Sect. 1.

I Trust that Mr. A. notwithstanding the great disservice he hath done (I presume not out of a worse Conscience, then what want of light in the particular, rendreth it) unto God, in the affaires of Je­sus Christ, and the Gospel, by publishing his Baptismal abuses, hath yet so much interest in him, as to be heard by him in that Christian and worthy Petition (in the close of his Premonition) viz. that God will give unto his Reader, so much light, as to discern that which is of him, from that which is but of men. Nor am I without all hope, but that this prayer of his will unto many of his Readers, turn to a soveraign Antidote against the dan­ger and infection of his following discourse. For if God shall vouchsafe so much light unto any man, as to d [...]scern that which is of God in this piece, from that w [...]ich is but of men, there is not much fear that his judgement will be over-ruled by the arguments, to espouse the conclusion commended by [Page 102] them. It is a saying too hard for my spirit, nor of any good comportment with my respects to the Author, yet was it the saying of a judicious and sober Christian, both in my hearing and in the hearing of some others, that they never met with, so many Scriptures within so narrow a compasse, more abu­sed, then those levied by Mr. A. to fight the battel of that cause, which he laboureth to assert in his book. But though I cannot with confidence rise up to the height of such a say­ing, or censure, yet very possibly they who spake the words, might speak them with truth.

Sect. 2.

He enters his Discourse with this Observation; that, That which bo [...]h busies the minds, and takes up much time among the servants of God in debates, is that question about Baptism, viz. which Administration is most agr [...]eable to the mind of God whether that which is made to Infants—or whether that which not made but unto persons, who either i [...]deed beleeve the Gospel, or make profession so to do.

I confesse that the businesse of Baptism doth (indeed) much (if not much too much) busie the minds of many in these days, as Circumcision also did the minds of many of old. But as the great Apostle Paul, though circumcised himself according to the Law of God, yea and upon occasion, an Administrer of it unto others, yet severely rebuked, yea and wished the cutting off of those, that stickled for the practise of it by Christians, because of the great disturbance occasio­ned hereby in the Churches of Christ: Yea and threatned those with no lesse then losse of Salvation by Christ, who should submit to it upon the terms, on which it was impor­tunely commended, and obtrued upon them by those who taught it: So if he were now alive amongst us, there needs be little question but that he would walk in the same steps of Apostolical severity against those, who are importune and restlesse in unsetling the minds, and troubling the Conscien­ces of the people of God, in kindling fires of contention and strife, and making breaches and divisions in Christian Chur­ches, by their vehement urging and pressing their new, cap­tious, and insnaring Doctrines about the adequate subject, the precise mode or manner of the Administration of Baptism, [Page 103] &c. Yea and would caution all those also, who should en­tertain these Doctrines upon these high terms, on which the necessity of their practise is urged and imposed by their Factors, with the hazard and danger (at least) of miscar­rying in the two grand concernments of men; justification, and salvation. For the reason why the Apostle fell so heavy upon the fierce Advocates of circumcision, was not for cir­cumcisions sake, as if he bare any peculiar hatred against this; or because it was now an obsolete ceremony, and as good as out of date; we do not find any such reason as this of his be­haviour in that kind, so much as whispered, but because be­ing an external rite and ceremony, they sought to enthrall the judgements and consciences of Christians to the practise of it, as if they could not have been justified or saved without it. This was that which made these mens Doctrines as fire and sword among the Churches of Christ. For otherwise the Prophets of God even under the Old Testament, when Mosaical Ceremonies and Observations were in the strength of their obligations, yet poured contempt upon them, as if God little regarded them, when the observers of them plea­sed themselves inordinately in them, and upon a confidence of pleasing God in the practise of them, lift up their hearts to commit much iniquity otherwise. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread in my Courts? Bring no more vain Oblations, incense is an abhomi­nation unto me—your New Moons, and your appointed Feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me: I am weary to bear them, &c. Esa. 1. 11, 12, 13, &c. If Mr. A. were as infalli­ble in his judgement, in all externalties of Baptism, as Paul, or Peter themselves, or were able to give an account 7 times more passable, then that which he hath yet given, of his o­pinion touching the appropriate subject of Baptism, yet if he shall idolize his judgement in this kind, or (which is the same) obtrude a conformity in practise to it upon the Con­sciences of men, as necessary for obtaining remission of sins, and justification in the sight of God (as he doth over and over, as will appear in the progresse) or for the bringing of men into the honour and esteem of visible Saint-ship, as if an holy and blamelesse conversation of the longest continu­ance, [Page 104] yea though joined with the deepest sufferings for Christs and the Gospels sake, did not intitle any man to this honor▪ if (I say) he shall obtrude this his judgement upon Christ­ian Churches upon such terms as these, he will certainly be judged by God, yea and by all considering men, as the Au­thor of al those evils and inconveniences, whatsoever they shal prove to be, wherewith the Churches of Christ shall be infest­ed and molested hereupon. He discovers (as he suppofeth) many other abuses of Baptisme, which, if such, certainly are of the smallest moment; whereas himself in the mean time becomes guilty of one of the highest prophanations of it, that can lightly be imagined, I mean, of idolizing it, or rather (indeed) of that which is least considerable in it. Thus whilest he espieth a moat, (or rather the shadow one­ly of a moat) in the eye of his Brethren, he seeth not the Beam that is in his own eye.

Sect. 3.

But that question about Baptism, which he meaneth, rather then expresseth (though immediately he maketh it, not pro­perly a question about Baptism, as indeed it is not, but about the administration of Baptism, which is a thing essenti­ally distinct from Baptism; no nor yet is it properly a questi­on about the Administration of Baptism, but about the subject of this Administration, which is really also distinct from the Act it self of Administration) but the question he means, with which men of his opinion in the point, have unhappily distur­bed the peace of the Churches of Christ, and obstructed the course of the Gospel (for this is the loud complaint almost of all the faithfull labourers in the Lords Vine-yard, especi­ally beyond the seas since the Reformation) doth not onely busie the minds of the servants of God at present, but according to all that can reasonably be judged, or expected in the case, without some very extraordinary interposure of God to pre­vent it, is like to busie them to the worlds end, or at least un­till his coming, who will do a way (as the Apostle speaks) that which is unperfect, and bring perfection, and face to face with him. For those of Mr. A's judgement are neither able by the Scriptures, or otherwise, to satisfie the judgements and consciences of those, who are considering, and understand [Page 105] themselves, in their dissent from them, nor yet capable of such arguments and grounds from others, which are preg­nant and of strength, sufficient in themselves to reduce them. Many of his perswasion boast indeed as if they had scattered the darknesse of the question, with that light which they have shined unto the world; and are neither ashamed nor afraid to say, that all those who in these days do not Anti-paedo-baptize with them, must needs sin against their own light, yea and are come to the very brow and brink of this precipitate cen­sure, that those who gather not with them, are like to scat­ter; I mean, who are not baptized with their baptism, cannot be saved. Poor men! the shadows of the Mountains seem men unto them, and men indeed seem but shadows. But this hath been the genius of by-way men in all ages, to make no lesse then matter of life and death of their opinions.

Sect. 4.

But what is the Question, which thus busieth the minds, and takes up so much of the time of the servants of God in debates? It seems it is this: Which Administration is most agreeable to the mind of God, whether that which is made to Infants, or wh [...] ­ther that which is not made, but unto persons who either do be­leeve the Gospel, or professe so to do. [I suppose that neither Mr. Allen, nor men of his mind; busie their minds at all a­bout the Question here propounded, unlesse it be in washing the Blackamore side of it, to make it look white, and dis-co­louring the other into blacknesse and deformity. For (doubtlesse) they are all thoughts made that the latter Ad­ministration is not onely most agreeable, but onely agreeable, to the mind of God. And for those that are contrary minded to them, at least the greater part of them, neither are their minds much busied about the said Question, unlesse it be in making streight, what the others have made crooked, and [...]n drawing out the mind of God in the Question into the light, which the other labour to bury under darknesse. For these also are fully perswaded, that the former Administration, not made irregular by circumstance is altogether as agreeable to the mind of God, as the latter; yea and much more agree­able hereunto then the latter, as (generally) practised and performed amongst us in these days; yea that this, the cir­cumstances duly considered under which it is performed, hath [Page 106] neither footing, nor foundation in the Scriptures. There­fore the Question he speaks of, which Administration, &c. doth every whit as much, if not much more, busie Mr. A' s mind, and the minds of his party, as the minds of any of those servants of God, who dissent from them. But that it should busie the minds either of the one, or of the other, or take up so much of their time in debates, as it doth, is of no good a­bode to the affairs of Christ Jesus in the world: therefore they who have kindled the fire of the contest, have the great­er sin.

Sect. 5.

But Mr. A. somewhat handsomely covers the nakednesse of those, as well who at first occasioned the said contest, as those who importunely keep it still on foot, by terming his question, a Question about Baptism. If it were (indeed) a Question about Baptism▪ i. e. about the nature or essence of Baptism, or about any thing much considerable in relati­on to it, as the necessity, end, benefit, &c. it might rea­sonably be put to consideration amongst the Churches of Christ; yet with this proviso too, that the sence of the pro­pounders in any the said questions, be not imposed upon the Churches, as necessary to be imbraced upon the sore penalty of being for ever excluded from Christ, or of being un-chur­ched. This would be to threaten, not to argue, or dispute. But Mr. Allens Question is not about Baptism it self, nor a­bout any thing much considerable relating too it, but onely about the precise, adequate, and appropriate subject of the Administration of it. It is true, the will and mind of God, even about Tythingmint, Anise, and Cummin, yea though sparingly discovered, and hard to come at, is not to be des­pised, nor the knowledge of it neglected; but he, or they that should spend much of their time in hammering out such a notion [...] with colourable arguments and grounds to com­mend and set it off) wherein they can please themselves, as if it were the unquestionable mind of God in the case, and then adjure all Christians to be of their mind, either upon pain of damnation, or of losing their Church-ship, or the like, such persons certainly would not approve themselves unto God, or unto Jesus Christ in so doing; no not though [Page 107] their notion; which they should obtrude upon the Christian world in this case, and upon these terms, should prove to be the truth. The mind and will of God was, that by the com­ming and suffering of Christ in the flesh, the Mosaical diffe­rences of meats should cease, and that Beleevers should be at liberty, (and so judge themselves) to eat what kind of meats they pleased. Yet was it expressely contrary to the Will of God, that they who knew the truth and will of God in this case, should be either troublesome, or insnaring unto other Christians, so much as by the exercise or acting of this their liberty before them. Hast thou Faith [i. e. beleevest thou, that thou now lawfully mayest eat meats, that were prohibi­ted by Moses Law!] have it to thy self before God; a mean­ing a Rom. 14. 22 that he should be content with the use and benefit of this his liberty, in private, and not by any importune use or ven­ditation of it before others, who were yet weak and unsatis­fied in the point, trouble or insnare them. And yet the knowledge of the mind and will of God in this case, was by many degrees ( I wis) of greater moment and consequence then the knowledge of his mind touching the precise subject of the Baptismal Administration, whatsoever it shall be found to be. For either to doubt, or to be ignorant, whether a man or woman [...]ight lawfully eat meats prohibited by Mo­ses Law, was (constructively) to doubt, or to be ignorant, whether Christ was come in the flesh, or no, and conse­quently, whether he was not to be expected afterwards; an errour which occasioned the destruction of many thousands of the Jews temporally, yea (as is greatly to be feared) e­ternally also (not to mention many other Christian accom­modations, which accompanied the knowledge of the truth in the case.) Whereas the knowledge of the mind of God touching the proper subject of the Baptismal Administration, especially if it be that, which Mr. A. and his party contend for, is by this (to omit many other arguments) evicted to be of very slender consequence, viz. that since, and where, it hath been discovered, and a practise corresponding with it submitted unto, the State of Christianity hath little advan­ced (if not retreated rather) nor any thing more of God, or of Christ, been seen or known in the world, then was be­fore, [Page 108] yea and still is in such places, and amongst such per­sons, who do not acknowledge or own the said subject. But of this probably we may speak more at large elsewhere. In the mean time let not Mr. A. nor men of his opinion, any more call the Question argued in his book, a Question about Baptism, nor yet about the Administration of Baptism, but onely about the appropriate subject of this Administration; which being truly interpreted, is (as hath been proved) a Question of smal consequence; not of much greater, then the question about Melchizedek's Father, which also is very so­lemnly, with much devotion and gravity, argued by some.

Sect. 6.

Nor doth he state his Question with any clearnesse to the sence of his Adversaries. For they do not hold or teach, that an Administrator of Boptism made to infants, is more agreeable to the mind of God, then a like administration made to some, who beleeve, and professe the beleef of the Gospel. They acknowledge that Baptism is administred to such persons, who newly come out of Judaism or Paganism, and professe the Gospel, with as much agreeablenesse to the mind of God, as unto Infants. 2. Neither do they hold (at least some of them) but that Baptism may be administred to those who have lived loosely and prophanely in a profession of the Gos­pel, upon their repentance, at least in case they have not been baptized formerly, and this with as much agreeablenesse also to the mind of God, as unto Infants. Nay 3 some of them (for I know not the sence of them all in this point) are not positive, but that the said administration may be made, and this with as much agreeablenesse unto the mind of God as un­to infants, to such Beleevers, though formerly baptized, whose consciences cannot be satisfied without it; according to the saying of the Apostle in a like case, It is better to mar­ry then burn; though if the burning could be healed without marrying, it were better then either. But that which they ge­nerally hold in the Question about the subject of Baptismal administration, is, that this administration may with good agreeablenesse to the mind of God, be made unto infants. And this (indeed) is that against which Mr. A's discourse is directly bent in the first part of it; and if his reasons and ar­guments, [Page 109] by which he opposeth this, be disabled by a fair and rational answers given to them (respectively) there will be no need of any further inquiry after either of his underta­kings in the latter part.

Sect. 7.

In order to the advance of his first argument, he prescribes us the best way (as he conceives) to come to satisfaction a­bout the said Question, and this (saith he) is to observe the Mr. A. p. 1. footsteps of the Flock of Christ in the first setting forth of this Or­dinance, &c. (he means, in the practise of Christians, in John the Baptists, and Apostles times.) To prove this to be the best way, he refers us to what the Apostle did in one case, 1 Cor. 11, 23. and to what Christ did in another, Mat. 19. 4. 8. But first Mr. A. prescribes us one way to come to the said sa­tisfaction, but his Proofs and Texts brought to commend this way unto us, lead us to another way. This way which his proofs and texts lead us, unto is (indeed) absolute and compleat, and could he guide our feet into this way, in the case and question in hand, we should without asking, or ma­king any more questions for conscience sake, walk together with him in it. But this way consisteth not in the footsteps of the flock of Christ, nor in the practise or example (one, or more) no not of the greatest Saints, but in the expresse letter of an institution. In the latter of the two places cited, our Saviour, for the reducing of marriage, and matters relating thereunto, to their primitive intent and use, doth not send the Jews to the practise either of Abraham, Isaack, or any of them that came nearest in practise to the Law, or institu­tion of marriage, but to the institution it self. So likewise in the former, the Apostle, to make streight, what the Corin­thians had made crooked, in the Administration of the supper, doth not send them to the practises of such and such Chur­ches, who possibly in their administrations, came nearest to the institution, but to the institution it self. Which way of the two shall we take for our satisfaction? that which Mr. A. prescribes and follows, or that which the Scripture cited by him leads us unto? If he would have us to follow the for­mer, we have no authority or rule of Scripture from him (if at all) so to do; if the latter, then he counsels us against his [Page 101] own practise, and prevaricates with his cause, and with the foundation on which he builds his first argument, viz. mat­ter of fact (as himself calls it, p. 2.) And indeed it is the foundation of all the rest of his arguments, and of the argu­ments of all of his way, upon the subject in hand. Nor do we deny matter of fact to be a foundation in its kind; but in what cases, and how far, we own and reverence it in such a relation, may be shewed in due time.

Sect. 8.

But 2. His more probable meaning and intent is (though his words fall short) that both together, practise and insti­tution are the best way or means whereby to receive satisfaction in the Questi [...]n before us. If so, then is it but reasonable to desire of him, either 1. To produce or shew unto us an ex­presse institution for Baptism; this (probably) would soon comprimise the difference between us: Or else 2. To prove substantially (for, as the saying is, old Colts are not to be taken with chaffe, nor considering Christians to be satisfied with light or loose conjectures) that an usage or practise, though immediately following an institution, yea and this with good correspondency and conformity to the institution, is notwithstanding commensurable to the whole councel and intent of God in the institution, or holds forth and expres­seth adequately and compleatly all that, which the institution comprehendeth. Nay the certain truth is, that not onely no practication of an institution, though with never so good conformity hereunto; but that not the letter it self, or Grammatical sence of the words of an institution, do express hold forth, or comprehend, the whole mind or counsel of God in any institution whatsoever. For God himself hath authorized the law of nature, and humane accommodation, to Umpire in the practise or administration of all institutions, and to over-rule the letter of them, See this more l [...]rgely opened and proved, Wa­ter-dipping, &c. p. 5, 6, 7, &c. in these and such like sayings; I will have mercy and not sacrifice: Mat. 9. 13 12. 7. So again, The Sabboth was made for man, and not man for the Sabboth. Mar. 2. 27. Again, Which of you shall have an Asse, or an Oxe fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabboth day? Luke 14. 5 See also Josh. 5. 5, 7. 1 Sam. 21. 6. Mat. 12. 3, 4. Luke, 13. 15. Mat. 5. 23, 24. (with some others.) This heing [Page 111] so, how far is Mr. A. out of the way, in his Doctrine to­wards the close of his discourse, where neither I, nor he, can truly say, for an institutions sake, but for a disputable circumstance or punctillo's sake, about the administration, nay about the subject onely of the administration of an insti­tution, he not onely teacheth a lawfullnesse, but importune­ly urgeth and presseth a necessity upon men, to abandon Churches, as unclean, & so to break that faith, which they had formerly given unto Christ, and unto his Saints, touching the performance of all Christian services of love, for the edifica­tion, comfort, and well-being of those Churches, which they thus abandon, and separate from, having formerly been members of them. But to make disputable and uncer­tain notions, grounds of forsaking or omitting, evident and undisputable duties, what is it but to make the night an over­seer of the day? But this by the way.

Sect. 9.

To this I cannot but adde one thing more upon the same account. Mr. A, knows very well, that his Brethren, from whom he dissents in the present controversie, deny that there is any institution at all of Baptism upon record, either in the New Testament, or the old; yet takes no notice at all of it. And though it be matter of so great consequence to the busi­nesse in hand, though he had so fair an opportunity, yea though the Scriptures cited by him imposed a kind of necessi­ty upon him, to speak concerning it, as either to prove that there is such an institution, or otherwise to shew how we may come to satisfaction in and about, the use and practise of Baptism, though there be no institution, yet he waves the consideration of it altogether. Whether this omission was casual, or prudential, shall be no part of our present enquiry. However by the light of what hath been said, we plainly see that Mr. A. knoweth not, or at least, that it doth not ap­pear that he doth know, how to clear up unto us a way, or rule, how to receive satisfaction in the particular in hand. His Scriptures produced lead us to the institution of God; but his best way, to the practises of some men. The institution would be satisfaction unto us without the practises of men: but the practises of men without the institution, do but satisfie us [Page 112] in part, touching the institution, viz. how it may▪ or ought, in such and such cases, under such and such circumstances, to be administred. Yea the truth is, that for Mr. Allen's prae­tises themselves, as far as he is able from the Scriptures to de­clare and argue them unto us, they are not, no not to such a degree, so compleatly satisfactory, (as there may be oc­casion to shew afterwards,) When the institution of circum­cision was given, if an estimate should have been made of the mind of God, concerning the adequate or proper subject of this Ordinance, by matter of fact, or by the first administra­tions of it, evident it is that such an estimate would have led men into errour, notwithstanding he that managed and or­dered these first administrations, was as faithful, and as good a friend of God, as either John, or the Apostles themselves. For no administration was at first made of this Ordinance (at least we read of none that was made) but onely unto persons that had out-lived the eight day of their lives by ma­ny years, as unto Abraham himself, being now 99 years old, unto Ishmael, being 13 yeers old, aad unto every male among the MEN in Abraham' s house, Gen. 17. 23, 24, 25. And yet we know that the primary intent of God concerning the subject of this administration, respected children onely of the eight day, Ger. 17. 12.

He proceeds to tell us, That it is no mans douht who beleeves the Scriptures, but that Baptism was administred to beleeving and repentant persons in those times; but that it was admini­stred to Infants, divine History, no where reports, nor can it be duly collected, from any part thereof. We answer,

Sect. 10.

1. As it is no mans doubt indeed (in which respect Mr. A. might have spared the asserting it, without any detriment to his cause) but that Beleeving and Repen [...]an [...] persons were baptized, so neither needs it be any mans doubt, but that persons, neither b [...]leeving (I mean, truly, unfeignedly, and to justification) nor Repentant, were baptized also. For who can think that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Ju­dea, and all the Region round about Jordan, were all beleeving and repentant persons, (who yet were all baptized. Mat. 3. 6.) consi­dering that when the Apostles met before God about so so­lemn [Page 113] and weighty a businesse, as the chusing of a new Apo­stle, the whole number of Disciples present with them were but about an hundred and twenty? yea that whole multitude which John calls a generation of vipers, were all baptized of him, Luke. 3. 7. compared with verse 21. Nor do I suppose it to be any mans doubt, but that Simon magus was an hypocrite, and consequently no Repenta [...]t person, when he was baptized. Yea Mr. A. himself seems to suppose ( pag. 15.) that men may lawfully t [...]e up the Ordinance of Baptism, onely to in­gag [...] themselves to the practise of Repentance and Mortification afterwards.

2. Neither is it any mans doubt now (or the doubt of some few onely) but that Baptism may, and ought, to be administred to beleeving and Repentant persons, in such cases, and under such circumstances, in, and under which it was ad­ministred unto them in the Apostles times. But▪

Sect. 11.

3. No waies, no not with so much as the face of a conse­quence, doth it follow; that because it was administred then in such particular cases, or under such and such circumstances determinately unto Repentant persons and Beleevers, ought If Mr. A. could shew us such a command as this, for the baptizing o [...] [...]ele [...]vers or Professors onely, we sh [...]d not de­clin [...] to prac­tise accord­ingly. it now to be administred in cases altogether differing, or un­der circumstances of a quite contrary nature and import, unto the like. It was Mr. A's opinion very lately (whether it be still alive, or since dead, I know not) that the anointing the sick with oyl by the elders of the Church, in order to their healing and recovery, ought not now to be practised by them; yet I suppose he will not deny but that it was practised by the elders of Churches in the Apostles daies, and this by expresseness of command, Jam. 5. 14. This his opinion touching a necessity of varying from a primitive practise, and and this imposed by an expresse command, he can upon no other account tolerably justifie, but onely by alledging that the case, in reference to such a practise is different in these days, from what it was in the days of the Apostles, when the gifts of healing were vested in persons of that relation in Christian Churches. So again, while he declines that primitive practise of gr [...]eting his Christian Brethren with an holy ki [...]se, so oft, and so expresly commanded by God, Rom. 16. 16 1 Cor. 16. 20 2 Co [...]. 13. 12. 1 Th [...]ss. 5 26 1 Pet. 5. 14. and withall [Page 114] so religiously observed by Christians for several ages after the Apostles (as appears from Justin, Martyr, Tertullian, Cle­mens of Alexandria, Origen, and others) he can give no competent reason but onely the difference of the case, or of circumstances between those primitive times, and ours, or ra­ther (perhaps) between those countries or parts of the world, and ours. There is the same consideration of our common custome (at which Mr. A. is no more scrupled then others) of prophecying [i. e. of being present at the exercise of prophecying, or of preaching or opening the word of God] with our h [...]ads covered; which notwithstanding is expresly contrary to the practise, which the Apostles ordered and in­joined in the primitive Churches, 1 Cor. 11. 4. 7. Yea the Prophets or Ministers themselves in the French Churches, prophesie with their heads covered, and (for ought I know to the contrary) are therein blamelesse. Again Mr. A. takes, or at least allows a liberty to vary from the practise of Christ himself in his primitive administration of the Supper. He administred it unto men onely; Mr. A. pleads the title of women also to the administration, page 11. Doubtlesse he cannot justifie an administration so far differing from that of Christ in respect of the subjects of it, or persons administred unto, but by pleading that the case is otherwise with us, in reference to the ordinary administration of the supper, that ought to be practised amongst us, then it was with Christ, after this, or some like manner: Christ judging it meet to solemnize the first administration of the Supper, with his Apostles onely, by whom he intended to erect the said admi­nistration in all Churches thoroughout the world, had no occasion to interess women therein; and besides, the admi­nistration being yet unknown and unheard of amongst Chri­stians, no women more then men, could so much as desire part and fellow-ship therein. Whereas amongst us, and in our Churches, we have women-members, as well as men, who are in the same capacity with men to partake in the Or­dinance, and who desire it with as much desire as they: and besides, we have no such motive or occasion, to confine our selves unto men in our Administrations, as the Lord Christ had in his. If then difference of case, and diversity of cir­cumstance, [Page 115] one or more, will justifie a different practise in all the particulars now mentioned, from those, which were most regular and worthy in other cases, and under differing circumstances, is it not most rational to conceive & conclude, that the ordinary practise of the Apostles in Baptizing Be­leeving and Repentant persons, (supposing it to have been such) doth no waies argue or prove, but that the ordinary practise of baptizing children now may be more justifiable▪ then such a practise would be, considering that the case of Christianity and circumstances relating unto Baptism, are so much altered, and differing as they are, from what they were in the Apostles days. In the Apostles days, the Beleeving and Repentant persons whom they baptized, had not been trained up in the knowledge of Christ, or in the profession of Christian religion, but were newly converted unto Christ, either from Ju­daism, or Gentilism. In the like case, and under the same circum­stances, we also judge that Beleeving and Repentant persons, at least professors of both, and these onely, ought to be bapti­zed. But in our daies, and amongst us profession of the name of Christ being made by persons from their childhood, and it being difficult for men and women to determine the time of their effectual conversion; we, in regard of this great change of circumstances, and considering that Baptism is ve­ry improper to be administred after many years profession, and having no ground or warrant in the Scriptures, for the administration of it in this case (least of all for the ordinary and constant administration of it) judge it much more a­greeable to the mind of God, and to the requirement of those circumstances, which lie before us, (in conjunction with other reasons and grounds, which we shall account for in due time) to make the administration unto children, then to defer it until after years. But,

Sect. 12.

4. (And lastly) whereas he addeth, It cannot duly be collected from any part or circumstance of divine History, that Mr. A. p. 2. Baptism was administred to infants in the Apostles days; we Answer: 1. That here he boasteth, whilest he is onely girding on his Armour, and triumpheth before the Battel. 2. That though the administrntion he speaks of, cannot be collected [Page 116] from any part or circumstance of Divine History; yet it ma­keth every whit as much against him, if it can be collected from any other passages of Scripture, though not Histori­cal. Mr. A. himself, onely upon grounds delivered in the Scripture for the doing of many things, presumeth them to have been done, both by the Apostles and other Christians, although the Historical part of the Scripture recordeth not their doing, as in the matter of womens admission to the Lords Table, of the baptizing of many Christians, yea and of the Apostles themselves, whose Baptisms are not report­ed in the Scriptures. 3. We affirm and say, that what he saith cannot be duly collected from Divine History, may be du­ly collected from hence, especially other passages of Scrip­ture being allowed to prompt the History i [...] the case. This we are confident we shall be able to make good in due time and place. 4. (And lastly) Neither ca [...]t be duly collected from Divine History, that Baptism was not administred to In­fants in the Ap [...]stles days, which yet (it seems) is Vena Ba­sil [...]ca the master vein in the body of Mr. A's Faith about Bap­tism.

Sect. 13.

After this Harbingery, his first argument, which (by the way) he tels us is drawn from matt [...]r of fact, advanceth. Meer matter of fact, is somewhat a strange principle or foun­dation▪ from whence to prove either the lawfulnesse, or un­lawfulnesse, of a practise about an instituted Ordinance, es­pecially in all cases. Nor is such a reasoning as this meet to make a pillar of any mans Faith: Such or such a thing was neither done by Christ, nor his Apostles. Ergo it ought not to be done by any others. For if the [...]ctions and practises of Christ and his Apostles, be such e [...]es and so far bind­ing to us, that we are wholly bound up [...]to them, in res­pect of acting, and non-acting, then they are thus binding either universally, and without exception; or else particu­larly, and with limitation onely.

That they do not bind universally, is evident from the con­sideration of the many absurdities, which will unavoidably follow hereupon, and which are obvious to every mans thought: In particular it would follow, that we should be [Page 117] bound to forswear, to deny our Lord and Master Christ, not to beleeve his resurrection, unlesse we should see in his hands the print of the nails, thrust our hand into his side, &c. with se­veral other things of like notorious consideration.) If they bind us particularly onely, I mean, if onely some of them be binding unto us, and not all, then is Mr. A's argument, drawn from matter of fact, of little value, until he hath proved, that whatsoever Christ and the Apostles particularly did in the administration of Baptism, is of that kind of action, which bindeth both negatively and affirmatively all persons, in all ca­ses, and circumstances whatsoever. When he shall have proved this substantially and work-man like, I shall be his Proselyte without any more ado.

Sect. 14.

His first argument, which is spe gregis, the argument that must stand to it, and fight for all his fellows, is this:

If Baptism were not administred to Infants in the daies of Mr. A. first Argument. John the Baptist, nor of Christ, nor of the Apostles, then ought it not to be administred unto infants now. But it was not admi­nistred then, &c. Therefore it ought not to be so administred now.

Because Mr. A, doth his businesse logically, and draws Anſwer. up his argument in mood and figure, syllogism-wise; I shall (by the way) desire the Reade [...], who it may be) is no Artist to inform himself, that if either, the major or the minor proposi­tion in a syllogism be disabled, and disproved, though both be not, yet the whole argument falls to the ground, and becomes null; and that, according to the common saying in Logick, Conclusio sequitur det [...]riorem partem, i. e. the conclusion is never better then the worst of the propositions, by which it is proved; as a [...]affe, anchor, cable, or the like, [...]re not to be esteemed stronger, then what their strength is in the w [...]k­est parts. I confesse there is no great need of delivering this Item here, because we shall find both propositions tardy. Onely it may possibly be, that the weaknesse of one, will be made more manifest unto some, then of the other: and in this respect the notion now presented may be of use. But,

1. To the major proposition in the argument, we answer [Page 118] dy benying it, and give this account of our denial. First no particular observation, or administration of an Ordinance, or institution, doth, or can, answer or expresse, the whole mind or counsel of God therein (I mean in the said Ordi­nance or institution.) When Abraham circumcised his son Isa­ack the eight day, ( Gen. 21. 4.) he did not act or expresse the whole counsel of God in the institution of circumcision. For the mind of God was, that men Jews should be circumci­sed, as well as children at eight days of age, in case their cir­cumcision was omitted, whilest they were children. In like manner when Joshua circumcised men ( Jos. 5. 5. 7.) nei­ther did he expresse herein, the full mind of God in the Or­dinance, as is evident: nay he herein acted expresly contra­ry to the letter of the institution, which confined circumcisi­on to the eight day, and yet was blamelesse. When the Priests and their families observed the Ordinance of God in eating the Shew bread, they did not herein expresse the whole counsel of God in this Ordinance: For this extended to a lawfulnesse even for others also, who were not of any Priestly family, to eat of this bread, in case of much hunger, and defect of provisions otherwise; as is evident by what David, and those that were with him, did in the daies of A­biathar the Priest. Mar. 2. 26. When the Jews observed the instituti­on of the Sabboth according to the greatest precisenesse of the letter that can be imagined, as when neither themselves, son nor daughter, man servant, nor maid servant, cattel, nor stranger within their gate, did any work at all, they did not by such an observation as this, expresse the whole coun­sel of God in, and about the Sabboth. For his counsel and intent herein further was, that they should do good on the Sabboth day, as well as on any other day, as in ministring unto the sick, in helping an Oxe or an Asse out of a ditch or pit, whereinto they were fallen, &c, Our Saviour himself in his administration of the supper, did not act to the extent or compasse of his own counsel and intendment in the institu­tion. For he did not administer it unto women, when as notwithstanding, we generally beleeve (and this upon suf­ficient grounds) that his intentions in the institution reach­ed unto these also. From hence then it evidently follows, [Page 119] that John's, and so Christs, and the Apostles, administring Baptism unto Beleevers or Repentant persons onely, and not unto Infants, is no sufficient argument or proof, that there­fore it was no part of Gods intent in the institution of Bap­tism, that it should be administred unto infants. God (as hath been said, and shewed) alwaies intends more in an in­stitution, then any administration of it doth expresse.

Sect. 15.

If it be here replied; that in case it had been any part of the mind of God, in the institution of Baptism, that infants should partake of it, it is no ways likely but that either John, or Christ, or one or other of the Apostles, would first or last have made the administration unto them; I answer.

1. It hath not yet been proved, (nor I beleeve, ever will) that none of these ever made an administration of Baptism unto infants. But more of this in our answer to the minor proposition.

