SECT. II.

As to the Book it self, who ever was the Author, I charged it with falshood in the Historical part: When I sent to borrow it again, a second Edition was sent me, then I saw the Letter was true, which assured me Colonel Danvers was the Author; and a­bundance of Authors more added than were in the first: A whole Regiment is drawn up, to the admiration of the Igno­rant Anabaptists that now cry Victoria, if he doth not abuse his Authors, and the Ana­baptists too, which he hath most grosly.

For the ancient Fathers, several of them I had read, and knew them to be contrary to his Opinion: But to follow Authors in particular, I thought it a vain thing on the Lords-Day, and that in a Country Congre­gation. His quoting of the old Britains, and the Waldenses, as being Enemies to In­fant-Baptism, I took notice of, answered that and no more. Of which a little af­terwards.

As to the numerous company of Au­thors he hath quoted, I shall say but two things.

First, I desire my Author to tell us if a­mongst them all he can find, who was the Author of Infant-Baptism, if it be an Er­rour; as we can tell him who first oppo­sed [Page 23] Infant-Baptism, Hereticks not of the low­er rank.

The Lord Brooks, is a person whom the Anabaptists would perswade us, was one of their Sect, because of some Lines of his, with which I accord: But he tells us what prevailed with him on the contrary; his words are these.

For ought I could ever learn, it was the constant custom of the purest and most primi­tive Church, [mark Sir, not mystical Ba­bylon then] to baptize the Infants of believing Parents: For I could never find the begin­ning and first Rise of this Practice; where as it is very easie to tract Heresies to their first rising up and seting foot in the Church.

This agrees with what I am upon, why then do you quote him as if he were yours? As for what he saith about Schismaticks, Sir, you are the Schismatick, for I have kept Communion with a godly Anabaptist; but one tells me, that he desired Communion with one of your Churches, but they would not admit him to Communion, because he would not be dipped.

I see my Author hath named Master D. Rogers, as if he did favour his Opi­nion, when as living in the next Town to him, and having intimate acquaintance with him, I knew him to be a smart Ene­my to the Anabaptists.

2. The second thing I would say to them, is this, That ancient Father, pious, hum­ble, and learned Austin flourished above twelve hundred years before my Author, or any Anabaptist in England was born; then he lived so many years nearer the Primi­tive Churches, than my Author, or a­ny of our Anabaptists: Whether then B. Austin, or those Anabaptists should best know the practice of the Primitive Chur­ches as to Baptizing of Infants, let a­ny sober man judge: He being a per­son so learned and so famous, no question had all those Authors which my Author quotes, that wrote before him, if not ma­ny more which we have not: And did not that learned pious Father understand them as well as my Author, or any Anabaptist now in England? And though he was no Christian himself, yet was not he acquaint­ed with the practice of the Greek Churches in his time better than our Anabaptists? Now he saith, the practice of Infant-baptism was so universal in the Church, Austin. l. 1. de peccat. mer. & renis. c. 26. De baptis. contra. Denat. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 4. c. 24. that it could not but come from the Apostles. Ecclesia semper habuit, &c. The Church ever heard it, saith he.

Had not Austin spoke true, there was one did watch him [Pelagius] [Page 25]who would have told him of it to pur­pose, for that Practice stood in Pelagius's way, but Pelagius did not deny it.

And whereas my Author doth not re­gard the Writers as to this Controver­sie, that wrote after the Third Centuary; I am very confident there is no Author that wrote in the three first Centuaries, that have any thing in them to oppose the bapti­zing of the Infants of believing Parents; but on the contrary, some of them speak for it.

They that read the most ancient Wri­ters next the Apostles, may see the sub­ject matter they treated upon, did not give them any occasion to speak of Infant-Baptism, they had other Points in hand.

As to the old Britains, I was a little start­led to read them brought against Infant-Baptism, the Proof my Author brings out of Fabianus, I did read in him, but I much question the truth of Fabianus, because Mr. Fox, giving us an account what Austin the Monk required of the British Bishops when he came into England; tells us, He re­quired that they should Preach the Gos­pel to the English-men, and that they should among themselves reform certain Rites and usages in their Church, spe­cially for keeping Eastertide, and Bapti­zing after the manner of Rome.

Mr. Fox quotes several Authors besides Fabianus, for this: But that passage, That they should give Christendom to children, which Fabianus reports, he doth not mention.

To Baptize after the manner of Rome, to use their Ceremonies in Baptism, and to baptize Children; differ much. I searched what Ceremonies were then used in Rome in Gregory's time, and no wonder though the British Bishops rejected them.

But that the old Britains were against In­fant-Baptism, is very false, w ^ch I thus prove.

What year God first sent the Gospel in­to England, the Learned do not agree; there seem to be strong grounds to believe, that it was before King Lucius sent to Eleu­therius B. of Rome; some say it was, An. 156, others 169, others 170, others 180. The Contest between Austin and Pelagius, was a­bout 417, in the 63 year of Austins life, as Bucolcerus gathers. Pelagius denied Origi­nal Sin; upon that denied Infant-Baptism as being superfluous: not because Infants cannot believe, which is the sole Argument of our Anabaptists, Pelagius a learned man would have slighted such an Argument as this. Austin proves Infants to be guilty of Original Sin, from the universal practice of the Church to take away Original Sin, they did baptize Infants: Now this Infant-baptism [Page 27]saith Austin, The Church ever had it, ever held it, De verb. Apo. Ser. 10. they re­ceived this from the faith of their Ancestors, and this will it keep with perseverance to the end. Let Pela­gius who was a Britain, answer this: Brita­ny had received the Gospel 240 years be­fore this Contest. Pelagius knew the pra­ctice of his own Country, and if it had been true, that the old Britains did not bap­tize Infants, as my Author saith, why did not Pelagius Confute Austin, charge him with falshood; the Britains do not baptize Infants, ergo, it is not the practice of the Universal Church: This being an Argu­ment Austin did so urge, and put so much stress upon it, Pelagius would have remo­ved it if he could.

But so far was Pelagius and his followers from denying what Austin affirmed, that Celestius a Pelagian, in a Book which he put [...]orth at Rome, hath these words, which Au­stin quotes out of it; We do confess that In­fants ought to be baptized for remission of sins, according to the rule of the Ʋniversal Church, and according to the sentence of the Gospel, [...]hough Caelestius do not mention the Text, [...]et by the following words, we may plain­ [...]y see he means, John 3.5. Except a man be [...]orn again of Water and of the Spirit. So that [Page 28]according to this Pelagian, here is Scrip­ture ground, and the Rule of the Ʋniversal Church for Infant-Baptism.

So then for the old Britains, they were not against Infant-baptism: Now then for the Waldenses, were I to charge any Opi­nion or practice upon other Churches, I should first look to the Confession of their Faith, then I may boldly charge them or not. As we have a few Anabaptistical Wri­ters in England, should their Books a hun­dred years hence fall into the hands of A­nabaptists in foreign parts, should they then assirm that the Church of England, [or the Churches in England] were Ana­baptists, would not this be false, and take it as a wrong done unto us? View the Con­fession of Faith of the Church of England, of the Assembly of Divines, of the Inde­pendents in England, in New England, all their Confessions declare for Infant-baptism. Thus should my Author have done, if he would deal honestly with the Waldenses, produce their Confession of Faith, and the Article in which they condemn Infant-bap­tism. In the Articles which I have read o­ver, I find no such thing, but that Bap­tism ought to be Administred only with pure Water, without any mixture of hallowed Oyl.

The Ministers in the Vallies of Piemont, in the year 1532, when the Anabaptists in Germany were risen up, in the 17th Article of their Confession, declare for Infant-bap­tism: The Churches in those Vallies, kept chaste to Christ from the Apostles times, and were long before the Waldenses were named; they were called Waldenses, but this was a Nick-name put upon them by their Adversaries, to make the World be­lieve, that their Religion was but a No­velty. [ Morland. p. 12.]

In the Confession of the Faith of the Wal­denses in Bohemia, (so Vergerius three times calls them) the 12th Article Declares for Infant-baptism, Anno 1535. As the Ana­baptists rose up, so the Churches drew up their Confessions against them: The Mi­nisters in their Preface to their Confession, write, That some malicious Spirits, be­cause they would cast all the Odium up­on them that they could, did reckon them amongst the Anabaptists. But they answer, Nos ex factione Anabaptistarum non esse, nemini ignotum est. All men know they were none of that Faction, nor had any thing to do with the Anabaptists. The Doctrine they confessed in their Church­es, they held and owned, before the name of the Anabaptists was so much as heard of.

So that my Author hath plainly abused both the old Britains, and the Waldenses.

Observing how my Author and Mrs. Tombs insulted over Mr. Baxter, and he that gave me the Challenge to Print, tel­ling me, All my Party were silent, and I li­ving in a Country small Town, and not hearing what Books came forth, I could not tell what to think of it; but when I wrote my Copy for the Press, I left here a space, till I wrote to Mr. Baxter, to know whether he had met with any Arguments to change his thought. I thank him, he sent me down his Book in answer to them both. Then one lent me Mr. Wills. I heard also of Mr. Whitston, but I saw none of these Authors till my Copy was written, but I see they have answered Mr. Danvers to purpose, discovered his gross falshood and forgery. Another Divine I met with that knows Mr. Danvers, though he hath not written against him, yet he hath so traced him, that he told me, never did Jesuites abuse Authors in their Quotations, more than he hath done.

That the Jesuites practice lies this way, we may see in Bellarmine, who quotes Ten of the Fathers to justifie his Doctrine of Christs preaching to the Spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3.19. when as Six of them (I may [Page 31]say, Eight of them) give that Interpreta­tion of the Text, which Bellarmine himself condemns. See (saith that pious and learn­ed Reignolds) With what Conscience these Jesuites handle the Controversies of Religion; which may well be applyed to Mr. Danvers, abusing so many Authors as he hath done. [ Reignold. Praelec. 86. de lib. Apochr. p. 1044. See him again, p. 1083.]

SECTION III.

Leaving then the Historieal part, by which Infant-baptism is much confirmed: Let us come to the holy Scriptures, out of which our Divines who have laboured in this Controversie, have produced so many, that I know not how more can be well ad­ded; where therefore others have been large, I will be brief.

One man I knew (though I had no in­ward acquaintance with him) about fifty years since, a Mechanick, and Head of a separate Company in those days; he had none but his Mother-tongue, but a very good head in Polemical Divinity. This Do­ctrine of Anti-paedobaptism then being pro­pounded to him, he rejected, though he had other Arguments against it, yet I took notice of this: I observe (saith he) ever since God had a people upon the earth, he made a [Page 32]difference between the families of his servants, and of wicked men, even before the flood, Gen. 6.2. There is not only truth, but strength in it, what-ever the Anabaptists scribble against it.

Two Texts especially my Author pitch upon, because he thinks we build much up­on them; Gen. 17.7. & 1 Cor. 7.14. and so we do: these he labours to take from us. That the children of the Jews were Church-members with their Parents, the Anabap­tists acknowledge: Then they were made so, by this Covenant of God with Abraham and with his Seed, and the Command­ment to Circumcise them; here then we must begin.

From the 17. Gen. 7. I lay the Argument thus.

A gracious Covenant made, signed, and sealed by God, with a believing Person and his Seed, and never repealed by God; that Covenant remaineth in force, and is to be signed and sealed unto his Seed.

But that Covenant of God with Abra­ham (to be his God, and the God of his Seed, was such a Covenant, and never re­pealed, Therefore

This we premise, There is a great diffe­rence between the outward Administration of an Ordinance, and the inward Effica­cy? This is clear in the Lords Supper, [Page 33]preaching the Word, and so in Baptism; the Scripture is plain for this, and the Anabap­tists cannot deny it.

Or, if you please to take Mr. Tho. Hook­er's distinction, There is an Inward and an Outward Covenant. [ Cov. of Grace, p. 2.3.]

Inward, standing in a spiritual Institution of it between God and man.

When God calls a people, and with his Call gives them Faith to answer his Call: So that now he is indeed their God, be­comes theirs by Faith, and they who are thus in Covenant with him shall never fall.

2ly, The outward Covenant is more large; The Dispensation of this God gives on his part to Christians, and their En­gagements on their part, is Faith in him, subjection to him: He doth engage him­self to them, and if they answer the out­ward Priviledge, he will make them a choice people, Exod. 19.5. Deut. 26.17, 18, &c. too long to transcribe.

