They begin their firſt Paper thus, Gentlemen,

YOu having avoided publick diſpute, by your ſelves ſo much preſt for at first; H.H. and J. Br. and ſince rather paper conference: We to gratifie your deſire herein, have written theſe few lines, hoping thereby to beget ſome diſcuſſion of the truth. Wherein we affirm, That the Baptiſm (or ſprinkling) of Infants, whereby the National Churches of Spain, England, France and Rome, &c. are conſtituted, and from thence called Chriſtians and Chriſtendom, is not the Baptiſm (or dipping) of Beleevers, which Chriſt Jeſus ordained, and his Diſciples practiſed for the right conſtituting of Churches under the Goſpel, whereby they rightly became, and were truly called Chriſtians.

Anſwer.

IN this your ſtating of the Queſtion, Anſ. divers things muſt be animadverted that you deceive not your ſelves and others, through darkning the truth by words without knowledge. 1. Here you take it for granted that we hold, That by the Baptizing or ſprinkling Infants, Churches are conſtituted: This we deny. For

1. As faith or intereſt in Chriſt, or the Covenant of grace, conſtitutes a Chriſtian; for the joint and orderly profeſſion of faith and intereſt in that Covenant, or Gods owning a people to be his in Covenant, is that which conſtitutes them a Church.

2. Baptiſm is not eſſential to the conſtituting of a Church, being but adventitious or additional, as a ſign or pledge of peoples admiſſion into the Church. The penitent thief on the Croſs was a true Beleever though unbaptized, and a multitude of ſuch penitent ones jointly profeſſing Chriſt ſhould be a true Church, Act. 7.38. though they wanted opportunity to be Baptized, as that Penitent did. The Iſraelites in the wilderneſs were a true Church, Ioſh. 5.5, 6. though they wanted Circumciſion for fourty years.

3. This Church (or theſe Churches) of England, received its (or their) conſtitution in or anon after the Primitive times, when by the Miniſtry of the word, ſome were converted from heatheniſm to Chriſtianity; at which time we grant perſons of years were Baptized upon their profeſſion of faith, or repentance, Gen. 12.4. Gen. 15.6. Gen. • 7.1 • , 3, 4, &c. 7. and for they and their children received into Covenant. As Abraham at the firſt ſetting up of a Church, with a ſeal of admittance thereinto in his family, was Circumciſed when he had profeſſed or declared his repentance, faith and obedience, and then his children and poſterity were Circumciſed, whiles Infants, by vertue of the Covenant into which they were taken with their fathers. Now that being the firſt conſtitution of a Church in this Land which never yet was overthrown, though many waies depraved, through Antichriſts uſurpations (of whom it was foretold that he ſhould ſit in the Temple of God for a time, 2 Theſ. • .4.) but being after, through the rich mercy of God repaired, it hath continued ſtill the ſame Church, having been never raſed to the foundation; and ſo we need not a new conſtitution, and therefore we deny that our Church was conſtituted by Infant-baptiſm, any more then the Church of Iſrael was conſtituted by Infant-circumciſion.

2. Whereas you ſay, that National-Churches are conſtituted by Infant-baptiſm or ſprinkling. Anſ. Anſ. 1. I know none that you oppoſe to plead for the conſtitution of National-Churches by Infant-baptiſm. 2. Though we boaſt not of National-Churches, nor is there any neceſſity that the mention of National-Churches ſhould come into this diſpute, yet are we not aſhamed of the name of a National-Church: But ſeeing you urge it upon us as odious, we deſire you, with us, to conſider theſe things.

1. Gen. 22.18. Did not God promiſe to Abraham, that all the Nations of the earth ſhould be bleſſed in his ſeed, Gen. 12.2. viz. Jeſus Chriſt. And how can Nations be bleſſed but by being made Churches? as that one Nation which deſcended from Abraham, was bleſſed by being a Church and people of God. Pſal. 2.8. Hath not God promiſed to give to Chriſt the Nations for his inheritance, and utmoſt parts of the earth for his poſſeſſion; Pſa. 22.27, 28. and that all the ends of the earth, and kindreds of the Nations ſhall turn to the Lord and worſhip before him? Iſa. 49.23. That Kings ſhall be nurſing fathers, & Queens nurſing mothers to the Church? And that Chriſt Jeſus, whoſe viſage and form was marred (with his bloud trickling down the ſame, Iſa 52.14, 15. when crowned with thorns, nailed to the Croſſe, and pierced into the heart) ſhall ſprinkle many Nations? Mat. 28.19. Did not Chriſt bid his Apoſtles go into all Nations, make Diſciples and Baptize? Rev. 11.15. Was it not foretold that the Kingdoms of the world ſhould become the Kingdoms of God and his Chriſt; and that the ſaved Nations ſhould walk in the light of the New-Jeruſalem; Rev. 21.24, 26. and that the Kings of the earth ſhould bring their light to it, and ſhould bring the glory and honour of the Nations to it? Why then ſhould the name of National-Church be ſo odious?

2. And ſurely if 1. A company of Beleevers in one houſe have been juſtly called a Church (domeſtical) Rom. 16.15. 1 Cor. 16.19. Col. 4.15. Phil. 2.2. And if the number of Beleevers in a ſmal Village or Town, may be called a Church (Congregational) Rom. 16.1. 3. And the multitude of Beleevers in one City imbracing the truth in ſo great number that no one room or place could contain them all at once for the ordinary orderly edifying adminiſtration of Gods Ordinances, may be called the Church of a City, or Claſſicall, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as the Church of Jeruſalem, which increaſed into many thouſand, yea many ten thouſand, and yet was but one Church, Act. 2.44.47. Act. 5.14, 15. & 6.1. Act. 21.20. 4. And multitudes of Beleevers ſcattered in many and ſeveral countries, are ſtill the flock (and Church) of God, and an holy Nation, 1 Pet. 2.1. with chap. 2.11. and chap. 5.2. 1 Cor. 15.9. 5. And if the whole company of the faithfull on earth, conſiſting for the moſt part of many particular viſible Churches, may be called the Church (Oecumenical) Mat. 16.18. 1 Cor. 12.28. 6. Laſtly, If all the Beleevers in heaven and earth, comprehending the militant and triumphant Church, may yet in a more comprehenſive ſenſe be called the Church Catholick, Heb. 12.23. I think no good reaſon can be given why men ſhould make it ſo ſhy without ſcorn or reproach to call the faithfull in a whole Nation (eſpecially when the whole Nation doth generally profeſs the truth) a National-Church.

3. The National-Church was not conſtituted by Infant-baptiſme, but by the preaching of the Goſpel God was pleaſed to call ſome in the Primitive times in this land, and they became a Church, Mat. 13.3 • , 3 • , 33. which was the firſt conſtitution of this Church. Afterward the leaven of the Goſpel ſeaſoning the whole lump, and that little grain of muſtard ſeed growing up into a great tree; and the Primitive Beleevers of this Land increaſing into a Nation, Ezek. 16.13. as Abrahams family did; the Church did grow up into a Nation, as was ſaid before; National, Oecumenical, Domeſtical or Congregational, being accidental, not eſſential to a Churches conſtitution or continuance.

Thirdly, Whereas you ſay, The National Churches of Spain, England, France and Rome, were conſtituted by ſprinkling of Infants: I anſwer,

1. This is a poiſonous inſinuation, whereby the Church of England is put by you into the ſame condition with the Churches of Rome, Spain, France, &c. wherein you do not only wrong Gods holy people (which have ſtriven, and continue ſtriving for Reformation againſt Antichriſt) in matching them with the popiſh rabble, and ſlander thoſe Miniſters and Ordinances of Chriſt amongſt us (by whoſe means, if you have any knowledge of Chriſt and his truth, you have received the ſame) by equalling them with popiſh Miniſters and ſuperſtitions; but alſo blaſpheme God himſelf, at whoſe call and through whoſe grace we have come out of Babylon, have attained ſome, and breath after more Reformation. How will Chriſt take it that his people and Churches are thus compared with the ſlaves and Synagogues of Antichriſt!

2. Yet we are not aſhamed to own that which is of God amongſt the Italians, Spaniards and French. Shall we reject the Scriptures of the old Teſtament, or be equalled with the Jews, becauſe we embrace them as Gods word, which the Jews alſo profeſſe to do? Or muſt we caſt off the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament, and many precious truths gathered out of them, becauſe profeſſed by the Papiſts, who yet overthrow by many falſe doctrines and ſuperſtitions what truths they profeſſe? no ſure. Neither are we to think the worſe of Infant-baptiſm, becauſe it is uſed amongſt them.

3. Yea, we make no doubt but that if in Italy, Spain and France, they would hold only that in doctrine worſhip and practice which is agreeable to Gods word, even the holy Scripture, which they profeſſe to imbrace with us, and caſt away ſuperſtitious idolatry and impieties contrary thereunto, reforming according to the word; God would own them for his Churches, neither ſhould they need a new conſtitution or new Baptiſme, any more then new Scripture. They have added indeed to Scripture and Baptiſm of their own; but let them repent of, and caſt away their additions, and keep that which is of God in judgement, practice and worſhip, according to the Scriptures which are amongſt them, and they become forthwith true and good Churches. The Church of Judah after it had fallen to idolatry, by caſting away that idolatry in the time of Aſa, Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah and Joſiah, was acknowledged a true and good Church without new conſtitution. Nay more, if backſliding Iſrael, after her many abominations, had returned to God when they had lien long in idolatry, Ier. 3.1, 2. & 4.1. God would have received them as his people without new Circumciſion.

Fourthly, Whereas you ſay, From this Infant-Baptiſm they are called Chriſtians or Chriſtendom, You do not prove it, We deny it, and aſſert That we are called Chriſtians or Chriſtendom from our faith in Jeſus Chriſt and the profeſſion thereof, and from our intereſt in the Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us in Chriſt the Mediatour exhibited; yet granting that Baptiſm is the badge of our Chriſtianity, but not that which conſtitutes Chriſtians. What they of Rome or Spain ſay, we paſſe not.

Fifthly, Whereas you ſay or imply, Baptiſm is dipping (in your ſenſe) and call it ſprinkling (by way of ſcorn) in our ſenſe, and would imply that Chriſt ordained, and his Apoſtles practiſed dipping, or as others expreſſe it, douſing over the head, not infuſion or ſprinkling: We wiſh you to prove it if you can, either from the proper ſignification of the word, Mark 7.4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mat. 3.11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . See the accompliſhment of this Prophecie, Act. • v. 3. & 17, 18. Act 10.44 & 11, 15, 16. Luk. 12.50. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Mat, 20, 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Iſa. 63, 1, 3. or from the nature of the Ordinance, or from the hiſtorical relation of the Apoſtles practice or otherwiſe. We finde that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ſignifies to waſh or bedew, or imbrew lightly, whether by infuſion of, or dipping into any liquid thing with a light touch; but that it ſhould ſignifie only dipping or douſing, the uſe of the word will not allow.

1. It is uſed to ſignifie the ceremonial waſhing of cups, pots, brazen veſſels, or tables, which may be as well done by infuſion or pouring water upon them, as by immerſion or diping into the water, yea in ſome of them much better.

2. The ſame word is alſo uſed to ſignifie Chriſts baptizing with the holy Ghoſt and with fire. This cannot be ſo underſtood that Chriſt ſhould dip or douſe men into the holy Ghoſt and fire, but that in the Primitive times the holy Ghoſt ſhould be poured upon them, as the texts in the margin ſhew, and that Chriſt would in after times pour his Spirit ordinarily on his people, which Spirit, in reſpect of operation, is compared to fire, as giving light, heat, &c.

3. This word is uſed to ſignifie Chriſts death, wherein his bloud was poured forth and ſprinkled on himſelf, and he waſhed in his own bloud. I have, ſaith he, a Baptiſm to be baptized with, and again, Are you able to be baptized with the Baptiſm that I am baptized with?

4. This word is alſo uſed to ſignifie Chriſts execution of Juſtice on his enemies, he being compared to a mighty warriour, which with wounding and ſlaying his enemies, is beſprinkled with their bloud, which ſpouts out of their body; when they are gaſhed and pierced by him. Our Tranſlators render that in the Revelation, having his garments dipped in bloud: Rev. 19 13. But it may be well read as that in Iſaiah, ſprinkled with bloud. For warriours do not uſe to dip or douſe their garments in their enemies bloud lying on the ground, but well may they have their garments beſprinkled therewith as it guſheth out of their bodies being wounded by them.

2. As for the nature, uſe and end of Baptiſm, it is to ſignifie the pouring of the bloud and ſpirit of Chriſt on our ſouls for regeneration, remiſſion of ſins and ſanctification, wherein we are not ſaid to be dipped or douſed into Chriſts bloud or ſpirit, but to be ſprinkled therewith, or to have them poured upon us, Heb. 9.13, 14. chap. 12.24. 1 Pet. 1.2. Iſa. 44.3. Act. 2.18. So that Prophecie of Chriſts beſprinkling many Nations, Iſa. 52.15. may be underſtood of his ſprinkling them with his bloud (which having ſpilled, he was ſo deformed, more then any man, ver. 14.) for juſtification, and his Spirit (which by his truth he purchaſed) for ſanctification. The ſcope of the text and coherence ſpeaking of Chriſts ſufferings and the fruits thereof, confirm the interpretation as moſt natural and proper.

3. As for the relation which the Scripture makes of the manner of baptizing, Ioſh. 3.17. Sometimes indeed it ſpeaks of baptizing at the river Jordan; but how improbable is it that they ſhould go into that mighty ſtream, 2 King. 2.8, & 14. Act. 2.41. which could not be paſſed over ſafely on foot (without a miracle) and there be dipped with extream danger of drowning. 2. We reade of baptizing in a City, divers thouſands in one day, without any mention of their going forth to any great water to be dipped. 3. We reade of baptizing a whole houſhold in a City in the deep night, without the leaſt intimation of their going forth to a river or any great water to be dipped, which if you conſider well, it may be you will not be ſo confident in calling baptizing, dipping.

Sixtly, You ſay that This baptizing or dipping of Beleevers was ordained of Chriſt and practiſed by the Diſciples for the right conſtitution of true Churches. This you ſpeak as your own ſenſe. Anſ. This opinion was confuted before, and by that which follows it ſhall further appear, that neither Baptiſm nor diping is eſſential to the conſtitution of a true Church.

Seventhly, You ſay or imply, This baptizing or dipping is that whereby they became, and were truly called Chriſtians. Anſ. This is falſe, that men cannot be right Chriſtians without your dipping: Yea though we underſtand it of true Baptiſm, for faith or intereſt in Chriſt properly maketh Chriſtians. Being intereſted in Chriſt, though we ſhould be hindered by death or other providence from Baptiſme, yet we are true Chriſtians, as the thief on the Croſſe. Thoſe three thouſand mentioned in the Acts, when they had beleeved, Act. 2 19, & 40. were Chriſtians, even before they were baptized; ſo Philip before he came to the water. Baptiſm is rather an effect or conſequent, then a cauſe or antecedent of our Chriſtianity. People are rightly baptized becauſe Chriſtians, not Chriſtians becauſe baptized.

2. Neither were men hence at firſt called Chriſtians, becauſe baptized; for many thouſands had been baptized a long time before they were called Chriſtians: For whereas great multitudes had been baptized by John the Baptiſt, Mat. 3.5, 6. Ioh 4 5, 6. See Act 2. &. 3. to the 7 chap. and more by the Diſciples of Chriſt before his death, and many thouſands alſo after his aſcenſion, at Jeruſalem, Samaria and elſewhere. Beleevers were not called Chriſtians untill a good time after the Perſecution and diſperſion at Jeruſalem. For the faithfull were firſt called Chriſtians at Antioch, Act. 11. • 6. where Paul and Barnabas had taught an whole year, and the number of Diſciples was mightily increaſed, there is not the leaſt intimation that Baptiſm or dipping gave them the name of Chriſtians, but rather their famous profeſſion of Chriſt. Thus much for particulars obſervable in the main propoſition.

Eightly, From the whole propoſition in reſpect of the matter, let it be noted, that beſides your implicit faſtning on us ſome things which we own not; and aſſerting as your own ſome things which you neither have nor can prove. The whole ſtate of the Queſtion is miſtaken by you. You ſpeak of Baptiſm which is for the conſtitution of Churches, whereas the Queſtion is, What Baptiſm is to be uſed amongſt us, who are a Church (or Churches) conſtituted already? We grant that to the firſt conſtituting of Churches amongſt Jews or Infidels, which were never a Chriſtian people, a Profeſſion of repentance, faith or obedience muſt be made by men upon the preaching of the Goſpel, that they and their children may be accepted into Covenant and baptized. As Abraham profeſſed his faith before that he and his family were circumciſed, but after that his children were circumciſed, without requiring of actual faith and repentance from them, as precedaneous to Circumciſion. They that will conſtitute new Churches amongſt Infidels, ought as we judge, firſt to require actual faith and repentance of that people before they admit them and their ſeed as members of the Church. But whatſoever you think of us, we Chriſtians in England know that we were through Gods grace a Church conſtituted long ago, whoſe defects and corruptions, though many, yet have not been inconſiſtent with the being of a Church; neither (ſuch hath been the indulgence of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the head and King of the Church) were we ever unchurched. If you will go and preach among Jews, Turks and infidels, and make it appear that you have a commiſſion for it; we will not gainſay your conſtituting of Churches amongſt them, and baptizing Profeſſors of faith. But in the mean ſpace let me adviſe you to take heed, leſt whiles you talk of conſtituting Churches amongſt Gods people, Act. 1 • .3. 2 Tim. 3.6. Tit, 1. 11. Satan uſe you as his inſtrument to overthrow Churches, by ſubverting ſouls, and whole houſes, through ſpeaking things you ought not for filthy lucre ſake; as he did thoſe noted in the margin.

Ninthly, Let it be alſo obſerved, in the form of your propounding the whole ſtate of the Queſtion, that you which would be accounted great diſputers and diſcuſſers of the truth, laying down a negative Propoſition (as is evident to any that can diſcern a negation from an affirmation) in propounding it ſay we affirm— when indeed you deny. Will not theſe ſo groſſe miſtakes, in the parts and the whole, the matter and manner of this main queſtion ſtated by you, give juſt cauſe to judge that you are ſuch men as thoſe of whom the Apoſtle ſpeaks in theſe words, 1 Tim, 1.5, 6, 7. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, a good conſcience and faith unfeined, from which ſome having ſwerved, have turned aſide to vain jangling, deſiring to be teachers of the law, underſtanding neither what they ſay, nor whereof they affirm?

Whereas you ſay, H.H J.B. If it be, we deſire you to prove it by plain Scriptures.

Anſ. We have nothing to do to prove that which we never affirmed; but you falſly father upon us (as it may ſeem) that you may fight with your own ſhadow. But we ſhall by Gods aſſiſtance prove, upon ſolid Scripture grounds, That the Infants of Chriſtians, which are members of a conſtituted Church (or Churches) have right to the Covenant of grace, and ſo to Baptiſm the ſeal of entrance into the Covenant; and that it is agreeable to Gods word that conſtituted Churches ſhould be continued by baptizing of children that are members thereof.

