CHAP. I. Of Circumcision.

CIRCUMCISION was the cutting off of a skin, in those parts which nature hath covered with shame, which might be spared without danger of life, hinderance of generation, or visible deformity.

[Page 2] The solemn Institution hereof we find Gen. 17. where it was commanded to Abraham and his seed; before which time (though allowing something Sacramental in the Tree of Life, Ark, &c.) the Church of God had ( Sacrifices but) no constant and continuing Sacrament.

This Circumcision is subject to many carnal objections, which corrupt Nature may urge against it. First, some accuse it as an immodest Ceremony; whereas in­deed no such wantons as such, who pre­tend to more modesty then God com­mands. If a strict enquiry should be made into their lives, it is more then suspicious, Eph. 5. 12. It would be a shame to speak of those things which are done by them in se­cret.

Others are offended at such Cruelty therein exercised on a small Infant, as pro­bably with the pain thereof, might drive it into a Feavour.

It is answered, that was cruelty indeed which wil-worship commanded super­stitious Parents to afford to their Idols, when 2 Kings 17. 31. They burnt their children in fire to the gods of Sephar Va­im: [Page 3] Call not Circumcision Cruelty, but what indeed it was, Mercy, Pity, and Compassion; that such who by nature were children of wrath, and deserved dam­nation, had by Gods mercy, their suffer­ings commuted into the short pain of Cir­cumcision.

Besides, we are bound to believe that God doubled the guard of his providence, to preserve such infants as were ordered according to his command. Indeed if the Priests of Baal, who with knives, and lan­ces cut themselves till the bloud gushed out, 1 Kings 18. 28. I say, if such superstitious Bedlams, should have their wounds fester and gangreen, they dyed felons de se, and the Devils Martyrs; seeing God never re­quired it at their hands. But if any infant miscarried under Circumcision, (the prece­dents whereof we conceive very rare) be­ing a divine ordinance and injunction; the Parents might comfortably presume of the final good estate thereof; who ren­dred his soul in service to Gods com­mand.

Come we now to consider on whom Circumcision was to be administred. These [Page 4] were all the males, and only the males of Abrahams family, Gen. 17. 13.

All the Males

• 1. Born in his house.
• 2. Bought for money.

In the latter observe a miraculous pro­vidence: How many of these persons be­ing taken prisoners, and sold, like beasts in the slave-market, accounted themselves utterly undone for the losse of ( the life of their Life) their Liberty? What sighing, what sobbing, what grieving, what groa­ning for their forlorn condition? But oh! Let them not sorrow that they are sold, but rejoyce that Abraham hath bought them; How had they been un­done, if they had not been undone? Sold under sin for ever, Rom. 7. 14. if not sold unto Abraham. See here in some cases it is better to be a good mans slave, then a great mans Son.

Only Males.

Object. How cometh it to passe that so many as amount to the halfe of reasonable [...]ouls were excluded the Sacrament. If [Page 5] the Grecians Acts 6. 1. murmured against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the ministration of Almes, had not the weaker sex cause to grieve and grudge at men that neither their widows, wives, nor virgins, were included in the administration of Circumcision? Besides, no Sacrament, no Salvation. Their not partaking of the sign, might cause them to suspect the substance, and question their title to Heaven and happiness.

Answ. Before we come to the parti­cular answer hereof, be it premised, that had God created at the first two distinct, and absolute, (as to the mutual depen­dance each on other) principles of mans being, the one male, the other female; and had they both, wilfully forfeited their integrity, then some necessity might have been pretended that to Re-covenant them both, both Sexes should have been signed with Circumcision. But Divine providence otherwise ordered the matter, only making man at the first, and woman of the man.

This laid down, we answer to the Ob­jection; [Page 6] though women were not for­mally, they were vertually circumcised in the males. What is done to the head none will deny done to the body; The man therefore being the head of the woman, 1. Cor. 11. such females as died in their virginity were circumcised in their Fa­thers; such as survived to be married were circumcised in their husbands; Their nea­rer relation ( one flesh) swallowing up that, which was more remote in their Father. And thus all, though not directly, redu­ctively Circumcised.

It follows, by whom it was administred; this generally was the master of the family, Abraham Circumcised Isaac, Gen. 21. 4. As for Zipporahs Circumcising her sons, Exod, 4. 25. in a case of extremity, and her husbands indisposition, it was an ir­regular act, not to be drawn into prece­dent▪ but to be recounted amongst those, which when performed are valid, but ought not to be performed.

Come we now to the time, When; eighth day Here I will not search with some for a secret sanctity in the Number of eight, (as consisting of seven, the Em­bleme [Page 7] of Perfection, with the Addition of one, that is Intirenesse) lest our Curiosi­ty reap what Gods wisdom never sowed therein. The plain reason is this. Before the eighth day, a child was not conceived to be consolidated flesh, but till then in the bloud of the mother. And for the same cause, when a bullock, sheep, or goat was brought forth, Levit. 22. 27. Then it shall be seven dayes under the dam, and from the eighth day and thenceforth, it shall be ac­cepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

Quest. What became of the souls of such infants, who died before the eighth day, and so wanted Circumcision?

Answ. They wanted not Circumcision. For want is the absence of that which ought to be had; now there was no ne­cessity of, (because no command for) their Circumcision, before that time; God the Grand Law-giver, though tying others, is not tyed himself to his Law: But can, and no doubt did, give spiritual grace to many infants, (chiefly if children of be­lieving [Page 8] Parents) dying in their non-age, of their non-age, (before the eighth day) and incapacity of the sign of Circum­cision. He who, Rom. 4. 17. calleth things which are not as if they were, can call chil­dren, which are, but are not circumcised, as if they were circumcised. And although properly, amongst men, they were not named till the eighth day, Luke 2. 21. Yet such infants, nameless on earth, might Phil. 4. 3. have their names writte [...] in the book of life.

An instance we have hereof plain and pregnant to such, who read the place without prejudice in Davids child, 2 Sam. 12. 18. And it came to pass, on the seventh day that the child died: That is, seventh day à nativitate, from the birth thereof, as Tremelius expoundeth it; the more probably because no mention is made of any name imposed upon it. This child, besides the natural stain of original corru­ption, had also the personal blemish of adulterous extraction; And yet how con­fident David was of the final happinesse thereof, appears by this expression, vers. 22. I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

[Page 9] Let none strangle the life of so com­fortable a passage, with too narrow an interpretation thereof, as if nothing there­in were imported more then that David should die as well as his child. This had been but cold comfort unto him, and would never have invited him to such cheerfulness of spirit, so freely to have re­freshed himself: Whose joy was found­ed on the comfortable assurance of his childs final happinesse, and that one day they should both meet in Heaven toge­ther.

It remaineth that we treat of the punish­ment on the refusers of Circumcision, ex­pressed in these words, Gen. 17. 14. That soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant. A threatning capa­ble of three several sences.

1. Severe.

That is, by the sword of Ecclesiastical censures; They shall be cut off from the visible congregation; they shall most just­ly (as the blind man was injuriously, John 9. 33.) be cast out of the Synagogue, not [Page 10] to be restored unto it without their so­lemn and sincere repentance. Parallel to S. Pauls expression, Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you: Though both phrases by some Divines be expounded in a sence.

2. Severer.

That is, the Magistrate shall cut them off with the sword of Justice, and as Ca­pital offenders they shall be put to Death. In this sence, God had last used the same words, Gen. 9. 11. neither shall all flesh be cut off any more; that is, their lives shall no more be taken away, by an uni­versal destruction.

3. Severest.

That is, they shall be cut off from the congregation of the righteous, by a final perdition of soul and body in Hell-fire.

These three interpretations do not crosse but crown one another, being no contradiction unto, but a gradation one above another. The Refuser of Circum­cision, [Page 11] first shall be cut off by excommuni­cation: that not causing his amendment, shall be cut off by the Magistrate, and the pain and shame of temporal death not re­claiming him, he shall be cut off with Eter­nal Damnation.

Quest. Here is a heavy punishment indeed; But who is the person, on whom it is to be inflicted? It was the Disciples question to our Saviour, John 9. 2. Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? But here the question will be, who shall be punished, this child or his parents? seeing betwixt both Circumcision is neglected?

Answ. First negatively, surely not the child, for it is said, He hath broken my Co­venant. The Covenant may be said to be broken on him, but not by him, being pure­ly passive therein. Were the child sensible of the benefit, by the having, dammage by the loosing thereof, and might it but borrow a tongue of the standers by, never was Rachel more impatient for children then this child would be importunate for Circumcision; Give me Circumcision or else [Page 12] I dye. Now positively that the Penalty fals not on the child, but on the parent, plainly appears by Gods proceedings, Exod. 4. 24. When he sought to kill Moses, and not his children for being uncircumci­sed. However if a child left uncircumci­sed by his Parents neglect, afterwards arrive at mans estate, and pertinaciously persist in the contempt of Circumcision, he equally entitleth himself to the fault, and is also liable to the punishment in my text.

Quest. Seeing so sharp and severe the penalty, how came that suspension of Cir­cumcision full forty years in the wilderness, Josh. 5. 7 to be connived at, God not on­ly not punishing, but, (for ought appears in Scripture) not so much as reproving the same?

Answ. In the first place I cannot approve the answer of S. About the end of his first Book on the Galati­ans, The­odoret. 2. Quest. on Joshua. Hierom and others, affirm­ing that Circumcision was gi­ven to difference and distin­guish the Jews from other Nations; and seeing no Na­tions [Page 13] were near them during their travel in the desolate wildernesse, Circumcision was therefore purposely omitted. For (beside that sundry people, and particu­larly the Amalekites, dwelt in the desart) Circumcision was principally ordained, (not to be a badge of distinction, but) a Seal of the consecration of the Jews unto God. More probable therefore it is, that because the Jews during that fourty years were alwayes (though not actually moving) disposed to move at a minutes warning, when ever they received orders from the removing of the Pillar, God the Lawgiver dispensed with them to defer Circumcision, till they were fixed in a set­led condition, affording conveniencies for the curing of that sorenesse, which otherwise by constant journeying would be chafed, and inflamed.

CHAP. II. Circumcision considered as a Seal of the Gospel Covenant; and what spiritual Graces were conveyed and confirmed thereby.

MAny behold Circumcision with a flighting and neglectful eye; as a meer legal Ceremony, an outward Type and shadow; having nothing Evangelical therein. But on serious Enquiry it will appear, to have a Gospel ground-work under a Ceremonial varnish.

The clearing hereof is of great conse­quence to our Present Controversie: For if the Covenant of God made with Abra­ham at Circumcision was meerly typical, then it died at Christs death with the rest of the Ceremonies; But if it were a Go­spel Covenant, then it descendeth at this day to all the faithful. It is our present endeavour to evince, this Covenant of A­braham was Evangelical, eternal, and [Page 15] hereditary to all the Faithful.

For proof hereof take notice that God never made but two grand and spiritual Covenants: Though the latter hath been manifested by different degrees, and di­spensations thereof.

• 1. Made with Adam and Eve, and (in them, as represen­tatives) with all mankind.
• 2. In Paradice, whilst as yet they per­sisted in their ori­ginal innocence.
• 3. On the condition, that they should observe Gods law in refraining from the forbidden fruit.
• 4. Promising to the observers thereof a perpetuity only [Page 16] in Paradise. Indeed some Divines say, (but they only say it) that Adam on his good behaviour should have been translated from Pa­radise to Heaven, but this is more then can be demonstrated from Scripture.

• [Page 15]1. Made with Adam and Eve, and such only as should succeed them in the visible church
• 2. In Paradise, after their fall, when the seed of the wo­man was promi­sed to break the Serpents head.
• 3. On the conditi­on, that with a lively faith they should believe in the promised seed.
• 4. Putting believers [Page 16] into possession of a comfortable subsistance here, and the reversion of heaven▪ and happinesse here­after.

This second, or New Covenant is the sole subject of our present discourse, which God made first with Adam without a seal, and now renewed it with Abraham, with a seal, when the sign of Circumcision was affixed thereunto.

Here we must be cautious not to mi­stake the several declarations of this New Covenant to sundry person [...], to be so ma­ny new distinct Covenants. For, after­wards the same was repeated to Isaac, Ja­cob, Moses, the whole body of the Jews at mount Sinai, Joshua, (I wil never leave thee, nor forsake thee, a promise applied by the Apostle, Heb. 13. 5. to all Christians) David, and others. Yea, scarce any of [Page 17] the Prophets wherein this new Covenant is not reinforced. Now, suppose a man causeth his will (formerly roughly drawn up in paper) to be afterwards ingrossed in parchment, then fairly to be transcri­bed in vellome, afterwards to be several­ly written in Roman, Secretary, Court, and Text-hands, so long as the same and no other legacies, are on the same termes bequeathed to the same, and no other legatees, all will acknowledge these no distinct Wils, but the same in substance, and effect. As here the same new Cove­nant, at sundrie times, and in divers places was made to the Fathers, by the Prophets, and at last most plainly by Christ himself.

Object. 1. If this were a new, or Go­spel Covenant made with Abraham at Circumcision, then was there a third, and newer then this made afterwards to the Jews. For, so saith the Prophet, Jer. 31. 31. Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Ju­dah.

[Page 18] Answ. Nothing more usual, and ob­vious in Scripture then to call that new, which is renewed; especially if what was but dark and obscure before, hath the old impression set forth in a new and fairer edition thereof, John 13. 34. A new com­mandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; and yet this new commandment was from the beginning, John 2. 5. though lately almost antiquated, and obliterated by mans vindicativeness Christ Heb. 10. 20. consecrated for us a new and living way, yet is it the same with the Prophets old path, Jer. 6. 16. traced with the feet of Adam, and Eve, and thorow which alone all the Patriarchs made their passage into heaven, yet termed a new way (as a new Covenant) because after Christs coming, more cleared, explained, and en­larged then before.

Object. 2. It is improbable that this covenant with Abraham at Circumcision, should be, a Grace-Gospel-new-Covenant, because God four hundred years after, (namely Exod. 20. at Mount Sinai) gave the Law, or Covenant of Works, to the [Page 19] Jews the children of Abraham. Now Gods mercy observeth a progressive mo­tion, it doth, not (with the Sun on Ahaz his Dial) go backwards; but with the master of the feast, John 2. 10. He keepeth the best wine unto the last: They therefore in a manner degrade Gods goodnesse, set it re­trograde, who make his covenant with Abraham a new-covenant of Grace, when He gave an old covenant of Works so ma­ny years after it.

Answ. They are much mistaken who account the Law given to the Jews, a meer Covenant of works, though indeed there was very much of workish-ness mingled therewith. The face of the new covenant at the giving of the Law, is dressed, I con­fesse, in old clothes; many old forms are used therein, alluding to the covenant of Works made with Adam. Yea, the er­roneous Jews (partly through their own Ignorance, partly thorow their Rabbins, and Pharisees false glosses thereon) mi­stook it for a direct, down-right covenant of works, resting in the Rinde, or outward Bark thereof, and depending on the per­formance [Page 20] of it for their Salvation.

But let not this Covenant be denomi­nated for the most, but the best part there­of, let it be expounded, (not as the blind Jews misinterpreted it, but) as God graciously intended, and the good Patri­archs and Prophets wisely accepted it, for a covenant of grace, wherein Messiah (though obscurely) was tendered to such, who could not perform what the rigour of the Law required. There is one word in the second Commandment, which demonstrateth this Law, to have Go­spel in the bowels thereof, namely the word Mercy, Exod 20. 6. shewing Mercy un­to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Now Mercy is a Shi­boleth which a covenant of works can ne­ver pronounce, as utterly destructive to the very nature thereof, and keeping com­mandments there must be taken, for such as desire and endeavour to keep them, though falling short of legal exactnesse

But we leave the farther prosecution of this point to those learned Divines, who have written just Treatises thereof; con­ceiving it more proper for our present [Page 21] purpose, to prove this covenant with A­braham a new-Gospel-covenant; and the serious perusal of one verse, Gen. 17. 7. will afford us three arguments for the e­vincing thereof.

And I will establish my covenant be­tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever­lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Hence we collect it a Gospel-Cove­nant.

From

• 1. The language, and ex­pression of it.
• 2. The continuance, and duration of it.
• 3. The blessings, and benefits con­veyed by it.

For the language, and expression, the voice is the voice of Jacob. The speech agreeth thereunto (not to betray it as it did Peter to his shame, and sorrow, but) to disco­ver this covenant to its honour, and our comfort, to be an Evangelical Covenant. That very phrase, to be a God unto thee, is a Gospel-phrase. Otherwise, how com­eth [Page 22] he, who upon the breach of the cove­nant of works, was left our enemy, our inraged judge, to be a God unto us? I see here Matthew in Moses, the New couched in the Old Testament. Parallel is the ex­pression, Mat. 1. 23. And they shall call his name Emanuel, which (being interpreted) is God with us. God with us, and to be a God unto us, differ something in sound, nothing in sence.

Secondly, for the continuance and dura­tion of it. An Everlasting Covenant, that with Adam was but a short-lasting cove­nant. Some conceive Adam never naturally slept in his Innocency, (accounting that caused deep sleep, Gen. 2. 21. before Eve her creation, supernatural) but forfeited his Innocency before night. As there be some kind of insects, (called [...]) which, Naturalists say, survive but a day; so some conceive Adams integrity of no longer duration And, though we dare not certainly close with their opinion (the Scripture not acquainting us with the date of Adams perseverance in paradise) we may be confident, that covenant of works was of no long continuance before it was broken.

[Page 23] This short-liv'd covenant thus expi­red, it was never reviv'd again on the same conditions, but utterly extinguished. Yea, herein God magnified his mercy, that up­on any termes he would treat with man­kind, whom he might have condemned as incapable of any future contract, for once breaking of Covenant. Yet now he draw­eth up a second agreement with them, being a covenant of grace, and that everlast­ing; such his goodnesse, that, though we (if strictly examined) break it with him, he will not break it with us. I confesse everlasting in Scripture is sometimes taken for long-lasting (in which sense the Hebrew tongue accepteth of an ever after an ever) but here it is taken truly for eternity, see­ing, whom God loveth he loveth to the end, without end.

The third argument to prove the evan­gelical nature of Gods covenant with A­braham, is drawn from the blessings, and benefits conveyed thereby; whose size and measure is so great, they are only of a Gospel proportion, to be a God unto thee. Could lesse be said then this, so short the words? yet could more be said then this, [Page 24] so large the matter? All things herein are comprized, a promise to give repentance, faith, hope, and charity; patience in af­flictions, preservation from, or in them, competency of outward maintenance, per­severance unto the end; in a word, grace, and holinesse here, glory and happinesse hereafter. How tedious are the instru­ments of our age (a span of ground being scarcely passed under a span of parchment) in comparison of the concise Grants of our ancient Kings, some of whose Charters contain not so many words, as they con­vey Manours therein. Yet even those Patents are prolix, if compared with Gods Covenant in my text, to be a God unto thee, promising therein more, then what man can ask, or desire. God hath set us a pattern, therefore let thy words be few, Eccles. 5. 2. not to be babling to him, in our prayers, seeing he is so plain, and pithy to us in his promises, couching all things in so short an expression.

To put all out of doubt, this Cove­nant of Circcumcision made with Abra­ham and his seed, appears to be a Gospel Covenant, because S Paul so expoundeth [Page 25] it. If any scruple arise about the sence of a Law, to whom should people repair for satisfaction, but to the makers thereof, if a­live. Thus on the emergency of doubts, a­bout the nature of this Covenant, we may and must have recourse unto the Author thereof. Now the same spirit, who in­dited Genesis by Moses, indited the Epistle to the Romans by S. Paul, who plainly af­firmeth, Rom. 4. 11. that Abraham recei­ved the sign of Circumcision, the seal of righ­teousness by faith.

Object. It is strange to conceive how in that age there could be a Covenant of faith, the word faith appearing proper­ly but once, Habac. 2. 4. in all the old Testament, (and once afterwards with a negation before it in reference to the Jews) Deut. 32. 20. Children, in whom is no faith: Seeing therefore such silence of faith in the Old Testament, (so frequently resounded in the New) this Covenant with Abraham seemeth suspicious, to be an old Covenant of Works, and to have nothing of Gospel therein.

[Page 26] Answ. The word Faith only, not the thing signified thereby is wanting in the old Testament. What Christ and his A­postles call faith and believing, that the Prophets and pen-men of the old Testa­ment expresse by Trusting. The Religi­on and Creed of the Ancient Patriarchs is briefly drawn up by David, Psal. 22. 4. Our Fathers trusted in thee, they trusted and thou didst deliver them; they cried unto thee, and were delivered, they trusted in thee and were not confounded. I will not say the Triplication of the word Trust, denotes their belief in the Trinity, Father, Son, and holy Spirit; but here it plainly ap­pears, they had their confidence in, and dependence on God; (though then not so clearly revealed unto them) which sheweth the sameness in substance of their belief with ours.

Ʋse. This serveth to confute such who account the Jews a meer husk, shell, and shadow of Gods people; as if all the promises made unto them, meerly termi­nated in temporal happinesses. Thus they feed the Jews bodies with milk, and fill [Page 27] their bellies with hony (even to a surfeit) flowing from the fruitfulnesse of the land of Canaan; whilest in the mean time they starve and famish their souls, excluding them as incapable of heavenly, and spiri­tual blessings.

Their uncharitable errour is ground­ed on this argument; because when their blessings are reckoned up, Deut. 28. 3. it extendeth only to the city, field, fruit of their bodie, ground, cattle, kine, sheep, &c. but no mention of their eternal beatitude hereafter in heaven. Yea, when Isaac cordially blessed Jacob, desiring no doubt to make the same as compleat, as he could bestow, and Jacob receive, his expressions, Gen. 27. 28. amount no higher then to the dew of heaven, the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine. On the other side, when the Jews curses are solemnly pro­nounced, Deut. 28. 16. they are confined to city, field, basket store, fruit of the body, land, kine, sheep, &c. Here a deep silence of hell, and damnation, so that the smiles or frowns of God to the Jews, seem to reach no farther then to their well or ill being in this life.