2. Why is it not as likely, supposing the counsel of God in the institution we speak of, to stand as well for the bapti­zing of Infants, as of men, that yet neither John, Christ, nor any the Apostles, should baptize infants, as that Paul should baptize onely so few, as himself reporteth he did, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15, 16. when as according to the counsel of God, he might have bapti­zed twenty times as many, yea and (doubtlesse) had oppor­tunity to have done it.

3. (And lastly) As the reason why Paul baptized so few as he did (and I suppose he had not sinned, in case he had not baptized these, yea or any at all) was, because he had another work of far greater weight, worth, and con­cernment unto him, to lay out himself upon ( viz the prea­ching of the Gospel) then baptizing was; in like manner, John, Christ, and the rest of the Apostles, probably did con­ceive and judge, that it did more principally in those times, concern them to look after, and provide for the baptizing of men and women, then of children; and upon this account might, though not neglect, yet omit, the baptizing of chil­dren. Yet this doth no waies prove, but that it might be lawfull for them to have baptized children; as (question­lesse) it was lawfull for Paul to have baptized a thousand [Page 120] more then he did baptize, the baptizing of whom notwith­standing he omitted without sin. Again.

2. We deny the consequence in the said major Propositi­on, upon another account also, which is this. Circumstan­ces, and aspects of probable inconveniences, may render, not onely things that are lawfull, but even such, which in some cases are necessary, in expedient in some others, and conse­quently, better and fitter for the servants of God to let a­lone, during the said posture of circumstances, then to prac­tise. This is so evident, both in the Scriptures, and in reason it self, that I suppose I may without losse, spare the proof of it.

Therefore John, Christ, &c. might upon consideration of some circumstance, one, or more (possibly unknown unto us) forbear the baptizing of infants in their daies, though a practice lawful enough, and ordinarily, in Churches con­stituted, necessary. And whereas Mr. A. pleads the cause of his proposition, or consequence, which, upon the grounds now specified, we deny, by this reason, viz. That that which was a reason to them then to forbear baptizing infants, and upon which they did forbear it, is, or ought to be a reason to all men now to forbear it likewise, we answer, that this rea­son hath but a very waterish and faint taste of reason in it. For,

Sect. 16.

1. It proceeds ex non conc [...]ssis, takes that for granted, which is denied by his adversaries, viz. that John, Christ, &c. did forbear the practise in question. 2. If they did for­bear it for a time, it followeth not that they did forbear it perpetually or altogether. 3. If they did forbear the said practise altogether, and never baptize any infant, in the next place we deny that the reasons of their forbearance are bind­ing unto us, until 1. They be declared and made known to us what they were; and 2. Untill it be proved that those reasons, upon which they forbear, (in case they did for­bear) have the same influence upon, or relation unto, us, which they had upon, and unto them. For it is not reaso­nable that we should suspend, or forbear, the doing of that, which we conceive to be a duty, and that upon such grounds, [Page 121] which were never yet (at least to our judgements) suffici­ently answered, or disproved, onely because it was not done (or rather because some conceive it was not done) in the days of Christ, and the Apostles; especially considering that we are able to give a competent account, (at least) to our selves; yea and (we suppose) to others also, who are not too deeply baptized into a spirit of prejudice and partiality (which in such a case as this we judge sufficient) why they did, or might forbear, in case it should be proved that they did for­bear in this kind. This account we briefly mentioned, §. 15. and may somewhat inlarge upon it in place convenient. In the mean time we clearly see that hitherto Mr. A. hath one­ly cleared doubts by darknesse; and by the reason or proof exhibited, hath mediated no good accord between the con­sequent and Antecedent in his major proposition. For were both these granted. 1. That John and the Apostles did for­bear infant-baptism in their daies: and 2. That that which was a reason unto them to forbear it, ought to be a reason unto all men now to forbear it, (viz. in case all men had the same reason now, I mean, were under the influence or command of the same or the like reason) yet doth it no waies follow from hence, that therefore if they forbear infant-baptism, all men ought to forbear it now. The reason of the non-sequi­tur is, because God may subject one man, or some men, to a necessity of some forbearance, by such a reason, in indivi­duo, or in actu excercito (as the School-men speak) by which all men are subjected to the like forbearance, in specie, or in actu signato, who yet may never actually, or in indivi­duo, be subjected hereunto, by this reason.

As for example, the command of God, o [...] the motion of the spirit of God in men, to forbear such or such a practise, is in specie, and in the general, equally binding unto all men as to this forbearance. All men are alike bound (I mean, one man is bound, as well as another) to obey every com­mand of God, that shall be directed to him, or imposed on him. But in case such a command be directed and given un­to some particular men, and not unto others, (and there is the same consideration of an inward motion of the spirit) it [Page 122] doth not follow, that because the former are bound by it to the supposed particular forbearance, that therefore the latter, viz. to whom this command is not given, should be bound likewise, though the command of God, simply considered, be alike binding unto all. Therefore in case John, and the Apostles, were moved by the spirit of God to forbear the baptizing of Infants, (which I presume Mr. A. himself will not deny) and upon this motion did forbear it, it doth not follow from their being moved hereunto, that those who are not moved, as they were, are, or should be bound by their motion, to the like forbearance. Particular motions of Gods spirit unto actions (and there is the same reason of forbearances also) either besides, or contrary unto, stand­ing and known rules, or laws, bind no man, but onely those particularly inspired and moved by them, either to the acti­ons or forbearances, unto which these persons are moved or led by them. But that as well John the Baptist, as the A­postles, did forbear the baptizing of infants, in case it be sup­posed that they did forbear it (which was never yet sub­stantially proved, nor I beleeve ever will be) by special and particular direction or motion of the Holy Ghost, and not otherwise, is clearly demonstrable by this argument. Either (upon the said supposition) they did forbear it by particular and expresse motion from the Holy Ghost, or else by some standing order, rule, or direction, recorded in the Scriptures or else by the motion or guidance of their own spirits. But they forbear it not upon either of these latter accounts. Therefore their forbearance (upon the supposition mention­ed) was by extraordinary and particular motion of the Ho­ly Ghost. If Mr. A. will say, that their forbearance was grounded upon any general or standing law or rule of Scrip­ture, let him produce such, whether law, or rule, from hence, whereby men are prohibited or restrained from baptizing infants. If he shall do this, the controversie between him and his Antagonists about Infant-Baptism, will soon be at an end. That the said persons ( John, and the Apostles) did not forbear Infant-Baptism, out of the private dictate or moti­on of their own spirits, Mr. A. (I presume) will not affirm, in which respect it needs no proof.

Sect. 17.

But whereas we might here regularly have expected to see the reasons, why, as Mr. A. pretends, Baptism was not ad­ministred unto infants in the daies of John, &c. behold quite another vision. He turns another way, and falls upon in­quiry, what reasons, we should, or can, have to baptize in­fants, which they had not; as though he would imply, that he had shewed what reasons they had, and would go some­what further, viz. to see whether we had, or possibly might have any other. And thus whilest we were in expectance of some arguments from him to confirm his argument, he hath slidden from us like a Serpent over a rock, and we find him again creeping in at a whole on the other side. But let us follow him at this turn also, and draw him forth into the light.

He makes an enumeration or recital of five reasons, which may be pretended for infant-baptism now, and which some may think were not obligatory unto them ( John, the Apo­stles, &c.) and closeth (with confidence more then e­nough, as if he had surveyed the round world, and all that is therein.) Other [reasons] then these cannot lightly be suppo­sed, or imagined ever to come up into the minds of men. Mr. A. was not comprehensive enough at this turn, there are seve­ral reasons here, which lie without the verge or circle of his imagination here; two of which have been already mentio­ned, and shall (upon this occasion) be again repeated, and a little further opened.

Sect. 18.

1. We may be in a better, and more convenient capacity for baptizing infants now, then they were, because the Apo­stles, yea and Christ himself, had a businesse of far greater weight and moment lying upon their hand, then baptizing, not onely infants, but even beleevers themselves, viz. the planting of the Gospel in the world, the constituting and in­spection of Churches, &c. in comparison of which, the bu­sinesse of baptizing, whether one sort of persons, or other, was but of an under consequence. And that de facto, they many times did, upon the account we speak of, omit other [Page 124] things as necessary as this (yea by many degrees more neces­snry) sufficently aippears in that for the Gospels sake, & mini­stry thereof, they frequently exposed themselves to all kinds of hazards, neglected their healths and lives, the preservation of which (being a work of mercy) was of more consequence, then any such sacrifice as the Baptism of infants is, yea or of beleevers themselves. The Apostle Paul in saying, that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel (though yet he did baptize, as lawfully he might by his comission) clearly implies, that baptizing, in comparison of preaching the Gospel, was but an inferior imployment, & which he ought at some turns to omit, viz. when it fell nor in conveniently with his greater occasions (as will further appear afterwards) yea baptizing, whether one or other, was of so smal a consideration in the eys of the Lord Christ, in comparison of the preaching of the Gospel, that at the first sending forth of his▪ Apostles to preach the Gospel ( Mat. 18. Mar. 3. Luke 9.) yea and when a while after, he sent forth seventy other Disciples about the same work, he spake not a word either to the one, or the other, about baptizing any. So then this is one reason, not reducible to any of Mr. A's five, why that Ministers of the Gospel, and Pastors and Elders of Churches in these days, may be reputed in a better capacity for the baptizing of children, then the Apostles, and those that were assistants unto them in their daies, were.

Sect. 19.

2. As Paul and Silas, were once forbidden by the Holy Ghost, to preach the Gospel it self, for a time in such a place, where otherwise they were then minded to have preached it, Act. 16. 6. yea and where they did preach it afterwards, Act. 19. 10. 26. by the di­rection of the same spirit, so why may we not conceive, that in case the Apostles, and other Baptists in their times, did forbear the baptizing of infants, they might receive a secret prohibition of the Holy Ghost in that behalf, not because the practise was any whit more unlawfull, then the preaching of the Gospel was in Asia, when Paul and Silas were restrai­ned from it, but because the will and pleasure of God was, that they should forbear it for a time? And I beleeve we are [Page 125] able to give as reasonable an account of such a will and plea­sure in God, as this, as Mr. A. is to give a reason of that will of his, by which Paul and Silas were testreined from preaching in Asia. Besides, if they were taken off from a prac­tise or course, wherein they had ingaged, or exercised them­selves for a time, (as viz. from ministring unto or serving ta­bles, as themselves expresse it, Act. 6. 2. That they might give themselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word, v. 3.) if (I say) they were taken off from the im­ployment of serving Tabl [...]s, upon such an account as this, by the motion or suggestion of the Holy Ghost, why is it not most reasonable to conceive, that upon the like, or rather the same account, they might by a like motion of the Holy Ghost, be disswaded from entring upon, or ingaging themselves in a course of baptizing children; I suppose that neither Mr. A. himself, nor any considering man of his way, will deny, but that the Apostles, and those that were directed by, and as­sistants unto, them in the affairs of the Gospel, in their daies were acted and led by the special guidance and motion of the Holy Ghost, in their forbearing Infant-baptism (in case it must be supposed that they did forbear it) as well as in any other course or practise, wherein they walked in order to the advancement of the Gospel. If then John, the Apo­stles, &c. by special order, advice, or admonition from the Holy Ghost, refrained the baptizing of infants in their daies, it followeth not, but that we, who in these daies, have re­ceived no such order, advice, or admonition from the Holy▪ Ghost, neither by any word from the Scriptures, nor by any inward motion or inspiration, may lawfully practise in­fant-baptism, notwithstanding their forbearance; especially considering that we judge our selves incouraged, yea obliged hereunto, by the Holy Ghost speaking unto us as he doth, in the Scriptures.

Sect. 20.

This is a second consideration (over and above those five suggested by Mr. A.) proving that we in our daies may be in a regular, yea in an obliging capacity for baptizing in­fants, although John, the Apostles, &c. in their daies were [Page 126] not. We do not in all this imply, or suppose, that the A­postles or other primitive men, did alwaies, or altogether omit baptizing infants; our judgement is (as we shall fur­ther declare in our examination of the minor proposition) that infants were, even in the Apostles daies baptized; but onely shew and prove, that in case it could be proved that they did never baptize infants, yet this doth at no hand lead us to the like forbearance, much lesse impose a necessity up­on us by way of duty, of the like. So that Mr. A's argu­ment or proof of his major proposition, from enumeration of some particulars, is not altogether so good, as the young mans proof of his integrity, from his observance of several of the commandements of God was. For our Saviour chal­lenged him with the lack of one thing onely: yet lackest thou one thing: Luke 18. 22 But Mr. A's argument lacketh two things at least, and who knoweth how many more? And in the con­clusion of this his argument, he windeth up much more, then he had spun in the premises. For thus he concludes: And therefore what ever the reasons, or considerations were up­on which they (the primitive Baptists) did forbear to bap­tize infants, the same are binding to all men in these daies to forbear it likewise. Will you please to consider how this hath been proved? Because (saith he) we have no other reasons for the doing of it then they had. This reason stands by the said conclusion, as David's friends stood by him, when God (as he complains) had put them far from him. Psa. 88. 18. For what though it were granted (which yet hath been denied, and a good account given of the denial) that we have no other reasons to baptize infants, then they had, yet is it no legiti­mate consequence from hence, that therefore their reasons of forbearance, are to be our reasons, or reasons unto us, why we also should forbear such a practise. For they might have all the same reasons for baptizing infants, which we have; and yet their reasons might possibly, as to them, be overballanced with others of a contrary import, upon which they might forbear the said practise. But such reasons as these not lying before us (as there is no necessity why they should) we may stand bound to the practise in question, by [Page 127] those very reasons, from the bond or obliging force where­of, the Apostles might be discharged by others of a preponde­rant consideration. Therefore the arm of Mr. A's reason is too short to reach his conclusion.

Sect. 21.

In the upshot of his proof of his major proposition, he tells us, that it might be backed (if needfull; he might more truly have said, bellied, or made more bulky, then backed, or strengthned) from Philip 3. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 1, 2. From which Texts he would prove, that we ought to follow Christ and his Apostles, in what they did, as being rules and ex­amples to us what to do, and what not, in all manner of wor­ship or actions, which they did, or did not. Either this must be his inference from these Scriptures: or else his cita­tion of them is no waies relative to his purpose. But evident it is from what hath been already argued, neither these Scrip­tures, nor any other of their calculation, do require any fur­ther, or any other imitation, either of Christ himself, or of the Apostles: then 1. In such waies and actions, which are prescribed unto us by some Commandement or other of God: and 2. In such cases, when we are ingaged by, or are found under the same circumstances to follow, by which they were ingaged to go before. But the said Scriptures do at no hand, nor with any tolerable face of probability, impose it as a duty upon us, to refrain all actions or practises, which, for ought we know, they refrained; especially not to refrain all such actions or practises, which in case they did refrain, they had ground and reason to refrain, and we not. Yet unlesse Mr. A. can tamper these Scriptures to speak this, they will (in effect) say to him and his cause, for which he seeks their advocation, Depart from us: we know you not.

Thus we see by a light as clear as any the Sun shines at noon day, that the major proposition in Mr. A's first argu­ment is very crazie, and so no competent material to make a pillar for any mans Faith or practise. And if this proposi­tion be shaken, the whole strength and glory of the Argu­ment (according to the rule mentioned, §. 14.) is already in the dust. Notwithstanding, lest any man should be so ig­norant [Page 128] or weak, as not to give credit to the said rule, but think that if either of the propositions in an Argument, will stand, the Argument may by vertue hereof, be authentique and in force, let us bring the minor proposition, which he calls, The assumption, to the touch-stone also. The tenor of this proposition, is this.

But Baptism was not administred to Infants, neither in the daies of John the Baptist, nor of the Apostles. If this propo­sition were true, and could be demonstrated, yet it comes too late to salve the credit of the Argument (as was lately said.) But being carefully weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, it will be found too light, as the former also was. For,

Sect. 22.

1. It is no where said or affirmed, that Infants were not baptized by John, the Apostles, &c. Therefore unlesse it can be proved by some light, and pregnant consequence, from somewhat that is written, that they were not baptized, (which to do, would make a new thing under the Sun) the proposition before us, is no proposition of Faith, nor stands any man bound to beleeve it.

2. Mr. A's proof from the total silence of the Scripture herein, is as good as total silence, or the speaking of nothing. For it is a common and true rule; that Argumentum ab au­thoritate ductum negativè, non valet, a negative Argument from Authority proves nothing. And Mr. A. from the to­tal silence of the Scripture, may as well prove that neither hus­band men, nor Merchants, nor Taylors, nor Shoe-makers, (nor persons of twenty other callings besides) were bapti­zed, as well as that infants were not baptized. There is alike total silence of the Scripture, concerning the baptizing of the one, and the other; or if there be any difference in this kind, the silence is not so perfectly or absolutely total concerning the baptizing of children, as of the others (as will appear pre­sently.)

Sect. 23.

3. That total silence of the Scriptures, which he pleadeth to prove the non-baptizing of children in the Apostles days, [Page 129] may with as much reason be construed, as an argument, that they were baptized constantly and of course. For matters of common and known practise, the knowledge whereof doth not much concern future times, especially when these practi­ses may be [...]evinced otherwise, are frequently, and as (it were) of course pretermitted in Historical narrations. There is very little mention made of children circumcised in the old Testament: the reason (questionlesse) is, because their Circumcision was so common a practise. There is much more notice taken of the Circumcision of men (see Gen. 17. 23, 24, 25. Gen. 34. 24. Jos. 5. 7. 8.) because this was a practise besides, yea and contrary to, the letter of the institu­tion. I conclude therefore (saith Mr. Baxter, p. 116. of his Discourse for Infant-Church-membership, and Baptism) that it is a most evident truth, that Christ did not speak a­bout Infants-Church-membership, because it was a known truth beyond controversie. Nor was there any one man found in those days (that we read of) that ever denied it: and all the Jews, yea and all other Church-members were in actual possession of it, and Christ never questioned their pos­session. Upon the like account it very well may be that there is so much spoken in the New-Testament of the baptizing of men and women, and so little (or nothing at all, in so many words) of the baptizing of children. The frequent mention of men and women baptized, may with as much probability (if not more) argue, that the first administra­tions of Baptism were out of course, and contrary to the or­der setled by the institution, made unto them, as that they should be exemplary or binding unto future ages: As the recording of so many men circumcised, about the first insti­tution of Circumcision, was not intended to make these ad­ministrations standingly or in ordinary cases, exemplary, or obligatory unto after-times, because this had been to defeat the express letter of the institution; but rather to shew that in like cases, and under like circumstances, viz. when male Jews, or Proselites had not been circumcised the eight day, they might be circumcised afterwards, when ever they had oppor­tunity. And pr [...]b [...]ble it is, that the circumcising of so ma­ny [Page 130] men, Jos. 5. was warranted unto Joshua by the record of those examples. In like manner, the reason why the Holy Ghost maketh such frequent report in the New-Testament of men and women baptized, may (with greatest [...]obability) be, not to leave these examples for patterns, or rules, in all (no nor yet in ordinary) cases, but onely in such cases which parallel those, wherein the said administrations are reported to have been made, viz. when men and women should at any time be converted from an idolatrous and false Religion, and not have been baptized before. Much more might be added in confirmation of what hath been now asserted: but the thing it self hath so much face, as well as heart and strength, of reason in it, that untill I hear whether that which hath been already said, will satisfie, or why it should not, I shall forbear any further ingagement for the proof of it.

Sect. 24.

If children were not baptized by the Apostles, or in their daies, it is at no hand to be beleeved, that the Holy Ghost would have cast any such snare upon the Christian world in af­ter-times, as so frequent a report of housholds and families baptized, made in the New-Testament, and this without any limitation, or exception of persons, amounteth unto; espe­cially considering that it both was, and is, a thing generally known, that under the Divine dispensation immediately pre­ceding (I mean, that of Moses) children in families were the more appropriate subject of that Ordinance, which was a seal of the same Covenant with baptism [viz. of the righte­ousnesse of Faith, i. e. of remission of sins upon beleving, Rom. 4. 11. as we shall evince and prove in due time] and did perform the same, or like service (in the main) unto the Church of God under the Law, which Baptism now per­formeth under the Gospel (as some of the Doctors of the way of Ana-baptism themselves do acknowledge; though Mr. A. following his over-confident and sufficiently-ignorant leader, weeneth otherwise.) For what though that which Mr. A. laboureth to prove pag. 10. (though his enterprize be too hard for him) should be granted, viz. that there [Page 131] were no children in those families, which are reported to have been baptized by the Apostles, or by their order, yet from the very tenor of this expression, that they baptized Housholds, it is evident enough that they did baptize children; or (that which is every waies equivalent hereunto) that the mind of the Holy Ghost is, that children should be bap­tized. For it being left upon sacred record, simply and in­definitely, that housholds were baptized, and it being the ordinary dialect and language of the Scriptures, by the word, houshold and house, to understand and comprehend as well children, who are very considerable parts or members of an houshold, where they be, as persons of riper yeers, There­fore we may conclude that the Apostles did baptize children or infants, and not onely men of lawful age and that the house or houshold is taken for man woman and child, is manifest in the 17th. of Genesis, and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his house to come out of the land of Ca­naan into E­gypt. Mr. J. Philpot Martyr, in a letter direct­ed unto §. 27. it can­not reasonably be thought, but that the Holy Ghost did in­tend that housholds simply and ablolutely▪ as well those which have children in them, as those which have none, yea and these children themselves, being (as was said) parts of these housholds, might be baptized. And if so, doubtlesse the Apostles, who complied with the mind and intent of the Holy Ghost in their sacred administrations, did baptize chil­dren. And if Mr. A. and his, from the simple and general reports of beleevers being baptized, argue and conclude, that therefore all beleevers may be baptized, why from the like report of housholds being baptized, where the grown mem­bers did beleeve, may not we infer, and conclude likewise, that all housholds where the grown members do beleeve, may be baptized also? Or if the intent of the Holy Ghost had been, that onely actual Beleevers in an house should be baptized, would he have informed the Christian world, that housholds, whole housholds, or all in an house, were baptized, without giving some intimation at least, that children in every house were, & ought to be excepted? He that is so careful and desirous above measure to way-lay and prevent every sin and every transgression in men, even to the speaking of an idle or vain word, yea to the conceiving or tolerating of a vain thought, doubtlesse would not have neglected at that turn we now speak of (especially not having done it elsewhere) to insert some word or other, by which so great a sin as the baptizing of children, if it be a sin, might be prevented; [Page 132] much lesse would he have ministred such an occasion unto his Saints, as that specified, to draw and incourage them to the perpetration of such a sin.

Sect. 25.

5. To me it is one of the Congregation of the first born of Probabilities, that the Children brought to Christ, with a desire in them that brought them, that he should lay his hands on them and pray (Mat. 19. 13. &c.) had been already bap­tized. For it is expresly said Mar. 10. 16. that he put, or laid his hands upon them.

Now we never read in the New-Testament, of the laying on of hands upon any unbaptized person, unlesse (haply) it were in order to the working of some miraculous cure on him, on whom they were laid, See Mar. 5. 5. 8. 23. Mar. 16. 18. Luke 4. 40. Luke 13. 13. Acts 9. 17. Acts 28. 8. In all other cases imposition of hands was practised upon baptized persons onely, Acts 6. 6. Acts 8. 17. Acts 13. 3. Acts 19. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1 6. And more usually this imposition of hands was practised on those that had, either formerly, or lately, been baptized, and this in order to the receiving of the Holy Ghost, the Apostles (it seems, haply with some Elders of Churches besides, in those daies) having received this gift from God, viz. by laying on of hands and prayer, to obtain and impart the gift of the Holy Ghost unto Christians. Yea several Churches of the Ana­baptists themselves amongst us, glory in the outward cere­mony of laying on hands upon their proselytes newly bapti­zed, as if they were the Apostles heirs, and by descent inhe­rited all their spiritual royalties, and heavenly prerogatives; herein much resembling that ridiculous effeminate Emperor, who out of a foolish desire to be thought Hercules, or a man of strength and courage like unto him, would needs attire himself with a Lyons skin. But now it no waies appears, nor is it in it self a thing likely, that the children we speak of were brought unto Christ, to obtain any cure of any malady or disease from him. Besides if Christ had performed any miraculous cure upon them, there is little question but that this would as well, yea much rather, have been mentioned [Page 133] by the Evangelists, at least one or other of them, as his lay­ing of hands upon them. Therefore (in all likelihood) they were baptized before they were brought to Christ, to obtain the laying on of his hands upon them. Or if we shall say that Christ layed hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost (supposing them at present un-baptized) yet being made partakers of the Holy Ghost, by, or upon, the laying on of Christs hands, they were hereby put into an im­mediate capacity of receiving Baptism, according to that of the Apostle Peter, Acts 10. 47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Ho­ly Ghost, as well as we? And what other benefit or accom­modation the Lord Christ should intend to these children, or conferre by laying hands on them, but the gift of the Holy Ghost, when Mr. A. demonstrates unto me, I shall demur upon the place.

Sect. 26.

6. It is a law or rule established by God himself (repeat­ed several times both in the Old, and in the New Testament) and that for the deciding of cases and questions of far greater moment, then whether children were baptized in the Apo­stles daies (I mean cases and questions about life and death) that In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established. 2 Cor. 13. 1 Our Saviour more briefly reports it thus (speaking to the Jews) It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. Joh. 8. 17. If Mr. A. and men of his judg­ment, wil be content to be over-ruled by this law of God, and this so interpreted and, understood, as the Scripture it self useth and interpreteth it, the Question depending about childrens Baptism in the Apostles days, will soon receive a clear issue. For who from amongst men can (lightly) be found a more competent witnesse in the case, then that great and famous light of the Christian world in his daies, whose testimony in matters of fact, was never (to my knowledge, or hearing) so much as questioned or suspected ( Augustine I mean.) In one place (speaking of childrens Baptism) he saith: If any man ask for divine authority in the matter, although we most rightly beleeve that what the universal Church holdeth, and was [Page 134] not instituted by councels, but hath been ever held, was not de­livered but BY APOSTOLICAL AƲTHORI­TY; yet we may truly conjecture what the Sacrament of Bap­tism performeth to Infants, by Circumcision, which the for­mer p [...]ople did r [...]c [...]ive. Et si quis­quam in hac re authorita­tem divinam quaerat, quan­quam quod universa te­net Ecclesia, nec concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi au­thoritate A­postolicâ tra­ditam rectis­simè creditur; tamen veraciter continere [potiùs conjicere] possumus quid valeat in par­vul [...]s baptismi Sacram [...]ntum, ex circumcisione carnis, quam prior populus accepit, &c. Aug. de Bapt. Contà Donatistas. l. 4. c. 23. In another place, reporting what Cyprian (who lived within an 150 yeers after John) with many other learned men, Bishops, and Pastors of Churches in his time, had resolved concerning the lawfulnesse of bapti­zing children at any time, as well before the eight day, as on it (which was the doubt of one Fidus a Bishop) he affirm­eth, that Cyprian with his fellows, did not in this their re­solution of the case, make any new decree, but kept to the most constant [or setled] beleef of the Church. Beatus qui­dem Cyprianus, non aliquod decretum c [...]nd [...]ns novum, sed Ecclesiae fidem firmissimam servans, ad corrigendum eos qui putabant ante Octavum diem nativitatis non esse parvulum baptizandum, non carnem, sed animamidixit non esse perdendam, et mox natum ritè baptizari posse, cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit. Aug. Ep. 28. ad Hieronymum. A little after, he calls the practise of baptizing infants, Ecclesia fundatissi­mum morem, the best [or most] grounded practice of the Church.

This passage of Cyprian, is by this famous Author report­ed c Quid sen­serit [Sanc­tus Cypria­nus] de bap­tismo parvu­lorum, imò quid semper Ecclesiam sensisse mon­straverit, paululum accipite. in several places of his works, De verbis Apostoli. Serm. 14. Contrà duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium. lib. 4. c. 8. Item E­pist. 222. ad Marcellinum. Immediately before the former of these quotations, he affirms that Cyprian in that passage, did not so much declare what his own judgement was about the baptizing of children, as what the Church had ALWAIES held concerning i [...] ▪ Elsewhere speaking of Infant-baptism he saith that the Authority of the Church maintaineth or possesseth it, the well-grounded Canon [or rule] of truth (I suppose he means the Scripture) obtaineth [or evinceth] it: whoever runs at Tilt against this strength, against this impregnable [or [Page 135] inexpugnable] wall [or fortresse] will be broken to pieces by it. Hoc habet Authoritas matris Ec­clesiae, hoc fundatus ve­ritatis obtinet can [...]n; con­trà hoc robur contrà hunc inexpugna­bilem murū quisquis ari­etat, ipse con­fringetur Aug. de ver­bis Apost. Serm. 14. In another place he saith, that by the ancient Canoni­cal and most grounded usage of the Church, children baptized, are called faithful [or beleevers.] Nam i­deò & consu­etudine Ec­clesiae, antiquâ, canonicâ, fundatissimâ, parvuli baptizati fideles vocantur, ibid. In another, that that which made him solicitous, was not the opinion it self (mean­ing of Infant-baptism) which had been now long since founded, by the highest authority that is in the Catholick [or universal] Church, but the disputes of some men, which attempt the publick and the subversion of the minds of many. Solicitos autem nos facit non ipsa sententia jam olim in Ecclesiâ Catholicà summâ authoritate fundata, sed disputationes quorundam quae modo crebresce­re, & multorum animos evertere moliuntur, ibid. Yet again he saith, that the custome of the Church in baptizing little ones, is not at any hand to be despised; nor yet were it at all to be belee­ved [or received] were it not an Apostolical tradition, Consuetudo matris Ec­clesiae in baptiz [...]ndis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, ne (que) ullo modo super­flua deputanda, nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 10. c: 23. [ i. e. a practise handed over by, and from, the Apostles to the suc­ceeding Church of Christ.] To adde onely this one testimo­ny more from this worthy friend and Factor of Christ Jesus in his daies: Let no man (saith he) buzze abroad any strange Doctrines. This [of Infant-Baptism] the Church alwaies had, alwaies held, this it received from the Faith of its Ances­tors; this will it with perseverance keep unto the end. Nemo susurret Doctrinas alienas. Hoc Eccle­fia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc à majorum fide percepit, hoc us (que) in finem persev [...]ranter custodit. Aug. de verbis Apost. Serm. 10.

Much more might be cited from this worthy Author, for the attestation of this truth, that Infant-Baptism was practi­sed in the Apostles times, and from thence continued in Christian Churches until his daies. Nor is it to be beleeved, the unparallel'd integrity, ingenuity, wisdom and gravity of the man considered, that ever he would have opened his mouth, or lift up his pen, to assert such a thing, had he not known the truth thereof very perfectly, yea and been able to [Page 136] give a satisfactory and demonstrative account of what he af­firmed in the case, unto all that should have opposed, or questioned him about it. Origen likewise, who lived about 200 yeers nearer to the times of the Apostles, then Austin, and not much above an 100 yeers after the death of the A­postle John, and consequently being a very learned, industri­ous, and inquiring man, could not but know what was done in a businesse of that publick nature in the Apostles times; this Author I say expressely affirmeth, that the Church FROM THE APOSTLES had received a tradition [or practise] to administer Baptism even unto little ones. Pro hoc & Eccl sia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit eti­am parvulis Baptismum dare. Scie­bant enim illi, &c. Ori­gen. ad Rom. c. 6. v. 5, 6, &c. Yea and subjoins a reason, which (as he conceived) induced the Apostles to this practice. However this Author was not so sound in many points of Doctrine, as some other of the Fa­thers (although there was none of them, who did not now and then step besides the way of truth; as neither is there a­ny amongst those themselves, who are the severest observers of their errors, but are obnoxious also in the same kind) yet as to matter of fact, I suppose him as competent a witnesse, as the Law of God lately mentioned intendeth. He that de­sireth to see more of the sence of antiquity about the point in hand, may consult the writing of Dr. Holms, and Mr. Ste­phen Marshal, and especially Mr. Richard Baxter, against Mr. Tombs; the first, in his Animadversions upon Mr. Tombs his exercitation, &c. c. 13. p. 107. &c. the second, in his Defence of Infant-Baptism in answer to two Treatises, &c. be­ginning pag. 7. to the end of pag. 61. The third and last in his Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-member-ship, and Baptism. Part. 2. cap. 15. pag. 152, 153, 154, &c. See al­so pag. 262, 263, &c. and pag. 374, 375. To which he may please to adde a short Treatise, intituled, Infant-Bap­tism, published some yeers since by Mr. Robert Ram, Mi­nister of Spalding in Lincolnshire. In this Treatise the Rea­der (amongst other things) shall find a breviate drawn out of the Centuries of the Divines of Magdeburgh, pointing at such passages in the said Centuries, wherein the continued practise of Infant-baptism for 1300 yeers together from the Apostles times, is demonstrated from Histories and Authors [Page 137] of best account. In the two former besides many pregnant testimonies from the most ancient writers, evincing the des­cent of Infant-baptism from the Apostles, he shall find both the authentiquenesse of the Authors, from whence the said testimonies are cited, fully vindicated against those pretences which are levied by Anti-poedo-baptists against their authori­ties (respectively) as also such colourable arguments sub­stantially answered, which are by these men drawn [by head and shoulders] from antiquity. So that nothing needs to be added upon any of these accounts, beyond what hath been done lately by others, and is (I presume) of ready pro­curement by any, that is desirous of satisfaction in any of the particulars.