But firſt let us hear what you ſay for your way. You proceed thus,

That the Baptiſme of beleeving men and women by us practiſed, H.H. J.B. is the Baptiſm of Chriſt, we prove by theſe Scriptures.

Anſ. For the anſwering of your Scripture-proofs, taken from Chriſts command and the Apoſtles practice; I will firſt propound ſome things in general to be conſidered, ſecondly make anſwer to the ſeveral Scriptures.

1. I anſwer therefore, That neither any nor all theſe Scriptures do prove plainly, poſitively, immediatly and directly, without conſequence or ſyllogiſm (which I take to be your meaning when you call for plain and poſitive Scripture) which I have heard that ſome of your way abhor and proteſt againſt, that the Baptiſm practiſed by you is the Baptiſm of Jeſus Chriſt. In none of theſe Scriptures it is expreſſely ſaid, "The dipping of beleeving men and women, practiſed by Henry Huggar and James Brown, is the Baptiſm of Jeſus Chriſt. Nor do we reade in the Evangeliſts, Go Henry Huggar and Ja. Brown, teach all Nations and baptize, &c. Nor do we reade that Chriſt gave a command to you two to preach the Goſpel to every creature: Nor do we finde in the Acts of the Apoſtles, that H.H. and J.B. ſaid to the Jews, Repent and be baptized; or that the Samaritans heard you two preaching; or that the Eunuch went down with you to the water; or that the Jaylour or Criſpus the Ruler of the Synagogue were baptized by you or either of you. If you have any plain poſitive Scriptures mentioning your ſelves, you may produce them. Neither have you cauſe to take it ill to be urged thus: Seeing that you call for plain and poſitive Scripture without ſyllogiſm or conſequence, to prove that children or infants by name ſhould be baptized or ſprinkled, why may not we require of you, plain and poſitive Scripture without ſyllogiſm or conſequence, that H.H. and J.Br. ſhould dip men and women? When you ſhew us expreſſe Scripture for the one, we will for the other.

2. "But it may be you will ſay, It will follow by good conſequence from theſe Scriptures, that your Baptiſm is the Baptiſm of Chriſt.

Anſ. 1. It is well if you be not afraid of ſyllogiſms, conſequences and argumentation. 2. Yet you have drawn no ſyllogiſms nor arguments hence, and untill we ſee them we cannot anſwer them. 3. If you take liberty to uſe reaſonings and conſequences, you cannot rationally deny to us the like liberty. 4. If you will have theſe Scriptures brought home by any juſt conſequence, for the proving of your Baptiſm to be the Baptiſm of Chriſt, you muſt undertake an hard task; for beſide your skill in Logick, &c. you muſt either prove your ſelves Apoſtles or Evangeliſts, for to ſuch were theſe commands given, and of ſuch were theſe hiſtories; Mat. 2 • , 19, 20. and that you have power and authority to preach to the whole world, power to ſpeak with ſtrange tongues to any Nation whatſoever, and to work miracles, and that you ought to preach to none, Mat. 16.15, 16, 17. Act. 2. & 8. Rom. 16.15 • . but (or at leſt principally) to Jews and infidels, not building on others foundations, for theſe things belonged to thoſe firſt founders of Churches: Or elſe at leaſt you muſt prove that you are Paſtors or Teachers (whom God hath appointed to ſucceed thoſe extraordinary primitive Miniſters, who were imployed in founding and conſtituting Churches,) Epheſ. 4, 11, 12, 13, 14. which are to build on the Apoſtles foundation, for perfecting of the Saints, ſet apart for the work of the Miniſtry, and for edification of the myſticall body of Chriſt. And if ſo, you muſt make it appear, that upon due trial and examination of your gifts, Act 14 23. 1 Tim. • , • , 2, 3, 4, 5. 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5 22. Tit. 1.7, 8, 9. Act. • 0.28 1 Tim. •• 3, 14, 15. and fitneſs in point of knowledge and holineſs, you have been ſet apart to that Office, by the approbation or impoſition of hands of the Presbytery, for that is the Goſpel-order. You muſt make it appear alſo that you have a Flock to overſee and watch over, and that you give your ſelves wholly to reading, meditation and ſtudy, and that you fully diſcharge your Miniſtry in the Flock of Chriſt; if you will with any comfort to your ſelves, and ſatisfaction to others that are godly and judicious; apply the Scriptures which you have cited to your ſelves. Beſides, if you be Apoſtles, why do you build on others foundations? If Paſtours, what talk you of conſtituting Churches, as if that were your work?

3. The reaſon is not in all things the ſame of a Church to be conſtituted, and of a Church conſtituted already, as I have ſhewed before in the example of Abraham: when his family was to be made a Church, under the diſpenſation of the Covenant ſealed by Circumciſion, upon his profeſſed faith and repentance, he was circumciſed with his whole family; and after this his Domeſticall Church grew up into a National; his poſterity being acknowledged members of the Church by Circumciſion in Infancy, were not to ſtay for Circumciſion untill they actually beleeved, after Abrahams example. The ſame courſe was taken with Proſelytes, Exod. 12.48, 49. they at firſt were to profeſſe faith, and afterwards their children to be circumciſed in Infancy. In like manner in the New Teſtament, when Governours of families were baptized, Act. 16.14, 15. & 31, 32, 33, 34 their whole families were baptized with them; of which hereafter. When men are infidels, they and their ſeed are aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael; and therefore muſt actually repent and beleeve before they and their children be admitted to the Covenant: But having by faith laid hold on the Covenant for themſelves and theirs, their children are intereſted therein, at leaſt externally, ſo far as to have right to the ſeal of entrance. There is not the ſame reaſon of the foundation and ſuperſtruction in all things, nor of planting trees and their growing up and nouriſhing. Indeed at the firſt planting of a Park, Vineyard or Orchyard, there muſt be a rooting or faſtning of the firſt ſtock, ſtemme or branch immediatly in that ground or grafting ſtock, but afterward it is not neceſſary or fit that every ſprig that ſprouts forth thence ſhould be cut off, and immediatly rooted in the earth; this courſe would hinder growth and fruitfulneſſe. So the firſt receivers of the Goſpel being planted into Chriſt, his Covenant and Church by faith, do ſucceſſively convey (according to the tenour of the Covenant of grace) the bleſſing to their children (whiles ſucceeding parents, the offspring of thoſe firſt Beleevers continue in the faith,) ſo far forth, as that their Infants have right to the Covenant (and ſeal of entrance) which runs thus, Gen. 17 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy ſeed after thee. Thus it was unqueſtionably from Abrahams unto Chriſts time; the Apoſtle uſing the like ſimilitude tels us that ſome of the Jews were broken off from the Olive tree by unbelief for a time, Rum. 11.17. elſe they might with their ſeed ſtill have partaked of the root and fatneſſe of the Olive tree as before, which priviledge doubtleſſe thoſe that were not broken off by unbelief, did retain; and theſe unbeleevers when they ſhall return to Chriſt by faith, ſhall recover; and the beleeving Gentiles being for the preſent planted in, in their room, muſt enjoy. Epheſ. 3 5. The ſame Apoſtle ſaith that the beleeving Gentiles are fellow-heirs and of the ſame body with beleeving Jews, and ſo partakers of the ſame priviledges. It is true ſome things are common to the conſtituting and founding of a Church, with its continuance and ſuperſtruction, theſe muſt be alike obſerved in both caſes: ſome things are proper to each; and here heed muſt be taken of confounding theſe, Heb. 6.1, 2, left if we be alwaies laying the foundation, we never come to perfection.

4. Whereas your practice is to perſwade beleeving parents to forbear baptizing of their children, untill they can actually repent and beleeve; Where do you prove that Chriſt commanded or his Apoſtles practiſed this? I am ſure thoſe Scriptures which you ſet down, mention no ſuch thing. The Apoſtles according to Chriſts command, preached to Jews and infidels, and having converted them, baptized them with their families; but no where bid them keep their children, untill they profeſſe their repentance and faith, and then baptize them; this you practiſe without any Scripture-warrant.

5. Neither do any or all theſe Scriptures prove, that it is according to Chriſts inſtitution, to baptize or dip thoſe which have been already baptized Into the Name of the Father, Son and holy Ghoſt (which is your practice) theſe Scriptures I am ſure contain no ſuch command or practice.

If you ſay you finde a warrant for rebaptizing Act. 14.3, 4, 5. I anſwer, Ob.

According as the Original will well bear it, Anſ. in the Hiſtory the fourth and fifth verſes may be ſo underſtood, as to contain but a relation made by Paul (rehearſed by Luke) concerning the nature of Johns Baptiſm, for the ſatisfying of thoſe twelve Diſciples, that whereas they had been baptized by John, that was ſufficient in reſpect of the outward ſign; For thus ſaith Paul, John truly baptized the Baptiſm of repentance, ſaying to the people that they ſhould beleeve in him which was to come, even Jeſus Chriſt: But they which heard him (or the hearers viz. of John) were baptized into the Name of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; meaning, not only thoſe twelve, but all Johns hearers as they were taught by him to beleeve in Chriſt, for they were baptized by him into the Name of Chriſt; ſo that we muſt not judge that in the fifth verſe Luke makes relation of what was done at that preſent time by Paul, to thoſe twelve diſciples, but ſheweth how Paul continues his ſpeech to ſatisfie them and others preſent, that the Baptiſm which they had received of John, was the true Baptiſm, in the Name of Chriſt, ſo that they needed no more external and material Baptiſm; nor had any cauſe to ſcruple the truth of their Baptiſm. And this reading is confirmed by theſe conſiderations, 1. The conjunctions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the beginning of the fourth and fifth verſes, argue ſtrongly, that thoſe two verſes make up but one compleat ſentence, and ſo that it is the continued ſpeech of Paul holding on his diſcourſe concerning Johns doctrine and Baptiſm, as ſutable, both of them referring to Chriſt; the one leading, the other dedicating people to him. 2. Whereas our Tranſlatours render the beginning of the fifth verſe, When they heard this, it may be more properly read ſo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . according to the Original [But the hearers, or they which had heard, or when they had heard, they were baptized,] the word (this) is not in the Original. 3. This reaſon alſo may be added, If Johns Baptiſme was not ſufficient, but that they muſt have a new Baptiſm, it will follow that Johns Baptiſm was not the ſame for ſubſtance with Chriſts and his Diſciples, which is not to be granted, ſeeing Chriſt was baptized by John: And as our Saviour ſhewed his fellowſhip with the Jews Church, by receiving the ſame Circumciſion which they had; ſo he ſhewed his communion with the Chriſtian Church by receiving the ſame Baptiſm for ſubſtance with them.

2. Others underſtand the fifth and ſixth verſes to ſpeak of the ſame things, and hold that theſe men were indeed baptized again; yet not with water, but with the holy Ghoſt, Mat. 3.11. Act. 2 3, 4. Act. 10.11. & 11, 15, 6. Act. 8 15, 16, 17. by the laying on of hands, according to that of John, I indeed baptize you with water, but he that cometh after me ſhall baptize you with the holy Ghoſt and ſire. And agreeably to thoſe relations in the Acts, of the Spirit in the ſhape of fire deſcending on perſons, according to that prediction; and at other times given by laying on of hands, a good time after Baptiſm, and thus underſtood it will make nothing for you.

3. If we ſhould grant it to be underſtood of different baptiſms with water, it will make nothing for you. For the Learned which hold that, ſay, that Johns Doctrine, Mat. 11, 11. Miniſtry and Baptiſm were introductory to Chriſts, and though higher then the Miniſtry of the Prieſts and Prophets, yet inferiour to the full Goſpel-Miniſtry. Now you cannot ſay that the caſe is here alike, and that our Miniſtry is ſubſervient and introductory to yours by Gods appointment, as Johns was to Chriſts.

4. Act. 19 • 7. This Scripture will do you no ſervice, if it be granted that thoſe men were baptized again, for they had not ſo much as heard if there were any holy Ghoſt: but thoſe whom you rebaptize were baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, and were often inſtructed in the doctrine of the bleſſed Trinity. If you reply, Though theſe whom you dip had heard of the holy Ghoſt, yet they had never felt the work of the holy Ghoſt in them. I anſwer, That indeed is too probable, at leaſt in many of them, that becauſe they have plaid the hypocrites ſo long, being deſtitute of the ſpirit of ſanctification, 2 Theſ. 1, 10, 11, 12. Iud. v. 19. and right diſcerning, through their own fault, they are thus miſerably given over to ſtrong deluſions, to beleeve lies, ſeparating themſelves from Gods humble people, and powerfull Ordinances; becauſe they are ſenſuall not having the ſpirit.

5. Yea though we ſhould grant that theſe were baptized again by the Apoſtle here, it was for this end, that by laying on of Pauls hands, they might receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt, with ſpeaking ſtrange tongues and prophecying, verſ. 6. This you cannot procure for them whom you rebaptize. Therefore plead not this place for your practice.

Now I come to conſider of the particular Scriptures which you bring. Firſt ſay you, The commands of Chriſt, Mat. 28.19, 20. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, &c. Mat. 16.15, 16. And he ſaid unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Goſpel unto every creature, He that beleeveth and is baptized, ſhall be ſaved, he that beleeveth not ſhall be condemned.

Anſ. To theſe Scriptures I anſwer three things. 1. They make nothing for your opinion and practice: For 1. Theſe commands were given to the Apoſtles, 〈◊〉 . 15.21, 22. • Cor. 10.15, 1 •• . who were to lay the foundation of Chriſtian Religion, where Chriſt had not been heard of, as is plain in theſe very Scriptures, and by the example of Paul and other Apoſtles, acting by vertue of this Commiſſion: But you do not ſo, but boaſt in things without your meaſure, even of other mens labours, and boaſt in other mens Lines of things made ready to your hands; 2 Cor. 10, 15, 16. as the Apoſtle implies the falſe teachers at Corinth did. It is well known that you go to them which are by profeſſion Chriſtians already. 2. Though theſe Scriptures command to make Jews and Gentiles diſciples and baptize, or to preach to all creatures and baptize, yet they forbid not baptizing thoſe that are not capable of outward teaching and preaching to for the preſent. If you gather from the order of the words, that none but thoſe that beleeve (actually and perſonally) muſt be baptized, you may as well gather none but thoſe that are baptized ſhall be ſaved; for as in the text, beleeving goeth before baptizing, ſo baptizing goes before ſaving. Nay, though Chriſt ſaith peremptorily, He that beleeveth not ſhall be condemned, you will not I think hence conclude that all Infants which you ſay cannot beleeve; muſt neceſſarily periſh in their Infancy; though this might far more probably be concluded from the text, then what you would conclude. The words therefore are not to be taken ſo generally, as to admit of no reſtriction, but muſt be limited according to the ſubject-matter, viz. that when profeſſed infidels, ſuch as the Apoſtles were ſent to, are preached to, they muſt be made diſciples and beleeve, and then be baptized, and ſuch as are quite out of Covenant, and have no means of being taken into Covenant but by actual faith of their own, muſt be condemned if they beleeve not.

2. Theſe Scriptures make much againſt you, for while you urge them for your warrant, you not only uſe no endeavours to go to the poor Nations and Heathens to preach the Goſpel to Jews and Infidels, as theſe Commiſſions require, but are altogether unable for ſuch a work. For, let me ask you, Can you ſpeak the tongues of all the people in the world? of Indians, Ethiopians, Turks, Scythians, Jews, &c. Or can you work miracles, which were ſo neceſſary for the laying of the foundation of Chriſtianity amongſt Infidels, which power Chriſt promiſed to his Apoſtles to whom he directly gave this Commiſſion, and accordingly inabled them thereunto. If you cannot do theſe, boaſt no more of theſe Scriptures.

3. Yea though you would inſinuate that theſe Scriptures are much againſt our judgement and practice; yet I hope it will appear anon that they are much for us. Only let me firſt prevent an objection, which is this; Ob. If theſe Scriptures make not for the Anabaptiſts, ſurely they cannot make for you: The forenamed reaſons hold as ſtrongly againſt your ſelves as them, for do you lay new foundations of Churches any more then they? can you ſpeak with all tongues and work miracles? do you go amongſt infidels to preach any more then they?

The difference of our judgement and practice from theirs, Anſ. frees us from this objection which muſt neceſſarily preſs them. For 1. Whereas they talk of conſtituting new Churches, and ſo would lay a new foundation, as if they were to deal with Jews and other Infidels: We Miniſters of Chriſt in this Nation, and our brethren the Paſtors and Teachers of Chriſtian Churches in all other Nations, build ſtill on the old foundation, laid by the Apoſtles; and labour for the reformation, increaſe and propagation of thoſe Churches which were conſtituted by them, or did flow from thoſe firſt conſtituted Churches, as branches from a ſtock, ſo that we by virtue of theſe Commiſſions, preach the word and baptize in all Nations (where God is pleaſed to continue his truth) not each one ſeverally in all Nations, but all of us diſtributively in ſeveral Churches, and collectively in the whole viſible Church, each one looking to his proper charge, and yielding mutual help upon occaſion, by which means the whole is provided for, not inchoatively by way of founding or conſtituting, but ſucceſſively by way of edifying and propagating. 2. Whereas we require of you to ſhew miracles, ſpeak ſtrange languages, becauſe you profeſs on theſe Scripture grounds to conſtitute new Churches, and lay the foundation of Chriſtian Religion; we have good reaſon for it, ſith miracles and tongues were neceſſary for this work to the Apoſtles; and ſurely no leſſe neceſſary for thoſe that will undertake the ſame work now. But ſeeing we build on the foundation laid by the Apoſtles, labouring for the edification and propagation of the Churches conſtituted by them, or at leaſt, which have by propagation flowed from thoſe which they founded; and ſeeing thoſe Churches (or that Church) which we labour to edifie, were firſt founded by them which had the gifts of languages and miracles, and we teach a people that already profeſſe Chriſt, and are convinced of the truth of Chriſtian Religion; miracles are not neceſſary to us, nor can be rationally required of us. The ſame I may ſay of ſtrange tongues, 1 Cor. 15.2 • . of which the Apoſtle ſaith that they are a ſign, not to them • hat beleeve, but to them that beleeve not. We therefore that preach to Chriſtians, Beleevers, and Church-members, need them not; but you who pretend to conſtitute Churches, look on thoſe that are not dipped by you, as Heathens, Infidels, and without Chriſtendom, ſhould ſpeak with tongues, that you may convince theſe Infidels of the truth of your doctrine. 3. You bring theſe Scriptures as directly, and without deduction or conſequence belonging to you; we argue from them, ſo as to apply them to our ſelves, by deduction and conſequence. By this it appears how juſtly we make uſe of theſe Scriptures, being Miniſters of thoſe Churches, which by a continued flux have been propagated from thoſe founded by the Apoſtles, and ſo may humbly boaſt of, Mat. 16.18. Mat. 28.20. and lay claim unto thoſe promiſes, Mat. 16.18. On this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt it And Mat. 28.20. And to I am with you alway even to the end of the world; which promiſes could not belong to the Apoſtles only (for they continued not unto the end of the world in the work of the Miniſtry,) but to them and the Churches and Miniſters which ſhould ſucceed them. For Chriſt promiſeth to the Apoſtles that he will be with them in diſcipling, baptizing, teaching the things which he had commanded them, unto the worlds end, which work when the Apoſtles died, they delivered up to ſucceeding Miniſters.

