Livings,or to be a pluralid j To be Parfon of Rofs,%nd Vicar of I e^e^and Preacher ofBswdety, andMaderof the Hofpitall at Ledbury (which re- quired Infants ChHrcb-membcrjbip and Baptifm. 2 05 quireth many months yearly refidence ) having means alfo of your own befides, and yet to complain as you do in your Books, of the great want that you and your Family may be put to 5 Si ego ficfcciffem. 4. And for malice, I will not accufe you of it, leaft I feem to plead my own caufe. Though many of your Hearers think that they have oft heard its voyce in your Pulpit 5 and in par- ticular when you would have made them believe that my Doctrine wj* the fame with that condemned in New. England j which you have feconded in print. 5. And for the fin of contemning your brethren (yea 3 the moft of the learnedft and godlieft Divines in the world; multitudes of whom are incomparably in all excellencies beyond your felf J I appeal to moft that ever difputed with you, and to your own moft judicious Hearers, whether they have ever known many more guilty then your felf (who pretended to be learned Divines themielves:) and whether it be not ufual with you to put off the authority i>oth of their Argu- ments and judgements with a contemptuous fmile,or a wonder at the fillinefs of them ? And you told me your felf, that it was wilfulnefs or negligence in all the Divines that were for Infant -Baptifm. And who can exprefs higher contempt, or more evident untruth ? or a confciencc lefs tender in cenfuring others ? or more pride, in exalting his own judgment and fincerity ? But I underftood by this, that it was wilfulnefs or negligence that kept your felf from being an Anabap. tift fo long ; and therefore what wonder if you be one now, who had no better prefervatives ? 6. And for licencioufnefs, further then it is expreffed by this liberty in finning, I hope you are not guilty. Though your not reproving the prophaning of the Lords day, and excufing your felf from refolving the quefti- on concerning its morality, hath no good favor. 7. And in all thefe, the tender- nefs of your confeience appears. If you think I wrong you in mentioning thefe, I give you my true Anfwer. 1 . 1 never intended your accufation in the paf. fages wherein you will needs take your felf accufed.But you will needs make your feif the accufed perfon. 1. And fopublikely challenge me to make it good. 5. E- fpecially becaufc you will needs hang the credit of your bad caufe on your own, as if you were refolved they (hould ftand or fall together : elfe fhould I never have medled with your faults- But that caufe hath this day troubled England , and I will trouble it by fpeaking the truth. 4, And if I filence your fin after fo publike an invitation to reprove you, it may lie on me. {.I mention no faults,but what all the Countrey knows,or what you publif&ed your felf in Prefs or Pulpit ; for the mattter.6. 1 have privately admonilhed you of your untruths in Letters 5 and of your hard cenfures, before two or three j and of your pluralitie of places, and the fcandal thereof > but all in vain. You made fo light of having no lefs then four Market Towns to lie on your (boulders, as if it were nothing : and thofe evafions (from non -obligation in Law) do fully fatisfie you, which feem frivo- lous to me, and to far wifer men 3 feeing where you receive wages, you owe duty, which confeience will require, though the Law of man mould not. And were you abler then you are, and had many to help you , I dare fay, you arc little enough for the work of one place. 7 And for telling the Church j you know you are not of the fame particular vifible Church with me , where I may fo tell the Church of your offences. 8. And indeed in this I have the advice of fome pious fober men that 1 have advifed with, who think it my duty to fay what I do 5 feeing the reputation of your fuppofed innoce.ncy is thefnareofmany,who D d forget 204 ; PUin Serif tart proof of forge: that there are thousands more innocent that cirXer from you , and thcu- fands Ids innocent that are of your way. 9. Yet 'ihou'.d not this have moved me, but that I find warrant from Scriptu-e.I find Chrilt fpeaking far plain! ier of the feducing Fhariiees , and the Uvea of their fa. fe Do&rines and wicked lives and that openly before the people : And P.z;d faith far more of them that would have fecuccd the c<<:n:biiAS and GaUtttam : He publifheth DcKashis forfaking him, and turning to the world : and A'exxniers opposition, and Hymeuxus and S ine, and punifnmen; : yea , he openly reproveth Peter to his face^ and pub., h his diffimslation 3nd Barnabas w s in an Epiftle to th er s . Thofe tbat fin ( openly ) mufibe rebuild before etl, tbtt c' .zware. 1 Tim. 5 10. Yea. and- that ffcarply , that they may be found in the Fai:h. The credit of no man in ;he world, mult be fo dear to a Chtillian as the honor of Clrift, and welfare of fan :e of rke Church : If any wcuid make their credit an Engine to d~aw men to Error and Divilions , and encreafe the Churches calamines (which is too palpably you: cafe,) all godly nfc bound by true and lawful! meanes to contradict them 3 and not toftrengthen that Engine, ic, .And yet I will not fay fo much a* your lelf, nor e . Treot.tf ScAnds'.s^i^.sil. You fay, [And no better (thin the Jefuites) arc the ends of many oi' Sociniaus, Juabjptifti, Famitijls, Stfaroufls and the refi of the titter- of grievous iroivts, as Paul cols tbcm» Ad. zo. 30. that enter among ebriftians and fare not the /Zw{. ] Mr.T. I'T^Hey hove confident expefsions to ftjalfe poor igtorxnt fox's , wbtm G:. -* ■■.-:.. ." I::-::, vt US I mi retimed anmm thefa ?,l'. B axter fbouldfhew robot confident exfrrefsious tbfj were 3 and when tbey were deftvtred \ T< ne, I was then confident , amd I ~m JtiE confident , yea and fa far, ■: fat as II(HowniyowHb€j}t,lfbou T d lay down my life upon it , that it is a truth of God, tbtt neither JefusCbtifl, nor 'bis Apofiles id appoint Baptising of JnfantSibut tbu it is a meer concei:. D:a 1 1 ver go about tojbjlpary of your fouls j it U true tbi : ail the Texts of Scripture that I Ipow ofwbkb are urged to prove infat'Bjpufmjutdbave anfwtn: ->*ni thus much morejfMr.Bix- >nc have bis Arguments, or write : be {ball bive an anfwer {if God biefs, and enable me ) fo full t thxt there fhiU be no juft reafon for him to fay be both wot a full anfwer: And 1 th^ God for'tbat wbicb both faffed from mt^U bath been no • bmtfonnd arguments. R. B. WAs ever man in fuch a eaufe more confident? When yc Hearers.Thei: blood be on their own heads it'they yield not to you ? as if it would be their damna;ion,& loft the blood of tbeir fouls if they were not Bap- tized Infants Cburch-memberfoip and B aft i fin. jo y 'ized again ? And do you not here confefs your felf fo confident that yos fliould lay down your life on it, that you are in the truth? Truly Sir, all the Minifters and Schollars that I can meet w«h 3 that heard your cHiputcSjdid think you had filly grounds »to build fuch a confidence on. And for all you boaft fo much of your anfwers by writing, I think your writings have little tobefo boaftcd of. I would God had per- f waded you to imploy your parts and pains abetter way. Mr. T. 13 Vt when they meet with any that can feat ch out their VaUacics ,how little have they t» fty ? ] &b*t Fallacies save faffed from me, that Mr. Baxter (bould thus write ? why doth he ?m produce them ? R.B. I Did produce them before witnefles enough, and In parcicular,before many]of them to whom I wrote that Preface. Mr.T. YOu \now I have had as much opportunity to try theis ftrengtb, as moll, and 1 never yet met with any, in Garifon, or Army, that could fay any thing which might ftagger afolid man.'] if Mr Baxter never met with fuch, he hath met with thofe that urge from Mat. i8 . 1 9,20. That Chrtfi bid go ma\e Vifciplesjtnd baptise Difciples',and Mar. 15. jf . Go preach the Gofpel to every creature) and that fiill the Apoftle puts repenting befare bap" tt V n g'j m< l is not this a ble to ftagger a folid man ? truly iffo be that men will not be flag- geredwith thefe things , that hold baptising of Infants, for my part I (hall be fo far from thinking it is part of their folidity, that it is part of their wealpiefs, and that their praclife is a corruption. And 1 will not now bt afraid to fpeaJ( it, that it is but (light, frivolous arguing, and a man of reafon would think **'• Baxter were rather in jefl, then in carncft. R. B. WHen you will form your Arguments from thofe texts,then we (hall know th*r ftrength .* In the mean time 5 all your confident words (hew not me the leail ground for your corlclufion : No more then this, Scripture requireth faith to juftifica- tion, therefore none but believers are juftl£ed 5 which is falfe, and yet like yours, if I know what you would thence deduce. D d % M*.T. 206 Plain Scripture proof of Mr.T. BVt he faith ofhisVifpHtation [Tou heard in my late pub/ity Dlfyute at Bewdeiyjan.i. with Mr.Tombs, who is taken to be the ableft of them m the Laud, and one of the mad moderate, how little they can fay even in the hardefl point ofBaptifm, what grofi absurdi- ties they are driven to } and how little tender confcientious feare of erring m left among the befl.'] (i) He faith this -, the people ^/"Kederminfter hear how little they can [ay. From whom did they hear it ? it may be from Mr. Baxter him felf in his own canfc 3 a mans own Teflimony Is fcarcc a competent witnefi. [But how little they can fay f] (a) why ? J" was not to plead by way of arguing them, it was my pan only to Anfwer : And how could the men of Kederminfter f^nuw by this what I 'could have faid ? they might ^now what 1 did fay; but I thinl(not what I could fay 5 for howthemcnofKtdermin&erJhould tmow what 1 cquldhjve faid, is fl< ange to me. (3) They might Imow that I pre.ubedfe- i>en or eight Sermons of that Text in Matthew^ and fo much as neither Mr. Baxter, nor all the Divines in England w ill be able to anjwer\ yea, and more IwfU fay., and preaclf and write , ;/ the Lo,d (hall fave my life. (4) Seeing God hath carried the bujinejsfo far, I am fo engaged in it, that if my life be offered in it, I cmceive that I offer it as afar . crificeto God* R. B. WHat a Grange feigning fancy have you , that wouU make men believe that it (1) was only from me that they heard it,and not from your own mouth 5 And this you would tell the men of Bewdeley in the Pulpit, who themfelves faw multitudes of the people of Ksderminfkr prefent at your Difpure, being a confiderable part of the Congregation j which was judged to be many thoufands. (i) And how few will be- lieve you,that you could have faid much more to the points in hand ? who heard i.how long we ftaid at it 5 even above fix hours : a. And that you 3 though Refpondent } took up the far greateft part of the time , and would oft-times fcarce let mefpeak,and ofually interrupted, and were very little interrupted your felf. 3. And that I gave you leave alfo to oppofe in proving the repeal of the Ordinance for Infants Ghurch- mernbcrfiiip. 4» And that you forced me to oppofe, and never will be brought to Difpute as Opponent your felf , but only to put us on the proof And yet you would make men believe what you could fay more if you might. ($) For your eight Ser- mons, I heard them-moft repeated, and onfeignedly judge them worthlefs for alLyour great boaft. You chofe out the weakeft Arguments, and then triumphed over them j and fome that were ftrong , you urged in a weak way of your own, or elfe weakly an,- fwered. It is eafie to conquer and triumph when you have no body to gain-fay you. (4) For the Sacrificing of your* life, I wijh you may do ir 3 if ever, in a better caufe left you lofe it. But if you had conceived your life in danger,you would not have threatnecl me with the danger I go in for oppofing you. 1 ' Mr.T. Infants Cburcb'Tncmberjhip and Baptifm. 207 Mr. T. HE fihh [whit grofs abfurditin tbry are driven to ! } Had he named them we then might have judged of them } the grnjfeft abfurditics I conceive were not fuch a he ta\\s of his Arguments brought me to 5 the mofi were about my Expofition of 1 Cor. 7. 14* md what if one let pa /? an abfurdity up an an Expofition urged fuddenly i H R. B. Ere begins all that I charged you with, though you are pleafed to take the reft to yourfelf. And i. for Ablurdkies , (1) where you would have had me name them, But that was not fo fit a places but to pleafure you> I will namefomeof them here ('though about 1 cor.7.14. you feem to confefs fome 5 and yet even now, you thanked God for that, which pafled from you, and fay, it was nothing but found Arguments.) i.You abfurdly affirmed, That Chr.fts comming in the flelh Is a mercy given to the Church inftead of Infants vifible Membership. 2. That it is go the Infants a mercy given them inftead of their vifible Membership. 3. You affirmed that all the whole people of the Jews were Members of the Congregation of the Common- wealth (as you called itj but not vifible Members. 4.Y0U abfurdly affirm^ ed that the Infants in the Wildernefs were no Church-members without Circumci- fion. 5. Yea, you affirmed this after you had granted that all the Infants of the Jewsjwere vifible Members. 6. Yea, you affirmed that rime were vifible Members without Circumcifion, (and fo God had either no vifible Church among the Jews,cr but Caleb and Jofhuapi few, when they entered the Promifed Land. This was not a flip from you, before you were aware, but you infifted on it neer an hour to make itgooii 7. This you did after our folemn engagement in the face of the Congrega- tion, that we would notfpeak any thing again!} our judgements for the advantage of our Caufe againft the other. And you took it ill when I told you that I believed you fpakc againft your Confcience ('that neither the Infants in the Wildernefs nor any without Circumcifion were vifible Members.*) and yet wtren 1 told you that women were vifible Members without Circumcifion, you confeiTed it, and unfaid all again •; And yet had not the ingenuity to conftfs you had erred, though you yeelded the poinr. S.You meft abtiirdiy affirmed that no Inrant can be faid to be a vifible Church-mem- ber without fome Ad of his own (though his Parents enter him into the Covenant with God.) And doth not this overthrow all that you faid before, that the Circum- cifed Infants were vifible Church membrrs ? For it is by no A-6. of their own that they are Members any more then rhe unci cumcifed. Yet did you appeal to the Con- gregation for the truth of this. 9. Yoti acknowledged that the Infants of the- Jews in the Wildernefs were Members of the Church, and yet not vifible Members : And when I asked you, How you know them to be Ni embers, if they were not vifible or difcernably fuch ? Ycu anfwered, Becaufc the whole Congregation of the Jews in a lump was taken to be the Church of God. So that you knew the whole were the Church, and that the Infants were of the Chuich v and yet they were not vifible Mean* Dd I bers, i o8 FUm Scripture pmf&f bers. 10. You faid [vifibility] was the fubjed, and the perfons vifible were the Ad- jund, which as delivered is abfurd. I x. You faid that the mercifull Gift and Ordi- nance for Infsnts Church- membership was Repealed in Mercy. Yea, that it was a Mercy to All and Some 5 to the faved and to the damned. 1 1. Yea,that it is a greater Mercy to us Chriftians that our Infants are not taken to be Church-members. 1 3 You abfurdly affirmed that the Infants that now are not vifible Members have as much mercy as thofe that then were vifible Members j yea, and more mercy, and that becaufe they are not vifible Church members. 14. You.faid the Jews were natU' rally branches, but not by nature : When the Text faith both^/to/w. 11.24, 15.Y011 affirmed abfurdly, that they were called Naturall only in their being Mm, and no: Branches. 16. After all this, you come again to tell me, that there was no fuch thing as a vifible Membcrihip without Circumcifion. When yet upon the In fiance of wo- men being uncircumcifcd, you had granted it before, after a longdenyall> (which fet the people a laughing at you.) And was this Truth or Confciencious ? 17. You tell me tjiat I cannot find any one Author that expoundeth, 1 Cor. 7. 14. of Infants holinefs in my fence, before Dither and Zuinglius 5 Is this true* 18. Yon fay thai the word <%**/*, is taken in Scripture many hundred times for Authority : It that true > 10. Yon confidently hififted on \i i That the Corinthians were certain that their children were no Baftards, and yet they doubted left their living together were fornication. (And fo they were fure their children were lawfully begotten , but yet doubted whether they lawfully begot them.) zo. You yielded that the word fandi- f e , and Holy, is taken in my fence neer fix hundred times in Scripture, and no where elfe once in your fence ; and yet pleaded that here it muft be taken in yours and not in mine j without (hewing any ground of a neceflity for it. ai.Youargucd ..long (but moft abfordly and as like a right Anabaptift as ever I heard you) to prove, Thai nil things are pure to the pure , andfandified to Believers only by the prefent Ad of Faith and the prefent Ad of Prayer. (And fo revive the old Herefie of thofe that would alway pray ; as if all things became un&n&ified and impure to us as foon as we give over praying and aduall believing, ) and as if the fruit of thefe lafted no longer then the Aft.) zi. When I urged you, that then fleep could not be fan - dified to us, nor any thing while we fleep, becaufe then we do not actually pray and believe, you flood in it, that fleep was not fandfiied. 13. To prove that fleep was fandified , 1 argued from the Apoftles words, All things arc pure to the fure j therefore fleep is pure to them. And you denyed the confequence, faying that by All things was meant Some things. 14. And to (hew that thefe were not meer flips, and that you had the Confcience to defend fuch horrid abfurd it ies , as the truth of God, and had fo far loft your mode ft y as to plead thus before fo many Minifters and SchollarSj you moft learnedly argued from the word, which the Apoftle there ufeth to fignifie Prayer , that hlst/fai fignifieth only Prefent Prayer 5 and therefore it muft be only Prayer that fandifieth. 25. When 1 argued to prove Infants Difciples, thus, If they are not E>ifciples,then it is either becaufe they are uncapable of it, or becaufe God will not (hew them fo much mercy; but neither of thefe ; therefore, Sec You brought athrid j It was becaufe they have not learned. 16. When I further argued : If they have not learned, then it may be reduced to one of the former ; either becaufe they are uncapable, or becaufe God will not (hew them that mercy : you give a third 3 becaufe theyare not taught. 27. You abfurdly fay, It is not Circumcifion as neceflary and engaging to Mo fes Law, but it was the Dodrineof the falfe Apoftles, which Peter faid that they and their Fathers were unable to bear. It were tedious to number all. How lamentably did you argue to prove the Repeal of Gods ordinance for Infants Cburch-memforfoip and Baptifm. 209 for Infants Church- memberfhip ? nothing but idem per idem over and over : In- fomuchthit frequently SWa Good and the reft of the Minifters that fate next me, urged me to give over, for you were utterly puifcelled and mated, and knowing not what to fay, were refolved to fay fomething, left if you were filent the people mould think you were worfted. This was their judgement* And thus at yourrequeft,X have nanYed Tome of your abfurdities. B Mr. T. Vt is this fo much ? ( i ) when a man wasfet upon at afudden. (i) And the bufmefs was Jo carried onjhat Imuflfcarce Ipiow of it. ($) And have concealed from me the arguments beforehand', and (4) when I had fear ce time afforded we to repeat them. (5) when the Opponent would not open his terms.(6)pPben a Respondent fball be fo checked, as he did me then. I thin\ he may be driven by an Op-fonmt to as grojs abfurdities^ he em fvcw in any onetfmy Anfwers. R. B. BUt I undcrftood (as from others by your private confeffions,) fo here by yoyc own conceflion, that' you are confeious of fome abfurdities that you were driven to j yet you excufe what you will notconfefs: and what needs there any excufe, had there been no fuch matter ? But (in is an intangling engaging thing. One draws on another by a feeming neceftity. Your excufe much aggravateth your fault. For while you pretend to fee more truth then moft of the Chriftian world, even the moft godly, and here to plead for this truth 3 as if Gods Glory needed mans falftiood to maintain it, and as if the heap were not great enough already , you here add in four lines fix grofs untruths more. I am forry that I am necefiitated to tell you fo* But he tkat will fin openly, muftbe rebuked before all. (1) 1. Who can believe you were fet upon at a fudden, that knoweth how many weeks, yea, months the bu- &nefs was in motion, and how many Meffages and Letters pa it between us? and that it was not in my power to force you to Difpute ? (z) a. And who then can •believe that that bufinefs was carryed on fo as ycu fcarce knew of it ? Who carryed ic wi but you and I? did you not know of your own Letters and^mine ? Did not you force me to that I did,as I ihall mew ? Did not you prcmife your people in the Pulpit to Difpute with me , when fome of them urged you to it? and preach eight or ten Sermons to prepoffefs them wirh your notions ? and told them when you promifed the Difpute, that you thought good fir ft by thofe Sermons to acquaint them with the ftateofthe Controverfie ? and therein anfwered, as you thought, all of moment that could be faid for Infant- Baptifm? When I never preached one fentence before hand, nor fince to your Hearers or mine own, that I can remember, on the Queftton| and when you would not at thedefire of your people, give me leave to preach one Ser- mon on it afterwards? And yet can you (ay,the bufinefs was carryed on that you fcarce knew of it? Why Sir, I am forced to tell you, that it were a wonder if you mould have found the truth of God which others have loft, when you have fo loft common mod eft y and 2 *o Plain Scripture proof of •and truth in your Pulpit fpeeches. (}) j.And is it true, that I concealed my Ar- guments ? Did you everdefireme to let you know in reference to the Pifpute what Arguments I would infift on } Yea, or did you ev&r defire me to give you any thing as to your own fatisfa&ion or information ? And could any Arguments of weight be new and ftrange to you, that had ftudyed the point fo long ? and wrote on it fo much ? and contradicted fo many ? and laboured to make a Party and :>chifm for your Opinion ? who would think that a man that had any fear of God, lhould do this much , before he had fearcht out all of moment that could btrfaid againfl him ? Yea, did no: you rell me that Divines did all differ from you,and were ignorant in this, only through wilfulnefs or negligence ? And did you not ft ill plead with me, that the Lomroveife is not difficult ? And yet do you lay the blame on me for not giving you before-hand my Arguments? But what if I had denyed you it ? had it been unfeemly and unufuall ? But became you fay the like in your Letter to me, and m?ke this your common excufe, let me tell the world how falfe it is . The firft time, that ever I had a word with Mr "T.abou: Infant-Baptifm 5 was about five or fix year ago when he accidentally came into my quarters aj the Houfe of my moft entire and dear friend Colonel Sylvanm Taylor in London , and there did I urge Mr.T. with this one Argument, and none but this, which I flood on in that Difpute, drawn from Infants Church-member/hip. After this I was forced to preach on the fubjec~fc at C§- zrentry 3 and I am informed by thofe that had reafon to know, that- Air. 7*. had the Notes delivered him , where this Argument was in the front. And yet did he not hear my Argumeuts before? (4) 4. That you had fcarce time afforded you to re- peat them, is an untruth that hath a hard fore- head : or elfe it durft not have appeared to the world againft thousands of Wiuicfles that ate ready to convict it > and in the Pulpit before that very Congregation that knew it to be falfe* ; and knew that though you were Refpondent 5 yet you fpoke much more then I j and that I was fain to beg of you not to interrupt me, but could not prevail $ and that you repeated Arguments over,and over, and over before you would take them right -, which over tedious and frequent repeatings indeed I told you would lofe us time. ($) 5 Nor is it any more true that I refufed to open my terms fo far as was the duty of an Opponent : Indeed I was loath to turn a Difpute into ameer Catechizing, to follow you in anfwering Queftion after Qutftion. If I had fpoke ambiguoufly you lhould have Shewed the ambiguity, and have diftinguifhed accordingly, which I intreated you to do. (6) 6. Nor is it any truer rhat I checked you , if theieby you mean any pafllonate uncivill terms ; except you mean the checking your Opinion by Argument, which ma:ed you,or ttu bare naming and difcovery of your miftakes and mifcarriages.How- ever I hope you are not fo balhfull after all your defying the Armies of Ifrael, and calling, Give me a man that 'we may Difpute,&c. for your uncircumcifed Opinicwij as now to be driven to abfurdiries 3 meerJy by.a check from fuch a one as 1 1 Mr.T. LEt Mr. Baxter bring his Arguments in writing, that I may examine them, and thin fee what abjurdities be can bring me to. For I told him before the Dispute , that afuddeu Anfwer would not fat iifie any learned man in the world. I could tell Mr. Baxter that as learned men as any were m the Land> were not very able to An fiver at afudden, though they were excellent in writing. A nimble wit, and a voluble tongue , though [hallow in judgement, may do much before filly people* Infants Church-mtmbtrfhiy and Baptifm. 211 h: R. B. 'Ow many Reafons did I give you againft writing, and you denyed not the vali- dity of any one of them ? And yet do you call for writing ? why have you not anfwered Mr. Cobbct,M/. Church, Mr.BaylyjRutherford, Drew, with many more ? And did I not fee the weaknefs of your anfwer to Mr. Mar (balls Defence, which you have now in, or neer the Prefs ? But yet feeing nothing but writing will fatisfie you , writ- ing you (hill have. But let me tell you ; I take it for the greateft injury that ever I received from man, that you have thus forced me unavoydably to fteep my thoughts info bitter a fubject,andtakemeofFmy fweeter ftudies, and wafte fo much of my pretious time onfo low a matter, when I am parting, into another worldj which I re- folved (hould have had thefe thoughts and hours 5 and that you have deprived the Church of more ufefull labours which I had in hand on the moft weighty fubje&s. I pray God lay not this (into your charge. For any own part 1 amfo far from being delighted in it, thatlprofefs I take it for one of the greateft affii&ions that ever befell me. 2. What you talk of not fatisfying learned men, is vain ; I was never defired to fa- tisfie learned men^ but only to fatisfie your hearers of Bewdeley, who are unlearned. 3. You feem to compare your felf with thofe that being as learned as any in the Land, were not very able to anfwer on a fudden, but were excellent at writing ; And indeed this conceit of yours is it that keeps your Followers implicitly of your Faith 5 Whereas I affirm from my very heart, that had I time and ftrength, I had far rathec deal with you by writing then by words 5 and think my felf far abler for it. Only your people be not able to examine writings, as they confeflfed to me 3 and therefore this is a pretty device to deceive them, to make them believe that all your writings are that which they are not. 4. What you intimate of the (hallownefs of my judgement,! deny not to be true > but for a nimble wit, and voluble tongue, I am far to feekj and profefs that I came not thither in confidence of the advantage ofmywitand tongue (as the world is made believe,) but of my caufe. And if your people be Co filly as you intimate, that they will be fo taken with one Difpute from me, what an advantage have you to catch thefe filly people by ail your paffionate Sermons for Ana- baptiftry, and all your private infinuating endeavors ? But I hope God will watch Over them, and not fuffer them to prove fo filly. But concerning the truth of all this, I wholly refer it to the judgement Cnot of the fil!y peop'e, but) of all the Mini- fters and Schollars that were prefent. Mr. T. ANd 1 confcfs to you, the thing that moved me to the Dispute, was the good Opinion that I had of Mr. .Baxter, that he would have fought for truth caniidly, andnotta\e ad- -vintage to trample men under foot , and to (hew himfelfto crow over his brother. 1 thought there had been no fuch fpirit in Mr, Baxter, but I was miftalien\ pardon me this fault, E c R fB; 212 Plain Serif ture proof of A B. ON what Grounds your good Opinion was taken up I know not 5 but T perceive it is an ea(ie matter to take it down. You crave pardon for your goodop'mion % but it will never be well with you till you crave pardon for your ill opinions. But how did I trample you under.foot ? was my language unfeemly or dif respective ? You mould hare named the ill words I gave you^vhich 1 provoke you to ^0. rind how did I Crow over you ? you know I beg'd, and beg'd ; and beg'd again that we might keep ciofe to the ftri&eft Logicall Difpuring, without any vagaries or difcourfes •' And v\hit room was there then for me to trample you under- foot, and Crow over you ? And when I would have drawn you to ftvidt Difputing, you had nothing to fay, but [ The people mud be made to underftand.] If you account the bare difcovery of the nakednefs and evill of your caufe by ftrength of Argument to be a crowing over you, and tram- pling you under- foot, I am forry that you fo make the difciedit of an ill caufe to be your own : Yet you would do well to confefs and forfske that caufe that cannot de- fend it felf any better. Would a nun ever have thought 3 that had heard how light Mr.T. makes of moft Divines in the world in this point 3 that he would have complained in the Pulpit of being trampled en, and crowed over by fo low and weak a perfon as my felf by meer Argument ? Mr.T. [ A Nd koi» little tender eonfeicmieus fear a left among tbebcjl.~\ what a falfe charge J-*ishcre? It appears that in the Dispute 1 had a confcicntiom fear ; Here ft a deep charge! and gathered as I conceive upon a (light proof. 1 have little confclentiom fear of erring left, and this is Ipoxvn by the Dispute at Bewdely \ uhat raas the DiSputc that maizes me thus ? ivhy> becaufc I did not ye eld to Mf. Baxters Arguments. 1 did not yield to them, nor da I fee any Reajon rvhy ifhould yield to them then. Hattj a man no Con- fcientiousfearofcrring^unlefs he hold the fame with Mr, Baxter? Mr, Baxter holds that w'Oi\s juftific a* part of the condition of the Covenant of Grace , and that juflifylng Tai'.h doth include Acceptance, and fundryoih.r things he preachcth as confidently ai I dethis. And (ball 1 fay he hath no confclentiousfearl lthim\ he hith not per/waded any one Mmifler in England to be ofhii Opinion. I am fure in his Letter to me, hi faith he rv as biffed at from all pans of the Kingdom > and {hall I fay he hath no fear of y,\ng< R. B. WHcthcr this de:p charge be falfor true , andonftrong proof or on weak, I will be judged by the moft judicious hearers. Yea., and leave any Reader to judge, whether he that will mantain all the aforcfaid Abfurdities, rather then forfake fuch a caufe, have any great confeiencious fear of erring 5 For what you fay about holding the fame with me ; its one of your vain intimations ; It is for no fuch thing Infants Church-memberfhip and Baptifm. 2 r J that I charge you: but for i.Returning fuch feeble Anfwers ; 2.Building your caufe on fuch grofs absurdities. 3. For (landing in them,and faying and unfaying agjinftyour own conscience, and knowledge, and engagement 5 and yet will not confefs it. 4.For your lamentable Arguments when you were Opponent, to prove the Repeal of Gods Ordinance for Infants Church memberfhip. To what you fay about my Doctrine of Juftification,I have anfwered before. Only this much more ; If! have made no one Divine of my mind, butamhiffedat from all parts, then you may fee I am not of your judgement and fpirit j For I do not Separate or make a party to follow me, nor dif-refpeft nor alienate my felt from thofe men that are not of my judgement, but re- verence and love them with all my heart. Should I be angry with every man that is ignorant of any thing that God hath taught me ? or that in their well meaning fpeak what they underftand not? Many Manuscripts that are abroad betwixt me and others, fhew that I have done the like my fclf in my ignorance. HEfyicwwclll laboured with hiw, fir (I by my fc!f 3 and afterwards by others to get his Arguments in WiUingibcf ore \J entrcd upon the Preaching of 'this point in publi^e j and this was the great thing I aymed at, and laboured fo much after > thatfo I might not lead people into error - y this very thing did fhew a tender fear of error : and truly if I had notbtenrviUriigto \xiow his Arguments to\cep me from error* l had not yielded to the Dijpute. B.R. \7"Ou muft not blame nae if I believe not all you fay here neither, becaufe I cannot ■■- believe what my lift, but what feemeth true. I know you fent me two meets or three of an Anlwer to Mr.Ma,flials Defence , only on 1 Cor. 714. without the begin- ning or end of the debate on that very Text. It feems you expe&ed that I ihouid have confuted your anfwer to MrMarfyall , yea.and took it ill that I did nor,and ex- claimed fince againft me in your Pulpit for it. Now I leave it toany man of com- mon reafon to judge, whether (if I had intended 6y writing to deal with you) that I was bound to confute your Reply, to another. Nay 3 whether (if I intended a pro- fitable handling of the queftion) it had not been a meer dotage in me to fall in upon your quarrell with another, and that in themiddle 3 on aloofelheet or two that had neither head nor taile } And what is it in you to be angry at me, that I plaid not the dota-d ? was it not much fitter to fetch it from the beginning> and to argue upon my own principles ? But you i3y you laboured to get my Arguments.] Anfw.i. I was oft in company with you a and you never defired them that 1 know of. z. You never that I know of Cent to me for one Argument for your own ufe till after our Difpute 3 bu: only for the information of your people; nor did your people that came to me,de(ire any thing for you, but for thcmfelves, and told me that if I Satisfied them not, they muft yield to you : And did it not then concern me to take rather the courfe that was nttett for their information then yours ? And therefore what truth is there in your E c z Speech, 214 * ZIm* Scripture proof tf fpeech, that you Tent for my Arguments to keep you from erring, and thereby mani- fefted your confciencious fear ? 3. Nay, youexpreffed fo great confidence for your Opinion, that in all my conference with you, I could never perfwade you that the point was difficult, but eafie 5 and faid (as before) that it was wilfulnefs or negligence that was the caufe that learned and godly Divines were againft your judgement. And co*uldI poflibly think then that you defired any Arguments of mine tor your informa - tion,when you never demanded any fuch thing ? 4. 1 thought it would feem meer pride and immodefty in me to fend Arguments to you to inform you, as if I could teach you, or fay more then you h3d heard 5 having no Call thereto. $. I gave you twelve Reafons why I might not enter the Difpute by writing, and you could not gain-fay one of them ; and yet are you not afhamed to blame me in the Pulpit fo oft for not doing it ? Have you yet ended with Mi\!M.rf (hall and Mr.B/tf£?,&c. after fix orfeven years ? your people defired prefent fatisfa&ion j Could they ftay then while you and I wrote one againft another, as ycu and others have done ? They confcft they could not examine Volumns 5 Why then fliould we write them ? It is well known that I have neither time or ftrength for long works. Let the world judge whether that brow be not hard that blames me in the Pulpit for writing ? When you followed me im - portunately to write my Arguments, 1 offered you, 1. To Difpute publikely, only for quick difpatch, which I profefs was my end: z< Or to Difpute before a few.* 3 Or to preach each of us two Sermons, and fo leave it ' 4- Or to write ex tempore in prefence one of the other, f. Or to write as you defired atdiftance- fo ycu would but (hew and give me any affurance of making a quick difpatch. For none of all thefecouldl prevail, nor yet be fufFered to be quiet ; till at laft while you preached only for your Opinion, fome of your hearers urged you publikely to Difpute with me 3 and fo ftnme forced you to promife it them in the Pulpit. 3 Mr. T. A Nd furely if Mr.Baxter bad hut had fuch a tender confeientious fear of peeping bis JL*B, other from error, as he [hould have had, be would not have permitted me to go on from day to day, to hold that which was an Error > and never let me have an Argument, though he was Jent to five times, but conceal them till he could have an opportunity Shut be might as it were upon a Coc\~pit fhew his skill and get a repute , as if be had confuted me, and thereby put the people of this Town and all the CouMrey a laughing at me. R. B. TRuly Sir, I had no hope of convincing you , nor any call to attempt it from you or any other. Would you have let your Opinion alone, or touched on it modeftly and tenderly, I mould have lived as friendly with you as I did : Yea, would you have given me leave to look on in quietnefs , though you had rent the Church, and ga- thered a party at Bewdcley, I fliould perhaps have done little againft you. I never yet preached againft your felf or Caufe that I know of, here. And would you give me no left, nor fuffer me to be quiet, and yet fay, I did it to fhew my skill upon a Cock- pit, Infants Church-memhrjlrip and Bapifm. 2 1 5 pit, and get repute? And if the people of thfsTown^and all the Country laughed at you, let any judge whether it were long of me or you. Did I provoke them to it ? Did 1 not reftrain them ? I remember indeed when you had long difputed that none but the Circumcifed were vifible Church-members ; arid then confelTed the contrary when I inftanced in women , the people did laugh, but were at a word reftrained : And was that long of any body but your felf ? You took another courfe to vilifie me,telling them how I was unacquainted with the School-difputing , and that I would be hifled out of the Schools : I told you then I was refolvedj would not fpeak a word in defence of my own reputation ; I carae not thither on fo low an errand, nor had any time for it. Indeed the Minifters replyed , that it was your felf that would be hifled out of the SchoolSj and Mr. Good once would fain for expedition have taught you the School^ way, but that he was filenced. But whats this to me ? Mr. T. \A*- Baxter hath in hU next Direction only two parages which I thin\l am bound -*-* 1/0 ta jp no tice of, [Thofc that fay no truth u to be concealed for peace, have as little of the one^as of the other ] This I know by his letter is meant of me. It is true, in a (hop of this Town, hearing Afr.Baxter preached, that for peace fa\e Truth fhould be concealed, 1 faid no truth was to be concealed ,fo as t& be loft for. peace > and that this was my meanings 1 certified him in my Utter: and if he had dealt candidly with me* he might have put this in his meditations y and perceived that was my meaning : And in this fence the Pro- pofitionis true, and no more then what Auftin hath faid i We muft notlofe truth for fear of fcandal. R. B. I Meant not yon only , nor more then others of the fame Opinion in this paflage 3 for I have met with many fuch before I knew yom That which I delivered way, that fome Truths are to be fufpended for peace ; and not that Truth (in the general) as you exprefs it, after your ill cuftome that you have got. And that you affirmed [that no Truth was to be fufpended for Peace,] and bid Mr. v. tell me, that [if J preached as beforefaid,' I preached a falfliood or untruth,] of this I have full and cre- dible witnefs. And yet (according to your ill cuftom) you deny this, and lay you added , that truth may not be fo concealed [as to be loft] which words ccmc in lince. And fo much you feem to be confeious of,in faying It was your meaning. And for me 5 how could I know your meaning 3 but by your words ? But 1 v, ill take it as you ftand to it, and confute it anon among fome more of yout Errors. In the mean time, you might fee how ycu abufe Aufiin (if he have the words ycu al'edge ; ) [ < )r to fay [ Truth muft not be loft for fear of fcandal] doth as much dfftr from ytirs, that [No truth is to be concealed, fo as to be loft 9 for peace ] as Truth from a meft deftru&Ye faljhood. Ee 5 M .T, 2 1 6 Plain Scripture proof of Mr. T. THe other parage is [Temptations are now come new your doors,"] This 1 doubt not but be. means of my being here. 1 than\God I have as occafion hath hApned preached to them at Kederminfter 5 and I \now not that by me they we-te tempted to evilL Here I have preached., and many of them bavz come to hear me, and I {now not that I have fe- ducedthem. Why my being here fhould be dangerous to them at Kederminfter^ I {now not. And as Mr. Baxter feems to ma{e me play the Devils part : So I (hall pray for him that would give him a confide? ate, and a calmfpirit, and review thefe paffages of his, and lay a fide all thefe \ind of bitter cxprcftions, and debate with me wherein we differ 3 fairly,ar,i as it becomes Cbriflian Brethren, and not in this manner go about as it were toparad;g.\ mati^e , and fUgmati'^e me throughout the whole Kingdom, THat I meant you, and your Do&rine, and party here, is very true , and judge that I was bound to warn them of the temptation. For your preaching at KsdcrmrnJierJ. give you unfeigned thanks,and was more glad of your Labours then other mens 5 and had you preached no otherwife at Bewdcley fince then you did at Ksdcrminfter , then they mould have hadcaufe to thank you, as well as I. And as I wrote not in paf- fion, but in confederation and calmnefs of fpirit a fo upon the review of it, I find,that it is a moft evident truth, That Anabaptifts in pleading againft their own Childrens Priviledges, as that they are not Chrifts Difciples , not Chriftians, not Members of the vifible Church, not holy by reparation and dedication to God , not to be entred into Covenant to take the Lord for their God, and to be his peculiar people, &c. do play the Devils part, who is the Accufer of mankind j and in feverall refpe&s before exprefied 3 far worfe. And fhis , with the Schifm you have made in the Church , (and ft ill with might and main endeavour to make,) and all the grofs untruths and mif- cariages in the managing it, being your great and very hainousfin, 1 had not only warrant but neceffity and duty on me to warn my people of the danger, and publikc- ly reprehend you, though I know both you and your party take it ill and think me too bitter. A man may not fufFer another to fet the Town on fire, and not meddle with him for fear of being accounted unpeaceable i cenforious and bitter. Men are colder in Gods Caufe then their own. You have endeavoured by your writings to make ycur felf famous for refitting truth, and kindling a fire and fa&ion through the whole Kingdom, and further 5 and therefore I do but my duty, in fhewing the whole King- dom your error- I am commanded, Them that Jin rebuke before All, 1 Tur^.io. and your tin is fuch as is moftpublikely committed, u'e are befeeched to mar^thofe that c ufe divifions.and offences contrary to the doclrine which we have learned, and avoydthem^ Rom. 16.17,18. For they that arefuchferve not our Lord Jefus cbrijlj>ut their own bcUiei, and by good words and fair f pitches deceive the hearts of the pmplc. If any yet think me barfh, I refer them to Beta's Ppiftle before Calvins Traclatus ihcolog* which contains my defence , if they will read ic. JftX| Infants Chttrch'Tnemhrjlnf) and Baptifm* 217 Mr. T. IS.iyuo more , ; hwc wiped aw.ry the din that Mr. Baxter would huve cafl into my fac:,andforhimlpriiyGodfayv2 him the wrong he bath do?ie mewhoam con- fcious of no other then brotherly deportment towaids him $ and the Lord give him men* tem fanam in corpore fano. * R. B. THe dirt I caft at the face of your Error and xealous Schifm ; and you were plea*; fed to ftep bnween, and take it into your own. You are fo in diflike with warning the face s that you have but wiped it, which is lutum luto lavare, and fo have made ic far worfe ; and yet being in your face, it is fo neer your eyes that you cannot fee it, and fo neer your felf, that you have not patience to endure to be told of it* And for me, if I have done you wrong, it is againft my will, becaufe without my knowledge; yet I know we are all fo partiall in our own Caufe, that I muft daily beg of God v as to difcover my fin, fo to forgive me that which I do not difcern ; and particularly in this my writing. And for your unbrotherly deportment to me, the moft hath been your i frequent traducing me in your Pulpit j which yet as I know not that I ever heard of wirh paffion j fo if it had been all, itfhould never have coil me the writing of a line. But of your fin againft God and his Church , I defirethe Lord to make you fenfible, and give you repentance unto life $ and that you may live to right the Churchy as you have wronged it,and to make fomc part of amends to deluded fouls by your as publike recantation. And in return for your prayer, becaufe I cannot put up St. Johns requeft for you, that you may profper as your foul profpereth, I defire you a mind as found as your body , and that the Inflation, Mole and falfe Conception of your Intellect may be fafely cured, and the Monfters there begotten by the pretended Angel of Light, may diflblve in the womb where they were conceived 5 or if they muft needs be brought forth , that they may be ft ill born ? and" have no other entertainment in the world, then to be Beheld >Abh of d 3 and Buried. A brief II 8 Plain Scripture proof of » ■ A brief. Confutation of divers other of • .Mr. T. his miftakes. Error I. "KA r. T. holdeth y That no Truth is to be [upended \_fo as to belojf\ for Peace. Confutation. THcfe words [fo as to be loft] which you add fince , do fignifie an Event i which is (as fuch) no Object of Law. God commandeth not Events directly, nor for- biddeth them. Duty only is the Object (or rarher immediate refulc or product) of Precept: and Duenefs of Reward or Punifhment, is the immediate Product of Promifc or Threatning. The Law commandeth us to do our Duty to preferve Truth from being loft : but it commandeth not the Event [that it be not loft. ] If Truth be loft while I do my Duty,it is no fin of mine: If it be not loft while I neglect my Duty, it is yet my (in. God difpofeth of Events , and not we. Now our queftion is , How far a man is bound to reveal or inculcate Truth for the preferving of it .? I delivered this : [ That Fundamentals and points of neceflity next the Foundation in matters of Faith., and alfo matters of abfolutely neceffary practice, muft be made known-] But among other caufes of our want of Peace in the Church 3 I laid down this Tenet for one, [ i hat no Truth may be fufpended for Peace :] and I proved the contrary, That fome Truths are fo (mall that they may be fufpended for Peace. 'Mr. T. fent me word, that this was an untruth. Now his hft qualification can reach no further then this : That a man for Peace may not fufpend any truth all his life time. And 1 prove he may : Thus, i. That which God never commanded me to reveal, it is no fin to conceal : But.God never commanded me to reveal every Truth j therefore it is no fin to conceal fome Truth. I inftance in two fort of Truths, x. Truths un- known which God never revealed to me ; as thoufands about Angels, Spirits , and the things of another world, z. Common Truths about naturall things; as that thislnke is made of Gum, Vitriol, &c. and this Paper of KagSj &c. Where am I commanded to reveal thefe ? and that to the lofs of Peace } But Mr.T. will fure fay, that he :-ncant only ^cripture Truth. Anf.i. His affertion tome in writing is [No Truth muft be fufpended. &: ] without exception, z. [will prove ic of Scripture Truths. It is a Scripture Truth, that Ah'nm was the Son of Sacar, and Eltpbalxhc Son of Vr t and Ira the Son of I$ejb t with hundreds the like ; that oiJe[bni came the Family Infants Chttrch-memkrjbip and Bdp'tifm. ii£ Family of the Jcfuitcs ; ofMalchieltte Family of the MaIchkl/tc$>Scc. And is it better never fee Peace in die Church then filence one of thefe Truths? But perhaps MrSf. will fay he meant only Doctrinal*, cr Pradicals. i. But his words are clean other- wife. ' a* That they mould falute one another with an holy kifs, was a Practical Truth j the Contendings, Queftions,and Difputings about theLaw,^, which Paul forbids, were Doctrinal at leaft , with multitudes of the like. And may not one of thefe be filenced for peace, even as long as one liveth ? I prove It farther ; %. If a man can- not poflfibly have time to reveal all Truths while he liveth, then he may and muft leave fome unrevealed : But no man can poflibly have time to reveal all Truths while he liveth : ( or at leaft fome men cannot ) therefore, we may and muft leave fome un- revealed. But perhaps Mr. T. will fay, he meant onely of a purpofed, willing con- cealing. Anf. $. I argue to that alfo. Ifa man have a multitude of Truths to reveal , and can poflibly reveal but fome , then it is his duty purpofely to reveal the chiefeft , and conceal the reft: But this is the cafe of all Minifters,or at leaft of fome: therefore 3 8cc. 4. That which a man may, and mutt do without reference to the Churches peace ; that he may, and muft do much more for it : But a man may, and muft conceal fome Truths whether he will or no, without reference to the Churches peace: (as the a- forefaid arguments (hew : ) therefore, much more for it. ?. When two duties come together, and cannot both be performed, there the grea- ter muft be chofen, and the lefs let alone : but the duty of feeking the Churches peace, is greater then the duty of revealing fome Truths: therefore, when both cannot be per- formed, we muft chufe the former. The Minor is evident, in that the change is fo earneftly and frequently laid on us in Scripture to feek peace j but not fo to reveal e- very fmall Truth. 6 . When two mercies are before us, and we cannot have both , we muft chufe the greater onely. But the Churches peace is a greater mercy then fomeTruths : therefore, when we cannot have both, Peace muft be chofen. To prove the Minor , I argue thus : That which is the lofs of all outward Mercies, and Truths for moft, is not fo great a Mercy as that which preierveth them , and giveth us the comfort and profit of them : But want of Peace (efpecially if the privation be total) is the lofs of moft other Mercies and Truths (to moft men : ) therefore, &c.Whocan reveal Tr«ths 3 or enjoy Mercies, where there is nothing but enmity, bloud, cutting of throats, &c ?' When every man is an enemy to other ; who will receive any Truth you reveal > Is not that man far gone that doth not know,that it were better for the Church that theTruths about Pauls Cloak and Parchments, with the like before mentioned, were wholy bu- ried, then the Church mould live in evcrlafting enmity and bloudmed ? 7. If a man may fufpend a Truth for a time , then in fome cafes he may fufpend it for all his lifetime: but the antecedent is proved thus. i.BecaufehislifcisunJ certain 5 and if he filence it in one Sermon , he knows not whether he (hall preach another. z. And the caufe of his then fufpending it may continue while he ]iveth. 8. The greater} (ins are not to be Committed, or occaiionedj nor thegreateft dif- honour done to God, rather then the fraalleft truth be concealed. But the total breach of Peace containeth the greateft for exceeding great) fins, and bringeth the great- eft dilhonour to God: therefore, &c. The contrary to Peace is this , For every man to hate his brother as his enemy , and (bed his bloud as Cain did Abels : &c. And had Mr. T, rather fee the Church in this cafe, then they (hould not hear his fappofed F f Truths ? , , u- — — -^^^BM^H^^ 2 20 Vhin Scripture poof ef Truths ? Would not this overtarn all Religion, Worfhip of God, and Humanity 3 when every man were like a Devil to his Brother, or Child, or Father, or Mother, go- ing about night and day feeking how to devour them? He that had rather fee the Church in this cafe y then his Doctrine of Anabaptiftry fhould be concealed , is good for nothing but to make an Anabaptift of, that I know* When Chrift hath faidj By this [hall all men tyiorv that ye are my Difciples, if ye love one another •* My peace J leave mtbyoui&cc; $. The veryreafon why Paid forbids queftions about the Law and Genealo- gies,&c. (which on one fide were Truths) was becaufe they engender ftrife, that is, breach of Peace: Therefore he thought fome Truths were to be filenced for Peace. .10. Hell is not to be chofen rather then the leaft Truth filenced .* But thetotall Pri- vation of Peace is Hell : Therefore, &c. We are little beholding to thofe that would have the Church turned into Hell rather then filence their fuppofed Truth. 1 1. If a man may filence fome Truths for his own Peace^then much more for the Churches - y but a man m3y filence fome Truths for his own Peace .• Therefore much more for the Churches. The Minor is evident from Chrifts own practice, that would not anfwer his Enemies when they enquired after what might enfhare him feverall times j andfotheApoftles;and no man is bound to accufe himfelf though it be Truth. And I conjecture that the reafon why Mr.T. meddled not with thefe things in the Pulpit while the Ordinance againft Herefies and Errors was in force, was his own Peace/ but when the Authors were pulled down, he quickly fpake out. And is the Churches Peace of fo little worth to him in comparifon of his own ? 