Sect. 27.

To the testimonies and authorities of ancient writers, who are one and all in asserting the lineal descent of Infant-bap­tism from the Apostles, I shall onely subjoin the sence and judgement in the case of that learned and worthy Martyr in Queen Maries daies, Mr. John Philpot, in a letter written to a fellow prisoner of his at the same time in Newgate, recor­ded in the book of Martyrs, Vol. 3. pag. 606. of the last e­dition. A. 1555. together with a testimony from Ro­bert L. Brook, cited by Mr. Tombs for Anti-poedo-baptism, in which respect I conceive his testimony will be the more passable with Mr. A. and men of his judgement. But first in one place the Martyr saith: Now will I prove with manifest arguments that children ought to be baptized, and that THE APOSTLES OF CHRIST DID BAPTIZE CHIL­DREN. In another, Since the Apostles were the Preachers of the word, and the very faithfull servants of Jesus, &c. who may hereafter doubt, that THEY BAPTIZED IN­FANTS, since Baptism is in place of Circumcision? In a third. Therefore we may conclude, that THE APOSTLES DID BAPTIZE INFANTS OR CHILDREN, and not onely men of lawfull age. More of like import might be cited from this letter, if it were needfull. So that unlesse Mr. A. or men of his mind, can produce some negative testi­mony, or witnesse from the Scripture, which do as expresly [Page 138] deny the baptizing of children by the Apostles, as these late­ly produced by me, and many more in far greater numbers produced by others, do affirm it, the affirmative is to be taken for truth, and this by the expresse law of God mentioned, which saith, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. This Law was made by God to o­ver-rule and issue cases and questions of life and death; and consequently of far greater import, then whether children were baptized or no, by the Apostles.

Secondly, for the L. Brook, his words (towards the end of his book concerning Episcopacy) are these: First, for ought I could ever learn, it was the constan [...] custome of the pu­rest and most primitive Church, to baptiz [...] infants of beleeving Parents For I could never find the b [...]ginni [...]g and first rise of this practise: whereas it is very easi [...] to track heresies to their first rising up, and setting foot into the Church. Again, I find all Churches (even the most strict) have ge [...]erally been of this judgement and practise: yea though th [...]re h [...]ve been in all ages som [...], that much affected NOVEL [...]Y, and had parts enough to discusse and clear what they thought good to preach; yet was this scarce [...]ver questioned by men of note, till within these last ages. And sure the constant judgement of the Churches of Christ is much to be honoured, and heard in all things that con­tradict not Scripture.

It may be Mr. A. will object, that the witnesses intended by God in his law, are onely such, who can speak to the case in question upon their own knowledge, as having been either eye-witnesses, or ear-witnesses themselves, of what they testifie; not such who testifie upon the credit or asserti­ons of others.

To this I answer, that Justin Martyr, Ireneus, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, (with many other studious and learned men about their times) all things considered, had as consi­derable, as unquestionable grounds, for what they testifie concerning the practise of Infant-baptism by the Apostles, as a witnesse, who speaks or gives evidence, upon the credit of his eyes, can reasonably be supposed to have, for such his testi­mony. For as it is possible for a man to have a myst cast be­fore [Page 139] his eyes, or to suffer such a Deceptio visûs, a deception of his signt, that may occasion him to beleeve with confi­dence, that he seeth such or such a thing, which (indeed) he seeth not, yet this possibility dis-ableth no mans testimo­ny, who giveth evidence upon the authority of his eyes; in like manner there being no more then a bare possibility (and this not degreed neither like the other) that the Authors mentioned should be mistaken in the grounds, upon which they build their testimony of the practice of Infant-Baptism by the Apostles, it is very importune, dis-ingenuous, and hardly consistent with a good conscience, for any man to re­ject their testimony in the case. And if Mr. A. himself, and three or four more of his judgement, of equall repute with him for sober and conscientious men (although I beleeve his new opinion and way hath not at all tenerized, or bettered his conscience, nor any other mans) should report any thing upon grounds as pregnant with evidence of truth unto them, as the grounds upon which the fathers testified the baptizing of children by the Apostles, were unto them, I should with­out much scruple beleeve him, yea though the thing report­ed by him in this case, should in it self be much more incre­dible, then that children were baptized by the Apostles. Nor is it at any hand to be beleeved or thought, that the said Au­thors (their gravity, wisdom, interest and authority in the Churches of Christ, in their daies, over and besides the most approved goodnesse of their Consciences, considered) would upon conjectural or light grounds, or such which had been liable to dis-proof, asserted any such matter of fact as that. Yea (that which is more then this) their adversaries themselves (I mean the Pelagians, who were great oppo­sers of Augustine and the Orthodox Fathers about his daies) men of great learning, subtile, diligent and studious in their way, against whose Doctrine and Tenents, the baptizing of infants, was one of the grand arguments or objections, urged and insisted on by the Orthodox Fathers, yet never denied, or so much as questioned the truth of what they constantly affir­med, touching the descent of Infant-Baptism from the A­postles.

To pretend, that the writings at this day passing under the names of the fore-named fathers, may for ought we know, be spurious and counterfeit, or else depraved and corrupted, and that upon this account, the authority of any thing found in them, is not much to be valued; thus (I say) to pretend argue, and conclude, is worthy onely such men, whose con­sciences will serve them rather to say any thing, and to seek out any frivolous or puted evasion, then to yeeld to the truth. However if Mr. A. can offer any thing for proof of the ne­gative (that children were not baptized by the Apostles) which in the eye of unpartial and considering men, doth any waies, to any proportion, or degree, ballance the weight of what hath been alledged from many competent witnesses for the affirmative, I shall let go the hold I have taken on the credit of their testimony in the case, which untill then I suppose himself will judge meet and Christian that I should keep. In the mean time the premises, together with what we shall upon somewhat a like account, immediately sub­join, considered; I do with very little lesse confidence be­leeve, that Children were baptized in the Apostles daies, then I beleeve the Sunne to be up at noon day. There­fore,

Sect. 28.

7. It is very considerable also for the discovery of the truth in the businesse in hand, that the times, when (and for the most part, the occasions whereupon) those additi­onal ceremonies which for a long time accompanied the bap­tizing of infants, as God-fathers, and God-mothers (so cal­led) with some others, had their first rise and original, may from current histories, be shewed and found. Whereas no history whatsoever undertaketh to report, when the bapti­zing of infants came first into the Church; which is no light argument or proof, that this practise was more ancient then any Ecclesiastical history now extant; and consequently, as ancient as the times of the Apostles. For it is altogether improbable, that any History should take notice of appurte­nances, or additional circumstances, and record the time of their introduction into the Church, and not withall take and [Page 141] give knowledge of the time, when the fundamental and main practice it self first began, in case the beginning hereof, had fallen within that compasse of time, which the said History traverseth. What Mr. Tombs impertinently attempteth from the councel of Carthage, hath been sufficiently staved and beaten back by others. Dr. Hosms Animad. up­on Mr. Tombs his Exercit. p. 167, 168. &c. Mr. Marshal De­fence of In­fant-Bap­tism. p. 40. Nor is there any thing more appa­rent from History, then the mention of Infant-baptism be­fore that councel. For the first councel of Carthage (which it is like Mr. Tombs meaneth, though he distinguisheth not, there having been several of the name) was held about the yeer, 217. according to some computations several yeers after; whereas there is mention of [...]nfant-Baptism (as we heard) both in Origen, who died before this councel, as also in Justin Mar­tyr, Ireneus, yea and Tertullian, who all lived neerer to the times of the Apostles, then Origen. And it may be worth some obser­vation that Augustine (who as we have heard) so frequently & constantly (upon occasion) asserteth Infant-baptism it self, to have been practised in the Apostles times, yet speaking of the custome of interrogating the infant, to be baptized by the Susceptores, or those that brought it to Baptism (whom we call God-fathers and God-mothers) affirmeth no such thing concerning this, though otherwise he indeavoureth to give the best account of it he can, to his friend and fellow-Bishop Boniface, Epist. 23.

Sect. 29.

8. Although no History records either when, or by whom Infant-baptism was first brought into the Church, yet is the first opposing of it ascribed by good History to an Arrian Heretique, named Auxentius with his adherents; as the most learned and worthy Martyr Mr. John Phi [...]pot, (formerly mentioned) affirmeth in that letter, whereof we took no­tice in the beginning of §. 27. The diligent perusal of this letter alone, is enough to make Ana-baptism the abhorring of any intelligent mans soul. This Auxentius I find upon the stage acting the part first of a subtile, and afterwards of an imperious insulting Arrian, about the year 369. So that untill this time the baptizing of Infants (it seems) was never so much as questioned in the Churches of Christ, and he who [Page 142] first questioned and opposed it, opposed withall the God-head of Christ. So that Mr. A. and his, have no great cause to boast of the founder of their Faith in the Doctrine of Anti-poedo-baptism; as neither have they of one of the greatest defenders of it, since the late resurrection of it from the dead in Germany (Lodivicus Hetzer by name) who with Auxentius denied, the Divinity of Christ, and besides was a notorious Adulterer, and withall was confident that he was able to justifie his adulterous practises by the Scriptures. In­deed the History reporteth that at last he very seriously re­pented of all, as well his Anabaptism (for so I understand my Authors, Quorum omnium) as of his Arrianism, and Adulteries. Constan­tiae, quarta Februarij capite trun­catur Ludo­vicus Hetzer Ana-baptis­tarum Ante­signanus, vir trium linguarum peritissimus, sed qui de multis fidei capitibus singulares opi­niones habuit. Negavit divinitatem Christi—Causam supplicij de illo sumpti Blarerus in Anabaptismum rejicit, alij in crebra ejus adulteria, quae nonnunquam è Scripturis defendere sit ausus. Quorum omnium seria ductus poenitentiâ, &c. Scultet. Annat. Dec. 2. circa finem Anni, 1529.

Those who of later times, and since the beginning of the Reformation attempted first by Luther, revived this opposi­tion, whereas before the followers of the Lamb, as well as of the Beast, had continued the practice of baptizing infants time out of mind (as the saying is) without interruption, are known to have been one Nicholas Ciconia (in English Stork) Mark Stubner, Martin Cellar, and Thomas Munster; these in the yeer, 1521. went up and down from place to place in Germany, and insnared many unlearned and simple people, with their pernicious Doctrine (as my Author termeth it.) Their manner was, to boast of colloquies (or private confer­ences) with God, to talk and inveigh both against Ministers of the Gospel, and men in civil authority: to clamour, that all things in the Church were corrupt and out of order, and therefore must be reduced, that there must be a new Church built, and the Citizens [or members] initiated with a second Baptism. What kind of persons these were, together with the far greatest part of those, whom they drew into their o­pinion, [Page 143] how they disturbed both the Ecclesiastical and civil peace in all places (almost) where they came, especially where they grew to any head or numbers considerable, I shall forbear here to relate, referring the Reader desirous of satisfaction in such particulars, to unpartial histories of those times. Or to contract his labour in this kind, I re­commend unto him (upon this account) the perusal onely of the 14th▪ chapter of the second part of Mr. Baxter's book, intituled, Plain Scripture Proof for Infants Church-member­ship and Baptism. Onely I shall mention this concerning Martin Cellar, one of the four, and the learnedst man of them, that after he had stood by his sect several years, and had writ much for it, at last perceiving that his party decli­ned, and matters did not answer his expectation, he went and setled at Basil, married and lived quietly, taught Divi­nity; and as being ashamed to be known or called by that name, under which he had professed Ana-baptism, he chan­ged his name from Cellarius into Borrhaus; under which name he wrote learned Commentaries upon the five books of Moses, with some others, which are now extant under this name.

By the way, I marvell not a little, upon what ground Mr. A. and his partisans can satisfie themselves touching the au­thentiquenesse of their new Baptisms, considering that (which I suppose is their own principle also) that no un­baptized Person hath any right, or is in any regular capacity to administer Baptism; and consequently that Baptism admi­nistred by, and received from such a person, is a meer nul­lity, and no true Baptism. For all persons baptized in infan­cy, being judged by them unbaptized, and there being no other but such in the nation, when their new Baptism was first administred here, it undeniably follows, that the first administration of it was a meer nullity: and upon this account how the second, or third, or thousandth, or ten thousandth administration should become any other then a nullity also, and this according to their own principles, I cannot under­stand. And to prove that their first administration here, had an immediate Commission from God, as John Baptist had, or [Page 144] from Christ, as possibly the Apostles had, to erect that kind of Baptism in this Nation, which he administred, is (I suppose) far above the line of their learning: Certain I am, that they must ascend far above that which is written, to prove it.

Sect. 30.

9. Had not children as well as men and women been bap­tized by the Apostles, or in their daies, why do we not hear of exceptions, quarrels, and contests made against them in that behalf, by some or other of their Antagonists, Law­yers, Sadduces, Scribes, Pharisees, or other Zealots amongst the Jews? This nation (we all know) had now for many generations, even from the dayes of Abraham their Father, been possest by God of an holy priviledge and accommoda­tion for themselves and their children, I mean, circumcision; yea and were wont to boast, not onely or simply of their pre­rogative of circumcision, but likewise of their admission unto it, and reception of it in their infancy, and at the eight day, as is clear from that of the Apostle, Philip 3. 4, 5. If any o­ther man thinketh he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more; CIRCƲMCISED THE EIGHT DAY, &c. Yea Mr. Fisher himself ( Baby-baptism pag. 182.) acknowled­geth (or rather, as making for his cause, confidently avouch­eth) that the circumcising of their children, was a businesse, which the Jews so doted on, that of all things they were unwilling to let it go. Yea (it seems) they were highly incensed against Paul, upon a rumour that he prohibited the circumcising of their children, Act. 21. 21. Now then if Christ or his A­postles should by their new Doctrine of the Gospel, against which they sought all manner of exceptions and pretences lightly imaginable, have excluded their children, not onely from circumcision it self, but from all other accommodati­ons or priviledges whatsoever, that should any waies answer, or counterpoize it, is it to be beleeved that they would have taken no notice of it, or made it no matter of offence and quarrel? Or if they did stumble at it, and disparage or fault the Gospel, or the managing of it in the world upon such an account, can it be thought that the Holy Ghost would have [Page 145] made no record of such a thing, nor yet of Christs or the A­postles vindication or justification of themselves and their practice against such an imputation; especially considering that very many things are recorded by him of far lesse mo­ment, then such a vindication would have been? Yea (doubt­lesse) the reason why the Apostle Peter immediately upon his exhortation to the Jews to repent and be baptized, subjoi­neth the mentin of their children, as interessed in the same grace and priviledge with them, was to prevent the offence which they might justly have taken, in case themselves onely had been admitted to Gospel priviledges, and their children excluded.

Sect. 31.

10. Whereas the Apostle Paul informs the Colossians, who (it seems) were bending towards the Jewish Circumcision, that they were COMPLEAT in Christ, in whom (he saith) they were circumcised, also with a Circumcision made without hands—Buried with him in Baptism, &c. Manifestly im­plying, that Baptism was an Ordinance, as much, or as well, if not more, or more significantly compleating them, as Circumcision (with all the retinue of legal observations depending thereon) did, or ever had done the Jews; if it be not supposed that their children, whilest such, had been, or might be baptized, as well as themselves, might they not justly have denied Paul's assertion concerning their being compleat in Christ? might they not have objected and said, we are not as compleat in Christ, or under the Gospel, as we were, or might be in Moses, or by subjecting our selves to the Law? In Moses, or under the Law, we had the great spiritual privi­ledge or accommodation of Circumcision, as well for our children, as our selves; whereas in Christ, or under the Gos­pel, we want not onely the Ordinance of Circumcision, but all other priviledges, or accommodations of like import, in respect of our children. For the Baptism you speak of, and which you make the successor of Circumcision, you permit us not to administer unto them. In this respect therefore we are maimed or lame in Christ, not so well accommoda­ted, not so compleated in him, as we were in Moses, under the Law.

[Page 146]11. Some of the greatest Defenders of Mr. A's faith, in the point of Anti-poedo-Baptism, acknowledge; that accor­ding to Mr. A's principles, touching the extent of the Grace of God, in the death of Christ, children ought to be bapti­zed. If (saith Mr. Tombs Exercit. concerning Infant-Bap­tism, pag. 24.) it should be made known to us that Children are sanctified, I should not doubt that they are to be baptized. He expresseth his sence to the same purpose elsewhere, as viz. pag. 19. Now according to the tenor of Mr. A's faith, the Apostles did know, that Children were sanctified; and consequently (according to the sence of the prime head of his party) that they ought to be baptized. And if the A­postles doubted not but that children were to be baptized, how can I reasonably doubt, but that they did baptize them? I know some others of Mr. A's sence, in the point of Re­baptism, who join with Mr. Tombs in his sence touching the meetnesse of baptizing infants, upon a supposal of their being in favour with God.

Sect. 32.

12. (And lastly) there [...]an no probable, no nor tolera­ble reason or account be given, why any such innovation or practice as the baptizing of Infants, should be brought into the Churches of Christ, especially so soon after the Apostles, and in those times, wherein all records of Antiquity mention the use and practice of it. This is another consideration, preg­nant of proof, that Infant-Baptism was the practice of the Apostles, as well as of later times. If it could be supposed to be any waies gratificatory to the flesh (which yet is a studi­ed and far-fetch'd pretence) yet such a motive or ground as this, no waies suits with the zeal, diligence, faithfulness, painful­ness, self-denial, most exemplary mortification of, the chief Pas­tors of Churches, and Ministers of the Gospel in those times. Non ut nunc, sic & olim; it is a very weak and childish conceit, to imagine that Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Au­stine (with many other worthy Agents for Christ, and the Gospel in their times) who were able and ready to be bap­tized in their own bloud for Christ and the Gospels sake (as [...] of them actually were) should rebell against so great [Page 147] an Ordinance of Christ, and Gospel institution, as Baptism, or deprave and vitiate the Administration of it, thorough fear of going into cold water, and of administring it in a River; especially considering, that in those warmer Climates of the world, where they lived, cool waters were rather matter of delight, and refreshing unto nature, then of offence or in­convenience. Yea Mr. Laurence (for the Treatise intitu­led, Of Baptism, is generally reputed his, and is none of the worst pieces written in the cause of Anti-poedo-Baptism) to salve his notion of the necessity of dipping, if it may be, out of the hand of the Holy Ghost, recording the baptizing of the Jaylor and his houshold by Paul, to have been in the night, is pleased to suppose, that in those Eastern and hotter Countries, bathing was of great, and continual use; and that in this respect, the keeper of the Prison MIGHT be provided of some vessel fit for bathing and washing the whole body, which might serve for the use of Baptism. Of Bap­tism, pag. 81, 82. I confesse this is a pret­ty ingenious conceit to help a lame notion over the wall, that standeth in the way; but in the mean time, we see how the greatest Patrons of Anti-poedo-Baptism are necessitated to Sanctuary their cause under the shadow of their wits and fancies, the Scriptures ever and anon forsaking them, and many times rising up against them. They tell us, that we build onely upon consequences and deductions from Scrip­ture, wherein we are fallible, and subject to errour: but certainly the weakest of our consequences, are much stronger then such suppositions as this, and more relative to the Scrip­tures. Yea the very truth is, that themselves hold nothing, that reacheth their cause in opposition unto us, but onely consequences, such as they are, pretended from the Scriptures. They never yet produced (nor ever will) any Text of Scrip­ture wherein Infant-Baptism is in expressenesse of words de­clared to be unlawfull. Therefore they who undertake to prove it such from the Scriptures, must of necessity levy con­sequences to serve in their warfare. But the late mentioned Author, to preserve dipping from drowning in the Jaylors baptism, makes two suppositions, (like two corkes) one upon another, neither of which hath so much as one dust or [Page 148] grain of sand in the Scripture, for a foundation. First, that the Jaylor had a Vessel in his house fit for ba [...]hing and washing the whole body. 2. That this vessel served for the use of Bap­tism [by dipping.] If his intent was onely to affirm and say, that he MIGHT have such a Vessel; and again, that such a Vessel MIGHT serve for Baptism, he supposeth in­deed nothing, but what may well be supposed; but withall, saith nothing to his purpose. But this by the way. Onely evident it is upon the credit of my Author, that in the hotter Regions of the earth, going into the water, could be no great affliction to the flesh; as neither is it in these colder Cli­mates themselves in warm seasons, as well boys as men going into rivers, and dowsing themselves over head and ears for their pleasure. Therefore an unwillingnesse to administer Baptism in rivers, is no likely motive, occasion, or temptati­on, to have diverted the primitive and worthy Bishops and Pastors of Christian Churches from such an administration of it, to an administration by sprinkling, had they apprehended it to be the onely regular administration. How otherwise the sprinkling of infants should accommodate the interest of the flesh, more then the baptizing of Beleevers in Rivers, is (as far as I can apprehend) of no easie conjecture. And how­ever, no accommodation whatsoever in this kind, is like ei­ther to have perverted the judgements, or polluted the con­sciences either of Cyprian, or, of any other those most zealous and faithfull servants of God, who both before him, and after him, and in the same age with him, unanimously both pleaded and practised Infant-Baptism. It is a memo­rable saying of this Cyprian, and of a very pregnant import to acquit him in this kind: Whatsoever is instituted by the madn [...]sse of men, whereby any thing of Divine disposition is vi­ola [...]ed [or corrupted] is adulterous, is impious, is sacrile­gious. Adulte­ [...]m est, i [...]p­um est, sacri­l [...]g [...]m est, quicquid hu­mano furere instituitur, [...]t d [...]spositio d [...]vi [...]a viole­tur, Cypr. l 1. Ep. 8. He that shal at such a rate of severity as this, cen­sure, condemn, and abhominate all humane institutions whatsoever, whereby any divine institution shall be prejudi­ced or corrupted, cannot lightly, especially being a person of singular integrity, gravity, piety, and conscience, be an Abettor or Patron of such institutions.

Mr. Tombs hath strained his wits and fancy to invent and devise, what with any colour or shew of probability might first occasion Infant-Baptism in the Church. But what he hath obtruded upon the world upon this account, is so in­considerable in it self, and besides hath been so fully answer­ed by others, Dr. Holms Animad. up­on M. Tombs Excercit, &c. p. 191, 192, &c. that I cannot judge it worth the Readers patience to hear any re-examination of it. That which some pretend should move Pope Innocent to decree the baptizing of children, viz. a desire to propagate and inlarge the Kingdom of Christ in the world, is altogether impertinent to the businesse in hand. For 1. The baptizing of Infants is famously known to have been practised in the Church, some hundreds of years before this Pope was born; therefore no­thing could move him to decree the first introduction of it. 2. Neither did he decree simply the practise of it, but one­ly by his decree confirmed the practise of it; or rather (as the Pontifician Historians themselves report) confirmed the practise, or the necessity of the practise of it, for the ta­king away of original sin; or (which is the same, at least as he seems to have interpreted it) for the inlargement of the Kingdom of Christ. I confesse the practise we speak of (In­fant-Baptism) is a means very proper for the inlargement of the Kingdom of Christ, though not by taking away original sin, but by a timely ingagement of the persons baptized, to the obedience and service of Jesus Christ (of which, occasi­on may be to speak more hereafter.) And though it be supposed, that they who practised Infant-Baptism long be­fore this Innocent, built their practise upon the same mista­ken ground with him, yet it followeth not from hence, that therefore it was not practis [...]d by the Apostles in their daies; but onely that they who used the practise after them, were mistaken in the grounds, upon which they (the Apostles) prac­tised it. Nor is the practise therefore to be esteemed, or termed Antichristian, because a Pope decreed the confirma­tion of it, more then this Doctrine, that Christ is the Holy One of God, is to be esteemed Diabolical, because the Di­vel preached or avouched it, Mar. 1. 24. Luke 4. 43.

Home to this point, is this passage of the most learned and [Page 150] worthy Martyr Master J. Philpot (formerly mentioned, in that letter of his specified, §. 27. and 28.) These authorities of m [...]n I do alledge [...], not to tie the Baptism of Children to the authorities of men, but to shew how mens testimonies do agree with Gods Word, and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side, and that the Anabaptists have nothing but lies for them, and new imagi­nations, which FEIGN THE BAPTISM OF CHIL­DREN TO BEE THE POPES COMMANDE­MENT.

Sect. 33.

I expect none other but that to Mr. A. and men of his in­gagement, all these arguments and proofs of the baptizing of children in the Apostles daies, will seem poor, pedling, and paltry: For Mr. Fisher (it seems) never had the good hap to meet with any better from any of his adversaries, then such; yea and lest, either he, or his cause, might suffer tho­rough want of confidence in the highest, he affirms, that God himself knows them to be no better. Baby-bap­tism, p. 305. However I hearti­ly wish that some one or other of their perswasion, would exhibit and tender unto the world, were it but the one half (in evidence and pregnancy of proof) against the lawful­nesse of Infant-Baptism, of what hath been now delivered in the twelve Considerations propounded for the proof of In­fant-Baptism in the Apostles daies; that so the troublesome and tempestuous controversie about the appropriate subject of Baptism amongst the Saints, might suddenly end in a sweet calm of love and peace. For verily I have gone round a­bout the whole body and Systeme of that Doctrine, which so much magnifieth it self against infant-Baptism, and have narrowly and with an un-prejudiced eye, observed all the parts, limbs, and joynts thereof, and cannot find so much as one sound member, or clean joynt in it. The whole struc­ture and fabrique of it stands upon such foundations, which either are sandy or loose, or else irrelative to what is pretend­ed to be built upon them, and so are indeed no true founda­tions of this Doctrine, though otherwise Truths. But notwithstanding all that hath been said to prove Infants baptized in the Apostles days, or (as Mr. A. supposeth) can [Page 151] be said, he judgeth himself sufficiently enlightned to demon­strate the contrary. But his allegations in this behalf being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuary, how light will they be found to be?

Sect. 34.

To the first therefore I answer; 1. By denying that the Mr. A's arguments for the non­administrati­on of Bap­tism to In­fants in the Apostles daies, an­swered. Scripture is totally silent, touching the baptizing of Infants (within the times queried) and that it no where directly, or consequentially, affirmeth or hinteth such a thing. For the ground and reasonablenesse of this denial (to spare repeti­tions as much as may be) I appeal to the premises in the 24 and 25 Sections.

2. For the rule which he cites from the Civil Law, in these words, that which appears not, is not, this Law indeed holds forth such a maxime is this, Non esse, & non apparere, aequiparatur in jure, i. e. not to be, and not to appear to be, are of the same consideration in Law; meaning, that the Law takes no judiciary or penal cognisance of what appears not by proof to be, more then it doth of that, which simply is not. But this rule maketh not at all for Mr. A. but rather, as far as it relateth to his cause, against him. For 1. In­fant-baptism doth (as hath been proved) appear, and this by the light of the Scriptures, to have been in the Apostles daies. 2. Mr. A's rule it self (now specified) supposing a pos­sibility of the real being of that, which yet in Law appears not to be, applied to his cause, importeth a possibility of the practise of Infant-Baptism in the Apostles daies; onely denying that though it were indeed then practised, yet in as much as the practise appeareth not ( viz. to Mr. A. and men of his judgement, for to many others it appeareth sufficient­ly) it ought not to be avouched, or supposed. Those Scripture reproofs 1. Of mens intruding themselves into those things which they have not seen. And 2. Of being wise above what is written, fall more directly upon himself and his Symmysts, then upon his Adversaries. For certain it is, that the non-baptizing of Infants in the Apostles daies, is not written; and yet Mr. A. maketh himself so wise as to know it.

Sect. 11.

To his second proof, wherein (with its fellows) he re­joyceth, as being of a proper and potent tendency, to carry the minds of men that are at liberty [to beleeve any thing] and not under the bands of pr [...]judice and partiality, to think and con­ceive that no Infants were baptized in the daies mentioned. p. 3. We answer likewise

1. That the Evangelist Luke, did not set himself to expresse and set forth the power and great successe of the Gospel in Sa­maria, Answer to Mr. A's 2d. consideration to prove no baptizing of Infants in the Apostles daies, p. 3, 4. &c. in those words, They were baptized both men and women; but rather in those (in the former part of the verse.) But when they beleeved Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, Acts 8. 12. A cordial and sound be­leeving of the things of the Gospel by men and women, ar­gues the power and great successe of the ministry thereof; but a prevailing with them onely to be baptized, is of no such in­terpretation or import. Jerusalem and ALL Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, were so far prevailed with by John, as to be content to be baptized. Mat. 3. 5, 6. And yet John himself, speaking of Christ, complaineth that no man [i. e. exceeding few] receiveth his testimony, Joh. 3. 32. [ i. e. truly belee­ved on him.] And notwithstanding the vast multitudes that were baptized by John a very little while before; yea and greater by Christ himself and his Disciples Joh. 4. 1., yet the number of the names of the Disciples at the time of Christs ascenti­on, amounted onely to an hundred and twenty. Acts 1. 15. Nor was the great multitude that was baptized by John, any argument of the great power or successe of his ministry; because many who in all likelihood had never heard him preach, yet upon the common fame of his being a Prophet, came forth with a desire and intent to be baptized of him. For we read not of his preaching any where, but onely in the Country about Jordan, and in the Wildernesse where he baptized; Luke 3. 3. See §. 177. where­as, as well Jerusalem and all Judea (as we heard) as all the Country about Jordan, went forth to be baptized of him. Mat. 3. 5. Mar. 1. 5. Therefore a perswasion wrought in men and women to be content to be baptized, is a weak proof of the power or great successe of the Gospel. Thus we see the very basis and ground­work [Page 153] (which is but Mr. A's own supposition) of all he pleads, pag. 4. and 5. to be a pure mistake.

Sect. 36.

2. The Power and great successe of the Gospel, is expressed by Luke (and this in several places) where he makes no mention at all of the baptizing of any person, man, or wo­man, but onely of the conversion of persons to the Faith, and of some worthy fruits or testimonies thereof (far great­er then a willingnesse to be baptized.)— Atd the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many that beleeved came, and confessed and shewed their deeds. Many also of them which used curious Arts, brought their Books together, and bur­ned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. SO MIGHTILY grew the Word of God, and PREVAILED. Acts 19. 17, 18, &c. See also Acts 4. 4. Acts 11. 21. 24. Acts 13. 43. 48. Acts 14. 21. Acts 16. 5. Acts 17. 3, 4. 11, 12. 34. In all these places Luke (questi­onlesse) intended to set forth the power and great successe of the Gospel; yet mentioneth not the baptizing of so much as any one person. Therefore according to Mr. A's principles, if we shall suppose that there were any such thing as baptizing amongst any of the persons recorded in these passages to have been converted to the Faith, we must suppose that the Holy Ghost not recording it, scarcely did that to the one half, which he should have done totally and intirely in relation to his proposed end. These kinds of reasoning are most lamentable grounds whereon to build the pulling down of Churches.

3. Whereas he urgeth the record of Moses declaring A­braham's obedience to the Word of God, not onely and bare­ly by his own personal circumcision, but by his circumcising, first himself, after that, his Son, and then his servants also; it seems that if Moses had not been thus punctual and parti­cular in drawing up this record, M. A. would have blamed him for it, and arraigned him of unfaithfulnesse, had he known that such things had been done by Abraham, and he ( Moses) not recorded them. Is it so hard a thing for Mr. A. to al­low unto the Holy Ghost the liberty of his own understand­ing in framing his records and reports of matters done? Or must it needs be supposed that because he is more particular & [Page 154] express in one place, he must needs be so in another, or in all? Or must he be charged, either with superfluity in Matthew, because he, in making the report of the greatnesse of the mi­racle wrought by Christ in feeding several thousands with five loaves, and two fishes, besides the number of the men who were fed, maketh mention both of women, and of children; Mat. 14. 21. or with deficiency in his two other Evangelists, Mark, and John, because they, in their reports of the same miracle, men­tion onely the number of the men, but take no knowledge at all either of the women or children Mat. 6. 44 Joh. 6. 10.? Or doth it follow, that because he directed his penman Luke, to record the baptizing of men and women in Samaria, upon their belee­ving, and did not direct him to make the like record concer­ning those, who beleeved in Jerusalem, Acts 4. 4. or in E­phesus, Acts 19. 18. 20. that therefore he was either super­fluous in the former direction, or defective in the latter?

Sect. 37.