[Page 28] To this it is answered, first in general; by the same argument one may conclude, that under the Gospel no temporal, or outward happinesse is promised to those that fear, and serve God,; because no ex­presses thereof (descending to the like par­ticularities as in the old) are found in all the new Testament. I meet but with one in that nature (tendering an exact Inven­tory of earthly wealth) namely, Mark 10. 30. And the same hath bitternesse as well as sweetnesse therein; save that the close thereof maketh recompence for all the rest. But he shal receive an hundred fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters and mothers, and children, and lands with persecution, and in the world to come eternal life.

To come closer to their argument. Though generally temporal blessings are only expressed in the Old Testament, yet in and under them, is spiritual happinesse contained. Thus when in the fifth com­mandment, long life in the land which God shall give them, is promised to dutiful children, eternity in heaven is included; and so did the judicious amongst the Jews [Page 29] alwayes accept, and expound the same.

Most true therefore is S. Pauls positi­on, 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. But where hath it the promise of this life? Chiefly in the old Testament, where temporal good is largely, and clear­ly; spiritual, briefly, and dimly pro­pounded. Where hath it the promise of the life to come? Principally in the new Testament, where spiritual blessings are fairly and fully; temporal, shortly, and slenderly presented. Stock thy self with the one out of the Law, with the other out of the Gospel, with both out of the Bible.

So much for the Covenant made as inherent in Abrahams person; come we now to consider it as hereditary, and de­scending on his posterity. I could name the Castle, and rich Manour in England, which was setled by Patent from Queen Elizabeth on one of her Courtiers. But, when the Grant came to be examined un­der King James, those operative words, to him and his heirs, were found omitted in that emphatical place of the Patent, [Page 30] where the estate therein should have been effectually conveyed. Whereupon the Grant was interpreted meerly personal, and forfeited to the Crown on the attain­ture of the foresaid Courtier.

God maketh sure work in his Cove­nant of Circumcision. To prevent all miscarriages, and to intail the same on Abrahams posterity, how often doth he insert, and repeat him and his seed, Gen. 17? twice in the 7 ^th verse, once in the 9 ^th verse, once in the 10 ^th verse, again, in the 12 ^th verse, and thy seed after thee. If in after-ages a wicked son chance to descend from- Abraham, and the same prove a spi­ritual unthrift, yet God hath put it past his power to alienate the spiritual inheri­tance of the Covenant from his children, they shall not suffer for their fathers de­fault; the same being made over to Abra­ham and his seed; and now we come to show what persons are included within the compasse of that relation.

CHAP. III. Of the several Acceptations of the Seed of Abraham in Scripture.

THe seed of Abraham as it occurs often in Scripture, so severall are the sences thereof, and all of them worthy of our especial notice: But before and above all other Acceptions, know first it is taken eminently and transcendently for Jesus Christ, in whom all Nations should be blessed.

Even this seed of Abraham was Cir­cumcised, Luke 2. 21. Meerly out of con­formity, that Christ might shew himself born under the Law, as sent not to destroy, but fulfil it. Indeed those few drops of bloud, presumed shed by our Saviour at his Circumcision, might both in their own Preciousnesse, and Gods Apprecia­tion of them, have been satisfactory for the sins of al mankind. But a Testament was intended, by Divine Providence; and that could not be made without the Te­statours [Page 32] Death, and therefore the very heart Bloud of Christ, on the Crosse, was adjudged necessary for mans salvation.

So much for Abrahams extraordinary, come we to his ordinary seed. This ei­ther was immediately, or mediately begot­ten by him. We find eight sons of the first sort, namely, Ismael begotten of Ha­gar, Isaac of Sarah, and six more, (see their names, Gen. 25. 2.) of Keturah.

Object. How cometh it then to passe that the Apostle Paul, Gal. 4. 22. saith, Abraham had two sons, the one by a Bond-maid, the other by a Free-woman, omitting all the rest, as if no such persons in Na­ture.

Answ. These two are mentioned emi­nently, but not exclusively of others. I will not say, because Keturah (though sometimes called the wife) is elsewhere, 1 Chro. 1. 32. stiled but Abrahams concubine; therefore his Issue by her is left out by the Apostle; but because (though there was History of more, yet) there was Mysterie but in these two sons of Abraham, whose [Page 33] two Mothers represented the two Testa­ments. Had Abraham afterwards begot­ten an hundred sons, they all had not a­mounted to the making of one Testament, (but were all reducible to one of the for­mer Testaments, compleated in Ismael, and Isaac.)

As for Ismael, In his Cō ­ment on Ge­nesis, chap. 17. Luther is peremptory and positive, that, (though the type of a carnal people) yet, in truth, his own person was saved; grounding his charitable opinion on that expression, because it is said of him, Gen. 25. 17. After death that he was gathered to his Fathers. A phrase in the same chapter spoken of Abraham, and not applied in Scripture to wicked men; though it is said of Ahab, 2 Kings 22. 40. (which amounts to the same effect) that he slept with his Fathers. I will interpose nothing to the contrary, but had been more confident of Ismaels final hap­pinesse, had it been said of him that he was gathered to his father Abrahams bo­some being a noted place, Luke 12. for blessed repose.

Abrahams immediate seed were either [Page 34] such as were begotten, by him,

1. In his life, or

2. After his death.

Of the former were Esau, and Jacob, both of them, being 15. years old, whilest Abraham was yet surviving, as may be de­monstrated by the following Computa­tion.

1. Abraham was an hundred years old when Isaac was born, Gen. 21. 5.

2. Isaac was fourty years old, when he took Rebeccah to wife, Gen. 25. 20.

3. Isaac was threescore years old, when Esau and Jacob were born, Gen. 25. 26.

4. All which years cast up together, amount to an hundred and threescore years.

5. Abraham, when he died, was an hundred threescore and fifteen years old;

6. Ergo, Esau and Jacob were fifteen years old before Abrahams death; an Age capable of Instruction. Therefore when God saith of Abraham, Gen. 18. 19. I know that he will command his children, &c. to keep the way of the Lord. Esau and Jacob, his Grand-children were literally intend­ed: [Page 35] The latter, no doubt, being as wil­ling to learn, as his Grand-father Abra­ham was able and industrious to instruct him.

Abrahams seed mediately begotten from him after his death, were either

1. Literally and spiritually, as the be­lieving Jews.

2. Literally, and not spiritually, as the unbelieving Jews, of whose foederal right, largely in the next chapter.

3. Spiritually, and not literally, as Proselytes, and believing Gentiles.

Proselytes, or Advenae, were Aliens by extraction, and Jewes by profession; and these again were either the Primi­tive Proselytes, or their successours in all Ages.

By Primitive Proselytes I understand, those of Abrahams family when Circum­cision was first instituted therein. These I may call the Founders of that Order, and the first stock wherewith that Society be­gan.

Amongst the succeeding Proselytes, we may take notice of two most memorable [...]nd conspicuous accessions to their com­pany. [Page 36] The one, when Israel came out of Egypt, and Gods miraculous hand made many Converts to their Religion; when besides the six hundred thousand Israelites, and their children, Exod. 12. 38. and a mix­ed multitude, went up also with them, and although this mixed multitude, Numb. 11. 4. afterwards fell a lusting, infecting also the Israelites therewith; and probably many of them then perished; yet certainly a com­petent Representation of Pious proselytes stil continued in the congregation of Israel.

The other remarkable Addition of Proselytes was Joshua 9. 27. When the Gibeonites were condemned by Joshua to the servile work of the Temple, hewing of wood, and drawing of water; Whereby no doubt, thousands of them got the know­ledge of the true God; and were there­fore called Nethinims, people given over to divine service. Yea, what an estimate God set upon them, plainly appears, by his careful counting them, after their Re­turn from the Captivity of Babylon, Ezra 2. 43. (with the children of Solomons ser­vants) in all three hundred ninety two.

Besides these two grand and conspicu­ous [Page 37] Additions of Proselytes, there was scarce any Country confining on Canaan, (as some, a good way distanced thence) but now and then did drop in a Proselyte into the congregation of Israel; Rahab, the Hittite, Ruth, the Moabite, Naaman, the Assyrian, &c. And, (to show God stands as little on the difference of colours as Coun­tries) Ebed-Melech the Black-more, the Treasurer of the Queen Candace the Ethio­pian.

Indeed these Proselytes amongst the Jews, were divided into two sorts; some Proselytes of the gates, admitted only into civil society, and cohabitation with them: others call'd Proselytes of Justice, who did professe, and undertake all the Law, and these only we account the seed of Abra­ham.

Secondly, believing Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and are so generally reputed in the Scripture. These to be true born on both sides, must have,

1. Abraham to their Father.

2. Sarah to their Mother.

When we see a child like unto his fa­ther [Page 38] we use to say of him, Thy father will never be dead whilest thou art alive: so Abraham surviveth, and Sarah is still alive in those, which John 8. 39. do the works of Abraham. What these works are, must be collected out of Abrahams life, who was, faithful to God, loving to his wife, tender to his children, equal to his ser­vants, kind to his nephew, courteous to his neighbours the children of Heth, just in his bargains, valiant to his enemies; in a word, worthy in all his relations. Sarah likewise is exemplary for her duty to her husband and other feminine vertues, and all those are her daughters, 1 Peter 3. 6. which imitate the same.

I need not be longer in so plain and preg­nant a point; that believing Gentiles are Spiritually Abrahams Seed, so frequently inculcated by the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, who were as meer Gentiles as we English-men are. Come we now to show, how far the Seed of Abraham Naturally, though not Spiri­tually, participate of the covenant in Cir­cumcision, conceiving the clearing there­of, of concernment to our present contro­versie.

CHAP. IV. That all visible Members of the Jew­ish Church had a foederal Right to the Sacraments.

WE must carefully dinstiguish be­twixt the reaping of spiritual Bene­fit by, and the having of a temporal Right to the Sacraments. It is confessed that the for­mer belong'd wholly and solely to the true Israel of God; but in the latter the worst and wickedest Jew equally shared with the best and holiest of that Nation, as all alike corporally descended from A­braham.

For the proof whereof, in the first place it is worth the observing, how our Saviour in the same chapter, and dis­course, namely John the 8 ^th ▪ affirmeth and denieth the wicked Pharisees to be, and not to be the Seed of Abraham.

[Page 40]To be, verse 37.

Not to be, verse 44.

Here is no contradiction, but a consent, if the several respects be considered: By Pedegree they were; by Practice they were not; by Linage they were; by life, they were not; by extraction they were, by conversation they were not the chil­dren of Abraham.

Now to look only on the Jews in the first capacity, who are Israelites according to the flesh; we find S. Paul, Rom. 9. 4. giving in an Inventory of their Priviledges which amount to eight particulars; and it were high injustice in any Christian to deny the least branch thereof. Theirs were

• 1. The adoption.
• 2. The Glory.
• 3. The Covenants.
• 4. The giving of the Law.
• 5. The service of God.
• 6. The promises.
• 7. The fathers.
• 8. Christ conceiv'd in the flesh.

[Page 41] Herein the Apostle intendeth not onely the elect Jewes, but the diffusive body of that Nation. Yea, in this present point, with heavinesse of heart, he sadly singleth out such Apostate Jewes, for whom verse 3. he desired in exchange to be accursed, and yet even to those did this survey of priviledges belong.

This is farther cleared by the acknow­ledgement of the same Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 2, 3, 4. affirming that all the Fathers were baptized into Moses, all ate and drank of the same spiritual meat, and drink, yet adding afterward, that with many of them God was not well pleased.

Lastly, it is evidenced by those frequent phrases in Scripture, wherein the disobe­dient Jewes are threatned to be cut off from his people, and from Gods presence. Levit. 22. 3. Such could not be cut off from spirituall holinesse, or happinesse, wherein they were never truly planted, and whereof never really possessed, but onely from being outward members of that Church, which intitled them to a true right of the aforementioned prero­gatives.

[Page 42] Indeed one reason, which makes many men loth to entertain this truth, to allow a foederall right to the worst of the Jewes, is a suspition, that the holding hereof will betray them to the dangerous opinion of falling off from grace, if that such who once were actually estated in such a Co­venant-right, should afterwards make a finall defection from the same. Now, as I cannot blame them to be jealous with a godly jealousie, and to decline what is introductory of so comfortless an errour, as maintaining the apostasie of Saints: so I must condemn their over caution here­in, to fear where no fear is. For, this foe­derall right which the wicked Jewes had, never stamped upon them any character of saving grace, but was onely a right of capacity, putting them into an actuall possession of the means, and a possibili­ty of salvation it self, if not frustrated thereof by their own wilfull default.

Suppose now there should happen a Contest betwixt the worst of Jewes, and the best of Heathens, about their spiritu­all condition, should the Pagan bee so presumptuous as to affirm himself equal­ly [Page 43] advantaged to a capability of happi­nesse with the Jew, the other might just­ly confute his impudent bragging therein, alledging that his extraction intailed on him, a right to Circumcision, with the Covenant therein, and all the promises thereto belonging.

All will allow a reall difference be­twixt an Usurper, and a Tyrant (though both be bad) the former, invading what is none of his own, the latter abusing what is truely his. Now, should a Pagan, quà Pagan, pretend to the Covenant of Circumcision, he were guilty of notori­ous usurpation; whereas the wicked Jew too often tyrannically abused that Ordi­nance, having a right unto it, but making no right use of it. And, although some civil Pagans did outstrip many impious Jewes in Morall performances, the Jews might thank their own lazinesse, falling so far short of the Mark, having such advantage at the starting, as a true right, and title to all Gods Ordinances.

This foederall right therefore must not be denied to the worst of men, within the Pale of the Church, lest the godly receive [Page 44] prejudice thereby. The Story is suffici­ently known of a landed Innocent, whose Estate some Courtier begged, on pretence that he was unable to mannage the same. The Innocent being brought for triall into the Princes presence, & questioned about his ability, returned this answer; My fa­ther being a wise man, begat me who am a fool, and why may not I who am a fool, beget a sonne, who may prove a wise man?

To apply this story: Many now adayes seek to disinherit wicked men of their Covenant-right in the Church, alledging their prophanesse to be such, as doth dis­franchise them of those Priviledges. May not such wicked men, ( fools in Solomons phrase) plead for themselves; My father being a Saint begat me a wicked wretch, and why may not I beget a sonne that may prove a saint?

See we this in Ahaaz, the posture of whose generation was such, that he was fixed in the middle betwixt Jotham his godly father, and Hezekiah his gracious sonne; hee himselfe being the worst of men, 2 Chron. 28. [...]2. Who in the time of his distresse did trespasse yet more and more [Page 45] against the Lord, mending for afflictions as a Resty-horse with beating, onely the more untoward for the same. Yet this Ahaaz by his foederall-right, served to re­ceive a true title to Circumcision from Jo­tham his father, and to reach the same to Hezekiah his sonne; though enjoying in himself no spirituall benefit thereby.

And thus having concluded the whole Body of the Jewish Nation, comprehen­ded within the compasse of the Cove­nant of Circumcision, I proceed to shew how the Jewish children at eight dayes old, were capable to covenant: A Point having more verity, then evidence therein.

CHAP. V. The Grand Objection answered, drawn from the Incapacity of Jewish Infants to Covenant at eight dayes old.

THE Goliath-Objection, generally brought against the Jewish chil­dren bing Covenanters, is taken from their seeming inability to perform the stipulation, or counterpart of a Cove­nant. Is not a childe called [...] in Greek, from [...] not a word in his mouth, and Infants in the same sence from a negative in and fando speaking? Yea, so much as a childe can speak, and so much as may be conjectured by his outward carriage, he maketh use of his negative voyce, and remonstrates against the Covenant, as un­willing to receive the same, seeing every Infant may probably be presumed to cry as forced from him by the pain of Cir­cumcision.

[Page 47] In answer hereunto, first in generall; It is enough to satisfie a sober soul, and content a modest minde herein, that God hath appointed such children at eight dayes old to be Covenanters, and that al­so nomine poenae in case the same be omit­ted. That God, who never calls any to any employment, but ever inables them for the same, at leastwise with such a de­gree of sufficiencie which he is pleased to accept. Such as question the truth hereof, do tacitly, and interpretatively, charge God with want of wisdome in his pro­ceedings. Let them whisper no longer, but plainly speak out, that He lacks dis­cretion to manage his matters, Isai. 40. 13. Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counseller, hath taught him? The proud objecters might well give him their advise, hereafter to choose wiser parties with whom to make a Covenant, then children of eight dayes old.

What Charter hath this whole World to shew for its being, other then Gods bare fiat, Let it be. I have blessed him, (saith Isaac of Jacob, Gen. 27. 33.) yea, and bee shall be blessed. God hath made eight-dayes-old-children [Page 48] Covenanters, and they shall be Covenanters.

More particularly, to come to the Ob­jection: I conceive the soul of an Infant may fitly be compared to the cloud which went before the Israelites, Exod. 14. 20. dark on the one side, but light on the re­verse thereof. That part of the Infants soul exposed to humane eyes, is dark and obscure, no abilities at all discovera­ble therein; whilest the bright side of Infants souls is objected to Gods eye, be­holding in them what wee cannot per­ceive.

No wonder if men be non-plust about the actions of Infants souls, when every Infant is an heap of riddles cast together, whereof the least and lowest is too great, and high for man to understand. David ingenuously confesseth, Psal. 139. 6. that he was fearfully and wonderfully made. The fashioning of the members of his body being so strange a work in nature, that the knowledge thereof was too wonderfull for him, and so high that he could not at­tain unto it. If he was posed with the cask, the case, and the shell, the admira­ble [Page 49] structure of a babes body, let it not seem strange to us to be puzled with the operations of an Infants soul, how the same is able to covenant with God.

It passeth the skill of the greatest Di­vine, to clear and evidence the entrance of Originall sinne into an Infants soul: Whose spirit, coming immediatly from God, must needs be pure, and perfect like the maker thereof. Nor can this soul, thus pure in it self, be infected from the body, which being but a livelesse lump of flesh is incapable of sin, especially so as to make an active impression on the soul. Soul, and bodie of Infants, thus being severally sinlesse, who can conceive that the union of two clean things, can produce one unclean? I mean, originall corruption. Yet we all see by wofull ex­perience, that Infants from their concepti­on are infected therewith: That it is there we know, but how it came thither, God knowes.

If we cannot perceive the manner of sins poison, no wonder if we cannot con­ceive the method of graces antidote in Infants souls. Let us allow heaven to be [Page 50] as incomprehensibly miraculous in heal­ing, as hell hath been insensibly subtile in hurting the same. And, seeing God hath expressed thus much, that Infants are cal­led by him to be Covenanters, let us with humility, and modesty beleeve them, to be enabled with a proportion of grace, to discharge their covenant in relation, though it transcend our capacity to clear all doubts, and difficulties, which may be multiplied about the manner thereof.

In further clearing this Objection, know, that besides such graces which wee are bound to beleeve in Infants hearts, they have three things else which assist them in this Covenant.

1. Their Parents faith tendring them to God.

2. Gods goodnesse accepting the ten­der.

3. Their own actuall performance of the Covenant, if living to years of dis­cretion.

First, their Parents faith in tendering them. Appliable to this purpose is that expression recorded by three of the E­vangelists, brought in a bed by four, who [Page 51] finding no door in the side (such the presse of people) made one in the roof of the house, and let him down by cords into the room where our Saviour was. Jesus seeing their faith, Matth. 9. 2. When Jesus saw their faith, Mark 2. 5. And when hee saw their faith, Luke 5. 20.

Two things herein are considerable; first, that the faith of the bearers was a motive, and inducement to our Saviour the more speedily with favour to reflect on this sick man. Secondly that the words their faith, are taken inclusively, taking in a fift faith to the former four, namely the faith of Him, who lay sick on the Bed. However, here we see that the beheste of friends, concurred to the expediting of his Cure, and (though let down but by four cords) he was lifted up into Christs favour with a five-fold Cable of faith, which cannot be broken.

Nearer is the Relation betwixt Parent and childe, then friend and friend. When therefore a pious Father, Mother, or (best then, when) both, shall with the armes of their faith, offer an Infant (who indeed is a part of themselves) to God [Page 52] in Circumcision, this must needs bee a main Motive (through Gods mercy, and no otherwise) to induce Him graciously to behold the Present tendred unto Him.

Thus the faith of Abraham and Sarah advantageth Isaac into Gods love, the faith of Isaac and Rebeccah recommen­ded and preferred Jacob at his Circumci­sion into Gods favour.

Secondly, at Circumcision the childes weaknesse to covenant is assisted by Gods acceptance thereof. That is well spoken, which is well taken. How simple and slen­der soever a childs performance is at Cir­cumcision, how low and little soever his faith is, God stoops (such his gracious condescension) to take it up; He makes, (as I may say) a long arm, to reach a short one, and so both meet together.

Lastly, this strengtheneth the Covenant then made by the childe, that afterwards, if arriving at years of discretion, he pub­likely ratifieth, and confirmeth the same with his own actuall faith, evidenced to others in his pious conversation. Men used to say of Plato his Scholers, That their Masters Precepts, did freez in them, [Page 53] till they were about fifty yeers old, and then began to thaw in them, till the day of their death, meaning that the good counsels he gave them made no visible impression on the amendment of their manners, till the heat of their youth was overpast, and they come to their reduced age. Cir­cumcision, may be said to freez in Infants, as to any eminent outward effect thereof, during their Minority, the vigor and ver­tue thereof is dormant, and seeming­ly dead in them, but when come to the vse of Reason, then it raiseth and rouzeth it self, namely when the Party makes good the Covenant, made by him before, and then the strength of that Sacrament had a powerfull influence on their souls all the dayes of their lives. And although there ought to be no iteration of outward Circumcision, which done once, is done for ever, yet inwardly to circumcise their souls, was the dayly task of all devout Jews, and ought to be our constant im­ployment, and a word or two briefly of the nature thereof.

CHAP. VI. Circumcision considered as a signe, and what Mysteries were signified therein.

THe Principal Mysteries couched un­der Circumcision, as a signe, are re­ducible to seven particulars, 1. That our carnall corruption may be spared. 2. Can­not be cured. 3. Must not be covered. 4. Must be cut off. 5. This cutting off must be timely. 6. Must be totall. 7. Will be painfull.