21. Laftly, That Tenet is not to be fufFered in the Church which evidently tendeth to its destruction : But this Opinion [that no Truth is to be filenced for Peace] is fuch: Therefore, Sec. For if this take, then every one that doth but think it is a Truth, that ChriCt is not God, that there is no God, nor Heavcn,nor Hell 3 that it is the height of Religion to Blafpheme God, and Swear, and Curfe,and Whore, (as Cop and that reft of the Anabaptifts that follow him,) or that it is a duty to kill Kings, to blow up Parliaments, or the like, will prefently think himfelf bound to reveal it to the world, though it turn all into confufion. And will there not be enough that will think it then their duty to pra&ife it J And fo you mail never want for a Clc- nentyzRaviUiacIt, a Fa/*x, &c. And ev6ry^Congregarion and Market-place will have heaps of Preachers, while every man hath his Truth to reveal, though it turn all intoalhes. And fo I leave this Opinion to \Mr»T. and his party j and again defire my friends to abhor it. Error II. Mr.T. holdeththat Baptising, is not [0 tyed to any perform but that per fon that is the mflrument of converting others, may be the inftrument of baptising. (Yet hefeemeth to confent to our excepting of women.) Confutation* THis he layeth down in his anfwer to the fixth Queition, Which' he handled In his Sermons. I prove the contrary, thus ; i. If Infants Church-memberjhif and Baftifm. 2 a I 1. If Chrift never fent any but JMinifters to Baptize , thentoo others may do it: But Chrift fent none but Minifters to Baptize •' therefore no others may do it. The Antecedent is evident in the Hiftory* of the Gofpel, Let them (hew where Chrift fent any other, and I will yield. The conference is plain hencej i. In that none may do any work without .Authority : but they that are not fent have no Authority : Therefore, &c. 2. The Apoftles received commiffion for Preaching and Baptizing together} therefore one may no more be done without commiffion then the other, according toChrifts way. TheApoftle faith^i? /hall they preach except they be fent 5 and Chrift hath joyned Baptizing in the fame Commiffion. 3. That which Chrift hath made part of the Minifteriall work, by putting it in their com* million, that may not be ufurped by others: But Chrift hath made Baptizing part of the Minifteriall work by putting it in their Commiffion : Therefore, &c.i The Apoftles received this Commiffion as Minifters, and not as Apoftles only. 4! If there be no Example in Scripture of any but Minifters that have Baptized, then no others may : (For the Apoftles eftablilhed the Church according to Gods mind 5 and the Scripture is a fufficient Rule,,) But there is no fuch example , (They that affirm there is, let them prove it,) Therefore, &c. 5. If any that convert may Baptize, then women may : But that were abfurd .-Therefore, &c. 6. If all things muft be done in order, then every man may not Baptize, but thofe to whom Chrift hath committed it as their Office : But all things muft be done in Order : Therefore, &c. The confequence is evident, in that order requires hac every Member of the body have his own Office .* And if every man mould bt judged to have Authority to Baptize,what horrible confufion would it make in thofe Churches that border upon Turks or Pagans, or live among them ? Every one that had a con- ceit he had converted them , might Baptize even the deriders of Chrift ian Religion, and make mingle mangle in the Church. M Error III. T. boldetb, that not Minifters only, but othws that are noMiniflers may Adminii fat the Sacrament of the Lords Supper* Confutation. 'T'His I am informed he preached •, but I am certain he affirmed to me In Difcourfe -"■ with confidence. In a c»fe of neceffity (as if people were in the Ihdies) where no Minifters can be had, if any fay that it is better a private man Baptize and Adminfter the Lords Supper, then wholy omit them , I will not deny it. For the re- verence of Antiquity prevaileth much with me : And I know God hath al way d if* penfed with Circumftantials, when they come in competition with the fubftance. But Mr. T. fpeaksitin reference to our ordinary cafe in England Now againft him I (hall now fay but this much. 1. He that adminftreth the Lords Supper, (in breaking the bread, delivering it to all, bidding them, Tafa eat, &c ) muft reprefent the Lord Jefus, who himfelf did this at the Inftitution. But only Minifters, and no private men, are perfons who (hould reprefent the Lord Jefus in Church -Admjnift ations : F f z Therefore 222 Plain Scripture froof of Therefore only Minifters and no private men may adminifter the Lords Supper. Mi- nifies only are called his Ambaitedors, Stewards of his Myfteries, and befeech in his ftead^c. Jtisafillyanfwer of Mr. T. that Sacraments are not called Myfteries of God. For the word preached neither is nqt the Myftery it felf, but a revealing and ex- hibiting of that Myftery : and fo are the Sacraments. The one revealeth them ro the ear, and the other to the eye. a- . If there no command or example in Scripture of any but Minifters adminiftring the Lords Supper, then no other may do it j But there is no command or example in Scripture of any other doing it ; They that fay there is Let them mew it. But by this time you may fee whether Mr. T. would reduce the Minifterial office, i. Others may baptfce. 2. And adminifter the Lords Supper. $. And then, preaching is all or almoit all that is left,'' for he gives them iefs far in Government then I do) And bow well he dtknded the Minifteriall Priviledge of publike preaching in his Difputes with Captain Bray y h too well known. And" what need the people allow (o much of their means then to maintain Minifters ? Is not this next to the utter extirpation of them, according to the do&rine of their learned Martin Mar- prieft. Error IV. Mr.T.affirmeth in his Apolog.p. 152, 153. That every right adminiflrationofBap' tlfm is not Gods [eating : Actually God fealcth not but when it is admini fired to a Believer. It may be called a Right A cl of the Admini fir ator according to Gods appoint- ment 5 but not Gods fealing Sec, Confutation. I Conceive thefe dangerous Errors of Mr. T. about the nature of the Covenant and feals in generall,which I (hall tewch in this and the next, are the root of his error about B3ptifm, or at leaft much ftrengthen it. It muit here be underftood that our Queftion is not about the internall feal of the Spirit, but only the externall feal of the Sacrament, which are two diftinct things. 1 be nature of this feal, and whether it feal conditionally or abfoIutely,I have fully opened in the Appendix of my Aphorifmes of Juftification , whither I muft defire the reader to turn and read it, to fave me the labor of doing it here. His opinion I prove unfoundjthus. 1. If the Sacrament rightly adminiftred to an hypocrite have all in it that is effenriall to Gods Actuall fealing, then it is his A&uall fealing > But the Sa- crament rightly adminiftred to an hvpocrite hath all things in k elTentiall to Gods s&uall fealing, therefore it is his aduall fealing. A feal isanengagemg or obliging fign, or at leaft a teftifying. He that actually ufcth a fign to fuchan end, doth A&ually feal. Now 1. God ufeth this (sgn, 2. And to this end. i.Heufeththe fign while his Minifters ufe it in his name at his command j for* immediately he ne- ver ufeth or applyeth it to any. 2. He commandeth it to be ufed to this end 3 to engage himfcif to make good his promifes. For 1 - To what other end mould God command them? 2. Eife he mould command them to be ufed to one end to one, and to another end to another, which it cannot be Shewed that he hath done (I fpeak of the end of the Ordi-L Infants Church-memberfhip and Baptifm. 222 Ordinance, not of the event which God hath decreed (hall follow.) $. If the promife be to others befides Belie vers ,,then fo is the feal (for to whom God promifeth> to them he engageth himfelf to perform ) but the promife is to others 3 therefore,^. This will be evident if It be once underftood that it is only the conditionall promife which God fealerh by the Sacraments [If thou Believe in the Lord Jefus thou (halt be fayed] For this promife is made tounbelieveis; though the good promifed is not to be enjoyed by any that perform not the condition. 1 his I have fully proved in the fore • faid Appendix to my Aphorifmes : and will fail under the next quel* ion. 2. If God do no more in his A ctuall fealing to believers, then he dotli when the Sacrament is rightly applyed to Hypocritesjthen he actually fealeth to Hypocrites.But God doth no more in his actuall fealing to believers then he doth when the Sacrament is rightly ad- miniftred to Hypocrites ; therefore he actually fealeth to Hypocrites. The major is proved by the enumeration of the feverall Acts. 1. God maketh the promife. 2. B$ commandcthMiniftersto publilh it. j. He harhinftitucedthe Sacraments as M u- tuall engaging figns or feals. 4. He commandeth Minifteis to deliver or apply them to thofe that profefs their confent and defire to enter or renew the Covenant (ThisT need not ftand to prove, feeing Afr.T. here yieldeth that the giving of the Sacrament is a right act of the adminiftrator, which it could not be except it were commanded) as alfo the initiating feal to the children of thofe believing parents that will enter them into the Covenant^ as is proved before. Now what act more then thefe doth God perform to the Elect or Believers ? If it be faid that he addeth the feal of his Spirit 3 that is nothing to the queftion, feeing we are fpeaking only of the outward feal. If it be faid that he affureth the confeience of the truth of the promife, and maketh the outward feal effectual!. I anfw- 1. That is ftill the inward feal, andfo nothing to this, a. That is the making of the feal fuccefsful, which is nothing to the act of fealing. If you feal a deed of gift to three men 3 and one believeth it 3 and another doth not believe it, and another doth half believe it, yet this doth not make it no fealing to him that believeth not 5 you feal equally to them all. 5. And God doth not alwayes thus 3f- fure the Elect or believers, but that they oft conclude hardlyer againft themfelves then others do that have no faith. So that I defire Mr. T. to produce any one Act which God peiformeth to believers, and not to others which may appropriate the name of fealing to them. But all this dependeth on the next queftion, whether it be the Ab- folute or conditionall promife that God fealeth to ? which we are now to enquire into. Error V. Mr. T. holdetb that the Covenant tvhsreof Baptifm is tbefea\ if the Abfolute Cove- nant of Grace y made only to the E'ecl. Confutation* ~\\ Any moremiftakes he utters in the way to this about the Covenanr. This he *■* *■ publikely pleaded for in his difpurejand alledged Doctor Twiffe as affirming the Covenant of grace to be abfolute. To which I then anfwercd. 1 . Thar to thrult hi mens names and words, when in difpatation we were enquiring what the Scripture F f 3 fahh> 224 Plain Scripture proof of faith, was unfeafonable and diverting. 2. That Dodor Tw'ijfe doth conftantly in ai* ,his writings affirm, that the promifes of Remiffion of fin and falvation are condition- all 5 though the promife of the firft grace f I will take the hard heart out of their bodieSj&c] is Abfolute. This I dare affirm , as having read fix of Dodor Twiffe his books again and again (which I think are all) having been long ago fo great an admi- rer of him, that I valued him above all others j yet though L ftill much value him, 1 would give young Students this caution, that they take heed how they read him in the dodrineof Juftification. For he fpeaks of Juftification from eternity, and rem iflion of (in from eternity, and faith procuring but the knowledge of Pardon and Juftifi* inginforo Coufciencice&c. as the Antinomians do, and fights againft Arminians with Antinomian weapons , to the great endangering of young Students, who are i. Apt enough to run from one extream to another : i. Efpecially to a worfe : 3. And will eafier fwallow an 'error when it comes in way of oppofition to an adverfary, and as an argument againft another error. And I have been informed by a Godly,Learn- ed a Judicious Divine of the AfT;mbly, that the Antinomians being queftioned, did plead Dodor Twijfes authority : and the Aflembly queftioning him for thofe paffages in his book (while he was Moderator) he was able to fay little in excufe of them. This on the by. But Mr. T'j.anfwer to me was, that the promife of faving grace is not conditionall ; and that though fome parts of the Covenant be conditionall, yet it is all together that is called the Covenant, anchhe leading promife being not conditi- onall, therefore the Covenant is not conditionall, and that k was a grofs palpable er- ror of me to fay that the promife of faving benefits was made to Infants that were not Eleft. And he faith in his Examen. and Apology,that Mr. SMarJbaU fpeaks like Corvinas and the Arminians in his afferting the conditionall fealing, and when he talks of the Covenant, Chrifts fureryfliip, &c. To all which I anfwer. 1. A great many more hot-fpurs of this age do make any thing Arminianifme,which is but contradidory to Antinomianifm. I will not fay Mr. T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not ; But this* opinion, that the Cove- nant of Grace, which Baptifm feaLth, is only to the Eled, and is not conditionall, is one of the two matter pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick. z. But to thefe Mr. Bla^e hath fully anfwered Mr. T. though in his Apol. he pafieth over much, and is not able to difccrn his meaning j but he hath the laft word, and that muft be taken for a fign of vidory. 'For my part, I fpeak impartially, according to my judgement, I think there is more true worth in thofe two or three leavs of Mr. Blades book } in open- ing the nature of the Covenant, then in all Mr* T*s books that ever he wrote about ba^tifm. And Mr. B\t>\c hath fully cleared Mr. Marjhall and himfelf from the charge of Symbolizing with the Arminians 5 and hath fully proved that the entrance into Covenanted acceptation of the terms of it (though not fincerely aud unrefervediy) is common to the Eled and Reprobates and that The Reprobate are within the verge of the- ovenant, as tendered in the Gofpel, and accepted (as beforefaid,with a half heart) And if any that are run into the other extream lhall think that this affi.ming that [Chiift hath brought the Reprobate alfo into the Covenant of Grace con Si Jon- all ] be any part of the Arminian Errors, as the whole fcope of Scripture is againft them, fo Mr. Bl&\$ hath-faid enough tofatisfie. He that will deny Reprobates to befo far within the Covenant of Grace^ muft not only deny Infant Baptifm, but all Sa- craments, till he be able infallibly to difcern a man to be Eled (And d^ubtlefs this intereft in the Covenant is a fruit of Chrifts death.) Mr. T. oae day in the Pulpit, in pleading that tie Covenant belonged only to the Infants Church-memberfiif and Baptifa. 225 Ele&, was pleafed to bring me in as witneffing thereto, in the Append, of my Aphor. ^.4$. becaufe I there fay that the Abfolute prom ife or Prophefie there mentioned is made only to the Elect. When yg: the very fcope of the place is to prove tfyit it is not the Abfolute promife that is moft fitly called the Covenant of Grace. But that this Abfolute Promife or Covenant (if you will call it fo) is not it that is fealed in Baptifm and the Lords SupperJ prove againft Mr. T thus,clearly. 1. That which is fealed to by the Sacraments, is a proper Covenant, having a Re- ftipulation on our parts as well as a promife on Gods part. Butthe Abfolute promife is not a proper Covenant, with fuch a mutuall engagement , but properly a meet promife or Prophefie; therefore it is not this Abfolute Promife which is fealed by the Sacraments. The major Mr. T. cannot deny ; for he pleaded ic himfelf in the Pulpit as a reafon to prove that Infants might not be baptized,becaufe they could not engage themfelves. And he brought that pafiage in my forefaid Appendix /^g. 68. as attend- ing it 3 where I fay that it is a mutuall engaging fign or feal ; As it is given, it is Gods feal; as it is accepted,it is ours. And indeed the very definition of a proper Covenant (of which Gr otius de $urc Belli>and other Lawyers-will inform you) (heweth as much that it mud be a mutuall engagement. Now in that Abfolute promife [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies,^.] there is na fuch matter, but only God telleth what he will do. a. If it were the Abfolute promife of the firft grace that is fealed by the Sacraments, then the Sacraments mull be given to No nun, or to All men: But thatisabfurd therefore fo is the former. The confequent is manifeft, becaufe that Abfolute promife or prophefie is only of the Eleft, and that before Regeneration : now no man hath any fign given him, fo much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerace Elect. So that it muft either be given to All or none. a. Or we may argue thus 5 It may be known to whom that ^Covenant belongs, which is fealed by the Sacraments. But it cannot be known f before the fulfilling, no nor at a\\) to whom ('particularly^ that Abfolute promife doth belong 5 therefore that Abfolute promife is not it which is fealed by the Sacraments. 4. If (according to Mr. T's judgement) that abfolute promife muft be fulfilled to a man,before he be capable of receiving the Sacraments which are feals of the Covenant of Grace, then it is not that abfolute promife which is the Covenant of Grace fealed to by the Sacraments : But (according co Mr. 7 's. judgement/* that abfolute pro- mife muft be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of (a right), receiving the Sacra- ments, which are feals of the Covenant of Grace; therefore it is not that abfolute pro - mife which is the Covenant fo fealed to. The Antecedent is evident^ if you confider 1. That it is the Promife of the firft renewing grace which we fpeak of ('for all after-grace is promifed conditionally) a- That Mr. T.pleadeth that Believers only are Difciples, and fuch Difciples only muft be Baptized. $. That faith is a part of this firft Grace abfulutely promifed (as is commonly judged) The aivingof aNew, foft heart, is the giving the feed of all Graces,and fo of Faith. ' The confequence is as evidentjbecaufe, The Mercy promifed in the Covenant which is fealed, is not given before the firft fealing ; But the Mercy p- ^mifed in thai, ahfolure promife is (according to Mr. T. and in part the truths give, ben>re the fi: It feal-n^ of the Covenant of Grace; therefore,^. God doth not promife and feai roarnanth.it oath a new heart to give him a new heart, or to a man that is a 8eliever 3 that he will give 1 16 Pi aw Scrip tun proof af give him to be a believer j except we fpeak of the continuance, or increafe of faith and newnefs, which is not the thing in queftion. $ . 7 he benefits of the Covenant of Grace, which is Sealed by the Sacraments, are (by thofeof Age,) to be received by Faith. But tRe benefits of the abfolute Promifeof the firft Grace, are not to be received by Faith: therefore, this is not the Covenant of Grace-fo Sealed. The Major is evident : Mr. T. faith, onely Believers muft be Bapti- fed as Difciples : The Minor is proved before. Faith is part of the thing promi- (cd: and we Gefnerus, Zuinge-ruiy Camerariusyfaler.CorduSyScbeg- ItiuSySckoUyuStPoflhius, Obfopaus, Brunnerusi with multitudes more, to whom the Church hath been much behold ingj among whom Eraftus was in all refpe&s oneof the chief,and moft honored by the Divines, as well as Phyfitians of that age ; as is appa. rent by multitudes of Epiftles which Zanckm i BuUinge;" i $imlcr i and many other wrote to him. And for fuch young Divines as the moft of us are,to blame men fo much more learn-- ed and judicious then our felvcs for writing of Divinity, as if it were beyond their reach or calling, doth-favor of that Arrogancy 3 which maketh our facred Function by manytobedefpifed. As for Eraftus his Book, I conceive that fome of it is good , and fome erroneous; h is arguments for mixt communion, are very weak, and he feemeth oft to contradid what he there pleadeth for. For my part (were my judgement of any moment to o- thers ) after my moft fetious ftudy in this point , both in Scripture, and Antiquity, Gg (fpecially 228 Plain Scripture poof of specially the writers of the three fii ft Centuries,) lam confidently perfwaded, That the true way of Chrifts Difcipline, is parcelled out between the Epifcopal, Eraftian , Presbyterian, and Independents 5 and that every party hath a piece of the 1 ruth in pe- culiar ; and had we fo much humility , peaceablenefs, and felf-denial, as to meet and lovingly debate the cafe, and lay all together, it would be happy for the Church : And I verily think, That if ever a one of the four parties do entirely eftablilh their own way, they will not eftablifh the Scripture way. Formetocaft in my Model, would but be judged Arrogancy : but to befeech them to joyn alj fpeedily in a peace- making Confutation, me thinks Ihould not dcferve a cenfure. And yet let it be taken how it will 9 I purpofe, if God will fo long draw cut my life, to acquaint the world with my thoughts in this alfo. But to the point. Mt\T. told them publikely in the Pulpit , That I had delivered in my Aphorifms a Do&rine of dangerous confluence, and fo read to them thefe words , Pag. 27$, [Some of his Government Chrift exercifeth by Minifters , and fome by Magistrates under him. For I cannot confent to them that fay, the Magiftrateisonely the Officer of God as- Creator, and not of Chrift the Mediator, &c. ] But what could be Mr.Ts. end in telling his people of the dangerous confequence or my Doftrine in the Pulpit f for that is his way of preaching, though I never mentioned him directly nor indiredlyjno nor ever preached to my beft remembrance againft his opinion of A*; mbaptifm to my own hearers,) when yet he never told them what that dangerous con- fequence was. And can any man conceive what danger can be in faying , That the Magiftrate is the Officer of Chrift the Mediator ? Where lies the danger? All that ever I heard is that from M. Galafpie ;, left ic bring in Church Government by MagL ftrates, and fet up Eraftus his caufe 5 and Mr. T- alleadgcdnot any Scripture, or Argument of his own againft it ( yea though I wrote to him to difpute it ) but told the people that M. Galafpie'hzA confuted it 5 efpecially that his 7. Argument ( which he named ) was unanfwerable : And he told me , That he fhould take my-Do&rire for Error till I had anfweredM. GdaFpie : which is a ftrange refolution. Should I deal with all M. G^hfpiehnhCiid on this point, 1 fhould fill too much paper with this Heterogeneal fubjed. OnelythisI fay ; 1. I undertake to prove every Argu- ment of his to this point , to be vain and fallacious, to any man that will difpute itc 2. Againft M, Galafyies Judgemental lay to Counterballance it, the Judgement of M. Rathe/ ford, his companion, and a man acknowledged a more able difpntanc then M. Gal as Infants Church-membeijhif and Baftifm. 219 as Angn%M hith^Epifl.ad Bonifac.Com. 50. therefore are they ordained as means by Chrift the Mediator,^ promote his Kingly Throne. Some of our Divines will have the Kingly power to come from God as Creator, in refpect God giveth Kings,who are his Vicegerent,s,to thofe who are not redeemed, and to Nations wfro never heard of Chrift: And others hold , that the Kingly power flow- cth from Chrift- Mediator, in refpe&hCaccomplilheth his purpofe of faying of his re- deemed people by Kings Authority , and by the influence of their Kingly Govern- ment piocareth a feeding Miniftry, and by their Princely Turory the Edification of his Body , the Church, which poffibly boih.aimat TrUthJ So. far Mr. K«- tberfard. 5. M. Galasjies unanfwerable Argument (as Mr. T- called it) I (hall briefly re- peat, and anfwer. It is this : 7. That Government and Authority which hath a Foundation in the Law of Nature and Nations, (yea might, and mould have had palce, and been of ufe though man had not finned) cannot be held of, and under,and minaged for Chrift 3S Mediator; But Magiftracie, or Civil Government hath a Voundation tti 3 &e. therefore,^- knfwer.The Minor can never be proved,and the Ma- jor is apparently falfe. 1. No Scripture faith, there (hould have been Magiftracie in innocencie. 2. Inferioritie, and Subjection to the Creature \ is part of the Curfe. 5. Even theWomans fubjection toner Husband, is mentioned as part of thepunifh- mentforfin. 4. There would have been no evil works to reftrain , noranydiforder^ if there had been no fin: therefore,there needed no Magiftrate.The Magiftrate is Gods Sword-bearer, and there would have been no ufe for the Sword in innocencie. 5. And for Order, God would have ruled all immediatly 3 without the interpolation of our fel- low fervants. z. But if there ihould have been Magiftracie in innocencie » it follows not that it is not upon the Fall delivered over into the hands of Chrift. The whole Creature is de- livered up to him upon his undertaking the work of Redemption , and fo Magiftracie, and even the Law of Nature it felf. And the denial of this is very injurious to the Dignity, Dominion, and Redemption of Chrift. And yet fome are fo zealous againft Armtnianifm, That they run into the other extream, and even deny that all things are delivered up to Chrift upon his Purehafeand Redemption, which yet the Scripture is moft exprefs for 5 1 will name fome undeniable Arguments. 1. Rom. 14. 9. For this end Chrift both dy^d, rofe, and revived, that be might be Lord of the dead and living. H e that expoundeth this of fome onely of the dead and living,dare pervert Scripture from its plain fenfe. And I hope they will not fay , That this is fpoken of Chrilt as the fi- ternal God & not as Mediator; For it was the end of his Dying,Rifing,and Reviving, to procure this Dominion, 2. Mat. 28. 18. All power in Heaven and Earth is given to me, ('the re fore, fure the power of Magiftrates,) go teach all nations^c. Two ftrange Anfwers Mr. Galas~p:c gives to this : x. It may be meant of all power in the Church onely. Anfvoe; 5 He that dare fay , That all power in Heaven and Earth, is onely aU power in the Church, and none elfevvhere , (hall not be much difputed with by me 1 for it is in vain to prels him with Scripture. And is it not fad , That the maintain* ing of our own opinions , ihould drive Godly men to maintain fuch a Malignant Te- nent againft Chi ifts Dominion , as to fay that all power out of the Church is not gi- ven to him > 2. But Mr. Galafpic faith All power may be J aid to be given to chrift as God t 1. In rcjpocl ofEternall Generation ; 2. And of Tempos all Declaration. Anfwei J I think no impartial man that doth but read the Text, can believe either of thefc Ex- positions: efpecially if he read thofe many other Texts that fpeak of the delivering up of all to Chrift in time; and that to this end he died, that he might be Lord, &c. And Gg 2 for 2 jo Plain Scripture proof of for that of [Declaration ] he may as well fay i as many lately. That Chrift was man from Eternity , and bTit Declared [o at his In carnation. The Rule he brings out of Auftin ( Aiiquid^uitur fieri qttando incipil patefkn) will fit the Antinomians well , who fay we are JuflFified from eternity. But according to this liberty of Expounding, Scripture will be of little ufe, but muft mean what pleafe the Reader. Many other Scriptures fpeak moft plainly, and fully to tats point. Mat. i r 27. Lu\. 10 22. AH things fire deliver ed to me of my Father , and no man tyioweth the Son but the Father, and he to Whom &c. John $.3 5. The Father loveth the Son , and hath given aU things into bis band. John 13 3. fc/us Rowing that the Father had given all things into his h*nd % &c- John 171- Thou hafl given him power over aU fit fh t that he might give eternal life to as many as thou haft given him. Ephef.1.20 21. which he wrought in Chrift when he railed him from the dead, andfet him at his own right hand in the heavenly places 3 far a- hove all primipalitie , and power ^ and might, and dominion , &c and hath put all things under bis feet , and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church* So Rev. 1. 5. 18. Pfal.2. Philip. 2.6,7,8,9,10,11. Mat.o 6. Joh.5.26,27.ii. Rev.2,26. Heb.i, at!,* Aft.10.36. i.Cor.8.6. a.Per.2.1. &c. M. Galafpie thinks ftrange that this (hould be given to Chrift [as Mediator] any more then it may be faid , That [ as Mediator] he fate in Simons houfe, or wept for Lazarus, &c. Anfwer 3 The word [As] is ambiguous; and either may denote the Efiential parts of the Mediators Of- f*ce(and fo thefe were not his Afts as Mediator, for fo he onely Mediateth ) or elfe the £ubfervient,Accidentall or Collateral afts (and fo all thefe are his Afts as Mediator J When the Queftion is whether Chrift fate in Simons houfe at meat, and wept for La- f^arus, &c. as the eternal God , or as God-man, the Mediator , I do not doubt to fay (and properly ) as Mediator. Andfoi his firft great Argument fThat this will prove Heathen Magiftrates un- lawfully Anfwer , I make not the ieaft doubt but heathens have their Magiftracy, and all that is good/rom and under Chrift the Mediator. M. BaU faith truly of wick- ed men , That what bleiTings they enjoy, they are given according to the Covenant of Grace, and not of Works ; Treat, of Covenants. Pag. 91. And indeed there can be 710 blcffings from the Covenant of Works once violated : And God gives none in a- ny other way, then upon one of the Covenants : And it they are given according to the Covenant of Grace , then fure from Chrift as Mediator of that Covenant. And it is nothing 3gainft this, that the Heathen know not Chrift, nor the Covenant , no more then it will prove thofe Heathen Magiftrates or people to be from under God, and the Law of works , who know not God, nor that Law. For as God, fo the Me- diator God- man doth excercife part of his Authority where he is not known, and ac- knowledged^ yea even among brutes, and fenfitives that cannot know him- M, Gala~ fpies fecond Argument, is , That we muft prove the Magiftrates Commiffion to be from Chrift, or elfe we give Magiftracie a dangerous wound. Anfwer , 1. It being proved that all things are delivered inte Chrifts hands, and all power given to him, and the Father iudgeth no man, but hath given all judgement to the Son j and that a!! mercy is now given by and from him, it eafily followcth that the Magiftracie is from him. 2. SHr. Rutherford his friend hath done ic to his hand, out of many Texts of Scripture in the words before cited. It is Chrift, the Wildom of the Father that feith,£y me Kings rcign&c. Frov.%. 14*15. But I intended not this much 3 having fully explained, limited, and confirmed this point in my Leftures on Chrifts Dominion 8 which are in the Tranfcribers hands, in- tended for publick ufe^ if they there mifcarry not. Onely I muft fay, I judge it a very eajfc work so anfwer fully all the. reft of Mr* Gabies Arguments on that Queftion , and- Infants Church- member fhip and Baptifm. 2 J i and te vindicate the arguments for the affirmative from his exceptions. And that ir is mens great miftake of the very nature of Chrjfts Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace, which makes them thus deny his univerfal Dominion j which as it is hai- noufly derogatory to Chrift, to deny it , fo iffome violent men h3d but fuch an occa- fionagainft others, they would with open mouth proclaim It Blafphemy. Oh that I could fee 3s plain Scripture warrant for meer ruling Elders (without power to teach) as for Magiftrates?I doubt not but in ruling the very Chmch,there is fomewhat proper to the Magiftrare and fomewhat to the Minifter>and it is not difficult to manifeit to each his own work, if prejudice had not ftopt mens ears. And they that would not have the Maglftrate rule the Church as a Church, but onely as a part of the Commonwealth may as well fay the Magiftrate mould not defend, promote, or be a Nurfing Father to the Church as a Church 5 and at hft they muft needs come to the Libertines , and Anabaptifts Do&rine , That the Magiftrate may not Rule a Chriftian as a Chrifti* an,but onely as a man,or member of the Commonwealth: And then either the Church muft bear the fword again ( which Chrift hath forbidden) or elfe up goes that liberty of falfe worlhip, which is commonly called Liberty of Confciencej which I fhouid be forry any fober Divine mould introduce, by denying the necefTary power of the Magi- ftrate in the Church , which I doubt not he derivethfrom Chrift the Mediator, who is ever fince the entring upon his Office, the Conveyer and Original of all true power 3 which ('though I now want time, and 3m loth to digrefs fofar in this poinc)I think my felf fufficiently furnilhed to make good. Onely that Mr. Rutherford may not want a fecond, I mall add the judgement of one fit to be his fecond, who was no Thne-ferver , Eraftian, Ariminian^ nor a Dull Divine to be eafily miflead jand that is excellent M. Ball in his Treatife of Covenants, P a & 3°y>3°6,$c7,3i?. Itmaybe defcribed the higheft , and Supream degree of Chrifts Ex3lt3tion,wherein he h3th received of the Father excellent glory, dignity,pow- er,and dominion,and is actuslly made the head of his Churchy and Lord, and Rnhv of all things both in heaven and earth ; who is gone into heaven , and is on the right hand of God, Angels,and Authorities, and Powers being made Subject unto hira. 1 Pet. i.ii. Heb.i.7,%^. Heb.1.11. 1 Cor.i$.i$. AndPtg, 306. Thisgloryand Dominion was given to Chrift, and fo was not that eternal Glory, Natural and Ef- fential which he had with his Father before the foundation of the world. So Pag. $07, It is not then the might of Divine Soveraignty over the Creatures which is given to* him , for this doth fo follow the Nature of God, that it is neceifary with every perfon that hsth this Nature. This the Son could not relinquifh, e£v:. What is it then ? A right of executing immediatly, and in a manner appropriate to this perfon, the Sove- raigo Domininon of God over every Cieature. This Sovereignty is given to the perfon of the Son , both as God and Man now afcended , &c. Vide ultra. £0 Pag.z 1 5. 4. Chrift not only as God but as Man, hath power above every Crea- ture. As Mediator he hath received a power impcriall over every creature $ which ic ap* parent in this, that the Apoftlc faith, Chrift is fo pbced above all, That *U are fubjeft under his fect,Eph.i. 11. Tome u given all jwwer in heaven and earth. Mat. i&. 18. that is, Power whereunto every creature is fuhjed. He fpeaketh of it as done, becatife it was immediately to be performed. This perfon as God, receiving by voluntary d-if- penfation this honour from the Father, that he mould in an immediate and appropriate manner,execuce government over all creatures in Heaven and Earth; the fame perfon as man participating in this Kingly Divine Authority,fo far that he Inould inftromen- tally concur in executing all that judgement which Chrift according to his Divine Gg J suture 232 Plain Scripture proof of nature did principally effed. Though the Father and the Spirit have a right and fo- veraignty over the Creature, yet they do not Immediately execute this infuch manner as the Son doth , who hath received a right of executing Immediately and in a manner appropriate to his pcrfon, the foveraign Dominion of God over every Creature. The Son by voluntary difpenfation lent by the Father did empty himfel£of exercifing and (hewing forth his Right and Dominion over every Crteaure ; and the Father by vo- luntary difpenfation doth refign to the Son the immediate execution of All power over every creature, till that time rhat all things be fubdued under him. This the Scripture doth lay down 5 as in regard of Earthly Powers, they are fubjeft ': For he is Ru'.er of the Kings of the Earth, Kev.l^'i He hath this Royal! ftate written on his thigh,as it were, J\mg f Kings , and Lord of Lor ds^ Re v. 1 o . 1 6. That he hath power over the Angels, is plain^both by the reverence they do him,and their Obedience towards him ; Every tyee boweth to him - y the evill Angels yield ngns of fubje&ion , either deceitfully to wrong ends cr by force compelled,&c. When the Saints fha]l judge the Angels, what power hath Chrift himfelf that way ? And as for the Excellencies on Earth /bey do All receive their Power from Chr island are at his dispofiy Yea^he Apoftle faith 3 Hc ^ cyownedwitb glory and honour, and all things ore put under his feet, Heb. 2.7,8. The Apoftle fpeaks of that Dominion which Chrift received over All the Creatures of God, none ex- cepted. Thus far Judicious tMr.Ball. To conclude this ; The Magiftrates are herein little beholding to Mr. Tombs , or any others who deny them to hold their Power under and from Chrift the Mediator 3 as laying. the moft probable ground for the utter extirpation of them. For there would be quickly enough to Difpute and preach againft the lawfulness of any Chri- ft ian Magiftrate, if it were once taken for granted that they receive no Authority from tne Mediator, when the Scripture is fo full and plain in it, That All Power is given to him, and All things are delivered into his hands , and that for that End he dyed, that he might be Lord both of dead and living. I confefs I would willingly have no Power to be over me 3 which is not derived from the bleffed Mediator. As much as I ' am againft the Antmomians, I believe they fay true in this, [That the Morall Law bindeth us, as it is the Law of Chrift the Mediator :] And then fure the fifth Com- mandment rauft be his Law as well as the other nine 5 3nd it eftabliiheth Authority, 'and requireth obedience to it. O that Magiftrates would as heartily own Chrift for their Lord (in their mea- fure,) as he will own them for his Servants , and that they would as readily vin- dicate his caufe and glory, as he will certainly vindicate their* juft Authority! then would their own {landing be the furer, and the Churches Peace, and welfare greater. I am certain that if they mifcarry, it is the Mediator that will judge them ; (For the Fatbr judgetb no man, but hath committed all judgement to the Son, Job. $. 22) which is bo:h a fufficienr medium to prove that their Authority is From Chrift-and me thinks mould be a quickning motive to them to fee that they uls it For Chrift j feeing then (as honeft Al.Fabnims faith in Deflruclor. vitior. part, 6 ca. 80. J£ ) Sol Juflit'ne qui qumdam erat in figno Leorns, & nunc e(i in figno Virginis, tunc eric infigno Libra j where the great muft be weighed as well as the fmall, and wo be to them that are found too Light. And though I know t-hey that differ from me in this point arc many and Learned, yet I muft advife them to conhder,Whether,as it is Trcaibn to deny a Princes Title to part of his Dominions, though the reft be acknowledged $ So k be not high Treafon againft the Lord Jefus to deny him fo great a pare of his Dominion as this is, when he Infants Cburcb-memberflup and Baptifm. 233 he hath purchafed it fo dearly ,( Rom.14,9.) and we have no Reafon of moment that fhould move us to deny it him. I conceive this to be more evidently derogatory to Chrift, then my Do&rine of Juftification, which Mr.T. herefpeaks againft,in which I never yet could meet with the man that would once name to me the leaft particular wherein I afcribed any of that honour to works 3 or to man, which is due to Chrift : W herein I conceive, theDoftrineof Juftification by Faith as Phyfically and properly a Paflivs Inftrumenr, to be moft hainoufly guilty. I (hall add but this; He that faith, uolite tangere Chrifiosmeos, (faith Hierom. in viu Malch. won.) touch not mine Anoynted , did certainly point out their Rela- tion to the cheif Anoynted , Chrift; nor is there any now Anoynred but in fub- ordination to Him. For my part, Iwillnot fay 3 as our great School- Do&or to his Prince, Defend me by the {word, and 1 will defend thee by the Word : but whether they Defend me, or Offend me, I undertake to prove , that all true Authority is from Chrift the Mediator , and to defend the Royal Prerogative and Dominion of my Lord, whofe name is Kjng ofKings^ and Lord of Lords (not onely the greatcft of Kings, as fome Malignants do interpret it^as if others were,though leffer, yet not fubordinate) before whom allcaft down their Crowns , fas received from him, and held under him, and to be ufed for him, and relignedno him ,) If ho hath the K$ycs of Death and Belli who becaufe he humbled him felf and became obedient to the death of the Crofs, hath there, fore a name given him which is above every name , that at the name of J E S U S o- very \(iiee fhould bow 3 of things in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth $ . and that e- very tongue fhould confefs that Jef us Chrift is Lord^o the Glory of God the Father, to whom the Mediator jlo all then give up the kingdom, and he (hall be all in all , whom An" gels and Saints Jhall glori fie by everlafting Prayfcs, and whs fc is the Kingdom* the Power and the Glory for Ever, Amen. A A CORRECTIVE For a Circumforaheous ANTIDOTE Againft the Verity of a PafTage in the Epiftle before my Treatife of REST- Mark, i o.i 4. \ But when Je/us Caw it he Vvas much difpleafed,W /aid nnto them, fujfer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of fitch is the Kingdom of Qod. Auguft.T.io. Serm.14.de verb.Apoft. Baptizandos ejfe Parvules nemo dubitet, qttando nee illi hinc dttbitant qui ex parte aliqua contradicuntMz. (Pelagiani.) London^ Printed, AnnoDom.1651 m D r . TwifTus in Praefatione Vindic, Grat. adverf. Arminium. £ placida- Collationc quamfpondct, nihil dico. Nc% enim abca quoth: quis deflzttityfibi aut caufce juccprqdcfl, fedpotim adverfari*-, fu* verb tanto magis obejl. De nobis hac in parte non eft quo df panic am: Jam trahfati* funt partes me*. Adifta enim fere tanquam ad ex- trcma devenio. Confide autem nufquam a me, vcl c alumni as fir uen+ do ^velcontumeliascvomendo extra mores pie cbrijiianos excurfum effe. Agnofcoferio nonnunquam me fervidius incalefcere; nempe quo ties detcxerim fraudem hominis at^ impofluram. Indignor enim 3 & quis nonmerito indignaretWiCaufamT{eligior\is cumjuftis rationibus non pofiit ener- ~jari 3 dolis faltem& fopbifmatis obrui. Edam commoveri foko quoties prafidentem ho« minis audaciam pompofa quadarn argumentatione infolefcentem animadverto > examinata. ~jc,q& preffa i & aiexamen Scbola(licum revopata, iUafpecie tarn magnifica dijfertatio deprebenditur re inanis effe & vana. Interea me limites verccundi* etiam in h$c minimi exctfiffe confide, yermn ficui quid h\c peccatum videbitur 3 fiqgid intumuitpietas, li- quid flagrantius a&um eft cjuam decuit, primammibi gatiamfecerit Leftor fi ignove* rit ; nam & me ad ignafcendum aliis faratum effe deprehendeu Si ilia obtineri non p$» tcrit, atfecundam gratiam ut obtineam cequum erit\ ea verb efl 2 ut hoc faftammeum mibi iunuxat vitio vcrtat^non autem caufa damnopraftruat. Sjrnodus Dordrecht, in Arci.de Pradcft. Canone. ij. . SEeing we muft judge of the Will of God by his Word, which teftifyeth that the . Children of Believers are Holy, (not by nature, bur by the benefit of the free Co- venant, in whjch they are comprehended with their Parents,) therefore godly Parents ought not to doubt of the Election and Salvation of their Children,whom God calletfi out of this life in Infancy. Spanhemius in Diatrib. Hiftorie. de OrigLne, prQgr£ffu 5 &c> Arubaptiftarum. §. 5,0. WHen by this means (of the Anabaptifts Trcafon and Rebellions) Satan had endeavoured^ not only to Divide, and to caft dirt In the face of the new- ly revived Church, but alfo to render the newly attempted Reformation of the houfc of God hatefull to Authority , as if by it the power ixelongiagto Princes ow Hh: diek . 238 rla In Scripture proof of their Subjects were abrogated, and the New Gofpel did but lead the way to Tumults and Seditions 5 it cannot be expreffedjinto what a hatred that holy vjfcrk of Reforming the Churches was brought with men that were yet fattened to their old fuperftition. For thofc Tumults began to be imputcd,not to their Authors,t/i^.a few heads of Sedi. tious men, but to the very Evangelical (Reformed; doctrine, and to all the Teachers of it. And that fo much the more,becaufe thofe new Leaders of the Anabaptijls bad been formerly familiars to thofe men 3 whofe endeavours God had ufed in the Reforming of his houfe ; and they boafted that Luther was of the fame opinion with them. And moreover, the common people whom they had ft ir red up, did feem to be Profefiors tftbegosjcl, and to ftick only to the Scripture , and that they would vindicate the Liberty of their Confciences by tbefaord. But thofe Worthies, who had approved abroad to the Churches their Faith and Integrity in re-meafuring for reforming,} the Temple of God, that they might wipe offthat blot that was caft both On themfelves and on the (reformed) poftriaeof the Gofpel 3 did think it meet to maintain their own Caufe, and Godsfy f oblige Writings. Which was fharply performed,among others by Luther ■ i Melanfthon y &inglius s Bi(Mmger s Menius^Regius and others, who ftrongly inveighing againft the Seditions and Seditious, and warning Rebellious Subjects out of Gods Word of their duty to the higher Powers, and reprehending thofe Tribunithl Preachers, and exhortingall to quktnefs, and to due Reverence to their Princes, did leave nothing unattemptcd,for the topping of the violence of thofe men who with raging minds were running headlong to villanies and mifchief. Bradwardin. inEpifh ad Merton. ante li. de Caufa Dei. ALi-quoties accUiffe cOTtpcri, nt in rerum difficilium tra£faiione,ttut injipientia retatoris auditor em cmrumperet^aut temeritas auditoris relator em infawaret.Qnapropter teque cavendum mihi videtur ut potifiimum illic ubi fine periculo aliud fentirinonpoteft 3 nec facile prafumamus ajferere , nee aliena tcmcre diju&icare. Novi ego quanta 3 ut dicit B.Aug. Somnia cor humanum pariat 3 at^eojudicio quo in fui cognitione fallitur 3 cetera: quofy qua propter ipfumfunt 9 non reftefusy.catur. Quid enim hoc ejje putatis, quod de rerum vcritate tarn diver fa fentire folcnt homines ? Nunquid non una efi Veritas ? Nunquid nou omnes novtrunt unum id quod eft , c> amore fallendi divcrfa finxerunt ? Non fie ego puto : Sed narrant quife f omnia fua 3 & ea qua primum ipfi infe opinione dc cepti'[iwt % poflmodum alios nefcicntes feducunt. Quia enim delonge Veritas vide* tur 3 judicia {parity & tantum de ipfapoteft quifque quantum ipfe eft. In nobis quippe 3 quod ditrum cognitione percipimus y eo modo cordis inteliedus de his que extra funt adveritatem judical , quofe intcrius animus in reprefentatione figurat. Vndene- ceffe esl 3 utttum mens interius prave afftcitur, InteBeftus quo% in judicio cor urn que foris funt, decipiatur, ■ 1 ii '■■ Dr.Whittakcruscont.Stapleton.dcAuthoric.S.S.l.i.c.p, p. fmihi) 128. W£e receive not the Baptifm of Infants .from the Authority of the Church, nei- ther do we defend it by the Authority of the Church againft the Anabaptifts. The Infants ChuYck*mmbcrf\np and Bajttifm. 2 39 The Scripture is Abundantly fafficient for us, for the defence of Infant baptifm* with. out intcrpofing even any mention of the Church. Idcmli.3. Cap. 1. pag.482. IF thou thinkeft that Infant-Baptifm doth reft on no other foundation but the Judg- ment and cuftome of tke Church, and that the Anabaptifts can by no other argu- ment hi refuted but by the Authority of the Church, thou hadft need to be fent thy felf to the Catechizers, who may teach thee the do&rincof Baptifm, and the princi- ples of faith. And what doft thou elfenow but betray the Chrrftian faith to the ene- mies ? who, when there are moft ftrong defences againft Hereticks left us in the Scri- ptures, wilt give them all up to the Hereticks, or wilt make no ufe pf them ? Is this to refuse Herefies and Hereticks ? firft to confefsthat the opinions which they main- tain, can by no Scripture be confuted , and then to urge the Authority and cuftom of the Church ? But both the Heretick and the divel may be conquered by the Scrip- tures alone. And we have long ago overcome the Anabaptifts by the weapons of the Scriptures, and have trod them down with weight of Arguments , while you in the mean time either lay fkeping, or endeavored to ileal away our weapons, fo far were you from affording us any help in the fight. For now,as if you were forry for the Ana- baptifts, and would fain revive their almoft-buried Herefie 3 you downright affirm that Scripture no where tcacheth Infant-Baptifm, &c. Let the late Oxford- Convocation ('which Mr. T. gloryeth in) read this and forward^ and the like in Do&or Dmenantdc Juilce Controvcr. p- 17. 28. and many more, and confider quidfecerut:t 3 & quanam veritate & quo ammo* Dav. Chytra?usin Dedicat. Enar. inNumer. THe Members of the fame body, faith Nayanlen, do make war upon one another. They all pretend to be godly by this one Thing , thanthey condimn others of ungod/inefs : and he is the Beft man among them^not that lives quietly in the Fear of God 3 and meddling with his own bufinefs fpeaks not an idle word, but he that heaps up moft evil fpeeches againft his neighbor. — They obferve one anothers errors, not to bewaile them, but to upbraid them, not to cure them, but reproachfully to object them, and that by ftirring in other mens wounds, they may cover and defend their own wickednefs; and what they praife to day, they difpraife to morrow, and ad- mire what others difcommend ; and as in a fight in the night, and by Moon fliine 3 we know not the faces of friends from foes , but run headlong upon one another yind are confumed one of another. Yet I commend them that undertake conflicts for the truch 3 2nd profefs my felf to be one of them. For a Laudable war is better then a Peace that feparateth from God. But now there are fome that unlearnedly anjd boldly fcold about faiall and unprofitable matters, and draw all that they can to their feciety, and then they make Relkion the pretence for all their fcoldings, and abufively wreft that Vene- rable name to all their private contentions and hatreds. Hence we arc hated in other Countries, and which is worfc, we cannot fay that we are unjuftly blamed, even by the more moderate among our (elves. And the wicked they build upon our backs 5 Hh 3 and 240 Plain Scripture proof of and that which we intend flgainft one another^ and objed againft one another, they make ufe of againft us all 5 and fo we are become a new fpe&ade, not to Angels and men* but to all the wicked at all times and in all places,in markets 3 at their feafcs, &c. *~- 1 learn and profefs Divinity, nor as aninftrument oi railing and o&entatioa of wit, but as the Art of true godltnefs, and of Faith and Obedience towards God, and of Kindnefs, Juiiice, Qentienefs and well-doing toward my Neighbor , and I had ra« ther (hew my feif a Chriftian and a Divine by Ardent Praying and Doing Good, then by liibtjle deputing and contentious brawling TO this Refolution of $i$ peaceable Divine,, my very heart unfeignedly fubferib- eth .* But yet, as hlmfelf was an accurate un folder of truth -(and able for it, being Matter. of Arts at- fifteen yeer old, and difervedly, in Mclanclbons judgement ) fo I dslight in thofe that are cleer difcoverers of the myfteries of the Gofpel, and being un- avoidably compelled to it, as now, I dare not betray the truth of God'under pretencs «f ttoiding contention. I xtmtmbei'Melanclbons PceaiSj . Hon cafufcrtur natura fine dimmed Mens Fo/matrixt rebus fignaque vimque dedit. Fruclus Amigdalinus fans e(l lawgwe cinclus, Dura magis fub qua lignea dau(ha jacmt ? Nucleus in medio fuavis latet s atquefalubyis, Qui cibus e(l nabis* &medecina jwtuL £?go [choice fmilis crtdatnr Amigdalus eife, g In qua, Docjrin* voxfonat una Dei t &c. D. Rivecin Dedicac. Apologetic. cont.Grptii votum pro pace. TAnta cuhi arimiim$otcnt\a fe fg?\t>ut ab co/vvro q:$m (inter quos eg$ipfe fui) bumanioris & pacatioris ingcriu nomine laufabant , tantifm & wmtudm; i fundi mirum vidcripoftf, nifiiUud [uccurreret , F*cipitesagitiragradus,&fiIleAtQrquevs ' Jjfmina, contemn humilcs ratiouis babenas- &.&. , " i - ■ ■ • r i Infants Chnrch-rnentierjhip and Baptlfm. 241 Sec tion I. .Here Is little in this writing worth the repeating* but what is iii his Valedictory Oration Wkich is already anfwered, and I have no time or words to fpare. They that judge his caufe beft, who fpeaks moft and laft, (hall be no converts of mine, nor mall I judge my felf guilty if they mifcarry by their Error. Yet becaufe that may be needfull to fome 'men by reafon of their prejudice and expe&ation, which is needlcfs as "to the matter, I mall adci fomewhat to thofe paflages which are leaft meddled with before. Thegreateft of my trouble is , that I am forced to deal with a writing which is filled with fo many perfonall matters (Which it is pitty any reader mould beftpptand troubled With) and fo many angry Words, and To many hiftoricall untruths, that, as I know my very mentioning the later will be ill taken, Co I know not how to deal with the former. For if I mould pleafe my felf in overpafling them, I know fome will fey his Book is unanfwered, who take the ftrength of it to lie in fuch words .* And if I anfwer it, as I lhall but weary a Judicious Reader, who looks for Arguments,and ldatfres altercation, fo I (hall be forced to fpeak according to the matter ; and having naturally too harfhand keen a ftile in writing (even when I am moft free from paf- fion) (which a long cuftome of a keen way of preaching for the moving of dull hearers hath habituated me to) I am jealous of my felf , leaft I (liould tranfgrefs before I am aware; And then 1 know it will be taken to be inipleen and difa&e&ion to Mr.T's.ptv- fon, Whom I profefs unfeignedly to love and hbnor,and the Lord that is fearcher of my heart, knows, that if he would but be a friend to the Peace of the Church, and live quietly^ Without making parties and Schifms (when we are fo deeply wounded by our Bivifionsaireadyjlcould, for all his Opinions, live as lovingly with him, and take as much content in his fociety, as in moft mens in thefe parts, as I did as long as he fo lived neer me. And I never liked the practice of thole men who do as fome Wild beafts when they are hunted, who when they are quite tired and can run no fux- ther, will make an odious ft ink to drive away thepurfuers ( as Camiro fpeaks InEptji, ante Refponf. ad Epift. viri dotti.) The Argumentative part of Mr.