4. His marginal instances (pag. 5.) make much more a­gainst him, then for him. For if Children in the Old Testa­ment were brought by their Parents before the Lord in their holy Assemblies; is it not a pregnant argument, that then they were Church-members; and consequently in a sufficient and regular capacity of this member-ship? And if God be no ac­cepter of persons, more under the Old Testament, then in the times of the New, children being every waies qualified alike, and in the same capacity of Church-member-ship, un­der both, how they should enjoy the priviledge of such a re­lation under the former, and yet be excluded from it under the latter, I confesse I understand not; especially considering. 1. That Infant-Church-member-ship, was no Mosaical ce­remony (nor ever hath been so adjudged by any understand­ing man, as far as I have heard) and so not liable to that a­brogation or dissolution of ceremonies, that was made by the body of Christ (as the Apostle speaks.) 2. That the grace of God, in the vouchsafement of priviledges and means of Salvation, is not more contracted (no more I mean, in res­pect of ages, then either of sexes, or of nations) under the Gospel, then it was under the Law, but rather every waies inlarged, where there is place or opportunity for inlarge­ment

[Page 155]5. There is somewhat alike consideration of his observa­tion, from Acts 21. 5. where he finds Luke reporting how the Disciples at Tyre accompanied Paul on his way, with their wives and children. For if he grants that the wives of the Disci­ples here spoken of, were Disciples also (which I presume he will not stick to do) then why he should not grant that their children likewise, who are joyned with them in the same action of service and respect unto the Apostle, were Disciples, I beleeve he is no whit more able then I, to give a reasona­ble account. Or is it reasonable to suppose, that when Luke saith, that the Disciples accompanied Paul on his way, with their wives and children, that his intent or meaning should be, that they accompanied him with their baptized wives, and unbaptized children? or that the Apostle should accept of a Linsey-woolsey retinue, compounded partly of Christians, partly of Pagans, or little Heathens? But however, though it should be granted to Mr. A. that this act of the Disciples, accompanying Paul with their wives and children, should be lesse [i. e. an act of lesse weight or consequence] then the act of Parents causing their children to be baptized; yet supposing this to have been frequently and ordinarily done (which Mr. A. knows to be the sence of his adversaries) and such acts as that of the Disciples accompanying Paul, with th [...]ir wives and children, more exemplary and rare, the reason is apparent enough why there should be mention made of children in the record of this act, though there were no re­cord at all made of the other. It is recorded concerning Barnabas (Acts 11. 24.) that he was a good man, full of the Holy Ghost, and of Faith; but no mention of his having been baptized. But will Mr. A. upon the account of a non-men­tion of his baptizing, give us leave to conclude, that there­fore he was not baptized? If he will not give us leave to con­clude upon such premises, he must not take it himself. In­stances in this kind might be produced without number.

Sect. 38.

6. Under the expression of men and women in the Scrip­tures, children are sometimes comprehended; yea some­times where men onely are named, both women and chil­dren [Page 156] are understood. When Mark saith, And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men, he meant, be­sides women and children; otherwise he must contradict his fellow Evangelist Matthew (who speaking of the same bu­sinesse) saith, And they that had eaten were about five thou­sand men, besides women a [...]d children, Mat. 14. 21. Compare also herewith, Joh. 6. 10. again J [...]s. 8. 25. And so it was that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thou­sand, even all the men of Ai. Here is mention made onely of men and women. Yet evident it is, from v. 26. and from the context of the story round about, that under these terms, both of men and women, children also were comprehended. The Evangelist Mark, recording the other miraculous feed­ing of multitudes by Christ, and comming to report the number of those that were fed, saith onely thus; And they that had eaten were about four thousand, and he sent them away Mar. 8. 9. Whereas Matthew recording the same miracle, re­porteth the number of those that had eaten, to have been fo [...]re thousand, BESIDES WOMEN AND CHIL­DREN, Mat. 15. 38. So that it is customary and fre­quent in the Scriptures, both under the word men, to com­prehend as well women and children, as men; and again under, men and women to comprehend children. And it is the probable opinion of some, that amongst the three thou­sand said to have been added unto the Church [or rather, un­ [...]o the Lord, as Acts 11. 24.] there were both women and children.

7. Whereas ( p. 6.) he laboureth to prove that the scope and intent of the Evangelist in the words, They were baptized both men and women (Acts 8. 12.) was to set forth the great successe of the Gospel in Samaria, sufficient proof hath been made of the contrary, § 35, 36. the perusal of which two Sections, is upon this account commended unto the Reader. Yet let us weigh the double proof he levieth to get his conceit the vic­tory. First he argueth from lik [...]nesse of phrase and words, Acts 5. 14. used (as he supposeth) by the same Evangelist, to the same purpose, viz. to set forth the great successe of the Gos­pel, &c. 2. From the scope of the place and context. To the [Page 157] former of these I answer; 1. That when it is said, Acts 5. 14. And Beleevers were the more added unto the Lord, multi­tudes of men and wowen, the great successe of the Gospel is not at all set forth by the bare mention of both sexes, men and women but by the BELEEVING of MƲLTI­TƲDES of both sexes. 2. I wouldly gladly know of Mr. A. whether there be any thing at all in this his parassel place, concerning the baptizing, not of both, but of either men or women. If not, I would gladly learn of him, what likenesse of phrase, or words, here is, to prove that Luke in­tended to set forth the power and great successe of the Gospel in those words ( Acts 8. 12.) they were baptized both men and women, more then there is in these, Jos. 8. 25. And so it was, that all that fell that day BOTH OF MEN AND WOMEN, were twelve thousand. 3. (And lastly, for this) I would soberly ask Mr. A. whether in case there had been no mention at all of women, either as beleeving, or as bapti­zed, in either of the places compared by him, but onely that so many men more, as the number of the women (whatso­ever it was) amounted unto, had beleeved in the one, and been baptized in the other, would not this have argued and set forth the successe of the Gospel as considerably, as now the mention of women beleevers, and women baptized, in conjunction with men, doth? If so, then his plea from the phrase, both men and women, amounts to little for his pur­pose.

Sect. 39.

To his latter plea from the scope and cont [...]xt (p. 6.) I con­fesse I cannot well tell where to strike with my answer, be­cause I cannot wel discern where the vein of proof lieth. For though it be granted, that Luke speaketh v. 12. of the same person, of whom he had spoken, ver. 10. 11. and who had given heed from the least unto the greatest, unto Simon the Sor­cerer, yet what is this to prove, that therefore his intent was to set forth the power and great success of the Gospel, in these words, they were baptiz [...]d men and women, considering (as hath been lately observed and proved, viz. §. 35, and 36.) that (in this verse) he speaks of the beleeving of men and [Page 158] women, as well as of their being baptized; and that if there be any thing intended here to set forth the power and great successe of the Gospel, it is projected rather by the mention of their beleeving Philip, preaching the things of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, then by the mention of their baptism: in as much, as the Evangelist having frequent occasion else­where in this book to report the great successe of the Gospel, still upon this account mentioneth onely the faith of those who were converted by it, and not their baptism? Besides, Mr. A's supposal (the ground of this vein of his discourse) viz. that Luke speaks of the same generality of the people, ver. 12. of which he had spoken, ver. 10, 11, where it was thus expressed, To whom they all gave heed from the least to the greatest, is not so authentique or clear. For it is hardly cre­dible that amongst the great numbers of the inhabitants of such a City as Samaria, there should not be found so much as one unbeleever left upon the preaching of one Sermon one­ly. Certain I am that there can be no instance produced from the Scripture of like nature, or import. Nor is it said v. 12. either that they beleeved Philip, or were baptized, from the greatest to the least: Or if by this expression Mr. A. understandeth simply and absolutely the generality of the inhabitants of Samaria, doth it not follow from his said sup­position, that as well children, as men and women, were here baptized; unlesse he will either understand this expression, from the least unto the greatest, exclusively, or else say, that children are not to be numbred, either amongst the least or the greatest, nor yet amongst those that are between both?

But (for a close of the point now in hand) to give Mr. A. a brief account of his men and women, with whom he hath had so much to do, to so little purpose for his cause, the rea­son why the Evangelist Luke, having in the beginning of the verse, mentioned the beleeving of the Samaritans, without distinguishing the different sexes of those who beleeved, in the latter part of the verse, speaking of their baptizing, dis­tinguishing them into their respective sexes of men and women is to shew, that though under the law, the one sex onely (that of men) was capable of, and admitted unto cir­cumcision, [Page 159] (which was then the initiating Ordinance, an­swering in that respect, as in several others, Baptism the suc­cessor of it under the Gospel) yet now, since the comming and suffering of Jesus Christ in the flesh, both sexes, as well women, as men, were made capable by God of being bapti­zed. This (I beleeve) is all the mystery, that an intelli­gent Reader will find, in the clause (so much courted by Mr. A. to be friend him in his cause) they were baptized hoth men and women.

Sect. 40.

His third proof for his conceit of no Infant baptized in Mr. A. p. 6, 7 Christs or the Apostles daies, borrowed from Mar. 10. 13, 14, 15, 16. wherein some are said to have brought young chil­dren to Christ (p. 6, 7.) hath been already, not onely an­swered, but clearly argued and proved to make against him. I presume a considering Reader, will be of the same mind upon an attentive re-perusal of the 25th. Section. I shal here adde, that the judgement and conscience of that learned and worthy Martyr, Mr. John Philpot, were so full of conviction and satisfaction touching the pregnant validity of this pas­sage, for Infant-baptism, that (in that Epistle of his, for­merly mentioned, once, and again) upon the mention and re­cital of this clause, Let the babes (so he reads it) come unto me, he breaks forth with an holy indignation into this demand; why then do not these rebellious Anabaptists obey the Commande­ment of the L [...]rd? For what do they now a daies else that bring their children to Baptism, then that they did in times past, which brought their children to the Lord, and our Lord recei­ved them, and putting his hands on them, blessed them, &c. And if Christ judged little children capable subjects of imposition of hand [...], which (according to some of the most Seraphical Doctors themselves of the faith of Anabaptism) is an Ordi­nance subsequent unto Baptism, and not to be administred before it, it roundly follows that these children brought to Christ had been baptized. But either for Mr. F. the Mr. or for Mr. A. the Disciple, to put us to prove by whom they were baptized, is such a yoke, as themselves are not able to bear, no not in such cases, where the demand of proof in [Page 160] that kind is much more reasonable. For if we, in arguing the controversie, whether there can be no true Church of Christ, and with which communion is lawfull, without their baptism by dipping, should put them upon proof by whom all and every the members of the 7 Churches of Asia, were thus baptized, or by whom those Christians mentioned, Acts 5. 14. Acts 4. 4. and in many other places, were after that manner baptized, would they not cry out against such our demands as importune, captious, and unreasonable? That Mr. Fisher Baby-Bap­tism, p. 141. evasion of Mr. Fishers, viz. that the imposition of hands here recorded to have been administred by Christ, unto the children brought to him, was another kind of imposition, viz. that which was frequently used in order to cures or heal­ings, not that which pre-supposed baptism, is magisterial e­nough (as seventy times seven assertions more in the same book with it are) but altogether proof-lesse. The contra­ry hereunto is, little lesse, then clearly demonstrable upon these grounds. 1. There is no intimation in the context, that any of these children (much lesse all of them) were ei­ther sick, or diseased. Now there can (I beleeve) no in­stance be produced, where, any, young or old, either came, or were brought, to Christ, to obtain any cure or healing from him, whose infirmity or disease was not mentioned and named. 2. Whereas all the miraculous cures wrought by Christ, are either particularly (as when he wrought but onely one, or some few in the same place) or else in the ge­neral (as when he wrought many in places neer adjoyning) recorded, here is not the least or lightest mention (in one kind, or other) of any cure wrought upon these children by him. 3. Had the children been any waies sick, or diseased, it is at no hand credible that the Disciples would have rebu­ked those that brought them: it would have argued want of common civility, yea of humanity it self to have done it. 4. The reason given by Christ unto his Disciples (and in them unto others) why they should rather, countenance and fur­ther, then restrain or hinder the accesse of little children un­to him, viz. because of such was the Kingdom of God, Mar. 10. 14. or the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat 19. 14. suffici­ently [Page 161] declareth, that they were brought unto him upon a spiritual account, or in order to the obtaining of some spi­ritual benefit, or priviledge, rather then for any bodily cure. 5. The general order of Christ directed unto the Disciples, and in them unto all men, to suffer not those lit­tle children in particular, that were now brought unto him, but little children in general, to come unto him [ Suffer, saith he, little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, Mat. 19. 14.] this general order (I say) and injunction of Christ▪ plainly shews, that his will was, that little chil­dren should be brought unto him, whether they had any bo­dily ailment upon them, or no: inasmuch as there is nothing more certain, then that all little children have not bodily ailments or diseases. And if his will be, that little children in general, and whether diseased, or no, should come, or be brought unto him, doubtlesse the reason or end why he ordereth their comming to him, must needs be the receiving of some spiritual grace, benefit, or priviledge from him, and this by means of such their comming.

6. It is said Mar. 10. 16. that Christ did not onely lay his hands upon these children, but that he blessed th [...]m also; [...], i. e. prayed for them (as the word fre­quently signifies, and the best interpreters understand it in this place.) Now though Christ frequently prayed, and sometimes preparatively (as it were) and in order to the working of some great miracle, as before the raising of La­zarus from the dead, &c. yet we never find that he wrought any bodily cure by prayer simply or onely, but very oft by words of a divine-like authority and command. I will, be thou clean, Mat. 8. 3. As thou hast beleeved, so be it done unto thee, Mat. 8. 13. See also Mat. 9. 29. Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house, Mat. 9. 6. Stretch forth thine hand, Mat. 12. 13. Be it unto thee, even as thou wilt, Mat. 15. 28. Lazarus come forth, Joh. 11. 43. (to omit many the like.) 7. Mr. A. himself giving this account why the Disciples re­buked those that brought these children, viz. that they thought it an impertinent thing to trouble Christ with them, plainly e­nough supposeth, that they were not brought to receive any [Page 162] bodily cure from Christ: for then they (the Disciples) could not have thought it an impertinent thing to trouble Christ with them, more, or otherwise, then they judged it impertinent, for any others to come unto him upon the like occasion. And doubtlesse Mr. A. himself doth not judge it an impertinent thing for him to trouble the Physician by re­pairing, or sending unto him when he is sick, and standeth in need of his help. So then by the fortified light of this great constellation of circumstances, it fully appeareth, that Mr. Fisher casteth out his net on the wrong side of the ship, when he affirmeth that these children came to Christ for ano­ther kind of imposition of hands, then that asserted by us, which ( [...]aith he p. 141) is otherwise called, Touching. I con­fesse that Touching is another, a new, a strange kind of impo­sition of hands: but Anabaptism can now sail with any wind And whereas to salve his opinion, he saith, this Ordinance of laying on of hands, [he means, which we plead for] was not LIKELY yet in use and being, although he qualifies the magistrality of the assertion a little, with the term, likely, yet is it ventrous and daring enough to march in the retinue of such notions as these, That Baptism is onely a signing or sig­nifying not a sealing Ordinance, Baby-bap­tism, p. 154. 193. that Circumcision was neither sign nor seal of the Covenant of grace, that it was a seal of the righte [...]usnesse of Faith unto Abraham onely, Baby-bap­tism, p. 153. (with twenty and ten more of a like unhallowed inspiration, confederate in the same warfare against the truth, with it.)

Sect. 41.

Whereas Mr. A. bestows the greatest part of his seventh page, upon the probat of this, that the children spoken of in the passage represented by him, were not brought to Christ to be baptized (although all he saith upon the account fal­leth short of such a sum) he laboureth in the fire to make a [...]old purchase, and raiseth a great dust of contest for that, which he might have had of me (and I suppose of others al­so) onely for the asking. But whether the children brought to Christ, were brought to be baptized, or no, I shall (I question not, God assisting me) in due time manifestly e­vince the lawfullnesse of Infant-baptism from the said pas­sage. [Page 163] In the mean time, I shall take notice of these words (towards the close of Mr. A's third proof of his minor) that if the baptizing of Infants had been AN ORDINANCE OF GOD, the knowledge of it w [...]uld have been of as great, or greater use unto the world, then the knowledge of those other things are, touching Christs imbracing and blessing of infants, &c. In the first clause of this passage, doth he not plainly enough charge, or challenge, his adversaries, as if they held the baptizing of Infants, to be an Ordinance of God? How some of them may at unawares expresse themselves, I know not, but they can with no more truth (in propriety and strictnesse of phrase) affirm the baptizing of Infants to be an Ordinance of God (neither do they I suppose, ordina­rily so speak or affirm) then their Opposers do affirm the baptizing of un-baptized beleevers to be the Ordinance of God. Well may the baptizing of the one, or the other, be the precept, or will of God: but certainly, the subject of an institution or Ordinance, or the person to whom an Ordinance is, according to the will of God, to be administred, is no part of the Ordinance it self. Neither Abraham nor Isaack were any essential part of circumcision. This is Mr. Fishers Doctrine it self, who ( Baby-baptism, p. 211.) complains of the Priests, (I know not well whom he means, at least extensively) for adding other subjects to Gods Ordinaces. In which expression he plainly enough makes an Ordinance a thing by it self, and the subject another by it self. In which respect, he is no more consistent with himself, then with the principles of Christian modesty, when he thus rates his opposers, for their conjectural sin of Infant-baptism: will you imagine and suppose, and dream, and dote, and fancy, and fame a Baptism, which the Scriptures and first Churches never knew? For may they not imagine, &c. the baptizing of In­fants, and yet not imagine another Baptism, then the Scrip­tures know, if Infants be no part of the Ordinance admini­stred unto them. See also, pag. 312. 314.

Again, whereas Mr. A. saith, that had infant-baptism been an Ordinance of God, the knowledge of it would have been of as great, or greater use to the world, then &c. I answer,

1. That it doth not follow, because the knowledge he speaks of is not given in this place unto the world, there­fore it is given no where else. Nor 2. That because this knowledge is not yet arrived at Mr. A's or at Mr. Fishers understanding, it is not therefore sufficiently given unto the world, or not convincingly enough arrived at the judge­ments and understandings of other men, as considering and conscientious as they. Nor 3. That the knowledge of Christs imbracing and blessing infants, is so inconsiderable as Mr. A. seemeth to represent it unto the world, because he hath no higher esteem of it. Nor 4. (And lastly) Doth it follow, that because Mr. A. makes an opposition between the giving knowledge unto the world, that Infant-Baptism is an Ordinance of God, and, the giving knowledge that Christ im­braced and blessed infants, therefore the knowledge of this latter, doth not give sufficient knowledge of the former (in his sence of the word, Ordinance, lately expressed.) How­ever we shall not at present argue the case, whether it be so, or no; but onely leave it to all considering men to judge, whether his minor proposition be preferr'd to any degree of light, by all he hath delivered in this third proof of it, or whether the native darknesse remains not still spread round about it, rather condens'd and thickned, then any waies les­sened or cleared by all this discourse.

Sect. 42.

To his fourth proof we answer; 1. That to argue from Answer to Mr. A's 4th, proof of the minor propo­sition of his first Argu­ment, p. 8. what is not recorded, to what was not, or was not done, in Christs or the Apostles dayes, is extreamly weak and incon­cluding. It is not recorded that the Eunuch, Acts 8. was baptized either naked, or with his cloaths upon him. Doth it therefore follow, that he was baptized, neither naked, nor with his cloaths upon him? It is not recorded that the spring or water wherein the Eunuch was baptized, was so deep, as to reach or come up to his ankles. Doth it follow from hence, that therefore it was not thus deep? It is not recor­ded that all the members of the 7 Churches of Asia, were baptized. Is this a sufficient proof that therefore they were not baptized? It is not recorded that John the Baptist, when [Page 165] he executed his office, and baptised those that came unto him, put off either his Camels-hair garment, or leathern girdle, nor yet that he kept them on. Doth it therefore follow that he did neither, because neither is recorded? Or is it a sufficient proof that no woman was admitted to the Lords Table in the Apostles daies, because the admission of none is recorded? But such arguings as these are the pillars of Anti-poedo-bap­tisme; which for brevities sake, and not to offend any man, or to reproach the opinion, from hence forth we shall call, Ana-baptism.

Secondly: Whereas he saith, that the description which the Scripture every where mak [...]s of persons, or qualifications of such, whose Baptisme it recordeth, argues them to be no Infants, the saying is captious and encroaching, taking that for granted which is to be denied, viz. that the Scripture still describeth the persons and qualifications of [all] such [though Mr. A. craftily leaves out this particle All, least his proof should appear to be too narrow and scant for the length and bredth of his position; though the truth is, that to those who un­derstand the principles and rules of arguing, the omission of the said particle invalidates the processe of his argument] of all such (I say) whose Baptism it recordeth. Yea himself pag. 10, 11. essaying to answer that unanswerable objection a­bout the Baptizing of housholds, though with much regret and reluctancie of spirit, yet yeeldeth that there is not the same account given of the qualifications [he might with as much truth have added, and then he had done somewhat in­genously, nor of the persons] of those that were baptised of the family of Lydia. So that himself, with speaking onely a little truth, hath cut the sinews of his fourth proof. Yet

Thirdly: Whereas he here supposeth that the Name or Title of a Disciple is incompetible unto children, and cannot rationally be applyed unto them, doth he not condemn the Holy Ghost himself of irrationality, who very expresly, Act. 15. 10. termeth children, as well as their Parents, Disciples; unlesse he will suppose that the yoke of Circumcision▪ in case the Parents had been perswaded by their Judaizing Teachers to subject unto it, would not at all have concerned their [Page 166] children, or been any yoke unto them. I confesse Mr. Fisher (Baby-baptism, p. 176.) out of the ingenuity and Christian meeknesse of his spirit, terms the citing of this scripture to prove Infants to be called Disciples, a frivolous flim flam: But the best is, that these wild Figtrees (I mean, insolent and uncomely jeers) grow so abundantly in the plain of his book, that ten thousand of them are not worth the price of two Sparrows. But Mr. Fisher knows better how to triumph, than how to conquer: And if you will take his own word for it, Tanquam umbrae volitant alij: solus sapit ipse.

Yet let me say this by the way (by Mr. Fishers good leave) that the yoke of Circumcision (with all the burthensomnesse of the Mosaical Law attending it) was indeed no yoke at all, in comparison of such a Baptism as Mr. A. or at least many who rejoyce in his light, violently obtrude upon the world, in the name of Christ's Baptism. But I hear there is one wise man amongst them (whose prudence, I suppose, many others will follow) who hath found out a way to conjure the spirit of winter out of the water by an application of fire; a com­mendable project to reconcile winter-dipping it self with the lives of men, and especially of women, which, without such a mediation, is like to deal very severely by them. He that baptiseth upon such termes as these, baptiseth both with wa­ter and with fire; and so, in this respect, administreth a more compleat Baptism than either John, or any the Apostles of Christ. But Mr. Fisher disdains all warming of water, unlesse it be with the fire of mens zeal that are to be baptized. This onely by the way. But might not Mr. A. more rationally contest with Christ himself, for giving the Name or Title of a man to a child new born (Joh. 16. 21.) and especially for gi­ving the Name and Title of a Beleever to a little child (Mat. 18. 5, 6.) than with us, for giving the name and title of Di­sciple unto a child? Or is it not somewhat lesse to be a Di­sciple than a Beleever? For that our Saviour in this Scripture, [Page 167] by, one of these little ones, who beleeve in me, meaneth, any such child, as that mentioned ver. 5. and now pointed at by him, is evident from the context (as Musculus well con­ceiveth, and expoundeth the place accordingly.)

Sect. 43.

Against his fifth proof ( p. 8.) there is matter of exception enough to make a little volume. For,

1. What if the instructions g [...]v [...]n to those who were commis­sioned to baptize, and the practise of such persons, who did bap­tize, argue the persons [i. e. some of the persons, for he was tender of saying all, for fear of after-claps] that were bapti­zed by them to have been no infants? Doth it follow, because all that were baptized, were not Infants, therefore none that were baptized were such? Or that they who had instructions to baptize persons of ripe years, had no instructions or com­mission to baptize any others?

2. Whereas he saith, that the instruction which Christ gave those whom he commissi [...]ned on this b [...]half, was, that they should first teach persons, [...]r make them Disciples, and then baptize them; I confesse he mentioneth teaching in the first place, and baptizing after; but this is not to instruct them to teach in the first place, and then to baptize them after; but onely, in the first place to instruct them to teach, and in the second to baptize. And such an expression of Christ, as this is so far from proving, that therefore all that are, or ought to be baptized, ought to be taught first, that it doth not prove that any one person who is, or ought to be baptized, must be first taug [...]t; however it be granted, that this latter, [ viz. that some are, and ought to be taught before baptized] may both by other Scriptures, and by ground in reason, be evin­ced for truth. But there is nothing more frequent or fami­liar in the Scriptures, then to find such things mentioned or [...]amed [...]n the first place, which according to the order of na­ture, and sometimes of time it self, should be mentioned af­ter Gal. 5. 22. love j [...]y, peace, &c. are mentioned before faith▪ 2 Cor. 13. 14. The second person is mentioned before the first, as Revel. 1. 4, 5. the third before the second, Rom. 10 9. confession with the mouth, is named before beleeving [Page 168] with the heart, Ezek. 14. 14. Daniel is named before Job, who notwithstanding was long after him in time; so Mic. 7. 20. Jacob before Abraham, Levit. 12. 8. The burnt offering, is first mentioned; but the Sin-offering though after-named, was alwaies first offered. In the businesse of regeneration, water is mentioned before the Spirit, Joh. 3. 6. and Mar. 1. 4. Baptizing it self is mentioned before the preaching of bap­tism. John did baptize in the Wildernesse, and preach the Bap­tism of Repentance, &c. Therefore from Christs mentioning teaching in the first place, and baptizing in the second, it can­not be proved that persons must alwaies be▪ first taught, be­fore they be baptized; no more then from the Apostles in­forming the Corinthians, in the first place that they were sanctified▪ and in the second that they were justified (1 Cor. 6. 11.) it can be proved, that their sanctification, did in time precede their justification.

Sect. 44.

3. Though nothing can be inferred from our Saviours mentioning teaching in the first place, and baptizing after, touching the necessity of teaching to go, alwaies (or indeed at any time) before baptizing, yet if we speak of baptizing nati­ons (of which it is a clear case that Christ here speaketh) it is granted (upon another account) that teaching alwaies ought to precede baptizing; my meaning is, that no nation, nor any person, or numbers of persons, in a nation, ought to be baptized, untill the Gospel hath been preached unto, or in this nation, and withall received and beleeved. But this at no hand proveth, but that in case the heads of a fa­mily, one, or more, in a nation▪ shall receive the Gospel, and be baptized themselves, their children also, if they have any, may be baptized likewise. In this sence it is granted that t [...]ac [...]ing ought alwaies to go before baptizing; the teaching of nations, before the baptizing of nations; and so the tea­ching of families, the baptizing of families; that is the gene­rallity of a nation (and so of a family) old and young, men and children, ought not to be baptized, until those who are ca­pable of teaching in both, have been taught, yea and have learned too (to some degree) the things which have been taught them. But,

[Page 169]4. Whereas he useth these two expressions, as synonymous, or of like signification, to teach persons, and to make them Disciples, he maketh black and white the same colour, and fire and water the same Element. For Stephen taught those (and this with great authority, wisdom, and faithfulnesse) who stoned him to death, yet made none of them Disciples. So Paul taught many Jews at Damascus, and elsewhere, whom he could not make Disciples. To teach, and to make Disciples, differ (upon the matter) as much, as sowing, dis­fers from reaping, or fighting from conquering.

Whereas he addeth; The practise of those who did baptiz [...], was answerable to this Commission; they first instructed person: in the things Gospel, and then baptized them; I suppose his meaning is not, that they baptized all, whom they first in­structed in the things of the Gospel, but onely those who vo­luntarily offered themselves unto Baptism, or desired it, after they had been thus instructed: they compelled no man to be baptized, neither threatned they any man, or delivered any man up unto Sathan, for not being baptized. But that when they first brought the Gospel to a family, City, or Country, they first instructed, before they baptized, is easily granted, and fully accords with our sence and notion in the premises.

Sect. 45.

And thus we see how much, and to how little purpose much, hath been said by Mr. A. for the confirmation of the minor proposition in his first Argument, viz. that Baptism was not administred to any Infant, neither in the daies of John the Baptist, nor of the Apostles. We have both weighed his arguments for confirmation in the ballance of the Sanctua­ry, and found them light, or wanting, and given you others for infirmation of them, of sufficient weight.

In the Rear of this his first argument ( pag. 8, 9, &c.) he fra­meth two objections against himself, and essaieth a solution of them respectively, but with no better successe then some novice practitioners in the Black Art, who sometimes raise such stubborn spirits, which their skill failing them, they are not able to conjure down. He hath not in either of his an­swers infringed, nor indeed so much as touched, the spirit or [Page 170] strength of either of the objections, as they are manageable both against his argument, but especially not as they are ma­nageable for the cause of Infant-baptism. This we shall (God willing) demonstrate in due time and place, viz. when we come to argue our grounds for the baptizing of In­fants. However, when the grounds and reasons, which are held forth and pleaded for the justification, either of an opi­nion, or practise, are evicted of weaknesse and insufficiency, no answering of objections is able to repair their strength, or releeve them. A man may answer, and this very substanti­ally two, and ten objections (especially fram'd by himself) against his opinion, and yet be never the more solid or sub­stantial in his grounds, by which he asserteth his opinion. But his first argument being fallen, let us see whether his fellow (the second) will help him up, or supply that, which we found lacking on the behalf thereof, for the support of his cause.

Sect. 46.

His second Argument he informeth us by the way, shall be Mr. A's se­cond Argu­ment against Infant-bap­tism answe­red. taken from the nature of Baptism, and from the declared ends and us [...]s of it. I wish he thoroughly understood the nature of Baptism: for then I presume he would abhorre himself in dust and ashes, from that un-Christian and needlesse distur­bance, which he hath made amongst the servants of God a­bout it. And for the declared ends and uses of Baptism, of which he speaks, it will appear by the management of his ar­gument, that he is at a losse in himself about them, and un­certain what they be. But the argument, which he prefa­ceth, as ye have heard, riseth up before us in this form.

If that administration of Baptism, which is made to profes­sed Beleevers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that doth, which is made to Infants, then Baptism ought not to be administred unto Infants, but to pro­fessed bel [...]evers.

But that Administration of Baptism, which is made to pro­fessed Beleevers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that which is made to Infants. Er­go

By the way, this argument with that strength which it hath magnifieth it self every whit as much (if not more) against the councel and wisdome of God in Circumcision, as against his Adversaries opinion and practice about Infant-Baptism. For may it not altogether as rationally, and with as much truth be pleaded and said; that that administration of Cir­cumcision, which was made to professed Beleevers, did more conduce to, and better answer the ends of this Ordinance, then that which was made to infants, as it can be pretended, that that administration of Baptism, which he exalteth, more conduceth to, and better answers the ends and uses of Bap­tism, then that other which he depresseth? For (assuredly) Circumcision was in the ends and uses of it (at least in the cheif and principal ends and uses of it) altogether as myste­rious, as sacred and holy, as Baptism, yea and very little, if at all, in these differing from it.

Sect. 47.

But let us partially weigh and consider both the propositi­ons The major Proprosition answered. now before us in their order.

To the major we answer; that the consequence herein is void of strength and truth, yea and hath scarce so much as a face of probability in it. For the better or greater service­ablenesse or conducement of a thing to the ends intended by God in it, in some particular cases, is no argument at all to prove, that therefore the use of this thing is in all other cases simply unlawfull. Breast-milk given unto new born babes more conduceth to the end intended by God in this creature, then when it is given unto healthfull and strong men; yet this proveth not that therefore it is simply unlawfull to give this milk unto such men, or for them to use it for food, espe­cially in some cases. The Ordinance of marriage, more con­duceth unto, and answ [...]rs the ends and use [...], intended by God in it, when it is imbraced by persons of competent years for the procreation of children, &c. then when it is entertained by men and women who have out-lived such a capacity; yet this proveth not but that persons strucken in years beyond the procreation of children may lawfully marry. The Mi­nistery or preaching of the Apostle Paul did more conduce un­to [Page 172] the ends of preaching (as viz. the glorifying of God, the saving of souls) &c. then the ministery or preaching of some other the Apostles, or however then the ministry or preach­ing of ordinary Pastors and Teachers, either in these, or in former daies. Yet this no wise proveth, that the ministry or preaching of the other Apostles, or of ordinary Pastors and Teachers, is unlawfull. The administration of Circumcision which was made to infants, did more conduce unto, and better answer the ends of it (as appears by the standing law given by God himself for this administration, Gen. 17.) then the admini­stration of it made unto men. Yet it followeth not from hence, that therefore the administration of it unto men, was simply, universally, or in all cases unlawfull.

2. When he saith, that that administration of Baptism, wherein he so inordinately pleaseth himself, doth MORE cond [...]ce to, and BETTER answer the ends of it, &c. doth he not plainly grant or suppose, that the other administration, which is made to infants, and which his soul so greatly ab­horreth, doth notwithstanding in some degree, both con­duce unto, and answer the ends of Baptism also? If so, can it be simply and absolutely unlawfull? Or if we suppose, or say, that Paul's ministery or preaching the Gospel, did MORE conduce unto, or BETTER answer the ends of prea­ching, then the ministery of some other of the Apostles, do we not in so saying, suppose the ministry and preaching of these Apostles, to be (at least) lawfull, and in some de­gree conducing unto the ends of preaching? More reverence is due to the Consciences of men, especially of the Saints, then to trouble or disturb them with such slight reasonings as these. But

Sect. 48.