By vertue of this Covenant, God was said, To know them above all the Nations in the world, Amos 3.2. God set up his Taber­nacle amongst them, and dwelt amongst them, Exod. 25.8. Psal. 135.1. Chose Israel for his peculiar treasure, Psal. 135.4. Gave them his Ordinances, Psal. 147.19, 20. God wrought for them wonderfully; and though they [Page 34]provoked him exceedingly, yet he bare with them, and did not for Abraham 's sake cast them out of his presence as yet, 2 King. 13.23. Thus was he a God to them, the whole visible Church of the Jews; by it God gave them a great advantage to lay hold upon God, to become their God, in an outward Covenant, in Efficacy, as well as in outward Administration: This I say, by vertue of this Covenant with Abraham, till, they dealt most wickedly with God in Covenant, rejecting Christ, the promised Seed in Abraham's. Covenant, in whom they should be blessed; then God brake Covenant with them, and cast them off, Zech. 11.10, 14.

As a people may besaid to be Gods peo­ple, so God their God.

1. When they acknowledge God to be the onely true God, and their God.

2. When they worship him with his own Worship onely.

3. When they profess his Truths, Do­ctrines, and take his Word for their Rule.

4. When they do Covenant and en­gage themselves to God. Yet among these may be many Hypocrites, and but formal Christians; as Branches are said to be in Christ, John 15.2.

My Author moves six Questions here [Page 35]to raise a dust, and trouble the Reader, when things are plain; he might have re­duced them to Three, what is consider­able in the rest I shall touch.

First, I call it a Gracious Covenant: We read of several Promises God made to A­braham, Gen. 12.2, 3, 7. and Chap. 13, 14, 15, 16. and Chap. 15.1, 4, 5. But the word Cove­nant we read not of till this 17th Chapter, here we have it several times: and this Covenant between Abraham and his Seed, being the last branch of the Covenant [for Canaan in the next Verse, was promised three times before] God now adds a Sign, verse 11. which the Apostle calls a Seal, Rom. 4.11. So that now all the former Pro­mises, God binds them up, and seals them up in a Covenant. The great Promise of all Chap. 12.3. In thy Seed shall all the Na­tions be blessed, is not mentioned in this Chapter, since God began to speak of a Covenant; but this was a part of the Co­venant, the Apostle Peter tells the Jews, Acts 3.25. Ye are the Children of the Cove­nant which God made with our Fathers, say­ing to Abrabam, And in thy Seed shall all the Kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Hence that this was a Covenant of Grace, no man can rationally deny. The Apostle is so clear for it in Rom. 4. and Gal. 3.

1. How can God after the breach of the first Covenant, now Covenant with any to be their God, but by a Covenant of Grace?

2. A Covenant in which Christ is pro­mised, and it is confirmed in Christ, Ga­lat. 3.17.

3. A Covenant wherein God preacheth the Gospel to Abraham, Gal. 3.8.

4. A Covenant, the Righteousness where­of is the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4.11.

5. A Covenant made 430 years, before the Covenant at Mount Sinai, which Si­nai Covenant could not disanul, Galat. 3.17.

Our Divines have cleared this so, that I say no more of it; and therefore being confirmed in Christ, it must be the same with the new Covenant. But as Christ was first revealed but obscurely in a promised Seed, but afterwards by the Prophets there was a clearer revealing of Christ the nearer the time this Son of Righteousness should rise: So the new Covenant was compre­hended in this Covenant made with Abra­ham, but by the Prophets afterwards God revealed it more fully, after the Jews had so violated the Mount Sinai-Covenant. Hence that which Divines-call the Anima faederis, the Soul of the Covenant, I will be their God, was also in Abraham's Cove­nant.

My Author denies that Abraham's Co­venant and the new Covenant are the same; he tells us, it was a mixed Covenant; there were two Seeds, and so Promises, and of two sorts, which must he applyed right to the two Seeds.

Ans. 1. How many Covenants shall we have in the Bible, by this Author? Camero is blamed by some Divines for making Three Covenants, but by this Author we shall have Four. 1. Adam's Covenant, or Covenant of Nature; 2. Abraham's Cove­nant; 3. The Israelites Covenant at Mount Sinai; 4. The New Covenant.

2. Are there not outward Promises also annexed to the New Covenant, as well as to Abraham's? Do we not read them plainly?

3. Are there not two Seeds in your Ad­ministration of Baptism, to Adult Persons by Dipping; Real, and Formal? I am sure they are not all Real Christians; and do not your Baptism belong to the New Cove­nant, a Sign and Seal of the Grace threof? Yet this you Administer to such, as prove Notorious Hypocrites.

4. Did not Abraham's Seed by this mix­ed Covenant, enjoy besides outward Corpo­ral Blessings, those Blessings I mentioned be­fore, in the Church, with more I might have mentioned?

5. Did not God engage himself to be the God of all the Seed? and did not Circumcision Seal up his Covenant and Engagement to them, if they did perform the Condition? and had they not a great advantage by God's engaging himself thus to them to lay hold upon God, for their God and Eternal Portion?

2ly, This Covenant was made with Abra­ham as a Believing Person, and the Father of Believers; it was not made with him as a Man, nor with his Seed as Men, but as the Seed of a Believing Father. Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. Rom. 4.11. in which Chapter twice he is called, The Father of all Believers, both Jews and Gentiles; and Gal. 3.29.

Here a Question might be moved, why Abraham should be called, The Father of Be­lievers; my Reason is, were there no Belie­vers before Abraham? was he the First and Eldest Believer? The Father in the Family is the first in the Family; so Abraham, if the Father, should be the first. But was not Abel a Believer in Christ, Enoch, Noah, &c. surely there were Believers in Christ a Thousand Years before Abraham was Born, what may we think of Adam and Eve in Charity, may we not think they Believed [Page 39]in the Promised Seed? why then should Abraham be the Father?

Aquinas Answering to a Question, Why Circumcision was commanded first to Abraham, and to none before? [ Serm. Doct. 3. q. 70. Act. 2.] Answers, That Abraham was the first that received the Promise from God of Christ to be born out of his Seed, and the first that seperated himself from the Society of In­fidels. If this were true, it would serve to Answer our Question. Tho' A La ide la­bours to defend the Vulgar Transaction, Gen. 3.15. She shall bruise thy Head; yet he saith it come all to one. For it is the Wo­man by her Seed, that is Christ, that bruised the Serpents Head; Do we think the Lord did not teach his Servants then the use and end of the Sacrifices? So that Christ was promised before, and there were Believers before, if there were a little more revealing of Christ to Abraham now, that is all. I do more admire his Act in sacrificing his Son Isaac, though that is given to his fear of God, Gen. 22.12.

I cannot think of any better reason than this, though there were Believers in Christ, and Abraham might be a stronger Believer, but with none did God make an express Covenant, a Believer and his Seed, and seal the Covenant to his Posterity, but with Abraham only.

I shall add a few more words presently.

3. This Covenant was made also with, and sealed to his Seed.

The great Question is, who are this Seed? my Author tells me, His Spiritual Seed: Whence I meet with this once and again, That Abraham's natural Seed was a Type of the spiritual Seed; Elect, Re­generate. Thus in answer to the question, Whether not baptizing Infants makes not the Priviledge under the Gospel, less than under the Law? He answers, The natual Seed of Abraham was a typical shadowing thing— as the Antitype exceeds the Type, the spiritual birth the carnal birth; so much are we bet­ter.

Ans. 1. What do you mean by, so much are we better? Were none of these who were Circumcised being Abraham's natural Seed, also his spiritual Seed? Your words carried it as if not. Besides here would be a question, How the Elect-regenerate, the spiritual Seed, are Abraham's Seed; how is he a Father to them, as such? I am sure they are Christ's Seed, Isa. 53.10, 11. And we can give reasons, why they should be cal­led his Seed. he is the meritorious and effici­ent cause of them, but Abraham neither way: You would have done well to have shewn us this. Abraham is not so much a [Page 41]Father to us, as Paul was to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 4.15. neither I am sure in this respect he was Father to Isaac, he did not con­vey Faith in his Generation of Isaac; how then is he a Father to us now? That there were Believers before Abraham, the Apo­stle, Heb. 11.4, 5, 7. Instance in Abel, Enoch, and Noah; (and more I doubt not) but yet in the History written by Moses, Abraham is the first person who is called a Believer, upon a special Promise given to him, Gen. 15.6. if any cause, he was but Causa exem­plaris, which is Causa adjuvnans to the prin­cipal: By his example we should be stirred up to believe the Promise of God, as Abra­ham our Father did; An exam­ple how God will justifie us. but he had such an advantage as we have not: he knew the Promise was made to him im­mediately, without any discourse, which we cannot know, but must first prove the Condition. But this I think also is a rea­son, He was the first person sealed, that re­ceived the Seal of that Promise or Cove­nant, and all his Seed after him command­ed to receive and observe the same. This Sign and Seal being visible, I conceive A­braham is to be considered, as a visible-belie­ving Father, and all his visible Seed must be sealed as the Father.

2. As to what you say, the natural Seed are the Type of the spiritual Seed; was not Isaac his natural Seed, and was he not also his spiritual Seed; then it seems Isaac was a Type of himself. So all the godly Jews after, that were Abraham's Seed after the flesh, were Types of themselves. I pray tell us how the Type and Anti-type meet in one individual person? To what Topick in Logick will you refer the Type and An­ti-type?

2ly, When the Anti-type comes, the Type cease: When then Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites, that are the natural Seed, come to be the Spiritual Seed, then they must cease to be his natural Seed: But how is this possible? When Christ came, the Types ceased.

3ly, When you Dip your Regenerate persons; actual Believers you think they are: then they are the Seed of Abraham you judge; then Abraham is their Father; then God is their God: but divers of these are Hypocrites, we know they have proved so, and we shall hear an Anabaptist anon acknowledge it: they professed they took him for their God, and worshipped him, &c. while they then lived in your Churches, and did not as yet openly discover them­selves; was God in no sense their God?

4ly, To whom Christ is a Head, to them God may be said to be a God: But Christ is the Head of the visible Church, in which are many unsound Members; Branches in him that bear no fruit, John 15.2. Then God in some sense is their God, if Christ may in some sense be their Head.

5ly, Is there not an external and an in­ternal Adoption? Rom. 9.4. to them per­tained the Adoption: Were they not called God's children? Deut. 14.1. Is not God then the God of his children? Do not God say, They are mine? Ezek. 16.20, 21. and yet is God no way their God?

6ly, If the spiritual Seed be there onely meant, then all the Israelites in the Land of Canaan were the spiritual Seed; which I answer is false. That they must be so ac­cording to your interpretation, the next Verse proves it; Gen. 17.7, 8, 9. At the 8th verse, I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the I and wherein thou art a stran­ger, all the Land of Canaan for an everlast­ing possession. And I will be their God: Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. Can the Holy One speak plainer than he doth? Doth he not tell you, that that seed of A­braham which shall inherit the Land of Canaan [where his Tabernacle and all [Page 44]his Instituted Worship was set up] and there kept the Seal of his Covenant, that he will be their God? Doth not God speak the same, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12, 13. to the men, women and children, who then en­tred into Covenant with God. That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself: And that he may be a God unto thee, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn to thy Fathers, &c.

When Peter would draw the Jews to be­lieve in Christ Crucified, who as yet were Unbelievers, and not turned from their in­iquities, Acts 3.25, 26. Do he not use this Argument, You are the children of the Co­venant which God made with our Fathers; Abraham in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. This part of the Cove­nant was most proper to the thing Peter had in hand. But if they were now the children of that Covenant God made with Abraham, then God was their God, though as yet they were not a spiritual seed.

As to this Seed the Jews tell us, The Seed of Ishmael is excepted from Circumcision; as it is written; For in Isaac shall thy seed be called to thee, Gen 11.12. And Esau is ex­cepted, for lo, Isaac said to Jacob, and he give to thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee and to thy seed, Gen. 28.4. Ishmael was cast [Page 45]out of the Church. Profane Esau despised his Birth-right, and is cast off.

As to the Sons Abraham had by Keturah, though the Scripture doth not say they they were circumcised, yet we may rather think they were. But whether after Abra­ham had sent them away, they kept up Circumcision in their Families, [ Ishmael and Esau kept up Circumcision we know] and taught their Children the spiritual meaning of it, the Scripture is silent. So that from them we can draw no Argument pro or con. This is enough for me, that when God saith, I will stablish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, —To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And the very next words, God promiseth to give the Land of Canaan to his seed, and will be their God there. And these were the Seed of Isaac, the Seed of Jacob; and as the Martyr Stephen calls them, Acts 7.38. the Church of God in the Wilderness, [that is, Ecclesia instituta, vel organica, though God might have some belong to him that sprung from the other Sons of Abraham.] This is plain and clear, but I am sure all these were not the spiri­tual seed.

7ly, Elect-regenerate stand upon even ground with Abraham, but here God puts [Page 46]some honour upon Abraham, that his see shall have a blessing for his sake.

8ly, If Elect-regenerate be only mean by the Seed, then there needed not th [...] word Seed to be put in, unless you will say, God is not the God of Elect-regenerate, unless they be Abraham's Seed; wa [...] he not of Abel, Enoch. Noah, &c.