*fs Epiftle Is confuted before .-And though the Hiftoricall part have fome latent corruption in it, yet dare I not lance ir, left ic (houM caufe a fmirt, and Co a conflux of more humofs'to tne grieved place. If the complaint of his fundings which Mr. T. begins with, be meerly toraife a companion in the reader, I Will be one that in pare (hall anfwer his expectation ; but if it be alfo there- by ^42 ?l am Scripture froofef by to draw them to entertain his doSrine, I am not one that can be moved by luch arguments. For the five thjng*he,compIains of, he muft give me leave- to rejoyce in his happinefs, that they were no greater, as much as to companionate him that they were fo great, i. His frequent flittings. 2. His much toile, lam glad they were, fofmal in companfon-of his Brethrens. I dare not imitate Ptul in laying mine and his in tlie balbnce together by comparing the particulars,left it favor of Vanity-in me. 3. Ami .for the impairing of his bodily itrength hereby, I congratulate his evident ftrength and health fulneff, and according to my little skillin Phyfiognomy, I hope he may live yet many a yeer, if he endanger not himfelf by going too oft into the cold water 5 and if the paflions of his mind be not to his body as a keen knife, too big for the (heath, which therefore mould be drawn the more fel dome and warily. 4. And for the impairing of his outward ftate,I cannot fo much companionate him, both be- caufe thefe things are very low in the eiteem of every Chriftian (for he that loves the, world, theloyeof the Father is not in him) alfo because -to remove from Iefs means to more is no great lofs;or I had hoped that by this time all had been repaired. 5. And that he washlndred from returning to his former ftation, I Hope it was np grievance to him, becaufehe faith it is a grievance to him that he rempveth from Bewdely (unlefs it.be a grievance not to have both.) But me thinks a man (hould not voluntarily bring a grievance upon himfelf, nor refufe one people, andchooOe another, except he de- fired it as a more eligible courfc, I would have no godly man be over querulous, when God hath done fo much for us, and brought us into an eftate far better then ever we enjoyed. I (peak this in. reference to many fad complaints alfo Jn Mr. T's other writtings; and verbal], againft the hardnefs of, mens hearts, for not repairing his loffcs. For the content he mentions in the enjoying of my neighborhood, I mould have been as much rejoyced jn his, if I might have had it with the Churches peace and my owns and yet mould be. And I hope ftwtly to rejoyce in his neighborhood in heaven, where we (hall have no. diversity of opinion, nor pride, nor paffion, to raifejars and difaffe&ion to the interrupting of our Joy. For all he fo oft threats men with the* blood of .their fouls, if they yield not , yet I hope his way and mine may both end in Heaven ; though I think mine be the dryer , the neerer, and the furer. For the parages which he citeth out of my books, I imderftand the meaning of them better then he. 1 hope he will not go about to perfwade men that I am of his mind t If he do, I doubt not but I (ball prevaile again It him in that, and by this book per- fwade them of the contrary. The fence of the firft paffage is this [Scripture makes re„ million of fins to follow Repenting,Believing, and k Baptifm] therefore.it goes not be- fore as an immediate fruit of Chrifts death. .. I never intended the connexion of Believing and Baptizing. If I laad , yet to the profelyted at age it is true. and found. The fence of the next pafiage, Append. p.$ %. is [ Perfons know not into, what they were baptized; and many profelyted ones baptized at age know not into what tlpg- are baptized] which Ignorance^ as following after Baptifm is mens fin among. us; and as going before baptifm,is the fin of thofe baptized at age. To the third,ptf£.56\ I would have himknow, that Parents have authority to ac- cept the Covenant for their children, and enter them in it, as they have to put their names in a Bond or Leafe. Or elfe I provoke him to tell me if he can,, how the Ifrae. tires children were in Covenant, and the profelytes children. For I hope he will not Jtill fay that the circumcifcd were not in Covenant y though he Itiffly maintained in out: I Infants Church member jhip and Baptifm. 243 our difpute 3 that none could enter Covenant, no nor be a vifible Church member but by iome aft of their own (which Infants then performed not J The place he fo urgeth them to take notice o£ in my Treat, of Reft/?, ^ji. he might eafily hive difcerned doth fpeak only of the aged, and not at all of Infants. It will not follow>that becaufe Church-membeHhip if a fufrlciene evidence to the aged of their rntereft in the Lords fupper,exceot they blot that evidence, that therefore it is a Jufficient evidence of the Inrereft of Infant*, and that to the a&uall ufe of it j which they are naturally uncapaWe of. Every Feer cf the Realm at age might have fate in the houfe of the Lords; will it follow that therefore they may dofo in thefwad- ling clouts? Moral! (qualifications Efficient in their kind, do prefuppofe thofenatu- rail one* which are pxx requifite.That may befaid to be fuflrkienc in fuogmere, and to producing of the efiect fuppofitisfupponendis, which yet is not fuflicient m omm gemrc. fcvevy Burgefs at age, as fuch, hath power to trade, and bear office,c>^ in the City; Will 'it follow that therefore every Infant may do fo, that is born a Burgefs ? Yer^his Is kH". T\> potent arguing. For the reft, about giving infants th^fupper,I have anfwered before : as alio the ill consequents of Infant baptiim. Which I defirethe Reader to turn to, and perufe impartially (in the fecond part) where he faith, that [bap.ifrn is more necefTarily to be reformed then Epifcopai Ceremonies, againft which, though much more cxcufable,there have been fo great contending*] he feems to me to fpeak as if he h?d yet fome of his old Epifcopall Ceremonious fpirit, though I hoped and be- lieved verily that he did not turn meerly for the times,though with the times. If he do indeed think Epifcopall Ceremonies more excufable, I wim him to anfwer what is written againft them, by Ames, Baine,Br what can befell a Heretick worfe then to be damned, or cut offfrom the people of Chrift ? and this he threateneth to thofe that will not yield to his opinion, is it thofe that would know the truth,and yet are not of his mind, that he threateneth 1 ? then I hope his threatenings will return to him (not on him) again ; And why then was not Baptifm in the Creed called the Apoftles ? But if he threaten only thofe that Relieve his doctrine and yet will not own iz, I hope it ii but few that have fo corrupt a belief, or a heart fo loofe from their own principles. For my parr, having diligent y obferved what hath become of thofe of my acquaintance who have been Rebaptized, I have feen them fall to fo many defperate opinions, and practices, and fome to make a Religion of fwearing and blafpheming, none to grow better, and moft to grow pre- fently woife, as if a vifible judgement of God did follow that A&ion, that I cannot believe that men (hill be cut off by Chrift from his people for want of being Rebap- tized. Moft that I have known do quickly cut offthemfelves(as foon as they have been warned) from the vifible fociety of (3ods people where they lived, and with whom they btforeconverfed. S EC T. Infants Churcb-membtrflrif and Baftifm. 34? SECT. II. YOur Firft Section (I muft needs fpeak it, if I will (peak truth,) begins the Anfwei: with an unttuth.That paflage was neither intended iolely nor mainly againft your felf. It was againft all that take that courfe. Alas, you need not fet your felf alone, you have too many affociates in Engla?id > many and many bouts of that nature have I had) before I had to deal with you j And why may not every one that I have argued with fay as well,thai I folely or mainly meant them? I indeed Jingled you out for com* mendation,as the moft learned & moderate but not for discommendation. For the term [ Anabaptift] I have fpoke to it before. The Baptizers of Infants you fcornfully call ([Officiating Priefts] If by this you would imply the anlawfulnefs of Minifters cal- lings, then why did you never endeavor firft to prove it unlawful ? Ifcldom hear the term £Priefts] fpoken of any Minifter in fcorn, but it is to intimate that they ate no true Minifters of Chrift, but as the Popifh priefts : If you mean thus, why have you concealed this all this while, who will not conceal a fuppofed truth for peace ? (z/Jsr. the Churches) Nay why did you never yet renounce your own calling to the Mini - ftry ? How long have you been fuch an Officiating Prieft ? Methinks you thrive a pace (and a pace) in your profeffion 5 Your language begins to found like Martin Mar-priefi's Its another untruth, that I laid, That dipping in cold water is Murder and Adultery] I faid that the ordinary practice of baptizing in cold water (in rivers) with us is a breach of the fixth Commandment , Thoujhalt not murder. And the or- dinary pra&ice of baptizing naked,is a breach of the feventhCommandmentjT/wtfJ/WJ not commit adultery. I am lorry that you are not of the fame opinion.Iconjecture, that by that time you have baptized half as many ma ides and women naked in a cold river as you have baptifed Infants like an Officiating Prieft, your feet will ei- ther take cold,or your heart will take heat. If you would be ruled by me, you fhould not endeavor to introduce into the Church, a cuftom for every young Minifter or neighbor fo much as to look on a bathing Bathjbeba or Sufannajeu to thole without,the name of a Church and a Stews, a Presbyter and a Pander, a Chriftian and a Forni- cator do prove Synonimaes. I eafily yield, that in Tcrtullians time, and Cyorlam^- ping wasufuall. But withall I believe. 1. That it is more then probable that the Jailor in thenight in his houfe,and the three thoufand by Peter were not fo diptz. That the practice fprung up in the hotter countreyes, where cuftome had taught them to go •Imcft half naked in comparifon of us, and therefore it was there (as it would be a- mong the naked Indians,) more civil or Iefsimmodeft, and lefs dangerous to their lives ; bathing being there medicinal, when in thefe countreyes it may be mortal : And fo it was brought by little and little into the colder climates,upon a fuperftitious con- ceit of its necellity or conveniency. I doubt not but on the like erroneous grounds, de- lay of Baptifm begun to creep into the Church even hiTcrtuUians time,and confining h to Eafter and trhitfunday y or fuch times : when according to Chrifts rule, they muft be baptized at their firft folemn admiffion $ Baptifmum initlatlonem & quafijamam noftri Chrijiianifmi effe docemusjnquit Doctor Humfred^Jcfuitifm. page 14 >. 3. And I doubt not but there was fprinkling them as well as dipping (though I never faw any fprinkled with us; therefore Tenull. faith li. de pmit, £>uis mm tibi tarn infi'eU I i a pani. 2/\6 Flaw Serif ture proof of pxnmnii* vlro afpergwm unm cujupbet aqua commodabn? And that Baptifm was then ofc by fprinkling, appears in Cyprians Epift. 76. ad Magnum. See alfo Pamelius Annotations, n. 44. voffius might have helpt you to this as well as to fomewhat for the cuftom of dipping. You might in him have found that the Apoftlcs fometime poured water on them, as in the fore expreffed cafes, as Aquinas and others judge, and that LaurYcnitm and LuciUut were fo baptized: and Cornelius apud-Eufcb % and Walafri* dus Strabo*s judgement (which you could there fpie with Vives y fo far as was for you) Is not pouring- water (more or lefsj on them a warning ? and is not waiting (to the right ends) baptizing? where you fay [had I minded equity or peace,Ihad*hofen rather to ftile you ^ntipxdobaptifts] lanfwer. 1. Thatsan unufuai word, and I will not bring new nicknames on you or any; I wifh the former were notknownj but wh.n a people arc known by fuch a title, we muft ufe it, if we will be underftoodjor ufe a Periphrasis or a description of them in ftead of a title, as I have faid before. *. You know the titje is.taken from Re baptizing upon the denyall of Infant-Baptifm, and not the other additional opinions, which have ftill varyed according to the feveral Seft $ of them., \. I fpoke not of you either only or chiefly,and therefore was not to fie a title to you alone ; How few of that title are known that are of any note that erre not in other things more then you ? For the Churches in London that difdaim the title, I have named you already fome of the fubferibing Paftors,whofe writings are rank with Antinomianifm,Sociniamifm or other evils. Where you ad de that [many Preachers charge them with peftilent errors to make them odious to the people, that they might drive them away out of the land, ifnotdeftroy them] Lecmeanfwer for myfeifin that once for all. I never moved magiftrate or people either to drive them out of the land, or to deftroy them. I may perhaps fpeak more vehemently to you> or others then is meet 5 ^fbr I confefs my ftile is naturally keen, but if I offend in point of good- nunersjdhd be too rude with you in my language,yet I can truly fay I am far f, om fuch unchatitablenefs, or perfecuting difpofition% My judgement in that much-debated point, of Liberty of Religion, I have alwayes freely made known. I abhor unlimited Liberty or Toleration of All : and think my felf cafily able to prove the wickednefs of it. And I have heard you fay as much your felf. Thongh I confefs if I were of the judgement that you and fome others are of, [that the Magiftrate is not under Chrift the Mediator,or holdeth not his power from him] then I ihould be for Liberty of Par gans as well as Chriftians. But as I believe that the magiftrate holds his power from Chrift, fo I believe he muft exercife it from him, and not be, indifferent to Chrift a*d Satan, to Chriftians and Pagans. If every man mould, have Liberty under pre- tence of worshipping God, to preach up Mahomet, or preach down Chrift, and blaf- pheme that facred name by which we muft befaved, yea or to preach- down the funda- mental! Arricles-of the faith, or to draw people all to pieces into licencioufnefs and iifobedience, I fhouid abjvor that Magiftratcwho pretending v be a Chriftian^fliould grant fuch a liberty, and fiiould rather live in the wilde America then in England- On the other fide, I believe that many are inclinable to a contrary extrcam, and that if we forbear not one another in many points of difference, no two men on earth will live •peaceably together ; I abhor their difpofitions who in difficult doctrinal controvert, ed points,far from the foundation, muft needs'have their own judgement the ftandard and rule of all other mens, and none to be toleratecUliat_.difFeis from them. A .greater latitude there muft be left in doclrinalsthenpracticals. In a word7The Toleration thatlwould havens for the Churches and my £ ret hrens Peace, and therefore I would not have unpeaceablenefs and divifion to be encouraged or defended. If men will ei-, tber keep their opinions to themfeives, or modeftly and peacebly make them known, T would Infants Church- mtmkrjhip andBapti[m. 247 would have no rigor ufed to fuch 5 but if they think they are bound in conference to go pFcach it at the Market-place, and importunately to foliekeallto it that they can come ncer,and violently todiive it on to thedivifion and over hrow of theChurchand to make themfelves parties in ir,I think the wamonnefs or violence of fuch men fliould be reftrained, not prefently by driving them out of the land, but by a difcouragement and penalty proportionable to their efftnee. I think alfo that truly tender confeiences (liquid be tenderly dealt with : But no man mould be fuffered openly to make a known plain fin his profcflion and pra&ice. The Kings that fuffered the people to worfliipat the high places are reproved, though the text faith that yet they worlhipped only the God of their Fathers , and though it was alfo a controverted point ; Our fathers fay in this mountain, and you fay at Jerufalem men ought to worlhip, faith the Sqmmun woman Job. 4. To conclude 5 I think 3 if the good that an erring Minifter doth, be greater then the hurt, that his encouragment for the one mould be greater then his dif- couragement for the other. But if the hurt be greater then the good^hen his difcourage- ment mould be greater then his encouragement. and the Magiftrate mould by wife and convenient means hinder him from doing that hurt. This is part of my judgement in this point. So far am I from feeking to baniih or deftroy you, that I never wimt you hurt. And I meet with few godly Minifters 3 but will fay as much. They will be glad if they can keep in the Land , and enjoy the protection of the Law* and exercife of their Miniftiy themfelves. I pray you Sir caft up your accountSj and tell me , whe- ther the number of Minifters and.Schollarsin the Universities, and people who are againft your Opinion, that have been difplaced or have fuffered of late, be not far greater ( yea, far indeed ) then the number of Minifters or Schollars and people of your Opinion that have luffered. And if all be executed which is enacted and re- folved on, (which we muft rationally expe&J tell me who (hould talk in your lan- guage? I have left all I had for the publike caufe, and ferved them (moftly on my own charge) from the firft day of the war to the laft, and hazzarded my life over and over, and almoft loft it (for I do but live,) and after all this, you tell me of my danger. And yet I do not fpeak in your language, nor fay,they would deftroy me, when no bo- dy meddleth with me, but I live in peace. For your own part, I am ft ill of the mind, that you have no caufe of fuch fad complaints; nor to ta! k of banifhment and deftru&i- on : I never heard that you fuffeped any fuch matter, or were likely fo to do : And yet you have as much footing in the Land as moft of your Brethren ; and far more then I would wi(h. Your Brethren will be content if they may enjoy one place, and do you fo talk of Banimment and dcftru&ion while you enjoy fo many ? What you fay of my virulency, mmoderatemfi , and not heeding what I wrote in faying, you play the Devils part,I have fully before anfwered. If it prove true (as I dare fay, I have proved it true) then is ic worfe to do it,or to tell you of it ? Had you rather do ill then hear ill ? You accufe them , (and that without reference to their fin) to have no Right to be Members of Chrifts vifible Church (which is, not to be fa much as vifibly or feemingly Members of the invifible Church) not to be Difciples of Chrift, not to be Chriftians ; this you do by your felves and by your inftruments, by word and writing , violently and paffionately , before God and before men, in leffer and in larger Aflemblies, by preaching and by Difputing : And yet dare you fay fo confidently ihat you do not accufe them? The reft of this Se&ion is aaj kfwered already. I i $ SBCTu 248 Plain Scripture poof of SECT. III. IN the fecond Se&ion is nothing but what Is before anfwered, worth the repeating* Nor yet in the third Se&ion : 1 here being but a vain citation of a paflage out of my Book of Reft 3 /\f 49. little know I to what purpofe > and an addition to the heap o£ notorious untruths. 1. He faith he could not have liberty to exprefs himfelf without checking, when being but Refpondent^he fpake*ery far more then my felf ,and ufually Interrupted me 5 though I intreated him to do otherwife, as loathing that courfe : nor can he name any check, but the term [Catechizing] which I conceive was no more then meet; Much iefs any hinderance to him to (peak. A fecond untruth is, that £all that were prefent know he could not have in the Difputation liberty thus to exprefs himfelf] I will give him three hundred to one of thofe that were prefent, and let them judge of the truth of this. Sure I am, all that ever I fpoke with about it judge clean contrary, that he had his full liberty to fpeak without hinderance, which 1 could not poflibly crave, but was fain to let fall my fait, and fpeak by parcels as he would give leave. J. Another untruth is, that [if he might have had liberty, he would have diftinguimed of a ftate of feparationtoGod.] vbi fides? ubi from? pid I ever check you (as you will needs call my intreaties,) but for not diftinquilh- ing > When you would needs ftill turn by cjueftionings and long difcourfes to the people, I intreated you to remember the Laws of Difputation j I befought you over and over to diftinguifh of any term that was doubtfull to you 5 and dare you now (having fo many Witnefles of the untruth, ) tell the world deliberately in print, that you would have diftinguilhed if you had had liberty ? If your Opinion lead to this practice,! will none of it. £>uii Rom* faciam ? SECT. IV. THe fourth Se&ion is anfwered before 5 only here he adds [God faith, the children of the Israelites are Gods Servants, Levlt.i%.^\^x.^$. I fay, (faith he) our children are not : Is there any contrariety in thefe fpeeches where the fubjects of the proportion are not the fame ?] To which I anfwer. 1. But this proves that Infants are not uncipable , in point of Age, of being Gods Servar.ts. For elfe the Jews Infants would have been uncapable.z. How have the believing Jews loft this priviiedge ? 3. Or Profelytcs.of the Gentiles ? 4. If God took the Jews children to be his Ser- vants, by ycur own confeflion, much more curs, who have greater Mercy and Privi- ledges. j. Where you talk of Servants in this fence and that fence, they were fo Ser- vants as to be vifible Church-members , and that is all the fence that I conteft fo-. They were reckoned among Mofes Difciples , and fo are ours to be among Chr ids Difciples or Chriftians. ( As Mofes Difciplfi alfo ia fome fort were Chrifts Difciple5j) SECT. Infants Church-mcmberjhip and Bapttfm. 249 SECT. V. TO the fifth Section. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God en- tered into Covenant with Infants to take them for his People, and to be their God, and confequently made them Church members. Let us fee your exceptions. 1. You fay [tboit] v. 12. doth not neccfiarily comprehend the little ones,] To which I fay. t. I doubt not but you have weighed the Text deliberately^ and if you here fpeak not contrary to your own judgement and confidence, I am forced to tell you,that lfetavery low value on your judgement; and if you interpret all other Scriptures thus, it is great pitty you mould be that way employed : But if you do fpeak contrary to your conscience, then I muft tell you, that I fet a low value on your confeience, and loath that Caufc which did thus proftitute it. 2. Do you not know that \_thou~\ is a Collective termj ufually through the Books of Mofes fyoken of all the people, except any be particularly excepted ? j. Are not little ones here named ? and yet are they excluded ? 4. Why mould Mofes fay. Here fiandyour Children , and Wives ,that not they but you might enter the Covenant ? $. Doth not Mr. 7. confefsthat the Jews Infants were in Covenant ? Why elfe were they Circumcifed, which is the Seal of the Co- venant ? 6. I defire no means to convince any man of your ftrange abufeof the Text, but only that he will read it , \Je (land this day All of you before the Lordyour God,your (Japtains of your Tribes } your Elders, and your Officers , with all the men of If- rati 3 y our Little Ones , your Wives, and the Stranger that is in thy Camp , from the Hewer of tby Wood, unto the Drawer of thy Plater, That thou fhouldefi enter into Covenant with' the Lord thy God,and into his O.ith, which the Lord thy God ma^etb with thee this day s that he may eflabi/fb thee to day for a people to himfelf 3 and that he may be to thee a God."] He that can confiderately believe A?/. 7\ that the wovdltbou] v. 12. doth not neceflarily- comprehend the little Ones, if I knew him, I would tell him , that I will not under- take by Scripture to convince him of any thing at 3II. And I fay again in fobriery, that if the Papifts had as plain Scripture for their Religion , as it differs from ours, I would not delay a week, but would turn Papift, and deteft all feparation from them$ I fay if they had as plain Text as this to prove that rhefe little Ones were entered into the Covenant. And where he faith [I fought to fuggeft to the people as if it were his impudence to deny this. ] I anfwer : 1. Did I ever ufe any fuch terms to him ? He will not fay I did. What then was the fuggeft ion ? Why I told them the Text was fo plain, that I knew not how it could be plainer fpoken. He may as well tell me , that every time J confute his Arguments,! fuggeft to the people that he is a lyar/md fo.for, bid ailoppofing him as unmannerly. Where he faith, that [yoii] v.1'4. h diiiinguifhed from \jhcm that ftand 3 &c] I anfwer : 1. 1 think not 5 hut from them that were ab- fent •* q.d. Not with you Only, but (both) with him that is here (that is } you } ) and him that is not here. 2. Were it otherwife , yet ir were only from the people of other Nations that flood among them. Where he faith [fome entered into Covenant in be- half of the reft,] I anfwer ; 1. God entered into Covenant on his part immediately* or by Mofes the Mediator with them all, and not With fome oftly r 2. 1 doubt not but. ■ the 2 J o i plain Scripture proof of the Parents entered their children into the Covenant, and not the Infants themfe es, which (hews, God hath given Parents this intereft and Authority, j. But that any other that had the ufe of reafon trnuld not enter their own confent, is a fiction not to be admitted : And yet Mr. T. in his Confutation Sermon , exdudeth the Wives from a perfonal covenanting as well as the Infant's 5 but barely on his own J Authority : Nay, he faith, it was only the Captains and Officers, though the Co- venant is made with the reit. t. He faith Mofcs made that Covenant with him that was not there that day, that is, their polterity not yet born; (hall it therefore be faid that they were vifible Mem- bers, &c >] I anfwer : 1. It is evident the Covenant fpoke de prtfenti to thofe that were there 3. but defuturo only of thofe that were not in being, but future ; They that were not, could not be Members vifible or invifible. As they had a Be- ing, fo they had a Memberlliip ; thaf is , in pofjh & iufutmitione, non in effe* By vertue o f this Deed of Gift, they mould be born Church- members. If a Landlord do by Leafe make over any land to you, and your children, 'id your childrens children, paying fo much Rent } Doth it follow that your children, (who are born) are none of this mans Tenants , becaufe your childrens children (who are unborn) are not his Tenants actually, but potentially ? Or , if a King be let over us and our children* and childrens children (by compact :) doth it follow , that our children in being are not his fubje&s in being, becaufe our childrens children in poffe are not fob- ieds in cjje but in poffe only ? Ah here is good arguing I j Your next Anfwer is,that fan entring into Covenant by Parents doth not make a vilible Member in the Chri- ftian Church, though it did in the Jews. ] But Sir, this is but to beg the Queftion. I have fully proved the contrary. You cannot (hew a line in Scripture whete that Privi- ledge is revoked or repealed 5 which is the great thing I ftul urge you to. Your reafon here added, I have manifefted to be moft vain, and a compofition of fiction* (about the different Church-Call and frame.l intreat the Reader to turn back and read it, becaufe you lay the main ttrefs of your caufe on it. Mofes gathered no Church de mvo i but found it gathered to kis hands, only he added their Laws, and caufed them frequently to renew the Covenant. Abraham gathered rfo Nation , but a* Family, and taught them too, if God may be believed •' Yea , Abraham had no new Church frame In his Family, much lefs did he gather any Church in a new frame, but in the fame as wasinSfWJ Family, before him and in his time > Circuincifion was a newfignof the Covenant, but not a New Church frame. Were the Profelytes then gathered with- out teaching ? that's a foul fiction. And hath Chrift commanded now to teach any before we baptize them, but Proftlytes (as it were?,) Where read you that ever a Bel ievers child was Baptized at age, in the Scripture ? What you cite of mine in your Margir,i ; to no purpofe.l fay,that God fent not Magiftrates or Commanders to bring in the world to Chrift (as Mahomet did to him.) but Minifters. Would not a man wonder what you can gather thence ? Men that are born out of the Church , muft betaught,and by confent brought in: I know that 5 ordinarily. But it followeth not, that therefore thofe born in the Church, or born Members muft be fo. But you fay, that I fay, p. J. that [the Jews and all profelyted Gentiles were holy before.] Before, when ? before Chrifts comming. 1 rue r bur they were broken off for un« belief, moft of them. Such an Argument as you hint at, 1 find to another ufe in the Preface to the Acts of the New- England Synod. But do not you know, that when Chrift had added a new Article to their Creed, [If ye believe not that 1 am he, ye (hall die in your fins] from that day forward, they that would not believe that Ar- ticle were cut off 5 and fo the body of the Jews moftly unchurched? If any few Jews 1 Infants Church-memberfhip and Baptifm. 251 Jews did believe that Article at the firft revealing, then prove if you can that rheir chil- dren were ever Baptized at age. But if the believing Jews were firft unbelievers, then they were firft unchurched, and fo muft be brought in to Chrift as Profelytes.lt is no Church, nor is he any Church-member (at age,) who profefllth not every Fundamen- tal! Article. 4. You add [this proves not the Covenant a pure Gofpel -Covenant, not including peculiar benefits to the Jewifh Nation.JI anfwer, i If by [pure] you mean that it is not only a Gofpcl-Covenant, but that and more s it yeeldeth as much as I need^ for if ic be a Gofpel-Covenant, no matter though there be more. But if you mean that i: is not Effentially a Covenant of Grace, I could heap up abundance of Arguments againft you ; you may find many in Mr. Ball of the Covenant. I add : That Co- nant wherein God taketh them to be his people, and engageth himfelfto be their God, is a Covenant of Grace •' (For fince the fall God entreth himfelf into no fuch- Covenant with any but in Chrift 5 and upon terms of Grace.) But fuch is this Covenant made with the Iftaclitcs and their little Ones , therefore this was a Cove- nant of Grace, i. That Covenant wherein the Lord promifeth to Circumclfe their hearts,and the hearts of their Seed,to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their foul 3 that they may live, was a Covenant of Grace ; (for the Apoftle to the Hebrews fo defcribes it. ) But this was fuch a Covenant as is written Deut. 30 6. Therefore this was a Covenant of Grace. 3 . That which St. VaiU makes the words or" the Righteoufnefs of Faith, was the Covenant of Grace 5 But this is fuch, as is evident by comparing 3 K0/#. 10.6,7 ,8. with Dcut.$o,iz, 13,14. But to thisyougive two forrjt Anfwers_. being refolved to fay fomewhat. x.[It is fpoken of the command} Anf.x. And is knot alfo of the Promife foregoing? a. And. is not this from as great a miftake as the other, to think thafGods command is no part of his Covenant > That [he will be their God] is his promife/ but is that all the Covenant? That [they mall be his people, and fo take him for their God , and refign themfelves to him] this is both commanded by him and covenanted by them, z, You anfwer [it is frequent with the Apoftle to accommodate words to his purpofe , that have a different fence in the places whence they were takeni from that to which the Apoftle applyeth them, as Rom.io.i8."] Anfwer : A man would think here you plainly mean 3 that it is frequent with the Apoftle to wreft and pervert the Scripture to his own ends from its true fence •, and you can mean no better, except you mean that he al- 1-udeth to the words, making ufe of the meer phrafe without the fence , and indeed that is ufuall in common fpeech : and fuch is that Rom. 10. 18. or elfe it is truly interpreted by him. But that he doth not barely allude to this in Dent.30.is left undenyable : i.He bringeth it in, verf.6. as Gods defcription of the Righteoufnefs of Faith, &c. having before faid, Afo/w defcribeth the Righteoufnefs which is of the Law, &c. 2.He addeth the very Expofkion to every fentence: [Who (hall afcend inro Heaven] that is , faith he, to bring Chrift down from above ? And [Who mall defcend into the deep,] that is, to bring Chrift again from the dead? 3 He fully expreflfeth ir,t^.8. But what faith it ? The word is ?7~!gb tbec&c. that is 3 The word of Faith which we preach , th.it if thou con- fcfi with thy moitthj&c. Is not here a full difcovery , that the Apoftle expoundeth, and not only alludeth to thefe words? Name me one place in the New Telia- merit that more evidently fpeaks in an Expofitpry way of any Text in the Old ? Your laft anfwer is the worft of all. You fay, If the Covenant did contain promifes purely Evangelieall, yet the Covenant in refpeft of them cannot be meant of all and every of the lfraelitcs y that God would be a God to them, that is, fan&ifie, juftifie, adopt them to be heirs of eternail life.] Anf. t. God faith , Ton fund All K k he. 1 5 s Plain Scripture proof of here, &c. to enter into the Covmmt and Oath 3 &c. And you fay, it cannot be All ? whom (hall we believe, God or you ? 2. You fouly mif- interpret the Promife, To be to them a God, as if it were fuch as could be verified to none but the Ele#. God hath promifed to others to be their God, who are not Ele&, as is undenyable in the Text : Therefore in a larger fence, as I have before indue place fully explained it. And why may not God promife Juftification, Adoption ( and Sanftification in the fence as Divines and Scripture raoft ufe it, for the work following Faith) and eternall life, and all on the condition of Faith, and this to more then the Eled ? and hath he not fo dfcie ? But of this, and of Infants conditions before. You would fain fay fomewhat too to that Dent. go. 6\ but like the reft. i.You confefs it is a promife of fpirituall Grace, but to the Jews after their Captivity; i. And upon condition of Obedience : g.And not performed to all their Seed, but only to theEled :]. Anfwer, i.But did God promife fpirituall Grace to the Jews after the Captivity and not before?? was not the Promife made to them that then were ? were not they captivated oft in the time of the Judges,ahd fo it might at leaft be made good then ? If God would do as much for them before they forfook him , and broke the Covenant by Rebellion as he would do afterward, when they repented , then he would Circumcife their hearts before as well as after : But the former is true ; there- fore the latter. 2. And if it be on Condition of Obedience, then you confefs there are conditionall Promifes j and then it was made to more then the Eled. 5. If it y were not performed to any but the Elect, no wonder , when it was a conditional! Promife, and the reft performed not the Condition ; Which God will caufe the Eleft to perform. SECT. VI. TO the fixth Section; About the fence of Ali.i^. 10. Mr.T. 1. Thinks he hath the fame advantage againft me as I had in another cafe againft him^but he is miftaken. 1. Becaufe I affirm that in other places as well as this, Infants are called Difciples* atAfi.ii.i6. Where i: is faid the Difciples were called Chriftians firft at Antiocb, Infants are there part of the Chriftians and Difciples , and fo in other the like places. 2 However, I am certain if we have not the name elfewhere , yet we h3ve the descrip- tion, and names of the fame (ignifiation. They are Church-members , Gods people , his Servants, and therefore Difciples. J. But efpccially Mr.T. (hould have considered, that I argued with him about the meaning of a word, [whether Holy , be meant Not- Barftards] but now we here argue not fo much about the fence of the word (for we are agreecfthat a Difciple is a Schollar of Chrift 3 or a Member of his School or Church :) bijt about the application of this term, and the fubje&s capacity for the Title. The term we are agreed fignifyeth one fo Related to Chrift as their Mafter. New our ^ueftion is, whether Infants are fo related. And your bringing fome paflfages of the Chapter not applicable to Infants, doth not prove that therefore the reft is not 5 no more then feverall paffages in Dent. 29. applicable only to the aged, will prove. that little Ones were not taken into be Gods peopjte. The refl following is anfwered already .' Where yon /ay 3 [All my colour from this Infants Church-memberJIrip and Baptifm. 2 y 3 this Text lies in taking the yoak for cutting a little skin,] I rauift fay it is but one of your fi&ions. Did you ever here me talk ofanyfuch thing? Cutting that skin is not Circumcifion, as the word is ufed in Scripture for a Sacrament. If you be put to define Baptifm, will you fay it is nothing but warning the body? Or, will you fay, the Lords Supper is nothing but eating a little bread, and drinking a little wine ? thefe are wild definitions. You know many things go to the definition of a Relative; and among the reft, the end muft be one : And fo muft the fignific3tion and engage- ment go into the definition of Circumcifion : And if from hence you would inter, that it is only the aged that are capable of fignification and engagement, you may thence ftrait conclude, that no Infant was ever Circumciled. And where you fay , that [all this would only prove Male-Infants to be Difcipies and not Females,] I anfwer : x. That is as much as I needed, when my Pofition was, That fome Infants are Di(cipfes,and fo to be Baptized, 2. 1 fhould foon thence prove (to my own fatisfa&ion. though not to yours,) that if Males are Difciples, then cer» tainly Females, both being Church- members till Chrift , though but one Circumci- fed. Indeed according to your Do&rine , that plead that none were vifible Church- members, but by being Circumcifed, it would follow , that never any woman was a vifible Church-member. And for your conclulion [that the Reader may perceive the fleightnefs of myArguments,and how fuperficially I handled the bufinefs] i eafily con- fefs he may , fo he do but fee with your eyes , and through your fpe&acles , or at ieaft be a Reader of your own education or tutorage. SECT. VII. I\ T the feventh Se&ion ; 1. You believe that if I wet* required to fet down who the Anabaptifts are, that fay , children are not holy as feparated to God, and where they affirm it, I would be hard put to it to free my felf from ovcrlalhing. I anfwer .• x. Though I kept not a Mutter- Roll of their names, yet I am fo well acquainted with them, that I could fill paper enough with them, if it were favoury and ufefull: But why muft I tell where they fpeak it ? In many a field, houfe and Pulpit: AH that they fpeak is not in print I hope, z And why mould you think that your felves are lingular in this point, from all your own party ? If you fay fo, why may not others ? I have fpent many , and many hours upon this with others , more then with you. Do not moft of them interpret 1 Cor. 7 14. as you do? and confequently deny my inter- pretation ? But fuppofe I have overlaflied, and you are lingular in this 5 why then thould you be fo angry with me for not being of your Opinion, and threaten the men of Bcwdcley for it , to be cut off from Chrifts people, and fay, their blood be on their own heads, when yet none of your own party are of your Opinion in a point fc neer the Foundation of your caufe ? But you are allured, you fay^ that I wrote this paflage inhafteand inconfideraielyj not well weighing what 1 faid, and that however 3 1 name Anabaptifts in the plural, yet my only inftance would be your felf. I anfwer ; i.Buf how will you allure another that ydu fpeak truth in this ? 2. But if it be fo, I will not be the firft that mall take up your Opinion , and joyn with you . I wiUfee fomeboHy elfe lead the way. I marveil that you can make none of your own Follower- of your K 2 judgement \ 2 J 4 Plain Serif ture proof of judgement! But you fay, you did not fo rawly exprefs it. I anfvver : But you flatly denyed the affirmative, without the diftindions which you now put in, vi^ [chat fome Infants are Holy by a ftated feparation ro God.} And to what ufe are the diftiadions you now bring in ? u It is feparation by Covenant or Promife,or Gods appropriating of them to Wmfelf, which 1 told you I meant j and this by his written Law j even as he fandified to himfelf the Ifraelites from other people j and the firft- born from other Sons. Profellion and Vows of Parents which you call fandifyin<*, is not fandifying in fo full a fence as that. It is God that fandificth in the propereft fencejthough thefealfo remotely. But for the feparation by Eledion which ycu- menti- on, it is no reall proper feparation 5 but only Gods purpofe to feparate them hereafter. When you fay a man is jultified, fandified, or faved from Eternity in Gods Decree, You muft mean, that he is not really and truly juftified,or fandified at al^but only God did Decree to juftifie him and fandifie him : which proves it is not yet done $ e elfe how could God Decree to do it hereafter : Nothing cannot have a real! adual Modus } or Affedion, or Accident. Elfe it were a found arguing ab e(i tertli adjacen- tis ad. eft fecundi , fcparatus eft) ergo e(i , if feparatus were net terminus diminuens* So that your feparation by Eledion is but a purpofe to feparate hereafter. In the next place, you let fall many untruths together (if the Reader have a defire to know the number, let him count himfelf 5 for 1 have no mind to it) You intimate I would not tell you in what manner children are holy; which is untrue. I would have you truft that memory no more. You back this with another/hat you would have told me more fully what you deny, &c. Yet yota add more, that I checked you, and all along the Difputel. carryed my felf magiiterially, fcornfully, and unbrotherly, when you cannot inftance in one fuch word : All yon name, is, that when you over-turned the Difputation by turning it to divers Questions one after another , I faid, that was not Difputing,but Catechizing;and when you turned to long Difcourfes to the people, and faid you mutt fatisfie the people,I told you I came to Difpute with you,¬ to fa- tisfie them .i.e.by long Difcourfes to fruftrate the Difpute.* And was there fo much evil in thefe two words,when I faw no other remedy to prevent the lofing of all our labor & expedations? Another untruth^ou add,that 1 did not [as one that minded the-clearing of truth,] wheal can from my heart fay, it was my utmoft aym.But my judgement was and is,that your popular diverfions for the hiding of your Errors, did not tend to clear the-Truth; bur that the ftrideft argumentation is moil conducibleto clear it. Another yet you add,as if I aymed [but to diminish your efteem,] when certainly ,Sir, I defire the advancement of your efteem fo far as it hinders not the advancement of theGo- fpelj and where it doth, and you will needs involve yourown efteem with the credit of your ill caufe, as if you were refolved they mould ftand or fall together,! confefs I had rather they fell together then ftood together : Which hath caufed rac to wilte here fo muchasl have done iarefcrence to your felf. Next you add, that I did it to gain an Opinion to my felf, as having the better 5 whkh as I was a lervant to the Truth, and as that Opinion is meant of a true Opini- on,! acknowledge to be true 5 that is, it was my endeavour and detirc that I might fully vindicate GodsTruth from yourSophifms* But, (though in fuch contefts I dare Hot fay that there is noftirrings of pride or vain- glory in me,it, being fonaturall a fin, and flicking fo clofeto us all,yet} 1 can truly fay,that I fought GodiTruth above my own reputation, and that I can be gladly vile in the eyes of men, if I might but know mere of the Truth of God 5 asl have evinced by publilhing difgraced f ruths. Did I thinkAnabaptifmwereofGod,I would entertain it, with rejoycing. Where you sexc add 5 that the. Auditors will tefti£e thefe things 4 X fuppofc yen mean on* among many, Infants Churcb-memkrjhif) and Bapttfm. 255 many hundred^ who (hew alfo what their principles are by fuch teftimoniw. You next addjthat [for this reafon you obtained not from me to know in what manner and by what means every Believers Infant is holy as feparatcd to God ; ] I anfwer t i.Canr you for fljame fay fo, being fuch a Difputant ? Could not you have fore'e me to it by diftinguiining 3 which I intreated you to do? 2.Did I ever deny to tell you that? 3-Nay 3 did I not tell you over and over without your asking (occafionally) that I meant not that the Faith of the Parents was a caufe,but the condition,and that;Gods Covenant or Promife, or exprefs appropriating them to himfelf by his word, ls_ the Caufe ? You have nothing_ but the weaknefs of your memory and notaries to excufe all thefe palpa- ble untruths $ which yet do but excufe them- a tanto. For your further Difceurfe here, I pafs it over,as being punctually anfwered already. Only where you fay Sanctification is taken for Chaftity 3 iTbef.+.i^. and that is neer to the taking [Holy] for [Legitimate.] I anfwer; 1. Chaftity is mentioned but as part of their reall fan&ity , and not the whole in 1 Tk/.4.J. t.Chaftity is a Vertue, and Fornication a hainous (In; Legitimation is no Venue, nor Baltardy any fin at all : How like thefe are ? but any thing will ferve. You fay [God faith children were holy 3 but not as feparated to God,] when I convinced you, that Holinefs is taken for nothing elfe in all other Scriptures , but for a Reparation. ta God. You add four Reafons againft my fence of this Text,r Cor. 7. 14. The firft Is an- fwered before : The fecond is anfwered by Mr. Marfhal and others long ago. That ray fence fappofeth as you fay, the fan&ification to be from the Faith of the Believer- as the Caufe, is untrue. Did I not tell you that I denyed it to be the Caufe 3 buc only a condition ? Your third alfo,l have anfwered before. Yet do you here give up in my judgement the whole caufe about this Text. You fay that this propofition [The children,whereofone of the Parents is not a reall true Beiievef before God, are none: of them holy as feparated to God] is falfe, take the feparation to God 3 what way,and to what ufelwill. Do you know what you have faid ? Why then ^ou yield that fome- fuch children are Holy and feparated in my fence - 3 that is,that they are Holy by Vertue of Go cfs Covenantjclaim and gift, as being, feparated from thofe without the vifible Churchito ftand in the Relation of Difciples, ChriSians,or vifible Church- members: This is my fence of Holy ; and if you yield this to any children, fure it will be to the Seed of Chriftians : And if to any, why (hould not thofe be Baptized ? But I fup- pofe you will recant thefe words. As for your confequent, I have (hewed you before the ungroundednefs of. it. Your fourth Reafon alfo is before fully anfwered : What you cite out of my Append, needs no other Anfwer,huc to wiih,the Reader to read- the « whole. As for the four Arguments, which you fay I ufed againft your Expofition,the three - fiift are imperfectly exprefled , and the fourth »is none of mine. Grotius might well Expound f^azrJiaTXTTB, i cor. so z.by quafi bapti%atifunt\ For it was a fimilicude or, Type 5 but what is that to this Text where is no fuch thing } He eels yovgjfwpat iftam- voccm ut eo magis oftendat umbram rerum noftrarum: Deinde in ca quod con(pickur eft aliqnid fimile , Me thinks then you (hould rather conclude J that as All the Ifraelites^. , even Infants and all vKxt^uafi^Bap'i^ati in umbra & fimU'uudinc no fir a Baptifmi^kt All the Church now, whereto Infants alfo muft be annumerated j ihould be initiated byBaptifmj Efpeciaily, when the Apoftle puts fuch an Emphafis in the word All : and Tertullian there cited by GrotiaS) faith 3 J^//<* figuya manifefiior in Baptifmi Sacra*, mento ? &c. That which I called an irrationall fancy, was not what you here fancy me 50 fpeak of, but this 5 when in the Difputation I asked you,Hov/the Corinthians could Kk 3 be 2^6 Plttf* Scripture proof a f be fure that their children were not baftards, when yet they dov-bted of the lawfulnefs of their marriage. You anfwered as if they might be fure the children begot before the Converficn of the Believer were lawfully begot: I told you that then the Apofties confequence had been vain and unfound , if he had argued frc-m the Legitimation of their children befoteonly to the lawfulnefs of their cohabitation or Marriage after; fpeciaily when the doubt was only of the ftate after. And the confequent, [elie were were your children uncltan] would be faife, taken of thofe before the converficn of the Believer , and taking uncleannefs in your fence ; therefore I told you that Expo- jlcicn did put upon Psul an irrationall fancy. As for thofe whom you cite for Expounding ic of baftardy, you (hew not where ibey fo do,and I have not time to read whole Books for that.However (though for Pa- ctlts 1 could gratifie you with fomc more,as Bruno in he. BcUzrmme,and others that put in that Expofition among many others ; yet) for Protectants you know there's twenty to one againii you: To your confident application I rep!y,that the Chriftianthar would not delude his confeience (as you fpeak,J me thinks Ihould be afraid to go againft the plain Inftitution of God , who as you confefs did Ordain that Infants &ould be Members of the vifible Church, when you cannot yet bring one Scripture, nor (in my judgement) one word of fence and reafon, to prove the repeal of that Ordinance. You add, that [you may now freely fay, that however (my Arguments) feemedfome- what at the firft hearing 3 yet now upon exaft consideration, frivolous,&c. ] I anfwer : x.It is rather an addition to your courage and boldnefs, I doubt > then to your judge, ment that makes you (ay fo. a. How can you exa&ly confider them, that cannot re- member or repeat them? 3. l( they feemed fomewhac at the firft hearing, did not you grofly before multitudes diflembie 3 when you fpake very far more conrempruoufly of them then, then you do now ? Is not this to confefs , that you did but iet a good face on it, and word it <3ur, to delude the people , and make them beliete that thofe Arguments were nothing , which r .>w you confefs did then to your felf feem fome- what ' where you fay. [you doubt I u:v,ed them liker a Sophifter then a lover of Truth,] (hall I tell you myverv heart, if f know any thing of it ? It poflMTethme with an hundred fears,leaft J make Truth my I doll ; and I never doubt of the fincerity of my heart, but this is the main occafion ; I know that the firft point of true Religion,is to Take God for our End and chief Good : (Add but Chrift the only way to God, and Faiththe way to Chrift,and Obedincethe way in Chrift,e^ cmnetulifii pMiftum.) Now I know as this is the firft great duty, fo Idolatry or taking fomerhing for our Happinefs in ftead of God,is he firft great damning fin(as Infidelity is the fecond,&c.)Now ss fome make their honor & fome their profits,&fome their flelhly delights to be their lc< 1 and Happinefs 3 fo when I fearch my heart, 1 find my defires after the knowledge of tru b fo ftrong,and my delight in it fo great,that I am more jealous of my heart in that point, then in any one in the world 5 lean I mould prefer fuch truths before theGod of Truth and leaft Advns fnare of defiring too much knowledge ihould prove mine, and leaft I aegleet God and my delight in him, by my over-bufie fearch after Truth, and tco much delight in it. Which I the rather difdofe, to give warning to all Students to take heed of this fhare.& leaft when they have over turned other Idols, they (hould be over- turned by this hk Idol themfelves. Certainly to fome Searching ftudieus men, it is no fin-all nor contemp:ible temptation. So that Sir , when you are pleafed to defcribe me as of excellent abiliries,bur a Sophifter,and nota lover of Truih, if I know my felf,you have quite mift it; and all is clean contrary^ vi^, my abilities but 'meambut my love of Truth too great, and dangeroufly too grc3t. By this my corruption you hzve ad- vantage to win me, if I could dtfeern the Truth with you. _ SECT. Infants Charch~memberjhif and Baptifm. 157 SECT. VIII. IN yeur eighth Sedion, you aflault my words, which you fay hive a manifeft tindaie of reviling, and little reafon. What are the reviling cxpteflions ? why, my calling Antinomians, Socinians,e£*£ Seds. And is that an untrue or an unfit expreflion ? But about Independents you deal with me as you ufe; you fay [Let reafon be heard : why mould men be any more called a Sed, for denying that it is of Divine appoint- ment, that a Synod of many Churches fhould have power to excommunicate, then others called Presbyterians for holding it.] I anf. Let common honefty be heard too. Why mould fe notorious an untruth be fo infinuated by a preacher of Truth > as tf I called all Independents a Sed, or any Independents for that reafon, becaufe they deny the power of excommunication to Synods ? When as I fpeak of none but Separa. tifts, and of no Independents but thofeonly that are Separates, and as they hold the dodrine of popular Church government. Sir I meet with many Independents f commonly fo called,) that would not have the people govern by vote - y therefore did I diftingulft fuch from others, and far am I from vilifying or reproaching them, but reverence and love them as Brethren. My words of them are only thefe [That Independency which gives the people to govern by vote, is the fame thing in another name] v\\. as Separatifm. Could I plainlyer limit my Speech to thofe only that give the people to govern by vote ? Do I fpeak of any other at all ? And yet do you come In with an infinuation, as if I called either all Independents a Sed, or any of themj becaufe of their denying Synodical excommunication f yea to a Synod of many Churches ? That confeience that will fui&r you to deal thus, doth certainly leak, or hath a flaw in it. a. And doth this infinuation efpecially befecm you, who have twice told me in conference, that Independents if they make a party, are Hereticks ? This is not fair dealing. And for your next queftion, why Anabaptifts fhould be called a Sed? Ianfwer s becaufe they do make parties and feparate from the Church in the maintaining of an error. I would you had Cyprians littie tradate de umtatc Ecclefne written in your heart, and as it would help you to anfwer this queftion your felf, fo it would recover you rb be a blefling to the poor Church of Chriit, too much already torn by Seds and d inden- tion, and calling for your companion and help, rather then your nr.ercilefs widening of her rents and wounds.