I come now to ſhew how theſe places make for us. 1. In Mat 28.19. That which you reade according to our Tranſlation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Teach, is properly, Make diſciples or ſcholers. Now not only aged perſons which are come to diſcretion, may be made ſcholers or diſciples of Chriſt, Iſa. 54.13. Ier. 31.34. Deut. 30.6. but alſo children. 1. As God hath promiſed that in his Church where his Goſpel and Covenant are diſpenſed, he will teach his people from the leaſt to the greateſt, all the Churches children ſhall be taught of God. Gods Spirit ſhall not depart from their ſeed, nor ſeeds ſeed, &c. 2. As they are with and by their parents devoted to God, to be brought up in his School, by outward inſtruction, when capable, and we know that little children, which yet cannot learn, being ſent to ſchool are called ſcholers, Deut. 6.7. Eph. 6.4. 2 Tim. 3.15. becauſe they are in the ſchool and intended for learning, when capacity ſhall be given. Thus children of Beleevers are from their infancy devoted to to Chriſts School, to be brought in the nurture and information of the Lord, and we know no age is uncapable of Gods teaching. 3. It is ſaid, Act. 15. v. 1. compared with 10. that the falſe Apoſtles which urged Chriſtians to be circumciſed according to the law of Moſes (which we know was, that children ſhould be circumciſed at eight daies old) did put a yoke on the neck of the diſciples, ſo that they are called diſciples on whom they urged Circumciſion, but they urged Circumciſion not only on grown Chriſtians, but alſo on their children, Therefore their children are diſciples. 4. In Act. 21.4, & 5. verſes, Thoſe of Tyre which are called diſciples ver. 4. (whereof ſome were endued with the ſpirit of Prophecie indeed (but all are not Prophets) and warned Paul of the danger of going to Jeruſalem, 1 Cor. 12.29.) ſeem to be comprehended under theſe three heads, 1. Men, or the husbands and fathers. 2. Women, 3. Their children, who accompanied the Apoſtle to the ſea-ſhore, and moſt likely the Infants in their mothers arms are here intended, who with their parents were taken along, when they went to take their laſt farwell of the Apoſtle, as well to expreſſe that dear affection and honour that they did owe to him, as to obtain, not only for themſelves, but alſo for their little ones the benefit of the laſt prayer, wherein they were to join in preſence with that faithfull Embaſſadour of Chriſt: The preſence of children and ſucklings tending much to move the bowels of parents to crave, and the Apoſtle to make affectionate prayers for thoſe Saints and their children whom he ſhould never ſee more. Deut. 19.10, 11, 12. As Moſes before his laſt farwell to the Iſraelites, would have them ſtand before God with their little ones, and enter into Covenant with him: So theſe at their farwell-taking with the Apoſtle, did preſent themſelves before God with their little ones: And as Ezra in that ſolemn humiliation ſought of God a good way, not only for the aged, but alſo for the little ones. So it ſeems theſe pious parents would have Paul to ſeek unto God for themſelves and their little ones; Ezr. 8.21. they no leſſe belonging to God and being diſciples now, then in the time of Moſes his law, and therefore they enjoy the priviledge of diſciples or perſons in Covenant, viz. communion with the Apoſtle and the other Saints in ſolemn prayer, which undiſcipled perſons and aliens from the Covenant, Ob. were never admitted to. Ob. But the fathers are evidently diſtinguiſhed by the names of diſciples from their children, therefore the children were not diſciples, Anſ. ſeeing the name of diſciples is appropriated to the men only. Anſ. If this reaſon were good, the wives ſhould be no diſciples or beleevers, for they are no leſſe diſtinguiſhed from the men (to whom the name of diſciples is appropriated then the children) but no man will deny the wives to be diſciples or beleevers, for this diſtinction, therefore neither the children. 2. But the children and wives did equally partake in the priviledge of diſciples, viz. communion in the prayer with the Apoſtles and Saints as well as the men, Therefore they were diſciples as well as the men. 5. They that are ſo to be received in Chriſts Name, that Chriſt himſelf is received in them, belong to Chriſt and are Chriſts diſciples. For to ſhew kindneſſe or do ſervice to any in Chriſts Name, and becauſe they belong to Chriſt, and becauſe they are diſciples, or in the name of diſciples, or becauſe they are ſuch as beleeve in Chriſt, are all one in Scripture phraſe, as may appear by comparing theſe Scriptures, Mat. 10.42. Mar. 9.41, 42. But the little children of Beleevers or Church-members are ſo to be received in Chriſts Name, that Chriſt himſelf is received in or with them, Mat. 18.5. Mat. 18, 5. Therefore they are Chriſts Diſciples and belong to him. So much concerning the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and hence I argue thus.

1. Diſciples according to Chriſts Commiſſion laid down in Scripture, are to be baptized: But children of the faithfull, even whilſt Infants, are diſciples, Therefore to be baptized.

2. Whereas it is ſaid, Make diſciples all Nations, baptizing them; hence I gather, Children are not to be excluded: 1. Becauſe children are a very conſiderable and eſſential part of a Nation. 2. As the Jewiſh Nation had been a Nation of diſciples, and an holy people; ſo now in the time of the Goſpel the Chriſtian Nations were to become Gods people. But the Jews were ſo a Nation of diſciples, and an holy people, as that their children were taken with them into the Covenant, 1 Pet. 8.9. and admitted to the ſeal of entrance: ſo ſhould theſe; for Chriſtians are called an holy Nation now, as the Jews heretofore. Hence I argue, Diſcipled Nations, or Nations made diſciples, and all their members and conſiderable integral parts, no where excepted, are to be baptized. For the whole comprehends all the parts, and the command that appoints all Nations to be baptized, muſt needs take in the ſeveral parts of thoſe Nations which are no where excepted: But children of beleeving Nations are members and conſiderable integral parts of diſcipled Nations, as being more in number for the moſt part then grown perſons, the hope of poſterity, in whom the parents live, and by whom States, Churches and families are continued; being alſo more free from ſin (as uncapable of actual rebellion and provocation againſt God, Num. 14.30, 31. whom he is pleaſed ſometimes to ſpare, when he puniſheth rebellious and Covenant-breaking parents, and for whoſe ſake ſometimes he ſpareth flagitious parents) neither are children in this Scripture or elſwhere excluded out of Chriſts Commiſſion; Ion. 4.11. Therefore they are to be baptized.

3. From the order of Chriſts Commiſſion, it may be gathered, That diſcipling and baptizing goeth before teaching. Mat. 28.19, 20. Thus we reade, Going therefore, make diſciples all Nations, Baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghoſt, teaching them to keep all things whatſoever I have commanded you. Indeed the Goſpel was to be offered to Jews and Infidels, and they exhorted to accept Chriſt and the Covenant of grace, before they were baptized; but Baptiſm was not to be deferred, nor they rejected as no diſciples, untill they ſhould have learned the whole Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and all the commands of Chriſt. But whoſoever on the preaching of the Goſpel and offer of Chriſt, ſhould not ſubbornly refuſe him, but (Idolatry being renounced) were dedicated to the worſhip of God and Chriſt (whether ſuch as had power to diſpoſe of themſelves by themſelves profeſſedly conſenting; or ſuch as were at the diſpoſe and under the power of others, and by their conſent and authority given up to Chriſt) they were to be admitted into Chriſts ſchool, acknowledged his diſciples, and baptized into his Name, and afterward to be inſtructed in his doctrine and commands. Hence I gather thus. If Infants of Beleevers are not to be baptized, it is becauſe they are not capable of being taught Miniſterially in the doctrines and commands of Chriſt for the preſent. All the arguments of the Anabaptiſts may be referred to this head, They ſay they cannot repent, beleeve, enter into Covenant, &c. Why? becauſe ſay they, they are uncapable of being taught; or at leaſt they would gather from Chriſts Commiſſion they are uncapable of being preached to and taught; Therefore of being baptized.

But this is not a ſufficient cauſe why they ſhould not be baptized: For teaching the doctrines and commands of Chriſt, ſhould go after, not before Baptiſm, according to the order of Chriſts Commiſſion; It's enough that perſons be devoted to Chriſt, upon the tender of the Goſpel, by thoſe that have power externally to dedicate them to him, and then they are to be baptized, and as it were, matriculated into his School, and after taught all things that Chriſt hath commanded them; the contrary courſe is a prepoſterous inverting of the order of Chriſt; Therefore Baptiſm is not to be denied to the Infants of Beleevers. But they are by their parents to be dedicated to Chriſt and then baptized, and afterwards inſtructed and taught in all the doctrines and commands of Chriſt, which way is moſt agreeable to the order of Chriſts Commiſſion.

4. Whereas it is ſaid in Mark 16.16. He that beleeveth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, he that beleeveth not ſhall be condemned. If you will take theſe words preciſely, as containing a generall and compleat rule, by which we muſt judge who muſt be baptized and ſaved, who not, without limitation to the firſt calling of Jews and Gentiles to Chriſtianity. I reaſon thus againſt you from this Scripture, Children, even the Infants of Chriſtians, either beleeve or not. If they beleeve, Deut. 30.6. having faith though but ſeminal or virtual comprehended in regeneration or circumciſion of the heart, which God promiſeth to the ſeed of the faithfull, or maybe ſaid to beleeve in their parents, who accept of the Covenant for themſelves and their ſeed, then they are to be baptiye • as this Scripture ſhews, and your own argument againſt their Baptiſm yields; this being your great reaſon againſt baptizing children, becauſe, ſay you, they cannot beleeve. But if you ſay they do not, cannot beleeve, they are all damned by you, from this Scripture, which ſaith expreſſely, Whoſoever beleeves not ſhall be condemned. Take which you will, If you ſay the former the cauſe is yielded by you. If the later, viz. That all the children of Beleevers, whiles Infants, are condemned, and that there is no hope of ſalvation if they die before grown years, this being ſo contrary to the Covenant of God, and his promiſes, will make you deſervedly abhorred, of all thoſe that know God, his Covenant and Scriptures. If you to avoid this dilemma ſay, this Scripture belongs only to thoſe of grown years, as were thoſe unbeleeving Jews and Heathens, to whom the Apoſtles were immediatly ſent; and therefore the condemnation of Infants, through want of actual faith cannot be hence concluded; you anſwer your ſelves, and might as eaſily ſee, that the excluſion of Infants from Baptiſm, for want of actuall, perſonal profeſſed faith, cannot hence be gathered, eſpecially ſeeing theſe words are far more peremptory and expreſſe againſt the ſalvation, then againſt the Baptiſm of non-beleevers.

Secondly, You ſay, What you practiſe is proved to be the Baptiſm of Chriſt, by the practice of the Diſciples in obedience to thoſe commands, as Act 2.38. Then Peter ſaid unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt unto the remiſſion of ſins, ver. 41. Then they that gladly received the word, were baptized, and the ſame day added to the Church.

Anſ. You cut off in the citation of this Scripture a very material part, namely, the ground of the Apoſtles exhortation to them to be baptized, which if you would have conſidered ſeriouſly, might have made you afraid to urge this place for your purpoſe. It ſeems you thought it good policy to omit it, leaſt others ſhould ſee how little it makes for your purpoſe, or rather how much againſt you. The words you omitted are in ver. 39. The Apoſtle having exhorted them to repent and be baptized in the Name of Chriſt, for the remiſſion of ſin, and that they might receive the gift of the holy Ghoſt: adds this reaſon, ver. 39. For the promiſe is to you and to your children, and to all that be afar off, ſo many as the Lord our God ſhall call. Uſing this argument to perſwade them to be baptized, and to expect the ſpiritual bleſſing ſignified in Baptiſm, viz. the remiſſion of ſins and pouring of the Spirit on them; for the promiſe (ſaith he) is to you and your children: and leaſt we ſhould think that this priviledge was peculiar to the Jews, to have their children intereſted in the promiſe with their parents; he adds, And to all that be afar off, ſo many as the Lord your God ſhall call. Noting that all that ſhall be called of the remote Gentiles, ſhall enjoy the like priviledge, namely that the promiſe ſhall belong, not only to them, but alſo their children. Whence I reaſon thus, To whom the promiſe of remiſſion of ſins, and the gift of the holy Ghoſt belongs, to the ſame alſo Baptiſm, the pledge thereof, belongs; for this is the ſumme of the Apoſtles reaſoning, to be gathered out of the 38. and 39. verſe. But the promiſe is to the faithfull or people of God and their children, whether Jews or Gentiles, Deut. 4.2. Mat. 46. compared with Pſal. 91.11, 12. even thoſe that were afar off, whom God ſhall call; and therefore Baptiſm belongs to them and their children. You know who forbids to add to or take from the word, and who is the ringleader of that art of curtayling the word.

2. Whereas it is ſaid, Thoſe that gladly received the word, were baptized; It may be well underſtood, as they received the word they received Baptiſm the ſeal and appendix of the word. But they received the word of promiſe as it was propounded to them by the Apoſtles, which was thus, That it belonged to them and their children, Therefore anſwerably the ſeal of the word, viz. Baptiſm, belonging to them and their children, they were baptized and their children.

3. Whereas you ſay, They that received the word were added to the Church: The text ſaith, And the ſame day there were added to the Church three thouſand ſouls. It is not ſafe thus to make bold with, and miſ-report Scripture.

The next Scripture which you cite is, Act. 8.1. But when they beleeved, Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, in the Name of Jeſus, they were baptized, both men and women. To this I anſwer.

1. Who knows not that the words, men and women, are names rather noting the ſexes then ages, and are appliable to Infants as well as grown perſons? Did not Eve when ſhe had born her firſt childe ſay, Gen. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have gotten a man from the Lord? Will you hence gather, that becauſe ſhe cals him a man, therefore he was at perfect age at the day of his birth? When Chriſt ſaith that the woman when ſhe is delivered of a childe, Ioh. 16.21. remembred not her anguiſh for joy that a man is born into the world; doth it follow hence that the new-born childe is a full-grown man? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . No ſure, the word notes the ſpecies or kinde of man diſtinct from other creatures, without difference of age or ſex: So then you cannot from the names of men and women conclude the ripeneſſe and perfection of years.

2. If you object, But they beleeved: Remember what is ſaid on Mar. 16.15, 16. and Act. 2.39. and you may gather thence. That when parents become Beleevers, God accepts their Infant children as Beleevers, and giveth them right to the Covenant and promiſe.

3. But howſoever, enough hath been ſaid in the general conſiderations to ſhew how little help you can have from this or any other Scripture for your purpoſe.

The following proof is in Act. 8.36.37. The Eunuch ſaith, Loe, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip ſaid, If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou maiſt.

Anſ. We grant that they which never lived in a Chriſtian Church, nor were born of Chriſtian parents, nor have intereſt in the Covenant by their parents faith (which was the caſe of the Eunuch) are to be baptized when they beleeve and not before: But what makes this for your purpoſe? 2. But what would you gather hence? that none are to be baptized, but they which beleeve with their whole heart? If ſo, I anſwer, 1. Then you will condemn not only us, Act. 8.12, 13.21, but alſo the ſame Philip for baptizing Simon whoſe heart was not right in the ſight of God, and therefore he beleeved not with his whole heart: you muſt condemn many of your own dippings, for doubtleſſe many come to you to be dipped for baſe ends. You cannot promiſe to your ſelves more dexterity then was in the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts to baptize none but upright-hearted ones. 3. If ſo, you muſt not baptize any untill you ſee into their hearts, 1 King 8.9. that they beleeve ſincerely, and then you muſt lay down your new trade of dipping; for none but God leeth mens hearts whether they be upright or no.

Your next Scripture is, Act. 10.47. Then anſwered Peter, Can any forbid water that theſe ſhould not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt.

Anſ. 1. It is plain that the Apoſtle gives this as a reaſon why they ſhould be baptized, becauſe they had received the gift of the holy Ghoſt. Act. 10.44, 45. and 11.15. Now you can hence gather immediatly no warrant for your baptizing, untill you can procure by your preaching the effuſion of the holy Ghoſt, in a viſible and miraculous manner; as it is evident that that in the text was.

2. But if you ſay, Indeed theſe viſible and miraculous gifts of the holy Ghoſt ceaſe with the Primitive times: But God now pours his Spirit of ſanctification ordinarily, and inviſibly on people, and ſuch as have received that may be baptized. I grant it, and aſſume, The gift of the holy Ghoſt is promiſed to, and beſtowed on Infants in the Church, not only extraordinarily, as in the example of John the Baptiſt, but ordinarily according to Gods promiſe, Act. 2.38, 39. Iſa. 44.3, 4, 5.

Your following example is, • ct. 16.32, 33, 34. And they ſpake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his houſe. And he took them the ſame hour of the night, and waſhed their ſtripes, and was baptized he and all his ſtraitway. And when he had brought them into his houſe, he ſet meat before them, and rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God.

Anſ. To this I anſwer, The laſt words are miſ-cited (And rejoiced that he and all his beleeved in God.) Our Tranſlators render it, And rejoiced (beleeving in God with • ll his houſe.) Which if the Parentheſis had been obſerved, and in ſtead of (beleeving) they had read (having beleeved, or after he had beleeved) had very fully and fitly ſet forth the emphaſis of the Original; which is thus word for word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He exceedingly rejoiced (or exulted) with (in o • through) his whole houſe, after that he had beleeved in God, or he having beleeved in God, rejoiced in his whole houſe. Here it is not ſaid that the whole houſe beleeved in God; but the words ſhew that the Jaylor when he had beleeved in God, and he and all his were baptized, he made a feaſt, and ſhewed his exceeding joy through his whole houſe, or with his whole houſe. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Syriack Tranſlation reades it thus, And he exulted and all the children of his houſe, even all of them in the faith of God. Now conſider in this Hiſtory theſe things. 1. How that when the poor affrighted Jaylour ſaith, What ſhall I do that I may beſaved? Paul and Silas anſwer, Beleeve in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved and all thine houſe. They require faith of the Jaylour, that he and his family might be admitted into a ſaving eſtate. They ſaid not that every one of his family muſt of neceſſity actually beleeve and profeſſe, that ſo his houſhold might be ſaved with him; but they tell him If he beleeve, both he and his houſhold ſhould be ſaved: Gen. 17.5. Luk. 19.9. As Abraham beleeved, and all his family, even Infants, were taken into Covenant of ſalvation. And when Zacheus beleeved, ſalvation came to his houſe, he being made a ſon of Abraham. So God ſhews here by his ſervants that he would deal with the Taylour, not ſtanding for the preſent on ſtrict terms of actual faith of all in his houſe. If the Governour beleeve, it is enough to put the whole family into a ſaving eſtate, inchoatively at leaſt in reſpect of admiſſion into Covenant, neither are any to be excluded, but ſuch as by ſtubborn refuſal of the Goſpel offered, deprive themſelves of that priviledge.

