We answer: 1. This weakly follows from unsound pre­mises; was there no word added to Circumcision? How doth that appear? Was there not a word of Institution? Genes. 17. 10, 11, 12. Was not the reason of the Covenant de­clared to Abraham? See Gen. 18. 19. Did not he, and others, preach the same to all of age to be circumcised, as Proselytes, and to the circumcised infants when they came to age capable of Doctrine? so doe we to the baptized: but to persons of years we preach the Gospel first, and then baptize them; in­fants we baptize first, and instruct them when they come to be capable.

We say so also, they must be capable of Reason, ei­ther in act, that they may presently understand those things; or in habit, that they may afterward understand the same; [Page 13] to what end else should we baptize infants, or why were they circumcised into future faith, repentance, and newness of life? Durand. [...] [...]. l. 1. c. 7. n. 12, &c. We utterly dislike Popish baptizing of Bels, Chur­ches, Altars, &c.

3. We say further, That Covenants between man and man, require that both parties expressly understand & know the tenour, substance, and particulars of the same; but in Covenants between God and his Creatures, that Rule doth not universally hold; for here God stipulateth and princi­pally transacteth with the creature according to that which he will have done, or do in, or by them. So he established his Covenant with Noah and his seed after him, and with every living creature, the Fowle, Cattell, Beasts, &c. Gen. 9. 10. How much more rationally may he make covenant with infants, though yet without the actuall use of reason? A­gain, sometimes such covenants are made between men, as that the parent or parents covenant for, or in stead of their children, because they are not yet of age to understand the words and purport of the covenant, and it standeth good. How much rather may God covenant with an infant, whose mouth and Advocate, Christ Jesus, said expressly, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. I demand, quojure, by what right is the Kingdom of Heaven theirs? What, by descent from naturall parents? Nay, but that which is born of the flesh, is flesh, John 3. 6. And flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. It must therefore be by the free covenant of God with them, out of which it can belong to none by right of any infant-inno­cency, seeing all are conceived and born in sin, the children of wrath, Psal. 51 but for the grace and covenant of God with them, Ephes 2 [...] which they yet understand not, yet is it valid and effectuall to their salvation, as we may also understand in case of Cir­cumcision, in which the circumcised Child understood as little what was said, or done, as the baptized infant now doth, and yet it was Gods covenant with them, Gen. 17. 7, 10, 11, 12. and effectual for them. To conclude, if you mean that it is requisite that none should be admitted to baptism, [Page 14] but those that have the actuall use of reason, that is, men and women of years, you beg the question.

Concerning a Character or impress set upon the baptized, the Schoolmen and Jesuits have moved sundry questions: whether it be an absolute or relative quality, which yet they say, sticks fast upon them also that are in hell? Whether it be an ens rationis, or a relatio realis? Whether a quality, action, or passion? And if a quality, of what kind it is? Whether the subject thereof be the soul, or some active or passive faculty thereof? Whether it be a figure or form? Whether the Sacraments of the old Testament made the like impress? &c. In all which, and the like vain speculations, we may not unprofitably note the just judgment of God, gi­ving them over to unfruitfull delusions, who forsaking the true and constant light of his holy word, give themselves [...] ­ver to follow the ignes fatuos of their own fancies. I hope you are not of their sense, though you mention this impress. Concerning the seal of our implantation into Christ, I have spoken a little before; and onely add, that we receive grace, and the obsignation thereof, but are not sensible of all, untill we receive a greater measure,— that we might know the things that are freely given unto us of God. 1. Cor. 2. 12.

It wholly holds in substance for ought you have said to the contrary: and therefore your following instances are frivolous. Calv. Instit. lib. 4. c. 16. As concerning baptizing the eighth day, we an­swer, 1. That, whereas God appointed no set day for bap­tism, we have the greater liberty to do it at the most conve­nient season, on the first, second, third, fourth, &c. or on any day, so that we neither contemn Gods ordinance, nor unnecessarily delay it. Ursin. Cat. part. 2. de Baptism. 2. As hath been noted, baptism suc­ceeded circumcision, not in every circumstance, but in the [Page 15] thing signified, in the end and use. 3. This your argument is a fallacious and childish caption: à fallacia accidentis, from the subject to the accident, from the substance to the circumstance, as the learned Dr. Featly observeth, Fallacia acci­dentis est, cum quid [...]is rei, & accidenti: [...]. c. subjects & ejus attributo, simi­liter attribui­tur, Arist. l. 1. Elench. c. 4. Dr. Featly child. Bap. justified. pag. 72. m. such a fallacy is this.

The case is as clear in the Question of Fidus the Presbyter, (whom you call Bishop) as it is in your objecting it. Fidus made a querie, or rather affirmed, that Infants ought not to be baptized on the second or third day, Esse apud om­nes, sive infan­tes, sive majores natu, unam Di­vini muneris aequalitatem.—.nam Deus ut personam non accipit, sic nec aetatem, cum se om­nibus ad coelestis gratiae consecutionem aequalitate librata praebeat parem—si etiam gravissimis delictoribus, & in Deum multum ante peccantibus,—& à baptismo at (que) gratia nemo pro­hibetur; quantomagis prehiberi non debet infans, qui recens natus nihil peccavit, nisi quod secun­dum Adam—contagium mortis antiquae prima nativitate contraxit. Cyprian.l. g. ep. 8. Fido. Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem qu [...] nati sunt, constitutos, baptizare non opartere, & considerandam legem esse circumcisionis antiquae, ut intra octavum diem, cum qui natus est baptizandum & sanctificandum non putares; longe aliud in concilio nostro omnibus visum est. In hoc enim quod [...] puta [...]as esse faciendum, nem [...] consensit: sed universi potius judicavi [...]nus, nulli hominum nat [...], misericordiam Dei & gratiam esse denegandem. Cyprian. q. s. but that the law of an­cient circumcision ought to be considered; so that he thought [Page 16] the new-born infant might not be baptized within, or before the eighth day: Cyprian answereth: There is one equality of the Divine gift to all, whether they are infants or old men: for as God is no accepter of persons, so neither is he of ages, but he shews himself in an even-ballanced equality, alike to all, as to their attaining heavenly grace—if to grievous of­fenders, and to those who have before that much sinned against God—and no man is prohibited baptism and grace, how much less ought the infant to be prohibited, who being new-born, hath committed no sin, onely that in Adam. —He hath in his first nativity been infected with the con­tagion of ancient death. But concerning the cause of in­fants who you say are not to be baptized at two or three dayes old, and that we are to consider the law of ancient cir­cumcision, so that you think that a child born may not be baptized before the eighth day; all that were in our Coun­cell are of a far different judgment; for no man consenteth to that which you thought was to be done: but we all ra­ther judged, that the mercy and grace of God is to be de­nied to no man born. Let the Reader judge how clear the case is in the Bishops question to Cyprian. To the rest of your Arguments we say you dispute ex non concessis: We do not say that the correspondence of Rites inferre the circumstances, but the substance: but errors are fruitfull, and one absurdi­ty granted, many easily follow. For that you say from your own fancy, which you run away witha [...].

We answer, 1. As we have said before, baptism succee­ded circumcision not in every circumstance (which your selves justifie in that you baptize women) but in the sub­stance, the thing signified, the end and use: or as others say, in the inward mystery, in the promises, in use, in effects. Calv. Instit. l 4. c. [...]. sect. 10. fin.

2. God expressly restrained circumcision to males, Gen. 17. 10, 12, 14. yet the females were comprehended in the males: and to be born of circumcised parents, was to them in stead of circumcision, and so were they born to God, and in his account Daughters of Abraham, Luke 13. 16. and so [Page 17] within his covenant of grace and mercy: and the sealing of males was then limited to the eighth day; but now in baptism the circumstances of sex, age, and a fixed day, are not ex­pressly mentioned, but we have a generall commandement to baptize all, without exception to any time, sex, or age.

3. Though women were not capable of circumcision, and therefore it was not enjoyned them, yet the female is as ca­pable of baptism as the male, and therefore without excep­tion to sex, they who are all one in Christs account, must e­qually be baptized into him. 4. Circumcision and Baptism agreeing in substance, did yet differ in many circumstances. First, in the Rite or Ceremony. Secondly, in the manner of signifying: For Circumcision held out grace in the Messias then to come; but baptism presenteth it in Christ exhibited. Thirdly, in the particular testimony annexed to make good the promise: for then God promised, not onely a covenant with his Church, but a peculiar place for the same, the land of Cauaan, untill the coming of the promised Seed: but baptism hath no particular promise of this, or that fixed place. Fourthly, in the manner of binding; Circum­cision did oblige the circumcised to the observation of the whole Law, Morall, Ceremoniall, Gal. 5. 3. and Judiciall: but baptism bindeth us onely to the observation of the Morall Law; that is, faith, repentance, and newness of life, according to the holy Rule of Gods will revealed in the Moral Law, from the curse whereof, in respect of non-performance, Gal. 3. 13. we are deli­vered in Christ, into whom we are baptized. Fifthly, in their appointed continuance; Circumcision was appointed onely for Abrahams posterity; and to [...] continue onely unto the coming of Christ: but baptism was instituted for all Nati­ons and times unto the worlds end. Gal. 3. 19. Lastly, Gal. 5. 2. in circumstance of sex and age, Matth. 28. 19. 20. so far as circumcision was limited to males and the eighth day. So that to argue, as you do, from the sub­stance to the circumstance, or that which is accidentall, is fal­lacions, Fallacia acci­dentis. and captions, as hath been shewed.

This you think a right understanding of the business; [Page 18] after your shuffling together many strange impertinencies, to tell us of baptizing spirituall Infants. To which we an­swer: If you mean by Spirituall Infants, such as are born a­gain of water and the holy Ghost, then you would have them twice regenerate or born: If you mean Believers one­ly, (for in reason you cannot call an unbeliever or wicked person a spirituall infant) then I would fain learn by what discerning spirit you can know when, and whom to baptize, and whom to put by; or which infant, according to the flesh, is not a spiritual infant, by the spirit of regeneration: If you say that those who are of years, profess faith and repen­tance, and therefore are to be baptized, it is easily rejoined; what ere they professe they may be hypocrites; and then no more spirituall Infants then Judas or Simon Magus were: If you say that in charity you take them for spirituall. I an­swer, That an opinion that may be so easily false, and in which any man without speciall revelation may be deceived, is a very unproportionable ground of so sharp a controversie, as causeth your Clients to forsake the Church of Christ. Next, I say, had you but as much charity towards infants, whom no actuall sins have yet stained, you would as freely judge them spirituall infants, and so, by your own Principle, to be baptized, as those of years, of whom possibly you may know much evill, without all controversie they have ma­ny sins to be repented of; and why should you not afford harmless Infants who cannot dissemble, as much cha­rity as you do to many hypocrites, of whose spirituall rege­neration, or being spirituall Infants, you cannot be cer­tain?

Indeed we read of such a custome in Tertullians Ind [...] suscepti, la­ctis & me [...]is concordiam praegustamus. Tertul. de Coronâ mil. c. 3. & ib. advers. Marcion. l. 1. c. 14. Nec me [...]lis & lactis societatem quâ su [...] infantat.—Haec citat Pol. Virg. l. 4. c. 4. Buch [...]l­cer. lnd. Chr [...]n [...]. Anno Christi 208. Christ. Helvici. Theatr. Histor. p. 91. time, but [Page 19] that was two hundred years after Christ: but I find not the sense of the Church therein by him expressed to your purpose. And Hierom Hieron. in Isai. 55. mentioneth the same custom, but gi­veth no such sense as you pretend to; it being well known that he was for Infant-baptism. —qui mos ac typus in occi­dentis Eccles [...]h [...] die us (que) ser­ [...] ut [...] in Christ [...] vinam, lac (que) tri­ [...]tar ad­ [...] Pelag. al. 3. And it appears not by any thing you here cite or say, that such a custom proveth any thing against Baptism of Infants, for whom milk and hony is fitter nourishment th [...]n for the strong, 1 [...]orinth. 3. 2. Hebr. 5. 12, 13. Your other conjecture is but feebly groun­ded; yet you say,

To which we answer, 1. That things which Christ com­manded to his Apostles, Bea [...]us quidem Cyprianus non aliqu [...]d decrei [...] [...]ndens n [...]m, [...]ed Ecclesiae Fi­dem firmissi­m [...]m servans, ad corrigendum [...]os qui putabent ante octa [...]m diem nativita­tis, non esse par­ [...]ulum bapti­zandum—mox n [...]tum rite bap­tizari posse, cum s [...] quibusdam coépiscopis cen­suit. could not be Augustines, or any humane invention, but a divine Institution, such was bapti­zing of Infants, as will appeare in due place. And this is the ground of this whole controversie. 2. That it was none of Augustines device or fancy, with which he was therefore in love, as being his own, Augustine Augustin, Hie­ron. ep. 28.—contra Eccle­siae sundatissi­mum morem nemo sentiat. ib. Hec Ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc à majorum fide percepit, hoc usque in finem per­severanter cust [...]dit. Ib. Aug. de verb. Apostlie. Ser.10. his self clearly testifieth. S. Cyprian Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 8. (saith he) not composing any new decree, but holding the most firm faith of the Church, to correct their error, who thought that an infant might not be baptized be­fore he were eight days old; he, with certain his fellow. Bi­shops, was of this sense, that a new-born infant might rightly be baptized. As for the words of Cyprian, we have cited them a little before. Cyprian with a Conncell of 66. Bishops, re­solved so, not out of any then new-born opinion, or decree, but maintained that which was of old, the firm faith and do­ctrine of the Church which was long before him: And Cy­prian flourished about the year of our Lord: 22, and was crowned with martyrdom under the persecuting Emperour Valerian, about the year 260. Bucholcer. lnd. Chronol. Passus est sub Valeriano & Galieno principibus persecutione Octavâ. Catalog. script. Eccles. Hieronym. [...]om. 1. And St. Augustine flourished [Page 20] about the year 410. and died about the year 430. Ecclesia ab A­postol [...] traditio­nem accepit eti­am pervulis da­re baptismum. Orig. com. in Rom. 6. Vid. ib. in Levit. hom. 8 & ib. in Luc. hom 14. So that had Augustine (as you say) devised it, i [...] must have 150 years years before Augustine was born, been devised by Augustine, which had been a singular device indeed. Origen of whom you say Augustine had this tradition of Baptizing Infants ( pag. 237. N. 25) saith, because we are all conceived and born in sin, the Church hath received a Tradition from the Apostles to administer Baptism to little child [...]. Now Origen lived a­bout the same time with Cyprian. How you can reconcile your self (in that you here affirm that Pedobaptism was Augustines device, and yet confesse that Augustine had it from Origen, who died so many years before Augustine was born) I say not to the truth, but to your self, I do not understand. Tertul. advers. Valentin. c. 5. Hieron. Catol script. Eccles [...]ren l. 4 c. 14. Justin Martyr, Just. Martyr. q. [...] ort [...]. 56. whom Tertullian mentioneth as an Ancestor (he lived under the Emperour Antoninus Pius) and. Omnem atatem sanctificans per illam quae ad ip sumerat simili­tudinem. Omnes enim venit per semetipsum sal­var [...]. Omnes in­quim, qui per cum renascuntur in D [...]m, insan­tes & parvulos, & [...]s, & ju­ [...]énes, & senio­res. Ide [...] per omnem venit, ae­tatem, & insan­tibus infans fac­tus sanctisicans infantes, &c. Iren. l. 2. c. 29. Irenaeus speaketh of Infants baptized in his time. Ire­naeus speaking of Christs Baptism and entrance into his pub­lique Ministery, saith, He sanctified every age by that simili­tude which was to himself, for he came to save all by himself; I say all, who by him are regenerate to God, infants and little ones, boys, young men and old: therefore passed he through every age, for infants he became an infant, sanctify­ing infants, &c. This Irenaeus was so ancient, that he saw Po­lycarp Polycarpus [...]utem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus, & conversatus cum multis ex eis, qui dominum nostrum viderunt.—quera & nos vidimus in primâ nostrâ a [...]ate, &c. Iren. l 3. c. 3. [...]id. Hieronym. Catol. scriptor: Eccles. Igna [...]. who was an hearer of some of the Apostles of Christ. It was therefore none of Augustines device. Si quisquam in hac re au [...]tatem divinam quaerat, quanquam quod universatenet Ecclesia, nec confiliis inftitut [...], sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditum, rectissimè creditu [...] tamen verac [...]ter con [...]inere possumus, quid valeat in parv [...]lis, baptismi sacramentum, ex cir­cumcisine carnis, quam prior populus accepit; quam priusquam acciperet justificatus est Abraham [...]cut Cornelius etiam [...]on [...] Spiritus sancti priusquam baptizaretur, &c. Cur ergo praeceptum est, ut o [...] d [...]inceps infantulum masculum octavo die circumcideret, qui nondum poter [...]t corde credere, &c. nisi quia & ipsum per s [...]ipsum sact amentum multum valebat? Aug. [...] 7. part. [...]. de baptism. [...], Donat. l. 3. c. 24.

3. Whether this be true which you affirm, that Augustine at the most pretended it but as probable, and a me [...]conjecture (to baptize infants, as infants were circumcised) let Augustine speak for himself (who saith) If any man in this thing look for [Page 21] Divine authority, although that which the universal Church holdeth, being no Decree of any Councell, but hath been always observed, that we must rightly believe to have been delivered no otherwise then by Apostolicall authority: yet we may truly apprehend of what value the Sacrament of Baptism of Infants may be, from the circumcision of the flesh, which the former people received. Abraham was ju­stified before he received it; as also Cornelius was endued with the gift of the holy Ghost before he was baptized, &c. why therefore was [...]e commanded thenceforth to circumcise every male child on the eighth day, seeing they could not yet believe with the heart? &c. but because the Sacrament it self, is of it self of great moment: so untrue is it that Au­gustine either devised Infant-baptism, or so slightly pretended to it, as you report. But you go on,

And what is that for which you cry victory in your for­mer encounters? I will not be so expensive of time, or so much entrench upon the Readers patience, as to repeat, let him judge of what he hath read. But what other battalio's come next up? You say,

A gallant flourish indeed: but seriously; Did Christ take them up in his arms, and bless them; and are they not blessed? Doth not Gods blessing give both end and means that we may be so? Or spake Christ onely concerning the carnall seed of Abraham, and not of the spirituall when he said, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven? Surely if Christ adjudge and give the Kingdom of heaven (which himself onely can give, and in which none but the elect shall be) to an infant, it must be no less then impious in man, to abridge, abjudge, and bar him of admission into the visible Church of Christ by baptism, which sinfull and ignorant man can administer, and which reprobates as wel as the elect may and do receive. But what follows?

'Tis a pretty argument wherein both Antecedent and Conse­quent are lame; John 4. 1. 'tis true and granted, that Christ in his own person baptized them not; but how prove you that he bap­tized them not by some one of his Disciples? What; be­cause 'tis not written? The Apostle may give you satisfa­ction herein, who saith,— There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the books. John 20. 3. How invalid is the Moderators Agument, John 21. 25. à non scripto, ad nonfactum? Can there be a sound conclusion from rotten premises? Christ blessed children and so dismissed them, but baptized them not, therefore Infants are not to be baptized. — Antonii gladios potuit contemnere, si sic omnia dixisset.— Would it not as well follow à non scripto? Jesus granted the Centurions request, and cured his servant, and so for ought we read dismissed them, but baptized them not, Mat. 8. 10, 3. Christ healed the sick of the palsie and dismissed him; but for ought we read baptized him not; Matth. 9. 2, 6, 7. Mark 2. 23. 5. 11, 12. He healed the woman of the bloody issue; but for ought we read baptized her not, Mat. 9. 22. Mark. 5. 34. So the Ruler of the Synagogues daugh­ter, Matth. 9. 25. Mark 5. 41, 42. So he dismissed the man out of whom he had cast many Divels, Luke 8. 38, 39. we read not that he baptized him. So he pronounced par­don, accepted the repentance, and dismissed the penitent sin­ner in peace, Luke 7. 50. It were too long to repeat all. So he cured the lame at Bethesda, John 5. 8. Where (though so neer the convenience of water) we read not that he so much as once spake of Baptism to him; neither when finding him in the Temple he said to him,— thou art healed, sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee, Vers. 14. can any therefore reasona­bly conclude those men and women of years whose bodies Christ cureth, whose repentance he accepteth, whose faith his self testifieth (who cannot be deceived) were not, and [Page 23] therefore are not (though of years) to be baptized? He that had his time of doing those favours to them, was free to take his time of enjoyning their baptism: And how could you prove that these children were not baptized before or after they were brought to Christ? Before you censure our Arguments as invalid and weak; do your self the right to consider your own.

True, God hath not given the command to the Infant himself, but to others whom it concerneth, we are sure he hath: if you mean the first, you triste; if the second, you do, upon the matter, beg the question.

Whether infants can make haste to baptism, I appeale to experience: Whether they are innocent and have no need of baptism, as Pelagius affirmed, I appeal to your own con­science. Praeser, bitur nemini sine bap­tism [...] [...]mpetere salutem— [...]m à pri [...]dia cir­ [...] ut praeceptam Dei excederet, & propterea in mortem datus exinde totum ge [...] de suo semine inse­ctum, s [...]ae etiam d [...]tionis tradacem fecit. Te tul. de [...]est. anim. c. 3. Do you think there is no danger from infants ori­ginal guilt which maks them stand in need of the laver of re­generation for the remission of their sin? If you do not, why do you urge against us an authority which your self consen­teth not unto? To let pass what Tertullian meant when he affirmed such a necessity of baptism, as that he said, It is prescribed that no man shall be saved without baptism; which he inferreth from John 3. 5. pray teach me what he meant when he said; Man from his beginning circumvented, so as that he would transgress Gods command, therfore was condemned to death, whereby he also made all mankind, being infected from his seed, a traduction (or derivation from one to another) of his own damnation: Think you damnation no danger? or did not Tertullian Tertal. de Bapt. c. 18. know what he wrote? How he forgat himself and the truth when he would have children come to Christ onely then when they could learn and know Christ, where­as Christ said, Mark 10. 14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and for­bid [Page 24] them not; I can give no better account, then for other his errors; onely let the Reader note, that in the same place he affirmeth, that the unmarried also are to be deferred, and not baptized untill they are married, or setled in continency; but I spare this: We look for truth, and shall be glad to own and embrace it, in what Author soever we find it; but against the truth we are bound to none: onely we may note, that if Tertullian Non minore de causâ innpti quo (que) procr [...]sti­ [...]ndi. Tertul. q. sup. spake in the fore-cited place concerning Infants that Pedobaptisme was in his time in use in the Church; and so it must appear most false, which you before said, that it was Augustines device.