9ly, This Covenant with Abraham and h [...] seed was signed and sealed, Gen. 17.9, 10, 11, 12. What Moses calls a Sign, or Token the Apostle Rom. 4.11. calls a Seal.

My Author tells me, Circumcision was [...] Seal to Abraham only, not to Believers, no [...] their seed. To Infants it was a sign put i [...] their flesh, &c. too tedious to transcribe all.

A. You tell us, it sealed to Abraham onely the Truth of that Promise, That in his see [...] all the Familes should be blessed. But the same Promise was made to Isaac, Gen. 26.4. and to Jacob, Gen. 28.14. Did it not seal to them as well? Yea, the Apostle Peter, Acts 3.25. tells the Jews, they were children of the Co­venant God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kin­reds of the earth be blessed. Did dot Circum­cision seal this to them as well? The end of Seals is to confirm Faith: had not they, have not we need to have our Faith strenthned? Is the Anabaptists Faith so [Page 47]strong, that they need no Seals?

2ly, I took God's Signs to be Seals, by the Apostle's Authority: I look on the Rain-bow which God calls, Gen. 9.12, 13. the Token, [...] [the same word used, Gen. 17.11. of Circumcision] of his Covenant, to be not only a Sign, but a Seal of his Covenant, that he will not drown the World.

3ly. But why do you say, it sealed that Promise; What did it seal nothing but that? That Promise is not mentioned in this Chapter, but in the 12th, and 22th; but in this Chapter, so soon as the Lord had made the Covenant between himself, Abraham, and his Seed, immediately the the Lord adds this Circumcision, and calls it his Covenant. I am sure it seals this, and I doubt not but the Jews did so look upon it, as a Seal of the Covenant between God and them; that God was their God, and they his people.

Sir, you must give me better grounds than these, or else I must still be of the opi­nion of the great body of the most learned and pious Divines; viz. That all the Sa­craments of the Old and New Testament, were and are Signs of the Covenant, sealing up the Grace of God to Believers. My Au­thor [Page 48]hath more Notions about Circumci­sion: but of them afterwards.

In the Child, Circumcision left a signal Im­pression, saith he.

A. 1. That which you call a signal Im­pression, God calls his Covenant. But

2ly, Though there were a signal Im­pression left in the Infant, yet if when it came to years it were not taught the spi­ritual meaning of it, the Child would get no benefit by it.

3ly, What signal Impression is left upon those whom you baptize by Dipping, when Adult, more than upon those who are bap­tized by pouring of Water upon them when Infants? True, you can remember better you were dipped; but Children, tho' they have but a moral certainty from their Parents and others, and the Testimony of the Book in which they are recorded, yet being taught the meaning of it, and espe­cially if as some Parents who compose short Prayers for their Children, put in that Pe­tition, for the blessing of their Baptism, as some Parents do; Children may keep it in mind, and in time come to make as good use of it, as those who are dipped when A­dult; and Experience I hope will prove it.

4ly, If that be true which Mr. Tom [...]s is willing to believe out of Mr. Selden, that the Jews admitted Proselites, by Baptism the female kind, the same Author Mr. Selden, and so Baxter tells us, the Children also of the Proselites were admitted by Baptism; to what purpose saith the Anaba tist, since they understand it not, and there is no Impression left? Let the Jews answer that.

5ly, Abraham's Seed being so nume­rous as the Stars in the Heavens, how could the Infants circumcised, when they came to riper years, and living only in Canaan, know that there was any Signal Impression made upon their flesh, unless their Parents or others told them: might not they well think al [...] men were as they, or it might be proper to their Nation? If they then were certain by their Parents and others in­forming them, cannot we be as certain by our Parents Information, that we were baptized?

6ly, May there not be a Conveyance of a great Estate to a Child that lies in the Cra­dle, and understand nothing many years; but when it comes to ripe years, and see its Name in the Conveyance, and the Witnesses, now it can sue for it. Two things are very desirable, if there were no­thing to trouble the Conscience [a thing [Page 50]to be lamented] and other things concur. First, That Baptism should ever be admi­nistred in the face of the Church. Second­ly, The Names of all baptized Recorded; [both which I have known the constant practice in Independent Churches:] By both which, and Parents Education, a Child when it comes to years of under­standing, may be as sure of its Baptism, though it makes no Impression as Circum­cision did in the flesh, and now sue out the Blessings which there the Lord did sig­nifie, and conditionally seal to be mine.

7ly, Were our Churches in that order they ought to be; and were that laudable Practice [which certainly is our Duty] taken up, viz. That special care b [...] taken, that Children baptized be diligently Cate­chized, and when they come to fit years, be called before the Eldership, there to own their Baptismal Covenant, and give an account of their Faith; solemn Pray­er made for them, and the Church now to take care of them, and inspection over them, as being their Members; there would be no room for this Ob­jection, and less ground for Anabaptists to cry down Infant-baptism. If we will keep Churches [so far as our Duty can reach] for Christ, it is not preaching a Sermon [Page 51]or two on the Lord's-Day, will do the work, there is more required than so.

Though the Anabaptists strength lie in the incapacity of Infants to believe in Christ, yet because this notion hath been a trouble to me heretofore, therefore I speak the more to it.

5ly, This Covenant never repealed by God. Now I come to the Pinch: Mr. Tombes the greatest Adversary that ever the Seed of Believers had, yields two things.

1. That the Children of the Jews were Members with their Parents in the Jewish Church. [But then, say I, it must be by vertue of this Parental-Covenant God made with Abraham; else how they should be Members with their Parents, I know not.]

2ly, That if the Children of believing Pa­rents, be Members of the Church with the Parents, then they must be baptized. For I grant, (saith he) that Baptism is the way and manner of solemn Admission into the Church, I mean the regular way.

Then the Question must be thus sta­ted.

Quest. When the Jews believed in Christ, come, crucified, risen, and ascended, as the five thousand in Acts 4.4. Did the Lord now repeal his Covenant which he made with [Page 52]Abraham and his Seed; admit only the Parents into the Gospel-Church, but bar the Doors against their Posterity, or Children?

I think I have stated the Question right, and if this cannot be proved, then I hope believing Gentiles shall find a way to bring in their Children too with the Jews, and find a Title to Baptism by Mr. Tombes's Concession.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio; This lie up­on the Anabaptists to prove. And here though I am far from that absurd, irra­tional Principle of Veronius, who lays down this for a Rule in our Disputation with the Papists; That we must bring ex­press Scriptures to confute them, yet this casting all the Posterity of the Godly out of the Church, is so wretched a Doctrine, [as Mr. Thomas Hooker calls it] against the poor Infants, that as yet want a Tongue to plead for themselves, that the Anabaptists must bring Scriptures, if not express, yet as clear and strong as express Scriptures, else I shall little regard their Writings. And this I require upon these grounds.

First, The Anabaptists require of us an express Command from Christ to the A­postles, to baptize Infants. This was put up­on me in the Congregation: Now it is meet the Anabaptists should be honest men, [Page 53]buy and sell by the same measure. If they require of us express Scriptures, we may well require of them the same.

Secondly, All the Arguments which the Anabaptists draw from Scripture against Infants Church-membership, and Baptism, do strike at the Grace and Wisdom of God in his Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and his Constitution of the Church of the Jews, as if the Lord had not done wisely, but they will teach him how to Constitute Churches better. We shall hear their Arguments anon.

Thirdly, The holy Page tells us, how much weight the Jews and false Teachers put upon Circumcision, what a stir it made in the Churches, while the Apostles la­boured to remove it, though it was a pain­full bloody Ordinance. We read Acts 21.21. This was the great Objection against Paul, and this was 21 years after Paul's Conversion: I am apt to think till the Temple [the head of all the Ceremonies] was utterly demolished; the believing Jews did Circumcise their Children; But had Paul told them, the Reason was, that Christ is come, and now the Covenant with Abraham as to his Seed, is repealed, and their Seed are all cast out of the Church, and therefore they must not Circumcise [Page 54]their Children: Should we not have read the Jews Clamours and Out-cries against the Apostles, in the Acts, and in every E­pistle, and what a bar had this been against the reception of the Gospel; I appeal to the Consciences of the Anabaptists. But though we read of Circumcision in several places, both in the Acts and the Epistles, there is not one word of this.

Fourthly, God did expresly repeal his Covenant with Israel made at Mount Sinai, Heb. 8.13. That which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. This Covenant of God with Abraham and his Seed, is a Covenant much noted in the Scripture, and long before Sinai-Covenant: Now if the Lord doth indeed repeal this Covenant with Abraham, why should we not expect clear Scripture-ground. The Jews quarrell­ed with the Apostles, because they changed the Customs of Moses, Acts 6.14. & chap. 21. v. 21. but if they had taught the nulling of the Covenant of God with Abraham their Father too, the Apostles should have heard of it with both ears, and we should have read it. God tells them when he repealed that Covenant, He would make a new Covenant with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah: are not Children a part of the House? They were so when God made [Page 55]that Covenant with the House of Israel, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. then they are in the House still, then they are capable of the Grace of the new Covenant with their Pa­rents; then the want of actual Faith doth not exclude them from Baptism.

Fifthly, God tells Abraham, he will esta­blish his Covenant,—and it shall be an ever lasting Covenant, Gen. 17.7. If God esta­blish, it must stand: If he saith, it is everlast­ing, the Entail is not cut off: Nor do I doubt in the least, but as when they re­jected Christ, and said, Let his blood be up­on us and our children, Mat. 27.25. God did cast away Parents and Children: so when God receives them again, Rom. 11.15.26. the Parents shall not be received, and Chil­dren remain cast out, but they shall come in with their Parents.

If they say, the word Everlasting, is spo­ken of their possession of Canaan, verse 8. and Circumcision, v. 13.

Ans. I know well how the word [...] for ever, or everlasting is taken in Scripture, but it doth not at all hinder the Argument.

1. For in this Covenant is nothing Typi­cal, it is pure Grace; and we have other Scriptures in the Gospel will confirm it.

2. As to Circumcision, it was a bloody Ordinance, as was the Passeover, all Ordi­nances [Page 56]so, till Christ came with his Blood fulfilling all, removed them: No more blood in any Ordinance after Christ. Zippo­rah calls Moses a bloody Husband, at the Cir­cumcising of her Son, Exod. 4.25, 26. At this time when the Jews circumcise their Children; they say they may do it from Sun-rising to Sun-setting, any hour on the Eighth day: but they choose the Morning, because the Child then being empty, it will not bleed so much: The Mohet, or he that circumciseth, sucks the Wound three times, and use other means to stop the blood, but no bloody Ordinance now. [ Buxt. Synor. Isid. p. 81.86.]

3. For the Land of Canaan, that was conditional, their abiding in it; but how­ever, though they are now cast out of pos­session, yet they have jus ad rem, a just Ti­tle to it at this day. Hence Ezek. 37.14.21. & Ezek. 36.24. Three times the Lord pro­mised to bring them into their own Land, ver. 28. the Promise runs for them. It is their own; then now to depart from the literal sense, without some eminent absurdity that will follow upon the literal sense, we ought not.

6ly, If God will not bring an unclean Creature forbidden, into a believing Jew's House, without an express word to warrant it, will God cast a holy Seed out of his House, [Page 57]and not give as clear a ground to the belie­ving Parent to know his mind? The un­clean Creatures signifying the Heathen of several sorts, [the Hebrews say, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, Romans] not eat; that is, not to have communion, Acts 10.28. Compare Levit. 11.5, 6, 7. with Acts 10.11, 12, 13, 15. and must now the holy Seed be cast out of the Church, and looked upon as the Swine were then? We must have clearer grounds and Texts, than ever yet the Anabaptists have brought, I say as strong as express Scriptures.

7ly, The New Testament doth give us clear Texts to prove the Church-membership of believing Parents; you cannot give us clearer Texts for their unchurching, unless you give us express Scriptures.

8ly, Let me take up one of Mr. Baxter's Arguments, and improve it my way.

If God hath repeled his Covenant, and cast the Seed of the believing Jews out of the Church, then it was either in justice or in mercy.

But neither this nor that; therefore not cast out, &c. thus Mr. Baxter.

For the first, not in justice, I prove thus. Let Parents be never such sound Belie­vers, walk in the steps of their Father Abra­ham, keep close in the Covenant, yet the Anabaptists cast out all their Seed; but this [Page 58]cannot be in justice: for the Text saith, Psal. 25.10. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his Covenant. But these Jews, believing Parents do so; yet God repeals his Covenant with their Seed, and cast them out of the Church.

2. In mercy the Lord doth it not; For then God gives a greater mercy in the room of that which in mercy he takes away, saith Mr. Baxter.