2. It is ſaid indeed, that they ſpake to him and all in his houſe, verſ. 32. the word of the Lord; but whether it be meant of the priſoners in the Priſonhouſe, with Paul and Silas, or of thoſe of his houſhold, is not expreſſed; the former ſeems very probable rather then the later. 1. Thoſe to whom they ſpake the word are ſaid to be All that were in his houſe, v. 32. Thoſe that were baptized with him are ſaid to be all his: Now priſoners and ſtrangers might be in his houſe, but thoſe only of his own family were his. 2. Ver. 32. It is ſaid they ſpake to all in the houſe, and yet afterwards it is ſaid, ver. 34. that he brought them into his houſe; as if they had not been in his dwelling houſe before.

3. If it be meant of his family to which they ſpake the word, that proves not that there were no Infants in the family, or that the Infants were not taken into Covenant, and baptized with their parents, any more then the exhortation of Moſes to that great aſſembly of the Iſraelites, mentioned, Deut. 29.9, 10, 11, 12. proves either that there were no little children in that aſſembly, or that they had no right to the Covenant; both which are expreſly contradicted in the context, verſ. 9. Keep therefore, ſaith Moſes, the words of this Covenant and do them, that ye may proſper in all that ye do. Verſ. 10. Ye ſtand this day all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Elders, and your Officers, with all the men of Iſrael. Verſ. 11. Your little ones, your wives, and thy ſtranger that is in the Camp; from the hewer of thy wood to the drawer of thy water. Verſ. 12. That thou ſhouldeſt enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day, &c. Now as Moſes made this exhortation to all Iſrael, though the little children amongſt them were not able to underſtand it, and be affected with it for the preſent, and yet were preſent to be admitted into Covenant, and had right to the ſeal of entrance thereinto: and this exhortation was for their good, as their parents embracing it, were with their children received into Covenant, and put in minde of their duty, in devoting their children to, and bringing them up for God; and as it might ſerve for the childrens inſtruction when they ſhould come to age. So Paul and Silas might ſpeak to the whole family, amongſt whom might be little ones; who though they underſtood not the doctrine and exhortation propounded for the preſent, yet might upon the parents imbracing of this doctrine, be received into Covenant with them, and to the ſeal of entrance thereinto; and afterward by their parents inſtructed in that doctrine, which for the preſent they underſtood not.

4. It is ſaid that he and all his were baptized ſtraitway. There is no expreſſion or intimation that every one beleeved and made a profeſſion of his faith for themſelves ſeverally: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . but when the Jaylour had manifeſted his repentance and faith, he and all his were baptized ſtraitway. It ſeems that the faith and profeſſion of the head of the family, was ſufficient to give right to the members, at leaſt to thoſe that did not expreſs their diſſent or refuſal of it.

5. The word (having beleeved) verſ. 34. is of the ſingular number and maſculine gender, and muſt be referred to the Jaylour only, according to the Grammatical conſtruction.

6. Though it ſhould be granted that he and his whole houſe may be ſaid to beleeve (which yet the words of the text prove not) It may be well underſtood ſo as Abraham and all his family were beleevers in Covenant, and circumciſed, Gen. 18.19. even thoſe that were Infants: the Head having made profeſſion of his faith and ingaged himſelf to take care of all his family ſhould be inſtructed in the faith and obedience of God. And this laſt anſwer (beſide divers of the former general and ſpecial) may ſerve for the laſt Scripture, viz. Act. 18.8. And Criſpus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue beleeved in the Lord with all his houſe; and many of the Corinthians beleeved and were baptized. And indeed how can it be thought probable that ſuch families as the Jaylours, the Rulers of the Synagogue, and Lydias (whoſe houſhold was baptized upon her hearing and beleeving of the word, no mention being made of the reſts hearing or beleeving) ſhould have no children in them? Hence I gather thus,

If at the firſt preaching of the Goſpel the faithfull with their whole families were baptized, ſo ſoon as God had opened the hearts of the governours to receive the word and beleeve, then now the families and children of thoſe that have long profeſſed the Goſpel (at leaſt ſo many in their family as do not ſtubbornly reject Jeſus Chriſt) are to be acknowledged within the Covenant, and admitted to Baptiſm the ſeal of entrance. But the former is true, Therefore the later.

Whereas you conclude your firſt Paper thus: Having proved by poſitive and plain Scripture what we affirm, we conclude with the doctrine of the Church of England which maintains the ſame, viz. That repentance and faith is required in perſons to be baptized, and that Infants by reaſon of tender age can neither repent nor beleeve, which we leave to your conſideration, and deſire your anſwer.

Anſ. How poſitive and plain the Scriptures (cited by you to prove what you affirm and practiſe) are, we have ſeen, and leave to the judgement of others.

2. In your concluding with the doctrine of the Church of England, you might have done well to have told us what you mean by the Church, and in what book or place that doctrine is main ained, and then we ſhould have given anſwer thereto, if the very citation of the place be not ſufficient to anſwer it, and make you aſhamed of your citing of it. But in the mean ſpace you have our conſideration and anſwer to what you bring out of Scripture.

By me William Cooke.

You Preface to your ſecond Paper thus:

IN ſtead of an expected anſwer in writing, H.H. and J.B. to this our Paper, according to promiſe, we have received another verbal requeſt from you, viz. That we would give ſome reaſons, why Infants ſhould not be baptized: By which we conclude you can give no reaſon, why you baptize them; we having ſo much urged you herein, to prove your practice by Scripture, having given you ſo large a proof of our practiſing the contrary, by ſo many plain truths, wherein you may finde reaſon enough againſt yours, if you have any minde, without further cavil to anſwer them.

Anſwer.

1. IT was agreeable to reaſon and equity; that ſeeing you had ſo fully and frequently expreſſed your ſelves againſt Infant-Baptiſm, you ſhould give your reaſons thereof, eſpecially we having been ſo long in poſſeſſion: and being by you charged to want right, it was fit that you ſhould be required to produce the grounds of your charge.

2. Whereas you conclude ſo haſtily, that we can give no reaſon of our practice; we ſee that though you diſlike ſyllogiſms, you are pleaſed with ſophiſticall Enthymems, making a concluſion from ſo weak a premiſe.

3. How much the many plain written truths prove for your own judgement and practice, or againſt ours, we wiſh you to review in the foregoing Anſwer, and you will there finde that without cavils we had a minde to anſwer. You proceed,

But that you may ſee how really we intend the diſcovery of truth, and to ſatisfie you in every deſire that may any way tend thereto, we give you theſe further in anſwer. 1. Becauſe Chriſt hath no where commanded it. And whatſoever is practiſed as an ordinance of his without inſtitution, is Will-worſhip and Idolatry.

Anſ. This your reaſon in its full ſtrength ſtands thus:

Whatſoever is practiſed as an Ordinance of Chriſt without an inſtitution, is Will-worſhip and Idolatry; But baptizing of Infants is practiſed as an Ordinance of Chriſt without any inſtitution, Therefore it is Will-worſhip and Idolatry. The aſſumption which would by us be denied, you back thus; It hath no command from Chriſt, Therefore it is without an inſtitution.

Anſ. In anſwer to this I deſire you to take notice of two diſtinctions, neceſſary to remove miſtakes. 1. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the eſſentials of an Ordinance, and the accidentals and circumſtantials, in reſpect of the application of it to ſuch or ſuch perſons in ſuch a time, place, or manner: This is neceſſary to be obſerved. Chriſt inſtituted the Ordinance of the Supper or Communion of the body and bloud of Chriſt; but never expreſly commanded that it ſhould be adminiſtred to women. It's ſufficient that it may be gathered from Scripture. He hath inſtituted Bapti •• but n • ver expreſly commanded that it ſhould be adminiſtred to or by Ta 〈…〉 W • av • rs, Jerſey-combers or Coblers; If from general rules of Scriptu •• 〈…〉 that this Ordinance is to be applied to or by ſuch perſons, th •• being found to have ſuch qualifications, as the Scripture requires in theſe caſes, it is ſufficient. It is an Ordinance of Chriſt that his people ſhould reade the Scripture, but it's no where expreſly commanded that ſuch as underſtand not the original, ſhould reade it in a tranſlated printed Engliſh Bible; it ſufficeth, that this may be proved out of Scripture by good conſequence.

The ſecond diſtinction is this, An Ordinance in reſpect of circumſtantials or applications, may be ſaid to be inſtituted by Chriſt, either expreſly and immediatly, or ſo as that the inſtitution is to be gathered by conſequence; of this later kinde is a beleeving womans receiving the Sacrament of the Communion of the body and bloud of Chriſt, and meer Engliſh-mens and Engliſh-womens reading the Scripture for ſpiritual inſtruction and edification, in a printed Engliſh Bible, diſtinguiſhed into Chapters and Verſes. There is no expreſſe command for admitting women to the Lords Table; nor for the tranſlating and printing of Scripture, for the help of ignorant people, yet theſe are not Will-worſhip and Idolatry. It may be ſufficiently proved from Scripture that theſe are good and warrantable, and that Gods people ſhould be greatly wronged, if women ſhould be driven from the Communion; and thoſe that are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek ſhould be debarred from reading the Scripture.

I anſwer therefore, 1. By granting the propoſition taken in a right ſenſe, viz. That whatſoever is practiſed as an Ordinance and worſhip of Chriſt, without an inſtitution from him; at leaſt in reſpect of the eſſentials, yea whoſe eſſentials and circumſtantials may not be gathered out of the Scripture, either expreſly or by good conſequence, is at leaſt Will-worſhip, if not Idolatry; and therefore unlawfull to be maintained or practiſed. But I deny the aſſumption; for the eſſentials and ſubſtantials of Baptiſm are expreſly commanded in Scripture, Mat. 28.19, 20. Mar. 16.15, 16, &c. The particular application of Baptiſm to Infants, though not expreſly in ſo many words in Scripture, yet may be gathered therefrom by good conſequence, as ſhall appear hereafter, God aſſiſting. Therefore the aſſumption being falſe in that ſenſe wherein the propoſition is true, nothing can be concluded.

I come now to your ſecond argument which is this.

It cannot be proved that Chriſt or his Apoſtles practiſed Infant-Baptiſm. Which reaſon ſtands in its whole ſtrength thus,

What cannot be proved that Chriſt and his Apoſtles practiſed, that is unlawfull in Gods worſhip. But it cannot be proved that Chriſt and his Apoſtles practiſed Infant-baptiſm, Therefore it is unlawfull.

Anſ. The propoſition is not univerſally • rue, we may not argue from the practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles univerſally, either affirmatively or negatively; not affirmatively, for they might do ſome things as ſuch eminent perſons, which it is not the duty of, nor poſſible for all Miniſters or Chriſtians ordinarily to do ſo. Nor negatively, for there may be ſome things which are the duties of inferiour men, which yet were below Chriſt and his Apoſtles. We reade not that they practiſed or ſubmitted to the Office of Paſtors, Elders, or Deac ••• , properly ſo called; will it follow therefore that theſe are Willworſhi • ▪ They never (as can be proved) tranſlated Bibles or read the Scripture, 〈…〉 •• unded the text of a Sermon out of a tranſlated printed Bible; nor took th • notes of Sermons: Are theſe therefore Will-worſhip? If they being buſied in laying the foundation of Churches, practiſed not ſome things which are agreeable to our work, which is for the ſuperſtruction; we need not to be troubled, having warrant or inſtitution, either immediate, or to be gathered by conſequence.

Neither is the aſſumption ſo clear as to be eaſily granted, and though it might ſuffice for the preſent to deny the main propoſition; yet take alſo this anſwer to the aſſumption; Though Chriſt did not baptize Infants nor any at all in his own perſon (and therefore if his example is to be followed herein by Miniſters, Ioh. 4.2. or thoſe that may be conceived to have authority to baptize, none at all muſt be baptized by them,) Yet he did that for Infants, which is at leaſt equivalent to baptizing, or layeth ſufficient ground to warrant their baptizing, he laid his hands on them, bleſſeth them, pronounceth them to have right to the Kingdom of God or Covenant of the Goſpel; and gives command to his Apoſtles to diſciple all Nations, and baptize them. The Apoſtles acted according to this Commiſſion, held forth the promiſe, whereof Baptiſm is a ſeal or pledge, as belonging to the faithfull and their children, and baptized Beleevers and their whole families; of which more largely, partly before, partly hereafter.

Your third Argument is this, "Becauſe they are uncapable ſubjects, having neither underſtanding, reaſon, nor faith; and whatever is not of faith is ſin. Being put into form it ſtands thus;

Subjects uncapable of Baptiſm are not to be baptized: But Infants are ſubjects uncapable of Baptiſm, Therefore not to be baptized. The propoſition is granted, the aſſumption denied, you endeavour to prove it thus;

They that have neither underſtanding, reaſon nor faith are ſubjects uncapable of Baptiſm; But Infants have neither underſtanding, reaſon, nor faith: Therefore ſubjects uncapable of Baptiſm.

1. I anſwer to the propoſition by denying it, if by underſtanding, reaſon, and faith, you mean ripe, actual and viſibly exerciſed and profeſſed underſtanding reaſon and faith, ſuch as is in perſons of ripe years: and I give theſe two reaſons of my denial.

1. The children of the Jews when they wanted the actual uſe of underſtanding which belongs to perſons of age, were not uncapable of Circumciſion which was of the ſame uſe to Jews; Gen. 17.7. Rom. 4.1 • . Deut. 30.6. as Baptiſm is to us Chriſtians, viz. to be a ſeal of the Covenant, and of the righteouſneſſe of faith, and a ſign of renewing and ſanctifying the heart.

2. That they are capable, I prove it by the parts. Reaſon and even ſenſe and experience ſhews that they are capable of the outward ſign, there being required a meer paſſion of them, in the Miniſters application of water. That they are capable alſo of the ſpiritual grace of Baptiſm, Gods many promiſes of circumciſing the hearts of the faithfull ſeed, and pouring his Spirit upon them, &c. prove; as alſo the example of Jacob and John the Baptiſt, whereof the one was beloved of God, the other filled with the holy Ghoſt, while little ones.

2. I anſwer to the aſſumption by diſtinction of the firſt & ſecond act of reaſon faith. The power or faculty of underſtanding or reaſon which we may call the firſt act, Infants have, elſe they were bruits and unreaſonable creatures, though the actual exerciſe thereof which is in man they want; ſo a ſeminal virtual habitual faith implied in regeneration and the gift of the holy Ghoſt, they have, not a profeſſed faith of ripe Beleevers.

2. If men will needs have actual profeſſed faith for the admiſſion of perſons to Baptiſm, I anſwer, Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. As parents by faith accept the Covenant for themſelves and children, according as Scripture propounds the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. Act. 2.39. (which is agreeable to the uſual way of contracts and Covenants amongſt men, that parents take a Leaſe for themſelves and infant-children, and binde themſelves and children to the condition) as infant-children are parts and adherents of their parents, having no uſe of power, reaſon or will, to provide for, or diſpoſe of themſelves in their own perſons, untill they come to years of diſcretion; ſo the faith of their parents may be ſaid to be their faith, as the parents act in taking a houſe, or making a bargain, may be called the childes act, as no leſſe beneficiall and obliging to the childe then to the parent; at leaſt untill he come to the uſe of reaſon, where in his own perſon he may by ſome voluntary act ratifie or diſannul it. And here obſerve a ſecond diſtinction of faith, namely actual and profeſſed. It is this profeſſed faith may be diſtinguiſhed into Perſonal and private, which is required of all perſons which are at their own diſpoſe, at their firſt entrance into Covenant and admiſſion to the ſeal of entrance: and Common or publick faith, which in a common or publick perſon may ſuffice in the behalf of thoſe that are wholly under his power and at his diſpoſe, as Infants are to their parents. This is ſufficient for ſuch to intereſt them in the Covenant and ſeal of admittance, as we ſee in Abrahams and the Jewiſh Infants; and Chriſtians children which are holy by virtue of their parents faith, 1 Cor. 7.14. and in this reſpect they may be ſaid to have actual profeſſed faith, viz. of their parents. If the Jews with their children were broken off by unbelief, as the Apoſtle affirmeth, Rom 11.29. then by faith they and their poſterity had continued implanted, untill their poſterity ſhould by actual profeſſed unbelief break off themſelves and their poſterity: The ſame is the caſe of the ingraffed Gentiles, and will be of the Jews that are to be reingraffed, verſ. 20.23, 24, 25. that by virtue of the faith of the parents, infant-children ſhould be in Covenant and beleevers (even profeſſedly, by the profeſſion of parents,) as it had been with Gods people for many generations before Chriſt; for the Apoſtle ſpeaks of ſuch a growing up in the Olive tree that the implanted Gentiles and reimplanted Jews muſt expect, as was that which the Church of the Jews had enjoyed to that time. And ſure if the unbelief of profeſſed Infidels, leave their infant-children, in the caſe of profeſſed infidelity and eſtrangement from the Covenant, untill by their own perſonal individual faith, they embrace that Covenant; no leſſe muſt the ſaith of beleeving parents leave their Infants in the ſtate of profeſſed or known Beleevers, and perſons in Covenant, until by their own wilfull voluntary act they reject the Covenant; for Gods promiſes to the faithfull and their poſterity, are no leſſe full then his curſes to the wicked and their poſterity, Exod. 20.5, 6.

3. How ignorantly and impertinently that ſentence is added by you (Whatever is not of faith is ſin) any one may ſee. And thus for the anſwer to your Arguments.

You prevent an Objection thus, But you will ſay, H. H. and J.B. Where doth the Scripture forbid? That your Miniſters will ſay, is an unreaſonable and unlearned queſtion, there being no proving negatives; for then where doth the Scripture ſay, You ſhall not worſhip the Pope, go to Maſſe? you ſhall not reade the Common prayer book, or wear the Surpleſſe? But it doth forbid Idolatry, Will-worſhip, which is that, if you have no Scripture rule for the ſame, and teaching for doctrine the commands of men, which is this, being only traditionall, and that acknowledged by one of your Miniſters lately in this Town, that it was Eccleſiaſticall and not Apoſtolicall.

Anſ. Deut. 4.2. Prov. 30.6. Iam 4.11, 17. Rev. 22.8, 9. The Scripture is ſuch a perfect rule to Gods people, of faith, worſhip and holy walking, both affirmatively and negatively, that nothing may be urged as a duty, Divine worſhip or truth, but what is there commanded or taught; nor charged as a ſin, Will-worſhip or errour, but what is there forbidden or condemned, either particularly and expreſly, or at leaſt in general, and to be gathered by good conſequence.