What need this stirre you make to trouble the peace of Christs Church? Why trouble you your self with our stir to do that which Christ commandeth us? Shall we suffer the Wolf quietly to take away sheep from Christs flock (as we daily see by the sleepy cowardize and dangerous silence of some temporizing Pastors, who possibly have learned from that old Courtier Crispus—. —qui nunquam direxirbrachia contra torrentem) nay, but we know there is a dangerous silence. See Ezek. 3. 18. Ester 4. 14. But to the matter, we say, that as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, 1 Cor. 15. 22. which being restrained according to the Apo­stles intention, to the faithfull and elect, might reasonably conclude, that as all men, even the faithfull and elect, were by naturall propagation condemnable in Adam, God justly imputing to his whole posterity that his act, whereby he not onely made his own person guilty, but also corrupted his na­ture: so are they by regeneration saved in Christ, God mer­cifully imputing his merits to them for their justification: so that, as they were condemnable for that they did not in [Page 25] their own persons commit, so shall they be saved by that which Christ, not they, did freely without the works of the Law: but of what consequence is solemnity? Would you have our fall in Adam, and repair in Christ run literally pa­rallell, even to circumstances? But what manner of arguing this were, we have often said. How many ridiculous conse­quences would you thence inferre? concerning a man, a wo­man, and a Serpent, and no more in the Scene: a garden, a fruit, &c. But remembring that we are speaking of sacred things, we resolve; that a Sacrament which is instituted of God to this end, Ursin. Catech. that it may be a solemn receiving into the Church, and a severing, or sign of distinguishing the whole Church, & all her parts, from all other Sects, ought to be mi­nistred solemnly, that others may take notice of the same, and that it may be the stricter bond to the baptized when they come to years, to hold them into saith, obedience, re­nunciation of the world, impious desires, and carnall affecti­ons, into which condition they were solemnly, and before ma­ny witnesses admitted by baptism.

We never had that conceit, you mistake the matter: we say not that God is tied to his own Ordinances, as if he could no otherwise save any, but that we are tied to Gods Ordinances, because they are the revealed will of God, which man is bound to obey. —Interim tamen ex eo [...]n potest inferri baptismum non esse ordinarium regenerationis medium ad cu­jus usunt a [...]i­gati [...]urnus. Joh. Gerhard; de Baptism. Sect. 2. class. 2. And though God be the most free Agent, and not tied, yet it doth not hence follow, that baptism is not the ordinary means of regeneration, to which we are tied. God hath not in your sense tied himself to the baptism of persons in years, as may appear in the penitent thief, who unbaptized was saved, Luke 23. 43. It is so in his other ordinances.— It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe, 1 Cor. 1. 21. There­fore ordinarily faith is by hearing the word, Rom. 10. 17. yet God hath not so absolutely tied it to preaching, but that he could at his pleasure convert Saul breathing threatnings, [Page 26] Acts 9. Neither is he tied to the E [...]charist: would you conclude hence that men and women of years are not tied to be baptized, hear the word, or receive the Lords Supper, because God, and his free grace, are not tied to these exter­nall and ordinary means? If not, what meaneth that your medium (God hath not tied himself) and what can it more conclude against Infants baptism, then against the bap­tism, hearing, receiving the E [...]charist by persons of years?

Yet we affirm, that when God made the promise to A­braham, being willing more abundantly to shew to the heirs of promise, the immutability of his councell, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, &c. Heb. 6. 17, 18. In which sense, God hath bound himselfe to make good to us, all that which the Seals of his Covenant by him­self appointed, hold forth unto us. But you add,

We answer: The admitting of the one is not always the ex­cluding of all other: and we question not Gods power here­in, but his will; here is an Ignoratio elenchi. Inclus [...] unius non est exclusio alterius. Gerh. [...]. ser. 3. n. 188 sin. What think you of the validity of that Argument which is from Gods pow­er to his will? He can open the eys of the blind, and convert the hearts of temporizers, and professed enemies of his Church and Truth, I would I were assured that he would now do so.

Here is again a fallacious arguing: You take the thing in question for your medium: The question is, Whether bap­tism of Infants he a divine or humane institution, upon which dependeth wholly whether we ought o [...]ught not to baptize Infants? Now you would prove that we ought not to carry infants to Christ by baptism, because he appointed or directed us not so to do; but (as you say) we do it of our own heads: Nay, but confining sacramentall administrations to such time, age, or other circumstance, by Christ never [Page 27] limited or enjoyned, it will-worship, and mans invention: This your conceit is so poor and low, that a puny Sophister would be ashamed of it.

Here is another argument as fe [...]ble as the fore-going: What? because God hath as great a care of them as of o­thers, therefore we must have no care of them in the applica­tion of the ordinary means? so hath he a care for their bo­dily preservation and sustenance; doth that prove that we ought not to feed or cloath them? God respectively ca­reth for all the Creatures, he giveth to the beast his food, Psal. 147. 9. Mat. 6. 26, 28. Were it good Georgicks to say, Trouble not your self to fodder your cattle, or loose them from their stall that they may drink? Who knoweth not that God hath ap­pointed ordinary meane, although he can do it without such means, and though he say not that he will not otherwise preserve them, but leave them to the dictates of common reason to conclude?

Prove that one Assertion, That God will by his own im­mediate mercy save Infants, and have no means used there­to, and you have the Cause: but Christ hath appointed bap­tism for the ordinary means to bring people into his visible Church, that they may be saved: that he doth otherwise, that is, by an immediate act of mercy save some, to whom his all-disposing providence hath not given time or means, as in Infants dying before they were or could be baptized; this variet [...] not the Rule, for our question is not concerning them, and to say that therfore he will do it by an external act, because he will save them, or bring them thither whither he hath intended them, by his own immediate mercy, is no good Argument, you may lay your life o [...]'t. Immediatly signifi­eth without means, so that Immediately by means is a con­tradiction in the adject: this were to my sense so farre from a [Page 28] good argument, that I should doubt whether such a Dispu­tant were awake, or not: Immediatly by an external act and ministery? none of ours ever so reasoned.

Once again we say, We question not Gods power: truly nor his will in many Infants dying before they could be baptized: the question is, whether we may or ought, ac­cording to Gods revealed will, baptize them? In which it seemeth to us a very weak querie, And why cannot God as well do his mercies to Infants now immediately? &c.]

Not to dispute Gods secret counsels, we say, the danger will be to the despiser and neglecter of Gods Ordinance; wherein Tertullians Assertion may serve for a reason: Be­cause (saith he) he shall be guilty of a mans destruction, who shall omit to do that which he freely might have performed. Quoniam reus erit perditi ho­minis, si super­sederit pr [...]are, quod lib. [...] po­tuir. Tertul. de bapt. c. 17.

It is true that Calvin, Oecolampadius, and some others, do not think that Christ doth there precisely speak of Baptism, but that he either opposed it to Pharisaicall washings and purifications; to which possibly Nicode­mus, with whom he then discoursed, might be too much addicted: Or, that those words are simply to be interpreted concerning Regeneration; but Justin Mar­tyr, Just. Mart. A­p [...]l. 2. Ambresde Abraham. l. 2 c. 11. & ib. [...]. [...]. lib. 10 Chrysostome, Theophilact, Cyril, Euthymius, Au­gustine, Rupertus, Bonaventure, Musculus, B. Aretius, R, Rolloc, Pelargus, and others expound these words concerning Baptism, the Sacrament of Regeneration; the present speech of Christ being concerning Regeneration; [Page 29] and it is most probable that Christ therein respected the common order of the Church, mentioning the Spirit and Water; to shew that we must be baptized if we will be sa­ved; yet 'tis not the water but Gods holy Spirit which wash­eth away our sins: Neither doth he so simply and necessa­rily tie the grace and efficacy of Gods Spirit to the Sacra­ment of Baptism, as if none could be saved without Bap­tism, Sic accipienda, est, &c. [...]t respe­ [...]erit communem Ecclesiae ordinē, ne (que) tamen sim­pliciter gratiam Dei adsirixe­rit sacramento, quasi sit absolu­tè & sine excep­tione necessa­rium, Beza in Joh 3. 5. and that God could not extraordinarily and immedi­ately save. Whatsoever Papists say to the contrary to assert their bloody decree and cruell doctrine concerning Infants dying without Baptism: yet their Schoolmen, and they, in their more sober fits, confesse, that God hath not absolutely tied his grace to the Sacraments. Christ saith, He that shall believe and be baptized, shall be saved; Deus non alli­gavit gratiam suam sacramen [...]us. but in the Antithesis he saith not, Whosoever shall not be baptized, shall not be sa­ved; to shew us, that faith alone may sometime be suffici­ent to salvation, as in the penitent Thief; but nothing can suffice without faith; because without it, Ipse (Christius) p [...]uit effe [...]ium sacramentorum sine exteriore sa­cramento con­ferre. Aquin. 3 [...]. l. 64 a. 3. c. it is impossible to please God. And because faith onely apprehendeth Christ, in whom alone there is salvation, Acts 4 [...] To con­clude, it doth not appear, that Water and the Spirit in the fore-cited place, John 3. 5. signifie one and the same thing. Although Christs Baptisme with the Spirit, (which gives the effect of Baptism) were more excellent then John Baptists, —Deus qui suam potentiam sacra mentis non alligavit. P. Lombard. l. 4. distinct. 4. [...]. Mark. 16. 16. —Cautè & vigilantèr non re [...]tierit (qui ver [...] baptiza [...]us non fuerīt) sed tantùm, qui vere non [...]rediderit condemnabiiur nimirum inn [...]ens solum interdum sidem sufficere ad salatem, & sine i [...]sa, sufficere nihil. [...] Bernard. Ep 77. or any Ministers of the Gospel: for so is it still, and yet no sober man will deny, that the water in baptism and the Spi­rit, do differ, as the externall sign and inward grace thereby signified. You say further,

This assertion might better have suited with the dream of some fanaticall Jacobite: Jacobite n [...]n a­quam sed ig [...] ma [...]e [...]ium bap­tisim [...] [...]. What will not such an advocate say for his Clients? I appeal to your own conscience, may we as well conclude against Gods word, as for it? God ex­pressly [Page 30] saith, Deut. 18. 10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to passe through the fire; and it is above all rationall controversie, that he in­stituted baptizing with water, who said, Baptize all Nations, without any exception at all to infants: this is a poor trick of yours to elude Scripture: And where doth Peter say the same thing, that we may as well conclude that infants must also pass through the fire, as through the water? No, no, Peter by the Spirit of truth speaketh another thing, indeed intimating by those words, 1 Pet. 3. 21. Not the washing of the flesh, but the confidence (as we translate, but the answer) of a good conscience toward God—the effects of the inward baptism; which the Syriac in his Paraphrasticall interpretation of that place, [...] ma­keth more clear, but confessing God in a pure conscience: as when in the peace thereof we call upon him with an holy se­curity of his hearing us, Sed confitentes Deum in con­scientiá purá. Tremel. which can be onely in the inward Baptism, which the Spirit of Jesus giveth by faith and san­ctification, wherein we have peace toward God in the assu­rance of our justification, Rom. 5. 1. Rom. 8. 15, 16. So that the sum is, that the outward sign, the water and washing of the body in baptism, is not sufficient to salvation, if the Spirit of Jesus give not the inward effect thereof; and therefore it is dangerous to live securely in sin and unbelief, as too many do, in vain confidence that they must needs be saved, because they have been baptized into the visible Church of Christ: No, but the externall sign availeth not where the inward grace thereby signified is wanting. So in the preaching of the Gospel, & administration of the holy Eucharist, mans mini­stery can nothing prevail to the receivers salvation, without Gods Spirit giving the inward effect: so that Peter briefly tou­cheth the power & use of baptism, recalling us to the testimo­ny of a good conscience, & that confidence therein, which can endure the sight of God and his Tribunal, and flye unto him in all wants through Christ, But this Scripture is fanatically Perverted by Schuincfeld & others, who would hence cōclude against the effect of the Sacrament in the elect, whereas the Apostle affirmeth not, that the institution of Christ for baptizing the body with water, is vain or effectless; but se­cretly [Page 31] admonisheth carnall Gospellers, that they rest not in their security, but consult their own consciences, whether they find there the effect of their baptism: so that he neither saith, that infants may as well pass through the fire as through the water, as you trifle; nor is this place any thing to the purpose in this question of Infant-baptism: so that your fol­lowing confused Hypotheses are of no value or use, except to puzzle the Reader to find out what you mean, which he hardly shall: Therefore when you express your self more orderly and clearly, we owe you an Answer.

This is another argument of Anabaptists à pari: if in­fants (say they) are to be baptized, they are also to be ad­mitted to the Lords Supper. But in this agument there is a Sophisma [...]lenchi: for first it wants the condition [...]; if we follow your sense concerning spirituall infants, Pag. 229. taking in­fants for spirituall or regenerate persons in the major, and for those who are literally infants in the minor: and it wan­teth also [...]There is no question but that bapti­zed infants have right to the holy Cōmunion, as they have to strong meat, but not a capacity as such, or while they are in­fants: and God hath in express terms restrained the Lords supper to those who can actually apprehend, remember, & de­clare forth Christs death, 1 Cor.11. 26. which because infants cannot do, we give them not the Communion. Secondly, God hath denounced a grievous curse, or punishment a­gainst any that shall presume without due examination of himself, to eat of that bread & drink of that cup: but not so concerning Baptism, it being the seal of our new-birth and reception into the visible Church and Covenant, which hath no such condition annexed, as may justly exclude Infants in respect of any present non-performance thereof. But the Lords Supper is the Seal of our gro [...]h in grace, and spiritu­all strength, instituted for the confirmation of our admit­tance into, and our continuance in the Church of Christ, [Page 32] whose death and passion for our redemption, we thereby shew forth and commemorate, for our spirituall perfection, nourishment, and strengthening in faith and other graces of his Spirit, for our assurance, that God having once received us into his favour, will continue his mercy to us in Christ: By these disparities the invalidity of the Pleaders Argument may appear. Se more here­of, Mr. Cobbet explic. Luke 18. 15. Page 121, 122. [...]nit. And if it were true which he further saith, that the wit of man is not able to shew a disparity in the sancti­on, &c. yet the wisdom of God is able, and hath declared this difference in holy Scripture; and the same can shew more then the wit of man can discern, and hath shewed more then the learned Pleader doth, or will understand, who I conceive, doth not yet know all that the wit of man, or all the world can inform him of; but is it not better even for those who have been in the Mount with God, to cast the veil of modest humility over those excellencies which they have received, and with which they shine to others admi­ration, then to ostent them to the contempt of others? The Apostle of Christ was rap't up into the third Heaven, and yet professed— we know in part, and we prophesie in part,—1 Cor. 13. 9. 2 Cor. 12. 2.

That which you said a little before,— They are as ho­nest and as reasonable that doe neither, to wit, baptize infants, or give them the Comunion, as those that understood the Obligation to be Parallel, we may very well believe and wish, that either of them may prove honest hereafter. But to that which you say, That the ancient Church did with an equall opinion of necessity give them the Communion, I answer, 1. with Tertullian, Id esse Domini­cum & verum quod sit prius traditum: id autem extraneum & falsum quod sit posteriu [...]nmissum. Tertul. de Praescript. c. 31. That is of the Lord and true, which was first delivered; but that is extraneous and false which is af­terward received in. Non debemus attendere, quid aliquis ante nos faciendum pu [...]averit; sed quid qui aute omnes est Christus fe [...]erit: neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem. Cypr. l. 2. Ep. 3. And with Cyprian, We ought not to [Page 33] heed what some before us have thought was to be done; but what Christ did, who was before all: for we ought not to fol­low the custom of men, but the truth of God. 2 Your own rule must binde you, (though it cannot others who consent not thereto) they who reject tradition when 'tis against them, must not pretend it at all for them, pag. 237. Numb 25: 3 It is considerable in that custome of the church, as some o­ther incoveniences, which Augustine saith, Aluid est quod docemus, aliud quod sustinemus: aliud quod prae­cipere jubemur; aluid quod e­mendare praeci­pimur, & d [...]ee emendemus to­lerare compelli­mur. To. 6. contr. Faust. Manich. l. 20. c. 21. Quis co­meditur zelo de­mus Deit qui omnia quae forte ubi vidit per­verta satagit e­mendare, cupit corrigere, non quiescit, si [...]men­dare non potest, tolerat, gemit: non excutitur de areâ gran [...]m: sustinet paleam, ut intret in hor­reum cum pales fuerit separata. Aug. tract. 1 [...]. in Joh. 2. In his enim re­bus de quibus nihil certi sta­tuit Scriptura divina, vios populi Dei, vel instituta majorum, pro lege temenda sunt—orietur interminata lucta­ [...]io—utique cavendum est ne tempestate contentionis serenitas charitatis obnubile [...]. Aug. Casulano ep. 86. It is (saith he) one thing which we teach, and another which we endure; one thing which we are enjoyned to command, and another thing which we are commanded to amend; and untill we amend, we are compelled to endure it. And again, who is eaten with the zeal of Gods house? why, he that endeavour­eth and desireth to amend all that he sees amisse; he resteth not; if he cannot amend it, he endureth it, he sigh's: the grain is not tossed out of the floor; it endures the chaff, that it may enter into the granary when the chaff is winnowed out. 4 We adhere not so to tradition, that we universally receive all that which was done or said of old: things delivered by some, but not generally received by the Church, we esteem but superstructions of particular men, or superseminations, which possibly may spread farre, as many pernicious opinions have done; yet no sober man ever took them for Apostolicall, or so much as Ecclesiasticall traditions: we neither reject any tradition which appeareth to be Apostolicall (if not pe­culiar to their times, or suited peculiarly to certain times, places, or persons) nor do we rashly receive any tradition for such, except we are certain that the Scripture determineth nothing against it, or where strong consequence from thence justifieth it. 5 We conceive Augustines rule herein to be good: In those things (saith he) concerning which divine Scri­pture determineth nothing certainly, the custome of Gods people, or institution of our ancestors are to be held for a law—other­wise, endlesse contention will arise—also we must beware that the calm of charity be not clouded by the storm of contention. 6 We will not rashly dissent from reverend [Page 34] antiquity, wherein it dissenteth not from the truth: we love peace with all who hold that in fundamentalls at least, and therefore will follow Augustin's advice, in that he piously saith concerning his reader— where (saith he) he knows his errour, Ubi errorem su­um cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meu [...], re­vocet me, &c. Aug. de triuit. l. 1. c. 2. let him return to me; where mine, let him recall me: our rule being, that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11 1. be yee follo­wers of me, even as I also am of Christ: more no good man will require, nor render lesse to Ancestors. 7 Lastly we say that the Scripture which you cite, Joh. 6. 53. except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you; is not spoken concerning a Sacramentall, but a spiri­tuall feeding; and although Bellar [...]. de sacr. Euch l. 1. c. 5. 7. ib. l. 2. c. 8. ib. l. 4. c. 25. Goster Enchi­rid. de Eucha­rist. Sacr. 7. Suares. disp. p. 46. Sec. 2. Maldon in Joh. 6. Gab [...]. Vasquez. disp. 179. c. 4. [...] Aquin. 3 ^a. q. 65. a. 4. 2 ^m. dicit illud—est intelligendum de spirituali m [...]nducatione. Sci Pet. Lombard. dist. 8. D. Dist. 9. A. B. Jansenius concord. Evang. c. 59. Dan. Chamier Panstrat. To. 4. l. 11. c. 3. 4. * some of the Jesuites and other Papists contend against us herein, yet [...] some of the most so­ber of them acknowledge that those words are not to be un­derstood concerning eating or receiving the Lords super; which ours generally maintain: you might do your self right to joyn with us, and not with the most eager Jesuites con­cerning the spirituall feeding of infants to eternall life by the merit of Christ applyed to them for their Union with him, and salvation in and by him, we willingly accord: the man­ner of effecting by the secret power of the holy Ghost, we enquire not after, because it is not revealed, but for the rea­sons alleaged, we give them not the communion.