1. May be spared. Listen not to the suggestions of Satan, perswading us, that sinne, by long custome, is grown so essen­tiall to our souls, as if our mindes should be maimed, and faculties thereof be crip­led, should corruption be taken from us; Wherefore laying aside (saith James 1. 21.) all filthinesse and superfluity of naughtiness, not that we may still retain in our hearts so much wickednesse, as shall fill them, (onely parting with that which runneth [Page 55] over) but all naturall filthinesse is super­fluity, it may be spared.

2. It cannot be curred. What is capa­ble of Cure, must have some soundnesse (though more sicknesse) therein; for Nature distressed, but not wholly de­stroyed, is the subject of Art, which must have a sound bottom, or foundation to work upon. If therefore there were any thing good in our naturall corruption, there were some hopes of amendment in the rest. But what saith S. Paul, Rom. 7. 18. For I know that in me, (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. It cannot be cured.

3. It must not be covered. The onely way to make God hide his face from our sins, is for us to open, and not to hide our sins from him.

4. Must be cut off. Dream not of cu­ring a gangrean with a lenitive plaister. Hophni and Phinehas are too incorrigible to be amended with a few fair words. Say not to thy corruption, as Eli to them, 1 Sam. 2. 23. Why dost thou such things? Nay my corruption, it is no good report I hear of thee, &c. All this is uselesse, no way but one, cut it off.

[Page 56] 5. The cutting off must bee timely▪ Abels sacrifice had 3. excellent qualities; Of what was first, Gen. 4. 4. fat, and Heb. 11. 4. faithfull. Our service of God ought to be early; deferre it not a­bove eight dayes, that is, do it as soon as it is do-able without danger. Indeed the long­er Circumcision is delayed, the greater will be the pain thereof. Witnesse the Sheche­mites, circumcised in their full strength, Gen. 24. 25. And disabled by the Arrears of their pain, to defend themselves though three dayes after.

Too blame they, who put off the cir­cumcision of their hearts, and on frivo­lous pretences deferre their Repentance. We read of Harpsfield in his Eccl. Hist. saec. dec. 5. p. 625 Thomas Bour­chier, Arch-Bishop of Canter­bury, that the Pope dispensed with him by reason of his state Avocations, and other impediments, to performe his prayers (which ought to be in the morning) in the afternoon, on condition they were done before night. But many men through their lazinesse, give liberty to themselves to put off their setentance, which ought to be in their [Page 57] youth, to their declining Age, conceiving all will be well, if it be but done before their Death. Whereas indeed soul- Cir­cumcision ought to be timely.

6. Must be totall. Jewish Circumcisi­on, say the Rabbins, consisted of two prin­cipall parts.

• 1. [...]. The cutting off
• 2. [...]. The casting away

of the forekin.

The ruines of the latter Custome, re­main in Zipporahs behaviour, Exod. 4. 25. though distempered with passion, shee might over act her part, when casting her sons foreskins at her husbands feet, and both are spiritually united in our Sa­viours Precept, Matth. 5. 30. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee.

7. Will be painfull. Such therefore as indulgently hope of themselves, that they have circumcised their souls, and yet can never remember that they offer­ed any violence to their own Nature, ne­ver put their selves to any pain in curbing their corruption, may justly suspect their spirituall condition. Had ever any a Tooth drawn, and was insensible thereof? Surely [Page 58] such Incisions into our souls, with the lan­cers of true repentance, leave an indele­ble impression behind them, and that pain too probably, was never at all indured, which so soon is wholly forgotten. It is to be feared rather; the pain will prove insupportable unto us, some counsell therfore wil be good to mitigate the same. Surgeons, when forced to cut off a limb, generally use two wayes to ease their Pa­tient. One by casting him into a sleep, lately disused because dangerous, sleep be­ing so immediate a donative of God him­self, ( Psal. 127. 2. For so he giveth his be­loved sleep) that humane receipts for the same, either under, or over-do the work. The other by stupifying, and mortifying by degrees the part to be cut off, so to render the party lesse sensible thereof. The same way is prescribed us by the A­postle, Col. 3. 5. Mortifie therefore your members which are upon the earth, forni­cation, &c. The torture will be intolera­ble to have our souls circumcised, and corruptions cut from us whilest we are in the full feeling thereof, and therefore ought it to be our endeavour by dayly [Page 59] mortification to dull our sense of the same.

So much of Circumcision; and now let us briefly recollect with the Reader, what progresse we have made in the pre­sent controversie; and by what degrees we have proceeded. First, we have pro­ved the Covenant made with Abraham at Circumcision and Evangelical Covenant. Secondly, that the same descendeth on all the children of Abraham. Thirdly, that all believing Gentiles are Abrahams chil­dren. Fourthly, That eight-dayes-old-Jew­ish-children were accepted of God as capa­ble to covenant. Come we now to shew that Baptism with Christians, is what Circumcision was to the Jews; whence this will naturally and necessarily follow, that Christian children at the same age, have as much right to the one, as Jewish infants had to the other.

CHAP. VII. That Baptism succeeds to all the Es­sentials of Circumcision.

A Successour must be, as after in time, so really distinct from that, which precedes it; otherwise it is not the succes­sour, but the same. Those, therefore, who indeavour to disprove Baptism's suc­cession to Circumcision, by alledging ma­ny differences betwixt them, do our Work in desiring to destroy it, whilest the same differences are but accidental be­twixt them.

We shall first observe what such acci­dental differences are betwixt Circumci­sion and Baptism, and they will appear such as do not dis-essential the one from the other.

It is remarkable that all the differen­ces betwixt Circumcision and Baptism, are on the gaining side for us Christians, whose estate is not impaired, but improved thereby, Baptism being milder in the sign, [Page 61] freer in the time, larger in the subject.

1. Milder in the sign; the Law saith, cut off, and be clean, which is Painful; the Gospel saith, wash and be clean, which is easie. At Baptism no violent Impression is made on the Infant, only a little water powred on his Face. Washing is so far from doing wrong even to a new born In­fant, that his natural wel-being cannot be without it, Ezek. 16. 4. When thou wast new Born, thy navel was not cut, thou wast not washed in water to soften thee.

2. Freer in the time; Circumcision was confined to the eighth day, and those e­qually guilty who anticipated or protract­ed the same. God, in the Gospel hath left Baptism to the discretion of Christians, to accelerate or retard it, as they are advised by the childs strength, and their own con­veniency: He hath given Parents as much liberty herein, as kind Elkanah allowed Hannah his loving wife, 1 Sam. 1. 23. Do what see meth good unto thee. Presume we here that pious Parents will not create needlesse delayes to Baptise their children, Ne quod differatur, auferatur, Lest God, in the interim, take their child away from [Page 62] them. In which case, as I will not be the Judge to condemn the Child; so should I be one of the Jury, I would not acquit the Father.

3. Larger in the subject; Circumcision left out, a just half, or full moiety of Man­kinde, confin'd only to the Males; where­as Baptism takes in the weaker sex. Indeed we have but one woman, signally named, whom we find baptized; namely Lydia, Acts 16. 15. the seller of Purple, in Thyatira; But the precedents of more: And let the ensuing parallel in the same Chapter be observed.

See here the weaker sex joyntly par­take in persecutions, and (which was but equal) did also communicate in the com­forts. It was just that those, who with men had drunk their share in the cup of [Page 63] bitter affliction, should also have their part in the cup of Sacramental consolation.

Let none be troubled that only two places expresly mention the baptizing of Women. For Scripture proofs are not to be taken by their number, but weighed in the ballance; One witnesse from an in­fallible mouth is as valid as one thousand. Yea, one testimony of Scripture, coming from the Spirit which is 1 Cor. 15. 28. all in all, is as much as if all the Scripture, and every verse therein had avouched the same.

Here let the weaker sex enlarge their gratitude to God, on this very account, that he hath cleared their title to this Sa­crament in the Gospel; whose right to Circumcision under the Law was incum­bred with some difficulty. For, suppose a Jewish woman distressed in conscience, and complaining that she was excluded the Sacrament of Circumcision, because not actually signed with it; and, suppose a Rabbin, or Levite, endeavouring to satis­fie her by the answers Chapter 1. for­merly alledged, ( viz. that she was vertu­ally, or reductively circumcised in her fa­ther, [Page 64] or husband) possibly all this might not pacifie her minde; and, though such a scruple be but a mote in it self, yet might it prove painful in so tender a place, as conscience, the eye of the soul, is How thankful therefore ought Christian wo­men to be to Gods goodnesse, expresly admitting them to Baptism, and having equal right with men in that Sacrament.

These three forenamed circumstantial differences between Circumcision, and Baptism, are not of such consequence, as to disessential them, or to make them distinct Sacraments; both remaining the same in effect, those accidental variations notwithstanding.

For the like may be observed between the Passeover, and the Lords Supper, and those alterations also for the benefit, and behoof of Christians, the later being both cheaper in price, and freer in time then the former.

In the Passeover, a lamb was offered; which, many Christians (such is their po­verty) cannot provide for themselves; and rich men (such is their covetousnesse) will not provide for others. It is there­fore [Page 65] commuted in the Lords Supper, into a bit of bread, and sip of wine, which on easier rates may be obtained.

Freer in time; The Passeover was but once a year, Exod. 12. 6. on the fourteenth day of the first moneth; In the Lords Sup­per we are left at large, stinted to no time, 1 Cor. 11. 25. Do ye this as oft as ye drink it; we may take it for food, or for physick; when ill, to remove; when well, to prevent diseases; once a moneth, once a week if we wil; always provided, that the frequent repetition of it hinder not the solemn preparation for it. But to return to Baptism, that it succee [...] to all essentials of Circumcisi­on, is proved by these Arguments.

• Either Baptism succeeds to the Sacrament of Circumcision, or else some other Or­dinance doth succeed, or else nothing at all remains in lieu thereof: But that Sacrament root and branch totally ex­tinguished in Gods Church.
• But nothing else succeeds Circumcision; and that Sacrament is not abolished, but still vertually extant.
• Therefore Baptism succeeds in the place of Circumcision.

[Page 66] The Major we presume of unquestiona­ble truth, where the distribution is unca­pable of any other member therein.

For the first part of the Minor, if any other heir (besides Baptism) can be found out, let our Adversaries in this con­troversie assign it: What is the name, or the sons name thereof, if they can tell? surely no such successor to Circumcision can be produced.

Now to maintain that Circumcision died issueless, and left no ordinance be­hind it of Divine institution, to inherit the power and place thereof in the Church, is what none ever defende [...] For seeing Sacraments are the Pillars of the Church, supporting the whole fabrick thereof; how much would it weaken the structure totally to take away one pillar, without substituting another in the place thereof?

We proceed to a second Argument after this manner.

• If all such graces confer'd on Gods chil­dren in Circumcision formerly, are now bestowed on them in Baptism: Then (not­withstanding [Page 67] some accidental differen­ces) Baptism succeeds to the essentials of Circumcision.
• But all graces formerly confer'd in Circum­on, are now bestowed in Baptism:
• There­fore Baptism succeeds the essentials of Circumcision.

The minor, which (alone is questiona­ble) may easily be proved: Graces in Circumcision are comprised in that ex­pression, Gen. 17. 7. To be a God unto thee, whereof largely before; and the same is performed in Baptism; whein God so­lemnly contracts with his servants to re­ceive them into his Covenant, and con­veyeth unto them Grace necessary for their Salvation.

But what need we more Reasons, when the very words of S. Paul, Col. 2. 11, 12. attest the same? In whom also ye are Cir­cumcised with the circumcision made with­out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ; bu­ried with him in Baptism.

Christians are here said by Baptism to be spiritually Circumcised; and by the same proportion, the believing Jews may be said [Page 68] by Circumcision to be spiritually Bapti­zed; such the affinity or rather the essen­tial samenesse betwixt these two Sacra­ments: Thus Solomon saith, Eccles. 1. 4. One generation passeth away, and another ge­neration cometh, but the earth remaineth for ever: So one Sacrament of Initiation [Circumcision] passeth away, and ano­ther [Baptism] cometh; One Sacrament of Confirmation [the Passeover] passeth away, and another Sacrament [the Lords Supper] cometh; But the Church remaineth for ever.

Ob. Baptism cannot succeed to Circumci­sion, because what succeedeth must come after in time, when its predecessor is de­parted: But Baptism for some years went abreast with Circumcision, both were set a foot together in Church practice. For Baptism was instituted in our Saviours life time, used by his Disciples, John 4. 2. to the Jews, and enjoyned immediately af­ter Christs Ascension, Mat. 28. 19. to be practised upon all Nations: Now Cir­cumcision held in force many years after, see in Timothy (a Jew by the half bloud) Acts 16. 3. was Circumcised by Paul him­self. [Page 69] Wherefore Baptism contemporary [...]th Circumcision, could not be successour unto it.

Answ. It is confest, that for some years Circumcision remained in the Church af­ter Baptism was ordained. Have we not often seen the Moon shining in Heaven even after the Sun some hours hath been risen therein; But then she shines dully and dimly, with a faint and feeble light as conscious to her self of usurpation, and guilty of intrusion to the territories and dominion of the Sun; the Moon being only made to rule the night. So may I say there was a weak and wan appearance of Circumcision in the Christian Church af­ter Baptism was ordained, and that for these two reasons.

First, It was continued some time in the Church for the more decent expiring thereof. God would not have that Sa­crament, which had lived so long in lu­stre, dye in shame: And therefore it was thought fit, that Circumcision, as it began on a good man, so it should expire on a gratious Saint: Abraham being the first, and Timothy the last; whom we [Page 70] find Circumcised in Scripture.

Secondly, God foreseeing what an advantage Satan might take, if his Church were left Sacramentless, to assault the same in the interval of the going out of the one, and coming in of the other (as Ahab was wounded, 1 Kings 22. 34. in the naked place betwixt the joynts of his harness) would have his Sacraments (rather then they should fall short) one lap, and fold over the other, that both should be in be­ing at once. Probably, had another go­vernment of the Church been prepared, and fitted; yea, and set up (rather two together then none at all) before the old one was demolished, profanenesse, and damnable heresies, which we now behold, and bemoan, had not made their progress so fast, and so far into the English Nati­on.

The result of all is this: Though Cir­cumcision did for some time rather languish then live after the institution of Baptism; and for the Reasons aforesaid, was con­tinued in the Church (used on Timothy not so much to sanctifie him, as to satisfie his half-Countrey-men the Jews) yet soon af­ter [Page 71] it decently expired, leaving Baptism to succeed in the Church to all the essenti­als thereof; amongst which, this was one of main importance, That as Children were admitted to Circumcision, so they should also participate of Baptism; Which by reasons out of Scripture, God willing, shall plainly appear.

CHAP. VIII. What it is to reason out of the Scri­ptures; and what credit is due to deductions from Gods word.

WE do freely confesse, that there is neither expresse Precept nor Pre­cedent in the New Testament for the Ba­ptizing of Infants; and yet are confident, by necessary and undeniable consequence from Scripture it will be made appear to be founded thereon. Let us here pre­mise and explain a practice of the Apostle Paul, as much conducible to our purpose. [Page 72] He coming to Thessalonica, Acts 17. 2. Reasoned with the Jews out of Scripture.

Three things herein are considerable. First, being to prove, that this Jesus whom he preached was Christ, he neither did nor could produce a positive text of Scripture, wherein the same was affirmed syllabical­ly, or in so many very words.

Secondly, in proof hereof he did not bring bare reason, which would be but ineffectual; especially to prove that which was meerly an article of Faith.

Thirdly, in his disputing he made a wise composure of both, joyning Scri­pture and reason together. Scripture was the Well, Reason was the Bucket, S. Paul was the Drawer.

Pauls precedent ought to be followed by our practice herein. Scriptura non scri­bitur, otiosis: The Scripture was not writ for the idle, but the industrious. Yea, to what intent hath God bestowed reason upon us, improved in some with Learning and Education, together with the promise of his Spirit to conduct us into all necessary truth; but that we should improve the same in the serious searching of the Scri­pture?

[Page 73] One main motive which induced Co­lumbus to believe the other side of this Globe to be peopled with reasonable souls, and invited him to undertake the discovery thereof, was a firm apprehen­sion, and belief, that God would not create so glorious a creature as the Sun to shine to Sea and Fishes alone; but that surely some men did partake of the benefit thereof. Is it probable that God would light the three­fold lamp of reason, learning, and grace in mens souls, for no other purpose, or high­er design, but meerly that men should make use thereof in perusing of pam­phlets, and reading the works of hu­mane writers; chiefly in examining the word of God, with such consequences, which naturally may be extracted from the same?

Some things are, in Scripture, as grasse on the ground, which on the surface there­of, is apparent to every beholder; other things are, in Scripture, as mines, and mi­nerals in the bowels thereof, no lesse the product of the earth then the former, though more industry must be used for the eduction thereof. Circumcision is [Page 74] of the first sort, obvious to a childe that can read the 17 ^th of Genesis; But he must be a 1 Cor. 14. 20. man of understand­ing, (which we all ought to be) to whom Baptism is visible by deduction from Scripture.

See we here not only the usefulnesse and conveniency, but even the absolute necessity of the profession of Ministers; not only for the administration of Sacra­ments, but for the clearing those necessa­ry consequences from Scripture, which at the first view are not apparent to every ordinary capacity.

S. Paul saith, Rom. 12. 6. Let us pro­phesie according to the proportion of Faith. Now I believe it will generally be granted that by Prophesie here is meant the preach­ing of the word. Know then that the proportion of Faith, consists not in one, or some, or many, but is the result of all places of Scripture; the universal Symme­trie of them all, concerning such a point which is treated of. Here then is the of­fice of the Minister, to present to his peo­ple (in any matter necessary to be belie­ved or practised) the sence of the Old and [Page 75] New Testament; This is sometimes not conspicuous in any one place, as being the collective, and constructive Analo­gie, amounting from many particular pla­ces compared together.

Here, I say, the Ministers office is called upon; (in whom Reason is or ought to be cleared and strengthned by his learning) to manifest and evidence to the people of his flock, the rise and result of such dedu­ctions, how naturally and necessarily they flow from Scripture. This done, such of his flock, who of themselves could not see, will see when shown; who of them­selves could not go, will go when led; en­abled by Gods blessing on his help, will both easily apprehend in themselves, and communicate to such in their family, such Scipture-consequences, which their simpli­city could never first have found out by themselves.

Then will it fare with such people as with the Samaritanes, John 4. 42. who came to Christ, at the womans invitation, but believed on him, not because of her saying, but because they heard him them­selves. Unlearned people receive not such [Page 76] consequences for truths, on the credit of the Learning and Religion of their Mini­ster, (though by his direction first ac­quainted therewith) but because that since they have been convinced in their own judgements and consciences of the truth thereof, as no doubt the Thessaloni­ans were, when S. Paul (as is aforesaid) reasoned with them out of Scripture.

But a greater then Paul is here to avouch this practice, even our Saviour himself; Who, being to confute the Sadduces, who not only denied the resurrection of the dead, but also that there was neither An­gel nor Spirit, Acts 23. 8. (existing sepa­rate from the body) so that at death the souls of men expired, and were utterly extinguished. In refutation of which er­rour, our Saviour reasoned out of Scripture, Mat. 22. 31. 32. But as touching the resur­rection of the dead, have ye 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? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God is not the God of the dead, that is, he is not God to that which is annihilated, and null in nature, but that thing must have an ab­solute being in it self, before it can be so [Page 77] related that God becomes a God unto it.

This text in it self seems at great di­stance to prove the Resurrection, and never likely to meet the matter in contro­versie; unlesse Reason intercede to joyn them both together. The argumentation being thus framed, and that to which God pronounceth himself a God▪ hath a true & real existence. But God pronounceth him­self God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, some hundreds of years after their death; Ther­fore Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, had stil a true and real existence. And thus an argument, which formerly was vertually in the text, is by the assistance of Reason actually ex­tracted thence, and effectually applied to the preset purpose.

Say not, Christ might have chose in the old Testament, more pregnant and perti­nent places then this by him cited to prove the resurrection; as that Job 19. 26. And though after my skin, worms destroy this bo­dy, yet in my flesh shal I see God: For, first it is presumption for any to teach Christ; which stone out of the brook to chuse (as the smoothest, and fittest) when he is to en­counter the Goliath of any errour. Se­condly, the Sadduces only allowing the [Page 78] Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; Christ worsted them at their own weapons out of that Scripture, which they acknow­ledged for Canonical; setting us an ex­ample by reason out of the Word, to prove those points which are not expresly contained therein.

To conclude this point; when Eve was brought to Adam newly awaked out of his deep sleep, Gen. 2. 23. he gazed not on her as a stranger, but welcomed and en­tertained her with this cheerful and cour­teous expression, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. So should Scripture behold those legiti­mate deductions, which by right reason, and lawful rules of Logick, are thence drawn, and derived, it would instantly own and acknowledge them for its un­doubted issue and off-spring; command­ing them to be called Derivative Scripture, because taken out of the body and bow­els thereof.

Here I pleade not for such violent and forced consequences, ( bastards of mens brains) which some unjustly father on [Page 79] the Scripture, wresting it, 2 Pet. 3. 16. and not reasoning, but wrangling from it. Natural and necessary deductions, are by me alone intended; by which we pro­ceed to prove, that Baptism is bottomed on Reasons out of Scripture.

Here make we this motion to the Rea­der, and may he resent it according to the equity thereof. Though we pro­pound, and he peruse these our reasons out of Scripture severally, our desire is they should all be compounded together, and joyntly presented to his judgement. This desire proceeds not from any jealousie and suspition we have of their invalidity, as ta­ken single, but out of a confidence, that though they may be cavilled at (and en­deavoured to be broken) as single arrows, they will be unbreakable to him who here may have his Quiver full of them. For as in a regular Fort, though single flankers thereof may be assaulted, yet the whole will be impregnable; wherein each part receiveth strength from, and returneth strength to another; so we conceiv though each reason severally may be subject to captious exceptions against it, yet the to­tal [Page 80] sum of them all (besides many more which Godly Divines have and may adde unto them) amount to the convincing of such as do not wilfully boult their eyes against the beams of truth.