3. Neither doth he expresse himself so handsomely, when he saith, that the administration of Baptism, whether to the one subject, or the other, doth more or lesse, either conduce to, or answer the ends of Baptism. Baptism is one thing, and the administration of Baptism is another, far differing from i [...]. They differ more then toto genere the one from the other. Now to say that one thing conduceth more or lesse to, or more [Page 173] or lesse answereth the ends of another thing, which is of quite another nature and consideration from it, makes no plea­sant harmony in the ears of any considering mans understan­ding. But (to overlook this oversight.)

4. How impertinently doth he argue the consequence in the proposition now under canvasse, from these Scriptures, ( p. 12.) Cursed be the deceiver, which having in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing, Mal. 1. 14. And again, Seek to excell to the edifying of the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 12. Doth it follow from these texts, either divisim, or conjunctim, that If that administration of Baptism, which is made to professed Beleevers, doth more con­duce unto, and better answer the end of Baptism, then that doth which is made to Infants, then Baptism ought not to be admi­nistred unto Infants, &c.? Or is that, which conduceth to a good end, though in an inferiour or lesse degree, then (hap­ly) some other means or thing may do, necessarily a corrupt thing? That Tree which bringeth forth GOOD Fruit, is ad­judged by our Saviour, a good tree, though it bringeth not forth the best fruit, or the most fruit, that is possible for a tree, yea or for it self, to bring forth? Or were all the rest of the Apostles corrupt things, because the Apostle Paul la­boured more abundantly then they all, 1 Cor. 15. 10. and so promoted the end or ends, of Apostolick mission above them all? Or may not he truly and cordially, seek to excell to the edifying of the Church, who sometimes edifieth the Church lesse, by his la­bours and indeavours in this kind, then at some other time? But when propositions are false, proofs cannot be pertinent. And thus, through a manifest defectivenesse in the major proposition, the glory of Mr. A's second argument against Infant-baptism is laid in the dust. Neither is there any hope or possibility of releef from the minor proposition, though this should be found never so Orthodox. For it is a sove­raign maxime in argumentation (as hath been formerly said) that Conclusio semper sequitur deteriorem partem, the proof of a conclusion by a syllogism, is never valid or strong, when either of the propositions therein are weak. So that we might wave the examination of the minor proposition in [Page 174] the argument before us, without any detriment to our cause at all. Notwithstanding to make it evident, even to preju­dice and partiality themselves, if it be possible, that there is no sound part in the whole body of this argument, let us ar­raign the minor proposition also, at the Bar of reason and truth. The tenour of this proposition (as we heard) is this.

But that administration of baptism, which is made to profes­sed Beleevers, doth more conduce to, and better answer the ends of Baptism, then that which is made to infants.

Sect. 49.

That Truth is a sufferer in this proposition also, is to me sufficiently evident from hence, viz. because God himself, who (questionlesse) knows much better then Mr. A. or any of his judgement, what administration of an Ordinance most conduceth unto, and best answers the ends of it, judged the ad­ministration of Circumcision (an Ordinance of like import with Baptism, as shall upon occasion be shewed, God wil­ling elsewhere) unto Infants, more conducing unto, and bet­ter answering the ends of it (the principal of which was to signifie and seal the righteousnesse of Faith, Rom. 4. 11.) then unto Beleevers, or unto persons of ripe years. Otherwise I presume he would not have ordered the ordinary and con­stant administration of it unto children, but rather unto men. For it is very importune and burthensome to my Faith to be­leeve, that God should appoint such an administration of his Ordinance, which should be in any degree disadvantagi­ous or prejudicial to the ends thereof. If therefore the ad­ministration of Circumcision made unto Infants under the Law, did as much, or more, conduce unto the ends thereof, as this administration made unto men could have done: in like manner, the administration of baptism made to infants under the Gospel must needs more, or as much, conduce unto the ends therof, as it would do, in case it were made unto men. They who think, write, or say otherwise, do they not make themselves wiser then God? How, and in what respect, one, or more, that administration of Baptism, which we prefer, conduceth as much (or more) to the ends of Baptism, as that administra­tion [Page 175] which Mr. A. commendeth, might readily here be shew­ed; and may be in time convenient. In the mean time let us consider how Mr. A. maketh his rope stand right up on the one end.

Sect. 50.

1. (Saith he) One end of Baptism is to declare Jesus Christ unto the world, Joh. 1. 31. And (a little after) this mani­festation of Christ is better made by the Baptism of Beleevers, then by the Baptism of Infants, whether it respects the party, who is baptized, or others, who behold it. For answer;

1. The end indeed of John's sending to the Jews to bap­tize, was that Christ should be made manifest unto Israel. This the words cited by himself ( Jo [...]. 1. 31.) expresly affirm. But this proveth not that therefore the end of Baptism is to declare Jesus Christ unto the world, Baptism and John's sen­ding to the Jews to baptize, are two very different things; and so are Israel, and the world. Nor was Christ declared unto the world, but unto Israel onely, by John's baptizing. Yea when John himself saith, that he therefore came baptizing with water, that Christ might be made manifest unto Israel, his meaning is not, that the manifestation of Christ, no not to Israel, was the proper end of that Baptism, which he admi­nistred, but of his administration of it, the manner and terms, upon which he came to administer it, and according unto which he did administer it, considered. For had the same Baptism which John administred, been administred by an or­dinary person, or a man ignorant who Christ was, or that he was now come into the world; yea or without those or the like additional discoveries, which John made of Christ in his preaching, it would never have produced any such ef­fect as the manifestation of Christ unto Israel; nor was there any thing in it any wayes proportionable unto such an end, or effect as this. Therefore certainly, the manifestation of Christ unto the world, is no end of Baptism; or however, no such end as this can be proved from John 1. 31. which text not­withstanding is our whole allowance, for our satisfaction therein.

Sect. 51.

By the way, the reason (I conceive) why John, being the messenger of Christ sent before his face to prepare his way [ i. e. to awaken the Jewish nation to own and enter­tain him, being now come unto them, though as yet they knew it not] came baptizing with water, in order to the ma­nifestation of him unto the Jews, was; because this new un­dertaking to baptize, was a proper means to occasion the generality of this people to inquire more diligently after him ( John I mean) to examine more narrowly his Com­mission, and authority by which he did baptize. By means of which inquiry, they came to understand that he was a man sent from God unto them; and consequently could not but so much the more reverence and beleeve the words of his mouth; the first born of which was the testimony which he gave of their Messiah, as now ready to discover himself unto such of them, as desired his comming.

Upon this account John's baptizing with water, might con­tribute towards the manifestation of Christ unto Israel, and yet the manifestation of Christ to the world be no end of Bap­tism, simply considered, or in its ordinary or standing ad­ministrations.

2. Reason it self interposeth with an high hand against such a conceit, which maketh the manifestation of Christ unto the world one of the ends of Baptism. If Christ be in baptism, he is here onely tanquam in aenigmate, darkly, and as in a riddle; and he that doth not plough with Gods Heifer (the Scripture) will never know or understand this Riddle. In this case, it is not the Riddle, but the heifer ploughed with for the unfolding of it, that maketh Christ manifest. The end of shadows, types, figures, enigma's, parables, &c. is not to make either things, or persons MANIFEST, but ra­ther to veil and conceal them, at least in part, or at the most to reveal them sparingly and with reservation. And he said unto them, to you it is given to know the mysteries of the King­dom of God; but to others in parables: that seeing, they might not see, and hearing they might not understand, Luke 8. 10. And certainly Baptism is such a mysterious and profound parable [Page 177] of Christ, that without an Interpreter it would never be un­derstood, nor Christ be found in it. Therefore the end of it cannot be his manifestation to the world.

Sect. 52.

3. The manifestation of Christ unto the world, is the end of the Scriptures, and more especially of the Gospel, (I mean of the writings of the New-Testament) and of the preach­ing and publishing of these in the world. Eph. 6. 19. 2 Pet. 1. 16. Rom. 16. 25, 26. Col. 4. 3, 4. So that as the A­postle reasoneth against justification by works, Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain, so may we reason and conclude against the manifestation of Christ to the world by Baptism: If Christ be manifested un­to the world by Baptism (which must be supposed, if this manifestation of him be the end of Baptism) then is the let­ter of the Gospel, and the ministry thereof in the world in vain. Yea and Paul whose great work and imploiment was to make Christ manifest unto the world, should rather have been sent to baptize, then to preach the Gospel, if the manifesta­tion of Christ unto the world had been the end of Baptism. But this notion of Mr. A. concerning the end of Baptism, is so broadly obnoxious, that an over-operous refutation of it would be but an impertinency. And,

Sect. 53.

4. Whereas he affirms, that the manifestation of CHRIST is better mad [...] by the Baptism of Bel [...]evers, then of Infants, whether it respects the party who is baptized, or others who be­hold it;

1. It seems then that there is a manifestation of Christ made in or by the Baptism of infants, as well as by the Baptism of Beleevers, although not so good [I suppose he means, not so full or perfect] a manifestation. If then there be a mani­festation of Christ in the Baptism of infants, although not so pregnant, rich, and full, as in the Baptism of men, how can he judge it to be unlawfull? Is any manifestation of Christ, though in a lower or lesser degree, unlawfull? Or is the mini­stry of all such Pastors and Teachers unlawfull, who do not, (haply cannot) manifest Christ unto the world therein, with [...] much power and glory of manifestation, as the most [Page 178] able, and best qualified Minister or Preacher in the whole world?

2. Upon what account, can he suppose Christ to be mani­fested to the party baptized, supposing him a Beleever, by his Baptism? I thought that his sence had been, that none ought to be baptized, but onely such to whom Christ was manifested before their baptizing. And if Christ be mani­festable to a Beleever in some further degree, by Baptism, it must be by the Baptism of others, rather then his own; at least if he be baptized by a total submersion under water. For during the while of his being under water, he is in no good capacity, notwithstanding any former use or exercise of his understanding, to receive any further information or knowledge concerning Christ, being taken up with thoughts about his e­mersion, and how to recover and come off with the safety of his life from the water. Or if it be said, that Christ may be said to be further manifested by Baptism to a Beleever, al­though the effect it self of this manifestation doth not take place, till after such his Baptism; I answer, upon this account, may Christ be manifested to an Infant also by his Baptism, viz. when he shall grow up to a capacity of understanding what his Baptism meaneth, and what the counsell of God, was, or is in it.

Sect. 54.

3. Whereas he pleadeth ( p. 13.) that that end of Bap­tism, whereof he speaks ( i. e. that end of Baptism, which is no end thereof, as hath been proved) is more effectuall unto Spectators, when Baptism is administred unto Beleevers, then when unto Infants, because their Faith in Christ, and re­pentance, are visible in their willing submission unto Baptism, and their example apt to quicken, &c. whereas there is no­thing of all this in the Baptism of Infants, who are meerly pas­sive herein, &c. I answer.

1. That when and where, the baptizing of men and wo­men, under the notion of Beleevers, becomes customary and in fashion, (which are the terms and state of it amongst us in these daies) the truth is, that there is a very poor and faint visibility of any mans Faith in Christ, or Repentance, in [Page 179] their willing subjection unto that Ordinance. When all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all the Region round about Jordan, went out unto John to be baptized of him, and were baptized accordingly, what exemplarinesse was there in any particular mans subjection unto this Ordinance? or what visibility of any mans faith or repentance, whereas John himself, notwithstanding this voluntary offering themselves unto Baptism, called them a generation of vipers, (Luke 3. 7.) and complaining of the unbeleef of the generality of them, saith; And what he hath seen and heard that he testifieth, and NO MAN receiveth his testimony? John 3. 32. Yea many of those who willingly offered themselves unto Baptism (yea, and were immediately after baptized of him, were so far from beleeving in Christ, that they were doubtfull whether John himself was not the Christ, Luke 3. 15. Therefore there is no such visibility of Faith or Repentance in any mans offer­ing himself unto Baptism, or in his being baptized, especi­ally under such a circumstance, as that mentioned. It was Postquam in tanto cul­mine nomen coepit esse Christianum crevit hypo­crisis. the observation and saying of Austine long ago; that When the name of a Christian began to be in honour and esteem, hypo­crisie increased. Yea all things duly considered, we have reason to judge, that there is a better or clearer light in any one act of charity or mercy, towards the poor, to render a­ny mans saith and repentance visible, then in a willing offering himself to be baptized.

Sect. 55.

2. What religious affection, devout carriage, matter of e­dification, quickning, or the like, unto spectators Mr. A. can pretend or imagine to accompany the Baptism of Beleevers, may, and this as seasonably, as regularly, proceed from them upon a thousand occasions otherwise, as upon the occasion of their being baptized. When any afflicting hand of God is upon them, as by sicknesse, losse of estate, friends, &c. and so when God lifteth up the light of his countenance upon them, blesseth or prospereth them in one kind or other, (and the like) these are as proper occasions for Beleevers to expresse themselves with devotion, and religiousnesse of [...]ffection, to the affecting, edifying, quickning of by-stan­ders, [Page 180] as their baptizing. Therefore if there be any such Christian and worthy doings by Beleevers at the time of their Baptism, as Mr. A. speaks of, they are not the proper fruits or effects of their being baptized, or of their being to be baptized, but meerly accidental hereunto, and so no ends of Baptism, more then of afflictions, or of mercy in any kind received from God. Yea

Sect. 56.

3. When the Infants of Beleevers are baptized, there may be (and haply ought to be) the same Christian actings and deportments in every kind, in the Parents, or those who offer them unto baptism. So that the Spectators, may by means, or by occasion of their baptizing also, be as much instructed, edified, quickned, &c. as they can or could be, by the baptizing of these Parents themselves. He that offereth his child to be baptized in the name of Christ, hereby maketh as solemn as serious a profession of his faith in Christ, and so of his Repentance, as he could do by being baptized himself. So that Spectators are no whit greater gainers by Beleevers-baptism, then by infant-baptism. Nay the truth is, that they are, or may be, greater gainers by the latter. For when a Beleever having been himself formerly baptized, shall offer his Child also unto Baptism, this argueth a greater stability and triednesse of faith in him, then his offering himself unto Baptism doth, who newly beleeveth. A testimony given up­on, and after, a thorough experience, is ( coeteris paribus) more authoritative and convincing, then that which is given upon little or no trial. Yea the baptizing of Infants must needs in this respect turn to a better account unto Spectators (if by Spectators, we mean, either the Church, or the world, who may as well the one as the other, if they please, and have opportunity, be present at any kind of baptizing) then the baptizing of Beleevers; because if Beleevers onely be bapti­zed, the occasions and opportunities of all baptismal edifi­cation are like to be fewer by many, then they would be, in case Infant-baptism were generally practised. For many in­fants are taken away by death in their infancy, and so never come to be Beleevers (in Mr. A's sence) in which case, if [Page 181] they be not baptized, all those opportunities of Baptismal edification are lost, which might have been taken and happi­ly improved, by their baptizing. I take no notice of the An­ti-Scriptural notion, upon which he argueth all along this part of his discourse, viz. that Infants and Beleevers are two contra-distinct, or opposite species of men. We may have occasion to touch this hereafter.

Onely by the way I cannot but a little marvell, why Mr. A. should ascribe unto his baptism of Beleevers, such great matters of edification in respect of Spectators, when as (as far as I can yet understand) the practitioners of this Bap­tism seek and take, both times and places of greatest privacy for the administration and practice of it. But the very truth is, that Mr. A. doth but meerly trifle in all that long-some discourse ( pag. 12, 13, 14, &c.) wherein he builds upon this supposition (formerly detected of the crime of vanity) that One end of Baptism is the manifestation of Christ unto the world. But

Sect. 57.

4. Whereas ( p. 14.) he supposeth, that the Faith and Re­pentance of the Publicans and Harlots was made visible to the Priests and Elders by their being baptized upon their beleeving the Doctrine of John, he sides more with his cause, then ei­ther with reason, or truth. For

1. We lately shewed, that in that universal and promis­cuous recourse of people unto John to be baptized of him, of which the Scripture speaks, there could be no visibility of the truth or soundnesse of any mans faith or repentance, in his being baptized; much lesse of any particular species or kind of persons amongst them, more then of others. Nor doth the Scripture hold forth any such thing. For

2. Whereas he saith, that that which Matthew, (c. 21. 32.) calls their beleeving of John, Luke speaking of the same thing (as I conceive) calls it their justifying God, in being baptized of John, I conceive that he cannot lightly conceive that, which here he saith he conceiveth. For evident it is that what Matthew speaketh (in the words cited) he speak­eth particularly, of the Publicans and Harlots: and as evi­dent, [Page 182] that what Luke speaketh (in the words cited from him) he speaketh of all the people. And all the people that heard him [viz. Christ, speaking verily worthily of John] and the Publicans, justified God, being baptized, [or rather, having been baptized, [...]] of John; not [as Mr. A. again mis-reports] IN being baptized of John. The pro­position IN, which onely is the smiling lineament upon his cause, in the face of the words as he transcribeth them, is nei­ther in the original, nor in either the former, or latter, Eng­lish translation. A little after, he stumbles at the same stone, of mis-alledging the text (whether wittingly, or at una­wares, let the reader judge) where pretending to represent the sin of the Priests and Elders, in opposition to the Faith and Re­pentance of the Publicans and Harlots, visible (as he saith, but untruly as hath been shewed) in their baptism, in the words of Luke 7. 30. he saith it was their rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, IN not being baptized; whereas (as was now said) there is not the least appearance of the propositi­on, IN, either in the original, or translation. The sence and import of the place, is plainly, and without parable, this; that the Priests and Elders in refusing the Baptism of John, hereby discovered the prodigious folly, and wickednesse of their hearts, in rejecting the counsel of God concerning their justification and salvation by Faith in the Messiah, whom John preached, and this with so much the more authority and advantage to have been beleeved in his Testimony or Doctrine concerning him, because he was extraordinarily raised up and sent by God to administer a new Ordinance a­mongst them. The meaning is not, as if that counsel of God, which they are here said to have rejected against themselves, consisted in this, that he would have had them baptized by John; but in this, that he had purposed to justifie and save them by Faith in his son Jesus Christ. This was the great and blessed counsel of God, which they rejected▪ [frustrated, or made void] against themselves, i. e. to the depriving of them­selves of the two great blessings, justification by the way, and salvation in the end. Concerning their not being baptized by John, had they otherwise beleeved in Christ, this could [Page 183] have turned to no such great prejudice unto them. Nor was it the counsel of God, that either they, or any other sort of men, should be baptized of John by way of necessity, either to their justification, or salvation. For if so, then all those who were not baptized by John, although afterwards bapti­zed by Christ, or his Disciples, must be supposed to have pe­rished eternally. But certain it is, that all those who reject­ed that counsel of God, and continued in this rejection, which the Priests and Elders are here said to have rejected against themselves (especially having like means with them to im­brace it) did perish eternally. Therefore nothing can be more plain, then that they sit down quite besides the mind of the Holy Ghost in this text of Scripture, who conceive the counsel of God here mentioned, to respect Johns baptism, or any mans being baptized by him.

Sect. 58.

Besides the present unbeleef, and wicked frame of heart, of the Preists and Elders considered, they did not so much as sin in not coming to John to be baptized; as Turks and in­fidels during their infidelity, do not sin, in not offering them­selves either to Baptism, or to the Lords Table, among Christians; albeit it is true, that they sin in neglecting to put themselves into a regular capacity of offering themselves both to the one and the other. Therefore certainly it was not the counsel of God, that the Priests and Elders, under that irregularity of heart, which they had at present con­tracted, should have heen baptized by John, inasmuch as this had been a manifest prophanation in them of this great Ordinance; although I do not conceive that John had sinned in baptizing them, in case they had desired it of him. Nor is it any part of the counsel of God, that men should sin or act any thing to their own condemnation. The result of the late premises, is, that the sin of the Priests and Elders in re­jecting the counsel of God; [so termed in the words before us] against themselves, did not consist in their not being baptized by John, but in rejecting their Messiah, the Lord Christ sent unto them: and that their refusal of being bap­tized by John, having been invited and exhorted unto Faith [Page 184] and Repentance by his ministry, was a sign or evidence of this their rejection. Nor doth it follow, that in case their refusing Baptism at the hand of John, plainly argued their unbeleef; therefore the accepting of baptism from him did in like manner argue the Faith and Repentance of all those who accepted it. A remotione unius contrarij ad position [...]m al­terius, non valet argumentum. A continual blaspheming of the name of God, demonstratively argueth a man to be despe­rately wicked and prophane; but the forbearance of such blasphemies doth not prove a man to be truly pious or religi­ous. The sin of covetousnesse proveth a man or woman to be in the gall of bitternesse, and band of iniquity, but free­dome from this sin, doth not argue a man to be in a state of Grace, or in favour with God, Many like instances might be given.

We have done at last with Mr. A's first end of Baptism, which he makes to be, the manifestation of Christ unto the world, and have proved. 1. That this is no end of Bap­tism. And 2. That granting it to be an end, yet it is in all respects as effectually promoted, (as in some more) by In­fant-Baptism, as by the Baptism of men-beleevers.

Sect. 59.

He proceeds, and tells us ( pag. 15.) of another end or use of Baptism, which he terms, the serving the design of God tou­ching the great businesse of Repentance for the remission of sins. And having instructed us by the way, that, as he conceives, there are several considerations, in respect of which, or some of which, Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance, for the re­demption of sins, he undertakes the asserting of this conclusi­on; that all these considerations are better answered in that said administration of Baptism, which is made to men and women Be­leevers, then in that which is made to infants.

By the way, whereas he here speaks somewhat masculine­ly, though in a female phrase, viz. that, as he conceives, there ARE several considerations in resp [...]ct of which, &c. when he comes to deliver out these Considerations in parti­cular, he bewraies more effeminatenesse, and delivers none of them positively, but under the protection of this particle If, If saith he, If, If, and If, and If.

1. He begins; If it shall be conceived, that it is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance for the Remis­sion of sins, because such who are at any time duly baptized, do take up the Ordinance out of a Principle of Repentance, upon which they look for remission of sins according to the pro­mise of God in that behalf (which if it be, the saying con­tains a metonymie of the cause for the effect, Where, or in what word, or phrase, of the saying he speakes of, his metonymie of the cause for the effect resi­deth, verily I understand not. a thing not unusuall in Scripture) yet this denomination and use of it is better serv'd in Mens baptism then in Childrens; because Children have no such principle to act in them, as Repent­ance is, &c. I have much adoe to make any competent sence of this period: but as farre as I apprehend, I an­swer;

Sect. 60.

1. Delivering himself onely thus; IF it shall be con­ceived, that therefore it is called, &c. doth he not encou­rage and teach others to doubt with himself, whether Baptism be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remis­sion of sins, in any such consideration, as here he sug­gesteth? Or himself onely being in suspence about the truth of the notion, why doth he build castles in the aire, or offer sacrifice to an unknown god? undertaking to assigne us a reason of that, which, for ought he know­eth, yea or pretendeth to know, may be of the house and lineage of that which is not? He acteth this part of vanity no fewer then five times over within the compasse of two pages, viz. p. 15. & 16.

2. That which he sacrificeth to his unknown God, is a corrupt thing. For they who are duly baptized, do not al­waies take up that ordinance out of a principle of repentance. Simon the Sorcerer, being baptized by Philip, was (I suppose) in Mr. A's judgement, duly baptized; yet it appears by his story that he took not up this Ordinance out of a principle of Repentance. Or if Simon the Sorce­rer were not duly baptized, yet certainly the Lord Christ was. But did he take up the Ordinance of Baptism out of a Principle of Repentance? And if none be to be looked up­on [Page 186] as duly baptized, but only those, who take up the Ordi­nance out of a Principle of Repentance, both He, and we, have cause in abundance to demur, and doubt, whether the far greater part of those in this nation, who have lately been dipped, have been duly baptized, or no Yea Mr. A. himself, according to such a principle, cannot up­on any certainty of knowledge, affirm any person to have been been duly baptized, unlesse (him haply) self. Nor in­deed doth the regular and due administration of Baptism depend upon any principle of Repentance in the person to be baptized. It is a true saying of Musculus, that Baptism is indeed the Laver of Regeneration; but not so, that only they who are actually regenerate, ought to be sealed therewith, but those also, who are to be regenerated afterward. Baptismus est lavacrum regeneration is; sed non ita, ut regenerati tan­tum illo debe­ant obsignari, verùm etiam regene­randi. Mus. in Mat. c. 22. And Calvin answering an objection against the Baptizing of Infants, affirmeth that they are to be baptized, in futu­ram poenitentiam & fidem Calv. Insti­tut. l. 6. c. 14. Sect. 20. 1. in order to that Repentance, and Faith, which afterwards should be found in them. And herein their Doctrine is expresly consonant to the Scrip­tures. I indeed (saith John the Baptist to those, who were at present a generation of vipers) baptize you with water [...], for, or, unto Repentance; [1. to oblige or engage you the more effectually to Repent] Mat. 3. 11. So v. 8. Bring forth therefore [therefore, 1. since you have now been baptized] fruits worthy Repentance.

3. When he saith, upon which they look for remission of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf, I do not well understand with what antecedent he intendeth, a match for his Relative, WHICH. If he intends it barely & nakedly with Repentance, that which he saith, nothing con­cerns the Interest of his cause. If, with this clause, do take up the Ordinance of Baptism out of a Principle of Re­pentance, so that his meaning be, that upon such a take­ing up of the Ordinance as this, viz. out of a principle of Repentance, persons look for the remission of sins ac­cording, &c.

Sect. 61.

1. Remission of sins is promised by God unto Repent­ance, [Page 187] whether it be accompanied with Baptism or no, ( Act. 3. 19. Act. 5. 31. Luk 24. 47. Prov. 28. 13.) And consequently he that truly repenteth, may look for remissi­on of sins according to the promise of God in that behalf, whe­ther he taketh up the Ordinance of Baptism, or no. Yea according to Mr. A's. own principles, no person ought to be baptized, untill he believeth: and what is believing, being interpreted, lesse then a looking for remission of sins upon Repentance according to the promise of God in that be­half? If so, then men may, nay must, or ought, to look for remission of sins upon Repentance, according, &c. before the taking up of the Ordinance he speaks of, and conse­quently, without it.

2. In the Scriptures I finde neither precept for, nor example of, any looking for remission of sins by any man, simply upon his taking up the Ordinance of Baptism, no though taken up by him out of a principle of Repent­ance.

4. What he meaneth by his Denomination and use of Baptism better served in mens baptism, then in childrens, I am again to seek. If by this better service, he means any thing meet for the understandings of men, I know no reason why the Denomination and use of Baptism he speaks of, should be either better, or so well serv'd in the Baptism of men, as of children, considering that God himself judged the like Denomination and use of circumcision better serv'd in the circumcision of children, then of men; Other­wise I suppose he would have ordained by Law the cir­cumcising of men, rather then of children. And where­as the Apostle declares the use of circumcision by this De­nomination, a sign and seale of the righteousness of Faith, (Rom. 4. 11.) is not the Denomination of it, and conse­quently the use of it, the same in substance, both with the Denomination and use of Baptism? For what is Repentance but Faith in implication, as Faith also comprehends Re­pentance in it, the Scriptures accordingly by reason of this mutual [...], making the same promises indif­ferently unto the one, and the other? Again, what is [Page 188] Remission of sins, but the righteousness of Faith? Or what is the Righteousness of Faith, but in strictest proprietie of speech, remission of sins? As for that new-fangled conceit, that Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith only unto Abraham (personally considered) it is so ridiculously importune, that an operous and solemne confutation of it would be little other it self. Certainly God did not injoyne two kinds of circumcision, the one specifically differing (in the signification and end of it) from the other; one, to signifie and seale both covenants, as well that which was temporall or carnall, as that which was spirituall; another, to signifie that covenant only which was spirituall. Besides, if circumcision had signified and sealed nothing to the Jewish nation, but only the covenant of God to give them the land of the earthly Canaan, why should God covenant with them (long after Abraham was dead) that he would circum­cise their heart, and the heart of their seed, to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, that they might live? Deut. 30. 6. Doubtlesse these things im­port much more in circūcision, then either the signifying, or sealing, of an earthly covenant, unto those, to whom it was given. This appears from many other passages of Scripture, which may be considered at leasure. Rom. 2. 28, 29. Philip. 3. 3. Col. 2. 11. Act. 7. 51. (besides other)

As for the great argument in defence of the wild con­ceit now opposed, built upon Rom. 4. 11. it is built quite besides the clear meaning and import of the place. For because here it is said, that He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seale of the righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; Mr. Fisher See Mr. Fisher Baby-Baptism. p. 18. 19, 24, 154, 269. and Mr. A. would infer, from these words, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that Abraham received circumcision [ viz. in his flesh] as a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith, for [Page 189] this end, that by receiving it upon this account, or upon these terms, [ viz. as a seale of the righteousness of Faith] he might hereby be made, or become, the Father of all that believe, &c. Which honour they weakly imagine could not accrue unto him by his receiving of circumci­sion, if any other of his posterity should receive it upon the same terms with him; I mean, as a seale of the righ­teousnesse of Faith. This is the strength (or weaknesse rather) of their arguing from this place, that Circum­cision was a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith unto A­braham only, For

1. Though Abraham did receive the sign of Cir­cumcision in his flesh, ( Gen. 17. 24, 26.) yet is it not this receiving it, which is here spoken of; but his receiving it in the Law or Ordinance of it [from God] in such a sence as John the Baptist may be said to have recei­ved Baptism; viz. because he was the first to whom the Ordinance of Baptism was delivered by God. Thus also Moses is said by Stephen to have RECEIVED the lively Oracles to give unto them. Act. 7. 38. In this sense also Christ is said to have RECEIVED of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost, which he shed forth. Act. 2. 33. And if Abraham's RECEIVING Circumcision in this place, signified his being circumcised in the flesh, it must follow, that all his posterity, receiving circumcision in this sense, as well as he, should at least in part, all of them be Fathers of them that believe as well as he; in as much as this prerogative is manifestly by the Apostles suspended upon that receiving of Circumcision, which is here spoken of, not upon the end, for which he re­ceived it.

2. By the Faith, which Abraham is here said to have had being yet uncircumcised, and of the righteousnesse of which he is said to have received Circumcision, as a sign, and seal, is not meant that individuall Faith, whether act, or habit, which was in Abraham, but the species or kind of Faith, which he had. In such a sense as this, the Apostle saith that that Faith which was in Timothie, [Page 190] dwelt first in his Grandmother Loïs [2 Tim. 1. 5.] mean­ing, the same species or kind of Faith, i. (as himself also expresseth it) of Faith Unfeigned. When I call to remem­brance the unfeigned Faith that is in thee, which first dwelt in thy Grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am perswaded that in thee also. In like manner, by the Faith of Abraham, twice in this very chapter ( Rom. 4. 12, 16.) is meant that species or kind of Paith which Abraham had.

3. For the cleare understanding the Scripture before us, it is diligently to be observed, that the Apostle doth not say, that Abraham received circumcision as either sign, or seal of his Faith, but, of the righteousnesse of the Faith, which he had, i. of that justification, or justified estate, wherein by vertue of the counsell, will, and decree of God in that behalf, he was invested or instated, by, and upon, his beleving. Circumcision was neither sign, nor seal, of Abrahams Faith, nor of any other mans Faith how like soever unto Abraham's, but of the righteousnes of his Faith; yet not as his, but as true, and unfeigned, 1. such, as unto which God by covenant and promise, had annexed the Grace and blessednesse of Justification. From whence it follow's,

4. That circumcision could not be a sign or seal of the righteousnesse of Abrahams Faith only, individually or personally considered; but must needs be this sign and seal of the same righteousnesse of the like Faith, in what person, or persons soever it should be found. Yea it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of Faith, simply and indefinitely considered, i. as promised or covenanted by God unto man-kind. So that whether any person a­mong the Jews had been circumcised, or not, and so whe­ther any circumcised person had beleeved, or not, yet was Circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of Faith unto them, as well as unto those, who were both circum­cised, and believed. i. As God made this covenant with the world, or man-kind in generall, that whosoe­ver truly believed in him, should hereby become righte­ous, [Page 191] or (which is the same) be justified; so likewise upon the same generall and unlimited terms, he gave the Ordinance of circumcision (by the hand or ministerie of his servant Abraham) for a sign and seal of his truth and faithfulnesse in this covenant [i. that he would justifie all those without exception who should truly beleeve] This is evident from these words [in the fall of the verse] in their dependance upon the former; that righ­teousness might be imputed unto them also [unto them, i. un­to all] that should believe [whether circumcised, or un­circumcised] as if he should have said; Therefore A­braham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousnes of that kind of Faith, which he had being yet un­circūcised, that so all those without exception, who should beleeve as he did, might have the same assurance with him, that righteousnesse should be imputed unto them also, as it had been unto him, i. that they should be as cer­tainly justified by God, as he had been. Mr. Fishers notion, denying Circumcision of old, and Baptism now, to be any sign at all unto children, is very childish, and unworthy a Considering man. Circumcision was the same, i. the same sign, unto children, which it was unto men: nor was there any difference, change, or altera­tion in it, or in the signifying nature or propertie of it, when it was actually apprehended and understood by these children being now become men. But the present inability or incapacity in children to understand the lan­guage or signification of a sign, doth not prove that that which is really a sign, is no sign unto them: it onely proves, that it is not apprehended as a sign, or in the signifying relation of it, by them. If signs be no signs unto children, because they do not at present under­stand their signification, it will follow, that there are none at all in the world unto men, whilst they are asleep, or whilst thorow any ingagement of their minds or thoughts otherwise, they do not actually mind or attend the signi­fications of them. A sign is not therefore called a sign, because it alwayes actually signifies one thing, or other, [Page 192] unto any man, but because it is apt to signifie such or such a thing, unto those that are in a capacitie (whether more immediate, or more remote) to understand it, and withall, actually mind the signification. But the conceit we now speak of is so waterish, that there is no tast either of truth, or reason in it.