That would be a rare invention indeed: but if to call A­nabaptists Anabaptists, be just, why find you fault with it? if evill or unjust, why consult you how to imitate it by way of revenge? is it not a shame to be such, as we are or may well be ashamed to be called? truely we allow not any disgrace­full name or reviling; but know that the name injureth not where the thing it self is not disgraceful: some name we must distinguish them by: if you can invent a more true and pro­per one, we shall be beholding to you for an invention, and they for a new name. Next you say,

We answer: your words carry a dangerous shew of blas­phemy, but we desire to allow them the fairest interpretation which can be made of them, and suppose you meant not to say (as the connexion of your words imports) that S. Peters discourse is wholly a fancy, &c. but either that the pretence from these words intitling infants to the promise of the holy Ghost, and so by consequence to baptisme, or as you after affirme, that baptisme is not the meanes of conveying the holy Ghost, some of these you take to be wholly a fancy. Pag. 234. To which we re­ply; that we neither affirme, nor conceive that these words of S. Peter had a promise for infants as such, to receive the extraordinary, and visible gifts of the holy Ghost which then flourished in the primitive Church, and which men of yeares commonly after baptisme then received; but that promise was for present addressed to S. Peters hearers which were prickt in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we doe? and to whom Peter said, repent and be baptised every one of you, &c. to which he encourageth them by three arguments or motives: first from Gods abundant mercy in the remission of their sins, however grievous. Secondly from his gracious benificence, as well in giving, as forgiving, and ye shall receive the gifts, &c. for your confirmation. Thirdly from the extent of Gods federall promise; for the promise is to you and your children: that promise is recorded Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my co­venant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee, &c. these words S. Peter re­lateth to, when he perswaded them to receive baptisme the seal of Gods new covenant with them in Christ, Rom. 4. 11. a seal of the same righteousnesse of faith in Christ; and he bringeth down infants right to the seal of the covenant with Abrahams car­nall seed (that is, circumcision) to their right to the seal of the covenant with his spirituall seed under the gospel, that is [Page 36] baptisme for the remission of sins: so that if S. Peters argu­ment may passe with you for demonstration, and not be mis­taken for a fancy, this shew's the right and title which infants have to baptisme, grounded on the sure promise of God, which the Apostle well knew was first sealed with infant­circumcision, as well as circumcision of proselyted men of yeares; and therefore applyeth it to the seal of the promise under the gospel, to wit baptisme: Be baptized every one of you [...] who? all those to whom the promise of God is: that is, you and your children, for the promise is to you and them. But you say,

This is a reasonlesse assertion: for it baptisme concern them as they are reasonable creatures, then all such are concerned herein: and so the promise which S. Peter there mentioneth, is to all reasonable creatures, Acts 2. 38, 39. Jewes, Turkes, Painims, for these are all reasonable creatures, and may in their conversion have a title to it, in proportion to their nature: The argu­ment is fallacious à non causâ pro causâ (except the causa sto­lida, or causa sine quâ non) though none but reasonable crea­tures have interest herein, yet all reasonable creatures have it not; neither alwayes; as in unbelief, impenitency, or out of the covenant, as infants of unbelieving parents: it is not their reason, but Gods covenant which gives them interest in the promise of salvation and all things thereto subordinate and belonging. Note here, to what unreasonable conclusions willfull errour will lead men at last: what more perverse, then in the prosecution of their dislike to infant-baptisme, See Mr. Cobbet explicat. Luke 18. 15. Pa. 126. to allow more to children of professed enemies of Christ, as Turkes and Jewes, then to infants of Christian parents with whom God made his covenant of grace and mercy? They affirme that even infants of Turkes and Jewes are sanctified in the moment of their birth, Mr. Fisher in his dispute at Folkston in Kent. March 10 1650. but will not allow children of believing parents baptisme, which is but the externall seal of the covenant, which the very reprobate may, and doth some­time receive at their hands, who cannot judge of any per­sons finall estate: and who knowes not, that sanctification [Page 37] is incomparably greater and more excellent then the external seal: this man can give, that God onely can give, and giveth it to the elect only; and without that, the externall seal shall availe nothing. But you go on.

Certainly Gods promise is of that invincible strength that whosoever pleads against it, none (no not the gates of hell) shall ever overthrow it: and as certainly the inference was strong once, upon the same ground, when God had made the promise to Abraham and his seed; and therefore, and then his infants in that capacity were receptive, actually receptive, of the seal of the same righteousnesse of faith: and certainly infants do no lesse belong to the covenant and Church of God, Jerem. Basting, de baptism. then those that are of yeares of discretion, which is evident by Gods promise made unto Abraham, I will establish my covenant between me and thee, Quaest. 74. 4. See the learned and judicious Mr. Richard Baxter, on Matth. 28. 19. plain Scripture proof of infants Church-mem­bership, and ba­ptisme. and thy seed af­ter thee—this is my covenant—every male child among you shall be circumcised—he that is eight dayes old shall be cir­cumcised —the very same promise doth S. Peter rehearse and expound Act. 2. 39. for to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call: for indeed, by one spirit we are all ba­ptised into one body, whether we be Jewes or Gentiles, &c. And let the reader marke, that after the Apostle had exhorted e­very one of them to be baptised for the remission of sins, Genes. 1 [...]. 7. 10, 12. he deriveth not the ground and reason thereof from their age, 1 Cor. 12, 13. nor from their repentance, nor from their years of discre­tion, but from the promise of God, which was no lesse to their children in that very capacity, then to themselves: for the signe of the covenant, Baptisme, appertaineth to them al­so, as being partakers of the common salvation in Christ, Lastly, how our infants have forfeited or lost the capacity, which 'tis most certaine the infants of Jewes had, I know not, nor will the pleader ever make it appeare to us. You say fur­ther,

We know the word ( children) importeth not alwayes in­fants; what then? because it doth not in every place of Scri­pture signify infants, Videat jui [...]ult. V. Schindler. pentegl [...] in [...] therefore doth it not any where, no not where infants are spoken of? the promise before specified was to all Israel, Pag. 212. E 213. c. 214 c. l. Gen. 17. [...]. Act. 2. 39. and their infants, and unto them the seal of the covenant and promise appertained; but because the men of wisdome and valour were included under the name of children, were there no infants among them? or doe you not take a child of eight dayes old (when it was by Gods com­mand and covenant to receive the seal) to be an infant? and why not now? seeing the promise is as well and sure to us, who (though then farre off) have now by the free mercy of God, been called to the saving knowledge of the gospel: for that promise of God to Abraham, did not so belong to his seed according to the flesh, as that it appertaines not unto us al­so: for the Apostle clearly testifieth, that it was not given to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righte­ousness of faith—and he was the father of all them that be­lieve, though they be not circumcised, that righteousnesse might be impured to them also—and again he saith— they which are of faith, Rom. 4. 11. 13. Gal. 3. 7. the same are the children of Abraham: so Christ said that Zache converted to the same faith, Luk. 1 [...]. 9. was that day the son of Abraham: and indeed the eternall covenant which God made with Abraham's seed, that he would be their God, is not chiefly verified in his carnall seed, for very few of them for some hundred years last past have been Gods people, but rather professed enemies to those that are: and therefore that covenant must be understood of Abraham's children accord­ing to that promise, which is as sure and well to us who be­lieve, as ever it was to the Israelites: and so we and our chil­dren are as justly to be reckoned children of Abraham, and [Page 39] heirs of that promise, as they ever were: and if within the covenant, and heires of the same promise, what incapacity barreth our children from the same priviledges thereto sub­ordinate, and from the seal of admittance unto the same, more then barred the carnall or naturall children of Abra­ham from the seal of the covenant, which then was in use?

We answer, whether you mean literally by holy ministries, the office of priest or prophet; or mystically, Rev. 1. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 5. a royall priest­hood, to offer up spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, that which you affirme will appeare very false; for many of the children of believers, are neither priests, pro­phets, nor so sanctified as to offer up spirituall sacrifice acce­ptable to God: now the Apostle saith not, else were some of your children unholy; but, 1 Cor. [...]. 14. now are they holy, without exception of any: so that his words being infallibly true, there must be some such holinesse there intended, as universally concernes all that are born of believing parents; which cannot be true in your sense of disignation to holy ministries, nor in the o­ther sense concerning sanctification by the spirit of adoption and regeneration peculiar to the elect of God: nor is it to be understood, as some think, of a meer political cleannesse (see­ing that, out of the Church also, there is a difference be­tween the legitimate and spurious children) it must be un­derstood therefore of a federall, or ecclesiasticall holinesse, to which reprobates (if born of believing parents, or at least of either parent being a believer, and within the covenant) may have right as well as the elect: so had Ismael, Esau, and millions more, as well as Isaack and Iacob, by this federall or ecclesiasticall holinesse they have right unto the seal of initiation, and admittance into the Church; whereas they who are born of both parents without the Church, are coun­ted unclean, that is, Gods promise and the seal thereof ap­pertaine not unto them: neither may they be baptised, untill [Page 40] growing up and being instructed, they repent and embrace the faith of Christ, and it is not improbable which some say, that the form of the Apostles speaking seemeth derived from the Leviticall law; in which it was ordained, Jo. Gerhard. de S. Bap. S 4. de paedobapt. that some per­sons should for a time be barred (as unclean) from comming within the tents of Israel: so the children of infidels are un­clean, and not presently to be admitted into the Church by baptism which is the doore and inlet thereto, ever standing open to the clean: and as under the law, some beasts were clean and some unclean, that is by a Leviticall or ceremonial cleanesse, or uncleanesse, for it was neither spirituall, nor civill: so the Apostle 1 Cor. 7. 14. understandeth an eccle­siasticall holinesse, D. Mencer. To. 3. disp. 14. thes. 116. citat. a J. Ge [...]h. quo sup. that is, a Church—priviledge, to be admit­ted to baptisme: so that indeed the Pleader weakly mistaketh when he concludeth, that just so the children of Christian pa­rents are sanctified, that is, designed to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the promises: but he saith further,

No colour or proportion can appeare to the blind, or those who willfully shut their eyes, nor any truth, be it never so evident to them on whom is the curse Isai. 6. 9, 10. Matth. 13. 14, 15. As for that you say concerning the title of their being reasonable creatures, I referre the reader to that which hath been answe­red, Numb. 19. Pag. 226. Onely adding here: if the promise of God appertaine to infants onely as they are reasonable creatures, what was the priviledge of the Jew, or what profit was there of circumcision? Rom. 3. 1. 2 [...] the Apostle saith, much every way: and what is the advantage of the believing Christians child, and Gods covenant with them? what, no more then of Turkes, and Jewes? where is then that promise, Genes. 1 [...]. 7. Act. 2. 39. I will be a God unto thee, and thy seed, interpreted by S. Peter, the promise is to you and your children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call? what, is it of force only to men and women of yeares; where's the infants part? where is his priviledge of federall [Page 41] holynesse, as being borne of believing parents? What must they be interessed onely when they come to that act of which by nature they have the faculty? That is the act of understanding, faith and repentance? In those acts, the persons and children of Turks, and Jews have a right in the same promises; you can­not exclude any person from baptism, who believes in Christ, repenteth, and desireth baptism at your hands: Thus you make the promise of God concerning the children of the faithfull of no effect, by your tradition and vain opinion. But to amend this, you say,

I suppose you mean the ordinary gifts and graces of the holy Ghost, as faith, love, hope, sanctity, &c. if not, there may be a double fallacy in your assertion: First in the term ( conveying) and next in the term ( holy Ghost) both which may be homonymically intended; and then your discourse is meerly captions; and [...]o discover it, is a sufficient answer: and indeed by your following words, ( God by that miracle did give testimony, &c.) it seems you mean, that baptism is not now the ordinary means of conveying the holy Ghost, that is, the gift of miracles unto the baptized: if so, here is both an homonymia, and an ignoratio elenchi: Your reason being reduced to a Syllogisme, you might take these words ( the ho­ly Ghost) for the ordinary gifts and graces of God, necessa­ry to salvation, in the one proposition, and for the extraor­dinary in the other, and so the question were mistaken; which is not whether baptism be an ordinary means of con­veying the extraordinary gifs of the holy Ghost into the baptized, as speaking divers unstudied languages, curing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, &c. which we affirm not; but whether baptism (as the word preached) be not the external ordinary means by God appointed, to seal us up to a lively hope in Christ, to beget faith, and to engage us to repentance and newness of life? to which, all that you here trifle concerning imposition of hands, and in­sinuation of rite to confirmation, is nothing to purpose; neither is the case of Cornelius and Peters argument there­on, [Page 42] any waies advantagious to you: for, you confess it a mi­racle; and how then is it pertinent to our present question? You say, that God by that miracle, did give testimony, that the persons of the men were in great disposition to heaven, and therefore were to be admitted to those rites, which are the ordi­nary inlets into the kingdom of heaven: I then demand, if that argument be good, Are not children of believing pa­rents to be admitted to those rites which are the ordinary in­lets into the kingdom of heaven, seeing they are also in great disposition to heaven whom Christ blessed, and proposed for paterns to all that shall enter therein? But we answer, 1. That the great disposition which you talk of, was not so much the gift of miracles, as the persons inward baptism by the spirit of regeneration and sanctification: for the gift of miracles is not of it self, any certain argument of salvation: see Matth 7. 22, 23. but this was a sufficient warrant to Pe­ter to baptize them, as being marked out thereby for the vi­sible Church at least, into which elect and reprobate may come. 2. To the main we answer, That as by delivering a key, putting in possession of an house is not only signified, but also livery and seisin, Basting. quo sup, de bapt. in [...]. 1. the conveyance and chirogrophu [...] are passed, confirmed and actually made sure: So in bap­tism by water, the washing which is wrought by the blood of Christ, [...] de relig. Christian. par, [...]. conclus. 9. is not only figured, but also at last fulfilled in the elect by Christ. 3. In a right use of the Sacraments, the things therby signified are ever held out and convey'd together with the fignes, which are neither fallacious, empty, nor void of a due effect, or without the thing represented (because they are of God, who cannot deceive, and is able to give the effect) if the receiver do not ponere obicem: therefore the Sacra­ments are rightly called the Channels or Conduits of grace, that is, the ordinary means to convey the graces of God in­to the receivers. Math. 20. Luk. 10. 16. 4. God confirms his mercies to us by the Sacraments, wherein the Minister, by Gods own deputati­on, beareth his person or place in the Church, as well as in preaching the word, so that what they doe (who are his Ministers) by his appointment, he doth, both in respect of the institution and effect. So the Lord is said to have a [...]oin­ted [Page 43] Saul, whereas Samuel [...]nointed him: 1 Sam. 10. 11 so Jesus made and baptized more disciple then John, Joh. 4. 1, 2. whereas Jesus baptized no [...], but his disciples, by his assignement: Therefore although these signes neither convey grace, nor confirm any thing to them for good who keep not the Covenant (for God made no promise to them) yet are they means to convey the gra­ces of God to those that do. To conclude, we affirm not that baptism conveyeth Gods grace to all that are baptized, but to the elect only, as that whereof he hath made a pecu­liar promise to them; and that so certain as are those things which God himself sealeth, covenanteth for, and testifieth in heaven and earth; as 'tis written, There are threo that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy Ghost— and there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood.—Now if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. 1 Joh. 5. 7. &c. Under the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word must be confirmed, and taken for sure; how much more when we have by Gods blessing, the same witnesses of our faith, who are also the promisers (workers, and sureties of our salvation? Si in tribus te­stibus stabit omne verbum, quanto magis dum habemus per benedictio­nem eosdem ar­bitros fidei, quos & spon­sores salutis. Tertul. de bapt. c. 6.

Quis tulerit Gracchos—? your dispute is fallacious up­on your grounds, on which we go not; and so all your im­pertinent superstruction here falleth together.

I would gladly be resolved, quanta est illa propositio? is your meaning, Some of them that are capable of the same grace, are not alwaies capable of the signe thereof? If so, alta pax esto: We say so too: for infants, being capable of the same grace which is exhibited and received in the Lords supper, are not alwaies (that is, while they are chil­dren) capable of the same signe, because they cannot exa­min [Page 44] themselves, nor shew forth the Lords death: and wo­men not only under the Law, but now also have and ever will have for ought you can say, the same incapacity of cir­cumcision; what makes this to conclude childrens incapa­city of baptism? this is to argue à genere ad genus; though women had not a capacity of that signe, they have a capaci­ty of baptism; infants had then a right to that whereof they had a capacity: let them have so still, and the contro­versie is ended. You further say,

By this it appears, Pag. 235. Concerning imposicion of hands, see the learned Anim­adversion of N Homes upon Mr. Tombes his exercit. about infant-bapt. pag. 59. 60. Pag. 235. Num. 22. that your foregoing argument was fal­lacious, you intending the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, which we pretend not to; and what is this dispute to us now, or to the present question, seeing they are long since ceased? But beware your lying too near a wind, and men­tioning crisme, or confirmation and sanctifying the holy Apo­stles, displease not your clyents, and you be taken for an ambodexter. But you say,

Tell true, and shame the devil: where? to whom? when? which of all the reformed Churches ever did so? We clear­ly affirm that God is ever, U [...]sin. de Christ. relig. par. 2. and alike to be believed, whether by signes, or by words which signifie his will: we say not that God did more for the children of the Jews; but that your pee­vishness, denying children baptism, would have it seem so. Do we then complain against God, when we complain of the Anabaptists abridging children of that which God hath allowed them? How vain and ma [...]tious is this calum­ny of yours? But you say,

What are these real services, and whose? if of children, what can they, as such, perform? but you say, this pertains to children when they are capable, but made with them as­soon as they are alive (that is in the mothers womb) what this? this covenant? so the words seem to import: nay, [Page 45] but undeniably Gods covenant and spiritual promises on his part, presently belong to them who shall be saved, for many of them presently die: or mean you by [...] ( this) spiritu­al and real services on our part, belong to children when they are capable? Surely then they cannot have this cove­nant made with them as soon as they are born, otherwise then by baptism; because for the present they can perform no­thing real: If you mean spiritual and real services of pa­rents in relation to their covenanted infants, as such, they cannot yet teach them; they can only present them to the Church, that the publick seal of Gods covenant being set to them, they may according to their true interest in her ex­ternal communion, be thereby marked, and known for parts and members of the same and this indeed pertaineth to chil­dren when they are capable, that is, as soon as they are born. That which you infer to shew a disparity between Christian infants, and the Jews babes, is frivolous: for thoug there appear some shew of difference in circumstance, as the particular promise of the inheritance of Canaan, &c. yet for substance there is none; there being as real a promise of blessings to Christians and their children in every kind; for godliness hath the promise of this life, 1 Tim. 4. 8. Tit. 3. 5, 6. &c. Tit. 3. 14. and that which is to come, and the present seal of faith marketh them for Gods peculiar people; the effect whereof being wrought and perfected by the spirit of Jesus in their regeneration, the work is done in them (and no otherwise was it in the Jews children) for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circum­cision, which is outward in the flesh,—but circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, Rom. 2. 28, 29. Col 2. 11, [...]2, and the Jewish children were no otherwise sealed then into the same faith of Jesus, nor otherwise saved, then by faith in him, neither less saved then we and our child [...]en.

What vanity? you say, to affirm that unless this mercy be consigned by baptism, as good not at all in respect of us, because we want the comfort of it. This is the vanity—well let it be so; and let them own it that will: I known not whom you mean; I am sure there appears vanity enough in your [Page 46] following assertion, and reason offered for proof.

Yes, Gods promise is of sufficient truth and certaine effi­cacy thereto: therefore we baptize our children: and it had been sufficient on Gods part, and it must have been on ours, had he not seen good further to confirm us by a seal set to his promise; or had he not required more of us, as our duty and a condition and seal of his covenant with us & our chil­dren: for as Augustine saith, how much available, Luk. 23. 42. 47 Quantum valet etiam sine visi­bi [...]i sacramento baptism [...], quod ait Ap [...]stolus, corde creditur ad justitiam, ere autem con­fessio fit ad sa­lutem, in illo latrone decla­ratum ests sed tunc imple [...]ur invisibiliter, cum mysterium baptismi non c [...]ntemptus reli­gienis, sed ar­ticulus necessi­tatis excludi [...]nam multo ma­gis in Cornelio & in amiois ejus, quam in latrone, possit videri super­fluum, ut aquâ etiam [...]ingeren­tur in quibus jam donum spi­ [...]i [...]us Sancti, &c Aug. de bapt. co [...]tr. Donat. l. 4. c. 22. [...]. even with­out the visible Sacrament of baptisme, is that which the Apo­stle saith Rom. 10. 10. with the heart man believeth unto righ­teousnesse, and with the mouth Confession is made unto salva­tion, was declared in the penitent thiefe: but then it is invi­sibly fulfilled, when not any contempt of religion, but a point or moment of necessity, excludeth or preventeth baptisme: for it might have seem'd much more superfluous in Cornelius and his friends to be baptized, who had already received the gift of the holy Ghost, then in the thiefe: yet they were bapti­zed: and in that act, the Apostolicall authority is extant, as also the necessity of obeying God in his ordinance: now how childish and perverse is that cavill— unlesse we tempt God, and require a signe of him? Do you account obedience to God and his holy ordinances, to be a tempting of God? is bringing children to Christ (which he commandeth) and that by baptisme (which you confesse is the ordinary inlet into the kingdome of heaven) to require a signe of him, or is it to receive a signe of him by his own appointment? and what certainity of comfort could we concieve, if on the con­trary, we should wilfully disobey, neglect, and contemn Gods ordinance, as your clients do? were it not rather to tempt God, if (as much as in us lies) we should shut up the doore and inlet into his kingdome against infants? man can do no more to shut them out, then by denying them baptisme: 'tis true, that God can, and often doth save them without our ministry, as when death preventeth our bapti­sing them; but to neglect the ordinary means of our own or [Page 47] others salvation, and to put it on the extraordinary power of God, is to tempt God: if I should ask you, why you eat, or feed your infants, seeing God can preserve you and them without food? you would easily say, to neglect the ordinary means, were to tempt God, so 'tis here. But you say.