CHAP. IX. The first Reason for the Baptizing of Infants, taken from the Analogie of Circumcision.

THe first Reason for Infants Baptism is grounded on proportion of Cir­cumcision in this manner. If that the chil­dren of Jews were admitted to Circumcision, and thereby made members of the Church; the children of Christians ought to be admit­ted to Baptism, and thereby be made mem­bers of the same. But the children of the Jews were admitted to Circumcision, &c. there­fore the children of Christians ought to be ad­mitted to Baptism.

Herein the Major which alone is subject [Page 81] to doubt and debate, may be proved by what formerly was explained, in Baptisms succeeding to all essentials of Circumcisi­on.

Object. To this your arguing from pro­portion of Circumcision is of no validity; yea, and of very dangerous consequence: For on the same account you may extend the Analogie to the reviving of all the Jewish Ceremonies, long since dead and rotten in the grave of our Saviour; Such Necromancy in Conjuring up the Ghosts of dead Judaism, is unlawful of it self, and prejudicial to Christian liberty; should we be put under the Gospel to such slavish conformity, as to practice something pa­rallel to each Ceremony in the old Testa­ment.

Answ. We confesse this exception true and just, had Circumcision been but a bare Ceremony and no more; But Cir­cumcision had in it more of what was Sa­cramental then Ceremonious. The Cere­monious part thereof is utterly extinct, and dyed Issueless. But the Sacramental or [Page 82] Gospel part thereof, as it contained an everlasting Covenant made with Abra­hams seed; that is, all true believers, may be said to survive, in Baptism the true heir thereof; Sacramenta non moriuntur, Sacraments die not, (whilest the Church Militant is alive) nor is there any inter­vals betwixt them; Baptism immediate­ly succeeding Circumcision, as is before declared.

Proceed we to prove the former Argu­ment with a new Syllogism; They who once in Circumcision were made members of the Church, and never since were solemnly outed of the same, remain still in the state of their membership: But Circumcised Chil­dren under the Jews were made members of the Church, and never since were solemnly outed of that condition; Therefore they still remain members.

Here the Minor alone is exposed to suspi­tion of falshood; and that only in the la­ter part thereof: Now let the denyers of it assign the time, place, manner, and per­sons, when, where, how, and by whom [Page 83] they were cast out of that membership. Sure I am, seeing the old Testament leaves them in peaceable possession thereof; And no firm ejection of them appears in the new Testament; it must needs be some Apocrypha writing, or forged deed, which depriveth them of their true title there­unto, and tenure thereof.

For the further clearing hereof, Let us suppose, a Jew about the time of S. Paul converted into a Christian, and soon after made father to a son. If this child in his infancy may not be admitted to Baptism, what cause had it no lesse justly then Grievously to complain? Might it but borrow a tongue from the standers by, how pathetically would it expostulate his condition? Alas, how sad is my estate? My father being but a Jew, was at eight days old made a member of the Church by Circum­cision: His infancy was no bar and obstacle unto him, to render him uncapable of the Covenant. I had thought now my Father is turned Christian, that the Child should not be impaired because his father is improved? Is a Christians son found in a worse case then [Page 84] a Jews son was left? I thought the alteration of our condition by Christs coming was to per­fect not diminish what we had before? Chri­stianity may be a good Religion for men to die in, but Judaism was better for Children to be born in: We Infants who signified some. thing under the Law, are made cyphers under the Gospel, no notice being taken of us, until we are arrived unto years of discretion.

This complaint might be largely pro­secuted with more earnestnesse, but a word is enough, the rather if we consider what S. Paul saith, Heb. 8. 6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better cove­nant, which was established upon better pro­mises. What a Scale of melioration have we here, better, and better, excellent, and more excellent. But if Children since Christs coming are excluded the Cove­nant, which were admitted unto it before, his is a less excellent Ministry, & he the Me­diator of a worse Covenant upon worse pro­mises, seeing the same is not extended now as formerly, to all ages, Sexes and condi­tions of people, (children, included under the Law) being omitted therein?

[Page 85] Now though many Infants of Bethle­hem, and the coasts thereabouts, Mat. [...]. suffered for him, surely none suffered by him. But he continued their condition as good, yea, and bettered the same by his Incarnation. He who himself was a childe, as well as a man, and a childe before he was a man, did tender and improve the condition of children as wel as of men; and leaving this we now proceed to a second Reason out of Scripture.

CHAP. X. The Second Reason, drawn from the birth-holinesse of Christian In­fants.

OUr Second Reason out of Scripture, is bottomed on S. Pauls expression, 1 Cor. 7. 14. for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. Now because there is some difficulty a­bout [Page 86] the meaning of the words, we will be the larger in explaining the same.

It appears by the first verse in this cha­pter, that the Corinthians by letter had requested from S. Paul, solution and satis­faction to sundry Queries by them pro­pounded: Wonder not that they, who 1 Cor. 1. 5. were commended by S. Paul to be enriched in all knowledge, should now desire further instruction. For first, they had all knowledge, but not all the degrees of knowledge. Secondly, they had all knowledge, in fundamental necessaries to salvation, not in all cases of occasional e­mergency, such as their questions were. Thirdly, grant that even in these, they had information before, they now sue for fur­ther confirmation from the infallible spirit of the Apostle.

Alas, will some say for the losse of this letter of the Corinthians to S. Paul: Pitty it was that providence did not transmit the same to posterity; How useful had it been for us if it had come into our hands? Let such know, first, this their letter was no part of Canonical Scripture, pen'd by a fallible Spirit. Secondly, we have still [Page 87] this letter in effect, because we have Saint Pauls answers to the questions therein. Thirdly, men generally are more curious to enquire about those parts of Scripture which they suspect to have miscarried, then careful to improve those which re­main, and are sufficient for our salvati­on.

Amongst these Questions, this was not the easiest, whether a believing husband or wife were to continue in wedlock with an unbelieving wife or husband, if by pro­vidence it so came to passe that one was an Infidel, the other a Christian. The Ne­gative no doubt seem'd probable to some, and on this account, that if he who is joyn­ed to an Harlot is one body, then by the same consequence, Idolatry being spiritu­all whoredom, Copulation with an infidel is unlawful, and infectious.

But S. Paul in the foregoing verse de­termines the contrary; That in case the Infidel is pleased to dwel with the belie­ver, they ought so to continue; rendring a reason thereof in the words afore alledg­ed for the believing husband, &c.

[Page 88]The words contain

• 1. A Proposition.
• 2. The proof thereof.

The Proposition is reciprocal, it turneth and windeth backwards and forwards, the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; the proof thereof is in the ensuing words▪ else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. In the pro­position the Cardinal word Sanctifie, (as being the main Hinge whereon the same turneth) deserves our serious examinati­on.

Sanctified here is not taken, quoad per­sonam, to enholy the party so, as to pro­cure his or her eternal salvation. If the holy Triumvirate of Noah, Daniel, and Job, Ezek. 14. 20. could save neither son nor daughter, but their sole selves from a tem­poral destruction, much lesse can the sanctity of a Christian husband or wife, operate so effectually on his, or her Pagan Partner as to estate them in a saving condi­tion. Indeed the wives holy conversa­tion may be instrumental to her husbands conversion, 1 Pet. 3. 1. But it is God alone [Page 89] who sanctifies, in this high acception there­of.

Sanctified then here is taken quoad usum, that is eous (que), they are made holy so far in relation to Marriage, that the christian may have a lawful, and comfortable con­verse, and cohabitation in bed and board with the counter-Pagan. Thus all meats (though some of them formerly forbid­den as unlawful by the Levitical Law) 1 Tim. 4. 5. are sanctified by the word of God and prayer; that is, the use of them is legitimated, and they made healthful to the bodies, and lawful to the souls of such praying Christians as feed upon them.

See we here first, Grace where it came, did not always take one and all in a family; God in dispensing thereof, dealeth as Ja­cob did in blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen. 48. 14. He crosseth his hands witting­ly, taking a husband out of one house, a wife out of another; a wife out of one house, a husband out of another. The reason here­of, Mat. 11. 26. even so father, because it pleaseth thee, John 3. 8. the Spirit blow­eth where it listeth. Thus Amos 4. 7. the [Page 90] earth is often chequered with moisture, and drought, with barrennesse, and fruit­fulnesse, the effects thereof; I cause it to rain upon one city and not upon another.

Secondly, Hence we may learn, that Dominion is not founded in Grace: Had it been so, then the believing wives to un­believing husbands, had a just title to de­ny any obedience, pleading that their husbands by their Paganism had forfeited all power over them; yet the Apostle, 1 Pet. 3. 1. enjoyneth subjection, even to such husbands who did not obey the word, and who as yet were without the word.

Lastly, and chiefly hence we observe, Mixt mariages made against Gods will, do defile the Religious, but continued according to Gods will, do sanctifie the profane person. Solomon may be a proof of the first, 1 Kin. 11. 4. not converting his Idolatrous wives, but perverted by them. Namely, because he crossed Gods commandment, Deut. 7. 3. Neither shalt thou make Mariages with them; and the reason is added, for they will turn thee away from following me. And although the husband was doubly advantaged, both [Page 91] with his marital authority, and a good cause on his side, rather to prevail on his wife then to be imposed on by her; yet because there was Laesum principium, a fault in his first Match, the edge was taken off from all his arguments to her, and added to her arguments against him▪ making them by Gods just judgement, twice more pier­cing and powerful to seduce him.

Should then a Christian Man wilfully take a Heathen wife, he could not pretend that his Christianity should sanctifie her Infidelity, so far as to make his bed and board comfortable and lawful unto him, because he crost a positive precept, which enjoyns the believing party if at liberty, 1 Cor. 7. 39. to Marry only in the Lord: The Physitians observe, that faults com­mitted in the first concoction, are seldom a­mended in the second: such men had small hopes to better their condition by con­verting their wives after Marriage, who before Marriage ran so desperate a hazard against Gods will in his word.

On the other side, when mixt Marriages are continued according to Gods will, they do sanctifie the profane person: I mean [Page 92] when both parties at Marriage were ori­ginally Pagan, and one of them after­wards converted to Christianity. In such a case a separation is not to be made, (as was done, Nehemiah 13. 30. when he clean­sed the Jews from all their strange wives) but the Christian may continue in wed­lock, with the Pagan, without fear of in­fection, and with a double comfort.

1. That hereafter his, or her Pagan partner probably may be made Chri­stian, verse 16. for what knowest thou O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband, &c.

2. That for the present the Pagan com­pany is so sanctified unto him, or her, that all conjugal acts qua-conjugal may be performed betwixt them, without the least suspition of sinful­nesse therein.

Come we now to the proof of the pro­position: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy: Not to speak of na­tural uncleannesse (as alien from the pur­pose:) We will principally insist upon a threefold uncleanness mentioned in Scri­pture, with a holinesse parallel thereunto.

[Page 93]

Such as understand, uncleanness or holiness in the Text, in this low acception of the word, under-shoot by much the true meaning thereof.

Now we have over-shot the mark, and are as much above the meaning of the Text. For no good parents can make [Page 94] their children thus holy, many of them being▪ humbled in Scripture, (as Eli and Samuel) with a profane issue which li­ved and died impenitent: It is an impu­dent slander, wherewith the Rhemists (in their notes on this text) charge us to maintain, that from these words we col­lect, the children of pious parents, to be so holy, as that they need no Baptism. Where­as indeed hence we gather, such children to be so holy, that they have a lawful right to Baptism. Which hath brought us to the third and last acception of the word.

Now are we just level, and even to the sence of the words, and conceive our [Page 95] selves, to have hit the mark, or meaning thereof: And thus it is expounded by all our Protestant Divines. Musculus alone excepted, who (though otherwise a stiff Champion for Infants Baptism) accounts the argument drawn from these words not cogent thereunto.

Quest. If you call this Sacramental ho­liness, why do you confine the effect thereof to Baptism alone, & why are not the children of pious parents ad­mitted also on their parents account without any further examination to the Lords supper, by the vertue of this (which you terme) Sacramental holinesse.

Answ. It is the method of the Church, not to intrust a member therein with this second Sacrament, of confirma­tion, until first he hath given testi­mony of his good improving of his first Sacrament of Initiation. Be­sides, a child, while a child, is more properly a part of the parent, and may be said to trade under him. [Page 96] Whereas when grown a man he sets up for himself, and takes up a new stock, on his own account; This Sacra­mental holinesse therefore estates a childe in a real right to Baptism, and only in a capability of the Lords Sup­per in due time, except excluded thence by his own wilful unworthi­nesse.

Thus amongst the Jews every childe▪ descended from Abraham, might chal­lenge Circumcision as due unto him, but could not so lay claim to the Passeover (of which some of his own intervening uncleannesse might make him uncapable) except he was adjudged fit by such, whose place was to search into peoples purity, who were to partake of the same.

The main observation is this, Such as are christianly extracted, though but by the half bloud, have a whole right to the Sacra­ment of Baptism, Rom. 11. 16. If the Root be holy so are the Branches. Say not in such mungrel matches, the root is but half holy, and therefore but semi-sanctity, is as much as comes to the share of the branches thereof.

[Page 97] For herein the mercy of God is mag­nified, that whereas he might have made the childe, as the conclusion to fol­low what was worst in the premises of either Parent, his mercy interpreteth all according to the better part thereof. What result could be expected from the joyning of hot and cold but lukewarm? What product from the blending of white and black but a motley? What amounts from the mixture of light and darkness but twy-light? but such is Gods goodness to pass over and take no notice of the Paga­nism in one parent, whiles the child shall solely succeed to the purity in the other. Now if Christian children by the half-bloud be holy ▪ how clear is those Infants ti­tle Religiously descended on both sides? when Deus est in utro (que) parente, Let none be so cruel as to question their title to the Sacrament.

IF any then ask, what advantage then hath a Christian, and what profit is there of pious parentage? We answer, much every way; chiefly because extraction from them entitles to the Sacrament of Ba­ptism. They have also the benefit of their [Page 98] parents dry and wet prayers, (even before their conception) petitioning to God im­portunately, to make them be instru­ments not to People Hell, but Plant Heaven. When growing up, capable to learn, they have advantage of precepts (Abraham will teach his children) of good precedents, whiles the children of wicked parents see daily what they should flie, these see what they should follow; the advantage of cor­rection moderately and seasonably used. All these are the sap which the root of holy parentage sends up into the branches thereof, though all of them too often prove ineffectual, and God (who finally saveth not children for their parents sake, but parents and children for Christs sake) justly condemneth many children of good parents, for neglecting all these precious advantages to salvation.

To conclude. In the Low Countries, the eldest son of a Commission Captain, being born there whilest his father is in the ser­vice of the State, is by the courtesie of the camp, enrolled in the souldiers list on his birth-day, and by the allowance of the State, receives pay from the time of his [Page 99] nativity. In the Christian warfare, though Christ alone be our Captain, every com­mon souldier (male or female) enlisted under him, derives this priviledge to all his children; that from their very births they are thus far entred into the muster­roll of the Church, as to receive pay; I mean the right, and title to the Sacrament of Baptism, as being by their very extra­ction, not unclean, but Sacramently holy.

CHAP. XI. The third Reason, taken from the Holy Spirit, which is given to little Infants.

THe Third Reason out of Scripture, is thus framed: Such who receive the Spirit of God may and ought to be Bapti­zed; but infants receive the Spirit of God, therefore they may and ought to be Baptized.

The Major hereof is in effect the words [Page 100] of the Text; Peter saith, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be Ba­ptized, which have received the holy Ghost as wel as we? Can he? that is, can he justly? can he lawfully? can he so do it, as to avouch it to God and man, when he hath done it? Though I confesse too many de facto, do it now adayes. Can any man? we can do nothing, saith the Apostle, against the Truth but for the Truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8. It is not strength, but weaknesse; for one to be able to do that which he ought not to do. Can any man? Be he an Apostle, or even Peter himself, MAN. He must be either worse then a man for his Envy, or lesse then a man by his Ignorance.

The Minor remains to be proved, that Infants receive the Spirit of God, whereof we have two pregnant proofs, one in the old Testament, Jer. 1. 5. Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee to be a Prophet unto the Nations.

Object. This sanctification of Jeremy, intends not such as accompanieth the sal­vation of the soul, but meerly importeth [Page 101] a designation of him to the Prophetical function, with qualification for the dis­charge thereof. It is therefore impertinent­ly alledged to prove, that Infants have the saving Spirit of God.

Answ. It is confessed that Jeremy his destination to be a Prophet, was a princi­pal part of his sanctifying here mentioned. Yet was it not the total thereof, as being but a sprig and branch of the same, which extended to Gods forming him according to his knowledge of approbation and hallow­ing him as yet unborn, to be his Saint and servant.

The second instance in the new Testa­ment is that of John the Baptist, Luke 1. 41. Leaping in his mothers womb at the saluta­tion of the virgin Mary. Not that (as some have mistaken it) that then his Mo­ther was first sensible that she quickned of him, seeing it was said before, vers. 36. This is the sixth moneth with her which was called barren; but as it is vers. 44. the babe leaped in my womb for joy, knowing and acknowledging Christ the Saviour of mankind, and transported with transcen­dent gladnesse for the same.

[Page 102] Object. But Jeremy and John the Ba­ptist, were Jeremy and John the Baptist, I mean, signal persons of extraordinary sta­ture of grace, above the size of common Christians. Your Logick is but bad, if from the induction of two instances, you infer a general conclusion: As soundly you might prove, that all Davids wor­thies were equal in valour and atchive­ments, 2 Sam. 23. 19. unto the first three, as that al infants of Gods children may for their abilities be matched with these two by you alledged.

Answ. I grant no lesse, That these two instances were extraordinary: However thus much advantage we gain thereby, that they plainly prove the state of Infancy to be receptive of grace, and of ability to entertain the same. Let none look on In­fants as so indisposed and unorganized by reason of their weaknesse, but that the lownesse of their age is capable of the ele­vation to sanctity.

Secondly, though we acknowledge such redundancy of the Spirit in the extra­ordinary and miraculous proportion [Page 103] thereof confined to a few persons, in Christs and the Apostles time, yet we may no lesse truly then confidently maintain, that a sufficiency thereof as to salvation, is conferr'd on all Gods servants now adays, as well as before; Nor is Gods Spirit super-annuated with aged Naomy, Ruth, 1. 11. or grown so barren, or effete, but that it is still procreative, and produceth the effects thereof in Gods servants now, as vigorously as ever before.

Otherwise, most doleful, yea, indeed desperate were the conditions of Gods servants now adays, if devoid of the Spirit of God, as to the essentials thereof, having now a fiercer foe and worse weapons to en­counter him, then the Christians had in former ages: A fiercer foe, Satan himself growing subtiler, with the addition of fifteen hundred years experience; and crueller, Rev. 12. 12. because the shorter his reign, the sharper his rage: Worse weapons if we be left altogether naked of the offencive and defencive armor of the Spirit of God.

And here I cannot but admire at the practice of some persons now adayes, [Page 104] boasting of strange measures of the Spirit bestowed upon them (and we must needs believe them, for they say so themselves;) yea, such prodigious proportions there­of, whereby per saltum, they conceive themselves enabled for such offices, for which they were never fitted by their education. And yet the self-same per­sons who are thus prodigal in the praise of their own perfections, assuming so much of the Spirit to themselves, are most mi­serably nigardly to others, and especialy to Infants denying the least degree of the Spirit unto them.

Whereas let matters be beheld with an unpartial eye, and it will appear, that it is more probable children should partake of the company of the Spirit, then men now adayes: May it not justly be suspect­ed, that the spiritual pride, uncharitable­nesse, self-interest, sinister respects, cru­elty, and oppression of many men do fright away the spirit from them, how highly soever pretending to holinesse: whereas the mildnesse, meeknesse, silence, humility and patience of a childe, may invite the society of the spirit the sooner [Page 105] unto it, and the Dove converse rather with Doves then with Vultures.

To put all out of doubt, we can plain­ly demonstrate the fruits of Gods Spirit and Sanctification in Infants, dying Infants, and therefore the root therof must be granted to be in their hearts, which we thus prove.

• Whatsoever is saved is fully sanctified, for Ephes. 5. 5. no unclean person hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ.
• But many children (especially of God­ly parents) dying children are sa­ved.
• Therefore they are fully sanctified.

He wants judgement that denies the Major or former part of the syllogism; And he lacks as much charity who questi­ons the Minor hereof; otherwise Herod the cruel Tyrant, who killed only the bo­dies of the babes in and about Bethlehem, was all mercy to such Bloudy Monsters, who (so much as lieth in their power) by this their Murdering opinion, Massacre the souls of so many Infants, depriving them thereby of salvation.

CHAP. XII. The fourth Reason drawn from some degrees of Faith, conferred on lit­tle Infants.

THe Fourth Reason out of Scripture is thus formed; They that have some degree of Faith, may and ought to be Baptized; But Infants have some degree of faith;

Therefore they may and ought to be Baptized.

The Major is the very same with the words of the Scripture: The Eunuch askt of Philip, Acts 8. 36. See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip answered, if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest.

Al the difficulty is in the proof of the Mi­nor; For our Adversaries wil say, if the In­fant could rejoyne with the Eunuch in the same place, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then the [now most zea­lous] opposers would be the most earnest [Page 107] advancers of their Baptism.

For the proof then of Infants faith, let us bring another Reason, but still out of Scripture.

• Without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11. 6.
• But Infants please God;
• Therefore they have Faith.

Herein the Minor alone is dubitable, and may manifestly be evinced. All men I know are ready to pretend that they please God; And Hypocrites themselves most (odious unto him) as forward as any to claim this priviledge to themselves. To put this therefore out of question, it mat­ters not what men say, but what God says herein: We appeal to him (who best knows his own mind) and he hath judged this case already, That Infants please him.

Say not if so smal then, were they in­sensible of any benefit by the blessing? not conceiving the meaning of our Savi­our therein.