- You again talk of my rafli and hafty reckoning you among Hereticks, and I again teli you fhat you miftake me,l did not fo. Or if you will needs face me down that I did, as better knowing my meaning then my fdf, then do I here recast it and unfay it again to make you fatisfadion. 1 confefs I would have mc?n take heed whom they call Hereticks, it being no fmall fin and danger to be fuch. You again complain that you cannot get my Arguments j Why, did you not hear them in our difpnte I But tofatisfie your importunity ,here you have them, and much good 258 Plain Scripture proof of good may chey do you 5 and O that I might be fo happy in them, as that you might thereby be convinced and reclaimed, if not from your error, yoc at leaft from yeur dividing zeal for the propagation of it. You fay, I was willing to blaft your reputati. on. But I have more truly told you my ends.I could heartily wifn you and my felf that victory over our pride, which might caufe us to be iefs tender of our reputation then we are. I have told you in my preface the untruth of your imagination [that my oppositi- on to you took off my neighbors from being your auditors.] And I have told you in thefecond part of this book, what judgements of God I mean, befides thofe in New England I could name you multitudes more if I thought fit. L had reference to fome of their friends and mine that upon the change of their judgements have turned to moil notorious wicked lives, and run on in their errors till they denyed Chi ift and the truth of Scripture,and made them but a fcorn. I had reference alio to fome friends of ours, that it is not fit to name to you 3 that on their death bed have cryed out of thefe opinions, as that which was a great caufe of their ruine. Where doth your opinion dwell alone, without other errors ? you know that even thofe in thefe countreyes round about, teachers and private perfons that are Rebaptized, do few of them continue of your mind, but moft turn Arminians, and many far worfc. Is it not fo with twenty for one ? and is not this a Yifible judgement ? For thofe in New England, I am refol- ded not to lhut up my eyes againft the convincing light of extraordinary providences, whether miracles or wonders. I do abhor your ftories of the Earl of Hollands daughter, and Dun(lane,znd the reft (not like to thefe in New England) whereby you feek to dar- ken and dilgr ace the wondrous works and teftimoniesof God. Take heed how you difparage and fpeak contemptuou fly of thofe works which God commandetb his peo- ple to keep in remembrance. This is fomewhat worfe then taking his name in vain. What judgements have befaln the undervaluers of Gods works ? and how jealous hath he alwayes been in that point? Moft that will not be convinced by wonders of Judgement, have perlfhed by Judgement. I believe Chrrft to be the Son of God for Jvis miracles : Yet would I hinder none from trying doctrine by the Scriptures^ nor fet-upany other rule, as I have before told you. Nor do well relifh your exception againft that one ftory in the Book entitled Gods judgement on Sabbath breakers, as being jealous that it is from no goodwill to our do&rine of the morality oftheChrifti- an Sabbath : But your arguing is againft the fcope of the book,thoughyou except but againft one thing for the verity 3 as alfo againft Do&or Beards Theater, and the Fa- thers frequent making ufe of fuch providences, and againft all other that fo obferve them ; I ake heed ciPbaraehs fin. What yoa fpeak whether Mrs. Hutcbifon and Mrs, Dyer were Anabaptifts , I anfwer. 1. 1 knew divers of their company that were. x. And I intended that paffage only a- gainft the Antinomifts , againft whom God plainly fpake by them 5 And againft whom I confefs my zeale^s far greater then againft Anabaptifts. I conceive Antino- mianifm the moft dangerous •plaufible error that moft ever invaded the Church, in- flnuating themfelves into wellmeaning minds under a falfe pretence of advancing Chrift and free Grace ; and ifyou would have given me leave, I hadfpent this time againft it, which I am now by you compelled to fpend againft Anabaptifts. Fo,r any that made ufe of my name and words in thepulpit,I approve not of it, as thinking my name unfit matter for a pulpit difcourfe. And where ycu again think I intended chief- ly to make you odious, I again tell you, it was only to make your errors odious to my friends • and again I wifh youlefs felicitous for your honor. For what ycu fay of my doftrine of Juftificacion, I have anfwered before. S ECT. Infants Church-memkrjhip and Baptifm. 250 SECT. IX. TO your ninth Seftion, I know fome interpreters expound it of Do&rine ; every falfe teacher is not a Heretick, nor the falfe Prophet that Chrift aims at. I think thefe muft fubvert the very foundation. 1 dare not fay that ^elagius or Amimm were fuch(though I like not their do&rinej For ought I know, they maybe both wkh Chrift. And fo I fay of many more whom the Fathers called Hereticks •> And fo of every honeft Anabaptift. To what elfe you here fay, 1 have anfwcred it fully before. Where you fay,th3t [in my Logick then falfe Do&rine and falfe prophets are the fame] I anfwer ,that ic is but your fiction. In my Logick,a falfe prophet and a teacher of fa»lfc do&rine are the fame j To make the form, and fubjeft, as you fay, the fame, may well feem falfe doctrine in Logick. You ask [Are the whitenefs and the thing white. the heat and thing hot, all one ? or doth a man that knows hot water by hear, cold water by its cold, know idem per idem* ] Anfwer. Did L ever think to have found you at this pafs in your Logick too ? C3n you know the fuppofi turn, "even the Subjed and Accident by that Accident alone ? Can you know both that it is water, and that it is cold by'the cold ? or that it is cold water rather then cold milk or whey. when other things are cold as well as water ? And can you know it is both water and hot by the meer heat.when other things may be hot as well as water ? Doth not he go about to prove idem per idem who will prove this water is cold , becaufe it is cold ? or this wail white becaufe it is white ? Or if he will prove alfo that it is a wall becaufe it is white, he m\\ mend the matter fairly. Chrift never intended to prove Cor teach his followers how to prove) that the falfe prophets were men, nor yet that they were prophets , but that they were falfe prophets. And is it not idem per idem to prove that they are falfe teachers, becaufe they teach falfly ? that is, they are falfe teachers becaufe they are falfe teachers. I leave your Lqgick and mine to better judgements. And if you confidered but how the Apoftles ever after this, when they write of Here- tikes and falfe teachers, do ftill accufe them of wicked lives, you might fee this in part expounded. 1 know there muft be fome fair fhewes which are the iheeps cloathing, but ftill the men are raving wolves : And doth [3 ravening wolfe] lignifce fittlyer the er- ror of do&rinei or the vitioufnefs of their nature ? Arid fo I may fay of the fruit of a thorne or athiftle. But for the Application,if you would not needs force my words ;o a fence I never intended, we fliould not be at fuch odds : For be it known to you and all by men thefe prefents,that I take not a meer Anabaptift for a Heretick:no nor thofe that hold greater errors then thsy, except they alfo divide and rent the Church. I like Mr. Vines his defci iption of a Heretick in his Sermon againft Herefies. Scripture and Fathers place very much of the nature of Herefiein Schifm and feparation : And fo do the moft accurate of our modernes , as Vuffius y Gather j&c. Though cuftome had almoft prevailed to place it only in an erroneous opinion, or obftinacy in that o- pinion. Bullingcr's is thi$,H*retittm quum dko t intclligo Seflarum authorem qui £c» cleftam fc)nd'it y qui falfa&erroneadoftrina fertinaciter pergit unitatem Ecclefia infrin* gere & twbare. Dialog, cant. Catabapt, pag. 24. When I calk of a Heretick, I mc 3 n Li an i So PUin Scripture proof of an author of Sefis who rendeth the Church, who pertinacioufly proceedeth by falfe and erroneous doctrine to infringe and trouble the unity of the Church. It is not much. out of the way which Vtguerim (inftituc. p. Ti i.) faith was the definition of many thtn,x/i^. H*reticus eft qui rdiCU fide & Ecclefi* docirina^icujici temporalis corn- modi gratia. & max'ime gloria , falfas & nvu*s opiumes gigtit -uti fcquitur, ut wl fie ma-neat ab Ecckfi.i (thrifts. Yet I know fome will flatter themfelvcs with this, that while they gather into Churches themfelves, it is no forfaking the Church; If they leave one Church, they go to or gather another : To whom 1 will now fay no more, but what Tertuffianhirh of the Maniomtes(adv!rf. MarcionJj. 4. ca.^ ) Rabet plane & illud Ecclefiasfedfuaijam pofaas <\uam adulter as $ quOium ficenfum n* 4fit!ras 3 fa::!ius Apojlaiicum invenias quam A?o{lolicim\ MiAciene fcilicet conduore -j:1 tSiquo de Martimis examne. Faciunt fdves & irefp* 3 ficiunt Ecclefias & MarciomU. The Wafpes alio make Comics, and the Marcionites alfo make Churches. For my Queftion which you make an affirmation, you put a falfe fence^ff your own •ttpon tr, and then call me Dog for it, and fay [like a right Engliih Maftive, I fly in the face^c ] The Queftion me thinks carryeth my meaning very plainly with ir. It is neirber omnno dubitaatis, nor yet deter»iioa?i£js : but only fpeaks what a rariry it is according to my reading; and yet becaufe I will not therefore affirm it rare (for a fociety of Anabaptifts to end well) much lefs that never fuch a thing was, therefore I provoke them to look over their own intelligence : As if I had faid, in all my reading it is a rarity; fee whether it be not fo in yours. If a Phyfitian ask, How many Tym- panites have you known cured, or where have you known one well cured ? The queftion intimates the rarity of it in the enquirers obfervation, but not a determina- tion that never fuch a thing was, or that it is a rarity in every mans obfervation. I have feen neer a doxen cured within this few weeks, and yet Fimus de flatwus faith f he never faw a confirmed one cured, and others generally make it a rarity, And if my obfervation faile me, yet a cjueitton is not capable of being falfe: but becaufe yoH fay [you may boldly fay, that (here play the Divels part with a witnefs] truly Sir,my defire or intent is not to make them feemone jot worfe then they are, but only to obferve the ftrange hand of God upon them , in giving them up fo ufually tomoft wicked ©pinions or conversations*, and againft this judgement I dare not (hut mine eyesj nor harden my heart. Sure I am the good lives of the Parliaments friends, was the greateft means to increafe their party- and i: was an Argument that many a thoufand ventured their lives and fouls upon ; They thought fure God would not give up the generality of the godly except here, and there one, to be fo far deceived, as to be on the wrong fide in fo weighty a cafe $ and in the mean time give the generality of the molt deboift, to kno.v the truth. And the Argument is probable too in the p?efcnt caufe. But let us hear in all your reading where you can name orte Society that ended well } and fo prove* me to play the part of a Dog and a Devil! : All lies upon the proof. 1 . You inftant in Cyprian, the Hemerobapriits and the Picards , which you well know were no Anabaptifts.: for we take words according to their common ufe. Nay what a jeft it is that you fometime complain of Cyprian and his brethren as the firft or greateft introducers of Infant- Baprifme, decreeing for it in a Councell ; & yet now bringjthem in for Anabaptifts ? Your next inftanccyou have more confidence in,and therefore ulher it in with a vaun: £ that I may learn to order my pen better hereafter:, I may take notice that befides the probability that Berenganus oppofed the Baptising of little ones; notwithilanding what Mr. Marjbal/alkdgcth, it is more then probable by Bernards 104. Epiflle, his 4&ferm,oncm. P&rus Ctmacenfi hlsEfiftic 2&U&& Peter deButi^ 2nd Hcr*im Ectyertui Infants Church-memberjlup and Baptifm. 261 Eclfbertus fermon.7.adu. Catb, that there were many hundreds of yeers fince , a very great number of godly Societies that did deny Infant Baptifme, &c] I anfwer , if I learn by this your example to order my pen , it will be a fearful! ordering : w^, To joyn with flanderous Papifts againft godly reformers in defaming them contrary to their own confefftons , yea and the acknowledgment of the moil ingenuous of their adverfaries. I have told you my thoughts of this dealing before. You that dare, I fay dare , again ami again obtrude fuch a.cheate upon poor ignotanc people that cannot gain-fay you,have a confcience fo venterous for a caufe fo bad , as I dare not follow you , nor learn by this example to order my pen } except by taking warning by your dolefull mifcarriage. For Bcrengarm , as he was but one man and no Society, fo we mull take it for a {lander of him,till you bring better proof and anfwer what Mr . Mar- (bull and Dr. vfher fay againft it. The world may now fee what a caufe f on put fuch a face upon , when i. You cannot bring the leaft proof for ought yet I hear from you, fo much as of one man ( much lefs Societies j and leaft of all, godly Societies ) that did once oppofe or deny Infant Baptifme from the Apoftles dayes till about Linkers time : z. And yet acknowledge that Infant Baptifme hath been .uted in the Church fince Cyprians time at leaft, if not Tertutlians ( and I have proved before ; ) And did no body contradid it for fo many hundred yeer? and yet is it an innovation? you ftill mifreport my* interrogation for an affirmation. I do but provoke you and others to enquire whether they ufually have not proved wicked. And I again provoke you to prove the contrary : for certainly you feem to yield up their credit as loft, when you cannot bring one word of tolerable proof to the contrary , out of all your read- ing. I have told you the reports of the godlieft Divines then living of them, who me thinks when they concurre fo unanimouily,may be beleeved in Hiftory. For Alftedws* you know he concurres with the reft a though he acknowledge them their fheepes clothing ( veflem bona vita ) and no more j adjoyning them to Pelagians and Nova- tiansjtnd concluding that they are not to be received : And no doubt they many of them profefle godlinefs , even thofe that now preach down the godhead of Chrift. And Alftcdius in the fame place expounds Mat. 7. of the fruits of 4* evil Life. For Caffander 1. He fpeaks of fomc appearance or profeffion of godlinefs, which none denies them •' no doubt they are moft profeflbrs , and godly words are in their writings : but what is that to the lives of the Societies , and to the end ? 2. Cajfander in all likelihood never faw a Society of them in his life : nor perhaps one Anabaptift. For he lived at Colonia Agrippina among the Papifts where Anabaptifts were not : and befides he was a man for long time of fo exceeding weak and confamcd a body and .troubled with the Arthritis ,and alfo of a folitarity difpofition , .that he lived continu- ally as in a Cell : fo that when the Emperour fent to three Princes to fend him to him i he could not ftir towards him (as Grotimante Cajfand. eoafult.) And Calvin faith he was ab hominum co?ifuetudine remotm : & exfolitudine cLuSn&c. Jn (lit. lib. 7.0 ?. Rierome proveth Infant-Bap- lifme at large ad Let. & adverfi Pelagianos. So doth Auflin contra Denatiftas & ad Marcellin. & Petilian. F.pifcop. Afri.Epift. 90. inter eas quit funt in operibm Auguflmi. JQuicunfynegat parvulos per Baptifmum Chriftia perditione liber Ari &falutcmpercipere aternamyonatbemafit. Fulgeniim de fide adPetrumiFimiffime fene & nuUatenut iubites, parvulls > qui nee propria voluntate credere nee poznitentiam pre peccato } quod origi* naliter trabunt yager e poQ'unt y facr amentum Fideiquod eft fanclum baptifma y quamdiu rationis eorum atas capax effe non poteft , [ufficere ad falutcm. Pontius Paul'nm ( inquit Kbenanus in lib. Tertull. de Corona militis ) baptifmum fie defcribit , ( as you may fand in his Poems in Grynei Ortbodoxographia ) Jnde parens (aero ducit defonte facer dos Infantes niveos CorporejCordeybabitUj&c. {And it is evident that they baptized Infants even in ancienteft Churches^ in that they both judged them ordinarily faved, and fo to be vifibly of the Church ; and called Baptifme initiation - } and affixed it to all Church members. For TcrtuU'tan maketh it an argument to prove we are of one Churchjbecaufe we had cadem lav acn facr amenta : devirg. veland. V^izi.c^z.editPamcl. which excludes thofe that had not that Sacrament. But the ordinary falvation of Infants they ordinarily afTert ( it were endlefs to cite them.) And of thofe without the Church,they had very hard thoughts j Therefore Tertull. in carmine de judicio dominiybtin^s them in among the other miic- wble ones a: Judgementjfaying, Vefunclify fents ariimk viventibus aft am 3 Infantum^ gemens refonat vagitibus mbUi&c* That is 5 faith Pamclius , not as then in an Infant age , but thofe that were In- fants on earth. And if Laclantius call them tcneras itcp. innocentes animate qua maxime eft atas parentibus dulcior^&c. Inftitut.lib. i.cap.21. Sure then he thought not that they were to be exduded the vifibre Cnurch, or that it was an age that Chrift would hate or reje&.And iffuflin Martyr fay that the Chrtftian Religion fufiercth not men to expofc *heir Infants ( noftra vero doelrina non finit qucnquamejjemoleftum aut injurium^ac ne infantes quidem fasputatexponere. Apolog. z- Pag. i?i. edit. Gelen. ) then fure they ihoughi knefaa to exclude them out of the yiiible Church of Chrift. For the Anci- enceft Infants Church- member jhip and Baptifm. 262 enteft and pureft Fathers were far from Mr. Ts judgement , [that it is a mercy to In- fants to be out of the vifible Church] They rather judged all without to be without falvation. For all Chriftians } and ontly Chriftians are vifible members of the Church ( v'fibUia ctfi non vifa ) and only C hriftians ( fay they ) are faved ( except Clemens Alexand. and fome few that fay Pagans are faved. ) Yet further let us hear fome more of the Ancients, Concilium Mcllvltanum ( ut vulgo ) vclpotlus Carth.iglncnfc (ut vere) Anathema dixit ncgantibus Infantes Baptl^arl in remlffionem orlginalu fcccatl. ct fitbjun- git Ifia canme 1. QuonUmnon aliter intcttigenium eft quod alt Apofiolus , Per unumho~ mincm peccatum intromit in mundum , £t per peccatnm Mors, &c. mfi qucmadmodum Ecclefia Cathoiica ublfy diffufa femper intcUexlt 5 Propter banc calm regulam fidel & Parvufi qulnih/lpeccatoruminfemetipfis adbuc committer c potuerunt, Idco Inpeccatorum rcmiffionem veracltcr bapti-^antur , ut in eis regencratione mundetur quod generations traxerunt. • Caleftlus the Pelagian was forced alfo to confefs this ('which he might better have de- nied then Mr. T. now can do, if there had bin any ground for a denyal) vi$* Infantes Bapti^ri in remlffionem peccatorum Secundum Regulam Univerfal is Ecclefia:. e> Se- cundum evangelii fententiam : ut Auguflin. fcriblt li.i, contra Pclag. & Ca'cfi. qui efl dc peccato origin. cap. 5. P or 'o Augufl. operis Inpcrfefli &mt. Jul,!i,i.cjp.^. ait:ftDoum co- hs in quo (peravlt & fperat ecclefia prlmltlvorum 3 quce confcrlpla eft in ccelkj cur non credis Baptin^andos parvulos, erui de foteftate tencbrarum ? &c..Etidem Augufl-ferm. 10. de vvbis Aposl. Accomodat iliis Ecclefa aliorun pedes ut veniant , aliorum cor ut iredant^liorum linguam ut con fit cant ur, quoniam quod tgrlfunt alio peccante pragravan* turificcumii fanifunti alio pro eis confitente falvantur. Hemo ergo v obis fu fur ret do- ftrlnas allcnas. Hoc Ecclefia femper habuit, femper tenult. Hoc a. major urn fide accepit $ hocufy infinem per fever antcr cuflodlt. Quoniam non e(i opus fanls medlcus-, fedagrotan- tibus. Quid necefjarium ergo habuit lnfans Cbrlflum ,. fi non agrotat ? fi fanus eft, quare per eos qui eum ddlgant 3 mcdlcum quarit ? fiquando portantur Infante s^dicuntur omnino nullum propaginu habere peccatum , & venlunt ad Chrifium > cur non eis dicitur in Ec- clefia qui eos apportant > Auferte hlnc innocehtes Iftos: non efl opus fanis medlcus $ fed male babentibm ; non venlt Chriftus vocare jujlos, fed peccatores. Nunquam dittum eft, fed nee allquando dlcetur. And that Origen ( who elfwhere affirms that the Church received Infant Baptifme from the Apoftles,) did acknowledge it as unqueftioned then, appears in that being a leader and Patron of the Pelagian error ( afterward fo called) he gives this reafon of their Baptifme, that it was to wa(h away thofe fins which that foul was guilty of while it was in fome other body ( according to Pythagoras faneie ) before it came into - that 5 as Hlerome affirms of him in Dialog, aiverf. Pelag. li. 5. conclufions. 7{etlclus Eplf- copus Augufiodunenfis qui Conftantlnl M- tempore vixit 3 ait; Hone igltur effeprlnclpalem in Ecclefia indulgenttam, neminem prasccric } ( loquitur de baptifmo ) in qua antlqui ■ crlmlnn omne pondus exponlmm^ &c. Cltatur ab Auguft.ll. i.cont Julian. cap. z. e> lib. 1. ultimi operis conu Julian, cap. $ $ .pag. 6 z.6 J. The fame Aufiln faith ( lib.4. ad Bonlfac. cont.z. Pelagii cplfl.cap.SJ Abfit ut allquando fides Cathoiica dubitaver.it utrum nafcentes traherent originate peccatum quod Renafcendo deluerenc So that in his judgement the Church never doubted of Infant- Baptifme any more then of Original finj & in t/b.$. depecc.mef.&remlffcap i 6.&j. He mentionetfr it as the Hereticks novelty^ that In- fants were not to be baptized for Remiflionof fin , but that they might be fan&ified in Chrift : but their Baptifme It feif they durft not deny. Hlerome Ub.ixont, Pclag. faith, Qui parvulus eft^arentis in baptifmo vinculo fo(vitur* . Ac ne me putcs bte/eticofenfu hoc Inte Ulcere 3 beatm Martyr Cyprianus &c, Andfo he re. L I 1 hearfetb . 2^4 21*™ Serif tute frcof $f hearfeth Cyprians words, which are thefe as you may find them, lib. 3 .ep. 9. /id Fidum. Si a Baptifmo ofy a. gratia nemo prohibetur ; quanto maps frokiberi non debet infans 3 qui re- cms natus nihil peccavit, n'fft quodfecundum Adam camaliter natus , cafhtagium mortis anliqUct) prima nativitate , contraxit ? qui ad vemiffam peccatorum accipiendam hoc ipfofacilius accedit 3 quodilli remittimtur , non propria , fed aliena peccata. which tefti. mony of Cyprian ( with thofe before cited out of Origettt Tertullian, Irenaus , Jujiin ) I value more then many latter , yet I adde the latter, becaufe Auftin was liker to know the truth of the primitive churches pra&ice then Mr. T. And Auftm faith , T.io. dt verb.Apoft.Serm.i4' Bapti^andos effe parvulos nemo dubitat 3 quando nee iUi him dubitant qui ex parte aliqitd contrad-.cunt. And in divers places he tels us that the Peligians them- felves duift not deny it, ut cont. Julian* li. 3. c. 3. Quafi quifquam noftrumvos dixeru negate parvulos baptist opertere ? Non eos dicitis nondebere baptizari ; fedp-ro magni- tud'me (apientia veftra res miracles dicitis 3 &c. Sic li. 17. de pec. orig. Nam ncquepay vulis negant baptifmi facramentum 3 ncqueabf que rcdemp done chrifii aliquibus regna cos. Urumpromittunt. Et Epifi.%9. ad Hilar. Coaclus eft confiteri propter bapti^andos par- vuIos 3 8lc. And he cites Pelagius own Words,, thus {de pec. orig. c. 21. & Li.de gratia Cbrifti c. 32.) Baptifma unum lenemm, qudd lifdcmfacramenti verbis in injant'tbm, quit bus etiam in majoribus 3 dicimus e[fe%lebrandum. Et 1. depec. orig. c. 19, Quti tUe tarn impius cflQnquit ipfe Pctdgiiu) qui cujuflibctatatis parvulo interdicat communtm humani generis redemptionem ? And Auftin hlih Epiji. 1$. adjoin/. 3. Confuetudo matruEc~ clefia in bapti%andU parvulis nequaquam fpernenda eft, neque omnino fuper ftua deputanda 3 nee omnino credenda nifi Apoftolica eflct traditio : All that I have cited out of Auflin, with abundance more, you may find in Voffuis his Pelagian Hiftory and his Thefes rfe Ptdobapt. Yea ftfeems the Heathens by the light of nature difcerned both Infants corruption, and Gods re -accepting them. Of the former fee Du Plejjis verity of Chriftian Rel-c 17. Of the latter, lilius Giraldus Syntagm. 17.de diis gratium 3 fhewsoutof Plato > Per* fiuSjPlautus &c. tharthe Gentiles had Rites for the expiation of Infants. And that Baptifme fucceeded circumcifion , and the Jews Baptifme prefigured our fpiritual wafhing , and fo our Baptifme j fee Macarius in Homil. 3 a. and Hom.47. And the moft ancient of the Fathers infift much on the purity, innocency, meeknefSjCW- of In- fants, as being fuch to whom all that will be faved muft become like : and therefore they fure judged them not to be all caft or kept out of the vifible Chiireh- fee Dorotbeus in Gryn/ei Orthodoxographia, Pag. 214. And Clemens Alexandrin. Padagog.lib. 1. cap. 5 and 6- He that would have more teftimonies yet of the Fathers Judgement for Infant Baptifme,efpecially Aufti?is 3 may read enought in BibiioBeca e Patrtbus Pag. 1 1 ?. 1 16. 117. 118 1 1 9. 1 io, &c. And of theCouncell of Carthages teftimony, fee more in 'Bibliotheca ^Patrum (by de la Bigne)To. 1. pa.%7. And in a third Bibliotheca, viz. Smi Senenfis Biblioth. Sancla you may find (lib.9-pag. 5 14. ) that when Julian brought Cbryfofiomes te&imonie againft Infants original fin , Auftin tels him, that chrjfoflome maintaines the Baptifm of Infants for the remiflion of fin, or elfe hefhouldgo againft Innocentius, Cyprian, Bafil 3 Greg. Na^ian-zen, Ambrofe 5 but he goes with them in this. See more of this alfo in Schlujfelburgncs his Epiftle before his lib. 1 2. againft Anabaptifts , and the whole Book : As alfo Wigandws de Anabaptifmo , Cby- trutuAi &c. Now do but compare all thefe Teftimonies with thofe which Mr. T. brings for the Antiquity of Anabaptifm. Bernard was a Popilh Abbot of latter times ^though a pious Infants Church-mcmhcrjhip and Baptifm. 265 pious man 5) and I have (hewed the falfncfs of his report , and the ground of his miftake. The like may be (aid of the reft. How fierce and flanderous and foul, mouth'd a Papift Pet. Cluniacenfls was, is apparent, not only in the Book cited by Mr.T. but alio in his Nucleus de facrificio Mijfe, efpecially the Chapters for Tran- fubftantiation, in Aucluano Bibliotbec. Patrum Vol.it />.i 100, &c. And for his new Hvitnefs Ec\bertus ScJionaugicnfis (vet Colonicnfis*,) 1. It being the Albigcnfes whom he terms Catbari or Puritans, I have proved before his report to be falfe. 2. He was a i^opifh Fryer , and lived but Anno 1160. fub Friderico lwpera- tore 1. as it isfaid in his life , and as I find in the Epitome Bibliotbec* Cefncri per Frifitim, p. zio. g. He tels us that Infant.Baptifm hath continued from the Apoftles time till his time (Aufiurao Bibl P.ttr.p.2$$.) and why will not M. T. believe him in this as well as in the othe/ 3 4. The fame writing of his which faith his Adverfarits denyed Infant- Baptifm, doth alfo fay of them as followcth : 1. That they impioufly taught that all are damned that die before the years of difcretion : (At fi ita eft ut pnedicat impietas veftra, viz, JQjiod omnes qui ante dnnos difcretionk mommtur^ condemn xarttur 3 $cc ibid.y.S*}} ) z.That Marriage was finfuil,and continuance in it damnable (Heminem pofje falvari qui cum conjugejud permanent ufj. ad fincm : Dxmoncs ! unde v.obti isla daclrim ? pag.84t.) $. That they taught it was unlawful! to eat flem 5 whereupon he cals them Devils again : 4. And that all created flefti is from the De- vil., (]»*£■ 8 $ 1.) 5. That they deny baptizing bywater,and would have men Bap- tized only by fire. 6. That they denyed the humanity of Chrift. 7. That fome of them held the fouls of men to be nothing but the apoftate fpirits that fell from God at the firft,fent into bodies. This is the Character that he gives of his Ad- verfaries. Now either Mr. T's Fryer Ec^bertus fpeaks true or falfe. If true, then all the reft of thefe crimes may be as true, the credit of the accufation refting on the fame witnefs : And then it is a fair credit that T. M. hath got to his caufe , that a few Hereticks and Devils about n6>. years after Chrift, did take it up 1 But if the accu- fation be falfe (as I have proved that it is) then indeed it is a teftimony fit for ZMr.T's caufe : and no wonder if it caufe him infultingly to tell me, that he produceth it to teach me to order my pen. And his former witnefs (which he had from Vofiius ) iValafridus might well be called Strflbo in this ; For 1. when he denyeth Infant.Baptifm to have been in former times. he fetcheth his proof from Auflins practice, (miftakinghis age ten years,) when Mr. T- knows that it was in ufc divers hundred years before Auflins time. And 2. he forgeth a wrong caufe oiAufiins delay of Baptifm. And 3. yet he witnefieth that In- fants are to be Baptized, and brings fork, the Africana concilia & aliorum patrum doc.umcnta quwiplurima. 4. In a word, either he denies that Infants were Baptized be- fore Cyprian's time , or fince that. If fince, then Mr. T. knows that it is falfe. If be- fore, then Cyprian with the Cowncel ofCartbxgc, and O.igcn, Irenceuu &c. were likcr fir to know the Truth of fad, then a Strabo that lived fo many hundred years after them> fpeaking contrary to all Antiquity. And yet if Air. T. had lookt pag 69 1 . of that Auclicar. he might have found his own witnefs, faying. That Cimcilio Ccrundcnji ' unius dici Jnfans , fi in difcnrmnc fu, bapti^ri debet, e^pag. 69 1. that Laurence was not baptized by dipping, but aquam defuper fundendo. And thus you fee Mr. T s ftrength from Antiquity. And, as I faid, the Fathers generally affirm Infants tobefaved5 and they generally ('except as before) tie falvation to the vifiblc Church 5 and there- fore muft needs take Infants for Church- members. Concerning this latter, hear for one, what Cyprian faith, Lib.de unitate Ecclcfia 3 JLdit. Jer.Stepbani. p. 14- 1J« Avcuc radium 'foils a. corpore 3 divifionem lucis unites nm capit j ab arborefwige ramumjraztui gemiwse- 7.66 Plain Scripture poof of germinare non potent ; a. fonte pracide rivum^ prxcifus arefcet. Sic & Ecclefia Domini luce per fufa&c. Ittiusfatu nafcimur 9 illius lacle nutrimur 3 (piritu ejus animamur, ■ H qui Ecclefiam mn habctmatrcm- Si pot uit evader c quifquam qui extra arcam Noe fuit, &qui extra Ecclefiam fork fuerit, evadiU Et pag.$o.Effe Martyr non potcft, qui in Ecclefia none fl y ad rcgnum pa venire non poterit 3 qui earn qu* yegnatura e(l , derelinquit. If an doubt whether Qyprian fpeak this of the vifible uni- verfall Church , the whole Book will evince it ; (he fpeaks not of the Church of 7{pme 3 as the Papifts would have all underftand the word ChurchJ But I forget my intended brevity. I am fully fatisfied that Mr. T. cannot (hew me any Society (I think not one man) that ever open their mouths againft Baptifm of Infants till about 200. years ago or thereabout. Which confirms me much that it ts from the Apoftles times, or elfe fome one would have been found as an Oppofer of it ' Even as I profefs ferioufly, that it muchfatisfieth my conscience, thit Chrift and his Apoftles did never ftiut the Infants of believing Jews (and confequently not of be- lieving Gentiles) from being Members of his vifible Church, in that I never find in all the New Teftament one word of exception,arguing,murmuring,or diflatisfaftion againft it ; when as it cannot poflibly be conceived but thofe Jews who kept fuch a ft ir before they would let go Circumcifion the fign of Church member/hip, when yet they had Baptifm ,anorher fign , would undoubtedly have been much more fcandalized at the unchurching of all their children, and would much hardlier have let go that priviledge of their Church-member(hip, or at leaft have raifed fome fcruple about it, which might have occafioned one word of fatisfa&ion from fome one of the Apoftles: Efpecially, when Paul cals them Holy and Chrift faith , Suffer them to come to me, and forbid them not\ for of fuch is the Kj-ngdcm of God. I know not how Mr.T. and fuch others think on thefe things] but for my part,they flick fo clofe to my Confcience, that I dare not fay Chrift would have no Infants received into his vifible Church among the number of ChrifMans, when 1 find he once placed them in the Churchj and neither ZM. T. nor any man breathing can (hew me one word of Scriprure where ever Chrift did put them out again 5 and yet thefe men pretend to ftand to the deter- mination of Scripture. 1 would this one thing were impartially conlidered. I conclude this in the words of Vet.OA.irty,- ( s Thef.Argent.ex.i6.&.\7 .Gcn.Thef.$. p (mihi) 1008. lo'c.com.) Chriflianorum Infantes quando naf cunt ur {non minus ad Deum pertinent quamju. daoriim filii antiquhus per tinier unt : ideo it A baptifmo tingcndi j ut illi circumcidebantur* Well, Mr.T. for all his anger, cannot yet name me one Society of them, (out of any good Author,) that proved not wicked. He next therefore is fain to come to thofe in London \ of whom the Hiftories of this age will fpeak more f/eely to Pofterity, then is convenient for me now to /peak to Mr.T. I tremble and grieve in ftead of fpcaking : Alas > to look upon the face of England after all my prayers,labors, hazards, tears, hopes • Ah poor England ! Oh that my head were a fountarn of tears for thy fake ! I think my approaching death will be the lefs grievous , to think that I muft go from this Land or fin and mifery I Do I need to tell EngLind4\ovt Anabaptifts have proved ? Surely to this Age it is in vain, whatever it may to the Aces to come that did not fee and feel what we do , and far more yet expect to do. Yet doth ^fr.T.ft ill talk of their danger, and faith, [were it not for the mighty overawing power of God , and the Magiftrates Jufticc, they 'would fall on us to deftroy us] To wkich I anfwer ; 1. 1 never heard of any fuch danger you were in : what have you ever- Infants Cburch-memberfiip andBaptifm. 2 6y ever fufkred, and from whom ? Are you not more afraid then hurt ? and afraid where no fear is ? When your Ant3gonitts are one after another apace turned out of houfe and home, and feparated ftom their dear people* for Non- conformity, are you yet afraid of them ? What afraid of a profligate friend miftaken for an Enemy > and of thofe that never nurt you when you were in their power ? 2. But fuppofe you were in danger from the rude vulgar : So have I been, at leaft , as much as ever you were : But do we encourage them to it ? or would we infringe your Liberty ? I hope you do not think that every man that difputeth againft you, would knock you ith head? when I was in the Army, thofe that fpoke againft the Magiftrates power to reftrain tins againft the flrft Table, did yet freely acknowledge the lawfulnefs of fpeaking, preaching and difputing againft them. But thofe days arepaft j As We grow older, we grow wifer. And for what you fay of the Anabaptifts Orthodox Confeffions , I anfwer : i.The fame men that fubferibe them, have many of them written other kind of Do&rine elfe- where. z. We are now enquiring whether their lives be Orthodox (as one fpeaksj) and for their profeflions, I fay to my friends, as Cyprian, de unit, Ecclef. pag. 42.45. ' Confe/iio in exordium gloria eft, mnmeritum jam corona : nccperficit laudem, fed initial dignitatem > cum% fcriptum fit, £>ui per fever aver it uf% in finew, hie falvus eriti quicquid ante finemfumt^radm eft quo adfafligiumfalutU afcenditur, non terminus qu§ jam. culminis fumma tencatur- — ~-Nemo per confefforis exemplum pereat : tufa Injufti- tiam, fleque infolentianijneque perfidiam de confefforis moribus difcat*Confefjor e(i , fie bumilis & quietus, fit in a flu fuo cum difciplina modeftus 3 ut qui Cbrifti Confeffor dicitur^ Cbriflum quern confitetur imttetur. Nam cum dicat % qui ft extollit bumiliabitur 3 & qui bumiliatfc, cxAlubitur, & ipfe a. patre exalt atus fit 3 quiafe in terrufcrmo & virtus & patientia Dei patris bumiliavit 3 quomodo poteft extullentiam ddigere 3 &c, Confeffor e(l Cbrifli i fed jlnon poftea per ipfum blafphemetur majeftas & dignitas Chrifti. Lingua Cbrifium Cokfcfjanon fit maledica^ non turbulenta, non convitiis & I'm bus pe/ftrepens audiatur ; non contra frat/es & dei facerdotes 3 poft verba laudis 3 ferpentls venena, jaculetur. Cetcrum ft culpabilhs& deteftabilis poflm&dumfuerit , fi confifiwiem fmm mala Convcrfatio?ie prodegerit, fi vitam fuam turpi faditatc macule t ur > 6. Ecclefiam denique, ubi confeftbr fa&us eft, derelinquens, & unitatis concordiam fcindens, fidemprimamperfidia pofterlore mutaverit 3 blandiri fbi per confefiioncm nonpotefi\ quafi fit elcftus ad gloria premium, quando ex hoc ipfo magis cr eve-ant merita poe- varum. It is well worth the Engliming,. but 1 have not time. And certainly me thinks many in England, mould fee their faces in this glafs. Look a little further yec what Tome of the vices then were, pag. Jo. In nobis vtt b fie Jinanimitas diminuta eft, ut & largitas operation!* infracla eft, Domos tunc &fundos veminiabant, <& thefauros fil i in ctelo rcponentes, d'flribuenda m ufus indigentium pretia Apoftulk ofirrcbant. At nm c de patrimonio nee Decimas damusi & cum vender ejubeat dominus 3 errumus polius &,ai.« gemus : He doth not fay, Vendimus qua dom'mi funt. Et p.25. Hi funt qui fe itltro apiid tmera-rios convenas fine divina difyofitiontpraficiimtjjuifepropofitosfine ulla Ordinati- onis lege conflituunt.qui nem'me Epifcjjpatum dante^EpifcoU fibi nomenaffumunt^ fedenks in peftilentia Catbedra,pe!ies 6^ lues fidei y ferpentU ore (atlcntcSy & corrumpenda veritar, tis artifices 3 venena ktbalia Unguis peflifcris evomentes j quorum fermo ut Cancer fa* pit,&c. And I intreat the godly to obey what he funher writes,/>dg.4?,46\S^r Confeffi and that the Monks ibew themfelves Anabaptifts in baptizing many that were before baptized in our Churches. So much for the Novelty and Schifm of the Anabaptifts. One word more againft juftifying the wicked. If yet Mr. T. will appeal from Hl- ftory to the Englifh Anabaptifts for the credit of his Partie, (not to fpeak any more of the Blafpheming Religion,) let him but caft his eye upon the bevetkrs. We know the Mafters of the deiign to be Anabaptifts of the higheft form. What the four men that lay in the Tower were, is no fecret > and what the Leaders of them in the Field were,I partly know. Their (lain Generall Tompfon was one of our Corporals; and all the profefling part of the Souldiery of my acquaintance were of the fame way. And I be- lieve Mr. T. knows what Cornet Mr. Den was. And was not the bufinefs of Munfier infer iour to their defign > How fair a way were they in to have drawn to their Party moft of the Army* and fo to have overthrown both Parliament, General, Common- wealth, Religion, and all that was woith the having? They thought themfelves that a few days (if not hours) more liberty would have done the deed : And then the whole world might quickly have feen in the face of England what Anabapifts are. S.Gwge's Hill, and their Printed Pamphlets Accor ding to the old Problem, Die thibi, quid, qutfo, toto jam rcgnat inorbe }■ Vic tribusboc verbis ilitterulifytribus. i Refp. 2sfon verbis tribus, aft una refpondeo voce J U S, vel tranijofitis, VIS, male litter ulis] JUS & VIS apices par vo difcrimine diftant : JUS nunc mundus babet y VIM quia/emper babet. Plutarch in Camillo tels us of Brennus his Anfwer to the Romans , that asked him Quanam ratione Clufium ohfidione ptemetct I Rejpondityjute natarali, quo is qui minus .fort is eft potentiori cedere jubetur- Hoc eft , non aqua Lance , fed Java. Lancea$uflitiam exbibere. Sic Vmbrici armati de contr over fits contender unt, & Juftiorem cos caufam ha- bere crediderunt, qui adverfariosfuos inter emijfenty inqu'tt Heidfeld. Ut Canit Ennius s Hb.i.AnnaU Pellitur e medio fapicntia, vigeritur res. [chryfoflomes complaint Is, Veritas teyram reliquit, Calumniator'es vendunt mendacium, decipiendofe invicem, \wc amenta con~ fumunty non aliter quam jurando folum Dei memo-res* Plutarch in Dione^ tels us that Plato laughtatthe timorous Tyrant Dionyftus, cum vidiffet ipfum aliquando multiscir. cumfeptum cuftodibus : Quod tantum malum (inquit) feci flit ut a tarn multis fatellitibus ntcefl'e habeas cuftodiri I- It was Luthers faying,( SleidMb.io.) cum audiffet Anabaptiftas regrtum moliri 3 raperc armajmunire urbes,ja£lare vicloriam 3 antequam debellaffcnt 3 affum ilium effe ac rudem damonem res~pondit 3 qui non diuftt hominibus impoftturus: But he that pretended holinefs was a more ingenious Devil. Many Anabaptifts now pretend to a gift of Prophefie. So Erafmus faith, our Henry rhe Seventh had , who calling an Aftrologer before him, asketh him, Art thou an Aftrologer ? the other anfwers, Yea 5 And (faith the KingJ canft thou tell where thou fhalt be at Eafter next ? He anfwercd No: Why then I can tell thee(faith the King,) Thou (halt lie in fuch a Prifonj whither heprefcntly fent him,and made good the Prophefie. But yet I would not have you ex- pect to fee thefe Prophefies fulfilled on every man that feems in danger. What will you fay, if men are brought into danger only to try their honefty, and then to countenance the honeft and faithfull , and difcountenance the reft ? when it- is known who it is, Qui legis , regifve metu peccare recufaty and men can diftinguifti betwixt him that fweareth,and him that feareth an Oath. Who knows but Conflantines defign is driving on ? Eufeb. tels uSylib.i.C'ii.devit. Confi, That he made an Ad that all that profe&d the Chriftian Religion, fhould give up all their Honours and Offices^and lay down Arms.Wherupon thofe that were fincere in the Chriftian Faith., defpifing Dignities and Honours, gave up all $ on the other fi Je thofe that were but Chriftians in name,denyed Chriftjeft they mould lofe their places. Which when Conftantine fa w, and had made his difcovery, he prefently put theRe- CoWed Chiftians into their Honours and Offices again, and expelled from.about him all the reft, faying^ If they were not ftithfuti to God, even to cbri ft whom they ferved s ' neither mil they be faitbfult to me , nerr will be trufly in defending me and my Government. It is an ill Opinion that is a cup of forgetfulnefs , as foon as it is drunk; the' man is drunk with it 3 and forgets his former 'friends, kindred, profeflion, promifes, felf, if if not God; Non habitus, rm ipfe color , mngrejfustMtis, Nonfpecieseademqua fuit Infants Charch-memberjhip and Baptifm. 271 ftM ante mamt. But alas, complaints are fruitlefs, we feel, we fear, but God only can remedy : Non cadcm ratio eft [entire ac teller e morvos, Senfusineftcunttis : tollitur arte malum. Ovid.hkiJe Vont. Only I adde Vrov. 10. 1%. It is a fnare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry. Yet for all this I doubt not but many a godly man Is an Anabaptift ; and that it may be faid of fome of them as it was of Scbwcnc\tfeldim> Caput regulatum lUi defir, ijje i cor bmium nondefuijfc (eo enim elogio cohoneQatiu e(l s inquit Spanbem. Diatrib. de Anabapt.% 24.) They want Regulated heads, rather then honeft well-meaning hearts, whom I can truly fay, I heartily Iove,and can live peaceably with themfand have done) if they will but confent to a peaceable life. So far am I from ever defiring them any hurt. But little know they whither that way leads, nor where it will leave them ex- cept they return 5 or if many particulars efcape, yet what wrack it ufeth to make in focieties ? Iconclude with the words of of Lafiantiusfyeaking of Satans way of temp- ting, ghtosautem piosvidcrit, vanis imfiicat religiohibus ^uliwpios facial. lnjlitut % lib. 6. cap. 4. The divels way to make godly men ungodly, is to infnare them in vain Religions. SECT. X I Am glad I am come to the laft Se&ionj for this altercation Is a weary work. I faid, They have confident expreflions to (hake poor ignorant fouls, whom God will have discovered in the day of tryall] and I fay it again, becaufe I would have it re- membred. I think on Tertulliam words, dc pnefcript. (cited alfo by Doftor Humftey Jefukif.p.642.) Htyefes apud cos valent, qui in fide non valent. Where faith is weak Herfies (2nd fo errors) prevaile and are ftrong. The folid men that Mr. T. hath perverted I never knew, nor could hear of. The greatnefs, power and va- lor of the Captive is a glory to the Conquerorscommend him when you have overcome him, though you defpife him before j i hats the way in war to animate thecommeft foldiers that are led all by fame and the policy of their guides. Whether Chrift and his Apoftles were againft Baptifm,we have enquired already. You add [that you can- not tell how to conftrue it any other then a judgement of God on men that hold fo earneftly againft Papifts, Prelates and Presbyterians too, that in Gods worfliip hu- mane inventions are to be left as willworfhip,and yet contend fo much for Infant-Bap- tifm,eH.] Anf. 1. If you mean me, as I conjecture, then I muft tell you, that after- tion is too crudely exprefTed for me to own. I never thought all things of humane in- vention in Gods worfliip, either willworfliip or unlawfull ; many circumftantials muft be for the fpecies of humane determination or invention, which God hath de- termined only In geneye 5 that is the doftrine of the old Non- conform ifts. 2. I am fully convinced that I fliould grievoufly fin againft Jefus Chrift, and undervalue his free grace and full Gofpel Covenant and mercy, if I mould keep Infants out of his Vifible Church ; And therefore why fliould I reckon their admittance among humane Inventions ? 3. You have faid fo fittle, and very nothing to prove the repeal of that Church- member(hip,which you confefs they once had, that I marvaile you can fo con- fidently call it a humane invention. 4. I never heard Presbyterians fpeak for humane inventions in worfliip, if they know it to be luch. 5. Me thinks a man fliould be Mm j nevee 272 Plain Scripture poof of .never the ncerer Gods judgements for being agalnft willworfhip; but that he that is a- gainft it in all other points, is likeft to abhor It in this •, i fliould rather fear leaft thofe that have fwallowed down humane inventions in other points, mould be in as great danger of Gods judgement in this, as they that have not. But I dire judge nei- ther. That the Papifts and Prelaticall party do, as you fay, urge Infant Baptifm to be a tradition, is no wonder, i. In that we cannot look they mould be of clean ft judgement. 1. They purpofely do it, to get credit to Church Tradition. $ . Yet they are offand on,as their inter eft carryes them. You know that Bellamime himfelf, when he is difputing for Tradition, fays as you fay : but when he isfpeaking for Infant Bap- tifm he makes it fully proveable from Scripture- For your uftimony of the Oxford Convocation in their Declaration againft the Covenant ; 1. I fee ftill,be the men what they will, fo far as a Tcftimony is for you 3 it mall be valid, a. I confefs my felf for learning unworthy to be named with many of the learned men of Oxford of the Prelaticall party, and I heartily wifh that thefe times had dealt more wifely and moderatly with them, improving and cherWiing the learning and great abilities of all of them that are of godly and fober lives; But yet in reverence to them I will not (hut mine eyes 5 Mufti needs fay, that without Tradition I mould be at a lofs about Infant' Baptifm, becaufe the uni verity of Oxford fay fo ? and all for fear of Arrogance if I (hall think my felf wifer then a fa- mous univerfit y ? No} when you have dearly and confeionably anfwered this book, then I (hall be better able in modefty to (loop to the learned Univerfity. I do not think but there was many a (ingle man in Oxford that could then have proved Infant* Baptifm from Scripture,though all together could not. You next come to that which mentions your felf and the d ifpuce, wherein though I fo praifeyou, yet I do not pleafe you 5 for you feem to be of Favorinus mind (Gell/us No fie Attic, li, lo.c 3.) Turpius eft cxigue & frigide laudari quam infeftanter vttu- ferar'h But you think that my end in mentioning this, was to glory In my imagined vidory, and crow over you in print. To clear my felf in a charge upon the fecret in- tentions of my heart - I have no way, but denying your charge; and how will you prove it? But becaufe I know God that fearcheth the heart will have the hearing of this caufe, 1 will deal freely and open to you my very heart. I dare not fay my heart k free from pride in any work 1 take in hand : I know it better then fo. But, Sir, if I have a heart that I know, then the end of my mentioning your name and the difpure, was this. I am a manalmoft fpent in a confumption : I thought with my felf (when 1 wrote that Epiftleto my deareft people as the words of a dying man) what ruin and defolatioh Anabaptiftry hath brought into all Churches , that yet entertained it 5 hew neer you lived to them, how confidently and zealoufly you prefs your opinion ; and that when I am dead, who knows what Minifter may fucceed me ? prehaps one that may endine that way > or at leaft, One that may not be able to maintain the trurh a- gainft an adverfary : therefore left they mould fall into fo fad a cafe, I thought with my felf j perhaps at leaft the very remembrance of this daies difpute (when they heard how little Mr. T. could fay, and with what poor (hifts he would have fupported his •aufe) may be a ftay to them hereafter, and if ever he triumph over any weak perfon in conference hereafter,the,y may remember this, and know that it is but through the defendants weaknefs. This was my very end, and to thisend my very confeience re- quired me to do it. And for crowing over you, alas, Sir, it was but over your ill caufe. Have you not ?ead Politians (hort tpiftle ? Doles quod Amicus in difputationc te vicer'm f Dolcrenm debts, Na» fijunt amicormcommunia omnia>non magu quam tu^vitlor ego 5 nee m^ ^m Infants Church-memberjhip and Bafttfm. 273 nits quam tuv'iftm. Sedhoc tu fortaffe doles, quod bac amicorum lege net ego plane funs viftor, qui te vici. This pride makes us all l"o tender of our credit, and to complaine of our difgrace when truth hath the credit. I am deeply fenfibleof the truth of Cby traus words ( ' ut Melcb, Adam, in ejus vita) Contumeliis qua vulgo tales babentur, nimio otio ingenia noftra infirma & muliebria , & inopia vera injuria la* fcivientia , commoventur. Venit tandem mors (?A9'Mauvjiy.» ^a^ais omnium male-rum, qua omnes pares facit, & vifto- viftorique finem aque maturum affert. Where you (ay [The moft confi derate and godly auditors thought meet to mourn, as perceiving it to have been my hour of temptation] I anf. I believe you may foon number thofe auditors on your fingers. And it confirms me in»my ap* prehenfion of your partiality in judging , that you mould take your party for the moft confiderate and godly; when for thofe of them that lam acquainted with, I never judged them to be of the higheft form for confideratenefs or go41inefs,ei- thcr before they were of your mind or fince ; at leaft methinks others feem at leatt as confederate and godly in my eye as they. You add that [I have been abufed to 6c * come an inftrument to hinder the receiving of truth, and the Ringleader of a party of men, wh» neither mind the things of Chrift, nor regard me, faving wherein they make ufe of the keennefs of my fpirit and abilities to oppdie the truth, and uphold their repute] There's many of your miftakes, Sir,in thefe tew lines, i. Who be they that thus abufe me , as you fay ? Truly, Sir, no man in the world that I know of out your fclf, and fome of the moft godly of my own people, I mean, none elfe did ever pro- voke me (that I remember,) to that difpute, but what your neighbors did for their fa- t is fact Ion. You were inceflantfo calling for my Arguments, and my hearers told me I would be guilty of much wrong to the Church of God in thefe parts, if I did not fomething. z. What party is It that mind not the things of Chrift that I am become a Ringleader to ? Ifyou mean That all that are not of your Judgement are fuch, this were the cenfure of intolerable pride : If you mean any ungodly party hereabouts, as I know them not,fo I am a Ringleader to none. I live almoft perpetually in my bed or chair or pulpit ; as Calvin faid of Caffander > fuch a larva I am that here am called ; up ; and how can I be a Ringleader to any? befides,if I had been for parties,! had ne- rer come to conteft with you : I am wholly for the* Churches unity againft all that would make parties by divifion. j. And whofe- repute did I or do I uphold ? Did I name any ? or plead for any mans credit ? fome bodies repute I perceive you would fain have down, whofefoever it is. But this paffige makes me fear leaft you mean the generality of Divines that are agalnft your opinion, feeing I medled with no mans re- pute in particular : And if fo -Oh confider whither you are fallen, if you mould think that none of us but you do mind the things of Chrift : and Cure fuch have no need of me to uphold their repute* 4. Who ever you mean, whether they regard me or not. is a thing that I lit Ac regard- Ah Sir,either I am a bafe lying hypocrite, or elfe I came to plead for God and not for men ; and did I once believe your ea^fe were Gods,I would not fleep till I had cryed you Mercy. But my full perfwafion of the contrary makes me deal the more freely witlj you. And I muft conftfs there is, as you fay, a certain keennefs of fpirit in me, partly from infirmity (Tor imbecillc spier unqut moroji) partly approved of by my judgement, which tels me I mould fpeakof every thing according to its nature, and not be remifs in a caufeof God. But yet I know not that I (hewed it that day; nor is it fo fatall to my ftile of fpeech, as of writing, where I confefs I am fcarce able to reftrain or avoid it. But, Sir, I confefs my fault,' and withall defire yott to confider, as iieidfeld faith* You hate not the Bee for her fting, but cherilh^ her for the honey. If my ftile be coo lharpe yet fee whether my matter be [not true j ui mil W- 274 flaw Scripture proof $f ceyata tantnm mordct & pwgat, alioquln dulce & utile ; fie amici libcrtas non mordci-, »> (ifiquid eft vitiofum .' it is only the ulcerated parts that hony doth bite and purgc,being otherwife fweet and profitable ; fo the free fpeech of a friend fretetk not, except there b* fomewhat faulty. No lover of truth (hculd rejeft it for a har(h ftile. lam forry you can no more patiently endure me Auriculas molles mordaci radere vcro 3 nt Perf. Sat, i. I fpeak the more freely, I confefs (though I know I (hall incur the difpfeafure of man) becaufe I remember what language the A poftles ufe to Church-dividers and difturbers ', and how the prophets fpeak of the iins even of the beft ; and becaufe I have read Ifa, 5. 