2. They are very ignorant and raſh, that will condemn worſhipping the Pope, going to Maſſe, &c. and yet cannot finde them forbidden in the Scripture▪ yea, they are too great friends to the Pope, Maſſe, and other ſuperſtition, that will ſay, or but inſinuate, that the Scripture doth no where condemn them, or that will match Infant-baptiſme with them.

3. Forbear charging us with Will-worſhip, Idolatry, and teaching for doctrines the commands of men, untill you have heard what Scripture grounds we can bring for our judgement and practice in this particular.

4. Why do not you name the Miniſter which acknowledged this traditional and Eccleſiaſtical, not Apoſtolical? If there were any ſuch let him anſwer for himſelf. The Papiſts indeed call it a tradition of the Church, to prove the imperfection of the Scripture, and neceſſity of tradition▪ Our Proteſtant Writers confute them in this, ſhewing that it is grounded on Scripture, not on tradition. If any whom you call one of our Miniſters, ſpeaks as the Papiſt, againſt the whole current of Proteſtant Divines, we are no more bound to ſtand to his principles, or to defend him therein, or anſwer for him, then we are bound to do it for you and the Papiſts which agree with him in that opinion.

Now before I lay down our Arguments, I muſt for the clearing of the truth, confirm one thing which I have partly touched already. It's this, That it is not only lawfull but neceſſary to argue from Scripture, by way of conſequence or deduction for the finding out of the truth; neither muſt we alwaies expect expreſſe and immediate commands in Scripture for the particular circumſtances and applications of the Ordinances of God, or for the juſtifying of every matter of judgement and practice, in point of Religion. It is ſufficient ſometimes, and in ſome caſes, that by good conſequence we deduce them from Scripture.

1. Mat 22.32, 33 This was very uſuall with our Saviour and the Apoſtles. Thus our Saviour proves the doctrine of the Reſurrection againſt the Sadduces by conſequence, from that Scripture (I am the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob) laid together with another principle (God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.) Which doctrine alſo the Apoſtle Paul proves by many Arguments and conſequences, 1 Cor. 15.13, to 33. 1 Cor. 15. from verſ. 13. to 33. So our Lord Chriſt argues (for the lawfulneſſe of his diſciples pulling ears of corn and eating them on the Sabbath day,) Mat. 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. by conſequence. 1. From Davids eating of the Shew-bread. 2. From the Prieſts ſacrificing on the Sabbath: and 3. From that ſentence in Hoſea, I will have mercy, and not ſacrifice. H •• . 6. • . Which Scripture-examples and teſtimony do not expreſſely and immediatly ſay. It is lawfull for the diſciples, being hungry, to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath day, and eat them. But by good conſequence each of theſe Scriptures, much more all jointly prove it. So whereas it is ſaid, Luke 24.27. & 44. Luk. 24.27. & 44. That Chriſt expounded the Scriptures of all the Prophets, ſhewing that they were fulfilled in him, It is not to be underſtood that thoſe things which were written of Chriſt in Moſes, the Prophets, and Pſalmes, did expreſſely, immediatly, plainly, and poſitively ſay that Jeſus the ſon of Mary, was the Meſſias, and muſt ſuffer all thoſe things, and then riſe again and enter into glory: But by Chriſts expounding them and arguing from them, the two diſciples were brought to ſee the truth. So Act. 2.25, 26, &c. the Apoſtle Peter ſheweth (to prove the reſurrection of Chriſt from Scripture) that what was contained in Pſal. 16.9, 10. was ſpoken of Chriſt. It doth not appear immediatly and expreſſely, but by conſequence thus; It was to be underſtood of David himſelf, or of Chriſt the ſeed of David. No: of David, for he had ſeen corruption, and his Sepulchre was yet extant, as Act. 2.29. Therefore it muſt be meant of Chriſt Davids ſeed, verſ. 30.31, 32. So the other Apoſtles, in the Acts, and the Epiſtles, and the Prophets before them, uſually deduce concluſions, by way of reaſoning or ſyllogizing, either from Scriptures or other known principles, or both laid together, as is evident to any that with underſtanding and care reade the Scriptures; ſo that further to prove this, were to light a candle at noonday, and ſure he is miſerably blinde that cannot ſee it.

2. If you deny the uſe of conſequence, you have no warrant or proof for the reading of Scripture in an Engliſh tranſlation Printed (and ſo you muſt caſt away your Engliſh Bibles, as well as Infant-baptiſm, or elſe fall into Will-worſhip and Idolatry.) Nor for womens receiving the Communion, nor for the Chriſtian-Sabbath. Overthrow theſe, and overthrow all Chriſtian Religion. Yea I may confidently ſay there is no Ordinance of God or religious act can be externally obſerved, which you can perform, but at leaſt in reſpect of ſome accidentals or circumſtantials thereof you muſt be beholden to conſequence from Scripture, or elſe muſt want warrant for the uſing of them, and ſo either forbear them all, and caſt off all religious exerciſe, and become viſible Atheiſts, or run into that which is Will-worſhip and Idolatry in your conceit, and act againſt conſcience and not in faith, which to do is ſin.

3. Whereas all Scriptures were written for our learning, Rom. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.16. that we may have patience, comfort and hope, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and inſtruction: All or moſt of this benefit will be loſt unto us, if we reject the uſe of conſequences. The Scripture doth not poſitively and plainly make particular application to ſeveral men that live amongſt us by name: this muſt be done either by publike Miniſtry, or private brotherly inſtruction and conference, or by our own conſcience, which muſt by reaſoning ſhew that the Scripture applied is pertinent and ſutable to us, or elſe we ſhall get no good by it.

4. For what uſe ſhould the Miniſtry of the word, or preaching and teaching by others ſerve, Pro. 2 2, 3, 4. or what uſe is there of ſtudying and diligently ſearching the Scriptures, as for gold, ſilver, and hid treaſures, if all things therein were ſo plain and particular to us in them that there were no need of drawing particulars from generals, gathering obſcurer truths from plainer Scriptures, and applying them according to exigency? Yea what uſe ſhould there be of reaſon it ſelf, if we might not exerciſe it in this caſe, which ſo much concerns Gods glory and our own and others edification and ſalvation? I ſtudy ſhortneſſe, elſe it might be eaſily made to appear, that they who deny and abhorre ſyllogiſms and conſequences in matters of Religion, do not only deny the principall uſe of the moſt excellent gift of reaſon which God hath given to men, for the finding out of the truth; Rom. 2.15. Rom. 12.1. but alſo muſt caſt off all right uſe of Conſcience, Scripture and Religion, if they ſtick to that irrationall and irreligious conceit. Taking it therefore for granted, that no man who hath the uſe of reaſon and the heart of a Chriſtian, will deny us the liberty of reaſon in drawing out the truth from Scriptures by conſequence: I will lay down ſeveral Arguments grounded on Scripture (whereof ſome were touched in the Anſwer to the former Paper: what I ſhall here omit which there I touched, the Reader may fetch thence,) for the baptizing of Infants.

Arg. Arg. 1 1. Such perſons as have had by Gods gracious grant, right to the Covenant of grace and ſeal of entrance thereinto, in the time of the Old Teſtament, and from whom this grant was never repealed by God, nor caſt off by themſelves, are not to be debarred by any man from the priviledges of Gods Covenant, and the ſeal of entrance thereinto, whiles the Covenant of grace and a ſeal of entrance is diſpenſed to the Church.

But the children of beleeving parents, have, by Gods gracious grant, had intereſt in the Covenant of grace, and the ſeal of entrance thereinto, at leaſt from Abrahams time to Chriſts, which grant God did never repeal, neither did the children of Beleevers caſt it off, but God hath continued in his Church the Covenant of grace and ſeal of entrance thereinto, though in a different manner, yet far more comfortable and glorious,

Therefore the children of beleeving parents are not to be debarred from the Covenant or ſeal of entrance thereinto, which now in the time of the Goſpel is Baptiſm.

For the clearing of the Propoſition let theſe things be noted:

1. Gods gracious grants of priviledges to his people, wherein are alſo implied ingagements to thankfulneſſe and obedience laid on them, are ſo ſacred, that they cannot without high offence to his Majeſty, Deut. 4.1. great wrong to Gods people, and extream danger to their own ſouls, be denied by any to thoſe to whom they belong. God no leſſe forbidding detracting from, then adding to his word; and ſo much the more dangerous is diminution in this caſe, as it tends to darken the glorious grace of God in the times of the Goſpel, which times he hath reſerved for the more full illuſtration thereof above former times.

2. That thoſe main priviledges which God granted ordinarily to perſons in Covenant before Chriſt, as That their children ſhould be in Covenant, and admitted to the ſeal of entrance thereinto, ſhould ceaſe in the time of the Goſpel, is ſo unagreeable unto the wiſdom and goodneſſe of God, which reſerves his greateſt and choiceſt bleſſings, for the laſt times, to be beſtowed on his people; ſo contrary to the nature of the Covenant of grace, which under Evangelical diſpenſation is far more glorious and comfortable to the faithfull, then under legall; ſo contrary to the end of Chriſts coming, which was to multiply, increaſe and ratifie, not cut off, diminiſh or aboliſh bleſſings and priviledges to his Church; and ſo contrary to the promiſes and prophecies concerning the glory of the Church in the times of the Goſpel, that he deſerves to be abhorred of all that know God, and Chriſt, and his Covenant, that ſhould tell us of a great fall and diminution of priviledges, in Evangelicall times, compared with legall, and yet can bring no pregnant and pertinent Scripture, to prove a repeal of thoſe priviledges.

3. I grant, that where God hath repealed priviledges of the Old Teſtament (which whiles they continued unrepealed, were priviledges, yet ceaſe to be ſo when greater anſwerable thereto, yet more ſutable to the Goſpel-diſpenſation, are vouchſafed in their place in the New Teſtament,) they, in reſpect of that old adminiſtration, are not to be accounted priviledges, neither are priviledges in this caſe properly revoked, but altered and inlarged, when the old adminiſtration indeed is abrogated; but the ſame ſpiritual bleſſing is given in a more comfortable manner, under a new diſpenſation. As when Chriſtians 1 In ſtead of the Old Teſtament Scriptures in the Jews mother tongue (which was the Jews priviledge) have both Old and New Teſtament Scriptures tranſlated into a known tongue. 2 In ſtead of the Jews ſeventh-day-Sabbath, Ioh. 19.36. 2 Cor. 5.7. have the firſt day or Lords-day-Sabbath. 3 In ſtead of the Paſſeover, which to the Jews was a Type of Chriſt to come; have Chriſt exhibited, and now repreſented in the bleſſed Communion. And 4 in ſtead of Circumciſion, have Baptiſm. And 5 generally, when Chriſtians in ſtead of the old Legal diſpenſation of the Covenant of grace (which the Jews had) have the new Evangelical diſpenſation of the Covenant: Here the ſame priviledges are continued, with inlargement under a new and different garb or dreſſe.

4. It's granted alſo that when men have wilfully rejected priviledges, and therefore God hath caſt them off; neither they nor theirs lying under that obſtinacy, may lay claim to obſtinatly rejected priviledges, as in the caſe of the body of the Jews and their ſeed at this day.

To the Minor, 1. Gen 17.7. Exod, 12.48. Ezek. 16.10, 21. Mat. 2.15. Act. 3.25. It's plain that from Abrahams time and ſo forward to the laſt of the Prophets, yea to the time of our Saviour Chriſt (unto which time Circumciſion of children was in force,) the faithfull had intereſt in this priviledge, that their children were in Covenant and had the ſeal of admiſſion.

2. It's plain alſo, Gen. 17 10, 11, 12, 13. Rom. 4.11. Rom 3.1, 2. Phil. 3.5. that this was a great priviledge or prerogative to the people of God and their children, that they were in Covenant, and had Circumciſion, which is called the ſign of the Covenant; yea the Covenant and the ſeal of the righteouſneſſe of faith. As to be an Hebrew and Iſraelite was a great priviledge before Chriſts coming, ſo to be circumciſed.

3. That God hath not recalled this grant of Beleevers children having right to the Covenant and ſeal of entrance, it is evident; for neither the Scriptures of Old or New Teſtament ſpeak any ſuch thing, but rather the contrary, heightning the priviledges of the Goſpel above thoſe of the Law, but never depreſſing them.

Obj. But Circumciſion is repealed and abrogated. Anſ. 1. True, Ob. in regard of the outward ceremony, Anſ. 1 ſo the former diſpenſation of the Covenant of grace, in regard of the Legal manner of adminiſtration; Doth the Covenant it ſelf therefore, and duties and priviledges therefore which are eſſential and perpetual ceaſe? Womens going up to Jeruſalem to the ſacrifices and Paſſeover ceaſeth; Muſt not they therefore come to, and partake of the Lords Supper? The Church of the Jews, which underſtood the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament without tranſlation is caſt off, Muſt not Gods people now have the Scriptures in their mother language by tranſlation, becauſe there is no direct expreſſe Scripture for that purpoſe? The Jews Sabbath being the ſeventh day of the week, with us called Saturday, is aboliſhed; Muſt we not therefore have a Chriſtian Sabbath or Lords day? Nay rather, we may well gather from the Jewiſh-beleeving womens priviledge to partake of the Paſſeover and ſacrifices in the Old Teſtament, the priviledge of Chriſtian women, to come to the Lords Table, and from Jewiſh Beleevers liberty to have the Scriptures in a known tongue, we may gather againſt the Papiſts, the priviledge of Chriſtian common people, of the like nature, though in a different way; they by the Originall writing, we by Tranſlation: and from the Jews Sabbath of the ſeventh day, that being appointed by the moral Law, we may gather our Chriſtian Sabbath; and ſo from the Jewiſh infants priviledge to have the ſeal of initiation into the Covenant and Church, we may gather the like priviledge to belong to Chriſtians Infants, though in a different ceremony; if we compare thoſe priviledges of the Jews in the Old Teſtament, with what is ſpoken in the New Teſtament concerning Goſpel-priviledges, that are analogicall and ſuccedaneous to theſe legal priviledges, and lay together other common grounds warranting unto them theſe priviledges, though there be no expreſſe immediate particular command, for womens partaking at the Lords Table, nor for the common peoples enjoying vernaculous tranſlations of the Scripture, nor for the Chriſtian Sabbath, nor for the baptizing of Infants.

2. I anſwer to this objection; If it had been the pleaſure of God and Chriſt that children ſhould in the time of the Goſpel loſe their former intereſt in the Covenant and ſeal thereof, and their priviledge of Church-memberſhip, as well as he would have Circumciſion aboliſhed, he would have no leſſe revealed that in the Scripture then this. But he hath no where revealed either expreſſely or to be gathered by conſequence, that whereas untill Chriſts time Infants of Beleevers were in Covenant, Gods children, Church-members, and ſigned with the ſeal of the Covenant; now in the time of the Goſpel they have no intereſt in God, his Covenant, or the ſeal thereof, or Church-memberſhip, but are quite caſt out from theſe priviledges.

4. Infants of beleeving parents never did caſt off this priviledge, ſo that by any act of theirs all Infants ſhould be deprived of it. For to caſt off Covenant-priviledges, imports actually to rebell againſt the Covenant, which children cannot do; neither can any child's (ſuppoſe him capable of actual rebellion and rejection of the Covenant,) or aged perſons actual rebellion, deprive all Infants of this priviledge, unleſſe he be the root, head and fountain of all Beleevers Infants, which is not ſuppoſable. Anabaptiſts may caſt themſelves and their children out of Covenant, but they cannot caſt out the children of other Chriſtian parents, otherwiſe then by ſeducing the parents into the ſame errour and impiety with themſelves or worſe; which oft fals out, that thoſe that compaſſe land and ſea to make proſelytes, Mat. 23.15. help to make them twofold more the children of hell then themſelves.

5. Yea the Scriptures of the New Teſtament are ſo farre from repealing the priviledges of Beleevers Infants that they ſtrongly confirm and advance them, as expreſſely telling us that to ſuch belongs the Kingdom of God: Goſpel-promiſes belong to them, they are holy, Mark 10.14. Act. 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14, &c. of which hereafter.

6. That now the ſame Covenant of grace for ſubſtance remains amongſt Chriſtians as that which the Jews were under, that there is inſtituted a ſeal of entrance into this Covenant, now in the time of the Goſpel, viz. Baptiſm. That Baptiſm the ſeal of entrance into the new, is come in the place of Circumciſion the ſeal of entrance into the old (as the new diſpenſation it ſelf ſucceeds the old) and is of the ſame uſe for the main; Col. 24, 12. 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8 9, &c. Heb. 8 8, 9, 10 and that the priviledges of the Goſpel-diſpenſation are more glorious and comfortable then thoſe of the legal were, are truths ſo clear, that he is very ignorant of Scripture (I had almoſt ſaid ſcarce worthy to be called a Chriſtian) that queſtions them, much more that denies them.

But for the clearing of this truth out of Geneſis 17.7. In my anſwer to A. R. I have written elſewhere, and may further if it be thought needfull, communicate In anſwer to M.T. ſome things I have by me for vindication thereof.

Arg. 2. Thoſe perſons to whom Chriſt is ſo loving and gracious, Arg. 2 that he would have them come or be brought to him, and by no means kept from him, have right to Baptiſm the ſign and pledge of admiſſion to Chriſt:

But our Lord Jeſus Chriſt was, Mat. 19.14. Mar. 10.14. Luk. 18.15, 16. and is ſo loving to children of beleeving parents, that he would have them come, or be brought to him, and cannot indure that they ſhould be forbidden or hindred from him,

Therefore the children of beleeving parents, have right to Baptiſm the ſign and pledge of admiſſion to Chriſt; and ſo are to be baptized.

For the clearing and confirming of the Propoſition, I will propound ſome few things, which I deſire may be conſidered. 1. That Chriſt refuſed commerce with, or admittance of any perſons to him with kinde entertainment, but ſuch as were in Covenant, at leaſt externally or in a way thereto, by their attentive hearkning to his word and receiving his doctrine. Mat. 15.23, 24 25, 28. He tels the woman of Canaan that he was not ſent but to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, and that the childrens bread was not to be given to dogs; implying that the Canaanites out of Covenant were as dogs, and not to be entertained by him; neither doth he give any comfortable anſwer to that woman, untill ſhe had diſcovered by her faith, that ſhe had right to Chriſt and the Covenant. Ioh. 4.15, 19 The woman of Samaria indeed was received by Chriſt as ready to hear his doctrine and be humbled. Pilate and Herod, he would hardly or not at all anſwer, much leſſe, familiarly and kindly invite to him. Therefore whom Chriſt ſo kindly invites, he looks on, not as aliens to the Covenant, but as having ſome intereſt in himſelf, and the ſign of admiſſion to himſelf and the Covenant.

2. We are ſaid in Baptiſm to put on Chriſt, Rom. 6 3, • . Gal. 3.27. Col 2.12. Ioh. 5.40. be baptized into Chriſt and his death, and to be buried with him, which is for ſubſtance as much as to come to him, and by coming unto him to be partakers of him and have Communion with him.