This appears by Christs carriage to­wards the little children brought unto him in the Gospel; Concerning whose years [Page 108] be this premised, that though we have not the Register books of their several ages, yet we may conclude (at least some of) them no bigger then Babes. First, because called [...] by S. Mark 10. and judicious­ly rendred by our Translators, verse 13. young children, verse 14. little children; The diminution in the Original word, being equally appliable either to their age or stature. The same are termed by S. Luke 18. 15. [...], and translated In­fants, alwayes used in Scripture for such as suck on their mothers breast. Secondly, they are said to be brought by their parents, as unable to bring themselves. Third­ly, Christ took them up in his arms, as not big enough to kneel down and be blessed, which otherwise was the posture of strip­lings upon the same occasion.

That these little children pleased Christ, is proved by his expressions (the best in­terpreters of love or hatred in that heart which could not dissemble) concerning them, Mark 10. 14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Of Such, that is not only of those who are like unto [Page 109] these, (in which sense our Saviour might as significatively have said the same of Doves or Lambs, that the kingdom of hea­ven consists of such who are like unto them) but of these, and also of those who imitate them in their innocential qualities. Such make strange interpretation of the words, who exclude the Original, and only admit the Copy; let in such as are like to children, and shut out children themselves from the kingdom of hea­ven.

Secondly, The complacency Christ took in these little children appears by his acti­ons unto them, vers. 16. he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them; See wee such Infants were in a blessible condition.

Here we distinguish between childrens being sensible of the meaning, and their being capable of the benefit, by a blessing. Probably some of the smallest children here presented unto Christ, understood not our Saviours language, nor the mean­ing of his gestures, until their parents af­terwards interpreted the same unto them as they grew up in years. And yet such [Page 110] Infants might effectually partake of the vigour, and vertue of Christs benedi­ction. Thus as many though by natural defect they never had, or by sicknesse have lost their Taste, and by their pallat cannot distinguish betixt sweet, bitter, sharp, sowre, &c. (and consequently take no pleasure or delight in what they eat or drink) yet by the receiving thereof, may have their hunger and thirst satisfied, and their strength daily increased; So these Infants purely passive in our Saviours Arms, brought thither without their knowledge, and blest there above their understanding, did nevertheless (some of them no doubt) really participate of the spiritual comfort which the emphatical blessing of Christ impressed upon them.

CHAP. XIII. The Fift Reason drawn from the Ma­lady of Original Corruption.

THe Fift Reason out of Scripture may thus be contrived; They who are subject to the malady of sin, ought to partake of the remedy against it; But Infants are subject to the malady of sin; therfore they ought to partake of baptism the remedy against it. For the proof of the major or first part thereof, I appeal a­mongst Christians, only to the married; amongst the married, only to the parents of children. These cannot deny it, but that against their wills, as the unhappy in­struments, they have derived corruption to their infants, as conveyed in the same charter of their being unto them.

If any should be so sensless as to deny In­fants infected with Original Corruption, the contrary will be sadly demonstrated by those several diseases, and death it self, to which they are subject, before they [Page 112] have or can commit actual sin. All will confesse no suffering can follow but where sin hath gone before, and that In­fants deeply share in sufferings, daily ex­perience approveth. Some of them whilest they lie in the Cradle, how lie they on the rack? Such sighes, such sobs, such gripes, such groans, such convulsions, such distortions, enough almost to kill the hearts of the beholders, relating unto them, if all pitty be not dead in them before: Nor can all the rending of the fathers hair, abate the aching of the childs head, nor all the rain of the mothers tears, allay the wind in the babes body. Quid teneri infantes in te committere tan­tum? quid pueri potuere. But these little Lambs wherein have they offended? Their hands did never hurt others, which could not help themselves: Their tongues did never lie, swear, &c. which cannot speak; Their feet were never swift to shed bloud which cannot go. All these miseries, and death at last, fals often, on Infants un­capable of actual sin, because of the cor­ruption of their nature wherein they were born and conceived.

[Page 113] Seeing therefore Infants are subject to the malady of sin, what a cruelty were it for parents to leave them in this pittiful case neglecting the remedy for the same? By the Levitical Law, Exod. 21. 33. If a man shall open a pit, and not cover it, he was to pay the owner for the losse of those his cattel which fell into it: Parents ha­ving opened a pit of original corruption by the sinfulnesse of their nature, if they labour not to cover it again, as much as in them lies, by using the ordinance God hath appointed for the same, shall not the souls of their children, if finally falling in­to that pit, be heavily required at their hands? Yea, shall man be carelesse and cruel, where God hath been so kind and careful in his instituting of Baptism? Rom. 6. 3. That we may be Baptized into Jesus Christ his death, as it followeth vers. 6. that the body of sin may be destroyed, To conclude, Infants having the body of sin as well as adult persons, and Baptism being appointed for the destruction there­of, such parents are wanting to their own duty, undervalue Gods ordinance, and are cruel to the souls of the flesh of their [Page 114] body that deny Baptism unto Infants.

CHAP. XIV. The Sixth Reason, drawn from the constant Practice of Christian Churches in all Ages; what cre­dit is to be given to a Primitive Custome.

I Shall now be challenged by such, who herein dissent in judgement from me, for breach of promise, starting from my own principles; that having promi­sed Reasons out of Scripture, I flie now to Church-Practice, and Ancient Tradition. Wherefore to vindicate my self, & (which is far more considerable) the Truth here­in, I will first prove by Gods assistance, by Reason out of Scripture, that the Practice of the Catholique Church, in all Places, and at all Times, (especially in such matters, wherein nothing appears contrary in Gods Word) obligeth all conscientious [Page 115] Christians to the observation thereof. And in the next Chapter we wil shew, that the Baptizing of Infants hath been the un­interrupted Custome of the Church.

Be it premised, that if we look on Cu­stomes simply in themselves, we shall find them generally, like the men of Sodom, not ten good ones, amongst the many thou­sands of them. For what is Custome, but the practice of most men time out of mind. Now seeing most men, yea, all men by Nature, Gen. 6. 5. have the ima­ginations of their hearts evil, and that not for a day, week, or year; but, as the Text saith, continually; no wonder if Customes be commonly wicked. Yea, such errours, and vices, which at the first are soft, and supple, pliable to Reproof, and sensible of Refutation, contract an hardnesse, by custome, in continuance of time; yea, get an incrustation, and such scales over them, that they become impenetrable to Scripture and Reason brought against them. And as Lahan deceived plain­dealing Jacob, in his Marriage, Gen. 29. 26. by pleading the custome of the Country, so it is confessed, that too many in all A­ges, [Page 116] in matters both of faith and fact, have alledged Custome to Patronize their er­roneous opinions, and injurious practi­ses.

But all this ought not to beget in us a neglect of such Customes, which like Melchisedec, are Heb. 7. 3. without father, without mother, without discent; whose first original cannot be found out; as pra­ctised in the Church, time out of mind; no remembrance, or record extant to the con­trary. Now as Melchisedec, in the same place, is said to have neither beginning of dayes, and what necessarily followeth thence, nor end of life; so it is but just and equal that such Ancient Customes in the Church, which never had memorable Rise, should never have Fall therein; but that such which probably began at the first, should constantly be continued till the last coming of our Saviour.

Here I plead not for such mis-shapen Customes, which either run up all in length, narrow, and slender, which (though long in use) never extended to any wideness in the Christian World; or else so low, and thick, they only spread in bredth, (as ma­ny [Page 117] Popish Customes, generally, but not an­ciently used) but never shot up to the just stature of Primitive Antiquity. We only defend such wel-grown Customes which I call square ones, (the form of firm­ness and stability) whose height and bredth are well proportioned, put in ure by Christians at all times, and in all places; conceiving we can demonstrate it, by rea­son from Scripture, that such Customes must be presumed, grounded on the word and will of God.

For proof whereof we produce Gods promise, and Lo I am with you always unto the end of the world, Amen. Mat. 28. 20. Every operative word herein deserves our serious consideration

I am with you unto the end: I am, A verb of the present, joyned with words of the future tense; to shew Gods Instan­taneous assistance in every moment of ex­tremity, Psal. 46. 1. God is our strength and refuge a very present help in trouble.

With you: This cannot be meant only of the Disciples personally, none of them living to the end of the world, seeing John himself, (the surviver of the whole Jury) [Page 118] died about the year of our Lord▪ 102. It is therefore meant extensively of the Di­sciples, as they were an immortal corpora­tion. With you: Selves, and successours, persons, and posterity. As Christ: John 17. 20. Did not pray for these alone, so here he did not promise to these alone; but to them also which should believe on him through their word.

These words, To be with you, import not only a promise of protecting them from all dangers, but also of directing them in all doctrines, necessary to be be­lieved and practised for their salvation. And this promise being made not so much to the particular persons, as to the colle­ctive body of the Church, is not so effe­ctually performed to every individual Christian, as to the Universal Church, which amounteth from them all.

We confesse that notwithstanding the foresaid promise of protection and dire­ction, many good men have been guilty of great errours, and have also fallen by Gods permission, and just punishment of their sins into grievous dangers. How­ever Divine goodnesse so doubleth his Files [Page 119] about his Church in general, that he will not suffer the same to be universally in­fected in all Ages with any one dangerous Errour. And therefore a Church Custome in all times and places, must be presumed conformable to the will of God, because were it erroneous, it were utterly incon­sistent with that solemn promise which God hath passed to his Church, to be with them unto the worlds end.

Such who on the contrary side are high­ly opinioned of their private Judgements, and will not confide in the Universal Cu­stomes of the Church: I know not whe­ther therein they do shew more want of Charity in condemning so many Christi­ans at once, or plenty of pride in over­prizing their own judgements; or store of profanenesse in doubting, yea, deny­ing the performance of Gods promise so solemnly made of his protecting presence in the Church, who surely will dispatch and destroy an errour therein, before it grow up to be so long liv'd as to become a Custome.

What a high valuation S. Paul set on Church Customes, appears by his ex­pression, [Page 120] 1 Cor. 11. 16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custome, nei­ther the Churches of God: For the better understanding whereof, know that the Corinthians were guilty of an innovation▪ wherein they were an exception from the rule of the general practice in all Christian Churches: The Innovation was this, that their women used to pray uncovered, the men covered; that is, as it is generally in­terpreted, the women with short, the men with long hair. This ill fashion S. Paul confutes with several reasons drawn from the power of man over his wife, appeal­ing also to natural decencie therein. And at last concludes all with this close; But if any seem to be contentious, we have no such Custome, nor yet the Churches of God. As if he had said, could you Corinthians prescribe any custome, that in Gods Churches grave and godly men and women have pray­ed as you do, the former covered the latter uncovered. Then should you alledge much in your own justification. But I am confi­dent on the contrary, that no such custome can be produced, and therefore your singu­larity, is condemned by the joynt practice of [Page 121] all Gods Churches against them.

Object. These words, But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such cu­stome, neither the Churches of God; Im­port only, that Gods Churches have no custome to be contentious: Christians ought to be of a quiet and peaceable mind, and not to delight in vain janglings and dissentions.

Answ. This cannot be the meaning of the words: For was ever man so silly as to suppose and conceive that Gods Churches should be so irrational as to have a ridiculous custome of being conten­tious? The Church is so far from having such custome (which is a habit resulting from many acts) that it condemneth each single act of causelesse contention as wick­ed and ungodly. Yea, no civilized estate, though consisting of meer Pagans, ever had any custome to be contentious, or did ever delight in Barrettors: More then must be meant herein, that Gods Chur­ches had never any such Custome for the two Sexes so to pray as the Corinthians did, who herein ran counter to the Uni­versal practice of Christianity; the Apo­stle [Page 122] naming Churches in the Plural, which are the single instruments (as the whole Church is the consort) all of them harmo­niously agreeing in this custome, save only the jarring Corinthians, who are out of tune by themselves.

If a Church custome carried weight with it in S. Pauls time, when amongst Christians it could not be above fourty years standing; what a reverence is due to those customes which have continued in Gods Church above sixteen hundred years, amongst which the Baptizing of Infants is a principal; and if S. Pauls ar­gument followed negatively, women ought not pray uncovered, because the Church hath no such custome; the consequence is no lesse strong from the affirmative, Children ought to be Baptized, because the Church in all ages hath had such a Custome; The pro­ving whereof is the subject of the en­suing Chapter.

CHAP. XV. The Antiquity and generallity of Ba­ptizing of Infants, proved by the confession of Pelagius.

DIvers Learned and Godly Divines, have undertaken, and performed this task, to prove the constant practice of Infants Baptism in the Primi­tive Church, by the induction of the Au­thorities of several Fathers to that pur­pose. And as the Angels in Jacobs Lad­der, Gen. 28. 12. Some ascended, others descended upon it; so in this scale of au­thorities, some have deduced the practice downwards from Christs time to our dayes; others by an inverted method have raised it upwards from our days to Christs time, both by different motions meeting in the same point.

It is our hap, like Ahimaaz, to be sent last on the same errand: the proof of this point. And although far be such arro­gance [Page 124] from me as to hope with him to come first to our journeys end (and to do better then my betters have done before me) yet thus far wil I follow the example of Ahimaaz, 2 Sam. 18. 23. To run by the way of the plain. Having to deal with people who generally are unlearned, & therefore the heaping of Quotations in unknown tongues, were probable to offend, and in­cense, rather then to edifie and inform them, we will imbrace the plainest way to make the Baptizing of Infants appear an Antient and general Church Custome unto them.

This will be proved by the confession of Pelagius, when first we have given an ac­count to the Reader what he was, when, and where he lived, and what opinions he maintained.

He was a Britan by birth, flourishing a­bout the year of our Lord four hundred & ten; a man of great learning, and greater parts, had the same been sanctified unto him.

In the time of this Pelagius, only three parts of the world were known, Europe, Asia, and Africa; all which were traced [Page 125] with the feet of Pelagius, who though born in a corner of the World, quickly quitted his native soyl, and enriched himself with the experience of Church-practice in all parts.

In

• Europe where he was born in Britain, and where he lived a long time in
  Augustine Epist. 95.
  Rome it self, gain­ing there great acquaintance with Ruffinus) which may passe for the Epitome of the then Chri­stian world.
• Asia, where in the Island of Rhodes, or thereabouts, he first scattered his dangerous Do­ctrine. Afterwards he went to
  Augustine Epist. 92.
  Hierusalem.
• Africa, where for some times he continued in Egypt, working himself into the familiarity of the learned men therein.

Yea, it is laid to the charge of Pelagius, that to disperse his poysonous opinions with the more advantage, saepius mutavit loca, he often purposely changed the place of his habitation.

Amongst the many dangerous doctrines [Page 126] which Pelagius maintained, we will insist on that alone; the confutation whereof, makes mainly for our present purpose. He defended that Infants were conceived and born without original sin, which came unto them (when growing in years) not from an inward principal of corruption, but from their imitation of outward ill ex­amples presented unto them. S. Augustine undertakes his confutation, and amongst many other solid Arguments to that pur­pose, principally insisteth upon this, that it was the custome of the Church in all ages to Baptize Infants; which plainly proves that they were conceived in original sin. For that which is clean needs not to be wash­ed.

This Argument is often inculcated by S. Austin in several places, as namely in his 150 Epistle unto Sixtus.

Likewise in his second book of Mar­riage and concupiscence, in the eighteenth chapter.

Likewise in his four books to Bonifa­cius, and every where in his six books a­gainst Julian, one of Pelagius his schollers.

Likewise in his first book of imperfect [Page 127] work against the same, chapter 48. 54. and 115.

Lastly, in his second book of imperfect work, chapter 120. and 180. To spare making more instances, the matter being notoriously known to any, who have the least skill in the works of that worthy Fa­ther.

Now how easie had it been for Pelagi­us to answer this argument, by denying childrens Baptism to be a Church cu­stome, had not his conscience been con­vinced of the truth thereof: How might he have rejoyned, Original sin cannot be proved from the Baptizing of Infants, which is but a modern custome, & an innovation in the Church of God. What the Sodomites said of Lot, Gen. 19. 9. This one fellow came in to sojourn and will he needs be a judg? may be said of Infants Baptism: This cu­stome is new and novel, lately crept into the Chuch (as yet rather a sojourner, then an in­habitant therein) and must this regulate matters in a judicial way, so that arguments must be deduced from the same? Besides, I have been a Traveller, and have conversed with most Churches in Christendome, being [Page 128] born in Britaine (a little world by it self;) I have been in the great world abroad: Jew and Gentile, East and Western Churches have I observed: Hierusalem that was, and Rome which is, so eminent for Religion, are places wherein I am well acquainted. This I know some Churches observe, others neglect, some use, others slight the Bapti­sing of Infants. Nor can it be accounted a ge­neral custom of the Church which is but local, and partial, in a word, both NEW and NAR­ROW, as neither coming down from Christ, nor extended over all Christendome.

But Pelagius endeavoured to evade S. Austins argument by another device; namely, by pleading that Baptism was admitted to Infants, not to wash away their Original sin, but to bring them to the king­dome of heaven. A fancy which he was the first, and (he and his) the last to main­tain it.

The result of all is this; Seeing Pela­gius was so great a schollar, knowing full well how to manage a bad cause to its best advantage; and seeing he was so great a Traveller, who had not eat his bread all in one place, but had roved up and [Page 129] down to know the customes of the Church, and yet feeing by his silence (ur­ging nothing against it) and by his shift­ing (seeking otherwise to evade it) he ac­knowledgeth the truth of Infants Ba­ptism; we conclude the same in his days received for an Ancient and Universal practice of the Church. For why should he adventure the breaking of his bones, (or at leastwise the bruising of his flesh) by leaping out of the window, who hath a wide door set open unto him? Why should he make so poor and pittiful, so base and beggerly an escape, to avoid S. Austins ar­gument against him (by forming a frivo­lous fancy of his own) who had a ful, free, and fair passage at pleasure to go forth, durst he but have denied the Baptizing of Infants to have been a general Church cu­stome in his time?

To conclude this point, the argu­ment of Jephthah to the King of Ammon, carrieth great weight therewith, Judg. 11. 26. proving Israels right to the Land which they possest, and the Ammonites pretended unto: When Israel dwelt in Heshbon, and her towns, and in Aroer and [Page 130] her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coas [...]s of A [...]on three hundred years, why there fore did ye not recover them within that time?

In like manner may we urge it against the adversaries of childrens Baptism. If the Ancient Church conceived the Bapti­zing of Infants an usurpation, and in­croachment, injurious and unlawful, why did not the Church of God in so long a time cast out the custome which made so unjust an invasion therein? For S. Au­stin lived about the fift Century after Christ▪ when Pedo-baptism was in a peaceable passission of Church practice, and Pelagius himself (sufficiently impudent) was so modest and ingenious not to deny the same, though such a denial had con­duced much to his own advantage.

I have done, when I have told the Rea­der that S. Austin brought the Baptizing of Infants as an argument to prove Original sin; and in our age (wherein Original sin is on ought to be granted by all) we al­ledge the same as a reason to prove the ne­cessity of Infants Baptism; and surely so solid is the argument reciprocally, that [Page 131] both may be firmly grounded on the same.

CHAP. XVI. The Grand Objection, drawn from the silence of Scripture herein, Answered.

OUr Adversaries in this point, gain not a greater advantage against us amongst common people, then by urging of that, which indeed we confesse, no li­teral precept or practice for Pedo-baptism in Scripture. By popular improving of which argument, they not only gain to themselves the reputation of a strict ad­herence to the Word, and will of God, but also asperse us with the dangerous imputation of wil-worship, and Popish inclinations.

Yea, which is more, they threaten us with a curse pronounced, Rev. 22. 18. If any man shall adde unto these things, God [Page 132] shall adde unto him the plagues that are writ­ten in this book.

In Answer whereunto; In the first place we request our Adversaries to re­member, that this place by them cited out of the Revelation, like a two edged sword, cuts on both sides; for it follow­eth immediatly, And if any shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesie, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. See here a curse incurr'd, as well by the defect, as the excesse. And be it reported to our opposites in this point, whether denying such consequences, which infallibly flow from Scripture, be not taking away from the words, as well as mutilating, or abstracting the nu­merical words from the same.

More particularly I answer; Bapti­zing of Infants appears not to such who only read the Scripture, but is plainly visi­ble to those who also search the Scriptures, (which John 5. 39. is the duty of all judi­cious Christians) as by reasons out of Scri­pture we have made it to appear.

Here will it not be amisse to mind our adversaries in this point, that they account [Page 133] themselves concerned in conscience to be­lieve and practice many things as necessa­ry to salvation, which notwithstanding are built on the same foundation with the Baptism of Infants, namely not on the ex­presse letter of Scripture, but undeniable consequences arising from the same.

But I conceive such instancing, though lawful yet not expedient, in this unhappy juncture of time, lest Satan get an advan­tage over us, for we are not ignorant of his devices; and lest such instancing, though intentionally good in us, prove occasio­nally evil to others, by casting scruples into mens consciences who are quiet, for the present. There needs more allay­ing of old, then raising of new jealousies in divinity, more needful to settle, then scatter mens belief, in our dayes, wherein so many deniers, and more doubters, in most Articles of Faith.

Indeed the words of the wise, Eccles. 12. 11. are as goads or as nailes fastened by the masters of the assemblies; But such buil­ders must be wary, lest whilest they fasten one nail they do not loosen another.

However to prove this point, I will [Page 134] embrace a way, as sure to clear the mat­ter, and more safe, not having any dan­gerous influence on the times. This may be done by removing the instance, from our age; and fixing the same in the time of Gods Church amongst the Jews▪ Now none will deny but that wil-worship, or ad­ding to Gods Word, and his Service, was as utterly unlawful amongst them, as amongst us Christians; Yet the most re­ligious amongst them, used that as their bounden duty, and necessary to Gods ser­vice which hath no original expresly in the word of God.

For proof hereof, we shall offer three things to the readers consideration.

1. Repairing to Synagogues amongst the Jews, was a necessary part of Gods service.

2. The same was not grounded on any expresse of Scripture.

3. But consequentially on several pla­ces, prudentially joyned together.

For the first, It plainly appeareth by Christs constant practice, Luke 4. 16. And as his custome was, he went into the syna­gogue on the sabbath day. As sure as a se­venth [Page 135] day return'd every week, so certain­ly did our Saviour visit the synagogue. It is also evident by the continual custome of all pious Jews, Acts 15. 21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sab­bath day. To destroy these synagogues was accounted a wicked work, witnesse Gods servants their passionate complaint, Psal. 74. 8.