Sect. 62.

5. By the premises levied in the consideration of the Scripture before us, duly considered, it clearly appear­eth, that when Abraham's said to have RECEIVED the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse of the Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THAT BELIEVE; the meaning is, that God, by casting this peculiar ho­nour upon Abraham, to make him, from amongst all the men in the world, the Receiver of, and (as it were) his Great feoffee in trust for, his Great Ordinance of Cir­cumcision, which he intended for a sign, and seal of that blessed Covenant of Grace made with him and his seed, and in them, with all the world, did characterise and commend him unto the world as the Father of all that should ever after beleeve, i. for the most exemplarie and signall Beleever that ever the world had seen, the worth and transcendent excellency of whose Faith was enough to replenish the earth with a generation of beleevers. The meaning of this expression, That he might be the Father of, &c. according to the frequent use of the verb substantive in the Scripture, is, that he might be decla­red, or made known, to be, the Father (in the sence men­tioned) of all that believe. That ye may be the children of your Father, &c. [1. that ye may be known to be so] Mat. 5. 45. And the man whom the Lord shall chuse, shall be holy. [i. shall be owned or acknowledged for holy] Num. 16. 7. So again: And now I beseech thee let the power of my Lord be great, [1. appear, or be disco­vered to be great] Num. 14: 17. That sin might BE out [Page 193] of measure sinfull by the commandement, [1. might ap­pear, or, be known to be so] Rom. 7. 13. Besides many the like This inter­pretation of the verb Sub­stantive, BE, Mr. Fisher himself attest­eth, affirming that Circumci­sion was a seal to Abraham to honour the greatness of the Faith he had, and to NO­TIFIE him to be the Fa­ther of the Faithfull, as is plainly expest, Rom. 4. 11. Baby-Bap­tism. p. 153. As God by chusing Moses out of all the chil­dren of Israel, yea out of the whole world, to be the first and immediate Receiver from himself of those lively Ora­cles (as Stephen expresseth them, Act. 7.) hereby decla­clared and commended him both unto the nation of the Jews, and then to all the world besides, for a Great Prophet, & Person highly interessed in his favour, &c. and did the like by John Baptist, in making choice of him from amongst all the holy & worthy persons in the world▪ to be the first & imediate Receiver of Baptism from his hand, that s [...] by, and from, him it might be propagated unto all those, to whom it was intended; in like manner by singling, and chusing Abraham out from amongst the ge­neration of men spread upon the face of the whole Earth, to be the first and imediate Receiver of the Great Ordi­nance of Circumcision, intended and given for a sign and seal of the Righteosness of such a Faith, or kind of Faith, as he had being yet uncircumcised, by, and from, him to be derived unto all those, that should desire, or be found meet to partake thereof; he did (I say) hy casting the Spirit of this glory upon him, recommend and set him forth unto the world as the Father of all those that should believe, [i. for a person, whose Faith he so highly esteemed, that he invited the world to follow his steps herein] So that Abraham was not properly or formally constituted, or made the Father of all that believe, (in the sence declar­ed) by his receiving the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse os the Faith, which, &c. but by that great and worthy spirit of Faith acting, and shewing it self from time to time so exemplarily in him in severall cases, upon occasion (as appears, Rom. 4. 18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become, the Father of many a) See Rom. 4 18, 19, 20, 21. Heb. 11. 8, 9, 17, &c. nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be, &c.) Onely the honour of this Father-hood, which was Abrahams equitable right upon the account now specified, before his receiving Circumcision, God [Page 194] was pleased to attest and set his seal unto, in the sight and presence (as it were) of Heaven and Earth, by re­vealing that his mysterious and great Ordinance of cir­cumcision first unto him, as for his own personall ac­commodation, and heavenly securitie in matters of highest concernment unto him, so likewise for the like benefit and blessing unto his posteritie, and all those who should incorporate, and make one nation and peo­ple with them. And that the world might understand and know, that the consignment of this great Ordinance unto Abraham, was intended by God as an honourable cognizance of that signall Faith, which was in him; he was pleased to impose this sence and signification upon the said Ordinance; viz. that it should be a seal, or means of confirmation unto the world, that in whomso­ever that kind of Faith, which was in Abraham, should be found, he should with Abraham, be justified in his sight, Rom. 4. 11, 22, 23, 24. Gal. 3. 6, 7, 8. 9.

Sect. 63.

6. (And lastly, for this) evident it is, 1. that Abraham his being circumcised, or his recei­ving this Ordinance in the flesh, is not in this Scripture so much as mentioned, or intended, but only his receiving the first discovery and command of it from God, as a Feoffee in trust, for his posteritie, and those who should desire to incorporate with them. 2. That Circumcision, the Ordinance whereof Abraham thus re­ceived, was not intended, or given by God, as either a sign or seal, either of Abrahams Faith, or of the Faith of any other person; nor yet as either sign or seal of the righteousness of Abrahams personall or individuall Faith, as such, but of the righteousness of the same kind of Faith, in whomsoever, or in how many soever it should be found, during the time assigned by God for the continuance in it in the world. 3. That Abraham was very notably and solemnly declared by God unto the [Page 195] world to be the Father of all that believe, not by any kind of receiving Circumcision in his flesh, wherein all his posteritie were equally priviledged with him, but by receiving the Ordinance and commandment of it imme­diately, and before any other person, from God; which was his prerogative alone. 4. (And lastly) That the counsell and minde of God in circumcision, was, that it should be both a sign and seal of the righteousnesse of a true and unfeigned Faith. [i. of that kind of Faith which was in Abraham] in whomsoever it should be found, as well as in Abraham; yea simply and indefi­nitely so,] i. whether this Faith had ever been found in any man, or no; inasmuch as neither mens beleeving, nor their non-beleeving, do, or can, at all alter the pur­pose or counsell of God in any of his Ordinances.]

Sect. 64.

Did I not judge the explication given of the Scripture lately argued, abundantly sufficient to satisfie and con­vince any man, to whom Paul, being alive, would not say, if he be ignorant, let him be ignorant, that Circumci­sion was not a sign or seal of the righteousness of Abrahams personall or individuall Faith only, but generally and universally of the righteousness of the same kind of Faith, in whomsoever it should be found, I should adde much more for his satisfaction in that behalf. I trust the Rea­der will pardon the digression, considering that the text of [...]cripture opened herein, thorowly and distinctly un­derstood, gives little lesse then a thorow light into the Question about Infant-Baptism. And I am in no de­gree doubtfull, had but Mr. Fisher, and Mr. A. been both willing, and able to reach the mind of the holy Ghost therein, and withall quitted themselves like men in the consideration of it, they had been preserved in the streight way of God and of the Gospel, and not turn­ed aside into the crooked path of Ana-Baptism. But let us now return, and hear what Mr. A. hath farther to say, [Page 196] why God's design touching Repentance for the Remission of sins, should be better served, or answered, by the Bap­tizing of men, then of children. Therefore

2. (Saith he) If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, because men by taking up that Ordi­nance, do ingage themselves to the practice of repentance and mortification, as the Apostle supposeth the beleeving Romans Mr. A. p. 15. 16. to have done, Rom. 6. 2, to 6. (By the way, what need we an IF, If it be called, &c. if the Apostle hath determ­ined the case?) then this end is better provided for in the baptism of men, then of Infants. Surely Circumcision under the Law was an ingagement unto men to the pra­ctise of repentance and mortification, as well as Baptism under the Gospel. And yet God judged this end of it better serv'd, and answered, by the administration of it unto Infants, then unto men; otherwise we presume he would have prescribed the Administration of it unto men, rather then unto children. That men were ingaged by their being Circumcised unto the practise of Repentance and Mortification, I suppose is no mans doubt or questi­on. If it be, resolution in aboundance on that hand we speak of may be had, Deut. 10. 16. Jer. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 28, 29. Phil. 3. 3. (besides some other places) Therefore unless Mr. A. can give us some better reason, then God him­self knew any in the like case, why a Baptismall engage­ment unto Repentance and Mortification, should be better provided for by the baptising of men, then of chil­dren, it concerns him to retract his assertion in this be­half, But

3. The reason (or rather, vice-reason) which he gives of such his assertion, is, because an engagement to practise repentance, supposeth, 1. An end of Repentance. 2. A ca­pacity of performing that, to which they do ingage; neither of which are to be found in Infants, &c. I answer,

Sect. 65.

1. An engagement to practise Repentance by those [Page 197] who were circumcised, supposed as much an end of repent­ance, as it doth in those who are baptised (and so like­wise a capacitie to perform that, which was engaged unto) yet these, neither divisim, nor conjunctim, were judged any reason by God why Infants ought not to be circum­cised. But the wisdom (it seems) of men re-baptized is super-infinite.

2. I confesse, I do not understand what he meaneth, when he affirmeth, that an end of repentance is not to be found in infants, but in men. And therefore reverencing that saying of the wise man, He that answereth a matter before he heareth, [i. understandeth] it, it is folly and shame unto him, I shall make no further answer at present unto it, but this; viz. that when Mr. A. shall enable me to understand how the end of repentance is in men, and not in children, I shall freely give him my sense of his no­tion.

3. Nor is Mr. A. a friend either unto reason, or to the truth, in affirming, that there is no capacitie in children of performing that, to which they do ingage. For, 1. in such a sense as there is a capacitie in them to engage unto any thing, there is likewise to perform. Children are in as good and proper a capacitie to perform that, which is or ought to be ingaged unto in Baptim, as to make the en­gagement it self. Secondly, though children be not in a present, actuall, or immediate capacitie to perform that, which Baptism engageth unto, yet are they in a remote and mediate capacity hereof, and which by the use of means, and blessing of God upon these means, may in due time become actuall. Nor can I think that all those, who according to Mr. A's. notion, are, or have been duly baptized, have been in an actuall and present capa­citie at the time of their baptizing, to perform every Luke 3. 13. thing they engaged unto by being baptized. They who as yet doubted whether John was the Messiah, or no, were not in a present or immediate capacitie of beeleeving Christ to be this Messiah; yet were they ingaged by their being baptized to beleeve this; and notwithstanding their [Page 198] actuall incapacitie of beleeving it, were lawfully bapti­zed. So likewise they, who think they truly beleeve, and are supposed by others to beleeve accordingly, and yet both these suppositions notwithstanding, do not truly beleeve, may and ought neverthelesse to be bapti­zed; yet are they in no actuall capacitie to perform that to which they engage by being baptized; I mean to be­leeve in Jesus Christ, and to persevere beleeving unto the end. Yea Mr. A. himself by being baptized, ingaged to a perseverance in Faith and holinesse unto the end of his dayes; yet was he not at the time of his baptism in an actuall capacitie to perform that, which he engaged unto in this kind. For a present standing in Grace, or Faith, is no more an actuall capacitie of persevering in either to the end of a mans life, then a present healthfull state or condition of the body is an actuall capacitie of preserving himself in health untill he dieth; or then the present possession of an estate worth 1000. l. per annum, is an actuall capacitie in the possessor of paying a debt of a 1000. or 2000 l. twenty years after. So then the difference which Mr. A. pretends to finde in the consi­deration before us, between men and children in refe­rence unto Baptism, is altogether inconsiderable, and turns to no account at all for the support of his cause. Whether this second consideration, which he supposeth may be the reason why Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance for remission of sins, be consistent with the first, I shall not trouble the Reader to discusse; but rather de­sire him to consider. But

Sect. 66.

3. He advanceth in his supposals about the businesse in hand, thus, p. 16. If it be called the Baptism of Re­pentance for the Remission of sins, because God thereby sig­nifies and SEALS unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance, this end and use likewise is BET­TER answered in mens Baptism, who do repent, then in Infants who do not, &c. I answer,

[Page 199]1. His conceit of any End, or Ʋse, of Baptism better answered in the baptism of men, then of Infants, hath been again & again put to rebuke by the conside­ration of the Counsell of God himself in circumcision. We shall not need to repeat the consideration here. There was everywhit as much reason, why it might have been said in the dayes of Circumcision, that such & such an End, or Ʋse, of Circumcision, is better answered by the circumcising of men, then of infants, as it can be said un­der the Gospel, that any End, or Ʋse of Baptism is bet­ter answered by the baptizing of Men, then of Chil­dren. But

2. When he saith, that the End of Baptism (so with some regret of jealousie supposed by him) is BETTER answered by the baptizing of men, then of children, doth he not very plainly imply and grant, that this End is com­petently (at least) answered in the baptizing of children also? If so, then certainly the baptizing of children is neither a nullitie, nor yet a thing unlawfull. But this consequence, & the goodnesse of it, have been sufficiently vindicated in the premises. As the Apostle in the case of marriage, affirming that he that keepeth his virgin [mean­ing unmarried] doth BETTER, granteth with all, that he that giveth her in marriage, doth WELL, 1 Cor. 7. 36, 38. So he that teacheth that any End of Baptism, is BETTER answered one way, undeniably granteth, that this End may WELL and to a commendable degree, be answer­ed in another.

Sect. 67.

3. Whereas he supposeth, that Baptism may be called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins, because God thereby signifies and SEALS the remission of sins upon Repentance, &c. he takes the boldnesse to lift up his pen a­gainst the great Apostle of his Faith (in the doctrine of Antipedo-baptism;) Mr. Sam. Fisher, whose avowed Doctrine it is, that Baptism, as it is not so much as sig­nifying [Page 200] unto children, (a) so is it no SEALING Ordi­nance Baby-Baptsm p. 154, &c. unto any. In which notion of his he laies the ho­nour of the Ordinance of Baptism in the dust, unto which notwithstanding otherwise he crieth, Hosanna in the highest.

4. Whereas he gives this for a reason, why the End and Ʋse of Baptism, of which he speaketh, should be better an­swered by the baptizing of men, then of children viz. Be­cause men, who have begun to repent, are in a good capacitie to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and con­fidence—whereas Infants, whilest such, are uncapable of any such thing, &c. I answer,

1. That which himself here, onely doubtfully, and with proviso, call's one End and Use of Baptism, ( viz. the signifying and sealing unto men, the remission of their sins upon repentance) one greater then He in the cause of Ana-Bap­tism (as we lately heard) denies to be either the one, or the other. Himself being doubtfull, whether there be any such End or Use of Baptism, as that here menti­oned by him, upon what sober account doth he trouble the world with telling them, that in case there be such, either End, or Ʋse, they are better answered, by the bap­tism of men, then of children? Is that which may not be, as well as be, better answered by one means, then another? These are strange speculations.

2. Supposing that one End and Ʋse of Baptism should be better answered by the baptizing of men, then of children, what follows from hence? It neither fol­lows (in the first place) that therefore every end and use thereof is better answered by such an administration; nor (in the second) that Baptism therefore is not to be administred unto children. One end of meats and drinks (as for example, the preservation of the health and strength of men and women come to their just statures and growth) is better answered by the eating and drink­ing of men and women, then of children: but it followeth not from hence, that therefore eating & drinking are not to be allowed unto children. One end and use of marriage [Page 201] is better answered by the marrying of persons in the strength and vigour of their youth: but this proveth not, that therefore it is unlawful for persons of more maturitie of years to marrie. This very End and Use of Baptism here suggested, was better answered by the Baptism of men, who had sinned and repented, then by the bap­tism of Christ himself, who was uncapable of repentance, and of remission of sins hereby; yet this proveth not, that therefore the baptism of Christ was unlawfull. Therefore Mr. A's. reasoning at this turn is to little pur­pose.

Sect. 68.

3. Whereas he attempteth to prove, that the End and Use of Baptism now under consideration, is better an­swered by the baptism of men, then of children, by this argument; viz. because men WHO HAVE BEGUN TO REPENT, are in a good capacitie to receive, &c. doth he not reason at as loose a tate, as he that should go about to prove that men shall be saved, because righ­teous men shall be saved? or should infer, that such and such things do belong to a subject simply considered, because they belong to this subject so and so qualifi­ed?

4. Though Abraham, when he was circumcised, was in a good capacity to receive confirmation and establishment in his hope and confidence, both that God would give unto him (in his posteritie) the promised land of Canaan, and likewise that he would justifie him thorow his beleeving, whereas Isaac, at the time of his circumcising, was in no such capacitie of either, yet was the circumcising of Isaac every whit as regular and lawfull, as the circumcising of Abraham; yea was of the two, more agreeable to the standing Law for Circumcision. In like manner though children be in no such capacity at the time of their bapti­zing, to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and confidence of obtaining remission of sins upon their repentance, as repentant men are, when they are bap­tized, [Page 202] yet may their baptism be every whit as lawfull, yea and more regular, then the baptizing of such men. Therefore Mr. A's. discourse in the quarters we are now beating up, is without sinews.

Sect. 69.

5. (And lastly for this) when he saith, whereas In­fants, whilest such, are ALTOGETHER uncapable of of any such thing; in respect whereof this end is made frustrate, when Baptism is given unto them, he speaketh truth neither in the premises, nor in the conclusion. For 1. Infants, whilst such, are not ALTOGETHER unca­pable of that, whereof he speaketh. For although (as hath been formerly argued) they be not in an actuall ca­pacity of the thing, I mean, in such a capacity whereby they are inabled to receive the Confirmation and establish­ment he speaks of, at the time of their baptizing, or whilst thy are infants, yet are they in some capacitie, and this proper and direct, (though mediate and remote) of receiving these accommodations in due time, as they are in such a capacitie, as soon as born, of speaking, thinking, apprehending, &c. however this capacity is not ordina­rily reduced into act till after severall years. Secondly, from hence it follows, that neither is that End of Bap­tism, of which he speaks, made frustrate, when Baptism is given unto children, any whit more, then the End of planting is made frustrate by the non-fructification of the tree planted immediately upon the planting of it; or the end of sowing made frustrate by reason that the seed doth not yield an harvest-increase, as soon as it is sown. What I do, thou knowest not now (said the Lord Christ unto Peter, and in him, to the rest) but thou shalt know hereafter; Joh. 13. 7. Christs action here spoken of, was not hereby made frustrate unto Peter, because he understood not the meaning or import of it, when it was acted. And many of his sayings to his Disciples, which they un­derstood not when they were spoken, were under­stood [Page 203] by them with advantage afterwards. See Sect. 152.

Sect. 70.

Whereas he addeth, that there is a greater APPEAR­ANCE both of the wisdom and goodness of God in vouch­safing and applying such a means as Baptism is, to streng­then mens Faith in his promise of Remission of sins upon their repentance, unto such, who 1. have need of this Confir­mation; and 2. are capable of receiving it, then there is in that application of it which is made unto Infants, who neither have need of it, not yet are capable of receiving it; I answer,

1. What appearance there may be of the wisdom and goodness of God in such a disposition as he speaks of, in his own eyes, or in the eyes of men of his judgement, I shall not prejudge; but certain I am that there neither is, nor hath been, any such appearance in the eyes of many men, as sharp-sighted in matters of this nature, as they.

2. Nor doth it argue, either greater wisdom, or good­nesse to withhold from a man such supplies, which he may have urgent occasion to make use of, untill the very pang of his necessity in this kind cometh upon him, then it doth to prevent him with such accommodations a­gainst the time of his need. Suppose that Circumcision was a sign and seal only of the faithfulnesse of God in his promise of giving the land of Canaan unto the Jews, yet did there appear as much wisdom and goodness of God in vouchsafing and applying this means of their confirma­tion herein unto them, whilst they were yet children, and so at present uncapable of receiving it, as there would, or could have done, in vouchsafing and applying the same means unto them afterwards, when they were both more capable of the said confirmation, and withall stood in more need of it.

Sect. 71.

3. (And lastly, for this) Though children have no present need of that Confirmation he speaks of, yet have they even present need of the application of such an Or­dinance unto them, by means whereof they may receive this Confirmation with advantage in due time.

As the children of the Jews, had need (at least some kind of need, unlesse we shall say, that Circumcision was altogether superfluous unto them) of such an Ordinance to be administred unto them, by which they might be confirmed afterwards, in the truth and faithfulnesse of God for the performance of that promise, whatever it was, which was signed and sealed unto them by circum­cision, although they were uncapable of any such con­firmation as this, at the time when they were circumci­sed: in like manner children under the Gospell, though whilst children, they stand in no need of confirmation in the truth of the Covenant of Grace, yea and are all this while uncapable of it, yet this is no argument to prove that therefore they do not stand in need of being prevented with such an Ordinance from God, by which they may be confirmed herein, when they shall arrive at a capacitie of this confirmation. Mariners, or such who traffique by Sea, whilst they are yet on shore in their own land, or whilst they are sailing upon the seas, may stand in need of many things, of which notwith­standing they have no use, or benefit, untill they come to another land, whether their course is intended. And though the same things may possibly be procured and had in this other land, whether their voyage is bent, yet if they cannot be had here upon terms equally benefici­all with those, on which they may be had in their own land, the men we speak of may truly and properly enough be said to stand in need of them before they go to sea, and whilst they are yet in their own land. In like man­ner though children have no actuall or present benefit by [Page 205] Baptism, nor are capable of any, until years of discretion & knowledg, yea & though they may be baptized, when they come to be men, as well as whilst they are yet chil­dren; yet neither of these considerations, nor both to­gether, argue any thing, but that baptism may be need­full for children, and that, whilst such, they receive it upon terms of better advantage for their future occasi­ons, then they could do, in case they should not receive it untill they come to be men. But the truth is that Mr. A. in all these reasonings, on which He insists in his second argument against Infant-baptism, seems to strive to out-wisdom God: and all they who rise up against the same practise with arguments pretending inconveni­ence, unprofitablenesse (or the like) therein, dash their foot against the same stone.

Sect. 72.

4. We have yet (p. 16.) another possible reason proposed to us, why it may be called the Baptism of Re­pentance for remission of sins, viz. this, Because the persons who are baptized do thereby professe and DECLARE ƲNTO THE WORLD, that they look for remission of sins from God, upon their repentance. If (saith he) it be called, &c, yet this end also is better answered in mens Baptism, then in infants. (I answer as formerly)

1. But what if this be no reason of that Denomi­nation of Baptism, of which we have heard so much to so little purpose? what then becomes of that, which Mr. A. builds upon it? The air may be afraid of being beaten by it. That the five reasons here suggested by him, should all of them be reasons in realitie and truth) of the said Denomination, is (I suppose) scarce his own thought, or notion: nor are they all well consistent a­mongst themselves (as was formerly hinted) nor hath he declared his mind which of the five, one, or more, should inherit.

2. The reason or end of the said Denomination here waveringly, and upon supposall, suggested by him, is [Page 206] (probably) no true reason or end thereof. For how can persons baptized (upon the terms allowed by him, and frequently practised in his way) thereby professe and DE­CLARE UNTO THE WORLD that they look for remission of sins upon their repentance, when as 1. many are baptized in hugger-mugger, privatly, and in the night, and of whose baptism its self the world (possibly) may have no knowledge whilst they live? Yea I know, and Mr. A. knows, a person not inconsiderable in the Common-wealth of new-baptism, who kept his Baptism to himself for a eleven or twelve years together, before the world, yea or his fellow-dippers themselves, one or two haply present at the solemnitie, excepted, knew any thing thereof. Doubtlesse all this while he made no pro­fession or declaration unto the world of any thing at all by his baptism. 2. In case the persons baptized should make proclamation in the streets or market-places, that they are baptized, the world is at liberty whether they will believe them, or no. If (saith Christ, Joh. 5. 31.) I bear witnesse of my self, my witnesse is not true, [meaning, legally true, or such, which you, being strangers to me, are necessitated to own] And it is no easie matter for the world to receive testimony of any mans baptism [in Mr. A's way of baptizing] from two or three wit­nesses present at it. 3. (And lastly) in case the world might be satisfied touching the truth and certaintie of the baptism of all that are baptized, yet do they not un­derstand any such profession, or declaration, imported or made by it, viz. that the persons baptized look for remissi­on of sins upon their repentance. Therefore no such pro­fession or declaration as this is made by baptism unto the world: and consequently this is no end of baptism. To what purpose then doth he pretend, that it is better an­swered in the baptism of men, then of Infants.

Sect. 73.

Whreas he saith, that men are capable of making such [Page 207] a profession and declaration of themselves to the world IN and BY their Baptism, when as infants are altogether un­capable of doing any such thing; I answer,

1. That men themselves are very ill capable of making that profession he speaks of, or any other, in their Baptism, [1. during the time of their being under wa­ter]

2. As uncapable altogether are they of making either the one, or the other, BY their Baptism. A man cannot professe or declare that, BY baptism (at least orderly & regularly) which God never intended should be professed or declared by it Now Mr. A. himself speaks doubtingly whether such a profession and declaratin as we now speak of, be any end of baptism, or no. If they be not (a nega­tive already proved by us, as well as questioned, or doubted, by him) then can they not by any man be made by it.

3. There is very seldom much of the world, for the most part nothing at all, present at the baptizing of those, who Mr. A. here supposeth should make the profession and declaration which he speaks of, in and by their Baptism. In what capacitie then are they of making them unto the world at such a time?

4. (And lastly for this) though they who are baptized men, are able to make what professions or declarations by words they please, about the time of their baptism, which infants at the time of their Baptism, by them­selves, or in their own persons, cannot; yet he that of­fereth his Infant unto baptism, and so he that baptizeth it, may at this very time make the same, whether pro­fessions, or declarations, with men. And how, or why such a profession and declaration as he speaketh of, made by these persons, when an infant is baptized, should not as well answer and accommodate that end of Baptism (if such it be) which he here suggesteth (at least in refe­rence to the world) as the like made by other men, when they are baptized, I verily understand not. Truly these arguments are no honour or strength to the cause of An­tipedo-baptism.

[Page 208]5. He yet supposeth once more; If it be called the Bap­tism of repentance, &c. because it seals and confirms the Co­venant or promises of God made to men touching the remissi­on of their sins upon their repentance, yet this end and use Mr.] A. p. 16, 17. also is attained upon far BETTER TERMS in the Administration of Baptism to believers, and to men of un­derstanding, then it is, or can be, when administred unto Infants who have neither. I answer,

Sect. 74.

1. This fift (and last) IF, is the same in substance and import (and partly in words also) with the third. Wherefore (to avoid Repetitions) the Rea­der is desired to re-peruse the preceding, 67, 68, &c. Se­ctions, where he shall find the impertinencie of the con­tents of it argued and discovered. And

2. Whereas he here pleads, that If the intent of God in making Baptism a seal of his Covenant and Promise, is not to make his Covenant more sure in it self, but to give it a more sure, stable, and unquestionable being in the minds and apprehensions of men, then this end cannot be attained in in­fants by their Baptism, because they want the use and exer­cise of their reasons, judgements, &c. without which the articles and terms of Gods Covenant will never take place, or have a being in the minds of any, by way of beleef; doth he not again put the wisdom of God to rebuke in his coun­sell and Ordinance of Circumcision? For whatsoever Covenant or Promise it was which he intended to seal thereby, it was no whit more to make it more sure in it self, but only in the minds and apprehensions of men, then his intent is to make that Covenant and Promise sure, which he sealeth by Baptism: and yet we know (and it hath been oft noted) that he judged his end in this kind as wel, or rather better attained, by the application of that seal unto Infants, then unto men. But God, and Mr. A. (it seems) are divided in their respective senses upon the case.

[Page 209]3. (And lastly for this) be it granted, that without the use and exercise of mens reasons and judgments, the Ar­ticles and terms of Gods Covenant will never take place, or have a being in the minds of any, &c. yet this is no reason at all, why such a Seal, by which [i. by the knowledge and consideration of which] God intends to give being, or a more sure being, to the said Articles in the minds and and apprehensions of men, should not be administred, or ap­plied, but only where there is an actuall and present use and exercise of these faculties; See more of this, Sect. 71. Especially this is no reason why this administration should not be made in the case mentioned, when there are reasons why it should be made; which is the case in Infant-Baptism, (as it was also in Infant-Circumcision.) What these rea­sons are, I mean, why the Seal of Baptism should be ad­minstred unto Infants, we shall (God willing) de­clare in due time. By the way, Mr. A. seems to be a man of more then ordinary foresight, in delivering him­self so provisionally, under the protection of so many IFS, touching his sence, why Baptism may be called the Bap­tism of repentance for the rem [...]ssion of sins. For hereby he seems to foresee, that by that time he had travelled a little further in his discourse, he should start a better rea­son of that Denomination, then any of those now offer­ed by the shaking hand of any of his IF'S. We shall hear of this in due time.

3. Mr. A. in his progresse acquainteth us with ano­ther SEEMING end of Baptism. Another end of Bap­tism (saith he, p. 17.) SEEMS to be this; viz. that such who are baptized, might thereby signifie their accept­ance of, and consent unto, the terms of the Gospel, or Cove­nant of Grace. But the substance of this seemingness, we had lately under the conduct of the fourth, IF (p. 16.) and in part also, of the first IF, p. 15. And if the Rea­der desires further satisfaction herein, he is desired to repair back to the rifling of the two said IFS, Sect. 60, 61, &c. and Sect. 72, 73, &c.

Sect. 75.

Nor doth he tell us any news, when he addeth: For the Covenant of God with men doth consist of certain articles to be observed and kept by each partie covenanting, as co­venants among men generally dc. But this old story (it may be) makes way to a new. Therefore he steereth on his course, thus:

And as amongst men parties covenanting are wont to signifie their mutuall consent to their respective articles, by some solemn act of theirs in presence of witnesses, as by sign­ing, sealing, delivering, &c. So God in the Covenant be­tween him and men, will have something like unto this done by men PƲBLIQUELY, to signifie their consent to the terms of it, as well as what is done by him to declare his readiness to do and perform what he hath undertaken on his part. We are yet in a safe roade; or however, not much beside it. Only a touch upon two things.

1. If by PƲBLIQƲELY, he means, in the sight of the world, or, upon such terms, that all men, or the generality of persons round about, may readily come to know and understand, then his rule condems his practise, and the practise generally observed by persons of his judgement. For neither did himself, in this sence, publiquely, signifie his cōs [...]nt to the terms of the co­venant by his being baptized, the generalitie of us know­ing nothing of his Baptism, but only by tradition (whose information in other cases is not very authentique, or authoritative) or by common fame, which is known to be

And (as hath been notic'd formerly) that most of those, who are led, as they think, to Christ by the way [Page 211] of new Baptism, chuse Nicodemus his season, either formally or materially, for their voyage. Therefore what they do in this kind, they do it not so PƲBLIQUELY.

2. The will of God, in the Covenant made with Abraham & his posteritie (whether spiritual or tēporal) was as much that something should be done by mē publiquely to signifie their consent unto the terms of it, as it is that any thing in this kind should be done by men to signifie their consent to the terms of the Covenant of Grace in the Gospel. Therefore how impertinent is that which follows;

Now faith in Christ, and an obedientiall subjection to ALL his Laws and precepts, being the condition of this Covenant on mans part, at WHAT TIME SOEVER HE ENTERS INTO COVENANT with God, and un­dertakes the performance of the condition, he is to sign and seal the same IN THE PRESENCE of w [...]nesses by that solemn ACT OF HIS in being baptized. For answer,

Sect. 76.

1. I had thought untill now (and shall think so still, notwithstanding Mr. A's thought to the contrary) that a person in his being baptized, is a patient, or sufferer only, not an Agent, or Actour, much lesse that he performs any Solemn Act herein. For they who act in their being baptized, must needs be Se-baptists, and not baptized after the manner of the Gospell. So that his notion about mens signifying their consent to the terms of the Go­spell by some solemn ACT, falls to the ground. If he pleads, that men act in offering, or submitting themselves unto Baptism, though not in their Baptism it self, I an­swer; Be it so, yet mens offering, or submitting them­selves unto Baptism, are no solemn or Sacramental actings, nor can their consent to the terms of the Covenant, be said to be signified by these actings, unlesse it may be said withall that men may testifie that consent we speak of, without being baptized. For that men may offer them­selves, and submit unto Baptism, without being actually baptized, is (I suppose) no mans question.