Possibly, Mr. Fisher at his Ashford-conference was be­holding to you for this opprobrie, See Mr. Wil­cocks infant. baptisme main­tained. Pag. 2. and abuse of holy Scri­pture; but we entreat you seriously and timely to consider the severity of the Judge who hath said concerning any that take his name in vain, Exod. 20. I will not hold him guiltlesse, and whe­ther pernicious playing with holy Scripture, and willfull perverting the sense thereof, fall not under the sentence of self-destruction: consider the terrors which Christ useth Matth 12. 38. 39. 2 Pet. 3. 16. and Matth. 16. 4. the thing which the Scribes & Pharises required; was [...]which word, though it signify divers things, as may appeare by comparing Mat. 14. 3. & 26. 48. Luk. 2. 12. Rom. 4. 11. 2. Thess. 3. 17. yet is it more then manifest, [...]Joh. 4. 48. Acts 2. 43. Acts 4. 3. Acts 5. 12. Acts 6. 8. Acts 7. 37. &c. [...]Quod praeter na­turam st natum ib. suid. por­tentum, &c. Stephan. saepe de inusitat is & insolius. se [...] monsiris [...] pro­digius, &c Tr [...]st. lex. svr. p. 186. that they required a miracle, and that extraordinary, and above all those divine works of Christ, which hitherto they had ever seen, as casting out devils, raising the dead, &c. they required a signe from or out of heaven, Matth. 16. 1. Mark. 8. 11. and then Christ an­swered, a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a signe; that is [...]a wonder; which words are often joyned to expresse the same thing; [...]commonly signifies a prodi­gie, or monster. Suidas gives it by [...], praeter ordinariamrationem formatum, praeter naturam genitum: such a signe as begetteth admiration and amaze­ment in the beholders; and so the Syriack Joh. 4, 48, expresseth it by a word comming of that verbe which signifieth, to be amazed, or very much to admire: now I appeale to your conscience; do we seek any such signe or miracle from hea­ven, when we bring children to be baptized? [...]Tremel. & M. Trost. Syr. Test. [...]à verbo [...] Ethpah. stupuit, obstupuit Joh. Buxtorf. Jun. lex. Chald. & syr. Val. Shindl. Pent [...]n [...]Jo. 8. 39. 44. is not this froathy- Rethorick? you confesse baptisme to be the ordinary [Page 48] inlet into the kingdome of heaven; and is an ordinary thing a signe or miracle? consider also the persons of whom Christ spake; they were a wicked and an adulterous generation: for though they pretended to be Abrahams children, yet neither heiring him in faith or works, but degenerating from him, they deservedly heard— ye are of your father the devil: if this present generation be such, consider who makes it so; and whether you have any commission to judge them wick­ed who professe true faith and obedience to Jesus Christ, and his holy gospel, in all things, that any shall, or can make appeare to us to be the truth? But you say

The untruth of this assertion is so evident, that it were but lost labour to bestow more words to refute it.

I appeale to the judicious reader; Numb. 23. let him judge what strength hath appeared in your oppositions, concerning the words which you here multiply to little if any purpose. I shall say no more, but onely marke the strength of the plea­ders present argument, the sum whereof is; Some Apostolicall traditions were pro loco & tempore, accommodate to place and time (as the forementioned, love—feasts, saluting with an holy kisse, anointing the sick absteining from blood, &c.) therefore no Apostolicall traditions passed an engagement upon following ages. We answer: we contend not for any such tra­ditions as were pro loco & tempore, yet doth it not follow that because all Apostolicall traditions engage not posterities, therefore none do, as in that instance concerning the sab­bath, I suppose you will accord with us. But you say

Suppose all that granted what then? you would inferre that infants have not a condition capable of baptisme, be­cause some other places of Scripture are relating to capahci­ty; what makes this against the baptisme of infants, who [Page 49] beeing within Gods covenant are therefore capable of the feal thereof, as they were under the law, although even then the Scripture saying psallite Deo omnes, &c. said that to those only who could sing to God and praise him, and not unto infants of eight-dayes old to be circumcised? who know's not, that God commanded severall things with respect to se­verall capacities? doth the incapacity in respect of one command, conclude an incapacity of all? women were not capable of circumcision, nor of the office of teaching in the congregation, nor of execution of priestly offices; yet they also could and ought to sing to the Lord, and were of that part of nations commanded to praise the Lord. Psal. 148. 12. Psal. 149. 3, 5. Exod. 15. 20, 21. [...]udg. 5. 1. Infants had not a capacity of singing praises to God, they had of cir­cumcision, and therefore they were then circumcised, though they could not sing: infants cannot sing now, therefore that precept, sing unto the Lord, &c. concerneth them not for present; but they can be baptized as such, therefore that precept baptise all nations, reacheth unto them; you say more,

Admit that to be conjectural, and we take it for no more; yet it is no light conjecture, [...]Tremel. [...] (the Syriac gives it & filij domus [...]jus omnes, speaking of the keeper of the prison, Act. 16. 33.) that children were baptized with the rest of the family: for though [...] there also may signify any domestick, yet cer­tainly it signifieth a child also, and children were usually domesticks: but it can be no more then a light conjecture of Anabaptists, that there were no infants in this family, or that of Stephanas which Paul baptized; howsoever it can be no conjecture, but certaine truth, that in all nations there ever were and still are, a great part infants; and it is more then conjecturall, that the Apostles did as Christ commanded [Page 50] them, saying baptize all nations; as for that which you say, in Scripture is meant all persons of reasons and age within the family, because it is said that the ruler at Capernaum belie­ved, and all his house: is that proposition universall? doe you affirme that by whole families, is ever meant all persons of age within the family, and such only? if so, your assertion is apparently false; but if your proposition be particular, it falleth short of our cause; for what can it hurt it, Gen 1:5. Acts. 3 23. [...] omnes familiae terrae. 70. [...]. Acts 2. 39. See Lev. 25. 10 Numb 2. 34. and 3. 15. 39. and 18. 31. and 33. 54. Levit. 25. 13. Num. 20. 22. Acts 7. 10. Rom. 4. 16. and 10. 12. and 11. 31. Matth. 12 15. 1 Cor. 10. 1. 2. &c. I The. [...]. 12 2 Thes. 3. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 10. Joh. 11. 50, &c. if by all, or whole families in Scripture, sometimes is meant all per­sons of reason and age? deale ingenuously then; do you affime that by whole, or all, the Scripture doth alwayes meane, persons of reason and age? what doth God, when he said to Abraham—and in thee all the families of the earth shall be blessed; doth he meane only all persons of age? are children in their nonage excluded from the blessing in Christ? Nay but the Apostle saith expresly, the promise is unto you, and to your children: and such Christ blessed, and of such is the kingdome of heaven. Doth the Scripture, Genes. 7. 21 [...] saying all flesh dyed—every man—meane onely all of rea­son and age? were the infants excepted? many places of Scri­pture may shew the vanity of this your assertion: but if your proposition be particular, that is, that sometimes the Scripture by whole families means persons of reason (that is who have the use of reason) and age: we can grant it you. I adde; somtimes, all, signifieth only a great part; as Mat. 10. 22 ye shall be hated of all men for my name sake: that is of many: times in the Hebrew manner of speaking it signifies, none, or not any one: as Psal. 147. 20. he hath not done so [...], to all, or every nation: Est autem & hoc Scripturae idioma utomnes dicat pro pluribus. Euth. in Matth. 10. that is, not to any; so Exod. 12. 43. [...], &c. every son of a stranger shall not eate thereof, that is none: now would you have the sense of Christs words goe and baptize all nations, to be, go and baptize some nations, or a major part of the nations? the evidence of the truth is against that, as well as against the other, go and baptise none; but you would faine have it, go and baptize those that are persons of reason and age within the nations: shew us any such precept of Christ, and we will obey it; in the meane time we must do that which we know he commanded us, [Page 51] that is, baptize all nations, all against whom we finde no ex­ception: and why should we look for exception in families, seeing we find none mentioned by our Saviour in nations? but you would have here, a limitation to capacity, which you think infants have not: first we say, shew us any Scri­pture-proofe for such limitation: secondly we say that al­though the incapacity of an infant limit a command where there appeareth a present impossibility of doing that which God in generall commandeth (as where he saith believe, re­pent, confesse your sins, sing unto God, praise him, &c) for God commandeth no impossibilities: yet where it is possible that the command may be fulfilled, there lieth no such limi­tation: now you will not say that 'tis impossible for infants to be baptized: if you say they ought not to be baptized untill they can actually believe, repent, &c. we must answer you with your own: this is unmanlike to build upon such slight and aery conjectures: as are humane fancies, to forbid infants baptisme; and when you can bring us no solid ground for that you would have, to beg the question. But you say, P. 237. Nu. 25.

You seem here to speake three things: first, that when we cite traditions, we use them in place of Scripture, or for defect of Scripture-proofe: which to deny, is confutation enough untill you can shew which of us so pretend to tradi­tion. Secondly in your following words you pretend, that we sometimes reject Apostolicall tradition (for of that you speake) to which we say, that when the quaestion is concer­ning a tradition of the gospel or Apostles, [...]. Ephiphan. To. 2. exposit. fidei [...]. Concil. Gangrens. Canon. 21. Severin. Bin. Concil. To. 1. Jud. 12. v. de quibus Concil. La [...]dicen. Can. 28. 16. Bin. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesiae, cum parvuli infantes Laptizantur. Aug. To. 7. part 1 [...] de bapt. contra Donat. l. 4. c. 23, &c. as Epiphanius speakes, we receive it; and with an ancient Council wish that those things may be done in the Church, which were delive­red by divine Scripture or Apostolical tradition; which we adde hereto, though we have no reason to admit of all that is al­ledged [Page 52] for such: as for those things which the Apostles desi­vered in complyance with particular times, places, or per­sons, as anointing with oyl, saluting with an holy kisse, love­feasts, &c. they were necessary then and to that people who had been long accustomed thereto, of whom a gospel­Church was now to be gathered; but they were neither uni­versally prescribed, neither do they concern us now. Next we say with S. Augustine; the whole Church holdeth by tradition the baptism of infants; and that beeing continually observed, we justly believe to have been delivered and confirmed by Apostolicall tradition. But you say,

Yet before you affirmed, that infant-baptisme was Au­gustin's device; how had Augustine it from Origen if it were Augustin's device? That it was neither his device, neither that it relyeth wholly upon the testimony of Origen, many other testi­monis by us alleaged, make manifest; as Dionysius, Dionys. Hierar. c. ult. Jrenae. l. 2. c. 39. Cy­prian l. 2. cp. 8. ad Fidum. Amb. de Abraham. l. 2. c. 11. nec senex (inquit) nec infans ver­naculus excipi­tur, quia [...]mnis [...] peccato ob­noxia, & ideo omnis aetas sa­cramento ide­nea; nus [...]um ex­cipit, non in­fintem, &c. Hieronym. contra Pelag. 1. 3. Jrenaus, Cyprian, Ambros Jerom, Cyril, Gre. Nazianzen, Basil, &c. as also ancient, Councils, as that of [...]arthage An [...]. 407. the Milevitan. An [...]. 420, &c. to conclude, we rely not upon the testimony of man, though we reverence holy antiquity, but on the command of Christ and the Apostles practises, ba­ptising whole nations without any appearing exception to infants of believing parents; and therefore you following in­ferences either nothing concern, or nothing hurt us. You say further,

No command to children to oblige them! a dainty ca­ption: neither was there any command to infants to oblige them to the susception of circumcision; for they could nei­ther act nor understand that or any other command: The command was to the parents for present, and to children for the future: therefore, if you mea [...]e that there was no com­mand of Scripture to oblige [...]s to the baptizing of infants, the contrary appeares Matth. 28. 19. But you require ex­presse termes: we rejoyns; what expresse termes in Scripture [Page 53] have you to prove that there is an holy Trinity in the unity of the deity? or for the abrogating the Jewish Sabbath, and observation of our Lord-day Sabbath, or for womens recei­ving the Lords supper, or for your rebaptizing, or dipping over head and ears? But you say,

What necessity speak you of? de necessitate medii, in re­spect of infants salvation, as if they could not be saved with­out it? we maintain it not; if you mean such a necessity on our part, as bindeth us to obedience, that is, to baptize infants of believing parents; we say with S. Augustin, the custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is not at all to be despised, Consuet [...]ch ta­men [...]atris ec­clesiae in bapti­zandis paruxlis, nequaquanisper­nenda est; neque ulla modo super­flua deputanda, nec omnin [...] cre­denda nisi Apo­stolica esset tra­ditio. August. de Genes. ad lit. l. 10. c. 23. vid. ad Numb. 13. p. 229. or by any means to be esteemed superfluous, nor to be believed any other then an Apostoli­cal tradition; the ground hereof is laid down, l. 3. c. 24. Con­tra Donat. before by us cited, to which I refer the reader; the sum is, That whatsoever is universally observed in all Churches, and no man can say by what Councel it was de­termined, or when it began, must be thought to have descen­ded from the tradition of the Apostles themselves, and therefore we hold it as we are commanded, 2 Thes. 2.15. and we believe it is necessary to be held, because 'tis so com­manded. That which you say, that it was not determined in the Church till in the eighth age after Christ, and but in the year 418. in the Milevitan Councel, will easily appear false: for the Councel of Carthage in Cyprians time, who flourish­ed about the year 250. determined that children might be baptized, and that even before the eight day, against the o­pinion of Fidus, as was before noted out of Cyprian; Cyprian. l. 3. ep. 3. but you say that infant-baptism was not determined in the Church untill the Milevitan Councel. August ep. 28.

1. I demand, Doth a determination by a succeeding Coun­cel exclude a determination of the same thing by a forego­ing [...] or doth it conclude a thing to be no Apostolical tra­dition? What think you then of our Christian Sabbath? will you say that the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, that [Page 54] our Christian Sabbath might succeed, was not an Apostoli­cal tradition, or that it was not sufficiently determined in the Church untill about the year 364. because then there was a Canon made for the same in the Councel of Laodicea? On uphrius. [...]Con­cil. Laodic. Canon. 29. Nay but the practice of the Apostles was a sufficient deter­mination thereof: And truly, Ecclesiastical Canons (as also municipal Laws and Statutes) may with good reason be made for confirmation of things rightly and long before suf­ficiently determined, where some emergent opposition to the former, requireth a due revisal, and further expression, interpretation, or confirmation of the same.

2. I say, that there needed no determination by a general Councel, before any opposition was made publickly against a received custome of the Church; but so soon as it was questioned and openly opposed by the Pelagians, then the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Celestius. It were but a weak argument against an Apo­stolical tradition, if we should find little or no mention thereof in any writer, in some ages of the Primitive Church; seeing that besides that there were some of them obscure, generally without Ecclesiastical Writers; what necessity can be alleadged, that in every age some writers must make particular mention and rehersal of all Apostolical traditions or practices of the Church, when an uninterrupted peace thereof sufficed, and no opposition gave occasion of provi­ding for defence? Indeed when any turbulent and disobedi­ent spirit of contradiction brake out to disturb the peace and unity of the Church, then the Ministers disputed, preach­ed, or wrote, as need required, or Councels were called, which could not come together from divers Nations with­out much trouble and charge; and therefore they were not assembled except in case of some urgent necessity; and then their Canons were agreed upon for suppressing of emergent errors, and that in all reason; for what need ar­ming without an enemy? Celebratum est p [...]mum Conci­liu [...] Hierosoly­mis. Act. 15. 1. Corranzasum. c [...]ncil. to make Statutes, provisions, Or­dinances or Canons without some present danger, might pos­sibly teach men to offend, or erre, who without such occa­sion, had not minded it at all. The first Apostolical Synod, [Page 55] had an apparent cause;— certain men—taught the bre­thren, saying, Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved: Then the Apostles and Elders [...]ame together to consider of this matter. Quatuor concilia suscipere & ve­nerari me fa­tetor; Nice­num, in quo per­versum Arii degma desirui­ [...]ur. Constantine­politanum—in quo Eunomii & Maedonii error convincitur. E­phesinum pr [...] ­mum, [...]n quo Ne­storii impietas judicatur. Calce­donense—in quo Eutychis Dioscorique pra­vitas reprobatur [...] Gregor. ep. 24. l.1. So the four first Councels had their several occasions. The Nicen Councel was called by Constantin, to suppress the damnable heresie of the Arians. The Councel of Constantinople was called against Maedonius and Eunomius denying the deity of the holy Ghost (in the reigne of Gratian and Theodosius.) The Councel of Ephesus (in the reigne of Theodosius the younger) against Nestorius and Caelestius; and the Calcedon Councel was gathered against the heresie of Eutychus and Dioscorus: so was the Councel of Gangris against Eustathius: The first Councel of Carthage against the rebaptizing Donatists; the Arelatense was occasioned by their appeal: and the second Milevitan Councel was called against Pelagius and Caelestius his great Factor, denying infants original sin and baptism: So that the non determination of a thing for many ages in the Church, the Church constantly holding and pra­ctising it, proves nothing, but that no body opposed it all that time; and had Pelagi [...]u [...]s heresie concerning infant­baptism, after the Milevitan Councel, and after the writings of Jerome, Augustin, Optatus and others, still slept, I know not why any man should now have written, or spoken a­gainst it. Severin. Bin. Coneil. To. 1. Carranza. sum. Concil.

You grant the practice of infant-baptism in Africa, and that some of them thought well of it. It hath been proved that an ancient Councel there established it, as a custome of the Church derived from the practice or tradition of the [Page 56] Apostles, obeying Christ's general precept to baptize all na­tions: that none of them before Augustin pretended it to be necessary, cannot be true; for they would not have pra­ctised a thing of so high concernment, except they [...]ad held it to be necessary on the part of the administrers. Further I say that the Churches of Africa were of a very ancient plantation, See Rev. 1. 11. Act. 19. 10. [...]. Epi­phan. haeref. 46 See also Mr. Homes, c. 13. pago 110. &c. Rom. 10. 18. as were also the Churches of Asia, of which was Justin Martyr, by birth a Samaritan, which is of Asia the greater, and he was for infant-baptism; above all contro­versie, the sound of the Apostles preaching went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world; and there­fore all the Christian Churches were first planted according to the Gospel and traditions of the Apostles, among which we have shewed infant-baptism to be one: for good cause therefore they thought well of it, and so do we. That none of them did ever before Augustine, pretend it necessary, is apparently false; for it was in liking and use in Cypriant time, as hath been proved; therefore if Augustin were the first that ever preached it to be absolutely necessary to sal­vation, and in his heat against the Pelagians did something innovate, it hurteth not our cause, who do not affirm so rigid a necessity of baptism, as we have said formerly. But you sa

That infant-baptism was not at all practised in other pla­ces, is very untrue, as appeareth by that which hath been al­leadged out of Ireneus, who was of France, and Justin Mar­tyr, Jerom, Ambrose, &c. Lugdunensem in Gallia rege­bat ecclesiam. Ca [...]ol. scrip­tor. eceles. Hieron. To. 1. L. Vives. in Aug. de. C. D. l. 1. C. 27. That which you cite out of Ludo­vicus Vives, neminem nisi adultum antiquitùs solere baptiza­ri; I suppose you may read in some index or marginal [...]e, or in Bellarmin with a little change; the words of V [...] in the cited place are— ne quis fallatur hoc loco; nemo olim sacro admovebatur baptisterio, nisi adultâ jam aetate, &c. lest any should be deceived in this place, none anciently was moved to the sacred font, but such as were come to full age, &c. Cer­tainly [Page 57] Augustin spake there concerning those who being of years, could understand what the sacred mystery signisied, and could desire the same: What is the cause (saith he) why we should spend times in exhorting them, wherein by speaking we endeavour to enflame the baptized either unto virgin inte­grity, or vidual continency, or unto a conjugal fidelity, &c. Quid igitur causae est, cur cis exhortationibus tempore consu­mamus quibus baptizates allo­quend [...] sludea­mus accentere, sive ad virgina­ [...]em integr [...]ta­tem. sive ad c [...]n­t [...]ne [...]tiam vi­du [...]lem, sive ad ipsam thori [...] jugalis fidem, &c. Aug. de G. D. l. 1. c. 2 [...]. he meant not such words to infants. What did vidual con­tinency, or conjugal fidelity concern infants, as such? and L. Vives words immediately following intimate the same; The image of which thing (saith he) we yet see in our baptizing of infants. If this were not his meaning, as it was Augu­stins, it was frivolous enough, and such as I cannot easily believe so learned an Author, and so well acquainted with Augustins sense, and judgement in this matter could be guil­ty of; possibly his olim, related to the baptism which was administred in ecclesiâ constituendâ (when the partition wall being broken down, Cuius rei ima­gin in a [...]ue, in nostris infanti­um baptismis videm us. L. Viv. loco cita­to. Eph. 3 14.. Rom. 11. 19 and the natural branches broken off, that others might be grassed into Christ) which was, and could no otherwise be then by instructing people in the faith of Christ, and then baptizing them, that their chil­dren might afterward be baptized, as being within the co­venant by their fathers priviledg, and their own, as being children of believing parents; so that in the constituting a Christian Church, the Ministers first, and most general work of administring baptism, was with persons of years (by their preaching to them) converting to the faith, but in ecclesiâ constitutâ it is much otherwise: our general work of administration of baptism is with infants of enchurched parents; we seldom meeting with any Turk, or Pagan, or Jew converted, and desiring baptism; to conclude, if L. Vives by you cited, had been of your opinion (to spare the men­tioning the authority of Ireneus, Cyprian, Augustin, Jerom, &c. or the African or other Councels, who much better knew the custom of the ancient Churches then Lud. Vives could) we can ballance Vives with Polydor Virgil, Vt cutem in­santes apud Iudaeos octavo ab ortu die circum cidebantur, sic apud nos plurimum [...], quod t [...]men Angli in ipso natali die faciunt, id quod di [...]us Cyprianus—mulus rati [...]nibus esse faciendum probat. Polydor. Virg. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. another [Page 58] learned Author, who saith, As infants among the Jews were circumcised the eight day from their nativity, so are they for the most part, with us baptized, which yet the English do in the very day wherein they are born, that which S. Cyprian— by many reasons proveth may be done.