3. There is now no viſible way for children to come to Chriſt, ſince his aſcenſion ordinarily, but by Baptiſm, that being the firſt viſible way of admiſſion to Chriſt (and that this coming of children was not confined to thoſe children, o • that time of his humiliation, will appear by the reaſon, for theirs is the Kingdom of God, but the Kingdom of God is diſpenſed ſince Chriſts aſcenſion, Therefore children muſt come; of which anon.) Of coming to Chriſt in hearing the word, prayer, the Lords Supper, they are uncapable; of inward inviſible coming to or being united to Chriſt, we ſpeak not now, neither doth Chriſt here ſpeak of it. But by Baptiſm now, as heretofore by Circumciſion, Infants may be brought to Chriſt and the Covenant in a viſible manner.

For the illuſtration and ſtrengthening of the aſſumption, let theſe things be conſidered. 1. Theſe were properly little children or Infants which Chriſt would have brought to him and not hindered; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as may appear, 1. By their titles, Little children, Young children, Infants. 2. By Chriſts manner of receiving them, viz. in his arms, which is proper to babes.

2. They were children of beleeving parents in Covenant: 1. It's out of queſtion they were children of Jews, at leaſt, by outward profeſſion of Religion, which then were the peculiar people of God. 2. They which brought them, whether parents or other appointed by them, had a reverend perſwaſion concerning Chriſt, and beleeved that his bleſſing might profit the children. 3. Our Saviour approves the act of them that brought them, which he would not, if it had not been done in faith. Heb. 7.6.

3. That Chriſt ſpeaks not only of thoſe children that were then brought to him, but generally of the children of Beleevers (or all parents that are willing to bring their children to Chriſt) is plain, in that he ſaith not Suffer thoſe or theſe (individual) children to come unto me, but Suffer little children, generally or indefinitely.

4. And moreover, that theſe words of Chriſt are not to be reſtrained to thoſe children only, or their manner of coming only, or to the time of Chriſts being on earth; may be gathered, 1. In that all the three Evangeliſts ſo carefully and fully ſet down that Hiſtory with all its circumſtances, and holding forth Chriſts gracious expreſſions of his love to little children, which is doubtleſſe to ſhew what is his affection to the Infants of the faithfull at all times; otherwiſe what profit or comfort were it for Chriſtians to know that Chriſt was indeed ſo loving to thoſe Infants at that time, but would never ſhew afterwards, when in glory, any more reſpect to Infants of Chriſtians (whiles ſuch) then to the Infants of Infidels? 2. But the reaſon given by Chriſt puts the matter out of queſtion, that this expreſſion of his affection to Infants, is not to be reſtrained to thoſe particular Infants, that manner of coming, and that time of his viſible abode on the earth: For of ſuch, ſaith he, is the Kingdom of God, or of heaven; implying that ſo long as God hath a Kingdom of grace on earth, in the adminiſtration of the Goſpel, and affords ordinary means of bringing people to the Kingdom of glory, ſo long the children of the faithfull are to come or be brought to Chriſt in ſuch a way, as they may be acknowledged ſubjects of this Kingdom, which is by admiſſion to the ſign or ſeal of entrance thereinto.

5. That it is the will and pleaſure of Chriſt that little children in the time of the Goſpel, ſhould be brought to him, appears in the text, in three particulars, worthy to be diſtinctly obſerved. 1. In that he was much diſpleaſed and moved with high indignation againſt his diſciples, which rebuked and diſcouraged the bringers of the children. Mat. 11.29. Ma • , 12.29. Now Chriſt which was ſo admirably meek and gentle, would not have been ſo much moved, if it had not been a great fault in his diſciples to hinder Infants from coming to him (It is doubtleſs a wrong to poor Infants that cannot plead for themſelves, and to pious parents to be checked in ſo good a work, and to the Church of God to have theſe young members cut therefrom, and eſpecially to God and Chriſt and the Goſpel, to ſeek to caſt out Infants from the priviledge of the Covenant of grace, wherein they had been intereſted in the time of the Law.) Though in the diſciples it was more excuſable by ignorance, becauſe likely before this time they had heard nothing expreſſely from Chriſts mouth; to hold forth the priviledges of Infants in the time of the Goſpel (howbeit they might have gathered enough out of the Old Teſtament, if they would have heeded it to have prevented this miſcarriage, elſe Chriſt would not have been ſo angry with them, if it had been out of invincible ignorance.) Now if Chriſt was ſo offended with this firſt failing of his diſciples through ignorance, what may they expect that after this warning continue clamouring againſt and reproaching the bringing of Infants to Chriſt?

2. Chriſt gives an expreſs command to ſuffer little children to come to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . let not any that profeſſe obedience to Chriſt, and acknowledge his ſoveraignty over them, dare to violate this command, in not ſuffering children to come to Chriſt.

3. Chriſt adds, Forbid them not, which charge, by way of addition, doth not only ſhew our Lord Chriſts earneſtneſſe in this point, and confirm the former precept; But alſo ſufficiently warns all under pain of his diſpleaſure, that neither by word nor action, policy nor power, they dare to do any thing to hinder the Infants of Beleevers from Chriſt.

My third argument I will draw from the ſame Scripture, which is this.

Arg. 3. Arg. 3 To whom the Kingdom of God (or heaven) belongs now in the time of the Goſpel, to them alſo Baptiſm, which is the ſeal of entrance thereinto, belongs.

But to the children of beleeving parents, the Kingdom of God or heaven belongs now in the time of the G • ſpel, Mat. 19.14. Mar. 10 14. Luk. 18.16.

Therefore Baptiſm, which now in the times of the Goſpel is the ſeal of entrance into this Kingdom, belongs to the children of beleeving parents.

For the clearing and confirming of the propoſition, let theſe things be noted.

1. That whether by the Kingdom of God (or heaven) be meant a ſtate of grace and profeſſed ſubjection to Chriſt the King of the Church in this life, and the ſtate of the Church Militant under Chriſt, already exhibited in the fleſh, as the word is very frequently Mat. 3.2. Mat 14.17. Mat 1 • .24, 32, 24, 47. Mat. 21.41. Mat. 25. • , 14. uſed: or the Kingdom of glory and ſtate of the Church Triumphant, as it is ſometime 2 Tim. 4.18. uſed: It is all one for our purpoſe, and that argument holds moſt clearly in the former, and moſt ſtrongly in the later ſenſe.

2. That Baptiſm is the ſign, pledge, or ſeal of entrance into a Goſpel ſtate, or Chriſtian Church, is I think out of queſtion on all ſides, and if need were might eaſily be proved by theſe and ſuch like Scriptures, Mat. 3.2.6, Mat. 28.18, 19. Act. 2.38.40. Act. 8. & 9. &c.

3. Though ſome may have right to this Kingdom, and yet want Baptiſm, as the penitent thief, and ſome may have Baptiſm that have no internal right to the Kingdom of God, and ſpiritual bleſſing ſignified; yet thoſe that have right to the Kingdom of God, holden forth in the Goſpel, have right to Baptiſm; and thoſe that are acknowledged according to the rules of Gods word to have right to this Kingdom, muſt alſo be acknowledged to have right to the ſeal of entrance thereinto.

4. Though only internal right to Gods Kingdom and the priviledges thereof, argue right to, or poſſeſſion of the inward ſeal of the ſpirit; yet external profeſſed, or known right to this Kingdom, and the outward priviledges thereof, ſo as that perſons are according to the Scriptures, acknowledged members and ſubjects thereof, is ſufficient to give Eccleſiaſtical and external right to the ſeal of entrance thereinto; as the Jews, whiles they were not actually diſcovenanted, were the children of the Kingdom; though ſo wicked as that they were ſhortly cut off. Therefore let none object, If all the children of Beleevers have right to the Kingdom of God they ſhall be all ſaved, But they are not all ſaved, Therefore all have not right. This is anſwered by diſtinction of external right, which gives intereſt to the external priviledges of the viſible Kingdom, and internal right which gives intereſt in, or implies poſſeſſion of internal, ſpiritual and eternal priviledges: The former right all Infants of Beleevers have (and of this we ſpeak now) the later only ſome peculiar ſanctified ones, according to the election of grace, as it is in the caſe of viſible profeſſours and ſincere Beleevers.

5. That to whom the Kingdom belongs, to them the ſeal or ſign of entrance belongs, right reaſon will yield, from the nature of correlatives, there being a clear relation between the thing ſignified or ſealed, and the ſign or ſeal; and the whole current of Scripture ſpeaking of Baptiſm hiſtorically, or doctrinally, ſheweth that ſo ſoon as any were acknowledged to have right to the benefit ſignified or ſealed, they had right to the ſign or ſeal.

The Aſſumption is expreſſely in the text, Mat. 19.14. Of ſuch is the Kingdom of heaven. Mat. 10.14. Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God. So Luk. 18.16. ſpeaking of little children; yea ver. 17. Chriſt with a ſerious aſſeveration aſſerts, That whoſoever receives not the Kingdom of God as a little childe, ſhall in no wiſe enter thereinto. And that this is meant, not only of thoſe particular children that were brought to Chriſt, is plain; 1. From what was ſaid before to the former Argument. 2. From the very words of Chriſt, he ſaith not of theſe little children, as excluding all other, but of ſuch, that is, the children of parents beleeving and in Covenant, as thoſe were, which only the diſciples and other men that are not able to ſee the hearts can judge to be ſuch.

Ob. Ob. Here one objecteth, This reaſon is grounded on a great miſtake of the ſenſe of the text; A. R. for the words are not, To ſuch belongs the Kingdom, but Of ſuch is the Kingdom, that is, of none elſe but ſuch, as the next words which do follow in this text, do manifeſtly declare, for in Luk. 18.17. Mar. 10.15. in both places; where Chriſt had ſaid, Suffer little children to come to me, for of ſuch is the Kingdom of God; he preſently confirms it in the next words thus, Verily I ſay, Whoſoever ſhall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little childe ſhall not enter therein: As alſo, Mat. 18.34. Chriſt ſpeaking to his diſciples ſaith, Except ye be couverted and become as little children, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven: Whoſoever therefore ſhall humble himſelf as this little childe, the ſame is greateſt in the Kingdom of heaven; his meaning is not of them, or ſuch as them in age nor underſtanding, 1 Cor. 14.20. but of ſuch as them in humility and like qualifications.

Anſ. Anſ. We neither by miſtake ſay nor judge this place is to be rendred, Ʋnto them belongs the Kingdom: But the words are, Of ſuch is (or to ſuch belongs) the Kingdom, &c. which makes more for our cauſe then if it had been ſaid, To them belongs, &c. two waies. 1. Hence it is clear that our Saviour ſpeaks not of thoſe individuall Infants only, but of all ſuch as they. Notwithſtanding the Diſciples through ignorance (as before the Aſcenſion they had many miſtakes about Chriſts Kingdom) thought (poſſibly) that ſuch Infants were unfit ſubjects for the Kingdom of heaven; he peremptorily affirms, that Of ſuch is the Kingdom of heaven, indefinitely ſpeaking of ſuch, that their non-age cannot debarre them from this heavenly and ſpiritual Kingdom. Whereas if Chriſt had ſaid (of them) it might have been thought that thoſe children brought to Chriſt, had by extraordinary priviledge or miracle, right to Chriſts Kingdom: Whereas by our Saviours expreſſion (ſuch) it appears to be the common and ordinary priviledge of the children of the faithfull. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whereas Chriſt ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdom (though our Tranſlators render it, To ſuch belongeth, becauſe the idiom of our Language will not ſo well bear the other phraſe) it implies, that ſuch are already in the Kingdom of God or viſible Church, as ſubjects and members thereof. Whereas if Chriſt had ſaid, Belongs to them, It might have been underſtood for the future in a remote poſſibility (as the inheritance belongs to the Infant-heir, though he be not in preſent poſſeſſion,) viz. That when they ſhould come to riper years they might be externally called, and ſo brought within the Church; whereas this expreſſion of our Saviour ſhews that ſuch are already within Chriſts Kingdom.

2. Though we ſhould miſtake this place, as the objector chargeth us, in that we would gather hence that children are to be admitted to Chriſt, and have the Seal of ſpiritual bleſſings. Whereas he would make it the ſcope of this place, not that they or ſuch as they in age or underſtanding have right to the Kingdom of heaven, but ſuch as they in humility and like qualifications; yet it's not like that they which brought the children to Chriſt ſhould be miſtaken in their ends (ſeeing none of the Evangeliſts ſpeak of them as miſtaken, but rather mention their act by way of approbation) which were for prayer and impoſition of hands, to conferre and ſignifie ſpiritual bleſſings, which are the peculiar priviledges of Gods Kingdom. Or if they ſhould ſo far miſtake themſelves as to come for Chriſts bleſſing for their children, though uncapable, it is not probable but Chriſt would have reproved them for their errour before he admitted them, and have told them, that he would receive them to him only that they might be patterns of humility and ſuch like qualifications to his Diſciples; but not ſo, as if the Kingdom of heaven did belong to them or ſuch as they were in age and underſtanding, leſt he ſhould harden them in their errour. But if Chriſt ſhould have forborn to tell them of their errour, and make uſe of it that he might ſet before his hearers a pattern of humility and ſuch qualifications; yet ſurely Chriſt himſelf would not ſo far miſtake, as to lay his hands on, and bleſſe them that were uncapable of his bleſſing, as they muſt needs be if the Kingdom of heaven belonged not to them, nor any ſuch for age; for Chriſts bleſſing of perſons, ſo ſolemnly repreſented and ſignified or ſealed with impoſition of hands, are doubtleſſe the priviledges of his Kingdom: ſo that this charge of miſtake which the Objector makes, muſt lie on the Objector himſelf or Chriſt.

3. It cannot be proved that theſe words, Whoſoever receives not, &c. are brought as a reaſon of that ſaying, Of ſuch is the Kingdom: It is not joyned to the former ſentence by a cauſall particle. But rather it is brought as a ſecond reaſon why they are to be brought and admitted to Chriſt, becauſe they are not only fit ſubjects of the Kingdom of heaven, but alſo may be patterns to the more ripe and aged.

4. That place, Mat. 18.34. nothing pertains to this Hiſtory, for it ſpeaks of Chriſts teaching his Diſciples humility (of which doctrine he took occaſion from his Diſciples pride and emulation, which diſcovered it ſelf in that queſtion, Who is greateſt in the Kingdom?) by ſetting in the midſt of them (there's no mention of taking in his arms) a little childe; and therefore though this ſentence may ſomewhat illuſtrate the later of theſe reaſons in Mark and Luke, yet it belongs not to this Hiſtory or doctrine that is principally and purpoſely handled therein.

5. But to make it evident, that Chriſt when he ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdom, means it of theſe very children and ſuch as they in reſpect of age, take theſe reaſons.

1. The Queſtion was not, Whether ſuch as were indued with humility and like qualifications, might come to Chriſt? but Whether thoſe Infants, and ſuch as they for age might? The parents or whoſoever brought them (whoſe piety is here approved) deſired not that thoſe that had ſuch qualifications only as their children, but that thoſe very babes might be admitted to Chriſt for prayer and laying on of his hands. The Diſciples rebuked them for bringing (not humble perſons of ripe years and otherwiſe qualified as children, but) thoſe babes: Chriſt is angry with them for hindering thoſe very children, pleads for the children and the bringers of them, commandeth that the children ſhould be permitted to come to him (not ſuch as them in humility and like qualifications at this time) and gives this reaſon, For of ſuch is the Kingdom of heaven. Now how were this ſpeech and reaſon of Chriſt pertinent or convincing, if when the queſtion was about little ones, he ſhould ſpeak only of thoſe which were endued with humility and ſuch qualifications, yet of ripe years?

2. The word ſuch is taken moſt uſually in Scripture (if not alwaies) for the ſame perſons or things of which mention was made immediatly before, and thoſe that are of the ſame nature and kinde, not thoſe of different kinde of form, that only agree in ſome remote unqueſtioned, unmentioned qualifications; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as may appear by theſe and ſuch like Scriptures, Joh 4.23. But the hour cometh and now is when the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father in Spirit and truth, for the Father ſeeketh ſuch to worſhip him. 1 Cor 5.5. To deliver ſuch an one to Satan; this is meant of the inceſtuous man (of whom the Apoſtle had ſpoken before,) and of thoſe that were guilty of the ſame or like ſins as he: ſo 2 Cor. 12.2. Such an one taken up into the third heaven. verſ. 3. I know ſuch a man. ver. 5. Concerning ſuch a man I will glory. It's plain that this is ſpoken of the man that had Viſions and Revelations of God, whether in the body or out of the body he knew not; and that Paul would glory of that very man or ſuch others, for whom God had done ſuch things, as none of the falſe Apoſtles could glory of the like. The ſame may be obſerved, Gal. 5.21. Heb. 7.26. and Heb. 13.16. By which examples it is plain, that though the word (ſuch) in the Engliſh tongue often ſignifies but ſimilitude, yet in the Original it notes entity, both ſpecifical and numerical, and conſequently here are not meant thoſe who were only like babes in humility and ſuch qualifications, but thoſe very Infants that were brought, and other ſuch Infants, viz. of the Church.

3. If therefore only Chriſt admitted children, took them in his arms, laid his hands on them, and bleſſed them, becauſe of their humility and ſuch qualifications, wherein theſe that will enter into the Kingdom of God muſt reſemble them; not becauſe they themſelves had interreſt in the Kingdom of God, and were capable of ſpiritual bleſſings; then it will follow that it had been lawfull and commendable, for men to have brought to Chriſt Sheep, Doves or Serpents, Salt, Lights or Vine-branches, good Wheat, o • good Fiſh, Mat 5.13, 14. Mat. 10 16. Ioh. 10, 14. Mat. 13. Ioh. 13.1, &c. to have him put his hands upon them and prayed for them, and that Chriſt would have taken theſe all, or any of them, into his arms or hands, laid his hands on them and bleſſed them, for the Godly are reſembled to theſe, and we required to be like unto them in ſome qualifications, as we will be ſaved; and where the ſame or like cauſe is, the ſame or like effect will, follow: But the conſequent is abſurd and ridiculous (if not blaſphemous) Therefore the antecedent is falſe. I come now to the third Argument taken from this Hiſtory, and it is my fourth Argument in order.

Arg. 4. Arg. 4 Thoſe and ſuch as thoſe to whom Chriſt hath vouchſafed his dear imbraces, prayers, bleſſing, and impoſition of hands, as a ſign or pledge of his bleſſing, are doubtleſſe in Covenant, and have right to the ſign or pledge of entrance thereinto, which is Baptiſm now in time of the Goſpel:

But Chriſt hath vouchſafed the little children of the faithfull his dear imbraces, prayed for them, bleſſed them, Mat. 10 13.15 Mat. 10.16. and laid his hands on them as a ſign or pledge of his bleſſing;

Therefore the children of the faithfull are in Covenant, and have right to the ſeal of entrance thereinto, which is Baptiſm.