2. Whereas he makes an obedientiall subjection to ALL [Page 212] Christs laws and precepts, (without any explication, or proviso) as well as Faith in Christ, the condition of the Covenant of Grace on mans part, doth he not make a Law, by which, were it of any force or authoritie, as well him­self, as all other men, should be condemned, unlesse he can approve himself an exception from that Generall Rule of the Apostle James, In many things we offend all? If no person can claim interest in the good things of the Covenant, but only they, who shall perform the conditi­on of this Covenant, and this condition be (either in whole or in part) an obedien [...]iall subjection to all Christs laws and precepts (as Mr. A. determines) then in case he doth not obedientially sub [...]ect to all these laws and pre­cepts (which I am farre from thinking that either he, or any other person doth, yea or that they do so much as know what all these Laws and Precepts are) he hath fast shut the doore of life against himself.

3. Whereas he saith, at what time soever a person en­tereth into covenant with God, he is to sign and seal the same in the presence of witnesses by the solemn act of his being baptized; 1. I would demand of him, whether he thinks the Lord Christ was not en [...]ered into covenant with God, before his being baptized; or whether he acted besides rule, that at the time of his entering into covenant with God, he did not sign and seal the same by his being baptized. Yea I cannot but think that the Eunuch was entered into covenant with God some considerable space of time, be­fore his being baptized. Nor is it an extravagant thought to conceive the same of Cornelius. 2. Nor is he able to prove (nor is the thing much more probable, then prove­able) any presence of witnesses, either at the Baptizing of the Eunuch, or of Paul, besides many others)▪. (& last­ly) I would gladly learn of him, whether the children of the Jews entered into covenant with God at the time of their circumcising, or not till afterwards, when they were able to make profession of their Faith in God. If he teach­eth me the former for truth, then would I gladly learn this lesson further, why the children (at least the children [Page 213] of beleevers) under the Gospell, should not be as capable of entering into Covenant with God, as they: and if so, why they should not be baptized (according to his own principles.) If the latter, then what necessitie was there (& consequently, now is there) that at what time soe­ver a person entereth into Covenant with God, he should sign and seal the same.

Sect. 77.

Of his further conceptions about the businesse, he de­livers himself thus, p. 17. In this respect especially I CON­ceive it is, that Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins. (Mark 1. 4. Luk. 3. 3.) because men are to take up that Ordinance upon their first beginning to repent, in order to the remission of their sins. For like reason I SƲPPOSE it is called the washing of regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. because men upon ther being born again, are to be baptized according to what was practized in the Apostles times. Hence it is likewise, as MAY WELL BE CONCEIVED, that mens being born of water and of the Spirit (John 3. 5.) the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Tit. 3. 5.) are joyned together, not because the Spirit works regeneration, in, and by Baptism, if we respect the beginning of it, &c. The day will fail us to gather up, by animad­version, what Mr. A. hath scattered here by inadverten­cie and inconsideratnesse. For,

1. After five severall accompts lately given in by him (as we have heard) with the Imprimis of an IF, in every of them (respectively) why Baptism should be called, The Baptism of repentance for the forgivenesse of sins, now, as IF he had but dallied, and plaid fast and loose with us in these, he delivereth us in a sixth accompt, of the truth whereof he seems to be more confident, then of any, then of all the former; and yet we have this also tendered unto us somewhat tenderly (though with an, especially) viz. with an, I conceive; In this respect especially I CON­CEIVE, it is that, &c. But

[Page 214]2. Doth not his Comparative term, especially, rela­ting to all his five former accounts, suppose, that all these had done vertuously, though this last surpasseth them all? And yet are not some of them, at least one of them (if not more) altogether inconsistent with this? The tenor of this sixt and highest-priz'd accompt being this, be­cause men are to take up the Ordinance upon their first begin­ning to repent, in order to the remission of their sins, renders it very hardly consistent with that before delivered in the third place, which (as we heard) was this, because God thereby signifies and seals unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance. If Baptism be therefore cal­led the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, be­cause men are to take it up in order to the remission of their sins, God cannot thereby either signifie or seal unto men the remission of their sins upon their repent­ance. The reason of the inconsistencie is plain; If God seals unto men the forgivenesse of their sins upon their repentance, Baptism cannot be taken up (I mean, regu­larly &, according to the mind of God) in order hereunto; be­cause Baptism is not to be taken up (according to Mr. A's own principles) but after repentance, and consequently, after remission of sins (if this be given by God upon re­pentance) If the remission of sins precedes Baptism (which it must needs do, if it be given upon repentance) then ought not Baptism to be taken up in order there­unto. Or if it be taken up by any person in order here­unto, the intention represents the action hatefull and a­bominable in the sight of God. Therefore another IF would better have become this sixt accompt also, then an, ESPECIALLY. How ill consistent it is with some other of his former accounts, I judge it beneath the Readers edification to examine. But

Sect. 78.

3. How lamely doth he plead the cause of his belo­ved Conceit, that Baptism should especially be therefore [Page 215] called the Baptism ef repentance for &c. because men are to take it up upon their first beginning to repent IN OR­DER TO THE REMISSION OF SINS; For like reason (saith he) I suppose it is called the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3. 5. because men upon, &c. So again: Hence it is likewise, as may well be conceived (but much better not conceived, nor once thought) that mens being born of water and of the Spirit, &c. What can a man reasonably imagine that he should see or notion in any one of, or in all, these passages, to countenance his notion, that Baptism shoud be taken up— in order to Remission of sins? The clause, which in face would best have be­friended him at this turn, he suppresseth, notwithstand­ing it was at his pens end. For having cited these words Act. 22. 16. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized; immediately followeth, And wash away thy sins. Why, being to act the part he had now in hand, he should keep these words behind the Curtain, is a secret that I know not how to enter. All that can with any face or colour of reason be proved from the scripture passages as yet produced, is nothing, but what will be granted unto him without proof, viz. that Baptism, by persons adult and beleeving, and not formerly baptized, ought to be taken up upon the first opportunity after their beleeving. But this, Mr. A's principles considered, ac­cording to which he was not baptized till many years af­ter his beleeving, putteth him to rebuke; but concerneth not us, who judg our selves to have been baptized in our Infancie. But for the countenancing of the darling notion mentioned, it is like we shall hear somewhat to more purpose ere long. Mean while

4. It may not be amisse to observe by the way, how full of stonds Mr. A's faith is (or at least seems to be) about the particulars argued in that part of his discourse, which is under present consideration, and how lightly he treads the ground, on which he is now walking. First, he only conceives it is, as he saith; In this respect especially I CONCEIVE it is, &c. Next, he supposeth it is. [Page 216] For like reason I SUPPOSE it is, &c. Thirdly, he tells us, that it may well be conceived that it is; Hence it is likewise, as may WELL BE CONCEIVED, &c. Lastly, his doubtless it was, though according to the grammaticall import of the particle, doubtless, it seems to imply confidence, yet according to the more pas­sable sence of this word in ordinarie construction, it notes some degree of hesitance, or question-making; I do not make this observation, as blaming in the least Mr. A's. modestie, or dubitative manner of expressing him­self in things questionable and obscure; Only herein I judge him to be in no better case then Peter was, when Paul said of him, that he was [...], to be condemn­ed, (Gal. 2. 11.) viz. that he should trouble the world, rend and teare Ch [...]istan societies, upon the account of such [...]otions or apprehensions, of the truth whereof himself hath no better assurance, then conceit, or dubi­tation.

5. (And lastly) His respective sences and expositions of Joh. [...]. 5. born of water and of the spirit; and so of Tit. 2. 5. the washing of regeneration, are so much his, that our best Expositours do not own them; nor do either the words themselves, nor yet the scope of the Context in either place require them. Concerning the former of these places, Calvin expresly professeth, that he can at no hand be perswaded that Christ speaketh here of Baptism; adding, that it had not been seasonable for him so to do. Quantum­ve [...]ò an hunc locum attinet, nullo modo adducor ut Christum de B [...]ptismo ver­ba facere cre­dam: hoc enim fuisset intem­pestivum. Calv: in Joh. 3. 5. And not long after this; The water (saith he, of which Christ here speaks) is nothing else but the inward purgation and vegetation of the holy Ghost; subjoyning this rule (for the confirmation of his exposition) that it is no [...] unusuall that the copula [...]ive particle should be taken Exegetically, when the latter member is an explication of the former. (b) Ergo nihil est aliud, quam interior Spiritus sancti purgatio ac vegetatio Ibid. [Page 217] Adde quòd non est insolens copulam exege­tio [...] sumi, quum scilicet posterius mem­brum est expli­catio pri [...]ris. Ibid Mr. John Deodate, commenteth the place thus; Of water] He seems to intimate two distinct and severall parts of this change: and by water he means the expiation and remission of the sin, and by the Spirit, the whole work of regenerati­on. Hugo Grotius findeth the figure Hendiadis in the clause, born again of water, and of the Spirit, i. (saith he) of the Spirit, who is like unto water in his working. Est autem [...]. Nam sicut in spiritu & igne, Mat. 3. 11 sig­nificat per spi­ritum igneum, ita hic ex spi­ritu & aqua est, ex spiritu aqueo Neque obstat quòd vox altera quasi limitans hic praecedat. Nam sic Act. 17. 25—Gen. 3. 16. & Gen. 2. 7. & 11.—Col. 2. 8. &c. in Joh. 3. 5. 8 &c. Groti­us. Of which interpretation he gives a further account upon the place. Concerning the latter place, Tit. 3. 5. Calvin indeed conceives, that the Apostle in the phrase, by the washing of regeneration, alludeth unto Baptism; in which apprehension I judge it not worth a while for any man to dissent from him. Yet neither doth the phrase it self, nor the scope of the Context or subject matter in hand, enforce any such interpretation; much lesse do they, ei­ther divisim, or conjunctim, so much as invite us to think the Apostle thereby meaneth Baptism. And Marlorat up­on the place citeth a Protestant Exposition (with whom himself seemeth to accord) who, by the Laver, or wash­ing of Regeneration, understandeth, the v [...]rtue, or power, of the holy Ghost, because he is the Author of that interra [...]l n [...]wness whereby our hearts are purged from the [filth, or] defilements of sin. So that Mr. A. hath sufficient cause for all that tendernesse, with which he cites the said Scripture passages for his purpose.

Sect. 79.

But let us (in the next place) see how like a man he quitteth himself, and what strength he produceth, in the defence of his golden dream (formerly mentioned) viz. that men do take up the Ordinance of Baptism, about the beginning of their repentance, IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS. For I confesse that if he be able to make truth of this notion (in the sence, which his words bear in ordinarie under­standings) he will gain the prize which he runeth for in the second part of his discourse; viz. that necessary it is [Page 218] for persons to be baptized after they believe, their Infant-Bap­tism notwithstanding. But what he pleadeth in proof of the said notion, the Reader may find p. 18. of his dis­course, beginning thus: Finally, Believing and being bap­tized, are con [...]oyned as relative to s [...]lvation (Mar. 16. 16.) And a little after; That both repentance, and the decla­ration of it by Baptism, is required on mans pa [...]t to interesse him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the Spirit, the things covenanted or promised on Gods part, is too evident to be denied by any, BUT THOSE THAT WILL NOT SEE, from Act. 2. 38, 39. Repent and be bap­tized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost: for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that, &c. For answer,

1. How insupportable is he in that most heavie Sen­tence, which here he denounceth against many thou­sands, as holy, as upright, as worthy men, as ever the earth bare any since the Apostles days, yea (in a manner) against the whole Christian world; viz. that they are persons THAT WILL NOT SEE, i. that will fully oppose the light of divine truth shining unto them. For how few are they of this generation of men, but have denied, that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism, as well as repentance it self, is required on mans part to inter­esse him in remission of sins? Or do they not all (gene­rally, and as it were with one mouth) professe and teach, and this with the full current of the Scripture, that there is nothing essentially requisite on mans part to in [...]e [...]ess him in remission of sins, [i. to put him into a state of salvation] but a true faith in Jesus Christ, which includes repentance from dead works; unto which also upon this account, the said promise of remission of sins is sometimes made. In­deed, speaking of that full and finall remission of sins, which shall in the hearing of Heaven and Earth be a­warded by the Great Judge in his day, unto all Belee­vers, to the obtaining of this they require of men, over and above either the simple act, or habit, whether of [Page 219] the truest Faith, or soundest Repentance, a perseve­rance in both, and in the fruits or actings of both, unto the end. The truth is, that as the notion here maintain­ed by Mr. A. is one of the worst and most dangerous opinions owned by him in his book; so is the morall mis­demeanour mentioned, simply the worst and most un­christian strain therein. But

2. To detect the errour of the said notion, or Do­ctrine, viz. that Baptism is therefore called the Baptism of Repentance, because men are to take it up in order to the remission of sins, (or in the latter edition of it) that the Declaration of repentance by Baptism, as well as Repentance it self, is required on mans part, to interesse him in Re­mission of sins, and Sanctification of the Spirit, It is to be considered,

Sect. 80.

1. That as Remission of sin is no where in Scripture promised unto Baptism apart from Faith, or from Re­pentance, but unto these (sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other) apart from Baptism, and with­out relation hereunto; (see and consider Joh. 3. 16, 18, 36. Lu. 24. 47. Act. 5. 3. Act. 3. 19. Ac. 8. 22. Ac. 11. 18. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Rom. 3. 28, 30. Rom. 4. 3, 5, 16, 23, 24. to omit many other places) so is the sanctification of the Spirit promised unto Faith simply, and sometimes unto prayer, some­times to the love of God, yea and hath frequently been vouchsafed unto men by God upon their believing, with­out Baptism. See for this expresse Scripture, Joh. 7. 38, 39. Act. 10 44, 45, &c. Act. 11. 17. Gal. 3. 2. Luk. 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 1. 13. 2 Thes. 2. 13. Act. 6. 5. Act. 9. 17. Act. 15. 7. compared with ver. 8. Therefore certainly Baptism is not required of men (at least in a way of ne­cessitie) to interesse them either in remission of sin, or in san­ctification of the spirit. For if so, how could these be ob­tained without it?

2. If Baptism, or a D [...]claration of mens Repentance by Baptism, be required on mans part to interesse him in Re­mission [Page 220] of sins, how can men besaid to be justified by faith thorow the blood of Christ? or the blood of Christ be said to cleanse men from all their sins? Rom. 3. 22, 24, 25. 1 Joh. 1. 7. (besides other places without number.) Baptism (without all question) is no part either of Faith, or of the blood of Christ. Therefore justification, or remission of sins, which is attainable by Faith in the bloud of Christ, may be obtained without Baptism.

3. If Baptism be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins, and sanctification of the spirit, then hath God suspended both the justification and san­ctification, of men (and consequently, their eternall Salvation) upon a ceremonie, or carnall Ordinance (as Baptism by some of the most learned of Mr. A's partie, as we formerly heard, is acknowledged to be) as well, or as much, as he hath done upon Faith, or Repentance themselves; and thus men shall be perfected by the flesh (as the Apostle speaketh) Yea

4. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism be re­quired on mans part, to interesse him in remission of sins, or in Sanctification of the Spirit, then is a Declaration hereof by Baptism, or by submitting to an outward and fleshly ceremonie, more accepted with God, then a Decla­ration made by mortification, innocencie, holinesse of conversation, &c. The reason of this consequence is plain; viz. because a Declaration of a mans Repentance by these, or any of them, is not required by God, nor yet accepted by him, upon any such account, as to interesse him in remission of sins, or to translate him from an estate of sin and death, into a state of justification; no, nor yet to intitle him to the sanctification of the Spirit. For he that is not a justified person before any Declara­tion be made by him of his repentance, by such fruits or expressions of it, as these, will never be justified after­wards. Nor can any mā bring forth any such fruits of Re­pentance, as these, unless he be interessed in the sanctifica­tion of the Spirit before hand. Therefore Baptism is not required on mans part, nor yet a Declartion of his repent­ance [Page 221] by Baptism, to interesse him, either in Remission of sin [...], or sanctification of the Spirit.

Sect. 81.

5. If it were so, then only children of wrath, and per­sons not yet reconciled unto God, should be the regular and lawfull subjects of Baptism. For if Baptism be re­quired on mans part to interesse them in Remission of sins, all they who are yet unbaptized must needs be under the guilt of their sins, and so liable to eternall condem­nation for them. And if the case be thus, Faith and repentance are but dead works, untill Baptism quickens them, and raiseth them up from the dead.

6. If Mr. A's Position now protested, were Ortho­dox and sound, John the Baptist was in his bloud (I mean, in the guilt and pollution of his sins) when he en­tered upon the work and ministerie of baptizing with water; yea and (for ought appears to the contrary) so lived and died, and consequently perished eternally: for it no where appears that ever he was baptized; and if he were not baptized by the verdict of Mr. A's Doctrine, he could have neither part nor fellowship in the blessed businesse of Remission of sinnes, and so must pe­rish.

7. If both Repentance, and the Declaration of it by Baptism, be required on mans part to interesse him in remis­sion of sins, and Sanctification of the Spirit, then, accord­ing to Mr. A's judgement and notion about the truth and requisit terms of the administration of Baptism, either all, or far the greatest part of, the antient Fathers of the Christian Church, with the generalitie of Christi­ans in their dayes; all, or far the greatest part of the wor­thy Martyrs both in latter, and in former times; all, or far the greatest part, of our late Protestant Divines, whose zeal, learning, labour, and faithfulnesse God was pleased to use about the Reformation, and for the Restauration & propagation of the truth of Christian Re­ligion, [Page 223] as Luther, Calvin, Musculus, Bucer, P. Mar­tyr, Zuinglius, &c. together with our own worthies, Per­kins, Dod, Hildersham, Preston, Sibs, &c. together with the generalitie of the people taught and instructed by them; against all these (I say) we must write bitter things, and conclude, that whilst they liv'd, they were in the gall of bitternesse, and bands of iniquity, and that they died, and consequently perished in their sins. For most certain it is, that these were not baptized, as Mr. A. and men of his judgement count and call Baptism; and con­sequently could not make any Declaration of their repent­ance by Baptism. And if so, they must all to hell, un­lesse Mr. A's Doctrine be content to be sent thither in their stead.

Sect. 82.

8. If no person can make a Declaration of their Repent­ance by Baptism, then cannot a Declaration in this kind, or that which M. A. calls a Declaration, interesse any man in remission of sins. The reason of the consequence in this Proposition is evident: That which is not, can­not act: nor can any such thing, or Act, inter­est any man in [...]remission of sinnes, which may be as well found in those, whose sins are not remit­ted, as in those, whose are. Now that persons, who are baptized, may be in the gall of bitternesse, and bands of iniquitie, (and consequently not have their sins remit­ted) their Baptism notwithstanding, is apparent in the case of Simon M [...]gus; to whom, soon after his baptizing, Peter said, Thou hast neither part▪ nor lot in this matter: for thine heart is not right in the sight of God—For I per­ceive that thou art in the gall of bitternesse, and bands of ini­quity, Act. 8. 21, 23. Nor is the Baptism of a very great part of those, who have been of late baptized (and this as Mr. A. calls Baptism) amongst us, any Declaration of their repentance (at least not of any such repentance, which hath any thing to do with remission of sinnes, their unworthy wayes and actions proclaiming them [Page 222] aloud to be persons void as well of the knowledge, as fear of God.

9. The Grandees themselves of Mr. A's partie, yea and (I presume) himself also with them, beleeve and hold, that amongst the Heathen, unto whom the Name of Jesus Christ was never brought, nor the Gospel ever preach­ed (orally, or by the mouths of men) and consequently, who were never Baptized, there are or may be found persons interessed in Remission of sins. If so, with what truth can Mr. A. affirm, yea rather with what face can he avouch with a most unchristiā censure of all those who shall denie it, that both Repentance, and a Declaration of it by Baptism, are required on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins?

Sect. 83.

10. In case as well a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, as repentance it self, be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins, would the Apostle Paul have thanked God he baptized none of the Corinthi­ans, but Crispus and Gaius; [i. that he interessed none of them in remission of sins, but these? 1 Cor. 1. 14] Or should he have had cause so farre to underrate the office and worth of baptizing beneath the preaching of the Gospell, as to say that Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel? [i. not to do all that which might interesse men compleatly in remission of sins, but only somewhat, that might somewhat further them in the way thereunto] 1 Cor. 1. 17?

11. Suppose a person truly beleeving in Jesus Christ, and repenting of his sins, being desirous withall to be baptized, but wanted an opportunitie duly (according to the light of his conscience) to partake of this Ordi­nance, as put case he were not satisfied touching the law­fulnes of the calling of any person he knoweth, to baptize▪ (which either is, or very possibly may be, the case of many thousands in England) is it Mr. A's sence that this [Page 224] person is, all this notwithstanding, in the gall of bitternesse, and band of iniquity, only because he hath not been, nor is ever like to be actually baptized? Or is not his act in refusing Baptism at the hands of those, from whom he cannot with the peace of his conscience receive it, of bet­ter acceptance with God, then a receiving it, with the violation of his conscience, would have been?

12. If a Declaration of a mans repentance by Baptism, be required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins, then was the oscitancie and forgetfulnesse of the Apostle Paul inexcusable, who in all his discourses about justifi­cation, or the means of the obtaining remission of sins; and more especially in his Epistle to the Romans, where he professedly undertakes, and more at large then in any other place, handleth the said most important Doctrine of justification, never so much as mentioneth Baptism as any wayes, or in any consideration whatsoever, condu­cing thereunto, much lesse as required on mans part to interesse him therein; but only finds occasion for the mention of it in the businesse of sanctification. Cer­tainly a maid may sooner forget her ornaments, and a bride her attire, and a woman her sucking childe, then such an Apostle, in arguing a point of that transcendent nature and import, as justification is, forget any thing of an es­sentiall requirement thereunto.

Sect. 84.

13. The remission of no mans sins, no mans justificati­on, (least of all the justification of a true Beleever) is by God made dependent either upon the wills or pleasures of other men, or upon any such condition, which (possibly) the person may never have an opportunitie, no nor possibilitie to perform, at least not without sin. Now 1. no person can compell another, how regularly soever qualified for the act of administring, to baptize him. 2▪ It may very possibly be that a true beleever shall, or may, not meeet with a person whilst he lives, from whose [Page 225] hand he can with the peace of his conscience, and con­sequently without sinning, receive Baptism. Therefore certainly a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, is not re­quired on mans part to interesse him in Remission of sins.

14. If a Declaration of Repentance by Baptism, (at least as Mr. A. calls Baptism) as well as repentance it self, were required by God of all men, to interesse them in remission of sins, then should he require of many true Repentants, and true Beleevers, that which would be sinfull in them to perform, to interesse them in this high priviledg of Remission of sins. For there is nothing more certain then that many, who have truly repented, want faith to beleeve that Mr. A's Baptism is so much as lawfull for them to submit unto. And it is the expresse Doctrine of the Apostle, that whatsoever is not of Faith, is sin, Rom. 14 23.

Sect. 85.

15. By the same way, or means, by which Abraham the Father of those who beleeve, was justified, or inter­essed in remission of sins, are all his children, or spiri­tuall seed, justified also. Upon this, as a foundation not to be questioned, the Apostle builds that excellent discourse, Rom. 4. all along the chapter. See more par­ticularly v. 23. 24. of this chapter, and v. 30. of the next precedent Chapter. Now certain it is that circum­cision was not required of him, (nor yet any other cere­monie) to interesse him in remission of sins; but he was in­teressed in this blessed priviledge, whilst he was yet un­circumcised (as the Apostle expresly affirmeth, Rom. 4. 10, 11.) by means of his faith. Therefore certainly the ceremonie of Baptism is not required of any of Abra­hams spirituall seed, to interesse them in remission of sins. Yea I am horribly afraid lest they, who joyn water-bap­tism with faith in Christ as necessary in the business of ju­stification, or remissiō of sins, incur the same heavie doom with [Page 226] the Jews (mentioned, Gal. 5. 2, 4.) who judged it ne­cessary for them to be circumcised in the flesh (& accord­ingly were circumcised) in order to their justification. For (doubtlesse) that which in this casc abolished them from Christ [or, made Christ of none effect unto them] was not that the precept injoyning circumcision was now exauthorized or abolished by the death of Christ, but because they judging somewhat necessary to their justifi­cation, besides Faith in Christ, practised accordingly For (questionlesse) their foot had been in the same snare, had they practised circumcision even whilst it stood in greatest force, upon a like account.

16. The Doctrine of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is much differing from that which Mr. A. delivereth unto us in the point under preset debate He the Apostle Paul) teacheth us, that with the heart mā believeth ƲNTO righ­teousnesse, Ro. 10. 10 [i unto remission of sins, at least] but Mr. A. teacheth us (in effect) that with the heart man belee­veth but half way towards righteousnesse; and that he must march the other half of the way by water, or else he will never come there. For is not the tenour of his Doctrine this; men are to take up that Ordinance (speak­ing of Baptism) upon their first beginning to repent [and consequently, to beleeve] IN ORDER TO THE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS? And p. 18. to the same tune, thus; That both Repentance, and the Declaration of it by BAPTISM, is required on mans part to IN­TERESSE HIM IN REMISSION OF SINS, and sanctification of the spirit, the things cove­nanted or promised on Gods part, is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Act. 2. 37, 38. &c. I wish for those Christian and worthy respects, which in great numbers I bear unto him, that, being so willing himself to see, as here, plainly enough, and somewhat more, he intimates himself to be, God will graciously please to give him eyes wherewith to see, that so he may mistake darkness for a visiō no longer. Yet until very now he had eyes to see that truth, which on the suddain (it [Page 227] seems) is withdrawn from his sight. For

17. The Lord Christ (as was observed, Sect. 18.) at his first sending forth his Apostles to preach the Gospell ( Mat. 10. Mar. 3, Luk. 9) yea and when awhile after he se [...]t forth seventy other Disciples about the same work, he spake not a word either to the one, or to the other, about baptizing any. If Baptism had been essentially requisite unto salvation (which it must needs be, if it be essentially requisite to remission of sins) can it be any mans thought, or imagination, that Christ would not have so much as once mentioned it in neither of those solemn Commissions, which he gave at severall times for the preaching of the Gospell? Or was that ministerie of the Gospell, which was by the Lord Christ himself commit­ted unto men, without any order or direction to baptize, ineffectuall effectually to convert those unto God, who should beleeve and receive it and so to save them? Nor can it with any colour of reason, or proof, be pretended, that those, at least all those who were now sent forth to preach the Gospell, had received a commission to baptize before, the scripture no where affirming it, no nor so much as overturing it of them all. Nor can it upon any whit a better account be said, that in the com­mission which Christ gave them to preach the Gospell, he vertually or consequentially, included a cōmission also for them to baptize. For 1. this is pretended at a single peradventure, neither the Scripture, nor any competent reason persuading it. 2. When Christ gave a cōmission for such a preaching of the Gospel, which he intended should be accompanied with a power to baptize, he maketh particular and expresse mention of baptizing, as well as of preaching, Mat. 28. 19. 3. (And lastly) Neither do we read of so much as any one person baptized, either by the Apostles themselves, or by the seventie, by vertue of that mission, or commission from Christ to preach the Gospel, of which we now speak.

18. (And lastly) doth not himself (p. 16. of his pre­sent discourse) affirm and teach, that Baptism may [Page 228] therefore be called the Baptism of repentance for the remis­sion of sins, because God THEREBY SIGNIFIES AND SEALS unto men the remission of their sins UPON THEIR REPENTANCE? If God by Baptism signifies and seals unto men the remission of their sins upon their repentance, then certainly men are interessed in remission of sins, upon, and by means of their Repentance, and so before Baptism be taken up by them; otherwise God should seal unto men an untruth, and that which is not. Again, doth he not (a little after, in the same page) suppose that Baptism may be called the Baptism of repentance, because the persons who are baptized, do thereby professe and declare unto the world, that they look for REMISSION OF SINS FROM GOD UPON THEIR REPENTANCE? And yet again, that it may be called the Baptism of repentance, &c. because it seals and confirms the covenant or promises of God made to men, touch­ing the remission of their sins upon their repentance? If it be the covenant or promise of God to give unto men the remission of sins upon their repentance, certainly repentance it self by vertue of this covenant of God, in­teresseth mē in remission of sins, without the interposure of Baptism, or without any contribution from Baptism thereunto.

Sect. 86.

But if a Declaration of a mans Repentance by Bap­tism, be nor requisite to interesse him in remission of sins, as well as repentance it self, what answer is to be given to those two texts of Scripture, which Mr. A. useth (I will not say abuseth) to prove the same, especially to the latter, Act. 2. 38, 39. Wherein (if he speaks truth) that Doctrine of his is too evidently asserted to be denied by any, but those that will not see?

The former of the two, is that known place, Mar. 16. 16. He that beleeveth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Here (saith he) Beleeving, and being baptized, are conjoyned, [Page 229] as relative to Salvation. In which saying he seemeth to imply, that Baptism in the letter, and properly so cal­led, is as necessary to salvation as beleeving it self. For if he will endure to be understood to speak of Baptism metonymically, or synechdochically taken, [i. for an outward profession of Faith, or beleeving, which is our Saviours sence of the word baptized, in the Scripture be­fore us, as we shall shew presently] that which he saith is nothing to his purpose. And though Baptism (pro­perly so called) both in the Institution or precept of it, as likewise in a regular subjection unto it, or reception of it, must needs be conceived to relate, in one kind or degree, or other, unto salvation (as all the Command­ments of God, and the creatures obedience unto every of them do, and as Circumcision it self, by the Apostles own acknowledgment, sometimes did) yet

1. It is not necessary that it should relate in one kind or other (much lesse with the same kind of relation, wherewith Believing relateth) unto that Justification which consisteth in remission of sins▪ or consequently, that it should interesse men in this Justification? For many things relate, and conduce (and this by way of necessi­tie) unto salvation, which are no wayes necessarie to invest a man in an estate of justification.

2. Neither is it necessarie that baptizing should be relative to salvation it self, upon the same terms with beleeving For

Sect. 87.

1. Beleeving, in persons capable, is universally and indispensably in all cases whatsoever necessarie thereun­to; as the clause and words immediatly following those under present consideration, do (with the whole current of the Scriptures besides) import, But he that believeth not, shall be damned. But Baptizing, though it be granted to be in ordinarie cases simply necessarie thereunto, yet in the case lately mentioned (and possibly in many [Page 230] others) viz. when he that truly beleeveth, is not s [...] ­ed in his judgment and conscience touching the regular capacitie of such persons, who are willing to undertake the work, to baptize. Nor can I believe, that, in case the Eunuch baptized by Philip, had, after his beleeving Jesus Christ to be the son of God, been prevented by death before he had come to the water, wherewith he was bap­tized, he should have perished eternally for want of it. And this (questionlesse) if we understand our Saviour to speak (in the place in hand) of Baptism literally and without a figure, is the reason, why having in the for­mer part of the verse, included Baptism together with beleeving, condition-wise in his promise of Salvation, thus, He that beleeveth, and is baptized, shall be saved, yet leaveth it out in his opposite threatning of condemnati­on, denouncing this, not against persons who shall not be baptized, but only against such, who shall not believe; But he that believeth not, shall be damned. Baptism, in conjunction with Faith, may be available, or contribu­tarie towards salvation; and yet the want of it not ne­cessarily exclusive of Salvation. When Solomon saith, wisdom is good with an inheritance, he doth not imply, or suppose, that it is evill, or not good, without an inheri­tance. So when the Apostle saith, it is good for a man not to touch a woman [meaning, not to marrie] he doth not suppose, that it is evill, or inconvenient for him (at least in all cases) to marrie. He that promiseth salva­tion unto a meaner qualification in conjunction with a greater, doth not hereby threaten this greater qualifi­cation with the losse of salvation for the want of the company of the lesser, especially if in stead of this it be accompanied with another much better, and greater, and of higher acceptation with God, then it. But

2. Suppose Baptism were every wayes, and in every respect, as necessarie to salvation, as beleeving (which yet is notoriously untrue, as we have proved) yet will it not follow that Baptism in such or such a particular mode, or Externall manner of administration, should [Page 231] be thus necessary. For certain it is, that the Lord Jesus Christ hath not suspended the eternall salvation of his creature, especially not of those who truly believe in him, upon any modalitie or formalitie of acting, not particularly and precisely determined and injoyned by himself, but only cōjecturally obtruded upon thē by men. For what if any one man, [...]r any ten men should please themselves never so highly, be never so confident of the authentiquenesse, or legitimacie of their inferences and deductions (in one kind or other) from the Scriptures? will their confidence in this kind amount to an infallibi­litie, yea or to any competent proof, that either the belief or practise of what they upon such terms deduce and inferre from the Scripture, is essentially necessarie unto salvation? Or hath the Lord Christ any where in the Scriptures determinately enjoyned or prescribed the particular mode of dipping as essentiall unto Baptism, or to the regular administration thereof? Therefore (however) Baptism in this form cannot with any toler­able face of reason, be pretended as essentially requi­site unto salvation, as beleeving.

Sect. 88.