20 Wo be to them that call evil good, and good evil, putting Dark" nefs for Light, and Light for Darknefs 5 which is common in thefe times wherein Sa- tan hath transformed himfelf inroan Aagel of Light,and his fervants into Miniftcrs of Light, and hath deceived men io far, as that there is fcarcean error fo vile, but it is pretended to proceed from glorious Light. I fee alfo that this Cance'tj&i a fretting and growing evil. Thofe of your Brethren in thefe countreyes who a while agoe laid out their fceal againft Infant fcaptifrn, are already preaching as xealoufly againft the God- head of Chrift. And forne of them are grown fa for, that the Parliament is faine to make anA A lately againft them that call themfelves God,and that fay whoredom,Mur. der,c>£. are no fin 3 buthe!$likeft God that committeth them, &c (we may thank ill manners for good laws. I hope their zeal will at laft be raided a little to befriend Chrift the Mediator > as well as God as Creator; and to put in one claufe againft them that (hall deny Chrift to be come in rhe flelh, or deny his Godhead, or that make a fcorn of him openly, or that prefer Mahomet before him, or that call the Scripture a bundle of lyQS 3 &c. I hope at laft they will, not only honor the Father, but Kifs the Son leaft he be angry ,and they perilh in the way ; for if his wrath be kind- led yea but a little- — ) 1 he difeafe therefore being of fo dangerous a nature, I think will not be cured by fmoothing and flattery. I remembred Prov. 24. 24. He that faith to the wicked) Thou art Righteous, him lhall the people curfe,Nationsihall abhor him. And for your felf,if I be in my ftile a little too keen 5 ic may mitigate your paflion to rt- member that it is the fruit of your owne importunity, and of no ill will in me to your perfon. Let me fpeak to you in the words of famous Doctor Reignolds in his laft E- piftle to Albericus (jentilis about Playes, Quote quod mbi obiicis te a. me traftart pefii- we- idimmcatomibiate objefiumcffetuaipfius voce convinco, &c. Quod fi plus Aloes quam mellis medicaments meis admifcui, vcl cum acrimonia potius majore tanquam adfecandum&urendum acceffi^tamenboc qit$f* a prudent e morummagijlrefcisprobari, quum nulla repeatuY alia medicina. Cicer. offic. 1. 1. Ac ego medcinam aliam fapiufcule in te expert us fruflra y banc imam fupereffe falutarem duxi, alicqui dejperandum. And read but the ftile of famous Calvin (as I know you have done) againft Baldwin and Cnjfander (adv. verfipcll. ) and fee then whether I have the twentieth part of his keennefs. 1 Where you next tell me again that [I reckon you among Heretlcksj I can but tell you again, that it is your miftake. But you have found fome opinions of mine which you fay [may and are nkento favor more of Herefie.] And what are thofe} Fain would I know them.if they be as bad as you make them. The firft is my doctrine of J unification : the harfheft part whereof is delivered in the very words of Chrift andjkwjjbut to this 1 have faid enough before. 1 would Infants Church-memhrfiif and Baptifm. 275 I would I could but get you to try your ftrength in a candid difpute about it. My next opinion favoring more of Herefie>is [univerfall Grace in Amyralds middle way avowed by me ('you ivj) in this place of my Epiftle] To which I anfw. 1. Call- chisamiftakeor a falfhood, which you pleafe, for one it is, and the more faulty in that my words we/e plain printed before you. I onlyfaid, that [The middle way which Cameroy hud. Crociu^Amyrald, Davenant go, I think is neereft the truth] I do not fay, They are the truth, but neerer then any that yet I have met with. And (to tell you freely my thoughts) it is the point of univerfal Redemption wherein I think Amyrald doth belt, and in that fas I have faid in another boo&) I approve of moft he faith. But about the Decrees I differ from him 5 efpecially thephraieof a condltion- all Decree (which he hath forfaken nowj 1 diflike. And I nowhere fpeak of his judg. ment about univerfal Grace in genera^bat only about univerfal Redemption) as ap- proved by me. i. Arc Billiop H£#,Bi(hop Carlton* Bifhop Davenant, Dr. War4 y Dr. Goad, and Bilcanqualljmd Dr.Prefion^nd Mr. BaH Heretickes? What Herefie mould this be that this doctrine favors cf? unlefs it be Chriftianity, I cannot tell. If you (hould mean Arminianifm, I pray tell me, was it not the Synod of Don that con- demned Arminianifm . ? hath any Synod done fo much againft them in the world? And were not the Brittifh Divines taken for the chiefeft flower in that garland? If you know not that they go this middleway about univerfal Redemption, read their judge - ments in the Syiiod,and you will know. And were there none fo qulckfighted in that famous learned AfTembly as to difcern the Doctrines which favor of Herefie in the Ye- ry points which they affembied to extirpate? And why hare all thefe Divines been re- puted the moft Orthodox and excellent oppofers of Arminianifm ever fincetili now ? And was learned Martini us an Arminian ? and Lud. Crocim an Arminian ? fure they were taken for lingular and eminent men in the Synode of Don againft the Arminians. Read but their excellent Thefes delivered in the Synod , and you will fee that they maintained the fame doctrine there which they do in their bookssand as plainly; and yec then It was net accounted to favor of HerefiejWas not Carnero taken for the ableft man m alhhofe Churches againft Arminianifrne^and do not his writtings witnefs it? And yet you may fee him in his Epiftle to L. C. a{Terting,thefame doctrine as Amyraldus. Are the generality of theDivines of the univerfity of Salmurium&f Breme^of Beroline>d\ Arminians > Yet Rivet and Spanbem, will tell you that they go this way ? yea.(tfV#- dcline fpeaks of reformed Trance in the Generall) And a reverend learned, eminent Doctor of CarKbridgetdsmcthztBifaopvJber is of the fame Judgement; and he was never taken to favor of Arminianifm.. And to confirm me in it , I have lately re- ceived from a pious judicious Gentleman a Manufcript of Bi(hop vjhers in refolution of the queftion of univerfall Redemption, determining it juft as Martinws, Davena.nl and the reft moft folidly and excellently, (hewing the two extreams and the danger of them. And from the fame my much honored friend, I have received a Manufcript of Doctor Staughtons,being a Latin difputation in Cambridge of the manner of the work of Grace in conversion, wherein 3s he difputes for a middle way, below that of anew creation in the way of the fpirits Regenerating, To about Redemption he hath thefe words, Redemptio ex abfoluta intcnttonefaivandi, ad Ele-ttm foios per met , licet fuffici- entiapretii (it Universale Remedium, volnitfy Dem ui it a effet, nequls indeexclujumfe quereretur : tamen Voluntate Propofiti (lit loquitur Keverendm Sarisburienfis ) illius efficacia elcclis tantum deftinatur^&c. And that Doctor Pre (ion goes the fame way,you may fee fully in his treatifeof faith,/>*g. 8.9. io. And let me tell you that Judging by weight and not by number, (becaufe as Temb'.e faith in the fearch of knowledge, it is as in defcrying a thing far ©flf, where one quick fight will fee further then a thoufand N n dear 276 Plain Scripture proof of clear eyes ) In my eftimatlon, earner 0, Math. Martini us, Croc'tut, Cafellm^ Atxyrah d^Davcnant^Prefion, Staughten^ vJhey.Bally do weigh down five thoufaniof out vulgar Divines. Yea Lrhink it will be found that the Synod of Dort that were deftroyers of Armini*, tnifme, went in or neer this middle way which you fay isneerer Herefie : As. may! be feen in Canon a. J. 4. 5« *• Artie. 2. deRedcmpt. Though many younger hot-fpurs' of late do quite outgo the Synod, and look on Auftins doctrine as Auflin did on the. Pelagians. Yea when Rivet himfelf repeating Camera's own words (Dijp. 6. § 10. 1 1.) concludeth that thofe that go that way, do agree with all the Orthodox in fenfe, and differ only in the manner of expreflion. And yet is ic fuch a fault ? However, in my. Judgement,if any man that ever breathed in the Church of Chrift may claim'the pri- viledge of being thought free from Arminianifme, it is Doctor Twijfe$ If I (hould fay more then he hath done , I may expect (and hope,) that my book (hould be burnt as Mr. Archers was. And yet I believe you know, that Doctor Tviffe is downright for ttniverfall Redemption in this middle way r : yea and that he maketh very great ufe of it to anfwer all texts brought by the Arminians.I think I gave you inftances enough, in the end of my Aphorifmes. Confider ofTilenus reduction of the Synod of D the world he only over-ruleth as Rebels) yet ftill he hath the Tide, and is their Rightful Lord, even when they deny him. Let Mr. T. but perufe all thofe examples which BlondeUus brings . out of antiquity, efpecially in England and France (de Jureplebis in regim. Ecclef. pag. 5*. 53- S4- 5?« 5^0 °^ Princes being prefi dents of Synods Ecclefiaftical , and then judge whether they took themfelves to be the fervants of the Mediator : And let him read (if he have not,) what Grtftius (de Impcrio (umm.pote(l,circa facri) faith for themj and judge whether that power come not from Chrift. Sure as Grotius himfelf, fo Na- ?ian%en-> and the Bohemian conkSion cited by him. p. 808. do all fay as I J which take together. SpeciaUs lUaChriJU procidentia pro Ecdefia excubans, Vicarias Jibi adfcifcit cafdem poteflates vera fidei patronas> Chrijlium ofculantes , qmbus ipfis Ckriflus fuum quo% nomen impertit. Hi funt Reges & proceres quos Na^ian^nus ait 3£/r£ cvvet^Hf 9 ;£/r£ Gvv£iQiKHv , non xquali confortw poteftatu (abfittam impia cogitatio) fed Vicario Jure. Quomodo &illud fumendum Bohemias Confcjfiemsy Magiftratuum commUnem effe cum agno poteftatem^. And were thefe all meer Hereticks } Many the like teftimonies out of antiquity might be cited : particularly in the treatifes de Jurifditti* $ne pyincipum collected by Simon Scbardius. I will name but one ofthem+itiEpiJiola Leodienjium cont. Pajchalem. Admoneri quidem poffunt (lmpcratorcs) increparl, argui a difcretis viris(excommunicari ant mimime ant difficile)quia quos Chriftus in terris Rex Regumvictfazconflitvit, damnandos & falvandos fuo judtcio retiquit. Were all thefe Divines ncer Herefie in this ? Doctor Fownes fcemes to own both my fuppofed Heretics togetherjwhen he fait& [Chrift is called 3 Lord for his eternall power before all time : but the Lord and God of the world and of bis Cteft after the Creation and Redemption thereof. There is no change or new thing in God; but as the coin of filver without any change in fub- ftance, beginneth to be the pr ice of that is bought 5 fo C hrift is Lord of his creature, not by any change in the Deity* but the newnefs, the change is in the Creature : His Humanity is Lord of All creatures by theperfonal union to tlie Godheadi and the right of his merit. Do&or Forvncs of Chrifts three offices lib. 3. cap. a. It is a brave worlj when it muft be accounted Herefie to fay that Chrift is Lord of All; and All Power in Heaven and earth is given to him, and fo All derive^ from himj and to de- fire Kings and judges to kifs the Son lea ft he be angry and they periih. Whether is worfe, to put Magiftrates out of the Church as the old Anabaptifts did ? or to put them from under Chrift? And what (hould they do in the Church if they be not under Chrift? If Magiftrates have not their power from Chrift , why (hould they exercife it for Chrift ? If they govern us not as (-hrift ians, but only asmen a thentj'-ey may no more encourage a Chrift ian then a Turk, whereas they bear rhe i word for the encou- Nn 2 ragement 2 7 8 P/4/tf Scripture proof of ragement of them that do well,/fa/«.x j. And do not Chriftians do well in worfhipping Chrift . ? Eifeif the Magiftrate as Mofcs> fee an ifraeliie and an Egyptian driving, a Chriftian and a Pagan, he may not take the Chriftians part any more then the others, nor may do any thing towards the fetting up of Chrift more then of Mahomet in the land> as a Magiftrate I Sure Mr. Vil's Sermon againft Reformation came from this fountain 1 Then it Ceemes Kings muft be no more nurfing Fathers to the Church, then to any Heathen fociety , contrary to the prophefie. And if the Magiftrates govern us not as Chriftians, but as men only, then they may not punifh men for offending a- gainft Chrift, nor for Blafpheming him , or drawing men from him, nor may they jeftr3in any Herefie or fin againft him : whereas they are fet to be a terror to and exe- cute wrath on them that do evil, Rom. I g . And is nor Blafpheming Chrift, or teach- ing falfe doctrine evil } By what right then did the Magiftrates take dowr/high places and falfe worfhip formerly ? Doubclefs the very moral Law now is the Law of Chrift, and therefore if the Magiftrate muft not fee Chrifts Lawes executed, and rule accor- ding to them, then according to none : fome fay , they rule only by the Laws of the Land : But they firft make thofe Laws of the Land 5 the fuprcam powers are above jhofe Laws - y therefore if the magiftrates govern us not as Chriftians. but as meiyhen they may not make any Laws for us as Chriftians > nor againft men as cfrenders'a- gainft Chrift, feeing the Legislative power is the chief of their power. But I forget my felf. I will fay but this , All magiftrates ihall find at Judgement that they are un- der Chrift the Mediator. But M. 7. hath yet found out in me an Herefie indeed,as he thinks : and that is for being againft him for infant Baptifm.He faith, I am more juftly chargeable with Here- fie, for altering Chrifts way, &c Anftver, 1.S0 he told them in his Pulpit, That ie was Herefie to maintain Infant Baptifm from the ground of Circumcifion. See the partiality of this man I he may call our Doctrine Herefie in Prefs and Pulpit blame - ltfly 5 . but he may not hear his own called fo in a Dream. Again, I tell you , I never called you Heretick, nor doth it grieve me to be called fo by you. You proceed to the difpute and fay, That [ they might hear how little you did fay, but furely they could not hear in that difpute hew little you could fay , much lefs how little Anabaptifts can fay, &c ] Anftver , x. We know none of them fo able as your felf, and therefore if you cannot fay it, we may well ceafe our expectation of it. 3. And when will you make us believe, That infix, hours free difcourie you did not lay what you could ? But you fay,[That we may know by this, and your other writings and Sermons, that you can fay more then you faid then.] By this ? Why , what is in this ? afairbufinefstoboaftofindeed I 1 have read your writings, and heard your Sermons repeated for the moft part, (for truly I could not intreat my felf to Joofe fo much time as to hear them all, ) and I muft needs fay, fome weak arguments you eafi- ly anfwer 5 but they that will be brought to your judgement by fuch difcourfes , are in my eyes very ignorant or tractable fouls. But we fee now, I hope, what you can fay> and if this be all, I dare fay , Men are in mwe/iMigtr by their own weaknefs,then by the fltength of your arguing. « But yet you fay, [ you anfwered enough, notwithftanding your care to fay no more then wasnecefiary (i.e. to fill the peoples ears, leaft they mould think you at a lofs) and your naturall hefitancie in anfwering an argument at the firft hearing.] Anfivcr y This hefitancie muft bear the blame of an ill caufe. But why then faid you no more after- ward in your Sermon, and here in this writing upon deliberation ? Are you not here heficant alfo ? But alas, what a ft ir is here about the Credit of a difpute ! Rather then we will difler aboat it, S*tvd veritate, the victpry ihall be yours. Heidficld, tells you of two 1 Infants Church- member [hip and Baptifm. 279 two brethren that had lived long together, and never fell out, they were of fuch 'meefc difpofitions : at laft faith one of them, Brother, wbatjbift do men mal^e to fall out ? let's fee if you and I can do it- /ffy,faith the other,*** mufl ta^e this rile {or fome fuch thing) an.lfct it betwixt us, and I mufl fay it is mine, and you mufl fay it is yours, and fo we tnufl grow hotter and hotter : fo theyfet the Tile between them, and one faid, it is mine,thc mherfaid, it is not, but it is mine* why then (quoth the otherj ft is yours Brother, take it ; and fo they could not fall out j for he could contradict but once. And fo, Sir, if you will, the houor of the victory (lull be yours, faving the Credit of the Truth. And for the Packing you fpeak of, to cry up a Baxter & I profefs to know of no fuch packing, fo I am confident it is your fiction ; and if you pleafe, you (hall cry him down again, and let them cry up you; and then all is well, I will take the name of Heretick, and MaftifFDogg, fo we may be but friends. But you g come on with the full ftrength of your Reafons, why I could not argue from the Church- Membership of the Jew* In- fants to that of ours ? And what is the fumm of all your reafons now upon deliberation in full force? Why, [becaufe the vifible Church of the Jews, was the whole Nation brought into Covenant together by Abraham and Mofes without previous inftru&ion j but the Chriftian vifible Church had another State and Conftitution, being gathered by Apoftlesar\d other Preachers, by teaching them the Gofpelj and thereby making them Difciples j fome in one Countrey, City, Family, fome in another j no one Countrey, or City, or Tribe together, &c ] This is your ftrength : And, Sir, can you be angry with a man for not being converted to your way by fuch fluff as this ? I muft defire the reader to fee all this anfwered to the(hame of it in the beginning of this book. 1. Did Abraham bring a whole Nation into Church fellowfhip? or a family only ? 2. Nay when will you prove that Abrahams family was not a Church before circunv ciGon »s well as after ? $. Did Mofes gather any new Church? or were not ifraeliii Egypt a Church before Mofes 7 and-did he not only renew the Covenant, and give them Laws ? 4. When you fay, They did bring them into Covenant without previous inftrucVton, either you mean the Infants, or the reft, or all ? If the lnfants,t hats but to beg the queftion ; why may not we do fo now (even by our own Infants and others that are made ours ? (as Ge. Calixtm faith Epit, Theol. C. de Bap. ) They were brought into Covenant but by others. If you mean the aged, it is fuch an untruth as me thinks the fillyeft preacher of the Gofpel (houid never have uttered .* Doth not God fay, He knowes that Abraham will teach his hourtiold > Doth not Mofes reach them fully and frequently? Doth not the Covenant imply knowledge and confent?Do they Covenant to they know not who not what> And is Abraham and Mofes fo baibaroufly uncharit- able that they will force men to Covenanted never teach them what ihey do, nor who that God is that they take for their God,nor that there is fuch a God, nor that they muft heartily fo take hin> } nor what he will be to them, and do for them ? Or could they be compelled toCovenant whether they would or no?Is not all Mofes writings & Jofhuas Jnviting them to 3 voluntary covenanting contrary to all this ? Or is it not a (name to mention fuch a thing? and to feign men to be fuch blocks, and God to be delighted in fuch worfhip and Covenanting, as to have men engage themfelyes,to take the Lord only for their God, and Love him above all,and ferve hirnfwhich was their part of the Covenant) without knowing before hand whether there were a God, and who he $, and what it is to Love and ferve him, and whether they muft io do, or no> and fo to promife they knew not what, to they knew not who ? this Covenant fo made, was like to be well kept. Thffektnd of rl&ions are the ground of your opinions. 5, Sir, if you were nay father, I would tell you, that when you fay [Chrifts makes Nn z no 280 Plain Scripture froofef no one City, Country, Tribe, his Difciples] you (p-vikmoft malignantly and wic* kedly againft the Kingdom and dignity of my Lord Jefus. Hath he not commanded to Difciple Nations ? Hath not the Father promifed to give him the heathen or Na- tions for his Inheritance, and the uttermoft parts of the earth for his pofleflion?P/ I think you be not j Or at leaft is there ne- ver a godly family as Abrahams was ? You cannot be ignorant that the term [Difci- ples] in Scripture is given to more then the fincerely godly. 6. I have told you enough before that Mofes and Abraham did no more in this, then Mafters and Princes may and mould do now, and I am forry that you are one that would not have them do it j and that the Apoftles were fent to profelyte thofc that were no Church.members,and fo were the profelytes made before Chrifts time ; And fo,as they received in Baptifm an efie novum & rem nevam per quam efficitur home novm y ita ttiam & nomen novum ChrifHant\ y ut Raymundus de Sabundti. Tbeol. nat. titi 282. You conclude that this was enough to anfwer my main Argument 5 And have not you a commandable rather then a commendable j udgement, that can bring yoar felf to think fo ? and prefently put from you all your sbfurdityes too. I remember Mr.' Hrrle's words in his Contemplations p. a 57. [Pilate hath warned his hands and he is free, and blind too, and let them fee to it : Defire, it is the itch of the heart.and if not ftopt, 'tis catching, and at length infeds the brain too. How eafily do Indulgence and felf-love claw Defire into- Opinion ? The fool would faine have it that there were no God, and at lengto he dares fay it in his heart. Pilate would faine be free from blood, and now the defires of his heart have warned his hands,and his tongue hath wiped them, Jam free.'] You think you have now hidden the fhame and nakednefs of your ill caufc : As Calvin faid ad Pfeudonicodetms p. (mbi) 718. idem iUU acciiit quod perdiabut > que fe bene latitare put ant invent a latebra ad Caput occult an dum : Co you. You fay, I fhewedyouttot your abfurdities in private conference ? That was,becaufc It was not my bufinef* or purpofe to make you angry. You fay [it (hewes a very great height of pride in me, to take on me to judge yourfpirir, and uncharitablenefs or malignity to- wards you, who would thuscenfure you, &c~\ Anf. Let the reader review whats (aid to this before, and judge, whether it be not as clear as the light. For the delay you ufed before you wrote > I anfwer : 1. Many other reafons might move you to that. a. I doubt not but your conscience was tenderer then, then now. Or, it may be it is the nature of your Opinion to benumm at the firft , and incite afterwards,as a blow on the head , or a wound in the flefh , doth not firft raife fmart. Mattbiolus writes of an Afs (donot miftakc me, and think I compare you to the beaft, for 1 do nor; it is but the nature of the difeafethat I fpeak ofj that having eaten Hem- lock was eaft by it into fo dead a fleep that the owner took her for dead , and begun to flay ofT the skin, and the Afs never wakened till the skin was halfflayedoffcand then Ihe ftart up, and run about with a hideous noyfe and loathfom fight. I have been acquainted Infants Churcb-memberjhip and B4f)tifm. 2 8 1 acquainted with fome Anabaptifts that when they were firft infe&ed, got their Books in private, and kept all fo clofe to themfelves, while they were ftudying the point, and fetling upon their Lees, that no body almoft knew it for fome years, and then they ftart our and hare ever fince been like Sampfons Foxes with fire-brands at their Tails in the Church of Chrift ; even fuch is their labor in the Harveft, to burn in ftead of gathering 5 to divide and fo deftroy ; not confidering , that Connexa omnia & ordin.ita "haberi oportct, ne quod ad folatium eft, ad torturam fit : Inutilia horologia funt difjoluta. A Clock or Watch in pieces will be ufelefs, faith Euf. Nuremberg, de arte voluntjib.^, cap'7*pag.i6$. For your [delaying to Preach at Sewdelcy that yon might be fatisfied,and defift from pleaching what you intended, or go more furely to work, &c] This is untrue, or ftrange. Sir, 1. You never fent a word to me (as manifefted) for any thing towards your own fatisfa&ion. 2. Nor could that be your end, when I could never perfwadc you there was a difficulty in the point , but you faid we all differed from you through wilfulnefs or negligence. You magrievance,that he hath neither found that Love of Truth, Candor, nor Love to him either before, in, or fince the Difpute as he expected from me.] Anfwer : i.F.or Love to Truth, the Lord grant I do not over- love it : To what I hare faid of this before, I add my hearty fub- fcription to Eudam his wUh. (lib.^de jijfe .) Vt'inam tarn confertis mambus compertam comprcbm[am$j vcritatem femel ret'me-te poffemvs qulm protinus agnitamfiflivis oculis bilares cxofcidamur ! {vidjdtr.) 2. And for Loyeto you, I do here folemnly pro- fefs in his fight that knows my heart, that I do entirely and unfeignedly Love you : (But what the better are you for that <) and all the fcul miftakes that I meet within you, I impute 1. to your bad caufe, z. to the common depraved nature of man, having by fad experience in this Age, found it in almoft all men that I have tryed, and moft in my felf, that the heart of man is dcceitfull above all things, and mortally or defperately wicked : And therefore all thefe things do not much diminish my affeftions to yon, becaufe I &ndc we are All -naughty even All almoft fia;\ Might ; and that Saints have lefs fan&ity,and more fin in them. them ever I imagined* and that the pardoning mercy of God, and- daily need of Chrift's blood, is far greater to the Saints then ever 1 dreamt of 5 which makes me have more cm furious thoughts of depraved nature in general , and lefs cenforioufnefs of particular perfons as compared one U another then ever I had in my life j and more and more ft ill to abhor the Ant'momian dotages , that would take w cftfrom confeffion, humiliation andbegging pardon* Why rSi VUin Scripture froof of Why may we not write plainly againft one anothers judgement by a loving confent ? as Ludovic.Capellus (v'd. Epijl* ante Epicrifin) and Cloppenburgius^ and fo others have done 5 that fo each one producing his thoughts, the Truth mayappear»> May it not be your own indifpofition or mh'-apprehenfion that may make that feem unlovely and unfriendly which is not fo ? Fit ew.m tit qui palatum & Unguetm muito Abfynthio babcnt infeftam , in quicquid deinde guftarivt* fapiat abfyithium 5 in res nonjapiunt idquodfimt^fcdidquodfcawi afftrunt , inquit C.Dietencus Antiqukat. Blblic.Dedi- catione. vt Pucri quanddj. potiomm haufturi amaramjrtfmtiunt acerbitatcm, (ormidme humor et?t i/iquintme linguce. Itay.non potio acerbat , fid opinio. Juvat cxiflimationem malerum dep&nere ,&c.inqait EufiHier ember g. (Seneca (ecundus) de arte valuntatisji j c.i 9. p.213. Lepide pcritus coquus Mediolguenfi Vuci pofl beUum infaliciter gcslum cum Flm-enttHii 3 reprobontiepulat f refpbndtt: Si Florcntini tibi guflum anferunt 3 ipfe in culpa, nonero: Cibijucundi funt. Sed te nimium concalefaciunt & appetitu bojles pi want* IdemNiermberg.!ib.6.c.tf.p.46o. Some men are fo kardtobepleafcd, that he hath need to be a higher Artiit in Man pleating then I,that can do ir 5* when I fay nothing you are difpleafed, and more when I fpeak. Seneca de Ira lib. 3. c.8. fpeaks oiLtliui the Orator, that being mortalmm iracundi ffwms clienti fuo in omnibus fibi co?ifentienti > irafcens exclar/utvit ; Die aliquid contra me, ut Duo fimus. For your felf, Sir, I yet verily take you as a friend to me, and believe you wi(h me well ; yea, both your felf and many of your judgement I take to be friends alfoto the Church, and heartily to defire in generall its welfare , though you miftake in the particular means thereto ; But yet let me tell you that as it is written ofAntigomu, that he daily prayed God to defend him from his friends, for he did not much fear his Enemies : fo do I; efpecially, for this poor State and Church. Oh that God would fave us from fuch friends, to whom all our Enemies are as nothing ; I mean both reall miftaking friends, and alfo feeming ones: For Trita frequenfy via ej% ftr amici fattere nomenz Trita, frequenfa licet fit via, crimen baket. Ovid* lib.i* de art. What a jeft is it, that you (hould expeft that in my Eplftle I mould have mentio- ned your Letter about Truth and Peace, or elfe I deal not fairly with you ? when Jet I make no mention of you at all ; and if I had intended you, who could know it? You give me too high a commendation , when you can produce nothing but mana- ging this bufinefs with you , to teftifie my ways to be far from Truth and Peace. I mall difpleafe you, to tell you this plain truth : How far Anabaptiftry is from the Churches Peace, Germany hath felt and England is feeling : and how far the men are friends to Truth, both Theological and Moral, Hiftory hath already begun to fpeak 5 and I truly fear, that the fupplement of this age, will turn the Proverb of Fides G>*ca & Fides Punica , into Fides Ambaptiflica. For [ my Neighbours danger in their high efteem of me] which you fpeak of , fo far as it is faulty, I am as ready to help on the cure of it as you would have me •* But hitherto I think it hath not occafioned much their hurt. Certain I am,that a high efteem is by God comman- ded, 1 Thef 5. 11.13. and fall certain that fuch a high efteem of theMiniftery is not the courfe that the Anabaptifts (of my acquaintance) ufe to teach the people, nor thcmfelves to pra&ife 5 and that the dif-efteem of Minifters hath been the Po- tent preparative ro the ruine of many a foul and Church. For the private Letters you mention between you and me,your frequent mif-reports have made it alrnoft neceffary that I hereto annex them , for the world to fee what caufe I had to hold off from writing, and who was the importunate folicitor hereto3 but that I am loth fo much to trouble the Reader. To Infants Church -member flnp andBaptifm. 28 5 To conclude. • I here folemnly profefs, Sir , as a dying man, that I have weighed your Rcafons as faithfully and impartially as I was able j and if I mould not fpeak another word, I muft needs fay 3 that to my beft apprehension they feem to me but meer miihkes and vanities 5 I am not Mafter of my own understanding, and there- fore cannot be of what judgement I will ; or if I cewld, yet I am willing of none but the right. You cannot yet drive it into my head, that it is a Mercy to be out of the vifible Church of Chrift , nor a mifery to be in it ; nor that it is a benefit to the Parents that all their children are kept out : Nor yet that Chi id is a harder Matter then Mofcs y or lefs mcrcifull under the New Teftament then under the Old : Nor have you proved to me yet that he hath Repealed the Church-memberfhip of Infants, nor (hewed me the Scripture where any fuch thing is written. When I think of Chrift taking Infants in his Arms, and faying, Suffer tbem to come to me 3 mi forbid them not y I cannot think he* would have them all left out of his vifible Church. Me thinks ra» ther his bowels of love yeanr towards them y qd. -Afyice vultWi Ecce meos, utinamfy oculos in petiole pojfes Inferere, &patrios intus deprehendcrt amores. He that hath made his Covenant fo large , and his Grace fo free, hath not left out the Infants of his people , who as is confeffed, were once in. And he thatcompa* reth his love to his Church, to that of a woman to her fucking children, no doubt js tenderer of fuch then we j for he carryeth the Lambs in his Arms, and gently driveth thofe with young ; and he defpifeth not the day of fmall things. If I be miftaken in all this (as I confidently believe I am not ) the Lord mew me fpeedily my miftakes ^ If you be miftaken (as I verily believe you are,) the Lord bring you back to hisTruth, and keep you from further renting his Church j and make you more profitable then now you are hurtfuli, that there may be no more death in the pot of your Dodrine, to be a grievance to the godly ,and a hindrance to the fuccefs of your more commenda- ble Labours, Et Sic mage principio grata Coronls mt. Oo AN 284 AN Advertifement to the READER. ! Hough I have fomd Godfo cr of sing me infuch resolutions, that I cannot promife to write no more on this fubjecl, yet I think mret to let you knoW that I am fully fo purpofed. My Reafons are theje. I. I am unlikely to live to fee Mr. Ps y*s£nfwer to thL. 2. If I fhould,yet 1 find the fubjeU is not of that nature > at to be very feafonabU vrfwtet to a dying man, One fieri- vus thought of my Reft, doth Might me more then a hundred of Baptifm. 3. 1 find that atfuch Controverfies occafion difcentents and heart -turnings, andfi both hurt thofe that we oppofe, -and tend to difcompofe our ownjpi- rUt-, and rvuch unfit us for Hfe tor death. 4* I find aifo that they had to vain ftrivings and exchange of Words, and diminution of Chriftian Love -and Peace ; but when once the Truth is Tefitively afferted, and backt with fufficient Arguments, all writings after that, Will do but little to the infor- mation of the Readers 3 but manifefi only the parts of the Contenders^and fill the Wor-ld withftrtfe. Ht that -cannot fa the Truthin this,wiR not ft* it in twenty Books more, %. his more like afcold then a Chriftian to ft rive for the laft word ; and thofe men Who will judge him in the right thatffeakj luft 9 with \ lightly be on his fade that lives longeft, and not on his that Jpeaks true ft, 6. If God Jhould further protract my life, I have Work of far greater moment to do : and I know it to be a fin, to be doing a lejfer good^ when I fhould be doing a greater. 7, I dlfcern already what Mr. T. can fay, by his writings, his Difpute, and our private conference : and having propounded many of thefe fame to my refolution ; but now I have fat is fed my confidence y in leaving the world this Teftimonj for the Truth , and again ft the mif car- riages of thefe men. 8. In a Word, ifMt. T. inftead of a fatisfablory t>A»^ fwer do hut multiply vain words , as hitherto he hath done, to what end ' / reply f If he give a fat is fall or y Anfwer, I defirenotto Reply; btat if I live to fee it, J ' prontife the World to publifh my recantation. I .1 num^may fay fomething a* long as he can {pea fa and the worft caufe nf»y be horn out with the great eft confidence and pretending to the truth : I kmW tilfo that it is a great encouragement to Mr. T. to <^fnfwer % when fire k^no^fs he Jhall have no Reply ; but little care I for feeming to be conquered, when I have once difcharged my duty for the Truth. That words Jhould do good on Mr.T. (ejpeciaHy fuch as are fpoken in oppofition, andfeemto him to diminijh his reputation) Ihavefmallhope: But that Gods Judgements, (Which he now makes jo light of) may at laft convince him, I am not altogether hopelefs. For, as I fee and hear of di- vers of the leaders of that Way, Who, when they have run themf elves out of breath, and gone through every form in the School of feduQion , and taken a tafte of every falfe Way, do at laft retreat , and come to themfelves again (when they are Wearied with the vain pur fiuit of feeming truth y and have perverted more fouls then they can ever recover ;) So alfo Cjod doth fo ftrangely follow the mo ft of them with his judgement, giving them up to that height of delufion and perverfnefs , that they flop at no mean degree of Error : The late leading T eachers of them in thefe parts, are already preaching down the Godhead ofChrijhandpoor fouls begin to believe, that they cannot be faved except they deny the Godhead of their Saviour, (by na- ture:) (Befides allthofe that turn Ranters or Blajphemers , andthofe that have gone diftr ailed, of Which we could give a fuller account then is now feafonable.) God may giveMr.T* a heart to confider of this at laft y andto return \ EjpeciaHy when one twelve years more experience hath taught him, that his labor to bring men to his judgement, is moftly vain ; it being but a preparing them j "or fome further Errors , and an opening the gate to a longer journey, except the extraordinary mercy of Cjod, or the late Ac~b of Parliament reft rain them : and then they Will be further from his judgement then I am , or then they Were before. (Or if this my Warn- ing may be a means to flop them , I jhall think it feafonable , though un- gratefully) zAndforme, if my T)oclrinebe Here fie % and there be none in Heaven but fuch as Were againfl Infant -Baptifm( as When he faith [Thei r o 2 blood 7$6 An Advcrtifcmcnt to the Reader. blood be on their oWn beads, 2 m£ » ma J **filj ****£ he means,) then Hea- ven is very empty, not one having er.tr -ed till about 15c years ago ; Or, if his ponderous Fryers Were true Witneffes, not till about 5 Oq or 6&oyearf ago, be being not able to name one man that ever before gain [aid Infwt- Baptifm(for ought I can yet learn by him or any other,) nor any Jew jo ma* IkioHS 06 to charge Chrift with the unchurching of Infants, evenWhen they rake up all they can again ft his Doctrine : Even When they moft bitterly complain of him, for teaching their children fhould not be Circumcifed, A&. 21.21 .yet do they never once open their mouthes againft him for offer- ing topjut out their children from the vifible (fhurch • which yet is fo much greater a matter then the former, that it it to the utmofl of my rea- fon an utter improbability , that thofe fame Jews fiould all pafs it over -without offence, and neither they, nor any one (fhriftian fo much as raife one doubt or que ft ion about it ; having been fo many thoufand years in poffeffion of it , and their children being naturally fo dear to all. AN AH APPENDIX, Being fome brief ANIMADVERSIONS On a Tra&ate lately publiflied BY M r - Th. Bedford; And honored with the great names and pretended concent of famous, Learned, Judicious Davenant and V/hcr, with an Epiftle of Mr. Cnwford, and a Tractate of Dr. Ward t (on which alfo fome Animadversions are added. ) ALSO An Addition to the fifteenth Argument, Chap. 20. of the firft part of this book, concerning the Univerfall Vifible Church, occafioned by Mr. Sam. Hudfons moft judicious Vincjjcation. AND Some Arguments againft the old and new Socinians , who deny the continued ufe of Baptifm to fetled Churches, occafioned by the late eruption of that Error. For in Chrifl fe/us neither Circumcifion availetb any thing, nor uncircumoifwn 5 but Faith which wor\eLh by Love. Gal. J. 6. Col. 3. 11. Rom. 2. 28, 29. 1. Cor. 7- *9- 1 thanli G °d l ^ at J B'apti^ed none of you, but Crifpus and Gaius. For Chrijlfent me not to Bapti-^e but to preach the GofpeU. 1. Cor. 1. i4> 17. Simon himfelfalfo believed, and was Baptised. Thouhafl neither part nor lot in Ms matter 5 for thy heart u not right in the fight of God. For 1 perceive that thouart in the gall of bitternefs and bond of iniquity. Aft. 8. 1 3 , 2 1 3 2 3 . London^ Printed,-4»#0 T>om>\6'$i z$o mdfenftble order ofthefpirits working in his converfion ; as being now czr* tain (After many a fad jeer upon that miftake) -both by the experience of my own foul, and multitudes ofgracUus Chriflians,Vchom I have examined herein, and efpecially by the Word of God, that Cjods fir ft time in hisufu- all courfe to Vwk^ on the fouls of the feed of his people, is in their childhood, to which end he hath appointed the diligent godly education and inftrutlion by the parent s,to be a means foregoing the publike Aftniftry and will not be Wanting to his own means (though t he Vv or d convert many that have neg- lected their parents, or been negleBed by them) But as I know not the time of the fpirits cafting in the feed, whether immediately before the Ailing, 0r long before it : foifl didknoVv it to be the former, it fbould not make me deny the efficacy of the Covenant , or the Priviledges of believers feed, nor to affix a wrong tndto thefeal, nor to overlooks thefecret differencing vorl^of thefpirit, which proceedeth from Bletlion , and is proper to the faved, How exceeding prone are we flefhly men, toftefhly dotlrines and worjhips I As we are led by fence, fo we turn our eyes ftilltofenfible cbjecls. Hence all the Ceremonies and Formalities that behave weary ed Cjod With* aAnd when we are driven from thofe of our own invention, (Which yet is not eafily done)we will lay all upon the externals of Gods own prefer ibing* The Lord fend forth fo much of his fpirit, as may teaches to worfhip in fpirit and in truth \ and to kntfto what this meanethy I will have Mercy and not facrijiceo Wick- Infants Ch*rch-mcml>erjhip and Baptifm. 291 Wickleffe in Trialogo. U. 4. cap. *». pag. 1 10. ^Efpondco (de/alute Jnfaniit non-bapti%ati) concedendo quodpDeia V9« luerit, potefl damnare lnfantem tatem fine injuria fibi facia 5 &fivo- luerit y potefl ipfum falvare : Necaudeo partem alteram definite -> nee labtrro circa reputationem y vet evidentiam in ifla materia acquirendam% fedut mutm fubticeo, confitens humiliter meam ignorantiam, verbis conditionalibiti »fitando y quod non claret mihi adbue fi tain infans a. Deo falvabitur five dmnabitur ; Sedfcio, (juicquid in ipo Deus fecefit, erit\uftum % & opus mifericordU a cunc~l$ fidelibus collaudandum. iUi autem qui ex authoritatefua s fine foientia in ifla materia quicquam definimt , tanquam prtfumptuofi & ftolidi non fe fundanU Zuinglws de Bapt, Tom. a. p.~C l*b. ANd when this opinion was every where [o ralhly and without confideration re- ceived, that all men believed, that faith was confirmed by fignes (thai is efficient* ly : miiek mare when they fay it U ln$rumentaUy wrought by them at firfi) we muft necef- farily t*pe& this fad iffue, that fome Ihould even deny baptifm to Infants. For how (hall it confirm the faith of Infants (much lefs infufe the feed) when it is manifeft that they as yet have not faith ? Wherefore I my felf (that I may ingenuoufly confefs tie truth) fome yeers agoe, being deceived with this error, thought it better that chil. drens biptifm fliculd be delayed' till they came to full age : Though I never broke forrh in that immodtfty and importunity, as fome now do, who being young (raw) and ignorant, more then is meet for fuch a bulincfs, do ufetoput foiththemfelves a crying out that Infant Baptifm is from the Pope and the Divel with fuch like curfed cruel and horrid fpeeches* Conftancy and fortitude »■ a Chriftianl vehemently ap* prove : but this kind of madnefs and rage, voide of love and of all order of Chriftian rnodefty, me thinks, mould be approved by no godly man, but only by fierce and fc- ditious difpofitions. Whitatyrui Qrefercnte D. Sam. Hudfou Vwdic. ejjent. & unit. Ecclef. Cathoi. f&4%}). Infants are to be Baptized, not lhat they may be Koly, bmt becaufc they are Holy. Aritma cnim non LavttUne fed Refpofionefancitur.JTcrtull, de Kcfm/eH. c. 4$. THe four famous Ley den proftflbrs in Synopf.pur* 7he. 6op. We do nottyethe efficacy of Baptifm to mat moment when the body is wafhed, but we do with the Scripture, prerequire faith and repentance in All that are to be bapm ed j at leaft, according to the Judgement of Charity : And that as well in Infants that 3re within the Covenant 3 In whom by the power of Gods blefling and of the Gofpel Covenant^ we aifirme, that there 2s the feed and fpirit of faith and Repentance - } as in the aged^in whom the profeffion of A&uall faith and Repentance is neceffary. (So that thefe learned msnaie fo far from taking it to be the end of Baptifm cobe Pp a* 292 Plain Scripture proof of an Inftrament of operating this feed and fp'uit in the hearts of Infants, that they e- ver expect it as prerequilite, a. and that in Sincerity (in them in the fee*d, in others in the Act) at leaitin probability itrauft befuppofed : Though, for my part, I take the parents faifh to be the ordinary condition prerequifite , and that this feed of grace flows from Gods decree, into the El e and Gods Election Is fuch, that by it it is determined,that all to whom true faith is given (hall be brought to falyation. And that is not done without perfeveranceiBaptiC n is not therefore given becaufeof Election 5 but therefore becaufe.God will hare the fame to be the condi- tion of the Children as of the parents, fo they do nothing that may render them un- worthy that prerogative. But that they (huU do no fuch thing,is not neceffarily inclu- ded in that reafon for which Baptifm is granted. As to the fpiritj feeing its efficacy confifteth in this, that it may fit the mind to behold, and fo embrace the Truth mining in the Gofpeljand the mind of Infants is in that ftate,that it cannot put forth that A&j if fo beany force ot xhz fyu it do affect them, it is wholly different from that efficacy which producah faith in the undemanding. This therefore is nothing to the perfo- verance of faith. THus ocidatiffimus , admirabUis Amyraldus , one eye of that univerfity which in Divinity is one eye of the Chriftian world- He inclines rather .tothink there is no operation of the fpirit. And indeed, becaufe the Miraculous gtft of the Holy Ghoft was promifed and oft given in Baptifm (where- of yetbaptilm was no Metaphyficall inftrument ) in the firft times, though only to thofe who had for were probably piefumed to have,) the Regenerating gift of the Holy Ghoft before, manifefted by their Repentance and Faith ; therefore many Divines thought that the giving of the Holy Ghoft in ordinary for Regeneration, was one ftated eni-olriapt.ifmj which from the conftantprerequifition tff repentance and faith is evi- dent to be a miftake. * Calvin. Inflitut. lib. 4 cap. 16. Seel, zi. T Here is no more pcefent efficacy to be expected in Infant- Baptifm, then that it confirm andratifie the Covenant made with them by the Lord. ThusBleffed 'Calvin* Some Infants Church- member fhip and B4ptifm. *93 Some" brief Animadverfions on a Treatife of Bap- tifmal Regeneration , lately publifhed by Mi'.Tbo. Bedford. T is not any defire of contending, or contradicting my Brethren^ as the Lord knoweth , which is the caufe of my medling with this Tractate, and difcovering the failings of fuch Learned, Reve- rend, Godly men : But the true Reasons are thefe, which I fub- mit to the judgement of the Reader, whether they are enforcing or not. x. The Doctrine it felf which I oppofe , I conceive to be dangerous, as well as erroneous, as (hall be anon manifefted. z. I conceive it as likely a means to make men Anabaptifts, as moft I know, if it go unrefifted. When men fee wrong Ends put upon Baptifm^ and too much given to it , they are ready to fufpect our Doctrine concerning the right ends, and to give as much too little to it. It is hard refifting any Error without being driven into the contrary extream : Efpecially to vulgar fpirits. Andlfpeak not this upon an uncertain conjecture t but upon much fad experience I have known too many of my fpeciall friends that have either turned Anabaptifts, or been much ftaggered, by occafionof this Doctrine of B3ptifmal Regneration j when they had difcovered once the error of thar, they prefently began to fuipect all the reft, thinking that we might as wellmiftake in the reft as in that. And indeed. 1 was once in doubt of Infant- Baptifm my felf j and the reading (and difcovering the error) of Dr. Barges 2nd Mt.Bcdfords Becks of Baptifmal Reneneration was one part .of my temptation. I cannot but think it my duty therefore to endeavour the removall of this ftumbling ftone out of the way , which others may ftumble at as I have done. 3. And I conceive that if it go unrefifted 1 , the error of this Doctrine is far likelier to fpread and fucceed in thefe times then ever. i. Becaufe of the licertcioufnefs and vanity of this Age* wherein every miftake that hatha man to vent it, hath many to entertain it. z. But efpecially by reafon of the contrary error of the Anabapcifts, which having brought fd great difturbances and mifchiefes to the Church, many Pp i incautejooi 194 '^ S€r ^ ture fwf *f incautelous men in difl ike of their ways , and inheatofeppofition>wiir be apt to run into the contrary extrcam. And thus Errors ufe to propagate and ftrengthen one another. Indeed at the firft broaching of this Doctrine among us , it was fo much difrellilhed (not by Dt. Taylor only, but) by moft Divines and godly people as far as I could learn, that it did fucceed and fprcad as little , as almoft any Error that e?cr I knew fpring up in the Church .' Infomuch as the Books that maintained it, were not judged worthy an Anfwer. Bat Mr. Bedford hath now hit on a more fruitful I feafon and fofle for the fowing of his fecond feed. And to make it the more prevalent,he hath adorn« cd it with fuch venerable, mighty names which any humble man will ftoop to, and much fufpect that Opinion whichcontradifteth their judgement. But whether all thefe are truly on his fide, I have caufe enough to doubt. In examining this point,I mall firft (hew you the Heterodox Opinion : i. And then that which I take to be the Orthodox: 3. And then give you fome Arguments againft the former. 4. And laftly, fome brief Animadverfions on Mr Bd!/WjTreatife,and An- fwer to what he and Dr. war 4 fay againft that which I judge the Truth.. 1. hlt, 4*i 94, 9h 96, $6, 87. And Treatife of Sacrament, pag. 48. 01, UP, 116, 119, 135, X4j, i7j 3 iox. And in.his Way to Free- dom,/^. 50,51- j*i, 5 $>&c] Dt.Burges in this differs from hiov, that he affim* only " that Infants Ckurch-memberjhip and Baptifm. 295 that Baptifm is the ordinary means of conveying the Seed of Grace, or the Spirit to tied Infants only, but not to the Non- Elect J yet he judgeth, that though men live in open wickednefs 40. or 60. years, and then be converted, that thefe received the Seed of Grace, or the Holy Ghoft in their Baptifm a which remaineth as the Seed under ground all that while ; and fo he afimeth not with Mr. Bedford, that the Holy Ghoft id given to Infants may be loft. BE fore I come to lay down what I hold to be the Truth in this Controverfie, I muft premifefomewhat oiDiitindion and Explication 1. We muft carefully diftinguilh betwixt 1. The new Covenant mutually to be entered and engaged in between God and man, containing Gods promiie of Remit - fion, Juftification, Adoption and Glorification to man, if he perform the Condition, and mans promise to God that (by his Grace) he will perform the faid condition. a. And the meer prediction or promife of God, that he will give to his Eled ( only, ) new and foft hearts , and grace to perform the forefaid condition. a. We muft carefully diftinguifh betwixt that Grace which makes a Real Phyfical change upon man; and that which maketh only a Relative change. Of the former fort is Regeneration, or fan&ification, (as they are ufually taken for the work of the Spirit infufmg the firft principle or habit of Grace 3 and afterward increasing and ex- citing it :) and fo is Glorification. Of the latter fort, are, Remiftion, Juftificarion and Adoption, and Sanctification as it (ignifyeth a Dedication of the man to God, or rather the ftateand Relation of a man fo dedicated and feparated > and alfo Rege* iteration as k fignifieth our new Relation. 3. So we muft diftinguilh betwixt a Donation Phyfical, which works the faid Phy licall Effects (as when you put money into a mans hand :) and a Donation Moral j which gives not any Real Phyfical being immediately , directly of it felf 5 but only fo gives a Right to fuch a Being or Good : as you giveaway' your houfe or lands, by word, or by a written Deed of Gift, without moving the thing it felf. 4. Accordingly we muft diftinguifh betwixt a Phyfical Inftrument } which is effective by a Reall Influx or proper Caufality of the forefaid Phyfical Mutation : And a Mor- tal Inftrument, as a Deed of Gift is. 5. We muft carefully diftinguifti between the firft, chief, and moft proper Ad and Inftrument of Donation : and the fecondaty, leffer, improper Act, and Inftrument, being but the Ceremonial folemnization. 6 And laftly, we muft diftinguifh betwixt perfons that have true Right to Bap- tifm in fire Dei; and thofe that the Minifter ought to Baptize, though they have no fuch righr in fwo Dei, but only inforo Ecclefi*. And now upon thefe Diftinctions thus laid down, 1 (hall give you my Judgement in thefe following Pofitions. 