It is proved to be Apostolical, and therefore (above con­troversy) it can be proved: You talk of very good evidence from antiquity, that it was the opinion of the Primitive Church, that infants ought not to be baptized, and this, you say, is clear in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea: so then, it is likely that one testimony is very good and clear evidence for you; and shall not many, and of them, some more ancient, witnesses be good for us? Origen, Ireneus, Cyprian, with the whole Councel of Carthage, held about anno 258. were more ancient then the Councel of Neocaesarea held about the year 316. and those, as hath been shew­ed, were for infant-baptism, [...]n. concil. To 1. p. 288. Aug. ep. [...]. autoritare A­postolicà tra­di [...]um. Aug. contra. Dona­ [...]ist. l 3. c. 24. [...]C [...]ncil. Neocaesar. cor: 6. Binn. concil. To. 1. as many others also express. Augustin, as we have before noted (on Num. 13) calleth it ecclesiae fidem firmissimam, and fundatissimum morem, the most firm faith of the Church, and the most grounded custom. And again, that which was delivered by Apostolical authority. But let us now behold how clear it is in the sixt Canon of the Councel of Neocaesarea which you alleadged. The Canon saith, A woman with child may be baptized when she please; for the baptism of her that is to be delivered, in this matter concerneth not the infant to be born, because every ones own choice or purpose is manifested or declared by his own con­fession, the mothers baptism doth not so concern the infant that is to be born, as if that needed not to be bap­tized when 'tis born: The woman must for the present make her confession of faith, whereby she may declare he [Page 59] choice; and so must the child for his own part, when he comes to age, and can shew that he embraceth the Christi­an faith. Si quaeritur an baptizati mat [...]e infans in uter [...] tan [...]u [...]n pars ejus baptizelur, dicendum est quod non, ut di­cit Augustinus contra lalia [...] &c. Gabriel. B [...]el in 4. sent. dist. 4. l. 2. Mark how clear this Canon makes it, that In­fants ought not to be baptized. Here's not one word for­bidding infant-baptism, the whole scope being rather to shew that the infant must be baptized for himself; because the mothers baptism (in whose womb he then was) cannot excuse him from being baptized. Add hereto that which some observe, That regeneration by baptism, presupposeth a precedent natural birth, which the unborn child hath not; therefore the unborn infant cannot be regenerate in his mothers baptism: Indeed it gives him a right hereto, if he have none by the fathers side, 1 Cor. 7. 14. Nemo pote [...]t ra­nas [...]i nisi priu [...] nascatur. Ge­rard. de bap­tism. sol. 606. sin. So that if any man lift to think that the Councel spake Gospel; yet it will no more thence follow, that infants ought not to be baptized, because they cannot yet make confession of their faith, then that all that which is said of the adult, is precisely to be applyed to in [...]ants for present, as that 2. Thes. 3. 10. —Quando­qui [...]em non po­test quis [...] nisi prius nascatur, Alex. Alensis part. 4. desa [...]r bap­tism. q. 8. m. [...]. 1. resol.— This we command you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat—which concerneth infants no otherwise then when they should be able; but in the mean time would you not have them eat? you know that though the rule bear a shew of universality [...] yet it concern­eth persons of age and ability, not infants; so here, the Ministers interrogating persons of years to be baptized, was simply necessary; for how else should it have been known whether they were fit to be admitted into the Church priviledges by baptism? that therefore they did not admit infants to baptism, because they did not examin them, fol­lows not, except you could shew that they admitted none to baptism but persons of years, which is the question in hand, and therefore may not be a medium to prove your as­sertion by: as for asking them questions to be answered by Sponsors, Godfathers and Godmothers, we shall speak anon.

[Page 60]We say that by your present confession, such sponsion by God-fathers is but a circumstance; therefore the sponsors supply not any incapacity of infants in the respect of the substance of baptism, which is to be sprinkled, washed with, or dipped in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: for this their own capacity is sufficient (they being born of believing parents, and within the Church) without the supply of any answer of others for them; which if you grant us, we have the end of our dispute; as for circumstances, neither commanded nor for­bidden by God in the holy scriptures, we shall willingly submit to the authority and practice of the Church in which we live: If you dispute from the circumstance, or any pre­tended inconvenience therein, to the anulling the substance controverted, you know how unreasonable that fallacia ac­cidentis is; and what sensible account can be given of it? But you say.

Have a care that you be not answered with à turpe est Dactori, &c. Do you not vainly argue, that in the use of God fathers, &c. God is tyed, and Christian Religion transacts her mysteries by proportion and compliance with the Law of the Romans; concerning which something hath been answered before; I only add here, Ad num. 16. pag. 231. that God neither commanding nor forbidding God-fathers, it is no vanity to obey authority herein: But to disturb the peace of the Church, and make schismes for things in their own nature indifferent, and commended to us by venerable antiquity, is not only vain, but impious: And how is God tyed, where he neither forbids nor commands? To the rest we say not that Christian Religion must transact her mysteries by complyance with Roman Laws, or humane customs; but that in some things she may, in things circumstantial, and no waies repugnant to the word of God. You say fur­ther,

We answer 1. In that you can find no authority or ground for it, nor against it, as we know it can be no other then adiaphorous, or indifferent, and in or for such things as are meerly circumstantial and in their own nature in­different to dissent from antiquity; disobey the Churches authority, and break the sacred band of unity, let your own consciences tell you what you do.

2. Whereas you would bespatter this custom of imputa­tion of will-worship and untruth in the users thereof; I say first, That whatsoever God hath commanded or forbidden in holy Scriptures, that is necessarily to be observed; and this faithfull word we must hold fast, Tit. 1. 9. But those things which he hath neither commanded nor forbidden, neither expresly, nor by necessary consequence, fall under the general rule belonging to things arbitrary and indiffe­rent, Let all things be done decently and in order, [...] Cor. 14. 4 [...]. which then only can be when we unanimously and u­niformly do that which a general consent and constant practice of the Church warranteth; not that which every private spirit liketh or disliketh: There can be no decency without order, nor order in confusion of practices: there­fore God having left many things circumstantial, arbitra­ry as to the authority of the Church, we ought to tender her unity, and reverence her authority; the contempt whereof hath opened so wide a dore to schism as now troubleth the Christian world. Secondly, there may be falshood in some mens answers, though no fault in the order which God will, Sicut e [...]g [...] pec­catum in eo non est, ita peccatum ex eo nom est. it being his perfection that he is [...]; God that cannot lie, Tit. 1. 2. and it is the inviolable holyness of his will, that he will not, neither can will any evil; and it is certainly true which Fulgentius saith, As there is no sin in him, so there is no sin of him. Fulgent. de prae. dest. ed M [...]nim. l 1.

For answer, we may say with Augustin, Who knows not, that to be baptized, is in, or for infants, instead of be­lieving? And again, they are borne to Church, and al­though they cannot run thither on their own feet, yet go they on others feet, that they may be healed: our mother the Church lendeth them others feet, that they may come, others heart that they may believe, others tongue that they may confess, that for as much as in that they are sick, they are more grievously burthened with anothers sin (that is, which they acted not in their own persons) so when these are cured, they may be healed or saved, another confessing for them. Quis autem n [...] ­ [...] creder [...] esse infani [...]bus bap­t [...]zari. Aug de pece. [...] me­rit. l. 1. c. 27.—ipsi p [...]r­tantur ad [...], [...]pedi­bus illuc currere n [...]n p [...]ssunt, alie­nis pedibus cur­runtut sanentur: accommodat illis mater ecclesi [...] aliorum pedes ut veniant, aliorum c [...]r ut credant, aliorum linguam ut fa­teantur, ut quo­niam quod aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur, sic cum hi sani sunt al [...] pro eis confitente salvantur. Augustinide verb. Apost. serm. 10. But I demand, Why may we not here with better reason understand present, for future believing, then you do children of believers holyness, which the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7. 14. pronounceth in the present) by a designation to the service of Jesus Christ, and the future participation of the promises?

But what unreasonableness acted with a worse circumstance, is there for God-fathers thus answering— All this I steadfastly believe (wherein though possibly there may be untruth, Cum patrimi respendent cre­do, sensus est, puerum ad cre­dendum & me obligo. &c. A. lex. Alens. par 4. q. 7. m. 3. [...] 1. resol. because the Sponsor doth not as he professeth, steadfastly believe, yet so may there also be, when persons of years answer for themselves, that they believe) seeing the lawfulness of baptizing infants, is affirmed on conditi­on of their parents believing, and Church-priviledge, which is often testified personally by the very parents, Baptisinus con­fertur publicè in ext [...] Christi­anorum, quorum testimenium non petest repudiari; e [...]dem fine ad­hibentur patri­mi, tanquam testes batismi, &c. loh. Gerard des. baptis. class 4. 164.—adhibentur veluti rei gestae testes. Polydo [...]. Virgil. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. Grand-fathers, Grand-mothers, and sometimes in defect, or necessary absence of such, by some fellow-believers testi­fying for them, and the childs priviledg and baptism: but your sensible account is, that they speak false and ridiculous­ly; if you can bear the eccho of your own words, we there­in answer you; yet for the sober readers sake, we further [Page 64] answer after Augustin, treating of the same argument, Let no man whisper to you other doctrines; this the Church ever had, ever held, &c. doubtless the custom is very ancient; Histories tell us of it in the time of Higinus, who was co­etaneous with Polycarp a disciple of S Johns, they lived under the reigne of Antoninus Pius, about the year 140. some think it came into the Church from the custom of those who were Catechumenists, who being examined be­fore they were admitted to baptism, concerning their faith and repentance, were not only to answer in their own per­sons, but to have sponsors as witnesses of their faith, con­version, and baptism. Nemo ergo vo­bis: susu [...]rat [...] alienas, hoc ecclesia [...]per ha [...]uit, temper teruit, &c. Aug. d verb. Apos [...]. Serm. 1 [...]3. —V [...]it item [...]um sal­t [...]m p [...]rimam, [...] [...] marri­m [...]m baptism [...] [...]teresse sic e­nim cos appel­lant qui in [...]n­tes tenent, dum baptizantur; huyus quo que tem­p [...]ris fuit Poly­carpus Johan­nis Apostoli di­scipulus—Platina de vit. Pont. Telesph. & Higin.—mentio patri­morum fit apud Dionys. Areopag. Hierarch. Eccles. c. 2. Tertul. de bapt. c. 18. Euseb. l. 7. c. 20. vid. Polyd [...]r. Virgil. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. Hugo de S. victor. part. 6. c. 12. Mr. Homes anim advers. upon Mr. Tombes Exerc. c. 14. pag. 181. It is not improbable which some here propose, that—As children were baptized when their Christian parents had formerly made confession; so sureties confessed in relation to themselves, that they might be fit to stand as a kind of parents, &c. Seeing therefore this custom is nothing repugnant to holy scripture, nei­ther hath in it any appearance of evil, but rather of profit and edification, though it be not of the essence of baptism, but a ceremonial circumstance, 'tis foolish and impious to quarrel it, and for it to break unity and disturb the peace of the Church. But you say,

If it be necessary to baptism that the baptizer know the mind of the person to be baptized, how can you baptize men of years? You will say they express their minds, and so we baptize them. I grant you may know their, words, their minds you cannot; because they may dissemble. If you say you are in charity to believe the best; once more we say, Be but as charitable towards infants, of whom you can know no actual evil, nor shew any just cause why you should suspect it for the future. And I pray how could [Page 65] the Priest under the Law know the minds of children to be circum [...]sed? To conclude, 'tis nothing material whether we know the infants mind, 'tis behoofull that we know his priviledg, as being born within the Church and Covenant of God, which giveth him a sufficient right to the seals thereof. But you say,

I answer, 1. Tertullian speaking of deferring baptism, lest they should rashly give it, as to persons out of the Co­venant, or unbelievers, instanceth specially children; that is, extraneorum, non foederatorum, as the learned Fra. luni­us interpreteth the same: so that this concerneth not our present question which is of children of Christians. 2. This shews then that the practice of infant-baptism was none of Augustins device, as you charge him, seeing it was in use in the time of Tertullian. 3. But let us hear the rest of Tertullians advice; was it only concerning the deferring infants baptism? Let them come when they can learn, when they are taught whither they come, let them be made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ—nay but presently he saith, For no less cause the unmarried also are to be delayed, in whom the tentation is prepared, both in virgins by their maturity, and widows by their going up and down untill they are either married or confirmed in constan­cy —Will you follow Tertullians advice herein? But what if they never marry, must they never be baptized? If not, give us leave to decline it in the other, or to take it in the sense he meaneth it, as may appear in that he speci­fieth widows, who being at that age, are necessarily to be supposed either baptized after their first marriage, or out of the Covenant. Veniant ergo dum adoles [...]unt, veniant dum dis [...]unt, lum sus veniant do­centur, fiant Chri [...]liani qu [...]m Christum nesse potuerint—non minore de caus [...]innupti quoque pr [...]s­stinandi, in qui­bustentatio prae­paratae est tam virginibus per maturitatem, quàm viduis per vagationem, donec aut nubant, aut c [...]ntinentiâ [...]rentur, &c Tertul. de bapt. c. 18.

And the same (you say) is also the Councel of Gregory Bi­shop of Nazianzum, &c. [Page 66] Gregory Nazianz [...]n in his fortieth Oration (which you cite in your margent) saith, Sow when the time of sowing is—plant prune thy vine when the season is, &c. [...], &c. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 40. ib ip. sis unguiculis spiritu conse­cretur. [...], &c. ib. Greg. Naz. But at all times intend thy salvation, and think that any time is seasonable, or appointed for baptism: among other ages of man be instanceth in Infancy. Hast thou an Infant (saith he) let not wickedness take away the occasion, let it be sanctified from its infancy, let it be dedicated to the Spirit from it [...]ender years: fearest thou the seal in respect of the infirmity of Nature? How poor a spirited mother art thou, and of how little faith? But Anna promised Samuel unto the Lord before he was born, &c. You say concern­ing Gr. Nazianzen, that his reason taught him that which was fit, (true, for he allowed Infant-baptsm) yet he was over-born with—the opinion of his Age, &c. So far also I consent as this relates to that they thought, that Infants dying without Baptisme, should neither he glori­fied nor punished. That which you further say, although he allowed them to hasten in case of necessity, falleth under a double consideration: First, in respect of those times ap­pointed for Baptism in the primitive Church, to wit, Easter, and Whitsontide, or Pentecost, which he mentioneth: But when he cometh to the question, whether Infants should be baptized, he answereth positively; By all means, if any dan­ger urge, and sheweth it from the Analogy between Cir­cumcision and Baptism. [...]. 10. part. post [...] He taketh away the objection from the years at which Christ was baptized, which was indeed to be deferred untill the fulness of time for the worlds redemption was come: and that we are not to imi­tate all the actions of Christ. To that which you say— Yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Bap­tism was not administred, [...], [...], &c. by reason of In­fancy; we say you utterly mistake: for Nazianzen in the same Oration speaking of delay in performance of that du­ty, reckons up severall sorts of those whose Baptism was deferred; some for sloth, or insatiable desire of sinning; others are not in ability to receive it, either for their infan­cy, or some sudden and violent accident, disabling [Page 67] them so that they cannot receive this grace if they would. True, infants have neither ability nor will to come to Bap­tism; nor can those (though of years) who are accidentally disabled: they have not power, though they have a will to come. What is this to our deferring Infants Baptism in the Rule, which in some cases may reasonably and law­fully be done. As for example, Suppose an infant neer some Mahumetan border were found, and the parents not known, we may and ought to demur: But what makes this against baptizing infants of parents known to be with­in the Church? But you say,

This may make a formidable noyse in some vulgar ear; 'tis true which Mr. Homes notes, A nen facto. ad n [...]n jus facien­di, non valet ar­gumentu [...]. pag. 188. that the opini­ons or practices of some few, conclude no more against the generall tenet and practice of the Church, then the Hills and Vallies do against the roundness of the world. But to what purpose do you propose any of these examples to your clients imitation? If not, why inferre you them? Possibly the parents of some great and excellent men, might erre in such omission of duty; or there might be some in. vincible lets or obstructions to their desires: however you would not have your childrens Baptism deferred [...]0 years. To the particulars I say, Possidonius in the life of Augu­stine, Et Aug [...]ract. l. 1. c. 6 saith, that he was born of honest and Christian pa­rents, and that he received of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Mi­lan, both the wholesome doctrine of the Catholick Church, and the Divine Sacraments. Aug. Confess l. [...] c. 11. his words are these,—Vidifii Demine cum adhuc puer essem, & quodam die pressus stomachi dolore, repentè [...]s [...]uarem paenè m [...]ritu­rus, vidisti Deus meus—quo ino [...] animi, & quâ fide baptisinum Christi tui—fiagitavi [...] pita [...]e matris meae, & matris omnium nostrum ecclesiae tuae—dilata est [...]taque [...] [...] mea—ita jam credebam, & illa, & omnisd [...]mus, [...]si pater solus, qui tamen, non [...] in me jus maternae pietatis quo minus in Christum crederem, si [...]ut ille n [...]n [...]um credi [...]ert [...]. [...] But Augustine saith, he belie­ved and desired baptism from his childhood; the cause of [Page 68] the delay thereof he putte [...]h on a sudden great sickness, See A [...]g [...]stin. c [...]n [...]ll. l 3 c. c. 11. and his fathers unbelief: but if the parents were then Christian when he was born, Fieri enim n [...]n p [...]test at plius istar [...]m lach [...]y­inarum perea [...]. and either understood not, or neglected his Baptism, what is this to our cause? I know nothing hence following but that, if so they neglected, they were culpable. Ib. c. 12. Ab his domi [...] genter institutus unà cum [...] in [...]er i p [...]os sia­ [...] p [...]rentun anple [...]cus, & n [...]tricam bian­ditias Chris [...] im [...]i [...]it, a [...] m [...]x Christiane ple­tatis rudimentis imbutus, &c. We read of his dangerous estate while he was a Maniche, and his mothers constant and importunate tears and intercession for his conversion, as her sorrow for the delay thereof; which at last happily obtained, accor­ding to that which the Prelate answered her, It cannot be that the son of those tears should perish. After his con­version he seriously learned, Erasm. in vie. D, Hieron. and happily taught others, not to defer infant-baptism, as may appear by that which hath been alledged out of him.

As for St. Hierom, they also say that both his parents were Christian, and that he was diligently taught and brought up of them at home, and that with Bonosus pre­sently even in his Parents embraces, and Nurses gentle lan­guage he received in Christ, and presently he was instru­cted in the rudiments of Christian piety, which very pro­bably importeth his infant-baptisme, rather then that he had any Nurses at his being [...]0 years old. That which E­rasmus (who gathered his story out of other Authors) af­ter saith on Hieroms Epistle to Damasus, Ejus urbis silem v [...]lle se sui, in qua Christi [...] accepi [...] Erasm. s. 1. that he would follow the saith of that Citie in which he had received the garment of Christ, as the same Erasmus gives the sense in the life of Hierom, proves not that he was not baptized before he was 30 years old: for Hieroms words are to this sense, because the Eastern Churches have rent the seamless Coat of Christ (by their schismes) so that it is hard there to know where the Church is, therefore. I thought it meet that I should consult with Peters Chaire, and the faith commended by the Apostles mouth (Rom. 1.) thence now requiring food for my soul, where long since I tooke on me the garment of Christ. What was it which he called Peters Chair? What the Citie of Rome? Was that faith which the Apostle commended onely there, or then when Hierom wrote in all the Western Church? his words concer­ning [Page 69] the Eastern Churches divisions by reason of the Ari­an faction, and the following, concerning the great di­stance at which Hierom (being then in Syria, near Anti­och) was make it plain, that he spake of the Western Church in which he was baptized, probably in oppido Stridonis, where he was born, not in Rome: As for Erasmus's opi­on of his being baptized in Rome, 'tis grounded but upon an opinor. I think saith he) he meaneth it not of his Priestho [...]d, or orders. And what solidity is there on these conjectures, to conclude that Hieroms parents, though Christian, defer'd his baptism until he was 30 years old? or what wil it advantage you if it were true? there may be such lets to sealing, as to Israel in the Wilderness, and God bare with them 40 years together, yet they should have circumcised the male children at eight dayes old upon a severe penalty, Gen, 17. 14. an inevitable necessity varieth not the rule.

Concerning the last instance in Ambrose, Paulinus vir. D. Ambros. I find that his Father was Deputy, or Governor of France; but whe­ther Christian or not, Nee senex erg [...] Mase [...]tus, ne [...]infans vernaca­lus excipitur, [...]emnis [...] paceato obnoxia, & i [...] omnis atas [...]ramento idenea—ni quis icnatus f [...]erit ex [...] sp. S. &c. atique nul. um [...]in­fantum, &c. Ambred. I find nothing in Paulinus who wrote his life, and you avouch no Author for that you say. We read that after he was chosen Bishop of Milan, after Auxentius the Arian, by the joynt suffrages of the discordant parties; and being (though much against his own will) confirmed in that charge by Valentinian the Emperor, he was baptized; and with the Church held Infant-baptism against Pelagius and the Donatists, upon this ground, Because every age is subject to sin, therefore every age is fit for the Sacrament; let the reader mark how this also is very considerable in the example, and of what great efficacy it is for the destroying the supposed necessity, or derivation from the Apostles, as the pleader saith: But seeing he can raise no stronger batteries against it, Abra. l. 2. c. 11. vid. lb. l. 10. &c. 84 ad De­merriadem. pag. 239. Num. 28. pag. 240. he might more easily and certainly conclude, that it will stand whether he will or no.

This is gallantly spoken, if he could tell how to prove it, or any part thereof.