3. Neither can Mr. A. with all his fellow-dogmatists substantially prove, that the Baptizing here spoken of, is to be understood of a Baptizing with water, consider­ing that there is another kind of Baptism which the Scrip­ture from place to place makes by many degrees more ne­cessary unto salvation, then a baptizing with water. This is, the Baptisme of affliction, or sufferings for righteous­nesse sake. See for this, Mat. 20. 22. compared with Mar. 10. 38. Luk. 12. 50. Rom. 6. 8. 2 Tim. 2. 11, 12. Mar. 8. 34, 35, &c. Act. 14. 22. (besides many other pla­ces.) Besides, the grounds and arguments of those, who judge water-baptism, at least as to the necessitie of it, to have expired with the Ministerie of John the Baptist, or at farthest, with the destruction of the temple [Page 232] of Jerusalem, and the dissolution of the Jewish Church, have not been yet sufficiently answered; not yet balan­ced by any arguments or grounds for Mr. A's opinion and practise, extant (that I know of) in the world. Which grounds and arguments (I mean, for the non-ne­cessitie of water Baptism) although I do not yet appre­hend them so demonstrative, as to overrule my judge­ment that way, yet I judge them nothing so easie of solution, as those, which have served in the warfare of Re-baptizing hitherto.

4. Suppose we the place to be understood of water-Baptism, and that some kind of a necessitie hereof un­to salvation is here likewise insinuated by our Saviour, yet can it not upon any tolerable account be under­stood of the actuall or literall perception of Baptism, as if this were necessary to Salvation. But of an inward obe­dientiall frame of heart to submit unto Baptism, when opportunity serveth; i. when there is a conveniencie of water, and a person, who according to the light of a mans conscience, is regularly capable of administring it, and withall, willing to perform the work. The prepara­tion of the heart for the performance of a duty, when opportunitie serveth and requireth it, as well as the per­formance it self, is oft in Scripture injoyned in such terms or words, which properly signifie the Act, or performance it self. See Luk. 14 33. Luk 12. 33. 2 Tim. 2. 3. Mat. 5. 25, 44.

For it is against the main current of the Scriptures, and against the sence of all considering men, that God should suspend the eternall salvation of any man, especially of a true Beleever, upon the will and pleasure of another man, or upon the receiving of any thing, especially any externall thing, which may be withheld from him against his will, or which possibly he may never meet with an opportunitie to receive. Therefore however, such a Baptism as Mr. A. and his have taken up, and as he presseth from the Scripture in hand, is not simply or universally, but only in particularitie of case (if this) [Page 233] in any degree necessarie unto salvation. But

5. (And lastly) the clear and unquestionable sence of the place, is, to understand the Baptism, or Baptising, here spoken of, synecdochically (a form of speech, then which there is none more frequent or familiar, in the Scriptures) viz. for a profession of that Faith or belee­vings which our Saviour speaks of, Baptism, especially in those times, when, and of which our Saviour now speaks, being a known part, or piece of this profes­sion. In this figure of speech, to fall by the sword, to die by the sword, with the like, signifies any kind of death by the hand of an enemie, as well as that which is pro­perly and literally executed by the sword; the sword be­ing an ordinarie or known weapon, by which men are slain in war, 2 Sam. 11. 25. Psal. 44 3. This interpreta­tion is every wayes consonant to a master-vein of texts in the body of the Gospell, viz. all such which hold forth a publique and open owning, or professing of the Name of Christ, and of the Gospell, as required of all Beleevers in order to their being saved. See more par­ticularly upon this account, Rom. 10. 9, 10. (which two verses are a very plain and significant exposition of the clause in hand) as also Mat. 10. 33, 34. 2 Tim. 2. 12. Mar. 8. 38. (to omit several others) whereas Mr. A's sence of the place, who understands it properly, strictly, and literally, of water-baptism, hath neither so much as any one text of Scripture, nor any argument of weight, to stand by it. And how unreasonable is it to conceive or think, that a true Faith in coniunction with a Christian and holy conversation, on the one hand, and with sufferings for righteousnesse and the Gospels sake, on the other hand, should not be as available for all ends and purpo­ses with God, especially for that great end, Salvation, as a like Faith, only in conjunction with a single act of once going into water to be baptized? All Protestant Expositors that I have had opportunity to consult upon the place, agree in the Substance of the interpretation last asserted: yea some of them parallel it with Rom. 10. [Page 234] 9, 10. which passage (as we lately hinted) is a better commentary upon the clause in hand, then we are like to receive from any person whatsoever in these dayes, dis­senting from it.

Sect. 89.

The other Scripture, which (it seems) hath been a snare upon Mr. A. not only to intangle him with this most dangerous Doctrine, that a Declaration of a mans R [...]pentance by Baptism, is required on mans part, as well as Repentance it self, to interesse him i [...] remission of sins, but also with the guilt of this hard and unchristian saying against his Chr [...]stia [...] brethren, who therein dissent from him; viz. that the said Doctrine is too evident from it to be denied by any, but those that will no [...] see, is Act. 2. 38, 39. The words being these, Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost. For the promise is made to you, and to your children, and to all that are a farre off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. I an­swer,

1. It hath been lately proved by a cloud of impregnable arguments and demonstrations, that to be baptized is not required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins; I here adde and explain; not in any other sence, or upon any other terms however, then any other act of obedience unto any the precepts of God is. Therefore

2. When Peter exhorts the Jews to Repent and be bap­tized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remissi­on of sins, if by being baptized, he means, strictly and precisely, a being actually baptized with water, he can­not by remission of sins, mean the estate of justification consisting in remission of sins, wherein a person is invest­ed by God immediatly upon his Repenting and belee­ving; because then (as we formerly argued) there could [Page 235] none be lawfully admitted to Baptism, but only children of wrath, or such, whose sins were not yet remitted. For that which is necessarily required on mans part to interesse him in remission of sins, must of necessitie precede his being actually interessed in this priviledge: and conse­quently, persons not yet baptized, how repentant and beleeving soever, are not, cannot be, interessed in remis­sion of sins, untill baptized; and so must needs be children of wrath, and in a state of condemnation.

Sect. 90.

If you ask me, but what can we understand by remis­sion of sins in this place, but only such an estate of justifi­cation, as that mentioned, and which consisteth in remis­sion of sins? I answer; We may very commodiously, and without the least straining either word, or context, understand by it that great and solemn Act of absoluti­on from all sin, which the great Judge shall in the great day pronounce over all those, who shall be found to have lived and died in the Faith of Iesus; or else (taking the word Remission, passively, which I judge the better) the happy effect, or cōsequent of this sentence which is a state of blessednesse and of glory. This interpretation fully ac­cords with a passage of the same Apostle in the follow­ing chapter, spoken to the same people (the Iews) and (probably) to some of the same persons. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. i. When the Lord Christ shall return from heaven, to refresh the bowels, and make glad the hearts of all those, who have been sufferers for his Name in this world, by investing them with a rest glorious and bles­sed, and which shall never have end; according to what the Apostle Paul writes to the Thessalonians; Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompence tribulation to them which trouble you, And to you, WHO ARE TROƲB­LED, REST with us, when the Lord Iesus shall be [Page 236] revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, &c. 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7, &c. If it be here replied, and said; be this in­terpretation of the words, for remission of sins, admitted, still it will follow, there is a remission of sins, and this absolutely necessary unto salvation, which cannot be obtained without being baptized; I answer,

True it is, that if we speak of persons living to years of discretion, and under the ministerie of the Gospell, they must be baptized in one kind or other, either with a baptism literally and properly so called (I mean, a bap­tism with water) or else with a Baptism vertually, or e­quivalently, so called. Now there are two, or rather three kinds of Baptism, which may be thus called ( viz. Vertually, and Equivalently) The first is, an obedien­tiall frame, or willingnesse in heart and soul, actu­ally to submit unto a water-baptism, 1. upon a regular conviction of the necessitie of such a submission (neces­sitie I mean, in respect of the command of Jesus Christ) 2. Upon such an opportunitie for the actuall reception of it, under which it may be received without any re­gret or scruple in the conscience of a man, as about the regularnesse or meetnesse of an Administratour, about the st [...]ength of a mans bodily constitution to bear the burthen of a plunging under water, in case this shall be proved, or apprehended, to be the only lawfull way of Baptizing, &c. Another kind of Baptism, Vertually or in­terpretatively so called, is an open and free profession of the Gospell, and of the Faith of Iesus Christ in the world. The third (and last) is a suffering persecution for a mans profession sake in this kind. Now both these, divisim, but especially conjunctim, may be termed Bap­tisms, much in such a sence as John Baptist, is in Scripture termed, Elias, viz. because he serv'd his generation with such a kind of spirit, and upon somewhat the like terms, as Eliah served his. For a profession of the Gospell, es­pecially joyned with sufferings for the Gospell, serve for all ends and purposes, for which Baptism literally, and properly so called, serveth, yea and this with an higher [Page 237] hand, then it. Insomuch that this kind of Baptism, (water-baptism I mean, actually received) is the lowest and meanest of all Baptisms.

Sect. 91.

Now to the Ob [...]ection, or reply mentioned, we plain­ly and directly answer, that one or more, of the three Baptisms now specified and described, is indeed necessa­ry for the obtaining of such a remission of sins, as that meant by Peter in the Text before us; and more par­ticularly, that mentioned and described in the first place.

If it be yet replied; but is it not evident that Peter here spake of water-baptism it self, and that he command­ed them to be baptized herewith, as well as to repent, for the remission of sins? And was it not in obedience to this his exhortation, or command, that they were according­ly (many of them) baptized with water-baptism, v. 41. I answer,

Be it granted that he speaks of water-baptism, yet it must be granted withall, that he exhorteth no man to be baptized herewith, but upon this supposition, or pre­sumption, that they should be every wayes and in re­spect of all circumstances, satisfied in their judgements and consciences touching the lawfulnesse of their act, in yielding themselves to be baptized in this kind. There­fore that Baptism, which we speak of and allow, viz. a readinesse and willingnesse of mind to be baptized with water, when we are satisfied touching the will of God concerning us in that behalf, and otherwise have an op­portunitie of a like satisfaction in all points unto us, for the actuall reception of it, is the Baptism, unto which especially, and in the first place, Peter (in the Scrip­ture before us) exhorteth men sin his exhortation unto them to be baptized. Otherwise we must make the sence and meaning of this his exhortation, to rise thus; Be ye baptized, whether you be convinced of the neces­sitie, [Page 238] yea or of the lawfulnesse of it, or no; and whether you have an opportunity for it, which your consciences can in every respect approve of, or no, I suppose that Mr. A. himself will not put such a construction as this upon the Apostles exhortation unto Baptism. There­fore it is a most unquestionable and undeniable truth, that Peter, in the Text in hand, doth not simply, or in all cases, no nor yet principally or primarily, exhort Repentants unto the actuall reception of water baptism; but only unto such a vertuall, eminent, and constructive Baptism, as that lately described; and not at all unto water-baptism, but only upon the terms and conditions specified; under which indeed he that shall refuse this kind of Baptism, declares himself a rebell against the Lord Christ, (as all Anti-paedo-baptists, in the judgment of that worthy Martyr Mr. John Philpot, do, in not suffer­ing children to come unto Christ by Baptism) and during this rebellion cannot be interessed in remission of sins.

Sect. 92.

If it be yet objected, and said, that (questionlesse) the repenting Jews, whom Peter exhorted to be baptized, understood him to speak of water-baptism only, and of none other: and consequently submitted unto his ex­hortation thus understood, and were actually water­baptized without any more ado I answer,

1. It cannot be proved, that the Jews, to whom he spake, understood him in such a sencc only, as that spe­cified in the Objection.

2. In case this could be proved, yet will it not follow from hence, that either they did well in not apprehend­ing a further sence in his words, or that Peter himself did not intend a further sence (some such as that repre­sented) in them.

3. Nor doth their ready and speedy betaking them­selves unto Water-baptism, at all argue, that they under­stood him to speak of this Baptism simply, or only; be­cause [Page 239] they being already, before they came at the water, baptized with that inward Baptism of the heart we speak of, and being under no scruple or doubt, whether it was the mind and will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized, or no, or whether the opportunitie be­fore them was in all points legitimate, or no (the Apo­stles expresse order for their baptizing, either by him­self, or by others authorised by him, being a sufficient ground for their satisfaction in all these particulars) they were obliged in conscience without any more adoe to be actually Water-baptized: and it is freely acknow­ledged, that all persons whatsoever being under the same terms of satisfaction with them, both as touching a necessitie, as touching a compleat legitimatenesse of an opportunitie, are bound in conscience to be bapti­zed with water, as well as they; Only with this proviso, that though persons now be as fully satisfied touching a necessitie of being baptized, as they were, yet if the grounds of mens satisfaction in this kind now, be un­sound and sandie, (as they must needs be, in case their opinion be true, who judge the date of the necessitie of Water-baptism to be now expired) their submission unto this Baptism, though lesse sinfull, then the con­trary, yet is it not justifiable.

Sect. 93.

If it be yet said, that it is no waies probable that Peter himself had any other meaning in his words, when he commanded them to be Baptized, but simply and plainly, that he would have them forthwith to be water-baptized, and consequently that he had no thought of any such Baptism (eminently, or vertually so called) which you put upon him. To this also I answer (as hath, in part, been answered already)

That it is somewhat, yea much more then probable, that though Peter did not formally or explicitly mean any thing more in the words in question, then what the [Page 240] Objection pretendeth, yet he presupposed that kind of Baptism which we plead, and that he would not have exhorted them to be baptized (with water) unlesse he had known them to be baptized already with that other Baptism. The reason is evident, because had he not supposed them, either already satisfied before his ex­hortation directed unto them, or at least that they would be satisfied by it, that it was the will of Jesus Christ that they should be Water-baptized, and that there was an opportunitie before them every wayes le­gitimate for their reception of this Baptism, he would in the first place rather have endeavoured to satisfie them, that this was the will and pleasure of Christ concerning them, and that the opportunitie before them for recei­ving Baptism was every wayes legitimate, and approve­able, then have either commanded, or exhorted them to be presently baptized.

The result of this clear and thorow Examination of Peters exhortation to the Iews to be baptized for the re­mission of sins, amounteth to this, that the said Exhor­tation imposeth a necessitie upon no man of being water­baptized for the remission of sins in the great day, but upon such persons only, who stand under the like terms of sa­tisfaction every wayes touching the said baptizing, un­der which he exhorted the Iews to be thus Baptized. If so, then Mr. A's Notion or interpretation of this ex­hortation must needs fall to the ground, which beareth, that the said exhortation maketh it evident (yea too evi­dent to be denied by any, but those that will not see) that a Declaration of the repentance by Baptism [he means, by an actuall reception of Water-baptism] is required on mans part [he means, universally, and in all cases, other­wise he would have distinguished] to interesse him in re­mission of sins [he means, in such an estate of justifica­tion, as the Scripture so frequently appropriateth unto true Beleevers, immediatly upon their beleeving] Such an inference or notion as this hath no more communion with those words, for whence it pleads (with such an [Page 241] unseemly confidence) legitimacie of descent, then shews have with substances, and meer appearances with reali­ties and truths.

Sect. 94.

3. Our Protestant expositours generally leave Mr. A's confidence and conceit upon the Text (in the point in hand) for the Papists to gather up, who fall greedily upon them, and make great treasure of them. Although (saith Calvin) in the contexture of the words, Baptism go­eth before remission of sins, yet in respect of order it follow­eth after, because it is nothing else but an obsignation [or sealing] of those good things, which we obtain by Christ, that they may be ratified in our consciences. Tametsi in contextu verborum [...] re­missionem peccatorum hic praecedit, ordine tamen sequitur; quia nihil aliud est quàm bonorū, quae per Chri­stum consequi­mur, obsigna­tio, ut in con­scientiis no­stris rata sint. Calv. in Act 2. 38. Gualter saith, that Peter admonisheth them of outward Baptism, which he commandeth them to receive for the remission of sins, which words are not to be taken in any such sence, as if Baptism washed men from their sins. And a little after. Unto those who are justified, Baptism is administred, for the remission of their sins, 1. the righteousnesse of God, which he confers upon us by Christ, is sealed i [...] [or by] Baptism. Deinde de baptismo externo ad­monent, quem ipsos in pec­catorum re­missionem accipere jubet. Quae verba non eo sensu accipi debent, quasi baptismus à [...]eccatis abluat. Et posteà: lis qui—justificati sunt, baptismus in remissionem peccatorum datur, id est▪ baptismo obsignatur justicia Dei, quam ita per Christum nobis contulit. Gualter. Homil in Act. P. Martyr saith, that the head [or, principall ground] of the superstition is, that these men (speaking of the Papists) are of opinion that sins are first remitted by Bap­tism. Sed caput superstitionis illud est. quòd isti homines opinantur, baptismo externo primum condonari peccata: sed vehemen­ter falluntur. P. Mar. Loc Class. 9. 8, [...]8. And Lorinus the Jesuit, who speaks the com­mon and known sence of his fellow Pontificians herein, boldly saith, that Baptism was directly instituted, as an ef­ficacious sign, AND CAƲSE OF THE REMISSI­ON OF originall sin, and of other SINS also, if there be any other found with it. Baptismu per se insti [...]t [...], est, ut sig­num efficax, & causa remission is originalis peccati, & aliorum qu [...]que si quae cum il­lo reperiantur, Lorinus in Act. 2. 38. So also Eugenius the Pope in the Floren [...]ine councill, made this an article of Faith, that the effect of the Sacrament of Baptism is the rem [...]ssion of all sin, both originall, and actuall, and of all punishment [Page 242] also due unto both. Hujus Sa­cramenti effe­ctus est remissio culpae origina­lis & actualis, omnis quo (que) poenae quae pro ipsâ culpa de­betur. Concil Florent. Consonant thereunto is the Do­ctrine of the Trent Catechism. This (saith this) is first to be taught, that sin, whether originally contracted from our first parents, or committed by our selves, although it be so above measure heinous, that it seems to be even beyond all magination, is [notwithstanding] by the admirable vertue of this Sacrament [Baptism] remitted and pardon­ed. It were easie to shew by an Induction of many Au­thors of the Romish Credulitie, that they (generally a­gainst f) Ho [...] primum tradere oportet, peccatum, sive à primis pa­rentibus origine contractum, si­ve à nobis ipsis commissum, quamvis etiam adeò nefarium sit, ut recogitari quidem nonposse vid [...]atur, ad­mirabilis hujus saecramenti virtute remitti, & condonari. Catcehism. Tri­dent. the Truth) require Baptism of men to the inter­essing of them in remission of sins; and no whit more hard on the other hand to shew by quotations from Protestant Writers, that they generally hold the con­trary against them. So that Mr. A. giving sentence, that a necessitie of Baptism for remission of sins, is too evident to be denied by any, but those that will not see, from Act. 2. 38, 39. condemneth all Protestant Writers (almost, without exception) of a willfull shutting their eyes against the light, and justifyeth all Popish writers as men willing to open their eyes that they may see the truth. But

Sect. 95.

4. Suppose it should be granted, that Peter required Water-baptism of those, to whom he now spake, as well as repentance, for the remission of their sins, yet will it make but a loose consequence, to infer from hence, that therefore the like Baptism is required by God of all other persons whatsoever to interesse them in the like privi­ledge. When Christ injoyned the young man to go and sell whatsoever he had, and give to the poor, promising him upon this that he should have treasure in heaven; if such a conclusion as this could be drawn from hence, that therefore no person shall have treasure in heaven, but he that actually practiseth, what the young man was commanded by Christ actually to do in order thereun­to, the best part of the world have far more reason to be [Page 243] astonied at it, then the Disciples had to be astonied at these words of Christ; How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! Mar. 10. 23, 24. And yet there is much more reason to think that obedi­ence to a morall command, though particularly, and upon a speciall occasion, given, should be generally re­quired to the justification, or salvation of men, then that a like obedience to a ceremoniall command of a like particular direction, should be required thereunto. God may upon some particular occasion, under some circum­stances, require such or such a thing of some men, in or­der to their obtaining such or such a benefit, or privi­ledge, without subjecting all men without excep­tion, and in all cases, to a necessitie of using the same means for obtaining that same or like end; especially when he hath no where declared himself to such a pur­pose, yea and much more, when he hath declined all declaration of himself in such a way, even when he had an opportunitie inviting him to such a declaration, in case he had been in any degree disposed to it. If his pur­pose had been to exclude men from salvation for want of being baptized, would he not have expressed as much, when, having said, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved (by way of Antithesis) But he that believeth not, shall be damned? But of this passage formerly.

That which Mr. A alledgeth to prove, that to require Baptism as well as Repentance, for the obtaining of remission of sins, was Gods standing me had through ge­nerations, and not appropriate to the persons now spo­ken unto, is not much valuable. The Apostle (saith he) saith, that the promise, [To wi [...], of remission of sins and guilt of the spirit] which was made on condition of re­pentance and Baptism, was made, not only to them then, and their children, but to those that were further remote, &c. I answer,

1. It is none of the best advised, sayings in his dis­course, to say, that the promise of remission of sins, and gift of the Spirit, was made upon condition of Faith and [Page 244] Baptism. God is not wont to make his promises upon any condition, or conditions whatsoever, but freely, and of himself. Only he makes many of them of such a tenor or form, wherein the performance of them, or the actu­all exhibition of the good things promised, is suspend­ed upon the performance of a condition, one or more.

2. Neither can Mr. A. shew us, where God ever made any promise of remission of sins, and gift of the Spirit, upon condition of Repentance and Baptism [I mean, of giving remission of sins, and the spirit, up­on these conditions] at least any promise with exclu­sion of those from these priviledges, who shall not per­form both these conditions. He is not able to shew, where God hath either said, or intimated, that who­soever is not baptized, shall never have remission of sins. But

3. (And lastly for this) the promise which Peter here saith was to them, and to their children, and to all those that are afarre off, even as many, &c. is a great and generall promise of life and Salvation, and consequently of all things necessarie hereunto, as forgivenesse of sins, San­ctification by the Spirit, &c. which God hath made un­to all mankind; but with this proviso, or clause of excep­tion, that they only shall partake of the good things of this promise, not who shall be baptized, but who shall truly repent and believe in him. For evident it is that the promise asserted by the Apostle in this place to the Jews, their children, to all those afarre off, &c. was delivered by God long before now, even under the old Testament, where there is frequent mention made of Faith and repentance, and of Gods requiring these of men to render them capable of blessednesse from him; but there is altum silentium, profound silence all along, and not a word spoken of Baptism. To him (saith Pe­ter, Act. 10. 43.) give all the Prophets witnesses that thorow his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re­mission of sins. So that the performance of the said pro­mise [Page 245] could not be suspended by God, either in whole, or in part, upon Baptism. For as the Apostle Paul rea­soneth for justification by faith in the promise of Grace, against justification by the Law, which was not given untill a long time after the said promise, And this I say, that the Covenant that was confirmed be­fore of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disanull, that it should make the promise of none effect, (Gal. 3. 17.) so may we argue the case in hand; the Law of Baptism, which was given many hundred years after the promise of life and salva­tion unto those that should repent and believe, cannot disanull this promise; which notwithstanding it should do, if the said terms or qualifications of Repentance and Faith could not interesse men in the said promise; (I mean, in the good things promised) without Bap­tism.

That clause in the latter end of ver. 39. even as ma­ny as the Lord our God shall call (to adde this by the way) is not so much, (nor indeed, at all) restrictive, but encou­raging and extensive; importing, that no person, or persons whatsoever, to whom the word of promise, or the Gospell, shall come, need be at all troubled, or afraid, that though they should repent, yet they should not partake of the good things promised, in as much as the promises, be they never so many, be they the whole world, is comprehensive of them all. But about this (I suppose) there is no difference between Mr. A. and me.

5. When two severall means (as here, Repentance, and being baptized) are prescribed in order to the ob­taining of such or such an end (as the said two means here are spoken of, be, in order to remission of sins) it doth not presently follow, that both these means, no nor yet that either of them, are simply, absolutely, or universally necessary to the obtaining of this end; or that this end is not attainable by any other means what­soever, in case either of these, yea or both of them, [Page 246] be wanting; especially when one of them is but of an inferiour import, and hath neither in the nature of it, nor by any institution from God, any essentiall or in­dispensable connexion with this end; least of all doth such a thing follow, either when a third means of a rich­er and fuller contribution towards the said end, shall be used in stead of this latter, or when the end is elsewhere declared by God himself, to be attainable, yea and that it shall certainly be obtained, by the former means alone; as remission of sins is oft in scripture secured un­to Repentance, where there is not the least whisper of any necessitie of Water-baptism to be joyned with it to render it effectuall in this kind. See Act. 3. 19. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Luk. 15. 7, 10. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 11. 18. (to omit other places) When the Apostle Paul saith, that his hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel was, [...], that they might be saved, Rom. 10. 1. he doth not suppose that it had been impossible for Israel to be saved without such his hearts desire, & prayer, for them. So when writing to the Corinthians, he saith, that they may ALL prophesie one by one, that ALL may learn, and ALL may be com­forted, 1 Cor. 14. 31. it cannot reasonably be inferred from hence, that unlesse they did ALL (understand we it, ALL that had the gift of prophecying amongst these) prophesie one by one, ALL [i. the whole body of the Church, and every member of it] could not possibly learn, or be comforted. For certain it is, that all might have learned, & so have been comforted, although only some few of the prophets amogst them had prophecied. So when it is said, John did baptize in the wildernesse, & preach the Baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins (Mar. 1. 4.) it cannot be concluded from hence, that therefore without Johns preaching, there could be, or have been, no remission of sins. Therefore the prescribing of Baptism together with Repentance, for remission of sins, doth not necessa­rily suppose, that without Baptism Remission of sins can­not be attained.

Sect. 96.

6. What if there be another sence, which I suppose Mr. A. never thought of, of this Clause, or Phrase, [...], for the remission of sins; as viz. where­in the Proposition, [...], shall not relate to any thing fu­ture, or which is yet to be obtained, but to something either past or present, and shall signifie as much as, for the sake of, because of, or the like; and so the meaning of these words may rise thus; and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, i. for the remission of sins sake, which the Lord Jesus, hath upon your repentance bestowed upon? you This interpretati­on of the place, 1. agreeth very well with the significa­tion of the Preposition, [...]; and 2. makes a commodious and worthy sence of the passage, & this without any un­kindnesse at all to the Context.

1. The Proposition, [...], is by the Authors in the Greek tongue sometime used for, [...] (and they are accordingly cited by our best Greek Lexicons) which (as was lately said) signifieth because of, or for the sake of [...]; for therefore came I forth; Mar. 1. 38: i. for that work's sake (speaking of his preaching the Gospel) meaning, that the work of preaching the Gospel, is of such dignitie, of such transcendent con­sequence, both for the glory of God, and good of men, that he thought it worthy his coing into the world to be a witnes & preacher of it; according to what he speaketh else where in the same Phrase, [...], &c. For this cause came I into the world, that I might bear witnesse to the truth. Ioh. 18. 37 And thus the said Preposition might be rendred (and perhaps better then now it is) Mat. 15. 24. Col. 1. 20. vi. Re­demption redeemed. p. 44 and (I suppose) in severall other places, which do not at present occurre. According to this construction of the particle, [...], the meaning of the exhortation, be baptized in the Name of [Page 248] the Lord Jesus, [...], for the remission of sins, ariseth to this effect; Since upon, and by means of, your repentance, you obtain so rich a priviledge, as re­mission of sins is, thorow the Lord Iesus, be not asham­ed to be baptized in his Name, i. to own him for your sovereign Lord and master in the face of the world. Now

2. That this interpretation of the clause is savourie and Evangelicall, is of ready demonstration. For what can be more reasonable then that men should publiquely, and without being ashamed, acknowledge and own him for their Gracious Benefactour, for whom they have received favours of high concernment unto them; and this in consideration of these worthy favours received? And unlesse we shal admit of some such cōstru­ction of the particle [...], as this, Mat. 3. 11. we must make Baptism as well required on mans part to interesse him in Repentance, (or make impenitents▪ either the only, or the best capable subjects of Baptism) as well as in remission of sins. For here Iohn Baptist saith expresly to the people: [...], i. I indeed bap­tize you with water FOR [OR ƲNIO] REPENT­ANCE.

3. (And lastly, for this) the sence given no wayes disaccommodates the Context any whit more, then Mr. A's interpretation it self doth. Nor can there any account be given of such a dis-accommodation.

Sect. 97.

7. Yet once more to the Scripture in hand; these words, for the remission of sins, may be well conceived to relate only to the word Repent, in the beginning of the ver [...]e; and the words coming between [ and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus] to be inserted after the māner of a parenthesis, directing the Iews what to do upon their repentance, not for the procuring or obtaining the forgivenesse of their sins (which as we al­ready [Page 249] shewed from the current of the Scriptures, is pro­mised unto repentance, not unto Baptism) but for a sa­cred testimonie unto the world that at present they were, and as a solemn ingagement upon themselves, ever to remain and be, the true and loyall Disciples of Iesus Christ.

8. Some interpret, and be baptized, figuratively, as if Peter, by the sign, understood the thing signified, or professed by it: of which Dialect there are many in­stances in Scripture. According to this interpretation, Repent, and be baptized, is no more then, Repent, and be­lieve; Baptism in capable subjects (as all these were to whom Peter now speaks) signifying and importing Faith, and the profession of it.

9. This clause, for the remission of sins, may be under­stood in a kind of declarative sence (as many such scripture expressions likewise are) and so signifie, for the secure­ing or assuring your selves of the remission of your sins. It is a true rule, that words and phrases, which more fre­quently signifie such or such spirituall priviledges, at present obtained by Faith, are sometimes used to signi­fie the actuall and reall fruition of these priviledges, and their compleat manifestatiom. Thus Rom. 8. 23.—even we do sigh in our selves, waiting for the ADOP­TION, &c. i. for the full enjoyment or manifestation of our adoption, &c. So Gal. 5. 5. We thorow the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by Faith; i. for the actuall and compleat manifestation, and fruition of those good things, which we now expect and hope for upon the account of our justification before God by belee­ving. Thus also Mat. 6. 12, 14. Forgivenesse of sins, is put for the knowledge, comfort, or assurance of this forgivenesse (to omit other instances of a like dialect.) Some such sence as this of Remission of sins, (in the [...]crip­ture before us) is very proper for the place, because it so fitly agreeth with this part of Peters exhortation, and be baptized, one speciall use and end of Baptism (as Mr. A. himself acknowledgeth, and this more then [Page 250] once, if I mistake not, in this very discourse) being to seal, ratifie, or insure unto men the remission of their sins upon repentance. Besides, in emphaticallnesse of language (wherein the holy Ghost much delighteth also) Remission of sins, is not it self, is not what it may be made unto those, in whom it is vested, untill it be known unto them, and so enjoyed by them. This construction of the place, maketh not remission of sins it self (which is Mr. A's sence) but the knowledge, com­fort, or enjoyment of this remission, to be dependent (at least to a degree) upon Water-baptism in conjunction with repentance.

Though some of the interpretations of the passage, Act. 2. 38, 39. now insisted on, and explained, may possibly seem somewhat more hard, and scant of satis­faction, then their fellows, yet is the hardest of them all better comporting with the generall notion and do­ctrine of the Gospell, and no lesse with the words and phrases themselves, then that sence which Mr. A. la­bours in the very fire to fasten on them.

Lastly (for this) suppose we that Mr. A's conceit about the meaning of the said Scripture, should (against Scripture light) be admitted, yet would neither his An­ti-paedo-baptismall conceit, nor his conceit about the necessitie of water-dipping, receive any incouragement, or credit at all hereby. Not the latter, because here is only mention made of being baptized; nothing at all so much as hinted at the greatest distance, touching the necessitie of any determinate manner of the performance or reception of it. Nor yet the former; because, 1. from the order of the two duties, as they are here ex­prest and named, first, Repentance, and then being bap­tized, nothing can be concluded for an universall neces­sitie of the one to precede the other in time, there be­ing scarce any thing of more common observation in the Scriptures, then that the order of things, as well that of time, as of nature, is here frequently interchanged, and that mentioned in the first place, which in respect [Page 251] of Order, as well the one, as the other, is latter. Joh▪ 3. 5. Water (which Mr. A. understands of Baptismall wa­ter) is mentioned before the Spirit, in the work of re­generation. Baptizing (Mat. 3. 6.) is mentioned be­fore confessing of sins, yea and ver. 11.) before repent­ance. Confession with the mouth (Rom. 10. 9.) is men­tioned before beleeving with the heart. So the Greek is mentioned before the Jew, Colos. 3. 11. as the Jew before the Greek, Gal. 3. 28. So again, joy is mentioned before peace, Gal. 5. 22. and yet peace before joy, Rom. 14. 17. Melchizedeck's act in blessing Abraham, is menti­oned in the first place, and his blessing the God of A­braham, in the latter, Gen. 14. 19, 20. So likewise, the burnt-offering is named before the sin-offering, Levit. 12. 8. whereas the sin-offering was in order of time to go before it, as appears▪ Levit. 8. 14, 18. and so again, Levit. 9. 7, &c. It were easie to multiplie instances in this kind, I mean both where there is an interchangable ex­pression of the same things in respect of prioritie and posterioritie; as likewise where that which precedes in time, is mentioned after that, which in time comes behind it. Therefore from the Order in Peters exhor­tation between Repentance and Baptism, nothing can be argued to prove a necessitie, that Repentance alwayes ought, in respect of time, to precede Baptism; as nei­ther did it precede in the Baptism, of which notice was taken formerly.