This is true what Mr. Baxter saith, I prove what he saith, the believing Jew shall say, though God hath repealed his Cove­nant with my Seed, and cast them out of the Church, yet he hath given my Seed a better mercy, both my self and my chil­dren, if they could speak, would say, We would not be under Abraham 's Covenant with our Parents, nor Church-Members with our Parents, as we were before Christ came, for Christ hath left us Infants a better Blessing in the room. As it was a great favour to the Israelites, that God gave his Oracles to them, Psalm 147.19, 28. That God was in Covenant with them, Ephes. 2.12. But God will null that Covenant, Heb. 8.13. It shall vanish away: But God will make another Covenant, new, a better Covenant, having better Promises in the room of that old va­nishing Covenant: So that if Israels eyes be opened, they would say, they would by no [Page 59]means be under the old Covenant, this new is so much better. Thus let the Anabaptists tell us what God hath left better for the In­fant-Seed of a Jew now believing in Christ, that now it would not be Church-member with the Parents, nor under Abraham's Covenant, nor would now be baptized, as before Christ they were circumcised: For my part I can conceive nothing; keep to the state of the Question.

9. There is so much evil in this Doctrine and Practice of the Anabaptists, that we must have clearer Scriptures than ever were produced as yet to prove it, and clear it from that evil.

As 1. For the blessed God; How doth [...] dishonour him in straitning his Love and Grace now under the Gospel, over it was un­der the Law. Moses tells the Jews, Deut. 4.37. The Lord loved thy Fathers, Chap. 7.8. & chap. 33.3. So it appears, that he would not only take the Fathers, but their Children also into Covenant, and constitute his Church of them also. But now whatever the Gospel saith of the Philanthropie of God, Tit. 3.4. and God so loving the world, Joh. 16.3. when that Seed promised to Abraham is come, in whom all Nations shall be blessed, he nulls the Covenant with his Seed, cast them out of the Church, and leaves no blessing for their [Page 60]Infants, when their Parents believe in the promised Seed come.

Before the Lord calls the little children under the Covenant, and in the Church, (Mine) Ezek. 16.20, 21. But now the Jews believe in Christ, God calls none of their Children Mine, though now they do more gladly bear them unto him than they did before.

2ly, It dishonours Christ; He took upon him indeed the Seed of Abraham, Heb. 2.16. and turned the Seed of Abraham out of the Co­venant, and out of the Church, if the Ana­baptists Doctrine be true.

Though he seemed to have an affection to Children, and was much displeased with his Disciples, when they rebuked the Pa­rents when they came to seek his blessing for their Babes, Mark 10. 13, 14. and bad them bring their children to him, and told them, of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. If our sweet Lord meant as he spake, and we believe he did, then they are still Members of the Church, he doth not shut the Door against them, now he is come. But the Ana­baptists tell us a contrary Tale to the dishonour of our blessed Saviour. When the belie­ving Jews now carry their children to Christ, Dedicate them to him with earnest Prayer in Baptism, and ingage to bring them up [Page 61]for him, the Anabaptists forbid them, and tell them, the Kingdom of Heaven doth not consist of such little Ones.

Per absurdum vero est, ut per Messiae adven­tum imminutum sit foedus sanctu, Vossius. Gen. 17.7. That the blessed, and blessing, Messia, by his coming, should null the Covenant with Abraham, it is not only absurd, but very ab­surd, a great reproach is cast upon Christ.

Doctor Thomas Goodwin pleading the In­fant's case against the Anabaptists, saith, In a manner half the Church of God, the purest part of it; Elect Infants die in their bud and infancy, and grow not up to partake of the dews and influence of any other outward Or­dinance; and were they deprived of this, [i.e. Baptism] should go out of this world [into which God only sent them to receive that which should make them meet for the common Inheritance of the Saints] without any out­ward owning them, or visible way of blessing from him, &c.— yea and the other half that grow up to glorifie God in their riper years, whereof many also are holy from the Womb; these also should, during their years of nonage, want an outward badg, and any outward ac­knowledgment of what they are, even Fellow­heirs of the Kingdom with their Brethren, which even in the Infancy of the World, whilst all were under Tutors and Govern­ours [Page 62]was their priviledge. Thus this Gospel-Divine speaks, and that to the purpose.

3ly, As to Parents, be they never so godly, what grief must it needs be to them, if their children die out of the Covenant and visible Church; what hopes can they have of their Salvation, more than an Indian hath of his being both in the same state? An In­dian-child may be Elected as well as a sound Believer. 2ly, nor can a believing Parent pray for his children upon any grounds more than an Indian: the Covenant and Promi­sies scattered in the World to the Godly and their Seed, they cannot plead upon them. 3ly, Whereas the Covenant and the En­gagement of the children to God in Baptism, is the Infant's Circumcision, might be Argu­ments to whet upon their children, and en­courage them: now no such Arguments are in date. 4ly, The Jews before Christ came, in the day of their circumcising their Infants, did use to give thanks to God, and bless him for Abraham's Covenant, and his Ordinance of Circumcision, the Seal of his Covenant: but when the Jews believe Christ's come, now Thanksgiving and blessing of God cease; for the Govenant is nulled, children cast out of the Church.

4ly, As for the Children of believing Pa­rents, if they come to years of discretion, and [Page 63]God bless Parents instructions so as to keep Conscience awake, though they play the wretches, and have cause to be humbled all their days; yet I say, if Conscience be kept awake, and God begin to open their Eyes more, and make them in earnest to mind the Salvation of their Souls, then they will understand what a wretched Do­ctrine, this Doctrine of the Anabaptists is, by denying that to them by which they may take hold of God in the time of their fears. Quare patet non prorsus vanum esse atque inane ex pio genere nasci, saith Peter Martyn, [Hoc Com. p. 8.] It is not a vain empty thing to be born of godly Parents: this is true which he saith.

Here, tho' it was far from my thoughts to speak, much less to write what benefit I have experimentally found from a Paren­tal-Covenant, and Infant-Baptism; yet be­cause the Lord's Providence hath engaged me in this Controversie, which I never in­tended, and because it may be a help to others, Children of good Parents, I shall de­clare.

God blessed my godly Parents Education of me, to keep my Conscience awake, as I said, though I have cause to abhor my self all my days; but above fifty years past, I began to have more serious thoughts [Page 64]about an eternal state, and how to get an Interest in Christ and the Promises. I found several qualifications that did prepare hearts for Promises, Isa. 61.1. Isa. 55.1, 2. Mat. 11.28. Luke 19.10. My trouble for some years, now how to make out these qualifications: I would have them, prayed for them, but could not satissie my self that I had them as I ought to have them. While I was writing my Copy, these very words, there comes to me a good christian woman, who I know for many years had walked with God, and she puts this Question to me, How she might know whether she ever had these qua­lifications, in Mat. 11.28. and engaged me to send one Exercise upon it, as I did: I could not but take notice of this Providence.

While I was thus troubled about ma­king out these qualifications, there comes a motion into my mind; What say you to your Father's Covenant? You know your Pa­rents were godly, and God promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed; will you stand to your Father's Covenant, and choose your Father's God for your God? I began to think of it, my heart answered, Yes, I will stand to my Father's Covenant: But how do you take your Father's God to be your God? I answered, As he was my Father's God. My teaching [...]od, my heart-hum­bling [Page 65] God, my reconciled God, my justi­fying God, my sanctifying God, my God to lead me all my days; for thus he was my Father's God. Here my qualification was the choice of my Father's God, who was mine before by an external Covenant-admi­nistration; but now to have him my God, my portion, by an internal Covenant and effi­cacy? Here now I was pent up; Will you choose him, or refuse him? Blessed be God who gave me this advantage to lay hold up­on him, by virtue of this Parental-Cove­nant.

Further, to clear my meaning, Ido not by this Discourse about Qualifications of Pro­mises, intend that Christians should not re­gard them. I am far from that: if they be sound Christians, I'le warrant them they shall regard them. Nor do I think but Christians reflecting upon themselves, the good Spirit assisting, may find them certain­ly wrought.

But this I mean, Young persons brought up under the droppings of good Education, upon whom God works more gradually; that cannot tell the time when, nor the manner how God works; as some Adult per­sons upon whom God many times breaks in with his Terrours; these use to be much troubled about the making out the qualifi­cations [Page 66]of Inviting Promises, because they cannot find them so sensibly as they would, though they have them in truth, but can­not discern it: the question is, Whether now Abraham 's Covenant may not do such a Soul a pleasure?

Quest. When God made this Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, did not God intend good to Abraham 's Seed? If not, it was a vain Covenant? God forbid.

To say, it signifies no more than that, when he gave them his Oracles, Rom. 3.2. Was not that a Priviledge, if his Seed would improve them?

But this Covenant was distinct from the O­racles, made before the Oracles were gi­ven: and may not Abraham's Seed? ought they not to improve it to their spiritual good and advantage: who will deny it?

God in Isa. 56.4. speaks of taking hold of his Covenant. I say, by this Covenant God puts forth his hand to Abraham's Seed to take hold upon him, so as to become their God for ever.

1. Suppose we two sorts of persons un­der the Conviction of a miserable state: One sort is under Abraham's Covenant, the other not; There are Inviting Promises to all sorts, whether without, or within the Co­venant. They who are within the Covenant, [Page 67]can make use of all the Inviting Promises offered to others, and Abraham's Covenant too: But they who are out of the Covenant, cannot make use of, or lay hold upon God by Abraham's Covenant.

2ly, God is nearer to his Covenanted-seed than to others, Psalm 148.14. Israel a peo­ple near unto the Lord: Israel is in Covenant with him: God loved their Fathers, Deut. 4.37. By this he puts forth his hand to them to lay hold upon him more imme­diately, than to others out of Covenant. The choosing of their Father's God for their God in sincerity, is the Condition, and he becomes their God, and his Covenant gives them a ground for the assurance of it.

3ly, This Covenanted-Seed may plead with God in Prayer for many Promises made to the Ʋpright and their Seed, Psal. 112.2. Prov. 20.7. with divers other Pro­mises, fetching the strength of their plead­ing from the Covenant and Promises, which others out of the Covenant cannot do. And since God hath promised blessing to this Seed; the Seed may choose their blessing, a­ny spiritual blessing in Christ, and have his Promise to warrant it.

4ly, When their hearts are in fears, troubles, doubts, and cannot make out the qualifications of other Promises, as they [Page 68]would, they may come hither: here is no winding out, but answer Catagorice, will you have your Father's God, or refuse him? You see he offers himself, and is in Cove­nant with you one way already, by an ex­ternal Covenant-administration; and if you will stand to that Covenant, and take him for your God indeed, and yield up your self to him, he will be your God in a saving manner, and portion for ever.

5ly, Since all the Word and Promises are then efficacious when the Spirit will please to work with them; and it is free for him to make this or that Word effica­cious to us: I doubt not to say, Abraham's Covenant, is as fit as any inviting Pro­mise, and it is as rational for the Seed of godly Parents to lay hold upon God by it, as by any other Word.

My Parents then looking upon me as being in Covenant, and a Church-mem­ber with them, they did Dedicate me to God, and brought me under the Seal of his gracious Covenant in Baptism. And what our Lord said to Peter when he wash­ed his Feet, John 13. 6, 7. What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereaf­ter: Was truly verified of me. What the Lord did then, when he poured clean wa­ter upon me in my Baptism, I know not, [Page 69]but now I do know, and did many years since. What was the opinion of the ancient Fathers, and many Divines now, about the Efficacy of Baptism, I did not then know, nor do I now concern my self about it, to discourse it. But this I took for a Truth, It doth not consist with the Infinite wisdom and holiness of God, to Institute any Ordinance in his House that is of trivial con­cernment, whatever they seem to be to a carnal heart: they are things of great weight; Where the great God engages himself to a Creature, and therefore to be attended with great reverence, and as dili­gently improved. Now when I came to reflect upon my Baptism, how God was first with me, before I understood him, he was afore-hand with me, took hold of me, brought me under the Seal of his blessed Covenant; and when I read over the se­veral Texts, which tells us what blessings are there signified and sealed, God was engaged for his part; if I will look to my part, to answer the Condition, then these should be mine; this gave me encouragement. As for my Dedication to him, I was willing to stand to it, I did like it very well: but both for the Condition, and to answer my Dedication, I went to him, whose Cove­nant it is, and who was first with me, that [Page 70]he would please to perform his part, and in the strength of his performance, I would perform my part. Why would that blessed One be first? Why did he begin with me, when I did not know him? But since he will be a God, and Triumph in his Grace, since I came to understand it, by his Grace I have held him, and will hold him. And though as I said, I have not attained what I seek af­ter, yet I have found in my dismal Tem­ptations, wherein I have had as deep a share as most Christians ever had, when I could not tell where to lay hold, my Pa­rent al-covenant and Infant-baptism, which I am still improving now my Head is gray, have been a support unto me. So that I bless God, 1. for Abraham's Covenant, 2ly, I bless God that I had godly Parents: 3ly, I bless God my Parents were no Anabaptists, but that while I was an Infant they brought me under the Seal of the blessed Covenant, a stay and comfort to me in my old age, and I hope improved, as well as they who were Dipped yesterday.