To the clearing of the Propoſition let it be remembred, 1. The tender imbraces of Chriſt and ready entertainments of perſons, argue thoſe to be in Covenant and in his favour whom he ſo entertaineth. For he that forbad his Diſciples to go to the Gentiles and Samaritans, Mat. 10.5. Mat. 15.24. Luk 7.29. Luk 15.1, 2, 3. was not ſent but to the loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrael, would not have eaten with publicans and ſinners, but as they had been loſt ſheep and prodigall ſons, yet ſheep and ſons found again, which had been humbed by Johns Miniſtry; would not doubtleſſe tenderly imbrace any young or old, that were without God, hope, Chriſt or Covenant.

2. Theſe whom Chriſt prayeth for are not of the world, and therefore called out of the world to the Church and Covenant, Joh. 17.9.

3. Chriſts laying on of his hands being a ſign or ſeal of ſpiritual bleſſing (for we reade not that theſe children were brought to be cured of any corporal malady; but Chriſts ſaying, Of ſuch is the Kingdom of God, ſufficiently implieth, that the bleſſings which he beſtowed and confirmed to them, Rom. 14.17. by laying on of hands, were bleſſings of his Kingdom, which are principally not corporal but ſpiritual) was of the ſame nature or equivalent to, or at leaſt implied right in Baptiſm: For we never reade that God or Chriſt, or any by Divine appointment, communicated impoſition of hands as a ſign of the bleſſings of his Kingdom to unbeleevers and perſons out of Covenant, and ſo unintereſted in the ſeal of entrance into Covenant.

4. Hence follows, each of theſe favours of Chriſt, much more all laid together, prove, that thoſe to whom they are vouchſafed, are in Covenant, and ſo have title to the pledge of admiſſion thereto.

As to the Aſſumption, let it be noted, 1. That it is in the very words of the text. 2. That though this priviledge of corporal or viſible imbracing, and laying on of hands, and vocal or audible prayer, and bleſſing from Chriſt, was peculiar to thoſe Infants that were then brought to him; yet that the ſame bleſſings for ſubſtance inviſibly and ſpiritually to be conferred by Chriſt, and what is equivalent to theſe outward ſigns, belong ſtill to children of Beleevers under the Goſpel, may be gathered from the whole context, is partly cleared in the handling of the two former Arguments, and might be further proved if need were, and intended brevity would ſuffer.

Arg. 5. Arg. 5 If all Nations were by the Apoſtles to be made diſciples and baptized, then the children of thoſe in the Nations, by whom the Goſpel is received; for children are a very great and conſiderable part of a Nation, and capable of being made diſciples; as was ſhewed in anſwer to the former Paper:

But all Nations were to be made diſciples and baptized by the Apoſtles, according to the command of Jeſus Chriſt, Mat. 28.19, 20.

Therefore the children of beleeving parents in thoſe Nations, were and ſtill are to be baptized.

For the clearing of this ARgument I might ſuffice my ſelf in referring the Reader to what I have written heretofore, In Anſwer to A. R. In Anſwer to the firſt Paper. for the vindicating of this Scripture, Mat. 28.19 which is the ground of this Argument. Yet briefly for the ſtrengthening and clearing of the antecedent or Aſſumption contained in the text, I ſhall propound theſe conſiderations to be remembred, though ſome of them were touched before.

1. That children are a very conſiderable part of Nations, therefore comprehended under this command of diſcipling and baptizing Nations: Eſpecially conſidering,

2. That no acception is made of them; neither doth this or any other Scripture ſhew that they muſt be excluded out of this Commiſſion. Did ever Chriſt ſay or intimate thus much, Though the children of Beleevers have heretofore been in Covenant and admitted to the ſign of entrance thereto, yet now in the time of the Goſpel they are to be left out of Covenant, and kept from the ſeals thereof, as Infidels and Pagans, till they profeſſe their faith?

3. They are not uncapable of being made diſciples and baptized, as hath been ſaid.

4. That one Nation of the Jews, which unto the time of Chriſts giving this Commiſſion to his Diſciples, Gen. 17.7. Exod. 12.42. had been in Covenant and enjoyed the ſeals thereof, as his peculiar people, had their children taken into Covenant with them, and admitted to the ſeal of entrance; which priviledge alſo Proſelytes of other Nations had in common with the Jews.

5. Not only among the Jews, but alſo in all Nations Infant-children were alwaies devoted to the ſame God and religion as their parents, and often (if not alwaies) by ſome ſolemn ſign of initiation, the devil (not unfitly called Gods ape) would have children with their parents dedicated to him, Lev. 18.21. compared with 24, 25, 26. and it is ſo univerſal, that children, while Infants, are ſtill reputed to belong to the ſame religion and God with their parents; as that the children of Papiſts, Jews, Turks and Indians, &c. are accounted from their mothers womb, Papiſt, Jews, Turks and Indians, &c. untill by the uſe of reaſon and free-will they make defection from their fathers religion; ſo that it ſeems to be of the very dictate of reaſon and law of nature, that Infants ſhould be eſteemed to belong to the ſame God and religion as their parents, whether true or falſe.

6. The children of ſubjects and bondſlaves, are accounted the ſubjects and bondſlaves to their Parents Sovereigns and Maſters, untill by ſome act of their own they caſt off their yoke: Now all Chriſtians are ſubjects and ſervants to Chriſt their King and Lord, therefore their children alſo are ſubjects and ſervants to God and Chriſt, whiles Infants, Lev. 25.41, 42. Pſal. 116.16.

7. Hence it cannot be rationally conceived that the Apoſtles did underſtand the Commiſſion of diſcipling all Nations, otherwiſe then ſo as to take in the children with their beleeving parents.

Arg. 6. Arg. 6 If all the Nations of the earth ſhall be bleſſed by Chriſt the ſeed of Abraham, after his coming in the fleſh, as much or more then the Nation of the Jews were before the coming of Chriſt, then ſurely the children of converted Nations muſt be in Covenant, and have right to the ſeal of entrance thereinto, for this was a great priviledge of the Jewiſh Nation before Chriſts coming. It would be an hortible eclipſing of the bleſſedneſſe of the converted Gentiles, and of the Jews when they ſhall be converted, to have their children cut off from the Covenant and the ſeal thereof:

But the Nations of beleeving Gentiles ſhall be bleſſed as much or more in the time of the Goſpel by Chriſt, then the Jews were before his coming, Gen. 22.18. Gal. 3.8. 2 Cor. 3.7, 8, 9. Heb. 8.6, 7.

Therefore the children of beleeving Gentiles have right to the Covenant and ſeal of admittance thereinto, which is Baptiſm.

For the fuller diſcovery of the ſtrength of this Argument conſider 4 things.

1. What is ſaid on the foregoing Argument, is of uſe here alſo, for the clearing of the extent and comprehenſiveneſſe of the word Nation.

2. Conſider the ſeveral confirmations of the Propoſition, tending to clear the conſequence. 1. The Jews (as hath been ſaid) had intereſt in the Covenant and ſeal of admiſſion for their children in the Old Teſtament, before Chriſts coming, and this was in it ſelf and their account doubtleſſe a glorious priviledge; Therefore Chriſtians after Chriſts coming muſt have the ſame priviledge, ſeeing no leſſe but rather greater priviledges are promiſed to the beleeving Gentiles then the Jews had. 2. Eſpecially conſidering that now in the time of the Goſpel this would be in it ſelf, and in the apprehenſion and deſire of all godly parents, accounted a moſt glorious priviledge now, that their children ſhould be in Covenant and admitted to the ſeal thereof, and the contrary a fearfull loſſe. I appeal to all that eſteem the Covenant of God, whether next to their own ſalvation they would not eſteem their childrens being admitted to the Covenant of God and its ſeal an eminent priviledge (what thoſe that through the ſpirit of errour have caſt off God, his Covenant and truth, judge, we weigh not, conſidering they are given over to a reprobate judgement.) It being unconceivable how thoſe that ever taſted the goodneſſe of God, the priviledges of the Covenant, and made right improvement of the ſeal thereof, ſhould not earneſtly deſire the ſame for their children, whom nature and grace teacheth dearly to love. Neither can any reaſon be given, why this ſhould be ſo great a priviledge before Chriſt, and not remain a moſt deſirable priviledge ſince Chriſts coming, for parents to have their children in Gods Covenant and under his ſeal. 3. Hence follows, that it would be a ſad eclipſing of the bleſſedneſſ • , comfort and glory of beleeving Gentiles, if their children ſhould be daſhed o •• from the priviledges of the Covenant, which the Jews children had. How could that of the Apoſtle be true (Rom. 3.29. Is he the God of Jews only, is he not alſo of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles alſo,) if God have not as well taken the Gentiles with their children into Covenant, as well as heretofore the Jews with their children. How ſhould the converted Gentiles rejoice with Gods people and praiſe him, as well as the Jews, according to the Prophecie cited by the Apoſtle, Rom. 15.10, 15. if they ſhould be deprived of ſo grand a priviledge of Gods people, which had been ſo long poſſeſſed by them, and their Infants left out of Covenant and debarred the ſeal? 4. What a lamentable fall and abatement of the beleeving Jews comfort and glory, would befall them by the coming of Chriſt, contrary to the Propheticall predictions, Evangelical Proclamations, and all the faithfuls expectation; if whereas before Chriſts coming their little ones were in Covenant, had God for their God, and were ſealed with the ſign of the Covenant; now upon this imbracing of Chriſt, whether on the firſt offer of the Goſpel to them by the Apoſtles as in Act. Act. 2.37, 38, 39, 40, &c. Rom. 7 26, 27 2. or at their converſion in the latter end of the world, Rom. 11. their Infant-children ſhould be left out of the Covenant, in Satans Kingdome.

3. I will anſwer one Objection (once for all) which may ſeem to have ſome force to take away thoſe untheological and unevangelical abſurdities that theſe men fall into, which here and elſewhere it's ſhewed their opinion leads them to: it's this.

Obj. In the Old Teſtament indeed the Church had many external viſible priviledges, conſiſting in Rites and Ceremonies, and therefore they were circumciſed and their children; but now in the Goſpel the priviledges are more ſpiritual and inviſible, and therefore it will not follow, If ſome of thoſe viſible priviledges be withdrawn, that the Goſpel-diſpenſation is not more excellent then the Legal, and ſo if Baptiſm be denied to Chriſtians children, that their ſtate is worſe then the ſtate of the Jews.

Anſ. This Objection which would ſeem to take off the former abſurdities, will appear anon to bring in other abſurdities as great or greater, or leave the force of the former Arguments untouched. For though it be true that amongſt the Jews was a worldly Sanctuary and carnal ordinances, Heb. 9.1.10. which are now aboliſhed and no viſible ordinance left to Chriſtians in the place thereof: Yet generally to ſay that Jews priviledges conſiſted in Rites and Ceremonies, and Chriſtians are ſpiritual and inviſible, is to deny ſpiritual priviledges to the Jews, and the outward profeſſion of religion to Chriſtians, which is equally to overthrow the power of godlineſſe and truth of religion in both, then which what more dangerous or abſurd?

2. But if they will leave generals and come to the point in hand, they muſt either deny that there is any ſuch outward ordinance as Baptiſm left to the Church of the New Teſtament, being of the ſame uſe for the main, and in the place of Circumciſion, Col. 2.11, 12. which to do were to contradict plain Scripture, or if they grant it, their ſhifting diſtinction of viſible and ſpiritual priviledges cannot help them, for here by their own conceſſion it cannot take place, ſeeing that they yield that in this caſe a viſible priviledge is afforded alike to both Churches, Jewiſh and Chriſtian.

3. This Objection ſhould be acknowledged to ſay ſomething to the purpoſe, if it could be proved, 1. That the Jews were only under an external Covenant, without ſpiritual graces. 2. That their priviledges were only external. 3. That Chriſtians have now only ſpiritual bleſſings beſtowed on them. 4. That ordinarily God now gives his Covenant and ſpiritual bleſſings thereof without any viſible means or external way of diſpenſing the ſame. All or any of which to aſſert were very falſe and wicked. But when it is acknowledged, or at leaſt may by plentifull Scripture be proved, 1. That the Jews and their children had intereſt in ſpiritual bleſſings of the Covenant, as truly as we, though in a different manner and meaſure. 2. That we Chriſtians are under a viſible diſpenſation, as well as they. 3. That both diſpenſations have had alike each a viſible ſign, ſeal or pledge of admiſſion into Covenant. 4. That to enjoy theſe ſigns and ſeals, have been and ſtill are a great benefit to them that have them according to Gods appointment. 5. That now Beleevers have need of the ſeals of the Covenant to them and their children to confirm their faith in Gods mercy to them and theirs, and ingage and incite them to obedience, as well as the beleeving Jews.

That for themſelves Beleevers need a ſeal or pledge, is granted by all parties that acknowledge that God (who inſtitutes nothing needleſſe or ſuperſtuous in his Church) hath inſtituted Baptiſme as a ſtanding Ordinance for Chriſtians. And that for their children they need a ſeal, as well as the Jews for their children, or Chriſtian Profeſſours for themſelves, may appear thus: 1. Have not Chriſtians children ſouls capable of ſalvation as well as the Jews? 2. Is it not for Gods glory to be viſibly known the God of Chriſtians children as well as of the Jews? 3. A • e Chriſtian parents better able to beleeve Gods fatherly federall love to their children, and devote them to his worſhip, without his applying a ſeal unto them, then they can beleeve his love to themſelves, and devote themſelves to God without a ſeal or pledge? If they can ſufficiently beleeve in God for their children, and devote them to Chriſt without the ſeal for a pledge or ingagement, ſurely they might as well have beleeved and obeyed without a ſeal for themſelves, if ſo, no ſeal had been inſtituted at all; for God will make no ſuper •• uous inſtitutions. But a ſeal is inſtituted, therefore they needed it, if for themſelves then for their children. 4. Are Chriſtian parents more careleſſe of their childrens ſalvation or Gods being glorified by their children then the Jews were? that none may ſay: Then ſure they no leſſe need to ſee them ſealed into the Covenant wherein they may be ingaged to glorifie God, and God to ſave their ſouls. Or 5. have Chriſtians more obſcure and ſparing diſcovery by promiſe and precept concerning their own priviledges and duties, that they ſhould need the ſeal and pledge of Baptiſm for themſelves; but more full and clearer promiſes and commands concerning their childrens priviledges and duties, then either the Jews had for their children or Chriſtian Profeſſours have for themſelves, that in the caſe of Chriſtians children there ſhould be no uſe of a ſeal and pledge, though the Jews children did and Chriſtian Profeſſours do need a ſeal? I think none will ſay this. 6. That no Scripture or reaſon can be given to prove that Beleevers children in the time of the Goſpel are debarred from the Covenant and ſeal thereof (of which the beleeving Jews children had been long in poſſeſſion) and ſome more eminent priviledge beſtowed on Chriſtians children, which the Jews children never had, to compenſate that loſſe, of being driven from the Covenant and ſeal; when (I ſay) theſe ſix things are at the leaſt for the greater part acknowledged, and the other may be eaſily proved, at leaſt ſo many as are neceſſary for this purpoſe; it muſt needs be a very contradictory thing, to ſay That the Goſpel-diſpenſation is more glorious and comfortable then the Legal, and beleeving Gentiles as much or more bleſſed then the Jews, and yet Chriſtians children driven from the Covenant of grace and ſeal thereof, which the Jews children were under.

4. Having firſt propounded ſomething in general for the clearing of the whole Argument; ſecondly, confirmed the Propoſition by ſome particulars: thirdly, Anſwered an Objection: fourthly, I come to the fourth thing which I promiſed, which is to ſpeak of the Aſſumption; concerning which I need ſay no more, then that it is plainly and fully proved in the Scriptures mentioned in the propoſal of the Aſſumption, and divers others ſetting forth the glory of Goſpel-times.

Arg. Arg. 7 7. To whom the promiſe of the ſpiritual bleſſing repreſented and ſealed in Baptiſm belongs, Act. 2.38, 39. to them the outward ſign of Baptiſm it ſelf belongs; ſo the Apoſtle reaſons, and the ſign and thing ſignified being correlatives, muſt go together:

But the promiſe of Gods Spirit, Act. 2.39. Iſa. 44.3. ſignified in Baptiſm (and ſo of Regeneration, Sanctification and Adoption) belongs to the faithfull and their children;

Therefore Baptiſm it ſelf belongs to them.

Arg. Arg. 8 8. If in the time of the Apoſtles, when the gouernours of families beleeved, their whole families thereupon were baptized with them: Now alſo the children of beleeving parents, being parts of their families, are to be baptized:

But where the Apoſtles had drawn, by the Miniſtry of the word, governours of families to the faith, they baptized with them their whole family, Act. 16.14, 15. & 33, 34.

Therefore the children of beleeving parents are to be baptized.

For the clearing of the two laſt Arguments, to avoid tediouſneſſe (having been more large in the former then I intended) I refer the Reader to what I have ſaid in the Anſwer to the former Paper, in the vindicating of thoſe Scriptures, Act. 2. & 16. cited by the other party.

Arg. Arg. 9 9. They that are holy or Saints, are to be baptized:

Children of beleeving parents are holy or Saints, 1 Cor. 7.14.

Therefore to be baptized.

See this Argument cleared in my firſt Book, in Anſwer to A.R. and hereafter more may come forth for vindicating of that Scripture, 1 Cor. 7.14. from exceptions.

Arg. Arg. 10 10. They that are members of the Church have right to Baptiſm, for Baptiſm is a ſolemn ſign or pledge of admittance into the Church, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. Eph. 5.25, 26.

But the children of the faithfull are members of the Church. 1. So they were amongſt the Iſraelites and never yet diſmembred. 2. Such promiſes are made to them as none without the Church have right unto. 3. Elſe they have no intereſt in Chriſts love, no benefit by his death, no purification and ſanctification by his bloud, nor is there any hope that (if they die Infants) they ſhall be preſented holy and ſpotleſſe, glorious and unblamable before God, all which are the peculiar priviledges of the Church, not communicable to any but members thereof, Eph. 4.25, 26, 27. So that if the children of Beleevers be not members of the Church, they are without, Aliens from the Commonwealth of Iſrael, without hope, without God, whiles children, which to affirm, is moſt blaſphemous to Gods grace, Covenant and nature.

Therefore the children of Beleevers have right to Baptiſm.

Arg. Arg. 11 11. If the duties of the Covenant no leſſe belong to Chriſtian parents and their children in the time of the Goſpel, then they did to Jewiſh parents and their children under the Law: It will follow that the Covenant it ſelf and the priviledges and ſeal thereof, do no leſſe belong to them and their children, then they did to the Jews and their children:

But the duties of the Covenant lie no leſſe on Chriſtian parents, to teach and inſtruct their children, Eph. 6.4. and on their children to learn the fear and nurture of the Lord, now in the time of the Goſpel, then they lay on Jewiſh parents and children;

Therefore the Covenant, its priviledges, and the ſeal of admiſſion no leſſe belongs to Chriſtian parents and their children, then they did belong to Jewiſh parents and their children.