1. Baptifm was never inflituied by God to beaSealoftbe Abfolute Promife of the firfl fpectall Grace ; but to be the Seal of the Covenant properly fo called, wherein the Lord enytzeth himfelf conditionally to be our God 3 to Pardon, Jufiific , Adopt and Glorifie vi ; and rvs engage our felves to behi*People,andfoto perform the faid Condition. Of which, could I have leifure to be large, I could give abundant proof. Argument 1. If Baptifm be the Seal of the firft Abfolute Promife of the firft Grace; then it fealeth either before that Promife is fulfilled, or after ; But it neither fealeth before nor after : therefore not at all. I fuppof«none will quarrell with the Major Proposition, and iay,It is juft at the Pp 3 time 296 Plain Scripture proof of time of fulfilling (or of infufing a new heart;) for that is impoflible. And for the Minor , i. if it Seal to that Promife before the fulfilling,' then it is not a mutuall en- gaging Sign or Seal ; f For thofe to whom that Promife is yet unfilled , are uncapable of prefem engaging themfelves to God, being Aliens and Enemies to him J But it is a mutuall engaging Seal : This Mr.B. confefTeth. And the Sacramentall A&ions manifeft -, Receiving trw Elements is our engaging fign , that we receive Jefus Chrift to be our only Savionr and Lord > as giving is Gods fign that hegiveth us Chrift. 2. If it Seal to that Abfolute Promife of the firft Grace before the fulfilling of it, then no man can lay claim to the Seal, nor any Minifter know to whom he may Ad. minifter it , and to whom not : For that Promife is neither made to any perfons named, nor marked out by any qualifications (as the Promife to Believers and their Seed is -J nor is it fulfilled upon condition of any prerequisite qualifications : but only fignifieth what God will do for his Eleci, who before the fulfilling of that Pro- mife, have not the left note of difference from any other men. But there arefome men that may claim the Seal of Baptifm , and whom Chrift s M inifters may know to be the capable fub je&s : Therefore 'tis not that Abfolute Pro- mife of the firft Grace which Baptifm fealeth. 2. That it cannot Seal to that abfolute "Promife after the fulfilling of it, is evident. For elfe it (hould Seal to a contradiction, and falihood : As if God mould fay, [I will give thee a New heartland to this I Seal,] when the party had a New heart before. Or, [I will take the hard heart out of thy body,] when it is taken out already.Or, [I will give thee the firft Grace] when he had it before, and fo it cannot be the firft that is afterward given.For of the Promife of encreafe or additional degrccs,we now fpeak not. Moreover, If Baptifm were a Seal to the Abfolute promife of the firft Grace, then it mould Seal to none but the Eled •• (For all Divines that I know who acknowledge fuch an Abfolute Promife, do make it to belong to the Eled only.) But Baptifm do.h Seal to more then the Elect : (This Mr. 2. confefTeth. Therefore it is not to the Abfolute Promife of the firft G.ace, that it fealeth. Again, if Baptifm be a Seal of that Abfolute Promife, then either of that only, or of the Conditional! Promife of Juftification, &c alfo: But neither of thefe ; 1 here- fore Jiot of that Abfolute Promife at all. i. Not of the Abfolute Promife only; for i. then itlhould not Seal up the Promife of Adoption, Juftification and Glory j (for thefe are all promifed but on Condition, whatfoever the Antinomifls fay to the contrary) i* And if it fealed that Abfolute Promife of the firft Grace only, then the Seal mould belong to no Believer : (For all Believers have the firft Grace already, and fc that promife fulfilled to them.) But the Seal doth belong to Believers, therefore It h not the Seal of that Abfolute Promife. 3. And if ic fealed that Abfolute Promife, then there fhould be no Conditional qualification prerequisite in the receiver: But there are Conditional qualifications prerequifite in the receiver (either inherent in himfelfor relative, the foundation being in the Father or others) as Mr.B. confefTeth. Therefore, &c. z. And that it fealech not to the Abfolute Promife and the Conditional both together, me thinks and not to the children of Hypocrites. My reafons are ; 1. The Covenant promifeth Remifiion, Adoption and Glory to none but true Believers and their Seed ; Therefore the Seal can allure and convey it to no other. For the 5eal cannot go further then the Covenant. i/That Faith which cannot help the proper owner to thefe benefits, cannot help his children to them : (For their intereft is but for his fake, as they belong to him :) But a falfe Faith cannot help the owner to Juftification, Adoption or Glory: (as not being the Condition to which they are promifed;) "1 herefbre not others. Yet will it not follow the children ofHypocrites mould not be Baptized ; For we ought to Baptize them, though they have no true right to Biptifm J oecaufe we are to take all for true Believets that make a probable profcffion or Faith .* They may have right inforo Ecclefia, that have none be- fore God. J Pofit. 10. Though Baptifm thus Seal and convey the Relative benefits of the Covenant to Infants , and a R-ghtto fome real benefits 3 yet was it never inflamed to be an inftru- m*e?itfw the wotting of the fir ft real gracious chmge up$n the foul, orrfor the infufmg the fir ft Habit or Seed of fpxiall Grace into the foul ; no nor fo-r the effecting of any Real mutation on the fouls of Infants at all , cither by infufmg the fir ft or fubjequent Grace. I put the word [Real] here in contradiftln&ion to [Relative j) And I fpeak of working the Grace it fclf on the heart, and not of giving a Right to that Grace j which (as to fubfequent Grace) Baptifm may be an inftrument to do. Here I have two things in this Pofition to prove. 1. That Baptifm was not instituted to be an inftrument to work the firft Grace or Seed or Habit of Grace. 2. Nor any Real Grace or change at all on an Infant. Thefe are the main points wherein 1 differ from Mr* B's and Dr. Burges Doctrine : Efpecially the firft j which is fufficient, if proved, to overthrow the fubftance of their Trearifes,though I faid nothing to the fe- cond. And the former branch I prove thus. Argum. 1. If Baptifm was not inftituted to be the Seal of the Fromife of the firft Real Grace, (but only of the conditional covenant of Grace) then it was not inftituted to be an Inftrument to convey the fir fl Grace •' But the Antecedent is true *• therefore fo is the Confequent. I fuppofe none will deny the foundnefs of this Cenfequence , nor be fo abfurd as to affirm that Baptifm was inftituted ro be a Seal of one Covenant, and ro con- vey the Grace of another to which it was never intended to be a Seal. And for the Antecedent, I have proved it before 5 and add this much more : 1 If Baptifm were *he Seal of that abfolnte promife, then all that are fo fealed fliould be faved •* ( For it is generally confeflfed by thofe that acknowledge fuch a Promife , that all are faved te Infants Church-member jlnp and Baptifm. 299 whom it is made.) But all that are fo fealed are not" faved j (as Mr. 3. confexTeth: ) Therefore,&c.2. If Baptifm be affirmed to be the SeaLof that Abfolute Promife of the fit ftGi3ce/hcn It is afn-rmedto be the Seal of a Promife,the very Truth of whofe being is very oblcurejand doubtfalljand denyed by many great, and learned, and pious Di- vines : But Baptifm (being the badge of Chriftianity and of the plain Covenant of Grace) is not to be affirmed to be the Seal ofanobfeure doubt full promife ; There- fore, &c. Though I be not my felf of their OpinionSjyet I will tell you their Rcafons who deny that there is any fuch abfolute promife of the firft Grace, i.becaufe there is but one or two obfeure Texts in Jeremy and E^iel pretended to be fuch. z. Thofc Texts do mention fome mercics> which all other bcriptuie tels us are givenbut con- ditionally, as to remember their fins no more, HekS.iz. Therefore, fay they, we muft accordingly expound the reft. $. The very fame mercies which feem here to be promifed abfolutely, are in other places promifed conditionally; therefore by them is this to be intcrpertedj for it is not neceifiry al*vay to add the condition. Deut,$c % 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcife thy heart and the heart of thy Seed s to Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy foul , that thou mayft live. This feems to contain the fame mercies, and yet verf, i.:j. it is promifed but on condi- tion that they return and obey the voyce of God 5 wheh thews. . 1. That it was not the fit ft Grace that is here meant by circumcifing the heart, but a further degree, z. And that it was conditionally promifed. 4. And the Apoftle in reciting this Covenant, Heb.%. Teems to have refpeft to the excellency of the mercy promifed, rather then to any Abiolutcnefb inthe promife j and not to expound it of the firft Grace, but as a Promife made to fuch as are already Believers. But I leave this to every mans judge- ment ; whether the fr ft Grace be abfolutely promifed or nor. I doubt not of thefe two things : x. TrTat ir is abfolutely given, without refpect to foregoing Works or Merits 5 and not as the "Pelagians thought, z. Such a Promife is or would be but of the na- ture of a meer prediction what God means to do to fome men,whom pleafeth Jiimfelf : but no man can have the leaft comfort from it upon any knowledge that it belongs to him till the promife be fulfilled, and the good promifed bellowed already.' And no man could claim the Seal of fuch a promife,nor any Minifter know to whom he may give it. If.any lay that the firftfpecial Grace is promifed conditionally , and it is that con- ditional Promife that Baptifm fealerh : I anfwer : x. Shew the Promife. i.Shew the condition. $. That is pure Pelagianifm. For that condition muft be fome work of man and fo Grace ihnild be given upon mans works. Yet I yield thus far, i.That there are previous works which God worketh in forne men as preparatory to the firft fpeci.il Grace : 2. And there are fome duties., as to hearj pray , &c. which God com- mandeth men thar have no Grace, for the obtaining of Gij^e : 3. And that he maktth fome half-promifes (as MrXotten cals them) to men; upon fuch duties which thty may co without fpeciall Grace : As Peter faid to Simon , Repent and pray, if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven : And, It maybe God will hear,&c. Such pcbabiliti.s G:>d gives men, which may raife their fpir its, and be a good en^ cou-agement to duty and induftry in the ufe of thole gifts they have ; buchehath maae no tuli certain Promife of the fitft fpeciall Grace, -upon condition of the good ufe of mens nairals. And Baptifm cannot be the Seal of fuch a half- promife as thefe. A sum. 2 If both in the Iftflttutiofi and every Example of Baptifm through all the Bible, th? fi'ft G ace be prc-requifite as a condition, then the Ordinance voas mt Inftitutedfor the , confer ymg of that fi fl Grace : But in the Inflitution^.nd every Exnmp'e of Baptifm tbraugh ell the B bcthefifl Grace ispre-reqidfite as a condition 5 therefore t\n Ordinance was not -.ted 10 confer it. .0-9 By jc° Flam Scripture freofof By the.fiirft Grace here I ftill mean that grace which confifteth in a real change of the Soul, whether habitual or adual, or if you will call it Seminal or Radical, you may. By. [ pre-requifite, as a Condition ] I mean, either in the party, or anorbeu for him. 1 he force of the confequence Is evident. i.In that otherwife baptifm mould be in- ftituted to give men that which is pce-required in thcm^nd to which they have already (as to all themthat are capable of iu) The Antecedent is undeniable, as might be manifefted by a recital of the particular Texts, could we ftay fo long upon it. John required a profeflion of repentance in thole he baptized. Jcfus firft made them Difciples.. and then by his Apoftles baptized them, John, 4. 1. Thefolemn inftitution of it as a {landing Ordinance to the Church, which tells us fully the end, is in Mat. 28. 19. aa. Go^andDifciple me all nations , baptising tbenti &c Nowforxheaged,aDifcipleandabeleiver , are all one, Ma fa 16. 16. He that behevcth and is baptised, Jhall be favsd: Ad. z. 38. Repent and be baptised every §ne, &c. 4u Tbey that gladly received his word were bapti^ed 3 Ad. 8. 1 a. 1 3. Tbt Sama- vitanes beleivcd and were bapti^d both men and women ; Simon himfelf beleevedand was baptised. Ad. 8. 36, 37. if thou beleivefl wkbAll thy hearty thou maijl (Jte baptised) and be anfweredjl believe, &c. Ad 9 . P aul believed upon Ananias injlruclion , and then was bapti^d. Ad, 10 47,48. and \6. 15.33 • an ^ l8 « 8 - and 10.4? J. &c. You fee it i$ ftill required, That all at age do £rft believe, and then be baptized: now doubtlefs thofe that repent and believe,have that fii ft grace, which is the condition of the new Covenant already, and fo have that abfolute promife fuelled to them ; There- fore God did not inftitute baptifmto be an Inftrument to give men that which they have before. Indeed if it be onely right to a thing that is given by a moral way of Do- nation, fo baptifm may compleat and folemnize that gift which was currant before^ amd fo it doth. But in, regard of inherent habits or qualities, it cannot do fo. This argument is fufneient alone to all that Mr. B iaith, when we have but anCwet- edhis one great exception. He granteth all this to be true as to men at age ; and that to them it is not the end of baptifm to conferthe firft Grace ; but bethinks that to in- fants.it is otherwife. To which I anfwer. 1. I require fome Scripture proofthat God hatbinftituted baptifm to infants to one end, and to the aged to another, where the aged are capable of both. Indeed it may be to fome ends to the aged, which to infants it is not: but that is not from any difference hi the nature and ufe of the Ordinance, but from the natural incapacity of infants : but that it fhould have fo high an end to infants, and not to men at age, who are at leaft as capabk of that end, this no word ofGodfpeaks : And to feign fuch a thing without Scripture ^>roof , is to. feign a Covenant and Ordinance that God ne- */er made. a~ In Relations,fuch as Sacraments are, the end entereth the Definition $ Therefore if ('not through any natural incapacity of the Subjed, but Gods meer institution j bap- tifm have ends fo exceeding different in infants and the aged, then you muft have ie- veral Definitions of Baptifm, and fo as it were feveral baptifms. But the Apcftle faith, at there is but one Ltrid, and one faith, fo but one baptifm, Eph 4.? • 3. And according to this Dodrine. baptifm (hould feal up one Covenantto the pa- rent , and ano'.het diftind Covenant ( vi^. the firft Grace) to the Children, which to the Parent was never tealed 5 when yet the infants intereft is for the parents fake % and comes in as an Appendix to this j which is moft grofly abfurd. If God have not made the promife of the firft Grace any more to infants then to the aged,then it is not the end •(the Seal to confer the Grace of that promife any more co infants , then to the aged: Infants Church member [hip and Bdftifm. 301 but God hath not made" that promife any more to infants 3 then the aged; Therefore, &c» 4. If the parent and child do enter one an«l the fame Covenant before baptifm J then it is the benefits of one and the fame Covenant, which by baptifm is Sealed and conferred. But the Parents and Child do enter one and the fame'Covenant j Theqe* fore, &c. The Antecedent is evident through all the Scripture. Circumcifion was the Seal , or fignof Gods Covenant; and is therefore called the Covenant it felf ; but this was »ot two Covenants, but one. Abraham and his family all entred one Covenant. And Abraham received Circumcifion,a feal of the righteoufnefs of that faith which he had be- ing yet uncircumcifed. The aged and the infants of ailKrael,D?K.io.io.x I. do all enter into the fame Covenant, which is the full mutual Covenant , wherein the Lord takes them for a peculiar people, and they take the Lord onely to be their God : It is not Gods abfolute promife , That he will give them a heart to take him onely for their God. The promife is to you and to your children , Ad. i. not two fo diftind pro- mifes, but the fame. And the child coming in for the parents fake, it mail needs be into the fame Covenant. Objett. But infants have not faith when they come to baptifm, as the parents have, and therefore it muft confer the feed of it on them. Anfiver^ i« We muft not take liberty upon our own fancies to add new ends to Gods Ordinances. z. Infants have that faith which is the condition of the Covenant in their parents." The parents faith is the Condition for himielf,and his children,till they come to the ufe of reafon them'felvcs. jt It is utterly unknown to any man on earthj and unrevealed in the Word, whether God give Infants ufually any inherent fpecial Grace or not. * 4. But if he do , it is far more likely that he gives it before baptifm by virtue of that Covenant which, faith , The Seed of the Righteous is b/efjed andbely 5 then then that baptifm (hould be inftituted to confer it j which is inftituted to other ends to all others. 5. 1 he aged being 1. The moft fully capable fubje&s. a. And the grciter part of the world when baptifm was inftituted, who were to be partakers of it. j. And the moft excellent and eminent fubjects. 4. And of whom Scripture fully fpeaks^and but darkly of infants ; Therefore it is moft evident, That the full and proper ends why God In-: ftituted the Ordinance } is rather to be fetched from the aged , then from infants. 6A( ihe very Baptifm of infants it felf be fo dark in the Scripture, that the Controver/ie is thereby become fo hard as we find it, then to prove not onely their baptifm.but a new diftinct end of their baptifm, and a far different Covenant by it fealed to them , and far different grace by it conveyed to them, this will be a hard task indeed. And especi- ally fuch men as are fain to flieto Tradition for proof of infant baptifm ( as Mr. B. doth) me thinks mould not fo confidently obtrude on the world fuch new different ends and ufe of their baptifm : and that as from Scripture ; they can prove from Scrlp- ture/That baptifm fealeth to them another Covenantor conferreth another Grace then ever it was intended to do to any others 5 and yet muft go to Tradition to prove that they muft be baptized. And to that end to over-magnifie Tradition, and intimate a charge of infufficiencie on the Scripture ; as thefe words plainly import in his Treatife of Sacraments pag. 92. 93< [ C( Traditions Apoftolical , are Authentical, and not to be refufed , becaufe no* 502 ^'# Scripture proof ef * c written,!! found tobe Apoftolicai. Apcftolical Cuftcms mentioned in the Scrip- "ture,have a more unqueitionable certainty then Ttaditior.s.Su: not greater Authority. "Neither is this to fee up Tradition, as do the Parift* in prejudice of the Scripture 5 be, "caufe we admit none as A poft oiical, whrich either are contrary to the cuit-orrrs menti- < r oned in the Scripture*, o. whi . t be confirmed as reafcnable from the Scrip- tf :ure.] To which I fay , 1. That Tradition in matter or'Fact, to confirm us in the Authority of Scripture , «ts reporting the miracles v.hich it m:ntioneth , or cc 1 irs Hiftory, or telling us which are: .ical Books, or clearing and confirming a- r.s fcrbrure dactri: . - ledge taore neceffary Sy and- to be valued, there* m-. .-ate, 1. 1 hat there are Tra- ditions A cal, and haven: : lei's authority then Scripture Apcf- : I inl Gdft n : in fo material a thing as Infant- baptifm , and fo a- bcut theprepc. :nOidinance, 3. And that i: is a furncient excute that weadmit none contrary ro Scripture, C uftom, cr which may net be confirmed as -■'.r>WbU from Scripture; ] muit needs think this prejudicial to Scripture, and a com- plying Willi the- Fsp it^,thcuih yoo deny it. If the Scriptures be Gods perfect Law, ic fore determines cr all material parts of worm ip, cr elfe i: was not made for a perfect Rule concern : r. and pofitive Ordinances: and if not for thefe wherein the liiht of nature on a then fare it is a perfect rule for nothing. Iknowmeer cir. cumftances are determined of but in general, and left tohumane determination in Spe- cie. 1. But that is becaufe they are things not fit for Laws to determL alitimes 3 places 3 and perfens, became there is aneceffiry ofva iation j or at ieaft no necefllty or fr .teteiminationjandfa it is no part of the perfection of GodsLaw to determine them 5 othemife if it we: e neceffary znc fit that they were univcrfal. • termined of> then ho/, can Gods Law be excufed of bsing imperfect , it it determine no: of them, i: being the rule of wenhip? 1. Efpecially, when you acknowledge Tra- dition to be lefs certain then Scripture ; and fo you would make us believe that God hath left us an uncertain rule of necciliry wor:hip,when he mighr^have given it us in the certain- Saiptu re. 3. And you knew that our greateit difputers for the old ceremonies, were wont to reiervc nothing for Tradition but meer chcumftantials, or things inciirTe- rent . And if you judge Infant haptifm a nver circumirance, you sre much niftafc and if you judge ic a thing indifferent, then it is mote indifferent with you to be an An- abaptift, then it is with me. 4. And for ail ycu: d ere is few ; ap.it s but fay as much as ycu ( for the moderate fort ) and willingly admit of your two Limita- tions , as if I had time. I could fhew ycu eahiy from their own words. 5, And indeed if all that is not contrary to Scripture Cuftcms & that mans vain wit can find reaionabie Irrom Scripture, mufl be admitted, and that upon equal authority with Scripture, if but take it for a Traditicn Aroitolical , then x. It will fet mans wit a work to make God a v/otinip, or judge of tl :fs of it according to his .eafon : and one man : , -md another not. 2. And v. hat a multitude of ceremonies will this admit Into the Church, to the burrhening of mens Consciences, and ip r Is not this the dore that the booy of Fcpiih Traih came in at ? And tru a that hardeneth them in it, and hinde.eth their Ret v.: matron to this : you op?n this G~r, what a multitude of fopperies will ruih ia } 6. And as you feem to confefs, fo it is unquefttonaby certain , .1 hat thefe Traditions that men fb t: y uncertain 3 That Cure they can be no part of Godslaw^ and tu^e of worihip Tradition hath brcrughtidowc to us Gods book, or ndiKii law ic (elf, and the mat- Infants Church-m.emkrflrij) and Baptism. 303 ter of fad which may confirm its authority in a certain way 5 but thefe pretended addi- tions are by Gods wifdom,Ieft wholly at uncertainties. Yea 5 what contradiction is there between thefe pretenders to Tradition ? as there was between thofe that contended a- bouc Rafter ; fome pretending 1 radition from Jolm, and fome from Peter ■ And the Ethiopians to this day pretend to Trad it ions from Thomas , different from the reft. Yea 3 Iraneus ( fo near the Apoftles ) upon pretence of a Tradition was deceived above io, years in the time of Chrifts life upon earth : which is very ftrange. And is this Tradi- tion our rule for worfhip ? It hath m3ny a time made me wonder , and fprrowfull to think j That fo many learned fober men^ mould fo earneftly contend for thefe Additi- onall Traditions, and fo zealoufly cleave to any Ceremonies, Formalities, or. Corrup- tions in worlhip, which they can but find that the Fathers have ufed I when fome of them, the very Papifts themfelves havecaft off 1 . Me thinks men fhould delire to go on the furer fide the hedge ) and feeing where theteis no law, there is no tranfgrcffion^fii). being nothing elfe but a tranfgreiTion of the law, they (hpuld conclude , That it Is cer- tainly no fin ( and therefore fafeft )to let go thofe Additions which no law enjoynech ! But on theotherfi.de, That icma^ be adangeious fin to ufethem, both as being an accufationof Scripture as infujficient, and an adding to Godsworfbip. It when his worfhip was fo much Ceremonious,he yet laveh a. charge to do Whatfoever he comman- ded, and add nothing thereto, nor take ought theretrom ( that is, not to 3 or from the words commanding onely , but alfo the rvorl^ commanded ) .is it likely then that he wil be lefs jealous in this now* If we might not add one Ceremony to an hundred, may we add.to two or th#ee ? Did Chrift take down all thofe of Gods, own inftiturion, that he might give man leave to fet up others of their own ? I fpeak not of meer circumftances, neaflary in Gencre , but which muft be differently and occafionally determined ; but of Myfticall, Doftrinall Rites, or the like Ceremonies not neceflarie in their Genus. Why could not Chrift have determined thefehimfelf , and that in his fure written word, if he would have had them determined? Hath npt God made us work enqugh,but we muft make our feives fo much more ? Yea, thofe men that are the mo.ft backward to Gods undoubted worlhip 3 are the moft forward to make more work of their own. Is it not the priviledge of the Go- fpel Church ,and excellency of Gofpel woijhip, that Rudiments and Ceremonies are down, and God will be worfhiped in Spirit without fuch avocations ? In vain dothey worfhip him,teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men ? Who knows what will pleafe God but himfelf ? • An«l hath he not told us what he expeftech from us ? Can that be obedience which hath no command for it ? Is not this to fupererogate ? and to be righteous over much ? Is h not alfo to accufe Gods Ordinances of iniufticiencie 3 as well as his word , as if they were not fufficient either to pleafe him , or help our own Graces? O the pride of mans heart,that inftead of being a Law-obeyer, will be a Law- maker I And inftead of being true worfhippers, they will be worfhip makers ! And that are fo little confeious of their own viletiefs, as to think themfelves fit for fuih a work as this ! And fo little fenfible of their weaknefs,and difabilitie to obey what is. akeady commanded, and their too frequent failings , that they will make more work-for themfelves and feign more Lawes to be obeyed .' For my partJ will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more then he hath commanded me j and for flick- ing clofe to the rule of his word in matter of worfhip? butl fliould tremble to atld, or diminish. To the Law, and to the Teftimony : if they fpeak not according to thtfe, it is becaufe there is no light in them. God is wifer then I, to know what is acceptable tahimfelfi.an#nt for his creature. I (hall bur. make my feif untxcufable at judgemu,; 3?4 Plain Scripture froof of for all my failings in known dime, when I will needs fupererogate by adding of more. I fay the more of this , i. In companion over fome learned Divines (whom I fliaii not name) who are more clear in many Do&rinals.then moft of the world beGdes 3 and yet ftiil are fo ftrongly addicted to unwrictenTraditions.Formaiities^nd Ceremonies; doubtlefs the Church of Rome themfclves are not near fo blameworthy for their Errors in meer Do&rinals ( miftakes hath made them feem worfe in fome of thefe then they are,) as for their horrid unreafonable confufion, vaia pompous (hews, and childilh jefting formalities in woifhip. The reading of one of their Miffals, or books of Devo- tion, would make a mans heart rifeagainft them, more then the reading of their Do&ri- nal controverts. 2. And I fay the more of this to Mr.B. becaufe he is pleafcd (Treat. ofSacr. pag. *8o J to fpeaktothe Anabaptifts Argument, from Chrifts faithfulnefs , and Scripture perfection , thus ; [ This is the triumphing Argument of all Schtfmatic^ tvho mi (I ike the Ceremonies of the Church, whether National or Catholic^. ] Where 1. any reader that looks to know a mans mind by his words,muft think that he means, that all thofeare Schifmaticks that miflikethe fald Ceremonies. And if fo , then 1. This is very hard, high, uncharitable cenfaring, feeing many hundreds of fuch never feparated. nor made any Rent in the Church : and are men Schifmaticks that never make Rents ? a-.' Yea* multitudes of them that conformed not to thefe Ceremonies , wer* as holy, learned, judicious, peaceable men as thefe ages have known. It befeems not fuch a man as Mr. 8. to brand fuch as Reignelds, Bain, Brightman, Ames, Parser } Sandford,Brad{havf,- Ball, Hitferlhrn* Dod, Rogers, Hool^er^ with hundreds more, with the title of Schifma^ ticks, who did more againftSchifm by writing, then all the contrary- minded in Eng- land. 3. And even of thofe that conformed to Ceremonies, (as inconvenient bur- thens, which yet might be born rather then forbear preaching, ) what a multitude of the moft learned and Godly mifliked them, thefe times have (hewed : witnefs our Re- verend and learned Affernblies judgement againft them: and are thefe Schifmaticks for a meer miflike? 4. But efpecially one would think that there Ihould more refpe&be due to ail the Churches of Scotland, Holland, France, Helvetia, &c. that arc known to miflike thele Ceremonies, then to judge them Schifmaticks. 5. But for that phrafe of ^Ceremonies of the Catholic^ Church, ] it is very ranck , and fuch as is not uiual wick Proteftant Divines. I hope this learned man doth not take the particular Romane Church,for the Catho- lick Church:and if he do not,I am utterly ignorant what he means by the Ceremonies of the Catholick Churchj I would he would name what Ceremonies the Catholick Church holdeth , which thefe men miflike (yea,or which they do mt 3 being unwritten.) Are all the Churches of Eaft and Weft, even the Ethiopians complies , and all agreed on any one unwritten Ceremony^ that fuch as thefe men miflike? And are all thofe Churches or perfons that miflike them, no parts of the Catholick Church ? Sure this is no Ca- tholick Do&rine. God will teach us before h'e hath done with us, to be more gentle and tender of one another in fuch Traditions and Ceremonies. But to return to the point in handjagainft this Dodrineof Mr, Bs. I argue thus : If there be Traditions of equal authority with Scripture Apoftolical Cu(loms 3 then there are Traditions which are the very Laws of God, by which men muft be judged, juftified, or condemned : but there are no Traditions unwritten, that are the very Laws of God j therefore there are none of equal authority with the Scripture Apoftolieal Cufloms. The Major is clear , in that thofe Scripture Cuftoms were part of Gods Lawes j for though all examples of good men in Scripture be not diredly binding : yet when Gcd hath jgi- ven a Commifllon to fome in fpecial to order the matters of hi$ Church an«twor(hip , Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 305 and promifed to be with them, and dired them by his Spirit in doing it, ( as he did to the Apofties ) there the very cuftom by them eftabliflied, hath the force of a Law. But befideS thofe mentioned in Scripture , there is no certainty of any fuch Cuftom efta- blifhed by the Apoftles,except "you will call every occafional aft of theirs theeftabliuV ing of a Cuftom, it being the mind of God that his whole Law (hould be written , and fo certain. Elfe what a fad lofs were the Church of Chrift at, concerning the knowledge of his will in matter of wOrfhip ? How would the generality of ordinary Chifthns be wholly puzled in difcerning.true Apoftolical Traditions from falfe? and reafonable ones,from unreafonable ones ? it being indeed a thing to them impoflible } and needs muft ic bring them to the authority of the prefent Church, to know what to take for Currant Tradition $ and what C hurch muft be judge, we mould be at a lofs, there being fuch difference among the Churches . How flily would this Doftrine of Tradition equal to Scrip ure Cuftorhs, bring us over in time to Rome again I and indeed of all their Do- ctrinal errors, this 3nd fuch other that deny the perfection of Scripture in being a fuffi- cient rule for faith, and the eflentials of worlhip,. ( and the accidents in general , fo far as an univerfal determination is fit,) are to be.reckoned among the moft dangerous,and fo they are by moft Proteftants Divines. And for the point of infant baptifm, whether the Scripture give us not proof of more then the reafonablenefs of it , upon fuppofition that the inftitution be firft proved by Tradition > I leave Mr. B. to judge by what I have written, (though the practice of the Church bean excellent Expofiticn^ and confirmation of the Scripture herein.) The like I might fay in regard of Baptising but once (atleaft with Chrifts Bap- tifm, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofk) and the receiving the Lords Supper oft, which I undertake to prove fully both from Scripture^ and yet Mr. B. faith Treat, of Sac. Pag. [ ' c The ground of which praftife-(why Baptifm is adminiftred* Cf and received but once,and the Lords Supper oft times) binding us to obedience (un- c ^der ccrre&ion I fpeak ic) I take to be not any dire&Textof Scripture, either com- * c manding the one, or prohibiting the other ; but the Tradition of the ancient Churdi, Suarc\ , Amifaus , Stierim i &c. vet In&tymmtum cfl quod ex direclione altenus principalis agentis influit ad producendum cf- feclum fe nebiliorcm, tut Scbiblcr. &c. Now Baptifm can be no fuch caufe: for the water is not a fubjecl: capable of receiving grace, or of conveying it to the Soul ; it cannot approach, or touch the Sonljnor infufe Grace into it if it could. And eadem eftattio in. flrumenti & principalis cauf freq. But I need fay no more to this^ becaufe it is fnfeflVd. 2. All lies then upontMs,whether baptifm be a Metaphyfical inftrument^as M-B. faith? It he give nor this as a third vJeniber, then I have faid enough to him already. If he do, then when he hath ihewed the infufficiency of the old diftin&ion, and the nature of his Metaphyseal inttrumenr, and proved it, then he hath done more then any that ever vent before him. 1 Bu: the wate: of baptifm is a meer natural being , and therefore cannot beany orher then a Natural, or Moral inftrument. 2. If it were a pure Spiritu- al, Supernatural being, a* God himfelf is, yet thekindeor way of operation would' be ft ill enter Pjayfical or V.oral.l he fenfe of which diftin&ion is not to denote the matter, or tfltr.ee of the efficient ,-to be Natural, or Supernatural, nor the force in Caufation to be either by an ordinary natural way, or extraordinary and Supernatural* But as Schibkr, Kifvjo i and all 'folid Philofophers explain k, A Moral caufe is that which doth nor truly and properly eff &, but yet is fuch, as the effect is imputed to it, ( and there- fore many Philolophers call it CcuJ a imputative ) A Phyfical.caufe is that which tru- ly and reauv effeð : & Eff clam pro xime aclivitate fua attingitjit Schtbler. Ex quo ( ,:i folum caufa pbyfic.i dicatur ea 3 q f i eemk, v luti J-g'lm dumfimovct , & Vcus dum treat, topic. c.$. I. i$l &p.ioi. c n. ; . <±\ n SuarezMHaph. d sp. 17. $. z..?i. 6. And do not all Divines and , That not onely the loul of man, but even God when he undcr- ftan-Jeth Infants Church-memberjbip and Baptifm. 307 eth and wilierh, is cwfi'phyfica athuillm immantotis.knd Jure if your Hyperphyfical or Metaphyfical Tcrt'mm would have place any where, it would be about the immanent 1 May I not' therefore fafely conclude , That all thofe that give this for a Tertium, da cL'her underftand the Terms Moral and Phyfical in a way of their own, different from Philofophers that ufe them, orelfedonot underftand the fenfe of them ? For is not your baptifm either a caufe real, or meerly imputative ? Hath it not cither a proper in- fluence and caufality, or not ? rs there any middle between thefe > crafty third mem- ber to be imagined ? But the plain truth is, this is a common trick of men , that either know not what to fay, or know not what they Jfay , to caft in Hyperphyfical as a Tertium, to flop the mouthesofthe ignorant, and amaze men, inftead of clearing the truth to them; when if you ask them the meaning of their [Hyperphyfical] they will tell you no more, but that it is Supernatural, or above our reach : the meaning is , they know not what it is j and therefore know not what they fay j and therefore it is not a fit fub- ject for difcourfe. ,.,.,., , f . n I have found this Trick common when I have difputed with men about the inftru- mtntality of faith in Juft ification, when they are forced to deny it ro be a Phyfical aftiye inftrument 3 they next fay, it is a Phyfical Pafiive inftrument; and Credere* is not Age* re 3 but fati 5 and yet faith is Notitia* Affcnfus, & fiducia 3 but thefe are no acts , but paflions. Fearful Divinity and Philofophy 1 And when they are beaten out of this , then the laft refuge is this of the ignorant 5 it is a Hyperphyfical inftrument, and neither Phyfi- cal nor Moral. And fo Mr. B. feemeth to do about the inftrumentality of Baptifm, in operating real grace on the fouls of infants) and is it not a real proper caufe of it Thefe Pofitions afferted , do cut the finews of the main part of Mr.Bj. mlftakes $ yet I will examine fome more of his additional do&rines. 1 . Where he faith , That [ Faith may give men Jus ad rem i but they cannot ordi- narily have Jus in re } without baptifm, Treat. ofSacr- pag. 9 1 . And Iracl. pag.8^87. where his opponent faith , That [the aged are regenerated before they arc-baptized,, ] heanfwereth, [I grant it , as far as it may be done by the Word without the Sacra- ment. But when the effect is common to two means inftitute-d of Gpd, it is not abfurd to fay, that it is not perfected by oneonely. By the Spirit in the word,they are regene- rate in part,by the fame Spirit working in baptifm fully. We muft fay therefore, That to the aged, baptifm conferreth a more perfect ftate of regeneration. By their faith" which the word begat, they have obtained Jus ad rem> by the Sacrament Jm in re 5 that which is begun by the word, is perfected by the Sacraments] I conceive this Doctrine contrary to the very nature of Gofpel mercies and Grace, and to the very fubftance of the Covenant, and fo to the truth. Right to a thing is eitbec. immediatly,or//^7m»itf0attheend of fomp certain time: And it is either conditi- onal, or abfolute ami actual. Again>it is either the fit ft actual right, or one«!y the con- tinuance, which is conditional. And the mercy to which we have right, is either a Rela- tive change, or a real. 1. Right to a thing fub termino, is at prefent an imperfect right, being properly but the ground of a future right , (as an heir to his fathers lands at his deceafe.) This in- deed is not properly $us in re*. Rt But * - ■ ' Ml". ■ ■.■ 308 Plain Scripture proof of But 2. This is not the right which faith gives to Chrift , and pardon of fin , and adoption, but an immediate right. 3. As foon as the condition is performed ( that condition which is of neceflity to the end, though fome accidentals be unperformed,) immeditaly the benefit is ours , as truly as if the promife were abfolute, in regard oft&e fit ft right. But the continuance of It is conditional ft ill. 4. Me thinks this learned man fliould acknowledge, That as to the Relative bene* fits , fuch as Pardon,Juftific3tion and Adoption, Right to them, and Right in them , are infeparable (Tpeaking of prefent Right to them.) He that hath right to be a Father,is a Father or to be a Son, is a Son : He that hath right to be Gods Son, is his Son, and to be a Member of Chrift, is a Member. He that hath right to be immediatly pardoned, i* pardoned, or to be juftified, is juftified. i< The Jus ad rem % and in re, are relations here that refult from the fame grounds, if not all one: 2. Or if they did not, yet what (hould keep us from poffeftion, where we have Right to the thing ? Either it is an abfo- lute Right to it that we have 3 or but a conditional. If an abfolute, God is not unjuiV to deny any man his Right. If but Conditional, then it is not actual right to it ■ it is properly but a pofTibility of future actual Rigkt, and till the Condition be performed, behathnomore Actual Right to it, then any other man j nor (hall be ever the better for that Conditional if he perform not the Condition- therefore this is not properly Jus, fid rem. So th3t I dare fay that he that hath a true actual immediate *fus ad rem, right to pardon and juftification is pardoned and juftified,and fo hath Jus in re. 5. This Doctrine ccntradicteth the very tenor and (ubftance of the Gofpel , which, feith, That as many as received him 3 to them gave he power to become the Sens ofGod,cven to them that believe in his name.Jokn 1 . 1 1-, 1 2. And all that believe in hiv^a-re juftified from , all things , from which they could not be jujlifiedbythelawofMofes, Act 19*19. And to him gave all the Prophets witnefc that vohofocver believeth in him, through his name Jhall •reaivesemiffion of 'fins , Act. 10. 43. And John J 18. He that believeth on him is not iondemned. Andverfej6. He that believeth on the Son 3 hath everla(linglife 3 &c. So aUpJohn. f.,24- and 6.$ 5.40.47. and 7 38. and ix. z$. 16. Rora.g.ao'.and 4. ?. ani 933. with multitudes of the like. Now if they yet have not Jm'm r*,then they arc ftdi unpardoned, aadun juftified, for all their faith in Chrift. But where you fay » That the promife is made to two things, vi% Faith and Baptifm, , therefore one cannot perfectly do it I anfwer, 1 . It is made to one as the proper Condi- tion, of abfolute neceflity - 3 and but to the other as an accidental folemnization,though neceffary neceffitateprteccpti, &mediifov Solemnization, and fignification , and obfig- nation - } ( taking the word neceffary limitedly, J yet not of that abfolute neceflity , as that without.it the end cannot be attained^ or is not conftantly attained where there is true faith, v\hich is the proper Condition. 2. Baptifm,when it is mentioned.as neceflary;is plainly underftood Relatively,refer- . ring to the Covenant, which by Baptifm we enter and Seal. As when a Proclamation is made-, That whofoever will lift himfelf a Souldier under fuch a Commander , and ,■ wear-hjs colours, (hall have fuch and fuch priviledges and pay : Now the meaning is, - if he will be his Souldier and ferve him: lifting and Colours being fppken of, and ufed buf relatively : It is ordinary for an Officer in haft,to forbear lifting many of his men . ofa long pme, (and but for the weaknefs of his own memory, might forbear it ft ill, ) and many a thoufand never have Colours : and yet they have all the priviledge of Soul. dkrs. And why is that ? but becaufe the thing intended as the Condition indeed, is his confentto be.fuch a mans Souldier,and take him for his Commander,and fo obey himj , and figfct for him ; but the other are but complcmcntal, engaging Solemnities. So in m ■■ ■ ■ ■ l l II ■ l II ■ i l i i. .. ' * ■ . . ' 'n il i ■ ■ ' i Infants Church-memberfoip and Baptifm. 309 the crowning of a King : in marrying a woman with a Ring, or the like ceremony : If there be confent teftified between King and people, he fliall have Jus in re before he is crowned.* And if there be confene between a man and woman teftified by Cove- nanting, they (hall have fas in re and enioy each other, though the Ring or other Cer remony be (biborn And fo I doubt noc it is here in the Covenant between Chrift and usj where there is true confent, and Covenanting,there is true pardon and Juftifi- cation (And for the fir ft feed of grace, I have proved already, that it was no end of baptifm to give cither Jm ad rem or in re.} 6. And this Doctrine bringeth in the Popirt* neceflity of baptifm to falvation j According co this doctrine, wehave little reafon to hope for the falvation of any un. baptized, at leaft, that might have been baptized : But of this next. 7. And fo it would bring in Lay-mens baptifm and womens , or ftr-ongly incline to it. 8. And would make many a thoufand true believers to be all damned. £. And would leave to deftruction the children of true believers, for their fathers neglect of baptizing them as (hall be next touched! z. \7V7'Hcrt he faith that [by the Spirit in the word theyareR egenerate in part,but V V have not Jus in t.c\ and that Baptifm is necelfary as a means without which God is not wont to confer the grace of Chrift to falvation (Traft.p. 47 ) and that the operation of the Holy Ghoft without which the Ad of faving grace is neither cffe&ed nor perfected,may not be expected but in the ufe ofmeans,word and Sacrament p.6f.) that is, Baptifm for ingrafting the feed of fai;h and graces in us , and the word for ex- citing and cherilhing it, and the Lords Supper for confirming it (p. 9? ) and that if the Spirit do convay grace to any withont the ufe of Sacraments, this is to be accoun- ted extraordinary. Ireat.ofSacr./. 14$.] L fay, all this feems to me very unfound doctrine. For 1. what can a Papift fay more almoft for the neceflity of it ? then that God Is not-ufed to give Grace without it , and that we may not expect the Grace of the Spirit without it ? 2. What hope then of the falvation of many thoufand believers and their children, that dye without fiaptlTm ? doth not this overthrow our hope of fuch ? For either God hath promised to fave fuch though unbaptized, or not 5 If he have, then we may ex- pect it, and that in an ordinary way,-^. upon promife, and then God is wont to give it : for fure he is wont to fulfill his promifes. If there be no promife of it, and God indeed be not wont fo to give it, then wh3t ground of Chriftian hope of the falva- tion of fuch ? The promife is the ground of Chriftian Hope.YVho dare expect falvation from God, for himfelf or others, out of Gods way ? which were to tempt God, and plainly to prefume. And therefore the molt that we could do in fuch a cafe,were to leave all believers and Infants that are unbaptized, without true Hope, in the cafe of Hea- thens InfantSjConcerning whom God hath not revealed his mind. Though indeed that will not hold neither ; for if God 'have revealed, that heufeth not to give faving grace without baptifm, then at leaft in all probability the unbaptized are damned. 3 . And can any thing be more contrary to Scripture,then that Believers in finceri- ty are damned? And can any doctrine 6e more deteftable then that which would teach us not ro believe the great promife, that whofoever belicvech (hall not periih ? but at leaft to quefiLon the falvation of the faithful ? And who knows not th3t true Bel ieveis may be unbaptized ? And whereas you give them hope, if ic be in a cafe of nee- fllty, Rr z where 3*o Plain Scripture proof of where baptifm cannot be had $ what ground have you to give them that hope/if grace be not to beexpefied without baptifm, and God be not ufed to give it ?. your chari- table opinion of men, is a poor ground for them to build their hope of falvation on^e*- cept you will mew them fome Scripture for it. 4. And confider what a multitude you leave to this damnation. What you will fay to the times before circumcifion 3 and the Ifraelites fourty yeers uncircumcifed, we ftiall fee anon. You are not cerain that the twelve Apoftles were b3ptized 3 and fo ac- cording to you we muft queftion their falvation. You know that even inTertuUians time, they begun to delay Baptifm long, and fo down to Na^(ia?i%ens time, when they forbore oft, except in danger of death; and you know how long Conftantinehim- felf and Auflin and many others did defer it : and that the Novatian error bred fuch a fear in men of fininng after baptifm;, that at laft multitudes del?,ved it, and fome till jheir death bed. And were all thefe unpardoned and unjuftificd, not having Jm in n< were thcynot truly pofleft of Chrift and grace ? Nayiwere they regenerate but in part ? And It muft needs be that many muft dye without it 5 and did theyperifh? Or was it by an extraordinary way that Con(iantine 3 Auftint&c» had the laid grace before baptifm ? Yea, what fay you to all the Churches of the Anabaptifts in Germany, Holland) Eng!and?&c- Have none of them Grace till baptized ? Are you fure fo many thoufands are all unpardoned, or that God is not wont to pardon them, and give them Grace ? I dare not think fo uncharitably of them. And yet they might have baptifm if they would, and are not denyed it, by any outward impediment, but only by the er. ror of their own mind : but who dare think that it is fuch an error as excludeth them from grace ? You fee how many thoufands of them are in England already ; And what if by their prevalency, and the peoples ignorance and inft ability , Anabaptiftry ftould become the common Religion of the Land (which you knowis too poffiblej) would you fay that the Land were excluded from Grace,and might not expeft the ope- ration of the Spirit ? Or if they had gracejthat it were in an extraordinary way ? Sure that way that God gives grace to fo many minions is an ordinary way. And fure the word is an ordinary way to faith: And fure faith is an ordinary way tojuftifica- Sipn. ^ Jkfid€S,you do ill to exclude all means befides the word and Sacraments. No doubt prayer is alfo a means ,God will give his Spirit to them that ask.If any man lack wifdom let him ask it of God, who giveth to all men liberally &c feek the Lord and your foal (hall live,e^. The like may be faid of Meditation J AfHic'tiens J Mercies J con- vincing wonders of providence, and the like* 6. And if you fay that you leave not all the forefaid perfons in a ftate of damna- tion, then you feem to aflert a middle ftate, and then we may look for a middle place between Heaven and Hell. For if a man be thirty yeers between his faiih and baptifm (as many a thoufand Anabaptifts are many yeers,) he hath all that while Jm ad rem (to Chrift, pardon,cH.) but not mre. Now if he be faved without Right in Chrift and pardon, it is ftiangejand if he be not faved when he hath Right to Chrift and pardon, it is ftrange too > and then he muft be between a ^hte of falvation and damna* glon. 7. Again, you make fo long and ftrange a work of Regeneration, as I never knew Divines do. Thofe that deferred their baptifm till ncer death, it feem s the work of Regeneration was half done,prehaps fourty or fixty yeers before, and partly then. For you fay the word doth it but in part, and not fully, nor gives them Jua in re, efpecial- ly to a man that takes Regeneration for the firft A&uall Renovation of the nature by fpeciall grace; this is ftrange doctrine, 3. And Infants Church- member flip and Baptifm. 5 j t 8. And what confederate man can judge it credible, that the Gofpel ihouJd pJace/b great a neceflity in a Ceremonial ordinance, when it hath {ogracicufly delivered us from themjyea when it in this fo eminently differeth from the Law.Evcn in the Infan- cy of the Church,God did fave all Infants that werefaved without any fuch ordinance^ for many hundred yeersjeven from the beginning of the world till Abrabam.And even in Abrahams time he made it not neceffary to all his Church, but only to Abrahams fa- mily! to be circumcifed.SfW and his family, who were then living, were not fo much as commanded to be eircumcifed.Nor Melch'i^ede^ nor any of the fubje&s 6v»:r whom he was Kingmor any of that Church to whom he was Prieft. And to thofe that were com-* manded the ufejof it, fo far was it from being of fuch neceflity to falvation, that God difpenfed with it in their journey in the wildernefs, andthat to the who! e people, f or fourty yeers time>fo that none in the worldf except the feed oiKJturahyEjau, cr Ifmael) did then ufe ic,to (hew that even then he v/ould have mercy and not faci ifice,and would ever difpenfe with Ceremonials,when tfhey were inconfiftent with morals. And can any believe that Chi ill hath placed fo much greater neceflity now in his few Ceremonial ordinances,as that men have not Jim in re without it,normay expeft Regeneration be- fore it, or without it, now as well as then? What muft they in New England that preach to the Indians* judge of this do&rine j or any that live among Jews, Turks, or Pagans ? Sure if they baptize them before a probability of Repentance and Faith, they muft forfake the conduct of Chrift in the work, And if they have Repentance and Faith,they are regenerated ; And fure this muft be no extraordinary courfe, for it muft be ufed with all their converts ©f all Nations. A Nochcr unfound doctrine (I think) here maintained, is, That Cjod doth ordinarift by Baptifm give the Holy Ghofl or the feed of Grace, or Regeneration to Infants that nftertvardi loofe it, and peri(h, as well as to the Eletl, I do not here fpeak of their relative grace of pardon of origlnall fin , whidi being received on condition of a Faith without them , it is not fo abfurd if we affirm it may be loft : But of the Holy Ghoft within them. What is here meant by the [Holy Ghoft] and [the Ceed of Faith] is hard to difcover. Doctor Barges confefl feth it is not the Holy Ghoft confidered effentially and per finally, but opcratively, and yet faith [it is not only Grace wrought by the Spirit, but the Holy Ghoft dwelling in every true Chrift ian and working grace] Baptifm. Rcgen.pag.it. But what middle thing between the effence and grace of the Spirit there is, I never yet heard. Is any thing [the Spirit himfeif] which is nothiseflence orperfon ? If he mean theelfence is given, but not confidered as the eflence, but as operative. I anfw. Confider it how you will, the Holy Ghoft is effentially everywhere, and movethnot from place to place. So that what it can be but an effect and operation of the fpirit, I never yet heard. Yet the very perfon o£ the Holy Ghoft may be faid to be given, Relatively to work this in us,and to Metaphorically to be fent: As Chrift according to his Godhead was given and fent to his office for us ; But fttll that which is given Really into our natures, muft needs be a created thing, and fo only fome v, 'or\ of the Spirit. And Mr. B. confeffeth this more plainly; for he faith pt is that fame degree of grace which the Schoolmen call Infufed Habits, and which Scripture cals Seminal Grace, and which is conferred in Baptifm s and is the Sacramental Regeneration.7Vrt#./?.56\] And indeed what elfe can it be ? The word [feed] and [Root] are Metaphors. Some call it a principle : And then it muft be Prhicipitim quod, vel quo ; the principle which is received, or by which we receive the objects of the foul; The former is only things True and Good, as fuch 5 and cannot be it. The later muft be either the faculty it — Rr ? felf,. , ji2 Plain Scripture proof $f felf, or Power j or clfc Come difpofition or Habit to qualifie and fit that Power. That grace infufeth no new power, Dr. Twifle in his late Anfwer to Qa.vinm will tell -you, in many placesfas you may fee in the Index)and that it is only aHabit that is infufed. For my part, I eafiiy acknowledge that we are all at a great and remediLfs lofs con- cerning the nature of our own fouls, their being, motions, and thefe Habits and qua- lifications of them. But whatfoever you will call it, me thinks, Mr. Bs. Dodrine can- not hold found. For this Holy Ghoft or Seminall or Habituall grace which is given to them that lofe it ate and peri(h, is either fpecial, eftedual, faving grace (pro tem- pore) in the habit and feed, or it is only common, unefftdual, not-faving grace. If the later, then it would not be faving to thofe that dye in Infancy, as Mr. B. thinks it is. If ihe former, then it would certainly and infallibly bring forth fpeciall, favin<* Ads of grac? as foon as the party had the ufe of reafon. For Habits are given for the facilitating of the Ads : And to feign Habits or feeds of eftedual faving grace, which yet will not at ail bring forth an Act of faving Grace, is new* Doctrines When Chrift gives the reafon why the hearers likened to the ftony ground do fall away and wither, becaufe they had not root in themfelves, which inti- mates, that if they had had root, they had not fain away, Mat. 1 j. 21. And John faith, They cannot fin, becaufe the feed of Godabidethinthem •, fo that the Radical 1 and Seminall grace which Scripture fpeaks of, is ever efTsduall in Ad,and will not be loft. Not that Habitual grace will ferve turn without the Spirits continued afliftance 5 But things work according to their natures ; and when God will change the operations,he will firft change the natures : if he will have a ftone fpeak and reafon, he will make it a man 5 and if he mike it a man,hc will have it Reafon : where the Spirit gives a new na- ture,he will not deny that conferring, concurring grace which is neceffary to the per- formance of new Ads Suppol'e (as we may for difputation fake) that thofe Infants had at that time the ufe of reafon : would that Seminall Grace be effedual to produce fincere Ads, or not ? If not, how can you feign iz to be faving grace ? If it would ; then how comes it to lofe that efficacy, and not to put forth fuch Ads, when the party doth firft come to the ufe of reafon ? If you fay, that it is an erteduall Grace, which is iiyt felf fuflficient to produce the Ads, if other things concur. Ianfw. God giveth it either fortheprodudionof the faying Ads Abfnltttdy, or only Conditionally: If Abfolutely, then it (hall do it / If conditionally \ 1 Name the condition if you can : either the condition is expeded in tfce parent or the child : Mr. B. makes it ro be in both, Trail. p. 54, *?, 56", f 7. He faith [1. That rhe primary grace which baptifm conferreth 'is union with Chrift; the fecondaty_ is Regeneration : which is but Potential, as an Ingrafting into Chrift (and fo is the fame with that hecals union) and (haU become Adsall, on condition the branches apply themfelves to the root, and draw juice from it : If through their owa or their parents faults they learn not to draw from Chrift the juice of grace,it may ne- ver come into Ad. a. He faith,it is yet more agreeable to the dodrine of the Church,' to fay, That baptifmall Regeneration is Aduall, but only iniciall and feminal, not full and perfed : yet of the fame degree with the infufed Habits which the School- men dilpute of, and that which /Weals [the Spirit of Frith 1 Cor.' 4. ij. and Peter [the incorruptible feed] %■ Pet. 1.4. and [the Divine nature] and $>)bn [the feed of God] In the conferring of this (he faith) baptifmall Regeneration is defined. Bqc yet this is fufferable and lofeablej and therefore when it is loft, it is becaufe the parents negleded the education of the tofant,and the means of confirming it (fuch as Con ur- ination and the Lords^upper.) To all which I arifwer. 