When people do either not understand things, or if they do, yet they do not mind and improve them, so get no good by them; no wonder though they talk against them, when others bless God for them, and daore his grace in them.

Let the Children of Godly Parents look to themselves, they have a price in their hands, if they have wisdom and hearts to improve it; it is a fearful thing to hear of the Child of a Godly, Praying, Parent to dye in an unconverted State.

Only a word, some may think you had Godly Parents, mine were not so; it may be I had a Godly Grandfather, or a Mo­ther: had you so? no doubt but you may improve the Covenant from him. The se­cond Commandement will help you.

David pleaded 86 Psal. 16. Save the Son of thy Hand-maid: he pleads the Parental- Covenant (saith Mr. Hooker.) Born thy Ser­vant of Godly Parents, who were thy Ser­vitors (saith Ainsworth?) Insignis est priorum praerogativa, qua etiam David, hic animum suum in precibus fulcit, quod sciunt se in Ec­clesia a fidelibus Parentibus, qui fuerunt servi, & ancillae Domini, natos esse. Saith Gesnor on the Text, and stirs up Parents to learn this Treasure to their Children; and Chil­dren of such Parents to make use of it. Ju­nius also speaks well to this Head.

Others it may be will say, Baptised I am, but my Parents bad enough. Well, art a­wake, and art in earnest for Christ, and the saving Blessings come by him? you may improve your Baptism. When the Gibeo­nites [Page 72]by Craft got Israel into a Covenant with them, and confirmed it by an Oath. 9 Josh. 15. the God of Israel would not suf­fer them to destroy them; They were made Servants indeed; the breach of this cost Is­rael dear. 2 Sam. 21.1, 2, 3. If you be got under the Seal of the Covenant, it was not by Craft, but God's Providence order­ed it; and now you are under it, prize it, and improve it; do not you fear, the God of Israel will hold to his part.

These being the Evils that arise from the Anabaptists Doctrine, we must have very clear Texts, for the nulling of Abraham's Covenant, and casting Children out of the Church.

10ly, If Blessed Jesus upon his coming doth repeat Abraham's Covenant, and so the Children of the Believing Jews be no Church-Members, then Jesus Christ by his coming doth null the Promises made to the Fathers. But the Text saith, Rom. 15. 8. He confirms the Promises made to the Fathers. I am sure this was one made to the Fathers, I will be a God to thee and thy Seed, then it is not null­ed, but confirmed. Christ confirms Abra­ham's Charter, Act. 3.26. God sent his Son Jesus to the Jews first, to Bless them: one great Blessing he mentions, but it seems by the Anabaptists, Christ, takes away a Blessing; [Page 73]tell us I pray what Blessing doth Christ leave the Seed of the Believing Jews, while Infants in the Room of it.

11ly, We read Gal. 3.16. of Promises made to Abraham and his Seed; Promises in the Plural Number, Seed in the Singular, not Seeds; the Jews a part, and the Gentiles a part, not so, but Seed; that is, Christ My­stical, not Personal: the Promises were not made to Christ, but Christ was Promised to Abraham; So that it is Christ in Aggregato, the Jews and Gentiles make up one Body, and one Seed.

There were several Promises made to Abraham, some concerned him alone, some concerned himself and his Seed, according to the Flesh alone; The Gentiles had nothing to do with them: That all Nations should be Bless'd in Abraham's Seed; This belongs to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, This is one Promise. But we must have Promises in the Plural Number made to Abraham, that be­long to the Gentiles, if you take away this, I will be the God of thee and thy Seed, I know not how to make the Text true.

But if this be granted, then this Verse and the fourteenth Verse are both true; now the Blessing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.

I have insisted long upon this Branch, [Page 74]because the pinch of the Controversie lies here, and these Grounds are to me so strong, that unless the Anabaptists bring Texts as strong as an express Scripture for the Re­peal, I shall not regard them: nor am I come yet to the Texts in the New Testament, to prove the Church-Membership of Infants, though it may be inferred from some I have named already.

The last Branch in the Sillogism is, That if this Gracious Covenant be not Repealed but stand firm, then it must be Signed, and Sealed to them who are under it; this I sup­pose will not be denyed. The Blessed God makes no Covenants, but he Seals them.

That the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, were Sa­craments and Seals, belonging to the first Covenant, I see is the Opinion of very Learn­ed and Godly Divines. When God makes a Covenant with Noah, and all the Creatures, God Seals it; when with Abraham, God Seals it; and though the Seal be changed, yet it hath another Seal added in the Room of it. Our weak Faith hath need of strengthening, and all too little, if God's Spi­rit doth not step in.

SECT. IV.

NOw let us come to the Anabaptists, and hear how they prove the Repealing of the Covenant, and the un-Churching of the Children of Believing Jews.

About a quarter of a year after I had fi­nished my Discourse, a Neighbour brought me Mr. Edward Hutchinson against Paedo­pabtism, to read it, but it was sent for again, so that I did but read his Epistle to the Bapti­zed Congregations; and a Letter, which I think concerned Mr. Wills, and the begin­ning of his Book, p. 3. he states the Questi­on, and proves, That the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not the Seed of Abraham; so that Infant Church-Membership and Baptism falls to the Ground.

Ans. But he must prove that the Infants of the Believing Jews, are not the Seed of Abraham, or else Infants Church-Membership does not fall. I had reason to state the Question so, as to the Believing Jews; but if he will yield the Infants of Believing Jews to be Members, and have a Right to Bap­tism, I will prove the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Church-Members, and have a Right to Baptism. There is neither Jew nor Greek, &c. Gal. 3.28. no diffe­rence [Page 76]now but of this more hereafter.

Again, we shall see whether his Arguments do not cut off the Infants of Believing Jews, as well as Gentiles.

1. Argu. His first Sillogism, If none be the Children of Abraham, but those that do the works of Abraham, then Infants are not the Seed of Abraham, but the Antecedent is true. Joh. 8.39. Therefore,

Ans. If none be rational Creatures, but those that can Sillogize, as Mr. Hutchison doth, then Infants are not rational Crea­tures. But, &c.

If you say my Antecedent is false, so is yours; but it shews how strong your Ar­gument is.

2. If Isaac at eight Days old, when Cir­cumcised, do not the works of his Father Abraham, then he is not Abraham's Seed; you argue from no Doing, to no Seed. A strange Argument Sir!

3. If any of those Jews, to whom our Lord spake these words, had any Male-Children born that day, they had been re­puted Abraham's Seed, Members of the Church, and must be Circumcised the eighth day, or Sin.

2. Argu. His second Sillogism, If those who are Christ's are only Abraham's Seed, then Infants are not Abraham's Seed, but the An­tecedent [Page 77]is true. Gal. 3.3.19. they are not Christs by Calling.

Ans. Is there no way to be made Christ's, but by Calling? can he that made the Ear and the Heart, come no way to the Heart, but by the Ear? what Divinity is this? can­not he that infuses the Soul into the Body, infuse Grace into the Soul, but by the [...]ar?

2. Christ commands little Children to be brought to him, and none to forbid them. Mark 10.13, 14. &c. Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, then they must be Christ's; we believe Christ, Sir, before you.

3. Because Isaac at eight days old, can­not answer a Call of Christ's, therefore he is none of Christ's, a good Argument. Was John none of Christ's, when he leaped in his Mothers Womb, when Mary came to Elizabeth? Luk. 1.44.

Argu. 3. His third Sillogism, If none be Blessed with Abraham, but those that are of Faith, than Infants are not the Seed of Abra­ham, but the Antecedent is true. Gal. 3.9. Therefore,

Ans. Does the Text say Actual Faith?

2. Alas, poor Infants! by this Author ye are Cursed, no poor Infant dying an Infant, can be Blessed. Yea, those Infants whom Christ Blessed, Mark 10.16. were Cursed though he Blessed them, for they could not [Page 78]Act Faith upon Christ. Did Isaac when Circumcised the eighth Day, put forth an Act of Faith upon Christ to come?

3. Believers in Christ are so, either

• Actually
• or Siminally.

4. Actual Believers in Christ are so, either

• Visibly and Really,
• or Visibly only.

Visibly only, such were those, to whom in your Preface to your Baptised Congregations, you thus speak, they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. I know there is dross mingled with your Silver, Chaff among your Wheat, and the Canaanite is still in the Land. It seems then you find Dross, Chaff, Cana­anites, and not true Israelites in your Bap­tised Congregations; but you did look on them as visible Believers, when you Dipped them.

2. Seminally so, and they first; such as are Reputed so by God's Covenant, with Believing Parents and their Seed. 2ly, Such, who besides this Reputation, are regenera­ted by the Spirit, which is not without Faith Seminally.

Argu. 4. His fourth Sillogism, If the Children of the Flesh are not the Children of [Page 79]God, then Infants now are not the Seed of Abra­ham, but the Antecedent is true. Rom. 9.8. Therefore, &c.

Ans. I deny the Consequence.

2ly, It seems then, no Infants are the Children of God, by this Argument; a very bold and wretched Assertion.

2. There is a double Adoption, External, Ecclesiastical, and Internal, Heavenly Sa­ving, that hath a Heavenly, Eternal Inhe­ritance belonging to it; they who had only the first, these were called the Children of God. Deut. 14.1. and 16. Ezek. 21. to these pertain the Adoption. Rom. 9.4.

Our Question is not who are the true Children of God, that have that Inheri­tance prepared for them, but who are to be Reputed the Children of God, in foro Ecclesiastico, Visibly; so that they are Members of a Visible Church, and have Right to a Visible Ordinance, in the Visi­ble Church. The Dross, the Chaff, the Canaanites, the false Israelites, which you tell us, are in your Baptized Congregations, are none of the Children of God, in a sa­ving Sense; but your Baptists did judge them to be Believers Actually in Christ, if so, then Children of God, then you admit­ed them Members of your Churches, and so Baptized them by Dipping. They [Page 80]were looked upon as Abraham's Seed, when you admitted them.

The next thing he falls upon is, Act. 2.39. of which after.

I could go no further, the Book was sent for, nor did I intend to make any large Discourse, though it had continued with me: by these four Arguments we have a taste of the Man's strength.

By these Arguments, [and the next which follows, which is in all their mouths] let the Reader judge, whither they do not all strike as much at the Grace and Wis­dom of God, in his Covenanting with Abra­ham, and his Seed; Constituting the Church of the Jewish Parents, and their Seed, and Circumcising of the Infants, as they do prove, that now the Infants should not be admitted into the Gospel-Church, nor Baptised. So that the Anabaptists tells God, that if he will Constitute the Church of the Jews right, he must let their Children be grown up. First, Learn to know the God of Abraham. Second, Put forth an Actu­al Faith in Christ, the Promised Seed to come, as Abraham saw his Day and rejoy­ced. Joh. 8.56. Thirdly, Let them do the works of their Father Abraham. Joh. 8.39. Fourthly, Let them manifest that they are really the Children of God, then admit [Page 81]them Members, and Circumcise them. Does not all their Arguments tend to this? they will teach the Holy, Wise God, how to Constitute Churches better. I will not be afraid to say, That all the Anabaptists that ever were, or shall be, shall never be able to cast the Seed of Believing Parents out of the Church, by any Consequence drawn from any Text in the Bible, there­fore they must give us clearer Texts, before we shall believe them.

SECT. V.

BUt come we to the great Argument, which all use, and that wherewith I was assaulted. Matth. 28.19. and Mark 16.16. Only Believers are to be Baptised. To which I Answer,

This took with me in my Meditations, I thought there was strength in it.

Had the Gospel-Church been first erect­ed amongst the Gentiles, and had Baptism been first Instituted in the Gentile-Churches, then the Anabaptists Argument from hence, would have carryed me. But the first Gos­pel-Church was erected among the Jews, in Jerusalem, and Baptism was Instituted in the Jewish-Church first, where the Anabap­tists cannot deny but the Infants were Mem­bers [Page 82]with their Parents, and under the Seal of the Covenant. So that they must first prove that by this Text, the Children of the Believing Jews in the Gospel-Church, were not Members with their Parents, which I am sure cannot be forced from this Text, nor doth it in the least prove the Re­pealing of Abraham's Covenant with his Seed.