This is his Argument; all that for which Christ never gave any precept for the doing it, and which neither him­self nor his Apostles (that appears) did, is against the per­petual Analogie of Christs Doctrine; but Christ never gave any precept to baptize them, &c. ergo.—I answer, This foundred Argument, lame on both feet, doth poorly charge. 1. 'Tis not true that all is against the perpetual Analogie of Christs Doctrine for which no express pre­cept of Christ, or practice of himself or his Apostles ap­pears, for there are many things circumstantial and indif­ferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, which yet on second thoughts you will not say are against the perpetu­al Analogie of Christs Doctrine: I might instance the po­stures, or numbers, or sexes, or places where, in the recei­ving the Lords Supper: Where do you read of any com­mand of Christ, or practice of himself or Apostles, that the Communicants should stand, or sit, or kneel, or lie down; one of these (or if you can think of any other) must needs be; shew us either precept or practice obliging to either; where is any precept of Christ obliging to a set or determined number of Communicants: where are we commanded to administer to women? where is any pre­cept obliging to a place? who knows not that these and the like things are left under the general rule, Let all things be done decently, and in order? which observed they are not against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine. Again, what think you of the Sabath, is that which we now doe therein against the Analogie of Christs Doctrine, because we find no express precept or practice of Christ or his Di­sciples for the translation of it? That it is and ought to be the Christian Sabbath, is grounded on necessary con­sequence, but no express precept. 2. It is also notorious­ly false, that Christ never gave any express precept to bap­tize all Nations, without any exception to infants within the Covenant; and who knoweth not that infants ever were and are a great part of every Nation; what then? [Page 71] though he never said in so many syllables, or by naming in­fants, go and baptize them also, is it not sufficient to name all Nations without enumeration of particulars? Indeed he needed not give such an express command concerning children, seeing that he sent them to administer this seal of the new Covenant and Sacrament of initiation, who were in the old, their selves sealed in their infancy by cir­cumcision, and so used to that Doctrine of childrens being within the Covenant with believing parents, and the dai­ly practice of their initiation and reception into the com­munion of a visible Church, that it might have seemed ve­ry superfluous to say any more then Go baptize all Nati­ons. There is also much difference, Inter ecclesiam consti­tuendam, & constitutam; the Apostles business was ge­nerally to baptize Heathens and converted unbelievers; but we have to deal with a Church constituted; therefore faith and repentance, were so often mentioned in the sto­ry of the Apostles practice; but we living in a setled Church, have to deal with baptizing infants who cannot yet actually believe or repent: But in that no particulars are mentioned in Christs universal command to baptize, it sheweth that all within the Church-priviledg and Cove­nant of God are included. Again, whereas you require a command in terminis for baptizing infants, I demand, Where doth he in terminis say, Baptize men of years, or Kings, peasants, rich, poor, high, low, men, women, Ci­tizens, Countrey-men, Fishers, Husbandmen, Threshers, Shooemakers, Taylors, Shop-keepers, or Mechanicks? Ursin. par. 2. He commandeth that all be baptized, of what sex, age, con­dition or estate whatsoever they be, which appertain to any Nation. See Mr. Cobbet of childrens baptismal right. s. 8. pag. 143. [...]. So in general Prescripts, Laws, Grants, and Franchises, the rehersal of particulars is not requisite; be­cause such things pass on the whole kind therein contain­ed, and will that the censure or priviledg concern all par­ticulars within that general, except in case of any exemp­tion of some specified particular, or exception made by him who made the Covenant, or granted the Priviledges. We cannot find [...]in these very words in any place [Page 72] of Scripture, Jo. Gerard. de baptism. sect. 3, de paedobapt. 193. Baptize Women, or administer the Lords Sup­per to women yet from these general precepts, Baptize all Nations—take eat this is my body—and— d [...]i [...]k ye all of it (now it is—evident that the twelve Apostles only were then present when he instituted this Sacrament, Mat. 28. 19. Mar. 26. 20, 27. and that he spake and administred it unto them only) yet I say we all, without quarrel about it, baptize women, and re­spectively administer the Lords Supper to them, as in­cluded in the general precepts; and why are we not con­tented with a general precept including childrens baptism, seeing no exception of the Covenant-maker can appear to the contrary? Lastly we say again, that the reason why Christ gave his Disciples no express or peculiar command concerning baptizing infants, but included them in the general, was because the Apostles were so well acquain­ted with childrens reception into the Church-priviledges, and sealing into the same, that they could not reasonably make any question of baptizing infants, having a general command to baptize all Nations, infants being under the Law circumcised; —Cum gratta Det non sit stricti [...]r & a [...]gusti [...]r in no­volqu [...] in V. T. Io. Gerard. S. S. and knowing moreover that the grace of God was not more strict or restrained in the new Testa­ment then in the old; but contrarywise, more diffused or large; and therefore a greater and more difficult question might have been concerning the baptism of women, there being neither analogie from circumcision, nor particular precept to induce them to baptize them; but that they knew that the general precept was authority sufficient, without specifying particulars in terminis. You say more,

Your whole scope is fallacious: form your Argument,

Christ and his Apostles in all that he or they said concer­ning baptism, required faith and repentance, as previous dispositions to baptism, but no infant can believe or re­pent; ergo, infants are not previously disposed to, or capa­ble of baptism, according to that Christ or his Apostles [Page 73] ever said. 1. We say here is a Paralogism or fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplicitèr; Your Major is true, if you speak of persons of years to be instructed; but false concerning children, because he never requireth any impossibility. 2. He that appointed Infants baptism, requires no other previous disposition to infant-baptism, but such as they are capable of, that is, of being admitted into the visible Church, and sealed with the external Seal thereof into the future profession of faith and repentance. Adde hereto, that children under the Gospel, are thus ca­pable of the seal of faith, as children were under the Law, although they cannot actually repent or believe, which were and are no less previous dispositions, if we speak of persons of mature years to be baptized: But if your di­spute be [...], your ignoratio elenchi may not pass for current reason, if by previous dispositions to baptism of men of years, you would obtrude the same on infants, concerning whom we say that actual faith or repentance are no more previous dispositions to baptism, then they were to circumcision. And so you see that I might reasonably answer all that you say herein by rejecting your conse­quence; but for the prudent Readers further satisfaction, I say, 3. Aprevious disposition necessary to the capacity of a thing, is considerable, either as it is in or of the subject.

1. A previous disposition in the subject, we may under­stand either as a self-disposing by some intrinsecal and in­ward faculty, or as a being extrinsecally disposed and fit­ted by some other power, to a capacity or receptibility of something which yet it hath not, neither was capable thereof before such a disposition: Now this in our pre­sent instance presupposeth, or speaks some change of the mind by illumination, faith, remorse of conscience, pur­pose of leading a new life, and desire to be implanted into Christ and the communion of Saints by baptism; and so it is internal; or professing of that endeavour of know­ing the mysteries of the Gospel, faith and repentance testi­fied before men; and so these dispositions are external, [Page 74] or expressed to men whom it may concern; these are ne­cessary in persons of years coming to baptism.

2. there is a previous disposition of the subject without any present change of the mind, which springeth from his relation to some other, or some others act: So some ti­tles of honour come on children in their fathers Char­ters without any present change of the childs mind; so Lands and Inheritances, by right of adoption, may be set­led on them in their infancy, without their present change or knowledg: so also the believing parents pri­viledg, and being within Gods Covenant made with them and their children, previously disposeth infants to the seal thereof, to wit, by giving them a certain right there­to, and so was it in circumcision: But if a Proselyte were to receive the seal of the Covenant, he must neces­sarily be prepared and first disposed thereto, by the know­ledg of Gods Law and Covenant, faith, repentance, or at least the profession thereof, and those other rites which the Law required on that behalf. The infants previous disposition to circumcision, was no other then his fathers and his own priviledg, and being within Gods Covenant: Of the child was neither faith nor repen­tance required for the present, but future; so must we understand concerning baptism, the seal of faith under the Gospel.

I answer, 1. Deal fairly, dispute ad idem; and shew me one place of Scripture which universally requireth faith before this Sacrament, and you shall be excused for the innumerable places which you speak of: We can shew that the rule holds not universally that faith must precede the Sacraments: for though Abrahams faith preceded the seal thereof, yet Isaaks seal preceded his faith: Mr. Cal­vin expresseth the reason hereof: ‘Why (saith he) doth in Abraham the Sacrament follow faith, and in Isaak [Page 75] his son it goeth before all understanding? because it is meet that he, which being in full-grown age is recei­ved into fellowship of the Covenant, from which he had hitherto been a stranger, should first learn the con­ditions thereof: but an infant begotten of him, need­ed not so, which by right of inheritance, according to the form of the promise, is even from his mothers womb contained in the Covenant.’ And certainly in this respect God calleth the infants of covenanted parents, sons and daughters born unto him, Gen. 17. 7. Ezek. 16. 20. & 23. 37. Act. 2. 39. &c. 2 Cor. 6. 18. be esteeming them his children who are born of those parents to whom God made the promise to be a God unto them and their seed after them; which promise as tru­ly concerns us and our children, as it concerned Abra­ham and his. 2. If the argument be good from that place, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized; faith is first named, and then baptism: ergo, faith must precede baptism: Why shall not the Argument from other places be good to the contrary? as John 3. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: Baptism is first named, and then regeneration; therefore baptism must precede regenera­tion. So again Ephes. 5. 26. Washing with water, that is, baptism is mentioned before the word, ergo, we must first be baptized, and afterward receive the word. 3. If this argument were good, how many men and women of age, must by the same reason be denyed baptism? For all have not saith; but the truth is, that to be born in the Church, is unto, or in infants instead of profession of faith and re­pentance, as to the outward seal, for which we contend; and profession of faith and repentance, is to and for the adult instead of the same, for their right to the desired seal (so was it to Ismael, and Esau whom God hated) because they were born of covenanted parents. 4. Sure it is that Christ in the forementioned place, speaketh of men and women of years: For you confess that infants as such, cannot believe; and what then must follow if your cruel principles were true? Christ saith, But he that believeth [Page 76] not, shall be damned: If this were as you would have it, spo­ken concerning infants also, what should become of all those that die in their infancy? what are they damn'd? Here appears an inexcusable perversness of these men, who when children are proposed to their interest in general terms granted them, there they would exclude them, ex­cept they shew a particular warrant; and baptize all Na­tions, without a baptize infants, shall not advantage them for the seal of their admission into Christs visible Church: But where a general rule is mentioned, from whence they are in reason and all charitable construction to be exempt­ed, there it must include them for their disadvantage, e­ven to damnation, without any particular warrant for such inteterpretation. Mr. Cobbet observeth well, That the Covenant-priviledges of grace, —Of child. baptismal right, cap. 8. conclus. 7. pag. 143. are ever to be expoun­ded in favour of the principal or less principal counter­parties, unless any exception be made of persons or privi­ledges by him which was the Covenant-maker. To avoid this, you must either acknowledg that the place you cite, is either to be understood of those of years who contuma­ciously reject the Ordinances of God, being hardned in wilfull blindness and unbelief, and so that i [...] doth not con­cern children, as such; or else you must allow infants some secret seeds of faith and regeneration, and so you shall justly acknowledg their capacity of baptism.

True in those (who though baptized) as Simon Magus, In [...]lem sanetificati [...]nem quibui [...]lam [...] a [...]a­isse & profuisse fiue visibilibus sacramentis: visibilem vero sa [...]ficati [...]nem, quae fit sacramento visibili, sine invisibili, p [...]sse adesse, non posse prodesse: ne [...]tonen visibile sacramentam ide [...] centemnendum est, quiatcontemp [...]or ejus invisibiliter sanctificari non potest, &c. P. Lombard. l. 4. dist. 4. E. Post Aug. sup. Lev. in fine. c. 8. are yet but in the gall of bitterness; but this is a meer ig­noratio elenchi, hence to conclude against infants baptism; our question not being whether all that are baptized shall be saved; but whether children of believing parents ought [Page 77] to be baptized; which if you would thus disprove, who­soever have not a saving faith that the Sacrament may do them good, may not be baptized; but children have not such faith, that baptism received may doe them good: ergo, children are not to be baptized: your rea­soning would appear unreasonable, both Propositions being false or fallacious. The Major, because baptism is but the external seal of admission into the visible Church, into which elect and reprobates may enter, as it were into the outward Court of the Temple. And if saving faith finally doing the baptized good, or, which is the same, if the inward baptism by the holy Ghost, were the rule by which the baptizing Minister must proceed, what man were sufficient for that Office? The examples of Si­mon Magus, Judas, Demas, &c. shew enough that the most discerning men may be deceived in others fair pro­fession; and who can foresee the final estates of men and women baptized? I cannot reasonably think that you take all those for elect, whom your selves baptize, or that your baptism shall doe them all good. And if you di­spute [...], Calvin. ii stir. l. 4. c. 16 N. 20. concerning one and the same faith in se­veral degrees, that is, if you mean the seeds or habit of faith; that Minor is false; for elect infants have the seeds of faith in baptism, though they be not formed in them, yet by the secret working of the spirit, the seeds thereof for a time lying hidden in them, shall flourish and shew their growth in them in newness of life. If you mean it of actual faith, At enim qui­ [...] [...]Aug. [...]p. 48 Vincan. that want of that condition, [...] discovereth the Paralogism: And we say infants want of actual faith in present infancy thereof incapable, conclu­deth nothing against their having of it in mature age; and so as little against their baptism. I cannot conclude so well as in Augustins words; But (some may say) the things do some men no good; what must the Medicine therefore be neglected, because some mens pestilence is incurable?

[Page 78]I demand then, Do infants believe? Why do ye deny them baptism? or because they have not faith, do you conclude them all damned who die in their infancy? That were a damnable assertion; and to pay you with your own coyn, Against the perpetual analogie of Christs Doctrine, who commanded infants to be brought unto him, bless them, and positively affirmed, that Of such is the Kingdom of heaven, Further I say, If your Proposition be universal, it is notoriously false; for all want of faith doth not abso­lutely damn: For 1. They who pray for faith, or the in­creases thereof, (as the Disciples did) want faith, yet were they not damned; he that hungereth and thirsteth for the righteousness of faith, wanteth the same; for hunger and thirst are of emptiness: yet Christ pronounceth such blessed. Mat. 5. 6. 1 Tim. 1. 13. 2. He that now believeth not, may hereafter be­lieve: It was Pauls case; had you seen him persecute the faith and faithfull in ignorance and unbelief, would you presently have devoted him to absolute damnation? Judg not, that you be not judged: I know no man living that wanteth not faith; and I pray the good Lord to help my unbelief, and exhort you otherwise to express your fan­cies, that they prove not snares to weak and afflicted con­sciences:

A very acute and witty assertion indeed; but we answer, 1. By this principle you might have been as blasphemous against Gods Ordinance in circumcision, had you lived under the Law. 2. We say not but that infants by their incapacity, are excused from actual susception of baptism, for they cannot act thereto: But parents are not excusa­ble, if they contemn or neglect their parts in sealing those that are joynt heirs of the Promises and Covenant of God with them and their children, because they have a capa­city to promote and effect it: and this appeareth in the History of Moses, Exod. 4. 24, 25. Quod in filio Most per An­g [...]um manifestatum est, qui own ad [...]uc incircum [...] [...]tre ferretur. praesenti & evidenti periculo ut circumcideretur exactum est, & cum factan [...], depuija est pernicies. Aug. cont. Donatist. 1. 4. c. 24. We very well know that [Page 79] infants cannot come and desire the Seals, their present in­capacity excuseth them from that they cannot possibly do: but their parents or friends can intreat it for them, and present them to it: so that infants have a passive capacity; they cannot profess faith and repentance; but their parents professing of the same, interesseth them in all those exter­nal Church-priviledges whereof they are capable: and so to be born in the Church, is to them and for them, instead, and in place of their profession. What your terms of reasonably and humanely received, do mean, if to any pur­pose, want interpretation.

Why might you not say the same also concerning cir­cumcision? It is certain that by the same you may con­clude, that many thousand persons of age must never be baptized, because they never come to believe; as for their profession, no man can say whether it be hypocritical or not.

True in adult is; what is this to our present question con­cerning infants? We have often said that this your ar­guing a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, is falla­cious, and not passable among young Sophisters; and we owe no other answer then denying the consequence. Our contest is about Infant-baptism, wherein we say a present actual faith is not required: It is necessary, or at least the profession thereof in those who present to, or administer baptism; we cannot say so of infants, to whom God doth not yet give the use of reason: therefore they cannot first believe and after receive the Seal, Ergo sunt bapti­zandi ut sidem & salutem co [...] ­sequantur. Jo. Gerard. de poe. dobap. sect. 3. Numb. 196. Heb. 4. 2. Rom. 10. [...] Ioh. 17. 20. as Abraham did: But therefore they are to be baptized that they may attain faith and salvation: So the word preached profiteth not, if it be not mixed with faith in them that hear; yet is the preaching thereof an effectual means whereby God will work faith in the hearers: To conclude, Baptism profiteth not without faith; yet is it an effectual means whereby God worketh regeneration and salvation, therefore none with­in [Page 80] his Covenant are to be barred from it. It is not impro­bably conjectured by some, that therefore the Disciples forbad them to bring children to Christ, because they thought children have not faith, nor can any teach them, who are yet incapable of doctrine: Possibly they did not yet understand the abolition of the old Seal for the intro­duction of the new, Gal 5. 2. nor how baptism was to succeed cir­cumcision; that was sometime after disputed and deter­mined, Act [...] 1 [...], 2. but Christ was much displeased with it, rebuked them, and seriously protested, that of such is the kingdom of heaven.

True in adultis, but most faise in infants; I am weary of telling you of your fallacious arguing, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: Again, if here by actual suscep­tion of baptism, you mean that infants are to be excused from it, we have answered in the foregoing paragraph; if you mean from administration of infant baptism, we de­ny your assertion, and expect proof.

You said before that some said infants have imputative saith, [...] and by the number you now attribute it to Calvin; indeed Mr. Calvin saith, as I have noted, That infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, which although they be not yet formed in them, yet by the secret operati­on of the spirit, the seed of either lieth hid in them: and in the same chapter he saith as Paul there reasoneth, That the Jews are sanctified of their parents; so in another place he teacheth. That the children of Christians receive the same sanctification of their fathers: Also in the same chapter be saith—not that I mean rashly to affirm, that they be indued with the same faith which we feel in our selves, or that they have at all knowledg of faith (which I had rather leave in suspence, &c.) but concerning imputa­tive faith, I find neither device nor approbation of Cal­vins. Why did you not rather say that this device was [Page 81] P. Lombards (who mentioneth the Imputative faith you speak of) or some of the following Schoolmen? — [...]equiritur fides Ecclesiae, Al. Aleni. de sacr. bapt. q. 8. m. 3. a. 1. sect. 3. resol. Item­que—par­ [...]ui [...] in baptis­tis [...], [...]m [...]to. Chris [...], [...]fferen­tium fide, &c. [...]b. m. 8. a. 3. sect. 1. resol. Or Polydor Virgil who in his fourth book concerning the Inventors of these things cleareth Calvin from this invention, saying—Seeing infants, by reason of their age, cannot testifie their own saith, as Cyprian saith, it was provided from the begin­ning, that they should profess their faith by others; that as ano­thers fault, to wit Adam cur first parents sin was evil to them, in so much that from their birth they were subject to originall sin, so others endeavour might be good to them, Who therefore (as Ambrose saith in his second book concerning the calling of the Gentiles) believe and are baptized by anothers confes­sion. Or why do you not rather lay the invention hereof to Justin Martyr, who living long before any of these, Fides a­liena, sine qua non datur par­vulis remissi [...], non est fides of­ferentium, sed est fides ecc [...]sis. Gab. Byel. in 4. lent. distinct 4 q.z. G. ib. dist. 5. q. 1. R; Re quiritur fides ecclesiae, &c. Polydore Vir­gil. de invent. l. 4. c. 4. inquir, ... Quibus cum per [...]tatem nen licer [...]t de sua fi­de testari, [...] principi [...] sie [...]t tradit Cypria­nus, provisuin suit, ut per alios credere profite­rentur; quo queinadmedum alienâ culpd, id est Adam primi parentis delictam eis qu [...] malo suit, quod statim nati originali peccato obligarentur, sic aliena opera bono e [...]t, qui ideirco, velut ait, Ambrosiu, l. de vocat. Gent. 2. ex alien [...] confessione credunt & baptizant [...]r. [...].Iust. Mart. q. & relpons. aa orthodox. q. 56. saith, They are made worthy of the good things of Baptism, by their faith who present them to be baptized? The Reader may hence gather how little Calvin said for imputative faith; and if he had affirmed any such thing, yet how un­true it is, that Calvin, or any of his, invented it. But the pleader saith further,

Yes, caeter is paribss: for though the Sacraments work not the same effect in all receivers, yet Gods holy Spirit deserteth not his ordinance in the elect, though for causes ever just, though most unknown to us, it doth not always alike shew its power in the recipient. It is true, that the seal and ministration of man can nothing profit where God giveth not the inward Baptism by his holy Spirit; though the inward may save without the outward, as hath been noted: but your supposition being rightly laid concerning an elect infant baptized, and so carried away, you must [Page 82] grant, that God, whose election can by no means be defea­ted or made voyd, will give and make effectuall the means to the end, that is, salvation, whether by acquainting the party baptized with his will declared in his word preached to him, or by his secret work within him, if he will take him away in infancy: in the adult, coming to the knowledg of Gods covenant in Christ, and of his own sealing in in­fancy, it must make him more confident of his implantati­on into Christ, then if he knew that he never had been baptized. What then? Must this be by vertue of baptism by water onely, or the externall ministration thereof? No, but by the power of Gods Spirit working on his ordi­nance, and accomplishing his own decrees, do we follow your supposition, dividing preaching of the word to such when they come to years, from the precedent seal? Tru­ly such a strange invention were absolutely without Art, without Scripture, reason or authority, I would say, as is your argument here alledged against insant-baptism, but that you call it Demonstrative and Unanswerable: but consider how to overcome before you cry victory. To an­swer your supposition; suppose that an infant were not by any habituall faith so much as disposed to any actuall belief without a new master; what could this conclude more then that it is necessary to the actuall faith of an in­sant come to fit years, that he be taught the doctrine of faith, repentance, &c. which we constantly affirm: what makes this against infant-baptism? We unanimously con­fess, and solemnly profess, that the infant, so soon as it shal be able to learn, ought to be, and shall be taught the mysteries of eternall life and salvation by Christ: so your demonstration proves but a poor fallacie: you utterly mistaking or willingly dissembling the question. We af­firm not that the Word ought to be divided from the Sa­crament whereof new-born infants are capable, but that the word is to be preached to them, & they are to be instru­cted in all the Rudiments of Christian Religion, so soon as they shall be able to learn: I only add hereto, what have you said in this your so much applauded argument against in­fant-baptism, [Page 83] which might not as reasonably and religi­ously have been urged against infant-circumcision? Could they if sent into Painim-Countreys with all the terms of your supposition, have been more disposed to an actual be­lief without a new Master? yet they had, and we have right to the seal of the righteousnesse of Faith, not for any excellency or ability to produce any good and saving effect in our selves, but through the merits of our Saviour, the free mercy of God, and the right of our Fathers, with whom God made his Covenant for their persons and po­sterity. Next, you say,

Concerning Baptism in generall, 'tis considerable which Tertullian saith, The Lord himself who owed no repentance, was baptized; and was it not necessary to sinners? his rea­son will reach (possibly beyond his opinion) to infants al­so, except we should say with Pelagius, that they are not sinners. Further we say, that Baptism, the laver of rege­neration, is necessary to the salvation of infants; yet in case of privation or impossibility, they are saved by the pe­culiar and extraordinary goodness and providence of God. So that the necessity of Baptism, as hath been avowed, is not absolute, as if none could be saved without it; but ne­cessary on our part, who are to obey the ordinance of God. God is not tied to his ordinance, but we are: he can other­wise save, but we cannot be saved in the contempt thereof God (saith Tertullian) hath bound faith to the necessity of Baptism; therefore Cernelius and those that were with him, after they were sanctified by the holy Ghost, Disringui [...] igitur inter ne­cessitatem ex parte Dei & ex parte nostri: inter casum pri [...]ationis & viam ordinariam, &c. Ioh Ger­hard de Baptism. c. 7. c. 23 [...]. Obstrinxit sidem ad bapt j [...] necessitatum. Tertul. q. s. c. 13. —Nec tamen visibile Sacramutum ideo contemnendum; quia c [...]ntempter e [...]us in­visibiliter sanctisi [...]ri non potest: Hinc Cornelius, & qui cum eo crant, jam Spirita Sancti­ficati, baptizati sunt: nee su [...]eis [...] jud [...] aest, &c. P. Lemb. sent. l. 4. dist. 4. E. were yet baptized; neither is the visible sanctification super­fluous, [Page 84] because the invisible preceded; seeing God alone giveth the one, and appointeth man to do the other for a seal and confirmation of his covenant. You say more,

You trifle here; you know that we hold no such necessi­ty of the means, as hath been said; your foundation therefore failing, nothing of your superstructure can stand. If men neglect or contemn the ordinance of God to­ward their infants salvation, they do as much as in them lieth, 2. [...]n. 2. 19. to shut them from heaven: but yet the foundation of the Lord remaineth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his though men neglect to mark them, who cannot help themselves thereto, yet the Lord knoweth all his, [...]e Mr. Cobbet of child. Bap­tism. right, sect 10. p. 447, 448, and is not unjust to punish the childs involuntary de­fect for the parents voluntary neglect, which God will se­verely punish, though the child shall be held guiltless thereof, as may appear in the fore-recited example of Mo­ses; which might perswade considering men to beware of denying children baptism (for if the neglect be such a sin, —qui dam eis &c. talibus pa­rentibus [...] secit, oftendis, qu [...]d cum f [...]de­ [...]e sa [...] dignitus Andr. Rivet to. 2. [...]tract. 3. q. 3. n. 2. what is the contempt thereof?) to which their parents faith giveth them right; not as an efficient, principall, or meri­torious cause of infants salvation, but as a sign and seal of Gods good will towards their children, whose providence causing them to be born of such parents sheweth that he vouchsafeth them the priviledge of his covenant: and how horrible a presumption is it for man to take away that which God pleaseth to give?