And again, to erect them was an ac­ceptible act, alledged by the Pharisees as an argument to endeer the Centurion unto our Saviour, Mat. 8. he loveth our nation and hath built us a synagogue. Lastly, it was esteemed a heavy punishment, equiva­lent to our excommunication, John 9. 2 [...]. to be put out of the synagogue.

Yet repairing to synagogues, or the erecting of them was not founded on any positive precept in Gods word. Indeed the Tabernacle, and afterward the Temple, were of Divine institution where all males were commanded to present themselves thrice a year; namely at the Passeover, the feast of Trumpets, and Tabernaclos. But these synagogues (which I may terme Chap­pels [Page 136] of ease, to the mother-Temple) no writ­ten law obliged men either to the foun­ding or frequenting of them.

Yet that the same was grounded on rational deductions from Scripture, may infallibly be evinced. The text saith, Exod. 20. Remember thou keep holy the sab­bath day. And reason dictated unto them; First, that peoples presence at publick service was a principal part of sanctifying the sabbath. Secondly, that it was im­possible for them to repair to the Tem­ple, and return to their houses, such their distance betwixt them. Thirdly, therefore it was necessary some room of receipt should be provided, sequestred from common uses, wherein people should meet together. Lastly, another text affirming, That the Priests lips should preserve knowledge. It was proper for them, and the Levites dispersed in all Is­rael, on the sabbath, in the synagogue, to read Moses to the people. Thus we find the first foundation of synagagues, not on the floating sands of humane fancy, but firm rock of Gods Word; Though not di­rectly, yet by consequence collected from the same.

[Page 137] In a word, as chambers and houses were for mens personal & family devoti­ons, every day, or as oft as they pleased, & as the Temple was for the national service of the Jews, thrice every year, so Syna­gogues were interposed in the middle be­twixt both; for Towns and Cities to serve God on the Sabbath day: the whole nation meeting thrice a year, every City once a week, as private persons every day, and as oft as they pleased.

Suppose now that a Priest amongst the Jews, should presse an obstinate Jew to repair to the Synagogue, how might he have returned this answer according to the Principles of our Anti-pedo-baptists? I will go up to the Temple thrice every year, and there I will not appear empty-handed: But I will not on the sabbath present my self in the Synagogue, which meeting is not JURE DIVINO, a meer civil institution, ground­less on Gods word; shew me a place of Scri­pture injoyning my attendance in a Syna­gogue, and I will become your convert; Till which time I will not only my self refrain my appearance there, but wil also account it wil­worship, in all such as there assemble them­selves.

[Page 138] I believe not one of our Adversaries, in our present Controversie, which are in­genuous, but will condemn such a recu­sant, amongst the Jews, for refractory and obstinate: Yea, they will conceive him, if persisting herein, to deserve Church-censure, for his schismatical singularity. Yet give me leave with love, grief, and anger to say unto him, as once Nathan to David, thou art the man, in denying In­fants Baptism, which (though not in so many words expressed) is by necessary consequence infallibly founded on Gods Word.

Now although I freely confesse, no litteral precedent of Pedo-baptism in Scri­pture, yet such an one therein is present­ed unto us, which although it will not confute our opposites, it will confirm us in our judgements; and though it be not able, Titus 1. 9. to convince the gainsayers, yet it will strengthen us in the Truth: When the principal is known of him self to be sufficient, any security with him will be accepted, and the following instance may be cast in, as over-weight, to such minds, who already have their full mea­sure [Page 139] of perswasion in this point.

Namely, when it is said, Acts 16. 15. Lydia was Baptized and her houshold: And again, Acts 16. 33. of the Jaylor, was ba­ptized, he, and all his, straight way. Also 1 Cor. 1. 16. I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas.

For the Jaylor; That Children (if he had any) were comprised under the ex­pression, of all his, is sufficiently known by Satans interpretation, Job. 1. 12. of Gods commission, Behold all that he hath is in thy power; and Gods consenting thereun­to, when permitting him by vertue there­of, to destroy all Jobs children. And whereas in the other two instances, the baptizing of whole housholds are exprest, we must rationally conceive that some in­fants were amongst them.

I must confesse I can tell the time, when there were three housholds of young folk in the world (and then but three housholds of young folk in the world) namely, the three sons of Noah, and his daughters in law in the Ark, and yet not one Infant betwixt them all. But this was a rare and mystical accident: [Page 140] Again to hold the ballance even, I can tell the time when in a large Country every famil [...] offered a first-born, namely in Egypt, Exod. 12. 3. There was not a house where there was not one dead. Which S. Austin accounts miraculous, God pur­posely making every family fruitful, that it might yield a fit object for his own ju­stice.

But to wave these instances of extra­ordinary dispensation; take three houses together, indifferently numerous, such as those of Lydia, the Jaylor, and Stepha­nas must be presumed to be, (considering the garbe of that age, wherein most of mens moveable wealth consisted in men and maid servants, with the children be­gotten by them) and it is utterly impro­bable but some infants will be amongst them. For a great family is like unto an Orenge tree, which at the same time hath buds and blossoms and knobs, and green and half ripe, and full ripe Orenges on it all together. I mean, infants, children, striplings, youths, men of perfect, redu­ced, decayed ages.

CHAP. XVII. An Objection Answered, drawn from the inability of Infants to repent and believe.

ALthough we conceive this formerly satisfied, yet finding it to recur in our proceedings, we will repeat some­thing in our larger Answer thereunto. We perceive many men infidels in the point of infants faith, and do not believe that they do or can believe; whose di­strust is principally grounded on these two causes; partly because infants can­not evidence their believing to others, partly because men cannot conceive the manner of infants belief.

To the first of these we say, it is inju­rious to conclude infants incapable of be­lieving, because they cannot manifest it to others. On the same account, and with as much truth and right, one might deny reasonable souls to infants, because [Page 142] they neither do nor can make any expres­sion thereof.

Let matters be measured by outward appearance, and the young ones of bruit beasts, seem more rational, (though in­deed it be but natural instinct in them) then any childe whatsoever. A Lamb new wean'd, and Chicken new hatch'd, know their Dam, can stand, go, do many things in order to their self-preservation better then a new-born infant, and yet no wise man will pronounce them more rea­sonable then a childe.

Yea, give me leave a little here to make an useful digression.

There is no one mistake w ^ch hath betray­ed mens judgements to more absurdities, in the points of Circumcision and Baptism, then a misapprehension in making the bo­dy the standard of the soul, and measu­ring the same by the proportion thereof. I am afraid there be too many, who con­ceive souls like the pipes in an Organ, some longer, some shorter, some lesser, some larger; and fancy degrees of their dimensions, variable with their ages. So that a new-born infant should have a smal [Page 143] soul, a weaned childe a soul somewhat greater, and so successively, that the souls of boyes, youths▪ striplings, men, should gradually exceed one another in great­nesse.

Yea, I am afraid, that some do farther extend this their false apprehension, even to imagine, that at the last day of Judge­ment, the souls of such who died in their infancy shall appear before Gods Tribu­nal, little diminutive Spirits. This con­ceit makes men behold infants with dis­dainful eyes, accounting them but Cy­phers, which signifie but little in nature, and nothing in Religion. To rectifie their erroneous judgements, let them know, that all reasonable souls as created by God, and first infused into bodies, are e­qual in their essence; and that something extrinsical and adventitious, causeth that grand disparity betwixt souls in their natural, moral, and supernatural opera­tions.

1. In their natural, as the wise man, and the fool are equal in their death, Eccles. 2. 16. so also in their birth, not only in the manner thereof▪ but in this re­spect [Page 144] of an adequation of all the essenti­als of their souls. The different tempers of their brains, and more or lesse perfect fabrick of their bodies, differenceth them in their actions, who in their beings are a­like.

2. In their moral. That which makes the difference betwixt them is this▪ First, education bestowed on one more then a­nother, whereby he arrives at a perfecti­on above his equals. Secondly, Habits of vertues or vices, which one hath ac­quired more or lesse then the other.

3. In their supernatural. Only the di­stinction ariseth from infused graces, more plentifully conferred on one then another, and from the holy improve­ment thereof, which one, frugal in good­nesse, makes above him which is an un­thrift therein.

Thus the species, or kind with all spe­cifical perfections, are not partial to one individuum, to make that a favourite more then another, but all indifferently partake thereof: And as amongst the Israelites, Exod. 16. 18. all had their just omer of manna; so the man, yea the giant, hath [Page 145] no more of the reasonable soul then the Dwarfe or the Infant, all share alike in the essence thereof.

The same may be said of the souls of Children and men. The essentials of a childs soul are as large and ample to all purposes and intents, as that of a man. The house­keeper is the same, though pent for rooms he cannot make the like entertainment.

Indeed we read, Rev. 20. 12. I saw the dead, great and small, stand before God: and the books were open, &c. But the in­equality there, relates not unto their souls and the essences thereof, but to their conditions wherein they were estated when alive, Psal. 49. 2. Low and high, rich and poor together.

What matters it then, though Chil­dren cannot discover, and though men cannot perceive their belief? It follows not but that God may see, what a child is not sensible of in it self nor others in it. God judgeth not as man judgeth, nor doth he see as man seeth. Man only be­holdeth the out-side of childrens opera­tions, loaden with defects arising from their bodily indisposition; Gods sees the [Page 146] heart, and (what mainly moveth therein) the soul, and (age being meetly circum­stantial and accidental thereunto) it ma­keth no odds at all in Gods discovery therein, who can see in them that beliefe, which we cannot behold.

But suppose the worst that Infants nei­ther do nor can believe, yet this cannot be a bar to their Covenanting in Baptism, no more then it was to the Jewish children in Circumcision. Their tender age knew not what a Covenant with God meant. Nor had they feeling how thereby they were engaged to keep the Law; Nor un­derstood what did belong to the inward Circumcision of the heart, yet were vouchsafed to be foederati cum Deo; So it can be no bar to the children of Christian parents to receive a seal of covenantship with Christ, albeit they at that time want reason to know the nature of a Covenant, nor how they put on Christ, nor what it is to believe, and to be washed clean from sin. There is no more absurdity or incon­sequence upon one then the other.

CHAP. XVIII. Other Objections Answered.

THe Grand Objections thus cleared, such as remain will be easily satisfied, as followeth.

Object. It is pride and presumption for any to account themselves fitter and forwarder for Baptism, then Christ him­self was. Now Christ himself was not Baptized, Luke 3. 23. till he began to be a­bout thirty years of Age, none ought there­fore to prevent that date of time in their Baptism.

Answ. Though Christ was not bapti­zed till thirty years of Age, remember he was circumcised, Luke 2. 21. on the eighth day. Secondly, Christ was not Bapti­zed out of necessity, (needing no soul-physick, who had no soul-sicknesse) but a voluntary design to Baptize baptism, and to give a soveraign vertue thereunto. Third­ly, Many of Christs actions were for our instruction, not imitation. Christ pre­sently [Page 148] after his Baptism fasted fourty days, and fourty nights, which the urgers of this argument will not pretend unto.

Discover we here a corruption too rife in all our hearts: Such is the froward­nesse of our crosse-grain'd nature, that we lazily stand still and admire such acti­ons of Christ, which we ought to follow, and vainly strive to follow those his acti­ons which we ought to admire. Oh that we all would learn of him, Mat. 11. 29. to be meek and lowly of heart, to think more humbly of our selves, and more charitably of others; I say would we could learn this thing of Christ, and leave such things to Christ, which were perso­nal in him, and not precedential to us.

Object. Had Christ in his judgement, al­lowed, and approved the baptizing of In­fants, surely he would have baptized such children, which, Mark 10. were brought unto him, whereas his omission thereof, plainly argues Christs disaffection to the same.

Answ. Christ in his own person Bapti­zed [Page 149] none at all, as we read, John 4. 2. an office improper for him to perform. How unfit had it been for our Saviour thus to Baptize those Infants, I Jesus Baptize this Infant into the Name of Jesus? If S. Paul ac­counted it beneath his place to Baptize, 1 Cor. 1. 17. For Christ sent me not to Ba­ptize, but to preach the Gospel: How much was the ministration thereof too mean for our Saviour? Indeed Christ came in all humility, to be a pattern of patience unto us, and condescended to mean imploy­ments, as ( John 13. 5.) the washing of his Disciples feet; yet alwayes he observed, (though not state) decency in all his acti­ons, and stood much, though not on the pomp, on the propriety of what he per­formed; as here in his declining to Baptize any. When a Lord hath signed a Letter with his own hand, it is usual with him to consign the sealing thereof to his Secretary or some other servant; so when Christ had instituted Baptism, and with his own hand confirmed the soveraign vertue of that Sacrament, it well befitted his digni­ty to command, and his disciples duty to perform the administration thereof.

[Page 150] Object. Grant that Christ, for the rea­sons by you alledged, concluded it unfit­ting for himself to Baptize those Infants, yet had he approved Pedo-baptism in his own judgement, he would have designed some of his Disciples for the doing there­of. This not done, we may infallibly in­fer his dislike of the same.

Answ. A negative argument of this na­ture is of no validity. No mention is made of these Infants Baptizing. Ergo, they were not Baptized: we may observe a grada­tion in the Evangelists relating this story, Luke 18. 17. mentioneth their blessing only without any manner of gesture at all used by our Saviour unto them. Mat. 19. 15. only takes notice that Christ laid his hands on them, and departed thence, Mark 10. 16. registreth all three remarkable actions, He took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them; Saint John addeth, chap. 21. 21. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which are not written, amongst which for ought appears to the contrary, the Bapti­zing of these infants might be one of them. [Page 151] However grant they were not formally and solemnly Baptized, yet we may ob­serve Baptism consisteth of two parts, the application of water, which we may call the body, and the impression of the blessing, which we may terme the soul of Baptism. The later which indeed was the principal, was here conferr'd on babes, which shews them capable of the other, as being the lesse Spiritual part of the Sacrament.

Object. Sacraments ought not to be prostituted to profane persons, Mat. 7. 6. cast not pearls before swine; But many In­fants are impious and profane, therefore they ought not to be Baptized.

Answ. This Objection may with e­qual advantage, be also enforced against the Baptizing of men arrived at years of discretion, many of them are profane in their hearts, though they cunningly dis­semble the same. Hypocrites will never be kept out of the Church; Be the doors thereof barr'd and bolted never so close, they will creep in at the windows; yea, through the chinks and crevesses thereof: [Page 152] As for Infants, Baptism ought to be deny­ed unto them if they manifested any pro­fanenesse: Till which time charity com­mands us to believe them not Swine, but Lambs, and capable of the Sacrament.

Object. Children are unable to discharge an essential requisite to Baptism: Seeing what equipage Baptism is martialled by Christs own Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20.

Here we have the safe and sure posi­tion of Baptism as God himself ordered it: It is placed in the middle betwixt adou­ble teaching, one in the front, and ano­ther in the rear thereof; a precedent teach­ing must usher in Baptism, and the subse­quent teaching must afterwards wait upon it; Children therefore being incapable of this praevious and preparative teaching are incapable also of Baptism which de­pendeth thereupon.

[Page 153] Answ. The method prescribed here by Christ to his Apostles, was only to be used by them in their preaching to pure Pagans grown up to be men, and this their commission properly extended unto the Gentiles, [...].

[...], Going therefare, that is in due time leaving this land of Pale­stine, (wherein you live for the pre­sent) when you shall be accomplish­ed with the Spirit, make your pro­gresse into far distant parts, and there teach.

[...], All Nations, the word pro­perly importing Heathens formerly unacquainted with God & his word. Such people must first be taught be­fore they may be Baptized.

This text therefore may justly be char­ged against the Papists in America, where thousands of Natives were cruelly driven with whips to the Font to be baptized, before they were ever Catechized in any rudiments of Christian Religion, but cannot at all be objected against the ba­ptizing of infants, the children of Chri­stian [Page 154] parents; the teaching of Heathen (and those of full age) being only intend­ed in this command.

Thus have we given the true and genu­ine sence of these words, Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them, &c. However we will not omit another in­terpretation which godly Divines give thereof, consonant to Scripture phrase. They render the word [...], make disciples, in which sence they maintaine that infants are capable of disciple-ship, and may be inlisted therein. For proof hereof they produce Acts 15. 10. why tempt ye God, to put a yoak upon the neck of the disciples. Now this yoak was Circumcision, which some stickled so zea­lously for, and these disciples were in­fants eight days old on whom that Sacra­ment was fastened. In this sence children may be taught, that is, discipled before baptism, and so the text nothing favour­ing the purpose of the objectors, though I rather adhere to the former answer, as most proper to the text.

Here will it be seasonable to interpose an admonition to parents. You see in [Page 155] Christs commission to his Disciples, the Divine method in dispensation of ordi­nances to Ethnicks: 1. Teach. 2. Baptize. 3. And Teach. But towards the children of Christian parents, it is, 1. Baptize. 2. Teach and teach. What is wanting in the precedent, Teach, let it be supplied over and above in the consequent Teach, to make amends for the preparatory Teach, before baptism (whereof infants age is incapable) let there be a duplicate, dou­ble your endeavours in the confirming Teach, so soon as they shal be able to learn. Line upon line, Precept upon precept▪ here a little, and there a little, dropping in in­struction as the vessel is able to receive.

[...] in Scripture, (as we have formerly observed (always signifieth a sucking child: Now it is said of Timothy, 2 Tim. 3. 15. that [...] from a childe he had known the holy Scriptures▪ Not when a childe, but from a child. Infancy was the termi­nus à quo, from whence his learning of Scripture bears date: How timely did he start in the race of Religion, by the dire­ction of his devout parents, who herein may be exemplary unto all others.

[Page 156] Now let parents think to cast off their care on those who are Sponsores or Susce­ptores, Godfathers to their children: as I deny not an ancient and useful institution of them in the Primitive times, so can I not but bemoan, that our age hath turned the same into a formality or Christian complement: Judah said to Simeon, Judg. 1. [...]. Come up with me into my lot, and I likewise will go up with thee into thy lot; So men exchange and barter this office be­twixt them, answer thou for my child to day, and I on like occasion will answer for thine, the civility is discharged by both, when the christianity too oft is performed by nei­ther: I look therfore on Godfathers gene­rally, as on brasse Andirons, standing more for sight then service, ornament, then use, whiles the main weight and stresse in per­forming the promise, must lie on the pa­rents themselves do discharge, in teaching and teaching their Baptized Infants.

Object. The deaf and dumb are not to be admitted to Baptism, though adult and full grown, because of their inability to give an account of their faith: But chil­dren [Page 157] are ranked in the same form with the deaf and dumb, therefore they ought not to be admitted unto Baptism: This is the thirty sixth▪ and last argument, (amongst many frivolous ones) alledged by the Transilvanian Anabaptists, against the baptizing of infants, placing, belike, much confidence therein, to hem and conclude all the rest.

Answ. Both propositions are false: First, If the dumb and deaf can with signs and gestures (which nature hath made in them marvelously expressive) evidence and testifie their faith, they must be ad­mitted to Baptism, as the third Councel of Carthage did decide. Secondly, Chil­dren are not in the same, but a better con­dition: Those Mutes after maturity, can never recover their hearing and speech but by miracle, whereas Infants naturally are capable of both in due season.

We read Mark 7. 32. that they brought one to our Saviour that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech, not that he was only troubled with a lisping, or sta­mering, but that he was directly dumb, [Page 158] as appears by the peoples acclamations, vers. 37. when the miracle was wrought upon him, he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak; and generally those infirmities are twins, going both together; yet Christ discovered in him a sufficiency of faith, such as he was pleased to accept for his bodily cure.

How more comfortably then may Christian parents presume that God will graciously behold their Infants, who though deaf (that is not hearing to under­stand) and dumb, not able to speak, may in processe of time arrive to the use of both. That God I say, who when with a favou­rable eye he looks for goodnesse in any heart, findeth and fixeth it there by his favourable looking for it.

Besides, such persons defective in their senses, (though full in age) may, ponere obicem, by their prave dispositions put a bar or obstacle, wilfully to defeat the ef­fect of Baptism, and their right thereun­to.

This cannot be done by infants; their very worst enemies who deny them actu­al faith, yea, any dispositive degree there­unto, [Page 159] dare not charge them with what I may terme positive infidelity. As for ori­ginal sin, that can be no bar, because Ba­ptism was designed by God for the wash­ing away thereof.

God is no Mountebank, his receipts do the deed for which they were prescribed: Indeed if the patient, (besides that disease for the cure whereof Gods receipt is given him) shall by his own intemperance wil­fully contract a new malady, no wonder if this Physick fall short of the cure for which it was intended; But infants, not being able to draw on themselves any other sin, we cannot but in charity be­lieve their undoubted right unto, and be­nefit by baptism.

CHAP. XIX. Whether the Children of Profane Pa­rents, Bastards, Exposed Children, and the Captive Infants of Pa­gans are to be Baptized.

SOme maintain that infancy alone, is the requisite to qualifie Infants to be Baptized: Others upon just grounds conceive a choice must be made of the infants admitted thereunto, and those most scrupled at, fall under the following Quaternion.

The first are the Children of Profane Parents, living within the pale of the Church, such as I may sorrowfully terme Pagan Christians; Christians by their pro­fession; Pagans by their notorious visible debauched conversation: Otherwise I confesse the words pious and profane in our modern Religious Canting, made by ma­ny words of party and interest, to cry up or decry such who in private opinions, or [Page 161] civil concernments agree with, or dissent from them; The question is if such pro­fane Parents alone tender their children to baptism, and desire the same, whether or no ought they to be admitted there­unto? I say alone, for if a good Grand­father or Grand-mother (the mediate Parent) survive, conjoyn with them in such a tender, the case is sufficiently clear, that Baptism cannot be denied unto it.