Circumcision did Seal up the Promised Seed, in whom all Nations should be Bless­ed, or Christ to come; and surely requi­red, therefore their Faith in the Messiah to come. After Christ's Ascension, in the Gospel-Church Baptism seals up this Promi­sed Seed, or Christ now come, with a full and clear Revelation of him; the differ­ence of the Faith as to the Object of it, is only Christ to come, and come. If then the Children of the Jews, while the Parents did believe in the Messiah to come, were un­der a Covenant, Reputed Members of the Church, and Circumcised; should, when their Parents believe in Christ come, be cast out of Covenant, out of the Church, and not Baptised, I know no Reason, nor Warrant from God's Word; this would have made strange work.

If the Anabaptists say the Jews did not be­lieve in the Messiah to come, they must prove it; the Messiah ran much in their minds, [Page 83]we may see by the Woman of Samaria. Joh. 4.25. Read Acts 26.7. and by the Jews. Joh. 1.19, 20, 21. If Christ were then clearly revealed, why should this cast the Infant out? the Infant is not therefore guil­ty of the more Sin, when Christ was clearly revealed, and so deserve to be cast out.

We are to consider Ordinances in their Institution, wherefore God appointed them, what they carry in them, in their own Nature, and what Men ought to do who partake of them, not what Men do; we know what Baptism signifies, what it im­plies, and what they ought to do who par­take of it, though Men abuse it. The Case was the same as to Circumcision.

That this was one thing it Sealed up, as I said, the Promise of Christ to come, the Ana­baptists cannot deny, and it is the true An­swer which Pererius gives, from Aquinus, to that Question, what was the difference be­tween the Circumcision of the Jews, and of other Nations? for that other Nations did Circumcise besides the Jews, not only Cypri­an, de ratione Circumvis, & Hierom. on Jer. 9. ult. [who upon that Text I think well;] but also Herodotus, who lived some hun­dreds of years before Christ in Xerxes's Time, tells us, insomuch, that Herodotus saith the Jews took it up from the Egyptians; among [Page 84]whom it was in so much esteem, that there was no entrance into the most Honourable Offices amongst them, unless they were Circumcised. Now Pererius makes this dif­ference: Other Nations used it, taking it up as a custom and right, transmitted to them from their fore-Fathers, whom they had in Honour. But the Jews used it, as it was a Sa­crament containing in it, the Profession of their Faith and Obedience towards God, and the Divine Promise of the Messiah to come; he adds, And Expiation of Original Sin, as the Ancients speak of Baptism, and so many do now.

That other Nations do not use it as a Seal of God's Covenant, it appears by the time of Circumcising; the day God appointed, was the eigth day, but Ishmael's Posterity, Cir­cumcise in the thirteenth year of their Age, then Ishmael was Circumcised; so that it is meerly in Honour of him, so Josephus tells us. l. 1. c. 12.

To go on, If then the Seed of the Jews believing in Christ come, be still under the Covenant, and Church-Members with their Parents, and if so, ought to be Baptised, by Mr. Tombe's Concession; Then let the Be­lieving Gentiles and their Seed come in also for now no difference between Jew and Greek, Gal. 3.28. And for more full proof, [Page 85]the Apostle tells the believing Ephesians, and so all believing Gentiles, Ephes. 2.19. We are no more strangers [ from the com­mon-wealth of Israel, v. 12.] but Christ ha­ving broken down the middle Wall of Partition between the Jews and us, v. 14.] we are now fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the Houshold of God.

For the word Fellow-citizens, in the City or Church of the Jews: I pray, who were esteemed Citizens? Were not the Children put into Abraham's Charter: were not they then Citizens with their Parents? What, hath God sent his Quo Warranto, and taken away Abraham's Charter, when the Pa­rents, the Citizens, believe in Christ sincere­ly, and keep Covenant with him, and walk in the steps of Abraham: will now God take away their Charter, and cast out their Seed from being Citizens? What, hath Christ by his blood made us both One, taking down the partition-wall between Jew and Gen­tile, v. 14. And doth he now set up the par­tition Wall between the Jewish believing Parent and his Seed, bringing now the Seed of the believing Jews into that con­dition the Gentiles were in before Christ came, Ephes. 2.11, 12. Shall the Anabaptists make us believe this, unless God hath said so in express terms? What a Bar had this [Page 68]been against the Jews ever receiving the Gospel: Did they any where make this Objection against it? Now we Gentiles be­lieving, are Fellow-citizens with them of the same Houshold of God with them. Are not Children part of the Houshold? Were not the Jews Children part of the Houshold of God? then the Apostle tells us, we also are Fellow-citizens, and of the Houshold of God, as the Jews are.

As for the Texts, Matth. 28. and Mark 16. Blessed Jesus, the Promised Seed to A­braham, in whom all Nations should be blessed, is now come; fulfilled the Law, Crucified, Dead, Ascended: Salvation is onely to be had in him. Now this was the great Doctrine the Apostles were to preach, first to the Jews, than to the Gentiles, and call all Nations to believe in this Christ, that they may be blessed, according to the Promise made to Abraham. True, none but Adult persons, or persons of under­standing, can understand this Doctrine, and actually believe in Christ. No more could any but Jews Adult, or of ripe years, understand the Promise of Christ to come, in whom all Nations should be blessed; but yet the Jews Children were reputed with them Believers in the Messiah to come, by Gods Covenant with them, and the Church [Page 87]Constituted of them. So now Believers in Christ come, their Seed are Reputed with them.

Musculus [whom my Author hath put in his Catalogue of Authors, [hoc. com. p. 603.] which makes the ignorant Anabaptist think he is on their side; but rancks the Anabap­tists in a second, or lower degree of Here­ticks, for denying Infant-baptism, and an Oath.] In answer to an Argument of the Anabaptists, there was a Command for Cir­cumcising, but no express Command for Bapti­sing. Thus writes, Facit hoc non contra nos, sed pro nobis, &c. [ ibid. 338.] This doth not make against us, but for us, saith he, the sum of his answer [being too long to tran­scribe all] is this. Since God hath plain­ly declared his Will, that the Infants of Believers, whose Father Abraham is, should be Partakers of the Grace and Sign of the Covenant, and no where do we read that this Will of God is Repealed; what neces­sity is there, after such a clear expression of his Will, to desire another Command in the New Testament? Since therefore Christ gave no special Command, what should be done with the Infants of Believers, he did sufficiently intimate to his Apostles, who were Jews, and brought up among the Jews, that he did not take away that [Page 88]Grace, by which God declared himself to be the God, not only of Believers, but also of their Seed, and that he will have them Sealed with the Sign of his Grace. To which, do but add, Matth. 19.13, 14, 15. we may see Christ hath not taken away this Grace from them. This An­swer of Musculus, is full and clear, and runs upon that I have been calling for, an Infal­lible proof of God's Repealing of Abraham's Covenant. I have rather wronged Muscu­lus, by not Transcribing the whole Para­graph, for brevities sake, I desire the Reader to view him. For my part, I do not yet see any absurdity, if I should say, as in the fourth Commandment, the morality of it being, that a seventh part of time be set a part for the Worship of God; therefore let God please to change the day, yet that Commandment binds us to sanctify that day. So when God shall please to make a Gracious Covenant with Believing Abraham, and his Seed, and gives Command to have that Covenant Sealed, and never declares his Repealing of the Covenant, and its Seal­ing; the Covenant standing still in force, though God may please to change the Seal, and bring in another Seal under a new dis­pensation, yet God's former Command may well warrant us to administer the Sign [Page 89]and Seal of the Covenant to Abraham's Seed, as before.

Sure I am, this express Command the Anabaptists require for Baptising Infants, will cast out the Lord's-Day, and Magistracy out of a Christian Common-wealth, Wo­men from the Lord's Table; For though there were divers Women attended Christ, Luke 8.2, 3. yet there was not one of them with him at his Institution of the Lord's Supper: nor do we read expresly, that Women were at the Lord's Table in their Churches; For him that would prove it from the words, 1 Cor. 11.28. [...], there tell us, That [...] is of the Epiceen Gender, and includes Male and Female.

I answer, If [...] did alwaies signi­fy Male and Female, and not the Male only, then it were a good proof: but I told twen­ty places in Matthew's Gospel [I looked no further] where it signifies only the Male. Besides, what Gender is [...] of, which is joyned with it? Nor can we have ground to Excommunicate Women, if they walk impenitently scandalous in the Church.

Partly upon their Principle, who call for express Command, and partly because the casting out of the Seed of Believers, and Re­pealing the Covenant, are so strange, that it cannot be proved by any Consequence I [Page 90]have yet met with, therefore I call for Srciptures as clear at least as express Commands, or signification of God's Will.

To return to Infants, They must be re­generate, and have Faith some way, else they must all perish; what should make the thing so impoisible they should have the Ha­bit or Seed of Faith, and of all saving Graces in them? I hope it is not because Christ is known only by Revelation. I pray, what Act of Faith in God, what Act of Love to God, or Fear of God, &c. did Isaach or John put forth towards God, when, being Infants they were Circumcised? yet I am con­fident they had the Seeds of all these at that time they were sanctified then, and why not then a Seed of Faith in Christ? had not John it when he leaped? &c.

In the first Synod held in New-England, this was one question discussed; Whether we be justified by the Habit, or the Act of Faith? Arguments were brought pro and con, some were for the Habit of Faith, then why not Infants justified by a Habit of Faith? Dr. Ames in his proofs for Infant-baptism, makes this his first Argument; That in the very beginning of Regeneration, the Soul is a meer passive, the Infant is as capable of a passive re­ception of Christ and Grace, as another Man: [Page 91]but Baptism Seals to our Regeneration. [modul. theal. c. 4. th. 12. Got. of grace, p. 27. &c. So­cin. pro. flig. p. 781.]

That servant of Christ Mr. Tho. Hooker, proves that Children may have Faith, and hath a pretty large discourse upon it; The Socinians say it is a Dream [if they mean Actual Faith, who do not say it] Caelonius in answer to them, proves by ten or eleven Arguments, that Children may have Faith, to be sure, we may observe that they whom the Holy Page Records to be Godly [except Menasseh] were so from their Child-hood. Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, Hezekiah, Josiah, David, Obadiah, Jehoshaphat, where do you read of the Saints first running a course of wicked­ness, and then Converted? How many Children may we observe, that we may say as Dr. Thomas Goodwin said, are sanctified from the Womb. What is the matter then, that all Infants are cast out of the Church, and must not be Baptised?

Object. If you say, If you could tell which they are, they should be Baptised.

Answ. Can you tell who have saving-Faith and Grace, though they make Actu­al Profession, and tell you they have it? they who you say are Dross, Chaff, Cana­anites, no true Israelites, in your Baptised Congregations, they told you they had Faith, [Page 92]when you Dipped them, but you were mi­staken.

2. If that be yielded, that Infants may be Regenerate, may have Faith and Grace Seminally, then this Text which you do so talk of does not cut them off from Bap­tism.

3. By Abraham's Covenant, let the Pa­rents be visible Believers, by their compe­tent knowledg of Christ, profession of their Faith in him, and Conversation in some measure becoming Christians, giving up themselves to the Ordinances, and Rules of Christ's House, prove themselves thus to be visible Christians: and we can as regularly Baptise the Children of such Believers, as you Baptise your Adult persons, though as to the reality of saving Faith, we are mista­ken, and so are you.

Once more take the word [...], Mat. 28.19. as Dr. Hammond saith it ought to be Translated, Disciple ye all Nations, or make Disciples. Hence the Argument.

All they that are Disciples ought to be Bap­tised.

But the Children of Believing Parents are Disciples.

Therefore the Children of Believing Pa­rents ought to be Baptised.

This Argument I gave to him who op­posed [Page 93]me, but he could not tell which Pro­position to deny; a fit Man to dispute in a Congregation.

For the proof of the Argument.

The Major, is the plain Text, there is no opposing of that.

The Minor, that such Children are Dis­ciples, our Divines have so cleared it from Acts 15.1. and 10. v. compared, and other Texts, that I will not say what they have said before.

I give my thoughts thus, They are Dis­ciples.

1st. By God's Reputation he esteems them so; they are mine saith God, born to me. Ezek. 16.20, 21.

2ly, They are so by their Parents Dedi­cation of them to Christ.

3ly, They are so by their Parents Edu­cation of them for Christ.

4ly, They are so, as I may say, jure Gen­tium, or rather jure Religionum, all Nati­tions, all Religions, take their Children to be the same that the Parents are.

Did not the Jews take their Children to be Moses's Disciples, as well as themselves? John 9.28.

Do not the Turks take their Children to be Mahomet's Disci [...]les, as well as them­selves? [Page 94]Should you deny it, you should hear of it, if not feel it.