For the ſtrengthening of the Propoſition let theſe things be conſidered,

1. Ordinarily and in the uſual diſpenſation of the Covenant, where God requires like duties, he affords like priviledges: I ſpeak not of what God may do out of his prerogative or in ſome extraordinary caſe, ſetting aſide his dealing with men by way of command, promiſe and threatning, which is his way of tranſaction in Covenant.

2. If there be any difference in the Chriſtian Church compared with the Jewiſh, and later diſpenſation of the Covenant compared with the former, there is rather an increaſe of priviledges, and leſſening of burdens and duties, then an increaſe of burdens and duties and leſſening of priviledges.

3. If you ſay otherwiſe, Might not Chriſtian parents, if urged to the Religious education of their children by you, anſwer, By your judgement they are dogs and ſwine, as being out of Covenant? how can we offer holy inſtruction to them, or exerciſe any Chriſtian diſcipline over them, bring them to publick aſſemblies, or pray for them, any otherwiſe then as Infidels? were no: this to caſt Pearls to ſwine, and give holy things to dogs? Mat. 7.6. 1 Cor. 5.12. What have we to do to pray with or exerciſe Diſcipline and Cenſure over thoſe that are without? What poor incouragements do you give us to bring them up for God, when you tell us that they have no right to the Covenant of God? Is not your practice in denying us the priviledge of the Covenant for our children, and yet requiring the duties thereof, worſe then that of the falſe Apoſtles, in putting a yoke on the Diſciples necks, which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear? They indeed urged duties, but allowed priviledges (according to their apprehenſion, and what had formerly been indeed a priviledge,) you urge duty, but deny priviledges, which do greatly eaſe burdens and facilitate duties. But if you ſay, that you do not urge the duty of Chriſtian education of children, &c. as I fear practice ſpeaks too loud: What is this but to profeſſe an intention to overthrow both the duties and priviledges of the Covenant, and ſo bring in Atheiſm, which if it take place in families, will ſoon overſpread the whole Church, and particular perſons.

4. The Jews indeed were bound to circumciſe their children, and obſerve all thoſe laws, Ceremonial and Moral, concerning them which were appointed by Moſes; but they had this eaſe and encouragement, their children were in Covenant and had the ſeal thereof, and they might expect the priviledges and bleſſings of the Covenant on their children, by vertue of Gods promiſes, Covenant and ſeal. Now no ſuch priviledges are allow'd to Chriſtian parents in behalf of their children, if theſe mens opinion ſtand and the Propoſition hold not.

Obj. But if parents by their care bring them to actual faith, and ſo under the Covenant, then they ſhall enjoy the priviledges of the Covenant, and ſeal thereof.

Anſ. 1. If that be all, then by your opinion if they dye before actual faith (as thouſands of the children of the faithfull do in their infancy) they periſh as Aliens to the Covenant. 2. The only way revealed in Scripture for parents firſt bringing their children under the Covenant, is by faith to accept the Covenant for themſelves and their children, Gen. 17.7. They that hold out a new way muſt ſhew ſome Scripture for the aboliſhing of the Old, and eſtabliſhing the New, or muſt expect no regard from thoſe that are not willing to be deluded. 3. Shew the ground of this diſtinction; Jewiſh children were to be educated for God as being under Covenant and ſeal, but the children of Chriſtians only that they may be brought under the Covenant and ſeal, when they come to actual faith, profeſſed in their own perſon. What Scripture or reaſon puts ſuch a vaſt difference between them, that thoſe ſhould be brought up Religiouſly, as actually in Covenant and ſealed, theſe only as in a remote poſſibility to be brought to the Covenant and ſeal?

5. The fifth conſideration will not only ſtrengthen the Propoſition, but alſo further anſwer the foregoing objection: It's this, If the children of the faithfull be not already actually in Covenant, from their infancy, and ſo intereſted in the priviledges of the Covenant, not only parents may be afraid to inſtruct them in Scripture, Catechiſe and pray with them, require their preſence in the Congregation and family duties, and their ſanctification of the Lords day (which are both duties and priviledges of the Covenant) leaſt they ſhould caſt Pearls to ſwine, and judge them that are without; But alſo the children, if urged hereunto, may demand of their parents, What have you to do to require of us any Chriſtian duties, or to correct us for the neglect thereof, or for the commiſſion of any ſin againſt the Goſpel, as profanation of the Lords day, blaſpheming Chriſt, Chriſtian Religion, or the Scripture, &c. Might not they plead liberty of conſcience, and ſay, What have you to do to judge us that are without? we are to chuſe, our Religion, and as free to worſhip Mahomet as Chriſt. The Jews indeed had authority to bring up their children in the Jewiſh Religion, as being devoted thereto from their infancy, by the Covenant and ſeal thereof, under which they were: but now we children of Chriſtians are under no ſuch priviledges nor ingagements. Which practice, I fear, will be the genuine fruit of this opinion, argued againſt and ſwallowed down as no abſurdity, by thoſe that are poiſoned with Anabaptiſticall fancies; but muſt needs be deteſted by all that prize the Covenant of God, and love Chriſt ſincerely, or their own and childrens ſouls ſpiritually.

To clear the Aſſumption, let theſe things be conſidered: Gen. 18.19. Exod. 12.26, 27. Ioſh 24.15. Pſal. 78.5, 6. Prov. • . 3, 4, 5. 2 Tim. 3.15.

1. How can it be doubted but that all thoſe morall duties that lay upon Abraham and his children, and the Iſraelites and their children, enjoining the one party to teach, and the other to learn the way and commandments of God, lye now upon Chriſtian parents and their children.

2. Paul greatly commends Timothies happineſſe, and his parents care in that he had been brought up from his infancy in holy Scripture, which he would not have done, if either Timothy had not been in Covenant from his infancy (for what have thoſe to do with the tables of the Covenant, that are ſtrangers or aliens to the Covenant?) or that example had not been of moral equity to be imitated by Chriſtian parents and their children, in the time of the Goſpel.

3. That Scripture cited to prove the Aſſumption, contains a full expreſſe charge which lies on all Chriſtian parents to teach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and children to learn the fear and information of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. which argues alſo that children of the faithfull are diſciples of the Lord, to be trained up in his ſchool, being dedicated to his diſcipline and nurture.

4. Were not this ſo, that moral Law, which the Apoſtle in ſpecial manner above all the reſt, urgeth upon Chriſtians children, would be abrogated, or greatly weakened as to the children of Chriſtian parents, at leaſt untill they come to actual faith. Children (ſaith he) obey your parents in the Lord. Eph 6.1, 2. And Honour thy father and mother, which is the firſt commandment with promiſe. For how can they obey them in the Lord, when the parents have no authority to command them any thing in the name of the Lord, they not being under his yoke and Covenant? How can parents challenge honour from their children by virtue of Gods command, when they bring not up their children for God and to his honour? Or how can children Religiouſly and Chriſtianly honour their parents, that have left them in the ſtate of Infidels? Eſpecially conſidering this commandment, Honour thy father, &c. as it was given to the Iſraelites, ſuppoſed their children to be in Covenant with their parents, and to have the like intereſt with their parents in the Covenant and its ſeal, and the like ingagement to the duties thereof, in reſpect of outward diſpenſation, which is denied now to the children of Chriſtians, unleſſe the Aſſumption, yea and the main point in controverſie be granted.

Twelfthly, I argue thus: Arg. 12 Children of beleeving parents muſt either be baptized, while children, or while able to profeſſe the faith, or not at all. 1. This laſt your practice ſhews you will not hold; and it were unreaſonable to think that their being born of beleeving parents ſhould deprive them of this priviledge, ſeeing in the Old Teſtament this procured to children the ſeal of entrance. 2. That they ſhould be kept without Baptiſm untill they be able to make a profeſſion of faith, is no where commanded, neither can any Scripture-example, or good reaſon be given for it. 1. Not commanded, for the command which was given for baptizing of profeſſours of faith and repentance, did expreſſely and immediatly belong to thoſe Jews and Gentiles which had not been born of Chriſtian parents. 2. Neither is there Scripture-example for it, for the examples we reade of were according to Commiſſion, none (as we reade in Scripture) that were born after their parents were Chriſtians, were baptized, when grown; Scripture ſpeaks only of thoſe that had been Jews and Infidels children that were baptized by the Apoſtles. 3. Neither ſtands it with right reaſon, that Beleevers children ſhould be left (untill they profeſſe their faith) in the ſame ſtate with Jews, Turks and Infidels, conſidering Gods promiſes and Covenant:

Therefore it remains that they muſt be baptized while Infants; this being moſt agreeable, 1. To Gods dealing with Abraham the father of the faithfull, that children, while Infants, ſhould be admitted with their beleeving parents, and that Covenant and ſeal thereof. 2. To the nature of this Sacrament, which is to be adminiſtred the firſt opportunity, to perſons known to be in Covenant, and members of the Church. 3. To all thoſe commands and examples of baptizing new converted Jews and Infidels; for as their converſion did put them into the Covenant of grace, whereupon they had right to the ſeal of entrance: So theſe Infants being born of Chriſtian parents, doth inright them to the Covenant, whereupon they have right to the ſeal of entrance.

Arg. Arg. 13 13. That doctrine and practice is to be abhorred, which puts the Infants of Chriſtians into the ſame condition with the children of Turks and Infidels, leaves them in the viſible kingdom of the devil, as no viſible members of the Church, denies to them reaſonable ſouls, and cuts them off from all hopes of ſalvation, whiles they are Infants: This doctrine and practice, I ſay, is to be abhorred, as moſt contrary to the Covenant of God ſet forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Teſtament, contrary to the hopes, prayers, and comforts of Chriſtian parents concerning their children, while Infants, and contrary to reaſons and natures light, which ſhews that Infants are reaſonable creatures.

But the doctrine and practice of theſe Anabaptiſts, leaves Chriſtians children in the ſame condition with the children of Turks and Infidels, as caſting them out of Gods Covenant and Chriſts Kingdom, which is the Church, and denying to them the ſeal of admittance thereto, and ſo leaving them in the viſible kingdom of the devil, denying to them faith, without which they muſt certainly periſh; and reaſon, without which they are bruits, and ſo cut off from all hopes of ſalvation.

Therefore their doctrine and practice is to be abhorred.

Thus you have ſeen our Arguments, or at leaſt ſome of them.

Now before I conclude I will Anſwer two or three Queſtions or Objections.

Obj. 1. But if children of Beleevers have right to the Covenant, Chriſt, the promiſes, and gift of the holy Ghoſt, How can we know this? Men of years if they beleeve and repent, can make profeſſion; but how can children make profeſſion in the Covenant, that we may have ſufficient warrant to baptize them?

Anſ. It's true they cannot make profeſſion of their intereſt in the Covenant and promiſes, but that is done ſufficiently for them, by God the Father, Son and holy Ghoſt, ſpeaking in Scripture, as Gen. 17.7. Exod. 20.6. Pſal. 102.28. and 103.17, 18. Pſal. 112.2. and 127.3, 4, 5. Eſ. 44.3. Mar. 10.14. Act. 2.39. 1 Cor. 2.14, &c. Theſe and many other Teſtimonies are given in Scripture by God himſelf, concerning the right of the faithfuls children to the Covenant, promiſe and Kingdom of God, which I wiſh the Reader to turn over unto and obſerve: Surely this teſtimony of God for children, is not leſſe then the teſtimony of men of years for themſelves. So that if parents when they bring their children to Baptiſm, make a due profeſſion of their repentance, faith and reſolution to walk with God in Covenant, and both to accept Gods Covenant for themſelves and their children, and give up themſelves and theirs to God in Covenant, the Miniſters and Congregations may have ſatisfaction concerning their childrens right to the Covenant and promiſe (by vertue of theſe Scriptures) and ſo to Baptiſm.

Obj. 2. If children of beleeving parents have title to the Covenant and promiſes, either all have this title or ſome only: If ſome only, how will you diſtinguiſh them, that thoſe only may be baptized? If all, how is it that many prove wicked, which were baptized in infancy? Do you hold falling away from grace?

Anſ. The promiſes and Covenant belong to all the faithfuls children in regard of outward ſtation in Covenant, and right to the ſeal of entrance (which is the thing now in queſtion) the inward efficacy we leave to the good pleaſure of God. The whole body of Iſraelites aged and children, 1 Cor. 10.5. were Gods people by Covenant, and under the promiſe; Yet with many of them God was not well pleaſed. The Churches of the New Teſtament are called Saints, ſaid to be in Chriſt, and yet many perſons therein proved wicked and e • roneous; as may appear in thoſe Epiſtles that are written to them, giving them the title of Saints. The Covenant and promiſes as they are outwardly diſpenſed are conditional, neither doth God therein any further binde himſelf to his people, then as the condition of regeneration, holineſſe, repentance, faith or obedience, are found in them or performed by them. Indeed the inward working of regeneration, drawing to and giving Communion with Chriſt, giving a new heart and ſpirit, faith &c. are abſolutely beſtowed according to Gods good pleaſure, upon what number of theſe perſons externally in Covenant he ſeeth good, according to the election of grace, agreeably to thoſe Scriptures, Rom. 9.15, 16, 18.

2. Here is no more neceſſity then poſſibility of diſtinguiſhing between Elect and non-elect Infants; their being members of the viſible Church, gives them right to the priviledge of new admitted members.

3. Neither do we hold falling from the inward efficacy of grace, Ioh. 13. • . 2 Per. 2.1. Rev. 3.1, 7. Heb. 6.4.5, 6. as from true ſolid Sanctification, Juſtification and Adoption, though we grant men may fall from the outward diſpenſation of the Covenant of grace and turn Apoſtates; or continue under the outward diſpenſation, and yet fall ſhort of the ſaving efficacy of grace. Mat 25.29. Yea moreover that thoſe which have ſeemed to themſelves and others to be Juſtified, Sanctified and Adopted, may fall from what they ſeemed to have, and utterly periſh.

4. The Objection will hold as ſtrongly againſt the baptizing of the profeſſours of faith, for not all thoſe whom the Apoſtles or any others baptized upon their profeſſion have held our, many proved wicked and reprobate, none can certainly diſtinguiſh among profeſſours, which are elect and which not, Muſt they not therefore be baptized?

To conclude therefore, They that by their own profeſſion, or Gods profeſſion for them, are diſcovered to have right to the outward diſpenſation of the Covenant, let them enjoy it without gainſaying; and let us leave the inward efficacy of the Covenant to God, to whom alone it belongs.

Obj. 3. But what need you write ſo much in anſwering ſo little? It ſeems your cauſe is not good you take ſo much pains about it: Why did not you Anſwer as briefly as the other party Propounded?

Anſ. 1. The truth oft lies deeep and will not eaſily be found out: as it is more precious then gold and ſilver, Pro. 3 13, 14. ſo it requires more diligent ſearch. Gold Mines are not obvious to every eye, much skill and labour are requiſite to finde them out, and bring the gold to light.

2. Though the other party have but briefly propounded their judgement, and grounds thereof in their now-Anſwered Papers; yet it is known what large diſcourſes they have made amongſt the people, and how many Treatiſes are written on this ſubject.

3. It is not an argument of a bad cauſe to be ſomewhat large in clearing it; the better the cauſe is, the more it deſerves diligence in handling of it, leaſt we ſhould wrong God, his people and truth by ſleightineſſe. A cup of poiſon may be prepared, drunk down and diſperſed into the body in an hour, which the wiſeſt Phyſitian can hardly expell out of the body, with all his skill and pains in many moneths. A deſperate cut-throat may give a wound or ſtab in a moment, which the moſt dexterous Chyrurgion cannot heal in a ſhort time. An incendiary may ſet an whole Town on fire ſuddenly, which cannot be built up by many Carpenters and Maſons in few years. Yet the cauſe and work of the later is much better then of the former. I have been willing therefore to be ſomewhat large, as my poor ability, ſmall leiſure, time allowed, and others importunity would permit.

You conclude your Paper thus. H. H. J. Br. If you therefore or your Miniſters have any thing to ſay or write herein, we deſire you, for the truth and your promiſe ſake, to do the ſame, elſe we muſt neceſſarily conclude, that neither you nor they have any thing to gainſay it, but by your ſilence juſtifie both our principle and practice.

You ſee I hope by this time, that we have ſomething to ſay and write herein, and for the truths and our promiſe ſake have done the ſame in part, and are ready by the grace of Jeſus Chriſt, to do more when duly called thereunto, therefore you have no cauſe to conclude that we have nothing to gainſay, or that by ſilence we do juſtifie your principle or practice, againſt which we have born witneſſe in love to the truth.

And now Sirs, you which have ſubſcribed the Papers here anſwered, let me intreat you ſeriouſly to peruſe what hath been here returned to you in Anſwer, and acknowledge what is of God and agreeable to his truth; and if you finde any thing diſſonant thereto, diſcover it and ſpare not, and let me have a punctual and particular reply to the ſeveral parts of this anſwer, and till then forbear your high confidence, in promoting your opinions and practiſing anſwerably, then will you give us good ground of perſwaſion, that your profeſſion of deſire to have the truth diſcuſſed is reall. But if you ſhall be unable to anſwer this (as I am perſwaded you will not be able with any ſhew of truth) and yet proceed in your opinions and practice; let me tell you, God will be certainly avenged of thoſe which abuſe his people, ordinances and truth, ſpeaking evil of the things they know not; if not with viſible and temporal, yet certainly with inviſible ſpiritual and eternal puniſhments: Reade I pray 2 Tim. the third Chapter. 2 Pet. 2. and the Epiſtle of Jude.

As for you, dear Brethren, that mourn for what you cannot amend, and endeavour to contend for the common ſalvation once delivered to the Saints, and not to be as children, carried about with every winde of vain doctrine, I exhort that you will hold faſt the truth which you have received, Rev. 2.25. and 3.10. keep the word of Chriſts patience, that he may keep you in this hour of temptation that is befallen the whole world to try them that dwell on the earth. Be ſure that you receive the truth in love, knowing that many for want of this are given over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lies that they may be damned, becauſe they had pleaſure in unrighteouſneſſe. Remember the counſel of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in theſe following Scriptures, Mat. 7.15, 16. Rom. 16.17, 18. Gal. 5.1. 2 Tim. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, &c. 2 Pet. 3.1, 2. and 17.18. 1 Joh. 4.1, 2. Jude 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Thus I have anſwered theſe Papers, hoping that I ſhall be ready by Gods aſſiſtance, to give a reaſon of my faith and hope herein, either by word or writing ſo far as I may have a good call thereto, may do it with ſafety, and may deal with men that will hear and ſpeak reaſon and Scripture pertinently applied, and may obſerve thoſe rules of the Apoſtle, 2 Tim. 2.16.23. Tit. 3.9, 10.

Thus deſiring that the God of truth will more and more clear his truth, and ſubdue thereto or break in pieces all the ignorant and wilfull oppoſers thereof, I end,