I answer. If any one, related as kin­red or friend to this childe, will under­take conditionally ( viz. if he himself live, and God blesse his endeavours, farther then which, parents themselves ought not to promise and cannot perform) for the education thereof, as Judah in another case, for the bringing up of his brother Benjamin out of Egypt, Gen. 43. 9. I will be surety for him, at my hands shalt thou re­quire him, baptism ought not to be denied unto it.

Quest. But suppose such an under­taker cannot be found, seeing he who ha­teth [especially Spiritual] suretiship is sure, Prov. 11. 15. and one may justly [Page 162] suspect according to the proverb, Ezek. 16. 44. As is the mother, so is the daughter; that such a childe will follow the vicious examples and dispositions of his parents.

Answ. Here I desire the Reader to call to mind (to spare my repetition thereof) what formerly Chap. 4. we have written of wicked mens sharing in the foederal right to Circumcision. Let him also con­sider the Apostles words, Rom. 11. 16. If the root be holy so are the branches. Now the root we know is under ground, and un­seen; and, although the immediate pa­rents be bad, yet charity commands us to believe, that, some generations removed, the ancestors of this child (whom Divine Providence appointing the bounds of habi­tation, Acts 17. 26. would have born within the pale of the Church) might be holy and religious. We have a saying, Every beggar is descended from some King, and every King is descended from some beg­gar. Truer it is, that (if the pedegrees of people were strictly examined) every pious person is extracted from some profane, and every profane from some pious ancestor; [Page 163] a motive in my opinion not to deny ba­ptism to the childe of bad parents if de­siring the same. Passe we from them to Bastards, against whose baptizing some object.

Object. Bastards amongst the Jews were not to be Circumcised, which may thus be proved: It was fashionable for the mother at her purification, to present her Circumcised son in the Temple to the Lord, as may appear by the example of the Virgin Mary Luke 2. 22. But Bastards, Deut. 23. 2. were forbidden entrance in­to the congregation, unto the tenth gene­ration: Therefore they were not Circum­cised.

Answ. By the not entring into the con­gregation of the Lord, is meant, munus pub­licum in populo Dei ne gerito; let him not bear office in th [...] people of God. Indeed Jephthah, though the son of an harlot, Judg. 11. 2. was chosen a General, because necessity constrained it; and Military of­fices; (where valour alone was a suffici­ent qualification) were not confined to [Page 164] the regularity requisite to religious em­ployments: Otherwise certain it is, first, that wantonnesse in this kinde was too frequent amongst the Jews; our com­mon expression to commit folly with a woman, being borrowed from Thamars words to Amnon, 2. Sam. 13. 12. do not thou this folly. Secondly, that bastards so begotten, were excluded Circumcisi­on, is what no wise or learned author durst ever affirm.

More particularly: If the parents of bastards publickly professe their peni­tence to the congregation, they are re­mitted to the same estate they were in before the fault committed, and their children to be held as of unstain'd ex­traction. Far be it from me to scatter any thing, which may occasion the least countenance to wantonnesse in any. What said the rest of the Israelites, to the Reu­benites? Josh. 22. 17. Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day? that they should contract (as they suspected) the guilt of a new idolatry. Is original sin too little to condemn a child, but that parents must [Page 165] double-hatch their children with guilt of their adulterous nativity? However, for the comfort of the penitent, know that only four females are mentioned in our Saviours pedegree, and all of them stig­matized. 1. Thamar incestuous. 2. Ra­hab an harlot. 3. Ruth a Moabitesse (and therefore a dog, no sheep of Israel:) And 4 ^ly the wife of Ʋriah, certainly an adulte­resse, and too probably privy to the mur­der of her husband. Thus Christ came, as for sinners, so from sinners, & those noted ones, for uncleannesse, whose children notwithstanding were undoubtedly Cir­cumcised. As no bar of bastardy can bolt out an infants right to the Sacrament, nor his benefit, by it if God will have it en­ter therein. Proceed we from these, to exposed children, left on bulkes and ben­ches by their parents deserting them, whose title to baptism seems doubtful, and difficult to many on this account.

Object. The Children of those who are worse then infidels may not be bapti­zed. But the parents of these children are worse then infidels, 1 Tim. 5. 8. because, [Page 166] not providing for them of their own house. Therefore they ought not to be bapti­zed.

Answ. Such who out of carelesnesse or cruelty, wilfully refuse to maintain their own, are in this particular act mo­rally worse then infidels (of whom many high Christians fall short in civil perfor­mances;) yea, worse then birds, and beasts, which hatch, and suckle their own young ones. Yet they are not in a spiri­tual capacity worse then infidels, as if thereby they had forfeited their Sacra­mental right for them, and theirs. Be­sides, charity herein commands us to pre­sume the best. That these parents are not with the Ostrich, hardned against their young ones, as though they were not theirs; but that there being a long combate be­twixt their industry, and poverty, the latter at last got the conquest; and they thereby forced to leave their children to a general providence. An act which may rather be in some sort excused, then de­fended; yea, the cause thereof rather pit­tied, then the deed it self in any sort ex­cused.

[Page 167] Say not, such poor parents, over­burthened with charge of children, ought to complain to the officers of [...] Church, who (no doubt) on the discovery of their sad condition, would order their relief. Yea, it is suspici­ous the cause of their poverty is not excusable, whose pride is so damna­ble, that they would not seasonably confesse the same to such, who might, and ought to be helpful unto them. All this is confessed, with many more grains of guilt, which might be cast into the scale of the parents; but of no weight on the other side, against the children, and therefore ought not to hinder their baptism, I mean con­ditionally, in case they were former­ly baptized. Here I will not instance in exposed children, who afterwards have proved eminent instruments of Gods glory in the Church and Com­mon-wealth; so that, Psal. 27. 10. when their father and mother forsook them, then the Lord took them up; yea, advanced them to high prefer­ment: [Page 168] I say, I purposely forbear such instancing, lest the remembrance of the meannesse of their original, should any whit abate our deserved respect unto their memories.

It is fashionable in such cases (e­specially in popular places) for the whole parish to be loco parentis, and to be interpreted as the parent, for the education of such exposed children. For my own part I had rather bring oyl to, then cast water on any chari­table design. Yet give me leave, on­ly to admonish such to take heed, that that be not neglected of all, which is expected of many. It is the argument urged by Aristotle against Plato's fancy, that all children should be brought up by the care, and at the cost general of all alike, that what is every mans work is no mans work; and it is to be fear­ed, the catechizing, and instructing such children, will not effectually be done by any, where all are equally engaged unto it, except some be emi­nently and particularly designed for the same.

[Page 169] Children of Pagans remain, taken from them when infants: What the o­pinion of the Ancients was herein, we may learn from Fulgentius, De Veritate praedest. lib. 1. who saith, Parvulum paren­tibus infidelibus violenter ablatum, aut furto surreptum, si ad sanctum baptis­mum quorumlibet Sanctorum pia chari­tate producatur, & mox ut baptizatus fuerit de hac vita discedat, factum esse haeredem Dei, & cohaeredem Christi. That a little child violently taken, or se­cretly stolen from infidel parents; if by the pious charity of any Saints, it be brought to holy baptism, and by and by so soon as it hath been baptized depart this life, is made the heir of God, and co­heir of Christ.

However, because some may think this goes too far, and that a difference ought to be made betwixt children of Christian parents, who have (as Tertullian phraseth it) Seminis praeroga­tivam, The priviledge of the seed whence they spring; and those of meer Hea­thens: And because all things ought [Page 170] to be done in the Church, decently and in order; it is fittest and safest, that the baptizing of such infants be deferred, till they be able in their own persons to give an account of their faith. Such cautious deferring of the Sacrament, offereth no injury, nor occasioneth any danger unto them, but will tend at last to their greater advantage.

When Mr Cranmer, (after Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and Martyr) was appointed in Cambridge, Poser extra­ordinary of the sufficiency of such who Commenced in Divinity; he denyed many their Degrees for want of com­petent ability for the same: Some of these, compelled by their repulse to an harder study of the Scriptures, ar­rived at eminency afterwards (and by name Mr Barret of Norwich) and would commend Fox Marty­rol. p. 1860. and extoll Dr Cranmer, who by putting them back, put them forward to attain a better degree of knowledge, and perfection. If the Church bestows her negative voice on [Page 171] such children of Pagans, refusing to baptize them till responsible for them­selves; they will have cause hereafter to blesse God, and thank the Church for the same, when the principles of Religion shall be more firmly fasten­ed, and the practice thereof more kindly ripened in them by such for­bearance of Baptism.

CHAP. XX. Two historical Observations, on the Adversaries of Infants Baptism.

IT is worth our observation to con­sider, who was the author from whom, and what the company with whom this opposition of Infants Ba­ptism began

For the first; I find one Balthasar Pacimontanus, about the year of our Lord, 1527. first spreading this do­ctrine: pretending, belike, that he fetcht the first principles thereof out of Luthers works, which gave Luther the occasion to writ against him, justly to assert himself herein. This Balthasar was afterward burnt at Vien­na for an Heretick.

[Page 173] I cannot learn what heretical opi­nions this man maintained, that the demerit of them should deserve death. If it were only for denying infants ba­ptism, I conceive all the spectators at his suffering bound to have endeavour­ed by their tears to have quenched the fire. Indeed I would have all of his opinion burnt; but how? as Luther saith, Igne charitatis: and as Solomon said long before him▪ Prov. 25. 22. By heaping coals of fire on their heads, of meeknesse, and moderation, if in any competent time they might be re­claimed. Possibly Vienna, being the Emperours Court, where the Roman faction managed all at their pleasure, some mixture of Protestant Doctrine in his opinions might sharpen the rage of Papists against him.

But it is more then suspicious, that not this, but the complication of other pernicious tenents caused his executi­on. The rather because we find, that the Transylvanian Ministers, Anno 1567. set forth two books, one against [Page 174] the Trinity, the other against the In­carnation of Christ; and at the end of both added their thirty six arguments against the baptizing of infants.

Men who are dark, and conceal'd in themselves, lying at a close guard, are best discovered by their society; Company is the clearest comment on the text of a reserved person. True, this held not in our Saviour, being piety it self, though conversing with Pub­licans and sinners, for whose conver­sion he was sent, and ordained. But generally it fails not but that men con­jecture, and conclude the inclinations of persons, from those with whom they constantly associate. Would it not therefore make any conscientious Christians, justly wary to entertain the doctrine of Anti-pedo-baptism, when he sees it ushered into the world, with two such hideous and hellish He­resies going before it?

Some will say, there was no affinity in kindred, or familiarity in acquaintance, nor dependency of interest, but a meer casual co­incidency [Page 175] betwixt these three Treatises. Who knows not, but an honest man may on the road accidentally travel with strangers, whose faces he never saw before, without any privity to their bad designs? For my own part I was never bred in the school of Tyran­nus, and am loath to load the doctrine of Anti-pedo-baptism, with the bur­den of more badnesse then it hath of it self; yet give me leave to say, it may & ought be taken on suspicion, because coming in the company of two such Blasphemous books from the same Authors; yea, let it be confined, and kept in durance, until it hath cleared its own innocency, which must be done by shewing better testimonials for the truth thereof, then any which hitherto it hath produced.

My prayers shall be, that what is said of Jeconiah, Jer. 22. 30. write ye this man childless. So this error in de­nying baptism to infants, may not be procreative of any other in the main­tainers thereof. May he, who binds [Page 176] the Sea in a girdle of sand, and saith to the waves thereof, Job 38. 11. Hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther; erect strong rampiers to bound and bank the defenders hereof, that here they may stop▪ stay, stand still, without making their progresse into worse, and more dangerous errours. Amen.

The Infants Advocate. CHAP. XXI. How we ought to behave our selves to those of a different judgment herein, in order to reclame them.

1. IT is no less pleasant than pro­fitable for a Christian soul seriously to consider the ad­mirable unity and comforta­ble concord which was betwixt the Saints and Servants of God in the infancy of the Church, after Christs ascension, Acts 1. 14. These all continued with one accord. Acts 2. 1. [Page 2] They were all with one accord in one place. 2. 46 Continuing daily with one accord in the Temple. So again, Acts 4 24. Lift up their voice to God with one accord. And again, Acts 5. 12. All with one accord in Solomons porch.

2. Some perchance may impute this their unity to the paucity and fewness of the Professours of the Gospel in that age. It is no wonder (will they say) if an handfull of men did agree, which is impossible now a­days in the numerosity of so many Christi­ans. But know, that even then there were enough, even amongst the three thousand Converts made by S. Peters Sermon, to furnish out (allowing a Leader, and Follower to each Faction) fifteen hundred several Di­visions. No, it was not their small number, but the vigorous acting of the Spirit of unity on their Hearts which kept them in such agreement. God foreseeing, Rents would quickly ruine his Infant Church, bound them together the faster in the hand of Peace.

3. But alas, this unity was too fine ware [Page 3] to have much measure thereof. The virgi­nity of it was first lost, Acts 6. 1. about a money-matter, (and money we know parteth the dearest friends, many differences arising about the question, what should be jure di­vino, and what jure humano, but more about meum and tuum) the unequal [conceived] distribution of the collection-money for the Poor. The Heathen Philosopher bitterly in­veighed against the Schismatical Number of Two, which durst make the first defection, and departure from the intireness of One. But we have too just cause to bemoan this unhappy difference, which first brake the Ranks, made the first jarring in the musick of the Primitive Church.

4. The second sad difference was, Acts 15. 1. about the unseasonable and unreason­able pressing of Circumcision, by some as absolutely necessary to salvation, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

5. The third dolefull falling out, we finde in the same Chapter, v. 39. being so much the sadder than either of the former, [Page 4] because happening not btwixt infirm and ignorant (though pious) people, but those, who for grace and knowledg were most emi­nent, and formerly had been familiar and intimate bosom-friends, Paul and Barnabas. Then the Devil endeavoured to deal with Gods Church, as Sampson served the Tem­ple of Dagon, Judg. 16. 29. He took hold of the two middle pillars, upon which the house stood, and on which it was born up, and no doubt by shaking and clashing them toge­ther, had shattered the whole Fabrick, had not divine providence prevented it, sanctify­ing their division into the multiplication of the Gospel.

6. It is enough to satisfie, (if not to sur­fet) us, to insist onely on this first three, these original dissentions in the Primitive Church, which ever since have too truly been copied out. As lately in the Acts of the Apostles, we often met, with one accord, with one accord, with one accord; so look­ing into their Acts, who (though no Apo­stles) are Christians▪ we more frequently finde, with many discords, with many discords, with many discords, such their dissenting in opini­ons, [Page 5] and disagreeing in affections. It will therefore be a seasonable subject for us to treat of, how we ought to behave our selves to such Brethren as for the present dissent from us in judgment, and what hope we may justly conceive of their future agreement with us. Hearken herein to my Text, out of which we may extract, not onely counsel what to do, but also comfort what to hope in this kinde. And if in any thing, ye be o­therwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

7. The words, (though short in them­selves) contain the Uuhappiness, and the happiness, of the Servants of God. And know to your comfort, the Unhappiness is first, and the Happiness comes after, to close and conclude all; and and all is well, that ends well, yea the unhappiness is but suppositive, what may be; the happiness positive, what shall be. The unhappiness, is this, a possibili­ty of good men in matters of religion, to be otherwise minded one from another. The Happiness is a gracious Promise, that such who erroniously dissent, from their Brethren, shall in due time agree when the Truth shall be revealed to them.

[Page 6]In the supposition the Em­phasis of two words must be examined.

• And if in ANY thing.
• YE.

8. Ye, that is, literally, ye Philippians in the pale of Gods Church. However let us give this Ye the true dimensions thereof. Let us not extend it too far as to include Pa­gans or such pretended Christians, as wil­lingly overturn all the foundations of Reli­gion. Nor let us contract this Ye too small, as to confine it to the Philippians alone, which reacheth all Christians, though dis­senting in the superstructures, consenting in the Fundamentalls of Religion. If there be a Ye or a Your in all this Epistle, to the Philippians (as Chap 4. 5. Let your moderation be made known to all men) which enjoyneth any precept, certainly all Christians, as well as the Philippians, are obliged and engaged to the performance of it; at their own pain and perill of the neglect thereof. Where­fore by the same rule of proportion, Every Christian may justly claim a right and in­terest in all promises made to the Philip­pians, and this among the rest the Revela­tion hereafter of truths unto them, hitherto concealed from them.

[Page 7] 9. And if in any thing. Any thing. Far be it from us to shrink a larg Text with a narrow comment S. Paul sayeth any thing, let not us say somthing, Be they otherwise minded, in matter of Fact, or of Faith, or of Doctrine, or of Discipline, what ever it be, (for it needs must be nothing, which comes not with the reach or compass of any thing) God will reveal it unto them. Here let us take notice, what was the last matter, which immediately moved S. Paul to fall on this expression.

In the foregoing verses S. Paul had pro­pounded a Riddle or seeming contradicti­on to flesh and bloud; for he had said.

That perfection which first he denyed in himself, presently he avoweth both in him­self and many others. This Riddle it seems it would not sink into the Heads of some of the weaker Philippians, how the same Person at the same time should be imper­fect in deed, execution, performance, yet [Page 8] perfect in desire, intention, endeavour. But well it is for us, that some amongst the Philippians, through ignorance were other­wise minded, whose error herein gave the happy occasion to S. Paul, from Gods mouth to pronounce this comfortable pro­mise, both to them and us and all dissenters, that if any be otherwise minded, God will re­veal even this unto them.

10. DOCT. Godly men as long as they live in this world will dissent in many mat­ters of religion. The reason is, because none know either Perfectly or Equally, in this life. Not perfectly, 1 Cor. 13. 12. Now we know in part. Not equally; for though men understood imperfectly in this life, yet if all understood equally imperfectly, upon the supposition of equal ingenuousness to their Ingenuity (that is, that they would readily embrace what appears true unto them) all would be of the same judgment. But alas, as none sees clearly, so scarce any two see equal­ly some are thick-sighted, some short-sighted, some pur-blind, some sand-blind, some half-blind, and the worst of them (blessed be God) better then stark-blind. These diffe­rent [Page 9] degrees of sight, cause the difference of judgment amongst Christians.

11. A sad instance, hereof, we have, in the differences about the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper. What by divine goodness was intended and in­stituted to unite and conjoyn Christians, hath by mans frailty, and Satans sub­tilty been abused to make many Rents and divisions. About the time when, the Parties on whom, the manner how, Baptism is to be administred. But where Baptism hath divided her Thousands, the Lords Supper hath divided her Ten Thou­sands.

12. Amongst all the ordinary pot-herbs which grow in Gardens none more wholesom than sage, (especially at some times of the year,) whose Latine name Salvia, carrieth much of health therein. Whereupon it is, that the envious Toad commonly nesleth it self under the roots thereof. Spitefully to im­poison that which otherwise is so usefull for mankinde. Satan being sensible of the great good which generally may redound [Page 10] to men by the charitable receaving of the Lords Supper, hath imbittered it with dis­cords and dissention, betwixt Papists and Protestants about Transubstantiation; Lu­therans, and Calvinists about Consubstan­tiation; Calvinists and Calvinists about the gesture of genuslection and Persons to be admitted to the Sacrament. And thus mens dissenting in judgments being too plainly proved, arising from their proness to err, come we now to the gracious promise of their information in the truth, God will reveal even this unto you.

13. See here S. Pauls charity. He say­eth not, let him be Anathema Maranatha, or let him be cast out of the Synagogne, or let him be to you as a heathen or a Publican but onely God will reveal even this unto him. Here take notice of S. Pauls different pro­ceedings with three sorts of people. First, with thee otherwise minded in my Text, such, who though not Orthodox, are peace­able in Israel▪ and err onely in the lesser and ligher points of Religion. For these, no punishment capital, or corporal, no penal­ty of pain, or shame in purse or person, but [Page 11] onely a patient expectation of their amend­ment, with a comfortable promise of the same.

14. Secondly with such as make ship­wrack of faith and a good conscience, under­stand it onely in relation to their own ad­venture therein, maintaining Doctrine de­structive to Salvation. Of these were Hy­meneus and Alexander, 1 Tim. 1. 20. Whom he delivered unto Satan, that is (as it is ge­nerally expounded) by Church Censures cut off from God in the visible Church and then being cut off from him, we know to whose share they do fall.

15. Thirdly, to such, as not content to confine their damnable errours to their own bosom, are active to infect others therewith: of these he speaketh, Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off that trouble you. In which phrase surely more is imported than a bare Excommunication. For that spiritual Artil­lery S. Paul ever carried about him: why then should he wish what he could work? desire what he could do? if so pleased. It is probable therefore that he could have wisht them cut off with temporal death.

[Page 12] 16. Here we say nothing of such Doctrines as bear Heresie and treason impaledtogether, pregnant with Sedition to raise tumults in a State. These we leave to the cognizance and censure of the civil Authority; and shall proceed on the promise of the Revelation of truth to the first sort of dissenting brethren.

17. Quest. What, more Revelation still? When shall Christians come to an end? When shall we say, It is finished? When shall they certainly know the full measure of all which they are to believe and practice as necessary to salvation?

Answ. Here be it premised, that the Phi­lippians at this time wherein S. Paul wrote unto them might expect extraordinary Re­velations, (and those additional to the Scri­pture then in being) on an account more probable to receive them, than any now a­days can expect the same. For when S. Paul wrote this Epistle, some of the Gospels (and particularly that of S. Johns) were not yet penned, which though placed before the Epistles (as containing the History of our Saviours life which was first in time) yet were written afterwards. But seeing long [Page 13] since the Canon of the Scripture is com­pleated, yea, signed and sealed by God, and delivered to mankinde, it is not onely vain, but wicked for men to look for more Reve­lations, of such things which men ought to know and believe to their salvation. But to answer the question more particularly.

18. There are two sorts of Revelations.

• One doth revelare credenda, reveal those things which we are to be­lieve.
• The other doth make us credere reve­latis, more quickly and firmly as­sent to what hath formerly been delivered in the Scripture.