Yea, go the Indians whose Religion [i [...] I may call it so] is very Devilish and Su­perstitious, were it not too good a word. When the English first began to dwell in New-England, Massasoit the Sachem of Mount Hope, made a League with the English at Plymouth to live in Amity with them; The Articles were Seven; he kept the League well: A little before his death, he comes to renew his League for himself and his two Sons, Alexander and Philip, this was on September 25, 1630. But in his Treatise he urged this, That the English should engage never to attempt to draw any of his people to the Christian Religi­on: he insisted upon it very much; but the English were resolute, and would make no League upon such terms. But this we see by this Heathen, that he would have his Posterity to be reckoned as he was, though his Religion was Devilish.

If then the Children of Jews, Turks, Pa­gans be reckoned with the Parents, why must not the Children of Believers in Christ be reckoned Disciples of Christ with their Parents.

The Reader I suppose will pardon me, [Page 95]though I make a little Digression: The Wars between the Indians and the English in New-England, I suppose must have heard. This Philip the Son of Massasoit, before-mentioned, was he that began the Wars with the English, 1675. which lasted till 1677. The English when they saw Massa­soit stand so upon that Article, then said, That God would root out the Posterity of that Massasoit; and so now it is come to pass.

That Story which my worthy Friend Mr. William Hubbard gives us of Passalo­naway, [the most noted Paneaw or Sor­cerer; and I believe the oldest man in the Country. When I saw him, he was reck­oned one of the oldest men of the Indians, but I perceived by the time of his dying, he lived about thirty years after] is wor­thy the observing. About Merimach Ri­ver, Anno 1660, several Sagamoors meet­ing together, there was a great Dance: These Solemnities, are the Times when the most Ancient tell Stories, and transmit them to their Posterity. Passalonaway be­ing present made his last Speech, and took his Farewel: thus,

I am ready to die, and not likely ever to see you meet any more; I will now leave this word of Councel with you; [Page 96]That you take heed how you quarrel with the English, for though you may do them much mischief, yet assuredly you will all be destroyed and rooted out of the Earth if you do; for I was as much an Enemy to the English at their first com­ing into these Parts, as any one what­ever, and did try all waies and means possible to have destroyed them, at least to have prevented their sitting down here, but I could no way effect it. There­fore I advise you never to contend with the English, nor make War with them. Accordingly his eldest Son Wonnalancot, as soon as he perceived the Indians were up in Arms, he withdrew himself into some remote place, that he might not be hurt by the English, or their Enemies.

SECT. VI.

TO return to my Author: His Sixth Question is, Whether Baptism did suc­ceed in the room and use of Circumcision? He saith, By no means.

But the Body of our Learned and Pi­ous Divines say, It doth, and our Divines [Page 97]have spoken to it so often, that I am loath to say any thing to it. Shortly my thoughts were these:

1. Circumcision came in upon Faith: Abraham believed, then he was Circum­cised: And so doth Baptism.

2. Circumcision did sign Christ to come in the flesh. So saith my Author; and Bap­tism signs he is come in the flesh.

3. Circumcision did signifie [you may say Seal] the Righteousness of Faith: So doth Baptism.

4. Circumcision signified Sanctification: so do Baptism.

5. Circumcision signified and sealed the Covenant between God and the Seed of A­braham, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. So doth Baptism.

6. Circumcision did oblige Israel to walk with God: so Baptism obligeth us.

7. Circumcision did distinguish Israel from other Nations: so Baptism distinguisheth us.

Circumcision respecting Christ to come, and Baptism Christ come. Hence the Jews though circumcised, yet coming under a new Dispensation, ought to be baptized: much more reason for this, than for Timo­thy, who being a Disciple, Acts 16.1. no question was baptized, and yet after that circumcised by Paul, v. 3.

Circumcision (saith my Author) was to be a Bond and Obligation to keep the whole Law of Moses: but Baptism is contrary.

Ans. 1. For the Moral Law, the Rule of our Obedience, Baptism doth not solve us from that, but bind us to it: for Sanctification is held forth in our Baptism.

2. As for the Ceremonial Law where Christ was set forth in shadows, no won­der, though when Christ is come, and the shadow's gone, that Baptism was contrary to it. Evangelium relatum & Revelatum. But what doth this hurt us?

3. Paul did not Circumcise Timothy, with that respect to Circumcision; the Jews did. The Jews did look to be justified by the observation of the moral and ceremonial [Page 99]Law both, Gal. 5.3. the 4th verse unties the knot. The false Apostles urged Circumci­sion, Acts 15.1. according to the Law of Moses. [But Circumcision is not of Moses, but the Fathers, saith our Lord, John 7.22.] If you Circumcise thus, and seek Justification thus, you are fallen from grace, Gal. 5.4.

My Author goes on; Circumcision ini­tiated the carnal Seed into a carnal Church, and gave them right to carnal Ordinances: But Baptism was to give the spiritual Seed an orderly entrance into the spiritual Church.

Ans. 1. These Carnal Ordinances had their Spiritual significations as well as ours.

2. The Element in Baptism, Water; do but wash the flesh, and may be said to be Carnal too in some sense, 1 Pet. 3.21.

3. There was a Spiritual Seed admit­ed also into that Church by Circumcision, as well as now by Baptism, how many Saints were in that Church?

4. Chaff, Dross, Canaanites are no Spi­ritual Seed, yet such have been admitted into your Spiritual Church, by Dipping. [Page 100]Mr. Hutcheson writes true and can testi­fie it.

5. Define a Church, and you shall find all the Causes in that Church [a differ­ence only between a Church, and such a Church] take it in the strictest notion. 1. The efficient Cause is God, that is here. Deut. 7.6. Ezra 9.21. 3ly, The formal Cause joyned in Covenant, with God and one with another, Deut. 29.12. Zech. 11.10, 14. Exod. 24.8. [Besides their Circum­cision.] This some Brethren make the form of a Church: here it is. 4ly, Final Cause, To walk with God, and keep his Ordinances: it was here, Exod. 24.7. Mr. Baxter hath spoken so much to this, that I say no more.

Women were not circumcised, saith my Author.

Ans. No, how could they? 1. The A­postle gives you an answer, 1 Cor. 11.3. 2ly, Rivet saith well; Sed quia in viris acti­num, ut loquuntur, generationis & propaga­tionis hominum est principium, quo transmit­tunt corruptionem in posteros, signum ideo ob­tinuit in praecipuo sexu, ita tamen, ut foemi­nae viris annexae & in iis censerentur, qui fa­miliorum capitae debebant esse.

For Acts 38.39. which my Author op­poseth, and brings in Bishop Taylor, [a man cross to the Doctrine of the Church of England in point of Original Sin.] And Dr. Hammond on his side, telling us, It is an Ʋncludent Argument to infer Baptism from hence. [I do not wonder that Ana­baptists make so much use of Dr. Taylor.]

Answ. With the Bishop's favour, there is a difference between these two Phrases, The Children of Israel, and this; You and your children. Here is a Copulative Con­junction which is not there. They were the wounded Persons to whom Peter speaks, that asked him a question, but their Children did not ask, nor were pre­sent with them most likely.

Calvin saith, Notandi autem, &c. But the three degrees are to be noted, to whom the Promise is made, 1. To the Jews. 2. To their Children. 3. To the Gentiles.

As for Dr. Hammond, though I honour him much for his great Learning one way, yet I think as to an Argument, whether it be Concludent or not, other men may know as well as he. Vossius, Rivet, Calvin, Gerhard, Aretius, and the Assembly of Di­vines, [though slighted by him] do all conclude Infant-baptism from hence; they [Page 102]could judge of a Concludent Argument.

1. What this Promise is, I see there are very different Apprehensions. Some take it to be that in Joel 2.28. So Dr. Ham­mond, and divers others. The Dutch say, Joel 2.28. & Gen. 17.7. Ahapide saith, The Promised Seed in whom all Nations should be blessed. Thus Aretius, The Promise of the Messiah, and the benefits that come by him, made to Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 13. To which the Apostle, Rom. 9.4. hath a respect, the Promises belong to them. Thus Aretius, and Horino inclines this way.

2ly, whatever the Promise be, it was that which the Jews and their Children were now under, [ For to you do the bene­fit of that Promise appertain if you will lay hold of it, saith Dr. Hammond on Text.] The Promise did appertain to them, both Parents and Children, but not to the Gen­tiles as yet till they be called.

3ly, That [...] is a general word I grant, seven or eight times used for little Chil­dren in the New Testament. Fit mentitio li­berorum [...] sine discretione aetatis, saith Vossius. Let your Children be little or great, to your Children the Promise doth [Page 103]belong, as well as to you. Matth. 27.25. His Blood be upon us, [...] and upon your Children; were not there the Chil­dren distinct from the Parents? and do not Children there signify their little ones, their posterity, of what Age soever? would Bi­shop Taylor deny it? and 'tis probable that God brought this Imprecation to mind, and Peter may aim at that.

Be the promise what it will then, I would try for one Argument from hence.

They that are Church-Members ought to be Baptised.

But Children of Believing Parents are Church-Members.

Therefore, they ought to be Baptised.

The Major, the Doctor, nor any else will deny.

The Minor, I prove thus.

They to whom Promises do appertain, they are Church-Members.

But to the Children of Believing Parents Promises do appertain. Therefore,

The Major is plain, no Promise belong to any person out of the Visible Church. Ephes. 2.12. while the Ephesians were out of the Visible Church, they were Strangers from the Covenants of Promise. Rom. 9.4. the Promise did belong to the Jews, not to [Page 104]us Gentiles, till grafted into Abraham's stock.

The Minor is proud from the words of the Apostle, The Promise is to you, and your Children, we are under the outward dispen­pensation now; you nor your Children shall lose your Title to it, by Repenting and Believing, but then you shall feel the saving benefit added to pour outward Title. Again,

Will you restrain the promise to the gift of the Spirit, as the Verse before; Dr. Hammond moves the Question? what kind of gifts these were, inward or outward, for both these are promised indefinitely to Believers. Joh. 7.38, 39. there the in­ward gifts, enabling humble sincere Chri­stians, for the Duties of a Christian Life, called, The Renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. 3.5. joyned to the Laver of Regenerati­on; he concludes 'tis best to comprehend both. Thus Dr. Hammond on the Text.

Let me add, If the Spirit be here meant, it must be so understood, that it may be the benefit of as many as ever God shall call to the Worlds End, be they never so many Millions; the words [...] and [...] will force it. The Promise is to All, as many, be they never so many, if called. There are many called, few chosen, but if called, there is an [Page 105]outward Title to it, and to their Children, else the Sentence is not full; and I proved before we are fellow-Citizens of the same houshold, grafted into the same stock, Jew and Greek all one: The Jews and their Children were under it, when not effectual­ly called. The Promise is to you and your Children, now they were Children of the Covenant. Act. 3.25. nor can there be any reason given, why the Children of the Be­lieving Gentile should not be included, and meant here, as well as of the Jews. Hence, since the Doctor thus interprets the Promise of the Spirit.

They to whom the Promise of the re­newing Spirit doth belong, they may be Baptised.

But to the Children of Believing Pa­rents, the Promise of the renewing Spirit doth belong, as it did to the Jews. There­fore the Children of Believing Parents may be Baptised.

That there can be Regeneration without the Spirit, no Christian will affirm. That there can be a Heavenly Inheritance with­out Regeneration the Scripture denies. That the Spirit of God cannot Regenerate an Infant, he must be a strange Christian, [if any at all] who dares say it. If John [Page 106]was filled with the Spirit, from his Mothers Womb, God can give his Spirit to other Infants, though in a less measure.

As to the Text 1 Cor. 7.14. that Text hath been so cleared by our Divines, that I wonder my Author should not be fatisfied, but to come up with his Ligitimacy, as if that were the sense of Children being Holy. When as

1st. The Apostle is not writing to a Co­rinthian Husband, that had two Wives, but only one Wife; as 12, 13, 14. v. so that if that Text, Mat. 2.15. could be brought to prove a Matrimonial-Holiness, then they were Holy, and Children Holy, before the Gospel came; but this is a Holiness arising from one of the Parents, being a Believer: Besides, Joseph, Benjamin, Solomon, and di­vers others, were never called Bastards, or thought to be so, though Jacob and David had more Wives then one.

2ly, Then all the Children in Corinth, though the Parents were lawfully Marry­ed, were Bastards, before the Gospel came.

3ly, When then the Apostle writes to the Saints in Corinth. 1 Cor. 1, 2. 2 Cor. 1.1. the meaning is, to you that are Legitimate, and not Bastards in Corinth. What difference between [...] there, and [...] here? Nei­ther [Page 107]do your examples from [...] and [...] help you at all.

For 1st. By an Antiphrasis, or Euphemis­mus, the words signifies the quite contrary, Bless, and Curse, Holy, and Ʋnclean; [or Sodomite, as we Translate.]

2ly, The words are so used in an oppo­site sense, in several other Scriptures, that prove one another.

3ly, The sense of the Text forces us so to render their signification.