We have said enough concerning the necessity you stil harp on, and fear to weary the Reader by telling you, we [Page 85] hold no such absolute necessity as we have expressed; but that it follows not that it is necessary at all to be done, &c. is evidently false, as may appear in circumcision, which was enjoyned the parents, not the children; as untrue is your second branch ( in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably en­trusted to others—) for the infants circumcision was rea­sonably entrusted to the parent under this necessiry— The uncircumcised man child—that person shall be cut off from his people, Gen. 17. 14.

Stay and prove that it is not necessary, before you build up many conclusions upon that which never was, not will be granted you. We have shewed how 'tis necessary.

Neither is the Sabbath which we observe, nor many o­ther things which of duty we do perform: See what hath been answered hereto, pag. 240. Num. 28. and so we bap­tize infants; for it is both reasonable, and they have a ca­pacity thereof, though you deny both.

A rare Dilemma, but that 'tis fallacious. Reduce it to a Syllogism, and it will appear a Paralogism ex accidente. Suppose thus,

That which produceth no spiritual effects, is not to be contended for; but baptism produceth no spiritual effect; ergo, it is not to be contended for: Who knows not that 'tis accidental to baptism to produce no spiritual effect in the baptized? This is for mans unbelief and forsaking the Covenant [...], by wilfull sinning which doth ponere [...]bicem, and make the Ordinance of none effect to salvation: If we should thus dispute, Rom. 4. 15. That which causeth wrath is evil; but the Law causeth wrath, Rom. 7. 12. Psal. 19. 7, 8. ergo, the Law is evil: the Fal­lacy were the same: For it is accidental, and through mans disobedience that the Law causeth wrath; of it self it is good and holy, right and pure: so here, though baptism produce no good spiritual effect in the reprobate (or not [Page 86] ex opere operato) yet by the institution of God, whose spi­rit worketh on his Ordinance, it doth.

If I were of your Councel, I would entreat you to be­ware of these political temporizings which come so near Atheism: Believe you the Scriptures who thus slight Gods holy Ordinances?

Here you bring another fallacy, à non causâ pro causâ We say that neither are the effects or spiritual advantages of baptism, produced by the external work of the Sacra­ment alone, nor by that as it is helped by the co-opera­tion and pre-disposition of the suscipient (as hath been proved) but by the spirit of God working on his own Or­dinance.

If the Skie fall we shall have Larks. Who affirms that which you suppose?

Do they say so when they speak of infant-baptism? slan­der them not; herein they are better then you who deny infants baptism, which they grant though children cannot actually believe, confess, profess or repent.

Make much of the Minerva of your own brain; if it be your opinion, we own it not.

You might have pleaded the same against circumcision, with as good success: They could neither hinder it, nor do any thing to further it; did it therefore do them no benefit at all? But who saith it is per modum recipient is, &c. which is not properly expressed according to the pre­disposition, Per modum speaks a cause, ad, or secundum, a condition: We say that the Sacrament doth work accor­ding to the dispositions of the receivers, because God gives that to infants which makes them fit to be baptized, giving them by his own Covenant with his believieving parents, federal holyness, and so a right to the external initiatory seal of his Covenant with them: Whether it do them good or no, whether it produce a spiritual good effect or no (that is to regeneration and salvation) a right they have to the external seal, as being born within the Church, and that as soon as they are born; we understand not any o­ther predisposing cause in the infant to be baptized, as if he were able to contribute any thing to his receptibility, more then the unborn Jacob was in relation to the love of God, which indeed never found any cause but it self; Rom. 9. 11. &c. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Rom. 3 20. yet ere the children were born, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Further we say, as we shall be saved secundum opera, but not propter opera: Good works are in the regenerate ex­cellent signes of justification and salvation future, they cannot be the causes of either; they follow, they cannot precede justification: So we may say that baptism works according to the dispos [...]ons of the suscipient, which are not in infants, faith, profession, repentance, &c. which God gives not to infants, but to persons of years; but as to their ri [...] baptism by his Couenant: what other predispositi [...] [...]re in them are secret, and known to God above. And so your exploded fancy and dream of a notable advantage vanisheth.

How many impertinences are here twisted up together? We answer pla [...]nly, Ceremony and duty on mans part, are not membra dividentia nor always contradistinct for they may coïncidere; as in those ceremonies of the Law, which being commanded of God, were duties of men subject to the Law, and to be performed, though they could not make the com­ers thereunto perfect: and so is baptism now a duty on our part to be administred, though of it self it cannot make all the comers thereunto perfect. But you demand, if it implies a duty on our part; how then can children receive it, who can­not do duty at all? Where is now the revelation, reason, com­mon sense, and all experience in the World, in which you so lately triumphed, as if you had driven us to take sanctuary? If it be a duty on our part to administer it [...] how can chil­dren receive it, who cannot do any duty at all? Nay but tell me, if you can, by all your reason, how could infants re­ceive baptism except we did administer it? say you, how can he be passive who cannot be active at all? how could infants receive circumcision, who could do as little duty as infants now can? That homonymical (on our part) must be otherwise limited by some expression, or else your Ar­gument will appear fallacious. It is a duty on our part to baptize infants; on the childrens part no duty is required [...] they can do none, as such; for God enjoyneth no impos­sibilities. But you say,

This Rhetorick would somthing better [...] [...]im that ca­reth not what, but how much he saith [...] [...] vain and injurious expressions, are meer aspersions: and call you this an Argument considerable? wherein appears either matter or form thereto pertinent? For the rest (which in some other man I should take for some aegri insomnium) we say if you mean by Mystery, the spiritual baptism my­steriously [Page 89] signified by the outward ministration, to which you seem to drive, 'tis evident that it doth not alwaies ac­company it (except you will say that the Sacrament justi­fieth ex opere operato, Pag. 242. which a little before you would have pinned on our backs) which appears in Judas, Simon Ma­gus, Pag. 243. and all others who fall away: And as certainly false is it, that it never follows in order of time; common experi­ence shewing that the spiritual seed sowed in baptism, ma­ny times, and in many of the baptized, lieth long before it actually appeareth, either in any outward effects, in­ward signes of calling, or fruits of regeneration; as in A­braham faith preceded, and circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, followed: so in Cornelius, a spiri­tual sanctification preceded, and baptism followed; but in Isaak circumcised the eight day, the seal preceded, and faith and sanctity followed: So in Infant-baptism the seal and laver of regeneration goeth before, Augustin. contr. Donat. l. 4. c. 21. and actual faith followeth it in season, if they hold fast the faith of Christ. You say again,

Good reason that such things should be propounded, mentioned and enjoyned to those who converting to the faith in years capable of Doctrine, require the seal of Gods Covenant; and certainly so was it to Proselytes to be circum­cised; but you cannot reasonably think, that they proposed or enjoyned Infants to be circumcised any such things: and it were as vain to propose any of these to Infants now to be baptized: Therefore we seal them now, and pro­pound these like things to them when they be capable: Now the Scripture speaking to men or women of under­standing, propounds to them their present duty who are to be baptized, or who are baptized, as faith, repentance, walking in newness of life, mortification; and (as hath [Page 90] been said) the Apostles in the ecclesiâ constituendâ had mostly to do, being to endeavour the calling and conver­sion of the Gentiles, who before were aliens from the Covenant of God: But in ecclesiâ constitutâ, we rarely meet with any first to be taught, and then to be sealed; the children of Christian parents having Church-privi­ledg, are now baptized first (as in the setled Covenant under the Law they were first circumcised) and when they come to fit years, instructed: And what then do all your impertinences disadvantage our cause, seeing elect infants in their baptism, are implanted into Christ, and in due time walk in newness of life?

The effects of elect childrens baptism being nothing less, this Rhetorick might have been spared.

All this plainly makes for infants baptism, who being na­turally flesh and blood, such as cannot enter into the Kingdom of heaven, conceived and born in sin, children of wrath, must indeed put on Christ Jesus that they may be saved: These premises we willingly adhere to; but your conclusion is liable to a non sequitur; because it is either fallacious, disputing ab adultis ad infantes, which wanting the condition [...], becomes an ignoratio elenchi, and mistaking or mispursuing the Question, or begging it in those terms ( remaining in the present incapacities) which cannot be granted. I answer two things, 1. God can give capacity of regeneration, and newness of life to any age; That he doth not give it to infants, cannot appear to us: The contrary doth; for he giveth the spirit of sanctificati­on to some infants, in, and from the womb, for many dy­ing young, are saved, which being conceived in sin, and born the children of wrath [...] they could not be, without re­generation [Page 91] and sanctification: And truly when I consider what marvelous instinct God giveth to the new-cast young of beasts, to take the brest (as well as to new-born infants) for their bodily preservation. I cannot but conceive that the good God gives infants (on whom he hath set his own image, which consisteth in understanding, sanctity, im­mortality, &c. Quae consu [...]it in immortalita­te, in innocentiâ, [...]ju [...]ii [...]â [...]ireli­ [...] [...] [...]ianimi d [...]bus. Va [...]abl. in Gen. 1 26. See Mr. Cob­bet. Explicat. of Mar 28. & Mar. 16. pag. 177. pag. 244. 1 Pet. 3. 21.) some admirable, though to us secret, light of mind, and capacity of that which is snbordinate to the preservation of their immortal souls. 2. Children under the Gospel have no less capacity then children under the Law had who yet received the seal of the same righteousness of faith in their infancy, and were circumcised to newness of life. Rom. 2. 29. But you say,

I answer, 1. You vainly dispute è non concessis; 'tis not granted, nor can it ever be proved that elect children in baptism are not formed new in righteousness and holyness; and so your superstruction concerning their having only that baptism which is a putting away the filth of the flesh, but not the rest necessary to salvation, is frivolous. 2. The answer of a good conscience toward God, is an effect of the in­ward baptism by the spirit of Jesus, peculiar to the elect. Now if your reason hence taken, for the exclusion of in­fants from baptism, the external seal, were good; by the same reason none but the elect, or those who have the an­swer of a good conscience towards God, must be admitted to baptism and whom then might you with good conscience baptize? certainly but few; and for ought you can cer­tainly know, none: For in these last and worst dayes, what know you, but that they who fairly profess faith and re­pentance, &c. may yet notwithstanding be meer hypo­crites? And where is then their answer of a good conscience toward God? 3. I say, what secret light, and sweet confidence elect infants have in God, I know not; sure I am they have that which is and shall be sufficient to their salvation in [Page 92] Christ, though they die before man can teach them mor [...] and why shall man exclude them from the external Seal of Gods Covenaut with them (as being born within the Church) of which they have as evident (and a more easie) capacity then children had of circumcision? God gives Infants the incomparably greater and more excellent part, sanctity and sealing to salvation; and shall man presume to deny the less and subordinate part, the external Seal of Christs visible Church, whereof Reprobates, born within the Church, have a capacity? 4. Faith, good conscience, repentance, &c. are in the elect those fruits, whose seeds were sowen in baptism; and (as hath been said) were it rea­sonable to say, we may not sow untill the fruits thereof ap­pear? Nay, but we therefore sow in hope, that we may in due season see and reap the fruits thereof. 5. Whereas you say that the answer of a good conscience towards God, is the only baptism that saveth us; I answer, 1. It is not the answer of a good conscience that saveth any man, though a good conscience be an excellent signe of our salvation by Christ; for, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith, &c. 2. Rom. 5. 1, 2. Your reasoning is fallacious, your medium being homonymical: For, allowing you the signe for the cause, yet if that ( which saveth us) though it may be true, if understood concerning persons of years, and as good conscience, an undoubted effect of regeneration, is opposed to the bare seal thereof, without any inward ef­fect of the spirit. I say if it be understood of Infants, as in your sense, excluded from a capacity of good conscience, or the acts thereof, it is very false, except you will also ex­clude all Infants from salvation, which were against the ex­press doctrine of Christ.

[Page 93]I answer, 1. Neither can men of years by the force of nae­ture put themselves into a supernatural condition, supposing you mean subordinate to salvation; and what then can the use of reason without the works of the Spirit, advantage them hereto? Shall not they therefore that have the use of reason be baptized? 2. What do you herein say which might not as well have been objected against the circumcision of infants? Would you have concluded them never the neer, because at eight dayes old they had not the use of reason to know what or why it was so done unto them before they could throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness and newness of life? 3. If you will have none baptized before the works of the Spirit, before the operations of grace, &c. when and whom may you baptize? For the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3. [...]. God can, and doth sanctifie infants (as in the elect infants, dying such must be granted, if you have so much reason or charity as to think that at least some of them are elected and saved) and he can and doth sanctifie in age, sometimes in the very last act thereof, as appeared in the penitent thief; how then will it follow that infants are never the neerer if they be baptized before the use of reason, &c. 4. We must understand that baptism compre­hendeth first, the sign water, and the whole ceremony, sprinkling, washing, or dipping into water in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. Secondly, the things themselves signified by the visible and externall things, which are sprinkling of the blood of Jesus on the baptized for the remission of sins, mortification of the old man, quickning the new man into certain hope of resurre­ction to eternall life to come. Thirdly, the commande­ment & promise of Christ, whence the sign hath authority and power of sealing and confirming these things unto the baptized. They then that say baptism is an externall sign and washing of the body, and therefore a bare and effectless sign, do fallaciously dispute, Fallacia, divi­sionis. dividing that which [Page 94] God (who cannot deceive us) hath joyned together, by gi­ving us order to baptize, and be baptized for the remission of sins freely for Christs sake, into whom we are implan­ted by Baptism. How false then must it be which you, up­on the matter, affirm that we shall be never the neerer, if we cannot contribute somthing to the efficacie of Baptism in the use of our own reason? Certainly Gods Spirit ac­companieth his ordinance in the elect, sooner or later: If the reprobate be never the nearer salvation for his baptism, that is accidentall, & maketh nothing against the effectuall sea­ling of the elect to eternall life in their baptism. There are many sorts of hearers of the Word; some like the stony ground, Matth. 13. some like the thorny, some like the high-way; shall the Apostasie, unbelief, and barrenness of the greater part, make the ordinance of God of none effect to belie­vers? [...]Quicunque partulosrecen­tes al uteris ma [...]rum bap­tizaudos ne­gat aut dicit, in re [...]issi [...]ē pec­catorum eos ba­ptizari, sed ni­hil ex Adam trahere crigina­lis peccati, quod regenerationis la [...]acr [...] expictur, &c. Anat ema sit. Concil Mil­vetian 2. can. & ib. eod Can. Eccles. Afric. 1 [...]c. Aug. l. 3. de peccaturum merit. Hieron. rom. 2. advers. [...]elag. l. 3. Psal. [...] 1. 5. Eph 23. John 3. 6. 1 Cor. 15. 50. John 3. 5. To conclude, it is but the outward ministration which is committed to us; the capacity or incapacity, fruit-bearing or sterility of receivers, belongs to God to judge of, not to us; we must do our duty, and leave the issues to to him. But you say,

What? Popery and Pelagianism twisted together? If you speak of childrens salvation by the mercies of God to his elect, so far we accord: if you say by their own inno­cency, that Pelagians and Donatists taught, who affirmed that infants were born without originall sin, and therefore would not have them baptized. Against this heresie the second Milvetian Councel determined. Canon 2. as hath been noted. For that you say they shall be saved though they die in puris naturalibus, that is, such as they are by nature without regeneration, it is against the express word of God, as may clearly appear, in that all are conceived and born in sin, the children of wrath by nature: That which is born of the flesh is flesh,— and flesh and blood can­not inherit the kingdom of God, that is, such as it is by, and in the state of corrupted nature; therefore except the in­fant [Page 95] be regenerate, he cannot enter into the kingdome of God. That which you say, that Baptism will carry in­fants no further, then from the pains of hell, smels strong­ly of Popery: They say that children dying without Bap­tism, shall have poe [...]am damni, non sensus, that is, they shall be free from hell fire, but that they shall not enter into heavenly joys: But Augustine so far said well, there is not to any, and middle place, that he can be any where but with the Divel, who is not with Christ. Certainly the Scri­pture mentioneth onely heaven for the elect and blessed, and hell for the reprobate and damned. Vid. Bellar. to. 4. de amiss. gratiae. l. 6. c. 2, 3, 4. N [...] est ullus ulli medius lo­cus ut possit essenisi cum diabo­lo, qu [...] n [...]n est cum Christo. de p [...]. cat. merit. c [...] 28. & [...]. serm. 14. de verb. Apostoli.

If you mean by washing with water, baptism according to Christs institution administred; we say also it is not that onely (which is the Ministers part to give) which saveth us, but the power and grace of Gods Spirit inwardly bapti­zing, sanctifying, regenerating and cleansing us from our sins by the pretious blood of Jesus that saveth us: Now that infants are not hereof capable till the use of reason, is evidently false, if you but hold these three Principles; 1. That no unregenerate unclean person can be saved, 2. That all mankind is born in sin, Rom. 5. 12. 3. That some infants dying before their use of reason, are saved. That which you say, that infants are capable of washing with water (that is of baptism, or else you trifle) we asser [...]t to, and desire you to say no more; infants of believing pa­rents, that is of professed Christians, are capable of bap­tism: for the rest we contend not, we refer the effect there­of in particulars to God, who alone knoweth his elect, and how and when to give them the inward fruit of his own ordinances: we neither affirm that all the baptized shall be saved, neither can we or you determine which shall, and which shall not, but indifferently, as charity re­quireth, hope well of every one whom we baptize, con­cerninig. [Page 96] whom we can say nothing to the contrary: But you say,

To which we answer, 1. though all be not valid in such case, it is enough that some are: 2. Your assertion, if granted, that is, that all vows, or (which is more then you affirm) if no vows made by persons under others names, or stipulations made by minors, or persons in their minority, are not valid untill by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age to ratifie them they are confirmed: what could this make against our duty of Infant-baptism? the case being much different between stipulations of men, and the covenant between God & man, as hath been shewed, & as appeared in circumcision which was with Infants eight days old. Mr. Cobbet well observeth, that the covenant of grace is as well a testament, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Heb. 9. 15, &c. In Gen. 17. [...]. [...]. 99, &c. Now a testa­ment may be, and useth to be made in reference to little ones without knowledge: nor do any use to deny a childs right in the Testators will,—because it understood not the same: and that many Infants with whom God made the covenant, Gen. 17. dying such, were yet saved: and that they restipulate in their Parents knowing acceptance of the covenant, and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms, as wel on their childrens parts as their own: & they restipulate in a passive reception of the Covenant condition & bond to af [...]er imitation of their father Abrahams faith & obedience. Again, our question is not concerning the ra­tification or effect of Infant-baptism, by their act or acts, to make it good to themselves and effectuall, when they come of age; but concerning a Church-priviledge on Infants part, which is to be admitted unto the externall seal of Gods Covenant with his Church, it being to Parents and their children; and this dependth on Gods institution to appoint it, and his inward working to make it good: Se­condly, in the confirmation of children come to age, they then professing faith, obedience, repentance, newness of [Page 97] life, &c. into which in their infancy they were bap­tized, that is, then ratified which others promised and stipulated for them, as concerning outward profession, which is in your language a supervening act, to make the former appear valid. Thirdly, the question is not concerning the final effect of baptism in particula [...] bap­tized, which cannot fall under the Ministers cogni­zance (it being kept in heaven in the archives and secret counsel of God) but concerning their right to baptism, who are born within the verge and precincts of the Church. 1 Pet. 1. 4. Whether such infants doe afterwards believe, repent, and amend their lives to salvation by Christ, or not, we cannot foresee, nor have we any exception to supersede or limit our duty of administring the outward seal of baptism: For as much as children born of Chri­stian parents and within the Church, are thereby partakers of the Covenant of grace, even they who are not partakers of the grace of the Covenant, Fourthly, we answer, That children in Gods account, do vow, confess, and avouch the Lord in their parents vowing, confession, or avouch­ing him, as they did of old; which the learned Mr. Cobbet observeth from Deut. 26. 17, 18. Pag. 121. where we read— Thou hast avouched the Lord this day, to be thy God, and to walk in his waies, &c. and the Lord hath avouched thee this day, to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee— and Deut, 19. 10, 11, &c. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God: Your Captains and your Tribes, your Elders and your Officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives and strangers—that those shouldest enter in­to a Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord thy. God maketh with thee this day, that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaak, and to Jacob, &c. whereof see Gen. 17. 7. Though therefore some stipulations made in minority and nonage, bind not the person under age, except he confirm it when he com­eth [Page 98] to age, yet you will not say that the same is not valid if made by Parents, Governors, or Guardians for chil­dren: and so in some publick Covenants and Acts of one City or State, with another, which concern the present and future ages, the infants within that City or State, as being in minority free Denisons, are bound by the same Covenant and Act, though as such, they could neither trans­act, speak, nor consent to the same, but all was agreed on and done by their Parents or Commissioners of years thereto designed, in their own and childrens name: which may apear in Israels Covenant with the Gibeonites, Jo [...]. 9. 15. which, though the stipulators were beguiled, yet Israels children were bound to, and when Saul out of a perverse zeal, a­bout 380 Rather 433. [...]. Sam. 21. 1. years after, would needs violate, how hinding that Covenant was, God declared in a severe judgment on Sauls Family, and all Israel. But upon this invalid suppo­sition you build another quere.