The first sort of Revelations are ceased in this Age. As for the second sort we may look for them, pray for them, and labour them, as which God hath promised to be­stow, and which the godly dayly receive. Such Revelations our Saviour gave to the two Disciples travelling to Emaus, Luke 24. 27. When he expounded unto them all the Scriptures. And in the same Chapter, v. 45. to the rest of the Disciples, When he opened their understanding, that they might under­stand [Page 14] the Scriptures. He made not the Scri­ptures more▪ but more plain unto them; not larger, but clearer unto them. Such a Re­velation is intended in the text, to make er­roneous persons more clearly to apprehend, and more firmly to adhere to the truth in Gods word.

19. But quando, when, and quousque▪ how long Lord holy and true, how long shall thy servants go on in their errours and igno­rance? When shall they without fail re­ceive this promised Revelation, to have the truth manifested unto them. I answer, my text (beloved) hath not told the time, and therefore I cannot tell it you. You will say, If the text had told the time, you could have told it me. Be it so, and now both you and I must contentedly be ignorant thereof. Yet, not to satisfie the curious, but the con­sciencious so far as I may, I will more than conjecture that the punctual time, when this Revelation shall be made.

20. Of all the years of thy life, in that year, moneth, week, day, hour, minute, and (if any will be so hypocritical as to subdi­vide [Page 15] minutes) in that moment wherein the hid providence of Heaven shall discover to be most for Gods glory, and for thy good. Thou canst not wisely wish it to be any whit before that time, and I do confidently assure thee, it shall not be any whit after it.

21. And yet I dare not be over confident to promise thee, that such Revelation of the truth shall certainly happen to thee in this life. Many of Gods good servants have gone to the grave with grievous errours which they have maintained. Yea, it is no absurdity to maintain, that the blessed in Heaven are as yet ignorant of many truths, and that there shall be an accession unto them, as of glory, so of knowledg in the Day of Judgment. Yea, many things of Gods proceedings shall not be revealed un­to them, untill Rom. 2. 5. the day of the Revelation of the righteous judgment of God.

22. Quest. But suppose it be never at all revealed unto a man, what is to be conceived of his final condition who liveth and dieth a stiff defender of a damnable doctrine?

[Page 16] Answ. Give me leave in the first place to distinguish of damnable doctrines, a phrase ac­ceptive of two senses. If damnable be taken passively, for that which ought to be damned or condemned, then every errour is in it self a damnable errour. Discretion adviseth us to refuse not onely poyson, but unwholesom food; and we ought to condemn a falshood quatenus a falshood, though it may be con­sistent with salvation. But if damnable be taken actively (in which sense it is used, 2 Pet. 2. 1. Who privily shall bring in damn­able Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them) for that which damneth or condemneth the maintainer thereof, then onely fundamental errours in Religion are damnable doctrines. This premised, we an­swer to the question, Gods goodness so keepeth his servants, that he will not suffer them to fall into damnable errours in the last and worst acception thereof. As for smaller errours, which deserve to be con­demned, but are not so pestilent as to de­stroy the maintainers thereof, they are par­doned through the mercy of God and me­rits of Christ, on the death-bed of such as defend them.

[Page 17] 23. All good Christians pray with Da­vid, if not in the same words, to the same sense, Psal. 19. 12. Cleanse me from my secret sins. Whereby is meant, not onely such sins, as we desire and endeavour to hide and keep secret from men, but also such as are hidden and kept secret from us, such our ignorance as not to know, or self-love, as not to ac­knowledg them to be sins. Now all such er­rours consistent with salvation are remitted unto the maintainers thereof, under the mass, bulk, and heap of secret sins, though they be not, and indeed cannot be particu­larly repented of, because concealed from him; who committeth them.

24. Come we now to shew how men ought to prepare their own hearts for the more speedy receiving, and sure retaining of such Revelations. Say not, all such prepara­tions are useless. The Dove of the Spirit will not build in a Nest of this making, but in one of her own providing. For such pre­vious disposing of our selves is acceptable to God, and will expedite the coming of Revelations unto us. Indeed in the first act of Conversion we are purely passive, and [Page 18] can in no degree prepare our selves being dead in trespasses and sins. But being once freed by grace, we are free; and may, and must by lawfull means move Gods Spirit to move us, according to S. Pauls counsel, 2 Tim. 1. 6. Stir up the grace of God that is in thee.

25. First, divest thy self of Pride. What saith Solomon: Prov. 13. 10. Onely by pride cometh contention. Onely by pride, as if such were the pride of pride, that it scorneth and disdaineth to admit a partner, or fellow­cause with it self to cause contention. And although pride sometimes be pleased out of state, to accept of other vices in raising of Discords, yet still she preserveth her self Paramont, making use of all the rest onely as subservient unto her.

26. Now proud men create to them­selves two needless fears, which make them so obstinately embrace their errours. The first is, that if they alter their opinions, they must confess that formerly they have erred, which confession stabbeth Pride, (and Pride is dextrous in stabbing others) under [Page 19] the fifth rib. For all men by nature desire to be, and to be accounted petty Popes, having the spirit of infallibility fastened unto their chairs, so that their opinions shall pass for oracle of undeniable truth.

27. The other is, that they shall be brand­ed by men for levity and inconstancy, if once they offer to change their judgments. This makes many of them to say sullenly and surlily with Pilate, John 19. 22. What I have written I have written. What I have said, I have said; what I have done, I have done; what I have defended, I have defend­ed; I will not abate an ace, remit a tittle, recede an hair from my former opinions. Whilest others turn as fast as the Weather­cock, I will stand as firm as the Steeple, the rather because otherwise I shall incur the in­famy of inconstancy.

28. Whereas let it be but seriously con­sidered, and the renouncing of an errour which we formerly maintained, argueth not frailness but firmness, not levity but con­stancy in us. For this is or ought to be the grand and general resolution of all Christi­ans [Page 20] to imbrace any truth, which appeareth unto them out of the Word of God. Wherefore when a Christian renounceth a particular errour, this is not inconstancy; because crossing the late and lesser boughs, but it is constancy; because concurring with the first and fairest Root of his Resolution, namely, always to those with the revealed truth.

29. This hath been the practise of pious people in all ages. The hand of S. Augu­stine never seemed so fair and so handsom, as when he wrot backward, I mean, when he wrot his Retractations. Pale faces, which otherwise are well proportioned, never look so lovely, as when they are casually betray­ed to a blush, which supplies that colour in their cheeks which was wanting before. Good men who once maintained an errour, never appear more amiable in the eys of God and the godly, as when blushing with shame (not to be ashamed for) at the remem­brance of their former faults, which maketh them more thankfull to God, more humble in, more carefull over themselves, and more charitable to others.

[Page 21] 30. Well in the first place devest thy self of pride, and know that David tels us, how all those ought to be qualified, whom God intendeth to teach, Psalm 25. 9. The meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach in his way. The proud are improper to be Gods Scholars, who con­ceive themselves able to be his Teacher▪ and wise enough to instruct him.

31. Secondly devest thy self of Passion, than which nothing more prejudicial to the judgment. Fire is accounted an hurtfull object to the eye, as water is esteemed an helper thereof to look upon it, comforting and uniting (as the other scattereth) the visive beams. What then when the be­holder is all fire, I mean all passion and choller, is it probable that during this tem­per, the spirit will descend upon him? Observe the carriage of Elisha, 2 K. 3. 15. (being in an high rapture of anger with Joram. King of Israel for his submissive applications unto him in his distress when he and three Armies were likely to die of thirst) and now saith he, bring me a Min­strel namely, by Musick to pacifie himself [Page 22] and to dispose his soul for the regular re­ception and solemn entertainment of the spirit▪ which accordingly came to pass when the Minstrel played the hand of the Lord came upon him.

32. See we here in the first place, that it is lawfull to use all good means to invite the Spirit to descend upon us. The Spirit of the Prophets, was never so subject to the Prophets, as to come at their call and com­mand. Secondly though Eshishah in anger for the man was holy anger (justly offended with King Joram, for making Idolatrous Priests his choise in prosperity, and Gods Prophet his refuge in adversity) yet he was sensible to himself, that he was disturbed and dis­composed therewith. And though the cause of his anger was just, and matter of his anger commendable, yet possibly the measure thereof, might be faulty, ( Elisha being like Eliah, and Eliah a man subject to like passions as we are, James 5. 17. And He might see in himself (what others saw not in him) that he was too much trans­ported with passion, and perchance did too much insult on the present perplexity and [Page 23] extremity of King Jehoram. Wherefore conceiving that He in the still voice, would not come to one in so loud a passion, he calls for a Minstrel, so to reduce, pacate, and compose his Soul, that it might return to a quiet temper: Whence it plainly ap­pears, what an enemy Passion is generally to the receiving of Gods Spirit, and that all those which desire a Revelation of the truth unto them, must labour to devest themselves thereof.

33. Thirdly devest thy self of Cove­tuousness. Here take notice, how easily men are perswaded to embrace those opinions (though never so erroneous,) which bring in profit unto them: for instance; One with weak sinnews of Logick, & worse colours of Rhetorick will quickly perswade a Country­man to be a convert in this point, that he is not bound to pay Tithes to his Minister.

34. On the other side it is hard to wean men from sucking on those Opinions which are sweetned unto them by commo­dity. For by this craft we get our gain, Acts 19. 25. No wonder if the Pope zealously [Page 24] maintaineth Purgatory, seeing that Purga­tory so plentifully maintaineth the Pope. The same may be said of other lucrative errours in their Religion, Pilgrimages, Par­dons, Prayers to the Saints, Prayers for the dead, &c. Scylla omnes suos divitiis implevit, it was the policy of that cunning Senatour to enrich all of his party tyed by their purse-strings the faster unto him; whereas the Antifaction of the Marians being no­thing so well monied by their Patron cleaved not so stedfastly unto him. Gain­full errors soon gain and long keep such as desire them; whereas speculative opinions which terminate onely in the brains having little influence on mens practise and less on their profit are nothing so taking of men, and men nothing so tenacious of them.

35. As for the errour of such as deny the Baptising of Infants, we have cause to conceive the greater hopes of their return­ing to the truth, because that their Opini­on can not make them a thred, or a shoo­latchet the richer by the maintaining there­of. Tully saith of our Brittainy in his time, (when Caesar rather discovered than con­quered [Page 25] it) that it had naturally, Ne micam auri aut argenti, not a crum of gold or silver, as within the bowels of the earth thereof. So may I say of the Doctrine of Anti­poedo-baptism, it is a bare and poor opinion, Gold and Silver it hath none, and therefore, (alone of it self) is never probable to en­rich the patrons and defenders thereof.

36. And yet as Tully: went a little too far, in condemning Brittain, as utterly de­void of Silver oar, and is disproved by the industry of our Age, which some years since hath discovered Silver mines in Wales, so possibly this opinion may be more advan­tagious to the defenders thereof, than is ob­vious to the eye of every common beholder. It may be it may make them more capable of preferment, and that either they are or conceive themselves to be in a better proxi­mity to advancement by maintaining there­of as more favourably reflected on than others; as if this opinion gave the most re­al testimony of their good affections to the present government, whereby they appre­hend themselves: the next reversions to preferment I believe they mistake them­selves [Page 26] therein, and that no such partiality is in the present state. However let them examine their own souls and devest them­selves, of covetousness in case they be con­scious to themselves that expectation of profit inclines them to this opinion.

37. Come we now to Positive counsels, what we ought to perform. And here I am a­fraid some will be offended at the simplicity & plainness of them. There is a book entitu­led, De medecinis facilè parabilibus, of me­dicines which may easily be procured, and very good for such w ^ch take Physick in forma pau­peris. Yea generally it is conceived nothing so much detracteth from the worth of those medicines, as the cheapness and common­ness thereof, so that if we did but fetch from the East Indies, what now groweth in our gardens, it would then be accounted a preci­ous Drug which now we esteem a common Potherb. In like manner I fear that these our counsels, shall be undervalued for the usu­alness and obviousness of them. If a Soul-Mount-abank, should prescribe such new fangled means, which was never heard of before, he should get more patients than all [Page 27] the grave Physicians of the City. How­ever we will adventure to prescribe these plain means which God hath prescribed un­to us.

38. First, pray to God, that he that o­peneth and no man shutteth, and shut­teth and no man openeth, would be plea­sed in his own due time to reveal all neces­sary truths unto thee. Secondly, be dili­gent in reading Gods Word. Luther did profess that when he first began to write against the Pope, many fancies were put in­to his head, plausible to flesh and bloud, but groundless on Scripture, which made him daily to pray, Domine in verbo, Domine in verbo, Lord teach me in thy Word.

39. Thirdly, be carefull in keeping the Lords day, not with any superstitious but godly observation thereof. On what day did God reveal the Revelation to S. John? On the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. Thus Princes use to bestow their Boons, and confer their fa­vors chiefly on those days, which more pro­perly are called their days; as on the Anniver­saries of their Births or Coronations. Fourthy, [Page 28] Repair to the place of Gods Publick Ser­vice. Fifthly, as the Magistrate bears not the Sword in vain, the Minister bears not the Word in vain. But least we Ministers should seem to plead our own cause herein we leave this to God to plead for us.

39. Object. But some erroneous per­sons will be ready to say unto me, as the young man did to our Saviour in the Go­spel, All these things▪ have I done from my youth. I have constantly prayed, and care­fully read, and conscienciously kept the Lords day, and diligently repaired to the publick Ministery, and have endeavoured to devest my self of pride, passion, and co­vetousness, and yet no errour is revealed to me, which I formerly maintained. Hereup­on I conclude my self to be in the right. Our English Proverb, as it hath much of rudeness, so it hath no less of truth therein, One is not bound to see more than he can. And I conceive I am in no errour, because I follow my present light, and all the means of your prescription have made no alterati­on on my understanding.

[Page 29] 40. Answ. Give me leave to be jea­lous over these Objectors, with a godly jea­lousie. I exspect not the validity of my Re­ceits prescribed, but suspect their effectual application thereof, whether or no they have sincerely practised the same; this I am sure, as men can scarcely (for the main) give other, so Angels can give no better.

41. And here I shall deceive their ex­pectation, who conceive that on the ill suc­cess of the former Receipts, I should pro­ceed to prescribe other means, whereby a brother dissenting from the truth, shall be reclamed unto it. Onely I remember a pas­sage of Eliah, 1 Kings 18. 34. when accord­ing to his command, they had once poured water upon the Altar, And he said, Do it again, and they did so the second time; and he said, Do it the third time, and they did it the third time also. The next seven years, (if thou livest so long) pray, reade, keep the Lords day, attend on Gods publick Or­dinance, and in case the truth be not then revealed unto thee, the next seven years (if thou livest so long) do the like. I have no alteration, but a meer repetition, of what [Page 30] already hath been prescribed: and there­fore we proceed to give instructions to such who by the benefit of these means are actu­ally reclamed from their errours A word or two how they should behave them­selves.

42. First, practise our Saviours precept to S. Peter, Luke 22. 3 [...]. When thou art con­verted strengthen thy brethren. Never con­ceive thy self in the peaceable possession of a truth, untill such time as thou hast impart­ed it to others: the rather because it is more than probable, that by thy example, (if of any eminency) thou hast invited others to, or confirmed others in their er­rours▪ and therefore in civility and Christi­anity thou stand'st obliged to undeceive them.

43. In Hungaria they have a custome, that a Gentleman wears so many Feathers as he hath killed Turks And truly, a Fea­ther may pass for the lively Emblem of the glory of this world, wagged with the winde, and lighter than vanity it self: Alas, what a toy is a Feather? It is real happiness in­deed, [Page 31] Dan. 12. 3. They that turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever.

44. But O how glorious in Heaven will S. Peter appear? who at the preaching of one Sermon gained Acts 2. 4. three thousand souls. What a Constellation, what a Firma­ment of stars will he alone be?

45. See the pathetical expostulation, and the ingenuous confession of S. Paul before King Agrippa, Acts 26. 8. His pathetical ex­postulation, Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? His ingenious confession▪ I verily thought with my self that I ought to do many things contrary, &c. How freely and fully doth he acknowledg his fault, labouring to lessen the errours of others by the alleadg­ing the example of his own former infir­mities.

46. This wrought so far with Agrippa, that it made him a Demi, Almost a Christian. Paul did both in his own and Apollos part to plant and water, but God was not pleased.

[Page 32] 47. Who knoweth what may come to pass? Happy Musick if in like manner we might but live to hear some of our; yet dis­senting brethren, after their returning to the truth, to argue the case thus with those which as yet remain in their errours. How ought they to counsel others to the truth, and Paul-like, to comfort them with their own Precedent, that such as err may season­bly be reclamed.

48. Come we to shew how the standers by, and all other orthodox Christians ought to contribute their assistance to the recla­ming of their erroneous brethren to the truth. Hippocrates speaking of Cures, saith, that all parties concerned must lend their assistance, as the Physician, Patient, and [...], those that are present, (conceived re­lated to the sick man) must all lend their as­sisting hand to the work. So in spiritual Cures, even the spectators (idle ones Chri­stianity allows none) are parties, and must contribute their help in so good an imploy­ment. For whom these councels are pro­per.

[Page 33] 49. First▪ load them not with opprobri­ous Language, of Hereticks, and the like. Be more charitable in thy words to them, and thoughts of them. Though they should account us Dogs, let us account them Sheep, but what Sheep? wandring Sheep. Though they esteem us Bastards, we will esteem them children, but what children? prodigal children. We will think better of them than they think of us, (though not so well as they think of themselves) and no discreet person will conclude, our faith the worse, be­cause our charity is the more.

50. Secondly, widen not the wound be­twixt us, to make it worse than it is. And if thou hast occasion to state the controversie betwixt us and them, deal fairly in the mat­ter. Do not paint them of a blacker com­plexion than they be, neither represent their opinions partially to their disadvantage.

51. Here under favour I conceive, that it is fit at a Disputation in the Schools, to charge them home, with all the dangerous or absurd Consequences, which result na­turally from their erroneous opinions. We [Page 34] may bring a just action against them, and at the suit of Logick arrest them for maintain­ing such abominable Consequences: we may lay the ugly Brats at their fathers doors, that they may have the shame and pain in getting them, the cost and charge to provide for them. As is the Mother, so is the Daughter.

52. But in case our dissenting brethren shall disclame such Consequences, and sin­cerely from their hearts detest and abhor such damnable Deductions which notwith­standing naturally and inevitably flow from their own erroneous principles, conceive that, though they may be prest with such consequences in the Schools they may not be charged with them in foro conscientiae. But that onely they are answerable to God for the primitive errour, and not for such derivative ones, which notwithstanding are the undoubted off-spring thereof.

53. Lastly, when they shall recant their errours willingly, chearfully, greedily, give unto them Gal. 2. 9. the right hand of fellow­ship. Indeed the left hand by vulgar tradi­tion [Page 35] (not to say mistake) is presumed nearer to the heart, but the right hand if not by na­ture (by custome) is the stronger and firm­er. Say not, I must make some difference betwixt those, that never left, and those who lately returned to the truth. My right hand I must reserve for such who never wan­dred from the right way, my left hand shall serve those who were brought back unto it. O no, love both alike, and though the af­fection of thy heart be equal to both, if there be any odds in thy behaviour, express most love to those Reverts, so to invite more to come over to the truth.

54. Do any hear my Sermon this day who dissent from me, and many other, (and indeed from all the practise of the ancient Primitive Church) in the point of baptiz­ing of Infants. O let such consider what hath been said by us in this point, and God give them understanding, and on the ap­pearing of truth unto them, let them inge­niously renounce their own erroneous opi­nions.

55. Never be ashamed to do that, which [Page 36] wil bring safety to your selves, glory to God, joy to Angels, grief to none but such as re­joyce at your destruction. We may observe in Horses, that after a stumble, for some paces they go better and quicker than before. Some impute this to their fear, to be beaten, and desire to avoid it; others to their generosity, to make amends for their former fault, with double diligence.

56. Be not like the Horse and Mule which hath no understanding, Psalm 32. 9. that is, do not imitate them in their brutish head­strongness. Yet be like the Horse and Mule in their commendable conditions, (as crea­tures far above Pismires, and Lillies) imi­tate those generous principles which the in­stinct of Nature hath put into them. Re­cover what is past in your stumbling by your future activity; in going the faster in the path of truth and righteousness.

57. To conclude, there is for the present a great Gulph and distance betwixt you and us in our opinions. Indeed though we should desire it, we dare not approach nearer unto you in point of judgment. S. Paul saith [Page 37] even of his brother S. Peter, Gal. 2. 5. To whom we gave place, no not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. We may not yield to you, no, not a hairs breadth. We have already in stating the Controversie betwixt us, drawn as near as we can without betraying the truth, prejudicing Gods cause, and our own consciences. And having gone to the very marches and out­bounds of the truth, we there stand on tip­toes ready to embrace you if you come to us, and no otherwise.

58. But as for difference in affection, seeing we conceive your error not such as intrench­eth on salvation, (because not denying but deferring Baptism) and onely in the out limbs (not vitals of) Religion, wherein a latitude may and must be allowed to dissenting bre­thren, we desire that herein the measure of our love may be without measure unto you. Lightning often works wonders when it breaketh the Sword, it doth not so much as bruise the Scabbard; Charity is a more hea­venly fire, and therefore may be more mira­culous in its operations. You shall see that our love to you, as it doth detest and desires [Page 38] to destroy your errours, so it will at the same time, it will safely keep, and preserve your erroneous persons.

59. For mine own particular, because I have been challenged (how justly God and my own conscience knoweth) for some mo­rosenes in my behaviour towards some dis­senting brethren, in my Parish, this I do pro­mise, and God giving me grace I will per­form it. Suppose there be one hundred pa­ces betwixt me and them in point of affecti­on, I will go ninety nine of them, on condi­tion they will stir the one odd pace, to give them an amicable meeting. But if the Legs of their Souls be so lame, or lazy, or sullen, as not to move that one pace towards our mutual love, we then must come to new propositions. Let them but promise to stand still and make good their station, let them not go backward, and be more imbitter'd against me than they have been, and of the hundred paces, in point of affection, God willing, Ile go twice fifty to meet them. As for matter of judgment I shall patiently and hopefully expect the performance of Gods promise in my Text, when to those [Page 39] which are otherwise minded in the matter of Infants Baptisme, God will reveal even this unto them. Amen.