1. But then you must Translate [...] by some word which is quite contrary to Holiness, so that one expel the other: Con­traria sunt pellentis naturae, but Legitimacy and Holiness are not contraries in respect of this Subject, for he may be Legitimate and Holy too, I know: you must then read else were your Children unclean, but now they are unclean. This is good Sense.

2. As the word Holy, is never taken in the Holy Page for Legitamacy, nor can you justify it by any Text, as we can the former, clearly by several Texts. A Seed accord­ing to God's Institution in Marriage, ac­cording to his appointment, Ordination in Mat. 2.15. and the Holy Seed. Ezra. 9.2. differ very much: besides, as I said, the Children of the Corinthians were Holy, if [Page 108]that were the Sense before the Gospel came.

3. Nor is there the least pressing necessi­ty why it should not be taken, as in the Scriptures I mention. Nay, there is a pres­ing necessity to force that it cannot be meant Legitimacy, because it follows upon the Faith of one Parent, which Legitimacy doth not.

For [...] which you say alwaies signifies Authority, yet 1 Cor. 11.15. [I suppose you mean the tenth] it signifies a Vail.

Ans. Who translated the word so? I have viewed nine Translators, and they render it Power as we do. A Metonimy of the Sub­ject, we know there is the meaning being, a covering in sign that she is under the Authority of her Husband. Gen. 24.65. A Phrase whereby the thing signified is ascri­bed to the Sign, the propriety of the word is here meant and intended; that she shew her self to be under Authority. The Act­hiopick Translation, to give the Sense, turn the Substantive into a Verb; but hower, this doth not at all suit your design. In the word Holy, here is no Metonimy, Sign, or thing signified.

I see nothing of moment more to an­swer, and I doubt not my Author hath been bet­ter answered by others, though I saw none, till I had done.

SECT. VII.

THen my Author proceeds to the man­ner of Baptising, and tells us what [...] signifies; quotes Bishop Taylor, Doctor Hammond, and many that say it sig­nifies Immersion; and who is so ignorant, that knows not this? but is my Author so knowing, that he can prove it signifies only Immersion, or dowzing a person over head and cars? did Bishop Taylor, and Doctor Ham­mond Baptise so, and only so? let him en­quire. Why did not my Author prove that the word signifies only so, in Heb. 9.10. 1 Cor. 10.2. [something you would say to this, but 'tis pittyful] Mark 7.4. Luke 11.38. the Pharisee marvelled that Christ [...] had not first Baptised be­fore Dinner; How the Jews use to wash hands, you may guess, by 2 Kings 3.11. when Elisha waited on Elijah; He powred water on the hands of Elijah, did not Elijah then Baptise, or wash his hands? was not the Bason and Ewer, and the little Cisterns with Water, common in England, and in some places still to this day? and do we not [Page 110]wash by letting of Water run upon our hands, or powring upon them.

That the Holy Ghost is signified you tell us; and threetimes Baptising with the Ho­ly Ghost, is expressed by powering of the Holy Ghost.

What our Authors have said about their practice in hotter Countries, where Baptism was first Instituted, you know; there they did commonly wash, you were bound by the Law to wash. 2 Sam. 11. [...].4. with Le­vit. 15.19. and 18, 19. So Pharaoh's Daugh­ter. Exod. 2.5. but in our cold Climates, this is not so common.

However, to me it seems strange, that there should be so much stress put upon Bap­tism, and so much upon the manner of Baptising, as the Anabaptists lay, and yet the Holy Page hath not Recorded how it should be performed. To Baptise an Infant, I could do as Mr. Chancy did in New-England, and as of old they did in England; as an Antient Gentleman, of good quality in Suffolk told me, He remembred the practice, by a good token, One Infant was so fowled with its green Excrement, when it came to be Dip­ped, [a handsome sight in a Congregation, when we are about Holy Things] that he could not forget it; but how to Baptise an [Page 111] Adult person, and heavy Body, I cannot tell. If they go into the Water, into the Element, they Baptise themselves so far as their body is in the Water; The Baptist doth not Dip that part.

As for their Clothes, I hope they do not go in with them, to Baptise, or Wash them. certainly there ought to be an immediate Aplication of the Sign, [the Water] to the Body; that our Baptism hath a reference to the Ezek. 16.4. I see several Men con­clude, and have shown us how this Custom of Washing new born Babes was derived almost to all Nations, but neither then, nor now do our Women put on a Shirt, or any thing upon the Infant, and then wash it, but they apply the Water immediately to the Body; I am sure it should be so in Bap­tism. Vossius gives us large Testimonies out of Antient Writers, how that Men, Women, and Children, in those Countries, were all Baptised. [ De Baptis. p. 350.] [I wonder the Anabaptists should be so angry with Mr. Baxter] because he saith they Baptise na­ked, the Women only had a little covering before them, (yea they had a Mystery in the pulling off their Clothes, to shew their pulling off the Old Man, some where I have read,) after their Dipping, they were An­nointed. [Page 112]When a tumult arose in the Ci­ty about Chrysolstom, how the Women that were about Baptising, ran away naked; with other things there we may read.

Certainly God's Institutions are such, that we may Celebrate them at Noon-day, before all Men, let them be Spectators; and if this must be the way, let them Baptise for me, and Annoint too if they please.

So that Modesty and Life, be preserved, I am of Cyrian's, and Austin's mind in this Point, who left it indifferent, so you do not absolutely tye us up to one, and deny all Baptism by Dipping. [ Cypr. 249. Aust. 10.3. p. 207.]

Other Divines have answered this more fully, and therefore I break off.

Here a Question falls in, which I never did so much as think of, till now I say Mr. Mode, That Water in Baptism, he saith, hath no respect to the blood of Christ; that it doth concur in the Mystery by way of efficacy and merit, he grants, but not as the thing there fi­gured, for that is the Spirit? This may help as to the manner of Baptising.

I thought both Spirit and Blood, he de­nies the latter, and saith the Church of Eng­land doth so also, as he thinks.

The Question is new to me, I shall hard­ly propound my thoughts.

1. If cleansing of the Soul from Sin be the thing Baptism holds out, then, what doth primacily, properly, and effectually cleanse, is there signifyed, but the Antece­dent is true: Cleansing is as much given to the Blood of Christ, as to the Spirit. 1 Joh. 1.7. Apoc. 1.5. Hebr. 9.14.22. Almost all things were purged by Blood.

2ly, We read three times, Mark 1.4. Luke 3.3. Acts 2.38. that Remission of Sins is signifyed and Sealed in Baptism; but how can this be, if there is no respect to his Blood in Baptism? Without Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9.22. Why is it called Baptism for remission of sins?

3ly, Why are we said in Baptism to have Communion with Christ in his Death, and buryed with him in Baptism? Rom. 6.3. It should rather be said buryed with the Spirit, if the Spirit only be signifyed. Doth not the Death of Christ compre­hend in it, the effusion of his Blood?

4ly, It is certain, that in the Types of the Old Testament, by Water the blood of [Page 116]Christ was signifyed. Numb. 19.9. The Water is said to be a Purification for Sin. In the Hebrew it's a Sin, the word often used for a Sin Offering, the Dutch render it, It is an Expiation. Have not that Fountain, Zech. 13.1. set open a respect to the blood of Je­sus? all the Interpreters I see, respect both his Blood and Spirit: Why not then so in Baptism.

5ly, As we are filthy, are we not as guilty? Is there nothing in the Ordinance to respect our guilt? then it were sad, yea, guilt being upon us, can God give out the blessing of Regeneration to us, till in order his justice be first satisfied? though Regeneration and Pardon are simul tempore?

To say it concurrs by way of efficacy and merit, so it doth in any Ordinance to make it effectual. But Remission of Sins being in a special manner sealed up in this Ordi­nance, which is only by Christs Blood, me­thinks the Element should have a respect to his Blood.

The utter Abolition of Sin, both guilt and power is given to the Blood of Christ alone: but taking away guilt, is not given to the Spirit.

6ly, Out of the side of our Blessed Lord when he was pierced, came Blood and Wa­ter. Joh. 19.34. There is our Pardon, and Sanctification: If both these be signified in our Baptism, why is not that Blood and Water of his signifyed in this Water in Baptism?

Hence Alcinus's Baptism was signified in the passion of Christ, by the Water and Blood which came from his side; Several Verses he hath upon it. [ Cent. 6. p. 112.]

In That Tract which go under Cyprian's Name. Baptizabantur in nube, & mari Hebraei, & jam Spiritu sancto & sanguine Christi, mundatur a peccatis populus Dei. [De Resur. Chri.]

Hence Ambrose speaking of Baptism— Ideoq (que) legisti, quod tres Testes in Baptismate u­num sunt, aqua, sanguis; & spiritusqui si unum horum detrahas, non stat Baptismatis Sacramen­tum: quid enim est aqua sine cruce Christi? [Deris qui c. 4.]

Hence Luther, Baptizari nihil aliud est quum reseo illo, & precioso sanguine Christi, lanari, & mundari.

Res significata in Baptismo est sanguis Chri­sti. Walaeu. to. 1. p. 84. I could produce more Authors.

The Application of the Blood of Christ, and the renewing of the Spirit, without both which our State cannot be happy, I think may both be signified, and these ei­ther by Dipping, or powering of Water: The sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus [set out of old by the Ceremonial sprinkling] is a famous Sentence in the Gospel. Heb. 12.24. and 1 Pet. 1.2. so the powering out of the Spirit, Tit. 3.5, 6. Ezek. 36.25. Isa. 52.15. Joel 2.28, 29. Prov. 1.23.

The Abolishing of Sin, is the end of all; [Lord what a do is here before we can be delivered from the misery we have brought ourselves into! what an Evil is Sin!] now this is not set down one way, but several waies in Scripture, sometimes by mortifica­tion, or the Death of Sin. Dipping sets out that, Buried with Christ, sometimes by clean­sing, and by purging. Heb. 9.14. 1 Jo. 1.9. Apoc. 1.5. But the grave do not represent that, we do not use to purge, and cleanse, by Burying, but this we do by powring Water upon our Hands, upon Rooms, Ta­bles, &c. we can cleanse that way, purge me with Hyssop. Psal. 51.7. How was that? Levit. 14.6, 7. Numb. 19.18. not by Dip­ping.

Whither then you Dip, or pour Water. [Page 117]Here is, 1. The same Sign, or Element. 2ly, Here is the same thing signified, the Spirit, and Blood of Christ. 3ly. The same end aimed at, the taking away, or purge­ing of Sin; nor did I ever contend with any Man about Dipping, but to deny all Bap­tism, unless by Dipping, and so set up Re­baptising, and to administer Baptism only to Adult persons, excluding all the Children of Believing Parents; This I could never yield to.

To conclude, though I was moved to publish my Notes by some Friends, yet had I not received this Challenge, (for so I may call it) by this Letter, I think I should never have done it, because I knew Men far more able than my self, had done more service, than I could do in the Contro­versie.

I wish the Anabaptists, before they had Condemned, and wrote against Infant-bap­tism, had well studyed, and well improved their Parental, and Infant-baptismal Cove­nant, followed God close for the benefits, and waited, though they found temptati­ons, and did not meet with all they would, and reproved others for neglecting, and vigorously stirred up people to the serious improvement of them; Then had they [Page 181]done good service to Christ and his Church: Whereas by the course they have taken, they have increased our Divisions, (a thing deeply to be lamented) which I shall never live to see healed.

I shall only desire the Anabaptists to give me answer to these two Questions, clearly from Scripture.

Quest. 1. Since God was so Gracious to make a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and it did then consist with his Wisdom, to Constitute his Church of Parents and Chil­dren, while the Parents did believe in the Mes­siah to come, why may it not consist with his Grace to continue that Covenant, and with his Wisdom, still to Constitute his Gospel-Church of Parents and Children, the Jews now believ­ing in Christ come?

If God hath plainly declared his pleasure to the contrary, tell us where, and we are satisfied: but you must produce other Scri­ptures then you have done yet.

Quest. 2. If God hath repealed his Cove­nant, with the Believing Jews Seed, turned their Children out of the Church, and deny them Baptism, though the Jews truly Believe [Page 119]in Christ come, what hath God left in the room of these, that carry any shew of his Blessing, or good Will towards their Children, during their Infant State?

As to their Internall and Eternal State, the Infants were in as good a State then, as now? Christ is Yesterday, to Day, and the same for ever, the Lamb slain for the Foun­dation of the World. Apoc. 13.8. But as to their visible State, how come they to be in the same condition, that we Gentiles, and our Children were in. Ephes. 2.12. Be­fore Christ came, and we believed in him?

I state the Question, concerning the Jews Believing in Christ come. As for the Be­lieving Gentiles, I shall let them alone, till I see how you prove the casting out of the Seed of the Believing Jews.