1. The ufe of Seminall or Habiuiall grace is effcdually to Infants Church -member jlnf and Baptifm. 3 1 5 to difpofe and inclinethe foul to Adj the principal Ad tor which it is conferred, is the Ad of Faith, or coming to Chrift,and applying him to our felves, and fo drawing grace from him : Now Mr. Bs. dodrinc is, that God gives Infants by foptifmthat Radicall grace which (hall encline their fouls to come to Chrift and draw from him, upon condition they come to Chrift and draw from him : or which mall enable and encline them effectually to believe on condition they do believe : How abiurd is this ? If you lay the* condition upon their will to ufe the means, or not refill the fpirit. I anf. The nature and ufe of their Seminall or Habkuall Grace is (if favingand cf&ccu- all) to incline their wils effectually to ufe the means, and :o obey the Spirit, as foon as they are capable in the ufe of reafon ; Now according to this doctrine then, God gives them grace to incline the will effectually to ufe means for increafe,and to obey the Spi- rit, upon condition they do ufe the faid means and obey the Spirit As if a Phyfitian mould tell his patient, I will open your obftructions (or give you a medicine that mall open them) upon condition they be opened ; or I will give you that which ftull revive the paralytica! members,upon condition they be revived. 2. Moreover ,when this condition comes to be performed (of drawing from Chrift or ufing means, or not refitting) the party hath then the ufe of reafon. Andthen,£ee- ing by vertue of the feed of grace, or the Holy Ghoft dwelling in him, he is (effectual- ly, if favingly) inclined to Good, why were not his firft Acts of reafon good ? Thofe finful Acts by which he loft the Holy Ghoft, were either his firft Acts of Reafon, or fome after. Acts ; If his firft, then who was it long of that thofe firft were not good? There could be no Actuall condition in him prerequifite to thegoodnefs of them; for it cannot be required that he have any Acts before his firft ; And to what end hath he the Holy Ghoft or Root of Grace to incline him to act well, if it do not fo incline him effectually, no not to the firft Acts,before he have refifted the Spirit or forfeited grace? will God give his faving grace and Spirit to be wholly ufelefs ? But if you fay, that it was not by his firft Acts of reafon, but fome following Acts, that he loft the Holy Ghoft; Then i Why rather mould not his firft righc Ads have confirmed his Grace ? 2. Why mould not the Holy Ghoft work as effectu- ally in following Ads,as in p;ecedent,feeing he is given for both ? If you fay [Bzcaufc the party will not obey] I fay again, what was the ufe of the Spirit within him but to make him willing ? 3. And alfo I would have Mr. E. remember, that thus he maketh men not only to lofe his Initiall Seminall Grace (which yet he feemeth only to affert) but to lofe and fall from Aduall Grace too. For if the former Ads were gratious, be- fore the party loft the Spirit by following Ads, then he muft needs lofe alfo Aduall Grace. And indeed, when Mr. B. makes confirmation by the Lords Supper, to be the condition, this that I fay muft needs follow : we ufe not to admit any to the Lords Supper till fixceen,or fourteen, or twelve yeers of age j Now they have all the time before either Aded gratioufly, and believed and obeyed the Spirit, or not :If not, then they loft the Spirit, or it was uneffedual even before they came to the con- dition of confirmation. If they did, then they fall from many yeers Aduall Grace, as well as Initiall, when upon thenegled of the Lords Supper they lofe all. 3. Hfpecially I would Mr. B. fhould confider, that this dodrine which hangs the efficacy of the Holy Ghoft upon mans Will, and which makes God to beftow his firft Aduall faith upon, or according to precedent Merits or works in man,is down- right Pelagianifm. So much for the conditionality in the Infant. 2. For the other part of his conditionality [>i^. that this Initiall or Habkuall Grace tfiall become Aduall, if the parents do their part in education] I anfw, 1. The. . children 3 1 4 Vhin Scripture proof of children living under the found'of the Gofpell, will i'urely hear of the doctrine of Chrift 5 and then crTe-ctuall Grace will fure produce Aduall,the object being re- vealed. 2. And in the mean rime thofe Graces will be Acted, which require no fu- pernaturall Revelation of iheobje&,but the object is known by the light ot nature : as LoYe to God 3 Fear of GodjObedience to him., &c. g It is acknowledged, that God doth at firft take Infants into his Covenant of Grace 3 as belonging to parents that are in it : and fo the parents faith is the condition of their entrance : But that the parents faith or duty mould be the condition of the continuance of the Holy Ghoft in the In- fant, or of the operation and efficacy of the feed of Gn?ce 3 fo that they fhailbecaft out of Covenant again without any fault of tfieir own_, but only the parents, this is ftrange doctrine to the Orthodox. 4. When they are well educated, yet we fee mul- titudes, even of the children of the godly never come to faving faith or Grace. And who then did fail in performing the condition ? The moft holy skilful, diligent pi- rents that ever I knew, who have taken pains with their children day and night, by fair means and foul, have yet had wicked children. 5. This is not only Pelagi- anifm, but fuperPelagianifm, to affirm that God giveth Faith, or the firft Actual Grace 3 not only according to our own prerequilite works, but even according to o. ther mens. Yea and that he doth give Radical or Habitual Grace, or the Holy Ghoft to men to be operative or effectual, on condition of other mens Actions. In Auflin, Pro/per, FulgcntiiUy and in Doctor TwiJJe^nd all our modern vindicatorsof Grace, you may finde en^ ugh againft all thefe. 6. Where God gives the greater means,he ever gives the leflerj where he gives faving Seminall Grace, or the Holy Ghoft,he will give the external means which is neceffary to the Act, and not let his Spirit be loft meerly for want of externall means without any fault of our own. If he give Fd#/ his in- ternall Grace (fubjeftive) he will fend him to Ananias to reyeale the object. If he give CorncliM a gracious nature, he will fend Pete7 to reveale Chrift to him. And if he give the HolyGhoft to Infants jhe will provide parents or fome body elfe to reveale his will to them,objectively 5 Elfe you may as well feign God alfo to give the Holy Ghoft to the aged, which yet (hall never produce an Act of Grace for want of means to dis- cover and exsite.That love which caufcth God to give them the Holy Ghoft,will caufe him to give them the revelation of the Gofpel. Again 7 Thefe Children have the ufe of Reafon, when their parents muft teach them and bring them to the Lords Supper. Now either they have ufed their firft Acts of Reafon for all that time rightly (accor- ding to the degree of their capacity) or not.If not, then the Holy Ghcft was uneffectu- all before the parents fo failed of their condition, and fo was loft before the means of lofing it : It they did ufe it right 3 then they fall from Actuall Grace as well as Se- minall or Habitual! through other mens faults , without their own. And therefoie it is vain that Mr. B. faith [the difeafe is in themfelves, which is uncured, becaufe the parent feeketh not the remedy for them] for the difeafe ("upon his fuppofitionj is cured, fin pardoned, the party united to Chrift , the Holy Ghoft given ? the Domi- nion of fin taken away, the nature Regenerated, and inclined to gracious Actions, and the perfon in a ftate of falvation ; Now the queftion is, how he comes out of his ftate and lofeth all this again ? Can our parents lofe our grace and ftate of falvation.? LaQly , I delire Mr, B. to review all the texts he mentioncth \nCor. Jcb-Pet. and fee whether that [fpirit of faith] that [incorruptible feed] that Iked of God] &c. be not the grace which is not loft but permanent , if there beany fuch. Doth not John fay, we cannot fin (that is, to death) becaufe his feed remaineth in us > And fure it will reraain in us then; for nothing but fin (which that feed prohibited) can take it from us. 1 know the whole comroverfie abou: the cer tain perfeverance of Believersis of grwt Infants Church-mtmberjbtf md Baptifm. 5 is great difficulty ; and I know the moft, if not all the Fathers within two hundred, ii not three hundred yeers of Chrift, do fpeak as it they were againft us, both in thawnd Freewill, as thofe that icad them throughly may ealily perceive; and as Scukctus accit- feth them particularly inter Ntvos, when he mentioneth their errors; and I know that all that call on the Father who judgeth every man according. to his works without re* fpect ofperfons, mould pafs the time of their fojurning here in fear; and he that thinketh he ftandeth mult take heed left he fall ; and Chrift thought fit to warn his own DiTciples of the danger of not abiding in him; and therefore I judge it unbe- feeming fo weak a head as mine to be too peremptory in fuch a point,and to cenfure aJi duTcnters fo feverly as fome do, who do but (hew that they never ftudyed the point fo far as to find out the difficulty. But yet, as I am paft doubt of the certain perfeverancc of aU the Elect, and that the foundation of Gods particular choice ftandeth fure, the Lord knowing who are his ; fo I am perfwaded that there is a fhte of Grace here that none ever fall from ; and it is yet my judgement, that none ever fall totally or finally that have habi:ually or actually that effectual grace which Chrift likeneth to the Rooted feed, Mat. 13,21. and which prevaileth fo far agabid the intcrc(l of 'the fl>(h, as to give Chnfi thti chiefejl room and intercft, and fupremacy : And I believe that no feminali or habituall Grace, which is not enough to bring the heat t to this , or would produce this Act, as foon as the foul can act, is faving Grace. And therefore that i( Infants have fuch in the Root or Seed, that God will prefer ve it .* And if it be not fuch, they rauft be faved upon condition of their parents faith, or pertfhifor this cannot be called faving. Dr. Twifje againft Corvinus citeth a faying of Auflms (though Iconfefshc hath many that feem to run the other way) that is downright for this certainty of pex- feverance ; DetisnonprAdcflmatorumneminemaddiicitad falubrem fpirualemy. pozmten- tiam 3 qua, homo ret onciliatur deo in Chrifto, five ilia ampkorem, five non impawn patkntiam prabeat. Cont.fxlian.PelagMb.$.cap.+. (Ttvifs Cont. Corvin. p. 304. dj But for the former point (that the eificary of Gods grace dependethnot oa mans will,) Aufiin is all plain and full as can be defired fas Paulus Erynachus (who- ever he be that fo nameth himfelf ) in his late Trias Patrum de gratia, will fully certifie you) Hac Gratia qme occu!te humanis cordibus tribuitur divina largitate } a nullo dur» csrde refpuitur', idco quippc tribtcituu ut cordis duritia luferatur primitus. Aug. deprte - d:(l. SancJ. I. i.c.B. For my own part (though I take it for no fundamental, or Article of my Creed;) I judge thus, 1. That God hath clearly made the parents faith the condition of the Infants (not only vifible Churchmembetfhip, which is certain^ but alfo) pardon and falvation. 2. But whether their Habituall Grace be any condition, I "know no* 1 . Becaufe I find no fuch thing in Scripture : Actual grace I find the condition to the aged, andhabfruail neceflary thereto ; but Habits directly and perfcto be the conditi- ons I fiftde not. z Becaufe the very Philofophicall points are very dark and uncer- tain, which are all fuppofed in thefe opinions : whether the foul be capable of Moral Habits, yea or intellectually any fuch qualifications beyond its faculties and powers, 1 before it be capable of Acting, j. But yet my opinion is, that the foul is fo capable., and that God doth give this feed of grace,orhabituallgrace-to fome Infants v tut that is 1. Only to his tlect. a. And that baptjfm was never inftitutedto be an Inftru- ment of working it, I am paft doubt : But for the pardon of orginal fin, and other Re- lative grace,I affirm that we are to judge it probably given to the child of every Belie- ver (their vifible Church memberfhip being certain,) and if any will fay, that it is cer- tainly given to every fuch child, even the non-elect, I will not gain- fay him. My rea- fonof this deference among many o;hers,is 3 12 that Remiflion and Jaftifkation are S f given 3 1 6 Plain Scripture proof of given by a Morall Act of God, even by the promife or grant of the New Covenant, which Covenant is conditional! and univerfall : when any performeth the condition (a* Infants do by their parents hkh) the Covenant prefently pardoneth and Juftifieth them without any new Act of God (fo that it is no immanent Act in God from eterni- ty ) and if this perfon do by unbelief deprive himfelf afterward of the benefit, the Co- venant which ftill remaineth Conditional, will condemn him, as before it did Jufti- fiehim; and all tars without any change in God or the Covenant , but onely in the party. Though that learned man that oppofeth my Dodrine in this point , take it for untrue., Thac Gods Ad of Juftifying is by the Covenant grant : yet I doubt not fully to manifeft the truth of it; and the great neccflicy of fo concluding, if God enable me ; and with any ftu'dious Divine who doth nor with the Antimonifts affirm Juftification to.be an Immanent Ad. and fo from Eternity, to tell me what other Transient Ad it is , if they can : and not to tell the world that it is an Ad of G od , and a Tranfient Ad, and never tell them what Ad it is. Vlpian faith, and all the Civilians , That an obligation is taken away by the fame kind of means by which it was induced : But it was by.an Ad of the Law or Covenant that the obligation to puniftiment was brought upon us ; therefore it is by an Ad of the Law or Covenant that it is taken orTagaia-5 (which Is the formal nature of Remiflfron.,) Well, but now for Regeneration, or the firft Habitual grace, the cafe is far other- wife. This is not given by fuch a Legal Moral Ad of Donation. It is indeed promi- fed, but in another kind of Covenant , vh^ The abfolute promife of the firft Grace , made onely to the Eleft. Therefore no: onely Camcro 3 but even Dzvenant and Do- ctor Ward, with the reft of the Br ittilh Divines in the Synod o(Dort do conclude,- Thac Conditional Remifiion comes to all dirediy from the Covenant, but faith is from E- ie&ion : and that Chrift hath given to all men to be faved.. if they will believe 5 but in that hfcgiveth fome onely to believe* there the jny fiery of Eledion begins to open it fcif. Ad. Synod part. 2. p. 79. And therefore chough faith be a fruit of Chrifts death, yet aotfoimmediatly, nor in the fame lenfeas fome other are (as Amytatdus hath Chewed well ; and the further opening of that point will be of exceeding ufe in the~con- troverfies wkhthe Arminians. ) And therefore to fall from faith according to Dodor Wa-fdyDaixnant and the reft, wouLd be to fall from Eledion : and fore the Holy Ghoft, or the true Seed, Root, or infufed Habit of faith 3 muft flow as dirediy from Eledion, as the .Ad of faith. UDutftrdCzy contrary here, reconcile him to himfelf a and his brethren. . So that this is one reafon of my judgement , why we may better judge it certain, That all the Infantsof true believers are juftified and pardoned ( though fome fali off and perifh) then that they are regenerated, or indued with a fincere new nature, and the*f&dual Seed or Habit of Faith. Though yet for my own opinion, I have refolved no further then this , That weare to judge the RemifTion, Juftification, and Salvation ofparticularInfantsmoSprobable,tUl tie contrary appear by them 5 and for. the full certainty, I leave it as to me uncertain* HAving touched the chief of the miftakes of this book, I (lull now be briefer in my . Animadverfions on the by-pafTages. lt Pag. j£. he faith , All grace is to be fought from Chriilas the foontain. From ^C hrift it is not derived to man, unlefs a man be firft ingrarTed into Chrift , as the ' 'biaach into the viae.; die iaftrumems cf this in^xij&ns are the Sacraments , &c .] And** Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 317 Anftver. This cannot hold true, though it feem the caufeof other your miftakes . 1. Is the Grace of Infidon into Chrift, and union with him no grace > a. Is the giving the Holy Ghoft to work this no grace ? j. Are the Sacraments, which you think are Instruments to env& it, and therefore before it, no Grace? 4. Efpecially, is true faving Faith no grace, which our Divines generally fay gocth before our union with Chrift, as the means ot it, and indeed may be fully proved from Scripture fo to do ? Doubtlefs, if all Grace come from Chrift, then all thcTe come from him j and yec are before our union with him. The truth is, there Is much Grace, both common and fpeciall that comes from Chrift before our union with him. All that Grace which draweth men to Chrift, and joyncth them to him, is before this union, even from the decree and good pleafure of God (as the giving of Chrift himfelf wasj and alfo from the Love and Merits of the Mediator. c< P^g 44. he faith well and folidly, that [the means of application on mans pare hyficall> 1 believe them as to the way of eflfe&lngj but if they mean it is not by a real, proper making One in being, nature, perfon, nor yet a relative or morall , then when they tell me what they mean , I will be glad to underftand them. In the mean time I believe we are members of Chrifts myflicall Body, the great Corporation of the New Jerufalem ; and have a far clofer union with him in AfFeftion and relation, and nioral union , then is between a Husband and wife , who yet are called one fi£fh : and that our communion hence arifing is real,and confifteth in communication ©f real and more then relative benefits. But I dare not believe' that we are one effence, nature,or perfon with Chrift, and fo Deifie man, and make Chrift the greateft a&ual Sinner in the world : as the Hereticks of this Age (for Co I dare call them) fay, That mans foul is but part of the God head. Thet*e Fhyfical, grofs carnal conceits of our union with Chrift, is the very point too iftat hafch left us in the Do&riaeof juftiflcation j and brought Divines to fay, That Faith Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 3 f ^ Faith is Phyfically a Paffire Reception of Chrift himfeif,and no aft 3t all, but a Paf- P*»{ faith indeed, that this is agj-eat Myflery^four union with Chr'tjl ; but the Simi- litude by which he opens the Myftcry, is that of Marriage. And VJ r. B. here fsemeth to me to fay as I in this : For pag. 48. he faith, That [without doubt it is the Myftt- cal body that we are baptized into : And if the Myftical (which is the Church) then not the Natural j nor are we made one Individual with Chrift, nor conjoyned by a- ny Phyftcal co-augmentation : But we are united to that One holy Corpora- tion, whereof Chrift isthe head. We are not now enquiring after any improper remote Union in gencre , vcl fpocie , but a proper Uaion which maketh one Indivlduail of two ; which we muft be cautelous how we Aifert. And Pag. 49. faith, That lit is our relation to-Chrift 3 and not to chriftians that is noted MRom.6.4,6. Col. z 12.] whereby he feems to interpret it but of a Moral or Relative union: and if that be his meaning,fo far we are agreed: but faith (both in feed'anda&) goeth before that union. His fecond Reafon is drawn from the experience which men have of the efficacy of the Sacraments j to which I anfwer j 1. The aged that are then baptized,have certain experience that his do&rine is unfound 5 and that to them baptifm is not for the con- veying of Seed or Aft of Faith, which they muft have before , or not be baptized (could it be known.) 2. We have no fuch experience that he fpeaks of,of Infants. For his following reafons of the unefTcftualnefs of baptifm to fome^ I have examined them already. But Pag. 57. he condudeth 3 That lit is found by experience that fome Infants reed" ved Grace in Baptifm.'] Anf. 1. A bare affirmation, without the leaft fhtw of proof. 2, If they did receive true inherent grace in baptifm, it followeth not, that baptifm is an inftrument of eftefting it. 5, The fruits you difcern in fome betimes : but whe- ther they received the Root then, or fo long before, no man can be certain. 4. But if they do receive the Root in Infancy ( which is my opinion.) it is far more likely to be by virtue ot the promife, and from Eleftion and Divine Love before baptifm, then by baptifm. J, However we are fure God never tels us that he inftituted baptifm to work it. Pag. 70. he faith, That [without doubt the firft end is exhibition , the latter ob- signation,] and that [There is no place for fealing, but upon fuppofition of the exhibi- tion.] Anf.i* If you mean that exhibition is the firft end intended,you fay true (though not as to the Root of faith J But the next words (hew that you mean it of the firft eflfeft* or end obtained. 2 And then I fay, the ckan contrary to your obfervation is true. In- deed there is no place for fealing, except there be either an exhibition or preparation to it, in and by the inftrument which is Sealed : But that not the inftrument or wri- ting, but the Seal it felf, mould firft exhibit necefTarily under fome other notion 3 be- fore it Seal, is an obfervation that needeth more confirmation then your word. All thofc paffages that prove onely the effeft of Remiflion of fin, and relative Grace, I (hall overpafs : as alfo all thofe paflages that need no anfwer , or that are anfwered before. Pag. 74. He faith [The water of baptifm doth not touch the foul, but the force of the blood of Chrift] Anfw. x. Then that water can be no inftrument of effecting in- herent Grace on an Infant 5 For if it touch not the foul, then it is no Phyficall in- ftrument (or at leaft by fome force fent from it reach the foul) And a morali inftru- ment doth but 1. Convey a Right andfo relative mercy, as the Covenant and feal Sf 5 do, ji3 P/^/tf Scripture proof ef do , Or i. Opcratemorally by representing and fignifying to the eye and other fenfes, as the word to the ear \ And fo it can work on none that cannot under- Hand it. a. I hope you think not that Chrifts blood, or any naturall force of it doth touch the foul any more then water.Elfe fair fall Tranfubftantiation. But morally L acknow- ledge the force of Chrifts blood doth touch the foul, that is, the grace which his blood hath merited.As the price that is paid to redeem a Captive in Turky doth by its force touch his body. Thefe phrafes need explication therefore, that they may not hurt. Fag. 7 J- He faith [The bread hath neither a natural nor Supernatural efficacy in it felf] Anf. Then it is neither a natural nor fupernatural inftrument properly, but mo- rally ;for what it hath not, it cannot convey. , except you mean only that it hath it not principally in it felf 5 butfure you will acknowledge,that not fo much as derivatively, or as received from the fpirit ; the Elements have not grace is themfelves. I am glad you interpret [the Divine nature] in us, to be [only the effects of grace and holinefs imprinted by the Spirit] and not with Doctor Burgzs y oi the Holy Ghoft himfelf,as diftind from his grace. Though I fee not but the text ( forgive but the Angularity) may be well interpreted of a Relative participation of the Divine nature in Cbrift, "which by thofe pretious promifes we have intereft in, as our husband and head. Pag.70.ht confefleth.CThat Circumcifion and the reft of the Sacraments are called Seals, becaufe by the Covenant of God they confirm Faith.] An ft*. Then they in fuch prefuppofe Faith ; and therefore were not inftituted to convey it , either in the Seed or firft Aft. But he faith that [The Charter or writing, is not a means of conveying as written ', but as Sealed.] Anfiv.i, Doth not this contradift whan was before , that the exhibi- tion goes necelTarily before the fealing ? 2. Among men indeed, a Seal Is to make the writ currant/ but Gods Word being as true as his Oath, and the Promife unfealed as true as fealed, it convey eth even without the Seal .* Yet not barely as written , but • as belonging to us ; which it doth upon our Acceptance and faithfull covenanting withChrift, before (and often without) the Seal $ the Seal being to make our Faith more ftrong, and not the Covenant more true. HisObfervation on Rom.4. maketh it no lefs againft him. (p.So ) And he is there forc't to acknowledge , that [God added the Sacrament for a Seal of the Covenant, and of Conferring further grace by the Covenant , ] Therefore not for conferring the firft Grace, nor for conferring primarily before the Covenant. To this defer ipt ion I wholly fubferibe. HisObfervation,p.8i. I much approve [that feeing the Apoftle calleth that a Seal by way of Interpretation , which God had called but a fign , therefore we are warranted fo to interpret the word [fign] apply ed to the other Sacraments. P4g.8 a- he faith [I acknowledge God is no$ tyed to means 5 but I add , To means which are abfent.] Anfw. Means are x. Such ashe hath tyed falvation to,as abfolutely neceflary (as is Faith to Justification ;) 2. Or but accidentall, which are neceflary, that is, Due, or fuch as ought to be ufed, and ufed as means 5 but not Abfolutely ne- ceflary 3 fuch is Baptifm. It is not Abfent to all the children of Anafeaptifts $ and yet who doubts but thofe that truly believe are juftified ? If his diftinft ion of a peyfonal and general National RemiiTion ftand (p.84.) "can be true of no Remiffion but that of temporal punifliment.But the Apoftle expoundeth this Text of more, Hcb.S. l Where he thinkech^^.8 $.[thac Infants periihing arc condemned, only for following * v fin, Infants Church-memberflup and Baptifm. 32 1 fin, and that Original fin doth not return,] I am dean of another mindc. My Reafcn is 5 becaufe All Remiffion is, as to the continuance of it, but Conditional!, while we are in this life; My proof is, We are no otherwife Remitted, then by the Condi- tional Covenant, [Whoever bclieveth fhali be forgiven, juftified , &c] which Cove- nant therefore will juftifie, and pardon no longer then we Believe. Therefore do but fuppofe a falling from the Condition , and it is evident that all the forgiven fin re- turns s becaufe Conditional forgivenefs is of no force longer then we have the Con- dition. And the two Examples jie adds, do contradict him,and confirm me. i.Who can believe,that when the lfraelites fell in the Wildernefs for their unbelief,that their unbelief did not bring back upon them all their former guilt ? The Text oft chargeth all their former Rebellion upon them , upon their renewed Infidelity. 2. And that in the Parable which he addeth, is fully for me j For the Servant to- whom he had forgiven all the debt , though he be caft into Prifon principally for not forgiving his fellow fervant , yet this plainly brought back upon him all the debt $ for he mull lie till he had paid the utmoft farthing. Pag. 86.87. Are great miftakes,but I have touched them already. Yet I doabt not, but as a Kings Coronation , or a Burgefles killing the Book at his Oath, or a Seal to a Charter, may befaid to perfect them : fo Baptiun may be. faid mote fully to con- fer out Right to the mercies of the Conditional Covenant. Pag. 88. He brings the Example of the Angels and Adam for falling away from grace .* But the Queft ion is, Whether all fpeclal fanctifying effectual Grace, which gives Chrift the chief Actual intereft in the foul, do not now flow only from Election, and proceed from that Ablolute Promife of a New heart, and fo upon a^furer Cove- nant then that with Adam : and f» whom he calleth, he juftifieth, and them he glorifi? eth : That the Apofhfie of every Saint (and even the, Elect,) is, poflibie, L doubt notj. but withall, it feems to me to be Ccrtb-nonfuturum. HisReafonof the neceflity of Adual Faith in the Aged, rather then Infants, is meft found (p.89.) Becaufe another Law of juftifying is propounded to theAged>* - to which, if they (ubferibe not,they pcrifli. Moft of his Summary Aphorifms, I have anfwered before. In his firft CorolJ. what he faith of the Conditionally of the right ufe of -initiall Grace, is anfwered y that Grace is given to afcertain thofe Ads which he cais the right ufe, if it be faving, effe&uali Grace. When he faith [they may wholly lofe Hope of falvation,] either he means- by [Hope] only [the ground of Hope,] or eife he acknowledge^,, that fuck do lofe Actual Grace, as well as Initial or Seminal. The fecondCoioll. were it exactly opened, would hardly be reconciled to what went before. Where he faith in his fecond A phorifm ; [That Chrift did not Die for the fins of Impenitency and Infidelity of a wicked will ;] If he mean as he (peaks, I am far. from his mtnde: For 1 know not how all the "Impenitency and Infidelity of Paul be- fore his converfion or any other who after believes, fhould ever be pardoaed, if Chrift did not dit for it. But I judge that this- Learned man means only final Impenitency and Infidelity : And I confefs Chrift never dyed for that j yet divers enform me, that- a learned, godly Mafter in lf,-ael i was pleated in no obicure place, nor popular audito- ry, to humble hirnfelf fo far as to mention my Aphorifms of Juftification as guilty in, this point; and to let fly an Arrow of his own Forging againft that fimple worry ed Book,as if it had arnrmed,that Chrift dyed not for unbelief. When,alas,l never dared to have fuch a thought. Only I fay, he dyed not for Final unbelief. Fori diftinguifh between unbelief^ As.it is ihreiwned by the Law of works(for fo allfm even againft the . Gofptl i 3 2 2 Plain Scrifture f roof of <3ofpeI is,) and fo, I fay, Chrift dyed for it, or elfc wo to us ; 2. And as jt is threatned by the new Covenant or Law of Grace (for it bath its threatnings too, whatfoever fome fay to the Contrary, as all impenitent unbelievers will finde^ ) and fo Chrift dyed not (or it. For Chrift never dyed to bear the Curfe of the* New Covenant; tot the punifhment which it threatnefh. And i: threatneth Hell to none but final un- believes and Rebels againfl their rightful Lord. And that which is not threatned, Chrift need not bear for us, as threatned. I am forry that the children under my Mi- niftry mould be ignorant of this, much more any famous learned Divine. But if they will needs teach men that Chrift dyed for final unbelief and impenicency, their Dodrine may bring many a foul to damnation; but when they come there, they will finde that Chrift dyed not for thofe fins. If they do not, let me perifh as a falle Prophet. Thofe that fay the contrary 3 do teach univerfal Redemption with a wit- nefs ! Suchallniverfality as the Scripture never taught 5 no: a univerfal conditional Redemption 5 but even Redemption from the penalty of not performing the condi- tion. Indeed Chrift is faid to die for all (in 4 , but Conditions are alway fuppofed to be excepted in all Conditional grants. He that faith he hach dyed, that whoever be- lieveth fhould not perifh , or for all fins , If we will believe J doth plainly tell us, that he -dyed not for final unbelief. Excellent, learned M.xrtmim in his moft folid, judicious Thefesm Artie, 2. at the Synod of Dort, would in a few lines teach thecoa- trary -minded founder Dodrine, if they weuld but learn. But it is a harder thing to teach a Teacher, then one that knows himfelf a Novice. , . HAving done with Mr. B's Trad it felf , I mould nert examine all the reft ad- joyried j But I mall only give a brief tafte of their Dodrine, and that with all reve- rence to fo famous men 5 and I think, rather vindicate them from Mr. B*s injuries, then oppofe them, except fomtwhat in Dr. Ward. And in him I (hall 1. Shew fome things wherein he is againft Mr.B.and a.Two or three points wherein his own Dodrine requires corredion. i. In cIk main point, fthe kinde of caufality to be afcribed to the Sacrament,] he doth not feign it to be a Hyperphyiical Inftrumen^ differing both from Phyfical a-nd Moral *. but only faith, it is a Caufa fine qua non , (which is no Caufe , but a condi- tion or Antecedent,) or rather an inftrument in a general fence, that is , a Moral In. ftrument 5 as a Cano'nfhip is given by the giving of a Book 9 and an Abbots place by a ftarTV, and a Biihopiick by a Ring,andas upon the agreement of the Contractors, an Inheritance is delivered by anauthentick Inftrument :] But who knoweth no:, that a Canonihip , Abbacy, Billioprick, are but delations? and we acknowledge Baptifm fuch an Inftrument: And the Inftrument of Contradors, as it doth bat perfed what the comrad had firft done {which is contrary to Dr. w. himfelf; fo it delivereth only a Right to the thing , and not the Thing it felf, and Co caufeth only a Relative and not a Phyfical Mutation. So that according to Dr.Jf's Explication ofBaptifrns Inftru mentality, it is impoffible it mould be an Inftumentof operating any Phyfical Mutation on the foul, and fo of infufing inherent Grace. Pag. 00 He mentioned Bradivardins Expofition ponendi obiccm. But Bzadward'mt in that Corollary fully and purpofely confuteth the Dodrine of Gods offering Grace, fo men will not poaere ob'iccm : He faith, El qukquid obex dicatur, potcfi ifta refpanfio comply ficut alia prtccdentcs : cum radius pojfii himc obicem toUcre nifi Dcus 3 vc'l per Beumipfum prtlollcntem 5 &fi ipfe cum valuer it toUere, irrefiflibiliter tollitur : as he before mewed,ft.i>io. Hoc idcmprtojlenfa de Gmia & Pte/iitcntia, li 1. c. 10. To which Infants Charch-memkrjhip and Baptifm. 323 which end he heaps tip abundance from the Fathers. I conceive this is deftt u&ive to the Dodrinc of [faring habitual Grace which (hall be effectual to produce its Ad upon condition of fomewhat to be done fir ft by the party or the Parents] So the fame Bradward'me there concludeth, (pag.6 1 z.) that Nullus Gratiam primam meretur, per difpofitionem praviam, nee per aliam quamlibet actionem: of which alfo, in//£.i. fully. And he confuteth them that fay, [That God offers Grace freely to every one, fo he open his hand, his bofome, his heart to receive it j and fohe that receiveth Grace, therefore receiveth it, becaufe God giveth it 5 but he that receiveth it not, therefore receiveth it not, becaufe he openeth not, and fo God giveth not, becaufe h« accepteth not the Grace which is offered 5 as if one reach you a gift and you ac- cept it not, &c] ( This he fpeaks not of Relative Grace , but Reall Inherent.,) This he confuteth alfo in lib. 1. cap. 38. & 10. & 22. & CoroHar. ejus & alibi pafsim. Pag. 100. Dr.M. faith, thgt [This conferring of Grace by the Sacrament is ne- ceffarily conditional.] Therefore it is not a Seal to the Abfolute Promife of the flrft Grace. Pag. 101. What he faith of Chrifts death [that though it be the moft potent and effedual remedy againft fin , yet it profiteth not, except'it betaken and applyed ] I truly approve of, as it referreth to the removing of Guilt : But if it fbould be fpeken of the conferring of the firft Grace of Habitual or Actual Faith, Repentance, &c. which are in fome fence the fruits of Chrifts death , then I believe there is no application by any Ad of ours that doth precede. For if it do, then either that Applying ad is from the GraceofChriftjornot 5 If not, we have Grace without Chrift the fountain, or elfe we do it without Grace j which are both intolerable. If it be from the Grace of Chrift, then either that Grace muft be received from him without a former apply- ing Ad of ours, or elfc a former is requifite 3 and fo we (liould run in infinitum. But T have reafon to believe, that in this the Dr. means as I, from his judgement with the reft in the Synod oiDort. And where he next faith, that in the aged [Several Difpofitions are required to fit a man to receive pardon (and fojuftificationj ih%* Catholike Faith, Hope of Pardon, fear of punifhment, grief for fin,a purpofe againft finning hereafter, and a purpofe of a new life, all which difpofe the Receiver] 1 agree to him, though all do not. P^.ioa 3 iog J ig4 i i38.He concludeth, that [1 he pardon of Original fin isihtfirfl and primary benefit, whereof an Infant is capable,] which is Cjuite contrary to Mr. B. who faith, that fiift they are united to Chriit , and fo 1. Regenerate, and a. Pardoned. Pag. 107. He faith^that the cleanfing,falvation,renovation/egeneration,in Epbefa. 16. Tit.$.<).Rom.6.$. 1 C0*\6.u. Cannot he meant of the firji Regeneration, but of -a fuller meafure $ which is enough againft Mr.JB. In his own Tradatehe pleadeth dirediy for no more but the juftification of In- fants, and pardon to them > as his Tbef. (hews 5 and oft, when he comes to men- tion their Renovation , he puts it off, as being not neccfiuated to aiTert it. What he faich, pag.n$. [of the New Covenant made with all mankind, J if it be meant (as I doubt not it is) of the Covenant as enaded and offered on Gods part, to all upon Condition they will accept it, and enter it on their part , I eafily believe that fo the Covenant is made with all, at leaft where the Gofpel is preached. Moreover, Dr. »'. ^.209^210,211, 212, 213. argueth largely againft any infu- fed Habits in Infants, both out of the Ancients, and from Reafon : And askcth wherefore talem anim* ad agendxm prfmptitudmem ant ad actus virtutum facilita. T t tiomm 324 Plain Scripture proof of tionem ponerent} &c. And to what elfe arc Habits or your Initial or Seminal Grace, but to incline the foul to Ad when capable ? He (hews, that according to Auflin Baptifmal renovation lyeth in the Remiffion of fin, but renovation to the Image of God begins only at actual Converfion, and no Habits are infufed into In- fants ; And if your Initial Grace, be not Gods Image or part of it, I dare fay it is not faving. Nay, he concludeth that Auflin frequently condudeth, That the Adequate effeft of Baptifm in Tnfants is that Renovation which confijleth Only in the Remifiionof Original fa : but that other Renovation which is to the Image of God^doth not begin but at the time when the heart is converted. Auflin talks of no Seed of Faith in them , but only Credit in alter o qui pescavit in altered Crcdunt & Infantes ; unde crcdunt ? quo- modo crcdunt ? Fidejarcnlum : And he faith the like of all the Fathers and Councels a that they fpeak not of thefanctiflcatten of Infants (that is, by Inherent Grace.) And therefore that the elder Schoolmen, Ralcnf. Thorn- Gcrfon (EsTiusilfo) deny that any Habitual Grace is infufed into Infants. And none hath yet told us what that infufed Seed of Grace is, which being faving, is yet fhort of Habitual. And that all our Di- vines do conftantly teach that Infants fanctification h at death. But feeing the Thefts which he defendeth is only for RemiiTion of Original fin to Infants, I will not ftand upon every b)-paflage 5 only three or four points wherein I fuppofe he is befides the 1 ruth, I fhall be bold to examine a little further.i. In that he often affirms that Baptifm doth not Seal to Infants^but only to the intelligent. a.That the Word doth not apply Chrifts Merits to any Infant ; feeing the word applyeth not but when it is underftood. $ . That Baptifm is the firft means of Remiflion, and the Covenant before Baptifm doth it nor. The two former I hope are but mif-expref- (ions of a tolerable fence, though intolerable as plainly fpoken, But the third is fo in- jurious to the Church and Covenant of God,and feemeth to be the very Core of mens afcribing too much to Baptifm, that I cannot without wrong to the Truth over- pafs It. THe firft of thefe he hath,pag. 137, 138. &pafsim. But he hath nothing for the proof of it. He taketh fcaling to be properly actual alluring as to the minde of the party.But doth not cur common ufe of fealiDg contradict him ? Sealing tefiifyeth the lull confent of the party fealing , which perfeð fometimethe ratification of the Inftrument or Grant in Law j that no Adverfary may have any exception againit the parties Right to whom it is fealed •* And this full Teftimony of the Sealers Confent doth ftronglier cblige himfelf to the performance of his promife,and alfo afceitain the tenure or charter for the ufe of the party to whom ic is granted , and fo prepare for his future aft ual mental affurance ; fo that the parties knowledge or mental certainty is but a remote End of fealing 5 or if it were thefpeciatEnd, yet not as prcfently to be attained, but for futurity. Do we not make and Seal Deeds of Gift to Infants ordinarily ? and Teftaments wherein we bequeath them Legacies ? and put then- names in fealed Leafes, wherein we engage our felves to them , and they by their Parents do again engage to us ? And yet fhall we fay fo confidently, that there can be no proper obfignation, but to~ the Intelligent ? God is pleafed thus to ratifie that Grant in Law Completively , which before was ratified as to the fubftance (as Marriage is without the Ring, and an Oath without killing the Book , and a Soldi- ers place by confent without Lifting and Colour^and a King s without Coronation:) and this for our ufe, before it is to our knowledge : hereby all Adverfaries are the more fully difabled from queftfcming onrrigk 3 and diffeifing us 5 and it is not dif- B fonanc Infants Church'memberjhip and Btptifm. 325 fonant from Scripture language to fay that God doth it to confirm his Promife (for fo ic is hid of his Oath, which as to this queflion is all one with his Seal : yet we know God may fwear to do good to Infants.) Hcb.6, 17, 18 Wherein God willing more abundantly to mew to the Heirs of Promife the Immutability of his CounfeT, that by two Immutable things wherein it was impoflible for God to lie, we might have ilrong Confolation. The Confolation is not alway as foon as the Oath br Seal for confirmation ; bu: immediately the ground of future Confolation is laid, and God ispleafed, as ir were to bind hinafelf 3 and engage hlmfelf more deeply to the per- formance of his Promife. And in the mean time , as ic is by the Parent that the child believes (as it were; and hith intereft, and is engaged, fo the Parent hat h'th'e comfort in the behalf of his Child , for whofe ufe the writing is Sealed. So that ic is a moft obvious truth, That God Sealeth his Covenant to infants, and the contrary gives too much advantage to the Anabaptiits,and denyeth the apparent priviledge of the infants of believers : Doth not God fay, Circumcifion was a Seal of the righteouf- nefs of faith :> And were not Infants Circumcifed ? and therefore had the Covenant Sealed to them ? Doth not God fay that Circumcifion is his Covenant and the fign of it even to Infants ? And as Mr. Bedford well notes, the Apoftle warranteth us to inter- pret a Sign to be a Sealing Sign. So that I admire that this reverend man mould fo de- trad from baptifm, under pretence of extolling itj and remove Gods ends that he may add new ones. THe fecond raiftake [That the word doth not apply Chrift merits to any infant, but to the intelligent onely,] he hath pag. 104. 136. &c. This is an ill way of advan- cing Gods Ordinances. 1 doubt not but this Reverend maa by applying , means onely Applying to the Confcience foraftual comfort. And fo indeed jf I were of the Anti- nomian opinion , That Juftificationby faith, is onely in for Confckntia, or (as learn- ec. Mr. Owen faith ; and aflerteth) terminated in the Confcience ; then I would alfo believe Thxt no infant can be jtifiified by the Covenant {o.nd indeed not at all) Nor that the word can apply Chrifts merits to an Infant : but till then \ I ("hall be far from be- lieving either the on-e or the other. Fori doubt not bu: as one denieth Infants all JuftL fication,( for I think no man will fay, k is Terminated in their Confidences,) fthough I will not be too confident in this age, when men may fay any thing if they have but Rhetorick to fill up the vacuities, and cover the nakednefs and deformities j ) Sothe o* ther denyeth them all true Legal application of Chrifts merits j:here bung none at all, if none by the word. And what reafon hath the Reverend Do&or to talce the word [Ap- ply] in fo narrow a fenfe ? That which conferreth a thing upon a man (either named, ordefcribed) doth apply it to him. Cut the word of the Covenantor Promife doth confer the benefits of Chrifts merits upon Infants ; therefore it doth Apply them. The Word fs Gods principal inftrument of giving right to Remiflion , Juftification, Adoption, &c. But giving right is certainly an Applying. If Infants have any Right at all to thefe priviledges, and to the Kingdom of Heaven, and to Chrift himfelf,it is gi- ven in the Covenant 5 and therefore it Applyeth. Butthiswili fall under die next. I conclude therefore/Tkat this Reverend man greatly wrongeth the Word ; and the Church by this Doftrine, [That the word doth not apply Chrifts merits to Infants >] and wo to Infants if he fay true. For the Sacrament conferreth nothing but what the Covenant conferred and aoplyed firft ; which is the next point. Tt 1 Tic 326 Plain Scripture proof of T He third therefore I conceive to be the great miftakeof all 3 and the fountain of moft of the reft. vi\. That [baptifm is the fir ft means of Remiflionj and not the Covenant before baptifm.] This he hath divers reafons for, Tag. 191,191,193, 194, 10 5, Gods Covenant and promife being the ground of my hope and confolation 3 I dare not let pafs without examination, a paffage fo injurious to it. x. If Gods word be his written Deed of Gift by which hebeftoweth Remiflionj and Juftification, an4 baptifm the Seal of it 5 .then Remiflion and Juftihcation is by the Word, before it is by baptifm . ( for the dtzd goes before the Seal in order.) But the former is true,there- fore the later. 2. If the word of promife be part of Gods Law , which is both the foun- tain and difcoverer of all right or due:,then cur right to Remiffion mull comeprimari? ly from this word of promife, ra:her then from bap:ifm : But the former is true,there- fore the later. 3. If the word of promife be Chriits Tef;ament by which he bequeath- eth the benefits of his bloud to his people , then are thofe benefits conferred principal- ly by that word of promife: But the former is true , therefore the lacer. 4. If Remit, Con of fin be a removal of the obligation to puniftiment (i.e. Guilt.) and all obliga- tions be removed by the fame means they were induced, then Remiffion Is principally by the Word : but the former is true , therefore the later. The fecond branch of the Antecedent is cleared,in that by the word (of threatning) the obligation was brought on us: therefore by the word (of releafe or promife) it mu& be taken off The branch it (elf is a rule in the Civil Law. Objection. True: it is the Word that gives the right : but it giveth it upon Con- dition 1 and baptifm is that Condition 5 therefore . it giveth it not actually before baptifm. Anfw. Baptifm is rather a duty, then properly a condition of Juftification 5*>r if you will think the name of a condition befirsit) then you muft diftinguiih of Con- ditions ; fome are fo absolutely neceffary (being principally intended ) that the right or Poffeflion lhall depend upon it > others are requifite as accidental to the former 3 which ought to be prefent 3 but may be wanting without dcftruSion of the Right, or nullifying the Grant. Of the former fort is our Covenantor engagement to God^ or cur faith. Of the later is baptifm. 1. Pofit. The Covenant frequently giveth full Remiffum without baptifm. 2. Baptifm never giveth Rcmiffion with fut the Covenant. 3, when b$th go-together \ the Covenant is the full means or inftrument of Donation , and Baptifm but a fecondayy forfolemn compleat- ingit: which yet would be valid if 'they were feparatcd. 4. The ntw Covenant , as it is granted by God in Cbrift, doth be(low Cbrifi and Reconciliation > and Remifjian , condi' iionallyon all, even thafe that never are actually Re cone tied '.The abfolutely neceffary con- dition is cur affenting to the truth, and accepting the good here offered : and fo Co- venanting with God^ that i: may be a full proper mutual Covenant : whofoever-doth this fincerely>mall have the benefits of the Covenant. Baptifm is but the fign of this Covenant which fhould be added ordinarily : but not to make our engagement accep- table , or Gods engagement valid and effectual j but as a-duty prefer ibed for,folemr nity, and for a more full and formal engagement. All thefe, had I time, I would fray to confirm : But fomwhat will be fpoken to it in ^fwer to the Do&ors arguments following. . So Infants Chureh-memberjlnp and Baptifm. 327 So that when I fay [Gods Covenant Juftifieth or Remitteth, ] I do not mean the Covenant as made and written in the Scripture, before our performance of the great ne- ceflary Condition , That is, before our Accepting of it, and our Covenanting again with God: For till then,it J uftiiieth onely Conditionally, which is not an Actual Juftification, but fo full a preparation to it ; as it is ufually called by that name : As If a Condemned Traytor have a pardon granted to him (and offered by a friend that fued it out on his behalf) on condition that he thankfully accept it : this man is faid to be conditionally pardoned ; though yet he may rcfufe it, and fo be never Actually par- doned. But yet the valid ity or efficacy of the Covenant doth not depend upon the perform- ance of every duty required by it, or every circumftance 3 or accident of the great Condition , (fuch as fealing by baptifm is, ) but on the Subftantial and abfo" lutely ncceflary part of the Condition. When a Prince marryeth a beggar, and requireth nothing thereto but her confent ; now this confent is all that the m3tch dependeth on ; and yet there are many additional duties , as comely behavior, folem- nizing the marriage by engaging figns, &c> which yetj if not performedj breaks noc the match. That Baptifm Juftifleth more without the Covenantee thinks no confederate man (hould queftion. And yet this Doctrine of [Baptifm, being the firft means of juftify- ing] comes near it. That the Condition juftifyeth without Baptifm, and confequent- ly before it , I yet further prove,thus. 1. As to the Reverend Doctor he confefleth, that [ Solid repentance, conjunct with true and lively faith in the Mediator, obtainerh prefent R.emimon of fins with God. Pag, 146 ] This is as much as I defire. For the Dr.will acknowledge,that it is attained by thefe as Conditions on which the Covenant or promife conferreth it to the party : and fo it is the Covenant which immediatly ju- ftifieth on thefe Conditions. And every man knows that baptifm is to follow faithfand confequently to follow juftification as currantly granted, though not as folemnly feal- ed) and not orderly to go before it. But he faith, ''that [thelnitiall faith! which in the Judgement of the Apoftles fuf. tC faced for the baptizing of thofe that de(ired it, was not ever funicient in their judge- Cc menttotheJuftifying, pardoning and faving of fuch, Aft. z. 37. They who arc cc prefumed to be truly pricked in heart for their fins , from their heart s to defire de- " liverance from fin, who are taught to feek this deliverance in the merit of Chrifr, are * c judged fit to receive baptifm, and in baptifm Remiffion of fins.but are not prefumed 'to have received it before baptifm., v 38.] Anfw. This miftake hath dangerous confluences. If men be taught once that it is a faith that is fhoitof juftifying and faving faith, which admitteth men to baptifm (as having true right inforo Vci) it will make foul work in the Church. 