It would, or should be considered, that it is very dan­gerous playing thus with the sacred Ordinances of God: You confess that baptism is the only inlet into the Church of Christ; and is it to no purpose to be let into his Church and Covenant, out of which you say there is no salvation? 'Tis true that all are not saved that are within the Church and Covenant, but no man is saved out of it. God hath appointed baptism to be a seal and token of our receiving and entrance into the Church; is it to no purpose to obey him in his Ordinances? God would not only have all the Citizens of his Church thus enfranchised, but those who are not baptized when they may, he will not have reckoned in the number of his Church: And say you, 'tis to no purpose to have children marked for mem­bers of Christs Church? [...]rfin part. 2. Christ. relig. Baptism is Gods mark whereby he will have his people discerned from all other false Churches and Sects; and think you 'tis to no purpose to have Gods mark set on children, that they may not with [Page 99] a perishing world be toucht by the destroyers? Yet you say,

How often hath Satan in tempting to sin, misled the incaucious with this suggestion, there can be no danger in it, 'tis the surer way? 'tis neither reasonable not humane wilfully to act his part, and as much as in us lieth, to shut infants from the kingdom of heaven; and so to doe that which much angred Christ in the daies of his flesh; to wit, to barr or forbid children to come to him; this would be considered. Mark 10. And why is it more proportionable to an act of reason and humanity to defer childrens baptism, then in due time to baptize them? Infants were circum­cised long before they could give any account of their faith, and yet that act was proportionable to reason; and Moses was near a sad affliction for delaying it. You say further,

I know no Protestant that ever said so: but take heed you damn not your selves by teaching contempt of the Sa­crament. We are well satisfied that the privation there­of shall not condemn infants, it not being their fault if they want it; it may be, and certainly is theirs, who teach men to deny it them: And then consider in the inviola­ble justice of God, whose the damnation will be. Contemp [...]s sa­cramenti dam­nat, non priv [...] ­tio. Bern, ep. 37. Voluntos pro facto input [...] ­tur ubi factum excludit necessi­ta [...]. ib. ep. 77. We cannot conceive that a meer privation of circumcision con­demned those Hebrew babes who died before the eighth day; because God is unchangeably just, who confined their sealing to that day; yet you will grant that it was a great sin (except in case of evident and inevitable necessity, as during Israels marches in the Wilderness) a great sin I say of parents to neglect the administration thereof (for God never threatned any punishment, such as is mention­ed, Gen. 17. 14. but in respect of great sin) much more was it obstinately to deny it them: It is certainly true [Page 100] which hath been noted out of Augustine. There may be conversion of the heart without baptism; but it cannot be in the contempt of baptism; for it can by no means be called the conversion of the heart to God, when the Sacra­ment of God is contemned. Conversio autem [...] And so take your dirt back a­gain into your own faces which you cast at ours, Whosoe­ver will pertinaciously persist in this opinion of Anabaptists, and practice it accordingly, they pollute the bloud of the ever­lasting Testament; and in the Apostles sense; Heb. 4, 5, 6. They crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame, who being once baptized (and thereby planted together in the likeness of his death, Rom. 6. 4 5. Who having once died, dyeth no more, death hath no more do­minion over him) will yet be baptized again: The Apo­stles saying, It is impossible for those who were once enlight­ned (that is, baptized, as the Syriac Interpreter rendreth it, and as we shall make it appear more anon)— If they fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucifie to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame: How do they crucifie him afresh to them­selvs, that is, as much as in them is? P [...]. 245. [...]anim [...]d. in ep. ad Heb. [...]. Why, 1. They are said so to do, who iterate, or again do, or resume that which is a re­semblance or similitude of Christs suffering, who died but once: for in a reiterating it, we declare or intimate the first to be void: and so if we will have a new baptism, we must have a new Christ, and he must in our Symbole suffer, as if one Christ, or his once suffering were not sufficient for our redemption. And is not this to pollute the bloud of the everlasting Covenant and Testament, and to crucifie again the Son of God. [...] [...] Secondly, this may be said in respect of reciduation or falling away from Christ (as they do who renounce their baptism by which they were implanted in­to him, by receiving another baptism) because the merit of Christs Cross being abolished and made void, by which [Page 101] they were once renewed, it must needs be that Christ should be crucified again and put to shame, that they might be renewed by a fresh, or new merit of the Cross; which seeing it cannot be, the Apostle possibly would in­fer that it was impossible that they which are once sealed and regenerate, should ever fall away, and that therefore all Christians should do their uttermost endeavour that they may be like good ground, near the blessing, and that they may not want an iterated renovation, which no man can possibly a [...]ain. Quia ab [...]lito & irrito r [...]dd [...]to [...]u [...]is Christi i [...]erito, quo je­mel ren [...] [...]sup.

As for the rest of your revilings, though we have no cause to be troubled at your dogged eloquence; yet for their sakes who are weak, I shall endeavour to shew the injurious falshood thereof: You say that we in baptizing infants, dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament, &c. We answer to this puted calumny, 1. You may as well in this your Theomachy; and fighting against Gods Ordinance, object the same against Circumcision of In­fants, if incapacity of present giving account of their faith, as you pretend, can make the Sealers of infants lya­ble to your unjust censure: for infants could then no more give an account of their faith then now they can [...] 2. Infants have a capacity of the holy Ghost (as hath been proved in the examples of Jeremy and John Baptist, &c:) yea such a measure of sanctification, [...] 1. 5. Lu [...]. 1. and so certain a regeneration, working in them all such things as God knoweth to be necessary to their salvation; or himself supplying all those things; as that Christ both pro­nounceth their propriety in the Kingdom of heaven, and proposed them as patterns to all those who should enter thereinto. Ma [...]. 22, 23. Act. 1 [...] 47. Therefore the Apostles Argument being good, from the extraordinary and visible gifts of the holy Ghost (gifts of miracles flourishing in the primitive Church, and marking many receivers to a capacity of baptism, which yet might then be had without any interest in the King­dom of heaven) who can forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? It must as certainly hold from the gift to regenera­tion, [Page 102] and the spirit of sanctification, which is in many in­fants, because many infants, dying such, are saved: And now in your judgment doth the baptism of such as are sa­ved dishonour the Sacrament (the outward seal which man can give, and wicked men receive) who have received the thing signified, the inward seal of Gods holy spirit, which none but himself can give, and none but the elect receive? Or do you dishonour your self, who were so admitted into the Church, the Church our holy Mother, who ma [...]gre the Devils malice, and the powers of hell, by Infant-baptism bringeth an holy seed to Christ, Christ himself commanding us to baptize all, without excep­tion to any estate, sex, age, or condition, that either are within the Church as born of Christian parents, or in their conversion, profession of faith and repentance, desire to be admitted into the same: Adde hereto that Christ particularly cautioned for children, left any should despise them, openly declaring, that of such is the kingdome of heaven: And yet the doing of this duty is dishonour to the Sacrament, and Pageantry with you: Mat. 12. 30. But, If of every idle word which men shall speak they shall give an account in the day of judgment, it concerneth them speedily to repent of these blasphe­mous calumnies, left it prove a black and dismal day to them, in respect of these things for which they can give no better account then their own fancies and o­thers.

And whereas you say, they that baptize infants inef­fectually, represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves with a signe without an effect, ma­king baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel, full of leaves, but no fruit: To say this is an untruth, is as much answer as we owe to so reasonless a calumny: yet I shall be contented to lay it further open.

I say, 1. Can you be assured that none of these who are baptized in infancy, and no otherwise, are regene­rate and saved? Whence have you either such know­ledg or commission so to judg? You say the Anabap­tists [Page 103] say so; so said the Pharisees concerning those that believed in Christ— This people who knows not the Law, are cursed: Joh. 7. 49. But what warrant is this for you to blaspheme for company?

2. God be blessed that we who believe one God, one Mediator, one Faith, one Baptism which we received in our infancy, have such a testimony of Gods holy spirit, effectually working faith, repentance, morti­fication, and a comfortable measure of sanctification in us, as that we know you speak untruth in that you say, that Poedobaptists ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a signe without an effect, &c. God be blessed, which accor­ding to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a lively hope—wherein as we need not be beholding to you for testimony, so neither are we to regard what you say against it. 1 Pet. 1. 3. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of mans judgment—but he that judgeth me is the Lord; therefore judg nothing be­fore the time. 1 Cor. 4. 3. 4. He that saith that baptism is a bare signe only, fallaciously concludeth, dividing things which God hath joyned together.

3. Although baptism of infants be effectless to the reprobate, whether infant, or person of years, as in Judas, Simon Magus, Demas, and others like, [...]et it is effectual to salvation to all the elect, in whom Gods spirit powerfully worketh to faith, repentance, sanctification, &c. without which all the waters under heaven cannot be effectual for the cleansing of one soul.

4. We please not our selves with a signe without effect; if you doe, rest not in that state, lest you and your stingie leaves without fruit, withering, become fuel for the fire which goes not out, to fill up the measure of im­pious calumny. Cyril. Hiero­sol. car 2. 3, &c. Grug. Naz. o­rat. 40. Clem-Alexandr. Poe­dag. l. 1. c. 6. saith, [...] You say,

1. I wonder what they will be ashamed to say, who blush not at such assertions? 'Tis true that the Apostle [Page 104] useth [...], to be illuminated, for to be baptized, as the Syriac Interpreter gives it, Hebr. 4. 6. Hebr. 10. 32. and that the Greek Fathers so commonly used the word: and it is no improbable conjecture, that there was an allusion to the Hebrew manner of speaking; who by one and the same word express illumination, and a River or Source of water, and by a Metaphor, Illumi­nation of the mind: For they who are baptized by water, and the spirit of Jesus, are in Gods good time and the measure he knows fit, illuminated, and find not only a River of elementary water, but of that wa­ter which floweth to eternal life, whereof Christ spake. John 7. that is, the spirit of illumination and sanctification. Chrys. hom. 4. [...]i.e. ad baptiz. Just. Mar. Ap. [...]illiminatus fuit, ut Psal. 34. 5 respexerunt ad eum [...]& illuminati sunt. 70. [...]per m [...] ­taph. mente il­luminatus sui [...]. V. Shin [...]er.

2. I would desire you again consider, is the case all one, or alike, when we pray that God would be pleased to illu­minate, sanctifie, and save an elect infant for whom Christ shed his precious bloud, for whose salvation he came from heaven, became an infant, and man of sor­rows to the death, whom he blessed, of whom he said, Of such is the kingdom of heaven, and except ye be­come as one of these, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; Is I say, the case all one when we pray ac­cording to Gods word and promise, for these, as if we should pray God to illuminate, sanctifie and save a stone, or a tree? hath a stone or tree any habitual faith, or reason, or any capacity of the holy Ghost, illumination, or sanctification? Do any creatures un­der the degrees of man, bear the image of their Crea­tor, in immortality, sanctity and light of understan­ding? Would God you could be ashamed of blasphe­ming, and laying such pernicious stumbling-blocks be­fore the blind to make them fall. Pentaglot. item fluvius; nam qui ad fluvium bap­tismi Christi ac­cedit, illumina­tur, invenitque fluvium n [...]n tantum aquae e­leme [...]taris, sed & aquae vi [...] profluentis è ven, [...] [...] cari­stas Jo [...] [...]ec aliud est quam denum illumi­nationis. Ludo vi [...] de Die [...]. [...] sup.

[Page 105]I hoped that the Plea being ended, the Pleader would have come to himself again; but this and another strain promise no more but a lucid interval. See John Clop­penburg Gan­gren of Ana­baptist. cited by N. Homes animadvers. &c. p. 106.

I answer, As to your charitie towards the persons of the Anabaptists: I also wish they may by all Christian, fair, and humane means, be reproved, convinced, or instructed: but that there is no direct impietie in their opinion, nor any that is apparently consequent to it, Vid. Joh. Slei­d [...] com. l. 6. impress. Ar­gentorati. An. 1558 p 93. a. ib. l. 10. p. 161. b. f. &c. is apparently untrue, for that which is displeasing to Christ, is directly impious; and such is with-holding Infants from him: that which is uncha­ritable, is direct impietie; and such is that opinion which barreth Infants from the Seal of Gods Covenant with them, and the Communion of Saints; as also in that it damneth so great a part of the world; presupposing that God had no Church in the world for so many hundred years, as Infant-Baptism hath been the general inlet to the same; except a little while in the schism of Pelagians and Donatists; and again, when the same Heresie revived in Germany, in Charls 5. Joh. Sleidan. com. l. 10. his reign, and now again in these distracted and calamitous times: much more hath been, and might be said herein: but I shall be so far from being their accuser, that I heartily pray the Lord to open their eyes that they sleep not in death: only I say to the Pleader who would so courteously vail others impietie, [...].—Lastly, you say that you think

That we may be confident of the truth on our side, I assent: likewise, that none be too forward peremptorily to prescribe, except where the Word of God and necessary consequence from thence prescribeth; that none should persecute, kill, or much less for opimons less then blasphe­mous against God, or destructive to Religion, Religio cogi non pote [...]; verbis p [...]ius quam [...]erberibus res Lactant. l. 5. c. 20. and salvation of souls, (saving to Supreme Authoritie their lawful right) agenda est, ut sit voluntas. Longe diversa sunt carnificina & pietas, [Page 106] I also assent to: but can by no mean [...] be of your opinion, that there is less evidence then truth or our side; as any ways intimating a defect of evidence: therefore I say, 1. That evi­dence, sensu forensi, in common sense of controversies, or matters of judicatuye, importeth sufficient proof: so we say that witnesses give in evidence; that is, not alwayes in ter­minis, and express words, as in actions of case is requirable; nor as they say, ore rotundo, as to say, Verres is a Thief, &c. but from considerable circumstances, or necessarie conse­quences sufficient to evince, and to inform to sentence. This evidence on our side you will not denie in this case, nor (I suppose) affirm that falshood hath more proof or evi­dence in Scripture then truth. 2. Sometimes we speak of evidence in relation to the partie or parties to be informed; in which, not only his or their capacitie is considerable, but also other circumstances; as the Informers expression, which possibly may be defective; the Informeds attention, for want whereof, that may not appear which were other­wise sufficiently evident. Again, In case of Gods judgment o­ver the disobedient given over to strong delusions, that they should believ lyes and he damned, who received not the love of the truth (of it self evident enough) [...] that they might be saved: here of see Isa. 6. 9, 10. Mat. 13. 13, 14, 15. 1 Thess. 2. 11. To a blind man, or one that winketh in the clearest & most evident light, no colours or proportions are evident; because men if blind cannot, if obstinate & schismatical, wil not see & understand.

3. There is a notius natura, and a notius nobis: if in the evidence you speak of, you mean the first, and that errour and falshood is more known in nature, that is manifestly false; for the truth is first and best known in nature. If you mean the second, that is, that we less know the truth then the evidence; what blame you in our cause, or advan­tage your Clients? If you say we see no evidence, nor can the blind see the Sun; what can you gain hereby? it may be, and certainly is, that the Gospels light is hid to some, the Apostle will tell you to whom, and why, 2 Cor. 4. 3, 4. It is hid to them that are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the [Page 107] light of the glorious Gospel of Christ—should shine unto them —we undertake not to make the truth evident to every gain-sayer and despiser thereof, but say of such an one, as Elisha for his servant at the beleaguered Dothan, 2 King. 6. 17. Lord, I pray thee open his eyes that he may see. The most manifest light of the Gospel had not evidence enough with the Pharisees, whom Christ pronounced blind; and it con­cerned them chiefly which he said, they have winked with their eyes, &c. an unbeliever may doubt of any truth, and then it is not evident to him. Mar. 13. The old Academicks were wont to question the testimonie and evidence of their own senses with a quid si falleris? being not confident of the truth of that they saw with their eyes, and heard with their ears. Carneades doubted of all things; yet certainly many things were evident of themselves to those who could and would see and know manifest truths, though not to him. 4. They who deny convincing evidence in Gods Word, not only erre not knowing the Scriptures, but tacitely accuse the Wisdom and Providence of God for mans salvation, of insufficien­cie: for how shall matters of controversie concerning faith and manners be decided without sufficient evidence? and if you think there is not sufficient evidence in Scripture to keep us from errour, and to direct us in the way of truth and sal­vation, in what other rule, or testimonie will you place such evidence as you would have? what in Traditions and unwrit­ten verities? where shall we feek these, among our ad­versaries? nay, but no man can be edified by that which is destructive; or in Enthusiasms and Revelations? Nem [...] inde [...] [...] unde d [...] ­struitur, Teriul. de praes [...]r. c. 1 [...]. but what evidence can there be in those things, whose authority cannot be proved, and whose truth cannot be infallible? nothing less then that which cannot be false, can be the ground of faith and religion: whatsoever falleth below that supreme certaintie, is but opinion at most. Now the Word of God only is infallible, because he cannot lye, T [...]. 1. 2. and therefore his Word is profitable for doctrine, for re­proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 T [...]. 3. 16, 17. 5 If it be rejoined, that in our pre­sent [Page 108] question, and some other cases, the Scripture saith no­thing expresly and positively to evidence the truth. Nec p [...]riclitor dicere ipsas quo que Scriptures, sic esse ex Dei volun [...]a [...]e dispo­sit [...]s, ut Hereti. cis [...]aterias subministrarent, cum legam o [...] or. [...]ere h [...]reses esse quae sine Scrip­turis esse non possent. Tertul. de prescrip. c. 39. I an­swer, 1 with Tertullian, I am confident to say, that the Scriptures themselves were so disposed by the will of God, that they might administer matter to Hereticks; seeing that I read, there must be Herefies, which could not be without Scriptures. 2 That is Scripture truth which the Scripture proposeth or enjoineth, by necessary consequence, though not in express words; and whosoever disbelieveth or diso­beyeth that, so far he rejecteth the Scripture, in his errour and ignorance of Scripture. So the Sadduces —Secundum (argumentum Sadducaeorum) est [...] non scripto. Jo Drus. praerer [...]a l. 1. in Mat. 22. ex libris V. T. tantum reci­piebant Pentateuchum, Jo. Drus. at [...]oc. N. T. com. 1. denyed the resurrection of the dead, among other vain arguments, so principally a non scripto, because Moses (whose writings only, they received) did not in terminis, or express words, and syl­lables, say, the dead shall rise again: now though that is true, Moses did not expresly say so; yet our Saviour told them that there­in they erred, not knowing the Scriptures, Mat. 22. 29. Sadducaei) hi quoque tantum libros Mofis recipiebant, Pro [...]e­tarum vatic nia respuentes, Hie­rorym in Mat. 22. where he meaneth not express words of Scripture, but necessary conse­quence: for certainly, they knew the express letter, yet thought they had not evidence enough from Scripture, because they found nothing there in terminis, against their errour, which Christ yet justly chargeth on them — Ye do erre, not knowing the Scriptures, Hi ergo resurrectionem ex mortuis negabant; eo quod in Mosaicis Scrip [...]ris hujus ma­nifestè non flat mentio: nam bas solas agnoscebant, aliis libris non receptis. Euthym. in Mat. 22. c. 53. init. —as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob! Well, what express Scripture is here to prove the resurrection of the dead, that Christ should charge those that denyed the same with errour and ignorance of Scrip­tures? Truly no more then we find for Infant-baptism, in appearance much less; yet thus he who could not be decei­ved, chargeth them; because denying necessary consequence they required express words: now the consequence was thus, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, therefore the dead shall rise again.

[Page 109]To the folding up of all, I might repeat sundry things which as necessarily conclude our Infant-baptism, as Infants circumcision into the same faith: Gods Covenant with Abraham and his spiritual seed, that is, all Beleevers: Christs honouring Infants with sacred embraces, proposing them as heirs and patterns designed for the Kingdome of heaven; the extent of Gods federal promise to us and our children; childrens capacitie of the inward baptism, signified in the external sign: whole Families and Nations baptized, Act. 2. 39. of which children are, and ever were a great part; Christs absolute command to baptize all Nations, without any tit­tle of exception to Infants; Infants federal and ecclesiastical holiness by their parents, and their own right: But that I would not be irksom to the prudent and pious Reader, to whom I heartily wish a right understanding in all things, constancie in the truth, and unitie of the holy Spirit, that we may all meet in Gods eternal kingdom of glory.

AMEN.