1. When Chrift faith [MtlzemeDifaples of all nations 3 baptising them 3 ] he means [fincere Dil'cipks] though we cannot ever know them to be fincere. z. When he faith, He that beiuvctb and is b.ipti^cdjhall befaved ; here faith goes before baptifm, and that not a Com- - mon, but a faving fai:h: for here is but one faith fpoken of, and that is before baptifm, 3. That faith to which the promife of Remiffion and Juftification is ma-de, it muft al- io be feakd ;o ('or chat faith which is the Condition of the promife, is the Condition in foro Dei of Title to the Seal.) But it is onely folid true Faith which is the Condi- tion of the promife (of Remiffionj ) Therefore it is that onely that gives right inforo Dei co the beal. 4. The Dr.pa'pably miftakes the Text, Aft. z. ^7^58. when the A- poftle faith, [Repent and be baptised fir the Remiffion of fin, ] he plainly meancth be- lieYing 4 as imended befoie bapcifm, and comprifed as chiefly aimed. at in the. Word* Tt 2 fRioti9eti.~\ 3*8 Plain Scripture f roof of It is ufuai to pu: the fign fo for the thing lignified, profeiTed, and engaged chat lign : which chafe in Scripture is the occasion of thefe mens miftake - y and giving fo much to baptifm, as to wrong (and make void almoft) Covenant, and faith , znd alt. "Ehephrafe is plain, as if Ilhould fay to the enemies Souldiers, Leave your old Com- manders, and corneal! of you and be lifted under our General, and ycu ihall be forgi. ven ail your fighting againft him ] Is no: this ordinary language ? And is ft net ob- vious to any man here, That the word [L-jling] is rut for [ Taking him for your Ge- neral, and giving up your felves for his bouldiers.] And that this wiii ferve,though lift- ing were overpafl? If that Text imply not believing (fondly) as prerequisite in the Word [Repent"] (w\. of your unbeiief,)or in the word [be baptised 3 ] then i. It re- quires ru: faith a: ail : for there is no other mention of ic. a. And then Peter :;/\j, (and that withcu: requiring the ra to believe,) which is falfe. J. If it be onely this Initial faith (as he cals it) (which is noc folid and juftifyingj which is required before baptifm, and remiffion^then folid faith is required either after baptifm & juftifl cation ,or not at all.To fay that it is not neceCTary at all,is unchriftian: to fay it is neceihry only after baptifm & remi(sion,is i.To make a Faith which is not true,lively,and (o.id,:o be theCondition of baptifm and remifsion:or elfe z.They muft fay,That fuch are juftified by baptifm, without any juftifying faith. $. And ic is to take away the necessity of a true & lively faith. For i. according to this Do&rine a man may be faved without true and lively faith,by Initial faith and baptifm(I ufe the Do&ors di- ftinSion and terms JFor if the man that upon his initial faith is baptized and forgiven, (hould immediatly dye j no doubt he lnould be favedj (before true faith come ; J For what fhculd condemn him, but unpardoned fin > z. And if this Initial Faith , which is diftinft from true and lively,can procure his firft remifsicn ."which is the greateft muta- tion,; why not alio the continuance of it \ And fo what ufe for true and live y Fairh ? Ifanyfay, That this - true Faith is to be given in, and by baptifm, and fo neither be. fore, nor after ; I anfwer, I. However the former abfurdities of the efficacie of a Faith to justification, which is not true and lively,^, would follow. a.VYhe.i wiii any man Ihew me a Scripture to prove, that true lively Faith is promifed to men upon the Con- dition of a common Faith,which is not fuch ? Or that baptifm was inftituted to con- fer a true lively Faith, where it was not before ? The Eunuch muft believe with aU bis heart before he muft be baptized : And Simon that did not believe with all his hearty did receive neither a true lively Faithmor Remifsion of (in by his baptifm ; Mark that. For he was yet in the gall of bitternefs , and bond of iniquity .and had no part nor Fel- lowihip in that bufinefs. And if Simons Faith wiii not procure remifsion and juftifica- tion for himuif/hough it may procure him Church Member/hip,then it cann:t procure remiffion & juttirlcation for his Infants,though it may procure chem Church Member- ship.,) But this Reverend mans miftake arifeth from his affixing , and afcribing that certain remifsion to baptifm, as its own immediate effect, which he fnould afcribe and affix to Gods Covenant and Grant, as the proper efkcfc of it : and therefore became he finds , i That the Apoftles baptized men that had no true lively Faith, z. And that yet they baptized men for the Remiffion of Sias j therefore he concludeth, Thar baptifm Remitteth fins, without a true lively Faith foregoing (in the aged j for th;m he (peaks of : ) Bu: this very dangerous miftake would be rectified; by x.Diftinguiih- ing between the currant justification of the Covenant or Promife, and the Comple- tive by the Seal. z. Between right to baptifm 'm foro Dei, and right in for* Ecclefu. Minifters have tight to baptize thofe that before God have no right to baptifm. For they muft juige of mens right by a probable profeffion. Baptifm Infants Church- member fhip and Baptifm. 5 2 p Baptifm is ordained to fignifie and feal 3 and thereby confer re mi (lion of iins*,butnot to all that hive Right in the Judgement of the Church, to be baptized, but only to thole that have Right to it before God,and to whom his word doth firft give remiflion; that is^not to all whom we muft baptize, as being probably true believers ; but only to thefe who have true Right to baptifm and its benents^as being true believers i/ideed.Thc ApoftUs did not admit any to baptifm who did not make fuch a profeiTion,wh;chmen ought to judge a probable note of tincerityf and the children of fuchjLet anyman prove where ever they bapti'zed any whom they knew to be devoid of true faith.Yet if they had known Simons heart by extraordinary revelation , that were nothing to the point - (Though I neither believe that they had any fuch heart- fearching knowledge, nor that It becomes any man to think they had; much Ids to affirm \: 3 before he can prove it.) But this whole matrer,about judgement of probability and of certainty in baptizing, I have fuliier handled againft h\i.Ton:bes before, whither I refer the unfatisfied reader. So that I doubt not to conclude, That the Reverend Doctor yielding that [folid re- pentance joyned with true lively faith in the Mediator, cbtaineth prefent remiflion of fin (even before baptifm)] is a full yielding this whole caufe [that Remiffion is city rantly granted by the Covenant or promife as the principall lnftrument. and oft only by it } and not only or primarily by baptifm.] 2. That the Covenant Juftifieth firft,yea and oft without the fign, is further pro- ved by example. 1. Of all that were Juftified from Adam till Abraham, z. OiAbrx* bam himfelf.who being the firft figned perfon, methinks we mould in him difcern the ends and effects of that fign, and he was Juftified by the Covenant and faith before it. 3. In all the females among the Jews that were uncircumcifed (though thelfma- elites and EdomiteSyand afterward the Egyptians, as Hyftory tels uSj were circumcr- fed .) 4 In all the males that dyed before the eighth day. 5. In all Ifrael for fourty yeers in the wildernefs. 6> In Chrifts own Apoftles 3 who if they were ever baptized (which is uncertain to me) yet it is like long after their Juftification. 7. In Conflan- fne } Augu1int 3 with multitudes both young and old in thofe times, who either upGn TrttuUiam weak grounds, or the fears raifed by the Novatian errors, did long de- lay their baptifm : Tome of them till neer their death j and yet were Juftified by faith. 8. In the generality of their Catechumen i^who no doubt were pardoned upon their be- lieving long before baptifm. For the Fathers generally delayed the baptizing of profe- lytesjor new converts o,uite beyond and befides the Scripture rule and Apoftolical pre- fident. 9. In all the Infants of Believers who now dye before baptifm. 10. In all the Infants and youth of the godly Anabaptifts. 11. And fuppofethat the error of thfc Socinians [that Baptifm is not neceifary to fettled Churches, but only for the firft en- tering converted- Heathens] mould prevaile yet more (I mean feparared from their other damnable errors,) which we are fadly taught in thefe times to ^hink to be no rm- poffibiliry j if whole Kingdoms mould take up that opinion, and thereupon laj down all baptiim, ("would we think that upon their entering the Covenant of Gcd, though without that feal 5 rhey were not Juftified ? were they ali unpardoned, and fo damned ? or ihould they have only Jus ad rem^m. not m re as Mr. B. faith I or muft we fay thai Bcus potcli [cd'iion folet tales Juftificare, and fo that we rnveno found ground to ex. pe&it? I: is no impofllbiiity that all the Church mould take up that error, or the greater pattj for it is not fundamentall and certainly damnable. Baptifm is not in the Apoftles Creed. But to the examples cf the females, and the uncircumcifed in the wildernefs, this Reverend man anfwereth[ihac the means might be neceftary to one fexe and not to the other for Remifnon^ as well as for fealing- f, 176,177-] Anf. 1. As a duty it was : but 250 * Plain Scripture proof &f but not of Abfolute neceflity to remiflion and falvation j God not taking fuch d liferent courfes for that great end. z. The difpenfablenefs /hews it was not of that abfolute neceflity. g. Obfignation is not of Abfolute neceflity (therefore not the feal) but remiflion is. ^Bag. 178. He faith [It is probable the parents defire or vow of circumcifion might ferve] Anf. That confirms what I have faid. Mens deflres or vows arc not Injlrii- mcnisot Juftification or Regeneration to others : much lefs the only or principal In- struments ,,before or without the Covenant and Grant. But let us now come to this Reverend mans Arguments againft Covenant- Judi- cation and Remiflion to Infants. 1. He mentions three Covenants, vi% 1. The conditionall Covenant of Grace to the faithful and their feed. a. The Abfolute of the fiift Grace, j . The Covenant with Chrift that he (hall fee his feed, &c. And he faith it is none of thefe that Juftifieth Infants without the Sacrament ('and confequently not before itj Pag. 191, J^i, 103. Anf. Itisthefirft, vi\. Thepromife made to all that believe that God will be theirGodj and of their feed, and they fhall be his people 5 and that the feed of the Righteous are blefled .* and that he will be merciful to them, Exod. *o. and that they are Beloved for the Fathers fakes,K0W. 11. and that they are Holy> and of fuch is the Kingdom of God,e^f. as I have before pro- duced them. But he faith, 1. [That the words [I will be thy God, and the God of. thy feed] contain not this fentence, that [All the children of Believers (hall be Juftified] but only that they (hall be partakers of the fame Covenant, and have right to the fame confederation with its benefits,^.] Anf. 1. The Covenant as offered on Gods part, not yet Accepted and entered on theirs, doth not adiuily. (but conditionally) juftifie either parents or children : But the Covenant accepted (which the parent is to do for himfelf and his Infant, Dent. 19. 10, n t ) doth it forboeh. At leaft, it is ftrongly probable that when a People have God engaged to them to be their God,anil be merciful to them,eH.that he juftifieth them. z.Youconfcfs as much as I defire, vi\. that it brings them into the fame Covenant as their parents, and to the benefits of it. Tori have proved that the parents are juftified currantly and fumckntly as to their falvation before the Ad of fealing, and oft withottrtty therefore according to you the children are fo too. 2. He faith [many children of the faithful lhall perifh.] Anf. 1. That contradicV eth not the certainty of their Juftification by the Covenant before baptifm, any more then the certainty of Juftification by baptifm as the fiift means, which you affirm. a. Efpecially it is not againft my opinion, who affirm only a certainty of Church- memberlhip, and a ftrong probability of juftification (not denying the certainty) till the contrary be difcovered when they come to age. 5. His third Reafon is, [Becaufe if Infants be juftified by the Covenant, then they that dye before Age, and they that live (hould be all alike Juftified before Bap- tifm.] Anf. And what greater abfurdity in that, then that All alike mould be jafti- fied after Baptifm^ whether they live or dye ('as you teach ? ) 1. The Anfwer to the former may fuffice ro this Reafon. 4. His fourth Reafon is,that [Thepromife Gen. 17. 7. is conditionall, on condi- tion of Circumcifion, as the ordinary means of remitting finj therefore the Jews chil- dren" were not ordinarily juftified by the promifealone, without the Sacrament] Anf. This is anfweied before by diftinguiihing of conditions,™ ^. fuch as the event de- pendethon, and fuch as it doth not, but are only ad bene effc c> csmpletiva-y baptifm is of the later fort. I can name you many apromife to the Jews on condition of their Infants Church-memberfhip and Baptifm. 331 their obferving each particular Ceremonie, which yet were performed, though fome were omitted,and the people not prepared according to the preparation cf the San&ua- ry. Alfo the inftances before do anfwer this. 5. His fifth Rcafon is "[Becaufe from this promife P^cr exhortcth the lews, Aft. t{ 1, 19 to bring their children to baptifm 5 therefore he fuppofeth that their Infants C{ before baptifm were not A&ually comprehended in the Covenant, nor juftified,eH. Anf. This Texr,which this Reverend man doth fo mightily miftake, I have fully an- fwered to before.JVftr cals in the Infants to baptifm.but with their parents and not be- fore them. The Covenant was but conditional either to parents or children (and fo neither A dually juftified) till the parents ffor both,) performed the condition. Now the condition was Faith or Covenanting to t3ke Chrift for their Lord and Saviour 5 this 'Peter implyed in the word [Baptifm] as neceflaty to §0 before it. Or elfe unbelievers muft be baptifed for Remiflion of fin. It I thought thefe few words made not all this Plainest were eafie to do it more fully. Next the Dodor faith [There is properly but two Covenants, vi\. of Law, or Gofpel > the former it is not ; Nor the later ; Becaufe 1. The feed of true believers are ofc not faved. 2. unbelievers children are often faved. ] Anfwer 1. Ac_ cording to his own dodr ine they may be juftified with their parents,though not faved : And what is that againft theGofpel conditional Covenant?If they be not faved,himfelf thinks it is only if they dye not in Infancy, but rejed recovering mercy at age. 2. The Infants of unbelievers are not faved as theirs ; there is no promife of their falvation, if they dye in Infancy, nor fomuch as a half-promife, or ground of probability and Chriftian Hope; God hath kept it fecret what he will do with them. And if they live to age and believe,they are then in the Covenant of Grace upon another ground.So that I think I may conclude,that thefe Reafons do conclude nothing againft the primary in- tereft of the Covenant in juftificatlon, nor for the primary or fole intereft of the fign. And I marvile the learned Dodor would alledgethat of Calvin in Aft. 2. 38. as for him, which is as plain againft him as Icanfpeak. Tametjiincontextuverborum biptifmm remiffionem peccatorum hie pracedat, or dine tamenfequitur, quia nihil aliud efl quambonorum que per cbriftw confequimurobfgnatio, ut in confeimtm noflrls ratafinu Can any thing be more againft the Dodors opinion, then to affirm pardon to go be- fore baptifm ? T he truth is, Calvn giveth too little here to baptifm, fo far is he from going the Dodors way^for its fealing ufe is more then the certifying of our confcienc.es, as I have (hewed : And affurance to oar confeiences is not Justification. Let the An- tinomifts that fay the contrary, (hew it out of Scripture, where we are faid to be iufti- fied in our confeiences by faith ? And the Dodor knew that Calvin in the foregoing words doth purpofely ihew this to be the order of Gods proceeding. 1 . Repentance or a true change. 2. To which next is added F.emiffion of finsj and 3. they are called to Chrifts tteath as the ground > and 4. in the fourth place he puts baptifki as the feal by which the promife is confirmed;wherefore(faith CalvmJ'm thefe few words we have the whole fumalmoft of Chriftiamty,^. that a man renouncing himfelf and the world,do wholly give up himfelf to God ; 2.That by free Remijfion of fin he be delivered from the guilt of death, and fo be adopted among the fons of God,d^.] And he faith that [therefore Lu\z afterward in Pauls Sermon, conjoyneth Faith to Repentance . in the fame fence as here he putteth Remifflonof fir*~) It were eafie to add a hundred fuch Teftimonles of the Judgement of Authors,if I had neceffiry and leifure. Having noted whatl diilike in this reverend mans Tradate, I will not trouble my felf or others to meddle with the reft which I approve. OnrVvI 3ddj that though in this one dodrine I find him go too far 3 yet I fo highly reverence and honor him, that I V n take 3 j % Plain Scripture proof of take him to have been a Divine of the higher form, and beyond the vulgar ftrain, even of thofe that we honor for their great learning and judgement : and that he was one of thofe that found out the middle way of Truth and Peace, which this contentious age ; rejeð. Let me inftance in two more points in this Tra&ate exprefled. i. Pag. iz6 [Ad mundandurn autem & juftificandum totalis caufa eft Dem 'ingen&e tAuf* pbyficA, jeu efficient is; Jufius enlm & tfuftificans non eft nifi dews> dicente Ait- gujline Epift, 50. ad Bonifac. ubl bac ipfadere agit &cap.^.d'icli lib.i- cont.ht. Peak & cont. Crcfcon. U t. c. 20,. 21.] This differeth from them that dare fay, Their own Faith is Phyfically the efficient inftrumentall caufe of their own forgivenefs and juftificarion; Yea that it is a Paflive Reception of Chrift himfelf (by the, faid Phy«» ficall inftrumentality ) and no Ad at all , but momen aclionh. Yea and look on thofe as injurious to the Church of Chrift ( and fo publifli them ) that deny this moft abfurd doctrine. It is not only. one nor two. nor three that have ufed me thus. 2. J?ag. 238* /^. as conditions both infome fence of at- taining judication, and more fully, of continuing it ) and how for not (?i^.'as having «ny merit or proper caufality)^ fuftit. Habituall & A ftuali. cap. 10. 31. #• paffiifii For the aiterting of which fame do&rine, I have been judged fo injurious to the Church by fome men, when I never yet heard it once blamed in Dave* Mitt. And according to the ufual bent of his ftudies hath this excellent man gone in the point of Baptifm, giving as much to it, as poflibly maybe without giving too much ; but leaving Mr. Bedford in thepoint in queftion, as far as I can find. His Thefes are thefe [!• In the controverfie ofPerfemance or Apoftafieof the faithful or Saints, the queftion is of that faith or fan&ifying grace, which cannot be Received, exercifed, re- tained, or caft away, but by fome Ac? or operatfon of free will interpofing. 2. In this controverfie of the lofing of faith or inherent grace, regenerating or fan&ifying, it is fuppofedi that they who are faid to have loft faith or fain from grace 3 have formerly received and had that grace,, which they are prefumed afterward to have caft amy, 5. The Papifts acknowledge it not as a point of faith, that any Habits of faith or Charity are infufed into Infants in baptifm, nor do they teach it, as of faith, that any of them are made juft formally by the ink lion of habitual! Righteoufnefs^and holinefs. • 4. The Proteftaflts grant not, that justifying faith , or charity uniting to God, or Regenerating grace which repaireth all the faculties of the foul, are in the very moment of Baptifm infufed into Infants* Where he cites Calvin inflitut. li. 4.c. 16. §. xi. faying [There is no moreprefent efficacy to be required in Infant Baptifm, but that it confirm and ftablifh the Cove- nant made with them by the Lord] And he concludes, that [he knows none of our Divines who determine that that Regeneration wh4ch confilieth in the creation of fpi- ritual qualities (which we call fanftification, and the Papifts, formall juftification) is produced in the Yery moment of Baptifm. And that neither Arm in ian, Papifts nor Proteftants acknowledge Infants in the very receiving of baptifm, to be made par- takers of thofe habituall gifts , or fpiritual qualities, which properly are faid tocon r ftitute a man juft and inherently holy. 1 5. The Fathers acknowledge neither ac"tuall nor habituall faith or charity to be given to Infants in Baptifm. And they teach, that converfion or the creation of a new heart which is properly to be called Regeneration's not produced in them till they come to age capable of reafon ] To which end, he produceth many teftimoniesof the fathers. Thus far what Infants receive not in Baptifmj now for what they do receive, he addeth. > 1. Propof. All Infants baptized (vi% rightly) are abfolred from the guilt of Ori. ginal fin. This fhe faith; is the Primary effca of Baptifm, and the reft folbw it, which he Vu 1 fhews 334 ^4/n Scripture proof of (hews in the particulars, x. Juftification of Infants is nothing elfc but the pardon of their original fin. i. When Infants are faid to be regenerated in b3ptifm,that alfo fo dependeth on this remiflion of originall fin, that it may fcarce,or indeed not at all, be diftinguilhed from it. Renovation in baptifm is by remiflion of all fin, faith Augujl* Infants Regeneration confifteth only in remiflion of fin and acceptation to life eternal, faith Caffunder. The fame is to be faid of translating Infants cut of the oliiAdzm^ and ingrafEng and incorporating them into the New. For this alfo is connexed with remifFion of original fin. For as foon as guilt is removed from the ln- fant> which he contra&ed in old Adam, he is cflccmcd ipfo faclo to be of the ftock ot family of the fecond Adam. For which he citeth Bc^i and Auflin. Much of this is downright againft Mr. Bedfords (and Do&or Biirges) dofirine 5 and none of it for him in the point I oppofe : And here thofe that are fo hor, and high for a Phyfical union (or fomewhat equal) with Chrift, may fee that this learned man af- firmeth but arelative and moral (in Infants; and doubtlefs union with Chrift isof ihe fame nature in them, as in the Aged, though nor on the lame conditions.) 3. Again (he faith) that which is called the fan&ifieation of Infants baptized, is conftituted 3 for the meft part, in this walhing away of original fin. Though I will not deny that they are alfo holy or fan&ified in other rcfpe&s } As in that they are dedicated to the holy Trinity : for to be dedicated to God, is in cne fort to be fan. &ifiedj that they are fprinkled wich the holy blood of Chrift for pardon,^. The only word in all Davcnants Epiftle, that hath any (hew (as far as I difcern) of favor to Mr. Bs caufe, is the nexr^x. he addeth [that they have the Holy Ghoft dwelling in them, in a fecret way, and to us unknown] But confiderhere. 1. He doth not fay that this is the cafe of all baptized Infants, as of other effects he doth 1 nor of any nonded j but only thit Infants may indeed be faid fo to be fan&ified, befides the former relative fan edification (which we all acknowledge) 2. He doth not afcribe this to Baptifm, as being a fruit of it. 3 He denyeth all Habitual and Actual Grace in them by baptifm, and do: h not talke of any feed or root, which is effectuall faving Grace and yet no Habit. 4. He affirmeth no union with Chrift but Relative. 7. He maketh remiflion the firft fiuit 3 and the reft but refuks from thar^ contrary to Wr. B. 6. He faich [it is the Holy Ghoft operating; bur Quid autem hoc aid qua'c fit, explketqiiiifiicUigiti (gofateoYmenoniniclligere.i.e. What it is, 0/ of what fort, let- him explain that underihndeth ; for my parr, I confefs I underftand it not.] This doubtful obfeure paflage on the by, is all the countenance to Mr. Bs caufe, that this modeft^ learned man affordeth. 4. Hefhewsalfo 3 that Infants Adoption is of the fame relative nature. And he concluded of all together, that [the juftification, Regeneration,, Adopt ion and Sanfti* fication of Infants arifeth from Remiflion of originall- fin only, by the blood of Chrift applyed in baptifm] fothat here is no grace but relative given by baptifm to them. 2. Propof. is [That juftification, regeneration, adoption , which we yield doth be- long to baptized Infants, is not univocaily the fame with that Juftification, Rege- neration and Adoption^ which, in the Queftion of the Saints perfeverance, we fay, is never loft. And for regeneration^ citdh. Auflin. Epift. 1$. Tftvuhim, non Rcgcnerxtio iUatjua in Kenatorum vohmiate confi(lit 3 fedipfius Regenerations fact -amentum regeneratum facit. And where fiiould their feminall grace lie , if none in the will ? 3. Propof. Is [The juftification and regeneration , and adoption of baptized In- fants, confer reth on tkema ftaxe of falvation according to the condicioo of Infants. 4, Pm Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 335 4. Propof Is [Thofe who in baptifm were truly juftifird, regenerated and adopted fuitable to their Infant ftate ; when they come to the life of reafon, are not juitified, regenerated and adopted, fuitable to the fpeciall ftate of the aged,unlef$ by repenting, believing and Abrenuntiation, they fulfill their Vow made in baptifm. The laft Propof. [When we teach the perfeverance of the Saints in a ftate of jufti. fication once obtained , we do not deny the quality or aft of a faithful or juft man in regard of the fubjeS to be mutable andlofeable: But we affirm that the fpecral love of God doth not permit, that he who by believing in Chrift was juftified and adopted to be a Son of God, mould by lofing that faith and fan&ification, ceafeto be a fon of God, and perifli for ever.] The fcope of this whole Tractace,is to prove, That the doctrine of the certainty of believers perfeverance, is not impeached^ or weakened by aliening that thofe may perifh after for a&uallfin,, who were juftified and pardoned In infancy. I cranferibe the more of it, not only to ihew, that it affcrteth not the point I oppofe 3 but alfo becaufe I am fo much delighted in all that this learned man hath writ. And though my own Judgement doth yet difcern butaftrong probability of what he con- cluded as univerfally certain^ yet will I not contradift that affertion of the certainty which others (efpecially fo excellent a man) mayeafily fee ground for, though I da not. HAving (hewed the great difference between B ifhop Davenants judgement, and Mr* Bs 3 \et us enquire of his other witnefles, what they think. And in the preface he fe pleafed to make ufe of the great name of that Reverend^ Learned, Famous, Solid,, pious Divine Bifhop vfher. I am a ftranger to them both, and cannot conclude that this Reverend man is not for him. But as I am bound to da my part for vindicating the reputation of fo excellent a man, fo I believe that he approvethnot of Mr. Bs do&rine. Myreafonsare i.Mr. Bs. weak reafon to think the contrary-he faith [If he had not been of the fame judgement,he would not have been fo careful for the publi- cation] But he might be of the fame Judgement with Dr. iVard in the Thefis which he maintained?, and yet not in every palfage on the by : Now Dr. wards Thefis differs much from Mr. Bs do&rine, and fo doth he in the handling of it. z. It is like this Re- verend man would have uttered his approbation of thofe things,had he approved them* 3. I find him in other things fo neer the mind of Judicious Davcnant> that I have reafon to conjecture, he is fo in thi?. But Davenant (though he ga further then moftj yet not neer k> far as Mr. B. inafcribing to baptifme. 4.B1K efpecially I am perfwaded the folid Judgement and great parts of that Reverend man, will not permit him to entertain Mr. Bs opinions. And indeed in this Preface Mr. B. feemeth to defert himfelf and his aufe : For h e feems fully to approve of the Fathers opinion (which is D-ivenants and IVgyds) that remiflionoforiginall fin is thefirft gracethat Infarfts receive in baptifm. But them whit is become of his oft repeated doctrine, that it firft uniteth them to Chrift, and h regenerateth them by giving them feminal grace (equall in degree to the infufed habirs whicrtthe Schoolmen fpeak of) and then remifsionof fin. The two firft are here left our,, and then he and I mould be neerer to an agreement. Vu$ As 5 5 6 Plain Scripture poof of AS for learned Mr, Cranford ,whether he intend a full approbation of Mr.Bs doctrine by his [in quo reperics fententiam vrram The f bus explicatam] I know not, though I rather think the contrary by his abilities. No man almoft that approves a book in- tendcth to approve of every thing in it. But if I fhould be mifhken, ic doth but jufti- fie my endeavors to remove this Humbling block out of mens way, left in thefe times when fo many deny Infant baptimi, we Ihould be ready to run from them into theo- therextream. Sure I am, that till of late^ I fcarce ever fpokc with any Divine of note but mifliked Dr. Surges, and Mr. Bedford* do£rIne,andit gave generall diftaft to the godly Minifters and people, asexprelTed in their books. Though I know that is no good argument to prove it unfound. For my part,I have written this meerly upon the enforcement of confcience, in apprehenfion of a necefsity of fo doing, feeing no one elfe inclined to it. And I hope this learned man will not take it ill; feeing as we {hall differ while we are here, fo we may manifeft, as well as hold, our different judge- ments for the fearching after pretious truth, without any breach of Chriftiam love. Ihavenotanfweredexa&iy to every word , nor half fo fully as elfe I would > (though I think tht~main miftakes are fufficiently difcoverd ) becaufe I have but. j . or 4. daies to meddle with it (at vacant hours) the prefs flaying for it^ becaufe the reft is printed off. WHereas fome ftickat it, That I make the Condition of the Infants Church- Memberfhip , and Justification to be wholly without him in the Faith of the Parent; I anfwer them , i. That it is evident in all the Scripture, that God putteth a very great difference between the Children of the Faithful, and other mens. 2. That he maketh fuch promifes to them, and givcth them fuchprivtledges, as I have expveft in this book. .}. And that this is to them as they are the Children of his people, who ' believe. 4. And that he never requireth any Condition inherent in the Infant,. that I find in Scripture. And doth not this then plainly tell us , That the Parents Faith is the Condition ? if the Parent be a believer , the child u entered the Covenant, the Father entering it for him^and his. DeuU 19. If the Parent be not a believer, -the Child is left out ; And what other Condition can be imagined > Tint this is the judgement of our grcateft Divines , I will (hew you but in 2. or 3. (befides what Davenant and Ward have done out of the Fathers, &c.) becaufe I cannot ftay to add more. Perkins on the Creed, Pag, 1 27.V0I. 1. faith , [ The Faith of the Parent doth bring the child to have a Title or intcrefl to the Covenant of Grace , and to all the benefits ofChrili.'] And in his Treat ife How to live well, vol. 1. Pag. 487,486. he faith , [There be three opinions touching Infants Faith 3 1. That Infants have Actual Faith, &c. But this opinion feerns to be an untruth. 2. That they arefavedby fome unknown and ttnfpea^able way 3 without faith, 1 fomewhat doubt of this, becaufe, &c, 2. That Children have faith dfter a f< riybccatife theParents according to the tenor of the Covenant ,1 will be thy God,and the God of 'thy feed Relieve for themf elves, and their child* en;and there fore tbc'r FaithM not enely theirs, but the faith of their children. Hence it is that the Scripture faith, if the root be holy, the branches are holy , and if you believe , your children are holy, According to hu- mane Law, the Father and his Heirs are but one perfon, the Father Covenanting for bimfelf and his Children : what then mould hinder that the Father might not believe for his Chihl 3 and the Child by the Parents Faith, have Title to the Covenant and the a benefits Infants Church -member flup and Baptifm. 337 benefits thereof ? It is alieadged (by BcUarminc lib. 1. de baft, ca.4.) That ly this meant Children (bould be born believers, andfo be conceived, and born without original fin. Anf. Believing Parents fuftain two perfons, one whereby they are men, and thus they bring forth children having nature with all the Corruptions of nature: The other as they are Holy men and believers : and thus they bring forth Infants that are not fo much their Children, as the Child; erc of God. And Infants are Gods Children, not by vertue of their birth, but by means of Parents Faith, which intitles them to all the bleflings of the Covenant. Children proportionally fuftain a double perfon: If they be eonfidered in and by themfelves, they are conceived and born in Original fin : If they are con- sidered as they are holy, and believe by the Faith which is both theirs, and their Parents Faith, and confequently have by this means Title to Chrift and his benefrs, Origi- nal fin is covered and remitted. If it be faid, That by this means all children of belie- - ving Parents, are Children of God ; I anfwer, That we muft prefume that they are all fo, leaving fecret Judgements to God. To this 3. opinion I moft encline j becaufe we are to judge that Infants of believing Parents in their infancy dying, are Juftified : and I find no Justification in Scripture, without faith. So Auguft, Serm.i^. de verb. Apofi. & Epi(l.i$. 57* iof.de bapt. lib. 4. c.i. Bern. Serm.u. in Cant.66. Juftin.q. %6. Thus far Perkins. Here is none of Mr. Bedfords Doctrine : nor that Baptifm doth all this as th« firft means j but the Covenant, and the Parents Faith chiefly. Rivet, in Gem f. Exercit.SS.Pag. 432. Noflri,certe, inter quos vemrabilU Beza in Resji. ad aft&Coll.Montisbelg. concedunt Infantibus it a tr ibid fidem alienam , qutt in ipfts non eft , ut tamen pro fua in illis ex pafto Dei cenfeatur. Fidem autem inteltigunt earn qua parcntes , nonfibifoiiSifedfuisquQ^.pofieris aternainchrifto viu'jm, (deo femper relittisptfticularibiMinhac difcemendafobolejudiciis) per del mifericordiam re* ceperunt Nempe qux innititur promiffioni Divin*, Ero mm tuus\& Jeminis tui: Juxta quam Apojiolus,ft Radix fantta 3 etiam & Rami 5 fi primitia fanttwrgo & Ma fa. Talis autem fides non confidcratur velitt applicans gratiam promiifam huic vel illi filio dum na- [citwr'i fed tanquam Acceptans' promijjionem profeipfo & exinde nafcituris.Hinc cfl qiiodfi parens moreretur poft conceptionem infantis , quo tempore nondum potuit ei acln fidem afr plicarc 3 Infans tamennafcerctur fan&us ex vi promiffionis. ZVinglim I conjecture iludied the Dodrine of Baptifm as much as moft Divines; and he is fo large and frequent in proving , 1. 1 hat all the infants of believers, dying in Infancy are certainly faved,whether baptized or unbaptized,and that by ver- tue of the Covenant upon the Condition of their Parents Faith, and brings fo full Te- ft'imony of it. 2. And that baptifm doth not Regenerate, nor fanftifie, nor take away fin (he means properly and efficiently) but onely fignifie and Seal it ( and fo exhibit by thefe,) that I muft refer you to his books, they being too large to Tranfcribe. See r^w.2.pi'9>ii°ji* I 3 l i z -and^.36. & alibi paffim. DO&or Twifs Cont. Corvimtm Pag.19,10. Quod fane ad Hetcrodoxiam omnem bac ex parte ab ipfis amolieodam fuffi:eret } fi modo Infantibm duntaxat f*deratis y & intra. Etflefi* gremmm procreate y falinmm Chrifti n jatiam acewmodarent ■ <- * At ut in- fantibus 338 fUin Scripture proof of fantibm extra fiedw Dei morlcfaibiufaliu cont'mgat i hoe in Atmiriii fentcntia minime to'.e- randHtn eJJ'ejudicamus.- V id. ultra. More ycu may find to this purpofe^and contrary to Ms. Bs. Do&rine, Pag, 52,3 ?,' 34jj5 $6,17,1%. &c. Onely the learned D odor Pa?. $ 3. col. 2. argues upon an utter miliake of ^///2//2Jopinion 5 fuppoiing that if a non-ele& Infant fhould dye before the ufe of reafon after baptifm, then he (hould not be fayed, becaufe not Eleft 3 nor dam- ned, becaufe pardoned. But he mi^ht have known that Aufiins judgement is , T hat ii he dye before the ufe of reafon, after baptifm, it is a certain fign that he is Ele&jand fothat no Reprobate {hall fo dye. THe Teftimonies oiWic^iff^Zuingjius^Amyrafdus the 4 Ley den Profeffors in Synopft purior. Theolog, I put before thefe Animadverfions. Auft'm himfelf (who in the judgement of moft, afcribed too much to baptifmjyet faith , Cont. Donatift. I. 4. cap, 22. Baptifmifane vicem aliquando implere pajjionem , de latrone Mq 3 cut non Bapti^ato dittum eft 3 bedie mtcum em in paradifoj non leve document turn idem bcatm Cyprianus ajfumit 1 quod etiam atfy etiam conftderans , invmio> non tantum pajfionem pro nomine Cbrifti id quod ex baptifmo deerat pofje fupplc- re>{cd etiam fidem converfionemq; cordis 3 [iferrte ad cekbrandum myftcrium baptifmi, \n anguftiis temporum fuccurri nonpotefi. Ne% enim latro illepro nomine cbrifti Crucifix- us eft, fed pro mentis fatinorum fuorum; nee quid crcdidit pajfus eft, fed dumpatitur ere- didit. To what I have faid,alfo the Do&rine of our learned and Reverend Affembly is con- fonant, which being too large to tranferibe, you may fee in Confcft. cap. 27 3 28. and in both the Ghatechifmes; An Infants Church-memberfhip and Bapifm. 3 39 An Addition to the twentieth Chapter of the Firft Part. I Take it to be an invincible Argument to prove that Infants Church-memberthig which they are confeiTed to have had before Chrifts Incarnation, is not revoked, in that They were Members of the Univerfal vifible Church , as well as of the Jews National Church j Yea, and that more immediately and primarily : which Univerfal Church is not overthrown by Chrift,and therefore not their ftanding in it. M r.T. confeffeth that the Jews Church was not then the univerfal Church,and that In- fents then were Members of the Univerfal ; but he faitfyhey were primarily Members of the Jews Church, and therefore that falling,their imerelt in the Uuniverfal fell with it-' And fome others I meet with, that deny there is any fuch thing as a Univerfal vifible Church. For the full fatisfa&ion or confutation of both thefe , there is fo much written, and clearly , and judicioufly, by Mr. Samuel Hudfon in his late Vindication of The Ejjence andvnky of the Church Catholic vifible, that I could not but give this notice of it ,to referr the gain- fayers to it : Seeing that which I did but (lightly touch and weakly perform, is there done with admirable ftrength and fulnefs , by abundance of found Arguments from Scripture, and the Nature of the Thing. Where alfo Mr. T. may fee enough to confute and mame his diminutive contemptuous expreflions concerning the Kingdom of Chrift 3 as if it were but here one in a Town, or there one in a Family that Chrift would have called, and that he meaneth by [All Nations'] to be Difcipled. As indeed the Scripture is full againft him in that , and fpeaketh more glorioufly of the Kingdom of our Lord, as he may finde it cited there by Mr. Hudfon. Zach. 14.9. And the Lordjhall be King over All th: Earth ; in that day (hall there be One Lord and his Name One. Dan. 7.14. There was given- to him (Chri{t) Dominion and Glory and a "Kingdom, that All people, Nations and Languages (houldfcrve him. Ifa.a. 2,$. 4- U Jball come to pap in the laftdayes that the mountain of the Lords hoitfe (hall be ejiabl/jhed on the top of the mountaineSi and (hall be exalted above the Hills J and All Nations foall flow unto it 5 and many people (hall go and fay, Come ye, let its go up to the mountain of Lord, ^ to the houfe of the God of Jacob, and he will teach m his ways , and we will wa\ in his palhes. ForPial.86.9. All Nations whom thou haft made, (halt come and n'or (hip before thecO lord, and (hall glori fie thy Hame. So Ifa.a 5. 6. Pfal. 22.17. AH the ends of the world Jh all remember, and turn unto the Lord , and all the Ifindreds of the Nations (hall worfhip before him. Pfal.7 1. 8. He (hall have Dominion alfo from Sea to Sea., and from the River to the Ends of the Earth. Ifa. 5^5. Thou (halt Call a Hation whom thou Ifncwefr not, and Nations which \jievo not thee (hall run unto thee 5 faith Mr Hudfon y It is fpoken of Chrift under the Gofpel 5 and there is fct down both Gods Call of a Nation, and a Nations Anfwer to that Call 3 and thefe two are fufficient to make a Church. TC.71.11 17 .All Kings (ball bow down before k'w,All Nations (ballferve to.Mat. 2 1 .4 1 . X x The 34° Plain Scripture proof of TbcJSjngdomofGodfhiUbe tatyrn from you, and given to a Nation bringing forth fruits thereof, Rom. 10.19 Mic. 4 2. Many Nations (hall fay C erne 3 &c. I fa. 52. 15. He fyaU (prince many Nations^zr.q, 2. The Nations (hill blcfs themfelves in him , and in himfhall they glory. Ifa.65.1. Rom.4- 17.Rev.21.z4 Zech.2.11. Many Nations (hall bejoyuedto the Lord in that day and (hall be my people So that the Scripture fpeaks more magnificently of the Church of Chrift for the extent of it, then Mr. T. doth. Though fome are fo bold as to affirm, that to have Chrifts Covenant, his fatisfadion, his Church, his fealing to extend to any more then the very Ele& and fayed, is no honor, to Chrift but a difgrace j many fuch defperate expreffions I finde in late writing of a famous learned man, or two, very dishonourable to Chrift and Scripture. Mr. Hudfon feith better then they (pag.izo) The Covenant of Grace and falvation by Chrift, and the fir ft Evangelical promife that ever was made in the world, was to Adam and Eve reprefenting all mankind, and therefore confequently the whole Church of God. T defire Mr.T. therefore when he isanfwering that Argument of mine,c/wp.20. to deal with thefe ftrong Supports of it in Mr. Hudfons Book, and not to turn it ever with a wet finger (as he ufeth) being backed with fo ftrong defence of Scripture and Reafon, as he mall there find.VVhen he hath foundly proved the taking down of the'unr- verfal vilible Church : (whereof all Infants were Members,who were ever Members of any particular Church -J or yet the cafting of all Infants out of this Univerfal vifiblc Church,then he will have done fomething proportionable to his undertakings.But then he muft do it with more Scripture and Reafon, then he hath yet produced to prove the Repeal of their Church-memberfhip, or the Moral overthrow (dejure) of the Effential frame of the Church of the Jews, as well as the cutting off of the Accidentals, and of the unbelieving Members. The vifible Univerfal Charch as well as the invifiblc 3 (though for the fake of this later; is called Chrift s Body .* And the Body is but one $ and therefore not altered in any of its E {fence. Argu Infants Church-memberjhip and Baptifm. 3^1 Arguments to prove that Baptifm is a (landing Ordinance for entring of all Church- Members (ordinarily,) and not only for the firft Difcipling of a Nation. WHcn I had fent this Book to th? Pre fs, and a great part was printed, a Neighbor Minifter and very loving friend told me, that there are fome rifen up in a Neighbour Countrey to us , who do confute the Rebaptizersj but it was on this ground, as denying the continuance of Baptifm as a ftanding Ordi- nance in the Church 5 and therefore he defired me to add fomewhat by way of an Appendix againft this Opinion j which (feeing mens error makes it neceflaty) I ihall do j but very briefly. But I will firft premife thefe two: AfTertions : 1. In my judgement this Error of the old and new Soc'mians , though bad, is nothing fo bad, as Mr. T's and thofe others that deny the Church -Membermip of Infants. My reafon is, becaufe they deny only the fign and feai to Infants, (which is incom- parably the lefs 3 ) but not the Priviledge and benefit fealed (which is the greater.) But Od'\ T. denyeth them both the fign and the Priviledge of Church memberfhip, and confequently all the Priviledges that are due to viable Church- members only. And though he yield the ufe of the fign to them when they come to age, yet it is to be but an empty iign, as being quire befide Chrifts Inftitution, and voyd of the true end of Baptifm 5 for it cannot then be the initiating fign to thofe that have been long in the Church before. 2. I intend thefe Arguments only to thofe that acknowledge the Divine Authority of Scripture $ for nature telleth us nothing of mcer Pofitives ; therefore to thofe of the Seekers that deny both Biptifm and Scripture, it is in vain } it being impoflible to convince them of the duty of Baptizing,till they firft are convinced of the Authority of the Word of God, which enjoyneth it. But to others, I prove it thus : 1. Prom Mat. 28.19. Go and Difcipie me aU Nati* tlons i biiptiand muft be entered by Baptifm : But becaufe they then Covenant by their Parents, and muft neccffarily after Covenant by themfelves : therefore they take it for a double Cove- nant, and 10 muft be an iterated Seal. And fome becaufe they cannot berefolved whether Baptifm in Infancy or at Age be better, think ic the fafeft way to do both , that fo they may be fure to hit on the right. I am paft doubt, that both thefe fores do go on far lefs erroneous and dangerous grounds, then Mr.T. and the reft who deny all Infants the benefits ofvifible Church- memberlhip, which is far more, then to iterate the Act of baptizing. Yet doubtlefs they are both in an Error. For it is but one Covenant which we enter in Infancy by our Parents, and at age by our felves. The later is but a Renewal and Recognition of the Covenant which before we entered : (though abfolutely neceffary to the falva- tjpn of thofe that come to the ufe of Reafon.) And each renewing the Covenant, muft not have a Repeating of the Seal, And for the later, mens own Ignorance will not warrant them to change or de- ? prave Chrifts Inftitucions. And to both : i . Chrift never commanded Baptifm , but for the firft entering of Difciples, and into his body,&c. But we are not twice made Difciples, nor twice entred into his body ( 1 Cor. iz. ig.&c) ». The Apoftles (to whom the full clearing of thefe doubts, and difcovery of Chrifts will was committed) did never Baptize any into the Name of Chrift, bat once. And we are to be Fol- lowers o/them as they were of Chrift j and to take the Scripture for a perfect Rule and Law : And therefore not to go beyond it. More I havetiot time to add. The 344 __ The Conclufion of this Treatife. I Was not fo ignorant in the writing of this book, asto expeft to pleafe them whom I contradict. Experience hath taught me, that my free and plain dealing with men that are too proud to welcome that truth which tels them they have erred, doth but "diminish and lofe the afFe&ion of my moft engaged friends : much more may I ex- pect the exafperation and (harpe cenfure of others. But if Chrift put the moft un. pleafing meflage in my mouth, by his Grace, I will freak it : I had rather men were angry with me for fpeaking, then God for being filent. If I yet feelc to pleafe men, I am no longer his fervant. Sure I am that I fpeak not for my felf , nor the advancing of any fleflily intereft : I know as well as others, which is both the pleafing and the riling way, and though through the great mercy of my Lord, the daily expectations of my change, doth weaken my temptation to the later, yet to the former I am tempted as well as others. I have fome labor with my felf to bring my felf to that work and man- ner of performing it, which doth moftdiftaft; but none to that which procureth me friends. But I have learned, that thc-vcry formaU nature of ' fincerity conjifteth in the pre* valency ofchrifls inter eft in us s above the Inter eft of the Fie(h. If 1 have any language of raflsnefsor miftake (as alas, it is too probablej I (hall not dare to rather it on the Spi- rit, but unfeignedly crave pardon of God and man(defiring only that they would not judge of Gods caufe by that, leaft they hurt themfelves more then me.) But I dare not avoid plain fpeaking under pretence of avoiding harflinefs. I know the pridfc of men (that felf. Idolizing fin) hath brought them generally to be impatient of that language, which our pattern doth prefcribe us. When Chrift (whom I would imitate) was asked by the Rulers of his do&rine, he faith [I fpake openly to the world, I ever taught in the Synagogue and the Temple whither the lews alwayes refort ; and infecret have I fa id nothing. Why askefl: thou me? ask them that heard me what I have faid unto them/hey know what I faid, $ob. 18. 20, ai ] There was no evil in this anfwer which they could bear witnefs of 5 and yet Chrift is fmitten; and if he had now given fuch an anfwer,our times would have cenfured him for arrogant, unmannerly, faucy and ralh. I defire not to pretend to more wifdom then Chrift. If I be thought to be in the wrong, and the Anabaptifts in the right, if this book will not convince (as it is.unlikly where the receiver is not capable) we muft ftay till the great Iudge determine it by his final decifion, and then it (hall be known. If any will Reply, I again will give them this encouragement that they are likely to have the honpr of having the laft word J for were I able, I yet purpofe never more to deal on fo low a Iheam. Poftfcript. 345 Poftfcript. HAving not long fine e pub lifted a f mall Book^. Entituled AphorifmS of f unification and the Covenants J quickly found too many overva- luing it, andfome over vilifying it (contrary to my own mean Eftimation rfWHxpe&ation.J The former , with the Stationer (the Jmpreffton be- ing fold) do importune me inceffantly for ajecond Edition : I am not only diftratled between mens contrary Judgements and de fires : but f r armor e, between a fear of wronging the Church by mifiakes y and of wronging it by my filence, and Chrifl by hiding my Talent and his precious Truths, "Which after hard ftudy and earneft fupplication , he revealed to me on thefe terms, that I fkould reveal them to others* My foul trembles at the thought Sy both of being a depraver of the Truth* and of being a man* f leafing- betrayer of it. ^As I daily importune Cjod to direEl me in the fs fir aits, fo have 1 beyond mode fly importuned all my learned friends (from whom 1 had ground to expe5i. that favour,) whom I difcerned to diffent, and were likely to afford any help to the change of my judgement, that they Would be pleafedjpeedily to impart to me their thoughts •* But I could ne- ver yet prevail with any to gratifie me herein : (fave one ingenious friend that voluntarily attempted fomeWhat at the fir fi ; and another Dear and Learned Brother With Whom I prevailed for a few brief lines and Words ^ conjoynedwith aprofeffion not to dijpute the Cafe.) Some accufe that Bookj)fobjcure brevity ^fome of inconvenient phrafes,fome of particular Srrrors ; and mofl , of ere cling a neW frame of Divinity. My prt>fent purpofe is (ifGodaffifl) to clear in the next What feems obfcure , to confirm What feems to be but nakedly ajferted , to manifefi the concent of the learned to mofi that feemeth novel and fingular t to add much where I find it defective , to reduce the whole to a better Method, and con~ . traEi and annex what I had prepared of ZJniverfal Redemption (beccufe J Will not provoke the angry world with any more contentious Volumes , if J can chufe) and to retratl what my friends fit all difcover to be Erroneous* To Which end I earnefly intreat them , that if there be any Who think it worth their labour fo far to endeavor the prevention of my doing injury to Real or Juppofed Truth, or that have already prepared any Notes to that endjhat they Would be pleafedjpeedily to vouchfafe me fhf benefit of them, ■ Or 3 4* Poftfcript. Or if the Wifdom from above (which isfirfl Pare, then Peaceable>Gentlc % eafte to be entreated,) Jh all dire cl them rather to publijh their Animad- verfions 5 they would be flea fed Jpeedily to give me notice, that I may de • lay my Edition , till I fee what lyeth again fl my 'Doblrine. I pre fume not to ex feci this for my own fake and meerly ufon the fcore of Qhriftian love, {though this Were no mreafonable expectation, Jam. 5 . 1 9, 20.) but for the fake of the Church and Truth of God, Which I had rather die then be guilty ofabufing, sAnd this Encouragement J give to any that /hall at- tempt this charitable worl^; I do folemnly promife in the pre fence of God (by the help of his Grace) to try all with my utmofl impartiality and dili' gence } and to beg daily of God to reveal to me his truth •* <>s4nd do profefs 9 that, if my he Art be not wholly unknown to me herein , my love to Truth is fo ftrong (and I fear exceffive) that Ihtd far rather Retratl, were it to my great difgrace (much more when it would tend to recover the love of my dear Brethren) then proceed en the leafl jealoujie or doubt of erring. This much my Conference forced me to publijh, that at leafl I might be free from the Guilt of Rafhnefs y and of inconfiderate Wronging the Church and Truth, Let my Brethren anfwer it as the Lord [hall diretlthem. Kcderminfter, Novemb. 12. 165O1 Rich, Baxter, F I N I S. *